# Sticky  "Official" Audyssey thread Part II



## kbarnes701

*WELCOME TO THE AUDYSSEY FAQ AND 'AUDYSSEY 101'!*

*To get started, please choose from one of the following 3 options :
*

_*1. Click Here To Go Directly To The FAQ Questions And Answers.*_



 * Links are highlighted in a different colour to the rest of the text.
[*] Clicking on any Question takes you straight to the answer.
[*] Clicking on a Section Header takes you straight to that section.
[*] To return here, click on 'Go back to top'.
[*] To return to a Section Header, click on Go back to Section Header'.
[*] Clicking on any 'See Also' link takes you to other answers that may be relevant to the one you are reading.
[*] Clicking on a 'Further Reading' link takes you to more in-depth articles on other sites.*

_*2. Click Here To Follow Our 'Audyssey 101' For First Time Audyssey Users.*_

_*Clicking the header above will take you directly to the Audyssey Newcomers 101. Follow each step for a great first-time Audyssey calibration. If you have any questions as you read through the 101, refer to the general FAQ for answers. To help, I have included in the 101 links to relevant sections of the FAQ*_.

_*3. Click Here For The In-Depth Technical Addendum.*_

_*There is an Addendum to the Audyssey FAQ for the discussion of advanced Audyssey issues which arise from time to time and which are not relevant to the Audyssey newcomer seeking simple resolutions to setup problems and so on. The Addendum is hyperlinked, where necessary to the main FAQ, and vice-versa.*_
_*
Introduction to the Audyssey FAQ and 101*_

Welcome to the Audyssey FAQ! This FAQ is added to and edited on a regular basis. When AVS members read the FAQ and then post supplementary questions in the Official Audyssey Thread, those additional questions form the basis for additions, corrections and amendments to the FAQ. In this way, the FAQ should become more and more useful over time. If you have any comments or suggestions relating to this FAQ, please leave a message in the thread if you feel it will be of general interest, or send me a Private Message by clicking *here.* Thank you.

The FAQ (and its included* 'Audyssey 101'*) is designed for the newcomer to Audyssey and attempts to answer some of the questions that are repeatedly asked in this thread. The FAQ is useful for quick and simple answers to those 'frequently asked questions'. The answers are not designed to be 100% comprehensive or to deal with 'advanced' or 'controversial' uses of Audyssey. If you are still having problems, or still confused after reading the relevant FAQ for your problem, then by all means post a question in the thread. There are highly experienced Audyssey users in this thread who are more than willing to help where they can.

The legal bit: Please note that you use any of the information contained in this FAQ at your own risk. Any suggested procedures have been verified by several AVS members prior to publishing, but if you end up 'bricking' your unit, or experiencing any unintended and unwanted consequences by following the advice contained in the FAQ, it is your responsibility and no liability is accepted by the FAQ compiler, AVS Forums or anyone else.

*A. General Audyssey Issues*

*a)0. What is Audyssey?*
*a)1. What happens when I run Audyssey?*
*a)2. Why is dialogue from the centre channel difficult to hear or understand?*
*a)3. I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?*
*a)4. Reference or Preference - which is best?*
*a)5. How does Audyssey handle dipole and bipole surround speakers?*
*a)6. Is it possible to save and recall an Audyssey MultEQ calibration?*
*a)7. What are the Audyssey 'Movie' ('Reference') and 'Music' ('Flat') curves?*
*a)8. What is THX Re-EQ? Should it be on or off when using MultEQ?*
*a)9. Why are my high frequencies 'bright' or 'harsh' since running Audyssey? *
*a)10. How can Audyssey measure anything with those silly blips?*
*a)11. Where can I find help with the Audyssey Pro Kit?*
*a)12. What is the relationship between the Equaliser setting in my Onkyo/Integra AVR and Audyssey?*
*a)13. Will Audyssey work if I am using external amplification?*
*a)14. Which current AVRs have which version of Audyssey room correction?*
*a)15. Does Audyssey care what input signal type, processing or decoding method I use?*
*a)16. What does the term 'F3' mean?*
*a)17. I made some changes to my room - do I need to re-run Audyssey?*
*a)18. What is Audyssey's 'Mid Range Compensation' feature (MRC)?*

*B. Issues That May Arise During Calibration*

*b)1. Why is Audyssey reporting that my speakers are out of phase?*
*b)2. Why is Audyssey reporting 'Ambient Noise Too High'?*
*b)3. Should I move anything out of the room before running Audyssey?*
*b)4. Should I leave the room when the measurements are running?*
*b)5. I am getting a speaker detect error - what's wrong?*
*b)6. Does it matter how I set the controls on my AVR when running Audyssey?*
*b)7. Audyssey ran OK but is stuck on the 'Calculating' phase. Any suggestions?*
*b)8. Why doesn't Audyssey work properly with my AVR's 'biamping mode'?*
*b)9. Why is Audyssey 're-chirping' and raising the test tone level, even when my ambient noise is low?*
*b)10. Why can I barely hear the test tones when Audyssey is calibrating my subwoofer?*

*C. Crossover Settings*

*c)1. Why are my Crossovers set differently to my speaker manufacturer's specification?*
*c)2. Why do I often see advice to raise the Crossovers to 80Hz?*
*c)3. I have big tower speakers at the front. Shouldn't I set these to Large'?*
*c)4. Is it OK to change the Crossovers from Audyssey's recommendation?*
*c)5. What is the LPF of LFE and what should it be set to?*
*c)6. Why is Audyssey setting different crossovers for my identical speakers?*
*c)7. Audyssey is setting my crossovers way differently to what I expected. Why?*

*D. Mic & Mic Placement Issues*

*d)1. Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?*
*d)2. Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?*
*d)3. Where should I position the mic for best results?*
*d)4. Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?*
*d)5. Why do I need to measure where nobody sits?*
*d)6. I have two rows of seats at different heights. What's the best mic placement?*
*d)7. Can I extend the Audyssey mic cable?*
*d)8. Where do I put the mic for the 1st measurement if my listening position is not centred?*
*d)9. Mic cable integrity issue.*

*E. Levels, Distance & Trim Settings*

*e)1. Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?*
*e)2. Is it OK to change the distance settings Audyssey sets?*
*e)3. Why is it a bad idea to use your AVR test tones and a SPL meter to check trim levels?*
*e)4. Why has Audyssey set my sub distance much greater than it actually measures?*
*e)5. Audyssey has set my satellite speaker distances incorrectly - should I just change them?*
*e)6. What do I do if my trim levels are at the limits of their adjustment ('maxed out')?*

*F. Subwoofers & Bass*

*f)1. Why has Audyssey set my sub distance much greater than it actually measures?*
*f)2. How do I connect and set up two subwoofers?*
*f)3. How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?*
*f)4. If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?*
*f)5. Since I ran Audyssey everything sounds great - but where has my bass gone?*
*f)6. My sub speaker distance setting is closer than the actual physical distance.*
*f)7. What is ‘LFE + Main’ or ‘Double Bass’ and should I use it?*
*f)8. How does Audyssey handle complex multiple subwoofer setups?*
*f)9. What's the best way to set up Audyssey when also using Velodyne's SMS-1 room EQ system?*
*f)10. Why can I barely hear the test tones when Audyssey is calibrating my subwoofer? (Links to b)10)*
*f)11. What is Audyssey Low Frequency Containment?*

*G. Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume*

*g)1. What is Dynamic Volume?*
*g)2. What is Dynamic EQ?*
*g)3. What is Reference Level Offset in Dynamic EQ?*
*g)4. What's the difference between Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ & Reference Level Offset?*

*H. MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?*

*h)1. Why do I need MultEQ?*
*h)2. What is the difference between the various versions of MultEQ?*
*h)3. How does MultEQ differ from my old graphic equaliser'?*
*h)4. How does MultEQ differ from other room equalisation methods?*
*h)5. What does correcting in the 'time and frequency' domains mean?*
*h)6. Does MultEQ measure anything else?*
*h)7. If I have MultEQ in my AVR, can I forget about room treatments?*
*h)8. Is it possible to independently evaluate what Audyssey MultEQ has done in my room?*

*J. Audyssey DSX Questions*

*j)1. What is Audyssey DSX and how does it work?*
*j)2. How many channels of amplification do I need to run DSX?*
*j)3. Is there any specific content designed for DSX?*
*j)4. If I can choose only one – Wides or Heights – which should it be?*
*j)5. Isn't Audyssey all about reducing the impact of unwanted reflections, not creating more?*
*j)6. Where should I place my speakers for Wides and Heights to get the best effect?*
*j)7. What kind of speakers should I use with DSX?*
*j)8. Are there any negatives to using DSX?*
*j)9. Are there any other technologies that do a similar job?*
*j)10. What are the differences between DSX and these other technologies?*

*K. Audyssey and Dolby Atmos*

*k)1. How do I place the mic for Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers?*
*k)2. Will Audyssey work properly with Atmos-enabled speaker designs?*
*k)3. Will a calibration include the added speakers in the Atmos configuration?*

*A. General Audyssey Issues*

*a)0. What is Audyssey?* 

The word 'Audyssey' is often used as though Audyssey was just one thing. In fact, Audyssey have a collection of different technologies which aim to solve different audio or acoustic problems. These are described very briefly in this Answer and links are given to more comprehensive descriptions which you can find elsewhere in this FAQ.

_*Audyssey MultEQ.*_

The technology most discussed in the Official Audyssey Thread is Audyssey MultEQ. This is the Audyssey technology embedded in your AVR and which can be described as a 'Room Equalisation System'. Even here, the term 'MultEQ' cannot be used as a generic because there are different 'flavours' of MultEQ, which are discussed in detail elsewhere.

There is a complete FAQ section which explains the differences between the different flavours of Audyssey' room correction software. You will find it by clicking the relevant link at the bottom of this Answer.

*Audyssey Dynamic EQ.*

The way that human hearing works means that as the frequency of sounds changes, the loudness of those sounds gets greater or lesser. As the volume level is reduced, our hearing means that the high and low frequencies diminish more rapidly than the middle frequencies. You may have noticed how the bass, especially, 'disappears' as you reduce the volume level. Dynamic EQ was designed specifically to solve that problem. When Dynamic EQ is engaged, as you lower the volume away from 'reference' (ie master Volume of 0dB), Dynamic EQ continually adjusts the frequencies and surround levels to maintain the balance that the mixing engineer wanted you to hear.

Again, there is detailed information to be found by clicking the relevant link below.

*Audyssey Dynamic Volume.*

Dynamic Volume is an Audyssey technology which 'smooths out' the fluctuations between softer and louder sounds in your home theatre. If you are listening late at night and your movie contains a very wide dynamic range' (the ratio between the softest and loudest sounds in the content you are playing) you may have turned down the volume on the explosions in your movie, only then to find you have to turn it up again to hear the quieter dialogue. Dynamic Volume does it for you! See the link below for details.

_*Audyssey DSX.*_

Dynamic Surround Expansion (DSX) is a proprietary Audyssey technology which lets you augment a standard 7.1 channel surround setup with two ‘Wide’ channels and/or two ‘Height’ channels. Two extra speakers expand the width of the soundstage (Wides) and/or two extra speakers expand the height of the soundstage (Heights), all of which is designed to help produce a more realistic and immersive listening experience. There is a complete FAQ section on DSX and you can find it by clicking the link below.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?
What is Dynamic EQ?
What is Dynamic Volume?
Audyssey DSX Questions

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)1. What happens when I run Audyssey?* 

This is the process that takes place when you run Audyssey:

You place the mic at the Main Listening Position (MLP) and Audyssey will send a series of 'chirps' to each of your speakers and subwoofers in turn. On this first pass, Audyssey will detect how many speakers you have in your system, so it will attempt to ping non-existent speakers on this first pass only. For example, if you do not have rear surround speakers, Audyssey will attempt to ping them, will not find them and thus will ignore them on subsequent runs at the other mic locations. 

You then move the mic to the next position from which you wish to measure. Audyssey now knows how many speakers you have and it will only chirp speakers/subs in your actual system on this, and subsequent measurements. Thus, Audyssey will now ping every speaker (including sub) in your system for each of the subsequent measurements.

There are a few small complications:



First, different versions of Audyssey use different maximum numbers of mic positions. 2EQ, for example, uses only 3 mic positions, MultEQ uses 6 and XT and XT32 use 8. But the principles outlined above still apply regardless of the number of available mic positions. Audyssey will still use the first mic position (only) to measure the speaker levels and distances and to 'discover' the number of speakers in your system. For all of the subsequent measurements after the first one, Audyssey will ping each speaker in the system, including the sub.
There is an additional issue with regard to XT32 systems which incorporate SubEQ HT (most of them). XT32 SubEQ HT-equipped systems have the ability to set levels and distances for two subwoofers independently, and then go on to EQ both subs as one, taking account of their interaction with the room and with each other. For these systems, on the first measurement at the MLP, Audyssey will ping one sub, then ping the other sub, then ping both subs together. In other words, for the first measurement in a dual sub system with XT32+Sub EQ HT, you will hear three separate lots of sub chirps. But for every subsequent measurement you make, you will only hear one sub chirp, which is both subs being pinged at the same time.

New users may wish to start with the *'Audyssey 101'* to become familiar with the procedures and methods of Audyssey calibration. Always follow the advice in the Guides to the letter, even if you are not sure why. Both the *'Audyssey 101'* and the FAQ have evolved over a considerable period of time with input from very experienced AVS members and most Audyssey setup problems stem from incorrect measurement procedures.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?
Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?
Where should I position the mic for best results?
Where do I put the mic for the 1st measurement if my listening position is not centred?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)2. Why is dialogue from the centre channel difficult to hear or understand?* 

This may be caused by Audyssey Dynamic EQ *(See Reference Level Offset)*, centre speaker placement or room dynamics. First check that the centre speaker is working correctly and that the tweeter is connected and working. Pink noise test tones will be good for this. Put your ear close to the drivers and tweeter in your centre speaker (not too loud!) and check that they sound like they are working properly. If they are, then try the following before running Audyssey again:



Poor dialogue intelligibility is often the result of reflections in your room. Does your room look like it may fall into the 'reflective' category? If so consider adding room treatments, drapes, bookshelves etc to try to damp down the reflections. When you clap your hands in the room, does the noise continue to 'ring' for a brief moment? If so then your room is definitely too lively and this may affect dialogue intelligibility. Pay especial attention to the 'first reflections' from your speakers - side walls, floor, ceiling.
A simple way to locate the 'first reflection' points in your room is to have a friend hold a small mirror against the wall while you are seated in your Main Listening Position. Have the friend move the mirror around the wall until you can see the speaker in the mirror. The location of the mirror is a reflection point. Remember you also get first reflections from the floor and the ceiling!
Is your centre speaker in a cabinet or on a shelf? If it is, then pull it forward so the front edge of the speaker clears the front edge of the cabinet or shelf by an inch or so. This can make a huge difference.
Is your centre speaker angled so that it points towards your ears at the Main Listening Position? If not then angle it up (or down, depending on whether it is below or above the screen).
If your centre speaker is on the floor, then raise it up on some sort of stand. Again, angle it towards the Main Listening Position.
If you have a reflective coffee table between your centre channel and the Main Listening Position, consider permanently* removing it. These are often the cause of dialogue problems. Glass is especially bad. If you can't remove it, cover it with something to damp down the reflections - eg books or magazines. _***Do *not* remove it for the calibration and then replace it afterwards!_
If you have a hard wooden floor, consider a nice thick area rug to help damp down reflections from the floor.
It may be the source material which isn't mastered very well, so try a different source with known good dialogue reproduction (check some DVD or Bluray reviews).

If you have relocated the centre speaker at all, or made any other room adjustments, run Audyssey again and see if dialogue is now better. Remember you can raise the trim level for the centre channel by a few dB if you wish and it won't spoil your calibration at all.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?
 
Further Reading:


Here's a great site for Bluray disc reviews

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)3. I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?* 

Reference Level is a standard defined for movie studio mixing rooms and commercial cinemas. Every studio mixing room and every movie theatre is calibrated to this same standard level - hence the term 'Reference Level'.

The standard calls for an average of 85dB when using band-limited (500 Hz to 2,000 Hz) pink noise at the Main Listening Position. The peak level is set at 20dB higher for a maximum per channel of 105dB in the satellites, and an additional +10dB for a maximum of 115dB in the Low Frequency Effects channel (the '.1' in DD/DTS 5.1, 6.1 and 7.1).

This means that when your AVR Master Volume control is set at 0dB, your satellite speakers are expected to play at a peak level of 105dB and your subwoofer is expected to deliver a peak output level of 115dB. This in turn means that your system at 0dB 'Reference Level' will, in theory, sound exactly as loud as every other calibrated system playing at 0dB, and also the same loudness as heard by the film mixing engineer in his studio.

I say 'expected to' above because in reality only the very best home theatre systems will be able to reach these levels without running into clipping or other forms of distortion. Fortunately, these levels are louder than most people can tolerate in a normal domestic environment and people usually set the Master Volume to something like -10dB to -20dB when listening to movies/music and to -35dB to -20dB for TV.

So how does this translate to your Audyssey calibration? Basically, when in calibration mode, your AVR sends a series of 75dB 'chirps' to each speaker and subwoofer in your system. (Audyssey tests for how many speakers you have in your system during the first measurement (only), although you may have to tell it how many subwoofers you are using - all of this is displayed on screen during the measuring phase.) Audyssey measures the actual Sound Pressure Level received by the calibration mic at the Main Listening Position (that is, the No 1 mic position). If the result at the Main Listening Position is, for example, 71dB for a particular speaker, then the AVR's trim for that speaker will be set at +4dB (ie increased by 4dB to achieve the same 75dB as the original 'chirps'). If the mic reads a Sound Pressure Level of, say, 77dB for another speaker, the trim value is set to -2dB (reduced by 2dB) and so on.

*If the average band-limited pink noise level is meant to be 85dB at the Main Listening Position, then why are the Audyssey 'chirps' only 75dB?*

Audyssey originally used an 85db test tone for the calibration, but received numerous complaints about how loud the calibration tones were (especially since many users performed the calibrations at night when their room was quietest), so Audyssey switched to using a 75db test tone for the calibration (perceptually half as loud and much more tolerable). Because your AVR knows that the Audyssey 'chirp' is -30dB from Full Scale' (-30dBFS), it makes no difference to the final result - 0dB on the Master Volume control will give a Sound Pressure Level average of the required 85dB, as mentioned above - in other words, Reference Level.

Finally, a word about internal test tones on your AVR and those you will find on external test discs. As I say above, on all Audyssey-equipped AVRs the test tones are band-limited pink noise recorded at 75dB (-30DBFS). The signals recorded on most external calibration discs are usually recorded at 85dB (-20dBFS). Both methods can be used successfully to calibrate a system. However, please note that when you play the internal test tones in your AVR, they bypass all Audyssey processing, including equalization.

To get some idea of whether your system is capable of playing at Reference Levels, you may want to play around with these Sound Pressure Level calculators - just feed in the data and they will tell you the Sound Pressure Level you can achieve in your room! If they all give different results, well, that's because there are a lot of relevant parameters and not all of them are necessarily included in every calculator. Just treat them as a guide.



Calculator No.1
Calculator No.2
Calculator No.3
 
*Clearing up some common misunderstandings about Reference Level*

_AVS member JHAz has kindly provided the following additional commentary:_

"Reference level is a calibration not an SPL for any particular content. To repeat, reference level is a calibration. It is used for mixing movies so that every sound in the final sound track is at a specific SPL level when played back at Reference.

"Here's how it works. In the digital age, the maximum encodable level is called 0dBFS (full scale). Everything that is not at full scale can be described as some number of dB from full scale. Movie mixing rooms (and movie theaters, at least theoretically), are calibrated so that pink noise encoded at -20dBFS plays back at 85 dB in each speaker (surrounds are actually 82 but there are always multiples on a movie mixing stage and home calibration equal to the mains is appropriate).

"It was discovered by AVR manufacturers that their customers found 85 dB too loud to listen to a test noise, so they started using a different way to achieve the same thing. Using a pink noise signal encoded at -30 dBFS, home speakers are calibrated at 75 dB. It should be apparent upon reflection that these result in exactly the same calibration. A sound encoded at -40 dBFS will sound at 65 dB at reference level under either calibration approach. A sound encoded at 0dBFS would be 105 dB in the room. It's a bit confusing but you can't confuse sound pressure in a room - - dB SPL - - with the encoding levels of movies or other media.

"I tend to listen to movies well below reference. If I set my master volume at -20 dB, that means that a sound encoded at -20 dBFS on disk will sound 65 dB loud in my room, versus the 85 it would be if I were at reference.

"Now the last twist important for consideration of sub specs is that the LFE channel (the .1 in 7.1) actually can play louder than all the others. What happens is that after reading the digital data off the disk, the system turns it up 10 dB (so the whole LFE channel is encoded differently from the rest of the channels). Thus the LFE channel max, at reference, is 115 dB, and at my -20 dBFS master volume level, the LFE channel will max out at 95 dB.

"There are "rules" for movies as to calibration so that playback can be consistent with the artistic intent of the film's makers, in the calibration described above. There are no rules whatsoever that say how loud anything must be in a movie. Silent passages will be encoded as all zeroes digitally, and will be silent whether you play at Reference or far below. I've seen it said that dialog runs typically somewhere around the 85 dB SPL range, but that's far far from a hard and fast rule and some movies have it significantly lower. _V for Vendetta_ is an example of a movie with much lower than normal dialog levels."

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What is Reference Level Offset in Dynamic EQ?
Reference or Preference - which is best?
Why does my My Sound Pressure Level meter give a different result to Audyssey?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)4. Reference or Preference - which is best?* 

This is a topic which is always fiercely debated in the Official Audyssey Thread. The first thing to understand is that - at least with regard to Reference vs Preference - there are really no 'rights' or 'wrongs' as far as your home cinema goes. It is _your_ equipment, paid for with _your_ money and listened to with _your_ ears. So if you _prefer_ a little more bass after your Audyssey calibration, then turn up the bass trim in your AVR. And if you prefer a little less, then turn it down.

But before you do that, it is really important to understand the basic goal of the Audyssey technology:

_*Audyssey has been developed to solve room acoustics problems and the sound degradations they cause. The goal of Audyssey is not to shape the sound to your preference, but rather to shape the sound to Reference*__._ 

Reference' is described more fully elsewhere in this FAQ - see the link at the bottom of this answer.

Audyssey does this by measuring your room and your speakers together, as a system, and then creates correction filters based on those measurements. The reference point for this acoustical correction is based on the only known standard: the mixing room calibration curve used in all film production sound mixing studios.

Assuming there are no problems during the calibration process, what you end up with is a Reference calibration. If you have some personal sound _preferences_, these are outside of what Audyssey is responsible for. Some people want more bass, while others complain there is too much bass. Some people want flat high frequencies, while others do not. These variances represent the difference between Reference and preference. To be fair though, you should listen to the original Audyssey settings for at least 2-3 weeks to better appreciate what the mixer intended you to hear. After that period, if you still wish to make adjustments (many choose not to after this period of adjustment), do so to suit your preference.

It is important to note that there are some Audyssey settings which are OK to change and which will not affect your calibration - eg the speaker trim levels. But equally, there are some settings that are best left alone - eg the distance settings which result from your Audyssey calibration. Please read the relevant sections of this FAQ to learn more about which settings are OK to change and which really should be left as they are.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?
Is it OK to change the distance settings Audyssey sets?
Is it OK to change the Crossovers from Audyssey's recommendation?
I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?
Why do I often see advice to raise the Crossovers to 80Hz?
If I want to run my subs a little hot' where should I make the changes?
Since I ran Audyssey everything sounds great - but where has my bass gone?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)5. How does Audyssey handle dipole and bipole surround speakers?* 

Although Audyssey officially recommends that you use Dipole speakers for your surround channels if you mainly listen to movies, it actually makes no difference to MultEQ what kind of surround speakers you use. The calibration mic 'hears' the in-room response of the speakers and makes the appropriate corrections and adjustments. The mic has no way of 'knowing' what kind of speakers you are using.

Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey's CTO, says this on their company website:

_"We recommend using dipoles for the surrounds. The purpose of dipoles is to reproduce the diffuse ambient sound that one gets in a movie theater with multiple speakers playing the same content (and thus sounding diffuse)._"

Whether you use Dipoles or direct radiators (monopoles) is entirely up to you, depending on your own preferences. Some people who listen to music a lot prefer to use monopoles for their surround speakers, but whatever you use, your Audyssey calibration will not be adversely affected.

If you want an in-depth look at the differences between these types of speaker, the article below is an excellent place to start.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


Excellent article on speaker types from Bluray.com

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)6. Is it possible to save and recall an Audyssey MultEQ calibration?* 

This is possible depending on the brand and model of AVR used.

*For Onkyo units, follow this procedure:*

You can save all of your Onkyo configuration settings, including MultEQ, by using the 'Store' and 'Recall' feature found in most (all?) Onkyo AVRs and Prepros. Use this technique if you have a known good MultEQ calibration you are happy with but you wish to experiment with, for example, different mic positions. First, Store your current settings. Then run MultEQ again and if you don't like the new calibration as much as the old one, simply Recall the old one. _Note that you can only store and recall ONE calibration this way - the last one you saved._

*To STORE:*



Push and hold Setup on the AVR (not the remote)
While still holding Setup, push Enter
Unit displays 'Setup store?'
Still holding Setup, push Enter again
Unit displays 'Setup storing'
Unit then displays 'Complete'
All your settings are now stored.
 
*To RECALL:*



Push and hold Setup on the AVR
While still holding Setup, push Return
Unit displays 'Setup recall?'
Still holding Setup, push Return again
Unit displays 'Setup recalling'
Unit then displays 'Complete'
Unit then powers off into standby mode. Switch unit back on, your settings have been restored.
 *
For Denon CI networking models only, follow this procedure:*

15 seconds after clicking “Save” the 4520 (or other CI model) will power down and display “Saving” on the front panel. The save takes approximately 10 minutes, after which a message is returned to the browser window prompting you to save the configuration file to your local disk. Save the file, giving it a descriptive name, e.g. Config_mm-dd-yy.dat. Once the configuration file has been saved, the 4520 will power back on. One last step before you are finished: check to see if the saved configuration file is a “good one”. To do this, download a Hex editor program from the web (HxD is a good one, free at http://hxd.en.softonic.com/). Using the hex editor, open the configuration file. If it is a good save, you will see hex code in the file. If it is a bad save, the file will be nothing but zeros. Another alternative is to use Windows NotePad to open the file. In NotePad, a file with all zeros will appear as a blank file, while a good saved configuration will appear in NotePad to be filled with random characters. Note: leaving the network setting as “Always On” seems to increase the likelihood of a bad save. However, once you have verified that the network save has been successful, you should return the network setting to "Always On", because unless you do so, any other devices connected to the 4520's network hub will lose their network connection when you power off.

*Network Load*

After clicking “Load”, browse your local hard drive to the saved configuration file, and then click “Load”. The unit will power down with “Loading” displayed on the front panel. A typical network load takes approximately 6-7 minutes. After the load completed, the unit will power back on, and “Load Completed” will be displayed on the web screen. Note: if you get the web message “Load unsuccessful”, it’s probably because the network setting is “Always On”.

Edit May 2013: After installing a new Antivirus program (Norton AV 2013), I was never prompted to save the configuration file, perhaps because of the browser protection features of the new AV. After temporarily disabling the AV protection and re-running the network save, I was prompted to save the file as expected. If you experience a similar issue, try disabling the AV.

_(Heartfelt thanks to AVS Member *AustinJerry* for the above Denon procedure notes)_

_*Note for Audyssey Pro Installer-ready processors* of any make: with the use of the Audyssey Pro Installer Kit you can (and should) save your mic measurement raw data file (as many files as you like, actually) on your PC. Rather than redoing an entire Pro calibration, you can call up that mic data file and use it to generate a new Audyseey Pro calibration at any time. For example, to change the satellite crossovers, or to create a custom curve, you simply call up a saved mic data file, calculate the filters in Pro and load them into the processor. See the_ *Pro Installer Kit FAQ * _for more info._

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)7. What are the Audyssey 'Movie' ('Reference') and 'Music' ('Flat') curves?* 

Contrary to popular belief, a target curve that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is not always the one that will produce the correct sound. There are several reasons for this. One has to do with the translation required from a large movie theater to a smaller home listening room. The other reason has to do with the fact that loudspeakers are much more directional at high frequencies than they are at low frequencies. This means that the balance of direct and room sound is very different at the high and low ends of the frequency spectrum.

In a typical living room, the acoustical conditions require a flat curve up to a certain frequency, and then a roll-off. This roll-off allows the proper balancing of the direct and reverberant sound at high frequencies.

MultEQ creates filters that correct the frequency response of your speakers to a specific target curve. These target curves are called: Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat, or alternatively Audyssey Movie and Audyssey Music.

_*The Audyssey Reference/Movie target curve* is designed to translate film mixing room conditions to the home listening room. This curve is flat to 4 kHz, has a slight roll-off from 4kHz - 10 kHz (-2dB @ 10 kHz), and another additional roll-off from 10 kHz - 20 kHz (-6dB @ 20 kHz). This curve should be used for listening to movies in most cases. Note that this curve enables Audyssey's 'Mid Range Compensation' (MRC) which is a deliberate dip introduced in the frequency response at around 2kHz. For information on MRC see FAQ answer a)18.

*The Audyssey Flat/Music target curve* has no roll-off. This curve should be used for movies if you are seated in the near field, if your room has a lot of high frequency absorption due to acoustic treatments, if your room is very small or highly treated or if you are using THX Re-EQ (which introduces its own roll-off). Note that this curve, on current AVRs, does NOT enable Audyssey's 'Mid Range Compensation' (MRC)._

Audyssey research has found that listeners in most home environments are seated in the reverberant field. The mixing of most films (in post-production studios) is completed with the recording engineer seated in the near field. As a result, it is usually beneficial to use a high frequency roll-off (Audyssey Reference/Movie curve) to tame brightness. However, if you have an acoustically treated room and/or are seated relatively close to the front speakers, you may be located in the near field. Therefore, it may prove beneficial to try listening without a roll-off (Audyssey Flat/Music curve) to see if there is an improvement in sound quality.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What is THX Re-EQ? Should it be on or off when using MultEQ?
What is Audyssey's 'Mid Range Compensation' feature (MRC)?

Further Reading:


See this thread on the Ask Audyssey website for more information

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)8. What is THX Re-EQ? Should it be on or off when using MultEQ?* 

MultEQ works by creating filters that correct the in-room frequency response of your speakers to a specific target curve. These target curves are called: Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat, or alternatively Audyssey Movie and Audyssey Music.

Re-Equalization technologies affect the target curve selection.

In THX specification units you may find a control in the menus called Re-Eq. This applies a high frequency shelf cut filter. Because the Audyssey Reference/Movie curve also applies a high frequency cut (see link below for more details), when listening in THX mode with Re-EQ on, it is recommended to use the Audyssey Flat/Music target curve. This avoids applying a 'double cut'.

Some manufacturers have developed proprietary high frequency roll-off filters with various trade names; Denon Cinema EQ, for example. It is recommended to disable (turn off) such roll-off features so the Audyssey Reference/Movie target curve can operate properly.

The selection of Audyssey target curves is performed manually in some products (eg Denon, NAD, Marantz and some Onkyos) and automatically in others (eg some Onkyos). Consult your user manual for details of the method used in your unit.

_To summarise:_ if you own a THX unit and are using MultEQ's Reference/Movie curve in a non-THX mode, Re-Eq should be OFF. If you are using a THX mode, Re-Eq should be ON and the Audyssey Flat/Music curve selected.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What are the Audyssey 'Movie' and 'Music' curves?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)9. Why are my high frequencies 'bright' or 'harsh' since running Audyssey?* 

This can happen if the main speakers are not ‘toed-in’ properly, or angled towards the MLP. In these circumstances, if the Audyssey mic is off-axis from the tweeters, Audyssey can boost the high frequencies in order to achieve the desired response. There have been anecdotal reports/speculation that XT32 is especially ‘sensitive’ in this regard due to its super fine resolution for correction. So, if your HF is too bright or even harsh after running Audyssey, and your speakers are not angled towards the MLP, try repositioning them and running Audyssey again.

It is also important to make sure that the mic is pointing directly up towards the ceiling and not at an angle as the latter can also induce bright HF as Audyssey tries to overcompensate for the incorrect 'grazing angle' of the mic. Please check the 'See Also' links below for more information on the all-important Audyssey mic technique.

Please note that some speakers are specifically designed to *not* be toed-in. Check your speaker manual to see if this applies to your speakers. It is advisable to follow the manufacturer’s instructions in these cases.

*The following 'case history' from AVS Member D Bone is an interesting example of how experimentation and persistence can reduce harshness:*

_"I have a friend that owns an auto custom install shop, and although he doesn't specialize in home theater, he has forgotten more than I know. I was at his shop on other business and mentioned the issues I was having with Audyssey and he volunteered to come over and help.

He thought my L/R were toed in a little too much and moved them out to point to about 2 feet from my head, rather then right at me head. He liked everything else though, so that's all we changed. He brought some heavy moving type blankets for a better description, and we placed them over the leather couches and chairs. Then he asked me to place the mic where I normally do based on my detailed notes of my last calibration procedure, and he made a few adjustments, mainly in the height of the mic. We repeated that process for all eight locations, and he made small adjustments in either the height or the location, or both.

After we were done I showed him the results and I pointed out that the trims were low at 72.5 db when compared to my SPL meters. They were all balanced close enough, but all 5 were low and that was consistent to every other procedure that I have ran, in which case I raised the speaker trims by 2-3db so they were all 75db on my SPL. He said that he did not want to raise the trims since DEQ works off the MV setting for both surround envelopment and bass/treble enhancement and thought it could be a reason for the harshness and I would get a better result by leaving the trims where Audyssey set them

Those were the changes we made, and he thought the sound absorbing blankets were the biggest factor, followed by the mic adjustments and then the speaker trim settings & toe in adjustment..............Heck, I don't know, but I documented each mic placement so I can reproduce the result if needed."_

You can find the original post and comments from other Members *here*.

*It is also possible that your Audyssey mic might be damaged or faulty.* This is harder to diagnose. If you have access to a different mic then you could use the other mic to run Audyssey again and see if the problem goes away - *but be sure to use the correct mic for your AVR:* see the link _*Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?*_ for more details. Alternatively, you could follow the suggestion below of AVS Member OldMovieNut and use REW with your Audyssey mic:

_"If anyone is experiencing overly bright sound then they need to download REW, turn off Audyssey and run a response curve with their Audyssey mic. I think you'll see a huge HF rolloff. This is what I encountered with my Onkyo 3009. I compared the response with that of my mic from my 5007 and the difference was quite large. I re-ran Audyssey with the old mic and the brightness went away. The mic might have been defective from the start but I think the more likely reason is heat exposure. I believe the Audyssey mic is an electrect and when they are exposed to heat some of the permanent charge bleeds off and the first thing to be impacted is the HF response. Heat of 100 deg F can do this. My 3009 was shipped in the middle of July, right in the middle of this summer's heat wave. I know that the mic had to be exposed to temps in excess of 100 deg during shipping." (Thanks to *OldMovieNut* for this suggestion.)_

*There are other possible causes of overly bright HF, including particular amp/speaker combinations, and a room that is overly-reflective, but in those cases, the HF will sound bright regardless of whether Audyssey is used or not. Before repositioning speakers and running Audyssey again, try turning Audyssey on and off in your AVR or PrePro menus. If the brightness is still there even with Audyssey off, then it is not an Audyssey issue.*

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?
Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?
Where should I position the mic for best results?
Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?
Why do I need to measure where nobody sits?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)10. How can Audyssey measure anything with those silly blips?* 

The Audyssey 'chirps' are sometimes the subject of misunderstanding as to their true nature and how they work. This is what Chris Kyriakakis, CTO of Audyssey Labs had to say in reply to this question:

_"The 'silly blip' you hear is actually a fast sweep. It starts at 10 Hz and runs out to 24 kHz, but it weighs the frequency sweep logarithmically. In other words, the lower octaves get more energy than the upper ones. Sound familiar? In fact, if you take the time domain test signal (it's called a log chirp) and transform it to the frequency domain you will get the exact same spectrum as full range pink noise. During measurement, the initial chirp is approx. 75 dB SPL for a nominal listening distance and speaker sensitivity. The chirp repeats several times per speaker and this has the benefit of increasing the signal to noise ratio in the measurement. Also, Audyssey listens to the background noise in between chirps. If it's above the required minimum then it repeats the sequence of chirps at a higher level to make sure it gets meaningful measurements._

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)11 **Where can I find help with the Audyssey Pro kit?* 

MultEQ Pro Calibration is the next, and ultimate, step in Audyssey calibration. Using the Audyssey Pro Installer Kit, you can sample more points in your room (up to 32 as opposed to XT32's 8 for example), customise the sound more precisely to the specific problems in your room, and tailor the sound to your personal preferences. The kit comes with a professional-grade microphone and preamp that are calibrated to the highest industry standards for the most accurate measurements. Detailed help with Audyssey Pro is available in the Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread here on AVS which is dedicated to helping users who have progressed onto the Audyssey Pro kit. Just click the link for 'Further Reading' below.

There is also a dedicated, 'counterpart' FAQ to this one, designed specifically for users of Audyssey Pro. This Pro FAQ is hosted on the Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread and clicking *here* or on the link below will take you directly to it.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further reading:


The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit FAQ
The Audyssey Pro Installer Kit Thread

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)12. What is the relationship between the Equaliser setting in my Onkyo/Integra AVR and Audyssey?* 

_*For Onkyo/Integra owners:*_

There are essentially two different EQ systems in your Onkyo/Integra AVR or AVP: Audyssey and the simple Graphic Equaliser found under the 'Equaliser' menu setting (Speaker Setup section). The latter, GEQ, is a simple 7 band equaliser (for each speaker in the system) - a very crude and primitive form of frequency adjustment. Your unit also has the far more sophisticated Audyssey MultEQ system which measures the speaker response and the room's influence on it and then creates _thousands_ of 'filters' to adjust the response of the combined room + speakers so that it matches the 'Audyssey Target Curve'.

In all forms of 'consumer' Audyssey MultEQ, note that there is no way to view a 'graph' or any form of result of the Audyssey calibration. So when you go into the Equaliser menu, whatever may be shown there is nothing at all to do with Audyssey. If you have Audyssey enabled, it takes priority over the Equaliser settings. So you can set the 7 bands in the Equaliser any way you like and you can switch between the Equaliser and Audyssey. However, the two cannot exist simultaneously, so when one is enabled the other is disabled. If you have set up the Equaliser and have it set to On, then disabling Audyssey will automatically engage the GEQ settings. Similarly, if you switch Audyssey on, any settings in the GEQ will be automatically disengaged.

_*Update for Denon owners*:_

Things seem to work differently in Denon units and it is indeed possible to use Audyssey at the same time as the Denon 'Tone' controls providing Dynamic EQ is first turned OFF. 

With Audyssey On, but DEQ off, an option appears in the 'Audio Adjustment' menu called 'Tone', that has three sub-options. The first option turns Tone Control on or off. If Tone Control is set to on, then bass and treble options are configurable. They are crude sliders allowing for an adjustment between -6 and +6.

If Audyssey is turned off, the Tone option disappears. Likewise, if Audyssey is on and DEQ is also on, the Tone option is no longer displayed.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

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

Yes, Audyssey works fine with external amps. Many Audyssey users run a prepro plus external amps or use the pre-outs on an AVR to run external amps. Audyssey doesn't care about the amps or where they 'live' and your calibration will be exactly the same as if you had a typical AVR with internal amplification.

Note that if you have an AVR that has been successfully calibrated by Audyssey and then later on an external amp is hooked up via pre-outs (if available), I would definitely suggest re-running Audyssey. The internal power stage of the AVR compared to the external amp may have a different gain structure which means even though the correction filters will not be affected, the reference level of 0 dB Master Volume setting will produce a different sound pressure level, thus throwing off Dynamic EQ. 

Also note that should the external power amp have a user adjustable volume control or gain control (many have) it should be adjusted *once* prior to running Audyssey and never ever touched again. If the amp's own gain control is moved then the same issue described in the paragraph above will also occur. If, for some reason, you do need to change the gain control on the external amp, then run Audyssey again.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)14. Which current AVRs have which version of Audyssey room correction?* 

Here is a current list of AVRs and prepros with their associated version of Audyssey Room Correction. While I have endeavoured to ensure that the data is correct, prospective buyers are advised to check with the manufacturers' websites prior to purchase. This list is believed to be correct as at 10 October 2013. (Thanks to AVS Member GIEGAR for additional input)

Please note that of the 'mainstream' manufacturers, for the 2015 model year, only Denon & Marantz now offer Audyssey MultEQ XT32 on their units. Onkyo/Integra have dropped Audyssey across their range in favor of their own 'AccuEQ' system which many enthusiasts consider to be significantly inferior to XT32 as AccuEQ does not EQ the front left and right speakers, nor the subwoofer channel - which is where EQ is needed most.

Audyssey AVRVersions 9.pdf 54k .pdf file 

Audyssey AVR Versions 2014-2015 Model Year

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)15. Does Audyssey care what input signal type, processing or decoding method I use?* 

No. The input signal type and processing/decoding is totally independent of the room correction. It doens't matter if the sound came from a straight decoding of a Dolby Digital container, or was an analog 2ch signal converted to digital through a DAC and then matrixed to 5.1ch by Dolby Pro Logic with sprinkles and icing on top. All that matters is how the sound that comes out of your speakers interacts with the room.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)16. What does the term 'F3' mean?* 

This is a term you will come across several times in various answers in this FAQ.

A useful definition of F3 is: *The roll-off frequency at which a driver's response is down -3dB from the level of its midband response.* Mid-band response is basically an average level of the speaker's or cabinet’s overall output within the usable frequency range - which is almost certainly what Audyssey are referring to when they say that MultEQ ceases to create correction filters once it detects the -3dB response of the speaker.

Chris Kyriakakis, the CTO of Audyssey, described it like this:

_"F3 is not an Audyssey term. It's a standard term in loudspeaker design. Every speaker starts to roll off (decrease) its output at a certain frequency depending on the size of the speaker driver and the enclosure. The F3 point is the frequency (in Hz) where the speaker response has dropped by 3 dB. It is a convenient way to compare the low frequency performance of speakers by having a point to look at. The AVR typically uses this frequency as the crossover point to the subwoofer. It assumes that the subwoofer response is rising at a similar rate and will take over below that frequency. Output is the level you hear at every frequency. So, yes, related to volume. Frequency is related to tone. Low frequencies are deep tones (bass)."_

In a nutshell, Audyssey measures the frequency response which is picked up by its mic and once it detects the F3 of the speaker/room combination, it ceases to create filters below that point. The reasons Audyssey works this way are explained in other FAQ answers, which are linked below.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Why do I often see advice to raise the Crossovers to 80Hz?
Audyssey is setting my crossovers way differently to what I expected. Why?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)17. I made some changes in my room - do I need to re-run Audyssey?* 

Any significant change to the room or the system will usually mean that you need to run Audyssey again. For example, if you do any of the following, then it is recommended that you do a new calibration:



Install new speakers or subwoofer
Move the position of the speakers or subwoofer
Move the furniture around
Add or remove items of furniture or drapes
Change the Main Listening Position
Add or remove area rugs
Add or remove any reflective surface, such as mirrors, paintings etc.
Add additional, external amplification

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*a)18. What is Audyssey's 'Mid Range Compensation' feature (MRC)?*

This is how Audyssey describe MRC on their own website:

_"Midrange compensation is an intentional dip in the 2 kHz region where the vast majority of tweeter-to-midrange crossovers are. In that region the tweeter is at the low end of its range and the midrange at the high end of its range and the directivity of the speaker goes through major changes. We found that if that region is equalized to flat, the change in direct to reflected ratio that happens because of the directivity variations causes voices to sound harsh (among other things). So, we have this implemented in the Audyssey target curve. With MultEQ Pro you can choose to turn it off, but we don't recommend it. This notion was observed 40 years ago by BBC speaker designers in their studio monitors. They designed their speakers with this "BBC dip" intentionally in the speaker response."_

*Audyssey users may wish to consider the following:*

The notion that it is a good idea to impose what is after all a deliberate distortion to the frequency response is an odd one. For one thing, Audyssey have no idea whether your speakers exhibit the issues which MRC is designed to overcome. Only poorly-designed speakers would exhibit this problem (see Sean Olive's remarks below) and the presumption that we are all using poorly-designed speakers is preposterous IMO. Audyssey are also not correct when they state that the phenomenon they describe was observed 40 years ago by BBC speaker designers. BBC engineers did indeed design the so-called "BBC Dip", but it had nothing to do with directivity variations around the crossover region. 

*The well-known and highly regarded English speaker manufacturer, Harbeth (makers of the legendary LS3/5a speaker, itself based on a BBC design) have this to say:
*
_"There is much myth, folklore and misunderstanding about this subject.

"The 'BBC dip' is (was) a shallow shelf-down in the acoustic output of some BBC-designed speaker system of the 1960s-1980s in the 1kHz to 4kHz region. The LS3/5a does not have this effect, neither in the 15 ohm nor 11 ohm, both of which are in fact slightly lifted in that region.

"According to Harbeth's founder, who worked at the BBC during the time that this psychoacoustic effect was being explored, the primary benefit this little dip gave was in masking of defects in the early plastic cone drive units available in the 1960's. A spin-off benefit was that it appeared to move the sound stage backwards away from the studio manager who was sitting rather closer to the speakers in the cramped control room than he would ideally wish for. (See also Designer's Notebook Chapter 7). The depth of this depression was set by 'over-equalisation' in the crossover by about 3dB or so, which is an extreme amount for general home listening. We have never applied this selective dip but have taken care to carefully contour the response right across the frequency spectrum for a correctly balanced sound. Although as numbers, 1kHz and 4kHz sound almost adjacent in an audio spectrum of 20Hz to 20kHz, the way we perceive energy changes at 1kHz or 4kHz has a very different psychoacoustic effect: lifting the 1kHz region adds presence (this is used to good effect in the LS3/5a) to the sound, but the 4kHz region adds 'bite' - a cutting incisiveness which if over-done is very unpleasant and irritating.

"You can explore this effect for yourselves by routing your audio signal through a graphic equaliser and applying a mild cut in the approx. 1kHz to 4kHz region and a gradual return to flat either side of that."
_
*Sean Olive has commented on the futility of Audyssey's attempting to second-guess if your speakers are poorly designed and thus would benefit from MRC:
*
_"Neither I nor Floyd Toole had never heard about the Gundry* dip until about 2 months ago when an audio reviewer used the term in an email to us. Many poorly designed 2-way loudspeakers already have dips in the sound power response in the cross-over range 1-3 kHz where the directivity of the woofer is too high compare to the directivity of the tweeter at those frequencies. As a result, this produces a notch in the sound power response of the loudspeaker, usually followed by a peak. Depending on the bandwidth and depth of the notch, it is the peak that is often heard as sounding objectionable (harshness, hardness or excessive brightness). The extent to which this a problem depends on whether you are sitting on or off axis, and the reflectivity of the room. Some room correction products, by default, have a dip in their target curve in an attempt to compensate for this sound power problem, essentially trying to second guess whether or not the loudspeaker is well-designed. As I've shown in a recent AES paper - this doesn't always lead to good results."_ (*Just another name for the "BBC Dip".)

Currently the only way to disable MRC in your AVR is to select the FLAT curve, or to use Audyssey Pro where it can be disabled for all target curves.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What are the Audyssey 'Movie' ('Reference') and 'Music' ('Flat') curves?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'General Audyssey Issues' Section Header._

*B. Issues That May Arise During Calibration*

*b)1. Why is Audyssey reporting that my speakers are out of phase?*

MultEQ detects absolute phase for each speaker during the measurements. Occasionally it may report an 'out of phase' error. If this happens to you, the first thing to do is to check that the physical wiring of all your speakers is correct, both at the speaker and at the AVR. They should all be connected positive to positive and negative to negative. If they are, and Audyssey still reports an out of phase condition, then it is probably because some speakers are deliberately designed with intentional phase reversals internally (usually to address Crossover problems). MultEQ detects that and reports an error. If this happens to you, and you are sure all your wiring is correct, just press 'skip' and carry on with your calibration. Doing this does not affect anything - MultEQ only reports the possible reversal of wiring - it does not automatically switch the phase.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)2. Why is Audyssey reporting 'Ambient Noise Too High'?*

This error message usually occurs if Audyssey detects a level of background noise in your room which would preclude a correct calibration. When running the measurements, be sure to turn off anything which can contribute to the background noise. Prime suspects are:



HVAC units
Room or ceiling fans
Noisy refrigerators
Children








Buzz from cable or sat TV box
Buzz from light dimmers
Aircraft overhead
Road noise from outside
 
If Audyssey detects on any of these it will try to create correction filters for them and this will clearly adversely affect your results. Remember, just because you can't hear the noise doesn't mean that Audyssey can't. If Audyssey detects the noise level is too high, it will raise the level of the chirps and try again. It will do this three times before giving up and displaying the error message. *So long as the error message is not displayed, Audyssey will cope with the ambient noise level and deliver a good calibration.*

If you get the error message and you have ensured that everything is turned off, you might want to try the calibration later at night when external noise is usually much lower. If you still get the error message despite that, then there is a chance that you have a fault. Often the mic may be faulty or have become damaged. Mics can be damaged by static electricity for example. If this is the case, you will need to obtain the correct replacement for your mic and then try again. If your unit has a factory reset procedure, it may be worth trying that before you blame the mic.

It is worth noting that you do not need to be paranoid about background noise levels. Chris Kyriakakis has stated (Ask Audyssey 14 July 2012) _"If you are not getting a noise error then the data collected is perfectly fine."_ In other words, the calibration is not somehow 'improved' by having a very quiet background noise level. Just keep the noise levels as low as you can when calibrating.

Similarly, some people have worried about a sudden, loud transient noise affecting the quality of their calibration - such as a clap of thunder or their dog barking. This is what Chris Kyriakakis has to say on that subject (Ask Audyssey 14 July 2012): _"The reason we take 10 chirps per speaker is to overcome the effects of transient noise. They will be averaged out if they only happened during one of the chirps."_

Elsewhere, Chris has elaborated further: _"Each chirp sweeps from the lowest to the highest octave. Then the chirp repeats several times for each speaker. That helps make the measurements immune to background noise. If there is more noise than the acceptable level the process repeats with the chirps playing louder."_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks! _

See Also:


Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)3. Should I move anything out of the room before running Audyssey?*

No. If you have, for example, a coffee table between the Main Listening Position and the mic, and you suspect that it is causing reflections which might damage your calibration, there is a temptation to remove it and then put it back once the calibration is finished. However, this is not good practice. Generally, anything that is in the room when listening should also be in the room when calibrating. Similarly, do not introduce extra damping materials into the room for the calibration unless they will be used when listening.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Where should I position the mic for best results?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)4. Should I leave the room when the measurements are running?*

You can (quietly) if you wish but it isn't necessary. Just keep quiet and do not position yourself between the mic and the speakers. There is no need to sit in the Main Listening Position chair, and indeed this is not recommended. Please note that if you *do* decide to leave the room, do so *between measurements*, after moving the mic to the next position, and *before* starting the next measurement round. Once the chirps are playing, it is not recommended to move at all in case your movements cause spurious issues that may affect the calibration's accuracy.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)5. I am getting a speaker detect error - what's wrong?*

Sometimes during the measurement phase of the calibration, Audyssey fails to detect one of your speakers. While this problem can have a variety of potential causes, it can often be resolved by following the troubleshooting procedure below.



Try a different speaker cable - you may have a connection problem.
Check the speaker connectors on the back of the speaker. Do you have separate connectors for tweeter and woofer? If so, these can sometimes come loose, or the metal strip connecting the terminals together can become loose. If so, this will result in loss of sound from the tweeter or woofer and this will cause the speaker detect error.
Make sure the speaker is working correctly. Sometimes a driver in your speaker may be damaged - play content with high frequencies and put your ear close to the tweeter. Can you hear it working properly? Do the same for the other drivers. If you cannot hear one of the drivers, or it sounds strange in some way (rough, intermittent etc) then one of the drivers is not working and may need to be repaired or replaced.
Swap the speakers temporarily. For example, if the centre speaker is the problem, swap it with the left speaker. Does the problem now move to the left speaker? If so, then the centre speaker has a fault of some kind.
 
If after checking all of the above, Audyssey is still failing to detect a speaker, post a question in the Official Audyssey Thread mentioning that you have followed the troubleshooting steps in the FAQ.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)6. Does it matter how I set the controls on my AVR when running Audyssey?*

No - it doesn't matter. Audyssey ignores them during the calibration. It doesn't matter if you left Dynamic EQ on or off, nor if Dynamic Volume was switched in; it makes no difference where the Master Volume control is set, nor if you have any tone controls operating. The trim levels don't matter, nor does it make one jot of difference if the AVR is in Dolby PLIIx mode, or Pure Audio or any other mode. Audyssey ignores the lot when it does the calibration. So just plug in the mic, follow the on-screen instructions and you are good to go.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)7. Audyssey ran OK but is stuck on the 'Calculating' phase. Any suggestions?*

This has come up occasionally and seems to be resolved by following the procedure below.

*For Onkyo units:*

Try unplugging the unit from the mains power, leaving it for 5 minutes and then plugging it back in and try to run Audyssey again. This 'reboots' the unit and has been known to solve various problems, including this one. This procedure does not cause any user settings to be lost.

If that does not fix the problem, then try resetting the Onkyo unit to 'factory defaults' and then running Audyssey again. You do this by following one of the procedures below - note that the factory reset _does_ cause all your user settings to be erased, so make sure you have made a note of them before trying this.

*RESET Onkyo to Factory*

To reset the AV receiver to its factory defaults, turn it on and, while holding down the [VCR/DVR] button _on the unit_, press the [ON/STANDBY] button _on the unit_. "Clear" will appear on the display and the AV receiver will enter Standby mode.

On some Onkyo units you may need to use the procedure below instead:

Completely clearing an Integra/Onkyo 2010 model: 

This has been confirmed to work on: DTR-70.2/DTR-80.2/DHC-80.2/PR-SC5508 units.

1) Set the Volume to Default Level: 30 (absolute) -52dB (relative).

2) Push and hold 'Memory' _on the unit_ - then push 'Standby/On' _on the unit_. There will be some weird text on front panel display at this point. Press 'Return' _on the unit_.

3) It will show "All Clear??", then press 'Return' _on the unit_ again.

*For Denon Units:*

Try unplugging the unit from the mains power, leaving it for 5 minutes and then plugging it back in and try to run Audyssey again. This 'reboots' the unit and has been known to solve various problems.

If that does not fix the problem, then try resetting the Denon unit to 'factory defaults'. The reset procedure varies from model/year to model/year so please check your Owner Manual for the correct procedure for your unit.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)8. Why doesn't Audyssey work properly with my AVR's 'biamping mode'?*

Some enthusiasts have spotted a setting in their AVR that is called 'biamping mode' or something similar. When using this setting, typically the rear surround channels are called into play and connected to the tweeter terminals of the front right and left speakers while the regular front right and left channels are connected to the woofer terminals of the speaker, after having removed the 'jumper' that was previously connecting them. At first glance this seems to be a good way to use those two 'wasted' channels if there are no rear surround speakers in the system.

The problem that arises with Audyssey is due to a bug in the Audyssey software (or the AVR's implementation of it) and when running the calibration, only the first set of sweeps uses both channels for the front speakers - that is, both the tweeter and woofer drivers are swept on the first sweep but on subsequent sweeps only the woofers are swept. This is an acknowledged bug which, so far, has not been fixed. Effectively it means that you cannot use the 'biamp mode' with Audyssey in affected AVRs (see Note below). *UPDATE*: _*Onkyo have corrected this bug with a Firmware update. If you are still experiencing the problem, download and install the latest Firmware for your Onkyo unit.*_

Audyssey are probably in no hurry to see this bug fixed for the reason that this so-called form of 'biamping' is actually nothing of the sort. True biamping requires an external, active crossover between the preamp and the power amp. If you do not have such an arrangement then you are simply wasting good wire and not actually biamping at all.

The form of 'biamping' in your AVR is often called 'audiophile biamping' or, less politely but possibly more accurately, 'fools' biamping'. With this method, all that happens is that full range signals are sent to the high and low legs of the speakers' own passive crossovers. In other words, the tweeter receives a full range signal from the preamp/power amp and the woofer also receives a full range signal. Which is exactly what happens if you use your AVR in its normal mode - the passive crossover inside the speaker in both cases splits the power to the appropriate driver. In other words, there is no scientifically sound reason at all why 'fools' biamping will make the slightest difference to your sound quality.

*Note:* While passive biamping serves no worthwhile purpose in *any* make or model of AVR, the bug may only exist in some (and maybe all) Onkyo units. It has not been confirmed in Denon units.

For a more scientific, but easily followed, explanation of passive biamping (and biwiring and true biamping) please click the links below under 'Further Reading'.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


Detailed article on biamping and why it is not possible without external electronic crossovers
Excellent article on fools' biamping by Chuck Hawks

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)9. Why is Audyssey 're-chirping' and ** raising the test tone level, even when my ambient noise is low?*

Audyssey says: _"A 're-chirp' occurs when the data collected for a particular speaker did not have sufficient signal to noise ratio (SNR). The SNR could be low either because the ambient noise in the room is too high, or the signal level is too low."_

So Audyssey will raise the levels of the test tones and try again in two different circumstances: when the ambient noise is too high (see *this answer* for more detail) or when the signal level as detected by the mic is too low. The latter can occur when, for example, one or more speakers is significantly further away from the mic than the others - eg for Height speakers.

Either way, it doesn't matter. The 're-chirp' increases the SNR and the data collected is fine for the purposes of the calibration. There is no 'problem' to fix, which is why Audyssey designed the chirping process this way.

_(Thanks to AVS Member *AustinJerry* for posting this question originally on the 'Ask Audyssey' website.)_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Why is Audyssey reporting 'Ambient Noise Too High'?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*b)10. Why can I barely hear the test tones when Audyssey is calibrating my subwoofer?*

Don't worry - this is normal. The test tones played through the other speakers sound fairly loud, even at 75dB, but the the sub is barely audible. This is because human hearing is very deficient when it comes to very low frequencies. So the reality is that the sub is playing the test tone at 75dB, but the way your hearing works is preventing you from properly hearing it. Just let the calibration run its course and when you come to play normal content later your sub will sound just fine.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Issues That May Arise During Calibration' Section Header._

*C. Crossover Settings*

*c)1. Why are my Crossovers set differently to my speaker manufacturer's specification?*

Audyssey measures the in-room frequency response of the speakers and reports its findings to the AVR/AVP which then sets a Crossover based upon the manufacturer's design decisions.

The Crossover thus reported will be what Audyssey 'hears' in the actual room at the time of measurement and may differ greatly from the speaker manufacturer's specification, which are usually quoted from testing in an anechoic chamber (ie with the room effect removed) or are just wildly optimistic for marketing purposes.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See also:


Audyssey is setting my crossovers way differently to what I expected. Why
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*c)2. Why do I often see advice to raise the Crossovers to 80Hz?*

Audyssey has simply 'listened' during the measuring phase and reported the _-3dB point of the frequency response_ to your AVR. What this means is this: when Audyssey sends the test chirps it will measure the frequency response of your speaker and find where it starts to roll off (i.e. become 'less loud'). When Audyssey detects the point at which the frequency response is down by 3dB ('the -3dB point' or 'F3') it stops trying to correct for the in-room response. So if, for example, your speaker is -3dB down at 50Hz, Audyssey will detect that and will only apply the EQ down to 50Hz. Audyssey will not correct below 50Hz for fear of boosting the lower frequencies beyond the capabilities of your speaker and damaging it. (Advanced users may wish to read the _Technical Note_ below).

It is then the responsibility of the AVR manufacturer to decide what to do with that information. In some cases, if the -3dB point is, say, 40Hz, the AVR will set the speakers to Large. In other cases, the same situation will result in the speakers being set to Small with a 40Hz Crossover set in the AVR menus. In addition, Audyssey takes into account the placement of the speakers in the room and the room characteristics itself when evaluating the -3dB point. So if your speakers are in a corner, for example, they will deliver more perceived bass than if they are out in the open because the room reinforces' the bass. All of this will influence the Crossover that is actually set. You can leave the Crossover to where it was set if you wish. However

*There are various good reasons to use a Crossover of 80Hz or thereabouts:*



By doing so, you will relieve the strain on the main speakers from trying to reproduce very low frequencies. This can help the speakers perform better in the mid and higher frequencies.
By doing so you also relieve the considerable strain on the amplifier that it experiences when trying to produce very high Sound Pressure Levels at very low frequencies, such as often found in movie content. It takes simply huge amounts of amplifier power to generate 115 dB at 20Hz or even lower - the amp in the subwoofer has been designed in conjunction with the subwoofer itself to drive the speaker to those levels at those frequencies. By handing off these frequencies to the sub, it greatly eases the strain on your AVR or external amplifier and this will have a beneficial effect on the way it drives the other speakers in the system.
By using a dedicated sub (or subs) to produce the low bass, you are also able to place the sub/s in the optimum room position with regard to room modes. Front speakers have to be positioned for imaging and the best place for a bass speaker is not usually the best place for imaging. By crossing over to a sub at 80Hz, you can place the main speakers in the best place and also the sub in the best place too.
If you have Audyssey XT or MultEQ, the filter resolution for the sub channel is much higher than it is for the satellites, so handing more of the frequencies off to the sub lets you benefit from that greater filter resolution over a wider range of frequencies. With XT32, the filter resolution for the sub channel is the same as for the satellites, so that consideration doesn't apply to anyone fortunate enough to have XT32.
 
*Technical Note: *_A very small number of advanced users have reported that they believe they have evidence that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 can boost below F3 - sometimes by as much as +10dB. Not every speaker is capable of handling this amount of boost, especially at low frequencies. If correct, this could create problems by limiting the headroom of the system. Currently, this issue has been confirmed only by user measurements of the *Onkyo TX-NR818* and there is no evidence to suggest that other models are, or are not, affected. The 'boost' is happening with the satellite channels, not the subwoofer channel, so it is not related to the old 'normalisation bug' which we understand has now been fixed. I should add that neither Onkyo nor Audyssey are able to reproduce this issue, and so far, the problem has only been reported by a very small number of users, so the problem may be specific to certain setups and certain speakers. The simple 'solution' to the problem, if you are experiencing it, is to select a higher crossover point. (Thanks to AVS Member *IgorZep* for bringing this to our attention)_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What does the term 'F3' mean?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*c)3. I have big tower speakers at the front. Shouldn't I set these to 'Large'?*

(This answer assumes that you have a subwoofer in your system.)

Small and Large in this context are really misnomers. Rather than describing the physical size of the speakers, what it really means is that some speakers can reproduce lower frequencies more efficiently than others. So-called 'full range' speakers might go down as low as 30Hz - but the problem is, if they do, they won't usually go down very low AND very loud at the same time. Movies call for very deep bass - often 20Hz or even lower - at very high Sound Pressure Levels - 115dB at 'Reference Level'.

Also, remember that if you set your main speakers to Large, you are bypassing the bass Management in your AVR and sending no sound at all (apart from the .1 Low Frequency Effects channel) to your sub. Your sub has been specifically designed to handle bass frequencies and will almost certainly do so better than your main speakers. Manufacturers' specs for bass performance are wildly exaggerated and often made for purely marketing reasons. You bought your sub for a reason - so make the most of it!

You may want to have a look at what Audyssey say about setting speaker Crossovers in the article linked *here* by Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey's CTO, where he discusses whether to set speakers to 'small or large'.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What is 'LFE + Main' or 'Double Bass' and should I use it

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*c)4. Is it OK to change the Crossovers from Audyssey's recommendation?*

Raising (never lowering) the Crossovers is fine and will not affect the calibration that Audyssey has made. Indeed, there are good reasons to raise the Crossover settings as mentioned elsewhere in this FAQ.

If you decide to change any of the Crossovers determined by Audyssey, note that it is always OK to RAISE the Crossovers from those suggested but never to LOWER them. This is because Audyssey corrects down to the -3dB point of the speaker's frequencies response, so if you lower the Crossover from Audyssey's suggested setting you will create an uncorrected 'hole' in the frequency response. It's fine to raise them and doing so does not harm the Audyssey calibration in any way at all.

Finally, it may be worthwhile to compare by listening to any Crossovers allowed under the above rules to see which might be preferred, particularly in the case of XT32. Just remember not to lower them from Audyssey's setting!

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Why do I often see advice to raise the Crossovers to 80Hz?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*c)5. What is the LPF of LFE and what should it be set to?*

First of all, Audyssey doesn't touch this setting. Neither is it a Crossover, although you will often see it described as such. It stands for *L*ow *P*ass *F*ilter of the *L*ow *F*requency *E*ffects Channel. The Low Frequency Effects (LFE) channel is the .1 in a 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 audio track and it carries special content put there by the content mixer. The Low Pass Filter is the filter that is applied to that content. The content is authored up to 120Hz so the only setting that is correct for this is 120Hz. If you set it to anything below 120Hz then any content between 120Hz and whatever you set it to is lost - although remember that by changing this setting you are introducing a filter, so the content will be 'rolled off'. In other words, it will 'gradually disappear' in level depending on the slope of the filter. This filter has nothing to do with any speaker Crossovers etc and it is not set by Audyssey. The only reason it is in the FAQ is that people often think that Audyssey has set it and they confuse it with their speaker Crossovers. Just set it at 120Hz and leave it there.

*UPDATED VIEWPOINT:* The paragraph above represents the conventional Audyssey thinking on this issue. However, *Roger Dressler* (formerly of Dolby Labs and the guy who helped them develop many of their technologies, including bass management) and *Mark Seaton* (founder and owner of Seaton Sound, makers of the legendary Submersive subwoofers) have both recently put forward an alternative view. Mark explains it like this in *this post*:

_"I personally tend to set the low pass on the LFE channel at 80Hz in most systems by preference. I think many forget that the difference between a 120Hz low pass and an 80Hz low pass is nothing more than a shelving filter. If the low pass is 4th order, the 80Hz filter is about 7dB lower at 100Hz and about 4dB at 80Hz. A 100Hz low pass setting would have about 1/2 that difference. The adjustment has more effect on shaping the LFE track's response than it does on cutting off content. If you're running the subs with a rising response on the low end which blends with the main speakers, experimenting with 80, 100 vs. 120Hz is basically a means to taper the top end of the LFE channel. Setting this lower than 120Hz is not hacking off content any more than setting your sub a few dB hot would destroy a soundtrack."_

What this means in effect is that you do NOT lose the content between 80Hz and 120Hz if you set the LPF of LFE to 80Hz - you simply alter the way it is presented, because the filter is not a brickwall but a shelving filter. Setting it to 80Hz simply allows you to 'shape' the LFE track's response. 

Roger goes on to elaborate more in *a separate post* (my bolding below):

_"Back when DTS was making their name with Jurassic Park and Apollo 13 on 35mm film, the LFE bandwidth was 80 Hz. The Dolby Digital codec has a bandlimited LFE channel, and it has a brickwall filter at 120 Hz as a means to protect the LFE channel from higher frequencies (which can still be present even with a 4th-order LPF at 80 Hz). It seems that when films moved from optical to digital delivery, the LFE bandwidth crept up to 120 Hz or maybe even higher (the PCM LFE channel has no inherent response limitation). I suppose it helps less than magnificent subwoofers in "regular" cinemas provide more whomp. *But I find that LFE in the 100-120 Hz region is just a lot of boominess that unfortunately too often clouds the deeper bass in the bottom 2 octaves. Setting the LFE filter to 80 Hz does a dandy job of dealing with that boominess IMHO.*_

_In addition, I have found that 5.1 music recordings are not well disciplined in their use of LFE, leading to muddiness that is even more annoying. Again, the 80 Hz LFE filter setting really helps the bass knit together more cohesively." _Background information also in *this post* of Roger's.

*Further comment from Roger Dressler explains the thinking behind a setting of 80Hz as opposed to the more usually recommended 120Hz:*

_"I was recently noticing that my well tuned room sounded great on 2-ch programs but occasionally had excessive/plump bass on some 5.1 music discs. Turns out many music discs do not have well filtered LFE tracks--easily seen using REW's spectrum analyzer. It also turned out that my SSP did not filter the LFE at 120 Hz or the like.

I did some experiments comparing SACD/DVD-A music recordings with the LFE unfiltered, or filtered at 120 or 80 Hz, and compared the results with the 2-ch mixes on those discs. It was pretty obvious that the mixers were listening with a monitor system using an LFE sub filtered at 80 Hz. The match was obviously right, whereas at 120 Hz it was not even close, and not very pleasant. They filtered the LFE sound in the room rather than the signal feeding the recorder.

I did a similar survey of movie soundtracks, and REW showed all were well filtered near 120 Hz at max. Some DTS movies were rolled off lower, like 90 Hz. In listening to these movies with 80 and 120 Hz LFE filters, it was possible in direct A/B to sometimes hear a difference only with the 120 Hz LFE tracks, but using either the 80 or 120 Hz filters sounded great and sounded correct. The impression was that the 80 Hz setting yielded "deeper, tighter" bass than the 120 Hz, and this has been a major reported difference between Dolby and DTS soundtracks since the days of laser discs. Interestingly, DTS HDMA does not employ the 90 Hz filter, so that "advantage" is now gone, even for the core lossy DTS track.

I have my SSP's LFE set for 80 Hz all the time (F/W updated!). It makes a huge benefit for 5.1 music, and a small benefit for movies, so it all sounds great now."_

I should emphasise that the generally accepted setting for the LPF of LFE is 120Hz. However, this is one of those 'preference' issues which members may want to experiment with and come to their own conclusions. I have tried it myself and found that I can definitely hear (or feel) a difference between 80Hz and 120Hz for the LPF. 120Hz gives more slam and I feel the gunshots etc more in my chest. But Roger is right - it also adds a touch of boom too. 80Hz gives a little less slam but overall it's tighter. We're talking small, but noticeable differences. It also seems to be movie-dependent - I guess some mixers add more to the LFE channel than others, or more above 80Hz anyway.

*Update:* Long-time AVS member *Bill Fitzmaurice* added this relevant comment when *posting* in another thread:

Also, with respect to LFE track material being directionally locatable, the LFE track is brickwall filtered at 120Hz, so regular program material harmonics that can be directionally locatable even with an 80Hz low pass of the other channels aren't present. If you have the ability to set the normal program low pass frequency and LFE channel low pass frequencies independently the difference that would probably be heard between 80 and 120Hz with the regular program probably would not be heard with the LFE track.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


The misunderstood 0.1/LFE channel

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*c)6. Why is Audyssey setting different crossovers for my identical speakers?*

This can happen and it is not a fault. Where you place the speakers in your room can greatly influence their low frequency response. For example, if your surround speakers are wall-mounted, they will probably show a lower roll-off (more bass) than identical speakers mounted on stands and placed away from the wall. Speakers close to a corner will exhibit a lower roll-off than identical speakers placed well out into the room, and so on. Because Audyssey measures the actual in-room frequency response of your speakers, it will take account of how the frequency response is influenced by speaker placement. The entire point of measuring and not relying on published specs is to find out what each speaker is doing in your room and then applying corrective filters!

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*c)7. Audyssey is setting my crossovers way differently to what I expected. Why?*

First off, let's get this out of the way: Audyssey doesn’t set the crossovers. Audyssey measures the F3 of the speaker it is testing (the point where the frequency response is 3dB down) and passes this information to the AVR. The AVR then decides where to set the crossover based on this information. Ultimately the crossover that is set will depend on how the AVR manufacturer decided to take notice of the information being passed to it: some may decide that a particular F3 requires the speakers to be set to 'Large' (no crossover at all) while others may take that same information, for the same speaker, and set the crossover at 50Hz, for example.

But for the purposes of this answer, let's assume that Audyssey does set the crossover as it makes it much simpler for me to write the answer without constantly having to refer to the above.

OK. This is the sort of question that was asked by AVS Member carminepesce:

_"I just took another Audyssey calibration run on my X1000 (Audyssey XT) and I'm little concerned as to the crossover settings that have come up at the end. I'm running DefTech ProMonitor 1000s in the front and a ProCenter.... The crossover settings after this most recent Audyssey run were 150Hz for the fronts (which seem way too high) & 60Hz for center (which is what Def Tech suggests anyway). My room is quite small (11'W x 15'D)... Any suggestions or should I run Audyssey again?"_

First, you can safely ignore what the manufacturer recommends. The way they test speakers doesn't bear much resemblance to the way we actually use them in our homes. Our rooms will have a considerable influence on the frequency response capabilities of the speaker and so it can be very different from what the manufacturer measured in his anechoic chamber and so on.

Nonetheless, if someone has a capable speaker that has a FR that extends down to, say, 50 Hz or even below, it is surprising to see Audyssey set a crossover to the subwoofer of 150Hz. It is also probably not the best XO setting.

This has been discussed many times in the Official Audyssey Thread but there has been no definitive answer as to why this happens.

One theory is that for some reason the Audyssey mic is hearing the F3 of your front speakers as being higher than would be expected. Try running the calibration again using slightly different mic positions. Stay within the general mic position guidelines but move the positions a few inches from where they were for the previous run. Sometimes, small room anomalies seem to have the potential to confuse Audyssey and moving the mic resolves it. Worth a try.

Also, there is the possibility that the position of the LR speakers places them in a room "null". So another thing to try is to move the LR speakers into different positions in the room, or conversely, move the seating positions forward or back a foot or so and then to run Audyssey again. A combination of these two suggestions gives a third option to try.

Please report back to the Thread if you have tried either of these potential remedies with success. 

_(Thanks to AVS member Gooddoc for assistance with this response)_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See also:


What does the term 'F3' mean?
Why are my Crossovers set differently to my speaker manufacturer's specification?
Where should I position the mic for best results?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Crossover Settings' Section Header._

*D. Mic & Mic Placement Issues*

*d)1. Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?*

Absolutely yes. This is one of the most common reasons for a poor calibration. You will not get a good result if you hold the mic in your hand, or if you place it on the back of your couch or on some other makeshift support. The mic should be mounted at ear height (when sitting in your usual position), pointed vertically up to the ceiling, clear by at least 2 feet from any walls and placed within the boundary of your left and right speakers. A tripod is OK and many people have these in their possession, but it can be difficult to use as one leg often has to be rested on the floor and the other two legs rested on the chair or couch.

Much better is a mic stand - these are fairly inexpensive and they make running the measurements much, much easier. Something like this is fine:



Typical boom mic stand (USA members)
Typical boom mic stand (UK members)

You will also need this gadget to allow you to attach the Audyssey mic to the stand:



Use this to attach your Audyssey mic to your stand
A far superior, but much more expensive, mic adapter (UK members)
A far superior, but much more expensive, mic adapter (USA members)
If you use the Audio-Technica adapter (see above link) you will also need this
Another high quality adapter, available in the UK and USA
 
For anyone who doubts that a few dollars spent on a proper mic stand is not money well spent, read this real-life quote from AVS member pbarach:

*"I just redid my Audyssey calibration (Denon 4310 + AS-EQ1), this time using the boom mic stand recommended in this thread, instead of a camera tripod. This dramatically improved the clarity of center channel dialogue and the impact of bass. I would not have believed this would have made that much of a difference! The boom mic stand was probably the smallest audio purchase I've ever made that resulted in such a noticeable difference in sound (and convenience)."*

If your floors are the wooden suspended sort, you may want to place the legs of the mic stand on some sort of absorber to minimise the chance of spurious bass signals entering the mic via the floor and the stand itself. These are ideal for most people:



Some isolator feet you might want to check out
Isolator feet for UK members on sale here

If your floor is solid or carpeted then you probably don't need the absorbers.

When measuring with a mic stand, try to avoid positioning the boom arm between the mic and the speakers.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)2. Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?*

Yes. The best results will be obtained by using as many mic positions as your version of MultEQ allows. The more data provided to the Audyssey filters, the better end result of your final calibration.

This is what Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey CTO, has to say on subject:

_"Taking measurements in one spot guarantees bad sound. The algorithm needs to collect data from around the listening area in order to work correctly. One should not think of mic locations as being the same as seating locations. The recommended pattern for measurements is shown *here*. Whether you have one listener or many, all available measurements should be taken to provide the algorithm with the needed data."_

The number of mic positions allowed depends on your 'flavour' of MultEQ. The basic 2EQ allows for only 3 mic positions; MultEQ allows for 6 positions and both MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT 32 allow for 8 positions. However, please note that AVR manufacturers have some flexibilty in this regard. Denon, for example, has reduced the maximum number of mic positions on their XX13 XT models from 8 to 6 positions when using the Setup Wizard, but all 8 (recommended) can be done outside of the Setup Wizard. Marantz has also taken the same route with their 2012 models featuring XT.

_(Thanks to AVS Member_ *jdsmoothie* _for Denon mic information)_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What is the difference between the various versions of MultEQ?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)3. Where should I position the mic for best results?*

The first mic position should always be at the Main Listening Position (because it is used to determine the distances and levels of each speaker). The other positions should be either side at roughly 2 feet intervals and then in front and behind if possible. The order of the positions after the first position does not matter. It is very important to avoid extreme positions - so never put the mic up against the back wall or outside the angle spanned by the front Left and Right speakers. Taking measurements in these positions will cause MultEQ to make unnecessary adjustments. The mic should be at the same height as your main L&R speakers' tweeters, which in turn should ideally be at ear height. It is not generally advised to place the mic higher or lower than the physical location of the tweeters (but see the exception noted below). However, there are many setups where it is not possible for the tweeters to be at ear height; in these cases, place the mic at the spot where the speakers are aimed (it is usually advisable to aim the speakers towards the MLP by 'toeing-in the L&R speakers and angling the centre speak up or down - but do take the advice of your speaker manufacturer on toe-in as some designs perform best when not toed-in).

Exception: if your chair backs are quite high, you will need to raise the mic so that it can 'see' the rear surrounds or surrounds. Also, do not put the mic closer than about 12 to 15 inches to the backrest of the chair, even if this means it is not exactly where your head is when listening.

The graphic below shows Audyssey's recommended mic placements for a typical room and seating arrangement. Always start with mic position 1 at the Main Listening Position and then use the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc positions (in any order) as shown, up to the maximum your version of Audyssey allows.












Use only the microphone included with your AVR. If you cannot find it, contact the manufacturer for a replacement.
Attach your microphone to a mic stand (preferably) or tripod.
Take the measurements at ear height and with the mic facing the ceiling.
Start the measurements from the primary listening location and spread out from there.
Approximate distance from the first measurement position is 2 feet in any direction.
Focus on the central listening area and avoid extreme positions such as the back wall or too far beyond the left and right speakers.

For more information about the graphic and mic placement in general, visit Audyssey's own guide to mic placement - linked below.​One more point about the Main Listening Position. If you are primarily interesting in getting the best result for just one seat (either because you are the only listener or you are the only listener who really cares about audio fidelity), then place the mic for position 1 at the centre of that seat. If, however, you wish to consider other seats, then place the mic in the centre of the listening area for position 1.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?
Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?
Where do I put the mic for the 1st measurement if my listening position is not centred?
Why do I need to measure where nobody sits?
How do I place the mic for Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers?
 
Further Reading:


Audyssey's Guide to Mic Placement

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)4. Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?*

The easy answer to that is *yes*. Your Audyssey mic has a calibration file which is stored inside your AVR or prepro. If you use a mic from another unit, then there is a chance that the calibration file will be inappropriate for that mic and the whole calibration will be off as a result. So to be absolutely sure, then always use the mic that was bundled with your unit.

However, it is also possible to use the mic from another unit of the same brand as your unit - eg, a Denon mic with a Denon unit, an Onkyo mic with an Onkyo unit and so on. The caveat to this is that the mic must be of the same type and model. Early Onkyo units, for example, were supplied with a black, round, flat mic (often called a 'puck' mic for its vague resemblance to an ice hockey puck). Later Onkyos were supplied with a silver mic shaped like a long pyramid or the Eiffel Tower. These 'puck mics' and 'Eiffel Tower' mics are _*not*_interchangeable. The current mic used by Onkyo is designated *ACM1H* and this is printed on the box the mic comes in.

*Note for Denon units:*

The ACM1H mic is interchangeable with the *DM-A409* mic used with Denon AVR-XX09/X89 through AVR-XX12 models. Older Denon models use the following mic types, _neither of which is compatible with each other or the newer DM-A409/ACM1H mics_:



XX06: DM-S205 (hockey puck style)
XX08/X88: DM-A405 (tower style)
4308/5308/AVP: DM-A505Z
5308/AVP (w/3D upgrade): DM-A409

With the introduction of the new Denon AVR-XX13 models, Denon is now including the new "*ACM1HB"* black mic which Audyssey has confirmed is interchangeable with the DM-A409 (Denon) and ACM1H (Onkyo, Marantz) mics.

_(Thanks to AVS Member_ *jdsmoothie* _for Denon mic information)_

*UPDATE June 2012:* Onkyo, Marantz and Denon units now all use the same *ACM1HB* mic.

If you damage or lose your mic, they are available from your unit manufacturer for around $US25. Be very careful about buying from other sources such as auction sites as there have been counterfeit mics (especially from non-USA eBay resellers) seen there (as verified by Audyssey) and these will quite probably not be properly calibrated by your unit's calibration file.

Long story short - take care of your mic and preferably use the one that came with your unit.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)5. Why do I need to measure where nobody sits?*

The quick answer to this is that Audyssey does not measure seating locations - it measures the room.

If you follow the mic placement rules described elsewhere, you will see that Audyssey insists that, for best results, you use as many mic positions as your particular unit allows (maximum of 8). This is true even if you have only two seats, or even one seat. The reason is that during measurement Audyssey needs to sample a broad area of the room in order to gather sufficient data for its correction algorithms to work. Because Audyssey is EQing your room and speakers as a 'system', the more information it can gather about your room, the better designed its correction filters will be. Audyssey uses highly sophisticated 'averaging' techniques in order to deliver an excellent EQ for the entire room. So even if you have only one seat in your home cinema, you are still advised to use all the mic positions your Audyssey version allows.

Some advanced users have reported that for cinemas with only one or two seats they have achieved better results by tightly clustering the mic positions around the actual seating areas, using spacing as close as 6 inches to 1 foot apart (rather than the recommended 2 to 3 feet). This is not recommended by Audyssey but, if you have the time and patience, it is easy to experiment and to see if you prefer one methodology's results over another.

As always, however you choose to place the mic, be sure to follow the general mic placement rules and keep away from walls, chair backs and keep within the left and right boundaries of your main speakers.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Where should I position the mic for best results?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)6. I have two rows of seats at different heights. What's the best mic placement?*

Audyssey normally recommends placing the mic at ear height. If you have two or more rows of seats, the rearmost rows are often elevated and it is obviously not then possible to use the same mic height for all rows. In these circumstances, Audyssey recommends having the mic at ear level in each row.

Although this goes against the usual advice for rooms without rows of seats, it is specifically suggested by Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey's CTO, on their website *here*.

It is possible that people with two rows of seats may be mainly concerned with getting a good result for the front row, as the rear row may only be used occasionally, or for listeners who care less about overall sound quality. In that case, I would put your No 1 mic position at ear level where you usually sit, and cluster the remaining mic positions around the MLP. If you care about the seats either side of you, then spread the mic positions out a little to encompass them too. If you don't care at all about the rear row, ignore it totally. If you care a little bit about it, maybe put two mic positions there. Just experiment. and see which sounds best to you. 

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)7. Can I extend the Audyssey mic cable?*

Those with large rooms, or with their AVRs in a separate closet outside the main listening room may find the supplied mic cable is too short. You can extend the cable without any problems, up to a maximum additional length of 25 feet (7.5 metres). However, be sure to use the correct type of cable.

This extension cable was specifically recommended by Audyssey, but any similar cable will be OK: 



25 ft Monaural 3.5mm Extension Cable

It is important that you do not use an extension cable longer than 25 feet (7.5 metres). Because the mic signal is lower level than line-level audio signals, there will be significant high frequency loss in the cable if you exceed 25 feet/7.5m. That loss will make the mic "think" that your speakers have decreased high frequency response and the result will be to incorrectly boost the high frequencies.

For more information, a group of custom installers tested the concept of using cable extensions with Audyssey and their findings are linked in the 'Further Reading' link below.

One other possibility for those requiring even longer cable runs (albeit an expensive solution) is to use the Audyssey Pro Kit (assuming your AVR is Pro-ready of course). Audyssey Pro comes with cables sufficient for 75 feet (23m) runs to the mic and this can be extended to 100 feet (30m) with a suitable extension cable. See the link below to the Audyssey Pro Installer Kit FAQ for more information.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


Extending the mic cable with Audyssey Pro
Custom Installers Lounge Forum test Audyssey extension cables

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)8. Where do I put the mic for the 1st measurement if my listening position is not centred?*

Some room layouts mean that it is not possible to have _any_ seat centrally located between the left and right front speakers. The question then arises as to where to place the mic for the first measurement (the one which sets the level and distances). The answer depends on what you wish to achieve.



If you often have two or more listeners in your cinema room, then follow the usual Audyssey advice and place the mic in the middle of the seating area, even if nobody sits there. This will result in the mic being centred between the left and right speakers. This will give a good result for all the seats in the room.
However, if you are more concerned about getting the best result you can for _one_ seat, then place the mic for the first measurement in the centre of that seat.
 
As always, be sure to follow the FAQ advice on placing the mic at ear height, pointing up to the ceiling, two feet away from walls and so on and so on. I strongly recommend that you 'See Also' all of the relevant sections of the FAQ, linked below.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?
Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?
Where should I position the mic for best results?
Why do I need to measure where nobody sits?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*d)9. Mic cable integrity issue.*

This is an usual case, but worth reporting. If you have a similar 'unusual' issue, it may be worth checking the cable carefully, as AVS Member jdsmoothie discovered:

_"I was doing an Audyssey EQ and during the sub calibration, the volume was only measuring 14db. Not sure what the issue might be, I noticed the cable was still all coiled up as I had just taken it out of the box and only needed to extend it 9' so didn't bother with unraveling the rest of the coiled cable. I uncoiled it completely and voila!, the display read 72db which I thought was strange so I checked the cable more closely and sure enough there was a cut in the cable where it had been partially severed. I taped it back together and the calibration completed without further issue, however I still plan on replacing the mic."_

_(Thanks to AVS Member jdsmoothie for this info.)_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Do I have to use the mic that came with my AVR or PrePro?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Mic & Mic Placement Issues' Section Header._

*E. Levels, Distance & Trim Settings*

*e)1. Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?*

Yes, if you wish. The trim settings set the individual loudness of each speaker in your system. The idea is that from your Main Listening Position you will hear the sounds from each speaker at the same level. Audyssey uses a sophisticated method of determining these levels and usually they require no adjustment. However, some people, with less than ideal speakers, placement or rooms, sometimes feel the need to raise the centre channel trim a little in order to improve dialogue intelligibility. There are probably better ways to tackle dialogue intelligibility problems though - click the link below for more information. Changing the trims does not adversely affect your calibration (but it does affect the way Dynamic EQ works - see the Section on Dynamic EQ for more details - link below). One thing to note: there is no point whatsoever in changing all the trims by the same amount - this is exactly the same as changing the Master Volume by that amount.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Why is dialogue from the centre channel difficult to hear or understand?
Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Levels, Distance & Trim Settings' Section Header._

*e)2. Is it OK to change the distance settings Audyssey sets?*

What Audyssey describes as 'distance' is really 'delay'. The idea is that the sound from each speaker arrives at the Main Listening Position at exactly the same time. This helps your system produce a 'precise' sound with excellent imaging and clarity. If the sounds all arrive at different times, the result is a 'smeared' sound, lacking clarity and giving poor imaging across your soundstage. Audyssey sets these different delays by calculating the time it takes the sound to travel from the speaker to the Main Listening Position (at the speed of sound of course) and setting an appropriate distance. For this reason, it is not advisable to change the distance settings unless you really know what you are doing.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Why has Audyssey set my sub distance much greater than it actually measures?
Audyssey has set my satellite speaker distances incorrectly - should I just change them?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Levels, Distance & Trim Settings' Section Header._]

*e)3. Why is it a bad idea to use your AVR test tones and a SPL meter to check trim levels?*

Many newcomers to Audyssey seem to like to 'double check' their final channel trims by using a SPL meter and the AVR's internal test tones to see if each channel measures the same, or measures the expected 75dB. If the channel trims do not measure the same or differ from 75dB, these users will often change the AVR trims to match the readings given by their SPL meter. *This is not a good idea and the following answer explains why.*

Since the AVR's internal test tones are not (and cannot be) processed by Audyssey, when you measure the AVR's test tone levels, you're measuring what your room is doing to _unprocessed_ audio. Audyssey is designed to correct those inequalities for you. It is therefore possible that if Audyssey has had to perform a lot of correction on one or more speakers, relative to the others, then the SPL readings of unprocessed tones will be different to the reading that Audyssey has made, post-correction. It is also possible therefore that the SPL readings will vary from speaker to speaker for the same reason. 

*Use an external test signal instead. *

If you use audio level test tracks from a good, properly recorded audio calibration disc (or other reliable external audio signal source), they can be processed by Audyssey. If Audyssey's calibration has done its job correctly, when Audyssey is enabled (and Dynamic Vol and Dynamic EQ are disabled) those externally-supplied calibration sounds should all produce the same sound level from each speaker, at the Main Listening Position.

*Why this is important.*

When Audyssey applies a set of filter taps to a channel, it implements a group of boosts and cuts at various frequencies. If, for example, the cuts are greater over a larger number of frequencies than the boosts, the "average" level of the whole signal will be reduced. Audyssey will then raise the average level of the whole signal to compensate. Audyssey does this by looking at the entire bandwidth of the signal or "chirp.".

When you measure the SPL of a bandwidth-limited "noise" signal, (the receiver's internal test tones), if Audyssey has made changes to the frequency response within that bandwidth, but you're not measuring those changes because Audyssey is not engaged in the signal path, you end up with a measurement that is different from what Audyssey measured. Therefore, if you re-set the levels based on these measurements, and then re-engage Audyssey, you now have a different calibration than Audyssey's, but one that doesn't take Audyssey's filters into account.

Why would anyone feel the need to do this? Audyssey measures the levels for all channels using the same mic, in the same spot with the same test signal. It then calculates the filters for all the channels. Finally it compensates for the average level changes the filters induce, and sets the level trims to ensure that all the channels are outputting equal _average_ signal levels. It calculates them all the same way, using the same algorithm. Why would anyone think they're wrong... and then re-set them without taking the filters into consideration?

If you make changes to the trim levels after running Audyssey, using the receiver's internal test tones, it means you are uncorrecting the corrections Audyssey has made to compensate for its filters. If you change a channel level by 1.5 dB using the internal test tones, when you turn the test tones off and the Audyssey filters are re-engaged, that channel's calibration is off by 1.5 dB from the rest of the channels.

The way to confirm this is to use external test tones that run through the Audyssey filters. I have 2 such test tone discs, Avia and The 5.1 Audio Toolkit. I have checked the calibration with the internal test tones and both test discs. 

*Here are the results:*

*Channel* *Test Tones (dB)* *AVIA Disc (dB)* *5.1 Audio Toolkit (dB)* Left 76.0 76.0 76.0 Centre 76.0 76.0 76.0 Right 77.5 76.0 76.0 R Surround 76.0 76.0 75.5 L Surround 76.0 76.5 76.5 Subwoofer 73.0 75.5 75.0 










Using the internal test tones results in a 4.5 dB difference in calibrated levels between channels. Using 2 different test discs, with Audyssey engaged for both, results in 1 or 1.5 dB of difference. If we could measure and average the exact same way Audyssey does, (sweeps + averaging), I'm sure we would see that Audyssey correctly compensated for the EQ filters it applied, and set the levels correctly, and that using the test tones afterwards results in un-correcting the corrected levels. I know it seems intuitive to want to change the levels when your SPL shows that they don't appear to be correct. Nonetheless, they ARE in fact correct and it's the reading you get from the SPL meter that are not. There's nothing wrong with your SPL meter; you're just not using the proper test signals.

Audyssey doesn't get everything right. However, one thing it does *very* well is to get the level calibration correct. To override that, based on measurements taken with a different mic, different test signals and without the Audyssey filters engaged is... well, let's just say it's not recommended!

(Thanks to AVS Member *Craig John* or the bulk of this answer and the measurement results)

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Levels, Distance & Trim Settings' Section Header._

*e)4. Why has Audyssey set my sub distance much greater than it actually measures?*

Subwoofers usually have internal processing in their amplifier circuits and this can cause a delay in the sound reaching the listener. Audyssey 'hears' when the actual sound arrives at the mic during testing and sets the distance accordingly. Because 'distance' really means 'delay' the setting Audyssey chooses for the sub distance is almost always greater than the physical distance of the sub. (In other words, if the sound is delayed, Audyssey sets the distance to be greater than reality so that the sound 'starts' earlier than it otherwise would). The aim is for the sound of the sub to arrive at the Main Listening Position at the same time as the corresponding sounds from the other speakers and Audyssey does this very well.

You may read that some advanced Audyssey users change the sub distance from Audyssey's recommendation to improve the 'splice' at the region of the Crossover between the sub and the main speakers, but this is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Bottom line: unless you know what you are doing, and have independent measuring equipment to verify it, leave the sub distance where Audyssey has set it.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Levels, Distance & Trim Settings' Section Header._

*e)5. Audyssey has set my satellite speaker distances incorrectly - should I just change them?*

Incorrect distance settings for the satellite speakers usually indicates a procedural error when measuring, and the subsequent EQ is likely to be poor. Be sure to read the relevant section of the *FAQ or '101' *and then run Audyssey again. If the problem persists even when you are sure you are using the correct procedure, post your problem in the Official Audyssey Thread for expert help. Remember, it is only the subwoofer distance that should deviate from the actual measured difference, not the satellites.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Is it OK to change the distance settings Audyssey sets?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Levels, Distance & Trim Settings' Section Header._

*e)6. What do I do if my trim levels are at the limits of their adjustment ('maxed out')?*

During the calibration, Audyssey sets each speaker's volume level so that all your speakers are playing at the same level, relative to each other, after the calibration is complete. These settings are called the 'trim levels' and you can see how Audyssey has set them by going into your AVR or Prepro's menus.

The range that Audyssey works within depends on the make of your unit: for Onkyo it is -12dB to +12dB for the satellites and -15dB to +12dB for the subwoofer; for Denon and Marantz the range is -12dB to +12dB for the satellites and the subwoofer. For other brands, check with your user manual. After calibration, all your speakers should show a trim setting within these ranges.

It is important that no trim level is 'hitting the stops' or maxed out. The reason for this is that if you do hit the stops, you have no way of knowing if Audyssey would have gone even further if it had been able to. So if, for example, your sub is set to -15dB, then there is the possibility that it could have been set to -17dB if Audyssey had allowed it.

_*If subwoofer trim is maxed out:*_

Ideally, your sub should be in the trim range of approximately -3.5dB to +3.5dB. If your sub is not in this range then you can adjust it by using the sub volume control knob and running Audyssey again until you get the trim where you want it.

Also, one of the reasons for having Audyssey's subwoofer trim level in the +/- 3.5dB range is that values closer to -12 dB might prevent a subwoofer's Auto-On feature from working because the output of the receiver would be too low. (We recommend that if your sub has an 'Auto-on' setting on its power control, to turn this OFF before running MultEQ. This will ensure the sub always 'wakes up' when it is first pinged.) There is another reason why it is important to aim for a sub trim in the approximate range of +/- 3.5dB and this concerns the safety of your sub and avoiding damage to it. Please read this FAQ Technical Note for more information.

_*If satellite speaker trims are maxed out (external amplification)*__*:*_

However, what do you do if your satellite speaker trims are maxed out? They do not (usually) have volume controls. The trim levels are determined by a combination of several factors - for example, the efficiency* of your speakers, your amplifier gain, room size, speaker location etc. It is unusual for one or more satellite speakers to be maxed out but it can happen. If you are using external (separate) power amplification with very efficient speakers, then a good solution is to use *line level attenuators* or 'pads' (see link below for examples). These devices fit between the prepro and the power amp and reduce (attenuate) the input signal to the power amp. They are passive devices so they have no negative impact on your sound quality at all but, as always, the advice is to choose good quality components. 

_*If satellite speaker trims are maxed out (internal AVR amplification)*__*:*_

If you are using an AVR's internal amplification, follow this procedure: you can use an SPL meter to make sure that the levels of the speakers are the same. If they are not, then make adjustments to make them the same. Example: assume your centre channel reads 78.5dB, your surround left channel reads 77.5dB and your right channel reads 76.5dB, all with trims of -12dB. Adjust the trims so that *all of your channels* read 78.5dB (the loudest level of the set of measurements you just made). This will ensure that all of your channels are now set to the same level - in this example 78.5dB. 

After that, turn down the master volume (not the trims) until the measured noise is 75 dB on the SPL meter (C-weighted, Slow). 75dB is the target calibration level in a system adjusted to play correctly at Reference level. Write down that master volume setting because it is now your new reference listening setting (instead of the 0 dB setting normally used). You will need an external test disc if you wish to complete this step because the master volume control is inoperative when using the internal AVR test tones (although users report that on some Denon units the MV is operational when using the internal test tones). Alternatively, it is probably reasonable to assume that your new Reference level setting (in this example) is -3.5dB and not 0dB - in other words, the same amount by which you raised all the trims above the level of 75dB. Be aware that since you have changed the Reference Level setting on the master volume, Dynamic EQ will not function exactly as intended as it assumes that Reference level is 0dB. You can compensate to some extent for this by using Reference Level Offset. 

*_By speaker efficiency I mean how loud the speakers play for a given input, usually stated as something like 89dB/1w/1m, which means they play at 89dB for a 1 watt input when measured at 1 metre distance._

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ? See Points 4 & 5
Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?
What is Reference Level Offset in Dynamic EQ?

Further Reading:


Check out these line level attenuators at Parts Express
Attenuators also available at Amazon
For attenuators for those who use XLR cables, check these out
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Levels, Distance & Trim Settings' Section Header._

*F. Subwoofers & Bass*

*f)1. Why has Audyssey set my sub distance much greater than it actually measures?*

Subwoofers usually have internal processing in their amplifier circuits and this can cause a delay in the sound reaching the listener. Audyssey 'hears' when the actual sound arrives at the mic during testing and sets the distance accordingly. Because 'distance' really means 'delay' the setting Audyssey chooses for the sub distance is almost always greater than the physical distance of the sub. (In other words, if the sound is delayed, Audyssey sets the distance to be greater than reality so that the sound 'starts' earlier than it otherwise would). The aim is for the sound of the sub to arrive at the Main Listening Position at the same time as the corresponding sounds from the other speakers and Audyssey does this very well.

You may read that some advanced Audyssey users change the sub distance from Audyssey's recommendation to improve the splice' at the region of the Crossover between the sub and the main speakers, but this is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Bottom line: unless you know what you are doing, and have independent measuring equipment to verify it, leave the sub distance where Audyssey has set it. 

_If this answer helped you. please __*click here*__ to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)2. How do I connect and set up two subwoofers?*

This depends on which version of MultEQ you use. If you are fortunate enough to use *XT32*, then (with the exception of Onkyo's 818 unit) you have an AVR or prepro designed specifically to be able to EQ two subs thanks to the inclusion of an Audyssey feature called Sub EQ HT. XT32+Sub EQ HT measures the delays and levels of each sub _independently_ and then EQs them _together_ in the room as a pair. In this case, connect one sub to each sub outlet on your unit, tell your unit you have two subs connected (in the menus not by whispering into its grilles) and then run XT32, following the onscreen instructions. It is recommended to run identical subs or subs with very similar critical performance specifications because if one sub has significantly different (i.e. inferior) performance, the combined performance of the two subs could be degraded.

_NOTE__:_ _if you have the_ *Onkyo 818*_, this has a slightly different Audyssey implementation to other XT32-equipped units. It has a full implementation of XT32 but it does_ _*not*_ _have the SubEQ HT feature which every other (at the date of this FAQ edit) XT32-equipped unit has. SubEQ HT sets levels and distances individually and as this is not the case for the Onkyo 818, the setup procedure described in b) below should be used._

*If you have the MultEQ or MultEQ XT version of Audyssey, things are more complicated - see below.*

If you have an AVR with two sub outputs, the way these sub outputs is wired internally may fall into one of two categories: the two subs may be:

*a)* two genuinely independent sub outputs or they may simply be

*b)* connected internally as if by an 'internal Y-cord' (see below).

Consult your AVR user manual to determine which method your AVR uses.

If your AVR uses method a) above, then follow the procedure below. An example of AVRs using this method of connection is the Onkyo x007 range.

*Setup for 'method a)' AVRs:*

For AVRs wired by method a) you will get best results by connecting both subs to ONE outlet on your AVR with a Y-cord. This applies even if your unit has two sub outlets - simply use Sub Outlet A or 1. This is because these AVRs allow Audyssey to set the levels and distances separately for each sub, but also then go on to create individual correction filters for each sub separately. This is not ideal because we want the subs to be EQd as a pair, working together in the room, not as two distinct subs each "doing their own thing".

*Using a Y-Cord adapter:*

When you run MultEQ or MultEQ XT in this type of AVR, you will find that by using a Y-cord connector Audyssey now pings both your subs as if they are one and sets the level and distance as if they are one and then goes on to EQ them as if they are one. This also means that it is highly recommended to use identical subs, if possible, and place them equidistant from the Main Listening Position or very close together (collocated). Because Audyssey MultEQ XT cannot set the levels and the delays individually, you can see why it is a good idea for the subs to be equidistant from the Main Listening Position and identical to each other, or have very similar critical performance specifications. It is also important in these circumstances to have the two subs in an 'acoustically similar environment'. By this I mean that the subs should be placed symmetrically in the room. If one sub is in a corner, for example, and the other is in open space, they will react differently to the room and this could cause problems with level and even delay (distance) settings. Try to ensure that each sub is placed symmetrically in the room. (Thanks to AVS member skylinestar for bringing this last point to my attention.)

It is also important to set the levels on both subs so that they are the same, before you do the Audyssey calibration. One way to do this is to run a test tone from your AVR or a calibration disc with one sub switched off. Set the active sub so that it reads about 72dB using a Sound Pressure Level meter located at the Main Listening Position. Then switch that sub off and repeat the procedure for the second sub. It is vital that you do this step or your subs will be unbalanced'. If you aim for 72dB on each sub then you will allow for the greater output from the pair. MultEQ and MultEQ XT will adjust the sub trim to the appropriate level when doing the calibration.

*Setup for 'method b)' AVRs:*

For AVRs wired using method b), you may connect each sub to its own output on the back of the AVR. This is identical to using a Y-cord as described above. AVRs which use this method of wiring are all Denon units with Audyssey MultEQ or MultEQ XT and dual sub capability. Please follow the instructions under the heading _'Using a Y-cord adapter'_ above (but with each sub connected to its own AVR sub output of course).

*As a general rule of thumb, if you have MultEQ or MultEQ XT in your AVR and are unsure of how it is wired, use a Y-cord for best results.*

Some versions of MultEQ XT (eg Onkyo) allow for setting up dual subs with an on-screen configuration before the full set of measurements are taken. If so, then this is the best way to get the levels of the subs right before starting the calibration.

You will get better results if you are able to position the subs in the room in the best possible locations prior to running MultEQ or MultEQ XT. Sub positioning is outside the scope of this FAQ but there are many articles available on the net by googling.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


Home Theater Multiple Subwoofer Set-Up & Calibration Guide
Subwoofer Connection Guide For A Multi Subwoofer System
Are Two Subwoofers Better than One?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)3. How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?*

Many powered subwoofers have controls that are set manually. It's important to follow some simple guidelines to avoid having these controls interfere with proper subwoofer calibration and integration with the satellite speakers.



If your sub has a direct input (often called the LFE input) then always use that. That input bypasses any filters etc in the sub and ensures that the AVR or PrePro bass management works as intended.
If your sub does not have a direct input, then set the lowpass filter control on the sub to its highest position (often something like 150Hz). By doing so you will be sure that the internal filters do not interfere with anything that MultEQ does.
Some subs have a switch which disables any internal filters, often called something like a bypass or defeat control. If your sub has this then use this switch to set the internal filters to OFF. Consult your sub manual for more information.
It is important to set the gain (volume) control on your sub so that it is not too high. If it is set too high, then your AVR may run out of level correction range and hit the stops'. If that happens you have no way of knowing if the trim would have been set even lower if possible. Ideally, you should be looking for a final sub trim somewhere between -3.5dB and +3.5dB.

_*Technical Note: *There is another important reason why it is advisable to avoid maxing-out your sub trim, especially in the positive (+) range. In pro and consumer equipment, different components and manufacturers have different acceptable ranges for the signal inputs and outputs. Exceed this range and you will produce clipped signals in the chain. As outlined in *this article*, the ideal way to ensure that all your equipment is set up correctly as far as gain structure goes, is to actually measure the output and input ranges of all the components in your chain, but most folks aren't going to be doing that. In lieu of measuring the limits of the input and output ranges in each piece of equipment (specifically for the subwoofer in this case), the safer route is to adjust the subwoofer's gain so that the AVR's trim settings are centered, and not too close to the extreme ends of the range. This should ensure that you do not clip the input of your sub amp, which has the potential to damage it. (Thanks to AVS Member *djbluemax1* for this information). 

_
Set your subwoofer gain control to about 12 o'clock as a starting point. If MultEQ reports high negative trims - eg -12dB, then turn the sub gain control DOWN and run MultEQ again. Repeat until you are happy. Tip: to get the sub trim level adjusted correctly, you don't need to do a full calibration - just set the mic at the Main Listening Position and make the minimum number of measurements all from that one mic position. Once you have the sub set correctly, then run MultEQ using all available mic positions for your version.
If your sub has a phase control set it to 0 degrees prior to running the calibration.
If you use a tactile transducer (eg Crowther or Buttkicker), be sure to turn it off before running Audyssey.
If your sub has an 'Auto-on' setting on its power control, make sure to disable it by setting the sub to be always ON before running MultEQ. In other words, run the sub in its fully powered-on mode. If not, the sub might fail to 'wake up' when it is first pinged and this will throw off the calibration.
If your sub has its own internal EQ, you can either bypass it and rely solely on MultEQ to EQ your sub, or, if you wish, you can use your sub's internal EQ in conjunction with MultEQ. If the latter, then use the sub's internal EQ first and then run MultEQ as usual.
 
_If this answer helped you, please *click here *to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What do I do if my trim levels are at the limits of their adjustment ('maxed out')?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)4. If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?*

Many people prefer to run their subs a little hotter than Reference. That's fine but *remember to make the adjustment in the AVR or Pre-Pro trim settings and not on the sub itself.* This makes it easier to return to a known starting point if you decide to go back later. Adjusting the trims does not in any way invalidate the calibration but it may affect the way Dynamic EQ works (see elsewhere in this FAQ for more info - link below).

*There is one caveat to the advice above: if adjusting the AVR trims to make the sub hotter takes the final trim setting outside the +/-3.5dB recommended range, please read the information below.*

You may want to consider this comment from Ed Mullen, Director of Technology at renowned subwoofer manufacturer SVS:

_"A general rule when level matching the subs and the speaker channels is to run the gain hotter at the subs and the AVR sub trim level cooler. That keeps the AVR sub signal clean and allows upward adjustability to run the sub hotter if needed."_ 
In other words, if you prefer to raise the sub level above the 'Reference' level set after running Audyssey (i.e., run the subs 'hotter'), you should raise the sub gain control so that after running Audyssey, the sub level is set to a bigger minus value (eg. -9db). This will ensure that, after raising the sub volume using the AVR trim control to suit your 'Preference', the final sub trim level is still set to between +/-3.5db.

This advice is only for those who wish to run their subs hotter. The point of Ed's comment is that there are effectively two ways to achieve the objective of running the sub hotter:



One is to simply turn up the level on the sub trim in the AVR. But this could mean that you end up with a sub trim of something like +8dB, which is not a good idea for various reasons.
The other is to turn up the gain on the sub itself, but this is not recommended because it makes it more difficult to return the sub to its original Audyssey calibration level if required. Adjusting the sub trim in the AVR is functionally equivalent to adjusting the sub's gain, but also easily allows restoring the original setting.
 
So the best advice is to do what Ed suggests - *turn up the gain on the subs and then re-run Audyssey*. Because you have turned up the gain on the sub, Audyssey will set the trim on your AVR lower. This means you can then go into the AVR menu and turn up the sub trim level without exceeding the recommended -3.5dB-+3.5dB range.

*It is OK to ignore the initial level setting of 75dB for the subs. Repeat: It is OK to ignore the initial level setting of 75dB for the subs.*

When Audyssey runs, the first step is to set the subs to 75 dB. It is perfectly OK to ignore that suggestion, and in fact it is recommended that you do so, if you wish to run your subs 'hot' for preference. Instead, set them at around 83 to 85 dB. This will yield a -10dB or so subwoofer trim setting after Audyssey. This provides 10 db of headroom before you even get to 0dB on the trim scale, and _completely eliminates the possibility of overdriving the sub amp inputs_. This method is recommended by Mark Seaton, founder of Seaton Sound, the makers of the legendary Seaton Submersive subwoofers. 

For further clarification, Mark has posted the following:

_"The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but rather the possibility of increasing distortion or clipping on the subwoofer output from the receiver or preamp. The reason this is a concern for the sub channel relates to the amount of content directed there with 7 channels of redirected bass and a +10dB playback .1 LFE channel. I've observed it and measured the distorted signal, and a few others have taken many measurements to look more closely. Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range. Most subwoofers have plenty of gain available, and it's a simple matter of lowing the sub channel on screen and raising it back up at the subwoofer's volume dial."_

The reason for doing it this way is that the higher the sub volume is set, the lower will be the output level of the AVR line driver. That gives more headroom in the AVR line driver and more headroom in the input stage of the sub amp. The downside is that this also lowers the signal to noise ratio, but there tends to be very little noise with a sub anyway. _By and large you're best off to have the sub amp volume relatively high and the AVR sub out volume relatively low_.

(Thanks to AVS Members *Craig John* and *Bill Fitzmaurice* for their contributions to this answer)

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume
Reference or Preference - which is best?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)5. Since I ran Audyssey everything sounds great - but where has my bass gone?*

The most likely cause of weak bass is playing the system well below reference level. If your AVR includes Dynamic EQ, then turn it on and see if the bass comes in where expected. If there is no DEQ, then you must raise the subwoofer level yourself to get closer to correct spectral balance at moderate/low listening levels. (Thanks to AVS member *Roger Dressler* for this observation).

If you are listening at reference levels or have Dynamic EQ engaged and are still unhappy with your bass, chances are, if your calibration followed the FAQ recommendations, it hasn't gone anywhere. What you are now hearing is flat, 'reference' bass and this can take some time to get used to. Before you did your Audyssey calibration, chances are that room modes were causing large peaks and nulls in you bass response. If one or more of those peaks happened to coincide with a particular frequency that you experienced often - eg an explosion in an action movie - then that bass frequency would be exaggerated and you may have simply become used to it. When the peak is removed you can think something is 'missing'. The best advice is to listen for a week or two with the system exactly the way Audyssey calibrated it. Over this period you will become familiar with what flat bass sounds like - it will be 'tighter', 'leaner', more 'tuneful' and less 'flabby', 'boomy' or 'bloated'. If after listening for a couple of weeks you still feel that you would prefer a little more bass, then it is perfectly acceptable to turn up the trim in your AVR menu (see the specific question about that in the FAQ - linked below).

Most people find that Audyssey does a good job of correcting the bass in their room but do be aware that bass EQ gets better, the better version of MultEQ that you use. 2EQ, the entry level version, does not actually EQ the bass at all. MultEQ and MultEQ XT does a pretty good job and MultEQ XT32 does a superb job.

I recommend using music rather than a movie to evaluate your bass, as the bass in movies can 'come and go' quite quickly - also, you probably have a far better idea of what a bass guitar sounds like than what an explosion in the Nakatomi Plaza Building sounds like. A good instrumental track with a well played bass guitar or double bass will let you hear the difference Audyssey really makes. I usually use any track featuring Stanley Clarke on bass. You will hear every note, played at the loudness the musician intended, with no 'missing' or exaggerated notes. It should sound rhythmic and tuneful. Try turning Audyssey off and comparing the before and after!

Finally, remember that there is no substitute for getting your sub or subs placed properly in your room before running Audyssey. Audyssey cannot work miracles. Sub placement is outside the scope if this FAQ but if you google it there are numerous excellent guides out there. To start you off I've included a link below to a very good Audioholics article.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here*__ to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Reference or Preference - which is best?
If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?
Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?
 
Further Reading:


Audioholics Guide To Subwoofer Placement

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)6. My sub speaker distance setting is closer than the actual physical distance.*

It is perfectly normal for Audyssey to set the sub distance to _greater_ than the actual distance *(see e)1)*, but what if the sub distance is set _closer_ than reality? This can indicate a problem with the way the mic was used during calibration. If the mic was not used with a boom stand or tripod, for example, and was placed on a chair or hand held, then it is possible for spurious signals to adversely influence the calibration. For example, if your chair is placed on a wooden floor and the mic placed on the chair, then it is possible that bass signals travelling through the floor get into the chair and then into the mic. Because sound travels faster through wood than it does through air, this can cause a reported distance that is shorter than the physical distance between the mic and the speaker. If the sub distance is set short, Audyssey's advice is to measure the actual distance and to set the sub to that - but it is important that before doing so you have eliminated all possibilities of spurious signals mentioned above. _I cannot over-emphasise the importance of using a boom mic stand or tripod to hold the mic during the measuring phase._

Some designs of subwoofer do not introduce any delays of their own, and in those cases one would expect the reported sub distance to be the same as reality. If that is the case, and you know for sure that your sub is of such a design, then leave the distance setting as it is reported by Audyssey.

The following are all possible causes:



a. Holding the microphone in your hand.
b. Use of a subwoofer with a two-driver push-pull configuration. This is an unexplained phenomenon which has been noted by Audyssey.
c. Tactile transducers (e.g. Crowson, Buttkicker, etc.) left on when measuring.
d. Acoustical low-frequency noise in the room (e.g. projector fan, cable hum).
e. Electrical noise coming from another system component. The most common offender is the cable or other set-top box (STB). In several cases, disconnecting the STB from the system solved the problem.
f. The power supply of a computer connected to the same electrical circuit.
g. If you are certain the above scenarios (a. - f.) do not apply to your situation, then you can manually set the distance of the subwoofer in the AVR to the actual physical distance. Ensure you measure from the center of the subwoofer driver to the height of the microphone tip.
 
_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)7. What is ‘LFE + Main’ or ‘Double Bass’ and should I use it?*

The short answer is ‘No’ – you should not use these settings and, if you have a subwoofer, you should never set your speakers to ‘Large’. For the more detailed reasoning behind this, read on…

Denon units have a setting called ‘LFE + Main’ and Onkyo units call this ‘Double Bass’. They both set out to achieve the same thing. Before we look at the issues surrounding these settings, we need to clarify what your AVR manufacturer means when they say speakers are ‘Large’ or ‘Small’.

For starters, these designations have *nothing whatsoever to do with the physical size of your speakers*. In AVR-speak, ‘Large’ means “no bass management” and ‘Small’ means “bass management is used”. For our present purposes, ‘bass management’ means that you have a subwoofer and you want to send bass frequencies to it – usually all the frequencies below a certain crossover level that you have chosen (or which your AVR has chosen when you ran your Audyssey setup routine). Often this crossover will be 80Hz.

If you set your speakers to ‘Large’ then ordinarily no bass management at all is used. This means that your expensive subwoofer is doing nothing other than handling the relatively small amount of content in the LFE channel (the .1 in 5.1).

If , however, you decide to use a crossover to send the low frequencies to your subwoofer, then you will need to set the speakers to ‘Small’. In some AVRs, you don’t specify ‘Small’ – the very act of setting a crossover means that the speakers have been designated as small.

*However… what happens if you set your AVR to use the ‘LFE + Main’ or the ‘Double Bass’ setting?*

With Denon units, if you set the mains to "Large" and ‘LFE+MAIN’, the mains will receive the full frequency spectrum, and bass from the main channels will also be sent to the sub (LFE) simultaneously. The same thing happens with Onkyo units if you set ‘Double Bass’. In both cases you are now sending low frequencies to both the main speakers AND the subwoofer. The problem is, this is a really bad idea for the following reasons:



First, there is the possibility of phase cancellation when the main speakers and the subwoofer play the same bass frequencies.
 


Second, in the region where the frequencies overlap between the subwoofer and the main speakers, the bass frequencies are doubled and tend to become bloated, boomy, and exaggerated.
 


Also, the XT and MultEQ versions of Audyssey apply more correction filters to the subwoofer frequencies. If the same frequencies are sent to the main speakers and the subwoofer at the same time, you will apply higher resolution filters to the same frequencies in the subwoofer and lower resolution filters to the same frequencies going to the front speakers. When the two low frequency sources are combined, we will have unpredictable results to say the least.
 
_*Finally, read what Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey has to say on the subject:*_

_"LFE + Main should not even be an option because it just causes duplication of bass content by sending it to both the sub and any speakers set to Large (Full Range).

A "high ranking" official in a "well-known" AVR company told me that LFE + Main was invented to appease customers that were upset when their speakers were being set to Small. These customers had a complete lack of understanding of what Small means (i.e. turn on bass management and redirect the bass to the subwoofer) and felt... inadequate. LFE + Main allows them to set their speakers to a more manly Large and still have bass management. But it's a compromise that can cause boomy bass if the speaker and subwoofer overlap in the lower frequencies."_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


I have big tower speakers at the front. Shouldn't I set these to Large'?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)8. How does Audyssey handle complex multiple subwoofer setups?*

Serious AV enthusiasts are increasingly turning to multiple sub setups to obtain the ultimate in bass in their home theatres. Many of the latest AVRs and AVPs have dual sub outlets and, as explained elsewhere in the FAQ (see link below), Audyssey MultEQ XT32 usually comes with a feature called Sub EQ HT which handles dual sub setups very well.

But what if you have three or even four subs? While this is a subject for advanced users rather than newcomers, below you will find an 'executive summary' which gives a brief overview of what is involved in setting up an XT32/Sub EQ HT-equipped AVR with three or four subs.

Since Audyssey MultEQ XT32+Sub EQ HT allows for independent level-matching on the two sub channels*** found in the higher end AVRs and AVPs, it is important to gain-match the multiple subs on each channel prior to running the Audyssey calibration. Instructions for gain matching are given below. When gain-matching, try to establish a level such that no adjustment is needed when the Audyssey calibration presents its level-matching screen (i.e. within 2-3 dB of the 75dB Audyssey recommendation is in the ball park). Then proceed with the calibration, allowing Audyssey to set the levels and distances for each group of subs on the two sub channels. If the gain-matching was done properly, the resulting Audyssey levels should be somewhere in the trim range of -3dB to +3dB. 

_*** Onkyo's 818 unit is slightly different to most XT32-equipped units in that it features XT32 but does *not* include Sub EQ HT - see* here* for details._

_*Why gain match?*_

The goal of gain-matching is to ensure that all the subs are working equally. This ensures that they all have the same headroom and no sub will compress or distort before any other sub in the system. If one sub compresses/distorts before the other sub(s), it will be the "limiting factor" for the entire sub system. If you want to be able to use the full capabilities of all the subs in the system, and of the entire sub system, gain-matching is the only way to get there. If one sub is working harder than the other sub(s), either because its gain is set higher, or because it is receiving a stronger input signal, it will be the limiting factor for the entire system.

Audyssey doesn't use gain-matching. It uses level-matching. With level-matching, the input signals to the subs can be different, so even if you gain-match before running Audyssey, you won't be gain-matched after running Audyssey. For example, where Audyssey sets one sub 10 dB higher than the other, the higher set sub is using 10 times the amplifier power of the other subs... all the time. In addition, driver excursion will be tripled or quadrupled depending on driver size and frequency. *Here is a calculator* that shows the effect on driver displacement based on SPL and frequency. Check out what a 10 dB increase does to driver excursion.

After completing the Audyssey calibration, there are several tweaks you can make, depending on your preference:



Some users who gain-match recommend adjusting the Audyssey trim levels so that each sub channel has the same trim, which "preserves" the gain-matching. The technique used is to halve the difference between the two sets of trims, and add that distance to the lower trim and subtract that distance from the higher trim. For example, if your trims are -1 and -3, then add 1 to the -3 trim, and subtract 1 from the -1 trim, resulting in -2 on both channels.
 


Some users have found that adjusting the sub distance settings improves the flatness of the bass response around the crossover value. You need a measurement system like REW or OmniMic to conduct this tweak. A comprehensive explanation and documentation of this technique can be found in the *"Subwoofer Distance Tweak Procedure Guide"* document linked to in 'Further Reading' below.
 
_*Here is an outline of the gain-matching procedure:*_



Pick a spot in the center of your room away from the walls.
Move the first sub to that spot, and connect the audio and power cables.
Place the SPL meter immediately in front of the sub's cone, at a distance of 1-2 inches, centered on the cone.
Mark the position of the sub (using masking tape is a good way).
Run the sub channel level-setting tone from the AVR and adjust the sub's gain to the desired level (I use 90 dB).
Being very careful not to disturb the SPL meter's position, remove the first sub and replace it with the second sub. Make sure it is lined up exactly as the first sub with respect to the SPL meter.
Running the AVR test tone, adjust the second sub's gain to match the first sub's (90 dB).
Place the two subs back in the position you want them to be.
Run Audyssey room correction in the normal way.
Observe what trim level Audyssey sets in the AVR. Ideally, it should be in the -3 to +3 dB range. If it is too far towards either limit, go back to step 5 and use either a lower or higher target gain level, depending on your final results.
If the trim levels set by Audyssey are different for the two subs, then they are no longer gain-matched. To re-establish the gain-matched status, take 1/2 of the difference in trim levels, add it to the sub with lowest trim, and subtract it from the highest sub trim. Now the subs are gain-matched once again.

By using this procedure, you will ensure that both subs are outputting at the same level. Note that this procedure works best for identical subs.

_*I am indebted to AVS Members Craig John and AustinJerry for the above information.*_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


How do I connect and set up two subwoofers?
 
Further Reading:


Download the Sub Distance Tweak Procedure Guide (pdf)
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

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

_(The following text is provided with permission of *Craig John,* based on information originally supplied by *Mark Seaton*. Please note that Craig no longer has the SMS-1, nor the Onkyo Pro PRSC-885, so can no longer verify that the sequence works, or is, in fact, the optimal method. However, Craig does confirm that it worked at the time, and that the following is a good description of the method he was using.) _

When you add an SMS-1 to the system, you add another 'volume' control, as well as an EQ. You end up with 4 'volume' controls: the Master Volume Control on the AVR/AVP, the subwoofer trim control in the AVR/AVP, the SMS-1 Volume Control and the Volume Control on the sub itself. You need to set each one for the proper level. The procedure for setting the levels sequentially is given below. 

This setup is based on the following equipment lineup, but is adaptable to other systems: Dual Seaton Submersives, an SMS-1 and an Onkyo Pro 885 with Audyssey MultEQ XT. Here's how Craig set things up:



First, I set the SMS-1 to Preset 6, which bypasses the EQ. I set the Volume at 15. Then I set any other setting on Page 2 the way I want them. (I generally shut off the crossover, set the LPF to 5 Hz and 6 dB, Phase to "0", etc.)
Next, I set the subwoofer trim to "0" in the Onkyo Pre/Pro. Then, I turn on the Subwoofer Level Calibration tone, and, using an SPL meter at the primary LP, I set the subwoofers' volume control(s) so the SPL meter reads 75dB.
Next, I run Audyssey 8-position Room Correction. This sets the levels, distances, speaker types and crossovers. I try to adhere closely to the Forum Setup Guide when doing this.
When I'm finished, I check the subwoofer trim levels Audyssey set. It's always "0" +/- 3. I also check the crossovers, and I usually need to reset them. I usually raise them, (never lower), where needed.
Then I check the distance Audyssey sets for the subwoofer. It *should* be about 4 ft. longer than the actual measured distance. (This accounts for the "latency" in the SMS-1. It takes a few milliseconds for the SMS-1 to process the signal. Setting the 'distance' by ~ 4 ft. longer, delays the *speakers* by that same amount of time, getting them back into time alignment with the subs.
Next, I go to the SMS-1 and change from Preset 6 to Setup. I then use the manual EQ to smooth out any final FR abnormalities at the primary LP. I also check the EQ curve at the other listening positions to ensure I haven't made anything worse.
Last, I use the SMS-1 volume control to ensure the device has 'unity gain'. (The cuts and gains invoked by the EQ bands can change the overall volume level. Using the SMS-1's volume control gets the overall gain back to its original level, or 'unity gain'). To do this, I put the SPL meter back at the primary listening position and play the subwoofer calibration tone from the Onkyo. I reset the level of the sub(s) to 75 dB. At the same time, I re-check the levels of all the speakers to ensure they are all at 75 dB.
 
_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


How do I connect and set up two subwoofers?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*f)11. What is Audyssey Low Frequency Containment?*

Most people at some time or another have experienced problems with bass 'leaking' into surrounding rooms or even into neighboring properties. Mid-range and high frequencies are easily contained by walls, but bass frequencies pass right through them. Methods of preventing this leakage of bass into surrounding rooms and properties are usually very expensive and difficult, or impossible to achieve, as they involve physical construction methods which are not easily incorporated into an existing structure.

This is where Audyssey's *Low Frequency Containment (LFC)* technology comes in. Audyssey's research team isolated the range of frequencies that most readily pass through walls and floors and developed a process to reduce the volume level at those frequencies. By studying the acoustical characteristics of several typical wall-building materials, they created a transmission loss model. From this an algorithm was developed to analyze the low frequency signal in real time and limit the amount of bass that is physically reproduced. 

A proprietary psychoacoustic bass enhancement method is then used to recreate the rich low-frequency experience expected from a full-range system. The result is that Audyssey LFC reduces the transmission of low frequency sound through walls while retaining tonal balance and the perception of bass within the listening environment. 

Depending on the overall volume you're listening at, LFC eliminates almost all deep bass below 50Hz, and reduces bass frequencies up to 200Hz. Audyssey LFC isn't just a simple filter - it dynamically monitors low frequencies and engages only when it finds the offending frequencies are loud enough to annoy your neighbors. LFC works with subwoofers and large speakers and is turned on only when it's needed.

Because of the clever psychoacoustic programming involved with LFC, the listener still gets great enjoyment out of the bass content of his movie or music, while causing considerably less annoyance to neighbors.

Member AustinJerry has taken preout measurements showing exactly what LFC does and his graph is reproduced below, along with his original comments.










_"Measurement is taken from the Sub1 pre-out. LFC requires Audyssey to be engaged. DEQ and DVol are off, of course. At 20Hz, toggling through LFC values of 1,2,3, and 4 results in a decrease of -15dB, -20dB, -24dB, and -27dB, respectively. Pretty kind to the neighbors, I suspect. "_

We leave to individual users to decide if LFC is simply another marketing gimmick or it does anything that is of real value.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Subwoofers & Bass' Section Header._

*G. Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume*

*g)1. What is Dynamic Volume?*/

Dynamic Volume is an Audyssey technology which 'smooths out' the fluctuations between softer and louder sounds in your home theatre. If you are listening late at night and your movie contains a very wide dynamic range' (the ratio between the softest and loudest sounds in the content you are playing) you may have turned down the volume on the explosions in your movie, only then to find you have to turn it up again to hear the quieter dialogue. Dynamic Volume does it for you! Best of all, unlike older technologies that tried to do the same thing, Audyssey does it in 'real time' (hence the name 'Dynamic' Volume). It listens ahead to the content that is about to be played and adjusts for the peaks and troughs in real time. And it does it without changing the tonal balance of the original content too. It's like an automated volume control and is great for late night listening. You can set three levels of Dynamic Volume according to how much of the effect you want. Just experiment with it - there are no right and wrong settings.

_A useful tip is to just set the master volume control so that you can comfortably hear the dialogue in your movie_ - then turn on Dynamic Volume and you are good to go. If it's very late at night, select one of the more aggressive settings for Dynamic Volume such as 'midnight'. If it's early evening, set a less aggressive setting and so on.

This is how Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey's CTO, describes the different settings for Dynamic Volume:



*Heavy (Midnight):* This is the narrowest range. If you want to watch an action movie late at night
and not wake anyone, use this setting. Use it, too, for Super Bowl Sunday.
*Medium (Evening):* This is the most common setting and is the default we recommend. This is perfect
for daily television use, especially in a living room setting.
*Light (Day):* This setting offers the widest dynamic range. Use this when you pop in your latest movie
from Netflix after dinner. You won't miss a thing.
 
*On Denon AVRs (XX11/X91 and newer), after running AUTO SETUP, Dynamic Volume is set to Evening by default. Most find this setting works well for normal TV viewing (to tame obnoxiously loud commercials) and for late night movie viewing, setting it to OFF for normal movie viewing.*

For a lot more information on how Dynamic Volume works, see the Audyssey website linked below.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


Audyssey's Guide to Dynamic Volume

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume' Section Header._

*g)2. What is Dynamic EQ?*

Dynamic EQ is a totally different technology to Dynamic Volume and is designed to solve a different problem. The way that human hearing works means that the frequency of sounds changes as the loudness of those sounds gets higher or lower. As the volume level is reduced, our hearing means that the high and low frequencies diminish more rapidly than the middle frequencies. Also, sounds coming from behind diminish more rapidly too as you lower the volume level. You may have noticed how the bass, especially, 'disappears' as you reduce the volume level.

Movies are mastered at very high sound pressure levels with peaks reaching 105dB for the main content and 115dB for the bass! This is called 'reference' level. But we rarely listen at these levels in our own homes. This means that if we listen at, say, 20dB below 'reference' level this will affect the perceived balance of the frequencies that the sound mixer heard when he made the content. It will also affect the way we hear the surround sounds from the side and/or rear surround speakers.

Dynamic EQ was designed specifically to solve that problem. When Dynamic EQ is engaged, as you lower the volume away from 'reference' (ie master Volume of 0dB), Dynamic EQ continually adjusts the frequencies and surround levels to maintain the balance that the mixing engineer wanted you to hear.

Most people simply set Dynamic EQ to ON and leave it ON for all sources. It is automatically set to ON after an Audyssey calibration. But you can disable it in your AVR menus if you wish and hear the difference it makes when you are listening at normal home Sound Pressure Levels.

For a lot more information on how Dynamic EQ works, see the Audyssey website linked below.

*Special note with regard to certain Onkyo AVRs:*

It has come to my attention that some Onkyo AVRs (eg the 818 and 809 and maybe others) have implemented Dynamic EQ in a non-standard way, which is not recommended by Audyssey. This means that Dynamic EQ can be operated even if Audyssey MultEQ is switched OFF. 

As Audyssey say on their website, _"Audyssey Dynamic EQ is uniquely designed to work in conjunction with our award-winning room correction technology, Audyssey MultEQ. Before loudness correction can be implemented, the room must be corrected for both time and frequency domain problems."_ This means that if you wish to use Dynamic EQ in the way Audyssey designed it and intended it to be used, you must also enable Audyssey MultEQ. In properly designed AVRs you can *only* engage Dynamic EQ if Audyssey is also running: switching off Audyssey will also switch off Dynamic EQ and switching Dynamic EQ on if Audyssey is off will automatically switch Audyssey on. 

So the simple rule is: Audyssey MultEQ and Dynamic EQ need to be enabled together - do not run Dynamic EQ without Audyssey MultEQ even if your unit allows it.

The last word goes to Chris Kyriakakis, CTO of Audyssey, who says: *"It's a decision made by Onkyo. We don't recommend doing that (running Dynamic EQ with Audyssey MultEQ off) because the system will not be properly calibrated if you just turn on Dynamic EQ."*

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


Audyssey's Guide to Dynamic EQ

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume' Section Header._

*g)3. What is Reference Level Offset in Dynamic EQ?*

While Dynamic EQ works very well for movies, which are mixed at a known level ('reference level'), music has no such standards and is mixed at the whim of the recording engineer. This can cause a potential problem for Dynamic EQ because Audyssey has no idea how loud the original content was meant to be heard at, or how loud it was mixed at. For this reason, with music, you may want to choose a Reference Level Offset.

There are three offsets from reference level that you can select when the content has not been mixed to known standards:



0dB - Choose this setting for movies.
15dB - Choose this setting for rock music, pop music and other music with very highly compressed dynamic range (that is, there is little difference between the softest and loudest parts of the content. Think Metallica!).
10dB - Select this setting for Jazz etc where the dynamic range is wider and also for TV content as that is usually mixed at 10 dB below film reference.
5dB - Choose this setting for Classical music and any content that has a wide dynamic range.
 
What Reference Level Offset does is 'tricks' Audyssey into thinking you are using a higher Master Volume setting than you really are. At 0dB on your Master Volume scale, Dynamic EQ does nothing at all. If you select a Reference Level Offset of 10dB, then this becomes the new 'reference' level: Dynamic EQ will now have no effect at a Master Volume setting of -10dB rather than at 0dB. If you advance the Master Volume to _above_ Reference Level, Dynamic EQ will actually _reduce_ the level of bass to maintain 'perceptually flat' bass.

*There are graphs in the FAQ Technical Addendum which show the effect of RLO at various settings of Master Volume and RLO. These graphs can be viewed by clicking here.*

It's also worth mentioning that if you have raised the trim levels for your surround speakers or subwoofer for any reason after running Audyssey, you may want to consider trying a Reference Level Offset to tame the increased bass/surround boost because Dynamic EQ does not track those speaker/sub trim changes. In my own system, for example, I have raised my sub trim by +3dB and am also using a Reference Level Offset of 5dB. In my room, at my listening levels, this gives me the most satisfactory result.

Again, feel free to experiment with the different settings and choose the one that sounds the best to you. There are no right and wrong settings for Reference Level Offset.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


I keep reading about Reference Level'. What is it?
FAQ Technical Addendum on Reference Level offset, with supporting graphs.

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume' Section Header._]

*g)4. What's the difference between Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ & Reference Level Offset?*

_Still confused? This helpful and illuminating reply provided by AVS Member_ *djbluemax1* _may help:_

The basic underlying denominator for all Audyssey features is a flat frequency response at THX Reference standards, thus allowing your system (if it's up to the task) to reproduce the audio as the sound mixer intended.

Dynamic Volume basically limits the dynamic swings of the audio, basically compressing the dynamic range in real time. It is tuned towards vocal reproduction so using Dynamic Volume at a main volume below THX reference results in a boost to the vocals to maintain the clarity of speech, but limits how loud explosions etc. will get.

Reference Level Offset, or RLO, is there solely to account for the fact that only movies are recorded to THX Reference standards.

Reference Level Offset in effect is directly tied to Dynamic EQ.

Dynamic EQ was developed to automatically compensate for the way our hearing differs at different volumes. At lower than THX Reference volumes, human hearing tends to be less sensitive to the lowest and highest octaves. To reproduce a perceptually similar frequency response when the volume is turned down, you need to boost the lows and highs relative to the mids. The further you turn down the main volume, the more you need to boost those octaves.

Dynamic EQ is linked to the THX Reference standard so it does nothing when the main volume is set to THX Reference and has increasingly greater effect as the volume is turned down lower.

The Reference Level Offset adjusts 'how much' DEQ is applied - see g)3 above. 

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Dynamic EQ & Dynamic Volume' Section Header._

*H. MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?*

*h)1. Why do I need MultEQ?*

No normal room is acoustically perfect. Hard surfaces (such as furniture, walls, floors and ceilings) cause reflections when sound waves hit these hard surfaces and bounce off them. You hear these reflections a fraction of a second after the direct sound coming from your speakers and this causes a form of distortion - you hear it as 'muddying' or poor imaging, or boomy and flabby bass. At one time, the only way to control these distorting reflections was to 'treat' the room with specialised wall treatments and bass traps. While that might be acceptable in a room that is dedicated to a home theatre, it is rarely acceptable in a normal domestic environment. You may have seen the expression _'low WAF factor'_ where WAF stands for 'Wife Acceptability Factor' or 'Wife Approval Factor'.

Nowadays, thanks to digital electronics, MultEQ is able to analyse the reflections bouncing around in your room and correct the problems they cause. How MultEQ does this is explained in this section.

Before we move on, it is worth mentioning that MultEQ is not a substitute for room treatments and, where possible, treating the room will always yield substantial benefits and will help MultEQ do an even better job.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


A guide to room treatments by Ethan Winer

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)2. What is the difference between the various versions of MultEQ?*

There are four versions of MultEQ: in rising order of sophistication, they are 2EQ, MultEQ, MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32. Each version uses the same core science but each one is found in progressively more costly AVRs. So 2EQ is usually found in entry-level units while XT32 is found in 'flagship' units. Each version has different filter resolutions and the different versions also have different numbers of measuring positions for the Audyssey mic which comes with Audyssey-equipped units.

The various Audyssey versions sound distinctly different, with improved quality each step up from 2EQ-MultEQ-MultEQ XT-MultEQ XT32 (the last being the latest and greatest).

Here is a brief description of the four versions, highlighting their differences:



*MultEQ XT32.* This is Audyssey's flagship consumer room correction solution. It is the most accurate and uses more than 10,000 individual 'control points' which allows finer details of the room and its problems to be captured and corrected. XT32's ultra-high resolution filters are applied to ALL channels including the subwoofers where the most obvious benefits of room EQ can be heard and where correction is needed the most.

XT32's filter resolution for the satellite channels is 512x. For the subwoofer channels it is also 512x. XT32 uses a maximum of 8 measurement positions.
 


*MultEQ XT.* Still a very highly sophisticated system, XT is found in AVRs one step down from the very best units. The main differences between it and XT32 are: XT's filter resolution for the satellite channels is 16x compared with 512x for XT32. For the subwoofer channels it is 128x. XT uses a maximum of 8 measurement positions (see Note below). As you can see, the filter resolution is considerably less than XT32 in both the satellite and the subwoofer channels. 
Note: Please note that AVR manufacturers have some flexibilty in this regard. Denon, for example, has reduced the maximum number of mic positions on their XX13 XT models from 8 to 6 positions when using the Setup Wizard, but all 8 (recommended) can be done outside of the Setup Wizard. Marantz has also taken the same route with their 2012 models featuring XT.














*MultEQ.* This solution features2x filter resolution for the satellite channels, and the same 128x resolution for the subwoofer channels as XT. MultEQ allows for 6 mic positions.
*2EQ.* This is a very basic version of MultEQ found in entry-level AVRs. It uses a very basic filter resolution for the satellite channels and applies no correction at all to the sub channel. 2EQ uses only 3 mic positions for measuring the room and speakers. My recommendation to anyone using a 2EQ-equipped unit would be to upgrade as soon as funds allow.
 
All versions of MultEQ above feature Adaptive Low Frequency Correction with the exception of 2EQ and all four versions check Crossover, speaker polarity, delays and levels.

There is a Professional version of MultEQ called MultEQ Pro (which is also available to consumers). This version runs on a laptop computer, comes with a higher quality individually calibrated mic and offers up to 32 mic positions. This highly sophisticated version of MultEQ will run only on Pro-ready AVRs and AVPs - using the AVR's or AVP's on board version of Audyssey. For further details see this specialist part of the FAQ, here.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Addendum: Are there any significant differences between MultEQ XT32 and MultEQ XT/MultEQ/2EQ?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)3. How does MultEQ differ from my old graphic equaliser'?*

There's really no comparison. As we will read below, many of the problems which need correcting lie in the 'time domain', but parametric and graphic equalisers can only correct for the frequency response. Even then they are a very coarse solution because they have very limited resolution, or 'bands'. If you have used a graphic equaliser before, you will know they usually have about a dozen 'bands'. Compare that to XT32's more than 10,000 control points and 512x filter resolution!

Their 'bands' also cause phase problems and these are heard as 'ringing' (when the sound carries on after it should have stopped) or 'smearing' (when the uncorrected reflections cause sounds to run into each other). Both ringing and smearing will cause a loss of precision to the sound, with vague imaging and a general lack of clarity.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)4. How does MultEQ differ from other room equalisation methods?*

You may have seen some AVRs that feature proprietary room correction methods designed by the different AVR manufacturers themselves.

Audyssey MultEQ differs from many of these in two important ways: in the way it actually measures the room and in the way it corrects in both the time and frequency domains.

Some systems, for example, attempt to correct for only one seat in the room. Usually this makes the other seats in the room sound worse than before the correction was attempted! This is because a single measurement cannot provide an accurate representation of the problems of the entire room.

Other systems do try to correct for the multiple seating positions most of us have in our home theatres. But they usually use a crude form of 'averaging'. This can never work very well for one obvious reason: imagine a room with a typical problem where there is a 5dB peak at 400 Hz in one seat and a 5dB dip at 400 Hz in another seat. On an averaging system these two measurements cancel each other out and so no correction is made despite two very obvious problems.

In both cases above, these systems only attempt to correct frequency response problems and not time domain problems. It's like doing just half of the job and will never yield truly satisfactory results.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


A comparison of Audyssey MultEQ XT32, 2EQ, Yamaha YPAO and Pioneer MCACC (In Russian - use Google Translate)

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)5. What does correcting in the 'time and frequency' domains mean?*

This is at the heart of Audyssey MultEQ room correction and the best way to answer this is to quote directly from Audyssey themselves:

_MultEQ looks at patterns in the time domain responses and classifies them into clusters based on the similarities in those patterns, typically in 3-5 groups. A representative response is created from each cluster, and a final response is then created from grouping the representatives. That response is then used to create the EQ filter. It is a complicated process based on the complex mathematics of pattern recognition and fuzzy logic._

_*How does MultEQ address time and frequency problems?*_

_MultEQ filters start in the time domain. They aren't just a few parametric bands. Instead they use several hundred points to represent the room response in both the frequency and time domains.

The trick is to use enough filter points to get the needed resolution but not so many that it overwhelms the processor inside the audio component. So we came up with a way to reduce the number of points without sacrificing accuracy while providing more filter power at lower frequencies where it's needed the most. MultEQ can correct 8 channels by using only a fraction of a single DSP chip. This gives you the best of both worlds: time and frequency correction. _ 

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)6. Does MultEQ measure anything else?*

Yes. While measuring mic position number one (the one at the Main Listening Position), MultEQ checks the absolute polarity of the system and reports if any speakers are wired incorrectly. It also measures the acoustical distance to each speaker and it does this to an amazing accuracy of one quarter of an inch (6.3mm). It then sets the levels (trims) for all channels including the subwoofer. Finally, MultEQ finds the best Crossover frequency between each satellite channel and the subwoofer and passes that information to the bass management system of the AVR.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)7. If I have MultEQ in my AVR, can I forget about room treatments?*

The simple answer to this is *'No'*. In an ideal world, we would position our speakers - and especially our subwoofers - in the perfect position for optimizing the sound quality in our rooms; we would also apply room treatments and bass traps wherever they were needed to tame unwanted reflections and room modes. However, in reality, we usually have to compromise to satisfy aesthetic demands or those of our patient wives, girlfriends or partners. Many of us have to share our major living space with our home theatres and few are lucky enough to have dedicated cinema rooms. This is why electronic EQ was invented!

But as good as electronic EQ is, it is no substitute for room treatments and optimum speaker and sub placement. If you can get the room right before you run Audyssey, then you will enjoy an even better calibration as a result. Have a look at the 'Further Reading' links at the end of this answer for more information on understanding and improving your room.

*What kind of problems can my room cause?*

The listening room is arguably the most important component in your system because of the way it affects sound - at least as important as speakers, electronics, sources and cables - yet the listening room is often the most neglected component. All speakers interact with the room and create everything from boomy-sounding bass to shrill sounding highs.



Room reflections are caused by sound, mostly high frequencies, reflecting off adjacent walls and combining with the direct sounds you hear from the speakers. In most cases, you hear more reflected than direct sounds. The reflected sounds reach your ears milliseconds later than the direct sounds because they travel a longer distance. In general, sound reflections have the potential to degrade imaging, sound staging and the overall tonal quality, important characteristics of a good sound system. A simple way to locate the reflection points in your room is to have a friend hold a small mirror against the wall while you are seated in your Main Listening Position. Have the friend move the mirror around the wall until you can see the speaker in the mirror. The location of the mirror is a reflection point.
Room resonances are sound waves generated by the speakers from 20Hz to about 300Hz. The frequency of the resonances are based on the dimensions (length, width and height) of the listening room. A room resonance either reinforces or attenuates bass frequencies and the most common symptom is heavy or muddy bass, or conversely, thin, weak bass. A typical room will have boomy bass somewhere between 50Hz and 70Hz. There is an easy way to identify the resonances in your room using a room acoustics calculator. Clicking on the link below will download such a calculator as an Excel file. Enter the dimensions of your room (height, width and length) and the calculator will determine the problem frequencies. Correct speaker placement can help prevent or control many of these problems. Room acoustic treatments are another step towards creating a good listening room with great sound.
 
*So what can room treatments do that electronic EQ can't?*

There are various ways in which room treatments can help solve problems which electronic EQ systems might struggle with. For example, nulls in a room are at least as damaging as peaks, and there are many deep nulls that EQ cannot improve by much if at all. Applying enough EQ boost in an attempt to counter a typical null that's 20 to 30 dB deep will just overload your power amp and likely blow up your loudspeakers. Fortunately, you will be pleased to learn that Audyssey is aware of this and takes steps to prevent it happening! Audyssey never attempts to make corrections below the -3dB roll off of any speaker it examines during the measuring phase. In other words, if Audyssey detects that your speaker or sub response is 3dB down at, say, 20 Hz (in the case of a sub) then it will apply no further correction below that point. Audyssey also limits the amount of boost it can apply to any null, for similar reasons. So while it is relatively easy to tame peaks by cutting them down, it is much harder to correct for nulls. In these circumstances, optimising speaker placement and using treatments and bass traps are much more likely to smooth out any deep nulls in your room. If you can achieve this prior to running Audyssey you make it much easier for Audyssey to give you a superb calibration - the icing on the cake if you will.

Similarly, bass traps will always improve the sound for all locations in the room, whereas electronic EQ systems invariably have to compromise in order to achieve a reasonable response across multiple seat locations.

*In conclusion.*

Audyssey will do a superb job of improving the sound degradation which all rooms cause. Audyssey helps us get great sound in normal living rooms where treatments and bass traps are difficult to use for aesthetic reasons. But, if you can, applying room treatments will help Audyssey do an even better job. And placing your speakers and your subwoofer(s) in or close to their ideal locations is something that many of us can do fairly easily - also helping Audyssey work even better for you.

_(Thanks to About.com for the information on room reflections and room resonances in this answer)_

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

Further Reading:


A guide to room treatments by Ethan Winer
Download the Harman room acoustics calculator here
Bob Gold's Room Modes Calculator - note, only for the brave!
Loudspeakers and Rooms - Working Together by Floyd E. Toole, Ph.D (PDF)
Low-Frequency Optimization Using Multiple Subwoofers by Todd Welti and Allan Devantier (PDF)
A New Approach To Small Room Acoustics by Ethan Winer

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*h)8. Is it possible to independently evaluate what Audyssey MultEQ has done in my room?*

This question arises from time to time, and the answer is that, yes it is. However you will need measuring software such as Room EQ Wizard (REW) and a calibrated mic to use with it.

This issue was raised with Chris Kyriakakis on Facebook's Audyssey Technical Queries page so we can get the answers we need directly from the source.

Chris was asked how to do a weighted measurement to check results with emphasis on the MLP. To this, Chris responded that, since most measurement softwares (like REW) don't allow weighted measurements: 

_"A simple way around that would be to just take 3-4 measurements in the MLP and add in the rest. The RMS average would be weighted more for the MLP". _

With this "weighting" method Chris was speaking in context of checking Audyssey's results overall, to which he said:

_*"The best way to check what MultEQ did is to use an RMS average by placing a calibrated mic in the exact same mic positions used during the MultEQ calibration". *_

(Clearly, in this context Chris is using "best" in a relative sense, meaning 'best for the home enthusiast without more sophisticated tools than REW or similar and a calibrated mic'. There may be better ways for professionals with access to sophisticated measuring systems to measure what Audyssey has done by way of correcting the in-room response.)

So in other words: If you want to check what Audyssey has done, do an RMS average of measurements taken at the same places where you put the mic when running Audyssey. If you want to "cheat" and weight this rough check to emphasise MLP, just do a few extra measurements at MLP.

Chris was also asked what kind of RMS average would most closely correlate with what we hear?" To which he responded with what he termed the "quick and dirty" method of using:

_"A diamond shape (4 positions) centered at the center of the head, head size diamond, no center mic position". _

So in other words: If you want to measure approximately what you are hearing, do an RMS average of four measurements in a diamond pattern around where your head would be.

Thanks to AVS member batpig for asking the questions on Facebook and for providing most of the commentary above.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'MultEQ: What Is It, How Does It Work?' Section Header._

*J. Audyssey DSX Questions*

*j)1. What is Audyssey DSX and how does it work?*

Dynamic Surround Expansion (DSX) is a proprietary Audyssey technology which lets you augment a standard 7.1 channel surround setup with two ‘Wide’ channels and/or two ‘Height’ channels. Two extra speakers expand the width of the soundstage (Wides) and/or two extra speakers expand the height of the soundstage (Heights), all of which is designed to help produce a more realistic and immersive listening experience.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)2. How many channels of amplification do I need to run DSX?*

Some DSX-equipped AVRs only allow you to choose *either* Wides *or* Heights but not both at the same time, some allow you to choose both and some only allow you to choose both if you have some additional external channels of amplification. Check your AVR manual to see which category your equipment comes under. Whatever you have it is clear that if you want to run Wides and Heights each set will require its own amplifiers, so two additional amp channels will be needed for the Wide set of speakers (one for left, one for right) and two for the Height set. This means that to run a conventional 7.1 setup with both Wides and Heights, you will need eleven channels of amplification (11.1). If you wish to run Wides *or* Heights, you will need nine channels of amplification (9.1). So however your particular AVR is configured, it will always require 9 or 11 channels of amplification if you wish to run the additional DSX channels. If you are prepared to sacrifice the Rear Surround channels, some AVRs allow you to assign them to Wides or Heights in which case a 7.1 system can cater for either Wides or Heights without any additional channels of amplification.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)3. Is there any specific content designed for DSX?*

No. There are no ‘DSX movies’. DSX ‘creates’ the additional Wide or Height channel content out of the cues which already exist in conventional 5.1 or 7.1 sources – i.e. disc or TV etc. You do not have to look out for any special format or encoding of the disc – DSX will work with any current 5.1 or 7.1 content. Some will give more of the ‘effect’ than others, depending on the original content.

DSX is designed to enhance the reproduction of _surround_ content. It is not designed to expand two channel content. This means that it works best with original, discrete, 5.1 surround content. However, DSX will also work in conjunction with any upmixing method which produces 5.1 from two channel content, such as Dolby PLIIx for example.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)4. If I can choose only one – Wides or Heights – which should it be?*

If your AVR will only allow you to run Wides or Heights, but not both, Audyssey recommends that you choose Wides, should your room layout permit of course. Many people find it easier to accommodate Heights than Wides, so your own usage will in part at least be determined by your room and the acceptability to your other family members of additional speakers. Height speakers are less obtrusive and easier to accommodate than Wides, so this may influence your decision. Wides and Heights work independently of each other, so you do not need to have one to enjoy the other.

However, if you are able to choose only one, Audyssey is adamant that you should choose ‘Wides before Heights’ as they are wont to say.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)5. Isn't Audyssey all about reducing the impact of unwanted reflections, not creating more?*

Yes, Audyssey MultEQ room correction has, as a major design goal, the objective of reducing the colorations and distortions caused by unwanted reflections in acoustically untreated rooms. So it may seem odd that DSX is all about creating additional reflections in order to enhance the sense of immersion. The key word is ‘unwanted’. Some reflections, from certain directions, at certain levels, can be seen as desirable in that they enhance listening pleasure, creating a wider apparent source width of the soundstage for example. Other, random reflections, as typically found in most normal domestic living rooms, degrade the listening experience and this is what MultEQ attempts to minimise their impact.

So DSX attempts to create the more desirable reflections ‘synthetically’ and, since those desirable reflections come primarily from the sides, this is why Audyssey recommends Wides before Heights if you can choose only one set. DSX looks at the content in real time and extracts from it the cues that we perceive from optimal side wall reflections. This information combines with the direct sound from the front and gives us an enhanced sense of soundstage width.

The second most important direction for desirable reflections, according to Audyssey, is from above and this is where DSX Height channels come into their own. Oddly perhaps, Audyssey says that their stated intention with the Height channels is not to add impact to sounds coming from overhead (the proverbial helicopter fly-past) but to add to the sense of increased soundstage _depth_.

Finally, DSX performs additional real-time processing to ensure that sounds coming from these additional channels cannot produce a stereo image which would fight against the original stereo image created by the right and left speakers.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)6. Where should I place my speakers for Wides and Heights to get the best effect?*

Audyssey recommends that the Wide speakers are placed along the side walls at an angle of 60 degrees out from the centre channel speaker. An easy formula for calculating the optimal position is to measure the distance from the centre speaker to the left speaker and then double it. That is where the Left Wide speaker should be placed. Do the same for the right side. It is important that the Wides are clearly separated from the Left and Right speakers or the effect of greater apparent source width will not work properly. If you cannot get the locations of the two Wide speakers to the correct places, then you may be able to still enjoy a good effect if they are not too far off the ‘ideal’ spots. But if you cannot get them in roughly the right locations it may be better to not bother using Wides at all as the effect will be unpredictable and could even disrupt the main left-right imaging (if the Wides are too close to those speakers for example).

Note that by following the guideline for angular separation of 60 degrees, this may place your Wide speakers on the front wall or the side wall, depending on the size of your room. This is perfectly correct and MultEQ will compensate for the different distances to the MLP when you run Audyssey.

For Heights, Audyssey recommends creating as much vertical separation as possible from the front Left and Right speakers and putting the speakers to the left and right of the main speakers as much as practically possible (avoiding putting them hard in corners). This means that the best place for the Heights is on the front wall, near the ceiling, pointing towards the listener, and outboard of the main Left and Right speakers. Some users have found that Height speakers placed high on the side walls, at an angle of roughly 45 degrees from the MLP, also works well.

When you run MultEQ after installing your Wides or Heights, it will measure the distances from the MLP to all speakers and set them appropriately for both distance and level.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j7). What kind of speakers should I use with DSX?*

Audyssey DSX synthesizes both direct and ambient content for the Wide and Height speakers and so the speakers need to be direct radiators and not dipoles. It is best, where possible, to use speakers from the same manufacturer, or from the same ‘family’ of speakers to ensure the best possible timbre match.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here *to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)8. Are there any negatives to using DSX?*

Some people complain that DSX makes the presentation of their listening experience too front-centric and so spoils to some extent the sense of all-round envelopment that a good 7.1 system gives. Others report the opposite and claim they feel more immersed in the content. Clearly this is a ‘preference’ area so nobody is right or wrong. I suggest you try to hear DSX in action before committing yourself to expensive new speakers and the effort of installing them. If that isn’t possible, at least canvass the opinions of people already using Wides and/or Heights so you can make a more informed decision.

As part of Audyssey’s aim of creating this enlarged front soundstage, it has also been a requirement that DSX reduces the level of the Surround Channels by approximately 3dB, so users should take that into account and they may wish to raise their Surround levels a little when using DSX by way of compensation. Again, YMMV.

Also, because of the way DSX works – by synthesizing reflections from the Front L&R channels – if dialogue pans to those channels it will sound distinctly odd.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


What are the differences between DSX and these other technologies?
 
_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)9. Are there any other technologies that do a similar job?*

Yes. DTS has its own 11.1 version called DTS Neo:X and Dolby has a Heights-only version called Dolby PLIIz. Both of these alternative technologies work in a different way to DSX and listeners may prefer one over the other. I suggest researching these alternatives on the DTS and Dolby websites and on the internet in general. Many AVRs have all three technologies so users can switch between them and form their own conclusions as to which works best for them.

Coming soon may be even more sophisticated audio systems such as Auro 3D and Dolby Atmos and these may render all of the above technologies obsolete. But as you will have to replace your AVR to enjoy these new, as yet unavailable (in the home) technologies, this is, currently at least, moot.

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*j)10. What are the differences between DSX and these other technologies?*

The main difference between DSX and other processing technologies that go beyond 7 channels (eg Dolby PLIIz and DTS Neo:X) is the approach. The latter two *extract* content from the recording itself while Audyssey *generates* early reflections (based on concert hall acoustics) that weren't in the original recording.

The content that DSX uses to generate early reflections is taken from the Front L&R channels exclusively. Unlike the extraction methods of PLIIz and Neo:X, which look at the phase & intensity relationship between two (or more) channels, DSX processes the Front Left channel and Front Right channel independently, sending the processed signals to each channel's respective Wide and/or Height speakers.

Since DSX expands the Front L&R areas of the soundstage horizontally and vertically, it can sound strange with 2-channel material, where vocals are mixed to both channels (as is common practice). Because of this, Audyssey doesn't allow DSX to be applied directly to 2-channel material. Instead, centre-imaged content has to be extracted out first (using any surround processing, like PLII or Neo), and then DSX can be applied.

This is not a problem with multi-channel movie soundtracks, where dialogue is typically mixed to the centre channel and won't be processed by DSX. However, for soundtracks with steered dialogue (e.g. Pixar movies), vocals moving off centre will appear to stretch out horizontally and vertically with DSX.

Early reflections that arrive shortly after the direct sound are often suppressed by our human hearing mechanism. In fact, early reflections can be up to 10dB louder than the direct sound before they are heard as distinct sounds (separate events). To address this natural suppression, DSX reduces the Front L&R speaker levels by 3dB, making the Wide and Heights more audible by comparison (although they still won't appear louder than the L&R speakers because their signals are delayed compared to the L&R channels).

To further highlight the front soundstage, DSX also reduces the levels of all the Surround speakers by 3dB. On top of that, it also decorrelates surround signals (similar to THX post-processing), to reduce distinct imaging/localization in the surround field and keep attention focused up front. This is consistent with Audyssey's front-centric approach and priorities: for example, if you have 9 speakers, Audyssey recommends using a full 7 of them up front and reserving only 2 for surround duties. Many listeners will have a different set of priorities from Audyssey’s in this regard, so again it is necessary to stress that these technologies are largely about preference and what some will like, others will dislike. 

(Thanks to AVS member *sdurani *for the bulk of this answer)

_If this answer helped you, please *click here *to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'thumbs up'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See Also:


Are there any negatives to using DSX?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey DSX Questions' Section Header._

*K. Audyssey and Dolby Atmos*

*k)1. How do I place the mic for Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers?*

If you have read this section, you will have seen the advice to always place the mic pointing directly up to the ceiling. However, if you have an Atmos setup using 'Top' (in-ceiling or on-ceiling) speakers, does this advice still apply. 

Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey gave the following information when asked about this:

_"The only time this would matter would be when a speaker is directly above the microphone. I suppose this can happen with some of the ceiling speakers, but in reality the difference will be very small and concentrated in the very high frequencies. A slight tilt back of the mic could achieve the same purpose."_

So it seems that we need not worry unduly and follow the standard mic placement advice when using Dolby Atmos ceiling speakers.

(Note: This answer is applicable at 30 July 2014 and will be updated as more Dolby Atmos information becomes available.)

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

See also:


Where should I position the mic for best results?

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey and Dolby Atmos' Section Header._

*k)2. Will Audyssey work properly with Atmos-enabled speaker designs?*

'Atmos-enabled' speakers or modules work by 'beaming' height content at the ceiling and allowing it to be reflected from it. The issue is whether Audyssey will 'see' this reflected content for what it is - intended content - or whether it will 'see' it as unwanted reflections which should be suppressed if possible.

Atmos-enabled speakers work by using a special, top-mounted speaker driver, designed specifically to have narrow directivity and to suppress forward-firing 'leakage' of the sound intended to hit the ceiling. This is coupled with special DSP inside an Atmos-enabled AVR which further suppresses any unintended leakage of forward content. All who have heard this system say it works remarkably well.

Given that, Audyssey should 'see' only the reflected content as its sound wave hits the Audyssey mic and one would therefore expect Audyssey to be able to handle this as though the sound was originating from a 'real' ceiling speaker. If that is the case, then Audyssey should be able to calibrate the Atmos-enabled speaker just as it does any other speaker in the system. At this time, no further information is available.

(Note: This answer is applicable at 30 July 2014 and will be updated as more Dolby Atmos information becomes available.)

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey and Dolby Atmos' Section Header._

*k)3. Will a calibration include the added speakers in the Atmos configuration?*

Direct from Audyssey:

_"MultEQ will support all new channels. Audyssey will support any number of channels the AVR maker sends our way". _

(Note: This answer is applicable at 30 July 2014 and will be updated as more Dolby Atmos information becomes available.)

_If this answer helped you, please *click here* to take you to the bottom of the post where you can leave a 'like'. It's the only way we can evaluate how useful the FAQ is, so a few seconds of your time would be greatly appreciated - thanks!_

_Go back to top._
_Go directly to the FAQ Questions & Answers._
_Go back to 'Audyssey and Dolby Atmos' Section Header._

*Thank you for visiting the Auydyssey FAQ! If the FAQ has helped you, please click the 'Like' button on the bottom right. Thanks!*


----------



## Mike Lang

Continued from "Official" Audyssey thread.


----------



## asere

Wow a part 2. I'm sure we'll see 3 and 4 later on lol.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> Wow a part 2. I'm sure we'll see 3 and 4 later on lol.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Nice to see you here asere!


----------



## mogorf

Mike Lang said:


> Continued from "Official" Audyssey thread.


Thank you Mike, appreciated! Take care!


----------



## Alan P

Yeah! New thread!!


----------



## mthomas47

Mike Lang said:


> Continued from "Official" Audyssey thread.



You don't fool around!


----------



## garygarrison

This is my first post in Part II. I will try:


Posting without quoting -- if you are reading this, it worked.
Editing -- if you do not see the attribution of the following paraphrase, it worked: "Not everything that is important is measurable, and not everything that is measurable is important"
Making a point -- I would never want to give up the clarity I get with Audyssey. Any harshness in my room is really more like a lack of balance of bass relative to both midrange and treble. This is easy to fix by turning up the sub a bit, or, with some program material, turning up the bass control on FL and FR (not the sliders).


----------



## mogorf

Hey, now there is no Edit/Quote/Multi Quote/ Quick Reply button in the old Audyssey Part I thread. How can we follow up some recently started posts from over there?


----------



## Mike Lang

You can still manually quote and link to any post in any thread on the site if need be.


----------



## mogorf

Mike Lang said:


> You can still manually quote and link to any post in any thread on the site if need be.


Sorry Mike for my ignorance, but how does one quote "manually" if there is no quote button? You know I'm a new kid on the block!  Thx.


----------



## Mike Lang

There are quote and insert link buttons in the editor.


----------



## D Bone

Thanks Mike!!


----------



## Defcon

Please add link to the actual FAQ since its not easy to find, the title says 'FAQ in post 51779' but there's no way I know to directly enter that post number. Here's the link - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1295.html#post21782993

I'm new to Denon and Audyssey, I just finished Audyssey calibration on my X2200w. So this is probably answered somewhere in the FAQ or old thread, please forgive me since I didn't find it.

Audyssey reduced levels of all my speakers by -5/-8 dB. I read in the FAQ that its ok to change the levels after calibration but its not clear if this impacts Audyssey? I'm trying to see what effect MultiEQ XT has by turning it on/off. When I turn it off, the volume is much lower because the levels have been turned down. But when I turn it on to Flat/Reference, why does the volume go up? Turning DynamicEQ on makes it even louder.

And setting Dynamic Volume to Off makes things less loud, while the default (Evening) sounds the loudest. I'm not sure what's going on here.


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> Sorry Mike for my ignorance, but how does one quote "manually" if there is no quote button? You know I'm a new kid on the block!  Thx.





mogorf said:


> copy the text from original thread and type in a new post in this thread, in brackets, not quotes, "quote=(User ID)" paste copied text here .. and end the quote with a left bracket then /quote followed by a right bracket


See, we can make Feri say anything!


----------



## CherylJosie

Defcon said:


> I'm new to Denon and Audyssey, I just finished Audyssey calibration on my X2200w. So this is probably answered somewhere in the FAQ or old thread, please forgive me since I didn't find it.'


You mean you did not read all 79,638 comments on the original thread? Shame!



> Audyssey reduced levels of all my speakers by -5/-8 dB. I read in the FAQ that its ok to change the levels after calibration but its not clear if this impacts Audyssey? I'm trying to see what effect MultiEQ XT has by turning it on/off. When I turn it off, the volume is much lower because the levels have been turned down. But when I turn it on to Flat/Reference, why does the volume go up? Turning DynamicEQ on makes it even louder.
> 
> And setting Dynamic Volume to Off makes things less loud, while the default (Evening) sounds the loudest. I'm not sure what's going on here.


Audyssey ships with two target responses: flat (or 'music' in Onkyo terminology) and reference (or 'movie' in Onkyo terminology.

Flat is just that, flat measured response across the frequency spectrum, and is much brighter than the sound character that a speaker normally acquires when placed into a confined space that humans are adapted to psychoacoustically. This is the problem that many have with Audyssey room EQ, it sounds too bright to them and they are technically correct in that assessment.

Reference target is slightly attenuated in the treble to try and compensate for the psychoacoustics, but the shape of the attenuation seems to be less than ideal and too mild as well as too limited in range for most tastes. Even so, many people find it helps to use Audyssey because it does smooth the ripple in the frequency response while also tilting the tonal balance toward the treble. Sometimes that smoothing is really helpful, and sometimes the speakers naturally have a bright sound anyway in the particular room, so the flattish reference EQ target can naturally work OK in some systems/rooms.

The receiver relies on Audyssey measurements in quick cal to set levels, subwoofer phase, and crossover frequencies. In full cal, Audyssey also adds the room EQ filter calibration to align the in-room frequency response to the Audyssey canned target response, and tweaks the levels if necessary to re-normalize the target response to industry-standard movie reference level post-EQ.

Not sure what canned EQ target the quick cal result uses, but fairly sure the full cal uses the 'music' or 'flat' target for the cal since that is the simplest way to handle it. I suspect that selecting the 'reference' or 'movie' target just adds the 'reference' or 'movie' target customizations on top of a flat cal if desired, rather than vice versa.

When you run your full setup rather than the quick setup, your receiver might ask you whether you want to use the default reference/movie target, or override it with the flat/music target, or disable Audyssey entirely. You can manually select any of the three if you like at any time, but the default is what you will get when you switch your source selector between inputs. If Audyssey room EQ works for you, you should probably select the reference/movie target that the setup routine defaults to because that target is naturally going to work better in most scenarios.

The full setup might also ask you if you want Dynamic EQ enabled by default, and the default choice in the setup routine is probably going to be enabled.

For the technical background on Dynamic EQ, you need the following article from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour










> An *equal-loudness contour* is a measure of sound pressure (dB SPL), over the frequency spectrum, for which a listener perceives a constant loudness when presented with pure steady tones.


So from this info it is apparent that the Dynamic EQ function relies on the calibrated reference level in order for the volume control setting to actually represent the same post-cal level every time the cal completes. Shifting the trims up or down will alter that reference level, resulting in too much or too little EQ being applied by the Dynamic EQ control.

Even though I do not use Audyssey Room EQ, I do use Dynamic EQ. My receiver allows me to disable the Room EQ but still enable Dynamic EQ, something that Audyssey claims is invalid (but it works fine even without any room EQ let alone with graphic EQ). Lower level receiver models probably will not let you select Dynamic EQ without also using room EQ.

If you leave Dynamic EQ enabled in the full setup routine, you might also be asked if you want Dynamic Volume enabled by default, and the default choice in the setup routine is probably going to be disabled.

While DEQ shifts the tonal balance by boosting bass and treble as the volume setting decreases below 0dB e.g. -20dB, DV shifts the volume balance by adding dynamic compression, i.e. reducing the difference in loudness between the loudest sounds and the softest sounds, as the volume control setting decreases below 0dB. Note that you will only see that dB in your volume control setting if your receiver supports relative volume display as opposed to absolute volume display that just puts some number between 0 and maybe 80 or so on the display as you turn up the volume.

DV is most handy for listening to movies at low volume, where the dialog is lost under the subwoofer thunder.

Unfortunately, my receiver does not allow me to use DV without also enabling DEQ, so even though I try to selectively boost the dialog with DV, the subwoofer level still pops back up with the DEQ function. I still end up playing with that reference level offset even when all I need is some dynamic compression because I have to dereference the DEQ enough that it does not defeat the purpose of using DV.

So eventually I gave up on DV entirely because it was such a pain to try to set it during a movie where the subwoofer is only intermittently rumbling. Instead, I started selecting the Dolby sound track instead of DTS and using the 'Late Night' function in the Dolby decoder that ships with the receiver. Dolby decoder has two built-in dynamic compression settings 'Low' and 'High' that seem to be based upon embedded program control signal rather than on-the-fly compression. The behavior is more predictable than DV and best of all, it does not require that DEQ be enabled.

Note that the 'Late Night' function of Dolby compression is disabled on Dolby stereo program (despite the control setting still appearing to function) because stereo Dolby is already compressed for compatibility with cheap TV speakers/amps, so selecting the stereo Dolby track is another way to get dynamic compression. I suspect the same applies to any stereo DTS program being similarly compressed.

Most DVD and Blu Ray players also have a built-in dynamic compression function and it also usually defaults to 'on', so if you want to experience the full dynamic range of your movies you will have to go into the setup of your player and turn off the compression. Most broadcast and cable TV seems to also be similarly compressed for compatibility with cheap TV/HTIB (home theater in a box) systems operated by unenlightened users so that is one really good reason to buy your movies and music on disc as opposed to just streaming on-demand from a provider and receiving what amounts to distorted reception. Others may have better info how to get around that but my experience with Xfinity is that there is no way to disable the dynamic compression and it seems to be hard-coded into the stream.

If there is no Dolby sound track and I want to listen in surround without blasting my neighbors with the dynamic range of the program, my fall-back scenario is to set the mute function on my remote to -10dB and use a quick jab at the mute button to manually cut the level during the thunder. This means some pre-emptive action is required as the excitement level of the program escalates, but sometimes a brief boom gets through anyway since it is impossible to anticipate every explosion in every movie except Munich. More budget-oriented receivers may not allow you to program the level offset of the mute button so you might have to use the volume control to use that method.

Both the Dynamic EQ function and the Dynamic Volume function are affected by changing the trim levels because doing so changes the calibrated reference level that these functions depend upon to have a predictable volume control setting for a given loudness in SPL dBs in the room.

You should read this thread on the Audyssey web site (just the first three comments will do it, including two by Chris Kyriakakis):

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/73283-dynamic-eq-and-reference-level



> The Dynamic EQ Reference Level Offset provides three offsets from the film level reference (5 dB, 10 dB, and 15 dB) that can be selected when the mix level of the content is not within the standard.





> In AVRs that don't have the Dynamic EQ Reference Level Offset feature, you can achieve the same thing by turning down the digital input trim for that source. Onkyo calls it IntelliVolume.


If the sound of Dynamic EQ is too heavy and bright, you can back off the boost it applies at frequency extremes by de-referencing the calibration. The 'Reference Level Offset' in my receiver allows me to do that without disrupting the actual reference level in the 'Relative' volume knob display mode (full theater level equals 0dB), but the offset between volume knob setting reported on the display panel versus volume knob setting used by the Dynamic EQ function that can be achieved with that 'Reference Level Offset' is limited to a one-sided adjustment. It is intended for programming that is still pretty much 'reference level calibrated' but has 'dynamic range compression', a form of limiting that squashes the louder and softer sounds in the program into a narrower volume range.

So for all my LP rips that I typically record with a lower level because warps/rumble tend to saturate the program level, I still have to use the 'Intellivolume' setting to turn UP the program in order to get the correct amount of Dynamic EQ. My LPs tend to date back to the days from before dynamic compression was added to the 'loudness wars' arsenal, where the marketing department at recording companies decided to shamelessly exploit the psychoacoustic tendency for louder programming to sound better by compressing the dynamics as much as possible.

I set the Dynamic EQ offset by ear, playing with volume control and 'Reference Level Offset' or 'Intellivolume' until the level and tonal balance sounds natural. I tend to set it with vocal or midrange/uppper bass content rather than the bass guitar/drum content, since it really takes tones with harmonic spectrum spanning a substantial range of the EQ curve in order to set it properly. The bass/drums are too limited in range/too percussive to hear that tonal balance properly.

Dynamic Volume also relies upon the calibrated reference level for its own volume control input signal. Both DEQ and DV change the amount of compensation they apply as the volume control setting changes, but they provide two separate functions that apply two different forms of compensation.


----------



## CherylJosie

Defcon said:


> I'm not sure what's going on here.


Neither am I, in some cases. Some of the choices made by Audyssey seem to be quite arbitrary to me.

One other thing you should be aware of is that both Audyssey Dynamic EQ and THX Loudness Plus functions are loudness compensation algorithms that are primarily designed to compensate the tonal balance for changes in listening level, but they also change one other thing too.

Both algorithms boost the surround levels a little when enabled, although the boost in surround level with Audyssey Dynamic EQ is quite noticeable whereas the boost in surround level with THX Loudness Plus seems to be so mild as to be unnoticeable to me (or not implemented to spec in my receiver). THX Loudness Plus compensation also seems to add much less bass and treble boost too, equivalent to about -10dB on the 'reference level offset' menu for DEQ, or equivalent to about -10dB on the 'Intellivolume' input level offset adjustment for DEQ.

Most probable explanation for doing this surround level boost in the loudness compensation algorithm is that customers complained that the surround channels that contain mainly ambiance at low level are inaudible at low volume control settings. So brilliant solution is to turn them up when enabling the loudness compensation that is typically used when listening at low levels.

The end result of the too bright room EQ target, the loudness boost at frequency extremes, and the overly boosted surround channels with DEQ is that the music/effects in the surround channels, and the subwoofer boom in the LFE channel, still swamp the dialog despite your best efforts to use DV to compensate for the buried dialog.

If you habitually use DEQ it can help to cut the surround channel levels by about -1dB if you tend to listen at higher volume, or about -2dB if you tend to listen at lower volume.

If you habitually use THX Loudness Plus you probably do not need to adjust the surround levels at all, but then you also have to use THX sound modes too and that means that the sound mode adds 'decorrelation' phase modification to enhance the perceived separation between channels. Decorrelation makes the sound phasy to my ears and I consider it undesirable so I never use THX sound modes. If your receiver is not THX rated (most budget receivers are not) it probably lacks any THX functions.


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> See, we can make Feri say anything!


----------



## Alan P

Defcon said:


> Please add link to the actual FAQ since its not easy to find, the title says 'FAQ in post 51779' but there's no way I know to directly enter that post number. Here's the link - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1295.html#post21782993
> 
> I'm new to Denon and Audyssey, I just finished Audyssey calibration on my X2200w. So this is probably answered somewhere in the FAQ or old thread, please forgive me since I didn't find it.
> 
> Audyssey reduced levels of all my speakers by -5/-8 dB. I read in the FAQ that its ok to change the levels after calibration but its not clear if this impacts Audyssey? I'm trying to see what effect MultiEQ XT has by turning it on/off. When I turn it off, the volume is much lower because the levels have been turned down. But when I turn it on to Flat/Reference, why does the volume go up? Turning DynamicEQ on makes it even louder.
> 
> And setting Dynamic Volume to Off makes things less loud, while the default (Evening) sounds the loudest. I'm not sure what's going on here.



Not sure why you linked to page 1295 of the original thread, but here is the link to the post that links directly to the FAQ:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#post21782993

And some answers to your questions from the FAQ:

Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?
What is Dynamic Volume?
What is Dynamic EQ?


----------



## mthomas47

^^

Wow, those were two really prolific posts containing a lot of good, and some slightly misleading information. For instance, the Audyssey target curve is not the Flat curve, it is the Audyssey Reference curve, which has a slight treble roll-off, and a mid-range compensation (BBC dip) between about 2000Hz and 3000Hz. That curve and the contrasting Flat curve are displayed in the FAQ, linked below. After running an Audyssey calibration, the AVR will automatically default to the Reference curve, with DEQ enabled.

Some people like the Reference curve and some don't. I don't personally care for either the treble roll-off that occurs on all channels, or for the mid-range dip that occurs on all channels. Instead, I prefer to use Flat, and then selectively roll-off a little treble on just my front speakers, using the tone controls. YMMV!

The idea behind the DEQ surround boost was that low and high frequency sounds drop-off faster for sounds coming from behind the listener. Starting from that questionable premise (to put it kindly) a surround boost was added. It equates to 1db of surround boost for every 5db below Reference. So, at a MV of -15, there is a 3db surround boost, at -20 there is a 4db boost, and so on. RLO (Reference Level Offset) was added later as a way to adjust DEQ for people who didn't like quite as much low frequency or surround boost.

Many people prefer DEQ for movies, but fewer seem to use it for music. Alternative approaches include doing an in-house bass boost (mainly by boosting the sub volumes, although some people also add bass via the tone controls). Again, YMMV. Tone controls cannot be used in conjunction with DEQ, but using them will not invalidate the Audyssey calibration, just as adjusting crossovers, distances, and levels will not invalidate the calibration. 

The best advice is typically to work hard on set-up, and calibration technique, to achieve the best possible calibration, and meanwhile to experiment with whatever settings are desired, as partly described above, to find the combination of settings that best work for you. A number of people, including myself, use slightly (or sometimes even very) different settings for music and movies, and sometimes that tweaking extends to individual movies as well. It helps to give yourself time to discover what really works best in your specific circumstances, and a willingness to experiment will probably facilitate that effort.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Defcon

Alan P said:


> Not sure why you linked to page 1295 of the original thread, but here is the link to the post that links directly to the FAQ:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#post21782993
> 
> And some answers to your questions from the FAQ:
> 
> Is it OK to change the trim levels Audyssey sets?
> What is Dynamic Volume?
> What is Dynamic EQ?


Not sure what you mean, I had the same link.

I've read those FAQs and it still wasn't clear to me hence I asked. Dynamic Volume is meant to reduce sudden changes in volume, but with it enabled, even scenes with just dialogue and nothing else are much louder, so I think its raising the level of all speakers to do it. It sounds much nicer with DV on, but its impossible to do an A/B with DV on/off since the loudness is so different, even in scenes with no dynamic range.


----------



## pepar

Defcon said:


> Not sure what you mean, I had the same link.
> 
> I've read those FAQs and it still wasn't clear to me hence I asked. Dynamic Volume is meant to reduce sudden changes in volume, but with it enabled, even scenes with just dialogue and nothing else are much louder, so I think its raising the level of all speakers to do it. It sounds much nicer with DV on, but its impossible to do an A/B with DV on/off since the loudness is so different, even in scenes with no dynamic range.


Perhaps this is what you said, but DV compresses the content. You can view it as the loudest being reduced or the lowest being raised, but it allows the volume control to be lowered to lower the overall SPL level while still being able to hear the lowest sounds. Think "late night listening."

It is not a limiter.


----------



## Alan P

Defcon said:


> Not sure what you mean, I had the same link.


OK, weird...I re-checked your link, and it does indeed end up in the same place, but first it goes to the top of page 1295 and then after a couple seconds it re-directs you to the correct post. I just didn't wait long enough for the re-direct.

My link goes directly to the post.




> I've read those FAQs and it still wasn't clear to me hence I asked. Dynamic Volume is meant to reduce sudden changes in volume, but with it enabled, even scenes with just dialogue and nothing else are much louder, so I think its raising the level of all speakers to do it. It sounds much nicer with DV on, but its impossible to do an A/B with DV on/off since the loudness is so different, even in scenes with no dynamic range.


DV is working correctly on your AVR...but it should definitely NOT "sound much nicer". It is severely compressing the dynamic range...and dynamic range is what is desirable, not the lack of it.

DV should only be used for late-night viewing when you don't want to wake the family or disturb the neighbors. It should _never _be used for any sort of critical listening.


----------



## Defcon

The net result of compression on a highly dynamic input signal would be the average volume going up. But on a scene with very little dynamic range, e.g. just 1 person talking, DV should not have much (or any) effect, right? Since there is no range to analyze and compress. Yet its louder with DV turned on.

I've used this feature on other brands (e.g. Yamaha calls it adaptive DRC) and it works as intended but was never this drastic. With the Denon I have to boost the MV almost 5-10dB with DV off no matter what content is playing to match.

I found this in one of the 'ask Audyssey' official blogs - 

"During soft scenes it's normal to have some boost in level. _During regular dialog Dynamic Volume does not apply any compensation _because it uses that for reference. During loud scenes it turns the volume down automatically." 

The italics part is what I also expect to happen but doesn't seem like it does. I know everyone says to turn DV off for accurate listening but at Light setting how much range compression is being applied?


----------



## garygarrison

Defcon said:


> *It sounds much nicer with DV on*, but its impossible to do an A/B with DV on/off since the loudness is so different, even in scenes with no dynamic range.


If someone is an apartment dweller with thin walls, has a baby sleeping, or the like, DV can be useful. IMO, it _*is*_ a form of distortion, though. With music sources, if someone actually likes DV (rather than having to use it for reasons like the ones above) chances are that they wouldn't like the sound of a live orchestra, at least up close. A few movies have outrageous dynamics, especially in the LFE, but most do not, IMO. Some apartment dwellers living above the first floor put a few layers of carpet remnants and/or neoprene under their subwoofer to keep it from shaking the floor too much.

None of the following may be important, but it is fun (for me) to think about. DV shouldn't affect normal dialog, but DEQ may, especially with deep male voices. Dialog that sounds "louder" with DEQ on may be getting bass and treble boost, with the midrange being held constant. It is my understanding that "loudness" can be considered a perceptual phenomenon, while Sound Pressure Level (SPL) is a physical one. The old continuously variable "loudness" controls (e.g., Centralab) on Hi Fi gear would boost bass, and to a lesser degree, treble as the volume control was turned down, the goal being to hold the perceived "loudness" constant. The very different "volume" control came about in the early days of radio and AV and was intended to allow the signal to be adjusted to match the volume of the room, literally. DEQ was designed to be an improvement on the old "loudness" controls. Bass boost by DEQ would turn up the perceived "loudness" more than SPL, but would have the effect of elevating both, if the SPL is being measured full band. Audyssey evidently sets SPL for each channel by looking at the frequencies between 500 and 2K only. I doubt if DEQ does much in this range, but I don't know for sure.

My family and I have very occasionally had problems with dialog intelligibility when there is a strong accent involved (e.g., Cockney), but we have never had dialog swamped by loud special effects. The mixers usually do a marvelous job in this regard.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> Please add link to the actual FAQ since its not easy to find, the title says 'FAQ in post 51779' but there's no way I know to directly enter that post number. Here's the link - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1295.html#post21782993
> 
> I'm new to Denon and Audyssey, I just finished Audyssey calibration on my X2200w. So this is probably answered somewhere in the FAQ or old thread, please forgive me since I didn't find it.
> 
> Audyssey reduced levels of all my speakers by -5/-8 dB. I read in the FAQ that its ok to change the levels after calibration but its not clear if this impacts Audyssey? I'm trying to see what effect MultiEQ XT has by turning it on/off. When I turn it off, the volume is much lower because the levels have been turned down. But when I turn it on to Flat/Reference, why does the volume go up? Turning DynamicEQ on makes it even louder.
> 
> And setting Dynamic Volume to Off makes things less loud, while the default (Evening) sounds the loudest. I'm not sure what's going on here.





Defcon said:


> The net result of compression on a highly dynamic input signal would be the average volume going up. But on a scene with very little dynamic range, e.g. just 1 person talking, DV should not have much (or any) effect, right? Since there is no range to analyze and compress. Yet its louder with DV turned on.
> 
> I've used this feature on other brands (e.g. Yamaha calls it adaptive DRC) and it works as intended but was never this drastic. With the Denon I have to boost the MV almost 5-10dB with DV off no matter what content is playing to match.
> 
> I found this in one of the 'ask Audyssey' official blogs -
> 
> "During soft scenes it's normal to have some boost in level. _During regular dialog Dynamic Volume does not apply any compensation _because it uses that for reference. During loud scenes it turns the volume down automatically."
> 
> The italics part is what I also expect to happen but doesn't seem like it does. I know everyone says to turn DV off for accurate listening but at Light setting how much range compression is being applied?



Hi,

I decided to quote two of your recent posts in an effort to help a little bit (I hope). First, I can't tell you much about Dynamic Volume, and as far as I can remember, it hasn't been discussed much on the thread. Knowing that it compresses the dynamic range, it just isn't a feature that many people have wanted to explore, or measure. On the other hand, if you really need to use it at night, with children sleeping or something, you wouldn't really care how much it was compressing things. You would just pick the lightest setting you could get away with, and wait for better times to play without compression. 

So, you may get an answer to your question, but if you don't, it isn't rudeness. Most people on the thread have not historically been very interested in Dynamic Volume. As an example, I like to experiment with everything in my AVR, and especially anything Audyssey related, but I have never even turned on Dynamic Volume. It simply doesn't do anything that I would want.

What I would like to help with, though, is your first question where you were talking about the levels that Audyssey set for your speakers, and the fact that you were having to turn up your MV more than you used to with your Yamaha. I don't know what Yamaha was doing in setting levels, but I can tell you that what Audyssey did is to equalize your various channels to play at equal loudness at your MLP (mic. position 1). And it set those levels relative to THX Reference.

So, whether you have to play your new AVR at a higher MV level than you did your old one is sort of irrelevant. You just set your MV at a comfortable listening level (most people base it on dialogue) and you are good to go. If you didn't hear as well out of one ear as the other ( a head cold can even do that) you might have a reason to adjust trim levels. But doing it because you are playing at a higher MV level than you were used to before would be pointless.

The two trim levels which are most likely to require occasional (or permanent) adjustment are the sub level and the CC level, in that order. From what I have seen, the great majority of people increase their sub levels post-Audyssey. I would say that the average boost is probably 3 to 6db, although some people add much more boost than that. CC boosts are probably more situation-specific for movies with harder to understand dialogue, or which feature more surround boost, for instance.

But knowing that people are likeliest to change sub or CC trim levels, and may want to do so during a program, those trim levels are accessible in the Audio Menu in Denon/Marantz receivers. That way you can adjust without missing anything. I hope that this explanation helps a little. Just give yourself a little time to get used to Audyssey, and a little time to experiment with settings to find out what you really like: Reference vs. Flat, DEQ (with or without RLO) or off altogether, sometimes one and sometimes the other, etc. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Defcon

Hi Mike, thanks for your help and detailed post. I don't have any worries about disturbing others, I'm just trying to find the best sounding solution. I know the standard advice is to leave DV off and DEQ on and I am very willing to try that combination and turn up the MV as needed. I can detect a very audible and undesirable compression at Heavy and sometimes at Medium levels. But with DV set to Light things sound much nicer than with DV off and volume turned up to get the same SPL.

w.r.t Yamaha vs Denon, I believe Yamaha calibration would also set trim levels similarly. My question is - if post Audyssey I turn up the trim on each speaker by 3dB, thus preserving their relative levels as set by Audyssey, does it affect anything? That would still preserve the balance. And Audyssey is still working with these trims or does it ignore them if I modify? This is just theoretical as I don't plan on doing this, I can just increase the MV.

I think DEQ is the real gem as I like the theory behind it and I'm getting much more out of the surrounds and sub since I don't listen near reference. So far I'm very happy with the switch, next step is to learn how to integrate my 2nd sub (I don'thave XT32 to help) and experiment more with the settings.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> Hi Mike, thanks for your help and detailed post. I don't have any worries about disturbing others, I'm just trying to find the best sounding solution. I know the standard advice is to leave DV off and DEQ on and I am very willing to try that combination and turn up the MV as needed. I can detect a very audible and undesirable compression at Heavy and sometimes at Medium levels. But with DV set to Light things sound much nicer than with DV off and volume turned up to get the same SPL.
> 
> w.r.t Yamaha vs Denon, I believe Yamaha calibration would also set trim levels similarly. My question is - if post Audyssey I turn up the trim on each speaker by 3dB, thus preserving their relative levels as set by Audyssey, does it affect anything? That would still preserve the balance. And Audyssey is still working with these trims or does it ignore them if I modify? This is just theoretical as I don't plan on doing this, I can just increase the MV.
> 
> I think DEQ is the real gem as I like the theory behind it and I'm getting much more out of the surrounds and sub since I don't listen near reference. So far I'm very happy with the switch, next step is to learn how to integrate my 2nd sub (I don'thave XT32 to help) and experiment more with the settings.



You are very welcome, and I am glad to hear that you are already enjoying Audyssey. You certainly don't have to leave Dynamic Volume off if there is something about it that you like. I think everyone just wanted you to know that it compresses the dynamic range to some extent.

I am also glad (and Feri will be even gladder ) to hear that you are enjoying DEQ. Feri is DEQ's unofficial, or perhaps official, champion. And it can make movies sound pretty exciting. 

With respect to turning up the individual trim levels by 3db, you already know that it would have the same effect as simply increasing the MV. The downside is that it would skew DEQ slightly, as your individual speakers would no longer be calibrated relative to Reference. It wouldn't mess up the filters that Audyssey set for the individual speakers, just their relationship to Reference. I think it would be more important if you wanted to know where you were with respect to Reference. Otherwise it wouldn't do any real harm, since DEQ would still be working--just not with exact correspondence to Reference. But it would also be pointless, so there's that.  

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovinthehd

Thought this thread was perhaps indicating I had missed something about the impending new Audyssey release as Chris K alludes to on the FB page.


----------



## mthomas47

lovinthehd said:


> Thought this thread was perhaps indicating I had missed something about the impending new Audyssey release as Chris K alludes to on the FB page.



Hi,

I haven't heard anything about that. The new thread came about because people were tired of posting/editing issues with the very long original thread. Part II was literally born in an instant.

But I would love to know more about impending Audyssey releases if you hear anything else.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovinthehd

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I haven't heard anything about that. The new thread came about because people were tired of posting/editing issues with the very long original thread. Part II was literally born in an instant.
> 
> But I would love to know more about impending Audyssey releases if you hear anything else.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Feri was the one who drew the comment a week or so ago...."LOL Feri. After all these years you still keep trying to ask me about future developments. I can say that we are working on something very cool for 2016 release. It will make hard core Audyssey fans happy. And, no, we are not leaving the room correction business."


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I am also glad (and Feri will be even gladder ) to hear that you are enjoying DEQ. Feri is DEQ's unofficial, or perhaps official, champion. And it can make movies sound pretty exciting.


Official or unofficial champion Mike, but I do really think DEQ for me works as advertised. In my room with my system and my 116 year old ears (58 each, ) it gives me the pleasure I expect from a loudness compensation feature whenever MV is lower than 0 dB ref. I'm not as sensitive to movie soundtracks as I am to music recordings. In the music department I do enjoy the restoration of tonal balance once I turn down the MV, even sometimes to -50 dB when friends are over and music is being played in the background. 

Moreover, despite the many complaints of surround boost by other respected members, I do enjoy the envelopment of sounds in a full 5.1 system giving me a true 2D experience. A friend of mine who heard my setup for the first time immediately said its much better than his HTIB where he practically hears nothing from the surrounds.

And finally the most innovative part of DEQ to me is the second level of compensation when it looks into the passage and at any given MV that is lower than reference it does another loudness compensation based on soft or loud parts as the program material advances and its done "on the fly". How about that?


----------



## mogorf

lovinthehd said:


> Feri was the one who drew the comment a week or so ago...."LOL Feri. After all these years you still keep trying to ask me about future developments. I can say that we are working on something very cool for 2016 release. It will make hard core Audyssey fans happy. And, no, we are not leaving the room correction business."


Here's an update from FB:

Ferenc Mógor Hi Chris, any news on Audyssey releasing some very cool "stuff" in 2016 even for hard core fans? Just a hint on the tentative release date would be fine!  March 17 at 10:12pm · Like · 1




Chris Kyriakakis Q3-Q4


----------



## mthomas47

Page 2 already! Just 2653 more before Part III.


----------



## jevansoh

I really think this is a great idea that was long overdue to implement.

Does anyone know of any other threads that have been so long there has been a "Part II" created?

Just curious.

Thanks,

--J


----------



## lovinthehd

mogorf said:


> Here's an update from FB:
> 
> Ferenc Mógor Hi Chris, any news on Audyssey releasing some very cool "stuff" in 2016 even for hard core fans? Just a hint on the tentative release date would be fine!  March 17 at 10:12pm · Like · 1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis Q3-Q4


Yeah, should have included that. I'm interested in the form factor....avr or separate data manipulation like others are doing since the avr mfrs don't want to provide sufficient MIPS power?


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> And finally the most innovative part of DEQ to me is the second level of compensation when it looks into the passage and at any given MV that is lower than reference it does another loudness compensation based on soft or loud parts as the program material advances and its done "on the fly". How about that?


OMG, it's like it is ... dynamic. 

Jeff
(w/132 yr old ears)


----------



## D Bone

I also saw where Chris said something like "It will be the year of preference" which to me, sounds like possibly being able to adjust the frequency boost and surround boost independently in DEQ.......... and maybe if we're really lucky, they will implement a max frequency EQ setting.

That would be like Christmas, and I would probably buy another AVR because of those features.


----------



## Defcon

Well I still don't understand why DV on makes everything louder even when the input is at constant volume with no volume shifts. Also I've now tried with a variety of content, simple dialog only scenes, music, movies, and the difference between DV Light and Off is ~10-15dB at least. 

I verified this with a SPL meter, picked something which is not varying more than 2-4dB in level for a while, like a long speech or a song. With DEQ off the volume drops by at least 10dB if not more. Its clearly not just reducing highs and lows.

Doesn't sound right to me. Sorry to keep bringing this up, I'm just trying to understand what's going on.


----------



## lovinthehd

Defcon said:


> Well I still don't understand why DV on makes everything louder even when the input is at constant volume with no volume shifts. Also I've now tried with a variety of content, simple dialog only scenes, music, movies, and the difference between DV Light and Off is ~10-15dB at least.
> 
> I verified this with a SPL meter, picked something which is not varying more than 2-4dB in level for a while, like a long speech or a song. With DEQ off the volume drops by at least 10dB if not more. Its clearly not just reducing highs and lows.
> 
> Doesn't sound right to me. Sorry to keep bringing this up, I'm just trying to understand what's going on.


Are you familiar with the term loudness wars? Use of compression for the sake of loudness? All the compression routines allow you to do is supposedly get the whole thing in a thinner sandwich so to speak, it just starts at a bit higher level so just turn the volume knob down if you're going to use that feature...


----------



## Defcon

lovinthehd said:


> Are you familiar with the term loudness wars? Use of compression for the sake of loudness? All the compression routines allow you to do is supposedly get the whole thing in a thinner sandwich so to speak, it just starts at a bit higher level so just turn the volume knob down if you're going to use that feature...












According to this diagram from Audyssey, if there are no spikes (e.g. at the right) then the output level should be same with DV since there's no compression. But it isn't. Its 10dB louder.


----------



## lovinthehd

Defcon said:


> According to this diagram from Audyssey, if there are no spikes (e.g. at the right) then the output level should be same with DV since there's no compression. But it isn't. Its 10dB louder.


I don't necessarily see that diagram that way, what does the graph represent particularly? Is it dynamic range?


----------



## Defcon

lovinthehd said:


> I don't necessarily see that diagram that way, what does the graph represent particularly? Is it dynamic range?


Yes. Graph is from here - http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dynamic-volume


----------



## gurkey

CherylJosie said:


> Neither am I, in some cases. Some of the choices made by Audyssey seem to be quite arbitrary to me.
> 
> One other thing you should be aware of is that both Audyssey Dynamic EQ and THX Loudness Plus functions are loudness compensation algorithms that are primarily designed to compensate the tonal balance for changes in listening level, but they also change one other thing too.
> 
> Both algorithms boost the surround levels a little when enabled, although the boost in surround level with Audyssey Dynamic EQ is quite noticeable whereas the boost in surround level with THX Loudness Plus seems to be so mild as to be unnoticeable to me (or not implemented to spec in my receiver). THX Loudness Plus compensation also seems to add much less bass and treble boost too, equivalent to about -10dB on the 'reference level offset' menu for DEQ, or equivalent to about -10dB on the 'Intellivolume' input level offset adjustment for DEQ.
> 
> Most probable explanation for doing this surround level boost in the loudness compensation algorithm is that customers complained that the surround channels that contain mainly ambiance at low level are inaudible at low volume control settings. So brilliant solution is to turn them up when enabling the loudness compensation that is typically used when listening at low levels.
> 
> The end result of the too bright room EQ target, the loudness boost at frequency extremes, and the overly boosted surround channels with DEQ is that the music/effects in the surround channels, and the subwoofer boom in the LFE channel, still swamp the dialog despite your best efforts to use DV to compensate for the buried dialog.
> 
> If you habitually use DEQ it can help to cut the surround channel levels by about -1dB if you tend to listen at higher volume, or about -2dB if you tend to listen at lower volume.
> 
> If you habitually use THX Loudness Plus you probably do not need to adjust the surround levels at all, but then you also have to use THX sound modes too and that means that the sound mode adds 'decorrelation' phase modification to enhance the perceived separation between channels. Decorrelation makes the sound phasy to my ears and I consider it undesirable so I never use THX sound modes. If your receiver is not THX rated (most budget receivers are not) it probably lacks any THX functions.


The "mild" boost on surround speakers is based on current research, because those speakers should be placed either side at least 90° or more, where the human hearing is less sensitive and the sound character changes somewhat to allow us to differentiate between sounds arriving from the front or back in real life. The boost compensates dynamically for this difference with decreasing levels. The individual difference in perception is coming from differences in individual hearing and a change in speaker placement and mounting positions compared to the standard. If the surround speakers are placed close (near field) to the listener in direct radiating mode this can be somewhat annoying and could be avoided by establishing a more diffuse soundfield to avoid any acoustical hot spots. 
Most of these systems are based on some sort of an averaged "acoustical model" of the setup and environment your system is based upon. 
If your own installation deviates to much from this "model" you either have to compensate manually for the differences or modify your installation correspondingly.


----------



## CherylJosie

gurkey said:


> The "mild" boost on surround speakers is based on current research, because those speakers should be placed either side at least 90° or more, where the human hearing is less sensitive and the sound character changes somewhat to allow us to differentiate between sounds arriving from the front or back in real life. The boost compensates dynamically for this difference with decreasing levels. The individual difference in perception is coming from differences in individual hearing and a change in speaker placement and mounting positions compared to the standard. If the surround speakers are placed close (near field) to the listener in direct radiating mode this can be somewhat annoying and could be avoided by establishing a more diffuse soundfield to avoid any acoustical hot spots.
> Most of these systems are based on some sort of an averaged "acoustical model" of the setup and environment your system is based upon.
> If your own installation deviates to much from this "model" you either have to compensate manually for the differences or modify your installation correspondingly.


Unfortunately, regardless of the psychoacoustics involved, this boost is a frequent source of complaint among Audyssey users.

Whatever its intention, it did not enhance realism for me. All it did is make the dialog harder to hear at lower levels.


----------



## mthomas47

I don't want to create any controversy here. People are perfectly free to either like or dislike DEQ's surround boost as they choose. But I wrote something about the surround boost back in January, 2016 (page 2626 of the old thread) that I think might be worth repeating in this context.

"I wanted to write a somewhat lengthy post on DEQ, based in part on the excellent dialogue with Chris Kyriakakis that Feri posted yesterday. The issue that they were discussing was the original intent of the surround boost in DEQ, and how it was implemented. The conventional wisdom on this thread has been that the surround boost was, at least in part, based on a misconception regarding sound falling-off faster from behind us than it does from in front of us. But, I think that the issues with the surround boost go deeper than that. With apologies to all, I think that the concept of the surround boost, as a part of DEQ, had some logical flaws from the very beginning. And the fact that so many people notice that their surrounds are boosted, with respect to their front speakers, is an inevitable result of those flaws.

Before I discuss what I am calling flaws in the concept, however, I want to make something very clear to anyone reading this who is less familiar with Audyssey. Audyssey the room EQ system (in whatever generation of version: starting with 2EQ, and subsequently including MultEQ, XT, and XT-32) is a very effective automated room correction system, which simply attempts to reduce distortion caused by the interaction between speakers and room. Additional Audyssey features, such as the Reference Curve (with MRC), Flat, DEQ, and Dynamic Volume, are features which are at least somewhat distinct (particularly the last two) from the room correction software. They are user preference features, much like the built-in apps on a smart phone. So, nothing that I am saying about the surround boost in DEQ should be taken as criticism of the basic EQ software. Audyssey is capable of doing an outstanding job of EQing a room. It is only in implementing the user preference features that go on top of the EQ, that people may generally find fault with one or another of the apps.

According to Chris, as stated on many occasions, the original reason that Audyssey included a surround boost with DEQ is because sounds arriving from the rear fall-off faster than sounds arriving from the front. In the discussion Feri quoted, Chris explained that Audyssey's research indicated that the pinnae of the ear (the visible part attached to the head) partially block sounds above about 1000Hz from reaching the ear. I have several problems with this conclusion. Among them is the absence of other research confirming this. As a practical matter, I also think of all the species of dogs with large flaps completely covering their ears who hear very well into ultrasonic frequencies. If higher pitched sounds are less audible from behind (due to our pinnae) than lower pitched sounds, then the higher the sound, the greater the attenuation, and that just doesn't seem to be borne out by practical experience, or by other research. But, let that go for a moment. Let's assume for a moment, that the intent of the surround boost was valid. In that case, I have several problems with the fundamental concept of how it was to be implemented.

First. If the problem is the pinnae of our ears partly blocking sounds arriving from the rear, what does that have to do with sounds from the rear falling away faster than sounds from the front? That question was pointed out several years ago, and it still seems like a valid question to me. Somewhere in there, a conceptual leap was made between the idea of the pinnae blocking high frequency sounds, to sound from the rear falling away faster, and there is nothing whatsoever to justify that conceptual leap. To me, that is an inherent flaw in the concept that affected the subsequent implementation.

Second. If the problem is either rear arriving sounds falling away faster in the higher frequencies, or simply being attenuated to start with in the higher frequencies, what does that have to do with surround speakers which are typically located more or less out to the sides? What application would a surround boost have in a typical 5.1 system, which at the time the technology was introduced, included the vast majority of systems? Only where rear speakers are employed would the pinnae of the ears be a significant factor in blocking higher frequencies in the typical system. But the surround boost was, at the time, primarily for speakers out to the sides.

Third. If the pinnae in our ears really do block higher frequencies, why wouldn't it simply be better to boost the surrounds from the outset? Even at Reference levels, high frequency sounds arriving from the rear would be perceptually lower than front, or side arriving sounds, if the theory were correct. So, we would always need to have our rear (not side) surrounds boosted in order to hear high frequencies comparably. There is that pesky conceptual leap again from pinnae blocking high frequencies from the rear, to rear arriving sounds decline faster than front arriving sounds. That conceptual leap led them down a bad path, in my opinion.

Fourth. Let's say that none of the other logical flaws existed. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that we really do want to amplify higher frequencies arriving from both the side (where the pinnae don't block them) and from the rear where they might. Even so, there was still a flaw, in my opinion, in tying that desired frequency boost to DEQ. And that's because the stated purpose of DEQ is to maintain equilibrium in the full frequency range, at below Reference volumes. So, a high frequency boost, and a low frequency boost are applied, while the mid-range is left unaffected, on the assumption that our hearing is most sensitive in the mid-range, and that as volume goes down, we need to amplify high and low frequencies to maintain an acoustical balance with the mid-range. And yet, it was the mid-range where Audyssey said their research showed that we started to need a boost--at about 1000Hz. So, doing both a high and low frequency boost, while leaving the mid-range unaffected, wouldn't actually solve the problem they posited. Attaching the surround boost onto the more valid DEQ application was always a kludge.

In some respects, this might have been the biggest logical flaw of all, because the most notable feature of DEQ is the bass boost. So, boosting the surrounds globally, at the same time that you are boosting the bass (DEQ's treble boost is much less perceptible) simply calls even more attention to the surrounds, when the original intent was only to restore some balance in the higher frequencies, so that those higher frequencies arriving from the rear would balance with those arriving from the front. But what we actually hear from back there is much lower frequency sound than that, since the surround boost is implemented in conjunction with DEQ, which most noticeably boosts bass. And for many people, that merely draws unwanted attention to the surrounds. So, they didn't really solve the problem they set out to solve. They just called more attention to the surrounds.

If I seem unduly hard on Audyssey in this post, I don't mean it that way. But bad assumptions have a way of accumulating, and I think they started this process of a surround boost with good intentions, but flawed logic. Of course, there are workarounds, so we can have our cake and eat it too. For people who are using DEQ for everything, if the surround boost bothers you, you can easily reduce your surround trims to a comfortable level (typically about 3db). It's a little more problematical if you are using DEQ more randomly, although I have never really minded adjusting trim levels when necessary. Or, of course, you can leave DEQ off, and explore other ways to achieve more bass at lower than Reference volumes. But I wanted to get some thoughts about the surround boost down on paper, since the issue comes up so often."


----------



## gurkey

Looking at the ITU positioning diagrams in this document https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2159-4-2012-PDF-E.pdf dated 05/2012, surround speakers in their terminology are placed >= 90° to the main axis not before the listener. This excludes "wide" speakers.
Using DynamicEQ in my own installations does not show any disturbances concerning the loudness of the surround speakers and works like intended at least for me, thus there must be some differences in the individual installations which excites this abnormality. 
I do use a combination of direct and indirect surround sound because my MLP is at the rear wall and speakers are excactly at 90° due to this.


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> Looking at the ITU positioning diagrams in this document https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb/rep/R-REP-BS.2159-4-2012-PDF-E.pdf dated 05/2012, surround speakers in their terminology are placed >= 90° to the main axis not before the listener. This excludes "wide" speakers.
> Using DynamicEQ in my own installations does not show any disturbances concerning the loudness of the surround speakers and works like intended at least for me, thus there must be some differences in the individual installations which excites this abnormality.
> I do use a combination of direct and indirect surround sound because my MLP is at the rear wall and speakers are excactly at 90° due to this.



I have always found it difficult to generalize about this sort of thing, precisely because our individual listening experiences and preferences can be so different. People whose opinions I respect are bothered by the surround boost, and people whose opinions I respect are not. So, who knows?

In my own case, I didn't find the surround boost so troubling with a 5.1 system as I did with a 7.1 system. With a 7.1 system, 4 of my speakers were boosted relative to my front soundstage, and that seemed a little more noticeable to me. The other problem I had was that some movies, and many TV shows, already have a surround boost baked into the soundtrack. That multiplied the effect for me. 

But I am certainly not campaigning against the surround boost, particularly because many people seem to enjoy it, and that alone is good enough for me. I just wanted to point out some issues that had been discussed regarding the origin of the surround boost.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

Trying to fool our 3D chess brains with a checkers level trick seems fraught with potential unintended consequences. If it is all true about our hearing changes vis-a-vis the arrival vector, perhaps that is one of the subtle cues we use to process our environment? Perhaps by trying to game our brains with artificial cues we are introducing confusion? Of course, since the hearing changes themselves are so subtle and subconscious, the confusion added is also subconscious. Subconscious confusion can be disconcerting.

YMMV


----------



## D Bone

To me, DEQ is like a couple of teenagers sitting behind me at the movies talking. They make the dialog harder to hear because of their annoying presence.


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Trying to fool our 3D chess brains with a checkers level trick seems fraught with potential unintended consequences. If it is all true about our hearing changes vis-a-vis the arrival vector, perhaps that is one of the subtle cues we use to process our environment? Perhaps by trying to game our brains with artificial cues we are introducing confusion? Of course, since the hearing changes themselves are so subtle and subconscious, the confusion added is also subconscious. Subconscious confusion can be disconcerting.
> 
> YMMV



Terrific! I thought we were all having enough trouble with conscious audio confusion.  Now you have to go and throw subconscious confusion into the pot.


----------



## Defcon

Sadly I have to somewhat reverse my position on DEQ. I'd earlier stated I really liked it, I've now watched a lot more content and realize it can be really intrusive many times. I have my surround speakers placed much closer than mains and Audyssey has correctly set their trim down. With DEQ enabled on a lot of content I hear them play louder than mains, e.g when there's background music, which totally destroys the experience and distracts you. It does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.

It's very easy to get used to a louder/more active soundfield and think its better than a more accurate one, its all down to personal preference. It can sound nice for the most part until you find something that's very jarring and then you have to turn it off.

In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.


----------



## D Bone

Defcon said:


> Sadly I have to somewhat reverse my position on DEQ. I'd earlier stated I really liked it, I've now watched a lot more content and realize it can be really intrusive many times. I have my surround speakers placed much closer than mains and Audyssey has correctly set their trim down. With DEQ enabled on a lot of content I hear them play louder than mains, e.g when there's background music, which totally destroys the experience and distracts you. It does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.
> 
> It's very easy to get used to a louder/more active soundfield and think its better than a more accurate one, its all down to personal preference. It can sound nice for the most part until you find something that's very jarring and then you have to turn it off.
> 
> In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.


If it helps, you can think of DEQ's settings as:

0db = Max
5db = High
10db = Medium
15db = Low


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> According to Chris, as stated on many occasions, the original reason that Audyssey included a surround boost with DEQ is because sounds arriving from the rear fall-off faster than sounds arriving from the front. In the discussion Feri quoted, Chris explained that Audyssey's research indicated that the pinnae of the ear (the visible part attached to the head) partially block sounds above about 1000Hz from reaching the ear. I have several problems with this conclusion. *Among them is the absence of other research confirming this.*


Mike et al, I just started a discussion with Chris K. on the "DEQ boosts surround" issue, so here's where we are at right now.

Me: Chris, a long time recurring issue I'd like to raise here is the so-called surround boost of DynEQ. Long story short, some people never complain, but like it, while other people always complain that they find it troubling. Some even think the surround boost was based on a misconception of sounds falling-off faster from behind us than it does from in front of us. Care to add some convincing thougths to this debate? Thx as always.

Chris: It wasn't based on a misconception... I think that problems arise when listening to content that is not mixed at reference. I find that a lot with TV content, for example. 
For those that want to dig really deep, here is a PhD Thesis on the topic of directional loudness. If you skip to the manuscripts later in the thesis, you can see the measured large differences in loudness between front and back http://vbn.aau.dk/files/61782646/VPS_PhD_thesis.pdf

---

The PhD Thesis from Denmark researchers looks pretty interesting, though it needs some digestion. Hope this will help us understand what is behind this "phenomenon" called "directional loudness perception" and how we can find a way to tackle it on our HT systems with DEQ engaged. Let's see!  Happy reading!


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> Sadly I have to somewhat reverse my position on DEQ. I'd earlier stated I really liked it, I've now watched a lot more content and realize it can be really intrusive many times. I have my surround speakers placed much closer than mains and Audyssey has correctly set their trim down. With DEQ enabled on a lot of content I hear them play louder than mains, e.g when there's background music, which totally destroys the experience and distracts you. It does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.
> 
> It's very easy to get used to a louder/more active soundfield and think its better than a more accurate one, its all down to personal preference. It can sound nice for the most part until you find something that's very jarring and then you have to turn it off.
> 
> In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.



Hi,

DBone's advice to try an RLO of 5 or 10 might help. Some of us have found a workaround, or alternative to DEQ, that works well for us. I like the bass boost that DEQ provides for action movies, but in my case, I did eventually decide that I was sacrificing a little clarity in exchange for more impactful bass in general, and LFE in particular at below Reference volumes (typically about -15 give or take for movies; a little softer for TV). 

I had always added a sub boost anyway post-calibration, irrespective of DEQ. But based on the experiences of Alan and Gary G., who post here regularly, I tried adding substantially more sub boost and left DEQ off. In my particular case, that has given me the bass I want for everything such as Battle Los Angeles, WOTW, Edge of Tomorrow, etc. But I believe that I not only get a little more clarity in the process, but slightly smoother transitions in and out of the sudden loud passages. 

I used DEQ for action movies and comparable TV shows (although never for music) off and on for at least a couple of years. Once the surround boost really started to bother me, and it's hard to unring that bell, I started to investigate other alternatives. Simply boosting my subs by about 5 or 6db more than I had been with DEQ proved to be a very workable solution for me. YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> The PhD Thesis from Denmark researchers looks pretty interesting, though it needs some digestion. Hope this will help us understand what is behind this "phenomenon" called "directional loudness perception" and how we can find a way to tackle it on our HT systems with DEQ engaged. Let's see!  Happy reading!



Thank, Feri! I will read this with interest.


----------



## pepar

D Bone said:


> If it helps, you can think of DEQ's settings as:
> 
> 0db = Max
> 5db = High
> 10db = Medium
> 15db = Low


... and Off.


----------



## garygarrison

Has this been discussed before?

Some AVR manufacturers use "Music" to designate Audyssey Flat. Audyssey Reference, with its treble roll-off and midrange compensation is called "Movies." Why would it be thought that flat is more appropriate for music, and treble roll-off more appropriate for movies? In my case, both movies and music are played back in the same room, with the same equipment. The rationale Audyssey seems to use for Audyssey Reference is that it optimizes movie sound for HT size rooms, rather than the larger venues of commercial cinemas (or even large control rooms). Are they assuming that our Blu-ray discs are authored with the same frequency characteristics as movie soundtracks sent to theaters? 

I find Audyssey Flat ("Music") to be better sounding for both music and movies made in the last decade, or so. As I've said before, I have found Audyssey reference to be handy for movies that are more than about a decade old, which have some high frequency distortion that Audyssey Reference filters out.


----------



## pepar

My (just replaced) Onk 5508 had no adjustments for movie or music, and was not to my liking for movies or music ... until I applied my house curve with the Pro kit.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Has this been discussed before?
> 
> Some AVR manufacturers use "Music" to designate Audyssey Flat. Audyssey Reference, with its treble roll-off and midrange compensation is called "Movies." Why would it be thought that flat is more appropriate for music, and treble roll-off more appropriate for movies? In my case, both movies and music are played back in the same room, with the same equipment. The rationale Audyssey seems to use for Audyssey Reference is that it optimizes movie sound for HT size rooms, rather than the larger venues of commercial cinemas (or even large control rooms). Are they assuming that our Blu-ray discs are authored with the same frequency characteristics as movie soundtracks sent to theaters?
> 
> I find Audyssey Flat ("Music") to be better sounding for both music and movies made in the last decade, or so. As I've said before, I have found Audyssey reference to be handy for movies that are more than about a decade old, which have some high frequency distortion that Audyssey Reference filters out.



Hi Gary,

I am not sure exactly what the rationale behind the nomenclature was (and I believe it was the AVR maker who used the Music/Movies name), but the subject of house curves has certainly been discussed, on other threads as well. I am in the same boat you are. I have always preferred Flat for everything, and I particularly prefer my music straight--no ice, no mixers.

If I were to attempt a rationale behind someone else's names for the two curves, it might be the one in my last sentence. The assumption may have been that people would be more tolerant of a house curve for movies than for music. Perhaps someone assumed that movies would also have more dynamic range than typical (not necessarily full orchestral) music. I don't know that either assumption really makes a whole lot of sense, but one or both of those would still be my best guess. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> My (just replaced) Onk 5508 had no adjustments for movie or music, and was not to my liking for movies or music ... until I applied my house curve with the Pro kit.


House curve details please Jeff. Wanna know them details and your approach on finalizing the curve. Thx a million!


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> My (just replaced) Onk 5508 had no adjustments for movie or music, and was not to my liking for movies or music ... until I applied my house curve with the Pro kit.



What did you change to, if you don't mind my curiosity?


----------



## pepar

Emotiva XMC-1


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Emotiva XMC-1



Thanks! I have heard good things about Emotiva, and of course about DL, as well. That looks like a fine pre-pro. Would I be going way out on a limb to guess that you are also using Emotiva amps?


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> House curve details please Jeff. Wanna know them details and your approach on finalizing the curve. Thx a million!


On Audyssey Pro I used a 1dB boost at 200Hz with a 0dB (anchor) at 300Hz. And there are anchors at 12k and 24K with a 1.5dB boost at 20k. The sub is excluded from this curve. I also used the midrange compensation.

I have dialed in the same mild changes on my XMC-1 with Dirac Full Live. There is no MRC ...


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> On Audyssey Pro I used a 1dB boost at 200Hz with a 0dB (anchor) at 300Hz. And there are anchors at 12k and 24K with a 1.5dB boost at 20k. The sub is excluded from this curve. I also used the midrange compensation.
> 
> I have dialed in the same mild changes on my XMC-1 with Dirac Full Live. There is no MRC ...


Jeff, does this work for all and any program material, be it film or music?


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> Jeff, does this work for all and any program material, be it film or music?


I arrived at this curve with music, specifically Chant and Between The Sheets from Fourplay, and a song or two from Ernie Watts' Classic Moods. These are my go to "test signals." 

IMO, get the music correct, and everything else falls in place.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks! I have heard good things about Emotiva, and of course about DL, as well. That looks like a fine pre-pro. Would I be going way out on a limb to guess that you are also using Emotiva amps?


Am using ATI 2007 for mains and four Hsu TN 1220HO with two Hsu sub amps. My M&K S-150/SS-150 spkrs are 4ohms, so the ATI outputs 300 watts p/ch.

I have been eying amps that would give me 500 wpc or more just to give me more headroom. Unfortunately, a new HVAC is lined up in front of any more AV upgrades.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

BTW, the XMC-1 is head and shoulders above the Onk 5508 in the sound quality category. I used it for a few days w/o room correction and it was stunningly superior. I am really looking forward to running Dirac on my "alt" MCH spkr system and listing to some hi-res MCH music.


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> I arrived at this curve with music, specifically Chant and Between The Sheets from Fourplay, and a song or two from Ernie Watts' Classic Moods. These are my go to "test signals."
> 
> IMO, get the music correct, and everything else falls in place.
> 
> Jeff


Fully agree with you Sir on getting music correct first. My reference musics are: Patricia Barber (American), Yello (Swiss) and Bliss (from Denmark). Anything from Bliss, but especially "Song for Olabi": 



, a number that contains everything and anything we enthusiast would ever like to hear in a recording.  

P.s. there's another group with same name (Bliss) from UK, no need to look them up, forgettable/unimpressive, at least for me.


----------



## D Bone

pepar said:


> ... and Off.


lol how did I forget the most important setting!?


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> Yello (Swiss)


O h, y e a h.


----------



## yanks1

*need help please; Subwoofer issue w/Denon S900W*

When I run the program there is barely any sound out of my Polk PSW125 subwoofer and the program thinks its an error and says to check wire settings. All you can hear is a very faint boom-boom. All other speakers sound great during the program. The sub wiring is correct of course since its LFE input and only 1 cable and sub has been running & for 1.5 years. When I set the speakers & sub up manually the system sounds great.. its 5.1 set-up


What am I doing wrong?? and yes it has a direct LFE input which I use. What should be the settings in back of sub before I try running program again? And yes all speakers are set to small

thanks... I'm very frustrated as I've had this Denon AVR for 18 months and like to use the Audyssey software program that i paid for. thanks a lot

Tom


----------



## mogorf

yanks1 said:


> When I run the program there is barely any sound out of my Polk PSW125 subwoofer and the program thinks its an error and says to check wire settings. All you can hear is a very faint boom-boom. All other speakers sound great during the program. The sub wiring is correct of course since its LFE input and only 1 cable and sub has been running & for 1.5 years. When I set the speakers & sub up manually the system sounds great.. its 5.1 set-up
> 
> 
> What am I doing wrong?? and yes it has a direct LFE input which I use. What should be the settings in back of sub before I try running program again? And yes all speakers are set to small
> 
> thanks... I'm very frustrated as I've had this Denon AVR for 18 months and like to use the Audyssey software program that i paid for. thanks a lot
> 
> Tom


Hi Tom, my first tip would be to try to turn "Volume" on the Polk subwoofer to 12 o'clock and run Audyssey again. Let us know what trim level was set in the AVR for your sub?


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Am using ATI 2007 for mains and four Hsu TN 1220HO with two Hsu sub amps. My M&K S-150/SS-150 spkrs are 4ohms, so the ATI outputs 300 watts p/ch.
> 
> I have been eying amps that would give me 500 wpc or more just to give me more headroom. Unfortunately, a new HVAC is lined up in front of any more AV upgrades.
> 
> Jeff



Sounds impressive even before the extra headroom. Don't you just hate it when non-essentials get in the way of AV upgrades?


----------



## yanks1

Hi Feri.. 

I followed instructions and sub volume was set at 12 o'clock, Phase is set to zero, and using the LFE input all the settings should be over-ridden and Audyssey should know that.

Its late now so perhaps I'll try for a 4th time tomorrow. At least I know for sure the sub works, all speakers are set to small and the crossover for the fronts are 80 Hz and my rear ceiling surrounds at 120 Hz. Right now it sounds great with my manual set-up listening to classic rock music via Pandora...


----------



## NorthSky

D Bone said:


> I also saw where Chris said something like "It will be the year of preference" which to me, sounds like possibly being able to adjust the frequency boost and surround boost independently in DEQ.......... and maybe if we're really lucky, they will implement a max frequency EQ setting.
> 
> That would be like Christmas, and I would probably buy another AVR because of those features.


But what about those people who just bought a brand new Denon/Marantz receiver (pre/pro) with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (Auro-3D) audio decoders? 
If Audyssey improves their EQ system, what are they going to do; sell their brand new units and buy another one this next Christmas coming up? 
That sounds like normal routine in this audio/video world hobby of ours.


----------



## NorthSky

mogorf said:


> Fully agree with you Sir on getting music correct first. My reference musics are: Patricia Barber (American), Yello (Swiss) and Bliss (from Denmark). Anything from Bliss, but especially "Song for Olabi": "Song for Olabi", a number that contains everything and anything we enthusiast would ever like to hear in a recording.


Good sh!t Feri, my bag of chips. 

* With Audyssey Dynamic EQ engaged, or disengaged? 
______


----------



## Defcon

These are the results I'm seeing -

setup A - Yamaha AVR, 90dB efficient speakers 
setup B - Denon X2200w, 95dB efficient speakers 

Ran the autocal routine for both to let AVR calibrate speakers. 

With A, I watched movies at -20dB. With B, Dynamic Volume and DEQ off, I need to watch almost at -5dB to get the same loudness, tested with SPL meter. I have never listened near reference, it was simply too loud, and I don't understand why it needs to be turned up so much now, esp with speakers that are much more efficient.

I know the standard answer is 'ignore the volume reading' but this does not add up.


----------



## NorthSky

Which model Yamaha receiver? 
And, is that both with their EQ system on?
Did you try with both off?

The Yamaha has a higher gain. Does it sound more full @ low volume* than the Denon? ...Like the bass tighter, and the midrange clearer. 

* Low volume like less than 2 watts (3 max).


----------



## Defcon

It was a RX-V675. I did not have any EQ to speak of with Yamaha, I had run its YPAO but the differences in enabling it were minimal, I only used it to set the speaker distances/levels, which I checked with SPL meter also, and ran with it off. 

What do you mean by 'Yamaha has a higher gain' ? With all EQ off on both, I have to turn the Denon volume up a lot more.


----------



## Defcon

One more thing, from the FAQ - "One thing to note: there is no point whatsoever in changing all the trims by the same amount - this is exactly the same as changing the Master Volume by that amount."

I don't agree with this. e.g. if trim is -10dB, that means the max possible output is 10dB less than what it can be at any given MV setting, right? It may not matter much in practice if your AVR has enough power but its not the same thing.


----------



## NorthSky

Defcon said:


> These are the results I'm seeing -
> 
> setup A - Yamaha AVR, 90dB efficient speakers
> setup B - Denon X2200w, 95dB efficient speakers
> 
> Ran the autocal routine for both to let AVR calibrate speakers.
> 
> With A, I watched movies at -20dB. With B, Dynamic Volume and DEQ off, I need to watch almost at -5dB to get the same loudness, tested with SPL meter. I have never listened near reference, it was simply too loud, and I don't understand why it needs to be turned up so much now, esp with speakers that are much more efficient.
> 
> I know the standard answer is 'ignore the volume reading' but this does not add up.





NorthSky said:


> Which model Yamaha receiver?
> And, is that both with their EQ system on?
> Did you try with both off?
> 
> The Yamaha has a higher gain. Does it sound more full @ low volume* than the Denon? ...Like the bass tighter, and the midrange clearer.
> 
> * Low volume like less than 2 watts (3 max).





Defcon said:


> It was a RX-V675. I did not have any EQ to speak of with Yamaha, I had run its YPAO but the differences in enabling it were minimal, I only used it to set the speaker distances/levels, which I checked with SPL meter also, and ran with it off.
> 
> What do you mean by 'Yamaha has a higher gain' ? With all EQ off on both, I have to turn the Denon volume up a lot more.





Defcon said:


> One more thing, from the FAQ - "One thing to note: there is no point whatsoever in changing all the trims by the same amount - this is exactly the same as changing the Master Volume by that amount."
> 
> I don't agree with this. e.g. if trim is -10dB, that means the max possible output is 10dB less than what it can be at any given MV setting, right? It may not matter much in practice if your AVR has enough power but its not the same thing.


Say you don't apply any room EQ to neither receiver, and all the speaker trims are set with a SPL meter, manually. 
You mentioned speakers of 90dB and 95dB sensitivity used with the two different receivers; are they the front L and R speakers? 

Me, I would use the same set of speakers with both receivers, and check their volume settings where they produce the same volume level.
Then do it again but this time with the other pair of speakers. 
Because the way you are doing it is not totally fair; first you don't know their true sensitivity in your room and @ the MLP. 
Your experiment has to be more precise, IMO.

The difference right now is 15dB in their volume settings, with the speakers's sensitivity you gave us (from the speaker's manufacturers? [email protected] one, two, three meters? In room-response?), it's all too relative...their true sensitivity has to be measured, or use the same set of speakers for both receivers.
Then the difference might be 10dB this time. And the volume settings from different receivers are going to be different anyway for the same power level of the same speakers produced @ the MLP. 

The range of the volume levels vary from one receiver to another. The trims too. Not all receivers are the same. Not all speakers are the same. Some receivers cannot drive 4Ohm speakers. Some receivers need way more power to drive 4Ohm speakers. There are simply too many variables in your example. 

Try what I suggest, and from there I'll get to the second part with you. Because two different pair of speakers have simply too many variables to consider; not just sensitivity, but impedance too, and in-room response @ the mic (MLP). Use the same pair of speakers with both receivers, measure, write it down, post it, and I'll get back to you. EQ off in both, no night mode, no dynamic compression, just channel trims balanced with the same speakers.

And just stereo, to start. Then with five speakers, all the same five for both receivers, no sub. Then with sub, and same sub level, but trim balanced with the main speakers. And if the trim of the sub channel is different for both receivers, it'll affect the overall master volume control setting in each receiver.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> It was a RX-V675. I did not have any EQ to speak of with Yamaha, I had run its YPAO but the differences in enabling it were minimal, I only used it to set the speaker distances/levels, which I checked with SPL meter also, and ran with it off.
> 
> What do you mean by 'Yamaha has a higher gain' ? With all EQ off on both, I have to turn the Denon volume up a lot more.



Hi,

I had a similar reaction to Bob's and I think his advice is good. Reading your original post on the comparison left me wondering if you had both speaker types side-by-side, or if you did the test with one at a time, putting the speakers in optimal positions each time?

With that much variation in volume level, it is also possible that something is wrong with your AVR. I would forget about comparisons with the Yamaha for a while, and just concentrate on getting your Denon to work with your preferred speakers. To do that, you will have to optimize the speaker positions with respect to placement and toe-in, for instance. 

Then, I would do a microprocessor reset on the Denon, and run as good a calibration as you can. If the trim levels still come in that low, and yet your MV still needs to be at a very high level such as -5, I would then substitute the Yamaha for the Denon, without changing anything else at all, and see what that does. 

In theory, Audyssey is recognizing the increased sensitivity of your more sensitive speakers when it sets lower trim levels, but the fact that it isn't getting translated into a lower MV setting is the only concern. That is where a microprocessor reset (or two or three) may be helpful, because something doesn't sound right here. You shouldn't have trim levels that low (which is good=lots of headroom) but then need a MV setting that high. If the microprocessor resets don't work, and sometimes it takes several, you may have a defective receiver. Unfortunately, that can happen with any brand. I hope not, so good luck with the resets. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Surround Boost in DEQ:

I spent some time scanning the papers that Feri linked, based on his conversation with Chris. Chris' willingness to continue to discuss Audyssey-related issues, and his relationship with Feri, are real assets in my opinion.

Although, the papers were very heavy reading, and would require a great deal of time for me to fully (if I ever could) comprehend, I did see several common themes in the various studies cited. First, there is apparently a great deal of variability in the way people perceive changes in SPL, based on angle of incidence in the horizontal plane. Second, sounds arriving from an azimuth of 90* are typically perceived as louder below about 5KHz (above 5KHz, the results are less predictable). Third, sounds arriving from 135* are typically slightly lower than sounds arriving from the front, and even lower than sounds arriving from the side. Fourth, sounds arriving from 180* are typically lower (up to 3 or 4db?) than sounds arriving from the side (the side appeared to consistently produce more perceived loudness at frequencies lower than 5KHz--unpredictable above that).

If someone else interprets the conclusions of those papers differently, please feel free to correct my summary as required. It would take me more time than I am currently willing to devote to double-check my own summary. But I think it is generally, and reasonably, accurate.

That takes me back to the discussion earlier, about the extent to which Audyssey was utilizing a valid premise in creating the surround boost, and tying it to DEQ. I had speculated that even if some sounds fall off faster from behind than they do in front, that wouldn't have justified boosting surrounds in a 5.1 system, since the surround speakers would typically be at about 90* or so (where it turns out that our hearing is actually most sensitive). 

The Dolby recommendation for surround speakers in a 5.1 system is for 90* (+/- 10*). That would have been the standard when DEQ was created. Gurkey linked to a 2012 standard from an ITU whitepaper suggesting an azimuth of anywhere from 100* to 120*. That's a little further toward the back than the older Dolby standard, but still well short of the 135* where the studies cited found a measurably significant SPL loss. It was unclear to me that there was consensus in the amount of SPL loss at 135*, and it was somewhat frequency dependent, but I inferred that it was relatively small--on the order of 1.5 to 2db.

Based on those papers, I am still inclined to conclude that the surround boost was based on an inappropriate conceptual leap, from the idea that rear arriving sounds are softer, to the implementation of a process that added boost to side arriving sounds in a 5.1 system (which was then, and even now still probably is, the most common surround system).

It is also worth noting, that in the various tests, subjects literally sat with their heads in a vice (well, not quite a vice) in order to obtain reliable measurable results. But we don't typically watch movies that way. We relax, turn slightly, to pick up something to drink, or for whatever reason, and in the process slightly change the angle at which the ear on either side of our head is, relative to surround and even rear surround speakers. The fact that we don't actually sit with our heads immobile, in my opinion, also made the surround boost a less reliable way to deal with side/rear arriving sound, even if that had been a truly desirable goal to start with.

As for why the surround boost is more bothersome to some listeners than to others, specific rooms, speakers, and speaker placement may be part of the explanation, but the wide variance in perception found in the test subjects, in all of the studies, would also help to explain it. We simply do not all perceive sounds in the same way, nor changes in loudness, nor directional changes in loudness.

I want to reiterate something I said earlier. None of this is intended as an indictment of either DEQ, in general, or of the surround boost, in particular. I am quite serious in believing that people should just like what they like, and not worry too much about what other people say, and I especially believe that with respect to entertainment choices. I don't always agree with movie reviews, or base all of my viewing decisions on other peoples' opinions, for instance. And much of what I have written is subjective--logical maybe, but still subjective. So, if you enjoy the surround boost in DEQ, or simply don't notice it particularly, then this post shouldn't change anything at all for you. But it's an interesting subject that keeps coming up, and I think that understanding the validity of the origin of the surround boost is a worthwhile discussion to have.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Defcon

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I had a similar reaction to Bob's and I think his advice is good. Reading your original post on the comparison left me wondering if you had both speaker types side-by-side, or if you did the test with one at a time, putting the speakers in optimal positions each time?
> 
> With that much variation in volume level, it is also possible that something is wrong with your AVR. I would forget about comparisons with the Yamaha for a while, and just concentrate on getting your Denon to work with your preferred speakers. To do that, you will have to optimize the speaker positions with respect to placement and toe-in, for instance.
> 
> Then, I would do a microprocessor reset on the Denon, and run as good a calibration as you can. If the trim levels still come in that low, and yet your MV still needs to be at a very high level such as -5, I would then substitute the Yamaha for the Denon, without changing anything else at all, and see what that does.
> 
> In theory, Audyssey is recognizing the increased sensitivity of your more sensitive speakers when it sets lower trim levels, but the fact that it isn't getting translated into a lower MV setting is the only concern. That is where a microprocessor reset (or two or three) may be helpful, because something doesn't sound right here. You shouldn't have trim levels that low (which is good=lots of headroom) but then need a MV setting that high. If the microprocessor resets don't work, and sometimes it takes several, you may have a defective receiver. Unfortunately, that can happen with any brand. I hope not, so good luck with the resets.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I have both sets of speakers and compared them one by one (2 sets of LCR speakers), not side by side. I just took this photo in my living room -










The new speakers are 3 Behringer B212XL as LCR, which I bought after finding out in this thread - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1519940-behringer-eurolive-b215xl-15-2-way-l-r-mains.html.
Old speakers are not connected now, its the tiny one next to the huge center. The sensitivity specs for the Behringer have been confirmed in that thread as 95dB, the older speaker is no longer made. I don't have the Yamaha anymore.

Denon set the trim levels to -6/-8dB across the board. I have tried raising the trim levels manually (while still keeping the differences between them), which is the same as raising MV. But my main concern about which I posted earlier as well is that with DV off, the SPL drops off by 10/15dB on all content, not just with peaks/lows.

I will try the reset.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> I have both sets of speakers and compared them one by one, not side by side. I just took this photo in my living room -



I don't know whether you got to complete your post, but no photo is showing.


----------



## Defcon

mthomas47 said:


> I don't know whether you got to complete your post, but no photo is showing.


Hit submit by mistake, its complete now.


----------



## yanks1

yanks1 said:


> Hi Feri..
> 
> I followed instructions and sub volume was set at 12 o'clock, Phase is set to zero, and using the LFE input all the settings should be over-ridden and Audyssey should know that.
> 
> Its late now so perhaps I'll try for a 4th time tomorrow. At least I know for sure the sub works, all speakers are set to small and the crossover for the fronts are 80 Hz and my rear ceiling surrounds at 120 Hz. Right now it sounds great with my manual set-up listening to classic rock music via Pandora...


Update:

Haven't re-run Audyssey yet due to it being Easter. But my sub issue aside, my wife and I know noticed big change in our 2 rear surround in-ceiling speakers. We played all channel 5.1 music via Pandora for 3-4 hours and the rears sounded so much more lively & more punch. I assume Audyssey changed something in our Denon S900W software to drive this?? or just my imagination??


----------



## mthomas47

yanks1 said:


> Update:
> 
> Haven't re-run Audyssey yet due to it being Easter. But my sub issue aside, my wife and I know noticed big change in our 2 rear surround in-ceiling speakers. We played all channel 5.1 music via Pandora for 3-4 hours and the rears sounded so much more lively & more punch. I assume Audyssey changed something in our Denon S900W software to drive this?? or just my imagination??



Hi,

If you have DEQ enabled (Audyssey defaults to that when you do a calibration) that would explain it. DEQ boosts the surrounds a bit, which you may be enjoying. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> I have both sets of speakers and compared them one by one (2 sets of LCR speakers), not side by side. I just took this photo in my living room -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The new speakers are 3 Behringer B212XL as LCR, which I bought after finding out in this thread - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/1519940-behringer-eurolive-b215xl-15-2-way-l-r-mains.html.
> Old speakers are not connected now, its the tiny one next to the huge center. The sensitivity specs for the Behringer have been confirmed in that thread as 95dB, the older speaker is no longer made. I don't have the Yamaha anymore.
> 
> Denon set the trim levels to -6/-8dB across the board. I have tried raising the trim levels manually (while still keeping the differences between them), which is the same as raising MV. But my main concern about which I posted earlier as well is that with DV off, the SPL drops off by 10/15dB on all content, not just with peaks/lows.
> 
> I will try the reset.



Those are pretty bad*ss speakers compared to your older bookshelves. When you get everything dialed in properly, I predict that you will have a pretty dynamic front soundstage.


----------



## torii

if you have non matching subs, does audyssey neuter the stronger sub to get them to match? or better yet, what exactly does audyssey do to get 2 different subs to work best together?


----------



## mthomas47

torii said:


> if you have non matching subs, does audyssey neuter the stronger sub to get them to match? or better yet, what exactly does audyssey do to get 2 different subs to work best together?



Hi,

Audyssey, even with XT-32, is limited in what it can do with two subs. First, with SubEQ and two sub inputs, it can set distances and levels for two subs. But when it does its pings during calibration, it pings both subs simultaneously and EQ's both subs as a pair. It won't do anything to suppress the stronger sub in a mis-matched pair. But it also won't EQ below the F3 point of the weaker sub.

It's a good idea to match subs with respect to general frequency response and F3 point anyway, and particularly so with Audyssey, because Audyssey will simply stop setting filters at the higher F3 point of a mis-matched pair. That won't do any harm, but it also won't give you the full benefit of EQ for the stronger sub. If the F3 point were only one or two hertz difference, I probably wouldn't worry about it. But, arbitrarily I guess, I would draw the line at about a 3Hz difference as being too much difference for me. YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> The Dolby recommendation for surround speakers in a 5.1 system is for 90* (+/- 10*). That would have been the standard when DEQ was created. Gurkey linked to a 2012 standard from an ITU whitepaper suggesting an azimuth of anywhere from 100* to 120*. That's a little further toward the back than the older Dolby standard, but still well short of the 135* where the studies cited found a measurably significant SPL loss.


Our surrounds are at about 115 degrees. Audyssey _*without *_DEQ sets them a little low in SPL, IMO. I fixed that! But, leaving the surrounds as I set them, upon switching to DEQ they are too high at low MV settings. This is not a problem for me because I almost never use DEQ, and usually run movies at about 5 dB below reference, where DEQ would make little difference.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Our surrounds are at about 115 degrees. Audyssey _*without *_DEQ sets them a little low in SPL, IMO. * I fixed that!* But, leaving the surrounds as I set them, upon switching to DEQ they are too high at low MV settings. This is not a problem for me because I almost never use DEQ, and usually run movies at about 5 dB below reference, where DEQ would make little difference.



Hi Gary,

I'll bet you did.  I was just thinking about you, while my ears were bleeding a little while ago. I listen mostly to jazz at moderate volume levels these days. But I was in the mood for something meatier earlier today, and classical music requires higher volumes, IMO.

I listened first, to Tchaikovsky's "Violin Concerto, Opus 35", which is my all time favorite classical piece. And then I listened to some Gustav Holst, "The Planets". My favorites are "Jupiter" and "Mars" and no, I don't take joy in war.  They have wonderful brass and bass, both of which I know you like, and the Mars piece particularly is just an assault on the senses. I'm guessing these are probably also favorites of yours.

I can't listen at the volumes you do, but even at my volumes, that last piece is just stunning. I read an interesting discussion on another thread the other day concerning the noise floor in a listening room. I have slightly sensitive hearing anyway (if we don't count the high frequencies I have lost ) but a couple of posters were making the point that the noise floor in the room is also an important variable in determining listening volume. I have measured the noise floor in my room, with my system on, at a pretty consistent 24db (sometimes 23db, sometimes 25db). So, that may also be a factor, because the difference between the quietest and loudest passages in my room can be 50db or more, even listening at moderate levels. 

I think it might be interesting, as people compare listening volumes to also compare noise floors, to try to determine how much anecdotal correlation there is. I am pretty sure that individual response to loudness will still trump noise floor, with respect to comfortable listening volumes, but the comparison may still add an interesting dimension to the discussion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I can't listen at the volumes you do, but even at my volumes, that last piece is just stunning. I read an interesting discussion on another thread the other day concerning the noise floor in a listening room. I have slightly sensitive hearing anyway (if we don't count the high frequencies I have lost ) but a couple of posters were making the point that the noise floor in the room is also an important variable in determining listening volume. *I have measured the noise floor in my room, with my system on, at a pretty consistent 24db (sometimes 23db, sometimes 25db).* So, that may also be a factor, because the difference between the quietest and loudest passages in my room can be 50db or more, even listening at moderate levels.


Mike, care to share how you measured the noise floor in your room?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Mike, care to share how you measured the noise floor in your room?



Sure, Feri! It wasn't very sophisticated, though. I just used an SPL meter (an app on my smartphone) at my MLP. I have tried it by holding the phone up to ear level, and putting the phone down on a stable surface, and gotten the same result. Holding the phone actually makes the level fluctuate more, because it picks up things as subtle as my breathing.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> Sure, Feri! It wasn't very sophisticated, though. I just used an SPL meter (an app on my smartphone) at my MLP. I have tried it by holding the phone up to ear level, and putting the phone down on a stable surface, and gotten the same result. Holding the phone actually makes the level fluctuate more, because it picks up things as subtle as my breathing.


How was that measuring device calibrated?


----------



## mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by *mthomas47* http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...thread-part-ii-post42745258.html#post42745258 
_Sure, Feri! It wasn't very sophisticated, though. I just used an SPL meter (an app on my smartphone) at my MLP. I have tried it by holding the phone up to ear level, and putting the phone down on a stable surface, and gotten the same result. Holding the phone actually makes the level fluctuate more, because it picks up things as subtle as my breathing._




pepar said:


> How was that measuring device calibrated?


I'm also a bit worried about that result Mike. 24 dB seems to be too low for a normal residential area. For a "quick and dirty" calibration you can easily use the internal test tones of your AVR with MV set to 0 dB while measuring 75 dB at MLP.


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> How was that measuring device calibrated?



There's always one, isn't there?  It's a fair question, though.  I went with the best-reviewed app I could find, and paid for the upgraded version. But, short of comparing it to a professionally calibrated one, how could I be sure? And even then, I believe there is a +/- 2db error factor on most of them.

FWIW, it does align pretty well with what Audyssey tells me my trim levels and MV are.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *mthomas47*
> _Sure, Feri! It wasn't very sophisticated, though. I just used an SPL meter (an app on my smartphone) at my MLP. I have tried it by holding the phone up to ear level, and putting the phone down on a stable surface, and gotten the same result. Holding the phone actually makes the level fluctuate more, because it picks up things as subtle as my breathing._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also a bit worried about that result Mike. 24 dB seems to be too low for a normal residential area. For a "quick and dirty" calibration you can easily use the internal test tones of your AVR with MV set to 0 dB while measuring 75 dB at MLP.



I don't know that I would call this a normal residential area. It's a big house on a pretty big lot, and it's very solidly constructed. This room sits on a concrete slab, with no close neighbors, and even vehicles passing are not very audible unless they are large trucks or someone drag racing up or down the hill in front of the house. It's a pretty quiet neighborhood to start with, but I get really good sound isolation in my listening room. 

And I have compared it to Audyssey test tones.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I'll bet you did.  I was just thinking about you, while my ears were bleeding a little while ago. I listen mostly to jazz at moderate volume levels these days. But I was in the mood for something meatier earlier today, and classical music requires higher volumes, IMO.
> 
> I listened first, to Tchaikovsky's "Violin Concerto, Opus 35", which is my all time favorite classical piece. And then I listened to some Gustav Holst, "The Planets". My favorites are "Jupiter" and "Mars" and no, I don't take joy in war.  They have wonderful brass and bass, both of which I know you like, and the Mars piece particularly is just an assault on the senses. I'm guessing these are probably also favorites of yours.
> 
> I can't listen at the volumes you do, but even at my volumes, that last piece is just stunning. I read an interesting discussion on another thread the other day concerning the noise floor in a listening room. I have slightly sensitive hearing anyway (if we don't count the high frequencies I have lost ) but a couple of posters were making the point that the noise floor in the room is also an important variable in determining listening volume. I have measured the noise floor in my room, with my system on, at a pretty consistent 24db (sometimes 23db, sometimes 25db). So, that may also be a factor, because the difference between the quietest and loudest passages in my room can be 50db or more, even listening at moderate levels.
> 
> I think it might be interesting, as people compare listening volumes to also compare noise floors, to try to determine how much anecdotal correlation there is. I am pretty sure that individual response to loudness will still trump noise floor, with respect to comfortable listening volumes, but the comparison may still add an interesting dimension to the discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I agree that orchestral music requires higher SPLs than Jazz, at least on the biggest crescendos and peaks. This would include movie scores, as well as classical. Once in a while I used to see a passage marked _*fff*_, but the most novel marking I saw was _*fff presto barbaro *_in Leonard Bernstein's score for On the Waterfront. We played it barbarically! The movie soundtrack did not have big dynamics, because it was an optical soundtrack (see the chapter "Upper Dubbing, California" in Bernstein's book The Joy of Music). People who measure orchestral SPLs from the near rows (as I have from time to time) will often find the loudest peaks to be 110/115 dB, with 120 dB not unheard of ("C," "Fast"), but you need a peak reading (or at least a LED) meter to read these -- the needle ballistics prevent needle meters from registering these brief peaks. I saw a paper that measured the bass peaks in the 70mm version of The Empire Strikes Back at 110 dB, and that was about 36 years ago! Modern theatrical sound may well go louder. The reason that these peaks shouldn't hurt your ears is that they are very brief. A loud orchestral passage that averages 90 dB can easily hit peaks of 115 dB, or so, for milliseconds. That's a difference between orchestral music and Rock or Metal, which tend to have long passages that are very loud without much let-up, and they can damage hearing.

Mike, which version of "The Planets" do you have? I have the Steinberg Boston Symphony version. I've heard better. I just put "Mars, the Bringer of War" on at about my usual level, and it measured 94 dB ("C," "Fast") on the peaks, but I don't have a peak reading meter now. I understand that unread peaks on a needle meter can be up to ~~ 13 dB louder, so the level could have briefly touched 107 dB.

I've heard that the noise floor in a quiet living room is about 30 dB. I don't know what our noise floor is, because the lowest setting on my meter's dial is 60 dB, which would register 50 dB at a reading of -10 (the bottom). The noise floor is definitely below 50 dB, though, because the needle didn't move at all; it just stayed at the bottom.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mike, which version of "The Planets" do you have? I have the Steinberg Boston Symphony version. I've heard better. I just put "Mars, the Bringer of War" on at about my usual level, and it measured 94 dB ("C," "Fast") on the peaks, but I don't have a peak reading meter now. I understand that unread peaks on a needle meter can be up to ~~ 13 dB louder, so the level could have briefly touched 107 dB.
> 
> I've heard that the noise floor in a quiet living room is about 30 dB. I don't know what our noise floor is, because the lowest setting on my meter's dial is 60 dB, which would register 50 dB at a reading of -10 (the bottom). The noise floor is definitely below 50 dB, though, because the needle didn't move at all; it just stayed at the bottom.



I have the London Symphony Orchestra version, but I don't remember the conductor's name. "Mars" is quite dynamic. It's not just brief peaks which are loud, but sustained volumes. Beethoven and Wagner would have been pleased, although Beethoven might have wanted to listen early in his career. 

I have heard that 30db number as well, but according to my reading, some rooms are into the low to mid-twenties. If you have a smart phone, you could download an app to use for something like that, and compare it to your other meter for accuracy. I don't remember what the high end on one of those is (I have had mine in the 90's, I think), but I haven't really tried to find out with mine either. 

Your tolerance for very loud noises is impressive. If I attended a live indoor performance of "The Planets" these days, I think I would want to sit toward the back.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I have the London Symphony Orchestra version, but I don't remember the conductor's name. "Mars" is quite dynamic. It's not just brief peaks which are loud, but sustained volumes. Beethoven and Wagner would have been pleased, although Beethoven might have wanted to listen early in his career.
> 
> I have heard that 30db number as well, but according to my reading, some rooms are into the low to mid-twenties. If you have a smart phone, you could download an app to use for something like that, and compare it to your other meter for accuracy. I don't remember what the high end on one of those is (I have had mine in the 90's, I think), but I haven't really tried to find out with mine either.
> 
> Your tolerance for very loud noises is impressive. If I attended a live indoor performance of "The Planets" these days, I think I would want to sit toward the back.


Mike, if you and I were sitting next to each other at a live orchestral concert, I wonder if we would have a different tolerance. Live orchestras tend to be easy to listen to loud because an orchestra pumping away at a high SPL has no distortion (no FM, IM, TIM, Harmonic, or the great Un-named) and, although there may be acoustical anomalies, concert halls and commercial theaters are too big to have room mode problems (I think, if I understand correctly). The SPL we can tolerate at home may depend, in part, on what types of distortion we can best tolerate, and how much. All recording media produce distortion, and it's easier to hear and more annoying at high SPL. IMO, some recordings (especially CDs) sound much worse than others because the producers have permitted over-recording, microphone diaphragm crashing, board overload, etc. Believe me, I listen to those at a lower volume, if at all! Processors, including Audyssey, have been accused of contributing distortion (while minimizing room distortion). Different speakers produce different amounts and combinations of types of distortion as they get louder. I once saw a chart depicting the point at which various "good" speakers produced 2% distortion (probably IM) when being fed two steady tones. The point at which they reached 2% varied from about 85 dB to 109 dB. The contribution of amplifiers (below clipping) is hotly debated. I've heard that some types of harmonic distortion can produce "richness" or "sheen," while IM is probably hated by everyone.

There are a few movies with sound I cherished in the theater years ago, but, because of their now damaged soundtracks, I've all but given up on because I can't play them loudly enough to convey their power without annoying distortion. As I've said
before, with these old magnetic soundtracks, Audyssey Reference helps filter out some of the HF distortion, but sometimes not enough. Restorers seem to try a lot harder with the picture than with the sound.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mike, if you and I were sitting next to each other at a live orchestral concert, I wonder if we would have a different tolerance. Live orchestras tend to be easy to listen to loud because an orchestra pumping away at a high SPL has no distortion (no FM, IM, TIM, Harmonic, or the great Un-named) and, although there may be acoustical anomalies, concert halls and commercial theaters are too big to have room mode problems (I think, if I understand correctly). The SPL we can tolerate at home may depend, in part, on what types of distortion we can best tolerate, and how much. All recording media produce distortion, and it's easier to hear and more annoying at high SPL. IMO, some recordings (especially CDs) sound much worse than others because the producers have permitted over-recording, microphone diaphragm crashing, board overload, etc. Believe me, I listen to those at a lower volume, if at all! Processors, including Audyssey, have been accused of contributing distortion (while minimizing room distortion). Different speakers produce different amounts and combinations of types of distortion as they get louder. I once saw a chart depicting the point at which various "good" speakers produced 2% distortion (probably IM) when being fed two steady tones. The point at which they reached 2% varied from about 85 dB to 109 dB. The contribution of amplifiers (below clipping) is hotly debated. I've heard that some types of harmonic distortion can produce "richness" or "sheen," while IM is probably hated by everyone.
> 
> There are a few movies with sound I cherished in the theater years ago, but, because of their now damaged soundtracks, I've all but given up on because I can't play them loudly enough to convey their power without annoying distortion. As I've said
> before, with these old magnetic soundtracks, Audyssey Reference helps filter out some of the HF distortion, but sometimes not enough. Restorers seem to try a lot harder with the picture than with the sound.



That's a really good post, Gary!

I entirely agree with the distinction you draw between live sound in a good concert hall, and recorded sound played in virtually any venue. But to be honest, I do think that some people are more sensitive to loud noises (not just distortion of different types, or at certain frequencies) in the same way that some people are more sensitive to strong odors, or to glare. Many drivers rarely, or never, wear sunglasses, for instance, and I always do.

I don't think that we really understand the correlation between our various senses, and the brain's reaction to external stimulus very well yet. For instance, we know that people who react strongly to strong tastes (such as very spicy food) or to strong odors, typically have more taste buds than people who are less sensitive. So, there is some genetic predisposition there, but there are probably lots of exceptions too. And I have read that people with lighter colored eyes, such as blue, may be less genetically predisposed to tolerate glare than people with darker eyes. I don't recall the literature on that, but even if there is a general genetic predisposition, there would be plenty of individual exceptions to it. And I have no idea what if any genetic predisposition might help to explain a greater or lesser tolerance for loud noise. Number or relative thickness of cilia? The shape of the ear canal? The relative thickness of the tympanic membrane? Some combination of all of those things? I don't have a clue.

But even with potential genetic predispositions, the specific way that a specific individual's brain interprets and reacts to external stimulus is not well understood at all. That would be the psycho-acoustic aspect of audio. Personally, I have no doubt that if you and I sat side-by-side in a concert hall (which would be fun) listening to "Mars Bringer of War", we would both enjoy it , but I would be cringing a little inside at the volume, while you would be thinking "bring it on". 

I have a friend in her mid-70's now I think (a fellow Bozak owner) who takes some special ear plugs with her to live symphony concerts in case she and her husband have to sit too close to the front for something like Wagner or Mahler. She can still hear a 20Hz test tone (I'm jealous) but she really doesn't tolerate loud noises very well. I think my tolerance for loud noises is much better than hers, but less than that of some other people. So, again, who knows?

Incidentally, I also agree with your observation on remastered movies seeming to concentrate less on the soundtrack than the picture. FWIW, I think that sound may actually be harder to work with than color and picture quality. I hear a lot of music where an individual song has been remastered without really improving it very much. Removing distortion, or improving what must have been just generally poor sound, from inadequate recording equipment or technique, must be quite a challenge.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Defcon

A strange twist to the story - friend of mine wants to sell his old receiver, so he let me borrow it today and we set it up. Its an Onkyo TX-NR609 and also has Audyssey but only 2EQ. Remember how I was asking about why Dynamic Volume made everything much louder? I don't see any of that in the Onkyo! It works as it should, reducing the volume differences a bit. Tested both AVRs with the same content - BR and Tv, and we both agree, on the Denon turning DV on is like a 10-15dB SPL boost.

Now I know the X2200 has the much more advanced MultiEQ XT and maybe its DV implementation is totally different, I don't know the details. Also the Onkyo's Dynamic EQ seems to do less to the surrounds but on this my memory is not reliable as its not as pronounced as the volume differences. I also don't know if the old Movie/Music modes were renamed to Reference/Flat or if there are other changes.

Remember this is the first time I'm using Audyssey so its all new to me, I've decided DEQ is really good and DV the jury is still out, I also don't think that in my room turning Audyssey on/off makes a real difference when watching movies (esp not the older 2EQ).


----------



## gurkey

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Audyssey, even with XT-32, is limited in what it can do with two subs. First, with SubEQ and two sub inputs, it can set distances and levels for two subs. But when it does its pings during calibration, it pings both subs simultaneously and EQ's both subs as a pair. It won't do anything to suppress the stronger sub in a mis-matched pair. But it also won't EQ below the F3 point of the weaker sub.
> 
> It's a good idea to match subs with respect to general frequency response and F3 point anyway, and particularly so with Audyssey, because Audyssey will simply stop setting filters at the higher F3 point of a mis-matched pair. That won't do any harm, but it also won't give you the full benefit of EQ for the stronger sub. If the F3 point were only one or two hertz difference, I probably wouldn't worry about it. But, arbitrarily I guess, I would draw the line at about a 3Hz difference as being too much difference for me. YMMV!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


The problematic thing is, that Audyssey doesn't "know" anything about your subs, except the sensitivity / level and the distance of each and the F3 limit (not sure about this for the subs).
Thus no matching/ correction or anything special can be done for the less capable one, except correcting the sum of both frequency responses. In case you will be listening at a higher level, there is the possibility of overdriving the less capable sub without even realising it if it doesn't get damaged or distorts heavily. 
Audyssey like every other measurment system i know of handles both subs in a monophonic constellation, reproducing the same content from the subwoofer outs and thus equalizing them together. So it's a good thing to have (almost) equal or same model subs in general.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> A strange twist to the story - friend of mine wants to sell his old receiver, so he let me borrow it today and we set it up. Its an Onkyo TX-NR609 and also has Audyssey but only 2EQ. Remember how I was asking about why Dynamic Volume made everything much louder? I don't see any of that in the Onkyo! It works as it should, reducing the volume differences a bit. Tested both AVRs with the same content - BR and Tv, and we both agree, on the Denon turning DV on is like a 10-15dB SPL boost.
> 
> Now I know the X2200 has the much more advanced MultiEQ XT and maybe its DV implementation is totally different, I don't know the details. Also the Onkyo's Dynamic EQ seems to do less to the surrounds but on this my memory is not reliable as its not as pronounced as the volume differences. I also don't know if the old Movie/Music modes were renamed to Reference/Flat or if there are other changes.
> 
> 
> Remember this is the first time I'm using Audyssey so its all new to me, I've decided DEQ is really good and DV the jury is still out, I also don't think that in my room turning Audyssey on/off makes a real difference when watching movies (esp not the older 2EQ).



Hi,

I'm not too surprised to hear that 2EQ is not doing much. It was a very early version of Audyssey. I am still a little suspicious about whether your Denon is operating properly. Did you try a couple of microprocessor resets, and if so, did anything at all change afterwards? Of course, you would have to run a new calibration after you did a reset.


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> The problematic thing is, that Audyssey doesn't "know" anything about your subs, except the sensitivity / level and the distance of each and the F3 limit (not sure about this for the subs).
> Thus no matching/ correction or anything special can be done for the less capable one, except correcting the sum of both frequency responses. In case you will be listening at a higher level, there is the possibility of overdriving the less capable sub without even realising it if it doesn't get damaged or distorts heavily.
> Audyssey like every other measurment system i know of handles both subs in a monophonic constellation, reproducing the same content from the subwoofer outs and thus equalizing them together. So it's a good thing to have (almost) equal or same model subs in general.



That all makes sense to me. We had some discussion a month or so back about exactly what Audyssey does do with two subs. My understanding is that it recognizes the combined F3 point. So, I don't believe that it would even recognize the lower F3 point of the more capable sub in a mismatched pair. In theory, nothing Audyssey is doing would specifically lead to over-driving the weaker sub, although DEQ may be a bit of a wild card in that respect. But the point that you make about possibly over-driving your weaker sub without even realizing it seems plausible to me. Not everyone recognizes the sound of distortion immediately, particularly if one sub is making normal sounds. I think that most of us on this thread would be slightly more likely to recognize the sound of a sub starting to distort, but hopefully we wouldn't be trying to operate two very different subs to begin with. 

All things considered, it's just not a very good idea.


----------



## D Bone

Defcon said:


> A strange twist to the story - friend of mine wants to sell his old receiver, so he let me borrow it today and we set it up. Its an Onkyo TX-NR609 and also has Audyssey but only 2EQ. Remember how I was asking about why Dynamic Volume made everything much louder? I don't see any of that in the Onkyo! It works as it should, reducing the volume differences a bit. Tested both AVRs with the same content - BR and Tv, and we both agree, on the Denon turning DV on is like a 10-15dB SPL boost.
> 
> Now I know the X2200 has the much more advanced MultiEQ XT and maybe its DV implementation is totally different, I don't know the details. Also the Onkyo's Dynamic EQ seems to do less to the surrounds but on this my memory is not reliable as its not as pronounced as the volume differences. I also don't know if the old Movie/Music modes were renamed to Reference/Flat or if there are other changes.
> 
> Remember this is the first time I'm using Audyssey so its all new to me, I've decided DEQ is really good and DV the jury is still out, I also don't think that in my room turning Audyssey on/off makes a real difference when watching movies (esp not the older 2EQ).


If it makes you feel any better, I had an Onkyo 709 with XT (that literally went up in smoke at a super unopportunistic time, but I digress) and its Dynamic Volume acted exactly as you described - the large volume increase to the entire signal as soon as it's activated........... My Denon X2000 with XT also did this as well.

I don't know about my current X3200's XT because I haven't ever engaged it, as it's evil and will summon the compression overlord, and nobody wants that.


----------



## Defcon

D Bone said:


> If it makes you feel any better, I had an Onkyo 709 with XT (that literally went up in smoke at a super unopportunistic time, but I digress) and its Dynamic Volume acted exactly as you described - the large volume increase to the entire signal as soon as it's activated........... My Denon X2000 with XT also did this as well.
> 
> I don't know about my current X3200's XT because I haven't ever engaged it, as it's evil and will summon the compression overlord, and nobody wants that.


Thanks, I thought I was the only one experiencing this issue. Would you mind trying it out on the X3200 as well, just briefly


----------



## Alan P

Defcon said:


> Thanks, I thought I was the only one experiencing this issue. Would you mind trying it out on the X3200 as well, just briefly


You're probably not alone, just in the minority...because very few in these parts have ever even turned on DV. 

I'll try to remember to give it a go tonight on my 4520CI and report back.


----------



## Defcon

Alan P said:


> You're probably not alone, just in the minority...because very few in these parts have ever even turned on DV.
> 
> I'll try to remember to give it a go tonight on my 4520CI and report back.


Appreciate it, thanks. I cannot hear any audible loss of detail with Light mode in DV so I've kept it on. Also I think on the Ask Audyssey blog Chris had said you really don't lose anything with the lowest level, but not sure if that was in some other context.


----------



## D Bone

Defcon said:


> Thanks, I thought I was the only one experiencing this issue. Would you mind trying it out on the X3200 as well, just briefly


Yes, my x3200 also does this......... Now I need to pour salt around my house and wear garlic.


----------



## asarose247

an anomaly 

I''ll be re-running XT32 again, to say the least 

but as a a curios FYI

The distance for my 4 "standard' tops, TF/TR was set to 24.9 feet by XT32http://www.avsforum.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif

yet when checking the manual settings the distance is 6.5 or so

now taking into consideration that the Scatmos amps driving the 6 tops are set to reference @80 of the MV , by pair of onky's , an 818 and 260

I've set the dist. on the X5200 to 6.5 for TF/TR and 5.5 for the TM, that TM dist. set in the outboard amp speaker settings

and I've checked the Scatmos tops levels thru each amp, 1 amp does left channels, the other the right channels, with a SPL and have them set all to 75.

I don't think my scatmops clouds suck up that much output

back to it


----------



## Defcon

D Bone said:


> Yes, my x3200 also does this......... Now I need to pour salt around my house and wear garlic.


or you could leave it on and embrace the Dark Side  (sorry for mixing metaphors)


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> Yes, my x3200 also does this......... Now I need to pour salt around my house and wear garlic.



In the interest of science, I tried Dynamic Volume a few minutes ago. I played some New Age music that varied little in both tone or volume, perfect for this sort of thing, and tried all the settings. Starting from a low volume of about -24, I tried Heavy first and measured an immediate jump in volume of about 6db. I also observed that it sounded even louder than that because everything was compressed into the mid-range. The Medium and Light settings offered progressively less compression (although it was still slightly audible on Light in the upper treble) at about the same volume level.

I then went up to -20, and the observed volume jumped by about 10db. Curious! Again, the Heavy setting sounded loudest to me because much of the upper frequency was pushed into the mid-range where our hearing is most sensitive. Again, I didn't measure much difference in total volume between the three settings at -20. All were about 10db, give or take, louder than with DV off, but there was an audible difference in the amount of compression with Heavy perceptually loudest, followed by Medium, followed by Light.

Incidentally, I think your precautions with garlic and salt were silly and unnecessary. I simply submerged my remote in a large bucket of Clorox. In retrospect, I probably should have removed the batteries before soaking it, but I really didn't want to handle it any more than I had to. I'm sure it will be okay?


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> That's a really good post, Gary!
> 
> I entirely agree with the distinction you draw between live sound in a good concert hall, and recorded sound played in virtually any venue. But to be honest, I do think that some people are more sensitive to loud noises (not just distortion of different types, or at certain frequencies) in the same way that some people are more sensitive to strong odors, or to glare. Many drivers rarely, or never, wear sunglasses, for instance, and I always do.
> 
> I don't think that we really understand the correlation between our various senses, and the brain's reaction to external stimulus very well yet. For instance, we know that people who react strongly to strong tastes (such as very spicy food) or to strong odors, typically have more taste buds than people who are less sensitive. So, there is some genetic predisposition there, but there are probably lots of exceptions too. And I have read that people with lighter colored eyes, such as blue, may be less genetically predisposed to tolerate glare than people with darker eyes ...
> 
> ... But even with potential genetic predispositions, the specific way that a specific individual's brain interprets and reacts to external stimulus is not well understood at all. That would be the psycho-acoustic aspect of audio. Personally, I have no doubt that if you and I sat side-by-side in a concert hall (which would be fun) listening to "Mars Bringer of War", we would both enjoy it , but I would be cringing a little inside at the volume, while you would be thinking "bring it on".
> 
> I have a friend in her mid-70's now I think (a fellow Bozak owner) who takes some special ear plugs with her to live symphony concerts in case she and her husband have to sit too close to the front for something like Wagner or Mahler. She can still hear a 20Hz test tone (I'm jealous) but she really doesn't tolerate loud noises very well. I think my tolerance for loud noises is much better than hers, but less than that of some other people. So, again, who knows?
> 
> Incidentally, I also agree with your observation on remastered movies seeming to concentrate less on the soundtrack than the picture. FWIW, I think that sound may actually be harder to work with than color and picture quality. I hear a lot of music where an individual song has been remastered without really improving it very much. Removing distortion, or improving what must have been just generally poor sound, from inadequate recording equipment or technique, must be quite a challenge.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I agree with all of what you are saying about individual differences in the senses. I have dark eyes, and never wear sunglasses. My wife and daughter have light eyes and wear sunglasses frequently. But I don't see as well driving on dark roads at night as they do. I read somewhere that light eyes, on the average, see things one F-stop (100%) brighter than dark eyes. They must have done threshold studies, or something. But, like 3 dB, this 100% difference is not too big perceptually. 

Women tend to have better hearing than men, but this differences may be diminishing as both genders are wearing ear protection in industry (men in the Fletcher-Munsen generation never did), and fewer men and, perhaps, more women are smoking, etc. Two women I know with very sensitive hearing still like loud orchestral music, but like their Rock softer. One likes the upper band smoothing of Audyssey, even though it makes the music a bit brighter (I haven't seen the other one post-Audyssey). I always have kept my distance from Rock bands, but once, on the 4th of July, there was a band at the end of Haight street, and people near it were kneeling on the ground looking at the sidewalk. My curiosity was just too great, so I put my fingers in my ears, and carefully kept them plugged, as I edged forward. When I got close, I could see what people were looking at; the dirt was bouncing off the sidewalk in rhythm with the music! 

Psychologists tend to distinguish between sensation and perception. There are differences in sensation (e,g., sensitivity of a person's sense organs and nerve transmission on the way to the brain), but they are thought to be minor compared to differences in perception, which constitutes the brain's processing of sensation, although some would subsume sensation under perception, as well. This processing is complicated, and thought to be influenced by both nature & nurture (including life experience, incidental and deliberate conditioning, etc.). 

The relatively few individuals who have been given sight after having been blind from birth tend to see things differently than we do, at least at first. In the cases I'm familiar with, they don't see things as having sharp edges until the brain stores up visual data (and perhaps compares it to touch, like feeling the sharp edge of a table) and processes it. In at least one case, this processing happened during sleep. 

Some people are moved by music, and some are not (so much). Experiments have been done monitoring people via Galvanic Skin Response, EEG, etc. Apparently nearly everyone can identify passages that are sad, happy, triumphant, etc., thanks to the great conditioning box of the movie theater, TV, the classroom, etc., but some don't emote physiologically.


----------



## Defcon

I wonder if the volume increase by enabling DV also consumes more power? i.e. is the receiver simply increasing power to do this? As you get near the receivers max power, the increase in volume due to DV must get smaller.


----------



## mogorf

Defcon said:


> I wonder if the volume increase by enabling DV also consumes more power? i.e. is the receiver simply increasing power to do this? As you get near the receivers max power, the increase in volume due to DV must get smaller.


An interesting question Defcon. Although I believe those who are using DynVol are not listening at near the max. power of their receivers, do they? I may be wrong here.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> I wonder if the volume increase by enabling DV also consumes more power? i.e. is the receiver simply increasing power to do this? As you get near the receivers max power, the increase in volume due to DV must get smaller.



That's a good question. If it just sounded louder, we could put it down to compression. But since it actually measures louder as well, then I think it has to consume slightly more power. I only went up to -20 when I tested it, but I also think we have to remember the intent of DV. It was developed for situations where someone didn't want to have sudden increases in volume which might disturb neighbors, or a sleeping child, or something along those lines.

It is hard to imagine someone wanting to use something that deliberately compresses the frequency spectrum, and which maintains a more even volume during special effect peaks, or music crescendos, at anything approaching Reference volumes. I think the whole purpose of DV was to use it at moderate to low volume levels.


----------



## Defcon

Yes it was more of a curiosity, no one listening at high volumes will enable this. And as you get closer to reference, DEQ also reduces its effect and vanishes at reference. And a lot of people here listen at reference 

I don't have a Kill-a-watt otherwise I'd try to measure this. In any case I think Audyssey's description of how DV works (I posted the diagram on the previous page) is at odds with what it actually does, which is a measurable increase in SPL.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> Yes it was more of a curiosity, no one listening at high volumes will enable this. And as you get closer to reference, DEQ also reduces its effect and vanishes at reference. And a lot of people here listen at reference
> 
> I don't have a Kill-a-watt otherwise I'd try to measure this. In any case I think Audyssey's description of how DV works (I posted the diagram on the previous page) is at odds with what it actually does, which is a measurable increase in SPL.



I looked at the diagram again, and also went back to the FAQ for a more complete description of what it does. There is certainly no mention of an overall increase in volume when DV is engaged. But marketing graphs notwithstanding, it may still do what it is supposed to do, which is to equalize sound levels to avoid big peaks and dips in volume.

And honestly, I don't know that the overall volume boost is that big a deal. Lets say you are watching a movie at -20, but there are some explosions and other things that make you ride the volume to keep from waking a child sleeping in another part of the house. You engage DV and it increases the overall volume level. In that case, you just re-balance the MV down to a comfortable level for dialogue--lets say -25, or whatever. Now you're good to go without having to worry about super loud parts suddenly disturbing the child (or neighbor, or whatever). And again, the idea here is to keep the mid-range loud enough that you can hear dialogue, and get some sense of the special effects in a movie without too many booms.

They didn't warn us about the volume boost, but I'm not sure it really matters as long as the rest of it works as advertised. And you uncovered something that a lot of long time Audyssey users didn't know, since most of us on the thread seem never to have used DV.


----------



## pepar

Defcon said:


> Yes it was more of a curiosity, no one listening at high volumes will enable this. And as you get closer to reference, DEQ also reduces its effect and vanishes at reference. And a lot of people here listen at reference
> 
> I don't have a Kill-a-watt otherwise I'd try to measure this. In any case I think Audyssey's description of how DV works (I posted the diagram on the previous page) is at odds with what it actually does, which is a measurable increase in SPL.


Is it likely that the overall SPL increase from DEQ (or DV) is measurable at the AC outlet?

Jeff


----------



## Edi-MC

Hello guys!

I have a Marantz SR7009 for quite some time now, so I've got used to its sound signature, tweaking, DV, DEq, Reference, Flat, and so on 

The rest of the system is composed by 2 Monitor Audio BX5 and 1 BXC at the front, and a pair of BX1 at the back.
The sub is a SVS SB2000.

Of course, I'm not writing you to let you know all this, but rather to ask for your help. 

Here's the deal:

- Since I first did the calibration steps, I've always felt that the sound was a little bit......... unbalanced. 

The sound I get from the BX5+BXC feels quite "small"/thin...

Distances are Ok, levels Ok (checked them manually).
Audissey set the crossovers to 40-40-90, front and centre speakers to Large and backs to Small - already changed to 80-80-90, everything to Small.

Left the D.Eq On, set to Reference, because I live in an apartment and never listen even close to reference level.
Turned off the D. Vol.

Everything is, apparently, set for me to get a good experience... except I don't... 

The front trio (BX5 and BXC) seems to be muffled, the dialogs with low volume... it seems to me, that the front speakers are underperforming! 
I don't feel a wide, clear, punchier frontstage, a "wall of sound", now what I mean? 
Already tried to mess around with Dialog Adjust Level, raise the volume level of the 3 speakers, but with no avail...

On the other hand, the pair of BX1's plays quite nicely - nice lows, punchy sound... many times I caught myself thinking "I wish this sound was coming from the front!" - yes, I know D.Eq tends to boost the back speakers 

This is what I think is ockward and gives that impression of "unbalanced" sound.

Already tried to turn off D. Eq, but it "dries" up the sound. Almost no bass. 
With it on, many times the bass is a bit to much and the front speakes get lost in the mix...

What am I missing or overlooking here?! 

I bi-wired the front speakers according to the manual and performed another calibration yesterday.
After going through the settings one by one, I found a................ curious thing:
- In the "Amp Assign" section, it's set to 7.1+Zone2... 

Shouldn't it be "5.1 (bi-amp)+ Zone2/3"???

Hope you can help me, because I feel that, although I know this is not (by no means!) a top-of-the-line homecinema, it should present a respectable sound... 

Cheers!


----------



## mogorf

Edi-MC said:


> Hello guys!
> 
> I have a Marantz SR7009 for quite some time now, so I've got used to its sound signature, tweaking, DV, DEq, Reference, Flat, and so on
> 
> The rest of the system is composed by 2 Monitor Audio BX5 and 1 BXC at the front, and a pair of BX1 at the back.
> The sub is a SVS SB2000.
> 
> Of course, I'm not writing you to let you know all this, but rather to ask for your help.
> 
> Here's the deal:
> 
> - Since I first did the calibration steps, I've always felt that the sound was a little bit......... unbalanced.
> 
> The sound I get from the BX5+BXC feels quite "small"/thin...
> 
> Distances are Ok, levels Ok (checked them manually).
> Audissey set the crossovers to 40-40-90, front and centre speakers to Large and backs to Small - already changed to 80-80-90, everything to Small.
> 
> Left the D.Eq On, set to Reference, because I live in an apartment and never listen even close to reference level.
> Turned off the D. Vol.
> 
> Everything is, apparently, set for me to get a good experience... except I don't...
> 
> The front trio (BX5 and BXC) seems to be muffled, the dialogs with low volume... it seems to me, that the front speakers are underperforming!
> I don't feel a wide, clear, punchier frontstage, a "wall of sound", now what I mean?
> Already tried to mess around with Dialog Adjust Level, raise the volume level of the 3 speakers, but with no avail...
> 
> On the other hand, the pair of BX1's plays quite nicely - nice lows, punchy sound... many times I caught myself thinking "I wish this sound was coming from the front!"
> 
> This is what I think is ockward and gives that impression of "unbalanced" sound.
> 
> Already tried to turn off D. Eq, but it "dries" up the sound. Almost no bass.
> With it on, many times the bass is a bit to much and the front speakes get lost in the mix...
> 
> What am I missing or overlooking here?!
> 
> I bi-wired the front speakers according to the manual and performed another calibration yesterday.
> After going through the settings one by one, I found a................ curious thing:
> - In the "Amp Assign" section, it's set to 7.1+Zone2...
> 
> Shouldn't it be "5.1 (bi-amp)+ Zone2/3"???
> 
> Hope you can help me, because I feel that, although I know this is not (by no means!) a top-of-the-line homecinema, it should present a respectable sound...
> 
> Cheers!


Hi Edi,

Technically your system looks really promosing from your description, although I think more help will come once you can post a couple of pictures of your setup showing room and all the speaker placements. 

A so-called "cold-setup, i.e. proper speaker placement is usually a key to succees. 

Once you have a satisfactory sound quality in your room Audyssey will be icing on the cake, but first thing first. L&R toe-in toe-out will influence clarity, distance between the two speakers relative to the Main Listening Position will influence sound stage imaging. 

Placement of Center speaker will have a great impact on dialog intelligibility, not to mention its angle for facing seated ear hight. 

Surrounds usually need to be placed a bit over ear level in order to be more effective for envelopment, etc. So let's see the pix.


----------



## CherylJosie

Defcon said:


> One more thing, from the FAQ - "One thing to note: there is no point whatsoever in changing all the trims by the same amount - this is exactly the same as changing the Master Volume by that amount."
> 
> I don't agree with this. e.g. if trim is -10dB, that means the max possible output is 10dB less than what it can be at any given MV setting, right? It may not matter much in practice if your AVR has enough power but its not the same thing.


Dereferencing the system alters the function of Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, as well as also altering the overall output level for any given volume control setting. In general, the only reason to dereference a system during normal use is to attempt to compensate for the shortcomings of those two DEQ and DV functions, and the dereferencing should be done with the input attenuator or the reference level offset control, not the speaker level trims.


----------



## CherylJosie

Forgive me for dredging these up but reading the new thread and observing everyone describing their own piece of the elephant is really frustrating.



mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey is capable of doing an outstanding job of EQing a room. It is only in implementing the user preference features that go on top of the EQ, that people may generally find fault with one or another of the apps.


Unfortunately, this statement is incorrect.

Audyssey Room EQ exists to compensate for the spectral distortion of a speaker playing in a room. It smooths the system frequency response toward a target response.

A major limitation of every version of Audyssey is that it lacks the Auto Target function in Dirac that measures the actual response of the system and seeks to smooth it toward a straight line of arbitrary slope, rather than a flat line or a deliberately bent flattish line.

In applying arbitrary targets, Audyssey ignores the fact that humans are psychoacoustically adapted to the overall shape (if not the exact character) of the spectral distortions that a room adds with all those reflections and resonances. Dirac allows a user to preserve the overall spectral envelope while smoothing out the extreme excursions, rather than deliberately bending the response toward an arbitrary target that incorporates none of the innate characteristics of your room or speaker into the target.

Onkyo's evolution toward AccuEQ is a partial implementation of the Auto Target function. It measures the native response of the front l/r speakers that are assumed to be the best in the system, and then it applies a smoothed auto target that is derived off those l/r speakers to the EQ it puts on the rest of the system.

The closest you will ever get to that Auto Target function with currently available versions of Audyssey is to use the pro version, measure your room with no EQ, and then apply a manual target that resembles the overall shape of your native in-room response without all the various plus and minus excursions from the resonances and reflections at discrete frequencies.

The canned Audyssey targets can be helpful in some situations (particularly untreated rooms IMO) but overall they only hurt the sound compared to manual tuning with graphic EQ IMO.



garygarrison said:


> I find Audyssey Flat ("Music") to be better sounding for both music and movies made in the last decade, or so. As I've said before, I have found Audyssey reference to be handy for movies that are more than about a decade old, which have some high frequency distortion that Audyssey Reference filters out.


Many people without the pro custom target use the flat target but also use about +4dB bass boost and -4dB treble cut to get a piecewise linear approximation of the 'Harman Target' ~-4dB/decade or ~-1.2dB/octave target, a canned house curve that sort of matches a smoothed version of the native response of typical speakers in a typical small room from the -3dB LFE up to about 10KHz where room EQ typically does just about nothing in everyone's system. This tone control approach seems to work OK, meh, sort of. I eventually just turned off Audyssey Room EQ and used manual calibration with the internal graphic instead, aiming toward the 'Harman Target' that seems to align well with the native in-room response of my system.


Defcon said:


> Well I still don't understand why DV on makes everything louder even when the input is at constant volume with no volume shifts.


What is missing here is the absolute framework of 'reference'. DV does not just reduce the intensity of the level changes, it also uses the measured average level's difference from an interal reference level to tell it where to set the dynamic gain at any given moment.

The next piece that is missing is a functional picture of what Dynamic Volume is doing as the volume control setting changes. The dynamic gain of Dynamic Volume is functionally disabled i.e. set to unity gain when the volume control is set to 0dB.

So there are actually two distinct conditions where turning DV on and off should cause no perceptible change in output level.

Here, let's demonstrate the concept using your own setup. Turn up your system to 0dB and play a somewhat loud program that is calibrated to reference, such as a blu ray of your favorite heavy metal or dubstep/hip-hop live rock concert or 5.1 audio disc of such band's studio work.

Oh, wait a minute, don't bother. That is real theater level playing a rock concert at realistic levels and you don't have a system capable of it, so there. The average person is not going to be able to test the first case where Dynamic Volume adds no cut or boost with the volume control at 0dB without doing one other thing: dereferencing your system so that it can handle the program at such setting without clipping.

Try setting your input level attenuator to its minimum (on Onkyos it seems to be called 'Intellivolume' and its adjustment pegs at -12dB) first, _then_ turn your main volume control up to 0dB and try this test again, probably with a quiet program because you probably cannot really listen at -12dB with a loud program either due to system limitations on your max SPL.

Another thing you can do instead of adjusting your input attenuator and using a quiet program is to use a computer or other source that has adjustable output level and just crank it way down on that computer output before turning your main volume up to 0dB. -20dB attenuation should just about do it even for a loud program.

Now, when you turn Dynamic Volume on and off, nothing changes. Note that you also need to leave the Reference Level Offset (if you have one) at zero too. I left that out of the conversation for now because it just complicates things conceptually at this point.



> Also I've now tried with a variety of content, simple dialog only scenes, music, movies, and the difference between DV Light and Off is ~10-15dB at least.
> 
> I verified this with a SPL meter, picked something which is not varying more than 2-4dB in level for a while, like a long speech or a song. With DEQ off the volume drops by at least 10dB if not more. Its clearly not just reducing highs and lows.
> 
> Doesn't sound right to me. Sorry to keep bringing this up, I'm just trying to understand what's going on.


The dynamic gain curve you originally posted only tells a part of the story. DV function is actually a family of curves.

The first curve is where the volume control is at 0dB and produces a flat line on the Boost function, and the amplitude of those curves increases (up and down excursions in the level-dependent 'Boost' control signal becoming larger) as the volume control setting goes more negative.

The only part of the family of curves that remains identically at zero through all volume control settings/curves is the very last part where the average program level is identically at reference level and DV dynamic gain is unity.



Defcon said:


> According to this diagram from Audyssey, if there are no spikes (e.g. at the right) then the output level should be same with DV since there's no compression. But it isn't. Its 10dB louder.


So we are still grappling with the dynamic part of the question.

The part you are still missing here is that the program you selected is not the same as the program that produces that tail end of the graph where the average level is pegged at reference and static. What gave you the impression you were listening to reference level signal? Did you just assume?

How do you know what the average level is of any arbitrary input signal? You don't, but it is a good bet that for average programming, the average level in the signal is not reference. It is probably below reference much of the time, and what you are perceiving is the boosting of the average level when that level in the program is substantially below reference. That sounds to you like the whole thing got louder.

Try it again, but this time make sure the following things are accounted for:


Use a program that is really really loud, such as the bedroom explosion in Munich. Play that passage through from start to finish with DV on and then again with DV off. With DV on, that explosion should be quieter, not louder.
Double-check that you are not accidentally enabling Dynamic EQ at the same time that you are enabling Dynamic Volume.
On my receiver, DEQ is automatically enabled every time I turn on DV.
Note that turning DEQ off also disables DV automatically on my receivers so there is an asymmetrical relationship in the interaction between those functions. DEQ on and DV off is allowed but the inverse DEQ off and DV on is not allowed in my receiver. You will probably be doing all your on/off DV comparisons with DEQ enabled.
On some receivers (actually probably most budget receivers, but not my own 11.1 receiver), Audyssey Room EQ is automatically enabled every time DEQ is enabled, and DEQ is also automatically enabled every time DV is enabled. You might have to do your DV on/off with both Room EQ and DEQ enabled.
The interaction between functions and the interaction with the programming can be confusing so make sure you are only changing one variable at a time.

It is far easier to find a piece of programming with some peaks at very high level and observe Dynamic Volume reducing their level than it is to find a piece of programming with its average level pegged at reference for a sustained period that causes the DV control signal to remain static at unity gain.


----------



## Edi-MC

@mogorf - About the positioning, don't we all know it?  

Here goes the pic: 










The sub isn't in the same position - moved it to the front.
Ah, that reminds me, when doing the calibration, the subwoofer seems very low comparing to the chirps coming out from the other speakers (the volume is set to 12 o'clock).

Best regards!


----------



## CherylJosie

yanks1 said:


> When I run the program there is barely any sound out of my Polk PSW125 subwoofer and the program thinks its an error and says to check wire settings. All you can hear is a very faint boom-boom.


Make sure that the subwoofer is operating full range. Disable its internal crossover, if it has one, before running the setup. Also, double-check the final subwoofer cal. It should be about -6dB for ultimate flexibility in post-cal adjustments.


----------



## CherylJosie

Defcon said:


> These are the results I'm seeing -
> 
> setup A - Yamaha AVR, 90dB efficient speakers
> setup B - Denon X2200w, 95dB efficient speakers
> 
> Ran the autocal routine for both to let AVR calibrate speakers.
> 
> With A, I watched movies at -20dB. With B, Dynamic Volume and DEQ off, I need to watch almost at -5dB to get the same loudness, tested with SPL meter. I have never listened near reference, it was simply too loud, and I don't understand why it needs to be turned up so much now, esp with speakers that are much more efficient.
> 
> I know the standard answer is 'ignore the volume reading' but this does not add up.


Try doing this same test again, but this time physically carry your player with you to ensure that both systems are getting the same input level. I suspect you might be using computer playback with some level attenuation on the Denon, or you might be using a blu ray player with dynamic compression enabled on the Yamaha. Remember, unless you told your equipment to pass the bitstream directly (and in so doing, disabled all processing in the playback device), all bets are off on the actual output level being truly 'reference'.


----------



## CherylJosie

NorthSky said:


> But what about those people who just bought a brand new Denon/Marantz receiver (pre/pro) with Dolby Atmos and DTS:X (Auro-3D) audio decoders?
> If Audyssey improves their EQ system, what are they going to do; sell their brand new units and buy another one this next Christmas coming up?
> That sounds like normal routine in this audio/video world hobby of ours.


Unfortunately, with Onkyo abandoning Audyssey and many people criticizing its limitations, seems that Chris has no choice but to improve his system. The challenge is fitting its improved capability inside of the limited DSP of the average receiver because otherwise they have to beat Dirac in a stand-alone and that is going to be tough no matter how they attempt it. Their niche is inside the receiver.


----------



## CherylJosie

Defcon said:


> (DEQ) does seem to enhance the bass but the artificial boost could be called muddy in some cases. Its especially noticeable on tv shows. I also tried playing with the offset value but it seems very drastic, it cuts everything off or nothing.
> 
> In short I'd prefer DEQ to be a little less bossy and find a happy medium. It should have a Light/Medium/Heavy setting like DV.





D Bone said:


> If it helps, you can think of DEQ's settings as:
> 
> 0db = Max
> 5db = High
> 10db = Medium
> 15db = Low


Not everyone has that Audyssey reference level offset in their receiver. Budget models typically omit it, and most people overlook the fact that it also offsets the reference level of the DV block as well.

You also forget that the input attenuator ('Intellivolume' on Onkyo receiver) is available to act as a fine adjustment too. It steps in 1dB increments on my receiver so it can actually give you that fine adjustment you asked for, and it is also bidirectional so you can gain up your LP rips that are at lower level cuz warps/infrasonics contamination.

Intellivolume is more laborious because it dereferences the volume as well as the loudness compensation, so you have to re-adjust the volume to compensate for that interaction, but it works really well for this problem. Try it.

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/73283-dynamic-eq-and-reference-level


----------



## mogorf

Edi-MC said:


> @*mogorf* - About the positioning, don't we all know it?
> 
> Here goes the pic:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sub isn't in the same position - moved it to the front.
> Ah, that reminds me, when doing the calibration, the subwoofer seems very low comparing to the chirps coming out from the other speakers (the volume it's set to 12 o'clock).
> 
> Best regards!


Wow Edi, that is a beautiful room, indeed!! Congrats! 

Now, down for the critiques! 

1. Front L&Rs I would pull a bit forward (away from the front wall) releasing them from having some unwanted bouncing reflections in the mid- to high frequency range off the sides of the center/middle shelf.

2. Center speaker I would pull forward up the edge of the center/middle shelf and would use some clever and decorative way to tilt it to face seated ear hight.

3. That nice modern style "whatever its called" block in the middle of the room may cause another unwanted reflection in the mid- to high frequency range most probably causing something called "smearing" of dialog. If it must stay its bad, but a decorative textile cloth (at least on the top side) would surely help tame the anomalies it causes.

4. The yellow amrchair on the right looks pretty comfy for everyday life, but can be a beast when it comes to improved sound quality, possibly contributing a bit to the unbalanced nature of what you are experiencing.

5. All the above may seem to be minor issues, but modifying them can easily add up to a noticable improvement.

Whaddaya think?


----------



## CherylJosie

Now for the down-and-dirty of what I learned about your specific questions about DEQ, and how I dealt with the issues I discovered. Sorry, this is likely to be really long.



mthomas47 said:


> First, there is apparently a great deal of variability in the way people perceive changes in SPL, based on angle of incidence in the horizontal plane.


Ever looked at people's ears?

The variation in shape is partly responsible for this discrepancy. This points out that any electronic compensation that has imperfect knowledge of the system it is compensating is at best an approximation.



mthomas47 said:


> As a practical matter, I also think of all the species of dogs with large flaps completely covering their ears who hear very well into ultrasonic frequencies.


That has no bearing on the fact that their bandwidth is much higher than humans can perceive. You used the word 'block'. There is a difference between a brick wall filter and a real filter with a transition region. Replace 'block' with 'attenuate' and your confusion should be cleared up. Attenuated ultrasonic perception is not identical to no ultrasonic perception.



mthomas47 said:


> If higher pitched sounds are less audible from behind (due to our pinnae) than lower pitched sounds, then the higher the sound, the greater the attenuation, and that just doesn't seem to be borne out by practical experience


The brain perceives these changes in spectral content and average level as directional cues rather than spectral shift or change in loudness, if my understanding is correct anyway.



mthomas said:


> "With apologies to all, I think that the concept of the surround boost, as a part of DEQ, had some logical flaws from the very beginning. And the fact that so many people notice that their surrounds are boosted, with respect to their front speakers, is an inevitable result of those flaws."


Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume exist for the sole purpose of allowing us to listen at lower levels while still perceiving the sound as if it is playing at higher levels.

IMO the major issue with Audyssey room EQ, Dynamic EQ, and Dynamic Volume is that their individual assumptions and approximations/goofs, as well as how they all actually are implemented and interact with each other, it is like a maze. Labyrinthine.

IMO the next issue is that the goofs and approximations practically destroy the usefulness of some Audyssey functions except when one is willing to futz with the box interminably.

Even worse IMO is that the function of basic blocks sometimes changes radically with differing level of sophistication in the particular brand and model of receiver. This makes it even more confusing, particularly where interactions between blocks are concerned.

Aside from one minor blooper on the following page (in my receiver anyway, THX Loudness Plus can only be used in combination with a THX sound mode), this seems about the most concise explanation of Dynamic Volume and THX Loudness Plus that I could find:

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/dueling-loudness-corrections-explained

THX Loudness Plus:


> THX Loudness Plus uses different profiles for Movie and Music modes. Since music is often mixed at significantly higher overall levels and with more compression, loudness correction has to be approached differently for music and movie content. So, THX uses movie modes and music modes to automatically apply the correct profile.


So THX also has a reference level offset, but rather than an optional feature for more advanced models, it is tied to the sound mode and applies a fixed degree of reference level offset in 'music' mode.



> The ambient sounds that provide that sense of space quickly become masked and are lost when the volume is lowered, so we compensate for that. It's important to note that when listening at reference level ('0' on the Onkyo AVR), Loudness Plus doesn't process anything. So, it won't make the rear speakers sound louder when used at reference level.


Audyssey DEQ:


> Dynamic EQ adjusts surround impression. Film mixers from Hollywood were used in controlled experiments to determine the effects of lower playback volume on surround impression. By recording their actions, a model was created that mimics their adjustments to maintain the proper surround level at lower playback volumes.


http://www.thx.com/press-releases/t...plus-and-thx-select2-plus-certified-products/


> *THX Dynamic Ambience Preservation:* Surround channel processing preserves the spatial detail that is lost when listening below Reference Level. It automatically shapes the output on surround channels to maintain the perceived balance in the original mix.


Note the language. THX states that it 'shapes the output', not 'boosts the output'. That language seems to me to indicate spectral shaping instead of level boost.

What neither of these descriptions do is explain why that level dependency in the masking even happens let alone how to go about correcting for it.

In order to maintain the perceived spectral balance of listening at higher levels while actually listening at lower levels, all the variables on frequency response that are affected by your volume control need some loudness compensation, including the interaction between the overall attenuation of the pinnea at specific angles of incidence, and the nonlinear perceived spectral shift toward midrange at lower volume that is implied by the Equal Loudness Contours.

The _perceived_ portion of the spectral shift (as opposed to the acoustic portion of the spectral shift) is due to the overall attenuation of the pinnea. That perceive spectral shift that exists only within our perception and not within the physical acoustics of the ear itself, is the factor that is actually causing the objectionable masking of the rear surrounds as the level decreases IMO (but I could be wrong). The equal loudness curve relative loss of perceived bass and treble in the (rear) surrounds is what is actually making the masking more prominent, not the absolute positionally dependent attenuation of the pinnea that exists at all volume control settings.

It seems to me that THX Loudness Plus adds a small reference level offset for the loudness compensation that is applied only to the surround channels. That is what I take away from the term 'shaping'.

In the THX case IME, the _spectral balance_ is re-normalized to compensate for the _innate overall level offset_ that the shape of the ear induces toward the rear, but the positionally dependent level shift is preserved otherwise.

If I am correct, this approach has the potential to somewhat accurately compensate the single factor that causes increased masking of the surround channels at lower volume settings - the nonlinear and frequency-dependent perceived equal loudness contours described by Fletcher-Munson.



> If the problem is either rear arriving sounds falling away faster in the higher frequencies, or simply being attenuated to start with in the higher frequencies, what does that have to do with surround speakers which are typically located more or less out to the sides?


This is an excellent question. Like Atmos object-oriented surround sound that needs to know where the speakers are placed in your system to correctly steer objects in the sound field, loudness compensation also needs to know where the speakers are in order to apply the correct degree of loudness compensation to each channel, with the fronts and sides needing little to no offset for the pinnea, and only the rear surrounds plus maybe height channels needing that offset in any substantial fashion.

If anything, the fronts and rears need the boosting more than the side surrounds do because the side surrounds point straight into the ear canal, as far from the filtering of the pinnea as possible. Care to ask THX how their algorithm functions in detail? Good luck with that.

The 'Reference level offset' that I posit as the functional explanation of the surround sound 'shaping' in THX Loudness Plus is also shown pictorially as being added to the side surrounds that typically do not have substantial attenuation from the pinnea. That picture might or might not be accurate. I notice no overt surround level overboosting with Loudness Plus so I suspect that THX is more aware of the positioning of the speakers, as indicated also in their sound modes that ask for the spacing between the rear speakers as a manual input to the algorithm.

In the DEQ case, instead of rebalancing the spectral content, the overall level of the surrounds is boosted, disrupting the innate positionally dependent level offset of the pinnea on sound levels, and masking the dialog with too much side surround content in the process.

This latter approach of DEQ is a conceptual error and actually makes things worse IMO.

Its rear surround boost also defeats the directional cue of level attenuation toward the rear of the head. Meanwhile, it is anybody's guess just how appropriate the resultant rear surround boost is at any given frequency, since that boost is not perceptually accurate to the actual 'equal loudness contour spectral shift' being heard from that location as a result of attenuating the master volume and passing the resulting sound across the pinnea.

It also muddies the sound stage because the directional perception of sound is highly impaired toward the rear of the head. Signals from that direction take on an 'inside the head' headphone-like feel. Boosting the rear surrounds across the spectrum blankets the entire sound stage with increased level of centrally perceived music and sound effects that masks everything that is going on in the program and destroys the imaging as well as burying the dialog. Adding unnecessary boost to the side surrounds that get little to no attenuation from the pinnea just further debases the final result.

When stated this way, and assuming that my understanding of the difference in the way these two algorithms/approaches function is correct, it should be obvious why so many people object to the surround boost in Audyssey but not THX. DEQ applies a functionally invalid approach to the problem. It might have helped some in their test cases, but like the room EQ canned targets that ship with Audyssey, it falls short of the mark for actual application in an arbitrary environment IMO.



> For people who are using DEQ for everything, if the surround boost bothers you, you can easily reduce your surround trims to a comfortable level (typically about 3db). It's a little more problematical if you are using DEQ more randomly, although I have never really minded adjusting trim levels when necessary."


This is where I arrived at first, then finally abandoning DEQ for the most part because it requires surround level adjustments with every volume change. On my system that amounts to 4 level adjustments in the setup menu that generate those pink noise blasts while doing them, a true PITA.

So I stopped doing the surround adjustment entirely, especially since it also requires remembering what the original calibrated level was. too. That calibrated setting is not preserved in the level 'setup' menu once modified, unlike the way it is preserved when using the center and sub level controls in the 'audio' menu.



pepar said:


> Trying to fool our 3D chess brains with a checkers level trick seems fraught with potential unintended consequences...
> 
> YMMV


The crux of the matter laid bare. It is all approximations, some good, others not so much.


----------



## garygarrison

Edi-MC said:


> Hello guys!
> 
> I have a Marantz SR7009 for quite some time now, so I've got used to its sound signature, tweaking, DV, DEq, Reference, Flat, and so on
> 
> The rest of the system is composed by 2 Monitor Audio BX5 and 1 BXC at the front, and a pair of BX1 at the back.
> The sub is a SVS SB2000.
> 
> Of course, I'm not writing you to let you know all this, but rather to ask for your help.
> 
> Here's the deal:
> 
> - Since I first did the calibration steps, I've always felt that the sound was a little bit......... unbalanced.
> 
> The sound I get from the BX5+BXC feels quite "small"/thin...
> 
> Distances are Ok, levels Ok (checked them manually).
> Audissey set the crossovers to 40-40-90, front and centre speakers to Large and backs to Small - already changed to 80-80-90, everything to Small.
> 
> Left the D.Eq On, set to Reference, because I live in an apartment and never listen even close to reference level.
> Turned off the D. Vol.
> 
> Everything is, apparently, set for me to get a good experience... except I don't...
> 
> The front trio (BX5 and BXC) seems to be muffled, the dialogs with low volume... it seems to me, that the front speakers are underperforming!
> I don't feel a wide, clear, punchier frontstage, a "wall of sound", now what I mean?
> Already tried to mess around with Dialog Adjust Level, raise the volume level of the 3 speakers, but with no avail...
> 
> On the other hand, the pair of BX1's plays quite nicely - nice lows, punchy sound... many times I caught myself thinking "I wish this sound was coming from the front!" - yes, I know D.Eq tends to boost the back speakers
> 
> This is what I think is ockward and gives that impression of "unbalanced" sound.
> 
> Already tried to turn off D. Eq, but it "dries" up the sound. Almost no bass.
> With it on, many times the bass is a bit to much and the front speakes get lost in the mix...
> 
> What am I missing or overlooking here?!
> 
> I bi-wired the front speakers according to the manual and performed another calibration yesterday.
> After going through the settings one by one, I found a................ curious thing:
> - In the "Amp Assign" section, it's set to 7.1+Zone2...
> 
> Shouldn't it be "5.1 (bi-amp)+ Zone2/3"???
> 
> Hope you can help me, because I feel that, although I know this is not (by no means!) a top-of-the-line homecinema, it should present a respectable sound...
> 
> Cheers!


I'd try turning up the center speaker a little (to clarify dialog) and make sure it (particularly its tweeter) is pointed right at the main listening position's ear level, with no obstructions, and that it is pulled far enough forward so that it's sound doesn't bounce off any nearby objects (including any table/stand it might be on, and the TV screen ... the edges of the speaker enclosure should be at least an inch or so in front of the plane of the TV ... if this puts it forward of the LF and RF channels, re-run Audyssey so that Audyssey can re-measure the distances). The center channel (and all others) may sound crisper and clearer with Audyssey Flat than with Audyssey Reference, so consider changing that, as some of us have. It's not really going over to the dark side, especially if you have a treated room, and/or are sitting close.

After running Audyssey again, I would try turning up the subwoofer by about 3 dB, conceivably more ... almost everyone who uses Audyssey does, for better balance. Since Audyssey minimizes standing waves, the bass can be turned up a bit without sounding as bad as it otherwise would. Many of us find Audyssey a little thin without the sub turned up. Audyssey tries to flatten frequency response (except for the highs when you have selected Audyssey Reference)*;* this would be fine in a perfect world, but many, many music sources (including most vinyl), cut bass, as do some movies (especially those made before about 2000). Some of the latter had their bass turned back up in the mix, but Blu-rays tend to go back to the original sound elements (music tracks, dialog tracks, sound effects tracks), which sometimes have less bass than in the filmmakers' final mix-down, and the young whippersnappers who prepare the Blu-rays may never have heard the film in question in a commercial cinema, so without a reference print to compare it to, they don't have a clue as to the amount of bass intended (the same is true regarding dynamic range, unfortunately). Even though some modern movies have an outrageous amount of LFE, they may lack bass in the orchestral tracks. That brings us to "punchy." Giving the soundtrack music more punch can be achieved by using the true tone controls on the AVR/pre-pro (*not* the virtual graphic sliders, because they can't be used with Audyssey). People disagree in what frequency range "punch" occurs, but to my mind there is a lot of "punch" between 80 and 200 Hz. Most properly set-up subwoofers in a system with good mains (including yours) crossover at 80 Hz, so turning up the sub may not help much in the range of the initial attack of tympani, bass drum, etc. (after the initial smack of beater against drum head there is plenty happening below 80 Hz). Turning up a bass control may help here. In most AVRs, I think the tone controls only affect the RF and LF speakers).

Finally, if the front speakers don't sound loud enough, I'd turn down the surrounds, and turn up the Main Volume, particularly if you are going to use DEQ. 

Dialog on my system sounds clearer with Audyssey than without, and clearer with Audyssey Flat than with Audyssey Reference.

Good luck!


----------



## Edi-MC

mogorf said:


> Wow Edi, that is a beautiful room, indeed!! Congrats!
> 
> Now, down for the critiques!
> 
> 1. Front L&Rs I would pull a bit forward (away from the front wall) releasing them from having some unwanted bouncing reflections in the mid- to high frequency range off the sides of the center/middle shelf.
> 
> 2. Center speaker I would pull forward up the edge of the center/middle shelf and would use some clever and decorative way to tilt it to face seated ear hight.
> 
> 3. That nice modern style "whatever its called" block in the middle of the room may cause another unwanted reflection in the mid- to high frequency range most probably causing something called "smearing" of dialog. If it must stay its bad, but a decorative textile cloth would surely help tame the anomalies it causes.
> 
> 4. The yellow amrchair on the right looks pretty comfy for everyday life, but can be a beast when it comes to improved sound quality, possibly contributing a bit to the unbalanced nature of what you are experiencing.
> 
> 5. All the above may seem to be minor issues, but modifying them can easily add up to a noticable improvement.
> 
> Whaddaya think?



First of all, thanks for your considerations  

1 - Already did that. Nevertheless, I can pull them a little bit more towards the front (I'll try that).
(I have to say that I added spikes to the front and surround speakers and a plinth of granith under the sub)









2 - Already pulled it towards the front. I guess I can pull it a little bit more, but not much... 
Regarding it's height, as I'm not a tall guy, it's pretty much aligned with my ear when I'm seated... It could be a liiiiiittle bit higher though (I'm just trying to find a solution that aesthetecally pleases me);

3 & 4 - Yep... I know... When we bought that weird looking coffe table, I was thinking to myself "Oh boy........... there goes the front soundstage!!" ahah but the WAF is fairly................ proeminent around here...

The yellow chair, although it seems to be in the way of the right speaker, it isn't - though it is "solid", do you think it afects the sound to that extent? 

Don't you find the 7.1 amp assign strange?

Thanks once again!



@garygarrison - Ok, I'll also try your recomendations. They seem logical to me 
Thanks!


----------



## pepar

I thought the blathering posts of the past had all been replaced by substantive, cogent and helpful posts.


----------



## garygarrison

Edi-MC said:


> 3 & 4 - Yep... I know... When we bought that weird looking coffe table, I was thinking to myself "Oh boy........... there goes the front soundstage!!" ahah but the WAF is fairly................ proeminent around here...


It is rather beautiful. Keep a nice looking length of heavy weight velvet in a cupboard nearby. It should be dark in color so it won't distract from the TV image. Before showing a movie, or playing music, throw it over the art object/coffee table. Naturally, have it in position when you run Audyssey. It can be swirled dramatically before being put in place -- a nice prelude to the movie/music. Keep it out of sight and out of mind at all other times. Coffee tables cause sound trouble in many living rooms.


----------



## garygarrison

Since (most?) people set their Main Volume level by ear, so that the dialog sounds natural, it is still a mystery to me why people play back at so many different levels. Keith and I usually end up at about 5 dB below Reference. Others use 10, 15, 20, 25 dB below. Maybe Audyssey is not really setting all of our systems to Reference initially. I can't see how differences in AVRs or pre-pros, amplifiers or speakers would cause the differences, because AVR/pre-pros, amps & speakers would be part of the loop when running Audyssey calibration. Maybe some people don't set the dialog to a natural level, but at a level significantly below natural or realistic, out of preference.

I decided to run some informal tests of the SPL of ordinary conversation in my home and compare them to the levels I would normally use for movie dialog. The SPL meter was a Radio Shack analog needle meter set for "C" and "Fast."

Ordinary conversation, "live" in our music/movie room: Average level is 60/65 dB, with peaks of 70 dB or a bit higher.

Movie dialog, MV set by ear as usual, blindly (without looking at the MV read-out) for the film Grandma: Average 60/65 dB, with peaks up to about 74 dB (Lilly Tomlin is emphatic!). After the dialog level was set, I looked at the MV, and sure enough, it was set at 6 dB below Reference!

I know the following comparison is a horse of another color, since there is no reference level for the music industry, but we had a violinist in the house a while ago. When she played, I measured the SPL during a loud passage, again at "C," "Fast." She easily hit 80 to 86 dB, occasionally more (pinned needle) from the MLP. Since that time, I have measured my playback level for loud solo violin passages (e.g., the marvelous HDTT DVD-A "Erick Friedman Plays Violin Showpieces"). My playback level (from the MLP, again) usually measured more like 60 to 75 dB. So, compared to reality, I guess I play music softly!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Since (most?) people set their Main Volume level by ear, so that the dialog sounds natural, it is still a mystery to me why people play back at so many different levels. Keith and I usually end up at about 5 dB below Reference. Others use 10, 15, 20, 25 dB below. Maybe Audyssey is not really setting all of our systems to Reference initially. I can't see how differences in AVRs or pre-pros, amplifiers or speakers would cause the differences, because AVR/pre-pros, amps & speakers would be part of the loop when running Audyssey calibration. Maybe some people don't set the dialog to a natural level, but at a level significantly below natural or realistic, out of preference.
> 
> I decided to run some informal tests of the SPL of ordinary conversation in my home and compare them to the levels I would normally use for movie dialog. The SPL meter was a Radio Shack analog needle meter set for "C" and "Fast."
> 
> Ordinary conversation, "live" in our music/movie room: Average level is 60/65 dB, with peaks of 70 dB or a bit higher.
> 
> Movie dialog, MV set by ear as usual, blindly (without looking at the MV read-out) for the film Grandma: Average 60/65 dB, with peaks up to about 74 dB (Lilly Tomlin is emphatic!). After the dialog level was set, I looked at the MV, and sure enough, it was set at 6 dB below Reference!
> 
> I know the following comparison is a horse of another color, since there is no reference level for the music industry, but we had a violinist in the house a while ago. When she played, I measured the SPL during a loud passage, again at "C," "Fast." She easily hit 80 to 86 dB, occasionally more (pinned needle) from the MLP. Since that time, I have measured my playback level for loud solo violin passages (e.g., the marvelous HDTT DVD-A "Erick Friedman Plays Violin Showpieces"). My playback level (from the MLP, again) usually measured more like 60 to 75 dB. So, compared to reality, I guess I play music softly!



Gary, 

I think the fact that most people prefer listening below Reference (which is about equal to -5 in a typical home theater) is because most people simply don't like listening to it quite as loud as you and Keith do. From my reading of this and other threads on the forum, I would guess that most people watch movies somewhere in the range from about -10 to -20 MV. I have seen a number of other people estimate the typical range at about that same level. And that is with a variety of different AVRs, some with Audyssey, some with other types of EQ, and some with none.

One thing you said confused me a little bit. You said that in your listening room, normal conversation, measured somewhere between 60 and 65db, with peaks of 70db. And that when you set your MV by ear alone for "Grandma", you set it based on the film dialogue. Most people would have been setting it to average dialogue in the film, which you described as about 60 to 65db. But, as you know, 60db is -20 and 65db (50% louder than 60db) is -15. If you set it to Lily Tomlin's peaks of 74db (which you described as emphatic) only then would you be setting it to -6. But that's not normal conversation, which you described as between 60db and 65db (-20 to -15). I believe that most people would, in fact, set their dialogue to normal conversation, which would probably put them in that typical range of -10 to -20, or so. It is only when you set your MV to the loudest dialogue (emphatic for Lily Tomlin is probably almost shouting) that you got to -6.

Where I am going with this is confirming what we had both already concluded earlier. You like things louder than some other people do. Frankly, with all due respect to Lily, I don't want to hear her speaking at 74db. At least not very often, or for very long. Now listening to music might be a different story. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

FWIW, my metric for the correct volume level is that whispers sound like whispers, and explosions sound like explosions. If that is correct, everything else falls into place. A well-treated room .. or at least not a way too lively one ... is a key part of having the whispers at whisper level and still be intelligible.

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

Edi-MC said:


> First of all, thanks for your considerations
> 
> 1 - Already did that. Nevertheless, I can pull them a little bit more towards the front (I'll try that).
> (I have to say that I added spikes to the front and surround speakers and a plinth of granith under the sub)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2 - Already pulled it towards the front. I guess I can pull it a little bit more, but not much...
> Regarding it's height, as I'm not a tall guy, it's pretty much aligned with my ear when I'm seated... It could be a liiiiiittle bit higher though (I'm just trying to find a solution that aesthetecally pleases me);
> 
> 3 & 4 - Yep... I know... When we bought that weird looking coffe table, I was thinking to myself "Oh boy........... there goes the front soundstage!!" ahah but the WAF is fairly................ proeminent around here...
> 
> The yellow chair, although it seems to be in the way of the right speaker, it isn't - though it is "solid", do you think it afects the sound to that extent?
> 
> Don't you find the 7.1 amp assign strange?
> 
> Thanks once again!
> 
> 
> 
> @*garygarrison* - Ok, I'll also try your recomendations. They seem logical to me
> Thanks!



Hi,

I think that all of the suggestions you have already gotten are good. I like the idea of trying to move your main speakers forward a little, and you can also experiment with the crossovers. You don't have to use 80Hz crossovers for the mains, if 60Hz sounds better to you. 

Do you think that your speakers sound better with those isolation feet? They look sexy, but the actual results they give you, with respect to bass, can be unpredictable. Here is a good article on that. http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/speaker-spikes-and-cones-2013-what2019s-the-point You might consider reading it and then just experimenting a little. 

The yellow chair may be fine where it is, but if not, you have about 6" more that you could probably pull it back if you need to. It's hard to believe, but a soft covering over an object in direct line with your CC, or pulling something slightly out of the way can help.

Finally, there is no particular harm in bi-wiring, but no real help either. I would just listen to it both ways to determine whether you really hear a benefit. I'm not sure what to say about the amp assignment. I would just try the speakers straight-wired first and see what happens.

To echo other comments, it's an attractive room and an attractive looking system. Sometimes it just takes a little work to get things dialed in. The suggestion to increase your sub trim (in the AVR) by several decibels, and to consider experimenting with DEQ off, may also be helpful. You can turn your sub up quite a bit if you need to, particularly if you get your initial post-calibration trim level down to -8 or -10. (You would simply turn up the gain on your sub higher during calibration.) Also don't be afraid to experiment with more than one microphone pattern in order to get the best possible calibration. Most of us end up doing multiple calibrations to find the one that sounds best. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> FWIW, my metric for the correct volume level is that whispers sound like whispers, and explosions sound like explosions. If that is correct, everything else falls into place. A well-treated room .. or at least not a way too lively one ... is a key part of having the whispers at whisper level and still be intelligible.
> 
> Jeff



I certainly agree with that, Jeff. In fact, one of the preconditions for a good music listening room, IMO, is that it sound good for normal conversation. A room in which voices ring or boom is just not going to sound very good for most music, and by extension, for movies either. 

I actually think that a music listening room may be a little harder to get right than a dedicated home theater, in that if you over-treat a home theater, you can compensate for it with more volume. But having some degree of reflection (without having an excessive amount) is probably helpful for most acoustic music. And even in the home theater, as you said, you want whispers to carry distinctly. Then, you simply set your volume to make it so.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> I actually think that a music listening room may be a little harder to get right than a dedicated home theater, in that if you over-treat a home theater, you can compensate for it with more volume. *But having some degree of reflection (without having an excessive amount) is probably helpful for most acoustic music.* And even in the home theater, as you said, you want whispers to carry distinctly. Then, you simply set your volume to make it so.


Yes, there's where the target decay time comes into play. That and personal preference. And practicality. I only have a single space for a dedicated home theater, so it is used for both movies and music. The one accommodation I made for MCH music is that I have an alternate set of surrounds (monopoles identical to LCR) at 125 degrees that I manually swap for the Tripoles at 90 degrees. Both speaker configs have their own room correction files to be loaded, however the target curves are identical.

My scheme relies upon the environment being contained in the movie or music content as I have effectively removed the room from the equation. I seem to remember 200ms decay as my target, Goldilocks IMO.

Jeff


----------



## NorthSky

CherylJosie said:


> Unfortunately, with Onkyo abandoning Audyssey and many people criticizing its limitations, seems that Chris has no choice but to improve his system. The challenge is fitting its improved capability inside of the limited DSP of the average receiver because otherwise they have to beat Dirac in a stand-alone and that is going to be tough no matter how they attempt it. Their niche is inside the receiver.


D&M Holdings are mainly the only company, in the consumer regular market, who kept Audyssey.
They have a loyal following with a deep love; and it's very tough to depart of your deep love. 

Today with Dolby Atmos, DTS:X and Auro-3D Audyssey is still up-to-date with EQuing fourteen channels. 
It might not be as good as Dirac Live now who is gaining more momentum, but still bass pleasing as compared to other offerings by the other Asian players...Pioneer, Onkyo/Integra, Sony and Yamaha. 
Anthem with ARC2 is a good competitor too. 

This is a business, so Onkyo adapted to its business plan, and along the way had to abandon Audyssey for AccuEQ. But AccuEQ keeps improving...
By the way, AccuEQ was a joint effort between Onkyo and Dolby. 

This is new to me too what I've just read recently that Audyssey might add few features/improvements by year's end. ...We'll have to see, meanwhile movie experience and multichannel music listening are still enjoyed by thousands, ten thousands ...of people with products from all receiver and pre/pro manufacturers and @ all price points...from roughly $300 to $30,000

Chris from Audyssey works with software developers who know how to crunch the numbers in compressed form so that they can fit in today's latest chips. The resolution is mainly restricted @ 48kHz in the D&M products, but it has the potential for more and I believe some higher end product might have 96kHz operative Audyssey. \ Higher res audio would be one place for improvement, now that 64-bit and 768kHz are in some DACs and DSP chips (Yamaha, ESS, AKM, ...). Upsampling, DSD256/512, all that jazz. 

But yes, more powerful chips with more space are needed, or if not the new compressed algorithms has to be applied, meaning more efficient where it counts the most. And that takes judicious mathematical analysis and application for performance improvement with financial savings. 

____________

Regarding Audyssey Dynamic EQ, I highly recommend that people experiment with it and listen carefully, with great music scores and sound effect soundtracks from movies...preferably on Blu-ray where the audio resolution is one of the very best. Check all the offset settings, try various master volume levels, try the separate source's volume too (IntelliVolume), and you might be able to decipher how it sounds and if you are satisfy with it or not.
I don't have the same set of ears as other people, and my room and speakers are different too. And even my habits and various volume levels from one Blu-ray to the next and CD/SACD to the next. I know how I feel about it because my ears heard what it did to my movie experience and music nirvana. 

It is for each individual to make that decision; me I've already made it, and I've already made my experiments. 

)))))))

If Audyssey improves its EQ system it can only be a positive outlook, I think. And that augurs well with D&M still holding on to it. 

(((((((

Today the new emphasis is on 3D immersive audio, and on UHD picture. ...It is on the 3D immersive audio that any EQ system can help with more complex room acoustics...twelve speakers playing simultaneously (7.1.4). ...And we all know that its in the low registers of the audio spectrum that acoustics gel best together in most rooms (250Hz and below). 

>

Again, and in closing, it isn't easy to give up love. So if you can improve that love by improving that sound it all makes life worthy of living. 
I'm talking Audyssey here, none else.  

P.S. Most people know this already, but for the ones who don't; I personally never use Audyssey Dynamic EQ in my own system setup.
It's my personal audio preference. Best is for everyone to experiment...extensively...to make sure of your own personal audio/sound preference. 

Cheers ♫


----------



## D Bone

-10db for BDs is right for me. Dialog sounds natural and I'm certainly not short on dynamics. Naturally, some movies require a +/- 2db MV change if they're hot or cold, but 8-10 movies sound great at -10db.


----------



## CherylJosie

garygarrison said:


> Since (most?) people set their Main Volume level by ear, so that the dialog sounds natural, it is still a mystery to me why people play back at so many different levels.


In my system, I set the volume so that the dialog is intelligible. That usually means quiet, because the dynamic range of my system annoys my apartment neighbors. They are really good about it but the facts of life in an apartment dictate some form of compromise.

For music, the difference between the older recordings with relatively uncompressed dynamics but also limited LFE versus the newer recordings with highly compressed dynamics and single-digit LFE in some cases really changes the volume setting drastically. Compression is so annoying the way it hammers away especially in the LFE that I turn it down not only to hear comfortable level but also so that the constant 'blather' of compression is less annoying.


----------



## CherylJosie

mthomas47 said:


> I certainly agree with that, Jeff. In fact, one of the preconditions for a good music listening room, IMO, is that it sound good for normal conversation. A room in which voices ring or boom is just not going to sound very good for most music, and by extension, for movies either.
> 
> I actually think that a music listening room may be a little harder to get right than a dedicated home theater, in that if you over-treat a home theater, you can compensate for it with more volume. But having some degree of reflection (without having an excessive amount) is probably helpful for most acoustic music. And even in the home theater, as you said, you want whispers to carry distinctly. Then, you simply set your volume to make it so.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I found that in my small open irregularly shaped apartment, overtreating the room is really easy. The smaller it is, the quicker it goes dead, even before the bass trapping is done let alone the early reflections. It is just difficult to make wideband absorbers that are large enough to do the job but also small enough to avoid that deadened sound.


----------



## pepar

CherylJosie said:


> I found that in my small open irregularly shaped apartment, overtreating the room is really easy. The smaller it is, the quicker it goes dead, even before the bass trapping is done let alone the early reflections. It is just difficult to make wideband absorbers that are large enough to do the job but also small enough to avoid that deadened sound.


For me anyway, bass traps are a must. If they absorb too much other than LF, then diffusion could help.

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> For me anyway, bass traps are a must. If they absorb too much other than LF, then diffusion could help.
> 
> Jeff



I think that bass traps probably made the single biggest difference I have experienced in my room, perhaps including the use of Audyssey. FWIW, commercial traps, since I am not a good DIY candidate, come in two types. The standard open-back trap attenuates all frequency ranges including modal frequencies, down to a level which depends on the thickness of the trap and the size of the air pocket behind the trap. 

But to keep from absorbing too much mid and high frequency material, the second type includes a foil reflector on the front side. The very highest frequencies, maybe above 8-10KHz might still be partly absorbed or dispersed, but most mid and high range sound will just bounce off the foil reflector and back into the room. Bass frequencies and some lower mid range will, of course, be completely unaffected by the foil, and will still be absorbed. That is another way to keep from over-deadening the room.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> I think that bass traps probably made the single biggest difference I have experienced in my room, perhaps including the use of Audyssey. FWIW, commercial traps, since I am not a good DIY candidate, come in two types. The standard open-back trap attenuates all frequency ranges including modal frequencies, down to a level which depends on the thickness of the trap and the size of the air pocket behind the trap.
> 
> But to keep from absorbing too much mid and high frequency material, the second type includes a foil reflector on the front side. The very highest frequencies, maybe above 8-10KHz might still be partly absorbed or dispersed, but most mid and high range sound will just bounce off the foil reflector and back into the room. Bass frequencies and some lower mid range will, of course, be completely unaffected by the foil, and will still be absorbed. That is another way to keep from over-deadening the room.


For me, the first biggest dif was made by the first reflection point absorber ... directly behind my MLP. OMG. When the SSC traps were added, they cleaned up the bottom mud and allowed EVERYTHING to sound better. Not sure I could put either treatment ahead of the other.

http://peparsplace.com/pg23.html


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> For me, the first biggest dif was made by the first reflection point absorber ... directly behind my MLP. OMG. When the SSC traps were added, they cleaned up the bottom mud and allowed EVERYTHING to sound better. Not sure I could put either treatment ahead of the other.
> 
> http://peparsplace.com/pg23.html


Good stuff! You obviously are a DIYer. Anytime you feel the need to work on a project, and are at loose ends for something new to tackle, just send me a PM.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Gary,
> 
> I think the fact that most people prefer listening below Reference (which is about equal to -5 in a typical home theater) is because most people simply don't like listening to it quite as loud as you and Keith do. From my reading of this and other threads on the forum, I would guess that most people watch movies somewhere in the range from about -10 to -20 MV ...
> 
> One thing you said confused me a little bit. You said that in your listening room, normal conversation, measured somewhere between 60 and 65db, with peaks of 70db. And that when you set your MV by ear alone for "Grandma", you set it based on the film dialogue. Most people would have been setting it to average dialogue in the film, which you described as about 60 to 65db. But, as you know, 60db is -20 and 65db (50% louder than 60db) is -15. If you set it to Lily Tomlin's peaks of 74db (which you described as emphatic) only then would you be setting it to -6. But that's not normal conversation, which you described as between 60db and 65db (-20 to -15). I believe that most people would, in fact, set their dialogue to normal conversation, which would probably put them in that typical range of -10 to -20, or so. It is only when you set your MV to the loudest dialogue (emphatic for Lily Tomlin is probably almost shouting) that you got to -6 ...
> 
> ... Frankly, with all due respect to Lily, I don't want to hear her speaking at 74db. At least not very often, or for very long. Now listening to music might be a different story.


I should have been clearer. First, let me say I fully understand and accept that people have different loudness preferences, which are highly correlated with, but not identical to, different SPL preferences. 

Here is the way I see it: I did set Grandma by ear, without looking at the MV read-out, and I was judging the perceived volume by "average dialog," including the speech of both Lily and the person playing her grand daughter, who talked more softly, and with less body in her voice. I didn't set it to the peaks I occasionally heard, but just the average (or perhaps, more accurately, the mode) of the dialog I heard. When I measured these parts of the film later, they were between 60 and 65 dB, the same range as my informal sample of "normal conversation" in our house. As to the peaks, I let the chips fall where they may. A very few of these peaks, as Lily spit out her fricative consonants, reached 74 dB, which the needle barely touched. As we all know, dialog can be far below the level of loud music and sound effect passages, and far, far below peaks, especially LFE peaks. Dialog dictated a -6 dB MV setting by ear for Grandma, which was just 1 dB different than my all time modal setting of 5 dB below Reference. At this same 5 dB below, in our music room/HT, music in films can very occasionally peak at something like 100 dB, and effects can reach 110 dB, both just a touch of the needle. For the leading edge of the very brief peaks -- which I believe are between 20 and 200 milliseconds in milliseconds in length, according to something I read -- the actual SPL would be higher, but my meter will not show those, because of needle ballistics and the fact that "fast" is "fast," but not really peak reading. But the readable, broader level peaks cited above are reached by setting movies (including more dynamic movies) for dialog, by ear. 

Mike, when you were writing about -20 and -15, were you talking about a MV setting? Or merely that -60 dB is 20 below 80 dB, but not the same as a MV setting? I may be confused, but to me, 60 dB _*dialog*_ is not -20 MV in an Audyssey calibrated system, but band limited pink noise at standard level may well be near that (I think Audyssey is engineered to use 75 dB rather than 80 or 85 dB, as do some others, so wouldn't that be 55 dB = - 20 MV with the specified pink noise?). I get around 60/65 dB _*dialog*_ with 5 dB below reference (or 6 dB below in the test I conducted). Audyssey would predict that would produce fs of 100 dB through a main speaker (5 shy of reference) and fs of 110 dB through the sub (also 5 shy).


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I should have been clearer. First, let me say I fully understand and accept that people have different loudness preferences, which are highly correlated with, but not identical to, different SPL preferences.
> 
> Mike, when you were writing about -20 and -15, were you talking about a MV setting? Or merely that -60 dB is 20 below 80 dB, but not the same as a MV setting? I may be confused, but to me, 60 dB _*dialog*_ is not -20 MV in an Audyssey calibrated system, but band limited pink noise at standard level may well be near that (I think Audyssey is engineered to use 75 dB rather than 80 or 85 dB, as do some others, so wouldn't that be 55 dB = - 20 MV with the specified pink noise?). I get around 60/65 dB _*dialog*_ with 5 dB below reference (or 6 dB below in the test I conducted). Audyssey would predict that would produce fs of 100 dB through a main speaker (5 shy of reference) and fs of 110 dB through the sub (also 5 shy).



Gary,

I am probably the one who is confused here, and I apologize if I misunderstood what you wrote. Here is what I think I understand, subsequent to further clarification if I screw it up. Your AVR has two volume settings: Relative and Absolute. The Absolute setting is not quite, but is within about 3-5db of what a sound meter should tell you. The Relative scale is supposed to be accurate relative to Reference, but again probably has an error factor. At an average dialogue level of 65db, my understanding is that you would be at a Relative setting of -15, or thereabouts. To be at a relative setting of -6, you would be listening to average dialogue at about 74db as measured by a sound meter. Again, I admit that I may have gotten myself completely turned around on this issue, but I will be glad for someone to straighten me out if so. 

Retreating to safer ground,  I was intrigued by the fact that you had a friend playing the violin for you in your HT. That is very cool! FWIW, I think that the violin, and the tenor flute, particularly playing higher frequencies, need more air than a typical home listening room can easily provide. I would think that a violin, playing live in a 4000 cu ft room would be playing at some pretty high SPL's, as you say. Viola's, cello's, and acoustic guitars would fare much better in our HT's.

Coincidentally, I have been listening to violin music last night and a little bit while ago, and so much depends on the quality of the recording. Any problems at all in the upper register, and violins can so easily sound screechy in recordings. Dropping the volume certainly helps with that, since it just isn't always possible for me to find first class recordings. I know you like soundtracks, but I don't know if you also listen to jazz. Stephane Grappelli and Michel Legrand did some excellent collaborations of both which were very well recorded. No problems there at all.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CherylJosie

pepar said:


> For me anyway, bass traps are a must. If they absorb too much other than LF, then diffusion could help.


Not much room in here. That is why I decided to hang paper diffusers in front of the bass traps. Cannot put them on the early reflection surfaces. There really is just about nowhere else to put them. Tight quarters.

I saw the DIY 'lumber diffuser' on the forum and picked that contour for my paper diffuser. Planning to bend it into chicken wire and hot glue kraft paper to the contour, with a thin steel rod across the top and bottom to maintain a straight reference line through the contour. Should be light enough to hang like a curtain. The weight is really important to me.

I might eventually try to build them into the front of the bass traps, but I am uncertain about one thing. Does the angle of incidence on a diffuser make much difference? I figured if I can aim them it might be better than having a single orientation.



mthomas47 said:


> But to keep from absorbing too much mid and high frequency material, the second type includes a foil reflector on the front side.


I have a 12" square space above the kitchen cabinets that I stuffed with absorption wrapped in kraft paper and covered in fabric. Seems to have helped, and illustrates how difficult it is to find space for acoustic treatments in a small place.



pepar said:


> For me, the first biggest dif was made by the first reflection point absorber ... directly behind my MLP. OMG. When the SSC traps were added, they cleaned up the bottom mud and allowed EVERYTHING to sound better. Not sure I could put either treatment ahead of the other.
> 
> http://peparsplace.com/pg23.html


Same here. The front/back dimension is on the short dimension and the rear wall is really close.

Rear wall absorber 12", right wall absorber 6", also put a 'cloud' of sorts on the ceiling 6". Left wall is open to the kitchen/dining/hall with no good place to mount any treatments that I can see (other than over the kitchen cabinets).

The bass traps, that is a tough one. The dimensions seem to omit room modes near 30Hz. Limited opportunity for bass trap and sharp resonances from modes piling up near 20Hz and 40-60Hz. I also have a deep null at about 76Hz that probably can only be cured with treatments since I already have 3 subwoofers in the only 3 spaces that a subwoofer sounds OK. The only bass traps in the plan so far are on the right front/rear corners, maybe the top front/rear corners too if necessary but that gets difficult because there are height speakers and projector in the way.

Other than that, the only bass trapping that fits in here is the leather sofa, the coats and towels in the hall closet (yes I did open it and measure and it does help), and the foam mattress in the bedroom with the clothes in the bedroom closet (yes I did open them and it does help). In case you were wondering, opening the bathroom or pantry doors made things worse (no absorption in them) but opening the kitchen cabinets helped! not that I really want to open all the cabinets just to listen to music.

Really scraping the bottom of the barrel here trying to tame these resonances. Hopeless without REW and even treating only about 10% of the total surface has deadened the ambiance considerably. Might need to go with a couple of membrane absorbers at some point. Maybe I can DIY? All I found plans for so far were big heavy plywood type...

Then when all is tamed, will Audyssey improve things for me?


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Gary,
> 
> I am probably the one who is confused here, and I apologize if I misunderstood what you wrote. Here is what I think I understand, subsequent to further clarification if I screw it up. Your AVR has two volume settings: Relative and Absolute. The Absolute setting is not quite, but is within about 3-5db of what a sound meter should tell you. The Relative scale is supposed to be accurate relative to Reference, but again probably has an error factor. At an average dialogue level of 65db, my understanding is that you would be at a Relative setting of -15, or thereabouts. To be at a relative setting of -6, you would be listening to average dialogue at about 74db as measured by a sound meter. Again, I admit that I may have gotten myself completely turned around on this issue, but I will be glad for someone to straighten me out if so.
> 
> Retreating to safer ground,  I was intrigued by the fact that you had a friend playing the violin for you in your HT. That is very cool! FWIW,* I think that the violin, and the tenor flute, particularly playing higher frequencies, need more air than a typical home listening room can easily provide. I would think that a violin, playing live in a 4000 cu ft room would be playing at some pretty high SPL's, as you say.* Viola's, cello's, and acoustic guitars would fare much better in our HT's.
> 
> Coincidentally, I have been listening to violin music last night and a little bit while ago, and *so much depends on the quality of the recording. Any problems at all in the upper register, and violins can so easily sound screechy in recordings. Dropping the volume certainly helps with that, since it just isn't always possible for me to find first class recordings*. I know you like soundtracks, but I don't know if you also listen to jazz. Stephane Grappelli and Michel Legrand did some excellent collaborations of both which were very well recorded. No problems there at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Responding to the last part first, I think the quality of the recording is terrifically important, perhaps more so with violin recordings than with recordings of any other instrument. Distortion from any other source is a big factor, too. All of this is part of the reason that "loudness" is perceptual, and SPL is not. A terrible little flea watt radio turned way up will sound terrifically "loud," but can measure lower in SPL than a perceptually softer, but relatively undistorted passage on one of our sound systems.

A live violin in a HT would (and did) suffer from reflections and lack of "air," but so would a solo violin played back over the audio system in the same room. The big difference between live and reproduced in my case may be that I have control over the playback, and don't have control over the live violin. So ... I tend to set violin playback levels quite a bit lower than my friend's live recital. Parenthetically, Audyssey Flat seems to help a lot with violin music, perhaps because it removed a peak I had at 8K. IMO, Audyssey Reference removes too much of the live gutty sheen in the very high frequencies, for want of better words. 

Did I tell you this? I once conducted an experiment on preferred volume control settings with participants (college students) listening to the same piece of music at full or restricted frequency range. Most people set the volume to a good healthy level under both conditions, some a little lower and a few a little higher than I would have set it, but one guy set it *terrifically* loud. It is customary to ask participants (after you collect the data), "Is there is anything you think I should know about you or your experience here?" The guy who set it at an overwhelming level said, "Yes, I'm a mixer for Bill Graham."

I do listen to jazz*;* thanks for the tip. I like all kinds of music, although I very rarely play rap. To me, it's not very interesting in melody or texture, and the "lyrics" are not as clever verbally as the dozens. I love medieval, classical, romanticist, modern orchestral, many soundtracks and jazz.

Now to the grayer area. Maybe we have different, previously undiscovered, understandings of this stuff. I don't find the Absolute volume scale very useful. Relative makes more sense to me. I think we got off the track when talking about, specifically, *dialog* levels. I think that one gets an average dialog level of 65 dB at the MLP at _*whatever *_MV setting it takes to get an average dialog level of 65 dB at the MLP*!* In my room, with my speakers, and my Audyssey calibrated system -- with most Blu-ray movies -- this takes a setting of about 5 dB below Reference. IMO, while the 65 dB dialog -- or anything else at 65 dB -- is, indeed, about 10 dB below the Audyssey test pings at 75 dB, and 40 dB below the Audyssey (and THX, etc.) full scale of 105 dB at the MLP for any speakers except the sub, this is not the same as saying that it is at a Relative setting of -10 (or -15, to use your data). In my HT, an average dialog level of 65 dB happens if the setting on the Relative scale is about 5 or 6 dB below Reference, usually, with most movies. At this same 5 or 6 dB below Reference MV setting on the Relative scale, there can be music or sound effects peaks of about 100 dB (or about 110 dB through the sub). 

Another thing in the literature and on forums that confuses the issue, IMO, is that the "average" level is 85 dB. I really don't think this an average level at all. The SPL may often be at that level, but that's all. Normal dialog is almost always softer than that (e.g., 60 or 65 dB) when the MV is set by ear, so if you have a movie that is mostly dialog, with a little theme music, the mathematically "average" level may be much lower than 85 dB, just a little above the 60/65 dB dialog level. With a so called "action" movie, the "average" level can be much, much higher, even though one sets the dialog to a realistic level by ear and that dialog ends up at 60 or 65 dB.


----------



## CherylJosie

garygarrison said:


> I once conducted an experiment on preferred volume control settings with participants (college students) listening to the same piece of music at full or restricted frequency range.


Dr. Toole indicated that college students were among the least reliable in terms of untrained listeners, but still in line with the trend, just large standard deviation. What was the motivation for the experiment? Publish anything?



> Most people set the volume to a good healthy level under both conditions, some a little lower and a few a little higher than I would have set it, but one guy set it *terrifically* loud. It is customary to ask participants (after you collect the data), "Is there is anything you think I should know about you or your experience here?" The guy who set it at an overwhelming level said, "Yes, I'm a mixer for Bill Graham."


So, deaf? Or just enthusiastic? How can anyone mix if they abuse their ears?



> I do listen to jazz*;* thanks for the tip. I like all kinds of music, although I very rarely play rap. To me, it's not very interesting in melody or texture, and the "lyrics" are not as clever verbally as the dozens.


Dozens? For what it's worth, I suspect that today's generation will not be listening to Classic Rap in their golden years...


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Responding to the last part first, I think the quality of the recording is terrifically important, perhaps more so with violin recordings than with recordings of any other instrument. Distortion from any other source is a big factor, too. All of this is part of the reason that "loudness" is perceptual, and SPL is not. A terrible little flea watt radio turned way up will sound terrifically "loud," but can measure lower in SPL than a perceptually softer, but relatively undistorted passage on one of our sound systems.
> 
> A live violin in a HT would (and did) suffer from reflections and lack of "air," but so would a solo violin played back over the audio system in the same room. The big difference between live and reproduced in my case may be that I have control over the playback, and don't have control over the live violin. So ... I tend to set violin playback levels quite a bit lower than my friend's live recital. Parenthetically, Audyssey Flat seems to help a lot with violin music, perhaps because it removed a peak I had at 8K. IMO, Audyssey Reference removes too much of the live gutty sheen in the very high frequencies, for want of better words.
> 
> Did I tell you this? I once conducted an experiment on preferred volume control settings with participants (college students) listening to the same piece of music at full or restricted frequency range. Most people set the volume to a good healthy level under both conditions, some a little lower and a few a little higher than I would have set it, but one guy set it *terrifically* loud. It is customary to ask participants (after you collect the data), "Is there is anything you think I should know about you or your experience here?" The guy who set it at an overwhelming level said, "Yes, I'm a mixer for Bill Graham."
> 
> I do listen to jazz*;* thanks for the tip. I like all kinds of music, although I very rarely play rap. To me, it's not very interesting in melody or texture, and the "lyrics" are not as clever verbally as the dozens. I love medieval, classical, romanticist, modern orchestral, many soundtracks and jazz.


Hi Gary,

I am going to break my response into two separate posts, so that I can try to grapple with the difficult volume issue in it's own post.

That particular album I mentioned has a bit of both soundtracks and jazz on it. Michel Legrand did some beautiful music for movies. I am glad, although not surprised, to hear that your taste in music is as diverse as mine. There are a few specific types of music that I really don't like very much, although I find myself exposed to at least one of them at the gym. If you are thinking Rap music, you would be correct. 

I agree that solo violin needs air in both a live or recorded performance. When your violinist friend was playing, did you ever have a sense that the violin was louder than you preferred? I am inferring that you did from what you said about control over the volume. I am in exactly the same boat. I love violin music, but even though my room is a little larger than yours (6000 cu ft, but not quite as well treated for high frequencies) I still have to watch the volume when I play violin recordings. I have experimented with Reference for violin music, but for me it just dims it a little too much. I really like Flat better for everything.

The recording quality, though, is just a critical issue with violins in my opinion. At least, that's where I notice problems most quickly--the very high notes. I don't know whether this is correct or not, but I have speculated that many of the recordings that might have sounded fine to me 40 years ago, don't today because our systems play with much less THD now, and we are much more knowledgeable about what distortion sounds like. I always had pretty good quality speakers, but I think that modern amplifiers are probably better across the board than they were in my early music collecting days. And once you start to hear distortion, I think that it is very hard to turn off that capability. In my opinion, room EQ and room treatments make us more aware of distortion, but can only help so much if the distortion is in the source.

On the positive side, bad source material, played in a bad room, would be bad squared (or cubed ) so our variably treated rooms and our EQ do help to that extent. I am not condemning all older recordings incidentally, some of them were superb. I am just observing that violin music very quickly exposes a bad recording for me, and I notice the poorer quality recordings much more than I used to. RCA, among others made some very fine classical recordings. You may already have this one, but in my opinion, arguably the greatest virtuoso solo violin performance was by Jascha Heifetz with the Chicago Symphony, conducted by Fritz Reiner, playing "Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto in D Major Op. 35." That's an RCA recording, and they spared no pains to get it right.

I liked the experiment you conducted with college students. You hadn't mentioned that before. They picked about the same volume level for full range and bandwidth limited music? Did you draw any conclusions from that? What kind of music did you use?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

According to reliable sources Denon (and Marantz to follow soon) will terminate their license agreement with Audyssey and will introduce a new room correction system designed and developed by their own R&D Center.

The most interesting part will be the new measurement microphone combo (5 mics) that will not only use sophisticated algorithms for EQ’ing listening spaces (no leak on details, yet), but will also be able to localize speaker positions when ideal placement is hard to achieve, furthermore it will introduce detection and compensation of in-room early reflections for a multi-seater arrangement for the first time in history making it possible to optimize spatial accuracy. This means from now on any seat can be called MLP.

Let’s stay tuned for the official announcement.


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> This means from now on any seat can be called MLP.


But can *every* seat be called MLP?


----------



## asere

mogorf said:


> According to reliable sources Denon (and Marantz to follow soon) will terminate their license agreement with Audyssey and will introduce a new room correction system designed and developed by their own R&D Center.
> 
> The most interesting part will be the new measurement microphone combo (5 mics) that will not only use sophisticated algorithms for EQ’ing listening spaces (no leak on details, yet), but will also be able to localize speaker positions when ideal placement is hard to achieve, furthermore it will introduce detection and compensation of in-room early reflections for a multi-seater arrangement for the first time in history making it possible to optimize spatial accuracy. This means from now on any seat can be called MLP.
> 
> Let’s stay tuned for the official announcement.


How cool is that. It almost sounds like Trinnov.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> How cool is that. It almost sounds like Trinnov.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



My first reaction is to say that it's cool, too.  But I do have some reservations about an automated system that tries to EQ early reflections, as according to the Harmon/Toole tests, there is a strong user preference component to that.

As always, I suspect that the devil's in the details with respect to the extent that the software can distinguish a helpful early reflection from a harmful one, and to the extent that user controls are implemented to limit (or expand) the degree to which early reflection corrections are attempted.

Edit: Or as Feri will explain--Nevermind!


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> My first reaction is to say that it's cool, too.  But I do have some reservations about a system that tries to EQ early reflections, as according to the Harmon/Toole tests, there is a strong user preference component to that.
> 
> As always, I suspect that the devil's in the details with respect to the extent that the software can distinguish a helpful early reflection from a harmful one, and to the extent that user controls are implemented to limit (or expand) the degree to which early reflection corrections are attempted.


Guys, will you please look at your calendar?  04/01 today!!! 

Do you know how hard it was for me to come out with all this BS?


----------



## Defcon

mogorf said:


> According to reliable sources Denon (and Marantz to follow soon) will terminate their license agreement with Audyssey and will introduce a new room correction system designed and developed by their own R&D Center.
> 
> The most interesting part will be the new measurement microphone combo (5 mics) that will not only use sophisticated algorithms for EQ’ing listening spaces (no leak on details, yet), but will also be able to localize speaker positions when ideal placement is hard to achieve, furthermore it will introduce detection and compensation of in-room early reflections for a multi-seater arrangement for the first time in history making it possible to optimize spatial accuracy. This means from now on any seat can be called MLP.
> 
> Let’s stay tuned for the official announcement.


DELETE !!!! 

mogorf you got us good


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Guys, will you please look at your calendar?  04/01 today!!!
> 
> Do you know how hard it was for me to come out with all this BS?


You are a very bad person, Feri! 

I agree with Defcon. You suckered me completely. I remember wondering yesterday whether people still played April Fools jokes? Well, duh!  No wonder you were taking the news of Audyssey's imminent demise so calmly.


----------



## pepar

Wow, just wow. He knows our traditions better than we do.


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Wow, just wow. He knows our traditions better than we do.



And his execution was flawless!


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> pepar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, just wow. He knows our traditions better than we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And his execution was flawless!
Click to expand...

Judging by all the blubbering victims - including myself, I have to agree.

Jeff


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> Judging by all the blubbering victims - including myself, I have to agree.
> 
> Jeff


As Jeff said,...we have traditions here on this "good olde" Audyssey thread!! 

Have a nice weekend all!


----------



## bobfum3

Ha that was a good one.  I pulled a April fools on my wife. I said she could sit in the MLP.


----------



## mogorf

bobfum3 said:


> Ha that was a good one.  I pulled a April fools on my wife. I said she could sit in the MLP.


Evil is evil, eh?


----------



## garygarrison

CherylJosie said:


> Dr. Toole indicated that college students were among the least reliable in terms of untrained listeners, but still in line with the trend, just large standard deviation. What was the motivation for the experiment? Publish anything?
> 
> So, deaf? Or just enthusiastic? How can anyone mix if they abuse their ears?
> 
> Dozens? For what it's worth, I suspect that today's generation will not be listening to Classic Rap in their golden years...


College students may be less uniform in their responses, but they are very convenient and available. I suspect they may be a bit more engaged and reliable now that _forcing_ them to be in experiments is verboten nearly everywhere. Mine were invited to participate via posters and recruiters, never forced or rewarded, but they were debriefed. I think the main cost of the high variability of students is a puffed up error term, making it harder to get significance. 

I did the experiment as a curious graduate student. The question was whether they would set the volume control to a higher level with the restricted frequency response (roll-off from 7K on up) music or with the same piece of music reproduced with full frequency response. The order was counterbalanced, etc. It could have been argued that they would chose a higher volume setting with the restricted sample in order to hear it better, or that they would set it higher with the full range sample because they were more cortically aroused by the full range sample (more complexity, thanks to more apparent overtones) and wanted even higher arousal. The latter was my hypothesis. Although they did set the volume an average of 4 dB higher with the full range sample, the results were not statistically significant. I didn't publish. The music was the last few minutes of Beethoven's 7th Symphony, as conducted by Rene Leibowitz. For more info on cortical arousal and the arts, see Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology.

I did wonder whether the Bill Graham mixer was deaf, was merely used to loud music, enthusiastically preferred it, or some or all of the above. He seemed to understand me when I talked to him in a soft voice. Not all mixers abuse their ears, I hope. It may depend on where the board is. People very near the speakers may be more at risk.

The Dozens (a creative, often rhyming, exchange of insults that can rise to an art form) just seems much more fascinating and clever, to me, even the sanitized versions Muhammad Ali used to practice.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> ... I don't know whether this is correct or not, but I have speculated that many of the recordings that might have sounded fine to me 40 years ago, don't today because our systems play with much less THD now, and we are much more knowledgeable about what distortion sounds like. I always had pretty good quality speakers, but I think that modern amplifiers are probably better across the board than they were in my early music collecting days. And once you start to hear distortion, I think that it is very hard to turn off that capability. In my opinion, room EQ and room treatments make us more aware of distortion, but can only help so much if the distortion is in the source.


Agreed. 

Also, to some people, there may be "good" harmonic distortion and "bad" harmonic distortion, although all of it reduces accuracy. I'm convinced that some people like speakers that gild the lily with harmonics created by the speakers (sometimes seen in "sidebands" in tests). Some reviewers call this "richness." I'd prefer not to have it. I would guess that all IM is probably bad in everyone's opinion.

Then there is the matter of high frequency roll off helping hide distortion. Some high end speakers may do that, as did some old speakers. I've already mentioned that the roll off in Audyssey Reference seems to help conceal distortion in old magnetic soundtracks (the optical ones are pretty hopeless), but robs the newer, less distorted, ones of a delightful liveness.

IMO, vintage tube amplifiers sound very good, but amplifier quality took a dive when solid state was introduced. Solid state recovered in, maybe, the '80s with expensive units like Luxman, and in the '90s with some affordable ones. The early solid state amps tried to kill distortion with lots of feedback, and inadvertently introduced more TIM distortion, as well as other kinds we may not have named yet. So, now, we have much better amps, that can give us a very clear rendition of source distortion!


----------



## mthomas47

bobfum3 said:


> Ha that was a good one.  I pulled a April fools on my wife. I said she could sit in the MLP.



At least Feri's April Fools trick was believable.


----------



## CherylJosie

This is fascinating:



garygarrison said:


> The question was whether they would set the volume control to a higher level with the restricted frequency response (roll-off from 7K on up) music or with the same piece of music reproduced with full frequency response....The music was the last few minutes of Beethoven's 7th Symphony, as conducted by Rene Leibowitz. For more info on cortical arousal and the arts, see Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology.


I wonder how much the single sample of music affected the outcome. I think I would have liked a range of selections from, e.g., three different styles to be sure that the music itself was as diverse as possible, and maybe let them select each one as often as they wanted while tracking the volume. But, yeah, grad student, budget, relevance (to someone's bottom line anyway), etc. all come into it.



> I did wonder whether the Bill Graham mixer was deaf, was merely used to loud music, enthusiastically preferred it, or some or all of the above. He seemed to understand me when I talked to him in a soft voice. Not all mixers abuse their ears, I hope. It may depend on where the board is. People very near the speakers may be more at risk.


Maybe he simply knew the capabilities of your system because of his familiarity with the equipment, and decided to take it for a spin. I would probably have done the same at that age if you had invited me, despite not knowing all that much about the equipment.

The other explanation is that he was deaf as a stone and had been boosting the volume habitually to replace the sizzle of treble with the slam of visceral sensations.



> The Dozens (a creative, often rhyming, exchange of insults that can rise to an art form) just seems much more fascinating and clever, to me, even the sanitized versions Muhammad Ali used to practice.


Before my time, or I slept through that part of my development. Spectator sports never really captivated me. I remember 'The Black Superman' et al but that is about all I remember about it, that and the gold medal, and then Rocky (I mean the one without Bullwinkle).

So now I have to hit Youtube and see if I can dig up 'The Dozens'. thx for the reference


----------



## tommaazz

Edi-MC said:


> Hello guys!
> 
> I have a Marantz SR7009 for quite some time now, so I've got used to its sound signature, tweaking, DV, DEq, Reference, Flat, and so on
> 
> The rest of the system is composed by 2 Monitor Audio BX5 and 1 BXC at the front, and a pair of BX1 at the back.
> The sub is a SVS SB2000.
> 
> Of course, I'm not writing you to let you know all this, but rather to ask for your help.
> 
> Here's the deal:
> 
> - Since I first did the calibration steps, I've always felt that the sound was a little bit......... unbalanced.
> 
> The sound I get from the BX5+BXC feels quite "small"/thin...
> 
> Distances are Ok, levels Ok (checked them manually).
> Audissey set the crossovers to 40-40-90, front and centre speakers to Large and backs to Small - already changed to 80-80-90, everything to Small.
> 
> Left the D.Eq On, set to Reference, because I live in an apartment and never listen even close to reference level.
> Turned off the D. Vol.
> 
> Everything is, apparently, set for me to get a good experience... except I don't...
> 
> The front trio (BX5 and BXC) seems to be muffled, the dialogs with low volume... it seems to me, that the front speakers are underperforming!
> I don't feel a wide, clear, punchier frontstage, a "wall of sound", now what I mean?
> Already tried to mess around with Dialog Adjust Level, raise the volume level of the 3 speakers, but with no avail...
> 
> On the other hand, the pair of BX1's plays quite nicely - nice lows, punchy sound... many times I caught myself thinking "I wish this sound was coming from the front!" - yes, I know D.Eq tends to boost the back speakers
> 
> This is what I think is ockward and gives that impression of "unbalanced" sound.
> 
> Already tried to turn off D. Eq, but it "dries" up the sound. Almost no bass.
> With it on, many times the bass is a bit to much and the front speakes get lost in the mix...
> 
> What am I missing or overlooking here?!
> 
> I bi-wired the front speakers according to the manual and performed another calibration yesterday.
> After going through the settings one by one, I found a................ curious thing:
> - In the "Amp Assign" section, it's set to 7.1+Zone2...
> 
> Shouldn't it be "5.1 (bi-amp)+ Zone2/3"???
> 
> Hope you can help me, because I feel that, although I know this is not (by no means!) a top-of-the-line homecinema, it should present a respectable sound...
> 
> Cheers!


Hi. I have a similar setup than you and i dont use bi-amping (and yes you should have receiver set-up as bi-amp otherwise only midrange/tweeter or bass will work) i didnt find/hear any benefit of it but now i have all speaker terminals taken so now luckily i cant have it anymore  . I find overall sound great...for movies i use xt32 without dynEQ or dynVOL (i raise a LFE level +6 from where audyssey sets it now is at -1.5) and i use universal crossover of 80 or sometimes 100hz (and also i set LPF for LFE at 100 and not 120 as default, dont ask me why it just sounds better to me  ). I dont use dynEQ anymore for sometime now as i find it distracting and sounds really weird if i turn it on again...seriously try listening with it off for sometime and then turn it on you will see what i mean  . I watch movies at -15 to -18 rearly at -12 and below and i agree that center can be bigger but it is OK for now (when i change speakers i will go to 3-way center speaker). As for listening to music i listen with disabled xt32 as it doesent sound good to me and the speakers just open up for music with xt32 off (i think it just destroys the bass from my bx6 if it is on)...i listen in stereo with crossover at 80hz and i like it also in pl IIx music but sometimes i just go pure direct  ....this year i think i will upgrade to new receiver with the latest codecs but i havent decided on the brand yet Marantz, Denon, Onkyo or Yamaha...i want to try yamaha but havent decided yet...also new onkyos RZ looks great


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> My reference musics are: Patricia Barber (American), Yello (Swiss) and Bliss (from Denmark). Anything from Bliss, but especially "Song for Olabi": "Song for Olabi", a number that contains everything and anything we enthusiast would ever like to hear in a recording.



Feri,

I thought you might be interested to know that I downloaded "Song for Olabi" and enjoyed it. I like Patricia Barber too. 

Excellent percussion in "Song for Olabi". If you really like drums (and who doesn't?) you might enjoy an older track that is a favorite percussion track of mine. It is "Sounds of Hatari" by Henry Mancini. It starts very softly and builds gradually, so you might want to increase the volume a little.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Feri,
> 
> I thought you might be interested to know that I downloaded "Song for Olabi" and enjoyed it. I like Patricia Barber too.
> 
> Excellent percussion in "Song for Olabi". If you really like drums (and who doesn't?) you might enjoy an older track that is a favorite percussion track of mine. It is "Sounds of Hatari" by Henry Mancini. It starts very softly and builds gradually, so you might want to increase the volume a little.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Glad you like them Mike and thanks for another tip. I like these recordings coz these are the ones that make our systems really shine!


----------



## CherylJosie

I would really like to use Audyssey to EQ my system. It is the only auto-EQ I am likely to own for the near future.

Unfortunately I do not know how to make Audyssey improve the sound over what I can achieve with the manual graphic and REW because the Audyssey target sounds way too bright in my overly dead small room with less than pro speakers.

I followed the debate on the Harman EQ listener preference testing of its ~-4dB/decade treble rolloff from LFE f3 up to about 10KHz, and Audyssey 'flat'-tish targets. I also followed threads on Dirac re: auto-target, and here is the conclusion I reached eventually.

When comparing my own system's un-EQ'd response to REW's default full range target, my system closely approximates that default target, as did Harman's system with no EQ in their test room. I had to extend the REW target to 10Hz to prove the point, but the Harman target is essentially a straight-line approximation to the native in-room response of my system and Harman's from 10Hz to 10KHz:








(EDIT: see attached graphic; for some reason I cannot paste it inline here)









I have found that, even in my deadish room, this treble-attenuated EQ actually sounds pretty good with my system, better than Audyssey, even when applied with a coarse graphic EQ in the receiver. I cannot speak for the last 10KHz because I can no longer hear it anyway, but my children seem to think it sounds very clear.

That was not the case before room treatments. Audyssey improved the untreated response noticeably. No measurements to prove that, but I do recall the improvement was substantial on a subjective level anyway.

Sorry, absorbers are in progress and no recent measurements available. I will put some plots and room drawing up when I finish building the absorbers and start on the diffusers. All I can say is, the ambiance dies out more quickly than ever with thick large absorbers on the three early reflection surfaces (rear wall, ceiling, right side wall) and vertical bass traps in two corners (right wall).

Now the debate I have been following, and participated in, has always bugged me. Why does this warped-looking native response keep popping up? Why does straightening it sound better than flattening it? I always assumed that a high fidelity system should have a flat response.

I found this AVSer's system build thread and noted that his RFZ-ISD system has a really flat response over both frequency and time, but his decay rate is also very short and his response still has that ~-4dB/decade in the first decade 30Hz-300Hz with continuing rolloff at about -2dB/decade for 300-30K:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/studio-building-acoustics/817205-my-listening-room.html
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...y-room-treatments-ok-pics-3.html#post37135354



















His final response, after a long period of tuning, has similar bass bump to raising the subwoofer by 3dB that Audyssey users typically do, as does Phase Matching Bass in my own receiver.

So here we go with the million dollar question. How can I get the native response of my system to more closely approach a flat response, so that I can use Audyssey to EQ it without having Audyssey overly boost the treble while trying to compensate the power response for the directionality of the speakers, the treble absorption off-axis, and the close listening quarters?

Jim has no rear absober that I can see. He re-directs the rear reflection sideways and then re-directs it again off the sidewall so it comes back from the sides with an ISD gap. Even preserving the on-axis energy off the rear wall, his system loses substantial treble in the ambient decay. There is no way for me to do anything similar in a small irregular room with 11.1 surround and the short dimension front-back.

The room treatments I am building are helping substantially with the clarity but the room lacks that natural feel with conversation. The ambiance suckout is appreciable. De-cluttering the room would probably help some but that basically means throwing out the whole plan, whereas the reason for going with 11.1 in the first place was the ability to re-create ambiance with a synthesis algorithm since the room is not conducive to ambiance with accuracy anyway.

I even tried running the calibration microphone through a highpass straight-line graphic function (+4dB/decade) to fool Audyssey into EQing with Harman's treble-attenuated target. It sort of worked, but upset the -3dB LFE and set the crossovers way too high while also cutting off the EQ on the sub too early.

I really feel stuck and not looking forward to buying two expensive devices, or one even more expensive device, to EQ 11 channels with Dirac, second A/D step or no. Audyssey makes this system sound tinny and I think the reason is because my speakers have some pronounced directional beaming in the treble while the room treatment is further deadening the off-axis response in the treble.

Is there a better option than just the graphic in the receiver, or a substantial investment in more gear? At this time, the comment about diffusion maybe helping is about the only plan I have to fall back on. I am pretty much counting on paper diffusers in front of the bass traps to bring back some life to the room and flatten the raw response a little so that Audyssey does not have to work so hard. I already wrapped the absorption over the kitchen cabinets in Kraft paper and that seemed to help a little, but even with just a plain bedsheet over the paper it still sounds a little dead in the kitchen. I plan on also paper wrapping any portion of the bass traps that is not going to be hidden behind diffusion but there is only so much I can do in that department.

I (crudely) measured the attenuation of a sheet with REW and, contrary to popular opinion, found it brought a sort of wide-band 3dB loss, not a narrow treble loss. Not sure it would matter, but I could omit the sheet over the paper wrapping, or put some thinner fabric on. I plan on just painting the paper diffusers with a light coat of black spray paint.

Even the thin polyester blanket on the front wall that keeps the AT light spill down to tolerable level is overly deadening the room. I took it down to re-mount it and immediately noticed an improvement in the ambiance. I guess I have to replace that too.

Only going through all this as an experiment in boredom. Not expecting pro results but I would at least like to understand the parameters better and optimize the system within my resources. At this time, the disconnect between Audyssey target and native room response is the biggest stumbling block I am dealing with. Completely destroys the usefulness of the EQ for my system. One of the reasons I bought this receiver is because of XT32. I would like to get some benefit from that part of the investment eventually. What else can I do, other than boost the sub or start over with a new room and speakers or invest in Dirac?

Any thoughts? Who has the rabbit I can pull out of your hat?


----------



## blake

Question regarding a system with:

1) AV receiver that supports Audyssey XT32 (SubEQ). 
2) TWO x JL Audio Fathom F113v2 subwoofers. Note this receiver has dedicated subwoofer 1 & subwoofer 2 RCA outputs - so one will go to each sub
3) Standard 5 speaker surround home theater

Audyssey tech said I can use the subwoofer's built in room EQ (JL Audio calls it DARO: digital automatic room optimization) to calibrate my subs first. THEN use Audyssey XT32 to integrate the 2 subs with the rest of the 5 speakers in my system. 80 Hz crossover managed by 

There are 2 ways to use the built-in SubEQ. Which way should I run it (before doing XT32):
1) Separately. Each sub runs its own room EQ separately
2) Together. You can attach a cable between the two subs (master/slave), so the sub's built-in EQ calibrates the two tubs together, as "one sub" in the room.


----------



## garygarrison

CherylJosie,

Hopefully, someone with more knowledge than I have will help you, but here are some thoughts:



Try using Audyssey while turning up the subwoofer even more, and try some boost with a conventional bass control, if you have one (not the graphic EQ, because that keeps you from using Audyssey on most AVRs/pre-pros). The brightness of Audyssey might be able to be balanced by a boost between 80 and about 200 Hz, which the bass tone control would give you (with your mains set for "small" so they would would be attenuated below 80 Hz, so they won't interfere with the sub). If anything, the Harmon curve is too mild. A steeper slope might be better. We get used to certain bass standing waves, and when Audyssey cuts them down, we tend to hear the result as bass-shy or too bright. J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile once wrote an article titled "Down with flat!" because, in his opinion, flat sound didn't sound natural or particularly pleasant, given the nature of most recordings. Having a room flat would be O.K. with a perfect room and perfect recordings. Many recordings (including virtually all vinyl, and many CDs), have attenuated bass. The music tracks on movies are often light on the bass. Audyssey significantly clarifies my midrange and treble, while a sub boost and bass tone control boost help balance my system. I'm too paranoid about potentially missing something to turn down the treble, but turning up the bass in the two ways mentioned above restores the balance.


Perhaps you could try more diffusion and less absorption. Smallish rooms are difficult, easy to over-damp, but the less specular the reflection, the better, I would think. I'm not sure paper diffusers would be stiff enough to do the job, except at the highest frequencies. The diffusers I've seen are wood, plastic, epoxy, or metal. When I had a small room a few years ago, I had a rug on the floor, but filled the room with diffusing surfaces, and it seemed to help.


----------



## mthomas47

Cheryl/Josie,

I can't offer you very much specific help either, but I would endorse Gary's suggestions and I'll make a couple of my own. I have seen several pictures of Jim's room, and it is *very* heavily treated, including behind the listening position. I wouldn't care for that much treatment, but he likes it, and that's all that matters.

I know you have read Floyd Toole, so I'll paraphrase something he said about speakers: No matter what measurements may tell us, a room isn't good until it sounds good. If the room sounds too dead to you, then it is. I would trust my ears on this. It is very difficult to have too many bass traps, since the net effect of bass traps is usually to increase the audible bass by eliminating effects of cancellation, and to clarify the other frequencies by eliminating destructive interference. But in my opinion, and apparently in yours as well, it is definitely possible to have too much absorption. So, converting some of the absorption to diffusion, and focusing on the right places to put absorption/diffusion by using the mirror test would be a great start.

Even with bass traps, it is possible to curtail the broadband effects, if necessary, by putting some foil on the front. So, rather than just putting additional coats of paint on the wall in order to get a color you like, I might take a step backward and reconsider the overall approach to your room treatments. Approaching the problem strategically might lead you to remove some treatments, and relocate some treatments, or replace some treatments with other types. Again, IMO, your ears are your friend here. If the room sounds too dead, then it is.

Gary and I both appreciate the benefits of Audyssey, but we also both like using the tone controls rather than DEQ, although we use them in slightly different ways. Audyssey's greatest benefit for me is in the bass and mid-range. It provides greater clarity even though I have a lot of bass traps in my large room (lots of nooks and crannies which can cause cancellation). In my case, I rarely need to boost bass with my tone controls, although I like Gary's suggestion for you. I do, however, run my subs very hot. Most people add 3 to 6db to their subs, even with DEQ engaged. Without it, you may need to be at +9 or +10 to make things sound the way you want.

One of the things I use my tone controls for is to roll-off some treble. I have found that if I use Flat for everything, and then roll-off several db of treble for just my front speakers, I get a near ideal sound for my particular room, equipment, and preferences. So, to recap, I use Audyssey (XT-32) for overall EQ, but my primary benefit is for bass and mid-range, then I boost the subs a lot for movies, and I roll-off some treble with the tone control for my front speakers, and I have a house curve that suits me perfectly. YMMV!

I have long believed that Audyssey has more user control than some of us realize, if we are willing to use our imaginations and to experiment. To summarize, I would rethink my approach to room treatment a bit to get it closer to where you think it should be (by ear and not just by measurement) prior to Audyssey, and then I would experiment with different settings to find something that pleases you. I hope this helps. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## D Bone

A little update to what I found with my Anti-Mode (AM) Cinema 8033 and XT working together. To refresh anyone's memory, I complained that the AM would show that XT was overdriving my sub with its warning LEDs, so I removed the AM and just used XT. With XT alone in the chain, I like a lot of others that don't use Dynamic EQ, needed to raise the sub trim 5-7db from what XT set during calibration to get the overall bass that I wanted. 

I was still not happy with XTs solo overall control of my sub, so I reinstalled my AM into the chain and the end results of both the AM and XT are awesome......... I literally do not have to raise the sub trim at all from what XT set during calibration ( 0db ). Bass is powerful, clean and deep, even at reduced MV levels, just like if I raised the sub trim a ton.

By calibrating the sub with AM first and then calibrating everything with XT, it's like the AM does all of the heavy, important work, and then XT is able to come in and just polish things up a bit, and the end result of the two is just incredible....... Maybe this is what XT32 sounds like with its more powerful sub EQing capabilities? 

^ All of that said, now I was back to the multiple AM LED warnings during the WOTW pod emergence scene. Damn it! So I started thinking about the input overload issue, and I thought I would try to raise the gain on the sub itself and lower the AVRs sub trim until I got to -5db ( I was at 0db prior via XT calibration ). 

As soon as I got to -3db or lower on the AVRs sub trim, all of the AMs warnings went away. I'm a bit embarrassed by this as I was pretty harsh on XT being the problem, but it was actually a Denon issue by sending out a clipped sub signal at 0db or higher. 

So, after spending the entire weekend working on my system (wife in San Diego, kid studying in Australia) I hit the sweet spot on my sub's gain vs my AVR's sub trim ( now -5db in AVR ), and I now no longer have a seizure inducing light show during WOTW at the loudest MV level that I will ever use ( -10db ).

I'm still using L/R Bypass by the way, and couldn't be happier with the overall balance of the system with XT and AM working together.


----------



## torii

is a newer version of audyssey in the works?


----------



## mthomas47

torii said:


> is a newer version of audyssey in the works?



There have been hints that something new will be released this year, but no details on what it is, or when it will be available.


----------



## Alan P

D Bone said:


> A little update to what I found with my Anti-Mode (AM) Cinema 8033 and XT working together. To refresh anyone's memory, I complained that the AM would show that XT was overdriving my sub with its warning LEDs, so I removed the AM and just used XT. With XT alone in the chain, I like a lot of others that don't use Dynamic EQ, needed to raise the sub trim 5-7db from what XT set during calibration to get the overall bass that I wanted.
> 
> I was still not happy with XTs solo overall control of my sub, so I reinstalled my AM into the chain and the end results of both the AM and XT are awesome......... I literally do not have to raise the sub trim at all from what XT set during calibration ( 0db ). Bass is powerful, clean and deep, even at reduced MV levels, just like if I raised the sub trim a ton.
> 
> By calibrating the sub with AM first and then calibrating everything with XT, it's like the AM does all of the heavy, important work, and then XT is able to come in and just polish things up a bit, and the end result of the two is just incredible....... Maybe this is what XT32 sounds like with its more powerful sub EQing capabilities?
> 
> ^ All of that said, now I was back to the multiple AM LED warnings during the WOTW pod emergence scene. Damn it! So I started thinking about the input overload issue, and I thought I would try to raise the gain on the sub itself and lower the AVRs sub trim until I got to -5db ( I was at 0db prior via XT calibration ).
> 
> As soon as I got to -3db or lower on the AVRs sub trim, all of the AMs warnings went away. I'm a bit embarrassed by this as I was pretty harsh on XT being the problem, but it was actually a Denon issue by sending out a clipped sub signal at 0db or higher.
> 
> So, after spending the entire weekend working on my system (wife in San Diego, kid studying in Australia) I hit the sweet spot on my sub's gain vs my AVR's sub trim ( now -5db in AVR ), and I now no longer have a seizure inducing light show during WOTW at the loudest MV level that I will ever use ( -10db ).
> 
> I'm still using L/R Bypass by the way, and couldn't be happier with the overall balance of the system with XT and AM working together.



So glad you got it all sorted out D Bone!

Sometimes it takes a weekend with an empty house to figure things out....or in my case, a dozen or so of those weekends. 

I've got one coming up this weekend and I'm going to work on integrating all the new bass traps I got recently.


----------



## Alan P

blake said:


> Question regarding a system with:
> 
> 1) AV receiver that supports Audyssey XT32 (SubEQ).
> 2) TWO x JL Audio Fathom F113v2 subwoofers. Note this receiver has dedicated subwoofer 1 & subwoofer 2 RCA outputs - so one will go to each sub
> 3) Standard 5 speaker surround home theater
> 
> Audyssey tech said I can use the subwoofer's built in room EQ (JL Audio calls it DARO: digital automatic room optimization) to calibrate my subs first. THEN use Audyssey XT32 to integrate the 2 subs with the rest of the 5 speakers in my system. 80 Hz crossover managed by
> 
> There are 2 ways to use the built-in SubEQ. Which way should I run it (before doing XT32):
> 1) Separately. Each sub runs its own room EQ separately
> 2) Together. You can attach a cable between the two subs (master/slave), so the sub's built-in EQ calibrates the two tubs together, as "one sub" in the room.



If the subs are equidistant to the MLP, you can use a single sub out from the AVR and EQ the subs together (master/slave). If the subs are not equidistant to the MLP, you will have to EQ them separately so you can use both sub outs on the AVR and take advantage of SubEQ HT (separate levels/distances).


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> So glad you got it all sorted out D Bone!
> 
> Sometimes it takes a weekend with an empty house to figure things out....or in my case, a dozen or so of those weekends.
> 
> I've got one coming up this weekend and I'm going to work on integrating all the new bass traps I got recently.



That's actually kind of a fun exercise. I spent some time on something similar this last weekend, and have a little more work to do over the next couple of evenings.


----------



## Defcon

I picked up a cheap Onkyo NR609 and returned my Denon X2200W since I don't have Atmos right now or a 4K tv, and the cost savings were substantial. The Onkyo has Audyssey 2EQ only which doesn't handle LFE and probably does a poor job with the speakers too. I've level matched them all manually, is there anything else I can do to emulate Audyssey? It does have DEQ which I like, I wonder if its the same implementation as in the newer receivers or has it improved?


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> I picked up a cheap Onkyo NR609 and returned my Denon X2200W since I don't have Atmos right now or a 4K tv, and the cost savings were substantial. The Onkyo has Audyssey 2EQ only which doesn't handle LFE and probably does a poor job with the speakers too. I've level matched them all manually, is there anything else I can do to emulate Audyssey? It does have DEQ which I like, I wonder if its the same implementation as in the newer receivers or has it improved?



DEQ should be the same regardless of the version of Audyssey.


----------



## blake

Alan P said:


> If the subs are equidistant to the MLP, you can use a single sub out from the AVR and EQ the subs together (master/slave). If the subs are not equidistant to the MLP, you will have to EQ them separately so you can use both sub outs on the AVR and take advantage of SubEQ HT (separate levels/distances).




The subs are different distances from MLP. 

If I use the subs built in EQ first , for each sub separately , will it interfere with XT32 ? I heard it may cause excessive delays because of the subs digital processing introduces lag time in the output.


----------



## Alan P

blake said:


> The subs are different distances from MLP.
> 
> If I use the subs built in EQ first , for each sub separately , *will it interfere with XT32 ?* I heard it may cause excessive delays because of the subs digital processing introduces lag time in the output.


Not if you run XT32 last.


----------



## mthomas47

blake said:


> The subs are different distances from MLP.
> 
> If I use the subs built in EQ first , for each sub separately , will it interfere with XT32 ? I heard it may cause excessive delays because of the subs digital processing introduces lag time in the output.


Hi,

If you are going to use the built-in EQ, I would definitely take advantage of the opportunity to EQ each sub separately, rather than using a master/slave arrangement. Using the separate sub inputs in your AVR has some real advantages. I have never been quite sure how Audyssey will deal with a sub which has already been EQed. The conventional wisdom on the thread used to be that Audyssey would undo any EQ done prior to calibration. But some people have reported using Anti-modes, or miniDSP's, prior to running Audyssey with good results, so I honestly don't know how it will work. You will just have to experiment to find out, and it would be helpful if you would report your experience.

As far as setting distances for two subs with XT-32, you can normally rely on Audyssey to be fairly accurate in accounting for processing delay. If you have some reason to suspect that you are getting an erroneous distance setting, you can experiment, but that part should work okay.

If you are getting the impression that there are some uncertainties involved when it comes to room correction, then you are officially a member of the Audyssey Club.  Audyssey, and particularly XT-32, works well for most of us who report on it, but it can take some trial-and-error to get things to sound the way we want them to.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

Audyssey doesn't know anything about on board EQ and will EQ as needed to hit the target curve. A delay from an onboard EQ will only be a problem if is causes Audyssey to offset it (for temporal alignment at MLP) and that offset exceeds the AVR's range of adjustment. 

Jeff


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you are going to use the built-in EQ, I would definitely take advantage of the opportunity to EQ each sub separately, rather than using a master/slave arrangement. Using the separate sub inputs in your AVR has some real advantages. I have never been quite sure how Audyssey will deal with a sub which has already been EQed. The conventional wisdom on the thread used to be that Audyssey would undo any EQ done prior to calibration. But some people have reported using Anti-modes, or miniDSP's, prior to running Audyssey with good results, so I honestly don't know how it will work. You will just have to experiment to find out, and it would be helpful if you would report your experience.


Mike,

There are two ways to go about it;

1) EQ before Audyssey (or any auto-cal): If you have large peaks that Audyssey is having trouble dealing with, it can be beneficial to EQ these peaks down pre-Audyssey so that Audyssey has a better starting point and less work to do. This method will (usually) provide you with a flat response post-Audyssey and that is what you will be listening to.

2) EQ post-Audyssey: If Audyssey alone provides you with a relatively flat response, you can then tailor the response to your preference; i.e. house curve, mid-bass hump, LFE bump, etc. If you try to do any tailoring pre-Audyssey, Audyssey will just un-do it.


----------



## gurkey

It quite simple. It just looks at the resulting response data at the microphones position during the measurement(s) and "sculptures" its filter(s) after what it found, no matter, what has happened before or in between. It usually doesn't make much sense in having an individual subwoofers EQ run beforehand because all it counts is the combined response of all sound source in the bass region, which produce the same signal in parallel, at the microphone/listeners position. This includes interferences and additions. One of the reasons, why a "LFE + Main" setup fails at this, because it doesn't measure the combined response but the individual one and in parallel. Having several EQs working on the same input will usually just degrade the signal, because any EQ will have at least some side effects, which might add up.
Another reason would be, that an Audyssey XT32 normally has a much higher filter resolution than a subwoofers EQ. 
What will happen, if the user or another EQ have "messed" around prior to an Audyssey measurement? Audyssey will try to "linearize" what it finds at the mikes position. Thats it.


----------



## mthomas47

Good posts above! As I said, the results are unpredictable, and we just have to experiment to discover what really works in our particular circumstances.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Mike,
> 
> There are two ways to go about it;
> 
> 1) EQ before Audyssey (or any auto-cal): If you have large peaks that Audyssey is having trouble dealing with, it can be beneficial to EQ these peaks down pre-Audyssey so that Audyssey has a better starting point and less work to do. This method will (usually) provide you with a flat response post-Audyssey and that is what you will be listening to.
> 
> 2) EQ post-Audyssey: If Audyssey alone provides you with a relatively flat response, you can then tailor the response to your preference; i.e. house curve, mid-bass hump, LFE bump, etc. If you try to do any tailoring pre-Audyssey, Audyssey will just un-do it.


Alan,

That's an excellent and simple explanation, and dovetails nicely with the other responses. If you are simply trying to achieve a flat frequency response, any measures that you take prior to Audyssey, including EQ or bass traps can be beneficial. However, if you are trying to implement a house curve, it is better to do it post-Audyssey, as that Audyssey may try to undo. I say "may" because I guess it would depend on how much you varied from flat.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Roudan

Hi

When calibrating bass, I found audyssey result of -12db is much better than other case of -6db? Then I bump it up from -12db to -6db. 

What level do you guys set for bass audyssey ? I really like to hear your experience ? Thx


----------



## mthomas47

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> When calibrating bass, I found audyssey result of -12db is much better than other case of -6db? Then I bump it up from -12db to -6db.
> 
> What level do you guys set for bass audyssey ? I really like to hear your experience ? Thx


Hi,

I try to get close to -12 without actually hitting it, as I have a Marantz and Denon/Marantz have a max trim of +/- 12. If my trim level is on -12, I can't be sure that it didn't need to be -13, or even less. So, I normally shoot for -11, and 11.5 is fine if I happen to hit that.

But then I add much more than 6db of sub boost. If I were using DEQ, I would probably boost about 9db, give or take. Without DEQ, which is how I am operating these days, I will typically boost about an extra 3db than I would if I were engaging DEQ. So, depending on the calibration, and sometimes on the specific movie, I might boost 12db, or even a little more. Of course, I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) boost my subs that much if I were playing at near Reference volumes. But at somewhere up to about -15 MV, the large boost works well for me.

The typical advice given by my sub maker (SVS) is to try not to exceed sub trims of about 0.0 in the AVR, at master volumes exceeding -10, and I remain mindful of that advice. As stated in the FAQ, that is to make the sub amp do all the work, and to minimize distortion. (You didn't ask about all that, but I felt that the additional clarification was helpful since I am using so much sub boost.) 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Roudan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I try to get close to -12 without actually hitting it, as I have a Marantz and Denon/Marantz have a max trim of +/- 12. If my trim level is on -12, I can't be sure that it didn't need to be -13, or even less. So, I normally shoot for -11, and 11.5 is fine if I happen to hit that.
> 
> But then I add much more than 6db of sub boost. If I were using DEQ, I would probably boost about 9db, give or take. Without DEQ, which is how I am operating these days, I will typically boost about an extra 3db than I would if I were engaging DEQ. So, depending on the calibration, and sometimes on the specific movie, I might boost 12db, or even a little more. Of course, I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) boost my subs that much if I were playing at near Reference volumes. But at somewhere up to about -15 MV, the large boost works well for me.
> 
> The typical advice given by my sub maker (SVS) is to try not to exceed sub trims of about 0.0 in the AVR, at master volumes exceeding -10, and I remain mindful of that advice. As stated in the FAQ, that is to make the sub amp do all the work, and to minimize distortion. (You didn't ask about all that, but I felt that the additional clarification was helpful since I am using so much sub boost.)
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. Very helpful advice.


----------



## Alan P

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> When calibrating bass, I found audyssey result of -12db is much better than other case of -6db? Then I bump it up from -12db to -6db.
> 
> What level do you guys set for bass audyssey ? I really like to hear your experience ? Thx


As Mike said, you need to re-calibrate until you get a sub trim >-12dB.

To get there, you can just run the first Audyssey mic position and "calibrate". Once you get the sub trim where you want it, then run the full calibration.


----------



## Roudan

Alan P said:


> As Mike said, you need to re-calibrate until you get a sub trim >-12dB.
> 
> To get there, you can just run the first Audyssey mic position and "calibrate". Once you get the sub trim where you want it, then run the full calibration.


Thanks Alan. Just out of curiosity, how many subs do you have in your system?


----------



## Alan P

Roudan said:


> Thanks Alan. Just out of curiosity, how many subs do you have in your system?


Technically I only have 4 subs...2 PSA T-18s and 2 PSA S3000s...but if you count drivers, well.......


----------



## mthomas47

Roudan said:


> Thanks Mike. Very helpful advice.





Alan P said:


> Technically I only have 4 subs...2 PSA T-18s and 2 PSA S3000s...but if you count drivers, well.......



You are very welcome! Don't you just hate it when people start counting drivers?


----------



## garygarrison

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> When calibrating bass, I found audyssey result of -12db is much better than other case of -6db? Then I bump it up from -12db to -6db.
> 
> What level do you guys set for bass audyssey ? I really like to hear your experience ? Thx





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I try to get close to -12 without actually hitting it, as I have a Marantz and Denon/Marantz have a max trim of +/- 12. If my trim level is on -12, I can't be sure that it didn't need to be -13, or even less. So, I normally shoot for -11, and 11.5 is fine if I happen to hit that.
> 
> But then I add much more than 6db of sub boost. If I were using DEQ, I would probably boost about 9db, give or take. Without DEQ, which is how I am operating these days, I will typically boost about an extra 3db than I would if I were engaging DEQ. So, depending on the calibration, and sometimes on the specific movie, I might boost 12db, or even a little more. Of course, I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) boost my subs that much if I were playing at near Reference volumes. But at somewhere up to about -15 MV, the large boost works well for me.
> ...
> Regards,
> Mike


Roudan, 

Well I *do* run at near Reference levels (usually about 5 dB below), and I often run my sub about 8 dB higher than Audyssey set it. If I ever run an "Action" movie (rarely) I turn down the sub a bit as a precaution, and start out at a slightly lower Main Volume level, until I see how outrageous the filmmakers are going to be with the LFE. All of this is by ear. I never use DEQ.

Gary


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Roudan,
> 
> Well I *do* run at near Reference levels (usually about 5 dB below), and I often run my sub about 8 dB higher than Audyssey set it. If I ever run an "Action" movie (rarely) I turn down the sub a bit as a precaution, and start out at a slightly lower Main Volume level, until I see how outrageous the filmmakers are going to be with the LFE. All of this is by ear. I never use DEQ.
> 
> Gary



Outrageous LFE in action movies? Surely you jest!


----------



## Roudan

garygarrison said:


> Roudan,
> 
> Well I *do* run at near Reference levels (usually about 5 dB below), and I often run my sub about 8 dB higher than Audyssey set it. If I ever run an "Action" movie (rarely) I turn down the sub a bit as a precaution, and start out at a slightly lower Main Volume level, until I see how outrageous the filmmakers are going to be with the LFE. All of this is by ear. I never use DEQ.
> 
> Gary


Thanks Gary. Did you mean that you run audyssey to -5db then bump up to +3db? Thanks.


----------



## Defcon

IMO DEQ is a fantastic feature and Audyssey's real highlight. And its perfect because if you run near reference, by design its effects will be minimal (and none at reference) so its not going to offend anyone  But at normal volumes it makes a noticeable difference.

Is there any equivalent to DEQ from other oem's. I know there's YPAO Volume, Panasonic has ALC and there's Dolby Volume, but these all seem like alternatives to Dynamic Volume.


----------



## garygarrison

Roudan said:


> Thanks Gary. Did you mean that you run audyssey to -5db then bump up to +3db? Thanks.


No. Audyssey sets my sub to -7dB, and I bump it up to +1. 

I know +1 is between 1 and 4 dB higher on the trim scale that some people recommend, but I do not detect any added distortion.

My usual Main Volume level is, by coincidence, about 5 dB below calibrated Reference level. I start out at about that level, and when the movie's dialog comes on, I tweak the volume until the dialog is at a natural sounding level. This rarely requires a change of more then 1 or 2 dB, and usually (with Blu-ray) no change at all is required. According to Audyssey and THX, Reference level is the level at which the very loudest (very, very brief) sounds in any movie are at a maximum of 105 dB through a main speaker and a maximum of 115 dB through the subwoofer, in your particular room, with your particular speakers and other equipment in the chain *after* running Audyssey. For most people, with speakers of average efficiency, Audyssey's microphone and processing sets this level so it will be achieved at a Main Volume setting of 0 (rather than at minus something). THX points out that in Home Theater size rooms, with some acoustical treatment, the *subjective *level that is* perceived *to be just about the same level as Reference is a little lower than it would be in a commercial cinema. For a room my size (4,260 cubic feet) that level would be about 5 dB lower. That being said, I arrived at the 5 dB lower than Reference independently, by setting the volume by ear (for dialog) without looking at the Main Volume Control. For smaller rooms, or rooms that are more acoustically live, the level that sounds like Reference (in a large theater) would be even lower. Also, some amplifiers and speakers handle high volumes better than others, so, if there is audible strain or distortion, the volume should probably be turned down. Lastly, some movies have very clean and undistorted soundtracks, and some do not. Inferior soundtracks probably should be played a little lower.

If you haven't read the following, you probably should*;* it is much clearer than any AVR or pre/pro manual I've seen. "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"


----------



## Roudan

garygarrison said:


> No. Audyssey sets my sub to -7dB, and I bump it up to +1.
> 
> I know +1 is between 1 and 4 dB higher on the trim scale that some people recommend, but I do not detect any added distortion.
> 
> My usual Main Volume level is, by coincidence, about 5 dB below calibrated Reference level. I start out at about that level, and when the movie's dialog comes on, I tweak the volume until the dialog is at a natural sounding level. This rarely requires a change of more then 1 or 2 dB, and usually (with Blu-ray) no change at all is required. According to Audyssey and THX, Reference level is the level at which the very loudest (very, very brief) sounds in any movie are at a maximum of 105 dB through a main speaker and a maximum of 115 dB through the subwoofer, in your particular room, with your particular speakers and other equipment in the chain *after* running Audyssey. For most people, with speakers of average efficiency, Audyssey's microphone and processing sets this level so it will be achieved at a Main Volume setting of 0 (rather than at minus something). THX points out that in Home Theater size rooms, with some acoustical treatment, the *subjective *level that is* perceived *to be just about the same level as Reference is a little lower than it would be in a commercial cinema. For a room my size (4,260 cubic feet) that level would be about 5 dB lower. That being said, I arrived at the 5 dB lower than Reference independently, by setting the volume by ear (for dialog) without looking at the Main Volume Control. For smaller rooms, or rooms that are more acoustically live, the level that sounds like Reference (in a large theater) would be even lower. Also, some amplifiers and speakers handle high volumes better than others, so, if there is audible strain or distortion, the volume should probably be turned down. Lastly, some movies have very clean and undistorted soundtracks, and some do not. Inferior soundtracks probably should be played a little lower.
> 
> If you haven't read the following, you probably should*;* it is much clearer than any AVR or pre/pro manual I've seen. "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"


Thanks Gary. It is very nice reading and learning to me. I appreciate it.


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> No. Audyssey sets my sub to -7dB, and I bump it up to +1.
> 
> I know +1 is between 1 and 4 dB higher on the trim scale that some people recommend, but I do not detect any added distortion.
> 
> My usual Main Volume level is, by coincidence, about 5 dB below calibrated Reference level. I start out at about that level, and when the movie's dialog comes on, I tweak the volume until the dialog is at a natural sounding level. This rarely requires a change of more then 1 or 2 dB, and usually (with Blu-ray) no change at all is required. According to Audyssey and THX, Reference level is the level at which the very loudest (very, very brief) sounds in any movie are at a maximum of 105 dB through a main speaker and a maximum of 115 dB through the subwoofer, in your particular room, with your particular speakers and other equipment in the chain *after* running Audyssey. For most people, with speakers of average efficiency, Audyssey's microphone and processing sets this level so it will be achieved at a Main Volume setting of 0 (rather than at minus something). THX points out that in Home Theater size rooms, with some acoustical treatment, the *subjective *level that is* perceived *to be just about the same level as Reference is a little lower than it would be in a commercial cinema. For a room my size (4,260 cubic feet) that level would be about 5 dB lower. That being said, I arrived at the 5 dB lower than Reference independently, by setting the volume by ear (for dialog) without looking at the Main Volume Control. For smaller rooms, or rooms that are more acoustically live, the level that sounds like Reference (in a large theater) would be even lower. Also, some amplifiers and speakers handle high volumes better than others, so, if there is audible strain or distortion, the volume should probably be turned down. Lastly, some movies have very clean and undistorted soundtracks, and some do not. Inferior soundtracks probably should be played a little lower.
> 
> If you haven't read the following, you probably should*;* it is much clearer than any AVR or pre/pro manual I've seen. "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"



Just to confirm what Gary said here...I have recently been adding treatments to my room and have noticed that my "reference" level has went up. I used to be around -13MV to -12MV for a comfortable listening level, and now -7MV to -5MV sounds just about right.


----------



## mthomas47

Defcon said:


> IMO DEQ is a fantastic feature and Audyssey's real highlight. And its perfect because if you run near reference, by design its effects will be minimal (and none at reference) so its not going to offend anyone  But at normal volumes it makes a noticeable difference.
> 
> Is there any equivalent to DEQ from other oem's. I know there's YPAO Volume, Panasonic has ALC and there's Dolby Volume, but these all seem like alternatives to Dynamic Volume.



This subject came up not too long ago, although I think it was on another thread. I don't remember the specifics, but apparently there are now a couple of alternatives to DEQ out there. I think that one of them might have been a high-end version of YPAO. I don't follow Yamaha threads, and I don't know the versions very well, but they do seem to have more than one version, with the more advanced version sold in their high-end units. Go figure!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Just to confirm what Gary said here...I have recently been adding treatments to my room and have noticed that my "reference" level has went up. I used to be around -13MV to -12MV for a comfortable listening level, and now -7MV to -5MV sounds just about right.



Alan,

I had wanted to ask you anyway about your recent addition of acoustical materials. You mentioned adding bass traps, and I assume from the above that they were broadband traps. What did you perceive the effect to be, other than allowing you to tolerate higher listening levels. (That would primarily have been the broadband benefit--reducing mid-range and high frequency distortion.) What bass effect did you achieve with your traps? Also, did you add some acoustic panels which were entirely broadband in coverage rather than specifically designated as bass traps? I have both, and as you know both the construction and the acoustical effects are somewhat different.

If you respond tomorrow, and I don't get back to you, it won't be a lack of interest in the subject, but that I will be traveling for a few days and out of contact. I sort of wanted to share impressions, anyway. I very recently added some more of both kinds of acoustic treatments to my room, and am still in the evaluation stage, but the overall effect is a very positive one.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Alan,
> 
> I had wanted to ask you anyway about your recent addition of acoustical materials. You mentioned adding bass traps, and I assume from the above that they were broadband traps. What did you perceive the effect to be, other than allowing you to tolerate higher listening levels. (That would primarily have been the broadband benefit--reducing mid-range and high frequency distortion.) What bass effect did you achieve with your traps? Also, did you add some acoustic panels which were entirely broadband in coverage rather than specifically designated as bass traps? I have both, and as you know both the construction and the acoustical effects are somewhat different.
> 
> If you respond tomorrow, and I don't get back to you, it won't be a lack of interest in the subject, but that I will be traveling for a few days and out of contact. I sort of wanted to share impressions, anyway. I very recently added some more of both kinds of acoustic treatments to my room, and am still in the evaluation stage, but the overall effect is a very positive one.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I bought bass traps only, from GIK (244s, 6x 24"x48" and 4x 12"x48")...but, I haven't properly integrated them yet, haven't even re-ran Audyssey. I am planning on doing that this weekend (wife is out of town). For now, they are just hanging flat on the front, back and side walls. I plan on straddling some corners and taking measurements (haven't yet with the traps) this weekend.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> I bought bass traps only, from GIK (244s, 6x 24"x48" and 4x 12"x48")...but, I haven't properly integrated them yet, haven't even re-ran Audyssey. I am planning on doing that this weekend (wife is out of town). For now, they are just hanging flat on the front, back and side walls. I plan on straddling some corners and taking measurements (haven't yet with the traps) this weekend.



Thanks, Alan! I will be interested to hear about your results once you are finished.


----------



## mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Defcon* 
_IMO DEQ is a fantastic feature and Audyssey's real highlight. And its perfect because if you run near reference, by design its effects will be minimal (and none at reference) so its not going to offend anyone  But at normal volumes it makes a noticeable difference.

Is there any equivalent to DEQ from other oem's. I know there's YPAO Volume, Panasonic has ALC and there's Dolby Volume, but these all seem like alternatives to Dynamic Volume._





mthomas47 said:


> This subject came up not too long ago, although I think it was on another thread. I don't remember the specifics, but apparently there are now a couple of alternatives to DEQ out there. I think that one of them might have been a high-end version of YPAO. I don't follow Yamaha threads, and I don't know the versions very well, but they do seem to have more than one version, with the more advanced version sold in their high-end units. Go figure!


Actually the principles of loudness compensation go back to as far as the 1930's where the two reserchers Fletcher & Munson started their first experiments at Bell Labs on how the human ear works with regards to level changes. 

From thereon, loudness compensation has been with us. Now let's take a giant leap to the digital era of the 21st century, where it was Audyssey's DEQ that came out with a brand new concept by integrating a two-tier compensation scheme that works as follows.

The first loudness compensation is made by DEQ with reference to lowering the MV (Master Volume) setting on our AVRs, while as the MV is lowered a second compensation is made as the passage changes from soft to loud parts (back and forth) because each level will fall on different compensation curves, i.e. the softer the passage is, the more compensation will be applied to bass and treble at any given fixed MV that is turned down from 0 dB. And, of course, this is all done in "real-time".

I do not know of any other loudness compensation solution that deals with such a sophisticated two-tier approach. It is said that DEQ works so smoothly it would only be apparent when its taken away.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Defcon*
> _IMO DEQ is a fantastic feature and Audyssey's real highlight. And its perfect because if you run near reference, by design its effects will be minimal (and none at reference) so its not going to offend anyone  But at normal volumes it makes a noticeable difference.
> 
> Is there any equivalent to DEQ from other oem's. I know there's YPAO Volume, Panasonic has ALC and there's Dolby Volume, but these all seem like alternatives to Dynamic Volume._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the principles of loudness compensation go back to as far as the 1930's where the two reserchers Fletcher & Munson started their first experiments at Bell Labs on how the human ear works with regards to level changes.
> 
> From thereon, loudness compensation has been with us. Now let's take a giant leap to the digital era of the 21st century, where it was Audyssey's DEQ that came out with a brand new concept by integrating a two-tier compensation scheme that works as follows.
> 
> The first loudness compensation is made by DEQ with reference to lowering the MV (Master Volume) setting on our AVRs, while as the MV is lowered a second compensation is made as the passage changes from soft to loud parts (back and forth) because each level will fall on different compensation curves, i.e. the softer the passage is, the more compensation will be applied to bass and treble at any given fixed MV that is turned down from 0 dB. And, of course, this is all done in "real-time".
> 
> I do not know of any other loudness compensation solution that deals with such a sophisticated two-tier approach. It is said that DEQ works so smoothly it would only be apparent when its taken away.



Hi Feri,

Good post! I can't speak from my own knowledge, but the person who mentioned alternatives to Audyssey's DEQ, now in the public domain, was very familiar with Audyssey and with DEQ's two-tier approach. I already mentioned this as something I had heard and not something I know to be fact, so I will reiterate that.

On the other hand it is not inconceivable to me that a good team of engineers could create their own two-tiered approach to loudness compensation. After all, as you say, the fundamental principles of loudness compensation have been around for a long time, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. 

I'm sure that even if DEQ doesn't have any viable competitors at the moment, if it is viewed as being intensely popular, it will be just a matter of time until it does. Supply usually follows demand. There was a time when Audyssey stood virtually alone, and now there are others including Dirac Live. Frankly, although I am quite happy with XT-32, I think that competition is good for the marketplace, and as consumers we eventually benefit as new innovations move the particular technology landscape forward.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Defcon

The impression I have is that outside AVS and similar forums, people neither know nor care about any of this  And among the dedicated enthusiasts, Audyssey is held in high regard, DEQ and esp DVol are not! I'm sure if Audyssey didn't turn on DEQ by default, most people would never even turn it on?

The whole room correction/EQ area is a big mystery, upon more reading I find a lot of manufacturer's have their own custom solutions, usually for much higher priced systems. There's the consumer level stuff we all discuss like Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO, then there's more expensive solutions like Dirac/Trinnov which get more sophisticated (Audyssey Pro is perhaps inbetween?) and custom solutions like Harmon's ARCOS for JBL Synthesis.

I feel there is so much more that could be done here, for very little cost and with great results, as room effects are a big part of what we hear, but the consumer demand simply isn't there.


----------



## garygarrison

Defcon said:


> ...
> I feel there is so much more that could be done here, for very little cost and with great results, as room effects are a big part of what we hear, but the consumer demand simply isn't there.


IMO, the consumer demand _*would*_ be there if consumers could hear an A-B comparison, in an audio store, of the showroom before and after correction, at least if the degree of improvement were as great as the improvement I hear in my room. If manufacturers knew that their improved versions would be A-B compared to their old ones, they might be more motivated. Since most audio purchases are now made online, this is not likely. Too bad.

Long, long ago I heard such a comparison between no EQ and EQ achieved with the Altec Acoustovoicette. The dealer must have spent many hours setting it up and EQing the room with Altec's 1/4 octave sliders. I was overwhelmed! It sounded to me as though the walls fell away. Of course, I couldn't begin to afford it. By the time I could, and had a room that was worth it, Audyssey had introduced their system, with many more EQ points than the Altec had.


----------



## gurkey

Defcon said:


> The impression I have is that outside AVS and similar forums, people neither know nor care about any of this  And among the dedicated enthusiasts, Audyssey is held in high regard, DEQ and esp DVol are not! I'm sure if Audyssey didn't turn on DEQ by default, most people would never even turn it on?
> 
> The whole room correction/EQ area is a big mystery, upon more reading I find a lot of manufacturer's have their own custom solutions, usually for much higher priced systems. There's the consumer level stuff we all discuss like Audyssey, MCACC, YPAO, then there's more expensive solutions like Dirac/Trinnov which get more sophisticated (Audyssey Pro is perhaps inbetween?) and custom solutions like Harmon's ARCOS for JBL Synthesis.
> 
> I feel there is so much more that could be done here, for very little cost and with great results, as room effects are a big part of what we hear, but the consumer demand simply isn't there.


Audyssey Pro is just a specialized version of the standard XT32 for the professional installer, adding some more measuring positions to cover larger multi-seat home theaters and providing some minor ways to adjust the target curve by graphical means. Almost everything else including the algorithms used is just "plain" XT32. The microphone part is different by providing a calibrated mike with its own preamp, but this doesn't change anything "drastically", because the tolerances provided by the standard mike included with the integrated package is just more than enough to cover the typical variations in a typical listening environment. There are lots of rumors going on about the "superiority" of the Pro version, but it is a rather plain XT32 inside, nothing less but also nothing more, really.


----------



## pepar

Earlier this year I replaced my Audyssey Pro-calibrated Onkyo SC5508 with a Emotiva XMR-1 with Dirac Live Full. Out of the box, the uncalibrated Emo was head and shoulders better than the Onk. That would have been the DACs and supporting circuitry. After getting around the Dirac learning curve, the calibrated Emo certainly sounds better than the uncal'ed unit, but I can't say that Diract Live Full is better than MultiXT 32/Pro. The underlying platform changes overwhelmed the comparison.

There are some former Audyssey fans that moved to Dirac and then lit up the forum Audyssey threads with its obvious superiority over Audyssey. Some were vindictive in their posts and took every opportunity to rain on Audyssey when someone came into the thread asking questions about Audyssey/Audyssey Pro. With what I just experienced, and they must have as well, I have to believe that they had biases that were "between their ears." And biases being what they are, even insinuating they were biased resulted in more vitriol.

I moved to the Emo because my Onk's HDMI was crapping out (again) and I needed a pre/pro. The Emo won the job because it its reviews ... ITS reviews, not Dirac's ... and Dirac came along for the ride. I definitely like the ease of using Dirac. It is much faster, but then the XMC-1 has two dual core processors and not MIPS-starved DSPs. The only thing I can absolutely credit Dirac (exclusively) with is the software I run on my computers. Pro is a bit of a kludge for loading calibrations and curves. But then Pro is quite a few years old.

I would challenge anyone to present _evidence_ that Dirac, Trinnov, ARC or any other room correction technology is better than MultiXT 32. It cannot be done.

Jeff


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> Earlier this year I replaced my Audyssey Pro-calibrated Onkyo SC5508 with a Emotiva XMR-1 with Dirac Live Full.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff, the Onkyo SC5508 had DEQ on-board, but with the Emo/ Dirac combo you lost that feature, better to say now you are without a loudness compensation package. 

Do you miss it or not? Do you play at a fixed and constant MV level in your movie room? Coz in that case you can surely adjust your preferred tonal balance with Dirac to one single MV setting, be it 0 dB or lower.


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> Jeff, the Onkyo SC5508 had DEQ on-board, but with the Emo/ Dirac combo you lost that feature, better to say now you are without a loudness compensation package.
> 
> Do you miss it or not? Do you play at a fixed and constant MV level in your movie room? Coz in that case you can surely adjust your preferred tonal balance with Dirac to one single MV setting, be it 0 dB or lower.


Feri,

I usually listen at the loudest level I can without distortion. With the Onk it was -5dB to -6dB. With the Emo is is more like -9dB to -10dB.

With the Onk, I used to disengage DEQ and then gave up as it defaulted on. I couldn't tell the dif ... but again, the levels I used probably had DEQ's effect at minimum.

Tone controls? 

Jeff


----------



## Defcon

pepar said:


> ...I would challenge anyone to present _evidence_ that Dirac, Trinnov, ARC or any other room correction technology is better than MultiXT 32. It cannot be done.
> 
> Jeff


From what I've read, what makes Trinnov unique is its speaker remapping feature where it can relocate speakers virtually in 3D, and also its mic. Dirac/Audyssey/ARC all do adjustments to the FR based on some algorithm. Since Trinnov is so much more expensive I have not seen any recent direct comparisons between them.


----------



## mogorf

Defcon said:


> From what I've read, what makes Trinnov unique is its speaker remapping feature where it can relocate speakers virtually in 3D, and also its mic. Dirac/Audyssey/ARC all do adjustments to the FR based on some algorithm. Since Trinnov is so much more expensive I have not seen any recent direct comparisons between them.


As regards speaker relocation I think its a very rarely needed feature, although it can be useful for those who have limited space or other constrains mainly in their living rooms. A dedicated HT room built up from scratch would only need it in case of bad design. But, is there such a case?


----------



## garygarrison

Could someone guide me to _*either*_ a good tool to search the Official Audyssey Thread (part *I*) *or *to a post made on Audyssey I about a year ago that had a graph that showed the tone control action on Marantz/Dennon? It was a pre-amp out frequency response measurement of the effects of the tone controls. It turned out that the mains were set for "small," so it did not show much of the effect of the bass control below wherever the crossover was set (80 Hz??), but I'd still like to look at it. I believe the post was from one of our regulars. Thanks!


----------



## ebr9999

garygarrison said:


> Could someone guide me to _*either*_ a good tool to search the Official Audyssey Thread (part *I*) *or *to a post made on Audyssey I about a year ago that had a graph that showed the tone control action on Marantz/Dennon? It was a pre-amp out frequency response measurement of the effects of the tone controls. It turned out that the mains were set for "small," so it did not show much of the effect of the bass control below wherever the crossover was set (80 Hz??), but I'd still like to look at it. I believe the post was from one of our regulars. Thanks!


By using "Search in this thread" tag, and using AND operator (i.e. Marantz AND Denon AND Tone) I could quite reduce the number of posts and find that: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-2506.html#post33392097
It looks like what you were looking for, but of course you can do a better job than mine


----------



## highmr

*DEQ and Bliss*

@mogorf
Thanks for the suggestion regarding Bliss. I played the link from the post through computer/headphones, and it sounded good.
Next I looked up Bliss on Spotify through a Roku 3 playing through a Denon receiver with XT. Found "Greatest Hits." Adjusted volume to what seemed appropriate (-25 MV using XT with DEQ on, DV off).
Sounded really good, but bass is really overwhelming.
Clearly at -25 MV, DEQ bass boost is significant. Turned off DEQ and raised vol to -20: Much more to my liking - still very significant bass, but pleasant.
Overall - excellent recording and music.
Previously I had been in the camp that DEQ worked well for the front sound stage, surrounds can sometimes be distracting especially for OTA or cable TV.
Now I am of the opinion that I will try to adjust bass tone control and sub level and turn off DEQ as described by some in this thread. I think this will work for someone who basically plays at a limited range of volume level for serious listening.
What I don't know is what this recording is supposed to sound like if not played through streaming. Both for bass level and for volume level, which may have been confusing DEQ.
Side note: quick check on Amazon, and the album is only available through MP3 download.


----------



## mogorf

highmr said:


> @*mogorf*
> Thanks for the suggestion regarding Bliss. I played the link from the post through computer/headphones, and it sounded good.
> Next I looked up Bliss on Spotify through a Roku 3 playing through a Denon receiver with XT. Found "Greatest Hits." Adjusted volume to what seemed appropriate (-25 MV using XT with DEQ on, DV off).
> Sounded really good, but bass is really overwhelming.
> Clearly at -25 MV, DEQ bass boost is significant. Turned off DEQ and raised vol to -20: Much more to my liking - still very significant bass, but pleasant.
> Overall - excellent recording and music.
> Previously I had been in the camp that DEQ worked well for the front sound stage, surrounds can sometimes be distracting especially for OTA or cable TV.
> Now I am of the opinion that I will try to adjust bass tone control and sub level and turn off DEQ as described by some in this thread. I think this will work for someone who basically plays at a limited range of volume level for serious listening.
> What I don't know is what this recording is supposed to sound like if not played through streaming. Both for bass level and for volume level, which may have been confusing DEQ.
> Side note: quick check on Amazon, and the album is only available through MP3 download.


 @highmr

I think in your case with overwhelming bass in music you can try to leave DEQ on and set RLO (Reference Level Offset) to the highest position, i.e. to 15 dB and see how it sounds.


----------



## garygarrison

ebr9999 said:


> By using "Search in this thread" tag, and using AND operator (i.e. Marantz AND Denon AND Tone) I could quite reduce the number of posts and find that: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-2506.html#post33392097
> It looks like what you were looking for, but of course you can do a better job than mine


Thanks! This is what I was looking for.


----------



## blake

*SUBEQ: Ignore phase knob?*

I have a Marantz SR7008 AVR, that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (with SubEQ). I am running SUB1 and SUB2 RCA outs separately to two Fathom F113 subwoofers in a home theater 5.2 system.

I am confused about the need to adjust PHASE on each subs. A senior audio technician at JL Audio said you should individually set the phase control on the sub at your specified crossover point (ex. while listening to a 80Hz sine wave tone) to ensure both are in phase. THEN run any computer EQ, like Audyssey.

Some posts here have stated that Audyssey XT32 does NOT integrate subwoofers with the main speakers, and in fact there is a detailed PDF on how to use REW to adjust the sub phase AFTER Audyssey has done all its EQ.

What is the best approach? I thought the new Audyssey SubEQ is BETTER than the old fashion PHASE knob, and will time-align both subs properly so phase is aligned (hence the instruction to set phase to 0 and leave it there)?


----------



## highmr

mogorf said:


> @highmr
> 
> I think in your case with overwhelming bass in music you can try to leave DEQ on and set RLO (Reference Level Offset) to the highest position, i.e. to 15 dB and see how it sounds.


I'm aware of that option. I will try that as well, but it will be a week before I can get back to this. Thank you for your reply.


----------



## highmr

blake said:


> I have a Marantz SR7008 AVR, that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (with SubEQ). I am running SUB1 and SUB2 RCA outs separately to two Fathom F113 subwoofers in a home theater 5.2 system.
> 
> I am confused about the need to adjust PHASE on each subs. A senior audio technician at JL Audio said you should individually set the phase control on the sub at your specified crossover point (ex. while listening to a 80Hz sine wave tone) to ensure both are in phase. THEN run any computer EQ, like Audyssey.
> 
> Some posts here have stated that Audyssey XT32 does NOT integrate subwoofers with the main speakers, and in fact there is a detailed PDF on how to use REW to adjust the sub phase AFTER Audyssey has done all its EQ.
> 
> What is the best approach? I thought the new Audyssey SubEQ is BETTER than the old fashion PHASE knob, and will time-align both subs properly so phase is aligned (hence the instruction to set phase to 0 and leave it there)?


I think you are correct regarding the JL instruction, as it would be used to get the two subs time aligned to each other. XT32 can do that. However, if there is a mismatch in phase between the subs and the mains at the crossover, XT32 won't know that (it doesn't run the completed package together). So I believe you could move both subs together relative to the mains if you detect a problem with the completed calibration right at the crossover with test tones run from a source (like a CD), not from the receiver - so that they go through bass management and Audyssey (or better using REW).


----------



## gurkey

blake said:


> I have a Marantz SR7008 AVR, that has Audyssey MultEQ XT32 (with SubEQ). I am running SUB1 and SUB2 RCA outs separately to two Fathom F113 subwoofers in a home theater 5.2 system.
> 
> I am confused about the need to adjust PHASE on each subs. A senior audio technician at JL Audio said you should individually set the phase control on the sub at your specified crossover point (ex. while listening to a 80Hz sine wave tone) to ensure both are in phase. THEN run any computer EQ, like Audyssey.
> 
> Some posts here have stated that Audyssey XT32 does NOT integrate subwoofers with the main speakers, and in fact there is a detailed PDF on how to use REW to adjust the sub phase AFTER Audyssey has done all its EQ.
> 
> What is the best approach? I thought the new Audyssey SubEQ is BETTER than the old fashion PHASE knob, and will time-align both subs properly so phase is aligned (hence the instruction to set phase to 0 and leave it there)?


Audyssey does phase match satellites and sub at the minimum crossover (F3) frequency available. The patent documents describe, that the filters for the satellites contain code to specifically adjust the phase to match, whilst on the sub side this is been done by manipulating the subs delay (sometimes associated with "distance"). But if this is been changed afterwards by the user it can't readjust, because the needed measurement data no longer are available after the measurement process has ended due to memory limitations. Thus you have to phase match sub and satellites (fronts) manually, if those parameters have been changed later on. Usually the differences shouldn't be that large, because the wavelength between the frequency selected originally and changed afterwards doesn't differ that much, i.e. 60 Hz => 80 Hz etc..


----------



## Alan P

Alan P said:


> I bought bass traps only, from GIK (244s, 6x 24"x48" and 4x 12"x48")...but, I haven't properly integrated them yet, haven't even re-ran Audyssey. I am planning on doing that this weekend (wife is out of town). For now, they are just hanging flat on the front, back and side walls. I plan on straddling some corners and taking measurements (haven't yet with the traps) this weekend.





mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Alan! I will be interested to hear about your results once you are finished.


Well, this weekend went very well with integrating the bass traps.

The wife actually likes how they look  Excuse my mess and the blurry pics...my phone cam sucks.

On the before/after FR graph, you can clearly see that spike at 30hz has been reduced...very surprising to me. I didn't think with the amount/thickness of traps I have that the FR would be effected that low, but I'm happy it was! 

You can also see that above about 80hz, I am getting more overall output...nice little bonus!

You can see on the waterfalls and spectrograms that my ringing has also been greatly reduced below 35hz and the overall response just looks "smoother" overall.

It does sound better. The bass has seemed to "tighten up" a bit. I've even been experimenting with DynEQ again and it sounds pretty darn good.


----------



## D Bone

^ Good stuff Alan!


----------



## pepar

Alan,

Did you notice the entire frequency range sounded clearer after reducing the LF overhang?

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Well, this weekend went very well with integrating the bass traps.
> 
> The wife actually likes how they look  Excuse my mess and the blurry pics...my phone cam sucks.
> 
> On the before/after FR graph, you can clearly see that spike at 30hz has been reduced...very surprising to me. I didn't think with the amount/thickness of traps I have that the FR would be effected that low, but I'm happy it was!
> 
> You can also see that above about 80hz, I am getting more overall output...nice little bonus!
> 
> You can see on the waterfalls and spectrograms that my ringing has also been greatly reduced below 35hz and the overall response just looks "smoother" overall.
> 
> It does sound better. The bass has seemed to "tighten up" a bit. I've even been experimenting with DynEQ again and it sounds pretty darn good.



Thanks, Alan!

I think that you and your phone cam did very well. The traps do look good in there. As we all know, if the wife isn't happy, we aren't happy. 

That's a pretty impressive difference in measured response, particularly the improvement at about 30Hz, and a pretty thorough set of before and after measurements. I have always read that traps can be effective down to about 60Hz (especially if you leave air pockets behind the traps) but you are getting measurable improvement a full octave below that. That's great! I think it helps that you didn't have any deep nulls at the MLP to start with, though. Pulling down a peak with a trap, at very low frequencies, must be much easier than attenuating cancellation effects.

I had a similar experience to yours through the mid-bass. My bass increased very perceptibly as cancellation effects were attenuated. I don't know if this is something that you have had a chance to notice yet, as you were mostly concentrating on frequencies below about 100Hz, or so, but my mid-range clarity also improved quite a bit as I added bass traps. I assume that the effects of destructive interference include obscuring other frequencies. I don't want to plant this idea if you don't hear it, but that was one of the early pleasant surprises for me.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

pepar said:


> Alan,
> 
> Did you notice the entire frequency range sounded clearer after reducing the LF overhang?
> 
> Jeff





mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Alan!
> 
> I think that you and your phone cam did very well. The traps do look good in there. As we all know, if the wife isn't happy, we aren't happy.
> 
> That's a pretty impressive difference in measured response, particularly the improvement at about 30Hz, and a pretty thorough set of before and after measurements. I have always read that traps can be effective down to about 60Hz (especially if you leave air pockets behind the traps) but you are getting measurable improvement a full octave below that. That's great! I think it helps that you didn't have any deep nulls at the MLP to start with, though. Pulling down a peak with a trap, at very low frequencies, must be much easier than attenuating cancellation effects.
> 
> I had a similar experience to yours through the mid-bass. My bass increased very perceptibly as cancellation effects were attenuated. I don't know if this is something that you have had a chance to notice yet, as you were mostly concentrating on frequencies below about 100Hz, or so, but my mid-range clarity also improved quite a bit as I added bass traps. I assume that the effects of destructive interference include obscuring other frequencies. I don't want to plant this idea if you don't hear it, but that was one of the early pleasant surprises for me.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I haven't done any real critical listening yet, and the system sounded pretty darn good before.

When I first hung the traps (just flat to the walls, no corner placement), I did notice an overall improvement in clarity and detail, albeit subtle (my room is pretty well damped without any treatments, as you can see). After moving the traps, that effect seemed to remain the same, but the improvements in the bass region became more pronounced.

I need to do some more listening though.


----------



## audiofreak38

Alan P said:


> Well, this weekend went very well with integrating the bass traps.
> 
> The wife actually likes how they look  Excuse my mess and the blurry pics...my phone cam sucks.
> 
> On the before/after FR graph, you can clearly see that spike at 30hz has been reduced...very surprising to me. I didn't think with the amount/thickness of traps I have that the FR would be effected that low, but I'm happy it was!
> 
> You can also see that above about 80hz, I am getting more overall output...nice little bonus!
> 
> You can see on the waterfalls and spectrograms that my ringing has also been greatly reduced below 35hz and the overall response just looks "smoother" overall.
> 
> It does sound better. The bass has seemed to "tighten up" a bit. I've even been experimenting with DynEQ again and it sounds pretty darn good.


Very nice Alan. The traps look great. What are your fronts? Bet it all sounds awesome! Really appreciate all of the help you have given me. Will need more as I am just getting started with REW. Playing around with the Room Simulator as we speak. Enjoy!

Cheers,

Phil


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> Feri,
> 
> I usually listen at the loudest level I can without distortion. With the Onk it was -5dB to -6dB. With the Emo is is more like -9dB to -10dB.
> 
> 
> 
> *Tone controls?*
> 
> Jeff


Can you use Tone Controls (to adjust for differently recorded program material) with Dirac?

With some AVRs/pre-pros DEQ has to be disengaged to allow the Tone Controls to be used, and to be visible as an option. Perhaps this is true with your old Onk? Since I play pretty near Reference, I don't need DEQ (and also, I don't like it), but I find the Tone Controls *very* useful. Most often, I use some bass boost (up to 6 dB). I use the treble control very rarely -- I just leave it at 0 (neither boost nor cut). The controls I am talking about are _*NOT*_ the virtual graphic sliders. Those can't be used without losing Audyssey EQ. Chris K. of Audyssey told me that if there is ever any doubt, if the Audyssey indicator light is on, Audyssey EQ is being used.

My Marantz pre/pro only defaults to DEQ just after running Audyssey calibration. After that, if I turn it off, it stays off, unless I invite it back.


----------



## Defcon

Can I use the Audyssey mic for REW? 

I know the answer to this is 'no', since its not calibrated etc, but bear with me - my thinking is that if the mic is inaccurate, it will at least be consistent. So a single reading will be useless, but the relative delta between 2 readings should be accurate, and I could use that to experiment and tweak nulls/peaks etc. Does this make sense?


----------



## garygarrison

highmr said:


> ... quick check on Amazon, and the album is only available through MP3 download.


Horrible!


----------



## garygarrison

Defcon said:


> Can I use the Audyssey mic for REW?
> 
> I know the answer to this is 'no', since its not calibrated etc, but bear with me - my thinking is that if the mic is inaccurate, it will at least be consistent. So a single reading will be useless, but the relative delta between 2 readings should be accurate, and I could use that to experiment and tweak nulls/peaks etc. Does this make sense?


I would guess the answer would still be "no." I think Audyssey has had the AVR/pre-pro manufacturers build in EQ for the shared characteristics of the inexpensive Audyssey mics. That would be a good question for Chris K, of Audyssey. So.... if all Audyssey mics tend to have a big dip at one place in the frequency spectrum, and a big peak somewhere else, and both are compensated for in the AVR/pre-pro, they wouldn't be with REW, which would make the results that REW sees different than the results Audyssey sees, so how would you tell the difference between a mic dip and a speaker/room dip, or a mic peak and a speaker/room peak?


----------



## Defcon

garygarrison said:


> I would guess the answer would still be "no." I think Audyssey has had the AVR/pre-pro manufacturers build in EQ for the shared characteristics of the inexpensive Audyssey mics. That would be a good question for Chris K, of Audyssey. So.... if all Audyssey mics tend to have a big dip at one place in the frequency spectrum, and a big peak somewhere else, and both are compensated for in the AVR/pre-pro, they wouldn't be with REW, which would make the results that REW sees different than the results Audyssey sees, *so how would you tell the difference between a mic dip and a speaker/room dip, or a mic peak and a speaker/room peak?*


Good point. I wouldn't be able to - but I think if a certain peak/null is programmed into the mic it will stay there, whereas the other parts of the FR would change due to placement etc? I don't know if REW can show realtime graphs but this should be easy to detect if it does - as you move the mic around the room the graph would change but the mic induced peak/dip would remain constant.


----------



## Hopinater

Alan P said:


> Well, this weekend went very well with integrating the bass traps.
> 
> The wife actually likes how they look  Excuse my mess and the blurry pics...my phone cam sucks.
> 
> On the before/after FR graph, you can clearly see that spike at 30hz has been reduced...very surprising to me. I didn't think with the amount/thickness of traps I have that the FR would be effected that low, but I'm happy it was!
> 
> You can also see that above about 80hz, I am getting more overall output...nice little bonus!
> 
> You can see on the waterfalls and spectrograms that my ringing has also been greatly reduced below 35hz and the overall response just looks "smoother" overall.
> 
> It does sound better. The bass has seemed to "tighten up" a bit. I've even been experimenting with DynEQ again and it sounds pretty darn good.


Very Very nice Alan. Good job. I think it looks nice as well.


----------



## pwz414

Any tips on measuring this system?

The subs are now behind the FL/FR because when placed as in the photo they were causing huge diffraction issues with the line arrays.

Now Audyssey is eq'ing the subs to death. They've lost all their punch and efficiency. The right channel clips at a fraction of the output as in the picture (it's in the right corner now). 


I moved them behind the lines, solved the diffraction problem, improved the two channel listening dramatically, and caused a huge new problem for movie playback. Audyssey and the AVP are bypassed for two channel. 

Any tips would be helpful, but I'm sure this is a placement issue.

Thank you, 
Pat


----------



## garygarrison

a


pwz414 said:


> ...
> Now Audyssey is eq'ing the subs to death. They've lost all their punch and efficiency. The right channel clips at a fraction of the output as in the picture (it's in the right corner now).
> ...


I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Loss of efficiency is weird. Did the right channel regain its efficiency when you moved it into the right corner? Clipping is surprising, but the clipping point of the sub should be up to 6 dB lower with corner placement (i.e., effective efficiency up to 6 dB higher). Most people turn their subs up a bit after running the Audyssehy calibration, but if you still have the clipping, that would be a bad idea. What is the setting of the sub trims in your AVR or pre-pro? Is that where Audyssey set them? Is there a volume control on the subs themselves? Just out of curiosity, what are the brands and models of your various speakers?


----------



## finitol

Hi all! Is well-know than audyssey process downsample music to 48kHz (Chris Kyrisalys admit this on enterview)...

So my question is: if i use 'L/S bypass' this pair of speakers aren't downsampled? In short...any gain of 'purity' from file sounded?


----------



## Alan P

audiofreak38 said:


> Very nice Alan. The traps look great. *What are your fronts?* Bet it all sounds awesome! Really appreciate all of the help you have given me. Will need more as I am just getting started with REW. Playing around with the Room Simulator as we speak. Enjoy!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Phil


Yeah, kind of hard to see in my crappy pics, but they are 3x PSA MTM210s.


----------



## pepar

pwz414 said:


> Any tips on measuring this system?
> 
> The subs are now behind the FL/FR because when placed as in the photo they were causing huge diffraction issues with the line arrays.
> 
> Now Audyssey is eq'ing the subs to death. They've lost all their punch and efficiency. The right channel clips at a fraction of the output as in the picture (it's in the right corner now).
> 
> 
> I moved them behind the lines, solved the diffraction problem, improved the two channel listening dramatically, and caused a huge new problem for movie playback. Audyssey and the AVP are bypassed for two channel.
> 
> Any tips would be helpful, but I'm sure this is a placement issue.


I am tempted to make a [email protected] remark about your front speaker array ... but can't think of any worthy of your front speaker array. 

Are you measuring before calibration? 

I would guess no due to the size, but have you tried other placements? (Yes, it is 1) placement and 2) room treatments.) Even within their present locations, I would try moving them small amounts. It can be a game of inches.

I would try to smooth out the pre-cal response and then run Audyssey.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

pwz414 said:


> The subs are now behind the FL/FR because when placed as in the photo they were causing huge diffraction issues with the line arrays.
> 
> Now Audyssey is eq'ing the subs to death. They've lost all their punch and efficiency. The right channel clips at a fraction of the output as in the picture (it's in the right corner now).
> 
> 
> I moved them behind the lines, solved the diffraction problem, improved the two channel listening dramatically, and caused a huge new problem for movie playback. Audyssey and the AVP are bypassed for two channel.
> 
> Any tips would be helpful, but I'm sure this is a placement issue.


Re-reading your post more carefully, I would bet that your moving the subs "back" from the faces of the line arrays has caused them to be more coupled to the room, hence more gain and .. likely ... more room mode issues. I would suggest moving the subs back to where they were and then moving the line arrays forward to address the diffraction issues.

Jeff


----------



## brianmlamb

Need some help guys,

Audyssey is not calibrating properly for me and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I have a Denon 2112ci with audyssey multieq xt. The symptoms I'm having are excessive Sibilance. When I turn off Audyssey or use the manual EQ with audyssey flat copied over and zero out all the boosts above 2khz all the issues go away. For some reason Audyssey keeps trying to majorly boost the treble on all speakers to the point of distortion. It does this with all 3 Sonus Faber Venere speakers and my Ascend HTM-200SE surrounds. All speakers were brand new and bought less than 2 months ago. I bought a brand new audyssey mic off ebay and tried it out yesterday and it made zero difference. 

My fronts are toed in toward the MLP so there's about a 2 foot sweet spot where they're firing over each shoulder. Center is just slightly to the left of my MLP, and centers are 2 ft above ear level on walls at 100degrees. 

My room is very bright and reflective, if anything I get a natural treble boost from the room, yet Audyssey continuously boosts the trebble by ~ 6db from 6khz+. By zeroing out the boosts in manual EQ from the Audyssey flat copy over it sounds as it should. It also sounds way better with Audyssey off. I wanted to use the Audyssey calibration because the manual EQ isn't as good in the bass region, but I can't seem to get a satisfactory result. 

Last hope is I ordered a new mic stand to use (vs my very nice fully adjustable carbon fiber camera tripod I was using). It's supposed to arrive tonight. I don't have a umik yet but will be ordering one shortly. 

Any thoughts? Could I have gotten a second bad audyssey mic (my initial thought based on @Alan P direction to the Audyssey facts)? Should I contact the seller and try to get another or something else going on?

Finally for the positions on Audyssey, I am running all 8, but my pattern is probably less than ideal. I never understood the height adjustment part, do I raise or lower it or keep it all the same level? 

Thanks for your guidance


----------



## pwz414

garygarrison said:


> a
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Loss of efficiency is weird. Did the right channel regain its efficiency when you moved it into the right corner? Clipping is surprising, but the clipping point of the sub should be up to 6 dB lower with corner placement (i.e., effective efficiency up to 6 dB higher). Most people turn their subs up a bit after running the Audyssehy calibration, but if you still have the clipping, that would be a bad idea. What is the setting of the sub trims in your AVR or pre-pro? Is that where Audyssey set them? Is there a volume control on the subs themselves? Just out of curiosity, what are the brands and models of your various speakers?


I think the corner placement is causing gain but also spikes in the curve. I suspect Audyssey is applying gain to the low spotsinstead of atteuating the spikes. I should say it's input output distortion levels that are rising. The system isn't actually clipping. I will try raising the amp gain and lowering the input signal to see if that helps.


----------



## pepar

Audyssey will not try to fix a null. Changing the in and out levels of the chain will not fix it. Only placement will address the room modes.

Jeff


----------



## Selden Ball

brianmlamb said:


> Need some help guys,
> 
> Audyssey is not calibrating properly for me and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I have a Denon 2112ci with audyssey multieq xt. The symptoms I'm having are excessive Sibilance. When I turn off Audyssey or use the manual EQ with audyssey flat copied over and zero out all the boosts above 2khz all the issues go away. For some reason Audyssey keeps trying to majorly boost the treble on all speakers to the point of distortion. It does this with all 3 Sonus Faber Venere speakers and my Ascend HTM-200SE surrounds. All speakers were brand new and bought less than 2 months ago. I bought a brand new audyssey mic off ebay and tried it out yesterday and it made zero difference.
> 
> My fronts are toed in toward the MLP so there's about a 2 foot sweet spot where they're firing over each shoulder. Center is just slightly to the left of my MLP, and centers are 2 ft above ear level on walls at 100degrees.
> 
> My room is very bright and reflective, if anything I get a natural treble boost from the room, yet Audyssey continuously boosts the trebble by ~ 6db from 6khz+. By zeroing out the boosts in manual EQ from the Audyssey flat copy over it sounds as it should. It also sounds way better with Audyssey off. I wanted to use the Audyssey calibration because the manual EQ isn't as good in the bass region, but I can't seem to get a satisfactory result.
> 
> Last hope is I ordered a new mic stand to use (vs my very nice fully adjustable carbon fiber camera tripod I was using). It's supposed to arrive tonight. I don't have a umik yet but will be ordering one shortly.
> 
> Any thoughts? Could I have gotten a second bad audyssey mic (my initial thought based on @Alan P direction to the Audyssey facts)? Should I contact the seller and try to get another or something else going on?
> 
> Finally for the positions on Audyssey, I am running all 8, but my pattern is probably less than ideal. I never understood the height adjustment part, do I raise or lower it or keep it all the same level?
> 
> Thanks for your guidance


Your description of the symptoms suggests that, although they're toed in, the speakers aren't pointed toward where you've placed the microphone for the initial measurement. Some speakers "beam" the high frequencies significantly. If the microphone can't hear the high frequencies well, the calibration will amplify them to compensate. The audibility of this amplification might be exaggerated since your MLP is off center.

Clustering the microphone positions closer together might help, too. 

If you tend to sit with different positions, with your head at various heights, some comparable raised and lowered mic positions might help a little. 

Some speaker designs, especially ones that are THX certified, tend to have a narrower dispersion in the vertical direction than in the horizontal plane. If that's the case for your speakers, having the microphone positions too far up or down (i.e off-center vertically, higher or lower than the tweeters) would be another cause for the result to seem bright.


----------



## pwz414

pepar said:


> Audyssey will not try to fix a null. Changing the in and out levels of the chain will not fix it. Only placement will address the room modes.
> 
> Jeff


Thank you, Jeff! I appreciate your replies and input. I'm replying to these posts on break, so I'm super limited in time. 

I was going to write a more detailed response to your posts. Will be back later.


----------



## brianmlamb

Selden Ball said:


> Your description of the symptoms suggests that, although they're toed in, the speakers aren't pointed toward where you've placed the microphone for the initial measurement. Some speakers "beam" the high frequencies significantly. If the microphone can't hear the high frequencies well, the calibration will amplify them to compensate. The audibility of this amplification might be exaggerated since your MLP is off center.
> 
> Clustering the microphone positions closer together might help, too.
> 
> If you tend to sit with different positions, with your head at various heights, some comparable raised and lowered mic positions might help a little.
> 
> Some speaker designs, especially ones that are THX certified, tend to have a narrower dispersion in the vertical direction than in the horizontal plane. If that's the case for your speakers, having the microphone positions too far up or down (i.e off-center vertically, higher or lower than the tweeters) would be another cause for the result to seem bright.


Thank you!

I used a laser pointer to align the mains toed in to where I'm measuring the first point, the Sonus Faber manual suggests pointing them over each shoulder which is what I did. I'm wondering if I might have the mic too high based on your comment, I've been trying to clear my seat back of the sofa, but I haven't been able to get an ideal position using the tripod which is why the mic stand is coming in. I've been clustering the measurements within a 3 foot radius around the MLP trying to combat the High frequency issue to no avail. I think I might just re-toe the mains to the dead center seat and re-calibrate as well to see if that makes any difference. 

I honestly thought/hoped it was a faulty mic because it seemed like everything else I was doing was correct. I guess at least I can get it to sound decent through manual eqing everything back to 0 in the high frequency spectrum for the time being.

I'll be buying a new receiver in a few months, thinking about jumping over to a Yamaha 2050 so I can tweak post calibrated results if needed. I know multi-eq xt tends to try and correct too much of the high frequencies which may be my issue. I had originally been planning a new Denon or Marantz with xt-32, but with this issue I'm having now and the lack of adjust-ability after audyssey run makes me very hesitant. 

Appreciate your advice


----------



## pepar

If you used a laser pointer, was it attached to the front baffle of the speaker or just held onto the side of the speaker? Not only do the speaker radiation patterns need to be "zeroed" onto the MLP horizontally, but vertically as well.

Jeff


----------



## brianmlamb

pepar said:


> If you used a laser pointer, was it attached to the front baffle of the speaker or just held onto the side of the speaker? Not only do the speaker radiation patterns need to be "zeroed" onto the MLP horizontally, but vertically as well.
> 
> Jeff


The Sonus Faber Venere's are a weird shape, they call it a lyre, essentially none of the sides are parallel, the top is also slanted downward, and the floor spikes tilt the speaker back a bit (longer in the front, shorter in the back). *Edit, not my pics, taken from the Sonus Faber website so this is not my room*









It's very possible I did this wrong so I'm all ears for improvement, here's what I did:

I used one of these http://www.amazon.com/As-Seen-On-TV...0492412&sr=8-4&keywords=picture+hanging+laser 
(only laser pointer I had with batteries that worked), it shoots a straight line out across the wall rather than just a dot, so I thought it actually helped for this purpose seeing where the line falls.

Mains I put the laser pointer flat on the top on the very back of the speaker, then aimed the line directly down the dead center on the top of the speaker. I used that line to adjust pointing the left speaker essentially at the left cushion break of my MLP, same for the right speaker pointed toward the right cushion break of my MLP (~2ft gap in overlap). I did nothing regarding the height. The tweeters have a small wave guide. 









The center has an adjustable base which you can point toward your ear, I've got it sitting on a BDI cabinet about 22" off the ground on the front edge. I put the laser on the flat side and aimed it through the center of the speaker to be about where my ear level is.

The surrounds I'm not as worried about, they're fixed on the wall 2ft above ear level about 1 foot behind my head on either wall and not angled down. The back wall is about 18" from my head, no way around that unfortunately and 18" was all I could pull the couch out.

Any tips are greatly appreciated. Thanks


----------



## pepar

Wow! 

I am sure there is camera lens distortion involved, but I don't see any surface of the speakers that would be a mounting spot for an alignment laser. From the other pics around the web, it appears that the top is sloped downward to the front while the speak column itself is canted backward. (I was going to compliment you on your floor but then I found that pic on the 'net.) I am still going with speaker aiming as the fix, although I am not sure how you would aim that tweeter ... the speaker would need to be tilted forward.

Jeff


----------



## brianmlamb

pepar said:


> Wow!
> 
> I am sure there is camera lens distortion involved, but I don't see any surface of the speakers that would be a mounting spot for an alignment laser. From the other pics around the web, it appears that the top is sloped downward to the front while the speak column itself is canted backward. (I was going to compliment you on your floor but then I found that pic on the 'net.) I am still going with speaker aiming as the fix, although I am not sure how you would aim that tweeter ... the speaker would need to be tilted forward.
> 
> Jeff


The top does indeed slant downward/is not parallel and the column is canted backward from the base, they claim its to time align the drivers. Hmm, I could swap the front and rear spikes, that would reverse the tilt from forward to back. Or just take the speakers off the base and put them on the floor, I kind of like the base though and so does the wife. I desperately need some room treatments but can't get the WAF sign off since it's the living room.

Thing is they sound excellent the way they are without Audyssey engaged, the tilt on the speaker seems to lift the sound stage and make it sound taller for 2 channel music and they look nice that way as well. 

My bigger issue is with the center channel since it's the dialogue brightness that's bothering me most. I know the MTM design is flawed, wish they would have made a nicer center for these speakers that wasn't $5k+ to get a mid below the tweeter. I'm only about a foot off center from the center channel, but maybe as was mentioned earlier since I'm not dead on for my 1st measuring point it's causing me all the issues. I'll try re-arranging tonight with a dead center configuration instead and report back. I'll also try and figure out some way to figure out exactly where the tweeters are pointing and see if it makes a difference pointing them (slip a cutting board under the back end).

Thanks for the advice!


----------



## Alan P

Hey Brian,

Sorry to hear you're still struggling...and I apologize, but I don't remember all the details so I may be asking questions you've already answered. 

How far is the mic away from the back wall and how far is your seating from the back wall?
Do you have leather furniture?
Is the mic at ear level or tweeter level?
Can we get a pic of your setup?


----------



## pepar

brianmlamb said:


> The top does indeed slant downward/is not parallel and the column is canted backward from the base, they claim its to time align the drivers. Hmm, I could swap the front and rear spikes, that would reverse the tilt from forward to back. Or just take the speakers off the base and put them on the floor, I kind of like the base though and so does the wife. I desperately need some room treatments but can't get the WAF sign off since it's the living room.
> 
> Thing is they sound excellent the way they are without Audyssey engaged, the tilt on the speaker seems to lift the sound stage and make it sound taller for 2 channel music and they look nice that way as well.
> 
> My bigger issue is with the center channel since it's the dialogue brightness that's bothering me most. I know the MTM design is flawed, wish they would have made a nicer center for these speakers that wasn't $5k+ to get a mid below the tweeter. I'm only about a foot off center from the center channel, but maybe as was mentioned earlier since I'm not dead on for my 1st measuring point it's causing me all the issues. I'll try re-arranging tonight with a dead center configuration instead and report back. I'll also try and figure out some way to figure out exactly where the tweeters are pointing and see if it makes a difference pointing them (slip a cutting board under the back end).
> 
> Thanks for the advice!


Can you take and post a pic of your LCR?


----------



## brianmlamb

Alan P said:


> Hey Brian,
> 
> Sorry to hear you're still struggling...and I apologize, but I don't remember all the details so I may be asking questions you've already answered.
> 
> How far is the mic away from the back wall and how far is your seating from the back wall?
> Do you have leather furniture?
> Is the mic at ear level or tweeter level?
> Can we get a pic of your setup?





pepar said:


> Can you take and post a pic of your LCR?


No problem at all, you helped me in the subwoofer forum earlier and it was much appreciated.

The seating is close to the back wall ~18 inches (best I can do, I pulled it out from the wall after reading about how terrible it is on here). Mic I tried to keep a minimum of 2 ft from back wall I'd say I did between 2-3.5 feet in various positions from the wall.

Yes leather furniture only including the MLP being a large leather couch, my room is a bit of an acoustic nightmare to be honest which is probably contributing to the issue (wood floors with no rugs, open to other parts of the house, minimal wall coverings, 10 ft flat smooth ceilings, glass coffee table (though I did buy a thick weave bath mat this weekend to place over it while watching movies (didn't fix this issue though).

I have to guess the mic was too high, probably closer to the top of my head vs ear or tweeter level, plan on re-doing at tweeter level once UPS delivers my mic stand (bought the one off the audyssey recommendation faqs). I was using a nice camera tripod stand, but it meant 2 feet on the sofa and 1 on the ground. Always was a pain to do.

I'll take some pictures when I get home tonight, I have some now but they're older and I've changed a few things.


----------



## mthomas47

pwz414 said:


> Any tips on measuring this system?
> 
> The subs are now behind the FL/FR because when placed as in the photo they were causing huge diffraction issues with the line arrays.
> 
> Now Audyssey is eq'ing the subs to death. They've lost all their punch and efficiency. The right channel clips at a fraction of the output as in the picture (it's in the right corner now).
> 
> 
> I moved them behind the lines, solved the diffraction problem, improved the two channel listening dramatically, and caused a huge new problem for movie playback. Audyssey and the AVP are bypassed for two channel.
> 
> Any tips would be helpful, but I'm sure this is a placement issue.
> 
> Thank you,
> Pat



Hi Pat,

Could you please post a photo of your new arrangement? I am a little confused when you say that the subs are now behind the speakers. Are the subs corner loaded with the speakers inside them? I have been reading a bit about the Allison Effect lately, due to some discussion on another thread. That is a very crowded looking front soundstage.

Are there any options to move one of your subs off that front wall? Diagonal corners might be good, or one on a side wall, or whatever. If Audyssey has EQed some of the output out of your subs, it is because it has attempted to fix a detectable problem. XT and XT-32 both have more sub filters than the lesser versions of Audyssey, and EQing below the modal region is one of Audyssey's real strengths. Comparing what Audyssey can do with subs in XT or XT-32, to what MultEQ can do, is kind of apples to oranges, IMO.

I would look for some alternative placement options, if I were you. I am fairly sure that one of your subs would need to stay in front for localization reasons, if for no other reason. But I would look hard for another location for my second sub, that wouldn't create so many cancellation, or destructive interference, issues. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Audyssey will not try to fix a null. Changing the in and out levels of the chain will not fix it. Only placement will address the room modes.
> 
> Jeff



Jeff,

I want to echo the advice you gave regarding the need to improve sub placement in order to deal with room modes. But I do want to clarify one thing that I am sure you already know. Audyssey actually will try to boost a null. It simply won't succeed. But there has never been any evidence that Audyssey can effectively recognize the difference between a dip and a null, and I believe that Chris has addressed that issue at some point. What I am not sure about is whether in trying fruitlessly to boost a null, Audyssey can make something worse instead of better.

I guess I am wondering aloud if, particularly with versions below XT, Audyssey would be using some of its processing power, or amp power, in trying to boost a null in a way that might somehow detract from overall performance?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

Brian - The measurement mic should be at, +/-, ear level. But I'd guess that it is off axis enough for Audyssey to "think" is needs to boost the highs. So lowering it will make it worse.

Not sure the back wall proximity is the cause, though you should consider mounting a 2"-3" thick fiberglass panel there.

Looks for boom mic stands; you really should sit the mic on the furniture and a boom arm allows positioning of the mic while the stand sits on the floor.

Jeff


----------



## Alan P

brianmlamb said:


> No problem at all, you helped me in the subwoofer forum earlier and it was much appreciated.
> 
> The seating is close to the back wall ~18 inches (best I can do, I pulled it out from the wall after reading about how terrible it is on here). Mic I tried to keep a minimum of 2 ft from back wall I'd say I did between 2-3.5 feet in various positions from the wall.
> 
> Yes leather furniture only including the MLP being a large leather couch, my room is a bit of an acoustic nightmare to be honest which is probably contributing to the issue (wood floors with no rugs, open to other parts of the house, minimal wall coverings, 10 ft flat smooth ceilings, glass coffee table (though I did buy a thick weave bath mat this weekend to place over it while watching movies (didn't fix this issue though).
> 
> I have to guess the mic was too high, probably closer to the top of my head vs ear or tweeter level, plan on re-doing at tweeter level once UPS delivers my mic stand (bought the one off the audyssey recommendation faqs). I was using a nice camera tripod stand, but it meant 2 feet on the sofa and 1 on the ground. Always was a pain to do.
> 
> I'll take some pictures when I get home tonight, I have some now but they're older and I've changed a few things.


Yeah, a mic boom is much easier than a tripod for sure, you'll love it.

Have you tried covering the back of the couch with a thick towel or blanket during calibration?? If not, this may just be the trick that will fix your issue!


----------



## mthomas47

finitol said:


> Hi all! Is well-know than audyssey process downsample music to 48kHz (Chris Kyrisalys admit this on enterview)...
> 
> So my question is: if i use 'L/S bypass' this pair of speakers aren't downsampled? In short...any gain of 'purity' from file sounded?



Hi, 

I honestly believe that the answer to that question is no, although you can certainly experiment to find out. If you can't hear a gain in 'purity', then...

What I believe you are much more likely to hear is a loss of clarity caused by eliminating the benefits of Audyssey EQ for your front speakers. But, of course, that depends somewhat on your specific listening environment. Most of this stuff is user preference dependent, so in the end, you are the only meaningful judge of what you like. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## brianmlamb

Alan P said:


> Yeah, a mic boom is much easier than a tripod for sure, you'll love it.
> 
> Have you tried covering the back of the couch with a thick towel or blanket during calibration?? If not, this may just be the trick that will fix your issue!


I have not tried that yet, will give it a shot tonight, I have several big moving blankets I can toss over the couch, should I cover the whole thing or just the back? Hopeful this will work! Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Cover the whole thing if you can...the less reflections, the better. Surprisingly, leather is very good at reflecting high-frequency sounds.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I want to echo the advice you gave regarding the need to improve sub placement in order to deal with room modes. But I do want to clarify one thing that I am sure you already know. Audyssey actually will try to boost a null. It simply won't succeed. *But there has never been any evidence that Audyssey can effectively recognize the difference between a dip and a null, and I believe that Chris has addressed that issue at some point. What I am not sure about is whether in trying fruitlessly to boost a null, Audyssey can make something worse instead of better.*
> 
> I guess I am wondering aloud if, particularly with versions below XT, *Audyssey would be using some of its processing power, or amp power, in trying to boost a null in a way that might somehow detract from overall performance?
> *
> Regards,
> Mike


I'd think that if it is trying to boost a null (rather than a dip) that could be the cause of the clipping he is detecting. If Audyssey is using the whole 9 dB above 0, maybe that is just too much for either his amps or speakers, or both.

It sounds like he has separate power amps (?). We need more details.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I'd think that if it is trying to boost a null (rather than a dip) that could be the cause of the clipping he is detecting. If Audyssey is using the whole 9 dB above 0, maybe that is just too much for either his amps or speakers, or both.
> 
> It sounds like he has separate power amps (?). We need more details.



That was my thought, as well. I suspect that the real solution is going to be finding another place for one of those subs besides the front wall, because he appears to be getting either destructive interference, or cancellation effects, in whichever location he picks.

Two subs on the front wall can certainly work, but I have seen plenty of instances where that results in issues that are hard to fix. I can't help thinking that so many speakers and subs occupying such a small space on the same wall is going to be a tough nut to crack. A lot of times getting the subs on opposing walls is the best solution.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I want to echo the advice you gave regarding the need to improve sub placement in order to deal with room modes. But I do want to clarify one thing that I am sure you already know. Audyssey actually will try to boost a null. It simply won't succeed. But there has never been any evidence that Audyssey can effectively recognize the difference between a dip and a null, and I believe that Chris has addressed that issue at some point. What I am not sure about is whether in trying fruitlessly to boost a null, Audyssey can make something worse instead of better.
> 
> I guess I am wondering aloud if, particularly with versions below XT, Audyssey would be using some of its processing power, or amp power, in trying to boost a null in a way that might somehow detract from overall performance?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

My saying Audyssey will not try to fix a null was overly simplistic; it has a max boost rule. Of course that could leave it dumping xdB (9?) of gain into a null, but I have had nulls without experiencing any issues.

Something else to be mindful of is that a boost will be at only the null and not across the entire LF range.

I just don't think that is his problem.

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Mike,
> 
> My saying Audyssey will not try to fix a null was overly simplistic; it has a max boost rule. Of course that could leave it dumping xdB (9?) of gain into a null, but I have had nulls without experiencing any issues.
> 
> Something else to be mindful of is that a boost will be at only the null and not across the entire LF range.
> 
> I just don't think that is his problem.
> 
> Jeff


You absolutely may be right about that. I wondered if trying to boost a null, or perhaps more than one, might be contributing to his problem. But, more than anything, I think he needs to experiment with other locations for one of his subs.


----------



## macuniverse

*Audio signal chain in an AVR*

I apologise beforehand if I missed the answer in this thread; it's an enormous one, not easy to find stuff! I went through the FAQs and some other documents but the answer is not obvious to me.

I was wondering if there is a summary/picture of audio signal chain showing what happens to the digital/analog source signal after the Audyssey calibration is done and turned on. Say, 

* I did the Audyssey calibration, 
* turned Audyssey on, DEQ on and DVolume on. 
* a digital source is fed into the AVR through HDMI or SP/Dif, say from a BD player
* and, an analog signal is fed into the AVR through, say from a CD player

What is the order of processing inside an AVR having MultiEQ XT32?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## pwz414

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Pat,
> 
> Could you please post a photo of your new arrangement? I am a little confused when you say that the subs are now behind the speakers. Are the subs corner loaded with the speakers inside them? I have been reading a bit about the Allison Effect lately, due to some discussion on another thread. That is a very crowded looking front soundstage.
> 
> Are there any options to move one of your subs off that front wall? Diagonal corners might be good, or one on a side wall, or whatever. If Audyssey has EQed some of the output out of your subs, it is because it has attempted to fix a detectable problem. XT and XT-32 both have more sub filters than the lesser versions of Audyssey, and EQing below the modal region is one of Audyssey's real strengths. Comparing what Audyssey can do with subs in XT or XT-32, to what MultEQ can do, is kind of apples to oranges, IMO.
> 
> I would look for some alternative placement options, if I were you. I am fairly sure that one of your subs would need to stay in front for localization reasons, if for no other reason. But I would look hard for another location for my second sub, that wouldn't create so many cancellation, or destructive interference, issues. I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


This is helpful, Mike. Thank you. I'm seriously considering splitting them up. Two on the front wall, two on the back wall. You are right in your assumption about the placement. They are corner loaded. Well, they were. I moved them back and re-ran Audyssey. I'm still not thrilled. I hope I didn't delete a great low end calibration that's not reproducible. I'll try again tomorrow with similar mic positions to the calibration that punched so hard. Tonight I threw 2 measurements in behind the MLP and I know this is an area of very boomy bass in the room, so I'm sure those measurements could be affecting the curve.

Regards
Pat


----------



## garygarrison

brianmlamb said:


> ... The symptoms I'm having are excessive Sibilance. When I turn off Audyssey or use the manual EQ with audyssey flat copied over and zero out all the boosts above 2khz all the issues go away. For some reason Audyssey keeps trying to majorly boost the treble on all speakers to the point of distortion. By zeroing out the boosts in manual EQ from the Audyssey flat copy over it sounds as it should. It also sounds way better with Audyssey off. I wanted to use the Audyssey calibration because the manual EQ isn't as good in the bass region, but I can't seem to get a satisfactory result.
> 
> ... Finally for the positions on Audyssey, I am running all 8, but my pattern is probably less than ideal. I never understood the height adjustment part, do I raise or lower it or keep it all the same level?


Try it with most of the mic positions at tweeter level. Audyssey
"majorly boosts" some of the treble range in my system, too, but also "majorly cuts" a treble peak or two (e.g., at around 8K Hz). It sounds great, much better than without Audyssey. I have never heard spurious sibilance in a movie run on my system. Filmmakers try very hard to not allow it, while still providing crisp treble. I have heard it when playing a few music disks. I generally use Audyssey Flat for both.

The "copy" function doesn't really copy the Audyssey EQ, but just provides a very crude simulation of it. Chris K (the CTO and co-founder of Audyssey) pointed that out a while back. I think he called the copy function "worthless" or "nearly worthless." 

Relocating the mic positions and/or speakers and/or the MLP will probably allow you to use Audyssey. I hope.


----------



## Derko

I just moved into a new place and am having issues with my rear channels. I have a 7.1 set up and the rear channels are being set to either 120hz or 150hz for the crossover. They are CB5s, which are rated at 71hz by Energy. What could be causing them to have such a high crossover? In my old apartment they would be set really low like the rest of my speakers.


----------



## mthomas47

pwz414 said:


> This is helpful, Mike. Thank you. I'm seriously considering splitting them up. Two on the front wall, two on the back wall. You are right in your assumption about the placement. They are corner loaded. Well, they were. I moved them back and re-ran Audyssey. I'm still not thrilled. I hope I didn't delete a great low end calibration that's not reproducible. I'll try again tomorrow with similar mic positions to the calibration that punched so hard. Tonight I threw 2 measurements in behind the MLP and I know this is an area of very boomy bass in the room, so I'm sure those measurements could be affecting the curve.
> 
> Regards
> Pat


You are very welcome, Pat! I try to keep a log of my good calibrations, although I have my preferred microphone positions down now from memory. But, that way, I can always reproduce a pattern that worked particularly well for me.

Splitting up your subs with two in the front and two in the back sounds like a great idea. Some people advocate using all four corners. Quarter wall, or half wall, also seems to work very well in some rooms. All the audio experts I have read advocate using opposing walls to reduce room modes. I would be very surprised if your bass does not improve in both quantity and quality. I know from personal experience (always the best kind) that cancellation reduces perceived bass; and that clear and powerful bass results from good placement, and from effective room treatment and/or EQ.


----------



## pepar

Derko said:


> I just moved into a new place and am having issues with my rear channels. I have a 7.1 set up and the rear channels are being set to either 120hz or 150hz for the crossover. They are CB5s, which are rated at 71hz by Energy. What could be causing them to have such a high crossover? In my old apartment they would be set really low like the rest of my speakers.


The manufacturer's ratings are optimistic and done in a controlled environment. In you room, where they interact with the walls and everything else, and with the mic positions you used, the 120/150 crossover is correct. Your old apartment was different enough to have a lower crossover.

I have rear surrounds identical to my side surrounds. The sides are at 90Hz and the rears at 110Hz. They are THX certified, which means they are designed to be crossed at 80Hz.

HOW DOES YOUR SYSTEM SOUND?


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> Need some help guys,
> 
> Audyssey is not calibrating properly for me and I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong. I have a Denon 2112ci with audyssey multieq xt. The symptoms I'm having are excessive Sibilance. When I turn off Audyssey or use the manual EQ with audyssey flat copied over and zero out all the boosts above 2khz all the issues go away. For some reason Audyssey keeps trying to majorly boost the treble on all speakers to the point of distortion. It does this with all 3 Sonus Faber Venere speakers and my Ascend HTM-200SE surrounds. All speakers were brand new and bought less than 2 months ago. I bought a brand new audyssey mic off ebay and tried it out yesterday and it made zero difference.
> 
> My fronts are toed in toward the MLP so there's about a 2 foot sweet spot where they're firing over each shoulder. Center is just slightly to the left of my MLP, and centers are 2 ft above ear level on walls at 100degrees.
> 
> My room is very bright and reflective, if anything I get a natural treble boost from the room, yet Audyssey continuously boosts the trebble by ~ 6db from 6khz+. By zeroing out the boosts in manual EQ from the Audyssey flat copy over it sounds as it should. It also sounds way better with Audyssey off. I wanted to use the Audyssey calibration because the manual EQ isn't as good in the bass region, but I can't seem to get a satisfactory result.
> 
> Last hope is I ordered a new mic stand to use (vs my very nice fully adjustable carbon fiber camera tripod I was using). It's supposed to arrive tonight. I don't have a umik yet but will be ordering one shortly.
> 
> Any thoughts? Could I have gotten a second bad audyssey mic (my initial thought based on @*Alan P* direction to the Audyssey facts)? Should I contact the seller and try to get another or something else going on?
> 
> Finally for the positions on Audyssey, I am running all 8, but my pattern is probably less than ideal. I never understood the height adjustment part, do I raise or lower it or keep it all the same level?
> 
> Thanks for your guidance



Hi,

You had already been getting a lot of good advice on this issue so I decided to stay out of the discussion, but Gary's good post has inspired me to jump in after all. 

First, I am not sure that there is an inverse correlation between a bright room and how much Audyssey boosts treble. If a room had a lot of first and second reflections piling up at the MLP, the Audyssey microphone might still boost treble in an effort to achieve clarity. That's pure speculation on my part, so I can't tell you for sure that it's happening, but if Audyssey appears to be boosting the treble on all of your speakers, I think it's a plausible explanation.

With the investment you have made in some very nice speakers, I think it would be worth your while to see if you can take some high frequency energy out of that "bright and reflective" room. There are a variety of ways that you can do that without jeopardizing the room aesthetics, using area rugs, acoustic panels designed to resemble artwork, etc. Improving the acoustics in your room may be equal in importance to the quality of your speakers in helping you to achieve good overall sound quality.

The second thing I would do is to continue to experiment with toe-in. I would worry less about a theoretical ideal with a laser pointer and more about finding what actually works best in your specific listening environment. For instance, if first reflections from the side walls are part of the problem, then more toe-in may be helpful, regardless of whether that is more or less than a nominally recommended toe-in. Just keep experimenting.

Third, the microphone height issue is a tough one. Gary's advice to keep the microphone at tweeter height is good, but I'm not sure that keeping the microphone at actual ear height isn't even more important. If your tweeters are too high for your seated ear height, I would consider tilting the speakers down slightly, or up slightly in the case of your center channel. So, I think that I would do a fairly tight microphone pattern (no more than 2' in total width or depth, and don't go behind the MLP) with the mic. position at your measured ear height (probably between 32" and 36"). Then do just two mic. positions of the 8, at about 2" or 3" higher than ear height. 

Jeff's advice to cover the back of your leather sofa with something soft and absorbent is also good. Finally, after running the best calibration I could (and keeping a record of my microphone positions) I would experiment with the tone controls to see if I could take just a little of the excess brightness out of my front speakers. I have to do that with the main speakers in my system, and it definitely helps. Starting from Audyssey Flat, I just remove a decibel or two of treble, until I get where I want to be. It's worth a try.

I believe that a methodical approach to your room, your set-up, your Audyssey calibration, and your post-Audyssey tweaks will yield the best long-term benefits.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Selden Ball

brianmlamb said:


> Yes leather furniture only including the MLP being a large leather couch, my room is a bit of an acoustic nightmare to be honest which is probably contributing to the issue (wood floors with no rugs, open to other parts of the house, minimal wall coverings, 10 ft flat smooth ceilings, glass coffee table (though I did buy a thick weave bath mat this weekend to place over it while watching movies (didn't fix this issue though).


Some people have found that putting a blanket over the leather furniture during the calibration helped somewhat.


----------



## brianmlamb

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Cover the whole thing if you can...the less reflections, the better. Surprisingly, leather is very good at reflecting high-frequency sounds.





garygarrison said:


> Try it with most of the mic positions at tweeter level. Audyssey
> Relocating the mic positions and/or speakers and/or the MLP will probably allow you to use Audyssey. I hope.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You had already been getting a lot of good advice on this issue so I decided to stay out of the discussion, but Gary's good post has inspired me to jump in after all.
> 
> First, I am not sure that there is an inverse correlation between a bright room and how much Audyssey boosts treble. If a room had a lot of first and second reflections piling up at the MLP, the Audyssey microphone might still boost treble in an effort to achieve clarity. That's pure speculation on my part, so I can't tell you for sure that it's happening, but if Audyssey appears to be boosting the treble on all of your speakers, I think it's a plausible explanation.
> 
> With the investment you have made in some very nice speakers, I think it would be worth your while to see if you can take some high frequency energy out of that "bright and reflective" room. There are a variety of ways that you can do that without jeopardizing the room aesthetics, using area rugs, acoustic panels designed to resemble artwork, etc. Improving the acoustics in your room may be equal in importance to the quality of your speakers in helping you to achieve good overall sound quality.
> 
> The second thing I would do is to continue to experiment with toe-in. I would worry less about a theoretical ideal with a laser pointer and more about finding what actually works best in your specific listening environment. For instance, if first reflections from the side walls are part of the problem, then more toe-in may be helpful, regardless of whether that is more or less than a nominally recommended toe-in. Just keep experimenting.
> 
> Third, the microphone height issue is a tough one. Gary's advice to keep the microphone at tweeter height is good, but I'm not sure that keeping the microphone at actual ear height isn't even more important. If your tweeters are too high for your seated ear height, I would consider tilting the speakers down slightly, or up slightly in the case of your center channel. So, I think that I would do a fairly tight microphone pattern (no more than 2' in total width or depth, and don't go behind the MLP) with the mic. position at your measured ear height (probably between 32" and 36"). Then do just two mic. positions of the 8, at about 2" or 3" higher than ear height.
> 
> Jeff's advice to cover the back of your leather sofa with something soft and absorbent is also good. Finally, after running the best calibration I could (and keeping a record of my microphone positions) I would experiment with the tone controls to see if I could take just a little of the excess brightness out of my front speakers. I have to do that with the main speakers in my system, and it definitely helps. Starting from Audyssey Flat, I just remove a decibel or two of treble, until I get where I want to be. It's worth a try.
> 
> I believe that a methodical approach to your room, your set-up, your Audyssey calibration, and your post-Audyssey tweaks will yield the best long-term benefits.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





Selden Ball said:


> Some people have found that putting a blanket over the leather furniture during the calibration helped somewhat.


Thanks to all, great replies and all the help is much appreciated.

My boom mic stand came last night and I covered the couch in moving blankets and re-ran the calibration with the brand new audyssey mic. I clustered the pattern within about 2ft of the MLP, but I did go behind the MLP a bit to get the position I'm in while laid back in my seat, might try again without that based on the above. I checked and my ear height sitting is within 2" of the tweeter height from the mains, I set the boom mic at exactly ear height and didn't vary the height this time.

It's definitely better, but I'm still getting a little Sibilance unfortunately, checked the "copied settings" only for reference to see what the curve may look like and it's still got huge boosts to the high frequencies 6db+ on all speakers. Still it sounds quite a bit better than the last run, so we're making progress. I'll try playing with the tone controls a bit, good suggestion. This new mic seems to set my speakers about 3db louder in the channel level menu vs my old one, not sure why. I'm going to try a calibration with each mic and see how different they sound. The blankets were a good suggestion, Even in the tone sweeps I could hear the difference especially in the center, Audyssey also finally set my center to 80hz vs the 90-100hz it had been setting prior to the blankets. 

I'd love to do room treatments and we do plan on adding an area rug when the wife finds the right one, trouble is we're picky. She's not really fond of the art acoustic panels, I'm still working on some creative solutions though that she might be ok with. Can't be upset with her because it is in the living room of a smaller condo and my media setup is extremely prominent already in the room and she's been very supportive of the hobby. Question for those experienced, Would putting a panel directly behind the couch do anything at all (basically can't see it except from the side because the couch covers it up)? Currently has about 15" of clearance between the wall and couch

I think I'll try a few new positions with the mains, and maybe tilt the center up more than the laser pointer method and try it out. I'm going to order a UMIK this week and get REW to help with placement to see what's going on vs guessing. Should be worth the $100 investment I hope. 

Lastly I think I may also be expecting too much out of a mid tier Denon from 2012 with multi eq xt (which I've read tries too hard to filter the high end which is where my problems are). I was hoping to wait on the receiver as I overspent my budget on the speakers quite a bit, but I may have to prioritize that upgrade sooner than later.

I'll be able to experiment again Thursday night and try and incorporate a few more of your suggestions.

Pics as requested (crappy lighting sorry):

*Note I do cover the coffee table with a 1" thick cotten bath mat while calibrating and listening, drawing only shows 1 sub, other is on the other side of the couch:
IMG_1534 by BLamb!!, on Flickr

IMG_1535 by BLamb!!, on Flickr

IMG_1538 by BLamb!!, on Flickr

Room layout by BLamb!!, on Flickr

Thanks again to all


----------



## Alan P

brianmlamb said:


> Thanks to all, great replies and all the help is much appreciated.
> 
> My boom mic stand came last night and I covered the couch in moving blankets and re-ran the calibration with the brand new audyssey mic. I clustered the pattern within about 2ft of the MLP, but I did go behind the MLP a bit *to get the position I'm in while laid back in my seat*, might try again without that based on the above. I checked and my ear height sitting is within 2" of the tweeter height from the mains, I set the boom mic at exactly ear height and didn't vary the height this time.


When doing mic positions, with the exception of the first mic position, you are not really measuring actual seating/head locations. You are basically giving Audyssey as much information as possible in the "bubble" around your head.




> It's definitely better, but I'm still getting a little Sibilance unfortunately


What source? If blu-ray, can you provide us with some specific scenes?




> This new mic seems to set my speakers about 3db louder in the channel level menu vs my old one, not sure why.


The tolerance specs of the Audyssey mics state "+/-3dB", so that would be why. 




> I'd love to do room treatments and we do plan on adding an area rug when the wife finds the right one, trouble is we're picky. She's not really fond of the art acoustic panels, I'm still working on some creative solutions though that she might be ok with.


If you ask me, that rear wall (with the off-center star!  ) is just begging for some nice looking wall treatments. You can make some very nice looking designs with multiple, different colored panels. Many examples on GIK's website.




> Question for those experienced, Would putting a panel directly behind the couch do anything at all (basically can't see it except from the side because the couch covers it up)?


Bass traps behind furniture can be effective....acoustic panels, not so much.




> Pics as requested


Wow, that looks to be a VERY reflective room...it's no wonder you are having issues. I'm sorry to say that if you can't sway the WAF on some damping for that room, you may just be stuck with "not-the-best" sound. 


P.S. That small, cat shaped bass trap you have in the corner isn't helping.


----------



## brianmlamb

Alan P said:


> What source? If blu-ray, can you provide us with some specific scenes?
> 
> 
> If you ask me, that rear wall (with the off-center star!  ) is just begging for some nice looking wall treatments. You can make some very nice looking designs with multiple, different colored panels. Many examples on GIK's website.
> 
> Bass traps behind furniture can be effective....acoustic panels, not so much.
> 
> Wow, that looks to be a VERY reflective room...it's no wonder you are having issues. I'm sorry to say that if you can't sway the WAF on some damping for that room, you may just be stuck with "not-the-best" sound.
> 
> 
> P.S. That small, cat shaped bass trap you have in the corner isn't helping.


Thanks Alan,
The sibilance is most noticeable on netflix stuff that's using PLCII. I was watching some scenes from Guardians of the Galaxy last night on bluray after calibration, not as bad as the netflix stuff but S's are still too prominent. I'll have to try and find a good scene where it really comes through later in the week when there's more time.

I think I might try and calibrate using the left seat instead of the right and see if it makes any difference as well.

Haha the star is bothering me too, I moved the couch around to try and change my MLP, it was centered over the couch at one point, room is kinda oddly shaped. I'll get around to re-hanging it soon.

I'll keep working with the wife on acoustic panels, I may sway her opinion eventually, we shall see. Definitely agree it's less than an ideal setup and way too reflective. 

The cat bass trap also likes to interfere with my audyssey calibrations, usually he has to go out on the patio for that portion haha.


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> Thanks Alan,
> The sibilance is most noticeable on netflix stuff that's using PLCII. I was watching some scenes from Guardians of the Galaxy last night on bluray after calibration, not as bad as the netflix stuff but S's are still too prominent. I'll have to try and find a good scene where it really comes through later in the week when there's more time.
> 
> I think I might try and calibrate using the left seat instead of the right and see if it makes any difference as well.
> 
> Haha the star is bothering me too, I moved the couch around to try and change my MLP, it was centered over the couch at one point, room is kinda oddly shaped. I'll get around to re-hanging it soon.
> 
> I'll keep working with the wife on acoustic panels, I may sway her opinion eventually, we shall see. Definitely agree it's less than an ideal setup and way too reflective.
> 
> The cat bass trap also likes to interfere with my audyssey calibrations, usually he has to go out on the patio for that portion haha.



LOL, the cat shaped bass trap could conceivably help with mid-range frequencies and up. The biggest problem I foresee is getting him to stay in exactly the same spot during playback that he was in during calibration. 

I agree with all of Alan's suggestions. I would calibrate at ear height for your primary listening position. If that is upright, that's your ear height. If that is reclined, then calibrate to that ear height. I particularly agree that putting some panels on the wall directly behind, and above, the couch would help with secondary reflections. That is especially the case with only 15" between the back of the couch and the wall, as that means that mid and high frequency sound waves are bouncing off the wall directly into your ears. Pulling the couch forward by even 6" or so will help with that. 24" from the wall is a really good standard.

One thing that might also help, though, is your additional suggestion to put something behind the couch, and out of sight. That won't help with reflections bouncing off the wall behind your head and into your ears. But it will help to take some of the total high frequency energy from the room, as high frequency sound waves continue to bounce around the room until their energy is spent. So, diffusing and absorbing materials including rugs, soft cushions, books in bookshelves, and so on, can all help to scatter and attenuate sound waves, thereby reducing overall room brightness.


----------



## garygarrison

brianmlamb said:


> I'd love to do room treatments and we do plan on adding an area rug when the wife finds the right one, trouble is we're picky. She's not really fond of the art acoustic panels, I'm still working on some creative solutions though that she might be ok with.


Some people have put up conventional absorbers (especially at first reflection points) and then put up wall hangings (tapestries, etc.) in front of the absorbers, prety much hiding them. I've heard that that contributes helpfully, if the wall hangings are soft cloth, or rug like.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Some people have put up conventional absorbers (especially at first reflection points) and then put up wall hangings (tapestries, etc.) in front of the absorbers, prety much hiding them. I've heard that that contributes helpfully, if the wall hangings are soft cloth, or rug like.



Gary,

That's a very good suggestion! I have drapes in my room, as you know, and everywhere the drapes are kept closed (some are and some aren't) I have a totally invisible 2' by 4' (2" thick) acoustic panel. They take excess high, and even mid-range, sound out of the room, greatly increasing clarity. As you are suggesting, there are a lot of ways to attenuate brightness in a room, if we are willing to be creative.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## brianmlamb

garygarrison said:


> Some people have put up conventional absorbers (especially at first reflection points) and then put up wall hangings (tapestries, etc.) in front of the absorbers, prety much hiding them. I've heard that that contributes helpfully, if the wall hangings are soft cloth, or rug like.





mthomas47 said:


> Gary,
> 
> That's a very good suggestion! I have drapes in my room, as you know, and everywhere the drapes are kept closed (some are and some aren't) I have a totally invisible 2' by 4' (2" thick) acoustic panel. They take excess high, and even mid-range, sound out of the room, greatly increasing clarity. As you are suggesting, there are a lot of ways to attenuate brightness in a room, if we are willing to be creative.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


My wife definitely wouldn't go for tapestries or hangings, I keep trying to show her the panels at church and how you can make a cool pattern, but no go so far. Would putting some panels on the front wall (one with entertainment center behind each speaker then a thin one running under the TV behind the center) do any good?


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> My wife definitely wouldn't go for tapestries or hangings, I keep trying to show her the panels at church and how you can make a cool pattern, but no go so far. Would putting some panels on the front wall (one with entertainment center behind each speaker then a thin one running under the TV behind the center) do any good?



Absolutely! With direct firing speakers, some of the sound inevitably escapes backwards, so acoustic panels behind the speakers can help as sound reflected off the wall behind the speakers can arrive just enough after the direct arriving sound to create some distortion. In addition, again, anywhere you can place absorptive material will help to make the overall sound in the room less lively.

I probably shouldn't advise you on this, but you might not need to press her too much on this sort of thing. Just add some inconspicuous treatments where you can. All of the places mentioned in the last several posts would be great. Add an area rug, with a foam pad, when you can. And let her gradually get used to how much nicer, and cozier, the room sounds (and feels) for normal conversation, as well as for music and movies. Over time, perhaps you will be able to add a little bit more.

I was listening to music a few minutes ago, and thinking how achieving a good room/system is a process. And for most of us, it is a process that takes years. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have enjoyed the process over a period of years, and am still tweaking things in my room. Each slight improvement can be noticed and savored. We all have a tendency to want it to be perfect right now. But the fact is that the pursuit of perfection, or at least of excellence, is also a part of the audio/HT hobby. It's actually a part that I enjoy, and I think that most of the people who hang out on this thread are probably in the same boat. 

So, give your wife, and yourself, some time. The suggestions you have gotten over the last couple of days should keep you busy for a while. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## brianmlamb

mthomas47 said:


> So, give your wife, and yourself, some time. The suggestions you have gotten over the last couple of days should keep you busy for a while.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Definitely agree, very thankful for all the help I've gotten here in this forum. Played with the tone controls and decreased treble by 3db and I think it's pretty close to the best I can do with the room in it's current state. We'll be looking for an area rug (though the wife wants a cowhide one so not sure how much that will end up helping out the sound but better than nothing I suppose). Also talked to her about getting some heavier thicker curtains for the sliding glass door that's to the right of the MLP. Should help some I think. I might try and build some acoustic panels as well with the intent of using in our laundry room to reduce the noise from the washer/dryer and try them out in a few spots first before installing them there. She was pretty adamant against the panels though.


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> Definitely agree, very thankful for all the help I've gotten here in this forum. Played with the tone controls and decreased treble by 3db and I think it's pretty close to the best I can do with the room in it's current state. We'll be looking for an area rug (though the wife wants a cowhide one so not sure how much that will end up helping out the sound but better than nothing I suppose). Also talked to her about getting some heavier thicker curtains for the sliding glass door that's to the right of the MLP. Should help some I think. I might try and build some acoustic panels as well with the intent of using in our laundry room to reduce the noise from the washer/dryer and try them out in a few spots first before installing them there. She was pretty adamant against the panels though.



You are very welcome for the help! I like your plan. Even putting acoustic panels where they don't show will help, and she might soften a little eventually. It's interesting that your wife wants a cowhide rug. I had considered suggesting sheepskin. I have one, and ordered another yesterday. Natural sheepskin works well as both an absorber and diffuser due to the long hair. Cowhide, which is thinner, and which has a smoother nap, won't be quite as effective but it's still better than nothing, as you say. If you put a rubber pad under it (partly to keep it from slipping on the wooden floor) that will increase its sound insulating properties.

I'm glad to hear that the tone control helped. Gradually, as you are able to soften the space, and perfect your speaker placement and your calibration, you may find yourself able to cut back a bit. Were you able to move your sofa forward a few inches? That should also help a little.


----------



## JGrana

A Modest Proposal

I have been a long time Audyssey user/fan going back to my first Onkyo receiver, through a Denon 33C12 and now a shiny new Denon X2200W.

I am now approaching my "senior" years and a I fear my golden ears are more brass or tin ;-) My wife is in the same boat (being close to my age - 59 3/4)

In doing my calibration recently with the new Denon it occurred to me I was likely getting a nice sound corrected environment yet again - at least to the microphone that ships with the AV gear. But, to my ears...well, not likely even close in accuracy to the mic.

A quick side story that got me thinking of this:
My previous TV was a Samsung 55D8000. It was connected to the Denon 33C12 with Audssey enabled. One day I saw a Samsung app I could load called "Hearing Test". It basically would emit tones a different levels and you pressed "OK" on the remote when you heard the tone. It was fun, interesting. Except I could barely hear the higher freq. tones - like 12K. I figured it can't be me, it must be the TV or Denon unable to cope.... Well, my son and his wife (late 20's) were over one day. I showed some some of the apps and we decided to do the Hearing Test.
They sat on a couch next to me and we ran the test. When it got to the higher frequency (I think around 10K) I could barely hear it - but when I looked at them - their faces both went into a "Yew" expression and they said it sounded "terrible". I tried it again - they both looked at me with surprise and said "You don't hear that!?!?!?". I knew at that point my ears were getting as old as I was ;-)

So, it got me thinking about a new Audyssey feature - we have Reference, Flat - how about *Personal*?

It would work like this (if Chris still follows this thread, I would love to get his feedback):

After running the complete 12 or 8 position calibration run, save the new filters/configuration then offer one more test cycle.
In this case, keep the mic plugged in - it needs to make sure tones are coming out. And, the listener is seated at the first mic position. Now we have both the microphone and the listeners mic (ear) at the same initial calibration spot.

Play a series of frequencies (maybe 500Hz, 1K, 4K, 10K and 15K) starting at a low amplitude and increase until the user hears the tone and presses OK on the remote. Do this for each frequency above (or some subset, whatever the Audyssey gurus think is best).

Now we have both the room characteristics AND the users. Given the users curve, have another mode "Personal" that adjusts the frequency curve to be closer to what the listener can hear.

Now, if it's just my wife and I watching a movie, or TV or music, we enable *Audyssey Personal* curve and can enjoy a personalized (to my/our ears) experience.
If company or my kids come over, I can flip it back to Flat or Reference (and live with my aging hearing).

Folks, none of us are getting younger - and I really believe this would be a great feature, especially for the older (who usually have more $$$) crowd ;-)


----------



## Gary J

JGrana said:


> Play a series of frequencies (maybe 500Hz, 1K, 4K, 10K and 15K) starting at a low amplitude and increase until the user hears the tone and presses OK on the remote. Do this for each frequency above (or some subset, whatever the Audyssey gurus think is best).
> 
> Now we have both the room characteristics AND the users. Given the users curve, have another mode "Personal" that adjusts the frequency curve to be closer to what the listener can hear.


You are talking about a large development and hardware resources hit. That is not going to happen at a price point that Audyssey is likely comfortable with offering to manufacturers. You are talking about the Cadillac offering not the Chevy.


----------



## mthomas47

JGrana said:


> A Modest Proposal
> 
> 
> So, it got me thinking about a new Audyssey feature - we have Reference, Flat - how about *Personal*?
> 
> 
> Now we have both the room characteristics AND the users. Given the users curve, have another mode "Personal" that adjusts the frequency curve to be closer to what the listener can hear.
> 
> Now, if it's just my wife and I watching a movie, or TV or music, we enable *Audyssey Personal* curve and can enjoy a personalized (to my/our ears) experience.
> If company or my kids come over, I can flip it back to Flat or Reference (and live with my aging hearing).
> 
> Folks, none of us are getting younger - and I really believe this would be a great feature, especially for the older (who usually have more $$$) crowd ;-)



Hi,

I'm for anything that offers more user control. I have wondered, for instance, what happens when someone hears better out of one ear than the other, since Audyssey can't know that? Or to make it even more complicated, what if someone hears certain frequencies better out of one ear? (Actually, I know what would happen. That person would simply adjust his trim levels to his individual hearing without disturbing the filters Audyssey set.) 

But, although I don't think that I can hear over 12KHz, anymore either, I'm not sure that I need Audyssey to fix that for me. As long as I use Flat, Audyssey won't roll-off the upper frequencies at all. And since very little music has significant SPL above about 8 or 9KHz, I should be good for quite a while yet. But, even if I were having trouble hearing chimes or violins up to 7 or 8KHz, I could use the tone controls in my AVR to boost the treble a bit. That, combined with an increase in MV, would carry me a long way, unless my room were completely dead.

I think that we actually have some degree of user control in our AVR's if we are imaginative and willing to experiment. Not as much as I would like, but some. And believe it or not, I think we can also tune our rooms with acoustical treatments to achieve much of the sound we want, even before Audyssey gets a hold of it. You might be surprised how much more upper treble clarity can be attained with some treatment. Even, or perhaps especially, for our aging ears. Sorry about the digression, there, but I have really been working on that aspect of things for the last couple of years, and I am extremely happy with the results. Every few months I experiment a little more. 

I don't mean to pour cold water on your idea. It does, as suggested, sound like an expensive R&D project. But, 2016 is supposed to be the year that Audyssey releases something new, with more user control, so who knows?

What I would really like to see, though, rather than something that tests our hearing, and tries to approximate an automated curve specifically tailored to that measured hearing (tip: don't calibrate on a day you are having sinus issues) is to start from Flat, and to be able to shape your own user curve a bit more, according to your own specific preferences, or whims of the moment. That would let us add to the high end, or take away, (at the particular frequencies we wanted to adjust) and would ideally give us more general control of the mid-range and low-end, as well. I would be glad to rely on knowing what I can hear, and what I like, if I could have a little more control of either individual speakers, or the collective sound at my MLP. Fingers crossed for the future. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

JGrana said:


> Play a series of frequencies (maybe 500Hz, 1K, 4K, 10K and 15K) starting at a low amplitude and increase until the user hears the tone and presses OK on the remote. Do this for each frequency above (or some subset, whatever the Audyssey gurus think is best).
> 
> Now we have both the room characteristics AND the users. Given the users curve, have another mode "Personal" that adjusts the frequency curve to be closer to what the listener can hear.
> 
> Now, if it's just my wife and I watching a movie, or TV or music, we enable *Audyssey Personal* curve and can enjoy a personalized (to my/our ears) experience.
> If company or my kids come over, I can flip it back to Flat or Reference (and live with my aging hearing)


*Very creative*, but first a word of *CAUTION*: If the high frequencies are turned up too far compared to the mid frequencies, some high quality tweeters could be blown out, especially with steady test tones, but also with broad, fat, peaks. Some speakers that have a power handling capability of 100 watts (perhaps even 500 watts for peaks milliseconds long) have tweeters that would be threatened at 2 to 5 watts continuous. Most manufacturers don't talk about that. In orchestral music (common in movies), overtones above 8K (in the range where old ears might benefit from a boost) are as much as 21 dB below midrange. Since every 3 dB reduction amounts to halving the power in watts, 100 watts into a full range speaker might only send 0.78 watts into the tweeter (particularly in a 3 way system), which any tweeter worthy of the name can handle ... but start turning up the high frequencies, and there could be big trouble. If someone's hearing is 10 dB down at 10K, and a newly imagined Audyssey Personal fully compensates for that, the 0.78 watts is now about 7.8 watts. Worse yet, if the hearing test function continues to turn up the treble at, say, 15K, and the listener no longer can hear 15K at all, zilch, 0, Audyssey Personal would have to know to stop just below the tweeter killing level. I would think it might be possible to build these safeguards into AP, but I'm not sure they would. With some rock, metal or electronic music, the overtones above 8K are significantly above the 21 dB down figure given above, to say nothing about special effects full of screeching metal in a few movies I can think of (e.g., The Grey).

The Good News is that the illusion of detailed overtones can be had, even with reproduction limited to about 12K. In jr. high and high school, my friends and I, most of which played in the orchestra and therefore knew what live music sounded like, had our young ears fooled. We were very impressed with the realism of the 6 track magnetic sound in 70 mm movie theaters, which generally had tweeters that took a nose dive at 11K or 12K (later, when Dolby, dbX, Klipsch, and others started equipping theaters, and JBL & Altec replaced their old systems, the high frequency response improved, but the overall sound didn't always).

Most hearing tests (including the one you cited above) look at your threshold at each frequency. In the real world much music is way above threshold. High frequency hearing -- if it's there at all at a given frequency -- improves as SLP increases. Look at the treble end of the Fletcher-Munsen curves. Conceivably, there may be another thing going on, as well. If musical climaxes increase arousal in the cortex (they do), there may be increased hearing capacity at those times, a sort of catalytic effect. So many other things change with increased arousal: irises dilate, skin hair stands on end, galvanic skin response changes, EEGs change, to say nothing of wetness of the eyes, tingle in the shoulders and down the spine, etc. Interestingly, when listening to music, these effects are more pronounced in music lovers than in the small, sad group who are indifferent to music.


----------



## mthomas47

^^
Good post, Gary!


----------



## JGrana

Folks, thanks for the feedback and information! I would like to comment on a few:

GaryL - I could see this being a fairly large software effort, but Audyssey already has the facility to play tones (or at least white noise sweeps) and the microphone is already a sunk cost. What I could see is adding some sine wave pure tones and a user interface that would take user input (like the OK button on the device remote).
Not sure there would need to be any new hardware. But, I do agree, there is a bit of software in this "modest" proposal!

garygarrison - I fully agree with the caution. I should have been more clear on the reason the microphone is still in the idea. It needs first to make sure it at least hears the tone, even if the user doesn't. But I do agree that there needs to be a ceiling on the correction in terms of too much boost, especially on the high frequencies. There comes a point where the level of correction is too much for a persons loss of high frequency hearing. I would set some kind of cap on the amount of frequency boost - fully agree!!!

mthomas47 - your point is probably just as good and much less work for Audyssey. I too wish there was a way to create an additional profile, where you could use the AVR's user controls to tweak Audysseys curve. I ran an Android Hearing Test, over Bluetooth to my Denon. I sat in the same place I placed my mic during calibration. No surprise the curve showed a dip at 250Hz to 2K, then a more dramatic drop from 5K to 10K.

If I could add some boost at 250Hz, 5K and 10-15K I would get closer a more reasonable frequency curve for my hearing situation. But, Audyssey won't let me touch the curves....
You make the best point - give us some user control and an additional profile.

Thanks again folks. Like I said, we are all aging (I know, hard to believe) and over time most of use will face this issue. I'm there now - and wish I could keep the great benefits of Audyssey AND tailor to my personal ears!

(I still think this would be a very neat new feature and differentiation for Audyssey ;-)


----------



## pepar

Anyone needing a custom curve needs Audyssey Pro and an AVR/prepro that is Pro-ready.

Jeff


----------



## z.pelton1996

Wondering if it is necessary to run audsessy for multiple test positions if I am only watching on a 2 person couch ?


----------



## garygarrison

z.pelton1996 said:


> Wondering if it is necessary to run audsessy for multiple test positions if I am only watching on a 2 person couch ?


Audyssey was designed to use all of the mic positions (usually 8) to get a sense of the room acoustics as "heard" from multiple positions. See the Audyssey FAQ: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" ... especially the following part: *d)2. Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?* I'd recommend reading the whole thing. It is a good read, beautifully written by Keith Barnes and others, and better than any equipment manual I've seen.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=21782993&postcount=51803


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> *Very creative*, but first a word of *CAUTION*: If the high frequencies are turned up too far compared to the mid frequencies, some high quality tweeters could be blown out.



I'm curious--what does a blown-out tweeter sound like? (or does it simply stop emitting any sound?)


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> I'm curious--what does a blown-out tweeter sound like? (or does it simply stop emitting any sound?)


Peter, I think a blown-out tweeter does not make any sound since its blown-out. The whole speaker will surely sound dull and with our experienced ears we sould notice this malfunction immediately.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I'm curious--what does a blown-out tweeter sound like? (or does it simply stop emitting any sound?)


Many just stop emitting sound. If it's totally blown-OUT, I would expect no sound from it at all. 

I've long wondered if it's "all or none." Is it possible for the abused tweeter to keep working, but just distort a little more, up to a lot more? May it depend on whether the problem is that the voice coil has been overheated or the diaphragm over extended? Woofers that have had too much power put in them for too long can make a scraping sound; is the same true of tweeters? 

I've asked those questions over the years on various forums, and of various manufacturers, but haven't received a definitive answer based on experimental evidence. There are some things speaker manufacturers don't often talk about. Tweeter power handling is one. Compression at high SPL is another. I've also noticed that glossy Hi End speaker specs sometimes do not include information on sensitivity/efficiency. Years ago, Consumer Reports found a 20:1 ratio of efficiency among the speakers they rated. I've seen figures as great as 100:1. Another ratio that would be nice to know is ratio of sensitivity to power handling. I've heard that a few manufacturers rate their woofer power handling as the number of continuous watts across the woofer's specified bandwidth it will take to cause half of the woofers to fail in some period of time (like 15 minutes). Back in the day, one manufacturer was asked what power handling capacity really meant. His answer was, "Probably not much."


----------



## mthomas47

I wanted to wait to see if someone else had a definitive answer to the question, but I think Gary framed it nicely. I think that a tweeter with a partly melted voice coil could simply play softer, but with more audible distortion, whereas at some point a tweeter could be so damaged that it wouldn't make any sound at all. This is just based on anecdotal experience, though.


----------



## z.pelton1996

garygarrison said:


> Audyssey was designed to use all of the mic positions (usually 8) to get a sense of the room acoustics as "heard" from multiple positions. See the Audyssey FAQ: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" ... especially the following part: *d)2. Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?* I'd recommend reading the whole thing. It is a good read, beautifully written by Keith Barnes and others, and better than any equipment manual I've seen.http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=21782993&postcount=51803


Thank you for posting that. I will be reading you some more on Audsessy. Kinda new to the whole things anything else you would recommend ?


----------



## spiroh

Hello all. I recently moved to a 8802A pre pro and with that made the move to xlr outputs. I currently only have a 2 channel amp so I am running Fronts and Subwoofer. When I run audissey the front are hitting the -12DB limit. Is there a way to get around this without moving to RCA or using attenuators? I can barely fit the amp and 8802a now so there is no room for the attenuators which seem to make the cables stick out significantly more. Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

spiroh said:


> Hello all. I recently moved to a 8802A pre pro and with that made the move to xlr outputs. I currently only have a 2 channel amp so I am running Fronts and Subwoofer. When I run audissey the front are hitting the -12DB limit. Is there a way to get around this without moving to RCA or using attenuators? I can barely fit the amp and 8802a now so there is no room for the attenuators which seem to make the cables stick out significantly more. Thanks


I assume that your power amp doesn't have input level controls. I understand there is an idea out there that such controls shouldn't be used, lest the sound be degraded. If you have them, you might as well give them a try, then run Audyssey calibration again.

Chris K (the co-founder and CTO of Audyssey) described a way without using attenuators on _Ask Audyssey_ about 3 or 4 years ago. I'm not sure when, but it was shortly before Audyssey went over to Facebook. It involved some math and manual re-adjustment, if I recall correctly. 

I took a third route, which might work for you, with some temporary disruption. I used attenuators *temporarily* between the pre-pro and the power amps on_ *all channels *_while letting Audyssey calibrate without bottoming out at -12 dB. My pre-pro automatically sets its Main Volume to 0 dB when running Audyssey tests. This can't be changed. Naturally, Audyssey set the measured SPL at 0 dB to movie industry Reference Level with the attenuators _*in*_ the circuit, because it didn't have a clue that the attenuators were there. After running the Audyssey tests, I *removed the attenuators. *Since my attenuators were 12 dB (which I confirmed in-line between the pre-pro and the power amps), after removing them my 0 dB *Reference Level* on the Main Volume control _*became -12*_, all of which Chris K approved. He did suggest the alternative of just leaving the attenuators in (the same as using speakers 12 dB less efficient for both Audyssey calibration and subsequent playback), and using Reference = 0 dB MV, but I didn't want to leave them in the line. I almost never mention this on the forum because could lead to confusion. I don't generally talk about my playback level in terms of 0 dB, but instead say that my usual playback level is about "5 dB below Reference," (which for me would be about MV -17dB, since movie industry Reference on my calibrated system is -12 dB MV without the attenuators, and for almost everyone else is 0 dB MV). Chris K has worked through this problem with several owners of very efficient speakers.


----------



## mthomas47

^^

It is confusing, Gary, but that solution seems entirely workable. There was another method, but I am embarrassed to say that I can't remember the details. This question comes up every few months, so if someone can remember that alternative method, I'm going to memorize it. I know that it is simpler than using attenuators, and as with your method, it simply throws off the Reference volume by a known amount.

Do you think that using your method causes DEQ to operate at a higher level? If your MV setting of -17 is equivalent to -5, I don't see how Audyssey would know that. If not, DEQ would be boosting as if you really were at -17. I mention this because I know that you don't like using DEQ. At -5 MV, the effects of DEQ would be considerably more subtle than at -17, and with your actual volume you really wouldn't need the boost. Of course, you could always use an RLO to offset things, but I'm just thinking out loud about the implications of that particular methodology, as I'm sure that you have.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ^^
> 
> It is confusing, Gary, but that solution seems entirely workable. There was another method, but I am embarrassed to say that I can't remember the details. This question comes up every few months, so if someone can remember that alternative method, I'm going to memorize it. I know that it is simpler than using attenuators, and as with your method, it simply throws off the Reference volume by a known amount.
> 
> Do you think that using your method causes DEQ to operate at a higher level? If your MV setting of -17 is equivalent to -5, I don't see how Audyssey would know that. If not, DEQ would be boosting as if you really were at -17. I mention this because I know that you don't like using DEQ. At -5 MV, the effects of DEQ would be considerably more subtle than at -17, and with your actual volume you really wouldn't need the boost. Of course, you could always use an RLO to offset things, but I'm just thinking out loud about the implications of that particular methodology, as I'm sure that you have.


Since I play at about 5 dB below Reference, I have little need for DEQ. I think I remember that Chris K warned me about the very DEQ problem you cite. When I have tried lower MV settings (in the -20s & -30s, for background music heard from another room, for holiday dinners and the like) I've tried manipulating RLO, but usually ended up turning off DEQ. My objections to it is it sounds "glumpy," whatever that means, and it seems to reduce clarity and "air," while boosting the treble a bit too much. The instruments seem to sound less like themselves. I may wait for the next Audyssey configuration, and try again, although I really don't need it. The tone controls seem to do a better job for me than DEQ, when needed.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> I wanted to wait to see if someone else had a definitive answer to the question, but I think Gary framed it nicely. I think that a tweeter with a partly melted voice coil could simply play softer, but with more audible distortion, whereas at some point a tweeter could be so damaged that it wouldn't make any sound at all. This is just based on anecdotal experience, though.


A driver can be partially "blown." Heat is what melts ... think: fuse ... voice coil wires. But before the coil does that it can melt the material that holds the windings in place and LIFT so that it scrapes as the driver travels in and out. This produces a scratching sound. You would probably know it if you heard it, but might hear it as distortion.

Jeff


----------



## ingramba

*Re-Run Audyssey or Not?*

Hi All! Just wondering if I change out my surround speakers for another set does Audyssey 32 need to be run again or can I just calibrate the two surrounds? I have a Denon AVR-X7200WA, THX! Bill


----------



## Selden Ball

ingramba said:


> Hi All! Just wondering if I change out my surround speakers for another set does Audyssey 32 need to be run again or can I just calibrate the two surrounds? I have a Denon AVR-X7200WA, THX! Bill


You need to re-run Audyssey because the new speakers won't have exactly the same frequency responses as the ones they're replacing. Unfortunately, Audyssey always calibrates all of the speakers. It can't be told to calibrate only some of them.


----------



## brianmlamb

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> But, 2016 is supposed to be the year that Audyssey releases something new, with more user control, so who knows?


Noooo, don't tell me that now. Just picked up a Denon X4200W for the sale price at Frys last night. Wanted to try out XT32 before writing off Audyssey and have a 30 day return. Haven't gotten very far with it, just a quick calibration. For some reason even though my subs weren't touched XT32 set them at -12db so I need to recalc. Bass is noticeably better, Highs seem a little better as well but too early to tell and didn't get to watch any real content. 

One thing I noticed, I've read about Cinema EQ and how you really shouldn't use it. The description though mentions it decreasing the treble on the center to make dialogue easier to understand. I'm thinking of trying it out to see if it helps with the sibilance unless there's a real reason why I shouldn't. 

Also like that I can see a graph of my results now, I think I've got a placement issue with my towers as I've got some big 10db dips in the 100-200hz range particularly on the right speaker, left is within 5db. Thinking I need to push them closer to the wall? Or pull them out more, not sure which direction to go on them.


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> Noooo, don't tell me that now. Just picked up a Denon X4200W for the sale price at Frys last night. Wanted to try out XT32 before writing off Audyssey and have a 30 day return. Haven't gotten very far with it, just a quick calibration. For some reason even though my subs weren't touched XT32 set them at -12db so I need to recalc. Bass is noticeably better, Highs seem a little better as well but too early to tell and didn't get to watch any real content.
> 
> One thing I noticed, I've read about Cinema EQ and how you really shouldn't use it. The description though mentions it decreasing the treble on the center to make dialogue easier to understand. I'm thinking of trying it out to see if it helps with the sibilance unless there's a real reason why I shouldn't.
> 
> Also like that I can see a graph of my results now, I think I've got a placement issue with my towers as I've got some big 10db dips in the 100-200hz range particularly on the right speaker, left is within 5db. Thinking I need to push them closer to the wall? Or pull them out more, not sure which direction to go on them.



I am glad to hear that you are trying XT-32. I think you will like it. Honestly, I'm not holding my breath on the new Audyssey release, and probably wouldn't upgrade from XT-32 for several years anyway, as I have achieved very good results with it.

I have never had a reason to try Cinema EQ, so I can't advise you on it. But, FWIW, I don't see any harm in experimenting with any of the features in your AVR. There is no telling what you might like until you try it.

Those crude graphs that you are seeing are not really very helpful. They give you a rough approximation of issues that Audyssey was trying to fix, but that's all. They don't show you what Audyssey actually did. I think if you want to experiment with moving the speakers forward or back a bit, there is no harm in it, but there's no way to predict what that will do. Based on what you are saying, I might consider leaving the left one alone first, and just moving the right one a few inches forward or back.


----------



## brianmlamb

mthomas47 said:


> I am glad to hear that you are trying XT-32. I think you will like it. Honestly, I'm not holding my breath on the new Audyssey release, and probably wouldn't upgrade from XT-32 for several years anyway, as I have achieved very good results with it.
> 
> I have never had a reason to try Cinema EQ, so I can't advise you on it. But, FWIW, I don't see any harm in experimenting with any of the features in your AVR. There is no telling what you might like until you try it.
> 
> Those crude graphs that you are seeing are not really very helpful. They give you a rough approximation of issues that Audyssey was trying to fix, but that's all. They don't show you what Audyssey actually did. I think if you want to experiment with moving the speakers forward or back a bit, there is no harm in it, but there's no way to predict what that will do. Based on what you are saying, I might consider leaving the left one alone first, and just moving the right one a few inches forward or back.



I figure if Audyssey has a new version it won't show up until 2017 receivers anyway right? Unless it's been ready a while and Denon will release it with the '16 models. Seems odd though given the X7200WA flagship won't be refreshed until '17 and it has xt32. The X4200w was already top of my budget so I wouldn't be able to pick up a flagship receiver until it was discontinued a year or two anyway.

Disappointing to hear the graphs really aren't very useful, the left speaker I noticed is about 2" further out in the room than the right, not sure how I did that but I'm going to try and push it forward a bit when recalcing since I have to do it anyway for the sub trim.

I'll report back after playing with it for a week or two. Appreciate all the pointers and advice I've gotten here.


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> I figure if Audyssey has a new version it won't show up until 2017 receivers anyway right? Unless it's been ready a while and Denon will release it with the '16 models. Seems odd though given the X7200WA flagship won't be refreshed until '17 and it has xt32. The X4200w was already top of my budget so I wouldn't be able to pick up a flagship receiver until it was discontinued a year or two anyway.
> 
> Disappointing to hear the graphs really aren't very useful, the left speaker I noticed is about 2" further out in the room than the right, not sure how I did that but I'm going to try and push it forward a bit when recalcing since I have to do it anyway for the sub trim.
> 
> I'll report back after playing with it for a week or two. Appreciate all the pointers and advice I've gotten here.



You are very welcome! It's nice to be able to help a little bit, and I will look forward to hearing about your results.


----------



## Alan P

brianmlamb said:


> Noooo, don't tell me that now. Just picked up a Denon X4200W for the sale price at Frys last night. Wanted to try out XT32 before writing off Audyssey and have a 30 day return. Haven't gotten very far with it, just a quick calibration. For some reason even though my subs weren't touched XT32 set them at -12db so I need to recalc. Bass is noticeably better, Highs seem a little better as well but too early to tell and didn't get to watch any real content.
> 
> One thing I noticed, I've read about Cinema EQ and how you really shouldn't use it. The description though mentions it decreasing the treble on the center to make dialogue easier to understand. I'm thinking of trying it out to see if it helps with the sibilance unless there's a real reason why I shouldn't.
> 
> Also like that I can see a graph of my results now, I think I've got a placement issue with my towers as I've got some big 10db dips in the 100-200hz range particularly on the right speaker, left is within 5db. Thinking I need to push them closer to the wall? Or pull them out more, not sure which direction to go on them.


So, you are still having the sibilance issues with XT32?? If so, that's a bummer. 

However, I wouldn't resort to RE-EQ if you can avoid it. Cinema RE-EQ is a hold-over from the old days when DVD was mastered directly from the film with little to no post-processing. Movies are mixed brighter (more treble) for playback in large movie theaters, hence the need for RE-EQ at home.

Modern discs however are mastered with the home environment in mind, so (theoretically) no need for RE-EQ. If you want to hear what the director intended, I would stay away from Cinema RE-EQ.

My 2 cents, FWIW.


----------



## brianmlamb

Alan P said:


> So, you are still having the sibilance issues with XT32?? If so, that's a bummer.
> 
> However, I wouldn't resort to RE-EQ if you can avoid it. Cinema RE-EQ is a hold-over from the old days when DVD was mastered directly from the film with little to no post-processing. Movies are mixed brighter (more treble) for playback in large movie theaters, hence the need for RE-EQ at home.
> 
> Modern discs however are mastered with the home environment in mind, so (theoretically) no need for RE-EQ. If you want to hear what the director intended, I would stay away from Cinema RE-EQ.
> 
> My 2 cents, FWIW.


To be honest I think part of my sibilant issue is in my head. I've been paying more attention to normal live conversation and I hear some of the same "exagerated SSSS" sounds I complain about. I think I just made myself way too hyper aware of the sound trying to tweak the stuff that I almost have trained myself to listen for that sound and some of it really is natural. It's quite bothersome, I'm actively trying to desensitize myself to it haha. I'm also in my late 20's so my high frequency hearing is still quite good which probably contributes to the issue.

I haven't had enough time with xt-32 to tell how much better the Sibilance is. At first listen it sounds better for sure, just not sure how much of it is me vs an actual issue. Audyssey definitely isn't making it any worse now though with xt-32 vs off like it was before. I think my overly bright reflective room doesn't help. Making progress on picking out a rug though and might get some new curtains in the next few months. It'll be a process but every step has made a difference. 

Good to know about Cinema-eq. Over the air broadcast and some stereo content from netflix upmixed to plII just seems to be too bright to me, I would definitely leave it off on blu-ray but might try it on those less than stellar sources that don't have a true center channel mix. Dolby surround seems to be a little nicer on dialogue vs PlII. Definitely need to take some more time before I can draw my final conclusions.


----------



## Alan P

brianmlamb said:


> To be honest I think part of my sibilant issue is in my head. I've been paying more attention to normal live conversation and I hear some of the same "exagerated SSSS" sounds I complain about. I think I just made myself way too hyper aware of the sound trying to tweak the stuff that I almost have trained myself to listen for that sound and some of it really is natural. It's quite bothersome, I'm actively trying to desensitize myself to it haha. I'm also in my late 20's so my high frequency hearing is still quite good which probably contributes to the issue.
> 
> I haven't had enough time with xt-32 to tell how much better the Sibilance is. At first listen it sounds better for sure, just not sure how much of it is me vs an actual issue. Audyssey definitely isn't making it any worse now though with xt-32 vs off like it was before. I think my overly bright reflective room doesn't help. Making progress on picking out a rug though and might get some new curtains in the next few months. It'll be a process but every step has made a difference.
> 
> Good to know about Cinema-eq. Over the air broadcast and some stereo content from netflix upmixed to plII just seems to be too bright to me, I would definitely leave it off on blu-ray but might try it on those less than stellar sources that don't have a true center channel mix. Dolby surround seems to be a little nicer on dialogue vs PlII. Definitely need to take some more time before I can draw my final conclusions.


Yeah, sounds like you have almost dog-like hearing...good for you! Don't get used to it, it doesn't last. 

Maybe you just need to go to a few rock concerts and get down to same level as the rest of us geezers.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Yeah, sounds like you have almost dog-like hearing...good for you! Don't get used to it, it doesn't last.
> 
> Maybe you just need to go to a few rock concerts and get down to same level as the rest of us geezers.



He can probably achieve the same effect with the right kinds of movies, depending on his volume levels and endurance.


----------



## garygarrison

Selden Ball said:


> You need to re-run Audyssey because the new speakers won't have exactly the same frequency responses as the ones they're replacing. Unfortunately, Audyssey always calibrates all of the speakers. It can't be told to calibrate only some of them.


Agreed. Ingramba, even moving the* same* speakers calls for an Audyssey re-run, IMO. 

Some articles advise moving speakers around, doing sub crawls, etc, but this should be done before running or re-running Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

Brian,

If Cinema EQ is anything like the HT-EQ on my Marantz pre-pro, it is probably a bad thing! Since Denon and Marantz are part of the same conglomerate, they may be the same, just retaining a name from when the companies were independent (??). HT-EQ also says it is to "Soften treble in movies for clearer sound." To me, it seems to make the sound less clear, rather than clearer. I agree with Alan that it is probably a hangover from the old days. So is plain old Dolby Surround. I think PL II is an upgraded, more modern choice by Dolby. Indeed, with any of the three PL II choices on my Marantz screen, the Dolby icon pops up. If you use Audyssey Reference (rather than Audyssey Flat) AND use Cinema EQ, you may be rolling off the treble twice! That would make the brass and strings seem less alive. I think your plans to get a carpet and new (hopefully thick) drapes, then re-running Audyssey may do wonders for your room.

I don't stream (I just use Blu-ray discs), but I hardly ever use PL II or any other packaged processing, other than Audyssey Flat or, sometimes, Audyssey Reference, and I use tone controls (not the virtual graphic sliders, because they won't work with Audyssey) on a few movies. Nothing sounds as good as plain DTS HD Master or Dolby True HiFi or, with CDs, Stereo, or with SACDs Multi Channel In, all of which come up automatically on the Marantz screen if the disk is encoded that way. In our HT/Music room, the following all sound worse (less "transparent," with worse imaging and "air): PLII Movie, PL II Music, PL II Game, Neo 6, Multi Ch Stereo, and Neural. Can you avoid such as these when streaming? I honestly don't know. 

I agree, there is sibilance in real life. The filmmakers try to minimize it. I Googled "sibilance," and found that the speech people seem to imply that one wants a certain amount of it. That's good news, because I love "s" sounds and the fricative consonants. The movie people have generally done a great job limiting it to the point of near disappearance, but not the music industry! I hear it on singers on CDs every once in a while, and sometimes it is too pronounced. In movie making, even in looping, the mic is at least several inches away, often more. Some singers swallow the mic. If you put your ear less than 1 inch away from someone speaking or singing (softly), you will hear "too much" sibilance. I tried it! Granted, the mixers should reduce it, but they don't always.

Does the graph your AVR or pre-pro display in one octave wide bars? That would give you 9 to 11 bars, depending on how low it goes. If so, it is nearly useless, compared to the hundreds of points Audyssey looks at. If the AVR/pre-pro manufacturers used 1/3 or 1/4 octave widths, it would provide a much more useful picture, but still nowhere near the number of Audyssey points.


----------



## spiroh

Hi Gary, you are indeed correct that my amp does not have any gain knob that I can use to adjust. If someone can find the post or remember what the alternate method was to bypass the -12db trim issue I would greatly appreciate it. I searched but nothing has come up. Thank-


----------



## garygarrison

spiroh said:


> Hi Gary, you are indeed correct that my amp does not have any gain knob that I can use to adjust. If someone can find the post or remember what the alternate method was to bypass the -12db trim issue I would greatly appreciate it. I searched but nothing has come up. Thank-


The following might be the solution, but I hope others chime in just in case my memory is playing tricks on me.

It's late, so this may be wrong. Insomnia!

_*Caution*_: If you have to unplug all channels except one (temporarily) to get this to work, do so only after turning off all power amplifiers, so that you don't get a speaker destroying "pop."



Get a test disk with pink noise on it. It is better to use a disk than using the test noise in the pre-pro because 1) The test noise bypasses Audyssey EQ filters; this can make a large or small difference, depending on your room and speakers 2) Some pre-pros (like mine) will automatically lock on 0 dB on the Main Volume Control when running its own test noise, thus making one of the later steps impossible.
Set the *one* of the trims (in your pre-pro) that feeds a channel that has "bottomed out" at - 12 dB *arbitrarily* to a level that is not "bottomed out" and also not likely to cause clipping, e.g. - 6dB. This one channel will be used in the next step.
Make sure Audyssey Flat is on and Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume are off. Unlike when running Audyssey's initial calibration, you will be sending the signal through the entire chain. Using the pink noise from the test disk and your SPL meter turn the Main Volume Control down until the SPL at your Main Listening Position is 75 dB from this one channel's speaker. Note the number of dB below 0 on the Main Volume Control that results in the SPL of 75 dB. This will be your new "Reference Level," not 0 dB (you will probably play most movies at a lower level then your new "Reference").
Use your trims for each of the other channels to set them so they all also produce 75 dB from the Main Listening Position when your Main Volume Control is set for your new Reference Level.

Use "c" weighting on your SPL meter. Some prefer to use the "slow" setting to make the meter easier to read.

This method may not set your sub accurately, but no matter -- if you are like most people on this thread you will probably set it to your subjective preference later. Trust your ears, but try to keep it below + 3 dB to avoid clipping. 

None of this will affect Audyssey's EQ filters.

I'm too sleepy to think through whether this will throw DEQ off, should you decide to use it. *It might.* The weird thing is that I think I recall Chris K saying it would not. 

*EDIT:* Maybe Chris K advised how to set the Reference Level Offset for DEQ for people who use this work around that uses a lower MV setting for Reference level. You may still find his answer on Ask Audyssey. He addressed this several times, somewhat differently each time (?)


----------



## mthomas47

Gary,

I would say that you are in danger of becoming a serious night owl, if I didn't know that "becoming" would be inaccurate. I know you are on West Coast time, but still, I'm impressed? Is that the right word? 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## brianmlamb

garygarrison said:


> Brian,
> 
> If Cinema EQ is anything like the HT-EQ on my Marantz pre-pro, it is probably a bad thing! Since Denon and Marantz are part of the same conglomerate, they may be the same, just retaining a name from when the companies were independent (??). HT-EQ also says it is to "Soften treble in movies for clearer sound." To me, it seems to make the sound less clear, rather than clearer. I agree with Alan that it is probably a hangover from the old days. So is plain old Dolby Surround. I think PL II is an upgraded, more modern choice by Dolby. Indeed, with any of the three PL II choices on my Marantz screen, the Dolby icon pops up. If you use Audyssey Reference (rather than Audyssey Flat) AND use Cinema EQ, you may be rolling off the treble twice! That would make the brass and strings seem less alive. I think your plans to get a carpet and new (hopefully thick) drapes, then re-running Audyssey may do wonders for your room.
> 
> I don't stream (I just use Blu-ray discs), but I hardly ever use PL II or any other packaged processing, other than Audyssey Flat or, sometimes, Audyssey Reference, and I use tone controls (not the virtual graphic sliders, because they won't work with Audyssey) on a few movies. Nothing sounds as good as plain DTS HD Master or Dolby True HiFi or, with CDs, Stereo, or with SACDs Multi Channel In, all of which come up automatically on the Marantz screen if the disk is encoded that way. In our HT/Music room, the following all sound worse (less "transparent," with worse imaging and "air): PLII Movie, PL II Music, PL II Game, Neo 6, Multi Ch Stereo, and Neural. Can you avoid such as these when streaming? I honestly don't know.
> 
> I agree, there is sibilance in real life. The filmmakers try to minimize it. I Googled "sibilance," and found that the speech people seem to imply that one wants a certain amount of it. That's good news, because I love "s" sounds and the fricative consonants. The movie people have generally done a great job limiting it to the point of near disappearance, but not the music industry! I hear it on singers on CDs every once in a while, and sometimes it is too pronounced. In movie making, even in looping, the mic is at least several inches away, often more. Some singers swallow the mic. If you put your ear less than 1 inch away from someone speaking or singing (softly), you will hear "too much" sibilance. I tried it! Granted, the mixers should reduce it, but they don't always.
> 
> Does the graph your AVR or pre-pro display in one octave wide bars? That would give you 9 to 11 bars, depending on how low it goes. If so, it is nearly useless, compared to the hundreds of points Audyssey looks at. If the AVR/pre-pro manufacturers used 1/3 or 1/4 octave widths, it would provide a much more useful picture, but still nowhere near the number of Audyssey points.


I watched the Peanuts movie last night with Cinema EQ on by accident, apparently I didn't enable the option to have different settings by source on the new receiver. It definitely took all the sibilance out of the soundtrack, but I did feel like it was a little off and couldn't figure out why until after when I messed with the settings. I guess I have really sensitive hearing in the High frequency range. I need to try the tone controls next time. I thought Dolby surround was the new thing Denon replaced PLII with, maybe I'm mistaken on the name, that's what I was referring to. 

I agree on using DTS master HD or Dolby True HD whenever possible. With streaming on my old AVR all I had options for were Stereo, PLII, Neo 6, multichannel stereo, then denon DSPs which suck. PLII seemed to be the best. Some of the shows had a true dolby signal and I used that when possible, but others only had stereo that I had to upmix. I'm running it through the PS3 through HDMI, so it's source limited rather than hardware.

I'm definitely struggling to figure out what a normal amount of sibilance is. Probably need to have some more people over and ask what they think. 

I haven't really tried the manual settings yet on the x4200, on the 2112 I used the manual and thought it sounded pretty decent. I just wish Audyssey let you make a post calibration tweak like Yamaha or Pioneer. If I can't get what I'm looking for out of the x4200 I'll return it for the yamaha. But I still have a few more weeks to play with the 4200 and I'm going to give it a fair shot.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

It can be confusing since the new Dolby Surround has the same name as the O.G. Dolby Surround from 20 years ago. 

The new Dolby Surround is for up-mixing content to Atmos.


----------



## mthomas47

brianmlamb said:


> I watched the Peanuts movie last night with Cinema EQ on by accident, apparently I didn't enable the option to have different settings by source on the new receiver. It definitely took all the sibilance out of the soundtrack, but I did feel like it was a little off and couldn't figure out why until after when I messed with the settings. I guess I have really sensitive hearing in the High frequency range. I need to try the tone controls next time. I thought Dolby surround was the new thing Denon replaced PLII with, maybe I'm mistaken on the name, that's what I was referring to.
> 
> I agree on using DTS master HD or Dolby True HD whenever possible. With streaming on my old AVR all I had options for were Stereo, PLII, Neo 6, multichannel stereo, then denon DSPs which suck. PLII seemed to be the best. Some of the shows had a true dolby signal and I used that when possible, but others only had stereo that I had to upmix. I'm running it through the PS3 through HDMI, so it's source limited rather than hardware.
> 
> I'm definitely struggling to figure out what a normal amount of sibilance is. Probably need to have some more people over and ask what they think.
> 
> I haven't really tried the manual settings yet on the x4200, on the 2112 I used the manual and thought it sounded pretty decent. I just wish Audyssey let you make a post calibration tweak like Yamaha or Pioneer. If I can't get what I'm looking for out of the x4200 I'll return it for the yamaha. But I still have a few more weeks to play with the 4200 and I'm going to give it a fair shot.



Hi Brian,

Your AVR does have the new version of Dolby Surround, which replaced Dolby PLII, and which some people like much better.

I would give the sibilance issue some time, if I were you. I think that you and Alan nailed it when you said that you appear to have very keen hearing in the high-frequency range. Most women continue to have keen high frequency hearing as they age, although most men lose some of ours. 

I believe that the issue is likely to take care of itself with time, though, and I don't mean through age.  The room treatments you are adding should help a little, as they will take some excess high frequency energy from the room. The other thing that you have going for you is the brain's ability to adapt. Once you quit consciously listening for excessive sibilance, it will be much less noticeable. It's not something you can easily will yourself to do, though. You just need to give it a little time to let that extreme awareness pass naturally.

Some of the other available room correction systems offer more post-calibration adjustability than Audyssey does. But unless you are interested in pursuing Dirac Live, or one of the really expensive systems such as Room Perfect, or Trinnov, they do it at the expense of not providing very effective EQ to start with. XT-32 does a better job than the ones you mentioned of getting your speakers and room to play well together. Then, you just have to exercise some imagination, and be willing to experiment a bit, to tweak things to your liking. Again, time and patience are your allies here, in my opinion. So, hopefully, the fair shot you mentioned will work out for you. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> It can be confusing since the new Dolby Surround has the *same name* as the O.G. Dolby Surround from 20 years ago.
> 
> *The new Dolby Surround is for up-mixing content to Atmos*.


Ah! I was behind the times. Sorry! I would have thought they would have at least added a Roman numeral to Dolby Surround, or called it "New Dolby Surround," or, perhaps, "Dolby Surround for Atmos."

On a different subject, I was a relatively early user of Dolby B for reel to reel recording. It degraded the sound, IMO. We put up a sign in our recording room: "Beware of the Dolby."

Later, we tried dbx, which seemed to work better if used with a recorder without "head bumps." But nothing seemed as good as no noise reduction, hiss and all.

Nowadays Blu-rays that use DTS HD Master seem to outnumber Dolby True HiFi by at about 10:1, at least the ones we get, even though the original movies tend to use Dolby, according to the credits. In my mind, DTS seems to sound better. But a lot of things go on in my mind.


----------



## spiroh

garygarrison said:


> The following might be the solution, but I hope others chime in just in case my memory is playing tricks on me.
> 
> It's late, so this may be wrong. Insomnia!
> 
> _*Caution*_: If you have to unplug all channels except one (temporarily) to get this to work, do so only after turning off all power amplifiers, so that you don't get a speaker destroying "pop."
> 
> 
> 
> Get a test disk with pink noise on it. It is better to use a disk than using the test noise in the pre-pro because 1) The test noise bypasses Audyssey EQ filters; this can make a large or small difference, depending on your room and speakers 2) Some pre-pros (like mine) will automatically lock on 0 dB on the Main Volume Control when running its own test noise, thus making one of the later steps impossible.
> Set the *one* of the trims (in your pre-pro) that feeds a channel that has "bottomed out" at - 12 dB *arbitrarily* to a level that is not "bottomed out" and also not likely to cause clipping, e.g. - 6dB. This one channel will be used in the next step.
> Make sure Audyssey Flat is on and Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume are off. Unlike when running Audyssey's initial calibration, you will be sending the signal through the entire chain. Using the pink noise from the test disk and your SPL meter turn the Main Volume Control down until the SPL at your Main Listening Position is 75 dB from this one channel's speaker. Note the number of dB below 0 on the Main Volume Control that results in the SPL of 75 dB. This will be your new "Reference Level," not 0 dB (you will probably play most movies at a lower level then your new "Reference").
> Use your trims for each of the other channels to set them so they all also produce 75 dB from the Main Listening Position when your Main Volume Control is set for your new Reference Level.
> 
> Use "c" weighting on your SPL meter. Some prefer to use the "slow" setting to make the meter easier to read.
> 
> This method may not set your sub accurately, but no matter -- if you are like most people on this thread you will probably set it to your subjective preference later. Trust your ears, but try to keep it below + 3 dB to avoid clipping.
> 
> None of this will affect Audyssey's EQ filters.
> 
> I'm too sleepy to think through whether this will throw DEQ off, should you decide to use it. *It might.* The weird thing is that I think I recall Chris K saying it would not. Maybe he merely advised how to set the Reference Level Offset for DEQ for people who use this work around. You may still find his answer on Ask Audyssey. He addressed this several times, somewhat differently each time (?)


Thanks Gary!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Gary,
> 
> I would say that you are in danger of becoming a serious night owl, if I didn't know that "becoming" would be inaccurate. I know you are on West Coast time, but still, I'm impressed? Is that the right word?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yes, "becoming" is, indeed, inaccurate. When I was very young (in the S.F. Bay Area) I found that best jazz on KJAZ and the best classical on KKHI were after about 11:00 at night. When I was just a kid, I discovered Citizen Kane on The Owl Theater, starting at 1 AM. I left my parents a note asking if they had heard of this marvelous movie.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Yes, "becoming" is, indeed, inaccurate. When I was very young (in the S.F. Bay Area) I found that best jazz on KJAZ and the best classical on KKHI were after about 11:00 at night. When I was just a kid, I discovered Citizen Kane on The Owl Theater, starting at 1 AM. I left my parents a note asking if they had heard of this marvelous movie.



LOL! You probably stumped them with that one. You know it's funny, but when I was a kid I could stay up half the night, too. With me, it was sometimes TV or a movie, but often a book I couldn't put down. I would keep a flashlight to read by, and listen for footsteps outside my door.

Now, I start pooping out around 11:00, or 11:30 at the latest. That you can still write sensibly at about 2:00 AM actually *is* impressive.


----------



## WestCoastD

garygarrison said:


> This method may not set your sub accurately, but no matter -- if you are like most people on this thread you will probably set it to your subjective preference later. Trust your ears, but try to keep it below + 3 dB to avoid clipping


this aspect (keeping sub output max below +3dB) is confusing to me? I previously read about this on the Audyssey FAQ. 

My current speaker levels:
FL: -11.0dB
FR: -11.0dB
C: -10.5dB
Sub: -4.5dB
SL: -11.0
SR: -11.0


----------



## Alan P

WestCoastD said:


> this aspect (keeping sub output max below +3dB) is confusing to me? I previously read about this on the Audyssey FAQ.
> 
> My current speaker levels:
> FL: -11.0dB
> FR: -11.0dB
> C: -10.5dB
> Sub: -4.5dB
> SL: -11.0
> SR: -11.0


Actually, you don't want to go over "0" with the sub trim and I can't explain it any more clearly than Mark Seaton does in the FAQ:



> When Audyssey runs, the first step is to set the subs to 75 dB. It is perfectly OK to ignore that suggestion, and in fact it is recommended that you do so, if you wish to run your subs 'hot' for preference. Instead, set them at around 83 to 85 dB. This will yield a -10dB or so subwoofer trim setting after Audyssey. This provides 10 db of headroom before you even get to 0dB on the trim scale, and completely eliminates the possibility of overdriving the sub amp inputs. This method is recommended by Mark Seaton, founder of Seaton Sound, the makers of the legendary Seaton Submersive subwoofers.
> 
> For further clarification, Mark has posted the following:
> 
> "The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but rather the possibility of increasing distortion or clipping on the subwoofer output from the receiver or preamp. The reason this is a concern for the sub channel relates to the amount of content directed there with 7 channels of redirected bass and a +10dB playback .1 LFE channel. I've observed it and measured the distorted signal, and a few others have taken many measurements to look more closely. Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range. Most subwoofers have plenty of gain available, and it's a simple matter of lowing the sub channel on screen and raising it back up at the subwoofer's volume dial."
> 
> The reason for doing it this way is that the higher the sub volume is set, the lower will be the output level of the AVR line driver. That gives more headroom in the AVR line driver and more headroom in the input stage of the sub amp. The downside is that this also lowers the signal to noise ratio, but there tends to be very little noise with a sub anyway. By and large you're best off to have the sub amp volume relatively high and the AVR sub out volume relatively low.


----------



## mthomas47

WestCoastD said:


> this aspect (keeping sub output max below +3dB) is confusing to me? I previously read about this on the Audyssey FAQ.
> 
> My current speaker levels:
> FL: -11.0dB
> FR: -11.0dB
> C: -10.5dB
> Sub: -4.5dB
> SL: -11.0
> SR: -11.0


Hi,

All of your speaker levels, including your sub, look perfectly fine. The sub recommendation is confusing in part because it changed over the years, and although the FAQ was edited, the explanation is not entirely clear.

The idea is to be sure that you are using your sub's amp as effectively as possible, and avoiding distortion in the process. To use your sub's amp, rather than the amp in your AVR, you want to set the gain on your sub high enough to produce a negative number in your sub's trim level. -4.5 is fine. But what if you want to increase your sub trim by several decibels? Most people seem to add at least +3 to +6db after running Audyssey, but some people add as much as +10 to +12db. 

If you are adding trim to your sub, staying in negative numbers helps to prevent distortion. Ed Mullen, of SVS, was quoted in the FAQ, but he has expanded on his answer since then. Although SVS subs are pretty bullet proof as far as having limiters to prevent over-driving, Ed recommends not exceeding 0.0 in sub trim at MV's higher than -10. Of course, a lot depends on how much work a sub is being asked to do in a given room, and the capabilities of the sub, but I have seen reports of some subs distorting before 0.0 at less than -10 MV, even following the rules regarding using the gain in the sub's amp.

The best advice, in my opinion, is to start with a strongly negative number (-11, or so, but obviously not -12 with Denon/Marantz) and then add trim while listening for any signs of distress from your sub. Again, depending on your MV, you could probably add 6db, or so, from your current trim level of -4.5db with no problem. I start at -11 with my Ultra's and add 12db, or occasionally a little more. But I am not using DEQ when I do that, as it would also boost my subs, and I am not exceeding about -14 in MV. It is that combination of MV and sub trim which is important, so it is hard to express an ironclad rule. But you should be able to get the gist of it from my explanation. As a general rule, it is probably better to keep your sub trim in negative numbers, and not to exceed +3 in any case. But even +2 or +3 sub trim at -5 MV or higher, for instance, might be quite risky based on everything I have read. It might or might not damage your sub, depending on the quality of the limiter, but it probably would audibly distort.

I hope this explanation helps. It is a little confusing.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Shucks, Alan, it's cheating just to quote the FAQ.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> But even +2 or +3 sub trim at -5 MV or higher, for instance, might be quite risky based on everything I have read. It might or might not damage your sub, depending on the quality of the limiter, but it probably would audibly distort.


For your long term settings with modern movies, many of which have outrageous bass, staying below 0, or even starting at -11 on a -12 max cut scale, and turning up the sub itself to get your long term preference setting is probably best. In my case, Audyssey set the sub at -7, and I boosted it to 0, which worked fine and I never heard distress. Then along came How the West Was Won. It has had the bass severely shaved off (or they somehow enhanced the bass in the theatrical Cinerama version). I didn't want to change the control on the sub and face not being able to get it reset to the original rotation (it is a crude control), so, for this movie only, I use a pre/pro sub channel trim of +3 dB, Bass control +6, Treble control -5 (tone controls affect only LF & RF), MV something like 8 dB below Reference, depending on the audience, DEQ OFF! No strain, no audible clipping.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> For your long term settings with modern movies, many of which have outrageous bass, staying below 0, or even starting at -11 on a -12 max cut scale, and turning up the sub itself to get your long term preference setting is probably best. In my case, Audyssey set the sub at -7, and I boosted it to 0, which worked fine and I never heard distress. Then along came How the West Was Won. It has had the bass severely shaved off (or they somehow enhanced the bass in the theatrical Cinerama version). I didn't want to change the control on the sub and face not being able to get it reset to the original rotation (it is a crude control), so, for this movie only, I use a pre/pro sub channel trim of +3 dB, Bass control +6, Treble control -5 (tone controls affect only LF & RF), MV something like 8 dB below Reference, depending on the audience. No strain, no audible clipping.



Gary,

I can see how that would have worked very well for that movie. I remember you saying that you don't watch many modern action movies, although I know you like older ones. "How the West Was Won" was an old favorite of mine. But with modern action movies, in my opinion, is where problems would arise from exceeding 0.0 in sub trim with let's say -6 MV, because many of them have so much LFE, in general, and infrasonic (sub 20Hz) content in particular.

The good news is that you probably wouldn't want to boost your sub that much anyway for something like "War of the Worlds" or "Edge of Tomorrow". But that is where the cautions about paying attention to the combination of sub trim and MV come from, IMO. Modern movies, quite deliberately can put an enormous strain on sub amps at high MV's. Of course, the resulting very low and loud bass can also be quite addictive to many listeners.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Gary,

Adding to my previous post, which I know you already understood, I wondered how low you think the music in "How the West Was Won" actually went? We have discussed that movie before. I mentioned seeing it in a Cinerama theater, and when the overture came on, it was so loud and startling that a woman sitting a couple of rows ahead of us literally screamed.  I guess we weren't really accustomed to loud movies then.

I remember thinking at the time that the music went quite low, and although I had (and have) the original record soundtrack, it was never as satisfying as the Cinerama experience. Did the music actually go below about 30 or 35Hz? Was there something special about the presentation in a Cinerama theater (besides early surround speakers) that made it seem so much lower than the later record or DVD releases?

Thanks,
Mike

Edit: I think I just answered my own question. I have an excellent recording of the overture from the City of Prague Philharmonic Orchestra, which I just listened to. Believe it or not, they specialize in film scores, and do an outstanding job with them. They are entirely faithful to the original movie scores. The impressive bass that I remember is all mid-bass in the 50Hz to 100Hz region--mostly kettle drums and brass. But that's where the chest thump, the impact bass is, in that 50 to 100hz range. And the overture has an exciting amount of it.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Gary,
> 
> Adding to my previous post, which I know you already understood, I wondered how low you think the music in "How the West Was Won" actually went? We have discussed that movie before. I mentioned seeing it in a Cinerama theater, and when the overture came on, it was so loud and startling that a woman sitting a couple of rows ahead of us literally screamed.  I guess we weren't really accustomed to loud movies then.
> 
> I remember thinking at the time that the music went quite low, and although I had (and have) the original record soundtrack, it was never as satisfying as the Cinerama experience. Did the music actually go below about 30 or 35Hz? Was there something special about the presentation in a Cinerama theater (besides early surround speakers) that made it seem so much lower than the later record or DVD releases?
> .


The woman who screamed ... LOL.

The frequency response for Cinerama, Todd-AO and other such movie processes are often not correct in film books, etc. The magnetic soundtracks (7 for Cinerama and 6 for Todd-AO) probably resembled the characteristics of professional magnetic tape recorders. The response would be pretty flat from about 30 to 15K, or even 20K, but that's not what we heard in the theater, because the speakers were not that wide range. The speakers were often listed at 40 to 12K, but that was pretty flat. In the best theaters, the plywood "wings" between speakers behind the screen allowed them to go lower, with roll-off, maybe to 35 or 30. Also, the theaters were often set up with "acoustivoicing" room EQ, and I'll bet they cranked up the bass from about 40 to 150, or so. You are right that the timpani were emphasized in HTWWW in the theaters, but not on the Blu-ray. I fixed that. I'd say there was next to nothing below 30.


----------



## Jim1290

I have been trying with DEQ On/Off, with the way Alan, Mike, Gary explained.
In my L-Shaped living room, it's better with DEQ On plus Audyssey Flat, and sub trim +6db (-11.5db after run Audyssey). And I did trim up to +10db with DEQ Off, but couldn't get the same result like when DEQ On, perhaps due to the cheap subs I have. Planing to upgrade subs...

Should not visit AVS too often!!! 


Jim


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Edit: Shucks, Alan, it's cheating just to quote the FAQ.


Hey, I'm not as smart as Mark Seaton. 




Jim1290 said:


> I have been trying with DEQ On/Off, with the way Alan, Mike, Gary explained.
> In my L-Shaped living room, it's better with DEQ On plus Audyssey Flat, and sub trim +6db (-11.5db after run Audyssey). And I did trim up to +10db with DEQ Off, but couldn't get the same result like when DEQ On, perhaps due to the cheap subs I have. Planing to upgrade subs...
> 
> Should not visit AVS too often!!!
> 
> 
> Jim


I certainly hope you mean you _added _+6dB to the sub trim and you are not using an _actual trim setting_ of +6dB. That would be insane!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Hey, I'm not as smart as Mark Seaton.



Not me either.  Even among sub makers, he stands out.


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> I have been trying with DEQ On/Off, with the way Alan, Mike, Gary explained.
> In my L-Shaped living room, it's better with DEQ On plus Audyssey Flat, and sub trim +6db (-11.5db after run Audyssey). And I did trim up to +10db with DEQ Off, but couldn't get the same result like when DEQ On, perhaps due to the cheap subs I have. Planing to upgrade subs...
> 
> Should not visit AVS too often!!!
> 
> Jim



Hi Jim,

It's been pretty well established that AVS is expensive--free to participate, but the costs come later. 

Well, I certainly don't want to discourage you from upgrading subs. That would be opposed to the very spirit of AVS. But it could also be that you simply like DEQ, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. I think most people probably do. Let us know when you upgrade. That's always good vicarious fun. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

Alan P said:


> Hey, I'm not as smart as Mark Seaton.


Or as opinionated.


----------



## Jim1290

Alan P said:


> I certainly hope you mean you _added _+6dB to the sub trim and you are not using an _actual trim setting_ of +6dB. That would be insane!





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> It's been pretty well established that AVS is expensive--free to participate, but the costs come later.
> 
> Well, I certainly don't want to discourage you from upgrading subs. That would be opposed to the very spirit of AVS. But it could also be that you simply like DEQ, and there is nothing wrong with that at all. I think most people probably do. Let us know when you upgrade. That's always good vicarious fun.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I am learning from people like you and Mike and, other knowledgeable ones here at AVS, so it's impossible to be insane! 

After a while and more visits to AVS I started to look the subs from SVS again, and then I found *this* as both are sold by this *company*. I asked here at AVS should anyone experienced with subs from Arendal Sound, and someone pointed me to AVForums, I went over to ask around and learn, as usual. Only for someone over there to advised me to PSA, it has got UK dealer for the rest of Europe.
And so, I joined *PSA thread* to learn and get opinion, and Tom from PSA showed up and gave me a proper basic lesson about subwoofer. He is a gentleman!

However, things got a bit complicated when the UK PSA dealer explained how to purchase PSA subs from UK. So, I am still between these three different brands.
And *someone* here is comparing a pair of SVS PB 13U to a pair of PSA S3600i, I am curious of course.
Another option is my local audio dealer has got a pair of demo JL F113.

All this is too much for my old brain & heart. Should have not made semi-retirement! 

Thank you gentlemen 


Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> I am learning from people like you and Mike and, other knowledgeable ones here at AVS, so it's impossible to be insane!
> 
> After a while and more visits to AVS I started to look the subs from SVS again, and then I found *this* as both are sold by this *company*. I asked here at AVS should anyone experienced with subs from Arendal Sound, and someone pointed me to AVForums, I went over to ask around and learn, as usual. Only for someone over there to advised me to PSA, it has got UK dealer for the rest of Europe.
> And so, I joined *PSA thread* to learn and get opinion, and Tom from PSA showed up and gave me a proper basic lesson about subwoofer. He is a gentleman!
> 
> However, things got a bit complicated when the UK PSA dealer explained how to purchase PSA subs from UK. So, I am still between these three different brands.
> And *someone* here is comparing a pair of SVS PB 13U to a pair of PSA S3600i, I am curious of course.
> Another option is my local audio dealer has got a pair of demo JL F113.
> 
> *All this is too much for my old brain & heart.* Should have not made semi-retirement!
> 
> Thank you gentlemen
> 
> 
> Jim



You and me both.  And you are very welcome!

In terms of sheer performance, a pair of PSA *V*3600i would blow away a pair of ported Ultra's, and I own Ultra's. But when you compare the sealed version (S3600i) I don't know. I would ask Tom's advice and trust whatever he says. He helped to develop the Ultra's, so he is very familiar with the capabilities of both sealed and ported 3600's versus ported Ultra's.

But I would take a pair of PB-13's over the JL F113, unless you were getting a major price difference, as I think that the low end extension on the Ultra's would be much better. I would consider calling Tom to ask his advice in comparing all three. He has a reputation for honesty, and I think he could help with your decision. Discussing your room size and specific audio goals with him would help to clarify things. Again, for pure performance, if the V3600i is on the table, that would be the clear winner, in my opinion.


----------



## mthomas47

Someone posted a response on the SVS thread to a post of mine talking about the bass boost in DEQ. The graph that he posted compared:

Audyssey off: Purple
Audyssey on: Green
Audyssey/DEQ: Yellow

All of the measurements were taken at -20 MV and show a boost that increases substantially below 30Hz. What I see at 30Hz is a boost of about 5db (rather than the nominal 4db, based on 1db of boost per -5 MV). At 20Hz I see about 8db of boost. I thought I would post it here to get some reactions, and to see if anyone else has duplicated those results.


----------



## rickardl

mthomas47 said:


> Someone posted a response on the SVS thread to a post of mine talking about the bass boost in DEQ. The graph that he posted compared:
> 
> Audyssey off: Purple
> Audyssey on: Green
> Audyssey/DEQ: Yellow
> 
> All of the measurements were taken at -20 MV and show a boost that increases substantially below 30Hz. What I see at 30Hz is a boost of about 5db (rather than the nominal 4db, based on 1db of boost per -5 MV). At 20Hz I see about 8db of boost. I thought I would post it here to get some reactions, and to see if anyone else has duplicated those results.


Not really sure what you are wondering about but here is another graph of Dynamic EQ, this time measured from the pre-out which makes it a lot easier to see the differences. The red line is -20 MV. (actually, not sure it is from the pre-out but it is at least normalized that way)


----------



## Alan P

Here's what I got when I measured DynEQ in-room.


----------



## torii

my biggest problem with dyn eq on is that it boosts all the surround channels. this makes it much harder to hear the center channel. which then leads to many more adjustments than just turning something on/off. I suppose its something I can tinker with to get it perfect but Im happy with it off.


----------



## mthomas47

rickardl said:


> Not really sure what you are wondering about but here is another graph of Dynamic EQ, this time measured from the pre-out which makes it a lot easier to see the differences. The red line is -20 MV.



Thanks Rickard! I actually find the other graph a little easier to read, since it it is showing a much smaller part of the frequency range. What I find interesting is that I see about a 3db boost at 60Hz in the graph I posted, then about 4db at 40Hz, 5db at 30Hz, and 8db at 20Hz, compared to DEQ off. Unless this measurement is completely anomalous, or incorrectly performed, or interpreted, then the idea that DEQ is boosting that much more at 20Hz than it is at even 30Hz is disquieting.

We have been talking about how to protect subs from distortion or damage, but an 8db boost at 20Hz requires a substantial amount of amplifier power. And if we are basing our advice to stay in negative sub trim above -10 MV on our assumption that DEQ will boost only about 4db at -20 MV, then we may need to reconsider the advice that we give. That's what I am wondering about.

WE may have been describing the relationship between MV and sub trim without perhaps giving full weight to the effect of DEQ in the equation. Someone on the SVS thread damaged his SB-13 Ultra just the day before yesterday watching "Edge of Tomorrow". Admittedly, the opening scene is a noted sub killer, and his Ultra may have been defective, but there are more movies with substantial infrasonic content all the time. The advice on sub levels has already evolved twice over the last several years--from when it was -5 to +5; to -3 to +3; to a relationship between MV of -10 or higher, to no more than 0.0 in sub trim. But with DEQ thrown in, I'm questioning whether we are absolutely sure that we are being conservative enough. When movies provide significant amounts of infrasonic sound, and DEQ appears to boost 8db at 20Hz, I think it's a question worth considering.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Here's what I got when I measured DynEQ in-room.



I remembered your graph, Alan, and your results looked much more symmetrical. Was yours a pre-out measurement, or a measurement taken at your MLP?


----------



## mogorf

torii said:


> my biggest problem with dyn eq on is that it boosts all the surround channels. this makes it much harder to hear the center channel. which then leads to many more adjustments than just turning something on/off. I suppose its something I can tinker with to get it perfect but Im happy with it off.


Hi torii, I would try to trim down the surrounds to taste, say by 2-3 dBs and leave DEQ on, coz DEQ does much more than just boosting surrounds, like restoring spectral balance of the program material when MV is lower than 0 dB ref. Worth a try!


----------



## rickardl

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks Rickard! I actually find the other graph a little easier to read, since it it is showing a much smaller part of the frequency range. What I find interesting is that I see about a 3db boost at 60Hz in the graph I posted, then about 4db at 40Hz, 5db at 30Hz, and 8db at 20Hz, compared to DEQ off. Unless this measurement is completely anomalous, or incorrectly performed, or interpreted, then the idea that DEQ is boosting that much more at 20Hz than it is at even 30Hz is disquieting.
> 
> We have been talking about how to protect subs from distortion or damage, but an 8db boost at 20Hz requires a substantial amount of amplifier power. And if we are basing our advice to stay in negative sub trim above -10 MV on our assumption that DEQ will boost only about 4db at -20 MV, then we may need to reconsider the advice that we give. That's what I am wondering about.
> 
> WE may have been describing the relationship between MV and sub trim without perhaps giving full weight to the effect of DEQ in the equation. Someone on the SVS thread damaged his SB-13 Ultra just the day before yesterday watching "Edge of Tomorrow". Admittedly, the opening scene is a noted sub killer, and his Ultra may have been defective, but there are more movies with substantial infrasonic content all the time. The advice on sub levels has already evolved twice over the last several years--from when it was -5 to +5; to -3 to +3; to a relationship between MV of -10 or higher, to no more than 0.0 in sub trim. But with DEQ thrown in, I'm questioning whether we are absolutely sure that we are being conservative enough. When movies provide significant amounts of infrasonic sound, and DEQ appears to boost 8db at 20Hz, I think it's a question worth considering.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Please keep in mind that DynEq also takes the level of the input signal into account which could complicate analysis from looking at graphs.

If the sub can't handle reference volume at 20hz or lower... too much boosting at lower frequencies... not so long ago I advocated the use of a HPF to protect the sub from clipping/damage when using Audyssey. I still think that is a good idea.


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> I remembered your graph, Alan, and your results looked much more symmetrical. Was yours a pre-out measurement, or a measurement taken at your MLP?


At the MLP.

Here is my graph resized (0MV vs. -20MV) with the same settings as the one you posted earlier so they could be easily compared.

The boost looks almost exactly the same to my eyes (and what I would expect); 9dB @ 20hz, 8dB at 30hz, 7dB at 40hz, etc. It seems to top out at 9dB of boost @ 20hz because under 20hz it is the same 9dB boost (down to 5hz) on my measurements.


----------



## Jim1290

I cannot read those graphics since I am not good enough to understand.
However, I do notice that it boosts all the surround channels when DEQ On, and somehow I can hear the center channel properly, many mentioned to not hear the center channel clearly.
@Mike, @Alan, I do prefer DEQ Off, the bass is clear, fast and punchy, but I can only do +11db max from -11.5db after run Audyssey, very confusing for me. 

Planning to visit a colleague/friend in Big Apple, take a brake for all these stuff. 


Jim


----------



## Alan P

Jim1290 said:


> but I can only do +11db max from -11.5db after run Audyssey, very confusing for me.


Is this in reference to the master volume or the subwoofer trim setting?


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> At the MLP.
> 
> Here is my graph resized (0MV vs. -20MV) with the same settings as the one you posted earlier so they could be easily compared.
> 
> The boost looks almost exactly the same to my eyes (and what I would expect); 9dB @ 20hz, 8dB at 30hz, 7dB at 40hz, etc. It seems to top out at 9dB of boost @ 20hz because under 20hz it is the same 9dB boost (down to 5hz) on my measurements.



Thanks, Alan, that's very helpful! I agree that they show very similar results, but they then confirm the issue I was pointing out. Irrespective of how much native trim boost you add after running Audyssey, DEQ will put up to another 9db on the lowest frequencies, which is almost 10 times the amp power.  For me, it is another reason to be a little bit wary of DEQ, and to be very conservative in advising people regarding sub trim boosts if they are also employing DEQ.


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> I cannot read those graphics since I am not good enough to understand.
> However, I do notice that it boosts all the surround channels when DEQ On, and somehow I can hear the center channel properly, many mentioned to not hear the center channel clearly.
> @*Mike* , @*Alan* , I do prefer DEQ Off, the bass is clear, fast and punchy, but I can only do +11db max from -11.5db after run Audyssey, very confusing for me.
> 
> Planning to visit a colleague/friend in Big Apple, take a brake for all these stuff.
> 
> Jim


I feel your pain!  Have a good trip, and when you get back we can try to dig into your specific situation in more detail if you like.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Is this in reference to the master volume or the subwoofer trim setting?



Alan,

I don't want to speak for him, but I am pretty sure he is saying that if he follows the advice in the FAQ, he can only add about 11db of trim post-Audyssey, and without DEQ (which he would prefer to leave off) that doesn't seem like quite enough. When he gets back from the city so nice they named it twice, we can try to help him figure it out a little better.


----------



## Jim1290

Alan P said:


> Is this in reference to the master volume or the subwoofer trim setting?


Subwoofer trim setting.
I remember read you saying +9db with DEQ On, and +14 without DEQ. How do I stay below 0db if I also want +14db?
Thank you Alan.


Jim


----------



## Alan P

Jim1290 said:


> Subwoofer trim setting.
> I remember read you saying +9db with DEQ On, and +14 without DEQ. How do I stay below 0db if I also want +14db?
> Thank you Alan.
> 
> 
> Jim


Well, I fudge it a bit and run with a +3dB sub trim.  

Or...you can boost the gain on the subs by, say, 6dB. Then you could add 8dB to your sub trim and end up at +14dB.



All, that being said....I am back to running with DynEQ on (for now). After I added a bunch of bass traps, DynEQ is sounding better to me. Also, I'm "only" running 8dB hot now, but I'm using an RLO of 10dB for blurays. Still experimenting of course...it's a never-ending cycle.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Well, I fudge it a bit and run with a +3dB sub trim.
> 
> Or...you can boost the gain on the subs by, say, 6dB. Then you could add 8dB to your sub trim and end up at +14dB.
> 
> 
> 
> All, that being said....I am back to running with DynEQ on (for now). After I added a bunch of bass traps, DynEQ is sounding better to me. Also, I'm "only" running 8dB hot now, but I'm using an RLO of 10dB for blurays. Still experimenting of course...*it's a never-ending cycle*.



Boy, that's for sure!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... When movies provide significant amounts of infrasonic sound, and DEQ appears to boost 8db at 20Hz, I think it's a question worth considering.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Agreed. I wonder why the *industry* hasn't been more vocal about it? Golly, Telarc had warnings all over the place (1812, Nutcracker, etc.) about their puny cannons! BIS, too.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Agreed. I wonder why the *industry* hasn't been more vocal about it? Golly, Telarc had warnings all over the place (1812, Nutcracker, etc.) about their puny cannons! BIS, too.



I don't know, but I think it's a good question. The ID sub makers seem to be more attuned to the problem than the mass market sub makers. As for why BR producers don't warn people, maybe it's just a case of Caveat emptor. Not that they would feel that way, of course.


----------



## Roudan

Hi

Could I place the boom mic stand between two subs which are firing to each other with space of 2 ft just behind the sofa? Thx


----------



## mthomas47

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> Could I place the boom mic stand between two subs which are firing to each other with space of 2 ft just behind the sofa? Thx



Hi,

A picture might help, but if I am properly visualizing what you are describing, then I see no problem with it. The low frequencies produced by the subwoofers won't be affected at all by having the boom mic stand between the subs, regardless of the direction in which they are firing.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Roudan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> A picture might help, but if I am properly visualizing what you are describing, then I see no problem with it. The low frequencies produced by the subwoofers won't be affected at all by having the boom mic stand between the subs, regardless of the direction in which they are firing.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike for quick reply. Have a nice weekend!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Well, I fudge it a bit and run with a +3dB sub trim.
> 
> Or...you can boost the gain on the subs by, say, 6dB. Then you could add 8dB to your sub trim and end up at +14dB.
> 
> All, that being said....I am back to running with DynEQ on (for now). After I added a bunch of bass traps, DynEQ is sounding better to me. Also, I'm "only" running 8dB hot now, but I'm using an RLO of 10dB for blurays. Still experimenting of course...it's a never-ending cycle.



Alan,

I decided to come back to something you wrote yesterday that I liked. You were explaining how to get to +14 if desired. I don't think that there is any inherent harm in being at +14, relative to Audyssey, if your subs have the inherent capability to do that. But whether they have the inherent capability is the important question. In your system, you have subwoofer capacity to spare, and I think therefore, that you have no particular reason to be concerned. But I don't think that applies to a lot of the people who write asking about appropriate sub levels.

In my own situation, for instance, I had three ported SVS 12 Pluses (two cylinders and one box). At sub trims of +8 or +9db, with DEQ engaged, I could hear the subs distorting at MV's of not more than -14. I still had trim left in the subs before reaching 0.0, since I had started at about -11.5, but the subs' amplifiers were nevertheless running out of headroom for the task I was asking them to perform in a 6000^3 room.

So, I upgraded to three Ultra's in the same configuration of cylinders and box, and in the same locations. At that point I was fine. I stopped using DEQ not long after that, and just boosted my subs to about +14, with some support from my large full-range speakers (all bass managed, of course). Since then, I have backed off to about +12 in sub trim, as I have added some additional bass traps which have amplified my audible bass.

But the important point is that my subs now have plenty of capacity to perform the task I am asking them to perform. Not quite as much excess capacity as you have , but still plenty. That is where I think we will need to be careful, though. If a person with a single mid-size sub in a 2500^3 room, for instance, is asking for advice on trim settings, with DEQ engaged, neither gain setting on the sub, nor MV, may tell the complete tale. The innate capacity of the sub to perform in that particular setting will also be a factor, and absent the ability to upgrade to adequate, or even excess capacity, our advice should probably err on the side of caution. Because, I have seen from other reports, and from my own experience, that it is possible to drive subs to distortion even while strictly following the guidelines established by Mark Seaton and Ed Mullen. Again, I think that DEQ may be a bit of a wildcard in that, but it's probably not the only factor.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Alan,
> 
> I decided to come back to something you wrote yesterday that I liked. You were explaining how to get to +14 if desired. I don't think that there is any inherent harm in being at +14, relative to Audyssey, if your subs have the inherent capability to do that. But whether they have the inherent capability is the important question. In your system, you have subwoofer capacity to spare, and I think therefore, that you have no particular reason to be concerned. But I don't think that applies to a lot of the people who write asking about appropriate sub levels.
> 
> In my own situation, for instance, I had three ported SVS 12 Pluses (two cylinders and one box). At sub trims of +8 or +9db, with DEQ engaged, I could hear the subs distorting at MV's of not more than -14. I still had trim left in the subs before reaching 0.0, since I had started at about -11.5, but the subs' amplifiers were nevertheless running out of headroom for the task I was asking them to perform in a 6000^3 room.
> 
> So, I upgraded to three Ultra's in the same configuration of cylinders and box, and in the same locations. At that point I was fine. I stopped using DEQ not long after that, and just boosted my subs to about +14, with some support from my large full-range speakers (all bass managed, of course). Since then, I have backed off to about +12 in sub trim, as I have added some additional bass traps which have amplified my audible bass.
> 
> But the important point is that my subs now have plenty of capacity to perform the task I am asking them to perform. Not quite as much excess capacity as you have , but still plenty. That is where I think we will need to be careful, though. If a person with a single mid-size sub in a 2500^3 room, for instance, is asking for advice on trim settings, with DEQ engaged, neither gain setting on the sub, nor MV, may tell the complete tale. The innate capacity of the sub to perform in that particular setting will also be a factor, and absent the ability to upgrade to adequate, or even excess capacity, our advice should probably err on the side of caution. Because, I have seen from other reports, and from my own experience, that it is possible to drive subs to distortion even while strictly following the guidelines established by Mark Seaton and Ed Mullen. Again, I think that DEQ may be a bit of a wildcard in that, but it's probably not the only factor.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I completely agree. People need to know the limits of their systems, and thankfully that is pretty easy to find these days with the limiters built in to (most) modern subs. If you've got a DIY sub, sure you could blow it up, but I assume that those DIY folks know what they're doing from the start....I guess a few don't though.  

It's simple really; if you are hitting the limits of your current sub(s) and still not satisfied with the amount of bass you are getting, you need more subs. Plain & simple.

That, or you could just lower your expectations....wait, what??


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Mike,
> 
> I completely agree. People need to know the limits of their systems, and thankfully that is pretty easy to find these days with the limiters built in to (most) modern subs. If you've got a DIY sub, sure you could blow it up, but I assume that those DIY folks know what they're doing from the start....I guess a few don't though.
> 
> It's simple really; if you are hitting the limits of your current sub(s) and still not satisfied with the amount of bass you are getting, you need more subs. Plain & simple.
> 
> *That, or you could just lower your expectations....wait, what??
> *



That's just crazy talk!


----------



## brianmlamb

Is the only way to save an Audyssey calibration to use the online app on a computer? Going to try and experiment with different positions/heights and want to save the calibrations to re-load.


----------



## Alan P

brianmlamb said:


> *Is the only way to save an Audyssey calibration to use the online app on a computer? * Going to try and experiment with different positions/heights and want to save the calibrations to re-load.


Yup...and it's painfully slow!


----------



## AV_mike

brianmlamb said:


> Is the only way to save an Audyssey calibration to use the online app on a computer? Going to try and experiment with different positions/heights and want to save the calibrations to re-load.


As has already been mentioned, it is a bit slow to save the configurations - however, the load times are quite a bit quicker - still approx. 6 minutes though (on a Denon 4520)

Regards, Mike.


----------



## garygarrison

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> Could I place the boom mic stand between two subs which are firing to each other with space of 2 ft just behind the sofa? Thx


By "firing to each other" do you mean facing each other in close proximity? If so, I would at least compare them facing each other to them facing away from each other. Whatever works, works.

As Mike said, the bass wavelengths will totally ignore the presence of the mic stand. When Audyssey is evaluating the subs, the mic stand might be vibrated a little, though.


----------



## rickardl

brianmlamb said:


> Is the only way to save an Audyssey calibration to use the online app on a computer? Going to try and experiment with different positions/heights and want to save the calibrations to re-load.


 It depends. Some Onkyos including mine can do this:
If you want to save your Onkyo TX NR5008 settings (including Audyssey calibration), follow the procedure below:

To STORE:


 Push and hold Setup on the AVR (not the remote)
Then push Enter
Unit displays 'Setup store?"
Still holding Setup, push Enter again
Unit displays "Setup storing'
Unit then displays 'Complete'
All your settings are now stored.

To RECALL:


 Push *and hold* Setup on the AVR
 Then push Return
Unit displays 'Setup recall?'
 Still holding Setup, push Return again
 Unit displays 'Setup recalling'
 Unit then displays 'Complete'
 Unit then powers off into standby mode.
Switch unit back on,
Your settings have been restored.


This will allow you to store your settings, including Audyssey, and to restore them later.
This should work on any Onkyo x007/x008.
from http://tom.webarts.ca/Blog/new-blog-items/savingonkyotx-nr5008settings


----------



## brianmlamb

Quick update for those who may be interested:

The sibilance I was complaining of is definitely an issue with me and partially my room vs Audyssey. I picked up a Pioneer SC-95 yesterday to compare to the Denon and hear the same things I thought were issues with Audyssey. Couldn't resist the open box price and it's helping my evaluation by eliminating the "what if's". Have 22 days to decide still between the two.

Audyssey multi-eq xt32 is an amazing increase in bass quality vs xt. Haven't been able to compare MCACC Pro properly yet, but so far either I've got it setup wrong or the bass is nowhere near as good. MCACC Pro setup was really weird and interesting coming from Audyssey. It seems to have phase, reflection, reverb, and time measurements. That all sounds fancy and seemed like a more thorough setup, but does Audyssey do all these things as well just in the background and without tweak ability? First listen I was a bit dissapointed there didn't appear to be a big difference between the two. I figured with class D amps and a completely different setup/room eq I'd notice an immediate "wow that's different" but the changes are very subtle except the bass which I think I've got setup wrong.

The x4200w gets really really hot, a lot hotter than my old Denon running at -25 volume with 5 speakers driven at 80hz crossover to the subs. I'm a bit worried about it even though I have a ventilated cabinet and gave it 4 inches of room up top. If I keep this one I think I'll have to add some fans.


----------



## garygarrison

brianmlamb said:


> Quick update for those who may be interested:
> The sibilance I was complaining of is definitely an issue with me and partially my room vs Audyssey. I picked up a Pioneer SC-95 yesterday to compare to the Denon and hear the same things I thought were issues with Audyssey. .


Do you have early -- or very early -- reflections? Does this happen with a cross-section of movies? Don't count live TV.


----------



## brianmlamb

garygarrison said:


> Do you have early -- or very early -- reflections? Does this happen with a cross-section of movies? Don't count live TV.




For the side walls I'm actually ok I think, I have to imagine I've got serious reflections off the hardwood directly in front of the speakers. Unfortunately that won't change as the rug would go more toward the MLP under the coffee table (which I cover with a thick mat while listening). As well as the leather couch not doing me any favors. The room is very reverberate, clapping your hands echos which I know is terrible. I'm positive you guys could fix the issue for me if I could get the WAF for treatments, but that's not likely to happen. In a few years we'll probably get a new place and I'll definitely be looking for a dedicated music/theater space where i have more free reign. 

I honestly haven't watched enough movies yet with this setup to say how prevalent it is. Listening to my wife talk I can hear same sounds. I really think I just made myself over sensitive to it, I think I also prefer a rolled off treble which was one of the reasons I liked the Sonus Faber speakers I picked out, they were very non-fatiguing in the high end to listen to vs the metal dome Energys I had before. 

I only really became hyper aware of what I'm calling Sibilance about a month ago, it never really bothered me before then. I was reading about improving dialogue intelligibility which I ultimately fixed by turning off dynamic eq and dynamic volume and much prefer the sound. But I think it also caused me to become more aware of the S sound since the voices were much louder and clearer than before.


----------



## pepar

Comb-filtering, Brian? Can you put some absorption behind LCR? It could be not much larger than the frontal profile of each speaker. Just a thought.

Jeff


----------



## Jbed27

mthomas47 said:


> rickardl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really sure what you are wondering about but here is another graph of Dynamic EQ, this time measured from the pre-out which makes it a lot easier to see the differences. The red line is -20 MV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Rickard! I actually find the other graph a little easier to read, since it it is showing a much smaller part of the frequency range. What I find interesting is that I see about a 3db boost at 60Hz in the graph I posted, then about 4db at 40Hz, 5db at 30Hz, and 8db at 20Hz, compared to DEQ off. Unless this measurement is completely anomalous, or incorrectly performed, or interpreted, then the idea that DEQ is boosting that much more at 20Hz than it is at even 30Hz is disquieting.
> 
> We have been talking about how to protect subs from distortion or damage, but an 8db boost at 20Hz requires a substantial amount of amplifier power. And if we are basing our advice to stay in negative sub trim above -10 MV on our assumption that DEQ will boost only about 4db at -20 MV, then we may need to reconsider the advice that we give. That's what I am wondering about.
> 
> WE may have been describing the relationship between MV and sub trim without perhaps giving full weight to the effect of DEQ in the equation. Someone on the SVS thread damaged his SB-13 Ultra just the day before yesterday watching "Edge of Tomorrow". Admittedly, the opening scene is a noted sub killer, and his Ultra may have been defective, but there are more movies with substantial infrasonic content all the time. The advice on sub levels has already evolved twice over the last several years--from when it was -5 to +5; to -3 to +3; to a relationship between MV of -10 or higher, to no more than 0.0 in sub trim. But with DEQ thrown in, I'm questioning whether we are absolutely sure that we are being conservative enough. When movies provide significant amounts of infrasonic sound, and DEQ appears to boost 8db at 20Hz, I think it's a question worth considering.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...


I've been catching back up on this thread now that I have my theater all set up, and this DEQ conversation piqued my interest. I'm still trying to educate myself on the calculations, but I'm wondering how to ensure that I have enough headroom in my system. I'm running a Denon x4200w which has 125 RMS 2 channels (I can't find any specs all channels driven). A few questions I was wondering if you or others could help educate me on.

1. I'm attaching a pic of my current calcs using Crown Audio calculator.. Please let me know of my assumptions here are correct. I'm assuming that if I listen to movies at -10MV, then I'd be getting 75db and 95db peaks. This tells me I have PLENTY of power as long as I don't start creeping past -10. Did I do this correctly?

2. I'm using DEQ for now until I can get a 2nd sub (I have 4600 cubic feet to fill, and I do find that DEQ sounds better at less than reference in my space/opinion). I have an SVS PC-2000. Should I calibrate the sub at 85db in Audyssey, and then just use the sub gain to get my desired sound? This is where I'm getting a little lost in the numbers... How to determine if I'm running within safe margins using DEQ and not exceeding -10MV.

Thanks in advance,

Joe


----------



## garygarrison

Jbed27 said:


> 1. I'm attaching a pic of my current calcs using Crown Audio calculator.. Please let me know of my assumptions here are correct. I'm assuming that if I listen to movies at -10MV, then I'd be getting 75db and 95db peaks. This tells me I have PLENTY of power as long as I don't start creeping past -10. Did I do this correctly?


If it sounds like the average movie is at the correct loudness, it should be fine. 

But ... the DEQ factor makes me doubt my grip on the situation. I think that at the highest peaks (called "full scale" or _fs)_ at -10 MV, without DEQ, you would get a maximum of 95 dB peaks from each of the regular speakers, and a maximum of 105 dB from the subwoofer, providing Audyssey correctly calibrated your system using all 8 microphone positions. With DEQ at a Main Volume setting of -10, you might get about 3 dB more (?), much of it through the subwoofer.

Orchestras, during loud passages, average 90 to 100 dB, with hard to read peaks at up to 115 dB or more, from fairly close-up seats.

As I remember, the Crown calculator is more conservative than several others. I haven't the foggiest notion why. 

EDIT: The subwoofer range is where DEQ might be dangerous ... does SVS have anything to say about maximum available SPL in a room your size from the distance you will be sitting? When I try to access your attachment of the Crown calculator, it is blacked over. It seems to me that the only way to use the Crown calculator to get maximum subwoofer SPL would require data on not only the rated power of the subwoofer amp, but also the sensitivity/efficiency of the speaker in the subwoofer, as loaded in the cylinder. Does SVS give you that info?


----------



## mthomas47

Jbed27 said:


> 1. I'm attaching a pic of my current calcs using Crown Audio calculator.. Please let me know of my assumptions here are correct. I'm assuming that if I listen to movies at -10MV, then I'd be getting 75db and 95db peaks. This tells me I have PLENTY of power as long as I don't start creeping past -10. Did I do this correctly?
> 
> 2. I'm using DEQ for now until I can get a 2nd sub (I have 4600 cubic feet to fill, and I do find that DEQ sounds better at less than reference in my space/opinion). I have an SVS PC-2000. Should I calibrate the sub at 85db in Audyssey, and then just use the sub gain to get my desired sound? This is where I'm getting a little lost in the numbers... How to determine if I'm running within safe margins using DEQ and not exceeding -10MV.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Joe



Hi Joe,

I am not able to view your thumbnail of the Crown Calculator, but I don't think we need it right at the moment. I think that a better way to approach this would be to start with your sub trim setting post-Audyssey. Since I don't have that number, I will approach this from a hypothetical standpoint.

First, let's assume that by increasing the gain on your sub during calibration, you can get to a trim setting of about -9. An easy shortcut is to calibrate after running just mic position 1, in order to check your trim levels. Once you get to about -9, you can then run all 8 mic positions, and your calibration shouldn't change the trim setting by more than a half decibel, if at all.

Once you are at -9, I believe that you could then increase your trim level by about +6db, to -3 without jeopardy. Using the same assumption Gary did, that DEQ will increase your sub volume by a maximum of 3 to 4db at a MV of -10, you should be fine. Since you do have a single sub in a rather large volume, I would recommend a conservative approach, at least initially. And with a MV of -10, and DEQ factored in, I think that about -3 in sub trim would be sufficiently conservative.

Even so, I would be a little careful during opening scenes, particularly for something like "Edge of Tomorrow" where (according to what I have read) there is a 30Hz tone, followed by a 20Hz tone, followed by a 10Hz tone. I might start that movie at about -12 MV, and then once you are sure that your sub is handling things okay, go up to your preferred setting of -10.

Long-term, I do think you will want to add sub capacity, and there are several different ways to do that. But short-term, as long as you are a little bit conservative, and alert to any signs of distress from your sub, you should be fine. The SVS subs are pretty bullet-proof, unless we get a little crazy.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Mike, what are you doing up so late?


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mike, what are you doing up so late?



Coughing!  Or at least I was. Sitting up for a while helped. But I will be going back to bed soon. Pesky sinus infection!


----------



## garygarrison

brianmlamb said:


> For the side walls I'm actually ok I think, I have to imagine I've got serious reflections off the hardwood directly in front of the speakers. * Unfortunately that won't change as the rug would go more toward the MLP under the coffee table* (which I cover with a thick mat while listening). As well as the leather couch not doing me any favors. The room is very reverberate, clapping your hands echos which I know is terrible. I'm positive you guys could fix the issue for me if I could get the WAF for treatments, but that's not likely to happen. In a few years we'll probably get a new place and I'll definitely be looking for a dedicated music/theater space where i have more free reign.
> 
> I honestly haven't watched enough movies yet with this setup to say how prevalent it is. *Listening to my wife talk I can hear same sounds*. I really think I just made myself over sensitive to it, I think I also prefer a rolled off treble which was one of the reasons I liked the Sonus Faber speakers I picked out, they were very non-fatiguing in the high end to listen to vs the metal dome Energys I had before.
> .


Would a collection of good looking, unobtrusive, area rugs placed both under the coffee table and scattered around in front of the speakers meet the WAF requirements? After all, that's why some people call the smaller ones "scatter rugs." If you do that, be sure they are non-skid, or someone may find your listening room a transporting experience.

How about a tasteful, dark colored table runner all the way across the console the TV sits on? They sometimes have dark elegant ones, that look rather like tapestries, at highly unlikely places, like The Dollar Tree, JoAnn's, Costco, Pier One, or India Imports. But you have to look past all the garish crap to find them. You could put matching fabric on your coffee table, or even over the backs of your leather chairs.

If you hear the same sounds from your wife's speech and the speech of others, you might have the "right" amount of treble, i.e., faithful reproduction of highs, but it is your preference that counts. I'm not saying that this is what is going on with you, but preference can change, though. When I was a kid, people had a single so called "tone control" on their radios, record players, and, sometimes, TVs. It was really what engineers called a "hash control," and it merely cut treble severely. "Flat" was all the way up (no cut)! Many of my parent's and grandparent's generation would turn that control down, because, after exposure to distortion over the first many decades of radio, they had been habituated to treble deficit. When they started going to my school orchestra concerts, when recording media got better, and when they could afford road-show movies, musical theater, and the like, they began to crave high frequencies, but we all continued to turn down distorted recordings.

I predict, after you have run many, many Blu-ray movies, you will find sibilance a rarity, unless it is the same amount you hear when other human beings speak to you "live." 

Treble tolerance varies inversely with the amount of high frequency distortion. Increase the distortion, and treble tolerance goes down. I have some very undistorted recordings that are very "live" and they sound great! As I've said before, I have some (particularly a few CDs) that I hardly ever play, because they are distorted in the highs. I have one movie that I play with a severe treble control cut, I use Audyssey Reference on any recording with HF distortion, and I'm a guy who _*hates*_ treble cut, and usually uses Audyssey Flat, so I can bask in the shimmering overtones.


----------



## kbarnes701

Subbed.


----------



## kbarnes701

Since the old thread is locked it will no longer be possible to update the FAQ or the '101' since editing posts in a locked thread is not possible.


----------



## KK in CT

Keith, welcome back!


----------



## kbarnes701

KK in CT said:


> Keith, welcome back!


That is very kind of you, thanks. I am not really 'back' but I do keep my eye on the Audyssey thread so that I can update or change the FAQ and 101 if new information comes to light etc. Unfortunately, as the old thread is locked I will no longer be able to do this, unless a Mod can copy the posts to this new thread for me or give me access to the old thread to be able to copy the posts across to this one. The links to the FAQ will still work OK and you can verify this by clicking one in my Sig, but a locked thread cannot be edited by members for obvious reasons.

I am extremely busy at the moment with other things, including moving house and building a brand new purpose-designed HT in a separate 33ft x 17ft x 13 ft (LxWxH) building on my land. Once this has been completed I may be able to contribute more proactively again in this and other AVS threads.


----------



## KK in CT

kbarnes701 said:


> That is very kind of you, thanks. I am not really 'back' but I do keep my eye on the Audyssey thread so that I can update or change the FAQ and 101 if new information comes to light etc. Unfortunately, as the old thread is locked I will no longer be able to do this, unless a Mod can copy the posts to this new thread for me or give me access to the old thread to be able to copy the posts across to this one. The links to the FAQ will still work OK and you can verify this by clicking one in my Sig, but a locked thread cannot be edited by members for obvious reasons.
> 
> I am extremely busy at the moment with other things, including moving house and building a brand new purpose-designed HT in a separate 33ft x 17ft x 13 ft (LxWxH) building on my land. Once this has been completed I may be able to contribute more proactively again in this and other AVS threads.


Congrats on the upcoming theater room. I'm sure we will get to read all about it once you have it completed.


----------



## Alan P

kbarnes701 said:


> Subbed.


Welcome back Keith!




kbarnes701 said:


> Since the old thread is locked it will no longer be possible to update the FAQ or the '101' since editing posts in a locked thread is not possible.


Well, that's not good.


----------



## brianmlamb

pepar said:


> Comb-filtering, Brian? Can you put some absorption behind LCR? It could be not much larger than the frontal profile of each speaker. Just a thought.
> 
> Jeff


I think this is the most realistic place I'll be able to put panels, but she's not really open to discussing them at the moment. I'm hoping I can convince her eventually.



garygarrison said:


> Would a collection of good looking, unobtrusive, area rugs placed both under the coffee table and scattered around in front of the speakers meet the WAF requirements? After all, that's why some people call the smaller ones "scatter rugs." If you do that, be sure they are non-skid, or someone may find your listening room a transporting experience.
> 
> How about a tasteful, dark colored table runner all the way across the console the TV sits on? They sometimes have dark elegant ones, that look rather like tapestries, at highly unlikely places, like The Dollar Tree, JoAnn's, Costco, Pier One, or India Imports. But you have to look past all the garish crap to find them. You could put matching fabric on your coffee table, or even over the backs of your leather chairs.
> 
> I predict, after you have run many, many Blu-ray movies, you will find sibilance a rarity, unless it is the same amount you hear when other human beings speak to you "live."
> 
> Treble tolerance varies inversely with the amount of high frequency distortion. Increase the distortion, and treble tolerance goes down. I have some very undistorted recordings that are very "live" and they sound great! As I've said before, I have some (particularly a few CDs) that I hardly ever play, because they are distorted in the highs. I have one movie that I play with a severe treble control cut, I use Audyssey Reference on any recording with HF distortion, and I'm a guy who _*hates*_ treble cut, and usually uses Audyssey Flat, so I can bask in the shimmering overtones.


The rugs are pretty doubtful, we've got that modern minimalist style going on. Best I think I'll do is a smaller cowhide rug closer the the MLP. The runners are a good idea, but not something she's fond of. The cat also has already tried destroying my new coffee table mat multiple times and I don't really want to encourage him to try and scratch the other furniture/speakers. Luckily he leaves those alone but throws and blanket type stuff he's all over them. Thanks for the suggestions though. The wife and I have already discussed my desire for a theater man cave in our next home so I'll go for a no compromise setup then. For now she's been more than supportive of me dropping quite a bit of money on this setup/hobby and taking up the focal points of the living room with the media setup. She could honestly care less if we even owned a TV/stereo, this is 100% for my enjoyment though she does join me to watch/listen when there's time.

I definitely agree with you on the sibilance and treble intolerance. I think I just prefer a more muted treble for TV/movies, which will probably change as I get older. For music I have no complaints the way it's setup now. The Cinema EQ option is actually pretty close to perfect for me cutting the dialogue treble.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> That is very kind of you, thanks. I am not really 'back' but I do keep my eye on the Audyssey thread so that I can update or change the FAQ and 101 if new information comes to light etc. Unfortunately, as the old thread is locked I will no longer be able to do this, unless a Mod can copy the posts to this new thread for me or give me access to the old thread to be able to copy the posts across to this one. The links to the FAQ will still work OK and you can verify this by clicking one in my Sig, but a locked thread cannot be edited by members for obvious reasons.
> 
> I am extremely busy at the moment with other things, including moving house and building a brand new purpose-designed HT in a separate 33ft x 17ft x 13 ft (LxWxH) building on my land. Once this has been completed I may be able to contribute more proactively again in this and other AVS threads.



Hi, Keith, and WOW on the new theater! 33' x 17' x13' is a huge increase compared to the Hobbit theater, or almost any home theaters. Congratulations! I predict numerous speakers, and very large subs in that ~7300^3 space. Seven times the current volume.  Let us know if you do a build thread. I will be very interested in hearing about your speaker and sub choices. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

kbarnes701 said:


> That is very kind of you, thanks. I am not really 'back' but I do keep my eye on the Audyssey thread so that I can update or change the FAQ and 101 if new information comes to light etc. Unfortunately, as the old thread is locked I will no longer be able to do this, unless a Mod can copy the posts to this new thread for me or give me access to the old thread to be able to copy the posts across to this one. The links to the FAQ will still work OK and you can verify this by clicking one in my Sig, but a locked thread cannot be edited by members for obvious reasons.
> 
> I am extremely busy at the moment with other things, including moving house and building a brand new purpose-designed HT in a separate 33ft x 17ft x 13 ft (LxWxH) building on my land. Once this has been completed I may be able to contribute more proactively again in this and other AVS threads.


Keith,

I truly hope you and the mods can work out a way to continue to edit the the FAQ! It is an invaluable resource, and, as I keep telling people, beautifully written. It makes the AVR/pre-pro manuals I've seen look sick.

Your future HT is a great size! I hope you will consider a very wide AT screen in front of at least the center channel, maybe in front of all 3 Fronts. We have a Seymour AT screen, 130" true width (not diagonal), 2.35:1 that we truly love. When the filmmakers select a 'scope-like format, we can see it bigger than a 1.85 or 1.78, just as most (but not quite all) of the filmmakers intended (common height). It works well with all 10 aspect ratios, with only 3 rare ones (Ultra Panavision 70, Camera 65 & Cinerama) very slightly less than common height, but full width. The fabric structure is invisible at our 12 foot distance, and even closer. The HF attenuation is about 2 dB at 16K, but is fully compensated for by Audyssey.

We tried images even larger, and the resolution and acutance were still good, but there was too much jiggle with some hand held camera shots.

Gary


----------



## Jbed27

garygarrison said:


> If it sounds like the average movie is at the correct loudness, it should be fine.
> 
> But ... the DEQ factor makes me doubt my grip on the situation. I think that at the highest peaks (called "full scale" or _fs)_ at -10 MV, without DEQ, you would get a maximum of 95 dB peaks from each of the regular speakers, and a maximum of 105 dB from the subwoofer, providing Audyssey correctly calibrated your system using all 8 microphone positions. With DEQ at a Main Volume setting of -10, you might get about 3 dB more (?), much of it through the subwoofer.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Joe,
> 
> I am not able to view your thumbnail of the Crown Calculator, but I don't think we need it right at the moment. I think that a better way to approach this would be to start with your sub trim setting post-Audyssey. Since I don't have that number, I will approach this from a hypothetical standpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Gary/Mike,


Thanks for your responses! Gary, I will look more into the SVS specs on the sub and see if I can calculate this out based on your feedback. I am not sure why the pic looks clipped, but I am attaching it again. Was I correct that if I watch movies at -10MVL that my system will be running at 75DB with 95DB peaks (except for the sub, which I understand has an extra 10DB)? I just want to make sure at least that part of my reasoning is correct. 


Mike, you gave me some great feedback a couple months ago when I posted a sketch of my very irregular basement space, along with the reasons why I was not able to dedicate a more isolated area for my setup, and made me promise to post pics of the final product. I am very happy with how this came out, and it sounds much better than I anticipated--having to fill almost 5000 cubic feet. Thanks again for the help, and once I get more info on the sub, I will follow up with maybe a couple more questions 


--Joe--


----------



## mthomas47

Jbed27 said:


> Gary/Mike,
> 
> 
> Thanks for your responses! Gary, I will look more into the SVS specs on the sub and see if I can calculate this out based on your feedback. I am not sure why the pic looks clipped, but I am attaching it again. Was I correct that if I watch movies at -10MVL that my system will be running at 75DB with 95DB peaks (except for the sub, which I understand has an extra 10DB)? I just want to make sure at least that part of my reasoning is correct.
> 
> 
> Mike, you gave me some great feedback a couple months ago when I posted a sketch of my very irregular basement space, along with the reasons why I was not able to dedicate a more isolated area for my setup, and made me promise to post pics of the final product. I am very happy with how this came out, and it sounds much better than I anticipated--having to fill almost 5000 cubic feet. Thanks again for the help, and once I get more info on the sub, I will follow up with maybe a couple more questions
> 
> --Joe--


Hi Joe,

I'm glad that things turned out so well. Thanks for posting pictures. Your room looks great! The Crown thumbnail does show now, and I think that your assumptions are correct. It gets a little complicated in that having additional speakers gives you a little additive SPL at the MLP, and then there is the influence of DEQ, which boosts everything and not just the subs. That wouldn't be covered in the calculator. But it appears to me that you have implemented the calculator properly, and that you do have adequate power available for your speakers. As you know, the subwoofer has its own amplifier and is consequently treated a little differently. For that, observing the procedure I mentioned in my previous post will help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## finitol

Hi all! Recently i put a few news basstraps on my small room to try tame bass.

Well, they woks well, i get much cleared bass lines, notes appears by magic... although my own room mode still intact.
But middles and some treble becomes unbalaced. So my question is may i rerun audyssey every time i add a new basstrap?

By the way, trapbass are DiY..... pieces of rockwool rooled very tigh an wrapped by soft canvas.....they work as a charm!


----------



## pepar

finitol said:


> Hi all! Recently i put a few news basstraps on my small room to try tame bass.
> 
> Well, they woks well, i get much cleared bass lines, notes appears by magic... although my own room mode still intact.
> But middles and some treble becomes unbalaced. So my question is may i rerun audyssey every time i add a new basstrap?


SI. And definitely add more traps!

BTW, what traps are you deploying?


----------



## finitol

pepar said:


> Sure. And definitely add more traps!
> 
> BTW, what traps are you deploying?


Pieces of 120cm x 60cm x 4cm of 'geopannel' a commercial brand of rockwool very common on spanish depots. Rolled as a cigar very very tigh and placed on corners.... cheap and effective (maybe not very aesthetic so....)

Is interesting to note how change all dynamics in all spectrum, not only on bass frecuences...

Ok, i'll rerun audyssey to recover balance.

Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

finitol said:


> Hi all! Recently i put a few news basstraps on my small room to try tame bass.
> 
> Well, they woks well, i get much cleared bass lines, notes appears by magic... although my own room mode still intact.
> But middles and some treble becomes unbalaced. So my question is may i rerun audyssey every time i add a new basstrap?
> 
> By the way, trapbass are DiY..... pieces of rockwool rooled very tigh an wrapped by soft canvas.....they work as a charm!


Yes, you have to re-run Audyssey whenever you add any treatments because the characteristics of the room and how it interacts with your speakers has changed.


----------



## pepar

finitol said:


> Pieces of 120cm x 60cm x 4cm of 'geopannel' a commercial brand of rockwool very common on spanish depots. Rolled as a cigar very very tigh and placed on corners.... cheap and effective (maybe not very aesthetic so....)
> 
> Is interesting to note how change all dynamics in all spectrum, not only on bass frecuences...
> 
> Ok, i'll rerun audyssey to recover balance.
> 
> Thanks!


Cigars may not be the best shape for them. Check this site. http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=8


----------



## mthomas47

finitol said:


> Pieces of 120cm x 60cm x 4cm of 'geopannel' a commercial brand of rockwool very common on spanish depots. Rolled as a cigar very very tigh and placed on corners.... cheap and effective (maybe not very aesthetic so....)
> 
> *Is interesting to note how change all dynamics in all spectrum, not only on bass frecuences...*
> 
> Ok, i'll rerun audyssey to recover balance.
> 
> Thanks!



That was one of the first things I noticed when I started to add bass traps--how much other frequencies also began to clarify. I guess there are two explanations for that. First, reducing the effects of cancellation and destructive interference at bass frequencies uncovers other frequencies as well. Second, the broadband nature of the traps inherently attenuates distortion for mid and high frequencies too.


----------



## finitol

mthomas47 said:


> That was one of the first things I noticed when I started to add bass traps--how much other frequencies also began to clarify. I guess there are two explanations for that. First, reducing the effects of cancellation and destructive interference at bass frequencies uncovers other frequencies as well. Second, the broadband nature of the traps inherently attenuates distortion for mid and high frequencies too.


Sure! I'm completely agree.

Someone in this fantastic forum says a few days ago that acoustics (or better called 'self-acoustic') is an art and a long term hobbie that offers very satisfaction when you see your set (room + hardware) grow and polishing at every action you made.....


----------



## finitol

Alan P said:


> Yes, you have to re-run Audyssey whenever you add any treatments because the characteristics of the room and how it interacts with your speakers has changed.


By the way, Alan...you converted me on a 'non DEQ' religion....

Absolutely devoted to '+ 3 or 4 bass and 0 or +1 treble' new religion  ..no more boomy sounds and blowed surround (less is more)


----------



## garygarrison

Jbed27 said:


> Gary/Mike,
> *
> Was I correct that if I watch movies at -10MVL that my system will be running at 75DB with 95DB peaks (except for the sub, which I understand has an extra 10DB)*?
> 
> --Joe--[/QUOTE
> 
> *Yes and No*, IMO. Yes the Audyssey "pings" are meant to be at 75 dB. Audyssey decided on that SPL because the professional industry standard of 85 dB was loud enough (on the "pings") to be annoying to some Home Theater owners. Both Audyssey and the pros intend the maximum peak to be 105 dB (30 dB above Audyssey pings and 20 dB above professional band limited pink noise), through the main speakers, *if *you decide to play back a given movie at reference level. If you playback at -10 dB MV, the peaks through main speakers would become 95 dB, rather than 105 dB. So far, so good. Both 75 dB and 85 dB are sometimes referred to as "average" level, but neither one of them is "average," IMO. Certainly not an arithmetric average (mean). A better way to characterize 85 dB might be "medium level" in it's very subjective sense. That's what Don Keele did back when he worked for Klipsch. This should not be taken as "average" level and it is not "median" level, either, except by coincidence.
> 
> There is more ambiguity. When Crown asks for: "Desired Level," I can't imagine they are asking for "Medium Level" (or so called "average level"). I'd think they are asking for the loudest level you are likely to produce when running movies or music, so that level won't clip and won't be distorted (_fs_). For you, that would be 95 dB through the main speakers, and 105 dB through t he sub, since you will play back at MV -10. The sub watts needed calculation will have to wait until there is more info on your sub, but I pretty sure that SVS would have built in the appropriate amp for the loaded subs driver's sensitivity -- they know what they're doing, and they know that someday you may play back at a higher SPL than you are now. But, IMO, the figure you should put into the Crown calculator should be 95 dB (IMO). You might get away with a lower figure for the main speakers, since the loudest peaks last milleseconds (it's the subs that get the most extreme workout for as much as 1 or 2 seconds at a time, so figure 105 for them at your volume). As I said before, the Crown calculator is very, very conservative compared to other calculators, but after all Crown is famous for selling very high powered amplifiers!


----------



## Jbed27

garygarrison said:


> Jbed27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gary/Mike,
> *
> Was I correct that if I watch movies at -10MVL that my system will be running at 75DB with 95DB peaks (except for the sub, which I understand has an extra 10DB)*?
> 
> --Joe--[/QUOTE
> 
> *Yes and No*, IMO. Yes the Audyssey "pings" are meant to be at 75 dB. Audyssey decided on that SPL because the professional industry standard of 85 dB was loud enough (on the "pings") to be annoying to some Home Theater owners. Both Audyssey and the pros intend the maximum peak to be 105 dB (30 dB above Audyssey pings and 20 dB above professional band limited pink noise), through the main speakers, *if *you decide to play back a given movie at reference level. If you playback at -10 dB MV, the peaks through main speakers would become 95 dB, rather than 105 dB. So far, so good. Both 75 dB and 85 dB are sometimes referred to as "average" level, but neither one of them is "average," IMO. Certainly not an arithmetric average (mean). A better way to characterize 85 dB might be "medium level" in it's very subjective sense. That's what Don Keele did back when he worked for Klipsch. This should not be taken as "average" level and it is not "median" level, either, except by coincidence.
> 
> There is more ambiguity. When Crown asks for: "Desired Level," I can't imagine they are asking for "Medium Level" (or so called "average level"). I'd think they are asking for the loudest level you are likely to produce when running movies or music, so that level won't clip and won't be distorted (_fs_). For you, that would be 95 dB through the main speakers, and 105 dB through t he sub, since you will play back at MV -10. The sub watts needed calculation will have to wait until there is more info on your sub, but I pretty sure that SVS would have built in the appropriate amp for the loaded subs driver's sensitivity -- they know what they're doing, and they know that someday you may play back at a higher SPL than you are now. But, IMO, the figure you should put into the Crown calculator should be 95 dB (IMO). You might get away with a lower figure for the main speakers, since the loudest peaks last milleseconds (it's the subs that get the most extreme workout for as much as 1 or 2 seconds at a time, so figure 105 for them at your volume). As I said before, the Crown calculator is very, very conservative compared to other calculators, but after all Crown is famous for selling very high powered amplifiers!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Gary! Thanks for taking the time to explain all of this. I've learned so much from people on the forums like you and Mike.
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


----------



## finitol

pepar said:


> Cigars may not be the best shape for them. Check this site. http://forum.studiotips.com/viewforum.php?f=8


You're right, pepar....but is very practic to move them if you've mixed room : living and listen place (and, in added, is a little apartament...).... Hofa Acoustics has a model on this way....






obviously mine is no so refined...but works!

Interesting forum link...i'll take a sigh more carefully....thanks!


----------



## Alan P

finitol said:


> By the way, Alan...you converted me on a 'non DEQ' religion....
> 
> Absolutely devoted to '+ 3 or 4 bass and 0 or +1 treble' new religion  ..no more boomy sounds and blowed surround (less is more)


Well then, I'm sorry to tell you that I've fallen from grace...I'm currently back on the DEQ bandwagon.  

I'm still tweaking things since I got my new bass traps up, so who know what will happen in the future! I'm planning a big weekend of measuring/tweaking in 2 weeks when my wife leaves for the whole weekend.


----------



## finitol

Alan P said:


> Well then, I'm sorry to tell you that I've fallen from grace...I'm currently back on the DEQ bandwagon.


Ohhhh! Return to dark side, eh? hahaha

I can't. Boomy bass that don't let me relax and enjoy music (even at -15 db) and IMO odd mix with surround expelling souns 'full throttle'.... and, again, a little room to listening. (3.10m x 4.20m x 2.80m aprox.)


----------



## garygarrison

Joe,

I just read the whole Crown site. Now I get it. They when they ask for "Amplifier Headroom," they mean "Needed Amplifier Headroom" for your kind of music, *not* "Amount of Headroom your Amplifier Actually Has." Then they will tell you what size amp you need for the amount of headroom your kind of music needs." So you are right in putting in 20 dB, and that 20 dB headroom will allow you to use a medium volume of 75 dB, with peaks at 95 dB. So sorry. The crown calculator works very differently the one I usually use. I jumped the gun. But it is pretty conservative, after all. 

EDIT: Here is the calculator I use: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html

Pay no attention to his comments about the number of dBs dialog is below music/effects peaks. I suspect he "dry-labed" that section.

I don't know how powerful an amp you have, but the above calculator, if I put in 100 watts, with 2 main speakers (which transmit most of the music) within 4 feet of a wall, it says you could get 106 dB peak, just above Audyssey and THX's expectations by 1 dB, and would be fine with 86 dB medium volume. That's a figure much closer to "real," which might be 85 dB "medium," 90 to 100 "loud" and up to 115 dB peak, if sitting close to an orchestra. THX suggested that, in a room in a home, due to earlier reflections, a home reference of about 5 or so dB below "real" reference (105 dB peaks from mains) would subjectively sound like "real" reference in a large control room or a theater. Somewhere on their website Crown guessed at 100 dB for orchestral music. I'm sure they mean when it is loud, but not counting the leading edges of peaks milleseconds long. Below is how Keele and Klipsch characterized "average" levels (yes, they did it too!) for orchestral music, with peaks 10 dB higher (Klipsch recorded -- and measured -- symphony orchestras as a hobby).

MEDIUM: 85 dB

LOUD: 90 dB, 95 dB, 100 dB

VERY LOUD: 105 dB,110 db

TOO DAMN LOUD: 115 dB

... but Klipsch did say that very brief peaks of 115 dB do occur in orchestral music -- they are too brief to measure with analog SPL meters, because of needle ballistics.

None of this should be confused with the often quoted OSHA figures, because each of them has a time period attached -- without duration specified, SPL in this range is meaningless. OSHA noise is pretty constant (they have specs). Music and movie special effects have a rise and fall. Rock, Metal, and the like are more dangerous than orchestral music, because of prolonged high SPL.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> That was one of the first things I noticed when I started to add bass traps--how much other frequencies also began to clarify. I guess there are two explanations for that. First, reducing the effects of cancellation and destructive interference at bass frequencies uncovers other frequencies as well. Second, the broadband nature of the traps inherently attenuates distortion for mid and high frequencies too.


Expanding/restating your first, masking. Bass overhang psychoacoustically masks other frequencies. Terminate it earlier and other sounds emerge. As finitol observed, como magia.

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Well then, I'm sorry to tell you that I've fallen from grace...I'm currently back on the DEQ bandwagon.
> 
> I'm still tweaking things since I got my new bass traps up, so who know what will happen in the future! I'm planning a big weekend of measuring/tweaking in 2 weeks when my wife leaves for the whole weekend.



Tweaking is half the fun! I can't quite go back to DEQ, but every time I add some room treatments, or make some other significant change to my room, I have to get used to a new sound--better but new and different.

And then there is the *routine* calibration.  I did one yesterday, and screwed it up. I can hear it. As many as I have done, I can still do that. Such small details can make a difference, particularly if you haven't done one in a while. I will be repeating mine tomorrow, with extra care.


----------



## garygarrison

Joe, and others: I wrote an addendum to post number 415.


----------



## Jbed27

garygarrison said:


> Joe,
> 
> I just read the whole Crown site. Now I get it. They when they ask for "Amplifier Headroom," they mean "Needed Amplifier Headroom" for your kind of music, *not* "Amount of Headroom your Amplifier Actually Has." Then they will tell you what size amp you need for the amount of headroom your kind of music needs." So you are right in putting in 20 dB, and that 20 dB headroom will allow you to use a medium volume of 75 dB, with peaks at 95 dB. So sorry. The crown calculator works very differently the one I usually use. I jumped the gun. But it is pretty conservative, after all.
> 
> EDIT: Here is the calculator I use: http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html



Thanks for the link Gary, I'll explore that tonight  . And yes, as you describe here, that was my original intent... To see if my Denon had enough headroom to handle peaks with me watching movies at a -10MV level and make sure I was doing that correctly. Since the watts needed are logarithmic, going 10db more to reference (which I won't do because even in my large space, it's LOUD) puts my AVR needed watts in the 300+ range, so I wanted to be sure that when I'm watching at -10, that I made the correct assumptions and can feel safe with my current receiver choice. I'm going to email SVS and get those specs on my sub to make sure I'm good there. Ultimately, I am going to get another sub once the WAF resets...  and then I'll hopefully be solid with my setup. Thanks again for all the feedback. 

Joe


----------



## Jbed27

garygarrison said:


> Joe, and others: I wrote an addendum to post number 416.



I just now saw your addendum after I replied, thanks!!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> And then there is the *routine* calibration.  I did one yesterday, and screwed it up. I can hear it. As many as I have done, I can still do that. Such small details can make a difference, particularly if you haven't done one in a while. I will be repeating mine tomorrow, with extra care.


I like the last one we did (~~2 yrs ago?), we don't move things in the room, so I'm going to keep it, unless we change something. All the tone control, sub level and A. Ref. v. A. Flat tweeking I do is program material specific, and the settings distribute themselves fairly evenly around my normal: A.Flat., No DEQ, Bass +3 dB, and MV 5 dB below reference.


----------



## garygarrison

That a few of us initially misinterpreted the Crown calculator may indicate how ambiguous the instructions are -- unless we read their whole webpage! It's like one of those humorous sets of instructions in which item number 1 reads "Read everything before doing anything," and item 30 or so says "Ignore all of these instructions (except number 1) and simply sign your name." I still think Crown could have labeled the actual windows on their calculator more carefully, though.

I learned something else, as well. When I deleted a misleading post I wrote, the posts re-numbered themselves from that position on. And, of course, I couldn't make a correction in someone's later quote of part of my original post .... so let it be known that the post I wrote an addendum to was number 415 (at least that is the ID number for it right now), *not* number 416, a number now (for the time being) assigned to a post by pepar.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> That a few of us initially misinterpreted the Crown calculator may indicate how ambiguous the instructions are -- unless we read their whole webpage! It's like one of those humorous sets of instructions in which item number 1 reads "Read everything before doing anything," and item 30 or so says "Ignore all of these instructions (except number 1) and simply sign your name." I still think Crown could have labeled the actual windows on their calculator more carefully, though.
> 
> I learned something else, as well. When I deleted a misleading post I wrote, the posts re-numbered themselves from that position on. And, of course, I couldn't make a correction in someone's later quote of part of my original post .... so let it be known that the post I wrote an addendum to was number 415 (at least that is the ID number for it right now), *not* number 416, *a number now (for the time being) assigned to a post by pepar. *



I think it's important to have stability in these threads. And I think that Pepar has more than earned certain prerogatives on this particular thread. I propose that there be no more deleted posts, prior to that one, so that Pepar can retain the coveted Post 416 for all time.


----------



## garygarrison

brianmlamb said:


> I definitely agree with you on the sibilance and treble intolerance. I think I just prefer a more muted treble for TV/movies, which will probably change as I get older. For music I have no complaints the way it's setup now. The Cinema EQ option is actually pretty close to perfect for me cutting the dialogue treble.


As I said before, with my room, treatments, equipment and Audyssey Flat, I very rarely hear objectionable sibilance in movies. BUT .... we ran Steve Jobs last night, and Fassbender's articulation was sibilant from time to time. Not bad, but there. Maybe it happened because he had to talk so fast. I didn't want to switch over to Audyssey Reference because on my pre/pro that knocks out the sound for a second. I didn't want to interrupt the fabulous rhythm of Aaron Sorkin's dialog and the music that sometimes accompanied it. Had I gone to Audyssey Reference the "midrange compensation" dip at about 2K or the high frequency roll-off starting at about 8 or 9K might have done the trick. Nobody else noticed the sibilance.


----------



## zebidou81

Hi all after a house renovation i am trying to decide if i should use Audyssey xt32 in Reference or flat mode ? i used to run in fkat but the new room is around 40sqm but the rear speakers are quite close to seating position, front L/R and centre are 2.8-3.3m away, would this setup be better in reference or flat ? posted some pics also


----------



## mthomas47

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all after a house renovation i am trying to decide if i should use Audyssey xt32 in Reference or flat mode ? i used to run in fkat but the new room is around 40sqm but the rear speakers are quite close to seating position, front L/R and centre are 2.8-3.3m away, would this setup be better in reference or flat ? posted some pics also



Hi,

I don't think that there is a rule which governs whether we will prefer Flat or Reference in a particular setting. (Although DEQ could be more of a problem with surrounds and rear surrounds in close proximity to the MLP, due to the surround boost.) With that said, I would expect Flat to sound better where excess high frequency energy is not a problem. And with all the hard surfaces in your room, Reference might help to tame the high frequencies a bit.

It's an attractive room, but I have several suggestions I would like to make if you don't mind. First, if you can get an area rug on the wood floor in front of your MLP, it will help. That polished wood is very appealing, but it is a very reflective surface for mid and high frequency sound. A rug, with a foam pad under it, could help a lot.

Second, you will get much better sound quality, and also much better imaging, if you put your center channel on a stand. It's proximity to the floor, even though angled up, almost insures some comb filtering. Ideally, the tweeter in your CC would be close to the same height as that of your front speakers.

Third, I believe that if you pull your front speakers forward a bit, you will probably improve their sound, as well. This last suggestion is more speculative than the other two. But I believe it will help.

As for Reference versus Flat, you should just try both to find out which you prefer. But implementing the changes suggested above, and of course re-running Audyssey afterwards, should help in any case.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zebidou81

mthomas47 said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all after a house renovation i am trying to decide if i should use Audyssey xt32 in Reference or flat mode ? i used to run in fkat but the new room is around 40sqm but the rear speakers are quite close to seating position, front L/R and centre are 2.8-3.3m away, would this setup be better in reference or flat ? posted some pics also
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I don't think that there is a rule which governs whether we will prefer Flat or Reference in a particular setting. (Although DEQ could be more of a problem with surrounds and rear surrounds in close proximity to the MLP, due to the surround boost.) With that said, I would expect Flat to sound better where excess high frequency energy is not a problem. And with all the hard surfaces in your room, Reference might help to tame the high frequencies a bit.
> 
> It's an attractive room, but I have several suggestions I would like to make if you don't mind. First, if you can get an area rug on the wood floor in front of your MLP, it will help. That polished wood is very appealing, but it is a very reflective surface for mid and high frequency sound. A rug, with a foam pad under it, could help a lot.
> 
> Second, you will get much better sound quality, and also much better imaging, if you put your center channel on a stand. It's proximity to the floor, even though angled up, almost insures some comb filtering. Ideally, the tweeter in your CC would be close to the same height as that of your front speakers.
> 
> Third, I believe that if you pull your front speakers forward a bit, you will probably improve their sound, as well. This last suggestion is more speculative than the other two. But I believe it will help.
> 
> As for Reference versus Flat, you should just try both to find out which you prefer. But implementing the changes suggested above, and of course re-running Audyssey afterwards, should help in any case.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike,

The advice you have given above sounds good to me, I have been trying to find a fire that will allow the centre speaker to sit on the mantle above but also i have a projector screen above the centre that drops so do not want to raise that to high but i agree that would help. 
I was trying to convince the misses for us 2 get a rug and will work a little harder on that ! 
Also front speakers forward i will try that and see how it sounds thanks, oh and i think i will keep with Reference i was just unsure as when playing with the settings on marantz av it says Flat for when speakers are close to listener but it does not clearly define (close)


----------



## KennyLSU

Question for dual sub setups that are not identical. I don't want to EQ both subs together as one is better than the other and they are not 100% equal distances from each other or the MLP. Is it ok to EQ the better sub, which is in the best location thanks to the sub crawl, and then connect the second sub afterward and try to match the levels? 

I'm no audiophile so I will probably not be too picky about the sound as long as it doesn't sound terrible. My Center is not timbre matched to the L/R speakers and I don't hear a difference.


----------



## mthomas47

KennyLSU said:


> Question for dual sub setups that are not identical. I don't want to EQ both subs together as one is better than the other and they are not 100% equal distances from each other or the MLP. Is it ok to EQ the better sub, which is in the best location thanks to the sub crawl, and then connect the second sub afterward and try to match the levels?
> 
> I'm no audiophile so I will probably not be too picky about the sound as long as it doesn't sound terrible. My Center is not timbre matched to the L/R speakers and I don't hear a difference.



Hi Kenny,

The first problem is that if you add another channel after running your calibration, it will automatically disable Audyssey. If you are planning to Y-connect your two subs into the same input, you should be able to get around that, though. I have no idea how well the idea will work, but I don't see any harm in trying it. If possible, I would position the lesser sub nearfield to give it as much advantage as possible.

I'm not really sure that I see an advantage to doing this, although that shouldn't keep you from experimenting if you feel like it.  If the second sub is not EQed, it's hard to see how it is going to help with your overall frequency response when paired with a sub that is. The biggest problem that you may have is in wanting to push your better sub, in terms of trim level, MV level, and with DEQ. And the less capable sub may not (probably will not) be able to keep up without distorting or even being damaged. So, I would ease into this cautiously, and listen for any signs of distress/distortion from the lesser sub. If it doesn't work out, you may be better off with just the one good sub until you can get a mate for it.

A lot of people seem not to have a problem with mismatching CC's from a timbre matching standpoint, but subs are more complicated. Now, it's more about how low and loud they can go without distortion or damage, than it is about timbre matching. Good luck with the experiment.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

zebidou81 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> The advice you have given above sounds good to me, I have been trying to find a fire that will allow the centre speaker to sit on the mantle above but also i have a projector screen above the centre that drops so do not want to raise that to high but i agree that would help.
> I was trying to convince the misses for us 2 get a rug and will work a little harder on that !
> Also front speakers forward i will try that and see how it sounds thanks, oh and i think i will keep with Reference i was just unsure as when playing with the settings on marantz av it says Flat for when speakers are close to listener but it does not clearly define (close)



I had forgotten that part of the Marantz manual, but I'm not sure that I see a correlation between distance to MLP and Flat. It's possible that they are thinking that the further away from your speakers you are, the more the room influences the sound (through reflections), and therefore the more most people will prefer Reference. But I really think it depends on the room/speaker/individual preference. 

In this instance, I think that Reference might be a good choice, but it certainly won't hurt to switch back and forth. You might find that one sounds better for some things than the other, but not best for everything.

I had a feeling that your drop-down screen was an issue, but even getting the CC up a couple of feet, and still angled up slightly, should help a lot.


----------



## Alan P

KennyLSU said:


> Question for dual sub setups that are not identical. I don't want to EQ both subs together as one is better than the other and they are not 100% equal distances from each other or the MLP. Is it ok to EQ the better sub, which is in the best location thanks to the sub crawl, and then connect the second sub afterward and try to match the levels?
> 
> I'm no audiophile so I will probably not be too picky about the sound as long as it doesn't sound terrible. My Center is not timbre matched to the L/R speakers and I don't hear a difference.


What are the two subs? Are they fairly equal in ability?


----------



## KennyLSU

Alan P said:


> What are the two subs? Are they fairly equal in ability?


Good sub - Klipsch Sub-12
12-inch down-firing woofer
650 watts of dynamic power (300 watts RMS)
Frequency Response: 24Hz-120Hz +/- 3dB; Auto-on/off

HTIB Sub - Onkyo HT-R758
10" down firing, front ported
80W continuous
27Hz-150Hz


----------



## KennyLSU

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Kenny,
> 
> The first problem is that if you add another channel after running your calibration, it will automatically disable Audyssey.
> Regards,
> Mike


Did not know that first part. Is this true even if internally it is just a Y connector? Thanks for the input. Did not consider the power aspect.


----------



## mthomas47

KennyLSU said:


> Did not know that first part. Is this true even if internally it is just a Y connector? Thanks for the input. Did not consider the power aspect.



You are welcome! No, the use of the Y-connector should work. I mentioned the first part in case you had XT-32. The power aspect is pretty much the key where subs are concerned.

The nominal (manufacturer's specs) frequency response of the two subs you listed is similar. But I am very skeptical that the 10" driver, with 80 watts of power, will get anywhere near 27Hz. It's probably more like 35Hz. Part of the reason that you EQ your sub is to make it sound better from a frequency response standpoint. But, hopefully, in following the directions properly, we are also helping to insure that we don't over-drive our subs into distorting or becoming damaged. When you pair strongly mis-matched subs, particularly a good one with a seriously under-performing one, that assurance that you won't have distortion or damage is much weaker.

This is still something you can try, but honestly I think you would probably be better off with just your 12" sub.


----------



## Selden Ball

KennyLSU said:


> Question for dual sub setups that are not identical. I don't want to EQ both subs together as one is better than the other and they are not 100% equal distances from each other or the MLP. Is it ok to EQ the better sub, which is in the best location thanks to the sub crawl, and then connect the second sub afterward and try to match the levels?


 Usually the second sub should be placed at a location in the room where it can fill in nulls and other low points in the frequency response of the first sub. If you don't EQ them both, then both will get the frequencies that the calibration generated for the first sub. Peaks that don't exist for the second one will be reduced further, and valleys that the second one doesn't have will be amplified. This will result in their combined bass frequency response being seriously degraded.

I agree with the suggestion of placing the weaker sub as close to the main listening position as possible, then calibrating them both together. "Near field" sub frequencies are much less distorted by room resonances than are frequencies which are output by distant subs. 



> I'm no audiophile so I will probably not be too picky about the sound as long as it doesn't sound terrible. My Center is not timbre matched to the L/R speakers and I don't hear a difference.


 That's because the roomEQ managed to remove most of the differences. It tries to flatten the frequency response of each speaker, making them all sound a lot more similar to one another than they'd sound if no EQ were applied.


----------



## garygarrison

zebidou81 said:


> Hi all after a house renovation i am trying to decide if i should use Audyssey xt32 in Reference or flat mode ? i used to run in fkat but the new room is around 40sqm but the rear speakers are quite close to seating position, front L/R and centre are 2.8-3.3m away, would this setup be better in reference or flat ? posted some pics also


Try switching back and forth. Some AVRs/pre-pros won't allow an instant comparison but impose a 1/2 second silence between modes. The official line is that Audyssey Reference is best for "average" Home Theater sized rooms, whatever that means. For heavily treated rooms, Audyssey says that Audyssey Flat might be better. I'm a big advocate of "Preference" as opposed to "Reference," once Audyssey irons out the kinks in room response. When comparing, use a fair number of program sources. Don't be afraid to try the tone controls (not the virtual sliders, which usually won't work with Audyssey on). Try DEQ, and drive yourself crazy with RLO. Several of us don't like DEQ, but there are many who do. I'm don't like it, but I usually play at about 5 dB below Reference, which theoretically allows 100 dB very brief -- less than 200 milleseconds long -- peaks through the main channels and 110 dB brief -- or not so brief -- peaks through the subwoofer). Your experimentation should take a few months (or, honestly, for some of us, years) and don't be surprised if you change your preference once in a while!

In my 4,260 cu.ft room, at about 16 feet from the FL & FR speakers, and about 8 1/2 feet from the side surrounds, I usually use Audyssey Flat for newer movies, Audyssey Reference for older movies (to cut out a bit of the high frequency distortion on old soundtracks), and, on CDs, sometimes one and sometimes another. So far SACDs are good with Audyssey Flat. Vinyl, or recordings on other media that were mastered for vinyl, may require additional bass boost, since the engineers often shaved off the bass to allow the recording to fit on the record. 

What is the Length, Width, and Height of your room? Your room looks fairly live. Maybe some area rugs could be put where the tweeter sound bounces off the floor? Of, course, you would have to run Audyssey again using all mic positions. What is the striped material that comes down behind the equipment and your retractable movie screen? Does it have absorbing material behind it? Or is it just wallpaper?

How far is your MLP from the roll-down screen? I assume it is not a Acoustically Transparent screen, or you would have raised the center channel. For future reference, our Acoustically Transparent roll-down screen by Seymour has a texture that doesn't show from our seats about 12 feet away, and doesn't show even closer, when we walk closer to focus. The very high frequencies are down about 2 dB at 16K Hz, BUT running Audyssey with the screen rolled down totally compensates for that. This, despite our dealer's warning that Acoustically Transparent is like Clean Coal. Seymour is very cooperative via email. They respond in detail, going the extra mile. If you ever replace your screen, consider a 2.35:1. We love ours!


----------



## zebidou81

garygarrison said:


> zebidou81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all after a house renovation i am trying to decide if i should use Audyssey xt32 in Reference or flat mode ? i used to run in fkat but the new room is around 40sqm but the rear speakers are quite close to seating position, front L/R and centre are 2.8-3.3m away, would this setup be better in reference or flat ? posted some pics also
> 
> 
> 
> Try switching back and forth. Some AVRs/pre-pros won't allow an instant comparison but impose a 1/2 second silence between modes. The official line is that Audyssey Reference is best for "average" Home Theater sized rooms, whatever that means. For heavily treated rooms, Audyssey says that Audyssey Flat might be better. I'm a big advocate of "Preference" as opposed to "Reference," once Audyssey irons out the kinks in room response. When comparing, use a fair number of program sources. Don't be afraid to try the tone controls (not the virtual sliders, which usually won't work with Audyssey on). Try DEQ, and drive yourself crazy with RLO. Several of us don't like DEQ, but there are many who do. I'm don't like it, but I usually play at about 5 dB below Reference, which theoretically allows 100 dB very brief -- less than 200 milleseconds long -- peaks through the main channels and 110 dB brief -- or not so brief -- peaks through the subwoofer). Your experimentation should take a few months (or, honestly, for some of us, years) and don't be surprised if you change your preference once in a while!
> 
> In my 4,260 cu.ft room, at about 16 feet from the FL & FR speakers, and about 8 1/2 feet from the side surrounds, I usually use Audyssey Flat for newer movies, Audyssey Reference for older movies (to cut out a bit of the high frequency distortion on old soundtracks), and, on CDs, sometimes one and sometimes another. So far SACDs are good with Audyssey Flat. Vinyl, or recordings on other media that were mastered for vinyl, may require additional bass boost, since the engineers often shaved off the bass to allow the recording to fit on the record.
> 
> What is the Length, Width, and Height of your room? Your room looks fairly live. Maybe some area rugs could be put where the tweeter sound bounces off the floor? Of, course, you would have to run Audyssey again using all mic positions. What is the striped material that comes down behind the equipment and your retractable movie screen? Does it have absorbing material behind it? Or is it just wallpaper?
> 
> How far is your MLP from the roll-down screen? I assume it is not a Acoustically Transparent screen, or you would have raised the center channel. For future reference, our Acoustically Transparent roll-down screen by Seymour has a texture that doesn't show from our seats about 12 feet away, and doesn't show even closer, when we walk closer to focus. The very high frequencies are down about 2 dB at 16K Hz, BUT running Audyssey with the screen rolled down totally compensates for that. This, despite our dealer's warning that Acoustically Transparent is like Clean Coal. Seymour is very cooperative via email. They respond in detail, going the extra mile. If you ever replace your screen, consider a 2.35:1. We love ours!
Click to expand...


Thankyou for the detailed reply.

I tend to experiment also and seem to be in the settings menu a lot (moaned at for doing so during films often) even though i tend to be mostly happy with the sound and for instance i was blown away the other day watching Everest in 7.2.4 atmos it was as if you was on the peak itself, i try to strive to keep improving the sound and one thing i tend to find is that during action movies when the volume raises it tends to be to loud at times, i thought that changing from ref to flat may solve this. I use DEQ but will try it with it off as you suggest, i do use light dyn volume but do not like to compress any further, i have my 2 x subs turned down by -2db to there lowest at -12db, sometimes the booms are to much still so i turn bass down -1 sometimes -2 but tend to lose detail that way.

My room ceiling to floor is 3m high unsure of width/length but room is 40sqm floor space. i sit 13ft from the screen which i am happy with although it is not transparent will look at your sugestion. The silver backing is very thick wallpaper.

I keep trying to get the best sound out of the system i have and as you say experimenting is key but with so many options on the av and Audyssey menus i wish i could just find the optimal settings for the best sound possible that is why i shared the pics of room to get views like yours to help me along the way and see what others would suggest, thanks again.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> This is still something you can try, but honestly I think you would probably be better off with just your 12" sub.


Agreed!


----------



## donktard

Since I have replaced B&W 685 surrounds with Revel M106 speakers, I got unpleasantly surprised with Audyssey calibration results. Sensitivity of both speakers is 87 dB FWIW and they are not farther then 4-5 feet from MLP. As opposed to B&W speaker for which Audyssey set levels to like -4db usually (or more), Revels actually got boosted for like +1. Furthermore, to make things more ridiculous, when I checked out calibration results for surrounds, EQ for them was actually massively cut across the spectrum, so effectively, I could almost say that overall level for Revels was set for -4 or more too. Does anyone have an explanation for this quirky behavior?


----------



## mthomas47

zebidou81 said:


> Thankyou for the detailed reply.
> 
> I tend to experiment also and seem to be in the settings menu a lot (moaned at for doing so during films often) even though i tend to be mostly happy with the sound and for instance i was blown away the other day watching Everest in 7.2.4 atmos it was as if you was on the peak itself, i try to strive to keep improving the sound and one thing i tend to find is that during action movies when the volume raises it tends to be to loud at times, i thought that changing from ref to flat may solve this. I use DEQ but will try it with it off as you suggest, i do use light dyn volume but do not like to compress any further, i have my 2 x subs turned down by -2db to there lowest at -12db, sometimes the booms are to much still so i turn bass down -1 sometimes -2 but tend to lose detail that way.
> 
> My room ceiling to floor is 3m high unsure of width/length but room is 40sqm floor space. i sit 13ft from the screen which i am happy with although it is not transparent will look at your sugestion. The silver backing is very thick wallpaper.
> 
> I keep trying to get the best sound out of the system i have and as you say experimenting is key but with so many options on the av and Audyssey menus i wish i could just find the optimal settings for the best sound possible that is why i shared the pics of room to get views like yours to help me along the way and see what others would suggest, thanks again.



I think that the suggestion to experiment with DEQ off may work well in your situation. DEQ can, in my opinion, sometimes create somewhat abrupt transitions between softer and louder passages. That could account for some of the booms you mentioned. You are also sitting very close to your surround and rear surround speakers, and that is where a lot of the sound effects come from. DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, not just the subs. Combined with the surround boost in DEQ, that can be a little overwhelming at times if you are sitting close to your surround speakers. In my case, it's my rear surround speakers that are a little closer to me (one of them is about 5' behind me) and I could definitely experience a little more from that direction than I wanted sometimes with DEQ.

If you do try turning DEQ off, you may want to compensate by increasing the trim on your subs by several decibels. That will hold any bass boost you get to under about 120Hz. Then, if you want a little more mid to upper-bass, you can always add a little tone boost to your front speakers. Just something else to experiment with, although doing it on your own may reduce the moaning.


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Since I have replaced B&W 685 surrounds with Revel M106 speakers, I got unpleasantly surprised with Audyssey calibration results. Sensitivity of both speakers is 87 dB FWIW and they are not farther then 4-5 feet from MLP. As opposed to B&W speaker for which Audyssey set levels to like -4db usually (or more), Revels actually got boosted for like +1. Furthermore, to make things more ridiculous, when I checked out calibration results for surrounds, EQ for them was actually massively cut across the spectrum, so effectively, I could almost say that overall level for Revels was set for -4 or more too. Does anyone have an explanation for this quirky behavior?



Hi,

Speakers are quirky to begin with, even before you throw Audyssey into the mix.  My guess is that the off-axis response of the speakers is different. There is no inherent harm in having a lower or higher trim setting for a particular speaker. Mine can change slightly from calibration to calibration with the same speakers. Perhaps if you were trying to reach Reference levels, trim setting could be a factor, but otherwise it's just something that you observe and then scratch your head about.

If you hear something in the post-calibration sound quality that you don't like, or if your curiosity is really aroused, I would suggest that you experiment with slightly different toe-ins for the Revel surrounds. I don't know if you need them to be pointed more directly toward your MLP, or actually a little more off line. That is one of those things that is difficult to predict, and the room can definitely exert an influence on the optimum amount of toe-in required.

If this is something that really bugs you, or which adversely affects your sound quality, that would be my suggestion for the way to resolve it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zebidou81

mthomas47 said:


> I think that the suggestion to experiment with DEQ off may work well in your situation. DEQ can, in my opinion, sometimes create somewhat abrupt transitions between softer and louder passages. That could account for some of the booms you mentioned. You are also sitting very close to your surround and rear surround speakers, and that is where a lot of the sound effects come from. DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, not just the subs. Combined with the surround boost in DEQ, that can be a little overwhelming at times if you are sitting close to your surround speakers. In my case, it's my rear surround speakers that are a little closer to me (one of them is about 5' behind me) and I could definitely experience a little more from that direction than I wanted sometimes with DEQ.
> 
> If you do try turning DEQ off, you may want to compensate by increasing the trim on your subs by several decibels. That will hold any bass boost you get to under about 120Hz. Then, if you want a little more mid to upper-bass, you can always add a little tone boost to your front speakers. Just something else to experiment with, although doing it on your own may reduce the moaning.


Thanks a lot guys for the advice will experiment with the suggestion cheers


----------



## KennyLSU

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! No, the use of the Y-connector should work. I mentioned the first part in case you had XT-32. The power aspect is pretty much the key where subs are concerned.
> 
> The nominal (manufacturer's specs) frequency response of the two subs you listed is similar. But I am very skeptical that the 10" driver, with 80 watts of power, will get anywhere near 27Hz. It's probably more like 35Hz. Part of the reason that you EQ your sub is to make it sound better from a frequency response standpoint. But, hopefully, in following the directions properly, we are also helping to insure that we don't over-drive our subs into distorting or becoming damaged. When you pair strongly mis-matched subs, particularly a good one with a seriously under-performing one, that assurance that you won't have distortion or damage is much weaker.
> 
> This is still something you can try, but honestly I think you would probably be better off with just your 12" sub.


So I tried it out last night and didn't notice anything too bad. I set the Onkyo sub behind and to the right of the MLP (about 2ft away). I turned the gain down quite a bit to start and tweaked it as a listened to stuff.

I only tried some music and didn't get the volume any higher than -25. Planning to try out some movies tonight and stretch its legs a little more.


----------



## zebidou81

mthomas47 said:


> I think that the suggestion to experiment with DEQ off may work well in your situation. DEQ can, in my opinion, sometimes create somewhat abrupt transitions between softer and louder passages. That could account for some of the booms you mentioned. You are also sitting very close to your surround and rear surround speakers, and that is where a lot of the sound effects come from. DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, not just the subs. Combined with the surround boost in DEQ, that can be a little overwhelming at times if you are sitting close to your surround speakers. In my case, it's my rear surround speakers that are a little closer to me (one of them is about 5' behind me) and I could definitely experience a little more from that direction than I wanted sometimes with DEQ.
> 
> If you do try turning DEQ off, you may want to compensate by increasing the trim on your subs by several decibels. That will hold any bass boost you get to under about 120Hz. Then, if you want a little more mid to upper-bass, you can always add a little tone boost to your front speakers. Just something else to experiment with, although doing it on your own may reduce the moaning.


Just to update the advice about experimenting with DEQ seems to have worked out a treat while playing back Blu Rays, this is where the sound was too much at times during action sequences but turning the DEQ off has solved this problem and it seems fine at high levels.

it is a different story with sky hd as it seems to be very flat with DEQ disabled but once DEQ is enabled again it brings sky programs back to life.


----------



## Alan P

zebidou81 said:


> Just to update the advice about experimenting with DEQ seems to have worked out a treat while playing back Blu Rays, this is where the sound was too much at times during action sequences but turning the DEQ off has solved this problem and it seems fine at high levels.
> 
> it is a different story with sky hd as it seems to be very flat with DEQ disabled but once DEQ is enabled again it brings sky programs back to life.


This is my experience as well. DEQ is great for TV, not so much for BRs and music.

The only problem I run into is; in order to run with DEQ off, I have to boost my sub trim by +5dB, this is a global setting effecting every input. They way I get around this is to use an RLO of -15 on the cable TV input. Helps balance things out.


----------



## Strife21

I have a question on my Denon 710W I can adjust trim and it also has an adjustment for "channel level adjust" is changing these any different then adjusting the trim? Does it happen to have a different effect? If I want to run my sub +3db more should I use the "channel level adjust" or the "trim"?


----------



## Alan P

Strife21 said:


> I have a question on my Denon 710W I can adjust trim and it also has an adjustment for "channel level adjust" is changing these any different then adjusting the trim? Does it happen to have a different effect? If I want to run my sub +3db more should I use the "channel level adjust" or the "trim"?


Channel Level Adjust is per input, Trim is global (for all inputs).

I always use the Trim setting so I know I am effecting all inputs the same...others prefer to use the Channel Level Adjust because they like different levels for each input.


----------



## mthomas47

Strife21 said:


> I have a question on my Denon 710W I can adjust trim and it also has an adjustment for "channel level adjust" is changing these any different then adjusting the trim? Does it happen to have a different effect? If I want to run my sub +3db more should I use the "channel level adjust" or the "trim"?



I have a Marantz, but if the channel level adjust is in the Audio section, then that is the one I use when adjusting my subs. For me, at least, it is a global setting and remains in effect for all sources.

Alan and I posted at the same time with entirely different answers, so take your pick.  Denon's may be different in this respect from Marantz.


----------



## mthomas47

KennyLSU said:


> So I tried it out last night and didn't notice anything too bad. I set the Onkyo sub behind and to the right of the MLP (about 2ft away). I turned the gain down quite a bit to start and tweaked it as a listened to stuff.
> 
> I only tried some music and didn't get the volume any higher than -25. Planning to try out some movies tonight and stretch its legs a little more.



Good news on the music. Most music doesn't go much below 30 or 35Hz, so your 10" sub may have kept up just fine. Movies will, of course, be a sterner test due to the LFE content which goes much lower than music. This is especially where DEQ may work against the weaker sub, so proceeding cautiously on the volume will be a good idea. Hope it works for you, but if you want to turn the 12" sub loose, you can always take the little guy out.


----------



## Strife21

Got another question I run audessey and then check the test tones after within my Denon 710W settings menu.

If I measure with an SPL meter all the speakers are right around 75db at the main listening position at 0mV However the sub after numerous times running Audessey is always around 66-67db at 0mV. Trim is set to -6.5db after audessey for the sub.

Which is correct and why is there such a variation in decibels on the SPL meter between the speakers and sub? (have tried two different SPL meters by the way). I read of others using the same SPL meter and after running Audessey their subs were set to around 72-76db. Why is mine being reported so low? Have also tried 2 different subs and the same results always the sub is lower SPL.


----------



## mthomas47

Strife21 said:


> Got another question I run audessey and then check the test tones after within my Denon 710W settings menu.
> 
> If I measure with an SPL meter all the speakers are right around 75db at the main listening position at 0mV However the sub after numerous times running Audessey is always around 66-67db at 0mV. Trim is set to -6.5db after audessey for the sub.
> 
> Which is correct and why is there such a variation in decibels on the SPL meter between the speakers and sub? (have tried two different SPL meters by the way). I read of others using the same SPL meter and after running Audessey their subs were set to around 72-76db. Why is mine being reported so low? Have also tried 2 different subs and the same results always the sub is lower SPL.



I can't give you a good answer to that question. It's possible that your SPL meters simply don't go low enough to cover the full gamut of the sub's output. Off the top of my head, that's the best explanation I can think of. If you want to raise your sub trim (in your AVR) by about 3 or 4db, it should be fine to do so. However, if you want to play your sub louder than that, then I would recommend running another calibration with a higher gain setting on your sub. The goal in that calibration would be to get to a sub trim of -9 or -10, and you could do a one point calibration (just calculate after mic position 1) in order to test that. Then run your full 8 point calibration from there. That would give you about 6 to 8db of headroom, to add trim in your AVR, without getting too close to 0 in your sub trim. That is a perfectly acceptable procedure.

I hope that helps!


----------



## Selden Ball

Strife21 said:


> Got another question I run audessey and then check the test tones after within my Denon 710W settings menu.
> 
> If I measure with an SPL meter all the speakers are right around 75db at the main listening position at 0mV However the sub after numerous times running Audessey is always around 66-67db at 0mV. Trim is set to -6.5db after audessey for the sub.
> 
> Which is correct and why is there such a variation in decibels on the SPL meter between the speakers and sub? (have tried two different SPL meters by the way). I read of others using the same SPL meter and after running Audessey their subs were set to around 72-76db. Why is mine being reported so low? Have also tried 2 different subs and the same results always the sub is lower SPL.


Most sound level meters do a poor job of measuring low frequencies. You'd think their designs would have compensated for the poorer sensitivity, but apparently not. They seem to be intended for measuring "pink noise", which tends to use higher frequencies.

Audyssey tries to produce the same sound level for both low and high frequencies -- a "flat" frequency response. However, most people prefer the sound which results from a sloped frequency response, with a higher bass output and lower treble output. As a result, many Audyssey users turn up the subwoofer, typically by about 6dB or somewhat more.

ETA: use the trim levels in the receiver or pre/pro to make that subwoofer trim adjustment, not the gain control on the subwoofer itself. That way you know exactly how much the increase is, making it easier to restore it after any subsequent Audyssey calibration.

This and other quirks are discussed in the Audyssey 101/FAQ. If you haven't already done so, please take the time to look through it.


----------



## dunan

Anyone have an issue where audyssey DOES NOT 'turn on' I guess, after doing the auto setup with the mic? I'm noticing the last few times calibrating that I can run the audyssey setup but then whe I go to check the setup, audyssey multiQ is 'not used', and I can't turn it on. It never engages after the auto setup. I get the screens that say I can change the 'tone' (bass/treble) and I know for a fact i'm not supposed to see that screen after running the auto setup.

This is for a denon 3310, but I do not remember seeing this kind of issue before hooking up my Oppo BD-103 blu ray player. I don't see how that could affect anything, but SOMETHING is definitely going on, because it's like audyssey is taking the readings from the mic, but when its done, (its supposed to automatically engage with the new mic'd settings) but its off and I cant seem to turn it on and use it.

I'm not sure if my AVR is broke, or what, but I'm def stumped. I can try to get some screens to show you guys what I'm talking about.


EDIT: MultiQ shows as 'manual' or 'OFF', If I try to turn dynamic volume on, it tells me to 'run audyssey', which I already did. More info to come.


----------



## mogorf

dunan said:


> Anyone have an issue where audyssey DOES NOT 'turn on' I guess, after doing the auto setup with the mic? I'm noticing the last few times calibrating that I can run the audyssey setup but then whe I go to check the setup, audyssey multiQ is 'not used', and I can't turn it on. It never engages after the auto setup. I get the screens that say I can change the 'tone' (bass/treble) and I know for a fact i'm not supposed to see that screen after running the auto setup.
> 
> This is for a denon 3310, but I do not remember seeing this kind of issue before hooking up my Oppo BD-103 blu ray player. I don't see how that could affect anything, but SOMETHING is definitely going on, because it's like audyssey is taking the readings from the mic, but when its done, (its supposed to automatically engage with the new mic'd settings) but its off and I cant seem to turn it on and use it.
> 
> I'm not sure if my AVR is broke, or what, but I'm def stumped. I can try to get some screens to show you guys what I'm talking about.
> 
> 
> EDIT: MultiQ shows as 'manual' or 'OFF', If I try to turn dynamic volume on, it tells me to 'run audyssey', which I already did. More info to come.


I think the best you can do at the moment is a microprocessor reset. It will wipe out all previous settings on your AVR so you will surely have to run MultEQ again. 

Hope this sovles your problem.


----------



## dunan

mogorf said:


> I think the best you can do at the moment is a microprocessor reset. It will wipe out all previous settings on your AVR so you will surely have to run MultEQ again.
> 
> Hope this sovles your problem.


I may have to try that. Right now i'm running it again, but this time it went into auto setup when i plugged the mic in (like its supposed to), when it wasn't doing that before. Before I would plug the mic in and had to go into 'auto setup' in the menu to get it to start. I'll post my findings shortly.

I may be time to get a new AVR altogether!


----------



## dunan

I see what the deal is now. When I change the front mains to small, it disengages audyssey and goes into that 'manual' or 'off' mode. I don't run a sub because of being in an apartment, and the existing speakers can get pretty bass heavy themselves (paradigm titans and cc-290 center). I'm kind of stuck with running the mains in full range or I can't utilize audyssey.


----------



## mthomas47

dunan said:


> I see what the deal is now. When I change the front mains to small, it disengages audyssey and goes into that 'manual' or 'off' mode. I don't run a sub because of being in an apartment, and the existing speakers can get pretty bass heavy themselves (paradigm titans and cc-290 center). I'm kind of stuck with running the mains in full range or I can't utilize audyssey.



Hi,

Without a sub, you have to run the mains as full-range, or Large, in any event. Audyssey on, or Audyssey off, the speakers would still be treated as full-range by your AVR, unless you added a sub to your system. As long as you keep your MV fairly low, your speakers should be okay without a sub. But I might be a little careful with DEQ, and use an RLO (Reference Level Offset) just in case. You particularly don't want to have too much LFE going into your speakers, with DEQ engaged, and higher master volumes. 

Reading the FAQ might be helpful in understanding bass management, and how Audyssey implements things.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pclausen

I have a Denon X6200W and just ran an Audyssey calibration after getting a new sub. I got the PSA s3600i, which is quite a monster. At first Audyssey would not calibrate because it told me my sub was way too hot. I had the dial the volume on the sub all the way down to the 9 o'clock position before the level reached 75 dB (it started out at 95 dB with the volume at 50%).

Anyway, after the calibration was done, Audyssey had chosen the following crossover frequencies:










I find this rather odd given how capable the sub is. Granted, the speakers I'm using are quite capable of reproducing the low end as well. I have the following:

Mains - Klipsch KLF 30
Front Wides - Klipsch Forte
Side Surrounds - Klipsch Forte
Rear Surrounds - Klipsch KSB 3.1
Center Channel - Klipsch KSB-C6
Atmos Ceiling Speakers - Micca M-8C

Here are the remaining details of the Audyssey calibration:



















So while the fronts are able to go down to 40 Hz and some of the other ones are too, would it not make sense for me to manually set the crossover to 80 Hz for all the speakers? If I do so, will the rest of my Audyssey calibration be screwed up?


----------



## D Bone

Nothing wrong with your x-over settings at all. However, your trim levels of -12 is a problem because there is no way of knowing if they should actually be at say -14.5, because -12 is the limit on the AVR.


----------



## pclausen

I guess the reason for that is that my Micca ceiling speakers are much less sensitive that the rest of the system? As you can see, they have a trim level of -1.0 dB.

I actually just placed an order this morning for 4 of the Klipsch KS-7502-THX Ultra2 speakers since NewEgg is running a shell shocker price on them right now for $349.99 a pop, down from a list price of $1,000 a pop. The Micca's just weren't doing it for me.


----------



## dunan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Without a sub, you have to run the mains as full-range, or Large, in any event. Audyssey on, or Audyssey off, the speakers would still be treated as full-range by your AVR, unless you added a sub to your system. As long as you keep your MV fairly low, your speakers should be okay without a sub. But I might be a little careful with DEQ, and use an RLO (Reference Level Offset) just in case. You particularly don't want to have too much LFE going into your speakers, with DEQ engaged, and higher master volumes.
> 
> Reading the FAQ might be helpful in understanding bass management, and how Audyssey implements things.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I see....I understand how the bass management works, I'm just bummed I can't do anything about it. All I would need is to tone down the bass a little, while everything else stayed the same.  

I thought DEQ would help in this case my normalizing the signal so it kind of evens out the dynamic range peaks and valleys, like a limiter? Or maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. At this point I'm considering wall treatments to help but am not sure how much.


----------



## mthomas47

pclausen said:


> I guess the reason for that is that my Micca ceiling speakers are much less sensitive that the rest of the system? As you can see, they have a trim level of -1.0 dB.
> 
> I actually just placed an order this morning for 4 of the Klipsch KS-7502-THX Ultra2 speakers since NewEgg is running a shell shocker price on them right now for $349.99 a pop, down from a list price of $1,000 a pop. The Micca's just weren't doing it for me.



Hi,

Dbone's point about wanting to have trim levels of not more than 11.5 is a good one. You may want to consider using attenuators in order to get there. With respect to your original question, I would start by setting the speakers manually to 80Hz, then once you have a good sense of how they sound that way, and how well they integrate with your sub, you might try experimenting down to, but not below, where your AVR set them. Your AVR set the crossovers for your speakers, independently from your sub, based on their own F3 points.

Your V3600 is a beast. Congratulations, that will be fun! You may want to re-calibrate, ignoring Audyssey telling you to turn down the gain on the sub. Ideally, you would like to have a very negative trim there--maybe about -11, but not -12. Then you will have lots of amp headroom to turn up the trim in your AVR to get as much additional bass as you want. You would prefer to always keep your sub trim in negative numbers, if possible, so right now, with a trim setting of -5, you only have about 4.5 or 5db of headroom to play with. Even less, if you want to go above about -10 or so on your MV (master volume).

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

dunan said:


> I see....I understand how the bass management works, I'm just bummed I can't do anything about it. All I would need is to tone down the bass a little, while everything else stayed the same.
> 
> I thought DEQ would help in this case my normalizing the signal so it kind of evens out the dynamic range peaks and valleys, like a limiter? Or maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. At this point I'm considering wall treatments to help but am not sure how much.



Actually DEQ is going to work against you here, because it's going to boost the bass. The more you turn down the MV below Reference, the more DEQ will boost bass (and treble) to try to preserve an acoustic balance. If you have too much bass from your front speakers, just turn off DEQ, and use your bass tone control to take a few decibels out of the front speakers. They are the only channels affected by the tone control.

Dynamic Volume does work in the way you described, avoiding sudden peaks and valleys in sound, but DEQ is entirely different. Again, the FAQ has good explanations of how both technologies operate.


----------



## dunan

mthomas47 said:


> Actually DEQ is going to work against you here, because it's going to boost the bass. The more you turn down the MV below Reference, the more DEQ will boost bass (and treble) to try to preserve an acoustic balance. If you have too much bass from your front speakers, just turn off DEQ, and use your bass tone control to take a few decibels out of the front speakers. They are the only channels affected by the tone control.
> 
> Dynamic Volume does work in the way you described, avoiding sudden peaks and valleys in sound, but DEQ is entirely different. Again, the FAQ has good explanations of how both technologies operate.


Thanks for the replies, I'm learning the small things I've been wondering for years.

I guess I had their roles reversed then as to which part each role plays. So from what I understand from your post, is that I can run audyssey, turn off DEQ and use the tone control if I need to ease on the bass. Sounds simple enough, but doesn't that affect the calibration that was just performed, or does it all stay the same and now I'm just easing the bass a bit? I do remember reading somewhere here that after its calibrated it's not supposed to be touched or setup has to run again? Guess in my particular case the tweaks I may have to apply can't be avoided?


----------



## mthomas47

dunan said:


> Thanks for the replies, I'm learning the small things I've been wondering for years.
> 
> I guess I had their roles reversed then as to which part each role plays. So from what I understand from your post, is that I can run audyssey, turn off DEQ and use the tone control if I need to ease on the bass. Sounds simple enough, but doesn't that affect the calibration that was just performed, or does it all stay the same and now I'm just easing the bass a bit? I do remember reading somewhere here that after its calibrated it's not supposed to be touched or setup has to run again? Guess in my particular case the tweaks I may have to apply can't be avoided?


You are very welcome, but man, would reading the FAQ help!  It was specifically written to answer all of these questions. When you run Audyssey, it sets filters for the speakers in order to minimize distortion caused by the room/speaker interaction. After calibrating, you can adjust crossovers (if you have a sub), distances, or trim levels without affecting the filters that Audyssey set in any way. 

You can also change from Audyssey Reference to Flat, turn DEQ off, turn Dynamic volume on, and use the tone controls without affecting your calibration. The only thing you can't do is to add speakers. (I guess when you tried to set your Fronts to Small, Audyssey assumed that you had added a sub.) So, you can pretty much tweak anything you like without affecting the calibration.


----------



## garygarrison

dunan said:


> Thanks for the replies, I'm learning the small things I've been wondering for years.
> 
> I guess I had their roles reversed then as to which part each role plays. So from what I understand from your post, is that I can run audyssey, turn off DEQ and use the tone control if I need to ease on the bass. Sounds simple enough, but doesn't that affect the calibration that was just performed, or does it all stay the same and now I'm just easing the bass a bit? I do remember reading somewhere here that after its calibrated it's not supposed to be touched or setup has to run again? Guess in my particular case the tweaks I may have to apply can't be avoided?


I'd do things in the following order:


 If you live on the second floor or higher, put some padding directly under all speakers that have a goodly amount of bass, to keep them from shaking your apartment floor. Even if you live on the ground floor -- unless the floor is concrete -- that might be a good idea*.* In the cheap apartment house I used to live in, walking on a wood floor, even at the first level, would make the footfalls sound like they were coming from above, due to some kind of sympathetic vibration -- like a passive radiator (?).
Run Audyssey, using all 8 microphone positions.
Make sure both DEQ and Dynamic Volume are turned off., and the LF & RF are set to "large," with the subwoofer channel set to "off."
Try playing music/movies and see if there is enough bass to cause you to worry about the neighbors. If there is too much bass on loud parts, turn down the bass tone control a little bit (not the virtual sliders, because they and Audyssey won't work at the same time).
If the loud parts are still too loud, go ahead and try Dynamic Volume. It should be a last resort, IMO. You can also use DV only for movies very likely to have very loud passages (e.g., "action movies"), and not use DV for other films.
 
Wall treatments (such as absorbers) will not help prevent the neighbors from hearing your movies, especially in the bass. They will help control treble bounce, however. The only way to cut down on the amount of bass transmitted through the walls is to increase their mass, &/or use double walls with an air space, a floating floor, etc., and neither the landlord nor the city inspectors, nor the earthquake readiness commission would appreciate that. Even all of the above won't help much in the deep bass range the movie mixers like to include. Bass waves are almost impossible to stop. About all you can prevent is direct contact vibration, by decoupling your speaker boxes from the floor, and making sure they don't actually touch the walls.

May you enjoy your movies, and cease being an apartment dweller in time.


----------



## dunan

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, but man, would reading the FAQ help!  It was specifically written to answer all of these questions. When you run Audyssey, it sets filters for the speakers in order to minimize distortion caused by the room/speaker interaction. After calibrating, you can adjust crossovers (if you have a sub), distances, or trim levels without affecting the filters that Audyssey set in any way.
> 
> You can also change from Audyssey Reference to Flat, turn DEQ off, turn Dynamic volume on, and use the tone controls without affecting your calibration. The only thing you can't do is to add speakers. (I guess when you tried to set your Fronts to Small, Audyssey assumed that you had added a sub.) So, you can pretty much tweak anything you like without affecting the calibration.


Well I ran into a problem trying what you posted... Once I switch dynamic volume on, DEQ turns on also. I can turn DEQ on while DV is off but I cannot do the opposite. Turning DEQ off disables DV so I cannot use DV while DEQ is off.


----------



## mthomas47

dunan said:


> Well I ran into a problem trying what you posted... Once I switch dynamic volume on, DEQ turns on also. I can turn DEQ on while DV is off but I cannot do the opposite. Turning DEQ off disables DV so I cannot use DV while DEQ is off.



That's true. In my shorthand description of what you could turn on or off without affecting your Audyssey filters, I had forgotten that DEQ and Dynamic Volume are linked. So, your recourse is to turn off DEQ, and manage your bass and volume manually, again without affecting your Audyssey filters. Or, you can use DEQ and Dynamic Volume, but in that case, I would try an RLO setting of -15. You will have to experiment to find out what sounds best to you. Most on the thread don't seem to like Dynamic volume much, due to the compression, but in an apartment for instance, it might work well.

As Gary explained, though, total volume and excessive bass are different things, as bass tends to travel through walls much more than other frequencies. So, how you address bass may be different from the way that you address total volume, even in an apartment. Again, I would recommend that, as you become more familiar with your settings, that you just try different combinations to determine what works best. And if you are like many of us, you may find yourself changing settings somewhat depending on the circumstances.

One other thing that I think you could try, if your AVR has this feature, is something called Low Frequency Containment. I used mine once when I had an issue, and before I could get a bass trap in place. I believe that the default setting is 4, but you can go all the way down to a setting of 1 (or up from 4 to get more attenuation, if necessary). LFC will limit the bass below about 100Hz, or so, I think.


----------



## KennyLSU

Anything special about bipolar surrounds when calibrating? Got some Fluance AVBP 2's in and will be re-running Audyssey in the next couple of days. Does the calibration work the same for these? Planning to put them on the back wall. System is a 5.1.2.


----------



## Jbed27

KennyLSU said:


> Anything special about bipolar surrounds when calibrating? Got some Fluance AVBP 2's in and will be re-running Audyssey in the next couple of days. Does the calibration work the same for these? Planning to put them on the back wall. System is a 5.1.2.


I have deftech bipolar front and surrounds, and they calibrated just fine. I hit the forums up on your exact question a few months ago when I originally put my setup together, and there's nothing special to do when calibrating. I've read posts across forums where people have said they have issues with bipolar calibration, but I've read more comments that say Audyssey handles it just fine, and that was my experience. I've actually run several calibrations as I've continued to add furniture to my basement (just recently renovated), and they've always calibrated fine. 

Joe


----------



## Roudan

Hi

I have two Hsu 15J mk2 sub. After audyssey, the frequency response is pretty flat. And I do get good bass in some movies. But I did not get good bass when hearing music from apple TV. I connect Apple TV using HDMI to my pre-amp( Marantz 7702 mk2) and all speaker configuration is small and I set crossover to be 80Hz. The volume in the sub after Audyssey is only set to be like 25% ( 8 o'clock location) with level of -9db after Audyssey. Is this 25% volume too low? Phase is set to be Out in Hsu Sub. So any suggestion to add more bass for music? Thanks.


----------



## Selden Ball

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> I have two Hsu 15J mk2 sub. After audyssey, the frequency response is pretty flat. And I do get good bass in some movies. But I did not get good bass when hearing music from apple TV. I connect Apple TV using HDMI to my pre-amp( Marantz 7702 mk2) and all speaker configuration is small and I set crossover to be 80Hz. The volume in the sub after Audyssey is only set to be like 25% ( 8 o'clock location) with level of -9db after Audyssey. Is this 25% volume too low?


 If the subwoofer's trim level in the pre/pro is not pegged at -12, then 25% is OK. After you've run Audyssey to calibrate the pre/pro, the 7702 and the soundtrack control the level of the bass output, not the subwoofer. 



> Phase is set to be Out in Hsu Sub. So any suggestion to add more bass for music? Thanks.


1, Make sure you're not using Direct or Pure Direct. Music soundtracks normally don't include an LFE channel. When you select one of the Direct options, bass management is disabled, so the bass will be limited to whatever your main speakers can provide. 

2. If you're listening to a stereo soundtrack and have the Stereo option selected, the "2ch Playback" options are applied. By default they set the Front speakers to be Large, so you need to change that setting to Small. See page 256 of the owner's manual, which is available at http://manuals.marantz.com/av7702mk2/na/en/

3. Turn up the subwoofer trim level in the receiver while listening to the AppleTV.

Edited to add:

4. If Dynamic EQ is enabled, turn it off. Then you can use the Bass and Treble adjustments. See page 151 in the owner's manual.


----------



## Roudan

Selden Ball said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> I have two Hsu 15J mk2 sub. After audyssey, the frequency response is pretty flat. And I do get good bass in some movies. But I did not get good bass when hearing music from apple TV. I connect Apple TV using HDMI to my pre-amp( Marantz 7702 mk2) and all speaker configuration is small and I set crossover to be 80Hz. The volume in the sub after Audyssey is only set to be like 25% ( 8 o'clock location) with level of -9db after Audyssey. Is this 25% volume too low?
> 
> 
> 
> If the subwoofer's trim level in the pre/pro is not pegged at -12, then 25% is OK. After you've run Audyssey to calibrate the pre/pro, the 7702 and the soundtrack control the level of the bass output, not the subwoofer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Phase is set to be Out in Hsu Sub. So any suggestion to add more bass for music? Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1, Make sure you're not using Direct or Pure Direct. Music soundtracks normally don't include an LFE channel. When you select one of the Direct options, bass management is disabled, so the bass will be limited to whatever your main speakers can provide.
> 
> 2. If you're listening to a stereo soundtrack and have the Stereo option selected, the "2ch Playback" options are applied. By default they set the Front speakers to be Large, so you need to change that setting to Small. See page 256 of the owner's manual, which is available at http://manuals.marantz.com/av7702mk2/na/en/
> 
> 3. Turn up the subwoofer trim level in the receiver while listening to the AppleTV.
> 
> Edited to add:
> 
> 4. If Dynamic EQ is enabled, turn it off. Then you can use the Bass and Treble adjustments. See page 151 in the owner's manual.
Click to expand...

Thanks Selden Ball. I will play with the suggestions you provided tonight . Appreciated it.


----------



## KennyLSU

Jbed27 said:


> I have deftech bipolar front and surrounds, and they calibrated just fine. I hit the forums up on your exact question a few months ago when I originally put my setup together, and there's nothing special to do when calibrating. I've read posts across forums where people have said they have issues with bipolar calibration, but I've read more comments that say Audyssey handles it just fine, and that was my experience. I've actually run several calibrations as I've continued to add furniture to my basement (just recently renovated), and they've always calibrated fine.
> 
> Joe


Thanks for the input. Do you have the bipole surrounds on the back or side wall?


----------



## Gary J

I have all bi-polar except center in a 7.1 system optimized by Audyssey. I think there is no finer setup for HT and a dispersion effect just as good as the systems with many more speakers the industry is now pushing on consumers, er, recommending.


----------



## Jbed27

KennyLSU said:


> Jbed27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have deftech bipolar front and surrounds, and they calibrated just fine. I hit the forums up on your exact question a few months ago when I originally put my setup together, and there's nothing special to do when calibrating. I've read posts across forums where people have said they have issues with bipolar calibration, but I've read more comments that say Audyssey handles it just fine, and that was my experience. I've actually run several calibrations as I've continued to add furniture to my basement (just recently renovated), and they've always calibrated fine.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the input. Do you have the bipole surrounds on the back or side wall?
Click to expand...

My surrounds are on the side walls slightly behind MLP and roughly 2 ft higher than seated ear height.


----------



## mogorf

Gary J said:


> I have all bi-polar except center in a 7.1 system optimized by Audyssey. I think there is no finer setup for HT and a dispersion effect just as good as the systems with many more speakers the industry is now pushing on consumers, er, recommending.


Gary, is it bipolar or bipole? As many here know English is not my first language while I do hope your speakers are not showing signs of bipolar disorder! Just kidding!


----------



## Gary J

You see it both ways.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-EOMGIsGiVGK/learn/videos/speakers/definitivetechnology_bipolar.html


----------



## mogorf

Gary J said:


> You see it both ways.
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-EOMGIsGiVGK/learn/videos/speakers/definitivetechnology_bipolar.html


I get it. So, there are bipolar, dipolar and monopolar speakers or bipole, dipole and monopole ones and the mix of all this: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=66471

Interesting!


----------



## BobbyMcGee77

Hello,

Hoping someone can assist me with this issue:

First off, I have a Denon AVR S910W. When I run Audyssey, after the third test, my right front tower speaker gets REALLY LOUD on the test tone for the fourth test. Then, Audyssey states that there is too much ambient noise and to retry. It basically gets hung up on the right speaker / fourth test when I press retry and I cannot continue and must start over. Limiting me to only the first three tests instead of six. 

Also, if I run just the first three tests, Audyssey sets my right speaker at +6.5db. For context, Audyssey sets my sub at -3.0db, my left tower at -3.5db, my center at -5.5db, my left and right surrounds at -3.5db and my front heights at -1.5db.

Afterwards, when I go manual mode and check the speaker level via test tones, I noticed that if I set my right and left speakers at the same level (say -3.5db for example), the right speaker sounds like it is applying more bass or something to that effect. I don't want to go as far as to say it sounds lower as in a lower volume, just like it has more bass applied. Hopefully that makes sense.

My left and right tower speakers are Polk Audio TSX440t tower speakers.

Finally, when I listen to 2 channel stereo sound such as vinyl or a music cd, I don't believe that I hear an issue and both speakers sound relatively fine to me. 

Anyone have any insight as to what might be going on?


----------



## pepar

Have you investigated background noise? If you hear nothing obvious, check for something low frequency like a refrigerator/freezer compressor running.

Jeff


----------



## BobbyMcGee77

pepar said:


> Have you investigated background noise? If you hear nothing obvious, check for something low frequency like a refrigerator/freezer compressor running.
> 
> Jeff


My kitchen is directly adjacent to my living room (think one long rectangle cut in half, kitchen / living room) and I did have my fridge running. But wouldn't that also affect the other speakers as well? Sorry, still new to Audyssey. I guess I can try and turn it off and see what happens.


----------



## mthomas47

BobbyMcGee77 said:


> My kitchen is directly adjacent to my living room (think one long rectangle cut in half, kitchen / living room) and I did have my fridge running. But wouldn't that also affect the other speakers as well? Sorry, still new to Audyssey. I guess I can try and turn it off and see what happens.



Hi,

Unless the refrigerator were located much closer to the speaker in question, I don't see why that would affect only the one speaker, but it's worth a try to turn it off. My guess is that there is a malfunction in your Denon. If so, you will need to do a microprocessor reset (owner's manual) or perhaps several of them. If you want to, at some point, you can test to see whether the problem follows the speaker by physically switching your two front speakers, or by simply changing the wiring, so that the right speaker becomes the left, and vice versa.

Sometimes it is difficult to determine where a problem lies, but the safe bet, when Audyssey is glitching in some random way, is to do a microprocessor reset. And, as noted, sometimes you have to do several. Please let us know what you find out.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## D Bone

BobbyMcGee77 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Hoping someone can assist me with this issue:
> 
> First off, I have a Denon AVR S910W. When I run Audyssey, after the third test, my right front tower speaker gets REALLY LOUD on the test tone for the fourth test. Then, Audyssey states that there is too much ambient noise and to retry. It basically gets hung up on the right speaker / fourth test when I press retry and I cannot continue and must start over. Limiting me to only the first three tests instead of six.
> 
> Also, if I run just the first three tests, Audyssey sets my right speaker at +6.5db. For context, Audyssey sets my sub at -3.0db, my left tower at -3.5db, my center at -5.5db, my left and right surrounds at -3.5db and my front heights at -1.5db.
> 
> Afterwards, when I go manual mode and check the speaker level via test tones, I noticed that if I set my right and left speakers at the same level (say -3.5db for example), the right speaker sounds like it is applying more bass or something to that effect. I don't want to go as far as to say it sounds lower as in a lower volume, just like it has more bass applied. Hopefully that makes sense.
> 
> My left and right tower speakers are Polk Audio TSX440t tower speakers.
> 
> Finally, when I listen to 2 channel stereo sound such as vinyl or a music cd, I don't believe that I hear an issue and both speakers sound relatively fine to me.
> 
> Anyone have any insight as to what might be going on?


Can you easily swap the L/R speakers and rerun the 3pt test?


----------



## garygarrison

Gary J said:


> You see it both ways.
> 
> http://www.crutchfield.com/S-EOMGIsGiVGK/learn/videos/speakers/definitivetechnology_bipolar.html


The ones Crutchfield carries simply haven't been given their lithium.


----------



## Gary J




----------



## BobbyMcGee77

D Bone said:


> Can you easily swap the L/R speakers and rerun the 3pt test?


Yes, I can swap them around. Looks like I will have to do some troubleshooting to try and narrow things down a bit. Thanks everyone for your replies and assistance. Much appreciated.


----------



## jappleboy

*Phase*

Hello all i have Denon 7200WA. I keep get a phase error with front speakers I have Definitive tower speakers with sub built in. I also have a main sub. I am trying to run both speakers and the sub. Main sub on pre-out 1 and speaker subs using a Y on pre-out 2 i have never done this before using both subs.Also do you think since the tower speaker have sub and they up front next to the TV should i put the main sub behind the coach.At this time i have it on the side.


----------



## Gary J

I run all of my DefTech towers small and let the woofers in them produce the important mid-range bass. Let the main sub handle everything below 80Hz. Sounds great especially for HT.


----------



## mthomas47

jappleboy said:


> Hello all i have Denon 7200WA. I keep get a phase error with front speakers I have Definitive tower speakers with sub built in. I also have a main sub. I am trying to run both speakers and the sub. Main sub on pre-out 1 and speaker subs using a Y on pre-out 2 i have never done this before using both subs.Also do you think since the tower speaker have sub and they up front next to the TV should i put the main sub behind the coach.At this time i have it on the side.


Hi,

Phase errors sometimes occur with Audyssey. As long as you are sure that everything is connected properly, you can disregard the message. But let's talk about how to connect things. As noted above, if you have a proper sub, you are better off just wiring your speakers as fronts, and leaving the sub input to your separate subwoofer.

Then, depending on how Audyssey reports your speakers to your AVR, you can experiment with crossovers of 80Hz, or lower. Reading the set-up guide and the FAQ, linked below, will help. And then you can experiment to find out what sounds best.

As for where to place your sub, that depends on several things. If I were you, I would do a sub crawl (Google) to determine the best sub placement. As long as you can't localize your sub, and you probably won't be able to even with an 80Hz crossover, your sub could be anywhere. Running it nearfield, behind the couch, might be a very good idea. But I would try a few different locations just to be sure.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jappleboy

*Phase*

Thanks mike i will turn off the subs on the speakers, and just run a main sub. I do have a great spot to start with on the main sub. Time to start the craw


----------



## Gary J

jappleboy said:


> Thanks mike i will turn off the subs on the speakers, and just run a main sub.


That makes no sense.


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

mthomas47 said:


> I try to get close to -12 without actually hitting it, as I have a Marantz and Denon/Marantz have a max trim of +/- 12. If my trim level is on -12, I can't be sure that it didn't need to be -13, or even less. So, I normally shoot for -11, and 11.5 is fine if I happen to hit that.
> 
> But then I add much more than 6db of sub boost. If I were using DEQ, I would probably boost about 9db, give or take. Without DEQ, which is how I am operating these days, I will typically boost about an extra 3db than I would if I were engaging DEQ. So, depending on the calibration, and sometimes on the specific movie, I might boost 12db, or even a little more. Of course, I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) boost my subs that much if I were playing at near Reference volumes. But at somewhere up to about -15 MV, the large boost works well for me.
> 
> The typical advice given by my sub maker (SVS) is to try not to exceed sub trims of about 0.0 in the AVR, at master volumes exceeding -10, and I remain mindful of that advice. As stated in the FAQ, that is to make the sub amp do all the work, and to minimize distortion. (You didn't ask about all that, but I felt that the additional clarification was helpful since I am using so much sub boost.)


We conversed a bit in the other thread, but I may as well post it here:

I amused that the first time I ran Audyssey on my Marantz SR6010, it hit exactly -11 dB for the sub, perfect for your setup preferences. The sub itself was set at -10 before the Audyssey test. Well, actually it was the second time I had run it, since the first time the sub's fuse was blown so Audyssey detected no sub obviously.

That said, I like it exactly where Audyssey set it, at -11. I won't increase the volume for the sub significantly. Not 3 dB and certainly not the 6-9 dB that many people here are talking about. About the only thing I'd consider doing is increasing the centre channel volume a bit - a couple of dB at most.


----------



## garygarrison

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> That said, I like it exactly where Audyssey set it, at -11. I won't increase the volume for the sub significantly. Not 3 dB and certainly not the 6-9 dB that many people here are talking about. About the only thing I'd consider doing is increasing the centre channel volume a bit - a couple of dB at most.


Do you use DEQ?

Approximately what main volume control setting do you use relative to Audyssey determined reference level? 

What subwoofer do you have? 

What LPF setting for LFE? 

Thanks


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

garygarrison said:


> Do you use DEQ?


Yes.



> Approximately what main volume control setting do you use relative to Audyssey determined reference level?


Depends on what I'm watching. The Fifth Element Atmos was about -18. Gravity Atmos was around -14.

TV was -20something.



> What subwoofer do you have?


SVS PB13-Ultra 



> What LPF setting for LFE?


Mains full.
Centre 40 Hz
Surrounds 40 Hz
Heights 60 Hz

LFE only (not LFE + Mains).


----------



## Del Cosmos

I have a Denon 2312-CI - and am wondering how to determine the best Audyssey settings for general video game usage? Is there a faq/post about this?


----------



## Selden Ball

Del Cosmos said:


> I have a Denon 2312-CI - and am wondering how to determine the best Audyssey settings for general video game usage? Is there a faq/post about this?


Audyssey is an automated RoomEQ package and really doesn't have any settings. Its calibration procedure is intended to produce an accurate (flat) reproduction of the input soundtrack. Such options as there are should be chosen strictly to satisfy your own personal preferences. For example, you can select "Audyssey" (which includes a high frequency rolloff) or "Audyssey Flat" (which does not). DynamicEQ can be turned off. When it's on, it'll try to turn up the relative sound level of low frequencies when you turn down the volume control, compensating for the very non-linear frequency response of our ears. Dynamic Volume can be enabled to reduce loud passages and turn up quiet ones. 

The Audyssey 101/FAQ should provide some guidance.

Your receiver has many settings which are external to Audyssey which you can use to enhance the sound, but, again, most of those are up to you. For example, you can turn up the volume of the center channel slightly if dialog tends to be drowned out by effects. 

You should take some time to look through the Owner's manual for your AVR X2312-ci, which is available on the Web, down near the bottom of the page https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/receivers/avr2312ci
Select the "cd-rom" document.


----------



## garygarrison

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Yes.
> 
> Depends on what I'm watching. The Fifth Element Atmos was about -18. Gravity Atmos was around -14.
> 
> TV was -20something.
> 
> SVS PB13-Ultra
> 
> Mains full.
> Centre 40 Hz
> Surrounds 40 Hz
> Heights 60 Hz
> 
> LFE only (not LFE + Mains).


Thanks for the info.

Since you list your mains as "full," with no X-over given, I assume that means that they are designated "Large," and that none of the signal going to them is also going to the sub (since you don't use LFE+Main). Do I understand that correctly?

I also assume that your center, surrounds, and heights are all set for "small," and that bass management is sending the signal below each of the crossovers you listed to the sub. Is that true?

My Marantz has a separate setting, independent of the various true crossover settings, for a Low Pass Filter (LPF) for Low Frequency Effects (LFE) only. According to the FAQ (Audyssey FAQ), many people set this at 120 Hz, but some prefer 80 Hz. The subwoofer output on my Marantz sends these low frequency sound effects to the sub, mixed with any bass below the true crossovers in channels for which I have designated the speakers as "small."


----------



## BuGsArEtAsTy

garygarrison said:


> Since you list your mains as "full," with no X-over given, I assume that means that they are designated "Large," and that none of the signal going to them is also going to the sub (since you don't use LFE+Main). Do I understand that correctly?


Yes. I tried them as "small" but preferred the sound with them set as "large" even for movies.



> I also assume that your center, surrounds, and heights are all set for "small," and that bass management is sending the signal below each of the crossovers you listed to the sub. Is that true?


Yes. As mentioned, the crossovers I am using are 60 Hz and 40 Hz. I tried 80 Hz and didn't like it.



> My Marantz has a separate setting, independent of the various true crossover settings, for a Low Pass Filter (LPF) for Low Frequency Effects (LFE) only. According to the FAQ (Audyssey FAQ), many people set this at 120 Hz, but some prefer 80 Hz. The subwoofer output on my Marantz sends these low frequency sound effects to the sub, mixed with any bass below the true crossovers in channels for which I have designated the speakers as "small."


Mine is set for 80 Hz.


----------



## garygarrison

BuGsArEtAsTy said:


> Yes. I tried them as "small" but preferred the sound with them set as "large" even for movies.
> 
> Yes. As mentioned, the crossovers I am using are 60 Hz and 40 Hz. I tried 80 Hz and didn't like it.


I use "small," for most movies and music, but find "large" to be better for a few movies. When I use "large" I do use "LFE + Main." When I ran some REW curves a few years ago, I could detect no hint of phase cancellation on "large" and "LFE + Main." My LPF for LFE remains at 120 Hz through all these options. For some music, I turn the true crossovers down to as low as 40 Hz. My mains produce cleaner bass than my sub. Occasionally, with music, I turn the sub off entirely, and then set the mains for "large," of course.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I use "small," for most movies and music, but find "large" to be better for a few movies. When I use "large" I do use "LFE + Main." When I ran some REW curves a few years ago, I could detect no hint of phase cancellation on "large" and "LFE + Main." My LPF for LFE remains at 120 Hz through all these options. For some music, I turn the true crossovers down to as low as 40 Hz. My mains produce cleaner bass than my sub. Occasionally, with music, I turn the sub off entirely, and then set the mains for "large," of course.



Hi Gary,

Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried the 80Hz setting on your LPF? I ran mine on the default 120Hz setting for quite a while, and then based on some discussion on the thread and in the FAQ, decided to try it at an 80Hz setting. It definitely sounded clearer to me. After a sub upgrade last year, I re-investigated the 120Hz setting, and 80Hz still sounded cleaner. Since the Low Pass Filter is not actually a brick wall, content above 80Hz is still played, but at an increasingly attenuated level. Some film mixers and others have said that most of the meaningful LFE content is mostly below 80Hz anyway, and this way, as I boost my subs, I am keeping both channel and LFE content limited to about 80Hz.

I'm not suggesting that everyone will hear what I hear, or like what I like, just wondering if you have experimented with it, what were your impressions?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> Just out of curiosity, have you ever tried the 80Hz setting on your LPF? I ran mine on the default 120Hz setting for quite a while, and then based on some discussion on the thread and in the FAQ, decided to try it at an 80Hz setting. It definitely sounded clearer to me. After a sub upgrade last year, I re-investigated the 120Hz setting, and 80Hz still sounded cleaner. Since the Low Pass Filter is not actually a brick wall, content above 80Hz is still played, but at an increasingly attenuated level. Some film mixers and others have said that most of the meaningful LFE content is mostly below 80Hz anyway, and this way, as I boost my subs, I am keeping both channel and LFE content limited to about 80Hz.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that everyone will hear what I hear, or like what I like, just wondering if you have experimented with it, what were your impressions?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Welcome back, if you are back!

I haven't tried LPF for LFE of 80 Hz in any systematic way. I switched back and forth some, but I'd have to do that across many movies to get a clear impression, and, as usual, a plausible hypotheses would be that I'd prefer it @ 120 for some movies, and at 80 for others. The movies that I find require the most individual EQ in general are those from my beloved magnetic era, and they don't have much in the LFE channel, as a rule. One of these days I will systematically try 80 Hz, though.

The latest tweak is that I find with a few movies/TV discs, a center channel crossover of 40 Hz helps keep bass heavy dialog out of my sorry sub, which is, nonetheless, turned up. This even worked with one female character in Game of Thrones. Audyssey rates the f3 of my center at 40 Hz, so this works pretty well.

Moving on to music, in my SACD collection only one or two of the multichannel ones have the .1, i.e., they are mostly 5.0, rather than 5.1, so LPF for LFE shouldn't make a difference with them, if I understand that correctly. Do I?

For a few recordings, either bass management crossover of 40 Hz or sub off and mains large sounds clearer and tighter.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Welcome back, if you are back!
> 
> I haven't tried LPF for LFE of 80 Hz in any systematic way. I switched back and forth some, but I'd have to do that across many movies to get a clear impression, and, as usual, a plausible hypotheses would be that I'd prefer it @ 120 for some movies, and at 80 for others. The movies that I find require the most individual EQ in general are those from my beloved magnetic era, and they don't have much in the LFE channel, as a rule. One of these days I will systematically try 80 Hz, though.
> 
> The latest tweak is that I find with a few movies/TV discs, a center channel crossover of 40 Hz helps keep bass heavy dialog out of my sorry sub, which is, nonetheless, turned up. This even worked with one female character in Game of Thrones. Audyssey rates the f3 of my center at 40 Hz, so this works pretty well.
> 
> Moving on to music, in my SACD collection only one or two of the multichannel ones have the .1, i.e., they are mostly 5.0, rather than 5.1, so LPF for LFE shouldn't make a difference with them, if I understand that correctly. Do I?
> 
> For a few recordings, either bass management crossover of 40 Hz or sub off and mains large sounds clearer and tighter.



Hi and thanks! I try to never be too far away. My understanding of LFE is the same as yours. Unless the movie or music has a .1, there shouldn't be any bass in the separate LFE channel. Originally, as you know, the LFE channel was for special audio effects in movies, but according to what I have read, several electronic music genres, such as Dubstep, have added LFE channels (and in normal channels) with content down to 10Hz and lower. 

Like yourself, I treat music, and older movies, a little differently. My music listening is all done with full-range speakers, and no subs. And subs don't really provide a lot of benefit for most older movies, although I enjoyed "The Longest Day" with subs recently. But for more modern 5.1 movies, and particularly those with a lot of sub 30Hz content, I really enjoy turning my subs loose (with all of my speakers bass managed) and my subs running hot.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

t


mthomas47 said:


> ... Like yourself, I treat music, and older movies, a little differently. My music listening is all done with full-range speakers, and no subs. And subs don't really provide a lot of benefit for most older movies, although I enjoyed "The Longest Day" with subs recently. But for more modern 5.1 movies, and particularly those with a lot of sub 30Hz content, I really enjoy turning my subs loose (with all of my speakers bass managed) and my subs running hot.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Do you not use the subs for music because your mains sound better (as do mine)?

Sometimes the disc mixers will channel bass from a mag soundtrack into the subs, sometimes not. Either way, they often end up with narrower dynamic range, less bass, and fewer surround effects than the mag movies of the '50s & '60s had when they played in the theaters in big cities (where the mag tracks were usually sent, and where the theaters were equipped). This may be because many of the mixers are way too young to know how -- and how good -- those tracks sounded in the first releases. Some probably don't know that the bass could be strong enough to shake the concrete floor of a theater (e.g., Ben-Hur, 1959, 70 mm version and several other films), or that projectionists were given instructions on when to turn up the sound to a somewhat higher (specified) level after the first wave of adaptation passed over the audience (e.g., Paint Your Wagon, 70 mm version, and others), or that the one surround channel on most mag movies was switchable to all surround speakers or left, right, or back, manually (with instructions) in most theaters, programmed via a signal tone in others (e.g., West Side Story, 70 mm version), or that some of the very high frequency distortion apparent on these old tracks today probably never got to the audience back then because even though the mag tracks themselves went to 15K smoothly (and beyond with some roll off) the speakers used in the best theaters (JBL & Altec) rolled off pretty steeply above 11 or 12K. I certainly never heard such distortion back then with my then young audiophile ears. Now, with my ancient ears, I do, but I can usually eliminate it by using Audyssey Reference, which coincidentally is rolled off starting at 7 or 8K, and is down about 3 dB at 12K, and down 6 dB at 20K (which I no longer hear, anyway). For movies made since about 2000, I tend to use Audyssey Flat, and let any warts show, but there usually are none.

RE: The Longest Day: I remember sitting in the Grand Lake theater in Oakland in '62 ... as the house lights slowly went down, we heard some Morse code from the left rear, then an answer from surround right, which, soon enough, went into "dot dot dot dash ... dot dot dot dash ... and then the magnificent Beethoven with full orchestra from all the front channels. I hope it's that way on the disk.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> t
> 
> Do you not use the subs for music because your mains sound better (as do mine)?
> 
> Sometimes the disc mixers will channel bass from a mag soundtrack into the subs, sometimes not. Either way, they often end up with narrower dynamic range, less bass, and fewer surround effects than the mag movies of the '50s & '60s had when they played in the theaters in big cities (where the mag tracks were usually sent, and where the theaters were equipped). This may be because many of the mixers are way too young to know how -- and how good -- those tracks sounded in the first releases. Some probably don't know that the bass could be strong enough to shake the concrete floor of a theater (e.g., Ben-Hur, 1959, 70 mm version and several other films), or that projectionists were given instructions on when to turn up the sound to a somewhat higher (specified) level after the first wave of adaptation passed over the audience (e.g., Paint Your Wagon, 70 mm version, and others), or that the one surround channel on most mag movies was switchable to all surround speakers or left, right, or back, manually (with instructions) in most theaters, programmed via a signal tone in others (e.g., West Side Story, 70 mm version), or that some of the very high frequency distortion apparent on these old tracks today probably never got to the audience back then because even though the mag tracks themselves went to 15K smoothly (and beyond with some roll off) the speakers used in the best theaters (JBL & Altec) rolled off pretty steeply above 11 or 12K. I certainly never heard such distortion back then with my then young audiophile ears. Now, with my ancient ears, I do, but I can usually eliminate it by using Audyssey Reference, which coincidentally is rolled off starting at 7 or 8K, and is down about 3 dB at 12K, and down 6 dB at 20K (which I no longer hear, anyway). For movies made since about 2000, I tend to use Audyssey Flat, and let any warts show, but there usually are none.
> 
> RE: The Longest Day: I remember sitting in the Grand Lake theater in Oakland in '62 ... as the house lights slowly went down, we heard some Morse code from the left rear, then an answer from surround right, which, soon enough, went into "dot dot dot dash ... dot dot dot dash ... and then the magnificent Beethoven with full orchestra from all the front channels. I hope it's that way on the disk.



Hi Gary,

Funny the things that imprint themselves on our memories isn't, it? That opening sequence in the "The Longest Day" remains the same. Wonderful soundtrack for what I consider the best, and most accurate, WWII movie ever made. We are coming up on June 6th, and I had been thinking about Normandy lately. It was great to watch the movie again.

Our audio preferences are very individualistic and subjective, but yes I do think that my six full-range speakers sound better for acoustic music than my nice quality subs. My speakers will handle any acoustic music I can throw at them. But 5.1 movies are an entirely different story for me. Even the best movie soundtracks produced in the 70mm era probably didn't have meaningful content below 30Hz, and most of that theater-shaking sound we loved probably was from about 50Hz to 100Hz. That mid-bass range is where we feel most of the chest punch and room shaking effects. Even with multiple, sometimes many, 12" and 15" drivers in large cabinets, movie theaters of the pre-subwoofer era had trouble producing sub-30Hz sounds at really significant volumes. According to what I have read, most theaters still do, which makes many home theaters a terrific alternative to all but the best modern theaters.

The game started changing forever with the Dolby 5.1 standards, and since then has really taken off. Most modern action movies (made in about the last 20 years, and increasingly so in the last 5 or 10) have a great deal of content below 40Hz, and often quite a bit under 20Hz. Now, a system that can go down to about 15Hz, or even lower, is a real plus, as we experience the infrasonic sound and feel of music and special effects. It is quite a different experience than the chest punch which occurs at mid-bass frequencies. I like both, and use my full-range speakers to help augment my subs in the mid-bass, while the subs mostly concentrate on the low bass below about 60Hz. But again, everyone's specific preferences are so varied for the entertainment hobbies we share. 

Watching the movies you named in really good wide screen theaters made a tremendous difference as I recall. Watching the same movies years later, in smaller theaters, just didn't have the same visual or audio impact for me as it did when I saw them originally in a Cinerama theater. It's nice to be able to revisit some of those movies at home and enjoy some of that original impact.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Angry Neighbors

*Denon 4200*

I searched through a lot of pages and FAQ and didn't find my dilemma. If this has been answered please refer me to the post number. 

Run the Audyssey for the first time and on the forth test it couldn't find my sub or front right speaker. I know they are wired correctly but my main concern is how high the volume gets because I'm almost afraid it will blow my speakers. My mains are Paradigm SA-30 in-walls with a PW 2200 sub. It almost seems like Audyssey changed my speakers to large because I could hear the speakers woofer bottoming out.

Should I skip the process after retrying? After the failed test I got out my trusty Radio Shack sound meter and calibrated the speakers for my room manually. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Selden Ball

Angry Neighbors said:


> I searched through a lot of pages and FAQ and didn't find my dilemma. If this has been answered please refer me to the post number.
> 
> Run the Audyssey for the first time and on the forth test it couldn't find my sub or front right speaker. I know they are wired correctly but my main concern is how high the volume gets because I'm almost afraid it will blow my speakers. My mains are Paradigm SA-30 in-walls with a PW 2200 sub. It almost seems like Audyssey changed my speakers to large because I could hear the speakers woofer bottoming out.
> 
> Should I skip the process after retrying? After the failed test I got out my trusty Radio Shack sound meter and calibrated the speakers for my room manually. Any help would be greatly appreciated.


If the receiver can't detect speakers, make sure all of their connections are tight and correct. After all, you did just rewire everything, and it's easy to make mistakes. I had to fix connections on both ends of the speaker cable for of one of my new overhead speakers. If it still can't see the speakers, the receiver is defective. Replace it.

The Audyssey calibration uses sound levels of only 75dB, not enough to damage anything. 

After the calibration, you should manually set all of the speakers to Small. Audyssey doesn't set the speakers to Large, that's done by the receiver's own firmware if the speakers wind up with a crossover frequency below about 50Hz. 

If you haven't already done so, please take the time to read through the Audyssey 101/FAQ. The instructions in the various receivers' owner's manuals are woefully inadequate.


----------



## mthomas47

Angry Neighbors said:


> I searched through a lot of pages and FAQ and didn't find my dilemma. If this has been answered please refer me to the post number.
> 
> Run the Audyssey for the first time and on the forth test it couldn't find my sub or front right speaker. I know they are wired correctly but my main concern is how high the volume gets because I'm almost afraid it will blow my speakers. My mains are Paradigm SA-30 in-walls with a PW 2200 sub. It almost seems like Audyssey changed my speakers to large because I could hear the speakers woofer bottoming out.
> 
> Should I skip the process after retrying? After the failed test I got out my trusty Radio Shack sound meter and calibrated the speakers for my room manually. Any help would be greatly appreciated.



Hi,

I have a couple of thoughts to add to Selden's answer. First, the fact that you only had an issue on the 4th mic position sounds like a problem with the AVR. I believe that I might try a microprocessor reset (or two) to see if that will correct that aspect of things.

The Audyssey test tone is always 75db, but it can sound quite loud if you are close to one of the speakers during the test. With in-wall speakers, it is possible that the wall enclosure is somehow amplifying the effect or causing some kind of reverberation. Do the speakers sound normal playing at -10 MV with some low frequency content? Do the woofers sound as if they are bottoming out in that case? The second issue sounds more related to the speakers, or to their in-wall positioning, than it does to Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Angry Neighbors

Thanks to you both for your respones, rechecked my speaker connections and re-did the test. Everything worked flawlessly on the second go around, still don't know why it was so loud on the initial test because today's test was at normal level. 

Distances

FL 18.3
FR 17.4
C 15.7
SR 8.9
SL 8.1
SUB 24.1 "realistically 10'"

Levels

FL +3
FR +3
C +7
SL -1
SR -0.5
SUB -4


----------



## D Bone

Angry Neighbors said:


> Thanks to you both for your respones, rechecked my speaker connections and re-did the test. Everything worked flawlessly on the second go around, still don't know why it was so loud on the initial test because today's test was at normal level.
> 
> Distances
> 
> FL 18.3
> FR 17.4
> C 15.7
> SR 8.9
> SL 8.1
> SUB 24.1 "realistically 10'"
> 
> Levels
> 
> FL +3
> FR +3
> C +7
> SL -1
> SR -0.5
> SUB -4


Leave the sub distance as Audyssey found, as it is correct because of the dsp/delay in the subwoofer's electronics. Everything else looks good too.


----------



## mthomas47

Angry Neighbors said:


> Thanks to you both for your respones, rechecked my speaker connections and re-did the test. Everything worked flawlessly on the second go around, still don't know why it was so loud on the initial test because today's test was at normal level.
> 
> Distances
> 
> FL 18.3
> FR 17.4
> C 15.7
> SR 8.9
> SL 8.1
> SUB 24.1 "realistically 10'"
> 
> Levels
> 
> FL +3
> FR +3
> C +7
> SL -1
> SR -0.5
> SUB -4



You are very welcome! Glad it worked out. Those are some pretty long distances for your front speakers and your center, which explains the relatively high trim settings for those three. I don't think it is anything to be too concerned about, but I would probably make sure that I kept the crossovers a little higher than where your AVR set them, initially, and I would ease into higher volumes (above -15 MV, or so) gradually, to make sure that everything sounds good.

What were your crossovers after running Audyssey?


----------



## Angry Neighbors

mthomas47 said:


> What were your crossovers after running Audyssey?


They was all at 40. At this point I don't even know how to change the Ausyssey recommendations. Not saying I want to but so far I can't find a way to do it. So far it sound fantastic on DVD but the cable test will be tonight with Game of Thrones and Penny Dreadful.


----------



## mthomas47

Angry Neighbors said:


> They was all at 40. At this point I don't even know how to change the Ausyssey recommendations. Not saying I want to but so far I can't find a way to do it. So far it sound fantastic on DVD but the cable test will be tonight with Game of Thrones and Penny Dreadful.



Just go into the main menu with your remote: Speakers/Manual/Crossovers. The crossovers can be set globally or individually. For now, I would set all of them at 80Hz. I really think that would be a good idea, particularly before watching the two shows you named!


----------



## Angry Neighbors

mthomas47 said:


> Just go into the main menu with your remote: Speakers/Manual/Crossovers. The crossovers can be set globally or individually. For now, I would set all of them at 80Hz. I really think that would be a good idea, particularly before watching the two shows you named!


Thank you and thank you and all of the other AVS members for not making me feel like a stupid noob. I do a lot of reading and searches to educate myself but some of the content hasn't sunk in yet. 

One last question in Laymans terms, what did changing the crossovers do by changing them from 40 to 80...


----------



## D Bone

Angry Neighbors said:


> Thank you and thank you and all of the other AVS members for not making me feel like a stupid noob. I do a lot of reading and searches to educate myself but some of the content hasn't sunk in yet.
> 
> One last question in Laymans terms, what did changing the crossovers do by changing them from 40 to 80...


Changing to 80hz sent more bass to the sub. Basically 80hz on down goes to the sub and frees the main amps and speakers from having to play deep bass. 

The 40hz setting sent bass 40hz and below to the sub, which meant the main speakers and amp had to output base above 40hz. 

Like Mike said, 80hz is the better setting and should be used.


----------



## mthomas47

Angry Neighbors said:


> Thank you and thank you and all of the other AVS members for not making me feel like a stupid noob. I do a lot of reading and searches to educate myself but some of the content hasn't sunk in yet.
> 
> One last question in Laymans terms, what did changing the crossovers do by changing them from 40 to 80...





D Bone said:


> Changing to 80hz sent more bass to the sub. Basically 80hz on down goes to the sub and frees the main amps and speakers from having to play deep bass.
> 
> The 40hz setting sent bass 40hz and below to the sub, which meant the main speakers and amp had to output base above 40hz.
> 
> Like Mike said, 80hz is the better setting and should be used.



You are welcome! FWIW, we have all been noobs at one time or another. 

As Dbone said, it's generally a good idea to set crossovers at 80Hz, anyway. Since you specifically mentioned hearing some sounds you didn't like from your woofers with the full-range test tone at 75db, and since your trim levels on your front three speakers were already high, I thought it was a particularly useful precaution to take. Distortion isn't good for your speakers or your sound quality.

Later, you might experiment a little, once you have given yourself several days to hear how things sound. But I wouldn't go below 60Hz in this situation, and I believe that 80Hz is likely to be better in any case.


----------



## Vidgamer

I was reading about the different flavors of Audyssey (probably the FAQ?) and from one description, it sounded like the XT (non-32) had a lot of problems in how it handled the high-end signal. A chart showed a lot of crazy adjustments! Is it worth using XT? Is this even something an audiophile purist would want? ;-) Anyway, I ask only because I felt like I was getting mixed results. In some ways, I really appreciated the Audyssey adjustments - balanced tone between speakers, digital delay.... but it sounds a bit more "artificial" than straight stereo. I'm going to change my setup and try again with a different orientation, so I'll give it another shot, but I was curious if the XT was really that problematic.


----------



## mthomas47

Vidgamer said:


> I was reading about the different flavors of Audyssey (probably the FAQ?) and from one description, it sounded like the XT (non-32) had a lot of problems in how it handled the high-end signal. A chart showed a lot of crazy adjustments! Is it worth using XT? Is this even something an audiophile purist would want? ;-) Anyway, I ask only because I felt like I was getting mixed results. In some ways, I really appreciated the Audyssey adjustments - balanced tone between speakers, digital delay.... but it sounds a bit more "artificial" than straight stereo. I'm going to change my setup and try again with a different orientation, so I'll give it another shot, but I was curious if the XT was really that problematic.


Hi,

In my opinion, that is one of those YMMV questions. Some people, who post regularly, get great results (including in the high end) with XT. And some don't. FWIW, I think that, although there are some fundamental differences in the way that XT and XT-32 are implemented, set-up and calibration technique are very important with both. I have never had XT, but XT-32 can definitely produce some funky high range sounds if I get the Audyssey mic a little too close to my chair back, even with a fluffy blanket over the back. Try two blankets, because more is better (right?) and I can pick up some audible harshness in the upper mid-range.

So, the extent to which XT works well across the entire frequency range (it nearly always works well in the modal region and up to 2000Hz, or so) is probably going to be somewhat room and speaker dependent. But it may also be strongly influenced by your set-up (getting tweeters pointed just so with respect to the MLP, for instance) and by your specific calibration technique. And both of those can take some trial and error, in my opinion, to achieve optimum results.

Of course, after everything, you can also experiment with various settings including Audyssey Reference versus Flat; DEQ on and off, and RLO settings; and even going with Audyssey off for Stereo, and on for 5.1 movies and music. Please report back on your efforts, and let people here know if you need any specific trouble-shooting assistance.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## D Bone

Vidgamer said:


> I was reading about the different flavors of Audyssey (probably the FAQ?) and from one description, it sounded like the XT (non-32) had a lot of problems in how it handled the high-end signal. A chart showed a lot of crazy adjustments! Is it worth using XT? Is this even something an audiophile purist would want? ;-) Anyway, I ask only because I felt like I was getting mixed results. In some ways, I really appreciated the Audyssey adjustments - balanced tone between speakers, digital delay.... but it sounds a bit more "artificial" than straight stereo. I'm going to change my setup and try again with a different orientation, so I'll give it another shot, but I was curious if the XT was really that problematic.


This is definitely a "depends who you ask" question. Some have XT, run an 8pt calibration and are happy as can be, others struggle to be happy. I fall in the struggle category myself.

I've had multiple AVRs with XT, and multiple speakers all in the same room and layout within that room, as it's my living room based HT.

I've always found XT to be a mixed bag. With my bipole surrounds, it was unlistenable in any setting as it jacked up the treble in the surrounds to a level that was awful. I can only guess that it was because neither tweeter in the speaker was on axis (by design of course) and XT jacked up the treble so high to try and get it 'flat' that the tweeters just couldn't handle the frequency increase and distorted at higher master volume levels.... It's only my theory, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct, because I have since gone back to direct radiating surrounds and I no longer have the issue. 

I currently use the L/R Bypass setting and am pretty happy. I choose not to use a center speaker by design, and I still don't care for what XT does to my L/Rs in either reference or flat. It does something to the vocal range that seems to "recess" dialog, while also making it "chesty". With the L/R BP setting, I get my sub EQd as well as my surrounds, while leaving my L/Rs alone, so it's the perfect setting for me.

My next AVR will have the ability to _not_ EQ above say 300-500hz that's for sure.


----------



## pepar

My first Audyssey-equipped prepro had XT and I thought it improved my system. I also had a well treated room including SSC-style bass traps, so there was not any "heavy lifting" for XT to do. My impression was that it greatly improved LCR/surrounds integration as well as mains/sub integration.

As others have posted, YMMV.

Jeff


----------



## garygarrison

Vidgamer said:


> I was reading about the different flavors of Audyssey (probably the FAQ?) and from one description, it sounded like the XT (non-32) had a lot of problems in how it handled the high-end signal. A chart showed a lot of crazy adjustments! Is it worth using XT? Is this even something an audiophile purist would want? ;-) Anyway, I ask only because I felt like I was getting mixed results. In some ways, I really appreciated the Audyssey adjustments - balanced tone between speakers, digital delay.... but it sounds a bit more "artificial" than straight stereo. I'm going to change my setup and try again with a different orientation, so I'll give it another shot, but I was curious if the XT was really that problematic.


As Bone said, it is a "depends who you ask" question, but it it may also be a "what the room and speakers belonging to the person you are asking are like, as well as what their previous experience, biases, and taste in music are like." As everyone is saying, YMMV.

I have XT, and I'm in no hurry to replace it. In my moderately treated room, the treble is much improved with Audyssey engaged, perhaps largely due to XT cutting out a peak centered at about 8K Hz, while boosting a little both above and below that, something that I could never do with a tone control, even with my late, lamented, pre-Audyssey Luxman with it's ultra versatile tone controls (choices of three turnovers for both bass and treble, plus other options that could be added on). The improvement is apparent either with prolonged informal listening, or with rapidly switching back and forth between Audyssey OFF, Audyssey ON (i.e., Audyssey Reference) and Audyssey FLAT. With good recordings, Audyssey OFF sounds less clear, less "open," and less natural. Audyssey Reference sounds distinctly better in all the ways stated above, but still not as "live" sounding as the close seats at a classical or modern orchestral concert (on the rare occasions I go to a Rock concert, I sit far, far away). With these good recordings, Audyssey FLAT sounds the best of all, IMO. With recordings with high frequency distortion or harshness, Audyssey Reference is usually the best choice for me.

I hardly ever use DEQ -- to me, it sounds less "open." I should add that I almost always listen at about 5 dB below Reference Level, so there is not much DEQ would be expected to do for me, other than bringing to my attention any insertion loss of quality. If I listened at 20 or more dB below Reference, I might like it more.

I'm not sure what you mean by "_A chart showed a lot of crazy adjustments!_" If you are referring to a graph seen on your monitor screen, provided by your AVR or pre-pro, most of these are somewhere between nearly useless and useless. Many use data points about an octave apart, which doesn't do justice to the hundreds of data points used by Audyssey.


----------



## D Bone

garygarrison said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "_A chart showed a lot of crazy adjustments!_"


I believe he's referring to a pre-out measurement graph that showed XT doing a lot more correction in the upper mid/treble range of the signal than XT32. If I remember correctly, it was known as the "XT hair" graph. 

edit: found it http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...e-using-audyssey-bypass-l-r.html#post41885033


----------



## mthomas47

^^

Thanks for posting the link. I remember the consternation on the thread when that discussion was first occurring. I was lucky enough to go from an even earlier version of Audyssey, which I really never learned to use properly, directly to XT-32, which I did.

Given a choice in the matter, I would always advise people to get XT-32 because it is both an evolution of older Audyssey versions and an improved methodological approach. But people don't always have unlimited choices in the Audyssey versions they get, due to affordability or for other reasons. For people who see those graphs and read the various explanations, one thing that is not comprehensively addressed is how rooms and systems sound with XT. And that is partly because the SQ varies depending on room and equipment, and on calibration technique, and also because SQ is so subjective. But there have been too many reports from people I respect such as Pepar and Gary, in their posts above, for me to write off XT.

If you have the choice, by all means get XT-32. If you have XT, by all means implement it as well as possible, and hopefully enjoy the audible benefits. They will vary from situation to situation, but XT-32 = better doesn't mean XT = bad, particularly not when it comes to something as subjective as sound quality.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Vidgamer

Ok, when I get set up in the new location, I'll try again. I've been running with it off lately, but I do think it offers a lot -- improved integration between the three speakers helps. I think it's the high-end that seems busy, and that graph just seems to confirm it. But, I need to do a better job of calibration too, better seating positions, etc. I think the new location will work out better in general, so I'll give it another try. I'll also try "flat" and see what that does.

I have a Denon X3000 if that makes a difference. It would have been considerably more expensive to step up to the X4000, thus I've got XT, not 32. So, I'll have to try to get this to work!


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> If you have the choice, by all means get XT-32. If you have XT, by all means implement it as well as possible, and hopefully enjoy the audible benefits. They will vary from situation to situation, but XT-32 = better doesn't mean XT = bad, particularly not when it comes to something as subjective as sound quality.


Reinforcing this, I will paraphrase Rummy; you go to war with the room correction technology you have, not the room correction technology you want or wish to have at a later time.

Jeff


----------



## dlynch34

I presently have xt32 would going to the pro give me any sonic benefits at all overall?


----------



## pepar

That sort of depends on what you mean by "sonic benefits .. overall." MultEQ Pro brings the ability to use more mic positions which can be beneficial covering a larger seating area, or to concentrate more than eight positions within a smaller seating area. But, MOSTLY, Pro's ability to edit the target curve (and crossover points) is the main feature that people cite as improving their overall sound quality. Also, saving and loading multiple calibrations is a plus.

If those don't seem important, then keep in mind that Pro only uses the underlying Audyssey version and doesn't add anything to that. There were a number of Angry Birds who cursed Pro once XT32 arrived ... it was THAT much better than XT that they felt they had wasted their money on their kits. Technology always advances, but they seemed to have taken it personally. 

Jeff


----------



## dlynch34

pepar said:


> That sort of depends on what you mean by "sonic benefits .. overall." MultEQ Pro brings the ability to use more mic positions which can be beneficial covering a larger seating area, or to concentrate more than eight positions within a smaller seating area. But, MOSTLY, Pro's ability to edit the target curve (and crossover points) is the main feature that people cite as improving their overall sound quality. Also, saving and loading multiple calibrations is a plus.
> 
> If those don't seem important, then keep in mind that Pro only uses the underlying Audyssey version and doesn't add anything to that. There were a number of Angry Birds who cursed Pro once XT32 arrived ... it was THAT much better than XT that they felt they had wasted their money on their kits. Technology always advances, but they seemed to have taken it personally.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks I have heard similar takes and I think I will just stick with xt32 for now. If I get a real itch I will look for another solution for room correction if need be but for now this should be fine..


----------



## Vidgamer

pepar said:


> Reinforcing this, I will paraphrase Rummy; you go to war with the room correction technology you have, not the room correction technology you want or wish to have at a later time.
> 
> Jeff



Haha! OK thanks guys. I'll try not to be too OCD about it. ;-)


----------



## garygarrison

Vidgamer said:


> Haha! OK thanks guys. I'll try not to be too OCD about it. ;-)


We're all OCD here. 
-- after Lewis Carroll


----------



## gurkey

pepar said:


> That sort of depends on what you mean by "sonic benefits .. overall." MultEQ Pro brings the ability to use more mic positions which can be beneficial covering a larger seating area, or to concentrate more than eight positions within a smaller seating area. But, MOSTLY, Pro's ability to edit the target curve (and crossover points) is the main feature that people cite as improving their overall sound quality. Also, saving and loading multiple calibrations is a plus.
> 
> If those don't seem important, then keep in mind that Pro only uses the underlying Audyssey version and doesn't add anything to that. There were a number of Angry Birds who cursed Pro once XT32 arrived ... it was THAT much better than XT that they felt they had wasted their money on their kits. Technology always advances, but they seemed to have taken it personally.
> 
> Jeff


Most think, that the so called "Pro or "Installer" version is something completely different than the "standard" XT32, but... the "Pro" version ultimately uses just the same algorithms as the XT32 with some (restricted) additional adjustements and more measuring positions for a bigger environment (home cinema) and a "better" mike instrumentation. The "real" differences are therefore not as significant as some make believe. Compared to the money to be spent i would be reluctant to invest in it for that "little" improvement it might produce, if any...


----------



## pepar

I have to agree.

But even after XT32 showed up in my system, I still liked Pro because of the ability to edit the target curve and, even more important to me, perform, save and load two different calibrations ... one for my 7.1 cinema spkr config (90° tripole surrounds) and one for my 5.1 "in-the-band mix" spkr config (120° surround, identical L-C-R-LS-RS monopoles).

Jeff


----------



## Roudan

Hi 

Just wondering where do you place your sub if you have two subs? I used both REW and audyssey and get pretty flat frequency curve for my two subs. The best location is one behind my sofa the other in my left back corner. So both subs are behind the seats . I understand LFE is nondirectinal. But typical intuitive is one sub at the front the other one behind. My case is both subs are at rear based on REW and audyssey. Isn't there any mismeasurent? Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it.


----------



## Selden Ball

Roudan said:


> Hi
> 
> Just wondering where do you place your sub if you have two subs? I used both REW and audyssey and get pretty flat frequency curve for my two subs. The best location is one behind my sofa the other in my left back corner. So both subs are behind the seats . I understand LFE is nondirectinal. But typical intuitive is one sub at the front the other one behind. My case is both subs are at rear based on REW and audyssey. Isn't there any mismeasurent? Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it.


You'll probably get the best technical help if you post your question in the REW thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html

My understanding is that after optimizing the location of the first sub, the second sub is best used to fill in the nulls produced by the first. Except for the case of an empty, perfectly rectangular room with no doorways or windows, the ideal sub positions are going to be different in different rooms. If you're experiencing an accurate low frequency response at your MLP, then your sub placement is appropriate for your listening environment.


----------



## Roudan

Selden Ball said:


> Roudan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Just wondering where do you place your sub if you have two subs? I used both REW and audyssey and get pretty flat frequency curve for my two subs. The best location is one behind my sofa the other in my left back corner. So both subs are behind the seats . I understand LFE is nondirectinal. But typical intuitive is one sub at the front the other one behind. My case is both subs are at rear based on REW and audyssey. Isn't there any mismeasurent? Thanks for your comments. Appreciate it.
> 
> 
> 
> You'll probably get the best technical help if you post your question in the REW thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html
> 
> My understanding is that after optimizing the location of the first sub, the second sub is best used to fill in the nulls produced by the first. Except for the case of an empty, perfectly rectangular room with no doorways or windows, the ideal sub positions are going to be different in different rooms. If you're experiencing an accurate low frequency response at your MLP, then your sub placement is appropriate for your listening environment.
Click to expand...

Thanks Selden Ball. When you said experiencing an accurate low frequency response, how to know that! Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

Roudan said:


> Thanks Selden Ball. When you said experiencing an accurate low frequency response, how to know that! Thanks



Hi,

I agree that having two subs behind the MLP seems counter-intuitive, but I have read other reports of people achieving superior performance that way. Essentially, the low frequencies produced by the subs don't care where they are coming from. So, if you are getting the best measurable frequency response from those current locations, then you should already be experiencing an optimally accurate low frequency response for those two subs in your room.

But that may not necessarily be the full story. There are two other factors that I can think of which people may sometimes consider when positioning dual subs. (I am omitting aesthetic considerations here and just concentrating on functional ones.) The first is localization. Depending on where crossovers are set, it can be important to have a sub in the front of the room to prevent listeners from localizing bass sounds as coming from behind them. With crossovers of 80Hz, or lower, that is typically not a problem. Depending on the individual listener, it might not be a problem with even higher crossovers.

The second factor might be termed bass envelopment. This is the sensation of low frequency content (as much felt as heard) of which some people seem to be more aware than others. I experienced that when both of my subs were on one side of the room, and the pressure waves during loud low frequency content all seemed to be coming from that side. Many people never report experiencing this, so it is hard to know how prevalent or significant it is. I suspect that specific room geometry may play an important role in that.

My conclusion would be, that if you have achieved the optimum measured frequency response from your current sub locations, and don't hear/feel anything amiss with that arrangement, then you are good to go. Since you asked the question, I just thought it might be helpful to distinguish between measured response as an absolute, and personal preference as a relative thing, because they can be different. In other words, measured response and personal listening preference would ideally be identical, but might not be. In trying to clarify the choices, I hope I haven't actually confused things more. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Roudan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I agree that having two subs behind the MLP seems counter-intuitive, but I have read other reports of people achieving superior performance that way. Essentially, the low frequencies produced by the subs don't care where they are coming from. So, if you are getting the best measurable frequency response from those current locations, then you should already be experiencing an optimally accurate low frequency response for those two subs in your room.
> 
> But that may not necessarily be the full story. There are two other factors that I can think of which people may sometimes consider when positioning dual subs. (I am omitting aesthetic considerations here and just concentrating on functional ones.) The first is localization. Depending on where crossovers are set, it can be important to have a sub in the front of the room to prevent listeners from localizing bass sounds as coming from behind them. With crossovers of 80Hz, or lower, that is typically not a problem. Depending on the individual listener, it might not be a problem with even higher crossovers.
> 
> The second factor might be termed bass envelopment. This is the sensation of low frequency content (as much felt as heard) of which some people seem to be more aware than others. I experienced that when both of my subs were on one side of the room, and the pressure waves during loud low frequency content all seemed to be coming from that side. Many people never report experiencing this, so it is hard to know how prevalent or significant it is. I suspect that specific room geometry may play an important role in that.
> 
> My conclusion would be, that if you have achieved the optimum measured frequency response from your current sub locations, and don't hear/feel anything amiss with that arrangement, then you are good to go. Since you asked the question, I just thought it might be helpful to distinguish between measured response as an absolute, and personal preference as a relative thing, because they can be different. In other words, measured response and personal listening preference would ideally be identical, but might not be. In trying to clarify the choices, I hope I haven't actually confused things more.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, that is a very good explanation. I appreciate your opinion.


----------



## Selden Ball

Roudan said:


> Thanks Selden Ball. When you said experiencing an accurate low frequency response, how to know that! Thanks


One way is to measure it using a spectrum analysis package like REW.


----------



## j.s.woods

If I have only one main seating position should I still do the calibration at every seating position in my room? I normally only do 3 on my couch across the 5ft span.


----------



## mthomas47

j.s.woods said:


> If I have only one main seating position should I still do the calibration at every seating position in my room? I normally only do 3 on my couch across the 5ft span.



Hi,

The microphone positions don't necessarily correlate specifically to all of the listening positions. but it is desirable to use the full number of mic positions (usually 8) in order to give the Audyssey algorithm as much information about the listening area as possible. If listening positions are clustered together pretty well, you might be able to place the mic at each seating position. But, if not, it is usually recommended to cluster the 8 mic positions within about 2' or 3' of the MLP (main listening position).

For a single listening position, many people use a much tighter mic pattern of 12" to 18" clustered around that position. All of those mic positions should generally be at ear level, but some people have good success making a couple of the mic positions 2" or 3" above ear level. If you want to post a photo of the room, you can get some more targeted advice on potential mic placement.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## j.s.woods

HI Mike. Thanks for the input. Here is a quick picture of my setup. For reference, I have a marantz sr7010 avr. Also, I have in ceiling speakers for my surrounds. Which leads to another question. Should I have my surrounds setup as height speakers or set for surrounds. I only have a 5.2 system with no space available for ear height surround channels.


----------



## mthomas47

j.s.woods said:


> HI Mike. Thanks for the input. Here is a quick picture of my setup. For reference, I have a marantz sr7010 avr. Also, I have in ceiling speakers for my surrounds. Which leads to another question. Should I have my surrounds setup as height speakers or set for surrounds. I only have a 5.2 system with no space available for ear height surround channels.



You are very welcome! That's a nice looking room. If I were you, I would just try a pretty tight mic pattern centered on your MLP, and I would not go behind the sofa with any of the 8 positions. Try a calibration with a couple of the mic positions 2" or 3" above ear level, but keep the other six right at ear level, and at least about 4" to 6" away from the sofa. So, maybe 12" to 18" out to each side of the MLP, and about to 18' to 24" forward from the back of the sofa, with all 8 positions within that box.

I don't think that your AVR will allow you to set your ceiling speakers as anything but surrounds. Typically, you have to have surround speakers in your system before the AVR will allow you to add rear surround or height speakers. Sound-wise, I doubt that it would make any difference regardless of how they were configured (labeled) by the AVR.

One small suggestion I would make is to pull your center channel forward so that it just clears the edge of the cabinet by about an inch. If you can tilt it up slightly toward ear level that will also help.


----------



## j.s.woods

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! That's a nice looking room. If I were you, I would just try a pretty tight mic pattern centered on your MLP, and I would not go behind the sofa with any of the 8 positions. Try a calibration with a couple of the mic positions 2" or 3" above ear level, but keep the other six right at ear level, and at least about 4" to 6" away from the sofa. So, maybe 12" to 18" out to each side of the MLP, and about to 18' to 24" forward from the back of the sofa, with all 8 positions within that box.
> 
> I don't think that your AVR will allow you to set your ceiling speakers as anything but surrounds. Typically, you have to have surround speakers in your system before the AVR will allow you to add rear surround or height speakers. Sound-wise, I doubt that it would make any difference regardless of how they were configured (labeled) by the AVR.
> 
> One small suggestion I would make is to pull your center channel forward so that it just clears the edge of the cabinet by about an inch. If you can tilt it up slightly toward ear level that will also help.


Great advice. I will give it a try right away! Thanks again for the help.


----------



## grassy

I have the AVPa1hd pre/pro by Denon and a Velodyne dd15+ sub with the Audyssey Pro Kit in a room which is 8.5m x 5.5m rectangular, do i need an SPL meter as i have never ever gone down that road. Will it make a huge difference to the end result.Or would the Audyssey pro kit be all i would need.


----------



## mogorf

grassy said:


> I have the AVPa1hd pre/pro by Denon and a Velodyne dd15+ sub with the Audyssey Pro Kit in a room which is 8.5m x 5.5m rectangular, do i need an SPL meter as i have never ever gone down that road. Will it make a huge difference to the end result.Or would the Audyssey pro kit be all i would need.


Hi grassy,

An SPL meter typically has a tolerance of +/- 2 dB, while the Pro Kit mic comes with +/- 0.5 dB. On another note, you won't get accurate measurements in the bass department without a correction (calibration) curve of the unit.

When you use such an SLP meter to check what the Pro Kit did to your system's performance, you're gonna be dissapointed or at least won't u/stand what happened. 

If you really need an SPL meter you should look for one with at least the tolerance of the Pro Kit mic or better + calibration info. But that'll be a costy story. 

I would, like many others here, trust the Pro Kit mic and call it a day. Hope this helps.


----------



## mthomas47

Hi Feri! Where have you been lately?


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri! Where have you been lately?


Got a new job, keeps me busy in the day time and tired in the evening. Nonetheless, its good to be here with you Guys.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Got a new job, keeps me busy in the day time and tired in the evening. Nonetheless, its good to be here with you Guys.



Pesky jobs!  Anyway, it's good to see you back.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Pesky jobs!  Anyway, it's good to see you back.


Thanks Mike. Appreciate your care.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Hi grassy,
> 
> An SPL meter typically has a tolerance of +/- 2 dB, while the Pro Kit mic comes with +/- 0.5 dB. On another note, you won't get accurate measurements in the bass department without a correction (calibration) curve of the unit.
> 
> When you use such an SLP meter to check what the Pro Kit did to your system's performance, you're gonna be dissapointed or at least won't u/stand what happened.
> 
> If you really need an SPL meter you should look for one with at least the tolerance of the Pro Kit mic or better + calibration info. But that'll be a costy story.
> 
> I would, like many others here, trust the Pro Kit mic and call it a day. Hope this helps.


Even without the Pro-Kit, most reasonably priced SPL meters are not as good as Audyssey at measuring frequency response, if that's what you want to do, now or later. REW is good, with a calibrated microphone (approx $100), but to replicate Audyssey's EQ results (to "check" Audyssey EQ), you would need to put the calibrated mic you use with REW in all the same mic positions in which you put the Audyssey mic, and take an average, but that would just be an average, not the same as Audyssey's "fuzzy logic," so I wouldn't expect matching results. The most popular SPL meter is not accurate in either the low or high frequencies, but may be O.K. for band limited pink noise between 500 and 2K Hz, as well as O.K. for measuring overall noise levels in industry (but I don't know if OSHA accepts it). Even in just trying to match levels, it might be a mistake to use the noise signal in a pre/pro, because it does not put the noise signal through the Audyssey EQ. This would be especially inappropriate true in some rooms, with some speakers (combinations needing a great deal of correction from Audyssey). If you want to measure overall levels from the main listening position, put a test disk with pink noise on your player, so the signal will go through the entire chain, including Audyssey correction. Many people find that trusting Audyssey without using a meter is O.K.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Even without the Pro-Kit, most reasonably priced SPL meters are not as good as Audyssey at measuring frequency response, if that's what you want to do, now or later. REW is good, with a calibrated microphone (approx $100), but to replicate Audyssey's EQ results (to "check" Audyssey), you would need to put the calibrated mic you use with REW in all the same mic positions in which you put the Audyssey mic, and take an average, but that would just be an average, not the same as Audyssey's "fuzzy logic," so I wouldn't expect matching results. The most popular SPL meter is not accurate in either the low or high frequencies, but may be O.K. for band limited pink noise between 500 and 2K Hz, as well as O.K. for measuring overall noise levels in industry (but I don't know if OSHA accepts it).


+1 to Gary's comments.


----------



## grassy

mogorf said:


> Hi grassy,
> 
> An SPL meter typically has a tolerance of +/- 2 dB, while the Pro Kit mic comes with +/- 0.5 dB. On another note, you won't get accurate measurements in the bass department without a correction (calibration) curve of the unit.
> 
> When you use such an SLP meter to check what the Pro Kit did to your system's performance, you're gonna be dissapointed or at least won't u/stand what happened.
> 
> If you really need an SPL meter you should look for one with at least the tolerance of the Pro Kit mic or better + calibration info. But that'll be a costy story.
> 
> I would, like many others here, trust the Pro Kit mic and call it a day. Hope this helps.


 Thankyou mogorf, as it is i really don't need one then. I am getting a nice sound as it is but i just thought i would ask the question as i am always looking to improve on the sound quality with what i have and have never gone down the SPL meter road. I have basically just used the pro kit and then tweaked the speaker settings to my liking without going overboard.I really appreciate your help here so thankyou mate.


----------



## grassy

garygarrison said:


> Even without the Pro-Kit, most reasonably priced SPL meters are not as good as Audyssey at measuring frequency response, if that's what you want to do, now or later. REW is good, with a calibrated microphone (approx $100), but to replicate Audyssey's EQ results (to "check" Audyssey EQ), you would need to put the calibrated mic you use with REW in all the same mic positions in which you put the Audyssey mic, and take an average, but that would just be an average, not the same as Audyssey's "fuzzy logic," so I wouldn't expect matching results. The most popular SPL meter is not accurate in either the low or high frequencies, but may be O.K. for band limited pink noise between 500 and 2K Hz, as well as O.K. for measuring overall noise levels in industry (but I don't know if OSHA accepts it). Even in just trying to match levels, it might be a mistake to use the noise signal in a pre/pro, because it does not put the noise signal through the Audyssey EQ. This would be especially inappropriate true in some rooms, with some speakers (combinations needing a great deal of correction from Audyssey). If you want to measure overall levels from the main listening position, put a test disk with pink noise on your player, so the signal will go through the entire chain, including Audyssey correction. Many people find that trusting Audyssey without using a meter is O.K.


Thanks garygarrison, i will take all that onboard mate.I feel well confident in having the best sound at the moment with what i have and i am just making sure i am not missing out on anything that is unfamiliar to me. Thanks mate


----------



## kazinvan

Did the Audyssey calibration last night on my Denon X2200. Distances look reasonable, but levels seem off.

First, my fronts were set to Large, so I changed those to small. Crossover was set at 40Hz which I bumped to 60Hz but should these by at 80Hz?

Levels seem odd, left side was -2, center -5.5, and right -1. Dialog is not clear and I find I'm turning it up fairly loud during scenes that are "normal" but it's too loud during action sequences (watched Captain America last night). I dialed up the Dialog Level adjust to +3. Is there any difference in bumping this up vs the speaker levels and changing the -5.5 up to 0 or something even above zero? 

Bass seems on the low side too, should I bump up the level (now at -5) or should I just turn up the sub volume (it's at half)?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## mogorf

kazinvan said:


> Did the Audyssey calibration last night on my Denon X2200. Distances look reasonable, but levels seem off.
> 
> First, my fronts were set to Large, so I changed those to small. Crossover was set at 40Hz which I bumped to 60Hz but should these be at 80Hz?


60 Hz is OK, but you may experiment with 80 Hz as well. Just give it a try.



> Levels seem odd, left side was -2, center -5.5, and right -1.


Nothing odd here, your center speaker is more efficient than L&Rs and L&Rs seem to be at a different distance, hence the 1 dB difference. Nothing to worry about, Audyssey got it right!  



> Dialog is not clear and I find I'm turning it up fairly loud during scenes that are "normal" but it's too loud during action sequences (watched Captain America last night).


For best dialog intelligibility center speaker should be placed and tilted to face seated ear hight. Is that the case?



> I dialed up the Dialog Level adjust to +3. Is there any difference in bumping this up vs the speaker levels and changing the -5.5 up to 0 or something even above zero?


This a matter of experimenting till you find what is best for you. 



> Bass seems on the low side too, should I bump up the level (now at -5) or should I just turn up the sub volume (it's at half)?


Always bump on the AVR side so that you can reset it easily while leaving the sub volume knob set "as is". 



> Thanks for the help!


Hope I could help!


----------



## mthomas47

kazinvan said:


> Did the Audyssey calibration last night on my Denon X2200. Distances look reasonable, but levels seem off.
> 
> First, my fronts were set to Large, so I changed those to small. Crossover was set at 40Hz which I bumped to 60Hz but should these by at 80Hz?
> 
> Levels seem odd, left side was -2, center -5.5, and right -1. Dialog is not clear and I find I'm turning it up fairly loud during scenes that are "normal" but it's too loud during action sequences (watched Captain America last night). I dialed up the Dialog Level adjust to +3. Is there any difference in bumping this up vs the speaker levels and changing the -5.5 up to 0 or something even above zero?
> 
> Bass seems on the low side too, should I bump up the level (now at -5) or should I just turn up the sub volume (it's at half)?
> 
> Thanks for the help!


Hi,

Feri's suggestion to pay attention to the angle of the CC is important, but if you do adjust its position, don't forget to rerun Audyssey. It is not too unusual for dialogue to be a little harder to hear, particularly with DEQ engaged. I would adjust the CC volume in the Audio Menu and give yourself a little time to get used to the sound. At some point, you also might want to experiment with your RLO settings to adjust the effect of DEQ.

If you are going to do another calibration in the near future, I would suggest increasing the gain on your sub upward a little. Ideally, you would like for Audyssey to give you an even lower setting for your sub. Something around -8 to -10 would be good at this point. That will give you more trim level to adjust upward in the AVR without exceeding 0.0. Audyssey sets all of the speakers, including the sub, to play at the same level at the MLP. But most people prefer more bass than that because our hearing is less sensitive there.

Increasing the sub trim level in the AVR by +3db to +6db is pretty typical, although some people use even more increase than that. You may find that your tastes are different for bass in music versus movies, so don't be concerned if you have to sometimes adjust the sub trim up and down in the AVR, depending on what you are watching/listening to. The CC would probably be treated somewhat similarly, which is why both of those controls are easily accessible in the audio Menu.

Wow! That was longer than I intended. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

kazinvan said:


> ... Dialog is not clear and I find I'm turning it up fairly loud during scenes that are "normal" but it's too loud during action sequences (watched Captain America last night). I dialed up the Dialog Level adjust to +3.


As has been recommended and confirmed, make sure that the CC is pointed at your ears when you are in the main listening position. Ideally this spot should be on the centerline between your L and R speakers.

Beyond that your issue seems like it might be room acoustics. If you post a pic of the front of your space, we might be able to offer more of a prescription.

Jeff


----------



## kazinvan

mogorf said:


> 60 Hz is OK, but you may experiment with 80 Hz as well. Just give it a try.
> 
> Nothing odd here, your center speaker is more efficient than L&Rs and L&Rs seem to be at a different distance, hence the 1 dB difference. Nothing to worry about, Audyssey got it right!
> 
> For best dialog intelligibility center speaker should be placed and tilted to face seated ear hight. Is that the case?


Yes, speaker is below the screen, with a slight angle upwards. Seems "relatively" pointed at my head, though it may be slightly off.



mogorf said:


> This a matter of experimenting till you find what is best for you.
> 
> Always bump on the AVR side so that you can reset it easily while leaving the sub volume knob set "as is".
> 
> Hope I could help!


Helpful, thank you.


----------



## kazinvan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Feri's suggestion to pay attention to the angle of the CC is important, but if you do adjust its position, don't forget to rerun Audyssey. It is not too unusual for dialogue to be a little harder to hear, particularly with DEQ engaged. I would adjust the CC volume in the Audio Menu and give yourself a little time to get used to the sound. At some point, you also might want to experiment with your RLO settings to adjust the effect of DEQ.
> 
> If you are going to do another calibration in the near future, I would suggest increasing the gain on your sub upward a little. Ideally, you would like for Audyssey to give you an even lower setting for your sub. Something around -8 to -10 would be good at this point. That will give you more trim level to adjust upward in the AVR without exceeding 0.0. Audyssey sets all of the speakers, including the sub, to play at the same level at the MLP. But most people prefer more bass than that because our hearing is less sensitive there.


I guess I still don't know if the adjustments in the speakers levels has the same effect as the dialog level adjustment. Do both do the exact same thing?



mthomas47 said:


> Increasing the sub trim level in the AVR by +3db to +6db is pretty typical, although some people use even more increase than that. You may find that your tastes are different for bass in music versus movies, so don't be concerned if you have to sometimes adjust the sub trim up and down in the AVR, depending on what you are watching/listening to. The CC would probably be treated somewhat similarly, which is why both of those controls are easily accessible in the audio Menu.
> 
> Wow! That was longer than I intended.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, I'll work with the AVR. Good to know.

Mike


----------



## kazinvan

pepar said:


> As has been recommended and confirmed, make sure that the CC is pointed at your ears when you are in the main listening position. Ideally this spot should be on the centerline between your L and R speakers.
> 
> Beyond that your issue seems like it might be room acoustics. If you post a pic of the front of your space, we might be able to offer more of a prescription.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks for the helps guys. New to Denon and Audyssey. Here is my room (in progress).


----------



## mthomas47

kazinvan said:


> Thanks for the helps guys. New to Denon and Audyssey. Here is my room (in progress).


Hi Mike,

Jeff's suggestion to examine room acoustics as a cause of your dialogue issues was a very good one. The pictures help. I see a lot of hard surfaces, so you are probably getting a fair bit of distortion in the room.

Here are some things you can try. First, I would definitely try tilting up the CC a little more. It's not just to get it pointing directly at your ears, although that's important, but also to try to minimize floor bounce from mid and high frequencies.

The second thing I would do is to move the futon more directly in front of the CC. If, for some reason, that's not desirable, I would put a throw rug (preferably with a rubber pad) in front of the CC. If there is anything like a wood or glass top table between the CC and your MLP, you might want to cover it with something soft, or even with some magazines. Hard surfaces aren't your friend where audio clarity is concerned, particularly for dialogue.

The third suggestion is a little bit unconventional, but I think it's worth trying in conjunction with the other two. Try increasing the distance setting on your CC. I would start with 1' more, and then try 2' or even 3'. If you are getting distortion from floor bounce, and other first and second reflections, then simply increasing the volume of the CC will also increase the amount of distortion, so you may not get any net gain in audibility. But our brains treat first arriving sounds as louder, so if you increase the distance setting on the CC, it will make sounds from that speaker arrive slightly ahead of other sounds. The timing difference is likely to be imperceptible, but there could be an increase in dialogue audibility without an increase in distortion.

I don't guarantee that this will work, but it won't affect your Audyssey calibration, so just make note of the original distance setting, and then experiment with increasing it to see if it does help. The best long-term solution will be adding some room treatments to improve the fundamental room acoustics. If you were to stand in the middle of the room and clap your hands, or ding a piece of crystal or brass with your fingernail, you would hear a lot of ringing after the initial sound. If the room itself has ringing artifacts, then the mid and high frequency sounds coming from your speakers will be somewhat obscured by those artifacts. 

Please let us know whether any of these suggestions improve things.


----------



## pepar

kazinvan said:


> Thanks for the helps guys. New to Denon and Audyssey. Here is my room (in progress).


I will amplify Mike's suggestion regarding a thick, absorbant throw rug on the floor that covers the space from in front of the left front speaker to the right front speaker. This is the simplest and least expensive "acoustical treatment" you can add. Beyond that, perhaps, pickup a carpet runner that you can lean against the front wall BEHIND L, CC and R speakers.

Beyond thes first reflection point treatments, you get into spending some money. If you have a significant other with a "vote" then the front wall rug idea might get scotched. However a temporary addition might show you this is the right course for improving your sound. If the SO is discerning enough, then maybe the official treatments you will need will be easier to effect.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> The third suggestion is a little bit unconventional, but I think it's worth trying in conjunction with the other two. Try increasing the distance setting on your CC. I would start with 1' more, and then try 2' or even 3'. If you are getting distortion from floor bounce, and other first and second reflections, then simply increasing the volume of the CC will also increase the amount of distortion, so you may not get any net gain in audibility. But our brains treat first arriving sounds as louder, so if you increase the distance setting on the CC, it will make sounds from that speaker arrive slightly ahead of other sounds. The timing difference is likely to be imperceptible, but there could be an increase in dialogue audibility without an increase in distortion.


MIKE! In all of my experience with sound and sound systems, I have never heard this before. But it immediately went into the holy****ofcourse category. This would pull the CC and its first reflections forward from any shouldering of dialog in L&R channels and could help a bit.

edit:apparently, even as part of a multicharacter string, certain words are detected and *'d out!

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> MIKE! In all of my experience with sound and sound systems, I have never heard this before. But it immediately went into the holy****ofcourse category. This would pull the CC and its first reflections forward from any shouldering of dialog in L&R channels and could help a bit.
> 
> edit:apparently, even as part of a multicharacter string, certain words are detected and *'d out!
> 
> Jeff


Yeah, I can't always decide if editing out **** is a good thing or not. Sometimes we all need a little Holy ****! in our lives. 

The CC distance is something I thought of a few years ago, and experimented with a little in my system. I didn't really have any first reflection problems from my CC, but I did have some excess high frequency energy in the room, and I still sometimes had dialogue issues, particularly where foreign accents were involved. Watching a movie like "Snatch" for instance, which I may do again at some point, you need all the help you can get. As I added additional room treatments to my room, the need for that kind of thing pretty well subsided. But it will be interesting to see whether it actually does help in the OP's case.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## D Bone

kazinvan said:


> I guess I still don't know if the adjustments in the speakers levels has the same effect as the dialog level adjustment. Do both do the exact same thing?


I never use the dialog level adjustment. I believe it is input specific, where as if you go into the settings> speakers settings>speaker levels that setting will be global for all inputs. If I were you I would use the global setting and bump up the cc level 1-3db.

Also, maybe I missed it, but are you using Dynamic EQ and if so what reference level offset are you using? If you are using DEQ try turning it completely off, and bump up your CC 2db and bump up your sub 3-5db from what Audyssey set during calibration.

Some of us find that the excessive base boost and surround level boost that DEQ provides makes dialog much harder to hear than it should be by overpowering the CC output.


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> *I never use the dialog level adjustment. I believe it is input specific, where as if you go into the settings> speakers settings>speaker levels that setting will be global for all inputs.* If I were you I would use the global setting and bump up the cc level 1-3db.


Hi DBone,

Do you know of anyone who has actually tested this input specific idea and verified it? It is possible that Denon and Marantz have some sort of difference there, or that my Marantz 7008 is anomalous in that respect. Or, it may be that I just haven't found the right (or wrong ) source, but I have made CC adjustments in the Audio Menu for years, and have never had the setting change when I change sources. The advantage of being able to make adjustments while the program is actually playing are obvious, as you can add or subtract in either large or small increments, while hearing the effects on the program in real time. 

I can't say categorically, that there can't be an instance where changing sources will change settings if you use the Dialogue feature in the Audio Menu. I just wondered if someone has independently verified that, and can tell us the source change that causes it to happen?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## D Bone

mthomas47 said:


> Hi DBone,
> 
> Do you know of anyone who has actually tested this input specific idea and verified it?


Hey Mike, 

Since I don't use a CC I can't test it for myself. I'm going by memory from participating on the Denon x3200 thread and reading Jd's comments. I'll ask him on that thread and see if my memory was right or not....... If not, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Since I don't use a CC I can't test it for myself. I'm going by memory from participating on the Denon x3200 thread and reading Jd's comments. I'll ask him on that thread and see if my memory was right or not....... If not, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.



Or for mine. 

I know that idea has been around for awhile, and I'm ready to be proved wrong on it. But frankly, it never made sense to me that the CC and sub settings in the Audio Menu would be source specific, and in my 7008, at least, I have never caught them changing back to some prior setting. 

I have always assumed that those two controls were placed in the Audio Menu for convenience, as those would be the two channels people would be most likely to want to adjust during an actual program, without losing audio by going into the Speaker Menu to run test tones. But when you change a sub trim or CC setting in the Audio Menu, and then double-check it in the Speaker Menu, the settings have changed there as well. For them to default in the Speaker Menu, without also changing back in the Audio Menu, wouldn't make any sense, as then the two would be out of sync. But the settings in my Audio Menu never change from where I put them, regardless of my source, until I change them again. And occasionally, when this question comes up as it does periodically, I go back to verify that nothing is changing in the Speaker Menu, either.

I can't decide if this is an urban legend, if it is AVR model specific, or if it only occurs with some specific sources? It really doesn't make sense to me that it would happen at all, but I frequently remind myself that audio, and specific AVR implementations, don't always make sense.


----------



## pepar

It's been forever since I have fiddled with settings after setup, but IIRC one setting location in my Onk 5508 had durable settings and the other was session-specific, i.e. they reset after powering off and on.

Jeff


----------



## D Bone

pepar said:


> It's been forever since I have fiddled with settings after setup, but IIRC one setting location in my Onk 5508 had durable settings and the other was session-specific, i.e. they reset after powering off and on.
> 
> Jeff


I posted the question for jd and am awaiting his answer, but I think Jeff nailed it and I was wrong... I'll update when I hear something.


----------



## kazinvan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Jeff's suggestion to examine room acoustics as a cause of your dialogue issues was a very good one. The pictures help. I see a lot of hard surfaces, so you are probably getting a fair bit of distortion in the room.
> 
> Here are some things you can try. First, I would definitely try tilting up the CC a little more. It's not just to get it pointing directly at your ears, although that's important, but also to try to minimize floor bounce from mid and high frequencies.
> 
> The second thing I would do is to move the futon more directly in front of the CC. If, for some reason, that's not desirable, I would put a throw rug (preferably with a rubber pad) in front of the CC. If there is anything like a wood or glass top table between the CC and your MLP, you might want to cover it with something soft, or even with some magazines. Hard surfaces aren't your friend where audio clarity is concerned, particularly for dialogue.
> 
> The third suggestion is a little bit unconventional, but I think it's worth trying in conjunction with the other two. Try increasing the distance setting on your CC. I would start with 1' more, and then try 2' or even 3'. If you are getting distortion from floor bounce, and other first and second reflections, then simply increasing the volume of the CC will also increase the amount of distortion, so you may not get any net gain in audibility. But our brains treat first arriving sounds as louder, so if you increase the distance setting on the CC, it will make sounds from that speaker arrive slightly ahead of other sounds. The timing difference is likely to be imperceptible, but there could be an increase in dialogue audibility without an increase in distortion.
> 
> I don't guarantee that this will work, but it won't affect your Audyssey calibration, so just make note of the original distance setting, and then experiment with increasing it to see if it does help. The best long-term solution will be adding some room treatments to improve the fundamental room acoustics. If you were to stand in the middle of the room and clap your hands, or ding a piece of crystal or brass with your fingernail, you would hear a lot of ringing after the initial sound. If the room itself has ringing artifacts, then the mid and high frequency sounds coming from your speakers will be somewhat obscured by those artifacts.
> 
> Please let us know whether any of these suggestions improve things.


Not visible in the other photos, but there is a rug 18" away from the front row (see attached). The rug covers the rest of the floor. The futon is actually a dog bed (now in use) 

I'll try tilting the speaker up a little more, though I can't see that making a night and day difference. The distance changes are interesting though.

It's somewhat discouraging as I upgraded the speakers and AVR (part of projector install) though the sound is no better and potentially worse.


----------



## kazinvan

D Bone said:


> I never use the dialog level adjustment. I believe it is input specific, where as if you go into the settings> speakers settings>speaker levels that setting will be global for all inputs. If I were you I would use the global setting and bump up the cc level 1-3db.
> 
> Also, maybe I missed it, but are you using Dynamic EQ and if so what reference level offset are you using? If you are using DEQ try turning it completely off, and bump up your CC 2db and bump up your sub 3-5db from what Audyssey set during calibration.
> 
> Some of us find that the excessive base boost and surround level boost that DEQ provides makes dialog much harder to hear than it should be by overpowering the CC output.


Not using Dynamic EQ though I want to turn it on. We often watch TV/Movies after the 3 year old twins go to bed and having Hulk SMASH sounds at reference levels isn't conducive to keeping them asleep.


----------



## D Bone

kazinvan said:


> Not using Dynamic EQ though I want to turn it on. We often watch TV/Movies after the 3 year old twins go to bed and having Hulk SMASH sounds at reference levels isn't conducive to keeping them asleep.


Dynamic Volume would help keep the quiet parts louder and louder parts quieter, not Dynamic EQ......... But I for one am glad you don't have Dynamic EQ engaged.


----------



## mthomas47

kazinvan said:


> Not visible in the other photos, but there is a rug 18" away from the front row (see attached). The rug covers the rest of the floor. The futon is actually a dog bed (now in use)
> 
> I'll try tilting the speaker up a little more, though I can't see that making a night and day difference. The distance changes are interesting though.
> 
> It's somewhat discouraging as I upgraded the speakers and AVR (part of projector install) though the sound is no better and potentially worse.


It does look as if there is a prior right of ownership for the futon.  I wonder if it might be possible to slide the rug forward by about a foot? You could also just try moving the CC forward, toward the rug, and in line with the front speakers. As you, know, sound waves leave the front of the speaker in a cone shape, and when they hit the wooden floor and bounce up toward the listening position, they can arrive just close enough to the direct sound of the speaker to cause distortion. The CC is close enough to the floor to make that more of an issue than the tweeters in the towers, for instance. With rugs and tilting speakers, and so on, it isn't so much a matter of night and day differences, as it is adding up enough incremental differences to make an audible improvement.

It's sort of the same thing with Audyssey. I am disappointed to hear that you bought new speakers and a new AVR, and don't hear positive differences.  But don't be discouraged yet. Some of that is the room, and some of it is implementation with respect to both the speakers and Audyssey. It can take some time to find the sweet spots for your speakers, where they are angled just so, and just the right distance from the walls, and so on. That was true with speakers long before home theater or Audyssey, and it is still true.

And then there is Audyssey itself. You have just started to scratch the surface with respect to Audyssey. I don't know whether you will see that as good news or bad news,  but for most people Audyssey is a pretty sophisticated technology that takes some practice to implement properly. There is a reason why this is Part 2. Part 1 was, by far the longest thread on AVS--so long that the posting and editing features stopped working.

I would suggest that you experiment some more with speaker positioning, to get things sounding as good as you possibly can before running Audyssey. And then after re-calibrating, pay attention to what you do and don't like about your sound, and then report back so that people here can give you some specific trouble-shooting advice. There are several here, including myself, who will be very glad to help.


----------



## Gary J

kazinvan said:


> Not using Dynamic EQ though I want to turn it on. We often watch TV/Movies after the 3 year old twins go to bed and having Hulk SMASH sounds at reference levels isn't conducive to keeping them asleep.


Exactly what it is for. In fact turn it on and keep it on.


----------



## D Bone

Gary J said:


> Exactly what it is for. In fact turn it on and keep it on.


Couldn't disagree more. He's already having problems hearing dialog, and now you want him to turn on Dynamic EQ where the sub is boosted by 10db or more, and the surround SPLs are raised by 5db or more. That makes zero sense. 

Now turning on Dynamic Volume may very well fix his issue, but certainly not Dynamic EQ.


----------



## Gary J

Couldn't disagree more. Dynamic EQ has NOTHING to do with those issues. That makes zero sense.


----------



## D Bone

Gary J said:


> Couldn't disagree more. Dynamic EQ has NOTHING to do with those issues. That makes zero sense.


It's been talked about ad nauseam how DEQ raises bass levels and surround levels and they can overpower dialog. Many movies have surround channel activity and/or bass from the sub while dialog is also active, and having dialog the same consistent volume whether DEQ is on or off is the problem.

With DEQ off, everything is balanced and controlled by the master volume, but with DEQ on now the surrounds and sub are substantially louder and it simply makes dialog harder to hear.

Since the OP's complaint is dialog being hard to hear, and having to turn up the MV during quiet dialog scenes, followed by turning it down when action scenes start, that is the pure definition of what a compression setting like Dynamic Volume is made for.


----------



## Gary J

Couldn't disagree more. Dynamic EQ has NOTHING to do with those issues. That makes zero sense.


----------



## kazinvan

I double checked, Dynamic EQ is off, so is Dynamic Volume. I think Dynamic Volume I want, because of the kids. I'm not really sure what EQ does though, is that the Audyssey room correction magic? Or is that already on and working after the setup? A few more pics of the settings, just in case it's off. I noticed that the crossover for the center is the same as the LR, should I bump that to 80Hz?


----------



## kazinvan

Gary J said:


> Couldn't disagree more. Dynamic EQ has NOTHING to do with those issues. That makes zero sense.


I'm still trying to figure it out, and it seems like there is debate on the issue 

Just wanted to tell you that the HT link in your sig doesn't work.


----------



## Gary J

kazinvan said:


> I double checked, Dynamic EQ is off, so is Dynamic Volume. I think Dynamic Volume I want, because of the kids. *I'm not really sure what EQ does* though, is that the Audyssey room correction magic? Or is that already on and working after the setup? A few more pics of the settings, just in case it's off. I noticed that the crossover for the center is the same as the LR, should I bump that to 80Hz?


Found in Google in about 2 secs-

"The scientific reason? It's so you can sleep at night."

http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dynamic-eq/faq


----------



## mthomas47

kazinvan said:


> I double checked, Dynamic EQ is off, so is Dynamic Volume. I think Dynamic Volume I want, because of the kids. I'm not really sure what EQ does though, is that the Audyssey room correction magic? Or is that already on and working after the setup? A few more pics of the settings, just in case it's off. I noticed that the crossover for the center is the same as the LR, should I bump that to 80Hz?



The additional photos help. DEQ is currently off in your system. It's purpose is to maintain the acoustic balance of the high and low frequencies at below Reference volumes. Some people love it for everything, and some don't like it for anything, and everything in between. Just like everything in audio entertainment.  

You can find detailed descriptions of it's purpose, along with measured effects, in the FAQ, linked below. Try it and then decide for yourself whether you like it or not. It may, in fact, make mid-range frequencies (dialogue) a little harder to hear, since it boosts higher and lower frequencies, while leaving the mid-range unchanged, but that is for you to decide.

One other thing I would try, besides the things I mentioned in my last post, is to increase the crossover on your CC to at least 80Hz, and I might try 90Hz. I have found that dialogue gets a little clearer with a higher, rather than lower CC crossover.


----------



## D Bone

Gary J said:


> Couldn't disagree more. Dynamic EQ has NOTHING to do with those issues. That makes zero sense.





Gary J said:


> Couldn't disagree more. Dynamic EQ has NOTHING to do with those issues. That makes zero sense.


Nice talking with you


----------



## D Bone

kazinvan said:


> I'm still trying to figure it out, and it seems like there is debate on the issue


Which Audyssey curve are you using, Reference or Flat? I have found that I don't care for what Audyssey does with my L/R speakers, so I run in L/R Bypass mode.

When I did run with Audyssey engaged for the L/R I found that in the Reference setting, it seemed to make male and female voices "more distant, and further back in the mix" (best I can do to describe what I heard) compared to either Audyssey Flat.

Give all of the settings a try on some of your favorite scenes that you are really familiar with and see (hear) what you think sounds best...... Heck, you may find that Audyssey off sounds best.

edit: I just saw your picture and you're using Reference...... Give flat a try as it doesn't have the 2K frequency dip that the Reference curve has.


----------



## Gary J

D Bone said:


> Nice talking with you



All you've got. I understand. bye


----------



## D Bone

Regarding the Dialog Level Adjustment:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...s-thread-faq-hdcp-2-2-a-298.html#post44684089



D Bone said:


> Hey jd, I'm trying to find out the difference between the "dialog level adjustment" setting vs the regular 'settings>speakers>levels>center speaker' setting. (I don't use a CC so I can't test for myself)
> 
> Is the "dialog level adjustment" setting simply input specific while the other setting is global?
> 
> Thanks in advance for the help!





jdsmoothie said:


> The *Dialog Level Adjust* has nothing to do with Dolby Digital (as noted by image below), rather it is simply a means to adjust the volume of the center speaker without having to go to the *Manual Setup - Test Tones - Center *setting. It is a global setting; however, just as with the Subwoofer Level Adjust is not recommended for use, as setting it to ON, will immediately change the setting to 0db (ie. if previously set to -6db after running Audyssey, the volume will be raised to 0db, but then can be manually adjusted +/-12db from there. Much better to just use the Test Tones - Center to keep track of the volume as with the other speakers. If you want input specific change to the center speaker, use the *Option - Channel Level Adjust - Center* setting.


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> Regarding the Dialog Level Adjustment:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...s-thread-faq-hdcp-2-2-a-298.html#post44684089


I always trust JD to know what he is talking about with AVR's, but there may be some confusion here about what I was suggesting. I am not referring to a feature called Dialogue Level Adjustment. I don't even know if my Marantz has such a feature. In the Audio Menu of my Marantz 7008 (and my 7002 had a similar set-up), the first entry is labeled Dialogue. Toggle on that, and it shows the current CC trim level along with a virtual bar graph, just as in the Speaker/Level Menu. The Audio Menu also shows Subwoofers.

Audyssey normally sets my CC at about -1.0, although it may vary by a half decibel or so from calibration to calibration. There is no on/off switch for this feature. If I choose to adjust the level up or down, it doesn't start from 0.0, it starts from the -1.0 where Audyssey set it, and then stays at my new setting for all sources, until I change it. I am not at all familiar with Denon AVR's, so it is possible that the GUI is entirely different. But I would be surprised if there are not equivalent dialogue (CC) and sub trim controls in the Audio Menu for quick access. I thought that Denon/Marantz at least had that much in common.

From all that I have ever been able to determine, using those specific Audio trim controls, rather than those found in the Speaker Menu, doesn't make a particle of difference with my Marantz. Maybe Denon's are different?


----------



## D Bone

mthomas47 said:


> I always trust JD to know what he is talking about with AVR's, but there may be some confusion here about what I was suggesting. I am not referring to a feature called Dialogue Level Adjustment. I don't even know if my Marantz has such a feature. In the Audio Menu of my Marantz 7008 (and my 7002 had a similar set-up), the first entry is labeled Dialogue. Toggle on that, and it shows the current CC trim level along with a virtual bar graph, just as in the Speaker/Level Menu. It also shows Subwoofers.
> 
> Audyssey normally sets my CC at about -1.0, although it may vary by a half decibel or so from calibration to calibration. There is no on/off switch for this feature. If I choose to adjust the level up or down, it doesn't start from 0.0, it starts from the -1.0 where Audyssey set it, and then stays at my new setting for all sources, until I change it. I am not at all familiar with Denon AVR's, so it is possible that the GUI is entirely different. But I would be surprised if there are not equivalent dialogue (CC) and sub trim controls in the Audio Menu for quick access. I thought that Denon/Marantz at least had that much in common.
> 
> From all that I have ever been able to determine, using those specific Audio trim controls, rather than those found in the Speaker Menu, doesn't make a particle of difference with my Marantz. Maybe Denon's are different?


I looked at your 7008 manual and it says:

Audio
Make audio-related settings.
Dialog Level
This setting adjusts the output level to clarify the dialogue output from the
center channel.
Level
–12.0dB – +12.0dB (Default : 0.0dB)

My X3200 says:

Dialog Level Adjust
This setting adjusts the output level to clarify the dialogue output from the
center channel.
Dialog Level Adjust
Set whether to adjust the dialog level or not.
On: Enables the adjustment of the dialog
level.
Off
(Default):
Disables the adjustment of the dialog
level.
Level
Adjusts the volume output from the center channel.
–12.0 dB – +12.0 dB (Default : 0.0 dB)

Looks like the same setting with different names, but they both have the same functions, with the exception that my Denon has an ON/OFF toggle?


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> I looked at your 7008 manual and it says:
> 
> Audio
> Make audio-related settings.
> Dialog Level
> This setting adjusts the output level to clarify the dialogue output from the
> center channel.
> Level
> –12.0dB – +12.0dB (Default : 0.0dB)
> 
> My X3200 says:
> 
> Dialog Level Adjust
> This setting adjusts the output level to clarify the dialogue output from the
> center channel.
> Dialog Level Adjust
> Set whether to adjust the dialog level or not.
> On: Enables the adjustment of the dialog
> level.
> Off
> (Default):
> Disables the adjustment of the dialog
> level.
> Level
> Adjusts the volume output from the center channel.
> –12.0 dB – +12.0 dB (Default : 0.0 dB)
> 
> Looks like the same setting with different names, but they both have the same functions, with the exception that my Denon has an ON/OFF toggle?



 is right! I always heard that Denon's had a somewhat confusing UI, but I had no idea. The Default : 0.0 seems to be what JD was talking about. Based on what he said, it always starts from 0.0 when you turn on the feature. That seems pretty weird, and pretty useless , but I will have to be careful to determine whether we are discussing Denon's or Marantz in the future. If it's a Denon, I believe that I would just stick to the Speaker Menu, as you originally suggested. No wonder BatPig did a Denon to English Dictionary.


----------



## D Bone

mthomas47 said:


> is right! I always heard that Denon's had a somewhat confusing UI, but I had no idea. The Default : 0.0 seems to be what JD was talking about. Based on what he said, it always starts from 0.0 when you turn on the feature. That seems pretty weird, and pretty useless , but I will have to be careful to determine whether we are discussing Denon's or Marantz in the future. If it's a Denon, I believe that I would just stick to the Speaker Menu, as you originally suggested. No wonder BatPig did a Denon to English Dictionary.


Ha! No kidding. To be honest, to me, the 'extra' setting is kind of silly..... Just adjust the speaker trim in the speaker trim setting screen. 

Maybe we're missin' something?


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> Ha! No kidding. To be honest, to me, the 'extra' setting is kind of silly..... Just adjust the speaker trim in the speaker trim setting screen.
> 
> Maybe we're missin' something?



Based on what I have learned in the last few minutes, I was definitely missing something with respect to the difference in the GUI's. 

Unless I have been missing something for years with my Marantz (and I'm not making any promises) there is some real convenience to being able to adjust the CC level, or the sub level, while watching/listening to a program in real time, because you can hear the effects, as they occur, in order to fine tune the setting.

When I adjust trim levels for the other channels, which I do sometimes when movies are balanced too much toward the surrounds for instance, I typically pause the movie, go into the Speaker/Level Menu, which grays out the picture, and play test tones to make adjustments. Then I have to exit the Menu, restart the program, and listen to find out if I made the correct amount of adjustment. If not, I have to repeat the process. I like the ease of using the Audio Menu for the CC and subs, but I wouldn't if the settings always defaulted to 0.0 whenever I toggled on the volume settings in the Audio Menu.

Has anyone ever commented that AVR's can be confusing, or am I the first?


----------



## Matt2026

mthomas47 said:


> Based on what I have learned in the last few minutes, I was definitely missing something with respect to the difference in the GUI's.
> 
> Unless I have been missing something for years with my Marantz (and I'm not making any promises) there is some real convenience to being able to adjust the CC level, or the sub level, while watching/listening to a program in real time, because you can hear the effects, as they occur, in order to fine tune the setting.


I know on my Denon 4520CI it helped with the dialog when I bumped the CC up a bit.


----------



## pbarach

D Bone said:


> I never use the dialog level adjustment. I believe it is input specific, where as if you go into the settings> speakers settings>speaker levels that setting will be global for all inputs. If I were you I would use the global setting and bump up the cc level 1-3db.


Turning up the center channel level helps with movie dialogue but messes up the soundstage and imaging of muiltichannel music, such as classical SACDs. Unfortunate for those of us who listen to both kind of sources.


----------



## mthomas47

Thanks, Ken! I guess that makes two of us, anyway. I can see how it would be a bit of a kludge for music. Everything is a compromise. In this case, I think I am lucky in that I prefer to do all of my music listening with a phantom center, so adjusting my CC, when I need to is no problem for me.

I suppose people could adjust back and forth, though, depending on whether they were listening to music or watching movies/TV. I do something similar to that with my subs. One thing we do know for sure is that no two of us are likely to use exactly the same settings, in exactly the same way, for exactly the same types of audio listening.


----------



## pepar

kazinvan said:


> Not visible in the other photos, but there is a rug 18" away from the front row (see attached). The rug covers the rest of the floor. The futon is actually a dog bed (now in use)
> 
> I'll try tilting the speaker up a little more, though I can't see that making a night and day difference. The distance changes are interesting though.
> 
> It's somewhat discouraging as I upgraded the speakers and AVR (part of projector install) though the sound is no better and potentially worse.


Play pool? Think of the sound radiated from your spks as billiard balls and the paths into the boundaries, i.e. the four walls, floor and ceiling, as those balls striking the bumpers. Envision the paths that balls reaching your ears ... stay with me now  ... took and where they needed to hit the boundaries to reach your ears. (Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.) Your throw rug should be placed where the balls from LCR hit the floor to reach your ears. Once you've taken care of the floor, and it has cleaned things up a bit, continue with the FRONT wall and CEILING. 

How close is your head to the rear wall when you are in the main listening position?

Don't get discouraged. The room has the final say in how your system sounds irregardless of how much you put into the system. Lemme take it a step further and say that your ROOM IS PART OF YOUR SYSTEM!

Jeff


----------



## Matt2026

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Ken! I guess that makes two of us, anyway. I can see how it would be a bit of a kludge for music. Everything is a compromise. In this case, I think I am lucky in that I prefer to do all of my music listening with a phantom center, so adjusting my CC, when I need to is no problem for me.
> 
> I suppose people could adjust back and forth, though, depending on whether they were listening to music or watching movies/TV. I do something similar to that with my subs. One thing we do know for sure is that no two of us are likely to use exactly the same settings, in exactly the same way, for exactly the same types of audio listening.


Yup Mike, lots of differences. Most of my"serious" listening is done on my 2.1 setup... no center channel to concern me. I have listened on my HT setup and haven't noticed any problems, maybe in part because it was a small bump for the CC.


----------



## kazinvan

pepar said:


> Play pool? Think of the sound radiated from your spks as billiard balls and the paths into the boundaries, i.e. the four walls, floor and ceiling, as those balls striking the bumpers. Envision the paths that balls reaching your ears ... stay with me now  ... took and where they needed to hit the boundaries to reach your ears. (Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.) Your throw rug should be placed where the balls from LCR hit the floor to reach your ears. Once you've taken care of the floor, and it has cleaned things up a bit, continue with the FRONT wall and CEILING.
> 
> How close is your head to the rear wall when you are in the main listening position?
> 
> Don't get discouraged. The room has the final say in how your system sounds irregardless of how much you put into the system. Lemme take it a step further and say that your ROOM IS PART OF YOUR SYSTEM!
> 
> Jeff


I think the reflection point for the center is where the rug is, so I don't think the reflected sound off the floor is the problem. 

The thing is, this is the same room I used before the projector change. True, there is less furniture in the front and no TV replaced with a big fixed screen instead. The rest of the room is unchanged, same rug, sofas, walls, fireplace, etc. Things sounded better before, thus my desire to get it back to where things were before (at a minimum). The biggest change with the center is the placement. Before, I had it on a shelf above the TV pointing down. Now it's below the screen pointing up.

Putting rugs or anything else on the walls is not going to happen. I'm just not convinced it would help that much considering things worked fine before.

My head is about 18" from the back wall, sofa is up against the back wall.


----------



## kazinvan

D Bone said:


> edit: I just saw your picture and you're using Reference...... Give flat a try as it doesn't have the 2K frequency dip that the Reference curve has.


I'll try it, thanks.

The main issue is that I need to turn up the volume during scenes of dialog, then down during scenes of action. If I turn it up, I can hear dialog fine, it's not muddy or unclear, it's just too quiet.

I don't want to be messing with the volume throughout a movie, it's a PITA.


----------



## D Bone

kazinvan said:


> I'll try it, thanks.
> 
> The main issue is that I need to turn up the volume during scenes of dialog, then down during scenes of action. If I turn it up, I can hear dialog fine, it's not muddy or unclear, it's just too quiet.
> 
> I don't want to be messing with the volume throughout a movie, it's a PITA.


Try setting Dynamic Volume to 'light' and see, er hear what you think.


----------



## kazinvan

D Bone said:


> Try setting Dynamic Volume to 'light' and see, er hear what you think.


Tried it tonight, I think it was better but still had to monkey with the volume a fair bit.


----------



## D Bone

kazinvan said:


> Tried it tonight, I think it was better but still had to monkey with the volume a fair bit.


How about Audyssey off? That might help troubleshoot if it's a speaker/room/setup issue or an Audyssey calibration issue.


----------



## garygarrison

kazinvan said:


> I double checked, Dynamic EQ is off, so is Dynamic Volume. I think Dynamic Volume I want, because of the kids. *I'm not really sure what EQ does though, is that the Audyssey room correction magic?* Or is that already on and working after the setup? A few more pics of the settings, just in case it's off. I noticed that the crossover for the center is the same as the LR, should I bump that to 80Hz?


If the EQ you refer to is Home Theater EQ (HTEQ) in the AVR, I'd stay away from it. In my Marantz it is pretty horrible, and can muffle dialog.

If it is a set of virtual graphic sliders, stay away from them, because they won't operate with Audyssey on. If you have an "Audyssey engaged" light on your panel, make sure it is on.

Switch back and forth betweet Audyssey Reference and Audyssey FLAT. Audyssey FLAT has more treble at both 2K and at 8K and above, in the center channel as well as all others, and may clarify dialog. When we were watching The Walker, it cleared up dull dialog for us, and we subsequently decided we like Audyssey FLAT better for most movies. Audyssey FLAT, plus a 2 dB, or so, inccrease in the cc volume may do the trick. You may have to move that carpet forward, though. That 18 " of bare floor provides ample opportunity for a bad reflection, in your case. If you do slide the rug, you should re-run Audyssey.


----------



## pepar

kazinvan said:


> I think the reflection point for the center is where the rug is, so I don't think the reflected sound off the floor is the problem.
> 
> The thing is, this is the same room I used before the projector change. True, there is less furniture in the front and no TV replaced with a big fixed screen instead. The rest of the room is unchanged, same rug, sofas, walls, fireplace, etc. Things sounded better before, thus my desire to get it back to where things were before (at a minimum). The biggest change with the center is the placement. Before, I had it on a shelf above the TV pointing down. Now it's below the screen pointing up.
> 
> Putting rugs or anything else on the walls is not going to happen. I'm just not convinced it would help that much considering things worked fine before.
> 
> My head is about 18" from the back wall, sofa is up against the back wall.





kazinvan said:


> I'll try it, thanks.
> 
> *The main issue is that I need to turn up the volume during scenes of dialog, then down during scenes of action. If I turn it up, I can hear dialog fine, it's not muddy or unclear, it's just too quiet.*
> 
> I don't want to be messing with the volume throughout a movie, it's a PITA.


How about scenes of action AND dialogue? Can you hear the dialog over the action? Or does it get lost in the action sounds?


----------



## tommaazz

kazinvan said:


> I double checked, Dynamic EQ is off, so is Dynamic Volume. I think Dynamic Volume I want, because of the kids. I'm not really sure what EQ does though, is that the Audyssey room correction magic? Or is that already on and working after the setup? A few more pics of the settings, just in case it's off. I noticed that the crossover for the center is the same as the LR, should I bump that to 80Hz?


Hi. I have seen that you have a loudness management at ON (only valid on Dolby sources) i would put that at off and try again...it might help


----------



## kazinvan

I'll try a few of the suggestions tonight. Thanks everyone.


----------



## kazinvan

I don't think the AVR or speakers are the issue, but I'm not sure. I started hooking up more sources yesterday and testing a few things in the room. I know have five sources hooked up and tested a few more to see if I had the same issue. My previous testing was with my Apple TV (4th gen) streaming movies via Plex (ripped from Blu Ray). I tested with my PVR (HD signal with 5.1 audio) and I had no issues hearing dialogue while watching regular TV.

The problem may be the Apple TV (config?) or how the movie was ripped (I have only done a couple). I think more testing is necessary but at least I now have more data points to work with.


----------



## pepar

Unless Apple TV has some sort of a "loudness" setting, my money is still on room acoustics. 

Jeff


----------



## kazinvan

pepar said:


> Unless Apple TV has some sort of a "loudness" setting, my money is still on room acoustics.
> 
> Jeff


I'm going to try it, but I'm assuming that Loudness is on for my PVR and it sounds fine. Room acoustics don't change with a change in source material.


----------



## pepar

kazinvan said:


> I'm going to try it, but I'm assuming that Loudness is on for my PVR and it sounds fine. Room acoustics don't change with a change in source material.


Oh I just re-read your post that regular TV had no issues. That could mean that regular TV sources are already compressed and manipulated and that compensates for room acoustics. Or it could mean that your problem is not room acoustics, but rather some audio setting in your processor. 

Jeff


----------



## Alan P

kazinvan said:


> I don't think the AVR or speakers are the issue, but I'm not sure. I started hooking up more sources yesterday and testing a few things in the room. I know have five sources hooked up and tested a few more to see if I had the same issue. My previous testing was with my Apple TV (4th gen) streaming movies via Plex (ripped from Blu Ray). I tested with my PVR (HD signal with 5.1 audio) and I had no issues hearing dialogue while watching regular TV.
> 
> The problem may be the Apple TV (config?) or how the movie was ripped (I have only done a couple). I think more testing is necessary but at least I now have more data points to work with.


How about the same blu rays, but played from your BR player?? This would at least confirm that it is definitely something to do with your rips or your streaming box.


----------



## asere

I am not knocking on Audyssey nor am I taking sides between Audyssey and MCACC Pro but for learning purposes I wanted to ask. How come Audyssey is much better than MCACC Pro (I know most mention it is because of how it gives you a flat frequency response especially the sub) when MCACC Pro can do all this that Audyssey lacks? Which is* Auto Phase Control, Standing Wave Control, Full Band Control, Precision Distance and Reverb.*


----------



## pepar

Reverb? And what are those other things and what do they do besides add bullet points to Yamaha's marketing?


----------



## Alan P

asere said:


> I am not knocking on Audyssey nor am I taking sides between Audyssey and MCACC Pro but for learning purposes I wanted to ask. How come Audyssey is much better than MCACC Pro (I know most mention it is because of how it gives you a flat frequency response especially the sub) when MCACC Pro can do all this that Audyssey lacks? Which is* Auto Phase Control, Standing Wave Control, Full Band Control, Precision Distance and Reverb.*


I agree...what exactly are those other things and what do they do??

I don't want any Reverb added to my system, that's for sure. If I did, I would just listen in "Cathedral".


----------



## asere

Alan P said:


> I agree...what exactly are those other things and what do they do??
> 
> I don't want any Reverb added to my system, that's for sure. If I did, I would just listen in "Cathedral".


From what I've read on MCACC auto phase control stays active in the background to provide even phase between the speakers and sub. 
Standing wave helps eliminate them. 


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## pepar

asere said:


> From what I've read on MCACC auto phase control stays active in the background to provide even phase between the speakers and sub.
> Standing wave helps eliminate them.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I don't think phased matched subs/mains does anything with standing waves, A.K.A. room modes. Room correction can help peaks, but not nulls. For the best correction of room modes, including nulls, traps are needed.

1. Speaker (sub) placement
2. Seating placement
3. Acoustical treatments and finally ..
4. Electronic correction


----------



## asere

pepar said:


> I don't think phased matched subs/mains does anything with standing waves, A.K.A. room modes.


Like I said I come from audyssey and trying mcacc PRO. I can't tell the difference in sound. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

pepar said:


> Reverb? And what are those other things and what do they do besides add bullet points to Yamaha's marketing?


 http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/S...CACC/2014_MCACC_Ref_Guide_Updated_1209_HR.pdf


----------



## pepar

asere said:


> Like I said I come from audyssey and trying mcacc PRO. I can't tell the difference in sound.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Well, that's a good thing. I'd just enjoy my system and not speculate about why.


----------



## pepar

asere said:


> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/S...CACC/2014_MCACC_Ref_Guide_Updated_1209_HR.pdf


Ahh, my error. 

I do remember this way cool Pioneer spring reverb unit circa 1971 ...


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> .
> 
> I do remember this way cool Pioneer spring reverb unit circa 1971 ...


Or, the Lexicon environment processor of about 1986. The CP1, I think. Made a small room sound big. $1,000 then, about $50, used, now. It could be adjusted to not duplicate near reflections, but provide smooth far reverberation through 5 channels, with plausible sounding decay. Quality ranged from poor to amazingly good, depending on the program material and operator patience and dedication. Mine lasted 18 years, then tanked, with no one willing to try to repair it. The big room I now have doesn't need it.


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Like I said I come from audyssey and trying mcacc PRO. I can't tell the difference in sound.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



Hi,

I agree with Jeff. If your sound quality is good with MCACC Pro, then you are in good shape. From my perspective, Audyssey theoretically improves sound quality by providing a more uniform frequency response. The extent to which it makes an audible improvement in any given room, with any given listener, though, is another question. And the version of Audyssey you have might make a difference, too.

Again, speaking only from my personal perspective, where even XT-32 is typically at its best is in the modal region, with lower mid-range frequencies next. As Jeff said, it can't really help with nulls, but it can help with destructive and constructive interference (dips and peaks in frequency response). How much you will actually notice the benefits probably depends a lot on your room, and perhaps to some extent on your own listening habits.

Where I can hear the benefits of Audyssey (XT-32) most clearly in my room are in the mid-bass and mid-range frequencies. Even with room treatments, including bass traps, and multiple full-range speakers, well distributed on opposing walls, I can hear a distinct difference in clarity with Audyssey on versus off. But although I get a lot of low frequency containment in my room, I think that I am also getting a lot of destructive interference. When I listen with acoustic music, that makes it pretty easy for me to hear the difference in clarity, turning Audyssey off. It would be much harder for me with electronic music, or with movies. And I wouldn't like to rely on my acoustic memory too much if I switched to another form of room correction.

I wrote all of that partly as an answer to your original question. But bringing the discussion back full circle, if you are happy with your sound quality, that is all that matters, as far as I am concerned. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## James Meckley

I have a Denon X-4000 and most of the time I use Dynamic Volume at its "light" setting. Unfortunately, the Denon will occasionally reset itself to the "medium" setting with no prompting on my part. Anyone have any idea why this is happening and what I might do about it? The Denon otherwise behaves exactly as expected. Thanks.

James


----------



## lovinthehd

James Meckley said:


> I have a Denon X-4000 and most of the time I use Dynamic Volume at its "light" setting. Unfortunately, the Denon will occasionally reset itself to the "medium" setting with no prompting on my part. Anyone have any idea why this is happening and what I might do about it? The Denon otherwise behaves exactly as expected. Thanks.
> 
> James


Never use Dynamic Volume myself but that does sound odd. Is this with the same source/material?


----------



## garygarrison

James Meckley said:


> I have a Denon X-4000 and most of the time I use Dynamic Volume at its "light" setting. Unfortunately, the Denon will occasionally reset itself to the "medium" setting with no prompting on my part. Anyone have any idea why this is happening and what I might do about it? The Denon otherwise behaves exactly as expected. Thanks.
> 
> James


No idea why, unless the Denon monitors the dynamic range and determines that you really should use "medium." Does the reset happen with particularly dynamic material? Particularly bland material?

Just out of curiosity, do you use Dynamic Volume to avoid disturbing someone in the building? The neighbors? I can understand that, but it really changes the music into something different than the composer/artists intended, IMO.


----------



## mtbdudex

Has this been discussed?
"Audyssey Pro being phased out on #Denon AVRs in 2016 to be replaced by the Audyssey app for iOS and Android in October at a cost of €19.99."


Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


----------



## James Meckley

garygarrison said:


> No idea why, unless the Denon monitors the dynamic range and determines that you really should use "medium." Does the reset happen with particularly dynamic material? Particularly bland material?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you use Dynamic Volume to avoid disturbing someone in the building? The neighbors? I can understand that, but it really changes the music into something different than the composer/artists intended, IMO.


The reset happens when the unit is turned off and then on again. I may watch a movie one evening with the setting at "light," then when I turn the unit on again the next evening, the setting will have reverted to "medium." This doesn't happen every time, but often enough to be annoying.

I should have pointed out that the Denon is part of a system used exclusively for movies. I agree with you that Dynamic Volume would not be desirable for music listening, particularly classical.


----------



## D Bone

James Meckley said:


> The reset happens when the unit is turned off and then on again. I may watch a movie one evening with the setting at "light," then when I turn the unit on again the next evening, the setting will have reverted to "medium." This doesn't happen every time, but often enough to be annoying.


No, that's not normal, or an intended design. Try doing a soft reset first by unplugging the Denon for 10 minutes or more, and plugging it back in. 

If that doesn't work, then a processor reset is the next option. You'll loose all of your settings including your Audyssey calibration, so be prepared to have to resetup the unit.

You can use the web control feature to save your current config first, and then reload it after the reset, but I have found that for some reason various settings on random inputs weren't copied and saved properly, which made me wonder if it copied the Audyssey EQ info properly as well.


----------



## Alan P

James Meckley said:


> The reset happens when the unit is turned off and then on again. I may watch a movie one evening with the setting at "light," then when I turn the unit on again the next evening, the setting will have reverted to "medium." This doesn't happen every time, but often enough to be annoying.
> 
> I should have pointed out that the Denon is part of a system used exclusively for movies. I agree with you that Dynamic Volume would not be desirable for music listening, particularly classical.


IMO, DynVol is quite undesirable for movies as well.


----------



## mogorf

D Bone said:


> No, that's not normal, or an intended design. Try doing a soft reset first by unplugging the Denon for 10 minutes or more, and plugging it back in.
> 
> If that doesn't work, then a processor reset is the next option. You'll loose all of your settings including your Audyssey calibration, so be prepared to have to resetup the unit.
> 
> You can use the web control feature to save your current config first, and then reload it after the reset, but I have found that for some reason various settings on random inputs weren't copied and saved properly, which made me wonder if it copied the Audyssey EQ info properly as well.


@*James Meckley:*

Before doing a microprocessor reset here's one more tip, although I'm not familiar with the Denon x-4000. Nonetheless, on my older Denon features like Dyn Vol are not global settings but source dependent. In my case whatever I set for a certain source and press and hold the corresponding source button for 2+ seconds the Denon will save each setting. Give it a try and report back please.


----------



## D Bone

mogorf said:


> @*James Meckley:*
> 
> Before doing a microprocessor reset here's one more tip, although I'm not familiar with the Denon x-4000. Nonetheless, on my older Denon features like Dyn Vol are not global settings but source dependent. In my case whatever I set for a certain source and press and hold the corresponding source button for 2+ seconds the Denon will save each setting. Give it a try and report back please.


On his x4000 he doesn't need to hold for 2+ seconds, he simply selects the settings and it's saved. All of Audyssey's settings are source dependent and he does need to make sure that he sets up each source the way he wants it, but once done, no settings (Audyssey or other) should change on their own.

Hopefully the soft reset will fix it, but I personally doubt it will....


----------



## mogorf

mtbdudex said:


> Has this been discussed?
> "Audyssey Pro being phased out on #Denon AVRs in 2016 to be replaced by the Audyssey app for iOS and Android in October at a cost of €19.99."
> 
> 
> Via Mikes brain/thumb interface, LLAP


Hi, here's a Q&A with Chris K. on Facebook on the subject:

Chris: "The new app will only work with this year’s (and forward) models. It provides the ability to customize target curves, save them, and share them with others. It’s the year of Preference!"

Q: "So then XT32 would get customizable target-curves? Don't see the advantage of sharing though, no 2 rooms are the same."

Chris: "Yes customizable target curves. The target curves represent the desired sound and are not related to the room. They are personal preference. So two people with different rooms could calibrate their rooms to sound "the same" despite the original acoustic differences."

Hmm.


----------



## mthomas47

I can see where Dynamic Volume might be useful for movie/TV viewing where you need to control the volume and dynamic range so as not to disturb neighbors, sleeping babies, etc. But I have never had any reason to experiment with it personally. Can anyone who has used it for music explain whether it simply condenses sounds to a more uniform volume level, or whether it actually seems to affect high and low frequencies, as well?

The reason I ask is that I have experimented with a variety of music sources, and where compression occurs there, it is the bandwidth of the signal that is affected. So, compressed sources can be played at whatever volume, but even a piece of jazz music with limited volume change, can sound squashed due to compression. Extremely compressed sources have very audible distortion, but less compression can still result in a less expansive sound. I'm not talking here about the difference between FLAC files and 320 KBPS sources, but rather between much more compressed music versus compression that gets out of the audible range. Lets say 128 KBPS, or 160 KBPS, or even 192 KBPS versus 320 KBPS. To my ears there is a quite audible difference, for instance between 192 and 320. 192 doesn't actually sound bad for jazz music, until you do a direct comparison with 320. Then 320 sounds so much better. A full symphony orchestra would exacerbate the difference.

I may try Dynamic Volume sometime just to experiment, but I am wondering if anyone else has tried it and heard range as well as volume compression?

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## kazinvan

garygarrison said:


> No idea why, unless the Denon monitors the dynamic range and determines that you really should use "medium." Does the reset happen with particularly dynamic material? Particularly bland material?
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do you use Dynamic Volume to avoid disturbing someone in the building? The neighbors? I can understand that, but it really changes the music into something different than the composer/artists intended, IMO.


I have mine set to light as I have three year old twins that are sleeping when I'm watching TV/movies in the evening. Don't want to wake them up, never a good scene.

I never listen to music on this system, so not worried about it changing music.


----------



## mtbdudex

mogorf said:


> Hi, here's a Q&A with Chris K. on Facebook on the subject:
> 
> Chris: "The new app will only work with this year’s (and forward) models. It provides the ability to customize target curves, save them, and share them with others. It’s the year of Preference!"
> 
> Q: "So then XT32 would get customizable target-curves? Don't see the advantage of sharing though, no 2 rooms are the same."
> 
> Chris: "Yes customizable target curves. The target curves represent the desired sound and are not related to the room. They are personal preference. So two people with different rooms could calibrate their rooms to sound "the same" despite the original acoustic differences."
> 
> Hmm.


Thx for posting , I asked in the facebook group also....so Chris hinted many month back about a 2016 Q3/Q4 big announcement, take it this is that.

So the mic on 2016 Denon units is the "better" Pro mic?

copy/past from facebook:
*https://www.facebook.com/groups/audysseytechtalk/permalink/1350815641599385/?comment_id=1350994248248191&notif_t=group_comment_reply&notif_id=1466083518888281*


> Hey there! Could anyone explain what is up with that: https://twitter.com/AVForums/status/740899234564673540
> I mean an app instead of an Installer Kit?
> 
> AVForums.com on Twitter
> “Audyssey Pro being phased out on #Denon AVRs in 2016 to be replaced by the Audyssey app for iOS and Android in October at a cost of €19.99.”
> TWITTER.COM|BY AVFORUMS.COM
> LikeShow more reactionsCommentShare
> 1Michael A Rosinski
> Comments
> Michael A Rosinski
> Michael A Rosinski Yes I read this also.... Chris Kyriakakis
> Like · Reply · 8 hrs
> Chris Kyriakakis
> Chris Kyriakakis Indeed
> Unlike · Reply · 1 · 7 hrs
> Michael A Rosinski
> Michael A Rosinski Any idea if my 2012 bought Denon 4520CI can use this app? It's PRO ready and I bought the certificate.
> Like · Reply · 6 hrs
> Jan Van Ham
> Jan Van Ham Hmm, don't really understand ? Some more context on this ?
> Like · Reply · 5 hrs
> Dennis Feiler
> Dennis Feiler What I understand from this tweet is: The new generation (and only the new) will have XT32 but without Pro. Instead there will be an audyssey app.
> Like · Reply · 5 hrs
> Chris Kyriakakis
> Chris Kyriakakis The new app will only work with this year’s (and forward) models. It provides the ability to customize target curves, save them, and share them with others. It’s the year of Preference!
> Like · Reply · 4 hrs
> Dallas Dingle
> Dallas Dingle Would seem to lose the advantage of profiled microphone included in pro kit?
> Like · Reply · 1 · 4 hrs
> Jan Van Ham
> Jan Van Ham So then XT32 would get customizable target-curves ? Don't see the advantage of sharing though, no 2 rooms are the same.
> Like · Reply · 4 hrs
> Chris Kyriakakis
> Chris Kyriakakis Yes customizable target curves. The target curves represent the desired sound and are not related to the room. They are personal preference. So two people with different rooms could calibrate their rooms to sound "the same" despite the original acoustic differences.
> Like · Reply · 4 hrs
> Darryl Chereshkoff
> Darryl Chereshkoff Chris does "customizable target curves" mean that I will be able to limit the EQ to either a pre-set or infinite setting? In other words will I be able to tell Audyssey not to EQ anything above 200-500hz?
> Like · Reply · 3 hrs
> Chris Kyriakakis
> Chris Kyriakakis Yes, after 12 years I finally gave in...
> Unlike · Reply · 1 · 1 hr
> Michael A Rosinski
> 
> Write a reply...
> 
> Choose File
> Alan Peil
> Alan Peil Wow, exciting stuff! I'm assuming this is going to work very similar to Dirac's "target curves"??
> Like · Reply · 3 hrs
> Dennis Feiler
> Dennis Feiler But isn't the use of a smartphone not a huge limitation compared to the Pro-Kit?
> Like · Reply · 1 · 3 hrs
> Jan Van Ham
> Jan Van Ham Indeed, making measurements with such built-in MIC across a large variety of Android/Apple devices would be really not-done. So I think measurement would still be "classic" on the AVR-side. So no more usage of the "Pro" kit then for Denon?
> Like · Reply · 3 hrs
> Chris Kyriakakis
> Chris Kyriakakis Measurements will still be done with the calibrated Audyssey mic connected to the AVR. The app is for customization and fine tuning to preference.
> Like · Reply · 1 · 8 mins · Edited
> Dennis Feiler
> Dennis Feiler Thank you for clearing that up.
> Like · Reply · 4 mins


----------



## D Bone

^ That Darryl Chereshkoff dude seems really, really cool 

I am so happy to hear that I can limit Audyssey's EQ frequency....... I will have a new AVR asap because of this.


----------



## mogorf

D Bone said:


> ^ That Darryl Chereshkoff dude seems really, really cool
> 
> I am so happy to hear that I can limit Audyssey's EQ frequency....... I will have a new AVR asap because of this.


Cool, indeed!


----------



## mthomas47

D Bone said:


> ^ That Darryl Chereshkoff dude seems really, really cool
> 
> I am so happy to hear that I can limit Audyssey's EQ frequency....... I will have a new AVR asap because of this.



I don't know, it's typically pretty hard to find cool Darryl's.  No more Bypass L/R.


----------



## D Bone

mthomas47 said:


> I don't know, it's typically pretty hard to find cool Darryl's.  No more Bypass L/R.


HA! Yup, no more L/R BP....... Just smooth bass response, without a 2k dip and no harshness. Oh yea, sign me up.

I'm glad I kept my x3200's original box and packaging as it will make it easier to sell come October.


----------



## evgenetic

hey there,
i have a denon x2200 avr that comes with multieq xt (8 measuring positions). 6 of the suggested position in audyssey room correction process are "legit"- away from walls and within the cone that the speakers form. but the last two would force me to put the mic pretty much against the wall (my sofa is set against the wall). so the question is what would be better for the sake of proper room correction? to complete the process using the data from 6 positions or include those 2 non-ideal positions?

thanks.


----------



## mogorf

evgenetic said:


> hey there,
> i have a denon x2200 avr that comes with multieq xt (8 measuring positions). 6 of the suggested position in audyssey room correction process are "legit"- away from walls and within the cone that the speakers form. but the last two would force me to put the mic pretty much against the wall (my sofa is set against the wall). so the question is what would be better for the sake of proper room correction? to complete the process using the data from 6 positions or include those 2 non-ideal positions?
> 
> thanks.


I'd suggest a third solution: put the last two mic positions right in front of the MLP, #7 to the left and #8 to the right about 2 feet forward. The more data of your room you feed MultEQ the better the acoustical bubble around the seating area will be.

Hope this helps.


----------



## asere

I posted on another thread but maybe someone can reply here.
The dark green is audyssey and light is mcacc pro. This is for the dual subs only. The audyssey graph is the better one correct?









Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## evgenetic

mogorf said:


> I'd suggest a third solution: put the last two mic positions right in front of the MLP, #7 to the left and #8 to the right about 2 feet forward. The more data of your room you feed MultEQ the better the acoustical bubble around the seating area will be.
> 
> Hope this helps.


hmm does that mean those suggested measuring positions by denon can be ignored as audyssey can calculate the distances fairly accurately anyway after the first measurement has been made?

the denon suggestion is this:

4_5_6
|2_1_3| - this is the sofa.
------
7___8

i guess you're suggesting to measure 7 and 8 at 4 and 6 again?


----------



## mogorf

evgenetic said:


> hmm does that mean those suggested measuring positions by denon can be ignored as audyssey can calculate the distances fairly accurately anyway after the first measurement has been made?
> 
> the denon suggestion is this:
> 
> 4_5_6
> |2_1_3| - this is the sofa.
> ------
> 7___8
> 
> i guess you're suggesting to measure 7 and 8 at 4 and 6 again?


Actually, distances are measued by Audyssey only from #1 (aka MLP). The rest of the mic positions (#2 to #8) are meant to feed Audyssey as much info at and around the seating positions as possible enabling the algorithm to set up the best filters per speaker as it can. 

I have the same configutation like you have, i.e. sofa is at the rear wall, so in this (our) case the best is to place the mic for the remaing two shots somewhere halfway between 4-5 and 5-6, but closer to the sofa than 4 and 6 was. Give it a try please.


----------



## evgenetic

aha, i see. sure i'll rerun it tomorrow. i'll take photos of the before (current) and after results of the eq shape, it's interesting what kind of difference it would make.
thanks


----------



## mogorf

evgenetic said:


> aha, i see. sure i'll rerun it tomorrow. i'll take photos of the before (current) and after results of the eq shape, it's interesting what kind of difference it would make.
> thanks


Lookin' forward, so please definitely share your experience. Good luck to ya!


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> I posted on another thread but maybe someone can reply here.
> The dark green is audyssey and light is mcacc pro. This is for the dual subs only. The audyssey graph is the better one correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Hi,

I think the Audyssey graph is a little better, particularly above about 65Hz, and below about 25Hz, but neither one strikes me as extremely good. Have you experimented with moving your subs around to find the best overall placement? Is this about as smooth as you can get?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think the Audyssey graph is a little better, particularly above about 65Hz, and below about 25Hz, but neither one strikes me as extremely good. Have you experimented with moving your subs around to find the best overall placement? Is this about as smooth as you can get?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi asere, apart from the good questions of Mike, I'd also like to know whether this is a one mic position measurement or an REW average of multiple point meaurements taken at and around MLP?


----------



## mthomas47

evgenetic said:


> aha, i see. sure i'll rerun it tomorrow. i'll take photos of the before (current) and after results of the eq shape, it's interesting what kind of difference it would make.
> thanks


Hi,

Just to further reinforce what Feri is saying, any standardized microphone placement configurations you see are only meant to give you a starting point. Sometimes, people try those standardized configurations and everything works great on the first try. Sometimes, however, it is helpful to experiment a little to find out what actually works best in your particular room.

But the suggestion that Feri gave you for positions 7 and 8 should give you an excellent starting point.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## asere

mogorf said:


> Hi asere, apart from the good questions of Mike, I'd also like to know whether this is a one mic position measurement or an REW average of multiple point meaurements taken at and around MLP?


A one mic position of REW at MLP.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> A one mic position of REW at MLP.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Die hard room eq fans like the ones we are here (including yourself asere) already know that a one point measurement in space says nothing about what our ears are supposed to hear. 

Doing a multiple measurement that is averaged in REW will also lack what Audyssey can achive with its sophisticated fuzzy logic based algorithm, but at least it will give you/us a "quick & dirty" assumption on what is going on in our rooms.

Care to setup your measurement rig again and do a multiple placement mic test?


----------



## asere

mogorf said:


> Die hard room eq fans like the ones we are here (including yourself asere) already know that a one point measurement in space says nothing about what our ears are supposed to hear.
> 
> Doing a multiple measurement that is averaged in REW will also lack what Audyssey can achive with its sophisticated fuzzy logic based algorithm, but at least it will give you/us a "quick & dirty" assumption on what is going on in our rooms.
> 
> Care to setup your measurement rig again and do a multiple placement mic test?


Actually a long time ago when I had one sub I took multiple measurements with mic at MLP and moved the sub around but got horrible results. The current placement is best. I'll try multi measurements with both subs now and see.
Also what's the closest you can place one sub from another?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> Actually a long time ago when I had one sub I took multiple measurements with mic at MLP and moved the sub around but got horrible results. The current placement is best. I'll try multi measurements with both subs now and see.
> *Also what's the closest you can place one sub from another?*
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Hard to say what is the closest placement for two subs, its your room to experiment. BTW, REW has a "Room Sim" feature where you can enter your room dimensions, number of subs, etc. and move them around with mouse while watching the resulting frequency response curves. 

Theoretically it can give you a good estimate on "best placement", anyway it's fun to play around with it. Give it a try if you haven't done that so far.


----------



## krabapple

mogorf said:


> Cool, indeed!


Regarding the new Denon AVRs and the app, I'm not clear -- if you buy one of the new AVRs, you automatically get Audyssey 'Pro', with the ability to limit Audyssey processing to just the bass (modal) frequencies?


----------



## mogorf

krabapple said:


> Regarding the new Denon AVRs and the app, I'm not clear -- if you buy one of the new AVRs, you automatically get Audyssey 'Pro', with the ability to limit Audyssey processing to just the bass (modal) frequencies?


As I u/stand there is no Audyssey Pro Kit anymore. You will have to separately buy the Audyssey remote app (will be available both for iOS and Android) and use it with your cellphone to create a custom curve to your liking.


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Actually a long time ago when I had one sub I took multiple measurements with mic at MLP and moved the sub around but got horrible results. The current placement is best. I'll try multi measurements with both subs now and see.
> Also what's the closest you can place one sub from another?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



I like Feri's idea to try the room sim model. The closer two subs are, the more mutual coupling occurs (that sounds vaguely obscene ), so the more gain you will get across the full frequency spectrum of the subs. But, at least in theory, the closer the subs are, the less opportunity there is for them to fill-in for each other from a frequency response standpoint. So, if the objective is to maximize gain, you can simply stack two subs, or put them side-by-side. But, if the objective is to maximize frequency response, close proximity is rarely a good solution.

Often, opposite walls (at 1/4 wall), or two corners on the same wall, or diagonal corners works well. As you know, getting two subs situated is a little more difficult than getting just one where it works best.


----------



## krabapple

mogorf said:


> As I u/stand there is no Audyssey Pro Kit anymore. You will have to separately buy the Audyssey remote app (will be available both for iOS and Android) and use it with your cellphone to create a custom curve to your liking.


Great ....but am I correct in thinking it will only work with the new Denon AVRs, and not , say, with an aging 4311CI?


----------



## mogorf

krabapple said:


> Great ....but am I correct in thinking it will only work with the new Denon AVRs, and not , say, with an aging 4311CI?


You are correct, it will only work with the new 2016 Denon models. No retro fitting was announced.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> I like Feri's idea to try the room sim model. The closer two subs are, the more mutual coupling occurs (that sounds vaguely obscene ), so the more gain you will get across the full frequency spectrum of the subs. But, at least in theory, the closer the subs are, the less opportunity there is for them to fill-in for each other from a frequency response standpoint. So, if the objective is to maximize gain, you can simply stack two subs, or put them side-by-side. But, if the objective is to maximize frequency response, close proximity is rarely a good solution.
> 
> Often, opposite walls (at 1/4 wall), or two corners on the same wall, or diagonal corners works well. As you know, getting two subs situated is a little more difficult than getting just one where it works best.


I have gain now as the subs are stacked by design. Kk 12012.
I'll try the room SIM and spread them out.
Now from the graph I posted audyssey is better then the mcacc one, yes?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

mogorf said:


> As I u/stand there is no Audyssey Pro Kit anymore. You will have to separately buy the Audyssey remote app (will be available both for iOS and Android) and use it with your cellphone to create a custom curve to your liking.


Custom curve like dirac where you can customize it?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> I have gain now as the subs are stacked by design. Kk 12012.
> I'll try the room SIM and spread them out.
> *Now from the graph I posted audyssey is better then the mcacc one, yes?*
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Asere, graph does not seem to be a valid graph, so no conclusions can be made. (by me at least!)


----------



## asere

mogorf said:


> Asere, graph does not seem to be a valid graph, so no conclusions can be made. (by me at least!)


Why not valid? It was taking from mlp with one sub placement. I wasn't asking for comparison for multiple locations just that one I took as a starter.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> Why not valid? It was taking from mlp with one sub placement. I wasn't asking for comparison for multiple locations just that one I took as a starter.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Because that one point measuement graph does not show what our ears hear.


----------



## asere

mogorf said:


> Because that one point measuement graph does not show what our ears hear.


I'm confused with ear/rew. I thought you are suppose to use REW and place the sub were you get the fastest response and set it there.
In my case I realize I need to take more measurements at different areas but once you find that response you go with it.


Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> I have gain now as the subs are stacked by design. Kk 12012.
> I'll try the room SIM and spread them out.
> Now from the graph I posted audyssey is better then the mcacc one, yes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



I remember reading about those KK subs. Yes, in my personal opinion the Audyssey graph is a bit better than the other one. But once you spread the subs apart, using the room sim as a starting point, I think that you should be able to achieve a much better native frequency response. Then, you should be able to get better results, and the comparison between the two forms of EQ might become even more interesting.

Incidentally, I do agree with Feri on the desirability of doing multiple measurements at least a few inches apart. At the moment, it's not so much that you are trying to measure the frequency response at multiple listening positions. It's more that a single point in the middle of our foreheads doesn't really give us complete information about the MLP. It's even worse if we are measuring speakers rather than subs, but even with lower frequencies, the same principle somewhat applies. Sometimes moving the mic even a few inches can completely change the measured frequency response.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> I remember reading about those KK subs. Yes, in my personal opinion the Audyssey graph is a bit better than the other one. But once you spread the subs apart, using the room sim as a starting point, I think that you should be able to achieve a much better native frequency response. Then, you should be able to get better results, and the comparison between the two forms of EQ might become even more interesting.
> 
> Incidentally, I do agree with Feri on the desirability of doing multiple measurements at least a few inches apart. At the moment, it's not so much that you are trying to measure the frequency response at multiple listening positions. It's more that a single point in the middle of our foreheads doesn't really give us complete information about the MLP. It's even worse if we are measuring speakers rather than subs, but even with lower frequencies, the same principle somewhat applies. Sometimes moving the mic even a few inches can completely change the measured frequency response.


What I'm doing is placing the umik mic on the couch using the little tripod that it came with. You are saying I should move the mic around a few inches too?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> What I'm doing is placing the umik mic on the couch using the little tripod that it came with. You are saying I should move the mic around a few inches too?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



It's a little bit of a complicated question for me. In order to position the subs, I would probably do just what you are doing and use a single point, although I would make sure that the mic is at ear level. 

But then, when you get down to a comparison of which system of EQ is doing a better job, moving the mic around a few inches, and taking multiple measurements for both systems, would probably give you a fairer and more accurate picture. 

For now, though, I would probably just use a single point measurement to find good general locations for the two subs.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think the Audyssey graph is a little better, particularly above about 65Hz, and below about 25Hz, but neither one strikes me as extremely good. Have you experimented with moving your subs around to find the best overall placement? Is this about as smooth as you can get?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I agree that the Audyssey curve is a little better, and it's good enough below about 95 Hz, even with the peak at about 75 Hz, which, while weird, might be heard as a little extra "punch." The curve above about 95 Hz is more erratic, though. The good news is that the greatest deviations cover narrow ranges of frequencies, so may not be noticed by ear (anomalies less than 1/3 octave wide tend to be ignored by most listeners -- the ability to ignore minor problems is important to happiness). How much smoothing did you use? 1/6th octave? 1/3 octave? The bad news is that some of the lesser deviations above 95 are larger than we would like to see. Others may give you specific advice, but I suspect that your speakers &/or MLP(s) need to be moved around some.

EDIT: I agree with Mike and Feri that using multiple positions for your REW mic would be better, at least in evaluating the final frequency response, after Audyssey, once you have found the best positions for your subs, and mains. Your mains may benefit from being moved nearer or farther away from the wall, regarding the uneven response above 95 Hz. Are you crossing over your subs at 80 Hz? I'd determine the best positions by ear, at normal ear height, from the single MLP (you could try all seats, if you want to go crazy). then confirm it by a cluster of REW mic positions in, or near, the MLP seat. Now that there is less work for Audyssey to do, run Audyssey using all of its 8 mic positions, with the final two where Feri suggested. Or, if you are going to listen alone, or with just one or two people, cluster the mics in the area of that one, or those few, seats, with most (including #1) at ear level, and the last two somewhat above &/or somewhat in front. There is a lot of alchemy to this*; *it's not that psychophysics wouldn't be better, it's that you won't get a complete model of your room, as heard from the seating positions, with 8 microphone positions, and the best use of information from even those 8 positions awaits the future. We are miles ahead of where we were in the 1980s with Crown Parametric equalization, or the 1970s with 1/4 octave Altec Acoustovoicette graphic EQ. When you're done, listen for about a month, and see what you think. Then use 8 REW mic positions in the same positions as your 8 Audyssey positions were in, ask REW to average the curves, and compare your subjective impressions to the graph, both of which I hope you will share with us. 

In my case, two mic positions that are in front of the MLP (by a bit) acknowledge a disturbing reality -- the sound is clearly different if I lean forward. I sit about 16 feet away. Last time I ran Audyssey I took the leaning forward thing into account in positioning two of the mics. It was my best run, and I don't care to do another, unless there is an equipment change. The sound is good for all seats in our HT, is good closer, is good farther away. That wasn't true before Audyssey, with all other equipment the same. Although good in all those locations, it is different in all, as expected.


----------



## evgenetic

mogorf said:


> Lookin' forward, so please definitely share your experience. Good luck to ya!


here are the results with 2 last measurements against the wall (before) and with 2 last measurements slightly before sofa to the left and to the right (after). didn't make a huge difference, but still, it looks like it was less aggressive with the surrounds this time.


Spoiler


----------



## mtbdudex

mogorf said:


> You are correct, it will only work with the new 2016 Denon models. No retro fitting was announced.


Here's word document on the new audyssey smartphone app conversation with Chris K in his facebook tech forum June 16-22, 2016.
This will work with Denon 2016 models Oct-2016 timeframe.

to summarize the Facebook discussion .....in one response by Chris K:


> The new app will only work with this year’s (and forward) models. It provides the ability to customize target curves, save them, and share them with others.


----------



## mthomas47

evgenetic said:


> here are the results with 2 last measurements against the wall (before) and with 2 last measurements slightly before sofa to the left and to the right (after). didn't make a huge difference, but still, it looks like it was less aggressive with the surrounds this time.



Hi,

You may already know this, but those graphs that you are looking at don't actually show the specific corrections that Audyssey made. They are just a crude approximation of the corrections which Audyssey intended to make. They are crude approximations because Audyssey implements thousands of filters in an effort to smooth frequency response, and the graphs only show a few broad data points.

The key question is whether things sound better after your last calibration? Sometimes some experimentation is required to find the specific microphone pattern that will yield the best results. And, once you find a pattern that satisfies you, it is important to document it so that you will be able to repeat it, if you ever need to run Audyssey again.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## evgenetic

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You may already know this, but those graphs that you are looking at don't actually show the specific corrections that Audyssey made. They are just a crude approximation of the corrections which Audyssey intended to make. They are crude approximations because Audyssey implements thousands of filters in an effort to smooth frequency response, and the graphs only show a few broad data points.
> 
> The key question is whether things sound better after your last calibration? Sometimes some experimentation is required to find the specific microphone pattern that will yield the best results. And, once you find a pattern that satisfies you, it is important to document it so that you will be able to repeat it, if you ever need to run Audyssey again.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


yep, i realize that audyssey is much more than an equalizer.

regarding how things actually sound - i didn't actually have any complaints about the sound even after the previous calibration run that was done with 2 measurements right againts the wall. but you probably know that audiophiliac paranoia that nags you with questions "is this really sounding right? can it sound better than it is now with a more proper calibration?" and such  but it feels like it became slightly bassier this time, i don't know if it's the "right" sound but i'm okay with it. no idea why it sets my center speaker as large though (each time i ran a calibration, not just this last time), it has 2 small 4-inch woofers and according to the specs a frequency response of 60hz to 40khz. but i guess it knows better, right? (i got no sub atm)


----------



## mthomas47

evgenetic said:


> yep, i realize that audyssey is much more than an equalizer.
> 
> regarding how things actually sound - i didn't actually have any complaints about the sound even after the previous calibration run that was done with 2 measurements right againts the wall. but you probably know that audiophiliac paranoia that nags you with questions "is this really sounding right? can it sound better than it is now with a more proper calibration?" and such  but it feels like it became slightly bassier this time, i don't know if it's the "right" sound but i'm okay with it. no idea why it sets my center speaker as large though (each time i ran a calibration, not just this last time), it has 2 small 4-inch woofers and according to the specs a frequency response of 60hz to 40khz. but i guess it knows better, right? (i got no sub atm)



"Audiophiliac Paranoia"! I like it! And yes, I know all about that. The good news is that, in my case at least, I actually did achieve better calibrations with practice.

If you don't have a sub in your system, your AVR will have no choice but to set your front speakers as Large. But you may be able to reset your center channel to Small, with a crossover of say, 60Hz or 80Hz. That would redirect bass below the crossover to your front speakers. If you are able to do so, it won't affect Audyssey's operation in any way.


----------



## richsto

I posted elsewhere but felt this might be a more appropriate place, apologies for the double post. 

I had the bass in my relatively small room nearly perfect using MultiEQ XT32 and following guidance here. I re-ran Audyssey (long reason and not relative) under identical conditions and "poof" bass impact was gone. Nothing I can figure changed:

Optimized placement of both subs for best response; adjusted levels of each sub to 75-80 db with supplied Audyssey microphone using sub gain dials to get post calibration gain in a good post cal range (-4 to -5db); ran all eight positions using boom mic stand (including tape marking to ensure same placement). I have four seats along back wall with Mic positions focused on MLP (about 12" away from back wall along the same plane around MLP for positions 1-5 and just in front of the MLP for positions 6-8). Mic height is above seat back, just above ear level. After calibration I do raise sub trims equally by 4-5 db (as that is my preference) and raise crossovers on all five speakers to 80-90hz (5.2 system); LFE is set at 80hz. No other changes post cal and no Dynamic EQ or Volume; using Audyssey movie curve. No other room changes to furniture wall hangings, window blind position, or open doors.

Subs:
-SVS 25-31 PC+ (front left corner)
-Definitive Technology Supercube Reference (back right corner on same plane with my four seating positions)
-Placed in front/back opposing corners, internal crossovers bypassed and phase at 0 degrees 

Processor:
-Integra DHC-80.3 with latest firmware 

I've reran multiple times and cannot get it back. Raising the sub trims by 7-9 db (an additional 4-5 dB over previous successful calibrations) does increase bass but results in boomy excessive bass in some program material without the punch or mass air movement I had before. Even reset my processor to factory settings - no luck in getting it back. I'm completely stumped. 

Any ideas?


----------



## mthomas47

richsto said:


> I posted elsewhere but felt this might be a more appropriate place, apologies for the double post.
> 
> I had the bass in my relatively small room nearly perfect using MultiEQ XT32 and following guidance here. I re-ran Audyssey (long reason and not relative) under identical conditions and "poof" bass impact was gone. Nothing I can figure changed:
> 
> Optimized placement of both subs for best response; adjusted levels of each sub to 75-80 db with supplied Audyssey microphone using sub gain dials to get post calibration gain in a good post cal range (-4 to -5db); ran all eight positions using boom mic stand (including tape marking to ensure same placement). I have four seats along back wall with Mic positions focused on MLP (about 12" away from back wall along the same plane around MLP for positions 1-5 and just in front of the MLP for positions 6-8). Mic height is above seat back, just above ear level. After calibration I do raise sub trims equally by 4-5 db (as that is my preference) and raise crossovers on all five speakers to 80-90hz (5.2 system); LFE is set at 80hz. No other changes post cal and no Dynamic EQ or Volume; using Audyssey movie curve. No other room changes to furniture wall hangings, window blind position, or open doors.
> 
> Subs:
> -SVS 25-31 PC+ (front left corner)
> -Definitive Technology Supercube Reference (back right corner on same plane with my four seating positions)
> -Placed in front/back opposing corners, internal crossovers bypassed and phase at 0 degrees
> 
> Processor:
> -Integra DHC-80.3 with latest firmware
> 
> I've reran multiple times and cannot get it back. Raising the sub trims by 7-9 db (an additional 4-5 dB over previous successful calibrations) does increase bass but results in boomy excessive bass in some program material without the punch or mass air movement I had before. Even reset my processor to factory settings - no luck in getting it back. I'm completely stumped.
> 
> Any ideas?



Hi,

That's puzzling! Assuming that neither of the subs was moved at all, I can only think of two possibilities. Either something has changed with your microphone (based on having done microprocessor resets to test your AVR) or something has changed with at least one of the subs. (You could try a couple more AVR resets, just in case.) You might try testing the subs individually to try to determine whether both are performing properly, and you can buy a replacement microphone. Beyond that, I am stumped at the moment. Were your post-calibration results different lately from what they used to be? Were the trim levels, distances, and crossovers approximately the same. If your microphone were going bad, I would expect some calibration result to be different. If you had moved mic position 1 by even a few inches, I suppose you could get such a different result, but you say you didn't?

Here's one tip which may be tangential to your fundamental problem. But it's worth exploring. You would be better off doing your next calibration so that you get a trim level of at least -8 or -9 (raise the gain on your subs). That will give you plenty of room to adjust trim levels upward while staying in negative trim levels. It is barely possible that some of that boominess you heard as you raised your trim levels into positive numbers was the subs distorting. Try checking the subs individually, and then re-calibrating with lower trim levels and see what happens. I hope that works.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## richsto

Thanks Mike, was considering redoing with slightly higher sub gains. Subs were moved to test some isolation feet but placed back at nearly identical locations (within a inch or two). It is also possible I had my mic height off by a couple of inches (although I've adjusted and reran since). Hard to believe such a drastic difference with no apparent changes - multiple successful runs previous. I may try borrowing the Audyssey mic that came with my sons Marantz. Appreciate the ideas....


----------



## mthomas47

richsto said:


> Thanks Mike, was considering redoing with slightly higher sub gains. Subs were moved to test some isolation feet but placed back at nearly identical locations (within a inch or two). It is also possible I had my mic height off by a couple of inches (although I've adjusted and reran since). Hard to believe such a drastic difference with no apparent changes - multiple successful runs previous. I may try borrowing the Audyssey mic that came with my sons Marantz. Appreciate the ideas....


You are very welcome! It does seem strange, that such small changes can make a difference, but sometimes moving a sub even a few inches can excite room modes in different ways. It may be that you are getting some cancellation now at a frequency where you were experiencing really good mid-bass before. That is where you would probably notice it most--that chest punch range between about 50 and 100Hz. 

So, you may need to experiment with moving the subs just a little. It's a lot of trouble, but you might want to consider doing a sub crawl if you can't get the subs back to their original positions. Based on what you said about moving the subs slightly, I am optimistic that you can get back to where you were before. I have also found that mic height can affect calibrations, although with me, it is more the upper mid-range and treble where I notice the differences, if I get the mic a little too high.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... It does seem strange, that such small changes can make a difference, but sometimes moving a sub even a few inches can excite room modes in different ways. It may be that you are getting some cancellation now at a frequency where you were experiencing really good mid-bass before. That is where you would probably notice it most--that chest punch range between about 50 and 100Hz.
> 
> So, you may need to experiment with moving the subs just a little ... you might want to *consider doing a sub crawl* if you can't get the subs back to their original positions ...


IMO, it's all about small changes making a difference. I found that the bass roar of the rapids in How the West was Won sounds very different after moving over by one narrow seat width in my room. 

I considered deleting this post, or at least saving it for next April Fools Day. Am I all wrong about the following? Even though the sub will stay on the floor in almost all cases (some exceptions noted), the *ear* won't usually be on the floor when watching a movie, or listening to music (some exceptions noticed). So even if the sub is on the floor, it will be heard from the ear height of the MLP, where there might be a dip caused by the location of the ears relative to ceiling height. I assume there is little that can be done about such a dip, other than stacking the subs, or elevating them (I've seen quite a few pictures of these, lately), but we might as well compare room locations with each transducer (ear and sub) at the height they will be, unless it is decided to change their height. Height of the ears might, or might not, matter in reinforcing or cancelling "punch" or "boom", depending on how high the ceiling is. What is the wavelength of 80 Hz, where many of us crossover to the sub? Something like 13 feet? Of course, the sub will contribute *something* an octave or so higher -- at 150/160 Hz, where average ceiling height of 7 or 8 feet may closely match the wavelength. I've often wondered if a "sub scoot," or a "sub roll" -- gliding around on a desk chair with rollers, with ear height the same as ear height at the MLP might be better than a sub crawl. One could also periodically stand up and sit back down, as JFK did to make Gore Vidal do likewise. It would be good exercise, and comic, to say the least.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> IMO, it's all about small changes making a difference. I found that the bass roar of the rapids in How the West was Won sounds very different after moving over by one narrow seat width in my room.
> 
> I considered deleting this post, or at least saving it for next April Fools Day. Am I all wrong about the following? Even though the sub will stay on the floor in almost all cases (some exceptions noted), the *ear* won't usually be on the floor when watching a movie, or listening to music (some exceptions noticed). So even if the sub is on the floor, it will be heard from the ear height of the MLP, where there might be a dip caused by the location of the ears relative to ceiling height. I assume there is little that can be done about such a dip, other than stacking the subs, or elevating them (I've seen quite a few pictures of these, lately), but we might as well compare room locations with each transducer (ear and sub) at the height they will be, unless it is decided to change their height. Height of the ears might, or might not, matter in reinforcing or cancelling "punch" or "boom", depending on how high the ceiling is. What is the wavelength of 80 Hz, where many of us crossover to the sub? Something like 13 feet? Of course, the sub will contribute *something* an octave or so higher -- at 150/160 Hz, where average ceiling height of 7 or 8 feet may closely match the wavelength. I've often wondered if a "sub scoot," or a "sub roll" -- gliding around on a desk chair with rollers, with ear height the same as ear height at the MLP might be better than a sub crawl. One could also periodically stand up and sit back down, as JFK did to make Gore Vidal do likewise. It would be good exercise, and comic, to say the least.


Hi Gary,

To me at least, what you are saying makes perfect sense. I don't honestly know to what extent height is a significant factor in subwoofer frequency response. And it's something I have wondered about too. In theory, low (long wave) frequencies can be anywhere in the room. In practice, I have always envisioned them as being more prevalent lower in a room. I do think that with respect to many long waves, if they come out fairly low in a room, they may tend to stay lower, where shorter waves would ricochet more vigorously. 

As I have read sub location recommendations from experts such as Toole, Welti, Harman and others, the only one I remember specifically suggesting varying subwoofer height, for improved frequency response, is Earl Geddes. And even he only recommended varying the height of one of three subs by a few inches, as I recall. So, there is uniformity in recommending multiple subwoofers (3 by Geddes; 4 by the others) but no emphasis on subwoofer height as an important factor in improving frequency response.

But with respect to the relationship between sub height and ear level, there is clearly a connection. As you know, the sub crawl is ideally something like the way you described it, only in reverse. Instead of putting the sub at floor level and scooting around the floor on a roller chair (which actually sounds like fun), the idea is to try to get the sub close to ear height at the MLP, and then crawl around the floor at sub height. So, the same relationship between ear height and sub height should theoretically be preserved in either case, although it's always seemed to me that getting the sub to be right at ear height at the MLP could be problematical. If, as you speculate, inches matter, that might make a difference. And your method might be better, if one had access to a chair with wheels (it could be done without wheels, but scooting would be more fun).

I don't understand the subject well enough to have a clear explanation, or a strong independent viewpoint, but from all my reading, horizontal positioning of subs seems more significant than vertical positioning. So, moving a sub a few inches left or right, forward or backward, seems to have a greater impact on frequency response than raising or lowering the sub (or MLP) by a few inches. You may have confirmed that somewhat with your example of changing seats in "How the West Was Won". I wonder if that effect would have been as pronounced a little closer to floor level, or sitting up higher in your chair?

I can't really take the discussion any further, as I can't offer a good explanation for why the horizontal dimension would be more significant than the vertical dimension, but that is certainly my impression. And people are able to get awfully good frequency responses and sound quality with their subs on the floor. If I had to speculate, though, I would guess that as frequencies get shorter, and particularly above about 100Hz, the desirability of having drivers located higher rather than 12" or so off the floor would increase. It's certainly true with tweeters and mid-range drivers, but I suspect it is also true for bass drivers above about 100Hz, or so. But that's just speculation. Interesting subject! I'm glad you didn't delete your post. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

After thinking it over, it looks to me like neither ear height nor sub height would be an issue in a sub crawl. With a typical 8 foot ceiling, to get a null within the frequency range of a sub, with the crossover points we usually use (e.g., 80 Hz) either the sub or the ear would have to be about 4 feet off the floor. I think.


----------



## pepar

garygarrison said:


> After thinking it over, it looks to me like neither ear height nor sub height would be an issue in a sub crawl. With a typical 8 foot ceiling, to get a null within the frequency range of a sub, with the crossover points we usually use (e.g., 80 Hz) either the sub or the ear would have to be about 4 feet off the floor. I think.


Ummm, that's too simplistic.  There are axial, tangential and oblique modes. And there are a slew of online calculators.


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> Ummm, that's too simplistic.  There are axial, tangential and oblique modes. And there are a slew of *online calculator*s.


Jeff, I have yet to see a room calc that requires the input of subwoofer height and ear hight measured from floor. Is there any?


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> Jeff, I have yet to see a room calc that requires the input of subwoofer height and ear hight measured from floor. Is there any?


lol, no the calculators identify where in the room modes occur by frequency. Room modes are independent of where the sound sources are located, but one would need to know where one's head it. 

Jeff


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> Ummm, that's too simplistic.  There are axial, tangential and oblique modes. And there are a slew of online calculators.


I was considering axial only, between the floor and an 8 foot ceiling, only, since I was considering ear and sub height, only, that might be a factor during a sub crawl. I was using one of the online calculators, the multicolored one I think is Harmon's. I assumed the tangential and oblique would not be as much of a factor. Maybe that was wrong.


----------



## pepar

garygarrison said:


> I was considering axial only, between the floor and an 8 foot ceiling, only, since I was considering ear and sub height, only, that might be a factor during a sub crawl. I was using one of the online calculators, the multicolored one I think is Harmon's. I assumed the tangential and oblique would not be as much of a factor. Maybe that was wrong.


Axial modes are primary, and the strongest.. And then there are 1st, 2nd and 3rd order axial modes. For the floor to ceiling axis the 1st order mode is at half the distance, the 2nd order at 1/3 and 2/3 the distance and 3rd order at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 the distance.

Pro theater designers aim for "ear placement" at fifths, i.e. 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%. And they do focus only on axial. If one is starting from scratch with a large enough space, this is a piece of cake. But with most residential spaces ... repurposed rooms ... seating positions can be more affected by viewing distance, critical distance consideration, spacing for walkways and, in multipurpose spaces, other "non-A/V" furniture.

For my dedicated 13 X 21 space, my seating positions were determined by everything I mentioned EXCEPT modes. (I did avoid the 50% room length one.) But then I was also able to bass trap the snot out of it.

Sub placement will only determine how much coupling there is with the naturally occurring modes, but those modes will always be at the same locations regardless of placement.

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> Axial modes are primary, and the strongest.. And then there are 1st, 2nd and 3rd order axial modes. For the floor to ceiling axis the 1st order mode is at half the distance, the 2nd order at 1/3 and 2/3 the distance and 3rd order at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 the distance.
> 
> Pro theater designers aim for "ear placement" at fifths, i.e. 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%. And they do focus only on axial. If one is starting from scratch with a large enough space, this is a piece of cake. But with most residential spaces ... repurposed rooms ... seating positions can be more affected by viewing distance, critical distance consideration, spacing for walkways and, in multipurpose spaces, other "non-A/V" furniture.
> 
> For my dedicated 13 X 21 space, my seating positions were determined by everything I mentioned EXCEPT modes. (I did avoid the 50% room length one.) But then I was also able to bass trap the snot out of it.
> 
> Sub placement will only determine how much coupling there is with the naturally occurring modes, but those modes will always be at the same locations regardless of placement.
> 
> Jeff


Jeff,

That was a good post on what is, for me at least, a very confusing subject. The room mode calculators can help us to predict where the modes will be, assuming rooms with regular geometry (which I don't have) but predicting how particular subs, placed in specific locations, will collectively excite room modes is much harder. From my reading, it appears that even the real experts such as Welti, Seaton, and Geddes, can spend several hours (sometimes a full day) situating and EQing subs in a room. But in a way, that lengthy and meticulous approach is dictated by their own perfectionism.

Fortunately, the good news is that, unless we are measuring with REW, and chasing the measurements and not just the SQ, most of us find that our room/sub placements can be fairly forgiving, and can result in very good sound. As with you, it took a combination of sub placement and extensive bass trapping for me to achieve the sound I wanted. But the irregular geometry of my room probably presented additional challenges.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> Jeff,
> 
> That was a good post on what is, for me at least, a very confusing subject. The room mode calculators can help us to predict where the modes will be, assuming rooms with regular geometry (which I don't have) but predicting how particular subs, placed in specific locations, will collectively excite room modes is much harder. From my reading, it appears that even the real experts such as Welti, Seaton, and Geddes, can spend several hours (sometimes a full day) situating and EQing subs in a room. But in a way, that lengthy and meticulous approach is dictated by their own perfectionism.
> 
> Fortunately, the good news is that, unless we are measuring with REW, and chasing the measurements and not just the SQ, most of us find that our room/sub placements can be fairly forgiving, and can result in very good sound. As with you, it took a combination of sub placement and extensive bass trapping for me to achieve the sound I wanted. But the irregular geometry of my room probably presented additional challenges.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I am glad to have contributed! Slightly extending my post is that the 1/2's, 1/3's and 1/4's apply to all three axes, not just front-to-back. And the room modes are ALWAYS in the same physical locations; it is the frequencies that change with room dimensions. The mode at half the length of a 15 foot long room will be 2x (in frequency) of that same 1/2 room length axis in a 30 foot room. The biggest takeaway that someone pondering on this for a while should have is that they should never use any room dimension that is a multiple of another or, _horrors of horrors_, _IDENTICAL_. The modes will stack and produce black holes that not even NCC-1701Z could get out of.

I also have a slightly irregular room in that the left wall, the rear wall and the ceiling are all skewed by a degree. I did this on purpose when I designed the house. (I have a very funny story about the drywallers.) The purpose was to eliminate slap echo. The good news is that I have none of that while the bad news is that all the damn mode calculators are not accurate for my space. Nor can I afford software that would model it. So, really, for me it is all about the acoustical treatments.

Jeff


----------



## donktard

Okay, so... Audyssey made a quite a boost in midrange regions of my three front speakers...mostly center channel which by the looks of EQ Graph has a 10 dB boost somewhere in a wide 300 Hz area. Coincidentally, my midrange driver started buzzing in center and is waiting for replacement (no visual damage though). I don't know if main cause of damage was that boost, but I am wondering what can I do about it? I know I can bypass audyssey on left and right speaker...but if I turn it off completely then I will have no bass management.
Any workarounds I don't know off other then switching to something more flexible like Dirac?


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Okay, so... Audyssey made a quite a boost in midrange regions of my three front speakers...mostly center channel which by the looks of EQ Graph has a 10 dB boost somewhere in a wide 300 Hz area. Coincidentally, my midrange driver started buzzing in center and is waiting for replacement (no visual damage though). I don't know if main cause of damage was that boost, but I am wondering what can I do about it? I know I can bypass audyssey on left and right speaker...but if I turn it off completely then I will have no bass management.
> Any workarounds I don't know off other then switching to something more flexible like Dirac?


Hi,

I don't recall if you have posted pictures of your system and a description of your speakers, but I don't know that I would try to read too much into the crude graphs. As has been stated many times on the thread, it is hard to draw meaningful conclusions from graphs that attempt to depict at such a broad level the corrections that Audyssey is trying to make. The actual corrections occur at thousands of locations across the frequency spectrum.

If your CC is buzzing, it is probably damaged alright, but I don't know that I would conclude that Audyssey caused the damage. If the CC were damaged, that might explain why Audyssey was trying to boost it. It would be *very* rare for Audyssey to damage a speaker by boosting it. It is simply trying to get all of the speakers to play at the same volume at the MLP, and trying to get the full frequency band within about +/- 3db. An already damaged driver might not be able to play at the MV you are using, and the buzzing might then become more audible. But the cause would likely be the defective driver to start with. The boost just makes the defect more noticeable.

I don't know of any way to protect a defective CC from playing with Audyssey, other than by removing it from the system, either physically, or virtually in the Speaker Configuration Menu, and running a phantom center. To be thorough with the options, I guess you could also just turn down the trim level on the CC to make it inaudible, with the same effect of creating a phantom center. I would do one of those things, in any case, until I could replace or repair the CC, regardless of the EQ system.

If you will post pictures, descriptions of your speakers, crossovers and trim levels, distance to MLP, and MV levels, you may be able to get some helpful trouble-shooting advice. I'm sorry to hear about your damaged CC. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

donktard said:


> Okay, so... Audyssey made a quite a boost in midrange regions of my three front speakers...mostly center channel which by the looks of EQ Graph has a 10 dB boost somewhere in a wide 300 Hz area. Coincidentally, my midrange driver started buzzing in center and is waiting for replacement (no visual damage though). I don't know if main cause of damage was that boost, but I am wondering what can I do about it? I know I can bypass audyssey on left and right speaker...but if I turn it off completely then I will have no bass management.
> Any workarounds I don't know off other then switching to something more flexible like Dirac?


You can still have bass management without Audyssey, but I wouldn't go that way. Audyssey can help a little to a lot (in my case, a lot). 

I think the maximum boost of Audyssey (over true 0) is 9 dB. I, too, doubt if that damaged your center, although some centers are delicate, compared to LF and RF. Are you running your center as "small?" Running all speakers as "small" may provide a bit of extra protection by sending bass to the sub. I realize that you suspect that Audyssey may have turned your midrange up too high, but speaker damage is most often done by high SPL at the bass end, or in some cases in the treble end where tweeters may get the treble byproducts of amplifier clipping, which most people think can kill tweeters. 

What is the power rating in watts per channel of your receiver or amp?

Are you setting your Main Volume control by ear? How loud are you running it (in dB below 0)? Most home theater components can be run at a high SPL without damage, but some of those sold in big box stores or department stores cannot. 

Please give us the information asked for by Mike, above, as well as your room size in cubic feet and the power handling capacity of the speakers, particularly the center (even though power handling capacity is not often informative!), and their rated sensitivity (or efficiency). 

See the "Audyssey FAQ" link at the bottom of Mike's posts.


----------



## donktard

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't recall if you have posted pictures of your system and a description of your speakers, but I don't know that I would try to read too much into the crude graphs. As has been stated many times on the thread, it is hard to draw meaningful conclusions from graphs that attempt to depict at such a broad level the corrections that Audyssey is trying to make. The actual corrections occur at thousands of locations across the frequency spectrum.
> 
> If your CC is buzzing, it is probably damaged alright, but I don't know that I would conclude that Audyssey caused the damage. If the CC were damaged, that might explain why Audyssey was trying to boost it. It would be *very* rare for Audyssey to damage a speaker by boosting it. It is simply trying to get all of the speakers to play at the same volume at the MLP, and trying to get the full frequency band within about +/- 3db. An already damaged driver might not be able to play at the MV you are using, and the buzzing might then become more audible. But the cause would likely be the defective driver to start with. The boost just makes the defect more noticeable.
> 
> I don't know of any way to protect a defective CC from playing with Audyssey, other than by removing it from the system, either physically, or virtually in the Speaker Configuration Menu, and running a phantom center. To be thorough with the options, I guess you could also just turn down the trim level on the CC to make it inaudible, with the same effect of creating a phantom center. I would do one of those things, in any case, until I could replace or repair the CC, regardless of the EQ system.
> 
> If you will post pictures, descriptions of your speakers, crossovers and trim levels, distance to MLP, and MV levels, you may be able to get some helpful trouble-shooting advice. I'm sorry to hear about your damaged CC.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It would be about time I put my setup info in signature 
I cannot take photos at the moment, maybe in a few days, but I don't think its necessary.
Revel Ultima Salon 2
Revel C208
Revel M106
Denon X5200
Yamaha P5000S (for driving Salons only)

Fronts and CC are roughly 2.7 m from MLP, it is not symmetrical placement in regards to room, but I have first reflection treatments for fronts and CC. Trim for CC is -2, for fronts -1.5, all crossovers are at 80. My usual listening levels (for movies) are between -12 and -5.
"Idea" that audyssey 9 dB boost in that frequency area could be damaging came to me because there is obviously pretty tasking power requirement for amp when listening near reference levels and I have no actual clue how much headroom speaker and amp have to handle that.

I am getting a replacement part soon as it is still under a warranty.



garygarrison said:


> You can still have bass management without Audyssey, but I wouldn't go that way. Audyssey can help a little to a lot (in my case, a lot).
> 
> I think the maximum boost of Audyssey (over true 0) is 9 dB. I, too, doubt if that damaged your center, although some centers are delicate, compared to LF and RF. Are you running your center as "small?" Running all speakers as "small" may provide a bit of extra protection by sending bass to the sub. I realize that you suspect that Audyssey may have turned your midrange up too high, but speaker damage is most often done by high SPL at the bass end, or in some cases in the treble end where tweeters may get the treble byproducts of amplifier clipping, which most people think can kill tweeters.
> 
> What is the power rating in watts per channel of your receiver or amp?
> 
> Are you setting your Main Volume control by ear? How loud are you running it (in dB below 0)? Most home theater components can be run at a high SPL without damage, but some of those sold in big box stores or department stores cannot.
> 
> Please give us the information asked for by Mike, above, as well as your room size in cubic feet and the power handling capacity of the speakers, particularly the center (even though power handling capacity is not often informative!), and their rated sensitivity (or efficiency).
> 
> See the "Audyssey FAQ" link at the bottom of Mike's posts.


Hi,
I answered most of your questions above.
I have experience with Audyssey so everything is set up correctly (speakers to small, etc etc)
Power output is rated somewhere around 150WPC in 8 Ohms for 2 channels iirc. (i run only cc and 2 surrounds on Denons amps, fronts are hooked to preouts)
Power handling for cc is 50-350W, 8 Ohms, 89dB sensitivity.
Yes, I usually set volume by ear, -12 to -5 or so...comfortably loud 
Room is about 4000 cubic feet, but HT area utilizes about 1/4 of it (roughly 7 x 5.5 x 2.5 meters). Will post picture as soon as I am able to if necessary.


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> It would be about time I put my setup info in signature
> I cannot take photos at the moment, maybe in a few days, but I don't think its necessary.
> Revel Ultima Salon 2
> Revel C208
> Revel M106
> Denon X5200
> Yamaha P5000S (for driving Salons only)
> 
> Fronts and CC are roughly 2.7 m from MLP, it is not symmetrical placement in regards to room, but I have first reflection treatments for fronts and CC. Trim for CC is -2, for fronts -1.5, all crossovers are at 80. My usual listening levels (for movies) are between -12 and -5.
> "Idea" that audyssey 9 dB boost in that frequency area could be damaging came to me because there is obviously pretty tasking power requirement for amp when listening near reference levels and I have no actual clue how much headroom speaker and amp have to handle that.
> 
> I am getting a replacement part soon as it is still under a warranty.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> I answered most of your questions above.
> I have experience with Audyssey so everything is set up correctly (speakers to small, etc etc)
> Power output is rated somewhere around 150WPC in 8 Ohms for 2 channels iirc. (i run only cc and 2 surrounds on Denons amps, fronts are hooked to preouts)
> Power handling for cc is 50-350W, 8 Ohms, 89dB sensitivity.
> Yes, I usually set volume by ear, -12 to -5 or so...comfortably loud
> Room is about 4000 cubic feet, but HT area utilizes about 1/4 of it (roughly 7 x 5.5 x 2.5 meters). Will post picture as soon as I am able to if necessary.


Thanks for the information. I agree that the photos aren't necessary. Those are good speakers. To me, the most salient pieces of information are: the CC speaker sensitivity, which is 89db 1watt/1m; the listening distance, which is less than 3m; the trim level, which is -2; the crossover, which is 80Hz; and the MV, which is below Reference, at -12 to -5.

All of those factors suggest that your speakers are operating well within normal limits. A trim setting of -2 means that you have ample headroom for the listening distance of less than 3m, and you have the crossover set about a half octave higher than the F3 point of the speaker. In-room, it's possible that your AVR would even set that speaker at 40Hz, although 60Hz is more likely.

So, there is nothing there to indicate to me that your CC should be over-driven by anything that you are doing with the MV, or that Audyssey might be doing with a boost at around 300Hz. As Gary noted, typically if a speaker is over-driven, it occurs in the lower bass range, below about 80Hz, or in the upper frequency range above 8000Hz or so. Since your CC has an internal crossover of 375Hz, any boost in that area should be distributed mainly to your 8" woofers. It is possible, I suppose that the 4" mid-range could be getting a little bit of boost at the low-end of its capabilities, but if Revel is properly implementing the internal crossover, which I'm sure they are, the 4" mid-range should be fine unless it had a problem to start with. And again, you can't take those graphs as literal representations of what Audyssey is actually doing, anyway.

I have been very careful not to say that it's impossible for Audyssey to damage a speaker, as who really knows, but if the speakers are fairly new I would strongly suspect an inherent defect, that has only now become noticeable. Audyssey does not have a history of damaging speakers (if there were such a history, this long thread would be filled with such reports). So, I am hoping that the replacement part will solve your problem. But for the benefit of others with Audyssey, I would appreciate it if you would keep us informed about what happens once your speaker is repaired.


----------



## donktard

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks for the information. I agree that the photos aren't necessary. Those are good speakers. To me, the most salient pieces of information are: the CC speaker sensitivity, which is 89db 1watt/1m; the listening distance, which is less than 3m; the trim level, which is -2; the crossover, which is 80Hz; and the MV, which is below Reference, at -12 to -5.
> 
> All of those factors suggest that your speakers are operating well within normal limits. A trim setting of -2 means that you have ample headroom for the listening distance of less than 3m, and you have the crossover set about a half octave higher than the F3 point of the speaker. In-room, it's possible that your AVR would even set that speaker at 40Hz, although 60Hz is more likely.
> 
> So, there is nothing there to indicate to me that your CC should be over-driven by anything that you are doing with the MV, or that Audyssey might be doing with a boost at around 300Hz. As Gary noted, typically if a speaker is over-driven, it occurs in the lower bass range, below about 80Hz, or in the upper frequency range above 8000Hz or so. Since your CC has an internal crossover of 375Hz, any boost in that area should be distributed mainly to your 8" woofers. It is possible, I suppose that the 4" mid-range could be getting a little bit of boost at the low-end of its capabilities, but if Revel is properly implementing the internal crossover, which I'm sure they are, the 4" mid-range should be fine unless it had a problem to start with. And again, you can't take those graphs as literal representations of what Audyssey is actually doing, anyway.
> 
> I have been very careful not to say that it's impossible for Audyssey to damage a speaker, as who really knows, but if the speakers are fairly new I would strongly suspect an inherent defect, that has only now become noticeable. Audyssey does not have a history of damaging speakers (if there were such a history, this long thread would be filled with such reports). So, I am hoping that the replacement part will solve your problem. But for the benefit of others with Audyssey, I would appreciate it if you would keep us informed about what happens once your speaker is repaired.


Thank you for reply.
Of course, I wouldn't claim that Audyssey was the biggest factor in speaker damage, but rather just another piece in combination of unfortunate circumstances. Though it seems it is just a defective part since speaker really didn't have that much work hours in it to begin with and as you said, I didn't really push it insanely hard.
Audyssey did behave rather "insane" since i placed that speaker at new position (couple of feet away from old one, also different direction). Usually it would set crossover really low (40 Hz) or so, but in this new position it usually puts it really high...120, 100, but I always check with REW whats going on and usually end up at 80 because it looks and sounds best there.

I surely will let you know how are things going once speaker is fixed.


----------



## garygarrison

donktard said:


> Power output is rated somewhere around 150WPC in 8 Ohms for 2 channels iirc. (i run only cc and 2 surrounds on Denons amps, fronts are hooked to preouts)
> Power handling for cc is 50-350W, 8 Ohms, 89dB sensitivity.
> Yes, I usually set volume by ear, -12 to -5 or so...comfortably loud
> Room is about 4000 cubic feet, but HT area utilizes about 1/4 of it (roughly 7 x 5.5 x 2.5 meters). Will post picture as soon as I am able to if necessary.


If the highest (peak) SPL through your center is 100 dB (5 dB below Reference full scale for main speakers) at your MLP, I doubt that your playback level damaged your speaker. You may want to ask Revel for their opinion, though. I would think that the power it would take to produce 100 dB at your MLP with a speaker of 89 dB sensitivity would be less than 100 watts, and that would be only for peaks. Your room is a bit bigger than some, but you and your mic positions are close.

If you don't go by the percussion, the loudest frequency range put out by an orchestra is centered somewhere around 150 Hz to 800 Hz, so if you are setting by ear, you may be setting the SPL based on that band, which is where your possible 9 dB boost occurs -- so you probably aren't pushing the low bass or the treble very much.

Since you are set up for REW, you could run sweeps with and without Audyssey, and see if there really is a 9 dB difference centered around 300 Hz. I'd expect an electronic boost of 9 dB to read a little less acoustically because of the compression imposed by most speakers.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> Thank you for reply.
> Of course, I wouldn't claim that Audyssey was the biggest factor in speaker damage, but rather just another piece in combination of unfortunate circumstances. Though it seems it is just a defective part since speaker really didn't have that much work hours in it to begin with and as you said, I didn't really push it insanely hard.
> Audyssey did behave rather "insane" since i placed that speaker at new position (couple of feet away from old one, also different direction). Usually it would set crossover really low (40 Hz) or so, but in this new position it usually puts it really high...120, 100, but I always check with REW whats going on and usually end up at 80 because it looks and sounds best there.
> 
> I surely will let you know how are things going once speaker is fixed.


You're getting a lot of great advice from Mike & Gary, I just wanted to point out that you should never lower a crossover set by Audyssey.

Audyssey only EQ's the speaker down to the detected -3dB point. So, if you lower the crossover manually, the frequencies between the Audyssey set crossover and your manually set crossover will _not _be EQ'ed.

Did you move the CC from under the display to over, or....?


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> You're getting a lot of great advice from Mike & Gary, I just wanted to point out that you should never lower a crossover set by Audyssey.
> 
> Audyssey only EQ's the speaker down to the detected -3dB point. So, if you lower the crossover manually, the frequencies between the Audyssey set crossover and your manually set crossover will _not _be EQ'ed.
> 
> Did you move the CC from under the display to over, or....?


I hope someone can confirm what you just said because that sounds like a really poorly developed mechanism. I was assuming that Audyssey measures each speaker and sub, EQ's full range for each speaker and sub, then chooses -3db point and applies crossovers. That way, if anyone decides to lower crossover point or set speaker to LARGE, EQ for that specific speaker can be properly utilized.

To answer your other question, my speakers were previously positioned differently, facing different direction in the room with MLP really close to back wall (aiming down the shorter dimension of a room) and now I have repositioned them so they aim downwards longer dimension so i have about 12 feet between back wall and MLP.
Bass/mid-bass wise it seems to be worse position for center then previous one, but at least I don't have to listen to painful back wall reflections any more.


----------



## garygarrison

donktard said:


> *I hope someone can confirm what you just said because that sounds like a really poorly developed mechanism.* I was assuming that Audyssey measures each speaker and sub, EQ's full range for each speaker and sub, then chooses -3db point and applies crossovers. *That way, if anyone decides to lower crossover point or set speaker to LARGE, EQ for that specific speaker can be properly utilized.*
> ...


I think it is confirmed somewhere in the Audyssey FAQ that is in both Mike's and Alan's signatures, if it is not, it may be in the Audyssey 101 that is in Alan's.

Here's the way I see it: 


If Audyssey EQd the _*full*_ range (20 to 20KHz) of a speaker that has its -3dB point at 90 Hz (some do, in some rooms), it might end up boosting a full 9 dB at, say, 25 Hz (or 30, or 80, etc.), causing distortion and possible damage, *if* someone sets the crossover much lower than the measured f3 of 90. It's conceivable that the net or relative boost might be even more, if most other ranges were cut to allow more relative boost at 25 Hz).
If Audyssey does not EQ the whole range, but stops at the -3 dB point (which we think is the case), the speaker would get whatever it would normally get below f3, as if Audyssey was not being used, therefore the speaker wouldn't be being over strained below the f3 (unless it would be in an ordinary, non-Audyssey system).


Audyssey measures my front speakers as being at -3 dB at 40 Hz, in my room. In reality, they have fairly good response to about 32 Hz, and respond cleanly, but softly, to 24 Hz. For a few movies in my collection (all from the1950s and 60s) I do use "Large" and "LFE + Main," because those few films just sound better that way, but I do maintain the same crossover (80 Hz, in my case). I have experimented with lowering it to the f3 of 40 Hz, without a problem. I'm glad that Audyssey doesn't try to boost my main fronts below f3 -- I wouldn't want Audyssey to be pumping in a 9 dB boost (or more, relatively speaking) at 20 Hz, when I use "Large." I'd wager I'd hear distortion, and might cause harm.


----------



## donktard

garygarrison said:


> I think it is confirmed somewhere in the Audyssey FAQ that is in both Mike's and Alan's signatures, if it is not, it may be in the Audyssey 101 that is in Alan's.
> 
> Here's the way I see it:
> 
> 
> If Audyssey EQd the _*full*_ range (20 to 20KHz) of a speaker that has its -3dB point at 90 Hz (some do, in some rooms), it might end up boosting a full 9 dB at, say, 25 Hz (or 30, or 80, etc.), causing distortion and possible damage, *if* someone sets the crossover much lower than the measured f3 of 90. It's conceivable that the net or relative boost might be even more, if most other ranges were cut to allow more relative boost at 25 Hz).
> If Audyssey does not EQ the whole range, but stops at the -3 dB point (which we think is the case), the speaker would get whatever it would normally get below f3, as if Audyssey was not being used, therefore the speaker wouldn't be being over strained below the f3 (unless it would be in an ordinary, non-Audyssey system).
> 
> 
> Audyssey measures my front speakers as being at -3 dB at 40 Hz, in my room. In reality, they have fairly good response to about 32 Hz, and respond cleanly, but softly, to 24 Hz. For a few movies in my collection (all from the1950s and 60s) I do use "Large" and "LFE + Main," because those few films just sound better that way, but I do maintain the same crossover (80 Hz, in my case). I have experimented with lowering it to the f3 of 40 Hz, without a problem. I'm glad that Audyssey doesn't try to boost my main fronts below f3 -- I wouldn't want Audyssey to be pumping in a 9 dB boost (or more, relatively speaking) at 20 Hz, when I use "Large." I'd wager I'd hear distortion, and might cause harm.


Yeah, you have the point. I didn't think it through.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> I hope someone can confirm what you just said because that sounds like a really poorly developed mechanism. I was assuming that Audyssey measures each speaker and sub, EQ's full range for each speaker and sub, then chooses -3db point and applies crossovers. That way, if anyone decides to lower crossover point or set speaker to LARGE, EQ for that specific speaker can be properly utilized.
> 
> To answer your other question, my speakers were previously positioned differently, facing different direction in the room with MLP really close to back wall (aiming down the shorter dimension of a room) and now I have repositioned them so they aim downwards longer dimension so i have about 12 feet between back wall and MLP.
> Bass/mid-bass wise it seems to be worse position for center then previous one, but at least I don't have to listen to painful back wall reflections any more.





garygarrison said:


> I think it is confirmed somewhere in the Audyssey FAQ that is in both Mike's and Alan's signatures, if it is not, it may be in the Audyssey 101 that is in Alan's.


It is indeed confirmed in the Audyssey FAQ:

Is it OK to change the Crossovers from Audyssey's recommendation?

_"If you decide to change any of the Crossovers determined by Audyssey, note that it is always OK to RAISE the Crossovers from those suggested but never to LOWER them. This is because Audyssey corrects down to the -3dB point of the speaker's frequencies response, so if you lower the Crossover from Audyssey's suggested setting you will create an uncorrected 'hole' in the frequency response. It's fine to raise them and doing so does not harm the Audyssey calibration in any way at all."
_


----------



## mthomas47

Just to close the loop on all of this, Audyssey measures the frequency response and reports the F3 point for each speaker to the AVR. The AVR then sets a crossover based on it's own internal algorithm, which may vary just slightly from manufacturer to manufacturer. In my opinion, there are two important aspects to how crossovers are set. First, although one speaker may measure lower in-room than the other (due to room effects), the crossover is set for the pair, and is based on the higher detected crossover not the lower one. As Gary explained so well, that is to protect the speakers from being boosted below their F3 points. 

Second, no one has ever been exactly sure how different companies implement crossovers. For instance, if the detected F3 point on the CC is about 45Hz or 50Hz, the AVR will surely round up to 60Hz for the crossover. But what is the point at which a crossover is rounded up, or down. If the F3 point were 41Hz or 42Hz, would a given AVR still round-up to a 60Hz crossover, or down to 40Hz?

In recent years, Chris K. has reversed his long-standing recommendation to always use 80Hz or higher crossovers, if the owner has XT-32. That is due to the increased number of filters in the satellite channels, which can EQ bass as effectively as it can for the subs. But even with his advice that it is okay to leave crossovers wherever Audyssey sets them with XT-32, I think a better standard is the 1/2 to 1 octave rule that recommends setting crossovers at least 1/2 octave above the F3 point, to protect the speakers from distorting at higher volumes. That is not so much an Audyssey issue as a basic way to protect any speakers from distorting by trying to play low frequencies at high volumes.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Vandaahl

Hoping you guys could answer this question. I'm looking for a receiver that can store different presets for Audyssey configurations. I use my PC as my entertainment system, so when I'm at my desk I would like my Audyssey setup different from when I'm watching a movie, for which I sit back a meter and more to the left of my speakers. So basically I would like to have 2 different presets: one for when I'm doing work or listening to music, and one for when I'm watching movies. Are there any receivers that offer such functionality?


----------



## AV_mike

Vandaahl said:


> Hoping you guys could answer this question. I'm looking for a receiver that can store different presets for Audyssey configurations. I use my PC as my entertainment system, so when I'm at my desk I would like my Audyssey setup different from when I'm watching a movie, for which I sit back a meter and more to the left of my speakers. So basically I would like to have 2 different presets: one for when I'm doing work or listening to music, and one for when I'm watching movies. Are there any receivers that offer such functionality?


Short answer, NO.
Denon & Marantz both have network save/load functions, so that you can create two totally independent Audyssey Calibrations and store them on your PC. Then load the appropriate one. Saving is really slow at approx. 10 minutes, but loading is a bit quicker at approx. 6 minutes. The configurations are in fact a complete snapshot of the whole AVR configuration, not just the Audyssey data.
Regards, Mike.


----------



## garygarrison

Vandaahl said:


> Hoping you guys could answer this question. I'm looking for a receiver that can store different presets for Audyssey configurations. I use my PC as my entertainment system, so when I'm at my desk I would like my Audyssey setup different from when I'm watching a movie, for which I sit back a meter and more to the left of my speakers. So basically I would like to have 2 different presets: one for when I'm doing work or listening to music, and one for when I'm watching movies. Are there any receivers that offer such functionality?


When you watch a movie from one meter back and slightly to the left, are you watching it on your PC, or are you using some other screen? Are you using your PC speakers, or another set of dedicated speakers? If you are watching it on your PC, why are you one meter back and to the side -- to sit in a more comfortable chair? If you are using a bigger screen of some kind, that is centered between your LF and RF speakers, you may want to just move your desk. In our combination Home Theater, Music Room & Library, we have a couch with a desk directly behind it, almost touching, both centered, so movie watching and serious music listening is done from the centered couch, and work is done at the laptop on the desk, both centered in regard to the main speakers. Audyssey is optimized for the couch, but music still sounds good a little more than a meter back when sitting in the desk chair. This arrangement is basically copied from one in the old High Fidelity magazine.


----------



## Vandaahl

garygarrison said:


> When you watch a movie from one meter back and slightly to the left, are you watching it on your PC, or are you using some other screen? Are you using your PC speakers, or another set of dedicated speakers? If you are watching it on your PC, why are you one meter back and to the side -- to sit in a more comfortable chair? If you are using a bigger screen of some kind, that is centered between your LF and RF speakers, you may want to just move your desk. In our combination Home Theater, Music Room & Library, we have a couch with a desk directly behind it, almost touching, both centered, so movie watching and serious music listening is done from the centered couch, and work is done at the laptop on the desk, both centered in regard to the main speakers. Audyssey is optimized for the couch, but music still sounds good a little more than a meter back when sitting in the desk chair. This arrangement is basically copied from one in the old High Fidelity magazine.


This is a bedroom arrangement with a desk and monitor. The right speaker is on the desk next to the monitor, and the left speaker is next to a wall further to the left. I use these same speakers and monitor for desk use and movie watching, and when I watch a movie I move my monitor to the left of the desk so it's centered between the front speakers. So when I'm sitting at the desk the right speaker is very close to me and the left speaker is further away. So I really need the left speaker to be louder when I'm sitting at the desk, and when I'm watching a movie the balance should be more to the center so they're equally loud. 

I really wish I could setup different profiles on a receiver, but it looks like I'll have to do this using some software on my PC (which hopefully exists).


----------



## lovinthehd

Vandaahl said:


> This is a bedroom arrangement with a desk and monitor. The right speaker is on the desk next to the monitor, and the left speaker is next to a wall further to the left. I use these same speakers and monitor for desk use and movie watching, and when I watch a movie I move my monitor to the left of the desk so it's centered between the front speakers. So when I'm sitting at the desk the right speaker is very close to me and the left speaker is further away. So I really need the left speaker to be louder when I'm sitting at the desk, and when I'm watching a movie the balance should be more to the center so they're equally loud.
> 
> I really wish I could setup different profiles on a receiver, but it looks like I'll have to do this using some software on my PC (which hopefully exists).


Why not simply adjust L/R speaker levels appropriately between the different positions?


----------



## mthomas47

lovinthehd said:


> Why not simply adjust L/R speaker levels appropriately between the different positions?



I think that's a good suggestion. I actually do something similar to that when I change positions in my room, as I am a little anal about preserving imaging. As long as you remember your trim levels for the two different positions, it's a piece of cake--much quicker and easier than two separate calibrations would be. And Audyssey should already have EQed your listening area, including the two different positions, so all you really need to worry about is balancing the speaker levels.


----------



## garygarrison

I think the solution in the above two posts should work well enough. Your speakers are in the same place, the repositioning of your head and the monitor's reflection may make some difference, but I wouldn't expect it to be much (unless your head is in a null in one of the two positions.). Try switching back and forth between Audyssey on and Audyssey off from each position (with the individual speaker volume trims adjusted for the position being tested). If Audyssey always sounds better, you will be better off than without Audyssey!


----------



## Vandaahl

I appreciate the suggestions. Does changing the speaker balance not mean I have to enter the receiver UI though and work my way through menu's? Do any receivers have balance buttons on the remote any more?


----------



## pepar

Popping in here a bit late ... is the head movement along the front/back centerline? If so, tweaking trims will do it. If the head movement is left/right then there is precedence (arrival times) that will complicate merely trim adjustments.

Jeff


----------



## Vandaahl

pepar said:


> Popping in here a bit late ... is the head movement along the front/back centerline? If so, tweaking trims will do it. If the head movement is left/right then there is precedence (arrival times) that will complicate merely trim adjustments.
> 
> Jeff


I move both to the left and to the back (a little over 1 meter / 3.2 feet). I won't need to adjust the balance for the rear speakers however, since I only use those for watching movies i.e. when I move to my alternate position.


----------



## lovinthehd

Vandaahl said:


> I appreciate the suggestions. Does changing the speaker balance not mean I have to enter the receiver UI though and work my way through menu's? Do any receivers have balance buttons on the remote any more?


Probably, balance control is pretty much non existent on avrs that I know of, might even have to tolerate some test tones for adjusting speaker levels. Maybe even need to play with distance/delay setting as mentioned but you'd already be in the same area at least. Personally I'd rearrange things so that the audio works well at any seating position I plan to utilize....

PS You might consider Pioneer/MCACC as that has more of what you're looking for with different calibrations changed easily...


----------



## pepar

Vandaahl said:


> I move both to the left and to the back (a little over 1 meter / 3.2 feet). I won't need to adjust the balance for the rear speakers however, since I only use those for watching movies i.e. when I move to my alternate position.


Rather than use the level trims, try the distance settings adjusting them to your different position. Alternately, if it is easier to use level trims, it might take an extra dB or two to override the precedence effect.


----------



## maestro50

*Distance and trim variances*

A question and a little concern:

Which device sets the speaker distances and levels--Audyssey or the AVR?
Each time I run the calibration, my front left speakers are set about a foot further away than what they actually are by tape measure. 
Further, the trim levels for the left and right speakers change every time. For instance, sometimes the FR speaker is set at +2, the next time it is +4.5. A pretty significant difference. Similarly, the subwoofer is -4.5 one time, and then -6 the next. 
Each of these results make an audible difference.
Which one is the "real" one? Should I just trust the most recent calibration and not worry about it? Should I set the distances to what they measure on the tape measure? Is the difference in distance/trim compensated for somehow by the Audyssey EQ?

I hope this makes sense. 

Thanks.


----------



## Alan P

maestro50 said:


> A question and a little concern:
> 
> Which device sets the speaker distances and levels--Audyssey or the AVR?
> Each time I run the calibration, my front left speakers are set about a foot further away than what they actually are by tape measure.
> Further, the trim levels for the left and right speakers change every time. For instance, sometimes the FR speaker is set at +2, the next time it is +4.5. A pretty significant difference. Similarly, the subwoofer is -4.5 one time, and then -6 the next.
> Each of these results make an audible difference.
> Which one is the "real" one? Should I just trust the most recent calibration and not worry about it? Should I set the distances to what they measure on the tape measure? Is the difference in distance/trim compensated for somehow by the Audyssey EQ?
> 
> I hope this makes sense.
> 
> Thanks.


Technically, the AVR sets distances and levels based on the information Audyssey gives it.

Having your trims vary by that much is definitely not normal. Are you using a mic boom (or at least a tripod) for the Audyssey mic? Is your first mic position always in the same place (give or take an inch or two)?


----------



## mthomas47

maestro50 said:


> A question and a little concern:
> 
> Which device sets the speaker distances and levels--Audyssey or the AVR?
> Each time I run the calibration, my front left speakers are set about a foot further away than what they actually are by tape measure.
> Further, the trim levels for the left and right speakers change every time. For instance, sometimes the FR speaker is set at +2, the next time it is +4.5. A pretty significant difference. Similarly, the subwoofer is -4.5 one time, and then -6 the next.
> Each of these results make an audible difference.
> Which one is the "real" one? Should I just trust the most recent calibration and not worry about it? Should I set the distances to what they measure on the tape measure? Is the difference in distance/trim compensated for somehow by the Audyssey EQ?
> 
> I hope this makes sense.
> 
> Thanks.



Alan's questions are the same ones I would ask. If you vary your microphone positions from calibration to calibration, the trim levels will change slightly. Those changes are more than I would expect, though. It can be hard to nail down your best calibration, but when you get to a sound you really like, make a written log of your mic positions so you can repeat it if necessary.

Jeff's point on perhaps needing a little extra trim to overcome a slight change in distance is spot on. When you change positions, if you need to, just adjust the trim levels slightly to get things to sound balanced. Trim level is not something to obsess over, though. Just get it to sound good to you. Setting trim levels is the very least of what Audyssey does, so the filters which are the real benefit of Audyssey, won't be affected.


----------



## maestro50

*Reference v. Bypass*



mthomas47 said:


> Alan's questions are the same ones I would ask. If you vary your microphone positions from calibration to calibration, the trim levels will change slightly. Those changes are more than I would expect, though. It can be hard to nail down your best calibration, but when you get to a sound you really like, make a written log of your mic positions so you can repeat it if necessary.
> 
> Jeff's point on perhaps needing a little extra trim to overcome a slight change in distance is spot on. When you change positions, if you need to, just adjust the trim levels slightly to get things to sound balanced. Trim level is not something to obsess over, though. Just get it to sound good to you. Setting trim levels is the very least of what Audyssey does, so the filters which are the real benefit of Audyssey, won't be affected.


Thank you. I measured with more care and all is well on that front.
A new question today (several actually!)--

When I listen to Audyssey in Reference mode, 2-channel stereo, it sounds very good.
But if I switch back and forth between Reference and LR bypass, the bypass mode sounds more "realistic." Oboe, guitar, piano, violin, everything sounds a little bit more like it should (more like I expect it to) in bypass mode.

[Marantz 6010, PSB T2, Hsu VTF-3 Mk5. Crossover in 6010 set at 80Hz]

I understand the answer to these type of questions is always, "find a mode you like and enjoy it." I'll do that, I promise.

But I am wondering, is Reference mode actually more accurate, and I'm just not used to it?
In changing the EQ of the room to overcome its quirks and faults, isn't Audyssey really changing the EQ of the RECORDING, so that it is actually LESS accurate?
Should I give it a week or a month and let my ears adjust?
Surely there are others that have had similar reactions to hearing/adapting/choosing Reference mode? (Oh, I've tried Flat by the way. Nope.)

Or, does it really not matter? I mean, do I get the majority of the "good stuff" out of the processing by using the bass management below 80Hz?

Thank you for letting me pick your collective brains.
I'm an old vet when it comes to stereo listening, but a novice when adding any kind of processing to the chain.
Old habits and old wisdom tell me that adding any processing is dangerous, but I feel foolish not utilizing the technology available to me in the best way that I can.

Thanks,


----------



## mthomas47

maestro50 said:


> Thank you. I measured with more care and all is well on that front.
> A new question today (several actually!)--
> 
> When I listen to Audyssey in Reference mode, 2-channel stereo, it sounds very good.
> But if I switch back and forth between Reference and LR bypass, the bypass mode sounds more "realistic." Oboe, guitar, piano, violin, everything sounds a little bit more like it should (more like I expect it to) in bypass mode.
> 
> [Marantz 6010, PSB T2, Hsu VTF-3 Mk5. Crossover in 6010 set at 80Hz]
> 
> I understand the answer to these type of questions is always, "find a mode you like and enjoy it." I'll do that, I promise.
> 
> But I am wondering, is Reference mode actually more accurate, and I'm just not used to it?
> In changing the EQ of the room to overcome its quirks and faults, isn't Audyssey really changing the EQ of the RECORDING, so that it is actually LESS accurate?
> Should I give it a week or a month and let my ears adjust?
> Surely there are others that have had similar reactions to hearing/adapting/choosing Reference mode? (Oh, I've tried Flat by the way. Nope.)
> 
> Or, does it really not matter? I mean, do I get the majority of the "good stuff" out of the processing by using the bass management below 80Hz?
> 
> Thank you for letting me pick your collective brains.
> I'm an old vet when it comes to stereo listening, but a novice when adding any kind of processing to the chain.
> Old habits and old wisdom tell me that adding any processing is dangerous, but I feel foolish not utilizing the technology available to me in the best way that I can.
> 
> Thanks,



You are welcome! Well, I'll give you one perspective. FWIW, I don't really consider what Audyssey is doing as processing, although I understand that intuitive reaction. What I see Audyssey as trying to do is to keep the room/speaker interaction from interfering too much with the sound that you should be hearing. And that should make the music more, not less, accurate.

To do that, it attempts to correct any big peaks or dips in volume all the way up the frequency spectrum from 10Hz to 20KHz. I believe that the goal is to try to achieve about +/- 3db for every speaker, at every frequency. And in theory, that helps to take constructive and destructive interference out of the equation, to the extent that an automated room correction system can.

But it gets more complicated when you add in the Reference Curve, which has a dip at about 2500Hz, and which attenuates the upper frequencies a bit. And then, it gets a little more complicated again, when DEQ is introduced into the equation, because among other things, it boosts bass frequencies at below Reference volumes. 

There are reasons why Audyssey does those things, but I'm not discussing the merits of the Reference Curve, or of DEQ, but only how it may affect your perception of a more, or less, natural sound. Speaking only for myself, in my room, with my system, the most natural sound is achieved with Flat, no DEQ, and -1 Treble on my front speakers (using my Tone Control). Others on the thread will undoubtedly have entirely different views regarding what makes acoustical instruments, with which they are familiar, sound most natural in their rooms, with their systems.

Your starting point is ultimately going to have to be your ending point, though. Regardless of the merits of using Audyssey in my system, in the way I described, or in other ways as may be described by others, your own ears are the final arbiter of what works best for you. I would experiment extensively, giving myself plenty of time to listen to different variations and settings, and ultimately pick the one I like best. If it happens to be Bypass L/R, so be it. And yes, you will still get real benefits just from EQing the sub-80Hz, or so, frequencies.

If you are like many of us, you may find yourself making slight adjustments from time-to-time, regardless of what you pick. And some people even go back and forth between settings in a fairly major way. There is absolutely no single right way to listen, particularly where music is concerned.

But I would try not to be influenced by preconceptions regarding "processing", because the Audyssey filters themselves are not a form of processing, as I see it, although the Reference Curve and DEQ may be considered that. I think it's useful to distinguish between Audyssey filters which simply attempt to remove interference, and Audyssey settings which are intended to appeal to the majority of listeners. And Audyssey's Reference Curve and DEQ were not filters, but settings, originally developed with 5.1 Dolby films in mind. If they also happen to work perfectly for music, as they do for some people, that is a bonus.


----------



## richsto

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's puzzling! Assuming that neither of the subs was moved at all, I can only think of two possibilities. Either something has changed with your microphone (based on having done microprocessor resets to test your AVR) or something has changed with at least one of the subs. (You could try a couple more AVR resets, just in case.) You might try testing the subs individually to try to determine whether both are performing properly, and you can buy a replacement microphone. Beyond that, I am stumped at the moment. Were your post-calibration results different lately from what they used to be? Were the trim levels, distances, and crossovers approximately the same. If your microphone were going bad, I would expect some calibration result to be different. If you had moved mic position 1 by even a few inches, I suppose you could get such a different result, but you say you didn't?
> 
> Here's one tip which may be tangential to your fundamental problem. But it's worth exploring. You would be better off doing your next calibration so that you get a trim level of at least -8 or -9 (raise the gain on your subs). That will give you plenty of room to adjust trim levels upward while staying in negative trim levels. It is barely possible that some of that boominess you heard as you raised your trim levels into positive numbers was the subs distorting. Try checking the subs individually, and then re-calibrating with lower trim levels and see what happens. I hope that works.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Did that - didn't seem to make much difference except I do have much more trim to work with. 

I tried a different mic, mic positions (tape measure to nearest inch or so) and minor sub positon changes. None of those really helped. What change did help (at least a bit) was to alter the sub distances to be the same as my previous good calibration. New Sub distances are very consistent with each new calibration but slightly different than the original values with the better sub performance. 

Original (good) Sub Distances:
SW1: 11.0' - Supercube Reference
SW2: 16.6' - 25-31 PC+

New (poor) Sub Distances:
SW1: 10.8' - Supercube Reference
SW2: 15.2' - 25-31 PC+

When I change the sub distance values to those of the original calibration, bass impact improves but still not the air moving hard hitting impact I had before even with levels bumped up 7-9 dB over Audyssey calibration settings. So something is still not right. 

Starting to wonder if there something causing Audyssey to incorrectly set sub phase/distance. Nothing else (and I mean nothing) changed. Recalibrating yields the same disappointing results repeatedly. I don't know, something else seems amiss. Just don't know how to get back to where I was before.....


----------



## mthomas47

richsto said:


> Did that - didn't seem to make much difference except I do have much more trim to work with.
> 
> I tried a different mic, mic positions (tape measure to nearest inch or so) and minor sub positon changes. None of those really helped. What change did help (at least a bit) was to alter the sub distances to be the same as my previous good calibration. New Sub distances are very consistent with each new calibration but slightly different than the original values with the better sub performance.
> 
> Original (good) Sub Distances:
> SW1: 11.0' - Supercube Reference
> SW2: 16.6' - 25-31 PC+
> 
> New (poor) Sub Distances:
> SW1: 10.8' - Supercube Reference
> SW2: 15.2' - 25-31 PC+
> 
> When I change the sub distance values to those of the original calibration, bass impact improves but still not the air moving hard hitting impact I had before even with levels bumped up 7-9 dB over Audyssey calibration settings. So something is still not right.
> 
> Starting to wonder if there something causing Audyssey to incorrectly set sub phase/distance. Nothing else (and I mean nothing) changed. Recalibrating yields the same disappointing results repeatedly. I don't know, something else seems amiss. Just don't know how to get back to where I was before.....


I can imagine how frustrating this must be.  Have you tried testing each sub independently to determine if each is performing properly? You have clearly invested some time in this already, so I might take a little more time to make sure that something hasn't simply spontaneously gone bad with one of the subs. You could try operating the system with each one successively (ideally with at least a three-point calibration each time) just to hear what happens.

The other thing that I might do, if that doesn't show you anything, is to forget about why something has changed, and start over from scratch. Do a sub crawl, and try to find the best location for each sub in order to optimize the sound. FWIW, it can be very difficult to EQ two dissimilar subs, with a system of automated EQ, under even the best of circumstances. So, perhaps even the tiniest change could have an exaggerated effect. Life is infinitely easier with two identical, or nearly identical subs, although I realize that is not always possible. We frequently have to work with what we have.


----------



## pepar

maestro50, I will toss out that, sometimes, a room's signature ... what Audyssey is removing as best it can ... has favorable characteristics for certain kinds of music. A test could be to put on an entirely different genre and see if the bypass still sounds better. If you think it's better with studio music, try live. Or vice versa.

Jeff


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> *Trim level is not something to obsess over, though.*.


I agree, the filters are much more important. 

But, I obsess over trim level about once every couple of months. If all movies had about the same left to right balance (or a plausible left to right balance), all would be well. But, we are viewing about 2 to 6 movies a week, and every once in a while there is one that is out of balance (often "catalog" movies that didn't get restored, or a foreign, or independent, film.. For this reason, I usually sample some of the opening music alone in the room, before others arrive in the HT. Almost always the opening music tells the tale. I change the LF & RF trims, then change them back to the written down "correct levels" that Audyssey determined after the movie is over. Rather rarely, the center channel needs to be turned up because of unclear dialog.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I agree, the filters are much more important.
> 
> But, I obsess over trim level about once every couple of months. If all movies had about the same left to right balance (or a plausible left to right balance), all would be well. But, we are viewing about 2 to 6 movies a week, and every once in a while there is one that is out of balance (often "catalog" movies that didn't get restored, or a foreign, or independent, film.. For this reason, I usually sample some of the opening music alone in the room, before others arrive in the HT. Almost always the opening music tells the tale. I change the LF & RF trims, then change them back to the written down "correct levels" that Audyssey determined after the movie is over. Rather rarely, the center channel needs to be turned up because of unclear dialog.



But that's not really obsessing. You are just making rational adjustments, as required.  I actually have a similar experience. I never need to adjust trim levels for music. Once they are set properly, I can leave them that way. But, as you observed, not all movies seem to be recorded with exactly the same left/right, or even front/surround balance, so occasionally (although, not often) I need to make adjustments to properly enjoy a movie. But I do it very un-obsessively.


----------



## maestro50

mthomas47 said:


> There are reasons why Audyssey does those things, but I'm not discussing the merits of the Reference Curve, or of DEQ, but only how it may affect your perception of a more, or less, natural sound. Speaking only for myself, in my room, with my system, the most natural sound is achieved with Flat, no DEQ, and -1 Treble on my front speakers (using my Tone Control). Others on the thread will undoubtedly have entirely different views regarding what makes acoustical instruments, with which they are familiar, sound most natural in their rooms, with their systems.


Your response is very helpful and greatly appreciated.
Interesting that you would mention that Flat works best for you, since I had dismissed it.
I didn't have much time to listen tonight, but the little I did suggests that I may have to give Flat another try.
You are right, the timbre of instruments is quite good, but in my room, the soundstage collapses some as compared to Reference or LR Bypass.

You mention that some people enjoy switching back and forth between modes and I can see how that might be the case.
I listened to a period instrument performance on Reference this evening and enjoyed it very much. But a piano recording was awful. The Steinway sounded like, well, NOT like a Steinway.

It's fun to tweak and experiment, but I had begun to feel like I was doing something "wrong."
Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Speaking only for myself, in my room, with my system, the most natural sound is achieved with *Flat*, *no DEQ*, and* -1 Treble* on my front speakers (using my Tone Control). Others on the thread will undoubtedly have entirely different views regarding what makes acoustical instruments, with which they are familiar, sound most natural in their rooms, with their systems..


In my room, with my system, with most movies and most music the most natural sound is with *Audyssey* *Flat*, and *No DEQ*. I shy away from cutting the *Treble* (although I have to on one old movie). I do use the *Tone* control to adjust bass on the LF & RF, usually between 0 (flat) and +6 dB. I boost the sub, as do most people here, anywhere from 3 dB to 8 dB. I set the Main Volume by ear. With *music* on CD or SACD, it can be anywhere, depending on the disk. I listen to virtually all kinds of music, especially classical and later orchestral, at a SPL close to live. With *movies* the Main Volume setting starts out at 5 dB below reference, awaiting confirmation when dialog starts. The dialog sounds natural, and measures that way***, at 5 dB below reference most of the time. If I played back at a significantly lower level, I might use DEQ.

*** I measured friends talking naturally in our HT. The mean centered around 60 to 65 dB, peaking at 70 dB, or a bit higher, all at C weighting, "Fast." When I tried a few movies, setting the MV by ear, as usual, the dialog measured at those same levels. Looking at the MV, I saw it was set to 5 dB below reference! There are exceptions, like one Lilly Tomlin movie, in which she speaks very emphatically, occasionally producing peaks of 74 dB at a MV setting of 6 dB below reference. All of this is based on using Blu-rays, almost always with DTS HD Master. DVDs seem to be recorded at a significantly lower level.


----------



## pepar

garygarrison said:


> I agree, the filters are much more important.
> 
> But, I obsess over trim level about once every couple of months. If all movies had about the same left to right balance (or a plausible left to right balance), all would be well. But, we are viewing about 2 to 6 movies a week, and every once in a while there is one that is out of balance (often "catalog" movies that didn't get restored, or a foreign, or independent, film.. For this reason, I usually sample some of the opening music alone in the room, before others arrive in the HT. Almost always the opening music tells the tale. I change the LF & RF trims, then change them back to the written down "correct levels" that Audyssey determined after the movie is over. Rather rarely, the center channel needs to be turned up because of unclear dialog.


And does anybody else notice the results of your efforts?


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> And does anybody else notice the results of your efforts?



"Ars Gratia Artis"! Perfection is it's own reward.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> "Ars Gratia Artis"! Perfection is it's own reward.


Touché!


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> And does anybody else notice the results of your efforts?


Some have, mostly my wife who I would call into the room while setting up and ask, "Am I crazy, or is this out of balance right to left, and if so, which side dominates?" She usually identifies the same side as being low that I do. Sometimes she doesn't hear a difference in balance. My daughter is very sensitive to the difference between various levels of recording quality, but hasn't commented about R/L balance. As I said, differences in balance among movies are rare. Most of the time our standard Audyssey determined balance is fine. When it's out, it is often that the extreme left or right (front) doesn't seem to be doing much for long periods of time ... or the imaging is not as good as usual. Guess what film has the all time best front orchestral imaging at out house (but doesn't have much LFE). Star Trek: The Wrath of the Khan. Our award for best sound effects imaging goes to The Grey*;* during the major event in the early part of the film, it seemed that there were 4 to 5 channels down each side of the room, with just 5.1. At 5 dB below reference it was positively frightening.


----------



## Gooddoc

maestro50 said:


> Your response is very helpful and greatly appreciated.
> Interesting that you would mention that Flat works best for you, since I had dismissed it.
> I didn't have much time to listen tonight, but the little I did suggests that I may have to give Flat another try.
> You are right, the timbre of instruments is quite good, but in my room, the soundstage collapses some as compared to Reference or LR Bypass.
> 
> You mention that some people enjoy switching back and forth between modes and I can see how that might be the case.
> I listened to a period instrument performance on Reference this evening and enjoyed it very much. But a piano recording was awful. The Steinway sounded like, well, NOT like a Steinway.
> 
> It's fun to tweak and experiment, but I had begun to feel like I was doing something "wrong."
> Thanks for the explanation.


Room correction above Schroeder is not universally considered a good thing. Personally, I use L/R bypass on my mains with Audyssey, since whatever corrections are made degrade the sound on my speakers and in my room. Same with Dirac.

If you have accurate speakers with smooth on and off axis response within a decent listening window, then what you're hearing is likely correct - your speakers sound better without auto-RC. There are respected experts that will tell you that if you start with a well behaved, accurate speaker on and off axis, you will be better off without room correction in most rooms. There are always exceptions.

The only thing for certain is there are no absolute rules. The individual speaker, room, and listener need to be considered.


----------



## mthomas47

Gooddoc said:


> Room correction above Schroeder is not universally considered a good thing. Personally, I use L/R bypass on my mains with Audyssey, since whatever corrections are made degrade the sound on my speakers and in my room. Same with Dirac.
> 
> If you have accurate speakers with smooth on and off axis response within a decent listening window, then what you're hearing is likely correct - your speakers sound better without auto-RC. There are respected experts that will tell you that if you start with a well behaved, accurate speaker on and off axis, you will be better off without room correction in most rooms. There are always exceptions.
> 
> The only thing for certain is there are no absolute rules. The individual speaker, room, and listener need to be considered.


That's a good post! I like trying to take a balanced viewpoint on most things, and particularly with respect to entertainment preferences. The greatest service that we can do for each other on this thread, in my opinion, is not to be advocates for Audyssey, or for using Audyssey in a particular way. Instead, I like the idea of just helping other people to trouble-shoot and optimize their particular set-ups, calibrations, and settings, so that they can arrive at their own preferred use (or non-use) of Audyssey.

It's interesting sometimes to listen to various "respected experts" discuss how best to deal with room issues even below Schroeder. I have seen advocates for three distinct camps clash sometimes, with very little allowance for each others' viewpoints. One camp advocates using multiple subwoofers (the number and arrangement of subs varies). Another camp advocates using bass traps (sometimes with some EQ below about 60Hz, due to inherent frequency limitations in attenuation with traps). The third camp advocates EQ in various forms as a panacea. To be fair, the third camp is less well represented in those discussions.

But there often doesn't seem to be much focus on the value of combining methods in some of those discussions. It's as if some feel that their "expertise" depends on the singular efficacy of what they are recommending. Again, to be fair though, the experts I prefer to listen to acknowledge the value of combining approaches, and using whatever combination of multiple subs, bass traps, and EQ, are most useful and practical in the particular situation.

I think that the same thing is true with respect to EQing a room above Schroeder. Many experts tend to discount the value of EQ above about 400Hz, but then they are also all over the place about the value of attenuating early and late reflections with room treatments too. As with anything in audio, I think it is up to the individual listener to decide what he likes in his particular circumstances.

Gary G. for instance, has consistently said that XT helps with the upper treble in his room. And I believe him. In my room, with the even more efficacious XT-32, it is in the bass and mid-range frequencies where room correction is most helpful. In my case, it was a challenge to keep my set-up and calibration technique from causing negative effects to the treble, so that I could fully enjoy the benefits of EQ in the bass (primarily) and in the mid-range. It took awhile, but I succeeded in that goal.

"_The only thing for certain is there are no absolute rules. The individual speaker, room, and listener need to be considered._"

That last statement is right on the money as far as I am concerned.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## audiofan1

^^^^Wise words guys ,wise words


----------



## Toneb210

Just wanted to share my experience with Audyssey, since I finally got results I'm very happy with. I'm using multeq xt. And running 4 subs. My previous issues where mainly with my center channel. Dialogue would often seem muffled with dynamic eq on. I'd end up turning dynamic eq off, still have to turn center channel up a few db, and even then I'd get distortion on loud scenes, people screaming, that sort of thing. On top of losing low end and lacking a more full sound with dynamic eq off. I actually LIKE dynamic eq. My center was a klipsch rc42 and I realized that was part of the issue. It just couldn't keep up with my mains and I had to cross it over to high(120hz). And to people with center channel issues, it may not be Audyssey, might just be your speaker. I found a Klipsch Synergy b3 bookshelf that goes great with my synergy towers. That fixed a lot of my issues. It can easily be crossed @80hz. But, something was still off. For calibration, my method was a mic stand in my seats. I decided to raise the stand and put it on the floor directly behind my listening positions with the mic just above the couch height. And then about 3ft in front of listening positions at the same height for a total of 8 calibration positions. That did it! Results where amazing and for the first time I could keep dynamic eq on with awesome results. I did still bump my subs level as usual. As well as center channel. But center is no longer muffled, also not harsh. Just right. As for how I set up my subs. I level matched each one to 70db at my main listening position. Used the built in test tone feature of my denon avr and had the sub level at 0. With alI subs going I was getting about 78-80db at main listening position. Did all this prior to calibration, and was my first try at running 4 subs. I read a ton of information before I finally decided on this method and I couldn't be happier. So to anyone having trouble with Audyssey, or not liking the results, try different methods, or possibly different equipment. Gotta realize that sometimes what you have may not have the capability to give the results you want. And read all the posts on avs forum to school yourself . Hopefully these tips will help someone with there setup.


----------



## mogorf

Toneb210 said:


> Hopefully these tips will help someone with there setup.


Great write up Toneb210, thanks for sharing. Would it be too much to ask to share a couple of photos of your room setup? That would be educational to many of us, I'm sure. Thx.


----------



## Toneb210

mogorf said:


> Great write up Toneb210, thanks for sharing. Would it be too much to ask to share a couple of photos of your room setup? That would be educational to many of us, I'm sure. Thx.


Thanks. And yes I can absolutely share some pics. I havent taken any with my most recent changes. But I'll get some posted this evening.


----------



## mogorf

Toneb210 said:


> Thanks. And yes I can absolutely share some pics. I havent taken any with my most recent changes. But I'll get some posted this evening.


Lookin' forward with great interest!!


----------



## Toneb210

mogorf said:


> Lookin' forward with great interest!!


Just added a couple pics to the post.


----------



## mogorf

Toneb210 said:


> Just added a couple pics to the post.


Congrats! A very nice and clean setup, indeed. I bet it sounds awesome! Thanks for sharing the pix.


----------



## asere

Monday I'm getting tile in the family room. Will the sound change from having carpet and will audyssey help having tile?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> Monday I'm getting tile in the family room. Will the sound change from having carpet and will audyssey help having tile?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 Yes! the sound will definitely change , you could add an area rug to help tame some of the floor bounce (think more lively) and Audyssey will indeed help


----------



## asere

audiofan1 said:


> Yes! the sound will definitely change , you could add an area rug to help tame some of the floor bounce (think more lively) and Audyssey will indeed help


Yup my wife is going to buy a rug to place in the center.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> Yup my wife is going to buy a rug to place in the center.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


That should help tons! just sit back and listen and then run Audyssey and see what it brings to the table, if not to your liking are you and or the Misses opposed to room treatments?


----------



## asere

audiofan1 said:


> That should help tons! just sit back and listen and then run Audyssey and see what it brings to the table, if not to your liking are you and or the Misses opposed to room treatments?


I wouldn't mind room treatment but in a family room opened to the kitchen it will look horrible I think.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> I wouldn't mind room treatment but in a family room opened to the kitchen it will look horrible I think.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 There are many many, decor options and some cases adds a nice touch


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Yup my wife is going to buy a rug to place in the center.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



The rug will help, but if I were you I would also put a piece of foam under the area rug. A fairly thick rubber pad will not only help to preserve the rug, and keep it from sliding, it will also provide some additional attenuation. That is an example of an inconspicuous room treatment that can be added in a mixed-use room. Acoustic panels, designed to look like paintings, are another popular choice, but really anything that helps to either break-up or absorb mid and high frequency sounds can be helpful.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> The rug will help, but if I were you I would also put a piece of foam under the area rug. A fairly thick rubber pad will not only help to preserve the rug, and keep it from sliding, it will also provide some additional attenuation. That is an example of an inconspicuous room treatment that can be added in a mixed-use room. Acoustic panels, designed to look like paintings, are another popular choice, but really anything that helps to either break-up or absorb mid and high frequency sounds can be helpful.


Yeah, on a good note I can now put my Auralex gramma to better use for my subs since I'll have tile now. With the carpet it was useless.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Yeah, on a good note I can now put my Auralex gramma to better use for my subs since I'll have tile now. With the carpet it was useless.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



There's always a bright side!


----------



## aaranddeeman

I noticed that there is a large difference in trim levels for each channel that Audyssey sets vs what you can manually set.
Audyssey sets trim below zero fro all my speakers. Where as if I do them manually (measure using REW SPL meter to 75dB and internal test tomes from AVR), they all are above 0.
What is there such a large difference (in the tune of 5dB or more)?


----------



## garygarrison

asere said:


> Monday I'm getting tile in the family room. Will the sound change from having carpet and will audyssey help having tile?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


It will get much more "live." Use area rugs, especially at the point where a straight line from the tweeter will bounce off the tile and up to your ears at listening positions, then re-run Audyssey. Audyssey will help a little.

The "West Coast Sound" used to (most often) be JBL or Altec speakers. Tile floors used to be pictured often in the advertisements, because tile was very California. It was often very, very bright, so people scattered small area rugs, with rubber grips underneath.


----------



## lovinthehd

aaranddeeman said:


> I noticed that there is a large difference in trim levels for each channel that Audyssey sets vs what you can manually set.
> Audyssey sets trim below zero fro all my speakers. Where as if I do them manually (measure using REW SPL meter to 75dB and internal test tomes from AVR), they all are above 0.
> What is there such a large difference (in the tune of 5dB or more)?


Suggest you post specifics about each speaker make/model, level set by Audyssey vs your manual setup. Was mic/meter in same exact position for both measurements?


----------



## mthomas47

I am also interested in seeing the answers to those questions. Here are a few general thoughts on the issue, though, in advance of that. First, I keep a written log of all of my calibrations so that I can compare them. I have found that even when I am trying to repeat exact mic placements using a graph and a tape measure, I can get some changes in trim settings. I can get even more swings if I change microphones. I have two Audyssey mics, and I have experimented with both.

The microphone issue alone is a significant one, The Audyssey mic is rated to have an error factor of +/- 3db. I believe that the calibrated UMIK-1 has an error factor of about +/- 1db. If your Audyssey mic. were at one end of its allowable range, and the UMIK-1 were at the other end, that alone could account for a 4db swing in trim settings. Couple that with the difficulty in maintaining exact positioning through the full 8 mic positions (I believe that Audyssey sets trim levels based on all 8 positions, and not just on position 1) and that could easily explain the difference.

It's an interesting question, but FWIW, I don't think the trim differences between the two measurements really matter very much in the larger scheme of things. As long as Audyssey is setting the trim levels equivalently to each other, so that all speakers play the same volume at the MLP, I think it has accomplished its objective. There have been lengthy discussions on this thread (and on others) on the difficulty of ever knowing exactly what Reference volume is anyway, given variable numbers of speakers, individualized sub boosts, and so on. So, knowing that our speakers are all playing at the same volume, relative to each other, and generally relative to Reference, seems to me to be the most important thing.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ozkarah

I guess the adjustment microphones are paired with the receivers. Is it possible to buy a new audyssey microphone from the market ?


----------



## mthomas47

ozkarah said:


> I guess the adjustment microphones are paired with the receivers. Is it possible to buy a new audyssey microphone from the market ?



Yes, and the mics are interchangeable as long as you use the same general type--ie tower type versus flat. This is an example of what you are probably looking for: https://www.amazon.com/Denon-Audyss...468936404&sr=8-4&keywords=audyssey+microphone


----------



## lovingdvd

Hey guys - I'm a new owner of the Marantz 8802A and I have a few questions about Audyseey and some of the sound settings please.

1. When I ran Audsyeey it said my L/R (I only have a 2.1 setup at the moment) were out of phase, but had a disclaimer that even with the proper wiring it may still think that with some rooms). I double checked my wiring and its correct. I assume this is fairly normal if they have that disclaimer in there. My temporary set up is in a room that's far from ideal - 12 foot ceiling, windows all along a side wall and rear wall, fully open side of the room etc. Just curious what conditions can cause this and if its safe to ignore.

2. It has my distances quite wrong. It thinks my L/R are 2 feet further than they are. And it thinks my subwoofer is 10 feet further than it is. Should I manually fix these in them menu? Or is the Audyseey configuration all tied to this and if it thinks that's the distance that it needs for the EQ compensation just leave it as is? IOW while my overrides would be much more accurate, perhaps acoustically-speaking the speakers are that further distance because of the room characteristics and just leave it?

3. Audsyssey did a great job on my subwoofer EQ. But it left it far more flat and subtle than I'd like. I've used REW+BFD before to calibrate my own in previous setups and I usually add a house curve and like to run the subs about +5 dB "hot". What's the best way to compensate for this? I assume I can't do a house curve. But how about making the sub +5 dB hot? I know I can turn up the subs volume control, but then I lose the ability to know how much I've added and go back to where I was if I wanted. I noticed there are TWO places where you can seemingly control the subwoofer output level... There is a "Subwoofer" adjust in the Audio menu. And there is a subwoofer Level in the Speakers (IIRC that's the place) menu. Is there any difference between these locations at all? For instance if I was to +5 dB in the Subwoofer Adjust area, is there any difference if I was to leave that at 0 and just add +5 dB in the Speaker Level menu? Perhaps the Subwoofer Adjust applies differently for each input, whereas the setting in the Levels menu applies globally to the inputs?

4. Audsyssey chose 60 hz as the crossover. It sounds good but I tend to prefer 80 hz. I know I can change this in the menus, but in doing so, does it then throw off the Audsyssey calibration or it internal automatically compensates?

5. Overall I am thrilled at how much better my room sounds with Audyssey engaged. I had Yamaha YPAO in their AVRs and it never seemed to help so Audyssey is far superior. I understand their is a Pro version. How much better is it than XT-32 and what's the primary advantages of the Pro version?

Thanks!!


----------



## pbarach

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - I'm a new owner of the Marantz 8802A and I have a few questions about Audyseey and some of the sound settings please.
> 
> 1. When I ran Audsyeey it said my L/R (I only have a 2.1 setup at the moment) were out of phase, but had a disclaimer that even with the proper wiring it may still think that with some rooms). I double checked my wiring and its correct. I assume this is fairly normal if they have that disclaimer in there. My temporary set up is in a room that's far from ideal - 12 foot ceiling, windows all along a side wall and rear wall, fully open side of the room etc. Just curious what conditions can cause this and if its safe to ignore.
> 
> 2. It has my distances quite wrong. It thinks my L/R are 2 feet further than they are. And it thinks my subwoofer is 10 feet further than it is. Should I manually fix these in them menu? Or is the Audyseey configuration all tied to this and if it thinks that's the distance that it needs for the EQ compensation just leave it as is? IOW while my overrides would be much more accurate, perhaps acoustically-speaking the speakers are that further distance because of the room characteristics and just leave it?
> 
> 3. Audsyssey did a great job on my subwoofer EQ. But it left it far more flat and subtle than I'd like. I've used REW+BFD before to calibrate my own in previous setups and I usually add a house curve and like to run the subs about +5 dB "hot". What's the best way to compensate for this? I assume I can't do a house curve. But how about making the sub +5 dB hot? I know I can turn up the subs volume control, but then I lose the ability to know how much I've added and go back to where I was if I wanted. I noticed there are TWO places where you can seemingly control the subwoofer output level... There is a "Subwoofer" adjust in the Audio menu. And there is a subwoofer Level in the Speakers (IIRC that's the place) menu. Is there any difference between these locations at all? For instance if I was to +5 dB in the Subwoofer Adjust area, is there any difference if I was to leave that at 0 and just add +5 dB in the Speaker Level menu? Perhaps the Subwoofer Adjust applies differently for each input, whereas the setting in the Levels menu applies globally to the inputs?
> 
> 4. Audsyssey chose 60 hz as the crossover. It sounds good but I tend to prefer 80 hz. I know I can change this in the menus, but in doing so, does it then throw off the Audsyssey calibration or it internal automatically compensates?
> 
> 5. Overall I am thrilled at how much better my room sounds with Audyssey engaged. I had Yamaha YPAO in their AVRs and it never seemed to help so Audyssey is far superior. I understand their is a Pro version. How much better is it than XT-32 and what's the primary advantages of the Pro version?
> 
> Thanks!!


I can answer most of these questions. Be sure you're placing the mic at your main listening position and at ear height for the first calibration signals--the first set determines the distances and levels.

1. Concerning the out of phase reading, are you sure that your speakers are wired correctly INSIDE? In other words, you've matched + to + and - to -, but is one of the speakers wired wrong within itself? Try a stereo phase test signal (THX DVDs have them, for example, or you can play this youtube test signbal: 



). That will tell you if your speakers are in phase. If they are in phase but Audyssey disagrees, ignore the Audyssey warning. The mic may be picking up reflections from the room that cause the error.

2. Leave the distance (delay) readings alone. Don't worry about the subwoofer being so far off--the "extra distance" is actually a correction for the delay caused by your AVR's bass management circuitry.

3. A lot of people like more bass than what Audyssey calibrates for. If you want more, then after calibration you can adjust the subwoofer trim upwards on your AVR; most people start with 3 dB if they are going to add bass. I don't have a Marantz, so I can't answer the question of which menu item you should use to adjust the subwoofer trim.

4. You can adjust the Audyssey-selected crossover _higher _if you like. You should not adjust it_ lower_ than what Audyssey recommends because Audyssey is not applying any correction to your response curve below its recommended crossover frequency.

5. The Pro version is a hardware and software kit that you buy, plus a license for each receiver on which you use it. The calibration is exactly the same resolution as Multi EQ XT32 but can be based on up to 32 measurements instead of a maximum of 8. The hardware includes an individually calibrated microphone, and you have the ability to "tweak" the target curves. I haven't heard a system that was calibrated using Pro, so I can't comment on how much better it is than XT32.
http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/multeq/multeq-pro


----------



## mthomas47

To add just a little to the excellent post by Pbarach, the erroneous distance setting on your fronts is puzzling. Are they self powered? If they have their own amps, the internal delay could cause the distance difference, just as it does with the sub. But distance (timing) is not per se as important as correct trim setting, IMO. So, I would probably just leave them where they are unless something sounds off.

With respect to where to adjust the sub settings, I have never found a difference on where I adjust them with my Marantz, and the Audio Menu is easier. I recommend setting your sub gain high enough to put you deep into negative numbers post-calibration. I would suggest shooting for -10, or so. That will leave you lots of headroom to adjust upward in the AVR without exceeding about 0.0. The average adjustment is probably about +3 to +6db, but some people o) adjust much more than that.

Most people on the thread who have had Pro, and who have compared it to just running XT-32, have concluded that it doesn't offer much additional benefit. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## aaranddeeman

lovinthehd said:


> Suggest you post specifics about each speaker make/model, level set by Audyssey vs your manual setup. Was mic/meter in same exact position for both measurements?


Please ignore. May be I had set MV to lower than 0dB.
I did that one more time and things look aligned.


----------



## aaranddeeman

I am having a weird issue with my Denon 7200WA.
It has stopped reading the Audyssey mic.
It does detect the mic, but fails to read the chirps.
I tried another mic., to eliminate issue with the mic itself.
It's not the dust or any object in mic port, as it works for one round or bit more if you do microprocessor reset.
When it works, it gives error during calibration at random speaker (cable is not connected or too much noise in the room).
Then eventually it stops reading the mic again.
Yes, I know I may have to get it to the service, which I hate the most.
Looking for help or if anyone else encountered similar issue and found a fix.
For now, I have simply set my speakers in manual mode by level matching using REW SPL meter.


----------



## lovingdvd

lovinthehd said:


> Feri was the one who drew the comment a week or so ago...."LOL Feri. After all these years you still keep trying to ask me about future developments. I can say that we are working on something very cool for 2016 release. It will make hard core Audyssey fans happy. And, no, we are not leaving the room correction business."


Was it revealed yet what is being worked on that you mentioned back in March?


----------



## lovingdvd

pbarach said:


> I can answer most of these questions. Be sure you're placing the mic at your main listening position and at ear height for the first calibration signals--the first set determines the distances and levels.
> 
> 1. Concerning the out of phase reading, are you sure that your speakers are wired correctly INSIDE? In other words, you've matched + to + and - to -, but is one of the speakers wired wrong within itself? Try a stereo phase test signal (THX DVDs have them, for example, or you can play this youtube test signbal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kxtKGR2vY). That will tell you if your speakers are in phase. If they are in phase but Audyssey disagrees, ignore the Audyssey warning. The mic may be picking up reflections from the room that cause the error.


Yes I know what you mean. I'm 99.5% sure I didn't reverse the wires in the speaker cabinet and its a lot of work to remove the baffle from the cabinet and triple check so I am going to assume it is wired correctly inside. I did run the YouTube video through the system and it plays in / out of phase as expected (and not reversed). So it seems something about this room triggers that. My Yamaha YPAO (which with hindsight after my Audyssey results is far inferior) never complained about the phase. The room has a lot of reflections - dry wall ceiling 12' high, full side of room all windows, rear of room all windows, other side of room completely open into the next room. As mentioned this is just a temporary setup so I can listen to my speakers and test out the gear while the theater is being finished.



> 2. Leave the distance (delay) readings alone. Don't worry about the subwoofer being so far off--the "extra distance" is actually a correction for the delay caused by your AVR's bass management circuitry.


Thanks. I'm not sure if its normal for the 8802a to add that much delay due to correction for its base management circuity but I'll ask in that thread.

Thank you!


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> To add just a little to the excellent post by Pbarach, the erroneous distance setting on your fronts is puzzling. Are they self powered? If they have their own amps, the internal delay could cause the distance difference, just as it does with the sub. But distance (timing) is not per se as important as correct trim setting, IMO. So, I would probably just leave them where they are unless something sounds off.


I'm not sure what you mean by self-powered, but if you mean do the speakers have an amp built in, the answer is no. The speakers are powered by an external amp.



> With respect to where to adjust the sub settings, I have never found a difference on where I adjust them with my Marantz, and the Audio Menu is easier. I recommend setting your sub gain high enough to put you deep into negative numbers post-calibration. I would suggest shooting for -10, or so. That will leave you lots of headroom to adjust upward in the AVR without exceeding about 0.0. The average adjustment is probably about +3 to +6db, but some people o) adjust much more than that.


At the start of the Audyssey calibration it told me I needed to lower my subwoofer gain/volume control. I have a HSU VTF-2 MK3 and the knob is barely turned up past off to get to this point where it is near the 75 dB target it displays. When I tried to proceed with the sub too high before turning this control down, it wouldn't let me continue until I turned it down. This is a temporary sub. I will be using 4 HST-18 subs powered by a Speaker Power SP2-12000-DP. That may give me a bit more control.

Thank you for the help.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by self-powered, but if you mean do the speakers have an amp built in, the answer is no. The speakers are powered by an external amp.
> 
> 
> 
> At the start of the Audyssey calibration it told me I needed to lower my subwoofer gain/volume control. I have a HSU VTF-2 MK3 and the knob is barely turned up past off to get to this point where it is near the 75 dB target it displays. When I tried to proceed with the sub too high before turning this control down, it wouldn't let me continue until I turned it down. This is a temporary sub. I will be using 4 HST-18 subs powered by a Speaker Power SP2-12000-DP. That may give me a bit more control.
> 
> Thank you for the help.



You are very welcome! Bogus phase warnings, and long distance settings for subs, are fairly common issues, and nothing to worry about. Distance anomalies with passive speakers like yours are less common, but still not something to worry about, in my opinion. (You were right. I was asking about speakers with built-in amplifiers.)

If your Marantz would not let you proceed until you lowered the gain on your sub to get to 75db, however, that is more troubling. Normally, you will have the option to skip level matching, and proceed with the calibration. In fact, many of us routinely set our subs at about 78db, or so, and then do a one-point calibration to find out where the trim level is. I typically shoot for about -11, or so, but try not to have trim settings of -12, because that is the bottom of the trim scale, and the actual trim setting might have been even lower.

Moving to the four 18" subs will be great, but FWIW, I don't think that this a subwoofer issue. If you are sure that your Marantz isn't giving you the option to move ahead with your calibration, until your sub gain is at 75db, then there is something wrong with your Audyssey software. I would double-check this with another Audyssey calibration, just to make sure, and if you still can't set your sub gain to about 78db, I would do a microprocessor reset. That is sometimes necessary with new units.

I'm really glad to hear that you like XT-32. Audyssey is, by most accounts, superior to YPAO, and particularly in the modal (low bass) region.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - I'm a new owner of the Marantz 8802A and I have a few questions about Audyseey and some of the sound settings please.
> 
> 3. Audsyssey did a great job on my subwoofer EQ. But it left it far more flat and subtle than I'd like. I've used REW+BFD before to calibrate my own in previous setups and I usually add a house curve and like to run the subs about +5 dB "hot". What's the best way to compensate for this? I assume I can't do a house curve. But how about making the sub +5 dB hot? I know I can turn up the subs volume control, but then I lose the ability to know how much I've added and go back to where I was if I wanted. I noticed there are TWO places where you can seemingly control the subwoofer output level... There is a "Subwoofer" adjust in the Audio menu. And there is a subwoofer Level in the Speakers (IIRC that's the place) menu. Is there any difference between these locations at all? For instance if I was to +5 dB in the Subwoofer Adjust area, is there any difference if I was to leave that at 0 and just add +5 dB in the Speaker Level menu? Perhaps the Subwoofer Adjust applies differently for each input, whereas the setting in the Levels menu applies globally to the inputs?


You've gotten some great advice already, I just wanted to address these two things.

You could still add your house curve with the BFD (if you still have it) post-Audyssey. A lot of people use outboard sub EQ to tailor the response to their preference, nothing wrong with that at all. 

On my Denon AVR, the sub level in the AUDIO menu is indeed input specific, so I always change it in the SPEAKERS>MANUAL>LEVELS menu which is global (as you correctly assumed).


----------



## dlynch34

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Bogus phase warnings, and long distance settings for subs, are fairly common issues, and nothing to worry about. Distance anomalies with passive speakers like yours are less common, but still not something to worry about, in my opinion. (You were right. I was asking about speakers with built-in amplifiers.)
> 
> If your Marantz would not let you proceed until you lowered the gain on your sub to get to 75db, however, that is more troubling. Normally, you will have the option to skip level matching, and proceed with the calibration. In fact, many of us routinely set our subs at about 78db, or so, and then do a one-point calibration to find out where the trim level is. I typically shoot for about -11, or so, but try not to have trim settings of -12, because that is the bottom of the trim scale, and the actual trim setting might have been even lower.
> 
> Moving to the four 18" subs will be great, but FWIW, I don't think that this a subwoofer issue. If you are sure that your Marantz isn't giving you the option to move ahead with your calibration, until your sub gain is at 75db, then there is something wrong with your Audyssey software. I would double-check this with another Audyssey calibration, just to make sure, and if you still can't set your sub gain to about 78db, I would do a microprocessor reset. That is sometimes necessary with new units.
> 
> I'm really glad to hear that you like XT-32. Audyssey is, by most accounts, superior to YPAO, and particularly in the modal (low bass) region.


Having the same Marantz model I can say there is an option to continue regardless of the sub gain UNLESS it is below a level that the MiC will pick up. Otherwise it will just warn you that your gain is higher than the 75db setting but you can still continue on with the measurement.


----------



## mthomas47

dlynch34 said:


> Having the same Marantz model I can say there is an option to continue regardless of the sub gain UNLESS it is below a level that the MiC will pick up. Otherwise it will just warn you that your gain is higher than the 75db setting but you can still continue on with the measurement.



Thanks! I believe that is the case with the earlier versions, as well. I have a 7008, and mine works the same way. I think it's possible that the OP missed the option to continue when his gain was above 75db. If not, something is wrong with his unit that, hopefully, a reset will correct.


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> I am having a weird issue with my Denon 7200WA.
> It has stopped reading the Audyssey mic.
> It does detect the mic, but fails to read the chirps.
> I tried another mic., to eliminate issue with the mic itself.
> It's not the dust or any object in mic port, as it works for one round or bit more if you do microprocessor reset.
> When it works, it gives error during calibration at random speaker (cable is not connected or too much noise in the room).
> Then eventually it stops reading the mic again.
> Yes, I know I may have to get it to the service, which I hate the most.
> Looking for help or if anyone else encountered similar issue and found a fix.
> For now, I have simply set my speakers in manual mode by level matching using REW SPL meter.


Hi,

I must have missed this post earlier. Sorry to hear about your issue with the Denon. The only thing that I could think to try (since you have already tried a different mic) would be multiple, consecutive, microprocessor resets. Before sending the unit off for servicing, I would try several resets. It might not work, but at least you will have excluded another trouble-shooting option.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks. I'm not sure if its normal for the 8802a to add that much delay due to correction for its base management circuity but I'll ask in that thread.
> 
> Thank you!


I'm betting it's normal. Here, you see owners of Onkyo, Denon, and Marantz equipment reporting the same long delays on their Audyssey subwoofer calibration.


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Bogus phase warnings, and long distance settings for subs, are fairly common issues, and nothing to worry about. Distance anomalies with passive speakers like yours are less common, but still not something to worry about, in my opinion. (You were right. I was asking about speakers with built-in amplifiers.)
> 
> If your Marantz would not let you proceed until you lowered the gain on your sub to get to 75db, however, that is more troubling. Normally, you will have the option to skip level matching, and proceed with the calibration. In fact, many of us routinely set our subs at about 78db, or so, and then do a one-point calibration to find out where the trim level is. I typically shoot for about -11, or so, but try not to have trim settings of -12, because that is the bottom of the trim scale, and the actual trim setting might have been even lower.
> 
> Moving to the four 18" subs will be great, but FWIW, I don't think that this a subwoofer issue. If you are sure that your Marantz isn't giving you the option to move ahead with your calibration, until your sub gain is at 75db, then there is something wrong with your Audyssey software. I would double-check this with another Audyssey calibration, just to make sure, and if you still can't set your sub gain to about 78db, I would do a microprocessor reset. That is sometimes necessary with new units.
> 
> I'm really glad to hear that you like XT-32. Audyssey is, by most accounts, superior to YPAO, and particularly in the modal (low bass) region.





Alan P said:


> You've gotten some great advice already, I just wanted to address these two things.
> 
> You could still add your house curve with the BFD (if you still have it) post-Audyssey. A lot of people use outboard sub EQ to tailor the response to their preference, nothing wrong with that at all.
> 
> On my Denon AVR, the sub level in the AUDIO menu is indeed input specific, so I always change it in the SPEAKERS>MANUAL>LEVELS menu which is global (as you correctly assumed).





dlynch34 said:


> Having the same Marantz model I can say there is an option to continue regardless of the sub gain UNLESS it is below a level that the MiC will pick up. Otherwise it will just warn you that your gain is higher than the 75db setting but you can still continue on with the measurement.


Thanks guys. I may have just misread the warning screen. As I recall I thought it said something like the sub volume control was too loud and that I could either adjust it to be at 75 dB or continue WITHOUT it EQ'ing the sub. So I do recall there was an option to skip the adjustment of the sub volume, but that in doing so it would not eq the sub. Maybe it was because it was way too high (in its opinion). Like I think it measured something like 83 dB initially. So perhaps it will let you continue with it above 75 dB, but not too much above it? I'll play around with it to see. I may back up my first calibration before experimenting because the system sounds so amazing right now (with a +5 dB boost in the Subwoofer Level Adjust setting ON) that I don't want to mess it up.

Question 1: Because I did the EQ with my sub volume set to 75 dB in the beginning, what is the harm in the set up I have now, versus if I had done it with a higher level. Note that even with my volume knob set so it read 75 dB prior to Audyssey, it still lowered it to -1.5 dB in the process.

Question 2: Has anyone compared the results of the EQ for the subwoofer as done by XT-32, compared to what they can achieve with REW auto filters and the BFD? Putting the house curve aside, does REW+BFD still provide a better result, or are they effectively the same? I haven't measured what Audyssey did yet, but it sure sounds darn near perfect and blends beautifully with the L/R in my 2.1 setup. Bass notes in music never sounded so good!

Question 3: Eventually I'll have 4 HST-18 subs connected. I will be able to level or gain match them and treat it as one channel as far as the 8802a is concerned. Will Audyssey be able to calibrate all 4 subs acting as one sub just as well, or is it not suited for that? I've been considering a QSC system with professional manual calibration but after seeing how great it did with one sub I wonder if the pro calibration may not add much additional benefit (but has a lot of cost). Also I love the idea of being able to tweak and play which XT32 will enable me to do but I'll be a lot less able to mess with the pro's setup in concern I'd mess something up.

Thanks for the excellent help and suggestions guys!! I am really loving the 8802a. Just amazed at the sound quality of music which is what I've been testing with so far (no movies, yet). Also I've been equally amazed at how much better things sound with Audyssey enabled - and the dialog is so much more intelligible it is really hard to believe. I had hear people say that is an expected result of a good EQ but didn't expect it to make that much of a difference.


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I must have missed this post earlier. Sorry to hear about your issue with the Denon. The only thing that I could think to try (since you have already tried a different mic) would be multiple, consecutive, microprocessor resets. Before sending the unit off for servicing, I would try several resets. It might not work, but at least you will have excluded another trouble-shooting option.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike.
When I said reset, those were 5 in a row.


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> Thanks Mike.
> When I said reset, those were 5 in a row.



You are welcome, but that's a bummer!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks guys. I may have just misread the warning screen. As I recall I thought it said something like the sub volume control was too loud and that I could either adjust it to be at 75 dB or continue WITHOUT it EQ'ing the sub. So I do recall there was an option to skip the adjustment of the sub volume, but that in doing so it would not eq the sub. Maybe it was because it was way too high (in its opinion). Like I think it measured something like 83 dB initially. So perhaps it will let you continue with it above 75 dB, but not too much above it? I'll play around with it to see. I may back up my first calibration before experimenting because the system sounds so amazing right now (with a +5 dB boost in the Subwoofer Level Adjust setting ON) that I don't want to mess it up.
> 
> Question 1: Because I did the EQ with my sub volume set to 75 dB in the beginning, what is the harm in the set up I have now, versus if I had done it with a higher level. Note that even with my volume knob set so it read 75 dB prior to Audyssey, it still lowered it to -1.5 dB in the process.
> 
> Question 2: Has anyone compared the results of the EQ for the subwoofer as done by XT-32, compared to what they can achieve with REW auto filters and the BFD? Putting the house curve aside, does REW+BFD still provide a better result, or are they effectively the same? I haven't measured what Audyssey did yet, but it sure sounds darn near perfect and blends beautifully with the L/R in my 2.1 setup. Bass notes in music never sounded so good!
> 
> Question 3: Eventually I'll have 4 HST-18 subs connected. I will be able to level or gain match them and treat it as one channel as far as the 8802a is concerned. Will Audyssey be able to calibrate all 4 subs acting as one sub just as well, or is it not suited for that? I've been considering a QSC system with professional manual calibration but after seeing how great it did with one sub I wonder if the pro calibration may not add much additional benefit (but has a lot of cost). Also I love the idea of being able to tweak and play which XT32 will enable me to do but I'll be a lot less able to mess with the pro's setup in concern I'd mess something up.
> 
> Thanks for the excellent help and suggestions guys!! I am really loving the 8802a. Just amazed at the sound quality of music which is what I've been testing with so far (no movies, yet). Also I've been equally amazed at how much better things sound with Audyssey enabled - and the dialog is so much more intelligible it is really hard to believe. I had hear people say that is an expected result of a good EQ but didn't expect it to make that much of a difference.


I will get things started, but I imagine that several people will respond to your multi-part question. First, the option to continue simply skips level matching. Audyssey still EQ's the sub(s) in exactly the same way, whether your level is set at 75db or 80db. Audyssey's objective is to make your sub(s) play at exactly the same volume, at the MLP, as the other speakers in your system. But that is not necessarily our objective. Not if we want to add a house curve by increasing the sub trim.

In essence, it is good practice to keep the sub trim in your AVR at 0.0, or less. That is particularly the case as you approach Reference MV's. So, a good rule of thumb is to keep the AVR trim at or below 0.0 at MV's of about -10 or higher. That makes the sub amp do the work and prevents your sub(s) from distorting. But to make that work, you have to start in solidly negative trim numbers, so you will have room to add trim without exceeding 0.0. And to make that work, you typically have to increase the sub gain, so that it registers higher than 75db. There is a section in the FAQ that discusses the reasons in more detail, but that's a quick synopsis.

I assume that your Marantz has two subwoofer inputs, and when you run four subs, you will split them into two pairs using Y-adapters. If so, Audyssey will set levels and distances for each pair separately, but will treat all four subs as one, and will EQ them as one.

Incidentally, don't worry too much about messing up your good current sound by running additional Audyssey calibrations. If you are like most of us, you will eventually run a number of calibrations, anyway. The key is to keep a log of your preferred mic pattern, with measured mic positions, so that you can always repeat a calibration that you really like. Most of us find that we can improve the sound quality in our rooms with experimentation in mic patterns, and practice in our calibration technique.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks guys. I may have just misread the warning screen. As I recall I thought it said something like the sub volume control was too loud and that I could either adjust it to be at 75 dB or continue WITHOUT it EQ'ing the sub. So I do recall there was an option to skip the adjustment of the sub volume, but that in doing so it would not eq the sub. Maybe it was because it was way too high (in its opinion). Like I think it measured something like 83 dB initially. So perhaps it will let you continue with it above 75 dB, but not too much above it? I'll play around with it to see. I may back up my first calibration before experimenting because the system sounds so amazing right now (with a +5 dB boost in the Subwoofer Level Adjust setting ON) that I don't want to mess it up.
> 
> Question 1: Because I did the EQ with my sub volume set to 75 dB in the beginning, what is the harm in the set up I have now, versus if I had done it with a higher level. Note that even with my volume knob set so it read 75 dB prior to Audyssey, it still lowered it to -1.5 dB in the process.
> 
> Question 2: Has anyone compared the results of the EQ for the subwoofer as done by XT-32, compared to what they can achieve with REW auto filters and the BFD? Putting the house curve aside, does REW+BFD still provide a better result, or are they effectively the same? I haven't measured what Audyssey did yet, but it sure sounds darn near perfect and blends beautifully with the L/R in my 2.1 setup. Bass notes in music never sounded so good!
> 
> Question 3: Eventually I'll have 4 HST-18 subs connected. I will be able to level or gain match them and treat it as one channel as far as the 8802a is concerned. Will Audyssey be able to calibrate all 4 subs acting as one sub just as well, or is it not suited for that? I've been considering a QSC system with professional manual calibration but after seeing how great it did with one sub I wonder if the pro calibration may not add much additional benefit (but has a lot of cost). Also I love the idea of being able to tweak and play which XT32 will enable me to do but I'll be a lot less able to mess with the pro's setup in concern I'd mess something up.
> 
> Thanks for the excellent help and suggestions guys!! I am really loving the 8802a. Just amazed at the sound quality of music which is what I've been testing with so far (no movies, yet). Also I've been equally amazed at how much better things sound with Audyssey enabled - and the dialog is so much more intelligible it is really hard to believe. I had hear people say that is an expected result of a good EQ but didn't expect it to make that much of a difference.


1) No harm at all as long as you are staying under 0dB on the sub trim. Going over 0dB you can risk clipping the sub's amp.

2) There is absolutely no way you could match what XT32 does with any (affordable) outboard sub EQ. XT32 has literally hundreds of filters in the sub region alone, no way to match that with a BFD, MiniDSP, etc.

3a) If you plan on having all 4 subs equidistant to the MLP, then XT32 will do a fine job EQ'ing them all as one. If you, like most of us, need to have differing distances between the subs and the MLP, you will need some way to time-align them. If each sub in each pair is equidistant (i.e. 2 in front corners, 2 in back corners), you can just use the built in SubEQ HT (calibrating each pair as a single sub). If you're setup will be more complicated than that, you will need a MiniDSP or similar. Does the BFD have the ability to set delays for 4 separate channels??

3b) A lot of folks who used to have Audyssey Pro have abandoned it for XT32*. 'Nuff said. 

*Not necessarily because XT32 is "better" than Pro, but Pro doesn't offer enough of an advantage (if any) in sound quality to justify the cost/hassle.

Now, go play some blu rays and let us know what you think.


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, but that's a bummer!


Yeah, I know...


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> I will get things started, but I imagine that several people will respond to your multi-part question. First, the option to continue simply skips level matching. Audyssey still EQ's the sub(s) in exactly the same way, whether your level is set at 75db or 80db. Audyssey's objective is to make your sub(s) play at exactly the same volume, at the MLP, as the other speakers in your system. But that is not necessarily our objective. Not if we want to add a house curve by increasing the sub trim.


Thanks. The house curves I've used in the past have had an intentional unevenness. For instance I like to run like +5 dB at 20 Hz and then tail that toward + 0 dB as it gets to 80 Hz. I assume there's no way to do that without adding a BFD or equivalent.



> In essence, it is good practice to keep the sub trim in your AVR at 0.0, or less. That is particularly the case as you approach Reference MV's. So, a good rule of thumb is to keep the AVR trim at or below 0.0 at MV's of about -10 or higher. That makes the sub amp do the work and prevents your sub(s) from distorting. But to make that work, you have to start in solidly negative trim numbers, so you will have room to add trim without exceeding 0.0. And to make that work, you typically have to increase the sub gain, so that it registers higher than 75db. There is a section in the FAQ that discusses the reasons in more detail, but that's a quick synopsis.


Great. I missed the fact that there's a FAQ.  Will check it out. Sounds like maybe I should start with the sub at around 85 dB and that afterward I just need to trim it down so it is still hot but not +10 dB hot.



> I assume that your Marantz has two subwoofer inputs, and when you run four subs, you will split them into two pairs using Y-adapters. If so, Audyssey will set levels and distances for each pair separately, but will treat all four subs as one, and will EQ them as one.


I think you meant to say outputs not inputs? Yes I have the 8802a which has two subwoofer outputs. See my reply to Alan P next for a bit more on the subject.


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> 1) No harm at all as long as you are staying under 0dB on the sub trim. Going over 0dB you can risk clipping the sub's amp.


Understood. I will rerun it with the sub at like 85 dB or whatever seems to make sense after I read the FAQ tomorrow.



> 2) There is absolutely no way you could match what XT32 does with any (affordable) outboard sub EQ. XT32 has literally hundreds of filters in the sub region alone, no way to match that with a BFD, MiniDSP, etc.


Hundreds? Wow that is impressive. I was wondering actually if there was a way to see a list of all filters it has applied to the various regions. I suppose not? I'd also be curious what it has EQ'ed in the ranges for the mid range and tweeters. I assume that it will take care of correcting for a little loss from using an acoustically transparent screen too?



> 3a) If you plan on having all 4 subs equidistant to the MLP, then XT32 will do a fine job EQ'ing them all as one. If you, like most of us, need to have differing distances between the subs and the MLP, you will need some way to time-align them. If each sub in each pair is equidistant (i.e. 2 in front corners, 2 in back corners), you can just use the built in SubEQ HT (calibrating each pair as a single sub). If you're setup will be more complicated than that, you will need a MiniDSP or similar. Does the BFD have the ability to set delays for 4 separate channels??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect. I will have 4 of the HST-18's so it probably helps also that they are all 4 the same exact sub. It will be powered with a Speaker Power SP2-12000-DP that should ship later this week. My subs each have dual 2ohm voice coils creating a 4 ohm load each. They will then be wired in parallel to the Speaker Power amp, creating a 2 ohm load. That will deliver 3000 watts to each of the 4 subs according to the manufacturer. I assume that connecting these with a Y and using both sub outputs wouldn't change any of that?
> 
> Yes my distances play very well into using the 2 subwoofer outputs. My front two subs are in the baffle wall. They are just about equidistant to the MLP - one is about 4" further. I assume that makes not material difference. Then the other two 18" subs are located - are you ready for this? Inside the rear wall.  . Its a double studded wall and the isolation shell was extended into two cavities designed to be isolated and hold the HST 18 cabinets. This oughta be interesting.  Those two rear subs are also equidistant to the MLP. I assume I should level or gain the front two to each other and the rear two to each other - I will check the FAQ to see if that is covered.
> 
> As for alternatives, I had been considering a QSC Core 110f with a professional calibrator coming in. I'm sure he would do an amazing job. The downside to this besides the cost of the QSC and calibration is that I want the ability to tweak and understand what was done - with the pro calibrating it I wouldn't have his equipment and I would essentially be stuck with his calibration without the ability to tweak (unless done so by ear). On the plus side, I would have preset calibrations for when I'm the only one in the room at the MLP, a preset when its just a few of us in the front row, and a preset when the second row is full too. With Audyseey its just one calibration and that's it. Bummer. Some may say to just calibrate for all seats and leave it, but 90+% of the time I'll be the only one in the room and I'm quite sure a calibration for the MLP only will result in something better than a full seat calibration, as measured at the MLP.
> 
> The other alternative is to use the MiniDSP 88A with Dirac. Its been several months since I've followed the various threads, but it seemed the overall consensus as I read it favored Dirac Live. Plus with the 88A I would have the ability to use multiple presets for the various room seating configurations.
> 
> All that said, after my limited experience with XT32 in my temporary living room set up while theater is being finish, I'm rethinking the need for QSC and professional calibration. Or at least I may hold off and see what Audyseey can do in my room first, then go to another solution if I'm not totally satisfied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, go play some blu rays and let us know what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - we are supposed to play movies and listen to music with this - not just for test signals? What's the fun in that?
> 
> As I may have mentioned in this thread, I'm building a 9.4.6 Atmos room with professional designed acoustical plan and treatments. Should be done around the end of the month. In the meantime I have a 2.1 setup in my living room just so I can enjoy some music in my new speakers. It sounds incredible at the moment, with Audyseey off/on being the difference of good-sounding vs amazing sounding.
> 
> Thanks again to you and everyone for all the wonderful help and support!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> ...
> I assume that it will take care of correcting for a little loss from using an acoustically transparent screen too?


We have a acoustically transparent Seymour screen with the center channel behind it. Our LF and RF speakers are to either side of the screen. All the tweeters and midranges are identical ("timbre matters!"). If anything, the Audyssey corrected sound from the center channel, after it comes through the screen, is smoother than that coming from the toed in R & L speakers! Just a little ("timbre matters," but it's hard to get all the channels to sound exactly the same). There is no treble loss after coming through the AT screen after running Audyssey.


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> We have a acoustically transparent Seymour screen with the center channel behind it. Our LF and RF speakers are to either side of the screen. All the tweeters and midranges are identical ("timbre matters!"). If anything, the Audyssey corrected sound from the center channel, after it comes through the screen, is smoother than that coming from the toed in R & L speakers! Just a little ("timber matters," but it's hard to get all the channels to sound exactly the same). There is no treble loss after coming through the AT screen after running Audyssey.


That's great to hear there is no timber lost with the speaker playing through the screen. Which screen material is it that you're using? How far away is your speaker sitting behind the screen? I will have the Center Stage XD and will have the speaker about 4-5" or so behind it (or a bit more if I can manage it).


----------



## lovingdvd

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the Audyssey FAQ. Its been very helpful and indeed answers a lot of questions I had after first using it (too bad I hadn't seen the FAQ before my first go-round with Audyssey).

So far the most significant thing I've learned is this:



> "Taking measurements in one spot guarantees bad sound. The algorithm needs to collect data from around the listening area in order to work correctly. One should not think of mic locations as being the same as seating locations. The recommended pattern for measurements is shown here. Whether you have one listener or many, all available measurements should be taken to provide the algorithm with the needed data."


I had totally misunderstood the purpose of the multiple mic locations. Exactly like as quoted above, I thought that the purpose of the multiple mic locations was to try and optimize for each seat. Since I only care about the single MLP seat, I stopped Audyssey after measuring just the first position. With hindsight, I clearly see that I should have measured multiple positions. I read in the FAQ that even if you only care about one spot, then take a group of measurements closer to that spot, but at least take the full group of measures. I had thought that by taking multiple measures Audyssey would try to make it sound good in multiple seats, providing an averaged response which could improve all seats but in exchange not an optimal EQ for the MLP.

Has anyone done comparisons of just the MLP vs all 8 measurements with XT-32? I suppose it is really hard to A/B the difference by ear (given there is no way to quickly switch back and forth), but would likely show up via measurements in REW. Currently I still have my one seat EQ in the 8802a. I will take a full frequency sweep measure with REW soon and use it as a baseline. Then I'll do another calibration with all 8 mic positions, somewhat clustered around the MLP and see if I can hear any difference and what the REW measurements show as being different. Should be an interesting experiment.

On a related note - how well can you go by REW measurements (UMIK-1) in the mid and upper range to understand what your ears are hearing in one configuration versus another? I ask because a calibrator once told me that you can't really go by such measurements to understand what you are hearing, because our ears hear quite differently than the way microphones "hear"...?


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> We have a acoustically transparent Seymour screen with the center channel behind it. Our LF and RF speakers are to either side of the screen. All the tweeters and midranges are identical ("timbre matters!"). If anything, the Audyssey corrected sound from the center channel, after it comes through the screen, is smoother than that coming from the toed in R & L speakers! Just a little ("timber matters," but it's hard to get all the channels to sound exactly the same). There is no treble loss after coming through the AT screen after running Audyssey.


Also I meant to ask - most importantly, can you notice a difference in the timber of your center speaker playing through the screen when you turn Audyssey on versus off? IOW you say there is no loss of timber from your center speaker, but I am wondering if that is because Audyssey is making a correction for that, or because the loss is so minimal anyway. From what I recall on the XD material the loss is minimal (but to me as an audiophile I certainly want to EQ that as best as possible). Thanks again!


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> Understood. I will rerun it with the sub at like 85 dB or whatever seems to make sense after I read the FAQ tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds? Wow that is impressive. I was wondering actually if there was a way to see a list of all filters it has applied to the various regions. I suppose not? I'd also be curious what it has EQ'ed in the ranges for the mid range and tweeters. I assume that it will take care of correcting for a little loss from using an acoustically transparent screen too?


Yup, 512 to be exact. 










You can see a very crude graph of what Audyssey has done in terms of EQ in the AUDYSSEY menu...can't remember exactly where right now, but I'm sure you can find it. Just keep in mind, it is VERY crude and should not influence any decisions. 




> Perfect. I will have 4 of the HST-18's so it probably helps also that they are all 4 the same exact sub. It will be powered with a Speaker Power SP2-12000-DP that should ship later this week. My subs each have dual 2ohm voice coils creating a 4 ohm load each. They will then be wired in parallel to the Speaker Power amp, creating a 2 ohm load. That will deliver 3000 watts to each of the 4 subs according to the manufacturer. I assume that connecting these with a Y and using both sub outputs wouldn't change any of that?


A y-splitter is exactly what you want for each pair of subs.




> Yes my distances play very well into using the 2 subwoofer outputs. My front two subs are in the baffle wall. They are just about equidistant to the MLP - one is about 4" further. I assume that makes not material difference. Then the other two 18" subs are located - are you ready for this? Inside the rear wall.  . Its a double studded wall and the isolation shell was extended into two cavities designed to be isolated and hold the HST 18 cabinets. This oughta be interesting.  Those two rear subs are also equidistant to the MLP. I assume I should level or gain the front two to each other and the rear two to each other - I will check the FAQ to see if that is covered.


That is going to be AWESOME!

No, 4" will make no difference at all.

Personally, I like to gain match all 4 of my subs. Gain matching, in case you aren't familiar (but I think you might be) means that all subs are outputting at the same level, not at the same SPL at the MLP. See this post from Craig John for a good explanation of how to gain match your subs.

However, if you don't want to move those huge beasts to the center of the room, you can do what I do; I place an SPL meter about an inch in front of the sub and adjust gain until I get about 68dB. Then, with all 4 subs playing, this _should _come out to ~77-78dB.




> As for alternatives, I had been considering a QSC Core 110f with a professional calibrator coming in. I'm sure he would do an amazing job. The downside to this besides the cost of the QSC and calibration is that I want the ability to tweak and understand what was done - with the pro calibrating it I wouldn't have his equipment and I would essentially be stuck with his calibration without the ability to tweak (unless done so by ear). On the plus side, I would have preset calibrations for when I'm the only one in the room at the MLP, a preset when its just a few of us in the front row, and a preset when the second row is full too. With Audyseey its just one calibration and that's it. Bummer. Some may say to just calibrate for all seats and leave it, but 90+% of the time I'll be the only one in the room and I'm quite sure a calibration for the MLP only will result in something better than a full seat calibration, as measured at the MLP.


Knowing how to calibrate your own system is priceless IMO.


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> Yup, 512 to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see a very crude graph of what Audyssey has done in terms of EQ in the AUDYSSEY menu...can't remember exactly where right now, but I'm sure you can find it. Just keep in mind, it is VERY crude and should not influence any decisions.


Can you please point me more specifically to where that info is? I just looked in all menu branches under the Audyssey menu (under the Audio main menu option in the Setup) and don't see anything that shows a graph or other details about what it did.



> A y-splitter is exactly what you want for each pair of subs.


I'm thinking I may not need a Y splitter at least not where it may traditionally be used... Here's what I'm picturing - the SP2-12000-DP amp has two channel inputs (XLR). I would take sub1 out of the 8802a and into channel 1, and sub2 out and into channel 2. The amp was ordered with CH1+CH1 CH2+CH2 wiring. This means that the 4 conductor SpeakOn output from the amp will have sub 1 and 2 output on that one SpeakOn, and I wire those to my front subs, then do the same with sub 3 and 4 output coming from the Speakon output from channel 2. Make sense or is there something else/different I need to do?



> Personally, I like to gain match all 4 of my subs. Gain matching, in case you aren't familiar (but I think you might be) means that all subs are outputting at the same level, not at the same SPL at the MLP. See this post from Craig John for a good explanation of how to gain match your subs.
> 
> However, if you don't want to move those huge beasts to the center of the room, you can do what I do; I place an SPL meter about an inch in front of the sub and adjust gain until I get about 68dB. Then, with all 4 subs playing, this _should _come out to ~77-78dB.


Great, thanks. You answered the next pressing question on my mind which was how to gain match without trying to move 200+ pounds subs around a room, especially since I will not be able to get them out of the baffle wall too easily once installed... However I didn't quite understand your instructions - can you clarify? Since the amps output is the same and the subs are identical, in terms of drivers and cabinet cubic feet (4ft^3), would I be able to just make sure I set the output knob for channel 1 and 2 on the sub amp identically and then the subs would be gain matched? The only thing that may throw that plan off is that the two in-wall HST-18 subs have a totally different cabinet design. The cubic feet are the same, but the cabinet is constructed much differently - instead of being mostly a cube like the front subs, the in-wall sub cabinets are as shallow as possible to fit the driver while being tall to make up the volume - I'm not sure if that, plus its location in the cubby vs baffle wall, impacts its output - or if that matters?

How are you getting from 68 dB to 77-78 dB with the 4 subs? My understanding is that the second sub adds + 3dB, and the next two subs (3 and 4) add an additional + 3dB to that, for a total of 6 dB compared to one sub. But in your example you added 9-10 dB?

OK so aside from that clarification, can you please take me through the overall process if you wouldn't mind? First measure one sub with all others disconnected and adjust amp gain until it reads 68 dB? Then turn that sub off and repeat for the next sub, and rinse and repeat for all 4 subs independently? And then together they should be about +10 dB? Sounds like I'm not fully understanding the procedure. Although in my case please keep in mind that I have one amp output channel that is split (within the amp wiring, as described above) and fed to two subs - so that pair of subs will play at or near the same volume and there's no way I can adjust one up or down. So I think what we're mainly talking about here is gain matching the front pair to the second pair, instead of each one to all 4 if that makes sense. Tho I'm sure your procedure is the same, just less steps since its two pairs of subs being matched instead of 4 individual, but I still don't understand the process. 

Thank you!


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> Can you please point me more specifically to where that info is? I just looked in all menu branches under the Audyssey menu (under the Audio main menu option in the Setup) and don't see anything that shows a graph or other details about what it did.


Hmmm...lemme see.

On my Denon 4520 it is under AUDYSSEY SETUP>CHECK RESULTS>EQUALIZERS.





> I'm thinking I may not need a Y splitter at least not where it may traditionally be used... Here's what I'm picturing - the SP2-12000-DP amp has two channel inputs (XLR). I would take sub1 out of the 8802a and into channel 1, and sub2 out and into channel 2. The amp was ordered with CH1+CH1 CH2+CH2 wiring. This means that the 4 conductor SpeakOn output from the amp will have sub 1 and 2 output on that one SpeakOn, and I wire those to my front subs, then do the same with sub 3 and 4 output coming from the Speakon output from channel 2. Make sense or is there something else/different I need to do?


I don't use external amps for my subs, but that sounds to me like it would work.




> Since the amps output is the same and the subs are identical, in terms of drivers and cabinet cubic feet (4ft^3), would I be able to just make sure I set the output knob for channel 1 and 2 on the sub amp identically and then the subs would be gain matched?


Theoretically, that should work.




> The only thing that may throw that plan off is that the two in-wall HST-18 subs have a totally different cabinet design. The cubic feet are the same, but the cabinet is constructed much differently - instead of being mostly a cube like the front subs, the in-wall sub cabinets are as shallow as possible to fit the driver while being tall to make up the volume - I'm not sure if that, plus its location in the cubby vs baffle wall, impacts its output - or if that matters?


Just set the amps all the same then double check your output from each sub individually afterwards to confirm.




> How are you getting from 68 dB to 77-78 dB with the 4 subs? My understanding is that the second sub adds + 3dB, and the next two subs (3 and 4) add an additional + 3dB to that, for a total of 6 dB compared to one sub. But in your example you added 9-10 dB?


Second sub will add 6dB, adding a second pair will add another 6dB. This is of course in a perfect world...since no room is perfect and the second pair of subs by necessity must be located further away, you can expect about a 3-4dB increase by adding the second pair. Make sure you get an _increase _in SPL when you add a sub (should be at least 3dB but can be up to 6dB), otherwise you are getting cancellations and have more work to do.




> OK so aside from that clarification, can you please take me through the overall process if you wouldn't mind? First measure one sub with all others disconnected and adjust amp gain until it reads 68 dB? Then turn that sub off and repeat for the next sub, and rinse and repeat for all 4 subs independently? And then together they should be about +10 dB? Sounds like I'm not fully understanding the procedure. Although in my case please keep in mind that I have one amp output channel that is split (within the amp wiring, as described above) and fed to two subs - so that pair of subs will play at or near the same volume and there's no way I can adjust one up or down. So I think what we're mainly talking about here is gain matching the front pair to the second pair, instead of each one to all 4 if that makes sense. Tho I'm sure your procedure is the same, just less steps since its two pairs of subs being matched instead of 4 individual, but I still don't understand the process.


Yes, you would essentially be gain matching _by pair_. I would still measure them individually just to confirm that each sub in each pair is outputting the same SPL....no reason they shouldn't be since they are being powered by the same amp channel, but better safe than sorry.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Yup, 512 to be exact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can see a very crude graph of what Audyssey has done in terms of EQ in the AUDYSSEY menu...can't remember exactly where right now, but I'm sure you can find it. Just keep in mind, it is VERY crude and should not influence any decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A y-splitter is exactly what you want for each pair of subs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is going to be AWESOME!
> 
> No, 4" will make no difference at all.
> 
> Personally, I like to gain match all 4 of my subs. Gain matching, in case you aren't familiar (but I think you might be) means that all subs are outputting at the same level, not at the same SPL at the MLP. See this post from Craig John for a good explanation of how to gain match your subs.
> 
> However, if you don't want to move those huge beasts to the center of the room, you can do what I do; I place an SPL meter about an inch in front of the sub and adjust gain until I get about 68dB. Then, with all 4 subs playing, this _should _come out to ~77-78dB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing how to calibrate your own system is priceless IMO.



Alan,

Just FWIW, these graphs have always been a little more confusing than helpful to most of us, partly because Chris K would never actually tell anyone how many filters were actually involved in the various versions. And some people tried very hard to get the number out of him. 

The real number with XT-32 is probably at least in the tens of thousands. What the graph actually means is that XT-32 has 512 times as many satellite filters as XT. And 512 times as many sub filters, and so on down to either MultEQ, or the original 2EQ. But without knowing exactly how many filters those implementations started with, it is impossible to calculate how many the latest version has. A lot is a pretty good answer. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Alan,
> 
> Just FWIW, these graphs have always been a little more confusing than helpful to most of us, partly because Chris K would never actually tell anyone how many filters were actually involved in the various versions. And some people tried very hard to get the number out of him.


Yeah, I'm aware...and why I warned the OP earlier to not put too much value on those graphs. 




> The real number with XT-32 is probably at least in the tens of thousands. What the graph actually means is that XT-32 has 512 times as many satellite filters as XT. And 512 times as many sub filters, and so on down to either MultEQ, or the original 2EQ. But without knowing exactly how many filters those implementations started with, it is impossible to calculate how many the latest version has. A lot is a pretty good answer.


Ummm...yeah. Math has never been my strong suit. I see now that 2EQ="x". Duh!


----------



## donktard

Allright so, XT32 calibration is making me mad lately. I have phase on sub set to 0. I run audyssey. I run REW to confirm results and i see subwoofer frequency response is a mess. I flip phase 180. I measure with REW again, looks good now, albeit a bit bumpy. So I rerun Audyssey, this time with sub phase at 180 to iron things out. And bloody thing messes it up again so now I have to flip phase to 0 so I could have flat bass response. What? Why? How?


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> Allright so, XT32 calibration is making me mad lately. I have phase on sub set to 0. I run audyssey. I run REW to confirm results and i see subwoofer frequency response is a mess. I flip phase 180. I measure with REW again, looks good now, albeit a bit bumpy. So I rerun Audyssey, this time with sub phase at 180 to iron things out. And bloody thing messes it up again so now I have to flip phase to 0 so I could have flat bass response. What? Why? How?


My humble advice to you donktard is to forget REW for the time being. Just run the Audyssey calibration and call it a day. REW can give you tricky results in the bass department, especially when only a single point measurement is made. No wonder you are seeing a mess!! Don't let REW fool you. Do the setup as per the Audyssey guide and enjoy. 

But if you really insist on doing REW measurements, please make sure you do a multi-point measurement and average the results. It won't give you a clear picture on what Audyssey did for your system, just an approximantion. 

Do your own listening tests after calibration. Probably best is to listen to bass heavy music you know very well. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> Allright so, XT32 calibration is making me mad lately. I have phase on sub set to 0. I run audyssey. I run REW to confirm results and i see subwoofer frequency response is a mess. I flip phase 180. I measure with REW again, looks good now, albeit a bit bumpy. So I rerun Audyssey, this time with sub phase at 180 to iron things out. And bloody thing messes it up again so now I have to flip phase to 0 so I could have flat bass response. What? Why? How?


This is because Audyssey is getting the sub distance wrong. Audyssey never measures your sub(s) plus a main channel (FL, FR or CC) at the same time, and this is why it can never really get the phase relationship right between speaker/sub. This is not unusual at all, and the reason the Sub Distance Tweak exists.

That doc can be a bit intimidating, so I wrote up a more concise version. 


Sub Distance Tweak, the Reader's Digest condensed version:



Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
Add/subtract to the sub distance setting (both subs equally) in 1' increments
Re-measure
Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> My humble advice to you donktard is to forget REW for the time being. Just run the Audyssey calibration and call it a day.


I have to respectfully disagree with you here Feri.

Audyssey gets the phase relationship between speakers and sub(s) wrong more often than it gets it right. I highly recommend the sub distance tweak to anyone using Audyssey...especially if they already have the tools (REW).


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> I have to respectfully disagree with you here Feri.
> 
> Audyssey gets the phase relationship between speakers and sub(s) wrong more often than it gets it right. I highly recommend the sub distance tweak to anyone using Audyssey...especially if they already have the tools (REW).


Vice-versa, I do always respect other opinion, even though I may have different thoughts on the same subject. 

Alan, as you stated correctly in your previous post, Audyssey does nothing in the phase department since it calibrates each speaker (and sub) individually and there is no further process in the algorithm to do a combined measurement of sub and any of the satellites. 

Belive it or not, I also did the sub distance tweak on my system many Moons ago and found no real audible improvement afterward. I think it relates to the behaviour of our human ears that might be a bit less sensitive to phase issues than to level issues, or in other words: more forgiving. 

Another interesting comment came from Chris K. on this issue when he said the sub distance tweak may work, but only for one single point in space. A multi-point environment we live in may not really benefit from the sub distance tweak process, so I already returned my settings to what MultEQ set them originally.

YMMV.


----------



## maestro50

Another trim question:

Several posts have asked about the subwoofer trim, which is often set after Audyssey calibration to a negative number.
In my case, the sub is set by Audyssey to -3.5. I then raise it, as many do, up 3dB to its final position at -0.5 dB.

In reading the many posts on this subject, there is usually some mention about not wanting to raise the sub beyond 0.0 so that it won't run out of headroom. That got me wondering--

Audyssey sets my front towers at +1.5 and +2.5. I don't hear a problem (everything sounds darn great, as a matter of fact) but I thought I would ask:

Is there any problem having my front towers set at positive levels? Should I lower them back down to 0.0?

Thanks,
This thread has been tremendously helpful over the last month.


----------



## mthomas47

maestro50 said:


> Another trim question:
> 
> Several posts have asked about the subwoofer trim, which is often set after Audyssey calibration to a negative number.
> In my case, the sub is set by Audyssey to -3.5. I then raise it, as many do, up 3dB to its final position at -0.5 dB.
> 
> In reading the many posts on this subject, there is usually some mention about not wanting to raise the sub beyond 0.0 so that it won't run out of headroom. That got me wondering--
> 
> Audyssey sets my front towers at +1.5 and +2.5. I don't hear a problem (everything sounds darn great, as a matter of fact) but I thought I would ask:
> 
> Is there any problem having my front towers set at positive levels? Should I lower them back down to 0.0?
> 
> Thanks,
> This thread has been tremendously helpful over the last month.


Hi,

I have always thought that this is one of the most helpful threads on the forum too. It surely has helped me over the years. Positive numbers for your speaker trim levels are just fine. Audyssey is just making sure that they all play at the same volume at the MLP.

With subs, though, it's a little more complicated because of the external sub amplifier. The reason for raising the sub gain high enough to stay in negative AVR trim numbers is to put the strain where it belongs--on the sub amp. Even there, in most cases staying in negative numbers is generally just a good precautionary measure unless you are exceeding -10 in MV. At some point, the sub(s) might begin to distort if you went too far into positive numbers with a high master volume. 

But your speakers should be just fine wherever Audyssey set them.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Another interesting comment came from Chris K. on this issue when he said the sub distance tweak may work, but only for one single point in space. A multi-point environment we live in may not really benefit from the sub distance tweak process, so I already returned my settings to what MultEQ set them originally.
> 
> YMMV.


You make a good point here Feri. I have never done a multi-point measurement along with the distance tweak. I should really do that before I pretend like I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> My humble advice to you donktard is to forget REW for the time being. Just run the Audyssey calibration and call it a day. REW can give you tricky results in the bass department, especially when only a single point measurement is made. No wonder you are seeing a mess!! Don't let REW fool you. Do the setup as per the Audyssey guide and enjoy.
> 
> But if you really insist on doing REW measurements, please make sure you do a multi-point measurement and average the results. It won't give you a clear picture on what Audyssey did for your system, just an approximantion.
> 
> Do your own listening tests after calibration. Probably best is to listen to bass heavy music you know very well.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Nah, my REW measurements are very consistent. Seat to seat variaton (for 3 seats I got) is actually very acceptable for me, with middle seat being practically flat up to 100-120 Hz when calibrated properly. Also it is very audible, with phase flipped wrong bass is pretty much dead.



Alan P said:


> This is because Audyssey is getting the sub distance wrong. Audyssey never measures your sub(s) plus a main channel (FL, FR or CC) at the same time, and this is why it can never really get the phase relationship right between speaker/sub. This is not unusual at all, and the reason the Sub Distance Tweak exists.
> 
> That doc can be a bit intimidating, so I wrote up a more concise version.
> 
> 
> Sub Distance Tweak, the Reader's Digest condensed version:
> 
> 
> 
> Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
> Add/subtract to the sub distance setting (both subs equally) in 1' increments
> Re-measure
> Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
> You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


Oh nice, thanks, I recalled that document was hiding here somewhere. 
I will get on to it tomorrow, but just to quickly recap...I basically don't need to re-run audyssey again, but simply tweak sub distance properly?
And yeah, I need a nice transition between fronts and cc too because its 50% movies 50% music with me.


----------



## Alan P

maestro50 said:


> Another trim question:
> 
> Several posts have asked about the subwoofer trim, which is often set after Audyssey calibration to a negative number.
> In my case, the sub is set by Audyssey to -3.5. I then raise it, as many do, up 3dB to its final position at -0.5 dB.
> 
> In reading the many posts on this subject, there is usually some mention about not wanting to raise the sub beyond 0.0 so that it won't run out of headroom. That got me wondering--
> 
> Audyssey sets my front towers at +1.5 and +2.5. I don't hear a problem (everything sounds darn great, as a matter of fact) but I thought I would ask:
> 
> Is there any problem having my front towers set at positive levels? Should I lower them back down to 0.0?
> 
> Thanks,
> This thread has been tremendously helpful over the last month.


As always, Mike has given you a great answer. I just wanted to explain a bit further.

The reason you want to stay under 0dB on the sub trim is so you don't apply too much voltage from the AVR's sub out to the subwoofer's amplifier. Too much voltage and you could overdrive the input, clipping the sub's amp. This is how I understand it at least.

Now, you may be completely safe going over 0dB with your AVR depending on the output voltage of your particular sub out jack. However, without actually measuring the output voltage on your sub out, you won't know for sure. So, we always recommend to stay under 0dB just to be safe.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> I will get on to it tomorrow, but just to quickly recap...I basically don't need to re-run audyssey again, but simply tweak sub distance properly?


Correct!




> And yeah, I need a nice transition between fronts and cc too because its 50% movies 50% music with me.


Sometimes compromises have to be made that favor either the mains or CC...you won't know until you perform the tweak.


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> And yeah, I need a nice transition between fronts and cc too because its 50% movies 50% music with me.


I think some basic principles are being lost here. We are not calibrating for program materials, but for speaker-room interaction. And that has nothing to do with what we are listening to, right?


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> I think some basic principles are being lost here. We are not calibrating for program materials, but for speaker-room interaction. And that has nothing to do with what we are listening to, right?


Honestly, there is a such a chaos between 100 and 400 Hz in my room that fixing that transition isn't even the biggest of my worries.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> I think some basic principles are being lost here. We are not calibrating for program materials, but for speaker-room interaction. And that has nothing to do with what we are listening to, right?


Feri,

When performing the sub distance tweak, usually you can't get the crossover transition smooth with _both _the CC and the mains...a compromise usually has to be made. That is what we are talking about here.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> Honestly, there is a such a chaos between 100 and 400 Hz in my room that fixing that transition isn't even the biggest of my worries.


Can we see a graph of said chaos??


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Honestly, there is a such a chaos between 100 and 400 Hz in my room that fixing that transition isn't even the biggest of my worries.


Do you have any bass traps in your room? That 100 to 400Hz range sounds like a great candidate for room treatments.


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> That's great to hear there is no timber lost with the speaker playing through the screen. Which screen material is it that you're using? How far away is your speaker sitting behind the screen? I will have the Center Stage XD and will have the speaker about 4-5" or so behind it (or a bit more if I can manage it).


It was the *only* Seymour AT fabric available in 2011, i.e., Center Stage XD. The speaker is about 1 foot, or a little less, behind the screen, and very slightly above seated ear height. An engineer at a major speaker company tested CS XD fabric for a mutual friend, and found a transmission loss of about 1 dB at 16K Hz *without* Audyssey. As I reported earlier, there is no loss at our place *with* Audyssey, even with black backing that Seymour provides (as an option) in case there is a shiny object behind the screen that would pick up the projector light. 

We sit about 12 feet away, and we cannot see the fabric texture -- not a trace -- from there, even with the finest grained movie. We sometimes walk over to about 8 feet from the screen to focus, and we can barely see the fabric pattern (nearly none) from there. 

I'd like to share my biases with you. I am a strong advocate of 'scope shaped screens, because of their immersive properties, and their fidelity to filmmakers' intentions. Most filmmakers select an aspect ratio to fit their conception of the movie. True widescreen movies have an image larger in area and a wider true width than letterbox on standard HDTV screens, in which 'scope occupies a ribbon like band across the screen with large blank spaces above and below the image. So called "widescreen" HDTV sets and projection screens, at 1.78:1, are narrower in aspect ratio than the narrowest of theatrical narrow screen images, except for the old 1.37:1 that was around before 1953, and the largely European 1.66:1) Our screen is 130" wide (not diagonal) and has an aspect ratio is 2.35 to 1, which matches CinemaScope for most of its lifespan, and matches 35 mm Panavision, until they changed to 2.39:1 (commonly known in theater and movie publications by its nickname of "2.40:1"). The difference 2.39 makes is easily absorbed by the black borders of the Seymour. The common 70 mm aspect ratios look good as well, with just about 1" of space to either side of the image for Todd-AO's and Panavision 70's 2.2:1. Even the outrageous aspect ratios of Ultra Panavision 70 and Camera 65 (a handful of classic films) look good, with a space at the top and bottom that is much easier to ignore than it would be if projected on a 16:9 (1.78:1) screen. Even Cinerama's simulated curved screen image of 2.89:1 (on BD "Smilebox") looks good, and sucks the viewer right in. I have counted 10 aspect ratios in all. There is no matching all of them, but 2.35:1 is very workable, IMO. And we thus avoid making big movies small, and small movies big, so to speak. 

Our image, regardless of aspect ratio, is nice and bright, with the Panasonic projector 24 feet away. I should point out that we watch in total darkness, except for ambient light that bounces off the screen. 

Seymour was very supportive when we bought our screen*;* Chris and I exchanged about 3 emails, discussing practically every aspect of image quality.


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> Can we see a graph of said chaos??


Sure, tomorrow, its too late now to make such noise. 



mthomas47 said:


> Do you have any bass traps in your room? That 100 to 400Hz range sounds like a great candidate for room treatments.


No, I have only treated early reflections. Having said that, I have posted a picture so you can see what it looks like. Response is worse on left speaker then on right one and I suspect that it is caused mostly by slanted ceiling right above it (which causes bunch of additional combing/SBIR issues in bass area). Unusual room shape doesn't help with treating room in a simple manner like rectangular room. I also don't have bass traps because my waterfall graph is pretty good despite of poor 100-400 Hz response.
Repositioning anything is not possible but I can try adding bass traps. I will probably make a dedicated HT room in 1-2 years, but until then, I am trying to make the most out of what I have.


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> Also I meant to ask - most importantly, can you notice a difference in the timber of your center speaker playing through the screen when you turn Audyssey on versus off? IOW you say there is no loss of timber from your center speaker, but I am wondering if that is because Audyssey is making a correction for that, or because the loss is so minimal anyway. From what I recall on the XD material the loss is minimal (but to me as an audiophile I certainly want to EQ that as best as possible). Thanks again!


Yes, there is a noticeable difference between Audyssey OFF and Audyssey FLAT through the screen, but it is complicated, as is all this stuff. There is a definite, but small, loss of detail and balance with Audyssey OFF. With Audyssey FLAT and the screen in the way, the timber of the center sounds pretty much like the timbre of the R & L, which are not behind the screen. Also*:*


Our screen is electrically retractable. When I say "no loss" through the screen fabric, if I remember the old REW curves correctly, I mean that the response around 12K and 16 K are the same distance from "Flat" (i.e., Flat = 0dB at 1K) with NO Audyssey and the screen out of the way, and Audyssey FLAT with the screen down (in the way). That would imply that Audyssey corrections are compensating for the fabric being in the way, IMO.
By ear it is a little trickier, because of the other things Audyssey is doing. Audyssey is removing a sort of broad peak centered at 8K. That makes some of the high range a little less bright, but it sounds better that way. Since I'm calibrating Audyssey only with the screen down (in the way), Audyssey is raising the level above ~~12k a little. So, it is both raising and lowering the highs, as expected. As if that weren't enough, other than making many small changes across the spectrum with those hundreds of EQ points, Audyssey is eliminating a dip at ~~ 350 Hz, pulling down a double peak at ~~ 110 Hz and ~~ 150 Hz, and increasing the level below ~~ 42 Hz. These changes have a psychological effect on how I perceive the overall balance, and have an effect all the way up, IMO.

In any case, with the screen in the way, whenever I've switched back and forth between No Audyssey and Audyssey Flat, I've liked Audyssey Flat better. It's clearer, and more "free floating" (whatever that means). With harsh program material (some old, or badly mastered, movies), it is a little less harsh -- perhaps due to cutting the 8K peak -- yet the cymbals shimmer more (the boosting above 12K?).

As you've noticed by now, in my moderately treated room, for most movies, I prefer Audyssey Flat to Audyssey Reference. So do some others. For movies before about 1980, I sometimes use Audyssey Reference to filter out a little distortion in the highs.


----------



## Skylinestar

Regarding 2016-1017 Denon/Marantz AVR, is there any refinement (better accuracy for improved audio quality) in Audyssey XT32? (other than the mobile device addon to shape the curve)


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Sure, tomorrow, its too late now to make such noise.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have only treated early reflections. Having said that, I have posted a picture so you can see what it looks like. Response is worse on left speaker then on right one and I suspect that it is caused mostly by slanted ceiling right above it (which causes bunch of additional combing/SBIR issues in bass area). Unusual room shape doesn't help with treating room in a simple manner like rectangular room. I also don't have bass traps because my waterfall graph is pretty good despite of poor 100-400 Hz response.
> Repositioning anything is not possible but I can try adding bass traps. I will probably make a dedicated HT room in 1-2 years, but until then, I am trying to make the most out of what I have.



Hi,

The wood is attractive, but I think you are right that all the angles, and places where two walls meet are likely to generate distortion from standing waves collecting, or colliding. I think that bass traps would help a lot with the sound quality in your room, irrespective of measurements. And if you use broadband traps, they will provide some additional benefit with potential ringing in mid and high frequencies, as well.

I would start with a good corner trap in the corner where the Ultra is, just moving it away from the corner a little, and add other traps as you can. One of the nice things about this kind of room treatment is that it can travel with you to your next location, and almost every room will benefit from having bass traps. In my personal opinion, the use of bass traps can sometimes be even more desirable than treating early reflections.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I must have missed this post earlier. Sorry to hear about your issue with the Denon. The only thing that I could think to try (since you have already tried a different mic) would be multiple, consecutive, microprocessor resets. Before sending the unit off for servicing, I would try several resets. It might not work, but at least you will have excluded another trouble-shooting option.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


The AVR will be shipped to service center this week end.
Need to find something to fill the gap (of 2 weeks at least)...


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> The AVR will be shipped to service center this week end.
> Need to find something to fill the gap (of 2 weeks at least)...


That's tough, but I'm with you. Being without both my music and movie/TV system for a period of at least two weeks would be very difficult. I wonder if there are places that would rent or loan AVR's? If not, I might have to pick-up something cheap at a pawn shop.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Feri,
> 
> When performing the sub distance tweak, usually you can't get the crossover transition smooth with _both _the CC and the mains...a compromise usually has to be made. That is what we are talking about here.


I hear you Alan, but what IS the best compromise? Is it CC for movies? Is it L&R for music? How about a concert BD? Is it a movie or music? Just thinking out loud!


----------



## pepar

Wha? Someone can hear a "non-smooth" sub-to-CC/sub-to-L&R transition???


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> I hear you Alan, but what IS the best compromise? Is it CC for movies? Is it L&R for music? How about a concert BD? Is it a movie or music? Just thinking out loud!


It really comes down to preference. If you are mostly music, weight towards the mains...if mostly movies, weight towards the CC. Or, if you are like me and want to optimize the best you can for both, you split the difference. 




pepar said:


> Wha? Someone can hear a "non-smooth" sub-to-CC/sub-to-L&R transition???


With my ears, on my system, in my room...I most certainly can.

Here is a pre/post distance tweak example with my mains + subs. Think you could hear that??


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> It really comes down to preference. If you are mostly music, weight towards the mains...if mostly movies, weight towards the CC. Or, if you are like me and want to optimize the best you can for both, you split the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With my ears, on my system, in my room...I most certainly can.
> 
> Here is a pre/post distance tweak example with my mains + subs. Think you could hear that??


Alan,

I saw you make a similar comment over on the PSA thread, regarding the transition from mains to subs with respect to certain music. You spoke, for instance, of sometimes hearing a slight lag in sound from the subs. I just happened to be reading along, and decided I didn't have a dog in the hunt.

But, FWIW, one of the reasons that I prefer to listen to music without my subs is for a similar reason. Music is where my hearing is the most acute, since I am typically listening to well-known acoustical instruments, playing primarily jazz and classical music, and which usually doesn't include synthesized sound, or of course, special audio effects. And it is also where my audio attention is the most focused, since I don't have video activity, dialogue, or story to compete for my attention.

I definitely believe that I get smoother transitions to bass frequencies, relying only on the internal crossovers within my speakers, and not on those crossovers, plus the external ones to my subs, as well. So, I do believe that there is something to what you are saying. I have never gotten involved in the controversy regarding whether some subs are quicker than others with respect to music. But whether it is a question of quickness of response, or an actual measurable issue at the crossover point, or both, is not clear to me. 

And whether this is something that is easy to notice, or very difficult, or something that we get used to with our subs, and simply don't notice at all, I can't say. I can say that it's not something I notice at all when I switch to movies, add my subs, and bass manage my full-range speakers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## D Bone

Alan, do you remember the distance change (before/after) to the sub to get those results?


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> It really comes down to preference. If you are mostly music, weight towards the mains...if mostly movies, weight towards the CC. Or, if you are like me and want to optimize the best you can for both, you split the difference.


Not sure Alan that I understand this "preference" thing. The system does not really know what is being played, right? Film or music, what is the difference? Both are electical signals fed into the system, noting more. IMHO, the key point should always be room-speaker interaction and our way of perception, regardless of what program material we are playing. 




> With my ears, on my system, in my room...I most certainly can.
> 
> Here is a pre/post distance tweak example with my mains + subs. Think you could hear that??


My recurring question: is this a one point in space (probably at MLP) measurement or is it a multiple measurement with mic placed around the seating area and averaged in REW?

BTW, the green curve doesn't really look good from above 130 Hz.


----------



## Alan P

D Bone said:


> Alan, do you remember the distance change (before/after) to the sub to get those results?


It's in the legend of the graph, but my labels aren't the clearest; 6.8' as set by Audyssey, 12.8' for the flattest response.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Not sure Alan that I understand this "preference" thing. The system does not really know what is being played, right? Film or music, what is the difference? Both are electical signals fed into the system, noting more. IMHO, the key point should always be room-speaker interaction and our way of perception, regardless of what program material we are playing.


Agreed Feri, however, on a "movies only" (or "movies dominant") system, the CC is used much more than any other channel while in a "music only" (or "music dominant") system, the FL/FR are used more. The "preference" would be for which activity you prefer to optimize.

Luckily, on my system (and others I have seen post here), the sub distance setting that produces the flattest response with the CC just happens to be the same for the FL/FR, but that is more often than not, _not _the case.




> My recurring question: is this a one point in space (probably at MLP) measurement or is it a multiple measurement with mic placed around the seating area and averaged in REW?


I'll admit that this particular measurement is a single point. However, I have taken multi-point measurements around my MLP with little to no variation so I am fairly certain that this is a fair representation of my actual response.



> BTW, the green curve doesn't really look good from above 130 Hz.


You realize this is un-smoothed, right? But yes, I realize I still had some slight issues back when I took that measurement. I have since installed some bass traps and that region has cleaned up a bit. Attached is a graph of what it looks like more recently.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Agreed Feri, however, on a "movies only" (or "movies dominant") system, the CC is used much more than any other channel while in a "music only" (or "music dominant") system, the FL/FR are used more. The "preference" would be for which activity you prefer to optimize.


Actually Alan, I'd prefer to optimize for room-speaker interaction, regardless of what is dominant or what is used "much more". 



> Luckily, on my system (and others I have seen post here), the sub distance setting that produces the flattest response with the CC just happens to be the same for the FL/FR, but that is more often than not, _not _the case.


Hmm! 



> I'll admit that this particular measurement is a single point. However, I have taken multi-point measurements around my MLP with little to no variation so I am fairly certain that this is a fair representation of my actual response.


Hmm, again! 



> You realize this is un-smoothed, right? But yes, I realize I still had some slight issues back when I took that measurement. I have since installed some bass traps and that region has cleaned up a bit. Attached is a graph of what it looks like more recently.


Alan, your recent graph of mains + sub starts out at 90 dB at 20 Hz and then it ends at 73 dB at 200 Hz. That's a 17 dB difference. I'm starting to worry! Or should I not?


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Actually Alan, I'd prefer to optimize for room-speaker interaction, regardless of what is dominant or what is used "much more".


Well, Feri, if you had ever performed the distance tweak you would already know what I'm trying to convey here. Have you not?




> Alan, your recent graph of mains + sub starts out at 90 dB at 20 Hz and then it ends at 73 dB at 200 Hz. That's a 17 dB difference. I'm starting to worry! Or should I not?


As I've posted in this thread before, I _am _running my subs approximately 14dB hot*...and, like I've posted in this thread before, some might call me crazy. 

*In a VERY large room, with DynEQ off of course.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> As I've posted in this thread before, I _am _running my subs approximately 14dB hot*...and, like I've posted in this thread before, some might call me crazy.


I don't think it's accurate to say that *some* might call you crazy,  although I am running +15db, with no DEQ myself, so you seem perfectly sane to me.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Well, Feri, if you had ever performed the distance tweak you would already know what I'm trying to convey here. Have you not?


 As commented about two Moons ago I did perform the tweak, found no real improvement, so I returned to the original settings. But that's just me! 



> As I've posted in this thread before, I _am _running my subs approximately 14dB hot*...and, like I've posted in this thread before, some might call me crazy.
> 
> *In a VERY large room, with DynEQ off of course.


Running subs hot explains what I have experienced on your graphs. Enjoy!!  

I will not comment on "DynEQ off, of course" as long as you are listening at 0 dB MV, where DEQ automatically turns itself off!!


----------



## Alan P

Nope, listening (usually) at -10MV.

When I was using DynEQ, I had the subs +8dB. At -10MV, DynEQ adds 6dB of boost. Since I prefer how the system sounds without DynEQ, I just manually added the same boost that DynEQ was adding at my preferred listening level.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Nope, listening (usually) at -10MV.
> 
> When I was using DynEQ, I had the subs +8dB. At -10MV, DynEQ adds 6dB of boost. Since I prefer how the system sounds without DynEQ, I just manually added the same boost that DynEQ was adding at my preferred listening level.


Alan, I'm gonna add something here that I'm sure you and many others who frequently visit this thread already know. This just as a reminder! 

As you say DEQ adds 6 dB of perceptual boost at -10 dB MV with the purpose of restoring bass as per our ears characteristics is only one side of the story. DEQ actually is a much more sophisticated software.

It is a two-tier solution. On one hand it looks at the actual MV setting and when its lower than 0 dB it applies an electrical boost in order to flatten out perceptual bass response. 

Then the second tier operation looks at the program material (in real time. i.e. on-the-fly) that is being played and as soft and loud parts follow, DEQ applies another compensation accordingly. 

This is working so smoothly, its only gonna be apparent when taken away (read: DEQ off). 

No other loudness compensation solution on the market I know of has the same feature of DEQ.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> This is working so smoothly, its only gonna be apparent when taken away (read: DEQ off).


And, IMO, it's very apparent when it is taken away...everything just sounds _better_, less "muddy", more "open", etc.


----------



## nflguy

I want to give a quick shout out to Chad. He came to my house today while on his tour in the DFW area. After calibrating my projector he setup my Denon AVR and the result is AMAZING! The sound in my 7.1 media room and my 5.1 family room kicks serious butt after Chad finished calibrating them. I highly recommend having him setup your audio to get the most out of it.


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> It really comes down to preference. If you are mostly music, weight towards the mains...if mostly movies, weight towards the CC. Or, if you are like me and want to optimize the best you can for both, you split the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With my ears, on my system, in my room...I most certainly can.
> 
> Here is a pre/post distance tweak example with my mains + subs. Think you could hear that??


Alan - Indeed that is a HUGE difference. I saw your post about this and the procedure a couple days ago, please let me see if I have this right... So when using sub 1 and sub 2 outputs with the 8802A, Audyseey will calibrate each sub independently (or each group of subs gained matched and attached to sub 1 together and sub 2 together). But it does not look at how sub(s) 1 and sub(s) 2 interact. So the idea with the distance trick is that you use REW afterward to measure with all subs going, and with each remeasure, increase the distance by 1 foot for the sub out with the lowest distance and decrease the distance by 1 foot for the sub out with the highest distance, and remeasure. Rinse and repeat until you have the best looking graph.

Do I have this right? Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I don't think it's accurate to say that *some* might call you crazy,  although I am running +15db, with no DEQ myself, so you seem perfectly sane to me.


And you both seem sane to me, as well. With no DEQ, I usually run the sub at 5 dB hot, but for a few movies, I push it up to 9 dB hot (or a bit more).


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> And, IMO, it's very apparent *when it is taken away...everything just sounds better, less "muddy", more "open", etc.*


Exactly!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Alan - Indeed that is a HUGE difference. I saw your post about this and the procedure a couple days ago, please let me see if I have this right... So when using sub 1 and sub 2 outputs with the 8802A, Audyseey will calibrate each sub independently (or each group of subs gained matched and attached to sub 1 together and sub 2 together). But it does not look at how sub(s) 1 and sub(s) 2 interact. So the idea with the distance trick is that you use REW afterward to measure with all subs going, and with each remeasure, increase the distance by 1 foot for the sub out with the lowest distance and decrease the distance by 1 foot for the sub out with the highest distance, and remeasure. Rinse and repeat until you have the best looking graph.
> 
> Do I have this right? Thanks!


There is one aspect of this that you may already understand, but I think it bears repeating just in case. When you say that Audyssey calibrates each sub independently (or each group of subs on Sub 1 or Sub 2), the only calibration performed is for distance (timing) and level. The more important EQing of the subs occurs for all of the subs as a group, however they are configured. I am pretty sure that you know that from earlier discussions, but for others who may be reading this, it's an important distinction, particularly when people mix dissimilar subs and then try to rely on Audyssey, even with SubEQ, to EQ them separately.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

I am certain I would hear it if I saw the graph first. 



Alan P said:


> Here is a pre/post distance tweak example with my mains + subs. Think you could hear that??


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> Alan - Indeed that is a HUGE difference. I saw your post about this and the procedure a couple days ago, please let me see if I have this right... So when using sub 1 and sub 2 outputs with the 8802A, Audyseey will calibrate each sub independently (or each group of subs gained matched and attached to sub 1 together and sub 2 together). But it does not look at how sub(s) 1 and sub(s) 2 interact. So the idea with the distance trick is that you use REW afterward to measure with all subs going, and with each remeasure, increase the distance by 1 foot for the sub out with the lowest distance and decrease the distance by 1 foot for the sub out with the highest distance, and remeasure. Rinse and repeat until you have the best looking graph.
> 
> Do I have this right? Thanks!


The sub distance tweak is performed in order to get the sub(s) in-phase with the mains and/or CC, _not _with each other (although that is an important step as well). Audyssey usually does a good job at getting the relative phase (delay) between the 2 subs right...not so much when it comes to the speakers. This is because Audyssey never measures subs+speakers together so it doesn't even have the information needed to do so.


Again, here is my short version:




Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
Add/subtract to the sub distance setting (both subs equally) in 1' increments
Re-measure
Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


----------



## Alan P

pepar said:


> I am certain I would hear it if I saw the graph first.


A 60hz wide, -25dB dip is very audible with or without seeing the graph. If this is inaudible to you, maybe you're in the wrong hobby.


----------



## Gary J

And in the wrong thread when subs +15dB. Audyssey FUBAR thread more appropriate.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


Alan, I still don't get it why you are insisting on separate procedures for movies and for music. Just re-read the subwoofer tweak PDF and there is no mentioning of the above. So, again: why the distinction? The HT system itself has no idea what is being played, right? This is all about a specific speaker-room interaction that has nothing to do with the "type" of program material being played! It will work (or not) even with measurement test signals!

Care to shed some light on your thougths? Thx.


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> Can we see a graph of said chaos??


I am about to post graphs but not sure which smoothing to use for left and right and which frequency range?
Also, whats the procedure nowadays for waterfall graphs? If I recall correctly, someone around here mentioned that there should be 40 dB difference from top to bottom of graph at SPL we measured. So, if we measure at 85dB, top would be 85, bottom 45, and also time range 450 ms?

EDIT: I suppose also that measurement should be taken about 40dB or more above noise floor?



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The wood is attractive, but I think you are right that all the angles, and places where two walls meet are likely to generate distortion from standing waves collecting, or colliding. I think that bass traps would help a lot with the sound quality in your room, irrespective of measurements. And if you use broadband traps, they will provide some additional benefit with potential ringing in mid and high frequencies, as well.
> 
> I would start with a good corner trap in the corner where the Ultra is, just moving it away from the corner a little, and add other traps as you can. One of the nice things about this kind of room treatment is that it can travel with you to your next location, and almost every room will benefit from having bass traps. In my personal opinion, the use of bass traps can sometimes be even more desirable than treating early reflections.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I tweaked sub distance today, made significant improvement. I have attached my last measurement. Red line is center channel with final sub tweak and blue line is me adding 4 broadband panels on right side reflection of center channel. It is actually effectively 2x 8" broadband traps. I ran 135 Hz tone with SPL meter fixed at MLP and ran with panels around the room until I gained some SPL there. Coincidentally, I have put all those panels in same place Ethan Winer suggested. His suggestion was basically to put them symetrically to panels on other side of room regardless that they actually stand on floor about 6 feet from side wall (and couch)


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> Alan, I still don't get it why you are insisting on separate procedures for movies and for music. Just re-read the subwoofer tweak PDF and there is no mentioning of the above. So, again: why the distinction? The HT system itself has no idea what is being played, right? This is all about a specific speaker-room interaction that has nothing to do with the "type" of program material being played! It will work (or not) even with measurement test signals!
> 
> Care to shed some light on your thougths? Thx.


You are misunderstanding his point. Its not about type of material played but about speakers that play material.
If you are watching primarily movies then make sub-tweak with center channel because thats where most important content comes from. In that case it may be possible that crossover transition between sub and mains may not be smoothest.
If you are listening primarily to music then make sub-tweak with left and right channel because, again, thats where ALL of the content comes from. In this case it could be possible that crossover transition between sub and center may not be smoothest.

You can even imagine it in a much more dramatic way. Imagine you have two speakers at various positions in room and a subwoofer. You listen to your content only on one speaker + subwoofer at a time.
If you do subtweak for speaker No1, then crossover transition for speaker No2 could be sub-optimal (pun intended ). If you do sub-tweak for speaker No2, then crossover between speaker No1 and sub will be probably pretty bad.

Ideally, you could do best sub-tweak with center, then best one with fronts, memorize both distance numbers and simply switch between them if you listen to surround/stereo content.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> You are misunderstanding his point. Its not about type of material played but about speakers that play material.
> If you are watching primarily movies then make sub-tweak with center channel because thats where most important content comes from. In that case it may be possible that crossover transition between sub and mains may not be smoothest.
> If you are listening primarily to music then make sub-tweak with left and right channel because, again, thats where ALL of the content comes from. In this case it could be possible that crossover transition between sub and center may not be smoothest.



Ummm, yeah...what donktard said.

And what I basically said just a few posts up.


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> You are misunderstanding his point. Its not about type of material played but about speakers that play material.
> If you are watching primarily movies then make sub-tweak with center channel because thats where most important content comes from. In that case it may be possible that crossover transition between sub and mains may not be smoothest.
> If you are listening primarily to music then make sub-tweak with left and right channel because, again, thats where ALL of the content comes from. In this case it could be possible that crossover transition between sub and center may not be smoothest.
> 
> You can even imagine it in a much more dramatic way. Imagine you have two speakers at various positions in room and a subwoofer. You listen to your content only on one speaker + subwoofer at a time.
> If you do subtweak for speaker No1, then crossover transition for speaker No2 could be sub-optimal (pun intended ). If you do sub-tweak for speaker No2, then crossover between speaker No1 and sub will be probably pretty bad.
> 
> Ideally, you could do best sub-tweak with center, then best one with fronts, memorize both distance numbers and simply switch between them if you listen to surround/stereo content.


This all above is plain wrong, sorry donktard. In a surround sound system you have a lot of speakers that may (or may not) interact well with the sub(s) at the crossover splice all around in a multi-seat environment. Program material doesn't matter in this case. Full stop. Hope we can get an end to spreading out wrong information. Please! 

P.s. What do you think of music in a movie?


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> I am about to post graphs but not sure which smoothing to use for left and right and which frequency range?


You got it right...for sub graphs, no smoothing and 20hz-300hz. You can change the lower limit to your sub's -3dB point though so we can see how low you can go. 




> Also, whats the procedure nowadays for waterfall graphs? If I recall correctly, someone around here mentioned that there should be 40 dB difference from top to bottom of graph at SPL we measured. So, if we measure at 85dB, top would be 85, bottom 45, and also time range 450 ms?


I believe that is correct.



> EDIT: I suppose also that measurement should be taken about 40dB or more above noise floor?


Don't think it matters as long as you are showing a 40dB difference.

Personally, I think the spectrogram is almost a more useful tool for looking at ringing.




> I tweaked sub distance today, made significant improvement. I have attached my last measurement. Red line is center channel with final sub tweak and blue line is me adding 4 broadband panels on right side reflection of center channel.


Looks like the traps cleaned it up a bit from 120-160hz for sure, good job there.

I'm not really seeing the "chaos from 100-400hz" you were talking about earlier. Sure, it looks a little ragged over ~150hz, but that's pretty much normal. Once you get above the modal region, you should apply smoothing to better represent what you can actually hear. Either use Variable or 1/6th above the sub frequencies.

I would expect to see the bass response a bit more flat higher up though. Where is your crossover set? It seem like you are dropping significantly from 40-100hz, then the response starts to slowly rise again to 300hz. Can we see the same measurement but with Audyssey off?

I hope Feri or Gary J don't see how hot you're running your subs! You may incur their wrath. 


EDIT: Since we are now getting into graph interpretation, it may be best to move this discussion to the REW thread or your own thread.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> This all above is plain wrong, sorry donktard. In a surround sound system you have a lot of speakers that may (or may not) interact well with the sub(s) at the crossover splice all around in a multi-seat environment. Program material doesn't matter in this case. Full stop. Hope we can get an end to spreading out wrong information. Please!
> 
> P.s. What do you think of music in a movie?


Feri,

We all know that you place ultimate trust in Audyssey and it can do no wrong in your eyes...but some of us _don't_. While we appreciate all that Audyssey does right, we realize it's flaws and prefer to get that last ounce of performance out of our system. That is what the distance tweak (among others) is all about.

In terms of the distance tweak, program material does matter, it can matter _a lot_ (just ask any of the 2 channel purists  ).


Please answer these two questions:

If you had a music only system and the tools to do so, why on earth would you _not _tweak the sub distance to optimize the splice between sub(s) and mains?

If you had a movie only system and the tools to do so, why on earth would you _not _tweak the sub distance to optimize the splice between CC and mains?


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> I am about to post graphs but not sure which smoothing to use for left and right and which frequency range?
> Also, whats the procedure nowadays for waterfall graphs? If I recall correctly, someone around here mentioned that there should be 40 dB difference from top to bottom of graph at SPL we measured. So, if we measure at 85dB, top would be 85, bottom 45, and also time range 450 ms?
> 
> EDIT: I suppose also that measurement should be taken about 40dB or more above noise floor?
> 
> I tweaked sub distance today, made significant improvement. I have attached my last measurement. Red line is center channel with final sub tweak and blue line is me adding 4 broadband panels on right side reflection of center channel. It is actually effectively 2x 8" broadband traps. I ran 135 Hz tone with SPL meter fixed at MLP and ran with panels around the room until I gained some SPL there. Coincidentally, I have put all those panels in same place Ethan Winer suggested. His suggestion was basically to put them symetrically to panels on other side of room regardless that they actually stand on floor about 6 feet from side wall (and couch)


I'm with Alan on this one. I don't really see anything chaotic here, but I am also puzzled by the drop-off above about 40Hz. The Ultra should be pretty flat all the way up to 120Hz or so, almost irrespective of crossover. But out of curiosity, where is your CC crossover set? I would also be curious to see the graph with your fronts included. Does that help at all from about 40hz up?

Ethan is obviously a great source of information, but I do have one thought on traps. They typically work best when they are open-back panels (that means one or more very large holes are cut out of the plywood backing), and can be situated with an air pocket behind them (typically of 4" to 6"). That works better than simply doubling their thickness, and is another reason why corners work well. You just put one across a corner and you already have an air pocket behind the panel. You still get the broadband benefits, but may pick-up some lower frequency benefit, as well. But with that said, I'm not going to argue traps, or trap locations, with Ethan.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Feri,
> 
> We all know that you place ultimate trust in Audyssey and it can do no wrong in your eyes...but some of us _don't_. While we appreciate all that Audyssey does right, we realize it's flaws and prefer to get that last ounce of performance out of our system. That is what the distance tweak (among others) is all about.
> 
> In terms of the distance tweak, program material does matter, it can matter _a lot_ (just ask any of the 2 channel purists  ).


Alan, will all due respect, I think you didn't really answer my question, right? HOW does program material matter? HT system does not know what is being played. But I think I'm repeating myself, again and again!




> Please answer these two questions:
> 
> If you had a music only system and the tools to do so, why on earth would you _not _tweak the sub distance to optimize the splice between sub(s) and mains?
> 
> If you had a movie only system and the tools to do so, why on earth would you _not _tweak the sub distance to optimize the splice between CC and mains?


I think I already answered this question! No difference between source material that the system can (or can not) recognize!!!!!!!

Anything from hereon is pure speculation, or preference, or even placebo. The distinction of music and movies has nothing to do with Audyssey, eh? Let's try to think out of the box. May we?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Alan, will all due respect, I think you didn't really answer my question, right? HOW does program material matter? HT system does not know what is being played. But I think I'm repeating myself, again and again!
> 
> 
> I think I already answered this question! No difference between source material that the system can (or can not) recognize!!!!!!!
> 
> Anything from hereon is pure speculation, or preference, or even placebo. The distinction of music and movies has nothing to do with Audyssey, eh? Let's try to think out of the box. May we?


Hi Feri,

If I had any sense (it's been amply demonstrated that I don't) I would stay out of this.  But I'm friends with both of you, and I think that there is some genuine misunderstanding occurring. I think that things have bogged down a little on the issue of the difference between music and movies, when the original point of the distance tweak was more about finding the best general splice for overall frequency response.

First, I have never tried Alan's sub distance tweak, nor have I wanted to, so I'm speaking purely hypothetically here. But there is a difference between listening to music in 2.1 and watching a movie in 5.1. No difference at all to Audyssey, but plenty of difference to the listener. A number of people have reported that they prefer to listen to music in two-channel stereo, but need to use their sub(s) for bass. And many of them use Audyssey for that. Audyssey doesn't care. It works great for everything.

But if those people can hypothetically get a better splice at the crossover between their fronts, the only speakers in their system at that point, and their subs, then why wouldn't they want to do that? That was the point that Alan was making. The problem for me comes in with the notion of moving back and forth between two-channel, and 5.1, applications. Trying to remember distance adjustments, and tweak them back-and-forth, sounds like a kludge. Much easier to pick your best compromise distance settings and use them for everything, which is pretty much what Alan said at one point before things bogged down on music versus movies.

I don't know that there would be as much practical benefit in even trying the sub distance tweak, unless you had multiple subs. And whether there would be any audible or measurable benefit from it would remain to be seen, depending on the individual circumstance. But I certainly wouldn't condemn anyone for wanting to experiment. It's always easy enough to default back to the original settings if the tweak didn't work well.

Just thought I would try to move things past what seemed like a slight misunderstanding between friends. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> Looks like the traps cleaned it up a bit from 120-160hz for sure, good job there.
> 
> I'm not really seeing the "chaos from 100-400hz" you were talking about earlier. Sure, it looks a little ragged over ~150hz, but that's pretty much normal. Once you get above the modal region, you should apply smoothing to better represent what you can actually hear. Either use Variable or 1/6th above the sub frequencies.
> 
> I would expect to see the bass response a bit more flat higher up though. Where is your crossover set? It seem like you are dropping significantly from 40-100hz, then the response starts to slowly rise again to 300hz. Can we see the same measurement but with Audyssey off?
> 
> I hope Feri or Gary J don't see how hot you're running your subs! You may incur their wrath.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Since we are now getting into graph interpretation, it may be best to move this discussion to the REW thread or your own thread.


Take a look at my left speakers full range graph (variable smoothing). Compared to the right one it looks pretty terrible. Crossover is at 80 Hz on fronts and cc, 90 on surrounds.

I will keep posting on REW topic from now on so I don't clutter here (after I answer your other questions just below here  ).

EDIT: I measured on a noisy day, but I think ringing on waterfall/spectrogram above 100 Hz might be either due acoustic panel frame vibrating on floor (didn't notice it though) or some other rattling machinery. 




mthomas47 said:


> I'm with Alan on this one. I don't really see anything chaotic here, but I am also puzzled by the drop-off above about 40Hz. The Ultra should be pretty flat all the way up to 120Hz or so, almost irrespective of crossover. But out of curiosity, where is your CC crossover set? I would also be curious to see the graph with your fronts included. Does that help at all from about 40hz up?
> 
> Ethan is obviously a great source of information, but I do have one thought on traps. They typically work best when they are open-back panels (that means one or more very large holes are cut out of the plywood backing), and can be situated with an air pocket behind them (typically of 4" to 6"). That works better than simply doubling their thickness, and is another reason why corners work well. You just put one across a corner and you already have an air pocket behind the panel. You still get the broadband benefits, but may pick-up some lower frequency benefit, as well. But with that said, I'm not going to argue traps, or trap locations, with Ethan.


Okay, so here is the issue from 40 Hz up.
First of all, after Audyssey calibration I made a +3dB boost at 31 Hz with Q of about 2.0 (not sure, but widest one) on parametric EQ of my subwoofer because it looked better that way.
Obviously, I run sub about 10 dB hot and so far when I did post calibration corrections I focused on my left speaker because its graph looks worst.
Before all of todays tweaks I actually ran sub with phase flipped for 180 because graph looked super flat that way from 16 to 90 Hz, then goes massive dip and then rest of the graph.
With phase at 0 there is a rolloff from 40 Hz the way you see it now and I ran todays sub tweak with phase at 0.
That begs for two questions. Will my response still improve if I switch phase? Is there actually a difference between flipping phase (i can do 15 degree increments) and distance tweak?

The reason why I think trap works at that location is because it actually treats SBIR. Also, all my traps actually have no plywood backing at all, just fabric. Not sure how big mistake is that.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Alan, will all due respect, I think you didn't really answer my question, right? HOW does program material matter? HT system does not know what is being played. *But I think I'm repeating myself, again and again.*


As am I.

Shall we just agree to disagree?


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> Take a look at my left speakers full range graph (variable smoothing). Compared to the right one it looks pretty terrible. Crossover is at 80 Hz on fronts and cc, 90 on surrounds.
> 
> I will keep posting on REW topic from now on so I don't clutter here (after I answer your other questions just below here  ).
> 
> EDIT: I measured on a noisy day, but I think ringing on waterfall/spectrogram above 100 Hz might be either due acoustic panel frame vibrating on floor (didn't notice it though) or some other rattling machinery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, so here is the issue from 40 Hz up.
> First of all, after Audyssey calibration I made a +3dB boost at 31 Hz with Q of about 2.0 (not sure, but widest one) on parametric EQ of my subwoofer because it looked better that way.
> Obviously, I run sub about 10 dB hot and so far when I did post calibration corrections I focused on my left speaker because its graph looks worst.
> Before all of todays tweaks I actually ran sub with phase flipped for 180 because graph looked super flat that way from 16 to 90 Hz, then goes massive dip and then rest of the graph.
> With phase at 0 there is a rolloff from 40 Hz the way you see it now and I ran todays sub tweak with phase at 0.
> That begs for two questions. Will my response still improve if I switch phase? Is there actually a difference between flipping phase (i can do 15 degree increments) and distance tweak?
> 
> The reason why I think trap works at that location is because it actually treats SBIR. Also, all my traps actually have no plywood backing at all, just fabric. Not sure how big mistake is that.



I can comment more later (almost dinner time), but you need 5dB steps on the left side on all graphs....the 2dB steps are making your response look worse than it actually is. 


EDIT: Can you share the MDAT?


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> I can comment more later (almost dinner time), but you need 5dB steps on the left side on all graphs....the 2dB steps are making your response look worse than it actually is.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Can you share the MDAT?


https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcqkmw8tiuh7u2p/sub-tweak2.rar?dl=0

Here you go. Some measurements are couple of dB louder then others (last ones probably) because i turned the volume up at one point while playing sine waves.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kcqkmw8tiuh7u2p/sub-tweak2.rar?dl=0
> 
> Here you go. Some measurements are couple of dB louder then others (last ones probably) because i turned the volume up at one point while playing sine waves.


Hmmm....something very strange going on here.

It looks like your FR/FL are running about 15dB higher than your center. Is that possible??

I would recommend that you retake all measurements and make sure they are all at the exact same MV level.

What's weird is that your subwoofer level seems to be consistent throughout all measurements, but the CC level and the FR/FL levels change dramatically.

When you are measure a channel+sub are you using CH4 (LFE) out of REW (e.g. CH3 on output 1 and CH4 on output 2)? If so, don't do that.

To measure CC+subs, just use CH3 alone. To measure FL, CH1. Etc.

Also, label each measurement clearly with which channel(s) you are measuring.


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> ...We all know that you place ultimate trust in Audyssey and it can do no wrong in your eyes...but some of us _don't_. While we appreciate all that Audyssey does right, we realize it's flaws and prefer to get that last ounce of performance out of our system. That is what the distance tweak (among others) is all about...


What else besides the distance tweak are the best bang for the buck tweaks to make (the things you meant by "among others" above)? Thanks!


----------



## lovingdvd

I have a Marantz 8802a with XT32. After running Audyssey I found the high frequencies were a little too bright. I read in the FAQ this can be related to toe-in. However as the FAQ states, some speakers are not designed to be toed in. And according to my acoustic engineer I am working with he said my speakers are very wide dispersion (coaxial design) and with my MLP only 20 degrees off axis to the L/R his recommendation was not to toe in, as it would make little difference in the FR (not to mention I didn't really have enough room behind my baffle wall for the "wings" that would be needed to build a toed-in baffle wall).

So what I am getting at - is there any way to tweak the response curve with Audyseey, or that is what Pro is all about? With Pro can you set target curves for all channels? I would not mind toning the high frequencies down a tad. Then again, when I ran Audyssey I only used the one mic position because I misunderstood at the time - I didn't want it to measure other positions since I only cared about the MLP and didn't want a compromised MLP. Only later did I learn in the FAQ that XT32 relies on multiple measures and the more the better. I am going to rerun Audyssey and take all 8 measurements and see if that makes a difference. In looking at the results graph (some suggested you can't really go by those too much, so FWIW...) it is boosting my high end by like +8 to +10 dB. Which is surprising because I thought it won't add boosts greater than + 3dB?


----------



## audiofan1

lovingdvd said:


> I have a Marantz 8802a with XT32. After running Audyssey I found the high frequencies were a little too bright. I read in the FAQ this can be related to toe-in. However as the FAQ states, some speakers are not designed to be toed in. And according to my acoustic engineer I am working with he said my speakers are very wide dispersion (coaxial design) and with my MLP only 20 degrees off axis to the L/R his recommendation was not to toe in, as it would make little difference in the FR (not to mention I didn't really have enough room behind my baffle wall for the "wings" that would be needed to build a toed-in baffle wall).
> 
> So what I am getting at - is there any way to tweak the response curve with Audyseey, or that is what Pro is all about? With Pro can you set target curves for all channels? I would not mind toning the high frequencies down a tad. Then again, when I ran Audyssey I only used the one mic position because I misunderstood at the time - I didn't want it to measure other positions since I only cared about the MLP and didn't want a compromised MLP. Only later did I learn in the FAQ that XT32 relies on multiple measures and the more the better. I am going to rerun Audyssey and take all 8 measurements and see if that makes a difference. In looking at the results graph (some suggested you can't really go by those too much, so FWIW...) it is boosting my high end by like +8 to +10 dB. Which is surprising because I thought it won't add boosts greater than + 3dB?


 If your not using a boom mic stand. Get one! Also try lowering the mic height a bit to lessen brightness, others can recommend different mic positions but #1 can be the most critical do try to insure its no further out than 9"(from the head rest) from the actual place your head will be to insure proper distance of all channels, as I've found it can a direct correlation on timing , precision and overall imaging that point.2,3 or 4 can make all the difference in the world


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I have a Marantz 8802a with XT32. After running Audyssey I found the high frequencies were a little too bright. I read in the FAQ this can be related to toe-in. However as the FAQ states, some speakers are not designed to be toed in. And according to my acoustic engineer I am working with he said my speakers are very wide dispersion (coaxial design) and with my MLP only 20 degrees off axis to the L/R his recommendation was not to toe in, as it would make little difference in the FR (not to mention I didn't really have enough room behind my baffle wall for the "wings" that would be needed to build a toed-in baffle wall).
> 
> So what I am getting at - is there any way to tweak the response curve with Audyseey, or that is what Pro is all about? With Pro can you set target curves for all channels? I would not mind toning the high frequencies down a tad. Then again, when I ran Audyssey I only used the one mic position because I misunderstood at the time - I didn't want it to measure other positions since I only cared about the MLP and didn't want a compromised MLP. Only later did I learn in the FAQ that XT32 relies on multiple measures and the more the better. I am going to rerun Audyssey and take all 8 measurements and see if that makes a difference. In looking at the results graph (some suggested you can't really go by those too much, so FWIW...) it is boosting my high end by like +8 to +10 dB. Which is surprising because I thought it won't add boosts greater than + 3dB?


Hi,

Audiofan's suggestion to be sure that you are using a boom mic stand is a good one, as is the suggestion to be careful that most of your measurements (and particularly #1) don't go above ear height. You will also need an adapter to attach your Audyssey mic, if you aren't already using something like a mic stand. Examples of both are in the FAQ.

Toe-in is very speaker and situation specific, in my opinion. Some speakers seem to work best crossing in front of the MLP, for instance, rather than pointed right at it. So, if your speakers are in a fixed position, then so be it. If not, you could experiment just a little. This is the sort of thing I meant earlier when I said that you would probably want to run multiple calibrations over time.

Audyssey can be very finicky, because the mic "hears" subtle issues that would not be audible at all to our hearing. And in "hearing" those issues, it tries to fix them. So, getting just the right toe-in for your speakers, and approximately the right mic height, can make a difference in your Audyssey calibration. Another thing that can matter is getting your mic too close to a hard surface, whether that hard surface is a wall, or the back of a leather chair. High frequency reflections from those surfaces, and into the Audyssey mic, can create comb filtering, causing Audyssey to make unnecessary high-end corrections, including boosts. All of those things can contribute to brighter highs.

I actually prefer to stay within about 6" of my chair back, but to use a fluffy absorbent blanket over the back of the chair, to prevent comb filtering. After calibrating, I remove the blanket. It's there temporarily, and specifically to prevent high frequency reflections due to proximity between the chair back and the mic.

I would absolutely ignore the graphs. They have very little value in defining what Audyssey is actually doing. Once you have a good calibration (some people get better success with a close mic pattern, and some get better results with more mic dispersion) you can continue to experiment with settings. If you find that you still want to roll-off your highs a little, one way to do it is to use the tone control in your Marantz to take a little treble off. You can only employ those controls when DEQ is disabled, so that is a trade-off.

That is something you can experiment with to decide what you like. There are people whose opinions I respect, who use DEQ for everything, and others who use it only for movies, and never for music. Still others don't use it at all. To me it's sort of like what flavor of ice cream you like, or the type of car you prefer to drive. You simply like what you like. I believe that's one of the things that Alan may have been referring to when he spoke of other tweaks to make Audyssey work best for your personal use. How much sub boost you prefer to employ is another example.

There are good protocols to follow when starting out, but at some point we all have to decide how we enjoy using our available technologies. So, once you have a good initial calibration, I wouldn't hesitate to experiment with the settings in order to discover what really works best with your speakers, in your room.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> Hmmm....something very strange going on here.
> 
> It looks like your FR/FL are running about 15dB higher than your center. Is that possible??
> 
> I would recommend that you retake all measurements and make sure they are all at the exact same MV level.
> 
> What's weird is that your subwoofer level seems to be consistent throughout all measurements, but the CC level and the FR/FL levels change dramatically.
> 
> When you are measure a channel+sub are you using CH4 (LFE) out of REW (e.g. CH3 on output 1 and CH4 on output 2)? If so, don't do that.
> 
> To measure CC+subs, just use CH3 alone. To measure FL, CH1. Etc.
> 
> Also, label each measurement clearly with which channel(s) you are measuring.


Apologies, I made a lots of inconsistent mess there. I won't even bother explaining. But in the end, I am using multi ch in mode on AVR to measure center while fronts and rears are turned off. Not sure how it works, but I assume that could have something with lowering the level. 

Will make better measurements today during final tweaks, but I'd still like to know answer to my question: what is the difference between changing phase on sub and setting distance in avr?


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> As am I.
> 
> Shall we just agree to disagree?


Alan,

I'll try to sum up my position on this issue of subwoofer distance tweak and the related film vs. music issue as follows:

1. First off, I think due respect to each other is the key to a successful thread like this one. Sharing opinions can be fun, but sometimes may have the purpose of helping out each other, especially the ones who are silent readers and may get enthusiastic on certains posts.

2. I would never select a speaker in my system based on "importance". In my system and for me each of the speakers + sub(s) have the same importance, no priority is given to any one of them. They each have their separately well defined role, so for me priority for tweaking a certain speaker or a pair has no real meaning, especially not with regards to program material.

3. I would never sacrifice something in the name of "improvement" when I do not know what else will degrade.

4. I would never do a one point measurement coz that will surely not allow any serious conclusions to be made on overall system improvement (or the lack of it). Checking CC+sub after a distance tweak without looking into what happens to all the other speakers is not my cup of tea.

5. I thing starting a sentence with the word "We" is probably not the most appropriate way to address an issue for further discussions!  I dunno who is "we". 

6. And as a side note, setting the sub trims +15 dB hot with MV at -10 dB should be a candidate for a Guiness World Record of highest SPL (read: 120 dB) ever reached in a home theater system the world over. (Couldn't resist!) 

Let's have a rest here. Anything further discussed will surely boil down to personal preference. Nothing wrong with that, really! Each of us just have different priorities/ preferences we like when it comes to system setup and should bring about no further debate!

(Hands are shaking! )


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> 3. I would never sacrifice something in the name of "improvement" when I do not know what else will degrade.


1. You have frequency response of all your speakers before sub tweak.
2. You make a sub tweak with focus on specific speaker.
3. You conclude that all of your speakers responses have improved after sub tweak. Or not, if they didn't, you simply revert to (1) and keep it that way.
4. You do additional distance tweaks to improve responses on speakers of your preference. If it doesn't look acceptable on all speakers you revert to (3).

So, since (2) improved responses of all your speakers in that case (4) will never look worse then (1), no matter if your primary focus was on cc or fronts, where exactly is that "sacrifice"? I see only benefits, given that you do everything properly.


----------



## donktard

mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey can be very finicky, because the mic "hears" subtle issues that would not be audible at all to our hearing. And in "hearing" those issues, it tries to fix them. So, getting just the right toe-in for your speakers, and approximately the right mic height, can make a difference in your Audyssey calibration. Another thing that can matter is getting your mic too close to a hard surface, whether that hard surface is a wall, or the back of a leather chair. High frequency reflections from those surfaces, and into the Audyssey mic, can create comb filtering, causing Audyssey to make unnecessary high-end corrections, including boosts. All of those things can contribute to brighter highs.
> 
> I actually prefer to stay within about 6" of my chair back, but to use a fluffy absorbent blanket over the back of the chair, to prevent comb filtering. After calibrating, I remove the blanket. It's there temporarily, and specifically to prevent high frequency reflections due to proximity between the chair back and the mic.


Interesting. Did you maybe compare measurements with and without blanket thrown over a seat?
Don't you think it might also be possible that fluffy blanket takes away enough energy from highs so Audyssey decides to boost them and once you remove blanket you actually encounter even more brightness/sharpness?


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> I have a Marantz 8802a with XT32. After running Audyssey I found the high frequencies were a little too bright. I read in the FAQ this can be related to toe-in. However as the FAQ states, some speakers are not designed to be toed in. And according to my acoustic engineer I am working with he said my speakers are very wide dispersion (coaxial design) and with my MLP only 20 degrees off axis to the L/R his recommendation was not to toe in, as it would make little difference in the FR (not to mention I didn't really have enough room behind my baffle wall for the "wings" that would be needed to build a toed-in baffle wall).
> 
> So what I am getting at - is there any way to tweak the response curve with Audyseey, or that is what Pro is all about? With Pro can you set target curves for all channels? I would not mind toning the high frequencies down a tad. Then again, when I ran Audyssey I only used the one mic position because I misunderstood at the time - I didn't want it to measure other positions since I only cared about the MLP and didn't want a compromised MLP. Only later did I learn in the FAQ that XT32 relies on multiple measures and the more the better. I am going to rerun Audyssey and take all 8 measurements and see if that makes a difference. In looking at the results graph (some suggested you can't really go by those too much, so FWIW...) it is boosting my high end by like +8 to +10 dB. Which is surprising because I thought it won't add boosts greater than + 3dB?


I can't remember, do you have leather (or "leather-like") seating? If so, Mike's suggestion to use a blanket (or multiple blankets) over the furniture during calibration can certainly help with perceived "brightness".


----------



## Alan P

Feri,



mogorf said:


> 1. First off, I think due respect to each other is the key to a successful thread like this one. Sharing opinions can be fun, but sometimes may have the purpose of helping out each other, especially the ones who are silent readers and may get enthusiastic on certains posts.


I do respect your opinion, and if I have seemed to differ, please forgive me.




> 2. I would never select a speaker in my system based on "importance". In my system and for me each of the speakers + sub(s) have the same importance, no priority is given to any one of them. They each have their separately well defined role, so for me priority for tweaking a certain speaker or a pair has no real meaning, especially not with regards to program material.


If you have done the distance tweak and have found no difference between your subs+CC and subs+mains measurements, you are among the lucky ones. Most however need to compromise one or the other. As I have repeatedly said, this is the point I am trying to convey. You seem not to get it...and that's OK.




> 3. I would never sacrifice something in the name of "improvement" when I do not know what else will degrade.


But you _do _know, via FR measurements.




> 4. I would never do a one point measurement coz that will surely not allow any serious conclusions to be made on overall system improvement (or the lack of it). Checking CC+sub after a distance tweak without looking into what happens to all the other speakers is not my cup of tea.


A single point measurement is pretty much the standard with most REW users. I know it is not ideal, but it is the norm.

Personally, I check CC+subs and mains+subs post-distance tweak. Not sure what everyone else does, but I definitely check "other speakers".




> 5. I thing starting a sentence with the word "We" is probably not the most appropriate way to address an issue for further discussions!  I dunno who is "we".


I did not start the sentence with "we", and I was obviously referring to you and I when I said "Shall we just agree to disagree?".




> 6. And as a side note, setting the sub trims +15 dB hot with MV at -10 dB should be a candidate for a Guiness World Record of highest SPL (read: 120 dB) ever reached in a home theater system the world over. (Couldn't resist!)



Bass behaves strangely in my extreme size room. I am not alone in having to run the sub trim that high to get satisfactory results. It is not _that _unusual (just ask Mike).



> Let's have a rest here. Anything further discussed will surely boil down to personal preference. Nothing wrong with that, really! Each of us just have different priorities/ preferences we like when it comes to system setup and should bring about no further debate!
> 
> (Hands are shaking! )


(Hand shaking back!)


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> What else besides the distance tweak are the best bang for the buck tweaks to make (the things you meant by "among others" above)? Thanks!


Off the top of my head, in no particular order;

- Making sure you stay under "0dB" on the sub trim
- Making sure the sub trim isn't at either extreme post-Audyssey
- Using an external tone generator (or REW) to set post-Audyssey speaker trims
- experiment with turning off DynEQ and using the tone controls/sub trim to get to your preference instead
- turning off DynVOL
- if using DynEQ, turn down SUR trims a few dB to stop them from being overpowering below Reference
- experiment with Audyssey Flat vs. Audyssey


I'm sure there's more, just can't think of them the moment.


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> I can't remember, do you have leather (or "leather-like") seating? If so, Mike's suggestion to use a blanket (or multiple blankets) over the furniture during calibration can certainly help with perceived "brightness".





Alan P said:


> Off the top of my head, in no particular order;
> 
> - Making sure you stay under "0dB" on the sub trim
> - Making sure the sub trim isn't at either extreme post-Audyssey
> - Using an external tone generator (or REW) to set post-Audyssey speaker trims
> ...


Hi Alan,

Regarding using REW to set post_audyssey speaker trims - I hadn't noted that, must have missed it. So IOW are you saying that REW with the UMIK-1 will be more accurate for setting the trims than Audyssey?

Regarding makging sure the sub trim stays under 0 dB - Tonight I followed your advice from a few days ago and repeated the Audyssey calibration (as you may reall I followed things by the letter my last time around and wound up needing about +3 dB to be happy with the sub output). So this time I had the subwoofer volume control up higher at the start. When Audyssey said it was around 82 dB and complained, I chose the option to Skip the level matching. To my surprise when it completed everything, it did match the levels afterall... It set my L trim at -9, R trim at -8 and sub trim at -10. Is that about what you were expecting?

The issue I have with this is that now I have to set my MV about +10 dB where I'd normally want it, which I find bothersome since i'm used to the real dB scale and about where the volume should be set for my preference of low medium and loud playback. Also I could run out of headroom like if I want to listen at reference it would mean +10 dB. So was this what you would have expected and OK, or did I do something wrong - and if so what can I do differently when I rerun it?

I could just "fix" things by adding adding 8 db to everything and I'd have L at -1, R at 0 and sub at -2?? Or should I just fix this some other way? BTW I did notice that according to REW the trims were all set equally balanced, but when I added +8 dB to all trims, the R channel became louder relative to the L, which surprised me. So anyway for now I am back to the low trims as set by Audyssey.

Please advice if you would be so kind. Thank you!


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> That's tough, but I'm with you. Being without both my music and movie/TV system for a period of at least two weeks would be very difficult. I wonder if there are places that would rent or loan AVR's? If not, I might have to pick-up something cheap at a pawn shop.


This is really crazy.
I was all ready to ship this out to service. 
Before that I wanted to make sure the problem persists so that there should be no question from the bench.
To my surprise I could run the Audyssey w/o a single error. Dang.
Now I am really lost. The only difference when I saw the problem vs today is, earlier I used to run on a "cold" start.
Today I tried to do it after watching an entire movie. Would that make any difference, I don't know.
Planning to do it on a cold start tomorrow and see if it appears again.
I really don't want service to say they can not reproduce the problem. Looks like I need to hold on and find the exact condition that is reproducible.
One more thing to note that I do a complete shutoff (from wall switch) when the AVR (and all other equip) when not in use.
This is kind of soft reset after every use. Can this contribute to the problem?


----------



## gurkey

lovingdvd said:


> Hey guys - I'm a new owner of the Marantz 8802A and I have a few questions about Audyseey and some of the sound settings please.
> 
> 1. When I ran Audsyeey it said my L/R (I only have a 2.1 setup at the moment) were out of phase, but had a disclaimer that even with the proper wiring it may still think that with some rooms). I double checked my wiring and its correct. I assume this is fairly normal if they have that disclaimer in there. My temporary set up is in a room that's far from ideal - 12 foot ceiling, windows all along a side wall and rear wall, fully open side of the room etc. Just curious what conditions can cause this and if its safe to ignore.
> 
> 2. It has my distances quite wrong. It thinks my L/R are 2 feet further than they are. And it thinks my subwoofer is 10 feet further than it is. Should I manually fix these in them menu? Or is the Audyseey configuration all tied to this and if it thinks that's the distance that it needs for the EQ compensation just leave it as is? IOW while my overrides would be much more accurate, perhaps acoustically-speaking the speakers are that further distance because of the room characteristics and just leave it?
> 
> 3. Audsyssey did a great job on my subwoofer EQ. But it left it far more flat and subtle than I'd like. I've used REW+BFD before to calibrate my own in previous setups and I usually add a house curve and like to run the subs about +5 dB "hot". What's the best way to compensate for this? I assume I can't do a house curve. But how about making the sub +5 dB hot? I know I can turn up the subs volume control, but then I lose the ability to know how much I've added and go back to where I was if I wanted. I noticed there are TWO places where you can seemingly control the subwoofer output level... There is a "Subwoofer" adjust in the Audio menu. And there is a subwoofer Level in the Speakers (IIRC that's the place) menu. Is there any difference between these locations at all? For instance if I was to +5 dB in the Subwoofer Adjust area, is there any difference if I was to leave that at 0 and just add +5 dB in the Speaker Level menu? Perhaps the Subwoofer Adjust applies differently for each input, whereas the setting in the Levels menu applies globally to the inputs?
> 
> 4. Audsyssey chose 60 hz as the crossover. It sounds good but I tend to prefer 80 hz. I know I can change this in the menus, but in doing so, does it then throw off the Audsyssey calibration or it internal automatically compensates?
> 
> 5. Overall I am thrilled at how much better my room sounds with Audyssey engaged. I had Yamaha YPAO in their AVRs and it never seemed to help so Audyssey is far superior. I understand their is a Pro version. How much better is it than XT-32 and what's the primary advantages of the Pro version?
> 
> Thanks!!



Having the detected "distances" (delays) wrong has to be divided into two classes (your micro must be in the exact main listening position/seat at heads height during first measurement round):

a) measured "distances" (delay) are shorter than physically determined. There may be resonances or coupling through solid materials like floor, walls, furniture etc, which have an increased speed of sound (solid material), thus resulting in a to short calculated distance(s). This must be corrected by youself by taking constructive measures to tame this because its erroneous.

b) measured "distances" (delay) are longer than than physically determined. This should only happen to the sub(s), because phase deviations between the sub and the speakers are been corrected this way on purpose. This is been done "normally" by adding som additional delay to the subs output, thus moving the sub (virtually) further away. Do not correct. 

But this shouldn't happen to any of the other speakers. It might possibly occur, if the micro doesn't detect the first wave front coming from the speakers directly (direct sound) but only "sees" (hears) the reflections which travel somewhat longer. This i.e. could happen if there is no direct line of sight between a speaker and the microphone or the reflections are much louder than the direct sound as measured. This has to be corrected by the user (exception: "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers, which use reflections on walls and ceiling on purpose).

It is quite common after running Audyssey, that users are "not thrilled" by the bass output (level), because the removal (mostly) of room modes does lower the audible bass level, because those pre-existing resonances of higher output level are almost non existent anymore. This is "linear" bass as is recorded in the source material, and it takes some time for the brain to get used / adjust too (learn) again. You could use DynamicEQ for compensating this frequency and level dependend "deficiency" of the human hearing (Fletcher Munson curves). Just try/activate it and adjust the corresponding reference level to your liking.


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> This is really crazy.
> I was all ready to ship this out to service.
> Before that I wanted to make sure the problem persists so that there should be no question from the bench.
> To my surprise I could run the Audyssey w/o a single error. Dang.
> Now I am really lost. The only difference when I saw the problem vs today is, earlier I used to run on a "cold" start.
> Today I tried to do it after watching an entire movie. Would that make any difference, I don't know.
> Planning to do it on a cold start tomorrow and see if it appears again.
> I really don't want service to say they can not reproduce the problem. Looks like I need to hold on and find the exact condition that is reproducible.
> One more thing to note that I do a complete shutoff (from wall switch) when the AVR (and all other equip) when not in use.
> This is kind of soft reset after every use. Can this contribute to the problem?



I am glad that you may not have to ship the AVR off for servicing, but I have absolutely no idea why it's working better now. Perhaps the threat of being shipped away to strangers did it. 

Seriously, though, anything involving microprocessors seems to be subject to whims and vagaries that I don't understand at all. I have been having trouble with my Roku 3 lately. Sometimes when I go to Spotify it will work perfectly. Other times, when I try to play a song it will simply not play. I have no idea why. My "fix" is to do a soft reset, by unplugging the unit (and then replugging it ) every time I want to use it. That infallibly works, and only takes a few seconds, but it's still a PITA that it is glitching for no apparent reason.

FWIW, I do think that doing a soft reset every time you are not using the AVR could be a factor. I just don't know why, exactly.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> Regarding using REW to set post_audyssey speaker trims - I hadn't noted that, must have missed it. So IOW are you saying that REW with the UMIK-1 will be more accurate for setting the trims than Audyssey?
> 
> Regarding makging sure the sub trim stays under 0 dB - Tonight I followed your advice from a few days ago and repeated the Audyssey calibration (as you may reall I followed things by the letter my last time around and wound up needing about +3 dB to be happy with the sub output). So this time I had the subwoofer volume control up higher at the start. When Audyssey said it was around 82 dB and complained, I chose the option to Skip the level matching. To my surprise when it completed everything, it did match the levels afterall... It set my L trim at -9, R trim at -8 and sub trim at -10. Is that about what you were expecting?
> 
> The issue I have with this is that now I have to set my MV about +10 dB where I'd normally want it, which I find bothersome since i'm used to the real dB scale and about where the volume should be set for my preference of low medium and loud playback. Also I could run out of headroom like if I want to listen at reference it would mean +10 dB. So was this what you would have expected and OK, or did I do something wrong - and if so what can I do differently when I rerun it?
> 
> I could just "fix" things by adding adding 8 db to everything and I'd have L at -1, R at 0 and sub at -2?? Or should I just fix this some other way? BTW I did notice that according to REW the trims were all set equally balanced, but when I added +8 dB to all trims, the R channel became louder relative to the L, which surprised me. So anyway for now I am back to the low trims as set by Audyssey.
> 
> Please advice if you would be so kind. Thank you!



Not Alan, but I will respond to some of this and then he can add his own thoughts. First, Audyssey is very accurate in balancing speakers with each other and with respect to Reference. But you can double-check results with an external source, such as REW, and using an external test tone, if you like. I believe that's all he was saying.

Second, the fact that your sub trim level was set to -10 is in fact what would be expected with a high initial gain. And the whole point of doing that is to give you plenty of headroom in the AVR to increase your sub trim without exceeding 0.0. 

Third, the fact that you set your gain level on the sub higher than 75db, and continued with the calibration, had no bearing at all on where Audyssey set the trim levels for all the satellite channels. It should have still set their levels so that each speaker is playing 75db at the MLP during the calibration. If the resulting trim level is -9 or -10, so be it. That simply means that your speakers are very efficient, and that you have plenty of headroom. You have already determined that all speakers are level-matched, so everything seems to have worked properly.

Fourth, the MV setting that you have now should properly correlate to Reference, and you should be able to verify that with a calibrated SPL meter. So, if you are playing at a louder MV level than you are accustomed to, there is no particular harm in that. If on the other hand, you have some reason to believe that the MV level is not accurate with respect to Reference, that is another matter. In that case, I would recommend trying a couple of microprocessor resets and repeating the Audyssey calibration process to see if you get different trim levels relative to Reference, and a correspondingly different MV level.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

aaranddeeman said:


> This is really crazy.
> I was all ready to ship this out to service.
> Before that I wanted to make sure the problem persists so that there should be no question from the bench.


I have had a problem with my Denon x4000 AVR--when unplugging headphones, the speakers remain muted. I recorded a video of the problem before I sent it to United Radio for warranty service. I included the URL for the video on the sheet I sent in with the unit.

I get an email from them saying that they can't reproduce the problem. I emailed back, "Tell the technician to watch the video." When I checked the repair status a few days later, I saw they were waiting for parts.

Moral of the story: If you can get a video of a malfunction, you're more likely to get the service center to find and fix the problem.


----------



## aaranddeeman

aaranddeeman said:


> This is really crazy.
> I was all ready to ship this out to service.
> Before that I wanted to make sure the problem persists so that there should be no question from the bench.
> To my surprise I could run the Audyssey w/o a single error. Dang.
> Now I am really lost. The only difference when I saw the problem vs today is, earlier I used to run on a "cold" start.
> Today I tried to do it after watching an entire movie. Would that make any difference, I don't know.
> Planning to do it on a cold start tomorrow and see if it appears again.
> I really don't want service to say they can not reproduce the problem. Looks like I need to hold on and find the exact condition that is reproducible.
> One more thing to note that I do a complete shutoff (from wall switch) when the AVR (and all other equip) when not in use.
> This is kind of soft reset after every use. Can this contribute to the problem?


Tested the "cold" start situation this morning. And.. no errors of any kind for 2 rounds of full 8 position calibration.
I am now short of banging my head on the wall.
When I had the problem I could not even run one full calibration without random errors and it finally failing to read the chirps in entirety.
Now I am trying to reproduce it in every which way and it does not happen.
One good thing is I did check one more time before I pack that thing. Else "problem not reproduced" would have been the possible call from service.
I will keep monitoring.


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> I am glad that you may not have to ship the AVR off for servicing, but I have absolutely no idea why it's working better now. Perhaps the threat of being shipped away to strangers did it.
> 
> Seriously, though, anything involving microprocessors seems to be subject to whims and vagaries that I don't understand at all. I have been having trouble with my Roku 3 lately. Sometimes when I go to Spotify it will work perfectly. Other times, when I try to play a song it will simply not play. I have no idea why. My "fix" is to do a soft reset, by unplugging the unit (and then replugging it ) every time I want to use it. That infallibly works, and only takes a few seconds, but it's still a PITA that it is glitching for no apparent reason.
> 
> FWIW, I do think that doing a soft reset every time you are not using the AVR could be a factor. I just don't know why, exactly.


In your case though soft reset is solving the problem.
I was just suspecting if it is causing it. But looks like there may be something else. And it's gonna be damn hard to find it.
Especially when one does not calibrate every now and then.


----------



## aaranddeeman

pbarach said:


> I have had a problem with my Denon x4000 AVR--when unplugging headphones, the speakers remain muted. I recorded a video of the problem before I sent it to United Radio for warranty service. I included the URL for the video on the sheet I sent in with the unit.
> 
> I get an email from them saying that they can't reproduce the problem. I emailed back, "Tell the technician to watch the video." When I checked the repair status a few days later, I saw they were waiting for parts.
> 
> Moral of the story: If you can get a video of a malfunction, you're more likely to get the service center to find and fix the problem.


Good idea. I will remember that when I encounter the problem again.


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Interesting. Did you maybe compare measurements with and without blanket thrown over a seat?
> Don't you think it might also be possible that fluffy blanket takes away enough energy from highs so Audyssey decides to boost them and once you remove blanket you actually encounter even more brightness/sharpness?


Hi,

Those are good questions, and if you wished to, you could certainly test the procedure for yourself, to measure, using alternative approaches to microphone placement near a hard chair back. But, FWIW, this is a well-established procedure, which is listed in the FAQ, endorsed by Chris K, and used by many of the thread participants over the years.

The issue of potential comb filtering at high frequencies, from mic proximity to a hard surface, has always been a knotty one. Everyone understands the concept of a hard surface reflecting very short wavelengths into a nearby microphone. But there has never been any real consensus on what a too close proximity really is. In the early days, Ask Audyssey recommended keeping the mic about 10" away from a chair back, and even further away from a wall (I think it was about 15" to 18", but I'm not certain). That distinction never really made a lot of sense to me, except as a compromise. Very high frequencies would be equally reflected by any hard surface, so there wouldn't be a material (no pun intended) difference between a wall and a smooth leather chair or sofa back.

So, most people on the thread, IIRC, found themselves using about 12" or so, just in case. But, that presented a problem too, because keeping the mic 10" or 12", or so, forward of the chair back meant that the mic would be at least 6" to 8" forward of the actual ear position. For most of us, the average distance from the center of the ear canal to the back of the head is about 4". So, if you typically watch/listen with your head back, the Audyssey mic would be measuring well forward of your actual ear position (and even further from the pinnae which direct sound into the ear canal). And we know that in calibrations, inches matter.

Someone, and I don't remember who, came up with the bright idea of putting an absorbent towel or blanket over the back of a leather chair or sofa, and a number of people tried it with good success. Chris K was consulted, and the procedure was incorporated into the FAQ. It works well because it enables us to keep the Audyssey mic much closer to the actual location of our ear canals, while still preventing comb filtering. And since our heads would be occupying the position during listening, that the blanket occupied during calibration, nothing is lost or gained during the procedure. The very high frequency wavelengths still bounce wildly around the mic (from all directions) during calibration, but none of them are spuriously directed into the mic from short-range (which would tend to over-emphasize them with respect to all the direct, and other indirect, high frequency waves).

But as noted in my original post, Audyssey can be finicky, so too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. It is still necessary, in my experience, to exercise some care with the blanket, vis-a-vis mic placement. For instance, a couple of years ago, I got the bright idea that if one thick absorbent blanket were good, two thick blankets would be even better.  Not so much! In my case, some upper mid-range, lower high frequency waves were absorbed, as well (similar to your speculation about the very high frequencies which we are actually trying to absorb) and the result was some inappropriate boosting in the upper mid-range, and some audible harshness. I went back to a single blanket and the problem was solved.

More recently I screwed up a calibration late at night after adding some more room treatments. I was tired, and in a hurry to finish, and I inadvertently allowed my Audyssey mic to be positioned too close to the blanket I always use. Again, the upper mid-range, and lower high-range, had a harsh quality, which was clearly audible. I repeated my calibration with my more normal diligence, this time making sure that my mic was no closer than 5" or 6" from the blanket, and the problem was solved. I do recommend staying about 5" or 6" away from a blanket, until you have a chance to listen or measure, or both, to determine how the procedure works best in your specific room. With a thinner covering, for instance, I suspect that I could get closer to it than 5" and still not affect the slightly lower than very high-range frequencies that the procedure is intended to address.

I hope that this long explanation is helpful to someone. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I decided to edit this after double-checking a couple of things. First, I can't find the blanket procedure in the FAQ, but I know that putting it in was discussed, and I thought that Keith had incorporated it. I do know that he had endorsed the technique, and I believe that he also used it himself.

Second, I had already double-checked Ask Audyssey on the 10" from chair back recommendation, but with respect to the lack of consensus on the issue, the following is interesting. The Audyssey 101 Guide recommends staying a minimum of 12" away from chair or sofa backs during calibration, and the FAQ recommends 12" to 15". As noted earlier, what the optimum distance really is may be somewhat situation-specific, but using a towel or blanket makes the question somewhat moot, as it is now possible to get quite close to the actual ear position, without encountering spurious reflections into the Audyssey mic.


----------



## donktard

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Those are good questions, and if you wished to, you could certainly test the procedure for yourself, to measure, using alternative approaches to microphone placement near a hard chair back. But, FWIW, this is a well-established procedure, which is listed in the FAQ, endorsed by Chris K, and used by many of the thread participants over the years.
> 
> The issue of potential comb filtering at high frequencies, from mic proximity to a hard surface, has always been a knotty one. Everyone understands the concept of a hard surface reflecting very short wavelengths into a nearby microphone. But there has never been any real consensus on what a too close proximity really is. In the early days, Ask Audyssey recommended keeping the mic about 10" away from a chair back, and even further away from a wall (I think it was about 15" to 18", but I'm not certain). That distinction never really made a lot of sense to me, except as a compromise. Very high frequencies would be equally reflected by any hard surface, so there wouldn't be a material (no pun intended) difference between a wall and a smooth leather chair or sofa back.
> 
> So, most people on the thread, IIRC, found themselves using about 12" or so, just in case. But, that presented a problem too, because keeping the mic 10" or 12", or so, forward of the chair back meant that the mic would be at least 6" to 8" forward of the actual ear position. For most of us, the average distance from the center of the ear canal to the back of the head is about 4". So, if you typically watch/listen with your head back, the Audyssey mic would be measuring well forward of your actual ear position (and even further from the pinnae which direct sound into the ear canal). And we know that in calibrations, inches matter.
> 
> Someone, and I don't remember who, came up with the bright idea of putting an absorbent towel or blanket over the back of a leather chair or sofa, and a number of people tried it with good success. Chris K was consulted, and the procedure was incorporated into the FAQ. It works well because it enables us to keep the Audyssey mic much closer to the actual location of our ear canals, while still preventing comb filtering. And since our heads would be occupying the position during listening, that the blanket occupied during calibration, nothing is lost or gained during the procedure. The very high frequency wavelengths still bounce wildly around the mic (from all directions) during calibration, but none of them are spuriously directed into the mic from short-range (which would tend to over-emphasize them with respect to all the direct, and other indirect, high frequency waves).
> 
> But as noted in my original post, Audyssey can be finicky, so too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. It is still necessary, in my experience, to exercise some care with the blanket, vis-a-vis mic placement. For instance, a couple of years ago, I got the bright idea that if one thick absorbent blanket were good, two thick blankets would be even better.  Not so much! In my case, some upper mid-range, lower high frequency waves were absorbed, as well (similar to your speculation about the very high frequencies which we are actually trying to absorb) and the result was some inappropriate boosting in the upper mid-range, and some audible harshness. I went back to a single blanket and the problem was solved.
> 
> More recently I screwed up a calibration late at night after adding some more room treatments. I was tired, and in a hurry to finish, and I inadvertently allowed my Audyssey mic to be positioned too close to the blanket I always use. Again, the upper mid-range, and lower high-range, had a harsh quality, which was clearly audible. I repeated my calibration with my more normal diligence, this time making sure that my mic was no closer than 5" or 6" from the blanket, and the problem was solved. I do recommend staying about 5" or 6" away from a blanket, until you have a chance to listen or measure, or both, to determine how the procedure works best in your specific room. With a thinner covering, for instance, I suspect that I could get closer to it than 5" and still not affect the slightly lower than very high-range frequencies that the procedure is intended to address.
> 
> I hope that this long explanation is helpful to someone.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for detailed answer.

I forgot to mention though that I personally am using XT32 and as suspected (which I just read in FAQ), XT32 corrects higher frequencies with really wide Q, unlike previous XT versions which did very detailed corrections. And that makes morse sense....when taking multiple measurements variations in high frequency response are dramatic and very "comby" so correcting every peak and dip with steps of 1, 2, 5, 10 Hz doesn't make much sense since you will simply move your head few inches and receive some terribly incorrect sounds. Therefore correcting highs in broad frequency ranges for brightness/darkness seems like an obvious thing.
That being said, even corrections with wide Q can make material sound harsh or dull, no doubt. My issue is mostly with removing a blanket after a measurement. While its true that you occupy most of the space where you measure and therefore you absorb/bounce most of reflections instead of chair/sofa, if back of the chair is high you will still face some nasty reflections and keeping the blanket on would actually be more beneficial imo.
I will definitely try calibrating both ways. But I would prefer more flexibility in manipulating Audyssey curve. Personally, above some high frequency (e.g. 2kHz) I'd probably leave it untouched or slighly tilted if too dark/bright.

EDIT: some of my previous experiments with blankets and acoustic panels concluded that after certain amount of acoustic treatment (on a single spot in a room, e.g. back wall or back of a chair) its not possible to further reduce combing but that its potentially possible to make a mess in midrange and that generally, farther away from hard surfaces mic are, less combing will occur.


----------



## pepar

donktard said:


> 1. You have frequency response of all your speakers before sub tweak.
> 2. You make a sub tweak with focus on specific speaker.
> 3. You conclude that all of your speakers responses have improved after sub tweak. Or not, if they didn't, you simply revert to (1) and keep it that way.
> 4. You do additional distance tweaks to improve responses on speakers of your preference. If it doesn't look acceptable on all speakers you revert to (3).
> 
> So, since (2) improved responses of all your speakers in that case (4) will never look worse then (1), no matter if your primary focus was on cc or fronts, where exactly is that "sacrifice"? I see only benefits, given that you do everything properly.


Somebody involved in this brouhaha please point out where I am wrong.

If A = B and B = C, then A = C.

If your sub is tweaked for your CC and causes chaos with respect to L&R - or - your sub is tweaked for L&R and causes chaos with the CC ... then your LCR cause chaos with each other ... sub or no sub. 

Following the dictum for optimizing our audio systems and our rooms:

1. Speaker placement
2. Listener placement
3. Acoustical treatments ... and finally ..
4. Electronic correction

I am of the opinion that, based on the un-optimized graph I saw a few pages ago, that acoustical treatments would tame all speaker/room interactions and allow for a single sub "tweak".

edit: re-read everything. I might be conflating Alan's and donktard's "issues" ... my post is addressed to whichever changes sub tweaked based on content, i.e. 5.1 vs 2.1.


----------



## donktard

pepar said:


> edit: re-read everything. I might be conflating Alan's and donktard's "issues" ... my post is addressed to whichever changes sub tweaked based on content, i.e. 5.1 vs 2.1.


The only thing I wanted to convey is that if your first subwoofer tweak improves both center and fronts, any additional "finesse" tweak focusing on center or fronts will NEVER sound worse then with no tweaks at all.
But if you make a sub tweak for center and fronts get dramatically worse and vice versa, you are better off with no tweak at all.


----------



## lovingdvd

gurkey said:


> ...b) measured "distances" (delay) are longer than than physically determined. This should only happen to the sub(s), because phase deviations between the sub and the speakers are been corrected this way on purpose. This is been done "normally" by adding som additional delay to the subs output, thus moving the sub (virtually) further away. Do not correct.
> 
> But this shouldn't happen to any of the other speakers. It might possibly occur, if the micro doesn't detect the first wave front coming from the speakers directly (direct sound) but only "sees" (hears) the reflections which travel somewhat longer. This i.e. could happen if there is no direct line of sight between a speaker and the microphone or the reflections are much louder than the direct sound as measured. This has to be corrected by the user (exception: "Dolby Atmos Enabled" speakers, which use reflections on walls and ceiling on purpose)...


I currently have just a 2.1 setup in my living room as a temporary setup until my theater is finished. In my case it puts the L/R channels about 2.5 feet further than they really are. It also detects them as out of phase, which I have verified they are not, both by checking the wiring inside and outside the speakers and also by the "in-phase, out of phase loop" YouTube that Alan pointed me to. The room has glass windows down one side and glass windows and wooden blind/shutters in the rear, and my MLP is just 1.5-2 feet in front of those. So its entirely possible that reflections are throwing things off. I'm not too concerned since this is just a temporary setup and my theater being built will have full treatments from head to toe designed by an acoustic engineer. But in the meantime I am trying to optimize my temporary setup for listening enjoyment and education so I am fully prepared to tweak the audio setup in the new room once ready.



mthomas47 said:


> Not Alan, but I will respond to some of this and then he can add his own thoughts. First, Audyssey is very accurate in balancing speakers with each other and with respect to Reference. But you can double-check results with an external source, such as REW, and using an external test tone, if you like. I believe that's all he was saying.


I just checked this morning. With the UMIK-1 in the MLP and the MV set to 0, using the Test Tones in the 8802a menu the L 1.5 dB light (73.5) and the R was about 2.5 dB light. I tweaked those. The subwoofer was also about 8 dB light, reading around 67 dB. I raised that from -10 to -2. I haven't done any listening tests yet.



> Second, the fact that your sub trim level was set to -10 is in fact what would be expected with a high initial gain. And the whole point of doing that is to give you plenty of headroom in the AVR to increase your sub trim without exceeding 0.0.


Oddly, at least according to REW as I posted above, it set the sub about 8 dB light. This means that by the time I'm done correcting for that, and adding my 3-5 dB boost, I'll be back to having a positive gain for the subwoofer. 



> Third, the fact that you set your gain level on the sub higher than 75db, and continued with the calibration, had no bearing at all on where Audyssey set the trim levels for all the satellite channels. It should have still set their levels so that each speaker is playing 75db at the MLP during the calibration. If the resulting trim level is -9 or -10, so be it. That simply means that your speakers are very efficient, and that you have plenty of headroom. You have already determined that all speakers are level-matched, so everything seems to have worked properly.


Glad to hear it. The final L/R trim after REW tweaking was something like -6.5 dB and -5.0 dB for the L/R. Does that mean that I have the headroom to play at about 5 dB over reference at the MLP? 



> Fourth, the MV setting that you have now should properly correlate to Reference, and you should be able to verify that with a calibrated SPL meter. So, if you are playing at a louder MV level than you are accustomed to, there is no particular harm in that. If on the other hand, you have some reason to believe that the MV level is not accurate with respect to Reference, that is another matter. In that case, I would recommend trying a couple of microprocessor resets and repeating the Audyssey calibration process to see if you get different trim levels relative to Reference, and a correspondingly different MV level.


See above. Thanks for the help.


----------



## lovingdvd

After doing an 8 point Audyseey calibration my measurements with L+R+sub looked pretty good. I had a sharp dip of about -15 dB at around 65 hz. I played with the subwoofer distance, and by raising it from 21 to 27 the dip went away. Is tweaking distance like this known to help get rid of such dips? However, I noticed that when I lowered my subwoofer level 5 dB, the dip came back! I think at that point the sub was set too low. Anyway this made me wonder if my subwoofer distance tweak was actually good and a valid approach, or if it was only good for a certain output level, in which case its not a valid tweak for such a thing?

Another difference that I'm not too happy about is that with the 8 point calibration the sub EQ is not as smooth. It goes from 20-50 nice and flat and then drops about 5 dB for 50-80hz range and then the rest of the range is about the same. Whereas with the 1 point calibration there was no such 5 dB drop off in the subwoofer response and it sounds a bit fuller. Any idea what's caused this?


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I currently have just a 2.1 setup in my living room as a temporary setup until my theater is finished. In my case it puts the L/R channels about 2.5 feet further than they really are. It also detects them as out of phase, which I have verified they are not, both by checking the wiring inside and outside the speakers and also by the "in-phase, out of phase loop" YouTube that Alan pointed me to. The room has glass windows down one side and glass windows and wooden blind/shutters in the rear, and my MLP is just 1.5-2 feet in front of those. So its entirely possible that reflections are throwing things off. I'm not too concerned since this is just a temporary setup and my theater being built will have full treatments from head to toe designed by an acoustic engineer. But in the meantime I am trying to optimize my temporary setup for listening enjoyment and education so I am fully prepared to tweak the audio setup in the new room once ready.
> 
> I just checked this morning. With the UMIK-1 in the MLP and the MV set to 0, using the Test Tones in the 8802a menu the L 1.5 dB light (73.5) and the R was about 2.5 dB light. I tweaked those. The subwoofer was also about 8 dB light, reading around 67 dB. I raised that from -10 to -2. I haven't done any listening tests yet.
> 
> Oddly, at least according to REW as I posted above, it set the sub about 8 dB light. This means that by the time I'm done correcting for that, and adding my 3-5 dB boost, I'll be back to having a positive gain for the subwoofer.
> 
> Glad to hear it. The final L/R trim after REW tweaking was something like -6.5 dB and -5.0 dB for the L/R. Does that mean that I have the headroom to play at about 5 dB over reference at the MLP?
> 
> See above. Thanks for the help.



You are very welcome! And I do have a few thoughts. First, the Audyssey mics have an error factor of +/- 3db, and I believe that the UMIK has an error factor of about +/- 1db, so it's not surprising that they would yield slightly different results. But if you are going to check Audyssey trim levels, just for fun, you should really use an external test tone, generated from a disk, and not test tones from your 8802. That's something that Alan was explaining earlier, and I believe that there is a detailed explanation in the FAQ.

Frankly, I wouldn't tweak any of the satellite trim levels from where Audyssey put them, without a specific reason, such as something specifically sounding too loud on one side. Remember that the goal here is just to make all the speakers play at the same volume at the MLP. And yes, a lower trim level does translate into more headroom to go above Reference, if necessary.

The reason why your sub seems to be measuring so much lower than 75db is harder to explain, but I suspect that it has something to do with the bandwidth-limited internal test tone in the 8802. Perhaps someone else can explain that. But the important thing is how the sub sounds. When you increase the sub trim from the -10 where Audyssey put it to -4, or -2, or whatever, are you getting the bass you want?

I hope that you will take this in the right way, because I know that you are anxious to figure things out,  but if I were you I would give myself a break for awhile from second-guessing the validity of the Audyssey trim settings, and just concentrate on the sound. You can always return to the question of trim settings again as you get more experience with the technology. But for the moment at least, how do things sound to you, when you leave the satellite trims where Audyssey put them, and tweak you sub trim(s) to taste?


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> After doing an 8 point Audyseey calibration my measurements with L+R+sub looked pretty good. I had a sharp dip of about -15 dB at around 65 hz. I played with the subwoofer distance, and by raising it from 21 to 27 the dip went away. Is tweaking distance like this known to help get rid of such dips? However, I noticed that when I lowered my subwoofer level 5 dB, the dip came back! I think at that point the sub was set too low. Anyway this made me wonder if my subwoofer distance tweak was actually good and a valid approach, or if it was only good for a certain output level, in which case its not a valid tweak for such a thing?
> 
> Another difference that I'm not too happy about is that with the 8 point calibration the sub EQ is not as smooth. It goes from 20-50 nice and flat and then drops about 5 dB for 50-80hz range and then the rest of the range is about the same. Whereas with the 1 point calibration there was no such 5 dB drop off in the subwoofer response and it sounds a bit fuller. Any idea what's caused this?



I'm about tapped out for right now, but as Feri continually reminds people, doing a one-point measurement can be very deceptive. So, just as a one-point calibration may seem to provide outstanding frequency response at that single point in space, that's not actually how our ears work, and not how we hear. The same thing can be true with a single measurement. Try calibrating with a very tight microphone pattern, keeping all of your mic positions within about a 12" or 18" radius, with no positions behind the MLP. But, whatever pattern you use, all 8 positions should give Audyssey's weighted average algorithms much better information to EQ your listening area. And how it sounds will ultimately be much more important than how it measures.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I'm about tapped out for right now, but as Feri continually reminds people, doing a one-point measurement can be very deceptive. So, just as a one-point calibration may seem to provide outstanding frequency response at that single point in space, that's not actually how our ears work, and not how we hear. The same thing can be true with a single measurement. Try calibrating with a very tight microphone pattern, keeping all of your mic positions within about a 12" or 18" radius, with no positions behind the MLP. But, whatever pattern you use, all 8 positions should give Audyssey's weighted average algorithms much better information to EQ your listening area. And how it sounds will ultimately be much more important than how it measures.


Fully agree with Mike on the necessity of multi-point measurements, yet I would like to add that the post-Audyssey verification measurements with REW should also always be done in the same manner. 

@*lovingdvd* :

Try to take note of your mic positions during Audyssey setup and place your test mic to the same positions again. 

Then do an 8 point measurement and use the "average" function of REW. This will still not give you the exact picture of what Audyssey did in your room, it will lack the sophistication of the Audyssey algorithm, but will bring you much closer to reality than a single-point REW measurement done at the MLP, especially in the low(er) frequency range.


----------



## D Bone

mogorf said:


> 3. I would never sacrifice something in the name of "improvement" when I do not know what else will degrade.


Ah, but you do, you use an auto EQ program. No auto EQ program ever made is perfect and yes Feri, that includes Audyssey. They all try to improve the overall sound, and most do a decent job, but all of them have their caveats... Throw in funky _"features"_ such as DEQ and DV, and you have even more caveats that actually degrade the overall sound.

Have a good day!


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> Another difference that I'm not too happy about is that with the 8 point calibration the sub EQ is not as smooth. It goes from 20-50 nice and flat and then drops about 5 dB for 50-80hz range and then the rest of the range is about the same. Whereas with the 1 point calibration there was no such 5 dB drop off in the subwoofer response and it sounds a bit fuller. Any idea what's caused this?


Yeah, you know how audyssey tells you to place mic in 8 different positions to measure the response? And usually there is sofa with 3 seats on a picture? And 5 measuring positions aren't even depicted on those 3 seats but around them? Yeah well, since you could have big variations in bass response seat to seat (and around seats) Audyssey tries to optimize so it minimizes variations in that whole area, which is you know...fine, if you have 6 people watching with you and care somewhat about their audio experience.
But if you prefer watching alone...or simply don't care how everyone around you hears the movie (  ), then you will sit in your fine sofa, lean forward/backward, left and right and make calibration pattern with microphones only as far as your head goes around, which will in turn result in best averaged response for a single listening position.
Measuring single spot only multiple times actually confuses audyssey (since response is always the same) and it makes some corrections it shouldn't.


----------



## mogorf

D Bone said:


> Ah, but you do, you use an auto EQ program. No auto EQ program ever made is perfect and yes Feri, that includes Audyssey. They all try to improve the overall sound, and most do a decent job, but all of them have their caveats... Throw in funky _"features"_ such as DEQ and DV, and you have even more caveats that actually degrade the overall sound.
> 
> Have a good day!


D Bone, nobody ever said auto EQ is prefect, even Audyssey not. Fully agree. Yet, DEQ and especially DV has nothing to do with acoustics. DEQ is there to compensate spectral balance for our ears as MV is lowered, while DV is a convenience feature not to bother loved ones or neighbours when watching a movie late night. But you also know this!!


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> I'm about tapped out for right now, but as Feri continually reminds people, doing a one-point measurement can be very deceptive. So, just as a one-point calibration may seem to provide outstanding frequency response at that single point in space, that's not actually how our ears work, and not how we hear. The same thing can be true with a single measurement. Try calibrating with a very tight microphone pattern, keeping all of your mic positions within about a 12" or 18" radius, with no positions behind the MLP. But, whatever pattern you use, all 8 positions should give Audyssey's weighted average algorithms much better information to EQ your listening area. And how it sounds will ultimately be much more important than how it measures.


Thanks for that - good to know and to keep in mind. 



mogorf said:


> ...Then do an 8 point measurement and use the "average" function of REW. This will still not give you the exact picture of what Audyssey did in your room, it will lack the sophistication of the Audyssey algorithm, but will bring you much closer to reality than a single-point REW measurement done at the MLP, especially in the low(er) frequency range.


Thanks I had overlooked that 1 point REW vs multi-point Audyssey. I understand what you are saying.



donktard said:


> Yeah, you know how audyssey tells you to place mic in 8 different positions to measure the response? And usually there is sofa with 3 seats on a picture? And 5 measuring positions aren't even depicted on those 3 seats but around them? Yeah well, since you could have big variations in bass response seat to seat (and around seats) Audyssey tries to optimize so it minimizes variations in that whole area, which is you know...fine, if you have 6 people watching with you and care somewhat about their audio experience.
> But if you prefer watching alone...or simply don't care how everyone around you hears the movie (  ), then you will sit in your fine sofa, lean forward/backward, left and right and make calibration pattern with microphones only as far as your head goes around, which will in turn result in best averaged response for a single listening position.
> Measuring single spot only multiple times actually confuses audyssey (since response is always the same) and it makes some corrections it shouldn't.


Sounds like a great idea. As an Audyssey newb I had ran it and just did a single point, because I only care about a single seat and didn't want it to take other seats into account. But after getting advice here and reading the FAQ I realized the importance of the multiple measurements. I am going to repeat the test but with the multiple measuring points grouped much closer together, like 6" apart in each direction from position 1 and see how that goes.

Here's an interesting question - my couch is just 1.5 foot off the rear wall so there's no room to measure behind it - should I just skip measures 7 and 8, or still do these measures but measure them in other nearby spots which are near the MLP but not behind it? IOW is Audyssey expecting measures 7 and 8 to be behind the listener, or are these just two extra data points for averaging and it doesn't really matter where they are just as long as they are close to the MLP?



mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! And I do have a few thoughts. First, the Audyssey mics have an error factor of +/- 3db, and I believe that the UMIK has an error factor of about +/- 1db, so it's not surprising that they would yield slightly different results. But if you are going to check Audyssey trim levels, just for fun, you should really use an external test tone, generated from a disk, and not test tones from your 8802. That's something that Alan was explaining earlier, and I believe that there is a detailed explanation in the FAQ.


I checked the trims after my last calibration using REW and the Right channel was just 0.5 dB less than it should have been. But I left it in the position it picked figuring that maybe it had its reason. I did do the levels with REW's signal generator and they were very close to even this way (like mentioned just 0.5 dB off). When using the internal test tone they were like 1.5 dB off. Really strange that they would put test tones in that don't measure accurately, don't you think?



> Frankly, I wouldn't tweak any of the satellite trim levels from where Audyssey put them, without a specific reason, such as something specifically sounding too loud on one side. Remember that the goal here is just to make all the speakers play at the same volume at the MLP. And yes, a lower trim level does translate into more headroom to go above Reference, if necessary.


After running my latest calibration (6 point, since I have no room behind the sofa for measures 7 and 8 as mentioned above) I left everything as it was, including the distances which are about 2 feet too long.



> The reason why your sub seems to be measuring so much lower than 75db is harder to explain, but I suspect that it has something to do with the bandwidth-limited internal test tone in the 8802. Perhaps someone else can explain that. But the important thing is how the sub sounds. When you increase the sub trim from the -10 where Audyssey put it to -4, or -2, or whatever, are you getting the bass you want?


I can get the bass output I want. I just have to crank up the trim for the sub. It set it at -10 dB. I find that at -5 dB its doing what I want, with a dB or two tweak here or there based on source. DEQ is working nicely too - I really like it. Does a great job "filling in" bass when listening at low levels.



> I hope that you will take this in the right way, because I know that you are anxious to figure things out,  but if I were you I would give myself a break for awhile from second-guessing the validity of the Audyssey trim settings, and just concentrate on the sound. You can always return to the question of trim settings again as you get more experience with the technology. But for the moment at least, how do things sound to you, when you leave the satellite trims where Audyssey put them, and tweak you sub trim(s) to taste?


Things sound amazing really with all these configurations! With the exception of one or two calibration attempts sounding a bit too bright. Right now I have it sounding great. I've used the Save function to save off some of the calibrations. But unfortunately its really hard to know from memory which calibration set is the best. One could be quite a bit better than the other, but without instant A/B switching its hard to know. Just like trying to compare on projectors image to another sometimes - without them side by side its hard to remember exactly what one looked like vs another. Same situation here, just with audio instead of video.

BTW on another note - *Audyssey keeps wanting to set my XO at 40 Hz*. My speakers are rated down to 40 Hz, and REW confirms that it is handling that just fine, so I am not surprised. That said, for reasons stated in the FAQ I prefer to run the XO at 80hz and set it that way in the manual settings. The FAQ says this doesn't impact Audyssey, but I feel like it could. Anyway it would be nice if there was a setting to tell Audyssey to use the desired XO and let it optimize around that.


----------



## lovingdvd

Guys - what accessory / accessories are you using to connect your Audyssey mic to a boom? I have a boom that has a thick threaded end that I use for the UMIK-1 and REW. The UMIK-1 mic holder accessory screws into that thread (after removing the thicker "socket" screw thingy from inside the mic holder accessory), and the UMIK-1 snaps into the mic holder. That works great for the UMIK-1 and REW. But I want a way to attach the Audyssey mic to the boom...

I see the Audyssey mic has a small thread on the end, but even if that screwed into the boom I have (it wouldn't since the boom thread is much thicker than the screw slot in the Audyssey mic), I still need some sort of accessory that would allow me to rotate the Audyssey mic so it can point upward (even if I screwed it into the boom it would then be pointed straight forward instead of up). If you could please point me to links on Amazon or elsewhere for everything/whatever I need to get this Audyssey mic attached with flexibility to the boom that would be terrific. Thanks!


----------



## martynic

lovingdvd said:


> Guys - what accessory / accessories are you using to connect your Audyssey mic to a boom? I have a boom that has a thick threaded end that I use for the UMIK-1 and REW. The UMIK-1 mic holder accessory screws into that thread (after removing the thicker "socket" screw thingy from inside the mic holder accessory), and the UMIK-1 snaps into the mic holder. That works great for the UMIK-1 and REW. But I want a way to attach the Audyssey mic to the boom...
> 
> I see the Audyssey mic has a small thread on the end, but even if that screwed into the boom I have (it wouldn't since the boom thread is much thicker than the screw slot in the Audyssey mic), I still need some sort of accessory that would allow me to rotate the Audyssey mic so it can point upward (even if I screwed it into the boom it would then be pointed straight forward instead of up). If you could please point me to links on Amazon or elsewhere for everything/whatever I need to get this Audyssey mic attached with flexibility to the boom that would be terrific. Thanks!


I use a boom mic stand that has the standard mic connector (slip mic into type) that sounds the same as what you have. What I do is turn this mic holder down so that there is a flat surface parallel to the ceiling and then I set the Audyssey mic on this and secure it with a little duct tape.


----------



## audiofan1

lovingdvd said:


> Guys - what accessory / accessories are you using to connect your Audyssey mic to a boom? I have a boom that has a thick threaded end that I use for the UMIK-1 and REW. The UMIK-1 mic holder accessory screws into that thread (after removing the thicker "socket" screw thingy from inside the mic holder accessory), and the UMIK-1 snaps into the mic holder. That works great for the UMIK-1 and REW. But I want a way to attach the Audyssey mic to the boom...
> 
> I see the Audyssey mic has a small thread on the end, but even if that screwed into the boom I have (it wouldn't since the boom thread is much thicker than the screw slot in the Audyssey mic), I still need some sort of accessory that would allow me to rotate the Audyssey mic so it can point upward (even if I screwed it into the boom it would then be pointed straight forward instead of up). If you could please point me to links on Amazon or elsewhere for everything/whatever *I need to get this Audyssey mic attached with flexibility to the boom that would be terrific. Thanks!*


I use this one

http://https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-Digital-Recorder-Adapter/dp/B001GWCC4I/ref=sr_1_1?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1470633603&sr=1-1&keywords=On+Stage+CM01+Video+Camera%2FDigital+Recorder+Adapter


----------



## lovingdvd

audiofan1 said:


> lovingdvd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guys - what accessory / accessories are you using to connect your Audyssey mic to a boom? I have a boom that has a thick threaded end that I use for the UMIK-1 and REW. The UMIK-1 mic holder accessory screws into that thread (after removing the thicker "socket" screw thingy from inside the mic holder accessory), and the UMIK-1 snaps into the mic holder. That works great for the UMIK-1 and REW. But I want a way to attach the Audyssey mic to the boom...
> 
> I see the Audyssey mic has a small thread on the end, but even if that screwed into the boom I have (it wouldn't since the boom thread is much thicker than the screw slot in the Audyssey mic), I still need some sort of accessory that would allow me to rotate the Audyssey mic so it can point upward (even if I screwed it into the boom it would then be pointed straight forward instead of up). If you could please point me to links on Amazon or elsewhere for everything/whatever *I need to get this Audyssey mic attached with flexibility to the boom that would be terrific. Thanks!*
> 
> 
> 
> I use this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://https://www.amazon.com/CM01-...ge+CM01+Video+Camera/Digital+Recorder+Adapter
Click to expand...

Looks great, thanks. Does the threaded male part that comes with this fit the Audussey mic, or do I need an adapter for it?

Also I have this boom https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000978D58/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_bGcQxbNEFEPZH that says it has a solid cast end with standard 5/8-27 threads. Will that fit onto the other end of this accessory you linked to or do I need an adapter for that (and if so, do you know which)? Thanks!


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> Here's an interesting question - my couch is just 1.5 foot off the rear wall so there's no room to measure behind it - should I just skip measures 7 and 8, or still do these measures but measure them in other nearby spots which are near the MLP but not behind it? IOW is Audyssey expecting measures 7 and 8 to be behind the listener, or are these just two extra data points for averaging and it doesn't really matter where they are just as long as they are close to the MLP?


Audyssey only cares where first measurement is. Like I said, spread out mic within the range of your head movement.


----------



## pepar

http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/windscreens_mounts/6fc579f90a35f176/index.html
(allows the full swiveling needed)

And

http://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...e=&network=g&gclid=CJDIxcHjsc4CFYtZhgodhkMBww
(the actual adapter)


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for that - good to know and to keep in mind.
> 
> 
> Thanks I had overlooked that 1 point REW vs multi-point Audyssey. I understand what you are saying.
> 
> 
> Sounds like a great idea. As an Audyssey newb I had ran it and just did a single point, because I only care about a single seat and didn't want it to take other seats into account. But after getting advice here and reading the FAQ I realized the importance of the multiple measurements. I am going to repeat the test but with the multiple measuring points grouped much closer together, like 6" apart in each direction from position 1 and see how that goes.
> 
> Here's an interesting question - my couch is just 1.5 foot off the rear wall so there's no room to measure behind it - should I just skip measures 7 and 8, or still do these measures but measure them in other nearby spots which are near the MLP but not behind it? IOW is Audyssey expecting measures 7 and 8 to be behind the listener, or are these just two extra data points for averaging and it doesn't really matter where they are just as long as they are close to the MLP?
> 
> 
> I checked the trims after my last calibration using REW and the Right channel was just 0.5 dB less than it should have been. But I left it in the position it picked figuring that maybe it had its reason. I did do the levels with REW's signal generator and they were very close to even this way (like mentioned just 0.5 dB off). When using the internal test tone they were like 1.5 dB off. Really strange that they would put test tones in that don't measure accurately, don't you think?
> 
> After running my latest calibration (6 point, since I have no room behind the sofa for measures 7 and 8 as mentioned above) I left everything as it was, including the distances which are about 2 feet too long.
> 
> 
> I can get the bass output I want. I just have to crank up the trim for the sub. It set it at -10 dB. I find that at -5 dB its doing what I want, with a dB or two tweak here or there based on source. DEQ is working nicely too - I really like it. Does a great job "filling in" bass when listening at low levels.
> 
> 
> Things sound amazing really with all these configurations! With the exception of one or two calibration attempts sounding a bit too bright. Right now I have it sounding great. I've used the Save function to save off some of the calibrations. But unfortunately its really hard to know from memory which calibration set is the best. One could be quite a bit better than the other, but without instant A/B switching its hard to know. Just like trying to compare on projectors image to another sometimes - without them side by side its hard to remember exactly what one looked like vs another. Same situation here, just with audio instead of video.
> 
> BTW on another note - *Audyssey keeps wanting to set my XO at 40 Hz*. My speakers are rated down to 40 Hz, and REW confirms that it is handling that just fine, so I am not surprised. That said, for reasons stated in the FAQ I prefer to run the XO at 80hz and set it that way in the manual settings. The FAQ says this doesn't impact Audyssey, but I feel like it could. Anyway it would be nice if there was a setting to tell Audyssey to use the desired XO and let it optimize around that.



You are very welcome! I won't try to address everything here, but there are a few points where some additional clarification may be helpful. First, I would definitely use all 8 mic positions, but I would not go behind the MLP, particularly with a wall just 18" away. Assuming that you are not dealing with a second row of seating, whatever mic pattern you are using describes a box around (to the sides and in front of) the MLP. It can be a big box, with a radius of 2' to 3' from the MLP, or it can be a small box, with a radius of 12" or less. But just do all 8 mic positions within that box. For positions 7 and 8, I stay fairly close to position #1 , going out about 6" or so to each side, and up about 2" above ear level. But that's just one approach. Anywhere within your box should be fine for 7 and 8. Incidentally, I am pretty anal about getting the mic height right at the middle of my ear canal for 1 through 6. And that height may be lower than you think, if you haven't really measured it.

I agree that it can be very difficult to compare calibrations, given the short-term nature of audio memory. But the more you perfect your calibration technique, the more your calibrations should become fairly consistent in reproducing very similar sounding results. As mentioned earlier, it is very helpful to keep a log of your last/best mic pattern, so that you can return to that specific pattern whenever you need to do another calibration.

Audyssey doesn't actually set your crossover. Your AVR (or pre pro) does. That may seem like an unimportant distinction, but I thought you would want to understand this. Audyssey measures a speaker (CC) or a speaker pair, and reports the F3 point (the frequency where the volume of a speaker is down by 3db) to the AVR. The AVR then assigns Large, or Small with a crossover, based on its own internal algorithm. The assignment is based on the higher response of a pair of speakers, if the F3 points are not identical (typically due to room placement). Each company has its own formula for assigning crossovers (Denon/Marantz should be exactly the same) and they should be very similar, but might not be identical. For instance, if a speaker pair has an F3 point of 38Hz, are they set as Large, or are they set as Small with a 40Hz crossover? What about 39Hz? We have never really had clarification on how the different Audyssey implementations among makers such as Onkyo, or Denon/Marantz, exactly vary with respect to setting crossovers, but again the differences should be insignificant.

In any event, that initial crossover setting doesn't really matter, as given the information, that your speakers are set to Small /40Hz, you now know that you should probably reset them to 80Hz, and probably to not less than 60Hz, in any case. That is based on a good general rule of thumb, that for HT, speakers should typically have crossovers 1/2 to 1 octave higher than their in-room F3 point, in order to relieve strain on the AVR and offload it onto the sub. And that rule is a pretty good one to follow even with XT-32, which sets equivalent filters for both the subs and the satellite channels. But there can sometimes be advantages to the use of a 60Hz crossover for mid-bass support, for instance, so I am personally glad that we have both an initial crossover, based on the reported F3 point, and the ability to modify it to suit our own listening objectives. Of course, just to be on the safe side for whomever might read this, I should add that it is never advisable to set a crossover lower than where an AVR put it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

audiofan1 said:


> I use this one
> 
> http://https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-Digital-Recorder-Adapter/dp/B001GWCC4I/ref=sr_1_1?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1470633603&sr=1-1&keywords=On+Stage+CM01+Video+Camera%2FDigital+Recorder+Adapter





pepar said:


> http://www.audio-technica.com/cms/windscreens_mounts/6fc579f90a35f176/index.html
> (allows the full swiveling needed)
> 
> And
> 
> http://www.sweetwater.com/store/det...e=&network=g&gclid=CJDIxcHjsc4CFYtZhgodhkMBww
> (the actual adapter)


Pepar - Can you look at this one that audiofan1 recommended and let me know if it looks like it has the same flexibility, or if not, if it would be "good enough"? https://amzn.com/B001GWCC4I . Its only $10 and much easier for me to source from Amazon, and looks like I wouldn't need any thread adapters. But I can't tell if the one you linked to has more adjustment options? The one on Amazon says Pan Adjstment: 360 degrees, Tilt Angle Adjustment: 180 degrees. I suppose the one on Amazon would be good enough, but please let me know if you think it has any important drawbacks compared to the one you use. Thanks!


----------



## pepar

lovingdvd said:


> Pepar - Can you look at this one that audiofan1 recommended and let me know if it looks like it has the same flexibility, or if not, if it would be "good enough"? https://amzn.com/B001GWCC4I . Its only $10 and much easier for me to source from Amazon, and looks like I wouldn't need any thread adapters. But I can't tell if the one you linked to has more adjustment options? The one on Amazon says Pan Adjstment: 360 degrees, Tilt Angle Adjustment: 180 degrees. I suppose the one on Amazon would be good enough, but please let me know if you think it has any important drawbacks compared to the one you use. Thanks!


The one you point to handles the thread conversion as well as some "flexibility." Get it. Try it. 

Looking at it myself, it doesn't look like it has the freedom and ease that the Audio-Technica has. Every time I curse, the amount I shoulda/coulda/woulda spent goes up be $5.00. Just sayin'.

Jeff


----------



## lovingdvd

pepar said:


> The one you point to handles the thread conversion as well as some "flexibility." Get it. Try it.
> 
> Looking at it myself, it doesn't look like it has the freedom and ease that the Audio-Technica has. Every time I curse, the amount I shoulda/coulda/woulda spent goes up be $5.00. Just sayin'.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks. I just ordered the one from Amazon and will let you guys know how I like it. I agree with your point about it being worth the extra money if yours makes it faster and easier to adjust. But considering that this will be delivered to my doorstep soon and I don't have to go around town to find the others this is just too convenient to pass up. I figure I'll try it and if its not what I need I'll then have to step up my game for your version. Thanks for the help.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> Regarding using REW to set post_audyssey speaker trims - I hadn't noted that, must have missed it. So IOW are you saying that REW with the UMIK-1 will be more accurate for setting the trims than Audyssey?
> 
> Regarding makging sure the sub trim stays under 0 dB - Tonight I followed your advice from a few days ago and repeated the Audyssey calibration (as you may reall I followed things by the letter my last time around and wound up needing about +3 dB to be happy with the sub output). So this time I had the subwoofer volume control up higher at the start. When Audyssey said it was around 82 dB and complained, I chose the option to Skip the level matching. To my surprise when it completed everything, it did match the levels afterall... It set my L trim at -9, R trim at -8 and sub trim at -10. Is that about what you were expecting?
> 
> The issue I have with this is that now I have to set my MV about +10 dB where I'd normally want it, which I find bothersome since i'm used to the real dB scale and about where the volume should be set for my preference of low medium and loud playback. Also I could run out of headroom like if I want to listen at reference it would mean +10 dB. So was this what you would have expected and OK, or did I do something wrong - and if so what can I do differently when I rerun it?
> 
> I could just "fix" things by adding adding 8 db to everything and I'd have L at -1, R at 0 and sub at -2?? Or should I just fix this some other way? BTW I did notice that according to REW the trims were all set equally balanced, but when I added +8 dB to all trims, the R channel became louder relative to the L, which surprised me. So anyway for now I am back to the low trims as set by Audyssey.
> 
> Please advice if you would be so kind. Thank you!



Sorry, I wasn't on AVS for most of the weekend. 

I see that Mike and others have answered most of your questions and you seem to have a calibration you are happy with.

If there's anything that you feel is still unanswered, let me know!


----------



## audiofan1

lovingdvd said:


> Pepar - Can you look at this one that audiofan1 recommended and let me know if it looks like it has the same flexibility, or if not, if it would be "good enough"? https://amzn.com/B001GWCC4I . Its only $10 and much easier for me to source from Amazon, and looks like I wouldn't need any thread adapters. But I can't tell if the one you linked to has more adjustment options? The one on Amazon says Pan Adjstment: 360 degrees, Tilt Angle Adjustment: 180 degrees. I suppose the one on Amazon would be good enough, but please let me know if you think it has any important drawbacks compared to the one you use. Thanks!


 Yes it indeed swivels and the thread will fit the Audyssey mic


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> *Sorry, I wasn't on AVS for most of the weekend.*
> 
> I see that Mike and others have answered most of your questions and you seem to have a calibration you are happy with.
> 
> If there's anything that you feel is still unanswered, let me know!



Well, what the heck's the matter with you? Why should you have a life, if the rest of us don't?


----------



## mogorf

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Alan P* 
_*Sorry, I wasn't on AVS for most of the weekend.* 

I see that Mike and others have answered most of your questions and you seem to have a calibration you are happy with.

If there's anything that you feel is still unanswered, let me know! _





mthomas47 said:


> Well, what the heck's the matter with you? Why should you have a life, if the rest of us don't?


I also noticed the thread was down a bit!


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Well, what the heck's the matter with you? Why should you have a life, if the rest of us don't?


I was in "Plumbing Hell" most of the weekend...it was _not _fun. 

Being a homeowner is not all it's cracked up to be. 




mogorf said:


> I also noticed the thread was down a bit!


"Down"? As in "a big downer"??

Awww, Feri actually _missed _me!


----------



## mogorf

While Alan wasn't here on AVS for most of the weekend, I did some thinking to myself and came up with something new. Well, ...new to me, maybe it has been brought up on AVS on other threads, so here goes. 

Usually when we place the Audyssey mic (apart from MLP), we always have a guessing game whether its in the right position or not, and this dilemma is regardless of a multi-seater layout or a narrower one-man position. 

So, to resolve the dilemma, how about doing/trying the following method in order to have first hand info (read: curves) of our room acoustics and its visible anomalies spot-by-spot:

1. Turn off Audyssey completely.
2. Set up the measuring rig for REW.
3. Take as many measurements as you can (20-30 maybe) around where you or your buddies will sit (optional), then average the results in REW. (Don't forget to take note of all the measurement spots, this info will be needed later on.)
4. Take a close scrutiny at all these measurement curves, overlap them in REW, note the similarities with regards to peaks and dips. Disregard where they are not similar. 
5. Make a shortlist of 8 areas (1 MLP + 7 more) that are similar that you want to eq with Audyssey MultEQ. 
6. Place the Audyssey mic to those selected areas and run MultEQ.

Please don't ask me questions, just send your comments, recommendations, further ideas, or just say this guy is a lunatic. 

I know this procedure might be a bit tedious and time consuming, ...but hey,...are we in a hurry?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> While Alan wasn't here on AVS for most of the weekend, I did some thinking to myself and came up with something new. Well, ...new to me, maybe it has been brought up on AVS on other threads, so here goes.
> 
> Usually when we place the Audyssey mic (apart from MLP), we always have a guessing game whether its in the right position or not, and this dilemma is regardless of a multi-seater layout or a narrower one-man position.
> 
> So, to resolve the dilemma, how about doing/trying the following method in order to have first hand info (read: curves) of our room acoustics and its visible anomalies spot-by-spot:
> 
> 1. Turn off Audyssey completely.
> 2. Set up the measuring rig for REW.
> 3. Take as many measurements as you can (20-30 maybe) around where you or your buddies will sit (optional), then average the results in REW. (Don't forget to take note of all the measurement spots, this info will be needed later on.)
> 4. Take a close scrutiny at all these measurement curves, overlap them in REW, note the similarities with regards to peaks and dips. Disregard where they are not similar.
> 5. Make a shortlist of 8 areas (1 MLP + 7 more) that are similar that you want to eq with Audyssey MultEQ.
> 6. Place the Audyssey mic to those selected areas and run MultEQ.
> 
> Please don't ask me questions, just send your comments, recommendations, further ideas, or just say this guy is a lunatic.
> 
> I know this procedure might be a bit tedious and time consuming, ...but hey,...are we in a hurry?



Okay, this guy is a lunatic!  But that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting idea. If lunacy and HT audio were mutually exclusive, we probably wouldn't have subwoofers capable of playing ULF at Reference, or near Reference, volumes.

It would be a pretty time-consuming exercise, but it would be interesting to see if it yielded appreciably better real world results than a more randomized pattern, concentrating in the same seating area. I hope somebody tries it sometime and reports the results.


----------



## donktard

Alan P said:


> If there's anything that you feel is still unanswered, let me know!


I do have one, regarding sub distance tweak. 

I decided to give up on audyssey in favor of Dirac because of inflexibility to manipulate frequency curve, particularly to disable any EQ for high frequencies.
I have Dirac software on HTPC plugged in Denon AVR via HDMI.
My issue is when to apply sub distance tweak(s).
Here are the current steps I came up with:

1. Reset sub to default state
2. Run Audyssey only because it will set default distances/levels
3. Turn Audyssey EQ Curve off
4. Do sub distance tweak wtih crossover at 80 Hz (predicted best setting so far)
5. Set all speakers to large and LFE mode to sub + mains and also set LPF to highest value. This is so Dirac can measure all speakers+sub full range (otherwise it would measure crossover slope)
6. Run Dirac calibration
7. Set speakers to small and apply crossovers (if necessary, never used Dirac multichannel version so I don't know yet how it handles that)
7. Measure results and do sub tweak again if necessary.

My question is, is step (4) redundant, so I should only do sub distance tweak after full calibration + settings are done?


----------



## donktard

mthomas47 said:


> Okay, this guy is a lunatic!  But that doesn't mean it isn't an interesting idea. If lunacy and HT audio were mutually exclusive, we probably wouldn't have subwoofers capable of playing ULF at Reference, or near Reference, volumes.
> 
> It would be a pretty time-consuming exercise, but it would be interesting to see if it yielded appreciably better real world results than a more randomized pattern, concentrating in the same seating area. I hope somebody tries it sometime and reports the results.


Wouldn't be too time consuming, just take 10 second sweeps and measure in a predictable pattern so you don't have to write/memorize much.
I did actually something similar today, took a bunch of random measurements in seating area because of inconsistencies i get in 90-200 Hz range. 
From my experience, below 90 Hz I had pretty consistent results, except for occasional broader bump somewhere in that range. In 90-200 Hz range I had 3 dips that varied in position and size depending on mic location.
I will have some more fun with it, so far I only concluded that it might be good to move sofa few inches back for better response.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> While Alan wasn't here on AVS for most of the weekend, I did some thinking to myself and came up with something new. Well, ...new to me, maybe it has been brought up on AVS on other threads, so here goes................


I agree with Mike, I think you're on to something here Feri!

I may or may not take out the time to try this sometime in the not too distant future.


----------



## Alan P

donktard said:


> My question is, is step (4) redundant, so I should only do sub distance tweak after full calibration + settings are done?


I do not use Dirac, but it makes sense to me that doing the distance tweak last would be the most logical way to go about it. Probably unnecessary to do it twice.


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> Wouldn't be too time consuming, just take 10 second sweeps and measure in a *predictable pattern* so you don't have to write/memorize much.


I think the most time consuming part would be the analysis of those 20-30 curves taken during measurment while trying to sort them out and narrowing the batch to 8 pieces of worthwhile mic positions. This idea came up coz of the hardest part: the predictable pattern. Yet, a visual would surely render a tool that'll make the process easier in the end.

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback. Let's keep talkin'!


----------



## mogorf

Breaking news!

After posting this brave idea to Audyssey Tech Talk on FB here's how Chris K. commented (within an hour):

"Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Breaking news!
> 
> After posting this brave idea to Audyssey Tech Talk on FB here's how Chris K. commented (within an hour):
> 
> "Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".



Hi Feri,

It is a cool idea, and praise from Chris is the ultimate seal of approval.  Congratulations!

I gave this some thought and wanted to put down some rambling impressions. First, from the standpoint of it being somewhat time consuming, I don't know that it would be more time consuming than doing multiple random calibrations in the hope of stumbling on a good one. I like the systematic nature of the procedure, and don't really see any downside to it.

Second, I think that the procedure would be primarily useful in assuring users of optimized frequency response, as opposed to necessarily improved sound quality. Here is what I mean by that. We have all seen people chase measurements virtually ad infinitum. I'm not knocking that--chasing measurements is a legitimate aspect of the audio hobby in itself. But there is not always a direct correlation between improved measurements and improved sound. For instance, I have seen people chase a null somewhere in the listening area for weeks, using re-positioning of multiple subs, bass traps, and endless calibrations, without success. I remember one particular instance where it was a very narrow null at about 70Hz. But there was never any evidence that the OP could actually hear anything amiss. That was partly because of the binaural nature of our hearing, and also because even a small movement of the head could be enough to allow the OP to hear around the null. Our brains are also very adept at filling-in missing information, including frequencies, without us even being aware of it.

So, good measurements should equal good sound, but even slightly better measurements, may not equal audibly better sound. The other difficulty I see would be in comparing a decent randomized calibration with an optimized one. That's easy to do graphically, but hard to do in a listening test. The best way to do it would probably be to save both calibrations to a laptop, and then to go back-and-forth between them. But I believe that it takes several minutes to switch calibrations, so audio memory would not be our friend in that case, and any kind of blind test would be even more difficult to manage.

I trust my ability to hear a bad calibration, and I recently used the example of getting the Audyssey mic too close to a fluffy blanket as an example of that. It gave the upper mid-range a harsh sound that was clearly audible to me, and which was corrected when I did a more diligent calibration. So, I can hear the difference between a really bad calibration and a good one, but can I hear the difference between a good calibration and a somewhat better one? I'm not sure that I can. I think that the difference would have to be at least a little overt in some area of the frequency range, whether it was bass, mid-range, or treble. A little smoother sound could easily escape audible detection, or be easily attributed to expectation bias.

As I said at the beginning, these are sort of rambling thoughts. And they are not intended to diminish the value of the idea, in any way. If a person has measuring capabilities, and a little time to do it, I don't know why he wouldn't want to try the new procedure. Well, I suppose that already having an outstanding frequency response might be a good reason.  And for someone just starting out with Audyssey, I can't think of any reason at all not to try it. But I will be very interested, if one of the long-time Audyssey users, such as Alan tries it, to find out how much improvement in frequency response is achievable, and whether the improvement seems audible, as well.

Meanwhile, Feri, keep the ideas coming. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## donktard

Personally, I don't think picking 8 specific measurements is necessary. If nothing, it might prove to be counterproductive depending on your choice (sort of like when you do 1 point measurement 8 times).
8-9 points of relatively tight measurements in a rectangle shape around listening area (+ middle) would be enough for Audyssey to make a decent average, and ONE weird measurement will not affect overall averaging much, but more then one uncharacteristic measurement might do much more damage.
So instead of actually picking very specific points for measuring, we should simply specify zones/areas to avoid. Minimum proximity to back seat would be one choice of zone to avoid.


----------



## pepar

mogorf said:


> Breaking news!
> 
> After posting this brave idea to Audyssey Tech Talk on FB here's how Chris K. commented (within an hour):
> 
> "Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".


This confirms what most of us discovered with experience; changing measurement positions WITHIN the given pattern criteria affected our results, sometimes dramatically so. Now we have a term (and an explanation) for it: Skewing our filters.

Thanks, Feri, for your diligence!

Jeff


----------



## pepar

donktard said:


> I do have one, regarding sub distance tweak.
> 
> 1. Reset sub to default state
> 2. Run Audyssey only because it will set default distances/levels
> 3. Turn Audyssey EQ Curve off
> 4. Do sub distance tweak wtih crossover at 80 Hz (predicted best setting so far)
> 5. Set all speakers to large and LFE mode to sub + mains and also set LPF to highest value. This is so Dirac can measure all speakers+sub full range (otherwise it would measure crossover slope)
> 6. Run Dirac calibration
> 7. Set speakers to small and apply crossovers (if necessary, never used Dirac multichannel version so I don't know yet how it handles that)
> 7. Measure results and do sub tweak again if necessary.
> 
> My question is, is step (4) redundant, so I should only do sub distance tweak after full calibration + settings are done?


5, 6, 7, 8 - Dirac 1) tests all speakers at full range regardless of the small/large setting, 2) ignores distance settings and 3) does not give access to the distance settings in the Dirac setup menu.

I am not certain, but I think a Dirac calibration is voided if you change from large to small.


----------



## lovingdvd

mogorf said:


> Breaking news!
> 
> After posting this brave idea to Audyssey Tech Talk on FB here's how Chris K. commented (within an hour):
> 
> "Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".


Great to hear it. Are you going to update your original post to reflect his advice?

I think the greatest challenge to using this approach in practice is getting the mics positioned the same. For example you could find the 8 spots with REW that measured the most consistently. But when you go to put the Audyssey mic in that spot, even if you are very close, say within an inch, its possible that just that inch difference could yield an entirely different measurement. Granted, this is still far better than picking 8 spots without having any idea whether the area is an anomaly spot or not so it optimizes your chances with your approach.

Now I think the BEST solution is for Chris to implement something like this directly in Audyssey. For instance have it ask you to place the mic in 16 locations, and then have it THROW OUT the most skewed 8 of that 16, and then do averaging with just the 8. So the averaging is done with 8 points like it is now, but with the best 8 points to start with. Who knows perhaps there is already something in Audyssey where it will automatically disregard x of the 8 measures which are too different from the overall average? But if that's the case, it would sure be better to give us 16 points of which it can select the best 8 to average. Want to run that by Chris?


----------



## donktard

pepar said:


> 5, 6, 7, 8 - Dirac 1) tests all speakers at full range regardless of the small/large setting, 2) ignores distance settings and 3) does not give access to the distance settings in the Dirac setup menu.
> 
> I am not certain, but I think a Dirac calibration is voided if you change from large to small.


How can Dirac avoid my receivers settings?
In my mind it seems exactly the same like measuring with REW, so like, if I try to measure a speaker with crossover on AVR set to 100 Hz, I will get incorrect full range measurement below 100 Hz.
Also, I don't intend to change distance in Dirac but in AVR, though regarding that, Dirac has delay setting for each channel which you can change, which is essentially the same.


----------



## lovingdvd

donktard said:


> How can Dirac avoid my receivers settings?
> In my mind it seems exactly the same like measuring with REW, so like, if I try to measure a speaker with crossover on AVR set to 100 Hz, I will get incorrect full range measurement below 100 Hz.
> Also, I don't intend to change distance in Dirac but in AVR, though regarding that, Dirac has delay setting for each channel which you can change, which is essentially the same.


Is it possible to use Dirac with the 8802a?


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> Is it possible to use Dirac with the 8802a?


I have DIRAC on my HTPC. Software only. That means that only content played from that HTPC will receive room correction benefits. Which is fine by me since HTPC is my only (important) source of movies/music.


----------



## pepar

donktard said:


> How can Dirac avoid my receivers settings?
> In my mind it seems exactly the same like measuring with REW, so like, if I try to measure a speaker with crossover on AVR set to 100 Hz, I will get incorrect full range measurement below 100 Hz.
> Also, I don't intend to change distance in Dirac but in AVR, though regarding that, Dirac has delay setting for each channel which you can change, which is essentially the same.





donktard said:


> I have DIRAC on my HTPC. Software only. That means that only content played from that HTPC will receive room correction benefits. Which is fine by me since HTPC is my only (important) source of movies/music.


OK, I re-read and see you have an off-AVR Dirac solution. So it would be dependent upon the AVR's size/crossover settings. I would guess that it's distance settings are additive to the AVR's.

Am still clueless as to why you'd do an Audyssey calibration for setup details that you can do manually. And even more puzzling is why you'd use spkr settings for the calibration that are totally different from your normal settings.

Jeff


----------



## pepar

lovingdvd said:


> Is it possible to use Dirac with the 8802a?


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...al-thread-8-channel-ai-ao-dirac-live-box.html


----------



## donktard

pepar said:


> Am still clueless as to why you'd do an Audyssey calibration for setup details that you can do manually. And even more puzzling is why you'd use spkr settings for the calibration that are totally different from your normal settings.
> 
> Jeff


Why do manually what you can do automatically? Sometimes I wish I had a script for every job in life that takes more then 30 seconds. 
I am switching speakers to large in order to measure their full range response and then after optimizing filters I'd manually set crossovers to my preference. If you think its better idea to first set crossovers and then measure and apply filters, I'd really like to know reasons why.


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Personally, I don't think picking 8 specific measurements is necessary. If nothing, it might prove to be counterproductive depending on your choice (sort of like when you do 1 point measurement 8 times).
> 8-9 points of relatively tight measurements in a rectangle shape around listening area (+ middle) would be enough for Audyssey to make a decent average, and ONE weird measurement will not affect overall averaging much, but more then one uncharacteristic measurement might do much more damage.
> So instead of actually picking very specific points for measuring, we should simply specify zones/areas to avoid. Minimum proximity to back seat would be one choice of zone to avoid.





lovingdvd said:


> Great to hear it. Are you going to update your original post to reflect his advice?
> 
> I think the greatest challenge to using this approach in practice is getting the mics positioned the same. For example you could find the 8 spots with REW that measured the most consistently. But when you go to put the Audyssey mic in that spot, even if you are very close, say within an inch, its possible that just that inch difference could yield an entirely different measurement. Granted, this is still far better than picking 8 spots without having any idea whether the area is an anomaly spot or not so it optimizes your chances with your approach.
> 
> Now I think the BEST solution is for Chris to implement something like this directly in Audyssey. For instance have it ask you to place the mic in 16 locations, and then have it THROW OUT the most skewed 8 of that 16, and then do averaging with just the 8. So the averaging is done with 8 points like it is now, but with the best 8 points to start with. Who knows perhaps there is already something in Audyssey where it will automatically disregard x of the 8 measures which are too different from the overall average? But if that's the case, it would sure be better to give us 16 points of which it can select the best 8 to average. Want to run that by Chris?


I think that Donktard's got the right idea here, and it seems to me quite similar to what Chris was saying. It's not so much a matter of picking 8 specific mic positions (down to the 1/4") as much as it is trying to avoid anomalous areas, within the overall listening space, that could adversely skew the calibration.

Audyssey actually does use it's own weighted average algorithm to attempt to give less importance to single aberrant measurements. And reports from people who experimented with Pro, suggested that using more than 8 measurements didn't add a lot to the value of the calibration. So, I think that Audyssey got that part right with the 8 measurement protocol. As Jeff said, it's interesting that Feri developed a procedure to assist in doing what many of us have had to do by trial-and-error. That is to find a microphone pattern which is relatively free of anomalous peaks or dips that would tend to skew the calibration. I remember some posters (Austinjerry, for one) who went to amazing lengths to be able to exactly repeat calibrations. I believe that he suspended strings from the ceiling at exact locations and heights, and taped them up out of the way when they weren't in use. 

I don't think that I ever repeat calibrations with that kind of accuracy. I know the pattern that I want to use, and the area that I want to EQ. And then I really concentrate on trying to repeat mic position 1, if I can, and I try to keep the mic at ear height, and to be careful about proximity to any hard (or absorbent) surfaces. But whether I come out to each side by 10" or 11" varies a bit, and whether I come forward by about 18" or 20" also varies.

So, I think your point is well taken about the difficulty of exactly matching mic positions, but based on my experience, once you know the area you want to EQ, and the general pattern you want to use, exact precision isn't necessary.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

donktard said:


> Why do manually what you can do automatically? Sometimes I wish I had a script for every job in life that takes more then 30 seconds.
> I am switching speakers to large in order to measure their full range response and then after optimizing filters I'd manually set crossovers to my preference. If you think its better idea to first set crossovers and then measure and apply filters, I'd really like to know reasons why.


Yes, a macro for life!

I am only familiar with the Dirac onboard the Emotiva XMC-1. That's a totally different animal than a PC-based solution.

Jeff


----------



## donktard

pepar said:


> Yes, a macro for life!
> 
> I am only familiar with the Dirac onboard the Emotiva XMC-1. That's a totally different animal than a PC-based solution.
> 
> Jeff


True, I will basically be using Dirac + Audyssey at the same time, with Dirac providing EQ curve and Audyssey everything else. Hopefully.


----------



## pepar

donktard said:


> True, I will basically be using Dirac + Audyssey at the same time, with Dirac providing EQ curve and Audyssey everything else. Hopefully.


I suppose this is a dumb question, but I have never seen it come up; when you turn Audyssey off, the distance and level settings are still in effect?


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> I suppose this is a dumb question, but I have never seen it come up; when you turn Audyssey off, the distance and level settings are still in effect?



As far as I have ever been able to tell, those settings are unaffected by turning off the EQ, in the same way that the EQ is unaffected by adjusting trim levels or distances. I think that they are entirely different software programs. I have never left Audyssey off for long in my system, but I'm sure that the trim levels and arrival times didn't change when I did.


----------



## donktard

pepar said:


> I suppose this is a dumb question, but I have never seen it come up; when you turn Audyssey off, the distance and level settings are still in effect?


Yes, you are only choosing between EQ modes: Off, Reference, Flat, Bypass L/R, and whatever else I missed. But everything else, distances, levels, crossovers stays intact. Only if you choose Direct or Pure Direct mode you will bypass everything and only your fronts will play.


----------



## mogorf

Thank you guys for all your constructive comments and further ideas on this new procedure on the mic placement scheme.

Let me do some more brainstorming for further discussions and to keep the ball running.

We all know that this procedure is not an EQ'ing procedure, just serves the purpose of "mapping" our listening area in order to rule out abnormalities like heavy peaks & dips in the bass region and diminishing highs in order not to feed MultEQ any junk that will skew up the filters.

Now comes the simplification of matters for determining the proper mic spots after #1 at MLP. Well, having a bunch of graphs will all different kinds of wierd shapes may look a bit scary at the beginning, but again, nothing to be afraid of, coz this is just a drill.

The key to success here should lie in the shape of the graph, nothing but the shape. At this stage we need not worry whether we found a narrow dip at 65 Hz or a huge peak at 45 Hz, doesn't really matter. What matters IMHO is how the shape of the curve looks like at each measurment point and to what extend it deviates from flat. Yeah, flat from 10 Hz to 24 kHz, coz now we have a visual of each spot in front of our eyes we didn't have before when we had to do a lot of trial'n'error based calibrations, even with strings hanging from the ceiling for the mic spots (I remember Jerry doing that) and also remember some guys running Audyssey on a weekly basis experimenting endlessly. 

And now in order to determine which mic spots to use and which ones to avoid, we can call "fuzzy logic" into the game as follows:

Set up three groups based on the flatness of the curves:

1. Group 1: Slight deviation from flat
2. Group 2: Medium deviation from flat
3. Group 3: Strong deviation from flat

Remember, here we really don't need to care about exact deviations, we do not need to worry about that crazy dip at a certain frecuency. The most important thing is that now we have a group of three different kinds of deviations from flat. We can omit Group 2) and Group3), select 6 points for MultEQ or 8 points for MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 from Group1) and run the Audyssey setup routine as usual.

Even though some might already have a calibrated mic (UMIK-1 or the like) used for REW, but I think at this early stage of acoustical mapping of our seating area this can even be done with the little Audyssey mic. We are not calibrating, just looking at relative differences among the curves and for that purpose the Eiffel tower Audyssey mic should be just fine. No surgical precision, no mathematical exactness, and finally no sweat needed here at this initial stage.

Let's talk! 

Further to all the above I've been thinking on how to simplify the measurement part of this scheme. Probably instead of doing a myriad of spot measurements around the seating area it might be more practical to do it with REW's RTA feature. 

It would allow to simply pull the mic about and watch how the FR changes and take note of those spots where the diviation from flat becomes more and more apparent.

This might not be so troublesome when repeatedly done with the three front speakers (LCR).

Probably I'll have time over the weekend to do some initial testing of this method. 

Your thoughts are appreciated and welcome, as always.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey actually does use it's own weighted average algorithm to attempt to give less importance to single aberrant measurements.


Yes, and Audyssey says this is better than ordinary averaging, and I believe them. As most people know, they say this is a kind of "fuzzy logic" (a good thing). Adding Feri's suggested procedure to this might make the process even better. At least the filters won't be SUBAR (Skewed Up Beyond All Recognition).


----------



## aaranddeeman

mogorf said:


> Thank you guys for all your constructive comments and further ideas on this new procedure on the mic placement scheme.
> 
> Let me do some more brainstorming for further discussions and to keep the ball running.
> 
> We all know that this procedure is not an EQ'ing procedure, just serves the purpose of "mapping" our listening area in order to rule out abnormalities like heavy peaks & dips in the bass region and diminishing highs in order not to feed MultEQ any junk that will skew up the filters.
> 
> Now comes the simplification of matters for determining the proper mic spots after #1 at MLP. Well, having a bunch of graphs will all different kinds of wierd shapes may look a bit scary at the beginning, but again, nothing to be afraid of, coz this is just a drill.
> 
> The key to success here should lie in the shape of the graph, nothing but the shape. At this stage we need not worry whether we found a narrow dip at 65 Hz or a huge peak at 45 Hz, doesn't really matter. What matters IMHO is how the shape of the curve looks like at each measurment point and to what extend it deviates from flat. Yeah, flat from 10 Hz to 24 kHz, coz now we have a visual of each spot in front of our eyes we didn't have before when we had to do a lot of trial'n'error based calibrations, even with strings hanging from the ceiling for the mic spots (I remember Jerry doing that) and also remember some guys running Audyssey on a weekly basis experimenting endlessly.
> 
> And now in order to determine which mic spots to use and which ones to avoid, we can call "fuzzy logic" into the game as follows:
> 
> Set up three groups based on the flatness of the curves:
> 
> 1. Group 1: Slight deviation from flat
> 2. Group 2: Medium deviation from flat
> 3. Group 3: Strong deviation from flat
> 
> Remember, here we really don't need to care about exact deviations, we do not need to worry about that crazy dip at a certain frecuency. The most important thing is that now we have a group of three different kinds of deviations from flat. We can omit Group 2) and Group3), select 6 points for MultEQ or 8 points for MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 from Group1) and run the Audyssey setup routine as usual.
> 
> Even though some might already have a calibrated mic (UMIK-1 or the like) used for REW, but I think at this early stage of acoustical mapping of our seating area this can even be done with the little Audyssey mic. We are not calibrating, just looking at relative differences among the curves and for that purpose the Eiffel tower Audyssey mic should be just fine. No surgical precision, no mathematical exactness, and finally no sweat needed here at this initial stage.
> 
> Let's talk!


So, when you take the measurement, it's one curve/speaker/position. So if you are measuring LCR that is 3 curves per position. Is this correct?
Or we just take measurement for just one speaker, like center only.


----------



## mogorf

aaranddeeman said:


> So, when you take the measurement, it's one curve/speaker/position. So if you are measuring LCR that is 3 curves per position. Is this correct?
> Or we just take measurement for just one speaker, like center only.


This still needs further considerations. Thanks for raising the issue. We'll see.


----------



## Alan P

aaranddeeman said:


> So, when you take the measurement, it's one curve/speaker/position. So if you are measuring LCR that is 3 curves per position. Is this correct?
> Or we just take measurement for just one speaker, like center only.


Oh my...didn't think of that.

This compounds the "pre-measurements" considerably.


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> And now in order to determine which mic spots to use and which ones to avoid, we can call "fuzzy logic" into the game as follows:
> 
> Set up three groups based on the flatness of the curves:
> 
> 1. Group 1: Slight deviation from flat
> 2. Group 2: Medium deviation from flat
> 3. Group 3: Strong deviation from flat


I would actually disagree with some of this you wrote.
Basically, at this point you are trying to pick best spots and avoid bad ones. And while that in practice might prove to work just great, the problem with that is that you really have no real reference point to go back to. Your old measurement tactics? Probably not good enough.
I suggest a different approach (EDIT: similar approach, but different GOAL), but this time REALLY time consuming...and complicated to pull off.
As anyone who has ever picked up REW and measurement mic, many of you probably know that if you fix a microphone firmly at a specific location and take dozen of measurements at that very same spot, you will always get exact same measurement with very tiny variations.
How does that help? Well, it helps because that means you can repeat exactly the same measurement pattern and get predictably same result. As long as you devise a nice obsessive-compulsive method of having mic in exact same spots (same direction, height and everything).

Here are the steps:
1. Make measurements at your 30 or how many you want locations.
2. Pick best spots for Audyssey (the ones with least weird variations) and run calibration
3. Measure results with REW at few specific spots of your choosing
4. Pick 7 previously picked spots and ONE new that you know has some big deviations and re-run calibration
5. Measure results with REW again at your reference spots
6. Pick 6 previously picked good spots and TWO with wild variations, re-run calibration again
7. Measure results with REW again at youru reference spots
...
X. Go as far as you can by adding additional "bad spot" for measurement

Now, when you have done all that, you can compare Audyssey results with 0,1,2,3... weird measurement spots in a mix and therefore determine how much really do bad microphone positions skew Audyssey results, or to be precise, how many bad microphone positions is neglectible for a decent final result?
I'd suggest repeating steps (4) and (6) more then once while each time picking one (or two, respectively) new "bad position" to have a bigger statistical sample for variations with small number of bad spots involved in measurement.

I wouldn't recommend "easy" way to do this...using multiple single point measurements + few bad ones because that might skew results in unpredictable way based on manner in which Audyssey does averaging.

FOR ALL THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE TO READ BUNCH OF S**T: I propose that we determine how many bad microphone spots is enough to significantly affect calibration results.


----------



## donktard

aaranddeeman said:


> So, when you take the measurement, it's one curve/speaker/position. So if you are measuring LCR that is 3 curves per position. Is this correct?
> Or we just take measurement for just one speaker, like center only.


If you are measuring with intent to find best spots for audyssey calibration you should obviously take all your speakers for a ride.


----------



## aaranddeeman

donktard said:


> I would actually disagree with some of this you wrote.
> Basically, at this point you are trying to pick best spots and avoid bad ones. And while that in practice might prove to work just great, the problem with that is that you really have no real reference point to go back to. Your old measurement tactics? Probably not good enough.
> I suggest a different approach (EDIT: similar approach, but different GOAL), but this time REALLY time consuming...and complicated to pull off.
> As anyone who has ever picked up REW and measurement mic, many of you probably know that if you fix a microphone firmly at a specific location and take dozen of measurements at that very same spot, you will always get exact same measurement with very tiny variations.
> How does that help? Well, it helps because that means you can repeat exactly the same measurement pattern and get predictably same result. As long as you devise a nice obsessive-compulsive method of having mic in exact same spots (same direction, height and everything).
> 
> Here are the steps:
> 1. Make measurements at your 30 or how many you want locations.
> 2. Pick best spots for Audyssey (the ones with least weird variations) and run calibration
> 3. Measure results with REW at few specific spots of your choosing
> 4. Pick 7 previously picked spots and ONE new that you know has some big deviations and re-run calibration
> 5. Measure results with REW again at your reference spots
> 6. Pick 6 previously picked good spots and TWO with wild variations, re-run calibration again
> 7. Measure results with REW again at youru reference spots
> ...
> X. Go as far as you can by adding additional "bad spot" for measurement
> 
> Now, when you have done all that, you can compare Audyssey results with 0,1,2,3... weird measurement spots in a mix and therefore determine how much really do bad microphone positions skew Audyssey results, or to be precise, how many bad microphone positions is neglectible for a decent final result?
> I'd suggest repeating steps (4) and (6) more then once while each time picking one (or two, respectively) new "bad position" to have a bigger statistical sample for variations with small number of bad spots involved in measurement.
> 
> I wouldn't recommend "easy" way to do this...using multiple single point measurements + few bad ones because that might skew results in unpredictable way based on manner in which Audyssey does averaging.
> 
> FOR ALL THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE TO READ BUNCH OF S**T: I propose that we determine how many bad microphone spots is enough to significantly affect calibration results.


And all this while I was thinking Audyssey should make your life easier. No hassle where your MLP is with respect to ideal, just run that damn Audyssey for your actual (compromised) seating positions (6-8 of them) and let Audyssey work it's magic to immerse you in Audio nirvana.. 
Oh well.. When do I watch that movie?


----------



## donktard

aaranddeeman said:


> And all this while I was thinking Audyssey should make your life easier. No hassle where your MLP is with respect to ideal, just run that damn Audyssey for your actual (compromised) seating positions (6-8 of them) and let Audyssey work it's magic to immerse you in Audio nirvana..
> Oh well.. When do I watch that movie?


 Nah, honestly, Audyssey does great job as is...this what we talking about is already a nitpicking. Typically, running calibration and REW measurement afterwards for some tweaks gets the job done in very satisfying manner.


----------



## lovingdvd

donktard said:


> True, I will basically be using Dirac + Audyssey at the same time, with Dirac providing EQ curve and Audyssey everything else. Hopefully.


Can you elaborate more on your plan to do this and what the benefit is that you anticipate getting compared to just using Dirac or Audyssey along?



donktard said:


> If you are measuring with intent to find best spots for audyssey calibration you should obviously take all your speakers for a ride.


Would it be sufficient to measure L+R+sub at once and look for the spots near the MLP with the least anomalies?


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> Sorry, I wasn't on AVS for most of the weekend.
> 
> I see that Mike and others have answered most of your questions and you seem to have a calibration you are happy with.
> 
> If there's anything that you feel is still unanswered, let me know!


Can you please clarify what you meant in an earlier post about using REW to check the trims set by Audyssey and which you'd trust more? After an 8 point calibration I use REW for my 2.1 setup and the Right channel was 0.5 dB low. I know, I know...  But a half dB is a half dB! It's also quite possible that my mic position is not in the same exact spot which is accounting for the difference.

On a related note, after the calibration when I check the SPL with the MV at 0 using internal test tones and REW, both the R/L channels measure about 73.5 dB, so about 1.5 dB lower than the 75 dB I'm expecting. No biggie. But should I just manually raise them so they are at 75 dB? Strangely enough my subwoofer measures about 8 dB below that. I've adjusted the gain accordingly. But didn't expect that.

BTW why is it that folks say not to put much belief/value in the Audyssey EQ graphs when checking the results? It seems like useful information to me. Are they graphs not accurate or something? It seems to provide a good idea of where it is boosting and cutting, so why do folks discredit these charts? Also - it displays a L and R graph for my 2.1 setup, but I don't see any such graph for the subwoofer. Is there a way you are supposed to scroll to that on the next screen or something, or do they not make the subwoofer EQ graph available?

I want to add that the system sounds amazing with the calibrations I tried (except the 1 point cali which I originally did which sounded too bright). So this is just a matter of trying to take the experience from a 10 to an "11". . Its also a matter of trying to learn the ins and outs of Audyssey as practice for my new dedicated theater room which hopefully will be ready around the end of the month.

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> And all this while I was thinking Audyssey should make your life easier. No hassle where your MLP is with respect to ideal, just run that damn Audyssey for your actual (compromised) seating positions (6-8 of them) and let Audyssey work it's magic to immerse you in Audio nirvana..
> Oh well.. When do I watch that movie?





donktard said:


> Nah, honestly, Audyssey does great job as is...this what we talking about is already a nitpicking. Typically, running calibration and REW measurement afterwards for some tweaks gets the job done in very satisfying manner.



This is why I drew a distinction earlier about the difference between chasing measurements and chasing audio quality.  The fact is that even with a trial-and-error approach to calibration, most of us have achieved very good audio results, and there is no guarantee that an even better measurement would result in noticeably better sound.


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> Can you elaborate more on your plan to do this and what the benefit is that you anticipate getting compared to just using Dirac or Audyssey along?


Tbh, I expressed myself poorly. Technically, I am not using Audyssey + Dirac fully at the same time. I will just run Audyssey to set up receiver properly, mainly to adjust speaker distances and levels properly. I could simply do that manually if I wanted to.
The only difference is that I won't be using Audyssey EQ curve (Reference or Flat) but DIRAC curve.
I cannot use DIRAC only because i have software version on my PC, I don't have AVR like Emotiva with DIRAC room correction.
And since I have Denon AVR, I am "forced" to use settings it provides. 
Main benefit of this setting of mine would be ability to manipulate EQ curve to my liking, particularly to forbid any EQ on high frequencies for some or all channels which seems to be causing me some issues at the moment. 
Also, so far I have had a feeling that compared to audyssey, dirac has much more consistent results (and my awkward unpredictable room and Audyssey don't get along so good above 100 Hz imo )




lovingdvd said:


> Would it be sufficient to measure L+R+sub at once and look for the spots near the MLP with the least anomalies?


I'd definitely add Center channel in the mix. Typically being on a stand with drivers much closer to a floor (or a shelf below TV) it often behaves dramatically different in lows/mids then your L and R.
But ideally, if you have a time and willpower to do what i suggested in that long post of mine, to compare how audysseys results look like each time you add one more poor measuring location, one speaker + sub would be sufficient to determine a pattern.
I'd actually love to do it, but it would take me a whole day and I don't have a day to spare until next month.


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> This is why I drew a distinction earlier about the difference between chasing measurements and chasing audio quality.  The fact is that even with a trial-and-error approach to calibration, most of us have achieved very good audio results, and there is no guarantee that an even better measurement would result in noticeably better sound.


I agree with this. The real challenge is that its nearly impossible to A/B. Like you (or someone earlier today if it wasn't you) said, its pretty easy to tell the difference between bad and good, but much harder to tell the difference between very good and a bit better than that.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Can you please clarify what you meant in an earlier post about using REW to check the trims set by Audyssey and which you'd trust more? After an 8 point calibration I use REW for my 2.1 setup and the Right channel was 0.5 dB low. I know, I know...  But a half dB is a half dB! It's also quite possible that my mic position is not in the same exact spot which is accounting for the difference.
> 
> On a related note, after the calibration when I check the SPL with the MV at 0 using internal test tones and REW, both the R/L channels measure about 73.5 dB, so about 1.5 dB lower than the 75 dB I'm expecting. No biggie. But should I just manually raise them so they are at 75 dB? Strangely enough my subwoofer measures about 8 dB below that. I've adjusted the gain accordingly. But didn't expect that.
> 
> BTW why is it that folks say not to put much belief/value in the Audyssey EQ graphs when checking the results? It seems like useful information to me. Are they graphs not accurate or something? It seems to provide a good idea of where it is boosting and cutting, so why do folks discredit these charts? Also - it displays a L and R graph for my 2.1 setup, but I don't see any such graph for the subwoofer. Is there a way you are supposed to scroll to that on the next screen or something, or do they not make the subwoofer EQ graph available?
> 
> I want to add that the system sounds amazing with the calibrations I tried (except the 1 point cali which I originally did which sounded too bright). So this is just a matter of trying to take the experience from a 10 to an "11". . Its also a matter of trying to learn the ins and outs of Audyssey as practice for my new dedicated theater room which hopefully will be ready around the end of the month.
> 
> Thanks!


I tried to answer the first couple of questions in a lengthy response to you a couple of pages back. The short answer is just to trust Audyssey's trim settings, and don't adjust them without an audible reason. The exception of course is the sub. Nearly everyone adjusts the trim on the sub(s) upward, which is why it is recommended to start with a strongly negative trim. But then, we still do it for an audible reason. Because we want more bass. 

The reason why it is not recommended to pay much attention to the graphs in your AVR/pre pro is twofold. First, they don't actually show you what Audyssey did. They are simply crude depictions of the issues that Audyssey was trying to address, pre-calibration.

Second, XT-32 sets thousands of filters across the entire frequency range from 10Hz to 20,000 Hz, depending on the capabilities of your speakers/subs. No one knows exactly how many filters, or taps, are actually employed. But a crude graph with a couple of dozen data points can't possibly capture what Audyssey intended to do, much less what it actually did, in any meaningful way.

The consensus on the thread has always been that the graphs are just a marketing gimmick. Because who doesn't like to look at cool graphs?


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> I agree with this. The real challenge is that its nearly impossible to A/B. Like you (or someone earlier today if it wasn't you) said, its pretty easy to tell the difference between bad and good, but much harder to tell the difference between very good and a bit better than that.


Hehe, yeah, down the rabbit hole is always bad way to go if you've made it sound pretty good.
You can do a decent A/B comparison if you have a good reference point. Personally, I prefer clarity in my sound and I don't mind some coloration. But often when I spend my time in front of computer its usually with Sennheiser HD800 headphones on ears and that has become my signature sound/reference.
Often times when I did audyssey calibration I'd run some familiar songs and while they sound really good I find myself thinking: "Well thats not quite right!" But I can't pinpoint the issue really so I grab mic and REW and find (for example) some wild midrange variations and a bit of a wide dip there. I put headphones on, recreate EQ variation (dip) with anything handy and play same song...yep, thats what i heard in my room.
Some time later, I fooled around with Dirac, making real sloppy measurements for my HTPC just out of curiosity. My HT was pretty much done at this point, even acoustic treatments were in place and I loved it, but anyway, made the Dirac measurement and filter. Turned on some familiar song with female vocal and switched back/forth between Dirac and Audyssey. Everything was almost identical, but when I heard that female vocal with Dirac I instantly thought: "Holy **** this sounds exactly like on my headphones."
Most people wouldn't notice...or care. It sounds great both ways. But sounds "WOW" only one way for me. Thats also one of the reasons why I prefer more flexible EQ management. Hopefully Audyssey will one day get to that point too.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> after the calibration when I check the SPL with the MV at 0 *using internal test tones* and REW


 I don't have time for a full reply right now, but.....why do you keep doing this?? You have REW...use the signal generator to check speaker trims, the internal tones _bypass the Audyssey EQ filters_ and are irrelevant.


----------



## lovingdvd

audiofan1 said:


> I use this one
> 
> http://https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-Digital-Recorder-Adapter/dp/B001GWCC4I/ref=sr_1_1?s=musical-instruments&ie=UTF8&qid=1470633603&sr=1-1&keywords=On+Stage+CM01+Video+Camera%2FDigital+Recorder+Adapter





pepar said:


> The one you point to handles the thread conversion as well as some "flexibility." Get it. Try it.
> 
> Looking at it myself, it doesn't look like it has the freedom and ease that the Audio-Technica has. Every time I curse, the amount I shoulda/coulda/woulda spent goes up be $5.00. Just sayin'.
> 
> Jeff


Audiofan - I got the adapter to hold the Audyssey mic in the boom which you linked to from Amazon. Thanks. It seems well built. However I'm a little confused about something and it may just be me.  . My only goes as low as about 4 feet. So if I need to take a measurement at head level which is at 4 feet, I have the boom at a downward angle at like 45 degrees. In this position I can't figure out how to adjust that adapter so that the mic will point straight up to the ceiling. Instead no matter how much I fiddle with the adapter it can only point upward at an angle far less than 90 degrees. That's the case when the boom is at a lower angle. When the boom itself is at a 90 degree angle or greater, THAN the adapter has the flexibility to straight out the mic so it stays at 90 degrees.

The challenge for me is that my main listening height requires the boom to be on a downward angle, so unless I'm doing something silly, which there is a great possibility here, than I can't get the adapter to let me straighten up the mic up. With the REW mic holder I have full flexibility of course and can just bend it up far enough to get to the 90. But that's not the case with this adapter. Am I missing something or does it have this limitation? Thank you!

Pepar - I assume the adapter you linked to does not have this limitation?


----------



## audiofan1

lovingdvd said:


> Audiofan - I got the adapter to hold the Audyssey mic in the boom which you linked to from Amazon. Thanks. It seems well built. However I'm a little confused about something and it may just be me.  . My only goes as low as about 4 feet. So if I need to take a measurement at head level which is at 4 feet, I have the boom at a downward angle at like 45 degrees. In this position I can't figure out how to adjust that adapter so that the mic will point straight up to the ceiling. Instead no matter how much I fiddle with the adapter it can only point upward at an angle far less than 90 degrees. That's the case when the boom is at a lower angle. When the boom itself is at a 90 degree angle or greater, THAN the adapter has the flexibility to straight out the mic so it stays at 90 degrees.
> 
> The challenge for me is that my main listening height requires the boom to be on a downward angle, so unless I'm doing something silly, which there is a great possibility here, than I can't get the adapter to let me straighten up the mic up. With the REW mic holder I have full flexibility of course and can just bend it up far enough to get to the 90. But that's not the case with this adapter. Am I missing something or does it have this limitation? Thank you!
> 
> Pepar - I assume the adapter you linked to does not have this limitation?


 Which boom are you using? Mine has many adjustment levels to get lower than 4ft, are you sure it can't be lowered, try checking and see if anything can be twisted to lower a bit.


----------



## pepar

lovingdvd said:


> Audiofan - I got the adapter to hold the Audyssey mic in the boom which you linked to from Amazon. Thanks. It seems well built. However I'm a little confused about something and it may just be me.  . My only goes as low as about 4 feet. So if I need to take a measurement at head level which is at 4 feet, I have the boom at a downward angle at like 45 degrees. In this position I can't figure out how to adjust that adapter so that the mic will point straight up to the ceiling. Instead no matter how much I fiddle with the adapter it can only point upward at an angle far less than 90 degrees. That's the case when the boom is at a lower angle. When the boom itself is at a 90 degree angle or greater, THAN the adapter has the flexibility to straight out the mic so it stays at 90 degrees.
> 
> The challenge for me is that my main listening height requires the boom to be on a downward angle, so unless I'm doing something silly, which there is a great possibility here, than I can't get the adapter to let me straighten up the mic up. With the REW mic holder I have full flexibility of course and can just bend it up far enough to get to the 90. But that's not the case with this adapter. Am I missing something or does it have this limitation? Thank you!
> 
> *Pepar - I assume the adapter you linked to does not have this limitation?*


It does not, and that was what I was referring to earlier.

Jeff


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Audiofan - I got the adapter to hold the Audyssey mic in the boom which you linked to from Amazon. Thanks. It seems well built. However I'm a little confused about something and it may just be me.  . My only goes as low as about 4 feet. So if I need to take a measurement at head level which is at 4 feet, I have the boom at a downward angle at like 45 degrees. In this position I can't figure out how to adjust that adapter so that the mic will point straight up to the ceiling. Instead no matter how much I fiddle with the adapter it can only point upward at an angle far less than 90 degrees. That's the case when the boom is at a lower angle. When the boom itself is at a 90 degree angle or greater, THAN the adapter has the flexibility to straight out the mic so it stays at 90 degrees.
> 
> The challenge for me is that my main listening height requires the boom to be on a downward angle, so unless I'm doing something silly, which there is a great possibility here, than I can't get the adapter to let me straighten up the mic up. With the REW mic holder I have full flexibility of course and can just bend it up far enough to get to the 90. But that's not the case with this adapter. Am I missing something or does it have this limitation? Thank you!
> 
> Pepar - I assume the adapter you linked to does not have this limitation?





audiofan1 said:


> Which boom are you using? Mine has many adjustment levels to get lower than 4ft, are you sure it can't be lowered, try checking and see if anything can be twisted to lower a bit.



+1

My adapter doesn't have as much flexibility either as the one Jeff is recommending. It is one linked in the FAQ that I got from Amazon years ago, as is my boom mic stand. It's sort of a Rubik's Cube process to get the mic to point more-or-less straight up with the boom arm at less than a 90* angle, but hey, where's the fun in making things easy. 

Seriously, just keep playing with it and you should be able to get pretty close. I don't know that it is critical to have the mic point precisely at the ceiling, versus being angled by just a few degrees.


----------



## lovingdvd

audiofan1 said:


> Which boom are you using? Mine has many adjustment levels to get lower than 4ft, are you sure it can't be lowered, try checking and see if anything can be twisted to lower a bit.


I'm using this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000978D58/ . Works great for the UMIK-1 because of the way the mic holder can tilt at any angle. Yes the lowest this mic stand will go requires that the boom part be lower than 90 degrees for any mic position below 3 feet. For my couch position the mic needs to be around 2.25 feet.



pepar said:


> It does not, and that was what I was referring to earlier.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks. I knew you said it didn't have as much flexibility, but I didn't realize that was flexibility I'd definitely would be needing. I'm going to look into whether I can pick it up locally today.



mthomas47 said:


> +1
> 
> My adapter doesn't have as much flexibility either as the one Jeff is recommending. It is one linked in the FAQ that I got from Amazon years ago, as is my boom mic stand. It's sort of a Rubik's Cube process to get the mic to point more-or-less straight up with the boom arm at less than a 90* angle, but hey, where's the fun in making things easy.
> 
> Seriously, just keep playing with it and you should be able to get pretty close. I don't know that it is critical to have the mic point precisely at the ceiling, versus being angled by just a few degrees.


I tried for quite some time twisting and turning with all the various moving parts between the adapter, stand and boom. However nothing can get the mic pointed straight up (or even too close to it) unless the boom is at 90 degrees or higher, and it my case its more like 50-70 degrees. As far as the importance of the mic facing straight up - its my understand that its very important because the mic is likely calibrated based on 90 degrees and it also may have to do with the way sound reflects in a room.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I'm using this https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000978D58/ . Works great for the UMIK-1 because of the way the mic holder can tilt at any angle. Yes the lowest this mic stand will go requires that the boom part be lower than 90 degrees for any mic position below 3 feet. For my couch position the mic needs to be around 2.25 feet.
> 
> 
> Thanks. I knew you said it didn't have as much flexibility, but I didn't realize that was flexibility I'd definitely would be needing. I'm going to look into whether I can pick it up locally today.
> 
> 
> I tried for quite some time twisting and turning with all the various moving parts between the adapter, stand and boom. However nothing can get the mic pointed straight up (or even too close to it) unless the boom is at 90 degrees or higher, and it my case its more like 50-70 degrees. As far as the importance of the mic facing straight up - its my understand that its very important because the mic is likely calibrated based on 90 degrees and it also may have to do with the way sound reflects in a room.


I have the same mic stand you do, and this adapter: https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-..._SR160,160_&psc=1&refRID=8VA23VRB63Y44FKM15ZQ

As I said, it takes some contortions to make the mic point straight up when the boom arm is below 90*. And it is important that the mic point more-or-less straight up. But there were some spirited discussions on the thread some years ago regarding just how important it is to be exact in pointing straight up. The consensus that I recall from both measurements and listening tests is that you definitely want the mic to point up, but a few degrees of variance doesn't make an appreciable difference.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> For my couch position the mic needs to be around 2.25 feet.


Are you a hobbit...or do you sit on the floor?


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> I have the same mic stand you do, and this adapter: https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-..._SR160,160_&psc=1&refRID=8VA23VRB63Y44FKM15ZQ
> 
> As I said, it takes some contortions to make the mic point straight up when the boom arm is below 90*. And it is important that the mic point more-or-less straight up. But there were some spirited discussions on the thread some years ago regarding just how important it is to be exact in pointing straight up. The consensus that I recall from both measurements and listening tests is that you definitely want the mic to point up, but a few degrees of variance doesn't make an appreciable difference.


If you have a chance can you try a test for me? Put the boom at about a 30-40 degree downward angle and see if you can get the mic pointed straight up. I wonder if it is something I can doing, or if it just is not possible. The closest I can get is maybe 5-10 degrees from pointing straight up. By my HT OCD will not allow me to take measurements that way.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> If you have a chance can you try a test for me? Put the boom at about a 30-40 degree downward angle and see if you can get the mic pointed straight up. I wonder if it is something I can doing, or if it just is not possible. The closest I can get is maybe 5-10 degrees from pointing straight up. By my HT OCD will not allow me to take measurements that way.


I hear you on the OCD part.  I will be glad to try it when I get home tonight. FWIW, although my ear height is several inches higher than yours, my boom arm is still below parallel to the floor. I think that the best I have been able to do is about 5* from straight up, too. And I work harder than I probably need to in order to achieve that. But, we all apply our OCD in different ways, and I honestly don't think that the Audyssey mic responds in any meaningful way to such a small variance in directionality.


----------



## pepar

lovingdvd said:


> If you have a chance can you try a test for me? Put the boom at about a 30-40 degree downward angle and see if you can get the mic pointed straight up. I wonder if it is something I can doing, or if it just is not possible. The closest I can get is maybe 5-10 degrees from pointing straight up. By my HT OCD will not allow me to take measurements that way.


The design of the adapter prevents it from exceeding 90°. That means it can point the measurement mic straight up for boom arm angles of 0° to 90°. If the arm is at a downward angle from horizontal the adapter cannot ... adapt.


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> I honestly don't think that the Audyssey mic responds in any meaningful way to such a small variance in directionality.


How much of ANY of the deep in the weeds stuff that we do makes any "meaningful" difference?


----------



## audiofan1

mthomas47 said:


> I have the same mic stand you do, and this adapter: https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-..._SR160,160_&psc=1&refRID=8VA23VRB63Y44FKM15ZQ
> 
> As I said, it takes some contortions to make the mic point straight up when the boom arm is below 90*. And it is important that the mic point more-or-less straight up. But there were some spirited discussions on the thread some years ago regarding just how important it is to be exact in pointing straight up. The consensus that I recall from both measurements and listening tests is that you definitely want the mic to point up, but a few degrees of variance doesn't make an appreciable difference.


 I'm using the same boom as well and have no problems getting it straight up (should I choose to let my mild case of ocd win out) some have said its better to use a very short boom place low on the floor and pointed up as to get the boom itself out of the way.


----------



## audiofan1

mthomas47 said:


> I have the same mic stand you do, and this adapter: https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-..._SR160,160_&psc=1&refRID=8VA23VRB63Y44FKM15ZQ
> 
> As I said, it takes some contortions to make the mic point straight up when the boom arm is below 90*. And it is important that the mic point more-or-less straight up. But there were some spirited discussions on the thread some years ago regarding just how important it is to be exact in pointing straight up. The consensus that I recall from both measurements and listening tests is that you definitely want the mic to point up, but a few degrees of variance doesn't make an appreciable difference.





lovingdvd said:


> If you have a chance can you try a test for me? Put the boom at about a 30-40 degree downward angle and see if you can get the mic pointed straight up. I wonder if it is something I can doing, or if it just is not possible. The closest I can get is maybe 5-10 degrees from pointing straight up. By my HT OCD will not allow me to take measurements that way.


 If it's to high, yes it will limit the ability to point straight up! In the end just be sure your not to far below the height of your ears and or tweeters


----------



## lovingdvd

Well after calling 5 local stores that were all listed as dealers for the adapter Pepar recommends, I was reminded why buying online is so much better. In fact I think its been years since I've called around local stores looking for something that no one had. At any rate, I couldn't locate it locally. I could get it from Amazon (non prime) for delivery Monday. Instead I think I will try and make the current adapter work as best as I can, and then manually tilt the boom stand by putting something under one of the legs to get it square to the ceiling. Will see how that goes. In any event, it has to be easier than trying to balance the Audyssey mic on the UMIK-1 mic holder. . On second thought - I will try taping it to the UMK-1 mic holder - that may enable me to tilt it as much as I need to. Will let you guys know how it works out. Thanks.


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> Well after calling 5 local stores that were all listed as dealers for the adapter Pepar recommends, I was reminded why buying online is so much better. In fact I think its been years since I've called around local stores looking for something that no one had. At any rate, I couldn't locate it locally. I could get it from Amazon (non prime) for delivery Monday. Instead I think I will try and make the current adapter work as best as I can, and then manually tilt the boom stand by putting something under one of the legs to get it square to the ceiling. Will see how that goes. In any event, it has to be easier than trying to balance the Audyssey mic on the UMIK-1 mic holder. . On second thought - I will try taping it to the UMK-1 mic holder - that may enable me to tilt it as much as I need to. Will let you guys know how it works out. Thanks.


You are suffering so much. Just duct tape microphone to one of your ears and lean your head a bit and do the measurements. That way Audyssey calibration will compensate for your body reflections. :grin:


----------



## lovingdvd

donktard said:


> You are suffering so much. Just duct tape microphone to one of your ears and lean your head a bit and do the measurements. That way Audyssey calibration will compensate for your body reflections. :grin:


Funny, but actually this brings up a good point. They say to measure with everything in the room, including chairs and furniture as usual. Yet we are supposed to leave the room. Makes me wonder if it is actually more accurate to measure with us in the room, at least at the MLP. Wonder if that changes the results.


----------



## audiofan1

lovingdvd said:


> Funny, but actually this brings up a good point. They say to measure with everything in the room, including chairs and furniture as usual. Yet we are supposed to leave the room. Makes me wonder if it is actually more accurate to measure with us in the room, at least at the MLP. Wonder if that changes the results.


Just remember to sit very still or you'll blow the calibration


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Funny, but actually this brings up a good point. They say to measure with everything in the room, including chairs and furniture as usual. Yet we are supposed to leave the room. Makes me wonder if it is actually more accurate to measure with us in the room, at least at the MLP. Wonder if that changes the results.



You really are having fun overthinking this.  It isn't really necessary to leave the room, although some people do. I stay in the room, but in a place where my body won't interfere with a direct line-of-sight from any of my speakers to the Audyssey mic. And then I simply sit still and quietly during the test tones.

If you tried to remain in your listening chair, you would have trouble getting the mic placements where you want them. And your body would act just like the chair back as far as bouncing spurious reflections into the Audyssey mic. Of course, you could always do what is recommended with a leather chair back, and cover yourself with a fluffy absorbent blanket. The operational logistics of that might be a little tricky, though.


----------



## donktard

lovingdvd said:


> Funny, but actually this brings up a good point. They say to measure with everything in the room, including chairs and furniture as usual. Yet we are supposed to leave the room. Makes me wonder if it is actually more accurate to measure with us in the room, at least at the MLP. Wonder if that changes the results.


Well, wonder no further. I have done numerous calibrations and measurements with mic in my hand (mostly REW measurements) and concluded that human body has no significant effect on measurements. But you have to stay out of line of sight of speakers and not in a way of first reflections. Noise also doesn't affect measurements much unless it is close to loudness of measurements or louder. That of course doesn't mean you can fart, burp and eat nachos while holding microphone with legs and take measurements.


----------



## mogorf

mogorf said:


> Thank you guys for all your constructive comments and further ideas on this new procedure on the mic placement scheme.
> 
> Let me do some more brainstorming for further discussions and to keep the ball running.
> 
> We all know that this procedure is not an EQ'ing procedure, just serves the purpose of "mapping" our listening area in order to rule out abnormalities like heavy peaks & dips in the bass region and diminishing highs in order not to feed MultEQ any junk that will skew up the filters.
> 
> Now comes the simplification of matters for determining the proper mic spots after #1 at MLP. Well, having a bunch of graphs will all different kinds of wierd shapes may look a bit scary at the beginning, but again, nothing to be afraid of, coz this is just a drill.
> 
> The key to success here should lie in the shape of the graph, nothing but the shape. At this stage we need not worry whether we found a narrow dip at 65 Hz or a huge peak at 45 Hz, doesn't really matter. What matters IMHO is how the shape of the curve looks like at each measurment point and to what extend it deviates from flat. Yeah, flat from 10 Hz to 24 kHz, coz now we have a visual of each spot in front of our eyes we didn't have before when we had to do a lot of trial'n'error based calibrations, even with strings hanging from the ceiling for the mic spots (I remember Jerry doing that) and also remember some guys running Audyssey on a weekly basis experimenting endlessly.
> 
> And now in order to determine which mic spots to use and which ones to avoid, we can call "fuzzy logic" into the game as follows:
> 
> Set up three groups based on the flatness of the curves:
> 
> 1. Group 1: Slight deviation from flat
> 2. Group 2: Medium deviation from flat
> 3. Group 3: Strong deviation from flat
> 
> Remember, here we really don't need to care about exact deviations, we do not need to worry about that crazy dip at a certain frecuency. The most important thing is that now we have a group of three different kinds of deviations from flat. We can omit Group 2) and Group3), select 6 points for MultEQ or 8 points for MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 from Group1) and run the Audyssey setup routine as usual.
> 
> Even though some might already have a calibrated mic (UMIK-1 or the like) used for REW, but I think at this early stage of acoustical mapping of our seating area this can even be done with the little Audyssey mic. We are not calibrating, just looking at relative differences among the curves and for that purpose the Eiffel tower Audyssey mic should be just fine. No surgical precision, no mathematical exactness, and finally no sweat needed here at this initial stage.
> 
> Let's talk!
> 
> Further to all the above I've been thinking on how to simplify the measurement part of this scheme. Probably instead of doing a myriad of spot measurements around the seating area it might be more practical to do it with REW's RTA feature.
> 
> It would allow to simply pull the mic about and watch how the FR changes and take note of those spots where the diviation from flat becomes more and more apparent.
> 
> This might not be so troublesome when repeatedly done with the three front speakers (LCR).
> 
> Probably I'll have time over the weekend to do some initial testing of this method.
> 
> Your thoughts are appreciated and welcome, as always.


Further to all the above I've been thinking on how to simplify the measurement part of this scheme. Probably instead of doing a myriad of spot measurements around the seating area it might be more practical to do it with REW's RTA feature. 

It would allow to simply pull the mic about and watch how the FR changes and take note of those spots where the diviation from flat becomes more and more apparent.

This might not be so troublesome when repeatedly done with the three front speakers (LCR).

Probably I'll have time over the weekend to do some initial testing of this method. 

Your thoughts are appreciated and welcome, as always.


----------



## pepar

audiofan1 said:


> I'm using the same boom as well and have no problems getting it straight up


I am trying mightily to not let that image enter my head.


----------



## aaranddeeman

pepar said:


> I am trying mightily to not let that image enter my head.


----------



## aaranddeeman

lovingdvd said:


> Funny, but actually this brings up a good point. They say to measure with everything in the room, including chairs and furniture as usual. Yet we are supposed to leave the room. Makes me wonder if it is actually more accurate to measure with us in the room, at least at the MLP. Wonder if that changes the results.


Exactly. I had mentioned at some point that we should actualy have headset instead of mic from Audyssey, in that it has mics outside those ear muffs (instead of speakers inside there should be some sound absorbing material to protect your hearing).
You then wear those (after plugging other end to AVR) and sit in each listening position while Audyssey does it's thing..


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> Exactly. I had mentioned at some point that we should actualy have headset instead of mic from Audyssey, in that it has mics outside those ear muffs (instead of speakers inside there should be some sound absorbing material to protect your hearing).
> You then wear those (after plugging other end to AVR) and sit in each listening position while Audyssey does it's thing..



That's a pretty funny mental image, as well. I'm thinking of a winter hat style with the earmuffs, but I'm sure there could be higher-tech looking versions. I'm a little bit concerned, though, about the close mic patterns for a single listening position. I think you could just lean to the left or right by 12" or so, but now the mics wouldn't be pointed directly at the ceiling. Do you think that would be a problem?


----------



## donktard

aaranddeeman said:


> Exactly. I had mentioned at some point that we should actualy have headset instead of mic from Audyssey, in that it has mics outside those ear muffs (instead of speakers inside there should be some sound absorbing material to protect your hearing).
> You then wear those (after plugging other end to AVR) and sit in each listening position while Audyssey does it's thing..


Head proximity to mic would compromise results in similar way as if you would put mic too near to back of a chair.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> That's a pretty funny mental image, as well. I'm thinking of a winter hat style with the earmuffs, but I'm sure there could be higher-tech looking versions. I'm a little bit concerned, though, about the close mic patterns for a single listening position. I think you could just lean to the left or right by 12" or so, but now the mics wouldn't be pointed directly at the ceiling. Do you think that would be a problem?


For a single listener calibration, what is needed is the "Audyssey Carousel." A large doughnut shaped turntable would hang from the hat, with the audiophile's head in the doughnut hole. The microphone would aim straight at the ceiling, and rotate around the head, pausing in each of the 8 calibration positions to "listen" to the pings. The turntable and all other parts would be covered with fluffy and absorbent cloth. I will now go to my "Overthinkers Anonymous" meeting.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> For a single listener calibration, what is needed is the "Audyssey Carousel." A large doughnut shaped turntable would hang from the hat, with the audiophile's head in the doughnut hole. The microphone would aim straight at the ceiling, and rotate around the head, pausing in each of the 8 calibration positions to "listen" to the pings. The turntable and all other parts would be covered with fluffy and absorbent cloth. I will now go to my "Overthinkers Anonymous" meeting.



I like it! I think there would need to be a gyroscopic feature built into the carousel to avoid hitting the chair back, with a tilt module to realign the mics to the ceiling, but I definitely think we are closing in on a workable and practical solution.


----------



## pepar

donktard said:


> Head proximity to mic would compromise results in similar way as if you would put mic too near to back of a chair.


Hmmm, if we could only detach our ears and listen from a few feet away.

Jeff


----------



## audiofan1

pepar said:


> I am trying mightily to not let that image enter my head.


As I proof read my post I said to myself "Na its fine" I was going to delete it but I'll keep it up instead! No pun


----------



## audiofan1

garygarrison said:


> For a single listener calibration, what is needed is the "Audyssey Carousel." A large doughnut shaped turntable would hang from the hat, with the audiophile's head in the doughnut hole. The microphone would aim straight at the ceiling, and rotate around the head, pausing in each of the 8 calibration positions to "listen" to the pings. The turntable and all other parts would be covered with fluffy and absorbent cloth. I will now go to my "Overthinkers Anonymous" meeting.





mthomas47 said:


> I like it! I think there would need to be a gyroscopic feature built into the carousel to avoid hitting the chair back, with a tilt module to realign the mics to the ceiling, but I definitely think we are closing in on a workable and practical solution.


 Only problem I see with that idea is if one has a rather large head , there would be noway to get a tight spacing for the mic positions and not only that but do to the sheer size of a larger head and a single speed for the carousel would some calibrations take longer than others
this needs be hammered out before I plunk down any coin:kiss:


----------



## donktard

pepar said:


> Hmmm, if we could only detach our ears and listen from a few feet away.
> 
> Jeff


Look no further mister!


----------



## Toxic teletubby

donktard said:


> Look no further mister!


Where do I get these and how much?


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Not sure if this is right thread to post in, but for Denon and Marantz AVRs featuring Audyssey what slope does the LPF for LFE setting use?

Is it 12dB per octave or 24dB per octave?


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Not sure if this is right thread to post in, but for Denon and Marantz AVRs featuring Audyssey what slope does the LPF for LFE setting use?
> 
> Is it 12dB per octave or 24dB per octave?



Hi,

I have never seen the slope specified, but in the FAQ, Roger Dressler made the assumption that the LPF was a fourth-order filter (so 24db per octave). I would always be happy to go with his speculation in the absence of any hard information to the contrary.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have never seen the slope specified, but in the FAQ, Roger Dressler made the assumption that the LPF was a fourth-order filter (so 24db per octave). I would always be happy to go with his speculation in the absence of any hard information to the contrary.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


ok, thanks


----------



## dalumart

*Adyssey Issues Help Please*

HI everyone, I need some help with a question/issue that is bugging me a bit.
Receiver: Denon AVRX3300W
Fronts: Infinity RS10 
Sub: infinity Alpha1200
Center: Infinity CC-3
Surround and Back : Infinity OWS1

I just replaced my Onkyo TX-SR876 with the Denon AVRX3300W. The onkyo’s HDMI was cutting on and off and I had already replaced the capacitors twice, so I don’t want to deal with it anymore. 
I ran the Audyssey multiple times and I am puzzled by the results. My infinity front speakers have powered woofers and the speakers are rated down to 28 Hz but the Audyssey is setting the cross over to 250 Hz. The center is also small but crossed over at 40 . The other surround speakers are being set to 100. All are “small” and I am setting the LPF for the sub to 120 as recommended. 
When I was using the Onkyo receiver, Audyssey would recognize the fronts as large and would set the crossover to 40, and the rest of the speakers set as small but were being crossed over at 80. Off course I would set them all to small and change the crossover to 80. 
Nothing has changed in the room other than the receiver. My concern is that if the fronts are being crossed at 250 and the Sub is getting everything below 120, what is happening to the frequencies between 120 and 250 in the front speakers. Am I loosing all those frequencies?. I know I am not to change the front crossover to less than 250 because corrections are only applied to 250. But is there a way to have Audyssey set the crossover at 80 so it applies corrections. Any input or advise would be highly appreciated. Thank you and happy listening


----------



## Alan P

dalumart said:


> HI everyone, I need some help with a question/issue that is bugging me a bit.
> Receiver: Denon AVRX3300W
> Fronts: Infinity RS10
> Sub: infinity Alpha1200
> Center: Infinity CC-3
> Surround and Back : Infinity OWS1
> 
> I just replaced my Onkyo TX-SR876 with the Denon AVRX3300W. The onkyo’s HDMI was cutting on and off and I had already replaced the capacitors twice, so I don’t want to deal with it anymore.
> I ran the Audyssey multiple times and I am puzzled by the results. My infinity front speakers have powered woofers and the speakers are rated down to 28 Hz but the Audyssey is setting the cross over to 250 Hz. The center is also small but crossed over at 40 . The other surround speakers are being set to 100. All are “small” and I am setting the LPF for the sub to 120 as recommended.
> When I was using the Onkyo receiver, Audyssey would recognize the fronts as large and would set the crossover to 40, and the rest of the speakers set as small but were being crossed over at 80. Off course I would set them all to small and change the crossover to 80.
> Nothing has changed in the room other than the receiver. My concern is that if the fronts are being crossed at 250 and the Sub is getting everything below 120, what is happening to the frequencies between 120 and 250 in the front speakers. Am I loosing all those frequencies?. I know I am not to change the front crossover to less than 250 because corrections are only applied to 250. But is there a way to have Audyssey set the crossover at 80 so it applies corrections. Any input or advise would be highly appreciated. Thank you and happy listening


How do you have the fronts connected? Are you running the sub out from the AVR to the powered sub in the mains?? If so, that is not recommended.

If not, I have no idea why Audyssey would set the crossover so high. However, you are not losing anything. The LPF that you have set at 120hz is the "LPF for LFE" (Low Pass Filter for the Low Frequency Effects channel). This only determines the top limit for the LFE channel, and should be set to 120hz.

As it stands now, with your mains being crossed over at 250hz, everything below that is being sent to the sub. You aren't "missing" any frequencies.

However, you need to figure out why Audyssey is calibrating them that way. I suspect a wiring issue with the powered subs.


----------



## mthomas47

dalumart said:


> HI everyone, I need some help with a question/issue that is bugging me a bit.
> Receiver: Denon AVRX3300W
> Fronts: Infinity RS10
> Sub: infinity Alpha1200
> Center: Infinity CC-3
> Surround and Back : Infinity OWS1
> 
> I just replaced my Onkyo TX-SR876 with the Denon AVRX3300W. The onkyo’s HDMI was cutting on and off and I had already replaced the capacitors twice, so I don’t want to deal with it anymore.
> I ran the Audyssey multiple times and I am puzzled by the results. My infinity front speakers have powered woofers and the speakers are rated down to 28 Hz but the Audyssey is setting the cross over to 250 Hz. The center is also small but crossed over at 40 . The other surround speakers are being set to 100. All are “small” and I am setting the LPF for the sub to 120 as recommended.
> When I was using the Onkyo receiver, Audyssey would recognize the fronts as large and would set the crossover to 40, and the rest of the speakers set as small but were being crossed over at 80. Off course I would set them all to small and change the crossover to 80.
> Nothing has changed in the room other than the receiver. My concern is that if the fronts are being crossed at 250 and the Sub is getting everything below 120, what is happening to the frequencies between 120 and 250 in the front speakers. Am I loosing all those frequencies?. I know I am not to change the front crossover to less than 250 because corrections are only applied to 250. But is there a way to have Audyssey set the crossover at 80 so it applies corrections. Any input or advise would be highly appreciated. Thank you and happy listening


Hi,

I am having a little trouble finding your speakers. I found two Infinity RS10's. One was a small bookshelf speaker made in the 1980's, and the other appears to be a tower speaker made in 1998. Neither had a separate powered woofer. Apparently Infinity really likes that model #.  Can you direct us to the appropriate speaker?

Following up on Alan's post, it doesn't sound as if your woofers are registering at all to the Audyssey mic, perhaps due to a connection issue.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## dalumart

Alan P said:


> How do you have the fronts connected? Are you running the sub out from the AVR to the powered sub in the mains?? If so, that is not recommended.
> 
> If not, I have no idea why Audyssey would set the crossover so high. However, you are not losing anything. The LPF that you have set at 120hz is the "LPF for LFE" (Low Pass Filter for the Low Frequency Effects channel). This only determines the top limit for the LFE channel, and should be set to 120hz.
> 
> As it stands now, with your mains being crossed over at 250hz, everything below that is being sent to the sub. You aren't "missing" any frequencies.
> 
> However, you need to figure out why Audyssey is calibrating them that way. I suspect a wiring issue with the powered subs.


Thanks Alan,
Problem solved... I did not have the receivers sub out connected to the built in powered sub in the speakers, but I had forgotten to switch the speaker's amp from "line in" to "speakers" because that is how I was running them with the onkyo. I am not sure why I did not think of checking it.... it is such an obvious diagnosis. The 10 inch woofers were not getting any signal because the amp was set wrong. Your post made me double check and now everything works as its supposed to. Audyssey sees the speakers at full range. But I am going to cross them at 80, or do you think I should cross them lower since they are rated to 28 Hz. would that increase the base I am getting?


----------



## mthomas47

The usual advice is to start with 80Hz and get used to how things sound for a while. Then, with that standard setting as a benchmark, I would probably experiment with a 60Hz crossover, just to see if it increases your mid-bass (50hz to 100Hz) chest punch a little. That works pretty well in my system.

As a general rule, though, I probably wouldn't recommend going below 60Hz. A pretty good rule of thumb is to set your crossovers about 1 octave higher than the F3 point of your speakers. So, with about a 30Hz low-end response, I probably wouldn't go below 60Hz for my crossover. That will keep most of the bass below 60Hz in the sub, which has a more powerful amplifier, and a bigger cabinet.

But, you can always experiment to find out what you like.


----------



## dalumart

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am having a little trouble finding your speakers. I found two Infinity RS10's. One was a small bookshelf speaker made in the 1980's, and the other appears to be a tower speaker made in 1998. Neither had a separate powered woofer. Apparently Infinity really likes that model #.  Can you direct us to the appropriate speaker?
> 
> Following up on Alan's post, it doesn't sound as if your woofers are registering at all to the Audyssey mic, perhaps due to a connection issue.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike....

I know it is hard to get info on this speaker. I paid $1600 for the pair back in early 1999. I auditioned them along side some Polk RT2000 and some Acoustic Research AR3 and I really liked how much cleaner the infinity sounded. They still sound great today. I have those other speaker models written on the brochure that I keep with the manual and the receipt. All I can tell you from my manual is: cabinet is 45”x8”x17” ported 10” subs with 175 watt amps subs in each speaker, two 5 ¼ “ mids and one 1” dome tweeter located between the two 5 ¼. Can handle 200 watts and has a frequency response of 28-20000 Hz. Thanks again.


----------



## dalumart

mthomas47 said:


> The usual advice is to start with 80Hz and get used to how things sound for a while. Then, with that standard setting as a benchmark, I would probably experiment with a 60Hz crossover, just to see if it increases your mid-bass (50hz to 100Hz) chest punch a little. That works pretty well in my system.
> 
> As a general rule, though, I probably wouldn't recommend going below 60Hz. A pretty good rule of thumb is to set your crossovers about 1 octave higher than the F3 point of your speakers. So, with about a 30Hz low-end response, I probably wouldn't go below 60Hz for my crossover. That will keep most of the bass below 60Hz in the sub, which has a more powerful amplifier, and a bigger cabinet.
> 
> But, you can always experiment to find out what you like.


Thanks again. Happy listening.


----------



## mthomas47

dalumart said:


> Thanks again. Happy listening.


You are very welcome! Those sound like nice speakers. Once you have had a chance to experiment a little, I would be interested in your impressions of how things sound with different crossovers.


----------



## pepar

FWIW, I move my crossovers "up" to free up power/headroom on my main amp. My subs can certainly handle above 80 and having those frequencies originate from my more or less strategically located subs, with respect to room modes, produces less "chaos."


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> FWIW, I move my crossovers "up" to free up power/headroom on my main amp. My subs can certainly handle above 80 and having those frequencies originate from my more or less strategically located subs, with respect to room modes, produces less "chaos."


I thought I remembered you saying something like that. I believe that Alan likes to set even higher than necessary crossovers, to put as much load on his subs as possible, perhaps for reasons somewhat similar to yours. In my particular case, I am running four of my large well-distributed speakers, with a 60Hz crossover, and seem to get some extra mid-bass without introducing any negatives. But I am going to change my subs around, and add something in my system in a few weeks, and it will be time for some more experimentation.


----------



## Alan P

I'm running a 120hz crossover because I have a whole bunch of big subs, might as well make them do the heavy lifting. 

Because of my room setup and the PSA speakers roll-off at about 80hz, my mains really don't supply a whole lot of bass so the subs are needed to "fill in".


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> FWIW, I move my crossovers "up" to free up power/headroom on my main amp. My subs can certainly handle above 80 and having those frequencies originate from my more or less strategically located subs, with respect to room modes, produces less "chaos."





mthomas47 said:


> ... In my particular case, I am running four of my large well-distributed speakers, with a 60Hz crossover, and seem to get some extra mid-bass without introducing any negatives.





Alan P said:


> I'm running a 120hz crossover because I have a whole bunch of big subs, might as well make them do the heavy lifting.


To me, all this depends on whether the main speakers or the sub(s), given the amps, sub locations, etc., *sound better* in a certain range of frequencies. In my case, my mains sound tighter, cleaner, and more precise than my sub through the mid and high bass. An 80 Hz crossover works well for me. I have tried higher crossovers, especially with a couple of problem movies that needed a great deal more bass punch in the music (e.g., How the West Was Won), and for these, a higher crossover allowed me to get that punch by raising the crossover and turning up the sub-out trim on the pre-pro. I also tried a higher crossover on some other program material, but it simply increased the muddy sound and the chaos. 

Chaos is where you find it.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> To me, all this depends on whether the main speakers or the sub(s), given the amps, sub locations, etc., *sound better* in a certain range of frequencies. In my case, my mains sound tighter, cleaner, and more precise than my sub through the mid and high bass. An 80 Hz crossover works well for me. I have tried higher crossovers, especially with a couple of problem movies that needed a great deal more bass punch in the music (e.g., How the West Was Won), and for these, a higher crossover allowed me to get that punch by raising the crossover and turning up the sub-out trim on the pre-pro. I also tried a higher crossover on some other program material, but it simply increased the muddy sound and the chaos.
> 
> *Chaos is where you find it.*



I keep looking at this sentence, and I'm sorry, but I can't resist. *Chaos is a ladder!* 

If you don't watch HBO, nevermind.


----------



## Josh Z

I have a Denon AVR-X5200W receiver (2014 model) with Audyssey MultiEQ XT32. (Thanks for the correction, pepar.) It's a Dolby Atmos system with all 7.1.4 channels running from the Atmos receiver. I like Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ and hope to be able to continue using them.

However, for reasons too complicated to explain here, it's imperative that I find a way to program the receiver so that all four height channels have 100% identical EQ. Even if that means turning off EQ to those channels, that's fine, but they must be identical.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to do this while still applying Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ to the other channels. Once it's turned on, Audyssey doesn't allow any manual adjustments, beyond switching between the Flat and Reference curves. 

If I turn Audyssey off, the receiver has a Graphic EQ feature where I can manually tweak channels individually, but it's a pretty crude graphic equalizer and apparently doesn't copy all of Audyssey's filters. Nor would I be able to use Dynamic EQ.

Audyssey experts, is there any way to trick Audyssey into applying identical EQ to all four height channels?

I had a crazy idea about temporarily rewiring all my height channels to connect to just one of the speakers, and then running another Audyssey calc. Would Audyssey measure all the channels the same and assign them identical EQ settings? 

My gut feeling is that this wouldn't actually work. Even played back through the same speaker, the microphone would still measure slight differences in each test tone and assign different EQ. Or perhaps the receiver's assumption of where the speaker is in the room plays into Audyssey's calculation?

I know, somebody's going to suggest that I just try it and see what happens, but it seems like a lot of effort for something that may be doomed to failure.


----------



## garygarrison

Josh Z said:


> ... it's imperative that I find a way to program the receiver so that all four height channels have 100% identical EQ. Even if that means turning off EQ to those channels, that's fine, but they must be identical..


I'm confused. Do you mean:


100% identical *electronic EQ applied* to the speakers *OR*
100% identical* acoustical result *of the* electronic EQ in the room*
Since the 4 height speakers in question are in slightly different parts of the room, I would think that having 100% identical electronic EQ applied would be a bad idea. The four speakers would not then sound the same, although they might sound similar. If you mean (number 2) that the in-room result should be the same, then running Audyssey in the normal way should get them about as close as they are going to get.


Or do I not understand you?


I agree that the graphic equalizer is crude, and the copy function is so bad that Chris K. of Audyssey called it "useless," If I remember correctly.


----------



## pepar

Hi Josh,

Your Denon actually has Audyssey MultEQ XT32. And it is MultEQ Pro Installer Ready. 

I am not certain exactly what you are asking as we don't have your complicated back story, but with a Pro kit, you could assign the identical TARGET curve to the four Height channels. That isn't quite the same as them having identical EQ, but it more or less means that they will sound the same.

Jeff



Josh Z said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X5200W receiver (2014 model) with Audyssey MultiEQ XT. It's a Dolby Atmos system with all 7.1.4 channels running from the Atmos receiver. I like Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ and hope to be able to continue using them.
> 
> However, for reasons too complicated to explain here, it's imperative that I find a way to program the receiver so that all four height channels have 100% identical EQ. Even if that means turning off EQ to those channels, that's fine, but they must be identical.
> 
> As far as I can tell, there's no way to do this while still applying Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ to the other channels. Once it's turned on, Audyssey doesn't allow any manual adjustments, beyond switching between the Flat and Reference curves.
> 
> If I turn Audyssey off, the receiver has a Graphic EQ feature where I can manually tweak channels individually, but it's a pretty crude graphic equalizer and apparently doesn't copy all of Audyssey's filters. Nor would I be able to use Dynamic EQ.
> 
> Audyssey experts, is there any way to trick Audyssey into applying identical EQ to all four height channels?
> 
> I had a crazy idea about temporarily rewiring all my height channels to connect to just one of the speakers, and then running another Audyssey calc. Would Audyssey measure all the channels the same and assign them identical EQ settings?
> 
> My gut feeling is that this wouldn't actually work. Even played back through the same speaker, the microphone would still measure slight differences in each test tone and assign different EQ. Or perhaps the receiver's assumption of where the speaker is in the room plays into Audyssey's calculation?
> 
> I know, somebody's going to suggest that I just try it and see what happens, but it seems like a lot of effort for something that may be doomed to failure.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X5200W receiver (2014 model) with Audyssey MultiEQ XT. It's a Dolby Atmos system with all 7.1.4 channels running from the Atmos receiver. I like Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ and hope to be able to continue using them.
> 
> However, for reasons too complicated to explain here, it's imperative that I find a way to program the receiver so that all four height channels have 100% identical EQ. Even if that means turning off EQ to those channels, that's fine, but they must be identical.
> 
> As far as I can tell, there's no way to do this while still applying Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ to the other channels. Once it's turned on, Audyssey doesn't allow any manual adjustments, beyond switching between the Flat and Reference curves.
> 
> If I turn Audyssey off, the receiver has a Graphic EQ feature where I can manually tweak channels individually, but it's a pretty crude graphic equalizer and apparently doesn't copy all of Audyssey's filters. Nor would I be able to use Dynamic EQ.
> 
> Audyssey experts, is there any way to trick Audyssey into applying identical EQ to all four height channels?
> 
> I had a crazy idea about temporarily rewiring all my height channels to connect to just one of the speakers, and then running another Audyssey calc. Would Audyssey measure all the channels the same and assign them identical EQ settings?
> 
> My gut feeling is that this wouldn't actually work. Even played back through the same speaker, the microphone would still measure slight differences in each test tone and assign different EQ. Or perhaps the receiver's assumption of where the speaker is in the room plays into Audyssey's calculation?
> 
> I know, somebody's going to suggest that I just try it and see what happens, but it seems like a lot of effort for something that may be doomed to failure.


Hi,

I just have a couple of follow-up thoughts to the good ones already expressed above. First, turning off all EQ to your four height speakers wouldn't necessarily make them sound the same. Each speaker would still interact with the room in its own unique way. They might sound more similar with Audyssey off, or they might sound even less similar. You could certainly experiment, but even if you were willing to lose Audyssey for all the other channels, I don't think you could achieve the objective of identical sound from all four speakers at four different locations. Audyssey should actually get you closer to that, instead of further away from it.

Second, I don't believe that temporarily wiring 4 speakers into one channel and running the 75Hz test tone would work. It would completely mess-up the distance and trim settings, even if the calibration ran, and the EQ were set. And then, even if you manually reset the distances by measured location, and the levels by ear, the EQ still wouldn't work properly, IMO. My instinctive thought is that it would be a mess, with Audyssey trying to assign the same filters to four different speakers at four different locations.

Although it's a clever idea for a workaround, I think there are reasons why you can EQ four subs as one, and not speakers. And it has to do with the difference in frequency range. Of course, if there is something about the way that XT-32 set the levels of those 4 speakers that you don't like, that is certainly something that you could adjust by ear. That to me seems a more likely culprit than differential EQ.

If you could go into a little detail on what the problem is with your current XT-32 calibration, it would help. I believe you when you say that the reasons for wanting to do this are complicated. But it can't be more complicated than trying to problem-solve a problem without being able to define it. I like problem-solving, but I'm in the dark on this one.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Josh Z

garygarrison said:


> I'm confused. Do you mean:
> 
> 
> 100% identical *electronic EQ applied* to the speakers *OR*
> 100% identical* acoustical result *of the* electronic EQ in the room*
> Since the 4 height speakers in question are in slightly different parts of the room, I would think that having 100% identical electronic EQ applied would be a bad idea. The four speakers would not then sound the same, although they might sound similar. If you mean (number 2) that the in-room result should be the same, then running Audyssey in the normal way should get them about as close as they are going to get.


I need these four channels to have the exact same settings applied inside the receiver. (Or, at the very least, I need the two speakers on the left side to have the same settings as each other, and the two speakers on the right side to have the same settings as each other.)

I'm willing to sacrifice the audible quality of these channels to get the same settings. Ideally, I think, I would just turn off EQ to those channels.

As I said, the reasoning behind why I'm making this strange request is complicated. It's being discussed in the following thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-1-4-multi-avr-set-up-immersive-audio-14.html



pepar said:


> I am not certain exactly what you are asking as we don't have your complicated back story, but with a Pro kit, you could assign the identical TARGET curve to the four Height channels. That isn't quite the same as them having identical EQ, but it more or less means that they will sound the same.


I don't think setting the same target curve would be sufficient, unfortunately. I need the actual numerical values in the receiver to be identical.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Does Audyssey disables itself, if you set center to "none" (and it is and was actually present during Audyssey run).
I just want to temporarily enable or disable the center and want to know if Audyssey will be lost in this process.


----------



## pepar

Yes. Adding or deleting spkrs from the configuration settings causes Audyssey to drop out.


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> Does Audyssey disables itself, if you set center to "none" (and it is and was actually present during Audyssey run).
> I just want to temporarily enable or disable the center and want to know if Audyssey will be lost in this process.





pepar said:


> Yes. Adding or deleting spkrs from the configuration settings causes Audyssey to drop out.


Jeff,

I don't believe that is quite right. I agree that you can't add channels without disabling Audyssey, but you can disable them. Audyssey will certainly continue to run if you disable your subs, or your satellite channels, and I believe that it will if you prefer to use a phantom center, as well. It would be pretty easy to test, in any event. Audyssey light, or not, DEQ wouldn't engage if Audyssey were off, so you could tell immediately.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> First, turning off all EQ to your four height speakers wouldn't necessarily make them sound the same.


That's not actually my goal for doing this.



> Second, I don't believe that temporarily wiring 4 speakers into one channel and running the 75Hz test tone would work. It would completely mess-up the distance and trim settings, even if the calibration ran, and the EQ were set.


Distance, crossover and level settings can all be changed manually without turning off Audyssey. Unfortunately, EQ cannot.



> If you could go into a little detail on what the problem is with your current XT-32 calibration, it would help. I believe you when you say that the reasons for wanting to do this are complicated. But it can't be more complicated than trying to problem-solve a problem without being able to define it. I like problem-solving, but I'm in the dark on this one.


I warned you that this gets complicated. 

I have a 7.1.6 Dolby Atmos system with height speakers in the Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear locations. In order to achieve this, I have to run 3 AV receivers simultaneously. My primary Atmos receiver (the Denon 5200W) decodes its maximum speaker count of 7.1.4, using Top Front and Top Rear positions. All four height channels are exported through the pre-outs to a pair of secondary AVRs. The TF-Left and TR-Left channels go to the stereo inputs on one AVR. The TF-Right and TR-Right channels go to the third AVR. Each of the secondary AVRs uses ProLogic II to extract a center channel (Top Middle) between them.

In order for the PLII matrixing to work properly, each secondary AVR has to receive a 100% identical signal from the left and right (really front and rear) channels, so that it can interpret any mono content in common between them and direct it to the center. That means, in the primary AVR, those two channels must be set for the same level, the same crossover, the same distance, and the same EQ. If any one of those parameters differs between the front and the rear channels, the secondary AVR interprets the signal as stereo and will not extract it to the center.

I can manually change the volume level, crossover and distance settings to match in the primary AVR. (If necessary, I can adjust the channel levels in the secondary AVR afterwards.) However, different EQ settings between the front and rear causes the PLII matrixing in the secondary AVR to fail. Sounds that should come from the middle either come from the front and rear, or are spread between all three channels.

Currently, the only way to get the PLII center extraction to work is to turn off Audyssey in the primary AVR. With all EQ settings at 0, I then manually match the other parameters (level, crossover, distance) and everything works properly. Sounds that belong in the Top Middle channel come out exclusively from the Top Middle speaker.

The problem, of course, is that I can't benefit from Audyssey room correction or Dynamic EQ. I like those features. The sound quality in my room is a little flat without them.

Because I can't manually tweak Audyssey settings, I am willing to sacrifice the accuracy of the EQ in the height channels (where accuracy is less critical) so long as the signal from those channels is output with identical settings, thus allowing the downstream PLII decoder to work properly.

Even if the height channels wind up with inaccurate EQ, I will be able to calibrate their levels and do some tweaking in the secondary AVRs. Meanwhile, all of my 7.1 ground channels should once again benefit from Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ. 

So here's the question: Before doing an Audyssey calc, if I were to temporarily wire the TFL and TRL channels to play back through the same speaker (TFL for example), and then do the same with the channels on the other side, what's the likelihood that Audyssey will actually assign them identical EQ settings? If that somehow worked, I would then fix the wiring afterwards so that the channels actually play back through the correct speakers. 

My fear is that I'll go through this whole exercise and do a full Audyssey calc, only to find at the end that the microphone picked up very subtle differences in room tone or ambient noise between one test tone and the next, and assign those speakers different EQ anyway. If that happened, it would hamper the downstream PLII processing and defeat the purpose of the experiment. I'd be better off not using Audyssey.

Does that help you make sense of their weird request? 

Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> That's not actually my goal for doing this.
> 
> Distance, crossover and level settings can all be changed manually without turning off Audyssey. Unfortunately, EQ cannot.
> 
> I warned you that this gets complicated.
> 
> I have a 7.1.6 Dolby Atmos system with height speakers in the Top Front, Top Middle and Top Rear locations. In order to achieve this, I have to run 3 AV receivers simultaneously. My primary Atmos receiver (the Denon 5200W) decodes its maximum speaker count of 7.1.4, using Top Front and Top Rear positions. All four height channels are exported through the pre-outs to a pair of secondary AVRs. The TF-Left and TR-Left channels go to the stereo inputs on one AVR. The TF-Right and TR-Right channels go to the third AVR. Each of the secondary AVRs uses ProLogic II to extract a center channel (Top Middle) between them.
> 
> In order for the PLII matrixing to work properly, each secondary AVR has to receive a 100% identical signal from the left and right (really front and rear) channels, so that it can interpret any mono content in common between them and direct it to the center. That means, in the primary AVR, those two channels must be set for the same level, the same crossover, the same distance, and the same EQ. If any one of those parameters differs between the front and the rear channels, the secondary AVR interprets the signal as stereo and will not extract it to the center.
> 
> I can manually change the volume level, crossover and distance settings to match in the primary AVR. (If necessary, I can adjust the channel levels in the secondary AVR afterwards.) However, different EQ settings between the front and rear causes the PLII matrixing in the secondary AVR to fail. Sounds that should come from the middle either come from the front and rear, or are spread between all three channels.
> 
> Currently, the only way to get the PLII center extraction to work is to turn off Audyssey in the primary AVR. With all EQ settings at 0, I then manually match the other parameters (level, crossover, distance) and everything works properly. Sounds that belong in the Top Middle channel come out exclusively from the Top Middle speaker.
> 
> The problem, of course, is that I can't benefit from Audyssey room correction or Dynamic EQ. I like those features. The sound quality in my room is a little flat without them.
> 
> Because I can't manually tweak Audyssey settings, I am willing to sacrifice the accuracy of the EQ in the height channels (where accuracy is less critical) so long as the signal from those channels is output with identical settings, thus allowing the downstream PLII decoder to work properly.
> 
> Even if the height channels wind up with inaccurate EQ, I will be able to calibrate their levels and do some tweaking in the secondary AVRs. Meanwhile, all of my 7.1 ground channels should once again benefit from Audyssey room correction and Dynamic EQ.
> 
> So here's the question: Before doing an Audyssey calc, if I were to temporarily wire the TFL and TRL channels to play back through the same speaker (TFL for example), and then do the same with the channels on the other side, what's the likelihood that Audyssey will actually assign them identical EQ settings? If that somehow worked, I would then fix the wiring afterwards so that the channels actually play back through the correct speakers.
> 
> My fear is that I'll go through this whole exercise and do a full Audyssey calc, only to find at the end that the microphone picked up very subtle differences in room tone or ambient noise between one test tone and the next, and assign those speakers different EQ anyway. If that happened, it would hamper the downstream PLII processing and defeat the purpose of the experiment. I'd be better off not using Audyssey.
> 
> Does that help you make sense of their weird request?
> 
> Thanks.


Hi Josh,

It does help me to understand what you are trying to do, and why. But, I have no idea whether or not it would actually work. It seems to me that the only way it could work is if you treated all four height speakers as a single channel. That is what you had originally proposed doing. Is that still what you meant when you said "and then do the same with the channels on the other side"? Any division of the 4 height speakers into multiple channels would undoubtedly result in different filters being set.

If you wired all 4 into a single channel, I can't quite decide whether the test tones would work with sound coming from four places, or what that would do to an amplifier, trying to make 4 speakers simultaneously produce a 75Hz test tone. But if Audyssey even let you proceed with the calibration, then I think that the filters set (however bizarre they might be) would be the same for all 4 speakers. And then, as we have agreed, you could manually change crossovers, distances, and levels to make them identical. (I think that they would already be identical, just identically wrong.)

But once identical, would you ever be able to change them after that, or would resetting any of them invalidate the process again, and negate the ability of PLII to pass them as a mono signal? If you could never change them, then having all 4 height channels with the same trim level doesn't sound like a good idea from a sound quality or imaging standpoint, irrespective of how good or bad the EQ for those speakers was. I'm a little stumped!

Something else that I just thought of is, what happens when, after running Audyssey, you try to rewire the speakers into the proper channels? Wouldn't Audyssey detect that as adding new channels and invalidate the calibration, thereby disabling Audyssey? In that case, you would just be better off leaving them as they are, and running them as a single mono channel. But I don't know what that would do to your AVR, with 4 speakers on one channel. Actually, I suspect that I do know.

I know you were hoping for a better answer than, you'll just have to try it, but I think you are breaking new ground here, and I am not aware of any precedent for it. Perhaps Chris K., who hangs out on Facebook, could give you a definitive answer to this, but even he might tell you that only by trying it would you be able to find out how well it actually works, and what it might do to your AVR in the process. I am not really seeing a way to make this work. 

I wish I could help more. 

Regards,
Mike

I decided to come back and make one more, hopefully final, edit to this post. I think that in order to preserve the identical Audyssey filters, thereby enabling PLII to pass the signal, the 4 height speakers would have to remain wired into the single channel. And I think you could get around the amplifier issue by running something like a 400 watt monoblock amp to drive the 2 Ohm (?) or whatever load.

But the harder problem to resolve would still be having 4 height speakers playing the same sounds, at the same levels, from 4 different locations. It seems to me that that would defeat the whole purpose of having them to enhance the surround experience. What might work better, though, would be to run either two front height speakers *or *two rear height speakers, as a single monaural channel. The two front heights, for instance, would create a phantom center that might still enhance the front soundstage in a way that simultaneous front and rear speakers would not. Just a thought.


----------



## garygarrison

Josh,

You may already know how this is done. JBL once printed a method of running a mono signal through 4 speakers without an impedance disaster. It was called something like "series by parallel," and avoided the impedance falling to about 2 Ohms, offending the amplifier in the way Mike pointed out it might. I *think* it involved wiring two nominally 8 ohm speakers in series, which would give you 16 Ohms, then doing the same with the other pair of speakers, producing two independent 16 Ohm circuits, then wiring these two whole circuits in parallel, which would bring the whole conglomerate down to 8 Ohms nominal, which the amplifier would like. * Caution:* I am not qualified to offer this as a suggestion, so *don't do it* until an electrical engineer or physicist responds, unless you are one, in which case, this post was unnecessary. I have no idea whether the speakers would stay in phase (maintain proper polarity), but you could use a 1.5V battery and see if all four cones move in the same direction (either all out, or all in). 

OR, to minimize location differences that would otherwise cause Audyssey to use different EQ, could you temporarily put all 4 height speakers together, on the same wall, cheek by jowl and chin by top? The resulting EQ wouldn't be particularly accurate, but your other channels should be EQ's well by Audyssey. 

OR, if you have a mixing board, could you mix the channels into a mono signal before handing them over to PLII?

I'm not sure whether Audyssey "sees" any of the above as adding or subtracting channels. If it does, it may turn off. 

This is sounding more and more like a set of questions for Chris K. at Audyssey.


----------



## Josh Z

garygarrison said:


> You may already know how this is done. JBL once printed a method of running a mono signal through 4 speakers without an impedance disaster. It was called something like "series by parallel," and avoided the impedance falling to about 2 Ohms, offending the amplifier in the way Mike pointed out it might.
> 
> ...
> 
> OR, to minimize location differences that would otherwise cause Audyssey to use different EQ, could you temporarily put all 4 height speakers together, on the same wall, cheek by jowl and chin by top? The resulting EQ wouldn't be particularly accurate, but your other channels should be EQ's well by Audyssey.


I think I may not have explained my proposed solution clearly enough. I don't want to wire two speakers together (either in series or in parallel) so that the same sound plays out of them. I was thinking something like this:

In one of the two secondary AVRs, I leave the pre-outs from the primary AVR connected to the appropriate stereo inputs. However, I would then wire the speaker terminals for both the left and the right to the same speaker (for example, the Top Front speaker). When the test tone for the left plays, it comes out of the Top Front speaker. When the test tone for the right plays, it comes out of the same Top Front speaker. As far as either AVR knows, the left and right are connected to two separate speakers. Yet the sound the Audyssey mic measures should theoretically sound the same. Hopefully, Audyssey applies the same EQ to both left and right.

Because test tones are each isolated to one specific channel, and because they play individually, I shouldn't have an issue with audio from two channels conflicting or merging when they go to the same speaker.

If this works, when everything is done the Top Front speaker will actually be EQed correctly. Only the Top Rear speaker will have inaccurate EQ, because it's using a filter meant for Top Front. (The Top Middle channel that PLII derives will also be inaccurate for the same reason.) So long as all 7.1 of my ground speakers, my two subwoofers, and the two Top Front channels are all correct, I think I can live with that.


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> It seems to me that the only way it could work is if you treated all four height speakers as a single channel. That is what you had originally proposed doing. Is that still what you meant when you said "and then do the same with the channels on the other side"? Any division of the 4 height speakers into multiple channels would undoubtedly result in different filters being set.


What's important is that the Top Front Left and Top Rear Left channels must be identical to each other, because they're both going to the same AVR for PLII processing. The Top Front Right and Top Rear Right must also be identical to each other when they go to the third AVR. However, it's OK if the left and right differ. They'll be in separate AVRs that don't talk to each other.



> If you wired all 4 into a single channel, I can't quite decide whether the test tones would work with sound coming from four places, or what that would do to an amplifier, trying to make 4 speakers simultaneously produce a 75Hz test tone. But if Audyssey even let you proceed with the calibration, then I think that the filters set (however bizarre they might be) would be the same for all 4 speakers. And then, as we have agreed, you could manually change crossovers, distances, and levels to make them identical. (I think that they would already be identical, just identically wrong.)


See my response to Gary above.



> But once identical, would you ever be able to change them after that, or would resetting any of them invalidate the process again, and negate the ability of PLII to pass them as a mono signal? If you could never change them, then having all 4 height channels with the same trim level doesn't sound like a good idea from a sound quality or imaging standpoint, irrespective of how good or bad the EQ for those speakers was. I'm a little stumped!


The signal from the primary Atmos AVR needs to be identical in all respects. The Top Front and Top Rear will be set for the same trim level and I can never touch that. (As I'm currently doing it without Audyssey, I have both Top Front and Top Rear set for +5 dB.) If that were the only control I had over those speakers, it might result in one being inappropriately louder than the other. (When properly level matched, my Top Front speaker should only be +3 dB. I've bumped it up 2 dB too loud.) 

Fortunately, I can compensate for that in the second AVR by adjusting trim levels there. When I pull the trim for the Top Front speaker down to -2 dB, it offsets the inappropriate gain. Doing it that way will not affect the center channel extraction. The key point is that the PLII decoder believes that it's receiving a mono signal, not a stereo signal. The trims are applied after the decoding.

Consider what happens when you're using just a single AVR. You have three channels across the front of your room, and you play a movie that's encoded as 2.0 mono (some classic film in black & white). When calibrated, your left speaker may have a 2 dB higher gain than the right, yet center channel matrixing still works when the AVR receives a mono signal. 

What I have to do in the primary AVR is make sure that the signal is indeed mono. If the trim or the EQ in that receiver differs for one channel, the downstream AVR will read it as stereo and won't matrix correctly.



> Something else that I just thought of is, what happens when, after running Audyssey, you try to rewire the speakers into the proper channels? Wouldn't Audyssey detect that as adding new channels and invalidate the calibration, thereby disabling Audyssey?


I'm not going to change my Amp Assign settings. I'm going to physically attach speaker wire to the wrong speaker. I'll change it after Audyssey is complete, and Audyssey will never know the difference. 



> I know you were hoping for a better answer than, you'll just have to try it, but I think you are breaking new ground here, and I am not aware of any precedent for it.


Oh great, this wasn't something I especially wanted to be a pioneer for. 

Thanks for trying, though. If nothing else, talking this out is helping me to formulate a plan.


----------



## Josh Z

The main thing holding me back from simply trying this myself and seeing what happens is that, whenever I've had to run Audyssey twice back-to-back, with all the conditions in my room identical each time, I often get slightly different results. The trim may be a dB louder on one channel. The crossover may be different for no particular reason. The EQ will vary subtly. Audyssey just seems to be very fickle. I don't think I can control every possible variable in room tone or ambient noise that the microphone will pick up. I'd hate to waste the time doing a full calibration only for this to still not work.


----------



## garygarrison

Josh Z said:


> The main thing holding me back from simply trying this myself and seeing what happens is that, whenever I've had to run Audyssey twice back-to-back, with all the conditions in my room identical each time, I often get slightly different results. The trim may be a dB louder on one channel. The crossover may be different for no particular reason. The EQ will vary subtly. Audyssey just seems to be very fickle. I don't think I can control every possible variable in room tone or ambient noise that the microphone will pick up. I'd hate to waste the time doing a full calibration only for this to still not work.


When I finally found the 8 mic positions that seemed to work the best, I ran the calibration a few times. My results varied slightly, too. But I had a hard time getting the one mic into exactly the same 8 positions each time. I stopped doing re-runs about two or three years ago when the last run produced really good sound.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> The main thing holding me back from simply trying this myself and seeing what happens is that, whenever I've had to run Audyssey twice back-to-back, with all the conditions in my room identical each time, I often get slightly different results. The trim may be a dB louder on one channel. The crossover may be different for no particular reason. The EQ will vary subtly. Audyssey just seems to be very fickle. I don't think I can control every possible variable in room tone or ambient noise that the microphone will pick up. I'd hate to waste the time doing a full calibration only for this to still not work.


Hi Josh,

You are very welcome for any meager help I gave you, considering that I misunderstood how you were wiring things. FWIW, I don't think that minor variations from calibration to calibration would have an effect on what you are trying to achieve. As long as your calibration technique were diligent, what difference would it make if a trim level varied slightly from the last one you did? In theory, as long as everything were correct for your current calibration, then all of your settings and filters would be internally consistent, and you would achieve your objective.

One problem that I still foresee is contained in this passage: "When the test tone for the left plays, it comes out of the Top Front speaker. When the test tone for the right plays, it comes out of the same Top Front speaker. As far as either AVR knows, the left and right are connected to two separate speakers. Yet the sound the Audyssey mic measures should theoretically sound the same. Hopefully, Audyssey applies the same EQ to both left and right."

I can see how to make this work for two speakers, but I can't quite see how to make it work for four. But that may just be my own inability to visualize this as well as you can, so be patient with me. I was initially confused about how you could wire two speakers together in such a way that sound would only come out of one of them. I thought that sound would have to come from both of them when the test tone is played. And that wouldn't be a problem from an EQ standpoint (the same filters would be set as a hybrid of the two sounds) as long as Audyssey treated the test tones as valid, and allowed the calibration to proceed. But even if the sound only comes out of a single speaker, for the speaker pair, I still don't see how you can get away without using two channels in this scenario, And if you are using two channels, you can't get identical EQ for the four speakers.

It is extremely unlikely, bordering on impossible, that Audyssey could ever apply the same EQ to two separate channels. That's the whole point of playing test tones through every channel on a separate basis. It's so that Audyssey can set thousands of filters for each channel, based on that channel's specific interaction with the room. If two speakers could be identical in every way, their placement within a room, and the resulting room/speaker interaction, would rob them of that identicality. Audyssey attempts to return them to some correspondence by EQing the room/speaker interaction to about +/- 3db at every frequency. I know you know all this, but unless I am misunderstanding something again (which is very possible ) you may be overlooking it in your desire to accomplish this.

The two sub "channels" (one channel, in fact) in XT-32 are the only ones where Audyssey truly EQ's (sets identical filters) the two channels as one. The only thing that Audyssey does differently for the two sub "channels" is to set timing and trim level independently. But all other channels are fully independent.

I want your plan to work! And I am not taking pleasure in finding potential issues with it, so I hope that I am somehow misinterpreting things again. Personally, I might still try it anyway, out of sheer stubbornness, hoping to bully PLII into doing what I wanted it to.  But I believe, as I said in my previous post, that any plan which involves running your four speakers into more than one channel is doomed from the standpoint of identical EQ.

I still think that the idea is extremely ingenious, and would like to know how things turn out if you decide to try it.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I'm not going to delete my post because I enjoyed trying to think it through, but it appears that I was still misinterpreting something important, involving the use of three AVR's.

"What's important is that the Top Front Left and Top Rear Left channels must be identical to each other, because they're both going to the same AVR for PLII processing. The Top Front Right and Top Rear Right must also be identical to each other when they go to the third AVR. However, it's OK if the left and right differ. They'll be in separate AVRs that don't talk to each other."

Now it finally all makes sense. Duh! And I can't see any reason why it shouldn't work. Well, that was easy.


----------



## ggsantafe

Josh Z said:


> What's important is that the Top Front Left and Top Rear Left channels must be identical to each other, because they're both going to the same AVR for PLII processing. The Top Front Right and Top Rear Right must also be identical to each other when they go to the third AVR. However, it's OK if the left and right differ. They'll be in separate AVRs that don't talk to each other.
> 
> 
> 
> See my response to Gary above.
> 
> 
> 
> The signal from the primary Atmos AVR needs to be identical in all respects. The Top Front and Top Rear will be set for the same trim level and I can never touch that. (As I'm currently doing it without Audyssey, I have both Top Front and Top Rear set for +5 dB.) If that were the only control I had over those speakers, it might result in one being inappropriately louder than the other. (When properly level matched, my Top Front speaker should only be +3 dB. I've bumped it up 2 dB too loud.)
> 
> Fortunately, I can compensate for that in the second AVR by adjusting trim levels there. When I pull the trim for the Top Front speaker down to -2 dB, it offsets the inappropriate gain. Doing it that way will not affect the center channel extraction. The key point is that the PLII decoder believes that it's receiving a mono signal, not a stereo signal. The trims are applied after the decoding.
> 
> Consider what happens when you're using just a single AVR. You have three channels across the front of your room, and you play a movie that's encoded as 2.0 mono (some classic film in black & white). When calibrated, your left speaker may have a 2 dB higher gain than the right, yet center channel matrixing still works when the AVR receives a mono signal.
> 
> What I have to do in the primary AVR is make sure that the signal is indeed mono. If the trim or the EQ in that receiver differs for one channel, the downstream AVR will read it as stereo and won't matrix correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to change my Amp Assign settings. I'm going to physically attach speaker wire to the wrong speaker. I'll change it after Audyssey is complete, and Audyssey will never know the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh great, this wasn't something I especially wanted to be a pioneer for.
> 
> Thanks for trying, though. If nothing else, talking this out is helping me to formulate a plan.


Check out this link from the Dolby Atmos Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=890458&d=1439761981
It should take you to a pdf. file created by AVS contributer Scott Simonian - my understanding is that Scott has sucessfully implemented a 7.1.6 system with the addition of one receiver. I'm sure he'd be willing to share his process with you in greater detail.


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> FWIW, I don't think that minor variations from calibration to calibration would have an effect on what you are trying to achieve. As long as your calibration technique were diligent, what difference would it make if a trim level varied slightly from the last one you did? In theory, as long as everything were correct for your current calibration, then all of your settings and filters would be internally consistent, and you would achieve your objective.


My point was that I'm afraid that, even if I play the two test tones out of the same speaker in the same location, Audyssey will still find them to be slightly different than one another and apply different EQ.


----------



## Josh Z

ggsantafe said:


> Check out this link from the Dolby Atmos Thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=890458&d=1439761981
> It should take you to a pdf. file created by AVS contributer Scott Simonian - my understanding is that Scott has sucessfully implemented a 7.1.6 system with the addition of one receiver. I'm sure he'd be willing to share his process with you in greater detail.


Scott and I have corresponded in the "Beyond 7.1.4" thread. The current implementation I'm running with 3 AVRs was developed by Scott, and is affectionately knows as "Scatmos." Prior to recent changes, I had developed my own method for deriving 7.1.6 using a total of 2 AVRs ("Zatmos"), but Scott's method is better and I have upgraded.

Scott doesn't use Audyssey or any EQ, so he's not having these same problems I am.

When I was running 2 AVRs for Zatmos, I didn't comprehend these problems with EQ matching, and actually didn't realize how poorly the second AVR was matrixing. Since obtaining a copy of the Dolby Atmos demo disc that has 7.1.6 test tones, I discovered how hard it is to get this right.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> My point was that I'm afraid that, even if I play the two test tones out of the same speaker in the same location, Audyssey will still find them to be slightly different than one another and apply different EQ.


I confess to being completely baffled by what will happen when you try to play the test tones, and then afterward. My ability to predict is completely inadequate at that point. Unfortunately, like all those who push the frontiers, you will just have to experiment with no assurance of success. But think of Thomas Edison for inspiration.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I confess to being completely baffled by what will happen when you try to play the test tones, and then afterward. My ability to predict is completely inadequate at that point. Unfortunately, like all those who push the frontiers, you will just have to experiment with no assurance of success. But think of Thomas Edison for inspiration.


... hundreds of filaments later ....


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> I confess to being completely baffled by what will happen when you try to play the test tones, and then afterward. My ability to predict is completely inadequate at that point. Unfortunately, like all those who push the frontiers, you will just have to experiment with no assurance of success. But think of Thomas Edison for inspiration.


It's going to be a few days before I have time to do this. In the meantime, I'll try to watch a bunch of stuff with Audyssey off and see how much I really miss it.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> It's going to be a few days before I have time to do this. In the meantime, I'll try to watch a bunch of stuff with Audyssey off and see how much I really miss it.


If Audyssey is helping a lot up in the mid-range and higher, that's one thing. But if it's only making a significant difference in the modal region, there might be easier ways to improve the EQ without having to jump through so many hoops. Something like a miniDSP, for instance, might be a good alternative.


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> If Audyssey is helping a lot up in the mid-range and higher, that's one thing. But if it's only making a significant difference in the modal region, there might be easier ways to improve the EQ without having to jump through so many hoops. Something like a miniDSP, for instance, might be a good alternative.


My system is complex enough, and I've already spent far too much money on it. I'm trying to accomplish this without introducing any additional components.


----------



## mthomas47

The way that Audyssey EQ's multiple subs has always been very confusing. It was confusing before Chris clarified how it works, and it is still confusing now.  I am going to post a comment I made, and then the response, and I would like to get some additional opinions on this. I don't believe that Audyssey can EQ two subs with different capabilities, no matter how they are connected, without immediately "hearing" and identifying the F3 point of the lesser sub, and stopping the EQ at that F3 point of the lesser sub. I don't think it's possible to trick Audyssey with a Y-connector now, any more than it was before XT-32 offered the Sub 1, Sub 2 channels. But I may be completely misunderstanding something here, so please help me out on this. Thanks!

_"I like what Audyssey is doing for you. I think you would do just fine just adding the MBM on a Y-cable off of sub1 and time align yourself so Audyssey can do its magic. You could even try just placing the MBM nearfield, flipping the MBM phase to 180° and letting Audyssey work from there._
Marc,"

"I'm a little confused by what you are suggesting with the Y-splitter. My understanding of how Audyssey works is that whether you have two subs connected to one AVR sub channel, or whether you use Sub 1 and Sub 2, the end result will be the same from an EQ perspective. All SubEQ with the two separate channels does is to set timing and levels separately. But no matter how the subs are physically connected, if Audyssey plays a test tone through them, it will detect the combined F3 point, and stop EQing at that point. And that's an intentional feature, to prevent Audyssey from inadvertently boosting a sub below its F3 point.

Just as an added note to that, as far as I can tell Audyssey didn't change its actual sub EQ methodology when they developed SubEQ. So, previously people were using multiple subs into one sub channel, and that made time alignment and level matching more difficult. But the subs were always EQed as one. When Audyssey added the second sub port, it gave people the opportunity to time align and level match subs more easily, but Audyssey continued to EQ however many subs were in the system based on their combined response. So, one weak link in the chain would still result in a loss of EQ below that point. 

I have been trying to think through a way around this, and discussing it with some other people, and so far I am coming up empty. If there is a way to trick Audyssey into ignoring the fact that an MBM rolls-off at about 50Hz, or a weaker sub rolls off wherever, so that Audyssey will still EQ the other sub, or subs, in a system down to their in-room F3's, I'm not seeing it so far. I have been hoping that with enough subs, going to 15Hz for instance, the Audyssey mic just wouldn't notice an MBM rolling off at 50Hz. But as sensitive as the Audyssey mic is, I'm not sure whether that is really a workable idea or not, even with a lot of subs.

For the time being, until someone demonstrates a feasible workaround, I would assume that Audyssey will stop EQing at the detected F3 point of a sub, no matter how it is configured, and that incorporating an MBM into a system would require either sacrificing EQ below its roll-off point, or adding outboard EQ in the form of something like a miniDSP.

I certainly could be missing something here, but if I am, I would like to understand your idea better. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I think I see what you are saying here, or at least what you could be saying. If you ran Audyssey with just one sub in play, and then attached a second sub to that same channel with a Y-splitter, Audyssey wouldn't know that you had added a second sub, and would consequently continue to EQ the first sub down to its F3 point. Of course, the trade-off would be that Audyssey would then apply the same EQ to the second sub, as well, potentially trying to boost it below its F3 point." 

Quote:
Originally Posted by *mthomas47*  
_Marc,

I'm a little confused by what you are suggesting with the Y-splitter. My understanding of how Audyssey works is that whether you have two subs connected to one AVR sub channel, or whether you use Sub 1 and Sub 2, the end result will be the same from an EQ perspective. All SubEQ with the two separate channels does is to set timing and levels separately. But no matter how the subs are physically connected, if Audyssey plays a test tone through them, it will detect the combined F3 point, and stop EQing at that point. And that's an intentional feature, to prevent Audyssey from inadvertently boosting a sub below its F3 point._

"No, in this case Audyssey will only see the two as single sub with the F3 point of the deeper sub."

Quote:
_Just as an added note to that, as far as I can tell Audyssey didn't change its actual sub EQ methodology when they developed SubEQ. So, previously people were using multiple subs into one sub channel, and that made time alignment and level matching more difficult. But the subs were always EQed as one. When Audyssey added the second sub port, it gave people the opportunity to time align and level match subs more easily, but Audyssey continued to EQ however many subs were in the system based on their combined response. So, one weak link in the chain would still result in a loss of EQ below that point._

"Just about every system out there time aligns and EQs multiple subs as one. You would be one bad MF if you could manually EQ each sub separately, and get better results." 

Quote:
_I have been trying to think through a way around this, and discussing it with some other people, and so far I am coming up empty. If there is a way to trick Audyssey into ignoring the fact that an MBM rolls-off at about 50Hz, or a weaker sub rolls off wherever, so that Audyssey will still EQ the other sub, or subs, in a system down to their in-room F3's, I'm not seeing it so far. I have been hoping that with enough subs, going to 15Hz for instance, the Audyssey mic just wouldn't notice an MBM rolling off at 50Hz. But as sensitive as the Audyssey mic is, I'm not sure whether that is really a workable idea or not, even with a lot of subs._

"The Y-splitter is the work around. Audyssey only detects however many subs connected to sub1 out as a single sub. "
Quote:
_Edit: I think I see what you are saying here, or at least what you could be saying. If you ran Audyssey with just one sub in play, and then attached a second sub to that same channel with a Y-splitter, Audyssey wouldn't know that you had added a second sub, and would consequently continue to EQ the first sub down to its F3 point. Of course, the trade-off would be that Audyssey wouldn't EQ the second sub (an MBM, in this case) at all. Is that what you meant?_

"No, with the Y-splitter Audyssey will do its thing on both subs combined. You just have to manually time align or stack them so they are equidistant from MLP. 

I had difficulty time aligning the MBMs with the subs so I made the change to Y the two subs as sub1 and Y the two MBMs as sub 2. The MBMs are equidistant from the MLP. The PSA subs are ±1' from MLP."


----------



## mthomas47

I decided to clarify one aspect of my own thinking simply because the subject can be confusing. I have assumed that if two subs are connected by a Y-splitter, that their respective gains will then be set to produce "X" SPL, whether "X" is 75db, or 78db, or 80db. Then, at the point that the lesser sub drops out (lets say a mid-bass module set for 50Hz) the combined SPL of the two subs will necessarily drop as well. So, that even if the stronger sub continues unabated down to 15Hz, Audyssey will "recognize" the combined F3 point of the two subs as about 50Hz, which is where the combined volume necessarily dropped. And, consequently, Audyssey will stop setting filters for the sub (or pair) at about 50Hz, or whatever that combined F3 point is.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I decided to clarify one aspect of my own thinking simply because the subject can be confusing. I have assumed that if two subs are connected by a Y-splitter, that their respective gains will then be set to produce "X" SPL, whether "X" is 75db, or 78db, or 80db. Then, at the point that the lesser sub drops out (lets say a mid-bass module set for 50Hz) the combined SPL of the two subs will necessarily drop as well. So, that even if the stronger sub continues unabated down to 15Hz, Audyssey will "recognize" the combined F3 point of the two subs as about 50Hz, which is where the combined volume necessarily dropped. And, consequently, Audyssey will stop setting filters for the sub (or pair) at about 50Hz, or whatever that combined F3 point is.


Mike,

Here's a Q&A I had with Chris on the subject:

Q: Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? __ OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

A: Hi Feri,
If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.

Q: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again.

A: Yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Mike,
> 
> Here's a Q&A I had with Chris on the subject:
> 
> Q: Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? __ OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri
> 
> A: Hi Feri,
> If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.
> 
> Q: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again.
> 
> A: Yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement.



Hi Feri,

Thanks for responding. I believe that is an older conversation that you had with Chris. I think that he clarified things sometime within the last year (?) when he said that Audyssey would simply stop setting filters at the combined F3 point of the subs. Since then, I believe that most of us with multiple subs have made assumptions similar to those in my post.

But that's why I am seeking clarification now, because for years, the quote you posted from Chris was the prevailing wisdom--that it was possible to damage a weaker sub by over-driving it, because Audyssey would EQ below the F3 of the weaker sub, or that a stronger sub would somehow be limited by the weaker sub, and have its own frequency response curtailed.

Chris said it was neither of those things, but that Audyssey would simply stop setting filters at the combined F3 point so that a weaker sub would not be damaged. I have forgotten who pinned him down a little more on the subject, and I wouldn't want to bet exactly when it happened. But I recall it as being after the thread split. And if Audyssey does, in fact, stop EQing at the combined F3 point of the subs, then I believe it would have to work as I suggested in my post.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Looking back at Post 92 in this thread, it appears that the new information was available to us before the threads split. If I have time, I will try to find the original conversation with Chris from the old thread. But that may take a while. I had originally thought it was about a year ago, and then I remembered it as being part of this new thread. Apparently, that first instinct was the correct one.


----------



## mthomas47

This is what I was looking for, Page 2643 from February of this year.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...al-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-2643.html


----------



## asere

Guys I redid Audyssey after we changed the family room







flooring from carpet to tile. Now I added bass traps at the MLP and an area rug in the middle of the room. 
Do I need to redo Audyssey once more?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> This is what I was looking for, Page 2643 from February of this year.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...al-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-2643.html


Mike, the link doesn't take me there. Can you give the post#?


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Guys I redid Audyssey after we changed the family room
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flooring from carpet to tile. Now I added bass traps at the MLP and an area rug in the middle of the room.
> Do I need to redo Audyssey once more?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Outstanding! The bass traps and the area rug should help. You already know the answer to your question.  You just changed the speaker/room interaction, so the old filters are no longer relevant.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> Outstanding! The bass traps and the area rug should help. You already know the answer to your question.  You just changed the speaker/room interaction, so the old filters are no longer relevant.


I will gladly redo audyssey when the kids are asleep 
Do you think the traps are too high? I could bring them down some but they stick out about 5.25 inches and head would get in the way.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Mike, the link doesn't take me there. Can you give the post#?



Hi Feri, 

That's strange, the link works for me. I would just go to Page 2643. It's a fairly lengthy discussion that runs for most of that page, starting as I recall, with that same quote from Chris. And I misremembered when I said that Chris had revised the communication that you cited. This was evidence that Audyssey does not, in fact, EQ below the F3 point of the weaker sub in a multi-sub system. It's a sufficiently complicated subject that I think even Chris may have trouble keeping it all straight. I certainly do. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> I will gladly redo audyssey when the kids are asleep
> Do you think the traps are too high? I could bring them down some but they stick out about 5.25 inches and head would get in the way.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



That's a tough call. I believe that bass traps are most effective in corners where walls meet. The spot where the wall meets the ceiling would work well, but they might look pretty weird there. You could pull them down to floor level, below the sofa, but then you would lose some of the broadband benefit. 

I would probably move the sofa at least 12" away from the wall, and move them down some. That would have two benefits. First, you would get fewer secondary reflections from the wall right into your ears if you moved the seating away from the wall a little. Second, with the traps down at ear level, you could absorb some of those secondary reflections to start with. A wall directly behind your head like that is not likely to help your sound quality, but you can certainly mitigate its effects.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> That's a tough call. I believe that bass traps are most effective in corners where walls meet. The spot where the wall meets the ceiling would work well, but they might look pretty weird there. You could pull them down to floor level, below the sofa, but then you would lose some of the broadband benefit.
> 
> I would probably move the sofa at least 12" away from the wall, and move them down some. That would have two benefits. First, you would get fewer secondary reflections from the wall right into your ears if you moved the seating away from the wall a little. Second, with the traps down at ear level, you could absorb some of those secondary reflections to start with. A wall directly behind your head like that is not likely to help your sound quality, but you can certainly mitigate its effects.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yeah, GIK was the one to suggest placing traps there because of where the couch is and being broadband it would help with all frequencies. So far it has helped I think just how I have them. When watching a bass heavy movie the bass is more spread out vs before my wife would complain it would hurt her ears with the pressure. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> Yeah, GIK was the one to suggest placing traps there because of where the couch is and being broadband it would help with all frequencies. So far it has helped I think just how I have them. When watching a bass heavy movie the bass is more spread out vs before my wife would complain it would hurt her ears with the pressure.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


 Panels look great  you could try lowering them and see how they sound with Audyssey off , keep in mind though you don't want to completely deaden the sound as that almost worse than bloated bad bass. I can see why GIK recommended placing them there


----------



## asere

audiofan1 said:


> Panels look great  you could try lowering them and see how they sound with Audyssey off , keep in mind though you don't want to completely deaden the sound as that almost worse than bloated bad bass. I can see why GIK recommended placing them there


Thank you. The room seems to sound better were the panels are right now. The bass especially seems more spread out. I'm just now second guessing since others have said to move them down more.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

asere said:


> Thank you. The room seems to sound better were the panels are right now. The bass especially seems more spread out. I'm just now second guessing since others have said to move them down more.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Trust me! Having those panels to close to your ears will be disconcerting, as its a sonic blackhole If you able to move the mlp up a feet or two then try dropping them down a foot or so! Most don't realize panels can require critical placement as well and not just slapping them on the wall. I found my 7" GIK Monster bass trap(rear corner of the room) and one 4" Bass trap (7 ft behing the mlp) work best when above 20" from the floor to a lot of holes and patching and painting but they are fine tuned but I'm someone who can sweat the little things


----------



## asere

audiofan1 said:


> Trust me! Having those panels to close to your ears will be disconcerting, as its a sonic blackhole If you able to move the mlp up a feet or two then try dropping them down a foot or so! Most don't realize panels can require critical placement as well and not just slapping them on the wall. I found my 7" GIK Monster bass trap(rear corner of the room) and one 4" Bass trap (7 ft behing the mlp) work best when above 20" from the floor to a lot of holes and patching and painting but they are fine tuned but I'm someone who can sweat the little things


I'll see if I can try that. The issue is the couch is on tile and when someone sits it slides back. I might cut out a rubber pad(like the ones I used to stack the KK subs) and place them underneath each leg and see if it keeps from moving.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Yeah, GIK was the one to suggest placing traps there because of where the couch is and being broadband it would help with all frequencies. So far it has helped I think just how I have them. When watching a bass heavy movie the bass is more spread out vs before my wife would complain it would hurt her ears with the pressure.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk



It's amazing how much bass traps helped my room. I agree with audiofan that the panels look really good there. The color is a nice match for the sofa, too. If you could inch them down a little closer to the sofa, and pull the sofa out even a foot or so from the wall, I believe you could further improve your sound, not so much more in the bass frequencies, but in the higher frequencies. It's worth a try anyway.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> It's amazing how much bass traps helped my room. I agree with audiofan that the panels look really good there. The color is a nice match for the sofa, too. If you could inch them down a little closer to the sofa, and pull the sofa out even a foot or so from the wall, I believe you could further improve your sound, not so much more in the bass frequencies, but in the higher frequencies. It's worth a try anyway.


Thanks for the compliment.I'll try that 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> It's amazing how much bass traps helped my room. I agree with audiofan that the panels look really good there. The color is a nice match for the sofa, too. If you could inch them down a little closer to the sofa, and pull the sofa out even a foot or so from the wall, I believe you could further improve your sound, not so much more in the bass frequencies, but in the higher frequencies. It's worth a try anyway.


For me it was a tossup between the first reflection point absorbers ... lead, unexpectedly, by the one on the back wall .. and the SSC-style bass traps. Thinking about my room dims, the rear absorber attenuated a reflection delayed by 12ms. That is in the confusion zone, while the front L&R and ceiling absorbers knock down reflections in the blurr zone.


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> The way that Audyssey EQ's multiple subs has always been very confusing. It was confusing before Chris clarified how it works, and it is still confusing now.  I am going to post a comment I made, and then the response, and I would like to get some additional opinions on this. I don't believe that Audyssey can EQ two subs with different capabilities, no matter how they are connected, without immediately "hearing" and identifying the F3 point of the lesser sub, and stopping the EQ at that F3 point of the lesser sub.


Thank you for this. I actually also have unequal subs connected. (I can't afford to upgrade one of them yet.) This may explain why bass seemed to improve a little when I turned Audyssey off.


----------



## pepar

Josh Z said:


> Thank you for this. I actually also have unequal subs connected. (I can't afford to upgrade one of them yet.) This may explain why bass seemed to improve a little when I turned Audyssey off.


The takeaway I got from Chris' post was that adding a "lesser" sub DECREASES system performance and that the system is better off without the additional sub.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> Thank you for this. I actually also have unequal subs connected. (I can't afford to upgrade one of them yet.) This may explain why bass seemed to improve a little when I turned Audyssey off.



You are welcome! I understood Chris to be saying the same thing that Jeff did. But empirical observation didn't seem to bear out what he was saying, and it's possible that he slightly misspoke. It appears that Audyssey simply stops EQing at the detected F3 point of the less capable sub. Whether that has a meaningful effect on the EQ, and on the resulting sound quality, would probably be very room and system dependent.

For instance, in a room with four capable subs, and one MBM, the native FR might be good enough that Audyssey wouldn't really need to EQ below about 50Hz. But, with only two subs of very unequal capabilities, I think it would be a dicey proposition to lose EQ below the F3 point of the less capable sub. So, who knows? I wonder if you couldn't run the less capable sub nearfield, as a way to move it into slightly better correspondence with the more capable one?


----------



## pepar

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! I understood Chris to be saying the same thing that Jeff did. But empirical observation didn't seem to bear out what he was saying, and it's possible that he slightly misspoke. It appears that Audyssey simply stops EQing at the detected F3 point of the less capable sub. Whether that has a meaningful effect on the EQ, and on the resulting sound quality, would probably be very room and system dependent."


*
"I'm a little confused by what you are suggesting with the Y-splitter.  My understanding of how Audyssey works is that whether you have two subs connected to one AVR sub channel, or whether you use Sub 1 and Sub 2, the end result will be the same from an EQ perspective. All SubEQ with the two separate channels does is to set timing and levels separately. But no matter how the subs are physically connected, if Audyssey plays a test tone through them, it will detect the combined F3 point, and stop EQing at that point. And that's an intentional feature, to prevent Audyssey from inadvertently boosting a sub below its F3 point."

"No, in this case Audyssey will only see the two as single sub with the F3 point of the deeper sub."*

I don't get the misspoke part. This seems clear: Timing and level are set at the individual pings step, and filters set from the subsequent unison measurement. Though there might have been some mis-speakin' going on if Audyssey detects the combined F3 ... which is below the lesser sub's F3.


----------



## mthomas47

pepar said:


> *
> "I'm a little confused by what you are suggesting with the Y-splitter. My understanding of how Audyssey works is that whether you have two subs connected to one AVR sub channel, or whether you use Sub 1 and Sub 2, the end result will be the same from an EQ perspective. All SubEQ with the two separate channels does is to set timing and levels separately. But no matter how the subs are physically connected, if Audyssey plays a test tone through them, it will detect the combined F3 point, and stop EQing at that point. And that's an intentional feature, to prevent Audyssey from inadvertently boosting a sub below its F3 point."
> 
> "No, in this case Audyssey will only see the two as single sub with the F3 point of the deeper sub."*
> 
> I don't get the misspoke part. This seems clear: Timing and level are set at the individual pings step, and filters set from the subsequent unison measurement. Though there might have been some mis-speakin' going on if Audyssey detects the combined F3 ... which is below the lesser sub's F3.


Hi Jeff,

The conversation I quoted was with someone else on another thread. It wasn't with Chris. The person I was responding to thought he could trick Audyssey with a Y-connector. The place where I think Chris may have misspoken was in a Facebook conversation with Feri where Chris said that Audyssey might damage a weaker sub by trying to boost it below it's natural abilities.

That seems to be contradicted by a lengthy conversation from February of this year on Page 2643 of the Part I thread. In that conversation, a poster chronicled his more than year-long effort to get two sealed subs and two ported subs to work well together. I read a good part of his thread which showed his repeated measurement efforts. He discovered that no matter what he did, XT-32 simply quit EQing at the detected F3 point of the sealed subs, as they rolled-off well before the ported subs. That seems to be pretty conclusive evidence of the way Audyssey actually works.

My point on the other thread, which I repeated on the previous page for anyone interested, is that you can't trick Audyssey into not noticing a weaker sub, by using a Y-connector. Whether you have XT, with only one sub jack (and multiple subs operating from that single jack), or whether you have XT-32 with multiple subs on Sub 1/Sub 2, Audyssey seemingly measures the combined frequency response, and quits EQing at the detected point where a weaker sub drops out, causing a decrease in total SPL.

Both the empirical evidence of how Audyssey actually EQ's multiple subs, and Chris' statement contradict the earlier belief, that was in the FAQ, that Audyssey might impair the performance of a stronger sub by EQing it to conform with the performance of a weaker one. The empirical evidence doesn't support that proposition either. 

There have been several conflicting theories on how Audyssey actually works with respect to mis-matched subs, and the FAQ may still suggest that Audyssey curtails the performance of a stronger sub. I don't recall right now. In a few cases on other threads, I have tried to alert people to the fact that they will be losing EQ below the F3 point of the weaker sub in a system, particularly with a sub with entirely different properties. It's a very confusing issue (hence the multiple theories), but until someone offers convincing evidence to the contrary, I'm going with the empirical evidence on this one, that Audyssey simply stops EQing at the F3 point of a weaker sub. 

That is, incidentally, exactly the way that Audyssey sets crossovers for a speaker pair--protecting the weaker speaker by awarding a higher crossover to a pair, based on the detected roll-off point of the weaker one. FWIW, I believe that everyone else accepted the empirical evidence too, when this discussion originally occurred on the thread back in February, so I don't think that I am breaking any new ground with this--just refreshing our collective memories. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pepar

There are ways to integrate multiple subs ... one guru (Welti?) even advocates dissimilar subs ... into a system. But it is done solely to improve LF performance not because the system owner can't afford identical subs. And the electronics and tweaking of same is such that any "savings" can be swamped. That said, a miniDSP 2x4 can be used relatively inexpensively (~$100) to integrate on up to four subs into a system and present the room correction process with a "single" sub. Certainly one would not want to combine a "sub" with a 40Hz F3 into a system with subs that go to 15Hz. But I'd be a 10Hz differential would hurt the "lesser" sub.

Jeff


----------



## Josh Z

This notion of "hurting" the lesser sub seems bizarre to me. Wouldn't pretty much any subwoofer have limiters built-in to prevent it from exceeding its capabilities?


----------



## mthomas47

I know that Earl Geddes used to recommend this at one point, as an economical way to have good mid-bass performance. He really wasn't very concerned with sub-20Hz frequencies, or volume in the very low frequencies, and concentrated most of his interest in the 50hz range and up. And he did exactly what you said. He used a lot of external DSP to achieve a good frequency response. 

He later backed off his position to some extent, agreeing that it actually made more sense to have three (his preferred minimum) full-range matching subs, rather than deliberately mis-matched ones. I might conceivably experiment with a mid-bass module if I really felt I needed one (I don't) but, in general, I prefer ways to simplify my life, and matching subs certainly do that. Like you, I suspect though, that the practical, audible impact of subs with only a few Hz difference in roll-off would be pretty modest.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> This notion of "hurting" the lesser sub seems bizarre to me. Wouldn't pretty much any subwoofer have limiters built-in to prevent it from exceeding its capabilities?


I think that the Audyssey algorithm is specifically engineered to prevent that from happening, by not setting filters which could inadvertently boost a sub, below its measured F3 point. As far as I know, most of the better commercial subs, including all of the ID subs, do have built-in limiters, although some DIY subs do not.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I think that the Audyssey algorithm is specifically engineered to prevent that from happening, by not setting filters which could inadvertently boost a sub, below its measured F3 point. As far as I know, most of the better commercial subs, including all of the ID subs, do have built-in limiters, although some DIY subs do not.


Mike, if I may, I would also vote for two identical subs or no two subs. Putting a more capable and a less capable sub into the system just doesn't cut in for me. I know of people who can easily become insane of timre matching their satellites, yet will never understand why and how the same can be forgotten in the bass department. Wouldn't it be like putting different size tires on our cars? Now that would be a rough ride, eh?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Mike, if I may, I would also vote for two identical subs or no two subs. Putting a more capable and a less capable sub into the system just doesn't cut in for me. I know of people who can easily become insane of timre matching their satellites, yet will never understand why and how the same can be forgotten in the bass department. Wouldn't it be like putting different size tires on our cars? Now that would be a rough ride, eh?



I'm with you, Feri. My life is complicated enough already.


----------



## aaranddeeman

When setting up dual subs with Audyssey using SubEQ HT, do you set the phase on the two subs opposite of each other. i.e Sub1 set to 0 while sub32 set to 180.
or leave both at 0 and let Audyssey handle it?


----------



## David Aiken

aaranddeeman said:


> When setting up dual subs with Audyssey using SubEQ HT, do you set the phase on the two subs opposite of each other. i.e Sub1 set to 0 while sub32 set to 180.
> or leave both at 0 and let Audyssey handle it?



Leave them the same.


----------



## aaranddeeman

David Aiken said:


> Leave them the same.


Okay. Thanks.


----------



## donktard

mthomas47 said:


> I think that the Audyssey algorithm is specifically engineered to prevent that from happening, by not setting filters which could inadvertently boost a sub, below its measured F3 point. As far as I know, most of the better commercial subs, including all of the ID subs, do have built-in limiters, although some DIY subs do not.


Errm, if we are talking multiple different subs, I think weaker one is definitely in a big trouble.
If I recall correctly (from trying out my 2 different subs at same time), audyssey starts calibration by checking levels of both subs and then starts to blast test signals. When test signal for subs starts, it starts for both subs at the same time, which means that F3 point that is detected is the one from strongest sub (the one with lowest F3 point). Of course...that doesn't necessarily mean that Audyssey will correct frequencies between F3 points of your subwoofers by boosting them...but if it does, your weaker sub might not like it. In my case...weaker sub regularly bottomed out and jumped around when pushed too much, but other then that weakness, I liked the overall improvement in performance with having two subs...but it would take additional tweaks to make it work properly without issues (for example miniDSP on weaker sub with low cut set at F3 point or maybe higher).


----------



## Josh Z

donktard said:


> If I recall correctly (from trying out my 2 different subs at same time), audyssey starts calibration by checking levels of both subs and then starts to blast test signals. When test signal for subs starts, it starts for both subs at the same time, which means that F3 point that is detected is the one from strongest sub (the one with lowest F3 point).


Audyssey starts by checking the volume levels for both subs individually. During the first round of test tones at the primary microphone position, it plays three subwoofer tones, first for Sub 1, then Sub 2, then both together. During the next seven rounds at different mic positions, it only plays the combined tone with both subs together.

Whether this at all changes the conclusion you drew, I don't know. I'm just pointing out the order that the tones played when I ran Audyssey recently.


----------



## donktard

Josh Z said:


> Audyssey starts by checking the volume levels for both subs individually. During the first round of test tones at the primary microphone position, it plays three subwoofer tones, first for Sub 1, then Sub 2, then both together. During the next seven rounds at different mic positions, it only plays the combined tone with both subs together.
> 
> Whether this at all changes the conclusion you drew, I don't know. I'm just pointing out the order that the tones played when I ran Audyssey recently.


Yeah it definitely changes my conclusion. I probably never caught that subs measure individually at any point. 
So that just means that my weaker sub really sucks.


----------



## mthomas47

donktard said:


> Errm, if we are talking multiple different subs, I think weaker one is definitely in a big trouble.
> If I recall correctly (from trying out my 2 different subs at same time), audyssey starts calibration by checking levels of both subs and then starts to blast test signals. When test signal for subs starts, it starts for both subs at the same time, which means that F3 point that is detected is the one from strongest sub (the one with lowest F3 point). Of course...that doesn't necessarily mean that Audyssey will correct frequencies between F3 points of your subwoofers by boosting them...but if it does, your weaker sub might not like it. In my case...weaker sub regularly bottomed out and jumped around when pushed too much, but other then that weakness, I liked the overall improvement in performance with having two subs...but it would take additional tweaks to make it work properly without issues (for example miniDSP on weaker sub with low cut set at F3 point or maybe higher).



Hi,

I see that Josh responded, and that you said that your weaker sub might have really sucked, and I think that last point is an important one. It's certainly possible to push a weaker sub into clipping, by asking it to keep up at the same SPL as a stronger one, irrespective of any filters that Audyssey is setting. I just don't think that Audyssey EQ's below the F3 point of the weaker sub in a group, specifically to prevent Audyssey from being the culprit in the weaker sub clipping. I wrote this explanation of how I think (emphasis on think) Audyssey works, on another thread, so rather than rewrite it, I will just copy it to post here.

"Some versions of Audyssey (XT and down) have a single sub out. XT-32 has two sub outs. But regardless of whether you connect multiple subs via one sub out, or separate them into two sub outs, Audyssey EQ's the subs in exactly the same way.

The advantage of having two sub outs with XT-32 and SubEQ is that Audyssey automatically sets timing and trim levels separately for the subs connected to the two outs, which is particularly helpful with only two subs, but which can also be useful with multiples, depending on their placement. But Audyssey then EQ's all of the subs in the system as one, regardless of how they are connected. 

If you are connecting subs to both subs outs, when you run an Audyssey calibration you will notice that after level matching is complete in XT-32, Audyssey starts the calibration process by playing a single test tone through each sub (or group of subs) separately. So, sub 1 gets a test tone (rumble) and then Sub 2 gets one. That single test tone is what Audyssey uses to set distances and levels separately for Sub 1 and for Sub 2. But the 7 test tones that follow mic position 1, are played through all subs in the system simultaneously. So, there is just one combined rumble from all your subs, however many you have. And, it is on the basis of that combined sound from the subs that the Audyssey filters are set. So, strictly from an EQ standpoint, it doesn't matter whether you use just one sub out or both.

All of the channels work the same way, incidentally. Each channel gets all 8 test tones, so that each channel can be EQed individually. But the sub channel (.1) is treated as a single channel, regardless of the number of subs in the system.

FWIW, there have been multiple theories, or explanations, advanced over the years for how Audyssey EQ's subs, particularly dissimilar subs. An early explanation which was prevalent on the Audyssey thread was that Audyssey would curtail the performance of the more powerful sub in a mixed group, by somehow limiting its output, and low-end extension, to conform to the low-end extension of the less capable sub. A later explanation was that Audyssey would simply keep EQing below the natural roll-off of the less-capable sub, thereby potentially endangering it via over-boosting it at frequencies it can't handle.

The problem with both explanations is that there is no measurable empirical evidence to support them. But there is empirical evidence from measurements that Audyssey stops EQing all subs, however connected, at the detected EQ point of the weakest sub. And from a detection standpoint, it's not a matter of how much additional sub gain is created by having multiple subs. It is purely a matter of what the Audyssey microphone "hears" when it plays test tones through multiple subs. 

Let's say that you have two subs connected in tandem to a single sub out in the AVR. The subs are a Cap 1400, and an MBM with a natural 50Hz roll-off. And let's say that you have set the gains on the subs to produce a combined 75db at the MLP. Assuming a fairly smooth initial frequency response, when the test tones play, Audyssey measures 75db (+/-) at 120Hz, 75db at 90Hz, and 75db at 60Hz. But at about 50Hz, the combined SPL necessarily decreases as the MBM poops out. 

And the Audyssey algorithm, which was sophisticated enough to ignore specific swings in frequency response at other points on the way down, observes the drop in SPL at the MBM's F3 point as reflective of a broad and final trend. Remember that the calibration which actually sets the filters is not performed until all test tones (8 if doing the full test suite with XT or XT-32) are completed, and the fuzzy logic weighting is performed. So, Audyssey can distinguish between a temporary drop in SPL, caused by a dip at a specific frequency, from a long-term trend observed at all mic positions. And it can set filters accordingly.

This seems to be exactly how Audyssey sets crossovers for the satellite channels, incidentally. It measures SPL throughout the frequency range, at all 8 mic positions, and then reports an F3 point for each speaker in a pair to the AVR, which sets the crossover based on the higher F3 point of a speaker pair. And that is specifically done to prevent Audyssey from setting filters below the F3 point of a weaker speaker in a pair (generally due to room placement--near an opening to another room, for instance). And that, in turn, prevents Audyssey from inadvertently trying to over-boost that positionally weaker speaker.

I think that the way Audyssey actually seems to work makes some sense, but at this point, it's not so much a question of logic, as it is of empirical observation. It has been observed that Audyssey stops EQing at the F3 point of a weaker sub, in a multi-sub system, no matter how the subs are physically connected. As long as Audyssey is actually playing test tones through the weaker sub, I don't currently see a way around this. Of course, we could deliberately set the gain on the weaker sub so low that it wasn't contributing anything to the total SPL, even at 120Hz. But to me, that would be like connecting the MBM, with a Y-connector, after the actual calibration. Audyssey would never know that we had added the extra sub. But there also wouldn't be any filters set for that MBM, based on it's actual contributions to the combined frequency response above 50Hz, even if were subsequently protected from damage below 50Hz by its internal bullet-proof processing. So, it's a bit of a quandary."

Someone on that other thread intends to run some tests this weekend, trying different configurations, to see whether it will make any difference in what Audyssey "hears" and how it EQ's dissimilar subs. He will be using two full-range subs, and two MBM's, so it should be a good test. I think I know what the tests will show, but we'll see.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sstyle

Guys, I need your help.

Denon AVR-x4000 + 5.1.

I made a measurements after Audyssey with REW: Dynamic Vol/EQ off manually (after calibration). Audyssey set all speakers as "large" (I do not know why).
1) 2.1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4e8y3ltvz4u7ma/after-large-40.jpg?dl=0
2) FL+FR (+SW) separately - https://www.dropbox.com/s/8dv3rcqoc1jnj0k/FR+FL,…2B SUB.jpg?dl=0
3) FL+FR (w/o SW) separately- https://www.dropbox.com/s/w68x6tk8tx0lwgj/FR+FL,…20sub).jpg?dl=0

---
After that I set speakers as Small, crossover to 80Hz.

1) with SW https://www.dropbox.com/s/oglyzpc4i0sjcg6/FL%2BFR%2C…closedFI.jpg?dl=0
2) w/o SW https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9ojacgzrnc4uv2/FL%2BFR%2C…2C%20nSW.jpg?dl=0


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> Guys, I need your help.
> 
> Denon AVR-x4000 + 5.1.
> 
> I made a measurements after Audyssey with REW: Dynamic Vol/EQ off manually (after calibration). Audyssey set all speakers as "large" (I do not know why).
> 1) 2.1 - https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4e8y3ltvz4u7ma/after-large-40.jpg?dl=0
> 2) FL+FR (+SW) separately - https://www.dropbox.com/s/8dv3rcqoc1jnj0k/FR+FL,…2B SUB.jpg?dl=0
> 3) FL+FR (w/o SW) separately- https://www.dropbox.com/s/w68x6tk8tx0lwgj/FR+FL,…20sub).jpg?dl=0
> 
> ---
> After that I set speakers as Small, crossover to 80Hz.
> 
> 1) with SW https://www.dropbox.com/s/oglyzpc4i0sjcg6/FL%2BFR%2C…closedFI.jpg?dl=0
> 2) w/o SW https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9ojacgzrnc4uv2/FL%2BFR%2C…2C%20nSW.jpg?dl=0


Hi,

Welcome to the thread! Audyssey simply reports the F3 point of your speakers to your Denon, which set your speakers to Large based on its own internal algorithm. That just gives you information about your speakers capabilities. Just reset them to Small/80Hz, as you did.

It looks to me as if the scale on your graphs is off, making things look even worse than they really are. But offhand, it appears that you have a room null at about 55Hz, and a room mode at about 45Hz. Have you done a sub crawl yet to find the best placement for your sub?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sstyle

Thank you! How can I set a correct scale for your comfort?

I will try to move my SW to another position, maybe to the left wall (my room plan: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5frh6fu9aqdnrry/room.jpg?dl=0 )

I think it would be better if Audyssey would use Small settings from begining 

Also I am not satisfied with right front speaker graph - https://www.dropbox.com/s/8dv3rcqoc1jnj0k/FR+FL,…2B SUB.jpg?dl=0 Left front more linear.


----------



## mogorf

sstyle said:


> Thank you! How can I set a correct scale for your comfort?
> 
> I will try to move my SW to another position, maybe to the left wall (my room plan: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5frh6fu9aqdnrry/room.jpg?dl=0 )
> 
> I think it would be better it Audyssey use Small settings from begining
> 
> Also I am not satisfied with right front speaker graph - https://www.dropbox.com/s/8dv3rcqoc1jnj0k/FR+FL,…2B SUB.jpg?dl=0 Left front more linear.


Hi sstyle, for the time being my recommendation would be to forget about REW and all that measurement stuff. Here's what I would do.

1. Based on your room plan I'd move the front L&Rs a bit more apart and place the sub closer to the middle on the right side. In other words swap the sub with the front right speaker. Corner placement of a subwoofer can usually end up with unwanted boost of low frequencies due to "room gain" or "boundary gain" resulting in muddy, boomy, etc. sounds. Meantime, the increased distance between L&Rs can improve sound stage imaging. 

2. Do a careful listening test, best is to listen to music well known to your ears. At this stage you may try to toe-in/toe-out front L&Rs, tilt center up or down to make it face seated ear height for improved dialog intelligibility (for movies), place surrounds above ears at about 1 meter or more for improved surround effect making sure they are about 100-110 degrees off-center and facing the MLP (Main Listening Position). 

3. When all the above so-called "cold-setup" is finished you can run Audyssey to take care of remaining room acoustical issues.

4. For more help a couple of pictures of your setup would definitely make members here give you further advice.

Hope this helps.


----------



## sstyle

Hi! Thank you for your view!

First of all here is a picture of my setup - https://imgur.com/a/N3Woj

I can put the SW inside right section of the tv stand for example, right?

Sure, I will try 2-3 points tomorrow.


----------



## mogorf

sstyle said:


> Hi! Thank you for your view!


You're welcome! 



> First of all here is a picture of my setup - https://imgur.com/a/N3Woj


More pictures around the room would be fine. Nonetheless, an area rug up front would help tame unwanted reflections in the mid- to high frequency range. Just a tip! 



> I can put the SW inside right section of the tv stand for example, right?


 Right! Or you may experiment with placing the sub on the left side of the screen. Doing a lot of listening tests will surely pay off!



> Sure, I will try 2-3 points tomorrow.


Will be looking forward to your findings.


----------



## pbarach

sstyle said:


> I think it would be better if Audyssey would use Small settings from begining


I have an x4000, and Audyssey always sets my KEF Q1 speakers as LARGE, as did my Denon 3805 with a simpler version of Audyssey. The Q1 has a 6.5" driver and these factory specs:
45Hz to 27kHz +/-3.0dB. Audyssey wants my B&W 704 mains set to LARGE (6.5" driver, factory specs 40Hz-25kHz +/-3dB).

Clearly, these are not full-range speakers! I don't know why Audyssey (or the x4000) decided they were full-range, but the good news is that LARGE means that the entire frequency range of the speaker is calibrated all the way down to the F3 point, so I can set the crossover where I like. Eighty Hz for all speakers works fine for me--there is no audible handoff to the dual subs, and bass is not localized.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> I have an x4000, and Audyssey always sets my KEF Q1 speakers as LARGE, as did my Denon 3805 with a simpler version of Audyssey. The Q1 has a 6.5" driver and these factory specs:
> 45Hz to 27kHz +/-3.0dB. Audyssey wants my B&W 704 mains set to LARGE (6.5" driver, factory specs 40Hz-25kHz +/-3dB).
> 
> Clearly, these are not full-range speakers! I don't know why Audyssey (or the x4000) decided they were full-range, but the good news is that LARGE means that the entire frequency range of the speaker is calibrated all the way down to the F3 point, so I can set the crossover where I like. Eighty Hz for all speakers works fine for me--there is no audible handoff to the dual subs, and bass is not localized.



FWIW, Audyssey just measures your in-room frequency response and reports it to the AVR, which sets Large, or Small/with a crossover, based on it's own internal programming. As far as I know, all AVR makers use the same standard, that an F3 point below 40Hz constitutes a full-range speaker, regardless of the woofer size. That's not what we used to think of as full-range, but it's a pretty universal standard now.

It is entirely plausible that a speaker with a quasi-anechoic frequency response of 45Hz could get under 40Hz in-room. That is particularly the case with a good boundary gain or room mode. I thought you made a good point about being able to set crossovers as low as you like this way, although about double the F3 point is a good rule-of-thumb for movies, so 80Hz sounds just right. But the other good news, in your case, may also be that your speakers don't seem to have inflated specs, as so many do. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> Hi! Thank you for your view!
> 
> First of all here is a picture of my setup - https://imgur.com/a/N3Woj
> 
> I can put the SW inside right section of the tv stand for example, right?
> 
> Sure, I will try 2-3 points tomorrow.


I like Feri's suggestion to concentrate a little more on set-up before you worry about the quality of the Audyssey calibration you are getting. And the location of your sub can have a big effect on your frequency response. In addition to moving the speakers a little further apart, I might also move them back toward the walls a little. Unless you have a specific reason for pulling them out that far, you are probably losing some boundary gain. Then, you can experiment with just the right amount of toe-in to your MLP (main listening position). Initially, try to listen for the angle at which they sound the loudest from the MLP, as a starting point.

I agree that an area rug that goes in front of the main speakers, or two or three smaller rugs, would help a lot to kill some early reflections from the speakers. I would also try pulling your center channel out to just overhang the edge of the cabinet, and tilt it up a little. It's a nice looking room and system. Once you get your set-up perfected a bit more, you will be ready for Audyssey to help you make your sound even better.


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> I like Feri's suggestion to concentrate a little more on set-up before you worry about the quality of the Audyssey calibration you are getting. And the location of your sub can have a big effect on your frequency response. In addition to moving the speakers a little further apart, I might also move them back toward the walls a little. Unless you have a specific reason for pulling them out that far, you are probably losing some boundary gain. Then, you can experiment with just the right amount of toe-in to your MLP (main listening position). Initially, try to listen for the angle at which they sound the loudest from the MLP, as a starting point.
> 
> I agree that an area rug that goes in front of the main speakers, or two or three smaller rugs, would help a lot to kill some early reflections from the speakers. I would also try pulling your center channel out to just overhang the edge of the cabinet, and tilt it up a little. It's a nice looking room and system. Once you get your set-up perfected a bit more, you will be ready for Audyssey to help you make your sound even better.


If I may ask what is the rule of thumb for the distance of the speaker (back) from the wall ?


----------



## mthomas47

aaranddeeman said:


> If I may ask what is the rule of thumb for the distance of the speaker (back) from the wall ?


I honestly don't know if there is a good rule-of-thumb for speaker distance from a wall. I think I was probably reacting more intuitively in looking at the photo of the OP's set-up.

With sealed speakers, I would try to be very close to a wall without quite touching it--maybe 3" or 4", if I could keep them that close with the proper toe-in. With modern rear-ported speakers, I have heard varying recommendations ranging from port diameter for some bookshelves, out to a couple of feet for some towers. For me, it's sort of a balancing act. Too far from the wall and I think you lose boundary gain with most speakers, unless they are electrostatic panels, or something other than direct firing.

I guess I would probably shoot for about a foot, or so initially, and see how they sounded. Unless I had a good reason (such as the manufacturer's recommendation, or poorer sound quality), I probably wouldn't come out more than about 18" at the most. But I really believe it's a trial-and-error proposition.


----------



## aaranddeeman

mthomas47 said:


> I honestly don't know if there is a good rule-of-thumb for speaker distance from a wall. I think I was probably reacting more intuitively in looking at the photo of the OP's set-up.
> 
> With sealed speakers, I would try to be very close to a wall without quite touching it--maybe 3" or 4", if I could keep them that close with the proper toe-in. With modern rear-ported speakers, I have heard varying recommendations ranging from port diameter for some bookshelves, out to a couple of feet for some towers. For me, it's sort of a balancing act. Too far from the wall and I think you lose boundary gain with most speakers, unless they are electrostatic panels, or something other than direct firing.
> 
> I guess I would probably shoot for about a foot, or so initially, and see how they sounded. Unless I had a good reason (such as the manufacturer's recommendation, or poorer sound quality), I probably wouldn't come out more than about 18" at the most. But I really believe it's a trial-and-error proposition.


Ah. Okay.
Yeah rear ported pose that issue of room for the port..


----------



## sstyle

pbarach said:


> but the good news is that LARGE means that the entire frequency range of the speaker is calibrated all the way down to the F3 point, so I can set the crossover where I like.


If I leave speakers as large, I can not setup crossover. This menu item is gray color.



mthomas47 said:


> I like Feri's suggestion to concentrate a little more on set-up before you worry about the quality of the Audyssey calibration you are getting. And the location of your sub can have a big effect on your frequency response.


Thanks for your suggestions! 



mogorf said:


> More pictures around the room would be fine. Nonetheless, an area rug up front would help tame unwanted reflections in the mid- to high frequency range. Just a tip!
> Right! Or you may experiment with placing the sub on the left side of the screen. Doing a lot of listening tests will surely pay off!
> Will be looking forward to your findings.


Ok, I will make an additional photos!

Today I tried to move the SW. Here is my results:

First of all: Turned off Audyssey, set speakers as Small, 80Hz crossover, closed rear-port.

1) Inside TV stand:
FL + attached SW
FR + attached SW
FR/FL/SW (separately)

2) In a front of tv stand (SW only)

 3) Left of the FL parallel to the wall and with some angle

4) In a center of left wall and with some angle

All variants (SW only graphs) w\o smoothing

Result graph (if SW is located left from FL with some angle)


----------



## Skylinestar

Any user comments on the "new Audyssey" featured in the latest D&M AVRs?


----------



## asere

Can someone please educate me with the Audyssey app that creates target curves? In other words if at 60hz there is a drop on the graph from a null. Does this mean you can customize that area to get rid of the null? 
I always heard you can't get rid of a null unless you change MLP.


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Can someone please educate me with the Audyssey app that creates target curves? In other words if at 60hz there is a drop on the graph from a null. Does this mean you can customize that area to get rid of the null?
> I always heard you can't get rid of a null unless you change MLP.



I don't know much about the new app, but the creation of a target curve wouldn't change Audyssey's fundamental inability to boost a null. My understanding of nulls is the same as yours. Changing the position of the MLP to move away from a null, or changing subwoofer placement to try to move the null away from the MLP, are about the only real remedies. Room nulls seem to exist in all rooms, virtually irrespective of the number of subwoofers in a system. But, a null outside of the listening area doesn't have any practical impact on the SQ. So, making room nulls less of a factor, due to sub placement, or with slight shifts in the listening area, is the real objective.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> I don't know much about the new app, but the creation of a target curve wouldn't change Audyssey's fundamental inability to boost a null. My understanding of nulls is the same as yours. Changing the position of the MLP to move away from a null, or changing subwoofer placement to try to move the null away from the MLP, are about the only real remedies. Room nulls seem to exist in all rooms, virtually irrespective of the number of subwoofers in a system. But, a null outside of the listening area doesn't have any practical impact on the SQ. So, making room nulls less of a factor, due to sub placement, or with slight shifts in the listening area, is the real objective.


Thank you. I understand we don't know much about the app but as far as change target curve what does that mean? Where is uneven with peaks and dips you can change that?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> If I leave speakers as large, I can not setup crossover. This menu item is gray color.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions!
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I will make an additional photos!
> 
> Today I tried to move the SW. Here is my results:
> 
> First of all: Turned off Audyssey, set speakers as Small, 80Hz crossover, closed rear-port.
> 
> 1) Inside TV stand:
> FL + attached SW
> FR + attached SW
> FR/FL/SW (separately)
> 
> 2) In a front of tv stand (SW only)
> 
> 3) Left of the FL parallel to the wall and with some angle
> 
> 4) In a center of left wall and with some angle
> 
> All variants (SW only graphs) w\o smoothing
> 
> Result graph (if SW is located left from FL with some angle)



I think your last graph shows an improvement. Once you get the speakers adjusted the way you want, try re-running Audyssey to see how much it can help with the peak just under 40Hz and the dip at around 50Hz. To me, the good news is that moving your sub seems to have helped a little with that big dip. Audyssey may now be able to do a little more with it.

I don't want to speak for pbarach, but I think that all he was saying was that when your AVR sets your speakers to "Large" that gives you additional flexibility in how you can set your crossovers. You still have to reset the speakers to "Small", but in theory you can use any crossover you like now, without losing the benefits of your Audyssey calibration, as filters for those speakers will be set below 40Hz.


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Thank you. I understand we don't know much about the app but as far as change target curve what does that mean? Where is uneven with peaks and dips you can change that?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I think it may be possible to concentrate more resources in a specific area. So, if for instance there was still a 6db dip at about 60Hz after Audyssey ran, you might be able to smooth that out more with a selective boost within a narrow frequency range. But I am just speculating. I don't really know anything at all about how it works.

I think that the general idea behind a target curve is making broader decisions about the frequency response. Perhaps controlling how much bass boost occurs between say 15Hz and 50Hz, for instance, or whether there is a slight roll-off starting at about 8KHz, and continuing up to 12KHz. I think that the idea behind an individualized target curve is more along that line.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> I think it may be possible to concentrate more resources in a specific area. So, if for instance there was still a 6db dip at about 60Hz after Audyssey ran, you might be able to smooth that out more with a selective boost within a narrow frequency range. But I am just speculating. I don't really know anything at all about how it works.
> 
> I think that the general idea behind a target curve is making broader decisions about the frequency response. Perhaps controlling how much bass boost occurs between say 15Hz and 50Hz, for instance, or whether there is a slight roll-off starting at about 8KHz, and continuing up to 12KHz. I think that the idea behind an individualized target curve is more along that line.


I see. There could be issues with applying a boost on a sub that can't handle it or runs out of headroom. 
I am sure we will know more once it is available.


----------



## Alan P

sstyle said:


> If I leave speakers as large, I can not setup crossover. This menu item is gray color.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions!
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I will make an additional photos!
> 
> Today I tried to move the SW. Here is my results:
> 
> First of all: Turned off Audyssey, set speakers as Small, 80Hz crossover, closed rear-port.
> 
> 1) Inside TV stand:
> FL + attached SW
> FR + attached SW
> FR/FL/SW (separately)
> 
> 2) In a front of tv stand (SW only)
> 
> 3) Left of the FL parallel to the wall and with some angle
> 
> 4) In a center of left wall and with some angle
> 
> All variants (SW only graphs) w\o smoothing
> 
> Result graph (if SW is located left from FL with some angle)


What mic are you using??


----------



## mthomas47

After the brief discussion about general speaker placement, and the good question that was asked about whether there is any rule-of-thumb regarding wall placement, I decided to try to write down some of my thoughts on this issue. That is often the best way to clarify something in your own mind. These are just my own thoughts, for whatever they may be worth.

We know that the first key to a good Audyssey calibration is to present Audyssey with a good set-up, so that Audyssey is merely trying to polish the preferred sound, rather than creating it from scratch. But getting to that "preferred sound' can take a bit of effort, even before running Audyssey.

I think that people are often aware of the need to toe-in speakers, without being sure exactly why, or how much, they should be toed-in. Correct toe-in is primarily for the sake of the tweeters, although mid-range drivers can benefit from toe-in too. Most tweeters are highly directional, partly due to their small dimensions, I think, but also due to the fact that short wavelengths are so easily deflected. So, extremely broad dispersion can result in more unwanted early reflections. Most speaker makers are consequently trying to get enough horizontal dispersion to obtain reasonable off-axis response, without creating so much horizontal (or vertical) dispersion that high frequency sound waves are bouncing off of everything around a speaker.

So, finding the sweet spot where you hear treble sounds clearly, and strongly, without too many extraneous reflections, is the goal of proper toe-in. (As a note, most tweeters have even less vertical dispersion than horizontal, in order to avoid unwanted floor and ceiling bounce. So, it is generally desirable to get the tweeters at about seated ear height.) But as far as toe-in is concerned, with some very bright tweeters, aiming the tweeters directly at the MLP could result in a more piercing sound than desired. And, in that case, aiming a little if front of, or behind the MLP, might be helpful.

I believe that Kal Rubinson once said that, in the majority of his speaker reviews, he actually had preferred having speakers cross slightly in front of his listening position, rather than pointing straight at it. With a different listener, room arrangement, or specific tweeters, though, pointing the tweeters directly at the MLP might create the preferred sound. If there were a wall directly behind the MLP, pointing the tweeters behind the MLP might be particularly counterproductive. In that case, pointing right at, or slightly in front of the MLP, might help prevent excessive secondary reflections. So, finding the right toe-in for your room, speakers, and preferences is important.

But I see the preferred sound, that I referred to earlier, as a combination of factors, with the tweeter only one ingredient. It's really about finding the preferred combination of high frequency, mid-range, and bass sounds for me. Some mid-range drivers also seem to benefit from toe-in. And getting the right balance between just the right amount of tweeter (but not too much) and just enough mid-range, is part of the balancing act.

And then there are the bass and lower mid-range sounds. And that's where wall placement and boundary gain starts to come in. We probably think of boundary gain mostly in terms of low-frequency extension. If we get a little closer to a wall, we may be able to lower our frequency response by 3 to 5Hz, and by even more in some cases. That may be very important with bookshelf speakers for which high crossovers create subwoofer localization problems. But the more important value of good wall placement, for speakers which have typical crossovers of 60Hz or 80Hz, is probably not for lower extension. It is for mid and upper bass frequencies, and even for some lower mid-range frequencies.

In my experience, boundary gain can strengthen frequencies in the mid-bass region from about 50Hz to 100Hz, where most of the chest punch is felt, and can also strengthen upper bass and mid-range frequencies up to about 1000Hz, or so. And these are frequencies where we hear bass sounds even more clearly, and where our subs can't really help us. So, maximizing the mid-bass, and up, response of our speakers can be important. Corner load a speaker, and you can get a significant bass boost. But with that boost may come an equally significant loss of clarity, as more distortion is introduced. So, again, there is a balancing act, in my opinion, that takes place with respect to wall placement. Ideally, a speaker would be close enough to a wall to let the room boundary contribute to the bass and lower mid-range, without introducing distortion, or becoming overbearing and bass heavy.

Given a particular room, and set of speakers, it is that balancing act of toe-in, to achieve the right treble and mid-range blend, with wall placement to achieve a good blend of bass reinforcement, that determines an individual's "preferred sound", in my opinion. And of course, the creation of a wider soundstage (with greater speaker separation) and other factors, may also be considerations in speaker placement. I just wanted to get some thoughts down on paper. The process of positioning speakers doesn't have to be any more complicated than anyone wants to make it. And our ability to notice small placement tweaks may evolve as we become more familiar with our specific rooms and systems. But these are some of the factors that I think can be important in determining speaker placement, exclusive of Audyssey. I hope that nobody minds me writing all this. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sstyle

Alan P said:


> What mic are you using??


Stock from my Denon AVR-x4000.



mthomas47 said:


> I think your last graph shows an improvement. Once you get the speakers adjusted the way you want, try re-running Audyssey to see how much it can help with the peak just under 40Hz and the dip at around 50Hz. To me, the good news is that moving your sub seems to have helped a little with that big dip. Audyssey may now be able to do a little more with it.
> 
> I don't want to speak for pbarach, but I think that all he was saying was that when your AVR sets your speakers to "Large" that gives you additional flexibility in how you can set your crossovers. You still have to reset the speakers to "Small", but in theory you can use any crossover you like now, without losing the benefits of your Audyssey calibration, as filters for those speakers will be set below 40Hz.


Ok, Thank you. I tried to move the SW and rotate/move the front speakers. After that I tried to calibrate with Audyssey and closed rear-port. With closed rear-port Audyssey sets my speakers as Small (WOW).

My results with disabled Dynamic EQ (sure I enable it after measurements):
1) FR, FL and SW - separately
2) FR+SW and FL+SW


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> So, finding the sweet spot where you hear treble sounds clearly, and strongly, without too many extraneous reflections, is the goal of proper toe-in.


Not disagreeing with you, but toe-in also affects soundstage width/depth and the precision of imaging. Before running an Audyssey calibration, I use minimally miked classical recordings to get the imaging as precise as I can. I'm guessing this is a "side effect" of getting clear and smooth response from the tweeters.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> Not disagreeing with you, but toe-in also affects soundstage width/depth and the precision of imaging. Before running an Audyssey calibration, I use minimally miked classical recordings to get the imaging as precise as I can. I'm guessing this is a "side effect" of getting clear and smooth response from the tweeters.


All of that sounds right to me. I do think that imaging is mainly a function of getting a good focused response from the tweeter, and perhaps from the mid-range in a three-way speaker, as well. So, I would definitely attribute those to getting the speaker pointed toward you in an optimal way.

It seems to me that soundstage width/depth are more complex than just toe-in can account for, though. There, the separation of the speakers, the proximity to a side wall for both boundary gain and ambiance, and even the listening distance, seem likely to be important factors.


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> Stock from my Denon AVR-x4000.
> 
> 
> Ok, Thank you. I tried to move the SW and rotate/move the front speakers. After that I tried to calibrate with Audyssey and closed rear-port. With closed rear-port Audyssey sets my speakers as Small (WOW).
> 
> My results with disabled Dynamic EQ (sure I enable it after measurements):
> 1) FR, FL and SW - separately
> 2) FR+SW and FL+SW


I think that your measurements look better with every iteration. It would be good to see a combined measurement of the two mains and the sub, though. Measurements aside, how does the system sound with the speakers moved and rotated a bit, and with the sub in a better position? Can you hear a difference, and if so, do you like the sound quality more now?

Measurements will definitely help you to diagnose and correct measurable problems, but not all measurable problems are audible, and the ultimate objective for most of us is not just a superior measurement, but superior sound. How's that coming along?


----------



## Alan P

sstyle said:


> Stock from my Denon AVR-x4000.


The Audyssey mic??

The Audyssey calibration mic does not work well for REW measurements. You should consider getting a USB mic with a proper calibration file. 

Your measurements are likely inaccurate by a fair margin, basing any advice on these would be like shooting darts blindfolded.


http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ation-sound-cards/72559-rew-audyssey-mic.html


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> *The Audyssey mic??
> *
> The Audyssey calibration mic does not work well for REW measurements. You should consider getting a USB mic with a proper calibration file.
> 
> Your measurements are likely inaccurate by a fair margin, basing any advice on these would be like shooting darts blindfolded.
> 
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ation-sound-cards/72559-rew-audyssey-mic.html



Oops, I missed that part!  The general trend of the measurements seems positive, though.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> The Audyssey mic??
> 
> The Audyssey calibration mic does not work well for REW measurements. You should consider getting a USB mic with a proper calibration file.
> 
> Your measurements are likely inaccurate by a fair margin, basing any advice on these would be like shooting darts blindfolded.
> 
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...ation-sound-cards/72559-rew-audyssey-mic.html


I agree. We heard that the inexpensive Audyssey mics (which _*must*_ be used when calibrating Audyssey) are EQed for the Audyssey measurement system, i.e., Audyssey _*knows*_ what the characteristics of their mic design are, and compensates for that when setting filters. Using a really good, expensive lab mic to run Audyssey would also be a mistake, because Audyssey is set up for their mic, and no other. 

If you buy a good USB measurement mic (~~~ $100 or less) that is calibrated, you can enter the calibration file in REW, and then REW will "know" your mic as well as Audyssey "knows" theirs.


----------



## sstyle

Alan P said:


> The Audyssey mic??
> 
> The Audyssey calibration mic does not work well for REW measurements. You should consider getting a USB mic with a proper calibration file.
> 
> Your measurements are likely inaccurate by a fair margin, basing any advice on these would be like shooting darts blindfolded.


I see. But 1) UMIK-1 is very expensive (with delivery to Russia). 2) I can not use it for calibration with Audyssey. So just for checking it is too much. But I will think about it.



mthomas47 said:


> I think that your measurements look better with every iteration. It would be good to see a combined measurement of the two mains and the sub, though. Measurements aside, how does the system sound with the speakers moved and rotated a bit, and with the sub in a better position? Can you hear a difference, and if so, do you like the sound quality more now?
> 
> Measurements will definitely help you to diagnose and correct measurable problems, but not all measurable problems are audible, and the ultimate objective for most of us is not just a superior measurement, but superior sound. How's that coming along?


I will listen it today, because yesterday was very late for this. But I tried on half volume - sounds very good, clean. Maybe a little bit more low-freq, than I like, but I will try with my usual volume level.

Result for 2.1 based on Dynamic EQ settings here

Comparison Stock and after Audyssey here


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> I see. But 1) UMIK-1 is very expensive (with delivery to Russia). 2) I can not use it for calibration with Audyssey. So just for checking it is too much. But I will think about it.
> 
> I will listen it today, because yesterday was very late for this. But I tried on half volume - sounds very good, clean. Maybe a little bit more low-freq, than I like, but I will try with my usual volume level.
> 
> Result for 2.1 based on Dynamic EQ settings here
> 
> Comparison Stock and after Audyssey here


I'm glad that your sound is clean. That's the goal. When you reduce the MV with DEQ engaged, it applies more bass boost. That may be why you perceived more low frequency sound than usual at half-volume. If you still have more low frequency sound than you like at normal (or lower) volumes, you can experiment with the RLO (Reference Level Offset) settings to selectively reduce the amount of bass boost with DEQ.

If you haven't read the FAQ yet, linked below, you will find it very helpful in explaining everything from Large/Small settings, to how DEQ is implemented, and how RLO works.


----------



## sstyle

mthomas47 said:


> I'm glad that your sound is clean. That's the goal. When you reduce the MV with DEQ engaged, it applies more bass boost. That may be why you perceived more low frequency sound than usual at half-volume. If you still have more low frequency sound than you like at normal (or lower) volumes, you can experiment with the RLO (Reference Level Offset) settings to selectively reduce the amount of bass boost with DEQ.
> 
> If you haven't read the FAQ yet, linked below, you will find it very helpful in explaining everything from Large/Small settings, to how DEQ is implemented, and how RLO works.


Nice! Thank you for the info and link. I will read it from start to end. But I can not find RLO settings in my Denon x4000


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> Nice! Thank you for the info and link. I will read it from start to end. But I can not find RLO settings in my Denon x4000



You are very welcome! I don't have a Denon, but the RLO settings should be located with your Audyssey/DEQ settings.


----------



## sstyle

Found RLO settings (after enabling DEQ).

My results:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/1as116pkulq0xi8/FL_SW_DEQ.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3fbcqay3donayf/FR_SW_DEQ.jpg?dl=0

Looks like that 15dB is best variant?

With 15dB settings my graps for FR+SW and FL+SW here


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> Found RLO settings (after enabling DEQ).
> 
> My results:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/1as116pkulq0xi8/FL_SW_DEQ.jpg?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3fbcqay3donayf/FR_SW_DEQ.jpg?dl=0
> 
> Looks like that 15dB is best variant?


It depends entirely on your listening volume and personal preferences. The -15 setting applies the least amount of bass boost. But different people vary in their preferences with respect to that sort of thing. I would just experiment with the various settings, if I were you.


----------



## sstyle

Ok, I see. Are my frequency responses is good enough or I have to work more?


----------



## sstyle

Another question: What is better: close rear-port on ALL speakers before Audyssey calibration or leave it open and close after calibration?


----------



## mthomas47

sstyle said:


> Another question: What is better: close rear-port on ALL speakers before Audyssey calibration or leave it open and close after calibration?



With respect to your first question about whether your measurements are good enough now, Alan and Gary gave you good advice when they told you that you can't rely on the accuracy of your measurements without a properly calibrated external microphone. The Audyssey microphone is not suited for this. It is designed and calibrated for Audyssey--not for taking post-Audyssey measurements.

I think that you should spend some time listening to your system now--tweaking things, moving speakers slightly if you want to experiment, and re-running Audyssey to listen for improvements. I'll repeat the advice I gave you earlier. The goal of measurements is to achieve good sound. Good sound is the goal, not good measurements. And while measurements are a useful tool, so are your ears. When you hear too much bass, trust that, and try to figure out why you are hearing it. To do that, you need to understand your various settings, and experiment with them.

If you plug the ports on your speakers, and run Audyssey, then you should leave them plugged, and vice-versa. Opening or closing the speaker ports after running Audyssey will change the frequency response of the speakers, and invalidate the Audyssey calibration. If they were my speakers, I wouldn't close the ports without a good reason. All that does is remove some of the speakers low-end extension. And most ported speakers are designed for optimal performance with the ports open. You can always verify that with the maker, in this case. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

sstyle said:


> I see. But 1) UMIK-1 is very expensive (with delivery to Russia). 2) I can not use it for calibration with Audyssey. So just for checking it is too much. But I will think about it.


I can't imagine the shipping from Hong Kong to Russia is any more than to the U.S., Russia is actually closer to Hong Kong. 

Compared to the rest of your equipment, the cost of the mic would be a literal "drop in the bucket" IMO.

https://www.minidsp.com/products/acoustic-measurement/umik-1


As Gary pointed out, you wouldn't want to use the UMIK-1 for Audyssey...you have the Audyssey mic for that.


----------



## pepar

garygarrison said:


> I agree. We heard that the inexpensive Audyssey mics (which _*must*_ be used when calibrating Audyssey) are EQed for the Audyssey measurement system, i.e., Audyssey _*knows*_ what the characteristics of their mic design are, and compensates for that when setting filters. Using a really good, expensive lab mic to run Audyssey would also be a mistake, because Audyssey is set up for their mic, and no other.
> 
> If you buy a good USB measurement mic (~~~ $100 or less) that is calibrated, you can enter the calibration file in REW, and then REW will "know" your mic as well as Audyssey "knows" theirs.


Just to put a bit more of a point on this, the consumer Audyssey mic is referred to as "batch-calibrated" but that is stretching it. At best, each mic is within +/-2dB from the calibration file built into consumer MultEQ. Is +/-2dB good enough? In a double-blind A/B test, I doubt anyone could hear the difference in a calibration calibrations done with a "0dB mic" and one done with a "-2dB mic." A "+2dB mic" vs a "-2dB mic" ... maybe? Dunno.

That said, Audyssey touts the calibrated mic (+/-.5dB) mic in the Pro Kit.

Jeff


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> Just to put a bit more of a point on this, the consumer Audyssey mic is referred to as "batch-calibrated" but that is stretching it. At best, each mic is within +/-2dB from the calibration file built into consumer MultEQ. Is +/-2dB good enough? In a double-blind A/B test, I doubt anyone could hear the difference in a calibration calibrations done with a "0dB mic" and one done with a "-2dB mic." A "+2dB mic" vs a "-2dB mic" ... maybe? Dunno.
> 
> That said, Audyssey touts the calibrated mic (+/-.5dB) mic in the Pro Kit.
> 
> Jeff


One more bit to add to the discussion, if I may, especially for the attention of sstyle. In case one needs to do precision measurements with REW the calibrated $100.- mic is inevitable. (And can not emphasize more that a multi-point averaged measurement series in REW should be the way to go instead of just taking after-measurements at the MLP only.) Yet I see no problem to do "quick and dirty" measurements with the Audyessy mic and REW when all we need to gather is nothing more that rough information on how the room behaves.

Recently we had a discussion here on mic placement in frame of detecting nulls and peaks around the (multi)-seating area. By taking note of those spots it will make it easy to avoid placing the mic there when running MultEQ calibrations. And as Chris admitted this can be a good preparatory method to eliminate unwanted skewing of the Audyssey filter calculations. Just saying!


----------



## jkozlow3

sstyle said:


> Found RLO settings (after enabling DEQ).
> 
> My results:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/1as116pkulq0xi8/FL_SW_DEQ.jpg?dl=0
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/l3fbcqay3donayf/FR_SW_DEQ.jpg?dl=0
> 
> Looks like that 15dB is best variant?
> 
> With 15dB settings my graps for FR+SW and FL+SW here


I personally prefer 15db (the lowest/lightest amount of boost) for the RLO as do many others. It's a personal preference though. Some prefer 10 (or even lower), although I find that even a setting of 10 applies a bit too much bass boost for my liking. I use 15 for all sources (remember DEQ and RLO are source-dependent and must be set on a per-source basis).


----------



## mogorf

jkozlow3 said:


> I personally prefer 15db (the lowest/lightest amount of boost) for the RLO as do many others. It's a personal preference though. Some prefer 10 (or even lower), although I find that even a setting of 10 applies a bit too much bass boost for my liking. I use 15 for all sources (remember DEQ and RLO are source-dependent and must be set on a per-source basis).


To add to the RLO discussion, my experience with bass contents is that it is not just source dependent, but also (heavily) program material dependent. After a lot of experiments I decided to leave RLO at 0 dB and instead I boost bass by turning up the sub trim level. For movies I usually leave it as set by MultEQ, but for music I need to boost it by 3-6 dB, sometime even more. Actually I found the older the music the more bass is needed. Roughly speaking 2 dBs per decade backward in time. YMMV.


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> Recently we had a discussion here on mic placement in frame of detecting nulls and peaks around the (multi)-seating area. By taking note of those spots it will make it easy to avoid placing the mic there when running MultEQ calibrations. And as Chris admitted this can be a good preparatory method to eliminate unwanted skewing of the Audyssey filter calculations. Just saying!


Well the good thing is Audyssey definitely doesn't go to crazy with corrections (if boosting).
Check the picture below (ignore response above 5k). Two purple lines are measurements taken directly from one of my AVRs preouts. The flat one is of that outputs Direct response, the other purple one is Audyssey Reference (note how correction is very detailed at low end but gets broader at mid-high range). Green line represents direct response of that speaker measured via microphone.
And on the other picture there is the final result (red line only, but with sub included).

Its interesting to note that Audyssey didnt go to crazy with 53 Hz dip, but it definitely cut peaks aggressively.


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> Well the good thing is Audyssey definitely doesn't go to crazy with corrections (if boosting).
> Check the picture below (ignore response above 5k). Two purple lines are measurements taken directly from one of my AVRs preouts. The flat one is of that outputs Direct response, the other purple one is Audyssey Reference (note how correction is very detailed at low end but gets broader at mid-high range). Green line represents direct response of that speaker measured via microphone.
> And on the other picture there is the final result (red line only, but with sub included).
> 
> Its interesting to note that Audyssey didnt go to crazy with 53 Hz dip, but it definitely cut peaks aggressively.


Hi donktard,

Nice. Is the green line the result of measurement at one point (probably at the MLP) or the REW average of several points measured around your seating area?


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> Hi donktard,
> 
> Nice. Is the green line the result of measurement at one point (probably at the MLP) or the REW average of several points measured around your seating area?


Its just one point somewhere around MLP. This comparison wasn't my goal at the time of taking those measurements.
But it is pretty representative graph of overall situation in my listening area. Typically if I move microphone around, peaks and dips in 70-300 Hz area will move up/down in frequency range (for a small amount) and get stronger/weaker.
Basically, I am pretty sure if you simply invert the purple graph...you will get the average measurement of my listening area.


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> Its just one point somewhere around MLP. This comparison wasn't my goal at the time of taking those measurements.
> *But it is pretty representative graph of overall situation in my listening area. Typically if I move microphone around, peaks and dips in 70-300 Hz area will move up/down in frequency range (for a small amount) and get stronger/weaker.*
> Basically, I am pretty sure if you simply invert the purple graph...you will get the average measurement of my listening area.


I'm a bit concerned about the existence of a "representative graph" of a listening area. Isn't the whole concept of MultEQ (and Pioneer's MCACC and Yamaha's YPAO, etc.) to measure multiple positions and with a sophisticated algorithm create one single filter per channel? Moving the mic around resulting in dips and peaks move up/down in frequency range in the true nature of room acoustics and the anomalies room correction systems are made for taming them. 

And when we want to replicate what the room correction system did for our room we also need to take measurements in the same style, i.e. around the seating area and average then in REW which will still be far away from what MultEQ does coz the patented and proprietary fuzzy logic part is not available in the current version of REW.

Seed for thought!


----------



## donktard

mogorf said:


> I'm a bit concerned about the existence of a "representative graph" of a listening area. Isn't the whole concept of MultEQ (and Pioneer's MCACC and Yamaha's YPAO, etc.) to measure multiple positions and with a sophisticated algorithm create one single filter per channel? Moving the mic around resulting in dips and peaks move up/down in frequency range in the true nature of room acoustics and the anomalies room correction systems are made for taming them.
> 
> And when we want to replicate what the room correction system did for our room we also need to take measurements in the same style, i.e. around the seating area and average then in REW which will still be far away from what MultEQ does coz the patented and proprietary fuzzy logic part is not available in the current version of REW.
> 
> Seed for thought!


Yeah, well, you can do it if you want to. It certainly is the right way.  But I've seen enough of graphs at and around my listening area to know not to bother. Besides, I can tell just by looking at the correction made by audyssey that biggest variations in my case start above 500 Hz.
Anyway, the point was just to show how Audyssey XT32 transitions from very precise to much lighter amount of corrections as we move up in frequency.


----------



## mogorf

donktard said:


> Yeah, well, you can do it if you want to. It certainly is the right way.  But I've seen enough of graphs at and around my listening area to know not to bother. Besides, I can tell just by looking at the correction made by audyssey that biggest variations in my case start above 500 Hz.
> Anyway, the point was just to show how Audyssey XT32 transitions from very precise to much lighter amount of corrections as we move up in frequency.


Well, if it was for illustration purposes only, then its OK. Glad we are in agreement on which is certainly the right way!


----------



## donktard

sstyle said:


> Another question: What is better: close rear-port on ALL speakers before Audyssey calibration or leave it open and close after calibration?


The way you set them (open or closed) before calibration should be the same way you keep them after calibration. 
Why?
For example: open port speaker has a 5db peak around 100 Hz. closed port reduces that peak by 4dB.
If you calibrate with open port, audyssey will probably reduce peak by 5dB, so now if you add plug, you will reduce SPL there by additional 4dB.
Same will happen if you plug port, run aud and then remove plug...except in that case you will get additional boost there.

Plug effect if of course broader, so wider frequency range will be affected (incorrectly, if I may add) if you don't keep port set same way before and after calibration.

Personally, I'd first measure response of all speakers with and without plugs and set them the way they sound flattest and then run calibration. If you don't use REW, you can just keep them unplugged and expect calibration to do a fair job.


----------



## aaranddeeman

Darn. I thought if I place sub1 in the best position in the room and (identical) sub2 in second best position, I should get the best response (close to and better than the first sub position).
I was wrong. When I set them like that the combined FR before and after Audyssey is worse than single sub FR at best position.
What are the tricks to position dual subs to obtain the best possible FR (before Audyssey) ?
Appreciate your inputs.


----------



## donktard

Harman suggests midpoints of wall for two subs (so one in front midpoint, one in back...or one in left and one in right midpoint). But I'd also start by trying front left and right corners.


----------



## aaranddeeman

donktard said:


> Harman suggests midpoints of wall for two subs (so one in front midpoint, one in back...or one in left and one in right midpoint). But I'd also start by trying front left and right corners.


My best and second best are like those. close to one in left and one in right midpoint.


----------



## donktard

aaranddeeman said:


> My best and second best are like those. close to one in left and one in right midpoint.


Just because position for single sub is good, doesn't necessarily mean that multiple subs at those "best" positions will make best result, nor its the right way to do evaluate that. Iirc, you need to take subwoofer measurements at various positions with timing reference and after that use trace arithmetic to predict the combined response of both subs. But someone else should chime in on that, I only use one sub (ask on dedicated topic for REW).


----------



## aaranddeeman

donktard said:


> Just because position for single sub is good, doesn't necessarily mean that multiple subs at those "best" positions will make best result, nor its the right way to do evaluate that. Iirc, you need to take subwoofer measurements at various positions with timing reference and after that use trace arithmetic to predict the combined response of both subs. But someone else should chime in on that, I only use one sub (ask on dedicated topic for REW).


I agree. As I said that was my (mis)understanding.
Next I am going to try those preset positions typically suggested.
You mention timing reference. Could you please elaborate if you don't mind?
I am taking the measurements with REW.


----------



## donktard

aaranddeeman said:


> I agree. As I said that was my (mis)understanding.
> Next I am going to try those preset positions typically suggested.
> You mention timing reference. Could you please elaborate if you don't mind?
> I am taking the measurements with REW.


I just recalled what someone else told me a while ago, but I never did it personally so i forgot. 
But ask on REW topic, they should be able to help.


----------



## sstyle

Alan P said:


> I can't imagine the shipping from Hong Kong to Russia is any more than to the U.S., Russia is actually closer to Hong Kong.
> 
> Compared to the rest of your equipment, the cost of the mic would be a literal "drop in the bucket" IMO.


Why HK? minidsp ships from USA. And total cost $125. And I paid for my system about $1200 only. So 10% for the mic that I will use only once?




jkozlow3 said:


> I personally prefer 15db (the lowest/lightest amount of boost) for the RLO as do many others. It's a personal preference though. Some prefer 10 (or even lower), although I find that even a setting of 10 applies a bit too much bass boost for my liking. I use 15 for all sources (remember DEQ and RLO are source-dependent and must be set on a per-source basis).


Thanks! I will try different variants. 



donktard said:


> The way you set them (open or closed) before calibration should be the same way you keep them after calibration.
> 
> Personally, I'd first measure response of all speakers with and without plugs and set them the way they sound flattest and then run calibration. If you don't use REW, you can just keep them unplugged and expect calibration to do a fair job.


Thanks! Sure I tried, looks like with plugs it sounds better. Low-freq more controlled.

I made some furniture movement and some measurements after that:

BEFORE AUDYSSET
﻿AFTER_AUDYSSEY (DEQ=OFF)

I think now frequency response look better.


----------



## Skylinestar

sstyle said:


> Why HK?


Because it is from Hong Kong.


----------



## asere

Anyone here use audyssey LFC?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> Anyone here use audyssey LFC?


Do you use it? Any problem?


----------



## primetimeguy

asere said:


> Anyone here use audyssey LFC?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Just turn down your sub. 

Check out this thread

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...lfc-low-frequency-containment-exactly-do.html


----------



## chuccck

I am having a bit of trouble running Audyssey in my new Ascend Acoustics setup. After I run audyssey the LFE is cranked up way too much. I have tried turning down the levels but it doesn't help much. I am running Ascend CBM 170s as L/R, CMT 340 as center, HTM 200s as surrounds, and a SVS PB-1000 subwoofer. The crossover results are 80 for L/R, 60 for Center, and 150 for the surrounds. I changed the center back to 80 per other reccomendations. I attached the results of the reference curve which looks odd to me and may be the culprit. Why would my Left front and surround speakers perform so poorly on the low end? I don't think my room is that oddly shaped. 

When I turn Audyssey off, the bass/LFE is less than I want but its closer to what sounds good then the level its currently at. Any help or tips would be appreciated, thanks.


----------



## mogorf

chuccck said:


> I am having a bit of trouble running Audyssey in my new Ascend Acoustics setup. After I run audyssey the LFE is cranked up way too much. I have tried turning down the levels but it doesn't help much. I am running Ascend CBM 170s as L/R, CMT 340 as center, HTM 200s as surrounds, and a SVS PB-1000 subwoofer. The crossover results are 80 for L/R, 60 for Center, and 150 for the surrounds. I changed the center back to 80 per other reccomendations. I attached the results of the reference curve which looks odd to me and may be the culprit. Why would my Left front and surround speakers perform so poorly on the low end? I don't think my room is that oddly shaped.
> 
> When I turn Audyssey off, the bass/LFE is less than I want but its closer to what sounds good then the level its currently at. Any help or tips would be appreciated, thanks.


Hi chuccck, no clue on my side yet, but let's start some troubleshooting. Care to provide the speaker level trims set by MultEQ for all channels? A screen shot is OK.


----------



## chuccck

mogorf said:


> Hi chuccck, no clue on my side yet, but let's start some troubleshooting. Care to provide the speaker level trims set by MultEQ for all channels? A screen shot is OK.


Thanks for replying. Here are the levels as well as the other settings I think might be relevant, sorry for the bad quality


----------



## mogorf

chuccck said:


> Thanks for replying. Here are the levels as well as the other settings I think might be relevant, sorry for the bad quality


Don't see anything wrong here. As a next step can you swap the front L with R and surround L with R and see whether the "problem" follows each speaker after rerunning Audyssey or not?


----------



## mthomas47

chuccck said:


> I am having a bit of trouble running Audyssey in my new Ascend Acoustics setup. After I run audyssey the LFE is cranked up way too much. I have tried turning down the levels but it doesn't help much. I am running Ascend CBM 170s as L/R, CMT 340 as center, HTM 200s as surrounds, and a SVS PB-1000 subwoofer. The crossover results are 80 for L/R, 60 for Center, and 150 for the surrounds. I changed the center back to 80 per other reccomendations. I attached the results of the reference curve which looks odd to me and may be the culprit. Why would my Left front and surround speakers perform so poorly on the low end? I don't think my room is that oddly shaped.
> 
> When I turn Audyssey off, the bass/LFE is less than I want but its closer to what sounds good then the level its currently at. Any help or tips would be appreciated, thanks.


Hi,

People periodically try to use the graphs on their Denon/Marantz AVR's to draw meaningful conclusions, but you really can't. Those don't really depict what Audyssey did in any meaningful way.

Have you used Audyssey before, and if so, are you familiar with DEQ? It sounds to me as if you may just be getting more bass boost than you prefer from DEQ. A lot depends on your listening volume. At -15 MV, for instance, DEQ boosts your bass, in all channels (not just the sub) by 10db. That may simply be more boost than you like.

The first thing I would do is to turn off DEQ, while leaving Audyssey on, to determine whether that makes a major change in the bass sound. If it does, then you can experiment with the RLO settings (in the same Audyssey/DEQ menu). An RLO setting of -5 would slightly reduce the effects of DEQ, and an RLO setting of -15 would reduce DEQ as much as possible. Try the various settings, and if you still aren't happy with the amount of bass, you can always leave DEQ off.

The FAQ, linked below, explains what DEQ is, what it does, and provides some examples of what happens with various RLO settings.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## chuccck

mogorf said:


> Don't see anything wrong here. As a next step can you swap the front L with R and surround L with R and see whether the "problem" follows each speaker after rerunning Audyssey or not?


I will check that later but I doubt/hope thats not it.



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> People periodically try to use the graphs on their Denon/Marantz AVR's to draw meaningful conclusions, but you really can't. Those don't really depict what Audyssey did in any meaningful way.
> 
> Have you used Audyssey before, and if so, are you familiar with DEQ? It sounds to me as if you may just be getting more bass boost than you prefer from DEQ. A lot depends on your listening volume. At -15 MV, for instance, DEQ boosts your bass, in all channels (not just the sub) by 10db. That may simply be more boost than you like.
> 
> The first thing I would do is to turn off DEQ, while leaving Audyssey on, to determine whether that makes a major change in the bass sound. If it does, then you can experiment with the RLO settings (in the same Audyssey/DEQ menu). An RLO setting of -5 would slightly reduce the effects of DEQ, and an RLO setting of -15 would reduce DEQ as much as possible. Try the various settings, and if you still aren't happy with the amount of bass, you can always leave DEQ off.
> 
> The FAQ, linked below, explains what DEQ is, what it does, and provides some examples of what happens with various RLO settings.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


This is my first Denon receiver (x2200w) and I have been playing with for the last few weeks and have run audyssey multiple times. I always turned dynamic EQ off though and have never used it.


----------



## chuccck

What's the difference between speakers > levels and audio > subwoofer adjust? If I reduce the subwoofer level down 5db in speakers > levels it's not noticeable. But if I do the same in audio > subwoofer adjust is a huge difference. I think I found the sweet spot at 0 level adjust for subwoofer under speakers > levels and - 3db in audio >subwoofer adjust.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

chuccck said:


> What's the difference between speakers > levels and audio > subwoofer adjust? If I reduce the subwoofer level down 5db in speakers > levels it's not noticeable. But if I do the same in audio > subwoofer adjust is a huge difference. I think I found the sweet spot at 0 level adjust for subwoofer under speakers > levels and - 3db in audio >subwoofer adjust.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk


That's excellent! I had a whole list of things for you to try, and that was one of them. I can't answer your question on the difference in where you reduce your sub trim level. With my Marantz, it makes no difference where I reduce it, but I understand that Denons are different.

I think that you are in the enviable position of having a heightened sensitivity to bass frequencies. Enviable because you won't be needing to add more or larger subs to your system. 

Here are several things that you can try, just for fun, to change the acoustic balance of your system (away from the bass frequencies) while still enjoying the benefits of EQ. Some of them affect different channels than just the sub channel.

1. Try the Flat, or Music setting, rather than the Audyssey Reference setting. Reference rolls-off a few db of treble at the top. Flat will preserve an equal balance between treble and bass.

2. Try different sub trim reductions to find the sweet spot, as you have.

3. Use the Tone control (enabled when DEQ is disengaged) to roll-off some bass from the front speakers.

4. Set higher crossovers for the fronts and the CC. I would consider trying 100Hz, or even 120Hz. This, in conjunction with the reduction of sub trim, would de-emphasize the mid-bass coming from your three front channels.

If you are already where you want to be with the 5db sub trim reduction in the Audio Menu, then you may not need to go any further. But, who knows, you might enjoy experimenting with some of these other options, as well. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rgathright

I just got new hearing aids and I have an issue with the dialog with them. Besides adjusting the center speaker to be louder is there a setting using Audyssey to help this? If I turn up my hearing aids it makes everything else to loud. I hear the other speakers fine. It is just the dialog (talking) that is to low.


----------



## garygarrison

rgathright said:


> I just got new hearing aids and I have an issue with the dialog with them. Besides adjusting the center speaker to be louder is there a setting using Audyssey to help this? If I turn up my hearing aids it makes everything else to loud. I hear the other speakers fine. It is just the dialog (talking) that is to low.


I understand that most people with hearing aids aren't going to hear the high frequencies (above, perhaps, 8K Hz), but they may get a small bit of help with dialog by getting rid of Audyssey's "Midrange Compensation," which is a small dip around 2K Hz imposed by Audyssey Reference. If you are using Audyssey Reference, try Audyssey Flat for a punch up of a few dBs in a range that may increase clarity. I'd leave the center channel boosted a bit. Make sure the center channel is not compromised by early reflections. Mike has often recommended that it should be pulled out so it hangs out over the front edge of the shelf a bit, if it is on a shelf. 

I've noticed that several modern moviemakers don't bother to make sure the dialog is crystal clear. This is particularly true if an accent is involved -- especially Cockney or Scottish. Great pains were taken with films of the 20th century to have very articulate dialog tracks, and those films still do, in our home theaters, played today, whether the original soundtracks were digital, magnetic, or (Yuck!) optical. Modern tracks are much higher in fidelity for music and effects, BUT not enough care is taken with dialog presentation, in some of them.

We saw one of those movies last night, a pretty terrible film, Under the Skin. The protagonist's dialog was clear, but the men she picked up in Scotland were very poorly miced/mixed. Think difficult accents can't be reproduced clearly? Think of the crystal dialog clarity of Darby O'Gill and the Little People in 1959, or even How Green Was My Valley in 1941 (even though all the accents were fake, save one).


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> I understand that most people with hearing aids aren't going to hear the high frequencies (above, perhaps 8K Hz), but they may get a small bit of help with dialog by getting rid of Audyssey's "Midrange Compensation," which is a small dip around 2K Hz imposed by Audyssey Reference If you are using Audyssey Reference, try Audyssey Flat for a punch up of a few dBs in a range that may increase clarity. I'd leave the center channel boosted a bit. Make sure the center channel is not compromised by early reflections. Mike has often recommended that it should be pulled out so it hangs over the front edge of the shelf, if it is on a shelf.
> 
> I've noticed that several modern moviemakers don't bother to make sure the dialog is crystal clear. This is particularly true if an accent is involved -- especially Cockney or Scottish. Great pains were taken with films of the 20th century to have very articulate dialog tracks, and those films still do, in our home theaters, played today, whether the original soundtracks were digital, magnetic, or (Yuck!) optical. Modern tracks are much higher in fidelity for music and effects, BUT not enough care is taken with dialog presentation, in maybe 5% of them.


Great advice from Gary, indeed. Now in my case, even though I do not need a hearing aid, yet my handicap is that English is not my native language. You can imagine how much dialog I am able to pervice in an action film where the soldiers are communication via radio amid a heavy bombing scene. Nothin' (LOL). So, for such films I turn on English subtitles. Dialog intelligibitly is immediately improved by quantums. You bet!


----------



## mthomas47

rgathright said:


> I just got new hearing aids and I have an issue with the dialog with them. Besides adjusting the center speaker to be louder is there a setting using Audyssey to help this? If I turn up my hearing aids it makes everything else to loud. I hear the other speakers fine. It is just the dialog (talking) that is to low.


Hi,

It's hard to add much to what Gary said, and I think he is spot on with respect to dialogue (and accents) in modern movies. And I sometimes have the same problem that Feri mentioned in some action movies, and English is my native language.

Gary mentioned pulling your CC forward to avoid comb filtering effects from a stand or shelf, and if you can tilt the front of the speaker up a bit toward ear level, it will also help. I also liked the suggestion to try Flat rather than Audyssey. In addition to increasing the trim level on the CC, there are two other things that you can try, although they may mean giving up a little bass in exchange for clearer dialogue.

First, I would try turning off DEQ, or at least using an RLO setting of -15. DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, including the center channel, and that can make it more difficult to hear dialogue, which is almost all mid-range with some undertones and overtones. 

Second, I might experiment with a higher crossover on the CC--perhaps as high as 120Hz. Depending on the bass boost you are using, raising the pitch slightly on the CC may help. If not, you may have to sacrifice a little bass by reducing your sub trim by a couple of decibels. DEQ will definitely not help, IMO, if you raise the crossover.

I hope some of this works. Not being able to hear dialogue clearly is a PITA. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rgathright

Thanks for all of the suggestions and they did help some. I have a visit today with my audilogist and hopefully she can make a few more adjustments to help more. If not the brand of hearing aid I have make several pieces of equipment that connects to the TV and the audio is streamed to my hearing aids.


----------



## chuccck

mthomas47 said:


> That's excellent! I had a whole list of things for you to try, and that was one of them. I can't answer your question on the difference in where you reduce your sub trim level. With my Marantz, it makes no difference where I reduce it, but I understand that Denons are different.
> 
> I think that you are in the enviable position of having a heightened sensitivity to bass frequencies. Enviable because you won't be needing to add more or larger subs to your system.
> 
> Here are several things that you can try, just for fun, to change the acoustic balance of your system (away from the bass frequencies) while still enjoying the benefits of EQ. Some of them affect different channels than just the sub channel.
> 
> 1. Try the Flat, or Music setting, rather than the Audyssey Reference setting. Reference rolls-off a few db of treble at the top. Flat will preserve an equal balance between treble and bass.
> 
> 2. Try different sub trim reductions to find the sweet spot, as you have.
> 
> 3. Use the Tone control (enabled when DEQ is disengaged) to roll-off some bass from the front speakers.
> 
> 4. Set higher crossovers for the fronts and the CC. I would consider trying 100Hz, or even 120Hz. This, in conjunction with the reduction of sub trim, would de-emphasize the mid-bass coming from your three front channels.
> 
> If you are already where you want to be with the 5db sub trim reduction in the Audio Menu, then you may not need to go any further. But, who knows, you might enjoy experimenting with some of these other options, as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike, I didn't have a chance to try any of your suggestions. I did test different audio > subwoofer adjust levels and narrowed in on -2.5dbs. The first 10-15 seconds of Cloverfield is a great test for this.


----------



## mthomas47

chuccck said:


> Thanks Mike, I didn't have a chance to try any of your suggestions. I did test different audio > subwoofer adjust levels and narrowed in on -2.5dbs. The first 10-15 seconds of Cloverfield is a great test for this.



You are very welcome, and don't worry about trying those suggestions. I am just glad that you found a setting that you like. Looking at your audition thread, I can see that you are a little bit new to some of this. So, just enjoy things as you have them for awhile, and let yourself get used to how it all sounds.

If you are like many of us, you will want to experiment a bit more at some point. When you do, those options, and others that you think of, will be available to you. Come back if you need any help. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jei Wu

Hi there, it's my first time to post a thread on this forum,
and since I'm not a native english user, please forgive my poor english.

First, Here's my speakers:
main: micromega myspeaker
center: klipsch rp440c
surround: old onkyo bookshelf speaker
sub: BQ3112D plus(12 inch sub)
amp: Denon x2100w

There's a seriously standingwave at 50hz in my room,
So I use the PEQ on sub, and turn down the volume at 50hz first,
Then I run audyssey calibrating test,
After that, I found two problems,
1.The Audyssey makes the sound at 50hz louder again, and also other low frequency,
befor I ran Audyssey, I tried to make every frequency around 75db,
but after audyssey, I got the result:
20hz:80db
30hz:80db
40hz:85db
50hz:87db (that's terrible)
60hz:70db
70hz:70db
80hz:75db
90hz:65db
100hz:78db
110hz:65db
my crossover frequency is set at 80hz, and I could found that the frequency below 50hz
is significantly louder then others, why is that happened? and how to fix that?

2.I found my center: rp440c is significanty changed it's sound after audyssey,
Before I ran Audyssey, the center sounds cristal clearly, but after audyssey I found that
the sound is darker and grey,
I have seen the result in Audyssey EQ, and found a large EQ fixing down between 50hz~100hz,
the lagest is about -10db
And I thought that's the reason why it sounds worse.
My question is that the audyssey just tried to make the center sounds the same from other speaker?
If I replace my main speaker, and buy klipsch main speakers, will audyssey keep the clearly sound in klipsch?
(or I even need to replace my surround speaker?)

Thanks a lot, and I hope I could explain my problem clearly, if there's something I said wrong, please tell me, thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

Jei Wu said:


> There's a seriously standingwave at 50hz in my room,
> So I use the PEQ on sub, and turn down the volume at 50hz first,
> Then I run audyssey calibrating test,
> After that, I found two problems,
> 1.The Audyssey makes the sound at 50hz louder again, and also other low frequency,
> befor I ran Audyssey, I tried to make every frequency around 75db,
> but after audyssey, I got the result:
> 20hz:80db
> 30hz:80db
> 40hz:85db
> 50hz:87db (that's terrible)
> 60hz:70db
> 70hz:70db
> 80hz:75db
> 90hz:65db
> 100hz:78db
> 110hz:65db
> my crossover frequency is set at 80hz, and I could found that the frequency below 50hz
> is significantly louder then others, why is that happened? and how to fix that?


I don't know what is causing the problem, but*:*


Any adjustments you make before running Audyssey, Audyssey *may* try to remove when you run it. So, turn down the level at 50 Hz after you run Audyssey ... or both before and after, if you want to give Audyssey less work to do.
 Are you using all 8 Audyssey mic positions?
What are you measuring the results with? A SPL meter? Some aren't very accurate and some are less accurate than most Audyssey results.
If you have your measuring mic or SPL meter in just one position, your measurements may not be typical of your listening area as a whole. Try running a compete frequency sweep in each position you had the Audyssey mic in during the calibration, then average them.
If your main listening position is in a bad spot acoustically, that might be part of the problem. Try moving the sub and try moving the main listening position. Others can tell you more.
Good luck!


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Hi there, it's my first time to post a thread on this forum,
> and since I'm not a native english user, please forgive my poor english.
> 
> First, Here's my speakers:
> main: micromega myspeaker
> center: klipsch rp440c
> surround: old onkyo bookshelf speaker
> sub: BQ3112D plus(12 inch sub)
> amp: Denon x2100w
> 
> There's a seriously standingwave at 50hz in my room,
> So I use the PEQ on sub, and turn down the volume at 50hz first,
> Then I run audyssey calibrating test,
> After that, I found two problems,
> 1.The Audyssey makes the sound at 50hz louder again, and also other low frequency,
> befor I ran Audyssey, I tried to make every frequency around 75db,
> but after audyssey, I got the result:
> 20hz:80db
> 30hz:80db
> 40hz:85db
> 50hz:87db (that's terrible)
> 60hz:70db
> 70hz:70db
> 80hz:75db
> 90hz:65db
> 100hz:78db
> 110hz:65db
> my crossover frequency is set at 80hz, and I could found that the frequency below 50hz
> is significantly louder then others, why is that happened? and how to fix that?
> 
> 2.I found my center: rp440c is significanty changed it's sound after audyssey,
> Before I ran Audyssey, the center sounds cristal clearly, but after audyssey I found that
> the sound is darker and grey,
> I have seen the result in Audyssey EQ, and found a large EQ fixing down between 50hz~100hz,
> the lagest is about -10db
> And I thought that's the reason why it sounds worse.
> My question is that the audyssey just tried to make the center sounds the same from other speaker?
> If I replace my main speaker, and buy klipsch main speakers, will audyssey keep the clearly sound in klipsch?
> (or I even need to replace my surround speaker?)
> 
> Thanks a lot, and I hope I could explain my problem clearly, if there's something I said wrong, please tell me, thanks!



Hi,

I think that Gary mentioned part of your problem with the 50Hz correction you made prior to running Audyssey. Audyssey is designed to work with the frequency response it is given. Since you had already cut the 50Hz response, Audyssey may have over-boosted it in response. I would remove the 50Hz cut before running Audyssey again. If 50Hz still seems too loud after Audyssey runs, that's when you could reinstate the cut at 50Hz.

I'm also concerned about the drop in SPL above 50Hz. I agree that you should try some alternative sub positions to see if you can improve your frequency response. If you haven't already done one, a sub crawl might help you to find the best location for your sub. 

Please don't pay too much attention to the crude Audyssey graphs found in your AVR. Unless you are independently measuring your frequency response, you can't be sure what Audyssey actually did to your center channel. Try turning off DEQ to see if the clarity of your CC improves. If so, you can experiment with your RLO settings, starting with -15. If not, we can try to troubleshoot that issue separately.

Audyssey is not a simple technology to implement. Paying good attention to your calibration procedure is important, as Gary noted. Try some of the above, and then let us know what kind of results you get.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sstyle

I changed my configuration from 2.1 to 2.0 and calibrate speakers to FullRange. Now I found sound is a little bit brighter/crisp than I like. Is it possible to correct?

Audyssey correction graph for the front speakers:


----------



## garygarrison

sstyle said:


> I change my configuration from 2.1 to 2.0 and calibrate speakers to FullRange. Now I found that sound is a little bit brighter/crisp than I like. Is it possible to correct?
> 
> Audyssey correction graph for the front speakers:


Try turning off DEQ, and go to "Tone Controls" in your menu. I wouldn't turn down the treble, but, for the sake of balance, try turning the bass control up a bit, then turn the Main Volume control down a bit. 

Try everything until you like it.

Are you planning to not use your sub?


----------



## sstyle

Thank you, I will try. Yes, I think about my sub. And looks like it is not in the same league as CM9. He is just 8". CM9 provide more powerful bass. As result I make a decision: listen to music without sub for a 1-2 week and than repeat with it.


----------



## AV_mike

sstyle said:


> Thank you, I will try. Yes, I think about my sub. And looks like it is not in the same league as CM9. He is just 8". CM9 provide more powerful bass. As result I make a decision: listen to music without sub for a 1-2 week and than repeat with it.


Your B&W CM9 mains should be more than adequate for most music genres - only the really bass heavy stuff would benefit from the addition of a sub, and then it would have to be something that was significantly better than a single 8". When it comes to modern movie tracks - the CM9 mains will struggle to cope with or even produce the low frequencies - so a good sub becomes essential. Nice speakers by the way.
Regards, Mike.


----------



## Jei Wu

garygarrison said:


> I don't know what is causing the problem, but*:*
> 
> 
> Any adjustments you make before running Audyssey, Audyssey *may* try to remove when you run it. So, turn down the level at 50 Hz after you run Audyssey ... or both before and after, if you want to give Audyssey less work to do.
> Are you using all 8 Audyssey mic positions?
> What are you measuring the results with? A SPL meter? Some aren't very accurate and some are less accurate than most Audyssey results.
> If you have your measuring mic or SPL meter in just one position, your measurements may not be typical of your listening area as a whole. Try running a compete frequency sweep in each position you had the Audyssey mic in during the calibration, then average them.
> If your main listening position is in a bad spot acoustically, that might be part of the problem. Try moving the sub and try moving the main listening position. Others can tell you more.
> Good luck!


Thanks a lot!! I've tried to turn off EQ(on the sub) before run Audyssey, but it results in a -7.5db at sub(if I turn on subEQ before Audyssey, it results in a -2.5db a sub)
So I thought the 50hz standing wave in my room is really a big problem, but I will try it.
I measure the results with SPL meter, only at one place (the center of my sofa), I'll try another places on sofa, thanks!
ps. yes I use all 8 Audyssey mic positions.


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that Gary mentioned part of your problem with the 50Hz correction you made prior to running Audyssey. Audyssey is designed to work with the frequency response it is given. Since you had already cut the 50Hz response, Audyssey may have over-boosted it in response. I would remove the 50Hz cut before running Audyssey again. If 50Hz still seems too loud after Audyssey runs, that's when you could reinstate the cut at 50Hz.
> 
> I'm also concerned about the drop in SPL above 50Hz. I agree that you should try some alternative sub positions to see if you can improve your frequency response. If you haven't already done one, a sub crawl might help you to find the best location for your sub.
> 
> Please don't pay too much attention to the crude Audyssey graphs found in your AVR. Unless you are independently measuring your frequency response, you can't be sure what Audyssey actually did to your center channel. Try turning off DEQ to see if the clarity of your CC improves. If so, you can experiment with your RLO settings, starting with -15. If not, we can try to troubleshoot that issue separately.
> 
> Audyssey is not a simple technology to implement. Paying good attention to your calibration procedure is important, as Gary noted. Try some of the above, and then let us know what kind of results you get.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks a lot!! I will try turning off subEQ before Audyssey, but here's a problem:
I got a -7.5db on sub after audyssey (which I got -2.5db when I cut off 50hz 10db before audyssey), will that be a problem?

the second problem is about the drop after 50hz, especially on 90hz and 110hz. I set the phase to 0 degree on sub and got this result, but if I set the phase to 180 degree and run audyssey again, I got a more flat response, every frequency I test is above 70db now.
And when I saw movies, I found more low frequencies sound appears, but it sounds lack of "punch" and much "soft" compare with phase 0 degree, so I wonder which phase sould I use before running audyssey? I've read some article said that I should set the phase to 0 degree before running audyssey, but the fact is I got more flat response at 180 degree, will 180 degree make the sub produces sound later then other speakers? or it will be tuned by audyssey?

the third problem is about DEQ, I have tried to turn it off, and found I need to turn the sub up for about 4db to get a similar effect when I turn DEQ on, but I still feel lack of some low frequencies, which I could describe is the "atmosphere" of a movie is lacking after I turn DEQ off, but I could get much cleaner sound of low frequency, like feel of "punch", and I couldn't feel much difference about the voice, but I could feel a difference if I turn Audyssey off(compare with "Reference"), but there's more harsh too, so I couldn't found a perfect way to solve the problem, I thought the reference audyssey make some voice frequency lower?

and I have tried RLO settings too, I found it suit for some music part, if I feel there's too much low frequency, the RLO set for -10 will be a nice way to solve this problem.

Thanks a lot, sorry I couldn't explain my problem for a easy way, hope my english will be better soon.


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Thanks a lot!! I will try turning off subEQ before Audyssey, but here's a problem:
> I got a -7.5db on sub after audyssey (which I got -2.5db when I cut off 50hz 10db before audyssey), will that be a problem?
> 
> the second problem is about the drop after 50hz, especially on 90hz and 110hz. I set the phase to 0 degree on sub and got this result, but if I set the phase to 180 degree and run audyssey again, I got a more flat response, every frequency I test is above 70db now.
> And when I saw movies, I found more low frequencies sound appears, but it sounds lack of "punch" and much "soft" compare with phase 0 degree, so I wonder which phase sould I use before running audyssey? I've read some article said that I should set the phase to 0 degree before running audyssey, but the fact is I got more flat response at 180 degree, will 180 degree make the sub produces sound later then other speakers? or it will be tuned by audyssey?
> 
> the third problem is about DEQ, I have tried to turn it off, and found I need to turn the sub up for about 4db to get a similar effect when I turn DEQ on, but I still feel lack of some low frequencies, which I could describe is the "atmosphere" of a movie is lacking after I turn DEQ off, but I could get much cleaner sound of low frequency, like feel of "punch", and I couldn't feel much difference about the voice, but I could feel a difference if I turn Audyssey off(compare with "Reference"), but there's more harsh too, so I couldn't found a perfect way to solve the problem, I thought the reference audyssey make some voice frequency lower?
> 
> and I have tried RLO settings too, I found it suit for some music part, if I feel there's too much low frequency, the RLO set for -10 will be a nice way to solve this problem.
> 
> Thanks a lot, sorry I couldn't explain my problem for a easy way, hope my english will be better soon.


You are very welcome, and I think that your English is just fine! I think that I would probably start with the normal recommendation to set the phase to 0, and work on some other things to get the sound you want.

First, if I were you, I would turn up the gain on your sub so that the initial sub trim level is at least -9 or -10 after running Audyssey. So, instead of starting with the sub at 75db, start with it at 78db or 80db. That way, Audyssey will reduce the trim level, and you will have lots of upward adjustability in your AVR trim level without exceeding about 0.0. That is particularly important to prevent your sub from distorting at master volumes above -10.

DEQ works well for some people and not for others. The average Audyssey user seems to add about +3db to +6db to his subs, even with DEQ engaged. Without DEQ engaged, you might need to add +9 or +10db (or more) to equal the effects of DEQ's bass boost. Just keep experimenting to see if you can find a nice blend of RLO setting and your bass boost, and don't be afraid to change settings as you change program material. For instance, some people like DEQ for movies, but not for music. Or, they might still use DEQ, but change the RLO setting, or the bass boost. Finding one setting which works perfectly for everything you listen to might happen, or it might not.

With respect to Audyssey versus Flat (and leaving DEQ out of the picture), Flat may indeed make the upper treble sound a little brighter or harsher, because the high frequencies are unaltered with Flat. If you don't use DEQ, you can try rolling off just a decibel or two with your treble tone control. The Reference setting, on the other hand won't actually boost the bass, but it can sound that way to me sometimes too, with the treble roll-off slightly changing the acoustic balance. So, again, experimenting to find out what you like for what program material, is the best way to discover your optimum settings.

Just take your time with all of this, and remember when you do an Audyssey calibration to keep the microphone at least 1' or 1.5' away from any hard surfaces. If necessary, put a blanket or absorbent towel over your chair or sofa back, so that you can get the microphone within about 6" of the chair back. And keep your microphone height down around ear level. Doing these things will help to prevent Audyssey from over-boosting high frequencies, and potentially creating a harsh sound.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, and I think that your English is just fine! I think that I would probably start with the normal recommendation to set the phase to 0, and work on some other things to get the sound you want.
> 
> First, if I were you, I would turn up the gain on your sub so that the initial sub trim level is at least -9 or -10 after running Audyssey. So, instead of starting with the sub at 75db, start with it at 78db or 80db. That way, Audyssey will reduce the trim level, and you will have lots of upward adjustability in your AVR trim level without exceeding about 0.0. That is particularly important to prevent your sub from distorting at master volumes above -10.
> 
> DEQ works well for some people and not for others. The average Audyssey user seems to add about +3db to +6db to his subs, even with DEQ engaged. Without DEQ engaged, you might need to add +9 or +10db (or more) to equal the effects of DEQ's bass boost. Just keep experimenting to see if you can find a nice blend of RLO setting and your bass boost, and don't be afraid to change settings as you change program material. For instance, some people like DEQ for movies, but not for music. Or, they might still use DEQ, but change the RLO setting, or the bass boost. Finding one setting which works perfectly for everything you listen to might happen, or it might not.
> 
> With respect to Audyssey versus Flat (and leaving DEQ out of the picture), Flat may indeed make the upper treble sound a little brighter or harsher, because the high frequencies are unaltered with Flat. If you don't use DEQ, you can try rolling off just a decibel or two with your treble tone control. The Reference setting, on the other hand won't actually boost the bass, but it can sound that way to me sometimes too, with the treble roll-off slightly changing the acoustic balance. So, again, experimenting to find out what you like for what program material, is the best way to discover your optimum settings.
> 
> Just take your time with all of this, and remember when you do an Audyssey calibration to keep the microphone at least 1' or 1.5' away from any hard surfaces. If necessary, put a blanket or absorbent towel over your chair or sofa back, so that you can get the microphone within about 6" of the chair back. And keep your microphone height down around ear level. Doing these things will help to prevent Audyssey from over-boosting high frequencies, and potentially creating a harsh sound.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,
Thanks for your advice, that's really help! And makes me understand about audyssey too!
Now I found another interest thing,
when I turn off subEQ before audyssey, and then run audyssey calibrating,
I got a -7.5db on sub,
but then I check the volume on every 10 frequency, I found an interest thing,
it seem every 10hz from 20 to 100hz is around 70~75db
I thought it might be a better result?
But when I turn the movie on,
there's a lot of low frequency disappear compare with the subEQ on before audyssey,
(whick the eq volume is 20hz:80db, 30hz:80db and so on)

So I'm confused, why the flat frequency is not as good as I imagine?
That's really weird...


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Hi Mike,
> Thanks for your advice, that's really help! And makes me understand about audyssey too!
> Now I found another interest thing,
> when I turn off subEQ before audyssey, and then run audyssey calibrating,
> I got a -7.5db on sub,
> but then I check the volume on every 10 frequency, I found an interest thing,
> it seem every 10hz from 20 to 100hz is around 70~75db
> I thought it might be a better result?
> But when I turn the movie on,
> there's a lot of low frequency disappear compare with the subEQ on before audyssey,
> (whick the eq volume is 20hz:80db, 30hz:80db and so on)
> 
> So I'm confused, why the flat frequency is not as good as I imagine?
> That's really weird...



You are welcome! Remember Gary advised you earlier that SPL meters may not be terribly accurate unless they are calibrated, and that is particularly true for low frequencies. So, I would just put the SPL meter away for awhile, and try to rely on Audyssey and your own hearing. That combination is usually a pretty good one, unless you have REW and a calibrated mic, and sometimes even if you do. 

The point of increasing the gain on your sub before running Audyssey is to get to a good negative number. So, if you get to -7.5, or the -9 or -10 number that I suggested, Audyssey will turn down the trim level in your AVR to keep the sub volume at ~75db, which is the goal of the Audyssey programming, based on the self-generated 75db test tone.

But after running Audyssey, you still need to remember to increase your sub trim, by whatever number feels right to you. And that will take some experimentation, and may be influenced by your use of DEQ, and/or your RLO setting. From an Audyssey setting of -10, you would have about 10db of trim increase to play with. From -7.5, you could increase your trim by about 7 or 7.5db without exceeding 0.0. And the advice to not exceed 0.0 is just best-practice advice. It is mainly applicable if you are going above -10 in master volume.

So, to reiterate, I would put the SPL meter away for awhile, listen critically to your post-Audyssey results, and start to experiment with the various settings in an effort to find out what really works best for you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! Remember Gary advised you earlier that SPL meters may not be terribly accurate unless they are calibrated, and that is particularly true for low frequencies. So, I would just put the SPL meter away for awhile, and try to rely on Audyssey and your own hearing. That combination is usually a pretty good one, unless you have REW and a calibrated mic, and sometimes even if you do.
> 
> The point of increasing the gain on your sub before running Audyssey is to get to a good negative number. So, if you get to -7.5, or the -9 or -10 number that I suggested, Audyssey will turn down the trim level in your AVR to keep the sub volume at ~75db, which is the goal of the Audyssey programming, based on the self-generated 75db test tone.
> 
> But after running Audyssey, you still need to remember to increase your sub trim, by whatever number feels right to you. And that will take some experimentation, and may be influenced by your use of DEQ, and/or your RLO setting. From an Audyssey setting of -10, you would have about 10db of trim increase to play with. From -7.5, you could increase your trim by about 7 or 7.5db without exceeding 0.0. And the advice to not exceed 0.0 is just best-practice advice. It is mainly applicable if you are going above -10 in master volume.
> 
> So, to reiterate, I would put the SPL meter away for awhile, listen critically to your post-Audyssey results, and start to experiment with the various settings in an effort to find out what really works best for you.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike! I tried for a while today, and I found out something:
I turned off subEQ, then run audyssey twice, there's a huge difference,
first time, the sub distance was 0.76m(that's a huge mistake?), and I found that the volume is around 70~75db every 10hz, and when I saw the demo movie trailer, I got weak bass and unbalanced low end, so I do audyssey again,
the second time, the sub distance was 2.79m, that's a little far than the real distance(2.4m), but I thought it's okay, but then I found there's a huge peak at 50hz for 85db, and that makes the movies unbalanced again, some part of movies are just too much bass.

So I tried to turn subEQ on after audyssey, but I found a problem that it couldn't do much difference even if I turn the 50hz volume -15db on the sub, so I give it up.

Then I tried to turn sub EQ on before audyssey, and tried again,
I got 2.85m sub distance, about 80db on 20hz,30hz,40hz,50hz, and 65~75db on above,
then I turn the movie on, and found it's better now, maybe some part of weakness at mid bass, but the feeling of movies is back, I've also tried to turn DEQ off, but it seems hard to make a balance when I turn the sub trim level up, because when I turn it up about 4db, some part of movies' bass is just too much, and some part just too weak,
so I decide to keep the setting now, and maybe tried and tried again next time,
Thanks for all your advice, that's really help, and very professional, thanks!


----------



## Jbed27

REW question:

I've been following this thread for a while, and I've seen many people mention using REW on here. I'm getting a 2nd sub for my home theater, and I have a very irregular space, so I think it's time that I dabbled in REW to better analyze my frequency responses. I've been researching all the setups for a couple hours tonight, and I see that the UMIK-1 with HDMI to the receiver allows individual channel sweeps. It looks like the sub only occupies one channel in the list. Can someone explain how I would measure dual subs (I would have each sub hooked up as individuals, no Y splitter at the receiver)? I'm guessing id be most interested in seeing the response of both subs at the same time (after Audyssey MultEQ xt32), correct? I'd appreciate any guidance before I go and purchase the mic, thanks!!

Joe


----------



## aaranddeeman

Jbed27 said:


> REW question:
> 
> I've been following this thread for a while, and I've seen many people mention using REW on here. I'm getting a 2nd sub for my home theater, and I have a very irregular space, so I think it's time that I dabbled in REW to better analyze my frequency responses. I've been researching all the setups for a couple hours tonight, and I see that the UMIK-1 with HDMI to the receiver allows individual channel sweeps. It looks like the sub only occupies one channel in the list. Can someone explain how I would measure dual subs (I would have each sub hooked up as individuals, no Y splitter at the receiver)? I'm guessing id be most interested in seeing the response of both subs at the same time (after Audyssey MultEQ xt32), correct? I'd appreciate any guidance before I go and purchase the mic, thanks!!
> 
> Joe


You should first position your subs.
Use the standard guidelines from experts.
1. subs midway length wise one on each side.
2. Subs midway widthwise one front and one back
3. Two front corners
4. Two back corners
5. One 1/4 length on one side and one 3/4 length on opposite.

Take measurements of both subs using REW at these positions. 
Make adjustments if you want.
Find the best position that gives flattest response.
Run Audyssey.

I am listening for any other better method (as I too have graduated to dual subs recently).


----------



## Jbed27

aaranddeeman said:


> You should first position your subs.
> Use the standard guidelines from experts.
> 1. subs midway length wise one on each side.
> 2. Subs midway widthwise one front and one back
> 3. Two front corners
> 4. Two back corners
> 5. One 1/4 length on one side and one 3/4 length on opposite.
> 
> Take measurements of both subs using REW at these positions.
> Make adjustments if you want.
> Find the best position that gives flattest response.
> Run Audyssey.
> 
> I am listening for any other better method (as I too have graduated to dual subs recently).



Thanks for the info! At this stage, I am looking more for how to actually use REW to ping individual subs and then both together as one.. in terms of actual setup. For example, do I have to run both subs off one output through a Y splitter, or in my case, where I have both in discrete outputs, how would I get them to play together as one (or select each one individually in REW). Maybe I saw an outdated tutorial last night, but it looked like with the HDMI setup, the SUB output was only listed once in the list, not twice. 


--Joe--


----------



## Alan P

Jbed27 said:


> Thanks for the info! At this stage, I am looking more for how to actually use REW to ping individual subs and then both together as one.. in terms of actual setup. For example, do I have to run both subs off one output through a Y splitter, or in my case, where I have both in discrete outputs, how would I get them to play together as one (or select each one individually in REW). Maybe I saw an outdated tutorial last night, but it looked like with the HDMI setup, the SUB output was only listed once in the list, not twice.
> 
> 
> --Joe--


This would probably be better posted in the REW thread, but......

To sweep your subs individually, you have to power one of them off.

Also, keep in mind that the sub output (CH4) in REW is actually the LFE channel output and will measure 10dB higher than all other channels. CH4 is good for initial sub setup, but after that you typically will want to measure the sub(s) + a main channel, usually the center channel (CC). To do this, you would output to CH3 with bass management engaged (speaker set to "small" with an appropriate crossover).

If you haven't seen Austin Jerry's awesome and comprehensive REW guide, it is linked in my sig.


----------



## Jbed27

Alan P said:


> This would probably be better posted in the REW thread, but......
> 
> To sweep your subs individually, you have to power one of them off.
> 
> Also, keep in mind that the sub output (CH4) in REW is actually the LFE channel output and will measure 10dB higher than all other channels. CH4 is good for initial sub setup, but after that you typically will want to measure the sub(s) + a main channel, usually the center channel (CC). To do this, you would output to CH3 with bass management engaged (speaker set to "small" with an appropriate crossover).
> 
> If you haven't seen Austin Jerry's awesome and comprehensive REW guide, it is linked in my sig.




Thanks for the info. I will check the links and planned on posting any further questions to the REW forum. Since I read this thread daily, I guess I was asking that initial question knowing I might get a faster response from either you, Mike or Gary  


--Joe--


----------



## Jei Wu

Jei Wu said:


> Thanks Mike! I tried for a while today, and I found out something:
> I turned off subEQ, then run audyssey twice, there's a huge difference,
> first time, the sub distance was 0.76m(that's a huge mistake?), and I found that the volume is around 70~75db every 10hz, and when I saw the demo movie trailer, I got weak bass and unbalanced low end, so I do audyssey again,
> the second time, the sub distance was 2.79m, that's a little far than the real distance(2.4m), but I thought it's okay, but then I found there's a huge peak at 50hz for 85db, and that makes the movies unbalanced again, some part of movies are just too much bass.
> 
> So I tried to turn subEQ on after audyssey, but I found a problem that it couldn't do much difference even if I turn the 50hz volume -15db on the sub, so I give it up.
> 
> Then I tried to turn sub EQ on before audyssey, and tried again,
> I got 2.85m sub distance, about 80db on 20hz,30hz,40hz,50hz, and 65~75db on above,
> then I turn the movie on, and found it's better now, maybe some part of weakness at mid bass, but the feeling of movies is back, I've also tried to turn DEQ off, but it seems hard to make a balance when I turn the sub trim level up, because when I turn it up about 4db, some part of movies' bass is just too much, and some part just too weak,
> so I decide to keep the setting now, and maybe tried and tried again next time,
> Thanks for all your advice, that's really help, and very professional, thanks!


I have compared the Audyssey Dynamic EQ on & off, and found out some question:

1.Audyssey EQ on, MultEQ:Reference
I found the totally volume is balance, nothing too loud or too weak,
I could feel the surround effect, with movie atmosphere,
but the dialogue is muddy, the bass is boomy, lack of exciting and puch

2.Audyssey EQ off, MultEQ:Reference, with subwoffer+5db
I found the dialogue is much clearer than DEQ on, 
And the bass is punchy, more exciting, but some part of movie bass is too loud,
and lack of surround effect, seems some part of low frequency is missing.

So I just wonder if I turn DEQ off, will I lost some of the sound in the movie?
how can I make the movie atmosphere back?
and how to make the sound more balance?

I'm really surprised that there's such a big difference between EQ on & off,
and I even thought when EQ is on, is that really close to the real movie sound?
cause I really feel muddy dialogue, and lacking of punchy too.
Is there any method to know what is closer to the real movie sound?
Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> I have compared the Audyssey Dynamic EQ on & off, and found out some question:
> 
> 1.Audyssey EQ on, MultEQ:Reference
> I found the totally volume is balance, nothing too loud or too weak,
> I could feel the surround effect, with movie atmosphere,
> but the dialogue is muddy, the bass is boomy, lack of exciting and puch
> 
> 2.Audyssey EQ off, MultEQ:Reference, with subwoffer+5db
> I found the dialogue is much clearer than DEQ on,
> And the bass is punchy, more exciting, but some part of movie bass is too loud,
> and lack of surround effect, seems some part of low frequency is missing.
> 
> So I just wonder if I turn DEQ off, will I lost some of the sound in the movie?
> how can I make the movie atmosphere back?
> and how to make the sound more balance?
> 
> I'm really surprised that there's such a big difference between EQ on & off,
> and I even thought when EQ is on, is that really close to the real movie sound?
> cause I really feel muddy dialogue, and lacking of punchy too.
> Is there any method to know what is closer to the real movie sound?
> Thanks!


Hi,

Your post is a little confusing because you are mixing two different terms. Audyssey "*EQ*" is a complex software program that calibrates all of the speakers in your audio system. "*DEQ*" is an add-on to that program which attempts to maintain an appropriate tonal balance at below Reference volumes. DEQ does that by boosting the bass in all of the channels. (It also slightly boosts treble, but that is less audible.)

Because DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, including the center channel which reproduces almost all of the dialogue, some people find that DEQ makes the dialogue sound muddy, as you described. DEQ also boosts the surround channels above the levels of the front three speakers, so that may be why you notice the surround channels less with DEQ off.

The RLO settings let you adjust the strength of DEQ, with -15 being the setting that allows DEQ to have the least bass boost. There is a good description of DEQ, with graphs showing the measured effects of the various RLO settings in the FAQ, linked below. If you haven't already done so, you should really study the FAQ.

The question of what is closest to the real movie sound is one that has been hotly debated over the years, on this and other threads. Hard to hear dialogue may be closest to the sound that was created by a particular film mixer for a particular movie, but it's not something that I enjoy. So, hearing dialogue more clearly is a high priority for me. YMMV! The amount of bass boost people like to use is also seemingly a matter of personal preference, either with DEQ, and RLO settings, or with an independent bass boost on top of DEQ, or instead of DEQ. Again, YMMV! Finally, the amount of surround boost we like also seems to be a matter of personal preference. Some movies and TV shows add their own surround boost and some don't. But you can always boost your surround channels slightly, post-Audyssey, if you don't want to use DEQ.

The only real advice I can give you is to continue to experiment. There is no single setting formula which is universally pleasing to everyone. Try both Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat. Experiment with various DEQ/RLO settings. Try going without DEQ and varying your sub boost, and add a surround boost if you like. *You may not find a single combination of settings that works well for everything*, and you may have to make some adjustments as you change program material. We are talking about your personal audio preferences here, and they may not only vary based on specific movies or music, but they may also vary a bit depending on your own moods, or other factors. Keep experimenting, and you will eventually find some combination of settings that suits you best for the majority of your listening. And if you still sometimes find yourself tweaking things a little bit as you change from one movie to another, well you aren't the only one. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your post is a little confusing because you are mixing two different terms. Audyssey "*EQ*" is a complex software program that calibrates all of the speakers in your audio system. "*DEQ*" is an add-on to that program which attempts to maintain an appropriate tonal balance at below Reference volumes. DEQ does that by boosting the bass in all of the channels. (It also slightly boosts treble, but that is less audible.)
> 
> Because DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, including the center channel which reproduces almost all of the dialogue, some people find that DEQ makes the dialogue sound muddy, as you described. DEQ also boosts the surround channels above the levels of the front three speakers, so that may be why you notice the surround channels less with DEQ off.
> 
> The RLO settings let you adjust the strength of DEQ, with -15 being the setting that allows DEQ to have the least bass boost. There is a good description of DEQ, with graphs showing the measured effects of the various RLO settings in the FAQ, linked below. If you haven't already done so, you should really study the FAQ.
> 
> The question of what is closest to the real movie sound is one that has been hotly debated over the years, on this and other threads. Hard to hear dialogue may be closest to the sound that was created by a particular film mixer for a particular movie, but it's not something that I enjoy. So, hearing dialogue more clearly is a high priority for me. YMMV! The amount of bass boost people like to use is also seemingly a matter of personal preference, either with DEQ, and RLO settings, or with an independent bass boost on top of DEQ, or instead of DEQ. Again, YMMV! Finally, the amount of surround boost we like also seems to be a matter of personal preference. Some movies and TV shows add their own surround boost and some don't. But you can always boost your surround channels slightly, post-Audyssey, if you don't want to use DEQ.
> 
> The only real advice I can give you is to continue to experiment. There is no single setting formula which is universally pleasing to everyone. Try both Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat. Experiment with various DEQ/RLO settings. Try going without DEQ and varying your sub boost, and add a surround boost if you like. *You may not find a single combination of settings that works well for everything*, and you may have to make some adjustments as you change program material. We are talking about your personal audio preferences here, and they may not only vary based on specific movies or music, but they may also vary a bit depending on your own moods, or other factors. Keep experimenting, and you will eventually find some combination of settings that suits you best for the majority of your listening. And if you still sometimes find yourself tweaking things a little bit as you change from one movie to another, well you aren't the only one.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


This is excellent advice again from Mike, as always. The only thing I dare to add to the question of "what is closest to the real movie sound" is quite simple: turn the Master Volume (MV) up to 0 dB!!! 

With a well recorded blu-ray disc, a well calibrated HT system and with capable speakers (especially the sub) you will surely get the cinema sound experience. 

But, hey, that's gonna be pretty loud at home, so what most of us do is this case is start to turn down the MV. And that's where the best way to describe what happens is: YMMV. When you reach to this point just re-read Mike's above advices.


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your post is a little confusing because you are mixing two different terms. Audyssey "*EQ*" is a complex software program that calibrates all of the speakers in your audio system. "*DEQ*" is an add-on to that program which attempts to maintain an appropriate tonal balance at below Reference volumes. DEQ does that by boosting the bass in all of the channels. (It also slightly boosts treble, but that is less audible.)
> 
> Because DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, including the center channel which reproduces almost all of the dialogue, some people find that DEQ makes the dialogue sound muddy, as you described. DEQ also boosts the surround channels above the levels of the front three speakers, so that may be why you notice the surround channels less with DEQ off.
> 
> The RLO settings let you adjust the strength of DEQ, with -15 being the setting that allows DEQ to have the least bass boost. There is a good description of DEQ, with graphs showing the measured effects of the various RLO settings in the FAQ, linked below. If you haven't already done so, you should really study the FAQ.
> 
> The question of what is closest to the real movie sound is one that has been hotly debated over the years, on this and other threads. Hard to hear dialogue may be closest to the sound that was created by a particular film mixer for a particular movie, but it's not something that I enjoy. So, hearing dialogue more clearly is a high priority for me. YMMV! The amount of bass boost people like to use is also seemingly a matter of personal preference, either with DEQ, and RLO settings, or with an independent bass boost on top of DEQ, or instead of DEQ. Again, YMMV! Finally, the amount of surround boost we like also seems to be a matter of personal preference. Some movies and TV shows add their own surround boost and some don't. But you can always boost your surround channels slightly, post-Audyssey, if you don't want to use DEQ.
> 
> The only real advice I can give you is to continue to experiment. There is no single setting formula which is universally pleasing to everyone. Try both Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat. Experiment with various DEQ/RLO settings. Try going without DEQ and varying your sub boost, and add a surround boost if you like. *You may not find a single combination of settings that works well for everything*, and you may have to make some adjustments as you change program material. We are talking about your personal audio preferences here, and they may not only vary based on specific movies or music, but they may also vary a bit depending on your own moods, or other factors. Keep experimenting, and you will eventually find some combination of settings that suits you best for the majority of your listening. And if you still sometimes find yourself tweaking things a little bit as you change from one movie to another, well you aren't the only one.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,
Thanks again and again!! And I've just learn a lot from you!
what you confuse about is because I just type wrong words,
as
1.Audyssey EQ on, MultEQ:Reference
I should type it "Audyssey *DEQ* on", MultEQ: Reference
That's my fault, sorry.
And I've learned that I could turn the surround vlume up a litte, to make the surround effect better, but should I turn the L/R main speakers up too? or just as the same volume like Center speaker?

Ex.
With the test tone (pike noise?) on denon x2100w,
I set the volume like this, using SPL meter:

When DEQ on:
Left speaker:75db
Right speaker:75db
Center speaker:75db
Left surround:75db
Right surround:75db
Subwoofer:72~73db(In fact I didn't change this, just as what audyssey calibrating set(-1.5db), cause I felt too much bass when I set to 75db using SPL meter c weighting, and I wonder why?)


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> . The only thing I dare to add to the question of "what is closest to the real movie sound" is quite simple: turn the Master Volume (MV) up to 0 dB!!!


An alternative MV setting for the size room likely to be encountered in the home would be a little lower. For a 1,500 cu ft room up to about a 5,000 cu ft room, THX recommends 5 to 7 dB lower than Reference volume (0 dB for most home systems calibrated by Audyssey; so that would be -5 to -7 dB). The reason for this recommendation is the acoustical nature of most rooms in a home. One factor is that the reflections from the walls arrive sooner than in a commercial cinema. The most pleasing volume will still vary with the movie, and whether it is Blu-ray or DVD. Some of us start a movie at whatever is an average setting for us, then readjust for natural sounding dialog loudness, when the dialog starts (that doesn't always work -- the first line of dialog in 2001: A Space Odyssey is about 30 minutes into the movie!


----------



## audiofan1

^^^ Very well said


----------



## murlidher

Great knowledge sharing. I keep changing the DEQ settings. As of now I have settled with:

Audyssey DEQ ON, MultEQ: Reference with 5 offset instead of default 0

with decrease of 1-2db in surrounds and increase of 2 dbs to my Top Middle speakers


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Hi Mike,
> Thanks again and again!! And I've just learn a lot from you!
> what you confuse about is because I just type wrong words,
> as
> 1.Audyssey EQ on, MultEQ:Reference
> I should type it "Audyssey *DEQ* on", MultEQ: Reference
> That's my fault, sorry.
> And I've learned that I could turn the surround vlume up a litte, to make the surround effect better, but should I turn the L/R main speakers up too? or just as the same volume like Center speaker?
> 
> Ex.
> With the test tone (pike noise?) on denon x2100w,
> I set the volume like this, using SPL meter:
> 
> When DEQ on:
> Left speaker:75db
> Right speaker:75db
> Center speaker:75db
> Left surround:75db
> Right surround:75db
> Subwoofer:72~73db(In fact I didn't change this, just as what audyssey calibrating set(-1.5db), cause I felt too much bass when I set to 75db using SPL meter c weighting, and I wonder why?)



You are very welcome for any help! Language can definitely be a barrier, particularly in something like audio, where specific terms have specific meanings.

I still don't think we are communicating properly with respect to audio volume. If your surrounds don't sound loud enough, you don't want to change the way they sound to an SPL meter, you want to change the way they sound to your ears. So, if you want to turn them up a little after Audyssey, just adjust them by a half decibel at a time, until they sound right to you. The same thing is true with the center channel. If you want to increase the volume a little, just do it, and don't worry about what your SPL meter says.

But, if you turn up all of the speakers by, let's say 2db, that would be exactly the same thing as just increasing your master volume, because the sound of all the speakers would increase by the same amount. Only adjust something that definitely sounds wrong to you. Otherwise, just leave the trim settings where Audyssey put them.

This next part is serious advice. If I were you, I would take my SPL meter, and wrap it up very carefully, put it in a box, and put the box in a drawer. Then I would lock the drawer, and hide the key where I couldn't find it easily. And I would not look for the key for about a month, until I had thoroughly experimented with the sound of my audio system, using my ears and not an SPL meter. 

Audyssey is going to get your trim levels right, so that all of the sounds from all of the speakers are at about 75db at the MLP, when the test tones play. There is absolutely no need to keep double checking that. If you want to over or under emphasize the sound of one or more of your speakers, then do it because of what you hear, not because of what an SPL meter says. So, either just leave the trim levels the way Audyssey set them, or adjust them by ear until they sound exactly the way you want them to sound. The SPL meter is not really helping you at all right now. Just listen to your sound, and keep experimenting to get it the way you want it! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome for any help! Language can definitely be a barrier, particularly in something like audio, where specific terms have specific meanings.
> 
> I still don't think we are communicating properly with respect to audio volume. If your surrounds don't sound loud enough, you don't want to change the way they sound to an SPL meter, you want to change the way they sound to your ears. So, if you want to turn them up a little after Audyssey, just adjust them by a half decibel at a time, until they sound right to you. The same thing is true with the center channel. If you want to increase the volume a little, just do it, and don't worry about what your SPL meter says.
> 
> But, if you turn up all of the speakers by, let's say 2db, that would be exactly the same thing as just increasing your master volume, because the sound of all the speakers would increase by the same amount. Only adjust something that definitely sounds wrong to you. Otherwise, just leave the trim settings where Audyssey put them.
> 
> This next part is serious advice. If I were you, I would take my SPL meter, and wrap it up very carefully, put it in a box, and put the box in a drawer. Then I would lock the drawer, and hide the key where I couldn't find it easily. And I would not look for the key for about a month, until I had thoroughly experimented with the sound of my audio system, using my ears and not an SPL meter.
> 
> Audyssey is going to get your trim levels right, so that all of the sounds from all of the speakers are at about 75db at the MLP, when the test tones play. There is absolutely no need to keep double checking that. If you want to over or under emphasize the sound of one or more of your speakers, then do it because of what you hear, not because of what an SPL meter says. So, either just leave the trim levels the way Audyssey set them, or adjust them by ear until they sound exactly the way you want them to sound. The SPL meter is not really helping you at all right now. Just listen to your sound, and keep experimenting to get it the way you want it!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike! Thanks for your patience, I could understand what you're talking about, although I couldn't express by english well enough 
I will try what you said, using my own ears, and changing the volume by a half decibel at a time, and I thought I realized more about audyssey's functions now.
Being a newbie, really thank you for your help, and I've learned somthing I couldn't really understand before, thanks again!


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Thanks Mike! Thanks for your patience, I could understand what you're talking about, although I couldn't express by english well enough
> I will try what you said, using my own ears, and changing the volume by a half decibel at a time, and I thought I realized more about audyssey's functions now.
> Being a newbie, really thank you for your help, and I've learned somthing I couldn't really understand before, thanks again!



You are very welcome!  I have had enough trouble understanding some of the concepts and principles myself the first time or two I heard them. I can imagine how much harder it must be when you are also having to translate the words in your mind.


----------



## ComponentActual

I am trying to calibrate my Sub with Audyssey on my Onkyo TX-NR818, but the problem I am running into is that my Bass Shakers share the same LFE signal as my subwoofer, and Audyssey sets the speaker level too low on the sub for the bass shakers to be effective. I am powering the bass shakers with a separate amp that has no volume control or level settings, so the "sub level" on the receiver is the only means of controlling their volume/intensity.

The only solution that comes to mind is to turn down the gain on the subwoofer, and turn up the sub level on the receiver so that the subwoofer is still outputting the same volume as before, and the bass shakers now have a strong enough signal to be effective.

My question is will Audyssey still be able to effectively calibrate my Sub if I run it with the subs volume set to 60db or 50db, instead of the 75db it asks you to run it at?


----------



## mthomas47

ComponentActual said:


> I am trying to calibrate my Sub with Audyssey on my Onkyo TX-NR818, but the problem I am running into is that my Bass Shakers share the same LFE signal as my subwoofer, and Audyssey sets the speaker level too low on the sub for the bass shakers to be effective. I am powering the bass shakers with a separate amp that has no volume control or level settings, so the "sub level" on the receiver is the only means of controlling their volume/intensity.
> 
> The only solution that comes to mind is to turn down the gain on the subwoofer, and turn up the sub level on the receiver so that the subwoofer is still outputting the same volume as before, and the bass shakers now have a strong enough signal to be effective.
> 
> My question is will Audyssey still be able to effectively calibrate my Sub if I run it with the subs volume set to 60db or 50db, instead of the 75db it asks you to run it at?


Hi,

I believe that the best solution is to disconnect the bass shakers prior to running Audyssey, and then to reconnect them afterwards. Most people prefer to increase the gain level on their subs, above 75db, so that they will get a good negative number such as -9 post-Audyssey. Then, they can increase the trim levels in their AVR's, as needed. Trying to calibrate your sub at 50 or 60db wouldn't work at all, IMO.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jbed27

I have a couple questions I was wondering if I could get some help on. I just added a second sub to my setup, and I've decided that after calibration, I like it 5 increments up on the sub gain dials (for movies). Would you suggest I use the gain dial like I have, or the sub trims in the AVR? Audyssey (I am running xt32) set them at -9.5 and -10, so I have room. I recall reading on this thread a while ago that it may be better to use the sub gain so the receiver is less taxed. If I do use the gain dials on the subs, would it be better to trim my mains UP in the AVR for 2 channel so that they remain more balanced with the subs (trying to make it so I don't have to turn the sub gain dials up and down every time I switch from movies to music). I still have not determined if I even like running the subs with the def techs yet, but just wondering in advance in case I do find a pairing that I like. 

Also, I have def tech 9060 towers and I have been calibrating with the powered woofer gains at 9:00 and then turning up to about 1:00 after cal. That seems to sound best to me, but I was wondering if I should be calibrating them to the gain setting that I like in the end. It seemed to me that when I tried calibrating at a higher gain, audyssey cut my lower frequencies more than I liked. Just wondering if any other people in here have ever had the def tech towers and what your process and experiences were. 


Thanks in advance!

Joe


----------



## mthomas47

Jbed27 said:


> I have a couple questions I was wondering if I could get some help on. I just added a second sub to my setup, and I've decided that after calibration, I like it 5 increments up on the sub gain dials (for movies). Would you suggest I use the gain dial like I have, or the sub trims in the AVR? Audyssey (I am running xt32) set them at -9.5 and -10, so I have room. I recall reading on this thread a while ago that it may be better to use the sub gain so the receiver is less taxed. If I do use the gain dials on the subs, would it be better to trim my mains UP in the AVR for 2 channel so that they remain more balanced with the subs (trying to make it so I don't have to turn the sub gain dials up and down every time I switch from movies to music). I still have not determined if I even like running the subs with the def techs yet, but just wondering in advance in case I do find a pairing that I like.
> 
> Also, I have def tech 9060 towers and I have been calibrating with the powered woofer gains at 9:00 and then turning up to about 1:00 after cal. That seems to sound best to me, but I was wondering if I should be calibrating them to the gain setting that I like in the end. It seemed to me that when I tried calibrating at a higher gain, audyssey cut my lower frequencies more than I liked. Just wondering if any other people in here have ever had the def tech towers and what your process and experiences were.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Joe


Hi Joe,

I think that the answer to both of your questions will be the same. When you turn your sub gain up, Audyssey will set the trim level in your AVR correspondingly lower. We want that, because now we can increase the trim level in our AVR's in easy to use and remember increments, while still using the sub amp (due to the high initial gain). So, if you have the sub gain high enough to produce a trim setting of -9 or -10, you have about 10db that you can use to turn up the volume while still using the sub amp and not the AVR.

The same reasoning should apply to your self-powered towers. When you turn up the sub gain in those towers, Audyssey compensates with a low trim level. So, any adjustments you want to make to the subs in the fronts would be accomplished at that point with your AVR trim levels. If you only wanted to turn up the powered subs in your towers, and not the total volume from those speakers, I would start with a lower gain level initially, and then turn up the tower gains manually after the Audyssey calibration. (Just keep track of the pre-Audyssey gain setting, so that you can easily return to it if you want to.) Either way, you will be using the built-in amps, but the second method lets you control just the bass increase in the towers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jbed27

mthomas47 said:


> Jbed27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a couple questions I was wondering if I could get some help on. I just added a second sub to my setup, and I've decided that after calibration, I like it 5 increments up on the sub gain dials (for movies). Would you suggest I use the gain dial like I have, or the sub trims in the AVR? Audyssey (I am running xt32) set them at -9.5 and -10, so I have room. I recall reading on this thread a while ago that it may be better to use the sub gain so the receiver is less taxed. If I do use the gain dials on the subs, would it be better to trim my mains UP in the AVR for 2 channel so that they remain more balanced with the subs (trying to make it so I don't have to turn the sub gain dials up and down every time I switch from movies to music). I still have not determined if I even like running the subs with the def techs yet, but just wondering in advance in case I do find a pairing that I like.
> 
> Also, I have def tech 9060 towers and I have been calibrating with the powered woofer gains at 9:00 and then turning up to about 1:00 after cal. That seems to sound best to me, but I was wondering if I should be calibrating them to the gain setting that I like in the end. It seemed to me that when I tried calibrating at a higher gain, audyssey cut my lower frequencies more than I liked. Just wondering if any other people in here have ever had the def tech towers and what your process and experiences were.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> I think that the answer to both of your questions will be the same. When you turn your sub gain up, Audyssey will set the trim level in your AVR correspondingly lower. We want that, because now we can increase the trim level in our AVR's in easy to use and remember increments, while still using the sub amp (due to the high initial gain). So, if you have the sub gain high enough to produce a trim setting of -9 or -10, you have about 10db that you can use to turn up the volume while still using the sub amp and not the AVR.
> 
> The same reasoning should apply to your self-powered towers. When you turn up the sub gain in those towers, Audyssey compensates with a low trim level. So, any adjustments you want to make to the subs in the fronts would be accomplished at that point with your AVR trim levels. If you only wanted to turn up the powered subs in your towers, and not the total volume from those speakers, I would start with a lower gain level initially, and then turn up the tower gains manually after the Audyssey calibration. (Just keep track of the pre-Audyssey gain setting, so that you can easily return to it if you want to.) Either way, you will be using the built-in amps, but the second method lets you control just the bass increase in the towers.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Mike, we are on the same page then! I did run my subs hot and then incrementally less thereafter on 3 consecutive calibrations until I got audyssey to set them above -12db per past advice on this thread, I just couldn't recall if I should then use sub gain or AVR trims after that point, and you answered my question. Now I'm gearing up for the real challenge ahead... I just ordered my umik and downloaded REW and am preparing for the rabbit hole I'm about to dive into with seeing real frequency response curves in my space. 

Joe


----------



## mthomas47

Jbed27 said:


> Thanks for the reply Mike, we are on the same page then! I did run my subs hot and then incrementally less thereafter on 3 consecutive calibrations until I got audyssey to set them above -12db per past advice on this thread, I just couldn't recall if I should then use sub gain or AVR trims after that point, and you answered my question. Now I'm gearing up for the real challenge ahead... I just ordered my umik and downloaded REW and am preparing for the rabbit hole I'm about to dive into with seeing real frequency response curves in my space.
> 
> Joe


You are very welcome, Joe! You will be able to get lots of help on that journey down the rabbit hole in the REW thread.

You may already know this, but when you are setting your gain levels in order to test the trim level, you can just do a one-point calibration. Just hit calibrate after the first mic position. Then, once you are getting the trim levels you want, you can start over and run all 8 positions. That saves a lot of time.


----------



## garygarrison

Jbed27 said:


> ... I just ordered my umik and downloaded REW and am preparing for the rabbit hole I'm about to dive into with *seeing real frequency response curves in my space.
> *
> Joe


Don't be surprised if you run dozens of REW curves (seriously; I did).

There is no problem in "seeing real frequency response curves" -- they will be real, but whether they will represent the frequency response in your space depends on how you define your space, among other things.

The best way to glimpse the acoustical (rather than electrical) curves Audyssey has given you (along with deliberate shifts, such as manually turning up the sub, which is commonly done), is to run 8 sweeps through each speaker, one at a time, always with your new measurement mic in exactly the same 8 positions that your Audyssey mic was in previously, and average them. But, there are snags. 1) It will be virtually impossible to put your measurement mic in exactly the same 8 positions that your Audyssey mic formerly occupied, although people have come up with ingenious methods, like hanging weighted strings from the ceiling. 2) An arithmetical average (mean, or even a weighted mean) is not what Audyssey uses. Audyssey uses a proprietary "fuzzy logic" method they believe is better than an arithmetic average, and I can think of some reasons this might well be true. 

Some people, particularly people who often listen to music or watch movies alone, will select 8 positions for both the Audyssey mic and the REW measurement mic very close to where their head would be, often with the first position where the center of their head would be, or, perhaps, where their nose would be, and the other positions in a semicircle around the head. For solitary listeners, this may be better; it may partially get around the problem that moving a mic a few inches, or moving one's head a few inches, may change the frequency response by a surprising amount at some places in the curve. This is one of the reasons many (most?) speaker manufacturers warned against "flattening" a listening room/speaker combination with the graphic equalizers of the '60s through the '90s, and the parametric equalizers that gradually replaced them. I remember Edgar Villchur writing, "What if you move your head?" This was the one thing Villchur and Paul Klipsch agreed on (alright, there may have been others). The common practice in those days was to use just one mic position, at the MLP, so they didn't consider fancy signal processing for which they would have to wait about 30 or 40 years.

Despite all this, with 8 spread out mic positions, Audyssey does a good job in my room, IMO. Its proprietary fuzzy logic processes the data from the 8 mic positions that produces curves from our main seating positions that look smoother than without Audyssey, and more important, they sound better -- clearer, and smoother. I don't worry about them not being perfectly flat (or perfectly following Audyssey's modified cinema curve when I occasionally use Audyssey Reference). Nor would I want flat response below about 250 Hz*;* I like the bass to slightly increase as it gets lower in pitch, as do test audiences. 

Many people urge: 

 Treating the room with absorbers (but don't get it too dead!) and diffusers to get it to sound as good as possible before running Audyssey.
Running Audyssey to polish the response.
If you are curious, run REW, but be prepared.
Then listen for a few months before re-evaluating.


----------



## Jbed27

garygarrison said:


> Jbed27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... I just ordered my umik and downloaded REW and am preparing for the rabbit hole I'm about to dive into with *seeing real frequency response curves in my space.
> *
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be surprised if you run dozens of REW curves (seriously; I did).
> 
> There is no problem in "seeing real frequency response curves" -- they will be real, but whether they will represent the frequency response in your space depends on how you define your space, among other things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The best way to glimpse the acoustical (rather than electrical) curves Audyssey has given you (along with deliberate shifts, such as manually turning up the sub, which is commonly done), is to run 8 sweeps through each speaker, one at a time, always with your new measurement mic in exactly the same 8 positions that your Audyssey mic was in previously, and average them. But, there are snags. 1) It will be virtually impossible to put your measurement mic in exactly the same 8 positions that your Audyssey mic formerly occupied, although people have come up with ingenious methods, like hanging weighted strings from the ceiling. 2) An arithmetical average (mean, or even a weighted mean) is not what Audyssey uses. Audyssey uses a proprietary "fuzzy logic" method they believe is better than an arithmetic average, and I can think of some reasons this might well be true.
> 
> Some people, particularly people who often listen to music or watch movies alone, will select 8 positions for both the Audyssey mic and the REW measurement mic very close to where their head would be, often with the first position where the center of their head would be, or, perhaps, where their nose would be, and the other positions in a semicircle around the head. For solitary listeners, this may be better; it may partially get around the problem that moving a mic a few inches, or moving one's head a few inches, may change the frequency response by a surprising amount at some places in the curve. This is one of the reasons many (most?) speaker manufacturers warned against "flattening" a listening room/speaker combination with the graphic equalizers of the '60s through the '90s, and the parametric equalizers that gradually replaced them. I remember Edgar Villchur writing, "What if you move your head?" This was the one thing Villchur and Paul Klipsch agreed on (alright, there may have been others). The common practice in those days was to use just one mic position, at the MLP, so they didn't consider fancy signal processing for which they would have to wait about 30 or 40 years.
> 
> Despite all this, with 8 spread out mic positions, Audyssey does a good job in my room, IMO. Its proprietary fuzzy logic processes the data from the 8 mic positions that produces curves from our main seating positions that look smoother than without Audyssey, and more important, they sound better -- clearer, and smoother. I don't worry about them not being perfectly flat (or perfectly following Audyssey's modified cinema curve when I occasionally use Audyssey Reference). Nor would I want flat response below about 250 Hz*;* I like the bass to slightly increase as it gets lower in pitch, as do test audiences.
> 
> Many people urge:
> 
> 
> Treating the room with absorbers (but don't get it too dead!) and diffusers to get it to sound as good as possible before running Audyssey.
> Running Audyssey to polish the response.
> If you are curious, run REW, but be prepared.
> Then listen for a few months before re-evaluating.
Click to expand...

Thanks Gary, for taking the time to post all this great information! I'm sure I'll have all kinds of questions in the REW thread when my mic arrives, but this gave me a good starting point. 

Joe


----------



## mthomas47

^^

I agree, Gary. That was a really good post!


----------



## hpnas

I've been having low volume issues on my Denon X1200W which I think I recently narrowed down a couple of things. The first is when the source signal switches from sending audio via the center channel (proper DD 5.1) to just stereo (the receiver still shows DD + Surround). This mostly happens on commercials, when NFL refs are announcing penalties and musical performances. The next problem is that I discovered Audyssey had set my speaker trims for the Front L + R way down. Once I turned that up I was able to hear out of my fronts again but I know i messed up the Audyssey results. 

Any advice on this one or is it ok to just over-write what Audysssey suggest to compensate for my problem? Basically Audyssey setting my fronts very low and whenever the cable audio signal switches to just DD2.0 I can't hear anything


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> I've been having low volume issues on my Denon X1200W which I think I recently narrowed down a couple of things. The first is when the source signal switches from sending audio via the center channel (proper DD 5.1) to just stereo (the receiver still shows DD + Surround). This mostly happens on commercials, when NFL refs are announcing penalties and musical performances. The next problem is that I discovered Audyssey had set my speaker trims for the Front L + R way down. Once I turned that up I was able to hear out of my fronts again but I know i messed up the Audyssey results.
> 
> Any advice on this one or is it ok to just over-write what Audysssey suggest to compensate for my problem? Basically Audyssey setting my fronts very low and whenever the cable audio signal switches to just DD2.0 I can't hear anything


Hi,

I don't personally see a major problem with adjusting the trim level on your fronts, but I am curious as to why you would have to do that. (Adjusting trim levels post-Audyssey skews DEQ a little, but that's the only issue.) However, Audyssey normally is very accurate in setting all channels to play at the same level at the MLP, based on the internally generated 75db test tones. Are your front speakers self-powered?

If you can provide a description of your speakers, along with the trim settings for all of your channels, it may help to better understand why this is happening.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## hpnas

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't personally see a major problem with adjusting the trim level on your fronts, but I am curious as to why you would have to do that. (Adjusting trim levels post-Audyssey skews DEQ a little, but that's the only issue.) However, Audyssey normally is very accurate in setting all channels to play at the same level at the MLP, based on the internally generated 75db test tones. Are your front speakers self-powered?
> 
> If you can provide a description of your speakers, along with the trim settings for all of your channels, it may help to better understand why this is happening.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the response. My front speakers are Polk Audio Monitor 60. Unfortunately I was tinkering around with the trims last night and ended up completely re-setting them to 0. I then started adjusting it and I could hear out of the fronts again but I know the results are not optimal. 

I think I need to re-do Audyssey tonight and see what the trims come back with but I do remember the fronts were both -12.0 db which to me indicates a problem. I'll post the results tonight when I have them or is there something more obvious I am missing?


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> Thanks for the response. My front speakers are Polk Audio Monitor 60. Unfortunately I was tinkering around with the trims last night and ended up completely re-setting them to 0. I then started adjusting it and I could hear out of the fronts again but I know the results are not optimal.
> 
> I think I need to re-do Audyssey tonight and see what the trims come back with but I do remember the fronts were both -12.0 db which to me indicates a problem. I'll post the results tonight when I have them or is there something more obvious I am missing?



You are welcome! Any time you get trim levels of -12, that is a potential problem, because that is as low as the trim levels go in Denon/Marantz units. And the real setting might need to be even lower. But, in that case, I would expect your volume to be too high on those speakers, rather than too low. 

I would definitely rerun Audyssey and see if you get the same -12 trim levels that you got last time. Looking at your Polk speakers, I don't immediately understand why they are causing Audyssey to set such negative trim levels. If, when you rerun Audyssey, you want to take a couple of photos of your room and set-up, we can see if anything pops out as the cause of the low trim levels.

Do the distances, and the trim levels for the other channels appear to be about right? This might be one time that you would want to use a smartphone SPL app to check trim levels, and to see if they are all registering about the same SPL at the MLP. It doesn't matter if all of the speakers measure about 73db, or about 76db, as long as they are all about the same. If the fronts are registering lower than the other speakers in the system, such as the center channel, then it may be necessary to do a microprocessor reset. Sometimes there is a glitch in the software, just as with any microprocessor.


----------



## hpnas

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! Any time you get trim levels of -12, that is a potential problem, because that is as low as the trim levels go in Denon/Marantz units. And the real setting might need to be even lower. But, in that case, I would expect your volume to be too high on those speakers, rather than too low.
> 
> I would definitely rerun Audyssey and see if you get the same -12 trim levels that you got last time. Looking at your Polk speakers, I don't immediately understand why they are causing Audyssey to set such negative trim levels. If, when you rerun Audyssey, you want to take a couple of photos of your room and set-up, we can see if anything pops out as the cause of the low trim levels.
> 
> Do the distances, and the trim levels for the other channels appear to be about right? This might be one time that you would want to use a smartphone SPL app to check trim levels, and to see if they are all registering about the same SPL at the MLP. It doesn't matter if all of the speakers measure about 73db, or about 76db, as long as they are all about the same. If the fronts are registering lower than the other speakers in the system, such as the center channel, then it may be necessary to do a microprocessor reset. Sometimes there is a glitch in the software, just as with any microprocessor.


Thanks, I will definitely take some pics when I re-do the Audyssey (if my 3 year old stays quiet for me). Didn't realize I can use an SPL app on the iPhone to test out, that's a good idea. When do I use that though? After Audyssey is complete and with the test tone function in my Denon?

I actually did a microprocessor reset recently thinking that was the cause of my issue but it didn't fix it at all. I also have loudness management and Dolby Volume (on my cable box) off to rule those out


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> Thanks, I will definitely take some pics when I re-do the Audyssey (if my 3 year old stays quiet for me). Didn't realize I can use an SPL app on the iPhone to test out, that's a good idea. When do I use that though? After Audyssey is complete and with the test tone function in my Denon?
> 
> I actually did a microprocessor reset recently thinking that was the cause of my issue but it didn't fix it at all. I also have loudness management and Dolby Volume (on my cable box) off to rule those out


Yes, I was thinking of using the SPL meter, after you run Audyssey, just to get a general idea of volume equivalency for the various channels. For that purpose, I think that the internal Denon pink noise in your trim controls would be just fine. If you want to, you can do a calibration after the first mic position, in order to test trim levels. That will save you having to go through the whole 8-point calibration, before you find out whether your trim levels match.


----------



## Alan P

hpnas said:


> I've been having low volume issues on my Denon X1200W which I think I recently narrowed down a couple of things. The first is when the source signal switches from sending audio via the center channel (proper DD 5.1) to just stereo (the receiver still shows DD + Surround). This mostly happens on commercials, when NFL refs are announcing penalties and musical performances. The next problem is that I discovered Audyssey had set my speaker trims for the Front L + R way down. Once I turned that up I was able to hear out of my fronts again but I know i messed up the Audyssey results.
> 
> Any advice on this one or is it ok to just over-write what Audysssey suggest to compensate for my problem? Basically Audyssey setting my fronts very low and whenever the cable audio signal switches to just DD2.0 I can't hear anything


Mike is giving you great advice...I just wanted to point out that broadcast television is _not _a good source to evaluate the performance of your system.

To alleviate your issues, I would set the cable box to only output in 2.0 (this is exactly what I have done for years).

How does the system sound with music, DVD and/or blu ray??


----------



## RMK!

Does running Audyssey (XT-32) provide an HP filter?


----------



## hpnas

Alan P said:


> Mike is giving you great advice...I just wanted to point out that broadcast television is _not _a good source to evaluate the performance of your system.
> 
> To alleviate your issues, I would set the cable box to only output in 2.0 (this is exactly what I have done for years).
> 
> How does the system sound with music, DVD and/or blu ray??


Absolutely no issues with Blu Ray / Streaming, it's only cable that is a problem but it's a real problem, especially when you can't hear the NFL refs at all or any performances


----------



## hpnas

mthomas47 said:


> Yes, I was thinking of using the SPL meter, after you run Audyssey, just to get a general idea of volume equivalency for the various channels. For that purpose, I think that the internal Denon pink noise in your trim controls would be just fine. If you want to, you can do a calibration after the first mic position, in order to test trim levels. That will save you having to go through the whole 8-point calibration, before you find out whether your trim levels match.


Ok I'll download one from the app store now. How do you see the trims after one position? I recall trying to find that in the past but couldn't figure out how to view the levels after just the main listening position


----------



## lovingdvd

*Multiple subs distance tweak?*

I have two pairs of subs - two in front of the room equidistant to the MLP and two in the rear equidistant to the MLP. All 4 subs are identical and are putting out the same SPL. After I have Audyssey do its thing, I understand there is a distance tweak that is used to improve the response near the crossover. Can someone please elaborate on the procedure and also what REW measurements I should use (and what to look for in those measurements) to gauge the effectiveness of each iteration of the distance changes? Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> Ok I'll download one from the app store now. How do you see the trims after one position? I recall trying to find that in the past but couldn't figure out how to view the levels after just the main listening position



You just have to tell Audyssey to calculate after that first mic position. That's an available option after mic position 1.


----------



## ComponentActual

ComponentActual said:


> I am trying to calibrate my Sub with Audyssey on my Onkyo TX-NR818, but the problem I am running into is that my Bass Shakers share the same LFE signal as my subwoofer, and Audyssey sets the speaker level too low on the sub for the bass shakers to be effective. I am powering the bass shakers with a separate amp that has no volume control or level settings, so the "sub level" on the receiver is the only means of controlling their volume/intensity.
> 
> The only solution that comes to mind is to turn down the gain on the subwoofer, and turn up the sub level on the receiver so that the subwoofer is still outputting the same volume as before, and the bass shakers now have a strong enough signal to be effective.
> 
> My question is will Audyssey still be able to effectively calibrate my Sub if I run it with the subs volume set to 60db or 50db, instead of the 75db it asks you to run it at?





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I believe that the best solution is to disconnect the bass shakers prior to running Audyssey, and then to reconnect them afterwards. Most people prefer to increase the gain level on their subs, above 75db, so that they will get a good negative number such as -9 post-Audyssey. Then, they can increase the trim levels in their AVR's, as needed. Trying to calibrate your sub at 50 or 60db wouldn't work at all, IMO.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Just to clarify my issue isn't with the bass shakers interfering with the subwoofer's sound during calibration, (I have them disconnected as you suggest when running Audyssey), but the fact that the bass shakers and subwoofer share the same output and speaker level setting in the receiver, and I want to turn up the bass shakers relative to the subwoofer. The subwoofer has a separate gain control knob, but the bass shakers and the amp powering them have no separate gain/volume control knob. So if I want to turn up the bass shakers relative to the subwoofer, my only option is to turn down the subwoofer's volume relative to the bass shaker's. The issue then becomes running the subwoofer at a sub 75db level (just during calibration/setup), and whether Audyssey will still be able to EQ it correctly (after calibration/setup the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver will be turned up to compensate for the gain control being turned down on the sub; presumably Audyssey would turn up the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver as part of the calibration). I mean speaker levels are suppose to be part of what the Audyssey calibration handles right? So how essential is it that the sub is set to 75db during the initial phase of the Audyssey calibration? I assume that is just to get the sub woofer at a good starting point before Audyssey dials it in to the correct level. I figure as long as I don't turn the gain control on the sub down so far that Audyssey has to max out the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver I should be okay, right?


I think my only other option is to buy an SPL meter and EQ the sub at 75db. Then with the sub set to 75db play the subwoofer test tone in the level calibration menu and measure it with the SPL meter. Then turn down the sub's gain control, then use the SPL meter again to measure the subwoofer's test tone while turning up the sub's speaker level in the receiver until the SPL meter is reading the same level as before.


----------



## Alan P

hpnas said:


> Absolutely no issues with Blu Ray / Streaming, it's only cable that is a problem but it's a real problem, especially when you can't hear the NFL refs at all or any performances


If the issue is only with cable, I would not by any means make adjustments to the speaker trims to alleviate it. This would compromise your other sources.

Try as I suggested and set the cable box to output 2 channel only and see how that works out for you.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> I have two pairs of subs - two in front of the room equidistant to the MLP and two in the rear equidistant to the MLP. All 4 subs are identical and are putting out the same SPL. After I have Audyssey do its thing, I understand there is a distance tweak that is used to improve the response near the crossover. Can someone please elaborate on the procedure and also what REW measurements I should use (and what to look for in those measurements) to gauge the effectiveness of each iteration of the distance changes? Thanks!


The in-depth Sub Distance Tweak:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9653266/Audyssey Sub Distance Tweak Procedure Oct 2013.pdf


My "Reader's Digest" version:


Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
Add/subtract to the sub distance setting (both subs equally) in 1' increments
Re-measure
Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


----------



## Alan P

> I figure as long as I don't turn the gain control on the sub down so far that Audyssey has to max out the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver I should be okay, right?


Not Mike, but yes, this is correct. As long as you don't hit the upper or lower limit you are _technically _OK.

However, it is often recommended (and with good reason) to try and keep the final sub trim in the negative numbers...especially if you listen near Reference level...to minimize possible clipping of the sub amp.


----------



## hpnas

Alan P said:


> If the issue is only with cable, I would not by any means make adjustments to the speaker trims to alleviate it. This would compromise your other sources.
> 
> Try as I suggested and set the cable box to output 2 channel only and see how that works out for you.


Wouldn't that make it so I couldn't hear anything at all then?


----------



## mthomas47

ComponentActual said:


> Just to clarify my issue isn't with the bass shakers interfering with the subwoofer's sound during calibration, (I have them disconnected as you suggest when running Audyssey), but the fact that the bass shakers and subwoofer share the same output and speaker level setting in the receiver, and I want to turn up the bass shakers relative to the subwoofer. The subwoofer has a separate gain control knob, but the bass shakers and the amp powering them have no separate gain/volume control knob. So if I want to turn up the bass shakers relative to the subwoofer, my only option is to turn down the subwoofer's volume relative to the bass shaker's. The issue then becomes running the subwoofer at a sub 75db level (just during calibration/setup), and whether Audyssey will still be able to EQ it correctly (after calibration/setup the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver will be turned up to compensate for the gain control being turned down on the sub; presumably Audyssey would turn up the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver as part of the calibration). I mean speaker levels are suppose to be part of what the Audyssey calibration handles right? So how essential is it that the sub is set to 75db during the initial phase of the Audyssey calibration? I assume that is just to get the sub woofer at a good starting point before Audyssey dials it in to the correct level. I figure as long as I don't turn the gain control on the sub down so far that Audyssey has to max out the sub's speaker level setting in the receiver I should be okay, right?
> 
> 
> I think my only other option is to buy an SPL meter and EQ the sub at 75db. Then with the sub set to 75db play the subwoofer test tone in the level calibration menu and measure it with the SPL meter. Then turn down the sub's gain control, then use the SPL meter again to measure the subwoofer's test tone while turning up the sub's speaker level in the receiver until the SPL meter is reading the same level as before.


Okay, I understand the problem better now. If I were you, I would just calibrate as you have been, getting a good negative trim level. Then, after calibration, when you reconnect your sub shakers, just adjust the trim level upward to get the effect that you want from the sub shakers. But, now the sub level is too high. No problem, you just adjust the gain level in the subwoofer downward until you achieve the blend you want between the subwoofer and the sub shakers.

To recap this, let's say you start with a sub gain setting that gives you a trim level of -9. But the sub shakers don't do enough. So, you turn up the trim level to -3. Now the sub shakers are fine, but the subwoofer is too loud. So you turn down the sub gain until you have the blend you want between the two. I think that will work best for you. I would just make a mental note of the before-and-after sub gain levels, in case you ever want to return to where you were, or want to add or subtract some more.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I decided to edit this to add that the only issue I would be careful about is going over 0.0 in sub trim level at more than about -10MV. As long as you are keeping your trim levels negative, and not exceeding about -10MV, you should be fine with this approach.


----------



## mthomas47

RMK! said:


> Does running Audyssey (XT-32) provide an HP filter?


Hi,

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Audyssey will measure the F3 points on all of the speakers, and report those to the AVR, which will set crossovers (which are manually adjustable) for those speakers. The crossovers are HP filters for the speakers, and LP filters for the subs. But, if you mean is there a preset or adjustable point where Audyssey stops setting filters at all, the frequency range for the filters is from 10Hz to 20KHz. Am I getting warm in answering your question? 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

hpnas said:


> Wouldn't that make it so I couldn't hear anything at all then?


Nope. Shouldn't.

Your cable box will be outputting 2.0 and you would upmix that to 5.1/7.1 (whatever you have) with Dolby PLII or DTS NEO. If the output seems low using 2.0, adjust the input level in your AVR.

Give it a try, it's free!


----------



## hpnas

Alan P said:


> Nope. Shouldn't.
> 
> Your cable box will be outputting 2.0 and you would upmix that to 5.1/7.1 (whatever you have) with Dolby PLII or DTS NEO. If the output seems low using 2.0, adjust the input level in your AVR.
> 
> Give it a try, it's free!


Ah ok, now I understand....I'll also give this a try after I re-calibrate given I screwed up the trims


----------



## Alan P

You can reload your previous Audyssey cal. It is under AUDYSSEY SETUP, and it is called "Re-Load" or something like that.


----------



## hpnas

I just started the test again and after the first main listening position test it shows me a screen to confirm speaker detection. After that my only choices are Repeat Last Test and Next. If I click next it wants to go to the next listening position. Where can I see what the levels are at the main listening position so I can make adjustments before moving forward


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> I just started the test again and after the first main listening position test it shows me a screen to confirm speaker detection. After that my only choices are Repeat Last Test and Next. If I click next it wants to go to the next listening position. Where can I see what the levels are at the main listening position so I can make adjustments before moving forward


I know that the user interface is a little different on Denon and Marantz AVR's, although they are both made by the same company. But, I thought this feature was the same. On the Marantz receivers, after the 1st mic position, there is an option to calculate, in addition to repeat test, or continue. If that option doesn't exist on your Denon, then my advice was in error, and you will have to do all 8 mic positions before you can check your trim levels. Sorry!


----------



## hpnas

mthomas47 said:


> I know that the user interface is a little different on Denon and Marantz AVR's, although they are both made by the same company. But, I thought this feature was the same. On the Marantz receivers, after the 1st mic position, there is an option to calculate, in addition to repeat test, or continue. If that option doesn't exist on your Denon, then my advice was in error, and you will have to do all 8 mic positions before you can check your trim levels. Sorry!


I think I accidentally figured it out when my daughter yanked the mic out. When I plugged it back in there was an option to see the calculated distances and levels. I got sidetracked and didn't finish but the front levels were -5.5db and -4.5db and the rears were -5.5db and -3.3db. The center was -6.5db. The sub was -12db which I know needs to have the volume turned down


----------



## hpnas

Ok got it all configured now and here are my settings

Front L: -6.0db
Front R: -3.5db
Center: -7.0db
Subwoofer: -9.5db
Surround L: -5.0db
Surrond R: -3.0db

I didn't touch the above at all but rather adjusted the bass within the system a bit to compensate (+3.5db) and added some dialog enhancement as well (+10db).

How do these look?


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> Ok got it all configured now and here are my settings
> 
> Front L: -6.0db
> Front R: -3.5db
> Center: -7.0db
> Subwoofer: -9.5db
> Surround L: -5.0db
> Surrond R: -3.0db
> 
> I didn't touch the above at all but rather adjusted the bass within the system a bit to compensate (+3.5db) and added some dialog enhancement as well (+10db).
> 
> How do these look?



Your trim levels look pretty normal to me. Fortunately, no -12's on the fronts. Did you use an SPL meter just to double-check that the trim settings are balanced, or better yet, does the system sound balanced now?


----------



## hpnas

mthomas47 said:


> Your trim levels look pretty normal to me. Fortunately, no -12's on the fronts. Did you use an SPL meter just to double-check that the trim settings are balanced, or better yet, does the system sound balanced now?


Yes, definitely sounds more balanced and the bass response seems to be better for sure. I tried to get just 2.0 out of my cable box via the settings but that resulted in no sound so have left it on "HDMI". The commercials / NFL ref volumes seem better now because the trims aren't so negative on my fronts. Is there anywhere within the Audyssey or Denon settings where I can slightly increase my fronts without messing up my calibration?


----------



## audiofan1

hpnas said:


> Ok got it all configured now and here are my settings
> 
> Front L: -6.0db
> Front R: -3.5db
> Center: -7.0db
> Subwoofer: -9.5db
> Surround L: -5.0db
> Surrond R: -3.0db
> 
> I didn't touch the above at all but rather adjusted the bass within the system a bit to compensate (+3.5db) and added some dialog enhancement as well (+10db).
> 
> How do these look?


 Are your main speakers positioned equally from the main listening position? what do the distances look like?


----------



## garygarrison

hpnas said:


> Yes, definitely sounds more balanced and the bass response seems to be better for sure. I tried to get just 2.0 out of my cable box via the settings but that resulted in no sound so have left it on "HDMI". The commercials / NFL ref volumes seem better now because the trims aren't so negative on my fronts.* Is there anywhere within the Audyssey or Denon settings where I can slightly increase my fronts without messing up my calibration?*


You can just turn up the trims on the fronts. All of the Audyssey EQ filters will remain the same. If you think the fronts sound balanced (all the same loudness) now, but just not loud enough, turn up the front trims by a constant amount, e.g., add 3 dB to each.

Do you have an "open plan" room, i.e., is there a side wall by your Left front, but not by your Right front?


----------



## mthomas47

hpnas said:


> Yes, definitely sounds more balanced and the bass response seems to be better for sure. I tried to get just 2.0 out of my cable box via the settings but that resulted in no sound so have left it on "HDMI". The commercials / NFL ref volumes seem better now because the trims aren't so negative on my fronts. Is there anywhere within the Audyssey or Denon settings where I can slightly increase my fronts without messing up my calibration?


As Gary suggested, you can slightly turn up the trims on your fronts in the Speaker Menu, if you need to, but I am going to take a slightly different approach. I would experiment a little bit with your DEQ settings, first. When I was using DEQ, I found it difficult to use for sporting events. There were two reasons for that. First, DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, and not just in the sub channel. So, when announcers or referees spoke, the bass boost in the CC, and in the front channels which sometimes carry that information, made it harder to hear dialogue clearly.

Second, DEQ boosts the surround channels by 3 or 4db, depending on the master volume. Although that can be good for some movies, I found it distracting for football games, boxing, etc. That's because the surrounds in those sporting events were mainly carrying crowd noise, and ambient sounds, essentially unrelated to the action on the field or in the ring. And the louder, also bass-boosted surrounds, made it much harder for me to hear what the announcers were saying. YMMV!

So, if I were you, I would first experiment with using an RLO of -10 or -15, or even with DEQ off, for those particular programs where the front speakers don't seem to have enough volume. Alternatively, I would experiment with lowering the trim levels on the surround speakers, which might positively impact both the front speakers and the center channel. Of course, you can always slightly increase the trim levels on the fronts, in addition to slightly lowering the trim levels on the surrounds, too. That might be a more balanced approach. But, I would probably start by experimenting with DEQ, to see if that is part of the problem in this particular case.


----------



## ComponentActual

Alan P said:


> Not Mike, but yes, this is correct. As long as you don't hit the upper or lower limit you are _technically _OK.
> 
> However, it is often recommended (and with good reason) to try and keep the final sub trim in the negative numbers...especially if you listen near Reference level...to minimize possible clipping of the sub amp.





mthomas47 said:


> Okay, I understand the problem better now. If I were you, I would just calibrate as you have been, getting a good negative trim level. Then, after calibration, when you reconnect your sub shakers, just adjust the trim level upward to get the effect that you want from the sub shakers. But, now the sub level is too high. No problem, you just adjust the gain level in the subwoofer downward until you achieve the blend you want between the subwoofer and the sub shakers.
> 
> To recap this, let's say you start with a sub gain setting that gives you a trim level of -9. But the sub shakers don't do enough. So, you turn up the trim level to -3. Now the sub shakers are fine, but the subwoofer is too loud. So you turn down the sub gain until you have the blend you want between the two. I think that will work best for you. I would just make a mental note of the before-and-after sub gain levels, in case you ever want to return to where you were, or want to add or subtract some more.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: I decided to edit this to add that the only issue I would be careful about is going over 0.0 in sub trim level at more than about -10MV. As long as you are keeping your trim levels negative, and not exceeding about -10MV, you should be fine with this approach.


I hadn't considered any issues with clipping on the sub. What is this "-10MV" you refer to? 

Currently I have 4 of the 25watt Bass Shakers installed on the main portion of my sectional sofa. My receiver has to two Sub outputs so I have one running to the subwoofer and the other connected to a splitter which connects to two channels on an external amp powering the bass shakers. I just purchased two more bass shakers for the shorter leg of the sectional, and I am going to use a splitter on the line going to the subwoofer to send the signal to the amp. Hopefully with more shakers and with the subwoofer now getting a split signal like the bass shakers the subwoofer won't be so powerful in relation to them. 

I get 75db with the gain control on the sub set to 50%, and Audyssey sets the trim to +-0db on the sub. If I turn down the sub to 70db with the gain control at 25% Audyssey sets the trim to +6db on the sub. This is how I ran my speakers last nigh after experimenting with the method I outlined in my previous post. I really enjoyed the bass shakers much more at this level, and they seemed to take on a much more bass like quality. That is I often confused the "sound" emitted by the bass shakers with the sound coming from the subwoofer, especially when I lean all the way back on my couch so that my head is resting on the back the cushion. The pulsing of the couch seems to transfer to my head and it sounds almost identical to true bass from the subwoofer. I just moved into a duplex so I can't play my subwoofer very loud at all anymore and need to rely on the bass shakers for the majority of my bass. I feel like I should be safe from clipping since I typically turn the sub down even further after calibration to avoid disturbing my neighbors, but I don't know enough about the subject to know for certain.


----------



## Alan P

hpnas said:


> Yes, definitely sounds more balanced and the bass response seems to be better for sure. *I tried to get just 2.0 out of my cable box via the settings but that resulted in no sound so have left it on "HDMI". * The commercials / NFL ref volumes seem better now because the trims aren't so negative on my fronts. Is there anywhere within the Audyssey or Denon settings where I can slightly increase my fronts without messing up my calibration?


That is strange...maybe ask your cable provider for a replacement/upgraded box??


----------



## Alan P

ComponentActual said:


> I hadn't considered any issues with clipping on the sub. *What is this "-10MV" you refer to? *


MV = Master Volume

You must have your volume display set to "Relative" instead of "Absolute". Then your display will tell you how far you are from Reference Level (e.g. -10MV is 10dB below Reference Level, reference being 0MV).


----------



## mthomas47

ComponentActual said:


> I hadn't considered any issues with clipping on the sub. What is this "-10MV" you refer to?
> 
> Currently I have 4 of the 25watt Bass Shakers installed on the main portion of my sectional sofa. My receiver has to two Sub outputs so I have one running to the subwoofer and the other connected to a splitter which connects to two channels on an external amp powering the bass shakers. I just purchased two more bass shakers for the shorter leg of the sectional, and I am going to use a splitter on the line going to the subwoofer to send the signal to the amp. Hopefully with more shakers and with the subwoofer now getting a split signal like the bass shakers the subwoofer won't be so powerful in relation to them.
> 
> I get 75db with the gain control on the sub set to 50%, and Audyssey sets the trim to +-0db on the sub. If I turn down the sub to 70db with the gain control at 25% Audyssey sets the trim to +6db on the sub. This is how I ran my speakers last nigh after experimenting with the method I outlined in my previous post. I really enjoyed the bass shakers much more at this level, and they seemed to take on a much more bass like quality. That is I often confused the "sound" emitted by the bass shakers with the sound coming from the subwoofer, especially when I lean all the way back on my couch so that my head is resting on the back the cushion. The pulsing of the couch seems to transfer to my head and it sounds almost identical to true bass from the subwoofer. I just moved into a duplex so I can't play my subwoofer very loud at all anymore and need to rely on the bass shakers for the majority of my bass. I feel like I should be safe from clipping since I typically turn the sub down even further after calibration to avoid disturbing my neighbors, but I don't know enough about the subject to know for certain.


Hi,

The -10 MV, to which I referred is your master volume level. It is 10db below Reference, which has peak volumes of 105db in the main channels--the 5 in 5.1. I apologize if you already knew all that.

According to the experts, it is important to have the voltage to your sub come from the sub's own amplifier, and not from the AVR. That is particularly important to prevent sub distortion (clipping) as you approach Reference volume levels. To err on the side of caution, it is not recommended to exceed sub AVR trims of 0.0 at about -10 MV. If you are approaching, or exceeding -10 MV, having even a little lower sub trim might be a good idea. There is an article on this in the FAQ, linked below, which quotes Mark Seaton and Ed Mullen, both subwoofer gurus.

This is why I suggested that when you do your Audyssey calibration you turn the gain on your sub up not down, in order to achieve a good negative number, such as -9 sub trim. Then, when you add in your shakers, you will have plenty of headroom to turn up the trim in your AVR for the shakers, while correspondingly decreasing the gain for your sub. You really don't want to be at 0.0 in your sub trim post-calibration, much less +6. You might get away with it, without any clipping, but all it would take is to goose the volume one day. I would recommend that you follow the best practice guideline of starting with a higher gain level, and a good negative trim level, and then decreasing the gain post-Audyssey, while keeping the AVR trim level below 0.0.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## hpnas

mthomas47 said:


> As Gary suggested, you can slightly turn up the trims on your fronts in the Speaker Menu, if you need to, but I am going to take a slightly different approach. I would experiment a little bit with your DEQ settings, first. When I was using DEQ, I found it difficult to use for sporting events. There were two reasons for that. First, DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, and not just in the sub channel. So, when announcers or referees spoke, the bass boost in the CC, and in the front channels which sometimes carry that information, made it harder to hear dialogue clearly.
> 
> Second, DEQ boosts the surround channels by 3 or 4db, depending on the master volume. Although that can be good for some movies, I found it distracting for football games, boxing, etc. That's because the surrounds in those sporting events were mainly carrying crowd noise, and ambient sounds, essentially unrelated to the action on the field or in the ring. And the louder, also bass-boosted surrounds, made it much harder for me to hear what the announcers were saying. YMMV!
> 
> So, if I were you, I would first experiment with using an RLO of -10 or -15, or even with DEQ off, for those particular programs where the front speakers don't seem to have enough volume. Alternatively, I would experiment with lowering the trim levels on the surround speakers, which might positively impact both the front speakers and the center channel. Of course, you can always slightly increase the trim levels on the fronts, in addition to slightly lowering the trim levels on the surrounds, too. That might be a more balanced approach. But, I would probably start by experimenting with DEQ, to see if that is part of the problem in this particular case.


Thanks for the detailed response, I am going to mess around tonight and see if I can squeeze even better sound out of my system. I will also take some pics and share distance measurements. I don't remember the distance measurements exactly but I did confirm with a tape measure that they were basically in line. My sub registered like 18 feet away which is not the case (it's closer) but I read not to change that


----------



## hpnas

Alan P said:


> That is strange...maybe ask your cable provider for a replacement/upgraded box??


I was thinking of making a switch this weekend actually as another possible solution to my issues


----------



## Jei Wu

Hi there, thanks for the professional users here,
and I got a phase question here,

We know that audyssey suggest Subwoofer phase set to 0 degree before audyssey calibrating,
but what is the real difference between phase setting before calibrating?
Is it the timing that sub produces the sound?

For example, 
Case 1: 
I set sub phase to 0, then run calibrating

Case 2:
I set sub phase to 180, then run calibrating

Will I got the same result?(maybe audyssey adjust the distance of sub to make the phase right?)

Or I will get difference results?

I asked for it because I always feel the bass volume much more loud when I set phase to 180,
and there's less drop in EQ between 80~120 too,
but that's confilct with what audyssey said (set to phase 0)
So I wonder why? My sub is just next to my left main speaker,
maybe the phase setting one the sub just reverse because of the factory's fault?
I don't know,
Hope I describe my question enough well to make you know, thanks!


----------



## Matt2026

hpnas said:


> Thanks for the detailed response, I am going to mess around tonight and see if I can squeeze even better sound out of my system. I will also take some pics and share distance measurements. I don't remember the distance measurements exactly but I did confirm with a tape measure that they were basically in line. My sub registered like 18 feet away which is not the case (it's closer) but I read not to change that


 The distance is not the "physical" distance. There can be processing delays in the subs electronics so it appears to be farther away sonically than it is physically, at least that's my understanding.


----------



## David Aiken

Matt2026 said:


> The distance is not the "physical" distance. There can be processing delays in the subs electronics so it appears to be farther away sonically than it is physically, at least that's my understanding.


That's right.

And one good reason why the distance is not the physical distance is because Audyssey doesn't use a tape measure. It measures the delay between a signal being sent to the speaker and arriving at the mic, then it takes that time measurement and because some smart programmer could use the standard figure for the speed of sound it can calculate a distance. Works fine provided there is nothing else causing a delay between when the test procedure triggers the test tone and when the mic receives it. With subs. the circuitry in the plate amp can introduce a delay because the signal has to travel through extra circuitry that it doesn't have to travel through with speakers which are physically attached to the speaker outlets of the AVR. If the arrival of the test tone at the mic is delayed that way, or in any other way, the longer time measurement means that the distance reported is going to be longer than the actual physical distance.

The delay measurement is provided as a distance so you can do a rough check on the accuracy of the measurement since the user has no way of measuring the actual time delay involved. If I had to make a bet, I'd bet that the calculations that Audyssey makes don't even use the distance it reports, instead they will use the actual time delays measured for each speaker and sub and the differences between those actual time delays determine the amount of delay applied to each channel.


----------



## Methodical_1

This will be my 1st receiver (Denon X4300H) with Audyssey. I read the Audyssey Setup Guide (dated in 2012) and have just a couple questions.



First Question:

I read the paper on setting up and using Audyssey and in the section on Audyssey target curves, it provides various reasons to select either of the target curves. 

According to the guide Audyssey research found that if you are sitting relatively close to the front speakers (i.e. in the near field), you may be able to use the "Audyssey Flat" target curve. What is considered "relatively close" in this case? The Audyssey guide did not reference any particular distance.

2nd Question:

I have a 31 band EQ that I have integrated into my HT system and based on reading the Audssey guide, if left in the system during the calibration process, the EQ will most likely negatively impact the Audyssey calibration process. However, I do plan to keep the EQ in the system because I use it for music listening. One benefit of this EQ is I can disable the EQ and allow the amped channels to play unprocessed. My thoughts are that I should use Audyssey to calibrate the system without the EQ connected and then once the calibration is completed, reconnect EQ so that Audyssey is not influenced by the EQ settings. I am aware that Audssey calibrates to reference and EQ'g is my preference, but it will be for music. Does this sound right?

Thanks...Al


----------



## Alan P

Jei Wu said:


> Hi there, thanks for the professional users here,
> and I got a phase question here,
> 
> We know that audyssey suggest Subwoofer phase set to 0 degree before audyssey calibrating,
> but what is the real difference between phase setting before calibrating?
> Is it the timing that sub produces the sound?
> 
> For example,
> Case 1:
> I set sub phase to 0, then run calibrating
> 
> Case 2:
> I set sub phase to 180, then run calibrating
> 
> Will I got the same result?(maybe audyssey adjust the distance of sub to make the phase right?)
> 
> Or I will get difference results?
> 
> I asked for it because I always feel the bass volume much more loud when I set phase to 180,
> and there's less drop in EQ between 80~120 too,
> but that's confilct with what audyssey said (set to phase 0)
> So I wonder why? My sub is just next to my left main speaker,
> maybe the phase setting one the sub just reverse because of the factory's fault?
> I don't know,
> Hope I describe my question enough well to make you know, thanks!


Just so I know I am understanding you correctly here...are you saying that you ran two Audyssey calibrations, one with the phase at 0 and one with the phase at 180 and you are getting different results?

OR, are you saying that you are changing the phase _after _Audyssey calibration and are seeing/hearing a difference?

If the former, I can't explain why that would be happening. Audyssey _should _be compensating for the change in phase with the distance setting.

If the latter, that is understandable. Audyssey most times does not get the distance relationship between the mains/CC and subs correct. This is why the Sub Distance Tweak exists.


----------



## Alan P

Methodical_1 said:


> This will be my 1st receiver (Denon X4300H) with Audyssey. I read the Audyssey Setup Guide (dated in 2012) and have just a couple questions.
> 
> 
> 
> First Question:
> 
> I read the paper on setting up and using Audyssey and in the section on Audyssey target curves, it provides various reasons to select either of the target curves.
> 
> According to the guide Audyssey research found that if you are sitting relatively close to the front speakers (i.e. in the near field), you may be able to use the "Audyssey Flat" target curve. What is considered "relatively close" in this case? The Audyssey guide did not reference any particular distance.
> 
> 2nd Question:
> 
> I have a 31 band EQ that I have integrated into my HT system and based on reading the Audssey guide, if left in the system during the calibration process, the EQ will most likely negatively impact the Audyssey calibration process. However, I do plan to keep the EQ in the system because I use it for music listening. One benefit of this EQ is I can disable the EQ and allow the amped channels to play unprocessed. My thoughts are that I should use Audyssey to calibrate the system without the EQ connected and then once the calibration is completed, reconnect EQ so that Audyssey is not influenced by the EQ settings. I am aware that Audssey calibrates to reference and EQ'g is my preference, but it will be for music. Does this sound right?
> 
> Thanks...Al


1) Go with whatever target curve sounds best to your ears. I sit about 17' from my mains and use Audyssey Flat.

2) You can just put the EQ into bypass mode when you run Audyssey. I would leave it connected though, just in case it adds any inherent delay to the signal.


----------



## jimyoung999

*Audyssey and bass impact*

Hello all,
I just got an UMIK-1 and playing around with REW. Before trying to improve placement, I started by just measuring my system as is. I tried searching the forums for this issue I have, but its hard to find.

I measured my sub (SVS-PB1000) set to LFE, and 80hz crossover in the receiver (Denon AVR-s900w). I show both the raw (pink) and Audyssey MultiEq corrected (blue) curves. I am not sure what Audyssey is trying to do. My measurement level was calibrated by getting my sub to 75db using pink noise in REW, so maybe its trying to bring down that peak in the low 20s, but kills the 40s instead? I see it also tries to bring up above 65hz, which is a good thing.

any thoughts as to what is going on here? I'm going to move on and start moving my sub around, but thought I'd post this for feedback.

thanks!


----------



## Alan P

jimyoung999 said:


> Hello all,
> I just got an UMIK-1 and playing around with REW. Before trying to improve placement, I started by just measuring my system as is. I tried searching the forums for this issue I have, but its hard to find.
> 
> I measured my sub (SVS-PB1000) set to LFE, and 80hz crossover in the receiver (Denon AVR-s900w). I show both the raw (pink) and Audyssey MultiEq corrected (blue) curves. I am not sure what Audyssey is trying to do. My measurement level was calibrated by getting my sub to 75db using pink noise in REW, so maybe its trying to bring down that peak in the low 20s, but kills the 40s instead? I see it also tries to bring up above 65hz, which is a good thing.
> 
> any thoughts as to what is going on here? I'm going to move on and start moving my sub around, but thought I'd post this for feedback.
> 
> thanks!



Hmmm...are you certain those are labeled correctly? I've never seen Audyssey do anything quite like that!

Also, your sub response is dropping almost 20dB from 20-80hz  ...any idea why that would be?? What are your settings on the sub like? Was this measurement using REW HDMI CH4?

If the pink trace is indeed with Audyssey off, you need to experiment more with placement and settings on the sub to get a much flatter response before running Audyssey.


----------



## jimyoung999

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...are you certain those are labeled correctly? I've never seen Audyssey do anything quite like that!
> 
> Also, your sub response is dropping almost 20dB from 20-80hz  ...any idea why that would be?? What are your settings on the sub like? Was this measurement using REW HDMI CH4?
> 
> If the pink trace is indeed with Audyssey off, you need to experiment more with placement and settings on the sub to get a much flatter response before running Audyssey.


Thanks Alan,
yes - the pink is with Audyssey off. I think you're right, though, I should fix the raw sub setup as much as I can before checking the audyssey.

As for sub settings, it's just set to LFE (I think it's complete crossover bypass), and 0 degrees phase. Level is just hot of center. 80hz in the receiver (not sure what is happening above 100 in that graph).

Yeah, I'm using hdmi channel 4. I calibrated the receiver level to have pink noise at 75db, so the 10db hot shouldn't be an issue.

Thanks


----------



## jimyoung999

jimyoung999 said:


> Thanks Alan,
> yes - the pink is with Audyssey off. I think you're right, though, I should fix the raw sub setup as much as I can before checking the audyssey.
> 
> As for sub settings, it's just set to LFE (I think it's complete crossover bypass), and 0 degrees phase. Level is just hot of center. 80hz in the receiver (not sure what is happening above 100 in that graph).
> 
> Yeah, I'm using hdmi channel 4. I calibrated the receiver level to have pink noise at 75db, so the 10db hot shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Thanks


I just double checked and the sub crossover was set to 100 (it must have been bumped at some point) which would explain the curve. I set to LFE and it falls off now at 130hz. The rest of the curve is very similar, though. Time to move it around.


----------



## Alan P

jimyoung999 said:


> I just double checked and the sub crossover was set to 100 (it must have been bumped at some point) which would explain the curve. I set to LFE and it falls off now at 130hz. The rest of the curve is very similar, though. Time to move it around.


Are you saying that by setting it back to LFE you are no longer seeing the 20dB drop from 20-80hz?? If so, that is great! If not, yeah...get to pushin'!


----------



## Methodical_1

Alan P said:


> 1) Go with whatever target curve sounds best to your ears. I sit about 17' from my mains and use Audyssey Flat.
> 
> 2) You can just put the EQ into bypass mode when you run Audyssey. I would leave it connected though, just in case it adds any inherent delay to the signal.


Cool. I sit about the same distance. I will play with the settings to what sounds best to me.

Thanks


----------



## ComponentActual

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The -10 MV, to which I referred is your master volume level. It is 10db below Reference, which has peak volumes of 105db in the main channels--the 5 in 5.1. I apologize if you already knew all that.
> 
> According to the experts, it is important to have the voltage to your sub come from the sub's own amplifier, and not from the AVR. That is particularly important to prevent sub distortion (clipping) as you approach Reference volume levels. To err on the side of caution, it is not recommended to exceed sub AVR trims of 0.0 at about -10 MV. If you are approaching, or exceeding -10 MV, having even a little lower sub trim might be a good idea. There is an article on this in the FAQ, linked below, which quotes Mark Seaton and Ed Mullen, both subwoofer gurus.
> 
> This is why I suggested that when you do your Audyssey calibration you turn the gain on your sub up not down, in order to achieve a good negative number, such as -9 sub trim. Then, when you add in your shakers, you will have plenty of headroom to turn up the trim in your AVR for the shakers, while correspondingly decreasing the gain for your sub. You really don't want to be at 0.0 in your sub trim post-calibration, much less +6. You might get away with it, without any clipping, but all it would take is to goose the volume one day. I would recommend that you follow the best practice guideline of starting with a higher gain level, and a good negative trim level, and then decreasing the gain post-Audyssey, while keeping the AVR trim level below 0.0.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thank you for your detailed responses, and don't worry about providing info "I may already know", cause I don't. Anyway, I was thinking about everything you said, and while I take your suggestions seriously I'm still not sure I am ready to turn down my sub trim too much. I am just enjoying the bass shakers too much at this setting. I read the portion of the FAQ you mentioned and it states that you should keep your subwoofer trim in the +-3.5db range. So I think with a little bit of adjustment I could get within that range without having to sacrifice the current sub trim to sub gain ratio I currently have. Here is what I am thinking, I change my settings to one of the rows in the graph below. The top row is my current settings and each subsequent row is an alternative setup I could use that should maintain the same speaker ratio's I currently have.










Would these settings lower the chances of clipping at all? Or is it irrelevant what the absolute sub trim level is, and more important what that level is in relation to the other speakers?


----------



## mthomas47

ComponentActual said:


> Thank you for your detailed responses, and don't worry about providing info "I may already know", cause I don't. Anyway, I was thinking about everything you said, and while I take your suggestions seriously I'm still not sure I am ready to turn down my sub trim too much. I am just enjoying the bass shakers too much at this setting. I read the portion of the FAQ you mentioned and it states that you should keep your subwoofer trim in the +-3.5db range. So I think with a little bit of adjustment I could get within that range without having to sacrifice the current sub trim to sub gain ratio I currently have. Here is what I am thinking, I change my settings to one of the rows in the graph below. The top row is my current settings and each subsequent row is an alternative setup I could use that should maintain the same speaker ratio's I currently have.
> 
> Would these settings lower the chances of clipping at all? Or is it irrelevant what the absolute sub trim level is, and more important what that level is in relation to the other speakers?


You are very welcome! For some reason, the graphs aren't showing up for me. Unfortunately, the FAQ is out of date with respect to the -3.5 to +3.5 trim level range, which is why I directed you to the advice from Ed and Mark. But it's just precautionary advice, so your way of doing things should also work fine.

Just understand that doing it the way I suggested will get you to exactly the same result, but with better insurance against the possibility of distortion. However, you may not need that insurance if your master volumes stay down around -12 or lower. Remember too that DEQ is a wild card in all of this, since it boosts the sub too. That is another reason I tend to suggest following the newer recommended protocol of keeping sub trims in negative numbers. But with any of this kind of advice, there should always be a healthy dose of YMMV.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Just understand that doing it the way I suggested will get you to exactly the same result, but with better insurance against the possibility of distortion. However, you may not need that insurance if your master volumes stay down around -12 or lower. *Remember too that DEQ is a wild card in all of this, since it boosts the sub too.* That is another reason I tend to suggest following the newer recommended protocol of keeping sub trims in negative numbers. But with any of this kind of advice, there should always be a healthy dose of YMMV.


Mike, I'd like to add something here I'm sure all of us know already. Actually, the closer we get with MV to 0 dB the less (electrical) boost is going to be added by DEQ in the bass department and at 0 dB ref. MV setting DEQ will ceases operation. And in this case YMMV is not supposed to be the case coz DEQ works equally for all of us. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Mike, I'd like to add something here I'm sure all of us know already. Actually, the closer we get with MV to 0 dB the less (electrical) boost is going to be added by DEQ in the bass department and at 0 dB ref. MV setting DEQ will ceases operation. And in this case YMMV is not supposed to be the case coz DEQ works equally for all of us. Just thinking out loud.


Hi Feri,

Nice to hear from you. And we are on the same page with how DEQ works. The YMMV was with respect to this kind of advice, in general, and not specifically with respect to DEQ. My point with DEQ was simply that people may think that there is no possibility of distortion with a positive sub trim, as long as they stay under -10db. 

But, DEQ boosts the subs by 10db at -15 MV, so that's what I mean when I say it's a bit of a wild card when it comes to determining sub trim vis-a-vis master volume. And, that's why I like the advice to keep the sub trim negative, just as a matter of general practice. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> Nice to hear from you. And we are on the same page with how DEQ works. The YMMV was with respect to this kind of advice, in general, and not specifically with respect to DEQ. My point with DEQ was simply that people may think that there is no possibility of distortion with a positive sub trim, as long as they stay under -10db.
> 
> But, DEQ boosts the subs by 10db at -15 MV, so that's what I mean when I say it's a bit of a wild card when it comes to determining sub trim vis-a-vis master volume. And, that's why I like the advice to keep the sub trim negative, just as a matter of general practice.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, I'm in an agruemtative (is there such a word? LOL) mood tonight where I 'd like to discuss with the board that DEQ is most probably not going to boost bass by exactly 10 dB at -15 dB MV owing to it's two-tier operation scheme. 

We know that at the first tier DEQ looks at the MV setting and determines the appropriate (electrical) boost to be applied, but then again, it looks at the level the program material is being played at and will do it's second tier compensation based on loud or soft parts of the the program material accordingly. And all this is done "on the fly", i.e. in real-time. Sometimes we say this is so much effective that it will only become apperant when taken away. 

You may accuse me of liking DEQ too much, but I've got my own YMMV reasons behind.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Mike, I'm in an agruemtative (is there such a word? LOL) mood tonight where I 'd like to discuss with the board that DEQ is most probably not going to boost bass by exactly 10 dB at -15 dB MV owing to it's two-tier operation scheme.
> 
> We know that at the first tier DEQ looks at the MV setting and determines the appropriate (electrical) boost to be applied, but then again, it looks at the level the program material is being played at and will do it's second tier compensation based on loud or soft parts of the the program material accordingly. And all this is done "on the fly", i.e. in real-time. Sometimes we say this is so much effective that it will only become apperant when taken away.
> 
> You may accuse me of liking DEQ too much, but I've got my own YMMV reasons behind.


Hi Feri,

There is such a word as "argumentative", and I have seen you be the living embodiment of that word at times.  But, not with me, because I won't play. 

I understand what you are saying about DEQ not necessarily boosting at a uniform level of 10db during every part of a movie. But, when it comes to the possibility of subs clipping, I would still prefer to not count on that boost not affecting my subs, if I have my trim levels set too high in positive numbers. So, I will bow out at this point and perhaps resume the discussion tomorrow.


----------



## jimyoung999

Alan P said:


> Are you saying that by setting it back to LFE you are no longer seeing the 20dB drop from 20-80hz?? If so, that is great! If not, yeah...get to pushin'!


No, unfortunately, that drop is still there. However, an afternoon of measuring the sub at different locations tells me that that end of the room somehow has a major GAIN on the low end. Move a few meters away from the wall, and that low bump drops. Unfortunately, other problems crop up. For one, the best spot is beside my couch, and for the life of me, I can localize the sub.. I know I'm not supposed to be able to, and maybe its psychological, but it bugs me.

So I grabbed a small 10" wharfdale I had upstairs, and put a second sub in a spot that looked to complement my main sub. A bit of level and phase tweaking in REW later, and I have a pretty flat curve! I had to stop and take care of the kids, but now I'm going to see how they meld with the main speakers at the crossover level... never did this with two subs before, yuck.

My guess was that Audyssey was trying to fix that low end bump in level, and failed miserably. I'll re-run audyssey after all this setup.

thanks again


----------



## mthomas47

jimyoung999 said:


> No, unfortunately, that drop is still there. However, an afternoon of measuring the sub at different locations tells me that that end of the room somehow has a major GAIN on the low end. Move a few meters away from the wall, and that low bump drops. Unfortunately, other problems crop up. For one, the best spot is beside my couch, and for the life of me, I can localize the sub.. I know I'm not supposed to be able to, and maybe its psychological, but it bugs me.
> 
> So I grabbed a small 10" wharfdale I had upstairs, and put a second sub in a spot that looked to complement my main sub. A bit of level and phase tweaking in REW later, and I have a pretty flat curve! I had to stop and take care of the kids, but now I'm going to see how they meld with the main speakers at the crossover level... never did this with two subs before, yuck.
> 
> My guess was that Audyssey was trying to fix that low end bump in level, and failed miserably. I'll re-run audyssey after all this setup.
> 
> thanks again


FWIW, I have never entirely bought the mostly prevailing wisdom that we can't localize subs at 80Hz, or below. Most of us may not be able to directly hear bass sounds that distinctly, from the standpoint of localizing sub-80Hz frequencies. But if we can feel the bass energy tactilely, the net effect is still the same. We may still be conscious of where the sub is located, and where the sound/feel is coming from. 

There are a couple of good threads which have demonstrated that particle velocity is a separate measurable phenomenon from SPL, and that mid-bass chest punch, from about 50Hz to 100Hz can be very noticeable.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Mike, I'm in an agruemtative (is there such a word? LOL) mood tonight where I 'd like to discuss with the board that DEQ is most probably not going to boost bass by exactly 10 dB at -15 dB MV owing to it's two-tier operation scheme.
> 
> We know that at the first tier DEQ looks at the MV setting and determines the appropriate (electrical) boost to be applied, but then again, it looks at the level the program material is being played at and will do it's second tier compensation based on loud or soft parts of the the program material accordingly. And all this is done "on the fly", i.e. in real-time. Sometimes we say this is so much effective that it will only become apperant when taken away.
> 
> You may accuse me of liking DEQ too much, but I've got my own YMMV reasons behind.


Hi Feri,

I wanted to come back to this subject today, definitely unargumentatively (there's a mouth full), to assure you that I am not opposed to DEQ's approximately 10db sub boost at -15 MV. As noted last night, you made a good point about the boost not necessarily being a uniform one throughout the movie, or song. I think it was Jerry who provided the measurements of DEQ, though, and the 10db boost is at least the nominal boost at -15 MV.

But, that's okay from my viewpoint, even if the sub boost is uniform, because I like boosting the sub, and I think it's generally desirable to do so. My only point was that it is necessary to take that sub boost into account when calculating what negative or positive sub trims may be advisable at what master volume levels.

There are a couple of aspects of DEQ that I personally wish had been implemented a little differently, and I sometimes enjoy discussing the difference between the original theory behind DEQ, and the practical application. But I never campaign against DEQ, or discourage anyone else from using it, on any of the threads I participate in. I do, however, try to help people troubleshoot their systems, if they post regarding a specific problem in which DEQ might be a factor.

I know that you are a very strong advocate for DEQ, and I respect that. And frankly, I would consider it disrespectful to you, and to other people who really like DEQ, to urge others to like it less than they do. To me, liking or disliking certain things in audio is as individualistic as liking or disliking specific flavors of ice cream. We all discover and enjoy our individual entertainment preferences in slightly different ways.

I just wanted to clear the air on that in case you are still in an argumentative mood. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

According to my REW sweeps...and I know that these probably don't reflect any of the on-the-fly adjustments DEQ makes...DynEQ boost approximately 2dB for every -5MV under Reference. So, at -15MV DEQ would be boosting about 6dB.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> According to my REW sweeps...and I know that these probably don't reflect any of the on-the-fly adjustments DEQ makes...DynEQ boost approximately 2dB for every -5MV under Reference. So, at -15MV DEQ would be boosting about 6dB.


I think you are right, Alan. I just double-checked the graphs in the Addendum to the FAQ, and that seems to be what they show, as well. So, I had misremembered the amount of bass boost at -15 MV. I hate when that happens!


----------



## TaranScorp

I'm curious on the recommended bass setting to 0. When I use a SPL meter to level my two sub-woofers to 72db each, when I play them together the SPL go's below 72db which I know is the opposite of what it's supposed to do. But when I change one sub to 180 then when I play both together they go to above 72db like they are supposed to. So before using Audyssey do I set them both to 0 or leave them at 0 and 180?


----------



## Alan P

TaranScorp said:


> I'm curious on the recommended bass setting to 0. When I use a SPL meter to level my two sub-woofers to 72db each, when I play them together the SPL go's below 72db which I know is the opposite of what it's supposed to do. But when I change one sub to 180 then when I play both together they go to above 72db like they are supposed to. So before using Audyssey do I set them both to 0 or leave them at 0 and 180?


Depends.

Do you have XT32 with SubEQ HT? If so, leave them at 0.

If not, set phase on the closest sub so that you get the highest combined response (which you say is 180 in your situation).


----------



## jrcrunch

i am very new to home theater stuff.

what is special with the new Audyssey app to be available on the new denon x6300 model? the x6200 is on clearance sale now.

what is the difference in the audyssey found in the x6200? noticed the manual has a calibrating device

what will i miss with this new app. will it be available on android devices? will a novice like me be able to use this? or is this app just for advanced or pro users?

thank you


----------



## grendelrt

Quick question for those who use MultiEQ XT32. I was previously on MultiEQ XT and I always had to run my subs a little hotter than the calibration, usually 2-3db higher. I just got a new receiver and upgraded to XT32 and I have dual subs. 

Two questions on that, first does anyone find XT32 does a better job with the level and doesn't need to add db to it to run a little hotter? 

Second question is , if I do add some db to the level, since there are two subs and the levels are different, is it ok just to add the same db to each sub. So if one sub is -6.5 and one is -3.5, add 2 to each to make them -4.5 and -1.5? Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> Quick question for those who use MultiEQ XT32. I was previously on MultiEQ XT and I always had to run my subs a little hotter than the calibration, usually 2-3db higher. I just got a new receiver and upgraded to XT32 and I have dual subs.
> 
> Two questions on that, first does anyone find XT32 does a better job with the level and doesn't need to add db to it to run a little hotter?
> 
> Second question is , if I do add some db to the level, since there are two subs and the levels are different, is it ok just to add the same db to each sub. So if one sub is -6.5 and one is -3.5, add 2 to each to make them -4.5 and -1.5? Thanks!


Hi,

XT-32 operates exactly the way that you are accustomed to with respect to the calibration process. So, all versions will calibrate the sub(s) using a 75db test tone. After XT-32 has level matched your subs at 75db, most people choose to add several decibels of trim. The average increase is probably about +3 to +6db. To maintain the same acoustic balance, you would want to add or subtract the same amount from each sub.

When you level match the subs, the trim levels should be pretty close to each other. It's generally a good idea to turn up your sub gains a little so that you are over 75db during calibration. Just tell Audyssey to continue. That way Audyssey will give you negative trim levels, such as -9, or so, and you will have plenty of headroom available to increase trim levels in the AVR without going over about 0.0.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> XT-32 operates exactly the way that you are accustomed to with respect to the calibration process. So, all versions will calibrate the sub(s) using a 75db test tone. After XT-32 has level matched your subs at 75db, most people choose to add several decibels of trim. The average increase is probably about +3 to +6db. To maintain the same acoustic balance, you would want to add or subtract the same amount from each sub.
> 
> When you level match the subs, the trim levels should be pretty close to each other. It's generally a good idea to turn up your sub gains a little so that you are over 75db during calibration. Just tell Audyssey to continue. That way Audyssey will give you negative trim levels, such as -9, or so, and you will have plenty of headroom available to increase trim levels in the AVR without going over about 0.0.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Awesome, thats what I was looking for =) The subs came out at -9 and -6.5 so I am good there. I think I will prob add 3db , which is what I used in the past. I didnt know with the XT32 being more accurate than XT if people felt they didnt need to add as much, I havent had time to demo much yet, so I will prob stick with +3db now.


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> Awesome, thats what I was looking for =) The subs came out at -9 and -6.5 so I am good there. I think I will prob add 3db , which is what I used in the past. I didnt know with the XT32 being more accurate than XT if people felt they didnt need to add as much, I havent had time to demo much yet, so I will prob stick with +3db now.


You are welcome! It sounds as if you are good to go. All of the versions of Audyssey should be pretty accurate with respect to timing (distance) and trim level. Where XT-32 excels, in addition to timing/level matching dual subs, is with respect to the number and allocation of filters for the various speakers. So, it is the room EQ itself that should be better with XT-32.

It would be interesting to learn whether you hear any significant difference in the overall sound with XT-32, audio memory issues aside.


----------



## Alan P

grendelrt said:


> Quick question for those who use MultiEQ XT32. I was previously on MultiEQ XT and I always had to run my subs a little hotter than the calibration, usually 2-3db higher. I just got a new receiver and upgraded to XT32 and I have dual subs.
> 
> Two questions on that, first does anyone find XT32 does a better job with the level and doesn't need to add db to it to run a little hotter?
> 
> Second question is , if I do add some db to the level, since there are two subs and the levels are different, is it ok just to add the same db to each sub. So if one sub is -6.5 and one is -3.5, add 2 to each to make them -4.5 and -1.5? Thanks!


I see Mike has answered your questions with aplomb (as per his usual  ).

My admittedly much older Denon 4520 with XT32 has a separate subwoofer trim that effects both subs at once...do the newer AVRs not have this??

In the trim menu, I get the option to change trims for SUB 1, SUB 2, BOTH.


----------



## Alan P

jrcrunch said:


> i am very new to home theater stuff.
> 
> what is special with the new Audyssey app to be available on the new denon x6300 model? the x6200 is on clearance sale now.
> 
> what is the difference in the audyssey found in the x6200? noticed the manual has a calibrating device
> 
> what will i miss with this new app. will it be available on android devices? will a novice like me be able to use this? or is this app just for advanced or pro users?
> 
> thank you


As I understand it, the new app will allow you to create your own target curves. Basically, this lets you tailor the frequency response to your personal preference; if you like more bass, less treble, a bump in the mid-range, etc.

How easy this is going to be is yet to be seen. For maximum accuracy, I assume you would want to have the ability to measure your response before/after...but Audyssey may be implementing something to give you some sort of representation of this, I'm not sure. Not many details are available as of yet.

The app will be available for iDevices as well as Android, I do know that for sure.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> I wanted to come back to this subject today, definitely unargumentatively (there's a mouth full), to assure you that I am not opposed to DEQ's approximately 10db sub boost at -15 MV. As noted last night, you made a good point about the boost not necessarily being a uniform one throughout the movie, or song. I think it was Jerry who provided the measurements of DEQ, though, and the 10db boost is at least the nominal boost at -15 MV.
> 
> But, that's okay from my viewpoint, even if the sub boost is uniform, because I like boosting the sub, and I think it's generally desirable to do so. My only point was that it is necessary to take that sub boost into account when calculating what negative or positive sub trims may be advisable at what master volume levels.
> 
> There are a couple of aspects of DEQ that I personally wish had been implemented a little differently, and I sometimes enjoy discussing the difference between the original theory behind DEQ, and the practical application. But I never campaign against DEQ, or discourage anyone else from using it, on any of the threads I participate in. I do, however, try to help people troubleshoot their systems, if they post regarding a specific problem in which DEQ might be a factor.
> 
> I know that you are a very strong advocate for DEQ, and I respect that. And frankly, I would consider it disrespectful to you, and to other people who really like DEQ, to urge others to like it less than they do. To me, liking or disliking certain things in audio is as individualistic as liking or disliking specific flavors of ice cream. We all discover and enjoy our individual entertainment preferences in slightly different ways.
> 
> I just wanted to clear the air on that in case you are still in an argumentative mood.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for coming back Mike. We may continue our disduccion is a discussive mood. 

Some more thoughts.

1. As regards sub trims set by Audyssey and the boost applied my endusers brings me to the thought that it is surely a good thing to have a negative trim setting, coz from that point there is enough room for the boosters to do it safely, i.e. without clipping either the subwoofer channel pre-amp in the AVR or the plate-amp built into the subwoofer box. 

2. In my case with a -6 dB trim set by Audyssey for my sub I usually leave it "as is" for movies, but I do turn it up for music coz I feel that a lot of music recordings simply lack the level of bass that pleases my ears. The older the recording the less bass I experinece. 

3. Extreme trim push-ups for the sub(s) will surely result at one point or another in severe clipping, thus bringing about a lot of unwanted distortion in that channel. One solution, though maybe a bit costy, could be to buy very very very capable subwoofer(s) that won't be hurt by ever increasing input levels, say 10 dB+ boosts or the like. This way one can surely be on the safe side, but this needs careful planning & purchasing decisions. Deep water, for swimmers only.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> FWIW, I have never entirely bought the mostly prevailing wisdom that we can't localize subs at 80Hz, or below. Most of us may not be able to directly hear bass sounds that distinctly, from the standpoint of localizing sub-80Hz frequencies. But if we can feel the bass energy tactilely, the net effect is still the same. We may still be conscious of where the sub is located, and where the sound/feel is coming from.
> 
> There are a couple of good threads which have demonstrated that particle velocity is a separate measurable phenomenon from SPL, and that mid-bass chest punch, from about 50Hz to 100Hz can be very noticeable.


Particle velocity? I hope we aren't getting into quantum physics here! When our sub was off-center I was convinced I could localize the sub with a Xover of 80 Hz, and sometimes even with a Xover of 40 Hz! Now that the sub is pretty much centered, no problem. Maybe it's "noticing," rather than hearing. People may be different in whether they are likely to notice positions in the sound image, even at higher frequencies. I know someone who has said she has "never noticed" a phantom center channel, or a spread of instruments between a stereo pair of speakers, just right or left. I was able to get her to discern 7 positions between a stereo pair, using a test record with snare drum beats. Now she notices positions within the image.


----------



## grendelrt

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! It sounds as if you are good to go. All of the versions of Audyssey should be pretty accurate with respect to timing (distance) and trim level. Where XT-32 excels, in addition to timing/level matching dual subs, is with respect to the number and allocation of filters for the various speakers. So, it is the room EQ itself that should be better with XT-32.
> 
> It would be interesting to learn whether you hear any significant difference in the overall sound with XT-32, audio memory issues aside.


I did already hear a difference actually. Dialog seemed much improved on the same setup. Bass may be a little better as well, but I havent had time to try much material yet. There was an adjustment for both subs at once after I got into the settings which is pretty cool.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Particle velocity? I hope we aren't getting into quantum physics here! When our sub was off-center I was convinced I could localize the sub with a Xover of 80 Hz, and sometimes even with a Xover of 40 Hz! Now that the sub is pretty much centered, no problem. Maybe it's "noticing," rather than hearing. People may be different in whether they are likely to notice positions in the sound image, even at higher frequencies. I know someone who has said she has "never noticed" a phantom center channel, or a spread of instruments between a stereo pair of speakers, just right or left. I was able to get her to discern 7 positions between a stereo pair, using a test record with snare drum beats. Now she notices positions within the image.


Hi Gary,

That sounds pretty cool! Incidentally, if we do get into quantum physics, it's going to be pretty far over my head. 

I think it is definitely as much a matter of noticing as it is hearing. But, what is it exactly that we notice? Is it just what our ears discern, or is it more than that? There are a number of people recently who have been measuring tactile response, as opposed to SPL, for both ported and sealed subs, and reaching some interesting conclusions about what we feel with bass frequencies at various distances. Differences in what we feel at those distances appear to be attributable less to sound pressure level, and more to particle velocity and compressible waveforms. 

That pretty well exhausts my limited understanding of the subject, but if you are interested, and want to read more about it, this thread would be a good place to start. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> Particle velocity? I hope we aren't getting into quantum physics here! When our sub was off-center I was convinced I could localize the sub with a Xover of 80 Hz, and sometimes even with a Xover of 40 Hz! Now that the sub is pretty much centered, no problem. Maybe it's "noticing," rather than hearing. People may be different in whether they are likely to notice positions in the sound image, even at higher frequencies. I know someone who has said she has "never noticed" a phantom center channel, or a spread of instruments between a stereo pair of speakers, just right or left. I was able to get her to discern 7 positions between a stereo pair, using a test record with snare drum beats. Now she notices positions within the image.


I remember reading a Stereophile interview with Patricia Barber many years ago and she said she never heard a stereo soundstage when listening to recordings. My wife, who had very bad spatial perception also had problems with hearing stereo imaging. I suspect there's more than one thing which can cause this sort of thing and that different people can have difficulty localising stereo image sources for different reasons.

I have speakers which get set to Large when I run the Audyssey setup. I hear differences when I run them as large, and when I set them to small. When I set them to small I hear differences depending on whether I set the crossover to 40, 60 or 80 Hz. Content for the LFE channel (not including managed bass from the speaker channels) can go as high as 120Hz and some people can localise 120 Hz but there is another issue. Sometimes the sound is coming mostly from the sub and there's little content from the speakers and I find I can localise the sub location. This isn't a frequent occurrence, it's quite a rare occurrence, but it can happen once or twice every few months or so and always only for a brief instant or so. I think the reason for that is partly because the sub is actually the dominant sound source at those times and it's a lot easier to tell where a sound is coming from when that sound is the loudest sound in the room by a fair margin, and partly because the LFE channel does include frequencies up to 120 Hz. I'll add that it always seems to be a sudden low frequency noise, something with a fast attack time, that causes me to notice the sub. I think sub location also plays a part. I have 2 subs and neither is centred. One is much closer to a corner than the other and it's the one whose position I notice. I don't think I've ever noticed the position of the other sub. It could have something to do with the way the sub I notice loads the corner and how the pressure wave emanates from the corner area.

I guess if the soundtrack of every movie was nothing but earthquake noises or low frequency explosions with no background music or dialogue, just the noise, there'd be more than a few of us sitting around regularly saying that we can tell where our subs are. The fact that we aren't doing that is a good indication that it's pretty rare that the only sound on the soundtrack is nothing other than a very low frequency noise. Given the right circumstances I think we can reliably tell where a sub is located but the right circumstances occur very rarely. I'd be willing to bet that there's a lot of people out there who don't like action or disaster movies who never have that experience simply because the soundtracks to the things they watch never include the type of sound mix that makes it possible to tell where a sub is located.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> I remember reading a Stereophile interview with Patricia Barber many years ago and she said she never heard a stereo soundstage when listening to recordings. My wife, who had very bad spatial perception also had problems with hearing stereo imaging. I suspect there's more than one thing which can cause this sort of thing and that different people can have difficulty localising stereo image sources for different reasons.
> 
> I have speakers which get set to Large when I run the Audyssey setup. I hear differences when I run them as large, and when I set them to small. When I set them to small I hear differences depending on whether I set the crossover to 40, 60 or 80 Hz. Content for the LFE channel (not including managed bass from the speaker channels) can go as high as 120Hz and some people can localise 120 Hz but there is another issue. Sometimes the sound is coming mostly from the sub and there's little content from the speakers and I find I can localise the sub location. This isn't a frequent occurrence, it's quite a rare occurrence, but it can happen once or twice every few months or so and always only for a brief instant or so. I think the reason for that is partly because the sub is actually the dominant sound source at those times and it's a lot easier to tell where a sound is coming from when that sound is the loudest sound in the room by a fair margin, and partly because the LFE channel does include frequencies up to 120 Hz. I'll add that it always seems to be a sudden low frequency noise, something with a fast attack time, that causes me to notice the sub. I think sub location also plays a part. I have 2 subs and neither is centred. One is much closer to a corner than the other and it's the one whose position I notice. I don't think I've ever noticed the position of the other sub. It could have something to do with the way the sub I notice loads the corner and how the pressure wave emanates from the corner area.
> 
> I guess if the soundtrack of every movie was nothing but earthquake noises or low frequency explosions with no background music or dialogue, just the noise, there'd be more than a few of us sitting around regularly saying that we can tell where our subs are. The fact that we aren't doing that is a good indication that it's pretty rare that the only sound on the soundtrack is nothing other than a very low frequency noise. Given the right circumstances I think we can reliably tell where a sub is located but the right circumstances occur very rarely. I'd be willing to bet that there's a lot of people out there who don't like action or disaster movies who never have that experience simply because the soundtracks to the things they watch never include the type of sound mix that makes it possible to tell where a sub is located.


Hi,

That was an interesting post, and I enjoyed hearing about your experience. My own experience with low bass frequencies is a little different. Perhaps I am a little susceptible to tactile response, but I seem to be aware of not only where bass is, but sometimes also where it is not. I have a fairly large room, and I sit more to one side of the room. Although I had three subs in a triangular (Geddes-type) configuration in my room, I was sometimes aware of a hole from which bass was not emanating. It was pretty much at right angles to my MLP, and unfortunately, once I was aware of it, I couldn't become unaware. I particularly noticed it during action movies with a lot of low frequency and mid-bass energy. It's sort of like learning to hear distortion. That's not a bell that can easily be unrung. Ultimately, the solution for me was to fill that void with another sub. Now the sound and feel of the bass is more uniform. We seem to all experience audio, and particularly bass, a little differently.

Incidentally, that anecdote about Patricia Barber surprised me. You wouldn't think that such a fine musician would have difficulty with stereo imaging, but who knows how our brains interpret sounds on a strictly individual basis.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## audiofan1

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That was an interesting post, and I enjoyed hearing about your experience. My own experience with low bass frequencies is a little different. Perhaps I am a little susceptible to tactile response, but I seem to be aware of not only where bass is, but sometimes also where it is not. I have a fairly large room, and I sit more to one side of the room. Although I had three subs in a triangular (Geddes-type) configuration in my room, I was sometimes aware of a hole from which bass was not emanating. It was pretty much at right angles to my MLP, and unfortunately, once I was aware of it, I couldn't become unaware. I particularly noticed it during action movies with a lot of low frequency and mid-bass energy. It's sort of like learning to hear distortion. That's not a bell that can easily be unrung. Ultimately, the solution for me was to fill that void with another sub. Now the sound and feel of the bass is more uniform. We seem to all experience audio, and particularly bass, a little differently.
> 
> Incidentally, that anecdote about Patricia Barber surprised me. You wouldn't think that such a fine musician would have difficulty with stereo imaging, but who knows how our brains interpret sounds on a strictly individual basis.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 This is always a great topic and has been for years! I've come to the conclusion that bass will always pool if you will at different frequencies to the strongest (most solid and most surface) corner in the room, one corner may boost say 20-30hz (depending on room dimensions and wave length) while another say 50-60hz, of course the 50-60 bump will be most noticeable and or directional. I remember when I wanted to finally see what dual subs would bring to the room and after another sub crawl, I placed the second sub in the rear opposite corner of the room from the one in the sweet spot. The results when placing that second sub up front did indeed send all the perceivable bass to you guessed it the right front of the room. Once I balanced them out with the rear placement things got a better balance but the the stronger higher reinforcement of the a particular room mode will always dominate localization and win out.
This brings me two my next observation. Dual subs or more can help balance the sound field but really through violent force cancellation with in the room in question, there will always be a hole ! Only one point of origin has that say 50-60hz bump and every other sub added has it's own set of bumps and nulls. This is why more attention should be paid to the origin of bass rather than the notion it's non directional simply because it has a point of origin and that tactile repose is a part of that propagation wave (Rather like that term with the particles) but it must stop and begin again and stop and begin again hence localazation. This is were time domain,impulse and group delay are far more important as the have tier origins as well at the source. Audyssey has a good handle on time domain emphasis and a sub with good time domain and group delay will give Audyssey far less to do to begin with.I now have two subs but they are stacked in the sweet corner(not only equal frequencies and 6db spl increase but also helps with modes occurring at ear height as well) and great attention was paid to the origin of the bass by careful tuning by ear to align them with my mains, you would be surprised that yes you can angle and or toe in or toe out bass and a 1" increments and mean the world of difference in both the timing of bass and the particle waves as well as what we hear.

This a completely unscientific observation and yes I've purchased a mic for REW:laugh:


----------



## mogorf

Hi Guys, just to add to the discussion here are some thoughts on bass vs. subwoofer localitation, which IMHO are two different phenomena worth to discuss in more details:

1. Bass localization:

These are excerpts from a blog of Chris K. (Small vs. Large, link in my sig) on low frequency localitation issues where he sheds light on the physics behind non-localization of bass: 

Qte

"Do you have a subwoofer in your system? Great. Then your speakers are small. Before you get all upset, read on. This is one of those audio myths whose time has come to be busted. To understand why, we need to talk about Bass Management.


In the early days of home theater it was thought that in order to reproduce the full movie surround experience at home it was necessary to place 5 large loudspeakers in the room. The reason for the size was the woofers. To play at theatrical reference levels and reproduce the deepest bass available in the content requires each speaker to have 12” or larger woofers. Let’s just say that this theory didn’t get very far in the real world.


A better and more practical approach came after studying human perception. The mechanisms that we use to determine the direction of arrival of sound depend on the frequency. At high frequencies the wavelength of sound is small and so sound coming from the side is shadowed by our head. That creates a level difference between the sound reaching the ear closest to the source and the ear on the other side. Our brain analyzes these level differences and produces an estimate of where the sound is coming from. 

*But at lower frequencies, the wavelength of sound gets longer and our head is not large enough to produce a level difference at the two ears. Instead, we analyze the difference in time of arrival of sound at the two ears. Sound arrives first at the closest ear and we use that to determine the direction. But even that ability fails us below about 80 Hz. The wavelengths get very large and it was found in listening tests that 80 Hz is the frequency below which most people can not localize the direction of sound."*

Unqte

2. Subwoofer localization:

Localizing subwoofers in the room in the frame of all the above can easily be a completely different issue due to the case that distortion always goes together with the development of unwanted harmonics (something the original signal did not contain) and these frequencies will surely fall into the range where wavelenghts will be comparable to the physical distance of our two ears on our head resulting in our ability to be able to pinpoint the direction of the sound source. 

This will most likely happen when we, in the name of our love of a lot of woofage, start to boost the sub trim, especially when done beyond expectation (like 10 dB+).


----------



## audiofan1

As long as my bass sounds as though its imitating from the 11 speaker now around the room , I know the placement is good and extremely thankful my single row of seats have good response (sans a very,very narrow dip at 30-33hz). Don't get me started on large scale tympani strikes that are perfectly placed from right (mostly right due to were they are placed) to left and can drop a thunders strike dead center or from the entire sound stage. 

I'm golden and all from a single location in the room


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That was an interesting post, and I enjoyed hearing about your experience. My own experience with low bass frequencies is a little different. Perhaps I am a little susceptible to tactile response, but I seem to be aware of not only where bass is, but sometimes also where it is not. I have a fairly large room, and I sit more to one side of the room. Although I had three subs in a triangular (Geddes-type) configuration in my room, I was sometimes aware of a hole from which bass was not emanating. It was pretty much at right angles to my MLP, and unfortunately, once I was aware of it, I couldn't become unaware. I particularly noticed it during action movies with a lot of low frequency and mid-bass energy. It's sort of like learning to hear distortion. That's not a bell that can easily be unrung. Ultimately, the solution for me was to fill that void with another sub. Now the sound and feel of the bass is more uniform. We seem to all experience audio, and particularly bass, a little differently.
> 
> Incidentally, that anecdote about Patricia Barber surprised me. You wouldn't think that such a fine musician would have difficulty with stereo imaging, but who knows how our brains interpret sounds on a strictly individual basis.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I have a theory about Patricia Barber's comment, and about my wife's problem with localising stereo images, and they highlight 2 different things.

In my wife's case, she was a psychologist and she had a theory which I think is probably correct. As a baby she had health problems which kept her in a cot and delayed things like learning to crawl and developing a sense of 3 dimensional space, and she never was good at being able to visualise 3D space or do things like judging differences. When we localise sound, we effectively map it in a virtual 3D space within our brain and then look at the location we have mapped it to in order to confirm our localisation of the sound to that point. If your brain doesn't do well at constructing that virtual 3D space then you don't do well at things that use it like localising the source of sounds. That would mean that there is a developmental aspect to the ability and if the developmental stage is impaired in some way, as it apparently was with my wife, then you can end up with a person who doesn't do well at perceiving stereo imaging.

In Patricia Barber's case I think it's something else. She's a musician. She listens to music intently and she's listening for particular things like the harmony and rhythm, the melody, what the various performers are doing and how their individual contributions interact. In live performance she doesn't attend to where the sound from the various musicians are coming from, she knows where they are so she doesn't have to localise it and localisation isn't really a concern for her in performance. I think she simply doesn't pay attention to the cues that give localisation information because there's other things that are far more important to her which really do demand her attention for her to do what she does and then, when she's listening to music on an audio system, she tends to listen in the same way as she does when she's listening to what's going on in performance. In other words she's learnt to listen one way in her work as a musician and she spends far more time listening to music that way, and that's the way she ends up listening to recordings so she ends up not noticing the whole stereo imaging phenomenon. So that suggests to me that there's a learning aspect to it as well and in learning to listen intently to things that most of us don't pay as much attention to as she does, she's learnt to ignore something that we've learnt to pay attention to. 

It's a complex area.

As to our differences in localising subs as sources, as you say we've got differences in room setup affecting what's going on in the room. Feri's comments are interesting also. I suspect there are quite a few different aspects involved and what makes a bass sound localisable in one situation may not do so in a different situation, you may need specific combinations of factors and if the right interaction of factors isn't present don't localise the sound. I also don't think we can ignore individual differences and individual differences may be one of the necessary factors in some situations. As a totally off the top of my head wild guess based on Patricia Barber's comment and my theorising above, I'd say that if someone really wants to do a study they could find differences in the ability to localise low frequency sounds between people who play bass instruments and people who don't. I suspect if you spend your working life listening to low bass sounds you're probably going to be hearing some things that the rest of us don't notice and that is going to have an effect. Of course I don't expect to see that study conducted because it would have very little if any practical value and probably be quite expensive to conduct.

And in the end I keep getting reminded of a signature quote I used to see somewhere years ago which I think came from a baseball coach. It said something like "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is". Studies are great for telling you what goes on in a particular experimental setup and you can analyse all of the interactions and develop theories for testing in different situations but you can't test every situation, every combination of circumstances that can arise in the real world. Exceptions get found, data and theories get modified, but we never get to the point where we can give an iron clad guarantee that the theory covers everything.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Guys, just to add to the discussion here are some thoughts on bass vs. subwoofer localitation, which IMHO are two different phenomena worth to discuss in more details:
> 
> Localizing subwoofers in the room in the frame of all the above can easily be a completely different issue due to the case that distortion always goes together with the development of unwanted harmonics (something the original signal did not contain) and these frequencies will surely fall into the range where wavelenghts will be comparable to the physical distance of our two ears on our head resulting in our ability to be able to pinpoint the direction of the sound source.
> 
> This will most likely happen when we, in the name of our love of a lot of woofage, start to boost the sub trim, especially when done beyond expectation (like 10 dB+).


Hi Feri,

That was a good post, and I think you made a great point on the difference between bass localization and subwoofer localization. I do think that we may be likely to hear some overtones (harmonics) above the bass frequencies which are playing. And we may hear 120Hz, and above, frequencies from the LFE channel, anyway.

But, I also think that the issue of localization is primarily discussed in terms of sound pressure level, and some recent research has pointed to tactile response as a phenomenon which is not strictly reliant on SPL. So, the length of a frequency in relation to the width of our ears is not the only factor that influences our perception of where bass is coming from.

One note on the +10 sub boost. Someone who is listening to movies/music at a MV of -15, with DEQ engaged, and with a 6db sub boost, has a total of 12db of sub boost, and 6db of bass boost in the other channels. DEQ at -15 MV = +6db (in all channels including the sub) + 6db of user-specific sub boost.

As you noted in an earlier post, the key to being able to add boost without worrying about distortion is to have powerful subs (with internal limiters to prevent easily driving the subs into distortion). So, a 10db or even a 12db or 15db bass boost is not necessarily going to produce any audible distortion-related harmonics given sufficiently powerful subs. And if DEQ is not engaged, then it may not be producing any more total bass than DEQ + a sub boost. It just omits the parallel boost in the other channels. Now, trying a +10db or +12db sub boost with DEQ engaged, at -15 MV, might be pretty scary.  I don't think I'd care to try that.

Interesting topic! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Now, trying a +10db or +12db sub boost with DEQ engaged, at -15 MV, might be pretty scary.  I don't think I'd care to try that.


I've tried it...it does _not _sound good. Nope, not good at all.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> I've tried it...it does _not _sound good. Nope, not good at all.


Because of localization or what?


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Because of localization or what?


Nope, no localization...just WAY out of balance. Too much bass (yes, there is such a thing, even for me!).


----------



## mogorf

> Hi Feri,
> 
> That was a good post, and I think you made a great point on the difference between bass localization and subwoofer localization. I do think that we may be likely to hear some overtones (harmonics) above the bass frequencies which are playing. And we may hear 120Hz, and above, frequencies from the LFE channel, anyway.


Interesting topic, indeed! 



> But, I also think that the issue of localization is primarily discussed in terms of sound pressure level, and some recent research has pointed to tactile response as a phenomenon which is not strictly reliant on SPL. So, the length of a frequency in relation to the width of our ears is not the only factor that influences our perception of where bass is coming from.


Fully agree that localization of bass (and not subwoofer) is based on SPL picked up by our ears, and that tactile response is not related to SPL. But in that case what is it related to? Chest thump or a kick in our butt? Most probably. But that thump is not detected by our ears, but by other organs of the human body, right?    And that thump IMHO should not be related to wavelenghts, nor any directional issues, right?  A thump on the chest is a thump on the chest, regardless of which direction it is coming from. LOL



> One note on the +10 sub boost. Someone who is listening to movies/music at a MV of -15, with DEQ engaged, and with a 6db sub boost, has a total of 12db of sub boost, and 6db of bass boost in the other channels. DEQ at -15 MV = +6db (in all channels including the sub) + 6db of user-specific sub boost.
> 
> As you noted in an earlier post, the key to being able to add boost without worrying about distortion is to have powerful subs (with internal limiters to prevent easily driving the subs into distortion). So, a 10db or even a 12db or 15db bass boost is not necessarily going to produce any audible distortion-related harmonics given sufficiently powerful subs. And if DEQ is not engaged, then it may not be producing any more total bass than DEQ + a sub boost. It just omits the parallel boost in the other channels. Now, trying a +10db or +12db sub boost with DEQ engaged, at -15 MV, might be pretty scary.  I don't think I'd care to try that.


Nor would I, but yet would like to hear this from someone having powerful subs saying "been there, done that" together with conclusions.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Interesting topic, indeed!
> 
> Fully agree that localization of bass (and not subwoofer) is based on SPL picked up by our ears, and that tactile response is not related to SPL. But in that case what is it related to? Chest thump or a kick in our butt? Most probably. But that thump is not detected by our ears, but by other organs of the human body, right?    And that thump IMHO should not be related to wavelenghts, nor any directional issues, right?  *A thump on the chest is a thump on the chest, regardless of which direction it is coming from. LOL*


Tell that to a boxer! 

Actually, both the chest thump and the ULF tactile sensations can be directional. It mostly happens in the nearfield, but our bodies can be very sensitive to tactile response, via particle velocity, as opposed to sound pressure level. Apparently ported subs tend to produce a greater effect than sealed subs, particularly around the port tune. So, people are using ported subs in the nearfield to feel that direct pressure wave either in the ULF range, or in the mid-bass range, depending on their preference. And in some cases, they are achieving the additional tactile response without increases in SPL. That thread I linked to earlier has quite a bit of interesting discussion on the subject.


----------



## Alan P

Another good thread on the subject:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...equency-pressure-tactile-response-thread.html


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Excerpts from Feri's quote of Chris K. of Audyssey:
> _
> "In the early days of home theater it was thought that in order to reproduce the full movie surround experience at home it was necessary to place 5 large loudspeakers in the room. The reason for the size was the woofers. To play at theatrical reference levels and reproduce the deepest bass available in the content requires each speaker to have 12” or larger woofers. Let’s just say that this theory didn’t get very far in the real world.
> __*...* it was found in listening tests that 80 Hz is the frequency below which *most people* can not localize the direction of sound."_


In the early days of commercial cinemas, large surrounds were often used. 

The smallest ones I ever saw were 15" JBL D130s in enclosures barely big enough for them, in my local theater, which was equipped for CinemaScope and 4 channel stereo. They were not too good in providing heavy duty bass surround effects, but were fine for the heavenly choir in various Biblical epics.

In both Cinerama and Todd-AO, Gargantuan surrounds were used. For Cinerama surrounds, the Orpheum in San Francisco used big, Altec boxes, about 4 feet high and 3 feet wide, to the sides of the audience, and under, above and hanging from the balcony. For 70 mm Todd-AO surrounds, the Coronet in San Francisco used JBLs that were about the same size as the Cinerama surrounds. They were in two rows, right and left, embedded in the ceiling, from about the middle of the front section stretching to the back of the theater. They looked like JBL C34s or C40s, so they may have been the pro versions of one of these. In both of these theaters, the 4 - 15" woofers per channel behind the screen speakers were far, far bigger than the surrounds, as big as the surrounds were. When Dolby re-equipped the Coronet, for Star Wars (1977), a couple of things happened. The installation of a big subwoofer provided bass that went much deeper than the 35 Hz or so that the old speakers reached *...* and, IMO, the bass was not as clean and tight and clear. To my audiophile friends and me, it seemed to be a trade-off.


----------



## garygarrison

audiofan1 said:


> As long as my bass sounds as though its imitating from the 11 speaker now around the room , I know the placement is good and extremely thankful my single row of seats have good response (sans a very,very narrow dip at 30-33hz). Don't get me started on large scale tympani strikes that are perfectly placed from right (mostly right due to were they are placed) to left and can drop a thunders strike dead center or from the entire sound stage.
> 
> I'm golden and all from a single location in the room


Oh, please do get started on large scale timpani strikes.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Tell that to a boxer!
> 
> Actually, both the chest thump and the ULF tactile sensations can be directional. It mostly happens in the nearfield, but our bodies can be very sensitive to tactile response, via particle velocity, as opposed to sound pressure level. Apparently ported subs tend to produce a greater effect than sealed subs, particularly around the port tune. So, people are using ported subs in the nearfield to feel that direct pressure wave either in the ULF range, or in the mid-bass range, depending on their preference. And in some cases, they are achieving the additional tactile response without increases in SPL. That thread I linked to earlier has quite a bit of interesting discussion on the subject.


The main tactile response I notice, other than the couch shaking, or rising off the floor, is a breeze -- sometimes quite a wind -- in heavy bass sequences. It *always* comes from the front, never the rear, so that is localization of bass, I guess. It occasionally happens in music, as well as in movies, even with the subwoofer off (and the mains set to large). One such piece of music is _Fanfare for the Common Man_, with the timpani, bass drum, and tam-tam really moving air. *Audiofan1*, if you like large scale timpani strikes, I urge you to try this piece of music, particularly on the album Sonic Spectaculars on Chrystal Clear Records!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> The main tactile response I notice, other than the couch shaking, or rising off the floor, is a breeze -- sometimes quite a wind -- in heavy bass sequences. It *always* comes from the front, never the rear, so that is localization of bass, I guess. It occasionally happens in music, as well as in movies, even with the subwoofer off (and the mains set to large). One such piece of music is _Fanfare for the Common Man_, with the timpani, bass drum, and tam-tam really moving air. *Audiofan1*, if you like large scale timpani strikes, I urge you to try this piece of music, particularly on the album Sonic Spectaculars on Chrystal Clear Records!


Yep, that feeling of air moving, or compressing in some cases, is an example of tactile response. And as you noted in the fanfare, it can be mid-bass and not just deep bass. I also get quite a bit of tactile response in music, even without my subs engaged. I'll bet those big horns of yours can move some air.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Yep, that feeling of air moving, or compressing in some cases, is an example of tactile response. And as you noted in the fanfare, it can be mid-bass and not just deep bass. I also get quite a bit of tactile response in music, even without my subs engaged. I'll bet those big horns of yours can move some air.


They make my pants legs flap in the wind. This happens in_ Fanfare _and several other pieces of music. I've often wondered if they would blow out a candle, but I've never tried because I didn't want to become a headline. When I switch the sub back on other things can happen. In Mr. and Mrs. Smith, when the car hits the fence, it feels like someone punched me in the shoulder.


----------



## audiofan1

garygarrison said:


> The main tactile response I notice, other than the couch shaking, or rising off the floor, is a breeze -- sometimes quite a wind -- in heavy bass sequences. It *always* comes from the front, never the rear, so that is localization of bass, I guess. It occasionally happens in music, as well as in movies, even with the subwoofer off (and the mains set to large). One such piece of music is _Fanfare for the Common Man_, with the timpani, bass drum, and tam-tam really moving air. *Audiofan1*, if you like large scale timpani strikes, I urge you to try this piece of music, particularly on the album Sonic Spectaculars on Chrystal Clear Records!


 Thanks for the recommendation I'll add it to the music to buy list


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> They make my pants legs flap in the wind. This happens in_ Fanfare _and several other pieces of music. I've often wondered if they would blow out a candle, but I've never tried because I didn't want to become a headline. When I switch the sub back on other things can happen. In Mr. and Mrs. Smith, when the car hits the fence, it feels like someone punched me in the shoulder.


I saw an item somewhere the other day about using subwoofers to extinguish fires so I think you could blow out a candle with the right sub.

It would be a pretty damn expensive candle snuffer, though, and not only when it comes to the cost of the sub. Factor in the greenhouse warming as well.


----------



## Jim1290

Question for the knowledgeable members here, and I apologize if this has been asked before.
Before run Audyssey, when using two subs with ONE sub-out from AVR, are the two subs _must_ to be equal distance to MLP?

Thank you for your time!


Jim


----------



## David Aiken

Jim1290 said:


> Question for the knowledgeable members here, and I apologize if this has been asked before.
> Before run Audyssey, when using two subs with ONE sub-out from AVR, are the two subs _must_ to be equal distance to MLP?
> 
> Thank you for your time!
> 
> 
> Jim


No, they don't have to be at equal distances to the MLP. Audyssey will calculate the distance and phase based on the first arrival time, i.e. the closest sub. The second sub's sound will arrive later, just as room reflections from the first sub arrive later. Audyssey will not know that there is a second sub. It will calculate room corrections based on the later arrivals which will include sound from the second sub. When you have an AVR with 2 sub outputs Audyssey calculates different distance, phase, and trim level settings for each sub but it still only calculates a single frequency correction for the 2 subs. With only one sub output on the AVR you will end up losing a little precision on the arrival time and phase side of things but it should still work reasonably well. Try and keep the difference in distance between the subs as low as possible.

Where you may run into trouble is with setting the gain controls for both subs. You should try and match the output levels from both subs, especially if one is close to a corner and the other isn't because depending on where you place it in the room, the output from a sub can vary by up to 6 or more dB at the listening position. That means that if you have identical subs and set them to the same gain setting on the sub, one may be close to twice as loud at the listening position as the other depending on where they are located in the room. You will need a sound pressure level meter in order to do this since you cannot do it reliably by ear. If you don't have a meter, you may be able to get a meter app for your phone if you have a smart phone.

Don't use the Audyssey test tone when you try to balance output levels from the subs. Use a separate test tone source such as a disc with test tones or download some low frequency test tones from the web. You need to send the tone to each sub separately and take a measurement at the MPL. That means you will need to turn one sub off or disconnect it, play the tone through the connected sub and measure, then turn that sub off or disconnect it, turn the other sub on or reconnect, and repeat the test tone and measurement procedure. Compare the levels and either raise the gain on one sub or lower the gain on the other and repeat until you get both subs as closely matched in level as you can. With both subs turned on the combined level is going to be somewhere between 3 and 6 dB louder than either sub on it's own and Audyssey wants the sub set so the sub (in your case the combination of the 2 subs) measures around 75 dB plus or minus 3 dB or so. That means you want each sub to measure around 70 to 73db at the MLP as a rough starting point when you're playing your test tone so adjust the sub's gain while playing the test tone until you get it into that range and then disconnect that sub and measure the other. Then connect both subs and play the test tone again and adjust the gain on both subs up or down by equal amounts until you get a reading of around 75 dB, give or take a dB or two, at the listening position. Small differences in level between each sub won't be a problem but you really don't want a big difference in level between them. If you can't match levels precisely, I'd set the closer sub slightly louder than the more distant sub.

Once you've done that, then run the Audyssey setup process, The meter you used for your test tone measurements is probably not going to be a calibrated professional quality meter so it isn't likely to be precisely accurate and it's also unlikely to read the same as the Audyssey mic. In addition the Audyssey setup process also uses a different test tone which will affect things also so your combined sub output may not fall in the target region Audyssey wants. If the combined level is too high or too low the setup wizard will ask you to adjust the gain on the sub. Just adjust both subs up or down by the same amount again until Audyssey is happy,. You may have to do this a couple of times before getting the combined level within the range Audyssey wants.


----------



## Jim1290

@David Aiken, thank you very much for such detailed explanation! Great stuff! 

I have used the mic that came with Audyssey, and I have used Audyssey test tone to gain match the subs, now I know that I did very, very wrong.
I have tried equal distance to MLP but I didn't like the sound, and so now I ended up with one in far left corner and another middle right wall, and two behind sofa, I like it better. The whole set up is in the living room, and it's L shaped living room.
Now after read carefully your explanation, first thing I need to do is buy one sound pressure level meter, second to download test tone, and then follow your steps to make it right. Thanks again!

By the way, I have been to gold coast while I was living in Melbourne some years ago. Now I am back to cold and wet country.


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## David Aiken

Jim1290 said:


> @David Aiken, thank you very much for such detailed explanation! Great stuff!
> 
> I have used the mic that came with Audyssey, and I have used Audyssey test tone to gain match the subs, now I know that I did very, very wrong.
> I have tried equal distance to MLP but I didn't like the sound, and so now I ended up with one in far left corner and another middle right wall, and two behind sofa, I like it better. The whole set up is in the living room, and it's L shaped living room.
> Now after read carefully your explanation, first thing I need to do is buy one sound pressure level meter, second to download test tone, and then follow your steps to make it right. Thanks again!
> 
> By the way, I have been to gold coast while I was living in Melbourne some years ago. Now I am back to cold and wet country.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim


I don't know that using the Audyssey mic is wrong, I thought about it after I'd posted my reply and realised that what I had done is detailed the procedure I followed the last time I manually set up a 2 sub system and that was a system without Audyssey so I was doing everything manually and doing it the hard way. Probably the only real problem with using Audyssey test tones and the Audyssey mic is that you have to let it do the tone 10 or so times and read the result, adjust gain, repeat and read the result and so on. Using a continuous test tone and a different mic lets you leave the tone running while you adjust gain and watch the meter reading change. I think it's a bit easier and quicker but that's probably all. If you can do it using the Audyssey mic, do so. Cheap sound pressure level meters aren't especially accurate but that's not a problem, it just has to let you match the level of the different subs reasonably closely and get you into the area where the Audyssey setup works fine and you don't need precise accuracy for that. You don't want to buy an accurate meter, they're very expensive in comparison to low price meters and you need to buy a calibration device and re-calibrate regularly if you really want accuracy. You don't need that. There are a number of metering apps for the iPhone which are good enough for what you want to do and they aren't expensive and use the phone's own mic. There's probably apps for other phones as well and an app is going to be cheaper than a cheap meter. Use C weighting or flat, not A weighting which doesn't measure the bass frequencies properly because it's intended for hearing protection and bass frequencies aren't as harmful. Also if you have a choice between fast and slow response on the meter, choose slow. You don't have to worry about any of those things if you use the Audyssey mic.

You're using 4 subs? Do you have a dual sub output AVR and are you splitting each sub output to 2 subs? That's going to start to get complex to balance but it can be done.

Another thought for getting a test tone for the sub and that's to try the test tones in the manual setup menu. I haven't looked at them but you may be able to use the manual setup test tones to balance the subs a pair at a time as I outlined above. Once you've got each pair balanced you could then just run the Audyssey setup if you're using an AVR with 2 sub outputs and connecting 2 subs to each output.

What I would recommend is doing a search on multiple sub setup. I know there's some articles on Harmon's test site and Earl Geddes has written a fair bit on it as well. There's been a fair bit of research done on what the best placement options are for placing multiple subs but everything I've seen has been based on rectangular rooms. You may get some ideas for placement in your room from some of that material. 

I am partial to L-shaped rooms. I run a separate audio system in a different room, an L-shaped room. It's straight stereo, no subs and no Audyssey or other electronic room correction, just physical acoustic treatments and it sounds very nice. It took me a while to get the stereo image precisely centred because the room isn't symmetrical left to right but I eventually got that as well. I think there are advantages to rooms with more than the usual set of 3 room dimensions and L-shaped rooms add another 2 dimensions to the mix which can help at lower frequencies. While I've been successful in setting up a straight stereo setup in an L-shaped room without anything like Audyssey, I don't think I'd like to try working with a multichannel setup in an L-shaped room without something like Audyssey.

As you realise I'm not too far from the Gold Coast. You may be back in a cold and wet country but I can assure you the Gold Coast can get cold and wet also, but not as cold and wet as Melbourne or probably where you are now.


----------



## Jim1290

@David Aiken, Thank you very much for the quick but detailed reply!

Yes, I have four subs with two sub-out from AVR. Perhaps I should forget about gain match, and should level match the subs, at least the front two since they are placed at two different locations? The two behind sofa are equal distance to MLP.
I need to make the subs measures around 75 dB by Audyssey, as now they are a _bit _over, but sounded good to me. 
Thanks again!

Jim

PS, Melbourne is not cold and wet compared to where I am now... Belgium.


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> @*David Aiken* , Thank you very much for the quick but detailed reply!
> 
> Yes, I have four subs with two sub-out from AVR. Perhaps I should forget about gain match, and should level match the subs, at least the front two since they are placed at two different locations? The two behind sofa are equal distance to MLP.
> I need to make the subs measures around 75 dB by Audyssey, as now they are a _bit _over, but sounded good to me.
> Thanks again!
> 
> Jim
> 
> PS, Melbourne is not cold and wet compared to where I am now... Belgium.


Hi Jim,

I have a couple of suggestions. First, since you have two sub outs, you can level match each pair of subs you intend to Y-connect, separately, by using the two sub outs for one pair at a time. It takes a while that way, but it would also give you a leg-up on setting distances too. So, you connect Subwoofer A into out 1 and Subwoofer B into out 2. Then repeat with the second pair of subs. You would also now know how Audyssey had measured the distance of each of the four subs. And you can tell Audyssey to calculate after the first mic position, and check your results, rather than going for a full 8-point calibration. I am currently using 5 subs in my system with XT-32 and that is the procedure I used to level match them.

Once you have level matched each pair with the two sub outs, you Y-connect them and repeat the procedure for the two pairs at the same time. But, now you are in a position to be able to lower or raise gains symmetrically, based on the previous level-matching exercise. Once you have conducted your final 2-pair level match, you just run the full 8-point calibration. I hope you understand what I am saying, as it is more complicated to explain than it is to do.

The second suggestion is to level match your four subs slightly higher than 75db. You can tell Audyssey to continue with your calibration when it says that your sub level is too high. If you are at about 78db, for instance, you should be able to get good negative trims. I actually shoot for about -11 sub trim levels, so that I will have the maximum amount of upward adjustment in the AVR, without exceeding about 0.0.

When you are doing the individual, and then paired level matching, you can calculate after that first mic position, and check the trim settings. And then, when you have your trim levels where you want them, you just do a full 8-point calibration from scratch. The trim settings won't change (or at least they won't change significantly). 

I think this is a simpler and more advantageous way to calibrate with multiple subs.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jim1290

Hi Mike, thank you very much for your time and the way you explain is just like a good teacher! 

So, if I understood correctly, I should plug one sub into sub-out 1 and second sub into sub-out 2, level match the two, and repeat the same for the other two subs. And then Y-connect each pair and level match them. For the time being I have got -12 db sub trim levels, I know it's not correct but sounded good to my ears.
Also, with your suggestions of doing Audyssey, I don't need to buy a sound pressure level meter, save the coins to buy more sub! 

I know you have SVS subs, so I have question for you but I will ask it in SVS thread. Thanks again Mike!


Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike, thank you very much for your time and the way you explain is just like a good teacher!
> 
> So, if I understood correctly, I should plug one sub into sub-out 1 and second sub into sub-out 2, level match the two, and repeat the same for the other two subs. And then Y-connect each pair and level match them. For the time being I have got -12 db sub trim levels, I know it's not correct but sounded good to my ears.
> Also, with your suggestions of doing Audyssey, I don't need to buy a sound pressure level meter, save the coins to buy more sub!
> 
> I know you have SVS subs, so I have question for you but I will ask it in SVS thread. Thanks again Mike!
> 
> Jim


You are very welcome, Jim, and thanks for the compliment! It's hard to have too many subs. 

That's correct on the procedure. When you do the two separate pairs of subs, just write down the distance settings. Then later, you can experiment with manually adjusting the distances, knowing where Audyssey originally measured the timing for each sub.

If I were you, I would try to shoot for about -11 in trim level. If you are right on the edge of -11.5 or -12, that's fine, but if Audyssey would have actually set your trim levels at -14, if the trims went down that far, that wouldn't be as desirable. So, about -11 is just an easy target. Then, adjust to taste, leaving the trims where they are, or raising them as much as you want to while preferably staying in negative numbers.


----------



## Jim1290

^^^ Thank you Mike! 
Will follow your advise and suggestions.

I should visit this site less...


----------



## Methodical_1

I've never had Audssey and just used it for the 1st tim ewhen setting up my Denon 4300. All I can say is wooohooo. It took me about 15 minutes compared to days with the 3805 to setup properly. I like to tweak, but I have resisted and want to listen to the system as designated by Audyssey. I probably will do some tweaks once the new app comes out. I like Audyssey.


----------



## David Aiken

Jim1290 said:


> @David Aiken, Thank you very much for the quick but detailed reply!
> 
> Yes, I have four subs with two sub-out from AVR. Perhaps I should forget about gain match, and should level match the subs, at least the front two since they are placed at two different locations? The two behind sofa are equal distance to MLP.
> I need to make the subs measures around 75 dB by Audyssey, as now they are a _bit _over, but sounded good to me.
> Thanks again!
> 
> Jim
> 
> PS, Melbourne is not cold and wet compared to where I am now... Belgium.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> I have a couple of suggestions. First, since you have two sub outs, you can level match each pair of subs you intend to Y-connect, separately, by using the two sub outs for one pair at a time. It takes a while that way, but it would also give you a leg-up on setting distances too. So, you connect Subwoofer A into out 1 and Subwoofer B into out 2. Then repeat with the second pair of subs. You would also now know how Audyssey had measured the distance of each of the four subs. And you can tell Audyssey to calculate after the first mic position, and check your results, rather than going for a full 8-point calibration. I am currently using 5 subs in my system with XT-32 and that is the procedure I used to level match them.
> 
> Once you have level matched each pair with the two sub outs, you Y-connect them and repeat the procedure for the two pairs at the same time. But, now you are in a position to be able to lower or raise gains symmetrically, based on the previous level-matching exercise. Once you have conducted your final 2-pair level match, you just run the full 8-point calibration. I hope you understand what I am saying, as it is more complicated to explain than it is to do.
> 
> The second suggestion is to level match your four subs slightly higher than 75db. You can tell Audyssey to continue with your calibration when it says that your sub level is too high. If you are at about 78db, for instance, you should be able to get good negative trims. I actually shoot for about -11 sub trim levels, so that I will have the maximum amount of upward adjustment in the AVR, without exceeding about 0.0.
> 
> When you are doing the individual, and then paired level matching, you can calculate after that first mic position, and check the trim settings. And then, when you have your trim levels where you want them, you just do a full 8-point calibration from scratch. The trim settings won't change (or at least they won't change significantly).
> 
> I think this is a simpler and more advantageous way to calibrate with multiple subs.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Jim,

Whatever I said, level match was what I meant.

I hadn't thought of Mike's approach which is certainly a lot simpler than mine. As I said, I learnt my level matching approach back in the days when I was driving 2 subs from a single output in a system without Audyssey and in a setup which required the use of a sound pressure level meter of some kind. Once I swapped to using an AVR with Audyssey I simply used the 2 outputs on the AVR and let the Audyssey setup wizard do its stuff so I've never really sat down and thought my way through trying to do more than 2 subs with 2 sub outputs and Audyssey. Using the Audyssey setup process to obtain trim levels for 2 subs at a time before pairing them up for the full Audyssey setup is a wonderfully simple and elegant way of solving the problem without needing to worry about using a meter.


----------



## Jim1290

Hi David & Mike!
Gentlemen, I have done the level match for all four subs via 2 sub-outs, and done so with the mic came with Audyssey. Then I used two Y-connect for the two pair subs with 2 sub-outs and level match the two pair subs as well, and run full Audyssey calibration afterwards.
Now I have the front pair subs at -11 db and the pair behind sofa at -11.5 db. I run 6 db hot via sub trim level from AVR.
To my ears I prefer when the subs were at -12 db, now they "hit less hard", however the center channel is loud than before and the rest of the channels are clean & clear & more detailed.

I don't know if I explained myself properly, that was I did last night. 
As I said that the less I visit here the more coins I save, but I have more time now since been semi retired. And bass is a good thing! 

Thank you both very much for your time and patience!


Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi David & Mike!
> Gentlemen, I have done the level match for all four subs via 2 sub-outs, and done so with the mic came with Audyssey. Then I used two Y-connect for the two pair subs with 2 sub-outs and level match the two pair subs as well, and run full Audyssey calibration afterwards.
> Now I have the front pair subs at -11 db and the pair behind sofa at -11.5 db. I run 6 db hot via sub trim level from AVR.
> To my ears I prefer when the subs were at -12 db, now they "hit less hard", however the center channel is loud than before and the rest of the channels are clean & clear & more detailed.
> 
> I don't know if I explained myself properly, that was I did last night.
> As I said that the less I visit here the more coins I save, but I have more time now since been semi retired. And bass is a good thing!
> 
> Thank you both very much for your time and patience!
> 
> 
> Jim



Hi Jim,

I am glad that things sound clearer and more detailed, and as always, you are very welcome for any help!  If the bass doesn't hit quite as hard as it did in the past, don't forget that you can boost more than +6db. The average sub boost is probably about 3db to 6db, but that is purely a matter of individual preference, and some of us boost much more than that. So, try + 7 or +8, or whatever you like, until the subs hit as hard as you want them to. The whole point of starting at about -11 is to give you as much room to adjust upward as you like, without exceeding about 0.0. Otherwise, we might as well be calibrating in the -3 to -5 range.

Incidentally, many of us would probably be wealthier if we visited AVS less often. But I try to tell myself that I am richer in knowledge and audio as a result of hanging out here. I'm not sure that "myself" is entirely convinced. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Jim1290 said:


> Hi David & Mike!
> Gentlemen, I have done the level match for all four subs via 2 sub-outs, and done so with the mic came with Audyssey. Then I used two Y-connect for the two pair subs with 2 sub-outs and level match the two pair subs as well, and run full Audyssey calibration afterwards.
> Now I have the front pair subs at -11 db and the pair behind sofa at -11.5 db. I run 6 db hot via sub trim level from AVR.
> To my ears I prefer when the subs were at -12 db, now they "hit less hard", however the center channel is loud than before and the rest of the channels are clean & clear & more detailed.
> 
> I don't know if I explained myself properly, that was I did last night.
> As I said that the less I visit here the more coins I save, but I have more time now since been semi retired. And bass is a good thing!
> 
> Thank you both very much for your time and patience!
> 
> 
> Jim


Jim,

What Mike said—you can turn the sub setting up a bit but I'd do a couple of things before that.

The first thing I'd do is wait a while. You said that the subs hit less hard but things sound better elsewhere. One thing I've noticed many times over the years is that when the sound balance changes in some way I have a tendency to think of the change as worse when in reality what I'm reacting to is the fact that the balance doesn't sound the way I expect it to and that I tend to prefer the previous balance because I've been comfortable with that. If I give it a few days and get used to the new balance I often find myself preferring the new balance, especially if something like clarity has improved because that is often mid-range related and our perception of the mids can easily influence our perception of the extremes. I've come to accept that reaching a judgement a bit too early, at least unless my initial judgement is unequivocally positive, is not a good idea for me. Waiting until I get familiar with the new balance and have accepted it as familiar results in my making better decisions about whether to keep the changed result or, if not, where I want to make any changes. A few days usually gets me there so I'd wait a few days and see how I felt about things then. You may be surprised to find your perceptions changing.

The next thing I'd try is completely counter-intuitive. If you have Audyssey set to Reference curve, try setting it to Flat. Yes, I know the change is in the high frequencies but I've found that a change at one end of the frequency range often affects how I perceive the other end of the frequency range and a boost at one end tends to make the other end feel stronger while a cut at one end tends to make the other end feel weaker. Try setting the reference curve to Flat and your perception of the bass may also change.


So, you have more time now in semi-retirement. I'll give you the bad news about what you have to look forward to. I'm retired and have more time again. I spend more time with my system and more time playing with it and it can be an even greater wealth hazard. I just tell my son I'm spending his inheritance  I tell people who aren't retired that retirement is a hard life but someone has to do it. Enjoy.


----------



## Jim1290

David Aiken said:


> Jim,
> 
> What Mike said—you can turn the sub setting up a bit but I'd do a couple of things before that.
> 
> The first thing I'd do is wait a while. You said that the subs hit less hard but things sound better elsewhere. One thing I've noticed many times over the years is that when the sound balance changes in some way I have a tendency to think of the change as worse when in reality what I'm reacting to is the fact that the balance doesn't sound the way I expect it to and that I tend to prefer the previous balance because I've been comfortable with that. If I give it a few days and get used to the new balance I often find myself preferring the new balance, especially if something like clarity has improved because that is often mid-range related and our perception of the mids can easily influence our perception of the extremes. I've come to accept that reaching a judgement a bit too early, at least unless my initial judgement is unequivocally positive, is not a good idea for me. Waiting until I get familiar with the new balance and have accepted it as familiar results in my making better decisions about whether to keep the changed result or, if not, where I want to make any changes. A few days usually gets me there so I'd wait a few days and see how I felt about things then. You may be surprised to find your perceptions changing.
> 
> The next thing I'd try is completely counter-intuitive. If you have Audyssey set to Reference curve, try setting it to Flat. Yes, I know the change is in the high frequencies but I've found that a change at one end of the frequency range often affects how I perceive the other end of the frequency range and a boost at one end tends to make the other end feel stronger while a cut at one end tends to make the other end feel weaker. Try setting the reference curve to Flat and your perception of the bass may also change.
> 
> 
> So, you have more time now in semi-retirement. I'll give you the bad news about what you have to look forward to. I'm retired and have more time again. I spend more time with my system and more time playing with it and it can be an even greater wealth hazard. I just tell my son I'm spending his inheritance  I tell people who aren't retired that retirement is a hard life but someone has to do it. Enjoy.


David, thank you very much for your time and your usual proper explanation! 
Yesterday while waiting in front of school to pick up my kids, I was telling myself that I should wait a few days to let my ears get adjusted to the new sound.
I will try Audyssey Flat after a few days, and see how I like it.

Yes, someone has to do it... 


Jim


----------



## Alan P

Jim1290 said:


> Hi David & Mike!
> Gentlemen, I have done the level match for all four subs via 2 sub-outs, and done so with the mic came with Audyssey. Then I used two Y-connect for the two pair subs with 2 sub-outs and level match the two pair subs as well, and run full Audyssey calibration afterwards.
> Now I have the front pair subs at -11 db and the pair behind sofa at -11.5 db. I run 6 db hot via sub trim level from AVR.
> To my ears I prefer when the subs were at -12 db, now they "hit less hard", however the center channel is loud than before and the rest of the channels are clean & clear & more detailed.
> 
> I don't know if I explained myself properly, that was I did last night.
> As I said that the less I visit here the more coins I save, but I have more time now since been semi retired. And bass is a good thing!
> 
> Thank you both very much for your time and patience!
> 
> 
> Jim


I agree with the other recommendations to bump up the sub trim until is sounds good to your ears.

I just wanted to chime in and explain exactly why your subs don't seem to be hitting as hard now. The gain on your subs was set (probably much) higher when Audyssey was giving you the initial -12dB sub trim...for all you know, Audyssey wanted to set that at -25dB. If that random example happened to be true, your subs were running *13dB hot *at the -12dB setting...but you have no way of knowing. This is why we want an initial sub trim that is "in-range". 

Just keep turning up the sub trim until the bass is satisfying, but not over-powering. For me, that is at about +13dB (_without _Dynamic EQ).


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> I agree with the other recommendations to bump up the sub trim until is sounds good to your ears. *...*
> Just keep turning up the sub trim until the bass is satisfying, but not over-powering. For me, that is at about +13dB (_without _Dynamic EQ).


Which, I take it, would be 13 dB over ("hotter than") whatever *negative* level Audyssey set your sub(s) at, rather than a reading of +13 dB on the trim (which probably doesn't exist on the trim, but might on some).. Mine, too is about 13 dB over the trim level Audyssey set, also *without* DEQ. This setting helps with the many CDs that have attenuated deep bass, as well as some movies that were made in the '50s through the '90s, while still is not outrageously overdoing it for modern recordings and films. Our turning up the sub _*after*_ Audyssey decides on its EQ filters at least lets us turn up a relatively smooth "curve," rather than relying on a few bass speaker/room peaks to gratify our need for strong bass, which might be the case without Audyssey.

Jim, you might find that most music/movies sound better with either Audyssey Flat or regular Audyssey (Audyssey Reference), but a few sound better with the other choice. I did.


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> Which, I take it, would be 13 dB over ("hotter than") whatever *negative* level Audyssey set your sub(s) at, rather than a reading of +13 dB on the trim (which probably doesn't exist on the trim, but might on some)...


That's correct Gary.

However, I have had to use a combination of sub trim and sub gain to get to my preferred level without going over 0dB on the sub trim. Basically, I added 6dB to my sub gain (post-Audyssey, using an SPL meter about an inch from the cone) so I only had to turn the sub trim up from -11dB to -4dB. Voila, +13dB hot.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> That's correct Gary.
> 
> However, I have had to use a combination of sub trim and sub gain to get to my preferred level without going over 0dB on the sub trim. Basically, I added 6dB to my sub gain (post-Audyssey, using an SPL meter about an inch from the cone) so I only had to turn the sub trim up from -11dB to -4dB. Voila, +13dB hot.


Before I did a recent upgrade, I was running my subs about 15db hot post-Audyssey, although also without DEQ. I did the same thing you did with respect to adding gain post-Audyssey. Since my subs have digital controls, with 1db increments which correspond closely to SPL, I just adjusted each sub digitally, without an SPL meter. I did, however, make a note of just what I had done, in case I ever wanted to return to the original setting for any reason.

I am now running about 12 or 13db hot, and have lots of additional headroom, so I don't worry as much about where I add the extra trim or gain. There are a lot of ways to skin this particular cat. I think it's interesting that the three of us are at about the same level for our sub boosts, although mine is for movies only.


----------



## Jim1290

@Alan, @Gary, @Mike. Gentlemen, thank you for your time as always! 

I will follow all those steps, mentioned by all of you, slowly and carefully, and hopefully I will get there.
I know it might take time and efforts and perhaps proper investment to get to the way I like, but since I have more time now and stopped my other hobby since I have kids now, and so I can make exchange.

The other day David from Brisbane, he mentioned that I should get one SPL meter, and now I see Alan mention it again, I guess it's time to start a small investment or shall I say fees for lessons. Is *this* good enough?
To be rich in knowledge and Audio... just like Mike said. 

Thank you all again!


Jim


----------



## David Aiken

Jim1290 said:


> @Alan, @Gary, @Mike. Gentlemen, thank you for your time as always!
> 
> I will follow all those steps, mentioned by all of you, slowly and carefully, and hopefully I will get there.
> I know it might take time and efforts and perhaps proper investment to get to the way I like, but since I have more time now and stopped my other hobby since I have kids now, and so I can make exchange.
> 
> The other day David from Brisbane, he mentioned that I should get one SPL meter, and now I see Alan mention it again, I guess it's time to start a small investment or shall I say fees for lessons. Is *this* good enough?
> To be rich in knowledge and Audio... just like Mike said.
> 
> Thank you all again!
> 
> 
> Jim


Jim,

Never seen that brand so don't know about reliability. It lets you choose C weighting and slow speed which is what you want. I haven't seen any of the meters on that page available here in Australia so no ideas on which brands or models are best. You should try asking around locally if you know any audio fans or speaker builders, or try asking a question on a local speaker building bulletin board if there is one you know of in your area.

There is an alternative and that is a smart phone app. I have a meter that probably cost around the same as that one and it works fine but I also have an app on my iPhone and a lot of the time I just use it. The meter cost me around $60 Australian and the app cost around $15-20 Australian. The app actually does some useful things the meter doesn't do and gives me flat measurement as well as A and C weighting measurements. They don't read exactly the same, there's a dB or two difference between them, but you're going to find that kind of difference in reading between any 2 meters in this sort of price range and for the sorts of things that you or I are going to use the meter for, these meters are accurate enough. If you have a smart phone I'd probably go for a smart phone app given the amount of use you're going to give it. It will do the jobs you want it to do. The app I use on the iPhone is Faber Acoustical's SoundMeter app. They also have another app called SignalScope which is a frequency analyser and lets you display octave and third octave bar graph displays showing the frequency distribution in a sound such as pink noise. That can be handy for checking how well you've chosen a crossover frequency and how smooth the frequency response is over the transition frequencies. The SoundScape app is a bit more complex to master, costs more, and I don't use it anywhere near as much but it has been handy from time to time.

There are apps from other developers out there as well and there are even free apps available. For a sound meter a free app may be all you need if it lets you do C-weighted or flat measurements at slow sampling speed.


----------



## RMK!

Hi Mike, 

Thanks for the response and sorry for being vague. I have true full range LCR speakers with an F3 of 16hz. Audyssey XT32 (Marantz SSP) correctly sets them as "Large" and I was wondering if Audyssey applies an HP filter for the LCR's at or near the F3 point? 





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Audyssey will measure the F3 points on all of the speakers, and report those to the AVR, which will set crossovers (which are manually adjustable) for those speakers. The crossovers are HP filters for the speakers, and LP filters for the subs. But, if you mean is there a preset or adjustable point where Audyssey stops setting filters at all, the frequency range for the filters is from 10Hz to 20KHz. Am I getting warm in answering your question?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## mthomas47

RMK! said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks for the response and sorry for being vague. I have true full range LCR speakers with an F3 of 16hz. Audyssey XT32 (Marantz SSP) correctly sets them as "Large" and I was wondering if Audyssey applies an HP filter for the LCR's at or near the F3 point?


You are very welcome! Audyssey will not apply a HPF to those speakers as long as they are set to "Large". When they are set to "Small" the crossover selected will set a HPF for the speakers, and a LPF for the sub(s). With respect to what Audyssey does in general with speakers, it will EQ the speakers down to their F3 points, as measured in-room by the Audyssey microphone. Below the F3 point, Audyssey will not affect the frequency response in any way. So, Audyssey will not keep speakers, or subs, from playing below their measured F3 points. It just won't EQ them below that point, in order to avoid the possibility of inadvertently boosting them beyond their capabilities.

I hope this answers your question.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Jim1290 said:


> @Alan, @Gary, @Mike. Gentlemen, thank you for your time as always!
> 
> I will follow all those steps, mentioned by all of you, slowly and carefully, and hopefully I will get there.
> I know it might take time and efforts and perhaps proper investment to get to the way I like, but since I have more time now and stopped my other hobby since I have kids now, and so I can make exchange.
> 
> The other day David from Brisbane, he mentioned that I should get one SPL meter, and now I see Alan mention it again, I guess it's time to start a small investment or shall I say fees for lessons. Is *this* good enough?
> To be rich in knowledge and Audio... just like Mike said.
> 
> Thank you all again!
> 
> 
> Jim


Jim,

Can't say as I agree that the SPL phone apps are a good alternative to an actual calibrated meter, but I only have limited experience with the apps. IME, they tend to go very wrong in the lower bass frequencies. However, they may have improved a lot since I used one.

If you are looking at spending around $50 for an SPL meter, I would like to recommend you double the budget and buy yourself a calibrated microphone (UMIK-1, ~$100), download REW (free) and you would then have not only a very accurate SPL meter but the ability to measure your response in a plethora of useful ways. 

See the REW link in my sig if you are interested.


----------



## RMK!

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Audyssey will not apply a HPF to those speakers as long as they are set to "Large". When they are set to "Small" the crossover selected will set a HPF for the speakers, and a LPF for the sub(s). With respect to what Audyssey does in general with speakers, it will EQ the speakers down to their F3 points, as measured in-room by the Audyssey microphone. Below the F3 point, Audyssey will not affect the frequency response in any way. So, Audyssey will not keep speakers, or subs, from playing below their measured F3 points. It just won't EQ them below that point, in order to avoid the possibility of inadvertently boosting them beyond their capabilities.
> 
> I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yes it does, thank you for the information.


----------



## David Aiken

Alan P said:


> Jim,
> 
> Can't say as I agree that the SPL phone apps are a good alternative to an actual calibrated meter, but I only have limited experience with the apps. IME, they tend to go very wrong in the lower bass frequencies. However, they may have improved a lot since I used one.
> 
> If you are looking at spending around $50 for an SPL meter, I would like to recommend you double the budget and buy yourself a calibrated microphone (UMIK-1, ~$100), download REW (free) and you would then have not only a very accurate SPL meter but the ability to measure your response in a plethora of useful ways.
> 
> See the REW link in my sig if you are interested.


Alan,

First, I haven't used REW and/or the UMIK-1 so no comment, I defer to your experience.

Second, you're right that that apps are not a good alternative to an actual calibrated meter but I worked in health and safety before I retired and I have used calibrated meters for hearing protection purposes. Let me assure you that you cannot buy a accurate professional quality calibrated meter for the price of the meter Jim provided a link to, or for the cost of the UMIK-1. They cost more than a few times the cost of the UMIK-1. Also they lose calibration and need to be regularly recalibrated using a separate calibration device. Professionals recalibrate prior to every work session and even that is not enough. The meter and calibration device have to be returned to a service centre annually for a certified recalibration if you want to be able to say that your meter was actually within the calibration standards if you're going to have to rely on it for things like evidence in court. The fact that a meter goes through some sort of calibration process before it gets packaged and shipped for sale doesn't mean much in the world of calibrated meters.

As you correctly said, the apps aren't the most accurate meter and the meter Jim provided a link to isn't going to be the most accurate meter either but I'll argue that for what he wants to do, accuracy isn't an issue. What he needs most is consistency and the apps and the meter he linked to are likely to be consistent enough.

Why do I say accuracy isn't an issue but consistency is for what Jim wants? Well, in the end he's going to be relying on the Audyssey mic for the actual setup so any meter he's using is irrelevant for that. What's he going to use a meter for? For things like helping him match levels for subs and for matching levels accuracy isn't critical. You measure the first sub and the meter says 73 dB but the actual level is, say, 75.6 dB. That's a sizeable difference and not good accuracy but for matching levels all that he needs to do is to adjust the gain on the second sub so that the meter reports 73 dB for the same test tone with the second sub also. Provided the meter consistently reports a level of 75.6 dB as 73 dB he can match levels with extremely good reliability simply by adjusting gain on the subs until he gets the same reading for both subs. The accuracy of the reading isn't critical, the meter's consistency when it comes to reporting the level being measured is what's important and inexpensive meters can do that. 

So from my perspective it all depends on what you want to do with the meter. If all Jim is going to be doing is things like matching levels and using it to help him adjust gain settings to facilitate an Audyssey setup process, an app or a meter like the one in his link or the UMIK-1 and REW are all going to do the job. The UMIK-1 and REW can do more but does he need the other things it can do if all he's going to use the meter for is to match levels and facilitate an Audyssey setup? I think not.

I'm not averse to encouraging people to spend money on their hobbies and I'd happily tell Jim to spend more money on a better quality meter than a phone app or a cheap meter like the one in his link if it would really help him do a better job but for the kind of uses we've been talking about so far in discussions with him, I don't think it will. Now if he also was an amateur speaker builder and was going to be using the meter for frequency response measurements and other things, yes I'd definitely go for your UMIK-1 and REW recommendation but I don't think those sorts of measurements are necessary for what he wants to do.

So I'm happy to defer to your comments on the greater accuracy of the UMIK-1 and REW, and I'm happy to agree with you about the inaccuracy of phone apps and meters like the one in Jim's link, but I'm also happy to stand by my advice. I think phone apps and meters like the one in the link are more than good enough to do certain sorts of tasks to the standard we need to do them to, and I think what Jim wants to use the meter for falls into that sort of task. If he wants to do other things as well, then other meters are going to be more suitable but depending on what those other things are, the UMIK-1 and REW may not be the best choice either. Sometimes you really need something like a Brüel and Kjaer meter and lets not even talk cost when it comes to them. If you have to ask…


----------



## garygarrison

Jim1290 said:


> ... The other day David from Brisbane, he mentioned that I should get one SPL meter, and now I see Alan mention it again, I guess it's time to start a small investment or shall I say fees for lessons. Is *this* good enough?
> 
> To be rich in knowledge and Audio... just like Mike said.
> Jim


Don't spend lot of money on an ***SPL meter. The Radio Shack one is good enough, meaning not very good at all, with many divergent schemes for compensating for its frequency response. It can be useful in letting you know how much you have turned up your sub(s), using a broadband noise signal down in the sub range. Use "C" weighting (or "Flat" if your meter has it*;* many don't) and "Slow" for this task. You probably shouldn't use it to check Audyssey's trim settings of your regular channels with the noise signal in your AVR or pre-pro, because that noise bypasses Audyssey and does not incorporate Audyssey's EQ filter settings. With some speakers, in some rooms, it will be close enough if Audyssey has made only minor changes (see caution in Audyssey FAQ). Many people don't "check" Audyssey's trim levels. because Audyssey is very good at setting them, and with its 8 mic positions it may be better than we would be with an SPL meter. A meter can also be useful in looking at your average and peak SPL in your room with music and sound effects. For the average, you can use "C," "Slow." For the brief peaks you should, IMO, use "C," "Fast," but know that the briefest peaks (milliseconds long) can be up to 13 dB higher, and unread, even with "Fast."

REW and a calibrated mic is better in every way. It has been so long since I used REW I really don't know, but doesn't it require using an SPL meter to initially calibrate its SPL level to the particular mic, room, etc., being used? Maybe that was only with the c. 2010 version I used. Alan?

***
I never know whether to use "an" or "a" with "SPL meter." Back when I went to college, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, (apparently, I was a pre-primate) the official advice would be to notice that S is a consonant, therefore, "a." But I believe now, because "S" is pronounced "esss," a vowel sound, it needs an "an," whether or not it looks right.


----------



## Alan P

David Aiken said:


> Alan,
> 
> First, I haven't used REW and/or the UMIK-1 so no comment, I defer to your experience.
> 
> Second, you're right that that apps are not a good alternative to an actual calibrated meter but I worked in health and safety before I retired and I have used calibrated meters for hearing protection purposes. Let me assure you that you cannot buy a accurate professional quality calibrated meter for the price of the meter Jim provided a link to, or for the cost of the UMIK-1. They cost more than a few times the cost of the UMIK-1. Also they lose calibration and need to be regularly recalibrated using a separate calibration device. Professionals recalibrate prior to every work session and even that is not enough. The meter and calibration device have to be returned to a service centre annually for a certified recalibration if you want to be able to say that your meter was actually within the calibration standards if you're going to have to rely on it for things like evidence in court. The fact that a meter goes through some sort of calibration process before it gets packaged and shipped for sale doesn't mean much in the world of calibrated meters.
> 
> As you correctly said, the apps aren't the most accurate meter and the meter Jim provided a link to isn't going to be the most accurate meter either but I'll argue that for what he wants to do, accuracy isn't an issue. What he needs most is consistency and the apps and the meter he linked to are likely to be consistent enough.
> 
> Why do I say accuracy isn't an issue but consistency is for what Jim wants? Well, in the end he's going to be relying on the Audyssey mic for the actual setup so any meter he's using is irrelevant for that. What's he going to use a meter for? For things like helping him match levels for subs and for matching levels accuracy isn't critical. You measure the first sub and the meter says 73 dB but the actual level is, say, 75.6 dB. That's a sizeable difference and not good accuracy but for matching levels all that he needs to do is to adjust the gain on the second sub so that the meter reports 73 dB for the same test tone with the second sub also. Provided the meter consistently reports a level of 75.6 dB as 73 dB he can match levels with extremely good reliability simply by adjusting gain on the subs until he gets the same reading for both subs. The accuracy of the reading isn't critical, the meter's consistency when it comes to reporting the level being measured is what's important and inexpensive meters can do that.
> 
> So from my perspective it all depends on what you want to do with the meter. If all Jim is going to be doing is things like matching levels and using it to help him adjust gain settings to facilitate an Audyssey setup process, an app or a meter like the one in his link or the UMIK-1 and REW are all going to do the job. The UMIK-1 and REW can do more but does he need the other things it can do if all he's going to use the meter for is to match levels and facilitate an Audyssey setup? I think not.
> 
> I'm not averse to encouraging people to spend money on their hobbies and I'd happily tell Jim to spend more money on a better quality meter than a phone app or a cheap meter like the one in his link if it would really help him do a better job but for the kind of uses we've been talking about so far in discussions with him, I don't think it will. Now if he also was an amateur speaker builder and was going to be using the meter for frequency response measurements and other things, yes I'd definitely go for your UMIK-1 and REW recommendation but I don't think those sorts of measurements are necessary for what he wants to do.
> 
> So I'm happy to defer to your comments on the greater accuracy of the UMIK-1 and REW, and I'm happy to agree with you about the inaccuracy of phone apps and meters like the one in Jim's link, but I'm also happy to stand by my advice. I think phone apps and meters like the one in the link are more than good enough to do certain sorts of tasks to the standard we need to do them to, and I think what Jim wants to use the meter for falls into that sort of task. If he wants to do other things as well, then other meters are going to be more suitable but depending on what those other things are, the UMIK-1 and REW may not be the best choice either. Sometimes you really need something like a Brüel and Kjaer meter and lets not even talk cost when it comes to them. If you have to ask…


David,

Yeah, you're probably right that I went a bit overboard recommending REW for someone just starting to set up their system and an SPL app is probably sufficient for his immediate purposes...sometimes I just can't help myself. 





garygarrison said:


> Don't spend lot of money on an ***SPL meter. The Radio Shack one is good enough, meaning not very good at all, with many divergent schemes for compensating for its frequency response. It can be useful in letting you know how much you have turned up your sub(s), using a broadband noise signal down in the sub range. Use "C" weighting (or "Flat" if your meter has it*;* many don't) and "Slow" for this task. You probably shouldn't use it to check Audyssey's trim settings of your regular channels with the noise signal in your AVR or pre-pro, because that noise bypasses Audyssey and does not incorporate Audyssey's EQ filter settings. With some speakers, in some rooms, it will be close enough if Audyssey has made only minor changes (see caution in Audyssey FAQ). Many people don't "check" Audyssey's trim levels. because Audyssey is very good at setting them, and with its 8 mic positions it may be better than we would be with an SPL meter. A meter can also be useful in looking at your average and peak SPL in your room with music and sound effects. For the average, you can use "C," "Slow." For the brief peaks you should, IMO, use "C," "Fast," but know that the briefest peaks (milliseconds long) can be up to 13 dB higher, and unread, even with "Fast."
> 
> REW and a calibrated mic is better in every way. It has been so long since I used REW I really don't know, but doesn't it require using an SPL meter to initially calibrate its SPL level to the particular mic, room, etc., being used? Maybe that was only with the c. 2010 version I used. Alan?
> *I never know whether to use "an" or "a" with "SPL meter." Back when I went to college, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, (apparently, I was a pre-primate) the official advice would be to notice that S is a consonant, therefore, "a." But I believe now, because "S" is pronounced "esss," a vowel sound, it needs an "an," whether or not it looks right.


Gary,

When you use a USB mic with a calibration file that includes a "sensitivity factor" with REW you do not need to do the external SPL calibration. The UMIK-1 comes with the necessary cal files loaded on a flash drive from Cross Spectrum Labs, or if you purchase it elsewhere, the files are available for download for your particular mic (using the serial number) direct from MiniDSP.

I also never know whether to use "a" or "an" before SPL...thought I was alone on that one!


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Well, I can answer the spelling/grammar question anyway.  If you are writing sound pressure level meter, you would precede "sound" with "a". If you are using the acronym "SPL" meter, you do in fact pronounce it as if the "s" had an "e" in front of it: "es". And that beginning vowel sound would require "an". So, an SPL meter.

I will, in my turn, defer to David on the issue of properly calibrated SPL meters. But I recently read an article testing a variety of smartphones (and apps) which indicated a fairly wide disparity in accuracy. Apparently the type of smartphone matters too, with iPhones measuring better than Droids. 

I do know that, some months ago, I had used my Droid to measure the noise floor in my room, and got a result that was much lower than others on the thread thought was normal. It bothered me enough to double-check the results with one of these, and they were substantially different (at least 5 or 6db, as I recall), with the more genuine SPL meter conforming to expectation with respect to noise floor. I do agree, though, that as long as you are using the smartphone app for something like level matching, true accuracy may not even be an issue. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007XH9PY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## garygarrison

RMK! said:


> ... I have true full range LCR speakers with an F3 of 16hz. Audyssey XT32 (Marantz SSP) correctly sets them as "Large" and I was wondering if Audyssey applies an HP filter for the LCR's at or near the F3 point?


Wow! An F3 of 16 Hz! What are your LCR speakers? Mine will make a noise at 16 Hz, but with much, much more attenuation than 3 dB.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Well, I can answer the spelling/grammar question anyway.  If you are writing sound pressure level meter, you would precede "sound" with "a". If you are using the acronym "SPL" meter, you do in fact pronounce it as if the "s" had an "e" in front of it: "es". And that beginning vowel sound would require "an". So, an SPL meter.
> 
> I will, in my turn, defer to David on the issue of properly calibrated SPL meters. But I recently read an article testing a variety of smartphones (and apps) which indicated a fairly wide disparity in accuracy. Apparently the type of smartphone matters too, with iPhones measuring better than Droids.
> 
> I do know that, some months ago, I had used my Droid to measure the noise floor in my room, and got a result that was much lower than others on the thread thought was normal. It bothered me enough to double-check the results with one of these, and they were substantially different (at least 5 or 6db, as I recall), with the more genuine SPL meter conforming to expectation with respect to noise floor. I do agree, though, that as long as you are using the smartphone app for something like level matching, true accuracy may not even be an issue.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007XH9PY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


Mike,

This has nothing to do with whether or not the meter in your link is suitable for any particular task but surely you have to love it just as much as I do when the description says:

"The CHECK MATE series SPL (Sound Pressure Level) meters, first introduced in early 2003, allow musicians, sound contractors, and others to measure SPL in decibels (dB)."

I mean, what did we measure in before? Inches, mm, pounds, cubic ft? A meter that measured sound levels in anything else other than dB wouldn't have sold since the day when the dB scale was adopted.


:-(


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> This has nothing to do with whether or not the meter in your link is suitable for any particular task but surely you have to love it just as much as I do when the description says:
> 
> "The CHECK MATE series SPL (Sound Pressure Level) meters, first introduced in early 2003, allow musicians, sound contractors, and others to measure SPL in decibels (dB)."
> 
> I mean, what did we measure in before? Inches, mm, pounds, cubic ft? A meter that measured sound levels in anything else other than dB wouldn't have sold since the day when the dB scale was adopted.
> 
> :-(



I noticed that too.  But, I really got a laugh out of your last paragraph!


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I noticed that too.  But, I really got a laugh out of your last paragraph!


I could actually have been practical and mentioned some sort or air or barometric pressure measurement. Here's the real reason we all need big subs in our homes:

http://www.geek.com/science/two-students-turned-a-subwoofer-into-a-fire-extinguisher-1618883/


Just think of the day when Audyssey settings aren't just Reference/Flat/Off but Reference/Flat/Fire extinguisher/Off.


----------



## Jim1290

Hi David,
I will go buy the SPL meter that I linked, and if it's not good I then will search for another one. Like they say that without one SPL meter you are not start this hobby properly. 
Once I get used to this new thing I will try out the smart phone Apps, one at time as I am a slow leaner.
Thank you very much for your time!

Hi Alan,
I read a lots of people use the UMIK-1, and REW as well. And I've learned that there are two places to get the UMIK-1, one from Hong Kong and one from the States. Right now this simply is too complicated and too much for me, I believe. But most probably in the near future I will keep bothering you with this UMIK-1 & REW stuff.

Also, you mentioned _"Basically, I added 6dB to my sub gain (post-Audyssey, using an SPL meter about an inch from the cone) so I only had to turn the sub trim up from -11dB to -4dB. Voila, +13dB hot."
_If I understand correctly that is one shouldn't touch the sub gain after run Audyssey, or is it doesn't matter? Thank you Alan!

Hi Gary,
Thank you very much for the education and info! I need time to really understand what you said, please be patient.
But the quickest I have learned is I should use AN in front of SLP...

Hi Mike,
The SPL meter in your link it cost almost €400 over here, and if I order it from amzon.com I will have to pay international shipping and import duty. For this hobby everything is better in the States!
I apologize that I am lazy to get over to SVS thread, so I ask you opinion here. Do you think 2 SB13 would equal 1 PC13?
Thank you very much Mike!

Thanks all again!


Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi David,
> I will go buy the SPL meter that I linked, and if it's not good I then will search for another one. Like they say that without one SPL meter you are not start this hobby properly.
> Once I get used to this new thing I will try out the smart phone Apps, one at time as I am a slow leaner.
> Thank you very much for your time!
> 
> Hi Alan,
> I read a lots of people use the UMIK-1, and REW as well. And I've learned that there are two places to get the UMIK-1, one from Hong Kong and one from the States. Right now this simply is too complicated and too much for me, I believe. But most probably in the near future I will keep bothering you with this UMIK-1 & REW stuff.
> 
> Also, you mentioned _"Basically, I added 6dB to my sub gain (post-Audyssey, using an SPL meter about an inch from the cone) so I only had to turn the sub trim up from -11dB to -4dB. Voila, +13dB hot."
> _If I understand correctly that is one shouldn't touch the sub gain after run Audyssey, or is it doesn't matter? Thank you Alan!
> 
> Hi Gary,
> Thank you very much for the education and info! I need time to really understand what you said, please be patient.
> But the quickest I have learned is I should use AN in front of SLP...
> 
> Hi Mike,
> The SPL meter in your link it cost almost €400 over here, and if I order it from amzon.com I will have to pay international shipping and import duty. For this hobby everything is better in the States!
> I apologize that I am lazy to get over to SVS thread, so I ask you opinion here. Do you think 2 SB13 would equal 1 PC13?
> Thank you very much Mike!
> 
> Thanks all again!
> 
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

I can't believe that someone would try to charge so much for the SPL meter I linked.  I wasn't particularly encouraging you to buy that one, though, just using it as an example of a good one. 

With respect to adjusting the sub gain post-Audyssey, there is nothing inherently wrong with doing that. It is just harder to keep track of what you have done than using the trim controls in your AVR. So, unless you had a good reason to adjust the sub gain after calibration, I would just start with a high enough gain to get to about -11 in trim level, and then make all further adjustments in the AVR, up to about 0.0 trim level.

Two SB13's would equal one PC13 at most frequencies. There would be a narrow range between about 15Hz and 25Hz where a single PC13 would have an advantage, but from about 30Hz up, it would either be equal, or the advantage would shift toward the dual SB13's. By about 50Hz, the sealed subs would have a clear advantage over the single ported sub, and they would maintain that advantage above 50Hz. 

Compare the performance of the PB13, in 16Hz tuning mode, to the performance of the SB13. The PC13 has virtually identical performance to the PB13, although the PB13 has a 1.5 to 2db advantage, due to it's 1 cu ft larger box volume, compared to the cylinder. http://www.data-bass.com/systems

A question that I should have asked you earlier, is what kind of subs you have now? If you currently have sealed subs, then I would recommend that you stay with sealed for any future subs. Conversely, if your other subs are ported, then you would want to add ported subs. Mixing ported and sealed subs can be a very difficult proposition from the standpoint of achieving a good frequency response. And, it's really not something that automated EQ, such as Audyssey XT-32 can help with, because the frequency responses, and roll-off rates, of ported and sealed subs are so different. Ideally, you want to try to match the capabilities of your subs as much as possible, unless you are either willing to accept potential problems with the frequency response, or are willing to dive deeply down the rabbit hole with REW, and an outboard DSP, such as a miniDSP.

For the great majority of users, including myself, the advice to stay with identical, or as nearly identical subs as possible, is both the simplest and best advice. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> I could actually have been practical and mentioned some sort or air or barometric pressure measurement. Here's the real reason we all need big subs in our homes:
> 
> http://www.geek.com/science/two-students-turned-a-subwoofer-into-a-fire-extinguisher-1618883/
> 
> 
> Just think of the day when Audyssey settings aren't just Reference/Flat/Off but Reference/Flat/Fire extinguisher/Off.


I like that idea a lot! I'm just a little concerned about maneuvering a 100lb or 200lb sub to the specific location in the room where the fire originated. Of course, if we all had a wall of subs, we could just lie face down on the floor, holding onto something (perhaps specially installed grab bars in the floor) crank up the volume, and just let the subs extinguish flames anywhere in the room.


----------



## Dave-T

i just replaced my Denon 4308ci receiver which had XT to a Marantz 8802A which has XT32. Got pretty good at the getting the bass trim to a -3.5 by working with the volume on my sub which is a Velodyne DD10. Now I am all confused with the sub tuner on the XT32 because when I used the bass optimizer I dialed it in just a the boarder of red and green which was 76. The volume on my sub was dialed down to 18 I ran audyseey and after everything was said and done the trim on the sub was -6.0. So my question is how do I get my sub back to -3.5 which sounded great when using XT and the sub volume was 24. I like bass, currently it sounds like I have no bass anymore. Furthermore there is a setting in the processor that lets you adjust the sub level, should I use that to get it back to -3.5 by adding 2.5DB? Any help would be appreciated. Other than that I am loving my new processor.


----------



## Alan P

Dave-T said:


> i just replaced my Denon 4308ci receiver which had XT to a Marantz 8802A which has XT32. Got pretty good at the getting the bass trim to a -3.5 by working with the volume on my sub which is a Velodyne DD10. Now I am all confused with the sub tuner on the XT32 because when I used the bass optimizer I dialed it in just a the boarder of red and green which was 76. The volume on my sub was dialed down to 18 I ran audyseey and after everything was said and done the trim on the sub was -6.0. So my question is how do I get my sub back to -3.5 which sounded great when using XT and the sub volume was 24. I like bass, currently it sounds like I have no bass anymore. Furthermore there is a setting in the processor that lets you adjust the sub level, should I use that to get it back to -3.5 by adding 2.5DB? Any help would be appreciated. Other than that I am loving my new processor.


Your bass is most likely going to sound different to you going from XT to XT32, XT32 usually results in a much flatter bass response that may take you some time to get used to. That being said, there is nothing wrong with liking more bass (sometimes a LOT more) than Audyssey gives you initially.

As long as you are getting an initial sub trim in the negative numbers (but NOT at the lower limit) feel free to bump up the sub trim as much as you want (without going over 0dB).

If you want to get close to where you were with the old AVR, just leave the sub gain at 24 and run Audyssey (skip the sub level matching). Just do the first mic position and "calculate", take a look at the sub trim and if it is still in-range (i.e. not -15dB) you are good to go.If you are at the lower limit, turn the gain on the sub down 1 click at a time and re-run that fist mic position until you are in-range. Then bump up the sub trim to taste and enjoy!


----------



## Dave-T

The higher the negative number the more bass you will get correct? With Marantz is it like Denon +12 -12?


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> The higher the negative number the more bass you will get correct? With Marantz is it like Denon +12 -12?



That's correct, and if your initial trim level is -6, and you want it about 3db louder, just increase the Marantz trim level to -3.

Edit, I just reread the way you phrased your question, and I want to be sure that we are all on the same page. In math, and in audio, -1 is a larger number than -2. So, as you are adjusting the MV in your unit, or adjusting the trim level for a speaker or a sub, you increase volume by going to a lower (larger) negative number. I think that larger is what you meant when you said higher, but just in case.


----------



## audiofan1

Dave-T said:


> i just replaced my Denon 4308ci receiver which had XT to a Marantz 8802A which has XT32. Got pretty good at the getting the bass trim to a -3.5 by working with the volume on my sub which is a Velodyne DD10. Now I am all confused with the sub tuner on the XT32 because when I used the bass optimizer I dialed it in just a the boarder of red and green which was 76. The volume on my sub was dialed down to 18 I ran audyseey and after everything was said and done the trim on the sub was -6.0. So my question is how do I get my sub back to -3.5 which sounded great when using XT and the sub volume was 24. I like bass, currently it sounds like I have no bass anymore. *Furthermore there is a setting in the processor that lets you adjust the sub level, should I use that to get it back to -3.5 by adding 2.5DB?* Any help would be appreciated. Other than that I am loving my new processor.


Don't adjust the trim level there with the 8802 rather use the option button to ajust in the channel levels doing so with the sub trim defaults the level to 0 and any bump over that is going into the possible clipping territory.





Alan P said:


> Your bass is most likely going to sound different to you going from XT to XT32, XT32 usually results in a much flatter bass response that may take you some time to get used to. That being said, there is nothing wrong with liking more bass (sometimes a LOT more) than Audyssey gives you initially.
> 
> As long as you are getting an initial sub trim in the negative numbers (but NOT at the lower limit) feel free to bump up the sub trim as much as you want (without going over 0dB).
> 
> If you want to get close to where you were with the old AVR, just leave the sub gain at 24 and run Audyssey (skip the sub level matching). Just do the first mic position and "calculate", take a look at the sub trim and if it is still in-range (i.e. not -15dB) you are good to go.If you are at the lower limit, turn the gain on the sub down 1 click at a time and re-run that fist mic position until you are in-range. Then bump up the sub trim to taste and enjoy!


Yup!


----------



## Dave-T

So I got Audssey to read the sub at -3 where it sounded great with XT, however with XT32 -3 sounds horrible no bass. -9 seems to be the sweet spot for bass at least for my taste. Thanks for the all help!


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> So I got Audssey to read the sub at -3 where it sounded great with XT, however with XT32 -3 sounds horrible no bass. Where do you find the sub number should be after a calibration where you have tight loud bass with XT32. obviously the XT and XT32 are very different.


XT-32 has many more filters in the subwoofer channel than XT, so in theory, it will do a better job of EQing your sub(s). If I were you, I would redo your calibration. This time, increase the gain on your sub. Audyssey will tell you that your sub level is too high. Ignore that, and do a calibration based on that first mic position. Just tell Audyssey to calculate after running the test tones at mic position 1. Then check the results, and repeat until you get the trim level you want. I would shoot for a trim level of at least -9, but not more than -11. That will give you lots of headroom in your pre-pro to add trim--up to about +9db to +10db.

Most people enjoy increasing their sub trims after calibrating, so just add trim in your Marantz until it sounds good to you. But you don't want to go over 0.0, so you need to start with a low trim number, such as about -10, to give you lots of room to add as much volume as you want.


----------



## Alan P

Dave-T said:


> The higher the negative number the more bass you will get correct? With Marantz is it like Denon +12 -12?


Mike answered your first question.

I _think _Marantz are -15 to +15 but that may have changed. You can always just check by going into the speaker trim settings and adjusting one as far as it will go in both directions, then you will know for sure.


----------



## Alan P

Dave-T said:


> So I got Audssey to read the sub at -3 where it sounded great with XT, however with XT32 -3 sounds horrible no bass. -9 seems to be the sweet spot for bass at least for my taste. Thanks for the all help!


Huh? 

There must be a typo in that post because -3dB is *louder *than -9dB. 

Follow mine and Mike's advice and re-calibrate until you get an acceptable initial sub trim level, then boost to your heart's content...well, within reason.


You keep saying it sounded great with XT at -3dB..._but what was the initial sub trim_?? You may have boosted it post-Audyssey and not remember. My point is that whatever amount of boost you were using with XT, you will want to use approximately the same amount of boost with the new AVR.


----------



## mthomas47

*Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences*

​
The Subwoofer Guide is organized into the following sections: 


** *Introduction to the Guide

 
** *Audio System Calibration and Subwoofer Levels

 
** *Setting Crossovers

 
*** Audyssey EQ and Multiple Subwoofers

 
*** Audyssey and DynamicEQ

​ 
*** Audyssey Thread History of Recommended Subwoofer Trim Settings

 
*** Bass Frequencies, Room Gain, and The Equal Loudness Contours

 
 

* *Introduction to the Guide:
* 

The most commonly asked question on the Audyssey thread, and on a number of subwoofer owners' threads, involves subwoofer settings. People who have new audio or home theater (HT) systems, or who have upgraded and/or added subwoofers, are naturally anxious to be able to get the most from them. In addition, there is a fairly universal perception that bass volumes sound somewhat softer after running Audyssey (or other systems of automated calibration), and people are frequently curious about whether that perception is normal, and if so, about the best way to increase their bass.

The Guide was written to explain why it may be perfectly normal to perceive bass levels as lower, after running Audyssey or other forms of automated calibration. And, it was written to explain the best ways to use a combination of subwoofer gain and AVR trim to make bass boosts. In attempting to address issues involving subwoofer boosts, however, I have found that it is also helpful to understand some of the basic principles of HT system calibration, and their relationship to Dolby Reference. And that, in turn, has led to discussions of how we hear bass frequencies in relation to other frequencies. So, the Guide has continued to expand, and has become something of a subwoofer primer. Much of the general information in the Guide is applicable to non-Audyssey systems of audio/HT calibration and automated room EQ.

*** For people wanting a quick answer to a question about subwoofer levels. It is normal to add approximately +3db to +6db of boost to subs after running Audyssey. That is a typical boost even with DEQ engaged. I should point out, however, that the average boost of about +3 to +6db does not constitute a recommendation. It is just an observation of what most people typically add when DEQ is engaged. Individuals must decide for themselves whether to add any sub boost at all, and if so how much.

It may be worth pointing out that we all like having some reassurance that we are operating our audio systems correctly, and that we are getting the maximum benefit from them. I believe that the more that we understand some of the basic audio principles involved (which I certainly didn't when I first got into home theater) the more confidence we will be able to have in our individual setting preferences, and in the resulting sound quality. 

Part of the key to developing a satisfactory audio system, in my opinion, is informed experimentation. AVS gives all of us an opportunity to share information with each other, so that we can enjoy our audio/HT systems more, and be more confident in the choices we make. And, that's really what the Guide is about--sharing information and, in some cases, speculation. I have learned a lot from writing it, and continue to do so as I try to add more detailed explanations. I hope that others will find it of benefit to them as well.

People who wish to understand what Audyssey is actually doing and why, and what are the best ways to add subwoofer boosts, are encouraged to read the detailed explanation in the first section of the Guide. It will answer other questions that may not yet have occurred to readers, but which may occur to them later. Subsequent sections add more detailed information on other aspects of bass that may be of interest. Most of the discussion will apply equally well to other forms of automated calibration and room EQ.

There are six major sections in addition to the introduction. The first section, which follows this introduction, is broken down into five parts which are labeled. The section explains the basic principles of how Audyssey works during the set-up process, and how it EQ's our audio systems. It also explains how audio systems are calibrated to a Dolby/THX Reference standard. The first section offers some best practice advice for getting the most from our subwoofers, and explains the relationships among subwoofer gain, AVR trim levels, and master volume levels. The section emphasizes the general desirability of keeping subwoofer trim levels in the negative range and using subwoofer gain to add sub boosts. And, it explains different ways to do that.

[It should be noted that most of the discussion of how channel levels, including subwoofer levels, are set and of the relationship between sub gain and AVR trim levels, also applies to non-Audyssey audio systems.]

Since bass management is such an important component of all our audio systems, the second section explains some basic principles to consider in setting crossovers. Following the crossover section, there is a third section which explains how Audyssey calibrates and EQ's multiple subs. The fourth section examines Audyssey's DynamicEQ (DEQ) in some detail, and the fifth section explains something of the Audyssey Thread history with respect to setting subwoofer trim levels. Finally, there is a fairly extensive section which explores some of the general relationship's among bass frequencies, room gain, and the Equal Loudness Contours.

[It is also worth noting that the Audyssey FAQ, which is linked below (and especially the Technical Addendum to the FAQ) have a wealth of additional information and explanation on some aspects of Audyssey which are not covered in this Guide. Interested readers are highly encouraged to read the FAQ for both quick answers and for in-depth detail. Wherever the Guide conflicts with the FAQ, the Guide presents more current information, as explained in the Audyssey Thread History.] 




** Audio System Calibration and Subwoofer Levels**:

* 

*Part I: Audyssey Calibration And Dolby Reference

*Audyssey is a room correction software program designed to reduce room/speaker interactions which may adversely affect audio quality. Once we put a speaker or a subwoofer inside a given room, it's native frequency response changes, depending on a number of factors, including its specific placement in the room. Audyssey attempts to remove undesirable room influences by setting control points to even-out the frequency response, so that we don't have large dips or peaks in sound pressure level (SPL) at certain frequencies. Audyssey's goal is to make all frequencies approximately +/- 3db from a standardized calibration SPL of 75db.

It does this by sending test tones at 75db to each of the channels in an audio system, and by then measuring the frequency response for each channel, from 10Hz to 22KHz. Once the measurements have been completed, Audyssey calibrates the results, using a system of fuzzy-weighted logic. It then sets control points at individual frequencies, or groups of frequencies, in order to correct for peaks and valleys in the sound. Once the control points have been implemented, the room EQ is complete.

That room EQ software program, and the filters (control points) it applies to an audio system are independent of the various AVR settings. So, changing any settings, for any reason, will not change the room EQ that Audyssey applied to an audio system. This is a recurring question, so I have emphasized it here. AVR setting changes do not affect the room EQ that Audyssey applies. And, Audyssey can be turned off, and then turned back on again, as often as we like. Once Audyssey is turned back on, the same room EQ will be applied.

One of Audyssey's goals, in any Audyssey version, is to set the volume levels of all channels in a system, including subs, to 75db, as measured at the MLP, by the calibrated Audyssey microphone. The MLP is microphone position 1, wherever the user chooses to place the microphone. And, that point in space is where Audyssey will set timing (distance) and trim levels (volume levels), for all of the channels, to coincide. 

The .1 in a 2.1, or 5.1 (or larger) audio system is the subwoofer channel, and that .1 designation has nothing to do with the number of subwoofers in a system. The .1 designation was originally selected because the subwoofer only plays a fraction of the total frequency range of an audio system. Where the .1 subwoofer channel is concerned, Audyssey will measure and calibrate all of the subs in a multi-sub system together, so that their combined SPL is 75db. Whether there is one subwoofer, or there are many subwoofers in an audio system, the combined sound of the .1 subwoofer channel as a whole will be set to 75db.

The trim levels and distances (timing) for all of the channels will be set at mic position 1, from the initial test tones at that first mic position. Audyssey will disregard any previous settings and set levels, distances, and crossovers from scratch, whenever a new calibration is run. As noted, trim levels and distances for all of the channels are set based on microphone position 1. Crossovers are set after all of the test tones are completed, based on a fuzzy-weighted average of all of the microphone positions in a calibration.

It should be noted that, although the test tones are full band, from 10Hz to 22KHz, only a portion of that frequency range is used in setting trim levels. For the regular channels, the range that Audyssey analyzes to set trim levels is 500Hz to 2000Hz. For the subwoofer channel, the range is from 30Hz to 80Hz. All trim levels are set before Audyssey adds control points to the channels. And, all internal test tones which govern those trim levels remain independent of the EQ which Audyssey performs.

It should also be noted that Audyssey sets distances for the channels based on the time it takes for the sound to arrive at mic position 1. Subwoofers have their own internal amplifiers, and their own internal processing, which typically delays the timing of the sound arriving at the MLP. Audyssey compensates for that delay by setting subwoofer distances as longer than the physical distance from mic position 1. Setting a greater distance for a channel causes the AVR's internal programming to speed up the arrival time of the sound (and vice-versa). In the subwoofer's case, speeding up the signal, with respect to the sound from the other channels, allows the sounds from all of the channels to arrive simultaneously at the the MLP.

When Audyssey finishes, all channels in the system will play at the same volume, at the MLP, as determined by the calibrated Audyssey microphone. And, when all channels in a system are playing at the same volume, the sound at the MLP will be approximately in balance with what the film mixer intended whenever a movie is played at "Reference" volume, which is 0.0 master volume. However, when the listening level is lower than about -5 MV, most people will not hear bass frequencies quite as well as other frequencies, or quite the way that a film mixer intended for them to be heard in equilibrium with the other frequencies in the film.

The Dolby, or THX Reference standard is intended to provide some degree of uniformity in the maximum volume levels of movies, and is intended to provide a way for commercial cinemas and home theaters to make sure that their audio systems correspond to what film mixers intended for them to hear. The Reference level is capped at a peak volume of 105db for the regular channels, and 115db for the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. The LFE channel enables additional bass effects, below about 120Hz, to be mixed into a 5.1 movie (or music) track. A system that is calibrated to Reference will, if it has the capability to do so, play those 105db and 115db peaks when the master volume control is set at 0.0. 

As stated, Dolby/THX Reference is a guideline that provides a degree of standardization for the way that movies are recorded and for the way that commercial cinemas and home theaters are calibrated. But, all the Reference standard really does is to establish maximum volume levels for the regular channels (105db) and for the LFE channel (115db). There is no specific uniformity with respect to the average volume level of movies, and there is no specific uniformity with respect to how frequent, or how sustained, crescendos of up to 105/115db will be in a particular movie. 

Some movies may be much louder than other movies, both in terms of the average volume level of the film, and in terms of whether the film actually hits crescendos at the upper limits of the Reference standard. Some movies may never hit the upper limits of the standards, and some movies may hit those upper limits again and again. That is entirely at the discretion of the director and the film mixer. That is easy to understand if we compare blockbusters to light romantic comedies. But, even among different blockbusters, or among action films in general, there may be volume differences.

Once an audio system has been calibrated to Reference, how much or how little of the total SPL capability of an audio system is actually employed, is entirely a matter of personal preference. Some people prefer to listen at much louder levels than others do. It is important to understand that Audyssey will set all of the channels in a system to play at equal volumes at the MLP. And, when the master volume is at 0.0, the audio system will be playing Reference volumes, if it is capable of reaching those sound pressure levels. But, it is up to the individual user to decide how loudly he wants his audio system to play, via the master volume control. 

That same principle also applies to our subwoofers. Sometimes, people will add a second subwoofer to a system and then question why the bass doesn't sound any louder after the system is recalibrated with the second subwoofer included. Having multiple subwoofers increases our potential bass headroom, so that we can hit higher bass SPL's. But as noted earlier, the combined SPL of our subs will always still be calibrated to 75db, so that the combined volume of the subwoofers will be equal to the volume levels of the other channels in our system. In order to actually use any additional bass headroom we may have available, we either have to play our audio system at higher listening levels than we were before, or we have to increase the volume level of our subwoofer(s). Or, we can do both.

At one time, test tones were employed at the "nominal" average Reference volume of 85db. (I use the term nominal average volume, since there really isn't an average volume level for movies.) The 85db number was selected when the Dolby/THX Reference standards were developed, to represent a hypothetical average with 20db of headroom for the regular channels, and 30db for the LFE channel. That same 85db number was chosen as a uniform calibration number. And audio systems were calibrated to Reference at 0.0 master volume with 85db test tones.

However, the original 85db test tones which were used were uncomfortably loud for most people, so most systems of automated or manual calibration, including Audyssey, converted to a less uncomfortable test tone of 75db. And, all channels are calibrated equally to that 75db level. Our AVR's then do an internal recalculation to add 10db to the regular channels, and 20db to the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. And, once that internal recalculation takes place, the audio system is now calibrated to Reference (105db max for the regular channels, and 115db max for the LFE channel) at a master volume of 0.0.

Once an audio system has been calibrated to Reference, whether that particular audio system will subsequently be able to play 105db peaks in the regular channels and 115db peaks in the LFE channel is entirely a function of the capabilities of the individual audio system in that particular room. And, as mentioned earlier, whether an individual user will ever decide to play his audio system at Reference levels, even if the system is capable of doing it, is entirely an individual choice. In fact, most people don't ever play their audio systems that loud.

As stated earlier, for the listener, it is important to have all of the speaker channels playing at the same volume at the MLP, so that sounds from all of the speakers will be in proper balance. But, as a practical matter, starting with all of the channels (including the .1 subwoofer channel) playing at the same volume is probably also the only way to set the audio system to Audyssey Flat. The intent of the Flat response curve is to have every frequency from down to as low as 10Hz, and as high as about 22KHz, play +/- 3db. Audyssey accomplishes this by setting control points which add boosts to some frequencies, and cuts to other frequencies, within every channel in an audio system.

Speakers and subwoofers are typically designed to play a reasonably flat frequency response, so that some frequencies don't stand out in comparison to others. But, once those speakers, and especially subwoofers are placed in a room, the room itself will affect the frequency response, causing peaks at some frequencies and dips at others. Proper speaker and subwoofer placement within a room will help, but bass frequencies in particular often need help from some form of room EQ to even-out the frequency response.

Audyssey attempts to provide that help by setting control points within every channel. When an audio system has been EQed to a relatively flat frequency response, the room is at least partly taken out of the equation, allowing the speakers and subwoofers to play a naturally flatter frequency response. This is generally believed to be particularly helpful for bass frequencies (from about 500Hz down), and may also be helpful for higher frequencies, depending on the particular room and listener preferences.

The Audyssey Reference curve changes Flat by creating a slightly downward curve to the high-frequency response. The Reference curve slightly rolls-off the treble frequencies above 4000Hz (by about -2db) and it adds more roll-off (about -6db total) above 10KHz. It also adds mid-range compensation (a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz). Many people prefer those high-frequency roll-offs, and it is strictly a YMMV issue as to which of the two Audyssey settings we use. But, to create either the Flat curve, or the Reference curve, Audyssey needs to start with all channels and frequencies playing at the same volume at the MLP. 

[Again, it should be noted that a similar methodology, of setting all channels to the same volume, is used by other systems of automated or manual calibration, whether any room EQ is being attempted or not.] 

Occasionally, someone may say that he prefers to hear the "natural" sound of his speakers, or subwoofers, without any room correction at all. As far as I am concerned that is an entirely personal decision. There isn't any right or wrong way to listen to audio, in my opinion. But, I have never really believed that Audyssey significantly changes the "natural" sound of speakers. Horn speakers still sound like horn speakers, and electrostatic panels still have their own characteristic sound. What Audyssey may do, however, is to change the way that speakers and subwoofers interact with a room. And, whether that change is positive or negative is up to the individual to determine.

What any system of room correction attempts to do is to change the interaction of the speakers with the room, in order to allow the speakers (and subwoofers) to play with less distortion caused by room-induced peaks and dips in the frequency response. As noted below, those peaks and dips are especially prevalent in bass frequencies. Whether Audyssey or any other system of automated room EQ is successful in creating a smoother frequency response, and whether attempting to do that results in improved sound quality, is strictly up to the individual user to determine. And, that may depend on variables which include the specific room, the speakers/subwoofers, and the personal preferences of the particular individual.

But, in order to fully experience Audyssey, I would encourage users to take pains in system setup and in their Audyssey calibrations. Differences in setup can yield different results, as can differences in microphone placement. Some calibrations may sound and/or measure better than others, and once a good calibration routine is developed, it's a good idea to keep a record of the mic placements that produced the most positive results. I would also encourage users to experiment thoroughly with various settings, such as the Audyssey Reference curve versus Audyssey Flat; with DEQ on and off; and of course with bass boosts. Individual setting changes, such as those, can sometimes significantly change the nature of the sound.


*Part II: Why We Add Bass After Calibrations* 

The room strongly influences bass response, due to the action of room modes, causing peaks and dips at various frequencies. That is why Audyssey can be so helpful in EQing subwoofers. Audyssey can implement boosts up to 9db and cuts up to 20db, in all of the channels including the .1 subwoofer channel, in order to achieve a flatter frequency response. When Audyssey is successful at flattening out most of those dips and peaks (at least to some extent) the result is a smoother, clearer, and more uniform sound. That less distorted and less boomy sound, without some frequencies peaking at much louder SPL's than other frequencies, may give the impression that there is less overall bass playing. And, there may actually be less bass playing, in some cases, if a particularly noticeable frequency (say at 50 or 60Hz) were peaking quite loudly prior to EQ. Just hearing all of the bass frequencies in better equilibrium with each other may contribute to the initial impression that there is less bass.

But, there is more to it than that. Most people don't listen at Reference Volumes (0.0 MV) which is where the low frequency content in 5.1 movies was mixed to be in correct balance with other frequencies. Once the volume level of a movie is reduced below Reference, in a typical home theater, those low bass frequencies may be harder to hear, in relation to the frequencies where our hearing is stronger. That is because, as the volume level drops, it will appear to drop faster for frequencies outside our normal hearing range. And, that particularly includes low bass frequencies which carry much of the special audio effects in movies.

After the level-matching process from mic position 1 is complete, the low frequencies (which, as noted, are harder for us to hear) are playing at the same volume as all of the other frequencies. This phenomenon of lower frequencies being harder to hear than higher ones (except for very high frequencies) is well known. Our hearing is strongest from about 500Hz to about 5000Hz. So, frequencies played by our subwoofers may require more volume than the frequencies played by our regular channels. Some additional explanation of this is included in the section on DEQ, and in the Addendum on the thread history. A more complete discussion of the Equal Loudness Contours has also been included in the last section of the Guide.

[For the sake of this discussion of bass boosts, it should be noted that the Equal Loudness Contours, which are a slight modification of the original Fletcher Munson Curves, are based on averages in normal, healthy human hearing. It may be assumed that, as with other human attributes, hearing generally follows the shape of a bell curve, with some individuals hearing bass frequencies somewhat better and others hearing those same frequencies somewhat worse than the average. And, our hearing may (will) change somewhat as we age. Therefore, a given individual may be able to hear lower frequencies relatively better, or relatively worse than would be predicted by reference to the Equal Loudness Contours. Consequently, the final bass levels that we pick may be partly a function of our individual hearing capabilities, and also partly a function of our specific psycho-acoustic preferences.]

Although a lot of the discussion so far has focused on movies and on Reference levels, our desire for stronger bass may not be limited to 5.1 movies or TV shows at below Reference levels. Even if we are watching a 5.1 movie at Reference levels, some of us might still prefer to have more bass than what Audyssey provides with a flat bass frequency response. DEQ won't add any bass at all at a listening level of 0.0. The decision of how much bass we want to hear (at any listening level) is an entirely personal one, which may depend on a number of factors.

We may also prefer to apply bass boosts to music. And, we may wish to add sub boosts for some of the same reasons that we would add them for movies. Even in the absence of special effects in movies, we may not hear low frequencies in music as well as we hear those in our optimal hearing range, or we might just prefer more bass, period. That would be especially true at lower listening levels. And, some music and some TV shows may have less low bass in the soundtrack to begin with. For instance, some older music may have very little content below 60 or 80Hz, due to the nature of the recording process, and we might be used to hearing more low bass than that. So, some people might wish to boost the subs just to hear what sounds like a more appropriate amount of bass.

*** I think it is important to emphasize that the degree of sub boost selected for any program content is entirely a matter of personal preference, as is the overall listening level. And, individual preferences may change, as we go from one source to another, from one song or movie to another, or depending on our moods, from one day to another.

Audyssey's DynamicEQ (commonly abbreviated as DEQ) is a separate software program which boosts the low frequencies in all of the channels, including the .1 subwoofer channel. It also slightly boosts the high frequencies in the regular channels. It is engaged by default whenever an Audyssey calibration is run. The boosts that DEQ adds are intended to, at least partly, compensate for the inherent difficulty in hearing lower frequencies (and to a lesser extent, high frequencies) at below Reference volume levels.

How much boost DEQ adds varies depending on the MV selected, with more boost added as listening levels reduced below Reference (0.0 MV) at a rate of about +2.2db per 5db below Reference. So, at -15 MV, for instance, DEQ would add a little over 6db (6.6db) of bass boost to all of the channels, including the sub channel.

Whether DEQ fully restores bass equilibrium to movie soundtracks is an interesting question. Most people seem to prefer more bass boost than DEQ provides, and typically add an independent sub boost, even with DEQ on. With DEQ engaged, the typical sub boost appears to average about +3db to +6db. With DEQ off, sub boosts are typically much larger. Additional information, regarding DEQ, may be found in a later section. But, with or without DEQ, the question of how and where to add a sub boost is important for most people. 


*Part III: Where And How To Add Bass* 

Most modern commercial subwoofers have a gain (sometimes labeled "volume") control. That gain control determines how much voltage will go from the sub amp to the driver (woofer). During the Audyssey calibration, the initial setting of that gain control will determine where Audyssey sets the trim level for the sub(s). So, if the initial gain control is high, Audyssey will set a low trim setting in the AVR (such as -9) in order to insure that the sub is playing 75db at the MLP, just as all the other channels are. If the gain control setting is low, Audyssey will set a high trim level in the AVR (such as -3.0, or 0.0, or even +3.0) to insure that the .1 subwoofer channel is playing at that same 75db level. A simple way to think of what happens during the initial calibration is: high gain level = lower trim level; low gain level = higher trim level. 

So, that explains the relationship between the gain control and the AVR trim level during the initial calibration. But, what about after the calibration? If we want to add a subwoofer boost after Audyssey has set all of our channels to play at exactly the same volume level, how should we do it? should we use the gain control, or should we use the AVR trim control? We can actually use either one, but the decision of which one to use in a particular situation is just a little complicated.

The first thing to understand is that it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. This is an extremely important point. After running Audyssey, simply making any adjustments in sub boost using the gain control on the sub(s) would insure that the sub amp is being used. So, that would be a perfectly good way to add sub boost.

But, most people find it more convenient to make adjustments using the AVR trim controls, with a remote control. And, in that case, it is desirable to start with a high sub gain level, and a low AVR trim level. Remember that a high gain level = a low AVR trim level. So, we would need to take certain steps during the calibration process if we wanted to have a low AVR trim level--let's say in about the -10 range. And then, we could adjust the trim level upward after the calibration. Using the trim settings in the AVR to make sub volume adjustments, after running Audyssey, allows the user to make convenient and fairly exact (.5db increments) adjustments to subwoofer volume, by using the AVR remote.

Typically, in order to achieve a low AVR trim level, though, it will be necessary to start with a measured sub SPL of higher than 75db. An SPL level of about 78db to 80db may be required. That would be in the red zone for Denon/Marantz units during the subwoofer level-matching process. Audyssey is specifically trying to set the sub(s) SPL to 75db. That is in the green zone on Denon/Marantz. However, to get a strongly negative trim level, a higher than 75db level will be required, and that will be in the red zone. The specific SPL used is not as important as the resulting low AVR trim level.

[It should be emphasized that there is no particular reason not to just use the gain control on a sub to add volume post-calibration. For people wanting to add really substantial bass boosts--up to, or in excess of 10db or 12db, some gain increase, in excess of the original gain setting, is generally necessary anyway, in order to achieve the bass boost desired by the user.]

The usual recommendation to employ the AVR trim is more a matter of convenience and accuracy than one of necessity. Some subs don't have digital gain controls, for instance, so fine tuning the gain can be more difficult, as can on-the-fly adjustments during a particular movie, or music listening session. And, it gets even less convenient when multiple subs are connected together, or when gain controls are difficult to access easily. Using the trim controls in an AVR allows for very convenient and precise adjustments in sub volume. But, the most important thing is to make sure that the real boost comes from the subwoofer amp, and not just from the AVR, whichever adjustment method is ultimately employed.

Assuming that some initial sub boosts are to be accomplished using AVR trim, then starting with a low trim level post-calibration would be helpful. A low trim level might be defined as -9 to -11, but not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units. (With other manufacturers, just determine what the minimum trim level settings are in order to ascertain what your optimum low trim setting should be.) As stated earlier, it may take an SPL of 78db, or higher, to achieve that optimum low trim level. However, it is important not to go lower than -11.5 in trim, in Denon/Marantz units. (For instance, I believe that the maximum lower limit we should use is -14.5 with Onkyo.)

As noted by Alan in an earlier post, if a trim level of -12 is set, there is no knowing what the actual volume of the sub is. The AVR simply ran out of negative trim at -12. The actual sub volume might be 80db, or even 85db. If so, you might not like the way it sounds to have your sub so much louder than the rest of your system. And, you would not have an easy way to turn down the subwoofer volume, if your trim level were already at the lowest setting. You also could never be sure what your actual sub volume is, and as a result, you could find yourself running out of headroom sooner than expected. So, for instance, you want a negative trim setting not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units. 

Think of the process of adding a sub boost this way. When you raise the gain level in the sub, so that the sub produces more than 75db at the MLP, you are making a deposit in the bank, of amplifier power from the sub. So, for instance, let's say you start with a trim level in the AVR of about -9 to -11. Now, you can withdraw amp power from the bank, using your AVR trim control. You would, for instance, do that by increasing your trim setting to -6 or -5. As noted earlier, a +3 to +6db boost would be pretty typical, even with DEQ engaged. But, there is no free lunch. As you begin to approach 0.0, the bank deposit of amp power that you made with the higher gain setting is used up, and now you are using AVR amp power, which as noted, is not as powerful. Using AVR amp power can, in some instances, result in clipping (distorting) your subwoofer(s) or it can, in some cases, result in undesirable mechanical noises.


*Part IV: Master Volume Levels And Sub Boosts*

There is a relationship between subwoofer volume and master volume (MV). As your MV increases, the subwoofer volume goes up correspondingly, and more demands are placed on the sub. It is important to remember that the subwoofer is not only playing the LFE channel, but also providing bass support for all of the other channels in a typical HT system. So, as the MV increases, the demands on the sub go up much faster than for the other channels, particularly in a movie with a lot of low frequency content. It is worth noting that 5.1 movies (and some bass-enhanced music) can have very low frequency content in all of the channels, and not just in the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. The subwoofer has to (and should) play all of that low frequency content.

It is recommended by a number of subwoofer experts, two of whom are quoted in the FAQ, that it is advisable to keep sub trims negative (below 0.0). That is particularly important as MV's approach, or exceed, -10. In Denon/Marantz units, that is 10db below Reference (or 70 on the absolute scale) in your AVR master volume. Both of those experts quoted in the FAQ, Ed Mullen of SVS, and Mark Seaton have, subsequent to the entries in the FAQ, recommended staying well in negative trim levels, period. To follow their advice, and to avoid the possibility of distortion, we would want to keep our trim levels in about the -5 range when we can, at even more moderate listening levels. Again, that is easy to do by simply raising the gain on the subwoofer(s).

David makes the point, in a post below this one, that high sub gain levels, which still result in high trim levels, are indicative of a sub which is under-powered for the space, and/or the distance from the MLP. It could also be indicative of a specific placement problem, where either the sub or the MLP is located in a null. In the first instance, the only remedy would be a more powerful sub, or multiple subs, or a different (probably closer) sub placement. In the situation where the sub or the MLP were located in a null, a subwoofer crawl should be done to determine proper sub placement. Although sub placement is not a part of this discussion, it is a very important factor in sub performance.

If you never intend to approach -10 MV, then the advice to set your sub gain high enough to obtain a strongly negative trim level will be less important. And, if you don't believe that you will ever want to boost your subs, then starting with a trim level of about -5 or -6, would be perfectly fine. But, most people on this and other threads seem to average at least a +3 to +6db bass boost after calibration, and some people add much more than that. When DEQ (with its own bass boost) is not employed, boosts of 12db, or even more, are not uncommon. So, the advice you will most commonly see on this thread is to start with a negative trim setting of about -9 to -11 post-calibration, in order to maximize your ability to add sub boost, with your AVR trim control, while still using the sub gain you deposited in the bank.

Although this advice is not entirely consistent with the explanations and recommendations in the FAQ, I believe that in this particular instance, the current advice on the thread supersedes the advice in the FAQ. I would personally recommend following the advice to maintain a negative sub trim, preferably of at least -3 (and -5 would probably be better) as a matter of best practice, even if you believe that you will never approach -10 MV. 

There is no telling who might, inadvertently or otherwise, run the volume control up on your system, or when unexpected peaks in very low bass (in electronically-enhanced music, or in movies) might cause some distortion to occur. And, if your sub happens to be approaching its max output limits, even at lower master volumes, the lower trim level would provide an additional measure of confidence that you weren't clipping the subwoofer signal.

While it is unlikely that most good modern subs would be damaged by a bit of distortion, or by an inappropriate use of AVR amp power, I know of two well-documented instances of a JTR Orbit Shifter, which is an extremely powerful and well-made sub, frying a voice coil (due to overheating) just from playing electronic music, downloaded from YouTube, at a very high volume, with a high AVR trim level. (Both instances involved the same user, who didn't quite remember the lesson from the first instance.)

And, even if no damage could ever be done as a result of clipping the sub signal, listening to distorted bass is sort of antithetical to the whole idea of good sound quality, and of using automated room EQ to achieve it. When proper gain/trim protocols are followed, it is also less likely that inappropriate noises, such as port chuffing, or of drivers hitting limiters, could occur prematurely. So, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in this case.

Again, you can use a combination of increased subwoofer gain, and some increase in AVR trim, to raise the volume level on your sub to any level you choose, while still maintaining an AVR trim of -3, or less. (Since originally writing this guide, I have seen even more recommendations from subwoofer makers to be at -5 or less in the AVR trim.) That will allow you to achieve any sub volume your sub is capable of producing, while avoiding the possibility of clipping the subwoofer signal. And, raising the gain control on the sub(s) post calibration, will have no effect at all on the way that Audyssey EQed your system.


*Part V: Gain Settings And Maximum Sub Output

*There is another aspect to the gain/trim issue that is worth mentioning. Depending on how the DSP in a given subwoofer is implemented, the subwoofer may only be able to achieve max output levels with the gain control set very high. Some subwoofers are only able to achieve maximum output levels when the gain control is set to, or very near, the highest setting. So setting a lower gain control, and a correspondingly higher AVR trim control, might not result in the same amount of bass SPL, irrespective of issues of clipping. Apparently, this issue is more common in subwoofers with digital (rather than analogue) controls. But, according to some examples I have observed from various threads, the issue may not be limited to subwoofers with digital controls.

CEA 2010 testing, performed by Data-Bass, always measures max output with gain controls at the maximum setting. In some cases, subwoofers may not be able to produce those same max SPL's with lower gain settings. This won't be true for all subwoofers, but as a matter of best practice, it may also be generally advisable to keep gain settings fairly high and AVR trim settings fairly low in order to maximize available headroom. The exception to this would be a situation where a lower trim setting didn't successfully power a subwoofer on, when it was set to Auto On mode. But, that would be extremely unusual with Denon/Marantz, or Onkyo, receivers and processors.

[People with Yamaha AVR's are apparently much more likely to experience issues with subwoofers not turning on automatically unless AVR sub trim levels are very high. That is due to the lower voltage signal sent from some Yamaha AVR's to the subwoofer. Newer high-end Yamaha AVR's are reported to have addressed the problem. If subwoofers will not turn on automatically in Auto mode, without high AVR trim levels, then the high trim levels should not generally lead to clipping issues, since the voltage from the AVR was lower to start with. Some Yamaha owners use a Y-connector into both subwoofer inputs in order to double the voltage going to the sub. And, that resolves the issue in some cases. Of course, Yamaha owners can also choose to just leave their subs on all the time, if the Auto On issue proves to be a real problem. That will consume slightly more energy, but will not affect the operation or longevity of the subwoofer.]




** Setting Crossovers:


*[Note: The general discussion of bass management which follows, and the basic principles of setting crossovers, also applies to other systems of automated calibration and not just to Audyssey.]

Although there are already very good sections on crossovers in the FAQ, the same questions come up so many times that I think it is worth repeating some of the basic concepts in this subwoofer guide as well. We use crossovers between our speakers and our subwoofer(s) in order to bass-manage our audio systems. In audio systems where there is no subwoofer, there will be no bass management required. But, where we have subwoofers in our audio systems, and wish to employ them, some system of bass management is necessary to split the signal between the speakers and the subwoofer. And, the frequency at which that signal split should occur may be different for different speakers in our audio system, depending on their low-bass capabilities and on their placement in the room.

It was noted earlier that distances (timing) and channel trim levels are determined by microphone position number 1. That is not the case with crossovers. Crossovers are set based on the fuzzy-weighted average of the frequency response from all six or eight microphone positions. As a general rule, crossovers in a full calibration will not vary much from where they would be set at mic position 1. But, they may vary slightly once Audyssey has calculated the FR at all available mic positions.

Audyssey (and other systems of automated calibration) accomplish bass management during the initial calibration. When Audyssey measures all of the speakers in an audio system, it reports the measured F3 point of each channel to the AVR or AVP. (The F3 point is the frequency where a speaker is reaching the bottom of its frequency response, and rolling-off in SPL by 3db.) Once Audyssey has completed its measurements of frequency response for each speaker, the AVR then sets that speaker, or speaker pair, to either Small or Large (also called Full Range), based on its own internal programming. If a speaker begins to roll-off in the mid to high 30's (or lower) the speaker will be set to Large. At any frequency above the high 30's, the speaker will be set to Small, and a crossover will be assigned. The weaker of two speakers in a pair will control the crossover, as Audyssey is specifically designed not to EQ below the F3 point of any speaker, or subwoofer.

As stated, if a speaker's F3 point is somewhere in the upper 30's, the AVR will round-up, and set that speaker's crossover to Small with a 40Hz crossover. Crossovers will always round upward, so an F3 point of about 44 or 45Hz would round-up to a 60Hz crossover, and an F3 point a little above 60Hz would round-up to an 80Hz crossover. The exact number used to round upward would probably vary somewhat among AVR makers, but the basic principle involved is applied in both Audyssey and non-Audyssey systems.

Sometimes people observe changes in crossover settings that seem to coincide with a change in the type or number of subwoofers. Crossovers may vary slightly from one calibration to the next, and certainly can change due to relatively small shifts in speaker positioning. As explained in the later section on room gain, boundary gain due to proximity to walls affects the low-frequency response that Audyssey is measuring. Small changes in microphone positioning between calibrations can also affect crossovers, as Audyssey is averaging the results of all of the mic positions performed in a calibration. But, Audyssey is only measuring each speaker in isolation, without reference to subwoofers. Any change that appears to coincide with a subwoofer change is coincidental.

The initial setting of Large, or Small with a 40Hz or 80Hz or higher crossover, does not constitute a recommendation, either by Audyssey or by the AVR. It is simply a modest initial setting designed to somewhat protect the speaker while providing information about that speaker (or speaker pair) to the user. The information the initial crossover setting provides tells the user something about where a particular speaker is actually rolling-off by 3db in that particular position in the room, and informs the user that no EQ is being performed below that approximate point defined by the crossover. It is then the user's responsibility to interpret that information, and to decide whether to leave the crossover at that initial setting, or to change it.

As an aside, the reason the Large, or Full Range setting is still necessary in modern audio systems is because not every system has a subwoofer, and not every user employs subwoofers for all listening material. For instance, some listeners may choose to listen to a music genre (which may have relatively little low-bass content) with his speakers set to Large, and without any subwoofers engaged. But, in order to employ a subwoofer at all, it is first necessary to set speakers to Small with a crossover.

[Some AVR's also have a feature which allows a Large setting with subs employed. The setting is called LFE+Main, or Double Bass, and is explained in the FAQ. That setting may increase the apparent quantity of bass, but may also introduce considerable distortion in the process. It is not generally recommended from an audio quality standpoint.]

It should be noted that owners are often surprised by the crossovers set by their AVR's. Sometimes, they are surprised that the crossovers are set so high, and sometimes, they are surprised that the crossovers are set so low, because in either case the crossovers don't align with their expectations. Two major factors contribute to that surprise. First, speaker makers frequently inflate the low frequency specifications of their speakers. Second, room placement plays just as important a role in the low frequency performance of our speakers as it does for our subs. The optimum location for a particular speaker (or speaker pair) may give it extra low frequency response, due to boundary gain or due to favorable room modes at particular frequencies, or it may rob it of some low frequency performance. Audyssey will simply measure what it detects, and report that to the AVR, which will set the crossovers in accordance with its own algorithm. 

As a general rule, crossovers can always be set higher than where they are set automatically by the Audyssey calibration. This is a user preference issue, and may depend on what sounds (or measures) best to a particular individual. It is not a good idea to set crossovers lower than where they were set automatically during calibration, because those speakers will not be receiving any benefit from room EQ, somewhere a little below the original crossover point. And, running speakers with crossovers below the original calibration setting, may consume valuable amplifier power, while the more powerful subwoofers are being correspondingly under-utilized. Also as a general rule, crossovers of at least 80Hz are recommended, as subs will nearly always do a better job of reproducing the mid-bass frequencies up to 80Hz or so. 80Hz is also used as a standard frequency where most people will not be able to localize a subwoofer.

Sometimes, HT owners may be a little reluctant to set crossovers of 80Hz, or higher, due to concern that they won't be using the full capabilities of their tower, or large bookshelf, speakers. But, in considering that, it is important to understand how the crossovers in our AVR's actually work. Crossovers are not like brick walls, where the speaker suddenly stops playing everything below 80Hz, and the subwoofer suddenly starts. We would hear that kind of abrupt transition from speaker(s) to subwoofer(s).

Instead, when we set a crossover, the AVR implements a high pass filter (HPF) for the speaker(s) and a low pass filter (LPF) for the subwoofer(s). The high pass filter is designed to pass all of the frequencies above that point, while the low pass filter passes all of the frequencies below that point. But, both filters have a slope which gradually reduces the volume of the speaker or subwoofer to insure a smooth transition at the crossover point.

The HPF for the speaker(s) is typically a 2nd order filter with a slope of 12db per octave. The LPF for the sub(s) is typically a 4th order filter with a slope of 24db per octave. Putting that into practical terms, that means that with with an 80Hz crossover, a speaker would still be playing 70Hz content, but -3db softer than it plays 80Hz content. It would play 60Hz -6db, 50Hz content -9db, and 40Hz content -12db. The frequencies between 40Hz and 80Hz would constitute one octave (40Hz times 2).

[Note: an octave is a series of 8 notes, between any two notes, where the frequency of one is twice that of the other. So, from 40Hz to 80Hz would be an octave. From 80Hz to 160Hz would be one octave.]

Looking at that same 80Hz crossover from the standpoint of the subwoofer, the sub would still play 100Hz, but at -6db compared to 80Hz. At 120Hz, the sub would play -12db, at 140Hz, it would play -18db, and at 160Hz, it would play -24db. The subwoofer's octave would consist of the frequencies between 80Hz and 160Hz (80Hz times 2). Those crossover filters, set by the AVR, allow the speaker to gradually give way to the subwoofer, while allowing both subwoofer and speaker to play a little above/below the crossover point. 

The crossovers within our speakers are similarly designed to create gradual transitions from woofer to mid-range, and from mid-range to tweeter (in a three-way speaker), although the precise amount of attenuation employed in the filters may vary among different speaker designs. When employed properly, crossovers enable us to listen to our audio content with no audible transitions at all from driver-to-driver within a speaker, or from speaker-to-subwoofer within an audio system.

As far as setting crossovers within our audio systems is concerned, there may be circumstances in which a crossover even lower than 80Hz is desirable, where measurements, or our own perceptions of sound quality, guide us. A situation where our speakers were set to Large, during the calibration, might lend itself to setting a crossover lower than 80Hz. For instance, in some cases, it is possible that a 60Hz crossover might provide an apparently smoother transition, or some other audible advantage, than the standard 80Hz crossover. But, concern that we are wasting the capabilities of our speakers should not be a strong factor in our decision regarding what crossovers to use, as the speakers will always be playing content somewhat below the crossovers we select. 

It is also helpful to remember that our speakers have to play a very large frequency range, and that relieving them of some low-frequency burden (which requires a disproportionate amount of the amplifier power assigned to that channel) may help them to play their entire frequency range more effectively, while our subwoofers have just that one specialized job to perform--playing low frequencies. And, as noted earlier, they typically do that single specialized job much better than even very large tower speakers. Particularly where bass-heavy movies or bass-enhanced music are concerned, crossovers of about 80Hz or higher are usually likely to improve our sound quality.


*** Low Frequency Effects Channel: There is one other setting, associated with our subwoofers, which it is important to mention in the context of this discussion. It is not a crossover, but it does control the content we hear in the LFE channel. The LFE (low frequency effects) channel is a separate bass channel, played only by subwoofers, as long as there are any subwoofers configured in an audio system. The LFE channel is intended to give audio mixers an opportunity to add more bass SPL to audio tracks. As explained in several sections of the Guide, we don't hear bass frequencies as well as we do other frequencies in our normal hearing range. The LFE channel has a max SPL of 115db for peaks, compared to 105db for the regular channels. That provides an additional 10db of bass SPL for audio mixers to be able to add to their 5.1 tracks.

The LFE channel, which exists only in 5.1 (or higher) movies and music, has it's own setting in our AVR's, called the LPF of LFE. The default setting of that low pass filter is 120Hz. And, that is the customary setting to fully utilize the content of the LFE channel, which by design is only supposed to go up to 120Hz. However, for reasons explained in detail in the FAQ, linked just below, some people prefer to use a lower LPF setting. This, as with so many of the settings in our audio systems, is strictly a YMMV issue.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#c5




** Audyssey EQ and Multiple Subwoofers:

* 
*First:* There are many advantages to having multiple subwoofers, and many HT owners do have more than one sub. The process for setting trim levels for multiple subs depends on the version of Audyssey being used. For all versions except XT-32, with SubEQ, there will only be one sub out on the AVR. People with multiple subs will typically Y-connect two or more subs into that single sub out. (In some cases, they may also daisy chain the subs.) With only one sub out, it is desirable, to run mic position 1 for each sub independently, letting Audyssey calculate distance and setting gain/trim levels, as described in the section above. 

[Note: Although distances and trim levels are always set based on microphone position 1, some more recent AVR's require three mic positions before a calibration can be performed to check trim levels or distance settings.]

However dual subs are connected into the single sub out, once the subs are level-matched, the normal process can be followed to balance the two gain levels symmetrically, increasing or decreasing the gain levels by the same amount, to achieve a good negative trim level. And, distances from multiple subs can be considered, and if necessary, entered manually to more closely correspond to the timing that Audyssey observed when the subs were measured separately. 

XT-32, with SubEQ offers users the advantage of having two sub outs, so a pair of subs can be level-matched, and have distances set, automatically. If three or more subs are used with XT-32, and two sub outs, the same process could be followed, measuring each sub independently before pairing it, using a Y-connector, and then measuring the combined pair as Sub Out 1 versus Sub Out 2. If you have tactile transducers in your system, they should be disabled or disconnected before running Audyssey. They can be reconnected or turned back on after the Audyssey calibration, without affecting the room correction that Audyssey has applied, as long as they are not on a separate sub out by themselves. (Audyssey calibrations are invalidated, whenever Audyssey detects a new speaker or subwoofer added to an audio system. But, it can't detect what is added via a Y-connector.)


*** Y-connectors: People frequently ask about how to use Y-connectors with their subwoofers. RCA Y-connectors can be used for two different purposes. One purpose would be to connect two subwoofers into a single subwoofer output in the AVR. In that case, a Y-connector with two male ends and one female end would be required. The female end would plug into a subwoofer output in the back of the AVR, and the regular subwoofer cables would plug into the two male ends. This is an example of that type of Y-connector: 

https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics...words=y-connector+audio+signal+splitter+cable

A second and different purpose for a Y-connector would be to help a subwoofer power-on more easily from Auto mode, as noted in an earlier section. In this application, a Y-connector with two female ends would plug into dual subwoofer inputs on the subwoofer, and the single male end would plug into a subwoofer output on the back of the AVR. That would double the voltage going to the subwoofer amplifier, which would help it to turn on more easily, but it would not increase the overall output of the subwoofer. This is an example of that type of Y-connector: 

https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics...=y-connector+audio+signal+splitter+cable&th=1


***Subwoofer Collocation Versus Mutual Coupling: Two identical subwoofers are collocated whenever they are both placed inside a room. And, two identical subwoofers which are optimally situated in a room should average 6db more SPL than a single subwoofer would, when measured with broadband pink noise. That is considered a doubling in max output. However, they probably will not show a symmetrical increase of 6db at every frequency. As explained in the later section on room gain, interaction with the room will cause peaks (reinforcement) and dips (cancellation) at various frequencies throughout the subwoofers' passband. (Thanks should be given to Bear123 for some information which inspired this brief section.)

Depending on which frequencies are peaking and which frequencies are dipping, there may not always be an apparent increase in loudness of 6db from well-positioned dual subwoofers. That could also vary, depending on the material we are listening to, and which frequencies that material is emphasizing. But, if we were to average the peaks and dips, or to measure the total SPL with broadband pink noise, there should be a net increase of 6db from properly positioned and set-up subwoofers which were identical (or very close to identical) to start with. As noted below, room EQ can help to make dual subwoofers both measure and sound more uniform in their frequency response.

Subwoofers are mutually-coupled when they are placed side-by-side or stacked. When they are placed in such close proximity to each other, they act as one larger subwoofer, and the room is no longer able to influence their interaction. When that happens, the second subwoofer adds 6db to the output of the first one at every frequency. That may be a very desirable situation where the frequency response of a single subwoofer is already very good. Unfortunately, however, if there is audible cancellation occurring at particular frequencies, mutually-coupled subwoofers will not help to improve that. The subwoofers typically need to be spread well apart (often on different walls) in order to smooth-out peaks and to pull-up dips in the frequency response. 

As noted in other sections, too-loud peaks in some portion of the FR can be even more noticeable than cancellation. Those random peaks are what makes bass sound boomy--what is sometimes described as one-note bass. And, cancellation can rob our systems of audible bass at random frequencies. Neither large peaks, nor dips, in the frequency response are desirable for good audio. Therefore, subwoofer placement and proper set-up are very important with respect to both improved frequency response, and with respect to achieving the full benefits of an expected doubling in max output.


** *Increasing the Volume of Dual subwoofers: A question that comes up periodically involves how increasing the volume on dual subwoofers affects the total bass SPL. Remember that AVR's sum the SPL of dual (or more) subwoofers, regardless of how the subwoofers are connected. When the initial calibration is performed, it is the combined SPL of the subwoofers that is set to 75db. That same principle of summed SPL continues when trim levels or gain levels are increased (or decreased). For example, if someone with dual sub outs symmetrically increases the trim levels of both subs by 5db apiece, the total increase in subwoofer SPL will be 5db, not 10db. The same thing would happen with a symmetrical gain increase. So, symmetrically increasing two or more subs by 'X' decibels, using either the AVR trim controls, or the individual subwoofer gain controls, will result in a total increase of that same 'X' decibels.

Asymmetrical increases would affect the original level-matching that Audyssey performed, but the result would be the same in terms of SPL increases. For example, if the trim level of Sub 1 were increased by 4db and the trim level of Sub 2 were increased by 6db, the net increase would be 5db (10db divided by 2) since the subs are internally summed in the AVR. For obvious reasons, it is not advisable to make asymmetrical increases or decreases in sub level without some specific objective in mind, as the subwoofers would then be playing at different volumes. That would unbalance the work being performed by the two subwoofers (assuming that the gain levels were fairly even) and might make it easier to localize sounds and tactile sensations from one of the subwoofers.

It is important to note that this doesn't mean that all of the headroom of multiple subwoofers can't be employed in an audio system. The total subwoofer headroom will still be whatever it is. It just means that if a particular user wants a net increase in subwoofer SPL of 10db, as in the example above, then all of the subwoofer levels need to be symmetrically increased by that same 10db.

It is easy to apply symmetrical increases using dual AVR trim controls. But, with large SPL increases, the subwoofer gain controls may also be necessary in order to keep AVR trim levels at about -5. In the absence of digital gain controls, however, it can sometimes be difficult to keep track of exactly how much gain increase is being applied. It is always a good idea to increase analogue gain controls by the same number of clicks. Many users make note of the original starting point, and some may mark that point on the gain dial with tape or a marker, so that they can keep track of how much post-calibration gain they have added.


*Second:* Beyond the volume, distance, and crossover setting functions performed during calibration, Audyssey is a system of automated EQ, whose purpose is to achieve improved speaker/room interaction for the entire frequency range. Most people realize that the room strongly affects the way our speakers and subs sound, once we move several feet away from them. Audyssey's test tones have a range of 10Hz to about 22,000Hz, and Audyssey EQ's that entire frequency range, depending on the capabilities of the individual audio system.

So, when the 75db test tones are played through each channel, Audyssey is measuring the frequency response at multiple locations, and using a system of fuzzy-logic weighting to set filters (technically, control points) for each channel at various frequencies. The goal is to make each channel play 75db +/- about 3db, at every frequency (or cluster of frequencies), and that includes the subs. Audyssey sets filters for each channel independently, with the number and distribution of the filters dependent on the specific version of Audyssey. But, in all versions of Audyssey, and in all other systems of automated EQ with which I am familiar, the sub channel (the .1 channel) is a single channel. 

This is an important point! Regardless of the number of subwoofers in a system, Audyssey will create a single set of filters for all of the subs. Even with XT-32, once the level-matching is completed, Audyssey will only play separate test tones once, through Sub 1, and Sub 2, and this is for the purpose of setting trim levels and distances separately, so that the sounds of both subs will arrive at the MLP at the same time, and at the same volume. But, for the remaining 7 mic positions, the same test tone is simultaneously played through all of the subs in the system together, however they are physically connected. This is because Audyssey is only setting filters for the combined sound of all of the subs in concert, and not for the individual subs. Again, using the example of a 5.1 system, all five speakers constitute a separate channel, and all five speakers get all 6, or 8 test tones, depending on the version of Audyssey. And, each of the five speakers gets its own filters. But, with the .1 channel, all subs are pinged and EQed together, and there is only one set of filters for all of them.

Audyssey users are encouraged to level-match all of the subs in their audio systems, prior to running a full Audyssey calibration. And, after Audyssey has set EQ filters, it is generally advisable to add or subtract to sub levels in a symmetrical fashion, by increasing or decreasing sub levels by the same amount. Some users are naturally interested in insuring that their subs are performing equal work, by attempting to have their subs both gain-matched and level-matched at all times. However, this is not always going to be the case after an Audyssey calibration, due to the inherently different influences that different room positions may have on the performance of the subs, as measured by the Audyssey microphone during the calibration process.

It is important to level-match the SPL of the subs in a system prior to running the full suite of test tones in order to present Audyssey with a level playing field. As noted earlier, that level-matching process is typically performed at microphone position 1--the MLP. Once the subs are level-matched to produce equal SPL at the MLP, the full six or eight point calibration is performed, and control points are assigned to the combined output of the subs. But, only one set of filters is assigned for the combined frequency response of all of the subs in the .1 channel. Once Audyssey sets those control points, changing the SPL of the subs asymmetrically, by raising the level of one sub and not another, or by adjusting sub levels in opposite directions may be counterproductive. That is because the playing field will no longer be level, as it was when Audyssey set its control points, and that may result in an adverse change to the frequency response.

Whether the change in frequency response will be measurable, or audible, will probably depend on the extent of the difference in sub levels from what Audyssey originally started with. For instance, raising one sub by a decibel while lowering the other one by a decibel, in order to make the perceived output of the two subs match better, may result in an imperceptible difference in the overall frequency response. But, it is generally inadvisable to make asymmetrical changes in sub levels without a very good reason to do so, and without the ability to measure the effects of such a change. Negating the positive effects of room EQ is obviously counterproductive to our intent in running the automated EQ to begin with.

In addition to level-matching subs prior to running an Audyssey calibration, regardless of the version of Audyssey employed, it is also highly advisable to match similar subs in the system, if at all possible. If the subs in a system have significantly different frequency responses, a single set of filters will not be nearly as helpful in EQing the subs. It is particularly important not to mix ported and sealed subs in a system, unless you have the capability to independently measure results, with something like REW, and have some way to independently EQ the subs, with something like a miniDSP. Again, this is because Audyssey (or other systems of automated EQ) can only EQ all of the subs as a group, producing a collective low-frequency sound response.

Here is an example of how Audyssey works. Let's say that you have a ported sub which produces high SPL from 50Hz down to 15Hz, and a somewhat equivalent model of a sealed sub which may produce even higher SPL above 50Hz, but which can't keep up with the ported sub below 50Hz. That would be a common scenario. Ported subs are specifically designed to produce louder volumes, within relatively narrow low frequency ranges (usually below about 50 or 60Hz), than their sealed counterparts. 

Audyssey, in any version, won't inhibit the stronger sub. In this scenario, the stronger (ported) sub will still have more SPL down to it's F3 point of 15Hz, and slightly below. And, it won't overdrive the weaker sub by making it try to play lower and louder than it can. It will simply stop setting filters at the combined, detected F3 point. So, if the sealed sub begins to lose 3db of volume, compared to the ported sub, at about 50Hz, Audyssey will stop EQing at 50Hz, specifically to protect the weaker sub from being over-driven by Audyssey filters. And that means, that in this hypothetical scenario, you wouldn't have the benefit of any EQ in that critical low bass region (from 50Hz to 15Hz) where Audyssey is normally very helpful.

Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't try mixing dissimilar subs, and taking your chances that it will still sound pretty good to you. It might. It simply means that when you mix subs with very dissimilar outputs, or low-frequency extensions, or roll-off characteristics, you can no longer count on automated room EQ to help you improve your frequency response, below the F3 point of the weaker sub. And, there would be no way to predict how effective a single set of filters would be, even above the F3 point of two very dissimilar subs. Life is much simpler if it is possible to have very similar subs in your system. 




** Audyssey DynamicEQ*:


Audyssey's DynamicEQ (DEQ) is a two-tiered program of loudness compensation, designed to maintain acoustic equilibrium in 5.1 movies, at below Reference listening levels. As noted in the previous section, DEQ is engaged by default whenever an Audyssey calibration is performed. Like the Audyssey Reference curve, which is also the default setting, DEQ can be turned off, or slightly modified, as explained later. Although DEQ can be used in TV, music, and gaming applications, it was specifically created to maintain perceived bass (and to some extent, treble) levels at below Reference volumes in 5.1 movies. At Reference (0.0 MV), DEQ does not effect the bass or treble levels in a system, in any way.

DEQ's sole purpose is to maintain an acoustic balance across the entire frequency range, as listening levels drop below Reference in 5.1 movies. Since 5.1 movies are recorded based on the Dolby and THX Reference standards, described in the first section, DEQ was designed to react specifically to volume reductions below that Reference standard, in home theater environments.

The reason why some adjustment to the acoustic balance in 5.1 movies might be necessary is predicated upon the Equal Loudness Contours, explained earlier, which define the way human hearing works. Our hearing is most sensitive between about 2000Hz and 4000Hz, and is roughly equal in sensitivity in a range from about 500Hz to 5000Hz. Frequencies above and below that 500Hz to 5000Hz range require more loudness to be heard at the same level as frequencies within that average range. Considering just the lower frequencies, for a moment, the lower in frequency we go, the more volume we need in order to hear those sounds in equilibrium with sounds in our more normal hearing range.

That is even more important with 5.1 movies than it is for music, because so much of the bass content of a modern action movie is below 60Hz, and below 30Hz, and frequently even below 20Hz. (With music involving acoustical instruments, on the other hand, relatively little content is below about 50Hz, and almost none is below 30Hz.) Modern 5.1 movies are mixed with a clear understanding of how human hearing works, and low bass sounds are amplified, with respect to other sounds in the film's soundtrack, in order to make them appropriately audible.

Low-bass special effects, involving explosions for instance, can sound appropriately shocking at Reference, or near Reference, volumes. But, that equilibrium among the easy to hear, and harder to hear frequencies, is only correct at a listening volume of approximately 0.0 MV. In other words, low, mid, and high-frequencies are designed to be in equilibrium at close to Reference volumes, but may not remain in balance as listening levels drop very far below Reference.

So, for instance, if we were to listen at about -10 MV, we would be listening only about half as loud as film mixers intended. And, in that case, we would still hear sounds quite well in our normal 500Hz to 5000Hz hearing range. But, we would need additional amplification of very low, and perhaps of some very high-frequency sounds, to hear those sounds in the same way that the film mixer intended for us to hear them. Otherwise, for example, low-bass sounds such as the rumble of thunder, or a train on the tracks, or even the sound of an explosion, might seem somewhat muted, detracting from the realism of the scene. Since, average listening levels on AVS appear to be in the range of about -20 to -10 MV, and each reduction in SPL, of 10db, is a halving in perceived volume, that attenuation of low-bass sounds can be quite a problem.

[It should be noted, that we hear high frequencies better than we do low frequencies, and, low frequencies drop-off much faster perceptually as the volume level decreases than is the case with high frequencies. Although DEQ adds a slight treble boost, most people seem completely unaware that DEQ is even slightly boosting very high frequencies, and may not notice the difference in high frequencies, if DEQ is disengaged.]

As stated earlier, DEQ was specifically designed to restore acoustic equilibrium in 5.1 movie soundtracks, at below Reference levels. DEQ does that by providing approximately +2.2db of bass boost, and a little less than +1db of treble boost, for each 5db reduction in master volume, below Reference (0.0 MV). So, for instance, at -5 MV, DEQ boosts the bass by +2.2db; at -15 MV, the boost would be +6.6db; and at -25 MV, the boost would be +11db. 

That boost is applied in all of the channels, including the .1 LFE channel, and it is applied at any listening volume below 0.0 MV. For instance, at -0.5 MV, there would be an almost imperceptible boost (about .2db) which would gradually increase as the master volume was reduced until the bass boost reached a maximum of 2.2db at -5.0 MV. The same incremental boosts would happen at -5.5 MV (about 2.4db) with the boost gradually increasing to a maximum of 4.4db at -10.0 MV, and so on.

DEQ does not, however, apply the same amount of bass boost at every frequency. In DEQ's target curve, the bass boost increases gradually, starting almost unnoticeably at about 200Hz. At about 120Hz, DEQ adds about +1db per -5 MV. That +1db boost continues down to 70Hz. Then, starting at 70Hz, the bass boost increases gradually, reaching a maximum of +2.2db at 30Hz. The maximum boost of +2.2db per -5 MV continues below 30Hz, to the limit of the low-frequency response of the subwoofer(s). The treble boost occurs primarily from 10KHz, and up, and is less than half the boost which is applied to the bass frequencies. Based on anecdotal reports from users, the treble boost in DEQ is so gentle as to be unnoticeable by most users.

DEQ's operation is designed to closely correspond to the way our hearing works, as described in some detail in the last section of the Guide. That section presents an explanation of the Equal Loudness Contours. It can be observed in a graph of normal human hearing, that our hearing becomes less sensitive at 120Hz, and that our hearing continues to degrade down to 70Hz, and then degrades even more sharply down to 30Hz. At 30Hz, our hearing levels-off and doesn't degrade further, down to the lowest limits of our hearing, which is probably about 16Hz for most people. DEQ's target curve follows that same pattern. This is an important point, because DEQ emphasizes very low-frequencies more than it emphasizes mid-bass frequencies. It adds 1db between 70Hz and 120Hz, and it adds 2.2db at 30Hz and below.

[Note: For more information on how the DEQ curve is applied, please consult the Audyssey FAQ. The FAQ section on the Reference Level Offset feature of DEQ, discussed later in this section, has graphs showing DEQ's operation at several different master volume levels. Those graphs may be found in Section _a)3_ of the FAQ. It should also be noted that, as stated in the first section, many users add a personal sub boost to the one that DEQ provides. This is so typical that it may indicate that, for the majority of users, DEQ does not quite succeed in restoring bass equilibrium to movie soundtracks, watched at below Reference volumes. Given the nature of DEQ's target curve, which emphasizes the very low-bass over the mid-bass, it is also possible that some users may prefer more mid-bass boost, compared to the very low-bass boost of DEQ.]

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#addendum3

DEQ was described above as having a two-tiered operation. According to Audyssey's creator, Chris Kyriakakis, DEQ monitors both the master volume, and the volume of individual channels, in real time. DEQ then adds boosts, in accordance with the maximum limits, listed above, based on the actual volume levels and content, at that moment. This moment-to-moment action has never been explained in any detail, so I am not able to clarify Audyssey's specific actions in this regard. But, from comments made by its creator, DEQ is adjusting both the overall bass volumes, and some individual channel bass levels, on the fly. Those adjustments are made in accordance with DEQ's target curve, which was described above.

In addition to restoring acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movie soundtracks, at below Reference levels, the designers of DEQ also decided to add another feature to the DEQ software program. Reasoning that sounds from behind were harder to hear than sounds from in front, or from out to the side (due to our pinnae--ear flaps--which funnel sounds into our ear canals) DEQ was also designed to boost all surround channels. That boost increases, as the master volume goes down, at a fixed rate. I believe that about 1db of surround boost is added for every -5db of MV. So, at a listening level of -15 MV (which is a nominal average) there would be approximately 3db of surround boost. Some users find the surround boost of DEQ helpful, or unnoticeable. Other users, who prefer not to hear a surround boost, often slightly reduce individual surround trims. And, some use the Reference Level Offset (RLO) feature to attenuate the surround boost.


** *Reference Level Offset: 

Recognizing that not everyone likes the full effects of DEQ, for all types of listening material, Audyssey added the Reference Level Offset (RLO) to later versions of DEQ. The Reference Level Offset attenuates the effects of DEQ by controlling the point at which DEQ engages. It does that by literally offsetting the Reference point. When an RLO setting is engaged DEQ will recognize Reference as being at a lower volume, and will not start its operation until a volume even lower than that new Reference point is achieved. 

As with DEQ, in general, the RLO settings are applied in 5db increments. So, at the lightest RLO setting of -5, Reference is offset by -5db, and DEQ does nothing at a master volume of -5, and adds a bass boost of +2.2db at -10 MV. At an RLO setting of -15, which is the strongest setting, DEQ would not actually commence operation until a master volume of -20 was reached, and it would add only +2.2db of bass boost at that master volume. Again, the RLO settings change where DEQ starts its operation, and that in-turn, reduces DEQ's effect at lower listening volumes. The lightest setting is -5, the medium setting is -10, and the heaviest setting is -15. Some people, who listen at lower volume levels, find the RLO settings particularly helpful with DEQ.

DEQ's operation has always been among the most controversial features of the Audyssey software, and as noted in the first section is completely independent of the filters that Audyssey sets for all of the channels, including the subwoofer channel. So DEQ can be turned on or off without affecting the room EQ in any way. Individuals new to Audyssey, or curious about DEQ, are encouraged to experiment. As noted earlier, some people use DEQ for everything, and some people don't use it for anything. Every combination in between those two extremes has also been noted on the Forum. Different RLO settings may produce positive results with DEQ, as may independent sub boosts either with or without DEQ. Experimentation with the tone controls may also positively affect both bass and treble sound quality. (The tone controls, which only apply to the front speakers, are enabled when DEQ is disengaged.)

There is no single right way to operate the various sub-programs and features of Audyssey. Personal decisions regarding the use of DEQ alone, or with an additional sub boost, or with an RLO setting engaged, are just as much a matter of individual preference as is DEQ off, with additional personal tweaks to restore acoustic equilibrium (or not) to a particular audio track. As with the choice to use Audyssey Reference, versus Audyssey Flat, the decision of whether or not to use DEQ (in whatever setting) will depend heavily on individual rooms, systems, and listener preferences.




** Audyssey Thread History of Recommended Subwoofer Trim Settings:

* 
In the interval since I first wrote the Guide, I have come back to it many times to add new sections or to clarify points that I thought were important. And, I have done that in part because I thought it would be valuable to have a single source for some of the best practice recommendations which have evolved on the Audyssey thread and elsewhere, and which have, in some cases, superseded the advice found in the Audyssey FAQ. The FAQ represents a tremendous body of work, in my opinion. But, nothing stands still, and the FAQ hasn't been updated in years.

So, I thought it might be helpful to explain how some of the advice on the Audyssey thread has evolved in recent years. For those who remember, the original advice regarding sub trim levels was to keep them within a range of about -5 to +5. And, the FAQ reflected that advice. Then, after much discussion on the thread, about how sub amps can clip with higher trim settings, the recommended trim setting range in the FAQ was lowered to -3.5 to +3.5, and the advice from Mark Seaton and Ed Mullen was included in the FAQ. But, as explained above, that FAQ recommendation of -3.5 to +3.5 is still too high, particularly depending on master volume levels. As noted earlier, not all subwoofers can develop their full output with lower gain levels and higher trim levels. And with respect to both max output and clipping, sub placement could also exacerbate a higher trim setting, as Audyssey might already be adding up to 9db of boost, at some frequencies.

I also remember people, including myself, speculating at times that Audyssey sets trim levels conservatively, perhaps in an effort to protect less capable subs. I specifically mentioned that to people inquiring about wanting to boost their subs after Audyssey set the trim levels. And, it seemed like a plausible explanation at the time. But, that explanation was never really correct. Audyssey protects less capable subs by not setting filters (control points) below the F3 points of those subs. Audyssey does the same thing with the other channels, setting no control points below the measured F3 of a speaker, or speaker pair. But, it is still the obligation of the user to follow good procedures to insure that the sub(s), and other speakers in an audio system, are used correctly, and are not pushed beyond their specific capabilities. 

Audyssey's actual reasons for setting the sub trim levels where it does was explained above. Audyssey uses a 75db test tone to set all of the channels in a system to the same level, as measured at the MLP, so that Audyssey can apply filters to all of the channels, in an effort to achieve a relatively flat frequency response. It can't do that unless all of the channels, including the .1 sub channel, are set to the same volume. And, setting all channels to the same volume, with a 75db test tone, is now pretty much a standard of the industry even for systems having little to no automated room EQ.

But, human hearing is designed/adapted to hear best from about 500Hz up to about 5000Hz. Our hearing quite naturally corresponds somewhat to the range of the human voice. As frequencies drop below about 500Hz, and particularly below about 200Hz, it takes more volume for us to hear those frequencies, at the same perceived level, than it does for the ones in our optimum hearing range. The more that frequencies drop below 100Hz, the harder it is for us to hear them at the same volume level that we hear higher frequencies, and the more subwoofer boost we may require in order to do so. The phenomenon of sharply declining audibility at lower (and slightly declining audibility at higher) frequencies, is graphically illustrated in various depictions of the Equal Loudness Contours, one of which is shown in the last section of this guide.

If we all listened at extremely high listening levels, up around -5 or 0.0, it is unlikely that we would need much bass boost, except that which is added for personal preference. But, most of us don't listen at nearly that volume level. The most common range I see quoted for the average listening level is from about -20 to -10 MV, and some people listen at much lower volumes than that. So, for the great majority of HT users, it was never really about Audyssey setting subwoofer levels conservatively, although Audyssey never added a Harman curve (a rising bass slope) to its two fundamental curves. Audyssey did provide DEQ, which has its own slightly rising slope. But, as noted earlier, not everyone likes using DEQ, and even for those who do, some additional bass boost is typically applied.

For most of us, though, the issue was always about needing more volume to hear subwoofer frequencies, in equilibrium with the higher frequencies played by the other channels in our audio systems, at below Reference listening levels. Even where Reference is not involved, with two-channel music for instance, some of us may still wish to add a bass boost in order to satisfy our own perceptions of appropriate acoustic equilibrium.

As noted earlier, very high frequencies are also a little outside our optimum hearing range, but high frequencies do not fall-off nearly as fast as low frequencies do. And, in-room reflections can emphasize high frequencies, and high frequency distortion, in a way that can be very noticeable. In fact, some studies indicate that most people prefer some high frequency roll-off, and the Audyssey Reference curve is based on that assumption. But, almost all of us seem to perceive any reductions in bass volumes much more easily. How much additional bass we need, or want, in order to perceive our sound as balanced, or to fully appreciate the low bass in specific pieces of music, or in specific movies, is a very personal decision which probably depends on a lot of factors, including our rooms, sub capabilities, sub placement, individual hearing, and personal preference.

None of this is to suggest that other Audyssey users, and specifically the people involved in the creation of the FAQ, haven't already understood some of the concepts listed above. But, the FAQ was written, and edited, over a period of several years, with some sections being revised, and others not. Someone trying to understand whether it is normal to boost his subs, after an Audyssey calibration, may not get the impression that a sub boost is fairly typical, when watching movies at below Reference volumes, for reasons that may transcend simple issues of personal preference. And, of course, personal preference will still always be an important factor in the individual implementation of our audio systems no matter what we listen to.

To summarize the current best practice recommendation for adding sub boosts: it is to try to keep AVR sub trim levels no higher than approximately -5, if possible, after adding however much sub boost may be preferred. And, in order to do that, the appropriate use of subwoofer gain, and not just AVR trim, is generally required.




** Bass Frequencies, Room Gain, and The Equal Loudness Contours:* 


The preceding sections have attempted to explain something of the fundamental operations of HT systems and of room EQ, in general, and of Audyssey in particular. Most of the discussion has involved bass frequencies, as bass seems to be a commonly recurring topic of conversation on a number of different threads. I have also tried to explore some of the reasons that people may prefer to add more bass to their audio systems, after a calibration (by Audyssey, or by other means) and the best methods for accomplishing that. In this section, I would like to discuss some of the potential reasons that we seem to enjoy bass frequencies so much to start with, and I would like to try to explain what I see as some of the relationships among bass, room gain, and the Equal Loudness Contours.

*
Bass Frequencies:*

For the purpose of this discussion, I am defining bass frequencies as 500Hz and lower. Down to about 120Hz or so, the bass frequencies are played by the woofers in our speakers. From about 120Hz and lower the bass frequencies are typically played by our subwoofers. Even if we set crossovers at 80Hz, the subwoofers will usually be playing the LFE channel up to about 120Hz. I will also define the frequency range from about 120Hz down to 50Hz as the mid-bass range. This is the range usually associated with the phenomenon known as chest punch. Frequencies below 50Hz will be defined as low bass, and those below about 30Hz will be defined as very low bass. As noted in a previous section, most music involving acoustic instruments rarely goes below 50Hz, and even more rarely below 30Hz. In some movies, and in nature, bass sounds can be in the low single digits, although below about 16Hz we will feel rather than hear those ultra-low frequencies.

I think that the first question we need to ask in this discussion is why do we seem to like bass frequencies so much that many of us are so frequently adjusting our HT systems (or buying more or larger subwoofers) to obtain stronger bass? Granted that we may not hear bass frequencies, as well as we do other frequencies, as volume levels drop. But, why is that so important to us? Why do we like bass so much to begin with? I think that there are several potential explanations.

First, there seems to be a clear relationship between bass and rhythm. Drums in some form seem to have been a consistent aspect of virtually all cultures. And even primitive drums were able to generate lower frequencies than other early musical instruments could. Whether the drums consisted of hollow logs, or animal hides stretched over wood or gourd enclosures, drums of some sort have been used by almost all cultures as a method of communication across distances (low frequency sounds travel), for ceremonial functions, and in the creation of music.

It's easy to see the last aspect of that in most contemporary classical, jazz, rock, world, hip-hop, rap, and other forms of music. Rhythm, typically created by bass sounds, provides the fundamental foundation for most music. And, although the specific rhythms involved (and the instruments used to create them--drums, a piano, or an upright bass or bass guitar, for example) may vary widely, depending on the country or place of origin, or on the particular music genre, there is a kind of innate cross-cultural appeal to bass rhythms.

Bass rhythms may do something else besides lay the foundation for most music. To use a phrase that Gary (garygarrison) who is a retired psychologist, likes to use, rhythmic bass frequencies may create "cortical arousal". Cortical arousal involves the stimulation of wakefulness, vigilance, muscle tone, and heart rate. There is a reason why military formations have traditionally marched to the rhythmic beat of drums, and why drums were often used to stimulate warriors entering battle. Compelling rhythms can be very stirring, and are often related to athletic and martial activities. I think a good example of that would be the drums used in the theme for the Olympic Games. I believe that we tend to react differently to rhythmic bass frequencies than we do to rhythms generated at higher frequencies. 

So, we like rhythm, in general, and we especially like the sensations that bass rhythms may generate. And exclusive of rhythm, various bass sounds in music may simply be pleasing in and of themselves. But, if that is a pretty good general answer for why we like bass so much in music, how does that explain our preferences for strong bass in movies? We certainly have music in movies, and few movies would be as entertaining without the music. But, we also seem to enjoy strong low frequencies in our HT's for non-musical aspects of the movie experience. Why do we enjoy the bass frequencies so much that many of us buy more powerful subwoofers specifically to be able to emphasize bass effects in movies? 

I think the answer to that has something to do with low, loud bass sounds in nature. In nature, low and loud bass sounds are not a good thing. The roaring of lions or the sounds of other large predators; the sound and feel of a severe thunderstorm, or of a flash flood; the sound and feel of the earth trembling from an earthquake, or of a volcano erupting; are all natural sounds with loud, low bass that arouse atavistic feelings of fear and dread in us. That instinctive response may be hard-wired into our central nervous systems, or it may be an evolutionary adaptation. But, it is universal, and invokes what has been called the fight-or-flight response. It is another aspect of cortical arousal, but a less pleasant arousal, in this case.

Except that it is pleasant in movies, because we can experience that arousal without really being placed in danger. Where the special effects in movies are well done, I think that the sensations we feel can be a little like the way that we would be reacting to real natural disasters, or to real combat situations, but in a significantly diluted and safe format. We can enjoy the sensations of fear and dread, of increased vigilance and heart rate, and of stirred emotions that accompany the scene in the movie, while knowing that it's really just fantasy. We aren't actually trapped in an earthquake. A fire-breathing dragon really isn't about to devour us. It just looks, sounds, and feels like it. We crave those bass-induced auditory sensations in movies, and some of us probably crave them more than others.

That brings up an interesting thought. We often see people upgrading their subwoofers on the forum, and as previously noted, many forum questions involve how to obtain more bass. I wonder if, over time, some of us develop a tolerance for the sensation of bass-induced cortical arousal, and require even higher bass volumes to obtain the same levels of excitement that we are accustomed to feeling? I would be surprised if that weren't a potential factor in the quest for more bass which so frequently seems to occur.


*** Tactile Response: Another aspect of our enjoyment of bass has already been alluded to in previous paragraphs. Bass frequencies can generate tactile physical sensations which are distinct from what we hear. We feel bass, as well as hear it, in a way that we don't with higher frequencies. Those physical sensations are referred to as tactile response (TR), and TR is a little different from the bass we hear, although the sensations of hearing and feeling bass may be closely related. Tactile sensations are caused by particle velocity--literally air moving due to bass sound pressure levels.

As with loud bass sounds, those tactile sensations can invoke feelings of fear and dread, or can stimulate our emotions in positive and stirring ways, as the example of the drum introduction to the Olympic theme demonstrates. With a good recording, played on a good audio system, we can feel each drum strike. In contrast, a good example of the fear and dread that a tactile sensation can create would be from the first Jurassic Park movie, where the footfall of the Tyrannosaurus Rex coincides with the water trembling/rippling in a previous footprint. In that great scene, we can feel the same vibration that makes the water shimmer.

One of the more popular tactile sensations is frequently called chest punch. That is a percussive resonance that we feel in our chests from an abrupt mid-bass sound, such as a gunshot, or the thump of a bass or kettle drum (Olympic theme). Most people seem to feel that percussive resonance in a frequency range from about 50Hz to 100Hz. Another important tactile sensation involves very low-bass frequencies, such as the one from the Jurassic Park example. We feel frequencies under about 30Hz in a completely different way than we do mid-bass frequencies. The feeling is more of a rumble than a percussive strike. And, it can sometimes be hard to separate what we are hearing from what we are feeling. That is one reason that tactile transducers (various forms of butt shakers) can be effective in some cases.

As with bass sounds, responsiveness to tactile sensations seems to vary somewhat among individuals. And, as with bass sounds, our preference for bass tactile sensations seems to vary as well. But the reason the phenomenon of bass tactile response is especially relevant to our discussion is because those tactile sensations may also influence our desire for more (or sometimes for less) bass SPL. I believe that it is the combination of bass sounds and bass sensations that makes bass frequencies so unique, and which makes us want to emphasize them in a way that we much more rarely want to emphasize high frequencies.

It should be noted that just as different individuals may be more, or less, aware of or sensitive to tactile sensations, so different individuals may also want to emphasize different kinds of tactile response. Some people are especially interested in enhancing the mid-bass TR (chest punch) and select subwoofers with stronger mid-bass capabilities. Or, they may add mid-bass modules, which are bandwidth-limited, and which are specifically designed to emphasize mid-bass frequencies. Other individuals may select subwoofers with deeper low-frequency extension, and more low-bass SPL, in an effort to experience stronger low-bass tactile sensations---especially the ULF sensation described earlier. And, they may add tactile transducers for the same reason.

There are a number of factors which can influence the tactile response that we get in our audio systems. Both our master volume and our subwoofer boost are important factors, as is physical proximity and the direction in which a driver (and ports for a ported sub) point. But, there are some physical factors which can also make a difference. For instance, if we are located close to a subwoofer, and particularly if we are on a suspended wood floor, we will typically feel more TR than if we are at a distance from a subwoofer, or on a concrete slab. Concrete won't conduct vibrations from the floor to our listening chairs in the same way that a suspended wood floor will. (Think of a drum head vibrating.) Since higher bass SPL's will typically result in increased tactile sensations, the degree to which we perceive and enjoy those sensations may influence how much bass SPL we prefer at particular frequencies and at a particular listening level.

What I am suggesting is that bass is somewhat unique in that we both hear it and feel it. That combination of auditory and tactile stimulus affects many of us in ways that other frequencies do not. And, that same combination of sound and physical sensations may be a large part of the reason that we seem to like bass so much to begin with, and the reason that we may want to add boost to bass frequencies in a way that we may simply not care about with other frequencies.

This is an aspect of our interest in adding (or subtracting) bass SPL which can't be explained by referring to the Equal Loudness Contours, which describe our hearing acuity at different frequencies. We do hear different frequencies with variable perceived loudness, particularly as listening volumes change. But, our setting preferences may be influenced by both our preference for bass sounds, and by our preference for bass tactile sensations. As we discuss and compare the amounts of sub boost which different people may prefer at a particular listening level, we are somewhat handicapped by an inability to also compare tactile response, since both can be factors in the quantity of bass we prefer. 

Tactile Response is, in some respects, influenced even more by the specific nature of our room and house construction, and by our proximity to our subwoofers, than our bass SPL is. It should be noted, that the tactile sensations that I am discussing here are distinct from the effects that bass frequencies may have on other objects in our listening room, or elsewhere in or beyond our houses. Things that shake in our houses during intense bass scenes vibrate due to the same phenomenon of particle velocity that we are feeling. But, what we feel as vibrations in our bodies, and what vibrations are transferred to other objects, are two distinctly different issues. It would be fair to assume, however, that both excessive bass sounds and excessive vibrations, either inside or outside our houses, could influence our bass listening levels.

Anyone interested in learning more about bass tactile sensations, how they are produced, and how they can be measured in an HT, is encouraged to consult the following thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...8090-vibsensor-accelerometer-test-thread.html


*Room Gain:

*I thought that a brief discussion of room gain might be helpful in the context of this section. Room gain is a very complex subject which I don't fully understand. What I do understand is that the actual amount of gain a room will provide is something that can only be determined empirically, based on the dimensions and construction of the room, the position of the bass transducers, and the location of the main listening position.

There are two components to room gain. Boundary gain is the first component of room gain. Bass transducers (including subwoofers) which are placed in an enclosed space, such as a home theater or a multi-purpose room, will be reinforced by the room itself. Closer proximity to a boundary (a wall, or even a partial wall) will typically enhance reinforcement in bass frequencies. When speakers are placed in close proximity to multiple walls (a corner) the reinforcement increases, but may do so at the expense of some clarity. Determining the best locations for subwoofers (or speakers) in a particular room requires a trial-and-error process. But, all normal-sized rooms will provide some degree of boundary reinforcement.

Room gain (due to boundary walls) occurs below the Schroeder Frequency, also called the transition frequency or modal frequency of a room. The transition frequency is defined as the frequency where "standing waves" are created due to interaction with boundary walls. Above that frequency, the direct sound of the speakers dominates (although it is somewhat modified by reflections). Below the transition frequency, resonances have more influence on the sound than the direct sound of the speakers (or subwoofers). There are on-line calculators which determine the transition frequency for a given room based on the room volume. In most HT rooms, the transition frequency is about 200Hz. In very large rooms, the transition frequency will be lower. 

Above the transition frequency of a given room, sound waves bounce around the room until they run out of energy. Below the transition point, bass frequencies (standing waves) collect and reinforce each other, increasing the total amount of the bass. As noted above, the extent to which bass frequencies in a given room will reinforce each other (or at some frequencies, cancel each other) is dependent on a number of factors. But overall, bass frequencies below the transition frequency are reinforced in our home theaters.

Room mode gain is the second component of room gain. It occurs at much lower frequencies than the transition frequency in a room. Room mode gain is dependent on the size and physical geometry of a room. The two most influential room modes are the axial mode, which is based on a two-dimensional diagonal of a room, and the tangential mode, which is based on a three-dimensional diagonal measurement. There are on-line calculators which can be consulted to understand where those two major modes will start for a given room, and how much they should reinforce bass at specific frequencies.

The actual room gain which we have in our rooms, due to both boundaries and room modes will vary depending on our room size and subwoofer placement. (Room construction can also be a factor.) The use of multiple subwoofers, in good room positions, should theoretically allow maximum utilization of room mode gain, with minimal cancellation. Subwoofer placement in relation to the main listening position (and with respect to other listening positions) is important in determining actual room mode gain.

Mark Seaton has stated that all rooms of about 15,000^3 or less should provide somewhere between about 6db and 18db of bass reinforcement, through a combination of boundary gain and room mode gain. That would be true even in rooms which are open to other parts of the house, although closer physical proximity to the subwoofers would be beneficial in that case. Small rooms would typically get much more room mode gain than larger rooms. In very small rooms (


----------



## Dave-T

Alan P said:


> Huh?
> 
> There must be a typo in that post because -3dB is *louder *than -9dB.
> 
> Follow mine and Mike's advice and re-calibrate until you get an acceptable initial sub trim level, then boost to your heart's content...well, within reason.
> 
> 
> You keep saying it sounded great with XT at -3dB..._but what was the initial sub trim_?? You may have boosted it post-Audyssey and not remember. My point is that whatever amount of boost you were using with XT, you will want to use approximately the same amount of boost with the new AVR.


Sorry, I was talking about the trim level that audyessy lists in the details after the calibration being being set to -9. I have never changed any of the trim levels after the calibration is completed, I leave it as Audyessy sets it. the only thing I change are the crossovers and the speaker size. i noticed now that since i bypassed the sub eq and did not lower my actual subs voulme to get it into the 75db range all of my other trim levels are lower for example my center channel was set at "0" and before it was at +1 when i did use the sub eq at the recommended 75db. Will not using the sub eq effect the rest of the speaker trim levels as well?


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Sorry, I was talking about the trim level that audyessy lists in the details after the calibration being being set to -9. I have never changed any of the trim levels after the calibration is completed, I leave it as Audyessy sets it. the only thing I change are the crossovers and the speaker size. i noticed now that since i bypassed the sub eq and did not lower my actual subs voulme to get it into the 75db range all of my other trim levels are lower for example my center channel was set at "0" and before it was at +1 when i did use the sub eq at the recommended 75db. Will not using the sub eq effect the rest of the speaker trim levels as well?


Hi,

I thought that's what you meant, and it's perfectly fine to not raise the trim level on your sub after Audyssey runs. But, if you ever want more bass...

It might help to read the explanation in the post just above yours. Audyssey will set the trim levels in your satellites completely independently of anything you do with your subs. All channels will be set to 75db, as measured at the MLP. Sometimes, trim levels vary slightly from calibration to calibration, depending on mic placement. But, all of the trim levels will be set to the same 75db in each calibration.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Dave-T

Thanks for all of your help guys. Mike's post above really helped.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> The most commonly asked question on the Audyssey thread these days involves subwoofer settings. I have been thinking about writing a simple layman's explanation of the relationships among sub gain, AVR trim, and master volume (MV). The main reason I will write a simple layman's explanation is because it's the only kind I can write.  So, here goes.
> 
> First, Audyssey's goal, in any Audyssey version, is to set the volume levels of all channels in a system, including subs, to 75db, as measured at the MLP, by the calibrated Audyssey microphone. The MLP is microphone position 1. Where subs are concerned, Audyssey will measure all of the subs together so that their combined SPL is 75db. When Audyssey finishes, all channels in the system will play at the same volume, as determined by the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> Second, most modern commercial subs have a gain (or volume) control. The initial setting of that gain control will determine where Audyssey sets the trim level for the sub(s). So, if the initial gain control is high, Audyssey will set a low trim setting in the AVR (such as -9) in order to insure that the sub is playing 75db at the MLP. If the gain control setting is low, Audyssey will set a high trim level setting in the AVR (such as -3.0, or 0.0, or even +3.0) to insure that same 75db.
> 
> Third, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Therefore, it is desirable to start with a high gain level and a low trim level.
> 
> A low trim level might be defined as -9 to -11, but not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units. As noted by Alan in an earlier post, if a trim level of -12 is set there is no knowing what the actual volume of the sub is. The AVR simply ran out of negative trim at -12. The actual sub volume might be 80db, or even 85db, instead of 75db. And, if so, you might not like the way it sounds with your sub(s) so much louder than the rest of your system. And, you could find yourself running out of sub headroom sooner than expected. So, you want a negative trim setting not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units.
> 
> Think of it this way. When you raise the gain level in the sub, so that the sub produces more than 75db at the MLP, you are making a deposit in the bank, of amplifier power from the sub. So, for instance, let's say you start with a trim level in the AVR of -9. Now, you can withdraw amp power from the bank, using your AVR trim control. You would do that by increasing your trim setting to -6, or -3, or even 0.0. As noted earlier, volume increases as the numbers get larger, with -1 being a larger number than -2. But, there is no free lunch. As you approach 0.0, the bank deposit of amp power that you made with the higher gain setting is used up, and now you are using AVR amp power, which as noted, is not as powerful. Using AVR amp power can, in some instances, result in clipping (distorting) your subwoofer(s).
> 
> Fourth, there is a relationship between sub volume and master volume (MV). As your MV increases, more demands are placed on the sub. It is recommended by a number of subwoofer experts, two of whom are quoted in the FAQ, that it is advisable to keep sub trims negative (below 0.0) as MV's approach or exceed -10. That is 10db below Reference (or 70 on the absolute scale) in your AVR master volume.
> 
> If you never intend to approach -10 MV, then the advice to set your sub gain high enough to obtain a strongly negative trim level will be less important. And, if you don't believe that you will want to boost your subs, then starting with a trim level of -6, or even -3, would be perfectly fine. But, most people on this and other threads seem to average at least a +3 to +6db bass boost after calibration. So, the advice you will most commonly see on this thread is to start with a negative trim setting of about -9 to -11 post-calibration, in order to maximize your ability to add sub boost, while still using the sub gain you deposited in the bank.
> 
> Although this advice is not entirely consistent with the recommendation in the FAQ, I believe that in this particular instance, the advice on the thread supersedes the advice in the FAQ. And, I would personally recommend following this advice as a matter of best practice, even if you believe that you will never approach -10 MV. There is no telling who might, inadvertently or otherwise, run the volume control up. It is unlikely that a good modern sub would be damaged by some distortion, but I know of an Orbit Shifter, of all things, that had a fried voice coil just from playing electronic music, downloaded from You Tube, at a very high volume with a high AVR trim level. And listening to distorted bass is sort of antithetical to the whole idea of using automated room EQ, in the first place. So, a penny's worth of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in this case.
> 
> I hope this explanation of sub gain, vis-a-vis trim gain, and MV, is helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


There are only 3 things I'd add to Mike's excellent post.

My first thing is implicit in Mike's post. If you have to use a high gain setting on the sub and Audyssey is setting a high trim level, one close to 0 or even above 0, then you can easily run into distortion issues at high master volume settings. The sort of thing which could lead to that situation is the combination of a small underpowered sub in a large room with a long listening distance. Producing decent listening levels at low frequency at some distance in a large room is not something that small subs with low power amps are good for.

That point leads to my second point which is about using 2 subs, something Mike didn't mention here. There are 2 benefits to using multiple subs. The first is that their outputs sum so neither sub has to be driven as hard as a single sub in order to reach the same listening level. That's a handy point for people with small subs in the situation I mentioned above. If you want to raise the level of output from your sub and your gain and trim settings are high, that's a good sign that you need either a bigger sub or an additional sub, The second benefit is that multiple subs can help smooth low bass response in a room and that makes the job of correcting sub response easier so there can be an advantage to using 2 subs rather than a single, larger sub.

The third thing I'd add is Mike's comments made less than a day ago about using more than one sub. I'll quote him exactly:

"If you currently have sealed subs, then I would recommend that you stay with sealed for any future subs. Conversely, if your other subs are ported, then you would want to add ported subs. Mixing ported and sealed subs can be a very difficult proposition from the standpoint of achieving a good frequency response. And, it's really not something that automated EQ, such as Audyssey XT-32 can help with, because the frequency responses, and roll-off rates, of ported and sealed subs are so different. Ideally, you want to try to match the capabilities of your subs as much as possible, unless you are either willing to accept potential problems with the frequency response, or are willing to dive deeply down the rabbit hole with REW, and an outboard DSP, such as a miniDSP.

For the great majority of users, including myself, the advice to stay with identical, or as nearly identical subs as possible, is both the simplest and best advice."

The only change to that quote which I would make if Mike wants to add it to his general sub guide is to reverse the order of the 2 paragraphs so that the general advice comes first and the expansion of that advice in relation to types of subs etc comes second.


----------



## Jim1290

Hi Mike,

Thank you very much for your explanation.

I will try to just manage for -11 db trim level, and afterwards just up the trim level to which sound good to my ears. I will follow all the steps that you all taught me about level matching all four subs before run Audyssey, and so on.

My 5.1 system I bought back then in 1999, with one sub only and it's REL, and didn't really care much. Fast forward to last year, after reading a lot online I decided to get the Klipsch R-115SW, it's cheap, and it sounded better than the REL I have, especially for movies. So, I bought second one, and sounded even better, the final result was I have four now.
But sometimes cheap means expensive... 

Then I read more from AVS and other sites. Not long ago I exchanged a few posts with Mr. Vodhanel from PSA in the UK AVForums (he has got UK distributor for his products), to get his idea and opinion between sealed and ported subwoofers.
PSA subs got my attention since lots of members talk about PSA subs over here. And back then I was planning a trip to New York so I asked if I could visit his workshop since his address (from PSA site) was not that far from the Big Apple.
I didn't get further reply.
Then last month by posting question about XTZ 3x12 here at AVS, I got the chance to email Mr. Permanian, to get price quote for his subs to ship to Europe, and he replied. Somehow, when I asked if the quoted prices are included import duty, and how he support overseas clients, I got no more reply.
You cannot afford if you have to ask... 

And so, I decided to fully concentrate on subs that I can get it easy here in Europe, that's why I was asking about SVS and XTZ. And of course, there is this new sub from L-Sound as you already know.
The reason I want to change all four R-115SW is I have heard the XTZ 3x12, I think that I mentioned it to you, and that sub surely sounded better than mine! And while I was in New York my colleague showed me his system, he has got Magico S series included its subwoofer, and the sealed sub sounded even better, in his place of course. He used to have JL Audio F113.

I have read and now you mentioned as well that one shouldn't mix sealed subs with ported subs, that was why I first asked about the PC13. Now I would like to experience sealed subs, XTZ doesn't make sealed sub and L-Sound's sealed sub looks nice but no real reviews but quite popular in the UK, and so come down to only SB13, as it's been there long and got good reviews everywhere.

At one point I was ready to add two Behringer B1200D since I read some members here had such good experience, and after a careful thought I gave up the idea.

Thanks again for your time!



Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thank you very much for your explanation.
> 
> I will try to just manage for -11 db trim level, and afterwards just up the trim level to which sound good to my ears. I will follow all the steps that you all taught me about level matching all four subs before run Audyssey, and so on.
> 
> My 5.1 system I bought back then in 1999, with one sub only and it's REL, and didn't really care much. Fast forward to last year, after reading a lot online I decided to get the Klipsch R-115SW, it's cheap, and it sounded better than the REL I have, especially for movies. So, I bought second one, and sounded even better, the final result was I have four now.
> But sometimes cheap means expensive...
> 
> Then I read more from AVS and other sites. Not long ago I exchanged a few posts with Mr. Vodhanel from PSA in the UK AVForums (he has got UK distributor for his products), to get his idea and opinion between sealed and ported subwoofers.
> PSA subs got my attention since lots of members talk about PSA subs over here. And back then I was planning a trip to New York so I asked if I could visit his workshop since his address (from PSA site) was not that far from the Big Apple.
> I didn't get further reply.
> Then last month by posting question about XTZ 3x12 here at AVS, I got the chance to email Mr. Permanian, to get price quote for his subs to ship to Europe, and he replied. Somehow, when I asked if the quoted prices are included import duty, and how he support overseas clients, I got no more reply.
> You cannot afford if you have to ask...
> 
> And so, I decided to fully concentrate on subs that I can get it easy here in Europe, that's why I was asking about SVS and XTZ. And of course, there is this new sub from L-Sound as you already know.
> The reason I want to change all four R-115SW is I have heard the XTZ 3x12, I think that I mentioned it to you, and that sub surely sounded better than mine! And while I was in New York my colleague showed me his system, he has got Magico S series included its subwoofer, and the sealed sub sounded even better, in his place of course. He used to have JL Audio F113.
> 
> I have read and now you mentioned as well that one shouldn't mix sealed subs with ported subs, that was why I first asked about the PC13. Now I would like to experience sealed subs, XTZ doesn't make sealed sub and L-Sound's sealed sub looks nice but no real reviews but quite popular in the UK, and so come down to only SB13, as it's been there long and got good reviews everywhere.
> 
> At one point I was ready to add two Behringer B1200D since I read some members here had such good experience, and after a careful thought I gave up the idea.
> 
> Thanks again for your time!
> 
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

You are very welcome! I am glad to be able to help a little. I completely understand about your subwoofer journey. My own was somewhat similar, starting with a SuperCube. I wish there were a way to shortcut the learning curve, but if so, I don't know what it is. I also understand why you would want to upgrade from your current subs. I think that the decision of whether to go sealed or ported is a personal one, based not so much on sound quality (as any differences among comparable performers would be very small) but more on room size versus listening level. If your room size is around 3000^3, or so, and you want to listen at high volumes, with a sub boost, ported subs are an easier way to get the combination of extension and output that you may be looking for.

But ported subs are also larger and more expensive than somewhat comparable sealed subs. And if you are going to continue to have four subs, then sealed could be a good way to go. But, four sealed Ultras would not give you a very big performance upgrade compared to the Klipsch subs you have now, simply because ported subs are more powerful down low. So, for instance, four SB13's would actually offer a little less output at 20Hz than your 115's. You can compare the Data-Bass numbers in the chart I linked earlier, to the 2m results in this review of your current subs. http://hometheaterreview.com/klipsch-r-115sw-subwoofer-reviewed/?page=2

If it's more low-end extension, and output you are after, I think you would be better off going with the XTZ ported subs, or the other established performers like the ported Ultra. I know the XTZ subs are very large (which is why they can go pretty low with real authority), and that you may have trouble finding ported Ultras where you are. And I would not wish to discourage you from trying SVS sealed subs. But, I think it's important to identify your short and long-term bass goals as you buy. To me, that's the single most important lesson I have learned.

If it's low frequency extension, coupled with sheer output you are after, it takes a lot of sealed subs to equal the output of four ported subs. And even two 3X12's would be more powerful than four SB13's, so you could consider having only two, or three subs, instead of four. (They are also compared in the Data-Bass table.) On the other hand, if you are not currently using all of the output you have available with your 115's, anyway, then four sealed SB13's might give you improved SQ, and still have sufficient output for your requirements.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> There are only 3 things I'd add to Mike's excellent post.
> 
> My first thing is implicit in Mike's post. If you have to use a high gain setting on the sub and Audyssey is setting a high trim level, one close to 0 or even above 0, then you can easily run into distortion issues at high master volume settings. The sort of thing which could lead to that situation is the combination of a small underpowered sub in a large room with a long listening distance. Producing decent listening levels at low frequency at some distance in a large room is not something that small subs with low power amps are good for.
> 
> That point leads to my second point which is about using 2 subs, something Mike didn't mention here. There are 2 benefits to using multiple subs. The first is that their outputs sum so neither sub has to be driven as hard as a single sub in order to reach the same listening level. That's a handy point for people with small subs in the situation I mentioned above. If you want to raise the level of output from your sub and your gain and trim settings are high, that's a good sign that you need either a bigger sub or an additional sub, The second benefit is that multiple subs can help smooth low bass response in a room and that makes the job of correcting sub response easier so there can be an advantage to using 2 subs rather than a single, larger sub.
> 
> The third thing I'd add is Mike's comments made less than a day ago about using more than one sub. I'll quote him exactly:
> 
> "If you currently have sealed subs, then I would recommend that you stay with sealed for any future subs. Conversely, if your other subs are ported, then you would want to add ported subs. Mixing ported and sealed subs can be a very difficult proposition from the standpoint of achieving a good frequency response. And, it's really not something that automated EQ, such as Audyssey XT-32 can help with, because the frequency responses, and roll-off rates, of ported and sealed subs are so different. Ideally, you want to try to match the capabilities of your subs as much as possible, unless you are either willing to accept potential problems with the frequency response, or are willing to dive deeply down the rabbit hole with REW, and an outboard DSP, such as a miniDSP.
> 
> For the great majority of users, including myself, the advice to stay with identical, or as nearly identical subs as possible, is both the simplest and best advice."
> 
> The only change to that quote which I would make if Mike wants to add it to his general sub guide is to reverse the order of the 2 paragraphs so that the general advice comes first and the expansion of that advice in relation to types of subs etc comes second.



Hi David,

Thank you for your nice remarks and thoughtful suggestions. My original intent with that post was to give us something simple we could use to address the most common questions regarding trim levels. But, you make some good points. It might be a good idea to expand the post slightly to incorporate multiple subs into the discussion. Let me see what I can come up with if I expand a couple of the points on set-up to include multiple subs. I think I will also add some discussion of how Audyssey EQ's single and multiple subs. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

Are there any precautions or changes I should make when doing an Atmos calibration with 4 ceiling speakers? I did the standard 8 points, 3 on seat, 3 at front edge of seating, 2 in back middle. I don't think any were directly under a speaker.


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> Are there any precautions or changes I should make when doing an Atmos calibration with 4 ceiling speakers? I did the standard 8 points, 3 on seat, 3 at front edge of seating, 2 in back middle. I don't think any were directly under a speaker.


Hi,

I can't think of any special precautions you should take, but you can always repeat your question on the Atmos home theater owners' thread. I have never been a fan of going behind the listening positions with any of the microphone locations. That only makes sense to me if you have a second row you are EQing for. With a single row, whether it's theater chairs, or a sofa, I would expect to get better results by keeping all 8 mic locations in front of, beside, or just very slightly behind that row. If there is a wall behind the sofa, as there often is, going behind the listening positions would not be advisable. But, that's about the only comment I would make.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I can't think of any special precautions you should take, but you can always repeat your question on the Atmos home theater owners' thread. I have never been a fan of going behind the listening positions with any of the microphone locations. That only makes sense to me if you have a second row you are EQing for. With a single row, whether it's theater chairs, or a sofa, I would expect to get better results by keeping all 8 mic locations in front of, beside, or just very slightly behind that row. If there is a wall behind the sofa, as there often is, going behind the listening positions would not be advisable. But, that's about the only comment I would make.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yeah I only do 2 right [Edit] behind [/Edit] the back of the chairs, and I actually do have a second row, but I dont really EQ for it. Main concern is front row since the back row is used pretty infrequently. I know they updated so taht positions are only 2ft apart now as well, doubt I followed that though haha.


----------



## Alan P

grendelrt said:


> Yeah I only do 2 *right on the back of the chairs*, and I actually do have a second row, but I dont really EQ for it. Main concern is front row since the back row is used pretty infrequently. I know they updated so taht positions are only 2ft apart now as well, doubt I followed that though haha.


If you are setting the mic on the chair itself, that is not recommended. You should be using a mic boom or at least a tripod to hold the mic during calibration. 

Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?


----------



## grendelrt

Alan P said:


> If you are setting the mic on the chair itself, that is not recommended. You should be using a mic boom or at least a tripod to hold the mic during calibration.
> 
> Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?


Sorry that was a mistype, meant "Right Behind" the chairs haha. Yeah I have a both a micboom and tripod. I have been using the mic boom mostly. I think I may recalibrate and bring in the measurements a little. I have 4 chairs in the front row and I think I may have streteched the measurements a little too wide.


----------



## mthomas47

I have edited Post 1296 to add quite a bit of additional material, if anyone wants to make any additional suggestions. It could go on and on, so I'm not looking to get much more detailed. But, most of the information in that post is not specifically included in the FAQ, and I do see a lot of confusion about the gain/trim relationship, and how Audyssey EQ's multiple subs, on both this and other threads.


----------



## asere

Today I redid audyssey and my two subs combined(used y splitter) I got a trim of -11.5
The spl meter shows 72db after audyssey but I bumped it to 80db. In order to achieve 80db I set the trim to -6.5
Is this acceptable? I think I read here so long as the trim by audyssey doesn't exceed -12 and as long as the manual trim is 0 or below you're good.
Correct?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> Third, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Therefore, it is desirable to start with a high gain level and a low trim level.


Mike, if the amp in the subwoofer is more robust and powerful than the amp in the AVR, wouldn't it also be desirable to increase gain there (rather than the AVR's trim) after Audyssey calibration if you're not satisfied with the amount of bass Audyssey sets?

The current advice seems to be, start with a slightly high gain on the sub so that Audyssey gives you a low trim. Then, if you don't like how it sounds, increase the trim. However, assuming that the amp on the sub still has some headroom, wouldn't it be better to increase the gain there?

For example, when I do the SW Level Matching at the start of Audyssey and set my sub's gain to hit 75 dB, the dial on the sub is still well below the halfway point. (It's basically at about 1/3.) After calibration, Audyssey gives me a trim of -6. Rather than boost that to, say, -3 or -2, why wouldn't I leave the trim at -6 and turn up the gain on the sub instead?


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> Mike, if the amp in the subwoofer is more robust and powerful than the amp in the AVR, wouldn't it also be desirable to increase gain there (rather than the AVR's trim) after Audyssey calibration if you're not satisfied with the amount of bass Audyssey sets?
> 
> The current advice seems to be, start with a slightly high gain on the sub so that Audyssey gives you a low trim. Then, if you don't like how it sounds, increase the trim. However, assuming that the amp on the sub still has some headroom, wouldn't it be better to increase the gain there?
> 
> For example, when I do the SW Level Matching at the start of Audyssey and set my sub's gain to hit 75 dB, the dial on the sub is still well below the halfway point. (It's basically at about 1/3.) After calibration, Audyssey gives me a trim of -6. Rather than boost that to, say, -3 or -2, why wouldn't I leave the trim at -6 and turn up the gain on the sub instead?


Hi Josh,

That method would work perfectly well. It's absolutely the same thing as far as the sub amp is concerned. It just isn't as convenient for the user. Many sub gains are on the back of the sub, and not easy to get to. And, if the gain control isn't digital, it's difficult to know just how much boost you are adding, or to easily control the increments of gain. The AVR trim gives you half decibel increments that you can easily keep track of.

For some movies, you might want to increase the sub boost, and for others you might want to turn it back down, so that adds to the inconvenience factor. And if you are using multiple subs, on a Y-connector, you would have to be careful to add exactly the same amount of gain to both subs, so that they remain level matched, and then subtract exactly the same amount if you wanted to change back. Using the trim control in the AVR insures that the sub levels on two Y-connected subs will increase or decrease by exactly the same amount. So, it's really just an issue of efficiency and convenience for the user.

When you increase the gain, prior to running Audyssey, you make a deposit in the subwoofer amp bank that I referred to earlier. Now, instead of starting with a trim level of -3 or even -6, you are starting with a trim level of -9 or -11. If you want to add +9 or even +11db of trim, you can do it, without ever leaving your chair.  And, if you wanted to go even louder than that, the option to increase the gain on the sub(s) would still exist. But, starting with a high gain, and a strongly negative trim, just makes it far easier to make incremental adjustments, while keeping track of exactly what you are doing. 

I hope that all makes sense. 

Regards,
Mike

One additional thought concerns the sub headroom you mentioned. If the sub doesn't have plenty of headroom, you won't be able to get a very low trim level, no matter where you set the gain. So, it will be pretty easy to tell. But, if you can get a good negative trim level, it's far easier to use your sub amp then, by making trim adjustments in your AVR.


----------



## Josh Z

mthomas47 said:


> One additional thought concerns the sub headroom you mentioned. If the sub doesn't have plenty of headroom, you won't be able to get a very low trim level, no matter where you set the gain. So, it will be pretty easy to tell. But, if you can get a good negative trim level, it's far easier to use your sub amp then, by making trim adjustments in your AVR.


Thanks, Mike. That all makes sense.


----------



## Jim1290

mthomas47 said:


> ... I think it's important to identify your short and long-term bass goals as you buy. To me, that's the single most important lesson I have learned.
> 
> ... give you improved SQ, and still have sufficient output for your requirements.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, thank you very, very much! You have really helped me! 


Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike, thank you very, very much! You have really helped me!
> 
> Jim


I'm really glad if I did, Jim! Please do me a favor, though. Let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out for you. Sometimes, these stories end in the middle.


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Today I redid audyssey and my two subs combined(used y splitter) I got a trim of -11.5
> The spl meter shows 72db after audyssey but I bumped it to 80db. In order to achieve 80db I set the trim to -6.5
> Is this acceptable? I think I read here so long as the trim by audyssey doesn't exceed -12 and as long as the manual trim is 0 or below you're good.
> Correct?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


That sounds perfect to me. I really like to start with -11.5, if I can hit it, in order to have the maximum amount of upward trim adjustment. At -6.5, you are using just under half of your total available headroom (without additional gain adjustments). So, you still have plenty of room if you ever want to open it up even more sometimes.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> That sounds perfect to me. I really like to start with -11.5, if I can hit it, in order to have the maximum amount of upward trim adjustment. At -6.5, you are using just under half of your total available headroom (without additional gain adjustments). So, you still have plenty of room if you ever want to open it up even more sometimes.


Sounds good thank you

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

Question about Audyssey XT32 measuring positions. I have a rather small room in which the couch (which includes the MLP in the middle) is in a 7-foot equilateral triangle with the front mains. There is about three feet between the back of the couch and the wall behind. The L and R surrounds are in the back corners of the room and aimed at the MLP. There are never more than two listeners in the room.

The drawing from the Audyssey website would indicate that measuring positions 7 and 8 should be on top of the couch behind the head of the listener in the MLP. But is this the best idea? I'm open to other ideas on where to place the mic during calibration?


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> Question about Audyssey XT32 measuring positions. I have a rather small room in which the couch (which includes the MLP in the middle) is in a 7-foot equilateral triangle with the front mains. There is about three feet between the back of the couch and the wall behind. The L and R surrounds are in the back corners of the room and aimed at the MLP. There are never more than two listeners in the room.
> 
> The drawing from the Audyssey website would indicate that measuring positions 7 and 8 should be on top of the couch behind the head of the listener in the MLP. But is this the best idea? I'm open to other ideas on where to place the mic during calibration?



Hi,

I can get things started. I have never quite understood going behind the head for a single row of seating. I would suggest bringing 1, 9, and 10 within 6" of the back of the sofa where your head would be, and as close to the middle of the ear canal in height as possible. (If you prefer, that could be 1, 2, and 3, but I still might not spread them too far apart.) If the sofa is leather, or a smooth fabric, I would recommend draping a thick blanket or absorbent towel over it. Then, I would pull in 4 and 6, to correspond to 9 and 10 in width, and bring 4, 5, and 6 back a little toward the sofa--maybe out about 20" or 24" from mic position 1.

The last two positions could be 9 and 10 as they are shown in the diagram, or you could really drill down on the MLP at the center of the sofa. I like to concentrate on the MLP, so I do the last two mic positions no more than 12" apart (6" out from mic position 1 to each side) and I elevate the mic by 2" or 3". So, six of the 8 positions form a kind of box around and ahead of the MLP, and are precisely at ear level. And then, the last two concentrate a little more on the MLP, and go a little higher. That seems to help with the overall response, and we do sit up straighter sometimes. 

I hope this is helpful! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I can get things started. I have never quite understood going behind the head for a single row of seating. I would suggest bringing 1, 9, and 10 within 6" of the back of the sofa where your head would be, and as close to the middle of the ear canal in height as possible. (If you prefer, that could be 1, 2, and 3, but I still might not spread them too far apart.) If the sofa is leather, or a smooth fabric, I would recommend draping a thick blanket or absorbent towel over it. Then, I would pull in 4 and 6, to correspond to 9 and 10 in width, and bring 4, 5, and 6 back a little toward the sofa--maybe out about 20" or 24" from mic position 1.
> 
> The last two positions could be 9 and 10 as they are shown in the diagram, or you could really drill down on the MLP at the center of the sofa. I like to concentrate on the MLP, so I do the last two mic positions no more than 12" apart (6" out from mic position 1 to each side) and I elevate the mic by 2" or 3". So, six of the 8 positions form a kind of box around and ahead of the MLP, and are precisely at ear level. And then, the last two concentrate a little more on the MLP, and go a little higher. That seems to help with the overall response, and we do sit up straighter sometimes.
> 
> I hope this is helpful!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


XT32 has a maximum of 8 measurements. I do put a thick blanket over the entire leather couch. I measure position 1 at the MLP at ear height, two other positions on the couch, three in front of the couch about 16" forward of each of the three positions I measured on the couch, and the last two over the top of the couch (7 and 8 in the Audyssey diagram). All of the measurements are at ear height. I'm questioning the positions of 7 and 8 mostly, but I'm open to trying some other things.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> XT32 has a maximum of 8 measurements. I do put a thick blanket over the entire leather couch. I measure position 1 at the MLP at ear height, two other positions on the couch, three in front of the couch about 16" forward of each of the three positions I measured on the couch, and the last two over the top of the couch (7 and 8 in the Audyssey diagram). All of the measurements are at ear height. I'm questioning the positions of 7 and 8 mostly, but I'm open to trying some other things.


I don't think we were communicating. I was only suggesting 8 positions, but I was using the numbered positions in the diagram you posted as a reference. 

I like everything you said about your first 6 positions. For 7 and 8, I might come in very close to the MLP, as suggested in my earlier post, and go up 2" or 3" for the reasons stated. I would not go on top of the couch. You should try to stay about 6" away from the blanket, in my experience, for best results. So, I would position 7 and 8 just a little beyond your ears, to either side, and up a little.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I'm open to other ideas on where to place the mic during calibration?


Well, I've never understood positions behind the head in a one row HT either. Since HTs have restricted seating, and people don't go dancing around the room (except during the exit music of Around the World in 80 Days, 1956 version), I like to put the mic where someone is liable to be. I do get Chris K's point about putting some mic positions forward to get a sense of the room where there are no seats, but I cheat and use a couple of forward positions where heads would be if someone leaned forward, with their forearms on their knees/upper legs, which does happen once in a while. These last positions would be a bit lower, rather than higher than the others. So, with our 5 cushion couch, here are the mic positions I ended up using a few years ago when I calibrated Audyssey for what I hope is the last time. Position number 1 is in the center seat at exactly my ear canal height, and the distance from the soft and fluffy couch back that my ear canal would be, but located at where the center of my head would be, rather than at the ears. True, others often sit in that center seat, and a few are shorter and a few taller than me, but the tall ones are free to slouch a bit. Positions 2 and 3 are where the openings of my ear canals would be. Positions 4 and 5 are by the left ear canal of an average height person sitting one seat to the left, and by the right ear canal of an average height person sitting one seat to the right of center. Because there are no dividers between the seats, and we bought the couch with the narrowest seating we could find, both of the ears of the leftward and rightward sitting people would be fairly near one mic position and pretty much exactly on the other. Positions 6 and 7 are even with the head centers of someone leaning forward in those seats to the right and left. Position 8 is in front of the center of couch and about 1 foot higher, in deference to some of the discussions here and in Chris K's discussions on the "Ask Audyssey" site. There are no mic positions assigned to the extreme left and right seats, but I have sat in those seats, and it sounds good from both of them. There is a fair amount of diffusion and absorption in the room.

All this produced REW curves with Audyssey Flat that are pretty darn flat above about 600 Hz -- this from speakers that are noted for every quality except flatness. Below 600 Hz there is a gradual rise, a la Harmon, partly achieved with the bass control on the pre-pro, and turning up the sub.


----------



## pbarach

^^
Thanks to both of you for your helpful responses. Assuming it rains lightly tomorrow and people aren't running their mowers and weed-whackers, I'll try a calibration in the morning.


----------



## Jim1290

mthomas47 said:


> I'm really glad if I did, Jim! Please do me a favor, though. Let us know what you decide to do, and how it works out for you. Sometimes, these stories end in the middle.


Hi Mike,

I shall wait till some news from SVS, as you mentioned elsewhere that SVS might introduce new subwoofers next week in Denver. As I have only two choices, SVS or XTZ.

Over the weekend I have level matched all four subs again, and rerun Audyssey again, got them to -11.5 db. I up the trim level to 6 db hot, I then used *this* which I bought 4 sometime ago, so instead of using only one RCA from ARV to sub, I think I gain between 3 - 6 db by using the Y cable, as I read somewhere. I don't know if this is OK or bad idea to do so. Please advise!

Thank you Mike!

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I shall wait till some news from SVS, as you mentioned elsewhere that SVS might introduce new subwoofers next week in Denver. As I have only two choices, SVS or XTZ.
> 
> Over the weekend I have level matched all four subs again, and rerun Audyssey again, got them to -11.5 db. I up the trim level to 6 db hot, I then used *this* which I bought 4 sometime ago, so instead of using only one RCA from ARV to sub, I think I gain between 3 - 6 db by using the Y cable, as I read somewhere. I don't know if this is OK or bad idea to do so. Please advise!
> 
> Thank you Mike!
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

That sounds great on your trim levels, and you still have plenty of headroom. I'm not exactly sure that I understand your question with respect to the Y-connector. If you are using two Y-connectors to connect 4 subs to the two sub outs in your AVR, that is exactly right. I do the same thing. If you are saying, as I think you are, that you also use a Y-connector (with two male ends) to go into the two sub inputs on each of your 4 subs, then that may not be accomplishing what you think it is.

Sometimes, there is a problem with sub amps not being sensitive enough to come on easily from the auto (energy saving) position. SVS, for instance, used to recommend using a Y-connector into both sub inputs, in that case, as it would increase the strength of the initial signal going to the subs by several decibels. So far, so good. But, it won't make the sub amp any stronger, it just increases the strength of the initial signal to the amp (the voltage) so the sub will turn on easily. 

I chased this idea a while back myself, although I never needed to actually try it. I discovered, unsurprisingly, that there is no free lunch. You don't gain additional headroom or output, and there is no performance benefit. You just strengthen the input signal. So, there is no harm in doing it, but no help either, if the subs already turn on automatically with the single input cable. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Well, I've never understood positions behind the head in a one row HT either. Since HTs have restricted seating, and people don't go dancing around the room (except during the exit music of Around the World in 80 Days, 1956 version), I like to put the mic where someone is liable to be. I do get Chris K's point about putting some mic positions forward to get a sense of the room where there are no seats, but I cheat and use a couple of forward positions where heads would be if someone leaned forward, with their forearms on their knees/upper legs, which does happen once in a while. These last positions would be a bit lower, rather than higher than the others. So, with our 5 cushion couch, here are the mic positions I ended up using a few years ago when I calibrated Audyssey for what I hope is the last time. Position number 1 is in the center seat at exactly my ear canal height, and the distance from the soft and fluffy couch back that my ear canal would be, but located at where the center of my head would be, rather than at the ears. True, others often sit in that center seat, and a few are shorter and a few taller than me, but the tall ones are free to slouch a bit. Positions 2 and 3 are where the openings of my ear canals would be. Positions 4 and 5 are by the left ear canal of an average height person sitting one seat to the left, and by the right ear canal of an average height person sitting one seat to the right of center. Because there are no dividers between the seats, and we bought the couch with the narrowest seating we could find, both of the ears of the leftward and rightward sitting people would be fairly near one mic position and pretty much exactly on the other. Positions 6 and 7 are even with the head centers of someone leaning forward in those seats to the right and left. Position 8 is in front of the center of couch and about 1 foot higher, in deference to some of the discussions here and in Chris K's discussions on the "Ask Audyssey" site. There are no mic positions assigned to the extreme left and right seats, but I have sat in those seats, and it sounds good from both of them. There is a fair amount of diffusion and absorption in the room.
> 
> All this produced REW curves with Audyssey Flat that are pretty darn flat above about 600 Hz -- this from speakers that are noted for every quality except flatness. Below 600 Hz there is a gradual rise, a la Harmon, partly achieved with the bass control on the pre-pro, and turning up the sub.



Hi Gary,

I enjoyed reading about your mic pattern, and how you got to it. It seems that our experiences and conclusions were similar. When I first did some calibrations, I noticed one day that if I leaned forward by a foot or so, the sound changed. And it didn't just change, it got a little louder and clearer. That led me to move my seating position forward a bit, and to experiment with different mic distances to the front. I actually ended up about where Pbarach said he is--about 16" to 18" forward from mic position 1, which I try to keep about 6" from my blanketed chair back.

I don't specifically drop those forward mic positions, as you do, although I have experimented (with good results) with going slightly below ear level, in general. If I were going to choose between above ear level for most of my mic positions, or below, I would probably choose below. I'm not really sure of the acoustical reasons for why that might be better, but my experience suggests that it would be, in my room, at least. In any event, somewhat varying the microphone heights can sometimes yield good results.

I also experimented a bit with sitting up very tall in my chair, and was surprised to find that also changed the sound a bit. And, that led me to doing my last two mic positions a little higher than ear level, although I don't go as high as you do. About 3" seems to work perfectly for me. What I also do, though, is to place those last two mic positions very close to where my ears would be--about 1.5" or 2" out from my ear canals on each side, which is almost exactly what you said you do with positions 2 and 3. (For anyone else reading this, the order of the mic positions doesn't matter.)

Like yourself, I get good sound within a pretty large area. And, there is very little change in the loudness or quality of the sound as I move around. As others have observed, there is no substitute for trial-and-error to discover what works best in a particular room.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

The changes in clarity based on moving your body are probably due to the uneven vertical dispersion of your tweeter, I'm guessing. 

I followed most of Gary's suggestions, allowing for having a 3-seater instead of a 5-seater couch, including one calibration position that was 12" higher than my ears. The results are audibly better. I hear more sense of the recording space in minimally miked 2-channel recordings, better clarity in movie dialogue, and plenty of bass without having to turn up my dual subs by 3 dB as I did in the past. I don't have REW, so no graphs to show the results.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> The changes in clarity based on moving your body are probably due to the uneven vertical dispersion of your tweeter, I'm guessing.
> 
> I followed most of Gary's suggestions, allowing for having a 3-seater instead of a 5-seater couch, including one calibration position that was 12" higher than my ears. The results are audibly better. I hear more sense of the recording space in minimally miked 2-channel recordings, better clarity in movie dialogue, and plenty of bass without having to turn up my dual subs by 3 dB as I did in the past. I don't have REW, so no graphs to show the results.


Graphs? Graphs? We don't need no stinking graphs!  As long as the sound quality is better, that's all that matters. And it's hard for you to just be imagining that now you don't need a 3db bass boost, where before you did. I'm glad that Gary's suggestions worked for you. In theory, the fuzzy logic weighting is supposed to avoid over-reliance on less global issues or single mic positions. But, who knows how it actually works in practice, because there is plenty of evidence that moving mic positions around can produce different results.

I appreciate your explanation of why moving forward might have changed my sound clarity. That explanation is a good one, but in my case not as likely due to the vertical column array of my tweeters. Proper toe-in is very important for my speakers, though, as the off-axis response can definitely change. I think that Audyssey was picking up some spurious boundary reflections and over-adjusting for them. As I leaned forward, I was in more of a sweet spot in that respect. I subsequently moved my listening position forward by about 8" or 9" and Audyssey stopped over-correcting. And the sound no longer changed based on my movement--even by several feet.

When people complain about Audyssey doing too much in the upper ranges, I think that some of the complaints can be justifiable. But, sometimes we also have to give the automated room correction a little help, by moving further away from boundaries, or experimenting with different mic placements, and sometimes even with room treatments. I have actually found Audyssey to be a pretty good diagnostic tool, because it not only helps to fix problems, particularly in the modal region, it also exposes them sometimes by accentuating them. I don't necessarily consider that a bad thing.

Anyway, I'm glad you got an improvement. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Graphs? Graphs? We don't need no stinking graphs!  As long as the sound quality is better, that's all that matters.…


Truer words were never said! I'm in this hobby for the enjoyment and I've yet to see a graph with an enjoyment scale on one axis.


----------



## Michaeldef

*AudysseyTrickery*

In rare cases when one has exhuasted speaker toe in and up and down placement, but still the upper treble is not as before such as with a 4520 with a newer Marantz 7010, what is the mic position during setup to aleviate this ? Short of masking the tweeters to bring back some treble ?


----------



## David Aiken

Michaeldef said:


> In rare cases when one has exhuasted speaker toe in and up and down placement, but still the upper treble is not as before such as with a 4520 with a newer Marantz 7010, what is the mic position during setup to aleviate this ? Short of masking the tweeters to bring back some treble ?


Don't know if you've tried this but you could use the Flat curve instead of Reference curve for a treble boost.


----------



## mthomas47

Michaeldef said:


> In rare cases when one has exhuasted speaker toe in and up and down placement, but still the upper treble is not as before such as with a 4520 with a newer Marantz 7010, what is the mic position during setup to aleviate this ? Short of masking the tweeters to bring back some treble ?


Hi Michael,

I take it from your post that you believe that Audyssey is compensating for something in a way that suppresses your upper treble. Is that correct? I guess the next question I would ask is, if that is the case, whether you have tried the Flat setting, with DEQ off? That would give you the purest treble sound, as the Audyssey curve rolls off the treble a little (about 2db from 4KHz to 10KHZ, and about 6db above 10KHz). And DEQ may slightly accentuate the perceived treble disparity by boosting the bass slightly in all of the channels, not just in the subwoofers.

So, I would start with that, just to see where I am. Then, depending on whether you like what you hear, you might want to stay with Flat, and experiment again with DEQ, trying different RLO settings. Or you might experiment with DEQ off, and use your tone controls. You can add treble, or add/subtract bass, on your front speakers with the tone controls.

The above may solve your problems, or you might want to continue to investigate calibration tweaks. Typically, the mic positions that I would experiment with to have the greatest effect on treble would involve the relative height of the Audyssey mic, and its relative proximity to other surfaces. So, I would make sure that I was exactly at ear level with one calibration, and I might try ear level for 6 positions and 3" or so higher, with two positions, for another calibration. Then, just compare audible results.

Getting the Audyssey mic too close to a surface can also cause it to behave unpredictably in the upper ranges. In my experience, getting the mic too close to a hard surface would cause it to overboost highs, and getting the mic too close to a soft surface (such as a thick blanket over a chair) could make it underboost treble and upper mid-range frequencies. Others may have had different experiences, but I try to keep the Audyssey mic at least 18" from a hard surface (24" is better) and about 6" from a very absorbent surface.

I hope some of this helps. Please let us know, and if none of the above helps, you may need to post some photos of your set-up, and some more detailed information about your issues.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Michaeldef said:


> In rare cases when one has exhuasted speaker toe in and up and down placement, but still the upper treble is not as before such as with a 4520 with a newer Marantz 7010, what is the mic position during setup to aleviate this ? Short of masking the tweeters to bring back some treble ?


Mike and David beat me to it! I agree with them.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

New to this and enjoyed reading the posts here. Thanks Mike and Gary for the tips. My upgraded components arrived and I am gonna run Audyssey on Friday night. I will post my impressions.


----------



## David Aiken

There is another approach that none of us have mentioned.

Audyssey works to produce a given target response. If you find that does not have enough top end for you and the Audyssey Flat curve doesn't answer your needs, then rather than playing with mic positions why not play with the room?

Use the standard measurement positions but make the room a little deader by putting blankets over some hard reflective surfaces, especially any that are close to your listening position. If you have something like a hard surface coffee table between the measurement position and the speakers, remove it from the room for the setup process or cover it with a blanket. If your sofa/chairs are covered in leather, cover them with blankets and/or put soft cushions with fabric covers on them. Use thin natural fibre blankets or covers. The idea is simply to make the room sound a little deader at high frequencies before running setup. Audyssey should generate a "brighter" response curve to compensate for the increase in high frequency absorption so when you remove all of those additions after doing the setup, the result should sound brighter. You can still experiment with the Flat vs Reference curves afterwards as well.

If the end result is too bright, repeat setup with fewer surfaces covered. If it still isn't bright enough, deaden the room in the high frequency range a little more and repeat setup. Once you get a result you like, make a note of what you did to the room for the setup process so that you can repeat that arrangement if you need to run setup again.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> There is another approach that none of us have mentioned.
> 
> Audyssey works to produce a given target response. If you find that does not have enough top end for you and the Audyssey Flat curve doesn't answer your needs, then rather than playing with mic positions why not play with the room?
> 
> Use the standard measurement positions but make the room a little deader by putting blankets over some hard reflective surfaces, especially any that are close to your listening position. If you have something like a hard surface coffee table between the measurement position and the speakers, remove it from the room for the setup process or cover it with a blanket. If your sofa/chairs are covered in leather, cover them with blankets and/or put soft cushions with fabric covers on them. Use thin natural fibre blankets or covers. The idea is simply to make the room sound a little deader at high frequencies before running setup. Audyssey should generate a "brighter" response curve to compensate for the increase in high frequency absorption so when you remove all of those additions after doing the setup, the result should sound brighter. You can still experiment with the Flat vs Reference curves afterwards as well.
> 
> If the end result is too bright, repeat setup with fewer surfaces covered. If it still isn't bright enough, deaden the room in the high frequency range a little more and repeat setup. Once you get a result you like, make a note of what you did to the room for the setup process so that you can repeat that arrangement if you need to run setup again.


That's a very interesting and creative idea, David. I definitely believe in experimentation, and if nothing else works, I might try some of that. Who knows, it might help! But, FWIW, I don't believe that is exactly the way Audyssey works.

Audyssey's target curve is not exactly something baked into the Audyssey software, as much as it is a reaction to the variation in frequency response that Audyssey observes at the MLP. So, IMO, Audyssey first simply tries to get a system to play flat, which means about +/- 3db from 75db at all frequencies. And then, it imposes the Audyssey Reference curve on top of that. I believe that is how we end up with the Flat option and the Reference option.

In my experience on this thread, Audyssey doesn't materially make speakers playing in bright rooms sound duller, or speakers playing in well-treated rooms sound brighter. That is because the room is bright across the entire mid and upper frequency range, so Audyssey won't selectively flatten out the upper frequencies. And, the reverse is true as well. If the room is well-treated, Audyssey may need to boost the trim levels on the individual channels just slightly to compensate for some comprehensive deadening. But, it doesn't selectively boost just the upper frequencies, and not the mid-range frequencies, because then the response wouldn't be flat.

So, if you have a very bright room, and bright speakers (horns, for instance) Audyssey won't be able to do too much about it. And carpet, softening fabrics, and other room treatments can help, but they will tend to help at all frequencies above say 500Hz, or so, depending on thickness and type.

I believe that Audyssey is far more likely to respond to more localized effects of toe-in or microphone placement, in its boosts and cuts, because those can directly impact how strongly Audyssey hears just the high frequencies. For instance, if speakers aren't toed-in enough, or if the mic isn't at about the right height, Audyssey can actually boost the high frequencies, because it can't hear those as clearly given the directionality of some tweeters. And, if you get the mic too close to a hard surface, spurious high frequencies can bounce back into the Audyssey mic from too close a range, causing Audyssey too hear too much treble compared to mid-range, and causing it to cut the high frequencies back in response. But, those tend to be localized effects, and not characteristic of generalized room treatments.

None of this says that some of your suggestions might not work in a particular situation, and I might try nearly anything (aside from cable risers ) in an effort to get better sound. But, I do think that some of the more conventional Audyssey troubleshooting techniques are better candidates to start with.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Mike,

Some years ago when I first used Audyssey in the basic MultEQ version, I discovered that how I set my room up for the setup process made a difference. It's an open plan area with a large window area and also a large glass sliding door to the patio and a ceramic tiled floor. The room can sound very bright when the curtains which covered the window and door were open so I used to close them when using the system. My initial results weren't great, I had no idea of what I was doing and I was following instructions blindly. I'd realise I'd ignored a comment about room preparation and run the setup again and get a different result. I learnt that putting a few minutes into arranging a few things in the room before doing the setup process made a difference to my results. Over time and doing setup with the glass door covered by a curtain or uncovered, I realised that I got my best results if I did the setup with the window and door covered by curtains. The result sounded quite nice if I also listened that way but it also sounded good if I opened the curtains and the glass sliding door on summer evenings. On the other hand, if I did the setup process with the window and door uncovered, I didn't like the result as much regardless of whether I listened with the curtains open or closed. I didn't set out to prove that doing things one way was better than another, I just found out the hard way that I got more consistent results from one setup process to another if I "standardised" the way the room was arranged, and that doing so did have an effect on how well I liked the result I got. It's worth a go, and all it costs is a little time and effort.

I'm still using the same room but the furnishings have all changed, the gear including the AVR has all changed, but I still do setup with all of the curtains covering those glass surfaces. I tend to listen with the window, which is a side reflection point, covered but with the curtain over the door open and the door open quite often, and I still get good results—or should I say "results that I like a lot"—that way. I also tend to use the Flat curve most of the time, even though the system is really only used for movies and TV. I run a separate audio system in a different room which is acoustically treated for music listening.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> Some years ago when I first used Audyssey in the basic MultEQ version, I discovered that how I set my room up for the setup process made a difference. It's an open plan area with a large window area and also a large glass sliding door to the patio and a ceramic tiled floor. The room can sound very bright when the curtains which covered the window and door were open so I used to close them when using the system. My initial results weren't great, I had no idea of what I was doing and I was following instructions blindly. I'd realise I'd ignored a comment about room preparation and run the setup again and get a different result. I learnt that putting a few minutes into arranging a few things in the room before doing the setup process made a difference to my results. Over time and doing setup with the glass door covered by a curtain or uncovered, I realised that I got my best results if I did the setup with the window and door covered by curtains. The result sounded quite nice if I also listened that way but it also sounded good if I opened the curtains and the glass sliding door on summer evenings. On the other hand, if I did the setup process with the window and door uncovered, I didn't like the result as much regardless of whether I listened with the curtains open or closed. I didn't set out to prove that doing things one way was better than another, I just found out the hard way that I got more consistent results from one setup process to another if I "standardised" the way the room was arranged, and that doing so did have an effect on how well I liked the result I got. It's worth a go, and all it costs is a little time and effort.
> 
> I'm still using the same room but the furnishings have all changed, the gear including the AVR has all changed, but I still do setup with all of the curtains covering those glass surfaces. I tend to listen with the window, which is a side reflection point, covered but with the curtain over the door open and the door open quite often, and I still get good results—or should I say "results that I like a lot"—that way. I also tend to use the Flat curve most of the time, even though the system is really only used for movies and TV. I run a separate audio system in a different room which is acoustically treated for music listening.


Hi David,

Your experience really demonstrates how hard it is to predict what will actually effect a calibration until you try it. And, as you say, all it takes is a little time and effort.

I think you already know that I wasn't disparaging your suggestions.  As I have said before, I have experimented widely with Audyssey set-ups in my room. One of the things that a lot of people have tried is putting a blanket over the back of a chair or sofa in order to prevent spurious reflections from that surface from bouncing into the Audyssey mic from close range. A number of people have discovered that those close range reflections can cause comb filtering, in turn causing Audyssey to over-correct high frequencies. But, removing the blanket after running Audyssey doesn't change the sound, because the blanket only had a micro effect (due to the placement of the mic) on the calibration to start with.

I am a little bit surprised that covering the sliding glass door (and window) during calibration has a similar micro effect, but again that merely demonstrates what we don't know, and can't predict, about how Audyssey will react to set-up differences. Was the Audyssey microphone ever in close proximity (within a foot or two) of the glass surface during calibration? If so, that might make it at least a little easier to understand how the curtain was able to help specifically with the calibration itself, as opposed to helping with the overall sound quality on more of a macro level.

It's an interesting subject.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> Your experience really demonstrates how hard it is to predict what will actually effect a calibration until you try it. And, as you say, all it takes is a little time and effort.
> 
> I think you already know that I wasn't disparaging your suggestions.  As I have said before, I have experimented widely with Audyssey set-ups in my room. One of the things that a lot of people have tried is putting a blanket over the back of a chair or sofa in order to prevent spurious reflections from that surface from bouncing into the Audyssey mic from close range. A number of people have discovered that those close range reflections can cause comb filtering, in turn causing Audyssey to over-correct high frequencies. But, removing the blanket after running Audyssey doesn't change the sound, because the blanket only had a micro effect (due to the placement of the mic) on the calibration to start with.
> 
> I am a little bit surprised that covering the sliding glass door (and window) during calibration has a similar micro effect, but again that merely demonstrates what we don't know, and can't predict, about how Audyssey will react to set-up differences. Was the Audyssey microphone ever in close proximity (within a foot or two) of the glass surface during calibration? If so, that might make it at least a little easier to understand how the curtain was able to help specifically with the calibration itself, as opposed to helping with the overall sound quality on more of a macro level.
> 
> It's an interesting subject.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I run 2 systems, an audio system in a room with physical acoustic treatments and an AV system, the one I described, which relies on Audyssey and the room furnishings. The AV system came much later than the audio system and I read a lot on acoustics when I started playing with DIY treatments in the room for the audio system before later swapping to a pile of RealTraps. I also worked in health and safety and had a bit to do with the setup of a telephone call centre and the use of absorption to keep the background noise of 100 or so operators on the phone at the same time from interfering with their ability to hear and understand the people they were talking to. I think the situation is a little more understandable than you may think.

There are acoustics study of the effects of people on sound. As usual, the people in these studies were the standard university research "test animals", i.e. students, and that has an effect on the results because students tend to have slightly less surface area than most of us older adults. They've just finished "growing up" while we're long past that and well into the process of "growing out". We've put on weight plus we're less likely to be dressing lightly in order to attract the opposite sex  People themselves, i.e. their bodies, have virtually no absorption qualities at all but their clothing does, and studies made in summer and winter show that the absorption of normal clothing increases considerably in winter when the clothing is thicker and heavier. Most of the absorption from clothes is above 1 kHz and it drops rapidly below that. Above 1 kHz a person absorbs around 5 Sabins or more, that's the equivalent of a 5 square foot open window. Placing a blanket over a chair or sofa is probably a quite reasonable "substitute" for the people who normally occupy the chair given that the area from which early reflections are reflected to the mic position is going to be small since sound acts more like a ray than a wave at high frequencies. 

There's also a fair amount of data on the acoustic effects of soft furnishings. Professional acousticians need that data when they're designing things like concert halls. The drapes over my door are much larger in area than a person's clothing or a blanket. They cover around 65 sq ft in area and are pleated so that actual surface area of material is around 100 sq ft. They're also substantial material for light blocking. There's a reasonable amount of absorption in them. When they're pulled back the absorption doesn't change because the surface area of the material doesn't change but around 45 sq. ft of glass is exposed and that increases reflection which reduces the contribution the curtains make. The window area is smaller, about 40 sq ft in area, but curtains can still have a not insignificant effect at high frequencies. In my case the curtains are at a much greater distance than the chair surfaces are from the mic position but the greater surface area is going to compensate for distance to some degree although their effect on high frequencies in the room is largely going to be in the later reflections which are weaker and which contribute less to the measurement than do earlier reflections.

Having said that I think the situation is a little more understandable than you may think, I also have to say that at my level of understanding and with my experience of Audyssey, there's still a fair bit of guesswork here on my part. I've read some of the data available on the effect of soft furnishings and my experience is in line with what that data suggests. I don't have the equipment to do the kind of measurement which shows effects on decay time and absorption at different frequencies, and to do that to the same degree of both precision and accuracy that you would get in a scientific study. I've also learnt that trying to predict results based on a reasonable knowledge of the absorption effects of various materials isn't all that accurate because while I can predict with reasonable accuracy whether something is going to have an effect on what I hear and what frequency ranges are likely to be affected, that level of general knowledge is not a particularly useful guide to predicting how large the change will be at the listening position or how I'm going to respond to the change. I've ended up with a reasonably good idea of what to change to produce a change in the area I want to change but that change is going to extend into other frequencies and I can't predict how large the change is or how I am going to respond to the change. When it comes to questions like will I like the change and how much will I have to do to get the change I want to hear, I still operate in "suck it and see" mode. The test that really counts is what someone thinks when they've done something and then sat down to listen.

I'm also not convinced that having more detailed knowledge and all of the measurement equipment would necessarily help me all that much. You can hire a professional acoustician to design the acoustics for a concert hall and they can do a wonderful, totally professional job for you but at the end of the day you're going to stick several hundred different individuals in that room and they all have different preferences for how a performance should sound. The acoustician can produce a result which satisfies most of them but only some of those people will think the sound is absolutely great and you may also find a few that think it's not all that good at all. Research can tell us what kind of an end result will satisfy most people and knowledge can help us produce a space which delivers that kind of result, but there's nothing to tell us ahead of time how a particular individual is going to respond to sound in that space. Once we get down to an individual level we're back to "suck it and see" anyway though at least when it comes to satisfying ourselves when we're making changes we can at least develop enough personal experience to have a slightly better idea of how we personally are likely to respond.

But one thing I can say is that soft furnishings, and also hard reflective furnishings, can have a appreciable effect on the sound in a room and on the Audyssey setup measurement process, given that when I say "appreciable effect" I'm talking about an effect which does have an impact on how we respond to the end result. Knowing that only gets us so far, however. The two big problems are always going to be trying to give any sort of quantifiable estimate of what effect a given change will produce, especially when suggesting something for someone else to try in a room you have absolutely no knowledge of, and predicting in advance how anyone is going to respond to a change.


----------



## mthomas47

I have been finding the discussion with David interesting, and my own experiences and inclinations somewhat parallel his, including the belief that what we actually hear is what really matters. But, it occurs to me that I introduced a concept in an earlier post without really defining it, and that it would make the discussion better if I did. And, I'm doing it this way so that others might feel freer to chime in if they wish.

In the context of this discussion, I used the terms macro and micro. A macro effect, as I am defining it, is an effect which is independent of Audyssey. So, if you add carpet with a rubber pad to a wood or concrete floor, the effect in reducing overall brightness, or ringing in the room, should be audible whether you are running an Audyssey system or not. Likewise, drapes, soft furniture, fabrics or paintings on walls, books which can act as diffusers, bass traps, broadband acoustic panels, and so on, can all exert a macro effect on sound quality. And, it's a macro effect because you can theoretically hear the change in sound quality whether you have an automated system of room correction or not. And because the sound quality improves when you add the item, and goes away if you remove it.

In a very fundamental way, Audyssey itself exerts a macro effect on the sound in the room, and particularly at the MLP, because the effect of the filters that Audyssey sets is audible when Audyssey is on, and not audible when Audyssey is off. The same thing would be true with larger scale room treatments. If you hung drapes and then took them down (or opened them widely enough) the sound quality in the room would change if they were exerting a macro effect. Acoustic panels at first reflection points, or bass traps would be other examples. Add them and the sound improves. Take them away and the sound deteriorates.

So far so good. But, what do I mean then when I refer to micro effects? In the context of this discussion, I am defining a micro effect, as an effect that is specific to the Audyssey calibration. An example of a micro effect is getting the Audyssey microphone too close to a wall. When that happens, the Audyssey microphone will "hear" excessively loud high frequencies, since they are bouncing off the wall and directly into the Audyssey microphone. And, the Audyssey software will react by being very busy in the high frequency range. Now, that excessive business (typically referred to as comb filtering) may not necessarily cause audible problems, if the mic gets too close to a hard surface, but it may. And, Audyssey's resulting effect is a micro effect because it is directly related to the calibration technique and not to any inherent room condition such as carpet, drapes, acoustic panels, etc. You can eliminate the micro effect simply by moving the Audyssey mic further away from the reflective surface. With something like a wall, 18" to 24" would probably be desirable.

And it's also a micro effect because our ears wouldn't hear those high frequency bounces in quite the same way that the Audyssey mic would. The pinnae of our ears (the flaps) would have somewhat blocked the sounds arriving from behind us and attenuated their volume slightly. But, the Audyssey mic "hears" equally well in a 360 degree radius. So, the effect of changing the sound that our speakers makes is a micro one, directly related to our own calibration technique.

Another example of a micro effect is getting the Audyssey mic too close to the surface of a leather chair or sofa. Again, reflections from the sofa back can cause the Audyssey mic to hear too much high frequency sound, and result in some inappropriate filters. Inappropriate in this case, because our own ears would never behave that way even if we weren't actually sitting in the spot where the Audyssey mic was located. But, it's a micro effect because we can spoof the Audyssey mic by putting an absorbent blanket over the sofa, preventing Audyssey from hearing those too loud short-range reflections. And then, we can take the blanket away when the calibration is completed and Audyssey won't change our sound in a way that is markedly different from what our own ears would hear. So, we haven't changed the inherent sound quality in the room, we have just changed what Audyssey's mic hears in a strictly temporary way.

Again for purposes of this discussion, I would define a macro effect as one which changes the inherent sound in the room irrespective of Audyssey, and a micro effect as one which changes the sound in the room (and probably not beneficially) based on our specific calibration technique. In David's example, it seemed to me that the drapes should have exerted a macro effect on the room, reducing early reflections, and reducing ringing artifacts in the room. And when the drapes were opened widely, it seemed as if the sound should change, in the same way it would if you took carpet up, or removed acoustic panels. When the sound didn't change when the drapes were opened, it seemed a little surprising to me, because then it appeared that the drapes had somehow produced a micro effect--just on the Audyssey mic--like a blanket over a sofa during calibration, rather than having an intrinsic effect on the quality of the sound as they normally would.

But, as David and I have already agreed, it can be extremely difficult to accurately predict exactly what will, or will not, affect an Audyssey calibration. We know a few of the more obvious things, and I listed some of them. But, beyond that, it is very much a matter of trial-and-error. I hope that expanding the discussion in this way is helpful in clarifying some of what I meant, and in inviting others to participate if interested. I don't know if anyone else will like this macro/micro dichotomy, but it seemed like a useful way to differentiate between set-up or room treatments done for their own sake, versus things done specifically, and temporarily, to facilitate an Audyssey calibration.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I run 2 systems, an audio system in a room with physical acoustic treatments and an AV system, the one I described, which relies on Audyssey and the room furnishings. The AV system came much later than the audio system and I read a lot on acoustics when I started playing with DIY treatments in the room for the audio system before later swapping to a pile of RealTraps. I also worked in health and safety and had a bit to do with the setup of a telephone call centre and the use of absorption to keep the background noise of 100 or so operators on the phone at the same time from interfering with their ability to hear and understand the people they were talking to. I think the situation is a little more understandable than you may think.
> 
> There are acoustics study of the effects of people on sound. As usual, the people in these studies were the standard university research "test animals", i.e. students, and that has an effect on the results because students tend to have slightly less surface area than most of us older adults. They've just finished "growing up" while we're long past that and well into the process of "growing out". We've put on weight plus we're less likely to be dressing lightly in order to attract the opposite sex  People themselves, i.e. their bodies, have virtually no absorption qualities at all but their clothing does, and studies made in summer and winter show that the absorption of normal clothing increases considerably in winter when the clothing is thicker and heavier. Most of the absorption from clothes is above 1 kHz and it drops rapidly below that. Above 1 kHz a person absorbs around 5 Sabins or more, that's the equivalent of a 5 square foot open window. Placing a blanket over a chair or sofa is probably a quite reasonable "substitute" for the people who normally occupy the chair given that the area from which early reflections are reflected to the mic position is going to be small since sound acts more like a ray than a wave at high frequencies.
> 
> There's also a fair amount of data on the acoustic effects of soft furnishings. Professional acousticians need that data when they're designing things like concert halls. The drapes over my door are much larger in area than a person's clothing or a blanket. They cover around 65 sq ft in area and are pleated so that actual surface area of material is around 100 sq ft. They're also substantial material for light blocking. There's a reasonable amount of absorption in them. When they're pulled back the absorption doesn't change because the surface area of the material doesn't change but around 45 sq. ft of glass is exposed and that increases reflection which reduces the contribution the curtains make. The window area is smaller, about 40 sq ft in area, but curtains can still have a not insignificant effect at high frequencies. In my case the curtains are at a much greater distance than the chair surfaces are from the mic position but the greater surface area is going to compensate for distance to some degree although their effect on high frequencies in the room is largely going to be in the later reflections which are weaker and which contribute less to the measurement than do earlier reflections.
> 
> Having said that I think the situation is a little more understandable than you may think, I also have to say that at my level of understanding and with my experience of Audyssey, there's still a fair bit of guesswork here on my part. I've read some of the data available on the effect of soft furnishings and my experience is in line with what that data suggests. I don't have the equipment to do the kind of measurement which shows effects on decay time and absorption at different frequencies, and to do that to the same degree of both precision and accuracy that you would get in a scientific study. I've also learnt that trying to predict results based on a reasonable knowledge of the absorption effects of various materials isn't all that accurate because while I can predict with reasonable accuracy whether something is going to have an effect on what I hear and what frequency ranges are likely to be affected, that level of general knowledge is not a particularly useful guide to predicting how large the change will be at the listening position or how I'm going to respond to the change. I've ended up with a reasonably good idea of what to change to produce a change in the area I want to change but that change is going to extend into other frequencies and I can't predict how large the change is or how I am going to respond to the change. When it comes to questions like will I like the change and how much will I have to do to get the change I want to hear, I still operate in "suck it and see" mode. The test that really counts is what someone thinks when they've done something and then sat down to listen.
> 
> I'm also not convinced that having more detailed knowledge and all of the measurement equipment would necessarily help me all that much. You can hire a professional acoustician to design the acoustics for a concert hall and they can do a wonderful, totally professional job for you but at the end of the day you're going to stick several hundred different individuals in that room and they all have different preferences for how a performance should sound. The acoustician can produce a result which satisfies most of them but only some of those people will think the sound is absolutely great and you may also find a few that think it's not all that good at all. Research can tell us what kind of an end result will satisfy most people and knowledge can help us produce a space which delivers that kind of result, but there's nothing to tell us ahead of time how a particular individual is going to respond to sound in that space. Once we get down to an individual level we're back to "suck it and see" anyway though at least when it comes to satisfying ourselves when we're making changes we can at least develop enough personal experience to have a slightly better idea of how we personally are likely to respond.
> 
> But one thing I can say is that soft furnishings, and also hard reflective furnishings, can have a appreciable effect on the sound in a room and on the Audyssey setup measurement process, given that when I say "appreciable effect" I'm talking about an effect which does have an impact on how we respond to the end result. Knowing that only gets us so far, however. The two big problems are always going to be trying to give any sort of quantifiable estimate of what effect a given change will produce, especially when suggesting something for someone else to try in a room you have absolutely no knowledge of, and predicting in advance how anyone is going to respond to a change.



David,

I understand and agree with a lot of what you said. I decided to expand the discussion in a more general way, since we were into an interesting topic, and posted something more general just above this one.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> David,
> 
> I understand and agree with a lot of what you said. I decided to expand the discussion in a more general way, since we were into an interesting topic, and posted something more general just above this one.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks for the expansion post. I see that how I was interpreting 'micro effect' is different to what you meant. I interpreted your macro/micro distinction as relating to larger/smaller scale of effect.

I agree with the distinction between that you're making. Our ears, or more accurately our brains, do a lot of things including a certain amount of summing of direct and later reflected sound arrivals so we are incapable of hearing early reflections from very close surfaces as distinct events whereas the software processing the signal from a mic has no such limitation. It makes a lot of sense to use a distinction such as yours to distinguish between the impact something has on what we hear and the impact the same thing has on a measurement process such as the Audyssey setup procedure. I wouldn't have thought of describing that distinction as 'macro/micro' but I have no alternative terminology to offer.


----------



## Michaeldef

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> I take it from your post that you believe that Audyssey is compensating for something in a way that suppresses your upper treble. Is that correct? I guess the next question I would ask is, if that is the case, whether you have tried the Flat setting, with DEQ off? That would give you the purest treble sound, as the Audyssey curve rolls off the treble a little (about 2db from 4KHz to 10KHZ, and about 6db above 10KHz). And DEQ may slightly accentuate the perceived treble disparity by boosting the bass slightly in all of the channels, not just in the subwoofers.
> 
> So, I would start with that, just to see where I am. Then, depending on whether you like what you hear, you might want to stay with Flat, and experiment again with DEQ, trying different RLO settings. Or you might experiment with DEQ off, and use your tone controls. You can add treble, or add/subtract bass, on your front speakers with the tone controls.
> 
> The above may solve your problems, or you might want to continue to investigate calibration tweaks. Typically, the mic positions that I would experiment with to have the greatest effect on treble would involve the relative height of the Audyssey mic, and its relative proximity to other surfaces. So, I would make sure that I was exactly at ear level with one calibration, and I might try ear level for 6 positions and 3" or so higher, with two positions, for another calibration. Then, just compare audible results.
> 
> Getting the Audyssey mic too close to a surface can also cause it to behave unpredictably in the upper ranges. In my experience, getting the mic too close to a hard surface would cause it to overboost highs, and getting the mic too close to a soft surface (such as a thick blanket over a chair) could make it underboost treble and upper mid-range frequencies. Others may have had different experiences, but I try to keep the Audyssey mic at least 18" from a hard surface (24" is better) and about 6" from a very absorbent surface.
> 
> I hope some of this helps. Please let us know, and if none of the above helps, you may need to post some photos of your set-up, and some more detailed information about your issues.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the wealth of info on the treble. The real problem stemmed from the absence of Dolby PL2 for music on the newer Marantz 7010 from the perfect sounding Denon 4520, I always used Audyssey flat for music, also a classic rock fan doesnt help either as many hi rez copies are still flat sounding compared to better or newer music.So I made a treble tuning enhancer, simply by covering the tweeter with either a tissue, a napkin or a towel, the towel was too bright the napkin is perfect.I dont really like doing it this way, but works very well for my room.the upper highs are very crisp again as before, I believe the 2016 models with the new audyssey app should be great for this,but this crazy method does work quite well as I did not believe this would work as well it does


----------



## mthomas47

Michaeldef said:


> Thanks for the wealth of info on the treble. The real problem stemmed from the absence of Dolby PL2 for music on the newer Marantz 7010 from the perfect sounding Denon 4520, I always used Audyssey flat for music, also a classic rock fan doesnt help either as many hi rez copies are still flat sounding compared to better or newer music.So I made a treble tuning enhancer, simply by covering the tweeter with either a tissue, a napkin or a towel, the towel was too bright the napkin is perfect.I dont really like doing it this way, but works very well for my room.the upper highs are very crisp again as before, I believe the 2016 models with the new audyssey app should be great for this,but this crazy method does work quite well as I did not believe this would work as well it does


You are very welcome, and I'm glad that you found a solution. I have heard of trying that to tame over-bright tweeters, in general, but your application of it as a way to get Audyssey to boost your treble was ingenious. I also like that you tried different thicknesses before settling on the Goldilocks one.


----------



## ShoutingMan

I've read / skimmed the Audyssey Beginner's Guide and FAQ sections. It says things very clearly, which I appreciate. But I've got a basic question to make sure I understand the simple explanations 

I've got a Marantz 7702mkII with Audyssey MultEQ 32XT. I run it. It computes the Audyssey settings. It sets speakers as Small. It sets crossovers at 40 Hz and 60 Hz and 80Hz for the various "Small" speakers. My speakers can't handle 40 Hz. I go into the manual speaker settings and set the Crossover to 80Hz for all speakers. 

That's ok? That's recommended? Changing crossovers manually doesn't disable or screw up Audyssey? And those manual changes are used by the AVR with the Audyssey system?

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

ShoutingMan said:


> I've read / skimmed the Audyssey Beginner's Guide and FAQ sections. It says things very clearly, which I appreciate. But I've got a basic question to make sure I understand the simple explanations
> 
> I've got a Marantz 7702mkII with Audyssey MultEQ 32XT. I run it. It computes the Audyssey settings. It sets speakers as Small. It sets crossovers at 40 Hz and 60 Hz and 80Hz for the various "Small" speakers. My speakers can't handle 40 Hz. I go into the manual speaker settings and set the Crossover to 80Hz for all speakers.
> 
> That's ok? That's recommended? Changing crossovers manually doesn't disable or screw up Audyssey? And those manual changes are used by the AVR with the Audyssey system?
> 
> Thanks!


Hi,

Yes, that's fine, and recommended. Audyssey detects the point at which your speakers are down in volume by -3db and reports that to the Marantz, which in turn sets a crossover above that point. But, it is advisable to actually set crossovers even higher than that, in order to let your sub(s) do most of the heavy lifting. And, 80Hz is a good rule-of-thumb for your crossovers. 

The filters that Audyssey sets, to try to EQ all of your speakers, are independent of the crossovers, the distance settings, and the trim levels. So, those three things are user-adjustable in a way that is completely independent of the actual room EQ.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

*Hi, would it be a problem to mix speaker brands ?*

Fronts are Teufel Definion 5 (european brand), center is a Magnat Neos, Heights front and back also Magnat but the Needle serie.
Now i "need" surrounds and am looking for Klipsch.
Would this mix be a problem, or will (can) Audyssey (XT32) level this out ?


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> *Hi, would it be a problem to mix speaker brands ?*
> 
> Fronts are Teufel Definion 5 (european brand), center is a Magnat Neos, Heights front and back also Magnat but the Needle serie.
> Now i "need" surrounds and am looking for Klipsch.
> Would this mix be a problem, or will (can) Audyssey (XT32) level this out ?


Hi,

That's a good question. I think I would say, it depends. It depends in part on how different the sound signatures of the speakers are, and also on how sensitive the listener is to nuances of sound. I will say that, in my particular case, I could mix different sounding speakers for movies (or even for electronic music) far more easily than I could for music played by acoustic instruments. That's partly because I am much more familiar with how acoustic music should sound. So, depending on your listening preferences, that's another factor to consider.

Audyssey attempts to make every speaker in your system play +/- about 3db, at every frequency, by playing 75db test tones through all of the speakers. But, even if Audyssey is extremely successful with the filters it sets, 6db at some frequencies is still a pretty big range. And, Audyssey won't really change the intrinsic sound of the speakers very much, although it will improve their interaction with the room. So, if one speaker has very clear and bright sounding tweeters, for instance, compared to another speaker, some listeners might notice and think that things sound a little (or a lot) off.

Klipsch's horn drivers sound a little different to me than some other tweeters and mid-range drivers do. And, it's a sound that some people like a lot and others don't. On the other hand, I don't know anything about your other speakers. So, they might blend fine. And, if you were going to introduce completely different sounding speakers, the surrounds would probably be less noticeable than your front soundstage.

I think that the safest advice is to try to stay with at least the same general type of drivers, even if the brand is different. But, ultimately, it's one of those personal things that you would just have to try, to see whether it works for you. I hope this helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's a good question. I think I would say, it depends. It depends in part on how different the sound signatures of the speakers are, and also on how sensitive the listener is to nuances of sound. I will say that, in my particular case, I could mix different sounding speakers for movies (or even for electronic music) far more easily than I could for music played by acoustic instruments. That's partly because I am much more familiar with how acoustic music should sound. So, depending on your listening preferences, that's another factor to consider.
> 
> Audyssey attempts to make every speaker in your system play +/- about 3db, at every frequency, by playing 75db test tones through all of the speakers. But, even if Audyssey is extremely successful with the filters it sets, 6db at some frequencies is still a pretty big range. And, Audyssey won't really change the intrinsic sound of the speakers very much, although it will improve their interaction with the room. So, if one speaker has very clear and bright sounding tweeters, for instance, compared to another speaker, some listeners might notice and think that things sound a little (or a lot) off.
> 
> Klipsch's horn drivers sound a little different to me than some other tweeters and mid-range drivers do. And, it's a sound that some people like a lot and others don't. On the other hand, I don't know anything about your other speakers. So, they might blend fine. And, if you were going to introduce completely different sounding speakers, the surrounds would probably be less noticeable than your front soundstage.
> 
> I think that the safest advice is to try to stay with at least the same general type of drivers, even if the brand is different. But, ultimately, it's one of those personal things that you would just have to try, to see whether it works for you. I hope this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


While Mike has given you excellenet advice, as always, I'd like to point out something more to check-out before you deep-dive into the Klipsch territory. This is speaker sensitivity, where Klipsch are know to perform prety well, yet sometimes too well, so to speak. It may happen with such super sensitive speakers that Audyssey willl run out of trims on the negative side (-12 dB) and won't be able to set the proper speaker level for these speakers to match will the other lower sensitivity brands in your system.


----------



## CBdicX

Thank you both, a great help  (as always on this forum)


I did have Klipsch RP in the past and liked them, but never mixed them with other brands.
So its up to me and try, well, a big part of this hobby


----------



## Alan P

ShoutingMan said:


> I've read / skimmed the Audyssey Beginner's Guide and FAQ sections. It says things very clearly, which I appreciate. But I've got a basic question to make sure I understand the simple explanations
> 
> I've got a Marantz 7702mkII with Audyssey MultEQ 32XT. I run it. It computes the Audyssey settings. It sets speakers as Small. It sets crossovers at 40 Hz and 60 Hz and 80Hz for the various "Small" speakers. My speakers can't handle 40 Hz. I go into the manual speaker settings and set the Crossover to 80Hz for all speakers.
> 
> That's ok? That's recommended? Changing crossovers manually doesn't disable or screw up Audyssey? And those manual changes are used by the AVR with the Audyssey system?
> 
> Thanks!


From the Audyssey FAQ:

Is it OK to change the Crossovers from Audyssey's recommendation?

_"Raising (never lowering) the Crossovers is fine and will not affect the calibration that Audyssey has made."_


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> *Hi, would it be a problem to mix speaker brands ?*
> 
> Fronts are Teufel Definion 5 (european brand), center is a Magnat Neos, Heights front and back also Magnat but the Needle serie.
> Now i "need" surrounds and am looking for Klipsch.
> Would this mix be a problem, or will (can) Audyssey (XT32) level this out ?





mthomas47 said:


> ... I think I would say, it depends. It depends in part on how different the sound signatures of the speakers are, and also on how sensitive the listener is to nuances of sound. I will say that, in my particular case, I could mix different sounding speakers for movies (or even for electronic music) far more easily than I could for music played by acoustic instruments. That's partly because I am much more familiar with how acoustic music should sound ...
> 
> Audyssey attempts to make every speaker in your system play +/- about 3db ... 6db at some frequencies is still a pretty big range. And, Audyssey won't really change the intrinsic sound of the speakers very much, although it will improve their interaction with the room. So, if one speaker has very clear and bright sounding tweeters, for instance, compared to another speaker, some listeners might notice and think that things sound a little (or a lot) off.
> 
> Klipsch's horn drivers sound a little different to me than some other tweeters and mid-range drivers do. And, it's a sound that some people like a lot and others don't. On the other hand, I don't know anything about your other speakers. So, they might blend fine. And, if you were going to introduce completely different sounding speakers, the surrounds would probably be less noticeable than your front soundstage.
> 
> I think that the safest advice is to try to stay with at least the same general type of drivers, even if the brand is different. But, ultimately, it's one of those personal things that you would just have to try, to see whether it works for you. I hope this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





mogorf said:


> While Mike has given you excellenet advice, as always, I'd like to point out something more to check-out before you deep-dive into the Klipsch territory. This is speaker sensitivity, where Klipsch are know to perform prety well, yet sometimes too well, so to speak. It may happen with such super sensitive speakers that Audyssey willl run out of trims on the negative side (-12 dB) and won't be able to set the proper speaker level for these speakers to match will the other lower sensitivity brands in your system.





CBdicX said:


> Thank you both, a great help  (as always on this forum)
> 
> I did have Klipsch RP in the past and liked them, but never mixed them with other brands.
> So its up to me and try, well, a big part of this hobby


The sensitivity of smaller Klipsch speakers _*tends*_ to be 4 to 8 dB lower than the classic large ones, with some exceptions. This *may *be especially true of speakers typically used for surrounds.The sensitivity of each of their speakers is listed on their website. I couldn't determine the sensitivity of the Teufel Definition 5, because my understanding of any language other than English is nearly nonexistent. Virtually all speaker companies "customize" their sensitivity ratings to take into account the recommended placement, which opens up the possibility of some exaggeration. 

If you have a preamp or preamp/processor or an AVR *and*
use a separate multi-channel power amp, you can easily fool Audyssey into not "bottoming out" your trims to - 12 dB by *temporarily* putting attenuators of equal value on all channels, whether they all need them or not, between your preamp (or preamp outs on an AVR, if it has them), then running Audyssey, allowing it to set the filters and levels, then removing the attenuators. This works because it is the _*relative*_ SPL of the speakers that counts. During the Audyssey calibration, Audyssey would act the way it would with less efficient speakers. As Chris K of Audyssey pointed out some 5 or 6 years ago, after calibrating this way, and then removing the attenuators, with the attenuators gone, reference level on the main volume control would be lower than 0 by the number of dB the attenuators attenuate. 

My front array uses Klipsch speakers rated at 105 dB @ 2.83 Volts (1 Watt @ 8 Ohms) @ 1 Meter, which bottomed out the trims at -12 dB, therefore would not do. I put 12 dB attenuators on all channels, which temporarily brought the fronts down to an equivalent sensitivity of 93 and the less efficient surrounds down to 85 dB (gasp!). On the advice of my dealer, before doing this I measured the effect of the attenuators to confirm that they really did reduce the signal by 12 dB when in the line between my pre/pro and my power amp. The new, temporary, 93 dB for the fronts is more in the sensitivity neighborhood of typical speakers, and Audyssey adjusted all the trims without bottoming out. I then removed all the attenuators. My new reference level on the main volume control is -12. I usually play movies at 5 or more dB below that.

As to "very clear and bright," Audyssey made all of my speakers in my room sound even clearer, and it tamed some over brightness from the front by turning down a broad hump centered at about 8K Hz. 

I agree that the fronts need to be more the same, but the surrounds can be, and often are, different than the fronts.

CBdicX, do you have a Klipsch dealer nearby? Can you bring home some surrounds to try them with your system?


----------



## CBdicX

garygarrison said:


> The sensitivity of smaller Klipsch speakers _*tends*_ to be 4 to 8 dB lower than the classic large ones, with some exceptions. This *may *be especially true of speakers typically used for surrounds.The sensitivity of each of their speakers is listed on their website. I couldn't determine the sensitivity of the Teufel Definition 5, because my understanding of any language other than English is nearly nonexistent. Virtually all speaker companies "customize" their sensitivity ratings to take into account the recommended placement, which opens up the possibility of some exaggeration.
> 
> If you have a preamp or preamp/processor or an AVR *and*
> use a separate multi-channel power amp, you can easily fool Audyssey into not "bottoming out" your trims to - 12 dB by *temporarily* putting attenuators of equal value on all channels, whether they all need them or not, between your preamp (or preamp outs on an AVR, if it has them), then running Audyssey, allowing it to set the filters and levels, then removing the attenuators. This works because it is the _*relative*_ SPL of the speakers that counts. During the Audyssey calibration, Audyssey would act the way it would with less efficient speakers. As Chris K of Audyssey pointed out some 5 or 6 years ago, after calibrating this way, and then removing the attenuators, with the attenuators gone, reference level on the main volume control would be lower than 0 by the number of dB the attenuators attenuate.
> 
> My front array uses Klipsch speakers rated at 105 dB @ 2.83 Volts (1 Watt @ 8 Ohms) @ 1 Meter, which bottomed out the trims at -12 dB, therefore would not do. I put 12 dB attenuators on all channels, which temporarily brought the fronts down to an equivalent sensitivity of 93 and the less efficient surrounds down to 85 dB (gasp!). On the advice of my dealer, before doing this I measured the effect of the attenuators to confirm that they really did reduce the signal by 12 dB when in the line between my pre/pro and my power amp. The new, temporary, 93 dB for the fronts is more in the sensitivity neighborhood of typical speakers, and Audyssey adjusted all the trims without bottoming out. I then removed all the attenuators. My new reference level on the main volume control is -12. I usually play movies at 5 or more dB below that.
> 
> As to "very clear and bright," Audyssey made all of my speakers in my room sound even clearer, and it tamed some over brightness from the front by turning down a broad hump centered at about 8K Hz.
> 
> I agree that the fronts need to be more the same, but the surrounds can be, and often are, different than the fronts.
> 
> CBdicX, do you have a Klipsch dealer nearby? Can you bring home some surrounds to try them with your system?


Thanks for your advice, on the end of this week i will receive a set Klipsch RP240S and will see how Audyssey will handle the various dB's of the speakers.
As long as Audyssey can set the levels above -12, all is ok, right ?

The fronts will do 85 dB
Hights will do 88 dB
Center will do 90 dB
Klipsch will do 93 dB

Not to bad ?

Thanks !


----------



## mthomas47

I think that you will be just fine from a level-matching standpoint. I wouldn't expect Audyssey to bottom out any of your trim levels. And, you are the only judge that really matters of how the various speakers sound when they play together. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

My old Klipschorns (105dB 1w/1m) would bottom out the Audyssey cal, but only my RF which had more boundary reinforcement. It would set the FR to -12dB but the FL was at -11.5dB.

I think you'll be just fine with those sensitivity ratings.


----------



## mogorf

CBdicX said:


> Thanks for your advice, on the end of this week i will receive a set Klipsch RP240S and will see how Audyssey will handle the various dB's of the speakers.
> As long as Audyssey can set the levels above -12, all is ok, right ?
> 
> The fronts will do 85 dB
> Hights will do 88 dB
> Center will do 90 dB
> Klipsch will do 93 dB
> 
> Not to bad ?
> 
> Thanks !


With the high sensitivity Klipsch it will also depend on how far/near they are from MLP. Cross my fingers for a good trim level.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> The sensitivity of smaller Klipsch speakers _*tends*_ to be 4 to 8 dB lower than the classic large ones, with some exceptions. This *may *be especially true of speakers typically used for surrounds.The sensitivity of each of their speakers is listed on their website. I couldn't determine the sensitivity of the Teufel Definition 5, because my understanding of any language other than English is nearly nonexistent. Virtually all speaker companies "customize" their sensitivity ratings to take into account the recommended placement, which opens up the possibility of some exaggeration.
> 
> If you have a preamp or preamp/processor or an AVR *and*
> use a separate multi-channel power amp, you can easily fool Audyssey into not "bottoming out" your trims to - 12 dB by *temporarily* putting attenuators of equal value on all channels, whether they all need them or not, between your preamp (or preamp outs on an AVR, if it has them), then running Audyssey, allowing it to set the filters and levels, then removing the attenuators. This works because it is the _*relative*_ SPL of the speakers that counts. During the Audyssey calibration, Audyssey would act the way it would with less efficient speakers. As Chris K of Audyssey pointed out some 5 or 6 years ago, after calibrating this way, and then removing the attenuators, with the attenuators gone, reference level on the main volume control would be lower than 0 by the number of dB the attenuators attenuate.
> 
> My front array uses Klipsch speakers rated at 105 dB @ 2.83 Volts (1 Watt @ 8 Ohms) @ 1 Meter, which bottomed out the trims at -12 dB, therefore would not do. I put 12 dB attenuators on all channels, which temporarily brought the fronts down to an equivalent sensitivity of 93 and the less efficient surrounds down to 85 dB (gasp!). On the advice of my dealer, before doing this I measured the effect of the attenuators to confirm that they really did reduce the signal by 12 dB when in the line between my pre/pro and my power amp. The new, temporary, 93 dB for the fronts is more in the sensitivity neighborhood of typical speakers, and Audyssey adjusted all the trims without bottoming out. I then removed all the attenuators. My new reference level on the main volume control is -12. I usually play movies at 5 or more dB below that.
> 
> As to "very clear and bright," Audyssey made all of my speakers in my room sound even clearer, and it tamed some over brightness from the front by turning down a broad hump centered at about 8K Hz.
> 
> I agree that the fronts need to be more the same, but the surrounds can be, and often are, different than the fronts.
> 
> CBdicX, do you have a Klipsch dealer nearby? Can you bring home some surrounds to try them with your system?


Gary,

You do know your Klipsch speakers!


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> With the high sensitivity Klipsch it will also depend on how far/near they are from MLP. Cross my fingers for a good trim level.


Good point. With a very near MLP, in a small room, Audyssey may not be able to turn them down enough, and hit -12 when an unavailable - 15 is needed. With a MLP 15 feet away, in a 4,000 cu ft room, no problem.

Since 93 dB is only 3 dB away from the probable median sensitivity of 90 dB, for which Audyssey probably designed, I'll bet CBdicX will be O.K., but my fingers will be crossed, as well.


----------



## CBdicX

The only thing i see crossed in my house are the legs of my wife...... LOL.

The fronts and surrounds (that will be behind the MLP, not at the sides) are at 2.5 meters for the front / center, and 3 meters for the surrounds, in a medium size L-shaped room from the MLP.
I will post the Audyssey levels when the 240S are in place and set.

Thanks for all the help !


----------



## JaytheDreamer

I ran the audyssey and it pretty much set everything right, like distances and crossovers. My MA towers was set 40Hz, the MA center at 60, NHT surrounds at 80 and my AE speakers (unfortunately I cant install ceiling speakers) at about 100Hz. The only thing is it set the levels a tad bit low for the AE modules (0 and +1) which I had to bump a couple of notches. Same goes for my two subs. 

Is this a general conscious to bump up Subs and AE modules a tad bit after Audyssey? Though I find it better that way. How about Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume? I have set DEq to on and set the reference at -10 (I tried various points and preferred this) and set the DV off since it sounded unnecessarily boosting volumes.


----------



## Selden Ball

JaytheDreamer said:


> I ran the audyssey and it pretty much set everything right, like distances and crossovers. My MA towers was set 40Hz, the MA center at 60, NHT surrounds at 80 and my AE speakers (unfortunately I cant install ceiling speakers) at about 100Hz. The only thing is it set the levels a tad bit low for the AE modules (0 and +1) which I had to bump a couple of notches. Same goes for my two subs.
> 
> Is this a general conscious to bump up Subs and AE modules a tad bit after Audyssey? Though I find it better that way. How about Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume? I have set DEq to on and set the reference at -10 (I tried various points and preferred this) and set the DV off since it sounded unnecessarily boosting volumes.


Yes, most people prefer to have a higher subwoofer level than what Audyssey chooses.

Overheads vary. Bear in mind that many Atmos movies actually have very little sound overhead, and that's mostly ambience. Also, Dolby Surround upmixing tends to produce a lower overhead sound level than does DTS Neural:X.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

Selden Ball said:


> Yes, most people prefer to have a higher subwoofer level than what Audyssey chooses.
> 
> Overheads vary. Bear in mind that many Atmos movies actually have very little sound overhead, and that's mostly ambience. Also, Dolby Surround upmixing tends to produce a lower overhead sound level than does DTS Neural:X.


Thanks Selden. Could you let you me know how these upmixers work in new AVRs (6010/6011/7010 etc)? Do they upmix all the normal DD / DTS surround to include the heights respectively based on source signal(DD to a pseudo Atmos and DTS to Neural:x)?


----------



## Selden Ball

JaytheDreamer said:


> Thanks Selden. Could you let you me know how these upmixers work in new AVRs (6010/6011/7010 etc)? Do they upmix all the normal DD / DTS surround to include the heights respectively based on source signal(DD to a pseudo Atmos and DTS to Neural:x)?


My understanding is that the 2016 (xx11) models all already include cross-format upmixing, so you can use either Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X to upmix any 2.0, 5.1 or 7.1 channel soundtrack to use the overhead speakers. The 2015 models (xx10) either have it now or will have cross-format upnixing before the end of the year. Sorry, I don't recall the schedules for their firmware updates.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

Selden Ball said:


> My understanding is that the 2016 (xx11) models all already include cross-format upmixing, so you can use either Dolby Surround or DTS Neural:X to upmix any 2.0, 5.1 or 7.1 channel soundtrack to use the overhead speakers. The 2015 models (xx10) either have it now or will have cross-format upnixing before the end of the year. Sorry, I don't recall the schedules for their firmware updates.


Thanks, I have the 6011. Sorry again for repeated questions, but do I need to select the sound mode on the front of the AVR and select a mode (Nural:X etc) or the AVR would do itself (I leave it in Auto for AVR to pick up the signal it receives)? Anyway no matter I play the normal DD shows from TV/Cable, the AVR shows all the speakers engaged in the speaker layout and I can hear the AE modules sounding. But I don't know what kind of upmixing is done by AVR in that case.


----------



## Selden Ball

JaytheDreamer said:


> Thanks, I have the 6011. Sorry again for repeated questions, but do I need to select the sound mode on the front of the AVR and select a mode (Nural:X etc) or the AVR would do itself (I leave it in Auto for AVR to pick up the signal it receives)? Anyway no matter I play the normal DD shows from TV/Cable, the AVR shows all the speakers engaged in the speaker layout and I can hear the AE modules sounding. But I don't know what kind of upmixing is done by AVR in that case.


It's easier if you use the remote instead of the front panel. 

If you press on the remote's Info button, you should get an on-screen display of the type of input signal, the type of processing being applied plus which speakers are in use.

If you press the Movie (or Music or Game) button on the remote, you'll be provided with a menu of sound processing options for the type of audio signal and input that you're currently listening to. Press that button several times to select the one you want. The receiver should then remember that choice and will use it from then on for that input and audio signal type. Sometimes, though, especially when you've been listening to several different inputs over a period of time, you'll have to press the button once to recall that particular type of processing for that input.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

Selden Ball said:


> It's easier if you use the remote instead of the front panel.
> 
> If you press on the remote's Info button, you should get an on-screen display of the type of input signal, the type of processing being applied plus which speakers are in use.
> 
> If you press the Movie (or Music or Game) button on the remote, you'll be provided with a menu of sound processing options for the type of audio signal and input that you're currently listening to. Press that button several times to select the one you want. The receiver should then remember that choice and will use it from then on for that input and audio signal type. Sometimes, though, especially when you've been listening to several different inputs over a period of time, you'll have to press the button once to recall that particular type of processing for that input.


Thanks again. I am aware of the info button and the details shown. Anyway I checked and found that when a normal DD signal is fed, the AVR is doing DD + DD Surround and when a DTS signal is fed it is doing DTS + Nural:x and all the speakers are engaged, in both cases. I am certain that for actual Atmos or DTS:x signals the AVR would do the real deal. For me, its good deal (the sound mode is set to Auto) .


----------



## Selden Ball

JaytheDreamer said:


> Thanks again. I am aware of the info button and the details shown. Anyway I checked and found that when a normal DD signal is fed, the AVR is doing DD + DD Surround and when a DTS signal is fed it is doing DTS + Nural:x and all the speakers are engaged, in both cases. I am certain that for actual Atmos or DTS:x signals the AVR would do the real deal. For me, its good deal (the sound mode is set to Auto) .


Good enough!

Some people want to disable any upmixing and hear the soundtracks "as the director intended" (even though they sound so much better when upmixed). The Movie (etc) buttons provide a way to do that.


----------



## lovingdvd

JaytheDreamer said:


> Thanks again. I am aware of the info button and the details shown. Anyway I checked and found that when a normal DD signal is fed, the AVR is doing DD + DD Surround and when a DTS signal is fed it is doing DTS + Nural:x and all the speakers are engaged, in both cases. I am certain that for actual Atmos or DTS:x signals the AVR would do the real deal. For me, its good deal (the sound mode is set to Auto) .


What is this auto setting? I don't recall seeing that.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

lovingdvd said:


> What is this auto setting? I don't recall seeing that.


I didn't find it in the remote. You need to press the Sound Mode button on the AVR itself and cycle through. I just put it in Auto (its the default anyway).


----------



## Jei Wu

Hi there,
I had post some questions about audyssey and thanks for all help,
and after plenty of tests by my ear,
I'v got another questions,
I'd like to ask what's the difference between dynamic EQ on and off?
I've seen some articles discuss about it, and knowing that wen DEQ on,
the audyssey system try to compensate the bass when the volume is lower than reference,
but these days I tried different settings, and found some questions,
I compared two different settings:

1. Audyssey on(Movie mode), DEQ on, all speakers volume just set as what audyssey's test result.
2. Audyssey on(Movie mode), DEQ off, adjust the volume(subwoofer+4db, left/right rear surround+2.5db)

I found that case1 has a better surround feeling, but the bass was boomy and lack of punch.
case2 is full of bass punch, quick, and clean, but the surround is kind of thin, lack of surround feeling(but just a little, not very seriously)

I wonder why the result happend when I set DEQ on/off,
in my imagination, the bass should be the same when I adjust the volume up or down,
since I thought the DEQ just compensate the bass volume,
but the fact is that DEQ on with a boomy bass, and DEQ off with a punchy bass,
even I turn the sub volume up or down, when DEQ on, boomy still.

So is there a reason why DEQ on with a boomy bass?
Thanks!

Since my english is not so good, if there's something I wrote wrong, please tell me, thanks!


----------



## asere

Jei Wu said:


> Hi there,
> I had post some questions about audyssey and thanks for all help,
> and after plenty of tests by my ear,
> I'v got another questions,
> I'd like to ask what's the difference between dynamic EQ on and off?
> I've seen some articles discuss about it, and knowing that wen DEQ on,
> the audyssey system try to compensate the bass when the volume is lower than reference,
> but these days I tried different settings, and found some questions,
> I compared two different settings:
> 
> 1. Audyssey on(Movie mode), DEQ on, all speakers volume just set as what audyssey's test result.
> 2. Audyssey on(Movie mode), DEQ off, adjust the volume(subwoofer+4db, left/right rear surround+2.5db)
> 
> I found that case1 has a better surround feeling, but the bass was boomy and lack of punch.
> case2 is full of bass punch, quick, and clean, but the surround is kind of thin, lack of surround feeling(but just a little, not very seriously)
> 
> I wonder why the result happend when I set DEQ on/off,
> in my imagination, the bass should be the same when I adjust the volume up or down,
> since I thought the DEQ just compensate the bass volume,
> but the fact is that DEQ on with a boomy bass, and DEQ off with a punchy bass,
> even I turn the sub volume up or down, when DEQ on, boomy still.
> 
> So is there a reason why DEQ on with a boomy bass?
> Thanks!
> 
> Since my english is not so good, if there's something I wrote wrong, please tell me, thanks!


DEQ does boost the bass and surrounds in order to be more audible when listening at a lower volume however, the closer you get to reference DEQ basically disappears. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Hi there,
> I had post some questions about audyssey and thanks for all help,
> and after plenty of tests by my ear,
> I'v got another questions,
> I'd like to ask what's the difference between dynamic EQ on and off?
> I've seen some articles discuss about it, and knowing that wen DEQ on,
> the audyssey system try to compensate the bass when the volume is lower than reference,
> but these days I tried different settings, and found some questions,
> I compared two different settings:
> 
> 1. Audyssey on(Movie mode), DEQ on, all speakers volume just set as what audyssey's test result.
> 2. Audyssey on(Movie mode), DEQ off, adjust the volume(subwoofer+4db, left/right rear surround+2.5db)
> 
> I found that case1 has a better surround feeling, but the bass was boomy and lack of punch.
> case2 is full of bass punch, quick, and clean, but the surround is kind of thin, lack of surround feeling(but just a little, not very seriously)
> 
> I wonder why the result happend when I set DEQ on/off,
> in my imagination, the bass should be the same when I adjust the volume up or down,
> since I thought the DEQ just compensate the bass volume,
> but the fact is that DEQ on with a boomy bass, and DEQ off with a punchy bass,
> even I turn the sub volume up or down, when DEQ on, boomy still.
> 
> So is there a reason why DEQ on with a boomy bass?
> Thanks!
> 
> Since my english is not so good, if there's something I wrote wrong, please tell me, thanks!



Hi,

Your English is fine, but I am not sure that there is a good answer to your question. Some people find the bass a little more boomy with DEQ on, and other people find it completely natural and appropriate sounding. To me, it's a little bit like asking why some people find a particular serving of food a little too spicy, and why other people think it tastes perfect? I think you just have to trust your own judgment in what you like, and not worry too much about what other people like.

The surround boost is similar. DEQ boosts the surrounds a little. Some people like that because it makes the surrounds stand out more, and some people find that having the surrounds a little louder is distracting. If you want to do without DEQ, but still have a surround boost, you can always increase the surround boost by a little more than +2.5db.

One additional piece of advice I might give you is just to give yourself plenty of time to decide what you like best. Generally, that won't be something that you have to work at, or concentrate on--any more than you would with spicy food. You will just find that you like what you like, instinctively. But, just as with food, don't be too surprised if your listening tastes change just a little bit from time-to-time, resulting in some occasional adjustments. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your English is fine, but I am not sure that there is a good answer to your question. Some people find the bass a little more boomy with DEQ on, and other people find it completely natural and appropriate sounding. To me, it's a little bit like asking why some people find a particular serving of food a little too spicy, and why other people think it tastes perfect? I think you just have to trust your own judgment in what you like, and not worry too much about what other people like.
> 
> The surround boost is similar. DEQ boosts the surrounds a little. Some people like that because it makes the surrounds stand out more, and some people find that having the surrounds a little louder is distracting. If you want to do without DEQ, but still have a surround boost, you can always increase the surround boost by a little more than +2.5db.
> 
> One additional piece of advice I might give you is just to give yourself plenty of time to decide what you like best. Generally, that won't be something that you have to work at, or concentrate on--any more than you would with spicy food. You will just find that you like what you like, instinctively. But, just as with food, don't be too surprised if your listening tastes change just a little bit from time-to-time, resulting in some occasional adjustments.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Wow! Thanks again Mike! I like the food story you told,
and that makes me understand more about the sound,
one additional question is:
Does the DEQ boost the main speakers too? or just rear surround speaker?
I mean I have Left Front, Center, Right Front, Rear Left, Rear Right, and SUB
When DEQ off, if I want to make surround effect closer to DEQ on
should I raise the volume of LF& LR just like RL&RR?
thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Wow! Thanks again Mike! I like the food story you told,
> and that makes me understand more about the sound,
> one additional question is:
> Does the DEQ boost the main speakers too? or just rear surround speaker?
> I mean I have Left Front, Center, Right Front, Rear Left, Rear Right, and SUB
> When DEQ off, if I want to make surround effect closer to DEQ on
> should I raise the volume of LF& LR just like RL&RR?
> thanks!


You are very welcome! I'm glad the food analogy helped, because that's the way I tend to think about a lot of our audio preferences.  DEQ boosts the bass slightly in all of the channels and adds an overall volume boost to the surround channels. But, the overall volume boost occurs only in the surround channels. 

You are already boosting your sub by about 4db. If you increase the trim levels on your two surround channels, and your two front channels, you will have increased the trim level on every channel except the center channel. I think it would be much easier, and probably more balanced in that case, to just increase your master volume a little more, and if the CC seems too loud in comparison to the other four channels, just turn down the CC a little. You can do that in your Audio controls, which makes it easier to adjust the CC up or down while listening to the effect.

What I am saying is that if you increase the trim levels on all of your channels, the effect is the same as just increasing your master volume. But, the MV control is much easier.

You can make any adjustments to the trim levels that suit your listening preference, or mood at the moment, and it won't affect the Audyssey filters. But, random adjustments may throw your imaging (where the sound seems to come from) or overall blend (the uniformity of sound) out of balance. If I were you, I would probably go back to the trim levels that Audyssey originally set (with your preferred sub boost), listen for awhile without DEQ, and then if you want to, make some subtle adjustments. But, I would listen for at least a couple of days, with a variety of program material, and I would change the master volume more than I would the individual trim levels. 

Audyssey's goal is to make all of the channels play at the same volume at the MLP. The surround boost of DEQ is slightly contrary to that goal. If you like having your rear speakers playing a little louder, you can raise them to suit your preference. If you want your overall volume to be louder, just increase that, and lower the volume on the CC, if necessary. But, I wouldn't get my system too far out of balance, without a good reason, if I were you.


----------



## Alan P

Jei Wu said:


> Wow! Thanks again Mike! I like the food story you told,
> and that makes me understand more about the sound,
> one additional question is:
> Does the DEQ boost the main speakers too? or just rear surround speaker?
> I mean I have Left Front, Center, Right Front, Rear Left, Rear Right, and SUB
> When DEQ off, if I want to make surround effect closer to DEQ on
> should I raise the volume of LF& LR just like RL&RR?
> thanks!


Mike has given you great advice (as usual). I just wanted to point you to the Audyssey FAQ which is linked in my sig if you haven't already found it. You will find a plethora of great questions and answers on Audyssey, compiled over years by many forum members.

Here is just one example:

What is Dynamic EQ?


----------



## Jei Wu

Alan P said:


> Mike has given you great advice (as usual). I just wanted to point you to the Audyssey FAQ which is linked in my sig if you haven't already found it. You will find a plethora of great questions and answers on Audyssey, compiled over years by many forum members.
> 
> Here is just one example:
> 
> What is Dynamic EQ?


Thanks a lot!! I thought I have found a new knowledge to know now, thank you!


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I'm glad the food analogy helped, because that's the way I tend to think about a lot of our audio preferences.  DEQ boosts the bass slightly in all of the channels and adds an overall volume boost to the surround channels. But, the overall volume boost occurs only in the surround channels.
> 
> You are already boosting your sub by about 4db. If you increase the trim levels on your two surround channels, and your two front channels, you will have increased the trim level on every channel except the center channel. I think it would be much easier, and probably more balanced in that case, to just increase your master volume a little more, and if the CC seems too loud in comparison to the other four channels, just turn down the CC a little. You can do that in your Audio controls, which makes it easier to adjust the CC up or down while listening to the effect.
> 
> What I am saying is that if you increase the trim levels on all of your channels, the effect is the same as just increasing your master volume. But, the MV control is much easier.
> 
> You can make any adjustments to the trim levels that suit your listening preference, or mood at the moment, and it won't affect the Audyssey filters. But, random adjustments may throw your imaging (where the sound seems to come from) or overall blend (the uniformity of sound) out of balance. If I were you, I would probably go back to the trim levels that Audyssey originally set (with your preferred sub boost), listen for awhile without DEQ, and then if you want to, make some subtle adjustments. But, I would listen for at least a couple of days, with a variety of program material, and I would change the master volume more than I would the individual trim levels.
> 
> Audyssey's goal is to make all of the channels play at the same volume at the MLP. The surround boost of DEQ is slightly contrary to that goal. If you like having your rear speakers playing a little louder, you can raise them to suit your preference. If you want your overall volume to be louder, just increase that, and lower the volume on the CC, if necessary. But, I wouldn't get my system too far out of balance, without a good reason, if I were you.


Thanks again! I have a question about english phrase (sorry for my poor english),
I want to know what you mentioned about "surround channels", does that include front left and front right channels? What I'd like to know is, does Dynamic EQ boost the volume in FL&FR channels just like in RL&RR channels? thanks!


----------



## CherylJosie

mthomas47 said:


> DEQ boosts the surrounds a little. Some people like that because it makes the surrounds stand out more, and some people find that having the surrounds a little louder is distracting.


I have not seen any good explanation for the surround boost of either Audyssey DEQ or THX Loudness Plus.

To my ear, the surround boost is objectionable. Particularly for movies, it seems to drown out the dialog with surround effects in the program, surround music in the program, and 'inside the head' poorly localized ambiance from the rear surrounds (whether discrete or synthesized) that destroys the sense of surround imaging and separation.

I read two possible explanations for why surround boost. One said the surround boost is because the pinnea selectively attenuates sound from the rear, but the surround boost also affects the side surrounds that fire straight into the ear. Additionally, the fronts also pass over the pinnea and get slightly attenuated, plus we should be well adapted to any change from the pinnea given that is a primary directional cue for higher frequencies, so that explanation fails logic.

The other explanation said the surround boost is to overcome the masking from the front channels at lower volume, but the masking from front channels should be accounted for in the level balance calibration since masking is function of relative rather than absolute levels.

The only plausible explanation I can think of for why surround channels might be boosted is that, at lower volumes, the quieter side and rear channels that usually carry quieter ambiance (discrete or synthetic) tend to get masked by the noise floor of the listening venue and become largely inaudible, making them a waste of space and money. That explanation also fails because the noise floor is a function of the listening venue, and the amount of surround boost should depend on the relative difference between the attenuated volume control output setting (below reference) versus the measured noise floor.

That explanation also fails because there is no way to adjust the amount of surround boost independently of the amount of spectral compensation from the equal loudness contour, nor is there any way to adjust the amount of relative surround boost for the noise floor measurement during calibration.

Anyway, the more appropriate solution is to use dynamic compression of DV applied to all channels equally so that the bottom end of their dynamic range falls above the noise floor of a noisy venue, or above the threshold of hearing for a soundproofed venue, rather than using level boost in DEQ applied to surround channels only and conflated with the equal loudness contour.

That supposition implies that the noise floor of the venue should also be an input to calibration that informs the amount of dynamic compression that is applied for any given volume setting, or at least DV should have an independent reference level offset from DEQ so that the dynamic range of DV can be squished into the range between the actual output level setting relative to reference and the measured noise floor of the venue, while the DEQ compensation is keyed off the volume control setting to preserve natural spectral balance of louder sounds that dominate the perceived spectral balance, without regard to the noise floor masking that might upset the perceived spectral balance of quieter sounds that are already being compensated in DV.

I once tried to rationalize DEQ surround boost by combining the masking from the front channels and the relative change in tonal balance from pinnea, but went through that thought experiment without any joy. Then I read something by Kiryakis indicating that the surround boost of DEQ was not well thought out, but it is still there in my receiver anyway.

I see that THX Loudness Plus documentation states it also boosts surround channels, but my listening tests with my TX-NR929 seem to indicate that there actually is no surround boost on that receiver when Loudness Plus is engaged. It also seems to have a fixed 10dB offset for the Loudness Plus reference level that aligns well (audibly, for me anyway) with DEQ when its reference offset is set at 10dB.

Eventually, I decided to just manually EQ with graphic to the 'Harman Target' and leave all Audyssey functions off, even though DEQ and DV work on my TX-NR929 without Audyssey room EQ enabled. I found that properly positioning the subwoofers, adding some bass traps, and getting the subwoofer integration working a little better by tweaking phase and level of dual subs for least phase lag near crossover, seemed to do more for the sound than Audyssey, DEQ, and DV did, though I still wish I could turn on DV by itself without DEQ, for late night listening to DTS etc. programming that lacks Dolby's Late Night dynamic compression.


----------



## pbarach

Jei Wu said:


> Thanks again! I have a question about english phrase (sorry for my poor english),
> I want to know what you mentioned about "surround channels", does that include front left and front right channels? What I'd like to know is, does Dynamic EQ boost the volume in FL&FR channels just like in RL&RR channels? thanks!


Dynamic EQ does not boost the volume of the front left and front right channels. It does not boost the volume of the center channel.


----------



## mthomas47

Jei Wu said:


> Thanks again! I have a question about english phrase (sorry for my poor english),
> I want to know what you mentioned about "surround channels", does that include front left and front right channels? What I'd like to know is, does Dynamic EQ boost the volume in FL&FR channels just like in RL&RR channels? thanks!



Pbarach has already answered your question, but I guess the terminology is a little confusing. You have a 5.1 "surround" system. Within that surround system, you have a total of six channels: the center channel, the left front, the right front, the left surround, the right surround, and the LFE channel (that's the .1). That is the same way that your AVR would label your channels, although the LFE channel is sometimes called the subwoofer channel. It can be confusing.

To make things even more confusing, the name of a channel may not correspond exactly to its physical location. For instance, you said that you have two rear surround speakers. But, your AVR will only let you assign those speakers as left and right surround, even though they may be located behind you. In the original Dolby 5.1 system, the surround channels were more out to each side of the listener, rather than behind him, and that's how the first two "surround" channels are labeled, regardless of where they are actually located.

If you added two more speakers, you would have a 7.1 system and the two additional speakers would also count as surround speakers, because they would surround you more. And, if your first two were out to the side, you might put the next two behind you as true rear surround speakers. 

But, the two front speakers were never thought of as surround channels, because they were the fundamental building blocks in a "two-channel stereo" system. And, the center channel was simply added in between those two stereo speakers, also without surrounding (enclosing) the listener. So, to summarize, the front two speakers and the center speaker are not called surround channels, and do not have their overall volume boosted by DEQ. All languages can be confusing, and that is particularly true in audio, where some of the terms may mean specific things, but were arbitrarily named or used.

I hope this helps to clarify things a little.


----------



## Jei Wu

mthomas47 said:


> Pbarach has already answered your question, but I guess the terminology is a little confusing. You have a 5.1 "surround" system. Within that surround system, you have a total of six channels: the center channel, the left front, the right front, the left surround, the right surround, and the LFE channel (that's the .1). That is the same way that your AVR would label your channels, although the LFE channel is sometimes called the subwoofer channel. It can be confusing.
> 
> To make things even more confusing, the name of a channel may not correspond exactly to its physical location. For instance, you said that you have two rear surround speakers. But, your AVR will only let you assign those speakers as left and right surround, even though they may be located behind you. In the original Dolby 5.1 system, the surround channels were more out to each side of the listener, rather than behind him, and that's how the first two "surround" channels are labeled, regardless of where they are actually located.
> 
> If you added two more speakers, you would have a 7.1 system and the two additional speakers would also count as surround speakers, because they would surround you more. And, if your first two were out to the side, you might put the next two behind you as true rear surround speakers.
> 
> But, the two front speakers were never thought of as surround channels, because they were the fundamental building blocks in a "two-channel stereo" system. And, the center channel was simply added in between those two stereo speakers, also without surrounding (enclosing) the listener. So, to summarize, the front two speakers and the center speaker are not called surround channels, and do not have their overall volume boosted by DEQ. All languages can be confusing, and that is particularly true in audio, where some of the terms may mean specific things, but were arbitrarily named or used.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify things a little.


Wow wow wow!! That's really help!
And I can understand it now!
Thanks for your kindly answer, it makes me learn again!


----------



## Jei Wu

pbarach said:


> Dynamic EQ does not boost the volume of the front left and front right channels. It does not boost the volume of the center channel.


Thank you! I could understand it now!


----------



## stash64

I just set up a new pre-amp (Marantz AV7702mkII) and amp (Outlaw 7125) and I discovered something odd after running Audyssey. Prior to running Audyssey, I was listening to my media player (Vault2) in DTS Neural X just to warm up everything including all my speakers. Audyssey ran fine except for it telling me that my front speakers were out of phase, which has been typical in the past, and I just ignored it. Anyway, I went to disconnect the mic and noticed my left speaker was making quite the hiss and a "staticy" flutter. I can hear it loud and clear from my seating position 10 feet away. All my speakers were sounding similar but the left front was a little worse than the others. Prior to running Audyssey and in stereo mode, I noticed just the slightest hiss from the tweeters which made me feel good about the new amp. (Note: My front L&R speakers are bi-amped.)

So I spent the rest of the night troubleshooting to try to figure out why I was now hearing about a 5-fold increase in noise from my speakers with a source powered on but nothing playing. My first discovery was that switching to stereo reduced the noise in half on each speaker. My next discovery was that turning off Audyssey brought the noise level back to what I originally heard after hooking up the new amp... just an ever so slight tweeter hiss. It does get a little worse (perhaps 50% louder) if I switch from stereo to a surround mode, particularly with DTS Neural X. So my conclusion is that Audyssey is the main culprit for the noise increase. I did a lot of swapping out of cables and trying different sources and inputs, but the only repeatable source of the noise was Audyssey and using surround modes (vs. stereo) to a lesser extent.

Is what I describe a known phenomenon ? If so, does Audyssey actually decrease SNR or will this extra noise essentially go away once the source is in playback ?


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> I just set up a new pre-amp (Marantz AV7702mkII) and amp (Outlaw 7125) and I discovered something odd after running Audyssey. Prior to running Audyssey, I was listening to my media player (Vault2) in DTS Neural X just to warm up everything including all my speakers. Audyssey ran fine except for it telling me that my front speakers were out of phase, which has been typical in the past, and I just ignored it. Anyway, I went to disconnect the mic and noticed my left speaker was making quite the hiss and a "staticy" flutter. I can hear it loud and clear from my seating position 10 feet away. All my speakers were sounding similar but the left front was a little worse than the others. Prior to running Audyssey and in stereo mode, I noticed just the slightest hiss from the tweeters which made me feel good about the new amp. (Note: My front L&R speakers are bi-amped.)
> 
> So I spent the rest of the night troubleshooting to try to figure out why I was now hearing about a 5-fold increase in noise from my speakers with a source powered on but nothing playing. My first discovery was that switching to stereo reduced the noise in half on each speaker. My next discovery was that turning off Audyssey brought the noise level back to what I originally heard after hooking up the new amp... just an ever so slight tweeter hiss. It does get a little worse (perhaps 50% louder) if I switch from stereo to a surround mode, particularly with DTS Neural X. So my conclusion is that Audyssey is the main culprit for the noise increase. I did a lot of swapping out of cables and trying different sources and inputs, but the only repeatable source of the noise was Audyssey and using surround modes (vs. stereo) to a lesser extent.
> 
> Is what I describe a known phenomenon ? If so, does Audyssey actually decrease SNR or will this extra noise essentially go away once the source is in playback ?


Hi Sean,

It is certainly not a common problem. Offhand I can't think of hearing other reports of this happening with Audyssey, but there may have been some. I have heard of speaker hiss being more of an issue with excessive amp power, but that wouldn't seem to be the case here.

I have a couple of questions which may or may not be germane to your issue. First, when you say you are bi-amping your front speakers, what do you mean? Are you using another amplifier in addition to the Outlaw, or are you just using two extra channels from the same Outlaw amp? As a follow-up to that, do you have an external active crossover, and have you disconnected the internal crossovers on your front speakers? I am just trying to get an idea of how things are connected right now.

Second, have you tried to play anything yet, and if so have you heard the hiss, or anything that doesn't sound right? I would like to figure out the hiss, which might conceivably be related to the way you have your amps wired, but I would also like to know whether there is any audible impact on the sound quality?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stash64

Hi Mike,


Thanks for the feedback. The bi-amp is a simple one just using 2 amp channels for each front speaker and no external crossover. The only reason I bi-amp is because I have just the 5 speakers and I figure I might as well use all 7 channels of the amp though I know I am only slightly increasing (not doubling) power to the front speakers. My front speakers are Jamo C809 and they handle all the bass load since I do not use a sub.


During music playback, I don't notice any noise or anything out of the ordinary but I have not tried to listen up close to a speaker. Perhaps I should try doing so to see what I can hear during quieter passages.


I may try to undo the bi-amp just to see what difference it makes. There is one other funny/unusual performance behavior I get with the new amp and I have confirmed that it is typical of the Outlaw 7125 in a bi-amped configuration. About 10 seconds after the amp is shut down, I hear a 5-10 second crescendo of high to mid frequency sound. It is not abrupt and fairly soft and supposedly due to the capacitors in the amp discharging. And it only shows up on bi-amped configurations.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. The bi-amp is a simple one just using 2 amp channels for each front speaker and no external crossover. The only reason I bi-amp is because I have just the 5 speakers and I figure I might as well use all 7 channels of the amp though I know I am only slightly increasing (not doubling) power to the front speakers. My front speakers are Jamo C809 and they handle all the bass load since I do not use a sub.
> 
> During music playback, I don't notice any noise or anything out of the ordinary but I have not tried to listen up close to a speaker. Perhaps I should try doing so to see what I can hear during quieter passages.
> 
> 
> I may try to undo the bi-amp just to see what difference it makes. There is one other funny/unusual performance behavior I get with the new amp and I have confirmed that it is typical of the Outlaw 7125 in a bi-amped configuration. About 10 seconds after the amp is shut down, I hear a 5-10 second crescendo of high to mid frequency sound. It is not abrupt and fairly soft and supposedly due to the capacitors in the amp discharging. And it only shows up on bi-amped configurations.


You are very welcome! That's interesting about the capacitors discharging on the Outlaw. If I were you, I would undo the bi-amping. Unfortunately, it doesn't really give us any additional power, and it may be contributing to the hiss. At one time, I thoroughly investigated bi-amping, even going so far as to reserve (although I didn't buy it) an active external crossover. I already had an extra amplifier I could have used.

I ultimately decided not to do it, but one of the early things I discovered is that using extra channels from the same amp doesn't actually produce any more power. The same 120 watts (or whatever) still goes to the speakers in exactly the same way, even if we wire multiple channels into the same speakers.

And, even doubling up with an external amp won't really change anything, unless you also disengage the internal crossovers in the speakers and employ an external active (powered) crossover in it's place. The purpose of bi-amping is to send separate amp power to the woofer than that which you are sending to the mid-range and tweeter, to insure better fidelity for the higher frequencies, by not making them have to compete for power with the woofer. The woofer in a speaker can consume a lot of power in bass-heavy passages, particularly if you aren't running a sub.

If our front speakers need more amp power than a typical 7.1 amp can give them, we are better off just using a more powerful external amp, for those speakers. Electrostatic panels are a good example of front speakers which need a lot of amp power. But, most direct firing speakers are fine with about 100 watts. I hope you don't mind the somewhat detailed post on bi-amping. I kind of got on a roll.


----------



## stash64

Hey Mike,


Definitely appreciate the explanation on bi-amping. I've not really researched myself other than conversations I've come across here. But based on what you said, I think my engineering intuition is inline with your findings. Though the speaker is not technically seeing more than the rated wattage at each terminal, it does have access to more amp resources which should help when the bass is really booming... and that is all I really hoped to achieve because of the lack of a sub in my system.


I did watch a movie tonight and put my ear up to one of the front speakers when things got quiet and the extra noise is still there. I also did some more switching from stereo to various surround modes and there definitely is a bump up in noise level when in surround modes... about 50%. But I have to make one correction... the increase in noise on the center and surrounds is very slight. So I would have to say that the only real problem is with the front mains, which suggests bi-amping could be a factor.


I then reconfigured my front speakers for single channel feed and turned bi-amping off on the Marantz. I got a bit excited at that point because the idle noise dropped back to the just barely audible level with my ear near the tweeter. But when I checked the Audyssey setting, it was grayed out. Ahh... I realized the software was smart because it knew that my previous calibration no longer applied with bi-amping turned off. Anyway, that's where I left it as I am watching the Badgers tonight, hoping for an upset of the Buckeyes... so far, so good. I will likely run a quick calibration tonight before I go to bed and will hopefully report back tomorrow with my findings.


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> ... I discovered something odd after running Audyssey ... Audyssey ran fine except for it telling me that my front speakers were out of phase, which has been typical in the past, and I just ignored it. Anyway, I went to disconnect the mic and noticed my left speaker was making quite the hiss and a "staticy" flutter. I can hear it loud and clear from my seating position 10 feet away. All my speakers were sounding similar but the left front was a little worse than the others. Prior to running Audyssey and in stereo mode, I noticed just the slightest hiss from the tweeters which made me feel good about the new amp. (Note: My front L&R speakers are bi-amped.)
> 
> So I spent the rest of the night troubleshooting to try to figure out why I was now hearing about a 5-fold increase in noise from my speakers. My first discovery was that switching to stereo reduced the noise in half on each speaker. My next discovery was that turning off Audyssey brought the noise level back to what I originally heard after hooking up the new amp... just an ever so slight tweeter hiss ... So my conclusion is that Audyssey is the main culprit for the noise increase ... the only repeatable source of the noise was Audyssey and using surround modes (vs. stereo) to a lesser extent.
> 
> Is what I describe a known phenomenon ? If so, does Audyssey actually decrease SNR or will this extra noise essentially go away once the source is in playback ?



I've never heard of that happening, so I'd say it is rare, but Audyssey may boost certain treble frequencies if that is necessary to make the response "curve"** "*flat," if using Audyssey Flat, or making it conform to the (Cinema-like) Audyssey Reference curve, if using Audyssey Reference, aka Audyssey "Movie" or plain old Audyssey. This may or may not increase the audibility of hiss, depending on the spectral characteristics of the original hiss, compared to the corrections Audyssey makes. In my room, with my speakers, Audyssey makes many small corrections, but there is a 5 dB average boost above 1.5K Hz, except for one spot where a sizeable peak is reduced, all compared to without Audyssey. If you download REW, if you haven't already done so, you can compare your Audyssey Off response to Audyssey On. You can overlay the two plots. If you are going to do nothing but this, any microphone will do -- you won't need a calibrated one. This *won't* tell you what your response is *really* like in the room, just what the difference is between Audyssey Off and Audyssey On. To get a picture of the real room response, either way, you would need a calibrated USB mic, costing about $100, and probably average 8 results from the same mic positions used earlier with the Audyssey mic. See the long AVS thread on this. 

Audyssey itself should not create any hiss. With my system, hiss can be heard -- barely -- at about 4 feet from the speakers, but is completely gone at the MLP. 

Any ideas as to why Audyssey says your speakers are out of phase?

Bi-amping is still controversial. Bi-wiring probably does no good at all. True bi-amping, with an external, active crossover, with the speakers' crossovers disconnected, and separate power amplifier channels for bass and treble, might reduce IM, and some units, with controls, can be used to bring the bass and treble into phase (but your speakers don't look like they would need this, but I'm still puzzled as to why Audyssey deems them out of phase. On the other hand, there have been a few reports of bi-amping making the sound worse.

*** "Flat" response can no more be represented by a "curve" than it is possible to "land" a plane, pontoons or not, on water. -- Stolen from Paul Klipsch


----------



## powpow

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Hi. I just ran Audyssey on my Polk S35 center and S15 bookshelf pair, with Pioneer 8MK2 sub and Marantz 1606 avr. 

Audyssey set the l/r crossover at 60 and the center at 100. Is this normal and is there any problem in having different crossovers for center and l/r in a 3.1 setup?

Also, I think I followed instructions correctly by turning the frequency knob on the back of the sub all the way up to 150hz max. It's connected via RCA cable from across to line in left on sub. Is this correct? The sound is great but the bass seems a little too strong, may need to turn it down a bit. 

Thx. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

powpow said:


> Hi. I just ran Audyssey on my Polk S35 center and S15 bookshelf pair, with Pioneer 8MK2 sub and Marantz 1606 avr.
> 
> Audyssey set the l/r crossover at 60 and the center at 100. Is this normal and is there any problem in having different crossovers for center and l/r in a 3.1 setup?
> 
> Also, I think I followed instructions correctly by turning the frequency knob on the back of the sub all the way up to 150hz max. It's connected via RCA cable from across to line in left on sub. Is this correct? The sound is great but the bass seems a little too strong, may need to turn it down a bit.
> 
> Thx.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi,

Turning the frequency knob to max and connecting via an RCA cable is correct. There are several things you can experiment with to reduce your bass, starting with the trim control in your AVR. You might also want to read about DEQ, in the Audyssey FAQ linked below. You can experiment with various RLO settings to reduce bass boost, too.

It is perfectly fine to have different crossover settings. Typically, it is a good idea to start with crossover settings of 80Hz, or higher, if that's where they were assigned. You can always experiment with higher crossovers for any of your speakers. As a general rule, you don't want to set crossovers lower than where they were set after running Audyssey. In this particular case, I would suggest setting the fronts at 80Hz. 

Welcome to the Audyssey thread, and let us know how things sound, or if you need any help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> Audyssey itself should not create any hiss. With my system, hiss can be heard -- barely -- at about 4 feet from the speakers, but is completely gone at the MLP.
> 
> Any ideas as to why Audyssey says your speakers are out of phase?
> 
> Bi-amping is still controversial. Bi-wiring probably does no good at all. True bi-amping, with an external, active crossover, with the speakers' crossovers disconnected, and separate power amplifier channels for bass and treble, might reduce IM, and some units, with controls, can be used to bring the bass and treble into phase (but your speakers don't look like they would need this, but I'm still puzzled as to why Audyssey deems them out of phase. On the other hand, there have been a few reports of bi-amping making the sound worse.



Audyssey is doing more than creating hiss for me. The hiss gets worse but I also hear a "staticy" sound like listening to an old analog radio and I realized last night that some of this is coming from the midrange. I hear no midrange noise at all when Audyssey is off.


I think the out-of-phase reading from Audyssey is simply due to my speaker placement. My towers are only 2 to 3 feet in front of the wall and the front baffles are even with the front of my entertainment stand and there is only a few inches separation from the stand. I know I should move them further apart and forward some but it would make for bad aesthetics in my room.


I have used REW in the past but I no longer have the ambition to work with custom/manual software. I'm even tempted to short change the number of positions whenever running Audyssey. I think I'm getting too old, but maybe I will find the ambition again once I retire.


I did run Audyssey last night with bi-amping disabled and then checked for the noise... and found the situation to be exactly the same as my bi-amp arrangement. I hear the same extra noise with Audyssey engaged and set to a surround mode and the noise level is 4 to 5 times worse compared to having Audyssey turned off. So bi-amping does not appear to be a factor.


It then occurred to me to turn Audyssey back on but turn Dyn EQ off... and there it is! The extra noise went away. So Dyn EQ appears to be the real culprit, and perhaps this is why most people turn it off. I've normally left it on but turned off Dyn Volume. So what is it about Dyn EQ that could add so much noise to a system ? Or is it possible my new Marantz pre-amp is defective ?


I'm relieved at this point since leaving Dyn EQ off is a simple solution. Now I'm wondering if I should set up bi-amping again. Mike gave me an idea. I have a Parasound Zamp that I use for my outdoor speakers. It would seem to make more sense to use the Parasound amp for the bi-amp channels and then use the two free channels on my Outlaw amp to power the outdoor speakers.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Audyssey is doing more than creating hiss for me. The hiss gets worse but I also hear a "staticy" sound like listening to an old analog radio and I realized last night that some of this is coming from the midrange. I hear no midrange noise at all when Audyssey is off.
> 
> 
> I think the out-of-phase reading from Audyssey is simply due to my speaker placement. My towers are only 2 to 3 feet in front of the wall and the front baffles are even with the front of my entertainment stand and there is only a few inches separation from the stand. I know I should move them further apart and forward some but it would make for bad aesthetics in my room.
> 
> I have used REW in the past but I no longer have the ambition to work with custom/manual software. I'm even tempted to short change the number of positions whenever running Audyssey. I think I'm getting too old, but maybe I will find the ambition again once I retire.
> 
> I did run Audyssey last night with bi-amping disabled and then checked for the noise... and found the situation to be exactly the same as my bi-amp arrangement. I hear the same extra noise with Audyssey engaged and set to a surround mode and the noise level is 4 to 5 times worse compared to having Audyssey turned off. So bi-amping does not appear to be a factor.
> 
> 
> It then occurred to me to turn Audyssey back on but turn Dyn EQ off... and there it is! The extra noise went away. So Dyn EQ appears to be the real culprit, and perhaps this is why most people turn it off. I've normally left it on but turned off Dyn Volume. So what is it about Dyn EQ that could add so much noise to a system ? Or is it possible my new Marantz pre-amp is defective ?
> 
> I'm relieved at this point since leaving Dyn EQ off is a simple solution. Now I'm wondering if I should set up bi-amping again. Mike gave me an idea. I have a Parasound Zamp that I use for my outdoor speakers. It would seem to make more sense to use the Parasound amp for the bi-amp channels and then use the two free channels on my Outlaw amp to power the outdoor speakers.


Hi Sean,

That's pretty strange about the static. I have never heard of DEQ doing that. But, since you aren't using a sub, it's possible that when DEQ boosts the bass (about 2db for every 5db below Reference master volume) it is somehow causing some distortion in the front speakers. Since you can resolve the problem just by leaving DEQ off, that's a pretty simple solution. And, if you ever want a little more bass, you can use your tone controls for the front speakers, when DEQ is disabled.

If your Parasound amp is more powerful than your Outlaw, that might be a good alternative for your fronts, but I have no idea whether that will affect the noise that you hear with DEQ.

There is one other thing that you could try, particularly since you haven't invested much time in your settings yet, and that is a microprocessor reset. That will restore everything to factory settings and might possibly resolve the problem with DEQ.

Once you have rerun Audyssey, why don't you post your trim settings for the front speakers, and your typical listening volume. Again, it's possible that what you were hearing might be port noise, or some other kind of distortion, from your Jamo's when DEQ is boosting the bass.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> Audyssey is doing more than *creating* hiss for me. The hiss gets worse but I also hear a "staticy" sound like listening to an old analog radio and I realized last night that some of this is coming from the midrange. I hear no midrange noise at all when Audyssey is off.
> ...
> 
> It then occurred to me to turn Audyssey back on but turn Dyn EQ off... and there it is! The extra noise went away. So Dyn EQ appears to be the real culprit, and *perhaps this is why most people turn it off.* I've normally left it on but turned off Dyn Volume. So what is it about Dyn EQ that could *add* so much noise to a system ? Or is it possible my new Marantz pre-amp is defective ?
> 
> I'm relieved at this point since leaving Dyn EQ off is a simple solution. Now I'm wondering if I should set up bi-amping again. Mike gave me an idea. I have a Parasound Zamp that I use for my outdoor speakers. It would seem to make more sense to use the Parasound amp for the bi-amp channels and then use the two free channels on my Outlaw amp to power the outdoor speakers.




It's always possible that the Marantz, i.e., something in the Audyssey loop, or the DEQ ancillary loop, is defective. It happens. I had an NAD preamp processor that hissed like a puff-adder in heat. NAD never found the problem, and it was up to spec, according to the factory. I replaced it with a pre/pro by Marantz, and the hiss went away. I should say I love my NAD separate power amps and they are marvelously quiet.
DEQ will boost both bass and treble response as the main volume control is turned down.
I wonder if the DEQ circuitry is not so much *creating* or *adding* hiss or other noise as it is *revealing* hiss/noise from earlier in the signal path, revealing it due to DEQ's treble boost function making it more audible, particularly if the DEQ is set for too much comp.
Even though many people turn DEQ off, I'm not sure most people do. Several of us don't use it, but I get the impression that most people do. Some go back and forth between using it or not, partly depending on the program material. Not surprising. I don't use it because 1) I playback at near reference level (about 5 dB below, usually), and DEQ is not much needed at that SPL. 2) DEQ doesn't sound as clean and tight to me as the more or less equivalent amount of bass boost with the tone controls (not the virtual sliders*;* they won't work with Audyssey, and Chris K. of Audyssey says "base copy" is not very representative of the real EQ of Audyssey and is, in his opinion, "useless." 3) DEQ sounds "harder" and too bright in the treble in my room with my system.
My DEQ does not reveal more /noise/hiss, and doesn't create it either.
EDIT:



Could the "static" sound you are hearing be your woofers bottoming out or being overdriven? Sometimes that manifests as a cracking or snapping sound.
What is the rated power in watts per channel of each of your amps with all channels operating? If the sensitivity of your R & L speakers is about 89 dB/2.83v/meter, they would be about 1 dB below the median. The common recommendation for speakers like that would be > 100 watts per channel, all channels operating. People who play at high volumes (peaks at THX full scale, i.e., 105 dB) using 89 dB sensitivity speakers often believe they need several hundred w.p.c. So, could your distorted sound be due to clipping?


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> It's always possible that the Marantz, i.e., something in the Audyssey loop, or the DEQ ancillary loop, is defective. It happens. I had an NAD preamp processor that hissed like a puff-adder in heat. NAD never found the problem, and it was up to spec, according to the factory. I replaced it with a pre/pro by Marantz, and the hiss went away. I should say I love my NAD separate power amps and they are marvelously quiet.
> DEQ will boost both bass and treble response as the main volume control is turned down.
> I wonder if the DEQ circuitry is not so much *creating* or *adding* hiss or other noise as it is *revealing* hiss/noise from earlier in the signal path, revealing it due to DEQ's treble boost function making it more audible, particularly if the DEQ is set for too much comp.
> Even though many people turn DEQ off, I'm not sure most people do. Several of us don't use it, but I get the impression that most people do. Some go back and forth between using it or not, partly depending on the program material. Not surprising. I don't use it because 1) I playback at near reference level (about 5 dB below, usually), and DEQ is not much needed at that SPL. 2) DEQ doesn't sound as clean and tight to me as the more or less equivalent amount of bass boost with the tone controls (not the virtual sliders*;* they won't work with Audyssey, and Chris K. of Audyssey says "base copy" is not very representative of the real EQ of Audyssey and is, in his opinion, "useless." 3) DEQ sounds "harder" and too bright in the treble in my room with my system.
> My DEQ does not reveal more /noise/hiss, and doesn't create it either.


Hi Gary,

You make an interesting point about the treble boost with DEQ. I honestly never noticed the treble boost much with DEQ, since the bass boost seemed to predominate in my system. But, it's interesting how different people hear, and like or dislike, different aspects of the same features. I wonder if the treble boost might have sounded even more prominent with your Klipsch speakers than it did with my more traditional ones. The fact that you mostly listen with Flat might have exacerbated the problem too, with horn drivers.

It's not the first time I have thought this, but I was thinking again the other day about the cognitive dissonance involved in developing a Reference curve to roll-off the treble slightly, and then putting it back with DEQ, at lower listening levels. I completely understand the theory behind it, but there is still some disconnect there to me. It seems to me that most people would either like to have the treble rolled-off a little or not, and not just at louder volumes.

Audyssey has, for the most part, been a remarkably successful tool. And, except for those who don't like the idea of any automated EQ above about 500Hz, a relatively uncontroversial one. But, DEQ has always been an exception to the relatively uncontroversial nature of Audyssey. Fortunately, it's an add-on to the basic Audyssey functionality, and not inherent to the system of automated EQ. That way users can choose as described in your post.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> You make an interesting point about the treble boost with DEQ. I honestly never noticed the treble boost much with DEQ, since the bass boost seemed to predominate in my system. But, it's interesting how different people hear, and like or dislike, different aspects of the same features. I wonder if the treble boost might have sounded even more prominent with your Klipsch speakers than it did with my more traditional ones. The fact that you mostly listen with Flat might have exacerbated the problem too, with horn drivers.
> ...
> Audyssey has, for the most part, been a remarkably successful tool. And, except for those who don't like the idea of any automated EQ above about 500Hz, a relatively uncontroversial one. But, DEQ has always been an exception to the relatively uncontroversial nature of Audyssey. ...


Bass boost predominates with DEQ on my system, too. It's just that the treble is just fine without being boosted again by DEQ, after having been boosted an average of 5 dB from 1.5 K up to the top by Audyssey EQ (except for the reduction of that peak centered at 8 K that I've mentioned from time to time). Also, since I play at 5 to 8 dB below reference, I have little need for DEQ, and the bass boost I can get from the tone control sounds better, IMO. As to what treble characteristics I hear with DEQ's boost, with a good, clean CD, SACD, or Blu-ray I hear a small, but usually unnecessary treble boost which is pleasant enough, but with a little less clarity than with DEQ off (I know this is counter-intuitive). With an inferior, slightly distorted CD (very rare with SACD or Blu-ry), the DEQ treble boost increases my awareness of the distortion. 

I might be happier if DEQ used a continuously variable control, rather than just a few RLO choices.

Horns are not necessarily brighter or hotter. Several Klipsch ones are not as bright as they used to be. With mine, a glitch of the midrange just above the crossover to the tweet has been eliminated, the mid horn is slightly better, balancing networks and the EQ in them have been changed by Klipsch, etc. Everything else being equal (when is it?) horns tend to have fewer sidebands. But most of all, Audyssey reduces peaks and pushes up a few dips, so that the speakers sound considerably smoother and even clearer than they do without it. And, yes, differences remain with the combination of Audyssey, different rooms, and different speakers, which are largely a matter of taste. My limited experience with speakers like yours (but enough, as you know, to strongly consider buying ones like them), and extensive experience with mine (in three rooms) tempt me to consider yours to be like a fine, dark, red wine, and be especially well suited to cello music (as one critic said, "the only speaker to do justice to the wood sound of the cello"), with powerful bass, and speakers like mine to be like any fine vodka drink (or Santa Barbara's famous SCSatW), especially good with brass recordings, as well as big orchestral climaxes that release a powerful wind in the room. They are both fine with sax, including nuances of reed condition and style.


----------



## asere

Is better to use the standard Audyssey layout or the one were you take measurements just a few inches away from each measurement?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Is better to use the standard Audyssey layout or the one were you take measurements just a few inches away from each measurement?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


This probably isn't the answer that you are looking for, but I think that it depends. Some people report very good results with wide microphone dispersion. That might be particularly true if you were trying to EQ a very large listening area.

FWIW, I think that it is easier for Audyssey to EQ effectively within a smaller area, where there is less discrepancy in the individual microphone measurements. Some of us seem to get very good EQ by keeping all of our mic positions within an 18" to 24" box. And, in my particular case, that EQ seems to be pretty stable across a fairly large listening area.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Bass boost predominates with DEQ on my system, too. It's just that the treble is just fine without being boosted again by DEQ, after having been boosted an average of 5 dB from 1.5 K up to the top by Audyssey EQ (except for the reduction of that peak centered at 8 K that I've mentioned from time to time). Also, since I play at 5 to 8 dB below reference, I have little need for DEQ, and the bass boost I can get from the tone control sounds better, IMO. As to what treble characteristics I hear with DEQ's boost, with a good, clean CD, SACD, or Blu-ray I hear a small, but usually unnecessary treble boost which is pleasant enough, but with a little less clarity than with DEQ off (I know this is counter-intuitive). With an inferior, slightly distorted CD (very rare with SACD or Blu-ry), the DEQ treble boost increases my awareness of the distortion.
> 
> I might be happier if DEQ used a continuously variable control, rather than just a few RLO choices.
> 
> Horns are not necessarily brighter or hotter. Several Klipsch ones are not as bright as they used to be. With mine, a glitch of the midrange just above the crossover to the tweet has been eliminated, the mid horn is slightly better, balancing networks and the EQ in them have been changed by Klipsch, etc. Everything else being equal (when is it?) horns tend to have fewer sidebands. But most of all, Audyssey reduces peaks and pushes up a few dips, so that the speakers sound considerably smoother and even clearer than they do without it. And, yes, differences remain with the combination of Audyssey, different rooms, and different speakers, which are largely a matter of taste. My limited experience with speakers like yours (but enough, as you know, to strongly consider buying ones like them), and extensive experience with mine (in three rooms) tempt me to consider yours to be like a fine, dark, red wine, and be especially well suited to cello music (as one critic said, "the only speaker to do justice to the wood sound of the cello"), with powerful bass, and speakers like mine to be like any fine vodka drink (or Santa Barbara's famous SCSatW), especially good with brass recordings, as well as big orchestral climaxes that release a powerful wind in the room. They are both fine with sax, including nuances of reed condition and style.


I remember just how good the big Klipschorn speakers sounded with brass when I auditioned them. And, when I think of big orchestral climaxes, I also think of cymbals, which would be another real strength of the horn drivers. I know you really enjoy your speakers for the big orchestral works, and movie scores, that you like. And, mine suit me especially well for jazz, and anything involving string instruments.

Incidentally, I was tempted to do a pun involving Vodka and releasing a powerful wind in the room, but this is a family thread, so I won't. But, I can't let you off so easily on something you said earlier that I thought was funny. I just want to ask what a Puff Adder in heat sounds like--and how you know? 

You did say that you have a lot of wildlife around your home, but still, it is California.


----------



## stash64

Appreciate all the comments and suggestions, Gary and Mike. I may try the factory reset at some point but I think I will contact Marantz before doing so just to see what they say. I do need to re-run Audyssey since I did only 3 positions last night. Once done, I will follow up with my trim and crossover settings. I did look at them after running the calibration and did not recall anything unusual.


As for the noise, I am confident it is not port or bass noise. I may not have been clear on this point but the noise I am evaluating is at "idle", ie source on but not playing... though I have confirmed I can still hear the noise during quiet passages of music or movie playback. I have been evaluating the idle noise at a low volume because my preset start up volume is -35 db. I may have to crank up the volume knob next time with Dyn EQ on and see what happens. It's counter-intuitive, but given how Dyn EQ lessens with increasing volume, the noise level could drop off. I'm actually one of the people that Dyn EQ was designed to help as I don't listen to movies or music at very high volume... rarely higher than -20 db. My Jamo's have been babied for the most part but even when I crank it up a little, I never notice any loss of clarity or distortion of any sort.


Still not sure I can rule out the Outlaw 7125 amp as a co-conspirator since it also is brand new and I did notice an unusual amount of transformer hum last night. The transformer was more subdued this morning, however, when I was playing some music... with Dyn EQ off.


----------



## powpow

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Turning the frequency knob to max and connecting via an RCA cable is correct. There are several things you can experiment with to reduce your bass, starting with the trim control in your AVR. You might also want to read about DEQ, in the Audyssey FAQ linked below. You can experiment with various RLO settings to reduce bass boost, too.
> 
> It is perfectly fine to have different crossover settings. Typically, it is a good idea to start with crossover settings of 80Hz, or higher, if that's where they were assigned. You can always experiment with higher crossovers for any of your speakers. As a general rule, you don't want to set crossovers lower than where they were set after running Audyssey. In this particular case, I would suggest setting the fronts at 80Hz.
> 
> Welcome to the Audyssey thread, and let us know how things sound, or if you need any help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the response. I turned off DEQ and the bass sounds much better.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Incidentally, I was tempted to do a pun involving Vodka and releasing a powerful wind in the room, but this is a family thread, so I won't. But, I can't let you off so easily on something you said earlier that I thought was funny. I just want to ask what a Puff Adder in heat sounds like--and how you know?
> You did say that you have a lot of wildlife around your home, but still, it is California.


It is a confused Puff Adder who would hiss when in heat (if they even have heat) ... unless it is a weary female who is tired of all the males hitting on her. The African ones do have a hiss that is quite memorable (this I know only by watching PBS). Scientifically inaccurate though it is, I've used that term ever since I had a 4 channel Teac tape recorder that hissed like ... well, you know. I replaced it with a quiet Crown. That way I could avoid noise reduction equipment, and could leave my "Beware of the Dolby" sign up in my little studio. I'm told that there are no Puff Adders around here, but they said the same thing about West Nile. I understand that Pythons and African Cichlids are entertaining the Floridians now, and are looking wistfully northward, toward the Carolinas ....


----------



## Selden Ball

FWIW, it's my understanding that fixed level background noise, the kind that isn't affected by the volume control knob, can be particularly noticeable if you have high efficiency speakers. Audyssey reduces the signal gain to compensate for the the speaker gain but the noise level stays the same. As a result, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes worse.

I've also seen quite a few complaints from people in other threads about the increased noise level introduced when Audyssey is enabled.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> It is a confused Puff Adder who would hiss when in heat (if they even have heat) ... unless it is a weary female who is tired of all the males hitting on her. The African ones do have a hiss that is quite memorable (this I know only by watching PBS). Scientifically inaccurate though it is, I've used that term ever since I had a 4 channel Teac tape recorder that hissed like ... well, you know. I replaced it with a quiet Crown. That way I could avoid noise reduction equipment, and could leave my "Beware of the Dolby" sign up in my little studio. I'm told that there are no Puff Adders around here, but they said the same thing about West Nile. * I understand that Pythons and African Cichlids are entertaining the Floridians now, and are looking wistfully northward, toward the Carolinas ....*



Uh oh! I'll be on the lookout for them. I thought the "Puff Adder in heat" description was funny, and it conjured up exactly the image you wanted it to. Language at it's best. It's interesting the phrases that stick in our minds and that we like to repeat. I first heard the term "cognitive dissonance" in an undergraduate philosophy course, and I almost laughed out loud. The professor who used the phrase was very earnest, and would have been hurt by that reaction, but I thought the phrase was silly and pretentious sounding. I still think so, but I like it partly for that reason, and sometimes use it in a half-teasing way.


----------



## Josh Z

garygarrison said:


> Any ideas as to why Audyssey says your speakers are out of phase?


From the Audyssey FAQ:

"MultEQ detects absolute phase for each speaker during the measurements. Occasionally it may report an 'out of phase' error. If this happens to you, the first thing to do is to check that the physical wiring of all your speakers is correct, both at the speaker and at the AVR. They should all be connected positive to positive and negative to negative. If they are, and Audyssey still reports an out of phase condition, then it is probably because some speakers are deliberately designed with intentional phase reversals internally (usually to address Crossover problems). MultEQ detects that and reports an error. If this happens to you, and you are sure all your wiring is correct, just press 'skip' and carry on with your calibration. Doing this does not affect anything - MultEQ only reports the possible reversal of wiring - it does not automatically switch the phase."


----------



## stash64

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, it's my understanding that fixed level background noise, the kind that isn't affected by the volume control knob, can be particularly noticeable if you have high efficiency speakers. Audyssey reduces the signal gain to compensate for the the speaker gain but the noise level stays the same. As a result, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes worse.
> 
> I've also seen quite a few complaints from people in other threads about the increased noise level introduced when Audyssey is enabled.



Thanks Selden. All good points.

I believe during all my experimentation that I did indeed try the volume control at one point and I don't think the noise changed based on volume adjustment, but I do want to try this once more just to be sure.

My Jamo C809's are about average on efficiency at 89 db, but perhaps they are better than advertised. The towers are well worn in now and I still love their sound and dynamics. These towers are the main reason I have no sub in my system... the other reason is just no good location for it. I have been tempted to order two SVS cylinder subs and place them where my towers sit and then use two monitors instead above the subs.

Thanks for the tip that others have seen/heard the same thing with Audyssey. I wonder if others also discovered that it was specifically Dyn EQ that was creating the noise?


----------



## Selden Ball

stash64 said:


> Thanks Selden. All good points.
> 
> I believe during all my experimentation that I did indeed try the volume control at one point and I don't think the noise changed based on volume adjustment, but I do want to try this once more just to be sure.
> 
> My Jamo C809's are about average on efficiency at 89 db, but perhaps they are better than advertised. The towers are well worn in now and I still love their sound and dynamics. These towers are the main reason I have no sub in my system... the other reason is just no good location for it. I have been tempted to order two SVS cylinder subs and place them where my towers sit and then use two monitors instead above the towers.
> 
> Thanks for the tip that others have seen/heard the same thing with Audyssey. I wonder if others also discovered that it was specifically Dyn EQ that was creating the noise?


Sorry, that I don't recall. A Google search of avsforum might locate something.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Thanks Selden. All good points.
> 
> I believe during all my experimentation that I did indeed try the volume control at one point and I don't think the noise changed based on volume adjustment, but I do want to try this once more just to be sure.
> 
> My Jamo C809's are about average on efficiency at 89 db, but perhaps they are better than advertised. The towers are well worn in now and I still love their sound and dynamics. These towers are the main reason I have no sub in my system... the other reason is just no good location for it. I have been tempted to order two SVS cylinder subs and place them where my towers sit and then use two monitors instead above the subs.
> 
> Thanks for the tip that others have seen/heard the same thing with Audyssey. I wonder if others also discovered that it was specifically Dyn EQ that was creating the noise?



I believe that I recall one other instance where turning off DEQ seemed to help. It was on another thread.


----------



## mogorf

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, it's my understanding that fixed level background noise, the kind that isn't affected by the volume control knob, can be particularly noticeable if you have high efficiency speakers. Audyssey reduces the signal gain to compensate for the the speaker gain but the noise level stays the same. As a result, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes worse.
> 
> *I've also seen quite a few complaints from people in other threads about the increased noise level introduced when Audyssey is enabled.*


Hi Selden,

Was there also a fix offered for those complaints in other threads? Would be interesting to see some conclusions. 

On another note as I know Audyssey and its features are purely software based, while noise is particularly hardware related. In other words if Audyssey casuses noise its usually a kinda "garbage in garbage out" issue. 

Lastly, just to be absolutely sure: are we talking about hiss or hum? As we know hiss is like "ssshhh" or like wind blowing, while hum is usually caused by a ground loop (or the like) and its a 50Hz/60 Hz tone depending on where we live (Europe or N.America).


----------



## stash64

mogorf said:


> Hi Selden,
> Lastly, just to be absolutely sure: are we talking about hiss or hum? As we know hiss is like "ssshhh" or like wind blowing, while hum is usually caused by a ground loop (or the like) and its a 50Hz/60 Hz tone depending on where we live (Europe or N.America).



For me, the magnitude of the hiss has increased. I need to get my ear within a few inches of the tweeter to pick up the hiss when DEQ is off but, when on, I can hear the noise several feet away. In addition, I can hear a static-like noise similar to when an analog radio is not tuned in correctly and just picking up static... some of this noise is coming from the midrange. No hum. I've definitely heard ground loop noise in the past and this does not sound the same.


----------



## mogorf

stash64 said:


> For me, the magnitude of the hiss has increased. I need to get my ear within a few inches of the tweeter to pick up the hiss when DEQ is off but, when on, I can hear the noise several feet away. In addition, I can hear a static-like noise similar to when an analog radio is not tuned in correctly and just picking up static... some of this noise is coming from the midrange. No hum. I've definitely heard ground loop noise in the past and this does not sound the same.


IMHO, you may need to submit a ticket to Marantz support to see if they have dealt with this issue. It does feel to me more like a hardware fault though.


----------



## jbjbjbjb

I have a Marantz AV8801. I set the sub level to -11.5 after audyssey then increase it to -5.5 to get the bass I want. My question is which is the best way to set the speaker trims. I have crown amps with adjustable gains. With the gains up full I get -9.5. With the gains at half I get 0.0. Which would be the preferred method for setting speaker trims, amp gain on full, half or 3/4.


----------



## Selden Ball

mogorf said:


> Hi Selden,
> 
> Was there also a fix offered for those complaints in other threads? Would be interesting to see some conclusions.


The only workaround that I'm aware of is to use preamp outputs and install attenuators between them and external amps. This forces the receiver or prepro to output a higher signal level, resulting in a better signal-to-noise ratio. Of course, this can't be used if a receiver's internal amps are all that are available.


> On another note as I know Audyssey and its features are purely software based, while noise is particularly hardware related. In other words if Audyssey casuses noise its usually a kinda "garbage in garbage out" issue.


 Audyssey runs on DSPs. Digital switching noise is generated by all digital circuits and picked up by analog circuits when the transistors in the digital circuits change state (switch on and off), as when Audyssey's algorithms are running. It could be that the "bypass capacitors" (the filter capacitors on the power leads of the DSP chips) are simply too small.


> Lastly, just to be absolutely sure: are we talking about hiss or hum? As we know hiss is like "ssshhh" or like wind blowing, while hum is usually caused by a ground loop (or the like) and its a 50Hz/60 Hz tone depending on where we live (Europe or N.America).


. It's a hiss. You can hear it yourself if you put your ears close to the tweeters of your speakers.


----------



## Selden Ball

jbjbjbjb said:


> I have a Marantz AV8801. I set the sub level to -11.5 after audyssey then increase it to -5.5 to get the bass I want. My question is which is the best way to set the speaker trims. I have crown amps with adjustable gains. With the gains up full I get -9.5. With the gains at half I get 0.0. Which would be the preferred method for setting speaker trims, amp gain on full, half or 3/4.


Lower trim levels are desirable so that there's more overhead available to handle loud passages, as when there's an explosion in the soundtrack.


----------



## mogorf

Selden Ball said:


> Audyssey runs on DSPs. Digital switching noise is generated by all digital circuits and picked up by analog circuits when the transistors in the digital circuits change state (switch on and off), as when Audyssey's algorithms are running. It could be that the "bypass capacitors" (the filter capacitors on the power leads of the DSP chips) are simply too small.


Agree with that, but in case the filter capacitors on the power leads of the DSP chips are simply too small that would mean all the Marantz of the same model would have this unwanted hiss. IMHO, this is an individual issue best discussed with Marantz support team, no?


----------



## Selden Ball

mogorf said:


> Agree with that, but in case the filter capacitors on the power leads of the DSP chips are simply too small that would mean all the Marantz of the same model would have this unwanted hiss. IMHO, this is an individual issue best discussed with Marantz support team, no?


My impression is that all D+M equipment have this hiss. Only the people who have highly efficient speakers notice it.


----------



## mogorf

Selden Ball said:


> My impression is that all D+M equipment have this hiss. Only the people who have highly efficient speakers notice it.


stash64 said his Jamo C809's are about average on efficiency at 89 dB. 

More troubleshooting could be done by disconnect all signal wiring from the Marantz while keeping the speakers connected. Does the hiss persist with only the amp in stand alone configuration with speakers attached while toggling between DEQ on/off?


----------



## Alan P

Selden Ball said:


> My impression is that all D+M equipment have this hiss. Only the people who have highly efficient speakers notice it.


In recent years, I have only had Denon AVRs along with what I would consider highly efficient speakers...105dB 1w/1m, then 98dB 1w/1m. I have never heard hiss or static at the kind of levels the OP is talking about.

I would agree that there has to be something wrong with his AVR.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

I re-ran the Audyssey but this time it was on Saturday midnight. The environment was quiet, I covered my coffee table (which is just before my couch) with a blanket and put a thick towel on my couch as well. I did all 8 readings each about 2 feet apart from MLP. I think I got a good reading this time and it is sounding really good now. I can sense that it has done something to the treble curve a bit but I am liking it. It feels more balanced out with the bass. The distance it measured was almost accurate! The filters applied also seems well matched (40 for my towers, 60 for my center, 80 for surrounds, 100-110 for AE modules). I have two subs (out of one is a sealed one which I use for music also and cross over is set at a lower point) and it has done a good job balancing between the two diff subs too. All in all I am satisfied and it was more than what I expected. Thanks for all the inputs in this thread.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> In recent years, I have only had Denon AVRs along with what I would consider highly efficient speakers...105dB 1w/1m, then 98dB 1w/1m. I have never heard hiss or static at the kind of levels the OP is talking about.
> 
> I would agree that there has to be something wrong with his AVR.


My speakers average ~ 96db efficiency (or sensitivity) in-room, and I have never experienced an audible hissing problem with my Marantz either. I don't hold out great hope for Marantz tech support being able to assist much in terms of advice, though. I would try a microprocessor reset first, and only if the problem is really bothersome, try to send the unit back for repair or exchange.

Although Sean noted that DEQ might be really useful to him at low volume levels, he might still try workarounds, such as various RLO settings, or the use of tone controls, depending on how bothersome the hiss really is. Sending off my AVR is sort of a last resort for me.


----------



## mthomas47

JaytheDreamer said:


> I re-ran the Audyssey but this time it was on Saturday midnight. The environment was quiet, I covered my coffee table (which is just before my couch) with a blanket and put a thick towel on my couch as well. I did all 8 readings each about 2 feet apart from MLP. I think I got a good reading this time and it is sounding really good now. I can sense that it has done something to the treble curve a bit but I am liking it. It feels more balanced out with the bass. The distance it measured was almost accurate! The filters applied also seems well matched (40 for my towers, 60 for my center, 80 for surrounds, 100-110 for AE modules). I have two subs (out of one is a sealed one which I use for music also and cross over is set at a lower point) and it has done a good job balancing between the two diff subs too. All in all I am satisfied and it was more than what I expected. Thanks for all the inputs in this thread.


Hi Jay,

Congratulations on a good sounding calibration. It can take a little effort, but the results are usually worth it. One change I might suggest, though, is to raise your crossovers on your fronts, and center, to 80Hz for a while, and see how that sounds. If you like, you can always drop your fronts down to 60Hz, if you want to experiment, once you have a listening baseline established at 80Hz. 

As a general rule, it is a good idea to set your speakers to 1/2 or 1 octave higher than the crossover set by your AVR, to give them some extra headroom during loud, bass heavy, passages in movies. That is particularly the case with crossovers under 80Hz. In the case of your fronts, 60Hz would be 1/2 octave, and 80Hz would be 1 octave. I would probably raise and keep the CC at 80Hz, in any case, but I might experiment with 60Hz on the fronts, after trying 80Hz for a while.

Regards,
Mike

Just as an additional note for completeness sake, you can always raise your crossovers from wherever Audyssey and your AVR set them, and you can go back and forth to experiment. But, in general, you would not want to lower the crossovers below where they were set by your AVR.


----------



## garygarrison

Selden Ball said:


> FWIW, it's my understanding that fixed level background noise, the kind that isn't affected by the volume control knob, can be particularly noticeable if you have high efficiency speakers. Audyssey reduces the signal gain to compensate for the the speaker gain but the noise level stays the same. As a result, the signal-to-noise ratio becomes worse.
> 
> I've also seen quite a few complaints from people in other threads about the increased noise level introduced when Audyssey is enabled.


Also FWIW, I have super efficient corner horn speakers (rumored to be *98 dB*/2.83v/1m anechoic when using AES standards, which, arguably, are inappropriate because they are not in keeping with the design parameters of these particular speakers, and *105 dB*/2.83v/1m in the design required 1/8 space in a chamber that is anechoic starting 4 feet out from the special wooden corner in the chamber). I have had two components that might have been fine with speakers of the probable typical efficiency of 90 dB/2.83v/1m that hissed like ... uh ... crazy ... through my corner horns, *but*, with my current equipment (Marantz pre/pro, NAD power amps, OPPO player) *no* hiss is audible from the MLP, with or without Audyssey, even though Audyssey turned up the treble above 1.5K Hz by an average of 5 dB over the "without Audyssey" condition, smoothed the response significantly, and increased clarity appreciably...


----------



## JaytheDreamer

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jay,
> 
> Congratulations on a good sounding calibration. It can take a little effort, but the results are usually worth it. One change I might suggest, though, is to raise your crossovers on your fronts, and center, to 80Hz for a while, and see how that sounds. If you like, you can always drop your fronts down to 60Hz, if you want to experiment, once you have a listening baseline established at 80Hz.
> 
> As a general rule, it is a good idea to set your speakers to 1/2 or 1 octave higher than the crossover set by your AVR, to give them some extra headroom during loud, bass heavy, passages in movies. That is particularly the case with crossovers under 80Hz. In the case of your fronts, 60Hz would be 1/2 octave, and 80Hz would be 1 octave. I would probably raise and keep the CC at 80Hz, in any case, but I might experiment with 60Hz on the fronts, after trying 80Hz for a while.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Just as an additional note for completeness sake, you can always raise your crossovers from wherever Audyssey and your AVR set them, and you can go back and forth to experiment. But, in general, you would not want to lower the crossovers below where they were set by your AVR.


Thanks Mike, Im making my fronts to 60 and CC to 80 for few days and would see how it is. With my previous AVR everything was at 80 but this time Audyssey did a technically better job, but I would agree with giving head room to the speakers and making use of my two subs when needed. I will post my impressions.


----------



## stash64

Boy... it's getting hard to keep up with all the suggestions/analysis/speculation... I've created a monster. 

Anyway, I will check with Marantz this week and hopefully be able to report back with some useful information. I did ask other owners (on the AV7702 thread) if they could check the effect of DEQ on their system but I've only heard back from one person so far.

I must say that I have always heard some small amount of tweeter hiss on every set up I have ever owned and usually I have to get within about 6 inches (or closer) of the tweeter to hear the hiss. To me, this is perfectly acceptable and normal.

Just to summarize, the increased hiss plus static sound can be heard up to about 8 feet away under the following conditions:


AVP set to any source and any input (optical, coax, HDMI, analog... does not matter)
Source is on but no playback or playing back and there is a silent section in the music. The noise still exists during playback but of course the music will cover up the noise. If the source is off, no extra noise.
Audyssey and DEQ set to On. If DEQ is off, there is no extra noise no matter any other variables.
AVP set to a surround mode, not stereo. DTS Neural X is the worst. Setting to stereo with DEQ on results in only a very small increase in hiss and no static noise.
The extra noise is primarily observed in my front tower speakers (set to large) with no sub in the system. My center and surrounds are set to small and there is only a small increase in noise in these three speakers with DEQ on.


I think that sums it up. Thanks again to all for the help. I will definitely check back in if there are any light bulb moments or if Marantz can shed some light. I agree with Mike though and will try a reset before sending the unit to Marantz.


----------



## David Aiken

JaytheDreamer said:


> I re-ran the Audyssey but this time it was on Saturday midnight. The environment was quiet, I covered my coffee table (which is just before my couch) with a blanket and put a thick towel on my couch as well. I did all 8 readings each about 2 feet apart from MLP. I think I got a good reading this time and it is sounding really good now. I can sense that it has done something to the treble curve a bit but I am liking it. It feels more balanced out with the bass. The distance it measured was almost accurate! The filters applied also seems well matched (40 for my towers, 60 for my center, 80 for surrounds, 100-110 for AE modules). I have two subs (out of one is a sealed one which I use for music also and cross over is set at a lower point) and it has done a good job balancing between the two diff subs too. All in all I am satisfied and it was more than what I expected. Thanks for all the inputs in this thread.


I've got a coffee table between my setup and the measuring position and I've taken to actually removing it from the room while running the setup process and then bringing it back afterwards. I've found I get a better result without the table in position during the measurement process.


----------



## stash64

David Aiken said:


> I've got a coffee table between my setup and the measuring position and I've taken to actually removing it from the room while running the setup process and then bringing it back afterwards. I've found I get a better result without the table in position during the measurement process.



Interesting. I've always thought the room should be kept exactly as it would be when listening, except no bodies (human) of course. That way Audyssey can pick up on all the reflections. I've also thought someone should develop a microphone dummy... essentially a human doll that can sit upright and is made with the correct density (ballistic) material and a place to stick a microphone in the head, right between the ears.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> I've got a coffee table between my setup and the measuring position and I've taken to actually removing it from the room while running the setup process and then bringing it back afterwards. I've found I get a better result without the table in position during the measurement process.





stash64 said:


> Interesting. I've always thought the room should be kept exactly as it would be when listening, except no bodies (human) of course. That way Audyssey can pick up on all the reflections. I've also thought someone should develop a microphone dummy... essentially a human doll that can sit upright and is made with the correct density (ballistic) material and a place to stick a microphone in the head, right between the ears.


FWIW, this idea of keeping the room exactly the same has always been a somewhat controversial issue. In general, I think it's a good idea to adhere to the idea of not changing the room between calibration and playback. But, on the other hand, the ultimate objective of running room EQ is to achieve improved sound quality. So, if putting a cover over a table (and then removing it later) as Jay did, or removing the table from the room (and then returning it) as David did, actually results in improved SQ, who's to say that's wrong? When general theory conflicts with practical application, I lean toward the actual result, rather than the theory.

I think that the advice given to people who inquire on the thread should remain the same: keep the room essentially the same way during calibration that it will be during playback (with exceptions for putting a blanket over a sofa, for instance). But, if people subsequently experiment, and discover some specific procedure that seems to work well in their rooms, to me that falls pretty clearly into the category of YMMV.

Incidentally, the ballistic dummy idea has been talked about, and joked about before, but it's not really necessary and would create it's own problems. Using multiple mic positions, sound would bounce off the dummy, and into the Audyssey mic, in the same way that it would from the back of a sofa. For the most part, our binaural hearing, and the way that our brains interpret and correlate sounds, is sufficiently different from the way the Audyssey microphone "hears" sounds that the close reflections don't present a problem during actual listening sessions. We just need to prevent them from presenting a problem to the Audyssey microphone. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## JaytheDreamer

Interesting. I am primarily an Audio guy, playing music most of the time. My room is treated a little bit (bass traps on corners, panels on first reflection points, measured front tower positions from walls, tow angle and bass crawl experimented and have a good sounding system, etc). I never did any electronic calibration before. I added this freaking surround setup later (until then life was peaceful  ). As my place is not huge and have to accommodate stuff for family I cannot do experiments with something removed from the room. I also have a similar opinion as of Mike to let everything in place as it would be when you do a calibration, though any kind of experimentation is always good as he pointed out. I am saying this from years of practical experience with 2 channel audio. Even a slight change of angle, placement, a new small rug, a heavy curtain, a furniture can alter sound. Even last week I sensed my right channel was sounding a bit odd and found somebody caused the right tower to turn few degrees outwards, luckily I have marked the positions and was able to put the speaker back to its place (though it was only an inch and may be less than 5 degrees of angle changed). Anyway I am happy I got a good sound now. This is one of the most interesting threads in AVS  Waiting for more and more experiments!


----------



## mthomas47

JaytheDreamer said:


> Interesting. I am primarily an Audio guy, playing music most of the time. My room is treated a little bit (bass traps on corners, panels on first reflection points, measured front tower positions from walls, tow angle and bass crawl experimented and have a good sounding system, etc). I never did any electronic calibration before. I added this freaking surround setup later (until then life was peaceful  ). As my place is not huge and have to accommodate stuff for family I cannot do experiments with something removed from the room. I also have a similar opinion as of Mike to let everything in place as it would be when you do a calibration, though any kind of experimentation is always good as he pointed out. I am saying this from years of practical experience with 2 channel audio. Even a slight change of angle, placement, a new small rug, a heavy curtain, a furniture can alter sound. Even last week I sensed my right channel was sounding a bit odd and found somebody caused the right tower to turn few degrees outwards, luckily I have marked the positions and was able to put the speaker back to its place (though it was only an inch and may be less than 5 degrees of angle changed). Anyway I am happy I got a good sound now. This is one of the most interesting threads in AVS  Waiting for more and more experiments!


Jay,

I agree that this has been one of the most consistently interesting threads on the forum. I started reading here long before I started contributing. Like yourself, I was always more of an audio guy, and I didn't even take HT very seriously until about 10 years ago. My learning curve really took off though with HT and Audyssey. Some of the fundamental concepts that we learned in two-channel and quadraphonic stereo are still perfectly applicable to our modern systems, but subwoofers, surround channels, and automated room EQ have definitely made our systems (and lives) more complicated. And, also infinitely more interesting from an AV standpoint.


----------



## JaytheDreamer

Thanks Mike. I have a question (rather I need a confirmation to make sure my understanding is correct). This is about Dynamic EQ and the Reference level. After reading many articles, forum answers etc I assume the following.

The reference level value we provide is simply telling Audyssey what content we are playing and at what levels they were mixed, right? If we set 0db, then we are telling the level is for movies and as we go up (5,10,15), we are telling Audyssey that the content we are playing has reference levels higher and do less compensation. So if I set it 15db and play a movie, since Audyssey sees the 15db reference so it wouldn't apply much of the compensation thinking the content doesn't have too much to compensate as it is more packed with higher volumes while if I set it to 0db and play a loud hip/hop, it would still compensate and add unnecessary boost to some frequencies. If my assumption is correct, what could be a good reference level value for most of the TV/Show content? Or is there a best setting for TV/Shows/Movies (not including music anyway)?


----------



## mthomas47

JaytheDreamer said:


> Thanks Mike. I have a question (rather I need a confirmation to make sure my understanding is correct). This is about Dynamic EQ and the Reference level. After reading many articles, forum answers etc I assume the following.
> 
> The reference level value we provide is simply telling Audyssey what content we are playing and at what levels they were mixed, right? If we set 0db, then we are telling the level is for movies and as we go up (5,10,15), we are telling Audyssey that the content we are playing has reference levels higher and do less compensation. So if I set it 15db and play a movie, since Audyssey sees the 15db reference so it wouldn't apply much of the compensation thinking the content doesn't have too much to compensate as it is more packed with higher volumes while if I set it to 0db and play a loud hip/hop, it would still compensate and add unnecessary boost to some frequencies. If my assumption is correct, what could be a good reference level value for most of the TV/Show content? Or is there a best setting for TV/Shows/Movies (not including music anyway)?


Jay,

I am not sure I understood the questions exactly, but I'll try anyway. After an Audyssey calibration, Reference on your system will be exactly 0.0 MV. At any master volume (MV) from -5 down, DEQ will apply a bass/treble boost. That boost will be greater (about +2db for every 5db below Reference) as you go down in MV. So, DEQ will boost more at -10 MV than it will at -5 MV, and so on. At 0.0 MV, DEQ will be neutral, and will not do anything. At +5 MV, DEQ will subtract ~2db of bass/treble. And so on, as you go further up in volume.

But, listening at 0.0 MV in a normal size room could be very hard on your hearing, if done for prolonged periods, and very few HT systems would even allow you to play without significant distortion at levels of +5 MV, even if your hearing could tolerate it. Most people on the forum probably watch 5.1 movies at an average volume of about -20 to -10. That has been pretty consistently used as an average range on the forum. In a normal room or HT (below about 20,000^3) -5 is probably equivalent to Reference (0.0) in a movie theater, due to sound reinforcement from the room. Small rooms amplify the SPL in a way that very large rooms don't. Even in full-sized cinemas, most movies played in theaters are also probably not played quite at Reference, simply because most people don't like the sound that loud. Exceptions to that may be IMAX theaters.

TV shows, sports programs, and music are played at variable volumes depending on the individual. But, based on my personal observation of what people report, I would guess that most people listen to music (and watch TV) at lower volumes than they use for feature length 5.1 movies. So, if the average movie MV is about -15, then the average for TV and music would be even lower than that. Of course, there would be exceptions, depending on both the type of music and the individual in question, but I would say that on average, most people watch movies at higher volumes than TV and music. I hope this helps to answer your questions.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

stash64 said:


> Interesting. I've always thought the room should be kept exactly as it would be when listening, except no bodies (human) of course. That way Audyssey can pick up on all the reflections. I've also thought someone should develop a microphone dummy... essentially a human doll that can sit upright and is made with the correct density (ballistic) material and a place to stick a microphone in the head, right between the ears.


I'll second Mike's response but add a couple of comments.

First, keeping the room exactly as it is when listening is a bit of a problem if it's not always the same way when listening. My system is in an open plan area and I live in a sub-tropical area. There are doors to rooms leading off the area and there's a large glass sliding door to a patio. In summer I tend to have the patio door open at night to cool the house down but in winter it's shut in order to keep warmth in. The doors leading to other rooms are open or closed depending on circumstances. Rugs get left on the sofa during winter and put away in summer. The window opens or closes depending on the weather and I open or close the blinds and curtains depending on light and the state of the windows and doors.

Audyssey only stores 1 set of measurements. Sure, I can save measurements to the computer, create several different setting files, and swap between them by running a restore process but that's a pain if all you want to do is to open or close a couple of doors and a window for the evening and then reopen them the next day.

Basically having things "exactly as they are when listening" is a bit of a myth because the way they are when listening varies on a pretty regular basis for probably most of us. It's easier to achieve that if you have a dedicated HT room but if you have your system in the living room things that affect the room response are likely to change once or twice each day.

So, having my system in a space where things change a couple of times each day, over time I've done the setup process with things in the room one way and things another way, and I've developed a "gut feel" if you want to call it that for things which affect my results. I've developed a list of things I do in the room before running setup because I've discovered that doing those things means I can consistently get a result I like which will work well regardless of the changes I make with the way things are in the room every day. It's a compromise solution.

If Audyssey allowed me to store several different results on the AVR and swap between them via a menu, I'd use that and do several setup processes which involved having things in the room set up in different ways that reflected how they are when I listen at various times but I can't store different results and swap between them via a menu so I go for a compromise and the way things are when I measure is probably the way they are least often when I listen but it delivers results I'm comfortable with however the room is set up from time to time.

Second, let's say you follow the instructions perfectly. You invite your friends over and have a night listening to something and some of them tell you things sound great but there's probably going to be one friend who tells you you need a bit more or less bass and another who wants the highs turned up or down. Not everyone is going to be satisfied by the result Audyssey delivers and you may even be the person who wants a bit more or less bass or treble. We can change the result by changing some settings and you may be able to find something you prefer by doing that. You can change the result by changing something that affects the results of the measurement process and you may be able to find something you prefer by doing that. Some people do a bit of both. You need to ask yourself what you're doing when you set up your system. Is your goal to get a result that conforms to some other person's idea of a good response, or is your goal to get a result that you personally enjoy? If your goal is the first of those, run Audyssey and don't change a thing. If your goal is the second, then run Audyssey and if the result isn't quite what you prefer, then play with settings or the room setup during measurement, or the mic placement pattern, or the number of measurements you run until you get a result you're happy with. It's your system and you're the one in charge, and the only person you have to satisfy is you. If you're happy with the result you get, great, If you're not happy with the result you get, then the sensible thing is to do something different and get a result you're happy with, not just accept the result you're unhappy with and live with it because that's the way things turned out.

Third, over time there's a lot of questions raised about the setup process and how people do it, and there's more than a few people here who have done different things. I never thought of running a tight mic pattern until I read about it here. I tried it and went back to a wider mic pattern. I've tried 3, 5 and 8 measurements and I've ended up settling on 8. I've tried things that some people have suggested and gone back to doing it the way the instructions suggest. I've tried doing other things the way someone else suggested and ended up continuing to do them that way. Removing the coffee table during measurements was one of those things. We had someone discovering recently that putting a piece of tissue paper over the tweeter helped him get a result he preferred. I haven't tried that but I have tried having the speaker grilles on and off during the measurement process. You don't have to try everything and if you do try some things then not all of them will work or help or whatever you want to call it but one or two of them may. Don't bother experimenting if you're happy but if you aren't quite happy or if you just want to play and see how things may change, then experiment and keep what works for you and discard what doesn't.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Jay,
> 
> I am not sure I understood the questions exactly, but I'll try anyway. After an Audyssey calibration, Reference on your system will be exactly 0.0 MV. At any master volume (MV) from -5 down, DEQ will apply a bass/treble boost. That boost will be greater (about +2db for every 5db below Reference) as you go down in MV. So, DEQ will boost more at -10 MV than it will at -5 MV, and so on. At 0.0 MV, DEQ will be neutral, and will not do anything. At +5 MV, DEQ will subtract ~2db of bass/treble. And so on, as you go further up in volume.
> 
> But, listening at 0.0 MV in a normal size room could be very hard on your hearing, if done for prolonged periods, and very few HT systems would even allow you to play without significant distortion at levels of +5 MV, even if your hearing could tolerate it. Most people on the forum probably watch 5.1 movies at an average volume of about -20 to -10. That has been pretty consistently used as an average range on the forum. In a normal room or HT (below about 20,000^3) -5 is probably equivalent to Reference (0.0) in a movie theater, due to sound reinforcement from the room. Small rooms amplify the SPL in a way that very large rooms don't. Even in full-sized cinemas, most movies played in theaters are also probably not played quite at Reference, simply because most people don't like the sound that loud. Exceptions to that may be IMAX theaters.
> 
> TV shows, sports programs, and music are played at variable volumes depending on the individual. But, based on my personal observation of what people report, I would guess that most people listen to music (and watch TV) at lower volumes than they use for feature length 5.1 movies. So, if the average movie MV is about -15, then the average for TV and music would be even lower than that. Of course, there would be exceptions, depending on both the type of music and the individual in question, but I would say that on average, most people watch movies at higher volumes than TV and music. I hope this helps to answer your questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Here is my understanding (or misunderstanding) of the reasonable recommendation by THX and others to use a Main Volume level below Reference in a small (i.e., home size) room*. *While its true that smaller rooms increase the physical intensity of the sound, they shouldn't after Audyssey gets through with them. After Audyssey (or similar, professional) calibration to Reference Level is done in any room, small or large, they should have the same SPL, if everything worked correctly. Audyssey will have taken into account the reinforcing nature of the small room ("room gain"), and adjusted the volume to make the maximum peak SPL ("full scale") 105 dB from each regular speaker, and 115 dB from the sub, no matter what the room size. I think that's Reference Level, period. Any increased intensity due to small room size is turned down by Audyssey calibration until the test tones produce Referenc Level. But, small rooms have many early reflections, and are small enough to have standing waves within the audible spectrum. Both can be unpleasant --- unpleasant enough to sound "louder" than Reference to the human perceptual mechanism, but not to a microphone hooked to a standardized measuring device. Some of the early reflections in a home theater can be early enough to seem to be part of the original sound coming out of the speakers, and can alter the apparent frequency characteristics of a speaker. These early, often specular, reflections may well sound like unpleasant increases in SPL, just as increased distortion makes music sound louder. So, to cook up a worst case, if one were to put a high distortion amplifier in the line, and have many early and specular reflections in the room, everyone would agree that it sounds louder, even if we had adjusted the SPL to be the same. If that same SPL occurred in both a small and large room, most people would say that it was "louder" in the small, reflective room. So, on the average, the MV in smaller rooms should be set somewhere below where Audyssey sets it (Reference Level), not because the SPL would otherwise be too high, but because it sounds too loud at Reference Level in most small rooms. 

Indeed, SPL comes from the world of physics, while "loudness" is a perceptual phenomenon, dependent on many factors. "Volume" originally referred to ... well, volume. The AV equipment and radios of the early 20th Century had a control marked "volume" to adjust to room size. The same SPL in a living room or a big hall would require very different volume control settings, because those rooms were of very different volumes.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Here is my understanding (or misunderstanding) of the reasonable recommendation by THX and others to use a Main Volume level below Reference in a small (i.e., home size) room*. *While its true that smaller rooms increase the physical intensity of the sound, they shouldn't after Audyssey gets through with them. After Audyssey (or similar, professional) calibration to Reference Level is done in any room, small or large, they should have the same SPL, if everything worked correctly. Audyssey will have taken into account the reinforcing nature of the small room ("room gain"), and adjusted the volume to make the maximum peak SPL ("full scale") 105 dB from each regular speaker, and 115 dB from the sub, no matter what the room size. I think that's Reference Level, period. Any increased intensity due to small room size is turned down by Audyssey calibration until the test tones produce Referenc Level. But, small rooms have many early reflections, and are small enough to have standing waves within the audible spectrum. Both can be unpleasant --- unpleasant enough to sound "louder" than Reference to the human perceptual mechanism, but not to a microphone hooked to a standardized measuring device. Some of the early reflections in a home theater can be early enough to seem to be part of the original sound coming out of the speakers, and can alter the apparent frequency characteristics of a speaker. These early, often specular, reflections may well sound like unpleasant increases in SPL, just as increased distortion makes music sound louder. So, to cook up a worst case, if one were to put a high distortion amplifier in the line, and have many early and specular reflections in the room, everyone would agree that it sounds louder, even if we had adjusted the SPL to be the same. If that same SPL occurred in both a small and large room, most people would say that it was "louder" in the small, reflective room. So, on the average, the MV in smaller rooms should be set somewhere below where Audyssey sets it (Reference Level), not because the SPL would otherwise be too high, but because it sounds too loud at Reference Level in most small rooms.
> 
> Indeed, SPL comes from the world of physics, while "loudness" is a perceptual phenomenon, dependent on many factors. "Volume" originally referred to ... well, volume. The AV equipment and radios of the early 20th Century had a control marked "volume" to adjust to room size. The same SPL in a living room or a big hall would require very different volume control settings, because those rooms were of very different volumes.


Gary,

I enjoyed reading your viewpoint on Reference volume, and I thought that you made several good observations. I particularly liked what you were saying about the impact of early (and late) reflections on perceived loudness. I think it is important to have a nominal Reference standard, even though we know that the standard is a maximum, and that not all movies are actually recorded using peak volumes of 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the LFE channel.

And, I also think it is important to try to explain Reference in simple terms, which I did in my post above, whenever someone asks on the thread about the relationship between Reference and Audyssey. But, in reality, the concept of an absolute Reference standard in cinematic production, much less in home theater, is much more complicated than that. Frankly, I among others, believe that Reference volume is a chimera--useful, but never the absolute that it is often taken to be. There was a recent thread on Reference volume in which I posted the following:

_"I was late to this party, but enjoyed reading the discussion. There have been other threads in which several film mixers have stated that 0.0 MV (Reference), for movies they have mixed, sounds loud to them in their personal home theaters. This is for the small room effect reasons observed by Holman, and cited by LTD02. They consequently said that they usually watch movies at about -5 MV.

One additional point which has been skirted, but not addressed directly, is the difference between the sum of 7 speakers playing at 0.0 MV, and only 5 speakers. A 7.1 system should measure slightly louder at the MLP, than a 5.1 system, at the same MV, in the same room. I believe I remember reading that the difference would be about 2db.

I particularly liked Mark Seaton's post, and LTD02's posts, that explained that Reference volumes are actually a bit of a chimera in home theaters, depending as they do on so many variables, including things like size of room, room treatments, bass boost, and number of speakers. The Reference standard gives us a great starting point in calibrating our systems, and understanding their objective capabilities. But it is doubtful if any random two of us, listening at exactly the same MV setting in our respective home theaters, would measure, or perceive, exactly the same SPL."_

Toole, Holman and others, have written about small room effects, which magnify SPL, and not simply the perception of SPL. And there are multiple variables which affect Reference level as any kind of absolute number. Audyssey is a useful tool for approximating Reference, but it is just an approximation. That is for at least two reasons which are independent of the room itself. The first reason is that Audyssey is measuring the SPL of each speaker individually, based on a roughly 75db test tone. But, Audyssey is never measuring the sum of the speakers in a system. And, the sum of the speakers in a system (each playing at an individual level of 75db) will be louder than 75db. Most audio experts I have read on the subject, attribute about +1db for each additional speaker in a system. So, a 5.1 system, calibrated with a 75db test tone, would natively play louder than a 2.1 system, at a Reference volume of 0.0 MV, and so on.

The second reason that Audyssey can only approximate Reference, irrespective of individual room factors, is the Audyssey microphone itself, which has an error factor of about +/- 3db. So, when Audyssey plays a 75db test tone, the Audyssey microphone could register that tone as low as ~72db, and boost every channel in a system accordingly, or the microphone could register the tone as high as ~78db, and cut every channel in a system accordingly. This has never been perceived as a problem, because the Audyssey microphone would be operating consistently for all of the channels, and would be achieving its intended goal of making each channel play at the same volume at the MLP. We also typically accept that an in-room Reference setting is really only an approximation anyway, and not an absolute number.

And then to name another major variable, which is independent of the Audyssey calibration, what about a bass boost? Any user who is boosting his subs above the nominal Audyssey setting is automatically playing at above Reference levels, relative to the other channels in a system. Some of that boost will be at frequencies which most SPL meters will have a tough time registering (depending on the type of sub, for instance) but the increase in total SPL will nevertheless be real. And, according to Holman, Toole, and others, that rising curve on the low-end is not only preferred by the vast majority of users, it is a natural result of the Equal Loudness Contours. Human hearing is simply not as acute in the very low frequencies, and more SPL is required to make those frequencies audible. It is entirely possible that some people hear those low frequencies more or less acutely than others do, and it is also entirely possible (highly likely, in fact) that some people enjoy hearing more bass than other listeners do. But if we increase the sub trim, the SPL is there, whether the individual listener entirely registers it all or not.

If anyone is interested in reading a really good discussion of Reference volumes, this is a link to the thread I mentioned:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...5-reference-discussion-cont.html#post47134873

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Josh Z

The concept of "Reference Volume" playback is made irrelevant by the simple fact that not all movie soundtracks are encoded at the same volume level on disc (or streaming, etc.). Most movies that have Dolby sound formats utilize DialNorm, which will typically reduce the overall volume to all channels by 4dB. Meanwhile, DTS sound formats don't use DialNorm. In 99 cases out of 100, a movie with a DTS-HD Master Audio track will play louder than a movie with a Dolby TrueHD track, even at the same Master Volume setting on the receiver. In order to accurately compare the two, you have to raise the MV up 4dB when playing the Dolby track.

And that's just the general rule of thumb. There are plenty of oddball exceptions where a particular movie soundtrack will be encoded extra high or extra low. For example, The DTS-HD MA track on Avengers: Age of Ultron is set something like 10dB lower than any other soundtrack of a comparable movie.

You can't just set your receiver to 0dB and assume that everything you listen to will be so-called "Reference Volume." It's not that simple.


----------



## mthomas47

Josh Z said:


> The concept of "Reference Volume" playback is made irrelevant by the simple fact that not all movie soundtracks are encoded at the same volume level on disc (or streaming, etc.). Most movies that have Dolby sound formats utilize DialNorm, which will typically reduce the overall volume to all channels by 4dB. Meanwhile, DTS sound formats don't use DialNorm. In 99 cases out of 100, a movie with a DTS-HD Master Audio track will play louder than a movie with a Dolby TrueHD track, even at the same Master Volume setting on the receiver. In order to accurately compare the two, you have to raise the MV up 4dB when playing the Dolby track.
> 
> And that's just the general rule of thumb. There are plenty of oddball exceptions where a particular movie soundtrack will be encoded extra high or extra low. For example, The DTS-HD MA track on Avengers: Age of Ultron is set something like 10dB lower than any other soundtrack of a comparable movie.
> 
> You can't just set your receiver to 0dB and assume that everything you listen to will be so-called "Reference Volume." It's not that simple.



In addition to those anomoloies, some of which were pointed out on the thread I linked, there are also movies which are recorded at "Reference", but which don't sound like it. The standard we are used to hearing about is approximately 105db max for the speaker channels (although it may actually be 102 or 103, depending on interpretation) and 115db for the LFE channel. The Reference norm, therefore, is to have a nominal (not necessarily actual) average level of 85db, with 20db of dynamic peaks for the speaker channels, and 30db peaks for the LFE channels.

Many people equate that nominal 85db average with average dialogue levels. But, some movies deliberately mix at less than the nominal average of 85db, in order to have an even larger dynamic range. There was one notable example (I can't remember the movie right now, but maybe it was something like "Age of Ultron") that had average dialogue/noise floor levels of only 75db, so that when they hit 105db peaks, it would sound even more dramatic. The use of similar techniques probably varies quite a bit from movie-to-movie.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …The first reason is that Audyssey is measuring the SPL of each speaker individually, based on a roughly 75db test tone. But, Audyssey is never measuring the sum of the speakers in a system. And, the sum of the speakers in a system (each playing at an individual level of 75db) will be louder than 75db. Most audio experts I have read on the subject, attribute about +1db for each additional speaker in a system. So, a 5.1 system, calibrated with a 75db test tone, would natively play louder than a 2.1 system, at a Reference volume of 0.0 MV, and so on…


I had a book with a table for how you added SPLs from different sources together from my old days working in health and safety but I can't find it. I did find this link to a calculator:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-spl.htm

2 speakers playing at 75 dB sum to 77.5 dB (bit of rounding), 5 would sum to 82 dB, 6 (a 5.1 system) to 82.8 dB, 8 (a 7.1 system) to 84 dB, and 10 (a 5.21.4 system) to 85 dB. Your +1 dB per speaker is a reasonable guide for a 5.1 or 7.1 system but less so for other size systems. Adding a second speaker to get a 2 speaker stereo system actually increases the level by 2.5 dB but going from 5.1 to 5.1.4 with an Atmos setup (a 4 speaker increase from 6 to 10 speakers) would only generate a 2.2 dB increase. That's a big difference in the contribution to total SPL made by each additional speaker. The reason is that the second speaker is playing at the same level as the first and the summed volume is higher, the third speaker is playing at a level lower than the sum of the first 2, the fourth at a level lower than the sum of the first 3 and so on as you add speakers so the increase in total level from each additional speaker decreases as you keep adding speakers. You can see that with the 2.75 dB increase from 1 to 2 speakers, a 0.8 dB increase from 5 to 6 speakers, and a 1.2 dB increase from 6 to 8 speakers. Going to 10 speakers increases the level to 85 dB, a mere 1 dB increase over 8 speakers.

All of that, of course, is predicated on every speaker outputting 75 dB and in real life that is never the case. Some speakers will be outputting a higher level than others. Let's take a stereo situation for simplicity with both speakers outputting 75 dB each for a sum of 77.5 dB. If one speaker is 6 dB higher than another, the sum will be 1 dB higher than the level of the higher speaker. Let's say the first speaker is 75 dB and the second drops to 69 dB, the total output will be 76 dB so a drop of 6 dB in one speaker will drop the total level by 1.5 dB but if the first is 75 dB and the second increases to 81dB the total output will be 82 dB and we get an increase of 4.5 dB in summed output. I'm not even going to think about what might happen with a few increases and decreases in level from different speakers in a multichannel setup. A uniform change of x dB in every channel will produce a change of x dB in the summed level but if the change is not uniform in each channel it's anybody's guess what will happen, especially if some channels increase in level and some decrease.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> I had a book with a table for how you added SPLs from different sources together from my old days working in health and safety but I can't find it. I did find this link to a calculator:
> 
> http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-spl.htm
> 
> 2 speakers playing at 75 dB sum to 77.5 dB (bit of rounding), 5 would sum to 82 dB, 6 (a 5.1 system) to 82.8 dB, 8 (a 7.1 system) to 84 dB, and 10 (a 5.21.4 system) to 85 dB. Your +1 dB per speaker is a reasonable guide for a 5.1 or 7.1 system but less so for other size systems. Adding a second speaker to get a 2 speaker stereo system actually increases the level by 2.5 dB but going from 5.1 to 5.1.4 with an Atmos setup (a 4 speaker increase from 6 to 10 speakers) would only generate a 2.2 dB increase. That's a big difference in the contribution to total SPL made by each additional speaker. The reason is that the second speaker is playing at the same level as the first and the summed volume is higher, the third speaker is playing at a level lower than the sum of the first 2, the fourth at a level lower than the sum of the first 3 and so on as you add speakers so the increase in total level from each additional speaker decreases as you keep adding speakers. You can see that with the 2.75 dB increase from 1 to 2 speakers, a 0.8 dB increase from 5 to 6 speakers, and a 1.2 dB increase from 6 to 8 speakers. Going to 10 speakers increases the level to 85 dB, a mere 1 dB increase over 8 speakers.
> 
> All of that, of course, is predicated on every speaker outputting 75 dB and in real life that is never the case. Some speakers will be outputting a higher level than others. Let's take a stereo situation for simplicity with both speakers outputting 75 dB each for a sum of 77.5 dB. If one speaker is 6 dB higher than another, the sum will be 1 dB higher than the level of the higher speaker. Let's say the first speaker is 75 dB and the second drops to 69 dB, the total output will be 76 dB so a drop of 6 dB in one speaker will drop the total level by 1.5 dB but if the first is 75 dB and the second increases to 81dB the total output will be 82 dB and we get an increase of 4.5 dB in summed output. I'm not even going to think about what might happen with a few increases and decreases in level from different speakers in a multichannel setup. A uniform change of x dB in every channel will produce a change of x dB in the summed level but if the change is not uniform in each channel it's anybody's guess what will happen, especially if some channels increase in level and some decrease.



David,

Thanks, that's a very helpful post. I think that the roughly 1db increase did refer to going from 5 speakers to 7. But, I think you really highlight part of the reason why "Reference", as it applies to HT, can only be a general guideline, and not a numerical absolute. 

It's a good point that not all of the speakers consistently play at the same volume in a 5.1 or 7.1 system. But, the times they are most likely to be playing at the same volume would be loud passages that might approach Reference peaks at 0.0 MV. I'm thinking of large-scale special effects, or even music crescendos, where the music suddenly swells from all of the speakers simultaneously.

As far as I have been able to tell, accurately predicting Reference (as some sort of absolute number) in a given HT system, is a pretty impossible task. If we are interested, we can try to measure the specific SPL in a specific room, but even with a really good calibrated mic, we won't be perfectly accurate. 

The good news is that it really doesn't matter very much. Even if we were to actually listen at 0.0, which most of us would not wish to do in a typical home theater size room, whether our system were peaking at 103db, or 107db (excluding LFE, if it were possible to do that), probably wouldn't matter very much. If it were too loud, or not loud enough,  we would simply adjust accordingly.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> David,
> 
> Thanks, that's a very helpful post. I think that the roughly 1db increase did refer to going from 5 speakers to 7. But, I think you really highlight part of the reason why "Reference", as it applies to HT, can only be a general guideline, and not a numerical absolute.
> 
> It's a good point that not all of the speakers consistently play at the same volume in a 5.1 or 7.1 system. But, the times they are most likely to be playing at the same volume would be loud passages that might approach Reference peaks at 0.0 MV. I'm thinking of large-scale special effects, or even music crescendos, where the music suddenly swells from all of the speakers simultaneously.
> 
> As far as I have been able to tell, accurately predicting Reference (as some sort of absolute number) in a given HT system, is a pretty impossible task. If we are interested, we can try to measure the specific SPL in a specific room, but even with a really good calibrated mic, we won't be perfectly accurate.
> 
> The good news is that it really doesn't matter very much. Even if we were to actually listen at 0.0, which most of us would not wish to do in a typical home theater size room, whether our system were peaking at 103db, or 107db (excluding LFE, if it were possible to do that), probably wouldn't matter very much. If it were too loud, or not loud enough,  we would simply adjust accordingly.


Mike,

Re crescendos and special effects: I suspect you're right that all speakers more likely to be playing at the same level at those times but they probably won't be playing at the same level just prior to then so the increase in level of each speaker when the crescendo comes or the bomb goes bang isn't likely to be the same.

Prediction as you say is "a pretty impossible task". Measurement is much more accurate, a feature it shares with hindsight which is pretty much what your measurement is when you see the readout, even if it is only a millisecond or so of hindsight.

And you're spot on about reference level not mattering because we adjust our volume to suit ourselves. It's great for balancing levels during setup, it's a great standard to be used by software for features like dynamic EQ, but what we care about when we're sitting in front of the system listening to something is whether the volume is too loud, too soft, or just right. I don't bother seeing what the volume readout on the panel of my AVR is doing when I adjust volume unless I have something with an abominably low mastered volume (I have a couple of movies which fall into that category) and I have to keep raising and raising the volume. Normally my master volume setting is around -20 dB, give or take a couple of dB, and occasionally up to -10 dB but there are a couple of movies when I've either had to go to around -2 or 3 dB or raise the input level by 10 or 12 dB in order to get a level that delivered speech at a realistic and intelligible level and in real life speech is around 66 dB in level so a MV level above -10 dB in order to get something like normal speech volume levels from a soundtrack equates to a badly mastered soundtrack in my view.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> In addition to those anomoloies, some of which were pointed out on the thread I linked, there are also movies which are recorded at "Reference", but which don't sound like it. The standard we are used to hearing about is approximately 105db max for the speaker channels (although it may actually be 102 or 103, depending on interpretation) and 115db for the LFE channel. The Reference norm, therefore, is to have a nominal (not necessarily actual) average level of 85db, with 20db of dynamic peaks for the speaker channels, and 30db peaks for the LFE channels.
> 
> Many people equate that nominal 85db average with average dialogue levels. But, some movies deliberately mix at less than the nominal average of 85db, in order to have an even larger dynamic range. There was one notable example (I can't remember the movie right now, but maybe it was something like "Age of Ultron") that had average dialogue/noise floor levels of only 75db, so that when they hit 105db peaks, it would sound even more dramatic. The use of similar techniques probably varies quite a bit from movie-to-movie.


Normal voice levels in real life are actually around 65 dB. Reference level of 85 dB is set at -20 dB relative to peak amp output so the amps are capable of hitting the 105 dB peaks you mention without clipping. The lower you master the voices, the more effective a contrast the booms and bangs are going to make so it's easy to understand why an engineer might master voices at 75 dB or -30 dB below 0 mV rather than at 85 dB or -20 dB below 0 mV.

The problem is that we tend to listen at lower than reference level because peaks at 0 mV are just too loud for most of us in our rooms so we listen lower and if we set our master volume to -20 dB we're not setting it to 20 dB below 0 mv, we're probably setting it to closer to - 30 dB below 0 mV because the reference level our AVRs are calibrated to when we run setup is 75 dB, not the studio reference of 85 dB. The lower the engineer masters the voice, the lower the level they are going to be at our listening position and if we're turning the master volume down because the booms and bangs are too loud in a small space, then the voices are being turned down to and it's easy for them to end up being too low for clear intelligibility if the engineer masters them at a low level in order to emphasise the booms and bangs. There's actually a point to mastering voices so actual level ends up above 65 dB at the listening position because we tend to listen to voices in movies and the TV news and so on at above real life levels for clarity since we're further away from the (loud) speaker at home than we are from a (person) speaker in real life and the greater distance tends to ensure that reflected sounds have a bigger effect and can make it a little harder to understand dialogue so we want recorded voices to be louder than real voices.

Reference level has a meaning to the engineer, but where the engineer places things like voice level is an "artistic choice" to a degree and it depends a hell of a lot on what sort of a movie it is, whether it has a lot of booms and bangs or none at all, and what the overall dynamic range of the soundtrack is from softest to loudest passages.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Normal voice levels in real life are actually around 65 dB. Reference level of 85 dB is set at -20 dB relative to peak amp output so the amps are capable of hitting the 105 dB peaks you mention without clipping. The lower you master the voices, the more effective a contrast the booms and bangs are going to make so it's easy to understand why an engineer might master voices at 75 dB or -30 dB below 0 mV rather than at 85 dB or -20 dB below 0 mV.
> 
> The problem is that we tend to listen at lower than reference level because peaks at 0 mV are just too loud for most of us in our rooms so we listen lower and if we set our master volume to -20 dB we're not setting it to 20 dB below 0 mv, we're probably setting it to closer to - 30 dB below 0 mV because the reference level our AVRs are calibrated to when we run setup is 75 dB, not the studio reference of 85 dB. The lower the engineer masters the voice, the lower the level they are going to be at our listening position and if we're turning the master volume down because the booms and bangs are too loud in a small space, then the voices are being turned down to and it's easy for them to end up being too low for clear intelligibility if the engineer masters them at a low level in order to emphasise the booms and bangs. There's actually a point to mastering voices so actual level ends up above 65 dB at the listening position because we tend to listen to voices in movies and the TV news and so on at above real life levels for clarity since we're further away from the (loud) speaker at home than we are from a (person) speaker in real life and the greater distance tends to ensure that reflected sounds have a bigger effect and can make it a little harder to understand dialogue so we want recorded voices to be louder than real voices.
> 
> Reference level has a meaning to the engineer, but where the engineer places things like voice level is an "artistic choice" to a degree and it depends a hell of a lot on what sort of a movie it is, whether it has a lot of booms and bangs or none at all, and what the overall dynamic range of the soundtrack is from softest to loudest passages.



David, I agree with a lot of what you said, particularly regarding normal speech levels. Some people have made statements about 85db being typical for a Reference speech level, so that's why I included that in my post. 85db would be too loud for me, and if I watch a movie at -15 MV, for instance, dialogue might end up being about 70db, as a nominal average, so that could be about right. Like most people, I also adjust my MV to my taste, although I do keep an eye on my MV out of curiosity. Of course, it's showing up on my screen, so it's pretty hard to miss, anyway. 

One small correction I would make is to the notion that after a calibration, we are 30db below Reference because Audyssey uses a 75db test tone. At one time, most of the automated calibration systems did use an 85db test tone, and that included Audyssey. 

But, there were too many complaints that the test tones were too loud. So, most (or all) of the automated systems, including Audyssey, started using a 75db test tone, and then adding 10db to the total in the MV to compensate. So, our systems actually are calibrated to be -20db from Reference using the 75db test tones, and 0.0 MV is exactly Reference, to the extent that "exactly Reference" has any meaning.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> David, I agree with a lot of what you said, particularly regarding normal speech levels. Some people have made statements about 85db being typical for a Reference speech level, so that's why I included that in my post. 85db would be too loud for me, and if I watch a movie at -15 MV, for instance, dialogue might end up being about 70db, as a nominal average, so that could be about right. Like most people, I also adjust my MV to my taste, although I do keep an eye on my MV out of curiosity. Of course, it's showing up on my screen, so it's pretty hard to miss, anyway.
> 
> One small correction I would make is to the notion that after a calibration, we are 30db below Reference because Audyssey uses a 75db test tone. At one time, most of the automated calibration systems did use an 85db test tone, and that included Audyssey.
> 
> But, there were too many complaints that the test tones were too loud. So, most (or all) of the automated systems, including Audyssey, started using a 75db test tone, and then adding 10db to the total in the MV to compensate. So, our systems actually are calibrated to be -20db from Reference using the 75db test tones, and 0.0 MV is exactly Reference, to the extent that "exactly Reference" has any meaning.


Mike,

I didn't realise Audyssey were actually referencing to 85 dB but using a 75 dB test tone to keep the volume down. How accurate is that? Don'y answer, I was wearing a smile as I typed the question. It works well enough and an error of 1 or 2 dB either way is not going to make a difference that any of us are going to notice anyway, especially given the fact that the Audyssey mic isn't all that accurate anyway. What's a dB or so between friends?

The volume setting doesn't show up on my screen when I change it. With the video processing settings I've set for my Marantz messages don't overlay on the image and I have the volume display option turned off anyway. The display on the Marantz is small, in that useless little circular window, and at an angle to my usual viewing position so it's hard to see easily which is why I don't bother trying most of the time.


----------



## garygarrison

Mike and Josh,

I enjoyed your recent posts on Reference Level. I don't pretend to understand anything like the whole picture, but I like Mike's characterization of Reference Level as a "starting point." 

_(Mike) "But it is doubtful if any random two of us, listening at exactly the same MV setting in our respective home theaters, would *measure*, or perceive, exactly the same SPL ... __Toole, Holman and others, have written about small room effects, which magnify SPL, and *not simply the perception* of SPL." 

_Small room effects definitely magnify true SPL, but I still think Audyssey "hears" SPL at the mic position, including the raw level _*and*_ the effects of the magnification, and sets the channel being "pinged" to produce Reference Level, so that what you get, including room effects, is Reference Level. There is always error variance, but if, say, the +/- 3 dB of the Audyssey mics, and any other sources of variation inherent in Audyssey are symmetrical around the central tendency, i.e., "unbiased" they should average to the same SPL. Since, no matter what our rooms are like, Audyssey tries to set a channel to Reference Level, I think if we set our systems, including subs, to flat, then we all *measured* the SPL at exactly the same mic position 1 (MLP) at exactly the MV setting that is supposed to provide Reference Level in our system, the SPLs we would get would average to Reference Level. The different systems in the different rooms would sound different, though, and might sound like they were playing at a different SPL. That would be because of the differing room reflections and standing waves altering the frequency response in different ways. I forget whether Audyssey sets SPL for Reference Level within a limited bandwidth (i.e., the professional 500 Hz to 2K Hz), or uses the complete bandwidth to set SPL, but people who turn up their subs (including me) usually turn down the overall SPL a bit. Even I turn it down at least 5 dB, sometimes a whopping 8 dB! 

(Josh) _"The concept of "Reference Volume" playback is made *irrelevant* by the simple fact that not all movie soundtracks are encoded at the same volume level on disc (or streaming, etc.). Most movies that have Dolby sound formats utilize DialNorm, which will typically reduce the overall volume to all channels by 4dB. Meanwhile, DTS sound formats don't use DialNorm. In 99 cases out of 100, a movie with a DTS-HD Master Audio track will play louder than a movie with a Dolby TrueHD track, even at the same Master Volume setting on the receiver. In order to accurately compare the two, you have to raise the MV up 4dB when playing the Dolby track._*"

*Well, not irrelevant, IMO, but it is certain that Dolby True is, on the average, at my house, softer than DTS-HD Master. I do find myself turning up Dolby. Soft or loud, I like DTS-HD better.

_(Josh) "There are plenty of oddball exceptions where a particular movie soundtrack will be encoded extra high or extra low."_

Yes, and some of the oddballs seem to use compression to jam most loud effects up against_ fs. _Example: Star Trek: Into Darkness


----------



## garygarrison

This is from www.engineeringtoolbox.com



_a normal voice approximates to sound pressure level *70 dB*_
_a raised voice approximates to sound pressure level *76 dB*_
_a very loud voice approximates to sound pressure level* 82 dB*_
_a shouting voice approximates to sound pressure level* 88 dB*_
 
I've heard other estimates* from 60 dB to 85 dB*. 

I made a set of my own measurements, both with live conversation and movie dialog set by (my) ear. 

I measured friends talking naturally in our HT. The mean centered around* 60 to 65 dB,* *peaking at 70 dB, or a bit higher*, all at C weighting, "Fast." 

When I tried a few movies, setting the MV by ear, as usual, the dialog measured at those same levels of *60 to 65 dB*, with peaks of *about 70 dB*. Looking at the MV, I saw it was set to* 5 dB below reference! 
*
There are exceptions, like one Lilly Tomlin movie, in which she speaks very emphatically, occasionally producing peaks of *74 dB* at a MV setting of 6 dB below reference. All of this is based on using Blu-rays, almost always with DTS HD Master. DVDs seem to be recorded at a significantly lower level.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> This is from www.engineeringtoolbox.com
> 
> 
> 
> _a normal voice approximates to sound pressure level *70 dB*_
> _a raised voice approximates to sound pressure level *76 dB*_
> _a very loud voice approximates to sound pressure level* 82 dB*_
> _a shouting voice approximates to sound pressure level* 88 dB*_
> 
> I've heard other estimates* from 60 dB to 85 dB*.
> 
> I made a set of my own measurements, both with live conversation and movie dialog set by (my) ear.
> 
> I measured friends talking naturally in our HT. The mean centered around* 60 to 65 dB,* *peaking at 70 dB, or a bit higher*, all at C weighting, "Fast."
> 
> When I tried a few movies, setting the MV by ear, as usual, the dialog measured at those same levels of *60 to 65 dB*, with peaks of *about 70 dB*. Looking at the MV, I saw it was set to* 5 dB below reference!
> *
> There are exceptions, like one Lilly Tomlin movie, in which she speaks very emphatically, occasionally producing peaks of *74 dB* at a MV setting of 6 dB below reference. All of this is based on using Blu-rays, almost always with DTS HD Master. DVDs seem to be recorded at a significantly lower level.


Gary,

Thanks for that data.

My memory of the figure of around 65 dB for voices dates from years ago when I was interested in voice levels because of concerns about background noise levels interfering with voice communications in a call centre environment. I think the range of levels you quote is well within the range of "experimental variation". As far as I know there is no standard measurement technique for measuring voice levels so there won't be a prescribed measurement distance and some people speak louder than others, even at normal speaking levels. The engineering toolbox figure may have been based on levels during recording sessions for film and radio and the speakers may well have been speaking slightly louder than normal, but still not at raised voice levels, if they were speaking for a microphone placed some distance away outside of camera range during a filming session, and in any event people also adjust their speaking level quite naturally to take into account background noise levels during conversation. The measurements are probably near field and in the near field volume will drop by around 6 dB for each doubling of distance so even small differences in measurement distance, such as a difference of 1 ft between 1 ft and 2 ft could easily make a 5 or 6 dB difference in the measurement if you took 2 simultaneous measurements at those distances and both of those distances would be within the near field.

As I also observed, there probably is no "reference level" for mastering voices in a soundtrack and it will probably vary from soundtrack to soundtrack depending on the nature of the film and the type of scene. Whispers, for example, are probably mastered slightly higher than actual levels purely for clarity on playback. Shouts may be boosted in level slightly for shock value or compressed in level slightly to fit in with how the overall soundtrack is being mastered at that point in the film, given that the voice has to be audibly distinct and intelligible despite the other sounds on the soundtrack at that moment.

So I'm not surprised at the differences between the engineering toolbox measurements and your measurements, or at the differences in levels you recorded with different movie soundtracks. I think that kind of variation is to be expected.

For the work I was doing in the call centre environment, I was interested in confirming that the background noise levels at a vacant workstation was well below 65 dB or so while call centre operators were working in surrounding work because that would ensure that an operator would have no difficulty understanding the person they were speaking to while everyone around them was also attending to calls. The only control on that in an open plan call centre environment is the effectiveness of the absorption built into the dividers between adjacent work stations and that worked quite effectively in the call centre I was measuring. There were around 100 operators in the open plan area and the overall background noise level from other operators talking and phones ringing in that particular environment was down around 55 dB or lower which was better than I expected it to be given the number of people in the centre and the fact that most of them were on the phone at any one time, and the staff weren't reporting problems with understanding their telephone clients.

The fact that you were measuring voices on DTS HD Master soundtracks was probably a good thing because I seem to remember somewhere that there is a fair amount of variation in how the metadata for dialog normalisation is set with Dolby TrueHD soundtracks and that setting was actually being set incorrectly for quite a few soundtracks while that kind of problem didn't seem to crop up with DTS HD Master soundtracks.

In your earlier post you mentioned compression and sound effects. Back in the mid 1950's, Decca recorded the Solti version of Wagner's "Das Rheingold". Towards the end of the opera during the gods' entry into Valhalla, one of the gods strikes his hammer on a rock. To create that sound for the recording, they suspended a large sheet of metal in the studio, used a close mic position, and struck the metal sheet with a sledge hammer. They then mixed that sound into the soundtrack. They tried several test pressings and settled on one which sounded fine on the turntable/arm/cartridge they were using for testing their masterings and that became the master for the eventual release. They had to recall the recording. Their test turntable/arm/cartridge handled the extreme groove excursion of the hammer strike quite well but most of the customers who bought the recording didn't have gear as good as the studio's setup and the hammer strike threw most styli out of the groove. They had used a certain amount of dynamic compression for the version they originally released but they had to remaster that LP side with more dynamic compression and test with less capable turntable setups before releasing the version which won a number of recording awards despite the fact that it was even more heavily compressed at that point than the original release. People often think that dynamic compression is a bad thing but it has always been with us and it actually is a good thing when done well and sensitively. It can make the difference between winning awards for technical excellence and getting lots of complaints because not enough compression was applied and the recording being simply unworkable in average homes using normal good quality but not state of the art equipment. I think there's always going to be compression when it comes to special effects.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mike and Josh,
> 
> I enjoyed your recent posts on Reference Level. I don't pretend to understand anything like the whole picture, but I like Mike's characterization of Reference Level as a "starting point."
> 
> _(Mike) "But it is doubtful if any random two of us, listening at exactly the same MV setting in our respective home theaters, would *measure*, or perceive, exactly the same SPL ... __Toole, Holman and others, have written about small room effects, which magnify SPL, and *not simply the perception* of SPL."
> 
> _Small room effects definitely magnify true SPL, but I still think Audyssey "hears" SPL at the mic position, including the raw level _*and*_ the effects of the magnification, and sets the channel being "pinged" to produce Reference Level, so that what you get, including room effects, is Reference Level. There is always error variance, but if, say, the +/- 3 dB of the Audyssey mics, and any other sources of variation inherent in Audyssey are symmetrical around the central tendency, i.e., "unbiased" they should average to the same SPL. Since, no matter what our rooms are like, Audyssey tries to set a channel to Reference Level, I think if we set our systems, including subs, to flat, then we all *measured* the SPL at exactly the same mic position 1 (MLP) at exactly the MV setting that is supposed to provide Reference Level in our system, the SPLs we would get would average to Reference Level. The different systems in the different rooms would sound different, though, and might sound like they were playing at a different SPL. That would be because of the differing room reflections and standing waves altering the frequency response in different ways. I forget whether Audyssey sets SPL for Reference Level within a limited bandwidth (i.e., the professional 500 Hz to 2K Hz), or uses the complete bandwidth to set SPL, but people who turn up their subs (including me) usually turn down the overall SPL a bit. Even I turn it down at least 5 dB, sometimes a whopping 8 dB!
> 
> (Josh) _"The concept of "Reference Volume" playback is made *irrelevant* by the simple fact that not all movie soundtracks are encoded at the same volume level on disc (or streaming, etc.). Most movies that have Dolby sound formats utilize DialNorm, which will typically reduce the overall volume to all channels by 4dB. Meanwhile, DTS sound formats don't use DialNorm. In 99 cases out of 100, a movie with a DTS-HD Master Audio track will play louder than a movie with a Dolby TrueHD track, even at the same Master Volume setting on the receiver. In order to accurately compare the two, you have to raise the MV up 4dB when playing the Dolby track._*"
> 
> *Well, not irrelevant, IMO, but it is certain that Dolby True is, on the average, at my house, softer than DTS-HD Master. I do find myself turning up Dolby. Soft or loud, I like DTS-HD better.
> 
> _(Josh) "There are plenty of oddball exceptions where a particular movie soundtrack will be encoded extra high or extra low."_
> 
> Yes, and some of the oddballs seem to use compression to jam most loud effects up against_ fs. _Example: Star Trek: Into Darkness


Gary,

I think that you make a very good point about the fact that Audyssey attempts to equalize sound in a room, regardless of its size, in order to achieve Audyssey's calibrated Reference standard of 85db as a nominal average SPL. And, FWIW, I think that the +/- 3db error range of the Audyssey microphones is an extreme range. I have two Audyssey microphones which I interchange periodically with only about a 1db, or so, difference in trim level settings. So, I would guess that most microphones would have closer tolerances than +/- 3db. And, as you say, there would be some averaging toward a center point, if we looked at enough rooms. 

But, for any specific room, even an Audyssey Reference might be pretty elusive as a real number. Even if the difference between mics were only 2db +/-, that's still a 4db swing between any two given rooms at polar ends. So, take one room where the Audyssey mic sets speakers to Reference at 73db, and another room where Reference is set at 77db. Then, assume for a moment that Room 1 (73db) is a 5.1 system, and Room 2 is a 7.1 system. That's another 2db of measurable SPL for Room 2, so now we're up to 79db. At equivalent master volumes, the person in Room 2 is listening 6db louder (in measurable SPL) than the person in Room 1. That's a 60% increase in both measured and perceived volume, irrespective of any specific issues with room reflections. That's a deliberately extreme case, for illustrative purposes, but even if the difference were only 3 or 4db, that would still be a very significant difference in measurable SPL.

Using your examples of treated versus untreated rooms producing higher perceived SPL, due to reflections and distortion, if Room 1 is treated somewhat, and Room 2 is not, the perceived difference at equivalent MV settings could be much closer to 100% (literally twice as loud) in the extreme example.

And, that's without factoring in the effects of a user-specific bass boost. I agree, incidentally, that people who use a very heavy bass boost at lower volume levels are likely to decrease the boost as they approach Reference levels. But, that's only a likelihood. There are people on the Forum who maintain a very heavy bass boost, in excess of 6db, even at Reference volume levels. And, in terms of comparability of SPL at any given volume setting, who knows how much impact on both measurable and perceived SPL a given bass boost would have?

So, I don't think that we are really saying entirely different things here. Audyssey does the best it can, and as far as I know, no other system of automated calibration does better. But, the fact is that if you really want to know if you are actually listening at Reference (whatever that is), you have to measure your SPL in your room with a professionally calibrated mic or SPL meter.

And, even that calibrated SPL meter will still have about a 1.5db error factor, unless you can spend very serious dollars. And even with that calibrated SPL meter, it can be difficult to get dead accurate readings if you are trying to get to an average. We would be better off measuring peaks, and those measurements will have their own issues, including an inability to measure bass SPL below about 30Hz.

There are ways around every one of those issues, but there are entire threads devoted to the difficulty of accurately measuring low bass frequencies at high SPL's. So, knowing exactly what Reference is in an accurate way from room-to-room seems to me to be a currently unsolvable problem. Even the recording industry can't tell us that in a reliable way. The following refers to a table from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) with their recommendations for "Reference" levels in different size rooms. The table can be found on the short thread I linked to earlier, or Googled.

Their recommendations for "Reference" range from 76db (measured SPL) for a room of less than 1500^3, up to 82db (measured SPL) for rooms up to 20,000^3. Only for room sizes greater than 20,000^3 is 85db recommended as a measured (not perceived) SPL. So, what actually does constitute Reference in a home theater, if even the film mixers who are producing the soundtracks believe that it should vary so much based on room size? And what can any system of automated calibration do to set rooms to "Reference" when, according to SMPTE (and ATSC), "Reference" should vary so much, depending on room size?

I don't say any of this to discourage anyone. Life was easier when I simply went with the explanation that Audyssey will set our volume levels in such a way that 0.0 MV will produce Reference volumes of approximately 85db, which translates to 20db below peaks of 105db for the speaker channels, and 30db below peaks of 115db for the LFE channel. But, once we really start to investigate "Reference", the more it recedes as any sort of absolute number, transferable from venue-to-venue. We are much better off having a standard. HT would be infinitely more difficult without it. It's just that the standard ends up being more of a general guideline, than an actual number.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Josh Z

garygarrison said:


> Well, not irrelevant, IMO, but it is certain that Dolby True is, on the average, at my house, softer than DTS-HD Master. I do find myself turning up Dolby. Soft or loud, I like DTS-HD better.


Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both lossless compression codecs, akin to a ZIP file. They may use different compression algorithms, but the end result when decoding either one is a lossless extraction of the original PCM audio file. It is impossible for one lossless compression codec to be "better" than another lossless compression codec. If that happened, then one or both of them wouldn't really be lossless. 

The default volume difference occurs because Dolby uses the Dialogue Normalization feature, the effect of which is similar to changing the master volume setting on your receiver. DialNorm does not alter the lossless nature of the soundtrack. It just begins playback at a slightly lower default volume, which you can compensate for by turning your receiver's master volume up.


----------



## mthomas47

I don't know if anyone else is enjoying this Reference discussion, or finding it helpful. It's awfully quiet out there.  But, I decided to try to summarize the discussion as I believe it stands so far.

First, Reference was developed as a commercial cinema (not a home theater) standard. And, for cinemas, the 85db/105db/115db numbers were adopted by everyone. When software programs such as Audyssey developed their algorithms for home theater, they based those algorithms on the commercial cinema standard. As a result, the various calibration systems on the market are calibrating relatively small HT's based on an SPL standard that was intended for *much* larger rooms--well in excess of 20,000^3.

The true "Reference" number for an average room size of anywhere from about 1500^3 to 5000^3, would be approximately 78db. That is the recommended Reference number according to Tomlinson Holman, the founder of THX, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), and the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC).

Second, there are various reasons why a particular film mixed in general accordance with the Reference standard will not actually meet that standard with respect to any given film. Josh has explained the difference between Dolby TrueHD (which uses DialNorm, presumably in an attempt to more closely approximate the HT Reference mentioned above) and DTS-HD (which does not). And he, Gary, and David, have all mentioned examples of, and reasons why, a given movie might be recorded in a way that seems to conflict with a nominal 85db average, although the peak 105db/115db limits appear to be much more closely followed. (As an aside, not every movie will have peak volumes of 105db/115db. Those are just the allowable limits for peaks.)

Third, although Audyssey (and presumably any other automated calibration system) does a good job of attempting to hit it's programmed goal of calibrating to a Reference level of 85db, there are variables that can affect the actual volume setting as it relates to measured SPL. Those include variations in the Audyssey microphone, the number of speakers in a system, and the amount of sub boost (as well as tone control boost) employed by a specific user.

Fourth, perceived SPL may not match measured SPL, depending on specific room characteristics, as both early reflections and distortion may affect perceived loudness in a given room, or for a given listener.

It's an interesting discussion to me, and for someone hoping for some sort of immutable standard or exact number, perhaps a disappointing one. But, I don't see the conclusion that Reference is not a concrete number in our rooms as being particularly disappointing. Because the vast majority of us are probably going to listen at the volume that is most comfortable to us anyway, regardless of the existence (or non-existence) of some absolute Reference standard.

It is only if we seek validation that we are listening at exactly the volume that a film mixer intended, that we may fall down the rabbit hole of trying to precisely define "Reference", and then precisely correlate that definition to the actual measured response in our rooms. And, judging by what I have read, not even the film mixers who watch their own films, in their own home theaters, attempt to do that. They simply calibrate with something like Audyssey, and then watch at the MV that seems most appropriate and enjoyable to them. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Josh Z said:


> Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD Master Audio are both lossless compression codecs, akin to a ZIP file. They may use different compression algorithms, but the end result when decoding either one is a lossless extraction of the original PCM audio file. It is impossible for one lossless compression codec to be "better" than another lossless compression codec. If that happened, then one or both of them wouldn't really be lossless.
> 
> The default volume difference occurs because Dolby uses the Dialogue Normalization feature, the effect of which is similar to changing the master volume setting on your receiver. DialNorm does not alter the lossless nature of the soundtrack. It just begins playback at a slightly lower default volume, which you can compensate for by turning your receiver's master volume up.


Yes, and I have a very large sample of DTS-HD soundtracks, and a rather small set of Dolby True ones, so the difference in quality (not SPL) I thought I heard may be illusory. With a larger sample of Dolby, and under the condition that I wouldn't _*know *_which movie was Dolby and which was DTS, with someone else recording my ratings, I would be more confident of the result. Once a person hears a bad (or bland, etc.) soundtrack and the person knows what process is being used, there may be a tendency to seek confirmation of that original impression. My bad.

FWIW, the _*original*_ recordings used in the production of the films I have seen in our HT, are almost always credited to Dolby. I assume that may be a different process for a different purpose.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> But, for any specific room, even an Audyssey Reference might be pretty elusive as a real number. Even if the difference between mics were only 2db +/-, that's still a 4db swing between any two given rooms at polar ends. So, take one room where the Audyssey mic sets speakers to Reference at 73db, and another room where Reference is set at 77db. Then, assume for a moment that Room 1 (73db) is a 5.1 system, and Room 2 is a 7.1 system. That's another 2db of measurable SPL for Room 2, so now we're up to 79db. At equivalent master volumes, the person in Room 2 is listening 6db louder (in measurable SPL) than the person in Room 1. That's a 60% increase in both measured and perceived volume, irrespective of any specific issues with room reflections. That's a deliberately extreme case, for illustrative purposes, but even if the difference were only 3 or 4db, that would still be a very significant difference in measurable SPL.
> 
> Using your examples of treated versus untreated rooms producing higher perceived SPL, due to reflections and distortion, if Room 1 is treated somewhat, and Room 2 is not, the perceived difference at equivalent MV settings could be much closer to 100% (literally twice as loud) in the extreme example.


Mike,

I'm going to question a couple of things.

Re your first paragraph above: Yes, we can get the range of differences you mention due to differences between pics. What I question is whether there is a 2 dB difference between a 5.1 and a 7.1 system at reference level. I know that if all of the speakers are playing a tone at the same level there will be that 2 db difference but to say that there is a 2 dB difference "at reference level" assumes that reference level means that all of the speakers are each delivering 85 dB. which sums to more than 85 dB. Does "reference level" when it comes to mastering reference a level where each speaker is delivering a set output of does it mean that the summed output level equals reference level. If it's the summed level which is the reference, then there will be no 2 dB difference between a 5.1 system and a 7.1 system at reference level but each speaker in the 5.1 system will be playing marginally louder than the speakers in the 7.1 system in order that they can deliver the same summed output as the 7.1 system does. 

I suspect reference level for mastering refers to summed output. What's important is overall level, not the level of each individual speaker.

Let's think for a minute. "Reference level" is 85 dB SPL for an output which is 20 dB down from 0mv. Power ratings for multichannel amps like an AVR are usually given for single or 2 channels driven. With all channels driven, power output drops because the power supply can't keep up and power output is down often by 1 or 2 dB with all channels driven. At peak volume as you've commented before, all channels are usually being driven and being driven equally hard. If reference level for mastering purposes is set on an individual channel basis, at peak output we lose 1 or 2 dB. Instead of having 20 dB headroom above reference level, in reality we've only got 18 0r 19 dB headroom all channels driven. We either end up without the intended peak volume or we drive the amp stages into clipping. It would make sense to set reference level to 85 dB at 20 dB below a master volume level of 0 mv, all channels driven in order to avoid either losing headroom or driving amps into clipping.

I may be wrong but it's not clear to me that reference level for mastering purposes is based on a level per channel rather than a summed output level.


Re your second paragraph quoted: yes, a treated room will measure lower at the measuring point for the same amplifier output than an untreated room. 

But if we're playing something at reference level in a treated room, the SPL we measure at the listening position is going to be the same as the SPL we measure at the listening position in an untreated room if we're playing the same thing at reference level because reference level is based on a measured SPL, not electrical output from the amplifier. It will sound qualitatively different in a treated room but there shouldn't be a difference in level. The qualitative difference may make us think that one room is louder than the other but a meter should tell us that it isn't.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I'm going to question a couple of things.
> 
> Re your first paragraph above: Yes, we can get the range of differences you mention due to differences between pics. What I question is whether there is a 2 dB difference between a 5.1 and a 7.1 system at reference level. I know that if all of the speakers are playing a tone at the same level there will be that 2 db difference but to say that there is a 2 dB difference "at reference level" assumes that reference level means that all of the speakers are each delivering 85 dB. which sums to more than 85 dB. Does "reference level" when it comes to mastering reference a level where each speaker is delivering a set output of does it mean that the summed output level equals reference level. If it's the summed level which is the reference, then there will be no 2 dB difference between a 5.1 system and a 7.1 system at reference level but each speaker in the 5.1 system will be playing marginally louder than the speakers in the 7.1 system in order that they can deliver the same summed output as the 7.1 system does.
> 
> I suspect reference level for mastering refers to summed output. What's important is overall level, not the level of each individual speaker.
> 
> There's no reason to assume that the "reference level" for balancing speakers during setup has to mean the same thing as "reference level" when it comes to playback. It makes sense to use the same decibel level for each because you want each speaker to be able to function properly at reference level for playback because the soundtrack may only have one channel working at a particular time but if you base reference level for mastering purposes on a particular level for each channel, then reference level during mastering is going to fluctuate up and down as the number of channels in use goes up and down.
> 
> I may be wrong but it's not clear to me that reference level for mastering purposes is based on a level per channel rather than a summed output level.
> 
> 
> Re your second paragraph quoted: yes, a treated room will measure lower at the measuring point for the same amplifier output than an untreated room. How much lower will depend on the nature and amount of treatment. You also tend to listen at lower levels in a treated room, at least I do, because the sound is clearer and you don't have to turn the volume up as much in order to distinguish things and maintain voice intelligibility which can take a hit from reflections muddying our perception of the direct sound from the speakers. I know that from personal experience because I run 2 systems, an audio system in a treated room and an AV system which uses Audyssey in an untreated room. I have no idea of how much difference in level the treatment causes in the treated room. I could measure but removing all of the treatments to make an untreated measurement and then putting them back is too big a task and the results wouldn't help me in any way.
> 
> But if we're playing something at reference level in a treated room, the SPL we measure at the listening position is going to be the same as the SPL we measure at the listening position in an untreated room if we're playing the same thing at reference level because reference level is based on a measured SPL, not electrical output from the amplifier. It will sound qualitatively different but there shouldn't be a difference in level. The qualitative difference may make us think that one room is louder than the other but a meter should tell us that it isn't.


Hi David,

I think that your first point is absolutely correct. The extra 2db that I was attributing to a 7.1 system, compared to a 5.1 system, might not be measurable during all passages in a movie, nor even perhaps at all frequencies. That's the problem with illustrative examples, we can pick them apart, and I agree with your critique of that one.

I also agree that Reference was probably intended to represent summed output for a 5.1 system, as that was the original Dolby/THX standard. But, that was a point we were discussing earlier. Two speakers playing at 85db each would not sum to the same level as 5 speakers. And, 7 speakers would sum higher than 5. Remember that Audyssey never listens to all of the channels playing together (although it does simultaneously listen to all of the subs in the .1 channel). So, there is no way for Audyssey to change the measurable SPL in the room based on 2-channels, 5-channels, 7-channels, or whatever.

I think that you slightly misunderstood what I was saying about room treatments. Audyssey should set a Reference level for a given room, whether that room were untreated or treated. And, the relative accuracy of the calibration should be the same either way. But, an untreated room might sound perceptually louder at the same SPL as a treated one, due to the early and late reflections. The ears might perceive those reflections, particularly in a bright room, as distortion, and that would make things sound louder.

People who have measured rooms before and after substantial room treatment typically report about a 3db difference in SPL, although the perceived difference may be even greater. I had that roughly 3db difference in mind in my hypothetical example when I said that the perceived difference in SPL might be nearly double between Room 1 and Room 2 (6db actual + 3db perceived).

Again, though, that hypothetical example was deliberately exaggerated to make the point. In a real world scenario, the difference between two Audyssey-calibrated systems would probably be only a few decibels at most. Still, it does help to point out the uncertainty of "Reference" as a single absolute number even in an Audyssey system.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> I also agree that Reference was probably intended to represent summed output for a 5.1 system, as that was the original Dolby/THX standard. But, that was a point we were discussing earlier. Two speakers playing at 85db each would not sum to the same level as 5 speakers. And, 7 speakers would sum higher than 5. Remember that Audyssey never listens to all of the channels playing together (although it does simultaneously listen to all of the subs in the .1 channel). So, there is no way for Audyssey to change the measurable SPL in the room based on 2-channels, 5-channels, 7-channels, or whatever…


Mike,

Not an issue. Audyssey has to "listen" to 1 speaker at a time in order to set trims, determine filters, etc, but it's also "counting" speakers. It knows how many speakers there are and it can do the logarithmic calculation to do a pretty accurate estimation of summed volume, as accurate as it sets "reference level" given the +/- 3 dB accuracy of the mic, and Marantz knows what the output for a master volume setting of 0 dB is. There's no need for it to listen to all speakers at once in order to come up with a playback 'reference level" setting relative to an all channels driven 0 mV master volume setting. Any inaccuracy, and there will be some degree of inaccuracy, isn't an issue since people set the volume level based on what they're hearing, they don't measure when they set master volume, and in any event building in a dB or so safety margin wouldn't be a bad thing in a consumer product anyway given the number of consumers who don't RTFM 

Given the accuracy of the mic which isn't great, there's no need in my view to measure an all channels driven SPL and in any event if they dropped the measurement tone level to 75 dB because of complaints about loudness, letting fly with the test tone at 75 dB through all channels is going to generate nearly as many complaints. The maths would work quite well for accounting for the contribution of various numbers of speakers.

Re the treated room: I probably did misunderstand and thought you were referring to actual rather than perceived loudness but I will add that my perception with my treated room is that the treated room "sounds louder" than it did untreated. That may be the wrong way of saying it in one sense because my perception in the treated room is that I don't want to turn the volume up as much whereas in an untreated room I do turn it up a bit more. I think we turn things up for 2 reasons, one because we want it louder and the other because louder makes some things easier to hear and a lot of the time I don't think we bother to work out what reason we're turning it up for, or what the relative contribution of those 2 things to our desire to turn it up is.

In any event, I find that in a treated room the desire/need to turn it up to make things easier to hear is much less and a lower level satisfies me as being "loud enough". Given matched SPL levels in a treated and untreated room I'm more likely to perceive the treated room as louder if the untreated room sounds "right" and to perceive the untreated room as "not loud enough" if the treated room sounds right. We tend to talk about turning things down if we perceive them as too loud and not loud enough if we want to turn them up and I think that translates to a tendency to thing of the room where you want to turn things down as being the louder one and the one where you want to turn them up as being not as loud. We don't thing in terms of the volume level being softer or notes soft.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> Not an issue. Audyssey has to "listen" to 1 speaker at a time in order to set trims, determine filters, etc, but it's also "counting" speakers. It knows how many speakers there are and it can do the logarithmic calculation to do a pretty accurate estimation of summed volume, as accurate as it sets "reference level" given the +/- 3 dB accuracy of the mic, and Marantz knows what the output for a master volume setting of 0 dB is. There's no need for it to listen to all speakers at once in order to come up with a playback 'reference level" setting relative to an all channels driven 0 mV master volume setting. Any inaccuracy, and there will be some degree of inaccuracy, isn't an issue since people set the volume level based on what they're hearing, they don't measure when they set master volume, and in any event building in a dB or so safety margin wouldn't be a bad thing in a consumer product anyway given the number of consumers who don't RTFM
> 
> Given the accuracy of the mic which isn't great, there's no need in my view to measure an all channels driven SPL and in any event if they dropped the measurement tone level to 75 dB because of complaints about loudness, letting fly with the test tone at 75 dB through all channels is going to generate nearly as many complaints. The maths would work quite well for accounting for the contribution of various numbers of speakers.
> 
> Re the treated room: I probably did misunderstand and thought you were referring to actual rather than perceived loudness but I will add that my perception with my treated room is that the treated room "sounds louder" than it did untreated. That may be the wrong way of saying it in one sense because my perception in the treated room is that I don't want to turn the volume up as much whereas in an untreated room I do turn it up a bit more. I think we turn things up for 2 reasons, one because we want it louder and the other because louder makes some things easier to hear and a lot of the time I don't think we bother to work out what reason we're turning it up for, or what the relative contribution of those 2 things to our desire to turn it up is.
> 
> In any event, I find that in a treated room the desire/need to turn it up to make things easier to hear is much less and a lower level satisfies me as being "loud enough". Given matched SPL levels in a treated and untreated room I'm more likely to perceive the treated room as louder if the untreated room sounds "right" and to perceive the untreated room as "not loud enough" if the treated room sounds right. We tend to talk about turning things down if we perceive them as too loud and not loud enough if we want to turn them up and I think that translates to a tendency to thing of the room where you want to turn things down as being the louder one and the one where you want to turn them up as being not as loud. We don't thing in terms of the volume level being softer or notes soft.


Hi David,

I thought of the internal calculation angle too. I simply don't think it happens. I believe that the actual software is simpler than that. It seems to me that others have tested this, and that the 2db difference I referred to was the product of that. But, I'm not sure about that, so let's just hold this thought in abeyance until someone finds a way to confirm or deny it.

I enjoyed your analysis of the difference between a treated and an untreated room, and although it sounds a bit counter-intuitive at first, I agree with it. For instance, my bass (particularly the mid-bass) and my lower mid-range, improved in both clarity and in perceived volume with broadband bass traps. But, it's the higher frequencies which can create painful sounding distortion at equivalent volumes. So, when most people speak of being able to tolerate higher volumes after room treatments, or bright rooms sounding louder than relatively less lively (more treated) rooms, it is primarily in reference to those higher frequencies. That has certainly been the case in many rooms I have seen, including my own.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> And he, Gary, and David, have all mentioned examples of, and reasons why, a given movie might be recorded in a way that seems to conflict with* a nominal 85db average*, although the peak 105db/115db limits appear to be much more closely followed.* (As an aside, not every movie will have peak volumes of 105db/115db. Those are just the allowable limits for peaks.)*


Great summary, Mike! I'm one of those who is enjoying the conversation. Here are a few very minor points*;* you can consider adding them to your collection of things that don't really matter. 


I'm glad you called 85 dB a _*nominal*_ average, because I doubt it is a real one, although it has been called an "average" in virtually every article or post I have read on the subject. I could be wrong, but it seems to be an arbitrary number from the upper middle range of SPL (not quite yet considered loud, according to Keele and others). Indeed, as you say, Audyssey switched to 75 dB, to avoid annoying consumers, and each of the two test-noise levels are at a known, but different, number of dB below the absolute limit (_fs) _of 105 dB (115dB sub). Either one will do, as long as the measured SPL plus the known interval represents head room that tops out at 105/115 dB. Getting a true average would be difficult. Would we measure the SPL of the score, effects and dialog all the way through a cross-section of movies, then compute a mean? Or, to stretch the word "average," could we use an instrument of some kind to tell us what SPL has 50% of the units of time (seconds?) below it in intensity (a median)? What would we do with the silent moments, the Wyleresque pauses? Count them, or not?
Even when the broad peaks (the kind measured by, say, a Radio Shack analog SPL meter set to "fast") are well below 105/115 dB, the leading edge of peaks, or very brief peaks (less than 200 milliseconds, sometimes less than 20 milliseconds), can reach 105/115 dB. With live orchestras, people with peak reading meters have reported peaks of 120, 125 dB, or more. I'm guessing that the engineers who standardized cinema sound with _fs _at 105/115 dB may have assumed that some compression or limiting would be used. If used, I prefer compression/limiting to be undetectable. I like my dynamics to sound dangerous, i.e., to not be able to predict how loud they will go. This is especially true with music. For me, few movie experiences are worse that being subjected to a soundtrack like that of Minority Report or Chicago in which we get a sense of just how loud the music will get, and no louder, with the the music pushed up against that apparent limit.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …Even when the broad peaks (the kind measured by, say, a Radio Shack analog SPL meter set to "fast") are well below 105/115 dB, the leading edge of peaks, or very brief peaks (less than 200 milliseconds, sometimes less than 20 milliseconds), can reach 105/115 dB. With live orchestras, people with peak reading meters have reported peaks of 120, 125 dB, or more. I'm guessing that the engineers who standardized cinema sound with _fs _at 105/115 dB may have assumed that some compression or limiting would be used. If used, I prefer compression/limiting to be undetectable. I like my dynamics to sound dangerous, i.e., to not be able to predict how loud they will go. This is especially true with music. For me, few movie experiences are worse that being subjected to a soundtrack like that of Minority Report or Chicago in which we get a sense of just how loud the music will get, and no louder, with the the music pushed up against that apparent limit.
> [/LIST]


Gary, 

Those instant long peaks are definitely there but they are so brief that they are not going to affect the average level and they probably aren't going to be a problem for your amp or speakers. It's the several instants after that instant where the problem will occur. Electronics can deliver much higher extremely brief peaks than they can a sustained loud sound plus lot of speaker drivers probably can't even respond fast enough to respond to that initial instantaneous peak.

As for the engineers assuming some compression is going to be used, compression has been used ever since we moved from direct cutting wax masters to mastering from tape in the analog days and it wasn't the level of that instantaneous peak that was the problem. In fact back when they first started using compression they wouldn't have had the tools to even measure those instantaneous initial peaks The problem these days is to avoid driving the signal into clipping for longer periods than that single instant, the problem back in the old analog disc days was not engineering a groove excursion that threw your stylus into orbit, or even just into another groove a groove or two away. And compression isn't a bad thing if it's done properly. The problem is all too often it's done badly, especially with a lot of pop music.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> a lot of speaker drivers probably can't even respond fast enough to respond to that initial instantaneous peak..


I think I've noticed that in comparing speakers using the same music. Some speakers seem to totally ignore the very sharpest transients, while others almost seem to say, "Huh?" Then there are some that do respond in a thrilling way, but probably still don't sound a lot like the same transients played live on acoustical instruments.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ...
> But, it's the higher frequencies which can create painful sounding distortion at equivalent volumes. So, when most people speak of being able to tolerate higher volumes after room treatments, or bright rooms sounding louder than relatively less lively (more treated) rooms, it is primarily in reference to those higher frequencies. That has certainly been the case in many rooms I have seen, including my own.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


To me, it seems to be the frequencies between about 1K and 4K that can occasionally be home to "painful sounding distortion at equivalent volumes," especially with high SPLs. Interestingly, it is in this range that Audyssey's "midrange compensation" dip is applied. As I've said so often, I use this on magnetic era soundtracks if they have acquired a little distortion. Otherwise I prefer Audyssey Flat almost always.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> I think I've noticed that in comparing speakers using the same music. Some speakers seem to totally ignore the very sharpest transients, while others almost seem to say, "Huh?" Then there are some that do respond in a thrilling way, but probably still don't sound a lot like the same transients played live on acoustical instruments.


I'd be prepared to bet that the speakers that respond in "a thrilling way" are higher in sensitivity than the other speakers and include some horn loaded speakers which really do transients well.




garygarrison said:


> To me, it seems to be the frequencies between about 1K and 4K that can occasionally be home to "painful sounding distortion at equivalent volumes," especially with high SPLs. Interestingly, it is in this range that Audyssey's "midrange compensation" dip is applied. As I've said so often, I use this on magnetic era soundtracks if they have acquired a little distortion. Otherwise I prefer Audyssey Flat almost always.


Google "BBC dip" but to bring things back to Audyssey I'll provide one link from Chris Kyriakakis:

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/410117-Midrange-Compensation


----------



## Alan P

We should really rename this thread the the Gary, David & Mike Show. 

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind your guys' posts. Keep up the good work!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> We should really rename this thread the the Gary, David & Mike Show.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I don't mind your guys' posts. Keep up the good work!



Jump on in, the water's fine!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> To me, it seems to be the frequencies between about 1K and 4K that can occasionally be home to "painful sounding distortion at equivalent volumes," especially with high SPLs. Interestingly, it is in this range that Audyssey's "midrange compensation" dip is applied. As I've said so often, I use this on magnetic era soundtracks if they have acquired a little distortion. Otherwise I prefer Audyssey Flat almost always.


Gary,

I liked your discussion of average volume level, and the difficulty of actually trying to measure it for a feature length film. I agree that the 85db number is just a convenient way for recording artists (and us) to think about recording levels, relative to the Reference peaks of 105/115db, and not a specific target number.

I also agree with your approximate range of 1000Hz to 4000Hz as being the most annoying from a distortion standpoint, although to split hairs I might have started just a little higher (upper mid-range starting around 1500Hz, or so) to somewhere above 4000Hz, but less than 8000Hz. There is only an octave between 4000Hz and 8000Hz, though, so I really would be splitting hairs at that point. And, I'm not even sure that I am right, but it does seem that it might be just a little higher for me.

It's also possible that the higher frequency distortion which people find most irritating might vary a little, depending on the person. I know that when I added broadband bass traps, my mid-bass and lower mid-range improved a lot. Those frequencies sounded both clearer and louder. So, if we assume that bass frequencies go up to about 500Hz, or so, mid-range frequencies would start somewhere around there, and continue to about 2500Hz to 3000Hz. It took a good deal of additional room treatment for me to affect the frequencies from about 1500Hz and up in the way I wanted. And as I did, the sound didn't become louder, only clearer, as ringing artifacts were reduced.

Speaking of Audyssey's MRC, I think that one reason it has never worked well for me is that the crossover from my mid's to my tweeters is right at 2500Hz, which is exactly the point at which the greatest dip is applied. And my speakers have a first order crossover which already transitions very smoothly and seamlessly between the two. I could never put my finger on exactly what I was hearing at the transition point with the Reference curve, and the mid-range dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz, but whatever it was, I just didn't like it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> I'd be prepared to bet that the speakers that respond in "a thrilling way" are *higher in sensitivity* than the other speakers and include some* horn loaded speakers which really do transients well.*


Exactly my experience.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> I'll provide one link from Chris Kyriakakis:
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/entries/410117-Midrange-Compensation


Although controversial, I find that he says he has yet to hear a speaker that wasn't improved by the dip interesting.

My own preference is (generally) driven by the nature of the distortion and bandwidth of the program material 1) for magnetic era movies of the '50s and '60s (e.g. Lawrence of Arabia), I often use Aud. Ref. with the dip and also the gentle HF roll-off starting above 8K. FWIW, the theater speakers of the magnetic era, even in the best theaters, tended to have a small dip in the upper midrange/lower treble, and a not-so-gentle roll-off above 12K 2) for modern movies on Blu-ray, I usually prefer Aud. Flat, with no dip.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Although controversial, I find that he says he has yet to hear a speaker that wasn't improved by the dip interesting.
> 
> My own preference is (generally) driven by the nature of the distortion and bandwidth of the program material 1) for magnetic era movies of the '50s and '60s (e.g. Lawrence of Arabia), I often use Aud. Ref. with the dip and also the gentle HF roll-off starting above 8K. FWIW, the theater speakers of the magnetic era, even in the best theaters, tended to have a small dip in the upper midrange/lower treble, and a not-so-gentle roll-off above 12K 2) for modern movies on Blu-ray, I usually prefer Aud. Flat, with no dip.


Gary, I have to confess that I do not really hear any difference between A. ref. (with roll-off and BBC-dip) and A.Flat (as flat as can be, w/o the dip), no matter how hard I concentrate.

Care to discribe and share what exactly you are experiencing/hearing when toggling between these to settings? How about disctinction between film and music? Thanks in advance.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Gary, I have to confess that I do not really hear any difference between A. ref. (with roll-off and BBC-dip) and A.Flat (as flat as can be, w/o the dip), no matter how hard I concentrate.
> 
> Care to discribe and share what exactly you are experiencing/hearing when toggling between these to settings? How about disctinction between film and music? Thanks in advance.


Feri,

I know that Gary will be able to respond in more detail to your question, but I can answer with at least some of what I hear. I noted that I couldn't put my finger on exactly what it is about the mid-range dip that doesn't sound right to me. It just sounds a little off in what is unfortunately the middle of our most sensitive hearing frequencies.

But, I have no trouble at all describing what I don't like about the high frequency roll-off. My speakers simply don't need it. So, when I listen to the Reference curve with music, the bass and mid-range sound a little heavy to me. It simply isn't as balanced a sound as I like. When I switch to Flat, the treble balance is restored to appropriate levels for me. My room is fairly well treated, so that might make Flat work a little better for me than it would in a brighter sounding room.

With movies, I honestly don't know how much I would notice the difference. It is easier for me just to use the Flat setting for everything. With movies, I think that I am much more visually-oriented. With music, I often (usually) listen with my eyes closed, and can hear much more nuance in the recordings than I normally would when watching a movie.

FWIW, I don't think that concentrating to hear differences between Reference and Flat would be very useful. I think that you either hear a difference at some relaxed, intuitive level, or you don't. If you don't, there is no problem with that either. That simply gives you more flexibility in your listening. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> Although controversial, I find that he says he has yet to hear a speaker that wasn't improved by the dip interesting.
> 
> My own preference is (generally) driven by the nature of the distortion and bandwidth of the program material 1) for magnetic era movies of the '50s and '60s (e.g. Lawrence of Arabia), I often use Aud. Ref. with the dip and also the gentle HF roll-off starting above 8K. FWIW, the theater speakers of the magnetic era, even in the best theaters, tended to have a small dip in the upper midrange/lower treble, and a not-so-gentle roll-off above 12K 2) for modern movies on Blu-ray, I usually prefer Aud. Flat, with no dip.


Gary,

First note Chris' comment about the relationship between the region where the dip occurs, the region where the ear is most sensitive, and the way in which people with different levels of hearing acuity respond. He said that he hasn't heard a speaker that wasn't improved by the dip. I think that says something about his hearing, and also about the kind of sound he personally likes. I took that comment of his as a statement of his personal experience rather than a judgement that he felt was appropriate for everyone.

As for differences when it comes to playback of material from different eras, I like a lot of jazz and rock from the '50s and '60s as does a friend of mine. A few years ago he had a setup using vintage Altec Lansing horns, a domestic version of a pro model that was commonly used for mastering in recording studios of that period, while I had modern speakers. The sound of '50's and '60's jazz and rock on his system had something that my system could never deliver, there was a "rightness" to it that was really quite special, but his system did not impress me with contemporary jazz recordings as much as my system did. He also felt my system didn't do the '50's and '60s material as well as his did but preferred my system for more contemporary recordings. Speakers from different periods seem to have different "characters" that work well with music from the same period and engineers master recordings on speakers that exist at the time and things like driver technology and crossover design and their influence on frequency response, transient response, and how they radiate sound in a room and the impact of that on the mix between direct and reflected sound at the listening point have changed. I think that the speakers used for mastering has an effect on how the engineer masters the recordings they make and the choice between Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat depending on the recording you're playing can make a difference to how we respond to that particular recording. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" response curve that works equally well with every recording for a given listener and when you add in the differences in the personal preferences of different listeners then most definitely there is not going to be a "one size fits all" response curve for everyone. We could well do with a few more options than "Reference" and "Flat".


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Feri,
> 
> I know that Gary will be able to respond in more detail to your question, but I can answer with at least some of what I hear. I noted that I couldn't put my finger on exactly what it is about the mid-range dip that doesn't sound right to me. It just sounds a little off in what is unfortunately the middle of our most sensitive hearing frequencies.
> 
> But, I have no trouble at all describing what I don't like about the high frequency roll-off. My speakers simply don't need it. So, when I listen to the Reference curve with music, the bass and mid-range sound a little heavy to me. It simply isn't as balanced a sound as I like. When I switch to Flat, the treble balance is restored to appropriate levels for me. My room is fairly well treated, so that might make Flat work a little better for me than it would in a brighter sounding room.
> 
> With movies, I honestly don't know how much I would notice the difference. It is easier for me just to use the Flat setting for everything. With movies, I think that I am much more visually-oriented. With music, I often (usually) listen with my eyes closed, and can hear much more nuance in the recordings than I normally would when watching a movie.
> 
> FWIW, I don't think that concentrating to hear differences between Reference and Flat would be very useful. I think that you either hear a difference at some relaxed, intuitive level, or you don't. If you don't, there is no problem with that either. That simply gives you more flexibility in your listening.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Feri and Mike,

I'm basically in complete agreement with Mike with 2 exceptions. What I hear in the highs, which is the way I perceive things and Mike is a different person to me with different tastes so his perceptions are different, is that Reference sounds a little more warm/intimate to me than flat does and I think there's a bit of personal mood at the time which influences my preference and certainly the visual orientation element when watching movies makes a difference in my view. There is a reason many of us close our eyes when listening to music, it has an effect on the way we "hear" the music. Closing your eyes when watching a movie doesn't seem to work all that well for me 

I don't think Mike is quite right when he says that he doesn't think his speakers need the roll off. I have used a pair of speakers with a pronounced high frequency roll off with Audyssey and looking at the equaliser setting graph, Audyssey Reference was actually applying a pronounced boost to the highs in order to get the high frequency roll off it is tailored to deliver. I still preferred the Flat setting with those speakers and that delivered more boost to the highs. Audyssey is correcting in room speaker response so I don't think it's a matter of whether or not I or Mike feel the speakers need the roll off, I think it comes down to a preference for the way the highs sound in our listening setups. There are times when I really like the slightly greater warmth that Reference gives me but more often than not I prefer the slight increase in clarity I seem to get with Flat and, like Mike, I also find that difference less noticeable when I'm watching something and the visual areas of my cortex are more strongly engaged than the auditory areas.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Gary, I have to confess that I do not really hear any difference between A. ref. (with roll-off and BBC-dip) and A.Flat (as flat as can be, w/o the dip), no matter how hard I concentrate.
> 
> Care to discribe and share what exactly you are experiencing/hearing when toggling between these to settings? How about disctinction between film and music? Thanks in advance.


I haven't done as much toggling back and forth with music, because music generally sounds good to me with Audyssey Flat. With a few truly bad, harsh, "hard sounding" CDs, A. Ref removes some of the hardness, and harshness, especially with strings.

With movies, as I said, modern films transferred to Blu-ray sound great with Audyssey Flat. Switching to Audyssey Ref. slightly, but definitely, reduces the sparkle and sheen I'm use to hearing from a live orchestra. With a magnetically recorded movie (which usually sound great in the theater), like Lawrence of Arabia, Aud.Ref. either cuts back on a vague distortion in the highs, or returns the orchestral balance to normal. Lawrence, for instance, has such bright brass and strings that the drums -- that were killer in the theater in 70 mm 6 track -- aren't loud enough, comparatively. So my Rx for Lawrence is to use Aud. Ref., which turns down the brass a bit, and restores the drums to their former glory. A spectacular case is Around the World in 80 Days (1956 70mm Todd-AO six channel stereo version). The theatrical prints (70mm only; they blew the 35mm) sounded better than almost any other soundtrack I've heard, with the 114 piece orchestra really rocking). Our family had experienced it in VHS (not bad, but some dropouts) and DVD (pretty good, on the living room's veiling Yamaha speakers). They never issued a Blu-ray. When I put the DVD on the usually excellent sounding system in our Home Theater, I was shocked. There was abundant distortion at the top of the sound spectrum, and it was too bright. The cure was using Aud. Ref, which cut out almost all of the distortion, with DEQ off, at what must have been near reference volume (DVDs -- at least this one -- are recorded at a lower level), and the bass tone control turned up, along with the sub turned up a little more than usual. An interesting side effect was that treble material sounded smoother and clearer without all the too-bright high frequency hash in the way, especially the pure sounding orchestra bells in the sequence Victor Young (the composer) called "Temple of the Dawn." Anyway, for a soundtrack that is distorted in the treble (always from the '50s/'60s/'70s) Aud .Ref. is my first line of defense. I almost never turn down the treble control, because I love the shimmering overtones too much. The only film I turned down the treble control for was How the West Was Won.


----------



## David Aiken

Feri, Mike, Gary,

Another thought about Reference vs Flat and preference.

I don't know about your experience but my experience is that cinemas seem more acoustically dead to me than the live music venues I've been in. That's an advantage in a cinema because it helps in diminishing the effect of audience noise for me when I'm watching a movie in a cinema. I'm visually oriented then, I pay more attention to the visual aspects of my experience than I do to the audio aspects, and audience noise doesn't disrupt my visual attention as much if that noise is deadened a bit and it's doesn't then seem to disrupt my enjoyment as much. I don't seem to need the "sparkle" that high frequencies can add to audio as much when I'm watching a movie as I do when listening to music. When I'm listening to music I want the auditory centres of my brain engaged to the maximum whereas with movies the visual experience is primary. In addition, humans are visually oriented, vision input gets more processing attention in the brain than audio input.

Good sound certainly enhances my enjoyment of a movie and I enjoy a movie a lot more if I'm listening to the soundtrack on the sound system in my TV setup rather than using the TV's own speakers but while I'm watching a movie I am not paying attention to sound quality in the same way, or to the same extent, as I do when I'm just listening to music. I certainly seem to get more from a good quality sound track if the movie is also visually good than I do if the movie is of lower quality visually but it's the visual qualities that tend to drive my judgement/enjoyment of the experience more than the sound quality. In other words, my audio enjoyment benefits from what psychologists call the halo effect when I'm watching a movie. I get a bit of a similar halo effect when listening to live music and I can see the performers there in front of me but it isn't as strong. There's no halo effect to benefit the sound when I'm listening to music, the sound has to carry the experience on it's own.

I expect a slightly deader acoustic with movies because of my experience in cinemas and to some extent I find myself wanting the home movie experience to deliver something like the cinema experience, and the home music experience to deliver the kind of experience I get in a music venue. I think the high frequency rolloff of the Reference curve helps a little in delivering the cinema experience with movies for me. I have a more acoustically live room than the cinemas I've been in and the Reference curve delivers a slightly less "live room" result for me. With music having a "hotter" high frequency response is a bit more like my experience of music venues and it probably also makes up a bit for the loss of things which live music delivers sound wise that reproduced music at home can't deliver. I also think that we judge something as "better" when it gets closer to our expectations than something else and my expectations for sound are different in a cinema than they are in a live music venue.

Audyssey suggest that Reference is more suited to movie program material and Flat to music. I think that's in large part because of the sorts of factors I've outlined above and I think a fair bit of psychoacoustic research into how out brains process sound when there's a lot of visual things going on vs little visual going on went into their thinking when they came up with the idea of offering 2 different curves. Whatever, one thing is very clear for me. The difference between Reference and Flat makes a noticeable difference to me when I'm just listening to music. I will pick Flat every time. It doesn't make anywhere near as much difference to me when I'm watching a movie, I can go either way and be happy. I'm more inclined to just leave it set to Flat instead of changing it to Reference when I swap from music to a movie but if I do change it to Reference it's often because of something about the movie and the way I'm responding to the visual aspects in terms of mood and emotional response than it is to do with anything about the quality of the sound itself.

Don't know how much sense that makes to anyone, it's very much a subjective thing for me but that's what struck me when I gave the topic a bit more thought after my previous post.

Added PS: I don't think Gary, Mike, or I are saying anything really different about the differences we hear between Reference and Flat. I think like any 3 people at the same music concert, we each take home something slightly different from the experience. We all hear the same thing, we can all have a really memorable experience, but if you ask us about why it was memorable for us we'll all say something different because there were different things which struck us and made the experience about it stand out for us. If it was a concert by a jazz piano trio and one of us was a pianist, another a bassist, and the last a drummer and you asked all 3 of us what made the concert really great for us, I guarantee you that all 3 of us would pick something different even though we all thought that all 3 performers in the trio were absolutely brilliant and at peak form. I think you can view our respective responses in that kind of light.


----------



## mthomas47

It sounds as if David and I have fairly similar watching and listening impressions, but from many conversations with Gary, I have come to believe that he is slightly more inclined to audio stimulus, where I would be much more inclined to visual stimulus.

It's strange in that I have always loved music, but I simply don't notice the audio in movies to the extent that Gary does. I do notice (and I started collecting movie soundtracks at about age 13) but not to the extent that Gary does. I respond quite strongly to visual stimulus, in the form of art and color, for instance. I surround myself with that sort of visual attraction much more than is typical, I think.

That's my theory for how two people who both love music, and especially movie soundtracks, can approach a movie viewing experience so differently. I can explain it in terms of a computer analogy, that more of my mental processing power is tied up in other things when I watch a movie. But, whatever the explanation, I am convinced that Gary remains much more conscious of audio during a movie than I do. I just thought I would throw that out there.

With respect to what I hear with Flat versus Reference, I think that once again, Gary and I have talked enough for me to be able to identify some difference in what we are listening for. Gary has pretty consistently described brilliance as a quality that he enjoys. And, we have talked a lot about what that means in terms of brass and some percussive instruments. My own standard for mid-range and up has more to do with string instruments. I am specifically interested in what sounds best for violins, cellos, classical guitar, piano, and so on. Brass instruments for me would be a distant second.

So, brilliance would not typically be a word I would use, or a quality I would look for, although sweetness might be. After tone would come clarity for me. There is always a slight trade-off between tonality and clarity, in my opinion, and although I want both, I can usually achieve good clarity from the room, and from EQ, while tonality is a more inherent quality in the sound for me. Flat just works better to convey the natural tonal sound of my speakers, in my room.

I hope that Gary won't mind me addressing some of the differences, as well as similarities, in our movie/music enjoyment, but it's an interesting subject, and sometimes best explained by drawing specific distinctions. 

Alan, are you sure that you don't want to jump in?


----------



## garygarrison

David, 

I think we have somewhat different movie experiences. I grew up seeing movies in rather acoustically live, old theaters. About the time I first read about High Fidelity in Boy's Life magazine, the theaters in my big city area started to run mostly brilliant magnetic multichannel soundtracks. I played in the Jr. High orchestra and band at the time, so I was familiar with the sound of instruments. Also, there were 70 mm road show houses that were a little less live than the old movie palaces, but not nearly as dead as the modern cinemas you're talking about. I saw virtually every 70 mm 6 track stereo film., as well as all the Cinerama shows and the one Cinemiracle film. These road show houses were "voiced." All of the above, including the live orchestra and band, had a lot of brilliant, sparkling sound (and lots of stirring, dynamic bass response, too). The Overture or Prelude caused people to sit up and get into the right mood for that particular movie. I'll never forget the opening of the Ben-Hur Prelude (Rozsa originally called it the Prelude, now it is labeled Overture on nearly every disk of every type) -- they had me with the first few notes. Once a movie started, it wasn't -- for me -- a matter of paying attention to the visual or auditory part of the presentation. If everything was working right, the music and image fused together into a whole greater than the sum of the parts. That is still true in my HT, although it doesn't happen that way with every film.



mthomas47 said:


> It sounds as if David and I have fairly similar watching and listening impressions, but from many conversations with Gary, I have come to believe that he is slightly more inclined to audio stimulus, where I would be much more inclined to visual stimulus.
> 
> It's strange in that I have always loved music, but I simply don't notice the audio in movies to the extent that Gary does. I do notice (and I started collecting movie soundtracks at about age 13) but not to the extent that Gary does. I respond quite strongly to visual stimulus, in the form of art and color, for instance. I surround myself with that sort of visual attraction much more than is typical, I think.
> 
> That's my theory for how two people who both love music, and especially movie soundtracks, can approach a movie viewing experience so differently. I can explain it in terms of a computer analogy, that more of my mental processing power is tied up in other things when I watch a movie. But, whatever the explanation, I am convinced that Gary remains much more conscious of audio during a movie than I do. I just thought I would throw that out there.
> 
> With respect to what I hear with Flat versus Reference, I think that once again, Gary and I have talked enough for me to be able to identify some difference in what we are listening for. Gary has pretty consistently described brilliance as a quality that he enjoys. And, we have talked a lot about what that means in terms of brass and some percussive instruments. My own standard for mid-range and up has more to do with string instruments. I am specifically interested in what sounds best for violins, cellos, classical guitar, piano, and so on. Brass instruments for me would be a distant second.
> 
> So, brilliance would not typically be a word I would use, or a quality I would look for, although sweetness might be. After tone would come clarity for me. There is always a slight trade-off between tonality and clarity, in my opinion, and although I want both, I can usually achieve good clarity from the room, and from EQ, while tonality is a more inherent quality in the sound for me.Flat just works better to convey the natural tonal sound of my speakers, in my room.


I think I get all of the above, and agree with most of what David and Mike said, except I am visually oriented, as well, have been a photo hobbyist since I was about 13, and have operated the camera in many student films. As I said above, the music and images have a way of combining for me, when things are working right. High levels of Berlyne's arousal increasing variables may help, such as complexity (including wide frequency response), loudness, brightness, size, novelty, surprise, etc. may help this along, and even affect our perception of time (Ornstein), and thus how "right" the editing pace seems. Of course, brilliant filmmaking doesn't hurt. I usually like filmmakers to cut on the beat, but not always.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Gary,
> 
> First note Chris' comment about the relationship between the region where the dip occurs, the region where the ear is most sensitive, and the way in which people with different levels of hearing acuity respond. He said that he hasn't heard a speaker that wasn't improved by the dip. I think that says something about his hearing, and also about the kind of sound he personally likes. I took that comment of his as a statement of his personal experience rather than a judgement that he felt was appropriate for everyone.
> 
> As for differences when it comes to playback of material from different eras, I like a lot of jazz and rock from the '50s and '60s as does a friend of mine. A few years ago he had a setup using vintage Altec Lansing horns, a domestic version of a pro model that was commonly used for mastering in recording studios of that period, while I had modern speakers. The sound of '50's and '60's jazz and rock on his system had something that my system could never deliver, there was a "rightness" to it that was really quite special, but his system did not impress me with contemporary jazz recordings as much as my system did. He also felt my system didn't do the '50's and '60s material as well as his did but preferred my system for more contemporary recordings. Speakers from different periods seem to have different "characters" that work well with music from the same period and engineers master recordings on speakers that exist at the time and things like driver technology and crossover design and their influence on frequency response, transient response, and how they radiate sound in a room and the impact of that on the mix between direct and reflected sound at the listening point have changed. I think that the speakers used for mastering has an effect on how the engineer masters the recordings they make and the choice between Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat depending on the recording you're playing can make a difference to how we respond to that particular recording. I don't think there is a "one size fits all" response curve that works equally well with every recording for a given listener and when you add in the differences in the personal preferences of different listeners then most definitely there is not going to be a "one size fits all" response curve for everyone. We could well do with a few more options than "Reference" and "Flat".


Agreed. A nice "horny" sound by Altec might have been good for '50s and '60s jazz and rock, and may have been selected to monitor recording sessions of same. But, if they weren't used for home playback as well, something might be lost. There was even a considerable difference between the Altec 604E (an excellent coax) used by Wally Heider Studios and the A7 home sized Voice of the Theater, used by a couple of other studios. Each studio tended to customize the speakers so they no longer sounded like the factory model. For movies, the big JBL 4 woofer model sounded different than than the theater sized Altec Voice of the theater A2, and just one mix went out to theaters using either, or lesser speakers. Which speakers were used to create, or check, the mix might well matter. As to modern speakers, some of those thought to be among the best have a considerable treble roll-off when in a room over a moderate angle of coverage (if we can trust _*Stereophile*_ to test them in the rooms of their reviewing staff). This would include the YG, and one of the Vandersteins. In an anechoic test The Wilson Maxx2 has a nice dip at 2.5K Hz, right where the Audyssey Reference midrange compensation dip is, as well as a dip just above 10K --- something like Audyssey Reference's curve. Some audiophiles may like these speakers because they veil problem areas (where the ear is most sensitive, or where HF distortion is most likely to crop up). Given all that we have all said, it's a miracle that Blu-ray sound is as good as it is, which is remarkably good, providing the movie itself was made after, say, 2000. I think Audyssey's approach is correct, i.e., start with the speakers and rooms being made as flat as possible, let those of us who like it use Audyssey Flat on good program material, and give us the choice of going to Audyssey Ref., if need be. As you said, we could use even more choices.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> David,
> 
> I think we have somewhat different movie experiences. I grew up seeing movies in rather acoustically live, old theaters. About the time I first read about High Fidelity in Boy's Life magazine, the theaters in my big city area started to run mostly brilliant magnetic multichannel soundtracks. I played in the Jr. High orchestra and band at the time, so I was familiar with the sound of instruments.–


Are you sure about that? 

I'm 69, I was born in 1947. What kind of theatres do you think I grew up watching movies in? I have memories of seeing "Forbidden Planet" in a theatre, probably not too long after it's first release. I can remember seeing Fellini's films in small cinemas when I first started going to movie festivals in the mid '60's.

I think our experiences and rate of frequenting theatres over the years have varied but it sounds like we may have grown up in the same era and had the same early experiences. There was a lot of "good" in that part of my "old days".

As for our second paragraph, I think your experience of the vision and audio combining when things are working right is the same for me. We're just describing that in different ways. My taste for the sort of sound I like has probably changed over the years in different ways to the way your taste has changed but perhaps not as much as either of us might think. It sounds as if we were brung up in a pretty similar audio/movie cabbage patch.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> David,
> 
> I think we have somewhat different movie experiences. I grew up seeing movies in rather acoustically live, old theaters. About the time I first read about High Fidelity in Boy's Life magazine, the theaters in my big city area started to run mostly brilliant magnetic multichannel soundtracks. I played in the Jr. High orchestra and band at the time, so I was familiar with the sound of instruments. Also, there were 70 mm road show houses that were a little less live than the old movie palaces, but not nearly as dead as the modern cinemas you're talking about. I saw virtually every 70 mm 6 track stereo film., as well as all the Cinerama shows and the one Cinemiracle film. These road show houses were "voiced." All of the above, including the live orchestra and band, had a lot of brilliant, sparkling sound (and lots of stirring, dynamic bass response, too). The Overture or Prelude caused people to sit up and get into the right mood for that particular movie. I'll never forget the opening of the Ben-Hur Prelude (Rozsa originally called it the Prelude, now it is labeled Overture on nearly every disk of every type) -- they had me with the first few notes. Once a movie started, it wasn't -- for me -- a matter of paying attention to the visual or auditory part of the presentation. If everything was working right, the music and image fused together into a whole greater than the sum of the parts. That is still true in my HT, although it doesn't happen that way with every film.
> 
> I think I get all of the above, and agree with most of what David and Mike said, except I am visually oriented, as well, have been a photo hobbyist since I was about 13, and have operated the camera in many student films. As I said above, the music and images have a way of combining for me, when things are working right. High levels of Berlyne's arousal increasing variables may help, such as complexity (including wide frequency response), loudness, brightness, size, novelty, surprise, etc. may help this along, and even affect our perception of time (Ornstein), and thus how "right" the editing pace seems. Of course, brilliant filmmaking doesn't hurt. I usually like filmmakers to cut on the beat, but not always.


I think that the early viewing experiences of the three of us may have been somewhat similar, although it still seems to me that you were more of a movie/audio aficionado early on, where I went to movies more for the sheer entertainment value. I saw many, many movies and not simply the good ones. 

I do think that our experience in watching the good ones was similar, though. We have discussed before the dramatic overtures (or preludes) from movies such as "Ben Hur" or "Lawrence of Arabia" or "How the West Was Won" among many others. And, we all agree that the synergy between the visual and the audio is both important and affecting.

But, there is still a genuine difference in the way that you currently screen movies in your HT that is very different from mine. It's not so remarkable that there would be a difference, but explaining why the difference exists is quite difficult. You take great pains to get the audio just right, because you notice every detail, every nuance in the movie score, and I don't. It's much more of a gestalt experience with me.

Where I notice every detail and nuance is in a music playback without the visual stimulus, story/plot, dialogue, characters, action, etc. As noted above, it's not really very strange that our brains would work differently at times. I remember your photography hobby, so I was certainly not impugning your visual awareness or interest (nor do I think that you took it that way), simply seeking an explanation.

Perhaps you are simply a better multitasker than I am, which wouldn't be difficult. The movie is more of a pure entertainment event for me. If it's good, then I am caught up in it, and the analytical part of my brain which might observe, and consciously note, nuances in the music is in abeyance. If I am being analytical, it is much more likely to be directed to details of the story or action. (Would I behave that way, in that circumstance? Is that scenario, or that person's action, plausible?)

If the movie's not really entertaining enough for me to temporarily suspend the more analytical part of my brain, then the musical score would be the least of it's problems. But, it may be that I simply turn off that more analytical part of my brain (as it applies to audio) during movies, and enjoy it as more of a gestalt experience, while you remain more of a pure audio aficionado (as you were early on) noticing more detail and nuance.

With music, where I really do notice detail and nuance, it still isn't an extremely analytical experience for me. I tend to observe and consciously notice detail, and flaws, at a more intuitive level. Again, I don't think that our experiences are entirely different. Your mind works in ways that are somewhat similar to mine during both movie viewing and music listening, and vice versa. But, unsurprisingly, with different individuals, there are bound to be differences in point of emphasis. When we start trying to explain what we like about specific AVR or Audyssey settings, or even pieces of music, those differences make perfect communication and understanding a bit more difficult.


----------



## BdoUK

Last week I purchased a Marantz 7702mkii processor to replace my aging Denon 4311CI receiver which was being used strictly as a pre/pro. Both units have XT32 capabilities and I was using the reference Audyssey setting with Dynamic EQ enabled on the Denon. 

After running XT32 on the Marantz I seem to be getting some different readings, especially when it comes to the front L/R curves. For example, the Denon had a dip in the lowest frequencies before adding a hump around 40Hz out to 100Hz. By contrast the Marantz is dipping all the way out to 100Hz. The only thing that has changed is the introduction of the Marantz as other hardware, speaker placement, and room acoustics have remained the same.

I assume that XT32 has changed since its introduction but looking to see if any others have experienced similar outcomes across various XT32 models.


----------



## mthomas47

BdoUK said:


> Last week I purchased a Marantz 7702mkii processor to replace my aging Denon 4311CI receiver which was being used strictly as a pre/pro. Both units have XT32 capabilities and I was using the reference Audyssey setting with Dynamic EQ enabled on the Denon.
> 
> After running XT32 on the Marantz I seem to be getting some different readings, especially when it comes to the front L/R curves. For example, the Denon had a dip in the lowest frequencies before adding a hump around 40Hz out to 100Hz. By contrast the Marantz is dipping all the way out to 100Hz. The only thing that has changed is the introduction of the Marantz as other hardware, speaker placement, and room acoustics have remained the same.
> 
> I assume that XT32 has changed since its introduction but looking to see if any others have experienced similar outcomes across various XT32 models.


Hi, 

Can you provide a little more information? I can't tell whether you are talking about REW measurements you have taken, or whether you are referring to the graphs in the two processors. If you do happen to be referring to the graphs that Denon/Marantz make available, they have very little real value.

In the first place, they don't actually represent what Audyssey actually did, only issues that it detected. So, it's more of a crude summary of Audyssey's general intentions than anything else. Second, XT-32 sets thousands of filters for each channel, so at best, the graph with it's few data points can only be a very crude approximation even of Audyssey's general intentions. The typical advice on the thread is to ignore the graphs, as they are mainly a marketing device--look, we have cool graphs. 

There shouldn't be a lot of difference in calibration between two different implementations of XT-32, but of course, there can always be a difference between individual calibrations, based on the difficulty of exactly replicating microphone positions. How is the sound quality after calibrating with the Marantz? I know it's difficult to rely on audio memory, so I'm not really asking you to compare it to the Denon, but rather to make a value judgment about how it sounds now. Are you hearing something that doesn't sound quite right?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> I'm 69, I was born in 1947. What kind of theatres do you think I grew up watching movies in? I have memories of seeing "Forbidden Planet" in a theatre, probably not too long after it's first release. I can remember seeing Fellini's films in small cinemas when I first started going to movie festivals in the mid '60's.
> 
> I think our experiences and rate of frequenting theatres over the years have varied but it sounds like we may have grown up in the same era and had the same early experiences. There was a lot of "good" in that part of my "old days".
> 
> As for our second paragraph, *I think your experience of the vision and audio combining when things are working right is the same for me.* We're just describing that in different ways. My taste for the sort of sound I like has probably changed over the years in different ways to the way your taste has changed but perhaps not as much as either of us might think. It sounds as if we were brung up in a pretty similar audio/movie cabbage patch.


In an earlier post, you said, "I expect a slightly deader acoustic with movies because of my experience in cinemas and to some extent I find myself wanting the home movie experience to deliver something like the cinema experience." Me too, but I like the excitement, brilliance, and rich reerberation of the older ('50s/'60s/70s) movies that we both may have experienced in bigger, more live, theaters.

We are cohorts as to age, so we may be from similar cabbage patches. Did you go to the movies in a fairly big city, or the suburbs, in a rural setting, or where? The cities tended to get the magnetic multichannel in the pre-Dolby days, and the suburbs tended to get the optical monaural, with significant exceptions, of course. Theaters (except for drive-ins) that were equipped for CinemaScope during the first few years (starting in 1953) were required to install magnetic 4 channel stereo, but a few years later Fox (owner and lender of CinemaScope) dropped the requirement, a big mistake, IMO.

Fellini films were generally shown in small, intimate Art Houses, but almost all of his films were mono/optical anyway. Still, in a larger, more live theater, with more complex reverberation, they would have probably sounded different. I did see the first run of La Dolce Vita in a fairly large, old, complex sounding theater, the Elmwood in Berkeley. This was before the rating system came in, thank goodness, but I don't think the Elmwood people checked for age.

Forbidden Planet was first shown in 1956, in gorgeous CinemaScope, and I saw it in a large, old theater, in 4 channel stereo. The outlying areas tended to get in mono, but even they tended to get it in Perspecta, a very poor compromise, IMO, but at least with some directionality. At the very same time, some medium-live/complex sounding theaters with seats that went down to very close (no stage in the way) to a big, curving screen were showing 70mm Todd-AO,with 6 channel magnetic sound, including the best of all (until they exchanged their big, deeply curving screen for a smaller, nearly flat one a few years later), the Coronet in San Francisco. In that theater, for Oklahoma! the Todd-AO sound was so good that several of our orchestra members went down and sat in the front row for the exit music, marveling at how much the sound resembled the live orchestra we experienced 5 days a week. When Oklahoma! closed after a long run, Around the World in 80 Days opened in October. It had equally good, dynamic sound. It ran well into its second year (3 months of 1956, all of 1957, and into 1958)*; *Magna (the Todd-AO people) had to equip another theater to show South Pacific (1958) in Todd-AO, rather than boot 80 Days out. Our orchestra members went through the same ritual of staying for the exit music for 80 Days. By that time we had gone to our first HiFi fair, and although the best of Bozak, Fraizer, JBL, and Klipsch were there, Todd-AO sound beat them all. Meantime, also in 1956, we saw the following in big, old, reverberant theaters: Lust for Life (4 channel stereo), The King and I (in large negative CinemaScope 55, and 4 channel) at the Paramount in Oakland, Carousel (4 channel, CinemaScope 55 at the Fox Oakland), The Ten Commandments at the Roxie, in magnetic Perspecta, with some scenes in true multichannel stereo (they used to do that, for reasons passing all understanding), and Giant/the Paramount/mono (why?), Friendly Persuasion /Roxie/mono (why?), Moby Dick /Fox Oakland/ mono (why?), and South Seas Adventure at the S.F. Orpheum in Cinerama and *7 *channel.

We made it a practice to bus or drive to wherever the best format was showing (we called the theaters, adding 1 digit to phone numbers when they started to get answering machines -- that would often get us a manager). 

I'm glad you experience the sound and picture combining, too. Fortunately, it doesn't absolutely have to be the magnetic stereo of the '50s/'60s/'70s for that to happen. The oldest film that caused that to happen to me was a 4 channel magnetic transfer of Fantasia from the original 1940 optical multichannel Fantasound, in 1964 (see Scientific American 1941, Peck -- it's online). 

The Coronet Todd-AO screen in San Francisco. The image filled the entire area behind the curtains for the first few films in Todd-AO


----------



## stash64

Just reporting back on my AV7702mkii processor and the noisy DEQ. I did the reset to factory settings and ran Audyssey again. It made no difference. I still get a huge bump in noise with DEQ on vs off.


Marantz said they would repair it but I am really not interested in sending in a brand new unit for repair, and getting it back dinged up and scratched. I would think Marantz would just replace new for new when a problem crops up within the first 30 days. I will just do without Audyssey DEQ for now. I only use it for movies anyway as I prefer pure direct stereo for music.


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> Just reporting back on my AV7702mkii processor and the noisy DEQ. I did the reset to factory settings and ran Audyssey again. It made no difference. I still get a huge bump in noise with DEQ on vs off.
> 
> 
> Marantz said they would repair it but I am really not interested in sending in a brand new unit for repair, and getting it back dinged up and scratched.* I would think Marantz would just replace new for new when a problem crops up within the first 30 days*. I will just do without Audyssey DEQ for now. I only use it for movies anyway as I prefer pure direct stereo for music.


If you get the right person at Marantz, I suspect they would replace new for new. JBL replaced a tweeter I dropped with a new one, even though it was my fault. Meanwhile, using the tone controls (bass control, especially) is possible with DEQ off. I like that better than DEQ.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Are you sure about that?
> 
> I'm 69, I was born in 1947. What kind of theatres do you think I grew up watching movies in? I have memories of seeing "Forbidden Planet" in a theatre, probably not too long after it's first release. I can remember seeing Fellini's films in small cinemas when I first started going to movie festivals in the mid '60's.
> 
> I think our experiences and rate of frequenting theatres over the years have varied but it sounds like we may have grown up in the same era and had the same early experiences. There was a lot of "good" in that part of my "old days".
> 
> As for our second paragraph, I think your experience of the vision and audio combining when things are working right is the same for me. We're just describing that in different ways. My taste for the sort of sound I like has probably changed over the years in different ways to the way your taste has changed but perhaps not as much as either of us might think. It sounds as if we were brung up in a pretty similar audio/movie cabbage patch.


David,

Gary's response to your post is much more interesting than mine, including his photo of a beautiful old theater. I miss those too. But, your mention of "Forbidden Planet" brings back good memories. I also saw it when it came out, in a large theater. I had no idea that I was seeing something unique for its time, and groundbreaking in some respects. I just thought it was magical. A little scary at that age, but magical, nevertheless. And, like a lot of kids, I thought Robby was wonderful. That remains my favorite Sci Fi movie of that era, including "War of the Worlds".

There were a lot of really good Sci Fi movies from the time period after WWII to the early 60's. Most were in B&W, but some were still very memorable. Another favorite of mine from that period was "The Thing From Another World" adapted from a very good short story by John Campbell. That version simplified the original story, but still managed to retain much of the scary nature of the story. And, the screenplay was more character driven, with some very snappy dialogue. It still plays occasionally on TCM, and I still enjoy watching it.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Just reporting back on my AV7702mkii processor and the noisy DEQ. I did the reset to factory settings and ran Audyssey again. It made no difference. I still get a huge bump in noise with DEQ on vs off.
> 
> Marantz said they would repair it but I am really not interested in sending in a brand new unit for repair, and getting it back dinged up and scratched. I would think Marantz would just replace new for new when a problem crops up within the first 30 days. I will just do without Audyssey DEQ for now. I only use it for movies anyway as I prefer pure direct stereo for music.


Sean,

I'm sorry to hear about your ongoing trouble. Perhaps Gary's suggestion to try again with Marantz will help. Asking for a supervisor can't hurt. For some reason, I keep thinking that the Pure Direct mode bypasses Audyssey. I may be mistaken about that, though. The issue hasn't come up in a long time.

I don't think it's that hard to work around DEQ, if you need or want to, but I wouldn't personally wish to lose the filters that Audyssey sets, so that may be a factor for you too. The next time you run in that mode can you verify whether Audyssey is still enabled. In addition to the Audyssey light, you can also check to see whether DEQ is grayed-out in your Audio Menu. If nothing else, it's worth knowing for sure.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Gary and Mike,

I'm picking up on different part's of Gary's post and Mike's 2 posts and I won't include the quotes in order to save screen space.

Most of my childhood movie experience was in small suburban cinemas, in fact my earliest experience would have been in a small country town but I can't remember that. Suburban cinemas here back then were probably quite lively acoustically but I wasn't paying attention to the acoustics. A lot of them had concrete floors, carpeting in the aisles only, and bare reflective wall areas, curtain over the screen area only. Some of them had sling style canvas seats and the bodgies—the Aussie term for the delinquents of the day—used to slit the canvas with knives. If you got a bad seat you fell through the slit. People used to roll Jaffas, a round, hard sweet with an orange flavoured exterior and chocolate centre, down the sloping floor and you would hear the Jaffas rolling on the concrete. Modern cinemas, even the suburban ones, are definitely acoustically deader than the suburban cinemas I remember. Stereo sound? What the hell was stereo? It wasn't around or just coming in at the time and nobody even said "mono" until we had stereo to contrast it with. Some suburban cinemas did have seats like the one in Gary's photo but they were the larger, more up-market suburban cinemas. I don't think I went to a city cinema until I was in my late teens. I went to my first film festival after I left school so I was probably 18 or so at the time, mid '60s, and I watched a lot of cinema back in those days including a lot of European art film. As I got more interested in music and audio I stopped going to the movies as much and concentrated more on music. I started coming back to movies about 10 or 12 years ago, mostly at home rather than in cinemas but I do go to the cinema occasionally. I've got small pupils in my eyes and early cataracts and even movies with very good picture quality can look a bit soft and blurry to me in a cinema because the screen isn't as bright as a good TV these days. I don't watch anywhere near as much in the art film repertoire now as I used to.

I probably saw "Forbidden Planet" around 1957. In those days there was quite a time lag between release in the US and release in Australia. My school used to arrange occasional film nights with the local theatre and part of the ticket proceeds would go to the school parent's association for use with the lunch food stall and so on so my parents would buy tickets and take us. I don't think they would have taken me to "Forbidden Planet" for any other reason. I loved it though I was more impressed by Robby the Robot than Ann Francis. How my tastes have changed! 10 year olds don't know what's good for them 

Mike, I agree with you about there being some wonderful sci-fi films in the 50's and '60s. I have a few on DVD and a couple on BD. I suspect there's more than a few I'd like to see which will never make it to BD much less UHD or whatever comes next. The same can be said for TV shows at the time. The original "Twilight Zone" and "Outer Limits" had some great episodes and the BBC did some great things also like their adaptions of Fred Hoyle's "A for Andromeda" novel and it's sequel "Andromeda Breakthrough". I have them, or what's left of them in one case, on DVD. Low quality image but very good acting and story. Some of those things have been remade in more modern versions but the original is still often the superior version in my view. Some people reading this may think that's just nostalgia talking and there is certainly more than a bit of nostalgia in my fondness for the originals, but I'll stand by my assessment as a critical judgement  "The Thing from Another World" (1951?) is great. I think John Carppenter's remake is better in some ways, at least as far as the story goes, but I can't remember the original Campbell short story, but the original does have it's own charm. Carpenter's film is one of the better remakes. The Kauffman remake of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", for example, is definitely not up to the standard of the original in my view nor is Carpenter's "Village of the Damned" up to the standard of the original early 60's British film.

Re Mike's first response: I pay more attention to the audio aspects of HT while setting up the system and occasionally (perhaps too occasionally) when I'm tinkering with it to fine tune it but I probably don't pay any more attention to it than he does while I'm watching a movie unless there's something about the sound that strikes me as really nice or something about the sound that disturbs or annoys me. Either can distract me from the overall experience and start me noticing the sound as a distinct element. I once had a tonally mismatched centre and the change in tonal character of a voice as it tracked between the centre channel and front left or right used to annoy the hell out of me while I used that speaker. When I changed it to a speaker which tonally matched my front left and right speakers, I stopped getting distracted and picking up on the sound when voices tracked between those channels. As all of us have commented in various ways, when the picture and sound are both doing their job well, we don't notice them as distinct experiences, there's just a single pretty seamless experience which the audio and video support both support. I don't notice all of the nuances in the sound when the sound and video are working well together but I find that paying attention to the nuances during setup, and when the sound doesn't work well with the video, and fixing any problems means that the sound and video are more likely to work well together when I'm watching a movie. In other words, if I don't want to pay attention to the quality of sound and the nuances while I'm watching something, and normally I don't (an exception would be a video of a musical performance), I find I do need to pay attention to sound quality and nuances in the system when I'm not watching something. It may sound paradoxical to say that you have to pay attention to something in order to avoid having to pay attention to it but that seems to be true quite often in life,


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> If you get the right person at Marantz, I suspect they would replace new for new. JBL replaced a tweeter I dropped with a new one, even though it was my fault. Meanwhile, using the tone controls (bass control, especially) is possible with DEQ off. I like that better than DEQ.




Hey Gary,


I may give the tone controls a shot when I am playing back music with my Bluesound Vault2. It has been ages since I've touched a bass or treble control... which I guess speaks to the popularity of EQ software over the last decade or two. I do generally listen at about the same volume, so it should work out OK to set it and forget it.


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> Sean,
> 
> I'm sorry to hear about your ongoing trouble. Perhaps Gary's suggestion to try again with Marantz will help. Asking for a supervisor can't hurt. For some reason, I keep thinking that the Pure Direct mode bypasses Audyssey. I may be mistaken about that, though. The issue hasn't come up in a long time.
> 
> I don't think it's that hard to work around DEQ, if you need or want to, but I wouldn't personally wish to lose the filters that Audyssey sets, so that may be a factor for you too. The next time you run in that mode can you verify whether Audyssey is still enabled. In addition to the Audyssey light, you can also check to see whether DEQ is grayed-out in your Audio Menu. If nothing else, it's worth knowing for sure.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Pure Direct definitely bypasses the EQ portion of Audyssey but I think it retains the speaker distance and trims set by Audyssey. It also shuts down video processing. Direct does not shut down video.


I just double-checked the manual and discovered it not only disables Audyssey functions but it also disables tone controls. So I won't be able to try Gary's suggestion of adjusting bass and/or treble in Direct or Pure Direct mode. Oh well, perhaps I will push my case with Marantz to replace with a new unit.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Pure Direct definitely bypasses the EQ portion of Audyssey but I think it retains the speaker distance and trims set by Audyssey. It also shuts down video processing. Direct does not shut down video.
> 
> I just double-checked the manual and discovered it not only disables Audyssey functions but it also disables tone controls. So I won't be able to try Gary's suggestion of adjusting bass and/or treble in Direct or Pure Direct mode. Oh well, perhaps I will push my case with Marantz to replace with a new unit.


Thanks for confirming that, Sean. I definitely think it is worth pressing your case with Marantz. That's a big investment. But, I am curious about your decision to use Pure Direct despite the fact that it disables both Audyssey and the tone controls. (Distances, levels, and crossovers are all set independently of the EQ.)

Do you not like the sound of Stereo (with filters set) compared to Pure Direct (without filters)? I have stated before that where theory and practical application conflict, I'll go with what actually works over what ought to work. But, Audyssey ought to work to improve the frequency response of your speakers, interacting with your room, regardless of whether you are listening to 2-channel music or watching a 5.1 movie. It does for most systems and rooms.

I'm not challenging your choice here, or trying to talk you into anything, but I am curious about what you hear with Stereo that you don't like, compared to Pure Direct. If the problem is DEQ, I can understand simply leaving that off, but having the option to use your tone controls would seem like an additional advantage in Stereo.

I will understand, incidentally, if you hear something that you can't adequately describe. You may have seen Gary, David and myself all offering slightly different reasons for preferring Flat to Reference. Explaining what we hear, and why, can be like trying to describe a particular color, and why we like that shade more than another.


----------



## pbarach

stash64 said:


> Pure Direct definitely bypasses the EQ portion of Audyssey but I think it retains the speaker distance and trims set by Audyssey. It also shuts down video processing. Direct does not shut down video.
> 
> 
> I just double-checked the manual and discovered it not only disables Audyssey functions but it also disables tone controls. So I won't be able to try Gary's suggestion of adjusting bass and/or treble in Direct or Pure Direct mode. Oh well, perhaps I will push my case with Marantz to replace with a new unit.


Doesn't Denon's Pure Direct also shut off bass management, leaving all speakers at full range (LARGE) and also sending the low frequencies from all of the channels to the subwoofer?


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> Do you not like the sound of Stereo (with filters set) compared to Pure Direct (without filters)? I have stated before that where theory and practical application conflict, I'll go with what actually works over what ought to work. But, Audyssey ought to work to improve the frequency response of your speakers, interacting with your room, regardless of whether you are listening to 2-channel music or watching a 5.1 movie. It does for most systems and rooms.
> 
> I'm not challenging your choice here, or trying to talk you into anything, but I am curious about what you hear with Stereo that you don't like, compared to Pure Direct. If the problem is DEQ, I can understand simply leaving that off, but having the option to use your tone controls would seem like an additional advantage in Stereo.




When it comes to listening to music, I am definitely old school in that I generally prefer stereo. The only exception is concert DVD's or BD's that were obviously recorded as multi-channel. I guess I prefer to stick with the original format. And I'm not all that enamored with some of the SACD's I own... the sound coming from the extra channels feels somehow contrived and unnatural and gets tiring. Most of my music collection is sourced from CD's.


I have experimented in the past when listening to music in stereo. I've gone back and forth between EQ on and off and I generally do not hear a significant difference. This goes back to when I had HK or Pioneer receivers, both of which use their own proprietary room correction. I do think EQ tames some of the reflections, particularly noticeable if playing loud, but I also sense a loss of something... perhaps purity is the word... not sure.


I think there are several reasons that I personally do not find EQ to be advantageous in stereo. First, I do not play music loud, typically -30 to -20 db. Second, though my Jamo C809 towers do a fine job with bass, I am not a bass hound and do not care for bass heavy music. I find most of the beauty in music is in the mids (love acoustic guitar) and highs (violin). (If I was an elephant, I'm sure I'd feel different.) And I guess this is the main reason I do not have a sub in my system. (I've had a subwoofer in the past and don't care for the additional effort needed to seamlessly integrate a sub. It ends up being a compromise if you don't have the perfect location for it.) Third, my room does have some modest acoustic treatment. No bass traps per se, but acoustic panels on one side and the back. My towers and entertainment stand are angled towards the treated side and slightly away from the windows on the opposite side. Lastly, I think EQ is more beneficial with the more channels going... with just the front 2 channels playing, I can tolerate some mild reflection though I have less tolerance for bass reflection.


----------



## stash64

pbarach said:


> Doesn't Denon's Pure Direct also shut off bass management, leaving all speakers at full range (LARGE) and also sending the low frequencies from all of the channels to the subwoofer?




I believe it does turn off bass management, but then I do not use a subwoofer. I have two front tower speakers that are plenty capable in the bass department... at least for me.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> Doesn't Denon's Pure Direct also shut off bass management, leaving all speakers at full range (LARGE) and also sending the low frequencies from all of the channels to the subwoofer?


I believe that is correct. I read about a possible workaround consisting of Pure Direct with LFE+Main, but that might present issues of it's own. I haven't tried Pure Direct in a number of years. The initial idea behind it sounded somewhat plausible with respect to digital noise reduction. But, recent generations of AVR's have made the utility of something like that pretty superfluous. It's probably something that AVR makers continue to include as more of a marketing device than something with tangible audio benefits.

For someone wanting to listen to 2-channel music without any EQ, it would probably be easiest to just use Stereo (with Audyssey off), and at least preserve the opportunity to have bass management and tone controls.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> When it comes to listening to music, I am definitely old school in that I generally prefer stereo. The only exception is concert DVD's or BD's that were obviously recorded as multi-channel. I guess I prefer to stick with the original format. And I'm not all that enamored with some of the SACD's I own... the sound coming from the extra channels feels somehow contrived and unnatural and gets tiring. Most of my music collection is sourced from CD's.
> 
> 
> I have experimented in the past when listening to music in stereo. I've gone back and forth between EQ on and off and I generally do not hear a significant difference. This goes back to when I had HK or Pioneer receivers, both of which use their own proprietary room correction. I do think EQ tames some of the reflections, particularly noticeable if playing loud, but I also sense a loss of something... perhaps purity is the word... not sure.
> 
> 
> I think there are several reasons that I personally do not find EQ to be advantageous in stereo. First, I do not play music loud, typically -30 to -20 db. Second, though my Jamo C809 towers do a fine job with bass, I am not a bass hound and do not care for bass heavy music. I find most of the beauty in music is in the mids (love acoustic guitar) and highs (violin). (If I was an elephant, I'm sure I'd feel different.) And I guess this is the main reason I do not have a sub in my system. (I've had a subwoofer in the past and don't care for the additional effort needed to seamlessly integrate a sub. It ends up being a compromise if you don't have the perfect location for it.) Third, my room does have some modest acoustic treatment. No bass traps per se, but acoustic panels on one side and the back. My towers and entertainment stand are angled towards the treated side and slightly away from the windows on the opposite side. Lastly, I think EQ is more beneficial with the more channels going... with just the front 2 channels playing, I can tolerate some mild reflection though I have less tolerance for bass reflection.



Hi Sean,

Thanks for the response. It seems that we share some interests, as I also have a particular fondness for string instruments. Violins, cellos, acoustic guitar, piano, etc, have always been my principal instruments to use in evaluating speakers, although vocals, and lower frequency instruments, such as upright bass are important to me too.

And, I also listen to music without subs. I simply don't need them for music. But, in my particular case, I do get some extra clarity using EQ. Even though I do have bass traps, and other acoustic treatments, the increase in clarity with EQ is particularly discernible to me in the mid-range and bass frequencies. Who knows? We all hear different things, as noted earlier. Have you ever tried the Audyssey Flat setting?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> I haven't tried Pure Direct in a number of years. The initial idea behind it sounded somewhat plausible with respect to digital noise reduction. But, recent generations of AVR's have made the utility of something like that pretty superfluous. It's probably something that AVR makers continue to include as more of a marketing device than something with tangible audio benefits.



I could be wrong, but I think that if you want to hear DSD converted directly to analog without a prior conversion to PCM, you have to use Pure Direct. When bass management is in use, the incoming DSD signal gets converted first to PCM and then to analog. Also, whenever you're using Audyssey on recent Denon models, the incoming DSD signal gets down-resolutioned to 88.2 kHz before going to analog. It appears, then, that the only way to hear a DSD signal without either a conversion to PCM or having its resolution reduced is DIRECT or PURE DIRECT.


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Sean,
> 
> Thanks for the response. It seems that we share some interests, as I also have a particular fondness for string instruments. Violins, cellos, acoustic guitar, piano, etc, have always been my principal instruments to use in evaluating speakers, although vocals, and lower frequency instruments, such as upright bass are important to me too.
> 
> And, I also listen to music without subs. I simply don't need them for music. But, in my particular case, I do get some extra clarity using EQ. Even though I do have bass traps, and other acoustic treatments, the increase in clarity with EQ is particularly discernible to me in the mid-range and bass frequencies. Who knows? We all hear different things, as noted earlier. Have you ever tried the Audyssey Flat setting?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Right with you on the string instruments... a little Norah Jones on piano, Yo Yo Ma on cello performing Gabriel's Oboe and, to mix it up a little, Zac Brown on acoustic guitar. I can appreciate bass too as long as it is clean and controlled and doesn't overpower the rest of the music.


I think the word I was looking for earlier is that Audyssey can slightly sterilize the sound to my ears, at least in terms of stereo music. As far as flat or reference, I've never really taken the time to compare though I normally switch to flat just because I imagine it should be more natural. Do you have a preference ? And can you suggest any music to use to highlight and compare the two options ?


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> When it comes to listening to music, I am definitely old school in that I generally prefer stereo. The only exception is concert DVD's or BD's that were obviously recorded as multi-channel. I guess I prefer to stick with the original format. And I'm not all that enamored with some of the SACD's I own... the sound coming from the extra channels feels somehow contrived and unnatural and gets tiring. Most of my music collection is sourced from CD's.
> 
> 
> I have experimented in the past when listening to music in stereo. I've gone back and forth between EQ on and off and I generally do not hear a significant difference. This goes back to when I had HK or Pioneer receivers, both of which use their own proprietary room correction. I do think EQ tames some of the reflections, particularly noticeable if playing loud, but I also sense a loss of something... perhaps purity is the word... not sure.
> 
> 
> I think there are several reasons that I personally do not find EQ to be advantageous in stereo. First, I do not play music loud, typically -30 to -20 db. Second, though my Jamo C809 towers do a fine job with bass, I am not a bass hound and do not care for bass heavy music. I find most of the beauty in music is in the mids (love acoustic guitar) and highs (violin). (If I was an elephant, I'm sure I'd feel different.) And I guess this is the main reason I do not have a sub in my system. (I've had a subwoofer in the past and don't care for the additional effort needed to seamlessly integrate a sub. It ends up being a compromise if you don't have the perfect location for it.) Third, my room does have some modest acoustic treatment. No bass traps per se, but acoustic panels on one side and the back. My towers and entertainment stand are angled towards the treated side and slightly away from the windows on the opposite side. Lastly, I think EQ is more beneficial with the more channels going... with just the front 2 channels playing, I can tolerate some mild reflection though I have less tolerance for bass reflection.


If you'll pardon the pun, you are a purist.

The nearly philosophical question may be, "Which is purer, the original signal + room anomalies (even in moderately treated rooms) + speaker nonlinearity, through electronics that are very "pure," *OR* the room and speakers being partially corrected + some complex electronics, with their own anomalies in the signal path?

In my situation, I have gone back and forth between Audyssey ON amd Audyssey OFF until my face turned a variety of colors, on different days, with different program material, including CD, SACD, & Blue-ray, and the Audyssey condition was virtually always clearer and subjectively more "pure" sounding. In fact, for me, the difference Audyssey makes in the upper bass, midrange and treble seems to be more significant than the difference in the bass. In the very few exceptions, in which Audyssey ON was not better, Audyssey OFF was not better either, but each of the conditions had their own virtues and shortcomings. True, I didn't use Pure Direct as one of the conditions*;* maybe I'll figure out how to do that someday, and give it a try. Obviously everyone's source material, speakers, rooms, MLP, ears, brains, and experience probably are quite important in determining what sounds best.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Right with you on the string instruments... a little Norah Jones on piano, Yo Yo Ma on cello performing Gabriel's Oboe and, to mix it up a little, Zac Brown on acoustic guitar. I can appreciate bass too as long as it is clean and controlled and doesn't overpower the rest of the music.
> 
> 
> I think the word I was looking for earlier is that Audyssey can slightly sterilize the sound to my ears, at least in terms of stereo music. As far as flat or reference, I've never really taken the time to compare though I normally switch to flat just because I imagine it should be more natural. Do you have a preference ? And can you suggest any music to use to highlight and compare the two options ?


I think that your instinct was sound (groan) in believing that Flat should be more natural. That has always been my consistent preference. Any of the music choices you listed in your first paragraph should be good at highlighting the differences, and I might particularly look for something with some clear treble. 

Reference has always sounded a little heavy in my system and room. But, on the other hand, if you find Audyssey sounding a little sterile in the Flat mode, it's possible that Reference would sound a little warmer. It might be worth a try. If you do, just note that you will have to turn off DEQ, because I think that Reference automatically includes a DEQ default.


----------



## stash64

OK... you and Gary have persuaded me that I need to do some more experimentation with Audyssey though I may wait until I get this whole DEQ noise thing figured out. I think I will start with some very familiar music and first make a decision on flat vs reference. From there, I can revisit the stereo question and give Audyssey another shot versus pure direct. It has been at least a few years since I did any evaluation of this sort and I've not done it with XT32. I decided I liked pure direct best for stereo when I had my AV7005 and it had a lesser version of Audyssey.


----------



## David Aiken

Lots going on here.



mthomas47 said:


> Hi Sean,
> 
> Thanks for the response. It seems that we share some interests, as I also have a particular fondness for string instruments. Violins, cellos, acoustic guitar, piano, etc, have always been my principal instruments to use in evaluating speakers, although vocals, and lower frequency instruments, such as upright bass are important to me too.
> 
> And, I also listen to music without subs. I simply don't need them for music. But, in my particular case, I do get some extra clarity using EQ. Even though I do have bass traps, and other acoustic treatments, the increase in clarity with EQ is particularly discernible to me in the mid-range and bass frequencies. Who knows? We all hear different things, as noted earlier. Have you ever tried the Audyssey Flat setting?…


I've got 2 systems in different rooms, a music system and a HT system. The music system is 2.0, no subs, and the room is acoustically treated with no Audyssey. The HT system is 2.1 (dual subs), Audyssey, and no acoustic treatment in the room. I also tend to use voice and acoustic instruments for judging the music system but over time I've come to primarily use voice for my test material when assessing how the music system sounds.





stash64 said:


> …
> I think the word I was looking for earlier is that Audyssey can slightly sterilize the sound to my ears, at least in terms of stereo music. As far as flat or reference, I've never really taken the time to compare though I normally switch to flat just because I imagine it should be more natural. Do you have a preference ? And can you suggest any music to use to highlight and compare the two options ?


Flat isn't natural. The sound of voice and acoustic instruments playing in a space without miss and speakers to reinforce the sound, just natural acoustic sound, isn't flat. The room has an effect and even an acoustically treated concert hall won't give a flat response. There's going to be a roll off because there is absorption from furnishings and clothing, and not all sound is reflected at reflection points, there's some loss with every reflection, there's loss at windows with sound just passing through glass if the window isn't open, and there's absorption in the air at high frequencies plus there's the impact of room modes providing reinforcement at lower frequencies. We don't hear a flat response with live acoustic music. Those same issues affect live electric music. The source of the sound in that case is the speakers but sound leaving the speakers is subject to the same changes in the space as affect acoustic sounds. By the time the sound reaches your ears the balance between levels and frequencies that the performers created has been changed by the room. Audyssey Flat tries to deliver a flat response at the listening position, i.e. the sound would have the same balance at your ears as it has at the source position. That doesn't happen naturally, i.e. without the use of EQ and filters, in any environment.

"Sterile" may actually be a good term to describe the Flat curve because among the things it does is remove the character of "warmth" which a lot of live music has. That "warmth" comes in large part from a roll off in the highs which is one of the things that happens to sound in a space, so Audyssey Reference is closer, in some ways, to what we hear with live performance in our own rooms and in concert halls. Even so, I do think Flat has advantages when it comes to clarity and adding a bit of sparkle and life to the top end, and I prefer Flat for music on my HT system, but I prefer to listen to music on my music system and what I'm hearing there in an acoustically treated room without EQ or processing of any kind and what I'm hearing at the listening position in that room isn't a flat response, even if the system had a perfectly flat response which of course it isn't because no system without EQ and processing of some kind has a perfectly flat response.




garygarrison said:


> If you'll pardon the pun, you are a purist.
> 
> The nearly philosophical question may be, "Which is purer, the original signal + room anomalies (even in moderately treated rooms) + speaker nonlinearity, through electronics that are very "pure," *OR* the room and speakers being partially corrected + some complex electronics, with their own anomalies in the signal path?
> 
> In my situation, I have gone back and forth between Audyssey ON amd Audyssey OFF until my face turned a variety of colors, on different days, with different program material, including CD, SACD, & Blue-ray, and the Audyssey condition was virtually always clearer and subjectively more "pure" sounding. In fact, for me, the difference Audyssey makes in the upper bass, midrange and treble seems to be more significant than the difference in the bass. In the very few exceptions, in which Audyssey ON was not better, Audyssey OFF was not better either, but each of the conditions had their own virtues and shortcomings. True, I didn't use Pure Direct as one of the conditions*;* maybe I'll figure out how to do that someday, and give it a try. Obviously everyone's source material, speakers, rooms, MLP, ears, brains, and experience probably are quite important in determining what sounds best.


If we're going to go philosophical I'll ask what "pure" means (full disclosure: I spent 3 years studying philosophy and more than half of my Arts degree was in philosophy). What's the sound of a string quartet in a concert hall? Depends on the quartet, the concert hall, and where you sit in the hall. Pick a particular quartet and hall and try a range of seats in the front, middle, back, to a side, close to the wall, as far from the walls as you can get, in a box around the balcony. It will sound different in each seat. Which one delivers accurate sound? None of them delivers the sound the performers are hearing on stage but only the performers normally hear the sound that performers hear and they are often in the wrong position to hear the "best" quality sound from their own instruments and no singer hears their own voice the way it sounds to someone in the audience.

I've had too many arguments with one friend who told me that my system didn't sound like the music sounded like live and who claimed that he knew exactly what live music sounded like. I've also got another friend who is a classical clarinettist and teacher who has recorded and I've played him one of his recordings on my system and asked him if he thought the sound of his clarinet was being reproduced reasonably accurately and he said "yes". Which one of those 2 friends was right? I chose the clarinettist because his answer agreed with what I hear when I listen to my system and compare the sound to what I've heard at performances by my friend, and for the record I like the sound of the clarinettist's music system more than the sound of the other friend's system. Ask a number of people about whether your system sounds "accurate" or "natural" or "life like" or whatever and the best you can hope for is some sort of consensus one way or the other with the others saying the opposite and individual comments are all likely to highlight different responses to particular aspects of the sound.

There's really no objective reference point for the sound of live music to which we can compare the sound of our systems. Basically what we have are our memories of what live performances we've heard sounded like and who knows how accurate those memories are if you haven't heard a particular artist in performance in a year or two, or even not for a much longer period.

We've got options with Audyssey. We've got Reference, Flat, and Off. If we choose Off we also have Direct and Pure Direct. We can do a manual EQ setting, we can use tone controls, we can tinker with the room setup when we're doing the setup process or cover the tweeter with tissue paper or throw a blanket over the sofa. All of those things change what we hear. A lot of them involve having Audyssey on but can any of us say what Audyssey sounds like? I can't, but I can tell you what settings I prefer and why and when I sometimes change them, and what I like about the sound of each of my 2 systems and why I prefer one over the other for different things.



My advice to anyone worrying about whether their system sounds right or whatever: don't obsess about things like rightness or naturalness or accuracy or whatever. You're listening to your system for the enjoyment you get from doing that. You have some ideas of what sort of sound you like, and you know whether you enjoy the result more or less when you make a change in the system. Just do whatever makes the system sound better to you and give you more enjoyment. That may mean using different settings for different sorts of music/soundtrack or at different times. All of the setting options are simply ways of changing the sound in different ways and you can't really say that any of those options is more accurate or natural than any other setting unless you say accurate or natural relative to some performance you heard and even then you're comparing to memory. There's nothing wrong with that. If getting the sound to sound the way you remember a particular performance sounded is what makes you happiest, then do that and don't worry about whether your memory is accurate because your memory's accuracy doesn't matter.

What counts is enjoying the result. Don't worry about what measurements say. If measurements give you information you can use to help get the sound closer to what you want to hear then use measurements but the goal isn't to get a particular set of results, it's to get a result you really like listening to. Use whatever helps you to get to that result whether that be measurements, Audyssey Reference/Flat/Off, tone controls, a faulty memory, whatever. You only have to satisfy yourself so do that and stick to your guns if people criticise your result. You won't satisfy everyone, you can't satisfy everyone, so don't try to satisfy everyone. You may have to satisfy a spouse if SAF is important but they're the only person whose opinion I'd pay a lot of attention to


----------



## QuiGonJosh

Audyssey recommended setting the subwoofers to 50% volume. I have two BIC F12's and set them to 50% during Audyssey, but the F12's run better when set to 20-30%. With the F12's at 50% Audyssey set the level at -12db, but with the F12's set to 20% on the subwoofer, that was obviously too low, so I kicked it up to -8db on the Denon and it sounds great. But I'm wondering if I should run Audyssey again and have the subwoofers set to 20% or just leave it where it is? Any help would be appreciated. 

Also, what is the difference between LFE and LFE+Main? Thanks again.


----------



## David Aiken

QuiGonJosh said:


> Audyssey recommended setting the subwoofers to 50% volume. I have two BIC F12's and set them to 50% during Audyssey, but the F12's run better when set to 20-30%. With the F12's at 50% Audyssey set the level at -12db, but with the F12's set to 20% on the subwoofer, that was obviously too low, so I kicked it up to -8db on the Denon and it sounds great. But I'm wondering if I should run Audyssey again and have the subwoofers set to 20% or just leave it where it is? Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Also, what is the difference between LFE and LFE+Main? Thanks again.


1- LFE: the sub plays the LFE channel plus any bass redirected to it from speakers set to small. The speakers set to Small only play sound down to the crossover frequency and sound below the crossover frequency is sent to the sub. This is the way bass management is supposed to work.

LFE+Main: the sub plays the LFE channel plus any bass redirected to it from speakers set to small. All speakers play full range with this setting, even those set to Small so sound that would be normally be redirected to the sub and not played by the speakers is played by both the sub and speakers which is why this setting is often called "double bass". It is not accurate but some people like it because it boosts bass response overall . If you want more output from your subs you'll get a more even and effective bass boost by adjusting the sub's trim setting higher in your AVR's settings menu.


2- Ideally you want Audyssey to set the sub to higher than -12 dB. That setting is the lowest trim setting it can set and there's no way of telling whether it should really be -12 dB or -13 dB or even lower. Set the sub's own gain setting lower than 50% and repeat the setup process. The 50% recommendation is really a starting point and some subs need a higher gain setting, some a lower gain setting, in order for the sub to output the test tone at the correct level. Since you kicked that trim setting up to 8 dB, it sounds like you like a bit more bass than Audyssey sets things to. After you're redone the setup process with the sub set somewhere in the 20-30% range, try raising that sub trim setting in the Denon's again if you want a bit more bass than what you get at the settings Audyssey makes.


----------



## QuiGonJosh

David Aiken said:


> 1- LFE: the sub plays the LFE channel plus any bass redirected to it from speakers set to small. The speakers set to Small only play sound down to the crossover frequency and sound below the crossover frequency is sent to the sub. This is the way bass management is supposed to work.
> 
> LFE+Main: the sub plays the LFE channel plus any bass redirected to it from speakers set to small. All speakers play full range with this setting, even those set to Small so sound that would be normally be redirected to the sub and not played by the speakers is played by both the sub and speakers which is why this setting is often called "double bass". It is not accurate but some people like it because it boosts bass response overall . If you want more output from your subs you'll get a more even and effective bass boost by adjusting the sub's trim setting higher in your AVR's settings menu.


Thanks!




> 2- Ideally you want Audyssey to set the sub to higher than -12 dB. That setting is the lowest trim setting it can set and there's no way of telling whether it should really be -12 dB or -13 dB or even lower. Set the sub's own gain setting lower than 50% and repeat the setup process. The 50% recommendation is really a starting point and some subs need a higher gain setting, some a lower gain setting, in order for the sub to output the test tone at the correct level. Since you kicked that trim setting up to 8 dB, it sounds like you like a bit more bass than Audyssey sets things to. After you're redone the setup process with the sub set somewhere in the 20-30% range, try raising that sub trim setting in the Denon's again if you want a bit more bass than what you get at the settings Audyssey makes.


The F12's really become overwhelming at anything above 40-50% and tend to play best in the 20-30% range. The F12's are punchiest and more accurate at 20-30%, which is where I like to keep them, so I figured I drop the volume on the F12's down and kick it up 4db on the receiver and it seems to be pretty balanced and not overwhelming. I had it at 50% when I ran Audyssey so that shows you how loud the F12's are at just 50%. I'm not a fan of big bass that drowns out everything. Just clear and concise bass. Thank you for the explanation.


----------



## David Aiken

QuiGonJosh said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F12's really become overwhelming at anything above 40-50% and tend to play best in the 20-30% range. The F12's are punchiest and more accurate at 20-30%, which is where I like to keep them, so I figured I drop the volume on the F12's down and kick it up 4db on the receiver and it seems to be pretty balanced and not overwhelming. I had it at 50% when I ran Audyssey so that shows you how loud the F12's are at just 50%. I'm not a fan of big bass that drowns out everything. Just clear and concise bass. Thank you for the explanation.


When you dropped the F12s down and increased the trim setting, did you redo the Audyssey setup after knocking the F12's down? If not, then we have no idea of how your changed settings relate to what Audyssey originally set the subs to.

Set the F12's to 20-30% first, then rerun Audyssey setup and see how it goes. After reducing the subs to 20-30% you may get an error message during Audyssey setup saying you have set them too low in which case increase them slightly but not back up to 50%. Get the Audyssey setup done first with the subs set lower than 50% and see how you like the result. THEN, if you want more bass, increase the trim setting for the subs on your Denon. Use the LFE setting rather than LFE + Main, especially if you're going to increase the trim setting on the Denon.

Change only onething at a time so you know what's going on and what is contributing to the result so set the subs lower and rerun Audyssey and listen—the only change is the difference in sub setting for the setup process. If you then want more bass, adjust the trim setting and nothing else, just the trim setting. Listen. If there's now too much or too little bass, adjust the trim accordingly. Only one change at a time. That way you know what's going on, you know what each change is doing, if you have to adjust the trim setting on the Denon a couple of times to get it right, it's easier to judge how much you need to change it.

Changing only one thing at a time then listening, then repeating the single change and listen process until you get to the result you want is always the best way to handle setup problems simply because it's the only way to be certain of what's happening and how much difference each change makes. Change 2 things at once and any change you hear depends on 2 things. You have no idea just what each of those 2 things contributed to the overall change or how much each of those 2 things contributed to the change. And what each change contributes can be different to how much each change contributes. Doing it one step at a time may take you longer (it also may not) but you'll learn more and you're less likely to end up with a problem because you don't know what each individual change did.


----------



## mthomas47

QuiGonJosh said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> The F12's really become overwhelming at anything above 40-50% and tend to play best in the 20-30% range. The F12's are punchiest and more accurate at 20-30%, which is where I like to keep them, so I figured I drop the volume on the F12's down and kick it up 4db on the receiver and it seems to be pretty balanced and not overwhelming. I had it at 50% when I ran Audyssey so that shows you how loud the F12's are at just 50%. I'm not a fan of big bass that drowns out everything. Just clear and concise bass. Thank you for the explanation.


Hi,

David's giving you good advice on your gain settings and your trim settings. Those two have a relationship, in that either one you change--the gain setting on your sub, or the trim setting in your AVR--can change your sub volume. So, you are looking for balance in that relationship. 

Turn down the gain on your sub just enough to get you to a trim setting of about -10 or -11 after Audyssey runs. As a shortcut, you can tell Audyssey to calculate after the first microphone position. Once you get the sub trim(s) to about -10, you would then run the full 8-point calibration, as usual. Then, afterward, you can either leave the sub trims where Audyssey put them, or you can turn them up a few decibels in your AVR.

But now, you will be starting from a known point of -10 or -11. -12 is not a known point. It is simply the lowest trim number your Denon can set. The appropriate trim level might well have been -13 or even -15. If you follow this advice, you will still be able to get exactly the volume you want for your subs. But, you will also be using the Audyssey software properly.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## QuiGonJosh

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> David's giving you good advice on your gain settings and your trim settings. Those two have a relationship, in that either one you change--the gain setting on your sub, or the trim setting in your AVR--can change your sub volume. So, you are looking for balance in that relationship.
> 
> Turn down the gain on your sub just enough to get you to a trim setting of about -10 or -11 after Audyssey runs. As a shortcut, you can tell Audyssey to calculate after the first microphone position. Once you get the sub trim(s) to about -10, you would then run the full 8-point calibration, as usual. Then, afterward, you can either leave the sub trims where Audyssey put them, or you can turn them up a few decibels in your AVR.
> 
> But now, you will be starting from a known point of -10 or -11. -12 is not a known point. It is simply the lowest trim number your Denon can set. The appropriate trim level might well have been -13 or even -15. If you follow this advice, you will still be able to get exactly the volume you want for your subs. But, you will also be using the Audyssey software properly.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


How is that different from what I already did? Sorry, but I'm not understanding. With the subwoofer set to 50%, Audyssey set the subwoofers to -12db. Put the F12's perform better at around 25%, so I then increased the trim in the Denon to -8db, which sounds balanced to me.


----------



## mthomas47

QuiGonJosh said:


> How is that different from what I already did? Sorry, but I'm not understanding. With the subwoofer set to 50%, Audyssey set the subwoofers to -12db. Put the F12's perform better at around 25%, so I then increased the trim in the Denon to -8db, which sounds balanced to me.



What you did was fine. You raised the AVR trim by 4db, just as David and I were suggesting you should do. 

The problem is that when you raised the gain to 50%, Audyssey set the trim level at -12. Maybe that trim level is exactly right, but maybe it's not, and there is no way to know. The only thing we know for sure is that the trim levels only go down to -12. So, running Audyssey again may seem like a pain, and it's not like you will break anything if you don't. But, you were asking whether you should run Audyssey again. And, the best answer is that you should.

This time when you run it, try to get the trim level just a little above -12, just to insure that the real number shouldn't have been -13 or -15. Once you are even slightly above -12 (even -11.5 would be fine) you will know that your subs are playing at exactly the same volume as all the other channels in your system. That's what Audyssey is doing--using a 75db test tone, and measuring the results, so that all channels are playing at the same volume at the MLP. Then, from that common starting point of equal volume for all channels, you can adjust your sub volume to run as much louder as you want.

But, right now, you have no idea whether all of your channels are playing at an equal volume or not. If the correct number should have been -14, your subs are already playing 2db hotter than the rest of your channels. Unless your subs are way out of whack, which is unlikely, it won't really matter. So, you can probably leave things where they are and you will be fine. But, you did ask for advice, and it never hurts to try to follow the protocols that Audyssey recommends.


----------



## mthomas47

I decided to say a little more about following audio/Audyssey protocols as it relates to giving advice on this thread (or on other threads). First, I don't think that there is anything terribly wrong with having a sub trim of -12. Particularly if you intend to raise your trim levels, anyway. If I knew my subs and room well enough to know that I was right on the edge of about -11.5 to -12, and I had a trim level of -12, I probably wouldn't bother to rerun Audyssey. It would really only be significant if I wanted a completely flat response, or if I were adding so much trim, at a high MV level, that I started to run out of headroom sooner than I expected, because I had actually started at +3db, or more, with that trim setting of -12. That is, the trim setting should actually have been -15, or lower, if the trims were able to go down that far.

But, what advice should we give when someone asks? To me, it depends somewhat on the context of the question. If someone is fairly new to Audyssey, it seems to me that we have some obligation to start with a few basic rules and protocols. Because a lot of people will run Audyssey once or twice, double-check to make sure they haven't done anything grossly wrong, and then never mess with their calibration or settings again. And, in that case, I think it's better to err on the side of caution in the advice we give. You typically won't go too far wrong following in the path of the thousands of Audyssey owners who have gone before, and following their recommended procedures.

But, what if the person asking for advice is seriously curious about how things work, given to experimentation, and determined to squeeze the last iota of performance that he can from his system? Then, I think that the advice can be a little different, with respect to trim levels, sub distance settings, crossovers, post-Audyssey settings, and so on. In that case, the recommended rules or protocols are mainly a starting point to assist us in familiarizing ourselves with Audyssey operations. We need to understand those protocols, and why they exist. And, we need to test them in our rooms, in order to make intelligent decisions about whether, or when, we might wish to deviate from them.

So, in general, I think that we are right to give the kind of advice that people usually get on this thread, even when it sounds a little pedantic to someone new to Audyssey (or to someone more experienced with it, for that matter). People who really want to go beyond that typical advice will read the FAQ, ask other questions, and experiment to find out what actually works best in their own rooms, with their own systems, for their own preferences, anyway. But, as with any other pursuit, it seems important to start by learning the basics, before attempting to branch out too far on our own. YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I decided to say a little more about following audio/Audyssey protocols as it relates to giving advice on this thread (or on other threads). First, I don't think that there is anything terribly wrong with having a sub trim of -12. Particularly if you intend to raise your trim levels, anyway. If I knew my subs and room well enough to know that I was right on the edge of about -11.5 to -12, and I had a trim level of -12, I probably wouldn't bother to rerun Audyssey. It would really only be significant if I wanted a completely flat response, or if I were adding so much trim, at a high MV level, that I started to run out of headroom sooner than I expected, because I had actually started at +3db, or more, with that trim setting of -12. That is, the trim setting should actually have been -15, or lower, if the trims were able to go down that far.
> 
> But, what advice should we give when someone asks? To me, it depends somewhat on the context of the question. If someone is fairly new to Audyssey, it seems to me that we have some obligation to start with a few basic rules and protocols. Because a lot of people will run Audyssey once or twice, double-check to make sure they haven't done anything grossly wrong, and then never mess with their calibration or settings again. And, in that case, I think it's better to err on the side of caution in the advice we give. You typically won't go too far wrong following in the path of the thousands of Audyssey owners who have gone before, and following their recommended procedures…


To add to Mike's comment:

The person answering the question doesn't always know how much the person asking the question knows. A person can ask a relatively basic question about Audyssey. The person answering doesn't know how much the questioner knows about Audyssey but they can reasonably guess from the question that the person doesn't know a lot or they wouldn't be asking that question. What they often can't tell, because there isn't enough information being given, is how much they know about HT audio in general. They may know a fair bit but this may be their first experience using Audyssey or they may know very little and this is their first experience even setting up an AVR. There's often no way to tell.

So, does the person answering assume that the questioner knows nothing and give a detailed answer just to be safe? Well, they can assume that but some detailed answers can take half an hour or more to write because you're thinking it out on the way, editing what you write to make it clearer at times, and checking to see that you're answering everything that has been asked and not leaving anything out. Sometimes they don't have the time or inclination to do that and write a much shorter response, provide a list of do this/don't do this points and skip any detailed attempt at explanation or education. I wrote my second response to QuiGonJosh a bit after 11.30pm last night (I'm in Australia in a very different time zone) as I was on my way to bed and I really wanted to get to bed. I wanted to provide a prompt answer and leaving it until now would have meant a 7 hour delay. People like seeing their questions answered sooner rather than later and most people answering questions try to do that.

I think many people answering questions try to err on the side of giving as much info as they can, even if it's more than the questioner wants, because the questioner isn't the only person who will want to know that answer. People routinely search threads like this for answers to a question and often find what they want without having to ask the question. The more info the person answering the question gives, the more people that answer may be useful for. The person asking the question may know enough to be able to understand a more concise answer but the next person who reads the answer and needs the information may not know anywhere near as much and a concise answer might simply confuse them. There are benefits to trying to write answers so that the answer provides enough information for people with different degrees of knowledge and experience.

And what happens when the response gets read? The questioner hopefully says "thanks, just the answer I needed" or they say "too much info" or "too little info" or "can't you be clearer?" and the person who posted the answer takes that response and uses it to help them decide how to answer the next question they answer. Sometimes that works to the next questioner's favour, sometimes it doesn't. No one answering questions gets it right every time.

Deciding how much to say and how to say it when you answer a question often isn't as simple for the answerer as the person asking the question thinks it is. I think Mike's final paragraph is spot on for what is the best way of judging things but things like how much time the answerer has available and whether they're tired or sick or just in a bad mood all play a part in the kind of response that ends up being given. That can't be avoided. I could have spelled things out with a bit more detail last night so that QuiGonJosh didn't have to ask the question Mike answered, but getting to bed took precedence over spelling things out any more than I did.


----------



## David Aiken

QuiGonJosh said:


> How is that different from what I already did? Sorry, but I'm not understanding. With the subwoofer set to 50%, Audyssey set the subwoofers to -12db. Put the F12's perform better at around 25%, so I then increased the trim in the Denon to -8db, which sounds balanced to me.


Audyssey is trying to deliver a specific result and the way it sets things depends on the gain setting you set on your sub when you're doing the setup process.

Assuming you didn't run the setup process again after knocking the sub setting down to 20-30%, you did 2 things. You knocked the sub setting down and you raised the trim setting. Is the amount you knocked the sub setting down accurately compensated for by the increase in your trim setting? Is the result you are now getting what Audyssey intended, or something different. You have no way of knowing and our ears aren't good for telling us whether 2 results are the same when you can't switch back and forward between those results easily and quickly which you can't do with the changes you made.

If you knock the sub setting down and then rerun the setup process, Audyssey should compensate for the change in the sub setting by coming up with a different trim setting. The change in trim setting that Audyssey sets will compensate for the change in the sub setting that you made and you will get the result that Audyssey intended.

If you aren't happy with that result then you can play with the trim setting again or with swapping from the Reference Curve to the Flat curve or a few other things but you can always go back to the original Audyssey setting at any stage. Depending on the sub and whether it has settings that you can precisely record and go back to or just a rotary control with no click stops or anything, you may never be able to get back to the original Audyssey result if you change the sub's settings and don't run the setup process again. It's handy to be able to go back to a known starting position at any time and the original Audyssey settings is your known starting position once you've run the setup. There are some changes that it's not a good idea to make because you may not be able to get back to your original starting point after making them. Changing the sub's settings without then running the setup process again is one of those changes.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> To add to Mike's comment:
> 
> The person answering the question doesn't always know how much the person asking the question knows. A person can ask a relatively basic question about Audyssey. The person answering doesn't know how much the questioner knows about Audyssey but they can reasonably guess from the question that the person doesn't know a lot or they wouldn't be asking that question. What they often can't tell, because there isn't enough information being given, is how much they know about HT audio in general. They may know a fair bit but this may be their first experience using Audyssey or they may know very little and this is their first experience even setting up an AVR. There's often no way to tell.
> 
> So, does the person answering assume that the questioner knows nothing and give a detailed answer just to be safe? Well, they can assume that but some detailed answers can take half an hour or more to write because you're thinking it out on the way, editing what you write to make it clearer at times, and checking to see that you're answering everything that has been asked and not leaving anything out. Sometimes they don't have the time or inclination to do that and write a much shorter response, provide a list of do this/don't do this points and skip any detailed attempt at explanation or education. I wrote my second response to QuiGonJosh a bit after 11.30pm last night (I'm in Australia in a very different time zone) as I was on my way to bed and I really wanted to get to bed. I wanted to provide a prompt answer and leaving it until now would have meant a 7 hour delay. People like seeing their questions answered sooner rather than later and most people answering questions try to do that.
> 
> I think many people answering questions try to err on the side of giving as much info as they can, even if it's more than the questioner wants, because the questioner isn't the only person who will want to know that answer. People routinely search threads like this for answers to a question and often find what they want without having to ask the question. The more info the person answering the question gives, the more people that answer may be useful for. The person asking the question may know enough to be able to understand a more concise answer but the next person who reads the answer and needs the information may not know anywhere near as much and a concise answer might simply confuse them. There are benefits to trying to write answers so that the answer provides enough information for people with different degrees of knowledge and experience.
> 
> And what happens when the response gets read? The questioner hopefully says "thanks, just the answer I needed" or they say "too much info" or "too little info" or "can't you be clearer?" and the person who posted the answer takes that response and uses it to help them decide how to answer the next question they answer. Sometimes that works to the next questioner's favour, sometimes it doesn't. No one answering questions gets it right every time.
> 
> Deciding how much to say and how to say it when you answer a question often isn't as simple for the answerer as the person asking the question thinks it is. I think Mike's final paragraph is spot on for what is the best way of judging things but things like how much time the answerer has available and whether they're tired or sick or just in a bad mood all play a part in the kind of response that ends up being given. That can't be avoided. I could have spelled things out with a bit more detail last night so that QuiGonJosh didn't have to ask the question Mike answered, but getting to bed took precedence over spelling things out any more than I did.


David,

Thanks! I agree with you 100%. And, I also find myself rushing to answer a question sometimes, knowing full-well that I haven't covered every possible aspect of the question. Repetitive questions from people relatively unfamiliar with Audyssey are the reason the FAQ was developed in the first place. And, it remains, in my opinion, the best example of its kind. I wasn't involved in its development, but I like many others, have certainly benefited from it.

Compounding the problem of not knowing how much the person asking a question actually knows, is the fact that when we write something on this thread, we are writing for a much wider audience than we may realize. I would guess that, at any given time, there may be 5 or 10 people reading the thread for everyone who posts on it. And again, there is no way of telling how much people cruising the thread may know about a particular issue. So, I feel some responsibility to try to write clearly and unambiguously for that larger audience, and that can take some additional time, as well.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... If we're going to go philosophical I'll ask what "pure" means ... What's the sound of a string quartet in a concert hall?
> 
> ... Just do whatever makes the system sound better to you and give you more enjoyment. *That may mean using different settings for different sorts of music/soundtrack or at different times* ...
> 
> If measurements give you information you can use to help get the sound closer to what you want to hear then use measurements but *the goal* isn't to get a particular set of results, it's* to get a result you really like* listening to. *Use whatever helps you to get to that result whether that be measurements, Audyssey Reference/Flat/Off, tone controls, a faulty memory, whatever*. You only have to satisfy yourself so do that ...


It's a good thing that I said, "The *nearly* philosophical question *may* be ..."

I agree with you, particularly the parts I quoted above. I only asked "which is purer" because the pre/pro and AVR manufacturers tempt us with words like "Pure." IMO, it is an open question, depending on the room and other factors, which interventions impose more changes, or more consequential changes, compared to the (unknowable?) signal on the disk 1) a room without attempted correction in the frequency and time domains, but "pure" electronics, approaching "a wire with gain" or 2) the various kinds of distortion, named and unnamed, known and unknown, inherent in room correction electronics. 

I like the results with Audyssey Flat much more than with Audyssey OFF. As I said before, I may try Aud Flat compared to the "Pure" conditions at a later date. I tend to like Aud Reference less, with most program material, but I still like it more than Aud Off. I fully concur that we may have to use "different settings for different sorts of music/soundtrack" ... in my case, I roll off the highs and impose midrange compensation with Aud Ref with most older magnetic soundtracks that have, or have acquired, high frequency distortion. As to "different times," I have my moods, and I'm almost convinced my equipment has them too, although the only explanation I've heard, short of my projecting my moods, would be wide fluctuations in room temperature and/or humidity, and neither happens appreciably in our HT. We have a modern electrical service. Despite nearly everyone agreeing that warm up doesn't matter with solid state, I try to have the equipment on about 20 minutes before listening. O.K., it's me. If a piece of music sounds "wrong" I feel free to use different tone control settings than used previously (as noted on stickers on the disk boxes). 

I don't use DEQ except on the rarest occasions, but I use tone control bass boost fairly often, and run my sub boosted, all in the spirit of using whatever helps get me a result that I really like. That usually means "triggering my musical Gestalt," as J. Gordon Holt put it*;* that usually is in fairly high agreement with my memory (faulty or not) of the sound I have heard live orchestras produce, whether from inside the orchestra, or out in the audience. Wouldn't these last two sound quite different? Yes, but, IMO, mostly spatially. The brain is a marvelous thing. My fellow players and I did find that there was a weak but convincing relationship between where we were seated in the orchestra and the speakers we liked. Although, in those days, none of us could afford expensive equipment, we always compared live music to the reputed best of a manufacturer's line. So, those who played brass instruments, or sat in front of the brass, ditto percussion, tended to like JBL, Klipsch, EV, or maybe Altec. Those who played string instruments tended to like Bozak, or maybe Wharfedale. Other players were distributed in preference, with Tannoy popping up frequently. Most did not like the early acoustic suspension speakers (AR, KLH), and I still don't like speakers with wide excursion, unless extremely band limited to the deep bass, like a sub. In any case, I'm interested in getting high fidelity to the imagined original.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> … My fellow players and I did find that there was a weak but convincing relationship between where we were seated in the orchestra and the speakers we liked. Although, in those days, none of us could afford expensive equipment, we always compared live music to the reputed best of a manufacturer's line. So, those who played brass instruments, or sat in front of the brass, ditto percussion, tended to like JBL, Klipsch, EV, or maybe Altec. Those who played string instruments tended to like Bozak, or maybe Wharfedale. Other players were distributed in preference, with Tannoy popping up frequently. Most did not like the early acoustic suspension speakers (AR, KLH), and I still don't like speakers with wide excursion, unless extremely band limited to the deep bass, like a sub. In any case, I'm interested in getting high fidelity to the imagined original.


Ah, you've raised the generally undiscussed fact that pianists don't care about how the drums sound unless they're too loud in the mix to allow listeners to hear the piano rather than the drums and drummers don't care how the guitar sounds unless the highs from it get in the way of people hearing the nuances of brushes on their cymbals and so on.

Sometimes it's not about what it sounds like, sometimes it's about whether we can hear the bits we want to hear most and damn everyone else on the recording, there's only one person we want to hear so who cares about how the rest of them sound


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> It's a good thing that I said, "The *nearly* philosophical question *may* be ..."
> 
> I agree with you, particularly the parts I quoted above. I only asked "which is purer" because the pre/pro and AVR manufacturers tempt us with words like "Pure." IMO, it is an open question, depending on the room and other factors, which interventions impose more changes, or more consequential changes, compared to the (unknowable?) signal on the disk 1) a room without attempted correction in the frequency and time domains, but "pure" electronics, approaching "a wire with gain" or 2) the various kinds of distortion, named and unnamed, known and unknown, inherent in room correction electronics.
> 
> I like the results with Audyssey Flat much more than with Audyssey OFF. As I said before, I may try Aud Flat compared to the "Pure" conditions at a later date. I tend to like Aud Reference less, with most program material, but I still like it more than Aud Off. I fully concur that we may have to use "different settings for different sorts of music/soundtrack" ... in my case, I roll off the highs and impose midrange compensation with Aud Ref with most older magnetic soundtracks that have, or have acquired, high frequency distortion. As to "different times," I have my moods, and I'm almost convinced my equipment has them too, although the only explanation I've heard, short of my projecting my moods, would be wide fluctuations in room temperature and/or humidity, and neither happens appreciably in our HT. We have a modern electrical service. Despite nearly everyone agreeing that warm up doesn't matter with solid state, I try to have the equipment on about 20 minutes before listening. O.K., it's me. If a piece of music sounds "wrong" I feel free to use different tone control settings than used previously (as noted on stickers on the disk boxes).
> 
> I don't use DEQ except on the rarest occasions, but I use tone control bass boost fairly often, and run my sub boosted, all in the spirit of using whatever helps get me a result that I really like. That usually means "triggering my musical Gestalt," as J. Gordon Holt put it*;* that usually is in fairly high agreement with my memory (faulty or not) of the sound I have heard live orchestras produce, whether from inside the orchestra, or out in the audience. Wouldn't these last two sound quite different? Yes, but, IMO, mostly spatially. The brain is a marvelous thing. My fellow players and I did find that there was a weak but convincing relationship between where we were seated in the orchestra and the speakers we liked. Although, in those days, none of us could afford expensive equipment, we always compared live music to the reputed best of a manufacturer's line. So, those who played brass instruments, or sat in front of the brass, ditto percussion, tended to like JBL, Klipsch, EV, or maybe Altec. Those who played string instruments tended to like Bozak, or maybe Wharfedale. Other players were distributed in preference, with Tannoy popping up frequently. Most did not like the early acoustic suspension speakers (AR, KLH), and I still don't like speakers with wide excursion, unless extremely band limited to the deep bass, like a sub. *In any case, I'm interested in getting high fidelity to the imagined original.*


Good post, Gary. I especially appreciate the last sentence. I have no idea whether the particular combination of room, equipment, settings, and volume that I use would appeal to someone else as much as they appeal to me, in even general terms, much less for a particular piece of music.

And, I have no idea whether my mental image of the way music _should _sound in my room is faithful to an actual live performance I heard, or to some immutable standard. I can never really know those things. I only care that it is as faithful as possible to my impression of how that piece of music should sound to me.


----------



## Bluemagics

Had anyone of you access to the (beta of) Audyssey new mobile app? I want to know what the feature of this app will be. Is it something that comes close the Pro setup that is normally done by a professional?


----------



## jsb75

Bluemagics said:


> Had anyone of you access to the (beta of) Audyssey new mobile app? I want to know what the feature of this app will be. Is it something that comes close the Pro setup that is normally done by a professional?


I was just wondering that my self. Can't seem to find any information on it. Don't see anything on the audyssey website?


----------



## mogorf

jsb75 said:


> I was just wondering that my self. Can't seem to find any information on it. Don't see anything on the audyssey website?


Me too, curious like cat! What new models are included in this program? Anyone?


----------



## lovingdvd

Bluemagics said:


> Had anyone of you access to the (beta of) Audyssey new mobile app? I want to know what the feature of this app will be. Is it something that comes close the Pro setup that is normally done by a professional?





jsb75 said:


> I was just wondering that my self. Can't seem to find any information on it. Don't see anything on the audyssey website?


Sounds interesting, but do we have ANY idea of what type of functionality this may provide? Seems like an odd thing to have calibration software running as a mobile app?


----------



## stash64

mogorf said:


> Me too, curious like cat! What new models are included in this program? Anyone?




I believe the new Marantz AV7703 has it.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Sounds interesting, but do we have ANY idea of what type of functionality this may provide? Seems like an odd thing to have calibration software running as a mobile app?


My knowledge of this is limited to the information that was already on the thread, but I believe that the actual calibration process will still work through the AVR/pre-pro as it currently does. Then, I think that the mobile app will allow some frequency-specific shaping of the response. What the parameters of that shaping are, or how any of it actually works, seem to be unknown so far.


----------



## dwaleke

Most if not all of the D&M 2016 models with Audyssey are supported by the new mobile app.

I've read:

1) It replaces the Pro Kit from previous models.
2) Allows you to set a target curve for calibration.
3) Allows you to set upper and lower bounds for correction (ie 20->500hz only).
4) Calibration is performed by the avr/avp with the regular Audyssey microphone.
5) Mobile app is only to configure Audyssey.

Now what actually is delivered we won't know until we get the app in late December.


----------



## lovingdvd

dwaleke said:


> Most if not all of the D&M 2016 models with Audyssey are supported by the new mobile app.
> 
> I've read:
> 
> 1) It replaces the Pro Kit from previous models.
> 2) Allows you to set a target curve for calibration.
> 3) Allows you to set upper and lower bounds for correction (ie 20->500hz only).
> 4) Calibration is performed by the avr/avp with the regular Audyssey microphone.
> 5) Mobile app is only to configure Audyssey.
> 
> Now what actually is delivered we won't know until we get the app in late December.


Thanks this is really helpful! Any word if this will be available on the Marantz 8802a?

What we'll really need along with this is the ability to store multiple calibrations with preset/recall ability. This way we can have one calibration for a curve we like for music, another for movies, another optimized for one listening position, another optimized for broader seating when several people are in the room etc.


----------



## dwaleke

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks this is really helpful! Any word if this will be available on the Marantz 8802a?


It will not work on any pre-2016 models. It requires hardware in the unit that doesn't exist. 

For the 8802a I believe there is not enough ram in the unit to support the software. And that's not upgradable like a PC.


----------



## lovingdvd

dwaleke said:


> It will not work on any pre-2016 models. It requires hardware in the unit that doesn't exist.
> 
> For the 8802a I believe there is not enough ram in the unit to support the software. And that's not upgradable like a PC.


Thanks for the information. That's really disappointing. I wonder if there are any plans to send it in like for an 8802b update.


----------



## mogorf

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks this is really helpful! Any word if this will be available on the Marantz 8802a?
> 
> What we'll really need along with this is the ability to store multiple calibrations with preset/recall ability. This way we can have one calibration for a curve we like for music, another for movies, another optimized for one listening position, another optimized for broader seating when several people are in the room etc.


Well lovingdvd, I'm a bit skeptial when it comes to having multiple calibrations for music and film. Call me an "old school" guy, but I do not see Audyssey (or any other room EQ systems) that can/could distinguish EQ'ing based on program material. These modern EQ methods are typically made to compensate anomalies that come up whet it comes to speaker-room interaction. In this regard I do believe the is no difference between what is played, i.e. music of film. 

On another note, Audyssey was always advertised as a multi-seater solution, regardless of how many people are sitting in the room. The basic principle here was that Audyssey creates an acoustic bubble around the multi-seater area and what ever is done by "clever" work around is nothing but a mis-interpretation of the original concept, or in other words disregarding "intended use".

YMMV.


----------



## dwaleke

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks for the information. That's really disappointing. I wonder if there are any plans to send it in like for an 8802b update.


It was confirmed there are no plans. You'll have to upgrade to get it.


----------



## stash64

DEQ Noise revisited.


I'm still awaiting a follow-up reply from Marantz, and so I decided to do a more methodical evaluation to determine if one my sources could be a contributing factor. I only have 3 sources currently: Channel Master DVR+ on HDMI1, Marantz BD player on HDMI3, and Bluesound Vault2 on Coax1. My front Aux1 HDMI input is also active. So I went ahead and disconnected all 3 sources. All that remained connected to the AV7702 was the amp trigger cable, Ethernet cable, and the amp pre-outs. And of course my speakers were still connected to the amp.

So I powered up the AV7702 and amp with no sources connected, switched to HDMI1, turned on a surround mode, and turned on DEQ. I heard a slight bump in noise thru my speakers when I switched from stereo to surround but then a huge bump and the staticy noise when I turned on DEQ... and this was with no sources connected! I had even disconnected my antenna coax at the wall... I do not have cable or satellite. When I connected the source, it actually buffered the noise some.

Next I switched to HDMI3 and noise dropped by a magnitude of 3 or 4 but was still much louder than I would expect from a good audio set-up. I then switched to the Aux1 front panel HDMI and the noise thru my speakers jumped up again to about the same level as on HDMI1. Lastly, I tried the volume knob and the noise increased as the volume was turned up. At only -30db volume, I could hear the staticy noise loud and clear from 10 feet away.

Personally, I am now satisfied that I simply have a bad (really bad) pre-amp and that the DEQ thing is just a symptom of some defective internal hardware or wiring. Now hoping Marantz will agree to replace new for new.


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> DEQ Noise revisited.
> 
> . Lastly, I tried the volume knob and the noise increased as the volume was turned up. At only -30db volume, I could hear the staticy noise loud and clear from 10 feet away.
> 
> .


This probably means that at least some of the noise originates before the volume control. 

Does your power amp have input pots? If so, are they turned all the way up? If you have them, if you turn them down, does the noise the DEQ reveals become more manageable?


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> This probably means that at least some of the noise originates before the volume control.
> 
> Does your power amp have input pots? If so, are they turned all the way up? If you have them, if you turn them down, does the noise the DEQ reveals become more manageable?


No input pots. It's an Outlaw 7125 and it has an ungrounded cord. I neglected to mention that I removed the Outlaw amp last night because it has been giving off some transformer hum (from the amp itself, not thru the speakers). I swapped in my old B&K Ref 125.7 amp which has a grounded plug and I performed the same experiment. (My B&K amp was recently on an oscilloscope and found to be completely within spec.) The B&K has balanced and unbalanced inputs but also no pots, and I hooked it up the same as the 7125 using the unbalanced (rca) inputs. I had no noticeable transformer hum from the B&K but the noise problem thru my speakers was exactly the same. Everything seems to point to the AV7702 and some weird anomaly with DEQ.


----------



## NinBri64

Can someone look at my Audyssey XT32 EQ results and tell me if this kind of adjustment is typical for a non-treated room? I know every room is different, but some of the trims and boosts seem rather extreme to me (+/- 20dB). I thought the EQ would offer more subtle adjustments. My setup with Audyssey enabled sounds dead, especially with music and even at reference volume. I also included a picture of my room. Again, I know this isn't an ideal room, but I would appreciate anyone's feedback who has experience with Audyssey comparing the results Audyssey proposed against the picture of my room and see if it makes sense on some level.


----------



## mthomas47

NinBri64 said:


> Can someone look at my Audyssey XT32 EQ results and tell me if this kind of adjustment is typical for a non-treated room? I know every room is different, but some of the trims and boosts seem rather extreme to me (+/- 20dB). I thought the EQ would offer more subtle adjustments. My setup with Audyssey enabled sounds dead, especially with music and even at reference volume. I also included a picture of my room. Again, I know this isn't an ideal room, but I would appreciate anyone's feedback who has experience with Audyssey comparing the results Audyssey proposed against the picture of my room and see if it makes sense on some level.


Hi,

Welcome to the thread. Unfortunately, the graphs you are looking at are relatively useless, in that they don't show what Audyssey actually did, but are merely indications of problems that Audyssey observed. In addition, they are only showing indications across very broad portions of the frequency response, whereas the actual filters that XT-32 sets, number in the thousands. So, I would suggest that you ignore the graphs for the marketing ploy that they are (cool graphs), and let's just concentrate on your actual sound quality.

First, when you say that things sound dead, what do you mean? Do you mean that you don't have enough bass, or that high frequencies are too muted, or what exactly? Second, can you list your crossover settings and trim levels for your various speakers, including your subs? The picture of the room helps, but more information is needed.

There are some immediate observations I can make, but how much they will directly correlate to what you are hearing, is unknown at this point. Your center channel is very high, and should be pointed downward toward your ear level. Try pulling it forward slightly beyond the edge of the shelf, and tilting it down. Nearly anything can be used as a shim. It would also be helpful if you would try to cover that glass top (?) table with something. Covering it with something soft might improve your SQ in general, but even covering it with a blanket or something during calibration only, might help with your SQ.

Assuming that you are not hearing as much bass as you would like, adjusting your sub trim levels will be the obvious solution, which is why I asked about your current trim levels. Whether your subs are in an ideal location for good frequency response is another question, but one that can wait until you describe the SQ issues and your current settings in a little more detail. We should be able to figure out a way to get better sound quality than what you are currently experiencing. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

NinBri64 said:


> Can someone look at my Audyssey XT32 EQ results and tell me if this kind of adjustment is typical for a non-treated room? I know every room is different, but some of the trims and boosts seem rather extreme to me (+/- 20dB). I thought the EQ would offer more subtle adjustments. My setup with Audyssey enabled sounds dead, especially with music and even at reference volume. I also included a picture of my room. Again, I know this isn't an ideal room, but I would appreciate anyone's feedback who has experience with Audyssey comparing the results Audyssey proposed against the picture of my room and see if it makes sense on some level.


In addition to Mike's comments:

"typical for a non-treated room"? That could only be the case if your room is a typical untreated room and who knows what that is. Measurements tell you what your room is like and it doesn't matter whether they are typical for a non=treated room or not because that all depends on whether your room is a typical non-treated room or not and room size also plays a part. That large open archway to the next room plays a part, the furnishings in the room plays a part. That foam bass trap in the corner above your speaker plays a part. Where you stick the speakers in the room plays a part. There's too many variables involved and what counts isn't whether your room is typical or not. What counts is the result you get with Audyssey

You say your setup sounds dead. Are you using Audyssey Reference or Audyssey Flat? Those are 2 different response curves and Reference rolls off the top end so it can sound deader than Flat. In addition, if you're used to listening to your system without any room correction and this is your first time listening to it with correction, it is going to sound different to you. Without correction your system may sound much brighter but that may not be "right". Give it a week or so and get used to the sound of Audyssey and see how you feel about it then. If the sound with Audyssey is very different to what you were hearing previously, the tendency is for you to prefer the way it was previously because you're used to that and it's what you expect. You don't expect the new sound. Give it a week or so until you get used to the new sound and then switch Audyssey off and see whether you then think Audyssey is too dead or whether you think the sound without it is too bright. Try swapping between the Reference and Flat curves and see if that makes a difference.

You're hearing what you're hearing but if this is your early response to the first time you've tried a room correction system with your system in your room, then your early response is not a good guide to whether the sound is actually dead. You can be certain that it sounds deader than the previous sound but was the sound you were getting previously actually too bright and you had just become used to that? There's no way of telling until you give yourself a chance to adjust to the way things now and then try comparing what you have now to what you had previously by turning Audyssey off. At present you may really only be noticing where the differences are, not what the overall result does for your enjoyment.


----------



## garygarrison

NinBri64 said:


> My setup with Audyssey enabled sounds dead, especially with music and even at reference volume. .


I agree that you should listen for a while (a few days) to see if the strangeness passes. 

Be sure to try Audyssey Flat, if you haven't already.

This might sound silly, but to confirm that it is really Audyssey that is making your system sound dead, and not some other change you're not aware of, try toggling back and forth between Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Off. Also, make sure your Audyssey signal light is glowing (usually "Audyssey XT32," or whatever), on your AVR or pre/pro. 

If, and when, you decide to re-run Audyssey:



Read through, or at least skim, the FAQ (better than any manual) "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
Use all 8 mic positions.
If it is still too dead, you could put a few more of the mic positions off axis of your speakers and not at ear height, but still within your general listening area -- that might cause Audyssey to turn up the high treble (the first few mic positions should remain at ear height). Are those Klipsch Reference speakers? If so, they have a reputation of being fairly bright sounding (but good). Audyssey may have been trying to turn them down in the upper midrange and treble ("presence" and "sparkle"). Audyssey (Flat) makes my speakers a bit brighter and clearer, less dead.


----------



## NinBri64

Thank you all for the response. The best way I can describe what Audyssey does to my music (whether I use the reference or even flat setting), is my Klipsch Reference Premiere setup sounds less powerful and exciting and much more like the music you might hear in the ceiling of a clothes store or mall. (I was walking around a clothes store last night and was noticing the music coming from the ceiling sounds similar to my "bad-ass" home theater.) It sounds much smaller now and just sounds like it's so heavily tweaked it almost sounds artificial. 

Somehow with Audyssey off I feel like stereo separation is better, the sound stage gets very clean sounding and I feel like I hear all detail. I feel like Audyssey took away my Klipsch speakers and turned my setup into a generic low-end home theater in a box sound, without a subwoofer. I wish I knew someone else around me with an Audyssey setup so I can compare what I did for them in their room so I can possibly gain some confidence in Audyssey. I was very curious to see other's results page like I posted. I completely understand that my room compared to another room's results don't mean much, but it would satisfy some curiosity I have. 

I've been reading about typical initial Audyssey calibration results from others and usually the first thing is "Where did all my bass go?". I can understand that most of the bass I am used to hearing might be considered wrong because of the room and bass build ups and all, but I feel like it's just been outright eliminated with Audyssey on with music (Notice the massive 20dB cut on the front right speaker somewhere under 100hz) I definitely appreciate tamed accurate bass and am not like a typical teenager with massive subwoofers in their car blowing up the neighborhood with just loud exaggerated bass. I definitely don't want that at all, however Audyssey just seemed to destroy my bass and I guess mid-bass it's called. Sounds like these big speakers got very, very small. Any low end or punch I used to hear in video games is also now gone, and just sounds weak. And on the higher end, things like cymbals in drums and other higher frequency sounds appear missing or masked now a little bit. 

Watching movies however, it actually does sound really good to my surprise, very much like a movie theater. It sounds very different with Audyssey, but I actually think I like it. Very clear and yes my bass was reduced yet somehow it sounds like a sophisticated professional sound. Anything that comes through the LFE track sounds great and everything is pretty good. Although I've never experienced chest thumping low end even with two subwoofers. I'll leave that on Audyssey Reference. Also, might as well point out that Atmos overhead effects are virtually non-existent in my room unfortunately; even with 4 Klipsch Atmos toppers. 

The speakers are oddly placed for now and definitely too big for my room if there is such a thing, but I had a good opportunity to get them when I did and will hopefully have them for a very very long time. Ultimately I will move and be in another house better equipped for a home theater, but for now I am trying to manage and do whatever I can with this room. 

I have had this setup and Audyssey calibration for 2 weeks now and I still sounds better to me overall off. All speakers are set to SMALL with an 80hz crossover. Surrounds are set at 100hz crossover, and my atmos toppers are 150hz.


----------



## mthomas47

NinBri64 said:


> Thank you all for the response. The best way I can describe what Audyssey does to my music (whether I use the reference or even flat setting), is my Klipsch Reference Premiere setup sounds less powerful and exciting and much more like the music you might hear in the ceiling of a clothes store or mall. (I was walking around a clothes store last night and was noticing the music coming from the ceiling sounds similar to my "bad-ass" home theater.) It sounds much smaller now and just sounds like it's so heavily tweaked it almost sounds artificial.
> 
> Somehow with Audyssey off I feel like stereo separation is better, the sound stage gets very clean sounding and I feel like I hear all detail. I feel like Audyssey took away my Klipsch speakers and turned my setup into a generic low-end home theater in a box sound, without a subwoofer. I wish I knew someone else around me with an Audyssey setup so I can compare what I did for them in their room so I can possibly gain some confidence in Audyssey. I was very curious to see other's results page like I posted. I completely understand that my room compared to another room's results don't mean much, but it would satisfy some curiosity I have.
> 
> I've been reading about typical initial Audyssey calibration results from others and usually the first thing is "Where did all my bass go?". I can understand that most of the bass I am used to hearing might be considered wrong because of the room and bass build ups and all, but I feel like it's just been outright eliminated with Audyssey on with music (Notice the massive 20dB cut on the front right speaker somewhere under 100hz) I definitely appreciate tamed accurate bass and am not like a typical teenager with massive subwoofers in their car blowing up the neighborhood with just loud exaggerated bass. I definitely don't want that at all, however Audyssey just seemed to destroy my bass and I guess mid-bass it's called. Sounds like these big speakers got very, very small. Any low end or punch I used to hear in video games is also now gone, and just sounds weak. And on the higher end, things like cymbals in drums and other higher frequency sounds appear missing or masked now a little bit.
> 
> Watching movies however, it actually does sound really good to my surprise, very much like a movie theater. It sounds very different with Audyssey, but I actually think I like it. Very clear and yes my bass was reduced yet somehow it sounds like a sophisticated professional sound. Anything that comes through the LFE track sounds great and everything is pretty good. Although I've never experienced chest thumping low end even with two subwoofers. I'll leave that on Audyssey Reference. Also, might as well point out that Atmos overhead effects are virtually non-existent in my room unfortunately; even with 4 Klipsch Atmos toppers.
> 
> The speakers are oddly placed for now and definitely too big for my room if there is such a thing, but I had a good opportunity to get them when I did and will hopefully have them for a very very long time. Ultimately I will move and be in another house better equipped for a home theater, but for now I am trying to manage and do whatever I can with this room.
> 
> I have had this setup and Audyssey calibration for 2 weeks now and I still sounds better to me overall off. All speakers are set to SMALL with an 80hz crossover. Surrounds are set at 100hz crossover, and my atmos toppers are 150hz.



Hi,

You are welcome for any assistance, and thanks in return for the additional information. The clarification helps. Room correction systems don't "hear" the same way that our brains do. That is why set-up is so important, and why calibration technique is so important, in achieving good sound quality. Please try to implement the suggestions I made in my first email and then re-calibrate. Your center channel needs to be pointed down more toward your ear level. As it is currently positioned, much of the mid and high frequency sound is passing above your ear level. Your brain may be able to partly compensate for that, but the Audyssey microphone cannot. When speakers are pointed so far off line, Audyssey results are unpredictable. And, exclusive of Audyssey, your SQ should improve by pointing your CC downward, somewhat.

The second issue is the large glass top table. Mid and high frequency sound waves are bouncing off that highly reflective surface, from all of the speakers in your front soundstage, on their way to your listening position. And they are arriving at your ears fractionally later than the direct sound from your speakers. Again, our brains can automatically compensate for that. First arriving sounds seem louder, and fractionally later arriving sounds tend to go unnoticed. But, our brains are far more complicated mechanisms than the Audyssey software. If it "hears" early, and then later arriving, sounds very close together, it is likely to cut those frequencies in order to achieve a smoother (flatter) response. I suspect that has happened in your case. You can prevent that from happening by simply putting a blanket over the top of the table during calibration, and then removing the blanket afterward. Your mid and higher frequencies should sound brighter, and less flat, after you do that.

Finally, there is the bass issue you mentioned. This is a common issue. Audyssey attempts to make all frequencies, in all speaker channels including the LFE channel (the sub channel) play at the same volume at the MLP (main listening position). It uses a 75db test tone to insure that all channels (and frequencies within those channels) are playing at approximately the same volume. Doing that is the only way that Audyssey can insure a Flat response.

But, our ears don't actually hear low frequencies at the same volume as higher frequencies. Low frequencies, below about 400Hz, actually sound softer to our brains due to the way our hearing is designed. And below about 100Hz, the disparity in volume is especially noticeable. You can Google the Fletcher Munson Curves, or the Equal Loudness Contours, to learn more about that. But, the bottom line is that after running a system of automated EQ, it is almost universally necessary to increase the trim levels on our subwoofers in order to emphasize the bass frequencies more, so that we will hear them better in relation to the more audible frequencies. How much we choose to increase the sub trim will vary, depending on taste, but it will typically be necessary for virtually everyone to increase the bass somewhat. That's why I asked about your sub trim level in my first post--to be sure that we could advise you to increase yours, while still following good Audyssey/bass protocols. The average increase, even with DEQ engaged, is probably between +3db and +6db.

Automated room EQ can be a great way to improve overall sound quality, in both treated and untreated rooms. But, it is necessary to understand what the system of EQ is doing (and supposed to do), and how that process necessarily differs from the way that our infinitely more complicated brains work, in order to maximize our results. If you will try the three suggestions listed above, I believe that you will get appreciably better results. And, as you go along, there may be other little tweaks that will improve your SQ. As with any tool, or technology, learning the best ways to use it can take some experience/practice, and the people on the thread will be glad to help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## NinBri64

Wow, that is all great advice and all makes sense. Thank you very much Mike. My Subwoofer trims are at -8 for sub 1 and -9 for sub 2. I will try angling the center channel down more as you advised, and I will definitely try the blanket method on the table, or just remove it during calibration. After I do all of that, I will see how the sound quality is, and if try decreasing the trim (increasing volume) on the subwoofer through the AVR if needed. I might be able to try this during the weekend. I will report back with my results.


----------



## mthomas47

NinBri64 said:


> Wow, that is all great advice and all makes sense. Thank you very much Mike. My Subwoofer trims are at -8 for sub 1 and -9 for sub 2. I will try angling the center channel down more as you advised, and I will definitely try the blanket method on the table, or just remove it during calibration. After I do all of that, I will see how the sound quality is, and if try decreasing the trim (increasing volume) on the subwoofer through the AVR if needed. I might be able to try this during the weekend. I will report back with my results.


You are very welcome! I really hope it helps. Your sub trim levels are in a good range. Starting with anything down to -11.5, but not lower, would be perfect. So, you can easily increase your sub trims by about 6db to 8db, if you want to. As a general rule, you want to stay in negative numbers with your sub trims, particularly if you exceed about -10 in the master volume.


----------



## Schuyler Bain

*NEW Audyssey App - named Marantz 2016 AVR Remote*

There's a new app available on the Marantz Av7703 that allows more control over Audyssey, but I can't find any details. From what I understand, people that just received this newly released model - claim that the Audyssey app is not available until Dec 2016.

I called Marantz and they were unable to give me any details as to how much control you'll have over Audyssey. Does anyone know? Maybe this is available on another product, but under a different name?


----------



## mthomas47

Schuyler Bain said:


> There's a new app available on the Marantz Av7703 that allows more control over Audyssey, but I can't find any details. From what I understand, people that just received this newly released model - claim that the Audyssey app is not available until Dec 2016.
> 
> I called Marantz and they were unable to give me any details as to how much control you'll have over Audyssey. Does anyone know? Maybe this is available on another product, but under a different name?


Post 1516, on the previous page, has the best description I have seen so far:


_"Most if not all of the D&M 2016 models with Audyssey are supported by the new mobile app.

I've read:

1) It replaces the Pro Kit from previous models.
2) Allows you to set a target curve for calibration.
3) Allows you to set upper and lower bounds for correction (ie 20->500hz only).
4) Calibration is performed by the avr/avp with the regular Audyssey microphone.
5) Mobile app is only to configure Audyssey.

Now what actually is delivered we won't know until we get the app in late December."_


----------



## David Aiken

NinBri64 said:


> Thank you all for the response. The best way I can describe what Audyssey does to my music (whether I use the reference or even flat setting), is my Klipsch Reference Premiere setup sounds less powerful and exciting and much more like the music you might hear in the ceiling of a clothes store or mall. (I was walking around a clothes store last night and was noticing the music coming from the ceiling sounds similar to my "bad-ass" home theater.) It sounds much smaller now and just sounds like it's so heavily tweaked it almost sounds artificial.
> 
> Somehow with Audyssey off I feel like stereo separation is better, the sound stage gets very clean sounding and I feel like I hear all detail. I feel like Audyssey took away my Klipsch speakers and turned my setup into a generic low-end home theater in a box sound, without a subwoofer. I wish I knew someone else around me with an Audyssey setup so I can compare what I did for them in their room so I can possibly gain some confidence in Audyssey. I was very curious to see other's results page like I posted. I completely understand that my room compared to another room's results don't mean much, but it would satisfy some curiosity I have.
> 
> I've been reading about typical initial Audyssey calibration results from others and usually the first thing is "Where did all my bass go?". I can understand that most of the bass I am used to hearing might be considered wrong because of the room and bass build ups and all, but I feel like it's just been outright eliminated with Audyssey on with music (Notice the massive 20dB cut on the front right speaker somewhere under 100hz) I definitely appreciate tamed accurate bass and am not like a typical teenager with massive subwoofers in their car blowing up the neighborhood with just loud exaggerated bass. I definitely don't want that at all, however Audyssey just seemed to destroy my bass and I guess mid-bass it's called. Sounds like these big speakers got very, very small. Any low end or punch I used to hear in video games is also now gone, and just sounds weak. And on the higher end, things like cymbals in drums and other higher frequency sounds appear missing or masked now a little bit.
> 
> Watching movies however, it actually does sound really good to my surprise, very much like a movie theater. It sounds very different with Audyssey, but I actually think I like it. Very clear and yes my bass was reduced yet somehow it sounds like a sophisticated professional sound. Anything that comes through the LFE track sounds great and everything is pretty good. Although I've never experienced chest thumping low end even with two subwoofers. I'll leave that on Audyssey Reference. Also, might as well point out that Atmos overhead effects are virtually non-existent in my room unfortunately; even with 4 Klipsch Atmos toppers.
> 
> The speakers are oddly placed for now and definitely too big for my room if there is such a thing, but I had a good opportunity to get them when I did and will hopefully have them for a very very long time. Ultimately I will move and be in another house better equipped for a home theater, but for now I am trying to manage and do whatever I can with this room.
> 
> I have had this setup and Audyssey calibration for 2 weeks now and I still sounds better to me overall off. All speakers are set to SMALL with an 80hz crossover. Surrounds are set at 100hz crossover, and my atmos toppers are 150hz.


Don't take anything I'm about to say as anti-Klipsch because I have really liked the Klipschorns and La Scalas I have heard. I haven't heard the more recent models like yours so my comments are based on the ones I have heard.

Klipch aren't particularly accurate speakers in my view. They're really involving and engaging speakers and they can really get you going with the right source material and I've never failed to enjoy listening to the ones I've heard but they're not accurate. They're bright and their bass is usually not as deep as you think it is. I've really had a lot of fun times listening to classic jazz and rock on some Klipsch speakers and on some vintage Altec Lansings which are another horn design with a different sound character. Going from uncorrected sound to corrected sound with Klipsch speakers is going to sound quite different. If you really like what you've been hearing before Audyssey, then the Audyssey result could really come as a bit of a shock.

Looking at your photo of your front speakers and the EQ curves for them, that big bass cut for the right front is not surprising. Your right front speaker is located in a corner where it's going to get maximum corner boost and that means it's likely to need a big cut in the bass frequencies. The left speaker isn't in a corner and has an opening to another room behind it so the bass from it is going to be weaker because of the difference in location and that's why it doesn't get the same cut. The fact that it gets a cut rather than a boost given its location indicates to me that Klipsch are tuning the speakers for a more aggressive bass response. What you're seeing with the results for those 2 speakers is a perfect demonstration of how speaker placement can drastically affect what you hear at the listening position. If both speakers were placed in similar locations in the room, the results would be close to identical. They're placed in very different locations and you're getting a big difference in those plots.

I think you're in an awkward position. You like the sound you've been getting and it's probably a very engaging and involving sound based on my experience with the Klipschs I've heard but, as I said, it's not accurate. Audyssey aims to deliver a very different sort of sound to the sound that Klipsch design their speakers to deliver. I don't want to buy into arguments about accurate vs non-accurate but I will buy into talking about personal preferences. Personal preferences aren't about what's right or wrong, they're about what floats your boat and what doesn't. Do you prefer tea of coffee? Do you like your steak rare or well done? There's no right or wrong answer, there's just what you like and you may really hate the one you don't like. There's always the possibility that someone will have an incredibly strong reaction for or against Audyssey depending on what they've heard and what they like. Given your choice of a speaker with a fairly individual and strong sound character it may not be all that surprising that you're having the reaction you're having.

I think it takes a bit of experience to actually do the setup process and get the best result from Audyssey and Mike is giving you good advice. I think it could take you a while to adjust to the sort of sound that Audyssey is designed to deliver, especially since your speaker placements (at least for the front left and right channels) are going to have a big impact on the sound of those speakers and because Klipsch have a strong sound character all of their own. If you really have a strong preference for that character you may find that you simply will never be satisfied by what Audyssey does. That's not a bad thing, it's a personal thing, and if that's the way your preferences lean then nothing any of us can suggest that you try will change it. It's just like you liking your steak well done and we're the sort of people who like their steaks rare (or vice versa if you like your steak rare). If that is the case then just turn Audyssey off so no EQ is applied and live with having the trims for each channel matched so each channel delivers the same level at the listening position. Boost your subs using the subwoofer level adjustment if you still want more bass.

Normally I would expect most people to adjust to the change in sound within a week or so when they try Audyssey for the first time. You say it's been 2 weeks since you did the setup and you're still unhappy. You may need longer but after 2 weeks I think it's starting to look like you simply have a very strong preference for the sorts of sound you were getting before. We can't change your personal tastes and I don't even want to try. There's also nothing you can do to make Audyssey deliver the sort of sound you prefer if that sort of sound is very different to what Audyssey is designed to do. If the Reference curve or the Flat curve don't satisfy you, and I think the Flat curve would probably be more to your taste, then the only alternative that Audyssey offers is Off. That's a valid choice, in fact it's the best choice if it works for you. Audyssey doesn't suit everyone but the sound that Klipsch speakers deliver doesn't suit everyone either and it's a very different sound. You may simply not be able to get a result that appeals to you by using Audyssey and in that case the best thing to do is simply to turn Audyssey off and to go with your own preferences. There is nothing wrong with doing that, in fact it's the right thing to do if it better suits your preferences.

One other thing-you mentioned things sounding clearer with Audyssey off. Klipsch are very efficient speakers and it doesn't take much power to drive them to very loud levels. Unfortunately noise from the circuitry in your AVR can become more noticeable when the output level is low because it is then closer to the noise floor. That may be part of the reason why you find things sounding clearer when Audyssey if off. If you used less efficient speakers you may well not notice that noise but then less efficient speakers aren't going to have the same character as your Klipsch speakers. A lower powered AVR with Audyssey may work better for you on that front but then a lower powered AVR may have a lesser version of Audyssey and/or may lack some features you want or need that your current AVR has. If you want to try a lower powered AVR with Audyssey, make sure you can return it if it doesn't help but even if it does help with the loss in clarity that you're noticing (and it may not), it still won't help with the change in the character of the sound and I think that's the big thing that is bothering you.


----------



## mthomas47

To me, trying to decide whether or not we like Audyssey with our systems, in our rooms, is a little like deciding whether we like Bernaise sauce on our steak, the first time we try it. It's a purely personal decision. But, it can be difficult to make a fair determination, if the steak is not properly cooked to begin with, or if there is something inherently wrong with the sauce recipe. For the record, I don't much care for Bernaise sauce on a steak, so maybe it's not a great analogy. 

There have been a number of people who have come to the Audyssey thread for advice over the last several years. A few have simply not found Audyssey to their taste, despite their best efforts to make it work well for them. But, the great majority have found that with some investment in effort, Audyssey can improve their EQ.

The effort can definitely include good set-up and good calibration technique. So, I think the best starting point is to try to define and diagnose the problem: in this case, relatively dead high and low frequencies; look for obvious reasons why the SQ might be negatively impacted by Audyssey; and then attempt to remediate those problems, before concluding that Audyssey doesn't work well in that particular room, and for that particular listener.

For many people, Audyssey is part of the reason that they bought the AVR or pre-pro they did, and they would prefer to have the benefit of room EQ, if it can be made to work well for them. If they feel otherwise, they are far less likely to post on the thread asking for advice in the first place, in my experience. So, I'm always hoping that we can help them to achieve improved sound quality in their rooms, either with or without Audyssey, and if not, well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.


----------



## BdoUK

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Can you provide a little more information? I can't tell whether you are talking about REW measurements you have taken, or whether you are referring to the graphs in the two processors. If you do happen to be referring to the graphs that Denon/Marantz make available, they have very little real value.
> 
> In the first place, they don't actually represent what Audyssey actually did, only issues that it detected. So, it's more of a crude summary of Audyssey's general intentions than anything else. Second, XT-32 sets thousands of filters for each channel, so at best, the graph with it's few data points can only be a very crude approximation even of Audyssey's general intentions. The typical advice on the thread is to ignore the graphs, as they are mainly a marketing device--look, we have cool graphs.
> 
> There shouldn't be a lot of difference in calibration between two different implementations of XT-32, but of course, there can always be a difference between individual calibrations, based on the difficulty of exactly replicating microphone positions. How is the sound quality after calibrating with the Marantz? I know it's difficult to rely on audio memory, so I'm not really asking you to compare it to the Denon, but rather to make a value judgment about how it sounds now. Are you hearing something that doesn't sound quite right?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I originally started to look into the graphs because I wasn't pleased with the sound quality when compared to the Denon that I had just replaced. This led me to dig a little deeper to understand what could be different as the 7702 should at least be the equal of my aging Denon.

I realized that I had made two mistakes in my original Audyssey calibration. First I had the mic way too close to the headrest of my theater chairs. After reading further FAQs I realized this mistake and corrected it for my second run. My second (and perhaps biggest) mistake was that I was running calibration with my projector on. My seating is directly below my Epson (mic is 4 feet away at most) and in a quiet room the fan is still pretty audible. With my second run I used a LCD monitor to get through the process.

With those two small tweaks the sound quality was much closer to what I was getting from my 4311 and I'm now a happy camper. The tip about the graphs is also good information for future use. Again thanks for the great info!


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Don't take anything I'm about to say as anti-Klipsch because I have really liked the Klipschorns and La Scalas I have heard. I haven't heard the more recent models ...
> 
> Klipch aren't particularly accurate speakers in my view. They're really involving and engaging speakers and they can really get you going with the right source material and I've never failed to enjoy listening to the ones I've heard but they're not accurate. They're bright and their bass is usually not as deep as you think it is.
> 
> ... Going from uncorrected sound to corrected sound with Klipsch speakers is going to sound quite different. If you really like what you've been hearing before Audyssey, then the Audyssey result could really come as a bit of a shock.
> 
> I think you're in an awkward position. You like the sound you've been getting and it's probably a very engaging and involving sound based on my experience with the Klipschs I've heard but, as I said, it's not accurate. ...
> 
> Audyssey aims to deliver a very different sort of sound to the sound that Klipsch design their speakers to deliver. I don't want to buy into arguments about accurate vs non-accurate, but I will buy into talking about personal preferences. Personal preferences aren't about what's right or wrong, they're about what floats your boat and what doesn't.
> 
> ... Klipsch have a strong sound character all of their own. If you really have a strong preference for that character you may find that you simply will never be satisfied by what Audyssey does. That's not a bad thing, it's a personal thing, and if that's the way your preferences lean then nothing any of us can suggest that you try will change it.


I agree with what you said about personal preferences being about what floats a person's boat ... and keeping one's boat afloat is what this hobby is about.

I'm sure glad you didn't want to buy into arguments about accurate vs non-accurate, because you mentioned that Klipsch speakers tend to not be accurate three times, once with the qualifier "in my view."

There are different kinds of accuracy. It's true that there are speakers that have flatter frequency response than many Klipsch speakers. Klipsch prioritizes other kinds of accuracy, such as low distortion, especially the various kinds of modulation distortion, wide dynamics, good transient response, etc. In fact, Paul Klipsch, their founder and main designer/tester for about 57 years ranked frequency response as the *least* important quality of speakers, and "the one you can fix."

Under the right circumstances, Audyssey is a way to fix it. I love the sound of my Klipschorns with stock upgrades making them equivalent to 2016 models, but Audyssey Flat makes them sound even better, with greater clarity, smoothness, and more joyful to listen to. 

Most Klipsch models, except for Klipschorns, the various configurations of the Jubilee, and the best Palladium are compromises of a sort, meant to approach the quality of the big three for a lower price, or in a smaller enclosure.

I suspect that if *NinBri64* works through the pieces of advice offered on this thread, including Mike's advice concerning the aiming of the center channel, and re-runs Audyssey using the best information on the FAQ, the sound with Audyssey will be better than without Audyssey. And I expect that the squeaky clean transients, and the fantastic dynamics, which make both movies and music come alive will return.


----------



## David Aiken

NinBri64 said:


> Thank you all for the response. The best way I can describe what Audyssey does to my music (whether I use the reference or even flat setting), is my Klipsch Reference Premiere setup sounds less powerful and exciting and much more like the music you might hear in the ceiling of a clothes store or mall. (I was walking around a clothes store last night and was noticing the music coming from the ceiling sounds similar to my "bad-ass" home theater.) It sounds much smaller now and just sounds like it's so heavily tweaked it almost sounds artificial.
> 
> Somehow with Audyssey off I feel like stereo separation is better, the sound stage gets very clean sounding and I feel like I hear all detail. I feel like Audyssey took away my Klipsch speakers and turned my setup into a generic low-end home theater in a box sound, without a subwoofer. I wish I knew someone else around me with an Audyssey setup so I can compare what I did for them in their room so I can possibly gain some confidence in Audyssey. I was very curious to see other's results page like I posted. I completely understand that my room compared to another room's results don't mean much, but it would satisfy some curiosity I have.
> 
> I've been reading about typical initial Audyssey calibration results from others and usually the first thing is "Where did all my bass go?". I can understand that most of the bass I am used to hearing might be considered wrong because of the room and bass build ups and all, but I feel like it's just been outright eliminated with Audyssey on with music (Notice the massive 20dB cut on the front right speaker somewhere under 100hz) I definitely appreciate tamed accurate bass and am not like a typical teenager with massive subwoofers in their car blowing up the neighborhood with just loud exaggerated bass. I definitely don't want that at all, however Audyssey just seemed to destroy my bass and I guess mid-bass it's called. Sounds like these big speakers got very, very small. Any low end or punch I used to hear in video games is also now gone, and just sounds weak. And on the higher end, things like cymbals in drums and other higher frequency sounds appear missing or masked now a little bit.
> 
> Watching movies however, it actually does sound really good to my surprise, very much like a movie theater. It sounds very different with Audyssey, but I actually think I like it. Very clear and yes my bass was reduced yet somehow it sounds like a sophisticated professional sound. Anything that comes through the LFE track sounds great and everything is pretty good. Although I've never experienced chest thumping low end even with two subwoofers. I'll leave that on Audyssey Reference. Also, might as well point out that Atmos overhead effects are virtually non-existent in my room unfortunately; even with 4 Klipsch Atmos toppers.
> 
> The speakers are oddly placed for now and definitely too big for my room if there is such a thing, but I had a good opportunity to get them when I did and will hopefully have them for a very very long time. Ultimately I will move and be in another house better equipped for a home theater, but for now I am trying to manage and do whatever I can with this room.
> 
> I have had this setup and Audyssey calibration for 2 weeks now and I still sounds better to me overall off. All speakers are set to SMALL with an 80hz crossover. Surrounds are set at 100hz crossover, and my atmos toppers are 150hz.



NinBri64,

I’ve gone back over your post above and your earlier photos, I’ll make a couple of observations, ask some questions, and offer some suggestions for you to try. They may or may not help, I’m making no guarantees.

You said that music sounds “less powerful and exciting and much more like the music you might hear in the ceiling of a clothes store or mall”. That may be a good call. Looking at the graphs in your photos, every one of your speakers bar one has a cut in the high frequencies. Clothing absorbs sound and it’s easier to absorb sound at high frequencies. What you hear in a clothes store will be down in the high frequency range because of that and your speakers are being cut in the highs. You may have hit on a fairly unusual but highly accurate description.

You said that Audyssey destroyed the bass with music but that you think movies sound really good with Audyssey. That sounds odd to me but often movies tend to have more bass than music, they dump a lot of special effect sound into the LFE channel. Perhaps something is different with your music settings compared to your movie settings.

First, check that you don’t have “Direct” or “Pure Direct” mode engaged when you’re playing both music and movies. If you had one of those modes engaged for either music or movies, does turning it off for the one where it was engaged make a difference for better or worse? If you don’t have one of them engaged for music, does turning it on for music make things better or worse for you. 

On your AVR remote you should have a row of buttons called “Sound Mode” down at the bottom of the remote. One of the buttons is called “Music”. Cycle through the options available on that button while you’re playing music and see if one of those options works better for you. If so, then use it. If not, play with the Movie mode settings while playing music and see what happens. Your AVR will remember the last setting you were using separately for each input so if you’re using a different input for your music source to your movie source, then perhaps you’ve got different settings in operation for each of them which could be why one sounds OK to you and one doesn’t.

What kind of music do you like? With the settings you mention the subs should be handling most of the sound below 80 Hz but there often isn’t much content in music below 80 Hz. The piano goes roughly 1.5 octaves lower and double bass/electric bass only roughly 1 octave lower and the musicians may not be playing much in that range. Just because an instrument can go down to a certain bass note doesn’t mean that you will find that note in every piece of music. On the other hand special effects often contains noise, not music (think earthquakes and bomb blasts) and a lot of bass frequency output is used for those effects. If you had a strong standing wave being excited by a musical note and that wave sustained for a fair period, then fixing that problem is definitely going to make things sound bass shy to you.

Try playing some music with a good bass solo in it and listen to the bass solo carefully. Play the music 3 times. Play it on your system twice, once with Audyssey on and once with it off. Is the solo better defined with Audyssey on by which I mean is each note clearer and are the spaces between the notes clearer? Can you better hear the tonal character of the instrument being played? The third time I want you to play the bass solo is via headphones which will eliminate anything the room is doing to the sound from what you hear. What you hear with Audyssey on should be closer to the way the solo sounds through headphones. If what you hear without Audyssey is very different to what you hear on headphones then that means that your room is causing problems and if what you hear with Audyssey on is closer to what you hear with headphones, then Audyssey is doing what it is supposed to do which is correcting problems caused by the room.

Also try the same 3 way comparison with some male and female speaking voices on a movie soundtrack and tell us whether they sound more natural and/or closer to what you hear with headphones when you have Audyssey on and off.

So, try out those quick experiments if you’re willing to do so and tell us what you hear when you try them. Does playing around with the sound modes help? Does the sound with Audyssey on sound closer to how the same things sound on headphones or does the sound with Audyssey off sound closer to what you hear with headphones? Do you have the same concerns with the way things sound on headphones that you do with the way music sounds with Audyssey on? You may find the answer to your problem when you experiment with the sound modes and if you don't then let us know what you hear when you try the comparisons I suggested and that may help us come up with an answer for you though I can't guarantee that.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> I'm sure glad you didn't want to buy into arguments about accurate vs non-accurate, because you mentioned that Klipsch speakers tend to not be accurate three times, once with the qualifier "in my view."
> 
> …


Gary,

I have friends who have had or still have Klipschorns or Altec Lansings, and I've heard La Scalas and Heresies.

Me, I've had Large Advents, then KEF Ref 104aBs, and now Dynaudio Contour 1.3SEs in my music system over the last 40 years. I don't change speakers often. I've currently got a pair of Focal Audio Aria 926s and a pair of REL T9 subs in my TV system (it's 2.2 only). I think you'll agree that the speakers I've mentioned that I've had or now have don't sound like Klipsch or Altec Lansings  On the accuracy front I'd say that the speakers I've had/have are more accurate than the Klipschs I've heard when it comes to tonal accuracy and less accurate when it comes to dynamics and transient response. I wouldn't agree with Paul Klipsch that tonal accuracy is the least important quality or I would have Klipsch's myself but I do know that some people go for tonal accuracy and some people go for dynamics and transient accuracy and I think both are valid choices. They're just different choices, and there are some other choices as well. If we all agreed on what was most important then we'd all be listening to the same speakers. I don't know whether they would be Klipsch or Dynaudio, or something else, if we all agreed on what was important but I sure as hell know that the fact that there's umpteen different speakers out there selling well and with good reputations in different quarters means that we don't all agree on what is important 

Personally I think that's a good thing because it makes it enjoyable to visit friends and listen to something else, and I have a good time doing that. If we all agreed on what was important and listened to the same speakers I'd lose an important source of enjoyment in my life because there would be no reason to leave home and listen to what my friends have because it would sound exactly the same as what I have. That would be boring and I'd save on gas by staying home. It would also mean that none of my friends would ever want to come over here to hear what I have because what I have would sound the same as what they have.

Vive la difference!

There's any number of good sounding systems out there. They all sound different and they all offer something unique that's good. No one system does it all or can do it all. Once you accept that your system can't do it all, and that you can't afford enough systems to ensure that you've got something in your home that can do whatever you want, you start hoping that other people are going to go for something different to you because visiting and listening to their systems is a hell of a lot cheaper than duplicating their systems and you don't need to buy a bigger house in order to fit them all in. I try not to throw stones at other people's systems, I try to get invites so I can enjoy them too. Actually I'm in an audio club which rotates monthly meetings around different members' homes so we can do just that and the experience has broadened my horizons and helped me clarify my thinking about differences in audio. It doesn't seem to have changed my personal taste in audio but it has broadened my tastes in other people's systems and seeing the differences in how people set up systems and rooms has been extremely helpful to me over the years.


----------



## mthomas47

BdoUK said:


> Mike,
> 
> Thanks for the prompt reply. I originally started to look into the graphs because I wasn't pleased with the sound quality when compared to the Denon that I had just replaced. This led me to dig a little deeper to understand what could be different as the 7702 should at least be the equal of my aging Denon.
> 
> I realized that I had made two mistakes in my original Audyssey calibration. First I had the mic way too close to the headrest of my theater chairs. After reading further FAQs I realized this mistake and corrected it for my second run. My second (and perhaps biggest) mistake was that I was running calibration with my projector on. My seating is directly below my Epson (mic is 4 feet away at most) and in a quiet room the fan is still pretty audible. With my second run I used a LCD monitor to get through the process.
> 
> With those two small tweaks the sound quality was much closer to what I was getting from my 4311 and I'm now a happy camper. The tip about the graphs is also good information for future use. Again thanks for the great info!


You are very welcome! I'm glad that it worked out alright, and I appreciate the update. Sometimes the stories on the thread have a beginning, and even a middle portion, but no ending. And, happy endings are the best.


----------



## mthomas47

David's interesting post, speculating about why the OP might hear sufficient bass with movies, but not with music, corresponded to something I have been thinking about lately. And, that involves dynamic range. (I partly blame you, Gary,  although to be honest, this has occurred to me before.) I have noticed before that some people express a preference for boosting the bass in music, but not in movies. And, most of them are using DEQ. Some of that may indeed be attributable to the fact that there is not as much bass in music to start with, and particularly if the music is compressed, so that not much


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> David's interesting post, speculating about why the OP might hear sufficient bass with movies, but not with music, corresponded to something I have been thinking about lately. And, that involves dynamic range. (I partly blame you, Gary,  although to be honest, this has occurred to me before.) I have noticed before that some people express a preference for boosting the bass in music, but not in movies. And, most of them are using DEQ. Some of that may indeed be attributable to the fact that there is not as much bass in music to start with, and particularly if the music is compressed, so that not much


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> There's another factor to consider with DEQ and music. Soundtracks are mastered in accordance with a standard which defines a reference level. Audyssey determines the level of DEQ to apply based on where your master volume control is set relative to that reference level. There are no standards or reference level for music recordings, it's simply up to the engineer to "do their thing". The level at which music recordings are mastered is all over the place, more so than with movie soundtracks. Audyssey doesn't know whether the signal is a soundtrack or a music recording, it just sets DEQ based on your master volume setting. it could be that DEQ ends up applying a bit of a bass cut with a lot of music recordings depending on the level people are setting the master volume control to.
> 
> I could be wrong, that thought is supposition only, but it could be a factor.


Hi David,

That's certainly a valid supposition. But, the circumstances I am responding to seem to be a little different from that. Most people on the forum seem to watch movies at a MV of about -20 to -10, with exceptions at both ends of the range. So, DEQ responds to that MV (whatever it is) with a fixed amount of bass boost (about +2db for every 5db below Reference) and boosts the bass somewhat throughout, (I think) but more during softer passages. I have never been entirely clear on whether some bass boost is always present, but it has always sounded like it to me. But, the essential idea, I believe, is to increase the bass boost as the sound gets softer in a particular passage, in order to continuously maintain an acoustic balance.

For people who are listening to music at about the same MV as they are movies, why does the bass sound less prominent? Well, the reason you alluded to is one reason, and compression in the recording (and/or the source) could be another. But, DEQ could be a third, because starting from the same MV, in both movies and music, DEQ would have less to do in music where the dynamic range was small. And, that is because there wouldn't be any particularly soft passages for DEQ to boost.

I believe that Audyssey understood this concept very well, judging from their descriptions of the way to utilize the various RLO settings. But, I can't recall the idea being explicitly discussed in this context before--of why some people using DEQ prefer to add more bass boost to music than to movies? Again, a combination of explanations is probably best, but I can't help believing that DEQ itself plays a part.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> That's certainly a valid supposition. But, the circumstances I am responding to seem to be a little different from that. Most people on the forum seem to watch movies at a MV of about -20 to -10, with exceptions at both ends of the range. So, DEQ responds to that MV (whatever it is) with a fixed amount of bass boost (about +2db for every 5db below Reference) and boosts the bass somewhat throughout, (I think) but more during softer passages. I have never been entirely clear on whether some bass boost is always present, but it has always sounded like it to me. But, the essential idea, I believe, is to increase the bass boost as the sound gets softer in a particular passage, in order to continuously maintain an acoustic balance.
> 
> For people who are listening to music at about the same MV as they are movies, why does the bass sound less prominent? Well, the reason you alluded to is one reason, and compression in the recording (and/or the source) could be another. But, DEQ could be a third, because starting from the same MV, in both movies and music, DEQ would have less to do in music where the dynamic range was small. And, that is because there wouldn't be any particularly soft passages for DEQ to boost.
> 
> I believe that Audyssey understood this concept very well, judging from their descriptions of the way to utilize the various RLO settings. But, I can't recall the idea being explicitly discussed in this context before--of why some people using DEQ prefer to add more bass boost to music than to movies? Again, a combination of explanations is probably best, but I can't help believing that DEQ itself plays a part.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I knew DEQ responded to MV settings. I was unaware that it also responded to changes in actual level at the same MV setting and I wonder whether that is true. After all, if the sound engineer is mastering at reference level, they are mixing and balancing the sound while the MV is not changing and they will be adjusting bass levels themselves in the mix so that they get the result they want during soft passages. It doesn't make sense for DEQ to adjust EQ to compensate for actual volume changes at the same MV level, or at least that's the way it seems to me. In live music performers the performers are each individually responsible for adjusting how much they increase/decrease their own loudness during a performance as their overall volume levels fluctuate in order for the group as a whole to produce the kind of ensemble sound they want the audience to hear. If DEQ compensates for soft passages as well as for MV settings it would actually be changing the tonal balance the performers intended the audience to hear and it might also produce a result that sounded "odd" or "unnatural" at times because it was doing something that doesn't happen in live performance.

I have DEQ on and I'm not noticing anything that disturbs me about the bass as the actual volume level fluctuates at the same MV setting. Of course that doesn't mean that the level of EQ isn't changing. Our ears are less sensitive in the low bass and it could be that the change in bass EQ during soft passages simply isn't noticeable, or that the change in bass EQ applied to compensate for soft passages is less than the amount applied to compensate for changes in MV levels, or a combination of both but I've always thought that the compensation was only to compensate for changes in MV settings which is what the user is responsible for and not for fluctuations in level during the recording which is what the performers and recording engineer control.

I've never quite understood the way the RLO settings work and I've always left them untouched but my feeling was that they were intended to compensate to some degree for differences in the level at which the recording was mastered given that not every recording is mastered in accordance with the standards which exist for mastering of soundtracks. I've also always thought that the reason for having a standard for soundtracks was simply because movies are watched by large audiences in cinemas and having a standard ensured that no matter in what cinema you viewed the movie, the experience would be as similar as possible so they came up with a standard because that meant that each cinema could deliver as similar an experience to their customers as every other cinema delivered. Playback of music recordings is a home/small group event and under the direct control of the audience and playback levels most certainly are not under the control of the audience in a cinema.

There's a hell of a lot to be considered when you decide to come up with a product like Audyssey and my response to the developers varies between awe at some times, mind boggled amazement that they ever managed to think of a particular thing at other times, and I often wonder just how well I understand what is going on during both of those states and all points in between.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I knew DEQ responded to MV settings. I was unaware that it also responded to changes in actual level at the same MV setting and I wonder whether that is true. After all, if the sound engineer is mastering at reference level, they are mixing and balancing the sound while the MV is not changing and they will be adjusting bass levels themselves in the mix so that they get the result they want during soft passages. It doesn't make sense for DEQ to adjust EQ to compensate for actual volume changes at the same MV level, or at least that's the way it seems to me. In live music performers the performers are each individually responsible for adjusting how much they increase/decrease their own loudness during a performance as their overall volume levels fluctuate in order for the group as a whole to produce the kind of ensemble sound they want the audience to hear. If DEQ compensates for soft passages as well as for MV settings it would actually be changing the tonal balance the performers intended the audience to hear and it might also produce a result that sounded "odd" or "unnatural" at times because it was doing something that doesn't happen in live performance.
> 
> I have DEQ on and I'm not noticing anything that disturbs me about the bass as the actual volume level fluctuates at the same MV setting. Of course that doesn't mean that the level of EQ isn't changing. Our ears are less sensitive in the low bass and it could be that the change in bass EQ during soft passages simply isn't noticeable, or that the change in bass EQ applied to compensate for soft passages is less than the amount applied to compensate for changes in MV levels, or a combination of both but I've always thought that the compensation was only to compensate for changes in MV settings which is what the user is responsible for and not for fluctuations in level during the recording which is what the performers and recording engineer control.
> 
> I've never quite understood the way the RLO settings work and I've always left them untouched but my feeling was that they were intended to compensate to some degree for differences in the level at which the recording was mastered given that not every recording is mastered in accordance with the standards which exist for mastering of soundtracks. I've also always thought that the reason for having a standard for soundtracks was simply because movies are watched by large audiences in cinemas and having a standard ensured that no matter in what cinema you viewed the movie, the experience would be as similar as possible so they came up with a standard because that meant that each cinema could deliver as similar an experience to their customers as every other cinema delivered. Playback of music recordings is a home/small group event and under the direct control of the audience and playback levels most certainly are not under the control of the audience in a cinema.
> 
> There's a hell of a lot to be considered when you decide to come up with a product like Audyssey and my response to the developers varies between awe at some times, mind boggled amazement that they ever managed to think of a particular thing at other times, and I often wonder just how well I understand what is going on during both of those states and all points in between.


Hi David,

I'm going to start with your last paragraph first, because it mirrors something that I was thinking about earlier today. Audyssey is a very complex piece of technology, and even all these years after it's initial introduction, we are still trying to unravel some of it's fundamental operating principles. Some of that is because it's a proprietary software, and it's creators have always been a little vague about how it actually works. But, this thread has, over the years, helped to unravel at least some of it's complex operations. 

Your first paragraph reminds me of some of the discussions from about 2010 and 2011, when Chris K. (the creator of Audyssey) was a regular contributor to the thread. He and several of the members argued at length over the desirability of adaptively changing treble and bass volumes during soft music passages. But, that is certainly what Audyssey was designed to do. Some people enjoy that feature for music, and some people don't. Here is a link to the official Audyssey description of DEQ: 

http://www.audyssey.com/technologies/dynamic-eq

Reference Level Offset (RLO) was added to DEQ later, partly in response to a recognition that some users didn't like using DEQ at full intensity. The various settings allow you to use less DEQ boost at a given MV setting. The definition of RLO in the FAQ is basically taken straight from the Audyssey description that is in most owner's manuals, although Keith did add the Metallica remark. That description will show you what I meant when I said that the Audyssey engineers were probably well aware that DEQ doesn't do as much with music played with a narrow dynamic range. (For others reading this, dynamic range refers specifically to the difference between the loudest and softest passages in a piece of music, or whatever.) Here is a link to the RLO section of the FAQ:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#g3

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... For people who are listening to music at about the same MV as they are movies, why does the bass sound less prominent? Well, the reason you alluded to is one reason, and compression in the recording (and/or the source) could be another. But, DEQ could be a third, because starting from the same MV, in both movies and music, DEQ would have less to do in music where the dynamic range was small. And, that is because there wouldn't be any particularly soft passages for DEQ to boost.
> 
> I believe that Audyssey understood this concept very well, judging from their descriptions of the way to utilize the various RLO settings. But, I can't recall the idea being explicitly discussed in this context before--of why some people using DEQ prefer to add more bass boost to music than to movies? Again, a combination of explanations is probably best, but I can't help believing that DEQ itself plays a part.


As you say, Mike, a combination of explanations may be best. So, here's more*:

*Throughout the history of the Lp (including the stereo Lp) the deep bass was routinely shaved off of recordings before they were transferred to vinyl because bass took up too much space on a record, particularly for a long work. This was especially deadly for symphonic recordings, in which the final movement often should have been full of loud bass, right where pinch effect was the worst. Sometimes the treble in the final passages was cut also, to maintain bass to treble balance, since the deep bass was now largely missing. One study found that there was very little bass below 45 Hz on vinyl, except for audiophile recordings, which were shorter than long classical works. In practice, it was often more like 60 or 80 Hz . Even the master tapes often had little deep bass; engineers got into the habit of using bass roll-off filters on microphones and boards to conveniently remove bass room noise that would confuse the level meters, and make soft passages less clear*;* the room noise was mostly in the range that would be attenuated before transfer to disc anyway. Transfers from old master tapes may or may not have the bass put back. Most audiophiles I knew from pre-digital times, turned up the bass control, perhaps to around 2:00 O'clock, which was a bass boost of about 8 dB on my old McIntosh C-28. They weren't fooled into thinking that the recordings they bought were flat. Even some new recordings may not have enough bass, because old habits (like the microphone bass attenuation switch) die hard. People I knew at the dawn of the digital era were still being taught to use bass roll-off switches, on the grounds that over-recording was more deadly in digital than in analog. Indeed, studies of modern recordings also show bass attenuation. 

Movie s/n ratios, starting in the magnetic era, were often at least 3 dB greater than tape when 35 mm full coat magntic film (4 or 6 track) was used for the original recording, due to the tracks being wider. The release prints had narrower tracks, but the theater speakers veiled hiss a bit, compared to the best home speakers. They also veiled high frequency distortion. In the home, or when magnetic (or optical!) film sound is transferred to Blu-ray, high frequency distortion is an enemy. The solution is either very low distortion recordings, or having the high frequencies less than flat, as with Audyssey Reference. J. Gordon Holt, the founder and longtime editor of *Stereophile* addressed this in "Down with Flat." In movies, either magnetic or digital, bass does not have to be attenuated for the sake of vinyl, since there is no vinyl (although soundtrack albums were often bass shaved and over-processed). And filmmakers gloried in their newfound dynamic range (the old optical tracks were terrible that way, but a few, like Fantasia, managed 75 dB dynamic range -- measured the old way _fs _minusnoise floor. See Peck, 1941 Scientific American, "Fantasound"). Even in the '50s, magnetic film soundtracks intended for road show or 70mm prints often had incredible dynamic range, and the transition to the digital era of movie sound preserved that. Old habits die hard. 

Nowadays, Audyssey can let us have our cake and eat it too. With good recordings, our midrange and treble can be relatively flat, and we can turn up the bass, especially with music disks, as audiophiles did from times antediluvian. 

For music disks, a few people still use dynamic range expanders.

P.S. I still think the massive bass cuts Audyssey imposed on NinBri64's system is an anomaly. Something is wrong.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> As you say, Mike, a combination of explanations may be best. So, here's more*:
> 
> *Nowadays, Audyssey can let us have our cake and eat it too. With good recordings, our midrange and treble can be relatively flat, and we can turn up the bass, especially with music disks, as audiophiles did from times antediluvian.
> 
> For music disks, a few people still use dynamic range expanders.
> 
> P.S. I still think the massive bass cuts Audyssey imposed on NinBri64's system is an anomaly. Something is wrong.


Great stuff, as usual, Gary! With respect to the bass cut on the RF speaker, I agree that it looks peculiar. My problem is in deciding just how much trust to put in those graphs to start with, as they don't actually show us exactly what Audyssey did.

I also thought David made a good point about the relative placement of the two speakers probably affecting the filters that Audyssey may be setting for them, with one in a corner and the other open to the room. I will be very interested to find out what happens once the OP reruns Audyssey and boosts his subs.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> As you say, Mike, a combination of explanations may be best. So, here's more*:
> 
> *Throughout the history of the Lp (including the stereo Lp) the deep bass was routinely shaved off of recordings before they were transferred to vinyl because bass took up too much space on a record, particularly for a long work. This was especially deadly for symphonic recordings, in which the final movement often should have been full of loud bass, right where pinch effect was the worst. Sometimes the treble in the final passages was cut also, to maintain bass to treble balance, since the deep bass was now largely missing. One study found that there was very little bass below 45 Hz on vinyl, except for audiophile recordings, which were shorter than long classical works. In practice, it was often more like 60 or 80 Hz . Even the master tapes often had little deep bass; engineers got into the habit of using bass roll-off filters on microphones and boards to conveniently remove bass room noise that would confuse the level meters, and make soft passages less clear*;* the room noise was mostly in the range that would be attenuated before transfer to disc anyway. Transfers from old master tapes may or may not have the bass put back. Most audiophiles I knew from pre-digital times, turned up the bass control, perhaps to around 2:00 O'clock, which was a bass boost of about 8 dB on my old McIntosh C-28. They weren't fooled into thinking that the recordings they bought were flat. Even some new recordings may not have enough bass, because old habits (like the microphone bass attenuation switch) die hard. People I knew at the dawn of the digital era were still being taught to use bass roll-off switches, on the grounds that over-recording was more deadly in digital than in analog. Indeed, studies of modern recordings also show bass attenuation.
> 
> Movie s/n ratios, starting in the magnetic era, were often at least 3 dB greater than tape when 35 mm full coat magntic film (4 or 6 track) was used for the original recording, due to the tracks being wider. The release prints had narrower tracks, but the theater speakers veiled hiss a bit, compared to the best home speakers. They also veiled high frequency distortion. In the home, or when magnetic (or optical!) film sound is transferred to Blu-ray, high frequency distortion is an enemy. The solution is either very low distortion recordings, or having the high frequencies less than flat, as with Audyssey Reference. J. Gordon Holt, the founder and longtime editor of *Stereophile* addressed this in "Down with Flat." In movies, either magnetic or digital, bass does not have to be attenuated for the sake of vinyl, since there is no vinyl (although soundtrack albums were often bass shaved and over-processed). And filmmakers gloried in their newfound dynamic range (the old optical tracks were terrible that way, but a few, like Fantasia, managed 75 dB dynamic range -- measured the old way _fs _minusnoise floor. See Peck, 1941 Scientific American, "Fantasound"). Even in the '50s, magnetic film soundtracks intended for road show or 70mm prints often had incredible dynamic range, and the transition to the digital era of movie sound preserved that. Old habits die hard.
> 
> Nowadays, Audyssey can let us have our cake and eat it too. With good recordings, our midrange and treble can be relatively flat, and we can turn up the bass, especially with music disks, as audiophiles did from times antediluvian.
> 
> For music disks, a few people still use dynamic range expanders.
> 
> P.S. I still think the massive bass cuts Audyssey imposed on NinBri64's system is an anomaly. Something is wrong.


Mike,

Thanks for that. Applying DEQ to soft passages as well as MV variations isn't the way I would have gone but I can be a purist on some things. The proof is in the pudding as the say however and, as I said, I haven't noticed any problems from what Audyssey is doing so I have no problems with their pudding when it comes to eating it. I have read the stuff on RLO in your link before and I understood that, I'm still not sure I fully appreciate how the whole thing..

I was following the Part 1 thread back in the days when Chris was a frequent contributor and I always appreciated his contributions. Speaking for myself, I miss having his understanding of Audyssey in the current thread at times.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> As you say, Mike, a combination of explanations may be best. So, here's more*:
> 
> *Throughout the history of the Lp (including the stereo Lp) the deep bass was routinely shaved off of recordings before they were transferred to vinyl because bass took up too much space on a record, particularly for a long work. This was especially deadly for symphonic recordings, in which the final movement often should have been full of loud bass, right where pinch effect was the worst. Sometimes the treble in the final passages was cut also, to maintain bass to treble balance, since the deep bass was now largely missing. One study found that there was very little bass below 45 Hz on vinyl, except for audiophile recordings, which were shorter than long classical works. In practice, it was often more like 60 or 80 Hz . Even the master tapes often had little deep bass; engineers got into the habit of using bass roll-off filters on microphones and boards to conveniently remove bass room noise that would confuse the level meters, and make soft passages less clear*;* the room noise was mostly in the range that would be attenuated before transfer to disc anyway. Transfers from old master tapes may or may not have the bass put back. Most audiophiles I knew from pre-digital times, turned up the bass control, perhaps to around 2:00 O'clock, which was a bass boost of about 8 dB on my old McIntosh C-28. They weren't fooled into thinking that the recordings they bought were flat. Even some new recordings may not have enough bass, because old habits (like the microphone bass attenuation switch) die hard. People I knew at the dawn of the digital era were still being taught to use bass roll-off switches, on the grounds that over-recording was more deadly in digital than in analog. Indeed, studies of modern recordings also show bass attenuation.
> 
> Movie s/n ratios, starting in the magnetic era, were often at least 3 dB greater than tape when 35 mm full coat magntic film (4 or 6 track) was used for the original recording, due to the tracks being wider. The release prints had narrower tracks, but the theater speakers veiled hiss a bit, compared to the best home speakers. They also veiled high frequency distortion. In the home, or when magnetic (or optical!) film sound is transferred to Blu-ray, high frequency distortion is an enemy. The solution is either very low distortion recordings, or having the high frequencies less than flat, as with Audyssey Reference. J. Gordon Holt, the founder and longtime editor of *Stereophile* addressed this in "Down with Flat." In movies, either magnetic or digital, bass does not have to be attenuated for the sake of vinyl, since there is no vinyl (although soundtrack albums were often bass shaved and over-processed). And filmmakers gloried in their newfound dynamic range (the old optical tracks were terrible that way, but a few, like Fantasia, managed 75 dB dynamic range -- measured the old way _fs _minusnoise floor. See Peck, 1941 Scientific American, "Fantasound"). Even in the '50s, magnetic film soundtracks intended for road show or 70mm prints often had incredible dynamic range, and the transition to the digital era of movie sound preserved that. Old habits die hard.
> 
> Nowadays, Audyssey can let us have our cake and eat it too. With good recordings, our midrange and treble can be relatively flat, and we can turn up the bass, especially with music disks, as audiophiles did from times antediluvian.
> 
> For music disks, a few people still use dynamic range expanders.
> 
> P.S. I still think the massive bass cuts Audyssey imposed on NinBri64's system is an anomaly. Something is wrong.


Gary,

I think the problem with bass in the old shellac to vinyl days was a little messier than that. Initially there was no standard for the roll off and no way of compensating for it apart from turning your bass up and that wasn't an option in the days before electronic recording and playback equipment. You just got bass shy sound and that was it.

Eventually someone came up with a standard for the bass cut in mastering and a way of compensating for it, the RIAA curve. Standards are great when everyone uses them and a lot of recording studios did use the RIAA curve but sometimes it got fudged or ignored and the RIAA compensation in the playback equipment didn't compensate precisely for the bass cut and we didn't hear things the way the performers played them. The problem wasn't that the recordings weren't flat, the problem was that some engineers liked a different slope. It's a bit like cars, it doesn't matter how good a car you make, there's always someone who wants to modify it.

As for digital vs analog, back a year or two ago (OK, a couple of millennia plus a few years ago) Pythagorus theorised that all music was based on numbers. Then the analog recording guys came along and convinced us that analog rather than numerical was the way to go with music recording and playback and more recently the digital guys came along and put numbers back at the heart of things. I'm a Pythagorean on this one. Digital has given us more than it has taken from us in my view.

As for dynamic range expanders, I can remember using a dBX unit for quite a few years back in the day. Like most things with rotary stepless control knobs it offered great flexibility and less than perfect repeatability. You changed the setting to see if that makes an improvement and then you struggled to get things back to your original starting point if you decided it didn't. Their saving grace is/was the fact that small differences often pass unnoticed. Numbers give us precision but unfortunately they often encourage us to think that there's a particular set of numbers that provides the perfect, one size fits all, solution to our concerns. Swings and roundabouts. One of the things that digital has done is to reduce the need for dynamic compression on recordings.

The earliest product recall I am aware of was actually a vinyl recording. When Decca recorded the Solti version of Wagner's "Das Rheingold" in the mid '50s, they went all out to produce a spectacular hammer strike for the gods' entry into Valhalla towards the end of the opera. Apparently they made a number of test pressings with various levels of dynamic compression applied to the hammer strike sound in order to ensure they got a good result. Unfortunately the turntable/arm/cartridge they used for playback tests was far more capable of handling large groove excursions due to volume than the gear their customers were using and the initial release of the LP set sent most stylii out of the groove for a rather bumpy landing a couple of grooves away. The release was recalled, that passage was remastered with even more dynamic compression, the set was re-released and they won a pile of awards for the quality of the recording. At least nowadays the only valid reason we have to worry about limiting dynamic range is for signal to noise reasons which were also an issue in the analog era but we've now got a new set of recording engineers who have relieved their frustration about not needing to play with bass roll off by playing with dynamic compression to ensure that everything plays as loud as possible. Swings and roundabouts again. The problem with out toys is always that someone wants to play with them in a way that we personally don't like.

PS: I agree with you that something is wrong in NinBri64's system but our problem currently is identifying what that is. It would be nice to be able to do that and help him fix it but even if we can do that he may still prefer the result without Audyssey. At least if we can fix it he may end up being less unhappy with Audyssey as he currently is.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> P.S. I still think the massive bass cuts Audyssey imposed on NinBri64's system is an anomaly. Something is wrong.


Gary and Mike,

I've had a thought.

I was auditioning speakers years ago when I bought my current Dynaudios and I was listening to a pair of Australian made ribbon speakers with a normal bass driver in a dealer's showroom. I was playing a track from one of my own recordings, a track with a strong recurring bass note, and the bass note was totally inaudible which it should not have been. I had decided that the speakers weren't for me because they were too bass shy and I stood up and started walking to the player to remove my disc. I had taken about 2 steps forward when the bass note came around again and there it was in all its glory. I stepped back and waited for it to recur and nothing, stepped forward again and waited and there it was. Obviously that particular bass note coincided with one of the room's modes but that could not have been all of it. There had to be something about the bass response in that showroom which made the pressure distribution in the room exhibit really strong transitions so that you got extreme nulls in one position and extreme peaks in another position only a couple of feet away,

NinBri64's room may exhibit that sort of room response for some reason. It's not what most people regard as a "normal" room because it has that large opening into another room right behind the left front speaker. Linked spaces can be quite complex acoustically and it's possible that his room is like that. If it is and his measuring position is in a location where the bass response is exaggerated, the mic will be picking up on that and Audyssey will create a filter that applies a large cut in order to compensate for the bass boost the room is providing at the measurement position.

The answer may actually be quite simple: get him to turn Audyssey off and to move backwards and forwards from the listening position and listen for large changes in bass response. If he finds a position just in front of or behind his measurement position which has much reduced bass, he can shift the measurement position to there or to somewhere in between and rerun the setup process. That should result in Audyssey generating a filter which doesn't cut the bass response as strongly and that is likely to give him a result more to his liking when he listens at his current measurement/listening position. The distances Audyssey measures for the time delays on each channel will be slightly off but if he copies down the current distance settings he can replace the new distance settings with the current ones and the time delay for each channel will then be right.

It's just a thought but it is worth him trying since it's an extremely easy possibility to test for.


----------



## audiofan1

David Aiken said:


> Gary and Mike,
> 
> I've had a thought.
> 
> I was auditioning speakers years ago when I bought my current Dynaudios and I was listening to a pair of Australian made ribbon speakers with a normal bass driver in a dealer's showroom. I was playing a track from one of my own recordings, a track with a strong recurring bass note, and the bass note was totally inaudible which it should not have been. I had decided that the speakers weren't for me because they were too bass shy and I stood up and started walking to the player to remove my disc. I had taken about 2 steps forward when the bass note came around again and there it was in all its glory. I stepped back and waited for it to recur and nothing, stepped forward again and waited and there it was. Obviously that particular bass note coincided with one of the room's modes but that could not have been all of it. There had to be something about the bass response in that showroom which made the pressure distribution in the room exhibit really strong transitions so that you got extreme nulls in one position and extreme peaks in another position only a couple of feet away,
> 
> NinBri64's room may exhibit that sort of room response for some reason. It's not what most people regard as a "normal" room because it has that large opening into another room right behind the left front speaker. Linked spaces can be quite complex acoustically and it's possible that his room is like that. If it is and his measuring position is in a location where the bass response is exaggerated, the mic will be picking up on that and Audyssey will create a filter that applies a large cut in order to compensate for the bass boost the room is providing at the measurement position.
> 
> The answer may actually be quite simple: get him to turn Audyssey off and to move backwards and forwards from the listening position and listen for large changes in bass response. If he finds a position just in front of or behind his measurement position which has much reduced bass, he can shift the measurement position to there or to somewhere in between and rerun the setup process. That should result in Audyssey generating a filter which doesn't cut the bass response as strongly and that is likely to give him a result more to his liking when he listens at his current measurement/listening position. The distances Audyssey measures for the time delays on each channel will be slightly off but if he copies down the current distance settings he can replace the new distance settings with the current ones and the time delay for each channel will then be right.
> 
> It's just a thought but it is worth him trying since it's an extremely easy possibility to test for.


Yup! sounds like a null. Audyssey or any from of DRC icing and not the cake ! That would be proper setup including a treated room


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Gary and Mike,
> 
> I've had a thought.
> 
> I was auditioning speakers years ago when I bought my current Dynaudios and I was listening to a pair of Australian made ribbon speakers with a normal bass driver in a dealer's showroom. I was playing a track from one of my own recordings, a track with a strong recurring bass note, and the bass note was totally inaudible which it should not have been. I had decided that the speakers weren't for me because they were too bass shy and I stood up and started walking to the player to remove my disc. I had taken about 2 steps forward when the bass note came around again and there it was in all its glory. I stepped back and waited for it to recur and nothing, stepped forward again and waited and there it was. Obviously that particular bass note coincided with one of the room's modes but that could not have been all of it. There had to be something about the bass response in that showroom which made the pressure distribution in the room exhibit really strong transitions so that you got extreme nulls in one position and extreme peaks in another position only a couple of feet away,
> 
> NinBri64's room may exhibit that sort of room response for some reason. It's not what most people regard as a "normal" room because it has that large opening into another room right behind the left front speaker. Linked spaces can be quite complex acoustically and it's possible that his room is like that. If it is and his measuring position is in a location where the bass response is exaggerated, the mic will be picking up on that and Audyssey will create a filter that applies a large cut in order to compensate for the bass boost the room is providing at the measurement position.
> 
> The answer may actually be quite simple: get him to turn Audyssey off and to move backwards and forwards from the listening position and listen for large changes in bass response. If he finds a position just in front of or behind his measurement position which has much reduced bass, he can shift the measurement position to there or to somewhere in between and rerun the setup process. That should result in Audyssey generating a filter which doesn't cut the bass response as strongly and that is likely to give him a result more to his liking when he listens at his current measurement/listening position. The distances Audyssey measures for the time delays on each channel will be slightly off but if he copies down the current distance settings he can replace the new distance settings with the current ones and the time delay for each channel will then be right.
> 
> It's just a thought but it is worth him trying since it's an extremely easy possibility to test for.



Hi David,

That would be a pretty easy test to do, and he might want to try it before he runs Audyssey again. I have also considered the possibility of suggesting that he move that speaker forward just a bit. Even a few inches might help.

But, at the moment at least, I am probably a little less concerned about that apparent dip than you and Gary are. Part of the limitation of the graphs is that they don't actually show what Audyssey did, just what was intended, in the most generic way. And they are speaker-specific, so we have no idea whether a dip in frequency in one speaker is audible when the pair and CC are also playing, much less when the sub is included.

It appears to me that the dip is centered at about 70Hz, and the deep dip is pretty narrow. So, there is a good possibility that whatever Audyssey may be doing to that particular speaker at about 70Hz will be irrelevant, with the sub engaged, and with his 80Hz crossover. 

Others may disagree, but I have looked at those graphs for years and have never found them to be a useful diagnostic tool, in part because the audible results so often don't correlate in any meaningful way to whatever can be seen in the graphs. For instance, we believe that Audyssey is doing something funky with some mid-range and high frequencies, for reasons that are pretty easy to see: the CC and the large glass top table. And yet, there is nothing in the graphs that would really indicate what we are almost sure must be happening, given the reasonably bright nature of the Klipsch speakers.

So, singling out the bass dip in the Front Right speaker as a specific problem seems premature to me, although your test may help to tell us more. To me, a simpler explanation is, that once Audyssey flattens out the bass, it is necessary to add some back, due to the Equal Loudness Contours. And, because he hasn't applied a bass boost yet, his music sounded relatively flat, for reasons we all discussed earlier. As a former fellow philosophy student, I'm sure you share my appreciation for Occam's Razor. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> That would be a pretty easy test to do, and he might want to try it before he runs Audyssey again. I have also considered the possibility of suggesting that he move that speaker forward just a bit. Even a few inches might help.
> 
> But, at the moment at least, I am probably a little less concerned about that apparent dip than you and Gary are. Part of the limitation of the graphs is that they don't actually show what Audyssey did, just what was intended, in the most generic way. And they are speaker-specific, so we have no idea whether a dip in frequency in one speaker is audible when the pair and CC are also playing, much less when the sub is included.
> 
> It appears to me that the dip is centered at about 70Hz, and the deep dip is pretty narrow. So, there is a good possibility that whatever Audyssey may be doing to that particular speaker at about 70Hz will be irrelevant, with the sub engaged, and with his 80Hz crossover.
> 
> Others may disagree, but I have looked at those graphs for years and have never found them to be a useful diagnostic tool, in part because the audible results so often don't correlate in any meaningful way to whatever can be seen in the graphs. For instance, we believe that Audyssey is doing something funky with some mid-range and high frequencies, for reasons that are pretty easy to see: the CC and the large glass top table. And yet, there is nothing in the graphs that would really indicate what we are almost sure must be happening, given the reasonably bright nature of the Klipsch speakers.
> 
> So, singling out the bass dip in the Front Right speaker as a specific problem seems premature to me, although your test may help to tell us more. To me, a simpler explanation is, that once Audyssey flattens out the bass, it is necessary to add some back, due to the Equal Loudness Contours. And, because he hasn't applied a bass boost yet, his music sounded relatively flat, for reasons we all discussed earlier. As a former fellow philosophy student, I'm sure you share my appreciation for Occam's Razor.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I share your concerns about what the graphs show, how to interpret them, and how to correlate what they show with what we hear but I'm not overly concerned about the size of the cuts in absolute terms or about the graph for each speaker as a stand alone piece of information. I looked at the difference in the cuts between the left and right front speakers, noticed a significant difference, looked at the location of the front left and right speakers in the photo, noticed a significant difference in their placement with respect to close room surfaces which would reinforce the bass response from each speaker, and noticed that the difference in the cuts seemed appropriate to the difference in bass response from each speaker that I would expect given their different locations. It was the relationship between the graphs for the 2 speakers and the relationship between the speaker positions which struck me. I don't think the graph for either speaker on its own helps us and I wasn't interpreting the dip in the graph for the front right speaker as a specific problem, I was taking it as evidence that the location of that speaker was having the sort of influence on the sound of that channel which I would expect it to have. I do think the difference in the two graphs and the difference in the speaker locations does tell us something useful when you put them together.

In fact, rather than viewing the dip in the right speaker as a problem, I think the location of the right speaker in that corner is something that the OP has to live with if he's going to place his screen where it is, and it may actually be in the most suitable position for it in the room since we don't know what the room is like apart from that part of it in the photo. What the graph shows actually looks like the sort of action I would expect Audyssey to take in order to correct for what is probably not the ideal sort of placement in a room for the speaker.

Your idea of moving the speaker forward slightly may help also.

As for Occam's Razor, I share your appreciation and I'm always tempted by it whenever I see multiple competing explanations for something but I've seen more than a few instances where the simplest explanation was wrong. I also think at times that after all these years Occam may have grown a beard and thrown his razor away or replaced it with something totally different like depilatory cream or fuzzier logic


----------



## David Aiken

audiofan1 said:


> Yup! sounds like a null. Audyssey or any from of DRC icing and not the cake ! That would be proper setup including a treated room


It can't be a null since what the graph is showing is that Audyssey is applying a cut. It would have to be a peak.

I agree that proper setup and a treated room are always good ideas but not everyone can place their system in a room which allows them to achieve the best setup or to install acoustic treatment. In the end we all do the best with the space we have to work with but unfortunately sometimes the best we can do falls short of what would be the best thing to do and there can be all sorts of reasons for that.


----------



## audiofan1

David Aiken said:


> It can't be a null since what the graph is showing is that Audyssey is applying a cut. It would have to be a peak.
> 
> I agree that proper setup and a treated room are always good ideas but not everyone can place their system in a room which allows them to achieve the best setup or to install acoustic treatment. In the end we all do the best with the space we have to work with but unfortunately sometimes the best we can do falls short of what would be the best thing to do and there can be all sorts of reasons for that.


Ahh! So its a peak. I hear ya on working with in the allotted space we have as mine is less than ideal as well but its still how bad you want good sound and compromises will always need to be made to get it!


----------



## garygarrison

NinBri64 said:


> ... The best way I can describe what Audyssey does to my music (whether I use the reference or even flat setting), is my Klipsch Reference Premiere setup sounds less powerful and exciting and much more like the music you might hear in the ceiling of a clothes store or mall.
> 
> ... Watching movies however, it actually does sound really good to my surprise, very much like a movie theater. It sounds very different with Audyssey, but I actually think I like it. Very clear and yes my bass was reduced yet somehow it sounds like a sophisticated professional sound. Anything that comes through the LFE track sounds great and everything is pretty good. Although I've never experienced chest thumping low end even with two subwoofers. I'll leave that on Audyssey Reference. Also, might as well point out that Atmos overhead effects are virtually non-existent in my room unfortunately; even with 4 Klipsch Atmos toppers.
> 
> ... The speakers are oddly placed for now and definitely too big for my room if there is such a thing.


They aren't too big for your room.

Can you put your speakers on another wall, in a place where the left and right sides get an equal amount of reinforcement from the walls?

With those subs, you should feel chest thumping and a breeze in the room with films like The Grey, Star Trek into Darkness, Pacific Rim, The Impossible, etc. If you run Audyssey again, and you don't get enough bass, you can always turn up the subs (at the AVR trim) a bit. 

I neither have nor understand (much) about Atmos, but the thing that seems weird is that it's one of your speakers labeled "Dolby" that has the most gargantuan bass cut, with ever more cut as the frequency decreases, all the way down to 20 Hz.. I assume that the "Dolby" label indicates that the speakers so labeled are Atmos toppers. Is that correct? I also assume that these speakers are set to "small" and are also crossed over to the sub, perhaps at 80 Hz., so you won't have to worry about the response or the EQ cut of the toppers at much below 80 Hz, let alone at 20 Hz. I still don't have a clue as to why there is such a huge bass cut, though. Your other speakers don't seem to have very odd EQ, except for the cuts in the very high frequency area, coupled with your comments that your system lacks upper treble, and sounds like canned music in a clothing store. Audyssey may be reacting to bright reflections from objects in your room (e.g., coffee table), causing it to pull down the highs.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> I still don't have a clue as to why there is such a huge bass cut, though. Your other speakers don't seem to have very odd EQ, except for the cuts in the very high frequency area, coupled with your comments that your system lacks upper treble, and sounds like canned music in a clothing store. Audyssey may be reacting to bright reflections from objects in your room (e.g., coffee table), causing it to pull down the highs.


A coffee table between the speakers and the measurement position doesn't affect the level of the direct sound travelling in a straight line between speaker and mic but it adds a very early reflection and depending on what the table is made of, that reflection may be strong in the high frequencies. If the table isn't there you don't get the reflection.

I've got a coffee table between my speakers and the measurement position and it's a table with a steel surface so it really reflects high frequencies. I always remove the coffee table from the room when doing the setup and I prefer the result I get that way.


----------



## David Aiken

*Objects between the speaker and mic position during setup*

In my post above I suggested moving a coffee table out of the room. This is intended to give my reasons for suggesting that. Warning: long explanation, don't read if this point is of no practical interest to you.


If we go to the Audyssey FAQ http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#d3 we find the following advice in section b3:



> b)3. Should I move anything out of the room before running Audyssey?
> 
> No. If you have, for example, a coffee table between the Main Listening Position and the mic, and you suspect that it is causing reflections which might damage your calibration, there is a temptation to remove it and then put it back once the calibration is finished. However, this is not good practice. Generally, anything that is in the room when listening should also be in the room when calibrating. Similarly, do not introduce extra damping materials into the room for the calibration unless they will be used when listening.


Pretty clear, isn't it?

Then we go to section d)3 and read the following:



> d)3. Where should I position the mic for best results?
> 
> The first mic position should always be at the Main Listening Position (because it is used to determine the distances and levels of each speaker). The other positions should be either side at roughly 2 feet intervals and then in front and behind if possible. The order of the positions after the first position does not matter. *It is very important to avoid extreme positions - so never put the mic up against the back wall* or outside the angle spanned by the front Left and Right speakers. Taking measurements in these positions will cause MultEQ to make unnecessary adjustments. The mic should be at the same height as your main L&R speakers' tweeters, which in turn should ideally be at ear height. It is not generally advised to place the mic higher or lower than the physical location of the tweeters (but see the exception noted below). However, there are many setups where it is not possible for the tweeters to be at ear height; in these cases, place the mic at the spot where the speakers are aimed (it is usually advisable to aim the speakers towards the MLP by 'toeing-in the L&R speakers and angling the centre speak up or down - but do take the advice of your speaker manufacturer on toe-in as some designs perform best when not toed-in).
> 
> Exception: if your chair backs are quite high, you will need to raise the mic so that it can 'see' the rear surrounds or surrounds. Also, do not put the mic closer than about 12 to 15 inches to the backrest of the chair, even if this means it is not exactly where your head is when listening.


Note the part I've put in bold. I'm going to suggest that the bit in bold above can be inconsistent with the advice in b)3 and explain why.

The reason for the suggestion that the mic not be close to a wall is because the length of the reflected sound path from speaker to wall to mic is going to be just short of the length of the direct sound path from speaker to mic. That means we have a reflection arriving at the mic very very soon after the arrival of the direct sound. For a sound of a given level at source, at the speaker in this case, the level of the sound at the measurement position decreases as the distance between speaker and mic increases and it decreases by somewhere between 3 and 6 dB for each doubling of distance depending on how much reinforcement the sound is getting from reflections in the room. Let's assume the mic is located 9' from the speaker which would put it in what is usually called the "acoustic far field" or very close to the far field and in the far field level decreases by 6 dB for each doubling of distance. If the mic is 6" from the wall then the length of the reflected sound path is going to be a little bit more than 10', the sum of the distance from speaker to mic + mic to wall + wall to mic + a little bit more to account for the fact that the reflection path starts off at an angle to the direct sound path but it's a very small angle. If you increase the measurement distance from 9' to just over 10' you are well short of doubling the distance and the drop in level is nowhere near 6 dB, its a fraction of 1 dB. Also, since sound travels at roughly 1100'/sec, the reflection is going to arrive at the mic a millisecond or so after the direct sound does.

Now let's take the case of a reflection from a side wall or from the rear wall when that wall is 5' or so from the mic position. The increase in length of the reflected sound path is going to be more than twice the distance of the mic from the wall so we've now got a reflected sound path that's more than 10' longer than our direct sound path (the mic is still 9' from the speaker), that's more than a doubling of the length of the direct sound path, so the level of the reflection is going to be more than 6 dB below the level of the direct sound arriving at the mic and it's also going to arrive more than 10 milliseconds later than the direct sound.

Audyssey is intended to correct for problems the room causes and the problems the room causes are always related to reflections. There's nothing but the air between the speaker and the mic to alter the direct sound but the nature of the wall surface and how it absorbs differently at different frequencies, whether there's something between the speaker and the wall that isn't between the speaker and the mic which absorbs sound (example: curtains over a closed window which absorb some sound on its way from the speaker to the reflection point on the window and absorb again after reflection as the sound travels from the window surface to the mic), and the fact that air itself absorbs some sound at higher frequencies and therefore absorbs more as the sound travels through a greater length of air space. Add to that the fact that at low frequencies in the bass region, you start to get very strong reinforcements and cancellations depending on whether room modes develop. The less strong the reflections are and the less variation there is in change of level at different frequencies there is between the direct sound and the reflected sound at the mic position, the less influence the reflection has on the sound at the mic position and the less correction Audyssey has to make. Big rooms need less correction than small rooms because the reflection paths are longer in a big room than they are in a small room.

Now the mic and Audyssey software can be aware of the direct sound and the reflection as it arrives as being the arrival of different sound sources. We aren't aware of them as different sources unless the reflection arrives a fair amount later than the direct sound in which case we perceive it as an echo. If the reflection arrives too quickly for us to perceive it as an echo our brain "fuses" the direct sound and the reflection together and what we "hear" is a single sound with a level and tonal balance that is the result of our brain summing the level and frequency content of the 2 separate sound arrivals. In a space the size of our rooms, the first reflections arrive too soon after the direct sound for us to hear them as an echo.

So far I've talked about reflections from walls, so what about that coffee table between the speakers and your listening/measurement position? After all, that's what I said this was about.

It's simple. The table isn't behind your head or to one side of it, it's in front of you but it isn't far below the line of path of the direct sound to your ear/mic position and the length of the reflection path from speaker to table to ear/mic is not much longer than the length of the direct sound path. That means that what Audyssey registers from the reflection off the coffee table is closer to what it registers from a wall just behind your head than what it registers from reflections from walls that are much further from your head. If having the mic close to the wall is a no-no because the reflection from the wall can adversely affect your results, then having a coffee table between the speakers and the mic can produce a similar adverse affect. If you have to put your listening position close to the back wall so the mic ends up close to the wall and causes problems, you can't move the wall and moving the mic is not a good idea but you can cover the wall area behind the mic with a thin cushion or a bit of carpet or something while you're making your measurements so that the reflection is not as much of a problem. If you've got a coffee table between the mic and the speakers and that is affecting your result adversely you can cover the coffee table with a blanket or just take it out of the room while you're making measurements.

Yes, doing either of those things will affect the measurements Audyssey makes and change the result it produces, and what you hear when you uncover the coffee table or put it back in place after you've done your setup is not going to be quite the same as it would be if you hadn't covered or removed it. But then you change the results that you get from Audyssey if you vary the mic position for the measurements after the first position measurement and space them closer or further away from the first position, or if you only make 3 or 5 measurements instead of 8. Those adjustments to the "standard" setup procedure are often suggested for people who aren't quite happy with the result they get when they tried to follow the instructions exactly. In essence we're really doing something similar if we cover or remove a coffee table during the setup process. We can't change the way Audyssey does it's calculations and tell it that we want a slightly different result, one with slightly more or less high frequency content, but we can change the room slightly so that the measurements Audyssey make are slightly different and that means that when Audyssey does it's calculations in exactly the same way as it always does, it delivers a slightly different result.

I think there's only one other thing to try and do and that's to explain why I think having a reflection arrive very very soon after the direct sound arrives at the mic can have an adverse affect.

Most of our speakers have more than one driver and those drivers are located in a vertical line on the face of the speaker. The tweeter is usually the highest, the woofer the lowest. The tweeter is usually located at fairly close to ear height and the woofer closer to the ground. If you use a tape measure and measure the distance from your ear to the actual drivers, the distance to each driver which is the length of the direct sound path for each driver, is different. The distance to the tweeter is usually the shortest unless the tweeter is set extremely high and the difference to the woofer is usually longer. Depending on how close your listening position is to the speaker, the difference in the length of the direct sound paths to the different drivers may not be much less than the difference in the length of the direct and reflected sound paths if there is a wall just behind your head or a coffee table between you and the speakers, and Audyssey has to recognise that treats those closely arriving direct sounds from different drivers as combining to make the direct sound of the speaker. Audyssey is probably programmed to distinguish between what is a direct sound and what is a reflection based on there being a delay of a certain amount between the first sound to arrive and a sound that it treats as a reflection. With a really early arriving reflection from a wall that's too close or a coffee table between the measurement position and the speaker, Audyssey may regard the reflection as part of the direct sound of the speaker and it probably treats direct sound a little differently to reflected sound when it calculates its filters, or if it regards the reflection as an actual reflection the algorithms which it applies to reflected sounds may work better for reflected sound that arrives a little later.

So that's my take on the possible effects of coffee tables and other things between the speakers and the mic, why we should consider those things in a similar way to a wall which is too close to the mic, and why covering or removing those objects during the setup process may be a good idea.


----------



## mthomas47

+1

I agree with the above post, but wanted to add two general comments of my own. First, the FAQ is, unfortunately a static document, particularly since Keith (the author) stopped monitoring the thread. (I'm still hoping he will come back. The last we heard from him, he was building a very nice HT.) But, our understanding of how Audyssey works, and of the best ways to use it, is not static. That understanding continues to evolve. So, at this point, there are several areas of the FAQ that could use some revision, and the example pointed out by David is one of them.

The other point I would add to David's analysis is that, although the Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" in exactly the way our brains do, our brains don't all hear distortion in exactly the same way either. Sometimes, early arriving reflections can reduce audio quality, irrespective of actions taken by Audyssey.

So, for instance, it is considered best practice from a general audio perspective, not to have our listening position too close to a wall just behind our heads. Getting the Audyssey microphone too close to that wall, just exacerbates an already existing issue, by causing Audyssey to react adversely to the early reflections from that wall. Sometimes, positioning acoustic panels on that wall behind our heads helps to alleviate the problem, exclusive of any actions taken by Audyssey.

A similar problem involves having something highly reflective directly between our front soundstage and our listening position. So, where a highly reflective table, directly in the signal path is concerned, I think that the best advice in descending order of value would be:

1) Permanently remove the table.

2) Permanently cover the table with something absorbent, or with books and magazines to diffuse the reflected sound from the table to the listening position.

3) Temporarily remove the table, or cover it with something absorbent, and then return it to it's permanent position, or normal state, after calibration. (A subset of this option might be to cover the table with the same absorbent material only during more serious listening sessions.)

The third measure would insure that the Audyssey microphone doesn't react as described in David's, and other posts, by cutting higher frequencies. But, the first two measures (and the subset of the third) might actually help to improve the overall sound quality at the listening position, exclusive of Audyssey's operation. 

Sound quality is not our only objective. Having functional and aesthetically pleasing spaces is too. So, sometimes a highly reflective table, such as a coffee table, needs to be exactly where it is--right in front of our listening position. And, for those same functional and aesthetic reasons, perhaps it can't be covered with anything during normal use. In that case, the third measure listed might be the only alternative. But, we just might get better overall sound quality with 1) or 2). If we were revising the FAQ, I would want to suggest those options, in that order.

That's just one of several sections of the FAQ that I would like to see revised. But, as long as people on the thread can advise others as they inquire, we can still be somewhat helpful with respect to this issue. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SOWK

There is a mint condition Audyssey Pro kit avail for sale in the "This and That" classifieds if anyone is interested.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Sound quality is not our only objective. Having functional and aesthetically pleasing spaces is too. So, sometimes a highly reflective table, such as a coffee table, needs to be exactly where it is--right in front of our listening position. And, for those same functional and aesthetic reasons, perhaps it can't be covered with anything during normal use. In that case, the third measure listed might be the only alternative. But, we just might get better overall sound quality with 1) or 2). If we were revising the FAQ, I would want to suggest those options, in that order.


Ah, Mike!

You're right, of course, but did you have to go and say it publicly right after a post of mine and let my big secret out of the bag? 

My TV system which uses Audyssey is in my living room and I'm a contemporary designer furniture junkie who has to have a room with strong visual appeal. My highly reflective coffee table with a steel tray top and chromed steel legs from an Italian furniture company needs to be exactly where it is, right in front of my TV and right in the centre of the triangle defined by my left and right speakers and the best viewing position.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... Eventually someone came up with a standard for the bass cut in mastering and a way of compensating for it, the RIAA curve. Standards are great when everyone uses them and a lot of recording studios did use the RIAA curve but sometimes it got fudged or ignored and the RIAA compensation in the playback equipment didn't compensate precisely for the bass cut and we didn't hear things the way the performers played them. The problem wasn't that the recordings weren't flat, the problem was that some engineers liked a different slope ...


The RIAA, EUR, and other standard curves were intended for the record as a whole, from beginning to end. The bass cut I was talking about was superimposed on the RIAA curve, on a non-standard, individual basis. RIAA sufficed for bland records without the kind bass we expect today. As you say, some deviations from RIAA for artist, mixer, or producer preference were always possible, but, as I remember, the main use was not for preference, but was to shave off the bass near the end of an Lp, because, even with the RIAA curve, the low radius near the center of the records couldn't tolerate a lot of meandering bass below, say 80 Hz, and couldn't tolerate hardly any below about 40 Hz. This was explained to us on a tour of CBS records (aka Columbia, now Sony), and was in Martin Mayer's book on Hi Fi as well. There were two rumors I can't vouch for, but suspect are fairly accurate: 1) This problem was even worse with stereo records 2) Sometimes the artists consulted on this, and sometimes they did not, or weren't invited. It was sometimes done in the cutting lathe room, without consultation with the original mixers. I do know that it was commonplace for mixers to try to precondition the master tapes to give the impression of a lot of bass by boosting the upper bass, and rolling off the deep bass, above and beyond what the standard RIAA curve accomplished. Very short audiophile disks with big, blank, grooveless areas in the center avoided most of these problems, but you can't get the longer works of Beethoven, Mahler, Wagner, or even Pink Floyd on these vinyl disks, without compromise. SACD and CD remasters sometimes came to the rescue, recently. The reason I brought this up in a former post is that I wonder if the old habits of mixers mastering for tapes intended to be transferred to vinyl continued into the CD era, under the steam of habit, or perhaps on the grounds of saving the average person's cheap speakers -- a reason often given.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Ah, Mike!
> 
> You're right, of course, but did you have to go and say it publicly right after a post of mine and let my big secret out of the bag?
> 
> My TV system which uses Audyssey is in my living room and I'm a contemporary designer furniture junkie who has to have a room with strong visual appeal. My highly reflective coffee table with a steel tray top and chromed steel legs from an Italian furniture company needs to be exactly where it is, right in front of my TV and right in the centre of the triangle defined by my left and right speakers and the best viewing position.


Oops, sorry about that!  I would have responded sooner, but I had to go out of town yesterday, and just got back.

I am actually very sympathetic to the form versus function dilemma. Aesthetics are very important to me as well, in my mixed use room. And, that metal top table sounds like a pretty cool piece of furniture. So, I would probably have gotten a little creative, in that case, too.

Just out of curiosity, did you ever try covering it with something absorbent during calibration? That might be a lot less trouble than carrying it back and forth, if you ever need to recalibrate, and should achieve about the same result with Audyssey.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Oops, sorry about that!  I would have responded sooner, but I had to go out of town yesterday, and just got back.
> 
> I am actually very sympathetic to the form versus function dilemma. Aesthetics are very important to me as well, in my mixed use room. And, that metal top table sounds like a pretty cool piece of furniture. So, I would probably have gotten a little creative, in that case, too.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, did you ever try covering it with something absorbent during calibration? That might be a lot less trouble than carrying it back and forth, if you ever need to recalibrate, and should achieve about the same result with Audyssey.


Mike,

On form and function, see the attached photo. Warning: my aesthetics may not be your aesthetics.

I didn't try covering the table. I seemed to remember reading a suggestion somewhere, probably back in part 1 of this thread some years ago, that removing obstacles from between the speakers and measurement position was a good idea and I found back then, in a very different setup to this, that it helped. I had changed something in the room, I was re-running setup, and I decided to try removing the table and got a result I liked. I had no idea whether that was because of the other change or because I had removed the table (the usual problem with changing 2 things at once) but since then I have made a couple of other changes at various times and each time I've had to re-run setup I've removed the table and I've been happy with the result each time so I just keep removing the table every time I run setup now.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> On form and function, see the attached photo. Warning: my aesthetics may not be your aesthetics.
> 
> I didn't try covering the table. I seemed to remember reading a suggestion somewhere, probably back in part 1 of this thread some years ago, that removing obstacles from between the speakers and measurement position was a good idea and I found back then, in a very different setup to this, that it helped. I had changed something in the room, I was re-running setup, and I decided to try removing the table and got a result I liked. I had no idea whether that was because of the other change or because I had removed the table (the usual problem with changing 2 things at once) but since then I have made a couple of other changes at various times and each time I've had to re-run setup I've removed the table and I've been happy with the result each time so I just keep removing the table every time I run setup now.


Hi David,

Thanks for the photo. Aesthetics and art are such broad terms that they can encompass many diverse styles. I appreciate a modern, slightly minimalistic look. It's very clean and utilitarian. And, that table's so light that schlepping it back and forth probably isn't a problem, anyway. My own tastes run to slightly more traditional furnishings, which you might not care for as much. But, we both appreciate Diana Krall. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for the photo. Aesthetics and art are such broad terms that they can encompass many diverse styles. I appreciate a modern, slightly minimalistic look. It's very clean and utilitarian. And, that table's so light that schlepping it back and forth probably isn't a problem, anyway. My own tastes run to slightly more traditional furnishings, which you might not care for as much. But, we both appreciate Diana Krall.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

The room used to look much more traditional while my wife was alive and she had the deciding vote on furnishings and room style. Her tastes were more traditional than mine but I could live with traditional more than she could live with modern and minimalist. She died 12 years ago and a few years later I started refurnishing to suit my tastes since I only had myself to satisfy. It took several years for the room to migrate from what it was to what it is. I get a lot of enjoyment out of the system but I've also got a lot of enjoyment out of having a room that suits my aesthetic taste as well, and being able to have a system I like and a room I like is nice. Satisfying one person is easier and requires fewer compromises on everyone's part than satisfying two people.

One thing I will say is that I think everything is more enjoyable if you're doing it in surroundings that you really like. If your surroundings put you in as good a mood you tend to relax and feel more comfortable and that makes it easier for you to enjoy whatever you're doing. Whether those surroundings are traditional or modern or something else doesn't matter provided you like them and feel comfortable in them.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... One thing I will say is that I think everything is more enjoyable if you're doing it in surroundings that you really like. If your surroundings put you in as good a mood you tend to relax and feel more comfortable and that makes it easier for you to enjoy whatever you're doing ...


Our music room/home theater has many books in it. We think of it as our library, as well. We regard the books as old friends. The authors hold a position in our lives something like that of "The Immortals" in the mind of Harry Haller in Steppenwolf. They range in age from relatively new to our earliest college days, with a few from our childhoods, and a very few that were handed down in our families from considerably more than 100 years ago. As our eyes pass over the spines, the contents flood into our minds. When we listen to music, we do so among "friends."


----------



## robc1976

Mike Lang said:


> Continued from "Official" Audyssey thread.


Hope this is the right place to post this.

Been using audyssey for years, recently upgraded my theater and experimented with turning off DEQ, Dolby volume ect ava it sounded much better. I have a highly treated room and the flat curve sounds much better to me but noticed it was lacking bass from the mids so I added +2db of bass via the tone controls.

My question is will this interfere with any crossovers or how bass is handled from the subs? I am asking this because I thought all bass was dictated by what you're crossovers are set to? How is the tone control adding bass if it doesn't change the crossovers? I of course have all speakers set to small at 80htz.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> Hope this is the right place to post this.
> 
> Been using audyssey for years, recently upgraded my theater and experimented with turning off DEQ, Dolby volume ect ava it sounded much better. I have a highly treated room and the flat curve sounds much better to me but noticed it was lacking bass from the mids so I added +2db of bass via the tone controls.
> 
> My question is will this interfere with any crossovers or how bass is handled from the subs? I am asking this because I thought all bass was dictated by what you're crossovers are set to? How is the tone control adding bass if it doesn't change the crossovers? I of course have all speakers set to small at 80htz.


Hi,

Welcome to the thread! You are definitely in the right place. There are two ways to add bass, regardless of whether you are using Audyssey Reference or Audyssey Flat. One way is to increase the trim level on your sub(s). That will turn up the volume on the subs relative to the volume of the other speakers, and most of the effect of that bass boost will occur below your crossover point. In this case, most of the effect will be below 80Hz.

Some boost will occur slightly above 80Hz, as the crossover is not a brick wall. The subs still play slightly above 80Hz in the regular channels, although at an attenuated level. And, of course, they play up to 120Hz (and slightly above) in the LFE channel, with an LPF setting of 120Hz, which is the default setting.

The second way to add a bass boost, if you are not using DEQ, is with the tone controls. The tone controls only affect your front speakers, and the bass boost you add would be mainly above the crossover point of 80Hz. Again, the crossover is not a brick wall, so the front speakers would be playing a little below 80Hz, but at an attenuated volume. That gradual blending, a little above and below the crossover point, allows for a smoother transition between speakers and sub(s). And, as you noted, the effect of that tone control boost will mainly be audible in the mid-bass and up.

Most people boost their subs above the neutral level where Audyssey sets them. Audyssey's goal is to make all of the channels in your system play at the same volume at the main listening position. But, we don't hear bass frequencies as well as other frequencies, so most of us choose to add some additional sub boost. The average sub boost is probably about +3 to +6db.

For those of us who prefer to not use DEQ (which slightly boosts the bass in all of the channels) it is not uncommon to also use the tone controls to boost the bass in the front speakers, as you are doing. Neither method of increasing the bass in your system will interfere in any way with Audyssey's fundamental operation, or change the crossovers. The two methods of adding bass boost will just occur in different ways, and affect different channels and different frequencies.

Please let me know if this explanation wasn't clear, or if you have any more questions about any of this.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Welcome to the thread! You are definitely in the right place. There are two ways to add bass, regardless of whether you are using Audyssey Reference or Audyssey Flat. One way is to increase the trim level on your sub(s). That will turn up the volume on the subs relative to the volume of the other speakers, and most of the effect of that bass boost will occur below your crossover point. In this case, most of the effect will be below 80Hz.
> 
> Some boost will occur slightly above 80Hz, as the crossover is not a brick wall. The subs still play slightly above 80Hz in the regular channels, although at an attenuated level. And, of course, they play up to 120Hz (and slightly above) in the LFE channel, with an LPF setting of 120Hz, which is the default setting.
> 
> The second way to add a bass boost, if you are not using DEQ, is with the tone controls. The tone controls only affect your front speakers, and the bass boost you add would be mainly above the crossover point of 80Hz. Again, the crossover is not a brick wall, so the front speakers would be playing a little below 80Hz, but at an attenuated volume. That gradual blending, a little above and below the crossover point, allows for a smoother transition between speakers and sub(s). And, as you noted, the effect of that tone control boost will mainly be audible in the mid-bass and up.
> 
> Most people boost their subs above the neutral level where Audyssey sets them. Audyssey's goal is to make all of the channels in your system play at the same volume at the main listening position. But, we don't hear bass frequencies as well as other frequencies, so most of us choose to add some additional sub boost. The average sub boost is probably about +3 to +6db.
> 
> For those of us who prefer to not use DEQ (which slightly boosts the bass in all of the channels) it is not uncommon to also use the tone controls to boost the bass in the front speakers, as you are doing. Neither method of increasing the bass in your system will interfere in any way with Audyssey's fundamental operation, or change the crossovers. The two methods of adding bass boost will just occur in different ways, and affect different channels and different frequencies.
> 
> Please let me know if this explanation wasn't clear, or if you have any more questions about any of this.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 thank you Mike! That is exactly What I needed to know, I have increased sub trim level +5Db in addition to the tone controls.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> thank you Mike! That is exactly What I needed to know, I have increased sub trim level +5Db in addition to the tone controls.


You are very welcome!


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome!


 one more question Mike, I have audyssey DSX (wides & heights) will tone controls add bass to the wides?


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> one more question Mike, I have audyssey DSX (wides & heights) will tone controls add bass to the wides?


As far as I know, the tone controls only affect the two front speakers. I believe that to be at least partly in deference to people who prefer to listen to two-channel music.

It occurred to me that my earlier answer might not be correct. If you are using some sort of extraction mode, it's possible that your wide speakers would receive the same bass-boosted signal that your front speakers get. Roger Dressler is an AVS member. He was one of the founders of Dolby, and was heavily involved in the development of Dolby Pro-Logic.

If you look him up and send him a PM, I'll bet he could give you a definitive answer. If you find out, please let us know what he says.


----------



## stash64

Got my replacement Marantz AV7702 set up and running and I can confirm that indeed something was wrong with my original AV7702. I had the big bump in noise when running DEQ and a surround mode. I still notice a little bit of an increase in noise with DEQ but nothing close to what I had with the first unit. I also still notice that DTS Neural X is noisier than all the other surround modes and will just avoid using it. I suspect that the D&M implementation of DTS is not quite right.


Also on the positive side, I think that my Audyssey calibration is the best I've had on any of my previous Marantz pre-amps, including the AV8802. I think it may be due to a lower microphone height. I realized that I had been placing the microphone a couple inches higher than the tweeter level of my front towers in order to get the microphone above my headrest. Intuitively, I thought it would be best to keep the microphone at or slightly below the tweeters. So when I ran Audyssey yesterday, I pushed my headrest all the way down and kept the microphone an inch or two above the headrest and about an inch below tweeter level.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> As far as I know, the tone controls only affect the two front speakers. I believe that to be at least partly in deference to people who prefer to listen to two-channel music.
> 
> It occurred to me that my earlier answer might not be correct. If you are using some sort of extraction mode, it's possible that your wide speakers would receive the same bass-boosted signal that your front speakers get. Roger Dressler is an AVS member. He was one of the founders of Dolby, and was heavily involved in the development of Dolby Pro-Logic.
> 
> If you look him up and send him a PM, I'll bet he could give you a definitive answer. If you find out, please let us know what he says.


I will pm him for sure, I bet the wides do get the bass boost, because wides get same info as fronts and the heights I believe get there signal/info from the surrounds.

This leads me to a question on a, setting I have never known what it does.

A-DSX soundstage:

Has a setting for "stage height" & also "stage width" and has a adjustment/slider that goes from -10 to +10, what does this control/do?


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I will pm him for sure, I bet the wides do get the bass boost, because wides get same info as fronts and the heights I believe get there signal/info from the surrounds.
> 
> This leads me to a question on a, setting I have never known what it does.
> 
> A-DSX soundstage:
> 
> Has a setting for "stage height" & also "stage width" and has a adjustment/slider that goes from -10 to +10, what does this control/do?


I'm not directly familiar with DSX, but, on its face, it sounds as if those adjustments would increase the amount of extraction occurring, in order to increase the apparent stage height or width, and vice-versa with respect to the negative values. It should be easy to tell by experimenting a little.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> I'm not directly familiar with DSX, but, on its face, it sounds as if those adjustments would increase the amount of extraction occurring, in order to increase the apparent stage height or width, and vice-versa with respect to the negative values. It should be easy to tell by experimenting a little.


 interesting, so basically how much content comes out of wides ave heights. I Will ecperiment with this.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> I'm not directly familiar with DSX, but, on its face, it sounds as if those adjustments would increase the amount of extraction occurring, in order to increase the apparent stage height or width, and vice-versa with respect to the negative values. It should be easy to tell by experimenting a little.


More content comes out of DSX then DSU in my opinion. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

asere said:


> More content comes out of DSX then DSU in my opinion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I wonder if those adjustments simply add DB or if they actually give it more content so the wides get more content than the wides ect.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I wonder if those adjustments simply add DB or if they actually give it more content so the wides get more content than the wides ect.


That's a good question. With Dolby Pro-Logic (including PLIIx) I believe that the Dimension setting controls how much content, and not merely SPL, is sent to the surround channels, relative to the front channels. But, I could be mistaken about that. That would be another good question to ask Roger.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's a good question. With Dolby Pro-Logic (including PLIIx) I believe that the Dimension setting controls how much content, and not merely SPL, is sent to the surround channels, relative to the front channels. But, I could be mistaken about that. That would be another good question to ask Roger.


I would think that if it where just SPL it would interfere with audyssey calibration by making wides & heights hot and out of reference


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I would think that if it where just SPL it would interfere with audyssey calibration by making wides & heights hot and out of reference


I think so, too. They are separate technologies and might not necessarily be designed to work together, but PLII would still have been intended to maintain balance in a 5.1 or 7.1 system, so I think they would still have been reluctant to fool much with the relative SPL. 

I believe that the Dimension control affects how much content is extracted, and not just the relative volume of front and surround. And, I am assuming that other versions of extraction-type surround modes would work the same way.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> I think so, too. They are separate technologies and might not necessarily be designed to work together, but I do think that the Dimension control affects how much content is extracted and not just the relative volume of front and surround. And, I am assuming that other versions of extraction-type surround modes would work the same way.


I think this setting ciuld potentially make goid improvments


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I think this setting ciuld potentially make goid improvments


I definitely enjoy using the Dimension setting in PLIIx, to somewhat shape where the sound is coming from. That's in music mode, and that's where I really enjoy using it.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> I definitely enjoy using the Dimension setting in PLIIx, to somewhat shape where the sound is coming from. That's in music mode, and that's where I really enjoy using it.


I have never used it, left it at 0 lol! I mainly use my theater for gaming and movies. I think with I will increase heights a bit more than the wides since wides are more directional.


----------



## garnuts

robc1976 said:


> I will pm him for sure, I bet the wides do get the bass boost, because wides get same info as fronts and the heights I believe get there signal/info from the surrounds.
> 
> This leads me to a question on a, setting I have never known what it does.
> 
> A-DSX soundstage:
> 
> Has a setting for "stage height" & also "stage width" and has a adjustment/slider that goes from -10 to +10, what does this control/do?


From my Denon X4000 manual:

Stage Width: Adjust sound stage width when using front wide speakers. 
Stage Height: Adjust sound stage height when using front height speakers.

My understanding is that it increases/decreases the perceived width or height of the soundstage.


----------



## robc1976

garnuts said:


> From my Denon X4000 manual:
> 
> Stage Width: Adjust sound stage width when using front wide speakers.
> Stage Height: Adjust sound stage height when using front height speakers.
> 
> My understanding is that it increases/decreases the perceived width or height of the soundstage.


exactly what my 4311 says, I just didn't understand how it did this....guessing just more content is directed to the wides and heights


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> That's a good question. With Dolby Pro-Logic (including PLIIx) I believe that the *Dimension* setting controls how much content, and not merely SPL, is sent to the surround channels, relative to the front channels. But, I could be mistaken about that. That would be another good question to ask Roger.





mthomas47 said:


> I think so, too. They are separate technologies and might not necessarily be designed to work together, but PLII would still have been intended to maintain balance in a 5.1 or 7.1 system, so I think they would still have been reluctant to fool much with the relative SPL.
> 
> I believe that the *Dimension* control affects how much content is extracted, and not just the relative volume of front and surround. And, I am assuming that other versions of extraction-type surround modes would work the same way.





mthomas47 said:


> I definitely enjoy using the *Dimension *setting in PLIIx, to somewhat shape where the sound is coming from. That's in music mode, and that's where I really enjoy using it.


All my Marantz manual says about *Dimension* (37 pages away from any notes on the PLII options) is the strange sentence, "Shift *sound image center* to front or rear to adjust playback balance." The default is 3, and the range 0 to 6. I'm not sure whether this means that the center of the whole sound image is adjustable from the front, through the center, to the rear of your room (perhaps to match where your seating is?), or if it means that the center channel is moved where you want it, somewhere between the front and rear of your room. I doubt that it is the latter. I have 5.1, and there is definitely a phantom center between the side/rear surrounds, even though there is no speaker there (i/e/, in the rear center). There is also a center of the room phantom center. My tentative conclusion is that *Dimention *takes whatever center material there is, from wherever it emanates, including center front, phantom center left, phantom center right, and phantom center rear, and moves it wherever you want it re: front to rear, in increments from 0 to 6. But how would it "know" how to sample all of the phantom centers (and the one real center)? Maybe it is something like the old David Hafler ambiophony processing, using A + B or A - B, somehow?

Right now, I'm playing a disk(Cinema Choral Classics II from Silva, with the Crouch End Festival Chorus and the Prague Philharmonic) recorded in HDCD and in which "The original digital master was reprocessed ... to allow optimum performance on Dolby Prologic decoders. " I'm using HDCD decoding with PLII and *Dimension* set to 3. It sounds like 3 put me in the middle of the chorus, and to a degree, the orchestra. It sure sounds good .... no .... superb!


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> All my Marantz manual says about *Dimension* (37 pages away from any notes on the PLII options) is the strange sentence, "Shift *sound image center* to front or rear to adjust playback balance." The default is 3, and the range 0 to 6. I'm not sure whether this means that the center of the whole sound image is adjustable from the front, through the center, to the rear of your room (perhaps to match where your seating is?), or if it means that the center channel is moved where you want it, somewhere between the front and rear of your room. I doubt that it is the latter. I have 5.1, and there is definitely a phantom center between the side/rear surrounds, even though there is no speaker there (i/e/, in the rear center). There is also a center of the room phantom center. My tentative conclusion is that *Dimention *takes whatever center material there is, from wherever it emanates, including center front, phantom center left, phantom center right, and phantom center rear, and moves it wherever you want it re: front to rear, in increments from 0 to 6. But how would it "know" how to sample all of the phantom centers (and the one real center)? Maybe it is something like the old David Hafler ambiophony processing, using A + B or A - B, somehow?
> 
> Right now, I'm playing a disk(Cinema Choral Classics II from Silva, with the Crouch End Festival Chorus and the Prague Philharmonic) recorded in HDCD and in which "The original digital master was reprocessed ... to allow optimum performance on Dolby Prologic decoders. " I'm using HDCD decoding with PLII and *Dimension* set to 3. It sounds like 3 put me in the middle of the chorus, and to a degree, the orchestra. It sure sounds good .... no .... superb!


 so your on default setting of 3? 

Denon has 20 increments 10 being the middle, I think its much different than dolby PL ECT. I bet its only settings for A-DSX, WILL experiment tonight, I am moving my wides out more on the sidewalls to get more srperation from fronts


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> so your on default setting of 3?
> 
> Denon has 20 increments 10 being the middle, I think its much different than dolby PL ECT. I bet its only settings for A-DSX, WILL experiment tonight, I am moving my wides out more on the sidewalls to get more srperation from fronts


Yes, I'm using a setting of 3, that's the default on my Marantz.

I think *Dimension* is a feature of AVRs or pre/pros, and not related to *PLII;* some of us just use the two at the same time.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> Yes, I'm using a setting of 3, that's the default on my Marantz.
> 
> I think *Dimension* is a feature of AVRs or pre/pros, and not related to *PLII;* some of us just use the two at the same time.


 Makes sense, when I turn off wides I still have the height adjustment ect.


----------



## Alan P

Over the years, on various AVRs, I have played with the Dimension settings...I have always ended up going back to the default.


----------



## robc1976

Alan P said:


> Over the years, on various AVRs, I have played with the Dimension settings...I have always ended up going back to the default.


I have you agree, just got this response from audyssey support.

"Hello,

It adds SPL/dB. Which has the effect of widening or adding height to the sound stage.
The settings only effect DSX speakers.

Kind regards,
Audyssey Support"

To me they would just throw the entire system out of reference.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> All my Marantz manual says about *Dimension* (37 pages away from any notes on the PLII options) is the strange sentence, "Shift *sound image center* to front or rear to adjust playback balance." The default is 3, and the range 0 to 6. I'm not sure whether this means that the center of the whole sound image is adjustable from the front, through the center, to the rear of your room (perhaps to match where your seating is?), or if it means that the center channel is moved where you want it, somewhere between the front and rear of your room. I doubt that it is the latter. I have 5.1, and there is definitely a phantom center between the side/rear surrounds, even though there is no speaker there (i/e/, in the rear center). There is also a center of the room phantom center. My tentative conclusion is that *Dimention *takes whatever center material there is, from wherever it emanates, including center front, phantom center left, phantom center right, and phantom center rear, and moves it wherever you want it re: front to rear, in increments from 0 to 6. But how would it "know" how to sample all of the phantom centers (and the one real center)? Maybe it is something like the old David Hafler ambiophony processing, using A + B or A - B, somehow?
> 
> Right now, I'm playing a disk(Cinema Choral Classics II from Silva, with the Crouch End Festival Chorus and the Prague Philharmonic) recorded in HDCD and in which "The original digital master was reprocessed ... to allow optimum performance on Dolby Prologic decoders. " I'm using HDCD decoding with PLII and *Dimension* set to 3. It sounds like 3 put me in the middle of the chorus, and to a degree, the orchestra. It sure sounds good .... no .... superb!



Hi Gary,

I have always been very fond of PLII (and its variants) and have researched it, and experimented extensively with it. Dolby Pro Logic II is a discrete technology that is implemented in the same way on all AVR's, as far as I know. Its purpose is to extract information from a 2-channel source and to redistribute it to a 5-channel (or 7.1 or 9.1) system. A 5.1 source would simply be passed through unaltered to a 5.1 system, although the user could intentionally make alterations with the Music Mode settings. There are three settings in Music Mode:

Width--This setting controls the amount of material emanating from the CC in relation to the front speakers. In a 2-channel recording, some of the material is extracted to be played by the center speaker. I believe that the default setting is 3. A setting of 1 sends all (or nearly all) information from a 2-channel source, or all information from the front three channels in a 5.1 source, to the center. A setting of 7 (which is what I use) eliminates the center channel entirely, and maintains a 2-channel front soundstage.

Dimension--This setting controls how much information is extracted from the front soundstage, not from the center channel, unless the width setting were on 1, to send to the surround channels. The default setting is 3. A setting of 7 would minimize the extracted material sent to the surround speakers, and a setting of 1 would maximize it. But, even with a setting of 1, the front speakers would still be relatively dominant. 

Panorama--This is an on/off setting, which selectively distributes the sound more seamlessly around the room. Imaging is reduced, but ambiance is increased. The default setting is off. This is a setting that I have experimented with, but don't personally prefer to use.

PLIIx (which is the 7.1 variant I use) is a very sophisticated technology, although with the new overhead technologies, a more advanced version has been released. It selectively extracts information from the two tracks in a stereo recording to make individual instruments play from additional speakers. So, for instance in a jazz recording, the soloist might still sing from a center (or phantom center) point, while the two front speakers play the piano and sax, perhaps, and the upright bass and percussion might come from other sources. The extraction to individual channels only occurs for five channels. After that, any additional channels repeat their corresponding channel information. So, for instance the Right Rear Surround would play the same information that the Right Surround plays in a 7.1 system, using PLIIx. PLIIz would be used in a 9.1 system, and the AVR would automatically default to the correct version of PLII, based on the Speaker Configuration.

My system, as you know Gary, is rather oddly set-up, so that for music I can actually face my 6 large speakers across a very wide and deep soundstage. PLIIx is the perfect compliment to that set-up, because I can use the Dimension control to push material deeper into the room, greatly increasing the breadth and depth of my soundstage. So, in my system, I keep my Dimension control on 1 (which is maximum extraction to the surround channels). In a more normal set-up with surrounds slightly (or strongly) to the rear, I also think that I would prefer the default setting of 3.

Although some audio purists might disagree, I believe that PLII greatly enhances the presence and effect of both 2-channel jazz and classical music. As you say, it can seem as if we are actually in the performance, in the way a live performance in a really good club or concert hall would sound, instead of relying just on the illusion created by a single pair of speakers. That last is strictly an editorial comment that carries with it a large dose of YMMV. But, I have always felt that PLII enhances my music, and creates a far more real and immersive experience for me. With my speakers situated the way I have them, that is quite literally true in my case.

I am glad that you enjoy playing with PLII, as well. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Hey, I was just thinking about @kbarnes701, so I looked and he hasn't posted since May. Anyone know what happened to Keith??


----------



## Selden Ball

Alan P said:


> Hey, I was just thinking about @kbarnes701, so I looked and he hasn't posted since May. Anyone know what happened to Keith??


He's spending his time constructing a new home theater.


----------



## Alan P

Selden Ball said:


> He's spending his time constructing a new home theater.


Ahhh, good to know!


----------



## tidwelr1

stash64 said:


> Got my replacement Marantz AV7702 set up and running and I can confirm that indeed something was wrong with my original AV7702. I had the big bump in noise when running DEQ and a surround mode. I still notice a little bit of an increase in noise with DEQ but nothing close to what I had with the first unit. I also still notice that DTS Neural X is noisier than all the other surround modes and will just avoid using it. I suspect that the D&M implementation of DTS is not quite right.
> 
> 
> Also on the positive side, I think that my Audyssey calibration is the best I've had on any of my previous Marantz pre-amps, including the AV8802. I think it may be due to a lower microphone height. I realized that I had been placing the microphone a couple inches higher than the tweeter level of my front towers in order to get the microphone above my headrest. Intuitively, I thought it would be best to keep the microphone at or slightly below the tweeters. So when I ran Audyssey yesterday, I pushed my headrest all the way down and kept the microphone an inch or two above the headrest and about an inch below tweeter level.




Two questions - 

Why aren't you putting the mic at ear level while seated? 

Are you putting the mic on your headrest to take measurements? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Keith AP

Hey guys, does Audyssey factor in or process using the _current_ AVR setting for speaker sizes (LARGE/SMALL), and possibly the current crossover?

The reason I ask is my following my first calibration (upon receiving the Marantz AV7702 mkii) the speakers (LF/RF) were set to LARGE, which I changed to SMALL. I re-calibrated days later, and afterwards went to change the size, but they were still/already at SMALL, and my subwoofer level was set slightly lower. I could see this if perhaps the sub was receiving additional information from the SMALL setting requiring the sub level to be reduced a tad.


----------



## garygarrison

Keith AP said:


> Hey guys, does Audyssey factor in or process using the _current_ AVR setting for speaker sizes (LARGE/SMALL), and possibly the current crossover?
> 
> The reason I ask is my following my first calibration (upon receiving the Marantz AV7702 mkii) the speakers (LF/RF) were set to LARGE, which I changed to SMALL. I re-calibrated *days later*, and afterwards went to change the size, but they were still/already at SMALL, and my subwoofer level was set slightly lower. I could see this if perhaps the sub was receiving additional information from the SMALL setting requiring the sub level to be reduced a tad.


[EDIT: _The following paragraph has been edited to correct a misconception I had. I believe it is now correct -- Gary_]_._ Your Marantz probably has a default of LARGE for speakers with a fairly deep bass reach, but allows any changes in size you make to remain until you manually change them, *or *you run Audyssey calibration again. The Audyssey people seem to hate LARGE under any circumstances, for good reasons with most sound systems. For most people, most of the time, SMALL is the better choice in terms of headroom for your front speakers and surrounds, avoiding phase problems, and letting the subwoofer handle the awesome bass, with its probable blow out preventing circuit (caution, some don't have it, and the right person + the right movie = blow out ... even with a pretty good limiter, if the movie people are messing around with 5 Hz sounds at full scale, possibly Pacific Rim or, according to rumor, Godzilla takes a walk). 

In my experience, in my room, with speakers efficient enough to provide Reference Level full scale *peaks* through the LF & RF (105 dB each) with about 8 watts from the main listening position (so that headroom is no problem), and very minor (or no) phase problems with LARGE, and main speakers that have cleaner, tighter bass than my sub, I occasionally use LARGE, but I still prefer SMALL with almost all movies. With the very *few* oddball movies (such as How the West Was Won) in which the restoring re-mixers seemed to have not restored the bass boost the original movie mixers put in a stage later than that of the original sound elements, I found that LARGE and LFE + MAIN works best with these rare birds. Since this happens with only about 4 or 5 movies we have run (out of hundreds), I recommend using SMALL for almost all movies. For music (only) I sometimes turn off the sub, and run on LARGE. YMMV 

When you re-calibrated *days later*, Audyssey may have set the subwoofer slightly lower because the microphone positions may have been very slightly different (?). I assume you are using all 8 mic positions. [EDIT: _misleading sentence removed -- Gary_]

The best guide to all this can be found here: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"

Unless Marantz has cleaned up its act considerably since I bought my pre/pro, its manuals tend to be nightmares.


----------



## David Aiken

Keith AP said:


> Hey guys, does Audyssey factor in or process using the _current_ AVR setting for speaker sizes (LARGE/SMALL), and possibly the current crossover?
> 
> The reason I ask is my following my first calibration (upon receiving the Marantz AV7702 mkii) the speakers (LF/RF) were set to LARGE, which I changed to SMALL. I re-calibrated days later, and afterwards went to change the size, but they were still/already at SMALL, and my subwoofer level was set slightly lower. I could see this if perhaps the sub was receiving additional information from the SMALL setting requiring the sub level to be reduced a tad.


No, current settings aren't factored in when recalibrating. Audyssey has no way of knowing why you are recalibrating, whether it's because you changed the room around a bit or changed your speakers or something else. If you are recalibrating because you've changed speakers, factoring in the current settings could be disastrously wrong so that does not get done. Every time you calibrate the process is treated as if it is the original calibration.

So, your speaker size changed and the subwoofer level was set lower. Why could that happen?

Actually it's not Audyssey that chooses the Large/Small setting but your AVR's software. Each manufacturer can set it's own rules but it's often the case that a speaker pair is set to Large if the crossover point that Audyssey calculates is 40 Hz, the lowest crossover point available. What Audyssey is measuring is your speaker's in room response and that can change depending on any changes in the room between calibrations, and on the initial measuring position. A small change in measurement position of a few inches or so could put the mic a little closer to a point where bass is being cancelled by room effects and the bass response of the speaker might change enough for Audyssey to choose to set the crossover frequency at 60 Hz rather than 40 Hz and that would cause the AVR to change the speaker setting to Small. The shift in actual calculated crossover frequency might only be a couple of HZ, say from 39 Hz to 41Hz, but the crossover frequency settings are limited to specific options such as 40 Hz and 60 Hz and the first crossover frequency above the calculated crossover point gets chosen so a change in calculated crossover frequency from 39 Hz to 41 Hz would trigger a change in crossover frequency from 40 Hz to 60 Hz. All sorts of things could cause that sort of change in the measured crossover frequency for a speaker besides a shift in measurement position, perhaps a window or door was open during one calibration and closed in the other, or the speaker position was changed slightly or there was a change in the furnishings, or perhaps a combination of several things. The change may only have affected 1 speaker since crossover is set based on the speaker whose bass response starts rolling off first.

Now to the change in sub level. Low bass response changes a lot as you move around a room and it depends on both the sub's location and the measurement position. Change one or the other or both and you change the result the measurement is going to give. Things like changes in furniture and open or shut doors or windows can also have an effect on bass levels in the room.

So my guess is that when you did your first calibration your speakers' low frequency response was rolling off in a way that resulted in Audyssey choosing a crossover of 40 Hz but just managing to do that, the actual calculated crossover frequency which we aren't shown was probably just below 40 Hz. On the second calibration there was something different in the room or setup which resulted in a crossover frequency above 40 Hz being calculated for one or both speakers. As a result Audyssey set the crossover to 60 Hz or higher and that caused the AVR to set the speakers to Small rather than Large. Whatever the change resulting in that was, it was also enough to change the response from your sub sufficiently to result in a slightly different subwoofer level setting.

And you may wonder why the subwoofer level was set lower, indicating higher measured response, while the speaker crossover is set higher indicating a lowered measured response from the speaker. Well, the sub and the speakers are located in slightly different locations in the room and at bass frequencies the location of the speaker producing the frequencies makes a difference as does the measurement position as I have previously said. Something changed and that change affected measured results for the speakers slightly differently to the way it affected measured results for the sub. Even if you didn't change the speaker or sub locations, the location of your first measurement point probably changed slightly and that was enough to affect measured response of both the speakers and the sub in the low bass region.


----------



## mthomas47

To further reinforce what David is saying about your speakers, and what both Gary and David are saying about your sub, I have observed similar small changes in my settings from calibration to calibration. And, your PSA speakers are only rated to 70Hz quasi-anechoic. So, it would take very favorable room placement for them to reach below 40Hz (at -3db) and for your Marantz to set the crossover to Large.

It's possible that even a difference in room temperature, much less a difference in mic placement (or door opening as David suggested) could affect the reported F3 point from one calibration to another. And, you would automatically want to change the setting to Small with a 60Hz or 80Hz crossover, anyway. The good news is that you are getting excellent low frequency extension from speakers that were designed to be particularly strong from about 60Hz up in-room.

In any event, everything sounds completely normal, based on your description. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Keith AP

Thanks for the information. I'm scouring the forum for info on this new receiver and techniques applicable to it's use. I come from a world (early 2003+) where "calibration" consisted of the RS analog meter, REW, and Berringer Feedback Destroyer. This is actually my first dive into automated calibration.



garygarrison said:


> ...when you re-calibrated *days later*, audyssey may have set the subwoofer slightly lower because the microphone positions may have been very slightly different (?). I assume you are using all 8 mic positions





david aiken said:


> no, current settings aren't factored in when recalibrating. Audyssey has no way of knowing why you are recalibrating, whether it's because you changed the room around a bit or changed your speakers or something else...
> 
> ...Even if you didn't change the speaker or sub locations, the location of your first measurement point probably changed slightly and that was enough to affect measured response of both the speakers and the sub in the low bass region.


Yes, I am using all 8 positions. It is likely that a change in the location of the microphone position(s) were the overriding factor for the sub level change. BTW when I run each mic position I am not in the room - just outside using a separate monitor. I think I'll read through the In_Depth portion of the FAQ for a deeper dive - as well I'm working my way through the Audyssey thread.

For my understanding, I take it from this I could manually change the speaker settings (distance, levels, crossovers) to any extreme values and they would not impact the calibration and, in fact would be properly "reset/set" by the AVR from the results of the subsequent Audyssey run.


----------



## Keith AP

mthomas47 said:


> To further reinforce what David is saying about your speakers, and what both Gary and David are saying about your sub, I have observed similar small changes in my settings from calibration to calibration. And, your PSA speakers are only rated to 70Hz quasi-anechoic. So, it would take very favorable room placement for them to reach below 40Hz (at -3db) and for your Marantz to set the crossover to Large.
> 
> It's possible that even a difference in room temperature, much less a difference in mic placement (or door opening as David suggested) could affect the reported F3 point from one calibration to another. And, you would automatically want to change the setting to Small with a 60Hz or 80Hz crossover, anyway. The good news is that you are getting excellent low frequency extension from speakers that were designed to be particularly strong from about 60Hz up in-room.
> 
> In any event, everything sounds completely normal, based on your description.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Cool Mike. I have run SMALL/80Hz all my HT life. So it's onward I go then. Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

Keith AP said:


> Yes, I am using all 8 positions. It is likely that a change in the location of the microphone position(s) were the overriding factor for the sub level change. BTW when I run each mic position I am not in the room - just outside using a separate monitor. I think I'll read through the In_Depth portion of the FAQ for a deeper dive - as well I'm working my way through the Audyssey thread.
> 
> For my understanding, I take it from this I could manually change the speaker settings (distance, levels, crossovers) to any extreme values and they would not impact the calibration and, in fact would be properly "reset/set" by the AVR from the results of the subsequent Audyssey run.





Keith AP said:


> Cool Mike. I have run SMALL/80Hz all my HT life. So it's onward I go then. Thanks.


You are very welcome! And yes, you can make any manual changes you like without affecting the filters that Audyssey sets for each channel. Those changes will be invalidated by the next calibration, and Audyssey will start from scratch.


----------



## garygarrison

I edited to make corrections to my post number 1601(see italics in that post). Audyssey measures the 3 dB down point (the F3) of speakers in their position in the room and gives that information to the AVR. The AVR then uses its own rules to set each speaker to either SMALL or LARGE. If Audyssey calibration is run again, it will send the new information to the AVR, which may result in changes. David and Mike were correct.


----------



## asere

When watching content at a really low volume which DV makes it more audible, light, medium or heavy? I think someone once said medium but I forget.


----------



## Alan P

Heavy. It applies the most dynamic range compression.


----------



## mcallister

Quick question. I had to rerun audyssey on my Marantz 8802a after adding a 4th sub. My speakers left and right mains are 15.9 ft from the listening position. This last run audyssey put the left at 15.0 and every other speaker including subs, center, atmos, surrounds were at the correct distance.

Should I redo audyssey or if I just move the Left front the the correct distance of 15.9' will that be okay?


----------



## mthomas47

mcallister said:


> Quick question. I had to rerun audyssey on my Marantz 8802a after adding a 4th sub. My speakers left and right mains are 15.9 ft from the listening position. This last run audyssey put the left at 15.0 and every other speaker including subs, center, atmos, surrounds were at the correct distance.
> 
> Should I redo audyssey or if I just move the Left front the the correct distance of 15.9' will that be okay?


Hi,

That's interesting. I have had the distance change by .1' or so, between different calibration runs (probably due to a slight variation in the microphone position of mic #1) but never by that much. In theory, Audyssey is just accurately measuring the arrival of the sound at the MLP. If the LF sounds off, you can certainly change it manually, or if you just want to for mathematical symmetry. But, in theory, the distance setting should be correct. Either way, though--leaving it as is, or changing it to 15.9' should be fine.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## audiofan1

mcallister said:


> Quick question. I had to rerun audyssey on my Marantz 8802a after adding a 4th sub. My speakers left and right mains are 15.9 ft from the listening position. This last run audyssey put the left at 15.0 and every other speaker including subs, center, atmos, surrounds were at the correct distance.
> 
> Should I redo audyssey or if I just move the Left front the the correct distance of 15.9' will that be okay?


 If you haven't physically moved your mains since your last calibration and the avr reported 15.9 for both, then yes do another calibration and see if things come back in line. Run position #1 a few times to peg equal distance from your mains this is assuming you have them equidistant from the mlp,if not disregard but it can be crucial for 2/ch and is the foundation of the sound stage IMHO


----------



## mthomas47

audiofan1 said:


> If you haven't physically moved your mains since your last calibration and the avr reported 15.9 for both, then yes do another calibration and see if things come back in line. Run position #1 a few times to peg equal distance from your mains this is assuming you have them equidistant from the mlp,if not disregard but it can be crucial for 2/ch and is the foundation of the sound stage IMHO


FWIW, I would expect that there was just a little variation in mic position 1 that caused the discrepancy. I wouldn't personally bother to run another complete calibration over something as minor as that, if I had a good sounding calibration to start with.

I know what you mean about soundstage, as the distance setting can affect the placement of a phantom center in 2-channel. But, it's easily correctable manually. .9' equals about a millisecond worth of difference in arrival time. That may, or may not, make a noticeable difference in imaging, or shift the soundstage in a perceptible way. But, if it did, it would be easy to add distance in .1' increments until everything sounded right again. That might be a lot easier than re-running Audyssey and resetting all of the filters, if you already have a good sounding calibration, otherwise.

I have experimented quite a bit with the distance settings, as they relate to a phantom center, and have found that, absent large changes, they are pretty well overshadowed by even .5db volume changes in the respective trim levels. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## QuiGonJosh

Is *Mid Range Compensation *applied when Audyssey is set to flat? Sorry, this is a large thread.


----------



## mthomas47

QuiGonJosh said:


> Is *Mid Range Compensation *applied when Audyssey is set to flat? Sorry, this is a large thread.


No, it is only part of the Reference curve.


----------



## Blackdevil77

Quick question. What is the highest frequency Audyssey XT32 corrects up to? I used to have an Integra DHC-80.3 with XT32. Audyssey made a huge difference. Now I have an Anthem AVM 60 with ARC. You can determine what frequency you want ARC to correct up to (the highest being 5,000 Hertz). When I allow ARC to correct up to 5,000 Hertz, the sound is very dull, there's a loss of detail and imaging. I had ARC correct only up to 300 Hz (the Shroeder frequency for my room) and it's much better. Was XT32 only correcting up to a certain frequency as well?


----------



## dwaleke

Audyssey does a full range correction. 

Rumor is the 2016 audyssey app will allow you to limit the frequency range of the correction.


----------



## muad'dib

Blackdevil77 said:


> Quick question. What is the highest frequency Audyssey XT32 corrects up to? I used to have an Integra DHC-80.3 with XT32. Audyssey made a huge difference. Now I have an Anthem AVM 60 with ARC. You can determine what frequency you want ARC to correct up to (the highest being 5,000 Hertz). When I allow ARC to correct up to 5,000 Hertz, the sound is very dull, there's a loss of detail and imaging. I had ARC correct only up to 300 Hz (the Shroeder frequency for my room) and it's much better. Was XT32 only correcting up to a certain frequency as well?


My option, ARC has gone down hill from the days of the d2. 
Back then, you could have ARC correct upto 20k, same as audyssey, and gave life to System again... 
I find it funny that they say 5k is all you need. As some rooms are very dead sounding, and need the fix up there over the 5k...

Oh well...


----------



## Blackdevil77

dwaleke said:


> Audyssey does a full range correction.
> 
> Rumor is the 2016 audyssey app will allow you to limit the frequency range of the correction.





muad'dib said:


> Blackdevil77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quick question. What is the highest frequency Audyssey XT32 corrects up to? I used to have an Integra DHC-80.3 with XT32. Audyssey made a huge difference. Now I have an Anthem AVM 60 with ARC. You can determine what frequency you want ARC to correct up to (the highest being 5,000 Hertz). When I allow ARC to correct up to 5,000 Hertz, the sound is very dull, there's a loss of detail and imaging. I had ARC correct only up to 300 Hz (the Shroeder frequency for my room) and it's much better. Was XT32 only correcting up to a certain frequency as well?
> 
> 
> 
> My option, ARC has gone down hill from the days of the d2.
> Back then, you could have ARC correct upto 20k, same as audyssey, and gave life to System again...
> I find it funny that they say 5k is all you need. As some rooms are very dead sounding, and need the fix up there over the 5k...
> 
> Oh well...
Click to expand...

This must be the reason then, or at least part of it. ARC brings down the level at 5000 hertz while it should probably be brought up past that.


----------



## mthomas47

muad'dib said:


> My option, ARC has gone down hill from the days of the d2.
> Back then, you could have ARC correct upto 20k, same as audyssey, and gave life to System again...
> I find it funny that they say 5k is all you need. As some rooms are very dead sounding, and need the fix up there over the 5k...
> 
> Oh well...





Blackdevil77 said:


> This must be the reason then, or at least part of it. ARC brings down the level at 5000 hertz while it should probably be brought up past that.


Some people believe that room correction is not needed above about 1000Hz, and I have heard a few "audio experts" put the number as low as 400Hz. I like the idea of being able to generate a flat target curve from 10Hz to 20KHz, as Audyssey does, but then also giving users the option of limiting the target frequencies, or adding house curves, depending on their specific rooms and preferences.

In my opinion, one of the inherent limitations of any system of completely automated EQ is the need to apply a single standard to every room, irrespective of the specific SQ issues in that room, or the preferences of the particular listener. The ability to somewhat tailor the EQ to the room is probably going to make a lot of people happy, although to be fair, I am pretty satisfied with what XT-32 does for me now. But, I suspect that some of that may just be the luck of the draw with respect to my room/room treatments.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gurkey

Audyssey has stated the correction range covered to be 10 Hz - 24 kHz (48kHz/2).


----------



## audiofan1

mthomas47 said:


> Some people believe that room correction is not needed above about 1000Hz, and I have heard a few "audio experts" put the number as low as 400Hz. I like the idea of being able to generate a flat target curve from 10Hz to 20KHz, as Audyssey does, but then also giving users the option of limiting the target frequencies, or adding house curves, depending on their specific rooms and preferences.
> 
> In my opinion, one of the inherent limitations of any system of completely automated EQ is the need to apply a single standard to every room, irrespective of the specific SQ issues in that room, or the preferences of the particular listener. The ability to somewhat tailor the EQ to the room is probably going to make a lot of people happy, although to be fair, I am pretty satisfied with what XT-32 does for me now. *But, I suspect that some of that may just be the luck of the draw with respect to my room/room treatments.
> 
> Regards,*
> Mike


 Or just a little know how I think I'm starting to see when I read about various feed back from users of DRC that Audyssey seems to do a better job than most at working with a wider frequency response and why some that are applied cut off going beyond 5000hz to play it safe and claim its not needed. A bad calibration will make anyone say that self included but a little know how easily takes care of that tid bit. I may just give the Pro kit a try do to hearing most of this as I've gotten a better understanding on Audyssey's limitations and benefits


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> Audyssey has stated the correction range covered to be 10 Hz - 24 kHz (48kHz/2).


Hi,

I did not remember this. Would you please give me a citation, so that I can make a note of it? I did a quick search, but didn't find anything. 

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I did not remember this. Would you please give me a citation, so that I can make a note of it? I did a quick search, but didn't find anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike


Hi Mike, not gurkey, but here's a report with Chris K. on the subject (any many more). 

http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Mike, not gurkey, but here's a report with Chris K. on the subject (any many more).
> 
> http://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview


Thanks Feri! I need to save this article. You are an endless source of useful information. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks Feri! I need to save this article. You are an endless source of useful information.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. 

And if you (or anyone) will click "Audyssey Quotes" found in my sig, there will be a wealth of information (basically Q&As with Chris K.) on lots of interesting things I've collected throughout the years. It helps me a lot even by just re-reading these pages from time to time as a refresher on the knowledge base an Audyssey enthusiast may benefit from. Enjoy!


----------



## JayS99

All,

Question on speaker placement with Denon 4311 CI Audyssey XT 32. I apologize in advance if covered, but can't seem to find a hit with search specifically for Front High. I am wondering IF the Front High have to be mounted to the ceiling (or high on opposing wall to listener position) or if they can be placed on my tower but facing up for a reflected sound? I have a friend with an ATMOS system who is placing his high speakers on top for front mains and reflecting the signal during measurements. I just didn't know if there is a "preferred" method.. Appreciate in advance..

Jay S.


----------



## mogorf

JayS99 said:


> All,
> 
> Question on speaker placement with Denon 4311 CI Audyssey XT 32. I apologize in advance if covered, but can't seem to find a hit with search specifically for Front High. I am wondering IF the Front High have to be mounted to the ceiling (or high on opposing wall to listener position) or if they can be placed on my tower but facing up for a reflected sound? I have a friend with an ATMOS system who is placing his high speakers on top for front mains and reflecting the signal during measurements. I just didn't know if there is a "preferred" method.. Appreciate in advance..
> 
> Jay S.


Hi,

As far as I know Denon 4311 doesn't do Atmos, only Dolby PLIIz. Nonetheless, you will get best results when you place hight speakers on your front wall as close to the ceiling as possible and aligning them vertically with the corresponding Front Left and Right speakers while tilting them to face seated ear hight. On another note I would avoid placing them on the towers facing up, but an experiment may prove to be otherwise.


----------



## JayS99

mogorf said:


> Hi,
> 
> As far as I know Denon 4311 doesn't do Atmos, only Dolby PLIIz. Nonetheless, you will get best results when you place hight speakers on your front wall as close to the ceiling as possible and aligning them vertically with the corresponding Front Left and Right speakers while tilting them to face seated ear hight. On another note I would avoid placing them on the towers facing up, but an experiment may prove to be otherwise.


Feri,

Appreciate and didn't mean to imply the Denon had Atmos.. was just using his placement of the front highs as a basis for the question. He says he is getting "rainfall" from above. Not sure what receiver he has, but according to him it also has Audyysey XT 32, again a reason for the question. Any diagram I've seen shows them physically mounted high but it would sure be a lot easier (not to mention aesthetically pleasing to the wife) to have them on top of the towers.  Again thanks.

Jay S.


----------



## robc1976

mogorf said:


> Hi,
> 
> As far as I know Denon 4311 doesn't do Atmos, only Dolby PLIIz. Nonetheless, you will get best results when you place hight speakers on your front wall as close to the ceiling as possible and aligning them vertically with the corresponding Front Left and Right speakers while tilting them to face seated ear hight. On another note I would avoid placing them on the towers facing up, but an experiment may prove to be otherwise.


100% correct and most think the heights go in between the fronts and wides and I have found the heights sound the best a tad wider than the fronts. The most important thing in DSX is the wides at 60 degrees. This made the biggest change to my system. If your room is large the distance from RF & LF will be pretty drastic. My fronts are 6' from center and wides are 12' from center. Heights are 7' from center (not quite at 45degrees). Been tweaking my 9.2 system for 6 years, I think I finally got it perfect lol! 

All thanks to this thread


----------



## robc1976

JayS99 said:


> Feri,
> 
> Appreciate and didn't mean to imply the Denon had Atmos.. was just using his placement of the front highs as a basis for the question. He says he is getting "rainfall" from above. Not sure what receiver he has, but according to him it also has Audyysey XT 32, again a reason for the question. Any diagram I've seen shows them physically mounted high but it would sure be a lot easier (not to mention aesthetically pleasing to the wife) to have them on top of the towers.  Again thanks.
> 
> Jay S.


I can post pics of my system if you want a pic, it will be a crappy pic because I can't take a decent pic of my system for some reason lol!


----------



## mogorf

robc1976 said:


> I can post pics of my system if you want a pic, it will be a crappy pic because I can't take a decent pic of my system for some reason lol!


Yeah, pix please, they tell more than a 1,000 words. FYR, you may also look at "My Setup" (link in my sig) to see how I solved my setup.


----------



## JayS99

robc1976 said:


> I can post pics of my system if you want a pic, it will be a crappy pic because I can't take a decent pic of my system for some reason lol!


Ditto.. Would love to see a pic if you can. Have no choice on rears. Have to be mounted directly above and pointing down.. Seating is against a wall. :-(


----------



## Alan P

JayS99 said:


> Feri,
> 
> Appreciate and didn't mean to imply the Denon had Atmos.. was just using his placement of the front highs as a basis for the question. He says he is getting "rainfall" from above. Not sure what receiver he has, but according to him it also has Audyysey XT 32, again a reason for the question. Any diagram I've seen shows them physically mounted high but it would sure be a lot easier (not to mention aesthetically pleasing to the wife) to have them on top of the towers.  Again thanks.
> 
> Jay S.


Experimentation in HT is always a good thing. I say give it a shot, you've got nothing to lose but a bit of time. 

Just don't expect your traditional height speakers to create the same effect as discrete Atmos height speakers.


----------



## JayS99

Alan P said:


> Experimentation in HT is always a good thing. I say give it a shot, you've got nothing to lose but a bit of time.
> 
> Just don't expect your traditional height speakers to create the same effect as discrete Atmos height speakers.


Alan,

And lose maybe a little bit of speaker wire. ;-) Understand discrete placement of above listening position ATMOS setup, which is again why his placement of front highs on top of his mains and aimed at the ceiling was all the more "confusing". If I do try on top of main towers, will likely try some "angle" of where the reflection would/should hit the mic I guess.. Doesn't seem to even make sense to point straight up?


----------



## mthomas47

JayS99 said:


> Alan,
> 
> And lose maybe a little bit of speaker wire. ;-) Understand discrete placement of above listening position ATMOS setup, which is again why his placement of front highs on top of his mains and aimed at the ceiling was all the more "confusing". If I do try on top of main towers, will likely try some "angle" of where the reflection would/should hit the mic I guess.. Doesn't seem to even make sense to point straight up?


I won't answer for Alan, but I suspect that question would fall within his "doesn't hurt to experiment" quote. I think that if the height speakers on top of your towers, point toward the MLP and down toward ear level, you will get better imaging. But, if they point slightly up at the ceiling, you might get some early reflections which would create a greater sense of ambience.

So, this is something I would try both ways just to see what I like. Speakers with a more diffuse response, might do very well pointing somewhat upward.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

JayS99 said:


> Ditto.. Would love to see a pic if you can. Have no choice on rears. Have to be mounted directly above and pointing down.. Seating is against a wall. :-(


I never did rears.


----------



## robc1976

mogorf said:


> Yeah, pix please, they tell more than a 1,000 words. FYR, you may also look at "My Setup" (link in my sig) to see how I solved my setup.


I will post pic tonight, can't post pic with mobile version for some reason. I have seen your setup MANY times, many lol!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I did not remember this. Would you please give me a citation, so that I can make a note of it? I did a quick search, but didn't find anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike


When I asked Chris K. (several years ago -- perhaps 2010) what exactly the treble roll-off was with Audyssey Reference, and whether it used midrange compensation, he answered, then contrasted it to the 20 to 20K range that Audyssey FLAT provided flat response over, with Audyssey *XT*, so maybe they made it a little wider range with XT*32*, i.e. 10 to 24K???


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> When I asked Chris K. (several years ago -- perhaps 2010) what exactly the treble roll-off was with Audyssey Reference, and whether it used midrange compensation, he answered, then contrasted it to the 20 to 20K range that Audyssey FLAT provided flat response over, with Audyssey *XT*, so maybe they made it a little wider range with XT*32*, i.e. 10 to 24K???


Hi Gary,

You could be right that something changed with XT-32. The interview that Feri linked was from 2014, so perhaps they did extend the frequency range when they added more filters. Earlier references seemed to me to always focus on a 20KHz limit, and of course, the graphs were always cut-off at 20KHz, which would have furthered the impression that Audyssey stopped EQing at that point, even if it didn't.

In some respects, it's a moot (or mute ) point for most of us. Even if there were content above 20KHz, few of us over about 30 years old would be able to hear that high, anyway. From what I understand, 22KHz is about the upper limit of human hearing, and even then, for those rare individuals who can actually detect a test tone that high, it would be mostly just the very young who could do it. Not to suggest that we aren't all still young. 

Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## asere

DV setting of Heavy will cut back the bass vs having it on Light or Medium, correct?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> DV setting of Heavy will cut back the bass vs having it on Light or Medium, correct?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The heavier setting should compress both the bass and treble a little bit more, when the dynamic range is reduced. But, you can experiment to find out how much audible difference the various setting levels actually do make.

If you have a neighbor, or someone in your house that you are worried about with respect to bass, you can also experiment with the Low Frequency Containment feature, if you have that one. That will only affect bass frequencies, which are the ones most likely to travel, and to disturb other people.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> The heavier setting should compress both the bass and treble a little bit more, when the dynamic range is reduced. But, you can experiment to find out how much audible difference the various setting levels actually do make.
> 
> If you have a neighbor, or someone in your house that you are worried about with respect to bass, you can also experiment with the Low Frequency Containment feature, if you have that one. That will only affect bass frequencies, which are the ones most likely to travel, and to disturb other people.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I notice light with mv at 50 is more audible then heavy at 50.
I do have LFC and will never use it. It kills the bass at any LFC setting.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

asere said:


> I notice light with mv at 50 is more audible then heavy at 50.
> I do have LFC and will never use it. It kills the bass at any LFC setting.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


What are you trying to accomplish here Asere? Are you trying to keep it audible without disturbing neighbors/family members, or are you trying to improve the overall sound of the system?

If the latter, DV is _not _the way to go about it.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> You could be right that something changed with XT-32. The interview that Feri linked was from 2014, so perhaps they did extend the frequency range when they added more filters. Earlier references seemed to me to always focus on a 20KHz limit, and of course, the graphs were always cut-off at 20KHz, which would have furthered the impression that Audyssey stopped EQing at that point, even if it didn't.
> 
> In some respects, it's a moot (or mute ) point for most of us. Even if there were content above 20KHz, few of us over about 30 years old would be able to hear that high, anyway. From what I understand, 22KHz is about the upper limit of human hearing, and even then, for those rare individuals who can actually detect a test tone that high, it would be mostly just the very young who could do it. Not to suggest that we aren't all still young.
> 
> Let me take this opportunity to wish everyone a Happy Thanksgiving!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Me thinks it is the Audyssey chirp that is designed to go out from 10 Hz all the way up to 24 kHz, yet, how much is utilized by our speaker systems depends on the actual upper and lower -3 dB points of each speaker. 

The range of the chirps to me seems to be pretty much enough to handle the available frequency range of most of the speakers available on the market today and is still on the safe side with that wide frequency range that will most probably will be enough for MultEQ to do the EQ'ing at both ends of the audio spectrum.

Just my 2c.


----------



## asere

Alan P said:


> What are you trying to accomplish here Asere? Are you trying to keep it audible without disturbing neighbors/family members, or are you trying to improve the overall sound of the system?
> 
> If the latter, DV is _not _the way to go about it.


Both. If I set it to heavy that will create the least disturbance but I'll lose some quality since its compressed right? Now why is DV OFF the best to do? Isn't the point of DV to be heard the same at any volume?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

asere said:


> Both. If I set it to heavy that will create the least disturbance but I'll lose some quality since its compressed right? Now why is DV OFF the best to do? Isn't the point of DV to be heard the same at any volume?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


The point of DV is to be able to listen at lower levels without disturbing others. It is a compression algorithm and you never want any compression active during critical listening.


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> Both. If I set it to heavy that will create the least disturbance but I'll lose some quality since its compressed right? Now why is DV OFF the best to do? Isn't the point of DV to be heard the same at any volume?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk





Alan P said:


> The point of DV is to be able to listen at lower levels without disturbing others. It is a compression algorithm and you never want any compression active during critical listening.


This is one of the many preference things involving audio. But, I agree with Alan. Anything that compresses the frequency range, in theory, degrades the original recording. Some forms of compression are very subtle, however, and may not really be very audible. 

Dynamic Volume attempts to maintain a more even volume during playback. But, as far as I know, the only way that can be achieved is by somewhat limiting the SPL of the high and low frequencies, which are typically mixed a little louder, because our hearing is less sensitive at both extremes of the frequency spectrum. 

I think of an analogy to a symphony conductor raising his hand to get more volume from the string section during a particular musical passage, or doing the same thing with the percussion section, so that the performance sounds balanced to listeners in the audience. Compression removes some of the intended balance in a recording by attenuating the highs and lows slightly with respect to the 400Hz to 4000Hz frequencies where our hearing is naturally the strongest.

Again, the effects of compression may or may not be audible, or particularly objectionable, depending on the listener, and what he is actually listening to. Music which has less dynamic range to start with, for instance, should be less affected by Dynamic Volume.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> When I asked Chris K. (several years ago -- perhaps 2010) what exactly the treble roll-off was with Audyssey Reference, and whether it used midrange compensation, he answered, then contrasted it to the 20 to 20K range that Audyssey FLAT provided flat response over, with Audyssey *XT*, so maybe they made it a little wider range with XT*32*, i.e. 10 to 24K???


I prefer audyssey flat in my room, everyone that has listen to my System on same movie scene always chooses audyseey flat.


----------



## asere

Alan P said:


> The point of DV is to be able to listen at lower levels without disturbing others. It is a compression algorithm and you never want any compression active during critical listening.


I see. I think I'll use medium for late night vs the full heavy compression and OFF for critical listening.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

asere said:


> I see. I think I'll use medium for late night vs the full heavy compression and OFF for critical listening.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


I use

DEQ = off
Audyssey flat

Tone control "on"
Treble -1Db
Bass +4Db

Turn trim up on sub's via AVR NOT on sub itself +6Db


----------



## garygarrison

asere said:


> I see. I think I'll use medium for late night vs the full heavy compression and OFF for critical listening.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk





robc1976 said:


> I use
> 
> DEQ = off
> Audyssey flat
> 
> Tone control "on"
> Treble -1Db
> Bass +4Db
> 
> Turn trim up on sub's via AVR NOT on sub itself +6Db


FWIW,

I *usually* use:

DEQ OFF
DV OFF

Audyssey FLAT

Tone Control ON
Treble = 0 (flat, no boost or cut)
Bass = 0 to + 6, most often + 4 to +6 dB (This is via the real tone controls, *NOT* the virtual sliders which cannot be used with Audyssey, except with the wildly inaccurate base (not bass) copy, which crunches Audyssey's hundreds of points of correction down to about nine ranges. Chris K. of Audyssey called base copy "useless.").

Sub crossed over at 80 Hz, turned up (the amount tends to vary over time) at the pre/pro (~~ AVR). Right now its trim level is about 7 dB over the one Audyssey selected. This works well for the wide variety of movies we see, BUT for the few movies we run that are obviously going to be "Action movies" we cut back the sub by several dB, to be safe. IIRC, when the bass control is + 6 dB, and the trim for the sub (on the pre/pro) is 7 dB above Audyssey level, a REW room curve taken at the MLP shows the mid bass (80 to 175 Hz, or so) to be boosted by about 5 dB over the average and the deep bass (below 80 Hz) to continue that boost at + 6 or so, except for a peak at about 40 Hz, which I like, so it's O.K. ("one of those preference things," as is all of the above)

The Main Volume Control set by ear for natural sounding dialog for movies, most often 5 to 8 dB below Reference Level. With most movies, the distortion level is quite low, even at that high SPL. The room is about 4,257 cu. ft. We sit at about 16 feet away.


----------



## asere

garygarrison said:


> FWIW,
> 
> I *usually* use:
> 
> DEQ OFF
> DV OFF
> 
> Audyssey FLAT
> 
> Tone Control ON
> Treble = 0 (flat, no boost or cut)
> Bass = 0 to + 6, most often + 4 to +6 dB (This is via the real tone controls, *NOT* the virtual sliders which cannot be used with Audyssey, except with the wildly inaccurate base (not bass) copy, which crunches Audyssey's hundreds of points of correction down to about nine ranges. Chris K. of Audyssey called base copy "useless.").
> 
> Sub crossed over at 80 Hz, turned up (the amount tends to vary over time) at the pre/pro (~~ AVR). Right now its trim level is about 7 dB over the one Audyssey selected. This works well for the wide variety of movies we see, BUT for the few movies we run that are obviously going to be "Action movies" we cut back the sub by several dB, to be safe. IIRC, when the bass control is + 6 dB, and the trim for the sub (on the pre/pro) is 7 dB above Audyssey level, a REW room curve taken at the MLP shows the mid bass (80 to 175 Hz, or so) to be boosted by about 5 dB over the average and the deep bass (below 80 Hz) to continue that boost at + 6 or so, except for a peak at about 40 Hz, which I like, so it's O.K. ("one of those preference things," as is all of the above)
> 
> The Main Volume Control set by ear for natural sounding dialog for movies, most often 5 to 8 dB below Reference Level. With most movies, the distortion level is quite low, even at that high SPL. The room is about 4,257 cu. ft. We sit at about 16 feet away.


I thought FLAT was for a very small room only.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

asere said:


> I thought FLAT was for a very small room only.


That's what Audyssey says, but FLAT sounds better to me, on most material, in my "biggish" room. Actually, I think the Audyssey people say that we may prefer FLAT in "small, heavily treated rooms." FWIW, Mine is moderately treated with both absorption and diffusion. Some others here tend to prefer FLAT, in rooms bigger than mine.

I do find a use for Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey on my Marantz) with movies or music recordings that have some annoying high frequency distortion. The midrange comp plus the 2 dB cut at 10K on up to the 6 dB cut at at 20K seem to help (this, even though I can no longer hear 20K). But for all well recorded (IMO) material, including almost all Blu-ray movies, I enjoy the added shimmer, sheen and tickling of the cortex that FLAT provides. In this and all sonic matters, I think there is nothing like trying the options in one's particular room.


----------



## Orijen

Quick rant....

Had a mic take a dump. I needed a re-calibration after hooking up some more overheads. I thought it was the terminal in my 7010. I plugged in a older Pioneer mic to check, it calibrated but sounded like hammered crap..

The Geniuses at Marantz decided to start training noobs this time of year. Wait time on the phone took over an hour to talk to customer service. Another 25 min goes by with my CS rep on the phone (due to a lack of understanding the English language we've ALL agreed upon in this country)... After blowing my brains out, he "sent over a work order to the parts dept" and told me they have a 48 hour turn around for a call back lol.... Still no call back and it's been over 48 hours...

Went to my local dealer ABT and explained my situation to a sales rep on the floor. He said hold on, came back in 5 min with a brand new mic he took out of a new Marantz unit...

Rant over, happy...


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> That's what Audyssey says, but FLAT sounds better to me, on most material, in my "biggish" room. Actually, I think the Audyssey people say that we may prefer FLAT in "small, heavily treated rooms." FWIW, Mine is moderately treated with both absorption and diffusion. Some others here tend to prefer FLAT, in rooms bigger than mine.
> 
> I do find a use for Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey on my Marantz) with movies or music recordings that have some annoying high frequency distortion. The midrange comp plus the 2 dB cut at 10K on up to the 6 dB cut at at 20K seem to help (this, even though I can no longer hear 20K). But for all well recorded (IMO) material, including almost all Blu-ray movies, I enjoy the added shimmer, sheen and tickling of the cortex that FLAT provides. In this and all sonic matters, I think there is nothing like trying the options in one's particular room.


Hi Gary,

I always enjoy your thoughtful descriptions of your settings vis-a-vis your listening material, and as you know, I entirely agree with your preference for Flat, even though my room is 6000^3. But, you said something that didn't make sense to me.

"BUT for the few movies we run that are obviously going to be "Action movies" we cut back the sub by several dB, to be safe."

Safe? Safe? What does safe have to do with watching action movies? 

Gunshots! Explosions!...Safe? I'm so disappointed! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I always enjoy your thoughtful descriptions of your settings vis-a-vis your listening material, and as you know, I entirely agree with your preference for Flat, even though my room is 6000^3. But, you said something that didn't make sense to me.
> 
> "BUT for the few movies we run that are obviously going to be "Action movies" we cut back the sub by several dB, to be safe."
> 
> Safe? Safe? What does safe have to do with watching action movies?
> 
> Gunshots! Explosions!...Safe? I'm so disappointed!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, 

Sorry to disappoint! :laugh: While, as you know, I like to hear what Paul Klipsch called "the blood stirring sound of a full symphony orchestra" which he thought needed "very brief peaks of "115 dB at your ears," when an explosion moves the couch by more than a few inches, or when there is gunfire as realistic as that in Looper, I worry about ears, speakers, and neighbors, although I enjoy our pants legs flapping in the breeze. It's not that our neighbors are sissy-eared; they just aren't used to hearing explosions and gunfire, poor dears. When we moved up here about a decade ago, my daughter made friends with a young person who also was from Oakland. They discussed what they missed about living in the Bay Area. One thing was the sound of gunfire at night.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Sorry to disappoint! :laugh: While, as you know, I like to hear what Paul Klipsch called "the blood stirring sound of a full symphony orchestra" which he thought needed "very brief peaks of "115 dB at your ears," when an explosion moves the couch by more than a few inches, or when there is gunfire as realistic as that in Looper, I worry about ears, speakers, and neighbors, although I enjoy our pants legs flapping in the breeze. It's not that our neighbors are sissy-eared; they just aren't used to hearing explosions and gunfire, poor dears. When we moved up here about a decade ago, my daughter made friends with a young person who also was from Oakland. They discussed what they missed about living in the Bay Area. One thing was the sound of gunfire at night.


LOL! Good point! I prefer my gunfire in movies these days.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> FWIW,
> 
> I *usually* use:
> 
> DEQ OFF
> DV OFF
> 
> Audyssey FLAT
> 
> Tone Control ON
> Treble = 0 (flat, no boost or cut)
> Bass = 0 to + 6, most often + 4 to +6 dB (This is via the real tone controls, *NOT* the virtual sliders which cannot be used with Audyssey, except with the wildly inaccurate base (not bass) copy, which crunches Audyssey's hundreds of points of correction down to about nine ranges. Chris K. of Audyssey called base copy "useless.").
> 
> Sub crossed over at 80 Hz, turned up (the amount tends to vary over time) at the pre/pro (~~ AVR). Right now its trim level is about 7 dB over the one Audyssey selected. This works well for the wide variety of movies we see, BUT for the few movies we run that are obviously going to be "Action movies" we cut back the sub by several dB, to be safe. IIRC, when the bass control is + 6 dB, and the trim for the sub (on the pre/pro) is 7 dB above Audyssey level, a REW room curve taken at the MLP shows the mid bass (80 to 175 Hz, or so) to be boosted by about 5 dB over the average and the deep bass (below 80 Hz) to continue that boost at + 6 or so, except for a peak at about 40 Hz, which I like, so it's O.K. ("one of those preference things," as is all of the above)
> 
> The Main Volume Control set by ear for natural sounding dialog for movies, most often 5 to 8 dB below Reference Level. With most movies, the distortion level is quite low, even at that high SPL. The room is about 4,257 cu. ft. We sit at about 16 feet away.


 you said real time controls, you mean the tone controls that show up when DEQ is turned off correct? Under the "audio adjust" tab (I think that is the correct tab).

Sub crossed at 80htz not 120htz? 

Great post, full of info.

Our rooms are pretty close in size, insit 16ft away also lol. You use 6db boost via tone controls correct?


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> FWIW,
> 
> I *usually* use:
> 
> DEQ OFF
> DV OFF
> 
> Audyssey FLAT
> 
> Tone Control ON
> Treble = 0 (flat, no boost or cut)
> Bass = 0 to + 6, most often + 4 to +6 dB (This is via the real tone controls, *NOT* the virtual sliders which cannot be used with Audyssey, except with the wildly inaccurate base (not bass) copy, which crunches Audyssey's hundreds of points of correction down to about nine ranges. Chris K. of Audyssey called base copy "useless.").
> 
> Sub crossed over at 80 Hz, turned up (the amount tends to vary over time) at the pre/pro (~~ AVR). Right now its trim level is about 7 dB over the one Audyssey selected. This works well for the wide variety of movies we see, BUT for the few movies we run that are obviously going to be "Action movies" we cut back the sub by several dB, to be safe. IIRC, when the bass control is + 6 dB, and the trim for the sub (on the pre/pro) is 7 dB above Audyssey level, a REW room curve taken at the MLP shows the mid bass (80 to 175 Hz, or so) to be boosted by about 5 dB over the average and the deep bass (below 80 Hz) to continue that boost at + 6 or so, except for a peak at about 40 Hz, which I like, so it's O.K. ("one of those preference things," as is all of the above)
> 
> The Main Volume Control set by ear for natural sounding dialog for movies, most often 5 to 8 dB below Reference Level. With most movies, the distortion level is quite low, even at that high SPL. The room is about 4,257 cu. ft. We sit at about 16 feet away.


you said real tone controls, you mean the tone controls that show up when DEQ is turned off correct? Under the "audio adjust" tab (I think that is the correct tab).

Sub crossed at 80htz not 120htz? 

Great post, full of info.

Our rooms are pretty close in size, insit 16ft away also lol. You use 6db boost via tone controls correct?


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> you said real tone controls, you mean the tone controls that show up when DEQ is turned off correct? Under the "audio adjust" tab (I think that is the correct tab).
> 
> Sub crossed at 80htz not 120htz?
> 
> Great post, full of info.
> 
> Our rooms are pretty close in size, insit 16ft away also lol. You use 6db boost via tone controls correct?


Yes, the tone controls that show up when DEQ is turned off, and under the "Audio Adjust" tab. I often use B+4 or B+6. These tone controls affect the FL & FR only on my Marantz, but that's enough, and it often makes quite a difference in the music.

The sub gets two transition points in the pre/pro (~~ AVR). 1) A true crossover for "bass management" that rolls off the bass in the main speakers below a certain point, and brings in the bass in the sub at that same point. The crossover usually recommended for bass management is 80 Hz, unless the -3 dB point of your mains is higher than that 2) A Low Pass Filter (LPF) to send Low Frequency Effects (LFE, i.e., the bass portion of sound effects) to the sub. The usual point the LPF for LFE is set to, and the one that filmmakers may be expecting, is 120 Hz. Normally, the mixing engineers don't put any of the LFE into the main speakers, but we've heard that there are some exceptions. Both the bass management bass, and the LFE come out of the "subwoofer out" jack on your AVR*;* they are mixed together before getting there.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> Yes, the tone controls that show up when DEQ is turned off, and under the "Audio Adjust" tab. I often use B+4 or B+6. These tone controls affect the FL & FR only on my Marantz, but that's enough, and it often makes quite a difference in the music.
> 
> The sub gets two transition points in the pre/pro (~~ AVR). 1) A true crossover for "bass management" that rolls off the bass in the main speakers below a certain point, and brings in the bass in the sub at that same point. The crossover usually recommended for bass management is 80 Hz, unless the -3 dB point of your mains is higher than that 2) A Low Pass Filter (LPF) to send Low Frequency Effects (LFE, i.e., the bass portion of sound effects) to the sub. The usual point the LPF for LFE is set to, and the one that filmmakers may be expecting, is 120 Hz. Normally, the mixing engineers don't put any of the LFE into the main speakers, but we've heard that there are some exceptions. Both the bass management bass, and the LFE come out of the "subwoofer out" jack on your AVR*;* they are mixed together before getting there.


 awesome info, yes I have all speakers crossed at 80htz, I Thought you where saying your lpf for LFE was crossed at 80htz lol.

So with your tone controls you don't alter the treble. I put it at -1db because I thought it was a bit bright but that was probably the game I was playing or bad calabration. I have it calibrated pretty good now.

The tone controls I believe will effect my wides also. All the tone controls do is add bass in the midrange correct? I started using them and boosting sub because I wasn't getting a bass boost from DEQ in mid-range and lower-end do to deq being turned off. Sounds so much better with DEQ & DV turned off imho


----------



## nezff

Ran into a little snafu this morning with audyssey. All speakers being the same and same distance from each other. The center channel is a tad different being that it is built just a little bit different same drivers excetera. Audyssey found my Center Channel at 90 Hertz my surrounds at 60 hertz and my fronts at 80 Hertz. Audyssey also found my left surround at -12 decibels and my Center at -12 decibels.

I was under the assumption or thought I read somewhere that audyssey didn't apply filters or the correct corrections to speakers at -12 decibels. I also thought I read somewhere that it was okay to go up in crossover but not down in crossover? Meaning would it be ok to put the center Channel at 80 Hertz by going down from 90 Hertz? Thanks in advance


----------



## Selden Ball

nezff said:


> Ran into a little snafu this morning with audyssey. All speakers being the same and same distance from each other. The center channel is a tad different being that it is built just a little bit different same drivers excetera. Audyssey found my Center Channel at 90 Hertz my surrounds at 60 hertz and my fronts at 80 Hertz. Audyssey also found my left surround at -12 decibels and my Center at -12 decibels.
> 
> I was under the assumption or thought I read somewhere that audyssey didn't apply filters or the correct corrections to speakers at -12 decibels. I also thought I read somewhere that it was okay to go up in crossover but not down in crossover? Meaning would it be ok to put the center Channel at 80 Hertz by going down from 90 Hertz? Thanks in advance


I'd guess you have relatively efficient speakers in a small room with hard surfaces.

When the trim level is pegged at -12, that means that Ausyssey turned down the sound level as far as it could, but the sound from the speakers is still much too loud. Since several of your speakers have this problem, there's no way to know if their relative outputs are at the right levels. If you're using a pre/pro with external amps, the standard way to fix this is to add in-line attenuators (~10dB) between the pre/pro and the amps.

There should be no reason to change the crossover frequency setting, but you certainly shouldn't set it to a lower frequency. Audyssey has found that your center speaker's output has fallen off by more than 3dB at lower frequencies, so those low frequencies need to be diverted to your subwoofer(s). Frequency response is determined by the room's acoustics almost as much as by the speaker. The manufacturer's specs are almost irrelevant, since they do their testing in an an-echoic room, one with no reflective surfaces.

Please take the time to look through the  Audyssey 101/FAQ . It answers these questions and many others and will help you to get the best possible calibration. The instructions in your equipment's owner's manual are pathetically inadequate.


----------



## mthomas47

nezff said:


> Ran into a little snafu this morning with audyssey. All speakers being the same and same distance from each other. The center channel is a tad different being that it is built just a little bit different same drivers excetera. Audyssey found my Center Channel at 90 Hertz my surrounds at 60 hertz and my fronts at 80 Hertz. Audyssey also found my left surround at -12 decibels and my Center at -12 decibels.
> 
> I was under the assumption or thought I read somewhere that audyssey didn't apply filters or the correct corrections to speakers at -12 decibels. I also thought I read somewhere that it was okay to go up in crossover but not down in crossover? Meaning would it be ok to put the center Channel at 80 Hertz by going down from 90 Hertz? Thanks in advance


Hi,

That's a pretty cool looking home theater you developed, and in that small space, particularly, I'll bet that your custom speakers can really light you up. The problem with a -12 trim level doesn't involve the Audyssey filters. It's more that you don't know that the volumes of the various channels are the same at the MLP, since the trim settings only go down to -12. So, one channel might be -11.5 and another channel might actually be -12.5 or -13, if only the setting went down that far.

There are several methods that you can use to assure that your trim levels are the same. You could double-check the trim levels using an SPL meter and an external test tone (not the internal ones, because they bypass Audyssey's filters). You could recalibrate, putting something very fine like a piece of tissue over the two speakers that registered -12. You could simply adjust the other speakers up slightly by ear, if the two speakers at -12 are slightly louder than they should be.

Looking at how symmetrical your room and speaker placement is, my guess is that the CC and LS are actually right at about -12. If I couldn't hear a volume difference, at the MLP, between the two surround speakers, I wouldn't worry about it. And, many users raise the CC by a decibel or two, anyway, so again, I might not bother with doing anything there, either. The trim levels won't affect your Audyssey calibration, in any case. It's just a matter of having equivalent volume from the channels at the MLP.

With respect to the crossovers, I would probably leave my CC at 90Hz, unless I had a good reason to lower it to 80Hz. 80Hz is an often recommended crossover setting, but there is nothing wrong with 60Hz, or 90Hz, or 100Hz, depending on the specific situation and listener preference. You can always raise crossovers without jeopardy, as long as you like the way things sound, and can't localize your subs. If you do decide to drop the CC to 80Hz, you will mainly lose the benefit of Audyssey's filters for about a 10Hz range, as Audyssey stops EQing at the frequency where a particular speaker is down by 3db in volume. That's a pretty small range.

On the other hand, the 90Hz crossover was set where it was for a reason. It was set there based on the detected F3 point of the CC, at that particular position in the room. So, you would be putting a little more strain on the CC, by asking it to play bass frequencies lower than it's natural roll-off point in the room. Frankly, with as much headroom as you have, I don't think it would do any harm, but as a matter of best practice, I probably wouldn't do it myself.

I hope this helps, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

nezff said:


> Ran into a little snafu this morning with audyssey. All speakers being the same and same distance from each other. The center channel is a tad different being that it is built just a little bit different same drivers excetera. Audyssey found my Center Channel at 90 Hertz my surrounds at 60 hertz and my fronts at 80 Hertz. Audyssey also found my left surround at -12 decibels and my Center at -12 decibels.
> 
> I was under the assumption or thought I read somewhere that audyssey didn't apply filters or the correct corrections to speakers at -12 decibels. I also thought I read somewhere that it was okay to go up in crossover but not down in crossover? Meaning would it be ok to put the center Channel at 80 Hertz by going down from 90 Hertz? Thanks in advance


I had this issue in my other room and uses attenuators to cut single and it came back at -6.5db so the filters could be applied.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I had this issue in my other room and uses attenuators to cut single and it came back at -6.5db so the filters could be applied.


Hi Rob,

That's always a viable alternative, too. But, just for clarification, as noted in the post above, Audyssey will set filters for all of the channels, regardless. This is just a Denon/Marantz issue of running out of trim level during the level-matching process. So, for instance, if your AVR trim level is pegged at -12, it might actually need to be reduced by another db, or so, in order to level match the other channels, with the 75db test tone, at the MLP. 

In other words, it might be a problem and it might not, and if you can't actually hear a loudness issue between channels, then it probably isn't a problem.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## nezff

OK great. Thank you guys. I do have Harrison labs fmod -12db attenuators. I could try these for sure. I ran into this before with my surrounds but after running audyssey again I got a -11.5 on them. 

So basically I'm reading from all 3 of you guys, that audyssey is still "correcting" or applying filters, but my Marantz is running out of room on the trim at -12? I also lowered all my seatbacks and got the -12 on the surround. 

Last night I didn't lower setbacks and got 10-11.5 cut. Center has always stayed at 12.


----------



## nezff

Also, I'm good with the 90hz crossover for the center. I do have a calibrated spl meter from one of the members on here. Forget the name. Something labs.


----------



## mthomas47

nezff said:


> OK great. Thank you guys. I do have Harrison labs fmod -12db attenuators. I could try these for sure. I ran into this before with my surrounds but after running audyssey again I got a -11.5 on them.
> 
> So basically I'm reading from all 3 of you guys, that audyssey is still "correcting" or applying filters, but my Marantz is running out of room on the trim at -12? I also lowered all my seatbacks and got the -12 on the surround.
> 
> Last night I didn't lower setbacks and got 10-11.5 cut. Center has always stayed at 12.


You are welcome, and that first part is correct. What you are saying about Audyssey sometimes reading a speaker as -11.5, and other times at -12, is why I wouldn't spend too much time on this issue, if everything sounds all right to you. I don't think that any of your speakers are so far off that it is likely to be an audible problem. And, if the one with the trim level of -12 sounds a touch louder than the other surround, I would probably just raise the level on the softer one by a half decibel, or so until they appear to match exactly. 

EQ aside, the level matching process is just intended to make things sound equal/good to you at the MLP. Once they do, you are good to go.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, and that first part is correct. What you are saying about Audyssey sometimes reading a speaker as -11.5, and other times at -12, is why I wouldn't spend too much time on this issue, if everything sounds all right to you. I don't think that any of your speakers are so far off that it is likely to be an audible problem. And, if the one with the trim level of -12 sounds a touch louder than the other surround, I would probably just raise the level on the softer one by a half decibel, or so until they appear to match exactly.
> 
> EQ aside, the level matching process is just intended to make things sound equal/good to you at the MLP. Once they do, you are good to go.


 great info in this thread


----------



## robc1976

nezff said:


> OK great. Thank you guys. I do have Harrison labs fmod -12db attenuators. I could try these for sure. I ran into this before with my surrounds but after running audyssey again I got a -11.5 on them.
> 
> So basically I'm reading from all 3 of you guys, that audyssey is still "correcting" or applying filters, but my Marantz is running out of room on the trim at -12? I also lowered all my seatbacks and got the -12 on the surround.
> 
> Last night I didn't lower setbacks and got 10-11.5 cut. Center has always stayed at 12.


I have ran audyssey do many times I have dreams about it...I am border line obsessed lol! In actual have a anchor and screw that screws my tape measure to the wall so I get mic exactly where my ear is ect.

With my seats I do remove only the center seat back leave everything else the same. I recline the legs and put blankets over the seats to minimize reflections.

I noticed when I removed all seat backs sound comes back bright and harsh. I try to leave room close to where it is.

I have a 6ft boom mic also wich really helps with calibration.

I also make sure measurement is not out of speakers plain or it tends to over compensate with trim.
I turn off, lights, AC, and TV when running calibration.


----------



## nezff

robc1976 said:


> I have ran audyssey do many times I have dreams about it...I am border line obsessed lol! In actual have a anchor and screw that screws my tape measure to the wall so I get mic exactly where my ear is ect.
> 
> With my seats I do remove only the center seat back leave everything else the same. I recline the legs and put blankets over the seats to minimize reflections.
> 
> I noticed when I removed all seat backs sound comes back bright and harsh. I try to leave room close to where it is.
> 
> I have a 6ft boom mic also wich really helps with calibration.
> 
> I also make sure measurement is not out of speakers plain or it tends to over compensate with trim.
> I turn off, lights, AC, and TV when running calibration.


I have a mic stand that I do use also. It works great. Never thought of trying blankets over the seats though. I just hung my tv hovering over my tv stand now. My center which was in the bottom of the stand is now up on top of the stand which is why I assume it is louder to audyssey. I had one time with a Denon that the center come back with the polarity error. I assumed that was from being inside the cabinet of the stand. 

I usually sit down in the seats and make sure mic is exactly ear height. LOL.


----------



## robc1976

nezff said:


> I have a mic stand that I do use also. It works great. Never thought of trying blankets over the seats though. I just hung my tv hovering over my tv stand now. My center which was in the bottom of the stand is now up on top of the stand which is why I assume it is louder to audyssey. I had one time with a Denon that the center come back with the polarity error. I assumed that was from being inside the cabinet of the stand.
> 
> I usually sit down in the seats and make sure mic is exactly ear height. LOL.


I still use a custom wire you made for my center lol! Wish I could use all your wire for all my speakers. Great stuff


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> I have ran audyssey do many times I have dreams about it...I am border line obsessed lol! In actual have a anchor and screw that screws my tape measure to the wall so I get mic exactly where my ear is ect.
> 
> With my seats I do remove only the center seat back leave everything else the same. I recline the legs and put blankets over the seats to minimize reflections.
> 
> I noticed when I removed all seat backs sound comes back bright and harsh. I try to leave room close to where it is.
> 
> I have a 6ft boom mic also wich really helps with calibration.
> 
> I also make sure measurement is not out of speakers plain or it tends to over compensate with trim.
> I turn off, lights, AC, and TV when running calibration.





nezff said:


> I have a mic stand that I do use also. It works great. Never thought of trying blankets over the seats though. I just hung my tv hovering over my tv stand now. My center which was in the bottom of the stand is now up on top of the stand which is why I assume it is louder to audyssey. I had one time with a Denon that the center come back with the polarity error. I assumed that was from being inside the cabinet of the stand.
> 
> I usually sit down in the seats and make sure mic is exactly ear height. LOL.


To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat, we're all OCD here. 

Wouldn't it be better to leave the center seat back on and cover it with blankets also? Or not. 

I unplug the refrigerator, which is in another room, beyond a wall of double sheetrock, 3/4" plywood, 2x6 studs and another layer of sheetrock. I realize that Audyssey will simply turn up the "pings" and run them again if the signal to noise ratio is insufficient, but I worry about Audyssey confusing the penetrating high frequency of the refrigerator whine with the pings. I can't help myself.

We use a weighted mean of our ear heights and those of our probable guests.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> To paraphrase the Cheshire Cat, we're all OCD here.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to leave the center seat back on and cover it with blankets also? Or not.
> 
> I unplug the refrigerator, which is in another room, beyond a wall of double sheetrock, 3/4" plywood, 2x6 studs and another layer of sheetrock. I realize that Audyssey will simply turn up the "pings" and run them again if the signal to noise ratio is insufficient, but I worry about Audyssey confusing the penetrating high frequency of the refrigerator whine with the pings. I can't help myself.
> 
> We use a weighted mean of our ear heights and those of our probable guests.


I do the same lol! People think I am nuts, I hold my breath while its calibrating lol! ! 

My main reason is my seatback is high, with it off my surrounds get to the mic also, with seat back on they are above the mic. I refuse to raise the mic I want all mic positions at same mic height.


----------



## robc1976

Gary, I tried your setting on tone controls and it made a huge difference

Treble 0Db
Bass +5Db


----------



## nezff

Here's a weird one. I ran just the first calibration like 5-6 times last night and this morning. Just mainly to see what audyssey was seeing as far as trim levels, crossovers, and distances. 

My seatbacks were somewhat up and not reclined. My center was found at 80hz (90hz previously) just like the rest of the speakers but was still found -12db. My surrounds are being found at sometimes at -9.5 and -11.5, -8.5 and -11.5. For some reason surrounds are found 3db off. I've measured them 100 times with a tape measure, made sure they are same distance from rear wall, toe in etc...

I had some brand new blue jeans XLR cables I bought that I have been needing to try out. Put the xlrs in for the surrounds and they seemed a lot louder. They got pegged out at -12db. 

Audyssey is finding everything as far as distances pretty accurate. Fronts are 13.4 and 13.3. Center 13.3. Surrounds are 8.8 and 8.9. 

Put my blue jeans rca cables back in the mix and gonna play some more this evening.


----------



## robc1976

nezff said:


> OK great. Thank you guys. I do have Harrison labs fmod -12db attenuators. I could try these for sure. I ran into this before with my surrounds but after running audyssey again I got a -11.5 on them.
> 
> So basically I'm reading from all 3 of you guys, that audyssey is still "correcting" or applying filters, but my Marantz is running out of room on the trim at -12? I also lowered all my seatbacks and got the -12 on the surround.
> 
> Last night I didn't lower setbacks and got 10-11.5 cut. Center has always stayed at 12.


 measure thickness of speaker or where middle of tweeter is on your cabinet and put a dot in front and rear...put laser on it and see where plain (or close to it) is. If that line is not at ear height on your seats you may have to lower/raise center. If its way out of range audyssey may compensate with extra trim.

All my RW/FR/C/FL/LW tweeters are exactly at ear level


All of my speakers are done this way. Only ones I can't get tweeter at perfect height is my height speakers. Speaker mounts "axiom metal" suck lol


----------



## Pitou

Hello,

I just bought a Marantz SR6011 and I'm trying to calibrate using the Audyssey feature.

It's a first for me as I never tried that before.

I've read all the FAQs and the hints/suggestions from Part1 and Part2 threads.

My issue is that the crossover for the fronts always come up at 120hz, which is too high in my opinion.

I know that the receiver calculates according to what Audyssey reports back and that the value is from what it "hears", but the thing is that I got 40hz and 60hz from another runs.

I can't find what change since my room hasn't change really.

Any help would be very appreciated.

Feel free to ask any additional infos about the setup/room, if necessary

Thank you.

Pitou!


----------



## garygarrison

Pitou said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just bought a Marantz SR6011 and I'm trying to calibrate using the Audyssey feature.
> 
> It's a first for me as I never tried that before.
> 
> I've read all the FAQs and the hints/suggestions from Part1 and Part2 threads.
> 
> My issue is that the crossover for the fronts always come up at 120hz, which is too high in my opinion.
> 
> I know that the receiver calculates according to what Audyssey reports back and that the value is from what it "hears", but the thing is that I got 40hz and 60hz from another runs.
> 
> I can't find what change since my room hasn't change really.
> 
> Any help would be very appreciated.
> 
> Feel free to ask any additional infos about the setup/room, if necessary
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Pitou!


Difficult to say. Were the microphones in the same positions during the various runs? Were the speakers moved? In some rooms, a relatively small change in location can make the difference in whether you are in a room null, or not. 120 Hz is high for most front speakers (except small center speakers). In general, bass performance is better when the speakers are near or against a wall, or in some cases, in a corner (people fight over that one).


----------



## mthomas47

Pitou said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just bought a Marantz SR6011 and I'm trying to calibrate using the Audyssey feature.
> 
> It's a first for me as I never tried that before.
> 
> I've read all the FAQs and the hints/suggestions from Part1 and Part2 threads.
> 
> My issue is that the crossover for the fronts always come up at 120hz, which is too high in my opinion.
> 
> I know that the receiver calculates according to what Audyssey reports back and that the value is from what it "hears", but the thing is that I got 40hz and 60hz from another runs.
> 
> I can't find what change since my room hasn't change really.
> 
> Any help would be very appreciated.
> 
> Feel free to ask any additional infos about the setup/room, if necessary
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Pitou!


Hi Pitou,

If you can provide a little more information, it would help. I agree that a 120Hz crossover for front speakers seems quite high. When you say that you got 40 and 60Hz crossovers from other runs, were these also Audyssey runs, or was that with a different auto calibration system? If you did previously get crossovers of 40/60Hz with Audyssey, then I would probably try a microprocessor reset on your AVR. And, I might try one anyway. Is the front crossover the only setting that seems wrong to you?

It might also be helpful if you would post a photo of your front soundstage, the speaker models in question, and a list of the other crossovers and trim levels for all of the speakers in your system. If a microprocessor reset works, and I hope it does, the additional information may not be necessary. But, if not, the additional information will help to trouble-shoot your system.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Pitou

Yes, 40hz and 60hz were also Audyssey runs.

I did try a factory reset of the receiver, It didn't help.

The front crossover and center settings are wrong.

I've attached pictures of my setup.

Fronts are B&W DM 603 S3, Center is a B&W LCR60 S3

As you can see the right side of my room is a bit tricky with the pellet stove.

This is a pretty open room with the staircase behind.

I managed to lower them down to 80hz Fronts and 60Hz Center by using a Test tone CD playing a 60Hz tone and repositioning the speakers while seating in the MLP.





Any advices?

Thank you.

Pitou!


----------



## audiofan1

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Pitou,
> 
> If you can provide a little more information, it would help. I agree that a 120Hz crossover for front speakers seems quite high. When you say that you got 40 and 60Hz crossovers from other runs, were these also Audyssey runs, or was that with a different auto calibration system? If you did previously get crossovers of 40/60Hz with Audyssey, then I would probably try a microprocessor reset on your AVR. And, I might try one anyway. Is the front crossover the only setting that seems wrong to you?
> 
> It might also be helpful if you would post a photo of your front soundstage, the speaker models in question, and a list of the other crossovers and trim levels for all of the speakers in your system. If a microprocessor reset works, and I hope it does, the additional information may not be necessary. But, if not, the additional information will help to trouble-shoot your system.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





Pitou said:


> Yes, 40hz and 60hz were also Audyssey runs.
> 
> I did try a factory reset of the receiver, It didn't help.
> 
> The front crossover and center settings are wrong.
> 
> I've attached pictures of my setup.
> 
> Fronts are B&W DM 603 S3, Center is a B&W LCR60 S3
> 
> As you can see the right side of my room is a bit tricky with the pellet stove.
> 
> This is a pretty open room with the staircase behind.
> 
> I managed to lower them down to 80hz Fronts and 60Hz Center by using a Test tone CD playing a 60Hz tone and repositioning the speakers while seating in the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any advices?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Pitou!


If this is a new install and the previous AVR had audyssey (assuming that's where the lower crossover points came in) Insure that you have your mains wired correctly as Audyssey may not be detecting them as out of phase when they actually are. it's just a thought, but best to go back to wiring to insure you crossed your t's and dotted you I's


----------



## mthomas47

Pitou said:


> Yes, 40hz and 60hz were also Audyssey runs.
> 
> I did try a factory reset of the receiver, It didn't help.
> 
> The front crossover and center settings are wrong.
> 
> I've attached pictures of my setup.
> 
> Fronts are B&W DM 603 S3, Center is a B&W LCR60 S3
> 
> As you can see the right side of my room is a bit tricky with the pellet stove.
> 
> This is a pretty open room with the staircase behind.
> 
> I managed to lower them down to 80hz Fronts and 60Hz Center by using a Test tone CD playing a 60Hz tone and repositioning the speakers while seating in the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any advices?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Pitou!


You are welcome, and thanks for the photos and the model numbers of your speakers. They help!


The fact that you were able to drop the crossovers through some re-positioning is encouraging. I think your issue is with the right front speaker. Audyssey will detect the point at which a speaker is down by 3db, and a crossover will be set for the pair of speakers, based on the higher F3 point. Your left speaker is near a corner. Your right speaker is getting no boundary reinforcement whatsoever. And, your crossover for the fronts will consequently be set based on the measured performance of the right speaker, which will not produce as much bass as the left one will.

Now that you have an 80Hz crossover, you could stop experimenting. Or, if you want to experiment a little more, you could try backing your right speaker up a bit, to get it closer to the wall. You wouldn't be moving your left speaker. Audyssey will compensate for the difference in distance to the listening position. Getting the right speaker closer to the wall might result in an even lower crossover for the front speakers. And, that would be good, because you would be enhancing the in-room capabilities of the speakers.

But, and this is an important but, after you do that, I would still raise the crossovers of your CC and your fronts to 80Hz, anyway. You want your speakers to have as much low bass capability and headroom as they can, but you still want your sub(s) to do the really heavy lifting. So, looking at the specs on these speakers, I would probably want to maintain at least an 80Hz crossover in any case.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Incidentally, although that coffee table looks nice, it isn't doing you any favors from a sound quality standpoint, by being directly in front of your CC. You will probably be getting a lot of early reflections from the table. If possible, it would be a good idea to cover the table with something soft and absorbent. If nothing else, at least try doing that during your Audyssey calibration. Then, you could use the cover only during more serious listening sessions, or not, depending on how things sound to you.


----------



## David Aiken

audiofan1 said:


> If this is a new install and the previous AVR had audyssey (assuming that's where the lower crossover points came in) Insure that you have your mains wired correctly as Audyssey may not be detecting them as out of phase when they actually are. it's just a thought, but best to go back to wiring to insure you crossed your t's and dotted you I's


OK, idiotic suggestion. I think your speakers are bi-wirable so check your speaker connections at the back. If the connections to the woofer on one or both speakers are a little loose you may end up not getting a good connection and that may be affecting things. Make sure all connections are tight and secure. If they aren't and that is affecting the bass performance of even 1 speaker, then that could cause the issue you're seeing. Audyssey bases the crossover setting on the performance of the speaker with the weakest bass performance so if 1 speaker isn't performing properly in the bass, that will raise the crossover setting.

Check your connections, and check at the AVR too, make sure connections are firm and secure, and run setup again. See if that makes a difference.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> OK, idiotic suggestion. I think your speakers are bi-wirable so check your speaker connections at the back. If the connections to the woofer on one or both speakers are a little loose you may end up not getting a good connection and that may be affecting things. Make sure all connections are tight and secure. If they aren't and that is affecting the bass performance of even 1 speaker, then that could cause the issue you're seeing. Audyssey bases the crossover setting on the performance of the speaker with the weakest bass performance so if 1 speaker isn't performing properly in the bass, that will raise the crossover setting.
> 
> Check your connections, and check at the AVR too, make sure connections are firm and secure, and run setup again. See if that makes a difference.


Hi David,

I think that both you and Audiofan are making good suggestions to double-check wiring. That's always a good idea, anyway. But, what jumps out at me is the single 6.5" woofer in those speakers. I suspect that room placement could make a big difference in the F3 point with those speakers. Couple that fact with the lower crossovers he got from slightly re-positioning the speakers, and that's the likely culprit here. Still, no reason not to be exhaustive in trouble-shooting.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I think that both you and Audiofan are making good suggestions to double-check wiring. That's always a good idea, anyway. But, what jumps out at me is the single 6.5" woofer in those speakers. I suspect that room placement could make a big difference in the F3 point with those speakers. Couple that fact with the lower crossovers he got from slightly re-positioning the speakers, and that's the likely culprit here. Still, no reason not to be exhaustive in trouble-shooting.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

What jumped out at me was the fact that a couple of months ago exactly the same thing with crossovers happened to me. I ran setup again because things were suddenly sounding bass shy and everything looked fine, and my connections checked out. When I redid the setup process I found my crossover reset to something like 200 Hz and when I checked further I discovered that the woofer was dead on one speaker. They were old speakers and I was feeling like a change so a pair of new speakers fixed the problem. It's nice when serendipity gives you an excuse to upgrade, provided the wallet is up to it. 

But if his crossover frequency is jumping around a bit as he reported then that sounded a bit like an intermittent fault to me and a loose connection that's moving a bit due to vibration seemed like a possible cause.

As is often the case recency trumps primacy and my recent experience prompted my response. You and Gary seemed to be covering the Audyssey and placement end of things pretty thoroughly but a problem with the woofer connection on one or both speakers hadn't been mentioned so I tossed that into the mix.


----------



## robc1976

Pitou said:


> Yes, 40hz and 60hz were also Audyssey runs.
> 
> I did try a factory reset of the receiver, It didn't help.
> 
> The front crossover and center settings are wrong.
> 
> I've attached pictures of my setup.
> 
> Fronts are B&W DM 603 S3, Center is a B&W LCR60 S3
> 
> As you can see the right side of my room is a bit tricky with the pellet stove.
> 
> This is a pretty open room with the staircase behind.
> 
> I managed to lower them down to 80hz Fronts and 60Hz Center by using a Test tone CD playing a 60Hz tone and repositioning the speakers while seating in the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any advices?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Pitou!


I would put a area rug 1/2 between you and that center and possibly on the table. I guarantee your getting a very bad reflection off that table and that would be the 1st thing to change as that will alter/mess with your crossover settings. Does the center seem overly bright or harsh?


----------



## garygarrison

Pitou said:


> Yes, 40hz and 60hz were also Audyssey runs.
> 
> I did try a factory reset of the receiver, It didn't help.
> 
> The front crossover and center settings are wrong.
> 
> I've attached pictures of my setup.
> 
> Fronts are B&W DM 603 S3, Center is a B&W LCR60 S3
> 
> As you can see the right side of my room is a bit tricky with the pellet stove.
> 
> This is a pretty open room with the staircase behind.
> 
> I managed to lower them down to 80hz Fronts and 60Hz Center by using a Test tone CD playing a 60Hz tone and repositioning the speakers while seating in the MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any advices?
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Pitou!




I agree with others that coffee tables are bad news for music listening rooms or Home Theaters. Can it find a happy home elsewhere in your home?
Your front speakers (including the center) might reach down into the 40 or 45 Hz range (according to B & W) if the bass room loading was optimal. As Mike said, the left one should be good, since it's in a corner, but Audyssey will adjust the crossover to work well with whichever main front speaker is the weakest in the bass extension. It is a little strange that your center has more bass extension than your right front, but maybe it is being beneficially "loaded" by the equipment credenza (?)


----------



## jabu32

When you run the setup is it worth doing the 8 position setup ir just do the 3 postition? I only have 3 listening positions

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

jabu32 said:


> When you run the setup is it worth doing the 8 position setup ir just do the 3 postition? I only have 3 listening positions
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


 do them all, much better calibration


----------



## Selden Ball

jabu32 said:


> When you run the setup is it worth doing the 8 position setup ir just do the 3 postition? I only have 3 listening positions
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


Use the full 8 position calibration.

The microphone positions aren't intended to be for each of the seats, but rather to be 8 different locations around the main listening position.

Please take the time to look through the Audyssey 101/FAQ. It'll help you to get a good calibration. The instructions in the owner's manual are pathetically inadequate.


----------



## muad'dib

I'm in process of purchasing a new tablet or cheaper ipod touch. 
I want to use the new audyssey mobile app for eq. 
What apple device do I need to get? Can I get away with the cheaper ipod touch 6tjh gen, or do we need the tablet versions.. 
Thanks


----------



## jabu32

Where can I download the app at? 

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Pitou

Hello,

Ok after some experimentations, I managed to make it work and I'm very happy.

Here is what I did:

1- Factory reset the receiver
2- Checked the speakers polarity. It is ok.
3- Removed the coffee table.
4- Added an area rug on the floor.
5- Moved back a bit the right speaker without touching the left one.
5- Positioned the mic and couch carefully.

I'm now at 60hz for both Fronts and Center.

I also increased the crossover to 80hz for the Fronts, as @*mthomas47* suggested

Big thanks to everyone who helped!

Pitou!


----------



## mthomas47

Pitou said:


> Hello,
> 
> Ok after some experimentations, I managed to make it work and I'm very happy.
> 
> Here is what I did:
> 
> 1- Factory reset the receiver
> 2- Checked the speakers polarity. It is ok.
> 3- Removed the coffee table.
> 4- Added an area rug on the floor.
> 5- Moved back a bit the right speaker without touching the left one.
> 5- Positioned the mic and couch carefully.
> 
> I'm now at 60hz for both Fronts and Center.
> 
> I also increased the crossover to 80hz for the Fronts, as @*mthomas47* suggested
> 
> Big thanks to everyone who helped!
> 
> Pitou!


You are very welcome, and the update is appreciated. I think everyone always likes to know how things turned out. But, I am curious whether your overall sound quality has improved through this process? That's the ultimate goal, and I'm hoping that the changes you made gave you an audible improvement. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Pitou

Quick update.

I did some more tests and I'm now with these values. Needless to say, this is my final run and I won't touch anything else. (apart from increasing the XO)
@mthomas47, I didn't listened/watched much content, but so far, I can say that it's better. I get more natural voices coming from the center for sure. I' ve yet to experiment with some real movies and good blu-rays.



Thanks again!

Pitou!


----------



## gurkey

OT (?) 

I don't read this forum that often, but there always comes (in most Audyssey threads) that misconception up again and again, that Audyssey uses several "filters" per channel. Audyssey uses only a single filter per channel (they always did), just the resolution of those filters expressed by its drawing points, which describes the actual filter graph, differ between those existing (and earlier) versions. Thus a number "> 10.000" for Audyssey MultEQ XT32 doesn't actually mean, that the number of filters is that large (remember, there is only one), but that the filter curve has been constructed with up to max ~10.000 points derived from the algorithms during measurements, probably less in actual use. 

The refresh rate used for those filters is divided into frequency bands. The lower frequencies are not scanned as often as the higher ones, because the rate of change is much lower at lower frequencies. This allows for a higher filter resolution without the need for higher bandwidth. A "trick" Audyssey used when it went from XT to XT32. 

Another idea, which comes up once in a while, is, that higher crossover frequencies (> 80 Hz or even > 60 Hz) might be locatable. It depends. 
Several studies have proven, that the localisation of sound sources depends not only on the frequency but the phase angle between the different frequency sources and the heads (ears) position. A subwoofer in line with the front speakers and rather close to it can reach up to 160 Hz without being traceable (locatable) as an individual sound source. The same subwoofer placed to either side or behind the listener may already be locatable as low as 60 Hz, depending on the individual listener. Thus there is no agreed upon "general" crossover frequency, which has to stay below 100 Hz or so. A good compromise for most situations could be the 80 Hz, which Audyssey (and THX) suggested, but if the subs are in front of you, you could go even higher without any problems. The larger the angle between individual sound sources compared to the ears position, the lower the crossover frequency should be. But it all ends at 60 Hz. Because many installations feature subwoofers in front, one could actually choose the crossover frequency higher than "standard" 80 Hz if needed.
There might be slight individual differences depending on the phase angle between both ears and the sound sources, but this actually shouldn't pose a real problem if s small safety margin is been applied. Even crossover frequencies up to 220 Hz seem to work quite well for surround speakers as i have tested this for myself several times already without noticable problems. Most smaller satellite systems work on this principle quite well.

/OT


----------



## scipper77

Very basic question here (I hope). 
I have audyssey 2eq and it has set my fronts to 40Hz and surrounds at 120Hz. For music listening, I would like to cross over my front at 100 so my receiver doesn't have to work so hard. 

If I simply raise my crossover will my sub automatically match that setting? 

I know my version of audyssey doesn't do any frequency corrections for the sub but I am also wondering if the sub level will be appropriate to blend with the fronts at this new crossover point? 

Right now my fronts are at - 3 and my sub is at - 11. Could I use a spl app with my phone and some test tones to manually set the levels?


----------



## David Aiken

scipper77 said:


> Very basic question here (I hope).
> I have audyssey 2eq and it has set my fronts to 40Hz and surrounds at 120Hz. For music listening, I would like to cross over my front at 100 so my receiver doesn't have to work so hard.
> 
> If I simply raise my crossover will my sub automatically match that setting?
> 
> I know my version of audyssey doesn't do any frequency corrections for the sub but I am also wondering if the sub level will be appropriate to blend with the fronts at this new crossover point?
> 
> Right now my fronts are at - 3 and my sub is at - 11. Could I use a spl app with my phone and some test tones to manually set the levels?


Changing the crossover setting in your AVR's settings automatically changes the low bass passed to the sub so everything should happen automatically. You should not have to change the trim settings at all, just the crossover setting.

The usual recommendation is to cross over at 80 Hz unless the speakers need a higher crossover setting because their in room bass response does not extend low enough. Crossover at 100 Hz if you prefer but if you find yourself being able to locate the sub's position by ear you might want to lower the crossover to 80 Hz.


----------



## scipper77

David Aiken said:


> Changing the crossover setting in your AVR's settings automatically changes the low bass passed to the sub so everything should happen automatically. You should not have to change the trim settings at all, just the crossover setting.
> 
> The usual recommendation is to cross over at 80 Hz unless the speakers need a higher crossover setting because their in room bass response does not extend low enough. Crossover at 100 Hz if you prefer but if you find yourself being able to locate the sub's position by ear you might want to lower the crossover to 80 Hz.


David,
Thank you for the reply. You have answered my questions perfectly. For movies I would crossover at 60 or 80 depending on my mood but for music I'm not concerned with imaging so a higher crossover would not matter to me. I like the idea of my receiver doing less work and I like my subs output a lot. I just worry about throwing the overall sound out of whack when I start making adjustments to a calibrated system that I am happy with.


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> OT (?)
> 
> I don't read this forum that often, but there always comes (in most Audyssey threads) that misconception up again and again, that Audyssey uses several "filters" per channel. Audyssey uses only a single filter per channel (they always did), just the resolution of those filters expressed by its drawing points, which describes the actual filter graph, differ between those existing (and earlier) versions. Thus a number "> 10.000" for Audyssey MultEQ XT32 doesn't actually mean, that the number of filters is that large (remember, there is only one), but that the filter curve has been constructed with up to max ~10.000 points derived from the algorithms during measurements, probably less in actual use.
> 
> The refresh rate used for those filters is divided into frequency bands. The lower frequencies are not scanned as often as the higher ones, because the rate of change is much lower at lower frequencies. This allows for a higher filter resolution without the need for higher bandwidth. A "trick" Audyssey used when it went from XT to XT32.
> 
> Another idea, which comes up once in a while, is, that higher crossover frequencies (> 80 Hz or even > 60 Hz) might be locatable. It depends.
> Several studies have proven, that the localisation of sound sources depends not only on the frequency but the phase angle between the different frequency sources and the heads (ears) position. A subwoofer in line with the front speakers and rather close to it can reach up to 160 Hz without being traceable (locatable) as an individual sound source. The same subwoofer placed to either side or behind the listener may already be locatable as low as 60 Hz, depending on the individual listener. Thus there is no agreed upon "general" crossover frequency, which has to stay below 100 Hz or so. A good compromise for most situations could be the 80 Hz, which Audyssey (and THX) suggested, but if the subs are in front of you, you could go even higher without any problems. The larger the angle between individual sound sources compared to the ears position, the lower the crossover frequency should be. But it all ends at 60 Hz. Because many installations feature subwoofers in front, one could actually choose the crossover frequency higher than "standard" 80 Hz if needed.
> There might be slight individual differences depending on the phase angle between both ears and the sound sources, but this actually shouldn't pose a real problem if s small safety margin is been applied. Even crossover frequencies up to 220 Hz seem to work quite well for surround speakers as i have tested this for myself several times already without noticable problems. Most smaller satellite systems work on this principle quite well.
> 
> /OT


Hi,

I have never been quite sure what would constitute a truly off topic post on this long thread, as people who post on here enjoy discussing a wide range of audio-related topics. So, I appreciate your clarification, and the general discussion on crossovers.

FWIW, I think that for some of us, it is partly a lack of understanding of how filters work that cause us to write of Audyssey's "filters" per channel, and partly a semantic issue, where "filter" is a specific term of art to some and not to others. But, even Chris has been guilty of using the term "filters" in that more generic way when discussing Audyssey's operation, and the various versions, so I'm not sure that there is any real harm done. Frankly, using the term control points, or taps, seems more cumbersome for general conversation, and at least as likely to result in misunderstanding, or the need for additional clarification, as just referring to "filters" in the plural. But, your reminder is timely, that in XT-32, for instance, there is only one filter per channel, with 4096 available control points. (That statement pretty well exhausts my technical knowledge on this issue. )

The crossover issue is a particularly interesting one, as there are so many aspects to it. You addressed one when you described localization, and the practical ramifications of setting crossovers based on that phenomenon. I'd like to come back to that aspect after a more general discussion of crossovers.

When XT-32 was introduced, Chris stopped universally recommending 80Hz, or higher crossovers, because the other channels now had an equivalent number of taps to what the subwoofer channel had. That was much discussed, and some people probably felt more freedom to use the lower crossovers set by their AVR's on that basis. Speaking personally, however, I think that Audyssey taps (and I may still go back to saying "filters" after this post ) are only one factor in the decision of where to set a crossover. I rather like the 1/2 to 1 octave rule.

To follow that rule, we would set our crossovers either 1/2 or 1 octave higher than the in-room F3 point. So, if for instance, an AVR set a crossover of 40Hz, we would raise the crossover to at least 60Hz (1/2 octave) or to 80Hz (1 octave higher) than the nominal F3 point of 40Hz. The purpose of this would be to minimize potential distortion, and to enable the speakers to have excess headroom for all frequencies. For those who play at louder volumes, I would think that having crossovers a full octave higher would be particularly helpful. So, now we have two factors that could help in determining potential crossovers: the version of Audyssey and the octave rule. There is another that I will get to in a moment.

With respect to localization, I see the issue as somewhat complex, as well. First, there is localization as a distinct audible event. In other words, we can hear a sub playing music, or making other sounds, that ideally should be coming from a different location in the room. And, as you say, there appears to be some variability in our sensitivity with regard to localization as a purely auditory phenomenon. But, I think that tactile sensations can also contribute to crossover decisions, and there appears to be some perceptual variability there, as well. (There is some discussion of those perceptual differences in the last few pages of this thread : http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html)

Some of us may be able to feel tactile sensations in the mid-bass region from about 50Hz to 100Hz or so, more acutely than others. And, that could also contribute to a more general sense of subwoofer "localization". If so, that could affect crossover settings, too. I have experienced that awareness of subs in my mixed-use room.

Finally, there is the preference issue. Some of the listeners I know prefer to set crossovers much higher than they need to, not due to localization issues, but simply because they believe that their systems sound (or measure) better when they do. Others like myself, following the 1 octave rule, with very capable speakers and XT-32, may choose to set crossovers of 60Hz, not because of localization issues but because it actually augments my mid-bass. In my case, I have large ported subs which are tuned for maximum ULF performance, and 60Hz crossovers on two of my speaker pairs help to balance that. 

So, taking all of that together, I see the issue of where to set crossovers as a very situationally-specific one, with a number of variables including personal preference. From an advice standpoint, I prefer to recommend that people start with 80Hz or higher crossovers, depending on where they were set after the Audyssey calibration. But, as you demonstrated with your surrounds, the actual crossover selection is a pretty individualistic one. Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and I'm glad you posted. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

scipper77 said:


> David,
> Thank you for the reply. You have answered my questions perfectly. For movies I would crossover at 60 or 80 depending on my mood but for music I'm not concerned with imaging so a higher crossover would not matter to me. I like the idea of my receiver doing less work and I like my subs output a lot. I just worry about throwing the overall sound out of whack when I start making adjustments to a calibrated system that I am happy with.


Hi,

You won't throw anything out of whack by experimenting, even with a 100Hz crossover. And, you can always return to whatever crossover settings you like, based on what you hear. Unless you are listening to something extremely bass heavy, such as Dubstep and perhaps even then, your subs need to do more heavy lifting in 5.1 movies than they do in music. If I were you, I would set my crossover at least at 60Hz, and 80Hz would probably be better for everything. I discussed the 1/2 to 1 octave rule in a post just above. And, if you prefer the sound of your system with a 100Hz crossover, you would be ahead of the game, in my opinion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> The crossover issue is a particularly interesting one, as there are so many aspects to it. You addressed one when you described localization, and the practical ramifications of setting crossovers based on that phenomenon. I'd like to come back to that aspect after a more general discussion of crossovers.
> 
> When XT-32 was introduced, Chris stopped universally recommending 80Hz, or higher crossovers, because the other channels now had an equivalent number of taps to what the subwoofer channel had. That was much discussed, and some people probably felt more freedom to use the lower crossovers set by their AVR's on that basis. Speaking personally, however, I think that Audyssey taps (and I may still go back to saying "filters" after this post ) are only one factor in the decision of where to set a crossover. I rather like the 1/2 to 1 octave rule.
> 
> To follow that rule, we would set our crossovers either 1/2 or 1 octave higher than the in-room F3 point. So, if for instance, an AVR set a crossover of 40Hz, we would raise the crossover to at least 60Hz (1/2 octave) or to 80Hz (1 octave higher) than the nominal F3 point of 40Hz. The purpose of this would be to minimize potential distortion, and to enable the speakers to have excess headroom for all frequencies. For those who play at louder volumes, I would think that having crossovers a full octave higher would be particularly helpful. So, now we have two factors that could help in determining potential crossovers: the version of Audyssey and the octave rule. There is another that I will get to in a moment.
> 
> …
> 
> Finally, there is the preference issue. Some of the listeners I know prefer to set crossovers much higher than they need to, not due to localization issues, but simply because they believe that their systems sound (or measure) better when they do. Others like myself, following the 1 octave rule, with very capable speakers and XT-32, may choose to set crossovers of 60Hz, not because of localization issues but because it actually augments my mid-bass. In my case, I have large ported subs which are tuned for maximum ULF performance, and 60Hz crossovers on two of my speaker pairs help to balance that.
> 
> So, taking all of that together, I see the issue of where to set crossovers as a very situationally-specific one, with a number of variables including personal preference. From an advice standpoint, I prefer to recommend that people start with 80Hz or higher crossovers, depending on where they were set after the Audyssey calibration. But, as you demonstrated with your surrounds, the actual crossover selection is a pretty individualistic one. Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and I'm glad you posted.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

The setup procedure always results in my speakers being set to "Large" so when I change that the crossover setting defaults to 40 Hz. I tend to experiment a bit with it from time to time but mostly I've been running with it set to 60 Hz, not so much because of the "half octave rule" but rather simply to take a little bit of work off the speakers and AVR but a little while ago I set it to 80 Hz and it has stayed there basically because I thought it sounded better.

But we're heading into summer here in Australia and we're also in a bit of a heat wave and I've noticed over the years that I think things don't sound as good in really hot weather. Now I have read comments here and there about differences in sound transmission through air due to humidity, and heat waves in my location are usually very humid times as well. My speakers are relatively new, also, and this is the first summer I've had with them and I have no idea how their cone material responds to humidity but they're Focal speakers with flax cones for the midrange and woofers so a fair amount of natural fibre in the cones. I don't know what kind of sealing they use on the cone material or whether the cones absorb a little humidity from the atmosphere but I thought things weren't sounding quite as full bodied and smooth in the low bass as they had been a few weeks before I made the change.

The other thing which could be going on is the whole question of mood and personal comfort and how that affects our listening enjoyment. I'm feeling the humidity more as I get older, and it does have an effect on my mood. More importantly, however, the combination of high temperature and high humidity is more likely to have me running the system with the door to the patio open as well as a window or two and that is going to affect pressurisation of the room at low frequencies. Raising the crossover and driving the subs a little harder could well be partly a compensation for a change in the way things sound because of that open door to the patio and the open windows and how those room changes affect the sound.

I certainly agree with you that the issue of where to set crossovers is situationally specific with a number of variables, but there may even be a climate related variable that you didn't mention and a bit more to the issue of what sounds good to us than may initially be apparent. I think overall I find the half octave to octave higher than the default setting works well, but I seem to have varied a bit between half an octave higher and an octave higher over time depending in part on what speakers I was using at the time and what sounded "best" to me at the time.

If I were asked what enhancements I'd like to see made in Audyssey's firmware, I think the change that might be highest on my wish list would be the ability to store 2 or more different sets of filters based on different listening positions or different room arrangements, and the ability to switch between them as a menu item in the Audyssey menu. I could easily see myself with a summer setting and a winter setting if Audyssey gave us that option.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> The setup procedure always results in my speakers being set to "Large" so when I change that the crossover setting defaults to 40 Hz. I tend to experiment a bit with it from time to time but mostly I've been running with it set to 60 Hz, not so much because of the "half octave rule" but rather simply to take a little bit of work off the speakers and AVR but a little while ago I set it to 80 Hz and it has stayed there basically because I thought it sounded better.
> 
> But we're heading into summer here in Australia and we're also in a bit of a heat wave and I've noticed over the years that I think things don't sound as good in really hot weather. Now I have read comments here and there about differences in sound transmission through air due to humidity, and heat waves in my location are usually very humid times as well. My speakers are relatively new, also, and this is the first summer I've had with them and I have no idea how their cone material responds to humidity but they're Focal speakers with flax cones for the midrange and woofers so a fair amount of natural fibre in the cones. I don't know what kind of sealing they use on the cone material or whether the cones absorb a little humidity from the atmosphere but I thought things weren't sounding quite as full bodied and smooth in the low bass as they had been a few weeks before I made the change.
> 
> The other thing which could be going on is the whole question of mood and personal comfort and how that affects our listening enjoyment. I'm feeling the humidity more as I get older, and it does have an effect on my mood. More importantly, however, the combination of high temperature and high humidity is more likely to have me running the system with the door to the patio open as well as a window or two and that is going to affect pressurisation of the room at low frequencies. Raising the crossover and driving the subs a little harder could well be partly a compensation for a change in the way things sound because of that open door to the patio and the open windows and how those room changes affect the sound.
> 
> I certainly agree with you that the issue of where to set crossovers is situationally specific with a number of variables, but there may even be a climate related variable that you didn't mention and a bit more to the issue of what sounds good to us than may initially be apparent. I think overall I find the half octave to octave higher than the default setting works well, but I seem to have varied a bit between half an octave higher and an octave higher over time depending in part on what speakers I was using at the time and what sounded "best" to me at the time.
> 
> If I were asked what enhancements I'd like to see made in Audyssey's firmware, I think the change that might be highest on my wish list would be the ability to store 2 or more different sets of filters based on different listening positions or different room arrangements, and the ability to switch between them as a menu item in the Audyssey menu. I could easily see myself with a summer setting and a winter setting if Audyssey gave us that option.


That's an interesting perspective, David. I have to admit, that I pretty much always maintain a humidity-controlled environment, and wouldn't have thought of that one. I do think that mood, and even listening material, though, could affect our crossover preferences at times.

I really don't mind changing settings too much, although it would be very cool to have a quick and easy way to go back-and-forth between two completely different calibrations (in my case, based on different MLP's), and different groups of settings. If we are wishing for things, one of the other things I would wish for is more crossover choices. I know that is an AVR issue, rather than an Audyssey issue. But, I would like to have: 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80Hz choices instead of only 40Hz, 60Hz, 80Hz.

By the way, I understand that the Focal speakers are pretty nice. It really was a happy coincidence that you experienced woofer problems with your old speakers just when you were ready to change speakers anyway.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting perspective, David. I have to admit, that I pretty much always maintain a humidity-controlled environment, and wouldn't have thought of that one. I do think that mood, and even listening material, though, could affect our crossover preferences at times.
> 
> I really don't mind changing settings too much, although it would be very cool to have a quick and easy way to go back-and-forth between two completely different calibrations (in my case, based on different MLP's), and different groups of settings. If we are wishing for things, one of the other things I would wish for is more crossover choices. I know that is an AVR issue, rather than an Audyssey issue. But, I would like to have: 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80Hz choices instead of only 40Hz, 60Hz, 80Hz.
> 
> By the way, I understand that the Focal speakers are pretty nice. It really was a happy coincidence that you experienced woofer problems with your old speakers just when you were ready to change speakers anyway.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I could go for your 10 Hz options for crossover frequencies. How about an option for dual subs to be run in stereo mode also? Wouldn't work with some subwoofer placements but it would be a nice option in my setup.

And yes, I'm very happy with the Focals. I tend to judge speakers on performance with voices and voices sound quite natural to my ears.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> But we're heading into summer here in Australia and we're also in a bit of a heat wave and I've noticed over the years that I think things don't sound as good in really hot weather. Now I have read comments here and there about differences in sound transmission through air due to humidity, and heat waves in my location are usually very humid times as well. My speakers are relatively new, also, and this is the first summer I've had with them and I have no idea how their cone material responds to humidity but they're Focal speakers with flax cones for the midrange and woofers so a fair amount of natural fibre in the cones. I don't know what kind of sealing they use on the cone material or whether the cones absorb a little humidity from the atmosphere but I thought things weren't sounding quite as full bodied and smooth in the low bass as they had been a few weeks before I made the change.


I've heard of both temperature and altitude making a difference in sound reproduction. A British phono cartridge manufacturer said that their cartridges were designed to work best at normal room temperature of 60 degrees (!).

I've also heard of speaker cones growing fungus in very humid locations.

Someone asked a speaker designer what the lofty sonic function a firm, resonance free screen over the small end of the throats of his midrange and tweeter horns contributed. Dispersion? Controlled directivity? He answered, "To keep the bugs out."

Speaking of open doors/windows, magnetic fields can work wonders in that part of interior design devoted to speaker grille cloth. I watched a bass reflex speaker right by the open front door in the bookstore Rambam (Rabi Moses Ben Maimon) in Berkeley develop a brown pattern on its grille the exact shape and size of the 15" speaker inside, and a less distinct one in the shape of the port. By the time Rambam had been Shakespeare & Co for about 15 years, the design was jet black.


----------



## Selden Ball

David Aiken said:


> If I were asked what enhancements I'd like to see made in Audyssey's firmware, I think the change that might be highest on my wish list would be the ability to store 2 or more different sets of filters based on different listening positions or different room arrangements, and the ability to switch between them as a menu item in the Audyssey menu. I could easily see myself with a summer setting and a winter setting if Audyssey gave us that option.


Hopefully you're aware of the D+M Web function to save/restore the receiver's (or pre-pro's) settings to a computer. Although it's not available in the higher end 2016 models, they're supposed to get an option to save/restore to USB RealSoonNow.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Hi Guys and Gals,

I am not new but I have not posted for some time. I am upgrading to a new Denon 7200WA. What I would like to read up on is what all the features mean in the Audyssey Platinum Suite. Is there a thread that speaks directly to this aspect or is it rather contained and discussed in this and the previous Part I thread.

Sorry but I looked and could not find what I am looking for. 

Background. I currently use the basic Audyssey offered in my current Onkyo 5007. I added the stand alone Sub Audyeesy unit from SVS to do the Dual Subs. So my current calibration is to do the Sub first and separately using the SVS-Audyssey Sub EQ unit, then after the Sub have been calibrated I run the AVR Audyssey routine on top of that. I have an Emotiva XPA-5 in the mix and drive the FL-FR-C-RS-LS with that. My setup is currently an 11.2 using Height channels and Wides. Can only run Height or Wide not both. 

Quick questions.

I think with the new Audyssey Platinum in the 7200AW I will no longer need to keep the SVS-Audyssey Sub EQ unit in the mix. Is that thinking correct? Or can it still be used to gain some extra utility managing the dual Subs? Is the old SVS Sub EQ unit a trash heap item now?

Will Audyssey and the Denon permit me to keep my 11.2 set up and still remain a valid speaker set up using Audyssey? I know I should change speaker placement. But for the moment that is not possible. Maybe later.

Is the Auro-3D upgrade worth the entry price of $200 ?

Thank you for any assistance and advice. I have mixed feelings about getting back into this Audyssey Stuff. I want to upgrade to the new Sound DPS of DTX and Atmos and Auro-3D. But it becomes overwhelming at times understanding this stuff! 

If I have posted in the wrong thread my humble apologies. The size and depth of this Forum has grown immensely since I was last active here.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi Guys and Gals,
> 
> I am not new but I have not posted for some time. I am upgrading to a new Denon 7200WA. What I would like to read up on is what all the features mean in the Audyssey Platinum Suite. Is there a thread that speaks directly to this aspect or is it rather contained and discussed in this and the previous Part I thread.
> 
> Sorry but I looked and could not find what I am looking for.
> 
> Background. I currently use the basic Audyssey offered in my current Onkyo 5007. I added the stand alone Sub Audyeesy unit from SVS to do the Dual Subs. So my current calibration is to do the Sub first and separately using the SVS-Audyssey Sub EQ unit, then after the Sub have been calibrated I run the AVR Audyssey routine on top of that. I have an Emotiva XPA-5 in the mix and drive the FL-FR-C-RS-LS with that. My setup is currently an 11.2 using Height channels and Wides. Can only run Height or Wide not both.
> 
> Quick questions.
> 
> I think with the new Audyssey Platinum in the 7200AW I will no longer need to keep the SVS-Audyssey Sub EQ unit in the mix. Is that thinking correct? Or can it still be used to gain some extra utility managing the dual Subs? Is the old SVS Sub EQ unit a trash heap item now?
> 
> Will Audyssey and the Denon permit me to keep my 11.2 set up and still remain a valid speaker set up using Audyssey? I know I should change speaker placement. But for the moment that is not possible. Maybe later.
> 
> Is the Auro-3D upgrade worth the entry price of $200 ?
> 
> Thank you for any assistance and advice. I have mixed feelings about getting back into this Audyssey Stuff. I want to upgrade to the new Sound DPS of DTX and Atmos and Auro-3D. But it becomes overwhelming at times understanding this stuff!
> 
> If I have posted in the wrong thread my humble apologies. The size and depth of this Forum has grown immensely since I was last active here.


Hi Adam,

You are definitely in the right place, and welcome back to the forum. The new Platinum suite is essentially XT-32 with SubEQ, so as you thought you won't need the separate SubEQ module. It may have some value though to someone with XT and dual subs, so maybe it can be re-purposed to someone else. I believe you will also have access to the new Audyssey phone app, which gives you some additional control of your frequency response, although that requires an additional licensing fee.

I am a little confused on the 11.1 issue, so maybe Selden or someone else can clarify it. I suspect that Audyssey will only EQ up to 9 channels, plus the sub channel (.1) but I'm not sure.

You may have to post on an Auro or Atmos thread to get an answer to the Auro upgrade question. In reading some other threads, I definitely get the sense that Atmos is a currently more popular technology, but I haven't paid close attention to the differences. 

You aren't the only one who can't keep up with the proliferation of new technology, even in the limited aspect of a hobby. The FAQ, linked in my signature, will give you some basic information about XT-32.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> You are definitely in the right place, and welcome back to the forum. The new Platinum suite is essentially XT-32 with SubEQ, so as you thought you won't need the separate SubEQ module. It may have some value though to someone with XT and dual subs, so maybe it can be re-purposed to someone else. I believe you will also have access to the new Audyssey phone app, which gives you some additional control of your frequency response, although that requires an additional licensing fee.
> 
> I am a little confused on the 11.1 issue, so maybe Selden or someone else can clarify it. I suspect that Audyssey will only EQ up to 9 channels, plus the sub channel (.1) but I'm not sure.
> 
> You may have to post on an Auro or Atmos thread to get an answer to the Auro upgrade question. In reading some other threads, I definitely get the sense that Atmos is a currently more popular technology, but I haven't paid close attention to the differences.
> 
> You aren't the only one who can't keep up with the proliferation of new technology, even in the limited aspect of a hobby. The FAQ, linked in my signature, will give you some basic information about XT-32.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the reply Mike. The Linked FAQ on Audyssey thread I believe I had a small part in helping build that FAQ. A long long time ago in a distant Galaxy! What I must do now is go back and re-read the entire thing! Oh so excited to do that. My excitement is spilling out from my every orifice. Forgive me as I must go clean up now!

I will heed your advice and go read the other threads you suggest. Thanks my Friend!


----------



## David Aiken

Selden Ball said:


> Hopefully you're aware of the D+M Web function to save/restore the receiver's (or pre-pro's) settings to a computer. Although it's not available in the higher end 2016 models, they're supposed to get an option to save/restore to USB RealSoonNow.


Yes, I'm aware of that but I'm not talking about saving to a computer or USB. I'm talking about having 2 or more different Audyssey configurations saved in memory on the AVR and being able to switch between them as quickly and easily as I can switch between Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat, just by selecting a menu option.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> You are definitely in the right place, and welcome back to the forum. The new Platinum suite is essentially XT-32 with SubEQ, so as you thought you won't need the separate SubEQ module. It may have some value though to someone with XT and dual subs, so maybe it can be re-purposed to someone else. I believe you will also have access to the new Audyssey phone app, which gives you some additional control of your frequency response, although that requires an additional licensing fee.
> 
> I am a little confused on the 11.1 issue, so maybe Selden or someone else can clarify it. I suspect that Audyssey will only EQ up to 9 channels, plus the sub channel (.1) but I'm not sure.
> 
> You may have to post on an Auro or Atmos thread to get an answer to the Auro upgrade question. In reading some other threads, I definitely get the sense that Atmos is a currently more popular technology, but I haven't paid close attention to the differences.
> 
> You aren't the only one who can't keep up with the proliferation of new technology, even in the limited aspect of a hobby. The FAQ, linked in my signature, will give you some basic information about XT-32.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, 

You mention this New Audyssey Phone App but I am running into walls trying to find such an animal. Is this something only available to Platinum Owners and some secret code and link will be provided with the AVR? Or is this available via the Apple App store or is it unique to other Phone formats/ Any additional info or link you can provide would be most gracious Sir. Thanks again for the help!


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike,
> 
> You mention this New Audyssey Phone App but I am running into walls trying to find such an animal. Is this something only available to Platinum Owners and some secret code and link will be provided with the AVR? Or is this available via the Apple App store or is it unique to other Phone formats/ Any additional info or link you can provide would be most gracious Sir. Thanks again for the help!


Hi Adam,

You are very welcome to any meager help I am providing. I don't really know much about the new app. I just did a search and came up with this article. The bad news is that your new Denon may be one model too early for it. 

https://www.avforums.com/article/de...iver-line-up-including-11-channel-x6300.12679

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> You are very welcome to any meager help I am providing. I don't really know much about the new app. I just did a search and came up with this article. The bad news is that your new Denon may be one model too early for it.
> 
> https://www.avforums.com/article/de...iver-line-up-including-11-channel-x6300.12679
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Well I just ordered the 7200AW and looking at the newer model it is almost a $grand cheaper? Not less than completely confused here. Newer model with more features and a thousand dollars cheaper? Lighter? I must be missing something. Darn you Mike  I'm getting buyers remorse and have not taken delivery yet!!!


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Well I just ordered the 7200AW and looking at the newer model it is almost a $grand cheaper? Not less than completely confused here. Newer model with more features and a thousand dollars cheaper? Lighter? I must be missing something. Darn you Mike  I'm getting buyers remorse and have not taken delivery yet!!!


Yeah, now it's really meager help!  But, surely the monoblock construction of the flagship model is worth the extra thousand, even without the 11 channels of amplification, and smartphone app. 

I feel this way every time I upgrade to a new smartphone. By the time I get it set-up, there's a newer and "better" model out.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Yeah, now it's really meager help!  But, surely the monoblock construction of the flagship model is worth the extra thousand, even without the 11 channels of amplification, and smartphone app.
> 
> I feel this way every time I upgrade to a new smartphone. By the time I get it set-up, there's a newer and "better" model out.


No worries my Friend. Any help is good help at this point. You made me seek the right answers and pointed my efforts in the proper direction. I concur with the upgrade roulette wheel we seem to be stuck on. Dizzy is just one effect.

While this is a difficult decision. I am an Audiophile first and a Gadget freak second. So when it comes down to this decision, I am going with what will provide the best overall Sound and reproduction of the source material.

So far I am inclined to think that points to the 7200 over the 6300H. Losing the 2 channels is not big deal. I use an Emotive XPA to drive the front 3 and the main Surrounds anyway. So noting lost here in my case.

Once again, thank you for helping me! Kindly appreciated Sir!


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Yeah, now it's really meager help!  But, surely the monoblock construction of the flagship model is worth the extra thousand, even without the 11 channels of amplification, and smartphone app.
> 
> I feel this way every time I upgrade to a new smartphone. By the time I get it set-up, there's a newer and "better" model out.


 lot more than that actually. My old 4311ci has better processing than the 6300 ava it was a 2010 model (AL32 vs AL24), I asked same question and this is "batpigs" response

"It's not just the AL32 processing vs. AL24, it's a whole suite of higher end processing and design.

The X7200WA has AL32 instead of AL24, superior 32-bit DAC's, and DDSC-HD32 vs. the standard DDSC circuit architecture. 

The end result should be a more refined, clean and transparent sound. User SteveH who is a high end dealer has done direct A/B comparisons and said the X7200WA was basically as clean of a pre-amp as the Marantz AV8802A dedicated pre/pro version.

It's probably not a "night and day" thing where a typical user would notice or care, but if you've got a really high end setup with good acoustics and a refined ear, there is a difference there. And it's one of the reasons why Denon can place a premium price tag on the flagship product, they put in the best stuff they have"


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Yeah, now it's really meager help!  But, surely the monoblock construction of the flagship model is worth the extra thousand, even without the 11 channels of amplification, and smartphone app.
> 
> I feel this way every time I upgrade to a new smartphone. By the time I get it set-up, there's a newer and "better" model out.


 you have good taste, I run my entire 9.2 system off emotiva.


----------



## robc1976

Also I run A-DSX and with the X7200WA you can add a second set of surrounds, very useful if you have 2 rows of seats....much better than SB (Surround back). never went 11.2 because I thought they where a, waste


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> lot more than that actually. My old 4311ci has better processing than the 6300 ava it was a 2010 model (AL32 vs AL24), I asked same question and this is "batpigs" response
> 
> "It's not just the AL32 processing vs. AL24, it's a whole suite of higher end processing and design.
> 
> The X7200WA has AL32 instead of AL24, superior 32-bit DAC's, and DDSC-HD32 vs. the standard DDSC circuit architecture.
> 
> The end result should be a more refined, clean and transparent sound. User SteveH who is a high end dealer has done direct A/B comparisons and said the X7200WA was basically as clean of a pre-amp as the Marantz AV8802A dedicated pre/pro version.
> 
> It's probably not a "night and day" thing where a typical user would notice or care, but if you've got a really high end setup with good acoustics and a refined ear, there is a difference there. And it's one of the reasons why Denon can place a premium price tag on the flagship product, they put in the best stuff they have"


That's good information and a helpful explanation of the 7200.



robc1976 said:


> you have good taste, I run my entire 9.2 system off emotiva.



Thanks, I do have good taste in audio! But, in this particular case, I will have to have it in the audio company I keep.  It's Adam who is using Emotiva for his external amplification. I have a couple of Marantz' in my system.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's good information and a helpful explanation of the 7200.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I do have good taste in audio! But, in this particular case, I will have to have it in the audio company I keep.  It's Adam who is using Emotiva for his external amplification. I have a couple of Marantz' in my system.


Just as good! Lol! I love Marantz, I only use Denon because I know it....if not it would be Marantz no question.


----------



## emptyo

Hi all. I have a Marantz SR7009 with an Emotiva XPA5, running a 7.2.2 (2 front Atmos). I've just re-run the Audyssey XT32 setup, and it's *ok*, but I'd like to learn how to really optimize it. Where do I start? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Johan81

emptyo said:


> Hi all. I have a Marantz SR7009 with an Emotiva XPA5, running a 7.2.2 (2 front Atmos). I've just re-run the Audyssey XT32 setup, and it's *ok*, but I'd like to learn how to really optimize it. Where do I start?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


By first reading the Audyssey FAQ thoroughly: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#post21782993

Be sure to use a mic boom and preferably use dampers on the feet so that you are sure no bass is coming through via vibrations of the boom to the mic.

If you have already done all this, please post what you already have done, makes it easier for us to help you figure out where you can improve setting up Audyssey.


----------



## emptyo

Johan81 said:


> By first reading the Audyssey FAQ thoroughly: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#post21782993
> 
> 
> 
> Be sure to use a mic boom and preferably use dampers on the feet so that you are sure no bass is coming through via vibrations of the boom to the mic.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have already done all this, please post what you already have done, makes it easier for us to help you figure out where you can improve setting up Audyssey.




Thanks! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

robc1976 said:


> lot more than that actually. My old 4311ci has better processing than the 6300 ava it was a 2010 model (AL32 vs AL24), I asked same question and this is "batpigs" response
> 
> "It's not just the AL32 processing vs. AL24, it's a whole suite of higher end processing and design.
> 
> The X7200WA has AL32 instead of AL24, superior 32-bit DAC's, and DDSC-HD32 vs. the standard DDSC circuit architecture.
> 
> The end result should be a more refined, clean and transparent sound. User SteveH who is a high end dealer has done direct A/B comparisons and said the X7200WA was basically as clean of a pre-amp as the Marantz AV8802A dedicated pre/pro version.
> 
> It's probably not a "night and day" thing where a typical user would notice or care, but if you've got a really high end setup with good acoustics and a refined ear, there is a difference there. And it's one of the reasons why Denon can place a premium price tag on the flagship product, they put in the best stuff they have"


Did you mean to quote someone on the above or are these your own original words?


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Did you mean to quote someone on the above or are these your own original words?


I think he was quoting Batpig, Adam. Batpig is a long-time poster on this thread, and an acknowledged Denon guru.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> I think he was quoting Batpig, Adam. Batpig is a long-time poster on this thread, and an acknowledged Denon guru.


yep, he is very knowledgeable.


----------



## robc1976

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Did you mean to quote someone on the above or are these your own original words?


I was quoting batpig


----------



## gp-se

hey guys quick question. I just got a Denon AVR S720W, BIC F-12, and Pioneer Andrew Jones Speakers, Front Towers, Center, Rear Bookshelves for my 5.1 Setup. 
I ran Audyssey and it set everything up like this:

Front Towers: 150hz
Center: 60hz
Rear Bookshelves: 60hz

Why did it set my front towers so high? The specs say they can play 40hz-20hz, I'm surprised the crossover is set so high. I double checked my connections and they are fine, is it possible my new speakers are defective?
the front speakers are all about 9ft from the MLP, and spaced evenly apart, and 2 feet from the wall.


----------



## mthomas47

gp-se said:


> hey guys quick question. I just got a Denon AVR S720W, BIC F-12, and Pioneer Andrew Jones Speakers, Front Towers, Center, Rear Bookshelves for my 5.1 Setup.
> I ran Audyssey and it set everything up like this:
> 
> Front Towers: 150hz
> Center: 60hz
> Rear Bookshelves: 60hz
> 
> Why did it set my front towers so high? The specs say they can play 40hz-20hz, I'm surprised the crossover is set so high. I double checked my connections and they are fine, is it possible my new speakers are defective?
> the front speakers are all about 9ft from the MLP, and spaced evenly apart, and 2 feet from the wall.


Hi,

Manufacturer's do sometimes slightly inflate speaker specs, so it's sometimes difficult to know exactly what to expect. But, I'm guessing that your towers will probably have at least 60Hz crossovers if they are properly positioned. In this case, proper positioning probably means moving them back closer to the wall, so that they can benefit from some boundary gain. The fact that the other three speakers are all getting 60Hz crossovers is strongly suggestive. Again, at a guess, those others are all getting boundary gain from shelving or walls.

Try moving the front speakers back within about a foot of the wall, or even closer if necessary, and re-run Audyssey. It may take a couple of tries to get what you want, but you can probably do a one-point calibration just to test the crossover settings. That will save some time. Then, once you get down to about 60Hz, you can run the full calibration.

Once, you get all the crossovers down to about 60Hz, or so, you should manually reset them all to at least 80Hz. You can experiment with slightly higher crossovers to see if you like the way your bass sounds, but I wouldn't go lower than 80Hz, in any event. I hope this helps!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## scipper77

One thing to check, do your towers have binding posts? If they were out you might only be connected to the high pass side. I only hope your issue is something this simple.


----------



## captain_video

Does anyone know which model Audyssey microphone came with the Onkyo Pro PR-SC885? I've misplaced mine and want to get another one. I've seen some on ebay but I'm not sure which is the right one to use with the Onkyo.


----------



## gp-se

thanks for the replies guys. The weird part is the rear book shelf speakers are out in the open (room is open concept). There is only a single binding post on the speaker, and all 3 woofers are moving when I play music. I'll try moving the speakers closer to the wall and see if that helps.


----------



## mthomas47

captain_video said:


> Does anyone know which model Audyssey microphone came with the Onkyo Pro PR-SC885? I've misplaced mine and want to get another one. I've seen some on ebay but I'm not sure which is the right one to use with the Onkyo.


Since that model was equipped with XT, you would be looking for an ACM1H microphone. The black and silver versions are interchangeable. Amazon also sells them directly from Onkyo: 

https://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-Audyss...899&sr=8-2&keywords=audyssey+microphone+onkyo


----------



## captain_video

Great. Thanks. Wouldn't you know it, I just signed up for Amazon Prime and that item is not eligible. Oh, well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

gp-se said:


> thanks for the replies guys. The weird part is the rear book shelf speakers are out in the open (room is open concept). There is only a single binding post on the speaker, and all 3 woofers are moving when I play music. I'll try moving the speakers closer to the wall and see if that helps.


You are welcome! That's a little weird about the surround speakers registering so low away from any room boundaries, while the towers register so high. If you don't get the results you should expect from moving the towers closer to the wall, I would probably do a microprocessor reset on the receiver to see if that helps.

The only other thing that I can think to try is to move the bookshelf speakers up to the front of the room to see if they still maintain a low crossover. If they do, the problem may be with the towers, regardless of the apparent movement of the woofers.


----------



## bmcn

Johan81 said:


> Be sure to use a mic boom and preferably use dampers on the feet so that you are sure no bass is coming through via vibrations of the boom to the mic.


What do you use on the stand's feet?


----------



## captain_video

mthomas47 said:


> Since that model was equipped with XT, you would be looking for an ACM1H microphone. The black and silver versions are interchangeable. Amazon also sells them directly from Onkyo:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Onkyo-Audyss...899&sr=8-2&keywords=audyssey+microphone+onkyo


Just curious about one thing. The microphone that came with my Onkyo Pro was shaped more like a hockey puck with a peak in the center. The one you pointed me too is shaped more like an obelisk. I assume that shape isn't as important as the actual mic itself. Are they the same mic in different packaging?


----------



## Selden Ball

captain_video said:


> Just curious about one thing. The microphone that came with my Onkyo Pro was shaped more like a hockey puck with a peak in the center. The one you pointed me too is shaped more like an obelisk. I assume that shape isn't as important as the actual mic itself. Are they the same mic in different packaging?


Unfortunately, my understanding is that the "hockey puck" microphones are not interchangeable with the tower microphones. They have different frequency calibrations.

FWIW, a hockey-puck microphone is listed for $30, partway down the page http://www.ebay.com/bhp/audyssey-microphone

Of course, if you don't get one directly from Onkyo, you have to be concerned that it might be a forgery. That's been known to happen.


----------



## Johan81

bmcn said:


> What do you use on the stand's feet?


You can buy special made feet, but I just cut up these and put the boom arm on them, same effect, though dirt cheap:


----------



## mthomas47

captain_video said:


> Just curious about one thing. The microphone that came with my Onkyo Pro was shaped more like a hockey puck with a peak in the center. The one you pointed me too is shaped more like an obelisk. I assume that shape isn't as important as the actual mic itself. Are they the same mic in different packaging?


I'm glad you asked about that. As Selden said, the hockey pucks and the tower mics aren't interchangeable. I checked on your Onkyo pre-pro before answering the first time, though, and according to the specs, you have Audyssey XT. Until just now, I believed that all units with XT and higher used the tower mics. Live and learn! Anyway, you definitely want to use the same kind that originally came with your Onkyo.


----------



## gp-se

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! That's a little weird about the surround speakers registering so low away from any room boundaries, while the towers register so high. If you don't get the results you should expect from moving the towers closer to the wall, I would probably do a microprocessor reset on the receiver to see if that helps.
> 
> The only other thing that I can think to try is to move the bookshelf speakers up to the front of the room to see if they still maintain a low crossover. If they do, the problem may be with the towers, regardless of the apparent movement of the woofers.


quick update, I moved the speakers so they are 1 foot from the front wall, and re-ran audyssey, these are the new results:
Front Towers: 120hz
Center: 60hz
Rear Book Shelfs: 60hz

Tomorrow I may swap the front and back speakers to see if the speakers are bad, or just my room acoustics.

I also did a processor reset before I ran the tests.


----------



## scipper77

gp-se said:


> thanks for the replies guys. The weird part is the rear book shelf speakers are out in the open (room is open concept). There is only a single binding post on the speaker, and all 3 woofers are moving when I play music. I'll try moving the speakers closer to the wall and see if that helps.


Is it possible you've got your wires mixed up? Are your bookshelf speakers accidently wired as fronts? This would make sense considering your surrounds are crossing over low and your fronts are crossing over high.


----------



## scipper77

I have a quick question of my own. The other day I bought some sweet dipole/bipole surrounds. After I reran my audyssey setup (only 2eq here) the deep bass is a little lacking when playing music in stereo. Audyssey set my new surrounds at 40Hz and according to their spec sheet they should cross over at 50 or 60. My thinking is if audyssey thinks it's hearing more bass than it is it will correct for that more than it should. 

My question is, Are there any tricks to making sure my mic is accurately picking up low frequency? I have been reclining my couches in my theater and placing the mic perfectly level on the headrests. I know bass is a finicky beast, is it possible that I'm seeing a null or peak in my placement (a reflected wave partially canceling or stacking with another sound wave)? I had everything sounding so good before and now it's close but slightly lacking in low end "punch".


----------



## robc1976

mogorf said:


> Yeah, pix please, they tell more than a 1,000 words. FYR, you may also look at "My Setup" (link in my sig) to see how I solved my setup.


 forgot to post these, crappy phone pics....TV is only 64" waiting on my 138" 2.35:1


----------



## jabu32

robc1976 said:


> forgot to post these, crappy phone pics....TV is only 64" waiting on my 138" 2.35:1


Nice setup


----------



## mthomas47

scipper77 said:


> I have a quick question of my own. The other day I bought some sweet dipole/bipole surrounds. After I reran my audyssey setup (only 2eq here) the deep bass is a little lacking when playing music in stereo. Audyssey set my new surrounds at 40Hz and according to their spec sheet they should cross over at 50 or 60. My thinking is if audyssey thinks it's hearing more bass than it is it will correct for that more than it should.
> 
> My question is, Are there any tricks to making sure my mic is accurately picking up low frequency? I have been reclining my couches in my theater and placing the mic perfectly level on the headrests. I know bass is a finicky beast, is it possible that I'm seeing a null or peak in my placement (a reflected wave partially canceling or stacking with another sound wave)? I had everything sounding so good before and now it's close but slightly lacking in low end "punch".


Hi,

I don't think it's possible to adequately address questions like this in a single post, but I will give you a couple of thoughts. First, 2EQ is actually not doing much of anything to the subwoofer channel, and probably is not negatively impacting the bass in your surround speakers. I believe that there are only 8 taps per channel in 2EQ, distributed across the entire frequency range, and excluding the subwoofer channel. You can always try Audyssey on, and Audyssey off, to verify what you actually hear as a difference between the two.

The in-room response that Audyssey and your AVR use to set crossovers (Audyssey reports the F3 point, and the AVR sets the crossover based on its own internal algorithm) can be either lower or higher than the factory spec, depending on room influences. In any case, you should be setting the crossovers for those speakers to at least 80Hz. That alone will give you more bass for music. One think you said was confusing. "Stereo" in your AVR is just 2-channel. If you are listening in Stereo, your surrounds shouldn't actually be playing at all. You would have to engage a surround mode to get the benefit of your CC or surrounds. Perhaps you just used the term stereo in a generic music sense?

Please double-check the crossovers for all of your speakers. If you have a capable sub, there probably won't be any reason not to set an 80Hz, or higher, crossover for all of your speakers. If you do choose to set a lower crossover, it should be because you specifically like the sound better that way. That does not appear to be the case here. Try changing the crossover(s) and let us know what happens. And, if you have other questions, you may need to give a more complete description of your system and room.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gp-se

scipper77 said:


> Is it possible you've got your wires mixed up? Are your bookshelf speakers accidently wired as fronts? This would make sense considering your surrounds are crossing over low and your fronts are crossing over high.


I checked the wiring and it's going to the correct speakers and polarity is correct. Today I swapped the book shelf and tower speakers, and re-ran Audyssey, it set the crossovers to:
front book shelf: 120hz
center: 60hz
rear towers: 60hz

So with the towers in the back I get the 60hz crossover, but the front is still 120hz. Do you think my room has a bass null and this is normal? or should I be looking at a defective receiver?


----------



## mthomas47

gp-se said:


> I checked the wiring and it's going to the correct speakers and polarity is correct. Today I swapped the book shelf and tower speakers, and re-ran Audyssey, it set the crossovers to:
> front book shelf: 120hz
> center: 60hz
> rear towers: 60hz
> 
> So with the towers in the back I get the 60hz crossover, but the front is still 120hz. Do you think my room has a bass null and this is normal? or should I be looking at a defective receiver?


It's tough to tell based on the information, so far. But, at least you have ruled out a fundamental problem with your towers. Here are a couple of other things that you can do to help figure this out. First, post a couple of pictures of your room. I would particularly like to see your front soundstage and your listening position. Where is your listening position (example: mid-point of the room; 1/3 distance from the front wall, etc)? That information would also be helpful.

The second thing you could try is to take measurements about 2' or 3' forward of your MLP, and see if your crossovers change for the front speakers. I would probably only run mic position 1, and calibrate for several locations forward of your MLP. That might help to determine if there is some relationship between your listening/measurement position and the low crossover for the front speakers. 

If the crossovers for the front speakers change favorably, then you might be able to adjust your listening position slightly to escape the null or whatever is causing the problem. If the crossovers for the fronts remain so much higher than they should be, then it may be time to conclude that you have a defective AVR. But, be sure to post some pictures, so we can see whether anything about the front of the room looks unusual.


----------



## scipper77

mthomas47 said:


> scipper77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a quick question of my own. The other day I bought some sweet dipole/bipole surrounds. After I reran my audyssey setup (only 2eq here) the deep bass is a little lacking when playing music in stereo. Audyssey set my new surrounds at 40Hz and according to their spec sheet they should cross over at 50 or 60. My thinking is if audyssey thinks it's hearing more bass than it is it will correct for that more than it should.
> 
> My question is, Are there any tricks to making sure my mic is accurately picking up low frequency? I have been reclining my couches in my theater and placing the mic perfectly level on the headrests. I know bass is a finicky beast, is it possible that I'm seeing a null or peak in my placement (a reflected wave partially canceling or stacking with another sound wave)? I had everything sounding so good before and now it's close but slightly lacking in low end "punch".
> 
> 
> 
> One think you said was confusing. "Stereo" in your AVR is just 2-channel. If you are listening in Stereo, your surrounds shouldn't actually be playing at all. You would have to engage a surround mode to get the benefit of your CC or surrounds. Perhaps you just used the term stereo in a generic music sense?
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

I see where my mention of stereo was confusing. I rearan the audyssey calibration because I added two new speakers bringing my setup from 5.1 to 7.1. However, both before and after I would run in stereo mode for music listening as only my fronts and sub are upgraded from my original HTIB setup. I mentioned that my surround are crossed over lower than they should be capable of because this is an indication to me that audyssey might not be accurately measuring any of the speakers correctly. 

In the interest of fuller disclosure I'm running Polk monitor 70 fronts, cs2 center, lsi30 surrounds. JBL ES250 sub (700watt/400rms into a 12" driver FWIW). Rears ate HTIB and receiver is Onkyo tx-nr609. 

Audyssey off was suggested for comparison and this definitely brings a fuller sound. 

If the lowest audyssey 2eq can set a crossover is 40Hz does that mean it can apply correction points down that low? I know there are few corrections per channel but that could mean one point being varied would have a bigger impact on the overall sound profile.


----------



## mthomas47

scipper77 said:


> I see where my mention of stereo was confusing. I rearan the audyssey calibration because I added two new speakers bringing my setup from 5.1 to 7.1. However, both before and after I would run in stereo mode for music listening as only my fronts and sub are upgraded from my original HTIB setup. I mentioned that my surround are crossed over lower than they should be capable of because this is an indication to me that audyssey might not be accurately measuring any of the speakers correctly.
> 
> In the interest of fuller disclosure I'm running Polk monitor 70 fronts, cs2 center, lsi30 surrounds. JBL ES250 sub (700watt/400rms into a 12" driver FWIW). Rears ate HTIB and receiver is Onkyo tx-nr609.
> 
> Audyssey off was suggested for comparison and this definitely brings a fuller sound.
> 
> If the lowest audyssey 2eq can set a crossover is 40Hz does that mean it can apply correction points down that low? I know there are few corrections per channel but that could mean one point being varied would have a bigger impact on the overall sound profile.


I think your reasoning is sound with respect to the possibility that 2EQ might be setting some broader control point. And, in theory, that control point could be close to the bottom of the EQ range--which in this case would be 40Hz. But, the point I was making is that if you raise your crossover for those speakers to 80Hz, or higher, which you probably should do in any case, that will negate the possibility that Audyssey can influence the behavior of those speakers below the crossover point. And, that is because the crossover will roll-off those speakers anyway, and let the subwoofer play those frequencies instead. And, the subwoofer won't be affected at all by 2EQ.

So, the key here, as it often is with surround systems that include a subwoofer, is the proper use of crossovers to enhance both system performance and sound quality. Where have you set the crossovers for your various channels? Remember, that when your AVR sets crossovers, based on the detected F3 point, those settings don't really constitute a recommendation. They should be taken as merely conveying information about how low the speakers are capable of going at that location in the room.

Absent special circumstances, the best practice recommendation is to either set crossovers about 1 octave higher (perhaps 1/2 octave in some cases) than the reported F3 point, or to simply use 80Hz as a nominal standard, as that is the point where most people stop being able to reliably localize a subwoofer. But, in any case, most systems require a subwoofer for most of the heavy lifting, even in music listening, and the sub can't do that unless the crossovers allow it to.

Incidentally, I would separate the issue of setting crossovers properly after an Audyssey calibration, from the issue of whether or not you like the sound of your system better with or without Audyssey engaged. You can certainly turn Audyssey off at any time, if you think that things sound better without it, but you should still experiment with higher crossovers than the ones set by your AVR.


----------



## Matt2026

mthomas47 said:


> The second thing you could try is to take measurements about 2' or 3' forward of your MLP, and see if your crossovers change for the front speakers. I would probably only run mic position 1, and calibrate for several locations forward of your MLP. That might help to determine if there is some relationship between your listening/measurement position and the low crossover for the front speakers.


I may have missed it but I'm wondering how/where the microphone is being positioned. Is a microphone stand being used or is the microphone being placed on a piece of furniture?


----------



## mthomas47

Matt2026 said:


> I may have missed it but I'm wondering how/where the microphone is being positioned. Is a microphone stand being used or is the microphone being placed on a piece of furniture?


Hi Ken,

I may have missed it too, but I don't think that the OP ever said. Another poster, Scipper77, did say that he was reclining his chairs and putting the hockey puck style mic flat on the seat backs. I thought about recommending a mic stand, but considering the limited number of control points with 2EQ, didn't think it was worth mentioning in that case.

It's certainly good practice, in general, particularly with respect to high frequency reflections. But, I'm not sure that using or not using a tripod could affect the low frequencies where the OP is having crossover issues for his front speakers. On the other hand, if the OP doesn't have a mic stand, taking measurements forward of his MLP may be a little more challenging. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Matt2026

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Ken,
> 
> I may have missed it too, but I don't think that the OP ever said. Another poster, Scipper77, did say that he was reclining his chairs and putting the hockey puck style mic flat on the seat backs. I thought about recommending a mic stand, but considering the limited number of control points with 2EQ, didn't think it was worth mentioning in that case.
> 
> It's certainly good practice, in general, particularly with respect to high frequency reflections. But, I'm not sure that using or not using a tripod could affect the low frequencies where the OP is having crossover issues for his front speakers. On the other hand, if the OP doesn't have a mic stand, taking measurements forward of his MLP may be a little more challenging.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, 

I do recall the seat back mention that's probably why I wondered about the OPs situation. 

My second thought was it sounds like a room null/response possibility since the crossover didn't move with the speaker location swap.

Take care,


----------



## David Aiken

gp-se said:


> I checked the wiring and it's going to the correct speakers and polarity is correct. Today I swapped the book shelf and tower speakers, and re-ran Audyssey, it set the crossovers to:
> front book shelf: 120hz
> center: 60hz
> rear towers: 60hz
> 
> So with the towers in the back I get the 60hz crossover, but the front is still 120hz. Do you think my room has a bass null and this is normal? or should I be looking at a defective receiver?


Mike has been giving you good advice and I wouldn't change any of that advice, but I will try to add something.

First, I think the receiver is OK, not defective. The change in results you got when you swapped speakers doesn't indicate anything that would make me suspect the AVR.

Next, you asked whether your room may have a bass null. The answer is yes, simply because every room has nulls. You can't avoid them at bass frequencies. All you can do is to try to minimise them, and the bass peaks that also exist, by a combination of speaker placement, listening position placement, and acoustic room treatment. Ideally you would set things up for the best bass result before running the Audyssey setup.

I find the difference in crossover you got when you swapped the fronts with the surround interesting. Did you place the surrounds in exactly the same position that the floor standers occupied when you made the swap? If not, then putting the floor standers exactly where you placed the surrounds for the swap may help because differences in speaker location can make a difference to bass response, sometimes a big difference.

I'm unfamiliar with your speakers but I tried doing a bit of a Google search on the floor standers but you didn't mention the model details so I'm not certain I looked at details for the speakers you have. From what I saw, I think your speakers have a port at the rear, the speaker I looked at was a bass reflex model and I couldn't see a port on the front of the speaker and there was no photo of the rear of the speaker. The output from the port supplies bass reinforcement and what is directly behind a rear facing port can make a difference because it can absorb or reflect that output. I don't know if your surrounds are rear ported but if they are, the ports will be located higher than the ports on the floor standers because the surrounds are on stands. Is there a difference in what is behind the front speakers at the height of the port on the floor standers and any port on the surrounds? If so, what? I guess it's possible that there's something low down at the height of the port on the floor standers that is absorbing some of the port output and weakening bass response that isn't a factor at the height of the port on the surrounds if they are ported. Another possibility is that you've got some furniture item behind the floor standers which reflects the port output but that furniture item does not extend up to the height of the the surround speaker on its stand so that the surround speaker had a different distance to the closest reflecting surface behind it than the distance the floor stander has at port height.

But getting back to nulls. There are 2 different types of null. One occurs in locations determined by room dimensions and is related to standing waves or room modes, depending on what you want to call them. If you have the listening position located in a location where one of those nulls occurs, that would definitely affect the Audyssey result if your mic was located at the listening position. The other sort of null is a cancellation effect that occurs at frequencies with wavelengths equal to 4 times the distance from the woofer to the wall behind the speaker. Output from the speaker which is reflected from the wall behind them arrives back at the speaker out of phase with the sound leaving the speaker and that causes a cancellation, weakening the sound you hear at that frequency.

And all of these things can sum together to produce a bigger effect than any of them would singly. If you have something behind the speaker at the height of the port on the floor stander which is absorbing some of the port's output and your listening position is in a null location for a room mode and the distance from the woofer to the wall behind the speaker is one quarter of the wavelength of a null which occurs at your listening position, you would have 3 things acting together to reduce output at the same frequency and you could really end up with an extremely bad null at that frequency. I once auditioned a speaker in a showroom and could not hear low bass at all when sitting in the listening chair they had set up, but when I stood and started to walk towards the CD player to remove the disc I was playing I discovered that I could hear very good bass a couple of feet in front of the listening chair. The difference in bass level between the 2 positions a very short distance apart was extreme, I have never heard such a big difference in bass response in 2 locations so close together at any other time in nearly 50 years of playing with audio and it was so extreme that I think it had to be the result of a combination of different factors affecting bass response.

I'm going to suggest a few things you can try in order to see if things like location are affecting the bass response of the floor standers. Have Audyssey turned off while trying these suggestions.

The first thing is simple. Simply move your listening chair or sofa out of the way so that you can walk from the back of the room towards the front of the room on a line that keeps you on the midline running down the room between the floor standers. Walk the line while playing a track with a lot of bass content with the sub and surrounds disconnected so that you are only hearing output from the floor standers. Check whether the loudness of the bass frequency varies noticeably. If it does, then try putting the listening position at a point where the bass response is loudest and see if that changes your crossover result when you run the setup procedure.

Edit: try walking a line from front to back a couple of times slightly to the left and right of the centre line also in order to see if shifting the listening position slightly to the left or right of the current location might help.

Next, if you have anything between the back of the speakers and the wall behind them, try removing whatever it is if you can. See if that makes a difference.

My next suggestion is going to sound counter intuitive because it actually contradicts a bit of advice Mike gave you. Mike recommended placing the speakers closer to the wall because that allows the walls to provide more reinforcement. That is normally the way to go but if you have a cancellation at a frequency with a wavelength 4 times the distance of the speaker to the wall causing part of your problem, you may actually get better results if you move the speaker forward, away from the wall. That will lower the frequency at which the cancellation occurs and if the crossover is being set high because the speaker is measuring 3 dB down at a frequency somewhere in the 100-200 Hz range, bringing the speaker forward will shift the cancellation frequency lower and that may lower the frequency at which the mic measures output as 3 dB down. You will lose bass reinforcement by bringing the speaker forward and the loss of reinforcement may have more effect on the actual result at the listening position so don't be surprised if doing this makes things worse, but it is possible that it may make things slightly better.

The next thing to try is also going to sound a little odd. Disconnect the front and surround speakers and only leave the sub connected. Move the sub to the listening position and then move around the front of the room in the area where the speakers are located listening for where the output from the sub is loudest. It's best if you can place the sub so its driver is at your ear height when sitting at the listening position but that may not be possible. At the front of the room try listening also with your ears low down at the height of the bass drivers and the port at the rear of the speakers. If you can find 2 locations, one on the left of the room and one on the right, where output from the sub is particularly strong, then try placing the floorstanders in those locations and running setup again. Don't move the listening position if the speakers end up different distances to the left and right of the listening position, allow the setup process to compensate for the differences in distance and arrival time initially. If bass improves and the crossover frequency gets lowered but the sound appears off centre by too much, then try shifting the listening position until the sound appears centred and see what that does to the bass response. If it's still reasonable leave the listening position in the new location and rerun the setup process.

I think the odds are that you have 2 or more things affecting your bass response with the floor standers and you may need to make more than a single change in order to get things working better but hopefully trying one or more of my suggestions above, along with Mike's suggestions, will help to some degree. I do have to add that bass response depends to a degree on the combination of speaker location and listening position and how they interact. If you change speaker location, you may also need to change listening position a little in order to get the best result, and if you change the listening position you may have to change speaker location as a result. Trying to improve bass response can get to be a bit of a juggling act because of the way the factors can interact with each other so if you find something that works, set things up based on that and then repeat the suggestions above again to see if you can improve on things a little more. You may want to repeat the suggestions above 2 or 3 times if you keep getting small improvements each time you do so.


----------



## scipper77

My apologies, I was mistaken in the information I originally posted here. Please disregard this as to not create confusion.


----------



## mthomas47

scipper77 said:


> There is a little confusion here as there are currently 2 individuals asking questions at once. The gentleman with the receiver that only crosses over his fronts at 120Hz is not me. I do place my setup mic on the headrest of my reclining furniture.
> 
> Also, in the very long post before this one (this is why I didn't quote it) I believe that the point was missed that the gentleman with the 120Hz fronts issue swapped his wires without moving his speakers when he swapped his fronts and surrounds. The fact that the floorstanding went from 120 to the expected 60 should rule out room positioning/nulls as the root cause. I didn't go back and reread every post so if I'm wrong about this please correct me and I'll retract this comment to avoid confusion.



Hi,

To be honest, I don't think there is any confusion on the part of the other people posting. Ken asked if the other poster was using a mic stand. I said that I knew you weren't because you said so, but didn't know about the OP, because he didn't say. I added that I hadn't felt the need to advise you to use a mic stand, based on the type of mic you are using, and also added that a mic stand probably wouldn't be the cause of the OP's issues.

As for the room mode issue, the whole purpose of having him move his surrounds up to the front of the room was to find out what if anything changed. He wasn't just switching wires, he was switching the position of his fronts with his surrounds. In the surround position, his fronts now registered 60Hz, and in the front position, his surrounds now registered 120Hz. That ruled out his front speakers as the cause of his problem, and ruled in a room mode as a likely cause.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gp-se

David Aiken said:


> Mike has been giving you good advice and I wouldn't change any of that advice, but I will try to add something.
> 
> First, I think the receiver is OK, not defective. The change in results you got when you swapped speakers doesn't indicate anything that would make me suspect the AVR.
> 
> Next, you asked whether your room may have a bass null. The answer is yes, simply because every room has nulls. You can't avoid them at bass frequencies. All you can do is to try to minimise them, and the bass peaks that also exist, by a combination of speaker placement, listening position placement, and acoustic room treatment. Ideally you would set things up for the best bass result before running the Audyssey setup.
> 
> I find the difference in crossover you got when you swapped the fronts with the surround interesting. Did you place the surrounds in exactly the same position that the floor standers occupied when you made the swap? If not, then putting the floor standers exactly where you placed the surrounds for the swap may help because differences in speaker location can make a difference to bass response, sometimes a big difference.
> 
> I'm unfamiliar with your speakers but I tried doing a bit of a Google search on the floor standers but you didn't mention the model details so I'm not certain I looked at details for the speakers you have. From what I saw, I think your speakers have a port at the rear, the speaker I looked at was a bass reflex model and I couldn't see a port on the front of the speaker and there was no photo of the rear of the speaker. The output from the port supplies bass reinforcement and what is directly behind a rear facing port can make a difference because it can absorb or reflect that output. I don't know if your surrounds are rear ported but if they are, the ports will be located higher than the ports on the floor standers because the surrounds are on stands. Is there a difference in what is behind the front speakers at the height of the port on the floor standers and any port on the surrounds? If so, what? I guess it's possible that there's something low down at the height of the port on the floor standers that is absorbing some of the port output and weakening bass response that isn't a factor at the height of the port on the surrounds if they are ported. Another possibility is that you've got some furniture item behind the floor standers which reflects the port output but that furniture item does not extend up to the height of the the surround speaker on its stand so that the surround speaker had a different distance to the closest reflecting surface behind it than the distance the floor stander has at port height.
> 
> But getting back to nulls. There are 2 different types of null. One occurs in locations determined by room dimensions and is related to standing waves or room modes, depending on what you want to call them. If you have the listening position located in a location where one of those nulls occurs, that would definitely affect the Audyssey result if your mic was located at the listening position. The other sort of null is a cancellation effect that occurs at frequencies with wavelengths equal to 4 times the distance from the woofer to the wall behind the speaker. Output from the speaker which is reflected from the wall behind them arrives back at the speaker out of phase with the sound leaving the speaker and that causes a cancellation, weakening the sound you hear at that frequency.
> 
> And all of these things can sum together to produce a bigger effect than any of them would singly. If you have something behind the speaker at the height of the port on the floor stander which is absorbing some of the port's output and your listening position is in a null location for a room mode and the distance from the woofer to the wall behind the speaker is one quarter of the wavelength of a null which occurs at your listening position, you would have 3 things acting together to reduce output at the same frequency and you could really end up with an extremely bad null at that frequency. I once auditioned a speaker in a showroom and could not hear low bass at all when sitting in the listening chair they had set up, but when I stood and started to walk towards the CD player to remove the disc I was playing I discovered that I could hear very good bass a couple of feet in front of the listening chair. The difference in bass level between the 2 positions a very short distance apart was extreme, I have never heard such a big difference in bass response in 2 locations so close together at any other time in nearly 50 years of playing with audio and it was so extreme that I think it had to be the result of a combination of different factors affecting bass response.
> 
> I'm going to suggest a few things you can try in order to see if things like location are affecting the bass response of the floor standers. Have Audyssey turned off while trying these suggestions.
> 
> The first thing is simple. Simply move your listening chair or sofa out of the way so that you can walk from the back of the room towards the front of the room on a line that keeps you on the midline running down the room between the floor standers. Walk the line while playing a track with a lot of bass content with the sub and surrounds disconnected so that you are only hearing output from the floor standers. Check whether the loudness of the bass frequency varies noticeably. If it does, then try putting the listening position at a point where the bass response is loudest and see if that changes your crossover result when you run the setup procedure.
> 
> Edit: try walking a line from front to back a couple of times slightly to the left and right of the centre line also in order to see if shifting the listening position slightly to the left or right of the current location might help.
> 
> Next, if you have anything between the back of the speakers and the wall behind them, try removing whatever it is if you can. See if that makes a difference.
> 
> My next suggestion is going to sound counter intuitive because it actually contradicts a bit of advice Mike gave you. Mike recommended placing the speakers closer to the wall because that allows the walls to provide more reinforcement. That is normally the way to go but if you have a cancellation at a frequency with a wavelength 4 times the distance of the speaker to the wall causing part of your problem, you may actually get better results if you move the speaker forward, away from the wall. That will lower the frequency at which the cancellation occurs and if the crossover is being set high because the speaker is measuring 3 dB down at a frequency somewhere in the 100-200 Hz range, bringing the speaker forward will shift the cancellation frequency lower and that may lower the frequency at which the mic measures output as 3 dB down. You will lose bass reinforcement by bringing the speaker forward and the loss of reinforcement may have more effect on the actual result at the listening position so don't be surprised if doing this makes things worse, but it is possible that it may make things slightly better.
> 
> The next thing to try is also going to sound a little odd. Disconnect the front and surround speakers and only leave the sub connected. Move the sub to the listening position and then move around the front of the room in the area where the speakers are located listening for where the output from the sub is loudest. It's best if you can place the sub so its driver is at your ear height when sitting at the listening position but that may not be possible. At the front of the room try listening also with your ears low down at the height of the bass drivers and the port at the rear of the speakers. If you can find 2 locations, one on the left of the room and one on the right, where output from the sub is particularly strong, then try placing the floorstanders in those locations and running setup again. Don't move the listening position if the speakers end up different distances to the left and right of the listening position, allow the setup process to compensate for the differences in distance and arrival time initially. If bass improves and the crossover frequency gets lowered but the sound appears off centre by too much, then try shifting the listening position until the sound appears centred and see what that does to the bass response. If it's still reasonable leave the listening position in the new location and rerun the setup process.
> 
> I think the odds are that you have 2 or more things affecting your bass response with the floor standers and you may need to make more than a single change in order to get things working better but hopefully trying one or more of my suggestions above, along with Mike's suggestions, will help to some degree. I do have to add that bass response depends to a degree on the combination of speaker location and listening position and how they interact. If you change speaker location, you may also need to change listening position a little in order to get the best result, and if you change the listening position you may have to change speaker location as a result. Trying to improve bass response can get to be a bit of a juggling act because of the way the factors can interact with each other so if you find something that works, set things up based on that and then repeat the suggestions above again to see if you can improve on things a little more. You may want to repeat the suggestions above 2 or 3 times if you keep getting small improvements each time you do so.


Thank you for the very detailed response, you and Mike have been great! Upon further testing I turned off Audyssey and set the front tower speakers to Large. Standing in front of the speakers they had lots of bass, it sounded amazing! This confirms it is a Room Null issue, I will get some pictures tomorrow of the room, but basically it is a big open concept room, with the MLP located centered in the room. The room is roughly 17' x 20'. However it's really two rooms separated by an archway, and moving the couch back would block that arch/opening to the rear of the room. Once I post pictures it would be easier to understand.


----------



## David Aiken

gp-se said:


> Thank you for the very detailed response, you and Mike have been great! Upon further testing I turned off Audyssey and set the front tower speakers to Large. Standing in front of the speakers they had lots of bass, it sounded amazing! This confirms it is a Room Null issue, I will get some pictures tomorrow of the room, but basically it is a big open concept room, with the MLP located centered in the room. The room is roughly 17' x 20'. However it's really two rooms separated by an archway, and moving the couch back would block that arch/opening to the rear of the room. Once I post pictures it would be easier to understand.


Based on your description of your room and the limitations on where you can place the couch, instead of walking from the back of the room to the front as in my first suggestion, try walking from the archway forward and do the same a couple of times to the left and right of the midline.

You may be able to get better results by rotating the setup 90 degrees so the archway is to one side rather than behind you. Of course that depends on the dimensions of the part of the combined area that the system is located in and also on what else it is used for and the location of things like doors, windows, furniture etc but having the front speakers firing at an unbroken wall rather than a wall with an archway in it may change the measured bass response. There are no guarantees that it would give a better result and it could give a worse result but it is another option to consider. I know rotating the whole system is a real pain, and it definitely isn't easily possible if you have your screen wall mounted. There may be reasons that you simply say rotating the setup is impossible and I wouldn't argue against that. I'd say that rotating my system 90 degrees is impossible, partly because the screen is wall mounted and partly because it's a living room and I once had things set up 90 degrees to how they now are and what I had was no longer a living room, it was a sofa facing a screen and the space couldn't be used for anything else. I would not consider going back to that setup again even if I could be guaranteed of getting significantly better sound so I can well understand someone else saying that they're not prepared to rotate their system 90 degrees. There can be lots of reasons why it may not be an option for you but it could be worth considering if it is a possible option. There's a lot of wasted time and effort involved if it does not work better and that's a consideration also.

As a general comment, rooms with irregular shapes, openings like archways which do not have doors which can be closed and which open into other rooms or spaces, and open plan areas have much more complex acoustic behaviour than a basic rectangular room with a door which can be closed. Sometimes the irregularities and openings can work to your benefit, sometimes they work to your detriment, and sometimes—probably more often than not—you get a bit of good and a bit of bad as a result of the room which is good when the good bits work in your favour and bad when they don't. Solving problems in more complex room spaces is more difficult than it is in a simple rectangular room but you can usually do things which can improve the situation.

Pictures would help. Show facing forward from the listening position so we can see the speaker setup and show looking back behind the listening position so we can see what the rear of the space is like, plus pictures of the space around the front speakers so we can see if anything near them is having an effect, plus anything else you think may be relevant.


----------



## gp-se

Here are the pics of my setup:


----------



## mthomas47

gp-se said:


> Here are the pics of my setup:


Hi,

The pictures do help. Although there may be some radical ways to rearrange the furniture and the listening/viewing position, it is still a living room, so I suspect that you won't be too interested in radical changes. But, there may be some modest changes that will bring your crossover down just a little more, and improve your overall sound quality. As David has noted, the mid-point of a room is typically the worst seat in the house from an audio standpoint. Moving your couch forward by even 6" could have a beneficial effect.

The other thing that I would try is to move the towers even closer to the wall. Personally, I would also spread them just a little further apart and toe them in slightly to the center. Moving them further back may bring the crossover down to 100Hz or so by itself, while spreading them slightly further apart, and toeing them in a bit, may improve the soundstage width and overall clarity. Once you have tried to move the sofa forward just a bit (which is why I suggested taking some measurements slightly forward of your MLP) and moved your speakers back a little further toward the wall, I think you will get to a situation that you can live with better.

There are other things that you can probably do to improve your SQ, based on the photos, but you may want to concentrate on the MLP and tower positions first, and then let us know if you would like any further suggestions.

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I decided to edit my post after reading some of the other posts after this one. You are getting very well intended advice from several people, but some of it is inevitably going to be contradictory. One of the things that I am suggesting is that you prioritize your goals and deal with them sequentially. Ultimately, you will be balancing potentially competing goals to find the best balance. But, I would start by trying to fix the issue that initially led you to ask for help.

To review, you started with the front speakers about 2' forward of the front wall, and had a 150Hz crossover, which is much too high. When you moved them back a foot, the crossover dropped to 120Hz. I am suggesting that you do two things. First, try moving your sofa forward by about 6" and second, try moving the towers back even closer to the wall. To avoid reflections from the side of the cabinet and to increase the width of your soundstage, I am also suggesting that you spread the towers further apart, and toe them in slightly.

There will be other things that you can do which may improve your overall SQ, involving the table, rugs, the CC, the surrounds, etc. But, if you don't concentrate on fixing one issue at a time, I think you are likely to go in circles. Moving the speakers further out into the room, for instance, will just put you back where you started, with a 150Hz crossover, so I would follow a little more disciplined path, first, and move them further back.

There will be plenty of time to try other possibilities if that one doesn't accomplish the objective or creates new problems. Again, speaker placement and room arrangement do ultimately involve making informed compromises. But, first you have to experiment to find out what works in your room, and what doesn't, to become informed about your room. And, moving your speakers further back will tell you either yes or no with respect to what actually works in your specific case.


----------



## nezff

quick question guys. Im searching for this now. What is the volume used if you want to use outside test tones from say a bluray and a SPL meter. Wasnt sure what 75db is on the marantz 8801 display. Would 0db be reference and refer to 75db?

thanks.


----------



## mogorf

nezff said:


> quick question guys. Im searching for this now. What is the volume used if you want to use outside test tones from say a bluray and a SPL meter. Wasnt sure what 75db is on the marantz 8801 display. Would 0db be reference and refer to 75db?
> 
> thanks.


If you are absolutely sure the outside disc was recorded at 75 dB (-30 dB electric, to be precise) then yes, the MV setting should be 0 dB on the AVR.


----------



## Alan P

I can tell you that the tones on the Disney WOW disc are at -20dBfs and will result in 85dB at the MLP with 0MV. Not sure about other sources.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> If you are absolutely sure the outside disc was recorded at 75 dB (-30 dB electric, to be precise) then yes, the MV setting should be 0 dB on the AVR.





Alan P said:


> I can tell you that the tones on the Disney WOW disc are at -20dBfs and will result in 85dB at the MLP with 0MV. Not sure about other sources.


I was actually thinking the same thing--that to get 75db, he would have to be at -10 MV. I don't know that I would even want to listen to 85db test tones.


----------



## jhoffy22

Question regarding mic position: 

In the very first Audyssey thread, it is recommended that you do not place the microphone in such a way that the rear of it is blocked by the back of a seat cushion. How is this accomplished if you also have to have the mic at ear level? If I adjust the mic height high enough so that it's not blocked by the seat cushion in the rear, it is much higher than ear level. 

I took a picture to show what I am talking about:


----------



## David Aiken

gp-se said:


> Here are the pics of my setup:


I think that could prove to be a difficult room. I was expecting the space behind the listening position but not the opening to another area on the right of it as well. Rotating the system 90 degrees isn't really going to be an option for you.

I would think that the reason the crossover for your mains only came down to 60 Hz when you swapped them with the surrounds could be the space behind the right surround and the fact that a speaker in that location isn't going to get much support from neighbouring room surfaces but given the fact that the crossover frequency did come down, then I do think there may be merit in bringing the mains forward a bit if you can. You will lose some bass support, support which Mike is trying to increase by suggesting moving them back a bit further, but you will also lower the frequency at which the quarter wave cancellation occurs. Increasing bass support by boundary reinforcement could be beneficial but the speakers are already reasonably close to the wall so they should be getting a fair amount of reinforcement and if you put them exactly where the surrounds are, they would have got less reinforcement when you swapped them with the surrounds so I don't think a lack of bass reinforcement is a significant issue. I think the issue lies elsewhere.

I would still do the walking test I suggested and see if you can find a point a bit to the left or right of the current listening position where you get a bit more bass. Moving the couch back isn't going to be an option but I also don't think you've got much room to move things forward by a great deal but you may find a point a little bit further forward that helps also. If you can find a better spot for the listening position by doing that, then I'd rearrange things that way first before moving on to try the following suggestions which really are just suggestions for changes that may or may not help for reasons that may or may not be logical but which can be tried relatively easily.

1- try bringing the speakers forward. As I said, that's going to lower the quarter wave cancellation frequency and may help. It's also going to open up a bit more space around them and reduce the impact of any reflections and cancellations occurring because of proximity to the side walls of your equipment cabinet.

2- try moving the sub further to the left to open up more space between it and the left speaker. That's also intended to try and reduce the impact of reflections and cancellations occurring due to proximity to close surfaces.

Note: when you swapped the front speakers with the surrounds, the surround crossover setting wasn't adversely affected. The surrounds are on stands which place them higher than the front speakers so they would have been less affected by reflections from the sides of the equipment cabinet and from the side of the sub. I'm hoping that moving the speakers forward and reducing the strength and amount of reflection from the equipment cabinet and sub will help things.

Next, the crossover frequency gets set based on the highest frequency at which the bass response is 3 dB down, but down from what? If you have a peak at the frequency which is used as a reference point for judging the 3 db down point in the bass, you may affect the crossover setting and it may be raised so the next suggestions probably aren't going to affect bass response but have an effect elsewhere and may change the response at whatever frequency is used for the reference level'

3- take the coffee table in front of the couch out of the room during setup. The surface is going to reflect mid to high frequencies to the mic and perhaps elevate the measurement for the reference level. The rug won't do that. Also there's a low shelf under the table and sound is going to reflect between it and the rug and that could affect things.

4- try sticking a couple of thicknesses of towels on the floor in front of the speakers during setup measurements to act as an extension to the rug. The bare floor is going to reflect mid and high frequencies so the towels may reduce that a little.

Note: if the above 2 suggestions help to get a lower crossover frequency, they may also affect the mid to high end result so you may have to tweak the result a little after returning the table to its location and removing the towels. You may find using the Audyssey Flat curve rather than Reference helps and/or you may want to play with the treble tone control though you can't do that if you use Dynamic EQ.

5- I'd try removing the glass display cabinet in the right corner. Bass levels are highest in the corners of a room and what's in the corner may play a part. My preference would be to remove it entirely since it seems largely empty but if you don't want to do that I'd try removing it during setup.

Next, and this is the part you probably won't like because it means more work and time involved for you, don't try doing all of these things at once and then running setup. Do them one at a time and then run setup to see if each one helps. If a particular suggestion helps, leave things the way they were for that setup run and then try the next suggestion to see if you get further improvement. If a particular suggestion does not help, return things to the way they were before that setup process and then try the next suggestion and run setup again. That means you're going to be running setup several times so only do measurements in 1 or 3 positions before getting Audyssey to calculate a result. That will save time as you run through the suggestions, When you've finished trying the suggestions leave things as they are if the last suggestion tried helped or reverse what you did for that suggestion. You have then everything set up the way it was when you got your best result from the combination of all things that helped. Now run setup again doing the full 8 measurements and see how that result compares to the earlier result with 1 or 3 measurements. If the 8 measurement result delivers a higher crossover than the 1 or 3 measurement result, go back to using the lower number of measurements and repeat the setup process again in order to return to the better result.

At that point, return the coffee table if it's out of the room, remove the towels if they're still on the floor, return the display cabinet if it's out of the room and you want to keep it in the room, sit down and play something and see what you think. Hopefully you'll have a lower crossover setting at that point so you should be happier with the bass but you may want to adjust things in the midrange or highs by using tone controls or the Flat curve or trying something else. 

I think because of the room that you're going to be doing a bit of a juggling act. I think it's very unlikely that any one of my suggestions is going to lower the crossover frequency all the way down to 80 Hz or lower but a combination of them will. There may be something going on in the front of the room and the way the sound is working at the listening position with the speakers that means you can't get the crossover set as low with the speakers where they are as you can if you have them in the surround position so you may not be able to get the crossover down to the 60 Hz it was set to in the surround position and you may have to settle for a higher crossover setting but at least you will have it set as low as you can achieve.

Doing what I've suggested is going to take a bit of time so I'd set aside a Saturday or Sunday afternoon, tell everyone else to go out for the afternoon and have a good time, and then just start working through things. Given the room and the fact that there isn't anything obvious in the photos which looks like a major problem I don't think there's much choice apart from trying different things one at a time, seeing what helps and what doen't, and keeping the things that help and not keeping the changes that don't help.


----------



## robc1976

gp-se said:


> Here are the pics of my setup:


if possible, may not be but move those surrounds a bit back at 110 degrees...way to close the MLP

FRONTS, move out slightly so there face is past the entertainment center to avoid reflecting.


----------



## mthomas47

jhoffy22 said:


> Question regarding mic position:
> 
> In the very first Audyssey thread, it is recommended that you do not place the microphone in such a way that the rear of it is blocked by the back of a seat cushion. How is this accomplished if you also have to have the mic at ear level? If I adjust the mic height high enough so that it's not blocked by the seat cushion in the rear, it is much higher than ear level.
> 
> I took a picture to show what I am talking about:


Hi,

Ideally you would be using a boom mic stand, linked in the FAQ, rather than placing something on the sofa, although that still won't directly address the question you are asking. I think it's sort of a balancing act. If you get your mic level too high above ear level, your sound quality may suffer. On the other hand, if the Audyssey mic can't hear speakers behind the sofa, then you may not get quite as good a calibration for those particular speakers.

So, it's partly a matter of paying attention to having a line-of-sight from the rear surround, or surround speakers, to the Audyssey mic (which is omnidirectional), and partly a matter of prioritizing your objectives. If I had to choose between having my mic at the correct listening height, versus worrying about having a completely unimpeded sight line to my rear speakers, I would put the mic at ear height. The rear surrounds will play much less important content, particularly from a tonal or clarity standpoint, and will be primarily for ambience. The front three channels especially, and secondarily even normally placed surround speakers (more out to the sides) will play much more important content, than speakers situated behind the listening position. So, I would nearly always emphasize mic placement at, or very close to, ear height.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> If you are absolutely sure the outside disc was recorded at 75 dB (-30 dB electric, to be precise) then yes, the MV setting should be 0 dB on the AVR.


As I understand it, this is true providing you have run the Audyssey calibration in your room (to get 0 dB set to reference taking your room size, acoustics, and speaker efficiency into account). Otherwise your AVR, speakers, etc. don't know if they are in a coat closet or Grand Central Station.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Ideally you would be using a boom mic stand, linked in the FAQ, rather than placing something on the sofa, although that still won't directly address the question you are asking. I think it's sort of a balancing act. If you get your mic level too high above ear level, your sound quality may suffer. On the other hand, if the Audyssey mic can't hear speakers behind the sofa, then you may not get quite as good a calibration for those particular speakers.
> 
> So, it's partly a matter of paying attention to having a line-of-sight from the rear surround, or surround speakers, to the Audyssey mic (which is omnidirectional), and partly a matter of prioritizing your objectives. If I had to choose between having my mic at the correct listening height, versus worrying about having a completely unimpeded sight line to my rear speakers, I would put the mic at ear height. The rear surrounds will play much less important content, particularly from a tonal or clarity standpoint, and will be primarily for ambience. The front three channels especially, and secondarily even normally placed surround speakers (more out to the sides) will play much more important content, than speakers situated behind the listening position. So, I would nearly always emphasize mic placement at, or very close to, ear height.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


this post should be copy and pasted in the FAQ


----------



## garygarrison

jhoffy22 said:


> Question regarding mic position:
> 
> In the very first Audyssey thread, it is recommended that you do not place the microphone in such a way that the rear of it is blocked by the back of a seat cushion. How is this accomplished if you also have to have the mic at ear level? If I adjust the mic height high enough so that it's not blocked by the seat cushion in the rear, it is much higher than ear level.
> 
> I took a picture to show what I am talking about:


5 4 3 2 1 Blast Off!


----------



## jhoffy22

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Ideally you would be using a boom mic stand, linked in the FAQ, rather than placing something on the sofa, although that still won't directly address the question you are asking. I think it's sort of a balancing act. If you get your mic level too high above ear level, your sound quality may suffer. On the other hand, if the Audyssey mic can't hear speakers behind the sofa, then you may not get quite as good a calibration for those particular speakers.
> 
> So, it's partly a matter of paying attention to having a line-of-sight from the rear surround, or surround speakers, to the Audyssey mic (which is omnidirectional), and partly a matter of prioritizing your objectives. If I had to choose between having my mic at the correct listening height, versus worrying about having a completely unimpeded sight line to my rear speakers, I would put the mic at ear height. The rear surrounds will play much less important content, particularly from a tonal or clarity standpoint, and will be primarily for ambience. The front three channels especially, and secondarily even normally placed surround speakers (more out to the sides) will play much more important content, than speakers situated behind the listening position. So, I would nearly always emphasize mic placement at, or very close to, ear height.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the detailed explanation. I do not currently have rear surround sound speakers, only side surrounds. Based on what you said, I will prioritize getting the microphone at ear level since I do not have to worry about the sofa back blocking sounds from the rear speakers. 

Funny you say that about the mic stand. My mic stand actually came with the Denon AVR S710W receiver. Still, it's advised to use a boob mic stand instead?


----------



## Selden Ball

jhoffy22 said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation. I do not currently have rear surround sound speakers, only side surrounds. Based on what you said, I will prioritize getting the microphone at ear level since I do not have to worry about the sofa back blocking sounds from the rear speakers.
> 
> Funny you say that about the mic stand. My mic stand actually came with the Denon AVR S710W receiver. Still, it's advised to use a boob mic stand instead?


Yes.

"Real" microphone stands are extremely stable. The cardboard stand vibrates too much, especially if it's sitting on a cushion. The vibrations are detected as sounds and contaminate the calibration.


----------



## mthomas47

jhoffy22 said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation. I do not currently have rear surround sound speakers, only side surrounds. Based on what you said, I will prioritize getting the microphone at ear level since I do not have to worry about the sofa back blocking sounds from the rear speakers.
> 
> Funny you say that about the mic stand. My mic stand actually came with the Denon AVR S710W receiver. Still, it's advised to use a boob mic stand instead?


You are very welcome! I like the fact that Denon supplies a cardboard stand with the mic, and I don't know that there is anything inherently wrong with using it, other than the potential vibration issue that Selden mentioned. But, a boom mic stand offers much greater flexibility and adjustability. There are several models available of which this would be one example: https://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu174-Mic...81037967&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=boom+mic&psc=1

The little cardboard stand presupposes that all of the mic positions will correspond to actual seating positions, so that the tripod will be resting on something. But, in practice, some of the best mic positions may not correspond to specific seating positions, so a larger more structured stand offers far greater flexibility. The same thing is true with respect to exact heights and mic placements. A boom mic stand offers more adjustability and makes it much easier to position the mic exactly where you want it.

It certainly isn't something that you have to have. And, I think it's value is greater with the tower mics that come with most versions of XT, and all versions of XT-32. But, I do think that the boom mic stand offers advantages for someone taking multiple calibrations and striving for precision in measurement positions.


----------



## jhoffy22

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I like the fact that Denon supplies a cardboard stand with the mic, and I don't know that there is anything inherently wrong with using it, other than the potential vibration issue that Selden mentioned. But, a boom mic stand offers much greater flexibility and adjustability. There are several models available of which this would be one example: https://www.amazon.com/Ohuhu174-Mic...81037967&sr=1-1-spons&keywords=boom+mic&psc=1
> 
> The little cardboard stand presupposes that all of the mic positions will correspond to actual seating positions, so that the tripod will be resting on something. But, in practice, some of the best mic positions may not correspond to specific seating positions, so a larger more structured stand offers far greater flexibility. The same thing is true with respect to exact heights and mic placements. A boom mic stand offers more adjustability and makes it much easier to position the mic exactly where you want it.
> 
> It certainly isn't something that you have to have. And, I think it's value is greater with the tower mics that come with most versions of XT, and all versions of XT-32. But, I do think that the boom mic stand offers advantages for someone taking multiple calibrations and striving for precision in measurement positions.


This explanation certainly helps, thanks again. 

Another question if you don't mind...do the 6 listening positions (in the case of my receiver, Denon AVR S710W) actually correspond to where people are sitting? Or are they more so just listening positions for the microphone? I had the realization that the 6 positions may not be talking about listening positions in terms of where people are sitting but rather just 6 different spots for the mic to map out the area. The fact that they are supposed to be no more than 2 feet away from each other is what got me thinking about this.


----------



## mthomas47

jhoffy22 said:


> This explanation certainly helps, thanks again.
> 
> Another question if you don't mind...do the 6 listening positions (in the case of my receiver, Denon AVR S710W) actually correspond to where people are sitting? Or are they more so just listening positions for the microphone? I had the realization that the 6 positions may not be talking about listening positions in terms of where people are sitting but rather just 6 different spots for the mic to map out the area. The fact that they are supposed to be no more than 2 feet away from each other is what got me thinking about this.


The mic positions could correspond to where people are sitting, if you had two rows of three seats, for instance. But, your reasoning was correct, that the mic positions usually do not correspond to actual listening positions. The first position usually corresponds to a specific seat, or to the midpoint between two seats, and is designated as the MLP, because it is at that point in space where the timing and levels of the various channels will converge. After that first mic position, though, you might be spacing your mic positions 6" apart or 12" apart or 24" apart. Audyssey used to recommend mic positions as much as 36" apart. So, a lot depends on the specific room, seating arrangement, and goals of the user.

As you suggested, the purpose of the multiple measurements is simply to provide Audyssey with information about the listening area, which it can then use to EQ the frequency response in that general area. Some people get better results by EQing a larger area, and some people get better results with a more compact mic placement. But, in any case, the mic pattern will rarely coincide with specific seats on anything like a one-to-one correspondence.


----------



## Alan P

jhoffy22 said:


> Thanks for the detailed explanation. I do not currently have rear surround sound speakers, only side surrounds. Based on what you said, I will prioritize getting the microphone at ear level since I do not have to worry about the sofa back blocking sounds from the rear speakers.
> 
> Funny you say that about the mic stand. My mic stand actually came with the Denon AVR S710W receiver. *Still, it's advised to use a boob mic stand instead?*


Well now..._that _is a whole different subject.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Well now..._that _is a whole different subject.


And, here, I took the high road!


----------



## gp-se

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The pictures do help.





David Aiken said:


> I think that could prove to be a difficult room.




Thanks again both of you for taking the time to help me with this. This weekend I'll try the suggestions, and post my results.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Yeah, now it's really meager help!  But, surely the monoblock construction of the flagship model is worth the extra thousand, even without the 11 channels of amplification, and smartphone app.
> 
> I feel this way every time I upgrade to a new smartphone. By the time I get it set-up, there's a newer and "better" model out.


I'm. back Mike,

Long time absence ended. I will try to keep this short as possible. Not one of my traits.

I just re-read the Audyssey Part I and Part II (for the first time) threads from start to finish. Just when you think you know what you don't know. You discover you barely know what you know and forget about what you don't. I think this may be a loosing battle!

I upgraded from an Onkyo 5010 to a new Denon 7200WA. I had plane jane Audyssey in the older Onkyo and used a separate SVS/Audyssey SuB-Eq unit to do the subs exclusively. Room conditions have not changed and Subs are the same with Dual SVS Ultras. Speakers are all the same as well. Previously my Audyssey calibrations resulted in Sub trim about 40% ish and AVR Sub trims at Audyssey set -1.5 and -2.0 that were used increased to -0.5 and -1.0 respectively. Sound was fantastic and I was happy camper.

Introduce the new Denon with the X32 Audyssey. I yanked out the old Sub EQ unit and ran direct to the AVR. First run with the new x32 and I had difficulty getting past the level matching section. Had to dial the Sub Trims damn near to 10% and lower. The adjustments on the older Ultras with the potentiometer is very sensitive so moving it the width of a Amoeba hair can be a substantial gain change. Once I got past the Level matching section. Audyssey was run to 8 positions using a Tripod.

(Note): While running Audyssey I noticed the on screen instructions to place the Microphone no more than 2 feet from position 1? Is this new? Seems pretty limiting and arbitrary to me. If true and my math is correct. Does that not limit you to a 4 foot perimeter max area?

Results put my AVR Sub trims to -12. After reading this thread. It is note that -12 trims are not necessarily optimal. As Audyssey may not be working with accurate performance data. I now understand that I need to rerun Audyssey using only 1 position to achieve at least a -11.5 solution. If this is possible without turning the sub gains to zero. Lets say I achieve this goal and get as close as humanly possible.

The next step is to run Audyssey over to all 8 positions. Hoping the AVR Sub trims remain at or near the -11.5 target. Here is where I get confused and could use some advice/council.

I also read its not advised to use the internal test tones to make trim adjustments as Audyssey is bypassed and will not know you have changed gains. So using a Disc based solution is recommend as it will engage Audyssey. However I have the Disney WOW calibration Disc. I just read that this runs hot. Does that also include the Sub test tones? 

Please bear with me as I jump back into this. As I said I am not new, but have been away for an extended period of time and as a result I seem to have fallen behind in keeping up with the changes.

A quick shout out to Pepar and Keith. I hope you remember me, for I most certainly and fondly remember one of you 

Thanks for any and all help offered. Drinking from a Fire House would be an understatement.

P.S. I posted a little about this in the Denon thread. But now think this is more an Audyssey subject and the questions will be better addressed here.


----------



## Keith AP

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> ...
> 
> Introduce the new Denon with the X32 Audyssey. I yanked out the old Sub EQ unit and ran direct to the AVR. First run with the new x32 and I had difficulty getting past the level matching section. Had to dial the Sub Trims damn near to 10% and lower. The adjustments on the older Ultras with the potentiometer is very sensitive so moving it the width of a Amoeba hair can be a substantial gain change. Once I got past the Level matching section. Audyssey was run to 8 positions using a Tripod.
> ...
> Results put my AVR Sub trims to -12. After reading this thread. It is note that -12 trims are not necessarily optimal. As Audyssey may not be working with accurate performance data. I now understand that I need to rerun Audyssey using only 1 position to achieve at least a -11.5 solution. If this is possible without turning the sub gains to zero. Lets say I achieve this goal and get as close as humanly possible.


Adam, thought I'd jump in with a similar issue I had with the subs and XT32. I could barely turn the volume setting up on the subs from minimum on my pair of HSU VTF-3MK5 HP's with my Marantz AV7702 to achieve -11.5. In order to get a bit better control, I bought a pair of Harrison Labs 12 dB RCA Line Level Attenuators from PartsExpress that, in the end, allowed me to adjust volume around the 9'oclock position on each sub.


----------



## Alan P

Adam,

I would shoot for an initial sub trim a bit higher than -11.5...maybe -9 or so. This is because you may end up at -12 again after the full 8 point cal...the trims can be .5dB or so different after the full cal.

Yes, the sub channel on the WOW disc is at -20dBfs as well IIRC.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

So I was able to achieve a calibrated Avr Sub trim of -9.5 and -10.5. So good to go from that. Thanks to everyone for the help and advice.

So I can use the WOW disc to adjust trims (limited up to only 7.1 channels however) but I need to set trims to 65db's on the SPL meter. Is that correct?

What do you guys use to adjust more than a 7.1 speaker arrangement? Is there another product out there that does more channels?

Thanks in advance for any info or assistance.


----------



## Alan P

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> So I was able to achieve a calibrated Avr Sub trim of -9.5 and -10.5. So good to go from that. Thanks to everyone for the help and advice.
> 
> So I can use the WOW disc to adjust trims (limited up to only 7.1 channels however) but I need to set trims to 65db's on the SPL meter. Is that correct?
> 
> What do you guys use to adjust more than a 7.1 speaker arrangement? Is there another product out there that does more channels?
> 
> Thanks in advance for any info or assistance.


With the MV at 0, you want the test tones from the WOW disc to read *85dB *on the SPL meter (slow, C-weighting). Make sure you have DynEQ and DynVOL turned off and make sure your AVR is set to "Multi-Channel In".

There is nothing that I know of that can output discretely to more than 7.1 channels as of now...it's best to just trust your AVR got it right. 

If you find a large discrepancy in how Audyssey set your trims and the WOW disc (very unlikely), or if the differences are pretty much the same in all speakers, you can adjust the trim for the other satellites up/down accordingly.

But really, most AVRs and pre-pros these days get the trims pretty much spot on.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Alan P said:


> With the MV at 0, you want the test tones from the WOW disc to read *85dB *on the SPL meter (slow, C-weighting). Make sure you have DynEQ and DynVOL turned off and make sure your AVR is set to "Multi-Channel In".
> 
> There is nothing that I know of that can output discretely to more than 7.1 channels as of now...it's best to just trust your AVR got it right.
> 
> If you find a large discrepancy in how Audyssey set your trims and the WOW disc (very unlikely), or if the differences are pretty much the same in all speakers, you can adjust the trim for the other satellites up/down accordingly.
> 
> But really, most AVRs and pre-pros these days get the trims pretty much spot on.


Understood. I guess I am showing my old school Audyssey bias. Where we always went back and used a SPL meter post calibration and leveled out the system. Old habits do die hard. Without completing this step I feel somehow I have an incomplete calibration. But I am re-learning and listening. Thank you kindly for the support and reinforcement.


----------



## pbarach

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> While running Audyssey I noticed the on screen instructions to place the Microphone no more than 2 feet from position 1? Is this new? Seems pretty limiting and arbitrary to me. If true and my math is correct. Does that not limit you to a 4 foot perimeter max area?


Yes, this is (relatively) new. I have an x4000 (purchased 2013) with XT32, and there are no on-screen instructions about microphone positions. And the various diagrams that Audyssey has sent around concerning placement, like this one do not correspond to keeping measurements within a 2-foot radius, although some people on this list have advocated that procedure (I'll let them explain it). 

The manual for my x4000 does NOT say to measure within a 2-foot radius, but the manual for the later model x5200 does, yet both of them include the same diagram for Audyssey mic placement.


----------



## bmcn

pbarach said:


> Yes, this is (relatively) new. I have an x4000 (purchased 2013) with XT32, and there are no on-screen instructions about microphone positions. And the various diagrams that Audyssey has sent around concerning placement, like this one do not correspond to keeping measurements within a 2-foot radius, although some people on this list have advocated that procedure (I'll let them explain it).
> 
> The manual for my x4000 does NOT say to measure within a 2-foot radius, but the manual for the later model x5200 does, yet both of them include the same diagram for Audyssey mic placement.


Lots of opinions on this and I've read comments by Chris from Audyssey that 2-3' between locations is acceptable. I counted only 6, not 8, measuring positions in the drawing from the manual.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

bmcn said:


> Lots of opinions on this and I've read comments by Chris from Audyssey that 2-3' between locations is acceptable. I counted only 6, not 8, measuring positions in the drawing from the manual.


OK, so old school Audyssey was to run out as many locations as you could. The more the better they said. Is that school of thought now different? Is it now lees is better?

Could any of the real Audyssey folks answer the 2 foot question. I mean if we follow this instruction we are essentially left with calibrating a 4 foot circle and no more. Every additional calibration spot you do the on screen instructions tell you to place the Microphone NO MORE than 2ft from your initial starting position of the 1st reading. Unless my math is wrong and I am certain is it not, we are left with a 4 foot circumference circle from the initial first reading.

I suspect this is a Typo and should say place the next calibration position no more than 2 feet from the Last position. Not the original position. If we can get Chris or some one else who can answer this for Audyssey directly that would be nice.

Am I the first person to ask this question of did I possibly miss this topic being discussed before. If I missed it my apologies. But to be honest there was a great deal of reading to be done to catch up for 5 years of absence.

Thanks to anyone who can officially answer this 2 foot question.


----------



## Selden Ball

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> OK, so old school Audyssey was to run out as many locations as you could. The more the better they said. Is that school of thought now different? Is it now lees is better?
> 
> Could any of the real Audyssey folks answer the 2 foot question. I mean if we follow this instruction we are essentially left with calibrating a 4 foot circle and no more. Every additional calibration spot you do the on screen instructions tell you to place the Microphone NO MORE than 2ft from your initial starting position of the 1st reading. Unless my math is wrong and I am certain is it not, we are left with a 4 foot circumference circle from the initial first reading.
> 
> I suspect this is a Typo and should say place the next calibration position no more than 2 feet from the Last position. Not the original position. If we can get Chris or some one else who can answer this for Audyssey directly that would be nice.
> 
> Am I the first person to ask this question of did I possibly miss this topic being discussed before. If I missed it my apologies. But to be honest there was a great deal of reading to be done to catch up for 5 years of absence.
> 
> Thanks to anyone who can officially answer this 2 foot question.


Nobody official reads AVS any more. You might get a response if you post your questions to Audyssey's Facebook account.

However, this topic has been discussed frequently in the past.

The distance is determined by your preferences. No particular distance is right or wrong, although you should not place the microphone outside the area enclosed by your speakers. If you want to optimize the acoustics for your own primary listening position, cluster the microphone positions close to it. This provides you with the best possible audio and your guests with OK audio. If you spread out the microphone positions, then the audio at your seat won't be the best possible, but it will be improved for others.

Always use the maximum available number of microphone positions. That's 6 for some equipment, 8 for the higher end D+M equipment and more when using Audyssey Pro. With more information about the room's acoustics, Audyssey's algorithms can do a better job. (Exactly how they work is proprietary information.)

I suggest rereading the Audyssey 101/FAQ for additional details.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Selden Ball said:


> Nobody official reads AVS any more. You might get a response if you post your questions to Audyssey's Facebook account.
> 
> However, this topic has been discussed frequently in the past.
> 
> The distance is determined by your preferences. No particular distance is right or wrong, although you should not place the microphone outside the area enclosed by your speakers. If you want to optimize the acoustics for your own primary listening position, cluster the microphone positions close to it. This provides you with the best possible audio and your guests with OK audio. If you spread out the microphone positions, then the audio at your seat won't be the best possible, but it will be improved for others.
> 
> Always use the maximum available number of microphone positions. That's 6 for some equipment, 8 for the higher end D+M equipment and more when using Audyssey Pro. With more information about the room's acoustics, Audyssey's algorithms can do a better job. (Exactly how they work is proprietary information.)
> 
> I suggest rereading the Audyssey 101/FAQ for additional details.


Thank you kindly for the reply Selden. However, my original question about the on screen Audyssey calibration instructions on my Denon 7200WA remain valid. The on screen instructions tell you to place the microphone NO MORE than 2 feet from the 1st and original measurement. I desire to ascertain if this is correct information or if this is, as I suspect is to be, a Typo. Otherwise this limit of a 4ft circle seems to run counter to most of the previous information and instruction provided by the Audyssey Team.

Your reply above about the distance is determine by preference and that no distance is right or wrong, contradicts the on screen Audyssey instructions. So, they both can not both be right. One or the other must be incorrect. Thus my original post and questions about this specific issue.


----------



## Selden Ball

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Thank you kindly for the reply Selden. However, my original question about the on screen Audyssey calibration instructions on my Denon 7200WA remain valid. The on screen instructions tell you to place the microphone NO MORE than 2 feet from the 1st and original measurement. I desire to ascertain if this is correct information or if this is, as I suspect is to be, a Typo. Otherwise this limit of a 4ft circle seems to run counter to most of the previous information and instruction provided by the Audyssey Team.
> 
> Your reply above about the distance is determine by preference and that no distance is right or wrong, contradicts the on screen Audyssey instructions. So, they both can not both be right. One or the other must be incorrect. Thus my original post and questions about this specific issue.


I suspect that the on-screen description is simply D+M's own interpretation put there because they got tired of people asking their CSRs about it. At any rate, as I wrote previously, if you want an official response from Audyssey, you'll have to ask on their Facebook page.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Selden Ball said:


> I suspect that the on-screen description is simply D+M's own interpretation put there because they got tired of people asking their CSRs about it. At any rate, as I wrote previously, if you want an official response from Audyssey, you'll have to ask on their Facebook page.


Yes, you are probably right about that. Sadly I don't do FB and have no inclination to start now. So, unless they come back here or someone else has the same question and asks them on FB I suppose this question will go unanswered.

Again I do very much appreciate your replies and information. Your help is highly valued Sir.


----------



## Selden Ball

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Yes, you are probably right about that. Sadly I don't do FB and have no inclination to start now. So, unless they come back here or someone else has the same question and asks them on FB I suppose this question will go unanswered.
> 
> Again I do very much appreciate your replies and information. Your help is highly valued Sir.


You're very welcome. However, please do not call me Sir. I was an enlisted man, not an officer.


----------



## robc1976

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Thank you kindly for the reply Selden. However, my original question about the on screen Audyssey calibration instructions on my Denon 7200WA remain valid. The on screen instructions tell you to place the microphone NO MORE than 2 feet from the 1st and original measurement. I desire to ascertain if this is correct information or if this is, as I suspect is to be, a Typo. Otherwise this limit of a 4ft circle seems to run counter to most of the previous information and instruction provided by the Audyssey Team.
> 
> Your reply above about the distance is determine by preference and that no distance is right or wrong, contradicts the on screen Audyssey instructions. So, they both can not both be right. One or the other must be incorrect. Thus my original post and questions about this specific issue.


 they have always recommend the 2ft distance. Its a suggestion not a in stone fact. Some spaces cant do this. I will say my best calibration was a mic position in my 3 seats (dedicated theater) where ears are. The next one was forward 2ft 25% from edge Of 3rd seat then 2ft in front of MLP (middle seat) the 2ft and 25% of 3rd seat.

Next 2-are in the middle of 1st and 3rd seat for surrounds.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Thank you kindly for the reply Selden. However, my original question about the on screen Audyssey calibration instructions on my Denon 7200WA remain valid. The on screen instructions tell you to place the microphone NO MORE than 2 feet from the 1st and original measurement. I desire to ascertain if this is correct information or if this is, as I suspect is to be, a Typo. Otherwise this limit of a 4ft circle seems to run counter to most of the previous information and instruction provided by the Audyssey Team.
> 
> Your reply above about the distance is determine by preference and that no distance is right or wrong, contradicts the on screen Audyssey instructions. So, they both can not both be right. One or the other must be incorrect. Thus my original post and questions about this specific issue.


Hi Adam,

I have been out of town (and touch) for a couple of days, or I would have responded sooner. Alan helped you with your other questions, but I would like to take a crack at this one. First, I agree with Selden that the spacing of the microphone positions is, and always has been, mainly a matter of personal preference. However, the Audyssey recommendation does appear to have changed fairly recently.

Several years ago, Audyssey's "official" recommendation for microphone spacing was 3' to 4' in each direction, which could encompass quite a large area. Now, both the Denon/Marantz and Onkyo recommendations for spacing the Audyssey mic positions appear to be 2'. It does appear that Audyssey's "official" recommendation has changed. We might speculate that the experiences of many of the people who posted on this thread over the years might have helped to contribute to the change. Or perhaps, Audyssey conducted additional tests in recent years, which led them to a slightly different conclusion than the older one.

In any event, there are sort of two schools of thought on the issue of mic spacing. One school of thought, which came from Audyssey, was that it was advisable to take measurements across a very large area, perhaps 6' to 8' wide by 4' to 6' deep (3'-4' spacing from the MLP, side-to-side, and front-to-back). Audyssey would gather information from that large area, perform its fuzzy logic weighting, and EQ a larger area as a result.

The second school of thought, which was largely the result of empirical observation by people posting on this thread, was that using measurements across such a large area simply gave Audyssey more potential problems to try to fix, and therefore strained the abilities of the weighting algorithm. I don't believe that this was ever put into those precise words, but that was certainly a conclusion that I had considered. I believed that it was less a matter of only EQing for a single position, and more a matter of what actually worked better in the average room, particularly with more small mixed-use type rooms as opposed to large, dedicated HT's.

Many users experimented with relatively small mic patterns and discovered that they could still get pretty good EQ across a large area. My own experience, prompted by the findings of some other members, was similar. I found that I could restrict my total measurement area to about a 2' by 2' square (1' spacing to each side, from the MLP, and about 2' forward) and still EQ a pretty large area in my room. It is a large enough area that I can change to at least three different, widely spaced, seating positions and not hear a change in the frequency response. Of course, imaging changes as I move away from the MLP, but not the frequency response.

To continue the earlier speculation, taking measurements within a smaller and more consistent area might actually make it easier for Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting to apply good EQ to a general listening area. Of course, this idea presupposes that there are no radical changes in frequency response, that Audyssey will need to try to fix, within that general listening area. So, like everything involving audio, this is very much subject to trial-and-error for a specific HT.

And, there is still something to the idea of EQing for the best seat in the house, versus EQing every seat to a somewhat lesser extent. So, that idea which, was advanced in an earlier post, may still have practical application, depending on the specific room, and on the preferences of the individual user. 

I would like to believe that Audyssey changed their recommendation because they realized that measuring a smaller area actually enables the EQ process to work better, in most cases, compared to trying to EQ from a very large measurement area. But, whatever their reasons for changing the recommendation, I don't think it has a practical impact on the well-informed users of this thread. And, that is because it is still necessary to experiment in your own listening space in order to discover what actually works best in your particular situation.

If I experimented with going out 3' to 4' to each side of my MLP, for instance, (which is how I initially tried things in my room) and discovered that I got superior EQ that way, then that is what I would do, irrespective of Audyssey's "official" recommendation. And, on the other hand, if I found that only going out 6" to each side of my MLP gave me a superior calibration, then I would do that. You really won't know what works best for you until you try, and FWIW, I definitely don't think that there is a single "right" answer which fits every room.

I do think, however, that smaller mic patterns are easier to measure accurately, and to repeat with some consistency. So, if a smaller pattern does turn out to work well in your room, for either single or multiple listening positions, then you will probably be ahead of the game. 

Again, FWIW, Audyssey's recommendations for mic placement always were, somewhat necessarily, a one-size-fits-all instruction, regardless of the specific content of the recommendation. So, whether they suggest using 3' to 4' spacing, or only 2' spacing, I am certain that the creators of Audyssey understand the problems inherent in that kind of generic instruction, but still feel that they need to offer some rudimentary guidance to first-time Audyssey users. However, those users with more curiosity, or with specific problems, will probably come to places such as this thread, and get either more advanced guidance, or at least, other options to consider.

I hope that this somewhat lengthy explanation is helpful.


Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I have been out of town (and touch) for a couple of days, or I would have responded sooner. Alan helped you with your other questions, but I would like to take a crack at this one. First, I agree with Selden that the spacing of the microphone positions is, and always has been, mainly a matter of personal preference. However, the Audyssey recommendation does appear to have changed fairly recently.
> 
> Several years ago, Audyssey's "official" recommendation for microphone spacing was 3' to 4' in each direction, which could encompass quite a large area. Now, both the Denon/Marantz and Onkyo recommendations for spacing the Audyssey mic positions appear to be 2'. It does appear that Audyssey's "official" recommendation has changed. We might speculate that the experiences of many of the people who posted on this thread over the years might have helped to contribute to the change. Or perhaps, Audyssey conducted additional tests in recent years, which led them to a slightly different conclusion than the older one.
> 
> In any event, there are sort of two schools of thought on the issue of mic spacing. One school of thought, which came from Audyssey, was that it was advisable to take measurements across a very large area, perhaps 6' to 8' wide by 4' to 6' deep (3'-4' spacing from the MLP, side-to-side, and front-to-back). Audyssey would gather information from that large area, perform its fuzzy logic weighting, and EQ a larger area as a result.
> 
> The second school of thought, which was largely the result of empirical observation by people posting on this thread, was that using measurements across such a large area simply gave Audyssey more potential problems to try to fix, and therefore strained the abilities of the weighting algorithm. I don't believe that this was ever put into those precise words, but that was certainly a conclusion that I had considered. I believed that it was less a matter of only EQing for a single position, and more a matter of what actually worked better in the average room, particularly with more small mixed-use type rooms as opposed to large, dedicated HT's.
> 
> Many users experimented with relatively small mic patterns and discovered that they could still get pretty good EQ across a large area. My own experience, prompted by the findings of some other members, was similar. I found that I could restrict my total measurement area to about a 2' by 2' square (1' spacing to each side, from the MLP, and about 2' forward) and still EQ a pretty large area in my room. It is a large enough area that I can change to at least three different, widely spaced, seating positions and not hear a change in the frequency response. Of course, imaging changes as I move away from the MLP, but not the frequency response.
> 
> To continue the earlier speculation, taking measurements within a smaller and more consistent area might actually make it easier for Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting to apply good EQ to a general listening area. Of course, this idea presupposes that there are no radical changes in frequency response, that Audyssey will need to try to fix, within that general listening area. So, like everything involving audio, this is very much subject to trial-and-error for a specific HT.
> 
> And, there is still something to the idea of EQing for the best seat in the house, versus EQing every seat to a somewhat lesser extent. So, that idea which, was advanced in an earlier post, may still have practical application, depending on the specific room, and on the preferences of the individual user.
> 
> I would like to believe that Audyssey changed their recommendation because they realized that measuring a smaller area actually enables the EQ process to work better, in most cases, compared to trying to EQ from a very large measurement area. But, whatever their reasons for changing the recommendation, I don't think it has a practical impact on the well-informed users of this thread. And, that is because it is still necessary to experiment in your own listening space in order to discover what actually works best in your particular situation.
> 
> If I experimented with going out 3' to 4' to each side of my MLP, for instance, (which is how I initially tried things in my room) and discovered that I got superior EQ that way, then that is what I would do, irrespective of Audyssey's "official" recommendation. And, on the other hand, if I found that only going out 6" to each side of my MLP gave me a superior calibration, then I would do that. You really won't know what works best for you until you try, and FWIW, I definitely don't think that there is a single "right" answer which fits every room.
> 
> I do think, however, that smaller mic patterns are easier to measure accurately, and to repeat with some consistency. So, if a smaller pattern does turn out to work well in your room, for either single or multiple listening positions, then you will probably be ahead of the game.
> 
> Again, FWIW, Audyssey's recommendations for mic placement always were, somewhat necessarily, a one-size-fits-all instruction, regardless of the specific content of the recommendation. So, whether they suggest using 3' to 4' spacing, or only 2' spacing, I am certain that the creators of Audyssey understand the problems inherent in that kind of generic instruction, but still feel that they need to offer some rudimentary guidance to first-time Audyssey users. However, those users with more curiosity, or with specific problems, will probably come to places such as this thread, and get either more advanced guidance, or at least, other options to consider.
> 
> I hope that this somewhat lengthy explanation is helpful.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the reply Mike. Your response is not too long. I find it very informative and of sufficient breadth and depth on the subject in question. You are an excellent writer. Perhaps once of the best here for that matter. So reading your posts are always a pleasant experience and worth my time. 

In my old head I had come to somewhat of a similar answer for this new distance limiting direction/instruction. I may be new back in here, but I am not new to Audyssey. I have employed many flavors of Audyssey. I have run maybe hundreds of 8 to 16 position calibrations over the years. I have used various types of Audyeesy, including a version that is/was specific to Subs. Only does subs and was the precursor to the newish x32 flavor. It also gave you calibration graphs, that you have already discussed are more for reference than what was actually accomplished. I recall many conversations just like the one above in the early years of Audyssey understanding, if that is an acceptable term here. Spacing and placing of measurements was always a hot topic and discussed with great energy and conviction.

When I immediately noticed the New 2ft rule I was curious what I had missed. I wanted to know if Audyssey had come to some type/kind of conclusion about the measurement window. I take it from your reply that they have. 

I very much appreciate you taking the time to help me become "reacquainted" with Audyeesy.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Thanks for the reply Mike. Your response is not too long. I find it very informative and of sufficient breadth and depth on the subject in question. You are an excellent writer. Perhaps once of the best here for that matter. So reading your posts are always a pleasant experience and worth my time.
> 
> In my old head I had come to somewhat of a similar answer for this new distance limiting direction/instruction. I may be new back in here, but I am not new to Audyssey. I have employed many flavors of Audyssey. I have run maybe hundreds of 8 to 16 position calibrations over the years. I have used various types of Audyeesy, including a version that is/was specific to Subs. Only does subs and was the precursor to the newish x32 flavor. It also gave you calibration graphs, that you have already discussed are more for reference than what was actually accomplished. I recall many conversations just like the one above in the early years of Audyssey understanding, if that is an acceptable term here. Spacing and placing of measurements was always a hot topic and discussed with great energy and conviction.
> 
> When I immediately noticed the New 2ft rule I was curious what I had missed. I wanted to know if Audyssey had come to some type/kind of conclusion about the measurement window. I take it from your reply that they have.
> 
> I very much appreciate you taking the time to help me become "reacquainted" with Audyeesy.


You are very welcome, Adam! I am always glad to help, and enjoy theorizing about some of this, anyway. And, I appreciate the nice compliment. 

I don't actually know whether Audyssey has come to a different conclusion with respect to mic spacing. I am merely speculating when I suggest that they have. But, remembering their earlier measurement window, the proposition that they have subsequently changed their minds about what works best in the "typical" room certainly seems like a reasonable one to me.

I'm glad that you are getting back into all of this. I wish that some of the other people who used to post on this thread still did.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## t.stone13

I seem to be having an odd conundrum. My methodology does not change. Initial spot is always double checked with a "test" test - I run the minimum 3 positions all in the MLP. I check the reported levels/distances/etc and make the needed changes to bring each perameter to desired specifications (L/R being same distance, sub trim in the range of -9.5 dB to -10 dB, etc.). I then correctly run a full, final test with all positions. 

Every time I run the correction my mains' crossover results vary from 80 Hz to 130 Hz. Even the "test" test can vary in crossover selections. Any ideas on the cause of this? Bad mic?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

I know this has been discussed before and I have read those conversations. I am seeking input and opinions on how to best proceed in conducting channel level testing and adjustments while staying inside the Audyssey box.

Here is what I think I understand. You can NOT use the AVRs channel level test tones to make channel adjustments that will be recognized by the active Audyssey filters from the current AVR Audyssey calibration. Any channel trim adjustments applied using the AVR test tones will be done without further Audyssey treatment. This could possibly create gaps in the frequency response filter settings. 

Currently there exists no method (Calibration Disc) of adjusting more than a 7.1 channel system. At least none that I am aware. For a 11.2 or 5.2.2 or any other Dolby ATMOS or DTS X set up beyond the basic 7.1 channel arrangement we are just out of luck.

We must rely on the premise that Audyssey has indeed set all the channels to the proper Reference levels. I guess were talking about the difference between Reference and Preference. So does there exist a method, product and or process where already calibrated channel levels can be adjusted in a way that Audyssey is aware and engaged in managing the new level adjustments?

I want to trust Audyssey, but I trust my OWN ears just as much. While achieving a Reference sound field is what Audyssey does best. I wish to be able to tweak and adjust the trim levels to better suit my hearing abilities and limitations. While Reference is used as a standard of reproducing the sound as it was intended. Preference permits us to make subtle adjustments to the channel levels to better suit the actual audience. (See note #1) 

Do I have the proper and correct understanding of the current limitations of Audyssey and the secondary sound calibration market? Am I missing something? Is there a workaround that might produce a sound compromise?

What say you?

*Note #1: Suffer from hearing loss in both ears, but more in left than right. Hearing loss was the result of being a Naval Engineer and spending many years in Main Propulsion/Engineering Spaces. Including being on deck, and far too close, to more than a few Naval Gun Fire Exercises on the USS New Jersey's and USS IOWA's Main 16' Guns.


----------



## pbarach

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> I know this has been discussed before and I have read those conversations. I am seeking input and opinions on how to best proceed in conducting channel level testing and adjustments while staying inside the Audyssey box.
> 
> Here is what I think I understand. You can NOT use the AVRs channel level test tones to make channel adjustments that will be recognized by the active Audyssey filters from the current AVR Audyssey calibration. Any channel trim adjustments applied using the AVR test tones will be done without further Audyssey treatment. This could possibly create gaps in the frequency response filter settings.


You can adjust the channel trim settings in the AVR, but not using the AVR's test tones. You can use a calibration disc and a sound pressure level meter if you want to adjust the individual trim levels. The filters developed when you do an Audyssey calibration remain in place when you adjust the trim levels, but the overall level of the speaker output will change. To oversimplify an example, if the Audyssey filter reduced the output at 500 Hz by 5 dB and increased the output at 1000 Hz by 5 dB, adjusting the trim level louder by 2 dB would result in filters down by 3 dB at 500 Hz and up by 7 dB at 10000 Hz.

Thanks for your service!


----------



## Alan P

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Here is what I think I understand. You can NOT use the AVRs channel level test tones to make channel adjustments that will be recognized by the active Audyssey filters from the current AVR Audyssey calibration. Any channel trim adjustments applied using the AVR test tones will be done without further Audyssey treatment. This could possibly create gaps in the frequency response filter settings.


\

The only reason to not use the internal test tones is because they bypass the Audyssey EQ filters. Say you have a speaker that Audyssey corrected a dip at 2000hz and applied a +6dB filter. Using the internal tones, that particular speaker will register at a lower SPL than with the EQ in place. How much is up for debate...may only be a .5dB overall difference.

I know in my system, through testing with REW, that my speaker trim settings using the internal tones + SPL meter vs. REW + calibrated mic vary by only a slight amount (+/-.5dB) to none at all. Since I have tested this, I just use the internal tones+SPL meter (and my ears).


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> \
> 
> The only reason to not use the internal test tones is because they bypass the Audyssey EQ filters. Say you have a speaker that Audyssey corrected a dip at 2000hz and applied a +6dB filter. Using the internal tones, that particular speaker will register at a lower SPL than with the EQ in place. How much is up for debate...may only be a .5dB overall difference.
> 
> I know in my system, through testing with REW, that my speaker trim settings using the internal tones + SPL meter vs. REW + calibrated mic vary by only a slight amount (+/-.5dB) to none at all. Since I have tested this, I just use the internal tones+SPL meter (and my ears).


Or on another note, using the internal test tones of the AVR can/may be regarded as a "quick & dirty" way of verifying what Audyssey did for the channel trims. Surgical precision of course comes with external tones, coz they will surely run through the already set Audyssey filters. However, as Alan's example shows, the difference may not be more than +/- 0.5 dB. Is it worth the hassle? Up to each to decide.


----------



## Selden Ball

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Here is what I think I understand. You can NOT use the AVRs channel level test tones to make channel adjustments that will be recognized by the active Audyssey filters from the current AVR Audyssey calibration. Any channel trim adjustments applied using the AVR test tones will be done without further Audyssey treatment. This could possibly create gaps in the frequency response filter settings.


 You seem to be conflating two different types of changes: sound levels (trims) and crossover frequencies.

Changing the trim levels does not cause any gaps in frequency response.

However, when you reduce crossover frequencies below the ones selected by the receiver (e.g. reducing 200Hz to 80Hz), the frequencies in between won't benefit from Audyssey's room correction. Audyssey stops its correction at a frequency just below the selected crossover frequency. That's because the speakers are unable to produce an adequate sound level at so low a frequency and boosting the incoming signal to compensate might actually damage the speakers.



> Currently there exists no method (Calibration Disc) of adjusting more than a 7.1 channel system. At least none that I am aware. For a 11.2 or 5.2.2 or any other Dolby ATMOS or DTS X set up beyond the basic 7.1 channel arrangement we are just out of luck.


That is correct. There are rumors that the various companies producing calibrations discs (like Avira and Spears & Munsil) are in the process of developing new calibration discs, but no formal announcements have been made.


----------



## mthomas47

Adam,

For some reason, I am experiencing a computer glitch which won't let me respond directly to your post, so I'll do it this way. First, I'm sorry to learn of your service-related hearing loss. I also thank you for that service.

I think that you may have unintentionally created a bit of a straw man for yourself. If you want to adjust the levels by ear, because you can't hear as well out of your left ear, then you don't need either an SPL meter or an external disc to do it. All you need are your ears and the internal test tones in your AVR.

What Audyssey is doing is simply making all of the channels play at the same volume at your MLP (mic position 1). But, if having those channels all playing at the same volume sounds off to you, because you don't hear quite as well out of your left ear, then just adjust those channels until they sound right to you. As you said, this is one of those times when you just need to trust your ears.

FWIW, I have a very unconventional set-up, in which I actually change positions when going from music to movies. And, although my EQ (frequency response) doesn't change, my imaging does, because now I am physically closer to some speakers than I was before. (Don't ask! )

So, I simply go into my speaker menu, and reset some of my trim levels until they sound right to me at the new position. It sounds more complicated then it really is, because I am familiar with the trim settings I want for each position, and can do this quite rapidly. In your case, you may only need to do it once, and then perhaps very rarely tweak something. But, in my opinion, there isn't a reason in the world why you can't just trust your ears and brain on this to correctly perceive the trim levels you want, so that things sound balanced to you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Selden Ball said:


> You seem to be conflating two different types of changes: sound levels (trims) and crossover frequencies.
> 
> Yes I did and was. It was intentional but I did a poor job of explaining my conundrum. You were able to figure out what I so poorly described and gave me a reasoned answer. Thank you.
> 
> Changing the trim levels does not cause any gaps in frequency response.
> 
> However, when you reduce crossover frequencies below the ones selected by the receiver (e.g. reducing 200Hz to 80Hz), the frequencies in between won't benefit from Audyssey's room correction. Audyssey stops its correction at a frequency just below the selected crossover frequency. That's because the speakers are unable to produce an adequate sound level at so low a frequency and boosting the incoming signal to compensate might actually damage the speakers.
> 
> So as long as I lower the crossover point, I am good!
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. There are rumors that the various companies producing calibrations discs (like Avira and Spears & Munsil) are in the process of developing new calibration discs, but no formal announcements have been made.


That's what I though. I guess by time they get around to producing something we will already be moving to the next gen Codecs. I find it amazing that multi channel Subs have been around for 5+years and yet were still working with 7.1 max Set up Discs.

Thanks for your response. I was asking to make sure I understood where the tech currently stands right now.

Another question that you may be able to answer as well will follow in my response to Mike below.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Adam,
> 
> For some reason, I am experiencing a computer glitch which won't let me respond directly to your post, so I'll do it this way. First, I'm sorry to learn of your service-related hearing loss. I also thank you for that service.
> 
> I think that you may have unintentionally created a bit of a straw man for yourself. If you want to adjust the levels by ear, because you can't hear as well out of your left ear, then you don't need either an SPL meter or an external disc to do it. All you need are your ears and the internal test tones in your AVR.
> 
> What Audyssey is doing is simply making all of the channels play at the same volume at your MLP (mic position 1). But, if having those channels all playing at the same volume sounds off to you, because you don't hear quite as well out of your left ear, then just adjust those channels until they sound right to you. As you said, this is one of those times when you just need to trust your ears.
> 
> FWIW, I have a very unconventional set-up, in which I actually change positions when going from music to movies. And, although my EQ (frequency response) doesn't change, my imaging does, because now I am physically closer to some speakers than I was before. (Don't ask! )
> 
> So, I simply go into my speaker menu, and reset some of my trim levels until they sound right to me at the new position. It sounds more complicated then it really is, because I am familiar with the trim settings I want for each position, and can do this quite rapidly. In your case, you may only need to do it once, and then perhaps very rarely tweak something. But, in my opinion, there isn't a reason in the world why you can't just trust your ears and brain on this to correctly perceive the trim levels you want, so that things sound balance to you.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

I hope I am not asking too many questions here. But I find this stuff intriguing and love to learn new stuff. I think I follow you. I was hesitant to make any manual trim adjustments until I understood what Audyssey was and was not doing as I made them. I have followed your and others advice from above and adjusted the Speaker trims to be more accommodation to my hearing situation.

I do have a follow up question. It is related to the Speaker Size settings discovered and applied by Audyssey. In the past, we just went back in to the speaker settings section of the AVR and adjusted the speakers to 80 crossover unless you had a real full band width speaker. With two Ultras my system has always sounded better letting the powered subs do the heavy lifting. I proceeded to do the same thing here, only to find things were not like they use to be.

The New Audyssey still wants to set most of my 11 speakers as large. When clearly several of them are not large. On the Denon, you have only one option to make any manual changes. Under "Manual Setup" versus "Audyssey Setup"

If after Audyssey has run and the system is calibrated, I go into the Manual Setup to adjust speaker size and increase the crossovers to 80hz, am I undoing the Audyssey Calibration? Does this invalidate any of the data used to set filters?

I take it from some of the above advice, that as long as I go with higher crossovers I should be good, But this is a new method to me. I may be overcomplicating this. But its seems the AVR is keeping two distinct sets of Speaker Setup data/configurations. The Audyssey Calibrated Data and the Manual Data. How does the AVR decide what to use and when?

Or is it more like the Audyssey Speaker Setup data is there as "reference" as to what was initially found and set up. And the Manual Setup data reflects the current configuration in use? It confuses me as to why there would exist two different sets of Speaker Configurations.


----------



## mthomas47

Hi Adam,

Still can't quote on this thread right now. There aren't two sets of data. The Manual Setting section is simply the place where you are able to make the adjustments you want to make. Adjusting crossovers, distances, and levels will not affect the control points that Audyssey set in order to attempt to make your frequency response more uniform. This is one you will have to take on faith for the time being. You can change anything you like without affecting the frequency response, because as long as Audyssey is engaged, that part is not subject to user control.

From a practical standpoint, though, we only want to make those changes that we believe will improve our sound quality and/or listening enjoyment. Adjusting the trim levels to favor your left ear will accomplish that, and setting speakers to Small with an 80Hz crossover will also do that. Remember that your Denon is simply setting crossovers based on the F3 point that Audyssey reports. If you look at it in a certain way, the crossover setting performed by your AVR is not a recommendation, just an observation. Then after that observation, you change things to get the appropriate bass management that you want to have.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> Still can't quote on this thread right now. There aren't two sets of data. The Manual Setting section is simply the place where you are able to make the adjustments you want to make. Adjusting crossovers, distances, and levels will not affect the control points that Audyssey set in order to attempt to make your frequency response more uniform. This is one you will have to take on faith for the time being. You can change anything you like without affecting the frequency response, because as long as Audyssey is engaged, that part is not subject to user control.
> 
> From a practical standpoint, though, we only want to make those changes that we believe will improve our sound quality and/or listening enjoyment. Adjusting the trim levels to favor your left ear will accomplish that, and setting speakers to Small with an 80Hz crossover will also do that. Remember that your Denon is simply setting crossovers based on the F3 point that Audyssey reports. If you look at it in a certain way, the crossover setting performed by your AVR is not a recommendation, just an observation. Then after that observation, you change things to get the appropriate bass management that you want to have.


Mike,

I feel like I need to put you on a retainer fee structure. Johnny on the spot with the Answers! What can I say, but many Thanks my Friend. Thanks for being patient and thanks for helping this old man figure this stuff out. You are indeed a valuable resource around here. Have a great weekend and I hope we talk again soon.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike,
> 
> I feel like I need to put you on a retainer fee structure. Johnny on the spot with the Answers! What can I say, but many Thanks my Friend. Thanks for being patient and thanks for helping this old man figure this stuff out. You are indeed a valuable resource around here. Have a great weekend and I hope we talk again soon.


Hi Adam,

I am very glad to be able to help, and I appreciate the kind words. One of the things I have always liked about this thread is that people actually do try to help each other here. And, questions are nearly always answered. Of course, a retainer would certainly be very welcome. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

t.stone13 said:


> I seem to be having an odd conundrum. My methodology does not change. Initial spot is always double checked with a "test" test - I run the minimum 3 positions all in the MLP. I check the reported levels/distances/etc and make the needed changes to bring each perameter to desired specifications (L/R being same distance, sub trim in the range of -9.5 dB to -10 dB, etc.). I then correctly run a full, final test with all positions.
> 
> Every time I run the correction my mains' crossover results vary from 80 Hz to 130 Hz. Even the "test" test can vary in crossover selections. Any ideas on the cause of this? Bad mic?


Hi,

That much variation in crossovers is odd. Have you ever had consistent crossover settings with that same equipment in the past? In other words, is this something that has just started happening lately, or is this new equipment that is always producing odd results? The next question is whether the variation in crossovers is only occurring with the front speakers? Do the other speakers in your system get consistent crossover results? Are there any other observed inconsistencies (other than small variations in trim settings, or something like that)?

The last questions are probably the most important ones to me. If it is only the front speakers where this odd behavior is occurring, then the cause may be something related specifically to the front speakers. In any event, I would start by performing a factory (microprocessor) reset. At some point, it may also be advisable to try a different mic, but that may not help if the problem is restricted to just your front speakers.

After you do a microprocessor reset, do a complete calibration without stopping in the middle. You should already have your sub gain settings where they need to be, to produce the trim levels you want, and none of your distances should change by more than .1' or so, if you get mic position 1 back in the same place. So, just run all 8 (or 6) positions straight through, and let's see what happens.

If you would like to post a photo of your front soundstage, and the speaker models you are using, it may help to better determine where the problem lies. At this point, it's hard to even speculate as to whether you have a problem with one of your front speakers, or an AVR/Audyssey issue.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Selden Ball

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> So as long as I lower the crossover point, I am good!


Well, no: so long as you manually raise the crossover points, you're good. (From what you wrote later, I'm guessing you just made a typo, but I'll expand on that anyhow.)

The lower frequencies (those below the crossover points selected by the receiver) are the ones that Audyssey hasn't tried to correct. Below the f3 point (which is somewhat below the crossover frequency chosen by the receiver) the output of the woofers' bass frequencies falls off quickly. To compensate for that natural falloff, Audyssey would have to pump more power into that frequency range, introducing distortion and potentially damaging the woofers if it's too much. As a result, Audyssey does not try any corrections (does not try to boost the sound level) in those low frequencies. If you lower the crossover frequencies into that uncorrected range, then those low frequencies won't be redirected to the subwoofer. Instead you'll hear those bass frequencies coming uncorrected from the woofers, which can't produce them as well as the subwoofer can. As a result, that frequency range won't be as loud as is desirable. 



> Another question that you may be able to answer as well will follow in my response to Mike below.


 OK.



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> The New Audyssey still wants to set most of my 11 speakers as large. When clearly several of them are not large.


Actually, Audyssey passes the f3 that it detected (the frequency where bass response has fallen off by 3dB) to the receiver, and the firmware provided by the receiver's manufacturer (D+M) decides whether the speakers are Large or Small and what the crossover frequency should be. In general, it seems that if the resulting crossover frequency would be around 40 Hz, current D+M devices mark the speakers as Large. For movie soundtracks, this is obviously inappropriate, although it's reasonable for most musical instruments.



> If after Audyssey has run and the system is calibrated, I go into the Manual Setup to adjust speaker size and increase the crossovers to 80hz, am I undoing the Audyssey Calibration? Does this invalidate any of the data used to set filters?


As Mike wrote, no.

The actual operations which would invalidate Audyssey's calibrations are moving the speakers, replacing the speakers, changing your listening position or changing the room's acoustics (e.g. by adding or removing furniture or rugs). If you do any of those things, you should run the Audyssey calibration again. However, the only thing that will cause Audyssey to invalidate itself and force you to recalibrate is if you add speakers to the receiver's configuration. It knows that those speakers haven't been calibrated. However, it can't see that you've done any of the other things to the room. (Well, not yet, anyhow! )



> I take it from some of the above advice, that as long as I go with higher crossovers I should be good, But this is a new method to me. I may be overcomplicating this. But its seems the AVR is keeping two distinct sets of Speaker Setup data/configurations. The Audyssey Calibrated Data and the Manual Data. How does the AVR decide what to use and when?
> 
> Or is it more like the Audyssey Speaker Setup data is there as "reference" as to what was initially found and set up. And the Manual Setup data reflects the current configuration in use? It confuses me as to why there would exist two different sets of Speaker Configurations.


 As Mike wrote, it's the latter. 

However, just to complicate things, D+M devices also include a crude graphic equalizer. Its settings are separate from Audyssey's. If you disable Audyssey, you can use the graphic equalizer's settings to change how things sound and you could switch back and forth between Audyssey and the GEQ. While the GEQ can't do as good a job of compensating for the room's acoustics, some people prefer it.


----------



## normandia

While I understand (or so I think) the theories and serious limitations of RC I have a situation that I don't know how to best resolve.

I have 3 on-wall active bi-amped speakers for LCR with the Center horizontal and its tweeter rotated.
They surround the TV with the center below it (at about ear level)

Audyssey sets the crossover at 40 Hz for the Center and 100 to 120 Hz for the Left and Right.
Clearly (to me) the fact that I cannot toe in the L/R are affecting the signal received at the mic.
In addition the tweeters (centered on the speaker) are slightly higher than the mics as well.
What to do?

I can adjust the crossovers manually after RC (realizing this has no Audyssey filters applied below F3 points) or I can use L/R bypass with Audyssey which has no Audyssey filters at all for the L/R.
These should be the same, but are not, correct?

Just to be sure, when you change the crossover in Manual Setup, are they changed when you play back with Audyssey on Reference or Flat?
Exactly what of all the possible Manual Setup adjustments are actually used when Audyssey is set to on? (Have Marantz 8802A and 7703). For instance does changing distances affect the timing with Audyssey on (as a simple example)?

Also, I am curious if my active crossover amplifier affects things differently than a passive speaker crossover? I'd think not, but to me this may be a factor in the high F3 points. (Center crossover seems to say it doesn't matter, but the center speaker is very close to ear height and the mic picks up that signal very well).

In my system (with in-wall rears and in-ceiling Atmos, although aimed to seating position), the crossovers after RC are typically set very high. To me, playing with Audyssey engaged is quite unimpressive as each of the speakers was chosen to have more of a full-range capability as Atmos recommends. Sending signals below 100 Hz to the sub seems to defeat the purpose and Atmos desired effects. Resetting the crossovers defeats the purpose of Room Correction.

I can and have used an SPL meter to adjust at the listening position with the crossovers set at where I prefer them to be. However, RC adds filters at the required frequency issues with the room (as well as the speakers as it can't distinguish the source of the problem).


----------



## Pupator

Good morning - I'd appreciate some help and any ideas you have.

I replaced my center channel yesterday, so I want to re-run Audyssey. When I go into that function on my receiver, everything looks normal until I actually start the audio portion - then I don't get any sound out of my front left, so the program errors out. 

If I select a source and put my ear up against them, the front channels are playing audio just fine. This means they're hooked up properly. I go back and try to run the setup again, I hear three clicks from my receiver when it begins, no audio from the speaker, and the Audyssey error "no speakers found." This is driving me nuts since I did Audyssey just fine previously and now nothing I do seems to work.


----------



## mthomas47

normandia said:


> While I understand (or so I think) the theories and serious limitations of RC I have a situation that I don't know how to best resolve.
> 
> I have 3 on-wall active bi-amped speakers for LCR with the Center horizontal and its tweeter rotated.
> They surround the TV with the center below it (at about ear level)
> 
> Audyssey sets the crossover at 40 Hz for the Center and 100 to 120 Hz for the Left and Right.
> Clearly (to me) the fact that I cannot toe in the L/R are affecting the signal received at the mic.
> In addition the tweeters (centered on the speaker) are slightly higher than the mics as well.
> What to do?
> 
> I can adjust the crossovers manually after RC (realizing this has no Audyssey filters applied below F3 points) or I can use L/R bypass with Audyssey which has no Audyssey filters at all for the L/R.
> These should be the same, but are not, correct?
> 
> Just to be sure, when you change the crossover in Manual Setup, are they changed when you play back with Audyssey on Reference or Flat?
> Exactly what of all the possible Manual Setup adjustments are actually used when Audyssey is set to on? (Have Marantz 8802A and 7703). For instance does changing distances affect the timing with Audyssey on (as a simple example)?
> 
> Also, I am curious if my active crossover amplifier affects things differently than a passive speaker crossover? I'd think not, but to me this may be a factor in the high F3 points. (Center crossover seems to say it doesn't matter, but the center speaker is very close to ear height and the mic picks up that signal very well).
> 
> In my system (with in-wall rears and in-ceiling Atmos, although aimed to seating position), the crossovers after RC are typically set very high. To me, playing with Audyssey engaged is quite unimpressive as each of the speakers was chosen to have more of a full-range capability as Atmos recommends. Sending signals below 100 Hz to the sub seems to defeat the purpose and Atmos desired effects. Resetting the crossovers defeats the purpose of Room Correction.
> 
> I can and have used an SPL meter to adjust at the listening position with the crossovers set at where I prefer them to be. However, RC adds filters at the required frequency issues with the room (as well as the speakers as it can't distinguish the source of the problem).


Hi,

That's a lot of questions, and I don't think I am going to have time to answer them all right now. If you haven't already done so, reading the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature, may help with some of the more basic questions. But, I will hit some high spots.

First, if you lower crossovers below where your AVR set them, based on Audyssey's reported F3 point, nothing bad will necessarily happen. They will just not be EQed below the original crossover. But, if the choice were to enjoy the benefits of EQ above my user-selected crossover, and no EQ at all, I would lower my crossovers and not worry about it. Speakers trying to play below their F3 points will simply run out of gas faster, and should not be adversely affected in any way, absent some really extreme MV levels. So, as with many things in audio, that may be a compromise you are willing to make to get the sound you want.

A picture of your front soundstage would help here, but it is very unlikely that toe-in is responsible for the difference in crossovers between your CC and your main speakers. Bass frequencies are pretty non-directional. Toe-in is much more significant with respect to mid-range and treble frequencies. Both tweeter height, and toe-in, will affect the high frequencies more than anything. It's hard to speculate without seeing your soundstage, but I suspect that the CC is simply getting more boundary gain from surrounding surfaces than the two front speakers located higher on the wall. What are the speakers?

Changing crossovers, distances, and trim levels will not affect the EQ that Audyssey sets. Nor will going from Audyssey to Flat. The latter will only change the shape of the FR slightly. Again, the FAQ will clarify that for you in detail.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Selden Ball said:


> Well, no: so long as you manually raise the crossover points, you're good. (From what you wrote later, I'm guessing you just made a typo, but I'll expand on that anyhow.)
> 
> The lower frequencies (those below the crossover points selected by the receiver) are the ones that Audyssey hasn't tried to correct. Below the f3 point (which is somewhat below the crossover frequency chosen by the receiver) the output of the woofers' bass frequencies falls off quickly. To compensate for that natural falloff, Audyssey would have to pump more power into that frequency range, introducing distortion and potentially damaging the woofers if it's too much. As a result, Audyssey does not try any corrections (does not try to boost the sound level) in those low frequencies. If you lower the crossover frequencies into that uncorrected range, then those low frequencies won't be redirected to the subwoofer. Instead you'll hear those bass frequencies coming uncorrected from the woofers, which can't produce them as well as the subwoofer can. As a result, that frequency range won't be as loud as is desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> OK.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Audyssey passes the f3 that it detected (the frequency where bass response has fallen off by 3dB) to the receiver, and the firmware provided by the receiver's manufacturer (D+M) decides whether the speakers are Large or Small and what the crossover frequency should be. In general, it seems that if the resulting crossover frequency would be around 40 Hz, current D+M devices mark the speakers as Large. For movie soundtracks, this is obviously inappropriate, although it's reasonable for most musical instruments.
> 
> 
> 
> As Mike wrote, no.
> 
> The actual operations which would invalidate Audyssey's calibrations are moving the speakers, replacing the speakers, changing your listening position or changing the room's acoustics (e.g. by adding or removing furniture or rugs). If you do any of those things, you should run the Audyssey calibration again. However, the only thing that will cause Audyssey to invalidate itself and force you to recalibrate is if you add speakers to the receiver's configuration. It knows that those speakers haven't been calibrated. However, it can't see that you've done any of the other things to the room. (Well, not yet, anyhow! )
> 
> As Mike wrote, it's the latter.
> 
> However, just to complicate things, D+M devices also include a crude graphic equalizer. Its settings are separate from Audyssey's. If you disable Audyssey, you can use the graphic equalizer's settings to change how things sound and you could switch back and forth between Audyssey and the GEQ. While the GEQ can't do as good a job of compensating for the room's acoustics, some people prefer it.


Selden,

Yes it was a typo. Lower as in increase the crossover point. Lower as in smaller speaker and less capability. My mistake Sir. Thanks for the correction. Your explanation in connection with what Mike has explained has answered my inquiries both directly and indirectly. Fond memories of drinking from a jet engine! My head hurts and now I shiver in fear of even adjusting the stinking Master Volume!!!!

Just kidding of course....I think by goodness, that I have got it!!! Now I am dangerous. Let the experiments begin. I mean how much more hearing can I really lose? 

Thanks to you both. (Hand salute)


----------



## mthomas47

Pupator said:


> Good morning - I'd appreciate some help and any ideas you have.
> 
> I replaced my center channel yesterday, so I want to re-run Audyssey. When I go into that function on my receiver, everything looks normal until I actually start the audio portion - then I don't get any sound out of my front left, so the program errors out.
> 
> If I select a source and put my ear up against them, the front channels are playing audio just fine. This means they're hooked up properly. I go back and try to run the setup again, I hear three clicks from my receiver when it begins, no audio from the speaker, and the Audyssey error "no speakers found." This is driving me nuts since I did Audyssey just fine previously and now nothing I do seems to work.


Hi,

I would probably try a soft reset first by just unplugging your AVR for about 10 minutes. If that doesn't work, then you may need to do a microprocessor reset. Sometimes after a firmware update, or for other unknown reasons, we get software glitches. See if either of these suggestions solves the problem.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## normandia

Mike,
I have enjoyably read and re-read the FAQ (and other material that you provided) thoroughly, thanks for all that hard work.
I will take pics or upload a sketch and get back when I have more time.

Speakers are Meridian A350's. Tweeter is folded ribbon with decent dispersion.
You are correct about the bass, but as the center F3 crossover point is at 40 Hz Audyssey notices that energy.
This particular room is troublesome.

Thanks, Mike


----------



## mthomas47

normandia said:


> Mike,
> I have enjoyably read and re-read the FAQ (and other material that you provided) thoroughly, thanks for all that hard work.
> I will take pics or upload a sketch and get back when I have more time.
> 
> Speakers are Meridian A350's. Tweeter is folded ribbon with decent dispersion.
> You are correct about the bass, but as the center F3 crossover point is at 40 Hz Audyssey notices that energy.
> This particular room is troublesome.
> 
> Thanks, Mike


You are very welcome! I wasn't involved in the development of the FAQ, although like yourself, I have certainly benefited from it. I think that the pictures may help to give us a better idea of what might be happening with those front three speakers.


----------



## Pupator

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would probably try a soft reset first by just unplugging your AVR for about 10 minutes. If that doesn't work, then you may need to do a microprocessor reset. Sometimes after a firmware update, or for other unknown reasons, we get software glitches. See if either of these suggestions solves the problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike - 
I did the unplug for ten minutes trick and it did not fix it. Then I did a complete reset of the device and that worked - I had sound from the front channels in the Audyssey setup. Until, that is, I got to the seventh listening position. That's when the receiver crashed and turned itself off. This problem, combined with occassional loss of video when watching 4k, is forcing me to take this Marantz receiver back to Magnolia. Thanks for the troubleshooting help!


----------



## mthomas47

Pupator said:


> Thanks Mike -
> I did the unplug for ten minutes trick and it did not fix it. Then I did a complete reset of the device and that worked - I had sound from the front channels in the Audyssey setup. Until, that is, I got to the seventh listening position. That's when the receiver crashed and turned itself off. This problem, combined with occassional loss of video when watching 4k, is forcing me to take this Marantz receiver back to Magnolia. Thanks for the troubleshooting help!


 You are very welcome! I'm sorry to hear that you have to take your AVR back, but hopefully they will have another one that they will be willing to let you have immediately.


----------



## jhoffy22

So I am a little confused about properly calibrating the subwoofer level with my Denon AVR S710w. I just setup my Power Sound Audio 15v and this is my first go with a "real" subwoofer".

For my initial setup, I set my subs gain to 50% and ran Audyssey. After running Audyssey, it set my subwoofer trim to -10.5. I left it there. Should I adjust it? It's my understanding that it can be anywhere in the negative but most prefer it to be somewhere in the -5 to -8 range.

Additionally, on my receiver, there is an additional subwoofer level adjustment that I have the ability to turn on and off. Right now it's on and set at +3.0db from my previous subwoofer. What is the difference between this adjustment and the subwoofer trim adjustment in the test tone menu? It seems a bit redundant. The description for this adjustment in my Denon app is "Subwoofer Level" This setting adjusts the volume level for the subwoofer.


----------



## mthomas47

jhoffy22 said:


> So I am a little confused about properly calibrating the subwoofer level with my Denon AVR S710w. I just setup my Power Sound Audio 15v and this is my first go with a "real" subwoofer".
> 
> For my initial setup, I set my subs gain to 50% and ran Audyssey. After running Audyssey, it set my subwoofer trim to -10.5. I left it there. Should I adjust it? It's my understanding that it can be anywhere in the negative but most prefer it to be somewhere in the -5 to -8 range.
> 
> Additionally, on my receiver, there is an additional subwoofer level adjustment that I have the ability to turn on and off. Right now it's on and set at +3.0db from my previous subwoofer. What is the difference between this adjustment and the subwoofer trim adjustment in the test tone menu? It seems a bit redundant. The description for this adjustment in my Denon app is "Subwoofer Level" This setting adjusts the volume level for the subwoofer.


Hi,

I'm not familiar with that particular Denon feature. If Audyssey ignores it during calibration, then your SPL is already 3db higher than what Audyssey calibrated it to, based on a 75db test tone. If it were mine, I would just turn it off, so that I could add the bass I wanted from more of a known starting point.

Being at a trim level of -10.5 is just about perfect for a starting point. In theory, that would put your sub playing at the same volume as all of your other channels (not counting the unknown, to me at least, action of that 3db boost). But, our hearing is not as sensitive with lower frequencies as it is for most of the rest of the frequency range. So, most (nearly all) HT users boost their sub trims so that they will hear low bass, and particularly low bass effects in movies, more clearly.

Ed Mullen, of SVS, recently made an even more definitive statement than he has in the past about the advisability of staying well within negative numbers with AVR sub trim. That is to minimize the possibility of clipping from using the AVR amp. So, following his counsel, you could boost up to about 8db (to a setting of -2.5) using your sub trim. And again, I would turn off the extra 3db boost, just to keep things simple and easy to calculate. If you ever found yourself wanting even more sub boost than the 8db trim boost provides, it would be better to increase the gain control on your sub a little. That simply allows the sub amplifier to send a little more voltage to the woofer. You can just season your bass to taste. 

I hope this explanation helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

normandia said:


> While I understand (or so I think) the theories and serious limitations of RC I have a situation that I don't know how to best resolve.
> 
> I have 3 on-wall active bi-amped speakers for LCR with the Center horizontal and its tweeter rotated.
> They surround the TV with the center below it (at about ear level)
> 
> Audyssey sets the crossover at 40 Hz for the Center and 100 to 120 Hz for the Left and Right.
> Clearly (to me) the fact that I cannot toe in the L/R are affecting the signal received at the mic.
> In addition the tweeters (centered on the speaker) are slightly higher than the mics as well.
> What to do?
> 
> I can adjust the crossovers manually after RC (realizing this has no Audyssey filters applied below F3 points) or I can use L/R bypass with Audyssey which has no Audyssey filters at all for the L/R.
> These should be the same, but are not, correct?
> 
> Just to be sure, when you change the crossover in Manual Setup, are they changed when you play back with Audyssey on Reference or Flat?
> Exactly what of all the possible Manual Setup adjustments are actually used when Audyssey is set to on? (Have Marantz 8802A and 7703). For instance does changing distances affect the timing with Audyssey on (as a simple example)?
> 
> Also, I am curious if my active crossover amplifier affects things differently than a passive speaker crossover? I'd think not, but to me this may be a factor in the high F3 points. (Center crossover seems to say it doesn't matter, but the center speaker is very close to ear height and the mic picks up that signal very well).
> 
> In my system (with in-wall rears and in-ceiling Atmos, although aimed to seating position), the crossovers after RC are typically set very high. To me, playing with Audyssey engaged is quite unimpressive as each of the speakers was chosen to have more of a full-range capability as Atmos recommends. Sending signals below 100 Hz to the sub seems to defeat the purpose and Atmos desired effects. Resetting the crossovers defeats the purpose of Room Correction.
> 
> I can and have used an SPL meter to adjust at the listening position with the crossovers set at where I prefer them to be. However, RC adds filters at the required frequency issues with the room (as well as the speakers as it can't distinguish the source of the problem).



I think you're overthinking some things and misunderstanding some things.

First, you need to keep in mind what Audyssey does. It makes measurements of the sound reaching the microphone at a number of positions around the listening area. It compares those measurements to a flat response, and to a target curve it calls "Reference" and it creates filters designed to adjust the frequency response in the listening area to as close to a flat response or that Reference curve as it can manage. It also calculates crossover frequencies for bass management purposes. That's it. It knows nothing about your room or speakers, it doesn't care about your room or speakers, it isn't concerned about what sort of sound you like. It just does 2 things, it measures the sound at wherever you place the mic and it creates filters and sets crossovers based on those measurements. It's not smart or intelligent. It does some smart things but that's because it's been programmed to do those things. It has no choice about what it does or how well it does it, it just does what it was programmed to do. It took some smart programmers to ensure that what it does is actually considered good and beneficial by many/most of its users.

So to points:

1- it measures in-room speaker response at a location you choose. If you have free standing speakers, toe-in and the tweeter and other driver height affect the measurement. You can change toe in easily but you can't change driver height. With in wall speakers, toe-in and the tweeter and other driver height affect the measurement. You can change driver height by mounting the speaker at a different height on the wall but you usually can't change toe in. Yes, those things can make a difference and you can change what you can change, you can't change what you can't change, and in the end you are going to make measurements based on some degree of on/off axis angle and some set of driver heights. Doesn't matter what they are, whatever they are contributes to the measurements Audyssey makes and Audyssey works with those measurements. What can you do about it? Change what can be changed in those factors and remeasure. In your case that is basically limited to ripping the speakers out of the wall, refilling the existing holes, making new holes and remounting the speakers. You may be able to make angled mounting boards to adjust the toe in angle for your current listening position but if you move your chairs or sofa you would need to perform similar massive room surgery to achieve the same toe in etc for the new listening position. Get a new sofa or chair that's higher or lower than your current one and you're up for the same thing. 

So, once again, what can you do? Basically nothing because you locked those things in when you chose in-wall speakers and had them mounted. I'm saying nothing about whether your choice was good or bad, I'm simply answering your question about what can you do. You made a choice which means about the only thing you can change in toe in and tweeter height is toe in, and the way you adjust that is by moving the listening position backwards or forwards but that can cause other problems and while it may give you a better toe in angle for some speakers, it's likely to give you a worse toe in angle for other speakers.

So, do nothing. Audyssey will work with whatever it measures and generate the best result it can for those measurements.


2- Does the active crossover in your speakers make a difference compared to a passive crossover? No. The crossover frequency you're concerned about with Audyssey is for where to cross over from the speakers to the sub. The crossover in your active speakers is between the drivers in the speaker. The speaker crossover isn't going to have an effect on where the speaker starts rolling off in the bass or how fast it rolls off. Forget about the fact that you have active speakers rather than passive. It's irrelevant where Audyssey is concerned.


3- Audyssey is setting the crossover frequency too high. Too high in what way? Sure, it's nice to have the crossover frequency low but the aim is to have a smooth frequency response from highs to lows and the crossover frequency Audyssey sets is designed to ensure that. If the speaker's in room bass response extends down low and the F3 frequency is low, then the crossover frequency will be low. If the speaker's in room response doesn't have good extension and the F3 frequency is high, Audyssey will set a high crossover frequency. Everything depends on in-room response and if you're trying to judge things by the published frequency response spec for your speakers, then forget that. That specification is probably based on anechoic or quasi-anechoic measurements. Even if it is based on an in-room measurement, that isn't an in-room measurement in your room. The published spec may be close to what you achieve or a long way away from what you achieve in your room.

You can change the in-room response of your speakers. With free standing speakers you can change their location relative to walls and corners. With in wall speakers you can move them to a different location in the wall but refer to my first point above and we'll forget about repeating that discussion. There are other ways for you to change the in-room response for your speakers.

The simplest is to change the listening position. Doing that is going to change the measured results but they will change differently for different speakers. A change which lowers the crossover frequency for the front speakers may raise it for other speakers. There's no way of knowing without trying it.

You can try physical acoustic treatments. Bass traps smooth bass response, they lower peaks and they raise troughs. If a trough is affecting the measured F3 frequency, bass trapping may allow you to achieve a lower crossover frequency. Your results may vary a bit with changes in listening position.

You can try different furniture. If you have a leather covered sofa or chair with sprung suspension, changing it to a fabric covered sofa or chair with dense foam support may change the measured in room bass performance because the foam support may act as a bit of a bass trap whereas there is no bass absorption in a spring support. It will be a small change but it may help. Also, thick natural fibre rugs or carpets and/or heavy curtains may help as well. Moving furniture and eliminating gaps or spaces which might be acting as Helmholtz resonators may help. All of these things are on a "suck it and see" basis. They may or may not make a difference, any difference is likely to be small but some may be smaller than others, several of them acting together can add up to a bigger difference. There's no way to predict and if your setup is in a living room then you may have to take someone else's opinion into account when deciding what you can or can not try.

4- you say you've measured speaker response in your room with an SPL meter but that Audyssey sets different crossovers to what you set manually based on your measurements because Audyssey's measurements take room issues into account. Your measurements also take room measurements into account unless your mic is connected to a computer and you're doing time windowing or unless you're measuring very close to the speaker drivers and then you're not measuring at the listening position. Why a difference in your results compared to Audyssey's? Your SPL is designed to respond to sound on an ongoing basis. Audyssey is measuring a timed pulse sound and looking at the initial response and subsequent changes as reflections arrive and the sound decays. Effectively you're measuring different things. It makes a difference. There's also the question of weighting, especially at bass frequencies. What weighting are you using? Audyssey is likely to be using C weighting or no weighting at all whereas your meter may only give you a choice between A or C weighting. If you're using a different weighting to Audyssey, that can make a noticeable difference at bass responses.


In the end the main points for you are these. Audyssey measures in-room response at the listening position and you can change that but changes will not produce the same result for every speaker. Getting closer to the result you want for some speakers may make things worse for others. Your options for changing things are limited. You can change your listening position and you can look at things like physical acoustic treatment and furniture and soft furnishing changes. Physical acoustic treatment is likely to produce the biggest changes but a number of small changes in furniture and soft furnishings can add up. There's no guarantee whether any of those things will make a big enough difference to change a crossover setting. If you have a crossover frequency for one pair of speakers being set to 100 Hz, that could be because the F3 measurement was 100 Hz or because it was 81 Hz. If you want to get that crossover down to 80 Hz you have to reduce the F3 measurement to 80 Hz or lower. That may take a lowering of the F3 point by 20 hz or by 1 Hz depending on what the current measurement is and unfortunately Audyssey doesn't tell us what F3 frequency it measures. You may find it easy to lower the crossover frequency for some speakers and hard for others, and lowering it for one pair of speakers may raise it for others. 

So, stop worrying about toe in and driver height and active crossovers and all that. It's irrelevant. Work with what you can work with which is your listening position location and perhaps with some of your current furniture and soft furnishing choices, plus trying out some bass traps if you can do that in your room. At the end of the day, however, in-room response is always different to manufacturer's specs. Audyssey will do the best it can at producing the results it is intended to produce based on the measurements it makes and that may involve crossovers which are higher than you prefer. What you can do to produce a better in room bass response is limited, perhaps a bit more limited with in-wall speakers than with free standing speakers, but it's limited for everyone regardless of their speaker choice. All you, or anyone, can do is to do the best with what you've got.

A crossover of 100 Hz isn't necessarily bad. Provided the overall frequency response is smooth and you can't localise the low bass, you may never notice a difference between an 80 Hz crossover and a 100 Hz crossover. Don't chase numbers, chase getting a result you're happy to listen to and you don't listen to numbers, even when you're listening to digital soundtracks. You listen to sound. It's how it sounds that's important, not how the numbers look.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

David Aiken said:


> I think you're overthinking some things and misunderstanding some things.
> 
> First, you need to keep in mind what Audyssey does. It makes measurements of the sound reaching the microphone at a number of positions around the listening area. It compares those measurements to a flat response, and to a target curve it calls "Reference" and it creates filters designed to adjust the frequency response in the listening area to as close to a flat response or that Reference curve as it can manage. It also calculates crossover frequencies for bass management purposes. That's it. It knows nothing about your room or speakers, it doesn't care about your room or speakers, it isn't concerned about what sort of sound you like. It just does 2 things, it measures the sound at wherever you place the mic and it creates filters and sets crossovers based on those measurements. It's not smart or intelligent. It does some smart things but that's because it's been programmed to do those things. It has no choice about what it does or how well it does it, it just does what it was programmed to do. It took some smart programmers to ensure that what it does is actually considered good and beneficial by many/most of its users.
> 
> So to points:
> 
> 1- it measures in-room speaker response at a location you choose. If you have free standing speakers, toe-in and the tweeter and other driver height affect the measurement. You can change toe in easily but you can't change driver height. With in wall speakers, toe-in and the tweeter and other driver height affect the measurement. You can change driver height by mounting the speaker at a different height on the wall but you usually can't change toe in. Yes, those things can make a difference and you can change what you can change, you can't change what you can't change, and in the end you are going to make measurements based on some degree of on/off axis angle and some set of driver heights. Doesn't matter what they are, whatever they are contributes to the measurements Audyssey makes and Audyssey works with those measurements. What can you do about it? Change what can be changed in those factors and remeasure. In your case that is basically limited to ripping the speakers out of the wall, refilling the existing holes, making new holes and remounting the speakers. You may be able to make angled mounting boards to adjust the toe in angle for your current listening position but if you move your chairs or sofa you would need to perform similar massive room surgery to achieve the same toe in etc for the new listening position. Get a new sofa or chair that's higher or lower than your current one and you're up for the same thing.
> 
> So, once again, what can you do? Basically nothing because you locked those things in when you chose in-wall speakers and had them mounted. I'm saying nothing about whether your choice was good or bad, I'm simply answering your question about what can you do. You made a choice which means about the only thing you can change in toe in and tweeter height is toe in, and the way you adjust that is by moving the listening position backwards or forwards but that can cause other problems and while it may give you a better toe in angle for some speakers, it's likely to give you a worse toe in angle for other speakers.
> 
> So, do nothing. Audyssey will work with whatever it measures and generate the best result it can for those measurements.
> 
> 
> 2- Does the active crossover in your speakers make a difference compared to a passive crossover? No. The crossover frequency you're concerned about with Audyssey is for where to cross over from the speakers to the sub. The crossover in your active speakers is between the drivers in the speaker. The speaker crossover isn't going to have an effect on where the speaker starts rolling off in the bass or how fast it rolls off. Forget about the fact that you have active speakers rather than passive. It's irrelevant where Audyssey is concerned.
> 
> 
> 3- Audyssey is setting the crossover frequency too high. Too high in what way? Sure, it's nice to have the crossover frequency low but the aim is to have a smooth frequency response from highs to lows and the crossover frequency Audyssey sets is designed to ensure that. If the speaker's in room bass response extends down low and the F3 frequency is low, then the crossover frequency will be low. If the speaker's in room response doesn't have good extension and the F3 frequency is high, Audyssey will set a high crossover frequency. Everything depends on in-room response and if you're trying to judge things by the published frequency response spec for your speakers, then forget that. That specification is probably based on anechoic or quasi-anechoic measurements. Even if it is based on an in-room measurement, that isn't an in-room measurement in your room. The published spec may be close to what you achieve or a long way away from what you achieve in your room.
> 
> You can change the in-room response of your speakers. With free standing speakers you can change their location relative to walls and corners. With in wall speakers you can move them to a different location in the wall but refer to my first point above and we'll forget about repeating that discussion. There are other ways for you to change the in-room response for your speakers.
> 
> The simplest is to change the listening position. Doing that is going to change the measured results but they will change differently for different speakers. A change which lowers the crossover frequency for the front speakers may raise it for other speakers. There's no way of knowing without trying it.
> 
> You can try physical acoustic treatments. Bass traps smooth bass response, they lower peaks and they raise troughs. If a trough is affecting the measured F3 frequency, bass trapping may allow you to achieve a lower crossover frequency. Your results may vary a bit with changes in listening position.
> 
> You can try different furniture. If you have a leather covered sofa or chair with sprung suspension, changing it to a fabric covered sofa or chair with dense foam support may change the measured in room bass performance because the foam support may act as a bit of a bass trap whereas there is no bass absorption in a spring support. It will be a small change but it may help. Also, thick natural fibre rugs or carpets and/or heavy curtains may help as well. Moving furniture and eliminating gaps or spaces which might be acting as Helmholtz resonators may help. All of these things are on a "suck it and see" basis. They may or may not make a difference, any difference is likely to be small but some may be smaller than others, several of them acting together can add up to a bigger difference. There's no way to predict and if your setup is in a living room then you may have to take someone else's opinion into account when deciding what you can or can not try.
> 
> 4- you say you've measured speaker response in your room with an SPL meter but that Audyssey sets different crossovers to what you set manually based on your measurements because Audyssey's measurements take room issues into account. Your measurements also take room measurements into account unless your mic is connected to a computer and you're doing time windowing or unless you're measuring very close to the speaker drivers and then you're not measuring at the listening position. Why a difference in your results compared to Audyssey's? Your SPL is designed to respond to sound on an ongoing basis. Audyssey is measuring a timed pulse sound and looking at the initial response and subsequent changes as reflections arrive and the sound decays. Effectively you're measuring different things. It makes a difference. There's also the question of weighting, especially at bass frequencies. What weighting are you using? Audyssey is likely to be using C weighting or no weighting at all whereas your meter may only give you a choice between A or C weighting. If you're using a different weighting to Audyssey, that can make a noticeable difference at bass responses.
> 
> 
> In the end the main points for you are these. Audyssey measures in-room response at the listening position and you can change that but changes will not produce the same result for every speaker. Getting closer to the result you want for some speakers may make things worse for others. Your options for changing things are limited. You can change your listening position and you can look at things like physical acoustic treatment and furniture and soft furnishing changes. Physical acoustic treatment is likely to produce the biggest changes but a number of small changes in furniture and soft furnishings can add up. There's no guarantee whether any of those things will make a big enough difference to change a crossover setting. If you have a crossover frequency for one pair of speakers being set to 100 Hz, that could be because the F3 measurement was 100 Hz or because it was 81 Hz. If you want to get that crossover down to 80 Hz you have to reduce the F3 measurement to 80 Hz or lower. That may take a lowering of the F3 point by 20 hz or by 1 Hz depending on what the current measurement is and unfortunately Audyssey doesn't tell us what F3 frequency it measures. You may find it easy to lower the crossover frequency for some speakers and hard for others, and lowering it for one pair of speakers may raise it for others.
> 
> So, stop worrying about toe in and driver height and active crossovers and all that. It's irrelevant. Work with what you can work with which is your listening position location and perhaps with some of your current furniture and soft furnishing choices, plus trying out some bass traps if you can do that in your room. At the end of the day, however, in-room response is always different to manufacturer's specs. Audyssey will do the best it can at producing the results it is intended to produce based on the measurements it makes and that may involve crossovers which are higher than you prefer. What you can do to produce a better in room bass response is limited, perhaps a bit more limited with in-wall speakers than with free standing speakers, but it's limited for everyone regardless of their speaker choice. All you, or anyone, can do is to do the best with what you've got.
> 
> A crossover of 100 Hz isn't necessarily bad. Provided the overall frequency response is smooth and you can't localise the low bass, you may never notice a difference between an 80 Hz crossover and a 100 Hz crossover. Don't chase numbers, chase getting a result you're happy to listen to and you don't listen to numbers, even when you're listening to digital soundtracks. You listen to sound. It's how it sounds that's important, not how the numbers look.


David,

I know you were responding to another member, but many things you said are so true and make a metric ton load of Sense. Such as not chasing numbers but rather sound. Well said Sir! Nice post. I enjoyed reading it and may have learned a thing or two....


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Sub AVR trims.

I may be getting lost here. So here is my question. From reading all of the above posts, as they relate to setting AVR Sub trims. The general consensus is to aim for an AVR Sub Trim in the negative range. The more negative the better.

Why? What am I missing. If the Subs have their own power supplies and are only receiving a control signal from the Amp/AVR why is trim so important? Is the AVR actually providing some of the juice that drives the Subs once you move into the positive + Trim ranges?

How does keeping the Trims in the negative range help and/or improve the AVR's performance?

Perhaps this is not the right thread? But I feel very confident that the People who have the answers follow this thread. 

Is there some source material I can read to further understand this relationship with AVRs/Trims/Powered Speakers ?


----------



## Cam Man

I have long been a proponent of xt32, especially Pro. I'm hoping that the new Audyssey app will be reliable, but I worry a bit given how good Pro with the kit mic has been.

I come from the commercial or pro side of things where we measure the start condition via RTA, correct, then verify with RTA. I follow pretty much the same protocol in the residential world, but also verify subjectively. Pro particularly has been consistently reliable in reasonable acoustic rooms. The one thing that I've seen rather consistently is Audyssey often choosing a crossover that is lower than it should be. Whether to change this will depend on the room and the speaker design. If it's a speaker that is designed to be -3dB at 80Hz, I'm not permitting the crossover for it to be set at 40Hz. Common sense.

I have never found any room correction system good enough to "set and forget" or "trust." Essential to the process is understanding corrections relative to acoustic conditions prior to corrections. Know the acoustic response of the system before you run correction (Audyssey, Dirac, or anything else). Make sure you've done the best you can with acoustic mechanics in the room first, then measure at least the LCRs and LF with a good RTA (using special averaging if you have a listening area rather than a single seat). Next, run your correction utility with good mic discipline, using the same mic locations you did for your RTA measurements. Confirm that the distances, trim levels, and crossovers are reasonable. If not, run again, or in the case of a low crossover, just change it.

Next, use a test disc that you know renders narrow band noise at -75dBc. There may be many, but I've been using Anthony Grimani's 5.1 Audio Toolkit DVD for a dozen years. Use these tracks and a meter to fine tune the trim levels to -75dBc with the AVR/AVC volume set at 0/Reference (therefore no Dynamic EQ). Use an average for the LF response. Then move on to verify the results with another RTA spatial averaging series of measurements. Compare before and after RTA results visually.

In almost all cases, I see on the verification RTA pass what I expected to see after the initial measurements: smoother LF, smoother mid-range in the LCRs (especially boundary gain influences), and a curve that reasonably follows the target curve. But...then subjective listening to reference material that you know well is essential. This is because that my colleague, myself, and many of you have discovered that MultEQ may interpret different speakers differently...depending on many speaker design variables. In my experience, the speakers that MultEQ does consistently best with are those that have controlled dispersion (wide coverage but with reasonably good directivity) that are aimed to cover the area well, and good mic discipline was used. It seems that speakers with a lower directivity index, therefore likely shorter critical distance, will have less predictable results. Sometimes those speakers still sound fine in subjective listening, sometimes not. My point is that tweaks may still be necessary, based on your subjective listening. You have to decide what you want your subjective benchmark to be. In the professional world we strive to make even this "subjective" benchmark as consistent as possible so that our results are reasonably so. We try to remember the aural experience in the reference theater (dubbing stage, etc), and reproduce that _experience_ as closely as we can. That is a peculiar combination of objectivity and subjectivity that is honed with experience.

One place I find subjective is setting the LFE trim if you use Dynamic EQ. I love DEQ, but you have to customize it to the room and user to some extent. I do study the verification RTA curve measured at reference level, but if the user will often never listen to a movie above, let's say -10dB, I may engage DEQ and make a final subjective setting of the LFE trim based on a reference part of a movie that I know very well in a reference environment. With the AVC/AVR at -10dB and DEQ on, I shoot to faithfully reproduce the _experience_ (or perception) the LF created in the reference environment.

Finally, I fine tune the timing of channels. This is done with a test signal to make sure that imaging between all the channels and stems is correct. This is a bit time consuming and very procedurally dependent, but it's the icing on the cake.

All that is a lot of time and effort, but it's the only way I've found to achieve consistent results. Are automated systems any better than good old fashioned PEQ? Maybe Harman's killer system for Synthesis, but I don't know. Sometimes I wonder. My $.02 worth.


----------



## Matt2026

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Sub AVR trims.
> 
> I may be getting lost here. So here is my question. From reading all of the above posts, as they relate to setting AVR Sub trims. The general consensus is to aim for an AVR Sub Trim in the negative range. The more negative the better.
> 
> Why? What am I missing. If the Subs have their own power supplies and are only receiving a control signal from the Amp/AVR why is trim so important? Is the AVR actually providing some of the juice that drives the Subs once you move into the positive + Trim ranges?
> 
> How does keeping the Trims in the negative range help and/or improve the AVR's performance?
> 
> Perhaps this is not the right thread? But I feel very confident that the People who have the answers follow this thread.
> 
> Is there some source material I can read to further understand this relationship with AVRs/Trims/Powered Speakers ?


Until the experts show up I'll kick in a few words from the ignorant side of the aisle 

The AVR has a voltage output to the sub, very little current has to be supplied. The AVR does not supply power to the driver. 

[Added] Its like your radio, the signal coming over the airwaves does not power the radio you listen to, the radio power come from a power source, Plugged into an AC outlet in your home or from a battery etc... So the output from the AVR is "equivalent" so that radio wave.]

I do not know what the maximum voltage output from the AVR is, but just for talking points let's say it is 1 volt and that corresponds to 0 on the trim reading. The lowest level Audyssey can deal with is -12, after that it could be any value. Its not that the sub won't work with that lower value but you have no way of knowing if you make any adjustment to the sub and then want to return to the same level. So -11.5 keeps you just above the -12 giving the maximum amount of range in which you can adjust the sub with the AVR, i.e. -11.5 to 0. So you could turn the trim up 10dB to -1.5 and be below the maximum output voltage available from the AVR. If you turn it above 0 at some point the AVR output will begin to clip. In terms of a sine wave the further you go the more the output begins to look like a square wave, and a square wave is made up of, IIRC, an infinite number of harmonics which add to the distorted output of the Sub.

Not a pretty picture in my mind


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Matt2026 said:


> Until the experts show up I'll kick in a few words from the ignorant side of the aisle
> 
> The AVR has a voltage output to the sub, very little current has to be supplied. The AVR does not supply power to the driver.
> 
> [Added] Its like your radio, the signal coming over the airwaves does not power the radio you listen to, the radio power come from a power source, Plugged into an AC outlet in your home or from a battery etc... So the output from the AVR is "equivalent" so that radio wave.]
> 
> I do not know what the maximum voltage output from the AVR is, but just for talking points let's say it is 1 volt and that corresponds to 0 on the trim reading. The lowest level Audyssey can deal with is -12, after that it could be any value. Its not that the sub won't work with that lower value but you have no way of knowing if you make any adjustment to the sub and then want to return to the same level. So -11.5 keeps you just above the -12 giving the maximum amount of range in which you can adjust the sub with the AVR, i.e. -11.5 to 0. So you could turn the trim up 10dB to -1.5 and be below the maximum output voltage available from the AVR. If you turn it above 0 at some point the AVR output will begin to clip. In terms of a sine wave the further you go the more the output begins to look like a square wave, and a square wave is made up of, IIRC, an infinite number of harmonics which add to the distorted output of the Sub.
> 
> Not a pretty picture in my mind


Thanks Ken.

I was previously schooled on how to set the subs with Audyssey to get a starting point of -11.5 or as close as possible. I achieved that with dual subs. But now I want to know why ?

Talking about AVR trims for a moment. If the trim spread is -12 to +12 that is 24 levels of adjustment from low to high. 0 trim should be mid level output on the trim signal (for lack of a better term). Why would a control signal clip? or contain distortion at this low of a level. If just does not make sense to me. I am certain in this case, it makes little sense to me, because I don't know what I don't know!

My question is about, what is the relationship of AVR Trims with distortion and clipping? Why is it important to obtain negative trim values when setting up your Audyssey Calibration? What are you gaining by doing this (other than more upward trim adjustment)? 

I now realize (this is a fairly new understanding) that you should not use the AVR internal test tones to make adjustments (except minor) because this process works outside the Audyssey correction. Many have simply stated to go get and use a calibration disc or material to make these adjustments. That's all well and good. I have like 4 flavors of this handy. But we have run into a brick wall in this regard. There currently does not exist (at least that I am aware) a calibration disc or test tone material formatted to provide channel level tones beyond a 7.1 set up. With the advent of and channel expansions created by DTX X, Dolby ATMOS and DSX, the currently available test tone material leaves a significant gap for the remaining channels beyond 7.1 

At present a user is left with few options. Either trust and live with what Audyssey gives you. Or, make changes knowing these changes will be post Audyssey and not accounted for. I have 13.2 channels total. Leaving 6.1 channels I am unable to adjust via Audyssey. For now this is just the way it is and I realize there are no known work around or fixes. I am good with this. I have made my minor adjustments and my System sounds good to me. That is the goal right? So I am all good here for now.

However, I have an inquiring mind and being an Engineer, I always desire to understand the "Why" and "How" of things. Which leads me back to the AVR Trim question. I assume this "gain headroom" issue applies to all powered speakers. Subs and otherwise. Setting AVR trims may be more important than I ever realized. I wish to further the discussion in that regard. Pull the thread. Discover what we know and what we don't know.

Who wants to play?


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Sub AVR trims.
> 
> I may be getting lost here. So here is my question. From reading all of the above posts, as they relate to setting AVR Sub trims. The general consensus is to aim for an AVR Sub Trim in the negative range. The more negative the better.
> 
> Why? What am I missing. If the Subs have their own power supplies and are only receiving a control signal from the Amp/AVR why is trim so important? Is the AVR actually providing some of the juice that drives the Subs once you move into the positive + Trim ranges?
> 
> How does keeping the Trims in the negative range help and/or improve the AVR's performance?
> 
> Perhaps this is not the right thread? But I feel very confident that the People who have the answers follow this thread.
> 
> Is there some source material I can read to further understand this relationship with AVRs/Trims/Powered Speakers ?



Hi Adam,

Ken, despite his modesty, gave you a far better technical answer than I can. The best I can do is to quote Mark Seaton, one of the real experts in subwoofer design and implementation. This is from the FAQ:

_"The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but rather the possibility of increasing distortion or clipping on the subwoofer output from the receiver or preamp. The reason this is a concern for the sub channel relates to the amount of content directed there with 7 channels of redirected bass and a +10dB playback .1 LFE channel. I've observed it and measured the distorted signal, and a few others have taken many measurements to look more closely. Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range. Most subwoofers have plenty of gain available, and it's a simple matter of lowing the sub channel on screen and raising it back up at the subwoofer's volume dial."

_I attempted a layman's explanation of the prevailing best practice with respect to this issue in Post # 1296 on this thread. I think it's a little long to quote here, but it might be worth reading. Recently, Ed Mullen of SVS, also quoted in the FAQ, took a little stronger stand on the issue than he has before, suggesting that it is always better to stay well in the negative trim range, even at more moderate listening levels. 

My own conclusion now, is that it is simply better to stay in negative trim numbers, period. With dual Ultra's you will always have plenty of gain available from the subwoofer amps, anyway.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Seeing your follow-up post, I think that one thing that you are missing is the relationship between sub gain/trim and master volume, because as the MV increases, the sub has to play louder not only in the LFE channel, but for all of the other channels where you have employed a crossover. As Mark said, that puts additional strain on the voltage coming from the AVR amp, rather than from the subwoofer amp.


----------



## David Aiken

Cam Man said:


> I have long been a proponent of xt32, especially Pro. I'm hoping that the new Audyssey app will be reliable, but I worry a bit given how good Pro with the kit mic has been.
> 
> I come from the commercial or pro side of things where we measure the start condition via RTA, correct, then verify with RTA. I follow pretty much the same protocol in the residential world, but also verify subjectively. Pro particularly has been consistently reliable in reasonable acoustic rooms. The one thing that I've seen rather consistently is Audyssey often choosing a crossover that is lower than it should be. Whether to change this will depend on the room and the speaker design. If it's a speaker that is designed to be -3dB at 80Hz, I'm not permitting the crossover for it to be set at 40Hz. Common sense.
> 
> I have never found any room correction system good enough to "set and forget" or "trust." Essential to the process is understanding corrections relative to acoustic conditions prior to corrections. Know the acoustic response of the system before you run correction (Audyssey, Dirac, or anything else). Make sure you've done the best you can with acoustic mechanics in the room first, then measure at least the LCRs and LF with a good RTA (using special averaging if you have a listening area rather than a single seat). Next, run your correction utility with good mic discipline, using the same mic locations you did for your RTA measurements. Confirm that the distances, trim levels, and crossovers are reasonable. If not, run again, or in the case of a low crossover, just change it.
> 
> Next, use a test disc that you know renders narrow band noise at -75dBc. There may be many, but I've been using Anthony Grimani's 5.1 Audio Toolkit DVD for a dozen years. Use these tracks and a meter to fine tune the trim levels to -75dBc with the AVR/AVC volume set at 0/Reference (therefore no Dynamic EQ). Use an average for the LF response. Then move on to verify the results with another RTA spatial averaging series of measurements. Compare before and after RTA results visually.
> 
> In almost all cases, I see on the verification RTA pass what I expected to see after the initial measurements: smoother LF, smoother mid-range in the LCRs (especially boundary gain influences), and a curve that reasonably follows the target curve. But...then subjective listening to reference material that you know well is essential. This is because that my colleague, myself, and many of you have discovered that MultEQ may interpret different speakers differently...depending on many speaker design variables. In my experience, the speakers that MultEQ does consistently best with are those that have controlled dispersion (wide coverage but with reasonably good directivity) that are aimed to cover the area well, and good mic discipline was used. It seems that speakers with a lower directivity index, therefore likely shorter critical distance, will have less predictable results. Sometimes those speakers still sound fine in subjective listening, sometimes not. My point is that tweaks may still be necessary, based on your subjective listening. You have to decide what you want your subjective benchmark to be. In the professional world we strive to make even this "subjective" benchmark as consistent as possible so that our results are reasonably so. We try to remember the aural experience in the reference theater (dubbing stage, etc), and reproduce that _experience_ as closely as we can. That is a peculiar combination of objectivity and subjectivity that is honed with experience.
> 
> One place I find subjective is setting the LFE trim if you use Dynamic EQ. I love DEQ, but you have to customize it to the room and user to some extent. I do study the verification RTA curve measured at reference level, but if the user will often never listen to a movie above, let's say -10dB, I may engage DEQ and make a final subjective setting of the LFE trim based on a reference part of a movie that I know very well in a reference environment. With the AVC/AVR at -10dB and DEQ on, I shoot to faithfully reproduce the _experience_ (or perception) the LF created in the reference environment.
> 
> Finally, I fine tune the timing of channels. This is done with a test signal to make sure that imaging between all the channels and stems is correct. This is a bit time consuming and very procedurally dependent, but it's the icing on the cake.
> 
> All that is a lot of time and effort, but it's the only way I've found to achieve consistent results. Are automated systems any better than good old fashioned PEQ? Maybe Harman's killer system for Synthesis, but I don't know. Sometimes I wonder. My $.02 worth.


Apples and oranges.

I use a 2.1 system with dual subs. I've run it using my Oppo 105 as a pre-processor with a power amp driving the speakers and I now run it using a Marantz AVR with Audyssey. When I was using the 105 as a pre-processor I did manual setup using test tones and an SPL meter, and checked overall frequency balance using an app on my iPhone which gave me a third octave display and pink noise, doing each channel separately to check the integration of sub and speaker, and rebalancing levels afterwards. Nowhere near as technically advanced as your manual setup and I got good results, results I liked a lot, but I was also running the subs in stereo mode with the speakers and splitting the LFE channel between them (Subs are RELs which allow me to have a speaker level input and the LFE input active at the same time). Setup was complicated and time consuming but capable of very nice results. I got tired of the complications involved in handling the setup and running the subs that way and decided to simplify so I swapped to the AVR and Audyssey. I no longer have stereo bass support for the speaker channels with the AVR's bass management but setup is a lot simpler and the results are still good and it's a result I like, and I get some benefits from the room correction which I like and which provide some compensation for the loss of stereo bass for the speaker channels. I like the system either way, soundwise I'm happy either way, but there are differences in the results and each result does something better than the other. Basically I have opted for the convenience of Audyssey over the complexity of the manual setup. I suspect your manual setup process is a bit more complex than mine and may well deliver a better result but we don't know how much better it would be.

I think my experience demonstrates one thing, and that is that it can be easier to set up a system using an AVR with Audyssey or some similar automated correction system than it can be to do it manually. I'm 69, I've been playing with audio for 50 years or so, and I have a fair amount of experience though I've never used as advanced an approach as a full scale RTA regime. I've also got a separate stereo music system (no sub) in a room with physical acoustic treatment and I've experimented a fair bit with physical treatments and their placement. That's a bit like the old thing about what's important with real estate: position, position, position. Physical treatment is not just about frequency response but also about things like apparent soundstage depth and width and even sense of intimacy vs sense of spaciousness. You can affect the listening experience in several ways with your choice of treatment type and placement and there is no "one size fits all" approach which will make everyone happy. Personal taste affects whether or not you think the result is good, and that's true also with automated room correction systems.

There are any number of setup approaches you can use to set up a system from fully automated at one end to fully manual at the other end, and fully manual can involve very sophisticated electronic correction systems which give you fine control over response curves. Physical treatment is optional at all points on that continuum and it to can go from very simple to very sophisticated and complex. I think it's fair to say that the more effort you put into it, and the more experience you bring to it, the better the result you can get and when I say "better" I'm including satisfying personal tastes for the sort of sound presentation you like as part of what makes the result better, not just satisfying some set of response measurement targets.

I don't think Audyssey is the be all and end all, I don't think it's impossible to do better. I know that what you do when you're running the setup process makes a difference and that mic placement and things like having doors and windows open, curtains drawn or open, and a lot of other things make a difference. I do think it's possible to get consistent results with Audyssey but doing so relies on consistent setup practice and it isn't simply a matter of just deciding to run setup and casually choose mic positions every time. You need to make sure the room is in the same "state" each time and match mic positions each time. Absolute consistency of setup and result is probably not achievable but a reasonable level of consistency is and you can learn how to improve your level of consistency with practice. Experience makes a difference, no matter what approach you choose to take.

But not everyone has the experience needed to get the best result with any approach, in fact most people don't. I have no doubt there are people out there with more experience than I have who could get better results with whatever approach I choose to use. I also have no doubt that if I were prepared to put in more time working with the approaches I have used I could learn things which would allow me to get a better result than I can at the moment, and even if I did that it is still likely that there are going to be people out there with more experience than I would have who could still do better than me.

So, better is always possible in my view. Better using whatever approach you're currently using and better using a more sophisticated approach which gives you greater levels of control. The question is how far does any given person want to take this. I take it further than a lot of people take it, and others take if further than me. It's part of the hobby and we can each take it as far as we like. What counts is whether we can get a result we're happy to live with given what we put into it.

I don't think it's a question of whether you can do better or not, or whether automated systems are better than other approaches or not. I think it's a question of how close you want to get to some personal ideal of perfection (and that ideal is always a moving target because it changes as you hear new things), how much time and effort you're prepared to put into it or money if you want to hire someone else to do it for you, and how much experience the person doing it, you or whoever you hire, has. We each make our individual choices on all of those issues.

I think Audyssey actually is a pretty good option for a lot of people. It's relatively easy to run, it's relatively easy to learn how to do a reasonable setup process, and it offers you 2 response curves as options. Those curves won't satisfy everyone but one or the other of them will satisfy a lot of people. You don't have to have any additional equipment like an SPL meter to use it. It can deliver a reasonable result out of the box and it can deliver better results if you use it carefully and get some experience in using it. That makes it a good option, but not the only option, for people without a lot of experience or knowledge, and also for for people with a reasonable degree of experience or knowledge who are looking for a low cost automated system to make their life a bit simpler as I was when I swapped from my Oppo 105 and power amp setup.

And this thread is an Audyssey thread so most of the talk is going to be about what Audyssey can do, sometimes about what it can't do, and about how someone can do better with it than what they're doing with it. Talk about how to do things better than Audyssey will let you do them, and I think it is possible to do better than Audyssey, is going to take up a very small part of the discussion here and talk about how to do better using other approaches is going to take place in other threads about those approaches.

I don't disagree with your assessment of manual vs automated but not everyone is prepared to spend the time and effort that you are, or to chase the kind of result that you are chasing. Not everyone is prepared to do things the way I do them. I'm happy to suggest that Audyssey would be a great approach for one person, perhaps even the best approach for them, but also to say that it it quite a way short of the best approach for someone else. It all depends on who the person is, what kind of result they're chasing, and how much time, effort, and money they're prepared to put into it.


----------



## Cam Man

Hi David, I'm not sure I've caught everything in your post, but I don't think you interpreted mine accurately. I do not suggest "manual" over Audyssey. Manual (PEQ) is way too time consuming, and lacks features very desirable in Audyssey. What I described is a protocol that utilizes Audyssey to its fullest extent by doing things Audyssey does not, nor ever has done; a verification step.


Even MultEQ Pro only shows you what it _predicts_ will be (or should be) the post-calibration results. It does not make a second pass for verification and modification. It would be great if it did, but it does not. That portion has to be done "manually," if it is to be done. And it's a pretty nice thing to know.


I stay out of discussions on the definition of "better." I am a proponent of an "engineering" approach to a certain point, then shift to a final subjective assessment and refinement.


All of this is why I'm concerned that the new Audyssey app be reliable...so that we can keep using it.


----------



## David Aiken

Cam Man said:


> Hi David, I'm not sure I've caught everything in your post, but I don't think you interpreted mine accurately. I do not suggest "manual" over Audyssey. Manual (PEQ) is way too time consuming, and lacks features very desirable in Audyssey. What I described is a protocol that utilizes Audyssey to its fullest extent by doing things Audyssey does not, nor ever has done; a verification step.
> 
> 
> Even MultEQ Pro only shows you what it _predicts_ will be (or should be) the post-calibration results. It does not make a second pass for verification and modification. It would be great if it did, but it does not. That portion has to be done "manually," if it is to be done. And it's a pretty nice thing to know.


Point taken. On theory alone I'll agree that a verification step would be nice. What might be nicer still, if Audyssey were to provide a verification step would be the option to run the verification step on it's own at any stage after initial setup. That might suffice to deal with very small changes that someone makes which they think would not affect the initial measurements significantly and  a rerun of the verification could return a "run setup" message if the new verification run deviated from the target by a significant degree.




> I stay out of discussions on the definition of "better." I am a proponent of an "engineering" approach to a certain point, then shift to a final subjective assessment and refinement.


I try to stay out of discussions of "better" on the basis that it is subjective. I've seen too many people with different systems and room setup arguing over which of their systems sounds "better" when they're both chasing different results. I realised a long time ago that there is no "perfect" result that satisfies everyone.




> All of this is why I'm concerned that the new Audyssey app be reliable...so that we can keep using it.


Reliability and consistency are definitely desirable but a lack of consistency is often due to inconsistencies in process rather than problems with Audyssey. I think Audyssey itself is reasonable reliable because I think it will give you the same result if nothing in the setup and room has changed and you run the setup process again exactly as you ran it the first time. Actually managing to run setup again with the system setup exactly the same isn't too hard, running it again with the room in an identical state to the previous time requires a lot of attention to detail, and running the setup process again exactly as you ran it the first time requires a precision with mic placement that I doubt anyone achieves. I think problems with reliability/consistency occur more at the user end than at the Audyssey end. I know I worry more about my end of the process than I do about what Audyssey does and I've learnt the hard way that what I do affects the result I get.


----------



## mthomas47

Cam Man said:


> I have long been a proponent of xt32, especially Pro. I'm hoping that the new Audyssey app will be reliable, but I worry a bit given how good Pro with the kit mic has been.
> 
> I come from the commercial or pro side of things where we measure the start condition via RTA, correct, then verify with RTA. I follow pretty much the same protocol in the residential world, but also verify subjectively. Pro particularly has been consistently reliable in reasonable acoustic rooms. The one thing that I've seen rather consistently is Audyssey often choosing a crossover that is lower than it should be. Whether to change this will depend on the room and the speaker design. If it's a speaker that is designed to be -3dB at 80Hz, I'm not permitting the crossover for it to be set at 40Hz. Common sense.
> 
> I have never found any room correction system good enough to "set and forget" or "trust." Essential to the process is understanding corrections relative to acoustic conditions prior to corrections. Know the acoustic response of the system before you run correction (Audyssey, Dirac, or anything else). Make sure you've done the best you can with acoustic mechanics in the room first, then measure at least the LCRs and LF with a good RTA (using special averaging if you have a listening area rather than a single seat). Next, run your correction utility with good mic discipline, using the same mic locations you did for your RTA measurements. Confirm that the distances, trim levels, and crossovers are reasonable. If not, run again, or in the case of a low crossover, just change it.
> 
> All that is a lot of time and effort, but it's the only way I've found to achieve consistent results. Are automated systems any better than good old fashioned PEQ? Maybe Harman's killer system for Synthesis, but I don't know. Sometimes I wonder. My $.02 worth.


Hi,

I found your post interesting, and I welcome a pro perspective on things. One thing you said that confused me a little bit was when you said that Audyssey often sets crossovers lower than they should be. When you say that, are you just going by the speaker specs, or are you actually measuring the speaker to find out where it is down by 3db, and discovering that your measurement differs from the crossover that is set?

Forgive me if you already know all this, but Audyssey simply measures the in-room response of the various channels, and reports the results to the AVR or pre-pro. The AVR then uses its own internal algorithm to assign a crossover for the speaker, or speaker pair, based on the reported F3 point. For a pair, the higher F3 point controls the crossover setting. But, room placement can provide very unpredictable results--from lower than expected crossovers, due to boundary gain; to higher than expected crossovers, due to cancellation effects--just to use some common examples.

Anyone reading the FAQ, or coming to this thread, will typically be advised to reset crossovers to at least 80Hz, absent special circumstances. I personally like the 1/2 to 1 octave rule that suggests that you want to set crossovers at least 1/2 octave higher than the reported F3 point of a speaker. A full octave higher is even better. Even if a speaker is benefiting from boundary gain, as you said, it's just common sense to set a higher crossover.

But, the point I am making is that Audyssey has not actually done anything wrong in setting that crossover, nor has the AVR, as long as we realize that the crossover set is simply a report and not a recommendation. Of course, that needs to be communicated to first-time Audyssey users, which both the FAQ and this thread attempt to do.

I apologize if I seem to be cherry picking just one thing you said from a good post, but there has always been a lot of confusion about how crossovers are (and should be) set, so I thought that this was worth pursuing a little.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gp-se

I wanted to post a quick update, I did some changes in my room and got my crossovers at 60hz for all speakers! I did a few trial and error attempts to get my crossover to lower from 150hz. What worked in the end was moving my couch about 1.5 feet back, and moving my front speakers until they were just over a foot from the front wall. I want to thank those who provided help, it turns out I was getting a cancelation effect because of the room setup. I'm very happy that it's all sorted now... thanks again guys!


----------



## Cam Man

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I found your post interesting, and I welcome a pro perspective on things. One thing you said that confused me a little bit was when you said that Audyssey often sets crossovers lower than they should be. When you say that, are you just going by the speaker specs, or are you actually measuring the speaker to find out where it is down by 3db, and discovering that your measurement differs from the crossover that is set?
> 
> Forgive me if you already know all this, but Audyssey simply measures the in-room response of the various channels, and reports the results to the AVR or pre-pro. The AVR then uses its own internal algorithm to assign a crossover for the speaker, or speaker pair, based on the reported F3 point. For a pair, the higher F3 point controls the crossover setting. But, room placement can provide very unpredictable results--from lower than expected crossovers, due to boundary gain; to higher than expected crossovers, due to cancellation effects--just to use some common examples.
> 
> Anyone reading the FAQ, or coming to this thread, will typically be advised to reset crossovers to at least 80Hz, absent special circumstances. I personally like the 1/2 to 1 octave rule that suggests that you want to set crossovers at least 1/2 octave higher than the reported F3 point of a speaker. A full octave higher is even better. Even if a speaker is benefiting from boundary gain, as you said, it's just common sense to set a higher crossover.
> 
> But, the point I am making is that Audyssey has not actually done anything wrong in setting that crossover, nor has the AVR, as long as we realize that the crossover set is simply a report and not a recommendation. Of course, that needs to be communicated to first-time Audyssey users, which both the FAQ and this thread attempt to do.
> 
> I apologize if I seem to be cherry picking just one thing you said from a good post, but there has always been a lot of confusion about how crossovers are (and should be) set, so I thought that this was worth pursuing a little.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



No worries! It's what AVS does at its best; sharing tech and technique. All good info.


Regarding your question in the first paragraph, I mean the speaker's design. Unless it's one of the few speakers that are THX-certified (therefore we know they are verified to be -3dB at 80Hz) then we can only hope that the published speaker specs are correct. If lucky, plots are published...but that's pretty rare. To the other part of your question, one might be able to make reasonably reliable near-field measurements of the speaker if well away from boundaries. I jumped into DIY builds in the last year, and did some of those before installing them. Fun.


----------



## Johan81

Going to add two Atmos overhead speakers this week to my system, I know the advice for using the Audyssey mic is to _not_ have it point to the speakers. Is this true for the Atmos speakers as well? If so, how to point them? Maybe I am overthinking it, but better safe than sorry I guess


----------



## mthomas47

Johan81 said:


> Going to add two Atmos overhead speakers this week to my system, I know the advice for using the Audyssey mic is to _not_ have it point to the speakers. Is this true for the Atmos speakers as well? If so, how to point them? Maybe I am overthinking it, but better safe than sorry I guess


Hi Johan,

The omnidirectional Audyssey mic is designed to point more-or-less straight up. Some people used to ask if it wouldn't be better to point it horizontally at speakers, and the answer was no. With ceiling speakers in the equation, it might seem a little more confusing, but the mic would still be designed (and calibrated) to point upward, and should be able to "hear" the overhead speakers just fine. Overthinking this sort of thing is part of a long and noble tradition on this thread. So, you are in good company. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Johan81

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Johan,
> 
> The omnidirectional Audyssey mic is designed to point more-or-less straight up. Some people used to ask if it wouldn't be better to point it horizontally at speakers, and the answer was no. With ceiling speakers in the equation, it might seem a little more confusing, but the mic would still be designed (and calibrated) to point upward, and should be able to "hear" the overhead speakers just fine. Overthinking this sort of thing is part of a long and noble tradition on this thread. So, you are in good company.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the info, was just a bit worried that it would hear the overhead speakers a bit _too good_, that it will EQ them too aggressively and set them a bit too low volume wise. I will see how it fares, just so happy that I can backup full sets of settings and Audyssey configs with my X3300W that will make it easier to experiment. The Audyssey measuring process is also sped up a lot compared to my older Onkyo 707 with only the MultEQ version.


----------



## Selden Ball

Johan81 said:


> Thanks for the info, was just a bit worried that it would hear the overhead speakers a bit _too good_, that it will EQ them too aggressively and set them a bit too low volume wise. I will see how it fares, just so happy that I can backup full sets of settings and Audyssey configs with my X3300W that will make it easier to experiment. The Audyssey measuring process is also sped up a lot compared to my older Onkyo 707 with only the MultEQ version.


Room EQ software already is required to make special provisions for systems which include Dolby-Enabled (upfiring) speakers, so I'm sure Audyssey's algorithms take into account direct-firing overhead speakers, too.


----------



## jhoffy22

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not familiar with that particular Denon feature. If Audyssey ignores it during calibration, then your SPL is already 3db higher than what Audyssey calibrated it to, based on a 75db test tone. If it were mine, I would just turn it off, so that I could add the bass I wanted from more of a known starting point.
> 
> Being at a trim level of -10.5 is just about perfect for a starting point. In theory, that would put your sub playing at the same volume as all of your other channels (not counting the unknown, to me at least, action of that 3db boost). But, our hearing is not as sensitive with lower frequencies as it is for most of the rest of the frequency range. So, most (nearly all) HT users boost their sub trims so that they will hear low bass, and particularly low bass effects in movies, more clearly.
> 
> Ed Mullen, of SVS, recently made an even more definitive statement than he has in the past about the advisability of staying well within negative numbers with AVR sub trim. That is to minimize the possibility of clipping from using the AVR amp. So, following his counsel, you could boost up to about 8db (to a setting of -2.5) using your sub trim. And again, I would turn off the extra 3db boost, just to keep things simple and easy to calculate. If you ever found yourself wanting even more sub boost than the 8db trim boost provides, it would be better to increase the gain control on your sub a little. That simply allows the sub amplifier to send a little more voltage to the woofer. You can just season your bass to taste.
> 
> I hope this explanation helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike, this is helpful. Frankly, it makes no sense to me why the setting exists at all. It's redundant and dangerous. Anyways...

Another Audyssey question for y'all. I have a weird setup at the moment. Pioneer Andrew Jones SP-BS22s for front L/R and SP-C22 for the center channel. For the surrounds, I have these obscure Logitech satellite speakers from my old home theater in a box system. The specs for them are here: http://www.logitech.com/assets/36226/z906620-002920006ug403.pdf

It's setting the crossover for these speakers to 200hz. I know in the Audyssey directions, it says not to lower the crossover below what Audyssey sets it at, however, 200hz is really high so I lowered them to 120hz so that my sub can at least pick up the slack up to 120hz. Is this a problem? 

Thanks!


----------



## pacman9270

jhoffy22 said:


> Thanks Mike, this is helpful. Frankly, it makes no sense to me why the setting exists at all. It's redundant and dangerous. Anyways...
> 
> Another Audyssey question for y'all. I have a weird setup at the moment. Pioneer Andrew Jones SP-BS22s for front L/R and SP-C22 for the center channel. For the surrounds, I have these obscure Logitech satellite speakers from my old home theater in a box system. The specs for them are here: http://www.logitech.com/assets/36226/z906620-002920006ug403.pdf
> 
> It's setting the crossover for these speakers to 200hz. I know in the Audyssey directions, it says not to lower the crossover below what Audyssey sets it at, however, 200hz is really high so I lowered them to 120hz so that my sub can at least pick up the slack up to 120hz. Is this a problem?
> 
> Thanks!


Wasn't an issue for me. I ran a calibration Sunday night and it gave me the same results for my speakers when I introduced the VOG channel for my Auro 3D theater. I made the adjustments down to 60Hz for some of my channels and have had no issues.


----------



## mthomas47

jhoffy22 said:


> Thanks Mike, this is helpful. Frankly, it makes no sense to me why the setting exists at all. It's redundant and dangerous. Anyways...
> 
> Another Audyssey question for y'all. I have a weird setup at the moment. Pioneer Andrew Jones SP-BS22s for front L/R and SP-C22 for the center channel. For the surrounds, I have these obscure Logitech satellite speakers from my old home theater in a box system. The specs for them are here: http://www.logitech.com/assets/36226/z906620-002920006ug403.pdf
> 
> It's setting the crossover for these speakers to 200hz. I know in the Audyssey directions, it says not to lower the crossover below what Audyssey sets it at, however, 200hz is really high so I lowered them to 120hz so that my sub can at least pick up the slack up to 120hz. Is this a problem?
> 
> Thanks!


You are welcome! I don't know about the Logitech's. I wouldn't worry too much about losing the EQ between 200Hz and 120Hz. But, I might worry a little about how much distortion I would hear from a 3" driver trying to play at frequencies it's not really made for. I think that as long as you are listening at moderate volumes you should be fine, but, I don't think I would push those little guys very hard with a crossover that much lower than it should be. Honestly, I think you will probably be okay, but I would keep an eye (and ear) on them.

My normal mantra is that, if it sounds better that way, then it is better. You might try experimenting with 200/150/120. If you can't hear much difference with a higher crossover, I would go with the higher one. If it sounds better, due to localization, or whatever, with a lower crossover, I would probably go with that. But, I would try to stop short of distortion.


----------



## Alan P

jhoffy22 said:


> Thanks Mike, this is helpful. Frankly, it makes no sense to me why the setting exists at all. It's redundant and dangerous. Anyways...
> 
> Another Audyssey question for y'all. I have a weird setup at the moment. Pioneer Andrew Jones SP-BS22s for front L/R and SP-C22 for the center channel. For the surrounds, I have these obscure Logitech satellite speakers from my old home theater in a box system. The specs for them are here: http://www.logitech.com/assets/36226/z906620-002920006ug403.pdf
> 
> It's setting the crossover for these speakers to 200hz. I know in the Audyssey directions, it says not to lower the crossover below what Audyssey sets it at, however, 200hz is really high so I lowered them to 120hz so that my sub can at least pick up the slack up to 120hz. Is this a problem?
> 
> Thanks!


The Subwoofer Level setting is usually input specific. It is so you can set different sub levels for say music vs. movies if they are on different inputs.

How do you like the SP-C22? It has gotten some pretty bad reviews around the forum......

I would try to adjust speaker position to improve the bass response of your speakers (i.e. move them closer to a boundary). I know I wouldn't like to live with an un-EQ'ed 80hz "hole" in my response.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

A quick question about Sub Trim and Audyssey. As previously reposted I had to dial my Subs way down to get past the Sub Level Check in Audyssey. My final results were -10.5 and -11. So far so good right.

Have been listening to movies and music and I keep finding the Bass to be anemic. I keep pushing up the AVR trims and am now right on the bubble of going into the + trim range. I think I don't want that. So, what can I do?

I think it would be ok to use the Audyssey Sub Level Check (Not rerun Audyssey) as a means to boost the output on each sub while using the Level Check function to keep them relatively properly balanced. Then quitting without further Audyssey calibration. This should revert to previous calibrated state and settings. The only thing I will have done is turn up to output of the Subs at the Sub Amp. I think I need another 5-6db out of each sub. I have plenty of trim left on the Sub Amp. Right now they are both sitting at or near the 9 o'clock positions.

Will this cause any problems or will this work just fine. All I am doing is bumping the subs output to gain more headroom on the AVR Trim side of the house. This should not negatively effect the Audyssey filters already in place right? I think this plan is sound. But wanted to bounce it off one of you Grey Beards before I begin.

Thanks again Gentlemen.


----------



## Keith AP

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> A quick question about Sub Trim and Audyssey. As previously reposted I had to dial my Subs way down to get past the Sub Level Check in Audyssey. My final results were -10.5 and -11. So far so good right.
> 
> Have been listening to movies and music and I keep finding the Bass to be anemic. I keep pushing up the AVR trims and am now right on the bubble of going into the + trim range. I think I don't want that. So, what can I do?
> 
> I think it would be ok to use the Audyssey Sub Level Check (Not rerun Audyssey) as a means to boost the output on each sub while using the Level Check function to keep them relatively properly balanced. Then quitting without further Audyssey calibration. This should revert to previous calibrated state and settings. The only thing I will have done is turn up to output of the Subs at the Sub Amp. I think I need another 5-6db out of each sub. I have plenty of trim left on the Sub Amp. Right now they are both sitting at or near the 9 o'clock positions.
> 
> Will this cause any problems or will this work just fine. All I am doing is bumping the subs output to gain more headroom on the AVR Trim side of the house. This should not negatively effect the Audyssey filters already in place right? I think this plan is sound. But wanted to bounce it off one of you Grey Beards before I begin.
> 
> Thanks again Gentlemen.


Grey Beard? Actually, you're right. Don't know firsthand about Audyssey maintaining the prior settings after the Sub Check, I'll let someone else address that.

Just wanted to describe my approach to a similar perception. I adjusted both subs about +6, and turned on Dynamic EQ for an additional boost during movies (I typically listen at -13 to -15). When I listen to SACD, I turn off Dynamic EQ because it's too bass heavy for my taste. Might be worth a try as an alternative.


----------



## Alan P

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> A quick question about Sub Trim and Audyssey. As previously reposted I had to dial my Subs way down to get past the Sub Level Check in Audyssey. My final results were -10.5 and -11. So far so good right.
> 
> Have been listening to movies and music and I keep finding the Bass to be anemic. I keep pushing up the AVR trims and am now right on the bubble of going into the + trim range. I think I don't want that. So, what can I do?
> 
> I think it would be ok to use the Audyssey Sub Level Check (Not rerun Audyssey) as a means to boost the output on each sub while using the Level Check function to keep them relatively properly balanced. Then quitting without further Audyssey calibration. This should revert to previous calibrated state and settings. The only thing I will have done is turn up to output of the Subs at the Sub Amp. I think I need another 5-6db out of each sub. I have plenty of trim left on the Sub Amp. Right now they are both sitting at or near the 9 o'clock positions.
> 
> Will this cause any problems or will this work just fine. All I am doing is bumping the subs output to gain more headroom on the AVR Trim side of the house. This should not negatively effect the Audyssey filters already in place right? I think this plan is sound. But wanted to bounce it off one of you Grey Beards before I begin.
> 
> Thanks again Gentlemen.


Yup, that should work just fine. When you cancel Audyssey setup at any point, it will revert to the previous calibration.

I actually do the same thing because I need MOAR BASS too, but I use an SPL meter laying on the floor directly in front of the sub driver while adjusting gain (I went +6dB). My current sub trims are at -5dB/-4dB, without boosting the gain on the subs I would be over 0dB on the trim.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Thanks Alan and Keith! Appreciate the reply and your time and attention. You guys Rock!

FYI. While I to have a Grey Beard (Earned every damn single grey hair) in relation to Audyssey knowledge I am just a baby pup jumping at the feet of the Audyssey Wizards! I am on a steep learing curve where I don't know what I don't know. So much has changed in such a short time. When I came back in here, I thought I knew a lot more than I actually do 

Thanks to Members like Alan, Keith, Mike, David, Cam Man and Selden for proactively and selflessly sharing their collective knowledge and expertise. You guys, and people like you, make this place (AVS Forum) a non-judgmental and welcoming place, to learn and pass that knowledge along. That is a remarkable statement and endorsement in this day and age of sadistic and brutal human internet exchange.

Many thanks to you all!


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> A quick question about Sub Trim and Audyssey. As previously reposted I had to dial my Subs way down to get past the Sub Level Check in Audyssey. My final results were -10.5 and -11. So far so good right.
> 
> Have been listening to movies and music and I keep finding the Bass to be anemic. I keep pushing up the AVR trims and am now right on the bubble of going into the + trim range. I think I don't want that. So, what can I do?
> 
> I think it would be ok to use the Audyssey Sub Level Check (Not rerun Audyssey) as a means to boost the output on each sub while using the Level Check function to keep them relatively properly balanced. Then quitting without further Audyssey calibration. This should revert to previous calibrated state and settings. The only thing I will have done is turn up to output of the Subs at the Sub Amp. I think I need another 5-6db out of each sub. I have plenty of trim left on the Sub Amp. Right now they are both sitting at or near the 9 o'clock positions.
> 
> Will this cause any problems or will this work just fine. All I am doing is bumping the subs output to gain more headroom on the AVR Trim side of the house. This should not negatively effect the Audyssey filters already in place right? I think this plan is sound. But wanted to bounce it off one of you Grey Beards before I begin.
> 
> Thanks again Gentlemen.





Alan P said:


> Yup, that should work just fine. When you cancel Audyssey setup at any point, it will revert to the previous calibration.
> 
> I actually do the same thing because I need MOAR BASS too, but I use an SPL meter laying on the floor directly in front of the sub driver while adjusting gain (I went +6dB). My current sub trims are at -5dB/-4dB, without boosting the gain on the subs I would be over 0dB on the trim.


Your idea of how to do this was excellent--logical and methodical, and just what I would expect from an engineer. Alan's alternative method was also a good one. I blush to admit that my own approach is a little simpler and more pragmatic. Starting from four level-matched subs in two pairs, if I want to increase the gain on my subs, I just make the same incremental increase on each sub.

In theory, that should maintain roughly the same proportional levels that I started with when they were level-matched. Of course, that process is facilitated by the digital controls. I will also confess that I sometimes choose to boost a particular sub, irrespective of strict level matching, depending on the particular content I am watching, or mood I am in. I do try to keep a log of any adjustments, though, so I know what I have done, and can easily go back to an earlier setting, if I want to. As with anything in this hobby, YMMV!


----------



## Alan P

^^^

All subs should have digital readouts...I know I wish mine did!


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Digital readouts do make life so much easier. It would also be a good idea for me to add that my simpler method works best with identical subs.


----------



## NUWildcat928

cool sticky, thanks


----------



## gravi

*Can't Understand Low Bass*

I was using an Emotiva pre-pro with proprietary room correction in a 7.1 system. The bass used to rattle windows and doors. Upgraded to a 7.1.4 system with a Marantz 7010 and ran the more advanced Audyssey calibration. It seems to think bass from my sub is too high and had me dial down the gain to a tick above zero and set the level at -3.5db. The bass was seemed tighter but not as loud. I then picked up an identical second sub to get to a 7.2.4 system. Audyssey thinks they are both too loud and not only are the gains barely above zero, the levels were set to -7 and -9. When I listen to test tones, I can barely hear the subs! Watching a movie, the bass was not impressive. I did set RLO to 10db and bumped up sub levels manually about 3db. My normal listening volume is -11 db. Am I supposed to listen at reference levels to get all the bass. I can tell you my two subs are plenty powerful for my medium sized room. Any idea why Audyssey dialing down the bass levels?


----------



## robc1976

gravi said:


> I was using an Emotiva pre-pro with proprietary room correction in a 7.1 system. The bass used to rattle windows and doors. Upgraded to a 7.1.4 system with a Marantz 7010 and ran the more advanced Audyssey calibration. It seems to think bass from my sub is too high and had me dial down the gain to a tick above zero and set the level at -3.5db. The bass was seemed tighter but not as loud. I then picked up an identical second sub to get to a 7.2.4 system. Audyssey thinks they are both too loud and not only are the gains barely above zero, the levels were set to -7 and -9. When I listen to test tones, I can barely hear the subs! Watching a movie, the bass was not impressive. I did set RLO to 10db and bumped up sub levels manually about 3db. My normal listening volume is -11 db. Am I supposed to listen at reference levels to get all the bass. I can tell you my two subs are plenty powerful for my medium sized room. Any idea why Audyssey dialing down the bass levels?


I use (2) Emotiva's and use X32 and what sounds best to me is this

DEQ = off
DV = off

Tone controls will now be available since deq is off

Bass = +5Db
Treble = 0Db

Turns subs up (via AVR) +6Db

Audyssey flat curve


----------



## mthomas47

gravi said:


> I was using an Emotiva pre-pro with proprietary room correction in a 7.1 system. The bass used to rattle windows and doors. Upgraded to a 7.1.4 system with a Marantz 7010 and ran the more advanced Audyssey calibration. It seems to think bass from my sub is too high and had me dial down the gain to a tick above zero and set the level at -3.5db. The bass was seemed tighter but not as loud. I then picked up an identical second sub to get to a 7.2.4 system. Audyssey thinks they are both too loud and not only are the gains barely above zero, the levels were set to -7 and -9. When I listen to test tones, I can barely hear the subs! Watching a movie, the bass was not impressive. I did set RLO to 10db and bumped up sub levels manually about 3db. My normal listening volume is -11 db. Am I supposed to listen at reference levels to get all the bass. I can tell you my two subs are plenty powerful for my medium sized room. Any idea why Audyssey dialing down the bass levels?


Hi,

Please read Post 1296 (on page 44 if you are using the standard 30 posts per page) for a complete explanation, along with some specific suggestions for trim/gain settings. The short answer is that Audyssey is programmed to set all of your channels, including the sub channel, to play at the same volume at the MLP. It uses a 75db test tone to insure that. With all channels playing at the same level, Audyssey can then set specific control points in all channels, and at all frequencies, to EQ the entire system to a target curve. The longer explanation, and the best way for a user to address the sub channel, are contained in Post 1296. Essentially, it's up to the individual user to subsequently set bass levels where he wants them, but there are some good protocols to follow.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## A-rab

Hi all,

I've been having some issues with Audyssey crossover settings lately and was hoping someone could point me in the right direction. My current setup is as follows: 
- Speakers : Chane Music & Cinema A5rx-c towers and A2.4 center 
- Seating position is 10' from the TV 
- Room size is 12' x 16' 
- The L/R speakers are 8' apart on each side of the TV. 
- The sub is the Seaton Sound MFW-15 Turbo-SS 
- The receiver is a Denon avr-x4200w.

I've reached out to the Audyssey online help desk which have been very prompt but none of the following recommendations they provided changed anything
- Reset the receiver to factory settings, update firmware and rerun Audyssey 
- Put a towel under the mic's tripod so that the reading doesn't pick-up vibrations from the sub (hence maybe why the sub distance is set at 0.1')
- Verify woofer damage on speakers (they all run fine with sine waves at 40, 60 and 80+ Hz
- Move towers outs

I ran Audyssey about 5 times (with the 8 placements every time). The F/R and Center distances are pretty much bang on but it keeps recommending a 250Hz crossover (max available crossover setting) and setting my subwoofer at 0.1 distance whereas it is actually at 10' from the listening position. After this, I brought my towers forward by 6" (pushing the limits of WAF) and it turned out to help with the F/L, C and sub distances, but still 250 Hz crossover.

If I manually set the crossover to 60 or 80Hz, does it mean thatas long as Audyssey recommends a 250 Hz crossover for whatever reason, I will not get any benefits from having Audyssey? I.e. I won't have any room EQ between Audyssey's measured roll off point of or above 250Hz and my choice of crossover setting (i.e. 60 or 80 Hz)?

Apologies for the lengthy post but hoping someone has a clue...!

Thanks!

PS: I'd post a pic of my setup from my ipad but can't figure out how to do it.


----------



## mogorf

A-rab said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Apologies for the lengthy post but hoping someone has a clue...!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> PS: I'd post a pic of my setup from my ipad but can't figure out how to do it.


Hi A-rab, my first clue until others chime in is a bad Audyssey microphone. Can you borrow another one from a friend or co-worker to test it out?

PS: To post a pic look for the "Insert Image" radio-button in the message window. You need to have a URL for your image. Or, right below the message window there is an area called "Drag and Drop File Upload". Do as the name suggests!


----------



## mthomas47

A-rab said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I've been having some issues with Audyssey crossover settings lately and was hoping someone could point me in the right direction. My current setup is as follows:
> - Speakers : Chane Music & Cinema A5rx-c towers and A2.4 center
> - Seating position is 10' from the TV
> - Room size is 12' x 16'
> - The L/R speakers are 8' apart on each side of the TV.
> - The sub is the Seaton Sound MFW-15 Turbo-SS
> - The receiver is a Denon avr-x4200w.
> 
> I've reached out to the Audyssey online help desk which have been very prompt but none of the following recommendations they provided changed anything
> - Reset the receiver to factory settings, update firmware and rerun Audyssey
> - Put a towel under the mic's tripod so that the reading doesn't pick-up vibrations from the sub (hence maybe why the sub distance is set at 0.1')
> - Verify woofer damage on speakers (they all run fine with sine waves at 40, 60 and 80+ Hz
> - Move towers outs
> 
> I ran Audyssey about 5 times (with the 8 placements every time). The F/R and Center distances are pretty much bang on but it keeps recommending a 250Hz crossover (max available crossover setting) and setting my subwoofer at 0.1 distance whereas it is actually at 10' from the listening position. After this, I brought my towers forward by 6" (pushing the limits of WAF) and it turned out to help with the F/L, C and sub distances, but still 250 Hz crossover.
> 
> If I manually set the crossover to 60 or 80Hz, does it mean thatas long as Audyssey recommends a 250 Hz crossover for whatever reason, I will not get any benefits from having Audyssey? I.e. I won't have any room EQ between Audyssey's measured roll off point of or above 250Hz and my choice of crossover setting (i.e. 60 or 80 Hz)?
> 
> Apologies for the lengthy post but hoping someone has a clue...!
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> PS: I'd post a pic of my setup from my ipad but can't figure out how to do it.


Hi,

I'm not sure that I have a clue, but I'm glad that you took the time to explain everything thoroughly. You said you had been having trouble lately, does that mean that at one time your 4200 was setting crossovers and distances in a more appropriate manner? Is your Denon under warranty? Sometimes, multiple resets can help, so that is something you could try.

My best guesses at this point are that you either have a bad microphone, which is easily correctable by getting a replacement mic, or a bad AVR, which is unfortunately not as simple. If I were you, I would get a replacement mic from Amazon, or somewhere reputable, and hope that fixes the problem. If it doesn't, I think it is likely that your AVR is having issues. But, the mics do degrade over time, in some cases, so let's hope that is the case here.

You are correct that Audyssey will not EQ below the reported crossover point. In some situations, I would probably slightly lower a crossover manually if I wanted to, and not worry about it too much. But, the disparity is just too great in your case, and may be representative of a larger problem with either the mic or the AVR. So, I would pursue this further if I were you.

Keep us posted on whether a replacement mic fixes the problem.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## A-rab

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure that I have a clue, but I'm glad that you took the time to explain everything thoroughly. You said you had been having trouble lately, does that mean that at one time your 4200 was setting crossovers and distances in a more appropriate manner? Is your Denon under warranty? Sometimes, multiple resets can help, so that is something you could try.
> 
> My best guesses at this point are that you either have a bad microphone, which is easily correctable by getting a replacement mic, or a bad AVR, which is unfortunately not as simple. If I were you, I would get a replacement mic from Amazon, or somewhere reputable, and hope that fixes the problem. If it doesn't, I think it is likely that your AVR is having issues. But, the mics do degrade over time, in some cases, so let's hope that is the case here.
> 
> You are correct that Audyssey will not EQ below the reported crossover point. In some situations, I would probably slightly lower a crossover manually if I wanted to, and not worry about it too much. But, the disparity is just too great in your case, and may be representative of a larger problem with either the mic or the AVR. So, I would pursue this further if I were you.
> 
> Keep us posted on whether a replacement mic fixes the problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi there,

"Lately" is just in my mind lol! I just got this new sub (which is btw fantastic) and before that I was just running my mains as "large". Regarding the mic, I'll check if Denon or the AV shop where I bought the AVR can supply a new one.

On a side note, I did set the crossover to a lower value at 80Hz. 60Hz sounds OK as well but I prefer to let the sub handle the extra 20Hz.

I guess I can just not worry about it byt can't help but wonder, since one of the reasons I purchased this receiver was to get Audyssey.

Thanks!


----------



## A-rab

A-rab said:


> Hi there,
> 
> 
> 
> "Lately" is just in my mind lol! I just got this new sub (which is btw fantastic) and before that I was just running my mains as "large". Regarding the mic, I'll check if Denon or the AV shop where I bought the AVR can supply a new one.
> 
> 
> 
> On a side note, I did set the crossover to a lower value at 80Hz. 60Hz sounds OK as well but I prefer to let the sub handle
> 
> I finally figured it out, had to get Tapatalk...! Here is a picture of my humble setup!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gravi

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Please read Post 1296 (on page 44 if you are using the standard 30 posts per page) for a complete explanation, along with some specific suggestions for trim/gain settings. The short answer is that Audyssey is programmed to set all of your channels, including the sub channel, to play at the same volume at the MLP. It uses a 75db test tone to insure that. With all channels playing at the same level, Audyssey can then set specific control points in all channels, and at all frequencies, to EQ the entire system to a target curve. The longer explanation, and the best way for a user to address the sub channel, are contained in Post 1296. Essentially, it's up to the individual user to subsequently set bass levels where he wants them, but there are some good protocols to follow.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Great post and lots of great information, thanks for providing the link. In my case, the gain dials are barely a tick or two above zero and my trims are -7 and -9, so I have room to boost. Also useful to know that DEQ boosts +2 db for every 5db below reference. That implies if I have RLO set to 10 db (mainly to lower surround boost for Atmos) and I listen at around -10, then DEQ is not providing much if any boost at all.


----------



## mthomas47

gravi said:


> Great post and lots of great information, thanks for providing the link. In my case, the gain dials are barely a tick or two above zero and my trims are -7 and -9, so I have room to boost. Also useful to know that DEQ boosts +2 db for every 5db below reference. That implies if I have RLO set to 10 db (mainly to lower surround boost for Atmos) and I listen at around -10, then DEQ is not providing much if any boost at all.


You are very welcome, and you are exactly correct that at -10 MV, with an RLO setting of -10, DEQ wouldn't be doing anything at all.


----------



## mthomas47

A-rab said:


> Hi there,
> 
> "Lately" is just in my mind lol! I just got this new sub (which is btw fantastic) and before that I was just running my mains as "large". Regarding the mic, I'll check if Denon or the AV shop where I bought the AVR can supply a new one.
> 
> On a side note, I did set the crossover to a lower value at 80Hz. 60Hz sounds OK as well but I prefer to let the sub handle the extra 20Hz.
> 
> I guess I can just not worry about it byt can't help but wonder, since one of the reasons I purchased this receiver was to get Audyssey.
> 
> Thanks!


You are welcome! Even if it sounds alright when you lower the crossover, I would still try a new mic. There is no telling what else might be off and just might not be quite as noticeable. For instance, if the subwoofer distance is set at .1', then the sound from the subwoofer will be delayed, because Audyssey will believe that the sub is in your lap. 

While you wait for a new mic, I would increase the sub distance manually, to at least the actual distance. When, the mic is operating properly, the sub distance will show as greater than the actual distance, to account for the sub's internal processing, which delays the arrival time of the sound. The greater the distance set, the more Audyssey will speed up the arrival time of the sound, and vice-versa. That is so all sounds will arrive at the MLP at the same time.


----------



## A-rab

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! Even if it sounds alright when you lower the crossover, I would still try a new mic. There is no telling what else might be off and just might not be quite as noticeable. For instance, if the subwoofer distance is set at .1', then the sound from the subwoofer will be delayed, because Audyssey will believe that the sub is in your lap.
> 
> While you wait for a new mic, I would increase the sub distance manually, to at least the actual distance. When, the mic is operating properly, the sub distance will show as greater than the actual distance, to account for the sub's internal processing, which delays the arrival time of the sound. The greater the distance set, the more Audyssey will speed up the arrival time of the sound, and vice-versa. That is so all sounds will arrive at the MLP at the same time.




So when I brought the mains out by 6" and reran Audyssey, the distances for all speakers and the sub got corrected. It looks like Audyssey figured that out at least! Now just have to deal with this strange crossover setting. 

Here is what the Reference







Audyssey EQ looks like :











Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## gravi

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, and you are exactly correct that at -10 MV, with an RLO setting of -10, DEQ wouldn't be doing anything at all.


Thank you also for linking the Audyssey FAQ. Read through that and I was definitely not doing it right - I was stopping at 6 positions as that's as many seats I had. But I still have some questions:

- I have two rows of seating: First row is 3 seats together, second row on riser is 2 seats plus one slightly separated. I prefer sitting in the second row middle, as I personally find the first row too close, even though it is not ideal being against the back wall. Should I use that seat as position 1, or put in in between the first and second rows?

- If I use all 6 seats then all positions will not be within 2 feet. Is that okay? Or should I just pretend like it is one row and measure the locations in the Audyssey picture?

- Lastly, I am using the cardboard mic stand that came with my Marantz. I can sit it on the seat or on the floor and I can make sure it stays the same height. Is that okay or do I really need a boom stand?


----------



## mthomas47

gravi said:


> Thank you also for linking the Audyssey FAQ. Read through that and I was definitely not doing it right - I was stopping at 6 positions as that's as many seats I had. But I still have some questions:
> 
> - I have two rows of seating: First row is 3 seats together, second row on riser is 2 seats plus one slightly separated. I prefer sitting in the second row middle, as I personally find the first row too close, even though it is not ideal being against the back wall. Should I use that seat as position 1, or put in in between the first and second rows?
> 
> - If I use all 6 seats then all positions will not be within 2 feet. Is that okay? Or should I just pretend like it is one row and measure the locations in the Audyssey picture?
> 
> - Lastly, I am using the cardboard mic stand that came with my Marantz. I can sit it on the seat or on the floor and I can make sure it stays the same height. Is that okay or do I really need a boom stand?


The FAQ is a terrific resource. I would get a boom mic stand, if I were you. It's a tiny investment and will give you better calibrations, particularly if you like to experiment with multiple calibrations. I would also make mic position 1 the seat that you use the most. How far to come out in any direction from the MLP (mic position 1) is a matter of trial-and-error. 

Audyssey used to recommend larger mic patterns--coming out 3' to 4' to each side, and front to back. They are now recommending tighter clusters, which seems to be consistent with the experiences of many Audyssey users who have posted on the thread. For instance, I get good EQ over a pretty large seating area, using a tight mic pattern, even smaller than the 2' out to the side. So, this is something that you will have to experiment with to determine what works best in your particular room and seating area. But, I would recommend using all 8 positions and they need not correspond to specific seats.


----------



## Selden Ball

A-rab said:


> So when I brought the mains out by 6" and reran Audyssey, the distances for all speakers and the sub got corrected. It looks like Audyssey figured that out at least! Now just have to deal with this strange crossover setting.


A crossover of 250Hz often indicates that the speakers' woofers are silent for some reason,

If your speakers are designed to be bi-amped, double check to make sure that their external shorting bars are in place and tightly fastened down and that the bi-amp option is not selected in your receiver or pre/pro.

Unfortunately, the Audyssey correction graphs shown by the receiver are more marketing fluff than useful. If you actually want to see what Audyssey is doing to the sound then you might consider investing in some audio spectrum analysis software. REW (free software + ~$100 calibrated microphone) is popular here on AVS. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html Spectrum analysis apps are available for smartphones, but their microphones aren't very accurate.


----------



## gravi

mthomas47 said:


> The FAQ is a terrific resource. I would get a boom mic stand, if I were you. It's a tiny investment and will give you better calibrations, particularly if you like to experiment with multiple calibrations. I would also make mic position 1 the seat that you use the most. How far to come out in any direction from the MLP (mic position 1) is a matter of trial-and-error.
> 
> Audyssey used to recommend larger mic patterns--coming out 3' to 4' to each side, and front to back. They are now recommending tighter clusters, which seems to be consistent with the experiences of many Audyssey users who have posted on the thread. For instance, I get good EQ over a pretty large seating area, using a tight mic pattern, even smaller than the 2' out to the side. So, this is something that you will have to experiment with to determine what works best in your particular room and seating area. But, I would recommend using all 8 positions and they need not correspond to specific seats.


I agree, I am going to get the boom stand and attachment linked in the FAQ - it is a small investment and my job will be much easier using it.

I don't understand sampling multiple seat rows and still keeping within 2 feet of the MLP - most second row seats are 4-6 feet behind in a home environment (recliners). I am going to try using the MLP which is second row in my case and then a pattern in front and to the sides, not so much to the back as my second row is almost against the back wall. I also saw the following in the FAQ that makes me wonder if I should also try the area between the two rows as the MLP.

*One more point about the Main Listening Position. If you are primarily interesting in getting the best result for just one seat (either because you are the only listener or you are the only listener who really cares about audio fidelity), then place the mic for position 1 at the centre of that seat. If, however, you wish to consider other seats, then place the mic in the centre of the listening area for position 1.*

After I am done, I still have one item to better understand. I have read through the Atmos posts and people are complaining about surround boost due to Audyssey. There are two solutions - either lower the surround levels 1-2 db after calibration or use an RLO of 5 or 10db and boost SW by 2-4 db. Any opinions on which one people prefer?


----------



## mthomas47

gravi said:


> I agree, I am going to get the boom stand and attachment linked in the FAQ - it is a small investment and my job will be much easier using it.
> 
> I don't understand sampling multiple seat rows and still keeping within 2 feet of the MLP - most second row seats are 4-6 feet behind in a home environment (recliners). I am going to try using the MLP which is second row in my case and then a pattern in front and to the sides, not so much to the back as my second row is almost against the back wall. I also saw the following in the FAQ that makes me wonder if I should also try the area between the two rows as the MLP.
> 
> *One more point about the Main Listening Position. If you are primarily interesting in getting the best result for just one seat (either because you are the only listener or you are the only listener who really cares about audio fidelity), then place the mic for position 1 at the centre of that seat. If, however, you wish to consider other seats, then place the mic in the centre of the listening area for position 1.*
> 
> After I am done, I still have one item to better understand. I have read through the Atmos posts and people are complaining about surround boost due to Audyssey. There are two solutions - either lower the surround levels 1-2 db after calibration or use an RLO of 5 or 10db and boost SW by 2-4 db. Any opinions on which one people prefer?


I think I wrote a post about this sampling issue, but it may have been on another thread. They blur together sometimes. 

There are two schools of thought with respect to sampling. One school of thought is to sample as large an area as possible (such as multiple seats in multiple rows) so that Audyssey will EQ as large an area as possible. That used to be Audyssey's recommended approach. A potential problem with that is that an issue in one area, if it's severe enough, might exert too much influence on the weighting algorithm, and adversely affect the overall calibration.

The other school of thought is to restrict the measurement area in order to try to develop a more consistent measurement pattern for the fuzzy logic weighting algorithm to address. That seems to be Audyssey's current position regarding sampling, and is consistent with the practical experience of many users. Big mic patterns do not necessarily result in better EQ over a large area. They may, in some cases, simply result in worse EQ everywhere. So, you will just have to experiment to find out what works best in your room, and what you like. It's essentially a trial-and-error process.

DEQ boosts the surrounds, not Audyssey. DEQ is an optional software program which can be used or not, although it turns on by default. Turning off DEQ will also turn off the surround boost, and the ~2db per -5 MV bass boost. Some people use DEQ as is; some use an RLO setting of -5, or -10, or -15; some reduce their surrounds manually; and some don't use DEQ at all. There is no consensus on the issue, anymore than there is with respect to the master volumes we prefer.

Most people add some sub boost, whether they employ DEQ or not. I would guess that with DEQ, the average sub boost is probably about +3db to +6db. Without DEQ, the average boost is probably much higher than that. But again, as with the MV example, how much sub boost we prefer is strictly a matter of individual choice.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I saw a question in your last post that I addressed earlier, but I will repeat the advice. If I were you, I would definitely make mic position 1 the seat that is most often used. It's not just about the control points that Audyssey sets during the EQ process. The sound levels and timing for the various channels will be set based on mic position 1. So, irrespective of any considerations of EQ, that will always be the best seat in the house from an imaging standpoint. I don't think that going between the rows for your first mic position would give you as satisfactory results as just starting from where you usually sit.


----------



## gravi

mthomas47 said:


> I think I wrote a post about this sampling issue, but it may have been on another thread. They blur together sometimes.
> 
> There are two schools of thought with respect to sampling. One school of thought is to sample as large an area as possible (such as multiple seats in multiple rows) so that Audyssey will EQ as large an area as possible. That used to be Audyssey's recommended approach. A potential problem with that is that an issue in one area, if it's severe enough, might exert too much influence on the weighting algorithm, and adversely affect the overall calibration.
> 
> The other school of thought is to restrict the measurement area in order to try to develop a more consistent measurement pattern for the fuzzy logic weighting algorithm to address. That seems to be Audyssey's current position regarding sampling, and is consistent with the practical experience of many users. Big mic patterns do not necessarily result in better EQ over a large area. They may, in some cases, simply result in worse EQ everywhere. So, you will just have to experiment to find out what works best in your room, and what you like. It's essentially a trial-and-error process.
> 
> DEQ boosts the surrounds, not Audyssey. DEQ is an optional software program which can be used or not, although it turns on by default. Turning off DEQ will also turn off the surround boost, and the ~2db per -5 MV bass boost. Some people use DEQ as is; some use an RLO setting of -5, or -10, or -15; some reduce their surrounds manually; and some don't use DEQ at all. There is no consensus on the issue, anymore than there is with respect to the master volumes we prefer.
> 
> Most people add some sub boost, whether they employ DEQ or not. I would guess that with DEQ, the average sub boost is probably about +3db to +6db. Without DEQ, the average boost is probably much higher than that. But again, as with the MV example, how much sub boost we prefer is strictly a matter of individual choice.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: I saw a question in your last post that I addressed earlier, but I will repeat the advice. If I were you, I would definitely make mic position 1 the seat that is most often used. It's not just about the control points that Audyssey sets during the EQ process. The sound levels and timing for the various channels will be set based on mic position 1. So, irrespective of any considerations of EQ, that will always be the best seat in the house from an imaging standpoint. I don't think that going between the rows for your first mic position would give you as satisfactory results as just starting from where you usually sit.


That was a wealth of information and I really appreciate all the knowledge sharing. That's what makes this forum great.

I now understand the overall logic behind the EQ algorithm and will experiment based on your suggestions.

Understand the DEQ better now. Since I mostly watch movies around -12 or so, RLO of -10 is effectively turning it off. Will try -5 and/or a combination of surround decrease and sub boost to see what works.

Thanks for all the help.


----------



## A-rab

Selden Ball said:


> A crossover of 250Hz often indicates that the speakers' woofers are silent for some reason,
> 
> If your speakers are designed to be bi-amped, double check to make sure that their external shorting bars are in place and tightly fastened down and that the bi-amp option is not selected in your receiver or pre/pro.
> 
> Unfortunately, the Audyssey correction graphs shown by the receiver are more marketing fluff than useful. If you actually want to see what Audyssey is doing to the sound then you might consider investing in some audio spectrum analysis software. REW (free software + ~$100 calibrated microphone) is popular here on AVS. See http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html Spectrum analysis apps are available for smartphones, but their microphones aren't very accurate.


Hello there - my towers aren't designed to be biamped, just a good old pair of input terminals ! 

I did test the speakers in stereo mode, set the settings to "Large" (and no crossover) and sent them sine waves at 40Hz, 60Hz and 80Hz. They were able to put out sound at pretty good SPL levels at all frequencies. All woofers were moving back and forth very well. I also triple checked the AV settings to ensure they're not setup as bi-amp.

I even moved furniture around and changed the Audyssey mic pattern (made it tighter, wider by no more than 2 ft from the wall, etc.) and still no bueno.

I'm at a point where I asked the AV shop to send me a new Audyssey mic, in case the one I have is faulty. If this doesn't work, I'm gona see what Denon can do (i.e. repair the receiver or get me a new one).

EDIT

Here is some feedback from the Audyssey help desk, they don't think the mic is the problem :
"_Hello,

Microphones typically lose sensitivity in the high frequency range when damaged before there are issues with low frequencies. In a broken mic the loss of high frequency will cause a correction that gives maximum boost to all high frequencies. The crossover may be correct for what is measured in the room.

Kind regards,
Audyssey Support_"


----------



## mthomas47

A-rab said:


> Hello there - my towers aren't designed to be biamped, just a good old pair of input terminals !
> 
> I did test the speakers in stereo mode, set the settings to "Large" (and no crossover) and sent them sine waves at 40Hz, 60Hz and 80Hz. They were able to put out sound at pretty good SPL levels at all frequencies. All woofers were moving back and forth very well. I also triple checked the AV settings to ensure they're not setup as bi-amp.
> 
> I even moved furniture around and changed the Audyssey mic pattern (made it tighter, wider by no more than 2 ft from the wall, etc.) and still no bueno.
> 
> I'm at a point where I asked the AV shop to send me a new Audyssey mic, in case the one I have is faulty. If this doesn't work, I'm gona see what Denon can do (i.e. repair the receiver or get me a new one).
> 
> EDIT
> 
> Here is some feedback from the Audyssey help desk, they don't think the mic is the problem :
> "_Hello,
> 
> Microphones typically lose sensitivity in the high frequency range when damaged before there are issues with low frequencies. In a broken mic the loss of high frequency will cause a correction that gives maximum boost to all high frequencies. The crossover may be correct for what is measured in the room.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Audyssey Support_"


What they are saying may very well be true, and perhaps your mic also has high frequency issues, but there have been other instances of a bad mic producing incorrect crossovers on the thread. I would still get a replacement mic before I sent my AVR off for repair/replacement, and I think you are already doing that. If it turns out not to be a bad mic, it won't hurt to have a spare, just in case.


----------



## A-rab

mthomas47 said:


> What they are saying may very well be true, and perhaps your mic also has high frequency issues, but there have been other instances of a bad mic producing incorrect crossovers on the thread. I would still get a replacement mic before I sent my AVR off for repair/replacement, and I think you are already doing that. If it turns out not to be a bad mic, it won't hurt to have a spare, just in case.


I'm patiently waiting for the new mic. I wish I had REW setup (no computer just ipad at this point), just interested to see what my room response is, ie. is there a huge dip somewhere that's tricking Audyssey or a null at the MLP. I read a post about a guy with 4 subs and PSA speakers that had this huge dip around 70-90 Hz that was driving him nuts. I hope I don't lose my marbles over this lol


----------



## mthomas47

A-rab said:


> I'm patiently waiting for the new mic. I wish I had REW setup (no computer just ipad at this point), just interested to see what my room response is, ie. is there a huge dip somewhere that's tricking Audyssey or a null at the MLP. I read a post about a guy with 4 subs and PSA speakers that had this huge dip around 70-90 Hz that was driving him nuts. I hope I don't lose my marbles over this lol


I remember a situation like the one you are describing. If it's the same one, he was never actually able to hear anything wrong, or lacking, in his system. He just couldn't stop obsessing over the measurement results. All rooms have nulls, and sometimes the nulls can occur within our listening area. But, normally our brains will compensate for something like that by supplying a seamless sound from the overtones and undertones of a missing frequency. So, we literally can't hear anything wrong or missing, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing.

There are times when measurements cease to be a tool for improving sound quality, and instead become a goal in themselves, and a consequent source of anxiety. And, that is exactly what happened in the situation I am recalling.

You may have a null at your listening position. But, nulls are normally pretty narrow, and your 250Hz crossover was so far off from what it should have been for your fronts, that a null was a very unlikely explanation. There was another poster a couple of weeks ago who did have a null that was affecting the crossover on his front speakers. By a combination of moving his speakers backward to obtain more boundary gain from the front wall, and moving his sofa backwards a couple of feet, he was able to go from a 150Hz crossover down to a 60Hz crossover. But, as soon as he started to move his speakers backward a foot, the crossover came down to 120Hz. So, it was pretty easy to diagnose the problem in that case. His situation was quite different from yours. 

We will know soon enough, but either a bad microphone or an issue with your AVR, is much more likely to be the problem, here. And, if speaker or MLP placement, end up being an additional factor, you can always address that as required. Sometimes it takes a while to troubleshoot something like this, and I know it's frustrating. Patience isn't always my long suit either when I want to know what's going on, and how to get it the way I want it to be.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I remember a situation like the one you are describing. If it's the same one, he was never actually able to hear anything wrong, or lacking, in his system. He just couldn't stop obsessing over the measurement results. All rooms have nulls, and sometimes the nulls can occur within our listening area. But, normally our brains will compensate for something like that by supplying a seamless sound from the overtones and undertones of a missing frequency. So, we literally can't hear anything wrong or missing, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
> 
> There are times when measurements cease to be a tool for improving sound quality, and instead become a goal in themselves, and a consequent source of anxiety. And, that is exactly what happened in the situation I am recalling.
> 
> You may have a null at your listening position. But, nulls are normally pretty narrow, and your 250Hz crossover was so far off from what it should have been for your fronts, that a null was a very unlikely explanation. There was another poster a couple of weeks ago who did have a null that was affecting the crossover on his front speakers. By a combination of moving his speakers backward to obtain more boundary gain from the front wall, and moving his sofa backwards a couple of feet, he was able to go from a 150Hz crossover down to a 60Hz crossover. But, as soon as he started to move his speakers backward a foot, the crossover came down to 120Hz. So, it was pretty easy to diagnose the problem in that case. His situation was quite different from yours.
> 
> We will know soon enough, but either a bad microphone or an issue with your AVR, is much more likely to be the problem, here. And, if speaker or MLP placement, end up being an additional factor, you can always address that as required. Sometimes it takes a while to troubleshoot something like this, and I know it's frustrating. Patience isn't always my long suit either when I want to know what's going on, and how to get it the way I want it to be.


Another excellent post from Mike, which I always read with great pleasure. 

@*A-rab* . Until you are patiently waiting for the new replacement mic here's another tip for tonite. I know you have already mentioned that you did the microprocessor reset, but (as jdsmoothie used to recommend) its worth to do at least half a dozen resets in a row. Sometimes it works.

My clue in case the new mic shows the same symptoms is that the on-board software of the AVR migth have a glitch resulting in the crossover block ingoring whatever -3 dB points MultEQ is reporting thus leaving the crossover hanging at 250 Hz for all channels. 

Cross my fingers for Ya!


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Another excellent post from Mike, which I always read with great pleasure.
> 
> @*A-rab* . Until you are patiently waiting for the new replacement mic here's another tip for tonite. I know you have already mentioned that you did the microprocessor reset, but (as jdsmoothie used to recommend) its worth to do at least half a dozen resets in a row. Sometimes it works.
> 
> My clue in case the new mic shows the same symptoms is that the on-board software of the AVR migth have a glitch resulting in the crossover block ingoring whatever -3 dB points MultEQ is reporting thus leaving the crossover hanging at 250 Hz for all channels.
> 
> Cross my fingers for Ya!


Thank you very much, Feri!  

I think that your suggestion to try multiple resets is worth pursuing while he waits. If that still doesn't fix the problem, then hopefully, this will turn out to be a mic issue. It occurred to me that when a 250Hz crossover is set, there is really no way of knowing what's going on with respect to the actual crossover, as that is simply the highest setting the AVR can employ. Your idea that the AVR might not be able to read the F3 points makes sense to me.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

*new subwoofer*

I looked thru the Q/A and didn't see an answer to my question. I bought a new subwoofer, can i run Audyssey calibration only on the subwoofer or do i have to re run the complete calibration on all my speakers? I have a Marantz receiver with Multi EQ XT. I like how my system sounds and didn't want anything to change with the speaker settings.


----------



## Selden Ball

RKSKYDANCER said:


> I looked thru the Q/A and didn't see an answer to my question. I bought a new subwoofer, can i run Audyssey calibration only on the subwoofer or do i have to re run the complete calibration on all my speakers? I have a Marantz receiver with Multi EQ XT. I like how my system sounds and didn't want anything to change with the speaker settings.


Unfortunately, yes, you do need to rerun Audyssey for all of the speakers. There's no option to run it only for specific speakers or subwoofers.


----------



## gp-se

mthomas47 said:


> There was another poster a couple of weeks ago who did have a null that was affecting the crossover on his front speakers. By a combination of moving his speakers backward to obtain more boundary gain from the front wall, and moving his sofa backwards a couple of feet, he was able to go from a 150Hz crossover down to a 60Hz crossover. But, as soon as he started to move his speakers backward a foot, the crossover came down to 120Hz. So, it was pretty easy to diagnose the problem in that case. His situation was quite different from yours.


That was me, my room had a null in my MLP. A few small changes in my room made a huge difference!


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

Selden Ball said:


> Unfortunately, yes, you do need to rerun Audyssey for all of the speakers. There's no option to run it only for specific speakers or subwoofers.


That's what i thought but was hoping for a different answer. thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

gp-se said:


> That was me, my room had a null in my MLP. A few small changes in my room made a huge difference!


I remember!


----------



## robc1976

A-rab said:


> I'm patiently waiting for the new mic. I wish I had REW setup (no computer just ipad at this point), just interested to see what my room response is, ie. is there a huge dip somewhere that's tricking Audyssey or a null at the MLP. I read a post about a guy with 4 subs and PSA speakers that had this huge dip around 70-90 Hz that was driving him nuts. I hope I don't lose my marbles over this lol


 what % are your seats (MLP) at from front or back wall?


----------



## A-rab

robc1976 said:


> what % are your seats (MLP) at from front or back wall?


The room is 12'x16'. Front stage is on the 12' wall. MLP is 3' from the back wall.


----------



## A-rab

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you very much, Feri!
> 
> I think that your suggestion to try multiple resets is worth pursuing while he waits. If that still doesn't fix the problem, then hopefully, this will turn out to be a mic issue. It occurred to me that when a 250Hz crossover is set, there is really no way of knowing what's going on with respect to the actual crossover, as that is simply the highest setting the AVR can employ. Your idea that the AVR might not be able to read the F3 points makes sense to me.


Very interesting. I thought a reset was a reset lol! I'm gona do this at the same time as I try a new mic. I even bought a camera tripod to not have to use the flimsy cardboard tower thingamajig and a longer RCA cable for the sub. I want to experiment with different sub placement within acceptable wife parameters since that corner is just a default location aesthetically speaking... 

I forgot to mention... there is a wall full of picture frames along the wall next to the left tower. Could that be messing things up (i.e. refelections?). 

I must say that in the end, the system sounds fine when I manually set the crossover to 80Hz. I also manually set the LPF setting at 80Hz, bass sounds tighter to me on some materials. My obsession / annoyance is really with not benefiting from Audyssey which why I purchased this AVR in the first place...! I sometimes think that I should have just ponied up some $$ and bought an Anthem receiver with ARC. A good buddy of mine swears by it.

Thanks to everyone for the support. I will keep you posted on the progress! The mic should be here Thursday.


----------



## robc1976

A-rab said:


> The room is 12'x16'. Front stage is on the 12' wall. MLP is 3' from the back wall.


I would put MLP AT 6 ft which = 38% of room. Your ear not just the seats at 6'


----------



## pbarach

RKSKYDANCER said:


> That's what i thought but was hoping for a different answer. thanks!


I think that as soon as you change the receiver settings to add the sub, Audyssey shows as not available," so you have to recalibrate.


----------



## mthomas47

A-rab said:


> Very interesting. I thought a reset was a reset lol! I'm gona do this at the same time as I try a new mic. I even bought a camera tripod to not have to use the flimsy cardboard tower thingamajig and a longer RCA cable for the sub. I want to experiment with different sub placement within acceptable wife parameters since that corner is just a default location aesthetically speaking...
> 
> I forgot to mention... there is a wall full of picture frames along the wall next to the left tower. Could that be messing things up (i.e. refelections?).
> 
> I must say that in the end, the system sounds fine when I manually set the crossover to 80Hz. I also manually set the LPF setting at 80Hz, bass sounds tighter to me on some materials. My obsession / annoyance is really with not benefiting from Audyssey which why I purchased this AVR in the first place...! I sometimes think that I should have just ponied up some $$ and bought an Anthem receiver with ARC. A good buddy of mine swears by it.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for the support. I will keep you posted on the progress! The mic should be here Thursday.


You are very welcome! Different people get different results with these various products. Most people do benefit from Audyssey, and hopefully you will, as well. Some broad experimenting with sub positioning and general set-up would be a good idea irrespective of room EQ.

It's actually a good thing if you can't hear anything bad going on when you lower the crossovers manually. That may mean that there isn't much for Audyssey to fix in that frequency range between 80Hz and 250Hz, anyway. But, that doesn't mean that Audyssey isn't still doing something helpful below and above those frequencies. Once you get things calibrating correctly, and have some time to experiment with mic patterns and settings, things should improve even more. 

But, you could still find out whether Audyssey is doing anything worthwhile just by turning it off and on manually to determine if you can hear any difference. I certainly can, even with room treatments, and less need for room EQ. Some people recommend a lower LPF of LFE setting than the default 120Hz as a way to tighten the bass. I have tried multiple settings and am currently on 100Hz. There is still a lot to play with even after you get a good calibration. 

Incidentally, reflections from glass can always be a problem, particularly close to a speaker on a side wall. Toeing-in the speaker, away from the wall a little, might help with that. But, I don't think that would be affecting your crossovers. The effect of those reflections would be occurring from mid-range frequencies and up.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Selden Ball

mthomas47 said:


> Some people recommend a lower LPF of LFE setting than the default 120Hz as a way to tighten the bass. I have tried multiple settings and am currently on 100Hz.


 I'm sure that different mixers are going to produce different LFE channel audio, so the best setting for one movie might not be the best setting for another one.


----------



## mthomas47

Selden Ball said:


> I'm sure that different mixers are going to produce different LFE channel audio, so the best setting for one movie might not be the best setting for another one.


That's a good point, and I'm sure you are right. I don't believe that it would occur to me to mess with the LPF in the middle of a movie, although I do adjust the bass trim slightly sometimes. On the occasions when I have experimented with the LPF, there was, as we might expect, a more significant difference between 80Hz and 120Hz, than there was between 80Hz and 100Hz, or between 100Hz and 120Hz. So, I recently decided to compromise on 100Hz, and just leave it there. I might experiment again at some point.


----------



## A-rab

robc1976 said:


> I would put MLP AT 6 ft which = 38% of room. Your ear not just the seats at 6'


My L/R towers are 8' apart and I tried to position the MLP at a 3:4 ratio. 3 for the distance between the speakers and 4 from the speakers to the MLP. Wouldn't that put me too close? 

I'll add it to my list of things to experiment for sure.


----------



## mthomas47

A-rab said:


> My L/R towers are 8' apart and I tried to position the MLP at a 3:4 ratio. 3 for the distance between the speakers and 4 from the speakers to the MLP. Wouldn't that put me too close?
> 
> I'll add it to my list of things to experiment for sure.


I think the main thing you want to avoid is being at the mid-point of the room length, which you have done. Sometimes being at either 1/3 or 2/3 of the room length helps with bass modes. Being approximately 3' from the back wall should work fairly well, but once the mic/AVR are working together properly, you can experiment with moving the speakers backward and perhaps the sofa forward.

But, I wouldn't suggest moving too close to the front speakers. Trying to preserve at least an equilateral triangle with speakers and listening position is important too, and will affect your soundstage for both music and movies.


----------



## robc1976

A-rab said:


> My L/R towers are 8' apart and I tried to position the MLP at a 3:4 ratio. 3 for the distance between the speakers and 4 from the speakers to the MLP. Wouldn't that put me too close?
> 
> I'll add it to my list of things to experiment for sure.


its not a set in stone measurement but I have always stayed in the 35-38% margin from rear or back wall and love the results. Just want to be sure your not getting a reflection off back wall, I am sure your not but maybe 4-5 feet off back wall to be sure.


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> I think the main thing you want to avoid is being at the mid-point of the room length, which you have done. Sometimes being at either 1/3 or 2/3 of the room length helps with bass modes. Being approximately 3' from the back wall should work fairly well, but once the mic/AVR are working together properly, you can experiment with moving the speakers backward and perhaps the sofa forward.
> 
> But, I wouldn't suggest moving too close to the front speakers. Trying to preserve at least an equilateral triangle with speakers and listening position is important too, and will affect your soundstage for both music and movies.


 very good points for sure.


----------



## 12B4A

Is there a decent source of information about this new Audyssey room correction interface app? I can't seem to find anything about what it will do specifically and when it will be released besides "late 2016" which seems to be where we are now if my calendar is correct.


----------



## garygarrison

*Life is Lambertian

*If you are surrounded by perfect diffusers .... not a bad idea.*
*


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> *Life is Lambertian
> 
> *If you are surrounded by perfect diffusers .... not a bad idea.*
> *


This is what happens when you have too much time on your hands.


----------



## gurkey

A-rab said:


> The room is 12'x16'. Front stage is on the 12' wall. MLP is 3' from the back wall.


Optimum results (MLP) referring to room modes are been achieved at a position ~ 38% of the room dimension (axis fronts) either from the front or the rear wall, that is roughly 1/3 from front or rear wall.


----------



## A-rab

mthomas47 said:


> I think the main thing you want to avoid is being at the mid-point of the room length, which you have done. Sometimes being at either 1/3 or 2/3 of the room length helps with bass modes. Being approximately 3' from the back wall should work fairly well, but once the mic/AVR are working together properly, you can experiment with moving the speakers backward and perhaps the sofa forward.
> 
> But, I wouldn't suggest moving too close to the front speakers. Trying to preserve at least an equilateral triangle with speakers and listening position is important too, and will affect your soundstage for both music and movies.


Alright...! So while I waited for the new mic, I tried a few things :
- Reset the AVR a dozen times
- Moves the L/R speakers back and plugged their rear ports
- Modified toe-in
- Practically removed all of the furniture except the main couch

During Audyssey's measurement routine, I started getting phase errors. Sometimes with one of the towers and sometimes with the center with the crossover settings always coming back to 250Hz.

A few days later with a new mic, I'm happy to report that Audyssey set my L/R towers at 80 Hz and center at 150Hz (which I brought down to 120Hz)! So the original mic was effectively faulty...! Curious enough, with the new mic I didn't have to set my sub's gain as high for Audyssey to calibrate its measured output to 75db. I wonder why?  Likely to do with the original mic being messed up.

I was also able to finally tweak my sub to my preference and play around with seat positions (35% distance from the back wall) while Audyssey took care of EQ. 

Thanks to everyone for their support!!


----------



## mogorf

A-rab said:


> Alright...! So while I waited for the new mic, I tried a few things :
> - Reset the AVR a dozen times
> - Moves the L/R speakers back and plugged their rear ports
> - Modified toe-in
> - Practically removed all of the furniture except the main couch
> 
> During Audyssey's measurement routine, I started getting phase errors. Sometimes with one of the towers and sometimes with the center with the crossover settings always coming back to 250Hz.
> 
> A few days later with a new mic, I'm happy to report that Audyssey set my L/R towers at 80 Hz and center at 150Hz (which I brought down to 120Hz)! So the original mic was effectively faulty...! Curious enough, with the new mic I didn't have to set my sub's gain as high for Audyssey to calibrate its measured output to 75db. I wonder why?  Likely to do with the original mic being messed up.
> 
> I was also able to finally tweak my sub to my preference and play around with seat positions (35% distance from the back wall) while Audyssey took care of EQ.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for their support!!


Glad to see you happy A-rab. Merry X-mas!


----------



## mthomas47

Merry Christmas to everyone!


----------



## A-rab

Merry Christmas everyone!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt2026

Wishing everyone a MERRY CHRISTMAS and a blessed New Year


----------



## garygarrison

Happy holidays and peace and enlightenment to us all.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

pbarach said:


> I think that as soon as you change the receiver settings to add the sub, Audyssey shows as not available," so you have to recalibrate.


I replace my subwoofer with a new one. I did not add one. It was best to rerun Audyssey anyways. Made a big difference in how the system sounds. Glad i took the time and did it right. 

thanks!


----------



## gideon228

I dug out my trusty old Integra with XT. Set it up and was enjoying it until I realised I was missing out on Dynamic EQ. 
Seems that came with the model succeeding the DTR-7.8.
So now it's back in the cupboard and I'm lookin for a software room eq solution with dynamic eq equivalent


----------



## Selden Ball

gideon228 said:


> I dug out my trusty old Integra with XT. Set it up and was enjoying it until I realised I was missing out on Dynamic EQ.
> Seems that came with the model succeeding the DTR-7.8.
> So now it's back in the cupboard and I'm lookin for a software room eq solution with dynamic eq equivalent


I'm not quite sure what you mean by "software". An out-board device? Something to use in your computer? A new receiver with includes DynEQ?

Bear in mind that DynEQ is primarily intended for use when you're frequently changing volume levels. If you can leave the volume level unchanged, then you can use other methods to provide the appropriate bass and treble boosts.


----------



## gideon228

Selden Ball said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean by "software". An out-board device? Something to use in your computer? A new receiver with includes DynEQ?


Computer based, Windows 10. I like their room correction and would like to have dynamic eq as well as I do change volume quite a bit depending on what I'm listening to and if I'm feeling considerate of neighbours


----------



## Selden Ball

gideon228 said:


> Computer based, Windows 10. I like their room correction and would like to have dynamic eq as well as I do change volume quite a bit depending on what I'm listening to and if I'm feeling considerate of neighbours


According to a post on Tom's Hardware, the equivalent of dynamic EQ is available if you download and install Realtek's own audio drivers instead of using the version provided by Microsoft.

Disclaimer: I use Windows 7 with an HDMI connection to a Marantz receiver. I have no experience whatsoever with the Realtek driver.


----------



## smdelaney

Greetings All...

I hope this isn't a faux pas but I skipped to the end to ask this question...given that this topic (going back to part 1) spans close to 10 years how much of the original FAQ and Setup instructions and interim comments are still valid? Is there an updated "greatest hits" post with links to the most important bits?

I still expect I'll plow through the first thread but at 2600+ pages its going to take some time and if current technologies have made some of the earliest info obsolete it would be helpful to make note of that up front.


----------



## Selden Ball

smdelaney said:


> Greetings All...
> 
> I hope this isn't a faux pas but I skipped to the end to ask this question...given that this topic (going back to part 1) spans close to 10 years how much of the original FAQ and Setup instructions and interim comments are still valid? Is there an updated "greatest hits" post with links to the most important bits?


The very original FAQ is indeed out of date. The current FAQ is Audyssey 101/FAQ and is still accurate. Unfortunately, there have been no upgrades to Audyssey for several years, although there is supposed to be an App released in a few weeks which will allow more flexibility. Hopefully someone will write an FAQ for it.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Still thinking about trim levels and such..........The Brain is a dark and scary place....

So taking this logic about wanting to keep your AVR trims below + territory got me thinking. While this is most definitely not an Audyssey question as such. I did search the entire AVS Forum and found noting on the subject. Plus I know you guys will have the answer or possibly appreciate the question.

When using a powered speaker, say a Bluetooth type like this: A marvelous speaker BTW.

https://www.amazon.com/Fluance-Performance-Wireless-Bluetooth-Enhanced/dp/B010G02ZWO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1482943058&sr=8-7&keywords=fluance

Applying the AVR trim logic of this thread. Using say an IPhone and Spotify and this Speaker. Does the same logic apply here? Is it better to drive the trim/volume in the IPhone high and keep the volume trim on the speaker low or vice a versa? Or am I mixing apples and oranges here and just creating a wonderful breakfast drink?

This thinking may apply to any source used to airplay or deliver content to an AVR or dedicated powered speaker system right? Is it better in someway to keep the trim on the source at some level or does it not matter in this type of application?


----------



## David Aiken

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Still thinking about trim levels and such..........The Brain is a dark and scary place....
> 
> So taking this logic about wanting to keep your AVR trims below + territory got me thinking. While this is most definitely not an Audyssey question as such. I did search the entire AVS Forum and found noting on the subject. Plus I know you guys will have the answer or possibly appreciate the question.
> 
> When using a powered speaker, say a Bluetooth type like this: A marvelous speaker BTW.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Fluance-Performance-Wireless-Bluetooth-Enhanced/dp/B010G02ZWO/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1482943058&sr=8-7&keywords=fluance
> 
> Applying the AVR trim logic of this thread. Using say an IPhone and Spotify and this Speaker. Does the same logic apply here? Is it better to drive the trim/volume in the IPhone high and keep the volume trim on the speaker low or vice a versa? Or am I mixing apples and oranges here and just creating a wonderful breakfast drink?
> 
> This thinking may apply to any source used to airplay or deliver content to an AVR or dedicated powered speaker system right? Is it better in someway to keep the trim on the source at some level or does it not matter in this type of application?


Forget about the airplay/wifi aspect. You're dealing with an amplifier and a speaker. If you raise the volume on the amplifier, and there is an amplifier stage in the iPhone or in anything else putting out a signal which can be controlled by a volume control in that device, then you can drive that amplifier stage into distortion and what you send to the speaker will include the distortion generated in the amplifier stage. That's what happens with speakers connected to the amp by speaker wire and what happens to speakers connected to the amp by wifi. Raising the amplifier's volume setting too high results in distorted output and the speaker receives whatever is in the output including distortion.

The problem comes when you try to determine what "raising the volume too high" means. With Audyssey the zero level in the trim settings gives us a clear indication of where "too high" can start to occur. We don't have a display like that with most devices. If the volume control goes from minimum to maximum, from 0 to 10 or 100, or something like that, setting the output to the maximum will be high enough to cause distortion. The only way you have of finding out how high you can raise the volume level on your source device—the iPhone in this case—is by ear so you need to listen for distortion and back off until it disappears. I'd probably prefer to back off a little further than that.

The problem is compounded by the fact that you also probably have a volume control on the powered speaker and the same thing holds true there. Raise that volume control too high and you will get distortion. If the volume control on the source device is too high and the volume control on the speaker is too high, you are getting distortion from both and that will sound worse that getting distortion from only one of them. You want to find a combination of settings on both which will give you music that is as loud as you'll ever want it but without either device being driven into distortion.

So treat it like an Audyssey setup process. Consider the speaker's volume setting as being like a sub's gain setting. Set the speaker volume half way and then start increasing the iPhone's volume setting. If you can go to max on the iPhone without it being loud enough, you will be hearing distortion from the iPhone so back off the iPhone until the sound is clear and without distortion and then increase the speaker's volume setting until things are loud enough but don't go to max on the speaker. If you start getting distortion while adjusting the speaker volume and the volume isn't loud enough, back off the speaker's volume setting until the distortion disappears and start increasing the volume on the iPhone again until things are loud enough without distortion or until distortion appears again. Keep going back and forth that way until you find a combination of settings where you have things loud enough without distortion. Once you have that, never touch the speaker volume control again, always control volume from the iPhone.

If you can't get things loud enough without distortion then you need a more powerful speaker.

And life gets difficult if there are other people besides you sending music to the speaker. You need to ensure that they don't play around with the speaker's volume setting once you've got it set or you're going to have to go through the process again. If your speaker has a way of limiting it's output, a maximum output setting control, set it to whatever volume setting you ended up with when you were doing your adjustments so no one can increase the speaker volume setting beyond the level you found gave you the result you wanted. That way they can only reduce the speaker volume and you can always get back to your setting easily by increasing the speaker volume back to the maximum you've set it to. If you can't set maximum volume on the speaker, remember the volume setting on the iPhone which gave you the result you wanted for maximum listening level, adjust the volume on your iPhone to that level and then use the speaker volume control to adjust things to your preferred level again and go back to using your iPhone's volume.

And if there are multiple devices besides your iPhone being used to control volume, that's OK provided whatever volume setting you have the speaker set to works to provide a decent maximum listening level.

I hope that answers your question.


----------



## mthomas47

smdelaney said:


> Greetings All...
> 
> I hope this isn't a faux pas but I skipped to the end to ask this question...given that this topic (going back to part 1) spans close to 10 years how much of the original FAQ and Setup instructions and interim comments are still valid? Is there an updated "greatest hits" post with links to the most important bits?
> 
> I still expect I'll plow through the first thread but at 2600+ pages its going to take some time and if current technologies have made some of the earliest info obsolete it would be helpful to make note of that up front.


Hi,

I'm not sure that anyone on this thread would recognize a faux pas if we saw one.  We talk about anything Audyssey or audio-related here. Although I would generally agree with Selden's statement, there are some places where we might now diverge slightly from the FAQ. Audyssey hasn't really evolved in recent years, but our understanding of how best to implement it (and exactly what it is doing) has changed somewhat. There is a lengthy post, number 1296 in this thread, that might be worth reading, as it does diverge a bit from the FAQ. If you are using 30 posts per page, it is on Page 44.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

David Aiken said:


> Forget about the airplay/wifi aspect. You're dealing with an amplifier and a speaker. If you raise the volume on the amplifier, and there is an amplifier stage in the iPhone or in anything else putting out a signal which can be controlled by a volume control in that device, then you can drive that amplifier stage into distortion and what you send to the speaker will include the distortion generated in the amplifier stage. That's what happens with speakers connected to the amp by speaker wire and what happens to speakers connected to the amp by wifi. Raising the amplifier's volume setting too high results in distorted output and the speaker receives whatever is in the output including distortion.
> 
> The problem comes when you try to determine what "raising the volume too high" means. With Audyssey the zero level in the trim settings gives us a clear indication of where "too high" can start to occur. We don't have a display like that with most devices. If the volume control goes from minimum to maximum, from 0 to 10 or 100, or something like that, setting the output to the maximum will be high enough to cause distortion. The only way you have of finding out how high you can raise the volume level on your source device—the iPhone in this case—is by ear so you need to listen for distortion and back off until it disappears. I'd probably prefer to back off a little further than that.
> 
> The problem is compounded by the fact that you also probably have a volume control on the powered speaker and the same thing holds true there. Raise that volume control too high and you will get distortion. If the volume control on the source device is too high and the volume control on the speaker is too high, you are getting distortion from both and that will sound worse that getting distortion from only one of them. You want to find a combination of settings on both which will give you music that is as loud as you'll ever want it but without either device being driven into distortion.
> 
> So treat it like an Audyssey setup process. Consider the speaker's volume setting as being like a sub's gain setting. Set the speaker volume half way and then start increasing the iPhone's volume setting. If you can go to max on the iPhone without it being loud enough, you will be hearing distortion from the iPhone so back off the iPhone until the sound is clear and without distortion and then increase the speaker's volume setting until things are loud enough but don't go to max on the speaker. If you start getting distortion while adjusting the speaker volume and the volume isn't loud enough, back off the speaker's volume setting until the distortion disappears and start increasing the volume on the iPhone again until things are loud enough without distortion or until distortion appears again. Keep going back and forth that way until you find a combination of settings where you have things loud enough without distortion. Once you have that, never touch the speaker volume control again, always control volume from the iPhone.
> 
> If you can't get things loud enough without distortion then you need a more powerful speaker.
> 
> And life gets difficult if there are other people besides you sending music to the speaker. You need to ensure that they don't play around with the speaker's volume setting once you've got it set or you're going to have to go through the process again. If your speaker has a way of limiting it's output, a maximum output setting control, set it to whatever volume setting you ended up with when you were doing your adjustments so no one can increase the speaker volume setting beyond the level you found gave you the result you wanted. That way they can only reduce the speaker volume and you can always get back to your setting easily by increasing the speaker volume back to the maximum you've set it to. If you can't set maximum volume on the speaker, remember the volume setting on the iPhone which gave you the result you wanted for maximum listening level, adjust the volume on your iPhone to that level and then use the speaker volume control to adjust things to your preferred level again and go back to using your iPhone's volume.
> 
> And if there are multiple devices besides your iPhone being used to control volume, that's OK provided whatever volume setting you have the speaker set to works to provide a decent maximum listening level.
> 
> I hope that answers your question.


Yes you did answer my question. Although it was more of a conversation starter. I was interested if others have had similuar thoughts about this. I see you have, or you came up with a complelty sound and logica reaply on the fly! 

Your description of how to reach nirvana with going back and forth managing levels as soon as distortion is introduced, is exactly how I was approaching it. I began to think perhaps I was chasing my own tail. I think your logic is solid and I appreciate your very detailed explanation. Thanks again my Friend!


----------



## Mike_WI

*Post 1296: "Subwoofer Trim and Audyssey EQ"*



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure that anyone on this thread would recognize a faux pas if we saw one.  We talk about anything Audyssey or audio-related here. Although I would generally agree with Selden's statement, there are some places where we might now diverge slightly from the FAQ. Audyssey hasn't really evolved in recent years, but our understanding of how best to implement it (and exactly what it is doing) has changed somewhat. There is a lengthy post, number 1296 in this thread, that might be worth reading, as it does diverge a bit from the FAQ. If you are using 30 posts per page, it is on Page 44.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Post 1296 - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-audyssey-thread-part-ii-44.html#post47140321


----------



## David Aiken

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Yes you did answer my question. Although it was more of a conversation starter. I was interested if others have had similuar thoughts about this. I see you have, or you came up with a complelty sound and logica reaply on the fly!
> 
> Your description of how to reach nirvana with going back and forth managing levels as soon as distortion is introduced, is exactly how I was approaching it. I began to think perhaps I was chasing my own tail. I think your logic is solid and I appreciate your very detailed explanation. Thanks again my Friend!


Sorry, hadn't thought about it before and it wasn't quite "on the fly". I'm not that good, I had a couple of false starts along the way as I wrote it. I discarded one line of response because I was making it unnecessarily complicated and starting to get it wrong so I took a 10 minute break, came back, did a big delete from the draft and started again.

Like everyone, I find questions easier to write than answers. It's a lot easier to display your "don't know" (very different to "ignorance" or "stupidity" and neither of those intended) than it is to display "do know", especially when you want your "do know" to not look like "don't know" because you missed the point or got it wrong.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> *Like everyone, I find questions easier to write than answers.*


 *++ *You did fine, as did Mike in the long post 1296. This stuff is complicated! I think most people on this forum do considerably better than Marantz did in the pre/pro manual I have! After long experience with very clear manuals from McIntosh, Thorens, SME (even though they say "don't take it to pieces"), and Luxman (even though they say "avoid evil effect"), I find the Marantz manual the very worst ever. But the pre/pro itself is great, and is now set well, thanks to this forum.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> *++ *You did fine, as did Mike in the long post 1296. This stuff is complicated! I think most people on this forum do considerably better than Marantz did in the pre/pro manual I have! After long experience with very clear manuals from McIntosh, Thorens, SME (even though they say "don't take it to pieces"), and Luxman (even though they say "avoid evil effect"), I find the Marantz manual the very worst ever. But the pre/pro itself is great, and is now set well, thanks to this forum.


Gary,

Thanks for the thumbs up. It, and Adam's earlier one, are appreciated.

I've got a Marantz AVR and I think I would award the worst manual ever to Denon for the manual for my first AVR many years ago. I think the manual for my Marantz is better than that one was but Marantz and Denon are part of the same company these days and share a lot of their technology so perhaps Marantz and Denon are currently at the same level. The manual for my Marantz isn't good, but where it's at its worst is with all of the things it doesn't tell you that I, for one, want to know. I don't think anything that's in it is wrong, it's just that a lot of it isn't all that clear and it's often not particularly well organised, but what's not in it can be a real problem at times. I often think that there's a genuine market out there for well written, detailed and complete independently written manuals for AV gear but I'd hate to have the job of writing one.

I'd add Oppo to your list of companies who write very clear manuals.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

David Aiken said:


> Gary,
> 
> Thanks for the thumbs up. It, and Adam's earlier one, are appreciated.
> 
> I've got a Marantz AVR and I think I would award the worst manual ever to Denon for the manual for my first AVR many years ago. I think the manual for my Marantz is better than that one was but Marantz and Denon are part of the same company these days and share a lot of their technology so perhaps Marantz and Denon are currently at the same level. The manual for my Marantz isn't good, but where it's at its worst is with all of the things it doesn't tell you that I, for one, want to know. I don't think anything that's in it is wrong, it's just that a lot of it isn't all that clear and it's often not particularly well organised, but what's not in it can be a real problem at times. I often think that there's a genuine market out there for well written, detailed and complete independently written manuals for AV gear but I'd hate to have the job of writing one.
> 
> I'd add Oppo to your list of companies who write very clear manuals.


But David, I am willing to wager, a good sum BTW. That you and others like you, have already Written the Manuals you speak of. Right here in this Forum. It would be a little bit of an effort to search, cut, paste and organize. But the hard part may already be done.

It is people like you that make this Forum an incredible place to come to Discover and Learn not only about a particular piece of gear, but about the AV industry and Technology itself.

Combining the new 4k Video stuff with all this new multichannel Audio it can be overwhelming for the average consumer. And as you said and I agree 100% the OEM Manuals are leaving much to be desired in what they don't tell you. I just bought a New Receiver Denon X7200WA, a new TV Sony XBR75940D, a new BluRay/UHD player Oppo UDP-203. All of the Manuals for the gear mentioned are sparse or completely lacking in the details one needs to set up their gear successfully. 

I have many Friends who either refuse or are dragging their feet about entering the new 4K/ATMOS/DTS:X market due to this very reason of being overwhelmed about the details. I direct them here. But in some cases this Forum only made them shy away more. I attribute that to the fact that all the information they need is buried within the Thousands of pages of text.

You have a very excellent point and I agree that there is a huge Market out there for the consolidation and presentation of a solid Tech Manual.


----------



## Alan P

Just got a 940D myself and the manual leaves out the vast majority of details on the vast amount of settings available.


----------



## David Aiken

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> But David, I am willing to wager, a good sum BTW. That you and others like you, have already Written the Manuals you speak of. Right here in this Forum. It would be a little bit of an effort to search, cut, paste and organize. But the hard part may already be done.
> 
> It is people like you that make this Forum an incredible place to come to Discover and Learn not only about a particular piece of gear, but about the AV industry and Technology itself.
> 
> Combining the new 4k Video stuff with all this new multichannel Audio it can be overwhelming for the average consumer. And as you said and I agree 100% the OEM Manuals are leaving much to be desired in what they don't tell you. I just bought a New Receiver Denon X7200WA, a new TV Sony XBR75940D, a new BluRay/UHD player Oppo UDP-203. All of the Manuals for the gear mentioned are sparse or completely lacking in the details one needs to set up their gear successfully.
> 
> I have many Friends who either refuse or are dragging their feet about entering the new 4K/ATMOS/DTS:X market due to this very reason of being overwhelmed about the details. I direct them here. But in some cases this Forum only made them shy away more. I attribute that to the fact that all the information they need is buried within the Thousands of pages of text.
> 
> You have a very excellent point and I agree that there is a huge Market out there for the consolidation and presentation of a solid Tech Manual.


Adam,

I think there's a lot of useful info available on this Forum but can we make a manual out of it? Perhaps, but probably not easily and probably not one that will satisfy everyone and perhaps not even one that will work for long.

It's easy to find posts that you think are absolutely brilliant responses which give you the information you always wanted, and then someone comes along and starts having problems with it, or posts which nearly everyone else thinks are brilliant and you are left with more questions than you started with. Not everyone thinks of particular issues in the same way, or has the same concerns, or wants the same amount of information, or they find it easier to understand if it's presented in a different way. People write responses which try to answer the person who asked the question so the response may be presented more in one way than another. Sometimes you would need to juggle parts of several responses to the same question to get a good response that would satisfy more people, or add in extra bits to do that, so a lot of editing would be required to get a manual out of this forum, and there are things which may not be covered here or only covered inadequately that would require writing whole new sections, and then Audyssey or an equipment manufacturer might go and change something in their product or they bring out a new version of firmware or a new model and you either start all over again or start writing additions.

And I haven't even mentioned the problem of how you organise all that information so it all hangs together coherently.

I think if we were to try and produce a manual out of a forum like this, the really hard part hasn't already been done and in fact it may not have even been started,

I'd love to see better manuals for everything. I don't want to be the guy who has to write one, and while I'd love to see an Audyssey manual written by someone like Mike or by Chris Kyriakis or someone at Audyssey, I'm not cruel enough to wish that task on anyone. I wouldn't even want to ask someone like Mike to go back over all of their posts and do a cut and paste with minimal editing in order to produce a document because the task of cut and paste involved couldn't be done successfully without a fair bit of rewriting as well in order to make things run together well, and the task of organising all of the different bits in the most useful order and cross referencing related bits where necessary could end up actually being harder in the end than sitting down and starting from scratch and I'd hate to sit down and start from scratch even if I knew enough to do so. 

Many years ago I had to design, conduct, and write up a research project as part of my post graduate course in health and safety. My supervisor later suggested that I rewrite the report for publication in a peer reviewed journal and he helped by editing my work. It was eventually published under both of our names and my supervisor definitely deserved co-authorship credit for his contribution to the actual research project and the rewrite (I had to write the original report on my own). That 5 or 6 page article took a couple of months part time to get it to its final form for publication, and a lot of it started out as cut and paste from the original report. I have enough personal knowledge of what can be involved in that sort of task not to wish it on anyone, and a hell of a lot of admiration for anyone who actually takes on such a task and delivers a really good result. They probably don't deserve the credit they get, they probably deserve more credit than they get. Even with lots of good source material and cut and paste, the hard parts are often still ahead for anyone trying to come up with a technical document and the task only gets greater if they're trying to produce a really good document.

It's hard enough actually trying to produce a really good answer to some questions in a forum like this and producing a good answer to a single question is a lot easier than producing a manual which tries to cover the whole range of operation of a product or even of a single feature such as Audyssey.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

I think that David is absolutely right in what he wrote. Several people collaborated on and contributed to the Audyssey FAQ, but Keith Barnes did the lion's share of the writing, and all of the organizing and editing, and even with all the affirmation he received, I'm still not sure that Keith's efforts were ever fully recognized.

I have gone back to that post that I recently cited, 1296, to add and edit several times in the last few months because I keep thinking of things to add or clarify. And, that's just dealing with a relatively small portion of the total Audyssey operation, although it's probably the one which people inquire about the most.

Frankly, I think that is the real strength of threads like this one. This thread is read by people all over the world, and monitored on a regular basis by several people such as Feri, Alan, Selden and Gary who have been involved with Audyssey, and with the thread, for a long time. Anyone coming here with a question can either be referred to the 101 set-up guide, or to the FAQ, and if there is new information, someone will almost always think to mention it. And, then if someone like yourself, with intellectual curiosity about how things work, wants to ask a question, or speculate about something, there is always someone like David to answer or speculate with him.

I particularly enjoy the theoretical discussions, as well, and am also quite fond of the problem-solving aspect. Most owner's threads have people who read the thread on a regular basis, and who are willing to help, but I have always considered the Audyssey thread special in that regard. To me, the fact that this is such a world-wide resource for serious exchanges of information, assistance, and advice is what keeps me involved with AVS.

Bottom line: Manuals? We don't need no stinking manuals!  And, it's probably a good thing, because we aren't going to get any comprehensive and intelligible ones from most of the manufacturers. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kevbo123

*Another subwoofer level question*

I know there are a plethora of questions related to anemic subwoofer levels after Audyssey does its thing - I think I've read them all  I think my question is already answered here but I'd like to hear from a few more people. After Audyssey XT32 sets my speakers levels (I have a pair of subwoofers) - I used a quality SPL meter to check the levels using the receivers internal test tones with master volume at 0. LCR and surrounds measure 75Db EXCEPT the 2 subwoofers (measured together) which output at 68Db. Is this expected as I think @craig john explains or do the subwoofers levels have to be raised by 7Db? I'd like to set everything up correctly before I decide if I want to run the subwoofers a bit hot or not.


----------



## David Aiken

kevbo123 said:


> *Another subwoofer level question*
> 
> I know there are a plethora of questions related to anemic subwoofer levels after Audyssey does its thing - I think I've read them all  I think my question is already answered here but I'd like to hear from a few more people. After Audyssey XT32 sets my speakers levels (I have a pair of subwoofers) - I used a quality SPL meter to check the levels using the receivers internal test tones with master volume at 0. LCR and surrounds measure 75Db EXCEPT the 2 subwoofers (measured together) which output at 68Db. Is this expected as I think @craig john explains or do the subwoofers levels have to be raised by 7Db? I'd like to set everything up correctly before I decide if I want to run the subwoofers a bit hot or not.


When you used the SPL meter, what weighting was it set to: A, C or Flat if it has a flat option? Was the sampling speed set to high or low? Was it set to average over the period of the measurement process or to show the moment to moment reading?

All of those things can make a difference to the reading the meter gives. Differences in those settings can easily end up delivering differences in readings of the order of 5 o 10 dB or more

In addition the receiver's internal test tones aren't necessarily the best test material and a lot of people recommend the speaker test tones on records like the Spears and Munsil or DVE test discs.

The combined subs should measure the same as each speaker channel, they should all be matched in level, but without knowing what meter settings you used you could easily end up with the difference of 7 dB between the subs and the speaker levels that you are seeing. Measuring low frequency sound levels isn't necessarily easy or all that accurate at times.

You did say a "quality SPL meter" but that means a professional meter to me and those can cost thousands of dollars each depending on make and features. Most of us including me use meters that don't go anywhere close to what I would regard as "quality" and I know the differences because I have used a professional quality meter in my work years ago before retirement. You don't need anything near professional quality. A lot of the time these days when I'm making measurements I use an app on my iPhone, and often choose to use pink noise and an app with octave band frequency analysis display as well even though I also have a couple of meters.

And you don't have to sweat getting the subs' level perfectly matched. Many people prefer the sub to be a little stronger than Audyssey sets it and dial in a few dB additional boost in the manual settings. The measurements are a useful source of information but you're trying to get sound that you like and no one can tell you what the sub level should be relative to speaker level for you to like the result. There's a lot of individual variation when it comes to tastes and I think you would find that a bass player, for instance, who has somewhat of an over developed interest in the bass frequency area  is probably going to prefer a different level from their subs than most people do. There are probably gender differences since there are apparently studies which indicate that females have better hearing at high frequencies than males and that males have better hearing at low frequencies than females. Getting the measurements relatively close is enough to get you into the ball park and after that personal taste is more important.

You said you checked the setup using the test tones and a meter but more important to me is how did you like the result, especially in the bass since that's what we're discussing, when you watched a movie and hopefully a movie with a good solid bottom end? The answer to that question is going to tell you as much or more in some ways as checking measurements with test tones and a separate meter.

One other thing. Is this your first experience with a room correction system. If it is and you have never had the opportunity to listen to a system with room correction for reasonable periods before now, I would recommend you spend a week or two listening to things just as Audyssey set them before starting to make any decisions about what to do with your bass levels. Corrected bass can sound quite different to uncorrected bass and if all you have heard up to now is uncorrected bass you may be rather underwhelmed at first with the sound of corrected bass. It often has less "boom" and may not be as dominating or overpowering as the bass you are used to but given time to adjust to the difference you will stop focussing on what got "lost" by the corrections and start noticing things like detail and clarity that you probably never noticed before and you will probably start to be more impressed when that happens. You may also find that once you start noticing the things you never noticed before, your ideas of how loud you like your bass to be might also change a bit which is why I suggest just running with the initial results for a while before starting to make any further adjustments.


----------



## mthomas47

kevbo123 said:


> *Another subwoofer level question*
> 
> I know there are a plethora of questions related to anemic subwoofer levels after Audyssey does its thing - I think I've read them all  I think my question is already answered here but I'd like to hear from a few more people. After Audyssey XT32 sets my speakers levels (I have a pair of subwoofers) - I used a quality SPL meter to check the levels using the receivers internal test tones with master volume at 0. LCR and surrounds measure 75Db EXCEPT the 2 subwoofers (measured together) which output at 68Db. Is this expected as I think @*craig john* explains or do the subwoofers levels have to be raised by 7Db? I'd like to set everything up correctly before I decide if I want to run the subwoofers a bit hot or not.


Hi,

David has already given you a better answer than I could about the difficulty of accurately measuring the SPL setting of your subs. FWIW, I will re-emphasize that most people have trouble accurately measuring bass frequencies, and using the AVR's internal test tones post-Audyssey won't do it. But, there are a couple of other issues that I would like to address. 

The first is something you said that confuses me. You said that, with your MV set to 0.0, your other channels measure 75db at the MLP. But, at a master volume of 0.0 (which is Reference after you run Audyssey) your speakers should register 85db, not 75db. The 75db test tone is used because people complained that the original 85db tone was too loud. So, virtually all modern AVR's use a 75db (-10 MV equivalent) test tone, and the AVR then internally recalculates for 85db at 0.0 MV. So, your measurement is puzzling to me. At 0.0 MV, it seems to me that your speakers should be measuring 85db, not 75db. But, it's possible that there is an aspect to that I am overlooking, since it is unlikely that your readings would have been so coincidentally at 75db, if they were wrong.

The second issue is what I perceive as the relative futility of independently checking sub levels, irrespective of the difficulty of obtaining accurate measurements. David made the point that we may all hear some frequencies slightly (or in some cases, very) differently, and consequently may exhibit different preferences with respect to which frequencies we want to hear emphasized, or de-emphasized. That potential difference in our individual hearing as a physiological phenomenon, and the way that our brains interpret what we hear as a psycho-acoustic (or psychological) phenomenon is very interesting to me.

But, one thing we do know is that human hearing, in general, is strongest between about 200Hz and 6000Hz, with even greater acuity between about 400Hz and 4000Hz. What that means is that most of us won't hear subwoofer frequencies, which typically range from about 150Hz down, nearly as well as we will the higher frequencies played by the other channels in our system. This universal phenomenon of human hearing is graphically defined in the Fletcher Munson Curves, also known as the Equal Loudness Contours.

Audyssey, and other systems of automated room EQ, necessarily calibrate all channels in an HT system to play at the same volume level in order to assign filters/control points to attempt to equalize the volume, at all frequencies, for all channels. But, once they have worked their magic, we are then faced with subs which are playing low frequencies at the same volume as the other frequencies, which we can hear much better. And so, for the great majority of us, some sub boost is required in order to achieve a level playing field in the way that we hear all of the frequencies. Again, this isn't a fault of automated EQ, in my opinion. It is the only way that an HT system can be EQed. But, it is then up to the individual user to determine how much additional bass is required to suit his, or her, individual physiological and psycho-acoustic requirements/preferences.

That is why I see the effort to independently double-check Audyssey's sub level(s) as something of an exercise in futility, because almost everyone is going to make some kind of sub adjustment anyway. How much, or how little, may depend heavily on both the room and the listener, but some change will be needed, or desired, in the great majority of cases. I would agree that listening for a while to get used to hearing (presumably) less-distorted bass, would not be a bad thing. But, I probably wouldn't wait very long before starting to experiment. Our hearing usually adapts pretty quickly to a new audio environment.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Pictures at an Exhibition

Hi, I am in need of some education with Audyssey. Im using the Denon X4200 in the 7.1 mode. All is absolutely wonderful!!! I have added another 2nd front pair of speakers to use as speaker B to be used in stereo mode & direct mode. In direct mode there is no Audyssey enhancement involved whatsoever but, in stereo mode (not direct) I thought there would be? I can add ceiling, height or front wide but in Audyssey set up there is no option to choose 2nd front B speakers. In setup from the remote under amp assign I have chosen 7.1+ 2 ch front. This is good and when I choose stereo the 2nd pair comes on and the other 7 channels go off... but is their any way to include the 2nd pair speaker B in the Audyssey setup so when in stereo (not direct) the room enhancements set by Audyssey will be active?? So either I am missing something or I simply cannot include speaker B in Audyssey setup at all. Thanks.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

David and Mike,

Yes I must agree the effort to round up all that exists and put it into a usable form is a daunting task. I did not mean to indicate it would be easy. In my final years on Active Duty (on Medical deferment for 3+ yrs) I worked as a Consultant for Northrup Grumman (Space and Mission Systems) and Raytheon. A large part of my job was to write Technical Manuals. Many of which were hundreds of pages. It was my personal experience, that it was always easier to get started when you have a large amount of Source material to draw upon, then starting from scratch. Having large amounts of source material allows you to fill pages with content, gives you the ability to realize scope more rapidly. Yes, the hard work comes later when you reach the "Editing and Ordering" stages. Word smiting can get pretty arduous and laborious. However, it was my experience in developing these TM's that I could produce a finished product much faster and with a more robust scope when I had access to good source material.

In no way am I saying this is an easy task. I agree Keith did not get the credit he deserved. I was here when he was doing the hard work. I like to think in some minor way I may have helped him along the way. He put in many hours and produced a splendid product. He never got paid a red cent that I am aware. But you mentioned that their may exist a Secondary Market for just such a TM. In this case there would be payment for your efforts. I would not do this level of effort without some form of payment. It goes far beyond the scope of Hobby or Enthusiast role.

I highly respect both your (David and Mike's) opinions and viewpoints. In this subject you guys have forgotten more than I know. Please don't take this as an argumentative post. For it is not intend to be that in any way shape or form. Just an outsiders opinion who had some previous experience in the drafting of Technical Manuals for the Government. Many of the TMs I developed or assisted in developing, went Fleet Wide while others were for Sub-Contractor use only. A smaller amount had a classification of one type or another, and as a result had very limited and controlled distribution. 

I still do some Consulting as I am able. To this day, I always find it easier to have access to this type of Source Material than to be required to start from Scratch. Perhaps it is just the way my brain works and my personal writing style that makes this a good fit. I must admit there may be Others who find it easier to start from a blank sheet of paper and not be distracted by the vast amounts of source material.

In the end, if either of you decide to move forward with such an effort. I would be happy to offer my assistance. Quid pro Quo!


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> … David made the point that we may all hear some frequencies slightly (or in some cases, very) differently, and consequently may exhibit different preferences with respect to which frequencies we want to hear emphasized, or de-emphasized. That potential difference in our individual hearing as a physiological phenomenon, and the way that our brains interpret what we hear as a psycho-acoustic (or psychological) phenomenon is very interesting to me.
> 
> But, one thing we do know is that human hearing, in general, is strongest between about 200Hz and 6000Hz, with even greater acuity between about 400Hz and 4000Hz. What that means is that most of us won't hear subwoofer frequencies, which typically range from about 150Hz down, nearly as well as we will the higher frequencies played by the other channels in our system. This universal phenomenon of human hearing is graphically defined in the Fletcher Munson Curves, also known as the Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> Audyssey, and other systems of automated room EQ, necessarily calibrate all channels in an HT system to play at the same volume level in order to assign filters/control points to attempt to equalize the volume, at all frequencies, for all channels. But, once they have worked their magic, we are then faced with subs which are playing low frequencies at the same volume as the other frequencies, which we can hear much better. And so, for the great majority of us, some sub boost is required in order to achieve a level playing field in the way that we hear all of the frequencies. Again, this isn't a fault of automated EQ, in my opinion. It is the only way that an HT system can be EQed. But, it is then up to the individual user to determine how much additional bass is required to suit his, or her, individual physiological and psycho-acoustic requirements/preferences.…


Mike,

Geek points, largely irrelevant at a practical level and largely intended as a different view on what's going on:

I didn't say that people hear some frequencies differently, I said that there was a lot of variation in taste which is a different thing.

But yes, people do hear different frequencies differently by which I mean that everyone has a slightly different result on a hearing test. That also means that the Fletcher Munson curves are "fuzzy" because they were derived from hearing tests, they're averages. The curve for any particular individual at a particular level should have a pretty similar shape but the actual levels at each frequency will vary a bit, in fact quite a bit for people with hearing issues.

When it comes to talking about how someone may "need" to adjust bass levels after Audyssey correction to ensure that they hear all frequencies equally well, I think you're making a mistake but it's a tricky area so bear with me or stop reading right here 

We do our setup and engage Audyssey. Set Audyssey to flat instead of reference. Now at reference level playback, all sounds on our CD/SACD (I'm using music for the example, not a soundtrack) will (theoretically) be reproduced at the level they are on the disc. The sound you are listening to should be the sound the recording engineer was listening to when he mastered the disc. Note that I said the "sound you are listening to", not the "sound the recording engineer was hearing.

Not everyone will hear that quite the same because of the differences in our hearing sensitivity, but if you and I are sitting side by side in a concert hall listening to live music and the sound at our seats if basically identical to test instruments as one would expect, you and I are both going to be hearing that live sound slightly differently as well but that makes no difference TO US PERSONALLY. We need to make a distinction between the sound we listen to and the sound we perceive. We can ensure with the flat curve that the sound we are listening to is a reasonably faithful and accurate reproduction of the original sound. If it is reasonably faithful, then the sound we perceive will be very similar to the sound we would have perceived had we been present when the sound was being recorded/mastered. The individual differences introduced by our ears are like filters. If the actual sound being produced is the same or close to the same as the original sound and we use the same set of ears, the sound should "sound" the same to us as it would have "sounded" to us had we been present for the original sound. No one has to tweak anything to make what they hear, which is what they perceive, more accurate. Flat works perfectly for everyone because there's identical source sound for everyone but everyone comes equipped with their own personal filter set which ensures they hear things the way they would have "sounded: for them had they been there. No need to adjust for personal differences, our ears are our personal difference and they're what we're always using. Make the reproduced sound identical to the original sound and everyone listening to that sound hears it differently and hears it the same way they would have heard it had they been there.

That doesn't mean that someone won't want to turn the bass up or down because of personal taste because a lot of people are going to want to do just that, to varying degrees and accurate reproduction is often not the goal. You're sitting at the concert and you think to yourself "I wish the bass player was a little softer" or "I wish the violin was a bit louder in the upper reaches". A couple of months later the live concert recording comes out and you buy a copy. It's really faithfully mastered, sounds just like you remember it sounding, and the first thing you do when you start to listen is turn the bass down or the highs up and then you sit back and think "that's just right". Accurate is very often not what we want but it sure as hell can be a lot better than a lot of the manipulations that can be made between the studio mic and the disc in your player at times which is a totally different story.

Now let's swap to Audyssey Reference. Someone did a study of how a sample group of people preferred to tweak the flat response to deliver their preferred listening experience. Lots of people, lots of different tweaks, lots of different resulting response curves for the sound. They then went and averaged all of those curves and produced the Reference curve. Let's say you and I both took part in those listening tests that went into the development of the Reference curve. Should the Reference curve deliver us the sound we preferred? No, not unless it is exactly the same as the particular result we each individually preferred and given that we each have our own individual preferences that is not going to happen. In the best case scenario it will be exactly right for one of us (for me if you ask me, for you if you ask you) but the odds are that neither of us was so boringly average in the test sample that the average represents just what we prefer so it's going to be a bit off for each of us. So then we each go and start tinkering with our trim settings etc etc etc.

And somewhere buried in there is a bit of a rationale for why some people prefer flat and some people prefer reference.Those who prefer flat may actually not think it's ideal but they may also think that reference goes way too far past the way they would like it to be and flat may be closer to their preference than reference. There's also going to be people out there who would like to tweak reference in the opposite direction, more cut in both bass and treble rather than less.

So Flat should give us close to accurate, both in terms of the sound at the listening position being an accurate reproduction of the sound in the concert hall/recording studio/whatever and also our ears hearing the sound in the same way they would have heard it had we been present when the original sound was being made. Most of us don't like accurate, at least for everything, and reference is the camel you get when you let a committee design a horse as they say. It's great for a lot of people, closer to what a lot of people like than flat would be, but not quite what most people want if they could have the sound tailored just for them individually. I think it actually works quite well but the reason we want to play with bass levels or trim settings with reference is that while it's supposed to represent what people prefer, and it does represent what people prefer at a statistical level, it almost certainly does not represent what any one of us individually prefers because the odds are vanishingly small that any one of us has a preference that exactly matches the average derived from the preferences of the people who participated in the listening tests.

Basically, whether we tinker with the Flat curve or the Reference curve by turning the sub up or adjusting speaker trims, we're not trying to get things to the way we heard them, we're trying to get them to the way we like them. There is a probably small group of people who prefer things to sound exactly the way they heard them at least some of the time but preference, getting things to the way we'd like to hear them, rules the roost. We don't adjust things to adjust for the differences in the way our ears hear them because flat works perfectly for everyone if the goal is to get you to perceive what you would have perceived at the live performance or if you had been sitting in the engineer's chair if you had been present while he/she mastered the recording. If we want accuracy we pay attention to the sound our speakers produce, not to the way we hear the sound. Once we start paying attention to the way we hear/perceive the sound, we're not chasing accuracy, we're chasing personal preference. That's fine by me. All I'm trying to do here is to get over the point that differences in the way each of us hears the same thing don't matter when we're doing the setup and perhaps tweaking settings afterwards. We always hear things with our own ears and if the sound being reproduced is the same as the original sound, our perception of it will be identical and that's true at the individual level for everyone listening to the reproduced sound. As a group, every person in the group is hearing things differently, but hearing them differently in the same way as they would have heard them differently had they all been present at the original sound event.

I used music above for the argument because soundtracks bring in a different problem, especially with subs which are great for explosions and earthquakes and all sorts of sounds which most of us have never really heard live so we have no idea what they sound like. We can add in the sound of a space ship's warp drive in space which is a vacuum but we know what that sounds like, it sounds like silence because "no one can hear you scream in space" and we definitely don't want it to sound like silence in that opening scene of the original Star Wars movie. When it comes to the LFE channel we can do accurate but it's accurate to the mastering engineer's studio and he's just a mastering engineer so of course he isn't really going to like his bangs and bumps as much as most of us and of course we turn the sub up. What's the point of having one if you don't turn it up, especially when accuracy of reproduction is definitely not the rule of the day in the mastering studio when it comes to the LFE channel? We'd like to say that we're doing it because we know better, we can fudge and say it's because we prefer better, but the truth really is that we just prefer different. Preference may rule the roost with music but it really rules the roost with soundtracks. 

(All exaggerations and over the top comments/jokes including the camel made for emphasis and humorous purposes because this is geeky.)


----------



## garygarrison

kevbo123 said:


> *Another subwoofer level question*
> using the receivers internal test tones with master volume at 0..





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> FWIW, I will re-emphasize that most people have trouble accurately measuring bass frequencies, and using the AVR's internal test tones post-Audyssey won't do it.


The internal test tones in most AVRs (or, more usually, a band limited pink noise)* bypass* the Audyssey corrections, so, in the case of a sub, the bass measured is uncorrected, and not the bass that would be delivered by Audyssey. If, by coincidence, your subwoofer as positioned in your room requires very little correction, then the error won't be too great, but it would still be undesirable. Most people who use an SPL meter use a test disc in a player because those test signals or noise will pass through Audyssey. Are you measuring from the Main Listening Position? Or are you taking an average of several readings, with the mic in slightly different positions? There may be no good way to do it, but to imitate (and therefore "check") Audyssey you should put the meter in the same 8 positions the Audyssey mic was in, but even then what you'll get is an average, not the sophisticated "fuzzy logic" (a good thing) that Audyssey provides. But, as Mike says, "checking" sub levels after Audyssey may be an exercise in futility*;* almost everyone will want to turn up the sub a little. That's what most people prefer, according to at least one piece of research. After making the response relatively smooth, rather than bumpy, with Audyssey, or the like, broad, smooth preference oriented changes can be made. Some of us also use tone controls (*not* the virtual sliders) to turn up the "mid-bass" and "high-bass" ( ~~ 80 Hz to about 200 Hz), that comes through the LF and RF speakers, a bit too. With these methods combined, one can get a curve that smoothly descends from about + 8 dB in the deep bass (10-20 Hz to the usual 80 Hz crossover) to, maybe + 4 dB around 100 Hz, to flat at about 200 Hz. IMO, this is best judged by ear, not by meter. It will vary with different music recordings and movies. Many of my CDs, SACDs and Blu-rays have a sticker on the box reminding me of my recommended post-Audyssey EQ. But that, too, can change with mood and time.

But, what if you want to eschew preference, and set up your system to hear what the artists intended? Well, Good Luck! Pop/Rock/Metal falls victim to executive mandated "Loudness War" distortion of the original intentions, perhaps saveable by "de-mastering" only. Jazz and Classical do a bit better, but some of the best, most treasured, performances were recorded back when there was very little below 40 Hz (one researcher found next to nothing below 45 Hz on vinyl pressed before about 1980), and have dynamics severely compromised. A little bass EQ helps some of these by giving the impression of ample bass. Some people use dynamic range expanders, as well, but I'm waiting for "de-mastering" to get better. Most Blu-rays are good to excellent, but, IMO.the mixes provided for the home sometimes are dynamically compressed to protect average equipment, or have some bass shaved off. I guess they think we can always turn up the bass -- and some of us do! Classic movies of the great magnetic era often need previewing to get the sound "right" -- e.g., the way I remember it in a 70mm road-show theater. It matters not to me whether my memory is faulty and I am merely setting for my preference (although I think I can remember these presentations of high showmanship fairly well, despite the abundant research on the fallibility of memory).


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> Geek points, largely irrelevant at a practical level and largely intended as a different view on what's going on:
> 
> I didn't say that people hear some frequencies differently, I said that there was a lot of variation in taste which is a different thing.
> 
> But yes, people do hear different frequencies differently by which I mean that everyone has a slightly different result on a hearing test. That also means that the Fletcher Munson curves are "fuzzy" because they were derived from hearing tests, they're averages. The curve for any particular individual at a particular level should have a pretty similar shape but the actual levels at each frequency will vary a bit, in fact quite a bit for people with hearing issues.
> 
> When it comes to talking about how someone may "need" to adjust bass levels after Audyssey correction to ensure that they hear all frequencies equally well, I think you're making a mistake but it's a tricky area so bear with me or stop reading right here
> 
> (All exaggerations and over the top comments/jokes including the camel made for emphasis and humorous purposes because this is geeky.)


David,

That was a very interesting post and I agree with a lot of it. A geeky point in return: you actually did say that people hear frequencies differently; you just did it in the context of a generalization about men and women. I simply extended the correct thought to-- individuals hear frequencies differently, on your behalf. 

I agree with your assessment of the Fletcher Munson Curve as a kind of fuzzy average, but it's a very durable average, which has held up well in the 80+ years since it was first developed. Audio engineers, speaker designers, and film mixers still regard it as entirely viable in describing the nature of human hearing. 

I think you are making an excellent point when you say that, on a music recording, we should theoretically hear what the recording engineer intended, with our system set to Flat. But, when very low frequency content enters the picture, I'm just not sure that is at all correct. If our subs are set to exactly the same level as our other channels in a 5.1 movie, for instance, do we really hear the low frequency effects, and other bass, in the way that the film mixer intended? I am not at all certain that we do, particularly depending on our playback volume, because as the volume goes down, our ability to perceive frequencies below about 150Hz drops-off much faster than it does for higher frequencies, due to that pesky Fletcher Munson Curve. That concept, incidentally, is the whole basis for Audyssey's DEQ. 

The higher frequencies also drop-off faster, as our listening volume goes down. But, our hearing seems better able to compensate for those frequencies, probably partly because many of us lose high frequency acuity as we age, and partly because the octaves are so small at high frequencies that undertones can closely resemble/mask missing notes.

There have been several threads on the Forum where film mixers were active participants, and based on what I remember reading in some of those threads, the film mixers also reported needing to turn-up the gain/trim levels on the subs in their home theaters, after automated calibration, even for their own movies. That's not a knock on automated EQ; just a reality regarding the way we hear (or don't hear) bass frequencies. Incidentally, it was interesting to note that none of the film mixers I remember commenting on the issue, listened at Reference volumes in their home theaters. I believe that most of them listen a little louder than the general AVS population, but none were more than about -5 MV. And, that partly explains why they needed to boost their sub volumes, even for their own film mixes.

I honestly do think that music is a very different animal than 5.1 movies. And, the sub levels that most people ask about have to do with movie viewing more than with music. With nearly all music, we can turn up the volume a little, and hear as much bass as is in the recording, as very little of it will go under about 50Hz, and much of it won't go very far under 80Hz. For instance, I don't even use my four powerful subs for music. I just rely on six large full-range speakers, and I don't use any bass boost at all. 

But, to hear/feel low bass (generally defined as under about 50Hz) and particularly to hear/feel ULF content (generally defined as under 20Hz) I not only need to use all four subs, I also need to crank them substantially. I would need to crank them less, of course, if I were listening at Reference, but I prefer not to go above about -10 MV, which is only half the perceived volume of 0.0.

Both room size and floor surface have a lot to do with the amount of sub boost needed too, as wood floors transmit tactile sensations much more readily than concrete or tile. And, room modes affect low bass in ways that room influences do not for other frequencies. I believe, though, that the lower in frequency we try to go (and many of us are trying to get far under the original THX standard of 25Hz), the more subwoofage we need (obviously). And, that subwoofage simply can't be obtained at sub volumes which are equivalent to those of the other channels. And, certainly not at below Reference levels, due to the way that human hearing works. This seems to be a pretty universal experience.

The reason I think this is important is because for years, people on this and other threads, including myself, explained that Audyssey was setting sub levels conservatively, in response to questions regarding the virtually universal need to boost the subs in order to hear very low frequency content. But, Audyssey wasn't being conservative--it was doing exactly what it needed to do to EQ our systems to Flat.

However, on a pretty universal basis, we simply can't hear/feel very low frequencies played at the same volume as frequencies above about 50Hz or so. And, that problem only gets worse as the MV goes lower--again the basic thesis of DEQ. But, modern 5.1 movies are chock full of that content. Much more so than when the original THX standard of 115db at 25Hz was established for the .1 (sub and LFE) channel.

So, those of us watching those movies, need to boost our subs in order to fully hear and feel that content. How much we need or want to boost them is where the question of room influences, subwoofer capacity vis-a-vis listening distance, and individual physiological and psycho-acoustic differences come into play. But, in a number of years of reading this thread, and many others dealing with the subject, the need to boost the subs is virtually universal, even with DEQ in the equation and supplying it's own, roughly +2db per -5db below Reference, boost. And, that phenomenon of needing to boost the subs is not limited to Audyssey implementations. It's simply a reality of most HT systems, with respect to 5.1 movies.

It's an interesting subject, with lots of room for different perspectives. But, I believe it is important to make a distinction between music and movies, not just for the more unfamiliar content in movies, but for the nature of that low frequency content (particularly below 50Hz), as it relates to human hearing.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> David,
> 
> That was a very interesting post and I agree with a lot of it. A geeky point in return: you actually did say that people hear frequencies differently; you just did it in the context of a generalization about men and women. I simply extended the correct thought to-- individuals hear frequencies differently, on your behalf.


Good catch. Guilty as charged. You can guess how often i fudged around with variations of wording to try and make the difference between the sound in the room, the actual sound waves/pressure differences etc which make up the physical aspects of the sound that reaches our ears and what we talk about "hearing" which is our perception of things after they filter through our ear and the auditory cortex, especially since what we perceive always seems to be "out there" if we're listening to live sound or speakers, or "in our head" if we're listening to headphones when in reality all that we're dealing with is a pile of neurochemical/bioelectrical activity in a meaty organ.



> I agree with your assessment of the Fletcher Munson Curve as a kind of fuzzy average, but it's a very strong average, which has held up well in the 80+ years since it was first developed. Audio engineers, speaker designers, and film mixers still regard it as entirely viable in describing the nature of human hearing.


Again I'll agree, at least in part. I don't know what you mean by a "strong average" and I have no idea of the scale of the standard deviation to the average/mean that is involved with the curves, but it really has held up well and durability is certainly indicative of some kind of strength. By "fuzzy" I was trying to make the point that the curves aren't accurate for everyone, and probably not accurate for any one particular person, but they're definitely "good enough" for all of the different sorts of work that has been done using them, and that "good enough" is another sign of strength.



> I think you are making an excellent point when you say that, on a music recording, we should theoretically hear what the recording engineer intended, with our system set to Flat. But, when very low frequency content enters the picture, I'm just not sure that is at all correct. If our subs are set to exactly the same level as our other channels in a 5.1 movie, for instance, do we really hear the low frequency effects, and other bass, in the way that the film mixer intended? I am not at all certain that we do, particularly depending on our playback volume, because as the volume goes down, our ability to perceive frequencies below about 150Hz drops-off much faster than it does for higher frequencies, due to that pesky Fletcher Munson Curve. That concept, incidentally, is the whole basis for Audyssey's DEQ.
> 
> The higher frequencies also drop-off faster, as our listening volume goes down. But, our hearing seems better able to compensate for those frequencies, probably partly because many of us lose high frequency acuity as we age, and partly because the octaves are so small at high frequencies that undertones can closely resemble/mask missing notes.


"…do we really hear the low frequency effects, and other bass, in the way that the film mixer intended?"

Probably not but for a lot of different reasons. A weak one is that the engineer mixed it to the way they thought it should sound, you're hearing what the end result of their taste was, and if they want you to hear it the way they did, then what you want is not to reproduce the actual sounds they were listening to but rather the perception they had, and none of us apart from the engineer knows what the perception they had was. Things start to get messy when we talk about reproducing sounds produced by a person who was trying to get those sounds "sounding" right to them when what that means happens to include elements of their personal taste. It's easy if you're trying to make sure that everyone hears the sound of a train rolling by exactly as it was because the train isn't trying to produce a particular sound or perception, it just happens to be creating sound waves.

When we get to bass and us and our rooms and our systems, lots of other stuff comes into play. Room volume, how well sealed is it vs the engineer's mixing studio, things like the tactile sensations which low frequencies can cause, etc etc etc. We can reproduce the frequency balance. It's not everything but it is a lot.




> There have been several threads on the Forum where film mixers were active participants, and based on what I remember reading in some of those threads, the film mixers also reported needing to turn-up the gain/trim levels on the subs in their home theaters, after automated calibration, even for their own movies. That's not a knock on automated EQ; just a reality regarding the way we hear (or don't hear, bass frequencies). Incidentally, it was interesting to note that none of the film mixers I remember commenting on the issue, listened at Reference volumes in their home theaters. I believe that most of them listen a little louder than the general AVS population, but none were more than about -5 MV. And, that partly explains why they needed to boost their sub volumes, even for their own film mixes.


See previous response. The theatre is going to be a different volume and a very different acoustic environment to the studio the track was mixed in. There's also the issue that there are standards for mixing for things like volume and the engineer mixes to the standard when he's mixing the soundtrack, but he also mixes to his tastes while complying with the standard. The standard itself, especially when it comes to volume levels, may not be his preference when it comes to his own listening at home



> I honestly do think that music is a very different animal than 5.1 movies. And, the sub levels that most people ask about have to do with movie viewing more than with music.


Strongly agree.



> With nearly all music, we can turn up the volume a little, and hear as much bass as is in the recording, as very little of it will go under about 50Hz, and much of it won't go very far under 80Hz. For instance, I don't even use my four powerful subs for music. I just rely on six large full-range speakers, and I don't use any bass boost at all.
> 
> But, to hear/feel low bass (generally defined as under about 50Hz) and particularly to hear/feel ULF content (generally defined as under 20Hz) I not only need to use all four subs, I also need to crank them substantially. I would need to crank them less, of course, if I were listening at Reference, but I prefer not to go above about -10 MV, which is only half the perceived volume of 0.0.


I think most of what you're saying there is your own personal taste (not a criticism) and everyone is going to have different "drivers" for how they adjust things or if they adjust things. I run a 2.2 system with 2 floor standers which Audyssey reports as "Large" which means that they have good performance down to somewhere below 40Hz and I use 2 subs. I vary between cranking the subs up by around 5 dB and not cranking them up at all, just running with the Audyssey result. I haven't tried to work out just why I swap between those 2 settings but some of it is probably related to the nature of the soundtrack and some of it to seasonal differences which change room pressurisation like having the windows and outside door open in summer and closed in winter and the like.




> Both room size and floor surface have a lot to do with the amount of sub boost needed too, as wood floors transmit tactile sensations much more readily than concrete or tile. And, room modes affect low bass in ways that room influences do not for other frequencies. I believe, though, that the lower in frequency we try to go (and many of us are trying to get far under the original THX standard of 25Hz), the more subwoofage we need (obviously). And, that subwoofage simply can't be obtained at sub volumes which are equivalent to those of the other channels. And, certainly not at below Reference levels, due to the way that human hearing works. This seems to be a pretty universal experience.


See response above about room volume, sealing, etc. Surfaces affect pressurisation and decay time and vibration transmission which can have tactile effects etc etc etc. We may each pay attention to different things in all this mix but I agree that these things do make a difference and that difference may subjectively be a plus or minus for us depending on our room, and of course we tweak the settings to give us more of what we regard as the plusses while trying to avoid to many of the minuses.



> The reason I think this is important is because for years, the FAQ, and people on the thread, including myself, explained that Audyssey was setting sub levels conservatively, in response to questions regarding the virtually universal need to boost the subs in order to hear very low frequency content. But, Audyssey wasn't being conservative--it was doing exactly what it needed to do to EQ our systems to Flat.


You're right about doing what it needed to do to EQ our systems to Flat. For you, and for many, Reference, which is not accurate or intended to be accurate, is conservative so you haven't necessarily been saying the wrong thing but you're talking about tastes when you talk about the Reference curve, not about accuracy. I think we can talk about Flat in terms of whether Audyssey gets it right or wrong but when it comes to the Reference curve right or wrong misses the point. Reference is about trying to get a result that people like so the issue for each person is whether it does a good or bad job at producing a result they like, not whether it's right or wrong. I think we really have to think about the 2 curves in very different ways.



> However, on a pretty universal basis, we simply can't hear/feel very low frequencies played at the same volume as frequencies above about 50Hz or so. And, that problem only gets worse as the MV goes lower--again the basic thesis of DEQ. But, modern 5.1 movies are chock full of that content. Much more so than when the original THX standard of 115db at 25Hz was established for the .1 (sub and LFE) channel.
> 
> So, those of us watching those movies, need to boost our subs in order to fully hear and feel that content. How much we need or want to boost them is where the question of room influences, subwoofer capacity vis-a-vis listening distance, and individual physiological and psycho-acoustic differences come into play. But, in a number of years of reading this thread, and many others dealing with the subject, the need to boost the subs is virtually universal, even with DEQ in the equation, and supplying it's own boost. And, that phenomenon of needing to boost the subs is not limited to Audyssey implementations. It's simply a reality of most HT systems, with respect to 5.1 movies.


"…we simply can't hear/feel very low frequencies played at the same volume as frequencies above about 50Hz or so. And, that problem only gets worse as the MV goes lower…"

Revenge for the catch in your first paragraph 

What the hell do you mean by "we can't hear/feel very low frequencies played at the same volume as frequencies above 50 Hz or so?

The Fletcher Munson curves make it clear that our ears aren't as sensitive in the bass. If we play 2 test tones at 75 dB flat weighting, one at 25 Hz and one at 200 Hz, the 25 Hz one won't sound as loud to us as the 200 Hz one. Let's say we're at a concert and at a particular moment only 2 notes are audible, a bass instrument's 25 Hz and a pianist's 200 Hz. If they sound the same volume to us, and in a concert they may well do so, it's because the 2 players are each adjusting the volume they are playing at so that the notes they each play sound matched in volume and the bass player's note is going to be louder than the pianist's if you measure them with a meter. Whatever it is we're listening to, I'm prepared to bet it's almost never matched SPL test tones and if what we're listening to is sounds produced by people then you can bet that the bass frequencies and the higher frequencies are rarely going to be at the same level. The music is going to demand that one be louder than the other and which one is louder at a particular moment is going to depend on things like is it a bass solo, a piano solo, and so on.

And yes, things get worse as the MV goes lower which is why we have all those different Fletcher Munson curves. Our ear's sensitivity depends on both frequency and SPL.

But to drag this back to your earlier response to kevbo123 where you said:

"Audyssey, and other systems of automated room EQ, necessarily calibrate all channels in an HT system to play at the same volume level in order to assign filters/control points to attempt to equalize the volume, at all frequencies, for all channels. But, once they have worked their magic, we are then faced with subs which are playing low frequencies at the same volume as the other frequencies, which we can hear much better. "

Audyssey sets the sub and speakers so they will play sounds of the same SPL in the recording/soundtrack at the same level but the sub and speakers are usually not playing at the same level because sometimes the bass sounds are louder than the higher frequency sounds and sometimes vice versa. It's probably very rarely that both are outputting sound at the same level as each other. Matching levels doesn't ensure that the sub and speakers are playing at the same level, it ensures that the relationships in level between low frequency sounds and other sounds are preserved. Those sounds on the recording aren't all at the same level like test tones are, they're at different levels and they get played at different levels even though the sub and speaker levels have been matched. Matching levels just guarantees that when the level of the low frequency sounds on the recording are at the same level as the other sounds on the recording, they will be played through the system at the same level. Most of the time bass frequencies and other frequencies aren't being played at the same level because they aren't all at the same level in the recording.

The problem isn't that "we are then faced with subs which are playing low frequencies at the same volume as the other frequencies, which we can hear much better.". The subs won't be playing low frequencies at the same volume as the higher frequencies because the level of different frequencies in the music/soundtrack is all over the place and constantly varying, that's the nature of music and soundtracks. If we're using the Flat curve the sounds themselves are being reproduced correctly (provided your sub goes low enough and isn't rolling off) but correct/accurate reproduction may not match our personal preference. If we're using Reference the different frequencies aren't being reproduced correctly, they're being reproduced in accordance with an averaged preference curve which doesn't match our preference. In either case any adjustment we make is to reach our preference but the adjustments needed to reach our preference are going to be different depending on whether we start from Flat or Reference.

So, if we're using bass boost in conjunction with the Reference curve we're still adjusting to suit our preferences but we also have to compensate for that bass roll off in the Reference curve which is Audyssey's adjustment based on preference, not accuracy.




> It's an interesting subject, with lots of room for different perspectives. But, I believe it is important to make a distinction between music and movies, not just for the more unfamiliar content in movies, but for the nature of that low frequency content (particularly below 50Hz), as it relates to human hearing.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


How can I argue? Do I really want Jimmy Garrison's bass on Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" to sound like the starship in the opening scene of that original Star Wars movie, and I don't care whether you choose to believe that I'm talking about the starship sound as mastered in the soundtrack or the starship sound as it actually was in the vacuum of space when the on site camera and recording team captured it for posterity 

I think we're pretty much on exactly the same page but we are coming at it from different directions in places a bit like one of us leafing through the pages of a book and a Japanese reader doing the same. One of us starts from the front of the book, one of us starts from the back of the book, and then we can fight about which cover of the book is the front cover and which is the back, but we're both ending up at the page with the page number that says "42" 

And the biggest point in all of this discussion is finding a way to talk about in ways that make the distinctions we're trying to make rather than in ways that are based on how it sounds to us because how it sounds to us is a different thing to what the sound in the room actually is. We've both tripped up over that point a couple of times in our respective posts, probably because most of the time when we're talking about sound we're talking about how it sounds to us rather than the actual sound that's in the room. Most of the time in normal conversation that has no effect whatsoever but get into this sort of conversation and it's a confusion that keeps creeping back in the moment you have a lapse in concentration because we don't normally talk about sound in the ways we do in this sort of discussion. Pick me up if you think I've fallen into that trap again. I think I've caught all my blunders but I may not have.


----------



## David Aiken

Mike,

To drag things back to reality 

I was out with my son and his wife yesterday and we passed one of those sporty looking Renaults and my son's wife said "There's a cleavage car" and I said "What?". She replied that they had a dip in the centre of the roof and a higher point in the roof on each side of the dip and that it looked a bit like a cleavage so that's what people were calling the car. First time I'd heard that.

So, we've been talking about the roll off at each end of the Reference curve but there's that "Audyssey dip" or BBC dip in the middle. Perhaps we should start referring to the Reference curve as the "cleavage curve" 

The problem would be that someone at Audyssey mightn't like it and may decide to get rid of the dip in order to avoid that description. I played around the other day to see if I liked things without it so I set it to the Flat curve and then turned the Cinema EQ option on to get a high frequency roll off without the low frequency roll off or the dip that are also in the Reference curve and quickly discovered that I actually preferred Reference with the dip, regardless of whether or not I ran with the bass roll off or applied a sub boost.

Stupid thought which just struck me after we've been writing all this stuff about roll offs and Reference curve vs Flat and so on.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> So, we've been talking about the* roll off at each end of the Reference curve* but there's that "Audyssey dip" or BBC dip in the middle.
> .


I'm not aware of a roll off at the bass end of the Audyssey Reference curve. The only characteristics that Audyssey cops to in the Reference curve are the "midrange compensation" dip at about 2K to 3K, and the treble roll off which is about - 2 dB at 10K and about -6 dB at 20K. There is a perceived loudness roll off at the bass end of both the Reference curve and the Audyssey Flat curve -- loudness, unlike SPL, being psycho/perceptual -- if the playback is much below Reference Level, defined as 0 on the main volume control after Audyssey calibration. This is due to Fletcher-Munsen. It's unfortunate that the word "Reference" appears in both.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> I'm not aware of a roll off at the bass end of the Audyssey Reference curve. The only characteristics that Audyssey cops to in the Reference curve are the "midrange compensation" dip at about 2K to 3K, and the treble roll off which is about - 2 dB at 10K and about -6 dB at 20K. There is a perceived loudness roll off at the bass end of both the Reference curve and the Audyssey Flat curve -- loudness, unlike SPL, being psycho/perceptual -- if the playback is much below Reference Level, defined as 0 on the main volume control after Audyssey calibration. This is due to Fletcher-Munsen. It's unfortunate that the word "Reference" appears in both.


Gary,

Somewhere I picked up the idea that there was a bit of a bass rolloff with the Reference curve, don't know where I got that from, but it has stuck with me for a long time. Just did a check on the ask Audyssey forums and though I couldn't find a frequency plot for the curve it does look like it is flat in the low frequencies.

Guess I blew that one.


----------



## mthomas47

Hi David,

I enjoyed your post, but it was so long, that I think I won't try to quote it.  We are agreeing on a lot, but there is one area where I am still saying something a little different. And, I think it is an important difference. Most non-electronic music, and 5.1 movies, have very different properties. And, for the purpose of the discussion of bass (sub) boost vis-a-vis human hearing, I have been very careful to distinguish between the two. Using music analogies to discuss the subject doesn't provide clarity in addressing the subject.

In order for us to hear very low frequencies (below 50Hz) in a classical music recording, for instance, the following conditions have to be met. First, the composer has to intentionally write music for instruments that go that low. Kettle drums really don't, so tubas, contrabass bassoons, bass fiddles, and a couple of other instruments are the only recourse. Second, those instruments have to be sufficiently numerous, and strategically placed, for their very lowest sounds to be heard in concert with the instruments which are easier to hear.

Third, the conductor has to be careful to allow them to play loudly, with respect to the other instruments, at key portions of the piece (and that is somewhat dependent on the personal tastes of the conductor). Fourth, the recording process has to faithfully capture the full fidelity of the performance. And fifth, the mastering process has to retain the full dynamic range of the performance. Gary can probably speak to all of those issues better than I can, but even if the first four are faithfully met, most stereo recordings simply don't go that low, for a variety of reasons.

But, modern 5.1 movies, and particularly movies of the blockbuster or action movie variety, offer a very different scenario. It is quite easy to use electronic enhancement, or even sine waves, to create any frequencies desired. And many modern movies have substantial content below 50Hz (very low bass), and even below 20Hz (considered ULF, or ultra low frequencies). And, those movies are carefully mixed in such a way that the full dynamic range is preserved. So, as you correctly stated, the frequencies may all be in proper balance in the 5.1 movie when we watch it at the original Reference volume.

But, those frequencies are *only* in proper balance at the original Reference volume of the recording, because as the listening volume goes down, our ability to hear the lowest frequencies declines much more rapidly than it does for frequencies above about 200Hz. The lower the frequencies go, the worse the problem gets, as illustrated by the Equal Loudness Contours. If we all listened at Reference volumes (0.0 MV) there would be no problem, except issues relating to our personal preference for the amount of low bass we like. But, we don't all listen at Reference. In fact, most of us don't even listen very close to Reference.

Based on my reading of the various Forums, the commonly accepted average for listening levels is believed to be between about -20 and -10. To put that in context, a listening level of -10 is only half as loud as Reference, and a listening level of -20 is only one quarter as loud as Reference. A volume difference of between 100% and 300% makes an enormous difference in our ability to perceive very low frequencies, and particularly those below about 50Hz, where those lines in the Equal Loudness Contours get very close together. 

Several people on the SVS 16 Ultra sub thread recently reported their listening levels as -25 and lower, so the -20 to -10 range is only an average. Many AVS members listen at even lower master volume levels. And, as I pointed out earlier, even film mixers prefer to watch their own movies, in their home theaters, at below Reference levels. That is because small rooms (


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Gary,
> 
> Somewhere I picked up the idea that there was a bit of a bass rolloff with the Reference curve, don't know where I got that from, but it has stuck with me for a long time. Just did a check on the ask Audyssey forums and though I couldn't find a frequency plot for the curve it does look like it is flat in the low frequencies.
> 
> Guess I blew that one.


I have blown that one before, too. I think that part of it is the attenuation of the upper frequencies, with the Audyssey Curve, always seemed to make my system sound a little bass-heavy for music, compared to Flat. So, for a while, I associated the Audyssey Curve with a bass boost. But, as Gary said, it actually only creates a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz, and rolls-off the high frequencies a bit.

But, I do like the idea of a cleavage curve.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I enjoyed your post, but it was so long, that I think I won't try to quote it.  We are agreeing on a lot, but there is one area where I am still saying something a little different. And, I think it is an important difference. Most non-electronic music, and 5.1 movies, have very different properties. And, for the purpose of the discussion of bass (sub) boost vis-a-vis human hearing, I have been very careful to distinguish between the two. Using music analogies to discuss the subject doesn't provide clarity in addressing the subject.…


Mike,

Quoted first paragraph only so there's a link but little wasted space.

There may be a point or two on which we're saying something a little different but I'm not certain if there's a real difference in overall view or we just have a difference when it comes to what we're each doing with putting the implications of our views into practice in our systems.

I'll try and do quick points.

- I think there's less difference between non-electronic music and movies than you think but there definitely are differences. A lot of the things you mentioned about a classical performance come down to what the conductor does and one of the roles of a conductor is essentially to act as a "mixing engineer" for live performance music. Forget about whether or not they tell the bass sections to play loud enough, they control just how loud or soft every section of the orchestra plays, just as the mixing engineer for a movie soundtrack controls the level of every channel relative to each other. Even a solo performer, an acoustic guitarist or pianist, makes decisions on the relative levels of the bass, middle and high frequencies within their performance. Performers/conductors have always decided how loud the bass frequencies in their performance are going to be, apart from those lazy performers who choose to avoid the problem by not playing an instrument with any bass frequencies 

- it's simple to think of music as having an actual performance where the musicians played the piece and it got recorded and to hope that the recording is going to be an accurate reproduction of the performance, and to think that the movie soundtrack is entirely different, no actual performance, and that it represents an acoustic collage or something so there's no need for accurate reproduction. I think some people view the distinction between non-electronic and electronic music in that way to some degree. That makes the guy who engineers the movie soundtrack something like a DJ doing live mixes and manipulation on stage, but that's a performance too. I think the distinctions aren't either/or, I think we've got different points along a scale from one extreme to the other and that there's a lot of both sides of your divide in the middle area of that scale. Basically I think there's more of a divide in some other areas of the recording/mixing/mastering process which relate to technical aspects of that process than there is between music and soundtracks from the perspective of the artistic choices that get made about tonal balances and how loud the bass elements should be. On that artistic choice side, h owever, I think we both think that as a general rule but with some exceptions, the guys making movie soundtracks definitely want the bass frequencies louder than the guys making music. They also don't seem to like the bass frequencies quite as loud as a large proportion of movie-goers, or at least that's what a poll of the non-random sample of people following threads like this would suggest. Why would we ever have a sub if we didn't want to turn it up? 

- we do have problems with listening levels when it comes to playback of recordings. In a live performance the performers are balancing the bass/mid/high frequency levels on the fly to be exactly how they want them to be, given that they're also setting the overall volume level. Effectively the performers are doing an acoustical equivalent of DEQ. With playback of recordings, whether that be a music recording or a soundtrack. we've got all the issues you raise and they're real. What's the solution? I could argue for better DEQ or more soundproofed houses with bigger rooms and people more willing to listen at reference level but I think we've got a lot more chance of getting better EQ than we have of getting my other alternative. In the absence of better DEQ, then your solution of using the DEQ we have and adding a bit of sub boost as well is the best option we have. It's also a good reason for setting our crossovers up around 80 Hz because with filter slope that means we're starting to get the full effect of the boost below 50 Hz or so which is where you are highlighting the major concerns. I'd like to see a better way of introducing that boost than what we now have which is effectively a rather blunt instrument and not much more than an adjustment of sub channel trim level but that probably falls under the heading of better DEQ.

- as to music recordings where there are no mastering/engineering standards like there are for soundtracks, it might be nice if the recordings were mastered for playback at the same average level as the original performance and if DEQ could allow for setting a "reference" level for each recording the way we're allowed to set the MV for each recording, and if the DEQ also provided appropriate cuts if we choose higher playback levels than the original performance level. Another wishlist item to add to the better DEQ shopping list and even less likely to be seen any time soon.

But in the end I think the theoretical and technical inadequacies of what we have to work with simply reinforce one of the main points I was trying to make in my original post a couple of days ago which is that when we tweak the Audyssey result in the various ways in which we do so, we're really not trying to get a result which is more right or more accurate, we're trying to get a result that we like more. We're trying to better satisfy our tastes and preferences, not to make things more accurate or correct. We're concerned with distinctions of less better/better/really presses my buttons rather than a right/wrong distinction. For some of us for some of the time, the less better/better/really presses my buttons assessment is driven in part by concern about whether the result sounds more like we believed the music or whatever actually sounded or whether it doesn't but there's always an element mixed in there of whether it sounds like it should sound or not, and that "should" is always taste driven. There's nothing wrong with tastes, with having different tastes to others, and to actually tweaking your setup in order to satisfy your tastes.

And one of our perennially recurring problems in a thread like this is how to deal with questions which often start from an unconsidered and unrecognised assumption that there's a magic bullet out there, a combination of gear and setup process and specific settings that is going to produce a perfect result and all you have to do is put it all together by following a paint by numbers type of recipe, you'll have perfection and everyone who comes over to listen to your system will have exactly the same opinion of the result you're getting as you do. We both know there is no magic bullet but I think that systems like Audyssey actually encourage people to think, at least to some degree, that such a magic bullet does exist. I also think there are times when we end up unknowingly going along with that view when we're trying to asnwer the regularly recurring question which amounts to "Audyssey isn't giving me the right result so what am I doing wrong and what should I do to fix it so Audyssey does give me the right result?" It's all too easy to get the "should do's" on things like mic placement where it's got more to do with strict technique than taste mixed up with the "could do's" and "experiment with's" on things like how much to raise the sub level where it's got more to do with taste than anything else.


----------



## David Aiken

Mike,

Purely technical.

There was an update a month or two ago for my Marantz with some audio processing changes. Yesterday I had to run the Audyssey setup again because I ran into a problem somewhere in the system and ended up doing a full factory reset on the Marantz and didn't have my settings stored so back to square one and a complete setup process including Audyssey. The last time I had run the setup was months ago, well before the update I mentioned.

I always seem to get a phase error reported for my speakers and I did again. No surprise, no issues, full speed ahead. When I've done a repeat setup in the past with no changes to speaker and sub placement, I've rarely had to tinker with the sub gain settings and go through the process in the setup workflow for adjusting your sub gain to get a level of 75 dB. I've had to do it when I've introduced a new sub which is to be expected and I had done it in the past with my current 2 subs so their gain settings should have been acceptable and I should have sailed through that step but I got that sub level error message and invitation to adjust the gain to get the level into the right range with both subs and I ended up having to increase the sub gain a bit for both. That surprised me, and the end result was sub trim settings which weren't significantly different from what they had been despite what I regarded as significant increases to the gain settings on each sub.

I don't know whether the Marantz update included some change to the setup wizard as well, or if there's been a bit of a change in the Audyssey software and it now wants the sub output to fall into a tighter window before it starts to calculate things or whether it was something different entirely. The end result sounds great so I have no complaints about that but the change in the process surprised me.

I can't remember seeing any other comment like this and I haven't heard anything about any changes to Audyssey or anything in Maarantz's setup process that would have caused me to get the sub error messages on this occasion. Have you heard anything or do you have any ideas?


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> Purely technical.
> 
> There was an update a month or two ago for my Marantz with some audio processing changes. Yesterday I had to run the Audyssey setup again because I ran into a problem somewhere in the system and ended up doing a full factory reset on the Marantz and didn't have my settings stored so back to square one and a complete setup process including Audyssey. The last time I had run the setup was months ago, well before the update I mentioned.
> 
> I always seem to get a phase error reported for my speakers and I did again. No surprise, no issues, full speed ahead. When I've done a repeat setup in the past with no changes to speaker and sub placement, I've rarely had to tinker with the sub gain settings and go through the process in the setup workflow for adjusting your sub gain to get a level of 75 dB. I've had to do it when I've introduced a new sub which is to be expected and I had done it in the past with my current 2 subs so their gain settings should have been acceptable and I should have sailed through that step but I got that sub level error message and invitation to adjust the gain to get the level into the right range with both subs and I ended up having to increase the sub gain a bit for both. That surprised me, and the end result was sub trim settings which weren't significantly different from what they had been despite what I regarded as significant increases to the gain settings on each sub.
> 
> I don't know whether the Marantz update included some change to the setup wizard as well, or if there's been a bit of a change in the Audyssey software and it now wants the sub output to fall into a tighter window before it starts to calculate things or whether it was something different entirely. The end result sounds great so I have no complaints about that but the change in the process surprised me.
> 
> I can't remember seeing any other comment like this and I haven't heard anything about any changes to Audyssey or anything in Maarantz's setup process that would have caused me to get the sub error messages on this occasion. Have you heard anything or do you have any ideas?


Hi David,

I am skeptical that it could be a software issue. I don't think that a Marantz software update could affect the Audyssey set-up and calibration process in any way. And, unfortunately, Audyssey doesn't have a mechanism for updating through the AVR's and pre-pro's in which it is installed.

Assuming that the sub positions haven't changed at all, which I am sure you would have mentioned, my best guess is that the microphone is the culprit. The most likely explanation is that you were not in exactly the same spot this time when you ran the calibration process. Thinking back, I believe that I have seen some variances in my level-matching process between calibrations. And, it was probably due to slight variations in the placement of mic position 1.

Of course, there could be a problem of some kind with the microphone itself, but if all of your crossovers, and the distances and trim levels came in about where they should have been, then the mic is probably okay. The first explanation, involving a slight variation in mic placement, is my best guess at the moment.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I am skeptical that it could be a software issue. I don't think that a Marantz software update could affect the Audyssey set-up and calibration process in any way. And, unfortunately, Audyssey doesn't have a mechanism for updating through the AVR's and pre-pro's in which it is installed.
> 
> Assuming that the sub positions haven't changed at all, which I am sure you would have mentioned, my best guess is that the microphone is the culprit. The most likely explanation is that you were not in exactly the same spot this time when you ran the calibration process. Thinking back, I believe that I have seen some variances in my level-matching process between calibrations. And, it was probably due to slight variations in the placement of mic position 1.
> 
> Of course, there could be a problem of some kind with the microphone itself, but if all of your crossovers, and the distances and trim levels came in about where they should have been, then the mic is probably okay. The first explanation, involving a slight variation in mic placement, is my best guess at the moment.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

It definitely doesn't look like the mic since all crossovers, distances, trim levels are roughly the same. Mic positions also were virtually identical. My chair at the measurement/listening position never moves by more than an inch or so and the mic positions are determined by the dimensions of the chair so there's very little variation in them either, no more than an inch or so at any time.

The odd thing is that the speaker and sub trim settings are virtually unaltered but the sub gain setting did change a fair bit (more gain) so I would have expected the sub trim settings to have a compensating change.

It could be the mic position but I would not have expected as much of a difference in sub levels for the small shift in mic position involved and the noticeably higher sub gain setting. 

Or it could simply be that the AVR was having a bad day and working too hard in our current heat wave weather over here in Australia.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> It definitely doesn't look like the mic since all crossovers, distances, trim levels are roughly the same. Mic positions also were virtually identical. My chair at the measurement/listening position never moves by more than an inch or so and the mic positions are determined by the dimensions of the chair so there's very little variation in them either, no more than an inch or so at any time.
> 
> The odd thing is that the speaker and sub trim settings are virtually unaltered but the sub gain setting did change a fair bit (more gain) so I would have expected the sub trim settings to have a compensating change.
> 
> It could be the mic position but I would not have expected as much of a difference in sub levels for the small shift in mic position involved and the noticeably higher sub gain setting.
> 
> Or it could simply be that the AVR was having a bad day and working too hard in our current heat wave weather over here in Australia.


Who knows with electronic components? Your last statement could very well be right.

Audyssey was trying to get your subs to a certain SPL level. Once you achieved that level, by adjusting your gains, I would have expected your sub trim levels to be pretty close to where they were before, since the SPL level would have been about the same, even if, for some reason, it took more gain to get there. Again, though, who knows?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I enjoyed your post, but it was so long, that I think I won't try to quote it.  We are agreeing on a lot, but there is one area where I am still saying something a little different. And, I think it is an important difference. Most non-electronic music, and 5.1 movies, have very different properties. And, for the purpose of the discussion of bass (sub) boost vis-a-vis human hearing, I have been very careful to distinguish between the two. Using music analogies to discuss the subject doesn't provide clarity in addressing the subject.
> 
> In order for us to hear very low frequencies (below 50Hz) in a classical music recording, for instance, the following conditions have to be met. First, the composer has to intentionally write music for instruments that go that low. Kettle drums really don't, so tubas, contrabass bassoons, bass fiddles, and a couple of other instruments are the only recourse. Second, those instruments have to be sufficiently numerous, and strategically placed, for their very lowest sounds to be heard in concert with the instruments which are easier to hear.
> 
> Third, the conductor has to be careful to allow them to play loudly, with respect to the other instruments, at key portions of the piece (and that is somewhat dependent on the personal tastes of the conductor). Fourth, the recording process has to faithfully capture the full fidelity of the performance. And fifth, the mastering process has to retain the full dynamic range of the performance. Gary can probably speak to all of those issues better than I can, but even if the first four are faithfully met, most stereo recordings simply don't go that low, for a variety of reasons.
> 
> But, modern 5.1 movies, and particularly movies of the blockbuster or action movie variety, offer a very different scenario. It is quite easy to use electronic enhancement, or even sine waves, to create any frequencies desired. And many modern movies have substantial content below 50Hz (very low bass), and even below 20Hz (considered ULF, or ultra low frequencies). And, those movies are carefully mixed in such a way that the full dynamic range is preserved. So, as you correctly stated, the frequencies may all be in proper balance in the 5.1 movie when we watch it at the original Reference volume.
> 
> But, those frequencies are *only* in proper balance at the original Reference volume of the recording, because as the listening volume goes down, our ability to hear the lowest frequencies declines much more rapidly than it does for frequencies above about 200Hz. The lower the frequencies go, the worse the problem gets, as illustrated by the Equal Loudness Contours. If we all listened at Reference volumes (0.0 MV) there would be no problem, except issues relating to our personal preference for the amount of low bass we like. But, we don't all listen at Reference. In fact, most of us don't even listen very close to Reference.
> 
> Based on my reading of the various Forums, the commonly accepted average for listening levels is believed to be between about -20 and -10. To put that in context, a listening level of -10 is only half as loud as Reference, and a listening level of -20 is only one quarter as loud as Reference. A volume difference of between 100% and 300% makes an enormous difference in our ability to perceive very low frequencies, and particularly those below about 50Hz, where those lines in the Equal Loudness Contours get very close together.
> 
> Several people on the SVS 16 Ultra sub thread recently reported their listening levels as -25 and lower, so the -20 to -10 range is only an average. Many AVS members listen at even lower master volume levels. And, as I pointed out earlier, even film mixers prefer to watch their own movies, in their home theaters, at below Reference levels. That is because small rooms (


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> This should be added to the "Sub Setup" Sticky information! Hands down the best explanation of the "why" about boosting Sub gains and the differences we tend to forget about Movie Track content versus Music Track content (Unless a DSD Multichannel mix).
> 
> Mike, you have an astute ability to convey very complex concepts and technical issues in a clear and concise Layman's manner. Helping people understand, truly understand what all this means and does is obviously a passion of yours. We (readers) are quite fortunate and grateful for your efforts and contributions. I have never read, anywhere, and I read a great deal, a more understandable explanation on this topic. White Paper Material Sir! Well done


Wow, Adam! Thank you for the kind words. That is a high compliment, and I very much appreciate it.

You are correct that I really enjoy thinking through some of these concepts, and then trying to convey my understanding of them to others. My own knowledge and understanding of audio, in general, has increased exponentially in recent years. And, threads like this one, and the independent reading and thinking they have inspired, are largely responsible. It's very nice to be able to give back a little bit.

But, I also benefit from posts like the one you quoted. I find that when I try to write a somewhat clear, yet comprehensive, post on a topic like that, it challenges me to resolve inconsistencies, or gaps, in my own thinking. And, the effort to say what I want to say in a fairly straight-forward and unambiguous manner forces me to greater clarity. So, I come away from writing a post like that with a deeper and clearer understanding of the concept, as well. 

Thanks, again!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ken6217

I was curious why you can bypass the Left and Right fronts but not the center speaker in Audessey? What would be the reason for bypassing? Also id it just the filters only that are bypassed? If the L&R front speakers are bypassed, will the crossover still remain at 80hz if that is where I previously set it to?

Also, is Audessy bypassed in Stereo mode for 2 channel music? If not, I assume it can be bypassed as above?

Thanks,
Ken


----------



## mthomas47

ken6217 said:


> I was curious why you can bypass the Left and Right fronts but not the center speaker in Audessey? What would be the reason for bypassing? Also id it just the filters only that are bypassed? If the L&R front speakers are bypassed, will the crossover still remain at 80hz if that is where I previously set it to?
> 
> Also, is Audessy bypassed in Stereo mode for 2 channel music? If not, I assume it can be bypassed as above?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ken


Hi Ken,

Audyssey filters are completely separate from distance, level, and crossover settings, and one setting doesn't affect another. As I understand it, Bypass L/R is intended to present a method for listening in 2-channel stereo (or other multi-channel modes), without Audyssey filters applied to the front speakers, while still preserving sub filters (and filters for the other channels, depending on mode). Pure Direct is a stereo mode which also eliminates Audyssey filters, but I believe that eliminates filters to the .1 channel, as well.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Selden Ball

To expand on what mthomas47 wrote...



ken6217 said:


> I was curious why you can bypass the Left and Right fronts but not the center speaker in Audessey?


In many speaker configurations, the center speaker is quite unlike the main front speakers in acoustic properties and needs all the EQ assistance it can get. Many people spend far more on their main front L&R speakers than on their other speakers, so that the center speaker's design is more like the surround speaker designs. Also the MTM driver configuration used in most horizontal centers introduces its own acoustic challenges (e.g. "lobing" ).



> What would be the reason for bypassing?


Full-range R&L speakers often need far less EQ than the other speakers. Some music enthusiasts have spent a lot of money to ensure that they have front R&Ls which sound incredibly good in their rooms with no EQ at all.


> Also id it just the filters only that are bypassed?


Yes.



> If the L&R front speakers are bypassed, will the crossover still remain at 80hz if that is where I previously set it to?


Yes.



> Also, is Audessy bypassed in Stereo mode for 2 channel music?


The Audyssey setting "L/R Bypass" is used if that's the selection which is active for the input signal you're currently listening to.

Just like so many other options, the Audyssey configuration is unique to each of the different input signals. You should verify which Audyssey configuration is active by pressing on the remote's Info button. I was surprised to discover that, for example, Audyssey was completely disabled when I was listening to Internet Radio, so I had to turn it on.



> If not, I assume it can be bypassed as above?


A different Audyssey setting is associated with each input audio selection, not with the output mode, so you might have to change it.


----------



## ken6217

Selden Ball said:


> To expand on what mthomas47 wrote...
> 
> A different Audyssey setting is associated with each input audio selection, not with the output mode, so you might have to change it.


Thanks for the comments. So if I did the calibration on input 1 (cable/Sat), I need to run it for the input for DVD as well?


----------



## ken6217

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Ken,
> 
> Audyssey filters are completely separate from distance, level, and crossover settings, and one setting doesn't affect another. As I understand it, Bypass L/R is intended to present a method for listening in 2-channel stereo (or other multi-channel modes), without Audyssey filters applied to the front speakers, while still preserving sub filters (and filters for the other channels, depending on mode). Pure Direct is a stereo mode which also eliminates Audyssey filters, but I believe that eliminates filters to the .1 channel, as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your comments.


----------



## Selden Ball

ken6217 said:


> Thanks for the comments. So if I did the calibration on input 1 (cable/Sat), I need to run it for the input for DVD as well?


You only need to run the calibration process once (unless you change the speakers or the room's acoustics).

It's the Audyssey settings (e.g. On/Off, L/R Bypass, Reference, Flat) which are unique to each input.


----------



## pbarach

ken6217 said:


> Thanks for the comments. So if I did the calibration on input 1 (cable/Sat), I need to run it for the input for DVD as well?


No, the calibration applies to the AVR. But for each input, you have a choice of Audyssey Reference, Flat, Bypass L/R, or Off. And when you have selected a "flavor" of Audyssey for an input, then you also have per-input choices of Dynamic EQ and/or Dynamic Volume (with separate level settings for each of these features, including Off).


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

It's also possible that, after a while your AVR, "remembers" some of your constant settings. For instance, I always use Flat, irrespective of source. When, I first run a new Audyssey calibration, Audyssey will default to the Audyssey curve, with DEQ, the first time I change sources. I reset to Flat, and afterwards, it stays there, no matter the source. 

My crossover, distance, and level settings do not change, as I change sources. What changes, and what doesn't, may be somewhat idiosyncratic to particular models. For reference, I have a Marantz 7008.


----------



## ken6217

Thank you all, for your help.
Ken


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> What changes, and what doesn't, may be somewhat idiosyncratic to particular models.


You're right. I have a Denon x4000 (with Multi EQ XT 32). After a calibration, all sources show Audyssey Reference, Dyn EQ and Dyn Vol ON. If I set one input the way I like it (Audyssey Flat and DEQ/DynVol off), the other inputs remain as they were set by the calibration and need to be changed individually.


----------



## David Aiken

ken6217 said:


> Thanks for the comments. So if I did the calibration on input 1 (cable/Sat), I need to run it for the input for DVD as well?


No.

When you run the calibration, you aren't running it on input 1, you're running it on your speakers. Only 1 calibration is required and it covers all inputs. You only think you ran the calibration on input 1. When you run the calibration you're actually not using any of the AVR's inputs, you're using the Audyssey setup process. None of the inputs are active while you're running the setup, You aren't using an input until you exit from the Audyssey setup and go back to normal operations on the AVR or pre/pro.

The Audyssey settings are the various choices you make for how the Audyssey filters are used. You have a choice of mode (Reference, Flat, or Off), Dynamic Volume on or off, Dynamic EQ on or off, and Low Frequency Containment on and what level or off. Those choices are applied to all inputs initially. If you want a different set of choices for a given input and you change one or more of those settings while using that input, those changes are remembered for that input and only affect that input so you can have different settings for each input but you only need the one calibration.

Edit: How many of us answered this question? 

So many ways to say the same thing and every one of us approached it slightly differently and mentioned different Audyssey settings.


----------



## ken6217

David Aiken said:


> No.
> 
> When you run the calibration, you aren't running it on input 1, you're running it on your speakers. Only 1 calibration is required and it covers all inputs. You only think you ran the calibration on input 1. When you run the calibration you're actually not using any of the AVR's inputs, you're using the Audyssey setup process. None of the inputs are active while you're running the setup, You aren't using an input until you exit from the Audyssey setup and go back to normal operations on the AVR or pre/pro.
> 
> The Audyssey settings are the various choices you make for how the Audyssey filters are used. You have a choice of mode (Reference, Flat, or Off), Dynamic Volume on or off, Dynamic EQ on or off, and Low Frequency Containment on and what level or off. Those choices are applied to all inputs initially. If you want a different set of choices for a given input and you change one or more of those settings while using that input, those changes are remembered for that input and only affect that input so you can have different settings for each input but you only need the one calibration.
> 
> Edit: How many of us answered this question?
> 
> So many ways to say the same thing and every one of us approached it slightly differently and mentioned different Audyssey settings.


Thanks, David. I'm definitely clear. Much appreciated.


----------



## purplerain

I just ran audyssey a few times and it set my sub at +10db. I have the sub in the front next to my right main speaker. My setup is below. Is that sub level OK?

My volume on the Velodyne is 30 (default) and I ran the sub EQ first before audyssey


----------



## IP2GSR

I see that some of the marketing material describes the Audyssey version as Bronze or Silver. Does anyone have a link to more information about what is enabled or changed between the versions. 

I am more familar with MultiEQ MultiEQ XT, MultiEQ XT32 etc....

Thanks


----------



## Skylinestar

IP2GSR said:


> I see that some of the marketing material describes the Audyssey version as Bronze or Silver. Does anyone have a link to more information about what is enabled or changed between the versions.
> 
> I am more familar with MultiEQ MultiEQ XT, MultiEQ XT32 etc....
> 
> Thanks


----------



## bmcn

purplerain said:


> I just ran audyssey a few times and it set my sub at +10db. I have the sub in the front next to my right main speaker. My setup is below. Is that sub level OK?
> 
> My volume on the Velodyne is 30 (default) and I ran the sub EQ first before audyssey


Increase the volume control on the sub until it reads -4 to -6 after completing Audyssey's 1st measurement. You only need this 1st measurement to obtain the level which Audyssey sets your sub and will slightly exceed Audyssey's 75 dB target. Once it's set to -4 to -6, do a complete run.


----------



## purplerain

bmcn said:


> Increase the volume control on the sub until it reads -4 to -6 after completing Audyssey's 1st measurement. You only need this 1st measurement to obtain the level which Audyssey sets your sub and will slightly exceed Audyssey's 75 dB target. Once it's set to -4 to -6, do a complete run.


With adjusting the volume several times (directly on the sub) along with running Audyssey, I ended up with 65 volume on the Velodyne sub. This in turn, put my Audyssey level on my AVR at -4db

My low-pass crossover was/is set at 80 on the Velodyne
Audyssey set my Front speakers to 70, Center at 50, and Surround at 80. I changed the front & center to 80 on the AVR 

All good? Thank you very much for your help


----------



## bmcn

purplerain said:


> All good?


Only you can determine that...


----------



## Johan81

purplerain said:


> With adjusting the volume several times (directly on the sub) along with running Audyssey, I ended up with 65 volume on the Velodyne sub. This in turn, put my Audyssey level on my AVR at -4db
> 
> My low-pass crossover was/is set at 80 on the Velodyne
> Audyssey set my Front speakers to 70, Center at 50, and Surround at 80. I changed the front & center to 80 on the AVR
> 
> All good? Thank you very much for your help


Just disable any filter on the subwoofer, your receiver will take care of delivering the right frequencies, now you are missing out on material from the LFE above 80Hz, all the LFE is designed to go to the sub and your receiver passes on all the rest of the frequencies below the crossover of your speakers as set in your receiver.

On that part, I would advice you to set all your speakers at 80Hz in the receiver, for your center as well.


----------



## purplerain

Johan81 said:


> Just disable any filter on the subwoofer, your receiver will take care of delivering the right frequencies, now you are missing out on material from the LFE above 80Hz, all the LFE is designed to go to the sub and your receiver passes on all the rest of the frequencies below the crossover of your speakers as set in your receiver.
> 
> On that part, I would advice you to set all your speakers at 80Hz in the receiver, for your center as well.


What do you mean by disable the sub filter and how do I do that? Thanks


----------



## Johan81

purplerain said:


> What do you mean by disable the sub filter and how do I do that? Thanks


I do not know your sub, but you should disable all filters, low and high pass filters. Just check the manual.

And as bmcn said, set it as you like, preference comes before reference. What I just wrote about is the way reference would be like, if you don't like the result, change it back, though after disabling the filters you will want to run Audyssey again.


----------



## purplerain

Johan81 said:


> I do not know your sub, but you should disable all filters, low and high pass filters. Just check the manual.
> 
> And as bmcn said, set it as you like, preference comes before reference. What I just wrote about is the way reference would be like, if you don't like the result, change it back, though after disabling the filters you will want to run Audyssey again.


My low-pass crossover setting on the back of my sub ranges from DIRECT to 40Hz


----------



## Johan81

purplerain said:


> My low-pass crossover setting on the back of my sub ranges from DIRECT to 40Hz


Then you would want to use the direct setting.

Good luck and please report back about your findings on the results! I always like hearing back about those things.


----------



## purplerain

Johan81 said:


> Then you would want to use the direct setting.
> 
> Good luck and please report back about your findings on the results! I always like hearing back about those things.


Will do this afternoon 

Thanks for all your input


----------



## Johan81

purplerain said:


> Will do this afternoon
> 
> Thanks for all your input


No problem, I hope this will help you out, one more thing though, I assumed you only use the LFE input on your sub and not all the other ones (just checked the manual), is that the case though?


----------



## purplerain

Johan81 said:


> No problem, I hope this will help you out, one more thing though, I assumed you only use the LFE input on your sub and not all the outer ones (just checked the manual), is that the case though?


Just LFE


----------



## purplerain

Since I'm using the LFE on the sub out to my AVR, that input bypasses the filters in the subwoofer correct? In turn, the low-pass crossover in effect is omitted no matter what it is set at right?


----------



## Johan81

purplerain said:


> Since I'm using the LFE on the sub out to my AVR, that input bypasses the filters in the subwoofer correct? In turn, the low-pass crossover in effect is omitted no matter what it is set at right?


Normally I would say yes, but the manual isn't definitive on it, so better safe than sorry. It at least doesn't hurt setting it to direct when you have only have the LFE input used.


----------



## purplerain

Johan81 said:


> Normally I would say yes, but the manual isn't definitive on it, so better safe than sorry. It at least doesn't hurt setting it to direct when you have only have the LFE input used.


Just did the rerun with "DIRECT" setting on sub...It did change a few things with that setting, all should be good from here on out.

Low-pass crossover on sub is set to DIRECT
Volume on sub is set to 65 (1-80 max)
Rerun of Audyssey
AVR set sub at -2db
AVR set front/center/surround speakers to 80


----------



## Alan P

purplerain said:


> Just did the rerun with "DIRECT" setting on sub...It did change a few things with that setting, all should be good from here on out.
> 
> Low-pass crossover on sub is set to DIRECT
> Volume on sub is set to 65 (1-80 max)
> Rerun of Audyssey
> AVR set sub at -2db
> AVR set front/center/surround speakers to 80



All good, except for one small point; you will probably want an initial sub trim lower than -2dB.

Audyssey notoriously sets the sub trim lower than most folks prefer and a post-Audyssey adjustment of +3dB to +6dB (or more!) to the sub trim is not uncommon. Add this to the fact that you want to stay under 0dB on the sub trim to avoid clipping the sub amp at higher MV levels (typically >-10MV), an initial sub trim well into the negative range is more desirable. Shoot for -10dB or so.


----------



## purplerain

Alan P said:


> All good, except for one small point; you will probably want an initial sub trim lower than -2dB.
> 
> Audyssey notoriously sets the sub trim lower than most folks prefer and a post-Audyssey adjustment of +3dB to +6dB (or more!) to the sub trim is not uncommon. Add this to the fact that you want to stay under 0dB on the sub trim to avoid clipping the sub amp at higher MV levels (typically >-10MV), an initial sub trim well into the negative range is more desirable. Shoot for -10dB or so.


So can I just bump the AVR sub setting to -5db (going the right direction?) or do I have to rerun Audyssey. Problem is, in order for me to get it -10db or close to that I would have to raise the volume directly on the sub to 60-75 with 80 being the max

When you do a post adjustment of +3db to +6db and say my set level was -2db....does that mean I raise it to -5 to -8db or the other way to +0db to +6db?


----------



## Alan P

purplerain said:


> So can I just bump the AVR sub setting to -5db (going the right direction?) or do I have to rerun Audyssey. Problem is, in order for me to get it -10db or close to that I would have to raise the volume directly on the sub to 60-75 with 80 being the max


If you were to _reduce _the AVR sub setting from -3dB to -5dB, you will be getting _less _bass...from experience, I can tell you that you definitely do NOT want to reduce the sub trim from where Audyssey set it...that would be quite rare indeed. 

The point is that you will most likely want to bump up the sub trim at least 3dB. At your current -2dB setting, that will put you over 0dB and you will risk clipping the sub's amp at higher MV levels.

If you don't want to re-run Audyssey, you can turn the sub trim down in the AVR by (say) 6dB and then increase the gain on the sub by the same amount. You would need an SPL meter to adjust gain on the sub, or you can use the Sub Level screen in Audyssey calibration as an SPL meter in a pinch.


----------



## Alan P

purplerain said:


> When you do a post adjustment of +3db to +6db and say my set level was -2db....does that mean I raise it to -5 to -8db or the other way to +0db to +6db?


You must have edited this while I was replying. 

To increase the sub trim you ADD to the number; -2dB+3dB=1dB, -2dB+6dB=4dB, etc.


----------



## purplerain

Alan P said:


> If you were to _reduce _the AVR sub setting from -3dB to -5dB, you will be getting _less _bass...from experience, I can tell you that you definitely do NOT want to reduce the sub trim from where Audyssey set it...that would be quite rare indeed.
> 
> The point is that you will most likely want to bump up the sub trim at least 3dB. At your current -2dB setting, that will put you over 0dB and you will risk clipping the sub's amp at higher MV levels.
> 
> If you don't want to re-run Audyssey, you can turn the sub trim down in the AVR by (say) 6dB and then increase the gain on the sub by the same amount. You would need an SPL meter to adjust gain on the sub, or you can use the Sub Level screen in Audyssey calibration as an SPL meter in a pinch.


Would I hurt my sub if I were to directly raise the volume on the sub to 70-75 with the max volume being at 80 (1 - 80max)?


----------



## Alan P

purplerain said:


> Would I hurt my sub if I were to directly raise the volume on the sub to 70-75 with the max volume being at 80 (1 - 80max)?


Nope.

If it would make you feel better though, you could get a y-splitter and connect to both inputs on the sub. This would increase the input gain by +6dB and allow you to keep the sub gain lower. 

Just FYI, the gain knob on a sub would more correctly be described as an "input sensitivity adjustment", it is _not _a "volume" control.


----------



## purplerain

Alan P said:


> Nope.
> 
> If it would make you feel better though, you could get a y-splitter and connect to both inputs on the sub. This would increase the input gain by +6dB and allow you to keep the sub gain lower.
> 
> Just FYI, the gain knob on a sub would more correctly be described as an "input sensitivity adjustment", it is _not _a "volume" control.


:grin:


----------



## Johan81

purplerain said:


> Just did the rerun with "DIRECT" setting on sub...It did change a few things with that setting, all should be good from here on out.
> 
> Low-pass crossover on sub is set to DIRECT
> Volume on sub is set to 65 (1-80 max)
> Rerun of Audyssey
> AVR set sub at -2db
> AVR set front/center/surround speakers to 80


Great that it all worked out. Though the thing about your results is that the readings of your speakers shouldn't have changed because of this. Every speaker/subwoofer is measured independently. So the reason they measured different isn't due to the low pass filter. Why did they change? Can be tons of reasons, but I wouldn't know which it is


----------



## Alan P

Johan81 said:


> Great that it all worked out. Though the thing about your results is that the readings of your speakers shouldn't have changed because of this. Every speaker/subwoofer is measured independently. So the reason they measured different isn't due to the low pass filter. Why did they change? Can be tons of reasons, but I wouldn't know which it is


Could be slight differences in mic placement and/or the fact that these Audyssey mics aren't _that _accurate (+/-3dB).


----------



## mthomas47

purplerain said:


> :grin:


Alan has already given you the advice that you need. But, if you want to understand a little more about the sub gain/trim settings, it would be helpful to read Post 1296 on Page 44 of this thread.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bmcn

mthomas47 said:


> Alan has already given you the advice that you need.


...and others.


----------



## mthomas47

bmcn said:


> ...and others.


And others!  Sorry--didn't mean to leave anyone out. I just wanted to emphasize that Alan's advice, to try to set a very low trim level, had nailed it.


----------



## bmcn

mthomas47 said:


> And others!  Sorry--didn't mean to leave anyone out. I just wanted to emphasize that Alan's advice, to try to set a very low trim level, had nailed it.


Not to usurp your and Alan's prowess and usual great advice, lowering sub trim was suggested many posts ago. Look forward to reading more of your and Alan's excellent posts.


----------



## MasterAudio

I had just picked up the Denon AVR-X3300W the other day. To summarize quickly, I'm in a very small oddly shaped room, but have always seem to get what I like out of my receivers as far as sound goes. I also understand that the saying "whatever sounds best to you" is usually the way to go, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to give Audyssey a shot. 

Anyways, I had run Audyssey and then afterwards played my Atmos demo disc and I couldn't believe as to how it sounded. It was muddled, dry and flat (sounding far worse than my previous receiver) The higher frequencies were rolled off way too much for my taste and the lower frequencies were more like midrange frequencies. I had decided to try all three difference Audyssey modes and didn't enjoy any of them, so that's when I turned it off entirely and decided to mess around with the graphic EQ and I'm definitely enjoying it a lot more.

My questions are...Am I making a huge mistake not using Audyssey? Does Audyssey's measurements, speaker distance and speaker level still come into play, (leaving out the Audyssey curve of course) when the graphic EQ is being used?

Thank you!


----------



## mthomas47

MasterAudio said:


> I had just picked up the Denon AVR-X3300W the other day. To summarize quickly, I'm in a very small oddly shaped room, but have always seem to get what I like out of my receivers as far as sound goes. I also understand that the saying "whatever sounds best to you" is usually the way to go, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to give Audyssey a shot.
> 
> Anyways, I had run Audyssey and then afterwards played my Atmos demo disc and I couldn't believe as to how it sounded. It was muddled, dry and flat (sounding far worse than my previous receiver) The higher frequencies were rolled off way too much for my taste and the lower frequencies were more like midrange frequencies. I had decided to try all three difference Audyssey modes and didn't enjoy any of them, so that's when I turned it off entirely and decided to mess around with the graphic EQ and I'm definitely enjoying it a lot more.
> 
> My questions are...Am I making a huge mistake not using Audyssey? Does Audyssey's measurements, speaker distance and speaker level still come into play, (leaving out the Audyssey curve of course) when the graphic EQ is being used?
> 
> Thank you!


Hi,

The settings that Audyssey performs during the calibration process, relative to distances, levels, and crossovers (in conjunction with your AVR) are distinct from the filters Audyssey applies to the various channels. So, they remain in place whether you use Audyssey or not.

I have never felt that the thread should exist just to promote the use of Audyssey, so I will not say that you are making a mistake in not using the automated room EQ. There are instances in which Audyssey just doesn't seem to satisfy a particular user. And, that may be the case here.

But, I will say that, in the great majority of cases, people achieve better sound quality when they invest some time in learning how to use Audyssey. Better set-up procedures, improved calibrations, and the helpful use of settings post-calibration, can take some effort. And, only you can decide whether that effort would be worthwhile. 

Some people may genuinely benefit from a cursory calibration effort, but for most of us the sophisticated application of Audyssey is a bit of a process. The length of the Part I thread is an indication of that. Again, for most of us who invest the time, the improvement in SQ is worth the investment. But, that is very much a personal choice, with no absolute guarantee as to the results. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## muad'dib

MasterAudio said:


> I had just picked up the Denon AVR-X3300W the other day. To summarize quickly, I'm in a very small oddly shaped room, but have always seem to get what I like out of my receivers as far as sound goes. I also understand that the saying "whatever sounds best to you" is usually the way to go, but that didn't mean I wasn't going to give Audyssey a shot.
> 
> Anyways, I had run Audyssey and then afterwards played my Atmos demo disc and I couldn't believe as to how it sounded. It was muddled, dry and flat (sounding far worse than my previous receiver) The higher frequencies were rolled off way too much for my taste and the lower frequencies were more like midrange frequencies. I had decided to try all three difference Audyssey modes and didn't enjoy any of them, so that's when I turned it off entirely and decided to mess around with the graphic EQ and I'm definitely enjoying it a lot more.
> 
> My questions are...Am I making a huge mistake not using Audyssey? Does Audyssey's measurements, speaker distance and speaker level still come into play, (leaving out the Audyssey curve of course) when the graphic EQ is being used?
> 
> Thank you!


I also had similar results... No matter what I did.. 

Then.. 

I tried this for mic readings.. 

I put it at the center seat, ear height.. 
Ran the audyssey for only 3 readings .. Then after 3rd reading, told it I was done... 

The 3 positions all remained at the center seating position.. I did not touch the mic... 

When room eq was done, I turned off dynamic volume, and any bass enhancing etc.. 
Put all speakers to small and kept the distance and levels as was set by audyssey.. 
I put audyssey to FLAT settings, and bingo, sounded awesome, lively, and clean.. 

Now when comparing audyssey eq from flat to off, the flat was sweeter sounding at the same time smoother... 
No muffled soinds or dead sound stage.. 

Prior to this, i tried all mic layouts. With 8 readings.. 

They 99% of time sounded like you described... I was at the point of turning off audyssey.. 

No longer... ☺


----------



## MasterAudio

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The settings that Audyssey performs during the calibration process, relative to distances, levels, and crossovers (in conjunction with your AVR) are distinct from the filters Audyssey applies to the various channels. So, they remain in place whether you use Audyssey or not.
> 
> I have never felt that the thread should exist just to promote the use of Audyssey, so I will not say that you are making a mistake in not using the automated room EQ. There are instances in which Audyssey just doesn't seem to satisfy a particular user. And, that may be the case here.
> 
> But, I will say that, in the great majority of cases, people achieve better sound quality when they invest some time in learning how to use Audyssey. Better set-up procedures, improved calibrations, and the helpful use of settings post-calibration, can take some effort. And, only you can decide whether that effort would be worthwhile.
> 
> Some people may genuinely benefit from a cursory calibration effort, but for most of us the sophisticated application of Audyssey is a bit of a process. The length of the Part I thread is an indication of that. Again, for most of us who invest the time, the improvement in SQ is worth the investment. But, that is very much a personal choice, with no absolute guarantee as to the results.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you so much for the in depth response! This definitely answers my questions and puts me a little more at ease.


----------



## MasterAudio

muad'dib said:


> I also had similar results... No matter what I did..
> 
> Then..
> 
> I tried this for mic readings..
> 
> I put it at the center seat, ear height..
> Ran the audyssey for only 3 readings .. Then after 3rd reading, told it I was done...
> 
> The 3 positions all remained at the center seating position.. I did not touch the mic...
> 
> When room eq was done, I turned off dynamic volume, and any bass enhancing etc..
> Put all speakers to small and kept the distance and levels as was set by audyssey..
> I put audyssey to FLAT settings, and bingo, sounded awesome, lively, and clean..
> 
> Now when comparing audyssey eq from flat to off, the flat was sweeter sounding at the same time smoother...
> No muffled soinds or dead sound stage..
> 
> Prior to this, i tried all mic layouts. With 8 readings..
> 
> They 99% of time sounded like you described... I was at the point of turning off audyssey..
> 
> No longer... ☺


I'm going to have to give this a shot. Thank you, sir!


----------



## mthomas47

MasterAudio said:


> Thank you so much for the in depth response! This definitely answers my questions and puts me a little more at ease.


You are very welcome! The way I look at this is that there is no hurry. Just enjoy things the way you have them for a while, if you want to, and then read a bit, and experiment a bit, as the mood strikes you. 

One of the things I discovered, in learning to use Audyssey properly, was that it taught me some things about both my room, and my system set-up, because Audyssey can actually accentuate an already existing problem. So, in that sense, Audyssey helped me to achieve a better native sound quality, in the process of trying to achieve better calibrations. And, the result was better native sound quality, and better calibrations, which further enhanced that native sound.

I hope that doesn't sound too abstract, or blue sky, but it was literally true in my particular case.


----------



## mreloc1

I've run Audyssey setup a couple of times on my AVR-X7200WA coupled with five KEF LS50s and two SVS SB12's. After set up went in to confirm the crossover settings- and was surprised to see the front soundfield set at 40hz, the Center and Rear surrounds at 60hz. I played around with the settings a bit, setting them all to 80hz, 60hz, but I think it may have sounded better at the lower crossover points. The speakers are correctly showing up as "Small" in the settings.

What gives? The LS50s being so small I figured the crossover points should be set higher so that I can better use the power from the AVR to drive them the best way. Any advice?


----------



## mthomas47

mreloc1 said:


> I've run Audyssey setup a couple of times on my AVR-X7200WA coupled with five KEF LS50s and two SVS SB12's. After set up went in to confirm the crossover settings- and was surprised to see the front soundfield set at 40hz, the Center and Rear surrounds at 60hz. I played around with the settings a bit, setting them all to 80hz, 60hz, but I think it may have sounded better at the lower crossover points. The speakers are correctly showing up as "Small" in the settings.
> 
> What gives? The LS50s being so small I figured the crossover points should be set higher so that I can better use the power from the AVR to drive them the best way. Any advice?



Hi,

Crossovers are set by your AVR, based on the measured F3 point of a speaker, or speaker pair, in that position in the room. But, the crossover your AVR sets is not a recommendation--it's just an observation. It's up to the user as to how that information is used. And, that shows how much the room can influence the bass response, if a speaker rated at 78Hz quasi-anechoic is not down by 3db in volume (the F3 point) until it gets to about 40Hz, or 60Hz, with a particular room placement.

But, the best advice would still be to use an 80Hz crossover, or even a little higher one, in this case, so that your subs can handle as much of the bass as possible. If you feel that the sound may be better with lower crossovers, it is probably because you haven't raised your sub levels since running Audyssey. And, you probably need to do so. Post 1296, on Page 44, offers a comprehensive explanation of why you may need to add some bass boost, and the correct way to do it. Please read that, and let us know how things sound after you make some adjustments.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Some people may genuinely benefit from a cursory calibration effort, but for most of us the sophisticated application of Audyssey is a bit of a process. The length of the Part I thread is an indication of that. Again, for most of us who invest the time, the improvement in SQ is worth the investment. But, that is very much a personal choice, with no absolute guarantee as to the results.


Agreed. MasterAudio, let me share my Audyssey Odyssey. In my case, several years ago: 


 I lived with manual EQ for several weeks, then tried Audyssey calibration, using the pitiful instructions in my Marantz manual. Some aspects of SQ were better, and one was distinctly worse*;* there wasn't enough bass. I discovered the "Official" Audyssey Fourm (part I) then, and found out that insufficient bass was an almost universal complaint. So, I used the true tone controls (not the virtual sliders, which cannot be used with Audyssey) by going to Audio/Visual adjust > Audio adjust, kept Surround Parameters OFF, on the Tone option turned up the bass control by 6 dB, left the treble control at 0 (flat), and switched back and forth between Audyssey (called Audyssey Reference on some units) and Audyssey FLAT. I found that Audyssey FLAT sounded much more "alive."
The bass control mentioned above gave me a nice *mid bass boost* (~~ 80 Hz to ~~ 220 Hz) because it affected only the FL and FR channels, mostly above about 80 Hz, where the crossover to the subwoofer (for bass management) was. So, I turned up the Subwoofer (at the trim on my Marantz) by about 6 dB, as well, which gave me a *deep bass boost* (the separate LFE channel the filmmakers use for special effects was set for 120 Hz, as they recommend, while the bass management crossover was kept at 80 Hz, the usual recommendation. These two channels are mixed and both come out of the subwoofer output on most AVRs and pre/pros -- the sub gets them both.
The difference between just turning up the bass control and the sub, without first running Audyssey, and doing so after running Audyssey, is that in the former case, I would have been turning up a rather bumpy and jagged bass portion of the frequency response curve, whereas by running Audyssey first I was turning up a rather smooth part of the curve.
Overall, these post Audyssey manipulations, plus Audyssey itself, gave me much clearer, "open" sounding response. I re-ran Audyssey a few times, building in advice I was given on this Forum, as well as the excellent information at "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" and there was further improvement.
I found I didn't like DEQ, which seemed to make the sound less clear and less transparent sounding, at least on my system, in my room. I usually run at about 5 to7 dB below Reference Level, so DEQ is not very necessary at that SPL. I remained happy using the bass control. The two are mutually exclusive.
I briefly tried Marantz's base (not bass) copy, thinking I could have my cake and eat it too, by fine tuning the Audyssey curve to my preference using the virtual graphic sliders.. It sounded pretty bad. It turns out that base copy doesn't copy the Audyssey results very well, but makes a very crude copy using broad ranges of the Audyssey EQ, instead of copying the *hundreds of points* of EQ that Audyssey provides. I contacted Chris K. of Audyssey, who offered the opinion that base copy is "useless."
I found out that one size does *not* fit all. Most Blu-rays of modern movies and SACDs do fine with the settings shown above, but some BDs of movies of the magnetic era (1953 -- ~~ early 1980s) need even more bass, and, sometimes, a slight treble cut. Ordinary DVDs and CDs are pretty variable, as well.
All in all, after much experimentation, Audyssey gives me the best sound I've ever had.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Agreed. In my case, several years ago:
> 
> 
> I found out that one size does *not* fit all. Most Blu-rays of modern movies and SACDs do fine with the settings shown above, but some BDs of movies of the magnetic era (1953 -- ~~ early 1980s) need even more bass, and, sometimes, a slight treble cut. Ordinary DVDs and CDs are pretty variable, as well.
> All in all, after much experimentation, Audyssey gives me the best sound I've ever had.


Hi Gary,

It's nice to see you posting, and that was a good one.  As you know, I also use a combination of sub boost and mid-bass boost, via my tone controls, to achieve the balanced sound that I want. We use slightly different crossovers, and there are some other differences, but our listening preferences are far more alike than not. I also have always preferred Flat.

Happy New Year!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## DS-21

Was there any word on the app for current-gem D+M AVRs and pre-pros at CES?

I see Audyssey is exhibiting at the show.


----------



## Skylinestar

Visited the Audyssey website. To my surprise, info on MultEQ is getting lesser and lesser throughout the years. I'm extremely disappointed. Perhaps the market is going full force on portable/mobile audio.


----------



## mreloc1

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Crossovers are set by your AVR, based on the measured F3 point of a speaker, or speaker pair, in that position in the room. But, the crossover your AVR sets is not a recommendation--it's just an observation. It's up to the user as to how that information is used. And, that shows how much the room can influence the bass response, if a speaker rated at 78Hz quasi-anechoic is not down by 3db in volume (the F3 point) until it gets to about 40Hz, or 60Hz, with a particular room placement.
> 
> But, the best advice would still be to use an 80Hz crossover, or even a little higher one, in this case, so that your subs can handle as much of the bass as possible. If you feel that the sound may be better with lower crossovers, it is probably because you haven't raised your sub levels since running Audyssey. And, you probably need to do so. Post 1296, on Page 44, offers a comprehensive explanation of why you may need to add some bass boost, and the correct way to do it. Please read that, and let us know how things sound after you make some adjustments.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the advice, Mike. So, I went in to the AVR, set the front/center/surrounds to 80hz, and found the subs were set to -9 in the Levels menu, so I bumped them up to -3. The gain knob on the subs is about set in the middle, as prescribed by Audyssey during the set up to achieve the 75db volumes. I think it sounds better than before. Am I missing anything else? Should I bump the gain knob on the subs and back off on the level setting in the AVR?

So all of this has left me a little confused about what Audyssey is really for since it's touted as "the easy set up" method of getting up and running. Is the value in the EQ adjustments it makes? Like I said, it sounded pretty good after the initial Audyssey set-up, but I am happy that I might be using my AVR power more smartly by setting the speakers to 80hz and letting the subs carry the bass work.


----------



## mthomas47

mreloc1 said:


> Thanks for the advice, Mike. So, I went in to the AVR, set the front/center/surrounds to 80hz, and found the subs were set to -9 in the Levels menu, so I bumped them up to -3. The gain knob on the subs is about set in the middle, as prescribed by Audyssey during the set up to achieve the 75db volumes. I think it sounds better than before. Am I missing anything else? Should I bump the gain knob on the subs and back off on the level setting in the AVR?
> 
> So all of this has left me a little confused about what Audyssey is really for since it's touted as "the easy set up" method of getting up and running. Is the value in the EQ adjustments it makes? Like I said, it sounded pretty good after the initial Audyssey set-up, but I am happy that I might be using my AVR power more smartly by setting the speakers to 80hz and letting the subs carry the bass work.


You are very welcome! Nearly any modern AVR will help you with set-up, in terms of timing (distance), trim level, and crossover settings. And all, or nearly all, would work the same way with respect to resetting crossovers and adding sub boost. So, that part is about as easy as it gets for an HT system.

Audyssey's primary value is, in fact, in the room EQ it provides, separately from the basic set-up procedure. But, Audyssey is actually a very sophisticated piece of software, and like any software, may require some effort to use to full advantage.

For the time being, I would suggest that you read a few pages of the thread, starting back a week or two, just to gain some basic understanding of some Audyssey issues. The FAQ, linked below, will also be a good resource. Otherwise, just enjoy your audio, and experiment a little bit with some of the settings, as the spirit moves you, to find out what features you like, and what features you don't.

I think your sub gain/trim settings are fine for now. But, if you want to add any more boost, I would definitely use the sub gains to do it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mreloc1;49678265
…
So all of this has left me a little confused about what Audyssey is really for since it's touted as "the easy set up" method of getting up and running. Is the value in the EQ adjustments it makes? Like I said said:


> Not a bad question at all given that spin is inescapable with advertising.
> 
> If you want to be able to run the setup process and engage Audyssey and get "perfect sound" you have accepted the spin and may be doomed to disappointment. The Audyssey Reference setting delivers an EQ curve that was designed based on studies of the listening preferences of a sample of listeners. The fact that someone actually did a study on listener's preferences should tell you straight away that not everyone likes a Flat response, and also that not everyone prefers exactly the same result as everyone else. Audyssey Reference isn't bad, and it is better than Flat for a lot of people, but it's going to be "ideal" for fewer people than then number of people who think it's better than Flat. Preferences aren't either/or things, they operate over wide ranges with some people preferring things a bit one way or the other, some preferring them a bit more one way or the other, and so on up to where you find some people preferring a hell of a lot one way or the other.
> 
> Audyssey has a lot of options. Besides Flat, Reference, and Off you've got Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume, and Low Frequency Containment. With Dynamic EQ turned Off you can access the bass and treble tone controls on my Marantz. If you want a HF roll off and don't like Reference you can use Flat and engage Cinema EQ instead on Marantz and Denon AVRs and maybe some other makes.. You can adjust speaker trims to raise or lower the level of individual channels including the sub. A lot of those variations can be done in combination with one or more other variations. You actually have a fair bit of flexibility which may not be immediately obvious.
> 
> The Setup process gives you a starting point but just accepting the results and Audyssey's Reference curve isn't going to guarantee that you're going to be happy because you may not be. Reference is the fuzzy average of the preferences of a lot of people but there's no guarantee that it's going to represent your preference. It may be close to your preference—it seems to be close to mine—or it could be a fair bit off your preference. A bit of work with the options in Audyssey's and your AVR's settings is almost certainly not going to go astray.
> 
> Having said that, it also has to be recognised that some things in the setup process like mic positions and how closely they are spaced, number of measurements, and room modifications like opening or closing doors and windows can influence the result as well and it can sometimes take a bit of experimentation to find a specific setup process that works for you. The FAQ has some hints and suggestions on that.
> 
> Basically Audyssey is a tool you can use to help you get sound you enjoy. It's not the only tool because things like tone controls are also tools, but it will get you up and running with speaker distances and trim settings done pretty well. Depending on your own preferences, that plus selecting either Flat or Reference could be anywhere between delivering just what you want or falling somewhat short of that. If it's not what you want, then try playing with the options. If that doesn't work, then perhaps try experimenting with a slightly different setup process and seeing whether that gets you closer but between Reference and Flat, playing with the options your AVR offer you to modify those responses, and trying different setup procedures in extreme circumstances, you should be able to get an end result that you like.


----------



## Speedie95

Not sure if this is an Audyssey question or a Denon question, but I'll try here first.

I have front and rear upfiring Klipsch RP-140SA Atmos speakers. In the Audyssey setup of my Denon X4300 it asks for the distance between the Atmos speakers and the ceiling, which I measured and entered. Post-setup, the distances for both the front and rears are correct almost to the inch (8' and 5' for round numbers). However I have read that with upfiring modules the distance should actually be the distance from speaker to ceiling + distance from there to the MLP. In my case that would be closer to 12' and 9'.

What I don't know is if, given that the speaker to ceiling height is entered as part of setup, Audyssey is basically doing an isosceles triangle calculation to arrive at the horizontal distance from Atmos speakers to MLP, or if the mic is picking up direct rather than reflected sound.

Does anyone know what Audyssey does with that speaker to ceiling measurement please?


----------



## mthomas47

Speedie95 said:


> Not sure if this is an Audyssey question or a Denon question, but I'll try here first.
> 
> I have front and rear upfiring Klipsch RP-140SA Atmos speakers. In the Audyssey setup of my Denon X4300 it asks for the distance between the Atmos speakers and the ceiling, which I measured and entered. Post-setup, the distances for both the front and rears are correct almost to the inch (8' and 5' for round numbers). However I have read that with upfiring modules the distance should actually be the distance from speaker to ceiling + distance from there to the MLP. In my case that would be closer to 12' and 9'.
> 
> What I don't know is if, given that the speaker to ceiling height is entered as part of setup, Audyssey is basically doing an isosceles triangle calculation to arrive at the horizontal distance from Atmos speakers to MLP, or if the mic is picking up direct rather than reflected sound.
> 
> Does anyone know what Audyssey does with that speaker to ceiling measurement please?


I have no idea what the answer to this one is. If I were you, I would post the question on the Atmos home theater version thread. I'm sure that several people there will be able to help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Speedie95

Speedie95 said:


> Not sure if this is an Audyssey question or a Denon question, but I'll try here first.
> 
> I have front and rear upfiring Klipsch RP-140SA Atmos speakers. In the Audyssey setup of my Denon X4300 it asks for the distance between the Atmos speakers and the ceiling, which I measured and entered. Post-setup, the distances for both the front and rears are correct almost to the inch (8' and 5' for round numbers). However I have read that with upfiring modules the distance should actually be the distance from speaker to ceiling + distance from there to the MLP. In my case that would be closer to 12' and 9'.
> 
> What I don't know is if, given that the speaker to ceiling height is entered as part of setup, Audyssey is basically doing an isosceles triangle calculation to arrive at the horizontal distance from Atmos speakers to MLP, or if the mic is picking up direct rather than reflected sound.
> 
> Does anyone know what Audyssey does with that speaker to ceiling measurement please?



I asked Audyssey directly, and figured I'd add their answer in case anyone has the same question in future:



> Audyssey measures the distance from the speaker directly to the first microphone position.
> 
> The receiver takes that information along with the entered ceiling height to create the distance from speaker to ceiling back down to the first microphone position.
> 
> There is no need to change the distance. The receiver is doing the calculation internally.



I then asked for a little clarification: "If the sound is reflected from the ceiling, which is what an upfiring Atmos speaker does, then how can this be the case? If it is measuring (e.g.) 8' as the speaker distance, then that is technically incorrect as the path from speaker -> ceiling -> MLP is actually 12'. I guess my concern is that the mic is picking up direct rather than reflected sound.

Secondary question: should I be entering the straight vertical distance from speaker to ceiling, or the diagonal distance taking into account the 22 degree slope from the horizontal that is built into the speakers please?"



> Low frequencies are used to measure the distance, which are very non-directional. It reaches the microphone before the reflections do. This is what is meant to be measured. The receiver does the math for the directional reflected sound.
> 
> Enter the vertical distance from speaker to ceiling.



So there you go. Simply enter the vertical distance from the upfiring speakers to the ceiling, and Audyssey will do the rest.


----------



## InfoScav

*Audyssey setup fails*

Hello everyone!

am a new joinee here. have been reading pages of this forum through google searches since past few years, but have joined now. 

i seek your suggestion regarding an issue am facing with audyssey. am new to the AVR i recently got a Marantz NR1606. i dont have side-surrounds but rear ones. problem is, at the beginning of the set-up, audyssesy asks if i have surrounds (side), to which i have to select 'yes' (followed by another prompt asking about rear surrounds), otherwise it assumes that i have only the fronts and the center. however, after end of the test when the mic is at listening-position 1, it displays that the test has failed because the side-surrounds were not detected (this is, after going through a couple of random 'phase' errors). i cannot see any option to skip it too. could anybody please suggest how to overcome this? the AVR is on the latest firmware (the one which enables DTS:X decoding capability). i found that there's a wealth of info here on audyssey plus multiple setup guides too. gonna go through them as well.

TIA!


----------



## mthomas47

InfoScav said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> am a new joinee here. have been reading pages of this forum through google searches since past few years, but have joined now.
> 
> i seek your suggestion regarding an issue am facing with audyssey. am new to the AVR i recently got a Marantz NR1606. i dont have side-surrounds but rear ones. problem is, at the beginning of the set-up, audyssesy asks if i have surrounds (side), to which i have to select 'yes' (followed by another prompt asking about rear surrounds), otherwise it assumes that i have only the fronts and the center. however, after end of the test when the mic is at listening-position 1, it displays that the test has failed because the side-surrounds were not detected (this is, after going through a couple of random 'phase' errors). i cannot see any option to skip it too. could anybody please suggest how to overcome this? the AVR is on the latest firmware (the one which enables DTS:X decoding capability). i found that there's a wealth of info here on audyssey plus multiple setup guides too. gonna go through them as well.
> 
> TIA!


Hi, and welcome to the thread! It is possible that I am misinterpreting what is happening here, but from your description, I suspect that you have wired your surround speakers incorrectly to your AVR. The two surround speakers should be connected to the back of the Marantz as Surround Speakers, not as Rear Surround Speakers. Where you actually position your speakers is irrelevant with respect to whether they are out to the side, or in the rear.

A 5.1 system consists of two front speakers, a center channel, two surround speakers, and one or more subs. Again, how you choose to actually position your surround speakers is entirely up to you, and will be irrelevant to the Audyssey calibration. It will still measure them wherever they are located. But, if your Speaker Configuration doesn't coincide with the actual physical connections at the back of your AVR, the calibration can not proceed.

So, simply connect your two surround speakers to the back as Surrounds, call them that in the Speaker Configuration Menu, and continue to position them to the rear of your listening area, if you like them there. Your calibration should work fine that way, and Audyssey will set distances, levels, and filters appropriately.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Just to expand a bit on Mike's great advice...

Side surrounds must come before rear/back surrounds. The AVR will not let you connect/calibrate rear/back surrounds until you have the side surrounds connected.

5.1
-FL/FR
-CC
-Subwoofer
-Side Surrounds

7.1
-FL/FR
-CC
-Subwoofer
-Side Surrounds
-*Rear/Back Surrounds*


----------



## paulfromtulsa

What all is essentially effected by turning off audessey? I assume the trim levels for all channels change to 0db and no more crossovers? What else? Thanks


----------



## Alan P

paulfromtulsa said:


> What all is essentially effected by turning off audessey? I assume the trim levels for all channels change to 0db and no more crossovers? What else? Thanks


Neither the trim levels nor the crossovers are effected at all. 

When you switch Audyssey off, you are disabling the EQ filters set by Audyssey and disabling Dynamic EQ/Dynamic Volume (if you are using them).


----------



## RMK!

Any word on the curve adjustment app for current hardware versions using XT32?


----------



## Brian K

*Audyssey setting mains to -12 dB?*

Hi all,

What is the recommendation when Audyssey sets the L & R channels to -12 dB? I recently picked up a Denon X4300 to replace my busted Onkyo, as well as a Hsu VTF-15H mk2. In running Audyssey, my mains -- Klipsch KLF 20's, are maxing out at -12dB. 

Other notes: I've been tweaking speaker placement as part of this setup after reading guides here, and elsewhere. The room is 14' long, and I sit 10.5' away from the speakers, which are toed in to be pointing at the main listening position. If I had to guess, I sit about 2.5' away from the back wall, and the speakers are about 1' away from the front wall.

I took a look at the FAQ question regarding trim levels here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#e6, but the question about trims doesn't address the main channels.

Suggestions?

Thanks for the help!
-Brian


----------



## mthomas47

Brian K said:


> Hi all,
> 
> What is the recommendation when Audyssey sets the L & R channels to -12 dB? I recently picked up a Denon X4300 to replace my busted Onkyo, as well as a Hsu VTF-15H mk2. In running Audyssey, my mains -- Klipsch KLF 20's, are maxing out at -12dB.
> 
> Other notes: I've been tweaking speaker placement as part of this setup after reading guides here, and elsewhere. The room is 14' long, and I sit 10.5' away from the speakers, which are toed in to be pointing at the main listening position. If I had to guess, I sit about 2.5' away from the back wall, and the speakers are about 1' away from the front wall.
> 
> I took a look at the FAQ question regarding trim levels here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#e6, but the question about trims doesn't address the main channels.
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> Thanks for the help!
> -Brian


Hi Brian,

There are some simple things you can do and some more complicated things. Starting with simple first, I would try decreasing the toe-in just slightly. Just experiment a little, trying different amounts of toe-in with a one-point calibration. You don't need to run all 8 positions for this. If your soundstage is not adversely affected, that might be the easiest method to let Audyssey set in-range trim levels for your Klipsch fronts. And then, you can run a full calibration. If that doesn't work, there are some other things you can do.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Brian K said:


> I took a look at the FAQ question regarding trim levels here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#e6, *but the question about trims doesn't address the main channels.*
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> Thanks for the help!
> -Brian


Use the same technique for the main speakers as you use for the surrounds. I believe that this section of the FAQ includes LF, RF, and Center in what the author terms "satellites." In my experience, while most people use the term "satellite" to mean surrounds, some consider all speakers except the subwoofer to be "satellites." I think this is the meaning used in the FAQ excerpt you cited. IMO, this is a hangover from the days when subwoofers for the home were first introduced in about the late 1960s, for 2 channel stereo (even some cheap consoles used a "subwoofer" (not much of one by today's standards) in the main cabinet, and two other speakers on long cords that were termed "satellites" -- that way they only had to pay for one big, expensive speaker, and could use 8" or smaller speakers for the right and left channel information). Nowadays, in the USA, the terms "mains" or "fronts" or LF, RF, and C are most often used for the front speakers, and "surrounds" for the side and rear, but there are exceptions.


----------



## Brian K

Thanks, Mike & Gary! I'm planning on monkeying with it all a bit tonight and tomorrow, so I'll start with reducing some of the toe-in and go from there.

Gary, I do now understand what the FAQ means, so thanks for clearing that up. 

-B


----------



## InfoScav

mthomas47 said:


> Hi, and welcome to the thread! It is possible that I am misinterpreting what is happening here, but from your description, I suspect that you have wired your surround speakers incorrectly to your AVR. The two surround speakers should be connected to the back of the Marantz as Surround Speakers, not as Rear Surround Speakers. Where you actually position your speakers is irrelevant with respect to whether they are out to the side, or in the rear.
> 
> A 5.1 system consists of two front speakers, a center channel, two surround speakers, and one or more subs. Again, how you choose to actually position your surround speakers is entirely up to you, and will be irrelevant to the Audyssey calibration. It will still measure them wherever they are located. But, if your Speaker Configuration doesn't coincide with the actual physical connections at the back of your AVR, the calibration can not proceed.
> 
> So, simply connect your two surround speakers to the back as Surrounds, call them that in the Speaker Configuration Menu, and continue to position them to the rear of your listening area, if you like them there. Your calibration should work fine that way, and Audyssey will set distances, levels, and filters appropriately.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks very much, Mike! Didnt know that.
Yes, that is actually what i had done. the speakers are connected to the 'rear surround' terminals at the back of the AVR. Will do as suggested over this weekend.



Alan P said:


> Just to expand a bit on Mike's great advice...
> 
> Side surrounds must come before rear/back surrounds. The AVR will not let you connect/calibrate rear/back surrounds until you have the side surrounds connected.
> 
> 5.1
> -FL/FR
> -CC
> -Subwoofer
> -Side Surrounds
> 
> 7.1
> -FL/FR
> -CC
> -Subwoofer
> -Side Surrounds
> -*Rear/Back Surrounds*


I see. So that's why audyssey asks for/looks for side-surrounds first! Didnt know this as well. Thanks!

----------------------------------

Just thought of adding this info, that presently i dont have the full set of speakers. what i have are the fronts, the center, the ceiling speakers (yet to be installed), and the surrounds (these are from my previous system from which i have upgraded). i am getting a pair of bipolars & subwoofer made from a local speaker-maker, which'll take another 2 weeks or so, hence using the surrounds of my previous system for the time being. i'll do another round of audyssey setup when i have all these speakers. this instance could be said to be a sort of 'dry run'.


----------



## InfoScav

hello. did the audyssey setup this weekend. now the sound seems to be very perceptibly improved and pleasing!


----------



## siuengr

Just wondering what's going on with the Audyssey website. They have removed any mention of EQ technology all the links to MultEQ are dead. All the sites talks about is eVR. Is this going to replace their current technology or is it something different? The site talks more voice recognition that anything else.

https://audyssey.com/evr/


----------



## mthomas47

siuengr said:


> Just wondering what's going on with the Audyssey website. They have removed any mention of EQ technology all the links to MultEQ are dead. All the sites talks about is eVR. Is this going to replace their current technology or is it something different? The site talks more voice recognition that anything else.
> 
> https://audyssey.com/evr/


I don't know that there is any plan to replace their technology. The new phone app system they are releasing, to tweak the EQ, was apparently in development for some time. But, they definitely seem to be in a bit of a marketing transition. I noticed a few weeks ago that I could no longer find the table titled "Flavors of Audyssey" which showed the number of filters (control points) added from the initial version of 2EQ. Apparently, even that sparse amount of information is now considered TMI. Some of that may actually have started when they began calling the XT-32 version "Platinum", and so on down the scale.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## siuengr

mthomas47 said:


> I don't know that there is any plan to replace their technology. The new phone app system they are releasing, to tweak the EQ, was apparently in development for some time. But, they definitely seem to be in a bit of a marketing transition. I noticed a few weeks ago that I could no longer find the table titled "Flavors of Audyssey" which showed the number of filters (control points) added from the initial version of 2EQ. Apparently, even that sparse amount of information is now considered TMI. Some of that may actually have started when they began calling the XT-32 version "Platinum", and so on down the scale.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I went there looking for the "Flavors of Audyssey" as well, and found they had removed all information about it.


----------



## garygarrison

siuengr said:


> I went there looking for the "Flavors of Audyssey" as well, and found they had removed all information about it.


I wonder what Chris K. would have to say about that. I'm not on Facebook [pause for expressions of horror and disbelief]. Feri, can you help us?


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> I wonder what Chris K. would have to say about that. I'm not on Facebook [pause for expressions of horror and disbelief]. Feri, can you help us?


Will do and revert.


----------



## mthomas47

Although the Audyssey website no longer has this chart, it is easily available in several forms using an image search. I decided to post it just for fun, since we are talking about it no longer being available via Audyssey.

Flavors of Audyssey.jpg

A few months ago on an audio theory thread, frequented by several industry professionals, different types of manual and automated room EQ were being discussed. Someone referred to XT-32 as having a few hundred taps, or control points. Using this graph, I suggested that the number had to be in the thousands, because XT-32 has 512 times as many control points as "X" in 2EQ. I further speculated that "X" was probably somewhere between 6 and 12 control points, as it would have been a very primitive and basic form of EQ.

The OP looked up the chip set used in XT-32 (presumably from the patent application) and reported that the chip in XT-32 has filters (for each channel) capable of producing 4096 control points. 4096 divided by 512 equals 8. So, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that 2EQ has 8 taps per channel, excluding the .1 subwoofer channel. From that starting point, it is easy to extrapolate the number of control points per channel in any of the versions of Audyssey.

I thought that people might find this interesting, in the context of the current discussion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alanlee

siuengr said:


> Just wondering what's going on with the Audyssey website. They have removed any mention of EQ technology all the links to MultEQ are dead. All the sites talks about is eVR. Is this going to replace their current technology or is it something different? The site talks more voice recognition that anything else.
> 
> https://audyssey.com/evr/


I agree; there is no transition that I can find on the website from what we have now to where ever they are going. Then again I found the old website rather devoid of details. The Denon manuals are clear on how to use Audyssey, but not very instructive about what Audyssey does; how it works.

Compared to the software I have used from Yamaha and Pioneer, I much prefer Audyssey, so I guess whatever I am fretting about is not that important, and maybe if I knew more about how Audyssey works, I would just be more dangerous that I need to be.

Still it would be nice to know what the company's plans are for the future. We are at least 6 months away from the beginning of the 2017 roll out of new AVRs. In the meantime speculation is rampant.


----------



## mogorf

mogorf said:


> Will do and revert.


Here's how the discussion on FB is developing so far:

Ferenc Mógor3 hrs

Hi Chris, been looking at www.Audyssey.com and just wondering what's going on with the Audyssey website. There's no mention of EQ technology and none of the links to MultEQ work. All the site talks about is eVR. Is the site under reconstruction or there is something else in the air? Thanks.











Chris Kyriakakis We are making a big push with the new eVR technology for far field voice. It comes after years of learning about reflection problems from speakers to our ears. Now we are taking on the reverse problem: sound from our mouth to the "ears" of distant devices in the home.

AR: Is it going to remain audyssey with diff eq flavors plus with the new technology?



Chris Kyriakakis Yes. We are not leaving the room correction business. Just expanding to other technologies for different audio/voice applications

TN:Any hints when the Audyssey app (for iOS) is going to be published?



Chris Kyriakakis we were told "mid February"

MW: You better not leave the AVR space...

You guys are the only good "mass market" (like Toyotas, meant in a good way) room correction out there!


Will keep you updated.


----------



## mthomas47

Alanlee said:


> I agree; there is no transition that I can find on the website from what we have now to where ever they are going. Then again I found the old website rather devoid of details. The Denon manuals are clear on how to use Audyssey, but not very instructive about what Audyssey does; how it works.
> 
> Compared to the software I have used from Yamaha and Pioneer, I much prefer Audyssey, so I guess whatever I am fretting about is not that important, and maybe if I knew more about how Audyssey works, I would just be more dangerous that I need to be.
> 
> Still it would be nice to know what the company's plans are for the future. We are at least 6 months away from the beginning of the 2017 roll out of new AVRs. In the meantime speculation is rampant.


We probably all know just enough to be dangerous, with respect to how Audyssey actually works, as it is proprietary information, and has always been treated as such. But, that hasn't stopped people on the thread from speculating, and sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn. So, if you have a specific question about how Audyssey works, perhaps someone will have an answer. Perhaps even a good answer. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Scott Oakley

*MultiXT - No Sub Output During Calibration*

Marantz SR5005
Velodyne SPLR1000
3.1 Speaker Config

Marantz set to LFE or LFE Plus Main
Velodyne set to 120hz, Volume half way

Cable between Marantz SW output and LFE input on sub.

When I place microphone at Primary Listening Postion and run Audyssey, nothing comes out of sub.

When I run Test Tone routine on Marantz, choosing sub, nothing comes out of sub.

Audyssey shows speakers correctly but no sub.

Sub works fine during normal operation (TV, music, etc).

Thoughts?

*** Also, when this gets figured out, I promise I will update the people who responded on this thread. ***


----------



## Alan P

^^^

My first thought is; did you tell the AVR you have a subwoofer connected?

Might not be it, but worth a shot.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> My first thought is; did you tell the AVR you have a subwoofer connected?
> 
> Might not be it, but worth a shot.



Good call, Alan! I have actually had that happen with my 7008, where it defaulted twice to 1 sub, after I had set the Speaker Configuration to 2 subs. Ghosts in the machine.


----------



## Scott Oakley

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> My first thought is; did you tell the AVR you have a subwoofer connected?
> 
> Might not be it, but worth a shot.


Yes. In Speaker Config. Although, Audyseey says NO by the subwoofer entry.

Thanks, Scott


----------



## mthomas47

Scott Oakley said:


> Yes. In Speaker Config. Although, Audyseey says NO by the subwoofer entry.
> 
> Thanks, Scott


Hi Scott,

This is what I was talking about in my post just above. There is a place in the Audyssey set-up process, just before you run the calibration, where you can tell Audyssey whether or not you have a sub (or two subs). You not only need to have it set properly in the Speaker configuration Menu, but in that second set-up section, as well. And, mine has been known to default a couple of times, so just make sure that both places are showing a sub assigned in your system.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Here's how the discussion on FB is developing so far:


Thanks Feri!


----------



## BiggShooter

Here is my current set up:

Denon AVR-X4300H

Definitive Technology BP-9060 (x2) - using built-in subwoofers with LFE connection to Denon AVR (Subwoofer 1 & 2)
Definitive Technology CS-9060
Definitive Technology SR-9080 (side surrounds)
Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000 (rear surrounds)

I was able to finally run an Audyssey Calibration but only for three of eight positions (running short on time). After checking the settings, I noticed the crossover for the rear surrounds was set to 150Hz (ProMonitor 1000's). Is this right? I didn't turn them down to 80Hz per advice from posts in this forum (and Audyssey Calibration guide). I was thinking with the Audyssey Calibration that it should've been lower considering my center channel crossover (DT CS9060) was 40Hz and my side surrounds crossover (DT SR9080) was 60Hz. I bumped up the center channel crossover and side surrounds crossover to 80Hz. 

Prior to the Audyssey Calibration process, Audyssey detected my built-in subwoofers were "too loud" and suggested to turn them down to the recommended 75 db. Turning them down to 75 db resulted in the -10 db level and -10.5 db level after the Audyssey Calibration. I turned them back up (on the back of the speaker). Is it better to go with the recommended 75 db that Audyssey setup recommends, or try to target the 3.5 to -3.5 db level I've seen mentioned in the forums? 

I plan to run a *complete* Audyssey calibration (eight positions) sometime over the next few days.

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## Alanlee

mthomas47 said:


> We probably all know just enough to be dangerous, with respect to how Audyssey actually works, as it is proprietary information, and has always been treated as such. But, that hasn't stopped people on the thread from speculating, and sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn. So, if you have a specific question about how Audyssey works, perhaps someone will have an answer. Perhaps even a good answer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I like the anthropomorphism, and I will take the bait. This blind hog wonders why the form of Audyssey I have on my Denon 5200 is no longer able to be referenced on Audyssey's website. Does that mean it is no longer supported, or am I not searching correctly? What is going to be the Audyssey software in AVR's for the future? If I buy an AVR in 2017, will I have Audyssey software on it, or should I be looking for an AVR that does not use Audyssey? I guess I am not good at handling surprises. Got any acorns for me?

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> Here is my current set up:
> 
> Denon AVR-X4300H
> 
> Definitive Technology BP-9060 (x2) - using built-in subwoofers with LFE connection to Denon AVR (Subwoofer 1 & 2)
> Definitive Technology CS-9060
> Definitive Technology SR-9080 (side surrounds)
> Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000 (rear surrounds)
> 
> I was able to finally run an Audyssey Calibration but only for three of eight positions (running short on time). After checking the settings, I noticed the crossover for the rear surrounds was set to 150Hz (ProMonitor 1000's). Is this right? I didn't turn them down to 80Hz per advice from posts in this forum (and Audyssey Calibration guide). I was thinking with the Audyssey Calibration that it should've been lower considering my center channel crossover (DT CS9060) was 40Hz and my side surrounds crossover (DT SR9080) was 60Hz. I bumped up the center channel crossover and side surrounds crossover to 80Hz.
> 
> Prior to the Audyssey Calibration process, Audyssey detected my built-in subwoofers were "too loud" and suggested to turn them down to the recommended 75 db. Turning them down to 75 db resulted in the -10 db level and -10.5 db level after the Audyssey Calibration. I turned them back up (on the back of the speaker). Is it better to go with the recommended 75 db that Audyssey setup recommends, or try to target the 3.5 to -3.5 db level I've seen mentioned in the forums?
> 
> I plan to run a *complete* Audyssey calibration (eight positions) sometime over the next few days.
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


Hi,

Addressing the crossover question first, the crossover which is set for speakers depends on how the speakers actually perform in the space. And, that performance is, in turn, determined by the native capabilities of the speaker, and by it's placement in the room. Unfortunately some speaker makers inflate their technical specifications, so you can't really rely on the low frequency response shown in their specs.

In the case of your rear surrounds, you have a single 5.25" mid-range/woofer driver, so it is entirely possible that they are actually measuring that high. If you want to post a photo of how they are positioned, it's possible that something can be done to improve their bass performance. But meanwhile, I wouldn't lower the crossover from where your Denon set it. The other crossovers should be fine at 80Hz.

With respect to your built-in subs, increasing the gain control on the back should be fine. Just be careful, as you turn it up, that you aren't introducing distortion into your sound by turning them up too far. And, try to turn them up symmetrically, so that they stay in balance with respect to each other, based on where Audyssey originally set them.

The information in the FAQ, regarding a sub trim level of about -3 to +3, has been superseded in the last year or so by the more conservative advice to keep your sub trim levels at -3 or lower. If you want to understand more about the reasoning behind that, there is a detailed explanation in Post 1296, on Page 44 of this thread.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Alanlee said:


> I like the anthropomorphism, and I will take the bait. This blind hog wonders why the form of Audyssey I have on my Denon 5200 is no longer able to be referenced on Audyssey's website. Does that mean it is no longer supported, or am I not searching correctly? What is going to be the Audyssey software in AVR's for the future? If I buy an AVR in 2017, will I have Audyssey software on it, or should I be looking for an AVR that does not use Audyssey? I guess I am not good at handling surprises. Got any acorns for me?
> 
> Regards
> Alanlee


Hi Alan,

A small, but tasty acorn, was uncovered by Feri. I think that Feri's conversation with Chris K., the creator of Audyssey, reported in Post 2025 above, should set your mind at ease on this subject. Audyssey is simply embarking on a new marketing strategy, at the moment, but will still be fully supporting the current Audyssey products. Personally, remembering Chris's passion for Audyssey as a room correction system, I think he would cut off his right arm (perhaps he's left handed?) before getting rid of Audyssey EQ. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BiggShooter

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Addressing the crossover question first, the crossover which is set for speakers depends on how the speakers actually perform in the space. And, that performance is, in turn, determined by the native capabilities of the speaker, and by it's placement in the room. Unfortunately some speaker makers inflate their technical specifications, so you can't really rely on the low frequency response shown in their specs.
> 
> In the case of your rear surrounds, you have a single 5.25" mid-range/woofer driver, so it is entirely possible that they are actually measuring that high. If you want to post a photo of how they are positioned, it's possible that something can be done to improve their bass performance. But meanwhile, I wouldn't lower the crossover from where your Denon set it. The other crossovers should be fine at 80Hz.
> 
> With respect to your built-in subs, increasing the gain control on the back should be fine. Just be careful, as you turn it up, that you aren't introducing distortion into your sound by turning them up too far. And, try to turn them up symmetrically, so that they stay in balance with respect to each other, based on where Audyssey originally set them.
> 
> The information in the FAQ, regarding a sub trim level of about -3 to +3, has been superseded in the last year or so by the more conservative advice to keep your sub trim levels at -3 or lower. If you want to understand more about the reasoning behind that, there is a detailed explanation in Post 1296, on Page 44 of this thread.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks! I read the recommended Post on page 44, as well as the follow-up posts. I just want to make sure I understand it right.......so here goes. 

Would increasing the "gain" control on the back of the speakers (w/ built-in subs) be the same as changing the "trim" level from where Audyssey set them after the calibration? To be more specific, could I just adjust the "trim" level to -3 db (or lower) and get the same outcome as if I just increased the "gain" on the back of the speaker (built-in subs)?

If this is the case, it seems that adjusting the "trim" level might be more accurate and precise.

Thanks for clarifying / making sure I understand this correctly


----------



## Alanlee

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> A small, but tasty acorn, was uncovered by Feri. I think that Feri's conversation with Chris K., the creator of Audyssey, reported in Post 2025 above, should set your mind at ease on this subject. Audyssey is simply embarking on a new marketing strategy, at the moment, but will still be fully supporting the current Audyssey products. Personally, remembering Chris's passion for Audyssey as a room correction system, I think he would cut off his right arm (perhaps he's left handed?) before getting rid of Audyssey EQ.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Very tasty indeed. I had read the post, but was not aware that Chris K. is the inside man. 

It's a miracle; this pig is no longer blind. 

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> Thanks! I read the recommended Post on page 44, as well as the follow-up posts. I just want to make sure I understand it right.......so here goes.
> 
> Would increasing the "gain" control on the back of the speakers (w/ built-in subs) be the same as changing the "trim" level from where Audyssey set them after the calibration? To be more specific, could I just adjust the "trim" level to -3 db (or lower) and get the same outcome as if I just increased the "gain" on the back of the speaker (built-in subs)?
> 
> If this is the case, it seems that adjusting the "trim" level might be more accurate and precise.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying / making sure I understand this correctly


You are very welcome! I personally find it more convenient to use the AVR trim controls, and either way of doing it would be fine.


----------



## Scott Oakley

Scott Oakley said:


> Yes. In Speaker Config. Although, Audyseey says NO by the subwoofer entry.
> 
> Thanks, Scott


Ok, I am a DumbAss. I admit it. I take the hit. Due to older eyes, (and having to look down from the top of the AVR), I had the sub cable plugged into the port just above the one it should have been plugged into.

Lessons learned:
1. Start with the basics: connectivity.
2. Ensure the cable is good (changing it out).
3. Go online and gather all the fricken manuals for the various components, save them as Favorites or Bookmarks and bring them all up as you troubleshoot.

And finally, dont look at your AVR from above......

Thanks to those that responded.
Scott


----------



## mthomas47

Scott Oakley said:


> Ok, I am a DumbAss. I admit it. I take the hit. Due to older eyes, (and having to look down from the top of the AVR), I had the sub cable plugged into the port just above the one it should have been plugged into.
> 
> Lessons learned:
> 1. Start with the basics: connectivity.
> 2. Ensure the cable is good (changing it out).
> 3. Go online and gather all the fricken manuals for the various components, save them as Favorites or Bookmarks and bring them all up as you troubleshoot.
> 
> And finally, dont look at your AVR from above......
> 
> Thanks to those that responded.
> Scott


You are welcome, Scott! Anyone who says that he has never been a dumb ass, with respect to HT, is both a dumb ass and deceitful.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, Scott! Anyone who says that he has never been a dumb ass, with respect to HT, is both a dumb ass and deceitful.


And, sometimes, that includes the people who wrote the manuals. That's why we love the FAQ. Actually, a friend of mine who is in IT believes that it is typical for different parts of an equipment manual to be written by different people, without anyone being in charge of reading the whole manual and use-testing it.


----------



## Scott Oakley

garygarrison said:


> And, sometimes, that includes the people who wrote the manuals. That's why we love the FAQ. Actually, a friend of mine who is in IT believes that it is typical for different parts of an equipment manual to be written by different people, without anyone being in charge of reading the whole manual and use-testing it.


Yes, I would definitely agree. The equipment doc. seems to be the last thing anyone pays attention to and, really, its probably one of the most important. In the course of my struggle over the past couple of days, I was reminded that in some cases, the doc. actually makes it harder.

Anyway, when I can get some "quiet time" I will be running the Audyseey routine. It sounds pretty good right now, but it will be interesting to hear the improvement, if any...


----------



## Selden Ball

Scott Oakley said:


> Marantz SR5005
> Velodyne SPLR1000
> 3.1 Speaker Config
> 
> Marantz set to LFE or LFE Plus Main
> Velodyne set to 120hz, Volume half way
> 
> Cable between Marantz SW output and LFE input on sub.
> 
> When I place microphone at Primary Listening Postion and run Audyssey, nothing comes out of sub.
> 
> When I run Test Tone routine on Marantz, choosing sub, nothing comes out of sub.
> 
> Audyssey shows speakers correctly but no sub.
> 
> Sub works fine during normal operation (TV, music, etc).
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> *** Also, when this gets figured out, I promise I will update the people who responded on this thread. ***



You don't mention the "auto-on" feature of the sub. Make sure that it's set to "Inactive" during the Audyssey calibration. I.e. make sure the sub is fully on.


----------



## mogorf

Selden Ball said:


> You don't mention the "auto-on" feature of the sub. Make sure that it's set to "Inactive" during the Audyssey calibration. I.e. make sure the sub is fully on.


On a side note, I would leave the sub fully "on" full time. I could have never come up with one good reason why this feature is good. Even though my sub also has it, I never use it! 

Sometimes when I have guests or friends over I like to put on some background music (with DEQ on, of course!) with an MV setting of -50 dB or even -60 dB. With that low MV setting I think "auto-on" would kill the nice and smooth bass making everything sound flat.

Anyone?


----------



## David Aiken

BiggShooter said:


> Thanks! I read the recommended Post on page 44, as well as the follow-up posts. I just want to make sure I understand it right.......so here goes.
> 
> Would increasing the "gain" control on the back of the speakers (w/ built-in subs) be the same as changing the "trim" level from where Audyssey set them after the calibration? To be more specific, could I just adjust the "trim" level to -3 db (or lower) and get the same outcome as if I just increased the "gain" on the back of the speaker (built-in subs)?
> 
> If this is the case, it seems that adjusting the "trim" level might be more accurate and precise.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying / making sure I understand this correctly


I might be missing something here but I'm not certain that adjusting the trim level is going to be the same as increasing the gain on the back of the speaker.

I went back over your posts and unless I missed one, I didn't see a post in which you stated what the trim levels for your sub were after you completed the Audyssey setup the second time. Increasing the trim setting (going from a trim setting of -6 dB to one of -3 dB would increase the trim setting by 3 dB) will be the same as increasing the gain setting on the speaker by 3 dB. It's just not immediately clear to me that "adjusting" the trim to -3 dB or lower is an increase in the trim because I don't know what the trim was set to originally. 

A couple of points:

I'd prefer to make the adjustment at the trim settings. You can do it there in precise half dB increments and there's a simple setting option to revert to the original Audyssey result which you can use at any time.

If you do it at the speaker a lot depends on the control the speaker gives you. I assume it's a dial but how clearly are the level settings marked, how far apart are they, and are there click stop detents with strong, clear detents or are the detents just minor "bumps" it's easy to turn the dial over and not notice. My subs have dials with markings at roughly "2 hour" intervals, no mention of the size of the increase between each marking, and lots of close together detents which are very slight "bumps" and easy to miss. I can't guarantee that I can reliably increase or decrease the gain settings on my subs by 2 "clicks" repeatedly. I find it hard to know at times if I've done 2 clicks or 3. If I adjust gain at my subs instead of using the trim setting, I'm never quite sure that I made exactly the same increase on both subs and if I try to go back to the original setting or make a different adjustment, I'm never quite sure that I'm doing the same thing at each sub when I do that. Much better for me to do it with the trim setting because there I know what I'm doing and I can reliably make further adjustments or revert to the original calibration setting at any time.

There is one situation in which you would be better off making the adjustment at the speaker and that is if the sub trim level is very close to 0 dB and you want to increase it. I would definitely adjust the gain on the speaker in preference to increasing the trim setting to higher than 0 dB, but if Audysset sets your sub trim to close to 0 db, I'd be inclined to set the gain higher on the speaker and run the setup calibration again in order to get the trim set lower and then I'd make adjustments using the trim settings rather than the speaker's gain settings.

A large part of that is my conditioned response to the really bad dials for gain setting on my subs. If you have better dials on your speakers you may be able to adjust gain there a lot more reliably than I can, but there will still be the issue of how big the minimum gain adjustment you can repeatedly make will be. And if your speaker gain settings are dials with no click stop detents at all, just smooth rotation all the way, definitely use the AVR trim setting. There will be no way you can reliably set equal gain changes on both speakers by using the gain settings.


----------



## Scott Oakley

Selden Ball said:


> You don't mention the "auto-on" feature of the sub. Make sure that it's set to "Inactive" during the Audyssey calibration. I.e. make sure the sub is fully on.


Thank you.

Yeah, I have that feature defeated. Velodyne calls it Inactive vs. Active (can they make it more unintuitive?). I keep it on Inactive. Duh. I'd like the sub to be On unless I turn it Off.

Scott


----------



## mogorf

Scott Oakley said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Yeah, I have that feature defeated. Velodyne calls it Inactive vs. Active (can they make it more unintuitive?). I keep it on Inactive. Duh. *I'd like the sub to be On unless I turn it Off.*
> 
> Scott


+1.


----------



## BiggShooter

David Aiken said:


> I might be missing something here but I'm not certain that adjusting the trim level is going to be the same as increasing the gain on the back of the speaker.
> 
> I went back over your posts and unless I missed one, I didn't see a post in which you stated what the trim levels for your sub were after you completed the Audyssey setup the second time. Increasing the trim setting (going from a trim setting of -6 dB to one of -3 dB would increase the trim setting by 3 dB) will be the same as increasing the gain setting on the speaker by 3 dB. It's just not immediately clear to me that "adjusting" the trim to -3 dB or lower is an increase in the trim because I don't know what the trim was set to originally.
> 
> A couple of points:
> 
> I'd prefer to make the adjustment at the trim settings. You can do it there in precise half dB increments and there's a simple setting option to revert to the original Audyssey result which you can use at any time.
> 
> If you do it at the speaker a lot depends on the control the speaker gives you. I assume it's a dial but how clearly are the level settings marked, how far apart are they, and are there click stop detents with strong, clear detents or are the detents just minor "bumps" it's easy to turn the dial over and not notice. My subs have dials with markings at roughly "2 hour" intervals, no mention of the size of the increase between each marking, and lots of close together detents which are very slight "bumps" and easy to miss. I can't guarantee that I can reliably increase or decrease the gain settings on my subs by 2 "clicks" repeatedly. I find it hard to know at times if I've done 2 clicks or 3. If I adjust gain at my subs instead of using the trim setting, I'm never quite sure that I made exactly the same increase on both subs and if I try to go back to the original setting or make a different adjustment, I'm never quite sure that I'm doing the same thing at each sub when I do that. Much better for me to do it with the trim setting because there I know what I'm doing and I can reliably make further adjustments or revert to the original calibration setting at any time.
> 
> There is one situation in which you would be better off making the adjustment at the speaker and that is if the sub trim level is very close to 0 dB and you want to increase it. I would definitely adjust the gain on the speaker in preference to increasing the trim setting to higher than 0 dB, but if Audysset sets your sub trim to close to 0 db, I'd be inclined to set the gain higher on the speaker and run the setup calibration again in order to get the trim set lower and then I'd make adjustments using the trim settings rather than the speaker's gain settings.
> 
> A large part of that is my conditioned response to the really bad dials for gain setting on my subs. If you have better dials on your speakers you may be able to adjust gain there a lot more reliably than I can, but there will still be the issue of how big the minimum gain adjustment you can repeatedly make will be. And if your speaker gain settings are dials with no click stop detents at all, just smooth rotation all the way, definitely use the AVR trim setting. There will be no way you can reliably set equal gain changes on both speakers by using the gain settings.


Thanks for the reply. 

Audyssey set the "trim" to -10.5 db for the left front speaker and -10 db for the right front speaker. I will certainly adjust the "trim" values within the Denon AVR rather than the "gain" controls on the back of the DT BP9060's. Just to be sure, if I adjust the "trim" levels, would I want to be sure I "equally adjust them? So if Audyssey sets the "trim" level at -10.5 db (front left speaker) and -10 db (front right speaker), and I want to raise it +5.5 db to get closer to -3 db, I would set the "trim" to -5.0 db for the front left speaker and the trim to -4.5 db for the front right speaker?

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Audyssey set the "trim" to -10.5 db for the left front speaker and -10 db for the right front speaker. I will certainly adjust the "trim" values within the Denon AVR rather than the "gain" controls on the back of the DT BP9060's. Just to be sure, if I adjust the "trim" levels, would I want to be sure I "equally adjust them? So if Audyssey sets the "trim" level at -10.5 db (front left speaker) and -10 db (front right speaker), and I want to raise it +5.5 db to get closer to -3 db, I would set the "trim" to -5.0 db for the front left speaker and the trim to -4.5 db for the front right speaker?
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


Yes, that's correct! You would simply go up in trim level by the same amount for each one, so that you maintain the original balance.


----------



## Selden Ball

BiggShooter said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Audyssey set the "trim" to -10.5 db for the left front speaker and -10 db for the right front speaker. I will certainly adjust the "trim" values within the Denon AVR rather than the "gain" controls on the back of the DT BP9060's. Just to be sure, if I adjust the "trim" levels, would I want to be sure I "equally adjust them? So if Audyssey sets the "trim" level at -10.5 db (front left speaker) and -10 db (front right speaker), and I want to raise it +5.5 db to get closer to -3 db, I would set the "trim" to -5.0 db for the front left speaker and the trim to -4.5 db for the front right speaker?
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


In general, unlike the subwoofer, it's usually inappropriate to change the trim levels for the individual speakers. Audyssey does a very good job of setting those trims. Often mismatched trim levels are caused by inaccurate placement of the calibration microphone. The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers. (I've frequently seen reports of poor soundstaging when the microphone isn't placed in exactly the correct position. Manually changing their distances and trims doesn't do as good a job of correcting the audio as redoing the calibration with a slightly modified microphone position. Using a $30 boom microphone stand makes proper placement relatively easy.)

If you want to increase them because they're too quiet, it's better to just turn up the master volume.

If you have Dynamic EQ enabled, in addition to correctly boosting the relative levels of the bass and treble frequencies, the surround speaker channels have (inappropriately) elevated sound levels. This has been discussed frequently here and in the previous Audyssey thread. It can be mitigated by adjusting the Reference Level Offset.


----------



## BiggShooter

Selden Ball said:


> In general, unlike the subwoofer, it's usually inappropriate to change the trim levels for the individual speakers. Audyssey does a very good job of setting those trims. Often mismatched trim levels are caused by inaccurate placement of the calibration microphone. The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers. (I've frequently seen reports of poor soundstaging when the microphone isn't placed in exactly the correct position. Manually changing their distances and trims doesn't do as good a job of correcting the audio as redoing the calibration with a slightly modified microphone position. Using a $30 boom microphone stand makes proper placement relatively easy.)
> 
> If you want to increase them because they're too quiet, it's better to just turn up the master volume.
> 
> If you have Dynamic EQ enabled, in addition to correctly boosting the relative levels of the bass and treble frequencies, the surround speaker channels have (inappropriately) elevated sound levels. This has been discussed frequently here and in the previous Audyssey thread. It can be mitigated by adjusting the Reference Level Offset.


Sorry about the confusion. When I was referring to "front left" and "front right", I should have specified I was talking about the trim levels for the "built-in" subwoofers for the DT BP9060's. I wouldn't adjust any other "trim" levels for actual speakers.


----------



## David Aiken

BiggShooter said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Audyssey set the "trim" to -10.5 db for the left front speaker and -10 db for the right front speaker. I will certainly adjust the "trim" values within the Denon AVR rather than the "gain" controls on the back of the DT BP9060's. Just to be sure, if I adjust the "trim" levels, would I want to be sure I "equally adjust them? So if Audyssey sets the "trim" level at -10.5 db (front left speaker) and -10 db (front right speaker), and I want to raise it +5.5 db to get closer to -3 db, I would set the "trim" to -5.0 db for the front left speaker and the trim to -4.5 db for the front right speaker?
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


Yes, just change each setting by the same number of dB. The trim setting on the right speaker should always be +0.5 dB different to the left speaker.

Why are you trying to get closer to a -3 dB trim setting? There's nothing magical about -3 dB. The only reason to raise the trim setting for your subs given that they're not set at the minimum level of -12 dB, is because you prefer a little more bass than Audyssey gives you, and many people do prefer a bit more bass. Setting the trims to around -3 dB would be a 7 dB boost and I think that's a lot. Some people like that, I tend to run with a 3 to 5 dB boost some of the time but there are times when I'm quite happy with the straight Audyssey setting. Others like less boost than I do. It's a personal thing.

Don't worry about getting closer to a -3 dB trim setting. Just worry about getting enough bass to suit your tastes and don't worry about what the actual figure is unless you need so much boost that you start hitting 0 dB in the trim settings.


----------



## head_unit

So, where is there a detailed explanation of how MultEQ actually works? I looked at Audyssey's site, and cannot even see any details about much of anything at all, and no mention of MultEQ.

To me, the really correct way to do room EQ is in the time domain, where you would need to measure the actual impulse response in the room, and do some kind of continuous convolution or something to try and hit a target impulse response. When I used to work at a big manufacturer and we were talking to Audyssey back in the day they certainly gave an IMPRESSION of working in the time domain, but I was never too sure. They would talk about the number of filter taps, and I am not knowledgeable enough about audio DSP to really understand what that implies. I can see on Trinnov's page they use at least some time domain technology, and Alpine used to but I'm not sure if they still do.

I presume other systems are basically frequency-domain EQs, which are severely limited in how much they can help problems whose origin is in the time domain-and can result in worse sound. For instance, we can look at YPAO (Yamaha Parametric Room Acoustic Optimizer) and the word "parametric" to me suggests this is basically just an old school parametric EQ with some kind of automation routine. From Onkyo "AccuEQ is able to prevent standing waves from forming by adjusting frequency response" so no time domain processing there either. "Pioneer’s MCACC (Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration System)...equalizes response" again with no mention of time.

Anyway back to the thread, I'd be curious to see a "real" explanation of how Audyssey works...


----------



## BiggShooter

David Aiken said:


> Yes, just change each setting by the same number of dB. The trim setting on the right speaker should always be +0.5 dB different to the left speaker.
> 
> Why are you trying to get closer to a -3 dB trim setting? There's nothing magical about -3 dB. The only reason to raise the trim setting for your subs given that they're not set at the minimum level of -12 dB, is because you prefer a little more bass than Audyssey gives you, and many people do prefer a bit more bass. Setting the trims to around -3 dB would be a 7 dB boost and I think that's a lot. Some people like that, I tend to run with a 3 to 5 dB boost some of the time but there are times when I'm quite happy with the straight Audyssey setting. Others like less boost than I do. It's a personal thing.
> 
> Don't worry about getting closer to a -3 dB trim setting. Just worry about getting enough bass to suit your tastes and don't worry about what the actual figure is unless you need so much boost that you start hitting 0 dB in the trim settings.


Thanks David Aiken. I appreciate the info. 

I'm learning a lot more about Audyssey Calibration and settings thanks to everyone here that has taken time to help me out and answer my questions. Thanks for helping me understand


----------



## Alanlee

Selden Ball said:


> In general, unlike the subwoofer, it's usually inappropriate to change the trim levels for the individual speakers. Audyssey does a very good job of setting those trims. Often mismatched trim levels are caused by inaccurate placement of the calibration microphone. The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers. (I've frequently seen reports of poor soundstaging when the microphone isn't placed in exactly the correct position. Manually changing their distances and trims doesn't do as good a job of correcting the audio as redoing the calibration with a slightly modified microphone position. Using a $30 boom microphone stand makes proper placement relatively easy.)
> 
> If you want to increase them because they're too quiet, it's better to just turn up the master volume.
> 
> If you have Dynamic EQ enabled, in addition to correctly boosting the relative levels of the bass and treble frequencies, the surround speaker channels have (inappropriately) elevated sound levels. This has been discussed frequently here and in the previous Audyssey thread. It can be mitigated by adjusting the Reference Level Offset.


I am slightly confused by this statement "The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers." If your main listening position is on the right side of your seating area, the microphone would not be precisely centered between the front speakers. Unless I am missing something the only position where your microphone would be precisely centered would be in the center of your seating area.

My main seating area is near and slightly behind the right ear level surround speaker. If main seating area is a generic term which always means center seating, then I am not confused.


----------



## mthomas47

Alanlee said:


> I am slightly confused by this statement "The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers." If your main listening position is on the right side of your seating area, the microphone would not be precisely centered between the front speakers. Unless I am missing something the only position where your microphone would be precisely centered would be in the center of your seating area.
> 
> My main seating area is near and slightly behind the right ear level surround speaker. If main seating area is a generic term which always means center seating, then I am not confused.


Hi,

I won't answer for Selden, but I will say that there are general rules of audio, which should be applied, when we can. But, I would put some emphasis on the phrase: "when we can". In general, for instance, it is a good idea to try to develop an equilateral triangle between your front speakers and your listening position. That idea goes back to the early days of stereo, and is still valid. In practice, that equilateral triangle may be possible, and it may not. For instance, even in a dedicated HT, I would sacrifice the equilateral triangle, if it meant sitting at the exact center of a rectangular room, and having to deal with the bass nulls that would likely result.

Having a main listening position centered between the two front speakers is the next best thing to that equilateral triangle, especially for two-channel listening. And, it should be possible in all, or virtually all, purpose-built HT's. However, the majority of HT's are probably mixed-use rooms, and even achieving that theoretical ideal of precise centering may not always be feasible. And, there may be other considerations, such as an HT which opens to another room, where it is better to have one speaker located closer to a boundary wall, than another, in order to avoid excessively high crossovers. And, the same thing also applies to surround speakers, as in your example, which may be closer to the MLP, on one side, than on the other.

The example of sitting slightly to one side of a rectangular, or irregularly-shaped room, applies to my own situation. I get wonderful sound quality, but it takes fairly precise speaker positioning, with respect to toe-in, as the front speakers cannot be perfectly and symmetrically-aligned to my MLP. One of the strengths of Audyssey is its ability to help users achieve better sound quality, in less than ideally-designed spaces, via setting timing and levels. As Selden notes, however, that isn't always a perfect solution.

In my personal opinion, there are fewer perfect solutions than we might imagine, as nearly all HT's represent some degree of compromise, with respect to a theoretical ideal. Part of what Audyssey users (or audio buffs, in general) have to decide is which compromises are most important to avoid, and what can be done to ameliorate those compromises which cannot be avoided. And, that can only be decided on an individual, case-by-case, basis. 

In general, the better the initial set-up, the better the audio result, either with, or without Audyssey. So, that is something that most of us should really work to optimize in our individual rooms. And, the better the initial set-up, the easier job that Audyssey has in improving our sound quality. The same thing would apply to the overall room acoustics, and to sub positioning, prior to running Audyssey. But, theoretical ideals may sometimes be hard to achieve in actual living spaces; even more so than in purpose-built HT's. So, we all try to understand the general rules, and our personal objectives, and then we try to make the best compromises that we can, under the circumstances.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alanlee

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I won't answer for Selden, but I will say that there are general rules of audio, which should be applied, when we can. But, I would put some emphasis on the phrase: "when we can". In general, for instance, it is a good idea to try to develop an equilateral triangle between your front speakers and your listening position. That idea goes back to the early days of stereo, and is still valid. In practice, that equilateral triangle may be possible, and it may not. For instance, even in a dedicated HT, I would sacrifice the equilateral triangle, if it meant sitting at the exact center of a rectangular room, and having to deal with the bass nulls that would likely result.
> 
> Having a main listening position centered between the two front speakers is the next best thing to that equilateral triangle, especially for two-channel listening. And, it should be possible in all, or virtually all, purpose-built HT's. However, the majority of HT's are probably mixed-use rooms, and even achieving that theoretical ideal of precise centering may not always be feasible. And, there may be other considerations, such as an HT which opens to another room, where it is better to have one speaker located closer to a boundary wall, than another, in order to avoid excessively high crossovers. And, the same thing also applies to surround speakers, as in your example, which may be closer to the MLP, on one side, than on the other.
> 
> The example of sitting slightly to one side of a rectangular, or irregularly-shaped room, applies to my own situation. I get wonderful sound quality, but it takes fairly precise speaker positioning, with respect to toe-in, as the front speakers cannot be perfectly and symmetrically-aligned to my MLP. One of the strengths of Audyssey is its ability to help users achieve better sound quality, in less than ideally-designed spaces, via setting timing and levels. As Selden notes, however, that isn't always a perfect solution.
> 
> In my personal opinion, there are fewer perfect solutions than we might imagine, as nearly all HT's represent some degree of compromise, with respect to a theoretical ideal. Part of what Audyssey users (or audio buffs, in general) have to decide is which compromises are most important to avoid, and what can be done to ameliorate those compromises which cannot be avoided. And, that can only be decided on an individual, case-by-case, basis.
> 
> In general, the better the initial set-up, the better the audio result, either with, or without Audyssey. So, that is something that most of us should really work to optimize in our individual rooms. And, the better the initial set-up, the easier job that Audyssey has in improving our sound quality. The same thing would apply to the overall room acoustics, and to sub positioning, prior to running Audyssey. But, theoretical ideals may sometimes be hard to achieve in actual living spaces; even more so than in purpose-built HT's. So, we all try to understand the general rules, and our personal objectives, and then we try to make the best compromises that we can, under the circumstances.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike

I have tried placing the initial (#1) mike position in the center of the sofa, and to the right of the sofa where I sit. Each series of movements gives a slightly different result. Placing the mike to the right produces unbalanced speaker volumes. The surround right has less volume and the surround left has more. I actually like that setting, but it is not ideal for my wife who sits on the left side of the sofa, so the normal setting is to place the mike in the center of the sofa which would be equal distance from the front speakers.

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## pbarach

Scott Oakley said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Yeah, I have that feature defeated. Velodyne calls it Inactive vs. Active (can they make it more unintuitive?). I keep it on Inactive. Duh. I'd like the sub to be On unless I turn it Off.
> 
> Scott


I have two M&K subs with an auto-on feature. I think the purpose is to save energy. However, in the Auto On position, they never go on! So I just leave them on.


----------



## Selden Ball

Alanlee said:


> I am slightly confused by this statement "The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers." If your main listening position is on the right side of your seating area, the microphone would not be precisely centered between the front speakers. Unless I am missing something the only position where your microphone would be precisely centered would be in the center of your seating area.
> 
> My main seating area is near and slightly behind the right ear level surround speaker. If main seating area is a generic term which always means center seating, then I am not confused.


Mike's comments are consistent with my own opinions.

When only one family member has strong feelings about the audio system, it's reasonable to optimize the sound for that person. For example, if there are going to be times when a single individual is going to be concentrating on enjoying a listening session, and can sit in the optimal central location, it's "obvious" that that location should also be the first microphone position. If that listener always sits off-center, it'd be reasonable for the mic initial position to be that off-center location. A contrary viewpoint is that placing the mic at the central location, even though the seating isn't centered around it, can produce a soundfield that's predictable, with the speakers producing an audio environment that feels comfortable: you can see where the speakers are located, so you "know" how they should sound. It's all about what you and your family enjoy the most. If you can afford the time, you might try different calibration procedures to find the one which sounds best to you. D+M's non-Helios equipment can save their states over the net to a computer, so you can eventually restore your preferred Audyssey calibration. That's not currently possible with their models which include Helios, but being to save/restore to a USB thumb drive supposedly will be possible RSN.


----------



## Gary J

Alanlee said:


> I am slightly confused by this statement "The initial microphone position should be at your Main Listening Position and precisely centered between the front speakers." If your main listening position is on the right side of your seating area, the microphone would not be precisely centered between the front speakers. Unless I am missing something the only position where your microphone would be precisely centered would be in the center of your seating area.
> 
> My main seating area is near and slightly behind the right ear level surround speaker. If main seating area is a generic term which always means center seating, then I am not confused.


You should be confused because the initial microphone position should always be at the center of the listening area. Audyssey is engineered to optimize a listening area. Unfortunately people in this forum have always made it about trying to trick Audyssey into optimizing one listening position. This is unfortunate and confusing.


----------



## Alanlee

Thank you Seldon and Gary for your opinions above. I feel gratified that you took the time to respond to my questions.

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## mthomas47

Alanlee said:


> Thanks Mike
> 
> I have tried placing the initial (#1) mike position in the center of the sofa, and to the right of the sofa where I sit. Each series of movements gives a slightly different result. Placing the mike to the right produces unbalanced speaker volumes. The surround right has less volume and the surround left has more. I actually like that setting, but it is not ideal for my wife who sits on the left side of the sofa, so the normal setting is to place the mike in the center of the sofa which would be equal distance from the front speakers.
> 
> Regards
> Alanlee



Hi Alan,

You are very welcome! This sort of thing is always a personal choice, but in the circumstances you describe, I think that I would make exactly the same choice you did.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

head_unit said:


> So, where is there a detailed explanation of how MultEQ actually works? I looked at Audyssey's site, and cannot even see any details about much of anything at all, and no mention of MultEQ.
> 
> To me, the really correct way to do room EQ is in the time domain, where you would need to measure the actual impulse response in the room, and do some kind of continuous convolution or something to try and hit a target impulse response. When I used to work at a big manufacturer and we were talking to Audyssey back in the day they certainly gave an IMPRESSION of working in the time domain, but I was never too sure. They would talk about the number of filter taps, and I am not knowledgeable enough about audio DSP to really understand what that implies. I can see on Trinnov's page they use at least some time domain technology, and Alpine used to but I'm not sure if they still do.
> 
> I presume other systems are basically frequency-domain EQs, which are severely limited in how much they can help problems whose origin is in the time domain-and can result in worse sound. For instance, we can look at YPAO (Yamaha Parametric Room Acoustic Optimizer) and the word "parametric" to me suggests this is basically just an old school parametric EQ with some kind of automation routine. From Onkyo "AccuEQ is able to prevent standing waves from forming by adjusting frequency response" so no time domain processing there either. "Pioneer’s MCACC (Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration System)...equalizes response" again with no mention of time.
> 
> Anyway back to the thread, I'd be curious to see a "real" explanation of how Audyssey works...


You are not going to find an explanation of how Audyssey works anywhere since it is proprietary information that is held very close to the chest, but we can tell you that Audyssey _does not_ correct in the time domain. For that, you will need to step up to Dirac Live.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> You are not going to find an explanation of how Audyssey works anywhere since it is proprietary information that is held very close to the chest, but we can tell you that Audyssey _does not_ correct in the time domain. For that, you will need to step up to Dirac Live.


Alan et al,

If this discussion is on whether Audyssey takes care of reflections or not we need to say: *Yes it does!*

Even though technology is proprietary and hidden deep, but this is what Chrik K. has to say on the subject:

Qte

"A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times)are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response.

When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously.The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."

Unqte

So, IMHO Dirac Live is not the only solution on the market with this feature.


----------



## Mike_WI

*Audyssey vs. Dirac Live*



Alan P said:


> You are not going to find an explanation of how Audyssey works anywhere since it is proprietary information that is held very close to the chest, but we can tell you that Audyssey _does not_ correct in the time domain. For that, you will need to step up to Dirac Live.


Alan -

Any comparisons of Audyssey (what I have) and Dirac Live?
What AVRs use Dirac Live or a stand alone processor?

Thanks

Mike


----------



## Alan P

This is probably better discussed in the Dirac thread, but here is a post from HTS that does a good job of describing the major differences between Dirac and Audyssey:










http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...-live-listening-comparison-3.html#post1224906


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Alan et al,
> 
> If this discussion is on whether Audyssey takes care of reflections or not we need to say: *Yes it does!*
> 
> Even though technology is proprietary and hidden deep, but this is what Chrik K. has to say on the subject:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times)are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response.
> 
> When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously.The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> So, IMHO Dirac Live is not the only solution on the market with this feature.


I should have worded that better;

"Audyssey does not correct _as well as Dirac_ in the time domain."


----------



## mogorf

mogorf said:


> Alan et al,
> 
> 
> So, IMHO Dirac Live is not the only solution on the market with this feature.


And here's another Q&A with Chris K. from AskAudyssey:

Qte

* Time Domain correction explained*

Hello,
I am very curious to know more about how Audyssey corrects the time domain, which is said to be one of its advantages compared to other equalizing techniques.
I am not 100% into the math of FIR filters, but as far as I've read, it is possible to create filters without any kind of phase shifts compared to the theoretical phase distiotion of high Q IIR filters. If we take aside the number of correction points and the frequency response, what exactly does Audyssey do compared to conventional EQ? Can it take the delay as a function of frequency and correct the arrival of frequencies according to a measurement which includes the time domain?
Lets say you have much reverb time at 40-60hz in your room. Apart from correcting any dips/peaks like a conventional EQ, how does Audyssey handle this? Sorry if I sound sceptical, but it does not make sense to me, that it is able to handle reflections in the room. When the sound at a certain frequency "leaves" the speaker, Audyssey cannot do anything to it. So reflections caused by this sound, is not in the hands of Audyssey anymore. The only way to lower these reflections must be to lower the output of the certain frequency coming from the speaker.
I hope my question makes sense, and I'm looking forward to an answer.










*Chris Kyriakakis * August 10, 2011 20:48

Hi Jonas,

You are right that there is no way to control the sound after it leaves the speaker. However, we can measure the effects of the reflections that arrive after the direct sound by looking at the time domain response. It has a certain pattern to it that will depend on the time of arrival of those reflections. Based on that pattern and the similarity of patterns across multiple measured locations we can identify the problems caused by reflections. Then, a filter is created to invert those problems as best as possible.


The key is to not think of the filtering in the time domain. It's not like a graphic equalizer that can only raise or lower the amplitude at certain frequencies. Our filters are in the form of impulse responses that operate on the audio signal through an operation called convolution. As such, they are affecting the signal in each channel in the time domain--hence the name. An additional benefit of such filters (also called FIR) is that they operate in the time-frequency domain as well. That means they can be used effectively to lower the ring down time of room modes in the low frequency range.

Unqte

Link here: https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212342903-Time-Domain-correction-explained


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> I should have worded that better;
> 
> "Audyssey does not correct _as well as Dirac_ in the time domain."


Hmm Alan, you are generating more and more questions, right?  Any comparison of A. and D. in your hands you could share with us?


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Hmm Alan, you are generating more and more questions, right?  Any comparison of A. and D. in your hands you could share with us?


I have no personal experience with Dirac, so you might find better answers to your questions on HTS or in this thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...al-thread-8-channel-ai-ao-dirac-live-box.html


----------



## Scott Oakley

mogorf said:


> Alan et al,
> 
> If this discussion is on whether Audyssey takes care of reflections or not we need to say: *Yes it does!*
> 
> Even though technology is proprietary and hidden deep, but this is what Chrik K. has to say on the subject:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times)are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response.
> 
> When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously.The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> So, IMHO Dirac Live is not the only solution on the market with this feature.


Yeah, that kinda fits with my understanding. Audysey takes into account distances and adjusts timing to compensate for differences, allowing signals to arrive more simultenously at the Primary Listening Position. Why else would it go to so much trouble to measure distances so accurately?

(just my understanding of all the reading I've done and my experience)


----------



## gurkey

Just been curious and looked at the Audyssey web site (again). My last visit there has been about a year ago or so. Strange things are happening.
To my surprise almost all references (and links) to the measurement system, its variants, features, Q&A, posts/comments and specs have been removed or are no longer functioning. 
There is almost nothing left over.
Looks to me at least, as if Audyssey either prepares for the end of life of its measurement system, which might have reached its final state with the proposed release of the "Audyssey-App" in February 2017 (the pro/installer kit version has been dropped already) or they are on the verge of selling the technology to another company, may be.
This goes with the impression that all further development of this technology has come to a stand still in the last few years, no R & D I know of has happened and no news regarding this technology has shown up anywhere. 
Is that the dawn of this technology, we are experiencing right now ?


----------



## bmcn

gurkey said:


> Just been curious and looked at the Audyssey web site (again)...
> Is that the dawn of this technology, we are experiencing right now ?


Same first reaction after a recent visit to their website. Perhaps D&M will no longer pony up and this is the sunset.


----------



## littlefoott

BiggShooter said:


> Sorry about the confusion. When I was referring to "front left" and "front right", I should have specified I was talking about the trim levels for the "built-in" subwoofers for the DT BP9060's. I wouldn't adjust any other "trim" levels for actual speakers.


to dial in the subs
run audyssey from the number one position (no need to move it for dial in, this may take a few times)
adjust the sub gain up or down until you get between -5 and zero on the avr trim level do not go above zero 

when dialed in run audyssey as normal with all locations

use avr subwoofer adjust or subwoofer dial for adjustments, do not adjust the subwoofer trim set by audyssey or you could lose the filters it applied


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> Just been curious and looked at the Audyssey web site (again). My last visit there has been about a year ago or so. Strange things are happening.
> To my surprise almost all references (and links) to the measurement system, its variants, features, Q&A, posts/comments and specs have been removed or are no longer functioning.
> There is almost nothing left over.
> Looks to me at least, as if Audyssey either prepares for the end of life of its measurement system, which might have reached its final state with the proposed release of the "Audyssey-App" in February 2017 (the pro/installer kit version has been dropped already) or they are on the verge of selling the technology to another company, may be.
> This goes with the impression that all further development of this technology has come to a stand still in the last few years, no R & D I know of has happened and no news regarding this technology has shown up anywhere.
> Is that the dawn of this technology, we are experiencing right now ?





bmcn said:


> Same first reaction after a recent visit to their website. Perhaps D&M will no longer pony up and this is the sunset.


If you look back a page, Feri had a Facebook conversation with Chris K., the creator of Audyssey, who confirmed that they are in the middle of a different marketing emphasis right now. But, Audyssey isn't going anywhere. In fact, the new smart phone app is going to be released early this year.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

littlefoott said:


> to dial in the subs
> run audyssey from the number one position (no need to move it for dial in, this may take a few times)
> adjust the sub gain up or down until you get between -5 and zero on the avr trim level do not go above zero
> 
> when dialed in run audyssey as normal with all locations
> 
> use avr subwoofer adjust or subwoofer dial for adjustments, do not adjust the subwoofer trim set by audyssey or you could lose the filters it applied


Hi,

Please check-out the suggestion I made to you, just now, on the SVS thread. If you read Post 1296 on Page 44 of this thread, I think it will help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bmcn

mthomas47 said:


> If you look back a page, Feri had a Facebook conversation with Chris K., the creator of Audyssey, who confirmed that they are in the middle of a different marketing emphasis right now. But, Audyssey isn't going anywhere. In fact, the new smart phone app is going to be released early this year.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Read it soon after it was posted. Again, D&M is their meal ticket for rc; maintaining a relationship with a sole customer is typically risky.


----------



## Skylinestar

mthomas47 said:


> in the middle of a different marketing emphasis right now


yeah right. mobile audio to cater the majority market.
sigh.


----------



## littlefoott

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Please check-out the suggestion I made to you, just now, on the SVS thread. If you read Post 1296 on Page 44 of this thread, I think it will help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


both are correct

f)3. How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?

source: 
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/795421-official-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#post21782993


----------



## mthomas47

littlefoott said:


> both are correct
> 
> f)3. How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?
> 
> source:
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/795421-official-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#post21782993



If you will actually read the post I suggested, however, you will get a different perspective. Ed Mullen (of SVS), among others, has suggested keeping sub trims well in the negative range. And, most people like to add a sub boost, so knowing how to do that is important, and starting with a trim level of between -5 and 0.0 is not the best way. Also, as noted on the other thread, the sub trims are entirely separate from the Audyssey control points (filters) which Audyssey sets for the subs. 

The FAQ is an excellent source of information, which is why I have it linked in my signature, but it hasn't been updated in some areas in years, and best practice recommendations continue to evolve over time. I think you are trying to be helpful to other posters in offering them subwoofer trim setting advice. And, I am only trying to be helpful, in return, by making sure that you have the best available information at your disposal.


----------



## gurkey

mthomas47 said:


> If you look back a page, Feri had a Facebook conversation with Chris K., the creator of Audyssey, who confirmed that they are in the middle of a different marketing emphasis right now. But, Audyssey isn't going anywhere. In fact, the new smart phone app is going to be released early this year.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Having worked at a larger company in industrial electronics for decades, my impressions and experiences differ. 

Usually up to the very last minute everything is denied just to keep everyone calm und to prevent any upstir. I wouldn't be surprised, if the release of the Audyssey-App (the removal of the Installer-/"Pro-"kit has happened already as we all probably know) would be the final act of promoting the measurement system. May be the product has been sold to the D & M Group already or is doomed, who really knows from the outside ? Otherwise one would still keep the focus on a well known product, tied to the Audyssey brand name, even if new developments where on the horizon. But if you take a closer look at the web site, you realize, that under its surface almost every trace referring to Audyssey as a measurement system has already been removed . Why ? There wasn't any need for it I know of, was it ? 

For me its contradicting that statement of yours. Thus that interview doesn't really say that much at all.


----------



## Alanlee

gurkey said:


> Having worked at a larger company in industrial electronics for decades, my impressions and experiences differ.
> 
> Usually up to the very last minute everything is denied just to keep everyone calm und to prevent any upstir. I wouldn't be surprised, if the release of the Audyssey-App (the removal of the Installer-/"Pro-"kit has happened already as we all probably know) would be the final act of promoting the measurement system. May be the product has been sold to the D & M Group already or is doomed, who really knows from the outside ? Otherwise one would still keep the focus on a well known product, tied to the Audyssey brand name, even if new developments where on the horizon. But if you take a closer look at the web site, you realize, that under its surface almost every trace referring to Audyssey as a measurement system has already been removed . Why ? There wasn't any need for it I know of, was it ?
> 
> For me its contradicting that statement of yours. Thus that interview doesn't really say that much at all.


Your post is more in line with my skeptical view of corporate procedure. I hope you and I are both wrong. In either case I think the audio world will have room correction software that is at least as good as what we have now, and I suspect it will be even better, whether from Audyssey or some other source. Time marches on and learning curves continue on a steep climb.

I might add that I appreciate all the good advice about how to use Audyssey and how it works that is present on this thread.

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> Having worked at a larger company in industrial electronics for decades, my impressions and experiences differ.
> 
> Usually up to the very last minute everything is denied just to keep everyone calm und to prevent any upstir. I wouldn't be surprised, if the release of the Audyssey-App (the removal of the Installer-/"Pro-"kit has happened already as we all probably know) would be the final act of promoting the measurement system. May be the product has been sold to the D & M Group already or is doomed, who really knows from the outside ? Otherwise one would still keep the focus on a well known product, tied to the Audyssey brand name, even if new developments where on the horizon. But if you take a closer look at the web site, you realize, that under its surface almost every trace referring to Audyssey as a measurement system has already been removed . Why ? There wasn't any need for it I know of, was it ?
> 
> For me its contradicting that statement of yours. Thus that interview doesn't really say that much at all.


Hi,

I don't really have a personal stake in this issue, other than the normal one of enjoying the use of Audyssey. So, I am not too concerned about what might be contradicted. I have expended a lot of effort in trying to understand, and properly implement Audyssey. And, in the last few years, I have spent some time trying to help others to do the same thing. But, I feel that the effort has been its own reward. So, if Audyssey really is on the way out, so be it. In short, I am not denying the possibility in what you are saying. Nor, am I too dismayed, as my current AVR will continue to serve well until my next AVR upgrade, and there will be other room EQ options available at that point. So, I don't have a particular interest in rebutting anything you are saying. Your speculation could well be correct, but it's just speculation, right now.

My own perspective is that Chris K. would fight hard to defend his creation, but with corporations, who knows? And, perhaps as you say, Denon/Marantz has quietly acquired the Audyssey room correction software. I'm a little skeptical, but again who knows? It seems to me, that at least one other AVR maker is offering some versions of Audyssey, although not XT-32, but I can't recall who it is. Perhaps someone else will chime in on that. In any event, I don't expect to get too excited about this issue, until something definitive is known. And, even then, I don't expect anything to change for those of us who are currently using Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Selden Ball

There are at least a couple of other companies using Audyssey in some of their equipment, NAD and McIntosh, for example, but they provide a much smaller customer base than D+M does.

I suspect that Dirac Live might be the obvious consumer roomEQ replacement for Audyssey, although at least two of the companies providing integrated solutions (receivers and pre/pros from AudioControl and Arcam) have put it at the wrong place in the data stream: before instead of after bass management. Some postings seem to indicate that Dirac (the company) is encouraging that processing order for some reason.


----------



## mthomas47

Selden Ball said:


> There are at least a couple of other companies using Audyssey in some of their equipment, NAD and McIntosh, for example, but they provide a much smaller customer base than D+M does.
> 
> I suspect that Dirac Live might be the obvious consumer roomEQ replacement for Audyssey, although at least two of the companies providing integrated solutions (receivers and pre/pros from AudioControl and Arcam) have put it at the wrong place in the data stream: before instead of after bass management. Some postings seem to indicate that Dirac (the company) is encouraging that processing order for some reason.


NAD was the one I was remembering, or almost remembering.  I wasn't aware that McIntosh also offered Audyssey. Have they abandoned Room Perfect, or do they just reserve it for certain models?


----------



## Selden Ball

mthomas47 said:


> NAD was the one I was remembering, or almost remembering.  I wasn't aware that McIntosh also offered Audyssey. Have they abandoned Room Perfect, or do they just reserve it for certain models?


It's just in certain models.

During the time when McIntosh was a division of D&M Holdings, they came out with the MC121. It was essentially an improved version of the Marantz AV8801 pre/pro and included Audyssey XT32. Although they subsequently became a division of Fine Sounds SpA of Milan, Italy, they recently released a follow-on MC122 pre/pro, which also uses Audyssey XT32. There are threads here on AVS dedicated to those pre/pros.


----------



## mthomas47

Selden Ball said:


> It's just in certain models.
> 
> During the time when McIntosh was a division of D&M Holdings, they came out with the MC121. It was essentially an improved version of the Marantz AV8801 pre/pro and included Audyssey XT32. Although they subsequently became a division of Fine Sounds SpA of Milan, Italy, they recently released a follow-on MC122 pre/pro, which also uses Audyssey XT32. There are threads here on AVS dedicated to those pre/pros.


Thanks! I actually followed a couple of those threads at one time, in part due to my interest in Room Perfect. But, I missed the release of the MC122.


----------



## littlefoott

mthomas47 said:


> If you will actually read the post I suggested, however, you will get a different perspective. Ed Mullen (of SVS), among others, has suggested keeping sub trims well in the negative range. And, most people like to add a sub boost, so knowing how to do that is important, and starting with a trim level of between -5 and 0.0 is not the best way. Also, as noted on the other thread, the sub trims are entirely separate from the Audyssey control points (filters) which Audyssey sets for the subs.
> 
> The FAQ is an excellent source of information, which is why I have it linked in my signature, but it hasn't been updated in some areas in years, and best practice recommendations continue to evolve over time. I think you are trying to be helpful to other posters in offering them subwoofer trim setting advice. And, I am only trying to be helpful, in return, by making sure that you have the best available information at your disposal.


I read the post you suggested days ago, and it is confirming of the follow up after the part I posted for dial in 
f)3. How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?

here is the confirmation of eds method in the faq
f)4. If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#f4


----------



## mthomas47

littlefoott said:


> I read the post you suggested days ago, and it is confirming of the follow up after the part I posted for dial in
> f)3. How do I set the controls on my subwoofer before running MultEQ?
> 
> here is the confirmation of eds method in the faq
> f)4. If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#f4


What we have here is a failure to communicate!  (To quote a famous movie line.) Ed has revised his advice, since that entry in the FAQ was made several years ago. He now recommends staying well in negative numbers, period. You, and others are welcome to set your subs to any AVR trim you want. But, part of what Post 1296 explains is the reason why it is often necessary to add some sub boost (beyond preference, which is what the FAQ implies), and the best methods to achieve it.

If we start with an AVR trim setting of anywhere from -5 to 0.0, as you suggest, it is very difficult to add any more trim, while still staying well in the negative range. In fact, Post 1296 specifically recommends keeping the trim level between about -3 and -5, *after* adding whatever sub boost is desired from the original Audyssey calibration. And, that is consistent with Ed's current advice, and that of several others. We don't want to start with a trim level of -5, unless we are going to always stay at about -5, which most people aren't going to do. And, we don't ever want to start with a sub trim level of 0.0.

Best practice principles evolve over time. They change, and the FAQ hasn't ever been fully edited with respect to this issue. Post 1296 was written specifically to clarify some ambiguous (and obsolete) advice in the FAQ, and to add to the overall understanding of some issues. It is intended to supersede the FAQ, and you keep citing the FAQ to refute it. That's where the communication breakdown seems to be occurring.

If you respect Ed's advice on the matter, contact him yourself, and see what he says. But, his quote from several years ago is not the same thing that he, and others, will tell you today. Even audio experts, and sub makers, such as Ed and Jeff, and Tom, and Mark can change their minds about the best practice advice they give. And, this thread tries to be a repository for that current advice, whenever possible. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

head_unit said:


> So, where is there a detailed explanation of how MultEQ actually works? I looked at Audyssey's site, and cannot even see any details about much of anything at all, and no mention of MultEQ.
> 
> To me, the really correct way to do room EQ is in the time domain, where you would need to measure the actual impulse response in the room, and do some kind of continuous convolution or something to try and hit a target impulse response. When I used to work at a big manufacturer and we were talking to Audyssey back in the day they certainly gave an IMPRESSION of working in the time domain, but I was never too sure. They would talk about the number of filter taps, and I am not knowledgeable enough about audio DSP to really understand what that implies. I can see on Trinnov's page they use at least some time domain technology, and Alpine used to but I'm not sure if they still do.
> 
> I presume other systems are basically frequency-domain EQs, which are severely limited in how much they can help problems whose origin is in the time domain-and can result in worse sound. For instance, we can look at YPAO (Yamaha Parametric Room Acoustic Optimizer) and the word "parametric" to me suggests this is basically just an old school parametric EQ with some kind of automation routine. From Onkyo "AccuEQ is able to prevent standing waves from forming by adjusting frequency response" so no time domain processing there either. "Pioneer’s MCACC (Multi-Channel Acoustic Calibration System)...equalizes response" again with no mention of time.
> 
> Anyway back to the thread, I'd be curious to see a "real" explanation of how Audyssey works...


I was going to do a long response but gave up. I think you may want to do a bit more looking into what the various proprietary systems do. I just did a bit of a search on Yamaha's YPAO and discovered that while the base level of YPAO does not include any time domain correction, YPAO RSC does include time domain correction. How much and how well it's done may well be another thing but some of Yamaha's products using YPAO are doing things in the time domain as well as the frequency domain. That may be true for other systems as well.

I also don't think that I've ever heard a system which was being corrected in the frequency domain only ever sound worse because no correction was being applied in the time domain. When I've heard things sound worse because of frequency domain correction only, it's been because something was being done wrongly with the correction being applied. 

There are systems which adopt a more rigorous measurement approach than Audyssey and systems which offer more flexibility in tailoring the final result. Doing either of those things tends to introduce a level of complexity which requires a bit more knowledge and/or experience from the user if the best results are to be achieved. Some people don't have that knowledge or experience and aren't going to put in the time and effort needed to develop them. Systems like Audyssey are great for those people and won't satisfy some people. Systems which will satisfy the most critical users often tend to be more demanding than average users want. I think picking between basic level systems like Audyssey and more advanced systems offering greater flexibility is as much an exercise in deciding how much you want to put into the process and learning how to get the most out of the system as it is about how good a result you can get. As the quality of the result improves, it becomes increasingly harder to get further improvement. Most people reach a "good enough" point and stop, only a few tend to continue on pursuing the absolute best result possible. I think for many people Audyssey represents a "good enough" point delivering results that are as good or better than they hoped for without requiring too demanding a process to get that result, but falling somewhat short of the best result that can be achieved if you really want to make an all out assault on the best that can be achieved. That's not a bad thing in my view, in fact I think it's a pretty good thing given most people's needs and wants.


----------



## Alanlee

David Aiken said:


> I was going to do a long response but gave up. I think you may want to do a bit more looking into what the various proprietary systems do. I just did a bit of a search on Yamaha's YPAO and discovered that while the base level of YPAO does not include any time domain correction, YPAO RSC does include time domain correction. How much and how well it's done may well be another thing but some of Yamaha's products using YPAO are doing things in the time domain as well as the frequency domain. That may be true for other systems as well.
> 
> I also don't think that I've ever heard a system which was being corrected in the frequency domain only ever sound worse because no correction was being applied in the time domain. When I've heard things sound worse because of frequency domain correction only, it's been because something was being done wrongly with the correction being applied.
> 
> There are systems which adopt a more rigorous measurement approach than Audyssey and systems which offer more flexibility in tailoring the final result. Doing either of those things tends to introduce a level of complexity which requires a bit more knowledge and/or experience from the user if the best results are to be achieved. Some people don't have that knowledge or experience and aren't going to put in the time and effort needed to develop them. Systems like Audyssey are great for those people and won't satisfy some people. Systems which will satisfy the most critical users often tend to be more demanding than average users want. I think picking between basic level systems like Audyssey and more advanced systems offering greater flexibility is as much an exercise in deciding how much you want to put into the process and learning how to get the most out of the system as it is about how good a result you can get. As the quality of the result improves, it becomes increasingly harder to get further improvement. Most people reach a "good enough" point and stop, only a few tend to continue on pursuing the absolute best result possible. I think for many people Audyssey represents a "good enough" point delivering results that are as good or better than they hoped for without requiring too demanding a process to get that result, but falling somewhat short of the best result that can be achieved if you really want to make an all out assault on the best that can be achieved. That's not a bad thing in my view, in fact I think it's a pretty good thing given most people's needs and wants.


I have had a Yamaha amp and a Pioneer amp which utilized room correction software. In both cases the resultant sound was better than nothing at all. When I bought the Denon amp and used Audyssey I noticed a marked improvement in the sound, especially with the sub-woofer. My theater room is an audio swamp, and Audyssey makes it better.

Your statement "Doing either of those things tends to introduce a level of complexity which requires a bit more knowledge and/or experience from the user if the best results are to be achieved," fits my situation. I do not want to drill deep into these programs, nor do I want to look at endless graphs to tweak my sound. A few graphs, a little tweaking, a bit of knowledge about the workings of the program and my curiosity is satiated.

I have considerable respect for people who frequent this thread and provide knowledge to the rest of us. I am one of those who " reach a "good enough" point and stop," but I appreciate your contributions because I am lurking on this thread.

Regards
Alanlee


----------



## littlefoott

mthomas47 said:


> What we have here is a failure to communicate!  (To quote a famous movie line.) Ed has revised his advice, since that entry in the FAQ was made several years ago. He now recommends staying well in negative numbers, period. You, and others are welcome to set your subs to any AVR trim you want. But, part of what Post 1296 explains is the reason why it is often necessary to add some sub boost (beyond preference, which is what the FAQ implies), and the best methods to achieve it.
> 
> If we start with an AVR trim setting of anywhere from -5 to 0.0, as you suggest, it is very difficult to add any more trim, while still staying well in the negative range. In fact, Post 1296 specifically recommends keeping the trim level between about -3 and -5, *after* adding whatever sub boost is desired from the original Audyssey calibration. And, that is consistent with Ed's current advice, and that of several others. We don't want to start with a trim level of -5, unless we are going to always stay at about -5, which most people aren't going to do. And, we don't ever want to start with a sub trim level of 0.0.
> 
> Best practice principles evolve over time. They change, and the FAQ hasn't ever been fully edited with respect to this issue. Post 1296 was written specifically to clarify some ambiguous (and obsolete) advice in the FAQ, and to add to the overall understanding of some issues. It is intended to supersede the FAQ, and you keep citing the FAQ to refute it. That's where the communication breakdown seems to be occurring.
> 
> If you respect Ed's advice on the matter, contact him yourself, and see what he says. But, his quote from several years ago is not the same thing that he, and others, will tell you today. Even audio experts, and sub makers, such as Ed and Jeff, and Tom, and Mark can change their minds about the best practice advice they give. And, this thread tries to be a repository for that current advice, whenever possible.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Dang it!
I read that faq from tip to tail and thought I learned something.

well now what ..all the info changes by the week.
arrg it's hard to keep up with the changes.

I think I have to write off the audyssey thread as opinion and no facts as that's what I am getting, when things change and the audyssey programing and hardware stays the same.
frustrating

k rant's done
lets crank the music or put on a movie!


----------



## mthomas47

littlefoott said:


> *Dang it!
> I read that faq from tip to tail and thought I learned something.*
> 
> well now what ..all the info changes by the week.
> arrg it's hard to keep up with the changes.
> 
> I think I have to write off the audyssey thread as opinion and no facts as that's what I am getting, when things change and the audyssey programing and hardware stays the same.
> frustrating
> 
> k rant's done
> lets crank the music or put on a movie!



Hey, join the club! That's probably how we all feel about this stuff at times. I know I do. But, it really isn't just about Audyssey. The subwoofer protocols, regarding gain and trim, would apply to any system of automated or manual calibration. The subwoofer gurus are probably responding to more bass heavy electronic music, and to the serious ULF in some movies. But, I see more of them recommending the same thing now, with respect to negative trim levels.


----------



## Methodical_1

BiggShooter said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> Audyssey set the "trim" to -10.5 db for the left front speaker and -10 db for the right front speaker. I will certainly adjust the "trim" values within the Denon AVR rather than the "gain" controls on the back of the DT BP9060's. Just to be sure, if I adjust the "trim" levels, would I want to be sure I "equally adjust them? So if Audyssey sets the "trim" level at -10.5 db (front left speaker) and -10 db (front right speaker), and I want to raise it +5.5 db to get closer to -3 db, I would set the "trim" to -5.0 db for the front left speaker and the trim to -4.5 db for the front right speaker?
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


I see you decided to come over to get some answers. Did you see the post in the Denon thread I made quoting how to setup the subs by mthomas with the links. My subs woke up when doing it based on his process as the standard old method gave me so, so bass. Things have changed and I don't think some of those guys in the Denon have noticed the change yet.

I initially did the standard setup when I first got my receiver back in September and then when I purchase the SVS sub and visited that thread is when I found this method - been happy ever since and now about to get my 2nd sub.


----------



## Methodical_1

Scott Oakley said:


> Ok, I am a DumbAss. I admit it. I take the hit. Due to older eyes, (and having to look down from the top of the AVR)...And finally, dont look at your AVR from above...Scott


Haha! now that was funny. I've done it, too, especially trying to look from above. I need a flashlight from behind.


----------



## Methodical_1

Selden Ball said:


> ...Using a $30 boom microphone stand makes proper placement relatively easy.)


Do you have a link to that $30 mic boom? I've decided to go ahead and buy one.

Thanks


----------



## BiggShooter

Methodical_1 said:


> I see you decided to come over to get some answers. Did you see the post in the Denon thread I made quoting how to setup the subs by mthomas with the links. My subs woke up when doing it based on his process as the standard old method gave me so, so bass. Things have changed and I don't think some of those guys in the Denon have noticed the change yet.
> 
> I initially did the standard setup when I first got my receiver back in September and then when I purchase the SVS sub and visited that thread is when I found this method - been happy ever since and now about to get my 2nd sub.


I will have to go back and find it.....I'm certain I did read it but don't remember the details about it. I guess that's what I get for reading several posts from several forums.


----------



## Selden Ball

Methodical_1 said:


> Do you have a link to that $30 mic boom? I've decided to go ahead and buy one.
> 
> Thanks


Links to a couple of stands are included in the Audyssey 101/FAQ.

In particular, see the section 
d)1. Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?


----------



## mthomas47

Methodical_1 said:


> Do you have a link to that $30 mic boom? I've decided to go ahead and buy one.
> 
> Thanks


There are several that would work. This is a good one. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQOFG6W/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_16?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> I will have to go back and find it.....I'm certain I did read it but don't remember the details about it. I guess that's what I get for reading several posts from several forums.


Hi,

I don't want to speak for him, but I think he is referring to Post 1296, on Page 44, of this thread. I add some detail to that post every few days, as I think of additional ways to explain, or to clarify things, so it keeps growing. I'm afraid, in time, it may just eat all the other posts on that page.  

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BiggShooter

mthomas47 said:


> Trim Levels:
> 
> The most commonly asked question on the Audyssey thread these days involves subwoofer settings. There is a fairly universal perception that bass sounds somewhat softer after running Audyssey, and most people who are new to Audyssey are naturally curious about whether that perception is normal, and if so, about the best way to increase their bass. I have been thinking about trying to write a simple explanation of the relationships among sub gain, AVR trim, and master volume (MV). This explanation represents my current understanding of how Audyssey works, and offers some best practice advice for getting the most from your subs. I am also going to include some discussion of how Audyssey sets, and EQ's, single and multiple subs.
> 
> First, one of Audyssey's goals, in any Audyssey version, is to set the volume levels of all channels in a system, including subs, to 75db, as measured at the MLP, by the calibrated Audyssey microphone. The MLP is microphone position 1, wherever the user chooses to place the microphone. And, that point in space is where Audyssey will set timing (distance) and channel levels to coincide. Where subs are concerned, Audyssey will measure all of the subs together, so that their combined SPL is 75db. When Audyssey finishes, all channels in the system will play at the same volume, as determined by the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> As a practical matter, starting with all of the channels playing at the same volume is probably the only way to set the audio system to Audyssey Flat. The intent of Flat is to have every frequency from down to as low as 10Hz, and as high as about 22KHz, play +/- 3db. The Audyssey Reference curve changes Flat, by rolling off the very high frequencies a little (mostly above 10KHz) and adds mid-range compensation (a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz). But, to do those curves, Audyssey needs to start with all channels and frequencies playing at the same volume at the MLP.
> 
> Second, the room strongly influences bass response, causing peaks and dips at various frequencies. That is why Audyssey can be so helpful in EQing subs. When Audyssey is successful at flattening out most of those peaks and dips (at least to some extent) the result is a smoother, clearer sound. And, that less distorted, and less boomy sound, may contribute to the impression that there is less bass playing. But, there is more to it than that. Most people don't listen at Reference Volumes (0.0 MV) which is where the low frequency content in 5.1 movies was mixed to be in correct balance with other frequencies. Once the volume level of a movie drops, those low bass frequencies may be harder to hear, in relation to the frequencies where our hearing is stronger.
> 
> After the level-matching process from mic position 1 is complete, the low frequencies (which, as noted, are harder for us to hear) are playing at the same volume as all of the other frequencies. This phenomenon of lower frequencies being harder to hear than higher ones (except for very high frequencies) is well known. Some additional explanation of this is in the Addendum at the bottom of this post. For even more information, search for Fletcher Munson Curves, or Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> DEQ slightly boosts the low frequencies (and the high ones in the regular channels), in all channels including the subs, and is engaged by default. That is intended to, at least partly, compensate for the inherent difficulty in hearing lower frequencies, at below Reference volume levels. How much boost DEQ adds varies depending on the MV selected, with more boost added as listening levels go softer, at a rate of about +2db per 5db below Reference. (So, at -15 MV, for instance, DEQ would add a little over 6db of bass boost to all of the channels, including the sub channel.) But, most people seem to need more bass boost than that, and prefer to have their own rising house curve, by adding more boost to the subs, even with DEQ on. With DEQ off, sub boosts are typically even larger. So, the question of how, and where, to add that sub boost becomes important for many users.
> 
> Third, most modern commercial subs have a gain (sometimes labeled "volume") control. The initial setting of that gain control will determine where Audyssey sets the trim level for the sub(s). So, if the initial gain control is high, Audyssey will set a low trim setting in the AVR (such as -9) in order to insure that the sub is playing 75db at the MLP, just as all the other channels are. If the gain control setting is low, Audyssey will set a high trim level setting in the AVR (such as -3.0, or 0.0, or even +3.0) to insure that same 75db.
> 
> Fourth, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Therefore, it is desirable to start with a high gain level, and a low trim level. Using the trim settings in the AVR to make sub volume adjustments allows the user to make convenient and fairly exact (.5db increments) adjustments to subwoofer volume, by using the AVR remote. Typically, in order to achieve a low trim level, it will be necessary to start with a measured sub SPL of higher than 75db. An SPL level of about 78db to 80db may be required. The specific SPL used is not as important as the resulting low trim level.
> 
> [It should be noted that there is no particular reason not to just use the gain control on a sub to add volume post-calibration. For people wanting to add really substantial bass boosts--up to, or in excess of 10db or 12db, a combination of gain increase, and AVR trim increase, is the best method to achieve the bass boost desired by the user. The usual recommendation to employ the AVR trim is more a matter of convenience and accuracy than one of necessity. Some subs don't have digital gain controls, for instance, so fine tuning the gain can be more difficult, as can on-the-fly adjustments. And, it gets even less convenient when multiple subs are connected together. Using the trim controls in an AVR allows for very convenient and precise adjustments in sub volume. But, the most important thing is to make sure that the real boost comes from the subwoofer amp, whichever method is ultimately employed.]
> 
> Assuming that the desired boost is to be accomplished using AVR trim, a low trim level might be defined as -9 to -11, but not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units. And again, it may take an SPL of 78db, or higher, to achieve that trim level. However, it is important not to go lower than -11.5 in trim. As noted by Alan in an earlier post, if a trim level of -12 is set, there is no knowing what the actual volume of the sub is. The AVR simply ran out of negative trim at -12. The actual sub volume might be 80db, or even 85db, instead of 75db. And, if so, you might not like the way it sounds to have your sub so much louder than the rest of your system. You also could never be sure what your actual sub volume is, and as a result, you could find yourself running out of headroom sooner than expected. So, you want a negative trim setting not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units.
> 
> Think of the process of adding a sub boost this way. When you raise the gain level in the sub, so that the sub produces more than 75db at the MLP, you are making a deposit in the bank, of amplifier power from the sub. So, for instance, let's say you start with a trim level in the AVR of -9. Now, you can withdraw amp power from the bank, using your AVR trim control. You would, for instance, do that by increasing your trim setting to -6, or -3. That +3 to +6db boost would be pretty typical. But, there is no free lunch. As you begin to approach 0.0, the bank deposit of amp power that you made with the higher gain setting is used up, and now you are using AVR amp power, which as noted, is not as powerful. Using AVR amp power can, in some instances, result in clipping (distorting) your subwoofer(s) or, in some cases, can result in undesirable mechanical noises.
> 
> Fifth, there is a relationship between sub volume and master volume (MV). As your MV increases, the subwoofer volume goes up correspondingly, and more demands are placed on the sub. It is important to remember that the subwoofer is not only playing the LFE channel, but also providing bass support for all of the other channels in a typical HT system. So, as the MV increases, the demands on the sub go up much faster than for the other channels, particularly in a movie with a lot of low frequency content. It is worth noting that 5.1 movies can have very low frequency content in all of the channels, and not just in the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. The subwoofer has to (and should) play all of that low frequency content.
> 
> It is recommended by a number of subwoofer experts, two of whom are quoted in the FAQ, that it is advisable to keep sub trims negative (below 0.0). That is particularly important as MV's approach, or exceed, -10. In Denon/Marantz units, that is 10db below Reference (or 70 on the absolute scale) in your AVR master volume. One of those experts quoted, Ed Mullen of SVS, has subsequent to the entries in the FAQ, recommended staying in negative trim levels, period. To follow his advice, and to avoid the possibility of distortion, we would want to keep our trim levels in about the -3 to -5 range, at even more moderate listening levels. Again, that is easy to do by raising the gain on the sub, particularly if it has a digital control.
> 
> David makes the point, in a post below this one, that high sub gain levels, which still result in high trim levels, are indicative of a sub which is under-powered for the space, and/or the distance from the MLP. In that instance, the only remedy would be a more powerful sub, or multiple subs, or a different (probably closer) sub placement. Although sub placement is not a part of this discussion, it is a very important factor in sub performance.
> 
> If you never intend to approach -10 MV, then the advice to set your sub gain high enough to obtain a strongly negative trim level will be less important. And, if you don't believe that you will ever want to boost your subs, then starting with a trim level of about -6, or so, would be perfectly fine. But, most people on this and other threads seem to average at least a +3 to +6db bass boost after calibration, and some people add much more than that. When DEQ (with its own bass boost) is not employed, boosts of 12db, or even more, are not uncommon. So, the advice you will most commonly see on this thread is to start with a negative trim setting of about -9 to -11 post-calibration, in order to maximize your ability to add sub boost, with your AVR trim control, while still using the sub gain you deposited in the bank.
> 
> Although this advice is not entirely consistent with the explanations and recommendations in the FAQ, I believe that in this particular instance, the current advice on the thread supersedes the advice in the FAQ. I would personally recommend following the advice to maintain a negative sub trim (preferably of about -3, or lower) as a matter of best practice, even if you believe that you will never approach -10 MV. There is no telling who might, inadvertently or otherwise, run the volume control up on your system, or when unexpected peaks in very low bass (in electronically-enhanced music, or in movies) might cause some distortion to occur.
> 
> It is unlikely that a good modern sub would be damaged by a bit of distortion, but I know of an Orbit Shifter, of all things, that had a fried voice coil just from playing electronic music, downloaded from You Tube, at a very high volume with a high AVR trim level. And, even if no damage is done from distortion, listening to distorted bass is sort of antithetical to the whole idea of using automated room EQ, in the first place. It is also more likely that mechanical noises, such as port chuffing, or of drivers hitting limiters, could occur when proper gain/trim protocols aren't followed. So, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in this case.
> 
> Again, you can use a combination of increased gain, and some increase in AVR trim to raise the volume level on your sub to any level you choose, while maintaining an AVR trim of -3, or less. That will allow you to achieve any sub volume your sub is capable of producing. Raising the gain control on the sub(s) post calibration, will have no effect at all on the way that Audyssey EQed your system.
> 
> 
> Audyssey and Multiple Subs:
> 
> There are many advantages to having multiple subs, and many HT owners do have more than one sub. The process for setting trim levels for multiple subs depends on the version of Audyssey being used. For all versions except XT-32, with SubEQ, there will only be one sub out on the AVR. People with multiple subs will typically Y-connect two or more subs into that single sub out. (In some cases, they may also daisy chain the subs.) It is desirable, to run mic position 1 for each sub independently, letting Audyssey calculate distance and setting gain/trim levels, as described in the section above. Then, after connecting dual subs into the single sub out, the normal process can be followed to balance the two gain levels symmetrically, increasing or decreasing the gain levels by the same amount, to achieve a good negative trim level. And, distances from multiple subs can be considered, and if necessary, entered manually to more closely correspond to the timing that Audyssey observed when the subs were measured separately.
> 
> XT-32, with SubEQ offers users the advantage of having two sub outs, so a pair of subs can be level-matched, and have distances set automatically. If three or more subs are used with XT-32, and two sub outs, the same process could be followed, measuring each sub independently before pairing it, using a Y-connector, and then measuring the combined pair as Sub Out 1 versus Sub Out 2.
> 
> 
> Audyssey EQ and Multiple Subs:
> 
> Beyond the volume, distance, and crossover setting functions performed during calibration, Audyssey is a system of automated EQ, whose purpose is to achieve improved speaker/room interaction for the entire frequency range. Most people realize that the room strongly affects the way our speakers and subs sound, once we move several feet away from them. Audyssey's test tones have a range of 10Hz to 20,000Hz (or higher) and Audyssey EQ's that entire frequency range.
> 
> So, when the 75db test tones are played through each channel, Audyssey is measuring the frequency response at multiple locations, and using a system of fuzzy logic weighting to set filters (technically control points) for each channel at various frequencies. The goal is to make each channel play 75db +/- about 3db, at every frequency (or cluster of frequencies), and that includes the subs. Audyssey sets filters for each channel independently, with the number and distribution of the filters dependent on the specific version of Audyssey. But, in all versions of Audyssey, the sub channel (the .1 in 5.1) is a single channel.
> 
> This is an important point! Even with XT-32, once the level matching is completed, Audyssey will only play separate test tones once, through Sub 1 and Sub 2, and this is for the purpose of setting trim levels and distances separately, so that the sounds of both subs will arrive at the MLP at the same time, and at the same volume. But, for the remaining 7 mic positions, the same test tone is simultaneously played through all of the subs in the system together, however they are physically connected. This is because Audyssey is only setting filters for the combined sound of all of the subs in concert, and not for the individual subs. Again, using the example of a 5.1 system, all five speakers constitute a separate channel, and all five speakers get all 6, or 8 test tones, depending on the version of Audyssey. And, each of the five speakers gets its own filters. But, with the .1 channel, all subs are pinged and EQed together, and there is only one set of filters for all of them.
> 
> This is why, regardless of the version of Audyssey employed, it is highly advisable to match similar subs in the system, if at all possible. If the subs in a system have significantly different frequency responses, a single set of filters will not be nearly as helpful in EQing the subs. It is particularly important not to mix ported and sealed subs in a system, unless you have the capability to independently measure results, with something like REW, and have some way to independently EQ the subs, with something like a miniDSP. Again, this is because Audyssey (or other systems of automated EQ) can only EQ all of the subs as a group, producing a collective low frequency sound response.
> 
> Here is an example of how Audyssey works. Let's say that you have a ported sub which produces high SPL from 50Hz down to 15Hz, and a sealed sub which produces somewhat higher SPL above 50Hz, but which can't keep up with the ported sub below 50Hz. That would be a common scenario. Ported subs are specifically designed to produce louder volumes, within relatively narrow low frequency ranges (usually below about 50 or 60Hz), than their sealed counterparts.
> 
> Audyssey, in any version, won't inhibit the stronger sub. In this scenario, the stronger (ported) sub will still play down to it's F3 point of 15Hz and slightly below. And, it won't overdrive the weaker sub by making it try to play lower and louder than it can. It will simply stop setting filters at the combined, detected F3 point. So, if the sealed sub begins to lose 3db of volume, compared to the ported sub, at about 50Hz, Audyssey will stop EQing at 50Hz, specifically to protect the weaker sub from being over-driven by Audyssey filters. And that means, that in this scenario, you won't have the benefit of any EQ in that critical low bass region (from 50Hz to 15Hz) where Audyssey is normally very helpful.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't try mixing dissimilar subs, and taking your chances that it will still sound pretty good to you. It might. It simply means that when you mix subs with very dissimilar output, or low-end extension, or roll-off characteristics, you can no longer count on automated room EQ to help you improve your frequency response below the F3 point of the weaker sub. And, there would be no way to predict how effective a single set of filters would be, even above the F3 point of two very dissimilar subs. Life is much simpler if it is possible to have very similar subs in your system.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Addendum on the Thread History of Recommended Sub Trim Settings:
> 
> In the months since I first wrote this post, I have come back to it several times to add details or to clarify points that I thought were important. And, I have done that because I thought it would be valuable to have a single source for the best practice recommendations which have evolved on the thread. The FAQ can only be amended by the Author, Keith Barnes. And, Keith has been very busy developing a new dedicated HT. So, this post seemed to be the next best alternative.
> 
> But, I thought it might be helpful to explain a bit how the advice on the thread has evolved in recent years. For those who remember, the original advice regarding sub trim levels, was to keep them within a range of -5 to +5. And, the FAQ reflected that advice. Then, after much discussion on the thread, about how sub amps can clip with higher trim settings, the recommended trim setting range in the FAQ was lowered to -3.5 to +3.5. But, as explained above, that recommendation is still too high, particularly depending on master volume levels. Sub placement, with respect to nulls, could also exacerbate a higher trim setting, as Audyssey might already be adding up to 9db of boost, at some frequencies.
> 
> I remember people, including myself, speculating that Audyssey sets trim levels conservatively, perhaps in an effort to protect less capable subs. I specifically mentioned that to people inquiring about wanting to boost their subs after Audyssey set the trim levels. But, that explanation was never really correct. Audyssey protects less capable subs by not setting filters (control points) below the F3 points of those subs. Audyssey does the same thing with the other channels, setting no control points below the measured F3 of a speaker, or speaker pair. But, it is still the obligation of the user to follow good procedures to insure that the sub(s), and other speakers in an audio system, are not pushed beyond their specific capabilities.
> 
> Audyssey's actual reasons for setting the sub trim levels where it does was explained above. Audyssey uses a 75db test tone to set *all* of the channels in a system to the same level, as measured at the MLP, so that Audyssey can apply filters to all of the channels, in an effort to achieve a relatively flat frequency response. It can't do that unless all of the channels, including the .1 sub channel, are set to the same volume.
> 
> But, human hearing is designed/adapted to hear best from about 400Hz up to about 4000Hz. Our hearing quite naturally corresponds somewhat to the range of the human voice. As frequencies drop below about 400Hz, and particularly below about 200Hz, it takes more volume for us to hear those frequencies, at the same level, than we do the ones in our optimum hearing range. The more that frequencies drop below 100Hz, the harder it is for us to hear them, and the more volume we require in order to do so. That additional volume, particularly for frequencies from about 120Hz down, is typically added via a sub boost. The phenomenon of declining audibility, at lower (and higher) frequencies, is graphically illustrated in various depictions of the Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> If we all listened at Reference levels (0.0 MV) it is unlikely that we would need much bass boost, except that which is added for personal preference. But, most of us don't listen at nearly that volume level. The most common range I see quoted for the average listening level is from -20 to -10 MV, and some people listen at much lower volumes than that. So, it was never really about Audyssey setting levels conservatively. For most of us, it was always about needing more volume to hear subwoofer frequencies, in equilibrium with higher frequencies, at below Reference levels. (As noted earlier, very high frequencies are also outside our optimum hearing range, but we seem to compensate better for some attenuation in those volumes.) How much additional bass we need, or want, in order to perceive our sound as balanced, or to fully appreciate the low bass in music, or in movies, is a very personal decision, which probably depends on a lot of factors, including specific rooms, sub capabilities, sub placement, individual hearing, and personal preference.
> 
> But, I thought it might be helpful to review how some of the thinking on the thread has changed over the years, with respect to why we may want to add sub boosts post-Audyssey, as well as the best protocol for doing so. None of this is to suggest that others, and specifically the authors of the FAQ, haven't already understood these concepts perfectly well. But, the FAQ was written, and edited, over a period of several years, with some sections being revised, and others not. Someone trying to understand whether it is normal to boost his subs, after an Audyssey calibration, may not get the impression that a sub boost is fairly typical at below Reference volumes. And, I think that it is also important to understand why a sub boost may actually be needed, even beyond the issues of individual user preference.
> 
> Again, the recommendation for adding sub boosts, is to try to keep AVR sub trim levels in the -5 to -3 range, after adding however much sub boost may be preferred. And, in order to do that, the appropriate use of sub gain, and not just AVR trim, is generally required.


I do remember reading this.....great information. I'm wondering if there is any way to make this a *STICKY* for people to reference to - especially NOOBS (like me) that find there way to the thread. AVSForum is a great resource for learning and seeking help from others.


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> I do remember reading this.....great information. I'm wondering if there is any way to make this a *STICKY* for people to reference to - especially NOOBS (like me) that find there way to the thread. AVSForum is a great resource for learning and seeking help from others.


Thank you very much for the compliment, although you just ate another page. 

I think that AVS administrators are the only ones who can create stickies, but I am not very clued into that aspect of Forum life. I do try to direct anyone who asks about sub trim levels to that post, however. And, I continue to add to it all the time, as I think of things I could have explained a little better. I was actually editing it some more when you quoted it, so that is not quite the latest version. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BiggShooter

BiggShooter said:


> Here is my current set up:
> 
> Denon AVR-X4300H
> 
> Definitive Technology BP-9060 (x2) - using built-in subwoofers with LFE connection to Denon AVR (Subwoofer 1 & 2)
> Definitive Technology CS-9060
> Definitive Technology SR-9080 (side surrounds)
> Definitive Technology ProMonitor 1000 (rear surrounds)
> 
> I was able to finally run an Audyssey Calibration but only for three of eight positions (running short on time). After checking the settings, I noticed the crossover for the rear surrounds was set to 150Hz (ProMonitor 1000's). Is this right? I didn't turn them down to 80Hz per advice from posts in this forum (and Audyssey Calibration guide). I was thinking with the Audyssey Calibration that it should've been lower considering my center channel crossover (DT CS9060) was 40Hz and my side surrounds crossover (DT SR9080) was 60Hz. I bumped up the center channel crossover and side surrounds crossover to 80Hz.
> 
> Prior to the Audyssey Calibration process, Audyssey detected my built-in subwoofers were "too loud" and suggested to turn them down to the recommended 75 db. Turning them down to 75 db resulted in the -10 db level and -10.5 db level after the Audyssey Calibration. I turned them back up (on the back of the speaker). Is it better to go with the recommended 75 db that Audyssey setup recommends, or try to target the 3.5 to -3.5 db level I've seen mentioned in the forums?
> 
> I plan to run a *complete* Audyssey calibration (eight positions) sometime over the next few days.
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


I was FINALLY able to run a *COMPLETE* Audyssey Calibration (eight positions). After reading quite a few posts regarding subwoofer settings pre-Audyssey Calibration, I set the DT-BP9060's built-in subwoofer (LFE connection) db levels to 82db using the "gain" on the back of the DT-BP9060's during the Audyssey Calibration set up process. After the Audyssey Calibration process completed, I checked the *LEVELS* and discovered both Subwoofer 1 and Subwoofer 2 were at -12db. Because of what I learned here, I knew this was a big "NO-NO" and I needed to redo the Audyssey Calibration.

During the redo Audyssey Calibration, I set the DT-BP9060's built-in subwoofer (LFE connection) db levels to 77db (down 5db from previous AC try) using the gain on the back of the DT-BP9060's during the Audyssey Calibration set up process. After the Audyssey Calibration process completed, I checked *LEVELS* once again and discovered Subwoofer 1 (DT-BP9060 built-in using LFE connection) was -9.5db and Subwoofer 2 (DT-BP9060 built-in using LFE connection) was -10.5db. The FRONT speakers (DT-BP9060's) and the CENTER (DT CS-9060) channel speaker was set to *LARGE*. The side surrounds (DT SR-9080's) and rear surrounds (DT ProMonitor 1000's) were set to *SMALL*. I changed my front speakers and center channel speaker to *SMALL*. I changed the crossover for the center channel from 40Hz to 80Hz and the crossover for the side surrounds from 60Hz to 80Hz. The crossover for the rear surrounds is at 120Hz (down from 150Hz after first AC calibration indicated in initial post).

One thing I noticed setting the DT-9060's to *SMALL* is that the LED 'D' at the bottom of the DT-BP9060's stay illuminated all the time. Previously, I had set the DT-BP9060's to *LARGE* and set the Subwoofer to *ON* (Option 3 - recommended by Audioholics in YouTube video) and noticed at times the LED 'D' was not 'illuminated'. I prefer my current set up (*SMALL*) with the front speakers (Option 2 - Audioholics YouTube video) and will probably keep it that way. Finally, I adjusted the "trim" level for each subwoofer +5 db, bringing Subwoofer 1 (DT-9060 built-in using LFE connection) from -9.5 db to -4.5 db, and Subwoofer 2 (DT-9060 built-in using LFE connection) from -10.5 db to -5.5 db.

I feel comfortable / confident with my current settings / adjustments. Great BASS and SOUND! One thing I might try to do is run another Audyssey Calibration and bump up the "gain" on Subwoofer 1 in attempt to get a -10.5 db level which would be the same as Subwoofer 2. I know with Audyssey it probably isn't important, but that is the OCD coming out in me.....LOL

Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge and expertise. I'm always learning something when reading through the several AVS Forum threads I'm subscribed to.


----------



## littlefoott

mthomas47 said:


> What we have here is a failure to communicate!  (To quote a famous movie line.) Ed has revised his advice, since that entry in the FAQ was made several years ago. He now recommends staying well in negative numbers, period. You, and others are welcome to set your subs to any AVR trim you want. But, part of what Post 1296 explains is the reason why it is often necessary to add some sub boost (beyond preference, which is what the FAQ implies), and the best methods to achieve it.
> 
> If we start with an AVR trim setting of anywhere from -5 to 0.0, as you suggest, it is very difficult to add any more trim, while still staying well in the negative range. In fact, Post 1296 specifically recommends keeping the trim level between about -3 and -5, *after* adding whatever sub boost is desired from the original Audyssey calibration. And, that is consistent with Ed's current advice, and that of several others. We don't want to start with a trim level of -5, unless we are going to always stay at about -5, which most people aren't going to do. And, we don't ever want to start with a sub trim level of 0.0.
> 
> Best practice principles evolve over time. They change, and the FAQ hasn't ever been fully edited with respect to this issue. Post 1296 was written specifically to clarify some ambiguous (and obsolete) advice in the FAQ, and to add to the overall understanding of some issues. It is intended to supersede the FAQ, and you keep citing the FAQ to refute it. That's where the communication breakdown seems to be occurring.
> 
> If you respect Ed's advice on the matter, contact him yourself, and see what he says. But, his quote from several years ago is not the same thing that he, and others, will tell you today. Even audio experts, and sub makers, such as Ed and Jeff, and Tom, and Mark can change their minds about the best practice advice they give. And, this thread tries to be a repository for that current advice, whenever possible.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


You do this with a kind heart 
Thanks for sharing and helping others

I'll continue to look and learn for expert and experienced opinions 
Its just frustrating to keep up with the current theory

Your help is appreciated 
Sincerely 
Thank you!


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> I was FINALLY able to run a *COMPLETE* Audyssey Calibration (eight positions).
> 
> I feel comfortable / confident with my current settings / adjustments. Great BASS and SOUND! One thing I might try to do is run another Audyssey Calibration and bump up the "gain" on Subwoofer 1 in attempt to get a -10.5 db level which would be the same as Subwoofer 2. I know with Audyssey it probably isn't important, but that is the OCD coming out in me.....LOL
> 
> Thanks everyone for sharing your knowledge and expertise. I'm always learning something when reading through the several AVS Forum threads I'm subscribed to.


Excellent! I'm glad it all worked out for you. Running multiple calibrations is par for the course, and as your calibration technique improves with practice, you may notice some nuanced improvements in sound quality. Having your sub trims not match exactly is an OCD issue that I have experienced before, too. But, it can actually be pretty hard to get them to match exactly. Even if the subs are truly identical in output, room placement can affect their capabilities slightly. So, it can be a little hit-or-miss in adjusting the gain controls to get a precise trim match. Remember, though, that if all you are trying to do is to get a trim match, you can do that by just calibrating after mic position 1. Then, once you have what you want, you can run all 8 mic positions for a full calibration.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

littlefoott said:


> You do this with a kind heart
> Thanks for sharing and helping others
> 
> I'll continue to look and learn for expert and experienced opinions
> Its just frustrating to keep up with the current theory
> 
> Your help is appreciated
> Sincerely
> Thank you!


You are more than welcome, and I very much appreciate your gracious words! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BiggShooter

mthomas47 said:


> Remember, though, that if all you are trying to do is to get a trim match, you can do that by just calibrating after mic position 1. Then, once you have what you want, you can run all 8 mic positions for a full calibration.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I tried to do that however, it seems with the Denon AVR-X4300H you have to at least run three mic positions before you can "calibrate" and end the Audyssey Calibration process. After the first mic position, the options are "CANCEL" and "NEXT". I figured if I cancelled it wouldn't save the first calibration / mic position 1.


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> I tried to do that however, it seems with the Denon AVR-X4300H you have to at least run three mic positions before you can "calibrate" and end the Audyssey Calibration process. After the first mic position, the options are "CANCEL" and "NEXT". I figured if I cancelled it wouldn't save the first calibration / mic position 1.


Thanks for letting me know that. Who knows why they changed that feature? Probably protecting us from ourselves, so that we wouldn't run one-point calibrations, and think we were done.  Instead, we can now run three-point calibrations, and think we are done.


----------



## littlefoott

BiggShooter said:


> I tried to do that however, it seems with the Denon AVR-X4300H you have to at least run three mic positions before you can "calibrate" and end the Audyssey Calibration process. After the first mic position, the options are "CANCEL" and "NEXT". I figured if I cancelled it wouldn't save the first calibration / mic position 1.


just keep the mic in position 1 and run audyssey to the first complete you see.
when you have the trim levels you want, run audyssey through all the positions as normal

its just saving effort of moving the mic for what may take several trials.


----------



## Methodical_1

BiggShooter said:


> I will have to go back and find it.....I'm certain I did read it but don't remember the details about it. I guess that's what I get for reading several posts from several forums.


It was the information that mthomas posted on the Sub level trim (see you found it.)



Selden Ball said:


> Links to a couple of stands are included in the Audyssey 101/FAQ.
> 
> In particular, see the section
> d)1. Do I really need to put the Audyssey mic on a tripod or stand?





mthomas47 said:


> There are several that would work. This is a good one. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQOFG6W/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_16?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for mic boom information fellas. I just viewed the mic stand and can't visualize how the Audyssey mic will sit pointed upward (per avr instructions) when boomed over the listening position. I have tripods and booms and would need to use an adapter with 180* tilt. If you know of any, I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Meanwhile, I will search to see if there's an adapter out there to use with my existing gear. Below is similar to what I need, but with 1/4-20 thread.

ball joint mic adater


----------



## Methodical_1

BiggShooter said:


> I do remember reading this.....great information. I'm wondering if there is any way to make this a *STICKY* for people to reference to - especially NOOBS (like me) that find there way to the thread. AVSForum is a great resource for learning and seeking help from others.


One way we can help and get the message out is put a link in our signature that way we don't have to try and remember where we found it like I did earlier. Fortunately mthomas linked it pretty quickly when asked. I will place it in my signature.


----------



## Matt2026

Methodical_1 said:


> It was the information that mthomas posted on the Sub level trim (see you found it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for mic boom information fellas. I just viewed the mic stand and can't visualize how the Audyssey mic will sit pointed upward (per avr instructions) when boomed over the listening position. I have tripods and booms and would need to use an adapter with 180* tilt. If you know of any, I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Meanwhile, I will search to see if there's an adapter out there to use with my existing gear. Below is similar to what I need, but with 1/4-20 thread.
> 
> ball joint mic adater


Something like this?


----------



## mthomas47

Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks for mic boom information fellas. I just viewed the mic stand and can't visualize how the Audyssey mic will sit pointed upward (per avr instructions) when boomed over the listening position. I have tripods and booms and would need to use an adapter with 180* tilt. If you know of any, I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Meanwhile, I will search to see if there's an adapter out there to use with my existing gear. Below is similar to what I need, but with 1/4-20 thread.
> 
> ball joint mic adater
> 
> [/QUOTE]
> 
> The one that Ken linked is the one I use. Another, available on Amazon, is this one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006I387UI/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_20?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> FWIW, I think that getting the microphone tip perfectly vertical may be more of an OCD issue than anything else. The mic is omnidirectional. As long as it points toward the ceiling, I don't think being a few degrees off precisely vertical will matter.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## Alan P

Methodical_1 said:


> One way we can help and get the message out is put a link in our signature that way we don't have to try and remember where we found it like I did earlier. Fortunately mthomas linked it pretty quickly when asked. I will place it in my signature.


The problem with linking to a post (and why Mike always gives the page and post number) is that if the person does not have their "posts per page" set to the default number, the link will _not _take them directly to the post.


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Another, available on Amazon, is this one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006I387UI/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_20?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER


That's the one I use and it works great with the Audyssey mic.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> The problem with linking to a post (and why Mike always gives the page and post number) is that if the person does not have their "posts per page" set to the default number, the link will _not _take them directly to the post.


That's a great point! Part of the reason that I didn't have a link to it earlier was because I was using a different posts per page number, myself, than the default 30. So, I was very aware of the issue. I have since gone back to 30 per page, in part, so that I could easily get back to that post and edit it. I guess I will take my chances, for a while, that the people using the link will get where they are supposed to go.


----------



## bmcn

Alan P said:


> That's the one I use and it works great with the Audyssey mic.


Do you know if this one is too lightweight for an OMIK-1?


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> FWIW, I think that getting the microphone tip perfectly vertical may be more of an OCD issue than anything else. The mic is omnidirectional. As long as it points toward the ceiling, I don't think being a few degrees off precisely vertical will matter.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


What's always confused me is that the movie audience is facing forward, and, due to outer ear structure, they are getting more of their sound from the front and sides, say 180 degrees or less, at least for the directional high frequencies, yet, for those of us who use relatively low back couches rather than recliners, when the omnidirectional mic is pointed at the ceiling, it gets more high frequency sound than our ears do from the rear and rear sides (from reflections and surround speakers), plus, perhaps, a bit more from the ceiling. 

Even so, I point my Audyssey mic at the ceiling like everyone else, and many mics in photos are pointed straight up; most, but not all (perhaps the omnis are all pointed up, and the cardioids are pointed forward at the speakers, or the orchestra, etc., and those who don't care about early floor reflections hang them pointing straight down).


----------



## zeuspaul

garygarrison said:


> What's always confused me is that the movie audience is facing forward, and, due to outer ear structure, they are getting more of their sound from the front and sides, say 180 degrees or less, at least for the directional high frequencies, yet, for those of us who use relatively low back couches rather than recliners, when the omnidirectional mic is pointed at the ceiling, it gets more high frequency sound than our ears do from the rear and rear sides (from reflections and surround speakers), plus, perhaps, a bit more from the ceiling.
> 
> Even so, I point my Audyssey mic at the ceiling like everyone else, and many mics in photos are pointed straight up; most, but not all (perhaps the omnis are all pointed up, and the cardioids are pointed forward at the speakers, or the orchestra, etc., and those who don't care about early floor reflections hang them pointing straight down).



I bump the dBs of speakers behind me because I don't think Audyssey accounts for the difference between an omnidirectional mic and a directional ear. I don't know if this is true or not.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> What's always confused me is that the movie audience is facing forward, and, due to outer ear structure, they are getting more of their sound from the front and sides, say 180 degrees or less, at least for the directional high frequencies, yet, for those of us who use relatively low back couches rather than recliners, when the omnidirectional mic is pointed at the ceiling, it gets more high frequency sound from the rear and rear sides (from reflections and surround speakers), plus, perhaps, a bit more from the ceiling than our ears do.
> 
> Even so, I point my Audyssey mic at the ceiling like everyone else, and many mics in photos are pointed straight up; most, but not all (perhaps the omnis are all pointed up, and the cardioids are pointed forward at the speakers, or the orchestra, etc., and those who don't care about early floor reflections hang them pointing straight down).


Hi Gary,

Based on what I remember from discussions of this subject, the direction that the mics are supposed to point relates directly to the way that they are calibrated. In the case of the Audyssey mics, they are calibrated to point upward, so we are pretty well stuck. You make a good point that no omnidirectional mic will hear things in precisely the way that we, with our pinnae do, although from the sides, our ear flaps are pretty effective at funneling sound into our ear canals.

But, thinking about it just now, I believe that it would really complicate mic design and implementation, if calibration mics tried to duplicate our more directional form of hearing. As if things aren't already complicated enough, just with simple omnidirectional mics, that point more-or-less upwards. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> What's always confused me is that the movie audience is facing forward, and, due to outer ear structure, they are getting more of their sound from the front and sides, say 180 degrees or less, at least for the directional high frequencies, yet, for those of us who use relatively low back couches rather than recliners, when the omnidirectional mic is pointed at the ceiling, it gets more high frequency sound than our ears do from the rear and rear sides (from reflections and surround speakers), plus, perhaps, a bit more from the ceiling.
> 
> Even so, I point my Audyssey mic at the ceiling like everyone else, and many mics in photos are pointed straight up; most, but not all (perhaps the omnis are all pointed up, and the cardioids are pointed forward at the speakers, or the orchestra, etc., and those who don't care about early floor reflections hang them pointing straight down).


I think the solution here is very easy. Since the Audyssey mic was factory calibrated while facing the ceiling and that is the calibration file burnt into the AVRs, we have no better choice than to "follow the rule". Actually this is important only for relatively high frequencies, like above 5 kHz (or above 10 kHz), since the so-called "Panasonic capsule" type condenser mics show a slight deviation with the angle of attack at the high end of the audio spectrum.

For more comprehensive info, I'd recommend to go back to "Official Audyssey thread Part I", do an advanced search with keywords "grazing incidence" and username "Audyssey". Chris K. is sharing a wealth of information on the subject that will keep those interested quite busy for the next coming days.  A good read, indeed!


----------



## mthomas47

zeuspaul said:


> I bump the dBs of speakers behind me because I don't think Audyssey accounts for the difference between an omnidirectional mic and a directional ear. I don't know if this is true or not.


Now, there's a controversial subject!  DEQ actually includes about a 3db surround boost. Some people who enjoy using DEQ like that surround boost, and others reduce the trim levels in their surrounds to compensate for it. Among other things, though, I think that some of it is that we don't all hear with exactly the same acuity, at the same frequencies. And, I can't imagine that all of our hearing would be identical with respect to directionality either, or that all of our surround speakers would be located identically. And, that is even without the issue of psycho-acoustic preference thrown into the equation.

This is definitely one of those YMMV topics! 

Regards,
Mike

Incidentally, I would be glad to trade avatars with you.


----------



## mogorf

mogorf said:


> I think the solution here is very easy. Since the Audyssey mic was factory calibrated while facing the ceiling and that is the calibration file burnt into the AVRs, we have no better choice than to "follow the rule". Actually this is important only for relatively high frequencies, like above 5 kHz (or above 10 kHz), since the so-called "Panasonic capsule" type condenser mics show a slight deviation with the angle of attack at the high end of the audio spectrum.
> 
> For more comprehensive info, I'd recommend to go back to "Official Audyssey thread Part I", do an advanced search with keywords "grazing incidence" and username "Audyssey". Chris K. is sharing a wealth of information on the subject that will keep those interested quite busy for the next coming days.  A good read, indeed!


For those interested here's the link to the above mentioned search results.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> For those interested here's the link to the above mentioned search results.


I don't think that link works, Feri. I just tried it and nada.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I don't think that link works, Feri. I just tried it and nada.


That was what I was afraid of Mike, even though I tested it and worked perfectly for me.  

So. Keywords: grazing incidence, Username: Audyssey in Official Audyssey thread part 1.


----------



## Alan P

bmcn said:


> Do you know if this one is too lightweight for an OMIK-1?


I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant UMIK-1.

That mic clip does not work well with the UMIK-1 (or similar mics) and REW because you will be unable to point the mic at the ceiling. For that you will need a standard mic clip, like this:


----------



## bmcn

Alan P said:


> I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant UMIK-1.
> 
> That mic clip does not work well with the UMIK-1 (or similar mics) and REW because you will be unable to point the mic at the ceiling. For that you will need a standard mic clip, like this:..


Thanks Alan. Yes the UMIK. Familiar with the Shure and have it in a shopping cart. Due to furniture issues I extended the boom and the weight of the chrome finished base shown above + UMIK caused the arm to eventually slip lower. A counterweight consisting of D cells now keeps it at the selected height, prefer not to need a Rube fix.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> I'm assuming that's a typo and you meant UMIK-1.
> 
> That mic clip does not work well with the UMIK-1 (or similar mics) and REW because you will be unable to point the mic at the ceiling. For that you will need a standard mic clip, like this:


I don't know, Alan. Some of the clips look too big to fit my mic stand.


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> I don't know, Alan. Some of the clips look too big to fit my mic stand.


Ha! I almost typed a reply about "standard threading", but while I was typing my brain finally got it!! 

I too was surprised at the gigantic-ness of that image I pulled from Amazon...WOW!!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> Ha! I almost typed a reply about "standard threading", but while I was typing my brain finally got it!!
> 
> I too was surprised at the gigantic-ness of that image I pulled from Amazon...WOW!!


LOL! I was sneaky. I left out my usual-- That may be the biggest image, of the smallest product, I have seen on Amazon.


----------



## Methodical_1

Matt2026 said:


> Something like this?



Thanks for the info, but a light just went off in my head. I forgot that one of my tripod (Manfrotto) could be converted to a boom and couple that with the Manfrotto ball head (488rc2) with 180* tilt, I am golden. I figured with all this camera stuff something I already had should work.



mthomas47 said:


> Methodical_1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for mic boom information fellas. I just viewed the mic stand and can't visualize how the Audyssey mic will sit pointed upward (per avr instructions) when boomed over the listening position. I have tripods and booms and would need to use an adapter with 180* tilt. If you know of any, I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Meanwhile, I will search to see if there's an adapter out there to use with my existing gear. Below is similar to what I need, but with 1/4-20 thread.
> 
> ball joint mic adater
> 
> [/QUOTE]
> 
> The one that Ken linked is the one I use. Another, available on Amazon, is this one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006I387UI/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_20?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> FWIW, I think that getting the microphone tip perfectly vertical may be more of an OCD issue than anything else. The mic is omnidirectional. As long as it points toward the ceiling, I don't think being a few degrees off precisely vertical will matter.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Mike. I just don't see how that boom would get the mic near position. I'm seeing that you screw the Mic onto the tip of the boom and it would be parallel to the floor and not pointing up. Maybe I'm not seeing it correctly from the pictures on Amazon. If I use the adapter Matt linked above on my tripod boom, I can angle the mount so that the mic points toward the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan P said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with linking to a post (and why Mike always gives the page and post number) is that if the person does not have their "posts per page" set to the default number, the link will _not _take them directly to the post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Alan, the link I have in my signature is the permalink (the actual post link) and not just a link to that particular page and should take you directly to his post without even caring about the page itself, unless I am still missing something.
> 
> Thanks again everyone for your time and help.
Click to expand...


----------



## Matt2026

Methodical_1 said:


> That looks good, but it says 5/8 thread. I use the mic on my tripod ball head which is 1/4 thread. Just to be sure, the mic's thread is 1/4 thread, correct. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan, the link I have in my signature is the permalink (the actual post link) and not just a link to that particular page and should take you directly to his post without even caring about the page itself, unless I am still missing something.
> 
> 
> 
> I tried the link and got to the post, however in the URL field I see the page #44 is part of the link so if someone uses something other than the 30 page default, as I think Mike mentioned in a post, I suspect it may not work. I'm too lazy to change my settings to check it out
> 
> Edit: I did just manually change the page number in the URL to 20 and it still ended up at the post so it may not be a problem
Click to expand...


----------



## Methodical_1

Matt2026 said:


> Methodical_1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That looks good, but it says 5/8 thread. I use the mic on my tripod ball head which is 1/4 thread. Just to be sure, the mic's thread is 1/4 thread, correct. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> I tried the link and got to the post, however in the URL field I see the page #44 is part of the link so if someone uses something other than the 30 page default, as I think Mike mentioned in a post, I suspect it may not work. I'm too lazy to change my settings to check it out
> 
> Edit: I did just manually change the page number in the URL to 20 and it still ended up at the post so it may not be a problem
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. That's what I figured as it works on the other forums I visit. If I just posted to that page, then I see that being a problem and that's why I do the permalink of the specific post.
Click to expand...


----------



## mthomas47

Methodical_1 said:


> Matt2026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. That's what I figured as it works on the other forums I visit. If I just posted to that page, then I see that being a problem and that's why I do the permalink of the specific post.
> 
> 
> 
> Good job! I decided to use your permalink in my signature, as well. And, I liked your title "Setup Guide" too, so I edited Post 1296 to reflect the new title.
Click to expand...


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> What's always confused me is that the movie audience is facing forward, and, due to outer ear structure, they are getting more of their sound from the front and sides, say 180 degrees or less, at least for the directional high frequencies, yet, for those of us who use relatively low back couches rather than recliners, when the omnidirectional mic is pointed at the ceiling, it gets more high frequency sound than our ears do from the rear and rear sides (from reflections and surround speakers), plus, perhaps, a bit more from the ceiling.
> 
> Even so, I point my Audyssey mic at the ceiling like everyone else, and many mics in photos are pointed straight up; most, but not all (perhaps the omnis are all pointed up, and the cardioids are pointed forward at the speakers, or the orchestra, etc., and those who don't care about early floor reflections hang them pointing straight down).





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> Based on what I remember from discussions of this subject, the direction that the mics are supposed to point relates directly to the way that they are calibrated. In the case of the Audyssey mics, they are calibrated to point upward, so we are pretty well stuck. You make a good point that no omnidirectional mic will hear things in precisely the way that we, with our pinnae do, although from the sides, our ear flaps are pretty effective at funneling sound into our ear canals.
> 
> But, thinking about it just now, I believe that it would really complicate mic design and implementation, if calibration mics tried to duplicate our more directional form of hearing. As if things aren't already complicated enough, just with simple omnidirectional mics, that point more-or-less upwards.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I may be crazy, and I may have a very faulty memory, but I do have some vague memory of the discussions back in the Part 1 thread about grazing incidence. I'm feeling too lazy to go back, do the search, and wade through everything looking for what I think I remember so I'll just go with what I think I remember and that's going to include a heavy "modification" based on the way I understood what wasting said in those discussions way back then.

It's to do with the way the pressure wave from the test tone strikes the mic membrane. If you point the mic forward you have a pressure wave from the centre speaker striking the membrane straight on, the front L and R waves strike the membrane at an angle, the side surrounds "graze" over the membrane like all waves do if the mic is pointing up, and the waves from rear surrounds graze past the tip of the mic at an angle arriving from behind the bass of the mic. In other words, the angle of the pressure wave is different for the centre speaker and for the pairs of front, surround, and rear surround speakers. The rear surrounds may even have their wave partially masked by the base of the mic and there will be some diffraction of the wave as it passes around the base of the mic on its way to the tip. Those differences are going to affect the mic response to what is the same test tone as it is emitted from the speakers.

By having the mic pointing up, the sound from all speakers grazes over the top of the tip in the same way so the mic response is similar regardless of the direction the sound is arriving from. Don't forget that the mic dates back to the days before height channels. With the height channels the sound isn't going to graze over the tip in the same way but it is coming from an angle above the tip and it isn't coming from an angle below the tip. Of course with subs and their usual size and placement the sound is going to be coming from below but the frequency range is going to be a lot lower and more restricted than that of the speakers.

There's also the fact that the mic is measuring both first arrival sound and the later arrival of sound from reflections. I wonder if the "impact" of a pressure wave coming directly or somewhat indirectly at the membrane can affect its ability to accurately respond to the arrival of the first reflections to arrive.

Basically, the arrival angle of the sound from each speaker is more even with the tip of the mic facing up rather than forward and that can make a difference. The mic's response is going to be more uniform for each speaker as a result.

Don't forget that there are different mic types with some being directional, some being omnidirectional, and some having other sorts of directional characteristics. I don't know what type of mic the Audyssey mic is but different mics do respond differently to sound arriving from different directions.

Audyssey have chosen a particular mic and they will have designed their placement instructions in order to get the best for it, and I assume part of "the best" includes "the most uniform" response to sound arriving from different angles. If they had chosen a different sort of mic, they may well have given different placement instructions in order to get the most uniform response from that mic.

I think Mike is right when he says that the direction that the mics are supposed to point relates to the way that they are calibrated, but I think that the way they are calibrated is based on the mic's directivity response and a desire to get an even response from it.

Gary raises the point that we don't hear sound equally well from all directions and that the mic is getting more high frequency sound from the side and rear speakers than we HEAR, but that's because we hear sound arriving from those directions less well than we hear sound arriving from the front, not because there is less sound arriving from those directions. The shape of the outer ear provides a filtering effect if I can use that term. If the mic were to be designed to duplicate ear sensitivity the result would be that the sound from the speakers after calibration is going to end up being modified to replicate what we hear and the shape of our ears is then going to filter that sound again in precisely the same way so we would end up with the sound filtered twice. There's no need to adjust the sound from the side and rear channels because we hear less well from those directions. We're going to hear sound from those speakers the way we hear sound coming from those directions anyway because our ears are going to filter the sound from those directions automatically for us. As a rather rough and ready example, let's say that because of the shape of our outer ears and the directivity of our hearing we perceive the sound coming from rear surrounds to be 2 dB lower than sound arriving from the front speakers. If that is factored in to the Audyssey results and the trim setting for the rear surrounds is adjusted by 2 dB as a result, a 75 dB reference is going to be reproduced by those speakers at either 77 dB or 73 dB depending on which way Audyssey think the compensation should be applied but we are going to perceive that result as being 2 dB lower than it is so we're going to perceive either 75 dB or 71 dB when what we actually perceive if a sound from the rear is exactly the same level as a 75 dB sound from the front is 73 dB. Compensating for our difference in sensitivity to sounds from the side or rear is wrong because we really don't want to compensate for that difference, we want to let that difference occur naturally.

I have seen people using other measurement software to tailor the response of sound from a speaker, especially speaker builders who are fine tuning their speaker crossover design, and they use different mics to the Audyssey mic and point the mic directly at the speaker being measured, but they are doing a different thing. They are fine tuning the frequency response of the speaker and often using mic positions that aren't at the normal listening position for the speaker and software that measures the first arrival sound but windows out the later arrival sound from reflections. Once they get the speaker sounding right, if they are going to do room correction they then run a separate set of measurements with the mic at the listening position and when they do that they may be using either different software or different settings for their software and they will be no longer be pointing the mic directly at each speaker. Different measurement purposes employ different measurement techniques.

Anyway that's my understanding of what I remember from all of those discussions a long time ago, so long ago that when I was doing Audyssey setup in those days the Audyssey mic was the round flat puck shape and not the current tapered tower shape. The flat puck mic almost seems prehistoric these days.


----------



## mthomas47

Microphone Placement During Audyssey Calibrations


Since things were a little slow on the thread this morning, when I started this post, I decided to tackle another interesting issue, that comes up periodically, concerning microphone placement during Audyssey calibrations. There have always been two general schools of thought regarding both initial mic placement (the MLP), and regarding the overall size of the microphone pattern.

With respect to the location of mic position 1, the placement decision is easy when there is only one chair, centered on a display, or between two front speakers. And, if there are three seats in a row, it is still pretty easy to see where to locate mic position 1, as the center position creates a natural and symmetrical arrangement. But, what if there are an even number of seats, such as two recliners side-by-side, or a loveseat with room for two people? Should you make the MLP the most used seat, or put the mic between the seats? Both points of view have always had adherents. From the standpoint of room EQ, it would make not make a great deal of difference, which position was chosen as the MLP, as long as both listening positions were within the mic pattern. Control points would be set, based on the overall area, anyway, in that case.

But, from the standpoint of imaging, it would make a difference, because Audyssey would set trim levels for all of the channels to coincide at a single point in space. And, that point in space would be mic position 1 (defined as the MLP by that mic placement). So, at that single point in space, all speakers would play with equal volume. And, anyone sitting slightly to one side of that single point in space would necessarily be closer to the surround speakers on that side. Depending on the particular type and arrangement of front speakers, in terms of width and dispersion, and depending on whether a center channel were employed, and how wide its dispersion pattern was, a person sitting off-center might also hear a slightly unbalanced front soundstage--with the right front speaker audibly louder, for instance. So, deciding how to position the MLP (mic 1) to maximize imaging, is a decision that depends on a number of factors, with no single right answer. In my personal opinion, if two people are generally watching/listening together, going to the center point, between two seats, probably makes the most sense, as I think it did in a recent example on the thread.

But, that issue of imaging is sometimes confused with the separate issue of room calibration, and of how filters are set, and that is a different issue entirely, which depends on the overall microphone pattern used, and not just on the location of mic position 1. Typically, mic position 1 will be located where the HT, or audio system is most used, whether that is at the center of the front row, or the second row, in a multi-row HT, for instance. And, if the seating in a mixed-use room is slightly off-center, with respect to the display, that may also influence the location of mic position 1.

As noted, the decision of whether to locate mic 1 at the center of the most used seat, or between two seats, is a personal decision which will help to define optimal imaging in a particular situation. But, for instance, if there are three seats, then the two seats left and right of center will not have precisely optimal imaging, anyway, so there will be no way to achieve perfect imaging at every seat, in that case. And, the same thing would be true for an HT with multiple rows. Imaging would necessarily change somewhat, depending on the row, with the front soundstage and the rear soundstage in perfect balance in only one row. And, that imaging or soundstage balance is entirely separate from Audyssey efforts to EQ the system in the room for an overall flatter and more symmetrical frequency response.

When Audyssey sets filters for each channel in an audio system, it sets many control points within each channel, in an attempt to insure that all frequencies played by that speaker are playing at relatively the same volume level. When we speak of a flatter response, that is what we mean--that the combination of speaker and room doesn't produce sounds louder or softer, at certain frequencies, than were contained in the original recording.

But, what about the room EQ, itself? What is the best way to optimize that with our calibrations? Earlier, I mentioned two schools of thought with respect to microphone patterns. One school of thought was that, in order to EQ a large area, you needed a large microphone pattern. The other school of thought was that smaller mic patterns could result in better calibrations for a single position, or for a small area. Looking back on those two perspectives, I think that both positions were a little too sharply defined as opposites. And, I believe that they have moved closer together in recent years.

The early Audyssey calibration instructions exemplified the first perspective of using large mic patterns. The instructions, from a few years ago, were to space mic positions 3' to 4' apart, starting from mic position 1. If all 8 (for XT and XT-32) mic positions were to be in line with, or forward of the MLP, that could produce patterns that were 8' wide by 4' deep, which is a 32 sq ft area. If users followed the advice to also measure 2' behind the MLP, the coverage area could grow to 8' wide by 6' deep, which is a 48 sq ft area. That is half the size of some of the small rooms in which Audyssey was being employed, even if there were only room for one or two listening positions in those rooms.

The second perspective of using smaller mic patterns to EQ for single listening positions, or for a smaller general area, grew out of empirical observations on this and other threads. Individual users began experimenting with smaller mic patterns, and both measuring and listening to the results, and then reporting their success to other Audyssey users. And, a fairly sharp dividing line began to develop for a while, as result. That division has somewhat subsided in recent years, and has most recently been diffused somewhat by Audyssey's revision of their earlier recommendations. Current Audyssey recommendations, which accompany AVR's and AVP's released in the last couple of years, suggest going out no more than 2' in any direction from the MLP. Where an individual is only measuring even with, or forward of the MLP, that would produce a maximum measurement area of 4' wide by 2' deep, which is 8 sq ft. The newer recommendations are a far cry from the very large areas that Audyssey once recommended trying to measure in a room.

I would like to explore some of the reasons which may have motivated Audyssey to change its measurement pattern recommendations, as a way of providing users with practical guidance in developing microphone patterns that work well in their individual circumstances. What follows is completely speculative, but it may help to explain why smaller microphone patterns, than those originally recommended by Audyssey, may in fact, produce better calibrations. The first reason involves the fuzzy logic weighting algorithm which Audyssey uses. It has always seemed to me, that the larger the measurement area, the more chance for anomalies to crop up somewhere within that measurement area. And, the more anomalies, within a given measurement area, the more difficult it would be for Audyssey's system of fuzzy logic to weight the most important measurements, and to give them priority. That could help to explain why so many people who used smaller measurement patterns, than those originally recommended by Audyssey, reported more consistent EQ within their listening areas. In my particular case, smaller patterns provide better consistent EQ for multiple, widely-spaced listening positions, than the large mic patterns I tried. And, that is in a large room. But, this is clearly a room, and system-dependent finding, so YMMV.

A second reason, which has only occurred to me recently, involves the time domain correction which Audyssey is attempting to provide. A few days ago, Feri quoted a conversation with Chris K, the creator of Audyssey. In that conversation (which I had forgotten) Chris explains that Audyssey does attempt to distinguish between direct sound, and reflections arriving after that direct sound. Chris goes on to say, that Audyssey then develops filters to suppress or to attenuate (my words) those later-arriving reflections. But, it seems to me that Audyssey's ability to do that at all would necessarily be restricted to a fairly small area. As the measurement area expanded, Audyssey's ability to distinguish between a direct reflection, and a late-arriving reflection, would be somewhat compromised. And the resulting time domain correction would, therefore, become less-and-less effective. That post which quotes Chris is Post 2069, on Page 69, and it is part of what made me decide to address the issue of microphone patterns in Audyssey calibrations.

Audyssey recommends smaller mic positions now, than it used to several years ago, and the reasons for why they may be doing that are only speculative. But, there is considerable anecdotal evidence on the Audyssey thread to suggest that users who have tried smaller than 32 sq ft or 48 sq ft patterns have gotten better results than when they tried the very large patterns that used to be recommended. Of course, circumstances alter cases, and only experimentation can tell you what mic pattern will actually work best in a particular room.

Take the early Audyssey recommendation to measure 2' behind the MLP, for example. If your home theater has two, or more rows, it may make perfect sense to measure behind the MLP. And, you may get more uniform results in the other rows by doing that. But, what if there are no listening positions behind the MLP, or what if your listening positions are located fairly close to a wall, as is the case in many mixed-use rooms, or single row HT's? Now, measuring behind the MLP will only move the Audyssey microphone into closer proximity with a hard surface (that back wall), which will increase the number of spurious reflections hitting the mic, which may in turn adversely affect the resulting EQ. (There are reasons why Audyssey always advises users to keep the mic away from hard surfaces.)

Those reflections would be considered spurious, in the instance above, because there would not actually be anyone listening behind the MLP. So, reflections occurring close to a wall would be irrelevant. The important reflections from that wall would be captured at the MLP, and would hopefully be addressed, to a limited extent, by Audyssey's time domain correction. Measuring behind the MLP, and closer to a wall, could actually make it harder for Audyssey to distinguish between direct arriving sounds and reflections from the wall. And, as noted earlier that could compromise whatever time domain correction Audyssey was attempting to do.

[I should note, at this point, that there is considerable controversy with respect to whether time domain correction is efficacious with systems such as Audyssey and even Dirac Live. I am taking no position on that issue, and frankly some of the discussions I have read on that subject were a little over my head. The only thing that I am saying in this post, is that, to the extent that time domain correction may be somewhat helpful with Audyssey, it will surely be more so for a smaller, rather than larger, measurement area.]

It is difficult to overstress the importance of giving Audyssey a good set-up for its calibration routine to act upon. And, that includes keeping the microphone well away from hard surfaces during calibration. Whether or not to follow the current Audyssey advice to space mic positions no further than 2' from the MLP is a purely personal decision. There may well be instances where it is advisable to use larger mic patterns (for multiple rows) for example. And conversely, there may be people who continue to get fairly uniform EQ, over a large area, using mic spacing patterns of as little as 1' (or less). Only experimentation can help to determine the specific microphone pattern that works best in your particular space. But, FWIW, I think that, based on what we know about how Audyssey actually sets filters, there is solid logic in its current recommendations with respect to smaller microphone patterns during Audyssey calibrations.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Microphone Placement During Audyssey Calibrations
> 
> 
> Since things were a little slow on the thread this morning, when I started this post…


Just because things are slow, there's no reason to make up for the lack of a lot of short posts with a long post. So says the man who just did a longish post himself 

I'll just make a couple of quick comments since I have no problem with your overall speculations.




> But, from the standpoint of imaging, it would make a difference, because Audyssey would set trim levels for all of the channels to coincide at a single point in space. And, that point in space would be mic position 1 (defined as the MLP by that mic placement). So, at that single point in space, all speakers would play with equal volume. And, anyone sitting to slightly to one side of that single point in space would necessarily be closer to the surround speakers on that side. Depending on the particular type and arrangement of front speakers, in terms of width and dispersion, and depending on whether a center channel were employed, and how wide its dispersion pattern was, a person sitting off-center might also hear a slightly unbalanced front soundstage--with the right front speaker audibly louder, for instance. So, deciding how to position the MLP (mic 1) to maximize imaging, is a decision that depends on a number of factors, with no single right answer. In my personal opinion, if two people are generally watching/listening together, going to the center point, between two seats, probably makes the most sense, as I think it did in a recent example on the thread.


I think we need to distinguish between movie soundtracks and listening to music when it comes to imaging. With a soundtrack the imaging, at least for the front 3 channels, is mastered around the on screen action so a person speaking on the left of the screen has their sound coming from the left, someone speaking in the centre has their sound coming from the centre, and someone speaking on the right of the screen has their sound coming from the right. I'm talking about the general direction from which the sound appears to come, not specific channels, and the voices for the speakers on the left and right of the screen may actually be reproduced by 2 speaker channels, centre and left/centre and right with the balance between the 2 channels determining how far left or right of centre the sound of the voice is coming from, but there's another thing going on as well. Our eyes are involved and our brain does a pretty good job of linking where we think the voice is coming from to where our eyes see the person who is speaking. Surround speakers still give us sounds to the left and right sides and rear but positioning is less critical there and we're less good at positioning those sounds precisely in space anyway. My feeling is that imaging is less of an issue with soundtracks than it is with music because with soundtracks our eyes are providing additional information and we are more visually oriented than hearing oriented so vision takes precedence and the imaging "falls into place" in our perception.

I think the imaging aspect is less critical, both for the engineer and for speaker setup, with soundtracks than it is with music and I suspect that most people use their AVRs to listen to soundtracks for more time than they do to listen to music. I also suspect that we're far more likely to have more people occupying listening positions when there's a movie playing than when just music is playing, and the more people who are present when it's just music playing, the more likely it is to be some sort of social occasion like a party or a gathering than a serious music listening event so once again precision in imaging is going to be less critical than it would be for a single listener and if we have just the single listener they're more likely to be in the main listening position where the imaging is going to be at its best or they're going to be in a different position where they're not expecting to hear the precision imaging which is obtainable in the main listening position.

In summary, I think getting imaging perfect or close to perfect over a wider area than a single main listening position isn't overly critical. I think getting a smoother frequency response over a wider area is probably more important with a multi-channel setup than it is for 2 channel listening.





> …Take the early Audyssey recommendation to measure 2' behind the MLP, for example. If your home theater has two, or more rows, it may make perfect sense to measure behind the MLP. And, you may get more uniform results in the other rows by doing that. But, what if there are no listening positions behind the MLP, or what if your listening positions are located fairly close to a wall, as is the case in many mixed-use rooms, or single row HT's? Now, measuring behind the MLP will only move the Audyssey microphone into closer proximity with a hard surface (that back wall), which will increase the number of spurious reflections hitting the mic, which may in turn adversely affect the resulting EQ. (There are reasons why Audyssey always advises users to keep the mic away from hard surfaces.) Those reflections would be considered spurious, in the instance above, because there would not actually be anyone listening behind the MLP. So, reflections occurring close to a wall would be irrelevant. The important reflections from that wall would be captured at the MLP, and would hopefully be addressed, to a limited extent, by Audyssey's time domain correction. Measuring behind the MLP, and closer to a wall, could actually make it harder for Audyssey to distinguish between direct arriving sounds and reflections from the wall. And, as noted earlier that could compromise whatever time domain correction Audyssey was attempting to do.


There is a delay in arrival between the direct sound and later reflections. The direct sound travels in a straight line between loudspeaker and listener. Reflected sound travels from loudspeaker to room surface (wall/ceiling/floor) then to listener so the distance is longer than the direct sound path. How much longer it is depends on how far the loudspeaker is from the room surface and how far the listener is from the room surface. If the difference in distance is very slight—a listener sitting extremely close to a wall so the sound only has to travel a few inches past the listener to the wall and then a few inches back to the listener—then there's only a very brief delay and the 2 sounds will get fused together by the brain so we perceive the arrivals of the direct sound and the reflection as a single "event" but the difference is enough to cause comb filtering which can mess up the frequency response pattern the mic picks up. We seem to do pretty well at not noticing that because our brains tend to ignore it or compensate for it but it probably complicates things quite a bit for Audyssey. I suspect there's some time windowing going on so that Audyssey doesn't bother treating a sound as a reflection unless the delay is longer than some minimum number of milliseconds but working out the frequency response of the direct sound if it is being complicated by some extremely early reflections may not be so simple, especially given that the wall surface isn't going to reflect evenly at all frequencies and is also going to affect the tonal balance of the fused direct sound/very early reflection. Things are a lot simpler and less messy if the first reflections arrive sufficiently long enough after the direct sound so that we don't perceive them as part of the direct sound and the simplest way to do that is to ensure that both loudspeaker and listener are at least a couple of feet away from the closest room surfaces.

I have no listening positions behind my main listening position and there's quite a distance between my main listening position and the wall behind it because my system is in a combined living/dining room area with the dining area and then the kitchen island and the kitchen itself behind my listening position and the wall. I do measure behind where my head is at the main listening position but only a few inches behind, basically covering a slightly larger area my head may occupy if a lean back rather than sit upright but only because I also measure a little in front of the listening chair as well and I don't want the main listening position to be the rear most point of the pattern. I have no idea if that makes a difference, I just think it's probably best to measure a few points behind the MLP as well as in front of it, but the front positions in my pattern are a bit more in front of the first measurement point than the rear positions in my pattern are behind it.





> [I should note, at this point, that there is considerable controversy with respect to whether time domain correction is efficacious with systems such as Audyssey and even Dirac Live. I am taking no position on that issue, and frankly some of the discussions I have read on that subject were a little over my head. The only thing that I am saying in this post, is that, to the extent that time domain correction may be somewhat helpful with Audyssey, it will surely be more so for a smaller, rather than larger, measurement area.]


I'm not certain that a smaller measurement area is necessarily more helpful than a larger one if we're just talking about the size of the measurement area and nothing else. I would think that the smaller the room is, the smaller the pattern should be simply because of the way that sound pressure levels are distributed in a room. The positions where you will find modal points where peaks or troughs in level occur are going to be closer together in a small room than they are in a large room. I suspect you can get better results with a larger pattern more easily in a large room than you can in a small room but that's a gut feeling and I have no information to back that up. I will say that we tend to arrange our setups so that the front to back axis of the room is the long axis and we tend to arrange our seating across the short axis of the room and I expect that if someone wanted to try doing the exercise, they might get better results with a larger measurement area if the long axis of the measurement area was along the long axis of the room and the short axis of the measurement area was along the short axis of the room but that would give a measurement area which tended to include areas where people don't sit and exclude areas where people do sit in most of our rooms. I tend to space my measurement positions over a roughly circular area with the centre of the area being slightly in front of the first listening position. I'd probably make my measurement area a little wider if I was measuring for more than 1 listening position.




> It is difficult to overstress the importance of giving Audyssey a good set-up for its calibration routine to act upon. And, that includes keeping the microphone well away from hard surfaces during calibration. Whether or not to follow the current Audyssey advice to space mic positions no further than 2' from the MLP is a purely personal decision. There may well be instances where it is advisable to use larger mic patterns (for multiple rows) for example. And conversely, there may be people who continue to get fairly uniform EQ, over a large area, using mic spacing patterns of as little as 1' (or less). Only experimentation can help to determine the specific microphone pattern that works best in your particular space. But, FWIW, I think that, based on what we know about how Audyssey actually sets filters, there is solid logic in its current recommendations with respect to smaller microphone patterns during Audyssey calibrations.


I think that's a very good summing up. About the only thing I'd add is that I think room area is an ignored variable and that I think while there's probably an advantage to keeping the measurement area small, I think that the smallness of the measurement area is to some degree in relation to the smallness of the room. My "small" measurement area would probably be a bit bigger in a large room than it would be in a small room.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Microphone Placement During Audyssey Calibrations
> 
> A second reason, which has only occurred to me recently, involves the time domain correction which Audyssey is attempting to provide. A few days ago, Feri quoted a conversation with Chris K, the creator of Audyssey. In that conversation (which I had forgotten) Chris explains that Audyssey does attempt to distinguish between direct sound, and reflections arriving after that direct sound. Chris goes on to say, that Audyssey then develops filters to suppress or to attenuate (my words) those later-arriving reflections. But, it seems to me that Audyssey's ability to do that at all would necessarily be restricted to a fairly small area. As the measurement area expanded, Audyssey's ability to distinguish between a direct reflection, and a late-arriving reflection, would be somewhat compromised. And the resulting time domain correction would, therefore, become less-and-less effective. That post which quotes Chris is Post 2069, on Page 69, and it is part of what made me decide to address the issue of microphone patterns in Audyssey calibrations.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


A great post as always Mike!

For a fraction of a moment please allow me to reflect a bit on what I have learned (from Chris K.) on Audyssey taming room reflections and the way it is done (in Layman's, of course). Just like for the frequency correction, Audyssey collects information on room reflections from each mic position, groups them into clusters and the algorithm looks for similarities. Then the common ones are going to be the ones that are treated first. Fuzzy logic takes care of all the rest.

Getting back to real life, we can always do the "pudding proof" test by listening to materials that might give us a picture on what could have been achived in the reflections department.

Among the many musical instruments out there I have come to the conclusion that percussions are the ones we can easily use to see how well Audyssey is doing (or not) in our rooms when it comes to supressing/minimizing reflections. These instruments typically have a sudden impact with a rapid decay making them ideal for our test purposes.

We may find a lot of music matching the above criteria, however I usually recommend Particia Barber's: "What a Shame" title. When listening carefully we can concentrate on the bongos coming from the Right channel. Toggling Audyssey on/off while all ears are on the bongos may help to reveal whether room reflections are being tamed or not. Particularly to me this means I can spot the bongos with Audyssey OFF, but with Audyssey ON I can even pin point the exact location of the sound source. Taking an analogy from photography this is like looking at a blurred image vs. a sharp one. 

Hope this link works:


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> A great post as always Mike!
> 
> For a fraction of a moment please allow me to reflect a bit on what I have learned (from Chris K.) on Audyssey taming room reflections and the way it is done (in Layman's, of course). Just like for the frequency correction, Audyssey collects information on room reflections from each mic position, groups them into clusters and the algorithm looks for similarities. Then the common ones are going to be the ones that are treated first. Fuzzy logic takes care of all the rest.
> 
> Getting back to real life, we can always do the "pudding proof" test by listening to materials that might give us a picture on what could have been achived in the reflections department.
> 
> Among the many musical instruments out there I have come to the conclusion that percussions are the ones we can easily use to see how well Audyssey is doing (or not) in our rooms when it comes to supressing/minimizing reflections. These instruments typically have a sudden impact with a rapid decay making them ideal for our test purposes.
> 
> We may find a lot of music matching the above criteria, however I usually recommend Particia Barber's: "What a Shame" title. When listening carefully we can concentrate on the bongos coming from the Right channel. Toggling Audyssey on/off while all ears are on the bongos may help to reveal whether room reflections are being tamed or not. Particularly to me this means I can spot the bongos with Audyssey OFF, but with Audyssey ON I can even pin point the exact location of the sound source. Taking an analogy from photography this is like looking at a blurred image vs. a sharp one.
> 
> Hope this link works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SvDzaJQXY8


Hi Feri,

Thank you for the nice comment! I like your percussion test. That does seem like a good way to test for what Audyssey is doing with respect to reflections. A tougher test would involve high frequencies, but to be fair, I think that room treatments are the most helpful way to deal with reflections above about 1000Hz, or so. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Just because things are slow, there's no reason to make up for the lack of a lot of short posts with a long post. So says the man who just did a longish post himself
> 
> I'll just make a couple of quick comments since I have no problem with your overall speculations.
> 
> 
> I think that's a very good summing up. About the only thing I'd add is that I think room area is an ignored variable and that I think while there's probably an advantage to keeping the measurement area small, I think that the smallness of the measurement area is to some degree in relation to the smallness of the room. My "small" measurement area would probably be a bit bigger in a large room than it would be in a small room.



Hi David,

Thanks for the comments!  I really couldn't find a way to keep that one short, if I were going to appropriately address the issues I wanted to discuss. But, I will with this one. I thought you made some excellent points, and your wide knowledge of audio shows through in what you write. I agree that imaging is probably more important in music than in movies. But, I also think that some people are simply more sensitized with respect to that aspect of sound. Unfortunately, I appear to be someone who is, because I am very aware of imaging issues, if I change seating positions during movies. I can ignore the discrepancies during dialogue much better than I can with surround effects and music, during a movie. But, those are very hard for me to ignore, and they occur with a fair amount of frequency. That may very well be an individual psycho-acoustic issue.

As you know, I am not so much recommending using smaller mic patterns than were used in years past, as I am observing that Audyssey now recommends much smaller mic patterns than they used to. I am merely speculating as to the possible reasons for that change. FWIW, that recommendation for keeping mic positions tighter than Audyssey's original recommendation has been the conclusion of most people on the thread who have measured their systems, using different mic patterns.

With respect to my speculation that time domain correction would work better for a smaller measurement area than a larger one, I think it makes sense when applied to most HT size rooms. Reflections from adjacent walls, and not just from rear walls, would challenge whatever algorithm Audyssey is using to make time domain corrections. It would seem that simplifying the number of such challenges, by keeping mic positions in closer, and away from adjacent surfaces, would make it easier for Audyssey to set filters which would provide equivalent correction, at multiple positions.

And, of course, I am speaking primarily of frequencies above about 150 or 200Hz, when I think of that time domain correction. I agree with you that a large room would probably make it easier to use a large mic pattern, but I think it probably depends somewhat on the geometry and layout of the room, even then. In my 6000^3 room, a small pattern gives me more consistent results across a wider area, than a large pattern does, perhaps for the very reasons about which we have been speculating.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Mike,

There are times when I think that the whole room correction thing boils down to voodoo, whether we're talking physical treatment, electronic correction like Audyssey, or a combination of both. One thing is certain and that is that physical treatment and electronic correction in the time domain approach the issue of reflections from very different viewpoints.

I first got interested in the topic in the very late 1990's/early 2000's in relation to physical treatment of a listening room for a purely music setup. I read Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics" which covers both room treatment and the construction of your own treatments. Everest was big on treating first reflection points including side walls, and a lot of his comments referenced findings from research conducted by Floyd Toole. I initially started treating my room that way with more emphasis on side wall treatment than on front and back wall treatment though I did treat the front wall early reflection points. Some years later Toole published a book of his own, "Sound Reproduction" and I bought a copy. It's a very different book to Everest's and doesn't deal with construction of treatments at all, but it does go into a lot more depth than Toole does on treating rooms and of course Toole refers rather heavily to his own research, the same research Everest was citing and quoting. Toole states that side wall reflections are actually beneficial for a sense of spaciousness and recommends leaving side walls untreated while treating front and back walls. After years of treating my side walls and liking the result that sounded rather crazy to me, almost heretical in a way. It took me quite a few years before I got around to reorganising furniture in my room and doing a few other things and in the process of doing that I moved the panels I had at my side wall reflection points to the front wall to add more absorption there in line with Toole's recommendations and was surprised to find that I actually preferred having the side wall first reflections untreated.

In a lot of ways I've come to think that reflections, or at least some reflections, aren't the problem we tend to think they are but they definitely can be issues if the reflection has a different tonal balance than the direct sound, either because the reflecting surface doesn't reflect sound well tonally, or because the speaker doesn't radiate all that evenly over a wide angle at different frequencies and that affects the tonal balance of the reflected sound, or both. The direct sound tends to suffer some absorption by air at high frequencies so it usually has a slightly falling top end rather than being flat, and high frequencies get absorbed more easily at surfaces than mid and low frequencies so reflected sound often is a bit rolled off in the highs as well, and that works fine, kind of like the way Audyssey rolls the top end off a bit with it's reference curve, but you can get problems if the reflecting surface is a glass door or window for example because glass reflects high frequencies much more strongly than a normal wall surface does and it also "leaks" bass frequencies so instead of having that falling response in the top end, reflections off glass tend to have a strong response at the top end and a falling response in the bass. You can correct for that either physically or electronically but physical treatments tend to produce a great result at a particular point in the room, your listening position if you place them correctly, while electronic treatments can probably produce a good result over a slightly larger area and they allow you to tailor the overall frequency response which you hear more precisely than physical treatments do. The physical and electronic approaches have different strengths and weaknesses. I think an understanding on one helps us to understand the other a bit better and I don't think it matters too much which one you start off trying to understand first unless you want to become a professional in the field working with one particular approach.

Feri talks above about the bongos on the Patricia Barber track and how they snap into focus with Audyssey. I really like Barber's music and that kind of thing can really snap into focus as well with acoustic treatments, even with a room treated along the lines that Toole recommends where you leave the side wall reflections untreated for a more spacious soundstage effect but treat the front and back walls. There's more than one way to skin a cat as the saying goes, and reflections aren't a problem when they aren't a problem. Whether or not they are a problem is going to depend on the room and how things are set up in the room. Physical treatments seem to provide a lot more flexibility when it comes to tailoring the "style" of the presentation than electronic correction does in my experience. By "style" I mean things like the balance between the size and scale of the overall soundstage and the preciseness of the imaging within that soundstage, and in my experience different people prefer different balances between aspects like that. In the physically treated room I've got my music system in, I've got things set up to give me a spacious soundstage with precise imaging but also a sense of "intimacy" as well and I've had people tell me that listening to that system is like listening to headphones. I understand what they're getting at but I wouldn't describe it that way myself. On the other hand I think I get a bigger soundstage in a way with my 2 channel AV setup using Audyssey with less precise imaging if I listen to music on that system but I normally don't listen to music there, I watch things and the imaging seems every bit as precise when I'm watching something because my eyes are also providing information for the brain to use in localising sound. The AV system also doesn't have the sense of intimacy that the music system has but I don't want that sense of intimacy when I'm watching movies. On the other hand I think I probably get a slightly smoother tonal response with in my AV system with Audyssey than I do in the music system with physical treatment,

I guess I've come to have rather mixed, perhaps some would say conflicted, views when it comes to room treatment/correction and what the ideal result should be. I definitely don't think there is an ideal, one size fits all, solution whether that be for one person using a system for both music and soundtracks, or for different people interested in treating/correcting a room for the same kind of listening purpose whether that be music or soundtracks. There's too much personal preference involved.

So when you take a pragmatic approach to things like the mic pattern to use in an Audyssey setup, I'm very much in agreement. Setup technique has an effect on the final result and it makes sense to me to adapt setup technique to the room and to the personal tastes of the person whose system it is when doing setup if doing things literally "by the book" doesn't produce the result the person wants and we do seem to learn some things about setup technique and what works for us if we live with Audyssey for a few years and run setup a few times over that period because of changes in gear or room furnishing or house moves and the like, plus we come up with speculations like yours. We may never be able to find out for certain whether our speculations are correct but I think we do tend to approach the setup process in a way that reflects the speculations we have and we may find ourselves dropping some speculations if running setup doesn't deliver the result we want if we've done something in the process based on a speculation and we tend to hang on to the ones that don't seem to adversely affect our outcomes and perhaps even develop one or two more speculations as a result of our experience along the way. I think it's helpful trotting out some of our speculations from time to time as you did because it may make someone reading them think of things in a slightly different way which may help them get a better result. Your post this morning triggered a few new thoughts for me and I suspect I may change my mic pattern slightly the next time I run setup just to try out my idea that larger patterns may work better if the long axis of the pattern is along the long axis of the room. Who knows, it may do something to my results, it may not, and if it does something I may consider the result better or worse but I will have learnt something along the way and learning something is always useful.

Keep speculating. It's good intellectual exercise and the results can sometimes be beneficial. I think we get better at getting beneficial results from our speculations the more we stay open to having them and trying to incorporate them into how we do things over time. The more we learn what kind of things tend to work for us, I think the more likely our next speculation is likely to be something else that may work for us or for others.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> I think we need to distinguish between movie soundtracks and listening to music when it comes to imaging. With a soundtrack the imaging, at least for the front 3 channels, is mastered around the on screen action so a person speaking on the left of the screen has their sound coming from the left, someone speaking in the centre has their sound coming from the centre, and someone speaking on the right of the screen has their sound coming from the right. I'm talking about the general direction from which the sound appears to come, not specific channels, and the voices for the speakers on the left and right of the screen may actually be reproduced by 2 speaker channels, centre and left/centre and right with the balance between the 2 channels determining how far left or right of centre the sound of the voice is coming from, but there's another thing going on as well. Our eyes are involved and our brain does a pretty good job of linking where we think the voice is coming from to where our eyes see the person who is speaking.


The last several posts by everyone have been excellent. I will respond briefly to one.

David, I agree with what you said about perception of dialog placement. Our eyes certainly help place the dialog, and sometime take nearly the full burden, especially in modern movies, except for when a character moves off screen. In DVDs & Blu-rays of vintage films like Around the world in 80 Days (1956) and Ben-Hur (1959) there is an attempt to make the voices come out of characters' mouths. For the DVD of 80 Days, in key scenes (e.g., the whist table), they tried to reproduce the directionality of the 5 channels behind the screen in the 70mm Todd-AO (pre-Dolby) version by spreading them out over the front 3 speakers in a 5.1 set-up using just the method you outlined, by having the volume in the center and the volume in either the LF or RF vary to place the dialog. It sort of worked. They did less well in positioning track 6, the switchable, blendable, mono surround. In the BD of Ben-Hur (also 6 channel in first run theaters) they were a little less successful, but our eyes helped us most of the time. 

Don't forget the orchestra in movie imaging! I notice quite a bit of variation. The best imaging of orchestral instruments I have ever heard in a movie in our HT was in the BD of The Wrath of the Khan. We walked up to our AT screen for the closing credits to bask in it.


----------



## audiofan1

garygarrison said:


> The last several posts by everyone have been excellent. I will respond briefly to one.
> 
> David, I agree with what you said about perception of dialog placement. Our eyes certainly help place the dialog, and sometime take nearly the full burden, especially in modern movies, except for when a character moves off screen. In DVDs & Blu-rays of vintage films like Around the world in 80 Days (1956) and Ben-Hur (1959) there is an attempt to make the voices come out of characters' mouths. For the DVD of 80 Days, in key scenes (e.g., the whist table), they tried to reproduce the directionality of the 5 channels behind the screen in the 70mm Todd-AO (pre-Dolby) version by spreading them out over the front 3 speakers in a 5.1 set-up using just the method you outlined, by having the volume in the center and the volume in either the LF or RF vary to place the dialog. It sort of worked. They did less well in positioning track 6, the switchable, blendable, mono surround. In the BD of Ben-Hur (also 6 channel in first run theaters) they were a little less successful, but our eyes helped us most of the time.
> 
> *Don't forget the orchestra in movie imaging! I notice quite a bit of variation. The best imaging of orchestral instruments I have ever heard in a movie in our HT was in the BD of The Wrath of the Khan. We walked up to our AT screen for the closing credits to bask in it.*




Huge + 1 ! Wrath of khan is just beautiful with a close second going to the opening scenes with Kirk on the mountain and campfire in The Final Frontier. Well done orchestration in films does more for me to flesh out emotional impact than the special effects at times Definitely an excellent test of well setup system.


----------



## David Aiken

Gary,

I've found orchestra's and imaging problematic. Give me a jazz piano trio or quarter and it's easy, piano over there, bass here, drums? Well, I'd like the kit to be localised fairly closely but it too often tends to get spread out across the whole width of the soundstage and the drummer develops orang utan length arms every time he makes a recording. It's nice when it's done right. Oh, I forgot, the piano often gets smeared across the soundstage too and where the sound comes from depends on which note is played. My speakers are wider apart than my outstretched arms and I've heard pianos stretched not quite that far but still so wide that no pianist could reach the highest and lowest keys simultaneously and it is physically possible to do so.

But that's talking about single instruments and some of their problems. There are few single instruments in an orchestra, mostly its sections with several performers for each instrument. Pin point imaging isn't possible for the violin section but I do think it's possible to provide an accurate "scale" image of a section's location. I've heard some people say you can't hear "imaging" in a concert hall and you certainly can't localise each member of the violin section but you can tell where on the left the violins are, and you can localise soloists though vision may sometimes help. I do get the feeling that there are some in the classical music fanciers who think that the "most accurate" representation of how an orchestra sounds in real life would be multi-mono, wide spread of sound with no localisation whatsoever.

I must dig out "Wrath of Khan" and give it a spin again, I'll use seeing what those old Star Trek movies look like with the new Oppo 203 as an excuse . I tend to notice the support the musical soundtrack provides to the emotional tone of a movie more than I notice the imaging of the musical soundtrack, and I wonder whether I have the best system to judge musical soundtrack imaging since I run a 2.1 system. It tends to be fine for judging imaging on dialog but it isn't good for judging imaging with some other aspects of a soundtrack. I'll try to report back.


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

Hi guys, wondering if anyone can help me. Guys came today to clean my air ducts so I had to move some things around and getting new couches a couple of weeks ago didn't help. But anyway I've recalibrated several times and audyssey just keeps boosting the high frequencies. 

Little run down of system
Denon avr-x4200
Def-t cs-9060hd center
4- def tech bp-8060st for front left right and side rears. Running 5.2.2 atmos with ceiling mounted pm-800's
And dual svs-pb2000 

Thinking of trying new audyssey mic. I've kept it away from couch backs, back wall I've put the mic at tweeter level I'm out of ideas. Most times the high freq. is ear piercing. And I do have very sensitive hearing even silverware clanking together in a drawer can hurt, maybe I'm f'd up lol thanks guys


----------



## David Aiken

MyNameIsSonya said:


> Hi guys, wondering if anyone can help me. Guys came today to clean my air ducts so I had to move some things around and getting new couches a couple of weeks ago didn't help. But anyway I've recalibrated several times and audyssey just keeps boosting the high frequencies.
> 
> Little run down of system
> Denon avr-x4200
> Def-t cs-9060hd center
> 4- def tech bp-8060st for front left right and side rears. Running 5.2.2 atmos with ceiling mounted pm-800's
> And dual svs-pb2000
> 
> Thinking of trying new audyssey mic. I've kept it away from couch backs, back wall I've put the mic at tweeter level I'm out of ideas. Most times the high freq. is ear piercing. And I do have very sensitive hearing even silverware clanking together in a drawer can hurt, maybe I'm f'd up lol thanks guys


When Audyssey does it's calibration it works out what it needs to do to produce a flat response in your room and then, unless you choose otherwise, it sets itself to deliver what it calls "reference" which actually rolls the top end off a bit. Basically it gives you 3 options which are Flat which will have more treble boost than Reference, Reference, and Off which turns all room correction off but still adjusts for speaker balance and arrival times.

You say Audyssey "just keeps boosting the high frequencies". I assume you mean that the high frequencies are boosted relative to how things sound with Audyssey turned off. That is possible. If your room is very absorptive at high frequencies, Audyssey may have to boost the high frequencies to deliver a Flat response and while Reference rolls the high frequencies off, it may not roll them off as much as the absorption present in your room does. The problem is unlikely to be mic related so trying a new mic probably won't help. The problem is that your hearing is very sensitive in the high frequency range and Audyssey's Reference curve has too much high frequency content for your ears at the moment.

There are some things you can try. These may or may not work sufficiently to satisfy you but they're all I can think of. I'd probably try them in the order in which they appear because they get progressively "more drastic" as they go on.:

1- Check whether you have Dynamic EQ turned on. If you do, turn it off. If you're listening at below reference levels, and most people do, Dynamic EQ is going to boost low and high frequencies to some degree.

2- If that helps, but it doesn't reduce the highs enough for you or if you did not have Dynamic EQ turned on, use the tone controls to turn the Treble down.

3- Set Audyssey to Off but turn the tone control off so you aren't reducing the treble. (This may raise the high frequencies a bit from where they were in the previous step but this is the starting point for where we go if Audyssey is turned off.

4- With Audyssey off, use the tone controls to turn the Treble down.

Around about there we run out of options for reducing high frequency output. 

I've got a Marantz AVR but I did use a Denon years ago. My Marantz has an option for something called "Cinema EQ" which is a bit like Audyssey Reference in some ways, it rolls off the high frequencies. You could try it with Audyssey turned off. I don't know whether you can use Cinema EQ and the tone controls together but if you can you may be able to get a bit more high frequency cut that way.

And that's about all that I can think of. Audyssey isn't intended to produce a result that's going to suit people with hearing problems, it's designed to produce one of two very specific frequency responses at the listening position, Flat and Reference. If neither of them suits you there's limited options apart from those I've mentioned above.

If one of the above options works but you find that the bass level isn't high enough for your tastes, because turning Dynamic EQ off is likely to cut your bass response, let us know and we can tell you the options for fixing that.


----------



## mthomas47

MyNameIsSonya said:


> Hi guys, wondering if anyone can help me. Guys came today to clean my air ducts so I had to move some things around and getting new couches a couple of weeks ago didn't help. But anyway I've recalibrated several times and audyssey just keeps boosting the high frequencies.
> 
> Little run down of system
> Denon avr-x4200
> Def-t cs-9060hd center
> 4- def tech bp-8060st for front left right and side rears. Running 5.2.2 atmos with ceiling mounted pm-800's
> And dual svs-pb2000
> 
> Thinking of trying new audyssey mic. I've kept it away from couch backs, back wall I've put the mic at tweeter level I'm out of ideas. Most times the high freq. is ear piercing. And I do have very sensitive hearing even silverware clanking together in a drawer can hurt, maybe I'm f'd up lol thanks guys


Hi,

I have found DefTech speakers to be a little brighter than some other types. Is this the first time you have experienced that sensation with these speakers?

I have a couple of thoughts in addition to the ones David mentioned. First, I would not put the Audyssey mic at tweeter height, I would put it at ear level, which is lower than most people realize. Measure from the center of your ear canal, seated, and that is the correct mic height. My guess is that the Audyssey mic just isn't picking up the high frequencies properly right now.

The second thing I would be conscious of is adjusting the toe-in of the front speakers to their optimum position at the MLP. That may take some experimentation, but again I have found that the Audyssey mic can be pretty sensitive to off-axis speakers, particularly in the high frequencies. If the mic doesn't "hear" the high frequencies properly, Audyssey's response will be unpredictable.

It is possible that you could have a defective mic. I have heard that they can degrade first in the higher frequencies, but I agree with David that it is too soon to conclude that. I suspect that this is a set-up and calibration issue. Try getting an optimum toe-in for your front speakers, and keeping the mic at ear level, and see what happens. If you want to post a picture of your front soundstage it might also help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

David Aiken said:


> When Audyssey does it's calibration it works out what it needs to do to produce a flat response in your room and then, unless you choose otherwise, it sets itself to deliver what it calls "reference" which actually rolls the top end off a bit. Basically it gives you 3 options which are Flat which will have more treble boost than Reference, Reference, and Off which turns all room correction off but still adjusts for speaker balance and arrival times.
> 
> You say Audyssey "just keeps boosting the high frequencies". I assume you mean that the high frequencies are boosted relative to how things sound with Audyssey turned off. That is possible. If your room is very absorptive at high frequencies, Audyssey may have to boost the high frequencies to deliver a Flat response and while Reference rolls the high frequencies off, it may not roll them off as much as the absorption present in your room does. The problem is unlikely to be mic related so trying a new mic probably won't help. The problem is that your hearing is very sensitive in the high frequency range and Audyssey's Reference curve has too much high frequency content for your ears at the moment.
> 
> There are some things you can try. These may or may not work sufficiently to satisfy you but they're all I can think of. I'd probably try them in the order in which they appear because they get progressively "more drastic" as they go on.:
> 
> 1- Check whether you have Dynamic EQ turned on. If you do, turn it off. If you're listening at below reference levels, and most people do, Dynamic EQ is going to boost low and high frequencies to some degree.
> 
> 2- If that helps, but it doesn't reduce the highs enough for you or if you did not have Dynamic EQ turned on, use the tone controls to turn the Treble down.
> 
> 3- Set Audyssey to Off but turn the tone control off so you aren't reducing the treble. (This may raise the high frequencies a bit from where they were in the previous step but this is the starting point for where we go if Audyssey is turned off.
> 
> 4- With Audyssey off, use the tone controls to turn the Treble down.
> 
> Around about there we run out of options for reducing high frequency output.
> 
> I've got a Marantz AVR but I did use a Denon years ago. My Marantz has an option for something called "Cinema EQ" which is a bit like Audyssey Reference in some ways, it rolls off the high frequencies. You could try it with Audyssey turned off. I don't know whether you can use Cinema EQ and the tone controls together but if you can you may be able to get a bit more high frequency cut that way.
> 
> And that's about all that I can think of. Audyssey isn't intended to produce a result that's going to suit people with hearing problems, it's designed to produce one of two very specific frequency responses at the listening position, Flat and Reference. If neither of them suits you there's limited options apart from those I've mentioned above.
> 
> If one of the above options works but you find that the bass level isn't high enough for your tastes, because turning Dynamic EQ off is likely to cut your bass response, let us know and we can tell you the options for fixing that.



What a response thank you very much David, after audyssey does its thing I go back and change it to flat especially for listening to music. movies I am still experimenting on flat vs ref. curve (almost been 8 months and I still get yelled at by the gf for tinkering) haha. but anyways I just don't get it. The high frequencies used to be somewhat of a bother with my speakers toed in and after I put them facing forward with no toe-in things seemed a lot better. and tinkering around with new mic placements.


I do not have any dynamic range compression enabled and do not have dyn-volume or dynamic-eq enabled. Also with audyssey off things sound decent just bass is a little boomy and things are overall less balanced, which is to be expected. But high frequency wise I do not think they are bright almost perfect in my opinion.


I have also tried the Flat setting and turning the treble down 3db or so is where I start to notice a decrease but it really takes away the shimmering detail and not much of the fatiguing treble. It makes it more neutral but doesn't necessarily help with the overall harshness. If that makes any sense to you. 



I remember a few times ago when I ran audyssey the high freq in the reference EQ graph had actually negative db in the real high range. the last few times I have ran it its more in the positive DB's in the graph.


Same with the Flat it may have been about 1-2 db hot in the high range but nothing like it is lately. I will attach some graph's from audyssey and my front sound stage like Mike mentioned.


Thanks again, Dave


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have found DefTech speakers to be a little brighter than some other types. Is this the first time you have experienced that sensation with these speakers?
> 
> I have a couple of thoughts in addition to the ones David mentioned. First, I would not put the Audyssey mic at tweeter height, I would put it at ear level, which is lower than most people realize. Measure from the center of your ear canal, seated, and that is the correct mic height. My guess is that the Audyssey mic just isn't picking up the high frequencies properly right now.
> 
> The second thing I would be conscious of is adjusting the toe-in of the front speakers to their optimum position at the MLP. That may take some experimentation, but again I have found that the Audyssey mic can be pretty sensitive to off-axis speakers, particularly in the high frequencies. If the mic doesn't "hear" the high frequencies properly, Audyssey's response will be unpredictable.
> 
> It is possible that you could have a defective mic. I have heard that they can degrade first in the higher frequencies, but I agree with David that it is too soon to conclude that. I suspect that this is a set-up and calibration issue. Try getting an optimum toe-in for your front speakers, and keeping the mic at ear level, and see what happens. If you want to post a picture of your front soundstage it might also help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thanks for the response Mike, in my post above I uploaded some photos of the graphs and room. And to answer your question, no this is not the first time I have experienced this with the def techs and audyssey, but this is the first time I cannot correct it and get the treble down enough to a desirable level. My speakers naturally no eq I don't think are very bright, they were sort of on an old Yamaha amp and right away I went and bought the denon which was a lot warmer sounding in my opinion.



The last time I ran audyssey (today) I did the mic positions exactly in the middle of my ear with the exception of position 7-8 I did a little bit lower. The only reason I did that before I just had a theory if the mic was right in line with the tweeter it would catch the freq. better therefore reducing the treble and it did work....or I just got lucky because I have not been able to replicate that.


Also earlier today I did switch back to a little toe-in I started with the speakers 6'' from the back wall and made it so the outside of each speaker measured 6 1/4 so they each have a quarter inch of toe in. I didn't want to go crazy and get more brightness.


thanks again, Dave.


ps. I wonder if indeed I am the issue, who lives by lake villa- Illinois lol


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Gary,
> 
> I've found orchestra's and imaging problematic.
> 
> ... Pin point imaging isn't possible for the violin section but I do think it's possible to provide an accurate "scale" image of a section's location. I've heard some people say you can't hear "imaging" in a concert hall and you certainly can't localise each member of the violin section but you can tell where on the left the violins are, and you can localise soloists though vision may sometimes help. I do get the feeling that there are some in the classical music fanciers who think that the "most accurate" representation of how an orchestra sounds in real life would be multi-mono, wide spread of sound with no localisation whatsoever.
> 
> .... I tend to notice the support the musical soundtrack provides to the emotional tone of a movie more than I notice the imaging of the musical soundtrack, and I wonder whether I have the best system to judge musical soundtrack imaging since I run a 2.1 system.


At an orchestral concert I tend to sit close, if I can, perhaps in the tenth row. Since I'm not made of money, a lot of my experience comes from being present, again often in about the tenth row, at orchestra rehearsals, when most of the audience seats are empty, except for some freeloaders like me. It's true that sections of the orchestra tend to be heard as a whole, but a broad whole, but the sections themselves are quite distinguishable and localizable, yet blending as an "organic" whole, at least from row ten. And ... I once sat in the balcony during an Oakland Symphony concert in which the xylophone was precisely localizable from that distance.

I treasure the emotional tone the music contributes to a movie -- if it is done well. I especially love those instances in which the images and the music seem to fuse together into a whole greater than the sum of their parts. Yet, I do notice some imaging, and definitely notice the lack of imaging when the orchestra is just a blob. 

I remember, as a teen, watching Walt Disney's featurette Grand Canyon (with the Ferde Grofe' score) in 4 channel stereo in which the Symphonie-Orchester Graunke seemed to be floating in air across a wider expanse than the CinemaScope image. It had good imaging of a different kind*; *the sections of the orchestra were localizable, but still diffuse sounding. Somehow, probably with some kind of manipulated reverberation, when the celeste played, it seemed to come from the whole width of the screen (which was filled with falling aspen leaves), yet each delicate hammer strike was vaguely localizable. The orchestra as a whole, especially the strings, sounded unified, but variegated in a way I had never heard before, and which I now think would have been impossible in mono. As one critic said, it was a display of "fire, splendor and tenderness." Although the images were impressive, the grandeur of the music transformed the film, IMO. That was the year the stereo record came out, and I decided that that kind of free floating, ethereal, but detailed sound was what I wanted from my yet-to-be stereo system.


----------



## David Aiken

MyNameIsSonya said:


> What a response thank you very much David, after audyssey does its thing I go back and change it to flat especially for listening to music. movies I am still experimenting on flat vs ref. curve (almost been 8 months and I still get yelled at by the gf for tinkering) haha. but anyways I just don't get it. The high frequencies used to be somewhat of a bother with my speakers toed in and after I put them facing forward with no toe-in things seemed a lot better. and tinkering around with new mic placements.


I'm glad you got something out of my comments.

Toe in: tweeters tend to beam, they are far more directional than mids and woofers, so if you have the speakers toes in to point at you the high frequencies should be stronger than when the speakers are turned out and facing directly forward. That, of course, is when we're talking natural speaker response without Audyssey because Audyssey is going to modify things based on how the speakers are set up during the setup process. 

This is the kind of suggestion one should never offer but never say never as the saying goes: you could try running setup with the speakers toed in and pointed directly at the listening position. My feeling is that the result from this is going to have the treble way too strong for you but once you have things set up, try turning the speakers so they're facing straight forward which will put the listening position off axis and that should reduce the strength of the highs. You may have to experiment with angle of toe in a bit though I wouldn't go further than pointing them straight ahead. 

Setting Audyssey to Reference instead of Flat should roll the high frequencies off a bit also.




> I do not have any dynamic range compression enabled and do not have dyn-volume or dynamic-eq enabled. Also with audyssey off things sound decent just bass is a little boomy and things are overall less balanced, which is to be expected. But high frequency wise I do not think they are bright almost perfect in my opinion.
> 
> I have also tried the Flat setting and turning the treble down 3db or so is where I start to notice a decrease but it really takes away the shimmering detail and not much of the fatiguing treble. It makes it more neutral but doesn't necessarily help with the overall harshness. If that makes any sense to you.
> 
> I remember a few times ago when I ran audyssey the high freq in the reference EQ graph had actually negative db in the real high range. the last few times I have ran it its more in the positive DB's in the graph.
> 
> 
> Same with the Flat it may have been about 1-2 db hot in the high range but nothing like it is lately. I will attach some graph's from audyssey and my front sound stage like Mike mentioned.
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Dave



There's a lot going on in places in those paragraphs and I'm not certain I'm catching all of it.

You need to distinguish between what you see on the EQ plots and what you hear. If you change things in the room and the acoustic properties of the room change as a result, the EQ plot is going to be different because the in room measurement result is going to be different but the 2 target responses, Flat and Reference, are targets for what you are supposed to hear and those targets don't change with the changes in the room. The Eq required to transform the in room response to those target curves will change so the plot will change, but what you hear should be the same as what you heard before the change.

You said you had made some changes in the room, new couches and moving some things around. Those changes could change the in room response that gets measured during setup. Sofas actually can make a quite audible difference, especially if you swap from natural fabric to leather or synthetic upholstery, and/or from spring cushioning to foam cushions or down filled cushions. Those changes can make significant differences to high frequency reflection/absorption in particular but can even affect mid to low frequencies. I noticed changes to the sound in my room when I changed my sofa from one with leather upholstery and spring cushioning to one with fabric upholstery and thick foam cushions. If you were used to the way the Eq graphs looked before you changed the sofas, they could very easily look different in the high frequencies if you ran setup again after the change. Moving things around can affect results but probably not as much as some sofa changes could. If there is an air conditioning duct opening in the room and the ducts were cleaned, it's possible that could make a change as well since the duct space is going to be acoustically coupled to the room unless the duct is completely closed. I'd say it's a safe bet that your changes have affected the acoustical character of the room, that the measurements Audyssey made during setup were different to what they were like before those changes, and that the Eq being applied has changed as well, but there should not have been a significant change in the frequency response you hear.

If you really are hearing something different then perhaps there is a mic problem. Rather than just buying a new mic to see, if you have a friend with a Denon AVR which uses the same mic, try borrowing his mic and seeing if that makes a difference. If it does, and you get a more acceptable result, then buy a new mic.


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

David Aiken said:


> I'm glad you got something out of my comments.
> 
> Toe in: tweeters tend to beam, they are far more directional than mids and woofers, so if you have the speakers toes in to point at you the high frequencies should be stronger than when the speakers are turned out and facing directly forward. That, of course, is when we're talking natural speaker response without Audyssey because Audyssey is going to modify things based on how the speakers are set up during the setup process.
> 
> This is the kind of suggestion one should never offer but never say never as the saying goes: you could try running setup with the speakers toed in and pointed directly at the listening position. My feeling is that the result from this is going to have the treble way too strong for you but once you have things set up, try turning the speakers so they're facing straight forward which will put the listening position off axis and that should reduce the strength of the highs. You may have to experiment with angle of toe in a bit though I wouldn't go further than pointing them straight ahead.
> 
> Setting Audyssey to Reference instead of Flat should roll the high frequencies off a bit also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot going on in places in those paragraphs and I'm not certain I'm catching all of it.
> 
> You need to distinguish between what you see on the EQ plots and what you hear. If you change things in the room and the acoustic properties of the room change as a result, the EQ plot is going to be different because the in room measurement result is going to be different but the 2 target responses, Flat and Reference, are targets for what you are supposed to hear and those targets don't change with the changes in the room. The Eq required to transform the in room response to those target curves will change so the plot will change, but what you hear should be the same as what you heard before the change.
> 
> You said you had made some changes in the room, new couches and moving some things around. Those changes could change the in room response that gets measured during setup. Sofas actually can make a quite audible difference, especially if you swap from natural fabric to leather or synthetic upholstery, and/or from spring cushioning to foam cushions or down filled cushions. Those changes can make significant differences to high frequency reflection/absorption in particular but can even affect mid to low frequencies. I noticed changes to the sound in my room when I changed my sofa from one with leather upholstery and spring cushioning to one with fabric upholstery and thick foam cushions. If you were used to the way the Eq graphs looked before you changed the sofas, they could very easily look different in the high frequencies if you ran setup again after the change. Moving things around can affect results but probably not as much as some sofa changes could. If there is an air conditioning duct opening in the room and the ducts were cleaned, it's possible that could make a change as well since the duct space is going to be acoustically coupled to the room unless the duct is completely closed. I'd say it's a safe bet that your changes have affected the acoustical character of the room, that the measurements Audyssey made during setup were different to what they were like before those changes, and that the Eq being applied has changed as well, but there should not have been a significant change in the frequency response you hear.
> 
> If you really are hearing something different then perhaps there is a mic problem. Rather than just buying a new mic to see, if you have a friend with a Denon AVR which uses the same mic, try borrowing his mic and seeing if that makes a difference. If it does, and you get a more acceptable result, then buy a new mic.



Thanks David, I may give that a shot doing a toe in toward the listening position and then after the set up pointing them straight forward as an experiment. Who knows it may work and may sound good.


Sorry if my paragraphs were all over the place I was eating pizza with one hand, typing with the other hand and took a break taking my dogs out. Oh and had my girlfriend making fun of me for being on the forum and reading mimicking over my shoulder lol! 



But I do think the new couches did have a lot to do with it, the backs are higher and there is definitely a lot more plump to the cushions. And when I meant I moved things around earlier all I meant by that is I had to move the speakers out of the way of the vent cleaners, but I moved them right back and recalibrated anyway. My girlfiend is putting dishes away right now and silverware and my ears are ringing maybe this is all just because of my ears, maybe I have an issue that I am not aware of. But I do know I did have the treble under control at one point in my system.


I will take your advice and try what you stated, but about the borrowing a mic from a friend.... I wish I did have a friend that was into all this. Not many people are into this my age, I am only 24 years old going to be 25 this year. I had my first onkyo HTIB when I was 14-15 years old so I guess I am considered an audiophile lol. I may just buy a new mic or see if denon will send me one under warranty or some other loop hole. Either way if I'm out the money for a new mic and that gets ruled out then I know for sure its my calibration technique and may invest in a boom stand instead of the tripod I am using.


thanks, dave


----------



## mthomas47

MyNameIsSonya said:


> Thanks David, I may give that a shot doing a toe in toward the listening position and then after the set up pointing them straight forward as an experiment. Who knows it may work and may sound good.
> 
> Sorry if my paragraphs were all over the place I was eating pizza with one hand, typing with the other hand and took a break taking my dogs out. Oh and had my girlfriend making fun of me for being on the forum and reading mimicking over my shoulder lol!
> 
> But I do think the new couches did have a lot to do with it, the backs are higher and there is definitely a lot more plump to the cushions. And when I meant I moved things around earlier all I meant by that is I had to move the speakers out of the way of the vent cleaners, but I moved them right back and recalibrated anyway. My girlfiend is putting dishes away right now and silverware and my ears are ringing maybe this is all just because of my ears, maybe I have an issue that I am not aware of. But I do know I did have the treble under control at one point in my system.
> 
> I will take your advice and try what you stated, but about the borrowing a mic from a friend.... I wish I did have a friend that was into all this. Not many people are into this my age, I am only 24 years old going to be 25 this year. I had my first onkyo HTIB when I was 14-15 years old so I guess I am considered an audiophile lol. I may just buy a new mic or see if denon will send me one under warranty or some other loop hole. Either way if I'm out the money for a new mic and that gets ruled out then I know for sure its my calibration technique and may invest in a boom stand instead of the tripod I am using.
> 
> thanks, dave


Hi Dave, 

I don't see very much in your photos that will help me to offer you advice, although there are a couple of things. First, the issue of toe-in is complicated, but I believe that I would try using more toe-in during calibration, so that Audyssey will "hear" the high frequency response as directly as possible. That will help to prevent Audyssey from adding any high frequency boosts. Then after calibration, you can always square the speakers back-up again, to whatever angle sounds best to you. In this specific circumstance, you are just trying to influence Audyssey's high frequency response. So, give that one a try.

Second, is that your center channel just below your display? If so, if I were you, I would bring it forward so that it overhangs the front edge of the stand by an inch, and point it up slightly (with a shim) so that it points at ear level. I am not certain whether there could be some high frequency boost (and comb filtering) occurring with that speaker, as well, due to its current positioning. But, there certainly might be, and if nothing else, positioning the speaker better should help with mid-range and dialogue clarity.

With respect to the use of Audyssey Reference and the treble tone controls, they aren't mutually exclusive. Try using both, if necessary, although I believe that if you follow some of the set-up suggestions above, you may not need to do quite as much remediation of the treble frequencies post-calibration. There is something else that you can try, if none of this works, but let's start with the things we are discussing.

Being able to hear extremely high frequencies is a gift of youth, that time will probably eliminate.  But, meanwhile, it may be possible to enjoy that gift without quite as much discomfort.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> I don't see very much in your photos that will help me to offer you advice, although there are a couple of things. First, the issue of toe-in is complicated, but I believe that I would try using more toe-in during calibration, so that Audyssey will "hear" the high frequency response as directly as possible. That will help to prevent Audyssey from adding any high frequency boosts. Then after calibration, you can always square the speakers back-up again, to whatever angle sounds best to you. In this specific circumstance, you are just trying to influence Audyssey's high frequency response. So, give that one a try.
> 
> Second, is that your center channel just below your display? If so, if I were you, I would bring it forward so that it overhangs the front edge of the stand by an inch, and point it up slightly (with a shim) so that it points at ear level. I am not certain whether there could be some high frequency boost (and comb filtering) occurring with that speaker, as well, due to its current positioning. But, there certainly might be, and if nothing else, positioning the speaker better should help with mid-range and dialogue clarity.
> 
> With respect to the use of Audyssey Reference and the treble tone controls, they aren't mutually exclusive. Try using both, if necessary, although I believe that if you follow some of the set-up suggestions above, you may not need to do quite as much remediation of the treble frequencies post-calibration. There is something else that you can try, if none of this works, but let's start with the things we are discussing.
> 
> Being able to hear extremely high frequencies is a gift of youth, that time will probably eliminate.  But, meanwhile, it may be possible to enjoy that gift without quite as much discomfort.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thank you very much Mike for the tips, 
I am going to try that today with the toe-in and square them back up and ill report back.


I'm also going to try what you said about the center channel I will pull it forward and aim it accordingly. I heard door wedges work good for aiming a speaker up, so maybe Il pick up some of those to place under it unless you have a better suggestion of what to use to prop it up.


Thanks again, Dave.


----------



## mthomas47

MyNameIsSonya said:


> Thank you very much Mike for the tips,
> I am going to try that today with the toe-in and square them back up and ill report back.
> 
> 
> I'm also going to try what you said about the center channel I will pull it forward and aim it accordingly. I heard door wedges work good for aiming a speaker up, so maybe Il pick up some of those to place under it unless you have a better suggestion of what to use to prop it up.
> 
> 
> Thanks again, Dave.


You are very welcome, Dave! I think that rubber (or plastic) door wedges would be fine.

Edit: I have been wanting to suggest something since I looked at your photos, and I think I will. All you can do is to freak out. 

If I were you, I would move my display to the right. Ideally, you would want your front speakers to be further apart. That would give you a wider front soundstage, and would also enable you to experiment with different amounts of toe-in for the front speakers. Both of those things would be beneficial, in my opinion. I realize that you can't easily spread the speakers further apart, given the current placement, but moving the display and stand to the right, while leaving the left front speaker about where it is, could open up some opportunities for improved audio. And, if necessary, the right front speaker could be on the other side of the sub.

Also, when you do your next calibration, be sure to put a thick towel, or absorbent blanket over the back of the sofa, during the calibration, only. If you could pull that sofa forward even slightly from the wall, it would help your overall audio quality. Right now, irrespective of anything Audyssey is doing, a lot of secondary reflections are bouncing into your ears from that window. Pulling the sofa forward even by another 6" or so, will probably help.

I hope you don't mind me rearranging your living room.


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Dave! I think that rubber (or plastic) door wedges would be fine.
> 
> Edit: I have been wanting to suggest something since I looked at your photos, and I think I will. All you can do is to freak out.
> 
> If I were you, I would move my display to the right. Ideally, you would want your front speakers to be further apart. That would give you a wider front soundstage, and would also enable you to experiment with different amounts of toe-in for the front speakers. Both of those things would be beneficial, in my opinion. I realize that you can't easily spread the speakers further apart, given the current placement, but moving the display and stand to the right, while leaving the left front speaker about where it is, could open up some opportunities for improved audio. And, if necessary, the right front speaker could be on the other side of the sub.
> 
> Also, when you do your next calibration, be sure to put a thick towel, or absorbent blanket over the back of the sofa, during the calibration, only. If you could pull that sofa forward even slightly from the wall, it would help your overall audio quality. Right now, irrespective of anything Audyssey is doing, a lot of secondary reflections are bouncing into your ears from that window. Pulling the sofa forward even by another 6" or so, will probably help.
> 
> I hope you don't mind me rearranging your living room.



Ugh I had a response and lost everything I said trying to upload more pics, ok basically what I said is that I would love to do what you mention! In fact I would not even have the tv on that wall if it was up to me.


I would have the tv on the wall to the left of the tv where my rear side sub is and have that be my front sound stage over there. And I would take that couch and put it perpendicular to that window going across the room. Oh I just got my hopes up and remembered I had a gf lol I have asked her several times if I can do this and she just wont allow it.


But as of now the speakers do look really close, may be deceiving in the photo but they are actually 6.6" apart tweeter to tweeter they are nestled outside of a sony xbr65x930c tv . I know 10 ft would be more ideal but I just cant do it because unfortunately that would require me to move the couch over to the right more and I would have to move the right side rear speaker and my front door is right there. Its really close quarters. 


so basically what I'm saying if I just moved the right front speaker wider it would be out further than the rear side surround that wouldn't be good right?


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

I guess its possible with a significant 30 degree toe in or so but might look a little funny one being close to tv and one being so far. I'm very anal about things being even. Right now each speaker is 2.75 inches from the display from its inside corner. I can tell you exact measurement of everything it is kind of sad


----------



## mthomas47

MyNameIsSonya said:


> Ugh I had a response and lost everything I said trying to upload more pics, ok basically what I said is that I would love to do what you mention! In fact I would not even have the tv on that wall if it was up to me.
> 
> 
> I would have the tv on the wall to the left of the tv where my rear side sub is and have that be my front sound stage over there. And I would take that couch and put it perpendicular to that window going across the room. Oh I just got my hopes up and remembered I had a gf lol I have asked her several times if I can do this and she just wont allow it.
> 
> 
> But as of now the speakers do look really close, may be deceiving in the photo but they are actually 6.6" apart tweeter to tweeter they are nestled outside of a sony xbr65x930c tv . I know 10 ft would be more ideal but I just cant do it because unfortunately that would require me to move the couch over to the right more and I would have to move the right side rear speaker and my front door is right there. Its really close quarters.
> 
> 
> so basically what I'm saying if I just moved the right front speaker wider it would be out further than the rear side surround that wouldn't be good right?


I see the problem.  I don't think there would be any issue at all in having the front speakers out wider than the rear surround (or rear side surround) speakers. As you know, some people add front wide speakers in a deliberate effort to broaden their front soundstages. Under the circumstances, then, I would take baby steps. If you can't get the front speakers 10' apart, maybe you can get them 8' apart, and still keep them fairly symmetrically aligned. 

Try moving the left one 6" or so to the left, and the right one slightly more than 6" to the right. I could absolutely be mistaken, but I think it could help. And the sub can move to the right of the vent, unless you have done a sub crawl and it is already in the perfect position. We may all have to make compromises from what might be an optimum arrangement, but sometimes even small, incremental changes, can add up to an overall improvement in sound quality.


----------



## littlefoott

MyNameIsSonya said:


> Hi guys, wondering if anyone can help me. Guys came today to clean my air ducts so I had to move some things around and getting new couches a couple of weeks ago didn't help. But anyway I've recalibrated several times and audyssey just keeps boosting the high frequencies.
> 
> Little run down of system
> Denon avr-x4200
> Def-t cs-9060hd center
> 4- def tech bp-8060st for front left right and side rears. Running 5.2.2 atmos with ceiling mounted pm-800's
> And dual svs-pb2000
> 
> Thinking of trying new audyssey mic. I've kept it away from couch backs, back wall I've put the mic at tweeter level I'm out of ideas. Most times the high freq. is ear piercing. And I do have very sensitive hearing even silverware clanking together in a drawer can hurt, maybe I'm f'd up lol thanks guys



The def tech manual says not to use auto room correction as the bipolar and powered design confuses it

I have to use L&R bypass

Nice dog!


----------



## littlefoott

here is an experiment
unplug the def techs and run audyssey
plug em in and see what you get 

they work when not plugged in but they don't have the punch


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

littlefoott said:


> The def tech manual says not to use auto room correction as the bipolar and powered design confuses it
> 
> I have to use L&R bypass
> 
> Nice dog!



Thank you! she's my big monster 60 lb sub-woof-er :laugh:lol
And yeah I've read that a numerous amount of times, but I also have read that it will work fine it just might set the phase and distance a little off. it always seems to be pretty spot on though. Before I calibrate the 8060's I always plug in the lfe and set the sub section to 75db so there is no guessing, and it seems to do a good job. The way I figure it some off correction must be better than no correction at all right lol.


I have also tried just for the first audyssey position putting a big muffling towel or several little towels over the 8060's rear firing speaker section. Give it a try maybe that's some of the fun with this stuff is tinkering lol it makes sense if you think about it!

I may see how that sounds tonight though! thanks for the input!


----------



## MyNameIsSonya

littlefoott said:


> here is an experiment
> unplug the def techs and run audyssey
> plug em in and see what you get
> 
> they work when not plugged in but they don't have the punch



That may be worth a shot too! but I don't know maybe for just the first audyssey mic position. because as you know the xt32 does a great job with bass.



Maybe we should just get studio monitor 65's lol


----------



## Andre58

mthomas47 said:


> Trim Levels:
> 
> The most commonly asked question on the Audyssey thread these days involves subwoofer settings. There is a fairly universal perception that bass sounds somewhat softer after running Audyssey, and most people who are new to Audyssey are naturally curious about whether that perception is normal, and if so, about the best way to increase their bass. I have been thinking about trying to write a simple explanation of the relationships among sub gain, AVR trim, and master volume (MV). This explanation represents my current understanding of how Audyssey works, and offers some best practice advice for getting the most from your subs. I am also going to include some discussion of how Audyssey sets, and EQ's, single and multiple subs.
> 
> First, one of Audyssey's goals, in any Audyssey version, is to set the volume levels of all channels in a system, including subs, to 75db, as measured at the MLP, by the calibrated Audyssey microphone. The MLP is microphone position 1, wherever the user chooses to place the microphone. And, that point in space is where Audyssey will set timing (distance) and channel levels to coincide. Where subs are concerned, Audyssey will measure all of the subs together, so that their combined SPL is 75db. When Audyssey finishes, all channels in the system will play at the same volume, as determined by the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> As a practical matter, starting with all of the channels playing at the same volume is probably the only way to set the audio system to Audyssey Flat. The intent of Flat is to have every frequency from down to as low as 10Hz, and as high as about 22KHz, play +/- 3db. The Audyssey Reference curve changes Flat, by rolling off the very high frequencies a little (mostly above 10KHz) and adds mid-range compensation (a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz). But, to do those curves, Audyssey needs to start with all channels and frequencies playing at the same volume at the MLP.
> 
> Second, the room strongly influences bass response, causing peaks and dips at various frequencies. That is why Audyssey can be so helpful in EQing subs. When Audyssey is successful at flattening out most of those peaks and dips (at least to some extent) the result is a smoother, clearer sound. And, that less distorted, and less boomy sound, may contribute to the impression that there is less bass playing. But, there is more to it than that. Most people don't listen at Reference Volumes (0.0 MV) which is where the low frequency content in 5.1 movies was mixed to be in correct balance with other frequencies. Once the volume level of a movie drops, those low bass frequencies may be harder to hear, in relation to the frequencies where our hearing is stronger.
> 
> After the level-matching process from mic position 1 is complete, the low frequencies (which, as noted, are harder for us to hear) are playing at the same volume as all of the other frequencies. This phenomenon of lower frequencies being harder to hear than higher ones (except for very high frequencies) is well known. Some additional explanation of this is in the Addendum at the bottom of this post. For even more information, search for Fletcher Munson Curves, or Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> DEQ slightly boosts the low frequencies (and the high ones in the regular channels), in all channels including the subs, and is engaged by default. That is intended to, at least partly, compensate for the inherent difficulty in hearing lower frequencies, at below Reference volume levels. How much boost DEQ adds varies depending on the MV selected, with more boost added as listening levels go softer, at a rate of about +2db per 5db below Reference. (So, at -15 MV, for instance, DEQ would add a little over 6db of bass boost to all of the channels, including the sub channel.) But, most people seem to need more bass boost than that, and prefer to have their own rising house curve, by adding more boost to the subs, even with DEQ on. With DEQ off, sub boosts are typically even larger. So, the question of how, and where, to add that sub boost becomes important for many users.
> 
> Third, most modern commercial subs have a gain (sometimes labeled "volume") control. The initial setting of that gain control will determine where Audyssey sets the trim level for the sub(s). So, if the initial gain control is high, Audyssey will set a low trim setting in the AVR (such as -9) in order to insure that the sub is playing 75db at the MLP, just as all the other channels are. If the gain control setting is low, Audyssey will set a high trim level setting in the AVR (such as -3.0, or 0.0, or even +3.0) to insure that same 75db.
> 
> Fourth, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Therefore, it is desirable to start with a high gain level, and a low trim level. Using the trim settings in the AVR to make sub volume adjustments allows the user to make convenient and fairly exact (.5db increments) adjustments to subwoofer volume, by using the AVR remote. Typically, in order to achieve a low trim level, it will be necessary to start with a measured sub SPL of higher than 75db. An SPL level of about 78db to 80db may be required. The specific SPL used is not as important as the resulting low trim level.
> 
> [It should be noted that there is no particular reason not to just use the gain control on a sub to add volume post-calibration. For people wanting to add really substantial bass boosts--up to, or in excess of 10db or 12db, some gain increase, in excess of the original gain setting, may be necessary, anyway, in order to achieve the bass boost desired by the user. The usual recommendation to employ the AVR trim is more a matter of convenience and accuracy than one of necessity. Some subs don't have digital gain controls, for instance, so fine tuning the gain can be more difficult, as can on-the-fly adjustments. And, it gets even less convenient when multiple subs are connected together, or when gain controls are difficult to get to easily. Using the trim controls in an AVR allows for very convenient and precise adjustments in sub volume. But, the most important thing is to make sure that the real boost comes from the subwoofer amp, whichever adjustment method is ultimately employed.]
> 
> Assuming that the desired boost is to be accomplished using AVR trim, a low trim level might be defined as -9 to -11, but not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units. (With other manufacturers, just determine what the minimum trim level settings are in order to ascertain what your optimum low trim setting should be.) As stated earlier, it may take an SPL of 78db, or higher, to achieve that optimum low trim level. However, it is important not to go lower than -11.5 in trim, in Denon/Marantz units. As noted by Alan in an earlier post, if a trim level of -12 is set, there is no knowing what the actual volume of the sub is. The AVR simply ran out of negative trim at -12. The actual sub volume might be 80db, or even 85db. And, if so, you might not like the way it sounds to have your sub so much louder than the rest of your system. You also could never be sure what your actual sub volume is, and as a result, you could find yourself running out of headroom sooner than expected. So, for instance, you want a negative trim setting not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units.
> 
> Think of the process of adding a sub boost this way. When you raise the gain level in the sub, so that the sub produces more than 75db at the MLP, you are making a deposit in the bank, of amplifier power from the sub. So, for instance, let's say you start with a trim level in the AVR of -9. Now, you can withdraw amp power from the bank, using your AVR trim control. You would, for instance, do that by increasing your trim setting to -6, or -3. That +3 to +6db boost would be pretty typical. But, there is no free lunch. As you begin to approach 0.0, the bank deposit of amp power that you made with the higher gain setting is used up, and now you are using AVR amp power, which as noted, is not as powerful. Using AVR amp power can, in some instances, result in clipping (distorting) your subwoofer(s) or, in some cases, can result in undesirable mechanical noises.
> 
> Fifth, there is a relationship between sub volume and master volume (MV). As your MV increases, the subwoofer volume goes up correspondingly, and more demands are placed on the sub. It is important to remember that the subwoofer is not only playing the LFE channel, but also providing bass support for all of the other channels in a typical HT system. So, as the MV increases, the demands on the sub go up much faster than for the other channels, particularly in a movie with a lot of low frequency content. It is worth noting that 5.1 movies can have very low frequency content in all of the channels, and not just in the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. The subwoofer has to (and should) play all of that low frequency content.
> 
> It is recommended by a number of subwoofer experts, two of whom are quoted in the FAQ, that it is advisable to keep sub trims negative (below 0.0). That is particularly important as MV's approach, or exceed, -10. In Denon/Marantz units, that is 10db below Reference (or 70 on the absolute scale) in your AVR master volume. One of those experts quoted, Ed Mullen of SVS, has subsequent to the entries in the FAQ, recommended staying in negative trim levels, period. To follow his advice, and to avoid the possibility of distortion, we would want to keep our trim levels in about the -3 to -5 range, at even more moderate listening levels. Again, that is easy to do by raising the gain on the sub, particularly if it has a digital control.
> 
> David makes the point, in a post below this one, that high sub gain levels, which still result in high trim levels, are indicative of a sub which is under-powered for the space, and/or the distance from the MLP. In that instance, the only remedy would be a more powerful sub, or multiple subs, or a different (probably closer) sub placement. Although sub placement is not a part of this discussion, it is a very important factor in sub performance.
> 
> If you never intend to approach -10 MV, then the advice to set your sub gain high enough to obtain a strongly negative trim level will be less important. And, if you don't believe that you will ever want to boost your subs, then starting with a trim level of about -6, or so, would be perfectly fine. But, most people on this and other threads seem to average at least a +3 to +6db bass boost after calibration, and some people add much more than that. When DEQ (with its own bass boost) is not employed, boosts of 12db, or even more, are not uncommon. So, the advice you will most commonly see on this thread is to start with a negative trim setting of about -9 to -11 post-calibration, in order to maximize your ability to add sub boost, with your AVR trim control, while still using the sub gain you deposited in the bank.
> 
> Although this advice is not entirely consistent with the explanations and recommendations in the FAQ, I believe that in this particular instance, the current advice on the thread supersedes the advice in the FAQ. I would personally recommend following the advice to maintain a negative sub trim (preferably of about -3, or lower) as a matter of best practice, even if you believe that you will never approach -10 MV. There is no telling who might, inadvertently or otherwise, run the volume control up on your system, or when unexpected peaks in very low bass (in electronically-enhanced music, or in movies) might cause some distortion to occur.
> 
> It is unlikely that a good modern sub would be damaged by a bit of distortion, but I know of an Orbit Shifter, of all things, that had a fried voice coil just from playing electronic music, downloaded from You Tube, at a very high volume with a high AVR trim level. And, even if no damage is done from distortion, listening to distorted bass is sort of antithetical to the whole idea of using automated room EQ, in the first place. It is also more likely that mechanical noises, such as port chuffing, or of drivers hitting limiters, could occur when proper gain/trim protocols aren't followed. So, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in this case.
> 
> Again, you can use a combination of increased gain, and some increase in AVR trim to raise the volume level on your sub to any level you choose, while maintaining an AVR trim of -3, or less. That will allow you to achieve any sub volume your sub is capable of producing. Raising the gain control on the sub(s) post calibration, will have no effect at all on the way that Audyssey EQed your system.
> 
> 
> Audyssey and Multiple Subs:
> 
> There are many advantages to having multiple subs, and many HT owners do have more than one sub. The process for setting trim levels for multiple subs depends on the version of Audyssey being used. For all versions except XT-32, with SubEQ, there will only be one sub out on the AVR. People with multiple subs will typically Y-connect two or more subs into that single sub out. (In some cases, they may also daisy chain the subs.) It is desirable, to run mic position 1 for each sub independently, letting Audyssey calculate distance and setting gain/trim levels, as described in the section above. Then, after connecting dual subs into the single sub out, the normal process can be followed to balance the two gain levels symmetrically, increasing or decreasing the gain levels by the same amount, to achieve a good negative trim level. And, distances from multiple subs can be considered, and if necessary, entered manually to more closely correspond to the timing that Audyssey observed when the subs were measured separately.
> 
> XT-32, with SubEQ offers users the advantage of having two sub outs, so a pair of subs can be level-matched, and have distances set automatically. If three or more subs are used with XT-32, and two sub outs, the same process could be followed, measuring each sub independently before pairing it, using a Y-connector, and then measuring the combined pair as Sub Out 1 versus Sub Out 2.
> 
> 
> Audyssey EQ and Multiple Subs:
> 
> Beyond the volume, distance, and crossover setting functions performed during calibration, Audyssey is a system of automated EQ, whose purpose is to achieve improved speaker/room interaction for the entire frequency range. Most people realize that the room strongly affects the way our speakers and subs sound, once we move several feet away from them. Audyssey's test tones have a range of 10Hz to 20,000Hz (or higher) and Audyssey EQ's that entire frequency range.
> 
> So, when the 75db test tones are played through each channel, Audyssey is measuring the frequency response at multiple locations, and using a system of fuzzy logic weighting to set filters (technically control points) for each channel at various frequencies. The goal is to make each channel play 75db +/- about 3db, at every frequency (or cluster of frequencies), and that includes the subs. Audyssey sets filters for each channel independently, with the number and distribution of the filters dependent on the specific version of Audyssey. But, in all versions of Audyssey, the sub channel (the .1 in 5.1) is a single channel.
> 
> This is an important point! Even with XT-32, once the level matching is completed, Audyssey will only play separate test tones once, through Sub 1 and Sub 2, and this is for the purpose of setting trim levels and distances separately, so that the sounds of both subs will arrive at the MLP at the same time, and at the same volume. But, for the remaining 7 mic positions, the same test tone is simultaneously played through all of the subs in the system together, however they are physically connected. This is because Audyssey is only setting filters for the combined sound of all of the subs in concert, and not for the individual subs. Again, using the example of a 5.1 system, all five speakers constitute a separate channel, and all five speakers get all 6, or 8 test tones, depending on the version of Audyssey. And, each of the five speakers gets its own filters. But, with the .1 channel, all subs are pinged and EQed together, and there is only one set of filters for all of them.
> 
> This is why, regardless of the version of Audyssey employed, it is highly advisable to match similar subs in the system, if at all possible. If the subs in a system have significantly different frequency responses, a single set of filters will not be nearly as helpful in EQing the subs. It is particularly important not to mix ported and sealed subs in a system, unless you have the capability to independently measure results, with something like REW, and have some way to independently EQ the subs, with something like a miniDSP. Again, this is because Audyssey (or other systems of automated EQ) can only EQ all of the subs as a group, producing a collective low frequency sound response.
> 
> Here is an example of how Audyssey works. Let's say that you have a ported sub which produces high SPL from 50Hz down to 15Hz, and a sealed sub which produces somewhat higher SPL above 50Hz, but which can't keep up with the ported sub below 50Hz. That would be a common scenario. Ported subs are specifically designed to produce louder volumes, within relatively narrow low frequency ranges (usually below about 50 or 60Hz), than their sealed counterparts.
> 
> Audyssey, in any version, won't inhibit the stronger sub. In this scenario, the stronger (ported) sub will still play down to it's F3 point of 15Hz and slightly below. And, it won't overdrive the weaker sub by making it try to play lower and louder than it can. It will simply stop setting filters at the combined, detected F3 point. So, if the sealed sub begins to lose 3db of volume, compared to the ported sub, at about 50Hz, Audyssey will stop EQing at 50Hz, specifically to protect the weaker sub from being over-driven by Audyssey filters. And that means, that in this scenario, you won't have the benefit of any EQ in that critical low bass region (from 50Hz to 15Hz) where Audyssey is normally very helpful.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't try mixing dissimilar subs, and taking your chances that it will still sound pretty good to you. It might. It simply means that when you mix subs with very dissimilar output, or low-end extension, or roll-off characteristics, you can no longer count on automated room EQ to help you improve your frequency response below the F3 point of the weaker sub. And, there would be no way to predict how effective a single set of filters would be, even above the F3 point of two very dissimilar subs. Life is much simpler if it is possible to have very similar subs in your system.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Addendum on the Thread History of Recommended Sub Trim Settings:
> 
> In the months since I first wrote this post, I have come back to it several times to add details or to clarify points that I thought were important. And, I have done that because I thought it would be valuable to have a single source for the best practice recommendations which have evolved on the thread. The FAQ can only be amended by the Author, Keith Barnes. And, Keith has been very busy developing a new dedicated HT. So, this post seemed to be the next best alternative.
> 
> But, I thought it might be helpful to explain a bit how the advice on the thread has evolved in recent years. For those who remember, the original advice regarding sub trim levels, was to keep them within a range of -5 to +5. And, the FAQ reflected that advice. Then, after much discussion on the thread, about how sub amps can clip with higher trim settings, the recommended trim setting range in the FAQ was lowered to -3.5 to +3.5. But, as explained above, that recommendation is still too high, particularly depending on master volume levels. Sub placement, with respect to nulls, could also exacerbate a higher trim setting, as Audyssey might already be adding up to 9db of boost, at some frequencies.
> 
> I remember people, including myself, speculating that Audyssey sets trim levels conservatively, perhaps in an effort to protect less capable subs. I specifically mentioned that to people inquiring about wanting to boost their subs after Audyssey set the trim levels. But, that explanation was never really correct. Audyssey protects less capable subs by not setting filters (control points) below the F3 points of those subs. Audyssey does the same thing with the other channels, setting no control points below the measured F3 of a speaker, or speaker pair. But, it is still the obligation of the user to follow good procedures to insure that the sub(s), and other speakers in an audio system, are not pushed beyond their specific capabilities.
> 
> Audyssey's actual reasons for setting the sub trim levels where it does was explained above. Audyssey uses a 75db test tone to set *all* of the channels in a system to the same level, as measured at the MLP, so that Audyssey can apply filters to all of the channels, in an effort to achieve a relatively flat frequency response. It can't do that unless all of the channels, including the .1 sub channel, are set to the same volume.
> 
> But, human hearing is designed/adapted to hear best from about 400Hz up to about 4000Hz. Our hearing quite naturally corresponds somewhat to the range of the human voice. As frequencies drop below about 400Hz, and particularly below about 200Hz, it takes more volume for us to hear those frequencies, at the same level, than we do the ones in our optimum hearing range. The more that frequencies drop below 100Hz, the harder it is for us to hear them, and the more volume we require in order to do so. That additional volume, particularly for frequencies from about 120Hz down, is typically added via a sub boost. The phenomenon of declining audibility, at lower (and higher) frequencies, is graphically illustrated in various depictions of the Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> If we all listened at Reference levels (0.0 MV) it is unlikely that we would need much bass boost, except that which is added for personal preference. But, most of us don't listen at nearly that volume level. The most common range I see quoted for the average listening level is from about -20 to -10 MV, and some people listen at much lower volumes than that. So, it was never really about Audyssey setting levels conservatively. For most of us, it was always about needing more volume to hear subwoofer frequencies, in equilibrium with higher frequencies, at below Reference levels. (As noted earlier, very high frequencies are also outside our optimum hearing range, but most of us seem to compensate better for some attenuation in the relative loudness of those frequencies. In fact, some studies indicate that most people prefer some high frequency roll-off, and the Audyssey Reference curve is based on that assumption.) But, almost all of us seem to perceive a reduction in bass volumes more easily. How much additional bass we need, or want, in order to perceive our sound as balanced, or to fully appreciate the low bass in music, or in movies, is a very personal decision, which probably depends on a lot of factors, including specific rooms, sub capabilities, sub placement, individual hearing, and personal preference.
> 
> I thought it might be helpful to review how some of the thinking on the thread has changed over the years, with respect to why we may want to add sub boosts, post-Audyssey, as well as the best protocol for doing so. None of this is to suggest that others, and specifically the people involved in the creation of the FAQ, haven't already understood these concepts perfectly well. But, the FAQ was written, and edited, over a period of several years, with some sections being revised, and others not. Someone trying to understand whether it is normal to boost his subs, after an Audyssey calibration, may not get the impression that a sub boost is fairly typical at below Reference volumes. And, I think that it is also important to understand why a sub boost may actually be needed, even beyond the issues of individual user preference.
> 
> Again, the recommendation for adding sub boosts, is to try to keep AVR sub trim levels no higher than the -5 to -3 range, after adding however much sub boost may be preferred. And, in order to do that, the appropriate use of sub gain, and not just AVR trim, is generally required.


Hello Mike, I appreciate the exhaustive explanation on how to intergrate subs in to a sound system. Hard to find and you do it very well. As you can see from the attached photos and my signature, I have a very capable system. I just purchased these dual subs from Legacy Audio and want to make sure these are executed to the "T".

Subs and especially multiple subs are the hardest pieces to the puzzle to set up ( at least for me ) and understand. Each sub is a dual 12 in.(35lbs. Motor structure on each) slotted with a 12 in. Passive in the rear and 1000 watt class D ICE amp. Balanced inputs to each. According to Legacy they can go down to 12Hz and punch above 120db. My room is 3200 cubic feet and useing the Onkyo 5508 processor with XT-32. 

I just ran audyssey, for the nth time, and here is the outcome for the subs. 
Initial calibration was set to 77db, frequency set to max, blend set to neutral (this function can increase or decrease energy to the amp at
the 35hz to 50hz range, fine tune) and phase set to 0.

Post calibration my trims were No.1 -8.0 (near corner of room and readjusted to -5.5) and No.2 -5.0 (readjusted to -2.5). 

I listen mostly to music and want the best possible integration with my mains. Movie wise, this system is a killer. I do not know if my phase setting for each is correct prior to calibration, a little unclear about this.

Well I wanted to run this by you and any comments, recommendations or suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
Andre


----------



## Andre58

Andre58 said:


> Hello Mike, I appreciate the exhaustive explanation on how to intergrate subs in to a sound system. Hard to find and you do it very well. As you can see from the attached photos and my signature, I have a very capable system. I just purchased these dual subs from Legacy Audio and want to make sure these are executed to the "T".
> 
> Subs and especially multiple subs are the hardest pieces to the puzzle to set up ( at least for me ) and understand. Each sub is a dual 12 in.(35lbs. Motor structure on each) slotted with a 12 in. Passive in the rear and 1000 watt class D ICE amp. Balanced inputs to each. According to Legacy they can go down to 12Hz and punch above 120db. My room is 3200 cubic feet and useing the Onkyo 5508 processor with XT-32.
> 
> I just ran audyssey, for the nth time, and here is the outcome for the subs.
> Initial calibration was set to 77db, frequency set to max, blend set to neutral (this function can increase or decrease energy to the amp at
> the 35hz to 50hz range, fine tune) and phase set to 0.
> 
> Post calibration my trims were No.1 -8.0 (near corner of room and readjusted to -5.5) and No.2 -5.0 (readjusted to -2.5).
> 
> I listen mostly to music and want the best possible integration with my mains. Movie wise, this system is a killer. I do not know if my phase setting for each is correct prior to calibration, a little unclear about this.
> 
> Well I wanted to run this by you and any comments, recommendations or suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
> Andre


Photos didn't upload
Andre


----------



## mthomas47

Andre58 said:


> Hello Mike, I appreciate the exhaustive explanation on how to intergrate subs in to a sound system. Hard to find and you do it very well. As you can see from the attached photos and my signature, I have a very capable system. I just purchased these dual subs from Legacy Audio and want to make sure these are executed to the "T".
> 
> Subs and especially multiple subs are the hardest pieces to the puzzle to set up ( at least for me ) and understand. Each sub is a dual 12 in.(35lbs. Motor structure on each) slotted with a 12 in. Passive in the rear and 1000 watt class D ICE amp. Balanced inputs to each. According to Legacy they can go down to 12Hz and punch above 120db. My room is 3200 cubic feet and useing the Onkyo 5508 processor with XT-32.
> 
> I just ran audyssey, for the nth time, and here is the outcome for the subs.
> Initial calibration was set to 77db, frequency set to max, blend set to neutral (this function can increase or decrease energy to the amp at
> the 35hz to 50hz range, fine tune) and phase set to 0.
> 
> Post calibration my trims were No.1 -8.0 (near corner of room and readjusted to -5.5) and No.2 -5.0 (readjusted to -2.5).
> 
> I listen mostly to music and want the best possible integration with my mains. Movie wise, this system is a killer. I do not know if my phase setting for each is correct prior to calibration, a little unclear about this.
> 
> Well I wanted to run this by you and any comments, recommendations or suggestions you may have would be appreciated. Thanks in advance
> Andre


Hi Andre,

Thank you for the compliment. That is a very handsome sound system, and I'll bet it sounds terrific. Starting with the phase control on the subs at 0 is correct. I do have some suggestions to make, if you won't mind. First, how did you arrive at your current sub location? Symmetrical arrangements like that are nice looking, but if the subs are on the same wall, and fairly close together, they may not excite room modes in a sufficiently different way to realize the full benefit of dual subs. Those are very handsome subs, and they look good on that front wall, but they might actually produce better sound quality if you put one of them on a different wall.

Let's say that you moved the left sub off of the front wall. That would enable you to move the left front speaker away from the cabinet door. That would increase the width of your soundstage, and reduce the first reflections (and comb filtering) which are occurring from having the drivers in that speaker radiating mid-range and high frequencies outward in a cone shape. Then on the right side, you could move your sub to the right, and allow the right hand speaker to move away from the cabinet door, as well.

I think that the cabinet doors are far enough away from the tweeter and mid-range drivers in the center channel, that the effects wouldn't be quite as severe as for the two front speakers. But, ideally you would try to pull the CC forward, for serious listening/viewing sessions, and fold those cabinet doors back more. The final suggestion I would make involves the wood coffee table. That is right in line with the location where sounds from all three of your front speakers will be converging. If you can cover the table with something absorbent, your sound quality should improve. Again, you are almost certainly getting early reflections from that table, and they can slightly distort the sound. If you can't cover the table all the time, for aesthetic or other reasons, I would suggest at least covering it during your next Audyssey calibration. Then you could remove the cover for normal use, and consider occasionally returning it for more serious listening sessions.

If you want to optimize the sound quality in your room for music, and for HT, the suggestions above will probably have even more impact than the integration of your subs with your mains. Incidentally, please list your crossover settings from the calibration and what, if any, changes you made to them. I hope some of this helps. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: One other thing I would probably do is to level-match the subs a little better, during the next calibration, so that they are both at about -8, or whatever your goal is. That way you will have more headroom available, using the AVR trim controls and will find it easier to make symmetrical adjustments up and down, depending on the material.


----------



## Andre58

HI Mike, the footprint I currently have for my audio system is a very expensive one which my spouse will only allow. Therefore I am limited on where the subs and be located. This is not a dedicated audio room, that will come later on my next home.

Although my mains are full range speakers, audyssey set the cross over at 40hz. I am ok with it. Otherwise it can get a little thumpy with some recordings when set to full mains. In addition is frees up some amp power to my higher frequencies then to my main woffers. 

When listening to music, I close the cabinet doors which should eliminate any reflections on the doors. The coffee table, well again not a dedicated room....next house. 

I just wanted to make sure my sub setting were correct prior to audyssey calibration. Again post calibration No.1 sub set to -8.0 ( close to corner wall, 4 feet away some room gain) and No. 2 sub set to -5.0 since it is next to a hallway and loses some impact. I readjusted each sub by +2.0. (-6.0 and -3.0) and can still play around a little bit with the Blend function. 

System set up not optimal ( beautiful center in cabinet?) but better than nothing! The soundstage for movies is unreal and for blue ray concerts it is heaven! Not many people can experience what I experience. 
Thanks Mike, 
Andre


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> 
> Don't forget the orchestra in movie imaging! I notice quite a bit of variation. The best imaging of orchestral instruments I have ever heard in a movie in our HT was in the BD of The Wrath of the Khan. We walked up to our AT screen for the closing credits to bask in it.


Gary,

I got round to watching "Wrath of Khan" and thoroughly enjoyed the soundtrack and watching the movie again. The orchestral imaging is very good, even on a 2.1 system.


----------



## mthomas47

Andre58 said:


> HI Mike, the footprint I currently have for my audio system is a very expensive one which my spouse will only allow. Therefore I am limited on where the subs and be located. This is not a dedicated audio room, that will come later on my next home.
> 
> Although my mains are full range speakers, audyssey set the cross over at 40hz. I am ok with it. Otherwise it can get a little thumpy with some recordings when set to full mains. In addition is frees up some amp power to my higher frequencies then to my main woffers.
> 
> When listening to music, I close the cabinet doors which should eliminate any reflections on the doors. The coffee table, well again not a dedicated room....next house.
> 
> I just wanted to make sure my sub setting were correct prior to audyssey calibration. Again post calibration No.1 sub set to -8.0 ( close to corner wall, 4 feet away some room gain) and No. 2 sub set to -5.0 since it is next to a hallway and loses some impact. I readjusted each sub by +2.0. (-6.0 and -3.0) and can still play around a little bit with the Blend function.
> 
> System set up not optimal ( beautiful center in cabinet?) but better than nothing! The soundstage for movies is unreal and for blue ray concerts it is heaven! Not many people can experience what I experience.
> Thanks Mike,
> Andre


Hi Andre,

I do understand about room and aesthetic limitations.  The point I was making with your sub trims is that you can get them to register about the same, at -8, by adjusting the sub gains during calibration. More gain = lower trim settings. Starting with them more nearly equal in trim setting just makes life easier when you adjust things up or down. But, functionally, they are fine as they are.

If I were you, I would experiment with some other crossovers. I would try both 60Hz and 80Hz, and just see how things sound. A good rule-of-thumb is to set crossovers about 1/2 to 1 octave higher than their measured F3 point in-room. In this case, if they were set to 40Hz, after your Audyssey calibration, then you should probably raise them to at least 60Hz (1/2 octave). The bass in your room should actually sound better, as they will probably integrate better with the subs that way, and the subs will be doing more of the heavy lifting.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Gary,
> 
> I got round to watching "Wrath of Khan" and thoroughly enjoyed the soundtrack and watching the movie again. The orchestral imaging is very good, even on a 2.1 system.


We enjoy it every time. It may be our favorite ST movie. Those of us who are getting up a bit in age especially enjoy the comment right at the end about feeling young. Seeing natural processes, in their beauty, at work either on the Genesis planet or here at home is invigorating.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> We enjoy it every time. It may be our favorite ST movie. Those of us who are getting up a bit in age especially enjoy the comment right at the end about feeling young. Seeing natural processes, in their beauty, at work either on the Genesis planet or here at home is invigorating.


There's no need to preach to the ageing, or converted  It's also one of my favourite ST movies, and another is "The Undiscovered Country" because it explores some related themes in a different way. I've also noticed that I have an increasing fascination with coming of age stories as I get older but I long ago decided that youth was not wasted on the young, they're the perfect recipients for it. Feeling young is one thing, living it is another. I'm not up to living it a second time.


----------



## Andre58

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Andre,
> 
> I do understand about room and aesthetic limitations.  The point I was making with your sub trims is that you can get them to register about the same, at -8, by adjusting the sub gains during calibration. More gain = lower trim settings. Starting with them more nearly equal in trim setting just makes life easier when you adjust things up or down. But, functionally, they are fine as they are.
> 
> If I were you, I would experiment with some other crossovers. I would try both 60Hz and 80Hz, and just see how things sound. A good rule-of-thumb is to set crossovers about 1/2 to 1 octave higher than their measured F3 point in-room. In this case, if they were set to 40Hz, after your Audyssey calibration, then you should probably raise them to at least 60Hz (1/2 octave). The bass in your room should actually sound better, as they will probably integrate better with the subs that way, and the subs will be doing more of the heavy lifting.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, how do I determine the F3 point for my room and subs?


----------



## mthomas47

Andre58 said:


> Hi Mike, how do I determine the F3 point for my room and subs?


Hi Andre,

The F3 point, as you may already know, is the frequency where a speaker, or sub, is down in volume by 3db. As the speaker plays lower frequencies, it eventually runs out of gas and starts to lose volume. It is at that 3db down point that Audyssey stops setting control points, so as not to boost a speaker beyond its capabilities in the room. The room exercises significant influences on how low a speaker (or sub) can go, in part due to boundary gain--proximity to a wall, or other solid object.

Unless we have independent measuring capability, using something like a calibrated UMIK1, we don't have a way to measure F3 points for our various speakers, in their specific positions in our rooms. But, Audyssey is measuring them during the calibration process, and crossovers are assigned based on those measurements. In your specific situation, where a crossover of 40Hz has been assigned, post-calibration, I believe that Audyssey has measured the F3 point as somewhere in the high 30's. We have never known exactly how frequencies are rounded up and down to assign crossovers, but I would speculate that at least one of your speakers is registering around 38Hz to 41Hz in-room. Any lower than about 38Hz, and your front speakers would probably have been assigned as "Large" without a crossover, although you would have wanted to re-assign them as "Small", with a crossover, in any case. The crossover will be set based on the weaker speaker in a pair, and again placement can affect that.

So, even though your front speakers have a theoretical frequency response down to about 20Hz, their specific placement in the room can affect how low they actually play. And, as noted above, you don't really want to push them very hard in lower frequencies anyway, as you want to transfer most of those low frequencies to the excellent subs you have. My suggestion to try higher crossovers is partly to offload more of the low frequencies to your much more powerful subs, but it is also to experiment to find out where the smoothest audio transition occurs. If you can't hear any actual difference among crossovers of 40Hz, 60Hz, and 80Hz, then the higher crossover among those three would always be a better choice.

I am a little reluctant to make any more suggestions  but if you wanted to improve the low frequency capabilities of your speakers in your room, there is something you could try. If you switched places between the speakers and the subs, keeping everything on the same wall and positioned symmetrically, but just putting the speakers outside the subs, you could not only get a wider soundstage, which I think you would like, but you could also move the speakers back a little closer to the boundary wall behind them. And, in theory, at least, that would increase their low frequency response.

I understood exactly what you were saying about the compromises that you and your wife have made with respect to your system. And, you have every right to be proud of it. It is an exceptional system! But sometimes, even fairly modest adjustments in speaker positioning, or in settings, can produce real improvements in overall sound quality, and I have wanted to encourage you to experiment a little bit for your ultimate benefit. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Andre58

Mike, 

Can not express it more for my great appreciation on your exhaustive, excellent and sound advise to my questions. I am very happy I have found you! 😊

I have previously experimented with the 40, 60 and 80 crossover points and personally found that 80 being a bit thin sounding but at 60 is a great balance between subs and mains. Obviously with the amount of money being spent on audio equipment etc.. I want to maximize the performance of the 2.2 and 5.2 system. FYI, I just played with the Audyssey DEQ volume levels. Since I listen to a lot of jazz I set it at 10db and right away noticed a considerable difference from 0. Still direct but more 3 demensional and really like it. Never tired it before, had the system for three years. Stupid.

I like where you are going with swapping my mains with the subs for experimentation. Currently they are 10-11 feet apart. The only draw back to this is the main speaker cable is only 3 meters long. I would need one cable another meter long. Maybe? Would have to think how to perhaps reposition my rack or buy one longer cable. 

Andre


----------



## mthomas47

Andre58 said:


> Mike,
> 
> Can not express it more for my great appreciation on your exhaustive, excellent and sound advise to my questions. I am very happy I have found you! 😊
> 
> I have previously experimented with the 40, 60 and 80 crossover points and personally found that 80 being a bit thin sounding but at 60 is a great balance between subs and mains. Obviously with the amount of money being spent on audio equipment etc.. I want to maximize the performance of the 2.2 and 5.2 system. FYI, I just played with the Audyssey DEQ volume levels. Since I listen to a lot of jazz I set it at 10db and right away noticed a considerable difference from 0. Still direct but more 3 demensional and really like it. Never tired it before, had the system for three years. Stupid.
> 
> I like where you are going with swapping my mains with the subs for experimentation. Currently they are 10-11 feet apart. The only draw back to this is the main speaker cable is only 3 meters long. I would need one cable another meter long. Maybe? Would have to think how to perhaps reposition my rack or buy one longer cable.
> 
> Andre


You are very welcome, Andre! I am glad to be able to help.  It's funny how we tend to repeat the things with which we are most familiar, rarely trying something new. I wonder how often we all do that in every facet of our daily lives? 

I think that, if you can get a longer cable, or find some way to separate the speakers a little more, and to move them closer to the wall, you might really like the result. And, I'm glad that you are experimenting with RLO. I think that we have lots of features that we can play with, including Audyssey Flat, versus Reference; DEQ with different RLO settings, or off entirely; and the use of tone controls with DEQ off, just to name a few. What some people find is that they prefer different settings for music than they do for movies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you very much for the compliment, although you just ate another page.
> 
> I think that AVS administrators are the only ones who can create stickies, but I am not very clued into that aspect of Forum life. I do try to direct anyone who asks about sub trim levels to that post, however. And, I continue to add to it all the time, as I think of things I could have explained a little better. I was actually editing it some more when you quoted it, so that is not quite the latest version.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, superb job! I love your writing style/skills. To keep a wall of Text interesting and understandable is a remarkable ability. You have it in spades my Friend.

If I may be so bold. Just my opinion here and I may be off target. It is my belief, that the majority of Powered Sub Owners, are not aware or do they understand that an improperly trimmed (>-3 to + Trims) will cause the Sub to become a AVR Power vampire. Heck I did not understand this myself. Until our recent discussion about Audyssey and Sub trim setting recommendations. I think this specific point needs to be clearly described. Once you get this point understood by Powered Sub Owners, they will then more eagerly understand the reasons behind this Trim problem/complication.

Explaining that if your Sub trims go into the + zones, the Sub then begins to require more power than the Subs Amp can provide. Thus the sub transforms from a powered sub to a passive hybrid type Sub. The Sub is now drawing power from the Subs Amp and filling in the power gap from the AVR's Amp.

If I am wrong please explain where my understanding has derailed. At least to me, this Power relationship is not immediately clear in the current write up.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike, superb job! I love your writing style/skills. To keep a wall of Text interesting and understandable is a remarkable ability. You have it in spades my Friend.
> 
> If I may be so bold. Just my opinion here and I may be off target. It is my belief, that the majority of Powered Sub Owners, are not aware or do they understand that an improperly trimmed (>-3 to + Trims) will cause the Sub to become a AVR Power vampire. Heck I did not understand this myself. Until our recent discussion about Audyssey and Sub trim setting recommendations. I think this specific point needs to be clearly described. Once you get this point understood by Powered Sub Owners, they will then more eagerly understand the reasons behind this Trim problem/complication.
> 
> Explaining that if your Sub trims go into the + zones, the Sub then begins to require more power than the Subs Amp can provide. Thus the sub transforms from a powered sub to a passive hybrid type Sub. The Sub is now drawing power from the Subs Amp and filling in the power gap from the AVR's Amp.
> 
> If I am wrong please explain where my understanding has derailed. At least to me, this Power relationship is not immediately clear in the current write up.


Hi Adam,

Thank you very much for the compliment! I sincerely appreciate it. 

I don't see how you can be wrong, if you think that a particular point is not made with sufficient clarity. I will go back and look at it with that specific thought in mind. FWIW, though, that analogy of depositing sub amp power in the bank is of my own devising. And, I am afraid to push it too far without knowing how valid it actually is. So, I want to emphasize the expert advice to keep trim levels well in the negative range, and I tried to do that, but I don't want to interject too many of my own interpretations into that advice. As you know, analogies involving banks, or vampires,  create dramatic visualizations. But, I don't want to stray too far from the matter-of-fact and into the dramatic.

But, I will look at it again, and see if I can find some way to create more emphasis for the essential point to use sub amp power rather than AVR amp power. And, I appreciate the suggestion to clarify it better.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Adam, I hope you will notice this edit to my post. I just went back and added a little more to the first paragraph, and also to the paragraph labeled "Fourth", in the Setup Guide. The changes blend fairly well, so they may seem subtle, but I think they do add more emphasis to that essential point that you thought should be clearer. Please reread that whole first section on trim levels (since I do use repetition to reinforce the points I am making) and tell me whether you think it is sufficiently clear now. Thanks, again!


----------



## Matt2026

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Explaining that if your Sub trims go into the + zones, the Sub then begins to require more power than the Subs Amp can provide. Thus the sub transforms from a powered sub to a passive hybrid type Sub. The Sub is now drawing power from the Subs Amp and filling in the power gap from the AVR's Amp.
> 
> If I am wrong please explain where my understanding has derailed. At least to me, this Power relationship is not immediately clear in the current write up.


Hi Adam,

I find this a bit confusing. I do not believe the sub tranforms in the manner described, and I may be mistaken, but having worked in the electronics industry over 40 years, although not in the audio arena, I'll attempt describe it a bit differently.

The input impedance of a sub is fairly high and the current drain probably fairly low, the AVR could never power the subs driver. The output from the AVR is a voltage output and has some maximum output even if a sub wasn't connected. Of course some current will be drawn but I don't think that is the issue.

When you set the trim level above "0" into the + range at some point the AVR will begin to clip the peaks of the signal to the AVR's maximum voltage capability. Lets say the maximum voltage output was 2 volts peak to peak but the sub gain is too low and the trim level was set to "0" in Audyssey. That requires a higher voltage out of the AVR than if the sub's gain were set higher and Audyssey was set to -10. 

So if you have the AVR set to "0" or thereabouts and then you boost the trim above "0" the AVR needs to output a larger signal than my theoretical 2 volts peak to peak and the peaks will flatten out so instead of looking like a sine wave it will look more like a square wave which results in a distorted signal. So we need more gain in the sub allowing the AVR to output a much lower signal to get the same volume. 

Now if Audyssey was set to -10 and you want to run the sub 6db hot the AVR will only need to output -4 which allows the signal to be less than 2 volts peak to peak and maintain an undistorted output.

I'm not an audio expert so I hope this doesn't cause more confusion. Heck I'm beginning to confuse myself, time for a brain break


----------



## mthomas47

Matt2026 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I find this a bit confusing. I do not believe the sub tranforms in the manner described, and I may be mistaken, but having worked in the electronics industry over 40 years, although not in the audio arena, I'll attempt describe it a bit differently.
> 
> The input impedance of a sub is fairly high and the current drain probably fairly low, the AVR could never power the subs driver. The output from the AVR is a voltage output and has some maximum output even if a sub wasn't connected. Of course some current will be drawn but I don't think that is the issue.
> 
> When you set the trim level above "0" into the + range at some point the AVR will begin to clip the peaks of the signal to the AVR's maximum voltage capability. Lets say the maximum voltage output was 2 volts peak to peak but the sub gain is too low and the trim level was set to "0" in Audyssey. That requires a higher voltage out of the AVR than if the sub's gain were set higher and Audyssey was set to -10.
> 
> So if you have the AVR set to "0" or thereabouts and then you boost the trim above "0" the AVR needs to output a larger signal than my theoretical 2 volts peak to peak and the peaks will flatten out so instead of looking like a sine wave it will look more like a square wave which results in a distorted signal. So we need more gain in the sub allowing the AVR to output a much lower signal to get the same volume.
> 
> Now if Audyssey was set to -10 and you want to run the sub 6db hot the AVR will only need to output -4 which allows the signal to be less than 2 volts peak to peak and maintain an undistorted output.
> 
> I'm not an audio expert so I hope this doesn't cause more confusion. Heck I'm beginning to confuse myself, time for a brain break


Ken,

You are way too modest! You are writing from a position of knowledge, where I am just skirting the edges of real understanding. I would suggest that you put this in the Setup Guide we have been discussing, except that I fear that few, including myself, would really be able to comprehend it. But, I am aware of my lack of understanding of much that is electronic, and I believe you. 

The only thing that I would add to what you have written is that the clipping you describe, as well as some mechanical noises, can apparently occur even well short of master volumes approaching 0.0, and with trim levels that are not above 0. That is the reason for Ed's recently more emphatic advice to stay well below 0.0 in trim levels. I have seen a couple of instances of that happening, on other threads, at below Reference levels.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> Thank you very much for the compliment! I sincerely appreciate it.
> 
> I don't see how you can be wrong, if you think that a particular point is not made with sufficient clarity. I will go back and look at it with that specific thought in mind. FWIW, though, that analogy of depositing sub amp power in the bank is of my own devising. And, I am afraid to push it too far without knowing how valid it actually is. So, I want to emphasize the expert advice to keep trim levels well in the negative range, and I tried to do that, but I don't want to interject too many of my own interpretations into that advice. As you know, analogies involving banks, or vampires,  create dramatic visualizations. But, I don't want to stray too far from the matter-of-fact and into the dramatic.
> 
> But, I will look at it again, and see if I can find some way to create more emphasis for the essential point to use sub amp power rather than AVR amp power. And, I appreciate the suggestion to clarify it better.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: Adam, I hope you will notice this edit to my post. I just went back and added a little more to the first paragraph, and also to the paragraph labeled "Fourth", in the Setup Guide. The changes blend fairly well, so they may seem subtle, but I think they do add more emphasis to that essential point that you thought should be clearer. Please reread that whole first section on trim levels (since I do use repetition to reinforce the points I am making) and tell me whether you think it is sufficiently clear now. Thanks, again!


Mike, Nicely done.

Below are a few (very few) suggested edits. Your call. 

"Fourth, and this is an extremely important point, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Simply making any adjustments in sub boost from the gain control on the sub would insure that the sub amp is being used. But, most people find it more convenient to make adjustments using the AVR trim controls. And, in that case, it is desirable to start with a high *Sub* gain level, and a low *AVR* trim level. Using the trim settings in the AVR to make sub volume adjustments allows the user to make convenient and fairly exact (.5db increments) adjustments to subwoofer volume, by using the AVR remote. Typically, in order to achieve a low *Sub* trim level, it will be necessary to start with a measured sub SPL of higher than 75db. An SPL level of about 78db to 80db may be required. The specific SPL used is not as important as the resulting low *AVR* trim level."

Clearly you are uncertain about making a firm statement that (in regards to Sub AVR Trim Levels) once you push the AVR trims above -2 or higher the Sub starts to suck/scavenge power from the AVR to compensate for the inadequate Sub AMP Gain setting. 

With your permission, I want to run this thinking through Ed McMullen (SVS). I am a pretty good Customer of his and I am sure I can get him to confirm or dismiss this line of thinking/logic. Is that acceptable to you?


----------



## muad'dib

Anyone know when that audyssey mobile app is showing up? 

Crazy excited to try it.. ☺


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike, Nicely done.
> 
> Below are a few (very few) suggested edits. Your call.
> 
> "Fourth, and this is an extremely important point, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Simply making any adjustments in sub boost from the gain control on the sub would insure that the sub amp is being used. But, most people find it more convenient to make adjustments using the AVR trim controls. And, in that case, it is desirable to start with a high *Sub* gain level, and a low *AVR* trim level. Using the trim settings in the AVR to make sub volume adjustments allows the user to make convenient and fairly exact (.5db increments) adjustments to subwoofer volume, by using the AVR remote. Typically, in order to achieve a low *Sub* trim level, it will be necessary to start with a measured sub SPL of higher than 75db. An SPL level of about 78db to 80db may be required. The specific SPL used is not as important as the resulting low *AVR* trim level."
> 
> Clearly you are uncertain about making a firm statement that (in regards to Sub AVR Trim Levels) once you push the AVR trims above -2 or higher the Sub starts to suck/scavenge power from the AVR to compensate for the inadequate Sub AMP Gain setting.
> 
> With your permission, I want to run this thinking through Ed McMullen (SVS). I am a pretty good Customer of his and I am sure I can get him to confirm or dismiss this line of thinking/logic. Is that acceptable to you?



Hi Adam,

I will be glad to add the "sub" and "AVR" clarifications you suggested. It certainly won't hurt. I suspect that Ken's explanation is correct regarding what happens, when AVR amps are used, rather than having the voltage coming from the sub amp. But, I lack the technical background to be sure. Perhaps Ed can clarify things a little more.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Matt2026 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I find this a bit confusing. I do not believe the sub tranforms in the manner described, and I may be mistaken, but having worked in the electronics industry over 40 years, although not in the audio arena, I'll attempt describe it a bit differently.
> 
> The input impedance of a sub is fairly high and the current drain probably fairly low, the AVR could never power the subs driver. The output from the AVR is a voltage output and has some maximum output even if a sub wasn't connected. Of course some current will be drawn but I don't think that is the issue.
> 
> When you set the trim level above "0" into the + range at some point the AVR will begin to clip the peaks of the signal to the AVR's maximum voltage capability. Lets say the maximum voltage output was 2 volts peak to peak but the sub gain is too low and the trim level was set to "0" in Audyssey. That requires a higher voltage out of the AVR than if the sub's gain were set higher and Audyssey was set to -10.
> 
> So if you have the AVR set to "0" or thereabouts and then you boost the trim above "0" the AVR needs to output a larger signal than my theoretical 2 volts peak to peak and the peaks will flatten out so instead of looking like a sine wave it will look more like a square wave which results in a distorted signal. So we need more gain in the sub allowing the AVR to output a much lower signal to get the same volume.
> 
> Now if Audyssey was set to -10 and you want to run the sub 6db hot the AVR will only need to output -4 which allows the signal to be less than 2 volts peak to peak and maintain an undistorted output.
> 
> I'm not an audio expert so I hope this doesn't cause more confusion. Heck I'm beginning to confuse myself, time for a brain break


Ken,

Thanks for your input. We were cross posting and I did not read your above post until after I posed my reply. More to chew on I see. As soon as you think you have arrived at a clear understanding. Someone like you runs up and tosses in a bucket of logic Mud!  

My head hurts now. I think I am going to take a powder!

On Edit: I just sent an EMail to Ed. Asking him to chime in if and when he can. I am sure Ed will set us straight and correct my leaps of conclusion! How many times must a Man fall of a cliff before he learns to stop before making assumptions? I'm still counting obviously


----------



## Andre58

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Andre! I am glad to be able to help.  It's funny how we tend to repeat the things with which we are most familiar, rarely trying something new. I wonder how often we all do that in every facet of our daily lives?
> 
> I think that, if you can get a longer cable, or find some way to separate the speakers a little more, and to move them closer to the wall, you might really like the result. And, I'm glad that you are experimenting with RLO. I think that we have lots of features that we can play with, including Audyssey Flat, versus Reference; DEQ with different RLO settings, or off entirely; and the use of tone controls with DEQ off, just to name a few. What some people find is that they prefer different settings for music than they do for movies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Well Mike if there is a will, there is a way!!

I had to put my two channel amp in the cabinet. Reversed the mains and sub. Mains are 13 feet apart now and just about equidistant to the MLP. Prior to running Audyssey, I calibrated a very nice center image useing a set up disk. Post XT-32 calibration here is what I got. Mains, center and surround setting are the same prior to mains/sub reversal. I would of thought the mains setting would of changed but they didn't. The subs are now No.1 -5.0 and No.2 -6.0. I reset the subs by +2.0 (-3.0 & -4.0). And up the center by +1.0 to -8.5.

All I can now is WOW! HUGH soundstage. 2.2 mode with great recording is just awesome. Integration of subs and mains is ideal. Jazz guitar zeroed in the center image, awesome. 5.2 mode with a Jeff Beck blue ray in HD-Master with the track "as we ended as lovers" Was like I was there at Ronnie Scott's in London. Drums and base were bang on, unreal! Popped in Mission Impossible Rougue Nation in Dolby ATMOS and again better than a a $12 theater seat.

Now if only I had a larger TV and a larger acoustical treated room. Something to look forward to, next home..

Thanks again Mike for your consultation. I may come back time to you from time for more advise.

Andre


----------



## mthomas47

Andre58 said:


> Well Mike if there is a will, there is a way!!
> 
> I had to put my two channel amp in the cabinet. Reversed the mains and sub. Mains are 13 feet apart now and just about equidistant to the MLP. Prior to running Audyssey, I calibrated a very nice center image useing a set up disk. Post XT-32 calibration here is what I got. Mains, center and surround setting are the same prior to mains/sub reversal. I would of thought the mains setting would of changed but they didn't. The subs are now No.1 -5.0 and No.2 -6.0. I reset the subs by +2.0 (-3.0 & -4.0). And up the center by +1.0 to -8.5.
> 
> All I can now is WOW! HUGH soundstage. 2.2 mode with great recording is just awesome. Integration of subs and mains is ideal. Jazz guitar zeroed in the center image, awesome. 5.2 mode with a Jeff Beck blue ray in HD-Master with the track "as we ended as lovers" Was like I was there at Ronnie Scott's in London. Drums and base were bang on, unreal! Popped in Mission Impossible Rougue Nation in Dolby ATMOS and again better than a a $12 theater seat.
> 
> Now if only I had a larger TV and a larger acoustical treated room. Something to look forward to, next home..
> 
> Thanks again Mike for your consultation. I may come back time to you from time for more advise.
> 
> Andre


You are very welcome, Andre! That is outstanding, and I really appreciate you sharing it with me. I can't speak for other people, but I derive some vicarious pleasure from your excitement with your audio system. So, it's fun to be able to help. And, my experience is similar to yours with respect to the soundstage. I have found that a wider soundstage greatly enhances the realism of the performance. It's more of a "you are there" experience.

Just looking at the photo of your system, I'll bet that it's a terrific sounding one. If I can ever help again, just let me know. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Andre58 said:


> Reversed the mains and sub. Mains are 13 feet apart now and just about equidistant to the MLP. ...
> 
> ... All I can now is WOW! HUGH soundstage. 2.2 mode with great recording is just awesome.


I know what you mean! Our mains are 13 feet, 5 inches apart, tweeter to tweeter, and we sit near the point of the equilateral triangle, 13 feet 5 inches on a side, formed by the intertweeter distance and lines going to the main listening position. The soundstage is huge, and even with 2.1 there is no "hole in the middle" (when the center speaker is turned off).

The only drawback to that geometry is that with a conventional TV there may be a tendency for sound effects to be "off screen" when whatever is supposed to be generating the sound is "on screen." You mentioned that you will make some changes when you get your next home. Since I love spending other people's money,when you move please consider going to a projector and a 2.35:1 acoustically transparent screen that spans the distance between the main speakers. That should solve the (small) problem. That's what we did. Our Seymour screen is 130" wide. We tried wider, but trendy camera movement made it a bit too much to take from our distance. Even with higher resolution (like 4K), camera movement would still be a problem, IMO. For 'scope movies (2.2:1 to 2.75:1, typically 2.35/2.39:1), we find the screen quite engulfing. Standard movies (1.85:1, or 1.78:1, i.e., 16:9) are the same height, but not as wide, and of smaller area, just as the filmmakers intended.


----------



## Andre58

garygarrison said:


> I know what you mean! Our mains are 13 feet, 5 inches apart, tweeter to tweeter, and we sit near the point of the equilateral triangle, 13 feet 5 inches on a side, formed by the intertweeter distance and lines going to the main listening position. The soundstage is huge, and even with 2.1 there is no "hole in the middle" (when the center speaker is turned off).
> 
> The only drawback to that geometry is that with a conventional TV there may be a tendency for sound effects to be "off screen" when whatever is supposed to be generating the sound is "on screen." You mentioned that you will make some changes when you get your next home. Since I love spending other people's money,when you move please consider going to a projector and a 2.35:1 acoustically transparent screen that spans the distance between the main speakers. That should solve the (small) problem. That's what we did. Our Seymour screen is 130" wide. We tried wider, but trendy camera movement made it a bit too much to take from our distance. Even with higher resolution (like 4K), camera movement would still be a problem, IMO. For 'scope movies (2.2:1 to 2.75:1, typically 2.35/2.39:1), we find the screen quite engulfing. Standard movies (1.85:1, or 1.78:1, i.e., 16:9) are the same height, but not as wide, and of smaller area, just as the filmmakers intended.


Thanks Gary for the dream! For a few seconds, maybe a minute, I invisioned what you described and it looked damm nice! Spouse does want to move uptown perhaps some motivation.

Thanks for sharing, Andre


----------



## garygarrison

My brain is in a bit of a twist, so please bear with me. In the FAQ, Mark says_"The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but rather the possibility of *increasing distort*_*ion or clipping*_ on the *subwoofer output from the receiver or preamp*_." In my current state, I really don't know if the following are modest proposals.

1) With a normal Blu-ray, if you keep your Main Volume Control at 12 dB below Reference (or lower) does that mean you could turn your AVR/pre-pro trim for the subwoofer up to +8.5 dB (12 dB above the usually recommended upper limit on the trim of -3.5 dB) without clipping distortion?

2) The following is a related, but different topic. I have very efficient speakers, and my sub amp is pretty powerful (max RMS = 2,400 watts) and turned up about half way. In order to get Audyssey to calibrate properly, without the trims maxing out at -12 dB) I temporarily put 12 dB attenuators (on all channels) between my preamp-processor and my power amplifier. After calibration, I removed the attenuators. As Chris K. confirmed, a main volume control setting of only -12 would now give me Reference level out of the speakers, in the room. Moving right along, with my main volume set for -12 dB (my new Reference level) the electrical level at the outputs of the pre-pro (including the subwoofer output!) would be 12 dB below the normal electrical output (*not* room SPL) most people get at MV = 0*; *the pre-pro doesn't "know" that the reason I'm running it 12 dB low is that my speakers are efficient and my sub has a big amp. Does it follow that my pre-pro sub output is 12 dB farther below clipping than it would be if I ran it at MV= 0? Can I therefore turn the pre-pro's subwoofer trim up to + 8.5 dB (12 dB above the usually recommended upper limit on the trim of -3.5 dB) without clipping distortion?

I don't really run movies at Reference (it's too loud even for me*;* I usually run them at -17 dB -- 5 dB below Reference in my set-up, or a bit lower). I recently tried a pre-pro sub trim setting of +6, with a Main Volume of about -22, and didn't hear anything bad, but it allowed the sound to sound more powerful, with the overall SPL lower than my usual.

I keep hearing John Stuart Mill: "The mere enunciation of this last is sufficiently absurd as to render refutation superfluous." On the other hand ...


----------



## trespoochies

muad'dib said:


> Anyone know when that audyssey mobile app is showing up?
> 
> Crazy excited to try it.. ??


JDSmoothie mentioned in the Denon thread the app should be coming out around March of this year.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> My brain is in a bit of a twist, so please bear with me. In the FAQ, Mark says_"The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but rather the possibility of *increasing distort*_*ion or clipping*_ on the *subwoofer output from the receiver or preamp*_." In my current state, I really don't know if the following are modest proposals.
> 
> 1) With a normal Blu-ray, if you keep your Main Volume Control at 12 dB below Reference (or lower) does that mean you could turn your AVR/pre-pro trim for the subwoofer up to +8.5 dB (12 dB above the usually recommended upper limit on the trim of -3.5 dB) without clipping distortion?
> 
> 2) The following is a related, but different topic. I have very efficient speakers, and my sub amp is pretty powerful (max RMS = 2,400 watts) and turned up about half way. In order to get Audyssey to calibrate properly, without the trims maxing out at -12 dB) I temporarily put 12 dB attenuators (on all channels) between my preamp-processor and my power amplifier. After calibration, I removed the attenuators. As Chris K. confirmed, a main volume control setting of only -12 would now give me Reference level out of the speakers, in the room. Moving right along, with my main volume set for -12 dB (my new Reference level) the electrical level at the outputs of the pre-pro (including the subwoofer output!) would be 12 dB below the normal electrical output (*not* room SPL) most people get at MV = 0*; *the pre-pro doesn't "know" that the reason I'm running it 12 dB low is that my speakers are efficient and my sub has a big amp. Does it follow that my pre-pro sub output is 12 dB farther below clipping than it would be if I ran it at MV= 0? Can I therefore turn the pre-pro's subwoofer trim up to + 8.5 dB (12 dB above the usually recommended upper limit on the trim of -3.5 dB) without clipping distortion?
> 
> I don't really run movies at Reference (it's too loud even for me*;* I usually run them at -17 dB -- 5 dB below Reference in my set-up, or a bit lower). I recently tried a pre-pro sub trim setting of +6, with a Main Volume of about -22, and didn't hear anything bad, but it allowed the sound to sound more powerful, with the overall SPL lower than my usual.
> 
> I keep hearing John Stuart Mill: "The mere enunciation of this last is sufficiently absurd as to render refutation superfluous." On the other hand ...


Hi Gary,

For what it's worth, I don't see anything at all absurd in what you are saying. I'm far from an expert, but I will provide my opinion, and we'll see what some others have to say.

With respect to Question 1) I definitely would not do that. Mark goes on to say that, the relationship of trim level and master volume is important, and that at MV's of -10, or higher, it is important to keep sub trim levels below 0.0. So, -2 (from -10 MV) combined with +8.5 trim, gives you a net volume/trim relationship that is pretty far into that danger zone he was talking about. As noted in the post linked in my signature, recent advice from Ed Mullen is to keep trim levels well in the negative range, even at more conservative master volume levels. And, he isn't the only sub maker I have heard advocating that.

Question 2) is more complicated, and I'm not sure that I will address it properly. But, I understand what you are saying about having started with an artificially low master volume level. It seems to me, that in that situation, you probably would be safer running your sub at +db, insofar as the relationship of master volume to trim level is concerned. But, there is something about this reasoning that is bothering me, so I want to think about it some more. 

If I remember correctly, your sub is not easily accessible. If it were, I would simply encourage you to raise the gain on your sub, in order to achieve the bass boost you are looking for. But, I also trust your audio acuity, and if you didn't hear anything untoward, when you boosted your sub into positive numbers, then why not? SVS has had some amp failures on some of its new subs lately, and I have had the opportunity to hear some videos of subs that were being over-driven, not by poor protocol, but simply from a malfunction in the amp. They don't sound very good when the sub bottoms out, hitting its limiters, or chuffing, in the case of a ported sub. So, as long as everything sounds okay... But, I still want to think about this one some more.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Methodical_1

mthomas47 said:


> If you will actually read the post I suggested, however, you will get a different perspective. Ed Mullen (of SVS), among others, has suggested keeping sub trims well in the negative range. And, most people like to add a sub boost, so knowing how to do that is important, and starting with a trim level of between -5 and 0.0 is not the best way. Also, as noted on the other thread, the sub trims are entirely separate from the Audyssey control points (filters) which Audyssey sets for the subs.
> 
> The FAQ is an excellent source of information, which is why I have it linked in my signature, but it hasn't been updated in some areas in years, and best practice recommendations continue to evolve over time. I think you are trying to be helpful to other posters in offering them subwoofer trim setting advice. And, I am only trying to be helpful, in return, by making sure that you have the best available information at your disposal.


 Mike, do you have a link to Ed's theory on this? I'd like to read it. Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... I want to think about it some more.


Me too.


----------



## mthomas47

Methodical_1 said:


> Mike, do you have a link to Ed's theory on this? I'd like to read it. Thanks


Hi,

The only statements of theory I can readily lay my hands on, with respect to this subject, are those in the FAQ, and in Ken's explanation from a few posts back. This is Ed Mullen's statement, as quoted in the FAQ:

_"A general rule when level matching the subs and the speaker channels is to run the gain hotter at the subs and the AVR sub trim level cooler. That keeps the AVR sub signal clean and allows upward adjustability to run the sub hotter if needed."

_And, this is from Mark Seaton, also in the FAQ:

_"The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but rather the possibility of increasing distortion or clipping on the subwoofer output from the receiver or preamp. The reason this is a concern for the sub channel relates to the amount of content directed there with 7 channels of redirected bass and a +10dB playback .1 LFE channel. I've observed it and measured the distorted signal, and a few others have taken many measurements to look more closely. Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range. Most subwoofers have plenty of gain available, and it's a simple matter of lowing the sub channel on screen and raising it back up at the subwoofer's volume dial."

_And, this statement in the FAQ is paraphrasing an explanation from Bill Fitzmaurice, another sub/speaker maker: _

"The reason for doing it this way is that the higher the sub volume is set, the lower will be the output level of the AVR line driver. That gives more headroom in the AVR line driver and more headroom in the input stage of the sub amp. The downside is that this also lowers the signal to noise ratio, but there tends to be very little noise with a sub anyway."

_That last point might be significant with a very sensitive sub, where a high gain level could conceivably result in an audible hum from the sub. As with anything, there probably needs to be some balancing of interests with respect to sub protocols. The more recent statement that Ed made was in November or December, on one of the SVS threads, and I edited the Setup Guide to reflect his current advice. He said, more emphatically than I had heard him say before, that SVS's recommendation is to always stay well in the negative range with AVR trim settings. But, he didn't offer any additional theoretical explanation--just the statement. That statement is consistent, though, with statements I have read from other sub makers. I haven't wanted to mention any other names, as I am not sure that I could find their specific posts again, and wouldn't want to risk misquoting them. I could find that post from Ed, if I had to, but it wouldn't add any more detail.

I think that any time that some general best practice recommendation is made, it is necessarily conservative. No one wants to give advice that leads to someone saying: "But you told me it would be alright to do that." So, odds are that most people would probably be fine running their subs with positive trim levels, even at fairly strong master volumes. But, that also probably isn't something that most sub makers would want to advise people to do.

I had been running my subs at about +3, prior to reading Ed's, and others' advice on the subject. And, as in Gary's situation, I couldn't really hear anything wrong when I did it. But, I decided to follow the best practice advice, anyway, and to increase all my sub gain levels, so that I could maintain trim levels of -3 or less. Unless the bass in a particular movie sounds weak, I typically keep my sub trim levels at -5, now.

It is, perhaps, my imagination that my bass seems slightly cleaner sounding, as a result. And, I felt that I should pass on that conservative advice, to keep trim levels low, if I were going to try to help anyone else with respect to trim level questions. But, for all of us, what specific advice we choose to follow will probably depend on a number of factors, including convenience and our special circumstances. At best, the "best practice" advice regarding sub trims is a generalization, and not some kind of absolute that applies to all situations.

These last several paragraphs go well beyond your question, incidentally. But, I was thinking last night about writing some sort of disclaimer, partly as a result of Gary's question. I think that we can all make decisions about our systems that are based on our own good judgment, and on an understanding of our specific circumstances. I just hope that this thread can continue to be a clearinghouse for good information and advice, that can assist in the informed exercise of that individual judgment.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Ed Mullen

Posting here at the request of some thread participants. 

Mark Seaton and Bill Fitzmaurice summed it up nicely. The subwoofer pre-out signal is easily the most content-heavy (redirected bass and the LFE channel) and therefore has the highest potential to be driven into clipping (easily observed on an o-scope). This is passed through to the subwoofers and creates audible clipping artifacts. 

SVS always recommends setting the AVR sub-channel level well into the negative region (and raising the gain on the sub amps to compensate) in order to minimize the potential for clipping the pre-out signal. As Bill states, the slight reduction in S/N ratio this causes is not audible.


----------



## mogorf

Hi Guys,

In order to add to the ongoing discussion I did a massive search on the Audyssey Part I thread with the key words "gain structure" and username: "Audyssey"where Chris K. sheds some light on this topic and on its importance. A good read, so if you have the time please read it through. Then at the end I'd like to add something more we all need to take into consideration when tweaking our setups.

Qte

" Because I am talking about internal digital headroom in the DSP platform. There is only a fixed amount to go around and it is pre-determined. Everything that can add boost (MultEQ, Dynamic EQ, tone controls, downmixing, speaker level trims, etc.) requires a certain fixed amount of headroom. That is all added together and then the gain structure is adjusted to allow for the various combinations of these processes. Audyssey is given a "budget" and we have to stay within it. There is only so much boost that the filters can apply and only so much additional boost that the tweaking can apply. Relaxing that would lead to situations where digital clipping is possible and no manufacturer would ever ship a product where there was even a remote possibility of that happening.


The AVR will not go into digital clipping under normal operating conditions. The digital gain structure is carefully designed to take into account the needs of all the digital processes. For example, it has to allow for +12 dB trims, max on the tone controls, the level increase due to downmixing multichannel content into stereo, the Audyssey filter boost, etc. etc. The designers take into account all of these processes and then make sure that the proper gains are applied internally so that there is no digital clipping.

This does mean, however, that you will not always be able to turn the volume control up to the max value. If the right combination of processes is turned on, the volume will be limited to whatever value prevents clipping.

The adjustment limit doesn't depend on Audyssey, but is determined by the manufacturer based on their internal gain structure. Most use ±12 dB, but some use ±15 dB.

True in the days where one could not control the entire gain structure. But, in today's AVRs the gain at every stage is known along with the available headroom. So, boosting (within reason) and cutting is possible. Also, remember that we are trying to match the MultEQ on to off levels and that means that some part of the filter will fall above and others parts below the off curve. Roughly speaking the energy above and below will be about the same and thus not produce a noticeable level shift when you turn MultEQ on and off.

The trims are set to ensure that with the master volume at 0 you are hitting reference. There is no headroom issue because it has already been taken into account by the manufacturer when designing the (very complicated) gain structure of these products.


MultEQ is boost and cut as it is performed in the digital domain and we work with the manufacturer to ensure that the gain structure is properly designed so that we do not have problems with clipping. 
The adjustment limits of MultEQ depend on the available headroom in the overall gain structure of the product. They are much larger than +/- 3 dB and not symmetric (more cut is allowed than boost).


Ah yes, you have stumbled into the wonderful world of Volume ICs. This is the little chip that is responsible for managing the volume, in fact it manages the entire gain structure in the receiver.

In a receiver today there are numerous functions that require headroom. These include: dialog normalization, subwoofer trim, main channel trim, downmixing, tone control, MultEQ XT.

For example, MultEQ requires 9 dB of headroom to avoid clipping. The channel trims require 12 dB of headroom to allow for the maximum setting. Downmixing requires up to 12 dB of headroom.

When some or all of these processes are enabled the maximum playback volume will be limited to the maximum headroom available in the Volume IC chip selected by the manufacturer. You may also notice that if you listen to 2 channel material you can turn the volume up higher than when you listen to multichannel content.

What trim values are you seeing after MultEQ is finished with the calibration? If one or more of them are in the high positive range then this would be part of the reason for the volume limitation that you are experiencing.

Every manufacturer deals with the volume display a little differently. In the 805, once you get past a few dB above reference the volume no longer increases if you have reached the maximum headroom of the Volume IC chip. The point at which that happens will depend on what processes are running at the time."


Unqte


So, interesting, isn't it? Gain structure, as we can see, is strictly controlled by the AVR makes with a very high priority, or as Chris said: "...no manufacturer would ever ship a product where there was even a remote possibility of clipping happening."

Of course, all the above are valid when MultEQ sets up the system to reference, i.e. 0 dB MV delivers cinema reference SPL in our rooms.

BUT, we all usually would like to have a bit more (read: sometimes a lot more) woofage that what was set by MultEQ for the subwoofer trim (even if its in the negative range). And this may be the point where things might go out of whack. Why? Becasue by increacing the subwoofer trim we enter into headroom problems possibly causing the AVR's pre-amp to go into clipping. 

Should we worry? I'd say no, beacuse the AVR with automatically limit the overall power output of the whole system. I did a test as follows. With no input signal and with the subwoofer trim left at the value MultEQ set it (in my case -6 dB) I turned up the MV to the max and the display showed +18 dB MV. Now, again with no input signal I turned up the subwoofer trim to +12 dB (i.e. 18 dBs higher than MultEQ calibrated it) and now the MV would not go over +2 dB, so this means the internal protection mode was activated.

Should anyone experience clipping (distortion) of the subwoofer(s) with the desired woofage as a result of upping the sub channel trim means a more capable, more powerful subwoofer will soon appear on the shopping list! 

Just thinkin' out loud!


----------



## Methodical_1

Ed Mullen said:


> Posting here at the request of some thread participants.
> 
> Mark Seaton and Bill Fitzmaurice summed it up nicely. The subwoofer pre-out signal is easily the most content-heavy (redirected bass and the LFE channel) and therefore has the highest potential to be driven into clipping (easily observed on an o-scope). This is passed through to the subwoofers and creates audible clipping artifacts.
> 
> SVS always recommends setting the AVR sub-channel level well into the negative region (and raising the gain on the sub amps to compensate) in order to minimize the potential for clipping the pre-out signal. As Bill states, the slight reduction in S/N ratio this causes is not audible.


Thanks Mike for the explanation above^^^.

Question Ed. Below is a quote from Mike's post for setting up the sub that had me thinking and needing clarification. What it seems to say is if my sub is at -9 and I increase by +10 (example), which puts me at +1, the sub's power now has shifted from the powered sub amplifier to the AVR internal preamp and as a result this could possibly cause distortion. Is my thinking correct? 

Thanks 


"...Think of the process of adding a sub boost this way. When you raise the gain level in the sub, so that the sub produces more than 75db at the MLP, you are making a deposit in the bank, of amplifier power from the sub. So, for instance, let's say you start with a trim level in the AVR of -9. Now, you can withdraw amp power from the bank, using your AVR trim control. You would, for instance, do that by increasing your trim setting to -6, or -3. That +3 to +6db boost would be pretty typical. But, there is no free lunch. As you begin to approach 0.0, the bank deposit of amp power that you made with the higher gain setting is used up, and now you are using AVR amp power, which as noted, is not as powerful. Using AVR amp power can, in some instances, result in clipping (distorting) your subwoofer(s) or, in some cases, can result in undesirable mechanical noises..."


----------



## v6viking

dwaleke said:


> Most if not all of the D&M 2016 models with Audyssey are supported by the new mobile app.
> 
> I've read:
> 
> 1) It replaces the Pro Kit from previous models.
> 2) Allows you to set a target curve for calibration.
> 3) Allows you to set upper and lower bounds for correction (ie 20->500hz only).
> 4) Calibration is performed by the avr/avp with the regular Audyssey microphone.
> 5) Mobile app is only to configure Audyssey.
> 
> Now what actually is delivered we won't know until we get the app in late December.


I've searched the app store and the Audyssey website and have not been able to find the Mobile App. Does anyone know when it is slated to be released? If it has been released and I am unable to locate it, can someone point me in a direction? 

Thanks!

Matt


----------



## mogorf

v6viking said:


> I've searched the app store and the Audyssey website and have not been able to find the Mobile App. Does anyone know when it is slated to be released? If it has been released and I am unable to locate it, can someone point me in a direction?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Matt


Not released yet. Probably mid-February or March 2017. Stay tuned!


----------



## v6viking

mogorf said:


> Not released yet. Probably mid-February or March 2017. Stay tuned!




Perfect. Thanks for the info!! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... And, this is from Mark Seaton, also in the FAQ:
> 
> _*"* ... *Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB*, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range.*"*
> _... So, odds are that most people would probably be fine running their subs with positive trim levels, even at fairly strong master volumes. But, that also probably isn't something that most sub makers would want to advise people to do.
> 
> I had been running my subs at about +3, prior to reading Ed's, and others' advice on the subject. And, as in Gary's situation, I couldn't really hear anything wrong when I did it. But, I decided to follow the best practice advice, anyway, and to increase all my sub gain levels, so that I could maintain trim levels of -3 or less. ...
> 
> ... But, for all of us, what specific advice we choose to follow will probably depend on a number of factors, including convenience and our special circumstances. ...
> 
> These last several paragraphs go well beyond your question, incidentally. But, I was thinking last night about writing some sort of disclaimer, partly as a result of Gary's question. I think that we can all make decisions about our systems that are based on our own good judgment, and on an understanding of our specific circumstances. ...
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





mogorf said:


> ... Chris K. sheds some light on this topic and on its importance. ...
> 
> *"*... There is only a fixed amount to go around and it is pre-determined. Everything that can add boost (MultEQ, Dynamic EQ, tone controls, downmixing, speaker level trims, etc.) requires a certain fixed amount of headroom. *That is all added together and then the gain structure is adjusted to allow for the various combinations of these processes.* Audyssey is given a "budget" and we have to stay within it. There is only so much boost that the filters can apply and only so much additional boost that the tweaking can apply. *Relaxing that would lead to situations where digital clipping is possible and no manufacturer would ever ship a product where there was even a remote possibility of that happening.*
> 
> The AVR will not go into digital clipping under normal operating conditions. The digital gain structure is carefully designed to take into account the needs of all the digital processes. *For example, it has to allow for +12 dB trims*, max on the tone controls, the level increase due to downmixing multichannel content into stereo, the Audyssey filter boost, etc. etc. The designers take into account all of these processes and then make sure that the proper gains are applied internally so that there is no digital clipping.
> 
> This does mean, however, that you will not always be able to turn the volume control up to the max value. If the right combination of processes is turned on, *the volume will be limited to whatever value prevents clipping. *...
> 
> ... The trims are set to ensure that with the master volume at 0 you are hitting reference. *There is no headroom issue because it has already been taken into account by the manufacturer when designing the (very complicated) gain structure* of these products. ...
> 
> ... Volume ICs. This is the little chip that is responsible for managing the volume, in fact it *manages the entire gain structure in the receiver.
> 
> * ... In a receiver today there are numerous functions that require headroom. These include: dialog normalization, *subwoofer trim*, *main channel trim*, downmixing, tone control, MultEQ XT.
> 
> For example, MultEQ requires 9 dB of headroom to avoid clipping. *The channel trims require 12 dB of headroom to allow for the maximum setting*. Downmixing requires up to 12 dB of headroom.
> 
> *When* some or *all of these processes are enabled the maximum playback volume will be limited to the maximum headroom available in the Volume IC chip selected by the manufacturer*.
> ...*"*
> 
> Gain structure, as we can see, is strictly controlled by the AVR makes with a very high priority, or as Chris said: "...no manufacturer would ever ship a product where there was even a remote possibility of clipping happening."
> 
> Of course, all the above are valid when MultEQ sets up the system to reference, i.e. 0 dB MV delivers cinema reference SPL in our rooms.
> 
> BUT, we all usually would like to have a bit more (read: sometimes a lot more) woofage that what was set by MultEQ for the subwoofer trim (even if its in the negative range). And this may be the point where things might go out of whack. Why? Becasue by increacing the subwoofer trim we enter into headroom problems possibly causing the AVR's pre-amp to go into clipping.
> 
> Should we worry? I'd say no, *beacuse the AVR with automatically limit the overall power output of the whole system*. I did a test as follows. *With no input signal and with the subwoofer trim left at the value MultEQ set it (in my case -6 dB) I turned up the MV to the max and the display showed +18 dB MV. Now, again with no input signal I turned up the subwoofer trim to +12 dB (i.e. 18 dBs higher than MultEQ calibrated it) and now the MV would not go over +2 dB, so this means the internal protection mode was activated.*


First, I apologize for the stark appearance of all the bolding I added to the quotes. It may look like I was shouting, but I was really trying to make it easier for a reader to skim the quotes to refresh memory of former posts and to notice the roots of what I'm about to write about. 

With a given movie soundtrack that adheres to an *fs*that would produce a maximum of 105 dB for all channels except the sub(s), and 115 dB for the sub(s), when played back at reference, there will either be clipping or there won't be at *MV=0* and sub *trim* in the AVR of *0*. Are our AVRs and pre/pros capable of unclipped performance at that level, or not? Someone equipped could check that with an oscilloscope could check that on their own AVR or pre/pro... anyone try that on a Marantz AV7005? Now, for the sake of argument, if our AVR/pre-pro does _*not*_ clip at MV = 0, sub trim = 0, and those of us who had to redefine reference on the MV (due to efficient speakers) to, let's say, MV of -12 dB = reference level, who never, never go over MV = -12 (in practice, it's more like never go over -17), then doesn't it follow that the sub trim could be well into the positive, perhaps + 8.5 (12 dB above the recommended max trim of -3.5), or even +12? 

Of course, our electronics may not meet their own specs, thus the oscilloscope. From what Chris K told Feri, and what Feri found with his own system, it may be taken care of automatically, i.e., if I shouldn't go over MV of -17, -12, or whatever, with my sub trim at, say, + 8.5, I would expect my pre-pro to stop me by mot allowing an MV setting that high. Or not.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> First, I apologize for the stark appearance of all the bolding I added to the quotes. It may look like I was shouting, but I was really trying to make it easier for a reader to skim the quotes to refresh memory of former posts and to notice the roots of what I'm about to write about.
> 
> With a given movie soundtrack that adheres to an *fs*that would produce a maximum of 105 dB for all channels except the sub(s), and 115 dB for the sub(s), when played back at reference, there will either be clipping or there won't be at *MV=0* and sub *trim* in the AVR of *0*. Are our AVRs and pre/pros capable of unclipped performance at that level, or not? Someone equipped could check that with an oscilloscope could check that on their own AVR or pre/pro... anyone try that on a Marantz AV7005? Now, for the sake of argument, if our AVR/pre-pro does _*not*_ clip at MV = 0, sub trim = 0, and those of us who had to redefine reference on the MV (due to efficient speakers) to, let's say, MV of -12 dB = reference level, who never, never go over MV = -12 (in practice, it's more like never go over -17), then doesn't it follow that the sub trim could be well into the positive, perhaps + 8.5 (12 dB above the recommended max trim of -3.5), or even +12?
> 
> Of course, our electronics may not meet their own specs, thus the oscilloscope. From what Chris K told Feri, and what Feri found with his own system, it may be taken care of automatically, i.e., if I shouldn't go over MV of -17, -12, or whatever, with my sub trim at, say, + 8.5, I would expect my pre-pro to stop me by mot allowing an MV setting that high. Or not.


Gary,

Me thinks our sub trim can even be +12 dB as set by MultEQ for reference, but in that case there will be no way to increase the trim further up coz already the max trim level has been met. That's supposed to be the whole story of gain structure under control. 

No more "budget" for MultEQ allowed by the AVR manufacturer, and in this regard if anyone feels the urge and the necessity to increase sub output the +12 dB will not allow any further adjustments coz all headroom has already been exhausted. 

Make sure the sub trim is as low as possible so that it can be adjusted upward by AVR trim. But in that case it will be the subwoofer's plate amp that needs to be capable of taking up more voltage before it starts clipping on its own coz now you will need to turn up the voltage on the sub-amp input.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> First, I apologize for the stark appearance of all the bolding I added to the quotes. It may look like I was shouting, but I was really trying to make it easier for a reader to skim the quotes to refresh memory of former posts and to notice the roots of what I'm about to write about.
> 
> With a given movie soundtrack that adheres to an *fs*that would produce a maximum of 105 dB for all channels except the sub(s), and 115 dB for the sub(s), when played back at reference, there will either be clipping or there won't be at *MV=0* and sub *trim* in the AVR of *0*. Are our AVRs and pre/pros capable of unclipped performance at that level, or not? Someone equipped could check that with an oscilloscope could check that on their own AVR or pre/pro... anyone try that on a Marantz AV7005? Now, for the sake of argument, if our AVR/pre-pro does _*not*_ clip at MV = 0, sub trim = 0, and those of us who had to redefine reference on the MV (due to efficient speakers) to, let's say, MV of -12 dB = reference level, who never, never go over MV = -12 (in practice, it's more like never go over -17), then doesn't it follow that the sub trim could be well into the positive, perhaps + 8.5 (12 dB above the recommended max trim of -3.5), or even +12?
> 
> Of course, our electronics may not meet their own specs, thus the oscilloscope. From what Chris K told Feri, and what Feri found with his own system, it may be taken care of automatically, i.e., if I shouldn't go over MV of -17, -12, or whatever, with my sub trim at, say, + 8.5, I would expect my pre-pro to stop me by mot allowing an MV setting that high. Or not.


Gary,

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that we can entirely rely on Audyssey to protect us from ourselves. This is a multi-faceted equation, in my opinion, which is a point that Feri was making at the end of his post. And, I think it is a fairly complicated equation without a single simple resolution, or answer.

In theory, I think that if we leave our sub trim settings just where Audyssey put them, we should be able to listen at Reference volumes, without clipping our subs. And, DEQ wouldn't be a factor at all, at that point. But, I cannot easily imagine a scenario where Audyssey would have set an initial trim level of 0.0, except for a sub that was under-powered to begin with. And, who knows whether, in that case, the sub would ever be able to play significant bass frequencies at 115db?

The problem comes in when Audyssey sets our trim levels to match the other channels, and we then raise those trim levels from -10 or -5, or whatever, on our own. We had a perfectly good reason for wanting the subs to play louder--the Equal Loudness Contours, or simple user preference, or both. But now, Audyssey is no longer in complete control of the process, and the possibility of clipping may be on the table. In my experience from reading subwoofer threads, most people like to add a sub boost, even at Reference volumes, although how much they add at that point is purely a matter of personal preference. But, I don't think we can count on Audyssey to protect us from the possibility of clipping our subs, however good their intentions were in that regard, because there are simply too many variables in play.

I think that it is also too dependent on the program material being played, and the low frequency capabilities of the sub to begin with, and whether Audyssey happens to already be providing 9db of boost at that particular frequency, and whether the user is employing a high trim boost (or even a high gain boost) and so on. The fried voice coil I spoke of in the Setup Guide, with a JTR Orbit Shifter, occurred with XT-32. But, the user just kept boosting both the MV, and the trim level on the sub, into the positive range until the wrong electronic music played the wrong frequencies and destroyed one of the most powerful subs on the planet.

And, I have seen other examples also involving Audyssey. My own dual SVS PC12 Pluses and single PB12 Plus experienced port chuffing with Audyssey, simply because I was trying to over-drive them. That's why I upgraded my subs in both size and quantity a couple of years ago. So, I believe that as with any other electronic device, or automated system, some user care is also required. In your particular case, I would expect you to be a sufficiently sophisticated listener to be able to hear if your sub is making some sounds indicative of distress. I could in my system. But, again it was content-specific, in my case. Movies with strong ULF (


----------



## Jim1290

@mthomas47

Hello Mike,

I am terribly sorry that I missed your PM, and afterwards I didn't know how to reply your PM, perhaps I have no rights to do so yet here at AVS as not enough posts or new.
And so, I thought to apologize to you here... your online permanent residence. And all the very best for 2017!

SVS finally has got representative *here* in Belgium, but its prices are quite different other than in the States, I guess all because of the shipping cost and import duty and so on.
Most probably I will go with European makers so that would make things easier. I just have to decide to go with sealed or ported. I have been travlling a bit lately, and will have more time the second part of the year.
As you know that my HT is in the living room, L-Shaped living room and about 50m2, and maybe four sealed subs would do a proper job. What's your advise and opinion?

I see your "Liked" rate keeps going up, so I believe that you must have helped quite some _"XT-32 and Sub refugees"_ around here, and I am one of them. 

Thanks for your time Mike. And apologize to other members if my post should be elsewhere.


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

*Hypothesis on Trim/Gain Stacking when using Audyssey.*

In furtherance of the above conversation(s) on Sub Trim settings. It occurred to me the that the following relationships/events may occur to create a clipping and or distortion instance, that we could be unaware of under the following conditions:

a. Audyssey has been run on your speaker configuration.
b. Post Audyssey adjustments are made to individual speaker trims/gains
c. The above adjustments are accomplished via the AVRs Test tones. Therefore Audyssey does not know and can not compensate for this post processing adjustments to the gain structure.

Discussion:

When Audyssey does its thing to achieve the specified Audyssey Curve. Audyssey boosts and dampens various frequency levels for each individual Speaker & Sub. Additionally, Audyssey sets individual speaker Trims to achieve the (Reference Volume) at/for each speaker. We know the resulting speaker trim levels. As the post Audyssey Trim levels are provided in the AVR Speaker Trim Settings Menu. What we don't know is the Specific Frequency Adjustments (boosts or reductions) made for each Speaker/Sub channel. I am calling this an unknown "Trim/Gain Stack".

Obviously Audyssey does more than simply boost/dampen each Speaker Channel. Audyssey makes adjustments within the Frequency spectrum to flatten the curve. This may require frequency band adjustments that we are completely unaware of. If my logic is sound (pun intended), and much like an Equalizer of old, specific areas of Frequency response, for a given Speaker Channel, may be further boosted beyond what is know by the overall channel trim level. Correct?

This has been spoken about previously in this thread. That "Post Audyssey" one should not use the built in AVR Speaker Test Tone to adjust trim levels. As was stated, Audyssey and possibly the AVR's built in Volume IC/Gain Structure Chip is not engaged when using the AVRs Test Tones. Any adjustments accomplished in this mode will not be recognized nor managed by Audyssey or the Volume IC. Is this an Accurate Statement?

I personally consider this a Design Flaw. Most specially in High End AVR's. If the above is all accurate and correct. A user who makes post Audyssey Trim adjustments, using the built in Test Tones. Could potentially exceed the upper limits of the designed gain structure. Via unknow Trim/Gain Stacking. 

Does this sound reasonable? Have I missed anything in my rationale and conclusions ?


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> @*mthomas47*
> 
> Hello Mike,
> 
> I am terribly sorry that I missed your PM, and afterwards I didn't know how to reply your PM, perhaps I have no rights to do so yet here at AVS as not enough posts or new.
> And so, I thought to apologize to you here... your online permanent residence. And all the very best for 2017!
> 
> SVS finally has got representative *here* in Belgium, but its prices are quite different other than in the States, I guess all because of the shipping cost and import duty and so on.
> Most probably I will go with European makers so that would make things easier. I just have to decide to go with sealed or ported. I have been travlling a bit lately, and will have more time the second part of the year.
> As you know that my HT is in the living room, L-Shaped living room and about 50m2, and maybe four sealed subs would do a proper job. What's your advise and opinion?
> 
> I see your "Liked" rate keeps going up, so I believe that you must have helped quite some _"XT-32 and Sub refugees"_ around here, and I am one of them.
> 
> Thanks for your time Mike. And apologize to other members if my post should be elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim


Hi Jim,

It's nice to hear from you again, and I appreciate your kind words. Like a lot of people on AVS, I enjoy paying it forward for the information and assistance I have gotten from others on the forum. And, this stuff is fun for me. You should be able to go into your AVS Control Panel, if you ever want to respond to a message--even an old one. There is a column to the left of your screen that has options, including messages, in it.

I'm sorry to hear that SVS subs won't be working out for you there, but you do have some other good options. I went back to some of our older posts, from last year, to refresh my memory on your bass preferences. The decision to go with sealed versus ported is a very personal one, in my opinion. With a room size slightly in excess of 4000^3 (cubic feet), my first inclination would be to use ported subs. But, I think a lot depends not only on your bass preferences, but also on your floor composition. For instance, if you like a lot of low bass, which I do, and if you are on a concrete pad, which I am, then it takes a lot of low frequency SPL to get the tactile sensations I want with movies. So, ported subs, with higher SPL below about 50Hz, is the best way for me to go.

But, if I were on a wood floor, I might be able to achieve a similar tactile sensation, in the low bass frequencies, with less low frequency SPL, so sealed subs might make good sense, in that case. And, they are typically smaller and somewhat cheaper. I hope that explanation involving tactile bass was clear. I know that you like to add a fairly substantial bass boost. But, if you are on a wood floor, then four good sealed subs--such as the European equivalent to SB13's might be a very good alternative. That would probably give you a great frequency response, plenty of bass envelopment, all the headroom you need to achieve high output levels, and good tactile bass sensations.

If, on the other hand, you are on concrete, or have any reservations about getting the optimum amount of


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> *Hypothesis on Trim/Gain Stacking when using Audyssey.*
> 
> In furtherance of the above conversation(s) on Sub Trim settings. It occurred to me the that the following relationships/events may occur to create a clipping and or distortion instance, that we could be unaware of under the following conditions:
> 
> a. Audyssey has been run on your speaker configuration.
> b. Post Audyssey adjustments are made to individual speaker trims/gains
> c. The above adjustments are accomplished via the AVRs Test tones. Therefore Audyssey does not know and can not compensate for this post processing adjustments to the gain structure.
> 
> Discussion:
> 
> When Audyssey does its thing to achieve the specified Audyssey Curve. Audyssey boosts and dampens various frequency levels for each individual Speaker & Sub. Additionally, Audyssey sets individual speaker Trims to achieve the (Reference Volume) at/for each speaker. We know the resulting speaker trim levels. As the post Audyssey Trim levels are provided in the AVR Speaker Trim Settings Menu. What we don't know is the Specific Frequency Adjustments (boosts or reductions) made for each Speaker/Sub channel. I am calling this an unknown "Trim/Gain Stack".
> 
> Obviously Audyssey does more than simply boost/dampen each Speaker Channel. Audyssey makes adjustments within the Frequency spectrum to flatten the curve. This may require frequency band adjustments that we are completely unaware of. If my logic is sound (pun intended), and much like an Equalizer of old, specific areas of Frequency response, for a given Speaker Channel, may be further boosted beyond what is know by the overall channel trim level. Correct?
> 
> This has been spoken about previously in this thread. That "Post Audyssey" one should not use the built in AVR Speaker Test Tone to adjust trim levels. As was stated, Audyssey and possibly the AVR's built in Volume IC/Gain Structure Chip is not engaged when using the AVRs Test Tones. Any adjustments accomplished in this mode will not be recognized nor managed by Audyssey or the Volume IC. Is this an Accurate Statement?
> 
> I personally consider this a Design Flaw. Most specially in High End AVR's. If the above is all accurate and correct. A user who makes post Audyssey Trim adjustments, using the built in Test Tones. Could potentially exceed the upper limits of the designed gain structure. Via unknow Trim/Gain Stacking.
> 
> Does this sound reasonable? Have I missed anything in my rationale and conclusions ?


Hi Adam,

I think what you are saying makes perfect sense. I was saying something similar in my post further up the page. so, the two of us, at least, are on the same wavelength. But, I don't know that I would characterize our potential ability to drive a speaker, or a sub, into distortion as an AVR design flaw. I'm not being argumentative. I just don't look at it that way. I used the phrase that Audyssey can't be expected to "protect us from ourselves". I think we also bear some responsibility to use our electronic components, or lawnmowers, or automobiles, in a knowledgeable and prudent way. 

So, for instance, if we have a high-end amplifier, or AVR, and we feed too much power to a pair of speakers that can't handle that much volume, and they distort, as a result, is that the fault of the AVR maker for failing to build-in sufficient safeguards, or the fault of the user for not backing-off when he hears his small speakers distorting from the Reference level volumes (or higher) that he is forcing them to play?

According to the conversation with Chris K., that Feri quoted, and which I have read before, Audyssey does at least try to make sure that Audyssey's own internal operation will not cause damage to our sound quality, or our audio systems. But, that doesn't mean that we can't defeat Audyssey's efforts through our own inattention, and/or enthusiasm. I don't want to sound as if I am just defending Audyssey here, because that isn't my intention. But, I have always thought that was the strength of the Audyssey thread, and of the FAQ--to enable users to share information, so that we would all be able to use our systems in more informed and prudent ways. And, in my opinion, that is the value of following good gain/trim/MV protocols. But, in the end, we still need to follow our own judgment with respect to how much we choose to exercise reasonable care and discretion in the operation of our audio systems.

Speaking entirely personally here, I am not quite sure that I want an audio system that will limit my options for experimentation, in an effort to insure that I am fully protected from my own folly, any more than I am quite ready for an entirely self-driving car. I understand that I incur some risk in the operation of almost any fairly sophisticated piece of electronics or machinery. Frankly, I get a little irritated sometimes, when my computer insists on "helping me" with formatting, when I am typing something. Sometimes, I would prefer that it just do what I want it to do, and not help me quite so much. 

I apologize for going a little afield from your original point here, and I hope you don't mind my digression into the subject of software that "helps" me do things, instead of just letting me do what I want. But, this is an oft-discussed topic on the thread. I would welcome having even more user control than I have with respect to my AVR, and with respect to Audyssey. But, with that additional user control would come more risk that I might screw something up. And, that is a risk that I would willingly incur. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I think what you are saying makes perfect sense. I was saying something similar in my post further up the page. so, the two of us, at least, are on the same wavelength. But, I don't know that I would characterize our potential ability to drive a speaker, or a sub, into distortion as an AVR design flaw. I'm not being argumentative. I just don't look at it that way. I used the phrase that Audyssey can't be expected to "protect us from ourselves". I think we also bear some responsibility to use our electronic components, or lawnmowers, or automobiles, in a knowledgeable and prudent way.
> 
> So, for instance, if we have a high-end amplifier, or AVR, and we feed too much power to a pair of speakers that can't handle that much volume, and they distort, as a result, is that the fault of the AVR maker for failing to build-in sufficient safeguards, or the fault of the user for not backing-off when he hears his small speakers distorting from the Reference level volumes (or higher) that he is forcing them to play?
> 
> According to the conversation with Chris K., that Feri quoted, and which I have read before, Audyssey does at least try to make sure that Audyssey's own internal operation will not cause damage to our sound quality, or our audio systems. But, that doesn't mean that we can't defeat Audyssey's efforts through our own inattention, and/or enthusiasm. I don't want to sound as if I am just defending Audyssey here, because that isn't my intention. But, I have always thought that was the strength of the Audyssey thread, and of the FAQ--to enable users to share information, so that we would all be able to use our systems in more informed and prudent ways. And, in my opinion, that is the value of following good gain/trim/MV protocols. But, in the end, we still need to follow our own judgment with respect to how much we choose to exercise reasonable care and discretion in the operation of our audio systems.
> 
> Speaking entirely personally here, I am not quite sure that I want an audio system that will limit my options for experimentation, in an effort to insure that I am fully protected from my own folly, any more than I am quite ready for an entirely self-driving car. I understand that I incur some risk in the operation of almost any fairly sophisticated piece of electronics or machinery. Frankly, I get a little irritated sometimes, when my computer insists on "helping me" with formatting, when I am typing something. Sometimes, I would prefer that it just do what I want it to do, and not help me quite so much.
> 
> I apologize for going a little afield from your original point here, and I hope you don't mind my digression into the subject of software that "helps" me do things, instead of just letting me do what I want. But, this is an oft-discussed topic on the thread. I would welcome having even more user control than I have with respect to my AVR, and with respect to Audyssey. But, with that additional user control would come more risk that I might screw something up. And, that is a risk that I would willingly incur.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I agree with your point of view. We in the end are responsible for all of our actions. I do not expect, nor do I wish for, Audyssey or the AVR manufacturers to build in safeguards that protect us at the cost of limited user adjustment ability.

However, having said that. This Trim/Gain Stacking error is concerning. If Audyssey would provide some type of Frequency adjustment data, we would know what we currently Don't know. And with proper logic could avoid creating a cascading trim/gain stack that may unknowingly drive us into distortion levels. I have fried a few very expensive tweeters in my day. It only took a split second. By the time I heard the distortion, the damage was done. I had no reaction time and my Master Volume at the time was at -20bd. Well within what anyone would consider safe.

IMHO the Volume/Gain IC chip should be aware of ANY setting you make. So too should Audyssey. Or perhaps the Test Tone section could contain a Warning or Notice of some type. Informing the User of the above.

I find these discussion to be of great value. I learn something new every time I come here and read these posts. So I wish to thank you, for taking the time to write your reply and sharing your knowledge with me and others.


----------



## mogorf

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> I agree with your point of view. We in the end are responsible for all of our actions. I do not expect, nor do I wish for, Audyssey or the AVR manufacturers to build in safeguards that protect us at the cost of limited user adjustment ability.
> 
> However, having said that. This Trim/Gain Stacking error is concerning. If Audyssey would provide some type of Frequency adjustment data, we would know what we currently Don't know. And with proper logic could avoid creating a cascading trim/gain stack that may unknowingly drive us into distortion levels. I have fried a few very expensive tweeters in my day. It only took a split second. By the time I heard the distortion, the damage was done. I had no reaction time and my Master Volume at the time was at -20bd. Well within what anyone would consider safe.
> 
> IMHO the Volume/Gain IC chip should be aware of ANY setting you make. So too should Audyssey. Or perhaps the Test Tone section could contain a Warning or Notice of some type. Informing the User of the above.
> 
> I find these discussion to be of great value. I learn something new every time I come here and read these posts. So I wish to thank you, for taking the time to write your reply and sharing your knowledge with me and others.


Hey Guys, I'm gonna make a twist of the "rule" here so watch me carefully.  I think there is a general concensus among us that MultEQ does a pretty good job for adjusting/calibrating speaker (sometimes called satellite) trims, so there is usually no need to tweak those settings, best when left untouched. 

But then there is the strong desire to add more woofage into our systems, we all love that LFE heavy feeling when deep, smooth an even bass hits our ears (and chests). Right?

Now here's the twist of the "rule" that will void the general concensus of upping the trim level of the subwoofer channel on the AVR and not on the sub.

So, with regard to all the discussions so far on properly planned and designed gain structure of the AVR/AVP world it might be worth to consider to leave the AVR/AVP setting intact while increasing the volume/level/gain knob on the subwoofer plate amp until reaching the desired woofage that will please our ears. Yeap, do it on the sub's plate amp!!!

By this way the AVR/AVP's gain structure will do it's thing as intended, yet as explain by Ed Mullen, the subwoofers plate amp with have enough headroom before clipping even when the volume knob is turned up to the brim.

Whaddaya think?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hey Guys, I'm gonna make a twist of the "rule" here so watch me carefully.  I think there is a general concensus among us that MultEQ does a pretty good job for adjusting/calibrating speaker (sometimes called satellite) trims, so there is usually no need to tweak those settings, best when left untouched.
> 
> But then there is the strong desire to add more woofage into our systems, we all love that LFE heavy feeling when deep, smooth an even bass hits our ears (and chests). Right?
> 
> Now here's the twist of the "rule" that will void the general concensus of upping the trim level of the subwoofer channel on the AVR and not on the sub.
> 
> So, with regard to all the discussions so far on properly planned and designed gain structure of the AVR/AVP world it might be worth to consider to leave the AVR/AVP setting intact while increasing the volume/level/gain knob on the subwoofer plate amp until reaching the desired woofage that will please our ears. Yeap, do it on the sub's plate amp!!!
> 
> By this way the AVR/AVP's gain structure will do it's thing as intended, yet as explain by Ed Mullen, the subwoofers plate amp with have enough headroom before clipping even when the volume knob is turned up to the brim.
> 
> Whaddaya think?


Hi Feri,

I think you are making two good points. First, with respect to frying tweeters, as Adam mentioned, I think that Audyssey does already offer some protection for the satellite channels. And, there won't typically be much reason to tweak the trim settings for those channels, in a way that would defeat Audyssey's efforts on our behalf.

With respect to the subwoofer channel, I think that some of us have been headed more in the general direction you suggest, during the past several months. My own practice has gone from using mostly trim increases, to using mostly gain increases, so that I can keep my trim levels in that good safe negative range of about -5. But, I have been reluctant to advise people to completely abandon the use of trim increase for the same reason that I don't. It's just so convenient. And, I think that if people do use gain increases during calibration, they can bank some AVR trim increase to use later. They just want to stay well in the negative range, after whatever AVR trim adjustments they make.

For people with multiple subs, or subs where the gain control are on the back and not terribly accessible, or who don't have digital controls which allow them to add equivalent gain amounts, or whose subs are behind an acoustically transparent screen, or built-in to their HT's, the use of trim controls will probably always be a more convenient and desirable way to make volume changes, as they change from music to movies, or whatever. But, if they follow good gain/trim protocols, and try to keep their AVR trims well in in the negative range, I don't foresee any real problems. 

And, if they do choose to deviate from those general best practice recommendations, then hopefully they will at least do so with a full awareness of the reasons behind the recommendation. And then, they can trust their own judgment in the matter, based on the specific circumstances involved. I am particularly thinking of built-in subs, in this case, as it could be very difficult to reach the gain control in some instances. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> I think you are making two good points. First, with respect to frying tweeters, as Adam mentioned, I think that Audyssey does already offer some protection for the satellite channels. And, there won't typically be much reason to tweak the trim settings for those channels, in a way that would defeat Audyssey's efforts on our behalf.
> 
> With respect to the subwoofer channel, I think that more of us have been headed more in the direction you suggest, during the past several months. My own practice has gone from using mostly trim increases, to using mostly gain increases, so that I can keep my trim levels in that good safe negative range of about -5. But, I have been reluctant to advise people to completely abandon the use of trim increase for the same reason that I don't. It's just so convenient. And, I think that if people do use gain increases during calibration, they can bank some AVR trim increase to use later. They just want to stay well in the negative range, after whatever AVR trim adjustments they make.
> 
> For people with multiple subs, or subs where the gain control are on the back and not terribly accessible, or who don't have digital controls which allow them to add equivalent gain amounts, or whose subs are behind an acoustically transparent screen, or built-in to their HT's, the use of trim controls will probably always be a more convenient and desirable way to make volume changes, as they change from music to movies, or whatever. But, if they follow good gain/trim protocols, and try to keep their AVR trims well in in the negative range, I don't foresee any real problems.
> 
> And, if they do choose to deviate from those general best practice recommendations, then hopefully they will at least do so with a full awareness of the reasons behind the recommendation. And then, they can trust their own judgment in the matter, based on the specific circumstances involved. I am particularly thinking of built-in subs, in this case, as it could be very difficult to reach the gain control in some instances.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I hear you Mike with all the trouble that would be accomponied by adjusting sub knobs on the back side of the box especially when built-in behind screens. Murphy and his laws come to mind when he said: "Every solution breeds new problems."

IMHO, subwoofers should come with remote controls allowing level adjustments. Any subwoofer makers reading-in? You guys have homework to do!


----------



## Matt2026

mogorf said:


> I hear you Mike with all the trouble that would be accomponied by adjusting sub knobs on the back side of the box especially when built-in behind screens. Murphy and his laws come to mind when he said: "Every solution breeds new problems."
> 
> IMHO, subwoofers should come with remote controls allowing level adjustments. Any subwoofer makers reading-in? You guys have homework to do!


Have you noticed the SVS 16-Ultra Series

From the owners manual, "One of the most useful features of your SVS PB16-Ultra Subwoofer is the Free SVS App, which
can be used to fine tune performance from the convenience of your mobile device. Just visit the
Apple® App® Store or Google Play™ Store and search “SVS App” to get started. 
"


----------



## mogorf

Matt2026 said:


> Have you noticed the SVS 16-Ultra Series
> 
> From the owners manual, "One of the most useful features of your SVS PB16-Ultra Subwoofer is the Free SVS App, which
> can be used to fine tune performance from the convenience of your mobile device. Just visit the
> Apple® App® Store or Google Play™ Store and search “SVS App” to get started.
> "


Thanks for sharing this info Matt. Price is a bit of an object, but still looks promising.


----------



## David Aiken

OK, I'm late to the party but I might try adding my twist to a couple of things.

First, I don't think the AVR manufacturer is under any obligation to prevent us from frying our speakers with too high an output. Some people have high sensitivity speakers rated for low peak wattage because they don't need high peak wattage. Some people have low sensitivity speakers rated for high peak wattage because they need more watts to deliver the volume. The customer chooses the speakers and it's up to the customer to select an AVR which meets their needs and to use it responsibly. If a customer wants to mate 105 dB sensitive speakers for which the manufacturer recommends amps up to, say, 40 watts with an AVR capable of 150-200 watts or so per channel and then turn the volume all the way up, they're on their own in my view. AVR manufacturers can't stop that happening and I don't think that's their problem.

On the other hand, I do think AVR manufacturers do have a responsibility to design their products so that they don't drive the AVR into clipping. If you are folding channels into each other by down mixing 7.1 to 5.1 or fewer channels, the AVR "knows" what you're doing because you make down mix choices, the setup process senses how many channels you are using, and so on. There are rules for calculating the combined level of signals when you add them so there's no reason why a manufacturer can't use those rules to work out what signal will drive DAC and the pre-amp stages for the channels you're using into clipping. They can design for that. Audyssey sets filters and it should be possible to calculate the effect of a given filter on levels and set trims that avoid clipping. If you boost sub levels in the AVR, you tell the AVR how much to boost them by and that can be taken into account in the calculation. We talk about "smart" phones which have apps which use more calculating power these days than it took to land a man on the moon so they should be able to design the mixdown and user trim adjustment operations so that those choices don't drive the DAC into clipping and ensure that the DAC output does not cause clipping elsewhere in the AVR. They're doing that to some degree anyway, but they can do it smarter and have it take into account user adjustments post calibration. Sure, it would take a little bit more processing power and it might drive prices up a little but I don't think that's a problem.

And doing that would make things like the subwoofer level adjustment on my Marantz a little more transparent. There's no reason I should have to look up the trim settings Audyssey sets for my subs and then manually add the amount of boost I want to make to them, and then have to enter those levels manually in the SLA adjustment because the default setting in that option is ) dB for each sub because the Audyssey trim setting isn't carried over. Why can't I just specify that I want to add x dB of boost to the Audyssey calculated trim setting? Frankly there are things about how AVRs currently operate which could be improved without making them "smarter" and making them smarter as I'm suggesting is simply a matter of programming them to adapt to user setup changes using some long understood rules regarding signal strength.

We struggle with some of these things because the current operating processes are opaque to us and some of that opacity is there simply because of things like settings being made in one menu option not being visible in a related menu option, a level of disconnect between Audyssey software and the manufacturer's own software, and generally atrocious manuals. All of those things can be improved on if the manufacturer wants to do so but I think things tend to continue the way they do because rather than rewrite the software so that it is more functional, they just keep adapting the existing software to accommodate changes. I think the time for a rewrite from scratch is overdue and I think a lot of concerns like the ones Gary raised several posts ago would disappear if a decent rewrite from the beginning were done, the interaction between Audyssey and the AVR software were integrated better, and a few of the basic bits of functionality that we use were made more transparent.

That's my take on it. 

I often think that the problem with trying to make things foolproof, and I think to some degree AVR manufacturers do that, is that the way things are made foolproof is by requiring intelligent people to not think, to follow instructions blindly, and to build things so that the needs and wishes of the intelligent people who want to use the product to its fullest capacity get ignored. Problems then start to happen because intelligent people don't like being forced to follow instructions unthinkingly and they do wish to use the product to the fullest capacity. Crippling things for the "power users" isn't the best option, especially on the higher models in a manufacturer's range which are the models those people choose because those models offer the features they want to use, and want to use flexibly.


----------



## Matt2026

mogorf said:


> Thanks for sharing this info Matt. Price is a bit of an object, but still looks promising.


You're welcome Feri,

Too pricey for me and in any case I'm happy with my Rythmik F12. 

I'm sure other manufactures are or will be working on this issue, competition is a great "driver" [pun intended ].


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> I hear you Mike with all the trouble that would be accomponied by adjusting sub knobs on the back side of the box especially when built-in behind screens. Murphy and his laws come to mind when he said: "Every solution breeds new problems."
> 
> IMHO, subwoofers should come with remote controls allowing level adjustments. Any subwoofer makers reading-in? You guys have homework to do!


My 20+ year old Velodyne F-1500 had a remote volume controller...however, it wasn't very exact in nature. 


With your guys' recent discussion on sub gain vs. sub trim, I discovered something this weekend that may or may not be interesting to somebody reading along.

I re-ran Audyssey for the first time since adding my mid-bass module. I had been holding off because I didn't want to screw up a good thing, but I finally saved my config and went ahead. Since I like to run my subs hotter than most and in order to not go over 0dB on the trim, I use a combination of trim and gain. Because of that, when I run Audyssey I usually have to turn down the sub gains to get "in range", then bump them back up post-Audyssey with a pretty tedious exercise using an SPL meter and/or REW.

This time I decided to just leave the sub gains "as-is" and run Audyssey. After calibration, the AVR reported -12dB on both sub outs just as I expected. I then turned the sub trims up to the level I had before (-3dB) and both sub outs were measuring at _the exact same SPL as the previous calibration_!

I suspected that this is the way it would work, and I was very pleased since it made the whole process a lot easier on me.


----------



## zeuspaul

Matt2026 said:


> Have you noticed the SVS 16-Ultra Series
> 
> From the owners manual, "One of the most useful features of your SVS PB16-Ultra Subwoofer is the Free SVS App, which
> can be used to fine tune performance from the *convenience of your mobile device*. Just visit the
> Apple® App® Store or Google Play™ Store and search “SVS App” to get started.
> "



My preference is for the sub manufacturers (and AVR manufacturers) to avoid smart phones and any other external control devices. I don't have one and I don't want one. One of the things I like about my PSA sub over my SVS sub is the simplicity of the controls. 


Sent from my home computer using a keyboard.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

David Aiken said:


> OK, I'm late to the party but I might try adding my twist to a couple of things.
> 
> First, I don't think the AVR manufacturer is under any obligation to prevent us from frying our speakers with too high an output. Some people have high sensitivity speakers rated for low peak wattage because they don't need high peak wattage. Some people have low sensitivity speakers rated for high peak wattage because they need more watts to deliver the volume. The customer chooses the speakers and it's up to the customer to select an AVR which meets their needs and to use it responsibly. If a customer wants to mate 105 dB sensitive speakers for which the manufacturer recommends amps up to, say, 40 watts with an AVR capable of 150-200 watts or so per channel and then turn the volume all the way up, they're on their own in my view. AVR manufacturers can't stop that happening and I don't think that's their problem.
> 
> On the other hand, I do think AVR manufacturers do have a responsibility to design their products so that they don't drive the AVR into clipping. If you are folding channels into each other by down mixing 7.1 to 5.1 or fewer channels, the AVR "knows" what you're doing because you make down mix choices, the setup process senses how many channels you are using, and so on. There are rules for calculating the combined level of signals when you add them so there's no reason why a manufacturer can't use those rules to work out what signal will drive DAC and the pre-amp stages for the channels you're using into clipping. They can design for that. Audyssey sets filters and it should be possible to calculate the effect of a given filter on levels and set trims that avoid clipping. If you boost sub levels in the AVR, you tell the AVR how much to boost them by and that can be taken into account in the calculation. We talk about "smart" phones which have apps which use more calculating power these days than it took to land a man on the moon so they should be able to design the mixdown and user trim adjustment operations so that those choices don't drive the DAC into clipping and ensure that the DAC output does not cause clipping elsewhere in the AVR. They're doing that to some degree anyway, but they can do it smarter and have it take into account user adjustments post calibration. Sure, it would take a little bit more processing power and it might drive prices up a little but I don't think that's a problem.
> 
> And doing that would make things like the subwoofer level adjustment on my Marantz a little more transparent. There's no reason I should have to look up the trim settings Audyssey sets for my subs and then manually add the amount of boost I want to make to them, and then have to enter those levels manually in the SLA adjustment because the default setting in that option is ) dB for each sub because the Audyssey trim setting isn't carried over. Why can't I just specify that I want to add x dB of boost to the Audyssey calculated trim setting? Frankly there are things about how AVRs currently operate which could be improved without making them "smarter" and making them smarter as I'm suggesting is simply a matter of programming them to adapt to user setup changes using some long understood rules regarding signal strength.
> 
> We struggle with some of these things because the current operating processes are opaque to us and some of that opacity is there simply because of things like settings being made in one menu option not being visible in a related menu option, a level of disconnect between Audyssey software and the manufacturer's own software, and generally atrocious manuals. All of those things can be improved on if the manufacturer wants to do so but I think things tend to continue the way they do because rather than rewrite the software so that it is more functional, they just keep adapting the existing software to accommodate changes. I think the time for a rewrite from scratch is overdue and I think a lot of concerns like the ones Gary raised several posts ago would disappear if a decent rewrite from the beginning were done, the interaction between Audyssey and the AVR software were integrated better, and a few of the basic bits of functionality that we use were made more transparent.
> 
> That's my take on it.
> 
> I often think that the problem with trying to make things foolproof, and I think to some degree AVR manufacturers do that, is that the way things are made foolproof is by requiring intelligent people to not think, to follow instructions blindly, and to build things so that the needs and wishes of the intelligent people who want to use the product to its fullest capacity get ignored. Problems then start to happen because intelligent people don't like being forced to follow instructions unthinkingly and they do wish to use the product to the fullest capacity. Crippling things for the "power users" isn't the best option, especially on the higher models in a manufacturer's range which are the models those people choose because those models offer the features they want to use, and want to use flexibly.


David,

Excellent analysis. Your thoughts mirror those of mine. The current system is overly convoluted and antiquated. One has to wonder what priority the Operational Software development has during overall Product Engineering and Design. As you, I suspect they have been using the same general GPU design template from the 1990's. Perhaps longer.

Your summation and review of the problems I was attempting to outline, are far more clear and concise. Thanks for taking the time to clarify and keep the conservation moving.

Well Said Sir!


----------



## Jim1290

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> It's nice to hear from you again, and I appreciate your kind words. Like a lot of people on AVS, I enjoy paying it forward for the information and assistance I have gotten from others on the forum. And, this stuff is fun for me. You should be able to go into your AVS Control Panel, if you ever want to respond to a message--even an old one. There is a column to the left of your screen that has options, including messages, in it.
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that SVS subs won't be working out for you there, but you do have some other good options. I went back to some of our older posts, from last year, to refresh my memory on your bass preferences. The decision to go with sealed versus ported is a very personal one, in my opinion. With a room size slightly in excess of 4000^3 (cubic feet), my first inclination would be to use ported subs. But, I think a lot depends not only on your bass preferences, but also on your floor composition. For instance, if you like a lot of low bass, which I do, and if you are on a concrete pad, which I am, then it takes a lot of low frequency SPL to get the tactile sensations I want with movies. So, ported subs, with higher SPL below about 50Hz, is the best way for me to go.
> 
> But, if I were on a wood floor, I might be able to achieve a similar tactile sensation, in the low bass frequencies, with less low frequency SPL, so sealed subs might make good sense, in that case. And, they are typically smaller and somewhat cheaper. I hope that explanation involving tactile bass was clear. I know that you like to add a fairly substantial bass boost. But, if you are on a wood floor, then four good sealed subs--such as the European equivalent to SB13's might be a very good alternative. That would probably give you a great frequency response, plenty of bass envelopment, all the headroom you need to achieve high output levels, and good tactile bass sensations.
> 
> If, on the other hand, you are on concrete, or have any reservations about getting the optimum amount of


----------



## Jim1290

Alan P said:


> ...
> 
> This time I decided to just leave the sub gains "as-is" and run Audyssey. After calibration, the AVR reported -12dB on both sub outs just as I expected. I then turned the sub trims up to the level I had before (-3dB) and both sub outs were measuring at _the exact same SPL as the previous calibration_!
> 
> I suspected that this is the way it would work, and I was very pleased since it made the whole process a lot easier on me.


Thank you Alan for sharing! 
I did exactly that a couple months ago , and knew it was not correct way to do the calibration, I however like the sound very much so I kept it.
Now you proved it, so I shall kept it till I change subs. Thanks again!


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## kevbo123

Can anyone help predict the better post Audyssey results between line 4 and 3 (I'll run Audyssey and re-measure when time allows of course)? Both lines 4 and 3 are with Audyssey off measuring both subs and center channel combined with crossover at 120hz. The difference between the two lines is sub woofer placement 25% in on front wall vs 35% in on front wall. Line 1 is with Audyssey ON 25% in. To me it looks like 35% is going to yield far better results post Audyssey. What do you think?


----------



## tgambaro

*2 subs, 1 large ported and 1 sealed?*

Ok, having read a good deal of this thread I am one of those who has a large ported sub (SVS PB 12 plus 2 - 2 downfiring 12's) and 1 sealed (SVS SB-2000) Somehow I need to make due. I have a Marantz 7702 and run Audyssey, I have also checked trim levels with a rat shack meter and tried to match the DB levels that way after the room correction... There are so many differing opinions around here and other sites that at this point I'm baffled, dazed and confused! 
I have tried multiple times to get these to run in concert. Would it be best to plug 2 of the 3 ports on the large sub or no plugs at all? 
My room is approx 3700 cubic ft. The large sub is on the front main wall and the sealed sub is in the rear in a corner behind 2 theater chairs. I have the ability to move it slightly but not too much. I could aim it with the rear of the sub on the left side wall aimed down the back wall or turn it to face my listening position however not much of a gap between the 2 chairs. Here are some pics...I have since rearranged the furniture from the pic below to reflect above. Thank you in advance! I have also replaced my Rocket Bigfoot center w/an SVS ULTRA.


----------



## mthomas47

kevbo123 said:


> Can anyone help predict the better post Audyssey results between line 4 and 3 (I'll run Audyssey and re-measure when time allows of course)? Both lines 4 and 3 are with Audyssey off measuring both subs and center channel combined with crossover at 120hz. The difference between the two lines is sub woofer placement 25% in on front wall vs 35% in on front wall. Line 1 is with Audyssey ON 25% in. To me it looks like 35% is going to yield far better results post Audyssey. What do you think?


Hi,

If I am interpreting your graph correctly, it looks to me as if the 35% position will be easier for Audyssey to EQ. I think that, in general, it's easier for Audyssey to reduce peaks than it is for Audyssey to raise dips, and that's a little better starting point, anyway. If Alan sees your post, I'll be interested in his thoughts on this. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kevbo123

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I am interpreting your graph correctly, it looks to me as if the 35% position will be easier for Audyssey to EQ. I think that, in general, it's easier for Audyssey to reduce peaks than it is for Audyssey to raise dips, and that's a little better starting point, anyway. If Alan sees your post, I'll be interested in his thoughts on this.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the confirmation Mike. I'm looking forward to running Audyssey with the 35% sub placement. According to these measurements I'm going to get what looks like a significant bump in SPL with no loss in flatness.


----------



## mthomas47

tgambaro said:


> Ok, having read a good deal of this thread I am one of those who has a large ported sub (SVS PB 12 plus 2 - 2 downfiring 12's) and 1 sealed (SVS SB-2000) Somehow I need to make due. I have a Marantz 7702 and run Audyssey, I have also checked trim levels with a rat shack meter and tried to match the DB levels that way after the room correction... There are so many differing opinions around here and other sites that at this point I'm baffled, dazed and confused!
> I have tried multiple times to get these to run in concert. Would it be best to plug 2 of the 3 ports on the large sub or no plugs at all?
> My room is approx 3700 cubic ft. The large sub is on the front main wall and the sealed sub is in the rear in a corner behind 2 theater chairs. I have the ability to move it slightly but not too much. I could aim it with the rear of the sub on the left side wall aimed down the back wall or turn it to face my listening position however not much of a gap between the 2 chairs. Here are some pics...I have since rearranged the furniture from the pic below to reflect above. Thank you in advance! I have also replaced my Rocket Bigfoot center w/an SVS ULTRA.


Hi Tony,

That is a very nice looking room. I like it! 

The problem that you are running into with your current dual sub combination is that their frequency responses are so different. You could plug the ports on your ported sub, to run it in sealed configuration, and that would make the two subs more similar in frequency response. But, then you would eliminate much of the low frequency SPL from the ported sub. So, you might get a more uniform response that way, but you would be losing some low-end output. Audyssey can't really do too much to help EQ two very dissimilar subs. But, theoretical EQ limitations, aside, how do things sound as you are running the two subs now, and what port tune are you using now?

In my opinion, your best strategy would be to replace the SB2000 with another SVS ported sub. If you are within the one-year upgrade window (and perhaps even if you are not) the upgrade difference might not be very significant. If you were running two sealed subs of somewhat similar capabilities, you would have a smoother frequency response, but less low-end SPL. If you were running two fairly similar ported subs, you would also have a better frequency response, it would be easier to not notice where bass sounds are coming from, and you would also have more deep bass SPL. The second option would be my personal choice, in that size room, if you can pull it off. But, knowing more about how things sound now, and what your personal bass goals are would help.

This suggestion goes beyond your question, but as nice as the two front speakers look as they are right now, I might try spreading them apart just a little more. The right one could overlap the leading edge of the hearth just a little, and the left could easily move left, by the same amount. Even a foot in each direction would help. When the distance between the two front speakers is less than the distance to the listening position, it can really constrict the size of the front soundstage. Widening the front soundstage a little might give you a nice boost in overall sound quality.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tgambaro

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> That is a very nice looking room. I like it!
> 
> The problem that you are running into with your current dual sub combination is that their frequency responses are so different. You could plug the ports on your ported sub, to run it in sealed configuration, and that would make the two subs more similar in frequency response. But, then you would eliminate much of the low frequency SPL from the ported sub. So, you might get a more uniform response that way, but you would be losing some low-end output. Audyssey can't really do too much to help EQ two very dissimilar subs. But, theoretical EQ limitations, aside, how do things sound as you are running the two subs now, and what port tune are you using now?
> 
> In my opinion, your best strategy would be to replace the SB2000 with another SVS ported sub. If you are within the one-year upgrade window (and perhaps even if you are not) the upgrade different might not be very significant. If you were running two sealed subs of somewhat similar capabilities, you would have a smoother frequency response, but less low-end SPL. If you were running two fairly similar ported subs, you would also have a better frequency response, it would be easier to not notice where bass sounds are coming from, and you would also have more deep bass SPL. The second option would be my personal choice, in that size room, if you can pull it off. But, knowing more about how things sound now, and what your personal bass goals are would help.
> 
> This suggestion goes beyond your question, but as nice as the two front speakers look as they are right now, I might try spreading them apart just a little more. The right one could overlap the leading edge of the hearth just a little, and the left could easily move left, by the same amount. Even a foot in each direction would help. When the distance between the two front speakers is less than the distance to the listening position, it can really constrict the size of the front soundstage. Widening the front soundstage a little might give you a nice boost in overall sound quality.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It sounds ok... I've always run music and movies at the reference setting but am now experiencing with running music at the flat Audy setting.
I was under the impression that when you plug 2 ports you get a lower freq response, 16hrz. The sealed sub according to svs said goes to 19hrz. The spl of the large sub is ridiculous. 
I figured if I only plug 1 port = 20hrz that would match the low end extension more even between the 2. I believe some of my issue is placement of the sealedsub in the back. 
Thank you for your input and I will keep testing as I have a big day Sunday with about 40 people coming over for the game. I start at 4pm with concert dvd's and it's one of my passions to crush people!
Lol!


----------



## David Aiken

kevbo123 said:


> Can anyone help predict the better post Audyssey results between line 4 and 3 (I'll run Audyssey and re-measure when time allows of course)? Both lines 4 and 3 are with Audyssey off measuring both subs and center channel combined with crossover at 120hz. The difference between the two lines is sub woofer placement 25% in on front wall vs 35% in on front wall. Line 1 is with Audyssey ON 25% in. To me it looks like 35% is going to yield far better results post Audyssey. What do you think?


There's a view that I think has a lot to recommend it which says that when it comes to trying to EQ bass, you do better if you're cutting peaks than if you're trying to fill in troughs. The reasoning behind that view is that cutting peaks is easy but filling in troughs which are the results of cancellations and nulls is difficult. It's like pouring water into a bucket with a hole in it, it's hard to fill because the water keeps leaking out. Nulls and cancellations are like the holes in the bucket, very difficult to fill in because a lot of the boost you apply in an effort to fill them in disappears just like the sound that you were delivering at those frequencies was disappearing anyway. You can cut peaks easily just by delivering a little less output at those frequencies so a 5 dB peak can basically be levelled by a 5 dB cut at that frequency. A 5 dB trough supposedly takes more than a 5 dB boost to fill in.

I don't know if that's true or not but I suspect that it is at least partially true. 

Looking at the 2 lines you specified, line 4 (35%) is consistently higher in level than line 3 25%) from around 45 Hz on up through the rest of the graph. Line 1 which is an equalised line 3 is better than line 3 but line 4 is actually higher in level than line 1through quite a bit of the range above 45 Hz as well as being higher in level than line 3 so smoothing it is going to require less boosting over much of the range than line 4 and that should make line 3 easier to smooth.

That's not the whole of it, though. We also have to consider the crossover frequency. Lines 3 and 4 are pretty much identical up to 45 Hz. I suspect both would be pretty much as easy as each other to deal with if your crossover frequency is going to be 40 Hz. With a crossover of 60 Hz or higher I think you would start to get a better result with the line 4 placement so provided you're setting your crossover at 60 Hz or higher I would agree with your assessment. If you're setting it at 40 Hz I don't think you're going to notice much difference in the sub result.

And that still isn't quite all of it. You haven't shown plots for the other speakers. The crossover frequency isn't a brick wall with only the sub delivering below it and the speakers delivering above it. The speakers start getting rolled off above the crossover frequency and the subs start getting rolled off below it, but both are active and contributing to the result for around a half octave to octave or more on the other side of the crossover to their operating range and the actual result with all speakers and sub operating in real life depends on the performance of both speaker and sub working together for an octave or two centred on the crossover frequency. Getting the best result with the sub is only part of what's required, you also have to consider what correction is being applied to the speaker in that range also and the speaker response is going to be different to those sub responses. It may be, depending on what is happening with the speakers over that range, that the speaker is going to be acting to fill in part of that droop in the curve for the sub above 45 Hz. Audyssey may not have to boost the sub as much as those curves tend to indicate because the speakers are filling part of it anyway and Audyssey may even be cutting the speaker response over part of that range.

So, considering the sub in isolation and provided the crossover frequency is 60 Hz or higher, I would agree with you. Add in the speakers and a higher crossover frequency and the situation might change. If forced to make the decision based on the sub plots you've supplied and nothing else, I'd go with the 35% placement. I'd try that and then start playing a movie or listening to some music and see how I felt about the result. If I liked it I doubt I'd then redo setup with the 25% placement because I think there's going to be less difference in the overall result with real life soundtracks and music than the plots for just the sub suggest and doing a reliable A/B comparison is not going to be simple. Any way you do it is going to involve a gap in time between playing something with one calibration result and then playing it again with the other calibration result so you're going to relying on auditory memory unless you do something like playing a multichannel pink or white noise test track and doing a plot with all channels driven and while doing that will reveal any differences in one way, it won't tell you which you prefer and we don't always prefer the most accurate result.

And there is one other factor to consider. Many of us prefer to add some boost to the sub anyway and if you're going to do that, I'd say you're going to get better results with the 35% placement anyway.

So, sorry to complicate things for you in some ways by bringing in other considerations but while, as I said, I tend to agree with you that the 35% placement is more likely to give you what is a theoretically better result, it is possible that you might prefer the other placement because of the contribution that crossover frequency and speaker performance is going to be making in a real life situation rather than when you're playing test tones of some kind.


----------



## kevbo123

David Aiken said:


> So, sorry to complicate things for you in some ways by bringing in other considerations but while, as I said, I tend to agree with you that the 35% placement is more likely to give you what is a theoretically better result, it is possible that you might prefer the other placement because of the contribution that crossover frequency and speaker performance is going to be making in a real life situation rather than when you're playing test tones of some kind.


Thanks David for the comprehensive reply. Two things:
1. The response in my graph is the combined response of both subwoofers + the centre speaker. I'm hoping that gives a better idea of an overall response for mostly movie viewing.
2. Crossover is set to 120hz.
Hoping to redo Audyssey with the 35% placement tonight then I'll post the result.


----------



## mthomas47

tgambaro said:


> It sounds ok... I've always run music and movies at the reference setting but am now experiencing with running music at the flat Audy setting.
> I was under the impression that when you plug 2 ports you get a lower freq response, 16hrz. The sealed sub according to svs said goes to 19hrz. The spl of the large sub is ridiculous.
> I figured if I only plug 1 port = 20hrz that would match the low end extension more even between the 2. I believe some of my issue is placement of the sealedsub in the back.
> Thank you for your input and I will keep testing as I have a big day Sunday with about 40 people coming over for the game. I start at 4pm with concert dvd's and it's one of my passions to crush people!
> Lol!


You are very welcome! As you say, there is a lot of misinformation on the Forum. If you compare the various tuning points of the PB13 (which should be somewhat comparable to your sub) you will see that the 15Hz option (1 port plugged) has about 14db more output at 16Hz than the sealed option, and about 11.5db more at 20Hz. That's like having two or three of the sealed versions of the same sub, all playing together. And, it is that low output, below about 25Hz or 30Hz, that people enjoy most for movies, although it isn't as useful for music, unless you are listening to bass-heavy electronic music. You can compare the performance of your two subs by looking at the output capabilities of the PB13 (in various tuning configurations) and the output of the SB12-NSD. The older SB12 is within about .6db of the newer SB2000. 

http://www.data-bass.com/systems

I hope this helps!


----------



## kevbo123

David Aiken said:


> And there is one other factor to consider. Many of us prefer to add some boost to the sub anyway and if you're going to do that, I'd say you're going to get better results with the 35% placement anyway.


I'm adding +8Db (DEQ OFF) so hoping the 35% placement gives me a bit more headroom.


----------



## tgambaro

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! As you say, there is a lot of misinformation on the Forum. If you compare the various tuning points of the PB13 (which should be somewhat comparable to your sub) you will see that the 15Hz option (1 port plugged) has about 14db more output at 16Hz than the sealed option, and about 11.5db more at 20Hz. That's like having two or three of the sealed versions of the same sub, all playing together. And, it is that low output, below about 25Hz or 30Hz, that people enjoy most for movies, although it isn't as useful for music, unless you are listening to bass-heavy electronic music. You can compare the performance of your two subs by looking at the output capabilities of the PB13 (in various tuning configurations) and the output of the SB12-NSD. The older SB12 is within about .6db of the newer SB2000.
> 
> http://www.data-bass.com/systems
> 
> I hope this helps!


Got it! Lastly, in your opinion should I run Audy with the seatbacks down (reclined) w/ blankets over the top sides or no blankets?
Thanks


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! As you say, there is a lot of misinformation on the Forum. If you compare the various tuning points of the PB13 (which should be somewhat comparable to your sub) you will see that the 15Hz option (1 port plugged) has about 14db more output at 16Hz than the sealed option, and about 11.5db more at 20Hz. That's like having two or three of the sealed versions of the same sub, all playing together. And, it is that low output, below about 25Hz or 30Hz, that people enjoy most for movies, although it isn't as useful for music, unless you are listening to bass-heavy electronic music. You can compare the performance of your two subs by looking at the output capabilities of the PB13 (in various tuning configurations) and the output of the SB12-NSD. The older SB12 is within about .6db of the newer SB2000.
> 
> http://www.data-bass.com/systems
> 
> I hope this helps!


Are you saying what I think you are saying? Since I have Dual 13's currently configured with 2 plugged ports each. You have my attention!


----------



## mthomas47

tgambaro said:


> Got it! Lastly, in your opinion should I run Audy with the seatbacks down (reclined) w/ blankets over the top sides or no blankets?
> Thanks


If you are doing most of your viewing/listening with the seatbacks reclined, then that's how I would have them during the calibration. But, otherwise, I would leave them as they are. I think that draping an absorbent blanket over a leather chair is a great idea, as it lets you get your mic positions closer to where your ears would actually be, without having to worry about comb filtering from proximity to a hard surface. But, even so, I would keep the mic about 4" to 6" from the blanket.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Are you saying what I think you are saying? Since I have Dual 13's currently configured with 2 plugged ports each. You have my attention!


Hi Adam,

I am afraid that I am saying what you think I am saying.  The 20Hz tuning mode on the Ultras allows for an average of about 1db more max SPL at most frequencies, which you would never notice, even at max output. But, it gives up about 8db of output (per sub) below 20Hz, which you most assuredly will notice, especially for movies with lots of low bass. The Ultras were designed to operate most effectively for movies with the low port tune, although SVS has always offered multiple tuning options on its high-end subs. But SVS, and all professional reviewers I have ever read, including Data-Bass and Audioholics, recommend using the low port tune. If you try it for movies, with lots of low bass content, I don't think you will go back to the 20Hz (two port) tune. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: You might want to try dropping the tuning point just as an experiment. (Don't forget to change the port tune in the amp controls.) But, if you decide to operate with the subs in that mode, it would be a good idea to rerun Audyssey.


----------



## Alan P

kevbo123 said:


> Can anyone help predict the better post Audyssey results between line 4 and 3 (I'll run Audyssey and re-measure when time allows of course)? Both lines 4 and 3 are with Audyssey off measuring both subs and center channel combined with crossover at 120hz. The difference between the two lines is sub woofer placement 25% in on front wall vs 35% in on front wall. Line 1 is with Audyssey ON 25% in. To me it looks like 35% is going to yield far better results post Audyssey. What do you think?





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I am interpreting your graph correctly, it looks to me as if the 35% position will be easier for Audyssey to EQ. I think that, in general, it's easier for Audyssey to reduce peaks than it is for Audyssey to raise dips, and that's a little better starting point, anyway. If Alan sees your post, I'll be interested in his thoughts on this.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I concur with Mike and David. The 35% graph has the potential to bet flatter with less EQ...always a good thing.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Adam,
> 
> I am afraid that I am saying what you think I am saying.  The 20Hz tuning mode on the Ultras allows for an average of about 1db more max SPL at most frequencies, which you would never notice, even at max output. But, it gives up about 8db of output (per sub) below 20Hz, which you most assuredly will notice, especially for movies with lots of low bass. The Ultras were designed to operate most effectively for movies with the low port tune, although SVS has always offered multiple tuning options on its high-end subs. But SVS, and all professional reviewers I have ever read, including Data-Bass and Audioholics, recommend using the low port tune. If you try it for movies, with lots of low bass content, I don't think you will go back to the 20Hz (two port) tune.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: You might want to try dropping the tuning point just as an experiment. (Don't forget to change the port tune in the amp controls.) But, if you decide to operate with the subs in that mode, it would be a good idea to rerun Audyssey.


I am currently running with 2 of 3 ports plugged. Sorry but I am confused and not following you. Or perhaps I was unclear in my original post. As far as I am aware. There are four tuning points. All ports open, one port plugged, two ports plugged, and Sealed with all three ports plugged. Are you saying that going to just one port plugged I will get better performance? I don't understand your terminology of "Low Port Tune". Or are you suggesting sealed mode?

I must be me because you are always quite clear in your explanations. So my apologies in advance for asking you to explain further.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> I am currently running with 2 of 3 ports plugged. Sorry but I am confused and not following you. Or perhaps I was unclear in my original post. As far as I am aware. There are four tuning points. All ports open, one port plugged, two ports plugged, and Sealed with all three ports plugged. Are you saying that going to just one port plugged I will get better performance? I don't understand your terminology of "Low Port Tune". Or are you suggesting sealed mode?
> 
> I must be me because you are always quite clear in your explanations. So my apologies in advance for asking you to explain further.


No apology necessary, Adam. I'm sorry if I weren't clear. There are actually only three tuning options with the PB13 (or PC13). I will post a link to the three port tunes, as measured by Data-Bass, so that you can compare the measured results with each mode. And, I wrote it wrong the first time.

The recommended mode is the 15Hz mode, where one port is plugged, and the matching DSP is set in the amplifier using the digital controls. The second mode is the 20Hz mode, which involves leaving all three ports open, with the corresponding DSP. The third mode is the sealed mode, with all three ports plugged, and the corresponding DSP. Running the sub with two ports open is not a sanctioned option, or something that the sub was designed to do. There is no corresponding digital processing for that, and I have no idea what would happen if someone tried it.

http://www.data-bass.com/systems

The comparison that I made in my first response was between the 15Hz (one port plugged) option, which is recommended, and the 20Hz (all ports open) option. I mistakenly referred to the 20Hz option as two ports plugged, and then started to repeat the mistake in this post. Duh! Plugging just one port will enable the sub to have much deeper bass, with substantially more SPL below 20Hz. Ported subs (typically) roll-off at a rate of 24db per octave, below their port tune. That is why you get so much less low bass in the 20Hz mode.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: If you aren't used to looking at this Data-Bass page, which is a terrific resource, just scroll down to SVS PB13, and you will see the three port tunes compared by frequency. You will note that the 15Hz and 20Hz options are quite similar, above 20Hz, with the 20Hz mode having a very slight advantage. But, below 20Hz, that mode drops like a rock, while the 15Hz mode stays fairly strong.


----------



## tgambaro

*Ribbon Mic Clip*



Methodical_1 said:


> Thanks for the info, but a light just went off in my head. I forgot that one of my tripod (Manfrotto) could be converted to a boom and couple that with the Manfrotto ball head (488rc2) with 180* tilt, I am golden. I figured with all this camera stuff something I already had should work.
> 
> 
> 
> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Mike. I just don't see how that boom would get the mic near position. I'm seeing that you screw the Mic onto the tip of the boom and it would be parallel to the floor and not pointing up. Maybe I'm not seeing it correctly from the pictures on Amazon. If I use the adapter Matt linked above on my tripod boom, I can angle the mount so that the mic points toward the ceiling.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan, the link I have in my signature is the permalink (the actual post link) and not just a link to that particular page and should take you directly to his post without even caring about the page itself, unless I am still missing something.
> 
> Thanks again everyone for your time and help.
> 
> 
> 
> Try one of these... The Audy mic fits inside and it's suspended with rubber bands... Attach it to the boom!
> 
> https://www.adorama.com/gar1sm.html...tH9s6RNqSoXYoXvpXGm7pKKL-luQgyGdNvRoCEljw_wcB
Click to expand...


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> No apology necessary, Adam. I'm sorry if I weren't clear. There are actually only three tuning options with the PB13 (or PC13). I will post a link to the three port tunes, as measured by Data-Bass, so that you can compare the measured results with each mode.
> 
> The recommended mode is the 15Hz mode, where one port is plugged, and the matching DSP is set in the amplifier using the digital controls. The second mode is the 20Hz mode, which you say you are using now. That involves plugging two of the three ports, with the corresponding DSP. The third mode is the sealed mode, with all three ports plugged, and the corresponding DSP. Running the sub with all three ports open is not a sanctioned option, or something that the sub was designed to do. There is no corresponding digital processing for that, and I have no idea what would happen if someone tried it.
> 
> http://www.data-bass.com/systems
> 
> The comparison that I made in my first response was between the 15Hz (one port plugged) option, which is recommended, and the 20Hz (two ports plugged) option, which is what you are using now. Plugging just one port will enable the sub to have much deeper bass, with substantially more SPL below 20Hz. Ported subs (typically) roll-off at a rate of 24db per octave, below their port tune. That is why you get so much less low bass in the 20Hz mode.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Well, we finally disagree on something. I knew the day would come . My 13's have 4 tuning points. They are all outlined in the Manual. Sealed, 10HZ, 15Hz and 20Hz. I have the older Bash 750W Amp all knob adjustments. No digital controls and not the updated Sledge 1000W Amp. I am aware that SVS dropped the 10Hz tune from the next gen PB13. That being said.

I hear and understand what you are saying about tuning points. I had thought the 10Hz tune was optimal. Perhaps I am wrong and misunderstood this tuning thing. If you concur I may pull a plug, set Sub to 15Hz tuning and give Audyssey a new run. But I don't want to do all this if once again I am not understanding or that we are now on the same page. Running Audyssey is a Big PITA when I have to manually dial down the subs (once again) to get the target -11.5bd. Then post Audyssey boost the Amp gain and try to manually level match these Subs.

Mike, I am mobility challenged. So this is quite an effort for me. Now you know why I may be reluctant to do all this if I have once again misunderstood your meaning. 

Like most people here, I am always seeking ways and methods to squeeze every ounce of performance from my A/V gear. Thanks Mike for helping me further understand this.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike,
> 
> Well, we finally disagree on something. I knew the day would come . My 13's have 4 tuning points. They are all outlined in the Manual. Sealed, 10HZ, 15Hz and 20Hz. I have the older Bash 750W Amp all knob adjustments. No digital controls and not the updated Sledge 1000W Amp. I am aware that SVS dropped the 10Hz tune from the next gen PB13. That being said.
> 
> I hear and understand what you are saying about tuning points. I had thought the 10Hz tune was optimal. Perhaps I am wrong and misunderstood this tuning thing. If you concur I may pull a plug, set Sub to 15Hz tuning and give Audyssey a new run. But I don't want to do all this if once again I am not understanding or that we are now on the same page. Running Audyssey is a Big PITA when I have to manually dial down the subs (once again) to get the target -11.5bd. Then post Audyssey boost the Amp gain and try to manually level match these Subs.
> 
> Mike, I am mobility challenged. So this is quite an effort for me. Now you know why I may be reluctant to do all this if I have once again misunderstood your meaning.
> 
> Like most people here, I am always seeking ways and methods to squeeze every ounce of performance from my A/V gear. Thanks Mike for helping me further understand this.



You are welcome, Adam, and no wonder I got myself completely confused on this. You will notice that I have already edited my post that you just quoted, as you were posting this one. I couldn't quite figure out what a two-port tune was. I had forgotten about the older PC13, with the Bash amps. And, I really have no idea how effective that 10Hz port tune would be, compared to the 15Hz tune. 

I don't want to steer you wrong on this, particularly if having to redo everything is physically difficult. I find having to change and rerun things a bit of a PITA, even without mobility issues. So, I understand. And, I'm not sure how much extra performance you might get, anyway. FWIW, though, if you were going from the 10Hz port tune, to the 15Hz port tune, Audyssey would still be EQing the full frequency response, so I don't know that you would really need to rerun Audyssey. If you were dropping the F3 point, you probably would. But, just going up a little, maybe not.

Intuitively, I am skeptical that the PC13, with a 750 watt amp, can produce enough SPL to be meaningful at 10Hz. So, I suspect that was more of a marketing thing than anything else. My guess is that the 15Hz port tune would still hit a better sweet spot. But, it's just a guess. Since you have talked to Ed before, he is the one I would consult on this, if you want some expert advice, versus my decidedly inexpert advice. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garnuts

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike,
> 
> Well, we finally disagree on something. I knew the day would come . My 13's have 4 tuning points. They are all outlined in the Manual. Sealed, 10HZ, 15Hz and 20Hz. I have the older Bash 750W Amp all knob adjustments. No digital controls and not the updated Sledge 1000W Amp. I am aware that SVS dropped the 10Hz tune from the next gen PB13. That being said.
> 
> I hear and understand what you are saying about tuning points. I had thought the 10Hz tune was optimal. Perhaps I am wrong and misunderstood this tuning thing. If you concur I may pull a plug, set Sub to 15Hz tuning and give Audyssey a new run. But I don't want to do all this if once again I am not understanding or that we are now on the same page. Running Audyssey is a Big PITA when I have to manually dial down the subs (once again) to get the target -11.5bd. Then post Audyssey boost the Amp gain and try to manually level match these Subs.
> 
> Mike, I am mobility challenged. So this is quite an effort for me. Now you know why I may be reluctant to do all this if I have once again misunderstood your meaning.
> 
> Like most people here, I am always seeking ways and methods to squeeze every ounce of performance from my A/V gear. Thanks Mike for helping me further understand this.



I didn't realize the older version of the ported 13's had a 2-port plugged option.

All current SVS ported subs do NOT support a 2-port plugged option.

Check the current manuals on the SVS website for all ported 12, 13, and 16 models under the 'Port Tuning' section:

For 12's & 13's:

"Stock Tune (no ports blocked)..... 20Hz

One port blocked.........................16Hz

*Two ports blocked....................NA (not supported)*

Three ports blocked.....................Sealed"

For PB16:

"Port Tuning
Port blocking allows custom tuning of your PB16-Ultra Subwoofer based on listening preference
by exchanging max output for low frequency depth and quickness. Be sure to use the included
foam port plugs and match port blocking with the selected tuning.

Three tunings are available:

Standard Tune = All ports open (highest maximum output)
Extended tune = One port plugged (deeper extension, slightly less maximum output)
Sealed tune = All ports plugged (best transient response)"

.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, Adam, and no wonder I got myself completely confused on this. You will notice that I have already edited my post that you just quoted, as you were posting this one. I couldn't quite figure out what a two-port tune was. I had forgotten about the older PC13, with the Bash amps. And, I really have no idea how effective that 10Hz port tune would be, compared to the 15Hz tune.
> 
> I don't want to steer you wrong on this, particularly if having to redo everything is physically difficult. I find having to change and rerun things a bit of a PITA, even without mobility issues. So, I understand. And, I'm not sure how much extra performance you might get, anyway. FWIW, though, if you were going from the 10Hz port tune, to the 15Hz port tune, Audyssey would still be EQing the full frequency response, so I don't know that you would really need to rerun Audyssey. If you were dropping the F3 point, you probably would. But, just going up a little, maybe not.
> 
> Intuitively, I am skeptical that the PC13, with a 750 watt amp, can produce enough SPL to be meaningful at 10Hz. So, I suspect that was more of a marketing thing than anything else. My guess is that the 15Hz port tune would still hit a better sweet spot. But, it's just a guess. Since you have talked to Ed before, he is the one I would consult on this, if you want some expert advice, versus my decidedly inexpert advice.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Once again we must disagree! Your advice and opinion are MOST certainly of the Expert quality. You do yourself a disservice. I commend you on your modesty. I will take the hit for not mentioning exactly what 13's I had. I keep forgetting there are 2 different versions of the same sub. All is clear now!

About having to rerun audyssey when moving the tune point higher. A purist would say DO IT! However, I tend to agree with you that it may not be necessary at this point. So puling one plug and flipping a knob on each Sub is something I can do easily enough. I intend to do exactly that and commence auditioning how this mode works in comparison to the 10Hz tune. Just a FYI. I chose the 10Hz tune as it presented the deepest bass you actually can feel. Sealed was just too much spl reduction. It is possible I never really gave the 15hz tune a real trial. So now is as good a time as any.

Mike, you have my deepest gratitude. For providing help, advice and guidance to me and others in the continuing search of Configuration Perfection. Your modest, gracious and eager approach is most pleasurable. Refreshing to say the least. You help make this Forum a great place to come ask questions without the fear of being made to look the fool.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Once again we must disagree! Your advice and opinion are MOST certainly of the Expert quality. You do yourself a disservice. I commend you on your modesty. I will take the hit for not mentioning exactly what 13's I had. I keep forgetting there are 2 different versions of the same sub. All is clear now!
> 
> About having to rerun audyssey when moving the tune point higher. A purist would say DO IT! However, I tend to agree with you that it may not be necessary at this point. So puling one plug and flipping a knob on each Sub is something I can do easily enough. I intend to do exactly that and commence auditioning how this mode works in comparison to the 10Hz tune. Just a FYI. I chose the 10Hz tune as it presented the deepest bass you actually can feel. Sealed was just too much spl reduction. It is possible I never really gave the 15hz tune a real trial. So now is as good a time as any.
> 
> Mike, you have my deepest gratitude. For providing help, advice and guidance to me and others in the continuing search of Configuration Perfection. Your modest, gracious and eager approach is most pleasurable. Refreshing to say the least. You help make this Forum a great place to come ask questions without the fear of being made to look the fool.



Thanks, Adam! I really appreciate your kind words. And, as always, you are a complete gentleman in your posts.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

garnuts said:


> I didn't realize the older version of the ported 13's had a 2-port plugged option.
> 
> All current SVS ported subs do NOT support a 2-port plugged option.
> 
> Check the current manuals on the SVS website for all ported 12, 13, and 16 models under the 'Port Tuning' section:
> 
> For 12's & 13's:
> 
> "Stock Tune (no ports blocked)..... 20Hz
> 
> One port blocked.........................16Hz
> 
> *Two ports blocked....................NA (not supported)*
> 
> Three ports blocked.....................Sealed"
> 
> For PB16:
> 
> "Port Tuning
> Port blocking allows custom tuning of your PB16-Ultra Subwoofer based on listening preference
> by exchanging max output for low frequency depth and quickness. Be sure to use the included
> foam port plugs and match port blocking with the selected tuning.
> 
> Three tunings are available:
> 
> Standard Tune = All ports open (highest maximum output)
> Extended tune = One port plugged (deeper extension, slightly less maximum output)
> Sealed tune = All ports plugged (best transient response)"
> 
> .


Yeah, SVS made this configuration change when they introduced the 1000W Amp upgraded model. They dropped the 10Hz tune mode and moved the 15Hz tune to 16hz. But, you will just have to trust me on this. The Original PB-13 did indeed have four supported tuning modes. Thanks for your input. I do appreciate your help.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

I just realized I may have derailed this thread. I completely forgot this is the Audyssey Part II thread.

My sincere apologies for the derail. I will take any further discussion about Subs to the Sub Section.


----------



## garnuts

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Yeah, SVS made this configuration change when they introduced the 1000W Amp upgraded model. They dropped the 10Hz tune mode and moved the 15Hz tune to 16hz. But, you will just have to trust me on this. The Original PB-13 did indeed have four supported tuning modes. Thanks for your input. I do appreciate your help.



Oh, I trust you. I had just never seen anyone on this thread or on the subwoofer threads say they were plugging two ports.


I also wanted to make sure that anyone with an SVS ported sub purchased new in the last 6 years didn't try running their sub with 2 ports plugged. (All the current manuals for the 12's & 13's on the website are dated 2011).

.


----------



## David Aiken

kevbo123 said:


> Thanks David for the comprehensive reply. Two things:
> 1. The response in my graph is the combined response of both subwoofers + the centre speaker. I'm hoping that gives a better idea of an overall response for mostly movie viewing.
> 2. Crossover is set to 120hz.
> Hoping to redo Audyssey with the 35% placement tonight then I'll post the result.





kevbo123 said:


> I'm adding +8Db (DEQ OFF) so hoping the 35% placement gives me a bit more headroom.



In that case I definitely think the 35% option is the best. I'd be interested to see the result when you post it, especially if you can show a comparison with plots for the 2 corrected responses only.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> I just realized I may have derailed this thread. I completely forgot this is the Audyssey Part II thread.
> 
> My sincere apologies for the derail. I will take any further discussion about Subs to the Sub Section.


Adam,

I honestly don't see this kind of a discussion as a derailment unless it causes more specifically relevant conversations to be pushed to one side. And, that clearly hasn't happened. I wish that you would post your impressions of the port tune comparison, here. I'm sure that I am not the only one interested in the results, at this point. Besides, we frequently talk about almost anything audio-related on this thread. In my opinion, that's part of what keeps the thread vital and interesting.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## adrummingdude

Hi guys. My apologies if this has been addressed in the 1000 pages of either thread. Can anyone riddle me why when using the center channel or subwoofer level adjust feature, the speakers get considerably louder just by selecting "yes," but not moving the level off of 0db? 

Is the processor changing the level of the speaker from whatever the calibration set it to (say, -10) to 0db when the level adjust is on? If so, that seems like a dumb way to do it. It would make more sense for the adjustment value to be relative to the audessey setting.


----------



## David Aiken

adrummingdude said:


> Hi guys. My apologies if this has been addressed in the 1000 pages of either thread. Can anyone riddle me why when using the center channel or subwoofer level adjust feature, the speakers get considerably louder just by selecting "yes," but not moving the level off of 0db?
> 
> Is the processor changing the level of the speaker from whatever the calibration set it to (say, -10) to 0db when the level adjust is on? If so, that seems like a dumb way to do it. It would make more sense for the adjustment value to be relative to the audessey setting.


It's because 0 dB in those options is Reference Level, the same as a 0 dB trim setting. For the volume to stay the same, those settings have to be set to the same values as your trim settings. You'd think that would happen automatically so that you could just adjust it up or down by the amount you wanted to adjust it by, or instead that the 0 db was a relative amount signifying no change to the trim setting and that whatever value you set would adjust the level up or down by that amount but it doesn't work that way.

It's easier just to manually adjust the actual trim settings otherwise you have to look up the trim setting, work out what level you want to adjust it to, and then adjust the value in those settings to that level.

Not only is it user unfriendly software design, it's a confusing design that ends up having people continually trying to work out what's going on.

Basically it is the way it is because some software designers set it up in a stupid way in order to make you feel stupid and ask questions but they forgot to put themselves in the position where they would be the ones answering the question so they could feel smart, so they ended up being doubly stupid.


----------



## adrummingdude

David Aiken said:


> It's because 0 dB in those options is Reference Level, the same as a 0 dB trim setting. For the volume to stay the same, those settings have to be set to the same values as your trim settings. You'd think that would happen automatically so that you could just adjust it up or down by the amount you wanted to adjust it by, or instead that the 0 db was a relative amount signifying no change to the trim setting and that whatever value you set would adjust the level up or down by that amount but it doesn't work that way.
> 
> It's easier just to manually adjust the actual trim settings otherwise you have to look up the trim setting, work out what level you want to adjust it to, and then adjust the value in those settings to that level.
> 
> Not only is it user unfriendly software design, it's a confusing design that ends up having people continually trying to work out what's going on.
> 
> Basically it is the way it is because some software designers set it up in a stupid way in order to make you feel stupid and ask questions but they forgot to put themselves in the position where they would be the ones answering the question so they could feel smart, so they ended up being doubly stupid.


Thanks for the reply, David. That is exactly what I suspected was going on, and I agree that it is a pretty stupid way of implementing a trim adjustment. I'm probably not alone in initially assuming 0db is equal to and calibrated on the already existing channel trims. I'm going to leave it off.


----------



## kevbo123

David Aiken said:


> In that case I definitely think the 35% option is the best. I'd be interested to see the result when you post it, especially if you can show a comparison with plots for the 2 corrected responses only.


Here we go - both corrected responses for 25% and 35% in. Playing both subs and center channel, crossover at 120hz. Bass is definitely punchier and more tactile. Strangely enough I'm not sure I'm totally sold on the overall sound though compared to the 25% configuration - although the graphs say I should be  Having said that I'll reserve judgement for when I have more time for a longer listen.


----------



## David Aiken

kevbo123 said:


> Here we go - both corrected responses for 25% and 35% in. Playing both subs and center channel, crossover at 120hz. Bass is definitely punchier and more tactile. Strangely enough I'm not sure I'm totally sold on the overall sound though compared to the 25% configuration - although the graphs say I should be  Having said that I'll reserve judgement for when I have more time for a longer listen.


I wouldn’t say that you have to be sold on the 35% result based on the measurements. I don’t think measurements can generally give us that kind of information, at least not without some other information which I don’t think you have.

Look, the Audyssey Reference curve is not something which has been objectively proven to make people happy. Actually, that puts what’s going on totally the wrong way around. The Reference Curve is the average of the preferences of a sample of subjects and, as an average, may well not have been the actual preference of anyone. Probably a lot of people like something close to it, perhaps even a majority may like something close to it, but a lot of people will prefer something considerably different to it. The Flat curve approximates something we actually never hear in real life because acoustic effects modify nearly everything we hear. These options are great if one of them sounds better to you than what you hear without them but you can’t look at those 2 curves and then at the measurement result you get in your room and say which one you would prefer based on the curve unless you’re familiar with measurement plots for test tones in a room and setup with sound you like and most of us have no idea what the measurement plots for the results we like look like.

So, I don’t think you can tell much about whether or not you’ll prefer the result one way or the other by comparing the plots. I think the plots are interesting because they confirm our feeling that the 35% result would at the least measure better.

One thing I will say when comparing results like these in real life is that often we prefer the sound we are most familiar with, the sound that’s closest to what we’re used to, but strangely if we live with the other sound for a while and get used to it we can sometimes find ourselves preferring the unfamiliar sound, but we have to become familiar with it first. We have a preference for the familiar because we’re used to it, we know what to expect and that we like it, and it doesn’t surprise us or distract us by doing something unexpected and breaking us out of our relaxation and enjoyment. It can be hard to be objective about sound until you’ve lived with it for a while so what I’d do is live with the 35% settings for a week or so until I got used to it and then swap back to the 25% result. The one you prefer after the swap back to the 25% settings is likely to be the one you prefer, not necessarily the one you prefer when you swap from the 25% setting which you were used to, to a new setting.


----------



## Jim1290

Hi Mike,

Here is the floor drawing I promised, and hopefully it's good enough to understand.
Please ask should you have any questions. And please advise if the subs should be placed differently. I have more rooms to place along the front wall, but that's about it. Thanks for your time!


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## Scott Oakley

Methodical_1 said:


> It was the information that mthomas posted on the Sub level trim (see you found it.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for mic boom information fellas. I just viewed the mic stand and can't visualize how the Audyssey mic will sit pointed upward (per avr instructions) when boomed over the listening position. I have tripods and booms and would need to use an adapter with 180* tilt. If you know of any, I'd appreciate it if you let me know. Meanwhile, I will search to see if there's an adapter out there to use with my existing gear. Below is similar to what I need, but with 1/4-20 thread.
> 
> ball joint mic adater


I used these parts and they work just fine. You can angle the stand and adapter right to where your head would be; the mic can be angled just shy of straight up.

Adapter: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GWCC4I/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Stand:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000978D58/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Scott


----------



## mthomas47

kevbo123 said:


> Here we go - both corrected responses for 25% and 35% in. Playing both subs and center channel, crossover at 120hz. Bass is definitely punchier and more tactile. Strangely enough I'm not sure I'm totally sold on the overall sound though compared to the 25% configuration - although the graphs say I should be  Having said that I'll reserve judgement for when I have more time for a longer listen.


Hi,

That's interesting. Just looking at the graph, I would expect the 35% in from the wall positioning to sound better, because you don't have the big dip between 70Hz and 80Hz to contend with. But, I have long suspected that we can't identify the absence of missing frequencies as easily as we can the presence of more aggressive frequencies. So, if you end up liking the red response better than the blue one, that might be a partial confirmation of that idea.

I do know that I have seen people chase measured nulls (usually much narrower and deeper than your dip, centered at 75Hz) to the point of obsession. And, it has never been clear in talking to them, in those instances, that they were able to hear any adverse impact on their actual sound quality. My speculation has always been that overtones and undertones would mask those missing frequencies, particularly where the frequency range was very small. In this case, even a few Hz, between 70Hz and 80Hz would only constitute a fraction of an octave, although it would be at least a couple of notes. But again, overtones and undertones would help to obscure any missing notes, in a way that our brains can't easily notice. 

On the other hand, the relatively louder tones, between about 60Hz and 90Hz, in the blue trace, might be much more difficult for our brains to ignore. And, as a result, the red trace might actually present a smoother and more uniform sound. In the end, you should just pick the sound that appeals to you more, as David suggested. But, based on my speculation above, if you do end up liking the red trace better, I'm not sure that we should be too surprised.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Here is the floor drawing I promised, and hopefully it's good enough to understand.
> Please ask should you have any questions. And please advise if the subs should be placed differently. I have more rooms to place along the front wall, but that's about it. Thanks for your time!
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim


Hi Jim,

You are welcome to my time, but how much good advice I can give you is another question. From your drawing, that looks like a very nice room. But, I can see that space is tight.

Let me just share some general ideas with you, and then when you have your new subs, you can examine your placement options with these ideas in mind. First, in general, the more opposing walls you can use for your subs, the better your overall frequency response is likely to be. Second, the closer together the subs are to each other, the more they will mutually couple, reinforcing their combined output, but reducing their ability to compensate for each other with respect to frequency response.

With that in mind, I would probably try to separate the subs on the front wall, as much as possible, and I would probably try to find an alternative location for one of the two subs behind the sofa. I think that positioning one of the tall XTZ subs directly behind your MLP will be terrific. Having the drivers firing straight into your back will give you outstanding tactile response. But, I might see if I could find an opposing wall for the other one. Frankly having two large ported subs firing at you from such close range might be a little overwhelming, anyway. If that location were my only option, I would probably just start with three subs, and see what happens, because the single large ported sub, behind your back, is going to be very powerful in that position.

These are just general thoughts, though, and you will have to make your final decisions based on a combination of factors, including both functional and aesthetic considerations. In my own mixed-use room, I have found that a little imagination can go a long way when it comes to even fairly modest furniture rearrangements. Sometimes, moving a speaker or a cabinet over, by even a foot, opens up a better location for a subwoofer, for instance. Once you are actually trying some placement options for your new subs, please keep me informed of your progress.

I don't think I have ever seen a floor plan of your room, before. But, if you have been reading the thread for a while, you will have seen recommendations with respect to large tables directly in front of the main listening position. Regardless of any other room treatments, or acoustical conditions, the presence of a large table between the center channel (and front speakers) and the MLP is an almost sure recipe for distortion. Covering the table with something absorbent is best (or placing magazines and books on it to act as diffusers). Covering it with something absorbent, during calibration, and then also during more serious listening sessions, is second best. And, removing the table, or covering it with something absorbent, only during calibration (returning it to it's natural state afterwards) is probably third best. If I were you, I would explore some options for improving my sound quality, in that regard.

I hope some of this is helpful to you. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Anthony Stark

I wanted to say "THANK YOU" to the guys sharing the knowledge in this thread. I have an Onkyo RZ-800 receiver which of course doesn't have Audyssey but manually tweaking my set up is always great fun. Bottomline is my sub trim is set at -5 now and I couldn't be happier with the result. The sub projects so much cleaner while still having the punch in the kick drum and rumble during movies and gaming. Thank you again


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Adam,
> 
> I wish that you would post your impressions of the port tune comparison, here. I'm sure that I am not the only one interested in the results, at this point.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike and others whom may be interested in the subject results.

So I went ahead and opened up two of three ports and set the Sub to 15Hz settings. While I believe I had trialed all four settings in my environment. Some things have changed. A new AVR, new TV Stand, Subs repositioned and a small stand alone room separator wall installed. Not to mention the addition of Dolby ATMOS and DTS X Neural. All of the above changes had Audyssey re-run to compensate. What I did not do is mess with the HZ tuning of the subs. So they have been running in 10Hz mode for several years. 

In previous test runs, I had found the 10Hz to produce that deep sound that makes you smile as you feel it hit you. So I entered this test a little sceptical that going to a higher tune point would make me happy.

I did Demos using GOT Blackwater Bay Scene from Season 2, a few scenes from Deadpool, A little Star Trek and a few SACD's (Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Roy Orbison, and some classical stuff (1812 Overture W/Real Cannon Sounds)). Ok, so I was totally taken by surprise in the GOT Blackwater Bay Scene. My Wife was sitting next to me on her Ipady. She stood up and asked me if I had bought more NEW SPEAKERS!!! (accompanied with the scornful staredown)

In the end, I had to go into the AVR setup and drop the Sub trims by 1.5 dbs. What a sweet surprise this was. The resulting improvement in SPL and the tactile feel of the Bass was very nice. Deep as before, but now with more authority/presence. This stuff is always hard to explain in words. As words just can not fully convey the message.

Funny part is, I entered this little experiment with a negative bias. I fully expected this to be a waste of time and that I would be returning the subs to their original 10Hz tune and moving on. Perhaps some of the improvement is due to the new AVR and Dolby ATMOS/DTS X CODECs. Lots of thoughts in my head. Did I overlook this tune from the get go and not give it time to breath? All of the above is possible and could be contributing to my current delightful discovery.

My Subs will be staying in the 15Hz configuration. I will be Smiling from ear to ear as I work my way thought a metric crap ton of new 4K UHD Movies. I have procured over 25 new UHD Movies. Dolby ATMOS is so awesome! 

A million thanks be upon you Mike. You have personally and significantly improved my Home Theatre experience. For that I can not be more thankful or full of gratitude. Did I say I love ATMOS?

Let the Movie marathon commence! Let loose the Dogs of Bass, and prepare for the carnage of binge watching!!:laugh:


----------



## bmcn

After many Audyssey runs with the same equipment hope to finally place mic and stand out of sight for a while. Thanks to everyone.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi Mike and others whom may be interested in the subject results.
> 
> So I went ahead and opened up two of three ports and set the Sub to 15Hz settings. While I believe I had trialed all four settings in my environment. Some things have changed. A new AVR, new TV Stand, Subs repositioned and a small stand alone room separator wall installed. Not to mention the addition of Dolby ATMOS and DTS X Neural. All of the above changes had Audyssey re-run to compensate. What I did not do is mess with the HZ tuning of the subs. So they have been running in 10Hz mode for several years.
> 
> In previous test runs, I had found the 10Hz to produce that deep sound that makes you smile as you feel it hit you. So I entered this test a little sceptical that going to a higher tune point would make me happy.
> 
> I did Demos using GOT Blackwater Bay Scene from Season 2, a few scenes from Deadpool, A little Star Trek and a few SACD's (Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Roy Orbison, and some classical stuff (1812 Overture W/Real Cannon Sounds)). Ok, so I was totally taken by surprise in the GOT Blackwater Bay Scene. My Wife was sitting next to me on her Ipady. She stood up and asked me if I had bought more NEW SPEAKERS!!! (accompanied with the scornful staredown)
> 
> In the end, I had to go into the AVR setup and drop the Sub trims by 1.5 dbs. What a sweet surprise this was. The resulting improvement in SPL and the tactile feel of the Bass was very nice. Deep as before, but now with more authority/presence. This stuff is always hard to explain in words. As words just can not fully convey the message.
> 
> Funny part is, I entered this little experiment with a negative bias. I fully expected this to be a waste of time and that I would be returning the subs to their original 10Hz tune and moving on. Perhaps some of the improvement is due to the new AVR and Dolby ATMOS/DTS X CODECs. Lots of thoughts in my head. Did I overlook this tune from the get go and not give it time to breath? All of the above is possible and could be contributing to my current delightful discovery.
> 
> My Subs will be staying in the 15Hz configuration. I will be Smiling from ear to ear as I work my way thought a metric crap ton of new 4K UHD Movies. I have procured over 25 new UHD Movies. Dolby ATMOS is so awesome!
> 
> A million thanks be upon you Mike. You have personally and significantly improved my Home Theatre experience. For that I can not be more thankful or full of gratitude. Did I say I love ATMOS?
> 
> Let the Movie marathon commence! Let loose the Dogs of Bass, and prepare for the carnage of binge watching!!:laugh:


That's outstanding, Adam!  I'm really glad. Helping someone else experience a better sound system is almost as much fun as experiencing it yourself.

Well, almost.


----------



## Jim1290

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> You are welcome to my time, but how much good advice I can give you is another question. From your drawing, that looks like a very nice room. But, I can see that space is tight.
> 
> Let me just share some general ideas with you, and then when you have your new subs, you can examine your placement options with these ideas in mind. First, in general, the more opposing walls you can use for your subs, the better your overall frequency response is likely to be. Second, the closer together the subs are to each other, the more they will mutually couple, reinforcing their combined output, but reducing their ability to compensate for each other with respect to frequency response.
> 
> With that in mind, I would probably try to separate the subs on the front wall, as much as possible, and I would probably try to find an alternative location for one of the two subs behind the sofa. I think that positioning one of the tall XTZ subs directly behind your MLP will be terrific. Having the drivers firing straight into your back will give you outstanding tactile response. But, I might see if I could find an opposing wall for the other one. Frankly having two large ported subs firing at you from such close range might be a little overwhelming, anyway. If that location were my only option, I would probably just start with three subs, and see what happens, because the single large ported sub, behind your back, is going to be very powerful in that position.
> 
> These are just general thoughts, though, and you will have to make your final decisions based on a combination of factors, including both functional and aesthetic considerations. In my own mixed-use room, I have found that a little imagination can go a long way when it comes to even fairly modest furniture rearrangements. Sometimes, moving a speaker or a cabinet over, by even a foot, opens up a better location for a subwoofer, for instance. Once you are actually trying some placement options for your new subs, please keep me informed of your progress.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen a floor plan of your room, before. But, if you have been reading the thread for a while, you will have seen recommendations with respect to large tables directly in front of the main listening position. Regardless of any other room treatments, or acoustical conditions, the presence of a large table between the center channel (and front speakers) and the MLP is an almost sure recipe for distortion. Covering the table with something absorbent is best (or placing magazines and books on it to act as diffusers). Covering it with something absorbent, during calibration, and then also during more serious listening sessions, is second best. And, removing the table, or covering it with something absorbent, only during calibration (returning it to it's natural state afterwards) is probably third best. If I were you, I would explore some options for improving my sound quality, in that regard.
> 
> I hope some of this is helpful to you.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Thank you very much for your advise and proper explanation. You are such a gentleman! Very helpful!

As you know that I have four Klipsch 115, the front two 115 are about 10 meters apart, good distance? And the two behind sofa are about 0.50 meter apart.
I am thinking to replace the front two 115 with two XTZ 3x12, and use the two 115 behind sofa as ONE - if that's possible, or else I will follow your advise to just place one XTZ 3x12 behind sofa.

The sofa is about 3 meters from TV, the table is hard wood but I can replace it with one leather table about same size, will that exchange help? I cannot move much other furniture, as they are mostly big pieces except dining chairs.
The placement for the four 115s now sounded best ( to me  ), compared to other limited options in my living room, I have moved the four 115s many times, even tried stack up front two corners and as well as stacked next to the two mains.

Thank you again Mike!


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## kevbo123

David Aiken said:


> One thing I will say when comparing results like these in real life is that often we prefer the sound we are most familiar with, the sound that’s closest to what we’re used to, but strangely if we live with the other sound for a while and get used to it we can sometimes find ourselves preferring the unfamiliar sound, but we have to become familiar with it first.


Going to leave it at 35% for a while. Watched The Hobbit - desolation of smaug last night and the dragon scene was impressive. 



mthomas47 said:


> On the other hand, the relatively louder tones, between about 60Hz and 90Hz, in the blue trace, might be much more difficult for our brains to ignore. And, as a result, the red trace might actually present a smoother and more uniform sound. In the end, you should just pick the sound that appeals to you more, as David suggested. But, based on my speculation above, if you do end up liking the red trace better, I'm not sure that we should be too surprised.


I like the extra punch the blue curves give, but yes the louder 60Hz and 90Hz is something I need to see if I can get used too. I personally prefer higher SPL in the lower notes than the more audible notes 60hz upwards. Although the blue curve does have a few +DB's between 40 - 60hz too. In summary I would never trade higher SPL between 60 - 100 for lower in the ULF. Although that doesnt seem to be the case here. My only caution would be that listening to the higher SPL in the more audible frequencies (where I now have a nice bump) may somehow mask the ULF's making them seem less. I think this can be mitigated though by enabling DEQ as it has a rising curve down to the ULF's.


----------



## tgambaro

*Interesting opinion on center plane mic placement...*

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...position-audyssey-dirac-live.html#post1168082

Position 1 being ear level....


----------



## tgambaro

*Rew Mic?*

Is there any reason why this mic would not work (Mxl550)? It's omni directional and I already own it.

http://www.mxlmics.com/microphones/studio/550-551/


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thank you very much for your advise and proper explanation. You are such a gentleman! Very helpful!
> 
> As you know that I have four Klipsch 115, the front two 115 are about 10 meters apart, good distance? And the two behind sofa are about 0.50 meter apart.
> I am thinking to replace the front two 115 with two XTZ 3x12, and use the two 115 behind sofa as ONE - if that's possible, or else I will follow your advise to just place one XTZ 3x12 behind sofa.
> 
> The sofa is about 3 meters from TV, the table is hard wood but I can replace it with one leather table about same size, will that exchange help? I cannot move much other furniture, as they are mostly big pieces except dining chairs.
> The placement for the four 115s now sounded best ( to me  ), compared to other limited options in my living room, I have moved the four 115s many times, even tried stack up front two corners and as well as stacked next to the two mains.
> 
> Thank you again Mike!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim


Hi Jim,

You are very welcome, and I am glad to help. There was a detail that I had missed in your floorplan. Your statement that your two front subs were 30m apart made me go back to look again. Although both subs are benefiting from corner loading, which is helpful in increasing total SPL, the sub in the dining room is so far away that I believe you are losing much more output than you are gaining from being in the corner. I wouldn't worry about perfect symmetry here. I would just try to get both front 115's generally within the same room. With that in mind, I would either try to position a sub under, or to the left of the window, which is next to your left front speaker. If you are using an XTZ there, remember that you can lay it on its side, under the window (if the window isn't full length) without affecting the sub's operation. 

I don't want to destroy the aesthetics of your room, but getting the second front sub into the general listening area is important. Subs (and speakers) lose 6db of volume for each doubling of distance from the MLP. Your left hand sub is currently contributing very little, in my opinion. So, keep them spread apart, to assist in better frequency response, but in the same room, within which your listening area is contained.

Your 115's behind the sofa present an entirely different situation. They are already mutually coupled in the same way they would be if you stacked them. So, they are already operating as a single, more powerful sub. When you increase the power of your front soundstage, by bringing the left hand sub back into the listening area, and by upgrading both subs, the dual 115's might balance that front soundstage, or they might not. I think it's worth a try, but since they already are mutually coupled anyway, I might try stacking them directly behind the MLP (I assume that's the center of the sofa) so that the top one fires directly into your back. That will increase your tactile response near the port tune, which should be about 20Hz, or so. I think you will like that arrangement. If you ever feel that they are not quite delivering what you want, you can always try a single XTZ in that location.

I was careful not to suggest removing your table. Those large coffee tables not only look nice in a living/family room, but they are also pretty functional. But, it's possible that a leather top table might give you a little less mid-range distortion, than a wood top table will. High frequencies will probably reflect from either table surface in about the same way. But, it's worth a try, in my opinion, if you don't feel that you are giving up too much aesthetically.

Remember, that you can also try just covering the top of the table with a blanket, during calibration, much as you would cover the back of the sofa. You would then remove the blanket after the calibration was complete. That could conceivably give you a better Audyssey calibration. Audyssey nearly always does a good job with low frequencies, but I think we sometimes have to exercise some care that Audyssey doesn't try to do too much with high frequencies. Discovering the best way to do that is mostly trial-and-error, until we find out what works well in our particular rooms.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

tgambaro said:


> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...position-audyssey-dirac-live.html#post1168082
> 
> Position 1 being ear level....



Interesting read. I skimmed it so I may well have missed some points.

It seems to me that the emphasis with that mic placement pattern is specifically on soundstage and imaging. In a setup without any room correction, e.g. a traditional stereo setup just using a stereo integrated amp or pre and power amps, the only locations where good soundstage and imaging will be heard are along a line midway between the speakers and at right angles to the speaker plane so that all points on the line are equidistant from each speaker. I’m in an audio club where we have meets at members homes and, since this is an audio club, the majority of the systems are stereo. I have seen the room set up with chairs placed along just such a line so that every position got good soundstage and imaging.

That doesn’t work particularly well as a normal seating arrangement for a multichannel AV setup for 2 reasons. The first is that for everyone other than the person in the front seat, you’ve got a head in front of you so unless you stagger seating heights or arrange the viewers in order from shortest to highest with the shortest person in front and the tallest person at the back, you’re likely to run into viewing problems, The second is that with a surround system, while this front to back seating arrangement would give very good left/right balance for everyone, the arrival times for the different speaker pairs and centre and subs is going to be different for every position. You will only get the sound from all speakers arriving at the same time in one position.

Audyssey is only offered in multichannel AV components at present unless you buy the stand alone processor which few people do. It’s used in home AV systems and in general the seating is either a sofa or chairs placed side by side across the room and at most 2 rows of seating. You would only see 3 or more rows of seats in a large, dedicated home theatre room and they are going to be in the minority in home AV setups. A single sofa or row of chairs is going to be the norm.

In a post I made some time ago, I theorised that a mic pattern which spanned a greater distance front to back than left to right might actually deliver a better bass EQ response than the standard pattern which in most cases is going to tend to have its longest dimension along the left to right axis.

So, there’s going to be tradeoffs whichever way you do your mic placement for multiple measurements and it isn’t immediately obvious to me which is going to deliver the best results. I’d say it’s going to depend on how many seats you have front to back, how many seats you have left to right, and where you place the side and rear surrounds in relation to the seats. It’s going to come down in the end to trying both arrangements to the extent that your room size allows for both sorts of seating arrangement and basing your mic placement to some degree on the seating arrangement, 

For those people like me who live alone and who really only need to consider one seating position provided the result is still good when they have a couple of friends over for a viewing session, it’s an interesting placement pattern to try and I may well try it at some time, but I don’t think it’s a practical pattern for most people using Audyssey. The more people you have to accommodate in your seating setup on a day to day basis, the worse the results are likely to be for the people furtherest from the measurement positions in my view. Even in my case where my listening position varies depending on whether I’m sitting in an armchair directly in front of the TV and centred on the front speakers, or lying on a sofa several feet to one side of the armchair, it may deliver worse results for the sofa position than does the normal mic pattern.

What a number of us have said on various occasions is that the mic pattern you use does have an effect on your results and we have encouraged experimentation with tighter vs more widely spaced mic positions when people have reported less than ideal results from following the standard Audyssey instructions. I think this is another placement pattern that can be experimented with if someone is not happy with the result using the recommended placement pattern but I think it’s likely to be more successful for those people setting up their system for listening by one or two people than it is for those setting up their system for a four or five person family with the seating arranged left to right.

As with many things, I think there’s a compromise involved but whatever mic placement pattern we choose to use there is a compromise involved. The big question is which is the best compromise for the room and seating arrangement we have and I know of no way of predicting that so it comes down to experimentation and that is a time consuming process which also brings problems when it comes to the accuracy of the comparisons we’re making. I don’t think this mic placement pattern is one I would routinely recommend to anyone who isn’t happy with the results they’re get following the standard instructions but it may certainly be worth trying bu some people.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

I think that David gave an excellent overall analysis of the difficulty of recommending any specific microphone pattern to apply to rooms, in general. And, I agree that the more normal pattern, currently recommended by Audyssey, or perhaps slightly tighter than the one recommended by Audyssey, is probably the best starting point.

But, this concept of using fewer mic positions has been around for awhile, and has been a much-discussed topic on this and other threads. Should we use fewer than the recommended number of mic positions? Should we, in fact, only use one mic position? In theory, if we do that, we are losing the benefit of Audyssey's ability to do fuzzy logic weighting of a listening area, and we are actually EQing only a single point in space. Can we use several mic positions in a line going upward with a high-back chair, and improve on the results of using just a single mic position? Can we use three mic positions, or five, in a very tight circle corresponding to the head of a single person? They are all fair questions, and people have gotten a variety of results in trying to answer them.

I think it is hard to argue that the tester got a very good frequency response, at a single point in space, with the methodology he used. Whether he would have gotten as good a measurement, if he had measured even a few inches to the right, or to the left, is a question that concerns me. This is the old head-in-a-vise quandary. Even when we are interested in only a single listening positioning, we can't measure at a single point in space, and represent the way that people actually listen to music or watch a movie, because we simply don't keep our heads perfectly still. And, obviously the problem potentially worsens, if there are other seats involved.

I would love for the tester to have compared the results of his methodology to other more standard microphone patterns, to see whether they would also have produced good measured responses in his particular room. And, I would have liked to see multiple measurement positions employed to determine whether the frequency response were only good at that precise point in space. I saw the author's rationale for not doing that, but it struck me as more rationalization than rationale. It's a fairly well-observed fact that frequency response can vary with measurements taken within a few inches to either side, front or back, up or down. That's the main reason for the development of Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting algorithm, in the first place.

None of that is intended to disparage the test, or the tester. I agree that it was an interesting experiment, and it could well be that the mic pattern suggested, could end up working very well in another specific situation. But, I do think that it is difficult to draw many real conclusions from that test. Experimentation to discover the microphone pattern that works best for our particular rooms is still going to be necessary. And, I would be inclined to start with recommended approaches first, and to progress to more extreme, or exotic ones, only out of necessity and/or curiosity.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …Experimentation to discover the microphone pattern that works best for our particular rooms is still going to be necessary. And, I would be inclined to start with recommended approaches first, and to progress to more extreme, or exotic ones, only out of necessity and/or curiosity.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Really, Mike? I think it's possible to discover a pattern that works better than any other pattern we've tried but discovering the pattern that works best for our room is impossible unless we exhaust every conceivable pattern possible and that's impossible. We would never stop running setup over and over again with a variation of some kind each time. We might get lucky and actually discover the best pattern but we could never know that it was actually the best unless we kept going and exhausted every possibility, all we could be certain of is that it was the best pattern we had tried.

Starting with the recommended approach and then trying others out of necessity and/or curiosity? Amen to that because that's our best option but we're going to end up stopping when we think our result is "good enough". It may even be the best result but we're never going to know that for certain. Sooner or later the desire to start watching movies or listening to music is going to win out over the desire to satisfy ourselves for certain that we really have discovered the best option for our room and I'm happy to give in to that desire and give up on the quest for certainty


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Really, Mike? I think it's possible to discover a pattern that works better than any other pattern we've tried but discovering the pattern that works best for our room is impossible unless we exhaust every conceivable pattern possible and that's impossible. We would never stop running setup over and over again with a variation of some kind each time. We might get lucky and actually discover the best pattern but we could never know that it was actually the best unless we kept going and exhausted every possibility, all we could be certain of is that it was the best pattern we had tried.
> 
> Starting with the recommended approach and then trying others out of necessity and/or curiosity? Amen to that because that's our best option but we're going to end up stopping when we think our result is "good enough". It may even be the best result but we're never going to know that for certain. Sooner or later the desire to start watching movies or listening to music is going to win out over the desire to satisfy ourselves for certain that we really have discovered the best option for our room and I'm happy to give in to that desire and give up on the quest for certainty


I think you are being a little too literal, David. Finding "a pattern that works better than any other pattern we've tried" is pretty equivalent to finding "the pattern that works best for our particular room" unless you are really interested in parsing language. 

I think that those of us who are seriously curious about potential variations in sound quality, from different calibrations, will try a wide variety of mic patterns. And, from that experimentation, a pattern will emerge (double entendre intended), and we will begin to hone-in on a microphone configuration that seems to work best. We may not be able to precisely repeat that exact pattern from calibration-to-calibration. And, frankly I don't really try to do that, anymore, as I found that it didn't make that much difference in the resulting sound quality. But, I do try to generally repeat my most successful pattern (of course, of those I have tried), and then, as you say, I am happy to accept that it is good enough.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... all we could be certain of is that it was the best pattern we had tried ...


Isn't that what Mike meant? I don't think he was implying that certainty could be achieved. 

[EDIT: Mike himself responded while I was writing this]

Karl Popper wrote that science "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."


Edgar Villchur (the founder of Acoustic Research), in arguing against graphic equalizers (in about 1972) pointed out that our perception of frequency response changes appreciably if we move our head a small distance in any direction. That may have been the first time I heard that notion from somebody else, although I had noticed myself for many years. It has been repeated time and again since, most recently by Mike. Without room correction, we live with it. I assume that with something like REW, using one mic position only, we might improve response greatly from that one position. One of the attractions of Audyssey (for me, at least) is that 8 mic positions are used, and a good compromise EQ is achieved, at least after several trial calibrations. I've tried all five positions on our five cushion couch, and there seems to be a lot less variation with position with Audyssey on than with Audyssey off.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I think you are being a little too literal, David. Finding "a pattern that works better than any other pattern we've tried" is pretty equivalent to finding "the pattern that works best for our particular room" unless you are really interested in parsing language.  …


Yes, I'm being too literal 

And sometimes I don't know how to be anything else but absolutely literal. For Gary's sake I'll add that it's all due to too much time spent in the philosophy department in my undergrad days dealing with stuff written by the likes of Karl Popper and having to write assignments about what some of those people said. Argumentation in philosophy often comes down to taking what your opponent said quite literally and pulling it apart. One of the fascinating things about communication is often how easy it is to say what you mean without meaning what you say, or to mean what you say without saying what you mean. Philosophers are the people who try hardest to say what they mean and mean what they say so winning the debate often comes down to proving that they failed in one or the other of those endeavours. Poets and novelists, on the other hand, are often those who try hardest to find ways of doing one without doing the other.

Apart from AV things, language is one of the things in life which fascinates me most and it's hard to avoid playing with it at times, especially when presented with a good opportunity and that final paragraph of yours was a great opportunity after several paragraphs where you'd managed to say what you meant and mean what you said so well.


----------



## Jim1290

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> You are very welcome, and I am glad to help. There was a detail that I had missed in your floorplan. Your statement that your two front subs were 30m apart made me go back to look again. Although both subs are benefiting from corner loading, which is helpful in increasing total SPL, the sub in the dining room is so far away that I believe you are losing much more output than you are gaining from being in the corner. I wouldn't worry about perfect symmetry here. I would just try to get both front 115's generally within the same room. With that in mind, I would either try to position a sub under, or to the left of the window, which is next to your left front speaker. If you are using an XTZ there, remember that you can lay it on its side, under the window (if the window isn't full length) without affecting the sub's operation.
> 
> I don't want to destroy the aesthetics of your room, but getting the second front sub into the general listening area is important. Subs (and speakers) lose 6db of volume for each doubling of distance from the MLP. Your left hand sub is currently contributing very little, in my opinion. So, keep them spread apart, to assist in better frequency response, but in the same room, within which your listening area is contained.
> 
> Your 115's behind the sofa present an entirely different situation. They are already mutually coupled in the same way they would be if you stacked them. So, they are already operating as a single, more powerful sub. When you increase the power of your front soundstage, by bringing the left hand sub back into the listening area, and by upgrading both subs, the dual 115's might balance that front soundstage, or they might not. I think it's worth a try, but since they already are mutually coupled anyway, I might try stacking them directly behind the MLP (I assume that's the center of the sofa) so that the top one fires directly into your back. That will increase your tactile response near the port tune, which should be about 20Hz, or so. I think you will like that arrangement. If you ever feel that they are not quite delivering what you want, you can always try a single XTZ in that location.
> 
> I was careful not to suggest removing your table. Those large coffee tables not only look nice in a living/family room, but they are also pretty functional. But, it's possible that a leather top table might give you a little less mid-range distortion, than a wood top table will. High frequencies will probably reflect from either table surface in about the same way. But, it's worth a try, in my opinion, if you don't feel that you are giving up too much aesthetically.
> 
> Remember, that you can also try just covering the top of the table with a blanket, during calibration, much as you would cover the back of the sofa. You would then remove the blanket after the calibration was complete. That could conceivably give you a better Audyssey calibration. Audyssey nearly always does a good job with low frequencies, but I think we sometimes have to exercise some care that Audyssey doesn't try to do too much with high frequencies. Discovering the best way to do that is mostly trial-and-error, until we find out what works well in our particular rooms.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you very much Mike 

Will try out your advise over the weekend, if my other half would leave me alone...
Also, I am thinking that once I change subwoofers I would change the sofa and the table to better materials for sound, should that exist.

You have a nice weekend. I will try to PM you... old dog learning new tricks. 


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Thank you very much Mike
> 
> Will try out your advise over the weekend, if my other half would leave me alone...
> Also, I am thinking that once I change subwoofers I would change the sofa and the table to better materials for sound, should that exist.
> 
> You have a nice weekend. I will try to PM you... old dog learning new tricks.
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim


Hi Jim,

You are welcome! I will look forward to your PM. I think we are all constantly learning new tricks where audio is concerned. There is one point that I thought might be worth clarifying on the thread in case someone reading along gets the wrong impression from any of my posts.

In my opinion, there is no need to replace your sofa with something that is more acoustically-friendly. For instance, most home theaters have leather chairs, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. The sofa, or listening chair, is located far enough from the speakers to not present any particular problem. Sound waves are bouncing all over the room, anyway, including from our bodies, and that isn't normally something we have to worry about too much.

Where there can be a problem with a leather sofa, or chair, or sometimes even with a fabric sofa, is when we do an Audyssey calibration. That is because the Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" sound in exactly the same way that our ears do. Among other things, it is much more sensitive, and it is truly omnidirectional, where our ears are not quite. We don't hear sounds to our rear quite as well, due to our pinnae (ear flaps) for instance. 

When we do a calibration, we want to position the Audyssey microphone quite close to where our ears would be, and about at that same height. But, if we get the Audyssey microphone too close to a hard surface, such as a leather sofa back, high frequency reflections from the sofa will bounce into the Audyssey microphone from very close range, causing Audyssey to "hear" something that we would never hear. And, the result can be that Audyssey tries to "correct" something in the high frequency range that never needing correcting to begin with. To prevent that from happening, while still enabling us to position the Audyssey microphone near where our ears would be, I think that the best solution is to temporarily cover the back of the sofa with an absorbent blanket. The microphone should still be kept 4" to 6" away from the surface of the blanket, and the blanket can be removed after the calibration. It was only there to prevent Audyssey from "hearing" something that doesn't actually need fixing.

That is a new trick that this old dog learned several years ago on the Audyssey Thread Part I. The table in front of the sofa is a little different, because reflections from the surface of the table can arrive at the listening position, just close enough in time to the direct sounds of the speakers, to garble the sound a little bit. And, that can especially interfere with clear dialogue from the center channel, which is right in line with the table. The best solution is to try to cover the table with something decorative and absorbent, at least during the most important listening sessions. And, obviously, you would want to cover it during your Audyssey calibration, in that case. In addition, there is a chance that just covering the table during the calibration (and removing the covering afterwards) could help a little, as Audyssey may "hear" those reflections even more strongly than we do, and may try too hard to "fix" them. This is something that you would just have to experiment with to decide what you think sounds best.

But, FWIW, I sympathize a little bit with your wife. Aesthetics are important to me too. So, I see everything as a trade-off, where you are just trying to find the best compromise you can between form and function. The main thing, in my opinion, is to approach things somewhat systematically, understanding something of the acoustical causes and effects, and then experimenting to find out what your particular compromises should be. I know this sounds a little complicated, but based on what you said about moving your subs around, I don't think you will be reluctant to experiment, in order to find out what you prefer. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## t.stone13

My system is unfortunately (the next few months) in a very small room (10' x 8.5' x 8'). How far from the rear wall should I be measuring (I sit along the wall)? I have been doing 15" but I wonder if that is too deep for the room. I have included a rough sketch of the room.


----------



## mthomas47

t.stone13 said:


> My system is unfortunately (the next few months) in a very small room (10' x 8.5' x 8'). How far from the rear wall should I be measuring (I sit along the wall)? I have been doing 15" but I wonder if that is too deep for the room. I have included a rough sketch of the room.


Hi,

I just checked back on the thread, and I'm guessing that my post above raised some additional questions. Don't you hate when that happens? 

In a small room, I don't think you have a lot of choices about this sort of thing. Looking at your drawing, I would probably try to put something decorative and absorbent on the wall right behind your head. That should improve your mid and high frequency sound quality, irrespective of Audyssey. If I couldn't do that, I would probably put an absorbent blanket on the wall, a couple of feet up from the sofa, and over the back, during the Audyssey calibration. Then, I would calibrate from about that same 4" to 6" out from the blanket, that I suggested in the post above. 

Whether it's a wall, or a sofa, hard surfaces will create comb filtering effects, if the microphone gets too close to them. And yet, if we move the microphone too far forward of our actual ear position, Audyssey may not be EQing the correct area, so I think that the same blanket solution proposed above, would be a good expedient. The best solution, though, really would be something like a Navajo rug, or an acoustic panel, or something that would absorb or defuse sound on a permanent basis. That would help to make your high and mid-range frequencies sound clearer, even without whatever Audyssey may be doing.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> For Gary's sake I'll add that it's all due to too much time spent in the philosophy department in my undergrad days dealing with stuff written by the likes of Karl Popper and having to write assignments about what some of those people said. Argumentation in philosophy often comes down to taking what your opponent said quite literally and pulling it apart.
> 
> Poets and novelists, on the other hand, are often those who try hardest to find ways of doing one without doing the other.
> .


I was a philosophy major, briefly (between biology and psychology majors). I often found it more rewarding to try to read between the lines than to take apart what someone once wrote. I'm less interested in the precision of expression than the wellsprings of a person's point of view, and what they might be on to. While we cannot live (very well) without rationalism, I try to go to empiricism whenever possible, and dabble in the more difficult approach of intuition. 

IMO, poets and novelists usually try to say what they mean and mean what they say, selecting the exact words instead of the approximate words, unless they are trying to do something like displaying their own ambivalence. Someone asked Robert Frost to explicate one of his poems. He said something like, "What do you want me to do -- say it in "worser" English? 

I had better mention Audyssey fairly soon, or I may be hijacking the thread. So ... I was most gratified when Audyssey allowed me to once again thoroughly enjoy the Rene Leibowitz version of Beethoven's symphonies. The Chesky CD remasters never sounded right, compared to the old vinyl with my Ortofon cartridge in the best room I ever had, two houses ago. Audyssey civilized the CDs, and my present room, so they moved me deeply, just like the vinyl. They help me understand Beethoven's statement, "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."


----------



## David Aiken

Jim1290 said:


> Thank you very much Mike
> 
> Will try out your advise over the weekend, if my other half would leave me alone...
> Also, I am thinking that once I change subwoofers I would change the sofa and the table to better materials for sound, should that exist.
> 
> You have a nice weekend. I will try to PM you... old dog learning new tricks.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim





mthomas47 said:


> …
> In my opinion, there is no need to replace your sofa with something that is more acoustically-friendly. For instance, most home theaters have leather chairs, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. The sofa, or listening chair, is located far enough from the speakers to not present any particular problem. Sound waves are bouncing all over the room, anyway, including from our bodies, and that isn't normally something we have to worry about too much.
> 
> Where there can be a problem with a leather sofa, or chair, or sometimes even with a fabric sofa, is when we do an Audyssey calibration. That is because the Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" sound in exactly the same way that our ears do. Among other things, it is much more sensitive, and it is truly omnidirectional, where our ears are not quite. We don't hear sounds to our rear quite as well, due to our pinnae (ear flaps) for instance.
> 
> …
> 
> That is a new trick that this old dog learned several years ago on the Audyssey Thread Part I. The table in front of the sofa is a little different, because reflections from the surface of the table can arrive at the listening position, just close enough in time to the direct sounds of the speakers, to garble the sound a little bit. And, that can especially interfere with clear dialogue from the center channel, which is right in line with the table. The best solution is to try to cover the table with something decorative and absorbent, at least during the most important listening sessions. And, obviously, you would want to cover it during your Audyssey calibration, in that case. In addition, there is a chance that just covering the table during the calibration (and removing the covering afterwards) could help a little, as Audyssey may "hear" those reflections even more strongly than we do, and may try too hard to "fix" them. This is something that you would just have to experiment with to decide what you think sounds best.
> 
> But, FWIW, I sympathize a little bit with your wife. Aesthetics are important to me too. So, I see everything as a trade-off, where you are just trying to find the best compromise you can between form and function. The main thing, in my opinion, is to approach things somewhat systematically, understanding something of the acoustical causes and effects, and then experimenting to find out what your particular compromises should be. I know this sounds a little complicated, but based on what you said about moving your subs around, I don't think you will be reluctant to experiment, in order to find out what you prefer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


To add a couple of things to Mike's point:

I agree with Mike on the leather vs fabric for the sofa covering but that's not the whole of the sofa/chair question when it comes to acoustics. I've got 3 chairs with leather covers and don't think they are a problem but the cushioning on them is fairly thin. I have no "acoustic" problems related to them I used to have a leather sofa with spring upholstery and it also wasn't an issue for me acoustically but a bit over a year ago I changed the sofa for one with a fabric cover, mainly because fabric is more comfortable in our sub-tropical, high humidity summer heat wave weather where I am. The big change in the sofa, however, was that the new one isn't sprung, the seats and back rests are deep, dense foam and that made a difference because it provided more absorption of mid to high frequencies and probably a bit into the upper bass as well. Like Mike, I wouldn't recommend swapping sofas just to replace leather with fabric for acoustic purposes, it's a different matter if you're looking for a change in aesthetics or to avoid sticking to the leather in a summer heatwave, but I do think that thicker and/or denser foam cushioning can be beneficial so, depending on your sofa choice, you may get some acoustic benefit but I don't think there's enough in the leather/fabric issue to swap sofas for that reason if you're chasing acoustic benefit. A lot gets made of the high frequency reflectivity of leather but it's really just skin and you add a fair bit of that to the room when you get the family into it for a movie session after you've finished doing the setup process when you're the only person in the room. The effect of the leather surfaces during a setup is probably of a similar order to having 3 or 4 additional people in the room and that normally isn't a problem for any of us.

My solution to coffee table issues is simply to remove the table from the room during the setup process and replace it afterwards. I've got a coffee table with a metal tray for the table and I remove it for the setup process. I don't find a problem having it in place, uncovered, during listening but I do find I get a result I like more if I remove it, and I had the same experience with an earlier wooden coffee table. That's another option you can try. If you do want to put something absorbent on the table, another option is simply to scatter some books or magazines on it. Books can offer a fair bit of absorption and scattering them around so you've got a mixture of bare table surface and book/magazine surfaces provides a bit of absorption and a bit of diffusion as well, not necessarily a lot of absorption and diffusion but enough to take the edge off any high frequency problems in my experience.

Finally, on the aesthetics front since that's also important to me. I make some of my choices for the room based on aesthetics and I think that is actually beneficial in a strange way. Over the years I've learnt that if I'm in a room I feel comfortable with, and aesthetics play a large part in that, I'm more relaxed and if I enjoy being in the room I seem to enjoy what I'm doing in the room a bit more so I find myself willing to trade off a bit of acoustic benefit for aesthetic benefit, simply because it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of my system and can even enhance it slightly. As Mike said, it's a compromise just as satisfying your wife and her desires for the room is a compromise too. I'm not suggesting that ignoring acoustics completely and concentrating solely on aesthetics is the way to go, and I'm not that extreme, but I don't think most choices come down to an all acoustics priority vs an all aesthetics priority and in most cases I'd rather go for something that satisfies my aesthetics sense, or your wife's if she is the dominant decision maker in furnishing choices for a living room, than for something which ticks all the acoustic desirability boxes and doesn't look as good. The enjoyment I get from the aesthetic benefits seem to compensate quite well for small to modest losses acoustically and a good Audyssey setup can compensate for the acoustic losses to quite a degree anyway. Feeling relaxed, comfortable, and happy to be in the room does make a positive difference to your listening experience.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... In a small room, I don't think you have a lot of choices about this sort of thing ...
> 
> Whether it's a wall, or a sofa, hard surfaces will create comb filtering effects, if the microphone gets too close to them. And yet, if we move the microphone too far forward of our actual ear position, Audyssey may not be EQing the correct area, so I think that the same blanket solution proposed above, would be a good expedient. The best solution, though, really would be something like a Navajo rug, *or an acoustic panel*, or something that would absorb or defuse sound on a *permanent* basis. That would help to make your high and mid-range frequencies sound clearer, even without whatever Audyssey may be doing.


In a former house, our MLP was right against a wall. We put a very large piece of the thickest Sonex sound absorbing foam (with anechoic wedges) directly behind our heads and shoulders, and it helped immensely. Frequency bounce-back above 500 Hz was dramatically reduced, leaving the enjoyable bass boost (due to the wall) there. Had we had Audyssey at that time, it would have turned down the bass boost, so we might have turned it back up with tone controls. They was plenty of reverberation and liveness from the rest of the room. Nowadays, there are much better absorbing materials than Sonex (IMO), and some of them are attractive. You can get some of their acoustical characteristics from catalogs. Some people cover an ugly pad with a thin cloth, but I don't know how much , if any, of the effectiveness would be lost.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I was a philosophy major, briefly (between biology and psychology majors). I often found it more rewarding to try to read between the lines than to take apart what someone once wrote. I'm less interested in the precision of expression than the wellsprings of a person's point of view, and what they might be on to. While we cannot live (very well) without rationalism, I try to go to empiricism whenever possible, and dabble in the more difficult approach of intuition.
> 
> IMO, poets and novelists usually try to say what they mean and mean what they say, selecting the exact words instead of the approximate words, unless they are trying to do something like displaying their own ambivalence. Someone asked Robert Frost to explicate one of his poems. He said something like, "What do you want me to do -- say it in "worser" English?
> 
> I had better mention Audyssey fairly soon, or I may be hijacking the thread. So ... I was most gratified when Audyssey allowed me to once again thoroughly enjoy the Rene Leibowitz version of Beethoven's symphonies. The Chesky CD remasters never sounded right, compared to the old vinyl with my Ortofon cartridge in the best room I ever had, two houses ago. Audyssey civilized the CDs, and my present room, so they moved me deeply, just like the vinyl. They help me understand Beethoven's statement, "Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy."


Gary,

I like your approach to reading what other people write. It is quite similar to my own. I believe that political, social, commercial, and professional interactions should not be a zero sum game, where in order for there to be a winner, there must also be a loser. I think that, ideally, human interactions should have a positive outcome, and where that isn't possible a neutral outcome, as in an exchange of ideas, or a fair trade in the business world. But, that's my misspent youth talking, as I was also a philosophy major at one time.

Although I quite agree with Beethoven, who said it more elegantly, Housman had a point too when he said: "Malt does more than Milton can to justify God's ways to man." 

Regards,
Mike

Incidentally, I don't think that a thin fabric covering would reduce the absorptive properties of foam rubber, or something similar, unless it had a very slick surface from which very high frequency sound waves would ricochet, if they struck at an angle.


----------



## David Aiken

^^^

Too many of us have spent time in the philosophy department but, to be honest, I enjoyed my time spent in that department more than I enjoyed the time I spent in other departments to get my degree.

Re thin fabric: I think the real issues when it comes to reducing absorption by whatever is under the fabric are 2 things, tightness of weave and the nature of the thread.

Tightness of weave will affect transmission through the fabric. Loose weaves have bigger spaces between threads and sound passes through a space more easily than it does through a fibre. A higher space area to fabric fibre area ratio will allow more absorption by whatever is below. Threads with rough surfaces also have "micro" air spaces in the thread itself which helps absorption and transmission to whatever is below the fabric. Tighter weaves compress those micro air spaces and also reduce the area of the spaces between threads reducing both absorption by the fibre and transmission to whatever is below the fabric

When it comes to nature of the thread, natural fibres are more absorptive than synthetics and less reflective simply because their surfaces tend to be rougher than the surface of a synthtetic fibre so a fabric with a high nylon or acrylic content smooth fibres thread, for example, would be more reflective than a pure cotton/linen/wool fabric or a fabric with a blend of natural and synthetic fibres..

Thinness will play a part but I think the tightness of the weave but you're really dealing with the combination of nature of the thread, tightness of the weave, and thickness of fabric. In general I think thickness of the fabric is less of an issue than the other 2 factors I've mentioned.


----------



## tgambaro

Great info here... I am one of those that added an additional sub. My main sub is an SVS PB12 plus 2 /2 down firing 12's. My additional sub is a sealed SVS SB 2000 place along the back left side wall . I had no idea that not matching the subs, ported vs 1 ported and one sealed would cause an issue in the eq dept. I have one port plugged which by their specs says 25hrz. The sealed sub is rated at 22 hrz I figured they were similar in response and the differences of ported vs sealed would not be an issue. Now that I know Auddy will not eq the different combination lower than 50hrz I understand the issue I have. I have a Marantz 7702, 7.2 set up currently. Here's my question. Can I run Auddy with just my main ported sub to get the proper eq from there then turn on the sealed sub manually & match the DB level of that at my MLP? This would be done by ear. I know how is I want the end result to sound. I addmitingly am not as veresed as you or many others on this forum so I'm looking to make the best, especially for today(40 people coming over) out of a not so perfect set up... Here is room... 25' long x 19' wide not including the bar area. Thanks in advance for your highly regarded opinions! Pics are attached at the bottom of this reply.
Tony



mthomas47 said:


> Trim Levels:
> 
> The most commonly asked question on the Audyssey thread these days involves subwoofer settings. There is a fairly universal perception that bass sounds somewhat softer after running Audyssey, and most people who are new to Audyssey are naturally curious about whether that perception is normal, and if so, about the best way to increase their bass. I have been thinking about trying to write a simple explanation of the relationships among sub gain, AVR trim, and master volume (MV). This explanation represents my current understanding of how Audyssey works, and offers some best practice advice for getting the most from your subs. I am also going to include some discussion of how Audyssey sets, and EQ's, single and multiple subs. One of the things that this discussion will emphasize is to use sub amps, rather than AVR amps, to add sub boosts, and to keep AVR trims well in the negative range in the process.
> 
> First, one of Audyssey's goals, in any Audyssey version, is to set the volume levels of all channels in a system, including subs, to 75db, as measured at the MLP, by the calibrated Audyssey microphone. The MLP is microphone position 1, wherever the user chooses to place the microphone. And, that point in space is where Audyssey will set timing (distance) and channel levels to coincide. Where subs are concerned, Audyssey will measure all of the subs together, so that their combined SPL is 75db. When Audyssey finishes, all channels in the system will play at the same volume, as determined by the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> As a practical matter, starting with all of the channels playing at the same volume is probably the only way to set the audio system to Audyssey Flat. The intent of Flat is to have every frequency from down to as low as 10Hz, and as high as about 22KHz, play +/- 3db. The Audyssey Reference curve changes Flat, by rolling off the very high frequencies a little (mostly above 10KHz) and adds mid-range compensation (a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz). But, to do those curves, Audyssey needs to start with all channels and frequencies playing at the same volume at the MLP.
> 
> Second, the room strongly influences bass response, causing peaks and dips at various frequencies. That is why Audyssey can be so helpful in EQing subs. When Audyssey is successful at flattening out most of those peaks and dips (at least to some extent) the result is a smoother, clearer sound. And, that less distorted, and less boomy sound, may contribute to the impression that there is less bass playing. But, there is more to it than that. Most people don't listen at Reference Volumes (0.0 MV) which is where the low frequency content in 5.1 movies was mixed to be in correct balance with other frequencies. Once the volume level of a movie drops, those low bass frequencies may be harder to hear, in relation to the frequencies where our hearing is stronger.
> 
> After the level-matching process from mic position 1 is complete, the low frequencies (which, as noted, are harder for us to hear) are playing at the same volume as all of the other frequencies. This phenomenon of lower frequencies being harder to hear than higher ones (except for very high frequencies) is well known. Some additional explanation of this is in the Addendum at the bottom of this post. For even more information, search for Fletcher Munson Curves, or Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> DEQ slightly boosts the low frequencies (and the high ones in the regular channels), in all channels including the subs, and is engaged by default. That is intended to, at least partly, compensate for the inherent difficulty in hearing lower frequencies, at below Reference volume levels. How much boost DEQ adds varies depending on the MV selected, with more boost added as listening levels go softer, at a rate of about +2db per 5db below Reference. (So, at -15 MV, for instance, DEQ would add a little over 6db of bass boost to all of the channels, including the sub channel.) But, most people seem to need more bass boost than that, and prefer to have their own rising house curve, by adding more boost to the subs, even with DEQ on. With DEQ off, sub boosts are typically even larger. So, the question of how, and where, to add that sub boost becomes important for many users.
> 
> Third, most modern commercial subs have a gain (sometimes labeled "volume") control. The initial setting of that gain control will determine where Audyssey sets the trim level for the sub(s). So, if the initial gain control is high, Audyssey will set a low trim setting in the AVR (such as -9) in order to insure that the sub is playing 75db at the MLP, just as all the other channels are. If the gain control setting is low, Audyssey will set a high trim level setting in the AVR (such as -3.0, or 0.0, or even +3.0) to insure that same 75db.
> 
> Fourth, and this is an extremely important point, it is desirable to make the subwoofer amplifier send voltage to the driver, rather than having that voltage come from the AVR amp, because the subwoofer amplifier is much more robust and powerful than the amps in the AVR. Simply making any adjustments in sub boost from the gain control on the sub would insure that the sub amp is being used. But, most people find it more convenient to make adjustments using the AVR trim controls. And, in that case, it is desirable to start with a high sub gain level, and a low AVR trim level. Using the trim settings in the AVR to make sub volume adjustments allows the user to make convenient and fairly exact (.5db increments) adjustments to subwoofer volume, by using the AVR remote. Typically, in order to achieve a low AVR trim level, it will be necessary to start with a measured sub SPL of higher than 75db. An SPL level of about 78db to 80db may be required. The specific SPL used is not as important as the resulting low AVR trim level.
> 
> [It should be noted that there is no particular reason not to just use the gain control on a sub to add volume post-calibration. For people wanting to add really substantial bass boosts--up to, or in excess of 10db or 12db, some gain increase, in excess of the original gain setting, may be necessary, anyway, in order to achieve the bass boost desired by the user. The usual recommendation to employ the AVR trim is more a matter of convenience and accuracy than one of necessity. Some subs don't have digital gain controls, for instance, so fine tuning the gain can be more difficult, as can on-the-fly adjustments. And, it gets even less convenient when multiple subs are connected together, or when gain controls are difficult to get to easily. Using the trim controls in an AVR allows for very convenient and precise adjustments in sub volume. But, the most important thing is to make sure that the real boost comes from the subwoofer amp, whichever adjustment method is ultimately employed.]
> 
> Assuming that the desired boost is to be accomplished using AVR trim, a low trim level might be defined as -9 to -11, but not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units. (With other manufacturers, just determine what the minimum trim level settings are in order to ascertain what your optimum low trim setting should be.) As stated earlier, it may take an SPL of 78db, or higher, to achieve that optimum low trim level. However, it is important not to go lower than -11.5 in trim, in Denon/Marantz units. As noted by Alan in an earlier post, if a trim level of -12 is set, there is no knowing what the actual volume of the sub is. The AVR simply ran out of negative trim at -12. The actual sub volume might be 80db, or even 85db. And, if so, you might not like the way it sounds to have your sub so much louder than the rest of your system. You also could never be sure what your actual sub volume is, and as a result, you could find yourself running out of headroom sooner than expected. So, for instance, you want a negative trim setting not exceeding -11.5 in Denon/Marantz units.
> 
> Think of the process of adding a sub boost this way. When you raise the gain level in the sub, so that the sub produces more than 75db at the MLP, you are making a deposit in the bank, of amplifier power from the sub. So, for instance, let's say you start with a trim level in the AVR of -9. Now, you can withdraw amp power from the bank, using your AVR trim control. You would, for instance, do that by increasing your trim setting to -6, or -3. That +3 to +6db boost would be pretty typical. But, there is no free lunch. As you begin to approach 0.0, the bank deposit of amp power that you made with the higher gain setting is used up, and now you are using AVR amp power, which as noted, is not as powerful. Using AVR amp power can, in some instances, result in clipping (distorting) your subwoofer(s) or, in some cases, can result in undesirable mechanical noises.
> 
> Fifth, there is a relationship between sub volume and master volume (MV). As your MV increases, the subwoofer volume goes up correspondingly, and more demands are placed on the sub. It is important to remember that the subwoofer is not only playing the LFE channel, but also providing bass support for all of the other channels in a typical HT system. So, as the MV increases, the demands on the sub go up much faster than for the other channels, particularly in a movie with a lot of low frequency content. It is worth noting that 5.1 movies can have very low frequency content in all of the channels, and not just in the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. The subwoofer has to (and should) play all of that low frequency content.
> 
> It is recommended by a number of subwoofer experts, two of whom are quoted in the FAQ, that it is advisable to keep sub trims negative (below 0.0). That is particularly important as MV's approach, or exceed, -10. In Denon/Marantz units, that is 10db below Reference (or 70 on the absolute scale) in your AVR master volume. One of those experts quoted, Ed Mullen of SVS, has subsequent to the entries in the FAQ, recommended staying in negative trim levels, period. To follow his advice, and to avoid the possibility of distortion, we would want to keep our trim levels in about the -3 to -5 range, at even more moderate listening levels. Again, that is easy to do by raising the gain on the sub, particularly if it has a digital control.
> 
> David makes the point, in a post below this one, that high sub gain levels, which still result in high trim levels, are indicative of a sub which is under-powered for the space, and/or the distance from the MLP. In that instance, the only remedy would be a more powerful sub, or multiple subs, or a different (probably closer) sub placement. Although sub placement is not a part of this discussion, it is a very important factor in sub performance.
> 
> If you never intend to approach -10 MV, then the advice to set your sub gain high enough to obtain a strongly negative trim level will be less important. And, if you don't believe that you will ever want to boost your subs, then starting with a trim level of about -6, or so, would be perfectly fine. But, most people on this and other threads seem to average at least a +3 to +6db bass boost after calibration, and some people add much more than that. When DEQ (with its own bass boost) is not employed, boosts of 12db, or even more, are not uncommon. So, the advice you will most commonly see on this thread is to start with a negative trim setting of about -9 to -11 post-calibration, in order to maximize your ability to add sub boost, with your AVR trim control, while still using the sub gain you deposited in the bank.
> 
> Although this advice is not entirely consistent with the explanations and recommendations in the FAQ, I believe that in this particular instance, the current advice on the thread supersedes the advice in the FAQ. I would personally recommend following the advice to maintain a negative sub trim (preferably of about -3, or lower) as a matter of best practice, even if you believe that you will never approach -10 MV. There is no telling who might, inadvertently or otherwise, run the volume control up on your system, or when unexpected peaks in very low bass (in electronically-enhanced music, or in movies) might cause some distortion to occur.
> 
> It is unlikely that a good modern sub would be damaged by a bit of distortion, but I know of an Orbit Shifter, of all things, that had a fried voice coil just from playing electronic music, downloaded from You Tube, at a very high volume with a high AVR trim level. And, even if no damage is done from distortion, listening to distorted bass is sort of antithetical to the whole idea of using automated room EQ, in the first place. It is also more likely that mechanical noises, such as port chuffing, or of drivers hitting limiters, could occur when proper gain/trim protocols aren't followed. So, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, in this case.
> 
> Again, you can use a combination of increased gain, and some increase in AVR trim to raise the volume level on your sub to any level you choose, while maintaining an AVR trim of -3, or less. That will allow you to achieve any sub volume your sub is capable of producing. Raising the gain control on the sub(s) post calibration, will have no effect at all on the way that Audyssey EQed your system.
> 
> 
> Audyssey and Multiple Subs:
> 
> There are many advantages to having multiple subs, and many HT owners do have more than one sub. The process for setting trim levels for multiple subs depends on the version of Audyssey being used. For all versions except XT-32, with SubEQ, there will only be one sub out on the AVR. People with multiple subs will typically Y-connect two or more subs into that single sub out. (In some cases, they may also daisy chain the subs.) It is desirable, to run mic position 1 for each sub independently, letting Audyssey calculate distance and setting gain/trim levels, as described in the section above. Then, after connecting dual subs into the single sub out, the normal process can be followed to balance the two gain levels symmetrically, increasing or decreasing the gain levels by the same amount, to achieve a good negative trim level. And, distances from multiple subs can be considered, and if necessary, entered manually to more closely correspond to the timing that Audyssey observed when the subs were measured separately.
> 
> XT-32, with SubEQ offers users the advantage of having two sub outs, so a pair of subs can be level-matched, and have distances set automatically. If three or more subs are used with XT-32, and two sub outs, the same process could be followed, measuring each sub independently before pairing it, using a Y-connector, and then measuring the combined pair as Sub Out 1 versus Sub Out 2.
> 
> 
> Audyssey EQ and Multiple Subs:
> 
> Beyond the volume, distance, and crossover setting functions performed during calibration, Audyssey is a system of automated EQ, whose purpose is to achieve improved speaker/room interaction for the entire frequency range. Most people realize that the room strongly affects the way our speakers and subs sound, once we move several feet away from them. Audyssey's test tones have a range of 10Hz to 20,000Hz (or higher) and Audyssey EQ's that entire frequency range.
> 
> So, when the 75db test tones are played through each channel, Audyssey is measuring the frequency response at multiple locations, and using a system of fuzzy logic weighting to set filters (technically control points) for each channel at various frequencies. The goal is to make each channel play 75db +/- about 3db, at every frequency (or cluster of frequencies), and that includes the subs. Audyssey sets filters for each channel independently, with the number and distribution of the filters dependent on the specific version of Audyssey. But, in all versions of Audyssey, the sub channel (the .1 in 5.1) is a single channel.
> 
> This is an important point! Even with XT-32, once the level matching is completed, Audyssey will only play separate test tones once, through Sub 1 and Sub 2, and this is for the purpose of setting trim levels and distances separately, so that the sounds of both subs will arrive at the MLP at the same time, and at the same volume. But, for the remaining 7 mic positions, the same test tone is simultaneously played through all of the subs in the system together, however they are physically connected. This is because Audyssey is only setting filters for the combined sound of all of the subs in concert, and not for the individual subs. Again, using the example of a 5.1 system, all five speakers constitute a separate channel, and all five speakers get all 6, or 8 test tones, depending on the version of Audyssey. And, each of the five speakers gets its own filters. But, with the .1 channel, all subs are pinged and EQed together, and there is only one set of filters for all of them.
> 
> This is why, regardless of the version of Audyssey employed, it is highly advisable to match similar subs in the system, if at all possible. If the subs in a system have significantly different frequency responses, a single set of filters will not be nearly as helpful in EQing the subs. It is particularly important not to mix ported and sealed subs in a system, unless you have the capability to independently measure results, with something like REW, and have some way to independently EQ the subs, with something like a miniDSP. Again, this is because Audyssey (or other systems of automated EQ) can only EQ all of the subs as a group, producing a collective low frequency sound response.
> 
> Here is an example of how Audyssey works. Let's say that you have a ported sub which produces high SPL from 50Hz down to 15Hz, and a sealed sub which produces somewhat higher SPL above 50Hz, but which can't keep up with the ported sub below 50Hz. That would be a common scenario. Ported subs are specifically designed to produce louder volumes, within relatively narrow low frequency ranges (usually below about 50 or 60Hz), than their sealed counterparts.
> 
> Audyssey, in any version, won't inhibit the stronger sub. In this scenario, the stronger (ported) sub will still play down to it's F3 point of 15Hz and slightly below. And, it won't overdrive the weaker sub by making it try to play lower and louder than it can. It will simply stop setting filters at the combined, detected F3 point. So, if the sealed sub begins to lose 3db of volume, compared to the ported sub, at about 50Hz, Audyssey will stop EQing at 50Hz, specifically to protect the weaker sub from being over-driven by Audyssey filters. And that means, that in this scenario, you won't have the benefit of any EQ in that critical low bass region (from 50Hz to 15Hz) where Audyssey is normally very helpful.
> 
> Of course, that doesn't mean that you can't try mixing dissimilar subs, and taking your chances that it will still sound pretty good to you. It might. It simply means that when you mix subs with very dissimilar output, or low-end extension, or roll-off characteristics, you can no longer count on automated room EQ to help you improve your frequency response below the F3 point of the weaker sub. And, there would be no way to predict how effective a single set of filters would be, even above the F3 point of two very dissimilar subs. Life is much simpler if it is possible to have very similar subs in your system.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Addendum on the Thread History of Recommended Sub Trim Settings:
> 
> In the months since I first wrote this post, I have come back to it several times to add details or to clarify points that I thought were important. And, I have done that because I thought it would be valuable to have a single source for the best practice recommendations which have evolved on the thread. The FAQ can only be amended by the Author, Keith Barnes. And, Keith has been very busy developing a new dedicated HT. So, this post seemed to be the next best alternative.
> 
> But, I thought it might be helpful to explain a bit how the advice on the thread has evolved in recent years. For those who remember, the original advice regarding sub trim levels, was to keep them within a range of -5 to +5. And, the FAQ reflected that advice. Then, after much discussion on the thread, about how sub amps can clip with higher trim settings, the recommended trim setting range in the FAQ was lowered to -3.5 to +3.5. But, as explained above, that recommendation is still too high, particularly depending on master volume levels. Sub placement, with respect to nulls, could also exacerbate a higher trim setting, as Audyssey might already be adding up to 9db of boost, at some frequencies.
> 
> I remember people, including myself, speculating that Audyssey sets trim levels conservatively, perhaps in an effort to protect less capable subs. I specifically mentioned that to people inquiring about wanting to boost their subs after Audyssey set the trim levels. But, that explanation was never really correct. Audyssey protects less capable subs by not setting filters (control points) below the F3 points of those subs. Audyssey does the same thing with the other channels, setting no control points below the measured F3 of a speaker, or speaker pair. But, it is still the obligation of the user to follow good procedures to insure that the sub(s), and other speakers in an audio system, are not pushed beyond their specific capabilities.
> 
> Audyssey's actual reasons for setting the sub trim levels where it does was explained above. Audyssey uses a 75db test tone to set *all* of the channels in a system to the same level, as measured at the MLP, so that Audyssey can apply filters to all of the channels, in an effort to achieve a relatively flat frequency response. It can't do that unless all of the channels, including the .1 sub channel, are set to the same volume.
> 
> But, human hearing is designed/adapted to hear best from about 400Hz up to about 4000Hz. Our hearing quite naturally corresponds somewhat to the range of the human voice. As frequencies drop below about 400Hz, and particularly below about 200Hz, it takes more volume for us to hear those frequencies, at the same level, than we do the ones in our optimum hearing range. The more that frequencies drop below 100Hz, the harder it is for us to hear them, and the more volume we require in order to do so. That additional volume, particularly for frequencies from about 120Hz down, is typically added via a sub boost. The phenomenon of declining audibility, at lower (and higher) frequencies, is graphically illustrated in various depictions of the Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> If we all listened at Reference levels (0.0 MV) it is unlikely that we would need much bass boost, except that which is added for personal preference. But, most of us don't listen at nearly that volume level. The most common range I see quoted for the average listening level is from about -20 to -10 MV, and some people listen at much lower volumes than that. So, it was never really about Audyssey setting levels conservatively. For most of us, it was always about needing more volume to hear subwoofer frequencies, in equilibrium with higher frequencies, at below Reference levels. (As noted earlier, very high frequencies are also outside our optimum hearing range, but most of us seem to compensate better for some attenuation in the relative loudness of those frequencies. In fact, some studies indicate that most people prefer some high frequency roll-off, and the Audyssey Reference curve is based on that assumption.) But, almost all of us seem to perceive a reduction in bass volumes more easily. How much additional bass we need, or want, in order to perceive our sound as balanced, or to fully appreciate the low bass in music, or in movies, is a very personal decision, which probably depends on a lot of factors, including specific rooms, sub capabilities, sub placement, individual hearing, and personal preference.
> 
> I thought it might be helpful to review how some of the thinking on the thread has changed over the years, with respect to why we may want to add sub boosts, post-Audyssey, as well as the best protocol for doing so. None of this is to suggest that others, and specifically the people involved in the creation of the FAQ, haven't already understood these concepts perfectly well. But, the FAQ was written, and edited, over a period of several years, with some sections being revised, and others not. Someone trying to understand whether it is normal to boost his subs, after an Audyssey calibration, may not get the impression that a sub boost is fairly typical at below Reference volumes. And, I think that it is also important to understand why a sub boost may actually be needed, even beyond the issues of individual user preference.
> 
> Again, the recommendation for adding sub boosts, is to try to keep AVR sub trim levels no higher than the -5 to -3 range, after adding however much sub boost may be preferred. And, in order to do that, the appropriate use of sub gain, and not just AVR trim, is generally required.


----------



## mthomas47

tgambaro said:


> Great info here... I am one of those that added an additional sub. My main sub is an SVS PB12 plus 2 /2 down firing 12's. My additional sub is a sealed SVS SB 2000 place along the back left side wall . I had no idea that not matching the subs, ported vs 1 ported and one sealed would cause an issue in the eq dept. I have one port plugged which by their specs says 25hrz. The sealed sub is rated at 22 hrz I figured they were similar in response and the differences of ported vs sealed would not be an issue. Now that I know Auddy will not eq the different combination lower than 50hrz I understand the issue I have. I have a Marantz 7702, 7.2 set up currently. Here's my question. Can I run Auddy with just my main ported sub to get the proper eq from there then turn on the sealed sub manually & match the DB level of that at my MLP? This would be done by ear. I know how is I want the end result to sound. I addmitingly am not as veresed as you or many others on this forum so I'm looking to make the best, especially for today(40 people coming over) out of a not so perfect set up... Here is room... 25' long x 19' wide not including the bar area. Thanks in advance for your highly regarded opinions! Pics are attached at the bottom of this reply.
> Tony


Hi Tony,

As I mentioned before, I think you have a very nice room. That will be a great place for a Super Bowl party. And, no one is going to be paying any attention at all to how well your bass frequencies match up from the two different subs. 

Thank you for the compliment! The comparison of a sealed and a ported sub, used in the Setup Guide, was hypothetical, to illustrate the point. And, I was assuming two subs of the same model, such as a PB13 and an SB13. With subs with very different properties, the differences in frequency response could be even greater. In a real room, though, the room itself could influence the frequency response of both subs in unpredictable ways. But, sticking with quasi-anechoic output (no room influences) for a moment, which is how subs are measured by Data-Bass, I tried to do a quick extrapolation of what the comparative capabilities of your two subs would be.

Assuming that the dual 12 would be somewhat similar in sealed mode to a PB13 (I am guessing it would have about 3db less output than a PB13) I compared it to an SB12-NSD, which would have about .6db less output than an SB2000. Can we say moving targets?  Based on that comparison, I think that Audyssey might find the SB2000 down by 3db (the F3 point) as high as about 80Hz, or higher. And if so, that is where it would stop EQing. But, that is not to say that your bass would sound bad, just because Audyssey did stop EQing at that point, because the room itself could be exerting unpredictable influences on both subs, and they might actually sound fine together below that guesstimated 80Hz or 100Hz. Here is the comparison I used:

http://www.data-bass.com/systems

You are already familiar with how things sound now. So, I would play something that you know pretty well, with some good mid-bass and low bass, just to remind yourself how it sounds with Audyssey EQing both subs. Then, I would run a new calibration doing just what you suggested, and EQing only the more powerful ported sub (still in sealed mode, if you prefer). Remember that when you add in the SB2000, you will have to either use a Y-connector, or daisy chain it to the ported Plus. If you simply connect it to the second sub out on your Marantz, Audyssey will invalidate your calibration. We have to run a new calibration anytime we add speakers to our system. But, if you add it to the single sub out that the Plus is using, Audyssey will never know you did it. That process will allow you to compare the sound to decide which method of calibration you like better.

FWIW, I honestly wouldn't worry too much about getting this done before tonight. Your guests are going to be having way too much fun watching the game, to notice bass nuances that even a musician, such as yourself, hasn't really noticed. I think that bass sounds below about 80Hz can be fairly subtle, anyway. One other thing that I should add about this whole max output comparison of subs, is that it mostly applies when you are pushing your subs a bit. If you have the gain on your Plus relatively low, you can increase the gain on your SB2000 to compensate for it's relatively lesser potential output. And, that will keep the relative performance of the two subs in closer correspondence. It is only if you were trying to use more of the Pluses output capabilities that you might really notice the performance disparity. Audyssey will notice, but you might not. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tgambaro

You're the best! What I do was Auddy on 7.1. I then went into manual and entered the distance and DB level of the sealed sub. From there I did discover that Auddy wouldn't recognize the 2nd sub so it would no activate. So I'm actually running both subs on manual which does maintain the EQ from the initial measurements of 7.1. I then messed with the crossover points of the sealed sub and ended up around 80 while the main sub is at 120. I now have punch.
I'm actually not missing the processing from Auddy as much as I thought I would all the while enjoying the extra fullness and punch around most of the room. I did boost the tone control f the bass to +3 which sorta made up for some loss in the midrange from Auddy!
Again, I thank you and have a great afternoon!

Tony





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> As I mentioned before, I think you have a very nice room. That will be a great place for a Super Bowl party. And, no one is going to be paying any attention at all to how well your bass frequencies match up from the two different subs.
> 
> Thank you for the compliment! The comparison of a sealed and a ported sub, used in the Setup Guide, was hypothetical, to illustrate the point. And, I was assuming two subs of the same model, such as a PB13 and an SB13. With subs with very different properties, the differences in frequency response could be even greater. In a real room, though, the room itself could influence the frequency response of both subs in unpredictable ways. But, sticking with quasi-anechoic output (no room influences) for a moment, which is how subs are measured by Data-Bass, I tried to do a quick extrapolation of what the comparative capabilities of your two subs would be.
> 
> Assuming that the dual 12 would be somewhat similar in sealed mode to a PB13 (I am guessing it would have about 3db less output than a PB13) I compared it to an SB12-NSD, which would have about .6db less output than an SB2000. Can we say moving targets?  Based on that comparison, I think that Audyssey might find the SB2000 down by 3db (the F3 point) as high as about 80Hz, or higher. And if so, that is where it would stop EQing. But, that is not to say that your bass would sound bad, just because Audyssey did stop EQing at that point, because the room itself could be exerting unpredictable influences on both subs, and they might actually sound fine together below that guesstimated 80Hz or 100Hz. Here is the comparison I used:
> 
> http://www.data-bass.com/systems
> 
> You are already familiar with how things sound now. So, I would play something that you know pretty well, with some good mid-bass and low bass, just to remind yourself how it sounds with Audyssey EQing both subs. Then, I would run a new calibration doing just what you suggested, and EQing only the more powerful ported sub (still in sealed mode, if you prefer). Remember that when you add in the SB2000, you will have to either use a Y-connector, or daisy chain it to the ported Plus. If you simply connect it to the second sub out on your Marantz, Audyssey will invalidate your calibration. We have to run a new calibration anytime we add speakers to our system. But, if you add it to the single sub out that the Plus is using, Audyssey will never know you did it. That process will allow you to compare the sound to decide which method of calibration you like better.
> 
> FWIW, I honestly wouldn't worry too much about getting this done before tonight. Your guests are going to be having way too much fun watching the game, to notice bass nuances that even a musician, such as yourself, hasn't really noticed. I think that bass sounds below about 80Hz can be fairly subtle, anyway. One other thing that I should add about this whole max output comparison of subs, is that it mostly applies when you are pushing your subs a bit. If you have the gain on your Plus relatively low, you can increase the gain on your SB2000 to compensate for it's relatively lesser potential output. And, that will keep the relative performance of the two subs in closer correspondence. It is only if you were trying to use more of the Pluses output capabilities that you might really notice the performance disparity. Audyssey will notice, but you might not.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## Methodical_1

zeuspaul said:


> My preference is for the sub manufacturers (and AVR manufacturers) to avoid smart phones and any other external control devices. I don't have one and I don't want one. One of the things I like about my PSA sub over my SVS sub is the simplicity of the controls.
> 
> 
> Sent from my home computer using a keyboard.


Yeah, just give me a remote control. I hate having to work through a phone also. Too bad it's the way of the world these days.


----------



## Matt2026

Methodical_1 said:


> Yeah, just give me a remote control. I hate having to work through a phone also. Too bad it's the way of the world these days.


Governments moving to cashless state so in the future all financial transactions will be done by phone, computer or tablet...


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... I believe that political, social, commercial, and professional interactions should not be a zero sum game ...


Zero sum games are the root of much evil.


----------



## Jim1290

Hi Mike,

Thank you! Thank you! And thank you!
I was going to PM you, but I thought I want to say thank you in public! As most here know that you are very helpful and knowledgeable, and you have made people like me to enjoy way more with music and films! 

First, I have made an offer to my nicer half that she couldn't refuse. And so, I got the whole weekend to myself.

I have followed your advise by moving the left front sub closer to the MLP, it's now not far from FL and in front of 
the window, all windows are almost ceiling to floor in my living room.
I then covered both table and sofa with blankets before run Audyssey, the result made me happy!
And then I saw David's post mentioning remove the table, so I thought why not remove the sofa as well, and cover
the two 115 with blanket, just the top and sides, as the rear wall is treated already.

As I have said before that I should visit less this place (AVS), and would be good for my back and wallet. 

I carefully marked seating positions before remove the sofa, my job require me to find the tiniest flaw possible, so I am good at details.
The first run of Audyssey was not correct, I must have did something wrong, however the second run was done properly - I believe, and now I have a Very Happy result, to my ears anyway.
And I started to dream - should these four 115 be replaced with three 3x12, how the result would be... 
I am going to to do so shortly after my next trip.

Thank you so much gentlemen!
As you both might already know that Belgium have got the best beer and chocolate in the world (although I prefer wine and whiskey), pleasure would be all mine should you gentlemen ever pass by in the future.


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## Jim1290

David Aiken said:


> To add a couple of things to Mike's point:
> 
> I agree with Mike on the leather vs fabric for the sofa covering but that's not the whole of the sofa/chair question when it comes to acoustics. I've got 3 chairs with leather covers and don't think they are a problem but the cushioning on them is fairly thin. I have no "acoustic" problems related to them I used to have a leather sofa with spring upholstery and it also wasn't an issue for me acoustically but a bit over a year ago I changed the sofa for one with a fabric cover, mainly because fabric is more comfortable in our sub-tropical, high humidity summer heat wave weather where I am. The big change in the sofa, however, was that the new one isn't sprung, the seats and back rests are deep, dense foam and that made a difference because it provided more absorption of mid to high frequencies and probably a bit into the upper bass as well. Like Mike, I wouldn't recommend swapping sofas just to replace leather with fabric for acoustic purposes, it's a different matter if you're looking for a change in aesthetics or to avoid sticking to the leather in a summer heatwave, but I do think that thicker and/or denser foam cushioning can be beneficial so, depending on your sofa choice, you may get some acoustic benefit but I don't think there's enough in the leather/fabric issue to swap sofas for that reason if you're chasing acoustic benefit. A lot gets made of the high frequency reflectivity of leather but it's really just skin and you add a fair bit of that to the room when you get the family into it for a movie session after you've finished doing the setup process when you're the only person in the room. The effect of the leather surfaces during a setup is probably of a similar order to having 3 or 4 additional people in the room and that normally isn't a problem for any of us.
> 
> My solution to coffee table issues is simply to remove the table from the room during the setup process and replace it afterwards. I've got a coffee table with a metal tray for the table and I remove it for the setup process. I don't find a problem having it in place, uncovered, during listening but I do find I get a result I like more if I remove it, and I had the same experience with an earlier wooden coffee table. That's another option you can try. If you do want to put something absorbent on the table, another option is simply to scatter some books or magazines on it. Books can offer a fair bit of absorption and scattering them around so you've got a mixture of bare table surface and book/magazine surfaces provides a bit of absorption and a bit of diffusion as well, not necessarily a lot of absorption and diffusion but enough to take the edge off any high frequency problems in my experience.
> 
> Finally, on the aesthetics front since that's also important to me. I make some of my choices for the room based on aesthetics and I think that is actually beneficial in a strange way. Over the years I've learnt that if I'm in a room I feel comfortable with, and aesthetics play a large part in that, I'm more relaxed and if I enjoy being in the room I seem to enjoy what I'm doing in the room a bit more so I find myself willing to trade off a bit of acoustic benefit for aesthetic benefit, simply because it doesn't detract from my enjoyment of my system and can even enhance it slightly. As Mike said, it's a compromise just as satisfying your wife and her desires for the room is a compromise too. I'm not suggesting that ignoring acoustics completely and concentrating solely on aesthetics is the way to go, and I'm not that extreme, but I don't think most choices come down to an all acoustics priority vs an all aesthetics priority and in most cases I'd rather go for something that satisfies my aesthetics sense, or your wife's if she is the dominant decision maker in furnishing choices for a living room, than for something which ticks all the acoustic desirability boxes and doesn't look as good. The enjoyment I get from the aesthetic benefits seem to compensate quite well for small to modest losses acoustically and a good Audyssey setup can compensate for the acoustic losses to quite a degree anyway. *Feeling relaxed, comfortable, and happy to be in the room does make a positive difference to your listening experience.*


Thank you very much David! 


Cheers,
Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thank you! Thank you! And thank you!
> I was going to PM you, but I thought I want to say thank you in public! As most here know that you are very helpful and knowledgeable, and you have made people like me to enjoy way more with music and films!
> 
> First, I have made an offer to my nicer half that she couldn't refuse. And so, I got the whole weekend to myself.
> 
> I have followed your advise by moving the left front sub closer to the MLP, it's now not far from FL and in front of
> the window, all windows are almost ceiling to floor in my living room.
> I then covered both table and sofa with blankets before run Audyssey, the result made me happy!
> And then I saw David's post mentioning remove the table, so I thought why not remove the sofa as well, and cover
> the two 115 with blanket, just the top and sides, as the rear wall is treated already.
> 
> As I have said before that I should visit less this place (AVS), and would be good for my back and wallet.
> 
> I carefully marked seating positions before remove the sofa, my job require me to find the tiniest flaw possible, so I am good at details.
> The first run of Audyssey was not correct, I must have did something wrong, however the second run was done properly - I believe, and now I have a Very Happy result, to my ears anyway.
> And I started to dream - should these four 115 be replaced with three 3x12, how the result would be...
> I am going to to do so shortly after my next trip.
> 
> Thank you so much gentlemen!
> As you both might already know that Belgium have got the best beer and chocolate in the world (although I prefer wine and whiskey), pleasure would be all mine should you gentlemen ever pass by in the future.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jim


You are very welcome, Jim! It's always a pleasure to correspond with you. I'm very glad that some of our suggestions helped. Please keep us informed when you get your new XTZ subs. They look very capable from the review that I read, and it's always exciting to hear about subwoofer success stories. Photographs would also be very welcome at that point. Everyone loves speaker porn. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## t.stone13

Thanks Mike for your suggestion!

Tried your idea of temporarily placing something behind the mic while running corrections and that did amazing things for the response of the room. The sub had lost all depth in this room - rolled off a bit higher than 35 Hz instead of the usual sub 25 Hz I usually could get out of it. With the new correction the sub goes deeper, louder, and is more lively in general. A tiny bit less tight but I will live with that considering the improvements. Still not 25 Hz but what can you do - the room sucks. Satellite performance also seems to have improved. Center/dialog clarity has increased. I have the mic out to try things again this weekend when I have time - I can't seem to stop fiddling once I start .


----------



## Hammonje

Any reason my system sounds better with Audyssey off than engaged? 

Denon X4300 system listed in signature. Overall sound is bright with Audyssey. Sound is artificial. Differences between on and off are in no way subtle. Eq curves are boosted throughout above cross-over. I would like to have some aspect of room correction though. 

What I am looking for are means to address this. Any ideas? 

Room schematic:


Pic of space from previous owner ( I got rid of the stickers):


----------



## David Aiken

Hammonje said:


> Any reason my system sounds better with Audyssey off than engaged?
> 
> Denon X4300 system listed in signature. Overall sound is bright with Audyssey. Sound is artificial. Differences between on and off are in no way subtle. Eq curves are boosted throughout above cross-over. I would like to have some aspect of room correction though.
> 
> What I am looking for are means to address this. Any ideas?
> …


I don't think your room schematic is accurate unless you've modified the room because the first photo shows a wide recess across the wall at the end of the room that is not shown in the schematic. Photos of the space now would be far more useful because we could then see current furnishings and any other features that are currently affecting the sound and that might help.

From what I can see in the photos and schematic you have an odd shaped room and stairs leading to another level. Is there a door closing off the other level or is that end of the stairway open to that level? That can make a big difference because if it's open then you have joined spaces and the first floor area is going to be affecting the acoustics of your room in some way. Overall it also looks like it's going to be a bright sounding room with hard surfaces for all room surfaces and in the photos there are no soft furnishings to take the edge of the sound apart from the sofa in the second photo. One of the reasons I'd really like to see a photo of the room's current state is so that I could see if you've done anything that would soften the sound to any degree.

You said "Eq curves are boosted throughout above cross-over." That's not necessarily wrong. If your low frequencies were overly strong when measured during setup, Audyssey would be cutting them and possibly boosting the higher frequencies. The EQ that is made is a response to the way the room measures and your room is likely to throw up some odd measurements because of the asymmetrical setup with the system on one side of the room so the right speakers are close to the right wall and the left speakers are a long way further from the left wall, the recess in the left wall, and the first floor acting as an acoustically linked space if there is no door on that floor to close off the stairway.

What kind of a microphone placement pattern did you use? Did you do the full 8 measurements and what kind of spacing did you use? I would think that the wider the spacing you used in that room, the more likely it would be that there would be significant variations from measurement to measurement which complicates the calculations that Audyssey does, and may possible end up with less acceptable results.

My first suggestion would be to try repeating setup with either only 1 measurement or 3 measurements. Make t he first measurement with the mic at the main listening position and if you do 3 measurements do the second measurements only a foot or so to the left or right of the first measurement. See if you like the result better. If you do then you can either leave things with that setup arrangement or try again with more measurements but keep the measurements relatively close together, don't space them out over a large area. I think you may find that you will like the result less as you add more measurements unless you keep the measurements within a relatively small area, smaller than the instructions recommend.

Unfortunately some rooms are harder to correct than others and Audyssey can't do an equally good job with every room and system. It's possible that you have a particularly hard room to correct based on your schematic and what I can see in the photographs. You should be able to get an improvement but I think it's going to come down to a bit of experimenting with different microphone placements during the setup process and it may take a few runs to fine tune the placement pattern and get a result you like.


----------



## Hammonje

Thanks for the detailed response David. 

The stairs are not closed off by a door and that leads to another large, open floor plan. I took Audyssey measurements with both 3 and 8 positions clustered around the listening area. The right side of the couch. Couches are leather. I will repeat with lower mic position to see if that helps some. Bass from the SW hits perfectly, its the high end that is boosted. Wish there was a means to tweak Audyssey EQ data. I see that there is a means to import Audyssey Flat to Graphic EQ, but Audyssey Flat sounds worse than Audyssey. 

Man cave in previous house had carpeting and tile ceilings, so much more absorbent. 

Still the sound from the 5.0 speakers is superior without Audyssey. Therefore, the SW is not corrected. I am wondering if there is a means to use Audyssey SW correction while not applying to other speakers. Dynamic EQ and Volume are usually off. I don't care for it. Upgraded speakers and this has helped tremendously, but could be improved.


----------



## t.stone13

Hammonje said:


> Thanks for the detailed response David.
> 
> The stairs are not closed off by a door and that leads to another large, open floor plan. I took Audyssey measurements with both 3 and 8 positions clustered around the listening area. The right side of the couch. Couches are leather. I will repeat with lower mic position to see if that helps some. Bass from the SW hits perfectly, its the high end that is boosted. Wish there was a means to tweak Audyssey EQ data. I see that there is a means to import Audyssey Flat to Graphic EQ, but Audyssey Flat sounds worse than Audyssey.
> 
> Man cave in previous house had carpeting and tile ceilings, so much more absorbent.
> 
> Still the sound from the 5.0 speakers is superior without Audyssey. Therefore, the SW is not corrected. I am wondering if there is a means to use Audyssey SW correction while not applying to other speakers. Dynamic EQ and Volume are usually off. I don't care for it. Upgraded speakers and this has helped tremendously, but could be improved.


Much more knowledgeable/experienced people are probably going to reply but I thought I would put in my 2 cents. 

1. Which curve are you using (Reference vs Flat)? Flat should/could sound brighter. 
2. Have you placed something over the leather (such as a towel or blanket) to help with HF reflections?
3. Multiple models allow an Audyssey defeat setting of the L/R channels. I know my Marantz supports this.


----------



## mthomas47

Hammonje said:


> Thanks for the detailed response David.
> 
> The stairs are not closed off by a door and that leads to another large, open floor plan. I took Audyssey measurements with both 3 and 8 positions clustered around the listening area. The right side of the couch. Couches are leather. I will repeat with lower mic position to see if that helps some. Bass from the SW hits perfectly, its the high end that is boosted. Wish there was a means to tweak Audyssey EQ data. I see that there is a means to import Audyssey Flat to Graphic EQ, but Audyssey Flat sounds worse than Audyssey.
> 
> Man cave in previous house had carpeting and tile ceilings, so much more absorbent.
> 
> Still the sound from the 5.0 speakers is superior without Audyssey. Therefore, the SW is not corrected. I am wondering if there is a means to use Audyssey SW correction while not applying to other speakers. Dynamic EQ and Volume are usually off. I don't care for it. Upgraded speakers and this has helped tremendously, but could be improved.



Hi,

To continue the discussion that David began, I think that it would be very helpful to see a picture of your front sound stage. If a room is already very bright, due to many hard surfaces, there may not be much that Audyssey can do to decrease the reflections. But, if it actually sounds worse in the high frequencies with Audyssey on, then Audyssey may be boosting something that it didn't need to boost. 

In that case, the likely culprits would be insufficient toe-in on the front speakers, a center channel that was recessed on a stand, the Audyssey microphone in too close proximity to a hard surface, such as the back of a leather couch, or to the wall behind the couch, etc. Perhaps even putting a rug between the front soundstage and the couch would help, if Audyssey is picking up too many reflections from the wood floor. To repeat the idea here: if high frequencies sound worse with Audyssey engaged, then Audyssey is doing something you don't want it to do with respect to those high frequencies. And, you have to go through a sort of problem-solving checklist to discover what would be making it over-boost something. 

I believe that Audyssey can usually be relied upon to make bass better, and frequently (although not always) mid-range frequencies, as well. But, we may not want Audyssey to try to do too much with respect to high frequencies. When it seems to be somehow boosting high frequencies, we just need to get it to stop doing that, perhaps through better system set-up or calibration technique, so that we can take advantage of its beneficial effect on the rest of the frequency response.

In addition to a current photo, or two, of the front soundstage, please let us know how close your couch is to the wall behind it, and whether you are putting a blanket over the couch during calibration. Also, knowing your crossover settings may conceivably be helpful.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## t.stone13

t.stone13 said:


> Much more knowledgeable/experienced people are probably going to reply but I thought I would put in my 2 cents.
> 
> 1. Which curve are you using (Reference vs Flat)? Flat should/could sound brighter.
> 2. Have you placed something over the leather (such as a towel or blanket) to help with HF reflections?
> 3. Multiple models allow an Audyssey defeat setting of the L/R channels. I know my Marantz supports this.


Does AVS not support an edit post feature? I can't seem to find it.

Just wanted to clarify that the blanket idea was for just behind the mic - not the entire couch .


----------



## mthomas47

t.stone13 said:


> Thanks Mike for your suggestion!
> 
> Tried your idea of temporarily placing something behind the mic while running corrections and that did amazing things for the response of the room. The sub had lost all depth in this room - rolled off a bit higher than 35 Hz instead of the usual sub 25 Hz I usually could get out of it. With the new correction the sub goes deeper, louder, and is more lively in general. A tiny bit less tight but I will live with that considering the improvements. Still not 25 Hz but what can you do - the room sucks. Satellite performance also seems to have improved. Center/dialog clarity has increased. I have the mic out to try things again this weekend when I have time - I can't seem to stop fiddling once I start .


You are very welcome! I am very glad that helped. And, I like the fact that you are still fiddling with it. I think that will only be beneficial, and that you will stop when you are really satisfied that you have done the best you can, for now. And, then later, you will think of something else to try which will get you even further toward where you want to go, with respect to sound quality. 

Edit: I normally cover mostly the back of a leather chair, or couch, but I don't see any harm in letting it cover more if you want to. The Edit Feature is just to the left of the Quote Feature, but it may only show up with a certain number of posts.


----------



## t.stone13

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I am very glad that helped. And, I like the fact that you are still fiddling with it. I think that will only be beneficial, and that you will stop when you are really satisfied that you have done the best you can, for now. *And, then later, you will think of something else to try which will get you even further toward where you want to go, with respect to sound quality*.
> 
> *Edit: I normally cover mostly the back of a leather chair, or couch, but I don't see any harm in letting it cover more if you want to.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> There are always improvements to be had - whether hardware upgrades or just fiddling. I usually have an idea or two in the back of my head that I can try at some point - what a fun hobby this is!
> 
> I meant that if he placed a blanket down not to cover the whole couch and then take it off post correction. Not sure if that would make much of a negative effect though. He could try both! :laugh:


----------



## t.stone13

t.stone13 said:


> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are very welcome! I am very glad that helped. And, I like the fact that you are still fiddling with it. I think that will only be beneficial, and that you will stop when you are really satisfied that you have done the best you can, for now. *And, then later, you will think of something else to try which will get you even further toward where you want to go, with respect to sound quality*.
> 
> *Edit: I normally cover mostly the back of a leather chair, or couch, but I don't see any harm in letting it cover more if you want to.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> There are always improvements to be had - whether hardware upgrades or just fiddling. I usually have an idea or two in the back of my head that I can try at some point - what a fun hobby this is!
> 
> I meant that if he placed a blanket down not to cover the whole couch and then take it off post correction. Not sure if that would make much of a negative effect though. He could try both! :laugh:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mike do you know if new members can't edit their posts? Made a typo up there which messed up the formatting and I can't find an edit button.
Click to expand...


----------



## mthomas47

t.stone13 said:


> t.stone13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Mike do you know if new members can't edit their posts? Made a typo up there which messed up the formatting and I can't find an edit button.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. I seem to recall needing to have 10 posts for some functions, and editing may be one of them.
Click to expand...


----------



## garygarrison

Hammonje said:


> ... I see that there is a means to import Audyssey Flat to Graphic EQ, but Audyssey Flat sounds worse than Audyssey.
> 
> Man cave in previous house had carpeting and tile ceilings, so much more absorbent.
> .


If the way to import Audyssey to Graphic EQ is the long standing one (sometimes called "base [not bass] copy,"), it does *not* copy the *hundreds* of EQ points Audyssey uses, but only a small number of points, and was called "useless" by Chris K, the CTO and co-founder of Audyssey.

If your room is as "live" as the pictures taken by the former owner show, it maybe something of a nightmare to EQ. Putting in carpeting, or at least throw rugs, along with some acoustically absorbing foam or fiber pads at the first reflection points on the walls may help. Don't over deaden the room, but add a little damping at a time, and re-run Audyssey each time.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> If the way to import Audyssey to Graphic EQ is the long standing one (sometimes called "base [not bass] copy,"), it does *not* copy the *hundreds* of EQ points Audyssey uses, but only a small number of points, and was called "useless" by Chris K, the CTO and co-founder of Audyssey.
> 
> If your room is as "live" as the pictures taken by the former owner show, it maybe something of a nightmare to EQ. Putting in carpeting, or at least throw rugs, along with some acoustically absorbing foam or fiber pads at the first reflection points on the walls may help. Don't over deaden the room, but add a little damping at a time, and re-run Audyssey each time.


Hi Gary,

I'm glad you commented on the copy feature. And, I definitely agree with you about the probable need for some sound deadening treatments. I think that some treatments would help, irrespective of Audyssey, and I think that something on the floor in front of the couch would be especially helpful.

An important point to me, though, was the OP's observation that the high frequencies sound worse, with Audyssey on, than with it off. It seems to me, that a too-bright room is going to sound too bright, regardless. But, if high frequencies sound even brighter with Audyssey on, than with it off, then I would look for reasons why the Audyssey microphone is "hearing" things that require an over-emphasis on high frequencies. And, the first place I would look for why Audyssey is "hearing" those things would be in the set-up, and in the calibration itself.

The use of room treatments is a better long-term solution, but even in a well-treated room, Audyssey can over-boost high frequencies. So, I think it pays us to learn what set-up and calibration variables may be causing the high frequency boosts to start with, so that we can, at least, return Audyssey to neutral with respect to the high frequency sounds in the room. Like yourself, I would be introducing some softening furnishings to the room, over time, to obtain even better high frequency sound quality, either with Audyssey off, or with it on. Audyssey can't always help much in the high frequencies, but I don't believe it should hurt those frequencies as much, if our initial set-up and calibration technique are pretty good. So, there is a little bit of chicken and egg here. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Skylinestar

t.stone13 said:


> Does AVS not support an edit post feature? I can't seem to find it.


Do you see [EDIT] next to


> [MULTI-QUOTE] [QUICK REPLY] ?


----------



## t.stone13

Skylinestar said:


> Do you see [EDIT] next to
> 
> 
> 
> [MULTI-QUOTE] [QUICK REPLY] ?
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Must be too new.
> 
> Sorry for all the extra posts and typos. Driving my OCD crazy.
> 
> [edit] Ha! It just showed up. Must have been 8 posts required. Tried multiple browsers and even multiple computers...I hate typos.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hammonje

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> To continue the discussion that David began, I think that it would be very helpful to see a picture of your front sound stage. If a room is already very bright, due to many hard surfaces, there may not be much that Audyssey can do to decrease the reflections. But, if it actually sounds worse in the high frequencies with Audyssey on, then Audyssey may be boosting something that it didn't need to boost.
> 
> In that case, the likely culprits would be insufficient toe-in on the front speakers, a center channel that was recessed on a stand, the Audyssey microphone in too close proximity to a hard surface, such as the back of a leather couch, or to the wall behind the couch, etc. Perhaps even putting a rug between the front soundstage and the couch would help, if Audyssey is picking up too many reflections from the wood floor. To repeat the idea here: if high frequencies sound worse with Audyssey engaged, then Audyssey is doing something you don't want it to do with respect to those high frequencies. And, you have to go through a sort of problem-solving checklist to discover what would be making it over-boost something.
> 
> I believe that Audyssey can usually be relied upon to make bass better, and frequently (although not always) mid-range frequencies, as well. But, we may not want Audyssey to try to do too much with respect to high frequencies. When it seems to be somehow boosting high frequencies, we just need to get it to stop doing that, perhaps through better system set-up or calibration technique, so that we can take advantage of its beneficial effect on the rest of the frequency response.
> 
> In addition to a current photo, or two, of the front soundstage, please let us know how close your couch is to the wall behind it, and whether you are putting a blanket over the couch during calibration. Also, knowing your crossover settings may conceivably be helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, 

I will get back to you this evening with pictures. 

The couch is approximately 2.5' from the back wall. I have a big plush rug in front of the couch and between the console. I will attempt to run Audyssey with the suggestions, blanket on couch method. I ran Audyssey last night with 8 positions clustered around my listening position. It was improved somewhat as I moved the perpendicular couch out of the way. Distances and levels were spot on as before they were off. It boosted the right side front speaker even though it was closer. Now they are equal. Speakers are towed in approximately 15 deg in a perfect equilateral triangle of 10.4 ft. Center is 10 ft from listening position. 

Thanks so much for your advice. Much obliged.


----------



## David Aiken

Hammonje said:


> Mike,
> 
> I will get back to you this evening with pictures.
> 
> The couch is approximately 2.5' from the back wall. I have a big plush rug in front of the couch and between the console. I will attempt to run Audyssey with the suggestions, blanket on couch method. I ran Audyssey last night with 8 positions clustered around my listening position. It was improved somewhat as I moved the perpendicular couch out of the way. Distances and levels were spot on as before they were off. It boosted the right side front speaker even though it was closer. Now they are equal. Speakers are towed in approximately 15 deg in a perfect equilateral triangle of 10.4 ft. Center is 10 ft from listening position.
> 
> Thanks so much for your advice. Much obliged.


I'm glad you're getting some improvement.

A long time ago I read a comment/instruction that you should remove anything between the speaker and the mic when doing setup. I can't remember where I read it or what the source was but that was one of the things which prompted me to start removing my coffee table from the room when I did the setup process and I found I preferred my results when I did that. Looking at the floor plan you provided, I wouldn't have thought the side couch was in the way but moving it would probably affect measurements in some way. Theory says that you want the measurements to be of the room the way it is when you are actually using the system because then the corrections will be appropriate for that room setup but some of us have found that changing the room in some way for the setup procedure produces results we prefer. If what you're chasing is sound you like better than what you're getting with no correction, it's hard to argue with a result you prefer. The big problem is that while changing some things in the room for the setup procedure may deliver you a better result, there is no way to work out what changes will deliver the best result so it's really a matter of changing something, running setup, checking to see whether that made things better or worse for you, and repeating until you get to a result you're happy to live with. About the only recommendation I can make if you're going to start moving things for the setup procedure is to make a list of what you moved, where you moved it to, and whether the result was better or worse than your original result. That way you can start to get a handle on which things are beneficial to move and which aren't.

Re Mike's suggestion of the blanket over the sofa: It's hard to argue against what has become a pretty standard suggestion which has helped a lot of people so try it but I wonder whether it will help in your case. Part of your complaint was that the highs were being boosted too much. The blanket is going to absorb high frequencies so the measurements are likely to register less high frequency energy than in your original setup measurements and since Audyssey was boosting the highs that time, it may end up boosting them further this time because the room measurement is lower in the highs. The reason that Audyssey boosts a particular region is because the in room measurement indicates that region is lower in level than it should be. If you find yourself liking the result less with the blanket on the sofa, you could try uncovering the sofa and instead hanging the blanket in front of the wall behind the sofa to see whether damping the high frequency reflections from the wall rather than the sofa makes a difference. I'm not saying Mike's suggestion is wrong or that it won't work, I'm just uncertain what the effect of reducing some high frequency reflections is going to be when the problem is that the result of correction is too much of a boost in the high frequencies. Basically covering the sofa is a good thing to do if it gives a better result, a bad thing to do if it gives a worse result, and the only way to find out what kind of a result it's going to give is to try it. I think Mike is right to suggest it as something to try but I think it's going to be interesting to see what kind of result you get.

Looking at your diagram again, I find myself wondering about the placement of your surrounds which are very close to the sofa and therefore to the listening position and I wonder whether that may not be affecting what you hear with Audyssey on. I don't know which way the surrounds are pointing, I suspect towards the listening position, and that makes me wonder how things would sound to you if instead of running Audyssey again you just rotated the surrounds a bit so they're pointing slightly forward and you're a bit off axis to them rather than on axis, and/or you lowered the trim setting for them by a dB or two. Those changes will reduce the level of high frequencies coming from a source close to the listening position and that may make a difference. If that works then I'd tend to run your setup with them in their current position but then make those changes after setup because running setup with the speakers pointing forward a bit is likely to result in Audyssey trying to compensate for the drop in high frequency from the surrounds and that could put you back to the problem you currently have. Basically, if making a change after calibration improves things, running the calibration with the change in place is going to yield a different result and that result may be closer to the original result you got which would lose some of the benefit of the change for you.

I'll look forward to seeing your photos when you post them.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... The reason that Audyssey boosts a particular region is because the in room measurement indicates that region is lower in level than it should be ...
> 
> ... try ... hanging the blanket in front of the wall behind the sofa to see whether damping the high frequency reflections from the wall ... makes a difference.


Hammonje,

I'd definitely try a blanket (or several layers of blankets) on the wall behind the sofa. If it makes things better, leave it there. Or, better yet, use a nice looking absorber. Some people use a tapestry, or hang a Persian rug on the wall, sometimes with blankets behind it -- but I haven't seen data on how good a job these do. Other than the wall behind the sofa, your first reflection points may be fairly far away, but you might as well try covering them with absorbers anyway. Sit at the Main Listening Position and have someone carry a mirror along the side walls, parallel to them. When you can see any of your speakers in the mirror, that is a first reflection point. How high is your ceiling? If it is less than about 9 feet high, you might want to try locating the first reflection point up there, and put an absorber up there, as a last resort. 

As David indicated, Audyssey "thinks" that the treble region is lower in level than it should be. Why might that be? In the spirit of grasping at straws:


Perhaps a complex pattern of treble reflections cause phase attenuations at certain treble frequencies so that there are significant dips that Audyssey turns up. Dips are a lot less noticeable than peaks, so a listener might not be be aware that they are there. Our brains tend to fill in dips, but Audyssey's brain does not, in its measurement mode, so it may turn up those treble dips in its compensation mode. (We don't often read of phase cancellations in the treble, but I gather that they are at least possible, because people who believe in breaking in (or burning in) speakers are sometimes told that the family may avoid being driven crazy by hours of break in sounds by reversing polarity of one speaker and facing the two speakers toward each other in close proximity. Reportedly, this cancels out treble as well as bass.)


I doubt it, but, perhaps, there is too little treble in the room (overall, rather than just in dips), but because many CDs are over-bright and harsh, they may sound worse (and too bright) when the frequency response has been made flat (or relatively flat in Audyssey Reference) by Audyssey. Try the best recordings you have. IMO, Blu-rays, DVD-As, and SACDs tend to sound better than CDs, on the average.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

I think that we may be conflating a couple of different concepts here. If Audyssey is boosting high frequencies, in an already bright (hard surfaces) room, it is because the Audyssey microphone is hearing something. But, what it "hears" may not actually exist for us, because it doesn't "hear" the way that we do. For one thing the microphone is much more sensitive than our hearing is, and for another it is truly omnidirectional, which our hearing is not. So, in my opinion, there can be two general causes for Audyssey to boost (or to distort) high frequencies in an already bright room. And, the causes are different.

The first cause involves set-up. If the front speakers (and their tweeters) are toed-out a little more than the Audyssey microphone would like for perfect frequency response, at the highest frequencies, then Audyssey may boost those high frequencies to compensate. And, we may not actually need, or like, that boost. The same thing could happen if the CC were recessed on a shelf, or not angled-up properly toward the MLP. Audyssey might "hear" something that we can't, with respect to the highest frequencies, and boost them when they don't actually need boosting in order for us to hear them perfectly well. After all, our brains compensate very well with undertones and overtones of notes. David's suggestion regarding the surrounds falls into that same set-up category, and set-up is the first thing I would investigate, in trying to find a reason for why Audyssey is boosting high frequencies, and how to make it stop.

The second reason involves the actual calibration process, and this is something quite different from set-up. Now, we are trying to decide whether there is something about the specific position of the microphone, during calibration, that could be causing Audyssey to boost (or distort) the high frequencies. Remember our starting point. It isn't simply that the room is bright--it's always bright. But, it sounds even brighter with Audyssey on, so Audyssey is doing something specific, if we can just discover what it is.

The two main calibration issues that I would explore, at this point, would involve the microphone pattern (including ear height) and proximity to a hard surface. Intuitively, I believe that a tighter mic pattern would be more controllable, and less likely to result in boosted high frequencies, so I would try that. Second, I would use a blanket over the back of a sofa, and keep the Audyssey microphone well away from a wall.

The reason for doing this goes back to the difference between the way the Audyssey microphone "hears" sounds. High frequency sound waves bouncing into the sensitive, and omnidirectional microphone, from very close range, will create a comb filtering effect. And, Audyssey will respond to those actually non-existent early reflections by creating an unusual number of control points up high. That resulting boost, or distortion, can create a very unpleasant sound in the upper frequencies.

That is why Audyssey recommends staying at least 18" away from a hard surface, such as wall, and I personally think that 18" is too conservative. I would stay at least 2' away and 3' would be better. But, we can't keep the Audyssey microphone 18" or 24" or 36" away from the back of a leather chair or sofa, and still EQ our actual listening area, where our ears will be. So, we put a blanket over the back of that (to Audyssey, at least) hard surface, during the calibration. And, David is right that if we get the Audyssey mic too close to that soft absorbent surface, it may cause Audyssey to boost upper mid and high frequencies, in general (as opposed to creating unnecessary high frequency control points, which is what we were trying to avoid).

I have personally experienced that issue of getting the Audyssey mic too close to an absorbent blanket, with concomitant boosts in the upper mid-range frequencies. So, when we do use a blanket over the back of a sofa, it is important to keep the Audyssey mic about 4" to 6" away from that absorbent surface. It's a balancing act, but a relatively easy one to implement, if we understand the reasons behind it. And, fortunately our ears are situated about 4" forward from the backs of our heads, so we can end up with the Audyssey mic in an almost perfect position, anyway.

I think it's important to understand the difference between potential set-up reasons, and calibration reasons, for why Audyssey would unnecessarily boost (or distort) high frequencies, in order to trouble-shoot solutions to our set-ups and to our calibration techniques. And, I would distinguish both of those things from ongoing efforts to increase the overall sound quality in the room, via the use of strategically-placed acoustical treatments. Our first goal is simply to return Audyssey to a neutral (non-harmful) state, with respect to high frequencies, so that our audio system doesn't sound better with Audyssey off than it does on. Then, acoustical treatments can be added at our own pace, or not, at our personal discretion. I believe that these are very important distinctions.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Hammonje

Here are the requested pics. Thanks again for all the suggestions. This weekend I'll have some time to experiment with Audyssey and have a quality SPL meter arriving on Saturday. 

Right side angle with back against back wall:


View from main listening position:


----------



## mthomas47

Hammonje said:


> Here are the requested pics. Thanks again for all the suggestions. This weekend I'll have some time to experiment with Audyssey and have a quality SPL meter arriving on Saturday.
> 
> Right side angle with back against back wall:
> 
> 
> View from main listening position:


Hi,

You are welcome for any suggestions! The pictures help, and the room looks nice. I don't see any smoking guns, but I do see some things that I would try. First, with respect to set-up, I think that I would spread my front speakers out a foot further to each side, and then I would increase the toe-in to point them more directly at your MLP. I believe that will increase the width of your front soundstage, which you might like, and it will get the right speaker away from your sub a little, and let you angle it in more. Angling the front speakers in a little more will let the Audyssey microphone "hear" the high frequencies from the tweeters a little better, hopefully resulting in less high frequency boost. If you like, you can experiment with angling the speakers back away a little, after Audyssey has set its filters.

The second thing I would do, with respect to set-up, is to pull your center channel forward on the stand, so that it overhangs the front edge of the shelf by about an inch. If nothing else, that should make dialogue a touch clearer, and it may help with high frequencies, as well. The height looks good, but if it is a little below ear level, try angling it up just a bit, with a shim under the front. The third thing I might try, with respect to set-up, involves the surround speakers. In my opinion, they are less likely to affect overall high frequency sound, but they might, if the Audyssey mic can't "hear" them clearly. So, I would try squaring them up a little more toward the listening position. As with the front speakers, you can always put them back, if you want to, once you have a satisfactory calibration. These set-up changes should give you better overall sound quality, but at a minimum, they should keep Audyssey from trying to do quite as much with your high frequencies.

You read the calibration tips above. Just try to use a fairly tight mic pattern, and don't go behind the listening position on your sofa. Keep the microphone at approximately seated ear height, although you can try a couple of mic positions a couple of inches higher than that, if you want to. Use an absorbent blanket over the sofa, during the calibration, and keep the Audyssey mic about 4" to 6" away from the blanket.

Good luck with all of this, and please let us know how it works out. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Hammonje

One other quick question. Often the levels from Audyssey are incorrect. Especially in regards to the right surround speaker and the left front main. 

How does one go about setting the levels correctly post Audyssey correction? Often Audyssey has the level of the speakers at - 6.0 dB. Of course then I just turn it up more. No big deal. But Audyssey often reduces the center too much, making dialogue difficult, and the rears too high to the point that effects from the front main speakers are not incorporated well. I lose immersion in gaming that I am looking for and also lose ability to locate position for example in first-person shooting games. How does setting all speakers to 70 dB for example with an SPL going to then affect Audyssey correction? What is the correct method for tuning surround sound in terms of speaker levels? I have read several articles, but admittedly still confused a bit in regards methodology. Also, how does one set the SW levels? With a dB meter the SW seems to be way lower than the rest of the speakers. Some 20 dB lower in many cases. Of course this was with my phone as the dB meter and I have a quality one coming this weekend. 

Sorry for so many questions, but everyone's experience and expertise is a huge help. Lots of opinions on the internet for sure.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Hammonje said:


> Mike,
> 
> I will get back to you this evening with pictures.
> 
> The couch is approximately 2.5' from the back wall. I have a big plush rug in front of the couch and between the console. I will attempt to run Audyssey with the suggestions, blanket on couch method. I ran Audyssey last night with 8 positions clustered around my listening position. It was improved somewhat as I moved the perpendicular couch out of the way. Distances and levels were spot on as before they were off. It boosted the right side front speaker even though it was closer. Now they are equal. Speakers are towed in approximately 15 deg in a perfect equilateral triangle of 10.4 ft. Center is 10 ft from listening position.
> 
> Thanks so much for your advice. Much obliged.


Since no one else has mentioned it, I will. Consider adding a Ceiling to Floor Curtain that runs from wall to wall between the TV/Couch area and the Hockey Table. This could be done fairly inexpensively and can be pulled back when not in use. I believe this will help with many of your sound issues. Just a thought. If it were my set up. This is something I would do and could get the Wife behind.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Hammonje said:


> One other quick question. Often the levels from Audyssey are incorrect. Especially in regards to the right surround speaker and the left front main.
> 
> How does one go about setting the levels correctly post Audyssey correction? Often Audyssey has the level of the speakers at - 6.0 dB. Of course then I just turn it up more. No big deal. But Audyssey often reduces the center too much, making dialogue difficult, and the rears too high to the point that effects from the front main speakers are not incorporated well. I lose immersion in gaming that I am looking for and also lose ability to locate position for example in first-person shooting games. How does setting all speakers to 70 dB for example with an SPL going to then affect Audyssey correction? What is the correct method for tuning surround sound in terms of speaker levels? I have read several articles, but admittedly still confused a bit in regards methodology. Also, how does one set the SW levels? With a dB meter the SW seems to be way lower than the rest of the speakers. Some 20 dB lower in many cases. Of course this was with my phone as the dB meter and I have a quality one coming this weekend.
> When
> Sorry for so many questions, but everyone's experience and expertise is a huge help. Lots of opinions on the internet for sure.


Just a quick question/thought. When you are taking the Audyssey Microphone readings. I am assuming you are placing the Mic in the prime seating position. Then moving out in a circle pattern from there. When doing this on a couch or chair. I normally recline the chair to make sure the mic has a direct line of sight to Every speaker. Your Couch does not appear to recline. If the Mic is placed in a position where the Couch Back is blocking the line of sight to the rear surround speakers that could be the reason for the spikes in volume. 

In your case you may just have to raise the Mic to a level that it sits well above the couch back. Perhaps you already did.knew this. Or perhaps not.


----------



## Hammonje

Wife is not part of the picture. She has the two upper floors with which to do what she pleases. Man cave is my entertainment area for gaming and my shop for building M14s/AR15s, handloading, and firearms disassembly and cleaning after range trips. So I have several large work benches, vises, presses, etc. 

I will eventually place a door at the top of the stairs so I can crank the volume more. I understand that acoustically the space is not ideal. But with everyone's advice I should get it sounding much better. Music sounds terrific in 2.1 with the Chane speaker upgrade. Amazing. The HSU SW just thumps out clean bass. I listen to EDM and blues almost entirely. The 5.1 surround sound is still subpar. It lacks immersion while Audyssey is erroneously boosting all upper-mid and treble frequencies prior to roll off in Audyssey by almost 10 dB in the EQ from the front mains. Not present in the center, nor the surrounds near the same degree. Placing a heavy wool blanket over the couch in my main listening position did help with the front right some, but interestingly since the left side was not covered the left main was still boosted more. I will re-run with the entire couch covered and with suggested speaker location adjustments this weekend. It's getting better, few more tweaks in regards toning down the higher frequency boosting and level corrections and I'll be happy. 

Of course without you guys I'd be at a loss of what to adjust.


----------



## Hammonje

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Just a quick question/thought. When you are taking the Audyssey Microphone readings. I am assuming you are placing the Mic in the prime seating position. Then moving out in a circle pattern from there. When doing this on a couch or chair. I normally recline the chair to make sure the mic has a direct line of sight to Every speaker. Your Couch does not appear to recline. If the Mic is placed in a position where the Couch Back is blocking the line of sight to the rear surround speakers that could be the reason for the spikes in volume.
> 
> In your case you may just have to raise the Mic to a level that it sits well above the couch back. Perhaps you already did.knew this. Or perhaps not.


No I was not aware of this. The ends of the couch do recline on either side. So I will try this. Thanks. I did not raise the mic above the couch back as I did not want reflections coming from the wall 2.0 - 2.5' behind the couch.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Hammonje said:


> Wife is not part of the picture. She has the two upper floors with which to do what she pleases. Man cave is my entertainment area for gaming and my shop for building M14s/AR15s, handloading, and firearms disassembly and cleaning after range trips. So I have several large work benches, vises, presses, etc.
> 
> I will eventually place a door at the top of the stairs so I can crank the volume more. I understand that acoustically the space is not ideal. But with everyone's advice I should get it sounding much better. Music sounds terrific in 2.1 with the Chane speaker upgrade. Amazing. The HSU SW just thumps out clean bass. I listen to EDM and blues almost entirely. The 5.1 surround sound is still subpar. It lacks immersion while Audyssey is erroneously boosting all upper-mid and treble frequencies prior to roll off in Audyssey by almost 10 dB in the EQ from the front mains. Not present in the center, nor the surrounds near the same degree. Placing a heavy wool blanket over the couch in my main listening position did help with the front right some, but interestingly since the left side was not covered the left main was still boosted more. I will re-run with the entire couch covered and with suggested speaker location adjustments this weekend. It's getting better, few more tweaks in regards toning down the higher frequency boosting and level corrections and I'll be happy.
> 
> Of course without you guys I'd be at a loss of what to adjust.


Sounds like we have Much in common. I too build/assemble AR's and Handguns. Am an avid shooter and former hunter. Due to mobility issues I can't/don't hunt anymore. But still love my range days. Too bad we live so far apart. Very Nice Man Cave you have there. I'm jealous.


----------



## mthomas47

Hammonje said:


> One other quick question. Often the levels from Audyssey are incorrect. Especially in regards to the right surround speaker and the left front main.
> 
> How does one go about setting the levels correctly post Audyssey correction? Often Audyssey has the level of the speakers at - 6.0 dB. Of course then I just turn it up more. No big deal. But Audyssey often reduces the center too much, making dialogue difficult, and the rears too high to the point that effects from the front main speakers are not incorporated well. I lose immersion in gaming that I am looking for and also lose ability to locate position for example in first-person shooting games. How does setting all speakers to 70 dB for example with an SPL going to then affect Audyssey correction? What is the correct method for tuning surround sound in terms of speaker levels? I have read several articles, but admittedly still confused a bit in regards methodology. Also, how does one set the SW levels? With a dB meter the SW seems to be way lower than the rest of the speakers. Some 20 dB lower in many cases. Of course this was with my phone as the dB meter and I have a quality one coming this weekend.
> 
> Sorry for so many questions, but everyone's experience and expertise is a huge help. Lots of opinions on the internet for sure.


Hopefully you will be getting some helpful ones here. We all want to be helpful.  Although I am answering this post, I did read your other ones, too. So, two calibration tips to start with. First, it won't do any harm to cover more of the couch with a blanket. Second, I would keep the Audyssey microphone at ear level (middle of the ear canal) and not raise it above the couch. Raising the mic a couple of inches for a couple of your positions can help. But, raising the mic too high can mess up your calibration. The blanket is intended to prevent reflections from the couch back, and if you are 4" to 6" forward of the couch, you are already far enough from the back wall, since the couch is 2.5' from the wall, to avoid comb filtering effects from affecting the calibration. Later, adding some absorbent material to that wall, behind your listening position, will probably help with your overall sound quality, irrespective of Audyssey.

There are several different issues involved with your question about trim levels for the various channels. First, DEQ boosts the surround speakers, so you may want to experiment with the RLO settings, or with DEQ off. Please read the FAQ, linked in my signature, for more information about DEQ and RLO. Second, the sub is a little different animal from any of the other channels. Reading the Subwoofer Setup Guide, linked below, will help with that. Don't you love homework assignments? 

Trim levels for any of the speakers can be altered, at your discretion. But, you wouldn't use an SPL meter for that. If something sounds too soft, relative to the other speakers, you would just turn it up until it sounded correct to you. The more that you perfect your set-up with respect to pointing speakers at your MLP, the easier it will be to get good equivalent sound from the various channels. If I were you, I would rely on Audyssey to accurately set channels, with respect to each other, rather than trying to do it manually. And, if something still needs to be louder to please your particular psycho-acoustic perception, just adjust it to taste. We all do that with the subwoofer(s). And, sometimes, I have to make small adjustments in trim levels, depending on how movie soundtracks are mixed or processed.

The center channel is a little different. Some people find that DEQ obscures dialogue, so again you can experiment with less DEQ (RLO settings) or by turning it off entirely. And, you can then boost your sub more to compensate for not having DEQ on. Pulling the CC forward, and perhaps tilting it up a bit, may also help. And, FWIW, a lot of us increase the trim level on our CC's a bit, even with good placement. That's why the dialogue level (really just a trim control for the center channel) is so prominently featured in the Audio section.

I hope all of this helps!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Hammonje said:


> Here are the requested pics. Thanks again for all the suggestions. This weekend I'll have some time to experiment with Audyssey and have a quality SPL meter arriving on Saturday.
> …


I would have liked to also see photos looking down the room from each end given the shape of the room and the layout but I wouldn't worry about that unless you can't get a good result over the weekend.

To add to Mike's recommendations:

- Mike suggested increasing the distance between the front left and right speakers and increasing toe in. I would experiment with pulling them out from the wall behind them a little bit also. I've found in the past that having speakers too close to the wall can sometimes make the high frequencies harder while pulling them out a little more can make the highs sweeter and a bit more open.

Addition on bringing the speakers forward slightly: I'd try having the front of the speaker level with or slightly forward of the front of the sub. Since you have the sub located between the speakers, the right hand edge of the sub is actually interfering with the forward radiation of the right speaker slightly and bringing the speaker forward will avoid that. You will probably also notice that Audyssey reports the sub as being further away than the speaker. Audyssey does not measure distances, it measures time delays and the sound from the sub is often delayed slightly because the circuitry in the sub's amps and filters produces a small electronic delay in the sound from the sub which gets reported as increased distance. Don't worry about that, it's normal and the delay is being accurately measured and compensated for. It's just that the distance looks wrong because the delay is being converted to a distance using the speed of sound so the electronic delay gets shown as increased distance.

- I think I'd also like to see a little bit more distance between the sofa and the surrounds. It's hard to judge from the photo but it looks to me like the side of the surround speaker closest to the wall is also actually behind the back of the sofa slightly. If that's the case I'd also try moving the surrounds slightly forward so the whole of the speaker is in front of the sofa back, or the side of the speaker closest to the rear wall is at least level with the front of the sofa back. The surrounds look like they're sitting on tables and I'd move them forward so the front edge of each speaker is level with the front edge of the table for the same reason that Mike is suggesting moving your centre speaker forward. In the long run I'd suggest getting actual speaker stands for the surrounds rather than sitting them on tables but there's no need to do that immediately.

I think you could spend a lot of time moving things, running setup, listening, moving things again and so on. In order to reduce the time involved a little, what I would do is start by listening for a little bit with Audyssey turned off before you move anything, then try moving things one at a time and listening, still without Audyssey on, and checking that things are sounding better. I'd move the front speakers further apart and play with toe in first, then try moving them forward a little, then moving the surrounds. When you're satisfied that the changes you have made are working well and improving the sound without Audyssey, then run setup. If the starting point without Audyssey is sounding better, then the result with Audyssey should also sound better.


There's one other thing worth mentioning. I was just checking the thread for my Marantz receiver and came across this post: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...7702mkii-owner-s-thread-281.html#post50620673

In it Selden Ball states "Audyssey does result in what most people perceive as inadequate bass. This can sometimes give the impression of excessive brightness.". Many of us including both Mike and I increase the level of our subs and doing that may help you as well. In fact doing that first may help with your current result anyway so it is definitely worth considering. Mike has made several posts on Audyssey and subs including on the desirability of having the sub trim determined by Audyssey down around -7 or -8 DB or so in order to have plenty of room for increasing the trim setting without going over 0 dB which can cause problems.

You said you're getting a quality SPL meter. You really don't need the meter with Audyssey and it probably won't be much help to you with the test tones that Audyssey uses during setup. You're better off using a test disc with a continuous white or pink noise signal with an SPL meter and make sure you have the meter set to C or Flat weighting, not A weighting, and the response time to Slow. There can be tricks to using a meter if you've never used one. I've got a couple of meters here but most of the time these days I end up using an SPL meter app on my iPhone or, more often, a sound analysis app on the iPhone which gives me an octave band readout of the levels in a pink noise signal. I use octave band rather than third of an octave band because bass response isn't going to be perfectly smooth and third octave bands can have you trying to smooth things you cannot smooth and don't actually notice. What I find the sound analysis program good for is for checking the integration of sub and speakers across the crossover range. I don't use it, or the SPL meter, for actually setting trims and balancing speaker levels, I just leave that to Audyssey.

I hope our suggestions help and you end up with a result you enjoy. Let us know how it goes.


----------



## Hammonje

I will definitely get back to you guys with results. I like the idea of disengaging Audyssey and adjusting speaker position. Did the sub crawl and found the position to be quite good. Had it previously in the corner and too much bass went upstairs. Wife was complaining constantly. So I moved it and she hasn't complained. If she only knew how I cranked it when she is away. The HSU 15" SW is a beast. Oddly in 2.1 the setup sounds amazing. Chane speakers are superb for music right out of the box. Huge upgrade from the Def Tech SM65s in terms of detail. I'm quite content with the speakers and honestly they were not expensive. The center greatly improved dialogue presentation. 

I have been adjusting the SW +3.0dB after Audyssey. The brightness comes from sound effects in gaming. Boosting, sliding, gunfire, navigating menus, etc. There is just a tad bit of harshness that I would like to remove. If Audyssey allowed for tone controls I'd be done already and only learning speaker placement tuning. 

Didn't take pics including my shop area because it is a bit messy and had many firearms in different states of disassembly. Never know how folks are going to react these days.


----------



## David Aiken

Hammonje said:


> …
> I have been adjusting the SW +3.0dB after Audyssey. The brightness comes from sound effects in gaming. Boosting, sliding, gunfire, navigating menus, etc. There is just a tad bit of harshness that I would like to remove. If Audyssey allowed for tone controls I'd be done already and only learning speaker placement tuning.…


It's not Audyssey that doesn't allow tone controls, it's the AVR manufacturer. Do you have Audyssey's Dynamic EQ turned on? I'd have to go checking in the manual for my Marantz which is a bit of a pain but I think it allows tone controls to be used with Audyssey provided you have Dynamic EQ turned off. You can have Dynamic EQ or you can have tone controls but you can't have both with my Marantz so maybe that's the same with your Denon.


----------



## Hammonje

I'll look into this Mr. Aiken. Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

Hammonje said:


> I will definitely get back to you guys with results. I like the idea of disengaging Audyssey and adjusting speaker position. Did the sub crawl and found the position to be quite good. Had it previously in the corner and too much bass went upstairs. Wife was complaining constantly. So I moved it and she hasn't complained. If she only knew how I cranked it when she is away. The HSU 15" SW is a beast. Oddly in 2.1 the setup sounds amazing. Chane speakers are superb for music right out of the box. Huge upgrade from the Def Tech SM65s in terms of detail. I'm quite content with the speakers and honestly they were not expensive. The center greatly improved dialogue presentation.
> 
> I have been adjusting the SW +3.0dB after Audyssey. The brightness comes from sound effects in gaming. Boosting, sliding, gunfire, navigating menus, etc. There is just a tad bit of harshness that I would like to remove. If Audyssey allowed for tone controls I'd be done already and only learning speaker placement tuning.
> 
> Didn't take pics including my shop area because it is a bit messy and had many firearms in different states of disassembly. Never know how folks are going to react these days.


Besides the firearms in different states of disassembly, you just said something interesting. I had suggested disengaging DEQ to see what it does for your dialogue, surround boosts, and overall sound quality. But, once you disengage DEQ, that enables the tone controls in your AVR. So, if you want to roll-off a few decibels of treble from the front speakers, you can. (The tone controls only affect the fronts.)


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> In it Selden Ball states "Audyssey does result in what most people perceive as inadequate bass. This can sometimes give the impression of excessive brightness.". Many of us including both Mike and I increase the level of our subs and doing that may help you as well.


Selden Ball also mentions that too much brightness is often because of having the speakers not toed in correctly. He says, "if the tweeters aren't pointed toward the primary listening position, then the calibration microphone can't hear them very well. As a result, it boosts the high frequencies, making the sound bright." As you know, Mike and David made similar points. 

I, too, turn up my subwoofer after Audyssey calibration, I also use tone controls (i.e., the bass control) to boost the mid bass a bit, above the 80 Hz crossover to the subwoofer. That gives me a little more "punch" in the music -- I don't simply raise the subwoofer crossover to a higher frequency (except for the LPF for LFE, which is another animal) because my main speakers have a much better "attack" above about 80 Hz than does my subwoofer.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> Selden Ball also mentions that too much brightness is often because of having the speakers not toed in correctly. He says, "if the tweeters aren't pointed toward the primary listening position, then the calibration microphone can't hear them very well. As a result, it boosts the high frequencies, making the sound bright." As you know, Mike and David made similar points.
> 
> I, too, turn up my subwoofer after Audyssey calibration, I also use tone controls (i.e., the bass control) to boost the mid bass a bit, above the 80 Hz crossover to the subwoofer. That gives me a little more "punch" in the music -- I don't simply raise the subwoofer crossover to a higher frequency (except for the LPF for LFE, which is another animal) because my main speakers have a much better "attack" above about 80 Hz than does my subwoofer.


Gary.

I'm uncertain about Selden's comment on toe in.

Certainly the speaker won't be as strong in the high frequencies off axis as it is on axis, and if you don't have the speaker pointing at the MLP Audyssey will measure that lower high frequency level and may need to boost it, but if you toe the speaker in the high frequencies are going to be stronger and Audyssey may then cut them back, or at least not boost them as much. Change the strength of the high frequencies by adjusting toe in and Audyssey is going to change the amount of correction accordingly. It's not clear to me that toe in is necessarily an issue.

On the other hand, toe in also affects the strength of the high frequency radiation reaching first and later reflection points. If they receive weaker high frequency content then the high frequency content of the reflection will be lower and if they receive stronger high frequency content then the high frequency content of the reflection will be higher. Audyssey is going to correct that also to some degree but I'm uncertain whether the mix of direct and reflected sound we hear, and the delay between the arrival of direct and reflected sound and the decay characteristics of the reflected sound affect our perception of brightness. There may be something in that which has an effect and there may not.

In summary I'm not certain that toe in will affect the operation of Audyssey and the resulting brightness of the sound but if it does it's going to be because we're hearing a different mix of direct and reflected sound and there's something about the mix which affects our perceptions of tonal balance and if that's the case it has more to do with psychoacoustics which is about the way our brain processes and responds to sound, than it has to do with physical acoustics which is about the way that sound waves behave in a room.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Gary.
> 
> I'm uncertain about Selden's comment on toe in.
> 
> Certainly the speaker won't be as strong in the high frequencies off axis as it is on axis, and if you don't have the speaker pointing at the MLP Audyssey will measure that lower high frequency level and may need to boost it, but if you toe the speaker in the high frequencies are going to be stronger and Audyssey may then cut them back, or at least not boost them as much. Change the strength of the high frequencies by adjusting toe in and Audyssey is going to change the amount of correction accordingly. It's not clear to me that toe in is necessarily an issue.
> 
> On the other hand, toe in also affects the strength of the high frequency radiation reaching first and later reflection points. If they receive weaker high frequency content then the high frequency content of the reflection will be lower and if they receive stronger high frequency content then the high frequency content of the reflection will be higher. Audyssey is going to correct that also to some degree but I'm uncertain whether the mix of direct and reflected sound we hear, and the delay between the arrival of direct and reflected sound and the decay characteristics of the reflected sound affect our perception of brightness. There may be something in that which has an effect and there may not.
> 
> In summary I'm not certain that toe in will affect the operation of Audyssey and the resulting brightness of the sound but if it does it's going to be because we're hearing a different mix of direct and reflected sound and there's something about the mix which affects our perceptions of tonal balance and if that's the case it has more to do with psychoacoustics which is about the way our brain processes and responds to sound, than it has to do with physical acoustics which is about the way that sound waves behave in a room.


David,

I am more on-board with Selden on this one. I have observed Audyssey's reaction to changing toe-in in my room, and so have a number of other people who have posted on the thread. Other than comb filtering from getting the mic too close to a hard surface, the most common cause of unnecessary high frequency boosts, that I have observed on the thread over the years, involves Audyssey not being able to "hear" tweeters clearly. It takes some trial-and-error to find a speaker angle that sounds good natively (without room correction) and which doesn't result in Audyssey trying to do too much to the high frequencies. But, it is well worth the investment in effort. Getting tweeters pointed more directly toward the MLP may, depending on the tweeter, provide a much more neutral result in the high frequencies, once Audyssey has set its filters.

Hardly anyone ever complains about Audyssey muting their high frequencies. And, if someone does, there is always less toe-in to try, or Audyssey Flat, or treble boosts. But again, those complaints are pretty rare. Audyssey over-correcting high frequencies, in a way that sounds harsh, however, is a fairly common complaint on a lot of threads, particularly from new Audyssey users. Audyssey seems to do pretty well at distinguishing between direct arriving sounds, and early reflections from side walls. Audyssey can't typically do much to fix those early reflections, but it rarely makes the sound worse, unless the reflections occur very close to the speaker--from having the speaker very close to a side wall, for instance, and toed-out too much.

But, where Audyssey seems to get more easily spoofed is either with insufficient direct sound, from tweeters with fairly narrow dispersion patterns, which don't quite point toward the mic, or from comb filtering effects from hard surfaces (such as a leather sofa) which bounce high frequencies into the mic so closely to the direct arriving sounds, that Audyssey's omnidirectional mic can't distinguish between them. In either of those cases, Audyssey is likely to do more harm than good, with respect to high frequencies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> David,
> 
> I am more on-board with Selden on this one. I have observed Audyssey's reaction to changing toe-in in my room, and so have a number of other people who have posted on the thread. Other than comb filtering from getting the mic too close to a hard surface, the most common cause of unnecessary high frequency boosts, that I have observed on the thread over the years, involves Audyssey not being able to "hear" tweeters clearly. It takes some trial-and-error to find a speaker angle that sounds good natively (without room correction) and which doesn't result in Audyssey trying to do too much to the high frequencies. But, it is well worth the investment in effort. Getting tweeters pointed more directly toward the MLP may, depending on the tweeter, provide a much more neutral result in the high frequencies, once Audyssey has set its filters.
> 
> Hardly anyone ever complains about Audyssey muting their high frequencies. And, if someone does, there is always less toe-in to try, or Audyssey Flat, or treble boosts. But again, those complaints are pretty rare. Audyssey over-correcting high frequencies, in a way that sounds harsh, however, is a fairly common complaint on a lot of threads, particularly from new Audyssey users. Audyssey seems to do pretty well at distinguishing between direct arriving sounds, and early reflections from side walls. Audyssey can't typically do much to fix those early reflections, but it rarely makes the sound worse, unless the reflections occur very close to the speaker--from having the speaker very close to a side wall, for instance, and toed-out too much.
> 
> But, where Audyssey seems to get more easily spoofed is either with insufficient direct sound, from tweeters with fairly narrow dispersion patterns, which don't quite point toward the mic, or from comb filtering effects from hard surfaces (such as a leather sofa) which bounce high frequencies into the mic so closely to the direct arriving sounds, that Audyssey's omnidirectional mic can't distinguish between them. In either of those cases, Audyssey is likely to do more harm than good, with respect to high frequencies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I'll bow to your experience. Perhaps my problem is that I always toe speakers in so they're facing either at the listening position or just behind it so I've never had a problem.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I'll bow to your experience. Perhaps my problem is that I always toe speakers in so they're facing either at the listening position or just behind it so I've never had a problem.


Thanks, David! I appreciate that. I'm not surprised that, considering your long audio experience, you have always given Audyssey a pretty good speaker set-up to work with. And, as you pointed out in an earlier post, getting things to an optimum native condition, before running Audyssey, is a very rational approach.

My own situation was a little more difficult, where my front speakers were quite far apart, partly out of necessity. They exceeded the normal equilateral triangle width, but they gave me a wonderful front soundstage. I thought that my toe-in was fine, and my high frequencies sounded very good, until XT-32 got hold of them. I found, through trial-and-error, that even a couple of inches more toe-in made a significant difference to my Audyssey calibration, as the Audyssey microphone was "hearing" things that I couldn't hear, and consequently trying to fix them in a way that made high frequencies sound worse. Later, I deliberately experimented more with that, and subsequently noticed a similar pattern with other people commenting about their high frequencies. I think a lot depends, though, on the dispersion pattern of the particular tweeters involved.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, David! I appreciate that. I'm not surprised that, considering your long audio experience, you have always given Audyssey a pretty good speaker set-up to work with. And, as you pointed out in an earlier post, getting things to an optimum native condition, before running Audyssey, is a very rational approach.
> 
> My own situation was a little more difficult, where my front speakers were quite far apart, partly out of necessity. They exceeded the normal equilateral triangle width, but they gave me a wonderful front soundstage. I thought that my toe-in was fine, and my high frequencies sounded very good, until XT-32 got hold of them. I found, through trial-and-error, that even a couple of inches more toe-in made a significant difference to my Audyssey calibration, as the Audyssey microphone was "hearing" things that I couldn't hear, and consequently trying to fix them in a way that made high frequencies sound worse. Later, I deliberately experimented more with that, and subsequently noticed a similar pattern with other people commenting about their high frequencies. I think a lot depends, though, on the dispersion pattern of the particular tweeters involved.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Trying to reason things out, the thing which stands out for me is that increasing toe in increases high frequency content in the direct sound because the listening position is more on axis, and it decreases high frequency content in the first reflections from the side walls because the first reflection point is going to be more off axis. That remains true with Audyssey on so if Audyssey boosts the high frequencies because the direct sound is off axis and the highs are down, the high frequency content in the first reflection will increase also.

The amount by which the direct sound and the first reflection are off axis is going to be different. If you have no toe in, the speaker is firing parallel to the side wall, the closer the speaker is to the side wall the more likely it is that the first reflection point on the wall is going to be more on axis than the listening position and as you increase toe in the more likely it becomes that the first reflection point will become more off axis so with toe in you're likely to need less HF boost for the direct sound, perhaps even a cut, and the first reflection point is likely to be more off axis so the first reflection is going to be lower in HF than the direct sound. There's likely to be very little boost in the HF content due to Audyssey and there may even be a cut. Without toe in, pre-Audyssey both direct and first reflection are going to be down in HF because of the directionality of the tweeter but with Audyssey both are likely to be boosted because Audyssey is going to boost the high frequency content to compensate for the off axis measurement so the sound is likely to sound brighter.

So yes, now I'm on board with this one but it did take me a while to reason out the mechanism involved. I kept thinking of things in terms of the roll off in HF that the Reference curve introduces relative to flat but what's going on is the change between without Audyssey and with Audyssey, and if without Audyssey the HF is lower than where Audyssey's Reference curve places it because you have little or no toe in and are a fair bit off axis, then with Audyssey it is quite possible that you are going to get an increase in the highs and notice a brighter sound as a result of Audyssey.

But the reverse is also possible. If you have the speakers toed in and are used to the sound that way, you may find that the highs sound overly rolled off and dull with Audyssey on because Audyssey may introduce a cut in the high frequency content.

I think that this effect is going to be speaker dependent to some degree and the high frequency radiation pattern of the speaker is likely to be important. Last year I swapped from using a pair of omnidirectional speakers with a 180 degree even dispersion pattern in the highs but a natural HF roll off due to the size of the tweeter, to a normal pair of floor standers which I automatically toed in. The thing I noticed was an improvement in voice reproduction and that may have been due a reduction in my highs because the first reflection path with the floor standers is off axis but the first reflection path with the omnidirectional was effectively on axis, as was their direct sound, due to their 180 degree radiation pattern so it may have been the effect of the brighter first reflections with the omnidirectional which was interfering with voice reproduction for me. When I originally bought the omnidirectional I wasn't using an AVR with Audyssey, just a stereo amp, and I liked the highs I was hearing but I did notice an increase in the highs when I swapped to the AVR and started using Audyssey and I actually liked the HF lift on music and some sound effects and didn't object to it on voices. I now wonder whether the highs I'm hearing now are falling somewhere between the levels the highs from the omnidirectionals were at with and without Audyssey.

Interesting given that at 69 I know my hearing is down in the high frequency range.


----------



## Hammonje

Getting back with results. 

First, what I did to my setup:
1. Spread the front speakers out further 1' each and toed them in to the main listening position
2. Moved front mains out from wall an additional 6"
3. Moved center forward to overhang console by 1"
4. Moved surrounds to be perpendicular to listening position and forward of couch rest
5. Ran Audyssey with couch completely covered in blankets in 6 positions on and forward of listening position

Must say the harsh high end disappeared and was completely tamed. Equalizer agreed with my ears. Instead of a 10 dB boost across the high end, there was a bump in the low mids and 6 dB increase max across the middle treble frequencies. Sound stage opened up significantly. Dialogue was improved with greater clarity. Immersion was improved and location during gaming was never better. Watched a few movies last night and the sound has never been so incredible. Have to admit gentlemen, I was pumped about the improvements. My system's sound now rivals any movie theater I've ever been in.

Still need to dial in the SW a bit. 

Thanks for all the advice. It was mighty helpful. Doubt I would've gotten there without everyone's assistance with advice. Mike, David, Gary, Adamg....much obliged.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> Trying to reason things out, the thing which stands out for me is that increasing toe in increases high frequency content in the direct sound because the listening position is more on axis, and it decreases high frequency content in the first reflections from the side walls because the first reflection point is going to be more off axis. That remains true with Audyssey on so if Audyssey boosts the high frequencies because the direct sound is off axis and the highs are down, the high frequency content in the first reflection will increase also.
> 
> So yes, now I'm on board with this one but it did take me a while to reason out the mechanism involved. I kept thinking of things in terms of the roll off in HF that the Reference curve introduces relative to flat but what's going on is the change between without Audyssey and with Audyssey, and if without Audyssey the HF is lower than where Audyssey's Reference curve places it because you have little or no toe in and are a fair bit off axis, then with Audyssey it is quite possible that you are going to get an increase in the highs and notice a brighter sound as a result of Audyssey.
> 
> But the reverse is also possible. If you have the speakers toed in and are used to the sound that way, you may find that the highs sound overly rolled off and dull with Audyssey on because Audyssey may introduce a cut in the high frequency content.
> 
> I think that this effect is going to be speaker dependent to some degree and the high frequency radiation pattern of the speaker is likely to be important.


Hi David,

You must have been up very early yesterday morning when you wrote this. I agree with all of your conclusions. That's essentially the same thought process I have gone through. I typically leave the Reference curve out of the equation when I am thinking about why things may sound brighter after an Audyssey calibration. The high frequency roll-off with that curve is pretty gentle, anyway. And, I am never sure whether a harsh sound in the high frequencies is the result of a comprehensive boost across the higher frequency spectrum, or simply too much "busyness" in the higher frequencies.

Nearly all of the audio experts I have ever seen quoted on the subject believe that automated room correction programs, such as Audyssey, are at their best below about 1000Hz. Above about 1000Hz (and some say lower than that), they may be as likely to harm, as to help, sound quality in a room. So, for the last few years, my personal philosophy, with respect to the use of Audyssey, has been to take full advantage of its undoubted benefits in the bass range, and perhaps in the mid range, while trying not to present it with too much to do in the upper frequencies. In my opinion, good set-up, and good calibration technique, are critical to keeping Audyssey fairly neutral with respect to higher frequencies.

The graphs in the Addendum to the FAQ, illustrate what can happen when Audyssey gets too "busy" in the high frequencies. By comparison, a gently sloping boost, or cut, would be far preferable, as they would sound more natural to our ears, and would also be easier to ameliorate by switching Audyssey curves, or by using tone controls, or whatever. There is so much that we (I) don't understand about how Audyssey actually operates, but empirically it does seem that Audyssey struggles a little when speakers aren't optimally pointed, or are located in an alcove, or very close to side walls. For instance with respect to alcoves and side walls, I believe that if direct sounds and first reflections arrive too close together, Audyssey can't distinguish between them, and tries to over-correct for what it "hears" in the short wavelength high frequencies. The same thing happens with comb filtering effects from mic proximity to a hard (or smooth) surface. And, any of those conditions could conceivably result in high frequency sound which is or harsher, or more piercing, with Audyssey on, than with it off.

I have included a link to the graphs which illustrate a smoother high frequency response, versus a busier one. XT-32 represents a different philosophy with respect to how Audyssey allocates resources to the high frequencies. And, as a result, XT-32 represents a better opportunity for a smoother, and less busy, high frequency response. But, regardless of the version of Audyssey, including XT-32, we can take steps to minimize the extent to which Audyssey tries to over-correct high frequencies, by engaging in good set-up and calibration procedures.

Here's the link: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-thread-faq-post-51779-a-1726.html#addendum1

It's an interesting subject and, quite honestly, a complicated one, in my opinion. But, it's nice when we can apply our empirical observations, and theories, to help someone else achieve better sound quality.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> You must have been up very early yesterday morning when you wrote this. I agree with all of your conclusions. That's essentially the same thought process I have gone through. I typically leave the Reference curve out of the equation when I am thinking about why things may sound brighter after an Audyssey calibration. The high frequency roll-off with that curve is pretty gentle, anyway. And, I am never sure whether a harsh sound in the high frequencies is the result of a comprehensive boost across the higher frequency spectrum, or simply too much "busyness" in the higher frequencies.
> 
> Nearly all of the audio experts I have ever seen quoted on the subject believe that automated room correction programs, such as Audyssey, are at their best below about 1000Hz. Above about 1000Hz (and some say lower than that), they may be as likely to harm, as to help, sound quality in a room. So, for the last few years, my personal philosophy, with respect to the use of Audyssey, has been to take full advantage of its undoubted benefits in the bass range, and perhaps in the mid range, while trying not to present it with too much to do in the upper frequencies. In my opinion, good set-up, and good calibration technique, are critical to keeping Audyssey fairly neutral with respect to higher frequencies.…


Yes, I was up early. A bit after 4.00 am. My normal sleep cycle revolves around a total sleep amount of 4 to 4 and a half hours a day in total, and naps or sleep during the day get taken off sleep at night so the total remains fairly constant. If I have a bad night I can end up getting up as early as 3.00 am. I've seen a sleep specialist who told me that I would never have a normal sleep cycle. It's been this way for over 30 years now and is associated with some permanent sensory deficits as well.

From a physical acoustics perspective, most problems occur below 300-500 Hz. It's a common belief that this is because we have room modes (aka standing waves) occurring at those frequencies and that they don't occur at higher frequencies. This is incorrect. Room modes occur at all frequencies but because they occur at multiples of frequencies with a wavelength equal to a room dimension, they become far more frequent at higher frequencies and that actually smooths the room response. The problem is not that we have room modes at low frequencies, it's that there are very few room modes per octave at low frequencies and at low frequencies we simply don't have enough of them to smooth the room response. The graphs you linked to were very interesting and I think go a long way to explaining why we seem to prefer XT32. That very choppy high end in the XT plot reminds me of plots I've seen demonstrating comb filtering which can sound quite harsh.

And yes, it is nice when our ideas and experience help someone else achieve better sound quality. It's also very nice when we get detailed feedback, as we did from Hammonje, because knowing what works and what doesn't work for others is always useful when it comes to trying to help the next person.


----------



## mastermaybe

Hi all,

I have a Denon 4520 in my living room.

Right now I have JUST an L C R.

NO subwoofer, no surrounds.

All I want to do is room eq the front 3 speaks and have them properly HPF'd.

I ran Audyssey- seems it (correctly IMO) recognizes the above units are not available and sets up the L C R, appropriately...except (it seems)...

it makes the L and R LARGE (they are not) and pushes the LF (sub output) to it ...seemingly.

I noted this when I played the Dolby True HD clip and it bottomed out my drivers in the L and R speaker. When I went in to "manual" speaker adjustment it would allow me to (correctly) change them to "small", but then it appeared to dump any Audyssey correction.

Can I not simply change the size designation and KEEP the adjustments made by Audyssey on the LCR? Surely it can measure what the L C R are capable of and NOT apply freq's below their - 3db point?!?!? 

If that means no ".1" channel through the L and R, that's fine, but why dump everything? Is there another way to properly assign the speakers as "small" ("booked freq response is 45hz ^). Why should be stuck with NO room correction on any channels simply because I don't have a subwoofer? Honestly, I don't recall being able to even adjust the x-over to them through the audyssey option. ???

Perhaps I'm in error?

Thanks for the help.

James


----------



## mastermaybe

So I re-ran Audyssey.

Seems I CAN adjust the x-over for the L & R, I just have to do it, globally.

But the LFE MUST go to the L and R no matter what, because even when I selected a 250hz cross, it would still clearly over drive the L and R with LFE.

Only remedy was to manually move the L and R setting to "small" which of course dumps Audyssey.

So it appears- at least with this AVR- that I simply cannot auto-correct the LCR and run without a subwoofer?

Thanks
James


----------



## mthomas47

mastermaybe said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have a Denon 4520 in my living room.
> 
> Right now I have JUST an L C R.
> 
> NO subwoofer, no surrounds.
> 
> All I want to do is room eq the front 3 speaks and have them properly HPF'd.
> 
> I ran Audyssey- seems it (correctly IMO) recognizes the above units are not available and sets up the L C R, appropriately...except (it seems)...
> 
> it makes the L and R LARGE (they are not) and pushes the LF (sub output) to it ...seemingly.
> 
> I noted this when I played the Dolby True HD clip and it bottomed out my drivers in the L speaker. When I went in to "manual" speaker adjustment it would allow me to (correctly) change them to "small", but then it appeared to dump any Audyssey correction.
> 
> Can I not simply change the size designation and KEEP the adjustments made by Audyssey?
> 
> If that means no ".1" channel through the L and R, that's fine, but why dump everything? Is there another way to properly assign the speakers as "small" ("booked freq response is 45hz ^). Honestly, I don't recall being able to even adjust the x-over to them through the audyssey option. ???
> 
> Perhaps I'm in error?
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> James


Hi James,

I may be in error too, but unless you have a subwoofer in your system, I think that your speakers are automatically assigned as Small. The Large/Small designation isn't based on size, but rather on measured frequency response, for purposes of assigning a crossover to a subwoofer. But, you don't have a subwoofer, so your front speakers have to be configured as Large. I didn't realize that trying to change the assignment of Large, back to Small, would disable Audyssey, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, because there isn't anywhere else for Audyssey to send the bass frequencies in the regular channels, or the LFE channel, except to those speakers.

I am not sure exactly what you can do about this. I believe that your Denon probably has a Low Frequency Containment feature. That would allow you to limit the overall bass that your speakers are getting. It's not just the LFE channel that contains very low bass. The regular speaker channels have it too, in both movies, and in some kinds of electronic music. The only other solution might be to buy a fairly inexpensive subwoofer to add to your system. 

I may be missing something, and if I am, I hope that someone else will offer a more helpful suggestion. But, at the moment I am stumped with respect to a workaround for this.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mastermaybe

mthomas47 said:


> Hi James,
> 
> I may be in error too, but unless you have a subwoofer in your system, I think that your speakers are automatically assigned as Small. The Large/Small designation isn't based on size, but rather on measured frequency response, for purposes of assigning a crossover to a subwoofer. But, you don't have a subwoofer, so your front speakers have to be configured as Large. I didn't realize that trying to change the assignment of Large, back to Small, would disable Audyssey, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, because there isn't anywhere else for Audyssey to send the bass frequencies in the regular channels, or the LFE channel, except to those speakers.
> 
> I am not sure exactly what you can do about this. I believe that your Denon probably has a Low Frequency Containment feature. That would allow you to limit the overall bass that your speakers are getting. It's not just the LFE channel that contains very low bass. The regular speaker channels have it too, in both movies, and in some kinds of electronic music. The only other solution might be to buy a fairly inexpensive subwoofer to add to your system.
> 
> I may be missing something, and if I am, I hope that someone else will offer a more helpful suggestion. But, at the moment I am stumped with respect to a workaround for this.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. I believe I understand what you're getting at, but you contradicted yourself in the first 3 sentences:

"I may be in error too, but unless you have a subwoofer in your system, I think that your speakers are automatically assigned as Small"

"But, you don't have a subwoofer, so your front speakers have to be configured as Large."

I'm fairly certain that because I don't have a sub, it tags my L and R as "large". This "guess' or "default" can be and in this case, _is,_ wrong, of course- at least if you want to enjoy more realistic playback levels without detonating speakers. 

IMO, it should just measure the response and apply the appropriate (-3db) cross, just as it would if there was a sub, and then let the user adjust it down as he/she chooses.

With a sub, I understand how and why Audyssey makes the "large" or "small" designation. And as I recollect, one can then pump up the xover to wherever they choose (for better or worse)- or down (they would simply lose any RC on freq's below Audyssey's -3db point). Without a sub, one is sol (well, perhaps not for the channel-specific content, but the LFE seems to still be routed there).

This way, I'd be able to increase my overall playback level, enjoy SOME of the benefit of Audyssey and NOT worry about destroying my loudspeakers.

So it looks like until I build my sub, I will have to run without Audyssey and properly cross my speakers, manually. 

Really limiting, unnecessary, and dumb. Again, unless I'm missing something, somewhere.

James


----------



## mthomas47

mastermaybe said:


> Thanks Mike. I believe I understand what you're getting at, but you contradicted yourself in the first 3 sentences:
> 
> "I may be in error too, but unless you have a subwoofer in your system, I think that your speakers are automatically assigned as Small"
> 
> "But, you don't have a subwoofer, so your front speakers have to be configured as Large."
> 
> I'm fairly certain that because I don't have a sub, it tags my L and R as "large". This "guess' or "default" can be and in this case, _is,_ wrong, of course- at least if you want to enjoy more realistic playback levels without detonating speakers.
> 
> IMO, it should just measure the response and apply the appropriate (-3db) cross, just as it would if there was a sub, and then let the user adjust it down as he/she chooses.
> 
> With a sub, I understand how and why Audyssey makes the "large" or "small" designation. And as I recollect, one can then pump up the xover to wherever they choose (for better or worse)- or down (they would simply lose any RC on freq's below Audyssey's -3db point). Without a sub, one is sol (well, perhaps not for the channel-specific content, but the LFE seems to still be routed there).
> 
> This way, I'd be able to increase my overall playback level, enjoy SOME of the benefit of Audyssey and NOT worry about destroying my loudspeakers.
> 
> So it looks like until I build my sub, I will have to run without Audyssey and properly cross my speakers, manually.
> 
> Really limiting, unnecessary, and dumb. Again, unless I'm missing something, somewhere.
> 
> James


See, I told you I might be in error, because I misspoke in my very first sentence. 

I meant to say that, without a subwoofer, your front speakers are automatically set to Large.  I don't know whether you are missing something exactly, but the reason for why Audyssey is assigning your speakers as Large, and not letting you change them, is inherent in the term "crossover". Without a sub, there is nothing for your speakers to cross over to. So, for example, if the measured F3 point of your speakers is 65Hz in-room, your Denon will set the speakers as Small, with an 80Hz crossover. And, the crossover will include a high pass filter for the speakers, and a low pass filter for the sub, both centered at 80Hz. But, without a sub, there is no way for that crossover, with dual HP and LP filters to be set.

I'm afraid you are correct. Until you build your sub, you may just have to operate without Audyssey, unless you want to experiment with something like LFC, which I mentioned in my first post.


----------



## mastermaybe

mthomas47 said:


> See, I told you I might be in error, because I misspoke in my very first sentence.
> 
> I meant to say that, without a subwoofer, your front speakers are automatically set to Large.  I don't know whether you are missing something exactly, but the reason for why Audyssey is assigning your speakers as Large, and not letting you change them, is inherent in the term "crossover". Without a sub, there is nothing for your speakers to cross over to. So, for example, if the measured F3 point of your speakers is 65Hz in-room, your Denon will set the speakers as Small, with an 80Hz crossover. And, the crossover will include a high pass filter for the speakers, and a low pass filter for the sub, both centered at 80Hz. But, without a sub, there is no way for that crossover, with dual HP and LP filters to be set.
> 
> I'm afraid you are correct. Until you build your sub, you may just have to operate without Audyssey, unless you want to experiment with something like LFC, which I mentioned in my first post.


Correct. My assumption would not be for a bona fide crossover, but simply correction for the speaker with an HPF.

I CERTAINLY don't expect the speaker to continue to bottom out AFTER I apply a 250hz "cross" while in the Audyssey settings, post calibration, sans subwoofer. After all, if it cannot/won't be applied, why have it as an option?


James


----------



## pbarach

mastermaybe said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have a Denon 4520 in my living room.
> 
> Right now I have JUST an L C R.
> 
> NO subwoofer, no surrounds.
> 
> All I want to do is room eq the front 3 speaks and have them properly HPF'd.
> 
> I ran Audyssey- seems it (correctly IMO) recognizes the above units are not available and sets up the L C R, appropriately...except (it seems)...
> 
> it makes the L and R LARGE (they are not) and pushes the LF (sub output) to it ...seemingly.
> 
> I noted this when I played the Dolby True HD clip and it bottomed out my drivers in the L and R speaker. When I went in to "manual" speaker adjustment it would allow me to (correctly) change them to "small", but then it appeared to dump any Audyssey correction.
> 
> Can I not simply change the size designation and KEEP the adjustments made by Audyssey on the LCR? Surely it can measure what the L C R are capable of and NOT apply freq's below their - 3db point?!?!?
> 
> If that means no ".1" channel through the L and R, that's fine, but why dump everything? Is there another way to properly assign the speakers as "small" ("booked freq response is 45hz ^). Why should be stuck with NO room correction on any channels simply because I don't have a subwoofer? Honestly, I don't recall being able to even adjust the x-over to them through the audyssey option. ???
> 
> Perhaps I'm in error?
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> James


Audyssey does NOT set your speakers to SMALL automatically if you have a sub. If it has set them to LARGE, you can still change them to SMALL and set your crossover wherever you think best, and Audyssey will still work. The reason for this is that if Audyssey sets your speakers to LARGE, it has calibrated them throughout their range. So if you set them to small with, say, an 80 Hz cutoff, your mains will use Audyssey's calibration curve down to about 80 Hz. The subwoofer will use Audyssey's calibration curve as well.


----------



## David Aiken

mastermaybe said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I have a Denon 4520 in my living room.
> 
> Right now I have JUST an L C R.
> 
> NO subwoofer, no surrounds.
> 
> All I want to do is room eq the front 3 speaks and have them properly HPF'd.
> 
> I ran Audyssey- seems it (correctly IMO) recognizes the above units are not available and sets up the L C R, appropriately...except (it seems)...
> 
> it makes the L and R LARGE (they are not) and pushes the LF (sub output) to it ...seemingly.
> 
> I noted this when I played the Dolby True HD clip and it bottomed out my drivers in the L and R speaker. When I went in to "manual" speaker adjustment it would allow me to (correctly) change them to "small", but then it appeared to dump any Audyssey correction.
> 
> Can I not simply change the size designation and KEEP the adjustments made by Audyssey on the LCR? Surely it can measure what the L C R are capable of and NOT apply freq's below their - 3db point?!?!?
> 
> If that means no ".1" channel through the L and R, that's fine, but why dump everything? Is there another way to properly assign the speakers as "small" ("booked freq response is 45hz ^). Why should be stuck with NO room correction on any channels simply because I don't have a subwoofer? Honestly, I don't recall being able to even adjust the x-over to them through the audyssey option. ???
> 
> Perhaps I'm in error?
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> James


My take on things:

1- Audyssey does not make the large/small setting or set crossovers. It calculates filters and sends various bits of info to the bass management part of the AVR's software and that software is written by Denon. It's that software which decides what to do with things, and it's also Denon's software which decides whether to fold the .1 channel into the speaker channels if you don't have a sub. Audyssey has nothing to do with the bass management decisions, that's all the AVR's own software but the AVR's software makes some decisions, like the crossover frequency and whether or not to set speakers to large or small, based on information provided by Audyssey.

2- If you don't have a sub, your speakers should be set to Large. That ensures they are run full range which means that they get the bass contained in their specific channels. I don't know whether the LFE channel gets folded in, I once believed that it did not because it could overload the speakers. My belief was that if you do not have a sub, the LFE channel content gets discarded and is not used. I'm not certain whether that is still the case but that was my understanding of how it worked some years ago.

3- There is low bass in the speaker channels. They go all the way down to 20 Hz, but they don't contain loud bass special effects. The LFE channel is there specifically to provide those effects. You did not say what speakers you have so we don't know what their bass response is. The content from the surround channels will be mixed into your front speakers so they will be called on to deliver the whole of the frequency range, including bass content from the surround channels. If you have front channels which start rolling off at somewhere in the 50-100 Hz range or higher, and many stand mount speakers do, then they will be fed bass content all the way down to 20 Hz because there is no sub to pass those frequencies to. As far as I know, no receiver just automatically rolls off the bass for speakers which can't handle it when you do not have a sub.

4- My understanding is that Audyssey will not provide correction to a channel below the measured -3 dB point for that channel. That means that without a sub in the system your speakers will be corrected down to their measured -3 dB point and below that you will get the speakers' natural response which will be rolling off. That is intended as a protection for the speakers but it does not affect the amount of bass being sent to the speaker. The full content for the speaker channels will be sent, it's just that no boost or cut will be applied by Audyssey. If there were to be a process for not sending bass below the -3 dB point to the speakers, it would not be provided by Audyssey, it would need to be an option in the AVRs bass management software and that software is provided by the AVR manufacturer, Denon in your case.

My recommendation is to set the speakers to Large and to set Audyssey to Flat or Reference as you choose. If the speakers are receiving more bass than they can handle then first ensure that Dynamic EQ is turned off because if you have the master volume level set below reference, DEQ will be boosting bass within the range where Audyssey is providing correction. If Dynamic EQ is turned off and the speakers are still receiving too much bass, then use the tone controls to roll the bass off to the extent necessary given the low frequency capacity of your speakers.

I cannot think of any other control you would have apart from the Low Frequency Containment setting that Mike mentioned.

Basically any problems you are running into with low bass in your setup are due to the way Denon's bass management function works in the absence of a sub and the fact that your speakers are probably not designed to handle bass down to 20 Hz and are being called on to handle not only the bass for their own channels in a surround soundtrack but also the bass for the surround channels and also the LFE channel if Denon add that into the speaker channels when there isn't a sub. My understanding is that the LFE channel should never be added to the speaker channels in the absence of a sub but AVR manufacturers are a law unto themselves and sometimes do silly things.

Addition: If setting the speakers to Small is resulting in the loss of bass below the crossover frequency it will be because Denon have programmed their bass management system to send that bass to a sub and it is being passed to the sub channel but without a sub there's nothing to play that part of the signal. There's no settings I am aware of to change that while the speakers are set to Small. If you want to hear that bass then the speakers need to be set to Large. The Large/Small setting should not result in Audyssey being turned off when it is set to Small in the absence of a sub. In fact you should not be allowed to set the speakers to Small in the absence of a sub because the Small setting is intended to tell the AVR to pass low frequency content to a sub and you can't do that without a sub so the speakers should be run full range and Audyssey should be available whether or not you have a sub.


----------



## mastermaybe

pbarach said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I have a Denon 4520 in my living room.
> 
> Right now I have JUST an L C R.
> 
> NO subwoofer, no surrounds.
> 
> All I want to do is room eq the front 3 speaks and have them properly HPF'd.
> 
> I ran Audyssey- seems it (correctly IMO) recognizes the above units are not available and sets up the L C R, appropriately...except (it seems)...
> 
> it makes the L and R LARGE (they are not) and pushes the LF (sub output) to it ...seemingly.
> 
> I noted this when I played the Dolby True HD clip and it bottomed out my drivers in the L and R speaker. When I went in to "manual" speaker adjustment it would allow me to (correctly) change them to "small", but then it appeared to dump any Audyssey correction.
> 
> Can I not simply change the size designation and KEEP the adjustments made by Audyssey on the LCR? Surely it can measure what the L C R are capable of and NOT apply freq's below their - 3db point?!?!?
> 
> If that means no ".1" channel through the L and R, that's fine, but why dump everything? Is there another way to properly assign the speakers as "small" ("booked freq response is 45hz ^). Why should be stuck with NO room correction on any channels simply because I don't have a subwoofer? Honestly, I don't recall being able to even adjust the x-over to them through the audyssey option. ???
> 
> Perhaps I'm in error?
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey does NOT set your speakers to SMALL automatically if you have a sub. If it has set them to LARGE, you can still change them to SMALL and set your crossover wherever you think best, and Audyssey will still work. The reason for this is that if Audyssey sets your speakers to LARGE, it has calibrated them throughout their range. So if you set them to small with, say, an 80 Hz cutoff, your mains will use Audyssey's calibration curve down to about 80 Hz. The subwoofer will use Audyssey's calibration curve as well.
Click to expand...

This issue seems to be conflating/confusing into others. Prolly my fault.

As I understand things, the "large" or "small" designation is determined simply by whether the loudpspeaker's -3db point is under 40hz. If I mentioned or implied that it (audyssey or an avr manufacturer for that matter) "automatically" declares speakers "small" simply because there's a subwoofer present that certainly wasn't my aim.

James


----------



## David Aiken

Some additional comments.

I called up a pdf copy of the 4520 manual. Page 142 covers various speaker config settings. It says that when subwoofer is set to none, the front speakers are set to Large, and that when the front speakers are set to Small, subwoofer is set to One.

That explains your problem. When you set the front speakers to small the subwoofer setting changes and because the speaker settings change to having a sub which was not measured during the setup process, Audyssey gets turned off because it is automatically turned off if the speaker settings show that additional speakers which were not measured during setup have been added because Audyssey then does not have the appropriate information for its filters.

Change the front speaker settings back to Large. That gets rid of the sub in the speaker configuration settings and Audyssey will turn back on. If it doesn’t turn on automatically, turn it on manually. You will not be able to have Audyssey applying correction to any speakers if you don’t have a sub active during the setup process.


----------



## mastermaybe

David Aiken said:


> My take on things:
> 
> 1- Audyssey does not make the large/small setting or set crossovers. It calculates filters and sends various bits of info to the bass management part of the AVR's software and that software is written by Denon. It's that software which decides what to do with things, and it's also Denon's software which decides whether to fold the .1 channel into the speaker channels if you don't have a sub. Audyssey has nothing to do with the bass management decisions, that's all the AVR's own software but the AVR's software makes some decisions, like the crossover frequency and whether or not to set speakers to large or small, based on information provided by Audyssey.
> 
> Thanks Dave. Then I suppose Denon is making some poor decisions. Again, after setting the "global crossover at 250hz (assuming that "took") the speakers still getting overloaded with LFE is just dumb and poorly thought-out.
> 
> 2- If you don't have a sub, your speakers should be set to Large. That ensures they are run full range which means that they get the bass contained in their specific channels. I don't know whether the LFE channel gets folded in, I once believed that it did not because it could overload the speakers. My belief was that if you do not have a sub, the LFE channel content gets discarded and is not used. I'm not certain whether that is still the case but that was my understanding of how it worked some years ago.
> 
> I suppose I just disagree. The VAST majority of folks speakers out there cannot adequately reproduce sub 40hz content, never mind 20. One again, it would be BETTER if Audyssey/Denon simply found the measured -3db point and set an HPF, there. Then, let the user move it if they so chose after the fact (just like the ability to move the x-over point)
> 
> 3- There is low bass in the speaker channels. They go all the way down to 20 Hz, but they don't contain loud bass special effects. The LFE channel is there specifically to provide those effects. You did not say what speakers you have so we don't know what their bass response is. The content from the surround channels will be mixed into your front speakers so they will be called on to deliver the whole of the frequency range, including bass content from the surround channels. If you have front channels which start rolling off at somewhere in the 50-100 Hz range or higher, and many stand mount speakers do, then they will be fed bass content all the way down to 20 Hz because there is no sub to pass those frequencies to. As far as I know, no receiver just automatically rolls off the bass for speakers which can't handle it when you do not have a sub.
> 
> Yes- all channels are eligible sub-sonic freqs. Yes to the purpose of the LFE. Again, it's just plain dumb to have an AVR/processor measure a speaker, "KNOW" it doesn't reach down nearly that far, and then feed it subsonic content for its dedicated channel...and then ADD that of the other channels...and in my case at least- the LFE?!?!
> 
> 4- My understanding is that Audyssey will not provide correction to a channel below the measured -3 dB point for that channel. That means that without a sub in the system your speakers will be corrected down to their measured -3 dB point and below that you will get the speakers' natural response which will be rolling off. That is intended as a protection for the speakers but it does not affect the amount of bass being sent to the speaker. The full content for the speaker channels will be sent, it's just that no boost or cut will be applied by Audyssey. If there were to be a process for not sending bass below the -3 dB point to the speakers, it would not be provided by Audyssey, it would need to be an option in the AVRs bass management software and that software is provided by the AVR manufacturer, Denon in your case.
> 
> Huh? There is no "protection at all". Matter of fact, a "protective" measure would be to recognize the speakers lack of response and apply an HPF, just as I'm referring. You seem to admit as much in the same sentence: "that is intended as protection for the speakers but it does not affect the amount of bass being sent to the speaker". This equates to: no. protection. It (the process, Audyssey and Denon) has only _worsened _the scenario by feeding MORE low frequency energy the speaker cannot handle from the surrounds and potentially, LFE. I'm not convinced that Audyssey couldn't apply an HPF if they wanted to (when their technology is engaged I'm sure they can mandate certain conditions). Absolutely Denon should do it and they clearly do not. Dumb. It goes without saying that the tech should work together and make better decisions.
> 
> 
> My recommendation is to set the speakers to Large and to set Audyssey to Flat or Reference as you choose. If the speakers are receiving more bass than they can handle then first ensure that Dynamic EQ is turned off because if you have the master volume level set below reference, DEQ will be boosting bass within the range where Audyssey is providing correction. If Dynamic EQ is turned off and the speakers are still receiving too much bass, then use the tone controls to roll the bass off to the extent necessary given the low frequency capacity of your speakers.
> 
> Thanks. Dynamic EQ is ALWAYS off. Terrible "technology" IMO, and yes, I fully realize its goal and how things have really shaken out for me on numerous systems in numerous rooms.
> 
> I cannot think of any other control you would have apart from the Low Frequency Containment setting that Mike mentioned.
> 
> Nope. Don't have it in the unit.
> 
> Basically any problems you are running into with low bass in your setup are due to the way Denon's bass management function works in the absence of a sub and the fact that your speakers are probably not designed to handle bass down to 20 Hz and are being called on to handle not only the bass for their own channels in a surround soundtrack but also the bass for the surround channels and also the LFE channel if Denon add that into the speaker channels when there isn't a sub. My understanding is that the LFE channel should never be added to the speaker channels in the absence of a sub but AVR manufacturers are a law unto themselves and sometimes do silly things.
> 
> Yes. We concur here 100%. If indeed Denon is the sole guilty party here, shame on them. Imagine if you will someone who basically HAS to operate without a subwoofer due to living conditions, size constraints, budget, etc. They are effectively screwed with this idiotic (option-less) arrangement. LFE automatically sent to the L and R? Insane.
> 
> Addition: If setting the speakers to Small is resulting in the loss of bass below the crossover frequency it will be because Denon have programmed their bass management system to send that bass to a sub and it is being passed to the sub channel but without a sub there's nothing to play that part of the signal. There's no settings I am aware of to change that while the speakers are set to Small. If you want to hear that bass then the speakers need to be set to Large. The Large/Small setting should not result in Audyssey being turned off when it is set to Small in the absence of a sub. In fact you should not be allowed to set the speakers to Small in the absence of a sub because the Small setting is intended to tell the AVR to pass low frequency content to a sub and you can't do that without a sub so the speakers should be run full range and Audyssey should be available whether or not you have a sub.


With Audyssey "on" if I go into "manual" speaker settings and switch to "small" I can assure you that audyssey is turned "OFF". With I'm sure, the "logic" being that there is now no sub to cross to...EVEN THOUGH I RAN AUDYSSEY WITHOUT A SUB DURING THE SET UP IN THE FIRST PLACE LMAO!

Turning to "large" turns Audyssey back on of course...so it can cross to the subwoofer that isn't there...I mean so the L and R (that it MEASURED at 50+ hz, I'm certain) can absorb ALL of bass for its own channel, the surrounds, AND the LFE!   

Again, I would absolutely agree that most of this is likely on Denon. Regardless, the way this works out without a subwoofer is CLEARLY far from ideal...and would be immediately remedied with just a simple option of inserting a user-defined HPF when a subwoofer is MIA. 

Thanks or the work you put into this- I don't mean to sound combative- I think I have appeared more naive than I am and have made people spend too much of their own time explaining some items I already grasp, just disagree with. 

James


----------



## mastermaybe

David Aiken said:


> Some additional comments.
> 
> I called up a pdf copy of the 4520 manual. Page 142 covers various speaker config settings. It says that when subwoofer is set to none, the front speakers are set to Large, and that when the front speakers are set to Small, subwoofer is set to One.
> 
> That explains your problem. When you set the front speakers to small the subwoofer setting changes and because the speaker settings change to having a sub which was not measured during the setup process, Audyssey gets turned off because it is automatically turned off if the speaker settings show that additional speakers which were not measured during setup have been added because Audyssey then does not have the appropriate information for its filters.
> 
> Change the front speaker settings back to Large. That gets rid of the sub in the speaker configuration settings and Audyssey will turn back on. If it doesn’t turn on automatically, turn it on manually. You will not be able to have Audyssey applying correction to any speakers if you don’t have a sub active during the setup process.


Yes, thanks. I noted this as well. But changing to "large" doesn't solve the problem (this, being the "original" problem of over driving the L and R). Now, again, Audyssey is engaged and ALL of the surround and LFE bass is directed to the L and R and we're over-driving the speakers again. 

Your last sentence is precisely my gripe: if you do not have a subwoofer, Audyssey is unusable. That is bell-ended. "Should" be: No subwoofer? No problem: Audyssey runs and measures speakers. Applies (or Denon applies, whatever) appropriate HPF's (think: whatever freq would be chosen as the crossover if a sub was present) for the LCR AND adds surround and LFE freq's that CAN be handled by the L and R- prolly not much - if any at all- but whatever. Done. ALL that's happening is that an HPF is being subbed for a crossover. That's it. For such a sophisticated piece of software on a $2,500 piece of kit, I don't think this is really that insurmountable.

This is easy. The fact of the matter is my case is likely less than 2%. Simply not a big enough problem to spend resources/time/money on-- or potentially: any real thought in the first place. I can dig that, I just don't have to be happy about it. 

James


----------



## mthomas47

^^^ 

I don't have a particular interest in defending Audyssey, with respect to its setting methodology, but I think that there are a couple of things worth pointing out. First, Audyssey was developed as a system of automated room EQ for home theater applications. By, the time Audyssey was developed, 2.1 and 5.1 systems, involving subwoofers, were the norm. Second, people do operate Audyssey without subwoofers, but to do so it is advisable to have speakers that are capable of handling very low frequencies, because in 5.1 movies, the speakers may be called on to handle bass content as low as 10db, in some cases, in the regular channels, plus the LFE content, which will be routed to the front speakers if they are set to Large.

Some people run their systems as full-range, without a subwoofer, at all. And, they use Audyssey to do so. But, their speakers need to be pretty capable, or they need to be fairly careful about their listening levels, or both. I have very capable full-range speakers, and I have operated without a sub, and with Audyssey at times, just as an experiment. (I always listen to music without a subwoofer in my system.) It works, but I can't, and won't, listen at the same volumes for 5.1 movies, that I would with competent subs in my system.

It is often stated that Audyssey doesn't care whether you are listening to music or watching movies, and that is true. But, Audyssey was specifically designed for HT use, and that use was predicated upon systems with either reasonably competent subwoofers, or exceptionally competent front speakers, or both, because HT systems must play low bass content, including the .1 channel. We can all choose to operate Audyssey without subs, but in that case, I do think that additional user discretion is required to insure that we don't overdrive our speakers with our listening volumes, because that method of using inadequate speakers, without subs, is outside of Audyssey's original design parameters. 

There are probably a thousand things that we can wish that automated room EQ did better, or didn't do at all. But, I think it is only fair to recognize the designers' original design objectives with respect to Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

^

You're right, I made a mistake. What you need to do is not set the front speakers to Large but set the sub to Off. That will automatically set the speakers to Large and you will have access to Audyssey.

Setting the speakers to Large as I suggested won't work because you can have a subwoofer and have the speakers set to Large. You need to tell the AVR that there is no sub and that should fix the problem of not being able to use Audyssey.

There is no HPF provided except in association with the crossover setting. You can actually apply a HPF to your speakers without a sub, just set the sub setting to On and the speaker channels will be high pass filtered based on the crossover frequency setting but that will turn Audyssey off. You have a choice, HPF and no Audyssey or Audyssey and no HPF. That's it. Those are the only options provided. I don't know of any AVR which will give you Audyssey plus a HPF option for the speakers. You may be able to find an AVR from another manufacturer which provides that option but if it has room correction software it probably won't be Audyssey.

There is one way you could do it. You would need to use a separate power amp for the front L and R speakers and insert a separate device providing a HPF between the Denon and the power amp. What you would do is run setup with the HPF turned off so that Audyssey does a full range calibration and then after running setup and activating Audyssey you would turn the HPF on at whatever frequency you wanted. You might have to adjust the trim settings manually if engaging the HPF affected the strength of the signal reaching the power amp.

That's about all I can think of.

You said "With Audyssey "on" if I go into "manual" speaker settings and switch to "small" I can assure you that audyssey is turned "OFF". With I'm sure, the "logic" being that there is now no sub to cross to...EVEN THOUGH I RAN AUDYSSEY WITHOUT A SUB DURING THE SET UP IN THE FIRST PLACE LMAO!"

That's not the logic. The logic is that Audyssey is designed to be used with speakers that have been measured and for which filters have been calculated. If you run setup without a sub, a sub isn't detected and the sub setting is set to Off and the speakers to Large. If you manually change the speaker setting to Small, the sub setting gets altered to On and that tells the AVR to sent a signal to the sub outputs but the moment you tell the AVR that you have a speaker present which was not measured, in this case your sub but it would be equally true if you left the speakers set to Large and set the surrounds to On instead of Off, you turn Audyssey off because the AVR won't allow Audyssey to run if there are speakers which have not been measured present. It's got nothing to do with the absence of a sub to cross over, it's because the settings indicate that there is a speaker present which was not measured during setup.


----------



## mastermaybe

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> I don't have a particular interest in defending Audyssey, with respect to its setting methodology, but I think that there are a couple of things worth pointing out. First, Audyssey was developed as a system of automated room EQ for home theater applications. By, the time Audyssey was developed, 2.1 and 5.1 systems, involving subwoofers, were the norm. Second, people do operate Audyssey without subwoofers, but to do so it is advisable to have speakers that are capable of handling very low frequencies, because in 5.1 movies, the speakers may be called on to handle bass content as low as 10db, in some cases, in the regular channels, plus the LFE content, which will be routed to the front speakers if they are set to Large.
> 
> Some people run their systems as full-range, without a subwoofer, at all. And, they use Audyssey to do so. But, their speakers need to be pretty capable, or they need to be fairly careful about their listening levels, or both. I have very capable full-range speakers, and I have operated without a sub, and with Audyssey at times, just as an experiment. (I always listen to music without a subwoofer in my system.) It works, but I can't, and won't, listen at the same volumes for 5.1 movies, that I would with competent subs in my system.
> 
> It is often stated that Audyssey doesn't care whether you are listening to music or watching movies, and that is true. But, Audyssey was specifically designed for HT use, and that use was predicated upon systems with either reasonably competent subwoofers, or exceptionally competent front speakers, or both, because HT systems must play low bass content, including the .1 channel. We can all choose to operate Audyssey without subs, but in that case, I do think that additional user discretion is required to insure that we don't overdrive our speakers with our listening volumes, because that method of using inadequate speakers, without subs, is outside of Audyssey's original design parameters.
> 
> There are probably a thousand things that we can wish that automated room EQ did better, or didn't do at all. But, I think it is only fair to recognize the designers' original design objectives with respect to Audyssey.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Absolutely don't disagree with you at all. ANYTHING can be tweaked to death. As I said, this was (rightly) designed for the 98%. It just would have been nice to have a bit more thought put into subwoofer-less system. Again, even more "capable" speakers would be hammered by LFE being directed to them (in my case, for instance, I as at a VERY conservative level when that LOW lfe hammered my L and R which are otherwise quite capable). And also remember that this (a subwoofer-less system) may not be a real "choice" for many: apartment living, a spouse  , space restraints, budget can all be real factors that could forbid a sub for a percentage of apps.

This is all for my living room anyway...the real show is downstairs, lol...


Thanks
James


----------



## David Aiken

mastermaybe said:


> Absolutely don't disagree with you at all. ANYTHING can be tweaked to death. As I said, this was (rightly) designed for the 98%. It just would have been nice to have a bit more thought put into subwoofer-less system. Again, even more "capable" speakers would be hammered by LFE being directed to them (in my case, for instance, I as at a VERY conservative level when that LOW lfe hammered my L and R which are otherwise quite capable). And also remember that this (a subwoofer-less system) may not be a real "choice" for many: apartment living, a spouse  , space restraints, budget can all be real factors that could forbid a sub for a percentage of apps.
> 
> This is all for my living room anyway...the real show is downstairs, lol...
> 
> 
> Thanks
> James




I’m not certain that the LFE channel is being mixed in. As I said, I thought it was discarded.

I just did a Google search on down mixing and found confusing info. I found references to Dolby’s original down mixing algorithms for downmixing 5.1 to 2.0 and those references indicated that the LFE channel should just be discarded, only the 5 speaker channels were to be down mixed to the stereo result. 

Other sources, probably later, indicated that in the soundtrack metadata a “down mix coefficient" is specified which sets the level for each channel when it is combined with other channels in a down mix. The coefficients mentioned as typical for a downmix from 5.1 to stereo were -6 dB for each of the front and surround L & R channels and -9 dB for the centre channel. The coefficient for the LFE channel was “usually OFF or to taste (never more than -9dB in this scenario)”. In other words, folding the LFE channel into other channels is not automatic. If the coefficient is set to Off, the LFE channel is discarded and not used in the mix down. Setting it to -9 dB would mix it equally into both the L and R stereo channels and the combined output from both channels would reproduce the LFE channel output in level, just as when you down mix the centre channel at -9dB into both L and R channels, the centre channel content in both channels sums to reproduce the original centre channel in level. The reason all coefficients are -6 dB or more is so that the combined level in each channel in the downmix never exceeds 0 dB.

Obviously if you downmix a 7.1 track you would use different coefficients because you have 2 more channels and the summed level in any channel still has to avoid exceeding 0 dB.

Note that if the soundtrack you are listening to is a native stereo soundtrack, the peak level of that track is not going to exceed 0dB in either channel. The downmix coefficients appear to be designed to ensure that peak output from a multichannel down mix is no louder than a native stereo mix would be so if you are listening to a soundtrack with the LFE channel folded into the down mix and your speakers are being hammered as you put it, they would be equally hammered if the movie had a stereo soundtrack option and you selected that instead. Including the LFE channel in the downmix should not be a problem unless the mastering engineer has set the mixdown coefficient for the LFE channel at higher than he should given the number of channels in the multichannel mix he’s making.

Back in the “good old days” of stereo before we had to deal with all of this surround sound stuff, there were people hammering their speakers with bass output because they were doing one or both of two things, they were playing the record louder than it was desirable to drive their speakers and/or they turned the bass tone control up too far. If your speakers are getting hammered then the two obvious options for you are to turn the master volume level down which is not going to be a good option if the reason the speakers are being hammered is that the mastering engineer set the mixdown coefficient for the LFE channel too aggressively because turning the volume down will lower the volume at all frequencies including the midrange and make dialogue harder to hear and understand, or to turn the bass tone control down since the bass tone control effectively functions as a variable slope high pass filter.

If this is all for your living room and the real show is downstairs, then I recommend an aggressive approach to the bass tone control as the way to avoid hammering your speakers. Since you have Dynamic EQ turned off, you should have access to the tone controls.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Note that if the soundtrack you are listening to is a native stereo soundtrack, the peak level of that track is not going to exceed 0dB in either channel. The downmix coefficients appear to be designed to ensure that peak output from a multichannel down mix is no louder than a native stereo mix would be so if you are listening to a soundtrack with the LFE channel folded into the down mix and your speakers are being hammered as you put it, they would be equally hammered if the movie had a stereo soundtrack option and you selected that instead. Including the LFE channel in the downmix should not be a problem unless the mastering engineer has set the mixdown coefficient for the LFE channel at higher than he should given the number of channels in the multichannel mix he’s making..


There is one other factor, perhaps, the depth of the bass mixed from the LFE into the main speakers. If it is far below the f3 of the main speakers there may be a problem even if it is not played at high volume. Before we had home theater, we used a 55 w.p.c. Yamaha 2 channel integrated amp that the player fed into, with a pair of extremely cheap speakers (our music system was in another room). We always selected 2 channel stereo on the menu. There was no problem for about year, until we blew out the speakers with the thunderstorm in The Witches of Eastwick. That's when we bought a subwoofer (a passive one -- that tells you how long ago this was). We got another pair of cheap speakers to go with our sub The crossover was in the sub. Wires went from the amplifier to the sub, which assigned itself the bass, and passed the midrange and treble on to the cheap speakers. This combination was indestructible, thunder or not (we tried it).. The thunderstorm contained very, very deep bass, perhaps folded in from the LFE track. The Yamaha is now 31 years old, and still functioning, along with the sub and the cheap speakers. We still watch news, documentaries, and Jeopardy with this equipment. Music and movies are experienced in our music room/HT.


----------



## David Aiken

Gary,

I think there are several issues:

- how aggressively the LFE track is mastered and how it is mixed into other speakers when the soundtrack is down mixed in a system with no sub.

- the speakers and that isn't only how low they can go as you have mentioned but also how loudly they can play. Just because a speaker is reasonably wide range doesn't mean that it can play loudly and soundtracks are mastered to standards based on peak levels of 105 dB which is loud. I once blew the 8" mid woofer in one speaker of a pair of KEF 104aBs by playing music too loudly. The 104aBs weakness was actually high volumes and the woofer was actually more prone to damage than the tweeter. That's the only time I've ever blown a speaker and the general view is that if you're going to blow a driver, it's the tweeter that you're going to blow. One expects that the deeper the frequency response goes, the more capable the speaker is going to be of delivering high volume levels because bass is far more demanding than high frequencies, but that is not always the case.

- what demands the user places on the speaker, both in relation to master volume setting but also in relation to the use of bass boost in any form. 

And on top of that we've got the underlying issue in James' posts which is that his AVR is not offering him the control options he wants. I can understand his frustration but manufacturers don't make mass market products to meet the needs of a small number of people, they make them for large numbers of people and there are always going to be some people with desires or needs which aren't going to be met. When you're in that boat you have 3 options, either do nothing about it but complain, go looking for a product which does what you want and buy that if you can find one which meets your needs and you can afford it, or accept that you're not going to have something which does what you want and start learning how to make the device you have meet your needs to the maximum extent possible. With AVRs I think people like us often end up working with that 3rd option and doing that isn't made any easier when the manuals aren't written very well and working out how things like bass management work becomes a painful process when the manual seems more designed to hide the information you're looking for than in giving it to you in an easily findable and clearly written form.


----------



## mastermaybe

David Aiken said:


> I’m not certain that the LFE channel is being mixed in. As I said, I thought it was discarded.
> 
> I just did a Google search on down mixing and found confusing info. I found references to Dolby’s original down mixing algorithms for downmixing 5.1 to 2.0 and those references indicated that the LFE channel should just be discarded, only the 5 speaker channels were to be down mixed to the stereo result.
> 
> Other sources, probably later, indicated that in the soundtrack metadata a “down mix coefficient" is specified which sets the level for each channel when it is combined with other channels in a down mix. The coefficients mentioned as typical for a downmix from 5.1 to stereo were -6 dB for each of the front and surround L & R channels and -9 dB for the centre channel. The coefficient for the LFE channel was “usually OFF or to taste (never more than -9dB in this scenario)”. In other words, folding the LFE channel into other channels is not automatic. If the coefficient is set to Off, the LFE channel is discarded and not used in the mix down. Setting it to -9 dB would mix it equally into both the L and R stereo channels and the combined output from both channels would reproduce the LFE channel output in level, just as when you down mix the centre channel at -9dB into both L and R channels, the centre channel content in both channels sums to reproduce the original centre channel in level. The reason all coefficients are -6 dB or more is so that the combined level in each channel in the downmix never exceeds 0 dB.
> 
> Obviously if you downmix a 7.1 track you would use different coefficients because you have 2 more channels and the summed level in any channel still has to avoid exceeding 0 dB.
> 
> Note that if the soundtrack you are listening to is a native stereo soundtrack, the peak level of that track is not going to exceed 0dB in either channel. The downmix coefficients appear to be designed to ensure that peak output from a multichannel down mix is no louder than a native stereo mix would be so if you are listening to a soundtrack with the LFE channel folded into the down mix and your speakers are being hammered as you put it, they would be equally hammered if the movie had a stereo soundtrack option and you selected that instead. Including the LFE channel in the downmix should not be a problem unless the mastering engineer has set the mixdown coefficient for the LFE channel at higher than he should given the number of channels in the multichannel mix he’s making.
> 
> Back in the “good old days” of stereo before we had to deal with all of this surround sound stuff, there were people hammering their speakers with bass output because they were doing one or both of two things, they were playing the record louder than it was desirable to drive their speakers and/or they turned the bass tone control up too far. If your speakers are getting hammered then the two obvious options for you are to turn the master volume level down which is not going to be a good option if the reason the speakers are being hammered is that the mastering engineer set the mixdown coefficient for the LFE channel too aggressively because turning the volume down will lower the volume at all frequencies including the midrange and make dialogue harder to hear and understand, or to turn the bass tone control down since the bass tone control effectively functions as a variable slope high pass filter.
> 
> If this is all for your living room and the real show is downstairs, then I recommend an aggressive approach to the bass tone control as the way to avoid hammering your speakers. Since you have Dynamic EQ turned off, you should have access to the tone controls.


I'm pretty certain the LFE IS being mixed in-- for precisely the reason I've mentioned twice, now.

With Audyssey enabled, the unit allows me to apply a global crossover. And as mentioned, I've moved that crossover all the way to 250z for the L and R...and the speakers still distort.

Therefore, logic dictates that additional, non-L and R content is being fed to the L and R channels. I can see no other reason why low bass is reaching the L and R.

I have found the "solution". I manually label the speakers "small" and appropriate a 60-80 hz crossover. Then I just lose Audyssey.

It's likely superior to neutering the entire lower range with the tone control.

James


----------



## primetimeguy

mastermaybe said:


> I'm pretty certain the LFE IS being mixed in-- for precisely the reason I've mentioned twice, now.
> 
> With Audyssey enabled, the unit allows me to apply a global crossover. And as mentioned, I've moved that crossover all the way to 250z for the L and R...and the speakers still distort.
> 
> Therefore, logic dictates that additional, non-L and R content is being fed to the L and R channels. I can see no other reason why low bass is reaching the L and R.
> 
> I have found the "solution". I manually label the speakers "small" and appropriate a 60-80 hz crossover. Then I just lose Audyssey.
> 
> It's likely superior to neutering the entire lower range with the tone control.
> 
> James


My Onkyo 818 has a separate LFE level (different than the overall subwoofer level). I think it is in the specific input/source setup. Not sure if you have something like that where you could lower just the LFE content.


----------



## mastermaybe

garygarrison said:


> There is one other factor, perhaps, the depth of the bass mixed from the LFE into the main speakers. If it is far below the f3 of the main speakers there may be a problem even if it is not played at high volume. Before we had home theater, we used a 55 w.p.c. Yamaha 2 channel integrated amp that the player fed into, with a pair of extremely cheap speakers (our music system was in another room). We always selected 2 channel stereo on the menu. There was no problem for about year, until we blew out the speakers with the thunderstorm in The Witches of Eastwick. That's when we bought a subwoofer (a passive one -- that tells you how long ago this was). We got another pair of cheap speakers to go with our sub The crossover was in the sub. Wires went from the amplifier to the sub, which assigned itself the bass, and passed the midrange and treble on to the cheap speakers. This combination was indestructible, thunder or not (we tried it).. The thunderstorm contained very, very deep bass, perhaps folded in from the LFE track. The Yamaha is now 31 years old, and still functioning, along with the sub and the cheap speakers. We still watch news, documentaries, and Jeopardy with this equipment. Music and movies are experienced in our music room/HT.


Precisely. And again, the "decisions" being made by Audyssey/Denon/whomever are (potentially) really stupid. 

Audyssey measures L and R: finds they're "usable" down to ~50hz. Audyssey/Denon then routes surround/LFE/whatever sub-50hz content to said loudspeaker. dumb. Of course that material would be crossed to a sub if it were there. Logically. 

Anyone with any kind of experience in AV knows what will result. These particular speakers can play back at 90-100dbs, in room, comfortably when properly crossed. Once you start introducing 20-40hz input at similar volumes to the same loudspeaker? Forget about it.


James


----------



## mastermaybe

primetimeguy said:


> My Onkyo 818 has a separate LFE level (different than the overall subwoofer level). I think it is in the specific input/source setup. Not sure if you have something like that where you could lower just the LFE content.


Thanks man. I think I'm just going to leave it alone now and build my subwoofer this week. the speakers are pretty linear and the room is decent so going without Audyssey isn't the end of the world. At least in my current arrangement I don't have to worry about damaging the speakers.

I could run this all "stereo" but I have a 120" screen in my living room, so the CC anchors the vocals to the screen well.

James


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Good discussion above. FWIW, I am pretty certain (99.99%) that LFE content is sent to the main speakers in the absence of a subwoofer. This has been discussed before, although I don't have immediate access to those discussions. That doubles the demand on the main speakers, but even in the absence of LFE content, there would still be a potential problem with low bass content just from the normal channels.

Going without Audyssey for a while wouldn't be so bad. But, as David suggested, if someone really wanted to use Audyssey in this situation, he could remove bass with the tone controls. That would only affect the front speakers, but I believe that it might be possible to still set the CC to Small, with an 80Hz crossover. Of course, that would transfer the


----------



## BondDonBond

I truly do apologize if this is answered somewhere. I did look through a bunch of posts.

My room is set up like I am sure most where the main seating area is the front row and then another row behind and nothing in front. Of course the way you go through the positions for testing you put the mic in the main and then it is suppose to go in front and then to the back of the chairs.

How would you deal with it and place the mic for the 8 positions.

Thanks,


----------



## Alan P

mastermaybe said:


> This is all for my living room anyway...the real show is downstairs, lol...


Why not take a sub from downstairs and temporarily hook it up in the LR system? You could run Audyssey, disconnect the sub and then you could use the crossovers.


----------



## mastermaybe

Alan P said:


> mastermaybe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all for my living room anyway...the real show is downstairs, lol...
> 
> 
> 
> Why not take a sub from downstairs and temporarily hook it up in the LR system? You could run Audyssey, disconnect the sub and then you could use the crossovers.
Click to expand...

Lmao- I actually thought of that. Nah- just ordered a 12" Alpine Type R and a QSC GX3. I'll eventually add a second Type R and have duals that can't be touched for the $500 I'll spend.

Thanks everyone.

James


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Good discussion above. FWIW, I am pretty certain (99.99%) that LFE content is sent to the main speakers in the absence of a subwoofer. This has been discussed before, although I don't have immediate access to those discussions. That doubles the demand on the main speakers, but even in the absence of LFE content, there would still be a potential problem with low bass content just from the normal channels.
> 
> …
> 
> Edit: Tonight, I want to look in my Marantz controls to see if there is any way to turn LFE off, with my speakers set to Large, or otherwise, for that matter.


What my Google searching turned up was that the original Dolby Digital decoders, which worked with the AC3 type soundtracks found on DVDs and some BDs, used to discard the LFE channel. There was a mention of the soundtrack of an unnamed movie but judging from the description it was "Jurassic Park" where the dinosaur foot fall sounds were mixed into the LFE channel only and playing that soundtrack in a stereo down mix resulted in totally silent stampeding dinosaurs. It seems that at a later stage they started using metadata to specify how to down mix surround channels and we started getting the LFE channel being folded into the down mix.

I've got a Marantz 6010 and as far as I know there is no way to turn LFE off at the setting level.


----------



## David Aiken

mastermaybe said:


> Precisely. And again, the "decisions" being made by Audyssey/Denon/whomever are (potentially) really stupid.
> 
> Audyssey measures L and R: finds they're "usable" down to ~50hz. Audyssey/Denon then routes surround/LFE/whatever sub-50hz content to said loudspeaker. dumb. Of course that material would be crossed to a sub if it were there. Logically.
> 
> Anyone with any kind of experience in AV knows what will result. These particular speakers can play back at 90-100dbs, in room, comfortably when properly crossed. Once you start introducing 20-40hz input at similar volumes to the same loudspeaker? Forget about it.
> 
> 
> James


I have another possible solution for you but I doubt you'll like it either. Try feeding the HDMI output from your player directly to the TV and using the TV's audio outs which usually provide a stereo output option, to feed your AVR. That may result in stripping the LFE channel from the mix down and give you a result more to your liking. It may also introduce other problems like lip sync issues but it may give you a result more to your liking on the bass content front. You may do better with this approach if your TV offers a stereo analog output and you use that rather than a digital output which would probably use chips which employ the same down mix algorithms as your AVR does. Your TV has to produce a stereo down mix that does not overload its own internal speakers and if it passes that output to a set of analog outs that may suit your needs better though it will mean giving up a discrete centre channel.

There's also the suggestion by Alan P which you've rejected and which would work better in my view than either the suggestion above or what you have chosen to do.


Now to some points.

First, as I and Mike have said above, Audyssey measures speakers and calculates filters. It does nothing in the bass management department, that's all handled by the AVR manufacturer's bass management software. Audyssey does nothing when it comes to what channels get mixed with what other channels when you down mix. Audyssey also only applies corrections above the -3 dB point it measures for the speaker, it leaves the speaker's natural roll off below that frequency untouched. Stop suggesting that Audyssey is involved in what is happening in the low bass with your setup. Denon use Audyssey processing to perform a quite specific task and that task is not contributing to your problem. Bass management and down mixing decisions and options are all controlled by Denon alone in your AVR. If you're going to make criticisms about what's happening in those areas, criticise Denon. There are criticisms which can be legitimately made about Audyssey's operation and results but they don't involve the things you're upset about.

Second, a lot of decisions by various people are involved in creating the problem that annoys you. The studios tell the mastering engineers what kind of soundtrack options they're prepared to pay for, the mastering engineer makes choices affecting the LFE channel and how it gets treated in any down mix, the AVR manufacturer works with chips approved by companies like Dolby and DTS for decoding and processing soundtracks created using those companies products, and the speaker manufacturer makes choices about the bass response capabilities of the speakers they make. All of those decisions affect what is concerning you so it is not solely a problem caused by Denon or one which Denon can completely fix.

And third, you have stated that your speakers are quite fine if crossed over to a sub so to some extent your choice to run them without a sub is also part of the problem, and one over which you have total control. You made the decision to run this system without a sub, and to choose speakers which don't play well with the way that multichannel soundtracks get mixed down for a system like yours.

My point is that there are decisions made by a lot of people which contribute to what happens when you play a soundtrack with an LFE channel in a system without a sub and I think it's a little unfair to place all of the blame on the AVR manufacturer. I'm not suggesting that Denon is blame free or that they should not provide some additional option for people in your position but I am saying that whatever they could do is only going to be capable of solving the problem for some people. If Denon decided to do something they could well decide to do something which protected the owners of speakers less capable than yours and then you would be complaining that their solution neutered your speakers to use a term you have used. The problem is not solely an AVR problem, it's also a studio, mastering engineer, Dolby/DTS, speaker manufacturer, and user problem. You're damning Denon for not doing something but other people will damn them if they do something. They're in a no win situation whatever they do so they're going to choose to do what makes more people happy and fewer people unhappy since they can't make everyone happy. Arguably what they're doing is achieving that outcome.

You say you've found a solution and it involves not using Audyssey. Fine. It's not a perfect solution. What you're faced with is the problem of choosing which of the options available is the one you are most prepared to accept because that's the one which will prove least unsatisfying to you given that there is no option which completely satisfies you.

Finally, this is a thread about Audyssey and Audyssey is not part of your problem. Audyssey will do what you want it to do but it's your Denon which is preventing you from using Audyssey with the solution you have chosen. Since none of our suggestions here seem to meet your requirements you may do better raising your concerns in the thread related to your Denon AVR. Maybe someone there can come up with a solution which suits you better.


----------



## mthomas47

BondDonBond said:


> I truly do apologize if this is answered somewhere. I did look through a bunch of posts.
> 
> My room is set up like I am sure most where the main seating area is the front row and then another row behind and nothing in front. Of course the way you go through the positions for testing you put the mic in the main and then it is suppose to go in front and then to the back of the chairs.
> 
> How would you deal with it and place the mic for the 8 positions.
> 
> Thanks,


Hi,

No need to apologize, but I'm not sure that there is a single best way to do this, so you might have to experiment. I would probably start off by trying five mic positions in the front row, going out no more than 2' from each side of the MLP, with two positions about 18" forward of the front row. Then, I would do three mic positions about 18" behind the front row. You might want to try coming back 3', but that is beginning to be an awfully big area for Audyssey to EQ.

I would run at least a couple of different calibrations, based on different general patterns, and see how things sound. Once you determine a general trend, you could hone in a little more on your preferred mic pattern. There may be some trade-offs between how things sound in the front row and in the second row. If so, you can try to EQ them equally, or you can favor the row that is used more. This is why I suggested that there may not be a single best way to do this, as a lot may depend on what you discover, and what you prefer.

I hope this helps a little. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mastermaybe

David Aiken said:


> I have another possible solution for you but I doubt you'll like it either. Try feeding the HDMI output from your player directly to the TV and using the TV's audio outs which usually provide a stereo output option, to feed your AVR. That may result in stripping the LFE channel from the mix down and give you a result more to your liking. It may also introduce other problems like lip sync issues but it may give you a result more to your liking on the bass content front. You may do better with this approach if your TV offers a stereo analog output and you use that rather than a digital output which would probably use chips which employ the same down mix algorithms as your AVR does. Your TV has to produce a stereo down mix that does not overload its own internal speakers and if it passes that output to a set of analog outs that may suit your needs better though it will mean giving up a discrete centre channel.
> 
> There's also the suggestion by Alan P which you've rejected and which would work better in my view than either the suggestion above or what you have chosen to do.
> 
> Right. I would't like that solution- and I doubt most would with (4) sources. "Rejected". Bit dramatic, huh? Let's just say I "prefer" mine. My apologies. Who knows why you'd think it (or the above) would "work better" , but I'll take your word for it as another 3,000 word post wouldn't bode well for anyone at this point. I'll "live" with my fairly linear speakers producing the bass they are able to, sans Audyssey. Thank you.
> 
> 
> Now to some points.
> 
> First, as I and Mike have said above, Audyssey measures speakers and calculates filters. It does nothing in the bass management department, that's all handled by the AVR manufacturer's bass management software. Audyssey does nothing when it comes to what channels get mixed with what other channels when you down mix. Audyssey also only applies corrections above the -3 dB point it measures for the speaker, it leaves the speaker's natural roll off below that frequency untouched. Stop suggesting that Audyssey is involved in what is happening in the low bass with your setup. Denon use Audyssey processing to perform a quite specific task and that task is not contributing to your problem. Bass management and down mixing decisions and options are all controlled by Denon alone in your AVR. If you're going to make criticisms about what's happening in those areas, criticise Denon. There are criticisms which can be legitimately made about Audyssey's operation and results but they don't involve the things you're upset about.
> 
> Please start reading and understanding. I have consistently said Audyssey/Denon and have gone a step further multiple times and inferred Denon, directly. This insn't an attack on Audyssey and your version of "dad-protect-mode" is completely unnecessary.
> 
> Second, a lot of decisions by various people are involved in creating the problem that annoys you. The studios tell the mastering engineers what kind of soundtrack options they're prepared to pay for, the mastering engineer makes choices affecting the LFE channel and how it gets treated in any down mix, the AVR manufacturer works with chips approved by companies like Dolby and DTS for decoding and processing soundtracks created using those companies products, and the speaker manufacturer makes choices about the bass response capabilities of the speakers they make. All of those decisions affect what is concerning you so it is not solely a problem caused by Denon or one which Denon can completely fix.
> 
> No. It is Denon who decides to route LFE to loudspeakers that are- most times- not suited to handle them. Not the studios. Not the mastering engineers. Not the speaker manufacturers. You are creating issues that do not exist. The sole issue has been made clear by me and another poster: don't route the LFE to the L and R if there's no subwoofer. OR, at the very least, allow the user to cancel such altogether or apply an HPF. These are legitimate "criticisms" which I realize are apparently unacceptable to you. We get it. Again. This is an "atypical" arrangement. Ok. There's nothing wrong with saying "I wish there was "x" option". Your long-winded posts continually re-visiting the same thoughts after they've been acknowledged are bizarre.
> 
> And third, you have stated that your speakers are quite fine if crossed over to a sub so to some extent your choice to run them without a sub is also part of the problem, and one over which you have total control. You made the decision to run this system without a sub, and to choose speakers which don't play well with the way that multichannel soundtracks get mixed down for a system like yours.
> 
> Good grief. Haven't we visited this item? Oh yeah, twice. Right, ALL loudspeakers are "better off" properly crossed. All of them. Ok, the 98+% that really don't perform well below 30hz AND/OR are un-ideally placed in the room for such playback.
> 
> My point is that there are decisions made by a lot of people which contribute to what happens when you play a soundtrack with an LFE channel in a system without a sub and I think it's a little unfair to place all of the blame on the AVR manufacturer. I'm not suggesting that Denon is blame free or that they should not provide some additional option for people in your position but I am saying that whatever they could do is only going to be capable of solving the problem for some people. If Denon decided to do something they could well decide to do something which protected the owners of speakers less capable than yours and then you would be complaining that their solution neutered your speakers to use a term you have used. The problem is not solely an AVR problem, it's also a studio, mastering engineer, Dolby/DTS, speaker manufacturer, and user problem. You're damning Denon for not doing something but other people will damn them if they do something. They're in a no win situation whatever they do so they're going to choose to do what makes more people happy and fewer people unhappy since they can't make everyone happy. Arguably what they're doing is achieving that outcome.
> 
> Stop telling me what I would do. Supplying an OPTION (for the third time, now) would be WIN/WIN for EVERYONE. Inescapable. Doesn't mean they have to or WILL do anything. Again, it is illogical to "blame" ANYONE for Denon's choice to route LFE content to the L and R when no subwoofer is present. Nor to "blame" anyone for them not affording an HPF (like they do for their second and third zone speakers). It's a non-decision Denon- and Denon alone- is responsible for.
> 
> You say you've found a solution and it involves not using Audyssey. Fine. It's not a perfect solution. What you're faced with is the problem of choosing which of the options available is the one you are most prepared to accept because that's the one which will prove least unsatisfying to you given that there is no option which completely satisfies you.
> 
> Ummmm, yep. Doesn't that go without saying???
> 
> Finally, this is a thread about Audyssey and Audyssey is not part of your problem. Audyssey will do what you want it to do but it's your Denon which is preventing you from using Audyssey with the solution you have chosen. Since none of our suggestions here seem to meet your requirements you may do better raising your concerns in the thread related to your Denon AVR. Maybe someone there can come up with a solution which suits you better.


Again. If you do not believe Audyssey has sway over/can mandate to manufacturers as to what is and is not available within the AVR/PRE PRO you are sorely misguided, I'm afraid. For example (again), it could be part of the Audyssey process, that when one wants to apply Audyssey room correction on "x" number of channels in a surround system and no subwoofer is present, that HPF's are provided, and/or the LFE content is not directed to the L and R. It's JUST like they (currently, anyway) won't allow a user to manipulate a given number of audio controls/manipulations within the unit while Audyssey is engaged. Same thing. 

Audyssey founder Chris Kyriakakis has spoke to this reality numerous times. But once again, you're over-reacting to this like I'm waging war on Audyssey or Denon for that matter and I'm not. I'm simply and correctly stating "better" (read" improved, refined, enhanced, etc) decisions could be made (made available as an option) for those without subwoofers. End of.

This is it for me. I'd ask to leave it where it lays, but I can see that will almost certainly not be the case. Nothing more can nor should be said about the situation beyond this point- and I'd be willing to bet that no one really wants to read another post on the matter, so then...

Thanks
James


----------



## BondDonBond

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> No need to apologize, but I'm not sure that there is a single best way to do this, so you might have to experiment. I would probably start off by trying five mic positions in the front row, going out no more than 2' from each side of the MLP, with two positions about 18" forward of the front row. Then, I would do three mic positions about 18" behind the front row. You might want to try coming back 3', but that is beginning to be an awfully big area for Audyssey to EQ.
> 
> I would run at least a couple of different calibrations, based on different general patterns, and see how things sound. Once you determine a general trend, you could hone in a little more on your preferred mic pattern. There may be some trade-offs between how things sound in the front row and in the second row. If so, you can try to EQ them equally, or you can favor the row that is used more. This is why I suggested that there may not be a single best way to do this, as a lot may depend on what you discover, and what you prefer.
> 
> I hope this helps a little.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


That does help. I have been moving the mic in a few different positions. It would be cool if you could pick your basic seating arrangement to EQ. I started putting the MLP a foot or so behind and starting there.

I am worried that row 2 will be overwhelmed by other 8 speaker in surround and Atmos and not hear the front.

5.1 system was a lot easier to control with the pressure meter. When you end up with 7.2.4....cool but harder to get all positions decent.


----------



## Tireman1

When using installer pro my Subwoofer Level Window doesn't show all the columns. Missing the level column. All other windows seem fine. It will not allow you to stretch. Windows 10.


----------



## In.vincible

I'm tweaking my settings for music...was running with DEQ off for a while, but turning it on adds a nice bit of fullness to music. I think my initial problem was using DEQ and also boosting my subwoofer trim. Audyssey set my sub to -3.5 dB, so this time I just left it there, and left DEQ engaged. I like  Oh yeah, I also put the ref. offset at 10 dB. 

If you use DEQ for tunes, do you boost your sub at all? I'm actually finding that there's plenty of bass without changing it from Audyssey's setting.


----------



## Tireman1

*MultEQ 4*

Denon X7200WA , Audyssey Installer Pro MultEQ 4 set the trim on my subs at -12db. Please point me to directions to correct. Thanks


----------



## drh3b

mthomas47 said:


> Hi James,
> 
> I may be in error too, but unless you have a subwoofer in your system, I think that your speakers are automatically assigned as Small. The Large/Small designation isn't based on size, but rather on measured frequency response, for purposes of assigning a crossover to a subwoofer. But, you don't have a subwoofer, so your front speakers have to be configured as Large. I didn't realize that trying to change the assignment of Large, back to Small, would disable Audyssey, but I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, because there isn't anywhere else for Audyssey to send the bass frequencies in the regular channels, or the LFE channel, except to those speakers.
> 
> I am not sure exactly what you can do about this. I believe that your Denon probably has a Low Frequency Containment feature. That would allow you to limit the overall bass that your speakers are getting. It's not just the LFE channel that contains very low bass. The regular speaker channels have it too, in both movies, and in some kinds of electronic music. The only other solution might be to buy a fairly inexpensive subwoofer to add to your system.
> 
> I may be missing something, and if I am, I hope that someone else will offer a more helpful suggestion. But, at the moment I am stumped with respect to a workaround for this.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


That Denon does have a LFC option, it maybe worth trying stop the bottoming. I don't use the feature, but I tried it once, and you could hear the bass lessen quite a bit. Or...
If you could borrow a sub from someone for Audyssey, set your mains as small, and set the crossover as low as possible, and remove the sub without telling Audyssey you removed it might work.


----------



## AV_mike

Tireman1 said:


> Denon X7200WA , Audyssey Installer Pro MultEQ 4 set the trim on my subs at -12db. Please point me to directions to correct. Thanks


Turn down the gain/volume setting on your subwoofer amplifier panel, and rerun the Pro cal. That trim setting may be as low as it can go, so Aud has run out of adjustment, but the sub may still be too loud.
Keep adjusting the control and just do the minimum measurements to see if the setting moves off of its lowest value, then run a full cal once you have a good sub value. People often aim for a negative value of about 9dB, that way you have plenty of scope for increasing sub output without overdriving the AVR sub output channel.
Regards, Mike


----------



## Tireman1

*Crossovers*

MultiEQ 4 sets crossovers for all speakers. If running a sub I understand to reset the mains to small and crossover to 80. How about the crossovers on the surrounds? Audyssey set for 125. Leave or change all speakers to 80?.
Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> I'm tweaking my settings for music...was running with DEQ off for a while, but turning it on adds a nice bit of fullness to music. I think my initial problem was using DEQ and also boosting my subwoofer trim. Audyssey set my sub to -3.5 dB, so this time I just left it there, and left DEQ engaged. I like  Oh yeah, I also put the ref. offset at 10 dB.
> 
> If you use DEQ for tunes, do you boost your sub at all? I'm actually finding that there's plenty of bass without changing it from Audyssey's setting.



Hi,

That seems to be entirely a matter of personal preference. I suppose how much bass boost to use could be influenced somewhat by the type of music someone is listening to. Bass-heavy electronic music, for instance, might make someone want more sub boost. Speaking just for myself, I don't need any bass boost for the music I listen to, but prefer to have a lot for most action movies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Tireman1 said:


> MultiEQ 4 sets crossovers for all speakers. If running a sub I understand to reset the mains to small and crossover to 80. How about the crossovers on the surrounds? Audyssey set for 125. Leave or change all speakers to 80?.
> Thanks


Hi,

As a general rule, 80Hz is a good starting point for crossovers, but if your AVR is setting crossovers higher than that, then you should just leave them there. Lowering crossovers, below where they are set during calibration, normally isn't a good idea unless you have a very good reason for doing it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That seems to be entirely a matter of personal preference. I suppose how much bass boost to use could be influenced somewhat by the type of music someone is listening to. Bass-heavy electronic music, for instance, might make someone want more sub boost. Speaking just for myself, I don't need any bass boost for the music I listen to, but prefer to have a lot for most action movies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks. I'll see how it goes, but at this point, I don't feel I need any bass boost at all from where Audyssey set it. Just having DEQ engaged seems to do the trick.

Is setting the reference offset to 15 dB for pop/rock music good? I can live with 10 db, but even that seems a bit bass heavy. At 0 offset, bass is way over the top.


----------



## tokerblue

I just upgraded my audio setup. I'm running a Denon x4300 and Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2 setup (Front, Center, Surround). Just got a Power Sound Audio S3601 for a subwoofer.

I ran Audyssey and was looking at the crossover settings. I normally cross everything over at 80Hz, but I remember seeing somewhere that I should not lower the setting below what Audyssey sets as the crossover. I'm curious on why I'm seeing such differences in crossover using the same speakers.

Ascend Sierra-2"
41Hz - 27kHz ± 3dB

Denon x4300 Audyssey setting:
Front: 90 Hz
Center: 110 Hz
Surround: 60 Hz

Is there any reason I should not change the crossover to 80Hz? I was hoping to not set the center channel that high to avoid localization of the subwoofer.


----------



## David Aiken

tokerblue said:


> I just upgraded my audio setup. I'm running a Denon x4300 and Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2 setup (Front, Center, Surround). Just got a Power Sound Audio S3601 for a subwoofer.
> 
> I ran Audyssey and was looking at the crossover settings. I normally cross everything over at 80Hz, but I remember seeing somewhere that I should not lower the setting below what Audyssey sets as the crossover. I'm curious on why I'm seeing such differences in crossover using the same speakers.
> 
> Ascend Sierra-2"
> 41Hz - 27kHz ± 3dB
> 
> Denon x4300 Audyssey setting:
> Front: 90 Hz
> Center: 110 Hz
> Surround: 60 Hz
> 
> Is there any reason I should not change the crossover to 80Hz? I was hoping to not set the center channel that high to avoid localization of the subwoofer.


The speaker specification (41Hz - 27kHz ± 3dB) is usually an anechoic measurement or a quasi-anechoic measurement made in a way which does not take room effects into account. When you place the speaker in a room, it's frequency response gets modified by the room modes and by cancellations caused by reflections from walls. The in room response can differ significantly from the speaker specification, and also from speaker to speaker depending on placement in the room and the location of the measurement position.

Audyssey measures the in room response and your AVR sets the crossover point based on the highest frequency at which the bass response is down by 3 dB from the rest of the range. That's what you're seeing in the crossovers you're reporting. In some cases the crossover can be set quite a deal higher than you expect because there's a dip of more than 3 dB at a high frequency caused by some room or placement effect and the speaker may "recover" a bit lower down and bass performance may improve before rolling off again at a lower frequency.

It's very hard to correct for dips in the room response at low frequencies and trying to do so can be very hard on the amplifiers so Audyssey/Denon set the crossover at the first available crossover point above the highest -3 dB point and Audyssey stops correcting the response at that -3 dB point. The reason why you should not lower the crossover frequency is because while you can set a lower crossover point, Audyssey will not provide correction below the -3 dB point so the additional bass frequencies you ask the speaker to deliver will not be corrected.

You may be able to get the crossover frequencies set lower by changing the location of the speakers, moving them closer to walls or corners so they get more reinforcement from those surfaces and/or by changing the listening position.


----------



## pbarach

In.vincible said:


> Thanks. I'll see how it goes, but at this point, I don't feel I need any bass boost at all from where Audyssey set it. Just having DEQ engaged seems to do the trick.
> 
> Is setting the reference offset to 15 dB for pop/rock music good? I can live with 10 db, but even that seems a bit bass heavy. At 0 offset, bass is way over the top.


As someone already commented, where you set Dynamic EQ is strictly a matter of preference. I generally use it at 0 dB for BluRay playback and most streaming movies. I use it for TV shows at 10 dB except for British shows on TV or Netflix, where it makes the surrounds too loud and the dialogue too hard to hear. I listen only to classical music, and I leave it OFF for all of my music.


----------



## mthomas47

tokerblue said:


> I just upgraded my audio setup. I'm running a Denon x4300 and Ascend Acoustics Sierra-2 setup (Front, Center, Surround). Just got a Power Sound Audio S3601 for a subwoofer.
> 
> I ran Audyssey and was looking at the crossover settings. I normally cross everything over at 80Hz, but I remember seeing somewhere that I should not lower the setting below what Audyssey sets as the crossover. I'm curious on why I'm seeing such differences in crossover using the same speakers.
> 
> Ascend Sierra-2"
> 41Hz - 27kHz ± 3dB
> 
> Denon x4300 Audyssey setting:
> Front: 90 Hz
> Center: 110 Hz
> Surround: 60 Hz
> 
> Is there any reason I should not change the crossover to 80Hz? I was hoping to not set the center channel that high to avoid localization of the subwoofer.



Hi,

David gave you a first-rate explanation for why Audyssey might have set your crossovers higher than expected. As for whether it is alright to lower them or not, I would have to say that it depends. There is nothing intrinsically harmful about losing some room correction within a limited frequency range. So, if you lowered the crossover on your center channel from 110Hz, where you could localize your sub, to 90Hz, where you couldn't, you would only lose room correction for a small frequency range--20Hz.

But, if your speaker really is rolling-off at 110Hz, due to room position, and you push it a little with your master volume at 90Hz (or 80Hz) it's possible that it might cause your high frequencies to distort a little more. I don't believe that you would harm your speaker by doing it, but your sound quality might suffer a bit, if additional amp resources were devoted to under-performing low frequencies.

I think that David's advice to investigate positioning options is good general advice, although it might not easily apply to your CC. And, I would try to determine the highest point where I couldn't localize my sub, and stay at that point rather than going lower. 110Hz might work, or 100Hz, or 90Hz. And, if I did have to lower it all the way down to 80Hz, I would just be a little careful that I didn't over-boost the volume, in a way that degrades the sound quality, since the CC carries so much of the movie content.

But, I think it's strictly a trial-and-error issue, if you really do have a good reason to lower a crossover from where it was set post-Audyssey. And, I would make whatever trade-off seemed to give me the best overall audio performance. Incidentally, if I were you, I would raise the crossovers on the surrounds to 80Hz. They actually appear to be benefiting from more boundary, or room gain, than the fronts. And, I would play with the location of the front speakers to see if I could get the crossover to drop a little. Moving them slightly closer to a boundary wall might help. Afterwards, I would still raise them back to 80Hz, but now they would have more inherent capability to play lower frequencies, and that could still help near your crossovers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tokerblue

David Aiken said:


> It's very hard to correct for dips in the room response at low frequencies and trying to do so can be very hard on the amplifiers so Audyssey/Denon set the crossover at the first available crossover point above the highest -3 dB point and Audyssey stops correcting the response at that -3 dB point. The reason why you should not lower the crossover frequency is because while you can set a lower crossover point, Audyssey will not provide correction below the -3 dB point so the additional bass frequencies you ask the speaker to deliver will not be corrected.
> 
> You may be able to get the crossover frequencies set lower by changing the location of the speakers, moving them closer to walls or corners so they get more reinforcement from those surfaces and/or by changing the listening position.





mthomas47 said:


> I think that David's advice to investigate positioning options is good general advice, although it might not easily apply to your CC. And, I would try to determine the highest point where I couldn't localize my sub, and stay at that point rather than going lower. 110Hz might work, or 100Hz, or 90Hz. And, if I did have to lower it all the way down to 80Hz, I would just be a little careful that I didn't over-boost the volume, in a way that degrades the sound quality, since the CC carries so much of the movie content.
> 
> But, I think it's strictly a trial-and-error issue, if you really do have a good reason to lower a crossover from where it was set post-Audyssey. And, I would make whatever trade-off seemed to give me the best overall audio performance.


Thank you both for the detailed explanation. I recently upgraded from a Paradigm Studio setup (100 for front, 40 for surrounds and CC-590 for center). The speakers were in the same position and Audyssey had lower crossover settings for those speakers. So I was a surprised to see my fronts go from a 40Hz suggested crossover to a 90Hz crossover.

I'm limited in where I can place my speakers due to my room and the fact that I am now using a 65" TV. I currently have my speakers slightly toed in towards the primary listening position. I'll try moving them forward slightly and maybe not toe them in as much. I'm not sure if that would help at all.


----------



## mthomas47

tokerblue said:


> Thank you both for the detailed explanation. I recently upgraded from a Paradigm Studio setup (100 for front, 40 for surrounds and CC-590 for center). The speakers were in the same position and Audyssey had lower crossover settings for those speakers. So I was a surprised to see my fronts go from a 40Hz suggested crossover to a 90Hz crossover.
> 
> I'm limited in where I can place my speakers due to my room and the fact that I am now using a 65" TV. I currently have my speakers slightly toed in towards the primary listening position. I'll try moving them forward slightly and maybe not toe them in as much. I'm not sure if that would help at all.


You are very welcome! If you would like to post a photo of your front soundstage, it's possible that we may be able to offer some suggestions. I agree with you that it is unlikely that moving your speakers forward and toe-ing them in less will help. In fact, that might decrease the boundary gain, or cause some high frequency issues. Different speakers may react differently with a room, for reasons that we may not be able to predict in advance. If anything, I might try moving the speakers backward a little, closer to the wall behind them, but I'd like to see a picture before actually recommending that.

One thing that isn't clear to me yet is whether you can actually localize your subwoofer, as things are now, or whether you are just concerned that you might be able to at some point? If I were you, I would still want to optimize my speaker positioning regardless, but speaker positioning is often a compromise between optimization for bass response, and optimization for mid-range and treble response. And, you have to be the final judge of what compromise best serves your audio objectives.


----------



## tokerblue

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! If you would like to post a photo of your front soundstage, it's possible that we may be able to offer some suggestions. I agree with you that it is unlikely that moving your speakers forward and toe-ing them in less will help. In fact, that might decrease the boundary gain, or cause some high frequency issues. Different speakers may react differently with a room, for reasons that we may not be able to predict in advance. If anything, I might try moving the speakers backward a little, closer to the wall behind them, but I'd like to see a picture before actually recommending that.


My setup is in the middle of the lower level of a split level ranch. So it's not against a wall. I do have a room divider behind the stand, but I'm currently in the process of still setting up (waiting for 2 more ceiling speakers, so it's not fully covering the back right now. 



mthomas47 said:


> One thing that isn't clear to me yet is whether you can actually localize your subwoofer, as things are now, or whether you are just concerned that you might be able to at some point? If I were you, I would still want to optimize my speaker positioning regardless, but speaker positioning is often a compromise between optimization for bass response, and optimization for mid-range and treble response. And, you have to be the final judge of what compromise best serves your audio objectives.


I just ran an Avia DVD audio sweep and the 110 crossover seems to work for the center channel. My concern was more theoretical and having different crossovers in general. First concern was localization. The second was with having the subwoofer having to cover more than one channel during movies.


----------



## mthomas47

tokerblue said:


> My setup is in the middle of the lower level of a split level ranch. So it's not against a wall. I do have a room divider behind the stand, but I'm currently in the process of still setting up (waiting for 2 more ceiling speakers, so it's not fully covering the back right now.
> 
> 
> I just ran an Avia DVD audio sweep and the 110 crossover seems to work for the center channel. My concern was more theoretical and having different crossovers in general. First concern was localization. The second was with having the subwoofer having to cover more than one channel during movies.


Hi,

Thanks for the photo. That helps me to understand the issues better. If I were you, I would probably place the center channel below the display, and then tilt it up a little toward ear level. The high placement is denying the CC any boundary gain at all, but irrespective of bass response, I believe that you will get much better mid and high frequency sound with a lower positioning. You can try tilting the CC down, but then you will get a lot of first reflections from the floor, so positioning it lower, tilted-up a little, will work much better, in my opinion. Among other things, that should give you much clearer dialogue in movies.

One thing you said about covering more than one channel wasn't clear to me. As long as your speakers are set to Small, with a crossover, the subwoofer is playing the bass for all of those speakers, as well as playing all of the LFE channel. That's its job, and that is exactly what it is designed to do. A really good sub, like your PSA sub, will do that exceptionally well. Don't worry about over-taxing your sub, because it is *far* more powerful, for bass frequencies, than all of your other channels combined. So, just position your speakers for the best overall sound quality, and let the crossovers fall where they may. As long as you can't localize your sub, you will be fine, and the sub will play bass frequencies with much less effort than the speakers will. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tokerblue

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks for the photo. That helps me to understand the issues better. If I were you, I would probably place the center channel below the display, and then tilt it up a little toward ear level. The high placement is denying the CC any boundary gain at all, but irrespective of bass response, I believe that you will get much better mid and high frequency sound with a lower positioning. You can try tilting the CC down, but then you will get a lot of first reflections from the floor, so positioning it lower, tilted-up a little, will work much better, in my opinion. Among other things, that should give you much clearer dialogue in movies.


Unfortunately, I'd have to completely rebuild my setup. I have a custom stand now for my setup since I have too many components connect (6 video game consoles, etc.). So I would need a new setup if I wanted to put the center channel under the display. I do have the center channel angled toward the primary listening position now. The dialogue in movies have been good so far.



mthomas47 said:


> One thing you said about covering more than one channel wasn't clear to me. As long as your speakers are set to Small, with a crossover, the subwoofer is playing the bass for all of those speakers, as well as playing all of the LFE channel. That's its job, and that is exactly what it is designed to do. A really good sub, like your PSA sub, will do that exceptionally well.


It was more of a theoretical thing. I was wondering how a sub would be able to produce bass for all speakers at the same time. For example, if the center channel needed 110Hz and the fronts needed 80Hz at the same time. I remember reading an article a few years ago about not having different crossovers for your setup. I can't remember where I originally saw it.

This also has me rethinking where I want to place my two front height (ceiling) speakers for a 5.1.4 setup. I can either place them closer to the walls or closer together above the front speakers.


----------



## rodsip

*Is denon avr 5308ci audyssey pro kit ready?*

can anybody please let me know if my denon avr 5308ci audyssey pro kit ready. If it is, then where can I buy the audyssey? Or should I buy denon avr x7200wa instead? Plz advise me....


----------



## mthomas47

tokerblue said:


> Unfortunately, I'd have to completely rebuild my setup. I have a custom stand now for my setup since I have too many components connect (6 video game consoles, etc.). So I would need a new setup if I wanted to put the center channel under the display. I do have the center channel angled toward the primary listening position now. The dialogue in movies have been good so far.
> 
> 
> It was more of a theoretical thing. I was wondering how a sub would be able to produce bass for all speakers at the same time. For example, if the center channel needed 110Hz and the fronts needed 80Hz at the same time. I remember reading an article a few years ago about not having different crossovers for your setup. I can't remember where I originally saw it.
> 
> This also has me rethinking where I want to place my two front height (ceiling) speakers for a 5.1.4 setup. I can either place them closer to the walls or closer together above the front speakers.


I think that it is probably better not to let the height speakers extend out very far beyond the front speakers. You just want to reinforce the fronts, without calling too much attention to the heights. On the other hand, as long as you still have access to the back of the room, I would probably spread the front speakers a little further apart, anyway, and then toe them in a little to compensate for that. I believe that would increase the width, and apparent size of your soundstage, and would also improve imaging.

If you did that, then you could place your height speakers further apart without getting them beyond the front speakers. To me, that would be the most important relationship. But, I would probably experiment with a little wider front soundstage, if I were you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

tokerblue said:


> My setup is in the middle of the lower level of a split level ranch. So it's not against a wall. I do have a room divider behind the stand, but I'm currently in the process of still setting up (waiting for 2 more ceiling speakers, so it's not fully covering the back right now.
> 
> 
> I just ran an Avia DVD audio sweep and the 110 crossover seems to work for the center channel. My concern was more theoretical and having different crossovers in general. First concern was localization. The second was with having the subwoofer having to cover more than one channel during movies.


Your arrangement explains the crossover results. You get better bass response when speakers are close enough to a room surface to get reinforcement from them but what is "close enough" depends on the particular speaker and its design.

My system is in an open plan area as part of a combined living room/dining room area but my setup has my listening position where your screen is and my screen on the wall behind where your listening position is, so my setup is rotated 180 degrees from the way your setup is rotated. Can you do that? That would put a proper wall behind the front and centre speakers. I suspect the speaker response would improve noticeably but it may not be possible for you to arrange things that way.

Sub localisation is a funny thing. if you read the standard comments on what frequency is best for your crossover you can get the impression that 80 Hz is it, period, or perhaps 80 Hz or lower, and that if you set the crossover higher you are going to be able to localise the sub. It's not that simple.

For a start, some people seem more able to localise subs at a given frequency than others. 80 Hz is a safe setting for some people but not for others. I don't know whether you will be able to localise the sub at 80 Hz or at 60 Hz or 100 Hz. It's not an 80 Hz and you won't be able to localise it, 90 Hz and you will. The crossovers which got set for you may or may not be a problem for you or for other family members. You may even find that they're a problem for some family members but not for others.

Trying to be pragmatic about it, however, you've got the front L and R set at 90 Hz and 90 Hz is only 10 Hz above 80 Hz. The higher above 80 Hz the crossover is, the easier it becomes to localise the sub and 90 Hz is not much above 80 Hz so the odds that you will be able to localise the sub with a 90 Hz crossover instead of an 80 Hz crossover is low. The centre crossover at 110 Hz is different but a lot of what is included in the centre channel content other than voices is in the front L and R channels too and if you're not localising the sub with them, then the shared content in the 3 channels is probably going to be fine and you won't notice anything with that content and the centre channel. Voices could be an issue but there's not much voice content below 110 Hz, only deeper pitched voices, and the crossover frequency isn't a brick wall. It's the frequency at which the speaker starts to hand over the sound to the sub and you will still be getting sound from the centre speaker half and octave to an octave lower than that, which means that even the centre will have some audible output at 80 Hz, it's just going to be a fair bit lower in level than it's output at 110 Hz. In summary, if you're one of the majority of people who can't localise the sub when crossovers are set to 80 Hz, there's a pretty good chance that you aren't going to localise it with the crossovers that got set, or that you will only localise it sporadically. What I would recommend is that you be cautious about boosting the sub level, something many of us do, because doing that will make it easier to localise the sub and if you're on the borderline of being able to do that with your crossover frequencies, boosting the sub may be "the straw which breaks the camel's back" as they say. I'm not saying not to boost the sub but I am saying to be cautious if you want to do that. If you boost the sub and being able to localise it starts to become a problem, reduce the boost slightly and keep reducing it until you can't localise it. You may be able to apply some boost but not as much as you would otherwise like.


----------



## tokerblue

David Aiken said:


> Your arrangement explains the crossover results. You get better bass response when speakers are close enough to a room surface to get reinforcement from them but what is "close enough" depends on the particular speaker and its design.
> 
> My system is in an open plan area as part of a combined living room/dining room area but my setup has my listening position where your screen is and my screen on the wall behind where your listening position is, so my setup is rotated 180 degrees from the way your setup is rotated. Can you do that? That would put a proper wall behind the front and centre speakers. I suspect the speaker response would improve noticeably but it may not be possible for you to arrange things that way.


Unfortunately, there is a fish tank on the wall, which I am reluctant to cover up. I'm going to have to fiddle around with my speaker placement to see if I can improve things. I think the other issue is that I originally had my SVS in a different location and did not have any issues with localization. I'll explain more in the next post.


----------



## Matt2026

tokerblue said:


> Unfortunately, there is a fish tank on the wall, which I am reluctant to cover up. I'm going to have to fiddle around with my speaker placement to see if I can improve things. I think the other issue is that I originally had my SVS in a different location and did not have any issues with localization. I'll explain more in the next post.


Time for a motorized screen and projector


----------



## tokerblue

David Aiken said:


> Sub localisation is a funny thing. if you read the standard comments on what frequency is best for your crossover you can get the impression that 80 Hz is it, period, or perhaps 80 Hz or lower, and that if you set the crossover higher you are going to be able to localise the sub. It's not that simple.
> 
> For a start, some people seem more able to localise subs at a given frequency than others. 80 Hz is a safe setting for some people but not for others. I don't know whether you will be able to localise the sub at 80 Hz or at 60 Hz or 100 Hz. It's not an 80 Hz and you won't be able to localise it, 90 Hz and you will. The crossovers which got set for you may or may not be a problem for you or for other family members. You may even find that they're a problem for some family members but not for others.


My SVS was originally in position SW1. When I changed it for the PSA3601, it was suggested I move it to SW2. The problem I'm running into now is that movies are fine, but the sub is too easy to localize when I'm playing music. So I'm not crazy about the result. Right now, the woofers are facing north and south.

I'm debating moving the subwoofer back to SW1, but I'm not sure the best orientation for the woofers. If I place it north and south, one of the woofers is going into an empty area to the north. If I place the woofers east and west, one of the woofers will be less than a foot away from the wall. This is my first sub with dual woofers, so I'm not sure on the best placement.


----------



## tokerblue

Matt2026 said:


> Time for a motorized screen and projector


I wish. I just killed my budget with a complete audio upgrade and a 65" LG OLED. :laugh:


----------



## David Aiken

tokerblue said:


> Unfortunately, there is a fish tank on the wall, which I am reluctant to cover up. I'm going to have to fiddle around with my speaker placement to see if I can improve things. I think the other issue is that I originally had my SVS in a different location and did not have any issues with localization. I'll explain more in the next post.


I used to run a planted aquarium for years. I understand your decision 

Can you rotate the layout 90 degrees and put the screen on your right wall or your left wall. You may have trouble on the right wall with the stairs and door locations and where you place the left front speaker, and there may be a window on the left wall which causes an issue. Either way you will end up with one surround speaker out in the open which is a pain (I know, I lived with that once) but in terms of crossover frequency results for the front speaker, either of those options is going to be preferable to the current setup.

BUT, given everything, your current setup may be the best option available to you. If that's the case then you should consider doing some kind of really solid room divider behind the screen when you have everything finished, even building a partial, non-loadbearing wall covering the area in the behind the TV out to a little bit either side of the front speakers. A light room divider panel won't provide much in the way of boundary reinforcement so you should consider making the room divider as solid as possible, whatever it is. Even a half height partial wall, up to the top of the speakers, would help. If you go full height with a partial wall you could consider wall mounting the screen and having power run into it to power the electronics and even to run speaker cabling through up into the ceiling and then to the surrounds. A partial wall is a fairly major construction effort in some ways but it could have quite a few advantages. I accept that it is not the kind of solution a lot of people would be prepared to try and you may well be one of those who wouldn't try it. It's something I probably wouldn't try myself but it is an option so I figured it was worth mentioning.


----------



## Matt2026

tokerblue said:


> I wish. I just killed my budget with a complete audio upgrade and a 65" LG OLED. :laugh:


Well, a nice upgrade in any case


----------



## mthomas47

tokerblue said:


> My SVS was originally in position SW1. When I changed it for the PSA3601, it was suggested I move it to SW2. The problem I'm running into now is that movies are fine, but the sub is too easy to localize when I'm playing music. So I'm not crazy about the result. Right now, the woofers are facing north and south.
> 
> I'm debating moving the subwoofer back to SW1, but I'm not sure the best orientation for the woofers. If I place it north and south, one of the woofers is going into an empty area to the north. If I place the woofers east and west, one of the woofers will be less than a foot away from the wall. This is my first sub with dual woofers, so I'm not sure on the best placement.


I would put it where it sounds best, and where you can't localize it. Hopefully, those two considerations will converge at the same location. It won't make any difference at all which way the drivers are oriented, or whether one driver is close to a wall. With ported subs, it is advisable to keep the port approximately one port diameter from a wall, in order to allow the port to literally, inhale and exhale. But, with a sealed sub, there is no such constraint, and the woofers won't care which way they are oriented, and neither will the low frequencies, which radiate in all directions from the cabinet.


----------



## Matt2026

mthomas47 said:


> I would put it where it sounds best, and where you can't localize it. Hopefully, those two considerations will converge at the same location. It won't make any difference at all which way the drivers are oriented, or whether one driver is close to a wall. With ported subs, it is advisable to keep the port approximately one port diameter from a wall, in order to allow the port to literally, inhale and exhale. But, with a sealed sub, there is no such constraint, and the woofers won't care which way they are oriented, and neither will the low frequencies, which radiate in all directions from the cabinet.


My little Babyboomer is a dual 8" woofer and I don't notice any difference which way I orient it


----------



## tokerblue

David Aiken said:


> BUT, given everything, your current setup may be the best option available to you. If that's the case then you should consider doing some kind of really solid room divider behind the screen when you have everything finished, even building a partial, non-loadbearing wall covering the area in the behind the TV out to a little bit either side of the front speakers. A light room divider panel won't provide much in the way of boundary reinforcement so you should consider making the room divider as solid as possible, whatever it is. Even a half height partial wall, up to the top of the speakers, would help. If you go full height with a partial wall you could consider wall mounting the screen and having power run into it to power the electronics and even to run speaker cabling through up into the ceiling and then to the surrounds. A partial wall is a fairly major construction effort in some ways but it could have quite a few advantages. I accept that it is not the kind of solution a lot of people would be prepared to try and you may well be one of those who wouldn't try it. It's something I probably wouldn't try myself but it is an option so I figured it was worth mentioning.


Unfortunately, rotating the setup is tough too. The left side has windows and the right side wide is smaller because there is a bathroom on the other side of the wall. I'm hoping that moving the subwoofer will solve my localization issues, which is what started me down this path. The wall idea doesn't sound like a bad idea though. I'll have to keep that one in mind.



Matt2026 said:


> Well, a nice upgrade in any case


I had my Paradigm Studio and SVS subwoofer setup for over a decade. My sister just moved and I've had a desire to try the Ascend Sierra-2, so I sold her my old setup for pennies.



mthomas47 said:


> It won't make any difference at all which way the drivers are oriented, or whether one driver is close to a wall. With ported subs, it is advisable to keep the port approximately one port diameter from a wall, in order to allow the port to literally, inhale and exhale. But, with a sealed sub, there is no such constraint, and the woofers won't care which way they are oriented, and neither will the low frequencies, which radiate in all directions from the cabinet.





Matt2026 said:


> My little Babyboomer is a dual 8" woofer and I don't notice any difference which way I orient it


Thanks for the confirmation. I'm going to move it later and see which orientation fits better. The sub is a monster at close to 130lbs. though.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I would put it where it sounds best, and where you can't localize it. Hopefully, those two considerations will converge at the same location. It won't make any difference at all which way the drivers are oriented, or whether one driver is close to a wall. With ported subs, it is advisable to keep the port approximately one port diameter from a wall, in order to allow the port to literally, inhale and exhale. But, with a sealed sub, there is no such constraint, and the woofers won't care which way they are oriented, and neither will the low frequencies, which radiate in all directions from the cabinet.


Mike,

I don't think you're quite right in saying that the low frequencies are going to radiate in all directions from the cabinet.

A low frequency cone driver radiates sound in exactly the same way that a mid-frequency cone driver does, but it does have a wider angle of dispersion and the sound is more prone to diffraction at the edges of the baffle so the sound does end up radiating in all directions but it does not radiate equally strongly in every direction so which way the driver is oriented may make a difference. Pointing it straight at a close wall, for instance, is going to direct a stronger signal to the wall than pointing it away from the wall would, and pointing it towards the wall may excite resonances in the wall which pointing it away from the wall does not.

Low frequency radiation from a sub driver is not truly omnidirectional, but it does radiate over a much wider angle than drivers handling higher frequencies radiate over, and edge diffraction does play a bigger part in the radiation pattern for a sub as a result.

Your advice to put the sub where it sounds best and can't be localised (or can be localised less often) is good advice but sub orientation _may_ help and pointing the driver away from the listening position to some degree _may_ make it a little less hard to localise provided doing so doesn't result in some other problem such as exacerbating a structural resonance. Note my use of "may" in both cases because it may not make a difference. I do think it is worth experimenting with sub orientation once the sub location is finalised and an initial calibration has been done if it's found that the sub can be localised. I'd put sub orientation in the "fine tuning" bag as something to try after an initial setup if localisation proves to be an issue but I wouldn't bother much about it when running setup for the first time.


----------



## Matt2026

tokerblue said:


> Thanks for the confirmation. I'm going to move it later and see which orientation fits better. The sub is a monster at close to 130lbs. though.


Wow, my little guy is only 30 pounds, so easy to move around.  The F12 has a bit more heft to it but still pretty easy to move  Your sub weighs almost as much as I do, it would be a real challenge for me to move it


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I don't think you're quite right in saying that the low frequencies are going to radiate in all directions from the cabinet.
> 
> A low frequency cone driver radiates sound in exactly the same way that a mid-frequency cone driver does, but it does have a wider angle of dispersion and the sound is more prone to diffraction at the edges of the baffle so the sound does end up radiating in all directions but it does not radiate equally strongly in every direction so which way the driver is oriented may make a difference. Pointing it straight at a close wall, for instance, is going to direct a stronger signal to the wall than pointing it away from the wall would, and pointing it towards the wall may excite resonances in the wall which pointing it away from the wall does not.
> 
> Low frequency radiation from a sub driver is not truly omnidirectional, but it does radiate over a much wider angle than drivers handling higher frequencies radiate over, and edge diffraction does play a bigger part in the radiation pattern for a sub as a result.
> 
> Your advice to put the sub where it sounds best and can't be localised (or can be localised less often) is good advice but sub orientation _may_ help and pointing the driver away from the listening position to some degree _may_ make it a little less hard to localise provided doing so doesn't result in some other problem such as exacerbating a structural resonance. Note my use of "may" in both cases because it may not make a difference. I do think it is worth experimenting with sub orientation once the sub location is finalised and an initial calibration has been done if it's found that the sub can be localised. I'd put sub orientation in the "fine tuning" bag as something to try after an initial setup if localisation proves to be an issue but I wouldn't bother much about it when running setup for the first time.


Hi David,

I think we're parsing again.  I didn't actually say that the low frequencies were going to radiate equally in all directions. I said that they were going to radiate in all directions. I know that you are just trying to be thorough in your consideration of this issue, but from everything I have read, and heard personally, it would take an amazing hearing capability to differentiate between a woofer pointed toward a wall, and a woofer pointed toward a listener. We might indeed hear a resonance, or a room mode excited differently, but not more or less low frequency sound, based on the direction of the driver. With ported subs, at close range, it is sometimes possible to feel (not hear) direct tactile pressure from a sub. But, that is typically more from the port moving air than it is from the driver, although the driver contributes. 

Some subs, including all cylinder subs, are designed as down-firing subs, and they don't sound any different from front-firing subs, because the low frequencies, below about 200Hz, or so, radiate in all directions, although slightly more would radiate downward. Similarly dual-opposed drivers are quite popular among sub makers, and by design, at least one driver will always point directly away from a listener, no matter how the subs are oriented. Even among speakers, many tower speakers have woofers that don't point toward the listener, because the low frequencies propagate and radiate differently than they do from a typical mid range or higher driver.

I agree that slightly more low frequency sound waves will radiate outward from the cone of a driver, than from the rest of the cabinet, but our ability to hear that "more" would be extremely compromised. I do think, though, that the direction that a driver points could affect the frequency response, so a driver facing a wall might interact with room modes differently, for instance. But, that would be a little different matter. In any event, if his subwoofer orientation causes him to hear, or sense something that he doesn't want to, then he should adjust it until he has it the way he likes it. But, I think that woofer orientation would be highly unlikely to affect anything other than FR.

My four subs have drivers facing in different directions, as they are on four opposing walls, and they don't all point at my listening position. I like to think that I am a pretty astute listener, and I am very sensitive to tactile sensations and sub localization, which is why I need four subs. But, I can't differentiate, in any way, among three of my ported subs, based on the way that the driver is oriented. The fourth is only 2' behind my MLP, with the driver and the port deliberately pointed right at my chair, for maximum tactile response. But, it's the nearfield aspect that makes that differentiation possible, and that is based on the actual movement of air, not the bass frequencies (sound waves) themselves.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

tokerblue said:


> Unfortunately, there is a fish tank on the wall, which I am reluctant to cover up. .





David Aiken said:


> I used to run a planted aquarium for years. I understand your decision
> 
> BUT, given everything, your current setup may be the best option available to you. If that's the case then you should *consider doing some kind of really solid room divider behind the screen when you have everything finished, even building a partial, non-loadbearing wall covering the area in the behind the TV out to a little bit either side of the front speakers. A light room divider panel won't provide much in the way of boundary reinforcement so you should consider making the room divider as solid as possible, whatever it is. Even a half height partial wall, up to the top of the speakers, would help*.





tokerblue said:


> The wall idea doesn't sound like a bad idea though. I'll have to keep that one in mind.


I had multiple planted fish tanks, so I get it, too. How about a nice absorbing panel on the wall _*below*_ the fish tank that moves up to cover it when you run movies or listen to music? 

You could _*try out*_ the wall idea by temporarily moving in some 3/4" sheets of plywood and holding them up with "flying buttresses" made out of 2 x 4s in the shape of right triangles. You would have to ignore the inevitable resonances and vibration sounds in this light weight wall -- just listen for increases in the bass SPL, and perhaps bass extension. You could move the temporary wall and the speakers and the MLP around. You wouldn't want to build a permanent wall in the wrong place. If the temp helps, then build a *real* wall. To avoid resonances and rattles, some articles recommend 2 sheets of 3/4 ply for a front and rear surface (increases mass and solidity), with 2 x 6 studs in between. A few fanatics recommend filling the wall with sand (as Warfedale used to do with speaker enclosure walls). There are articles online, and also many wall plans in  How to Build a Recording Studio [in one's home] by Jeff Cooper, who consulted on the home facilities of Francis Ford Coppola and Steven Spielberg (or was it Lucas?). You want the wall to be firm, non-resonant, and have high mass. If you are not on a concrete slab, put a some piers in the crawl space directly below the wall. Some speaker manufacturers recommend aiming a sub into a wall, if the wall is strong enough. I agree with David, that the wall should extend beyond the speakers. I'd say as far as possible, while still allowing people to walk into the other side of the room. _*Caution:*_ In our former house we started to build such a wall, and ended up building a room within a room with a floating floor firmly attached to four floating walls. When we bought our current home, we eschewed the floating floor/walls, and settled for thick walls with 2x6s closer than 16" o.c., and 3/4 ply plus screwed and glued 5/8 sheetrock, with staggered seems. A little pharmaceutical help was called for, but we made it through fine.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I think we're parsing again.  I didn't actually say that the low frequencies were going to radiate equally in all directions. I said that they were going to radiate in all directions. I know that you are just trying to be thorough in your consideration of this issue, but from everything I have read, and heard personally, it would take an amazing hearing capability to differentiate between a woofer pointed toward a wall, and a woofer pointed toward a listener. We might indeed hear a resonance, or a room mode excited differently, but not more or less low frequency sound, based on the direction of the driver. With ported subs, at close range, it is sometimes possible to feel (not hear) direct tactile pressure from a sub. But, that is typically more from the port moving air than it is from the driver, although the driver contributes.
> 
> …
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Not parsing.

Does it take "an amazing hearing capability to differentiate between a woofer pointed toward a wall, and a woofer pointed toward a listener"? Well, if we're talking about after setup, whether the Audyssey setup or a manual setup, when we've level matched the sub with the other speakers so, regardless of the orientation that the sub is in, the level at the listening position is both matched to the other speakers and at a set level for a specified sub input level and you're doing a side by side comparison, I'll agree with you. If we're talking about a given sub, Audyssey off, and playing a test tone through it, I'm far less certain that a given listener at the normal listening position is going to be incapable of discerning a difference if the sub's orientation is changed. I think a lot will depend on the sub and that you're right about down firing subs where I would not expect to hear a difference but depending on placement and orientation I'm not at all certain that a listener would not be able to hear a difference with a front firing sub, or at least some front firing subs, as the sub orientation was changed. 

Discerning a difference might be easier if the listener can sense a difference from the pressure wave which may be part of the tactile sense we get with subs but let's leave that out of the equation.

So, depending on circumstances I'm prepared to say that I do think differences will be audible some of the time, after all, can you hear a difference in the sound of a normal loudspeaker or a person's speaking voice if the speaker or person is facing a wall compared to facing into the room? Can you hear a difference as you change the distance between a normal loudspeaker or a speaking person and the wall? If you can hear differences in those cases why should it require "an amazing hearing capability" to tell the difference with a sub? I'm prepared to accept that there are characteristics associated with low frequencies which may make it harder, and that some sub designs like downfiring subs may strongly reduce the differences that a change in orientation makes, but I'm not prepared to admit that we will never hear a difference if we change the orientation of the sub.

In this case, with 2 subs on the left wall firing from left to right and one of those to the left of the sofa which is the main listening position in an area where it has walls on 2 sides, the side of a sofa running the full length of another side, and the side of the sofa on which the main listening position is located running along half of the fourth side of the sub, I think it may be possible to hear a difference if the sub were rotated from facing directly towards the sofa on the left side of the room (facing north in the diagram) and facing east into the room towards the sofa where the listening position is, where there is an opening into the central room space which would be in front of part of the drive. If you compared the 2 placements after setup in each case and with Audyssey active, I agree it will probably be very difficult to tell the difference. Without Audyssey active, just rotating the sub while playing something, I think it may be possible to tell a difference with a front firing sub but not with a downfiring one.

And having said that, from my own experience with a sub in a corner and one end of a sofa enclosing a third side of the space around the sub, I think the placement of SW2 in relation to the room corner and the 2 sofas may make it easier to localise that sub than it would be if it were in a different location but the room is difficult given the location of doors, windows, and the placement of the screen and front speakers. I'd like to see SW2 placed somewhere else but I have no suggestions given the room layout. In the absence of a diffferent placement I think I'd like to see Audyssey calculate a different filter for it than for SW1, probably with less output being required from SW2 and more from SW1, but Audyssey can't do that. It's an awkward room and I think the placement of SW2 is far from ideal and it may prove relatively easy to localise that sub as a result, and I would not be surprised if, placed in a corner surrounded by sofas like it is, a change in the orientation of that sub had an audible effect because facing north as it apparently is, directly towards that left sofa, it's as if it is slot loaded like a down firing sub with the side of the sofa acting like a floor does for a downfiring sub, and that situation will change if the sub is rotated to face east and part of the area in front of the driver is then open to the main area of the room and the side of the other sofa only covers part of the driver, reducing the slot loading effect.

I think there are enough factors involved in the placement of SW2 where it is, factors which are not involved in most sub placements, to make it more likely that a listener could hear a difference from a change in orientation of that sub, at least with Audyssey disengaged. I also think that some of those placement factors may make it easier to localise SW2. I'm far less certain that changing the orientation of SW2 will have much of an impact on how easy it is to localise SW2 but if it is localisable then I would experiment with a change in orientation.


----------



## gurkey

About the subwoofer localization issue:

Several studies have been done in the past already about that theme. If the subwoofer(s) are in line with the corresponding speaker as the prime signal source, then the ability to differentiate between both sound sources depends on the corresponding phase angle between the ears and absorption and shadowing effects of the head in between with reference to the wave length of the audio signal used for testing. One of the results: If the sub is spaced close to the corresponding speaker, frequencies up to 160 Hz can't be localized individually between both sound sources (thus tolerated). The larger the phase angle between both sound sources, the lower this upper limit will become. If the subs are placed far off, i.e. sideways or behind a listener, this will decrease to about 60 Hz at the lowest. Below this frequency limit no localization takes place due to the fact, that the wave length of the signal is so much larger than the dimensions of the human head.

This doesn't mean that you can't go even higher when using small satellites, but you might run into localization issues during critical listening. My guess: most won't realize it.


----------



## David Aiken

gurkey said:


> About the subwoofer localization issue:
> 
> Several studies have been done in the past already about that theme. If the subwoofer(s) are in line with the corresponding speaker as the prime signal source, then the ability to differentiate between both sound sources depends on the corresponding phase angle between the ears and absorption and shadowing effects of the head in between with reference to the wave length of the audio signal used for testing. One of the results: If the sub is spaced close to the corresponding speaker, frequencies up to 160 Hz can't be localized individually between both sound sources (thus tolerated). The larger the phase angle between both sound sources, the lower this upper limit will become. If the subs are placed far off, i.e. sideways or behind a listener, this will decrease to about 60 Hz at the lowest. Below this frequency limit no localization takes place due to the fact, that the wave length of the signal is so much larger than the dimensions of the human head.
> 
> This doesn't mean that you can't go even higher when using small satellites, but you might run into localization issues during critical listening. My guess: most won't realize it.


I suspect you'll find that in those studies the sub was not placed at the opposite end of the room in a corner enclosed by the ends of two sofas which severely modify the radiation pattern of the sub. Based on what you've cited SW2 in this case would be much easier to localise than a sub placed near the speakers if it were not also enclosed by the ends of the 2 sofas. I think the sofas will make it more easy to localise and the orientation of the sub, which will affect how well it radiates into the central area of the room and how it will be perceived from the listening position on one of those sofas, may make an audible difference.

I'm not knocking the studies you cite. I suspect they were very well done and that means that only 1 variable is changed in each iteration of the test. In this case that variable would be sub location only. Changing location and enclosing it with furniture would not have been part of the test protocol for very good reasons.

Phase angle can be compensated for with many subs. It would be interesting to know whether, when they varied the physical placement, did they correct for phase angle or not. Do you have any references for those studies because I wouldn't mind having a look at them.


----------



## gurkey

The cited studies have been done scientifically and under controlled conditions as far as I know. They did not cover any furniture and "home environment", bcause they where looking for specific parameters on the acoustical side referring to human senses and their specific capabilities.
"Phase angle" in this respect has nothing to do with speakers and subs phase, but with the individual angle of the sound sources "seen" by each ear with respect to the radiated signal.


----------



## pbarach

rodsip said:


> can anybody please let me know if my denon avr 5308ci audyssey pro kit ready. If it is, then where can I buy the audyssey? Or should I buy denon avr x7200wa instead? Plz advise me....


The pro kit is discontinued. You'd probably have to buy it used.


----------



## David Aiken

gurkey said:


> The cited studies have been done scientifically and under controlled conditions as far as I know. They did not cover any furniture and "home environment", bcause they where looking for specific parameters on the acoustical side referring to human senses and their specific capabilities.


That's what I expected, as I said. Controlled studies usually change only one condition and for this sort of study it would be the physical location of the sub. You should expect to see everything else unchanged.



> "Phase angle" in this respect has nothing to do with speakers and subs phase, but with the individual angle of the sound sources "seen" by each ear with respect to the radiated signal.


If the angle has nothing to do with the speaker's and sub's phase, it isn't "phase angle" because obviously "phase angle" has everything to do with phase or it wouldn't be called phase angle. I would expect that the phase angle was controlled for the sub in keeping with only changing one condition, the actual position. Levels and phase would be matched to ensure that differences in those conditions did not affect the test. The angle you're referring to would be the angle between sub and speaker as measured at the listening position.


----------



## gurkey

@*David Aiken* 

"Phase angle" in this context is the phase difference that is been recognized by the brain for each ear during reception of a signal from a sound source located somwhere in space. Because ears are located on opposing sides of the head, the physical difference and distance in combination with other properties of the auricle, head and its tissues and bone structure results in a difference of phase whilst receiving a signal. This is commonly called the "phase angle" and is responsible for the human hearings capability (in combination with the brain) in locating the direction of a sound source. 
This has nothing to do with the the phase between individual sound sources (speakers). Note: English is not my native tongue unfortunately, therefore my description mght be somewhat unclear at times...

Exactly this property had been tested at different frequencies whilst varying the location of the sound source to identify the ability of the human hearing to localize a sound source in space.


----------



## David Aiken

^

I know there is are time and phase differences for sound arriving at each ear if the source of the sound is not equidistant from each ear but I have never seen that difference referred to as "phase angle" before.


----------



## gurkey

I think the term "phase angle" is been used quite often in this context, as describing the difference in phase of a monophone stimulus reaching the individual ear in binaural hearing.
There are several sources in literature I know of, which use this term in the same context

http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1906588
http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1906407
http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1913237
etc.


----------



## David Aiken

gurkey said:


> I think the term "phase angle" is been used quite often in this context, as describing the difference in phase of a monophone stimulus reaching the individual ear in binaural hearing.
> There are several sources in literature I know of, which use this term in the same context
> 
> http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1906588
> http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1906407
> http://asa.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1121/1.1913237
> etc.


Those 3 references refer to studies on binaural hearing with the test material being presented by headphones. I assume the test signal presented to each ear was slightly different in phase so the actual phase angle of the stimulus being presented to each ear is what is being manipulated in the test. What is not being talked about is a difference in the angle at which the direct sound is arriving at the listening point which is one of the things we have been discussing here. It's also worth noting that studies on the ability to localise a sub can not be conducted using headphones.

I have no idea whether the term "phase angle" or "intramural phase angle" is used to describe differences in the direction of the arrival of direct sound from speaker and sub in tests on the ability to localise a sub's location but I would think not. Any use of the term 'phase angle' in such studies would be in relation to matching the phase angle of the sound heard from both speaker and sub, and the differences in the angle at which the sound of speaker and sub arrive at the listening position would be in terms of the actual physical angle of difference because that is the important parameter in that context.

But this is getting fairly off topic for a discussion on how to use Audyssey to optimise system performance including how to avoid creating audible problems in the process.


----------



## In.vincible

Is it OK to set a different crossover for different speakers? My mains go down to 44 Hz, so I set that crossover to 60 Hz, but my center can't go as deep, so I set that to 80 Hz.


----------



## drh3b

*Shouldn't be a problem*



In.vincible said:


> Is it OK to set a different crossover for different speakers? My mains go down to 44 Hz, so I set that crossover to 60 Hz, but my center can't go as deep, so I set that to 80 Hz.


Many people think you should just set it at 80 Hz, but doing what you do is fine. As long as you are within the capabilities of the speakers it will work, and whether you like it better at those settings or others are a manner of your taste. I change mine occasionally from 80 Hz to the lower settings, and I honestly don't notice any real difference.


----------



## In.vincible

drh3b said:


> Many people think you should just set it at 80 Hz, but doing what you do is fine. As long as you are within the capabilities of the speakers it will work, and whether you like it better at those settings or others are a manner of your taste. I change mine occasionally from 80 Hz to the lower settings, and I honestly don't notice any real difference.


Cool. I was fine at 80 with movies, but I didn't like the way my speakers sounded for 2 ch music. They seemed brighter and thinner that way, so I dropped the crossover down to 60 and things improved, IMO. They even sound pretty good without the sub, but lack the extra-low bass extension.


----------



## In.vincible

I'm assuming where Audyssey set my sub level is close to accurate? I like a little more punch, so if I raise the sub trim in my AVR, is it safe to assume the dB levels correspond to reality? For example, if I boost my sub +3 dB from where Audyssey put it, I'd be running it 3 dB "hot"?


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> I'm assuming where Audyssey set my sub level is close to accurate? I like a little more punch, so if I raise the sub trim in my AVR, is it safe to assume the dB levels correspond to reality? For example, if I boost my sub +3 dB from where Audyssey put it, I'd be running it 3 dB "hot"?


Hi,

Audyssey sets all of the channels to the same SPL, as measured at the MLP. That part is accurate. But, most people do prefer to add some bass boost post-calibration, for reasons explained in the Setup guide, linked in my signature. A boost of +3 in the AVR trim levels would, in fact, correspond to an increase of 3db.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stash64

Hi... just hoping to get a suggestion or two for my next Audyssey XT32 run on an AV7702mkII. I'm not happy with the results primarily with respect to my two front tower speakers (Canton Vento Reference 5DC). Audyssey is boosting bass about 8 db at and below 100 Hz for both towers, and I am finding the bass to be very boomy even at low volumes. My much smaller KEF R100 surround speakers are only boosted about 4 db in this same frequency range.


I'm also getting an odd crossover result for my KEF LS50 center channel speaker. Audyssey continues to set its crossover at 40 Hz and realistically it should not be lower than 80 Hz considering that I have the rear port plugged. My R100's are being set at 90 Hz and should be capable of 60 or at least 80 Hz. I continue to reset both to 80 Hz. The KEF's sound fine and I believe all the boominess is coming from the Canton's. I don't run a subwoofer.


I'm wondering if I need to change my mic positions. I'm using six positions only as my loveseat is within a foot of the rear wall. My first mic position is about a foot in front of the seat back and at ear level but about 6" above the tweeter level of the Canton towers. All other mic positions are only 1 to 2 feet apart, all in front of the loveseat. In the past (with other speakers), I've had the best luck with the microphone at tweeter level of the main speakers, so I am thinking I should lower the mic a little below ear level and perhaps move it more than a foot in front of the seat back for the first position.


Any and all ideas welcome. I have added a couple of photos for perspective.


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Audyssey sets all of the channels to the same SPL, as measured at the MLP. That part is accurate. But, most people do prefer to add some bass boost post-calibration, for reasons explained in the Setup guide, linked in my signature. A boost of +3 in the AVR trim levels would, in fact, correspond to an increase of 3db.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


\

Good to know, thanks! That extra 3 dB adds just the kick I need, and things are sounding really good now.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Hi... just hoping to get a suggestion or two for my next Audyssey XT32 run on an AV7702mkII. I'm not happy with the results primarily with respect to my two front tower speakers (Canton Vento Reference 5DC). Audyssey is boosting bass about 8 db at and below 100 Hz for both towers, and I am finding the bass to be very boomy even at low volumes. My much smaller KEF R100 surround speakers are only boosted about 4 db in this same frequency range.
> 
> 
> I'm also getting an odd crossover result for my KEF LS50 center channel speaker. Audyssey continues to set its crossover at 40 Hz and realistically it should not be lower than 80 Hz considering that I have the rear port plugged. My R100's are being set at 90 Hz and should be capable of 60 or at least 80 Hz. I continue to reset both to 80 Hz. The KEF's sound fine and I believe all the boominess is coming from the Canton's. I don't run a subwoofer.
> 
> 
> I'm wondering if I need to change my mic positions. I'm using six positions only as my loveseat is within a foot of the rear wall. My first mic position is about a foot in front of the seat back and at ear level but about 6" above the tweeter level of the Canton towers. All other mic positions are only 1 to 2 feet apart, all in front of the loveseat. In the past (with other speakers), I've had the best luck with the microphone at tweeter level of the main speakers, so I am thinking I should lower the mic a little below ear level and perhaps move it more than a foot in front of the seat back for the first position.
> 
> 
> Any and all ideas welcome. I have added a couple of photos for perspective.


Hi Sean,

I have several suggestions to make. Some of them may directly affect the issues you have addressed, and some of them may just contribute to a potential overall increase in sound quality. First, I recommend that you use all 8 mic positions. Just don't go behind your listening position with any of them. Second, I would make sure that you have a blanket over the seat backs during calibration, and I would move the microphone within 4" to 6" of the seat backs. You need to get closer to your actual listening position, and the wall treatments behind your chairs will protect you from comb filtering effects, from proximity to the Audyssey microphone, in the same way that the blanket over the seat backs will.

I would do three mic positions in a row about 4" to 6" from the two seat backs. Then I would come forward about 18" and repeat the three in a row. Then, I would come back about halfway between those two rows with my last two, and I would raise the mic a couple of inches above ear level for those last two. Where I came out about a foot, or so, from each side of mic 1 (the MLP) for #2 and #3 , for the last two #7 and #8 , I would only come out about 6" to each side. So, to recap, for the last two, try about 8" to 10" from the chair backs and about 6" out to each side of #1. All but the last two should be at ear height. Keeping the mic at ear height for the majority of your calibration positions is very important, in my opinion.

Room placement, in terms of boundary gain (wall gain), from adjacent dense surfaces, has a strong effect on mid-bass and low bass frequencies. Your front speakers look nice, as you have them, but they are so far from any walls that they are getting no boundary reinforcement, whatsoever. And, that is affecting their frequency response. By contrast, your small center channel is inside a cabinet, getting substantial reinforcement from all sides. If you want to try rearranging your front soundstage slightly to the left, and back toward the wall, you might be able to improve your low frequency response for your front speakers. And, to maintain the same viewing distance, you might then move your chairs a little more away from the wall. That could also be a good thing.

I would not lower the crossovers on the Canton's from wherever your Marantz set them. It's okay, and even desirable sometimes, to raise your crossover, but not to lower them. Trying to get your Canton's to come down naturally to about 60Hz, due to better positioning, would be good. Then, you could raise them to 80Hz and probably have better sound. But, right now, they aren't really capable of playing 80Hz, due to their lack of boundary gain, and trying to force them to do it may be partly responsible for the boominess you hear.

Beyond that, though, you definitely need a subwoofer. You are missing whole octaves of bass, in both music and movies, below the roughly 80Hz that your system is currently capable of producing. Getting your speakers closer to walls will help, but you still really need a subwoofer. Your Cantons look like very nice speakers, but some manufacturer's routinely inflate specs, and I think that is the case here. Even with optimal placement, two roughly 8" woofers, per speaker, won't be capable of playing much


----------



## stash64

Thanks Mike... I will definitely give your ideas a try. All seem reasonable and easy enough to achieve... I will just have to keep the dog in the bedroom a little longer to run all 8 positions. I would like to run the calibration today but it is too windy and some of the wind noise can be heard in my living room. I will report back as soon as I get a chance to re-run Audyssey... hopefully tomorrow.


As clarification, my Canton towers are set to "large". When I mentioned resetting the crossover to 80 Hz, it was just for the LS50 center and the R100 surrounds. I agree that the specs for the Cantons is likely overstated at 20 Hz, though I believe the 20 Hz is +/- 6 db rather than the typical +/- 3 db. The bass output is the only area in which I am slightly disappointed. My previous and less expensive Jamo C809 towers went lower but the bass from the Cantons was tighter until running Audyssey. I read somewhere that removing some of the packing around the down firing port plug would improve the bass output on the Cantons but not sure I want to start modifying brand new speakers. The Cantons have just the single down firing port, no rear ports.


I did just today remove the rear port plug from the LS50 center channel and then packed the back and sides of the center channel shelf with acoustic foam. I think it sounds better now and am curious what differences I will see when running Audyssey. I don't think I can move my stand or the front speakers closer to the front wall. One back corner of the stand is already just a few inches from the wall and I want to keep the front baffles of the towers just slightly forward of the stand. 


I have been considering subwoofers lately but I don't really have a good location for a subwoofer unless I get rid of the towers and then drop in two subwoofers where the towers currently sit, and then I would have to locate a bookshelf size speaker above each subwoofer. If I used two SVS cylindrical subwoofers, the height would probably be about right for sitting a bookshelf/monitor right on top. I've never run a subwoofer partly because I don't have a good spot for one in terms of space and aesthetics, and because I don't like the additional complexity of integrating a subwoofer. I'm having problems now with the calibration and fear it would be worse with subwoofers.


----------



## David Aiken

stash64 said:


> Hi... just hoping to get a suggestion or two for my next Audyssey XT32 run on an AV7702mkII. I'm not happy with the results primarily with respect to my two front tower speakers (Canton Vento Reference 5DC). Audyssey is boosting bass about 8 db at and below 100 Hz for both towers, and I am finding the bass to be very boomy even at low volumes. My much smaller KEF R100 surround speakers are only boosted about 4 db in this same frequency range.
> 
> 
> I'm also getting an odd crossover result for my KEF LS50 center channel speaker. Audyssey continues to set its crossover at 40 Hz and realistically it should not be lower than 80 Hz considering that I have the rear port plugged. My R100's are being set at 90 Hz and should be capable of 60 or at least 80 Hz. I continue to reset both to 80 Hz. The KEF's sound fine and I believe all the boominess is coming from the Canton's. I don't run a subwoofer.
> 
> 
> I'm wondering if I need to change my mic positions. I'm using six positions only as my loveseat is within a foot of the rear wall. My first mic position is about a foot in front of the seat back and at ear level but about 6" above the tweeter level of the Canton towers. All other mic positions are only 1 to 2 feet apart, all in front of the loveseat. In the past (with other speakers), I've had the best luck with the microphone at tweeter level of the main speakers, so I am thinking I should lower the mic a little below ear level and perhaps move it more than a foot in front of the seat back for the first position.
> 
> 
> Any and all ideas welcome. I have added a couple of photos for perspective.


Comments:

1- Speaker placement:

Basically what Mike said but some things I notice about your front speakers from the photo. As Mike said, they're out from the wall and losing boundary reinforcement but it also looks like the AV cabinet is out from the wall and at an angle to the wall, and it looks like there is either something on the wall behind the screen or an opening there. What's going on?

If you push everything back against the wall I would try to keep the front of the speakers level with the front of the cabinet to avoid diffraction problems at the front corners of the cabinet. You should end up with more boundary reinforcement but it may not help as much as you would like because you have that entryway to the right of the right speaker and that is likely to steal reinforcement from the right speaker. The crossover frequency is set for each pair of speakers so the L and R front speakers share the same crossover frequency and it is based on the speaker which has the higher measured -3 dB point. That's likely to be the right speaker and with that entry way to the right where it is, it is likely to not perform as well in the bass as the left speaker but it's likely to be the speaker the crossover frequency is based on. If you can move everything a little further to the left so that the wall behind the speakers extends a bit further to the right of the right speaker you may do better. It's possible the fireplace to the left of the left speaker may cause some issues, especially if there's a chimney venting to outside. If there is, it could end up affecting the bass response of the left speaker.

If I'm right in thinking that there is a space between the cabinet and the wall, and that the cabinet is angled in relation to the wall, that space may also be causing problems which is why I would want to see that gap minimised as much as possible.

Looking at the L and R speakers they also seem to have different toe in angles and that, plus the apparent angle of the cabinet, makes me wonder whether your seating position is closer to the right side of the room than the TV and speakers and the cabinet is angled in order to make your viewing angle better. If so, then I think a lot is going to depend on how much you can rearrange things so that you don't have to angle the screen.

Worst case scenario if I'm right on guessing about the angles and the seating position: I'd try pushing the cabinet back against the wall and angling the screen on top of the cabinet to face you. Yes, it will look odd but try it. I'd still try moving the cabinet and speakers to the left as much as possible. I'd keep the speakers level with the front of the cabinet but angle both of them to point at the listening position. If that means that the right speaker ends up pointing a little to the right, do so anyway. It will look odd but it will probably provide a bit more boundary reinforcement since the rear of the speaker will be pointing into a corner formed by the right side wall of the cabinet and the wall behind the speaker. The distances to L and R speakers will be different, also probably to the surrounds. Don't worry about that because Audyssey will compensate for the differences in arrival time.

Things are going to look odd if I'm right and you do what I suggest but I think you will get a better result.


2- Other things

Mike mentioned putting a blanket over the seat backs. I'd also use a blanket to cover the footstool and other object in front of the chairs and the small table beside the chair on the left in the photo or even remove them from the room for the setup process.


Finally, a floor plan would have been handy because I'm getting the feeling that it's an odd shaped room that opens into at least one other area and you seem to have an asymmetrical setup for the system. That's not necessarily bad, it can be good in some cases, but it does mean that getting the best result can be a little more complicated than it is in a normal room with a symmetrical system setup. As Mike said, a sub would help because you may not be able to avoid using a high crossover with the front speakers if placement issues are adversely affecting their bass response.


----------



## stash64

Hi David,


Your observations about my room are spot on. It is not ideal by any means. The reason for the angle of the entertainment center and my loveseat as well is that I have a short wall on the seating side, open to the kitchen on my left. If the entertainment center was parallel to the wall, the TV would be offset to my left by a couple feet. As it sits now, the TV is still a little off center (to the left) of my seating position. The TV is mounted using an integral (Salamander Synergy) stand mount that has no rotation capability. The large acoustic foam panel behind the TV serves only one purpose... to tame the fan noise and buzzing from my plasma TV. I love my Panny plasma but not the noise it creates, and the foam panel is actually very effective at reducing the buzz and fan noise.


Do you think the front wall has much impact on the bass from the Canton towers given there is no rear port, only the down firing port ? This may be why my previous Jamo C809 towers (with rear ports) had more bass impact.


The angle (toe in) of each of the front towers is approximately equal with respect to my seating positon. I did read somewhere though that Canton speakers (at least the Vento line) are designed to be used perfectly parallel, with no toe in. So I am using just a slight toe in on both speakers though I agree I may have to experiment in both directions.


When I run the calibration, I will go ahead and remove my footrest and my doggy stairs. I thought it best to keep everything in place as it normally would be but I can see where this might mess with the bass measurement in particular.


Thanks for all the great input.


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> As clarification, my Canton towers are set to "large". When I mentioned resetting the crossover to 80 Hz, it was just for the LS50 center and the R100 surrounds. .


Hi Stash,

Is the AV7702mkII a Marantz? My Marantz has an "Audyssey indicator light" on the front panel. Does yours? Does that light go off, indicating Audyssey has been disabled, when you set your crossovers for your center and surrounds to 80 Hz?

Do you have your subwoofer status on the screen set to "No" or "None?"

Please do consider getting a sub. It will not only give you the missing bass, it will relieve the burden on your speakers, and increase headroom. Some people put a subwoofer behind a couch. It is likely that you wouldn't be able to detect its location, although strange things do happen. If you put a sub (or two) behind your loveseat, that might increase the distance between the back of your head and the wall, make the apparent soundstage a little wider, and you might enjoy more tactile stimulation from the sub.


----------



## David Aiken

Sean,

Do I think the front wall has much impact on the bass? Yes. Essentially the left speaker is in a corner though out from it a bit. It gets reinforcement from the wall behind it all the way out to the fireplace and then support from the wall there. The right speaker gets a little bit of support from the wall behind it which ends behind it in the opening to what looks like a hall. A lot of the sound that a wall there would reflect back into the room is going to escape up the hallway, plus the walls in the hall are a lot further away than the walls to the rear of the left speaker. There surroundings around the left speaker provide more boundary reinforcement than the surroundings around the right speaker do.

Canton may say that the speakers are designed to face straight ahead, and they may be, but Audyssey seems to be designed to work with the speakers pointing at the mic, or very close to it. It seems you get best results with Audyssey by pointing the speakers in the direction of the the mic. If you're going to use Audyssey, go with what it wants when it comes to toe in.

On the sound absorption behind the plasma: I understand what's going on there now. I used to have a plasma.


I know things will look odd but I think if you push the cabinet back against the wall and the speakers along with it, and if you place the TV at an angle on top of the cabinet so it faces you, you are likely to get better results with the sound. You'll probably have to angle the centre speaker in the cabinet as well. 

It may not be an ideal room but I wonder what an ideal room would be, having lived with less than ideal rooms for the last 30-40 years or more. I've seen people look at a room and proceed to point out all of the reasons why it can't work while not bothering to really listen to the sound someone is getting in that room and the sound has actually been good, sometimes better than the people pointing out all of the problems are managing to achieve in their theoretically better rooms. You can do a lot if you work with the room rather than fighting it, but it can take time and patience to learn how to work with your room. Everyone has their set of basic rules they follow but a lot of those rules are based on what works best in a regular room with a normal symmetrical system placement. You don't have that room and setup and it looks like you won't be able to achieve it so you have to work with what you have. It's difficult to predict what will work in a unique room and setup, you're forced to experiment, and things that work with a normal room and setup often don't work as well as you would expect while things you would never try with a normal room and setup can be surprisingly successful. You have to experiment if you're going to find out what will work and what won't work because you can't predict what will happen in an odd room with an odd setup.

It's easy to look at a room and setup like yours and start listing reasons why it can't work and the problems you can expect but Audyssey can help deal with a lot of those problems. I think you may end up being surprised at what can be achieved but one of the things about all electronic room correction systems like Audyssey is that they work better if you set the room and system up so you're getting the best results you can get without using the correction system. The more you use Audyssey for fine tuning rather than for dealing with major problems, the better the result will be so minimising the major problems first is a good idea. It seems one of your biggest problems is the bass response of your front L and R speakers so doing everything you can do to extend that response by dealing with speaker placement and improving the boundary reinforcement from the surrounding room surfaces should help a fair bit. There's really only one way to improve boundary reinforcement and that's to get as much boundary surface as possible closer to the speakers and since you can't move the room boundaries, the walls/floor/ceiling, that means moving the speakers.

There's one other thing which may help. Do you have a sound pressure level meter, even if it's only a smartphone app? If you do, get a hold of a test signal like a 20-20KHz pink noise pattern and set it playing, then walk very slowly along a midline between the speakers from the TV towards the listening position and even a little bit further while watching the results and listening to the bass levels. Bass response should go up and down a bit as you do so. See if you can find a position where the bass sounds stronger than it does in your current listening position and where you are prepared to place the listening position. That may also help in getting the crossover frequency for the main speakers down a bit further.


----------



## tokerblue

I'm about to run the Audyssey setup on my Denon x4300 since I relocated my subwoofer. I noticed during the setup that the Denon suggests a different seating position #2 than the Audyssey guide by giomania on this site. Does it matter which one I follow? 

Audyssey Guide:
4-5-6
3-1-2
-7-8-

Denon Guide:
4-5-6
2-1-3
-7-8-


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> Hi Stash,
> 
> Is the AV7702mkII a Marantz? My Marantz has an "Audyssey indicator light" on the front panel. Does yours? Does that light go off, indicating Audyssey has been disabled, when you set your crossovers for your center and surrounds to 80 Hz?
> 
> Do you have your subwoofer status on the screen set to "No" or "None?"
> 
> Please do consider getting a sub. It will not only give you the missing bass, it will relieve the burden on your speakers, and increase headroom. Some people put a subwoofer behind a couch. It is likely that you wouldn't be able to detect its location, although strange things do happen. If you put a sub (or two) behind your loveseat, that might increase the distance between the back of your head and the wall, make the apparent soundstage a little wider, and you might enjoy more tactile stimulation from the sub.




The AV7702 is a Marantz prepro and I believe it does indicate on the front display when Audyssey is on. I know Audyssey is still engaged after manually changing the crossovers because the OSD menu for Audyssey still shows that it is on along with Dyn EQ and the option for either Reference or Flat. The audio menu also shows that I have a 5.0 configuration and no sub with the Canton towers set as large and the other three speakers set as small.


I am definitely thinking about adding two subwoofers but for me the only option is to place the subs where my towers are now located. I don't know if it is my own personal feng shui, but I really hate clutter and the idea of a subwoofer anywhere near my couch makes me cringe. I'm already thinking about how I would place a KEF R300 monitor above each subwoofer.


... Anyone interested in a pair of nearly new Canton Vento Reference 5 DC speakers?


----------



## stash64

David Aiken said:


> Canton may say that the speakers are designed to face straight ahead, and they may be, but Audyssey seems to be designed to work with the speakers pointing at the mic, or very close to it. It seems you get best results with Audyssey by pointing the speakers in the direction of the the mic. If you're going to use Audyssey, go with what it wants when it comes to toe in.


That's a good point. I can try a little more toe in and see if it improves the EQ.



> I know things will look odd but I think if you push the cabinet back against the wall and the speakers along with it, and if you place the TV at an angle on top of the cabinet so it faces you, you are likely to get better results with the sound. You'll probably have to angle the centre speaker in the cabinet as well.


I don't doubt there would be some improvement but doing this would require more work and cost than I am willing to undertake. The TV mount is custom (and not cheap) and made specifically for my entertainment center, and unfortunately can only be adjusted for height... and even that is a real chore given the weight of the plasma TV.




> There's really only one way to improve boundary reinforcement and that's to get as much boundary surface as possible closer to the speakers and since you can't move the room boundaries, the walls/floor/ceiling, that means moving the speakers.


Or I can just go bigger (i.e. subwoofer) and not be too concerned about boundary reinforcement... would you agree ? If I did go the subwoofer route, I would likely go with two sealed front facing subwoofers. I don't want to have to deal with port noise from a sub because music is more important to me than home theater.




> There's one other thing which may help. Do you have a sound pressure level meter, even if it's only a smartphone app? If you do, get a hold of a test signal like a 20-20KHz pink noise pattern and set it playing, then walk very slowly along a midline between the speakers from the TV towards the listening position and even a little bit further while watching the results and listening to the bass levels. Bass response should go up and down a bit as you do so. See if you can find a position where the bass sounds stronger than it does in your current listening position and where you are prepared to place the listening position. That may also help in getting the crossover frequency for the main speakers down a bit further.


I do have a high quality SPL meter but I just have little or no room to move my loveseat. My dog probably has the best seat in the house but I need to sit on the right side because I am right handed. If I do get subwoofers, I will try this technique for the subwoofer placement on either side of the entertainment stand.


----------



## Skylinestar

tokerblue said:


> I'm about to run the Audyssey setup on my Denon x4300 since I relocated my subwoofer. I noticed during the setup that the Denon suggests a different seating position #2 than the Audyssey guide by giomania on this site. Does it matter which one I follow?
> 
> Audyssey Guide:
> 4-5-6
> 3-1-2
> -7-8-
> 
> Denon Guide:
> 4-5-6
> 2-1-3
> -7-8-


It doesn't matter


----------



## pbarach

tokerblue said:


> I'm about to run the Audyssey setup on my Denon x4300 since I relocated my subwoofer. I noticed during the setup that the Denon suggests a different seating position #2 than the Audyssey guide by giomania on this site. Does it matter which one I follow


As long as #1 is at your main listening position, the order of the other calibration points doesn't matter.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Thanks Mike... I will definitely give your ideas a try. All seem reasonable and easy enough to achieve... I will just have to keep the dog in the bedroom a little longer to run all 8 positions. I would like to run the calibration today but it is too windy and some of the wind noise can be heard in my living room. I will report back as soon as I get a chance to re-run Audyssey... hopefully tomorrow.
> 
> 
> As clarification, my Canton towers are set to "large". When I mentioned resetting the crossover to 80 Hz, it was just for the LS50 center and the R100 surrounds. I agree that the specs for the Cantons is likely overstated at 20 Hz, though I believe the 20 Hz is +/- 6 db rather than the typical +/- 3 db. The bass output is the only area in which I am slightly disappointed. My previous and less expensive Jamo C809 towers went lower but the bass from the Cantons was tighter until running Audyssey. I read somewhere that removing some of the packing around the down firing port plug would improve the bass output on the Cantons but not sure I want to start modifying brand new speakers. The Cantons have just the single down firing port, no rear ports.
> 
> 
> I did just today remove the rear port plug from the LS50 center channel and then packed the back and sides of the center channel shelf with acoustic foam. I think it sounds better now and am curious what differences I will see when running Audyssey. I don't think I can move my stand or the front speakers closer to the front wall. One back corner of the stand is already just a few inches from the wall and I want to keep the front baffles of the towers just slightly forward of the stand.
> 
> 
> I have been considering subwoofers lately but I don't really have a good location for a subwoofer unless I get rid of the towers and then drop in two subwoofers where the towers currently sit, and then I would have to locate a bookshelf size speaker above each subwoofer. If I used two SVS cylindrical subwoofers, the height would probably be about right for sitting a bookshelf/monitor right on top. I've never run a subwoofer partly because I don't have a good spot for one in terms of space and aesthetics, and because I don't like the additional complexity of integrating a subwoofer. I'm having problems now with the calibration and fear it would be worse with subwoofers.


Hi Sean,

You are very welcome! I read all of the other posts, before responding to yours, and I understand your placement issues. I hadn't really intended to suggest that you replace your towers.  Do your speakers sound boomy for all of the music you listen to, as well as for movies? Are they boomy for acoustic music, such as classical and jazz, as opposed to electronically-enhanced music?

The reason I ask is to get a better idea of where your speakers start to need bass support. Even when speaker makers tell you that the speaker was down by 6db at 20Hz, what they may not tell you is that the measurement was taken close miked, or at 1m distance, or how much distortion was measured at that frequency. And, all that matters when you get 12' or 15' from a speaker, and expect it to play low frequencies effectively, particularly if you can't get it near a wall to reinforce the bass frequencies.

Subwoofers don't actually need to point at you, or even to be visible to you, in order to provide bass support below about 80Hz, or so. If you wanted to keep your towers, for the time being, and put some subs behind them, the subs would work fine that way. I can look at your front soundstage and see that you don't like clutter or asymmetry, and my own tastes are similar. But, some degree of compromise will probably be necessary to achieve improved sound quality. Putting smaller sealed subs behind the speakers would be one approach. Going with the same, or larger subs, with bookshelf speakers on top, would be another. But, there are some very nice and substantial (large) bookshelf speakers available, so even putting them on top of a 20" high sub could work just fine.

My own inclination, in your position, might be to start with two subs behind your existing speakers, assuming that you are happy with the speakers, otherwise. I'm not telling you what you should do here. I just know how much trouble it can be to turnover audio equipment, and if you really like the speakers...Using that approach, you could find out not only how things look, but also how well the speakers integrate with the subs, and how things sound when the speakers are able to do what they are good at doing. Then, if you decide that you don't like either the aesthetic arrangement, or the speakers, at that point, you could take your time to find just the right bookshelf speakers for the arrangement and sound you want.

So, I would probably start with two subs, and they wouldn't be cylinders. I wouldn't worry about the ported aspect, as much as the height. Even the smallest cylinder, the PC2000, would be so high at 34" as to really restrict the bookshelf height. (I have had several cylinder subs, and they are quite good.) Even if you give up your tower speakers, you are still going to want good bookshelf speakers, that can play down to about 60Hz, or so, and that will still take a substantial speaker. Otherwise, you might still encounter integration, and/or localization issues. So, I would recommend just getting normal box subwoofers, which will be versatile enough to fit anywhere, and then after trying them for a while, make a decision on my speakers.

Incidentally, I like what you did with the acoustic foam around your center channel. I did something similar with mine, just under and directly behind where it sits on the stand, and it helped the sound quality.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stash64

Hey Mike,


I won't get rid of my Cantons until I am sure I have exhausted all options that don't require additional cash outlay. I just looked at the specs again for the Cantons and was surprised to see that power handling is listed as 280 W nominal to 440 W. I am using an Emotiva XPA Gen3 rated at 225 W. Now I wonder if the problem is just not enough power to the Cantons. I wanted to bi-amp the Cantons, but I was getting excessive noise through the midrange drivers that mostly went away after removing the bi-amp. (I still suspect my Marantz pre-amp has a defect related to bi-amping.) Bi-amping might help some but I would guess that it still would not be equivalent to 280 W.


I do understand that subwoofers are not directional, below 80 Hz or so, but a forward facing sub would result in less reflection and I have lots of potential for reflection in my living room. I had thought about a subwoofer behind the towers though the right side space would only accommodate a sub of 10" max unless I moved the entertainment stand closer to my seating position. I suppose I could place a single sub behind the left side tower and I would not mind the look of a cylindrical sub in that spot.


I still have not run an EQ based on the suggestions here. I had laundry to do this morning and now I am watching the Daytona 500. Perhaps after the 500.


I think what I am hearing is probably better termed as "bloat". The bass resonates too much and is particularly noticeable with bass guitar, more so than drums. My first impression of the Cantons was that bass output was not as strong as I had hoped but that it was very tight... after Audyssey, it no longer has the tight feel.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> 
> I won't get rid of my Cantons until I am sure I have exhausted all options that don't require additional cash outlay. I just looked at the specs again for the Cantons and was surprised to see that power handling is listed as 280 W nominal to 440 W. I am using an Emotiva XPA Gen3 rated at 225 W. Now I wonder if the problem is just not enough power to the Cantons. I wanted to bi-amp the Cantons, but I was getting excessive noise through the midrange drivers that mostly went away after removing the bi-amp. (I still suspect my Marantz pre-amp has a defect related to bi-amping.) Bi-amping might help some but I would guess that it still would not be equivalent to 280 W.
> 
> I do understand that subwoofers are not directional, below 80 Hz or so, but a forward facing sub would result in less reflection and I have lots of potential for reflection in my living room. I had thought about a subwoofer behind the towers though the right side space would only accommodate a sub of 10" max unless I moved the entertainment stand closer to my seating position. I suppose I could place a single sub behind the left side tower and I would not mind the look of a cylindrical sub in that spot.
> 
> I still have not run an EQ based on the suggestions here. I had laundry to do this morning and now I am watching the Daytona 500. Perhaps after the 500.
> 
> I think what I am hearing is probably better termed as "bloat". The bass resonates too much and is particularly noticeable with bass guitar, more so than drums. My first impression of the Cantons was that bass output was not as strong as I had hoped but that it was very tight... after Audyssey, it no longer has the tight feel.


Hi Sean,

Frequencies below about 200Hz (and really more like 400Hz) don't reflect in the way that mid-range and high frequencies do. So, although you have a lot of hard surfaces in the room, which can cause you reflection problems at higher frequencies, they won't be a problem at subwoofer frequencies. Parts of those long, slow waves will go right through walls, and other parts will pool in corners, instead of ricocheting off of room surfaces, and other objects, the way shorter, faster sound waves do. So again, whether the subs face out or not won't really matter, and if you can arrange things to accommodate them, I think that they will help a lot.

I'm glad that you are planning to keep your Canton's, if at all possible. They look like fine speakers. Intuitively, I don't believe that your issue with the Cantons is related to amplifier power. But, low frequencies require so much more amplifier power than frequencies above about 50Hz or 60Hz, that I do believe that it is related to simply asking the Cantons to try to do too much. Even if you doubled your current amp power, you would only gain 3db, and that wouldn't help much. I think that the real answer is related to using subwoofers to relieve the strain on the Cantons. In a perfect arrangement, they could probably do a little better, but regardless of that possibility, they aren't able to do that in your room, as they are now.

I have debated whether to share a comparison with you, because I don't want it to come across in a bad way. But, I think I will gamble that you will take it in the right way. I have several pairs of very large speakers, in a very large room. My medium-size ones have two 12" woofers apiece, in a very large cabinet volume. My big boys have four 12" woofers apiece, in an even larger cabinet (52" x 36" x 18"). And, I am pretty careful to give them all some boundary gain. My smallest speakers only have a single measly 12" woofer, and only weigh about 65lbs apiece. The others speakers laugh at them, and kick sand in their faces. 

My speakers work very well by themselves, for music. But, for movies, I reset all of my speakers to Small, and the lowest crossover I use, even for my really big guys, is 60Hz. I think that getting subs in your system will allow the Cantons to shine the way they are supposed to, even without much boundary gain. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> I have debated whether to share a comparison with you, because I don't want it to come across in a bad way. But, I think I will gamble that you will take it in the right way. I have several pairs of very large speakers, in a very large room. My medium-size ones have two 12" woofers apiece, in a very large cabinet volume. My big boys have four 12" woofers apiece, in an even larger cabinet (52" x 36" x 18"). And, I am pretty careful to give them all some boundary gain. My smallest speakers only have a single measly 12" woofer, and only weigh about 65lbs apiece. The others speakers laugh at them, and kick sand in their faces.
> 
> My speakers work very well by themselves, for music. But, for movies, I reset all of my speakers to Small, and the lowest crossover I use, even for my really big guys, is 60Hz. I think that getting subs in your system will allow the Cantons to shine the way they are supposed to, even without much boundary gain.



I think you have sold me on a subwoofer after all these years. The main reason I have avoided a sub is that I fear it won't be musical and music is definitely more important to me than home theater. I plan to start off with a single SVS cylindrical sub behind the left tower speaker and, if that works out well, I will consider going with a second subwoofer and perhaps downsizing the front towers to KEF R500's to make room for the second sub on the right hand side.


I did a little research and discovered that SVS has fairly frequent sales on their subwoofers, so I will wait until their next sale. I used "camelcamelcamel" and was amazed that their top tier cylindrical subwoofer sold for 1/3 of its regular price briefly in January. Not sure though if I should go for the top one or just get their budget cylindrical sub.


So what are the speakers you are referencing with the 12" drivers ? Some type of pro/studio speaker I would guess. I do find speakers fascinating and if I could afford it and had the time, I would like to have several sets of speakers to rotate in/out every few months. I love the way different speakers can bring out different nuances in music.


I did re-run Audyssey with all the recommended adjustments but have not had a chance to evaluate other than looking at the EQ curves. It set the same crossovers and so I am still puzzled that Audyssey thinks my LS50 center channel is capable of 40 Hz. The EQ curves are showing a 7-8 db boost for all three front speakers from about 60 Hz and lower, but only a 4-5 db boost in the same frequency range for the surround speakers. I thought this low end boost for the front speakers extended all the way up to 100 Hz on the previous calibration, but now I wonder if I was mistaken. A boost at and below 60 Hz seems more reasonable for the Cantons. I wish there was a way to capture the EQ curves on a computer for comparison.


Thanks for your help Mike. I may need to check back for more help once I get that subwoofer.


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> I just looked at the specs again for the Cantons and was surprised to see that power handling is listed as 280 W nominal to 440 W. I am using an Emotiva XPA Gen3 rated at 225 W. Now I wonder if the problem is just not enough power to the Cantons..


I like Canton speakers a lot, but it's difficult to know what they mean by their specs (they are not alone!). The Canton specs (at least on Amazon) are: "nom. /*music power* handling 280 / 440 watts; spl (1 watt/1m) 88.5 db." * "Music Power"* at least used to be a fudge spec. Even if it is not, now, in 2017, I would think that Canton would try to avoid it, because of its past. Even "power handling" probably varies in meaning from manufacturer to manufacturer, or even from model to model. Is 280 W the power that burns out the speaker after 15 minutes of continuous pink noise input? Is 440 the power that blows it out if sustained for 200 milliseconds? 2 milliseconds? The lack of a sub, particularly with movies, puts you at a disadvantage, power handling wise. 

The sensitivity is probably the more important spec, but it, too, is hard to trust (Stereophile and other magazines do a good job of testing it, though, but at 2.83V @ 1m, which is 1 watt at 8 Ohms, which no speaker is throughout it's range). 88.5 dB is probably just a tad below average, which may be around 90 dB. Still, 225 W from your Emotiva should be enough, I'd guess, unless you are like me, and run at 5 to 7 dB below Reference. Is that 225 W RMS? Have you seen a bench test that indicates where the Emotiva would clip with a steady input? A rule of the thumb is that *.*707 times the clipping power would give you the true usable power. I don't know how good that rule is.


I'd buy subs long before buying new amps.


----------



## tokerblue

Skylinestar said:


> It doesn't matter





pbarach said:


> As long as #1 is at your main listening position, the order of the other calibration points doesn't matter.


Thanks. I was able to run the calibration this morning.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> I think you have sold me on a subwoofer after all these years. The main reason I have avoided a sub is that I fear it won't be musical and music is definitely more important to me than home theater. I plan to start off with a single SVS cylindrical sub behind the left tower speaker and, if that works out well, I will consider going with a second subwoofer and perhaps downsizing the front towers to KEF R500's to make room for the second sub on the right hand side.
> 
> 
> I did a little research and discovered that SVS has fairly frequent sales on their subwoofers, so I will wait until their next sale. I used "camelcamelcamel" and was amazed that their top tier cylindrical subwoofer sold for 1/3 of its regular price briefly in January. Not sure though if I should go for the top one or just get their budget cylindrical sub.
> 
> 
> So what are the speakers you are referencing with the 12" drivers ? Some type of pro/studio speaker I would guess. I do find speakers fascinating and if I could afford it and had the time, I would like to have several sets of speakers to rotate in/out every few months. I love the way different speakers can bring out different nuances in music.
> 
> 
> I did re-run Audyssey with all the recommended adjustments but have not had a chance to evaluate other than looking at the EQ curves. It set the same crossovers and so I am still puzzled that Audyssey thinks my LS50 center channel is capable of 40 Hz. The EQ curves are showing a 7-8 db boost for all three front speakers from about 60 Hz and lower, but only a 4-5 db boost in the same frequency range for the surround speakers. I thought this low end boost for the front speakers extended all the way up to 100 Hz on the previous calibration, but now I wonder if I was mistaken. A boost at and below 60 Hz seems more reasonable for the Cantons. I wish there was a way to capture the EQ curves on a computer for comparison.
> 
> Thanks for your help Mike. I may need to check back for more help once I get that subwoofer.


Hi Sean,

You are very welcome, and by all means, do check in once you get your subwoofer. One of the nice things about SVS is their free trial period. I would probably suggest just starting with the PC2000. If you like the sound quality and characteristics, you can always upgrade to the taller and much more powerful PC13 Ultra. Or, you can pivot to a sealed sub, such as the SB13 and still maintain a smaller footprint. So, you will have a lot of options.

I feel the same way that you do about speakers, and I have experimented a bit over the years. But, I actually found some that I really like a long time ago, and despite experimentation, have never found anything else that I like as much. My speakers are vintage Bozak speakers, with modern capacitors and some customization. I have four pairs, three pairs of which are in my current system. I love them as much today as I did when I first heard them--more perhaps, since I have invested a lot of time and effort in learning how to optimize them; and my listening room. Starting with good equipment is very important, in my opinion. But then, learning how to make your speakers and subwoofers really shine in your listening environment is an interesting and rewarding process, too.

I think you will have a lot of fun with a subwoofer. A good one will enhance your listening pleasure for music, and change it entirely for action and blockbuster movies. 

Regards,
Mike

Note: Remember that Audyssey doesn't "think" that your CC is capable of playing 40Hz. Audyssey is simply measuring your CC playing 40Hz, probably due to all the boundary gain it is getting from the cabinet. Boundary gain is a very real phenomenon, with respect to bass frequencies. I really wouldn't pay much attention to the crude graphs showing the corrections that Audyssey is applying, though. They are mostly a marketing gimmick, in my opinion.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Sean,
> 
> Note: Remember that Audyssey doesn't "think" that your CC is capable of playing 40Hz. Audyssey is simply measuring your CC playing 40Hz, probably due to all the boundary gain it is getting from the cabinet. Boundary gain is a very real phenomenon, with respect to bass frequencies. I really wouldn't pay much attention to the crude graphs showing the corrections that Audyssey is applying, though. They are mostly a marketing gimmick, in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike as always is being too kind here. These after Audyssey Graphs are not Actual result Graphs. They are a mathematical calculation of what the Curve should look like based on the EQ filters created. So they really have no basis in reality of your room response curve.


----------



## garygarrison

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike as always is being too kind here. These after Audyssey Graphs are not Actual result Graphs. They are a mathematical calculation of what the Curve should look like based on the EQ filters created. So they really have no basis in reality of your room response curve.


The biggest problem with them, at least with my 5 year old Marantz, is that there is only one bar per octave, ranging from 63Hz to 16K Hz. on the graph. _*Sean*_, do you have more than that on your much newer Marantz? One indicator per octave, over 9 octaves, renders them next to useless. Audyssey EQ uses "hundreds of points." 

My understanding is that the graphs (poorly) represent the _*compensation*_ Audyssey has applied to each speaker, boiled down to those octaves, and therefore very crudely depicts the _*inverse*_ of the "curve" of the combined response of that given speaker and the room, _*before*_ being corrected by Audyssey. The unseen result, in the room, should be more or less flat response for Audyssey FLAT and a gentle cinema roll off (- 2 dB @ 10 K, -6 dB @ 20 K), as well as a dip at about 2K, for plain Audyssey ("Audyssey Reference").


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Both of the above responses are better, and more in-depth than mine was. With XT-32, the control points actually number in the thousands, with 4096 taps for each filter, and one filter for each channel, including the .1 channel. With XT, there are fewer control points for the speakers (128), than there are for the subwoofer (.1) channel. The sub channel in XT has 1024 taps. 

It is possible to calculate the control points, in each version of Audyssey, by referring to the MultEQ Comparison Chart, in the FAQ, and multiplying where "X" = 8, as there were only 8 control points in 2EQ, which was the earliest version of Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> Hmmm, if we could only detach our ears and listen from a few feet away.
> 
> Jeff


Like the Lost King of Oz?


----------



## pepar

Or maybe Brundlefly?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

pepar said:


> Or maybe Brundlefly?


Hi pepar, long time since we exchanged posts. Hope all is well. Good to see you still here. Ahhh the old days of Audyssey mystery and confusion still abound. I'm still trying to figure it out and still failing


----------



## pepar

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi pepar, long time since we exchanged posts. Hope all is well. Good to see you still here. Ahhh the old days of Audyssey mystery and confusion still abound. I'm still trying to figure it out and still failing


Howdy, yes still alive and well. Hope all is well with you, too. A failure of my Onk 5508 last year forced me to buy a replacement. Everything pointed me to the Emotiva XMC-1 and I am so glad I followed the signs. 

Jeff


----------



## Luisfc1972

ran audyssey again with new speakers.

audyssey set the sub at -2.5

is that good?

it also set the sub at 3.5 feet from mlp, but mlp is around 12 feet away.


----------



## ace5000

Any word on the Denon Audyssey app?
No 4200 support?

Thanks


----------



## Matt2026

Luisfc1972 said:


> ran audyssey again with new speakers.
> 
> audyssey set the sub at -2.5
> 
> is that good?
> 
> it also set the sub at 3.5 feet from mlp, but mlp is around 12 feet away.


If you want to run the sub hotter I'd suggest turning up the sub's gain and run Audyssey again so it comes out around -9 to -11. That lets you bump up the sub by 6dB without much risk of distortion from the AVR.. Some folks suggest around -3 to -4 if you don't want to run the sub hot. 

The 3.5 feet is not a physical distance, I think of it as an electrical or signal distance due to delays in the sub amplifier circuitry or other factors. I believe that 3.5 setting is what it takes to have the signal arrive at the MLP at the same time as the signal from the main speakers. I could be wrong but that's the way my brain sees it.

Other posters may have better or different suggestions


----------



## garnuts

Luisfc1972 said:


> ran audyssey again with new speakers.
> 
> audyssey set the sub at -2.5
> 
> is that good?
> 
> it also set the sub at 3.5 feet from mlp, but mlp is around 12 feet away.



This is from the 'Audyssey Setup Guide' linked download doc in the first post of the original Audyssey thread: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...fficial-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a.html


See the section regarding if the sub distance is less than the physical distance set by Audyssey:

"D.	Do not change the distance setting of the subwoofer, unless you have read and completely understood this section: The subwoofer / satellite speaker time alignment blend is based on this setting.

1.	Inaccurate subwoofer distance measurements usually occur when a subwoofer’s Low-Pass Filter (LPF) is active, or when using subwoofer equalization systems.

a.	The LPF—by nature of its design—introduces additional delay to the signal.
b.	Audyssey measures this signal delay and increases the subwoofer distance setting to compensate for it. 

2.	If the distance measured by Audyssey is greater than the physical distance, there is a signal delay between the generated “pulse” and the arrival of the resultant response at the microphone. This is a common anomaly due to circuitry (e.g. LPF, EQ) in subwoofers. 

3.	*If the distance measured by Audyssey is less than the physical distance, here are some possible causes:*

a.	Holding the microphone in your hand.
b.	Use of a subwoofer with a two-driver push-pull configuration. This is an unexplained phenomenon which has been noted by Audyssey.
c.	Tactile transducers (e.g. Crowson, Buttkicker, etc.) left on when measuring.
d.	Acoustical low-frequency noise in the room (e.g. projector fan, cable hum).
e.	Electrical noise coming from another system component. The most common offender is the cable or other set-top box (STB). In several cases, disconnecting the STB from the system solved the problem. 
f.	The power supply of a computer connected to the same electrical circuit.
g.	If none of the above situations apply to your problem, see “Note 2” below.
h.	If you are certain the above scenarios (a. – g.) do not apply to your situation, then you can manually set the distance of the subwoofer in the AVR to the actual physical distance. Ensure you measure from the center of the subwoofer driver to the height of the microphone tip. If you would like to ensure this is the correct action to take, visit the Official Audyssey thread on AVS Forum for a thorough dissection of your problem; please see the link at the beginning of this document"

.


----------



## garygarrison

garnuts said:


> This is from the 'Audyssey Setup Guide' linked download doc in the *first post of the original Audyssey thread: *


The setup guide in the *first** post* of the original Audyssey thread is not as good, *IMO*, as Audyssey 101 and Audyssey FAQ*:*: *"Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"* in the original Audyssey thread. Indeed, this newer post may be the one you are recommending, since you cite post number 51779 (isn't it post number 51778?). IMO, there is much newer understanding and clarification in this later version, that was posted more than 50,000 posts after the first one ...

Newer users would probably benefit from reading Mike's subwoofer guide,*"Subwoofer Trim and Audyssey EQ Setup Guide"*  , after reading Audyssey 101 and Audyssey FAQ. All of these are far superior to any AVR or pre-pro manual I've seen, and are beautifully written, as well..


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Newer users would probably benefit from reading Mike's subwoofer guide,*"Subwoofer Trim and Audyssey EQ Setup Guide"*  , after reading Audyssey 101 and Audyssey FAQ. All of these are far superior to any AVR or pre-pro manual I've seen, and are beautifully written, as well..


Thank you very much, Gary!


----------



## RapalloAV

Does anyone know anything about the Audyssey app Ive read about on other thread?
It would be great to get it to dial in your own house curve or follow the Mollier one...


----------



## pbarach

RapalloAV said:


> Does anyone know anything about the Audyssey app Ive read about on other thread?
> It would be great to get it to dial in your own house curve or follow the Mollier one...


It's been promised, and lots of people are wondering, but no release date yet.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

garygarrison said:


> Newer users would probably benefit from reading Mike's subwoofer guide[/COLOR][/COLOR],*"Subwoofer Trim and Audyssey EQ Setup Guide"*  , after reading Audyssey 101 and Audyssey FAQ. All of these are far superior to any AVR or pre-pro manual I've seen, and are beautifully written, as well..


I second this. Mike has eloquently rewritten the Book on Sub setup. If you read anything about Subs, let it be this guide. Written by an actual "End User" in terms that are easily understood. He takes the complicated and convoluted and makes it simple to follow and comprehend. Knowing how to set up Subs is important and valuable, but learning how to squeeze every ounce of performance out of one is Priceless. Mike's "Sub Setup Guide" delivers the knowledge.


----------



## tgambaro

*SVS AS-EQ1 - I think I may solved my problem....*

http://www.soundandvision.com/content/svsound-eq1-subwoofer-equalizer#uJylcvex0rUXdoMa.97

should be here in a few days!







tgambaro said:


> Great info here... I am one of those that added an additional sub. My main sub is an SVS PB12 plus 2 /2 down firing 12's. My additional sub is a sealed SVS SB 2000 place along the back left side wall . I had no idea that not matching the subs, ported vs 1 ported and one sealed would cause an issue in the eq dept. I have one port plugged which by their specs says 25hrz. The sealed sub is rated at 22 hrz I figured they were similar in response and the differences of ported vs sealed would not be an issue. Now that I know Auddy will not eq the different combination lower than 50hrz I understand the issue I have. I have a Marantz 7702, 7.2 set up currently. Here's my question. Can I run Auddy with just my main ported sub to get the proper eq from there then turn on the sealed sub manually & match the DB level of that at my MLP? This would be done by ear. I know how is I want the end result to sound. I addmitingly am not as veresed as you or many others on this forum so I'm looking to make the best, especially for today(40 people coming over) out of a not so perfect set up... Here is room... 25' long x 19' wide not including the bar area. Thanks in advance for your highly regarded opinions! Pics are attached at the bottom of this reply.
> Tony


----------



## RanC

pbarach said:


> It's been promised, and lots of people are wondering, but no release date yet.


The only thing I managed to find while browsing the internet was a vague reference to a "promised february release being pushed to march".

I guess we just have to live with the uncertainty for now. I don't think we have to wait for too long anyhow, and my _guess_ is they will indeed release it during the first half of the year. My guess is some unforeseen issues with the software, but nothing significant enough to warrant the announcement of a substantial delay from this point forward (I mean it is already late, it was supposed to be here last year IIRC).


----------



## mtbdudex

Chris K stated 2 weeks ago late Feb/Early March , so I give it March 8-9 as beyond that date it's Mid-March
(the app release)


----------



## pepar

Have they updated the onboard software to improve speed?


----------



## mogorf

pepar said:


> Have they updated the onboard software to improve speed?


Hi Jeff,

Here's a Q&A on FB with Chris from a couple of days ago:

Me: Hi Chris, it seems all the 2016 receivers are already out. Does that mean the specific models are "ready" for the new smart phone app? Nothing to install or download to the AVRs?

Chris: They will need a firmware update.


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> I like Canton speakers a lot, but it's difficult to know what they mean by their specs (they are not alone!). The Canton specs (at least on Amazon) are: "nom. /*music power* handling 280 / 440 watts; spl (1 watt/1m) 88.5 db." * "Music Power"* at least used to be a fudge spec. Even if it is not, now, in 2017, I would think that Canton would try to avoid it, because of its past...
> 
> 
> 
> The sensitivity is probably the more important spec, but it, too, is hard to trust (Stereophile and other magazines do a good job of testing it, though, but at 2.83V @ 1m, which is 1 watt at 8 Ohms, which no speaker is throughout it's range). 88.5 dB is probably just a tad below average, which may be around 90 dB. Still, 225 W from your Emotiva should be enough, I'd guess, unless you are like me, and run at 5 to 7 dB below Reference...
> 
> I'd buy subs long before buying new amps.



Hi Gary... Thanks for the feedback and sorry so late in replying... just had a very busy week and did not have time to keep up on AVS.


Anyway, I do agree that the Canton ratings are overstated. Canton even embellishes the driver size which is not unusual for speaker manufactures but I think this is the first speaker I've owned where the size is overstated by more than 1". Woofer size is suppose to be 8" but it's not even 7" measuring to the outer edge of the surround. Other than the bass, I do think the Cantons are terrific speakers... just wasn't expecting the bass output to be less than my previous towers (Jamo C809).


If I do make a change, it will be adding a subwoofer (or two) as you suggest. I really like the Emotiva Gen3 amp and I don't have room to add more power even if I wanted to. I also don't listen "loud" as you do... I typically listen at 30 db below reference and rarely venture past 20 db below reference.


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> The biggest problem with them, at least with my 5 year old Marantz, is that there is only one bar per octave, ranging from 63Hz to 16K Hz. on the graph. _*Sean*_, do you have more than that on your much newer Marantz? One indicator per octave, over 9 octaves, renders them next to useless. Audyssey EQ uses "hundreds of points."
> 
> My understanding is that the graphs (poorly) represent the _*compensation*_ Audyssey has applied to each speaker, boiled down to those octaves, and therefore very crudely depicts the _*inverse*_ of the "curve" of the combined response of that given speaker and the room, _*before*_ being corrected by Audyssey. The unseen result, in the room, should be more or less flat response for Audyssey FLAT and a gentle cinema roll off (- 2 dB @ 10 K, -6 dB @ 20 K), as well as a dip at about 2K, for plain Audyssey ("Audyssey Reference").



I wonder if the new Audyssey app will provide better and more accurate detail for analysis/review... might be worth upgrading if so.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so I took some snapshosts of the EQ curves for "Reference".


It is interesting how similar the front curves are to the center even though they are very different speakers. I think this indicates that Audyssey is making more of a room correction that a speaker correction.


----------



## gurkey

Audyssey was never ment to be a "speaker correction" system, because it collects data which contains everything: direct and reflected sounds of the speaker(s) at the mike's position(s) combined with the influences the room etc. adds to it. There is no way Audyssey could detect the speakers response alone and isolate it from the rest. The microphone pointing to the ceiling catches mainly the diffuse portion of the sound field, whilst a small percentage comes from the direct sound portion because of that (ideal / theoretical) "grazing incidence" position of the mike. Its just the sum of eveything which counts.


----------



## pepar

Thanks, Feri. I meant the time it takes to do the calibration. Being on the Audyssey thread, I don't like mentioning why I ask. But a prepro failure (Onk 5508) lead me to purchase an Emotiva XMC-1 and Dirac is a delight to set up. I was wondering if it still took fuh-EVuh to do an Audyssey cal. 

Jeff



mogorf said:


> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Here's a Q&A on FB with Chris from a couple of days ago:
> 
> Me: Hi Chris, it seems all the 2016 receivers are already out. Does that mean the specific models are "ready" for the new smart phone app? Nothing to install or download to the AVRs?
> 
> Chris: They will need a firmware update.


----------



## mtbdudex

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



pepar said:


> Thanks, Feri. I meant the time it takes to do the calibration. Being on the Audyssey thread, I don't like mentioning why I ask. But a prepro failure (Onk 5508) lead me to purchase an Emotiva XMC-1 and Dirac is a delight to set up. I was wondering if it still took fuh-EVuh to do an Audyssey cal.
> 
> 
> 
> Jeff




My 2008 4308CI took forever , that's slightly newer than your 5508. Now, my 2012 4520CI is actually very fast, magnitudes faster than the 4308. I can only imagine the newest AVR / prepro's have even faster dsp chips so no longer an issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

I think that the newer models are all faster. My Marantz 7008, from 2013, does a pretty fast calibration. It's my set-up and clean-up time that is slow. That, and level-matching the subs, with two per output, if you have to do that. But, once XT-32 has run its test tones for the 7.1 channels, the actual calibration time is only about 30 seconds, as I recall.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

I have a 2011 Marantz pre/pro with XT. The pings are incredibly fast*; *once they are over, the calibration time is about 30 seconds, like Mike's XT32.


----------



## anothermib

*MultEq front channel level too low*

I am having a strange issue with Audyssey MultEq (6 measurement positions) on a Denon AVR 2309: The levels of all 3 front channels are consistently being set about 3db too low when compared with results obtained using a test DVD. Just using the Audyssey results clearly sounds off compared to the DVD results, which are balanced much better.

Any idea what may be going wrong here? I don't mind balancing levels manually and the measured speaker distances are more or less ok. However, I am wondering if any measurement issue may be impacting the frequency domain, which is harder to fix manually.


----------



## pepar

Speakers aimed at the main listening position?


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> I am having a strange issue with Audyssey MultEq (6 measurement positions) on a Denon AVR 2309: The levels of all 3 front channels are consistently being set about 3db too low when compared with results obtained using a test DVD. Just using the Audyssey results clearly sounds off compared to the DVD results, which are balanced much better.
> 
> Any idea what may be going wrong here? I don't mind balancing levels manually and the measured speaker distances are more or less ok. However, I am wondering if any measurement issue may be impacting the frequency domain, which is harder to fix manually.


Hi,

I don't think there is quite enough information in your post to assess the issue. First, is this a 5.1 system? When you say that the results in the front three channels sound off, what do you mean? Off compared to what? If they sound relatively softer than the surround channels, are you using DEQ? That matters, because DEQ boosts the surround channels.

I am trying to determine whether it is only the front three channels that Audyssey may be measuring incorrectly, and if so how you know? FWIW, there is some potential error factor (up to +/- 3db) inherent in an Audyssey microphone, and also in an uncalibrated SPL meter. Calibrated SPL meters may be as low as about +/- 1.5db. But, regardless of potential error factor from a microphone, the Audyssey microphone will typically set all channels accurately, in relation to each other. So, all channels will be set at 73db, or 75db, or 77db, for instance, as measured at the MLP. Are you sure that's not happening here?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't think there is quite enough information in your post to assess the issue. First, is this a 5.1 system? When you say that the results in the front three channels sound off, what do you mean? Off compared to what? If they sound relatively softer than the surround channels, are you using DEQ? That matters, because DEQ boosts the surround channels.
> 
> I am trying to determine whether it is only the front three channels that Audyssey may be measuring incorrectly, and if so how you know? FWIW, there is some potential error factor (up to +/- 3db) inherent in an Audyssey microphone, and also in an uncalibrated SPL meter. Calibrated SPL meters may be as low as about +/- 1.5db. But, regardless of potential error factor from a microphone, the Audyssey microphone will typically set all channels accurately, in relation to each other. So, all channels will be set at 73db, or 75db, or 77db, for instance, as measured at the MLP. Are you sure that's not happening here?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for coming back to me. Let me try to answer the questions individualy.
The front speakers are angled towards the MLP, but not really directly aiming at it.
It is a 7.1 setup. 
All surround channels are much louder than the front channels. The individual offset varies a bit, but it is always substantial.
The sound is clearly not "right" in the Audyssey setting. When I use a calibration DVD that can give (pink noise) signals to the individual channels to adjust the levels - it results in a much more balanced sound. 
I wouldn't mind +-3db in absolute power as long it affects all channels by the same amount. 
DEQ is turned on. Does that lift the full spectrum of the satellites?


----------



## primetimeguy

anothermib said:


> Thanks for coming back to me. Let me try to answer the questions individualy.
> The front speakers are angled towards the MLP, but not really directly aiming at it.
> It is a 7.1 setup.
> All surround channels are much louder than the front channels. The individual offset varies a bit, but it is always substantial.
> The sound is clearly not "right" in the Audyssey setting. When I use a calibration DVD that can give (pink noise) signals to the individual channels to adjust the levels - it results in a much more balanced sound.
> I wouldn't mind +-3db in absolute power as long it affects all channels by the same amount.
> DEQ is turned on. Does that lift the full spectrum of the satellites?


DEQ boosts the surrounds. Turn that off and your problem will go away.


----------



## anothermib

Yes, you pinpointed the culprit correctly. Thanks. I just checked - turning DEQ off leads to balaced levels when using the calibration DVD.
However, I am wondering - is DEQ supposed to add that much to the surrounds even at high output levels (e.g. -10db volume setting)? Or ist that an indication of something else being wrong?


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Thanks for coming back to me. Let me try to answer the questions individualy.
> The front speakers are angled towards the MLP, but not really directly aiming at it.
> It is a 7.1 setup.
> All surround channels are much louder than the front channels. The individual offset varies a bit, but it is always substantial.
> The sound is clearly not "right" in the Audyssey setting. When I use a calibration DVD that can give (pink noise) signals to the individual channels to adjust the levels - it results in a much more balanced sound.
> I wouldn't mind +-3db in absolute power as long it affects all channels by the same amount.
> DEQ is turned on. Does that lift the full spectrum of the satellites?


You are very welcome! You might benefit from reading the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature. DEQ does two things. First, it boosts the bass (and the upper treble) in all of the channels, by about 2.2db per -5 MV. So, at a listening level of -10, for instance, DEQ would boost the bass (which we can hear more readily) by about +4.4db. Second, DEQ boosts the volume globally in the surround channels, by about 3db at about -10, or -15, as I recall. And, that can be a real nuisance for some people. In my opinion, the problem with the surround boost is exacerbated with a 7.1 system, as the boosted channels now outnumber the front three channels, which are not boosted.

You may want to experiment with your RLO settings, if you want to continue using DEQ. Or, you may want to turn off DEQ, which is a separate software program, and boost the bass (in just your subs) manually. Some people, who like DEQ, also sometimes just drop the trim levels in their surround channels, by about 3db, and continue to use DEQ. But, this is not a calibration issue--just a DEQ software issue. And, whether or not we choose to employ DEQ, and if so how, is entirely up to the individual user.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> Yes, you pinpointed the culprit correctly. Thanks. I just checked - turning DEQ off leads to balaced levels when using the calibration DVD.
> However, I am wondering - is DEQ supposed to add that much to the surrounds even at high output levels (e.g. -10db volume setting)? Or ist that an indication of something else being wrong?


Hi anothermib,

IMHO, even though DEQ does boost surrounds -which some like, some don't - but it seems in your system something might else be wrong. Especially with the case of listening at -10 dB MV.

Mike asked a couple of post ago, so I'll just repeat it: are you using an SLP meter when you are checking levels?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi anothermib,
> 
> IMHO, even though DEQ does boost surrounds -which some like, some don't - but it seems in your system something might else be wrong. Especially with the case of listening at -10 dB MV.
> 
> Mike asked a coulpe of post ago, so I'll jut repeat it: are you using an SLP meter when you are checking levels?


Hi Feri,

It's nice to see you posting.  I remember you saying a few months back that you were working hard. Are you usually reading along out there, even though you are not commenting as much lately? I think someone estimated once that the ratio of readers to posters may be about 20 to 1 on a thread like this one.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> It's nice to see you posting.  I remember you saying a few months back that you were working hard. Are you usually reading along out there, even though you are not commenting as much lately? I think someone estimated once that the ratio of readers to posters may be about 20 to 1 on a thread like this one.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, 

Thank for your compliments.  Yeah, I do work hard at my new job, but I also try to find time to read along, as well. 

This time really curious to see how anothermib's problem gets solved. 

@*anothermib* : Here's a quick experiment I would try to rule out MultEQ and MultEQ+DEQ issues compared to the DVD test tones.

1. Turn down the currently selected "input source level" by 10 dB. This will allow you to turn up the MV all the way to 0 dB ref. without the test tones becoming deafeningly loud. (Look up the procedure in the Manual of your AVR).

2. Now play the test tones off the DVD, toggle between Audyssey off and Audyssey On. Make sure Audyssey = MultEQ + DEQ.) Even though DEQ is on, it ceases all operation at 0 dB MV setting.

3. Do you hear level differences from the three front speakers?

What test DVD are you using?


----------



## anothermib

mogorf said:


> Hi anothermib,
> 
> IMHO, even though DEQ does boost surrounds -which some like, some don't - but it seems in your system something might else be wrong. Especially with the case of listening at -10 dB MV.
> 
> Mike asked a couple of post ago, so I'll just repeat it: are you using an SLP meter when you are checking levels?


Usually I have been checking the channel levels just by listening to the test tones. However, recently I had been using an iPhone app based measurementin addition. I am reluctant to call this an SLP, but it is easily able to pick up the differences between the channels and results are more less consistent with what I hear.
I don't quite believe the absolute numbers. They would indicate that 0db volume equals 90db absolute.


----------



## Foundation42

anothermib said:


> Yes, you pinpointed the culprit correctly. Thanks. I just checked - turning DEQ off leads to balaced levels when using the calibration DVD.
> However, I am wondering - is DEQ supposed to add that much to the surrounds even at high output levels (e.g. -10db volume setting)? Or ist that an indication of something else being wrong?


You can reduce the impact of DEQ by specifying a value for the Reference Level Offset. Setting that to -5db will reduce the effect pretty well, and -10db (or even -15db) will reduce it even more. 

Which is best may depend on what level you generally listen at, so its worth trying different settings at different volume levels to see what you like. I generally set it at -5db when I'm running in 'late night' quiet mode.


----------



## anothermib

mogorf said:


> 1. Turn down the currently selected "input source level" by 10 dB. This will allow you to turn up the MV all the way to 0 dB ref. without the test tones becoming deafeningly loud. (Look up the procedure in the Manual of your AVR).
> 
> 2. Now play the test tones off the DVD, toggle between Audyssey off and Audyssey On. Make sure Audyssey = MultEQ + DEQ.) Even though DEQ is on, it ceases all operation at 0 dB MV setting.
> 
> 3. Do you hear level differences from the three front speakers?
> 
> What test DVD are you using?


When measuring at 0db volume level - using the method you described - the front/back offset goes away even with Audyssey DEQ enabled.

The DVD I am using is the "Heimkino Referenz Test DVD" 

Sounds like I need to offset the level reign in the DEQ a bit. I am not sure if there actually is a global parameter for that on the 2309. Is it safe to assume that I can reduce the trim or the source input level instead?


----------



## anothermib

I missed the lat question. There are minor differences among the front channels +-0.5 or 1db max. That is mostly within the variance I am getting when running Audyssey sevaral times.


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> When measuring at 0db volume level - using the method you described - the front/back offset goes away even with Audyssey DEQ enabled.


That's good news and indicates there is nothing wrong with your system. 



> The DVD I am using is the "Heimkino Referenz Test DVD"


 I don't know this DVD, but for the time being I would refrain from using it. Some DVDs are notorious for having levels messed up. Try using the AVR's internal test tones instead when measuring with your iPhone and see the results. These smart phone apps are good enough for relative measurements. No need to sweat on it too much. 



> Sounds like I need to offset the level reign in the DEQ a bit. I am not sure if there actually is a global parameter for that on the 2309. Is it safe to assume that I can reduce the trim or the source input level instead?


Since your Denon AVR-2309 does not have the RLO (reference level offset) feature, your only option for a work-around to get the same result is to turn down the "input source level" by 5 dB or 10 dB and listen carefully. Please remember, movies (DVD and Blu-ray) are supposed to be recorded to known level standards, while music (CD) may be all over the map and need even more attention recording by recording.

I wouldn't touch the channel trims set by Audyssey, though. And then, take a real life experiment and toss in a Blu-ray disk. Especially try to listen carefully to the Center speaker and see how you are satisfied with dialog intelligibility. If all goes well, have a beer, a cold one!


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> I am having a strange issue with Audyssey MultEq (6 measurement positions) on a Denon AVR 2309: The levels of all 3 front channels are consistently being set about 3db too low when compared with results obtained using a test DVD. Just using the Audyssey results clearly sounds off compared to the DVD results, which are balanced much better.
> 
> Any idea what may be going wrong here? I don't mind balancing levels manually and the measured speaker distances are more or less ok. However, I am wondering if any measurement issue may be impacting the frequency domain, which is harder to fix manually.


You're comparing apples with oranges. or at least comparing 2 different varieties of apple.

You're comparing results from 2 different test signals, actually different test signal types, and each of them is being measured with a different mic. There's almost certainly going to be different levels reported. I don't know what the specs on the Audyssey mic and whatever you used to measure the DVD tones are but the Audyssey mic is likely to operate within a +/- 2 or 3 dB range and whatever you used with the DVD tones is likely similar in which case you could end up with up to a 6dB difference between the readings from both mics if you were measuring exactly the same test tone at the same time, and the tones are different. The Audyssey tones are a very fast pulse while the DVD tones are a continuous white or pink noise. You were probably using a handheld meter of some kind to measure the DVD tones and meters have options for settings like fast or slow averaging and you'll get a difference if you change that setting while measuring the DVD tones. I'd say the difference in your results is well within the acceptable range given what you're measuring and what you're measuring it with. 

As for the difference in sound between the results, if you're adjusting the trims set by Audyssey afterwards based on the results from your DVD measurements, then you're probably ending up with a slightly higher level output when you listen with the adjusted trims and it's been shown that if people compare the sound of the same thing and one of the comparison samples is slightly higher in level than the other but otherwise both samples are identical, people consistently prefer the louder sample. If you're not matching playback levels exactly for your comparison and the playback with your DVD based trims is slightly higher than Audyssey, then you will prefer the sound with the DVD trims. Try turning the master volume up a little when listening with the Audyssey settings and you may find yourself preferring the Audyssey setting. If you do then volume differences are likely playing a part,

And if you're comparing the sound with Audyssey on with Audyssey settings to Audyssey off with the DVD based settings, you've got another difference. If you aren't used to listening to sound with correction you may well prefer the uncorrected sound because of differences in the tonal character. When we compare sound and there's a difference in tonal character we often tend to prefer the sound we're familiar with but if we persevere with the other sound, listen with it for several days to a week or so and become familiar with it and then swap back to the other, we can find ourselves preferring the sound we were initially unfamiliar with so you may have to take the time to get used to Audyssey before deciding whether you prefer it or not. And in the end each of us has different listening preferences anyway. Not everyone prefers the sound with Audyssey and you may be one of the people who doesn't prefer it.

So, there's nothing surprising or unusual in you getting different results from your different setup procedures or in your reactions to the differences you hear when using different settings, and nothing is probably wrong. You're listening to 2 different things and if you hear a difference—which you do—then you are going to prefer one over the other. Which one you prefer is going to depend on whether one is slightly louder than the other, whether there are other differences and Audyssey does make changes in both the frequency and time domain, and then there's the issue of familiarity and personal preference.

My advice would be to just do the Audyssey setup and then listen with those results for a week or so to get used to it. If you still aren't happy with it then try adjusting the sub level by raising the sub trim settings a bit because many of us find Audyssey sets the subs a little lower than we prefer and many raise the sub setting by 3 to 5 dB. You can also experiment by changing between the Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Reference settings and with Dynamic EQ on or off. I would leave Dynamic Volume off. If you can't get a result you like that way, then try turning Audyssey off without adjusting the trim settings and just try listening with Audyssey off and adjusting the master volume to your preference. After trying those things, if you're still unhappy then perhaps you're one of the people who doesn't find Audyssey's results match their sound preferences in which case just set things manually using your DVD results and enjoy that.

The other thing to remember is that Audyssey bases it's results on a series of measurements at different positions. The number of measurements you make and the spacing of the different positions does make a difference. You can also experiment with fewer or more measurements and with more closely and more distantly placed measurement positions and that may well give you some very different results with Audyssey but I'd start with the things I suggested in the previous paragraph before considering embarking on a series of experiments varying the number of measurements you make and your microphone placement pattern because that can become a time consuming process. When I first tried using Audyssey it took me a number of different measurement runs before I found a measurement procedure which worked for me and it took me a while to adjust to the difference in sound with Audyssey. I ended up preferring results with Audyssey but it took me a few days to come to appreciate it.

Edit: Didn't see the responses above, all of which make good points, before posting the above. There's some other tips in them which are also good but I've left my original response untouched because it provides a bit of background on why you're seeing measurement differences, and because it also covers why you may have a preference for one result over the other and you may find something helpful in there.


----------



## anothermib

I will probably start with a 5db offset and take it from there. Generally video sources have been less of an issue, it was mostly music that didn't sound right. Hopefully I will find a level that works for both as there isnt really a good separation dependent on the input source.

Thanks again everyone for pointing me in the right direction. I would not have suspected the DEQ otherwise.


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> I will probably start with a 5db offset and take it from there. Generally video sources have been less of an issue, it was mostly music that didn't sound right. Hopefully I will find a level that works for both as there isnt really a good separation dependent on the input source.
> 
> Thanks again everyone for pointing me in the right direction. I would not have suspected the DEQ otherwise.


Ah, so, it's music that just doesn't want to cut in, right?  No wonder. 

Please allow me to share some of my thoughts when it comes to playing back music on a multi-channel modern AVR with Audyssey on-board as follows:

1. We all know by now that film is recorded to known level standards while music industry has no such guidelines, every sound engineer in the music recording studio does what they think is right. Or in other words, with film DEQ knows how to reset/adjust tonal and surround level balance when the MV is turned down for a comfortable home listening volume, typically way below the 0 dB ref. level of the cinema sound (-10 to -20dB). Yet, music is recorded much more loud than film, so DEQ easily gets thrown off when it comes to recover spectral balance in the high and low department and also in the surround boost department. The more recent the music recording is, the higher the recording level will be. Try to google "loudness war" for more indepth info.

2. When we listen to music on our AVRs with that loudness war effect in mind we will have no way but to start to turn down the Master Volume. Once we do that DEQ will start to boost high & lows and will also start to increase surround levels. Sometimes it can result in an abnormal listening anomaly our ears will not tolerate.

3. What can we do? In my case I have all my music on PC and use a program called Foobar where there is a feature called "Replay Gain" that allows me to adjust the playback level of music before it enters the AVR. It works for me like a charm. 

YMMV.


----------



## pbarach

anothermib said:


> I am having a strange issue with Audyssey MultEq (6 measurement positions) on a Denon AVR 2309: The levels of all 3 front channels are consistently being set about 3db too low when compared with results obtained using a test DVD. Just using the Audyssey results clearly sounds off compared to the DVD results, which are balanced much better.
> 
> Any idea what may be going wrong here? I don't mind balancing levels manually and the measured speaker distances are more or less ok. However, I am wondering if any measurement issue may be impacting the frequency domain, which is harder to fix manually.


Are you using a meter to measure these levels, or is this by ear?


----------



## In.vincible

anothermib said:


> I will probably start with a 5db offset and take it from there. Generally video sources have been less of an issue, it was mostly music that didn't sound right. Hopefully I will find a level that works for both as there isnt really a good separation dependent on the input source.
> 
> Thanks again everyone for pointing me in the right direction. I would not have suspected the DEQ otherwise.


Just wanted to chime in on the music listening topic. I was running Audyssey in bypass L/R for a long time with music, but I recently switched my AVR into pure direct mode. For me, it's a big improvement. The one downside is that I lose the sub, but I have floorstanders that do reasonably well with bass. IMO, they just sound a lot better this way. When I set them to small and cross them over, they sound thinner and harsher.


----------



## anothermib

mogorf said:


> Ah, so, it's music that just doesn't want to cut in, right?  No wonder.
> 
> ...
> 
> 3. What can we do? In my case I have all my music on PC and use a program called Foobar where there is a feature called "Replay Gain" that allows me to adjust the playback level of music before it enters the AVR. It works for me like a charm.
> 
> YMMV.


Perhaps I need to look into something like that as well. Though I always stayed clear of things that try to change the volume (and I would certainly not have considered using a program called "foobar" to tune my music  ). I believe Spotify has a similar option in some clients.

In general I was always convinced that an Amp needs some sort of "loudness" function. The amp is the only thing that knows at which level I have the volume knob - so in an ideal world no other instance should attempt to add loudness. I was just entirely unaware of the fact that DEq still does _a lot_ even at reasonably high volumes like -20 or -10db. Adding 3db times 4 speakers is a lot of additional dBs - let alone what it does in the frequency domain. So I went from mostly ignoring DEq to considering it being a "loose cannon" in the last 24h. However, thanks to the forum I am at least aware of what is actually going on.


----------



## anothermib

In.vincible said:


> Just wanted to chime in on the music listening topic. I was running Audyssey in bypass L/R for a long time with music, but I recently switched my AVR into pure direct mode. For me, it's a big improvement. The one downside is that I lose the sub, but I have floorstanders that do reasonably well with bass. IMO, they just sound a lot better this way. When I set them to small and cross them over, they sound thinner and harsher.


Actually I don't hear a huge differece between Audyssey and Bypass L/R. I always attributed this to the fact that the speakers are pretty good already and Audyssey avoiding having an adverse effect. When turning off DEq even the difference between Audyssey on and off is getting more subtle. It seems to focus mostly on making the bass more precise, which may be correcting room effects. With DEq off the most pronounced difference seems to be between "flat" and all other settings.

I know most purists will frown at my habit of listening to music in 7.1. Over the years I just got used to having sound come from all directions and that is hard to change. Whenever I try the the pure Stereo approach I like it, but when switching over to 7.1 I find this just a bit more interesting and fun. Having said this, my impression is that it really is 10 times harder to make 7.1 music sound good since so many things can go wrong.


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Actually I don't hear a huge differece between Audyssey and Bypass L/R. I always attributed this to the fact that the speakers are pretty good already and Audyssey avoiding having an adverse effect. When turning off DEq even the difference between Audyssey on and off is getting more subtle. It seems to focus mostly on making the bass more precise, which may be correcting room effects. With DEq off the most pronounced difference seems to be between "flat" and all other settings.
> 
> I know most purists will frown at my habit of listening to music in 7.1. Over the years I just got used to having sound come from all directions and that is hard to change. Whenever I try the the pure Stereo approach I like it, but when switching over to 7.1 I find this just a bit more interesting and fun. Having said this, my impression is that it really is 10 times harder to make 7.1 music sound good since so many things can go wrong.


Hi,

If purists do want to frown, they will have to frown at both of us.  I consider myself a bit of a purist, but then I also liked quadraphonic sound, although it was never quite perfected. With more modern tools, such as PLIIx, we are able to achieve a much more realistic music environment than I was ever able to achieve with two-channel stereo. And, I'm not a purist about faithfully listening to a two-channel recording. My sole interest is in increasing the apparent realism of the musical experience.

I typically refrain from commenting much about DEQ, out of regard for some of my friends on the thread who really like it, but I don't, particularly. I never used it for music, and eventually found alternatives I preferred for movies, as well. My room is fairly well treated to reduce ringing, and I don't have very strident sounding tweeters, so I also prefer Audyssey Flat. I think that your assessment of what Audyssey does best is spot-on. In my opinion, Audyssey, including XT-32, is at its best in clarifying bass and some mid-range frequencies. And, it may take some user effort, in the form of good setup, and good calibration technique, to prevent Audyssey from doing anything unfortunate with respect to higher frequencies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## RavenBF

Hello everyone!!!

I just started getting into audio and learning all the nuances and ins and outs of setting up my home theater. It has been fun but I am a little confused about running the Audyssey setup......and the more I read the worse it gets and I am probably doing it to myself. Anyway, here is my issue/question. I just realized that my Marantz SR5011 defaults my fronts to large...and I am running a sub LFE in my setup. So, I am going to change my fronts in my AVR to smalls and rerun Audyssey. Is that the proper way to do it? From my understanding Audyssey will set crossovers based on my room dimensions and accoustics. Do I leave them that way or do I change them to the 80Hz that is referenced as the baseline? I have also read that crossover is based alot on listening preference, but I just want to make sure that whatever the Audyssey setup is (with whatever crossovers it sets) will allow me to hear all audio and give the best sub woofer performance. Thanks for any info and help in this matter!


----------



## RavenBF

So I just found the answer to all my concerns by reading the Audyssey FAQ link in the post above mine....sorry for wasting the space. Thanks Mike for posting that FAQ.


----------



## stash64

Hi Everyone,


You may remember me as the person that was perplexed with some of the Audyssey results related to my Canton tower speakers and my LS50 center channel. Well... I went ahead and purchased a couple of subwoofers based on recommendations here (Mike & Gary in particular). I ordered two SVS SB12-NSD subwoofers. The SVS sub was still available at a clearance price and was also very compact, which was important because I don't have much room and I prefer to place the sub(s) in the front soundstage.


I have been trying to figure out where I can place the subwoofers and still keep my Canton towers. One thought was to stack (vertically) the two subs. I asked for some feedback about stacking in the subwoofer thread but the answers were not consistent and some were a little rude. So I had another idea and, though this is not really an Audyssey related question, I thought I would get better feedback here. But I am curious if Audyssey would have a problem with this placement.


A bit of a crazy idea, but would there be any significant drawbacks to placing the subwoofer on a large fireplace mantel (see photo taken from my main seat) ? The mantel sits about 4.5 feet above the floor and I have an outlet and a coax jack above the mantel. I thought it would be easy to swap the coax for a subwoofer cable but I could not find where the cable enters the basement. The only other drawback for me is that I would need to find a new home for a few decorative nick nacks that I had on the mantel. Otherwise, I really like how the sub looks perched on the mantel.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> 
> You may remember me as the person that was perplexed with some of the Audyssey results related to my Canton tower speakers and my LS50 center channel. Well... I went ahead and purchased a couple of subwoofers based on recommendations here (Mike & Gary in particular). I ordered two SVS SB12-NSD subwoofers. The SVS sub was still available at a clearance price and was also very compact, which was important because I don't have much room and I prefer to place the sub(s) in the front soundstage.
> 
> 
> I have been trying to figure out where I can place the subwoofers and still keep my Canton towers. One thought was to stack (vertically) the two subs. I asked for some feedback about stacking in the subwoofer thread but the answers were not consistent and some were a little rude. So I had another idea and, though this is not really an Audyssey related question, I thought I would get better feedback here. But I am curious if Audyssey would have a problem with this placement.
> 
> 
> A bit of a crazy idea, but would there be any significant drawbacks to placing the subwoofer on a large fireplace mantel (see photo taken from my main seat) ? The mantel sits about 4.5 feet above the floor and I have an outlet and a coax jack above the mantel. I thought it would be easy to swap the coax for a subwoofer cable but I could not find where the cable enters the basement. The only other drawback for me is that I would need to find a new home for a few decorative nick nacks that I had on the mantel. Otherwise, I really like how the sub looks perched on the mantel.


Hi Sean,

I'm sorry that you didn't get the help you were looking for elsewhere. Most of the people who post on this thread make an effort to be both civil and helpful, so I think you can expect to do a little better here.

Audyssey would still EQ your system, irrespective of your subwoofer placement. The main issue with stacking your subwoofers is that, although you would get the benefit of a doubling in subwoofer capacity, you wouldn't get any benefit from the standpoint of improving your frequency response. Both stacked subwoofers would interact with the room in exactly the same way, and you might just as well have bought a single more powerful subwoofer. You need to be able to spread your subs out a bit to get the real benefit of having dual subs.

I see why you like the mantle idea, and I don't think it's crazy at all. I would probably pull it forward a few more inches, if you can, so that it isn't pushed quite as far into the corner. But, that will just take a little trial-and-error to find out exactly where in the corner it sounds the best. Located as it is, you will be getting excellent boundary reinforcement from the opposing walls, ceiling, and mantle. That will enable that sub to play louder, and to hit lower frequencies. You just don't want it to sound boomy in the process, so listen for that.

As for the sub on the floor, your current location may work fine, but I am guessing that if you can get it a little further away, and ideally to the other side of your entertainment center, it might improve the overall sound quality. That's just a guess, so if you think it works well where it is, then it probably does. If you want to post a couple of pictures showing more of the room, it will help with respect to potential alternative suggestions. For, instance, a location on a rough diagonal, with the sub on the mantle, might work very well. It could still be on the floor, but opposing corners often work quite well.

I'm glad you got the subs! I think you will really enjoy having them. And, just continue to ask questions, if you need any help with placement, or with your Audyssey calibration. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## anothermib

*DEQ behavior above RL*

Hi, another quick question on DEQ (for some reason I'm not able to reach the Audyssey page on the topic). 
Most documents talk about the effect DEQ has on low volume and I understand that DEQ doesn't do anything at RL, but what happens above that? Will it continue to decrease surround volume and the high and low end of the spectrum? I guess most of the time one would stay below RL anyway. However, e.g. with a RLO of 15dB one could be above it at times.


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Hi, another quick question on DEQ (for some reason I'm not able to reach the Audyssey page on the topic).
> Most documents talk about the effect DEQ has on low volume and I understand that DEQ doesn't do anything at RL, but what happens above that? Will it continue to decrease surround volume and the high and low end of the spectrum? I guess most of the time one would stay below RL anyway. However, e.g. with a RLO of 15dB one could be above it at times.


Hi,

That's not quite how DEQ works. There is a thorough explanation of DEQ, in the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature. At Reference, DEQ would not be doing anything at all. At above Reference volume levels, DEQ would actually reduce bass and treble frequencies slightly. Presumably the ratio would still be about 2.2db per 5db of MV. So, at +5 MV, for instance, there would be a 2.2db reduction in bass and upper treble frequencies. I believe that if you applied an RLO setting of -15, at above Reference master volumes, it would just attenuate the decrease slightly.

DEQ's operation above Reference is essentially a mirror image of its operation below Reference.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's not quite how DEQ works. There is a thorough explanation of DEQ, in the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature. At Reference, DEQ would not be doing anything at all. At above Reference volume levels, DEQ would actually reduce bass and treble frequencies slightly. Presumably the ratio would still be about 2.2db per 5db of MV. So, at +5 MV, for instance, there would be a 2.2db reduction in bass and upper treble frequencies. I believe that if you applied an RLO setting of -15, at above Reference master volumes, it would just attenuate the decrease slightly.
> 
> DEQ's operation above Reference is essentially a mirror image of its operation below Reference.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Jutst to make sure I understand that correctly. Setting the RLO to -15dB moves the point at which DEQ does nothing. It would not change the rate of change above or below that point - would it? 
When you say "mirror image" does that include the notion that above RL the volume of the surround channels would be decreased compared to the front?


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Jutst to make sure I understand that correctly. Setting the RLO to -15dB moves the point at which DEQ does nothing. It would not change the rate of change above or below that point - would it?
> When you say "mirror image" does that include the notion that above RL the volume of the surround channels would be decreased compared to the front?


I think if you look at the graphs in the FAQ, showing the operation of RLO, it will explain the operation better than I can in words. I have no idea to what extent DEQ would still boost the surrounds at above Reference volumes. Intuitively, I would expect any surround boost to also be attenuated, but I can't recall anyone investigating that aspect of DEQ before, and the surround boost is based on slightly different acoustical principals than the bass/treble boost.

Are these questions academic, or are you planning to listen at Reference levels and above? The original intent of DEQ was to make automatic adjustments to bass and treble levels (according to the principles inherent in the Equal Loudness Contours) at below Reference listening levels, for 5.1 movies. For people listening at above Reference listening levels, some bass boost might still be utilized as a matter of personal preference, so the use of DEQ might be completely counterproductive there. But, there would really be no particular point in engaging DEQ, at Reference or above, to begin with.


----------



## Alan P

stash64 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> 
> You may remember me as the person that was perplexed with some of the Audyssey results related to my Canton tower speakers and my LS50 center channel. Well... I went ahead and purchased a couple of subwoofers based on recommendations here (Mike & Gary in particular). I ordered two SVS SB12-NSD subwoofers. The SVS sub was still available at a clearance price and was also very compact, which was important because I don't have much room and I prefer to place the sub(s) in the front soundstage.
> 
> 
> I have been trying to figure out where I can place the subwoofers and still keep my Canton towers. One thought was to stack (vertically) the two subs. I asked for some feedback about stacking in the subwoofer thread but the answers were not consistent and some were a little rude. So I had another idea and, though this is not really an Audyssey related question, I thought I would get better feedback here. But I am curious if Audyssey would have a problem with this placement.
> 
> 
> A bit of a crazy idea, but would there be any significant drawbacks to placing the subwoofer on a large fireplace mantel (see photo taken from my main seat) ? The mantel sits about 4.5 feet above the floor and I have an outlet and a coax jack above the mantel. I thought it would be easy to swap the coax for a subwoofer cable but I could not find where the cable enters the basement. The only other drawback for me is that I would need to find a new home for a few decorative nick nacks that I had on the mantel. Otherwise, I really like how the sub looks perched on the mantel.


I have read your other thread and have to say that I can't agree with you. Most of the answers seemed very consistent in recommending that you place the subs where they sound best and not where they look best. I also didn't see anything that I would construe as rude...yes, Bill can be a bit blunt at times. 

That being said, I too suffer from a little bit of OCD when it comes to symmetry in my living room. This is one of the reasons I ended up with _four _subwoofers. I get great bass response _and _symmetry! 

You've already got some great advice from Mike, I just wanted to add that having your sub on top of the mantle may actually help your response. Most folks don't have the luxury of addressing the height modes of the room...you do. However, you can't really know if it is helping or hurting your response without actually measuring it.


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey would still EQ your system, irrespective of your subwoofer placement. The main issue with stacking your subwoofers is that, although you would get the benefit of a doubling in subwoofer capacity, you wouldn't get any benefit from the standpoint of improving your frequency response. Both stacked subwoofers would interact with the room in exactly the same way, and you might just as well have bought a single more powerful subwoofer. You need to be able to spread your subs out a bit to get the real benefit of having dual subs.




I thought spreading out the subs would have some benefit but I wasn't convinced after my "stacking subs" post. Your explanation definitely makes sense to me.



> I see why you like the mantle idea, and I don't think it's crazy at all. I would probably pull it forward a few more inches, if you can, so that it isn't pushed quite as far into the corner. But, that will just take a little trial-and-error to find out exactly where in the corner it sounds the best. Located as it is, you will be getting excellent boundary reinforcement from the opposing walls, ceiling, and mantle. That will enable that sub to play louder, and to hit lower frequencies. You just don't want it to sound boomy in the process, so listen for that.



Awesome... shortly after I placed the sub back on the mantle, I did come to the same conclusion that it would probably be better to place it close to the front edge of the mantel. I have a Martin Logan soundbar that sits back on my entertainment stand and the bass gets over-emphasized and not in a good way. I think "boomy" is a good description. So I think my first arrangement will be both subwoofers located to the fwd edge of the mantel and spread apart as far as possible. Just need to figure out how to run the sub cables.

Thanks Mike... great advice as always !


----------



## stash64

Alan P said:


> I have read your other thread and have to say that I can't agree with you. Most of the answers seemed very consistent in recommending that you place the subs where they sound best and not where they look best. I also didn't see anything that I would construe as rude...yes, Bill can be a bit blunt at times.
> 
> That being said, I too suffer from a little bit of OCD when it comes to symmetry in my living room. This is one of the reasons I ended up with _four _subwoofers. I get great bass response _and _symmetry!
> 
> You've already got some great advice from Mike, I just wanted to add that having your sub on top of the mantle may actually help your response. Most folks don't have the luxury of addressing the height modes of the room...you do. However, you can't really know if it is helping or hurting your response without actually measuring it.




Hi Alan,

Thanks for the feedback and supporting Mike's view on the mantel placement. I'm gungho now to get this done and just need to find some good cable conduit that will accommodate two coax cables. As I mentioned, my first trial will be both subs on the mantel and I hope to report back with positive results. Keeping the subs off the floor will go a long way in appeasing my OCD.

I did look back at the replies to my "stacking subs" post and it was just one person I thought was a little rude after I explained that I would only feel comfortable with the subs in the front soundstage... and it was not Bill. Bill was helpful but there were one or two that countered his views.

I probably do have a little OCD but it is not so much about looking good as not looking cluttered. I'm not sure the subs on the mantel look particularly good but it does sort of put them out of the way. I like symmetry too, both at home and in my work as an engineer... so who knows, I might be looking for advice on placement of 2 more subs soon. 

Just thought of something... Is it possible to use regular RG6 coax as subwoofer cable ? If so, I could possibly put the existing coax outlet in play if I can find self-crimping RCA connectors.


----------



## Alan P

stash64 said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback and supporting Mike's view on the mantel placement. I'm gungho now to get this done and just need to find some good cable conduit that will accommodate two coax cables. As I mentioned, my first trial will be both subs on the mantel and I hope to report back with positive results. Keeping the subs off the floor will go a long way in appeasing my OCD.
> 
> I did look back at the replies to my "stacking subs" post and it was just one person I thought was a little rude after I explained that I would only feel comfortable with the subs in the front soundstage... and it was not Bill. Bill was helpful but there were one or two that countered his views.
> 
> I probably do have a little OCD but it is not so much about looking good as not looking cluttered. I'm not sure the subs on the mantel look particularly good but it does sort of put them out of the way. I like symmetry too, both at home and in my work as an engineer... so who knows, I might be looking for advice on placement of 2 more subs soon.
> 
> Just thought of something... Is it possible to use regular RG6 coax as subwoofer cable ? If so, I could possibly put the existing coax outlet in play if I can find self-crimping RCA connectors.


Well, when I commented on the advantages of placing a subwoofer on the mantle, I was assuming the other sub was still going to be somewhere on the floor. With both subs on the mantle, you will not be getting the biggest benefit of dual subs (as Mike explained so well). Might as well return them and get a single, more powerful sub.

RG6 makes an excellent subwoofer cable.


----------



## David Aiken

stash64 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> 
> You may remember me as the person that was perplexed with some of the Audyssey results related to my Canton tower speakers and my LS50 center channel. Well... I went ahead and purchased a couple of subwoofers based on recommendations here (Mike & Gary in particular). I ordered two SVS SB12-NSD subwoofers. The SVS sub was still available at a clearance price and was also very compact, which was important because I don't have much room and I prefer to place the sub(s) in the front soundstage.
> 
> 
> I have been trying to figure out where I can place the subwoofers and still keep my Canton towers. One thought was to stack (vertically) the two subs. I asked for some feedback about stacking in the subwoofer thread but the answers were not consistent and some were a little rude. So I had another idea and, though this is not really an Audyssey related question, I thought I would get better feedback here. But I am curious if Audyssey would have a problem with this placement.
> 
> 
> A bit of a crazy idea, but would there be any significant drawbacks to placing the subwoofer on a large fireplace mantel (see photo taken from my main seat) ? The mantel sits about 4.5 feet above the floor and I have an outlet and a coax jack above the mantel. I thought it would be easy to swap the coax for a subwoofer cable but I could not find where the cable enters the basement. The only other drawback for me is that I would need to find a new home for a few decorative nick nacks that I had on the mantel. Otherwise, I really like how the sub looks perched on the mantel.


Mike's advice is good. There are advantages to separate placement because room modes get excited slightly differently and the frequency response for each sub is slightly different at the listening position, and both of those things help to smooth the frequency response for the low bass even without room correction.

I run a 2.2 system and have both my subs on the front wall close to but outside the front speakers. That's not an ideal 2 sub placement but it works. You'd have problems doing that in your setup because the right speaker is next to the doorway into the room so that's out for you. I'd rather see the subs on opposite sides of the room (at least I managed that) and on different walls (I didn't manage that) but if you can't manage that, then you can't manage that. Work with the options you can manage. If on the fireplace mantle is a good option for you, then try it. If you're happy with the result, then enjoy. If not, then try another location that works given your room constraints but I'd leave stacking them as a last possible scenario to try. A sub on the mantle will interact differently with the room to a sub on the floor, and you will get a bit more corner loading of the sub in that position than you're getting from the sub on the floor so it may not be as crazy as you think given that maximising the benefit from 2 subs relies on getting them to interact differently with the room in order to smooth the low frequency response at the listening position.


----------



## stash64

Alan P said:


> Well, when I commented on the advantages of placing a subwoofer on the mantle, I was assuming the other sub was still going to be somewhere on the floor. With both subs on the mantle, you will not be getting the biggest benefit of dual subs (as Mike explained so well). Might as well return them and get a single, more powerful sub.
> 
> RG6 makes an excellent subwoofer cable.


But I would have separation because I intend to place the subs forward (not as shown in the photo) and at either end of the mantel... which results in 5 feet of offset, center to center. Do you think it might work out better to have vertical separation rather than just horizontal?

Thanks for the tip on the RG6... I've already found some crimp on RCA's that should work. I have lots of RG6 cable to put to use.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> I thought spreading out the subs would have some benefit but I wasn't convinced after my "stacking subs" post. Your explanation definitely makes sense to me.
> 
> Awesome... shortly after I placed the sub back on the mantle, I did come to the same conclusion that it would probably be better to place it close to the front edge of the mantel. I have a Martin Logan soundbar that sits back on my entertainment stand and the bass gets over-emphasized and not in a good way. I think "boomy" is a good description. So I think my first arrangement will be both subwoofers located to the fwd edge of the mantel and spread apart as far as possible. Just need to figure out how to run the sub cables.
> 
> Thanks Mike... great advice as always !


You are very welcome, Sean! I'm glad I was able to help. You can certainly try spreading them far apart on the mantle, but I hope that you will also try at least one other arrangement, for comparison purposes. Alan, David, and I are all saying the same thing when we tell you that bass frequencies, in a room, tend to operate in accordance with fixed physical principles. It is entirely possible that you will place both subs on the mantle, and like the way they sound. But, if you can try an option that leaves one sub on the mantle, as you have it in your photo, but pulled forward from the corner, and the other sub on an opposing wall, perhaps in the diagonal corner, you may like that much better.

I also looked at your thread, and they weren't entirely kidding when they said that there is more than one way to be OCD. I love symmetry, and appreciate the Zen qualities of an uncluttered space. But, as an audio buff, I also obsess a bit over sound quality, too. The visual and the audible; form and function, need to achieve a state of equilibrium which is right for you.

If you are even a little OCD, you have come to the right place.  And, as an engineer, you will appreciate the value of experimentation. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

stash64 said:


> But I would have separation because I intend to place the subs forward (not as shown in the photo) and at either end of the mantel... which results in 5 feet of offset, center to center. Do you think it might work out better to have vertical separation rather than just horizontal?
> 
> Thanks for the tip on the RG6... I've already found some crimp on RCA's that should work. I have lots of RG6 cable to put to use.


When two speakers (subs in this case) reproducing the same sound are within one quarter wavelength of each other at a given frequency, they are said to be "mutually coupled" (they act as a single sound source).

At the frequencies typically produced by subwoofers, the wavelengths are quite long. For example, at 80hz (a typical crossover frequency), the wavelength is 14' long, and at 20hz = 56'! If placed only 5' apart, your subs will not become "uncoupled" until you reach about 55hz.

In order to realize the mode smoothing benefits of dual subs, they must be as far apart as possible in order to excite different room modes. You can't cheat the laws of physics.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> Well, when I commented on the advantages of placing a subwoofer on the mantle, I was assuming the *other* sub was still going to be somewhere on the *floor*. With both subs on the mantle, you will not be getting the biggest benefit of dual subs (as Mike explained so well) ...


My instinct would be to put one sub on the mantle, and one on the floor, on a different wall, so with luck, they can fill in the dips in each other's frequency response. 

As for corner placement, since you are going to use Audyssey anyway, I'd be tempted to push the mantle sub all the way back in the corner at first, almost touching the two corner walls, running Audyssey, then evaluating over a period of a few weeks. I am aware that some experts warn that while full corner loading produces the most bass, it also produces the most uneven bass, but the combination of Audyssey and using two subwoofers located in far different positions in the room might well counteract that. Some manufacturers actually recommend putting a sub in a corner (including Klipsch, and considering their Heritage (pun intended), corners loom large in their legend). Some subs in the corner enjoy a 3 to 6 dB increase in their output (depending on what sub position you are comparing to corner placement)-- that can be like doubling to quadrupling the power of the built-in amplifier, creating more headroom for pipe organs, or those outrageous LFE effects in movies.


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> My instinct would be to putone sub on the mantle, and oneon the floor, on a different wall, so with luck, they can fill in the dips in each other's frequency response.
> 
> As for corner placement, since you are going to use Audyssey anyway, I'd be tempted to push the mantle sub all the way back in the corner at first, almost touching the two corner walls, running Audyssey, then evaluating over a period of a few weeks. I am aware that some experts warn that while full corner loading produces the most bass, it also produces the most uneven bass, but the combination of Audyssey and using two subwoofers located in far different positions in the room might well counteract that. Some manufacturers actually recommend putting a sub in a corner (including Klipsch, and considering their Heritage (pun intended), corners loom large in their legend). Some subs in the corner enjoy a 3 to 6 dB increase in their output (depending on what sub position you are comparing to corner placement)-- that can be like doubling to quadrupling the power of the built-in amplifier, creating more headroom for pipe organs, or those outrageous LFE effects in movies.


I agree with Gary here, I would put the mantle sub square into the corner, either firing along the front wall or the side wall. This would probably work out well!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> When two speakers (subs in this case) reproducing the same sound are within one wavelength of each other at a given frequency, they are said to be "mutually coupled" (they act as a single sound source).
> 
> At the frequencies typically produced by subwoofers, the wavelengths are quite long. For example, at 80hz (a typical crossover frequency), the wavelength is 14' long, and at 20hz = 56'! If placed only 5' apart, your subs will not become "uncoupled" until you reach about 230hz...well above the frequencies typically reproduced by the subwoofer.
> 
> In order to realize the mode smoothing benefits of dual subs, they must be as far apart as possible in order to excite different room modes. You can't cheat the laws of physics.


+1

I believe that mutual coupling actually occurs at 1/4 wavelength distance, Alan. That was probably just a typo.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> I agree with Gary here, I would put the mantle sub square into the corner, either firing along the front wall or the side wall. This would probably work out well!


Or even firing straight out! I think that's what you have in your picture. So you have 6 positions to compare, if you want to go crazy*:* pushed into the corner firing straight out, or firing down one wall, or firing down the other wall ... OR, pulled out from the corner toward the front edge of the mantle, firing straight out, or firing along one wall, or firing along the other. 

Then there is the task of placing the other sub somewhere on the floor. How many possibilities does that make? Let me (not) count the ways. 

But I'd go to the EFL (experimentation fatigue limit), wherever that is for you.

Will one of your new subwoofers fit behind these recliners, firing to the left or right?


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> +1
> 
> I believe that mutual coupling actually occurs at 1/4 wavelength distance, Alan. That was probably just a typo.


No not a typo, just my brain not remembering the quarter wavelength thing...durp. I've edited my post to be more accurate.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> No not a typo, just my brain not remembering the quarter wavelength thing...durp. I've edited my post to be more accurate.



Sometimes our brains are not mutually coupled with what we actually say.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Or even firing straight out! I think that's what you have in your picture. So you have 6 positions to compare, if you want to go crazy*:* pushed into the corner firing straight out, or firing down one wall, or firing down the other wall ... OR, pulled out from the corner toward the front edge of the mantle, firing straight out, or firing along one wall, or firing along the other.
> 
> Then there is the task of placing the other sub somewhere on the floor. How many possibilities does that make? Let me (not) count the ways.
> 
> But I'd go to the EFL (experimentation fatigue limit), wherever that is for you.
> 
> Will one of your new subwoofers fit behind these recliners, firing to the left or right?


I might not try quite as many options in the corner as that, so my EFL may be lower than yours. But, a sub more-or-less in the corner, on the mantle, and one behind the end table might work very well. That would engage different walls, on a rough diagonal. And, the corner loading of the mantle sub, would help to offset the nearfield placement of the rear sub. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Incidentally, I liked the joke and the photo. Did my return email work this time?


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Sean! I'm glad I was able to help. You can certainly try spreading them far apart on the mantle, but I hope that you will also try at least one other arrangement, for comparison purposes. Alan, David, and I are all saying the same thing when we tell you that bass frequencies, in a room, tend to operate in accordance with fixed physical principles. It is entirely possible that you will place both subs on the mantle, and like the way they sound. But, if you can try an option that leaves one sub on the mantle, as you have it in your photo, but pulled forward from the corner, and the other sub on an opposing wall, perhaps in the diagonal corner, you may like that much better...


 

Good point Mike... I need to take my time and not start laying down the conduit right away. I think I can put up with some visible cables temporarily. If I do end up with one sub on the floor, at least I will have less cable to run.


----------



## RavenBF

Ok,

I am a little confused now and still trying to get a handle on how Audyssey and crossover are working. So I switched my fronts to small and noticed there were settings for crossover already there. I went ahead and ran Audyssey again, since I switched my fronts, to see what would happen. I noticed that after I ran it my fronts defaulted back to large...so I switched it to small and checked the crossover levels...they were the same as before I reran Auddyssey. I guess the numbers are there regardless if my fronts are in large or small, but now I have a question. The crossover levels I got were Fronts-40, Center-40, Dolby-60 and surrounds-90. The question is how should I set my crossover? If I set it for 80 for all won't that create an issue for my surrounds (rated 62-25khz) since they have a crossover of 90 ? I currently set it so that everything is at 80 but my surrounds, which are set to 90 and it sounds amazing to me, but I am still looking to tweak it for the best experience. I am still trying to get a handle on all the audio techniques....only really been playing with it for about 2 months now. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.

P.S. Not sure if this should be here or in the crossover section.


----------



## garygarrison

RavenBF said:


> Ok,
> 
> I am a little confused now and still trying to get a handle on how Audyssey and crossover are working. So I switched my fronts to small and noticed there were settings for crossover already there. I went ahead and ran Audyssey again, since I switched my fronts, to see what would happen. I noticed that after I ran it my fronts defaulted back to large...so I switched it to small and checked the crossover levels...they were the same as before I reran Auddyssey. I guess the numbers are there regardless if my fronts are in large or small, but now I have a question. The crossover levels I got were Fronts-40, Center-40, Dolby-60 and surrounds-90. The question is how should I set my crossover? If I set it for 80 for all won't that create an issue for my surrounds (rated 62-25khz) since they have a crossover of 90 ? I currently set it so that everything is at 80 but my surrounds, which are set to 90 and it sounds amazing to me, but I am still looking to tweak it for the best experience. I am still trying to get a handle on all the audio techniques....only really been playing with it for about 2 months now. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
> 
> P.S. Not sure if this should be here or in the crossover section.


If Audyssey reported 40 for your fronts and 90 for your surrounds, I'd probably set your fronts at 80 (that's where my system sounds best, although the fronts measure 40, as yours do) and about 100 or higher for the surrounds. Don't go by the manufacturer's ratings for the surrounds, because response depends on position in the room, which Audyssey takes into account, and the manufacturer can't.


----------



## mthomas47

RavenBF said:


> Ok,
> 
> I am a little confused now and still trying to get a handle on how Audyssey and crossover are working. So I switched my fronts to small and noticed there were settings for crossover already there. I went ahead and ran Audyssey again, since I switched my fronts, to see what would happen. I noticed that after I ran it my fronts defaulted back to large...so I switched it to small and checked the crossover levels...they were the same as before I reran Auddyssey. I guess the numbers are there regardless if my fronts are in large or small, but now I have a question. The crossover levels I got were Fronts-40, Center-40, Dolby-60 and surrounds-90. The question is how should I set my crossover? If I set it for 80 for all won't that create an issue for my surrounds (rated 62-25khz) since they have a crossover of 90 ? I currently set it so that everything is at 80 but my surrounds, which are set to 90 and it sounds amazing to me, but I am still looking to tweak it for the best experience. I am still trying to get a handle on all the audio techniques....only really been playing with it for about 2 months now. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
> 
> P.S. Not sure if this should be here or in the crossover section.


Hi,

You are definitely in the right place for this sort of question, and FWIW, this is a little confusing to all of us at first. Audyssey measures your in-room response, for all of the speakers in your system, and based on what it finds, the AVR sets the speaker (or pair) to either Large, or to Small with a crossover. That's not a recommendation, it's just a report. Now it's up to the user to decide what he wants to do. The typical advice is to set all of the speakers in your system to at least 80Hz, or higher, depending on where your crossover set it during calibration. You are correct in thinking that if your crossover for a particular speaker is already at 90Hz, after the calibration, you won't want to go down. You can go up to 100Hz, as Gary said, or you could leave it at 90Hz (up a little might be better). You should not typically set a crossover lower than where your AVR set it.

No matter where you set things before Audyssey runs, it will perform its work independently of those settings. And, it should be pretty consistent in its findings, and post-calibration settings. In general, unless you can localize your subwoofer (hear sounds playing directly from the sub, which should be coming from the direction of a particular speaker) higher crossovers are better, as they place as much bass as possible in the subwoofer, which is designed to handle low frequencies better.

Everything that I have said is covered in some detail in the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature. Reading through that, perhaps more than once, will enable you to become more comfortable with some of the Audyssey, and fundamental bass management (crossover), principles. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## RavenBF

Thanks Gary and Mike for the responses!! I have read that FAQ twice now......apparently I need a few more times!!! I think I will try the raising my surrounds to 100 and see where that takes me. Glad to hear that I am not alone with it being a little confusing at first!!! I just wasn't sure what all Auddyssey automated and what it actually was reading. I am guessing that it defaults to a several different things regardless of what I have adjusted it to, and then its up to the user to adjust as they see fit. Thanks for the info.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> If Audyssey reported 40 for your fronts and 90 for your surrounds, I'd probably set your fronts at 80 (that's where my system sounds best, although the fronts measure 40, as yours do) and about 100 or higher for the surrounds. *Don't go by the manufacturer's ratings for the surrounds, because response depends on position in the room, which Audyssey takes into account, and the manufacturer can't.*


To which I would only add: Don't take the manufacturer's ratings for any speaker because response depends on position in the room. That's true for all speakers and we have seen people report floor standers with quite low (40 Hz or lower) low frequency ratings set to Small with crossovers set around 80-90 Hz or lower and it has been because of the speaker's behaviour in the room which depends on where the speaker is in relation to the walls and where the listening position is located in the room. I once auditioned a pair of speakers with respectable bass specifications in a dealer showroom and could not hear a low pitched regular drum beat which I knew was on the record but when I got up to change the disc and stepped forward I stepped into a point where that drum beat was loud and clear. I stepped back one pace and it disappeared again. The worst case of a deep dip in the room response that I've ever heard. All I had to do to make a difference between actually being able to hear low bass with those speakers and their placement in the showroom and not hearing the same bass was to move the listening position a foot or so. The manufacturer's rating was probably accurate but those ratings are based on anechoic measurements and performance in a room can be very different, and performance in different rooms and/or with different listening positions within the room can be very different.

The manufacturer's ratings, if accurate, are at best a rough guide to what you can expect with good placement and listening position. If the ratings aren't accurate they're not a guide to anything at all apart from wishful thinking.

Audyssey bases its settings on in room measurements at the listening position and corrects for that actual in room performance. If the results are different to the manufacturer's specifications then rely on Audyssey. You can try moving the speakers and/or listening position in order to change the in room performance to something closer to the specification but you may not be able to achieve that and have a workable listening position, especially for movies where the listening position is also the viewing position and viewing distance is often an overriding factor in choosing the listening position if you want to make the most of the display's resolution.


----------



## stash64

Mike, Gary, Alan,


You guys freaked me out  with all this talk of experimentation. I started to think of all the chores I have to get done this Spring from yard work to de-winterizing the car to fixing the snowblower, etc, etc, and so I decided that maybe one subwoofer is best for me. (One bigger subwoofer was a recommendation I heard more than once.) I just set up one of the 12-inchers on the floor in the left hand corner and, if that works out well, I may just return both and exchange for a single SVS PC13-Ultra.


I've not re-run Auydssey yet but I did manually calibrate and I was surprised how quiet the sub sounded for the dB I was reading on the SPL meter. I had the subwoofer gain set one mark past half way and my trim was -9.0 dB, same as my front towers. I also noticed that the SPL reading for the sub fluctuated a little more than 1 dB total, and I am guessing that is not a good sign for the placement. The readings for my others speakers only fluctuate about .3 dB total.


Tomorrow I will do some critical listening with just the front towers and the sub. I spent the whole morning listening to music in stereo (which is my preference for music) and it was actually the first time in awhile that I did so. I had been listening in multi-channel because all my speakers are new and I wanted to get some break-in time on all of them including the new Emotiva XPA Gen3 amp. I was really happy with what I was hearing. First, I think the recommended Audyssey calibration tweaks (based on recommendations from you three) did make a difference.  The bass from the Canton towers was still a little short of what I am accustomed to, but it was nice and tight and clean and not bloated as before. Second, I discovered that listening at my typical 30 dB does not really cut it for the Cantons. I think they do need/like more power and turning up the volume just 5 dB made a big difference as they really came to life. (I was running Audysey with DEQ). The Cantons are awesome... and to think I was considering selling them. I played even louder (about -20 dB) for a couple of hours and I never felt any fatigue. If I had done this with my previous towers, I would have had to turn it off or turn the volume down after only an hour or so. One question, at what dB level does DEQ effectively disengage ? I think I will need to experiment with DEQ on and off.


If I do decide I am happy with the subwoofer in the left front corner, is it safe to assume that any quality subwoofer placed here would yield a similar result particularly if I use a crossover at or below 100 Hz ? I'm just wondering if a down-firing cylindrical sub will react differently in the room versus the front firing sub.


----------



## sunPin

Have any of you guys used Audyssey and ended up simply turning it off after taking measurements etc?


----------



## David Aiken

stash64 said:


> Mike, Gary, Alan,
> 
> 
> You guys freaked me out  with all this talk of experimentation. I started to think of all the chores I have to get done this Spring from yard work to de-winterizing the car to fixing the snowblower, etc, etc, and so I decided that maybe one subwoofer is best for me. (One bigger subwoofer was a recommendation I heard more than once.) I just set up one of the 12-inchers on the floor in the left hand corner and, if that works out well, I may just return both and exchange for a single SVS PC13-Ultra.
> 
> 
> I've not re-run Auydssey yet but I did manually calibrate and I was surprised how quiet the sub sounded for the dB I was reading on the SPL meter. I had the subwoofer gain set one mark past half way and my trim was -9.0 dB, same as my front towers. I also noticed that the SPL reading for the sub fluctuated a little more than 1 dB total, and I am guessing that is not a good sign for the placement. The readings for my others speakers only fluctuate about .3 dB total.
> 
> 
> Tomorrow I will do some critical listening with just the front towers and the sub. I spent the whole morning listening to music in stereo (which is my preference for music) and it was actually the first time in awhile that I did so. I had been listening in multi-channel because all my speakers are new and I wanted to get some break-in time on all of them including the new Emotiva XPA Gen3 amp. I was really happy with what I was hearing. First, I think the recommended Audyssey calibration tweaks (based on recommendations from you three) did make a difference.  The bass from the Canton towers was still a little short of what I am accustomed to, but it was nice and tight and clean and not bloated as before. Second, I discovered that listening at my typical 30 dB does not really cut it for the Cantons. I think they do need/like more power and turning up the volume just 5 dB made a big difference as they really came to life. (I was running Audysey with DEQ). The Cantons are awesome... and to think I was considering selling them. I played even louder (about -20 dB) for a couple of hours and I never felt any fatigue. If I had done this with my previous towers, I would have had to turn it off or turn the volume down after only an hour or so. One question, at what dB level does DEQ effectively disengage ? I think I will need to experiment with DEQ on and off.
> 
> 
> If I do decide I am happy with the subwoofer in the left front corner, is it safe to assume that any quality subwoofer placed here would yield a similar result particularly if I use a crossover at or below 100 Hz ? I'm just wondering if a down-firing cylindrical sub will react differently in the room versus the front firing sub.


In my view you really only need to experiment if you aren't happy with the result you get, and by that I mean you don't like the way it sounds rather than the way any measurements look, or you want to be really OCD and get the absolute best result humanly possible in which case you're doomed to a life of experimentation because there's always going to be a physical setup of speaker and listening position placement you haven't tried yet and it just may be better than every one you've tried so far. I hope I haven't given you the idea that you need to develop OCD 

Re your comment about how quiet the sub sounded for the measurements you were seeing: our ears are more sensitive in the mid-range and less sensitive at the extremes. The fall off in ear sensitivity in the low frequencies is quite pronounced (Google "Fletcher Munson curves") so low bass does sound quieter at a given SPL than midrange frequencies sound at the same SPL. You also need to remember that when you're listening to music or a soundtrack and your meter is reading x dB, that's the SPL for the total sound you're hearing. The SPL for different frequencies isn't going to be the same and the low bass frequencies can be much quieter or much louder than other frequencies. That's part of what contributes to differences in tonal balance of the music or sounds you're listening to. Just because a low frequency tone at a given level sounds softer than you expect doesn't mean that low bass in a given piece of music or soundtrack is going to sound quiet when listening to that music or soundtrack at the same overall level. If you have a smart phone and can find a sound frequency analysis program for it (I use SignalScope on my iPhone) and can use it to display an octave band or third octave band analysis of the SPL at different frequencies while listening to music or a soundtrack you will be surprised at the difference in level of the sound at different frequencies. The high frequencies are always rolled off because the sound there is overtones which aren't as loud as their fundamentals which are lower in frequency, and the sound levels in the low to midrange frequencies will go up and down all the time in different frequency bands. Some apps will give you a readout of average SPL as well in that display and you can really see how the same average SPL will sometimes have quiet bass frequencies and louder midrange frequencies at one point in time and louder bass frequencies and quieter midrange frequencies a second or two later. Test tones and actual music or soundtracks will display quite differently if you watch the analysis of the sound makeup with such an app.

As for the variation in level of the test tones while you're measuring, that's normal with low frequencies, The same kind of variation is also present at higher frequencies but it occurs much more quickly and the meter averages the level over a given interval of time so slow variations in level, which you get at low bass frequencies, are going to be more apparent in your meter reading than are very fast variations which is what occurs at higher frequencies. That variation has nothing to do with your speaker placement and you'll see it at low frequencies wherever you place your subs. Don't worry about it, it's totally normal and unavoidable. Your other speakers vary much less because they're delivering higher frequencies and, as I've said, the meter's averaging behaviour means that you'll see less variation at higher frequencies.

Addition: Your SPL meter will probably have a setting for response time. Normally you get a choice between Fast and Slow, sometimes you also get Instantaneous. Set it to Slow because that will minimise the variations you see. Also make sure you have the weighting set to C or Flat if Flat is an option. Don't use the A weighting which is for hearing protection purposes and rolls off in the low frequencies because of the ear's reduced sensitivity at those frequencies.

DEQ: It has no effect at reference level which is a signal strength of -20dB, not an actual sound level measured at the listening position. Audyssey should set things so that a signal strength of -20dB delivers an SPL of 85dB at the listening position. The amount of DEQ applied increases as signal strength decreases below reference level and as frequency decreases so more boost will be applied at 30Hz than is applied at 1kHz. DEQ decreases as signal strength increases above reference level. You can change the reference level with the Relative Offset setting. 

As for your comment about your Cantons "coming to life" when you increased the volume level a bit, that's also normal. Different speakers "come to life" at different volume levels. Some speakers work better at low levels than other speakers, and some work better at high levels than other speakers. You can notice that kind of difference with most, probably all, speakers but it will occur at different listening levels depending on the speakers.

You're starting to learn the problems with measuring sound. Basically sound is a very messy thing to measure. It's not like measuring length with a ruler where an object a foot long always measures as being a foot long. Sound consists of a pressure wave with constantly varying phase and the SPL you measure varies with the phase. How quickly the phase varies depends on the frequency with a 20Hz tone going through a complete single phase cycle 20 times a second and a 10kHz tone going through a complete phase cycle 10,000 times a second. When you measure SPL you're measuring a constantly varying pressure level plus there's a lot of other factors involved as well because the sound pressure at a particular point in the room depends not only on the pressure wave emitted by the speaker but also on the reflections of that wave from your room surfaces and the sound from the speaker and the reflected sound combine to reinforce each other or weaken or cancel each other depending how much the sound from the speaker and the reflected sound are in or out of phase with each other.

In the end you can simply take a practical approach, rely on Audyssey, and do a little bit of experimentation to find a result you like or you can go OCD to whatever degree you like, read more and more complex accounts of what happens with sound in rooms, take more and more measurements and measure different things in different ways, and experiment until the cows come home. It's up to you. Some of us get interested in the technicalities and do a bit of reading and experimentation, some of us get more and more fascinated by all of this and do more and more reading and experimentation, and some of us simply switch off on the technicalities and just follow the instructions that you get with your AVR and ask a few questions when things don't work out quite as expected. It's up to you what approach you want to take for yourself but there's absolutely nothing wrong with ignoring the technicalities and following the instructions and asking the occasional question. You can also spend a bit more time enjoying your system if you do that. Unfortunately there are those of us who seem constitutionally and intellectually incapable of stopping at that 

Addition-

Re your question about subs in your last paragraph: different subs have different frequency ranges with some going lower than others. You can find quality subs that don't extend as low as some other quality subs and one of the differences between them apart from how low they go is going to be price. The lower you go, the more they cost. The higher the quality, the more they cost. Add those 2 things together and the more they cost. Down firing subs will load the room differently to front firing subs, and ported subs are different to sealed box subs. There's all sorts of variations and combinations of frequency response, sub design, and quality and people have preferences in subs like they have preferences in speakers. There will be differences in the result so I would hesitate to say that all quality subs will produce a similar result in a given location but all of them should be able to produce good results in a given location unless they're designed for use in a particular sort of location. You've bought a couple of subs and they should work well in the location you mentioned but as with everything else in this game, you can always do better if you're prepared to throw more money at it or, dare I say, indulge in more experimentation


----------



## garygarrison

stash64 said:


> Mike, Gary, Alan,
> 
> You guys freaked me out  with all this talk of experimentation. I started to think of all the chores I have to get done this Spring from yard work to de-winterizing the car to fixing the snowblower, etc, etc, and so I decided that maybe one subwoofer is best for me. (One bigger subwoofer was a recommendation I heard more than once.) I just set up one of the 12-inchers on the floor in the left hand corner and, if that works out well, I may just return both and exchange for a single SVS PC13-Ultra.
> 
> I've not re-run Auydssey yet but I did manually calibrate and I was surprised how quiet the sub sounded for the dB I was reading on the SPL meter. ...


Don't let us freak you out! I'd just plunk one sub on the mantle in the corner, and the other on the floor in the left hand corner, run Audyssey, and save any other experimentation for much later. Enjoy movies and music until after the yard work and de-winterizing. What you will get will probably be better than most people get without Audyssey. I realize that it might be too late to return the subs after that much time has elapsed, but my best guess is that your present two subs, working in a complementary fashion, fine tuned by Audyssey, would be better than one bigger one. *This is just a guess. *One big one can't provide the mode smoothing benefits that two can.

At a given SPL, unless the signal is very loud, louder than you should run test noises, bass will *sound* softer than midrange because of the Fletcher-Munson effect. SPL is physical and "loudness" is perceptual. Manual calibration with an SPL meter isn't generally as good as Audyssey's calibration. If you decide to do a manual calibration, use a test disk, not the test noise in an AVR, becaue the AVR's test noise does not pass through the EQ and level sets Audyssey has contributed. In some rooms, this is a small or insignificant problem, but in others, the difference can be large. The latter is true in my room. The test pink noise on a disk you put into your player passes through everything your music does, including Audyssey, so, no problem.


----------



## garygarrison

sunPin said:


> Have any of you guys used Audyssey and ended up simply turning it off after taking measurements etc?


Not me! My system sounds much better with Audyssey engaged than with it out of the circuit. The odds are that if you read "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" (which is much better than the instructions in most AVR manuals) you will get a result that improves your sound. One common complaint is that the bass is not strong enough after Audyssey calibration. If this is true in your case, you can turn up the AVR trim on the subwoofer channel *after *running Audyssey.


----------



## David Aiken

sunPin said:


> Have any of you guys used Audyssey and ended up simply turning it off after taking measurements etc?


What Gary said. With Audyssey engaged is better than without Audyssey engaged in my system.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Mike, Gary, Alan,
> 
> 
> You guys freaked me out  with all this talk of experimentation. I started to think of all the chores I have to get done this Spring from yard work to de-winterizing the car to fixing the snowblower, etc, etc, and so I decided that maybe one subwoofer is best for me. (One bigger subwoofer was a recommendation I heard more than once.) I just set up one of the 12-inchers on the floor in the left hand corner and, if that works out well, I may just return both and exchange for a single SVS PC13-Ultra.
> 
> 
> I've not re-run Auydssey yet but I did manually calibrate and I was surprised how quiet the sub sounded for the dB I was reading on the SPL meter. I had the subwoofer gain set one mark past half way and my trim was -9.0 dB, same as my front towers. I also noticed that the SPL reading for the sub fluctuated a little more than 1 dB total, and I am guessing that is not a good sign for the placement. The readings for my others speakers only fluctuate about .3 dB total.
> 
> 
> Tomorrow I will do some critical listening with just the front towers and the sub. I spent the whole morning listening to music in stereo (which is my preference for music) and it was actually the first time in awhile that I did so. I had been listening in multi-channel because all my speakers are new and I wanted to get some break-in time on all of them including the new Emotiva XPA Gen3 amp. I was really happy with what I was hearing. First, I think the recommended Audyssey calibration tweaks (based on recommendations from you three) did make a difference.  The bass from the Canton towers was still a little short of what I am accustomed to, but it was nice and tight and clean and not bloated as before. Second, I discovered that listening at my typical 30 dB does not really cut it for the Cantons. I think they do need/like more power and turning up the volume just 5 dB made a big difference as they really came to life. (I was running Audysey with DEQ). The Cantons are awesome... and to think I was considering selling them. I played even louder (about -20 dB) for a couple of hours and I never felt any fatigue. If I had done this with my previous towers, I would have had to turn it off or turn the volume down after only an hour or so. One question, at what dB level does DEQ effectively disengage ? I think I will need to experiment with DEQ on and off.
> 
> 
> If I do decide I am happy with the subwoofer in the left front corner, is it safe to assume that any quality subwoofer placed here would yield a similar result particularly if I use a crossover at or below 100 Hz ? I'm just wondering if a down-firing cylindrical sub will react differently in the room versus the front firing sub.


Hi Sean,

That's very good news on the Cantons. I'm glad that the earlier advice helped. I just scanned down without reading the succeeding posts in detail, so if someone else already answered these two questions, I apologize. First, DEQ has little effect at -5 MV, and no effect at 0.0 MV. It has a substantial effect at -25. 

Second, I think you would be very happy with a single PC13 Ultra. In fact, I think it would blow you away, compared to a couple of small sealed subs. And, down the road, if and when you are ready, another Ultra would be a great option.

The other thing I wanted to tell you is not to let any of this freak you out. I think that Gary may have said something similar. I believed you mentioned that you had only be working with Audyssey for a short time, and I know that subs are brand new to you. So, take your time! Look at this as a process, where you will gradually learn things, and hear things, and move ever closer to your personal definition of a really good audio system. But, there aren't any shortcuts, and trying to absorb too much too quickly, or putting pressure on yourself to experiment right away, when you have other obligations, won't be helpful.

This hobby is supposed to be fun. And, I honestly believe that half the fun is in getting there--in learning what you like and why; and in relishing every audio improvement, however incremental, or small. Don't drown in detail right now, or in experimentation either. Just move at a comfortable pace. You have all the time in the world. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stash64

David Aiken said:


> I hope I haven't given you the idea that you need to develop OCD


No... but perhaps you guys have cured me. And I should have given you credit too for freaking me out along with Mike, Gary, and Alan.

Really appreciate the explanation of the low frequencies. I had heard of this effect but your explanation helps considerably with my understanding. I don't have a smart phone but I will see if there is a SignalScope like app for my Fire tablet... just did a quick check on Amazon and found an app called "Oscope".


> As for the variation in level of the test tones while you're measuring, that's normal with low frequencies, The same kind of variation is also present at higher frequencies but it occurs much more quickly and the meter averages the level over a given interval of time so slow variations in level, which you get at low bass frequencies, are going to be more apparent in your meter reading than are very fast variations which is what occurs at higher frequencies. That variation has nothing to do with your speaker placement and you'll see it at low frequencies wherever you place your subs. Don't worry about it, it's totally normal and unavoidable. Your other speakers vary much less because they're delivering higher frequencies and, as I've said, the meter's averaging behaviour means that you'll see less variation at higher frequencies.


Also very helpful... and now I am more hopeful that my subwoofer placement will work out. As for the SPL meter, I do always use the "slow" setting and "C" weighting... it's good to know I was doing something right.


> DEQ: It has no effect at reference level which is a signal strength of -20dB, not an actual sound level measured at the listening position. Audyssey should set things so that a signal strength of -20dB delivers an SPL of 85dB at the listening position. The amount of DEQ applied increases as signal strength decreases below reference level and as frequency decreases so more boost will be applied at 30Hz than is applied at 1kHz. DEQ decreases as signal strength increases above reference level. You can change the reference level with the Relative Offset setting.


I was with you up to this point. I thought reference level was 75 dB, and that the volume scale (-80 dB to +18 dB) I was using on my Marantz pre-amp would result in reference level at a volume setting of "0". (And this does appear to be the case based on what I observe with my SPL.. I get an SPL of roughly 60 with volume set at -15). I think I misunderstand your use of the term "signal strength".


> You can also spend a bit more time enjoying your system if you do that. Unfortunately there are those of us who seem constitutionally and intellectually incapable of stopping at that


I'm with you again and totally understand. Audio is something that too easily can become an obsession, but a fun one. I've been upgrading and trying different things for a good 10 years now. And you are also correct that it can easily become very expensive if not careful... but I think that is true of most hobbies.


----------



## stash64

garygarrison said:


> Don't let us freak you out! I'd just plunk one sub on the mantle in the corner, and the other on the floor in the left hand corner, run Audyssey, and save any other experimentation for much later.


Thanks Gary... I may give this a try before deciding to return the two for one PC13-Ultra... it's probably worth a try given I have the two in house. I do still have at least 4 weeks to return.


> ...Manual calibration with an SPL meter isn't generally as good as Audyssey's calibration. If you decide to do a manual calibration, use a test disk, not the test noise in an AVR, becaue the AVR's test noise does not pass through the EQ and level sets Audyssey has contributed. In some rooms, this is a small or insignificant problem, but in others, the difference can be large. The latter is true in my room. The test pink noise on a disk you put into your player passes through everything your music does, including Audyssey, so, no problem.


It never occurred to me that the test tones would not include the EQ after running Audyssey... interesting. I agree that it would make sense then to use a test disc. Do these discs allow for selecting and sending the signal to individual channels ? The pre-amp test tones are very convenient in this regard.


----------



## stash64

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Sean,
> 
> That's very good news on the Cantons. I'm glad that the earlier advice helped. I just scanned down without reading the succeeding posts in detail, so if someone else already answered these two questions, I apologize. First, DEQ has little effect at -5 MV, and no effect at 0.0 MV. It has a substantial effect at -25.
> 
> Second, I think you would be very happy with a single PC13 Ultra. In fact, I think it would blow you away, compared to a couple of small sealed subs. And, down the road, if and when you are ready, another Ultra would be a great option.
> 
> The other thing I wanted to tell you is not to let any of this freak you out. I think that Gary may have said something similar. I believed you mentioned that you had only be working with Audyssey for a short time, and I know that subs are brand new to you. So, take your time! Look at this as a process, where you will gradually learn things, and hear things, and move ever closer to your personal definition of a really good audio system. But, there aren't any shortcuts, and trying to absorb too much too quickly, or putting pressure on yourself to experiment right away, when you have other obligations, won't be helpful.
> 
> This hobby is supposed to be fun. And, I honestly believe that half the fun is in getting there--in learning what you like and why; and in relishing every audio improvement, however incremental, or small. Don't drown in detail right now, or in experimentation either. Just move at a comfortable pace. You have all the time in the world.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hey Mike... I didn't really freak out but the experimentation discussion did force me to think about how much time I wanted to invest in the subwoofer placement. And the set up on the mantel will take some time because it would have to be neat and clean... the OCD thing. But I do appreciate all the tips and suggestions which, in the end, will save me time and going down the wrong path.



I do like the idea that the PC13-Ultra is so easily tuned, which I am guessing will help to make it work in more places than the sealed sub. So it sounds like you have experience with the PC13.


Thanks for the DEQ explanation, but I am not sure what "MV" stands for though I assume 0.0 MV is reference level ?


Taking my time is good advice too... Thanks ! I've already checked myself a couple times. For instance, I ordered some KEF bookshelf speakers last week to replace the Cantons and then, about an hour later, canceled the order.


----------



## mthomas47

stash64 said:


> Hey Mike... I didn't really freak out but the experimentation discussion did force me to think about how much time I wanted to invest in the subwoofer placement. And the set up on the mantel will take some time because it would have to be neat and clean... the OCD thing. But I do appreciate all the tips and suggestions which, in the end, will save me time and going down the wrong path.
> 
> 
> 
> I do like the idea that the PC13-Ultra is so easily tuned, which I am guessing will help to make it work in more places than the sealed sub. So it sounds like you have experience with the PC13.
> 
> 
> Thanks for the DEQ explanation, but I am not sure what "MV" stands for though I assume 0.0 MV is reference level ?
> 
> 
> Taking my time is good advice too... Thanks ! I've already checked myself a couple times. For instance, I ordered some KEF bookshelf speakers last week to replace the Cantons and then, about an hour later, canceled the order.


You are very welcome! Yes, I have had PC13's. They are fine subs. MV stands for "master volume", just to distinguish the word volume from "trim levels" for individual speakers.


----------



## David Aiken

stash64 said:


> …
> 
> I was with you up to this point. I thought reference level was 75 dB, and that the volume scale (-80 dB to +18 dB) I was using on my Marantz pre-amp would result in reference level at a volume setting of "0". (And this does appear to be the case based on what I observe with my SPL.. I get an SPL of roughly 60 with volume set at -15). I think I misunderstand your use of the term "signal strength".
> …


I posted a reply and deleted it because I got some things wrong and think I explained things badly so delete and start again.

The volume level readout is the level of the signal leaving the preamp stage. That's an analog signal. The Reference Level is the level of the digital and Reference Level has meaning all the way back to the mastering studio where the soundtrack is mastered. A digital signal strength of 0dB will result in clipping so maximum output of the digital signal has to be kept lower than 0dB. Peak SPL levels in a cinema are supposed to be set to 105dB so Reference Level was set to -20dB so that the mastering engineer has plenty of headroom to ensure that the booms and bangs of your favourite action movie have got plenty of headroom to get very loud without the signal clipping.

So we know that a digital signal level of -20dB in the soundtrack is supposed to be heard at 85dB in your listening position and the loudest bangs and booms should be able to hit 105dB. That means that we need some way of translating a Reference Level digital signal of -20dB to an SPL of 105 dB at your listening position. Along the way we have to deal with the fact that there are some speakers which are very efficient and some are very inefficient. Some horn loaded speakers have sensitivity ratings of 105dB so 1 watt of amplifier power will produce an SPL of 105dB at a distance of 1 metre, but some speakers have an efficiency of 85 dB so they produce an SPL of 85dB at 1 metre with the same 1 watt of amplifier power and they would need 100 watts of amplifier power to produce the 105 watt SPL the 105dB sensitive speaker produces with 1 Watt. 

I'm not certain what a volume setting of 0dB actually represents but it could vary a bit depending on your receiver and it isn't necessarily Reference Level. In order to get the same SPL at the listening position with the same piece of music you may need to use a different volume setting with some speakers than you do with others. That would not be the case if a volume setting of 0dB meant a particular level but you can drive some speakers into clipping well below a volume setting of +18dB and that can be from analog clipping so the digital signal strength is below 0dB or you would hear digital clipping before you got to analog clipping. Reference Level MAY occur around 0dB with some AVRs but it may be higher or lower. If you need a volume level lower than 0dB to produce 85dB SPLs at your listening position and you turn the volume level up to +18 dB you're going to hear clipping from the preamp or power amp but if you need a higher volume level than 0dB in order to reproduce Reference Level at 85dB SPL at your listening position then you may never be able to hear peak signal strengths of 0dB at their proper 105dB level if you like trying to reproduce things at actual Reference Level playback levels. All we can say is that a 0dB volume setting should deliver somewhere around 85dB SPL at your listening position when the digital signal on your disc is mastered at -20dB or reference level.

And in between the digital signal strength as it is recorded on the soundtrack and the preamp are the digital audio processing stages where the channels on the disc are down mixed to fewer channels for people who run a stereo system rather than a surround system, or a 5.1 system when playing a 7.1 soundtrack, or for umpiring 5.1 to 7.1 or more and so on. When you fold channels together, like mixing surround to stereo, the signal strength in the 2 stereo channels becomes higher than the signal strength in each of the original channels so the digital signal has to be processed to ensure that -20dB in the resulting 2 channels is still 20dB down below clipping. Then you have your trim settings which Audyssey sets. They take the signal from earlier digital processing and adjust the level again so that a signal strength of -20dB is going to produce an SPL of 85dB at your listening position when the preamp volume setting is set at whatever setting is supposed to deliver Reference Level volumes so that means a volume setting of somewhere around 0dB but we're not quite certain what that will be since it has to take account of speaker sensitivity, listening distance etc.

So, that's what's going on at a very basic level. Reference Level is the standard on which the levels in the soundtrack as mastered on the disc are set so it refers to the strength of the digital signal in the soundtrack which will deliver SPLs of 85dB at your listening position, and the Volume Level readout on your AVR refers to the strength of the analog signal going from the preamp to the power amps, and in between you've got a lot of things going on in the AVR which adjust the signal strength between what it is as it is read off the disc to what it is when it comes out of the preamp.

I told you that sound measurements were messy. I just didn't tell you how messy they really were. Don't ask me for more because I think I just hit my brick wall of current understanding


----------



## mthomas47

Just to clarify, Dolby, or THX "Reference" is a term of art, which was developed specifically for 5.1 movies. For the regular channels, Reference is 105db peak SPL, and for the .1 LFE channel, the peak SPL is 115db. It is assumed that the nominal average volume of a 5.1 movie will be approximately 20db less than Reference, so 85db is the nominal average Reference standard. That selection of 85db is somewhat arbitrary, as it reflects the difference between the max volume of 105db, and a dynamic range that would result in about an 85db average for a 5.1 movie.

At one time, AVR's and AVP's, doing auto setup routines, used 85db test tones to set audio systems to "Reference". So many people found those 85db test tones too loud, that nearly all manufactures switched to 75db test tones instead. Most modern AVR's calibrate HT systems using a 75db test tone, and then automatically adjust the volume, internally, to correspond to 85db, at 0.0 MV. When a system has been calibrated with an auto setup routine, such as Audyssey, Reference will always correspond to 0.0 master volume, using the relative scale. That 85db nominal average volume, at 0.0 MV, will be accurate, for a 5.1 movie, within the limits of the calibration microphone---typically about +/- 3db.

I have used the term "nominal average volume" because the actual average volume of a movie could be either higher or lower than 85db. That depends somewhat on the type of movie, as not all movies have peaks of 105db. 105db is simply a maximum for the regular channels. It will also depend somewhat on the particular interests of the director, and the film mixer, with respect to the use of dynamic range within a movie. For instance, some directors like to maintain a higher average volume throughout the movie, which reduces the size of volume peaks. Other directors go in the opposite direction, using softer average volumes, to enhance the impact of peak volumes. 

But, the industry does adhere well to the maximum peak volume limit of 105db, for the regular channels, and 115db for the LFE channel. There is no corresponding Reference standard for music, so individual recordings vary widely, with respect to both their average volume, and to the dynamic range of the recording.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

When setting up speakers, is toe-in a good idea with Audyssey? Since there is usually a roll off in treble off axis, I wonder if straight facing speakers causes Audyssey to boost treble too much, leading to the brighter/harsher sound people sometimes notice?


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> When setting up speakers, is toe-in a good idea with Audyssey? Since there is usually a roll off in treble off axis, I wonder if straight facing speakers causes Audyssey to boost treble too much, leading to the brighter/harsher sound people sometimes notice?


Not toeing in will mean Audyssey will compensate for the proportional loss of high frequencies, but IMHO should not cause bright/ harsh sound. That should be caused by something else worth to investigate in more details. 

Some speaker makers specifically do not recommend toe-in, e.g. Dali of Denmark, others recommend to experiment before running any room correction software.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> When setting up speakers, is toe-in a good idea with Audyssey? Since there is usually a roll off in treble off axis, I wonder if straight facing speakers causes Audyssey to boost treble too much, leading to the brighter/harsher sound people sometimes notice?


I agree with Feri, that it depends. When I was first experimenting with Audyssey, I found that it was, quite naturally, more sensitive to high frequencies than I was. When I didn't have my front speakers toed-in sufficiently, Audyssey over-boosted the highs in a way that sounded harsh to me. When I added more toe-in, I found that my speakers not only sounded better to me that way, but Audyssey didn't over-boost them, anymore. So, in my case, Audyssey was not only more sensitive to high frequencies than I was, but it was also correct that the speakers needed to be toed-in more, even for optimal audio without room EQ.

But, rooms, speakers, and listeners are all different, so paying attention to manufacturer instructions, and being willing to engage in a little bit of experimentation, can both be helpful. If your speakers have really good off-axis response, it may not matter much how they are pointed. Mine don't particularly, and it did matter. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> I agree with Feri, that it depends.


I also agree; it depends.

My procedure has been to use a minimally miked stereo recording to adjust toe-in a little bit at a time, starting with both mains pointing straight ahead, until that I get the best imaging and soundstage, and THEN to run Audyssey.


----------



## In.vincible

I never liked Audyssey for music with my old speakers (Polks). I had those pointed straight ahead. Funny thing is, I just got some new speakers (Wharfedales), and now Audyssey sounds pretty good for music, too. I have these toed in. It's hard to judge because these speakers are new, and still breaking in, but in pure direct mode without EQ, they sounded a bit bright to me, and harsh in the vocal range. Weird, because Wharfes are supposed to be warm and laid back. Well, engaging Audyssey actually seems to mellow the midrange a bit. So far, I'm liking it. My settings are:

MultEQ Audyssey curve
Dynamic EQ on
reference offset 10 db
sub level +2 dB from where Audyssey set it (for now)

Not bad


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> I never liked Audyssey for music with my old speakers (Polks). I had those pointed straight ahead. Funny thing is, I just got some new speakers (Wharfedales), and now Audyssey sounds pretty good for music, too. I have these toed in. It's hard to judge because these speakers are new, and still breaking in, but in pure direct mode without EQ, they sounded a bit bright to me, and harsh in the vocal range. Weird, because Wharfes are supposed to be warm and laid back. Well, engaging Audyssey actually seems to mellow the midrange a bit. So far, I'm liking it. My settings are:
> 
> MultEQ Audyssey curve
> Dynamic EQ on
> reference offset 10 db
> sub level +2 dB from where Audyssey set it (for now)
> 
> Not bad


I'm glad the Wharfedale's are working better than the Polk's. FWIW, I have heard pretty consistently that the Wharfedale's do require some break-in, and that they warm up a little.


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> I'm glad the Wharfedale's are working better than the Polk's. FWIW, I have heard pretty consistently that the Wharfedale's do require some break-in, and that they warm up a little.


Thanks. They're nice speakers  If they do warm up a bit, I may try pure direct mode again, but for now, I've got them sounds good with Audyssey engaged. They produce a nice amount of bass, but I can tell there is something missing on the low end without the sub.

Not sure if anyone's familiar with this song:





If I play the beginning without the sub, it sounds OK, but when I engage the sub, the stomping sounds more realistic. The extra super low oomph is more of a feeling than a sound I hear (using an SVS PB1000).


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> When setting up speakers, is toe-in a good idea with Audyssey? Since there is usually a roll off in treble off axis, I wonder if straight facing speakers causes Audyssey to boost treble too much, leading to the brighter/harsher sound people sometimes notice?





mogorf said:


> Not toeing in will mean Audyssey will compensate for the proportional loss of high frequencies, but IMHO should not cause bright/ harsh sound. That should be caused by something else worth to investigate in more details.
> 
> Some speaker makers specifically do not recommend toe-in, e.g. Dali of Denmark, others recommend to experiment before running any room correction software.


I'm not sure I totally agree with Feri but I don't disagree either. What we hear is a combination of direct and reflected sound and the reflections do fill in dips in the direct response to some degree but we hear differently to what a microphone picks up, and our brains do quite a bit of psychoacoustic processing that doesn't get done by Audyssey. Our brains fuse a lot of the reflected sound we hear in the room with the direct sound and Audyssey does not do that. It makes corrections in the time domain which are going to have an effect that is different to what our brains do in the time domain, and we do perceive difference between the corrected and uncorrected sound. We may not necessarily regard all of those perceived differences as improvements.

I used not to toe in my current speakers. Based on a comment by Mike, I did toe them in for the first time a month or two ago, reran setup, and discovered I preferred the result. Changing toe in was the only change I made, and I thought with toe in the top end sounded more natural and slightly less bright/harsh. 

Late last year I changed my speakers from a pair of omnidirectional speakers (it's a 2.2 setup) to my current Focal Aria floor standers. To state the obvious, toe in is a meaningless concept with omnidirectional speakers but when I set the Focals up without toe in and ran setup, I thought the top end result was slightly less bright/harsh than the top end had been with the omnidirectional which were most definitely on axis for the measurements, and on axis for every one of the 8 microphone positions I used. The difference between the Focals and the omnidirectionals apart from whether the direct sound was on or off axis, is of course the fact that all of the reflections with the omnidirectionals are also reflections of on axis sound, there simply is no off axis sound with an omnidirectional, and that changes the balance between direct and reflected sound. Note that I had not thought that the top end with the omnidirectional was bright/harsh when I first used Audyssey with them and that it was only after swapping to the Focals that I noticed anything about their top end and it was only in comparison to the Focals that I found the result with the omnidirectionals to be bright/harsh. I would not characterise the result with either pair of speakers considered on their own as bright/harsh but in comparison with each other I would characterise the omnidirectionals as being more bright/harsh than the Focals were without toe in, and the Focals without toe in sounded slightly more bright/harsh than they did with toe in.

What Audyssey does is based in part on the differences between the direct and reflected sound that the mic picks up and if you change toe in you change both the direct and reflected sound, and you also change the balance between them. Audyssey then does things in the time domain which affect both of those things when you're listening to the system. I think it's reasonable to expect that toe in is going to have an effect on the result, and I think that finding the corrected sound to be less bright/harsh with toe in is a common outcome but I think my experience going from the omnidirectionals to the Focals shows that it need not be the only outcome. I'm not certain I'd expect the corrected sound to be less bright/harsh as a result of toe in if you were using panel speakers like electrostatics or open backed ribbon speakers, or if you were using speakers with rear firing tweeters and it definitely need not be the case with omnidirectionals.

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is. I think that statement definitely holds true here. Whether toe in makes a difference and helps or not when using Audyssey is going to depend on the speaker and setup in the room and I don't think there is a simple absolute answer but I do think that many people who find that they think their result sounds bright/harsh and who are using normal box speakers without toe in may find they prefer the result if they do use toe in.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I also agree; it depends.
> 
> My procedure has been to use a minimally miked stereo recording to adjust toe-in a little bit at a time, starting with both mains pointing straight ahead, until that I get the best imaging and soundstage, and THEN to run Audyssey.


I agree with everybody! It does depend.

I'd predict that in more than half of the cases, toe-in would be better for both treble response and imaging.

Wharfedale is one of the grand old HiFi speaker manufacturers. I know the company may have changed hands since it made a big splash in the 1950s, but if it maintains the trademark voicing of the past, they should sound great.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> I agree with everybody! It does depend.
> 
> I'd predict that in more than half of the cases, toe-in would be better for both treble response and imaging.
> 
> Wharfedale is one of the grand old HiFi speaker manufacturers. I know the company may have changed hands since it made a big splash in the 1950s, but if it maintains the trademark voicing of the past, they should sound great.


They are sounding pretty amazing now, but it's with Audyssey on. In pure direct mode with it disengaged...not so much. The vocals sound thinner and too treble-y in direct mode, almost piercing sometimes. They are extremely clear, but it's almost too much. Could be that the speakers are new, or the room is doing things to the sound. It'll be interesting to see how things change as they break in, but I'm very surprised that I'm liking Audyssey for my music. I pretty much disregarded it in the past.

I almost want to set my old speakers up, with toe-in this time, and run Audyssey to see how music sounds. Too much work, though. I'm pooped from tinkering with the new ones all weekend.


----------



## In.vincible

Has anyone found that they can't quite replicate the sound of DEQ by just boosting the sub? When deciding between using DEQ or not for music, I played my speakers in direct mode and took notice of the bass and fullness. Then I switched on audyssey without DEQ. It sounded kind of weak and thin. Finally, I enabled DEQ and it sounded fuller again, like it did in direct mode. 

If I turn off DEQ and only boost the sub, it doesn't sound as good, IMO, as direct or DEQ on. Basically, it seems using DEQ is almost mandatory, albeit with a ref offset for music.


----------



## Alan P

I don't ever listen in Direct mode because on my system it just sounds flat, but I prefer running Audyssey without DEQ and with an added sub boost of around +6dB. To me the bass is less "muddy" and more defined. Also, the dialogue is clearer and more well defined without the lower register exaggeration. Not too mention not having to deal with the over-boosted surrounds.


----------



## mthomas47

I'm with Alan on this one. I don't have any interest in Direct Mode, but I can get more clarity in my system without DEQ. DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, and not just in the .1 subwoofer channel. But, when that boost occurs in the center channel, for example, I think that it makes dialogue a little harder to hear. That might not be something that would be particularly noticeable to everyone, for music, although that slight loss of clarity is to me.

When Alan said that he adds about 6db more bass boost without DEQ, he means about 6db more than he would use with DEQ. So, if you were listening at -15 MV, for instance, DEQ would boost the bass in all of the channels by a little more than 6db, and any sub boost you were adding would be on top of that DEQ boost. Turn DEQ off, and add an extra 6db to what you were normally adding to your subs, and you might find that you still had sufficient bass, at that particular listening level, but with even more clarity. (And, as noted, without a surround boost).

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

While almost everyone (including me) boosts the sub, some of us who dislike DEQ also use the bass tone control (available only when DEQ is turned OFF), at least with some music and some movies. This provides a bit of boost above the usual 80 Hz crossover to the subwoofer, through the Right Front and Left Front speakers. This may sound a little like DEQ, but cleaner (IMO), and doesn't muddy-up the center channel dialog* ...* and it doesn't go away when you turn the volume up! Audyssey's compensation does a great job (for me, and for some others) above about 200 Hz, but leaves the impression of slightly thin bass, thus the sub boost and the bass tone control boost.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Has anyone found that they can't quite replicate the sound of DEQ by just boosting the sub?…


Probably everyone. You said "duplicate". DEQ boosts bass to all speakers, and boosts it in a particular way, more like a bass tone control which has maximum boost at 20Hz and zero boost at some hinge frequency. Boosting the sub just boosts the sub and while the boost rolls off as the sub rolls off to the crossover frequency for the bass redirected from the other speakers, the LFE channel content just gets boosted period. In addition, the amount of boost applied by DEQ depends on your master volume setting while the amount of boost you get by boosting the sub is a fixed amount of boost which remains the same no matter what your master volume setting is

You aren't comparing 2 different ways of achieving the same result, you're comparing 2 different results. Boosting the sub does not duplicate what DEQ does, it does something else.

There is always going to be a difference between them. How much difference is going to depend on your master volume setting with DEQ because that determines how much boost DEQ applies, and your crossover setting, your amount of boost, and your master volume setting if you apply sub boost. You may be able to find a single master volume setting where the results of both approaches are most similar or least different depending on how you look at things, but the moment you start changing the master volume setting you're going to change the results of your comparison.

Use the approach which gives you the results you prefer but be prepared to find out that your preference may change over time, or even with different discs. There's too many variables involved for an absolute answer, and one of the variables is our own hearing which changes over time.


----------



## In.vincible

Thanks for the replies. I'm mainly concerned with 2-ch music at the moment. Struggling a bit with DEQ to get a good balance without over the top bass. The reference offset at either 10 or 15 dB seems to be decent.

Also, I guess it's not really advisable to use DEQ with bypass L/R mode, is it? Since it's being applied all across the range (but mostly at the bass end), that would mean the sub is getting the DEQ boost, but they mains aren't correct. If that's the cases, seems like a bad idea. I've seen graphs, and it looks like the bass boost peters out around 150-200 Hz.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> Thanks for the replies. I'm mainly concerned with 2-ch music at the moment. Struggling a bit with DEQ to get a good balance without over the top bass. The reference offset at either 10 or 15 dB seems to be decent.
> 
> Also, I guess it's not really advisable to use DEQ with bypass L/R mode, is it? Since it's being applied all across the range (but mostly at the bass end), that would mean the sub is getting the DEQ boost, but they mains aren't correct. If that's the cases, seems like a bad idea. I've seen graphs, and it looks like the bass boost peters out around 150-200 Hz.


I think you just need to keep experimenting with some critical listening. At some point, I think that you are likely to hit on a combination that you like for a particular type of 2-channel music. 

I would distinguish, though, between Audyssey as a system of automated room EQ, and DEQ as a way to maintain bass (and to some extent treble) equilibrium at below Reference volumes. The room correction was designed to improve speaker/room interaction, irrespective of the listening material. But, DEQ was designed specifically for 5.1 movies, where there is such a thing as "Reference". That doesn't mean that DEQ can't still work perfectly well for 2.1 or 5.1 music, however.

But, when you speak of using DEQ, with something like Bypass L/R, you are talking about disabling the generic room correction that was not content-specific, while maintaining the software program that was specifically designed for movies. 

The more that you listen to content with DEQ off, and perhaps alternating between the Audyssey curve and Audyssey Flat, the more you will be able to audibly distinguish among them, and to understand what they are doing in your room, for your system. Then, you will be in a better position to decide what really works best, and how to improve it. Personally, as Gary noted in a previous post, I always prefer what Audyssey, as a room correction system, does for my speaker/room interaction. But, that is a totally different issue from how much bass boost I like, or whether I prefer to use DEQ, or the Audyssey curve, or Audyssey Flat.

In my opinion, the more you are able to differentiate among those things, the more you are likely to be able to improve your sound quality to your own satisfaction. And, that may take a little time and patience.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> Thanks for the replies. I'm mainly concerned with 2-ch music at the moment. Struggling a bit with DEQ to get a good balance without over the top bass. The reference offset at either 10 or 15 dB seems to be decent.
> 
> Also, I guess it's not really advisable to use DEQ with bypass L/R mode, is it? Since it's being applied all across the range (but mostly at the bass end), that would mean the sub is getting the DEQ boost, but they mains aren't correct. If that's the cases, seems like a bad idea. I've seen graphs, and it looks like the bass boost peters out around 150-200 Hz.


Actually DEQ by virtue of it's purpose does not boost bass and highs but compensates for them. IMHO, this is very important to understand. Yes, compensates because it has been found/discovered by Fletcher & Munson engineers of Bell Labs in the 1930's via lots of experiments that human ears loose bass and highs whenever MV is lowered resulting in a loss of spectral balance. 

Mother Nature was clever enough to make our ears behave like that in order to save our everyday souls from hearing our own heart beat (low register) and hearing atomic thermal motion inside our body (high register). 

Then, a bit later Man made the Amplifier that has a Volume Control. Whenever volume is turned down spectral balance will suffer. DEQ is our friend when it adds bass and high compensation by adjusting the proper electrical signal increase needed for perceptual reasons. 

This just seed for thought.


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> I think you just need to keep experimenting with some critical listening. At some point, I think that you are likely to hit on a combination that you like for a particular type of 2-channel music.
> 
> I would distinguish, though, between Audyssey as a system of automated room EQ, and DEQ as a way to maintain bass (and to some extent treble) equilibrium at below Reference volumes. The room correction was designed to improve speaker/room interaction, irrespective of the listening material. But, DEQ was designed specifically for 5.1 movies, where there is such a thing as "Reference". That doesn't mean that DEQ can't still work perfectly well for 2.1 or 5.1 music, however.
> 
> But, when you speak of using DEQ, with something like Bypass L/R, you are talking about disabling the generic room correction that was not content-specific, while maintaining the software program that was specifically designed for movies.
> 
> The more that you listen to content with DEQ off, and perhaps alternating between the Audyssey curve and Audyssey Flat, the more you will be able to audibly distinguish among them, and to understand what they are doing in your room, for your system. Then, you will be in a better position to decide what really works best, and how to improve it. Personally, as Gary noted in a previous post, I always prefer what Audyssey, as a room correction system, does for my speaker/room interaction. But, that is a totally different issue from how much bass boost I like, or whether I prefer to use DEQ, or the Audyssey curve, or Audyssey Flat.
> 
> In my opinion, the more you are able to differentiate among those things, the more you are likely to be able to improve your sound quality to your own satisfaction. And, that may take a little time and patience.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Getting new speakers is not helping, either, since I'm getting used to the new sound. I have been doing a lot of music listening lately, though. I turned off DEQ all together tonight and think I like it better. At first, it sounds a little weak, but I think that's only because DEQ = mega bass sometimes. Off sounds more natural and cleaner. I'm still deciding on whether I like the Audyssey curve for music, or if I just stick with direct mode. They aren't very different, but I hear some small changes. 

I just ordered a mic so I can take my own measurements just to actually "see" what's happening in my room. Should be interesting.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Getting new speakers is not helping, either, since I'm getting used to the new sound. I have been doing a lot of music listening lately, though. I turned off DEQ all together tonight and think I like it better. At first, it sounds a little weak, but I think that's only because DEQ = mega bass sometimes. Off sounds more natural and cleaner. I'm still deciding on whether I like the Audyssey curve for music, or if I just stick with direct mode. They aren't very different, but I hear some small changes.
> 
> I just ordered a mic so I can take my own measurements just to actually "see" what's happening in my room. Should be interesting.


1- When you change things, there's often a tendency to like the old because it's familiar. You often have to allow yourself enough time to get used to the new to be able to make a reliable judgement on things like which is best. That's true of speakers, and things like Audyssey or any other change in your system, and it is best to only change one thing at a time so that you always know what's going on. But there come times when all of us change more than one thing at a time :-(

2- There's a standard for mastering soundtracks but there is no agreed standard for mastering music. Levels on music recordings, including peak levels, can be all over the place and that doesn't help with DEQ. You can try using the Relative Offset setting to help with DEQ when listening to music, or just leave DEQ off or use Direct mode. 

3- Taking measurements is easy, understanding and interpreting them can be a lot harder, and comparing what the mic says is going on to what your ears tell you and what Audyssey is doing is definitely not simple. Don't try measuring the AVR's test tones with your mic and comparing that to Audyssey results because the Audyssey mic/software are doing different things to what your mic/software will be doing, and comparing Audyssey results with the AVR's test tones to your results with pink or white noise tracks or frequency sweeps is a bit like comparing apples and oranges in some ways. Don't expect to find nice neat agreement between Audyssey and your measurements, and don't assume that one is right and the other is wrong when you see differences because both can be right even though the numbers look different.

4- When making measurements set your weighting curve to C or Flat, and if you are given a choice between Fast/Slow/Instantaneous averaging choose Slow. A weighting will give you a lower than accurate reading for bass frequencies (it's intended for hearing protection purposes and discounts low frequencies because our ears are less sensitive at those frequencies) and Fast or Instantaneous averaging also doesn't work well with bass frequencies. Also some mics/software are intended to be used with the mic pointing at the speaker and other mics/software are intended to be used with the mic pointing at 90 degrees to the speaker like the Audyssey mic. Read the instructions on how you point your mic and follow them or your readings may be unreliable.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Getting new speakers is not helping, either, since I'm getting used to the new sound. I have been doing a lot of music listening lately, though. I turned off DEQ all together tonight and think I like it better. At first, it sounds a little weak, but I think that's only because DEQ = mega bass sometimes. Off sounds more natural and cleaner.* I'm still deciding on whether I like the Audyssey curve for music, or if I just stick with direct mode*. They aren't very different, but I hear some small changes.
> 
> *I just ordered a mic so I can take my own measurements just to actually "see" what's happening in my room.* Should be interesting.


There are many choices and combinations of choices. Direct mode, Audyssey (i.e., Audyssey Reference), Audyssey Flat -- and any of these with bass (and treble, if you want it) adjustments with the tone controls (only with DEQ OFF), and any of these with readjustment of the sub level up or down, etc. And, of course, DEQ itself, with various different offsets, but music disks vary so much in average level and dynamic range that this last choice may not be too practical with music (I don't like DEQ even with movies)

Are you going to use REW? There is a whole thread on that on AVS. Unfortunately, when I tried to see what was happening in my room a few years ago, I used a little mic preamp and a measurement mic, rather than the USB mic route, then found that the mic preamp varied from trial to trial. I haven't had the energy to try again with a USB mic. Since Audyssey uses 8 mic positions and beneficial "fuzzy logic" and I don't want to use many mic positions with REW and average the results, which, I am given to understand still wouldn't be as good as "fuzzy logic," anyway, I've decided to just trust Audyssey and not know what the room is doing graphically, particularly because Audyssey Flat in my system sounds better than any other system I've had (there have been 6, and this is the best, thanks in large part to Audyssey).


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> 1- When you change things, there's often a tendency to like the old because it's familiar. You often have to allow yourself enough time to get used to the new to be able to make a reliable judgement on things like which is best. That's true of speakers, and things like Audyssey or any other change in your system, and it is best to only change one thing at a time so that you always know what's going on. But there come times when all of us change more than one thing at a time :-(
> 
> 2- There's a standard for mastering soundtracks but there is no agreed standard for mastering music. Levels on music recordings, including peak levels, can be all over the place and that doesn't help with DEQ. You can try using the Relative Offset setting to help with DEQ when listening to music, or just leave DEQ off or use Direct mode.
> 3- Taking measurements is easy, *understanding and interpreting them can be a lot harder*, and comparing what the mic says is going on to what your ears tell you and what Audyssey is doing is definitely not simple. Don't try measuring the AVR's test tones with your mic and comparing that to Audyssey results because the Audyssey mic/software are doing different things to what your mic/software will be doing, and comparing Audyssey results with the AVR's test tones to your results with pink or white noise tracks or frequency sweeps is a bit like comparing apples and oranges in some ways. Don't expect to find nice neat agreement between Audyssey and your measurements, and don't assume that one is right and the other is wrong when you see differences because both can be right even though the numbers look different.
> 
> 4- When making measurements set your weighting curve to C or Flat, and if you are given a choice between Fast/Slow/Instantaneous averaging choose Slow. A weighting will give you a lower than accurate reading for bass frequencies (it's intended for hearing protection purposes and discounts low frequencies because our ears are less sensitive at those frequencies) and Fast or Instantaneous averaging also doesn't work well with bass frequencies. Also some mics/software are intended to be used with the mic pointing at the speaker and other mics/software are intended to be used with the mic pointing at 90 degrees to the speaker like the Audyssey mic. Read the instructions on how you point your mic and follow them or your readings may be unreliable.



That's where you guys come in  I appreciate the advice.



garygarrison said:


> There are many choices and combinations of choices. Direct mode, Audyssey (i.e., Audyssey Reference), Audyssey Flat -- and any of these with bass (and treble, if you want it) adjustments with the tone controls (only with DEQ OFF), and any of these with readjustment of the sub level up or down, etc. And, of course, DEQ itself, with various different offsets, but music disks vary so much in average level and dynamic range that this last choice may not be too practical with music (I don't like DEQ even with movies)
> 
> Are you going to use REW? There is a whole thread on that on AVS. Unfortunately, when I tried to see what was happening in my room a few years ago, I used a little mic preamp and a measurement mic, rather than the USB mic route, then found that the mic preamp varied from trial to trial. I haven't had the energy to try again with a USB mic. Since Audyssey uses 8 mic positions and beneficial "fuzzy logic" and I don't want to use many mic positions with REW and average the results, which, I am given to understand still wouldn't be as good as "fuzzy logic," anyway, I've decided to just trust Audyssey and not know what the room is doing graphically, particularly because Audyssey Flat in my system sounds better than any other system I've had (there have been 6, and this is the best, thanks in large part to Audyssey).


I figured I'd try REW with the miniDSP UMIK-1 that I ordered. As for test tones, I don't think I have cables long enough to reach the computer and the mic while it's in listening position. Are there some test tones I can download and play through my system via the CD plater or USB?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Fantastic reading. The knowledge and Wisdom pours forth in great abundance. I have absolutely zero to add. We are lucky to have the "Grey Beards " to dole out expert level guidance when we need it. What a wonderful place. Just when you think you know or understand a thing. These Guys are here to explain the next level of complexity and finesse. Always willing and able to assist other Members in squeezing every ounce of performance from their AV gear.

Kudos Gentlemen, Kudo's

Thank you, Mike, David, Alan, Gary and Feri!

P.S. This thread is a shining example of how all conversations should progress in AVS.


----------



## Alan P

In.vincible said:


> That's where you guys come in  I appreciate the advice.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured I'd try REW with the miniDSP UMIK-1 that I ordered. As for test tones, I don't think I have cables long enough to reach the computer and the mic while it's in listening position. Are there some test tones I can download and play through my system via the CD plater or USB?


Get longer cables. 

Seriously, if you are getting set up with a mic and REW, there is absolutely no reason to use test tones from a CD or USB...use REW!


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> That's where you guys come in  I appreciate the advice.
> 
> 
> 
> I figured I'd try REW with the miniDSP UMIK-1 that I ordered. As for test tones, I don't think I have cables long enough to reach the computer and the mic while it's in listening position. Are there some test tones I can download and play through my system via the CD plater or USB?


Both the Spears and Munsil and the Digital Video Essentials Blu-ray test discs have test tones you can use. I'm not aware of a UHD test disc out from either of those sources yet so if you want to get video test patterns along with audio and you want UHD video test patterns I can't help.

Apart from those 2 discs which I have, I understand Aix have a disc with multi-channel test tones for setup purposes.

Going really "old style" you can look for CDs or downloads of white or pink noise. One of the Stereophile test discs from years and years ago has a pink noise test tone and you can find white and pink noise samples on the web if you do a search.


----------



## muad'dib

David Aiken said:


> Both the Spears and Munsil and the Digital Video Essentials Blu-ray test discs have test tones you can use. I'm not aware of a UHD test disc out from either of those sources yet so if you want to get video test patterns along with audio and you want UHD video test patterns I can't help.
> 
> Apart from those 2 discs which I have, I understand Aix have a disc with multi-channel test tones for setup purposes.
> 
> Going really "old style" you can look for CDs or downloads of white or pink noise. One of the Stereophile test discs from years and years ago has a pink noise test tone and you can find white and pink noise samples on the web if you do a search.


If using REW for spl using hdmi out of a computer, so you know if the output level is fixed at 75db for measurements?


----------



## David Aiken

muad'dib said:


> If using REW for spl using hdmi out of a computer, so you know if the output level is fixed at 75db for measurements?


Never used REW. I've only used manual test tones with a manual sound pressure level meter.


----------



## pbarach

David Aiken said:


> There's a standard for mastering soundtracks but there is no agreed standard for mastering music. Levels on music recordings, including peak levels, can be all over the place and that doesn't help with DEQ. You can try using the Relative Offset setting to help with DEQ when listening to music, or just leave DEQ off or use Direct mode.


There's a standard for mastering Blu-Ray discs of movies, but is it clear that the standard is still being followed, or have mastering engineers begun to compensate for the differences between theater and home listening environments?

The mastering standard definitely does NOT apply to BluRay discs with some kinds of source material. For example, anything I've heard that was sourced from a British television series will have the surrounds MUCH too loud when played back with DEQ turned on, regardless of the offset you choose. Also, I have a BluRay disc containing the classic Britten-conducted recording of his War Requiem. The original and the disc are both stereo and not multichannel, but there is WAY too much bass if DEQ is on during playback. I haven't heard other BluRay audio discs, and I wonder what "reference" was used in mastering them.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Not all BRs or DVDs are mastered to a given level, only movies. TV series are the same as music, no set standard.


----------



## David Aiken

pbarach said:


> There's a standard for mastering Blu-Ray discs of movies, but is it clear that the standard is still being followed, or have mastering engineers begun to compensate for the differences between theater and home listening environments?
> 
> The mastering standard definitely does NOT apply to BluRay discs with some kinds of source material. For example, anything I've heard that was sourced from a British television series will have the surrounds MUCH too loud when played back with DEQ turned on, regardless of the offset you choose. Also, I have a BluRay disc containing the classic Britten-conducted recording of his War Requiem. The original and the disc are both stereo and not multichannel, but there is WAY too much bass if DEQ is on during playback. I haven't heard other BluRay audio discs, and I wonder what "reference" was used in mastering them.


I had a feeling that the mastering standard was based around a reference level of -20dB, intended to equate to SPLs of 85 dB, with peaks of 0 dB which were intended to equate to SPLs of 105dB on playback. Mike tole me in a post a day or two ago that the standard only specified peak levels of 0 dB. Levels below that are up to the mastering engineer, and things like channel balances have always been up to the mastering engineer. How would you specify a relationship between front speakers and surrounds when sometimes all of the main sound (not music) is coming from the front and sometimes you want to have a bomb go off in a surround speaker behind the listener? If you specify a relationship between front and surrounds for inter channel balance, you could end up with a bomb behind you sounding like a firecracker. Things like interchannel balances have always been a choice of the mastering engineer and depend to some degree on what always gets called "artistic choice" or something like that.

The one thing that standards are never going to prevent is people making bad choices and creating bad mixes. There are good mastering engineers and bad mastering engineers. Standards are never going to ensure that everyone does a good job. People are still going to make bad mixes no matter how good the standard is and following the standard will not guarantee a good mix.

The standard covers peak sound levels. One thing it does not do and most definitely is not going to do is to try and ensure that surround channels don't have so much bass content that it causes problems if DEQ is engaged? Why is that not going to be covered? Simply because there are a number of competing systems out there and not every dynamic EQ system is going to work exactly the same way as Audyssey DEQ, and because not everyone uses DEQ or an alternative system, and specifying a solution that avoids problems for one system such as Audyssey DEQ may exacerbate problems for other systems and also for people who don't use dynamic equalisation of any kind. Dynamic equalisation systems are an optional add on that a listener can choose to buy and use, it's not mandatory. Including a provision in a standard that makes something mandatory in order to avoid causing problems for a group of people who use a particular optional add on product, a group that is probably a minority of the total number of people who are going to buy and listen to the disc, is never going to happen and it especially won't happen when it would require toning down the bass levels in surround channels and making the listening experience less satisfactory for the many people who don't use DEQ.

For those people who choose to use DEQ, and I actually am one of them, the standard is not intended to prevent that problem and is not going to prevent that problem. We're on our own in finding solutions to it and the simplest, which is always available to us, is simply to turn DEQ off if we're listening to a soundtrack with that problem.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

And, as noted in Post 2424, on Page 85, even when film mixers are adhering to Reference standards, there is still plenty of latitude with respect to the nominal average volume of a movie. All Reference really requires is that peaks in the regular channels not exceed 105db, and that peaks in the LFE channel not exceed 115db. I am not quite sure how the "average" volume for a movie could easily be calculated, even if film mixers really wanted to hit an 85db average. Some people believe that the 85db average ought to correspond to dialogue levels. But, I hear dialogue levels all over the place, depending on the movie. I have also watched movies where surrounds are boosted, relative to the front soundstage, as that is more a matter of artistic interpretation than a specific aspect of the Reference standard.

One other thing that is worth noting is the small room effect of home theaters. According to audio authorities, such as Harman, rooms under about 15,000^3 will exert an amplifying effect on sounds in the room, which will make Reference volumes sound too loud, compared to a real movie theater, which is *much* larger. That amplification effect ranges from about 7db for very small HT's, to about 4 or 5db for very large rooms (>5000^3). That is part of the reason that most of us choose to listen below Reference, even in well-treated rooms. Film mixers, who I have seen comment on this issue, have confirmed that they also listen at about -5 MV, to correspond to the volumes that they heard in their mixing studios, at Reference.

In my opinion, for a great number of reasons, Reference is a bit of a chimera. I think that HT owners should strive for systems that sound good at their preferred listening levels, and those preferred levels may, or may not, correspond very closely to "Reference", as a theoretical ideal.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: David was actually writing a similar post, as I was writing mine.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Fantastic reading. The knowledge and Wisdom pours forth in great abundance. I have absolutely zero to add. We are lucky to have the "Grey Beards " to dole out expert level guidance when we need it. What a wonderful place. Just when you think you know or understand a thing. These Guys are here to explain the next level of complexity and finesse. Always willing and able to assist other Members in squeezing every ounce of performance from their AV gear.
> 
> Kudos Gentlemen, Kudo's
> 
> Thank you, Mike, David, Alan, Gary and Feri!
> 
> P.S. This thread is a shining example of how all conversations should progress in AVS.


Thank you for the compliment, I think, Adam!  (Grey Beards? )

It wasn't always quite this civil on the Audyssey thread either, but a number of us have worked hard to try to keep it that way.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> While almost everyone (including me) boosts the sub, some of us who dislike DEQ also use the bass tone control (available only when DEQ is turned OFF), at least with some music and some movies. This provides a bit of boost above the usual 80 Hz crossover to the subwoofer, through the Right Front and Left Front speakers. This may sound a little like DEQ, but cleaner (IMO), and doesn't muddy-up the center channel dialog* ...* and it doesn't go away when you turn the volume up! Audyssey's compensation does a great job (for me, and for some others) above about 200 Hz, but leaves the impression of slightly thin bass, thus the sub boost and the bass tone control boost.


I tried what you said with the tone controls, and you're right, it does sound better. I'm finding that I don't need to boost the bass there if I boost the sub, but I knocked the treble down 2 clicks, and voila, things sound much better.

I must have some kind of room issues going on. I always thought my Polks sounded a little too bright and edgy, which is why I finally upgraded to some Wharedales. They are supposed to be warm speakers, but to be honest, they don't sound much better (brightness wise) than the Polks did...maybe a little. I was noticing vocals and some instruments just sounding loud and harsh. I went back to no toe-in, which helped a little, but still no dice.

What I originally wanted in a new pair of speakers was a smooth, warm sound with enough bass that I could just run them in pure direct mode. I just don't think that's going to happen in my room. This probably sounds crazy, but I like the way my little Logitech computer speakers with sub sound compared to the big speakers in the living room. I can listen to the same song on my PC, and that brightness and harshness is not there. Maybe it's because I am in the near field when listening? I can listen to my PC speakers for hours with no fatigue, where as on my main system, it gets irritating quickly.

I've been trying to get the new speakers to sound more mellow, and I think I'm finally just about there. The Audysey curve tames them some compared to no room correction. From there, I used tone controls (which will make audiophiles frown, but there isn't much choice) to cut treble a bit. Other than that, I turned off DEQ (much less bloat with it off), and I boosted the sub by 3 dB from where Audyssey put it. Overall, I think I'm getting a much more pleasant sound now.

Once I get my mic, I'll take some measurements of my tweaked settings vs pure direct mode. It should be interesting. My suspicion is that the room is just doing bad things to my sound. My Polks were decent speakers, and so are these new ones supposedly, so it's got to be the darn room.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> I tried what you said with the tone controls, and you're right, it does sound better. I'm finding that I don't need to boost the bass there if I boost the sub, but I knocked the treble down 2 clicks, and voila, things sound much better.
> 
> I must have some kind of room issues going on. I always thought my Polks sounded a little too bright and edgy, which is why I finally upgraded to some Wharedales. They are supposed to be warm speakers, but to be honest, they don't sound much better (brightness wise) than the Polks did...maybe a little. I was noticing vocals and some instruments just sounding loud and harsh. I went back to no toe-in, which helped a little, but still no dice.
> 
> What I originally wanted in a new pair of speakers was a smooth, warm sound with enough bass that I could just run them in pure direct mode. I just don't think that's going to happen in my room. This probably sounds crazy, but I like the way my little Logitech computer speakers with sub sound compared to the big speakers in the living room. I can listen to the same song on my PC, and that brightness and harshness is not there. Maybe it's because I am in the near field when listening? I can listen to my PC speakers for hours with no fatigue, where as on my main system, it gets irritating quickly.
> 
> I've been trying to get the new speakers to sound more mellow, and I think I'm finally just about there. The Audysey curve tames them some compared to no room correction. From there, I used tone controls (which will make audiophiles frown, but there isn't much choice) to cut treble a bit. Other than that, I turned off DEQ (much less bloat with it off), and I boosted the sub by 3 dB from where Audyssey put it. Overall, I think I'm getting a much more pleasant sound now.
> 
> Once I get my mic, I'll take some measurements of my tweaked settings vs pure direct mode. It should be interesting. My suspicion is that the room is just doing bad things to my sound. My Polks were decent speakers, and so are these new ones supposedly, so it's got to be the darn room.


I think that you are probably right about the room, as I hear most people describe Wharfedale speakers as being on the warm side. FWIW, until I really got my calibration technique down, and then added some room treatments I needed, I also had to use the tone controls to knock down the treble on my front speakers a little. To be fair, I was using Flat, rather than Reference, but it was still at least partly the room, because once I got the room the way I wanted it, there was no more harshness or shrillness. Mine wasn't ever quite to the point of listening fatigue, but it wasn't quite right either.

Of course, there can still be treble variations in particular recordings, as not all recordings are of equivalent quality, and our little PC speakers aren't always revealing enough to let us hear the flaws (or treble compression) that we may notice with our larger speakers.

Hearing that something one of us is doing might make some audiophiles frown, would be deeply distressing to me.  Please don't tell them then, that you are using an AVR, and especially not with room correction.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> I tried what you said with the tone controls, and you're right, it does sound better. I'm finding that I don't need to boost the bass there if I boost the sub, but I knocked the treble down 2 clicks, and voila, things sound much better.
> 
> I must have some kind of room issues going on. I always thought my Polks sounded a little too bright and edgy, which is why I finally upgraded to some Wharedales. They are supposed to be warm speakers, but to be honest, they don't sound much better (brightness wise) than the Polks did...maybe a little. I was noticing vocals and some instruments just sounding loud and harsh. I went back to no toe-in, which helped a little, but still no dice.
> 
> What I originally wanted in a new pair of speakers was a smooth, warm sound with enough bass that I could just run them in pure direct mode. I just don't think that's going to happen in my room. This probably sounds crazy, but I like the way my little Logitech computer speakers with sub sound compared to the big speakers in the living room. I can listen to the same song on my PC, and that brightness and harshness is not there. Maybe it's because I am in the near field when listening? I can listen to my PC speakers for hours with no fatigue, where as on my main system, it gets irritating quickly.
> 
> I've been trying to get the new speakers to sound more mellow, and I think I'm finally just about there. The Audysey curve tames them some compared to no room correction. From there, I used tone controls (which will make audiophiles frown, but there isn't much choice) to cut treble a bit. Other than that, I turned off DEQ (much less bloat with it off), and I boosted the sub by 3 dB from where Audyssey put it. Overall, I think I'm getting a much more pleasant sound now.
> 
> Once I get my mic, I'll take some measurements of my tweaked settings vs pure direct mode. It should be interesting. My suspicion is that the room is just doing bad things to my sound. My Polks were decent speakers, and so are these new ones supposedly, so it's got to be the darn room.


I don't know Logitech, but most computer speakers I've tested (all of about 3 brands) are (deliberately?) deficient in high frequencies. I wonder if that is to cut out all of the fatiguing trash that is on the internet. Anyway, if your Logitechs are like that, then that and listening near field may be why they do not offend. 

"Warm" is one of those words the meaning of which hasn't been agreed upon by audiophiles. Some, like Augspurger (spelling highly doubtful) of JBL thought that meant a friendly bass bump. It sounds like you want to avoid harsh vocal and instrumental sound. One of the best speakers I've heard in that regard was the Bozak 302A (I _think_ that's the model). It is off the market, so used ones would be your only hope. It had a woofer that provided deep sounding bass, a cone midrange, and two cone tweeters that were mounted in front of the woofer on a strap. 

Your tone controls sometimes would help, but I'd also give Audyssey (i.e. Audyssey reference) a try. Its Audyssey "midrange compensation," which is a slight dip at about 2K might help. It's worked for me on some old soundtracks. Some recordings *are* harsh, and playing them with a dip in the upper midrange or treble would be a beneficial and desirable distortion, amounting to a simple act of sanitation.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> I don't know Logitech, but most computer speakers I've tested (all of about 3 brands) are (deliberately?) deficient in high frequencies. I wonder if that is to cut out all of the fatiguing trash that is on the internet. Anyway, if your Logitechs are like that, then that and listening near field may be why they do not offend.
> 
> "Warm" is one of those words the meaning of which hasn't been agreed upon by audiophiles. Some, like Augspurger(spelling highly doubtful) of JBL thought that meant a friendly bass bump. It sounds like you want to avoid harsh vocal and instrumental sound. One of the best speakers I've heard in that regard was the Bozak 302A (I _think_ that's the model). It is off the market, so used ones would be your only hope. It had a woofer that provided deep sounding bass, a cone midrange, and two cone tweeters that were mounted in front of the woofer on a strap.
> 
> Your tone controls sometimes would help, but I'd also give Audyssey (i.e. Audyssey reference) a try. Its Audyssey "midrange compensation," which is a slight dip at about 2K might help. It's worked for me on some old soundtracks. Some recordings *are* harsh, and playing them with a dip in the upper midrange or treble would be a beneficial and desirable distortion, amounting to a simple act of sanitation.


So I played around some more and might have found another solution. I can set Audyssey to MultEQ manual mode and tweak the equalizer. I started by copying over the 'flat' curve, which looked pretty reasonable, but it had a very high boost at high end; I think it was +6 (the maximum amount) at 16 kHz. I put all the 8 and 16 kHz settings to zero, as I feel the speakers are fine as is. I played some music that I thought had harsh instrumentals and vocals, and the problem areas seem to be around the 2 kHz region. Reducing 2 kHz and 4kHz by 3 or 4 dB seems to get rid of the harshness.

Not sure running in manual EQ mode is the way to go, though. Does this mean the rest of Audyssey is disabled, so no sub EQ?

Just using the Audyssey house curve and turned down treble a few clicks sounds pretty decent, but probably not perfect either since I don't want to reduce the high treble; I rather just cut the 2-4 kHz range a bit.

Oh yeah, here's my little logitechs. Not high-quality by any means, but I guess I've just grown accustomed to them.

**edit**

Surprisingly, I found some measurements for my Logitech X-230s.
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2,review-1083-8.html


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> "Warm" is one of those words the meaning of which hasn't been agreed upon by audiophiles.…
> 
> Your tone controls sometimes would help, but I'd also give Audyssey (i.e. Audyssey reference) a try. Its Audyssey "midrange compensation," which is a slight dip at about 2K might help. It's worked for me on some old soundtracks. Some recordings *are* harsh, and playing them with a dip in the upper midrange or treble would be a beneficial and desirable distortion, amounting to a simple act of sanitation.


+1 on "warm" being fuzzy.

One thing I have noticed often over the years is that a change in the bass or a change in the high frequencies can affect my perception of the other end of the frequency scale, and also of the overall balance. The obvious inference is that an increase in bass would be perceived as weakening the top end, and tipping the balance to bass heavy while a boost in the high frequencies would be perceived the same way. Strangely that often is not the case.

I have on more than a few occasions noticed that a boost at one end of the frequency range seems to strengthen the other end and bring things more into balance overall. I suspect that part of that depends a lot on whether the boost at one end actually coincidentally creates that midrange dip that Gary refers to, and which is part of the Audyssey Reference response curve. Note that this is most definitely not always the outcome of boosting one end of the frequency range but I have noticed it now on quite a few occasions over the years.

The whole question of how we perceive tonal balance seems quite complex to me and "warm" doesn't seem to simply equate to a gently dropping top end with good midrange and bass which is how it is often described. There's more to it than that, and the problem is compounded by the fact that not everyone uses the word in the same way. I think it is safe to say that warm sound isn't harsh or bright or glaring, but it's a big jump from saying what it isn't (and there's a lot of other things it isn't than just those 3 things) to saying what it is.


----------



## David Aiken

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Fantastic reading. The knowledge and Wisdom pours forth in great abundance. I have absolutely zero to add. We are lucky to have the "Grey Beards " to dole out expert level guidance when we need it. What a wonderful place. Just when you think you know or understand a thing. These Guys are here to explain the next level of complexity and finesse. Always willing and able to assist other Members in squeezing every ounce of performance from their AV gear.
> 
> Kudos Gentlemen, Kudo's
> 
> Thank you, Mike, David, Alan, Gary and Feri!
> 
> P.S. This thread is a shining example of how all conversations should progress in AVS.





mthomas47 said:


> Thank you for the compliment, I think, Adam!  (Grey Beards? )
> 
> It wasn't always quite this civil on the Audyssey thread either, but a number of us have worked hard to try to keep it that way.


Grey Beards?

Not guilty. I shaved my beard long ago and it wasn't grey when I shaved it, but my hair wasn't grey then either. It is now :-(


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> +1 on "warm" being fuzzy.
> 
> One thing I have noticed often over the years is that a change in the bass or a change in the high frequencies can affect my perception of the other end of the frequency scale, and also of the overall balance. The obvious inference is that an increase in bass would be perceived as weakening the top end, and tipping the balance to bass heavy while a boost in the high frequencies would be perceived the same way. Strangely that often is not the case.
> 
> I have on more than a few occasions noticed that a boost at one end of the frequency range seems to strengthen the other end and bring things more into balance overall. I suspect that part of that depends a lot on whether the boost at one end actually coincidentally creates that midrange dip that Gary refers to, and which is part of the Audyssey Reference response curve. Note that this is most definitely not always the outcome of boosting one end of the frequency range but I have noticed it now on quite a few occasions over the years.
> 
> The whole question of how we perceive tonal balance seems quite complex to me and "warm" doesn't seem to simply equate to a gently dropping top end with good midrange and bass which is how it is often described. There's more to it than that, and the problem is compounded by the fact that not everyone uses the word in the same way. I think it is safe to say that warm sound isn't harsh or bright or glaring, but it's a big jump from saying what it isn't (and there's a lot of other things it isn't than just those 3 things) to saying what it is.


I hear what your saying about one end affecting the other. I was just listening to a song on my main speakers, then came into my computer room and put on the same song. It sounded a bit 'warmer' from my PC, but I think they bass is a bit heavier, so that could be it.

Is it better to use a combination of bass boost in my AVR's tone controls _and _boost to the sub? If I only boost the sub, I get more kick down real low, but not in the upper bass. Adding the bass tone control into the mix seems to give me a little more fullness where I want it.

That said, maybe DEQ on is the way to go. If I'm boosting the sub and boosting the bass in the tone controls, it seems like DEQ might be better and more efficient at producing the sound I'm after.


----------



## David Aiken

pbarach said:


> There's a standard for mastering Blu-Ray discs of movies, but is it clear that the standard is still being followed, or have mastering engineers begun to compensate for the differences between theater and home listening environments?
> 
> The mastering standard definitely does NOT apply to BluRay discs with some kinds of source material. For example, anything I've heard that was sourced from a British television series will have the surrounds MUCH too loud when played back with DEQ turned on, regardless of the offset you choose. Also, I have a BluRay disc containing the classic Britten-conducted recording of his War Requiem. The original and the disc are both stereo and not multichannel, but there is WAY too much bass if DEQ is on during playback. I haven't heard other BluRay audio discs, and I wonder what "reference" was used in mastering them.


A belated additional thought since you referred to a problem with surrounds and British TV series.

Years ago I remember reading comments about differences between British and US living rooms, acoustics, and audio. My now ageing 3rd Edition of Everest's "The Master Handbook of Acoustics" has some data on reverberation times in British living rooms and suggests that those times may be longer than the reverberation times in US living rooms which tend to be larger than British rooms and I think a quick survey of British audio magazines will suggest that speaker systems in domestic use in Britain are smaller than those in domestic use in the US. The midrange dip Gary referred to is often called "the BBC dip" and was part of the design of speakers like the LS3 originally designed as a small mastering monitor for small, mobile mastering studios used by BBC radio and TV studios. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that the soundtracks for British TV series might be mastered based on typical playback equipment and rooms in British homes and if that is the case then what you may be picking up on may partly be due to the soundtracks you refer to being mastered for playback on smaller systems in smaller rooms, and possibly even at lower listening levels, than is normal in the US or in Australia where I am (I seem to remember seeing something at some stage suggesting that Australian homes are amongst the largest in the world). From watching the British series "Grand Designs" on home design, I have to say that living rooms are often small or, where larger, often don't include a TV when set up. There's rarely mention of anything like a home theatre room and where a separate room for TV viewing is included in the design, that space is usually referred to as a "snug" and it is usually quite small, very different from the viewing environments I've seen in most Australian homes and I would expect very different from US viewing environments also. Those soundtracks may actually sound better balanced in a smaller listening environment and with different systems than what most of us on this forum are using.

That's not intended as a justification or excuse but rather as a possible explanation. As Mike and I both said above, the standard specifies peak levels and not other characteristics which are at the mastering engineer's discretion. If the mastering engineer is working in a British TV studio and mastering for British audiences, a good result for his purposes may not be equally as satisfactory in a larger listening environment with larger surround speakers and quite possibly higher normal listening levels as well.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible;51541553
.…
Is it better to use a combination of bass boost in my AVR's tone controls [I said:


> and [/I]boost to the sub? If I only boost the sub, I get more kick down real low, but not in the upper bass. Adding the bass tone control into the mix seems to give me a little more fullness where I want it.


My view: use what sounds best to you. There's no standard for preference. There's no standard for live acoustic sound either, and go to a live unamplified performance and you can hear very different things depending on where you sit. I went to a party at the home of a friend who is a pianist and various people were taking turns performing on my friend's grand piano. My friend was lying on the floor under the piano because she said she preferred the sound of the piano in that position. The rest of us were sitting on chairs, a bed, or standing around. Everyone in that room was hearing something different to what the pianist sitting at the keyboard was hearing, and what my friend lying on the floor under the piano was hearing, but we were all hearing that piano live. It's actually impossible to say what live sound actually sounds like because the same live sound can have several different "sounds" in the one room. If live sound can have several different sounds, all equally valid, then why can't recorded sound have just as many different "sounds" and why shouldn't you set things up so what you hear is the one you prefer?

So, if you like a bit fuller upper bass than sub boost gives you, then use the tone controls. Alternatively you could try a higher crossover frequency which would shift some of that upper bass from the speakers to the sub where it would benefit from the sub boost. You could try using less or no sub boost and setting the sub to LFE+Main rather than to just LFE or a combination of 2 or more of those approaches. Try as many approaches as you like, stick with the one you like the most. 

It's your sound and your purpose in setting up a system is to get sound you enjoy. If you're doing things because what you're doing is supposed to be the right way to do it and you're not enjoying the result, then you're doing something wrong in my view. The goal is not to spend time listening to a sound you don't enjoy, or which annoys you in some way. Do what gives you sound you enjoy and don't worry about what anyone else says about it unless that person is your partner and you need to keep them on side


----------



## garygarrison

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> ... We are lucky to have the "Grey Beards " to dole out expert level guidance when we need it ...
> 
> 
> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the compliment, I think, Adam!  (Grey Beards? )
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Mine is as grey as lead,
> it could be said.
> But it might
> be white
Click to expand...


----------



## In.vincible

Speaking of bass and music again. I think DEQ can really add a nice fullness to the sound, but the trick seems to be setting the right ref. offset (10 dB seems reasonable) and also not boosting the sub trim too much, since I believe that skews DEQ. A little sub boost seems to work nicely, but too much can lead to some slamming bass...which may be preferred in some cases.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I don't know Logitech, but most computer speakers I've tested (all of about 3 brands) are (deliberately?) deficient in high frequencies. I wonder if that is to cut out all of the fatiguing trash that is on the internet. Anyway, if your Logitechs are like that, then that and listening near field may be why they do not offend.
> 
> "Warm" is one of those words the meaning of which hasn't been agreed upon by audiophiles. Some, like Augspurger(spelling highly doubtful) of JBL thought that meant a friendly bass bump. It sounds like you want to avoid harsh vocal and instrumental sound. One of the best speakers I've heard in that regard was the Bozak 302A (I _think_ that's the model). It is off the market, so used ones would be your only hope. It had a woofer that provided deep sounding bass, a cone midrange, and two cone tweeters that were mounted in front of the woofer on a strap.
> 
> Your tone controls sometimes would help, but I'd also give Audyssey (i.e. Audyssey reference) a try. Its Audyssey "midrange compensation," which is a slight dip at about 2K might help. It's worked for me on some old soundtracks. Some recordings *are* harsh, and playing them with a dip in the upper midrange or treble would be a beneficial and desirable distortion, amounting to a simple act of sanitation.


Hi Gary,

The Bozak B-302A is just as you described it. As usual, you have a terrific memory. The driver configuration is exactly the same as the B-313 Concerto's that I use as my rear surround speakers, although I have rotated the dual B-200Y tweeters into a vertical orientation on mine. The B-302's have a larger cabinet, which enables the 12" woofer to get to a little lower frequency, but it also imbalances the speaker a little toward the lower frequencies, in my opinion. The tweeters are mounted quite low in the cabinet, and that takes them out of good alignment with our ears, as in the horizontal configuration, the dual B-200 tweeters don't have very good vertical dispersion. Both of those factors may contribute to the "warmer" sound you remember.

I still have a pair of the B-302 Urban's, although they are not currently in use. The B313's I am using have the same speaker configuration, in a smaller cabinet, and have a more balanced sound, in my opinion. I have them on stands to get the tweeters at the same height as my others, and as noted, have rotated the tweeters to a vertical alignment. The Bozak tweeters don't have extremely good off-axis dispersion, but when oriented correctly have an extremely natural sound, which is neither muddy nor harsh. I agree with the comments that both you and David made about the ambiguity of words such as "warm". Tonality can be very difficult to define, and may mean completely different things to different people.

I also agree that hearing one part of the frequency range more strongly than another can influence our perceptions of what we are hearing. More bass can sound like less treble, etc. David's example of the people in a room hearing different things from a grand piano was a terrific example of how positioning, and room effects, can influence perceptions. To those factors, I would also add variances in human hearing, which might allow us to hear some frequencies differently than others, and neurological, and psycho-acoustic differences, which might make us interpret what we are hearing somewhat differently from each other, even if we were in exactly the same position in a room.

My bottom line on the issue is the oft-repeated one, by all of us, to simply please yourself and not worry too much about what other people do or don't hear, and do or don't like. Our systems, listening environments, hearing capabilities, and psycho-acoustic preferences will simply be too different to ever fully align. The best we can do is to mutually appreciate the same things in our own slightly unique ways.

My advice for Invincible is just to take his time and not be in too much of a hurry to find "the solution" to his listening preferences. As noted earlier, preferences can fluctuate slightly from day-to-day. And sometimes, trying hard can be an impediment to figuring things out, where just relaxing, and letting impressions form in their own time, and in their own way, can work much better. I am quite certain that the approach just described works well in some other endeavors, and I believe that it applies to audio impressions and enjoyment, as well.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

My comment about "Grey Beards" has nothing to do with any reference, whatsoever, to one's Age. It was a compliment, of the highest orders, with regard to the group's Knowledge and Wisdom about the subject topics under discussion. It is indeed a high Honor and sing of great respect to be considered a "Grey Beard" even though you may not have a beard. I guess it has different meanings (I looked it up in Urban Dictionary for the first time in my life today) I now see it can be intended as an insult or derogatory. When used in my previous career, it was a Moniker of High Regard.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> My comment about "Grey Beards" has nothing to do with any reference, whatsoever, to one's Age. It was a compliment, of the highest orders, with regard to the group's Knowledge and Wisdom about the subject topics under discussion. It is indeed a high Honor and sing of great respect to be considered a "Grey Beard" even though you may not have a beard. I guess it has different meanings (I looked it up in Urban Dictionary for the first time in my life today) I now see it can be intended as an insult or derogatory. When used in my previous career, it was a Moniker of High Regard.


I was just teasing you, Adam. I knew perfectly well that you meant it in a good way.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> I was just teasing you, Adam. I knew perfectly well that you meant it in a good way.


I know you took no offense. But wanted to be crystal clear (for others sake). Heck, I may be the Old man in here? Who really knows. Anywho, back on topic. Last time I try to dole out compliments you bunch of Snow Flakes!!!!!


----------



## mogorf

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Fantastic reading. The knowledge and Wisdom pours forth in great abundance. I have absolutely zero to add. We are lucky to have the "Grey Beards " to dole out expert level guidance when we need it. What a wonderful place. Just when you think you know or understand a thing. These Guys are here to explain the next level of complexity and finesse. Always willing and able to assist other Members in squeezing every ounce of performance from their AV gear.
> 
> Kudos Gentlemen, Kudo's
> 
> Thank you, Mike, David, Alan, Gary and Feri!
> 
> P.S. This thread is a shining example of how all conversations should progress in AVS.


Thank you very much for your compliments Adamg. One thing is sure: we were all beginners when we started this hobby, right?  The only thing I couldn't figure out is how did you know I have a grey beard? :wink:


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Thank you very much for your compliments Adamg. One thing is sure: we were all beginners when we started this hobby, right?  The only thing I couldn't figure out is how did you know I have a grey beard? :wink:


I knew!  I have seen your avatar picture, in Facebook conversations with Chris that you have quoted.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you for the compliment, I think, Adam!  (Grey Beards? )
> 
> It wasn't always quite this civil on the Audyssey thread either, but a number of us have worked hard to try to keep it that way.


Fully agree with you Mike!


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I knew!  I have seen your avatar picture, in Facebook conversations with Chris that you have quoted.


Oh Mike, that picture was taken when I was much older than I am today!  Grey beard still counts!


----------



## David Aiken

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> My comment about "Grey Beards" has nothing to do with any reference, whatsoever, to one's Age. It was a compliment, of the highest orders, with regard to the group's Knowledge and Wisdom about the subject topics under discussion. It is indeed a high Honor and sing of great respect to be considered a "Grey Beard" even though you may not have a beard. I guess it has different meanings (I looked it up in Urban Dictionary for the first time in my life today) I now see it can be intended as an insult or derogatory. When used in my previous career, it was a Moniker of High Regard.


I don't think any of us took even the slightest bit of offence but we all had a bit of good fun with the remark.

After all, if wisdom comes with age and if we're really as wise as you think we are, we'd have to be several decades older than we are, wouldn't we?


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> Speaking of bass and music again. I think DEQ can really add a nice fullness to the sound, but the trick seems to be setting the right ref. offset (10 dB seems reasonable) and also not boosting the sub trim too much, since I believe that skews DEQ. A little sub boost seems to work nicely, but too much can lead to some slamming bass...which may be preferred in some cases.


Coming back to Audyssey's DEQ I think many of us here already know that this feature has a two tier operation scheme as follows:

1. DEQ first looks at the MV (Master Volume) setting and does a high & low frequency compensation whenever MV is turned down from 0 dB. That means a compensation for the human ear in accordance to equal loudness curves. A wealth of information for those interested can be found here: https://www.google.hu/search?q=equa...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=UfDKWOrMBMOv8wfunJzgAQ

2. Then, the second compensation is done as a quite unique feature never found on any other loudness compensation solutions is the compensation of high & lows during a passage. What does this mean? This means during a passage that includes loud and soft parts as the program material advances DEQ does another compensation for the human ears "on the fly", or in other words in real time. 

Some don't believe it, some don't like it, but it took Audyssey Labs quite a bit of time and money to come out with a result that may only be apparent when taken away. Works best with material having high dynamics like classical music, but its there also for everyday use.

Just another seed for thought.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... More bass can sound like less treble, etc. ...
> 
> And sometimes, trying hard can be an impediment to figuring things out, where just relaxing, and letting impressions form in their own time, and in their own way, can work much better ...


Re: "More bass can sound like less treble," we have one occasional guest at our movie showings who has very sensitive hearing, and she keeps the volume very, very low for her own TV and music listening. She is particularly sensitive to treble. Another guest is sensitive to bright brass. Turning down either the volume or the treble _*alone*_ doesn't seem to be a solution. Turning down the treble with the treble control is a very delicate operation -- at least on my Marantz it usually ends up robbing some instruments of their shimmer. Turning down the volume, with no other adjustments, diminishes impact, makes big crescendos sound wimpy, and LFE less dynamic, etc. I don't use DEQ, because it makes the sound seem less transparent, IMO. So ... when either of these guests come over, the subwoofer is turned up, the bass control is turned up, and the Main Volume is turned down by about the same number of dBs that the sub and bass control were turned up (fine tuned subjectively). Thus the bass, where much of the impact lives, is at about the same SPL that it would have been without any of these adjustments. The guests seem to believe that I have merely turned down the volume*;* that the dialog is fairly low reinforces the illusion. Naturally, I preview some of the movie to make sure I know what I'm doing. The most difficult one was How the West Was Won*; *I had to add some treble cut to that one, but our most ear sensitive guest loved it, and said the buffalo stampede was "so powerful!" IMO, that wouldn't have happened if I had just turned down the volume. So far, it's worked every time.

"And sometimes, trying hard can be an impediment to figuring things out, where just relaxing, and letting impressions form in their own time, and in their own way, can work much better ..." Exactly! Even when we are not tense, frustrated, or fed up, we, and our brains, may perceive things differently when we are making comparisons, rather than relaxing and just letting the music flow over us. There may be something to be said for listening for a few weeks to a sound system set up one way, then a few weeks with it set up another way.


----------



## garygarrison

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> My comment about "Grey Beards" has nothing to do with any reference, whatsoever, to one's Age. It was a compliment, of the highest orders, with regard to the group's Knowledge and Wisdom about the subject topics under discussion. It is indeed a high Honor and sing of great respect to be considered a "Grey Beard" even though you may not have a beard. I guess it has different meanings (I looked it up in Urban Dictionary for the first time in my life today) I now see it can be intended as an insult or derogatory. When used in my previous career, it was a Moniker of High Regard.


I think we all took it as a compliment. I know I did.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> "And sometimes, trying hard can be an impediment to figuring things out, where just relaxing, and letting impressions form in their own time, and in their own way, can work much better ..." Exactly! Even when we are not tense, frustrated, or fed up, we, and our brains, may perceive things differently when we are making comparisons, rather than relaxing and just letting the music flow over us. There may be something to be said for listening for a few weeks to a sound system set up one way, then a few weeks with it set up another way.


There's a lot to be said for "listening for a few weeks to a sound system set up one way, then a few weeks with it set up another way". 

At one stage years ago I got into tweaking quite heavily. I'd make a change to something, compare it to the previous result, and work out what was better and more importantly what was worse. I'd then tweak again to try and fix what was worse, compare, and repeat. I focussed on the things which were worse every time, and continually got improvements by changing or adding something but each time the comparison I made was only with the previous state of the system. I was trying too hard by focussing too closely.

One day I compared the current state of affairs to how things were when I started the latest round of tweaks about 6 or 7 changes previously and discovered that though I had made an improvement in a weakness every time I had made a change, every one of those improvements had had a cost elsewhere in something that had originally been quite good. I took out every tweak except the first one I had made and the sound improved. Continually focussing on weaknesses and addressing them was trying too hard. I lost sight of the overall result because I was only focussing on one specific problem each time and I didn't pay attention to the big picture. It's the perfect example of the old line about "not being able to see the forest for the trees". Trees are important, you can't have a forest without trees, but the trees are the fine detail and the forest is the big picture. The big picture is what really counts. 

You step in close to see the trees but you need to step back to see the forest. Listening to a setup for a few weeks before making final judgements is how we step back to see the forest.


----------



## In.vincible

Whenever I get anything new, I tend to want to tweak, tweak tweak. In this case it's the speakers, but it's making me rethink some of my AVR settings as well. So far, I think I do like the Audyssey curve better than no EQ. It tames certain frequencies and seems to clean up the sound overall. DEQ is off again, as it seems to add bloat no matter what I do. The weird thing is, it's almost easier to hear something is "off" from another room. I have my main system playing in the living room now, and I can hear it from my computer room. It sounds pretty good. When I did the same thing the other night with DEQ on, bass sounded way too heavy and out of balance.

I think I'm pretty good for now with music by simply using the Audyssey curve, doing -2 on the treble, turning off DEQ and bumping the sub up a bit. I'll try to chill for a while and just listen.

One other thing I'm wondering is if some of the brightness/harshness I'm hearing is due to my Chromecast Audio. I have it connected via toslink to my AVR, and I've read that the optical connection is quite jittery. I want to squeeze the most quality out of this thing as I can, so I ordered one of these:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KKFTM5S/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I've read some good reviews, but who knows if it'll pan out. Worst case, I can just return it. I also thought about looking into an external DAC, but it seems like it'd be a waste since I'm not listening in pure direct mode, and my AVR would just re-digitize the incoming signal?


----------



## b_dogg623

*Audyssey app for custom EQ?*

Does anyone have an update or know when Audyssey will release this phone app for the custom EQ? Last I heard it was scheduled for a March release but, can't seem to locate it or find any info on it.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Whenever I get anything new, I tend to want to tweak, tweak tweak. In this case it's the speakers, but it's making me rethink some of my AVR settings as well. So far, I think I do like the Audyssey curve better than no EQ. It tames certain frequencies and seems to clean up the sound overall. DEQ is off again, as it seems to add bloat no matter what I do. The weird thing is, it's almost easier to hear something is "off" from another room. I have my main system playing in the living room now, and I can hear it from my computer room. It sounds pretty good. When I did the same thing the other night with DEQ on, bass sounded way too heavy and out of balance.
> 
> I think I'm pretty good for now with music by simply using the Audyssey curve, doing -2 on the treble, turning off DEQ and bumping the sub up a bit. I'll try to chill for a while and just listen.
> 
> One other thing I'm wondering is if some of the brightness/harshness I'm hearing is due to my Chromecast Audio. I have it connected via toslink to my AVR, and I've read that the optical connection is quite jittery. I want to squeeze the most quality out of this thing as I can, so I ordered one of these:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01KKFTM5S/ref=od_aui_detailpages00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
> 
> I've read some good reviews, but who knows if it'll pan out. Worst case, I can just return it. I also thought about looking into an external DAC, but it seems like it'd be a waste since I'm not listening in pure direct mode, and my AVR would just re-digitize the incoming signal?


Always happy to come across another tweakaholic, though I find I'm getting much less so as I get older.

Yesterday I watched a podcast that may be of interest to you: https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/345?autostart=false

It's nearly 80 minutes long and that's a pain but there's a lot of interesting comments on the topic of room correction along the way. Paul Hales, the interviewee, isn't a fan of systems like Audyssey but he got me thinking about some of the things that Audyssey does and I did some experimenting last night. I'll do some more tonight.

I've been using Audyssey Reference with a boost to my subs and DEQ turned on. What I tried last night was Audyssey off, the same boost to my subs, Cinema EQ turned on, and a 2dB bass boost and 2dB treble cut using the tone controls. It didn't sound bad at all. As Gary often says, turning DEQ off makes the sound a little clearer/more transparent but I like the bass boost it provides. The tone controls gave me the bit extra I wanted. I needed the treble cut in order to get rid of some sibilance.

You can use Cinema EQ with Audyssey so what I want to try tonight is Audyssey Flat on, Cinema EQ on, with my current sub boost and the same tone control settings.

All of this was prompted by Paul Hales' comments about the X Curve, the EQ curve that is used to standardise frequency response in theatres and that part is towards the end of the podcast, starting a few minutes before or after the hour mark. You may want to have a look at that part of the podcast and maybe watch the whole thing if that last part proves interesting to you.

As we've all been saying, there's more than a few ways of tweaking Audyssey when you really decide to start playing around.

You mentioned being easier to hear if things are "off" from another room. Audiophiles have been aware of that for a long time and you sometimes see mention of "the other room test" which means walking into the next room to listen. I don't think it's a good test for everything but it does seem to make it easier to hear some things so it's always worth while paying a bit of attention if things do sound off to you when you are in the next room.


----------



## mavericks64

*Wish I could save multiple settings!*

I really wish I could save multiple Audyssey calibration curves. One for when I'm only one in room. One for when it is me +1. One for when all seats in both rows are full. Seems like that is a feature set that would be very popular.


----------



## David Aiken

mavericks64 said:


> I really wish I could save multiple Audyssey calibration curves. One for when I'm only one in room. One for when it is me +1. One for when all seats in both rows are full. Seems like that is a feature set that would be very popular.


I really wish I could save multiple Audyssey calibrations. One for when I'm in the chair directly in front of the system and one for when I'm being a couch potato and sprawling on the sofa off to one side of the chair directly in front of the system


----------



## pbarach

David Aiken said:


> I really wish I could save multiple Audyssey calibrations. One for when I'm in the chair directly in front of the system and one for when I'm being a couch potato and sprawling on the sofa off to one side of the chair directly in front of the system


Well, you can do this with some AVRs that let you save the calibration file on a PC. You just run the calibration for each location, save both, and then load the one you want. It only takes 10 minutes to switch files


----------



## David Aiken

pbarach said:


> Well, you can do this with some AVRs that let you save the calibration file on a PC. You just run the calibration for each location, save both, and then load the one you want. It only takes 10 minutes to switch files


Precisely :-(

I may not have grown up in the age of instant gratification but I seemed to have succumbed to its guiding principle.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> Always happy to come across another tweakaholic, though I find I'm getting much less so as I get older.
> 
> Yesterday I watched a podcast that may be of interest to you: https://twit.tv/shows/home-theater-geeks/episodes/345?autostart=false
> 
> It's nearly 80 minutes long and that's a pain but there's a lot of interesting comments on the topic of room correction along the way. Paul Hales, the interviewee, isn't a fan of systems like Audyssey but he got me thinking about some of the things that Audyssey does and I did some experimenting last night. I'll do some more tonight.
> 
> I've been using Audyssey Reference with a boost to my subs and DEQ turned on. What I tried last night was Audyssey off, the same boost to my subs, Cinema EQ turned on, and a 2dB bass boost and 2dB treble cut using the tone controls. It didn't sound bad at all. As Gary often says, turning DEQ off makes the sound a little clearer/more transparent but I like the bass boost it provides. The tone controls gave me the bit extra I wanted. I needed the treble cut in order to get rid of some sibilance.
> 
> You can use Cinema EQ with Audyssey so what I want to try tonight is Audyssey Flat on, Cinema EQ on, with my current sub boost and the same tone control settings.
> 
> All of this was prompted by Paul Hales' comments about the X Curve, the EQ curve that is used to standardise frequency response in theatres and that part is towards the end of the podcast, starting a few minutes before or after the hour mark. You may want to have a look at that part of the podcast and maybe watch the whole thing if that last part proves interesting to you.
> 
> As we've all been saying, there's more than a few ways of tweaking Audyssey when you really decide to start playing around.
> 
> You mentioned being easier to hear if things are "off" from another room. Audiophiles have been aware of that for a long time and you sometimes see mention of "the other room test" which means walking into the next room to listen. I don't think it's a good test for everything but it does seem to make it easier to hear some things so it's always worth while paying a bit of attention if things do sound off to you when you are in the next room.


Interesting. I'll have to check out that podcast if I get some time.

I don't have cinema EQ on my AVR, just Audyssey MultEQ, but even that is enough for me to play around with. So I'm back to DEQ on for music, LOL. Here's the curious thing: if I listen in pure direct mode (no sub), there is more bass than with Audyssey on with DEQ off. If I turn DEQ back on, the amount of bass and fullness sounds similar to pure direct. This seems preferable because the Audyssey curve tames a bit of the brightness I'm hearing. I think I'd be totally happy with pure direct, but the music sounds a little harsher that way.

I'm back to Audyssey and DEQ at -15 for now. I may add just a click or two of boost to the sub, but the amount of bass seems fairly balanced now. Audyssey did a surprisingly good job of setting my speaker levels. My Radioshack meter said they were all at 75 dB, and my sub read 72-73 (which is right around 75 once you add in the correction).

I wasn't aware of this "other room test", but it seems to work. I'll have to read more about that.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> Interesting. I'll have to check out that podcast if I get some time.
> 
> I don't have cinema EQ on my AVR, just Audyssey MultEQ, but even that is enough for me to play around with. So I'm back to DEQ on for music, LOL. Here's the curious thing: if I listen in pure direct mode (no sub), there is more bass than with Audyssey on with DEQ off. If I turn DEQ back on, the amount of bass and fullness sounds similar to pure direct. This seems preferable because the Audyssey curve tames a bit of the brightness I'm hearing. I think I'd be totally happy with pure direct, but the music sounds a little harsher that way.
> 
> I'm back to Audyssey and DEQ at -15 for now. I may add just a click or two of boost to the sub, but the amount of bass seems fairly balanced now. Audyssey did a surprisingly good job of setting my speaker levels. My Radioshack meter said they were all at 75 dB, and my sub read 72-73 (which is right around 75 once you add in the correction).
> 
> I wasn't aware of this "other room test", but it seems to work. I'll have to read more about that.


Hi,

I have two observations to make about what you are experiencing, as you experiment with different settings. Both observations are just speculative. First, my listening experience is not 100% consistent from day-to-day. The way I perceive what I am hearing varies, not only depending on the material, but on my own psycho-acoustic reactions. Whether those reactions are mood-based, or something else, I can't say. But, I think that you could make the same observation about any of our senses, including reactions to color, or to our appetite for certain foods. I don't know about you, but some foods taste better to me, on some days, than they do on others. And, the food is essentially the same.

The second observation is that when you listen with Pure Direct, you may hear more bass because Audyssey is no longer taming some of the bass frequencies that need taming. Hearing more bass does not mean that you are necessarily hearing clearer bass. In fact, it is frequently just the opposite. Removing the effects of constructive interference (peaks) in the bass could easily sound like less bass. That is not an uncommon reaction when Audyssey is first employed. And, the solution, as you have discovered is either DEQ, which boosts the bass, or adding your own sub boost, either with, or without DEQ.

All I am really saying here is a repeat of advice you have already been given, to just allow yourself the opportunity to get used to one method of listening at a time. I honestly don't think that I could switch multiple settings back-and-forth, and arrive at any definitive conclusions. (I'm not saying that you can't.) What works best for me is to listen to a setting for a few days, with a variety of different material, to establish a good listening baseline, and then make gradual adjustments, so that I can appreciate the acoustic differences in a nice, relaxed way.

It takes time to learn to hear nuances in your bass--the difference between more bass and clearer bass, for instance. And, it takes time to learn what settings you prefer, for what type of listening material. For some people, that may involve settling on a single compromise setting that works (relatively) best for everything. For others, that may involve learning which settings to change, as they change material. I'm not trying to guide you in any particular direction here. I'm simply counseling some patience, as you discover your preferred direction.

And, meanwhile, your update posts are interesting, and may help someone else, who is silently reading along, and undertaking a similar process. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have two observations to make about what you are experiencing, as you experiment with different settings. Both observations are just speculative. First, my listening experience is not 100% consistent from day-to-day. The way I perceive what I am hearing varies, not only depending on the material, but on my own psycho-acoustic reactions. Whether those reactions are mood-based, or something else, I can't say. But, I think that you could make the same observation about any of our senses, including reactions to color, or to our appetite for certain foods. I don't know about you, but some foods taste better to me, on some days, than they do on others. And, the food is essentially the same.
> 
> The second observation is that when you listen with Pure Direct, you may hear more bass because Audyssey is no longer taming some of the bass frequencies that need taming. Hearing more bass does not mean that you are necessarily hearing clearer bass. In fact, it is frequently just the opposite. Removing the effects of constructive interference (peaks) in the bass could easily sound like less bass. That is not an uncommon reaction when Audyssey is first employed. And, the solution, as you have discovered is either DEQ, which boosts the bass, or adding your own sub boost, either with, or without DEQ.
> 
> All I am really saying here is a repeat of advice you have already been given, to just allow yourself the opportunity to get used to one method of listening at a time. I honestly don't think that I could switch multiple settings back-and-forth, and arrive at any definitive conclusions. (I'm not saying that you can't.) What works best for me is to listen to a setting for a few days, with a variety of different material, to establish a good listening baseline, and then make gradual adjustments, so that I can appreciate the acoustic differences in a nice, relaxed way.
> 
> It takes time to learn to hear nuances in your bass--the difference between more bass and clearer bass, for instance. And, it takes time to learn what settings you prefer, for what type of listening material. For some people, that may involve settling on a single compromise setting that works (relatively) best for everything. For others, that may involve learning which settings to change, as they change material. I'm not trying to guide you in any particular direction here. I'm simply counseling some patience, as you discover your preferred direction.
> 
> And, meanwhile, your update posts are interesting, and may help someone else, who is silently reading along, and undertaking a similar process.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Sounds like great advice. Thanks! I've done many hours of listening this week, and I think I'm finally getting things dialed in to my liking 

It will be interesting to measure my different settings and see if the graphs agree with what I'm hearing.


----------



## In.vincible

One other thing...here is the measured freq. response of my speakers from Stereophile. Looks like a decent bass hump, which could explain what I'm hearing with no EQ?


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> One other thing...here is the measured freq. response of my speakers from Stereophile. Looks like a decent bass hump, which could explain what I'm hearing with no EQ?


That is certainly possible. One of the things that is very hard to predict (and I definitely don't have a clue how to do it) is what the frequency response of a speaker will be like, in a particular position, in a particular room. And, that is because the room exerts so much influence on the native sound of the speaker, especially at modal frequencies, but really throughout the passband.

But, FWIW, I think that you are making a very good guess as to why you might hear more bass without Audyssey engaged.


----------



## David Aiken

OK, some observations from my play with a couple of different settings over the last 2 nights.

As I said in an earlier response to In.vincible, this was prompted by some comments by Paul Hales in a podcast I linked to. Hales made some comments about harshness/brightness of sound that interested me, and then got talking about modifying the "X Curve" which I had never heard of in order to eliminate those problems.

The X Curve turned out to be the standard EQ curve that many commercial cinemas are calibrated to, and the curve that the systems used in mastering studios for mastering movie soundtracks for cinema playback are calibrated to. Basically it's rolls off below 63HZ, flat from 63Hz to 2 kHz, rolls off at 3dB/octave from 2kHz to 10kHz, and rolls off at 6dB/octave above 10kHz so it isn't Flat and it looks different to what we know about Audyssey Reference which has a bit of a midrange dip before rising again and then rolling off in the high frequencies. Hales' suggestion for eliminating the harshness he hears in smaller rooms with that X Curve is raising the bass frequencies a bit, lowering the mids up to 2 kHz a bit, and using a gentler roll off slope above that. Somewhere earlier in the presentation I seem to remember a comment about mid range dips like Audyssey Reference has can sometimes contribute to harshness because of the elevated area just above the dip.

So, how to get the type of curve Hales is suggesting? My Marantz 6010 has an EQ curve called Cinema EQ which is not an Audyssey curve and is found separately in the Audio settings menu. I tried Audyssey off while keeping my normal sub boost and adding a bit of bass boost with tone controls and using the Cinema EQ curve which, because Audyssey was not active, was going to tailor the signal but not include speaker correction. That didn't sound bad, actually quite reasonable, but had more sibilance than I liked so I added a treble cut using the tone controls. That sounded promising but I was watching an over the air TV news broadcast at the time. When I started watching an actual show a little later the treble sounded flat and I ended up cancelling the treble boost without getting the sibilance I noticed with the over the air broadcast which often sound a little sibilant to me and things still sounded promising. I swapped to a Blu-ray of a tv series that I was watching after the broadcast show ended and the DTS HDMA stereo soundtrack from it sounded quite good. That's where I left it for the night but I did finish up with the impression that the nature of the sound track seemed to make more of a difference with this approach than it did when using my usual Audyssey Reference/sub boost/DEQ on settings.

Last night I tried an alternative. I turned Audyssey on and selected the Flat curve, kept my usual sub boost and the bass tone boost, no treble tone boost, and Cinema EQ on settings from the previous night and watched the first Hunger Games movie from UHD disc. I liked the sound and I preferred the mids and highs with those settings to the mids and highs with Audyssey Reference and DEQ on. It was a small difference but things sounded slightly more natural to me and voices tended to sound a little clearer.

Bass sounded different. It sounded lighter than it does with DEQ on at my listening levels, and lighter than it had sounded the previous night with Audyssey off. Obviously I've got a bit of a mid bass/upper bass bump in my room without Audyssey which I lose with Audyssey on but my bass tone control boost was not matching the boost I get from DEQ. I felt the bass sounded a little lean or thin but it didn't sound bad, it sounded clean, and in some ways it sounded better than it does with DEQ on. Overall I quite liked the end result but I may end up trying to do a bit more boosting in the bass, either with the sub trims or the bass tone control.

What can we learn from this? Well, I learnt was that movies are mastered for playback on a system with a specific curve I didn't know about and that that curve is not like the Audyssey Reference curve in a couple of ways. Mike may be aware of the X Curve since he's more up on the mastering standards than I am and may have some comment on that. Apart from that I basically confirmed that the Audyssey Reference curve isn't everybody's ideal response but that isn't anything new to any of us. If I were going to make a suggestion to Audyssey for a third curve option besides Flat and Reference, I'd suggest a modification to the Reference curve which didn't have the mid range dip and perhaps started rolling off gently a little lower in frequency than the roll off point in the Reference curve.

And along the way I learnt a new way of tinkering with the results that Audyssey gives us plus I took away a bit more on the sorts of things involved in brightness/harshness from Paul Hales' comments on the podcast that started this off for me.

So that's my progress report. I'll follow Gary's advice and live with this for a couple of weeks, maybe play with my sub boost and bass tone control boost a little, and see what I think at the end of that period.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> First, my listening experience is not 100% consistent from day-to-day. The way I perceive what I am hearing varies, not only depending on the material, but on my own psycho-acoustic reactions. Whether those reactions are mood-based, or something else, I can't say.


This is my experience, exactly. I used to joke that my equipment had moods. I didn't mention that I was referring to my mental equipment. I once had a terrible job (I quit in about a month). I had to get up very early in the morning, which is not my nature. I put on the same Telemann recording every morning, sat in exactly the same place, and the equipment had the same warm-up time (virtually none). I hoped that after Side A was over (25 minutes) I would feel like a human being. The Telemann sounded different day to day, sometimes a little different, sometimes quite a bit..


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> OK, some observations from my play with a couple of different settings over the last 2 nights.
> 
> As I said in an earlier response to In.vincible, this was prompted by some comments by Paul Hales in a podcast I linked to. Hales made some comments about harshness/brightness of sound that interested me, and then got talking about modifying the "X Curve" which I had never heard of in order to eliminate those problems.
> 
> 
> So that's my progress report. I'll follow Gary's advice and live with this for a couple of weeks, maybe play with my sub boost and bass tone control boost a little, and see what I think at the end of that period.


Very interesting read David. Seems you are taking every bit out of tinkering your system and boy, that's the way to go, right? 

One thing I'd really be interested in to know is what MV setting(s) were you using during these above setups. As we already know our ears/hearing is not only frequency dependent, but that frequency dependency is heavily level dependent.


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> That is certainly possible. One of the things that is very hard to predict (and I definitely don't have a clue how to do it) is what the frequency response of a speaker will be like, in a particular position, in a particular room. And, that is because the room exerts so much influence on the native sound of the speaker, especially at modal frequencies, but really throughout the passband.
> 
> But, FWIW, I think that you are making a very good guess as to why you might hear more bass without Audyssey engaged.


My ears are telling me that Audyssey is taking a bit of the peakiness out of the bass, at least it seems that way. I used to always listen to music using bypass L/R mode, so I could be used to those peaks. At any rate, bass seems flatter with it on, and DEQ seems to help add some fullness. A lot of it is song dependent, but if I had to pick, I'd say the ref. offset at 15 dB with just a little boost on the sub sounds real good. If I used ref. offset 10 dB, I think I might want to _reduce_ the sub a hair from where Audyssey put it.


----------



## BGLeduc

In.vincible said:


> One other thing...here is the measured freq. response of my speakers from Stereophile. Looks like a decent bass hump, which could explain what I'm hearing with no EQ?


That looks like it is from Fremer's room. 

Many of the measurements from his room show a pretty substantial peak in the low end. Is there anything in JA's report to say where they were measured?


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> Very interesting read David. Seems you are taking every bit out of tinkering your system and boy, that's the way to go, right?
> 
> One thing I'd really be interested in to know is what MV setting(s) were you using during these above setups. As we already know our ears/hearing is not only frequency dependent, but that frequency dependency is heavily level dependent.


Feri,

MV for The Hunger Games was -15 and I tend to use between -20 to -15 for most movies. There's only a very few movies where I've felt a need to turn things up to around -5 which I think is as high as I've ever gone for a movie.

MV for the TV viewing was somewhere between -25 or so and -20. I tend to listen to TV at lower MV levels than I do movies or other disc based content and I can't remember ever setting MV higher than -20 with TV broadcasts and that only very rarely. The channel I was watching was our Australian national broadcaster which is commercial free, apart from their ads for their own shows and programming. I might set levels a little lower with commercial channels. The TV shows I watched had considerably less low bass content than The Hunger Games and I didn't feel they were "bass shy", but that would be because there is no real low bass in soundtracks for news and current affairs programs, and the one TV show I watched was a British crime drama which was all basically conversation and no car chases, gunshots or bomb blasts or anything else where they might pump the bass up and a rather sedate musical background score.

As for the tinkering, I used to tweak a lot at one stage but I stopped and these days I only tend to tweak rarely but when I do I can find myself "binge tweaking" for a few days. I would not have started playing with this bit of tinkering had it not been for the podcast which included comments on brightness/hardness which is a recurring topic here plus mention of a different EQ target curve which I had not heard of. Mention of either on their own probably would not have motivated me but the combination of both did. The devil made work for idle hands, and ears.


----------



## pbarach

In.vincible said:


> One other thing...here is the measured freq. response of my speakers from Stereophile. Looks like a decent bass hump, which could explain what I'm hearing with no EQ?


Atkinson's measurements usually describe this bass hump as a measurement artifact. Offhand, I can't remember the exact wording he uses.


----------



## BGLeduc

pbarach said:


> Atkinson's measurements usually describe this bass hump as a measurement artifact. Offhand, I can't remember the exact wording he uses.


He does indeed, but those are the initial nearfield measurements, and the rise is normally not so pronounced.

This looks like the the in room averaged plot he usually publishes.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> Feri,
> 
> MV for The Hunger Games was -15 and I tend to use between -20 to -15 for most movies. There's only a very few movies where I've felt a need to turn things up to around -5 which I think is as high as I've ever gone for a movie.
> 
> MV for the TV viewing was somewhere between -25 or so and -20. I tend to listen to TV at lower MV levels than I do movies or other disc based content and I can't remember ever setting MV higher than -20 with TV broadcasts and that only very rarely. The channel I was watching was our Australian national broadcaster which is commercial free, apart from their ads for their own shows and programming. I might set levels a little lower with commercial channels. The TV shows I watched had considerably less low bass content than The Hunger Games and I didn't feel they were "bass shy", but that would be because there is no real low bass in soundtracks for news and current affairs programs, and the one TV show I watched was a British crime drama which was all basically conversation and no car chases, gunshots or bomb blasts or anything else where they might pump the bass up and a rather sedate musical background score.
> 
> As for the tinkering, I used to tweak a lot at one stage but I stopped and these days I only tend to tweak rarely but when I do I can find myself "binge tweaking" for a few days. I would not have started playing with this bit of tinkering had it not been for the podcast which included comments on brightness/hardness which is a recurring topic here plus mention of a different EQ target curve which I had not heard of. Mention of either on their own probably would not have motivated me but the combination of both did. The devil made work for idle hands, and ears.



Haha. Binge tweaking. I know the feeling. Getting new speakers will do that  I'm finally chilling a bit.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> One other thing...here is the measured freq. response of my speakers from Stereophile. Looks like a decent bass hump, which could explain what I'm hearing with no EQ?





David Aiken said:


> OK, some observations from my play with a couple of different settings over the last 2 nights.
> 
> As I said in an earlier response to In.vincible, this was prompted by some comments by Paul Hales in a podcast I linked to. Hales made some comments about harshness/brightness of sound that interested me, and then got talking about modifying the "X Curve" which I had never heard of in order to eliminate those problems.
> 
> The X Curve turned out to be the standard EQ curve that many commercial cinemas are calibrated to, and the curve that the systems used in mastering studios for mastering movie soundtracks for cinema playback are calibrated to. Basically it's rolls off below 63HZ, flat from 63Hz to 2 kHz, rolls off at 3dB/octave from 2kHz to 10kHz, and rolls off at 6dB/octave above 10kHz so it isn't Flat and it looks different to what we know about Audyssey Reference which has a bit of a midrange dip before rising again and then rolling off in the high frequencies. Hales' suggestion for eliminating the harshness he hears in smaller rooms with that X Curve is raising the bass frequencies a bit, lowering the mids up to 2 kHz a bit, and using a gentler roll off slope above that. S
> What can we learn from this? Well, I learnt was that movies are mastered for playback on a system with a specific curve I didn't know about and that that curve is not like the Audyssey Reference curve in a couple of ways. Mike may be aware of the X Curve since he's more up on the mastering standards than I am and may have some comment on that. Apart from that I basically confirmed that the Audyssey Reference curve isn't everybody's ideal response but that isn't anything new to any of us. If I were going to make a suggestion to Audyssey for a third curve option besides Flat and Reference, I'd suggest a modification to the Reference curve which didn't have the mid range dip and perhaps started rolling off gently a little lower in frequency than the roll off point in the Reference curve ...
> 
> And along the way I learnt a new way of tinkering with the results that Audyssey gives us plus I took away a bit more on the sorts of things involved in brightness/harshness from Paul Hales' comments on the podcast that started this off for me.
> 
> So that's my progress report. I'll follow Gary's advice and live with this for a couple of weeks, maybe play with my sub boost and bass tone control boost a little, and see what I think at the end of that period.


In.vincible: The curve you posted is about par for the course for a good speaker. Different speakers have bumps and dips in different places, but I'm convinced that none are flat in a real room or in an anechoic chamber, for that matter. An engineer at JBL said that most audiophiles like a little bump at 80 to 100 Hz, as long as the manufacturers assure them that the speaker is, indeed, flat. While Audyssey should be able to smooth out your speaker's curve easily (to about +/- 2.5 dB), that might be more of a first step than the best goal. Some research has shown that most people prefer a curve that is elevated in the bass and slightly depressed in the treble, and that listeners choose this curve as being "flat" or "natural" over a truly pretty flat curve. I'd guess that this is less true if one plays back at reference level, but I'm not sure -- I like bass boost, and consider it "natural" sounding (even though I am aware ... ) and I am currently playing movies louder than most, at 5 to 9 dB below reference. I developed a "house curve" *by ear*, using Audyssey Flat and NO DEQ, plus sub boost and bass tone control boost that, when measured, turns out to be pretty flat above about 600 Hz, and gradually rises toward the bass end, reaching + 4 dB at 200 Hz, + 8 dB at 100 Hz, and about + 10 dB at 40 Hz. Obviously, I couldn't have done that with sub boost alone*; *I needed the bass tone control, as well. It sounds great with most Blu-rays*;* a few require tweaking. Even my house curve for most movies changes from time to time. With SACDs and DVD-As, the house curve tends to do fine, but garden variety CDs are more likely to require TLC.

David, I believe Chris K said that the Audyssey Reference curve was a modification of the auditorium/theater curve, adjusted to the needs of rooms the size of most Home Theaters. In other words, a less extreme version of the X curve (plus the midrange comp). There is certainly not the bass attenuation below 63 Hz that the X curve has. The SMPTE correction of the X curve for "small" rooms (screening rooms and art houses) looks a lot like Audyssey Reference at the top end. I doubt if the newest cinemas are calibrated to the X curve anymore, at least not in the bass, because I hear plenty of bass below 63 Hz when we go out to a movie, and in multiplexes, even from the theater next door! Studio control rooms are shockingly different from one another. Keith posted a graph of about 10 control room frequency sweeps a few years ago. Man were they different! The X curve may have been -- in part -- a compromise to make the EQ work for the emerging Dolby soundtracks while still not being offensive when used with magnetic tracks, or the horrible old optical tracks, thus making life simpler for theater owners with automated projection booths and the candy counter people in charge. The X curve arrived in the very early '70s, about the same time Dolby got involved. The best 70mm theaters had 3 curves, the old Academy curve for 35mm optical, the X curve for new Dolby 35 mm, and a mysterious black box (actually, it was blue) for 70 mm 6 channel magnetic, and 35 mm magnetic. The magnetic EQ processor reportedly had neither the extreme roll-off that the Academy curve had, nor the more moderate roll-off the X curve had, but the JBL or Altec theater speakers dropped like a rock above about 10K (down as much as 15 dB above about 12.5 K), providing a roll-off at the very top. This may be why most sources specify Todd-AO as reaching 12K, even though the mag soundtracks themselves extended much higher. Later, some, but, not all theaters, used a full range tweeter, making standardization more difficult. Most articles largely ignore magnetic soundtracks, as though the industry went directly from old optical to X curve Dolby optical (later, digital). This ignores some of the best theater sound ever, multitrack magnetic, with its own curve. Somewhere, there is an article called something like "How the X curve ruined the movies." I Googled it, but failed to find it. I'll try again later. There is another one, for the very patient, called something like "The X curve is not an EQ curve." 

Now, sibilance ... in my mind, TV broadcasts don't count! They are liable to be relatively uncrafted. Film-like TV (e.g. Game of Thrones) should not have sibilance. I have never heard it when playing a Blu-ray movie, but have heard it on Lp records of movie soundtracks containing singing or dialog. The Blu-ray of the third try restored Oklahoma! (disk with the Todd-AO transfer) has no sibilance during the speaking in "Poor Judd is Dead," but the Lp record does, using the same room and equipment except for the disk player v.s. the record player. IMO movie sound people do an excellent job of eliminating sibilance.


----------



## David Aiken

Bits and pieces



garygarrison said:


> Some research has shown that most people prefer a curve that is elevated in the bass and slightly depressed in the treble, and that listeners choose this curve as being "flat" or "natural" over a truly pretty flat curve.


Assuming you take live music as your 'reference standard' then the sound coming off the instrument or out of the singer's mouth is not what you hear by the time it gets to you. You get high frequency absorption by the air, room reinforcement or lack of it at low frequencies due to the presence or absence of walls/floor/ceiling and their nature, and so on. Whatever "natural sound" is, and it changes from instrument or voice to instrument or voice, and from one performance/listening environment to another, and from one listening distance to another, what we hear is not the sound as it left the instrument or the singer's mouth. If we assume that what leaves the instrument or singer's mouth will be reproduced faithfully by a flat response, what we hear in real life is almost never flat but it is always "natural". When we're talking about sound the thing the words "flat", "natural" and "accurate" are not is interchangeable. 

You and I both know that but we're both allowed to not say how long it took us to realise that  The days of my ignorance were bliss, and then things got complicated…



> I'd guess that this is less true if one plays back at reference level, but I'm not sure -- I like bass boost, and consider it "natural" sounding (even though I am aware ... ) and I am currently playing movies louder than most, at 5 to 9 dB below reference. I developed a "house curve" *by ear*, using Audyssey Flat and NO DEQ, plus sub boost and bass tone control boost that, when measured, turns out to be pretty flat above about 600 Hz, and gradually rises toward the bass end, reaching + 4 dB at 200 Hz, + 8 dB at 100 Hz, and about + 10 dB at 40 Hz. Obviously, I couldn't have done that with sub boost alone*; *I needed the bass tone control, as well. It sounds great with most Blu-rays*;* a few require tweaking. Even my house curve for most movies changes from time to time. With SACDs and DVD-As, the house curve tends to do fine, but garden variety CDs are more likely to require TLC.


I think I'm on my way to developing a more "innovative" house curve of my own than the simple combination of Audyssey Reference + sub boost + DEQ that I've been using. It looks like relying on Audyssey Flat and no DEQ like yours does.



> David, I believe Chris K said that the Audyssey Reference curve was a modification of the auditorium/theater curve, adjusted to the needs of rooms the size of most Home Theaters. In other words, a less extreme version of the X curve (plus the midrange comp). … Somewhere, there is an article called something like "How the X curve ruined the movies." I Googled it, but failed to find it. I'll try again later. There is another one, for the very patient, called something like "The X curve is not an EQ curve."


It's amazing how things change over time and fashions develop. How long before we start to see the equivalent of fashion parades for EQ curves, that is if we're not there already.

I'd like to read those articles if you can find links.




> Now, sibilance ... in my mind, TV broadcasts don't count! They are liable to be relatively uncrafted. Film-like TV (e.g. Game of Thrones) should not have sibilance.


I agree. I rarely hear sibilance from well mastered discs but I often hear it from TV broadcasts. With TV broadcasts, well recorded TV series are nowhere near as bad as things like a live news broadcast. Stuff that's well recorded and what is broadcast is the recording fares a lot better than live broadcasting but I think something in broadcasting, possibly lossy compression in order to save bandwidth, certainly seems to generate sibilance. If I'm not getting sibilance from well recorded and mastered discs, I live with it when it comes to TV broadcasts unless it gets to the point where I have to actually start changing settings.


----------



## In.vincible

I may tweak things more once I get my mic and use REW. At the moment, I'm back to DEQ off, Audyssey curve and sub at +3. Music is sounding pretty good with these settings. I wish music was as easy as movies. I watched Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides last night, and it sounded spectacular with the default Audyssey cal. If only there were some standards for music, I think DEQ would make a lot more sense when listening, but mastering (if you can even call it that for modern music) is just all over the place. At least if I just boost the sub, it's a known constant. DEQ is changing things on the fly and can have varying effects from track to track.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> DEQ is changing things on the fly and can have varying effects from track to track.


DEQ doesn't really change things "on the fly". The amount of EQ that DEQ applies depends on the relationship between the master volume setting you set and reference level. If you don't change your master volume setting, DEQ should not change.

Soundtracks are mastered as a single track. Set your master volume level at the start of a movie and you can usually leave it untouched for the whole movie, and while there will be loud passages and soft passages and average passages throughout the movie, because the movie is mastered as a whole and you aren't changing your master volume setting, DEQ works fine.

With music, each track can be mastered differently. If you're not changing your master volume setting from track to track, DEQ isn't changing from track to track but the mastering of the music may change from track to track and the same amount of DEQ may not be appropriate for each track, at least for your tastes. If what is changing in the mastering is something which affects our perception of the volume of the music, for example average level, or minimum level, or the amount of dynamic compression, the effect of the same amount of DEQ on each track is going to be different but the difference is not because DEQ is doing anything different, it's because the music is being mastered differently.


----------



## garygarrison

I'm not sure, but it seems that the *other *compensation DEQ does is variable, and evidently is done just ahead of when the music is passed on to us. I would have to go back and read Audyssey's explanation, but I think this second compensation is independent of the MV setting. Yes? No? Feri explains it this way*:* 



mogorf said:


> ... during a passage that includes loud and soft parts as the program material advances DEQ does another compensation for the human ears "on the fly", or in other words in real time.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> I'm not sure, but it seems that the *other *compensation DEQ does is variable, and evidently is done just ahead of when the music is passed on to us. I would have to go back and read Audyssey's explanation, but I think this second compensation is independent of the MV setting. Yes? No? Feri explains it this way*:*


Guys, I'm really glad this issue has come up, so in order to clarify how DEQ works, here's a quote directly from Chris K. (from Audyssey thread part I):

Chris K.: "The reason we called it "Dynamic" is exactly because we designed an active loudness meter in each channel! So, there are two things that it monitors: the master volume level and the perceived loudness of the content in each channel as it plays moment-by-moment.

The reason that this is important is the following: consider a passage played at a high volume. It has soft and loud parts as it plays. When the volume is turned down, the soft parts fall on a different perceptual curve than the louder parts. So, the adjustment must be content dependent. This took a lot of research to figure out how to do by correlating content to perception of loudness in real time."


----------



## David Aiken

^

Feri,

I thought I had a good basic understanding of what's going on with our own hearing and the variation in the sensitivity of our hearing at different frequencies at different sound pressure levels, and I can understand compensating for that with what Chris called an 'active loudness meter" monitoring the perceived loudness of the sound but note that I'm not going to add Chris' "in each channel" to that description, I'll come back to that.

An active mechanism based on our perception doesn't make sense to me. When we're listening to music or other sounds, the actual SPL fluctuates on a moment to moment basis and our senstivity to different frequencies fluctuates on a moment to moment basis also. If that is an issue for the music, the musicians compensate by adjusting the tonal character of the sound by playing some pitches louder or softer than others as overall volume levels change. We're meant to hear the music with a constantly changing sensitivity to different frequencies because that's the way our hearing works.

And even if you are going to monitor moment to moment changes, why monitor different channels, why not the total loudness level on a moment to moment basis? As far as I know we're certainly more sensitive to some aspects of sound depending on the direction it comes from, but as far as I know our sensitivity to different frequencies changes is based on overall SPL.

I'm not questioning the accuracy of your quote or that the quote accurately reflects what Audyssey did with DEQ, but it certainly makes me wonder about how they seem to have described what it does on one hand, and makes me wonder about why they went down that road on the other hand.


----------



## Alan P

In.vincible said:


> I don't have cinema EQ on my AVR, just Audyssey MultEQ.........


Yes you do. 

A.K.A. THX Cinema RE-EQ. I believe on most AVRs it is only available under the Audio settings when using DD, DD+ or base DTS.

As I understand it, Cinema RE-EQ is a holdover from the days when films were not re-mastered for home use. It will counter the X-Curve motion picture frequency response spectrum, which in the home often causes movies to sound too bright. It is usually not needed with modern movies and equipment, and IME dramatically "dulls" the sound.


----------



## mthomas47

*DEQ

*I have been thinking of writing something comprehensive about DynamicEQ, lately, and this recent discussion gives me a perfect opportunity. I would like to try to explore both the theory, and the practical application of DEQ, to the extent of my personal understanding. The intent is to develop an objective and analytical treatment of DEQ, although some parts will necessarily reflect my, or other people's, personal observations and experiences.

DEQ Theory:

First, as Feri has noted, the basic theory behind DEQ was entirely valid. DEQ is tied to Reference volumes in 5.1 movies. That was its whole reason for being. At Reference (0.0 MV), DEQ does nothing. Its purpose is to maintain an acoustic balance across the frequency range, as listening levels drop below Reference in 5.1 movies. Since 5.1 movies are recorded, based on Dolby and THX Reference standards, it was possible to design DEQ to react specifically to volume reductions, below that Reference standard, in home theater environments.

The reason why some adjustment to the acoustic balance, in 5.1 movies, might be necessary is predicated upon the Equal Loudness Contours, which define the way human hearing works. Our hearing is strongest in the range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz (corresponding somewhat to the range of the human voice). But, since our hearing is strongest in that range, we tend to require more volume to hear frequencies that are lower than about 400Hz, and higher then about 4000Hz. Considering just the lower frequencies, for a moment, the lower in frequency we go, the more volume we need in order to hear those sounds in equilibrium with sounds in our more normal hearing range.

That is even more important with 5.1 movies than it is for music, because so much of the bass content of a modern action movie is below 60Hz, and below 30Hz, and frequently even below 20Hz. (With music involving acoustical instruments, on the other hand, relatively little content is below about 50Hz or 60Hz.) Movies are mixed with a clear understanding of how human hearing works, and low bass sounds are amplified, with respect to other sounds in the film score, in order to make them appropriately audible. So, explosions or whatever will sound appropriately shocking at Reference, or near Reference, volumes. But, that equilibrium among the easy to hear and harder to hear frequencies is only correct at a listening volume of approximately 0.0 MV. In other words low, mid, and high frequencies are designed to be in equilibrium at close to Reference volumes, but may not be at lower volumes.

So, for instance, if we were to listen at about -10 MV, we would be listening only about half as loud as film mixers intended. And, in that case, we would still hear sounds quite well in our normal 400Hz to 4000Hz hearing range. But, we would need additional amplification of very low, and very high frequency sounds, to hear those sounds in the way that the film mixer intended for us to hear them. Otherwise, for instance, low bass sounds such as the rumble of thunder, or a train on the tracks, or even the sound of an explosion, would be somewhat muted, detracting from the realism of the scene. Since, average listening levels on AVS appear to be in the range of about -20 to -10 MV, and each reduction in SPL of 10db is a halving in perceived volume, that attenuation of low bass sounds can be quite a problem. (It should be noted, that most people seem better able to compensate for corresponding attenuations in high frequency sounds.)

For that reason, DEQ was specifically designed to restore acoustic equilibrium in 5.1 movie scores, at below Reference levels. DEQ does that by providing approximately 2.2db of bass boost, and a little less than 1db of treble boost, for each 5db reduction in master volume below Reference. So, for instance, at -5 MV, DEQ boosts the bass by +2.2db; at -15 MV, the boost would be +6.6db; and at -25 MV, the boost would be +11db. That boost is applied in all channels, including the .1 LFE channel. The bass boost increases gradually, starting almost unnoticeably at about 200Hz, becoming fairly significant at about 60Hz, and reaching full effect from about 30Hz down. Again, the maximum boost at 30Hz, and below, is about +2.2db per -5 MV. The treble boost occurs primarily from 10KHz, and up, and is less than half the boost which is applied to the bass frequencies. Based on anecdotal reports from users, the treble boost in DEQ is so gentle as to be unnoticeable.

DEQ monitors, both the master volume, and the volume of individual channels, in real time, according to its creator, Chris Kyriakakis. DEQ then adds boosts, in accordance with the maximum limits, listed above, based on the actual volume levels and content at that moment. This moment-to-moment action has never been explained in any detail, so I am not able to clarify Audyssey's specific actions in this regard. But I will return to this aspect of DEQ's operation, with some subjective impressions, later in this post.

In addition to restoring acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movie soundtracks, at below Reference levels, the designers of DEQ also decided to add another feature to the DEQ software program. Reasoning that sounds from behind were harder to hear than sounds from in front, or from out to the side (due to our pinnae--ear flaps--which funnel sounds into our ear canals) DEQ was also designed to boost all surround channels. That boost increases, as the master volume goes down, at a fixed rate. I believe that about 1db of surround boost is added for every -5db of MV. So, at a listening level of -15 MV (which is a nominal average) there would be approximately 3db of surround boost.

DEQ Application: The Bass Boost

David is fond of the expression that "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is." In my opinion, that perfectly describes DEQ. There is no denying the validity of what the creators of Audyssey were trying to accomplish with DEQ. But, of all the Audyssey features, I believe that none has been more controversial than DEQ. I think that there are several reasons for this, which I would like to explore in some detail.

First, as noted above, DEQ was specifically designed to maintain acoustic equilibrium, and especially bass equilibrium, at below Reference levels. And, the amount of bass boost applied, corresponds generally to the Equal Loudness Contours, with more boost at 60Hz, than at 90Hz, and with maximum boost occurring at 30Hz and below. It is my opinion, that DEQ doesn't work as well for music for precisely that reason. It is not just that music doesn't have a Reference level to relate the loudness contours to, but music produced by acoustic instruments also doesn't go as low as a typical movie soundtrack. It is my personal opinion that one reason why some people find DEQ heavy for music is because it is heavy. It is applying boost at frequencies lower than we actually need to hear them, for acoustic instruments, and that is creating more prominent undertones that would normally be relatively indistinct in a music score.

I believe that the Reference Level Offsets (RLO) were created, in part, out of a recognition that DEQ did not work as well for music, as it did for 5.1 movies, due in part to the much lesser preponderance of low frequency sounds in most acoustical music tracks. Of course, with electronic music, containing enhanced bass, DEQ might be far more applicable, in order to restore the same acoustic equilibrium that it does in bass-heavy movie soundtracks.

[Note: The Reference Level Offsets control the point at which DEQ engages, by literally offsetting the Reference point. So, at the lightest setting of -5, Reference is offset by -5db, and DEQ does nothing at a master volume of -5, and adds a bass boost of +2.2db at -10 MV. At an RLO setting of -15, which is the strongest setting, DEQ would not actually commence operation until a master volume of -20 was reached, and it would add only +2.2db of bass boost at that master volume. Again, the RLO settings change where DEQ starts its operation, and that in-turn, reduces DEQ's effect at lower listening volumes.]

There are aspects to the nature of the bass boost that I think may also make DEQ less functional in practice than it is in theory. One of them involves a somewhat counterintuitive component of the Equal Loudness Contours. As frequencies go below 200Hz, and especially below 100Hz, they become harder to hear. So, it makes sense to add more bass boost below 100Hz, than it does above 100Hz. But, does it make sense to add the greatest amount of boost below 30Hz? 

We know that, by definition, a 10db increase in SPL, at a frequency of 1000Hz, is perceived as a doubling in volume. That proposition is fundamental to the development of the Equal Loudness Contours. But, this is the counterintuitive part. At a frequency of 30Hz, and lower, a 5db increase in SPL is perceived as a doubling in volume. So, DEQ is giving us the most boost right at the point where the way we perceive SPL changes. And that, in my opinion, contributes to the bottom-heavy feel of DEQ. Where we might welcome +2.2db, or more, of boost down to about 40 or 50Hz, we don't actually get the full +2.2db per -5 MV. And, where we might still benefit from less boost, at 30Hz and below, we are getting the maximum. (It should also be noted, that in most rooms, significant room gain starts at about 30Hz, and that room gain also augments the audible bass at those frequencies it affects.) In my opinion, trying to get the bass boosts to occur, where we really need them the most, is one of the very complex issues that separates theory from practice, in this case.

Interestingly, most people seem to need to add additional boost to what DEQ is providing. The average sub boost, with DEQ engaged, appears to be from about +3db to +6db. My personal belief is that we may be hearing an insufficient boost across the full bass range, and particularly in the mid-bass range (from about 50Hz to 120Hz), but that we may not always need it quite as much below about 35Hz or 40Hz. This may contribute to the back-and-forth attempts to find an RLO setting, or an additional sub boost, which will make DEQ more workable for both movies and music.

Another aspect of the bass boost that may contribute to the diversity of opinion regarding its use, is the fact that the boost is added in all of the channels. In practice, when the bass boost is added to the center channel, it may make dialogue harder to hear. And, simply increasing the volume on the center channel, may not fully remedy the problem, although it does sometimes seem to help a little. In any event, people frequently report having trouble hearing dialogue clearly, with DEQ engaged, and I believe that issue is directly related to DEQ's boost of the bass in the CC. Voices, especially, do not benefit from a bass boost, and vocal undertones may sound lower in register, somewhat less natural, and harder to hear with clarity, when they get one. 

A final aspect of DEQ's bass boost that I believe may contribute to its mixed reviews, involves the fact that it is making changes in volume in real time. This is not a listen-ahead feature, such as the one employed by Dynamic Volume, which "listens" a few milliseconds ahead of the playback. DEQ adds boosts in bass, to particular channels, during particular moments, as we are actually experiencing those moments. There was a time when I always watched movies with DEQ engaged. When I started experimenting with DEQ off, I noticed that transitions between loud and soft passages sounded smoother and more natural. When I turned DEQ back on, those same transitions seemed more abrupt. I believe that is because DEQ is actually reacting to those volume changes in real time, and the algorithm simply doesn't have enough time, and gradation control, to create as natural and smooth transitions in volume, as were originally scored by the performers, or by the film mixer, depending on which audio medium we are discussing. 

DEQ Application: The Surround Boost

As explained in the initial paragraphs, the application of the bass boost, at below Reference volumes was, in my opinion, based on valid audio principles. It makes sense that, if we are listening at significantly below Reference levels, we won't be hearing the same bass frequencies that film mixers intended for us to hear, in the same way that they intended. And, as far as I can tell, the perception that bass is reduced, at below Reference listening levels, is a fairly universal one. I do not believe, however, that the surround boost was also founded on equally valid audio principles. First, based on the limited research I have done on the subject, there doesn't seem to be strong evidence that sounds from behind us diminish in perceived volume, compared to sounds coming from other directions. We don't hear them quite as well, but that doesn't mean that they actually drop off faster. So, including a surround boost as part of the DEQ software, and increasing the surround boost more, as volumes drop further below Reference, was never as demonstrable an audio "fix" as the original bass boost was.

It is one thing to observe that we don't hear sounds from behind us, as well as we do sounds from in front, or out to the sides. It is another thing to conclude from that, that sounds from behind us will appear to diminish in intensity, as volumes get lower. After all, film mixers can mix the channels to provide whatever ambient, or other sounds they want, in the balance that they want. And, some movies are actually mixed with deliberately loud ambient sounds. 

But, there is an even more fundamental problem with the surround boost than that theoretical one, in my opinion. And, that is because many people with a traditional 5.1 surround system, have their surround speakers more-or-less directly out to the sides. In fact, the original Dolby standards for positioning surround speakers actually suggested an approximately 90 degree position (+/- 10 degrees) relative to the MLP. And, the pinnae in our ears are designed to funnel sounds from out to the sides, into our ear canals, perfectly well. So, where users have surround speakers located out to the sides, rather than behind them, the surround boost is completely counterintuitive. 

The problem is exacerbated, by two other factors, in my opinion. First, most people are much closer to their surround speakers than they are to their front soundstage. So, a 3db increase in SPL, for those speakers, at a nominal average volume of -15 MV, ends up being a pretty noticeable increase. And, the increase gets greater as the volume gets lower. An increase in surround volume can be especially noticeable for those movies, and TV shows, that (for whatever reason), already put higher volumes into their surround channels. A final factor, which can make the surround boost less workable is the growth of HT systems, beyond the typical 5.1 system, that was in use when DEQ was first created. As additional surround channels are added, with 7.1 and larger systems, the surround boost may become even more noticeably unbalanced, with respect to the front three speakers in a system.

As noted in other posts on the thread, some people who like DEQ attempt to compensate for the surround boost by manually reducing trim levels in surround channels. And, that can be a workable solution for people wanting to employ DEQ, without also dealing with equivalently louder surrounds. But, in my opinion, tying a surround boost to DEQ was never really a good idea. And, doing so has contributed to much of the controversy about the use of DEQ.

DEQ Enhancements:

The intent of this treatment has been to explore the theory behind DEQ, and to compare that theory to its actual operation. As noted in the introductory paragraph, much of this analysis has necessarily been subjective. But, one point that I especially want to emphasize is that the personal decision to use DEQ, for any listening medium, is neither right nor wrong, in my opinion. It is simply a matter of personal choice, as to what sounds best to the actual listener, and nothing in this analysis is intended to discourage the use of DEQ by anyone.

With that said, however, I would like to explore some ways in which I think that DEQ might be improved. This is, obviously, entirely speculative on my part, and as with many audio-related discussions will probably incur both agreement and disagreement. But, that is alright. I don't mean for this to be definitive--only, I hope, interesting and thought-provoking.

First, I would eliminate the surround boost from DEQ. If people want to boost their surrounds, at a particular listening level, or for a particular listening session, let them do so on an individual, and on an as-needed basis.

Second, I would restrict the bass boost to the subwoofer channel. As explained above, it probably does more harm than good with respect to the center channel. And, I believe that it is also likely to accomplish relatively little in the surround channels.

At most, I might include an option to apply DEQ to the front speakers, although that would complicate the software. That option might alternate with the option to employ the tone controls for the front speakers, so that a user could select DEQ, including the front speakers, or DEQ, with the use of tone controls for the front speakers. Ideally, for me, DEQ would be strictly a subwoofer, or in the complete absence of a subwoofer, a front-channel boost. But, in either case, I would also eliminate the treble boost, as it only complicates the software, and accomplishes virtually nothing, perceptually.

Third, I would eliminate the RLO (Reference Level Offset) settings. I believe that they were added, as a kind of patch, when DEQ didn't work very well for music applications. And, simply changing the volume level at which DEQ commences operation was probably easier than rewriting the whole software program. But, if I were starting from scratch with DEQ, I would take a different approach.

I would develop three DEQ settings: Light, Medium, and Heavy. The Light setting would add +1db of bass boost per -5 MV; the Medium setting would add +2db per -5 MV; and the Heavy setting would add +3db per -5 MV. The medium setting would be engaged by default. As noted above, there is nothing inherently wrong with the basic theory of DEQ, but giving users a greater opportunity to apply the amount of bass preferred, would enhance the utility of the program, in my opinion.

I would also apply the bass boost slightly differently. Using the Medium setting as an example, I would apply the maximum of +2db per -5 MV at about 50Hz or 60Hz. That maximum boost of +2db per might remain stable down to about 30hz, and then attenuate slightly. For reasons explained earlier, I think that might make DEQ's bass boosts more useful, in the frequency range where most of us will really need it.

Finally, if I intended to employ a two-tiered channel-specific boost, making adjustments to channel volumes, on the fly, I would again limit that to the subwoofer channel only. And, if I were going to use that two-tiered approach, I would give it a listen-ahead capability, similar to that employed by Dynamic Volume (which was introduced much later than DEQ). That would enable DEQ to make dynamic adjustments slightly ahead of the user's ability to hear them, creating the capability for smoother, and less abrupt, transitions between softer and louder passages.

One of the things that I think is worth noting from this discussion is the fact that, like Audyssey room EQ itself, with its increasingly complex versions, the software programs that augment it emerged over a period of time. So, DEQ with its real time, two-tiered approach was developed first. Then RLO was simply layered on top of that original program. And, then Dynamic Volume, with its listen-ahead capability, was added later (as was Low Frequency Containment). If Audyssey were developing DEQ today, as a single discrete operating system, I am sure that the approach would be slightly different, and less incremental in nature.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> ^
> 
> Feri,
> 
> I thought I had a good basic understanding of what's going on with our own hearing and the variation in the sensitivity of our hearing at different frequencies at different sound pressure levels, and I can understand compensating for that with what Chris called an 'active loudness meter" monitoring the perceived loudness of the sound but note that I'm not going to add Chris' "in each channel" to that description, I'll come back to that.
> 
> An active mechanism based on our perception doesn't make sense to me. When we're listening to music or other sounds, the actual SPL fluctuates on a moment to moment basis and our senstivity to different frequencies fluctuates on a moment to moment basis also. If that is an issue for the music, the musicians compensate by adjusting the tonal character of the sound by playing some pitches louder or softer than others as overall volume levels change. We're meant to hear the music with a constantly changing sensitivity to different frequencies because that's the way our hearing works.
> 
> And even if you are going to monitor moment to moment changes, why monitor different channels, why not the total loudness level on a moment to moment basis? As far as I know we're certainly more sensitive to some aspects of sound depending on the direction it comes from, but as far as I know our sensitivity to different frequencies changes is based on overall SPL.
> 
> I'm not questioning the accuracy of your quote or that the quote accurately reflects what Audyssey did with DEQ, but it certainly makes me wonder about how they seem to have described what it does on one hand, and makes me wonder about why they went down that road on the other hand.


 Hi David,

I think we all have a good understanding on how our ears work with regards to different frequencies at different sound pressure levels. That's all fine in a concert hall, everything sound "as is", no debate! 

But once we get home and turn on our amps things start to change. We have something know as "The Volume Control" and that's what makes a huge difference when compared to a live performance.

Let's take a look at how Roger Dressler (in the Audyssey thread part I back in 2012) ) explains the "two-tier" operation sheme of DEQ:



"Let's use the example of a train recording (I guess it could also be a marching band!). The top line in each of these diagrams is the train's spectrum as it passes close by. The lower line is the final loudness as the train travels far away. The overall SPL reduces 40 dB during the train recording.













Blue = Playback at Ref volume. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is naturally weaker (just like real life), but it is audible.












Red = MV at -30. When the train is close, the bass is weak. When it is far, the bass is much weaker, and becomes inaudible below 60 Hz.












Green = Fixed Loudness Compensation applied. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is weak below 100 Hz, and inaudible below 30 Hz.










Grey = Dynamic EQ applied. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is weaker, but it is audible. The arrows show where the lower curve had additional bass boost applied in response to the quiet program level. The amount of compensation needed has changed as the train went from loud to soft. Fixed compensation cannot do that.










Blue/Gray = Before /After with Dynamic EQ"

Let's talk!


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> [Quote from Chris K., posted by Feri] "....consider a passage played at a* high volume*. It has soft and loud parts as it plays. When the volume is turned down, the soft parts fall on a different perceptual curve than the louder parts. So, the adjustment must be content dependent. This took a lot of research to figure out how to do by correlating content to perception of loudness in real time."


I wish he had said, "when the volume *goes* down," rather than "when the volume* is turned down*," because the latter incorporates a potential confusion between the orchestra/band/artists playing soft passages and loud passages, as opposed to the listener turning the MV up or down. From the context, I'm pretty sure he meant the former, when the orchestra gets softer or louder the content falls on a different perceptual curve .... 

Something has always bothered me about that. Let's say the listener is playing back at *high volume*. While it's true that when the orchestra is playing a loud passage the content falls on a different perceptual curve (a la Fletcher-Munson) than a very soft passage would. But how is that different from "real life?" A live orchestra and chorus playing Mahler's 3rd symphony will play what is widely regarded as one of the softest passages in music, followed by one of the loudest. If I'm sitting in a concert hall listening to that, the loud passages and soft passages will, indeed, fall on different perceptual curves. At home (let's say the Mahler is played as part of a movie so it was recorded in a standard way), I don't think I would want bass and treble added to the very soft passage, because, without the increased bass & treble it would fall on approximately the same perceptual curve as it would in the concert hall. If I was playing the Mahler at a* low* overall volume setting, I would want bass increased, to compensate for the Fletcher-Munson stuff, but I would want it added across the board, to the soft and loud passages equally, wouldn't I?


----------



## David Aiken

Mike & Feri,

Feri's response first:

Yes, I get all that. What I don't get is why, if the soundtrack has a train approaching and receding in it so the volume of the train's sound first increases then decreases, we would want to apply a dynamic form of EQ which is not only going to change the tonal shift of the sound when the train is further away and the volume of its sound is lower. We don't want a compensation that masks the fact that what we hear in real life is a sound which appears to increase in bass content as the train approaches and the sound gets louder, and then decreases in bass content as the train gets further away and the sound gets softer. There is a natural tonal shift involved because of the changing SPL of the sound and I can't understand why we would want to tinker with that, and whatever tinkering we do is also going to affect our perception of the doppler shift which introduces a tonal shift as well. I don't want DEQ to reduce or mask the degree of either of those tonal shifts, the volume related one or the Doppler effect. I want those shifts to occur naturally, or as naturally as possible.

In addition, with that sort of example, at some point the low frequencies will become inaudible as SPL drops as the quote states. but that's what happens in life. If we're listening at a lower volume than intended that will certainly happen sooner than intended but I have to wonder whether the answer to that part of the problem isn't some form of dynamic digital compression, a dynamic "night mode", that works to slow the fade into inaudibility of the sound at all frequencies because if the SPL of the sound as a whole is decreasing, the sound as a whole is also going to become inaudible at some point and will do so sooner than intended if the master volume is set lower than reference.

While I understand what's being explained, I still don't understand why it's being done. Doing it is tending to mask something that should naturally be there.


Now Mike's response:

Damnit Mike, can you stop writing really meaty responses which pack a hell of a lot into a single post that I have to go back and reread multiple times in order to satisfy myself that I'm getting everything http://www.avsforum.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I've read it once. What I'm noticing most on first go through are your reservations and I seem to share them. And do think about adding it to your subwoofer post.

DEQ surround boost: I agree with both your reservations and your reasoning.

DEQ bass boost and music: I agree with your reservations but I think my reasoning is slightly different.


I think 2 things are bothering me. The first is that every time I look at the reasoning for a dynamic EQ system, I find myself deciding that I can see a justification for a system based on master volume setting, a system that is intended to compensate for the fact that we are listening to the whole of the soundtrack/music track at a lower level than intended but I can't see a reason for a system that is intended to operate on a moment to moment basis because that's going to tinker with our perception of bass and potentially high frequency changes that occur naturally as sound pressure levels change, and it's going to mask those changes to a degree. I don't think that's a good thing.

The second thing is that soundtracks/recorded music aren't "the real thing", they're manipulated in production for "artistic purposes" and I'll happily admit that some of those purposes are actually artistic. As listeners we have our preferences also and can choose to change the balance of what we hear. We can do that in real life by changing our seat in the theatre or concert hall so why shouldn't we be able to do it at home, and even change some things that we can't change in the theatre or concert hall to suit our personal tastes? If Audyssey or someone wanted to say to me that DEQ is designed to make a change that research shows a lot of people actually prefer, I could accept that. I think it's a totally legitimate reason for providing a feature but that isn't the reason that's being given. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a bit of trying to address personal taste involved but I would like to see it acknowledged if that is the case. It is a legitimate reason and I see no reason to not be up front about it if that was part of the reason for developing DEQ.

And after reading both responses I think I am already reaching some thoughts on how I think DEQ could be improved. If Audyssey want to have DEQ work with 2 inputs, the master volume setting on one hand and the moment to moment dynamic SPL changes on the other hand, I wish they would give us the ability to enable or disable each individually, and give us a slider control to control the level of compensation we want to have made for the dynamic SPL changes. Both of those suggestions would give us a bit more flexibility with DEQ and I think that would be helpful. Mike mentioned my regular quote on the topic of theory and practice. If we had those options, in theory I would enable the master volume control compensation and disable the dynamic SPL compensation. In practice I think it would be very interesting to see if I enabled both but adjusted the dynamic SPL setting to provide a lower level of that compensation, basically using it as a "sweetener" for some material.


Now I need to go back over Mike's post a couple more times and take it a lot slower and think a lot more. I'd be very interested in the hinted at follow up with his views on how DEQ could be improved.

Thanks to both of you.


----------



## In.vincible

Got my mic. I don't really know what I'm doing with REW yet, but here is a measurement of my PC's Logitech speakers and sub. The big bass bump on the low end and the rolloff at the high end probably explains why I don't find them fatiguing to listen to at all. 

I'm going to do some measurements on my main system, but I've got to figure out how to play the test tones from my laptop. I'd prefer to use and external tone, but it looks like REW wants to use the built-in ones?


----------



## Alan P

In.vincible said:


> Got my mic. I don't really know what I'm doing with REW yet, but here is a measurement of my PC's Logitech speakers and sub. The big bass bump on the low end and the rolloff at the high end probably explains why I don't find them fatiguing to listen to at all.
> 
> I'm going to do some measurements on my main system, but I've got to figure out how to play the test tones from my laptop. I'd prefer to use and external tone, but it looks like REW wants to use the built-in ones?


I'd suggest you review the REW guide linked in my sig. 

If you want to use REW, you must use the sweeps and tones that REW generates...kind of required.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I wish he had said, "when the volume *goes* down," rather than "when the volume* is turned down*," because the latter incorporates a potential confusion between the orchestra/band/artists playing soft passages and loud passages, as opposed to the listener turning the MV up or down. From the context, I'm pretty sure he meant the former, when the orchestra gets softer or louder the content falls on a different perceptual curve ....
> 
> Something has always bothered me about that. Let's say the listener is playing back at *high volume*. While it's true that when the orchestra is playing a loud passage the content falls on a different perceptual curve (a la Fletcher-Munson) than a very soft passage would. But how is that different from "real life?" A live orchestra and chorus playing Mahler's 3rd symphony will play what is widely regarded as one of the softest passages in music, followed by one of the loudest. If I'm sitting in a concert hall listening to that, the loud passages and soft passages will, indeed, fall on different perceptual curves. At home (let's say the Mahler is played as part of a movie so it was recorded in a standard way), I don't think I would want bass and treble added to the very soft passage, because, without the increased bass & treble it would fall on approximately the same perceptual curve as it would in the concert hall. If I was playing the Mahler at a* low* overall volume setting, I would want bass increased, to compensate for the Fletcher-Munson stuff, but I would want it added across the board, to the soft and loud passages equally, wouldn't I?


Hi Gary,

First, I wanted to tell you that I really enjoyed your post on the last page, about the different target curves, and how they were employed in cinemas. I always learn something from those posts.

The discussions I remember, from when Chris was active on the thread, focused on just the sort of question that you raise in this post. Chris always defended DEQ, in that regard, but my own impressions and beliefs were virtually identical to yours. I will use the master volume control to put a piece of music into the acoustic equilibrium that is appropriate and comfortable sounding to me.

In my long post on DEQ, I chose to concentrate fairly exclusively on Audyssey's original intent in creating DEQ, because I think that it had virtually nothing to do with music, and everything to do with 5.1 movies. David makes the point, in a post just after yours, that movies represent a more than slightly artificial audio presentation. And, we typically have nothing to compare that audio presentation to. Gunshots and explosions don't really sound like that, for instance. So, trying to relate those artificial sounds to a Reference standard, and to the potential attenuation of bass that occurs at below Reference volumes, does make some sense to me, at a theoretical level.

With music, involving acoustical instruments, we do have real life exemplars to draw from, and may be listening to very familiar pieces of music. There, many of us are probably far more comfortable simply relying on our own hearing, and audio preferences to determine our volume levels. There not only isn't a Reference standard for music, I have never been convinced that trying to develop one would be remotely practical or desirable.

The other component of the discussion, which I think is particularly important, is the amount of low bass in movies that simply doesn't exist in most acoustic music. DEQ was designed to provide bass boosts in 5.1 movies, for a specific reason. And, rightly or wrongly, the boost was intended to increase significantly at about 60Hz , and then to reach maximum effect at about 30Hz. That same boosting process can certainly be applied to music, as well. But, without the really low bass (below 60Hz, and 30Hz) to boost, I believe that some of the original raison d'etre for DEQ is strongly compromised.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

Just called in on Chris at FB with the following quick Q&A and got an interesting reasoning on DEQ as follows:

Me: Hi Chris, please allow me to come back to "good old" DEQ for a moment. In order to see/hear how well the 2nd compensation of DEQ works (when it adjusts the proper curves for soft and loud passages with MV turned down from reference) is there a way in our AVR's to do a bit of a workaround? It is known that this second adjustment of DEQ can not be turned off separately, so the reason for my asking. How could I show a friend how the system would sound with or without this feature? Thanks in advance.




Chris Kyriakakis Hi Feri, unfortunately there is no way to do that (other than in our dev systems here). You can explain to your friend why it's needed by pointing to a graph of the loudness curves and noticing that they are not parallel. In other words the lower level curves are much less flat than the higher level curves and so the differences between them change.

Seed for thought as always.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Got my mic. I don't really know what I'm doing with REW yet, but here is a measurement of my PC's Logitech speakers and sub. The big bass bump on the low end and the rolloff at the high end probably explains why I don't find them fatiguing to listen to at all.
> 
> I'm going to do some measurements on my main system, but I've got to figure out how to play the test tones from my laptop. I'd prefer to use and external tone, but it looks like REW wants to use the built-in ones?


Use the REW sweep.

You may be right as to why your PC's speakers do not offend. IMO a good speaker will sound good with good recordings [especially Blu-ray DTS Master Audio or Dolby Digital True Hi Fi, or SACDs or DVD-As], but with the worst CDs -- the distorted or "hard" or "harsh" ones -- it should sound distorted or "hard" or "harsh" ... until you start tweaking for that particular CD. Some are fixable, some are not. Sometimes the cure is to provide a curve like the one you got on your PC speakers, but with even less SPL from about 1K to 4K, relatively speaking. Some "high end"audiophile speakers have been designed to veil the sound a little bit (IMO), to hide the sound of bad recordings. They don't sound as good on great recordings, at least in my experience, as the ones that don't veil much. 

How much smoothing was used on that curve? Most curves on this thread use 1/6 octave smoothing, I think. Back when I was doing this, I looked at 1/6 and 1/3 octave smoothing (based on varying advice).


----------



## In.vincible

Alan P said:


> I'd suggest you review the REW guide linked in my sig.
> 
> If you want to use REW, you must use the sweeps and tones that REW generates...kind of required.





garygarrison said:


> Use the REW sweep.
> 
> You may be right as to why your PC's speakers do not offend. IMO a good speaker will sound good with good recordings [especially Blu-ray DTS Master Audio or Dolby Digital True Hi Fi, or SACDs or DVD-As], but with the worst CDs -- the distorted or "hard" or "harsh" ones -- it should sound distorted or "hard" or "harsh" ... until you start tweaking for that particular CD. Some are fixable, some are not. Sometimes the cure is to provide a curve like the one you got on your PC speakers, but with even less SPL from about 1K to 4K, relatively speaking. Some "high end"audiophile speakers have been designed to veil the sound a little bit (IMO), to hide the sound of bad recordings. They don't sound as good on great recordings, at least in my experience, as the ones that don't veil much.
> 
> How much smoothing was used on that curve? Most curves on this thread use 1/6 octave smoothing, I think. Back when I was doing this, I looked at 1/6 and 1/3 octave smoothing (based on varying advice).


Thanks, guys. I will read up a bit more on REW. For this first measurement, I used 1/3 smoothing. Wasn't sure what was the standard.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike & Feri,
> 
> 
> Now Mike's response:
> 
> Damnit Mike, can you stop writing really meaty responses which pack a hell of a lot into a single post that I have to go back and reread multiple times in order to satisfy myself that I'm getting everything http://www.avsforum.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I've read it once. What I'm noticing most on first go through are your reservations and I seem to share them. And do think about adding it to your subwoofer post.
> 
> DEQ surround boost: I agree with both your reservations and your reasoning.
> 
> DEQ bass boost and music: I agree with your reservations but I think my reasoning is slightly different.
> 
> 
> I think 2 things are bothering me. The first is that every time I look at the reasoning for a dynamic EQ system, I find myself deciding that I can see a justification for a system based on master volume setting, a system that is intended to compensate for the fact that we are listening to the whole of the soundtrack/music track at a lower level than intended but I can't see a reason for a system that is intended to operate on a moment to moment basis because that's going to tinker with our perception of bass and potentially high frequency changes that occur naturally as sound pressure levels change, and it's going to mask those changes to a degree. I don't think that's a good thing.
> 
> The second thing is that soundtracks/recorded music aren't "the real thing", they're manipulated in production for "artistic purposes" and I'll happily admit that some of those purposes are actually artistic. As listeners we have our preferences also and can choose to change the balance of what we hear. We can do that in real life by changing our seat in the theatre or concert hall so why shouldn't we be able to do it at home, and even change some things that we can't change in the theatre or concert hall to suit our personal tastes? If Audyssey or someone wanted to say to me that DEQ is designed to make a change that research shows a lot of people actually prefer, I could accept that. I think it's a totally legitimate reason for providing a feature but that isn't the reason that's being given. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there's a bit of trying to address personal taste involved but I would like to see it acknowledged if that is the case. It is a legitimate reason and I see no reason to not be up front about it if that was part of the reason for developing DEQ.
> 
> And after reading both responses I think I am already reaching some thoughts on how I think DEQ could be improved. If Audyssey want to have DEQ work with 2 inputs, the master volume setting on one hand and the moment to moment dynamic SPL changes on the other hand, I wish they would give us the ability to enable or disable each individually, and give us a slider control to control the level of compensation we want to have made for the dynamic SPL changes. Both of those suggestions would give us a bit more flexibility with DEQ and I think that would be helpful. Mike mentioned my regular quote on the topic of theory and practice. If we had those options, in theory I would enable the master volume control compensation and disable the dynamic SPL compensation. In practice I think it would be very interesting to see if I enabled both but adjusted the dynamic SPL setting to provide a lower level of that compensation, basically using it as a "sweetener" for some material.
> 
> 
> Now I need to go back over Mike's post a couple more times and take it a lot slower and think a lot more. I'd be very interested in the hinted at follow up with his views on how DEQ could be improved.
> 
> Thanks to both of you.


David,

Thank you for the compliment!  I agree with a lot of what you are saying about the two-tiered aspect of DEQ, and I also appreciated your other comments. Writing that post earlier today, pretty well fried my brain. (You think you have to read it several times. You should see me proofing and editing it, in hopes that it will make any sense to someone besides myself.) But, I will try to pick it up again tomorrow.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

^

Feri,

I know the curves are not parallel, I know the lower level curves show that our sensitivity at the extremes drops faster as the level drops, so bass levels which match mids in terms of SPL are perceived as softer than the mids as the level drops. That's the way we hear things and it sounds natural.

To increase compensation as levels drop means that we don't perceive the same amount of rolloff at the extremes for a given drop in level as we would normally perceive. It masks a natural effect of a drop in actual level. I don't think that's a good idea. I can see a good argument for a form of compensation based on the master volume setting and doing that does not provide increasing amounts of compensation as actual volume drops, it provides a given amount of compensation for all actual volume levels occurring with a specific master volume setting, I simply remain unconvinced that compensating for the increasing change in our sensitivity as actual levels drop as well as compensating for the fact that we've set a lower listening level anyway is "needed" to use Chris' choice of words.

As I said above, my view is that we "need" the master volume setting related compensation but we don't "need" the dynamic volume level compensation. I have no doubt that some people Like the dynamic volume level compensation and I have no problem with such an a compensation being available, but I would really like to be able to separate the 2 and to be able to make separate choices in relation to each.

In my view the loudness curves don't show something needing fixing, they show us what is happening as a natural result of drops in the actual level of the sound we're hearing. We expect to hear those changes as the actual sound level drop. I don't see a need to correct for that change. There's nothing to "fix" on a moment to moment basis in my view but I have no problem about someone expressing a preference for a solution which does that It's just that the word I associate with preferences is "want", not the "need" that Chris referred to.


----------



## shae

mthomas47 said:


> some people who like DEQ attempt to compensate for the surround boost by manually reducing trim levels in surround channels.


I just started experimenting with Audyssey. No idea yet what I think of any of it, besides one thing. The first clear thing I noticed was that the surrounds became way too loud, to the point of drowning the fronts.

Is there no way to turn DEQ's surround boost off?

I don't have much remaining trim range after Audyssey's calibration level adjustments. And if DEQ changes the surrounds boost amount based on Master Volume (what's the boost range?) the trim compensation would be off every time you change MV. Another problem is that every time you want to turn Audyssey on/off, it would require manual retweaking of the trims.


----------



## garygarrison

David (and others),

Validity of the X-curve for Cinema Sound [He thinks we should scrap the X-curve and start all over] 
This is a pretty good one, and it sneaks in one of the core principles of the Universe (yes, but not necessarily at the quantum level and beyond), the Central Limit Theorem.  http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/ He simplifies, which, in my case, is a good thing. 
*
X-Curve Is Not An EQ Curve - smpte







  https://www.smpte.org/sites/.../X-Curve Is Not An EQ Curve.pdf*


*Is the X Curve Damaging Our Enjoyment of Cinema? - Scribd







*
https://www.scribd.com/document/.../Is-the-X-Curve-Damaging-Our-Enjoyment-of-Cine...
They want your money ($8.99) for this one.

"Mathematics is the language God used to write the Universe" -- Galileo


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> David (and others),
> 
> Validity of the X-curve for Cinema Sound [He thinks we should scrap the X-curve and start all over]
> This is a pretty good one, and it sneaks in one of the core principles of the Universe (yes, but not necessarily at the quantum level and beyond), the Central Limit Theorem.  http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/ He simplifies, which, in my case, is a good thing.
> *
> X-Curve Is Not An EQ Curve - smpte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.smpte.org/sites/.../X-Curve Is Not An EQ Curve.pdf*
> 
> 
> *Is the X Curve Damaging Our Enjoyment of Cinema? - Scribd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> https://www.scribd.com/document/.../Is-the-X-Curve-Damaging-Our-Enjoyment-of-Cine...
> They want your money ($8.99) for this one.
> 
> "Mathematics is the language God used to write the Universe" -- Galileo


Gary,

Shouldn't Galileo have said that mathematics is the language we use in an attempt to transcribe the magic spells God used to create the universe? After all, Arthur C. Clarke used to say that any sufficiently advanced form of science will look like magic to those who can't understand it and none of us can understand what God did in order to create the universe. 

Anyway, thanks for the links. I don't think the paper which would require my money is going to be worth my money but the other 2 are interesting, especially the first one. The link between the X Curve and pink noise is wonderful since pink noise rolls off in the top end.

I hate to say it but I think Allen's original paper measurements were a very good thing to do and to document and publicise but I wonder if he asked the wrong questions and things went downhill from there because he then proceeded to try and answer the wrong questions. I'm beginning to wish I had never heard of the X Curve, much less mentioned it.


----------



## David Aiken

shae said:


> I just started experimenting with Audyssey. No idea yet what I think of any of it, besides one thing. The first clear thing I noticed was that the surrounds became way too loud, to the point of drowning the fronts.
> 
> Is there no way to turn DEQ's surround boost off?
> 
> I don't have much remaining trim range after Audyssey's calibration level adjustments. And if DEQ changes the surrounds boost amount based on Master Volume (what's the boost range?) the trim compensation would be off every time you change MV. Another problem is that every time you want to turn Audyssey on/off, it would require manual retweaking of the trims.


Shae,

There's no way to turn DEQ's surround boost off short of turning DEQ off. The Relative Offset setting reduces the amount of correction DEQ applies but as far as I know it's just a reduction in amount and it doesn't change any aspect of how DEQ works.

My understanding is that there is actually enough headroom for some degree of trim adjustment so you can increase trim settings to a degree, especially if your normal Master Volume setting is considerably below the reference setting of 0. In any event, if your surrounds are too loud and you reduce the trim settings for them, you're actually increasing your overall headroom.

The amount of boost DEQ applies because of your MV setting is linked to the MV setting and changes with it so the trim compensation isn't off every time you change MV. There's no need to worry about that or retaking the trims every time you turn Audyssey on of off. Whatever trims are set prior to turning Audyssey off, whether they're the original trims Audyssey created or modified trim levels you've made, those trim levels are retained in memory when you turn Audyssey off and restored when you turn Audyssey on, and the storage is persistent. You don't lose the settings if you turn the AVR off. You can also restore the original trims set by Audyssey during the setup process by using a menu option in the Audyssey settings menu.


----------



## shae

David Aiken said:


> The Relative Offset setting reduces the amount of correction DEQ applies but as far as I know it's just a reduction in amount and it doesn't change any aspect of how DEQ works.


But using RO would mean compromising DEQ's bass and treble boost, which is the whole point to begin with.



> you can increase trim settings to a degree


Do you mean, rather than lower the surrounds, increase all the others? That's an idea. All my trims are -7dB or lower, and one of the surrounds is -9 or -9.5dB after Audyssey, so at most -3dB range remaining. (I'll check the FAQ again to see if adjusting trims negatively affects Audyssey or if it's just for an absolute "reference level" at 0dB MV.)



> The amount of boost DEQ applies because of your MV setting is linked to the MV setting and changes with it so the trim compensation isn't off every time you change MV.


The thing is, any "unboost" offset you set the trims to, to counter DEQ's boost, will only be valid for a specific MV setting. Since adjusting MV won't change the trims to match DEQ's variable boost.



> those trim levels are retained in memory when you turn Audyssey off and restored when you turn Audyssey on


The problem is that they remain in effect with Audyssey off, so the "unboost surrounds" trim settings will make them too soft with Audyssey off.


----------



## mthomas47

shae said:


> But using RO would mean compromising DEQ's bass and treble boost, which is the whole point to begin with.
> 
> Do you mean, rather than lower the surrounds, increase all the others? That's an idea. All my trims are -7dB or lower, and one of the surrounds is -9 or -9.5dB after Audyssey, so at most -3dB range remaining. (I'll check the FAQ again to see if adjusting trims negatively affects Audyssey or if it's just for an absolute "reference level" at 0dB MV.)
> 
> The thing is, any "unboost" offset you set the trims to, to counter DEQ's boost, will only be valid for a specific MV setting. Since adjusting MV won't change the trims to match DEQ's variable boost.
> 
> The problem is that they remain in effect with Audyssey off, so the "unboost surrounds" trim settings will make them too soft with Audyssey off.


Hi Shae,

My first reaction to all of this is that you are overthinking things a little bit. The goal of any tinkering you are doing with your audio system is simply to improve your sound quality, in accordance with your own perceptions and tastes. The more you try to think of this as trying to achieve some theoretical or hypothetical standard, the more frustrated you are likely to become, in my opinion. So, I would try listening with DEQ off, and your own sub boost (and/or tone control adjustment) as one alternative. And, I would try using DEQ (with or without the RLO settings engaged) and adjusting the trim levels on my surrounds, as another alternative. You simply need to experiment in order to determine what you personally hear, and what you personally prefer. 

The RLO settings simply change the starting point of DEQ, and that reduces the effect slightly, depending on your master volume. Changing the trim levels on your surrounds will only be useful while DEQ is engaged, but it won't affect your Audyssey filters (the EQ portion of the software). And, unless your listening volume changes a lot, the trim adjustments you make should hold up pretty well.

I believe that DEQ adds about 1db of surround boost for every -5db reduction in master volume, below Reference. So, let's say that you like to listen at about -15 MV. DEQ would be adding about +3db to the surrounds. If you reduce your surround trim levels by 3db, you could probably listen at anywhere from about -11 MV to -19 MV without noticing any shift in volume from your surrounds, at all. Again, I think that you just need to experiment a little to find out what you actually like.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## shae

I'm not after standards, just improving whatever's possible in my unideal and maybe uncommon setup.

Depending on the material I listen between quiet and quieter. With Audyssey off my MV range hovers around -45 to -35dB, and maybe 5dB extra in both directions in some circumstances.

Yeah, I'll experiment. But I find the lack of configurability annoying. Some of it might be due to the AVR manufacturer's choices, but also Audyssey seem to have a say in how their system in implemented in end products.


----------



## mthomas47

I have just added some material to Post 2610, on Page 87. That is the lengthy post, on DEQ, I wrote yesterday. In addition to some minor edits, I have added a section on potential enhancements, if DEQ were being created today, from scratch. Those suggestions constitute my idea of how to make DEQ a little more generally applicable and functional. I have tried to remain true to the original theory behind DEQ, and to keep the operating system fairly simple, in both concept, and in application.

I would like to get any comments or suggestions, particularly for the Theory and Application sections, as I am planning to add this piece to the already long Subwoofer Guide, linked in my signature. The DEQ Enhancement section, I may not want to change too much, depending, as the content there is already expressed as being strictly my own personal suggestions. And, other people will undoubtedly have slightly different suggestions to make. If nothing else, though, I thought that the addition of that part might foster some interesting discussion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> DEQ Enhancements:
> 
> The intent of this treatment has been to explore the theory behind DEQ, and to compare that theory to its actual operation. As noted in the introductory paragraph, much of this analysis has necessarily been subjective. But, one point that I especially want to emphasize is that the personal decision to use DEQ, for any listening medium, is neither right nor wrong, in my opinion. It is simply a matter of personal choice, as to what sounds best to the actual listener, and nothing in this analysis is intended to discourage the use of DEQ by anyone.


I'm with you Mike while I'm sure in order for every user to make their own subjective decisions it is very important to be familiar with the pure technical workflow of DEQ.



> With that said, however, I would like to explore some ways in which I think that DEQ might be improved. This is, obviously, entirely speculative on my part, and as with many audio-related discussions will probably incur both agreement and disagreement. But, that is alright. I don't mean for this to be definitive--only, I hope, interesting and thought-provoking.


Lookin' forward to those speculations. 



> First, I would eliminate the surround boost from DEQ. If people want to boost their surrounds, at a particular listening level, or for a particular listening session, let them do so on an individual, and on an as-needed basis.


I personally would keep it with a possibility to turn it on/off. When "on" it works automatically as a function of the MV setting, while turning it off means any time MV is changed the enduser has to re-adjust the surround trims which seems a bit tedious to me. 



> Second, I would restrict the bass boost to the subwoofer channel. As explained above, it probably does more harm than good with respect to the center channel. And, I believe that it is also likely to accomplish relatively little in the surround channels.


I wouldn't do that, frankly. Each channel has a speaker/ear interaction that needs loudness control regardless of its position or purpose in a multi-channel array.



> At most, I might include an option to apply DEQ to the front speakers, although that would complicate the software. That option might alternate with the option to employ the tone controls for the front speakers, so that a user could select DEQ, including the front speakers, or DEQ, with the use of tone controls for the front speakers. Ideally, for me, DEQ would be strictly a subwoofer, or in the complete absence of a subwoofer, a front-channel boost. But, in either case, I would also eliminate the treble boost, as it only complicates the software, and accomplishes virtually nothing, perceptually.


I'm not sure, but I think such a mixture of DEQ and tone controls, and only front or only subwoofer, etc. would bring about a Babel confusion resulting in a lot of speakers speaking different languages. Oh, what a mix, eh? LOL



> Third, I would eliminate the RLO (Reference Level Offset) settings. I believe that they were added, as a kind of patch, when DEQ didn't work very well for music applications. And, simply changing the volume level at which DEQ commences operation was probably easier than rewriting the whole software program. But, if I were starting from scratch with DEQ, I would take a different approach.


Would probably keep it, it can be turned on or off, still better than nothing. I don't us it though coz I have come up with a completely different solution for music listening I've describe in some of my earlier posts. 



> I would develop three DEQ settings: Light, Medium, and Heavy. The Light setting would add +1db of bass boost per -5 MV; the Medium setting would add +2db per -5 MV; and the Heavy setting would add +3db per -5 MV. The medium setting would be engaged by default. As noted above, there is nothing inherently wrong with the basic theory of DEQ, but giving users a greater opportunity to apply the amount of bass preferred, would enhance the utility of the program, in my opinion.


I think DEQ with 3 settings would be the end of the world. Just kidding!  Seriously, the equal loudness curves are working pretty consistently for human ears. No doubt there may be deviations among the hearing of all 7 billion inhabitants on this God's Green Planet (especially with age), but surely still not as different as the hearing of a barn owl differs from our human ears' characteristics. This would be a kinda transient between DEQ and tone controls. Just imagine how busy everyone would be tinkering their controls and in the end leaving no valuable time to listen to/enjoy their music. 



> I would also apply the bass boost slightly differently. Using the Medium setting as an example, I would apply the maximum of +2db per -5 MV at about 50Hz or 60Hz. That maximum boost of +2db per might remain stable down to about 30hz, and then attenuate slightly. For reasons explained earlier, I think that might make DEQ's bass boosts more useful, in the frequency range where most of us will really need it.


Same as my commentary above. Too much tweaking would be involved I believe. Especially knowing that music is all over the map and we would have to take notes on which setting sounded best with which music. Endless game, isn't it? 



> Finally, if I intended to employ a two-tiered channel-specific boost, making adjustments to channel volumes, on the fly, I would again limit that to the subwoofer channel only. And, if I were going to use that two-tiered approach, I would give it a listen-ahead capability, similar to that employed by Dynamic Volume (which was introduced much later than DEQ). That would enable DEQ to make dynamic adjustments slightly ahead of the user's ability to hear them, creating the capability for smoother, and less abrupt, transitions between softer and louder passages.


Again I would advocate DEQ for all channels in the system. I don't find the current approach of DEQ not being smooth or abrupt for transitions, but that's just me. 



> One of the things that I think is worth noting from this discussion is the fact that, like Audyssey room EQ itself, with its increasingly complex versions, the software programs that augment it emerged over a period of time. So, DEQ with its real time, two-tiered approach was developed first. Then RLO was simply layered on top of that original program. And, then Dynamic Volume, with its listen-ahead capability, was added later (as was Low Frequency Containment). If Audyssey were developing DEQ today, as a single discrete operating system, I am sure that the approach would be slightly different, and less incremental in nature.


Agree. 



> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## David Aiken

shae said:


> But using RO would mean compromising DEQ's bass and treble boost, which is the whole point to begin with.


Yes, you're right, but I mentioned RLO for 2 reasons. First you asked about reducing the level of surround boost with DEQ and RLO will do that. Yes, it will do some other things too but it will do that. Second, it's the only way we currently have of modifying DEQ so, at the very least, it's worth a try to see if you like the result.



> Do you mean, rather than lower the surrounds, increase all the others? That's an idea. All my trims are -7dB or lower, and one of the surrounds is -9 or -9.5dB after Audyssey, so at most -3dB range remaining. (I'll check the FAQ again to see if adjusting trims negatively affects Audyssey or if it's just for an absolute "reference level" at 0dB MV.)


When you said "I don't have much remaining trim range after Audyssey's calibration level adjustments", for some reason I thought you meant that the trims Audyssey set were at the top end of the range, not the bottom, and I responded on that basis. You could try raising the others as you suggest and, if you raise them by 5dB you could try using a -5dB RLO setting and see what that does.



> The thing is, any "unboost" offset you set the trims to, to counter DEQ's boost, will only be valid for a specific MV setting. Since adjusting MV won't change the trims to match DEQ's variable boost.


You're right but, as I said, there's no way of doing exactly what you want to do. There's no perfect solution, there are only less than perfect solutions. You essentially have 3 choices which are not to use DEQ at all because it does something you don't like, to use DEQ and just live with the element of it that you don't like, or to use DEQ and experiment with some less than perfect solutions to see if you can find one that is closer to what you want than either of the first 2 choices. We're giving you the options you have. They are not perfect and none of them are the option you want but the option you want does not exist. All we can do is point you in the direction of the options that do exist in the hope that you will find one of them more acceptable than the basic DEQ on/DEQ off choice.



> The problem is that they remain in effect with Audyssey off, so the "unboost surrounds" trim settings will make them too soft with Audyssey off.


You're right, but you can change trims back relatively quickly and easily. Again, it's not perfect but it is what we've got.


You have one other option I did not mention: turn DEQ off and use the tone controls to provide a bit of bass and treble boost to compensate for what DEQ tries to compensate for. You will need to change the tone control settings if you change the master volume level significantly. Again it's not a perfect option, you may not be able to find tone control settings you like, but it does leave trim settings untouched and there is a control for turning tone controls on or off which will let you save your tone control settings but engage or disengage them easily.



If you take a look at some of the posts before and after your original post, you will see that you made your post in the middle of a discussion between some of us about DEQ and how it works. There's lots of mixed feelings about DEQ. It doesn't work the way you want it to work and it doesn't work the way that some of us in that ongoing discussion want it to work or think it should work. You may find something in that ongoing discussion which gives you an idea for something else to try but as I said, there is no way of doing the thing you asked about. RLO is the only way we have of directly modifying DEQ's operation because it's the only setting Audyssey have given us.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... After all, film mixers can mix the channels to provide whatever ambient, or other sounds they want,* in the balance that they want*. And, some movies are actually mixed with deliberately loud ambient sounds ...
> 
> ... First, I would eliminate the surround boost from DEQ ...
> 
> ... At most, I might include an option to apply DEQ to the front speakers, although that would complicate the software. That option might alternate with the option to employ the tone controls for the front speakers, so that a user could select DEQ, including the front speakers,* or DEQ, with the use of tone controls for the front speakers* ...
> 
> ... I would also eliminate the treble boost, as it only complicates the software, and accomplishes virtually nothing, perceptually ...


I think almost all of us would be happy to see DEQ's surround boost go. As you say, the mixers (or director, etc.) should be able to set the balance they want. And they do. And their ears are facing forward, just like ours. The films we run vary from almost no surround (but, perhaps, a bird here and there, or a dog barking in the distance) to huge surround effects. I keep mentioning the surround in The Grey. During the event that occurs near the beginning (avoiding a spoiler), the surround, even with our mere 5.1, is seamless. We hear many, many sound sources down the side walls, near and farther away, and in the rear. There is even a sense of varying height (in this and some other films), although we don't have Atmos. I believe this is for real (Chesky demonstrated this phenomenon with sandpaper blocks, on a 2 channel disk, without explaining it). We ran The Grey without DEQ. I think, but can't say for sure, that DEQ's surround boost would have ruined the illusion, because we needed the magnificent sound from the front, as well, in the balance the mixers provided

I don't like the treble boost at all. With your proposed system, one could add a little treble with the treble tone control, if necessary.

My main problem with DEQ is that it seems to reduce the feeling of transparency and add a bit of distortion. I haven't had that problem with conventional "loudness" controls or bass tone controls, even on the rare occasions when such devices have been set to provide as much as 18 to 20 dB bass boost with my preamps of the past, including Luxman, McIntosh, Dyna, etc.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I have just added some material to Post 2610, on Page 87. That is the lengthy post, on DEQ, I wrote yesterday. In addition to some minor edits, I have added a section on potential enhancements, if DEQ were being created today, from scratch. Those suggestions constitute my idea of how to make DEQ a little more generally applicable and functional. I have tried to remain true to the original theory behind DEQ, and to keep the operating system fairly simple, in both concept, and in application.
> 
> I would like to get any comments or suggestions, particularly for the Theory and Application sections, as I am planning to add this piece to the already long Subwoofer Guide, linked in my signature. The DEQ Enhancement section, I may not want to change too much, depending, as the content there is already expressed as being strictly my own personal suggestions. And, other people will undoubtedly have slightly different suggestions to make. If nothing else, though, I thought that the addition of that part might foster some interesting discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I like the enhancements section. You came up with a different solution to my solution but if we're going to have a discussion of what we like/don't like/would rather see (hear?), then another option is always welcome.

There is a possible work around for the problem with DEQ compromising speech intelligibility in the centre channel: raise the crossover frequency for the centre channel. Not perfect, especially for deep male voices if you raise the crossover too much, but worth trying for anyone having problems. In a similar way raising the crossover frequency for surrounds may also help someone like Shae who's having trouble with the amount of bass boost in the surrounds. Once again, not perfect and of course in both cases raising the crossover isn't reducing the amount of DEQ bass boost being applied, it's just shifting the signal for some frequencies from one speaker to another and there's still the same boost being applied to the speaker the frequencies are shifted to. It may help, it may not help, it may introduce some new problem, but it's a simple experiment to try. Unfortunately I can't try it since I'm running a 2.2 system with no centre or surrounds. I would have put my money where my mouth is and tried it if I was running a surround system.

You mentioned the fact that the current state of Audyssey is the result of the periodic addition of various new features and wondered if it were being developed now it would be less incremental in nature. Feri agreed. I wonder if what we have, at least in the way the software works, is as incremental as you think. Yes, the addition of features is incremental, but the underlying software may have been rewritten from the ground up at one or two points as new features were added. The code as it stands now may be the original code plus a pile of separate, added on, modifications or it may be largely new code rewritten from the start to do the same things where something hasn't changed, and to incorporate new features as integral elements of the code rather than as added on sub-routines to modify existing code. We don't know. We only see the outside, the steady addition of new features, but we don't see the inside, the actual code itself. Adding new features by bolting on new routines tends to result in the total size of the application ballooning out and it has to be squeezed into firmware. Even if Audyssey itself is never going to be updated by a firmware update, the AVR's own firmware is updated from time to time and that means storage space is at a premium so the AVR manufacturers would no doubt prefer to see Audyssey provide their solution in a form which economises on its storage requirements. Perhaps the actual code has been rewritten at times and is less incremental in nature than the history of feature addition and modification suggests. 

I'm still working my way through your thoughts and my own thoughts but I don't think I've really shifted my views in any way from what I said in my earlier response to you. In particular I still think adjusting for moment to moment level changes is wrong and, if anything, I think my views are firming on that. I think we need an adjustment to compensate for any difference between actual master volume setting and reference level and nothing else. I'll go with Feri that it should be applied to all speakers, not just the sub.

I don't know what the basis of the restriction of not being able to use DEQ with tone controls is but if we're going to talk about different options for modifying the amount of boost applied by DEQ perhaps the option of being able to use tone controls in conjunction with DEQ should also be on the table.

Apart from all that, it's now Wednesday morning here. I turned DEQ off last Friday, swapped from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat, and started playing with various combinations of tone control and Cinema EQ instead of relying on the combination of Audyssey Reference and DEQ. I'm appreciating my current approach more as time goes on. At first I missed DEQ, especially something about the bass boost it provided, but after four and a bit days I've stopped missing it.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> I'm with you Mike while I'm sure in order for every user to make their own subjective decisions it is very important to be familiar with the pure technical workflow of DEQ.
> 
> Lookin' forward to those speculations.
> 
> I personally would keep it with a possibility to turn it on/off. When "on" it works automatically as a function of the MV setting, while turning it off means any time MV is changed the enduser has to re-adjust the surround trims which seems a bit tedious to me.
> 
> I wouldn't do that, frankly. Each channel has a speaker/ear interaction that needs loudness control regardless of its position or purpose in a multi-channel array.
> 
> I'm not sure, but I think such a mixture of DEQ and tone controls, and only front or only subwoofer, etc. would bring about a Babel confusion resulting in a lot of speakers speaking different languages. Oh, what a mix, eh? LOL
> 
> Would probably keep it, it can be turned on or off, still better than nothing. I don't us it though coz I have come up with a completely different solution for music listening I've describe in some of my earlier posts.
> 
> I think DEQ with 3 settings would be the end of the world. Just kidding!  Seriously, the equal loudness curves are working pretty consistently for human ears. No doubt there may be deviations among the hearing of all 7 billion inhabitants on this God's Green Planet (especially with age), but surely still not as different as the hearing of a barn owl differs from our human ears' characteristics. This would be a kinda transient between DEQ and tone controls. Just imagine how busy everyone would be tinkering their controls and in the end leaving no valuable time to listen to/enjoy their music.
> 
> Same as my commentary above. Too much tweaking would be involved I believe. Especially knowing that music is all over the map and we would have to take notes on which setting sounded best with which music. Endless game, isn't it?
> 
> Again I would advocate DEQ for all channels in the system. I don't find the current approach of DEQ not being smooth or abrupt for transitions, but that's just me.
> 
> Agree.


Hi Feri,

I'm not going to try to respond to all of the comments that everyone made, but there are a couple of areas where I think you may have misunderstood what I was suggesting, and I should clarify those. First, with respect to using three DEQ settings instead of the RLO settings, I don't think that there would be any more tweaking involved, at all. People could either use the default setting, or go up, or down one decibel, as required. Only three total settings, where RLO has four, counting RLO off, but better than RLO. 

Something I may emphasize in a little different way, in the Application section, is the fact that hardly anyone uses DEQ without some additional sub boost, so I don't think they quite succeeded in compensating for the Equal Loudness Curves, with 2.2db per -5 MV. Having the option to add about +3db per -5 MV, might just do it. That could certainly be studied.

Also, RLO only *reduces* the effects of DEQ, and is a bit of a kludge, anyway. Having the ability to either add, or subtract, 1db per -5 MV, would accomplish the same thing that RLO does with respect to subtracting bass boost, and would probably prevent people from having to add as much independent sub boost to DEQ, in order to increase their bass boost. As I recall, you add about +4db for music at your preferred listening volume. Try calculating +3db per -5 MV, for your listening volume, instead of +2.2 db, and see how close I am. It's possible that the settings should be +1.1db, +2.2db, and +3.3db, but I rounded everything down for simplicity.

The slope that I am suggesting for DEQ, would not be user adjustable, any more than the current slope is. It would still start at about 200Hz and increase very gradually, as the frequency dropped, but I believe that it should reach maximum effect, whatever that may be, at about 60Hz instead of 30Hz. It might then actually attenuate a little at 30Hz, and below, for reasons that include both room gains at that frequency, and due to the way the Equal Loudness Curves compress at that point. Remember that at 30Hz and below, a 5db gain in SPL is actually perceived as a doubling in volume. I think that changing the DEQ curve, just slightly, would actually improve DEQ's effects in both the mid and low-bass.

We agree that if Audyssey were developing DEQ today, they would probably do it differently, and more holistically, in a way that didn't require catch-up mechanisms (patches really) such as RLO, to make it more usable. But, if they didn't actually change anything from exactly the way it is now, what would be the point? Surely, after all the years that people have been using and studying DEQ, we could find some ways to make it work even better. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## shae

mthomas47 said:


> I would like to get any comments or suggestions


I don't think it would take much work for Audyssey to add more settings or change the way they work. The difficult part is the actual sound modification algorithms, which they already have. It shouldn't be complex to allow different settings to feed the algorithm different dB/MV parameters, or to separately turn on/off secondary features. I'm guessing their internal versions already have such settings implemented and they just want to keep it simple for end-users. A better solution to satisfy everyone would be to add an "Advanced Settings" section.

By the way, I wouldn't call their software an operating system. That title befits better the likes of Windows and Android.



David Aiken said:


> may also help someone like Shae who's having trouble with the amount of bass boost in the surrounds.


No problem with the bass, just the extra flat boost on top of it.


----------



## mthomas47

I am in the process of adding a section on DEQ to the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature, and I will change the title slightly, once I am finished. Since that guide is intended more as a helpful primer than anything else, I am in the process of modifying what I wrote, on the previous page, to fit that specific context. I will be eliminating the Application and Enhancement sections entirely, as they are more speculative in nature, rather than merely informative. And, I will just concentrate on how DEQ works, and how it is used.

I will let the post on the previous page stand as is, and any comments on it, or on the soon to be modified guide, will still be very welcome. DEQ is an interesting subject, and I enjoy discussing it, but I decided that I should try to keep the guide as simple and explanatory as possible. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I don't know if anyone is interested in this part, but this does seem like the right place to post it. I have added a DEQ section to the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature, and have retitled the guide, accordingly. I thought a slightly more comprehensive explanation of DEQ would be helpful, in general, and probably particularly so for anyone wanting information on subwoofer levels. I have deliberately tried to avoid anything controversial in that new DEQ section, but as always, comments are welcome. I typically tweak these things a good bit over time, anyway.


----------



## gurkey

My own perpective concerning the changes I would like to see within the Audyssey DEQ function are somewhat different to those mthomas47 listed.

- I would agree to David Aikens assessment, that a momentary dynamic compensation element within DEQ is counter productive, because it cures a "phenomenon" which in reality doesn't exist. I would like to see variable loudness compensation according to the absolute level of the signal beeing played back but individually adjustable to a certain degree to ones individual liking and personal perception comparable to RLO. But no momentary variable dynamic element, which in real life does not exist and would falsify the impression of the "real thing".
- The theory of surround level enhancement is based - from my point of view - on sound theory. What actually is missing is the capability of adjusting it to ones personal situation like how the surrounds are positioned in ones own listening space with regards to the actual listening position and how this correlates with the presumptions made in that level "enhancement" provided. One you can either switch off completely or change its strength / level gradually in case it is activated. The way it is implemented right now seems to imply a manifest "ideal" theoretical situation which quite often doesn't exist in reality and leads to undesired "side-effects".


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Just for the record, I also would eliminate the moment-to-moment aspect of DEQ's operation, as well. And, I gave my specific reasons for that in my belief that it contributes to more abrupt transitions between loud and soft passages. I simply suggested that if such a feature were to be retained, it would have worked better with a listen-ahead component, instead of trying to make changes in real time, as the listener is actually hearing them. I think that it actually over-complicates the algorithm a bit to try to make individual channel adjustments, and to do that on the fly.


----------



## Threxx

Has Audyssey given any updates on their iPhone app recently? Last date I heard given was late February or early March. We're now closing in on April.

I'm mostly hoping to get the app before I start testing out placement options for my subwoofer, as apparently the Audyssey software in my X6300-H shows correction for all speakers except the sub, which it is apparently doing, but just won't show its results... then I read that the iPhone app will show those results. So I'm really excited to get the ball rolling with it.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... I have deliberately tried to avoid anything controversial in that new DEQ section, but as always, comments are welcome. I typically tweak these things a good bit over time, anyway.


Wow, Mike, you got 23 likes for the revised "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" post number 1296 (as of 3:10 pm Wednesday, Pacific Time), including many I have never heard of. It's good to know that so many people are reading along, and know a quality post when they see one!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Wow, Mike, you got 23 likes for the revised "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" post number 1296 (as of 3:10 pm Wednesday, Pacific Time), including many I have never heard of. It's good to know that so many people are reading along, and know a quality post when they see one!


Thank you very much for the compliment Gary! I don't know about the quality part, but I am pretty sure that there are a lot of people silently reading along, who aren't posting on the thread.


----------



## garygarrison

gurkey said:


> ... a momentary dynamic compensation element within DEQ is counter productive, because it cures a "phenomenon" which in reality doesn't exist ... and would falsify the impression of the "real thing" ...





mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Just for the record, I also would eliminate the moment-to-moment aspect of DEQ's operation, as well ... And, I gave my specific reasons for that in my belief that it contributes to more abrupt transitions between loud and soft passages. I simply suggested that if such a feature were to be retained, it would have worked better with a listen-ahead component, instead of trying to make changes in real time, as the listener is actually hearing them. I think that it actually over-complicates the algorithm a bit to try to make individual channel adjustments, and to do that on the fly.


I agree that the moment-to-moment "compensation" DEQ provides is an attempt to cure something that doesn't exist. I've never understood why they included it in the first place. At reference volume the soft passages should have the same proportion of bass and treble they would have in real life, and at lower than reference volume, with DEQ engaged, wouldn't the simple compensation that is tied to the MV setting suffice?

Perhaps the possible over-complication of the algorithm Mike refers to, and asking Audyssey to do too much, etc. is responsible for the loss of clarity and transparency I hear with DEQ on.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I agree that the moment-to-moment "compensation" DEQ provides is an attempt to cure something that doesn't exist. I've never understood why they included it in the first place. At reference volume the soft passages should have the same proportion of bass and treble they would have in real life, and at lower than reference volume, with DEQ engaged, wouldn't the simple compensation that is tied to the MV setting suffice?
> 
> Perhaps the possible over-complication of the algorithm Mike refers to, and asking Audyssey to do too much, etc. is responsible for the loss of clarity and transparency I hear with DEQ on.


I have attributed some of the loss of clarity to the nature of the bass curve that DEQ uses, although I can't really think of a way to confirm that intuition. Another factor, for movies at least, could certainly be the bass boost in the center channel. I tried a variety of ways to circumvent that slight loss of clarity, including raising the crossover, but that was sort of an inescapable component of DEQ for me.

Have you experienced the transition problem between loud and soft passages to which I referred? To be fair, I only noticed that when I experimented without DEQ for a while. Without was just smoother to me, and I could hear the difference more clearly when I subsequently experimented with DEQ again. We all hear slightly different things, in slightly different ways. And, then we use slightly different language to try to describe what we are hearing, so who knows whether we actually hear the same things?


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> I agree that the moment-to-moment "compensation" DEQ provides is an attempt to cure something that doesn't exist. I've never understood why they included it in the first place. At reference volume the soft passages should have the same proportion of bass and treble they would have in real life, and at lower than reference volume, with DEQ engaged, wouldn't the simple compensation that is tied to the MV setting suffice?
> 
> Perhaps the possible over-complication of the algorithm Mike refers to, and asking Audyssey to do too much, etc. is responsible for the loss of clarity and transparency I hear with DEQ on.


I'll try my wings again, so please bear with me. 

Any time we turn down MV from 0 dB ref., DEQ will kick-in with a fixed compensation curve, e.g. at -30 dB MV there will be a curve that compensates the incoming signal that is 0 dB (electric) or let's just call it loud. But then in the passage there will be a signal that is playing at -30 dB (electric) and that signal will fall on another steeper curve resulting in a thinner sound (too much bass and treble cut). In order to tackle this existing phenomenon, the second-tier compensation will put it back to the same curve needed at -30dB MV setting. This is what DEQ does moment-by-moment and I've always regarded this as a valid point.

Let's try to leave a bit of time to digest this second feature of DEQ which unfortunately can not be turned off separately. Probably the only way to test this would be to setup a system with another AVR (Yamaha, Pioneer, etc.) that does not have this feature on-board and do a very careful A-B testing. Won't gonna happen soon, eh?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> I'll try my wings again, so please bear with me.
> 
> Any time we turn down MV from 0 dB ref., DEQ will kick-in with a fixed compensation curve, e.g. at -30 dB MV there will be a curve that compensates the incoming signal that is 0 dB (electric) or let's just call it loud. But then in the passage there will be a signal that is playing at -30 dB (electric) and that signal will fall on another steeper curve resulting in a thinner sound (too much bass and treble cut). In order to tackle this existing phenomenon, the second-tier compensation will put it back to the same curve needed at -30dB MV setting. This is what DEQ does moment-by-moment and I've always regarded this as a valid point.
> 
> Let's try to leave a bit of time to digest this second feature of DEQ which unfortunately can not be turned off separately. Probably the only way to test this would be to setup a system with another AVR (Yamaha, Pioneer, etc.) that does not have this feature on-board and do a very careful A-B testing. Won't gonna happen soon, eh?


I'm fairly ambivalent on this one, Feri. I do think that I understand the reasoning behind what they were attempting, and if I apply that reasoning only to 5.1 movies, where different things may be happening in different channels, at the same time, I think I follow it. Of course, whether it actually accomplishes exactly what they intended, in the way they intended it, even if the reasoning behind it is valid, is an entirely separate question.

FWIW, I find discussions of DEQ's application to music, and particularly to two-channel music, much less fruitful. That one is sort of like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, to me. Although DEQ can certainly be used with any listening material, we are well beyond the theory that was the whole basis for the development of DEQ, at that point. So, we are forced to rely solely on our personal impressions of how well it works, with little recourse to the way that theory matches application. Again, that is because DEQ was specifically designed to compensate for the attenuation of (primarily) low frequencies, that occurs at below Reference volumes, in 5.1 movies.

I hope that makes sense to someone else. I think it is a pretty critical point in discussions of DEQ. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Have you experienced the transition problem between loud and soft passages to which I referred?


I value really fast, clean transient response and I noticed somewhat poorer transient attacks with DEQ ... I guess that could be due to a slight delay in the compensation changing between soft and loud passages. Also, micro dynamics and inner voices of the orchestra sound a little blurred with DEQ on, as opposed to off. I've long despised devices like automatic gain controls, so maybe something similar (but more subtle) is happening with the moment by moment changes in bass and treble compensation imposed by DEQ.


----------



## gurkey

@mogorf

My understanding would be, that the DEQ algorithm shouldn't do anything which counteracts a "natural" behavior. It's fine with me, if an adjustable compensations is applied, when the (static) listening level is not at reference level as a mark, everyone is referring to, but in real life dynamics in a performance will change every minute without any momentary compensations added to it. 
It just is what it is... And that is, what the original artist had in mind in his arrangement, especially in "classical" music.


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I think we all have a good understanding on how our ears work with regards to different frequencies at different sound pressure levels. That's all fine in a concert hall, everything sound "as is", no debate!
> 
> But once we get home and turn on our amps things start to change. We have something know as "The Volume Control" and that's what makes a huge difference when compared to a live performance.
> 
> Let's take a look at how Roger Dressler (in the Audyssey thread part I back in 2012) ) explains the "two-tier" operation sheme of DEQ:
> 
> 
> 
> "Let's use the example of a train recording (I guess it could also be a marching band!). The top line in each of these diagrams is the train's spectrum as it passes close by. The lower line is the final loudness as the train travels far away. The overall SPL reduces 40 dB during the train recording.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue = Playback at Ref volume. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is naturally weaker (just like real life), but it is audible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red = MV at -30. When the train is close, the bass is weak. When it is far, the bass is much weaker, and becomes inaudible below 60 Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Green = Fixed Loudness Compensation applied. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is weak below 100 Hz, and inaudible below 30 Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grey = Dynamic EQ applied. When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is weaker, but it is audible. The arrows show where the lower curve had additional bass boost applied in response to the quiet program level. The amount of compensation needed has changed as the train went from loud to soft. Fixed compensation cannot do that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blue/Gray = Before /After with Dynamic EQ"
> 
> Let's talk!


I've been taking a look at this, and at Mike's post, again and I wanted to revisit Feri's post, not because of anything he said but because of some things that Roger Dressler says in the post Feri quoted.

For a start, we really can't work with these graphs. What they show us is what level a sound at one frequency has to be in order to sound equally as loud as a sound at 1000 Hz. We're interested in something else entirely. We aren't interested in how much higher the SPL of a sound at 31.5 Hz, or some other frequency, has to be in order to sound equal in volume to a sound at 1000 Hz. Most of the time the sound at frequencies other than 1000 Hz does not sound equally loud to us as sounds at 1000 Hz. What we're interested in is not ensuring that 2 sounds at different frequencies perceived as equal in loudness maintain that equality as Master Volume level changes during playback. What we're interest in is ensuring that the perceived loudness balance between sounds at different frequencies is preserved as Master Volume level changes, and the amount of compensation required to ensure that varies depending on the difference in actual level of the sound at a given frequency to the level of a standard 1000 Hz tone at Reference Level.

Look at Dressler's caption to the first graph which says "When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is naturally weaker (just like real life), but it is audible." Now that is simply wrong. If you did a frequency analysis of the sound of the train when it was close and the sound at 1000 Hz was 90 phons in level we would most definitely hear all frequencies equally loud. A plot of the level of the sound at each frequency would definitely not follow the equal loudness contour for 90 phons in Dressler's plots and because of that some frequencies would be heard as louder than others. So it is with the vast majority of sounds. There are incredibly few sounds in real life in which each frequency in the sound is perceived at equal in loudness to every other frequency. In fact I doubt such a sound occurs naturally but we could certainly create such a sound digitally. I have no idea what such a sound would sound like but I am willing to bet that it does not sound like a train.

Yet Dressler starts his example with graphs showing equal loudness contours and the indefensible assumption that in the sound of the train when it is near we hear each frequency as having equal loudness and then proceeds to demonstrate what is required to maintain that perception of equal loudness.

Unfortunately if we do not perceive each frequency in the sound as being equal in loudness the amount of compensation required to preserve the balance between the levels at different frequencies which we perceive is going to be different to what is required to preserve the perception of equal loudness as we adjust master volume, and there will be times when sound at a given frequency is not going to be audible and we don't want to make it audible, but if the sound is dropping in level as in the case of the sound of a train receding into the distance, we will want to preserve the point in the decay of the sound where a frequency becomes inaudible, and maintain the perceived shifts in tonal character of the sound as it decays while the train recedes into the distance.

Dressler's example is a simple, unique case, example but it's also a very unrealistic example if we consider the sounds confronting us in real life and on soundtracks, and statements like "When the train is close, we hear all frequencies equally loud. When it is far, the bass is naturally weaker (just like real life), but it is audible." in the captions to his graphs are misleading and don't help us to assess and understand what actually is going on in the special case he illustrates.

Now if you want to start to show what we need with DEQ you could start with 2 different sets of graphs. The first one could be of white noise at different SPLs and show our perception of the level of different frequencies in that sound as we reduce the playback level of the white noise. The second one would be similar but substitute pink noise for white noise because pink noise has a different frequency plot to white noise. If you repeat Dressler's series of 4 graphs, plotting the process of deriving a DEQ profile to preserve the perceived loudness of both noises at differing playback levels you would see that the amount of DEQ required to preserve the perceived character of the white noise will be slightly different to that required to preserve the perceived balance of the pink noise. Then try some real life sounds like, say, frequency plots of the actual sound of a close and of a distant train and repeat the series of graphs and you will find that the DEQ required to preserve the tonal character of the train sound in both cases is going to be different, and the DEQ required for the train sounds is going to be different to that required for white and pink noise, and different also to a noise which follows the equal loudness contours of Dressler's example. The differences are going to be small but they are going to be there, and some frequencies are going to drop into inaudibility which does not occur in Dressler's example.

Comment for Mike in particular: you said it took you ages to write the original version of your DEQ post. I figure it has probably taken me as long to write this and I can't guarantee that in a day's time I won't want to tear this up and start again, or just delete this post and give up on starting over. The requirements for calculating the amount of compensation required on a moment to moment basis got more and more complex to me as I drafted and redrafted. I tried to summarise them, I rewrote that part several times, and I finally left it on the cutting room floor. In the end I've simply focussed on showing up the issues in Dressler's presentation as I see them. He is right if we start from a sound in which each frequency appears equally loud but, as I said, that's a special case and it isn't going to occur in real life and the result for sounds in real life is going to be slightly different for each sound. You said you thought the calculations involved for the moment to moment calculation were pushing the capabilities of the software to deliver in real time. I came to the conclusion that they probably exceed the capacity of the processors in our AVRs. It could be done but I think what is being done is much simpler and what is being done is the generation of a compensation profile based solely on the master volume setting and some kind of adjustment determined from a very limited frequency/level analysis, perhaps in terms of octave bands or samples taken at a small number of frequencies. The computational task if you analysed levels at each frequency between 20 Hz and 20 kHz in real time is probably beyond the processors in our AVRs.


----------



## mthomas47

*Important clarification for DEQ discussions*

In my opinion, there have been several excellent posts, regarding DEQ, on the current page. There is Gary's post on microdynamics in orchestral compositions; an equally good post by Gurkey on natural sound, especially for classical music; and David's really excellent analysis of Roger's train example. All three posts share two things in common. They are all valid, in my opinion. And, they are all talking about listening activities that have nothing at all to do with DEQ's original design intent. _This is a very important point!_

These thread discussions of DEQ seem to always follow a common pattern. Someone mentions a dissatisfaction with some aspect of DEQ, and then someone (typically an engineer) like Chris, when he was active on the thread, or Feri in recent years, patiently explains the theory behind DEQ. That is a perfectly logical approach. If we understand the design, we will be better able to compare the design to its practical application. So, Design >/< = Actual (or Practical) Application. But, there is actually a component missing in that construction. And, that is the original design intent. If we are going to discuss the relationship between theory and practical application, then we need an intermediate piece to add to our logical construction. It should be: Design >/< = Intended Application >/< = Actual Application.

Perhaps an analogy will help to make this essential point a little clearer. Several carpenters and electricians are at a job site on a lunch break, and they are discussing the ideal flat head screwdriver and how it should be designed. They all agree that it should have a long shaft for leverage and torque, and a fairly broad head, with a thinly tapering edge. It should be extremely strong, without being brittle. Then a painter walks up and agrees that a long shaft, and a broad flat head are valuable, because after using the screw driver to pry open a paint can, he often uses it to stir the paint. And, the long shaft and broad head help with that. The others agree, and then go back to talking about the nature of the tool's design, for its intended function.

The effective use of a flat head screwdriver, as a paint stirrer, is a happy coincidence that has nothing whatsoever to do with its original design intent. DEQ is just a tool, more complex perhaps than a flat head screwdriver, but still designed for a specific purpose. That purpose was not to make two-channel orchestral music sound more natural and convincing, or to accurately replicate the sound of a train passing. It was designed to maintain the acoustic balance of the inherently artificial sounds of a 5.1 movie soundtrack (with 6 separate channels, mixed according to the tastes and whims of a director and film mixer) at below Reference listening levels. If it also happens to work effectively for something else, that is a happy coincidence which has nothing whatsoever to do with its original design intent. Just like the screwdriver.

This is not a matter of being pedantic. It is a fundamental issue of the logical disconnect that occurs for all of us when we start to discuss the theory of a surround boost, or moment-by-moment changes within individual channels, or the bass loss that may occur, due to the Equal Loudness Contours, and then try to apply those same concepts to something besides 5.1 movies. Those are all specific artifacts of the completely artificial sounds of a 5.1 movie, played in a home theater with multiple surround channels. And, they have nothing at all to do with the "natural" sound of a train, or of a symphony orchestra, or of a two-channel recording of a symphony orchestra, even if it is expanded into a 5-channel track, via a surround processor such as PLII.

So, we can talk about DEQ in any context we like: TV game shows, sporting events, two-channel music, whatever. And we will all have personal opinions as to how well the flat head screwdriver works as a pry bar, or as a paint stirrer. Or how well DEQ works for orchestral music, or to capture the natural sound of a train. But, it is only in the context of 5.1 movies, and Reference volumes, that we will be able to achieve any real alignment between design theory and practical application. In my opinion, that is why the logical disconnects in these discussions, going back quite a few years, keep occurring.

Again, that is because the application to 5.1 movies was the specific design intent behind the creation of DEQ in the first place. And, everything from its addition of 2.2db of bass boost for every -5 MV below Reference, to its moment-by-moment adjustments of individual channels, to its surround boost, were predicated upon that specific design intent. We may like those design attributes, or not, for their intended purpose, or within any other context that we choose. But, if we want our discussions to all be on the same page (as they have not been in the past), we really need to make the connection between the original design intent, and its actual, or practical, application for 5.1 movies. Anything beyond that will be a happy coincidence, in my opinion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> In my opinion, there have been several excellent posts, regarding DEQ, on the current page. There is Gary's post on microdynamics in orchestral compositions; an equally good post by Gurkey on natural sound, especially for classical music; and David's really excellent analysis of Roger's train example. All three posts share two things in common. They are all valid, in my opinion. And, they are all talking about listening activities that have nothing at all to do with DEQ's original design intent. _This is a very important point!_
> 
> These thread discussions of DEQ seem to always follow a common pattern. Someone mentions a dissatisfaction with some aspect of DEQ, and then someone (typically an engineer) like Chris, when he was active on the thread, or Feri in recent years, patiently explains the theory behind DEQ. That is a perfectly logical approach. If we understand the design, we will be better able to compare the design to its practical application. So, Design >/< = Actual (or Practical) Application. But, there is actually a component missing in that construction. And, that is the original design intent. If we are going to discuss the relationship between theory and practical application, then we need an intermediate piece to add to our logical construction. It should be: Design >/< = Intended Application >/< = Actual Application.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, I think this is one of the best and coolest post I've ever read on this forum. All my appreciations and credits to out to you. It is confidence building for the individuals and team spirit building for this little community we have here on the Audyssey thread making it out to be a kinda "family place" where particular people congregate. Kudos to Ya.

As a wrap up of my humble contributions to the DEQ topic here is something I'd like to share with everyone hopefully still interested in some technical stuff as a back up of all the talk we've been doing here in the last couple of day. (Especially for those who like graphs! ) 

Back in 2013 we had here another long discussion on "How DEQ works" and member "urwi" showed these two graphs he measured on the pre-out of his AVR with regards to the two-tier operation of DEQ in real life:

"Dynamic adjustments based on signal level are necessary if the equal loudness curves behave non-monotonically. Audyssey obviously believes this is the case although the ISO curves do behave monotonically. Here are Dynamic EQ equal loudness curves measured from an AVR preamp output.



The following graph shows the dynamic behavior of compensation curves for three different input levels with MV at -30dB."



I sincerely hope by now we have a much better understanding on the pure technical side of what DEQ does in the signal chain that will surely help everyone decide on their own subjective preferences when next time the HT system is turned on. Good luck guys, with the true hope I didn't rob anyone's precious time with my continuous efforts to shed some light on something that was also new for me when I started to dig into all the technical details of DEQ. I just tried to pass on some of my savvy to all wishing to be upgraded with more than enough details.

Finally I'd like to offer something as a bonus to our discussions which is a sound file of a train coming and going that represents what Roger Dressler tried to demo with his graphs. Please play it through your system. Let's have some fun. 

P.s.: Mike et al, watch out, this is a 5.1 multi-channel recording!! 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqmlezqyrmzmtrn/Train.wav?dl=0


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> In my opinion, there have been several excellent posts, regarding DEQ, on the current page…


A bit of a disclaimer on my part plus a bit of relevant personal history and a comment on music, real sounds, and their relevance to DEQ:

I have 2 systems, one with Audyssey and one without. The one with Audyssey gets used for movie/TV viewing only, the other system is my music system so DEQ never goes near it. Audyssey never goes near it.

My comments on DEQ relate to my experience of it with movies and TV audio sources because I haven't used it for music or other types or recordings, just soundtracks. Trains occasionally figure in those activities, actually more often than they do in my activities away from the screen. I started thinking and commenting on it again because someone, either Mike or Feri, made a comment about how it worked which differed from my understanding of how it worked and the more I thought about the way the comment suggested it worked, which apparently actually is the way it works so my original beliefs were wrong, the more I started having problems with the concept behind it.

Coincidentally with that I came across a podcast about some aspects of room correction and started experimenting with some different settings for Audyssey including turning DEQ off instead of having it on which had been my usual practice. I like some of the changes I'm hearing with DEQ off and that fed into my concerns about how DEQ worked.

Mike's point about the purpose of DEQ being to correct something in the playback of 5.1 soundtracks is very relevant, and yes, soundtracks are different to music and real sounds, but soundtracks do include music and real sounds and when they do the soundtrack usually can't deviate too far from reality in it's treatment of those things if they are going to work successfully in the soundtrack. If a movie has a train coming closer and then receding, then the sound of the train better sound reasonably like a train's sound and the way in which the sound gets louder as the train gets closer and then gets softer as the train gets further away had all better remind us of the way a real train sounds under those circumstances or the illusion gets broken. You can't substitute the sound of a car and have the sound get softer as the train gets closer and louder as it moves away, for example, and expect the soundtrack to work well with the movie. Music and real sounds get used in soundtracks and we expect them to behave the way music and real sounds behave in our normal experience. They can be modified to accentuate or diminish something for a specific purpose but if that is to be done the movie itself has to provide a context for the change in the behaviour of the sound or it simply doesn't work for us.

So while agreeing with Mike's comments about the purpose that DEQ was intended to serve and his statement that it was not developed for use with music or real sounds, I do think it has to be able of working with music and real sounds in a way which does not prevent music and real sounds from sounding the way we expect them to sound and behave when they occur in soundtracks and the soundtrack requires that of those sounds.

That is an entirely different thing to expecting DEQ to work "seamlessly" with music or other recordings which are not mastered in the same way as a soundtrack and which do not have a known Reference Level which can be used as a data point for calculation of the corrections.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Mike, David, Feri and et al,

Count me as one of the Silent readers. Very informative stuff, and served in chewable bite size portions to boot. I may not have a complete understanding of this, but I certainly know more than I did before following this recent DEQ conversation/Dissertation/Oration.

My humble gratitude to each of you for graciously sharing your knowledge and time with all of us. What DEQ does is amazing. I am personally a Fan. I use it on a daily basis. In my meager mind, DEQ allows me to experience the sound stage as it was intended even at reduced MV. I think it is Brilliant work and am thankful for its existence.

Knowing how it works and what it does specifically just makes it that much more Magical to me. Keep up the splendid work Gentlemen. I am certain there are many more like me about. Reading, absorbing, pondering and reading some more. Yet remaining silent as it would be hard for many of us to hold a candle to the current Subject Matter Experts.

I was going to say "Grey Beards" but we know where that will take us......


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> Mike, I think this is one of the best and coolest post I've ever read on this forum. All my appreciations and credits to out to you. It is confidence building for the individuals and team spirit building for this little community we have here on the Audyssey thread making it out to be a kinda "family place" where particular people congregate. Kudos to Ya.
> 
> As a wrap up of my humble contributions to the DEQ topic here is something I'd like to share with everyone hopefully still interested in some technical stuff as a back up of all the talk we've been doing here in the last couple of day. (Especially for those who like graphs! )
> 
> Back in 2013 we had here another long discussion on "How DEQ works" and member "urwi" showed these two graphs he measured on the pre-out of his AVR with regards to the two-tier operation of DEQ in real life:
> 
> "Dynamic adjustments based on signal level are necessary if the equal loudness curves behave non-monotonically. Audyssey obviously believes this is the case although the ISO curves do behave monotonically. Here are Dynamic EQ equal loudness curves measured from an AVR preamp output.
> 
> …
> Finally I'd like to offer something as a bonus to our discussions which is a sound file of a train coming and going that represents what Roger Dressler tried to demo with his graphs. Please play it through your system. Let's have some fun.
> 
> P.s.: Mike et al, watch out, this is a 5.1 multi-channel recording!!
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/cqmlezqyrmzmtrn/Train.wav?dl=0


Feri, 

First, a +1 on your first paragraph.

I got a lot out of both your post with the Dressler quote and this one. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agreed with everything in them, I obviously had problems with Dressler, but I did get a lot out of them because they both have made me think about what's going on in ways I would not have done without them, and that has also made me question my views and understanding which have shifted a bit too. We don't have to agree with something to find it useful and sometimes the things we don't agree with can be very useful to us.

I'm not certain that I understand urwi's comment that Audyssey believes that the equal loudness curves behave non-monotonically while the ISO curves do behave monotonically. I think I know what is being said but the only way I can think of testing in order to derive an equal loudness curve would actually be a monotonic test. Our hearing may not behave like that but I can't think of a way to test whether our perception of loudness of sounds containing multiple frequencies is driven by the SPL of the total sound or whether we can distinguish the level of the different frequencies within the sound and our perception of the loudness of each frequency within the sound depends on the level of that frequency.

The problem I see with that hypothesis is that without being able to demonstrate that it is correct, and without being able to derive non-monotonic equal loudness curves, anything used as a basis for determining the amount of DEQ to apply is going to be a guess based on someone's unverified view of how non-monotonic equal loudness contours work. Actually the problem is worse than that. If the non-monotonic theory is correct, then our perception of the loudness of different frequencies within a complex sound may actually depend on the relationships between the loudness of all of the frequencies within the complex sound and since those relationships are going to be different for every different sound we would be faced with an essentially infinite number of different non-monotonic curves so utilising a non-monotonic model as the basis for DEQ could prove problematic. It would probably mean picking the result from one particular complex sound as the basis for the calculation and the accuracy of the calculation then depends on how representative of all complex sounds your chosen complex sound was.

I guess my reaction to the idea of using a non-monotonic model would be:

1- I'd rather stick with an established and verified monotonic model than an unverified non-monotonic model. Even if the non-monotonic model is verified, it's going to be a hell of a lot more complex than a monotonic model and using it is going to require a hell of a lot more computational power for a moment to moment calculation and computational power is the thing that is likely to be in short supply in our AVRs. Both Mike and I have expressed doubts about the computational capability of AVRs for this kind of task and there are a lot of practical advantages to simplicity when it comes to implementation, even if the more complex model yields more accurate results. When it comes to whether or not using a superior model works better than using an inferior but still reasonably good model, the result often depends on which model is best implemented. A superior quality implemenation of the inferior model may in practice yield better results than an average quality implementation of the superior model. Cut corners in the implementation and you can easily fail to achieve the theoretical advantages promised by your model. Most AVRs are not brilliant examples of no holds barred, highest quality implementation of everything. This is a practical point which acknowledges the advantages of basing things on superior theory and data but also acknowledges that lots of practical and cost benefit issues can get in the way of both utilising and getting the most advantage from the superior theory and data when it comes to including it in a product.

2- I'd rather use perceived loudness contours rather than equal loudness contours. By that I mean a contour that is derived not from playing a reference tone at a fixed level and having the subject adjust the level of a tone at a different frequency until it sounds equally loud to them as the reference tone but a contour derived by playing the target frequency at a fixed level and having the subject adjust the level of the reference tone until they think that is equally loud as the target reference. The curves we would get from that would have an inverse contour to the equal loudness curves and would show how loud we think a sound at a given frequency is rather than how loud a sound at a given frequency needs to be to equal the loudness of the sound at the reference frequency. I don't know if someone has ever done the work to derive such curves but it would be interesting to see them if it has been done, and I wonder whether they would be an exact inverse of the equal loudness curves. I think not.

Apart from that I really appreciated seeing the graphs of the actual behaviour of DEQ. Do you happen to know what the test signal was for those graphs? Was it a frequency sweep or something like a white noise source?

Thanks for your input and keep it coming, and that goes for everyone in this discussion as well.


----------



## David Aiken

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> …
> I was going to say "Grey Beards" but we know where that will take us......


Keep saying it and I may decide to grow a beard back to prove you right. Of course if Samson lost his strength when Delilah cut his hair, I may lose my intellect if I grow a beard. There is a risk involved here



I think I can safely speak for everyone and say we genuinely appreciate your appreciation.


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> Keep saying it and I may decide to grow a beard back to prove you right. Of course if Samson lost his strength when Delilah cut his hair, I may lose my intellect if I grow a beard. There is a risk involved here
> 
> 
> 
> I think I can safely speak for everyone and say we genuinely appreciate your appreciation.


And I always love to see silent readers posting. Take care!


----------



## David Aiken

Feri,

Addendum to my previous post:

I just remembered something from the podcast I mentioned earlier, and I think that a non-monotonic theory of loudness perception is almost certainly true. That podcast included a comment that you could have 2 sounds which measured with exactly equal SPLs but if the first of those sounds had a flat frequency response and the second had elevated bass and a depressed midrange relative, the second would be perceived as being less loud than the first because it was lower in level in the midrange where our ears are more sensitive.

So yes, the non-monotonic theory does make sense. I still have no idea how you would ever come up with a set of equal loudness, or perceived loudness curves for that model.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^^^

Since there are several posts coming all at once, I hope no one will mind if I sort of bundle (or bungle ) my response. First, thanks everyone, for your nice comments. And, Feri, thank you especially! That is high praise.

There is more that I might have tried to say in my last post, but I wanted to keep it simple for clarity and emphasis. But, David has raised some good points about realistic sounds, and music in movies, and this is a great time to try to address them in the context of DEQ. (And, Adam, I am really glad that it is working as intended for you.)

Very few sounds in movies are at all realistic. Think about voices for a moment. Do our voices really sound like that when we are outdoors, for instance? Or are our voices thin sounding, and lacking in timbre, when we are outside? Gary, with his experience in film recording will be able to address this issue better than I can, but I will give a few examples. Are footsteps really as loud as they sound in a movie? Or doors closing? For anyone who has ever been in a fight, or studied martial arts, or even watched MMA, does the sound of a fist striking really make a sharp "Crack!" sound, or is more of a meaty thud? And, do kicks really make any special sound at all, as they always do in movies?

As a former shooter, and one with a military background (there Adam, I said it) I can assure everyone that gunshots, particularly outdoors, don't sound at all like that. The sound is very sharp and quick, not drawn out for dramatic effect, as it is in movies. And, explosions don't sound anything like the way they do in movies. They aren't nearly as prolonged, and they are much, much louder. Burst your eardrums loud, at close range. None of that is intended as a critique. Movies are drama, and sounds are created for dramatic effect, and for a simulation of reality, not for reality itself. And, we willingly suspend disbelief, as we do for the story, and for the visual effects, as part of the entertainment process.

We also become acclimated to "movie sounds" over time and separate them in our minds a bit from real sounds. For instance, anyone who has watched fight scenes, from Western movies made in the 1930's and early 40's, knows that the visual and audio effects of those scenes were much more realistic than the ones that we have grown up seeing. They actually fought just as most people really would. The problem is, that on the screen, they didn't look or sound realistic. The punches happened too fast visually, and there was little sound when they landed (which they often did, in the early movies) or when they appeared to land. They just didn't have any dramatic appeal.

John Wayne and Yakima Canut are credited with revolutionizing movie fight scenes. Long, slow punches, with lots of windup. Loud "Cracks!" when the punches landed. That's just one example, from many that we could think of. But, after a while, we got used to movie and TV sounds, as opposed to real ones and incorporated them into our mental database of how things are "supposed" to sound in a movie. David made a similar point in his analysis of a real train, versus a movie train, which can sound any way the film mixer and director want it to.

But, what about music? Surely, if DEQ were designed to work for music in a 5.1 movie, it would have to work in the same way for a two-channel recording, wouldn't it? Well, yes and no. Others can probably think of other examples, but this is one of my favorites to illustrate the point. Anyone who has seen "Meet Joe Black" will probably remember the climactic scene of the birthday party at the end of the movie. There is a hauntingly beautiful song playing, and there are fireworks going off overhead. Many fireworks, which continue for quite a while. The director and film mixer (probably in collaboration with the composer) do a tremendous job of weaving multiple sounds together, from different channels, at different volumes. At times, the music swells, and the fireworks recede, while two of the characters dance or kiss. (One male/one female.) At other times the music is in the background, and there is dialogue, and sounds from the party. At other times, the fireworks dominate the soundtrack, but the music is always playing, throughout all of that. It's a brilliant job of scoring, in my opinion.

But, if you were to listen to the main theme from the soundtrack, on a standalone basis, you wouldn't hear any of the background party sounds, or dialogue, or fireworks. And, there would be no particular need for DEQ, because there would be no special acoustic balance to maintain, and especially not from individual channels. There wouldn't be a need for a bass boost, so that the fireworks would sound realistic, or for a surround boost, and there wouldn't be a Reference level to compensate for in any way.

In other words, movie music is just part of the overall dramatic presentation in a movie, and is mixed especially with that in mind. If DEQ has any validity at all, it is to maintain dynamic equilibrium for 5.1 movie soundtracks (including the on-screen music) at below Reference volumes. Take the the 5.1 movie, out of the music equation, and the situation changes dramatically.

Nothing I have said reflects my personal opinion on whether or not DEQ actually works exactly as intended for 5.1 movies. It just continues the theme of trying to keep us on the same page, as we discuss how well it works, in the context of its actual design intent. 

Reflects,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> Apart from that I really appreciated seeing the graphs of the actual behaviour of DEQ. *Do you happen to know what the test signal was for those graphs? Was it a frequency sweep or something like a white noise source?*


Member "urwi" was using REW (Room EQ Wizard) to measure his AVR. REW is available from Hometheatershack.com. Free to download. REW has its own frequency sweeps available on-board for testing purposes.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> mogorf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to digest this second feature, and I'm not in a hurry, but, sooner or later I'll probably need some more digestive enzymes.
> 
> 
> 
> I forget who said "If you think you're in possession of all of the facts, you haven't been fully informed." I'm currently mainlining on digestive enzymes. The facts keep coming and my digestive enzymes keep falling behind.
Click to expand...


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> Member "urwi" was using REW (Room EQ Wizard) to measure his AVR. REW is available from Hometheatershack.com. Free to download. REW has its own frequency sweeps available on-board for testing purposes.


Thanks, Feri. Last time I looked REW was Windows only and didn't have a Mac version but that's not an issue. Knowing that it was a frequency sweep is what I was after. 

It would be interesting to see if there was any variation in the results if white noise and pink noise were used as test material rather than frequency sweeps but I don't think that information would be of any use to us.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Member "urwi" was using REW (Room EQ Wizard) to measure his AVR. REW is available from Hometheatershack.com. Free to download. REW has its own frequency sweeps available on-board for testing purposes.


Feri,

That was a very cool train recording, which perfectly illustrates the Doppler effect. I certainly wouldn't want to live too close to train tracks. But, as a kid, I remember lying in bed thinking how comforting the sound of a train, and train whistle, in the distance was. I guess I still think so. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

First, I'd like to say to everyone that the "likes" are not working on the forum -- or, perhaps on my computer -- at the moment, so, even though I liked all of the last several posts, you wouldn't be able to tell by looking in the "like" rectangle.



mthomas47 said:


> ... That purpose was not to make two-channel orchestral music sound more natural and convincing, or to accurately replicate the sound of a train passing. It was designed to maintain the acoustic balance of the inherently artificial sounds of a 5.1 movie soundtrack (with 6 separate channels, mixed according to the tastes and whims of a director and film mixer) at below Reference listening levels ...
> 
> ... the completely artificial sounds of a 5.1 movie, played in a home theater with multiple surround channels. And, they have nothing at all to do with the "natural" sound of a train, or of a symphony orchestra, or of a two-channel recording of a symphony orchestra, even if it is expanded into a 5-channel track, via a surround processor such as PLII.





David Aiken said:


> ... Mike's point about the purpose of DEQ being to correct something in the playback of 5.1 soundtracks is very relevant, and yes, soundtracks are different to music and real sounds, but soundtracks do include music and real sounds and when they do the soundtrack usually can't deviate too far from reality in it's treatment of those things if they are going to work successfully in the soundtrack ....


Some 5.1 movies on Blu-ray have lengthy orchestral passages. Examples of these 5.1 (or greater) movies are 2001: a Space Odyssey, Amadeus, Fantasia 2000, etc. Other movies may have overtures/preludes or lengthy opening or ending credits with fairly long stretches of uninterrupted music. With all of these, DEQ, on my system, in my room, seems to slightly blunt transients and blur the microdynamics and inner voices of the orchestra I so love. I have recently tried a lower MV setting than my usual, for audiences with sensitive ears, so I have tried DEQ once again. It laid an egg every time. Leaving DEQ off, boosting the subwoofer level and using the bass tone control do not cause these problems, at least for me. Even well into a movie, when the music may be turned up and down to make way for dialog or effects, I'd hate to see the texture and detail of a Newman (_any_ of them), a Herrmann, a Rozsa, or a Horner obscured by DEQ. Tonight we ran The 33. It must have been Horner's last score. The music was often interrupted by sounds of the mine shaft collapsing (not a spoiler, in this case), raised voices, etc., yet the musical detail came through with bass boost, sub boost, and no DEQ. 

The same would apply to SACDs, usually 5.1 or 5.0.


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> ...
> 
> Again, that is because the application to 5.1 movies was the specific design intent behind the creation of DEQ in the first place. And, everything from its addition of 2.2db of bass boost for every -5 MV below Reference, to its moment-by-moment adjustments of individual channels, to its surround boost, were predicated upon that specific design intent. We may like those design attributes, or not, for their intended purpose, or within any other context that we choose. But, if we want our discussions to all be on the same page (as they have not been in the past), we really need to make the connection between the original design intent, and its actual, or practical, application for 5.1 movies. Anything beyond that will be a happy coincidence, in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



All, this is a highly interesting discussion on DEQ. Very valid points being made from different perspectives and I am learning a lot on the inner workings of that tool. I would like to add my thoughts on the discrepancy between original intent and today's perception of DEQ.

As far as I can tell, from a high level the current situation may be described as follows:

- Given the software and DSP capabilities of modern AVRs the user is (I think rightfully) expecting some sort of automatic loudness compensation in addition to the ability of manually adjusting the tone settings or SW trim for each level of MV.

- In many AVRs DEQ is the only loudness software option provided. It is turned on by default with RLO=0 and does a couple of things (that may or may not be desired by the user) in addition to the basic loudness compensation. While this may be very good for 5.1 movies - many people feel that this sounds really poor for music and less than optimal for a lot of TV content (I am wondering if that is the underlying issue of people claiming e.g. that Denons generally have unnatural, thickened bass).

- The result can be improved substantially by adjusting RLO on a per content basis and tweaking channel trims. Some are happy with the result and some really are not. 

While it probably would be unfair to blame Audyssey or the DEQ software for this situation I believe it is understandable why people feel that overall this is really not ideal. DEQ may have delivered on the original objectives. However, I wonder if it would be worth formulating a new set of objectives for such a software that will lead to more people being happy with the results. Ideally this should help both - the novice that wants a reasonable sound just after completing the Audyssey measurement and the pro that is happy to understand and tweak the parameters of what his system does until he has what he wants.

I am wondering if most of the basic capabilities aren't in DEQ already. It may just require first taking a step back, looking at it from a slightly different angle and (re)defining the usage scenarios and objectives.

What do you think?


----------



## CommanderROR

Does anyone know roughly how many db per db below reference DEQ applies to low frequencies? Would be nice to know so I can experiment with a manual bass boost...


----------



## CommanderROR

Ignore my question. I found the reply above. 2.2db per 5db. That's pretty heavy handed. Means my -30db standard listening really drives up the bass...


----------



## mogorf

CommanderROR said:


> Ignore my question. I found the reply above. 2.2db per 5db. That's pretty heavy handed. Means my -30db standard listening really drives up the bass...


Actually it varies with frequency and playback level, so your question can not be answered with 1 figure only.


----------



## CommanderROR

Ok. I just tried boosting bass with Tone Control to it's max. of 6db, but that doesn't even come close to the effect of Dyn.EQ. I'm so angry that Denon/Audyssey won't allow us to turn off the stupid volume boost to the surround channels with Dyn EQ! I mostly like what it does to the sound in general, but the Surrounds and Top Rear get blown conpletely out of proportion for me. Even if I lower them by 6db (which then can cause problems on sources like PS4 where I have to deactivate Dyn EQ anyway and also unbalances things at volume closer to Reference) it still seems like they are boosted and the whole surround feeling collapses towards the back. This has been a complaint for ages, but Denon and Audyssey just don't see it as an issue...


----------



## mthomas47

CommanderROR said:


> Ok. I just tried boosting bass with Tone Control to it's max. of 6db, but that doesn't even come close to the effect of Dyn.EQ. I'm so angry that Denon/Audyssey won't allow us to turn off the stupid volume boost to the surround channels with Dyn EQ! I mostly like what it does to the sound in general, but the Surrounds and Top Rear get blown conpletely out of proportion for me. Even if I lower them by 6db (which then can cause problems on sources like PS4 where I have to deactivate Dyn EQ anyway and also unbalances things at volume closer to Reference) it still seems like they are boosted and the whole surround feeling collapses towards the back. This has been a complaint for ages, but Denon and Audyssey just don't see it as an issue...


Hi,

I understand your frustration, but FWIW, Audyssey is a proprietary software, leased to Denon/Marantz, so any changes in the basic Audyssey/DEQ software would have to come from them. If you have a sub in your system, that is what you should be boosting first. The tone controls only affect your front speakers, and have a limited, although helpful, effect. But, if you have a sub, and are bass-managing your speakers with a crossover, using the tone control will only boost your front speakers in the mid to upper-bass range. All the low bass boost will still have to come from the sub, which isn't affected by the tone controls.

The subwoofer guide, linked in my signature, will help you to understand all of this better, so that you can get the bass you want, either with, or without DEQ.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CommanderROR

Thanks. I'll play around more with it over time. I contacted Audyssey a while ago and asked about configuring Dyn EQ via the upcoming Audyssey app, and they said that such a feature would have to be implemented by Denon. I guess it's the usual game of "Sombody elses Problem"


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> All, this is a highly interesting discussion on DEQ. Very valid points being made from different perspectives and I am learning a lot on the inner workings of that tool. I would like to add my thoughts on the discrepancy between original intent and today's perception of DEQ.
> 
> As far as I can tell, from a high level the current situation may be described as follows:
> 
> - Given the software and DSP capabilities of modern AVRs the user is (I think rightfully) expecting some sort of automatic loudness compensation in addition to the ability of manually adjusting the tone settings or SW trim for each level of MV.
> 
> - In many AVRs DEQ is the only loudness software option provided. It is turned on by default with RLO=0 and does a couple of things (that may or may not be desired by the user) in addition to the basic loudness compensation. While this may be very good for 5.1 movies - many people feel that this sounds really poor for music and less than optimal for a lot of TV content (I am wondering if that is the underlying issue of people claiming e.g. that Denons generally have unnatural, thickened bass).
> 
> - The result can be improved substantially by adjusting RLO on a per content basis and tweaking channel trims. Some are happy with the result and some really are not.
> 
> While it probably would be unfair to blame Audyssey or the DEQ software for this situation I believe it is understandable why people feel that overall this is really not ideal. DEQ may have delivered on the original objectives. However, I wonder if it would be worth formulating a new set of objectives for such a software that will lead to more people being happy with the results. Ideally this should help both - the novice that wants a reasonable sound just after completing the Audyssey measurement and the pro that is happy to understand and tweak the parameters of what his system does until he has what he wants.
> 
> I am wondering if most of the basic capabilities aren't in DEQ already. It may just require first taking a step back, looking at it from a slightly different angle and (re)defining the usage scenarios and objectives.
> 
> What do you think?


Hi,

I think you make some good points, and I like your synopsis. I know that you have already read my post from Page 87, Post 2610, in which I speculate about some ways that DEQ could be improved (strictly from my personal perspective) if Audyssey were so inclined. But, whether it would be a question of starting over, by rethinking some of their fundamental objectives, or just tweaking the existing software a little, I have never seen any indication that Audyssey would have any interest in doing that.

I think that there are two aspects to this that we might consider in these discussions. First, Audyssey as it exists today, in its various versions, is a mature software that hasn't been modified since XT-32 was introduced. And, even then, DEQ wasn't changed. XT-32, although a nice step forward, was still a continuation of the original concepts that had already been developed and implemented in earlier versions. (I don't want to bog down in detail, regarding how different XT-32 is or isn't.) So, at this point, I think it is very unlikely that Audyssey will do more than allow some user adjustability to the Audyssey curves, via the new phone app they are introducing. I would be glad to be wrong about that.

Second, the Audyssey thread is, quite naturally, the place where discussions like this take place. But, my guess is that for every person who posts a complaint regarding the operation of DEQ, there are 10 people (or, perhaps many more) who use it without really examining it too closely, or who simply like it for what it does. We all have different preferences. And, when we start to engage in theoretical discussions regarding DEQ, it can seem to create a momentum for change in the software that probably doesn't really exist.

That is one reason, among several, why I try to limit my personal views about DEQ. Because if several people on this thread start to dismiss its value, it may influence others who were perfectly happy with its function until then, or make others, who really like the way it works, feel a need to offer a rebuttal. Again my guess, FWIW, is that most Audyssey owners use DEQ because it is enabled by default, and never think much about it. And, as we get used to something over time, it will sound perfectly natural to us. There is always just enough discussion of DEQ theory and application, on this thread, to inform anyone who is really interested in experimenting to decide what he likes best.

My answer goes a little beyond your original question, but I thought you raised an interesting point, and I decided to pursue it a little further. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> First, I'd like to say to everyone that the "likes" are not working on the forum -- or, perhaps on my computer -- at the moment, so, even though I liked all of the last several posts, you wouldn't be able to tell by looking in the "like" rectangle.
> 
> Some 5.1 movies on Blu-ray have lengthy orchestral passages. Examples of these 5.1 (or greater) movies are 2001: a Space Odyssey, Amadeus, Fantasia 2000, etc. Other movies may have overtures/preludes or lengthy opening or ending credits with fairly long stretches of uninterrupted music. With all of these, DEQ, on my system, in my room, seems to slightly blunt transients and blur the microdynamics and inner voices of the orchestra I so love. I have recently tried a lower MV setting than my usual, for audiences with sensitive ears, so I have tried DEQ once again. It laid an egg every time. Leaving DEQ off, boosting the subwoofer level and using the bass tone control do not cause these problems, at least for me. Even well into a movie, when the music may be turned up and down to make way for dialog or effects, I'd hate to see the texture and detail of a Newman (_any_ of them), a Herrmann, a Rozsa, or a Horner obscured by DEQ. Tonight we ran The 33. It must have been Horner's last score. The music was often interrupted by sounds of the mine shaft collapsing (not a spoiler, in this case), raised voices, etc., yet the musical detail came through with bass boost, sub boost, and no DEQ.
> 
> The same would apply to SACDs, usually 5.1 or 5.0.


Well heck, I thought you just didn't like the discussion!  That's a problem I haven't encountered before, although I do sometimes have to refresh a page that has timed-out, before I can open a thumbnail image or give someone a "Like". The biggest problem I have these days is with AVS taking me back to an earlier post I made, halfway up a page, on some pages, even though I have made more recent posts on that same page. 


The blurring of transients that you mention seems somewhat similar to my observation that DEQ creates more abrupt transitions between loud and soft passages. I have also believed that the nature of the bass boost, maxing at 30Hz and below, could contribute to what you are describing, with some music, as adding deeper/louder undertones to notes which don't need them could have an undesirable effect.

Knowing your love for BR's of older movies, I have recently been giving some thought to whether DEQ is actually as applicable to the conversion of a movie to 5.1, which was originally recorded in stereo? I don't have a good answer to that question, but intuitively, I think that there would be a difference between a converted two-channel movie, and one which was specifically designed to have content in 6 channels, and which was mixed to the Dolby/THX Reference standard.

I don't think I know enough about how older stereo movies are converted to 5.1 to pursue this thought very far. But, it seems somewhat analogous to the conversion of a stereo signal, into surround, via something like PLII. The process would obviously be more complicated with a conversion of a stereo movie to 5.1, but I don't know how much low bass the original movie would have, for instance. And, without low bass, below about 50Hz or 60Hz, I just don't know how relevant DEQ could be, even on a theoretical level.

It seems to me that DEQ is entirely a creation from the age of subwoofers--of 5.1 movies with significant low bass; of material intended to be placed in center channels and surround channels; and of Reference volume levels. If we remove any of those factors, DEQ's whole reason for existence, and the operating theory that gave birth to it, are jeopardized from a theoretical standpoint. That doesn't mean that it can't still work for other things, but that goes back to the analogy of using a flat head screwdriver to stir paint, in my opinion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Feri,
> 
> That was a very cool train recording, which perfectly illustrates the Doppler effect. I certainly wouldn't want to live too close to train tracks. But, as a kid, I remember lying in bed thinking how comforting the sound of a train, and train whistle, in the distance was. I guess I still think so.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Interesting thought that I can relate. In my day, I spent long periods of time living on Board Ship(s). As an Engineer we were always berthed right next to the Main Propulsion Spaces. The background sound/noise was that of spinning Turbines, the chugging of large volume reciprocal Feed Pumps, that created their own individual rhythms and harmonies. In addition to assorted other types of Machinery noise. I was exposed to this background noise for so long, that I found I could not sleep without it. We were trained/conditioned to jump out of our Racks and race to the Engine Rooms if these background sounds came to a halt. You see that meant we (The Ship) had lost the Load. Or a major systems failure resulting in an unplanned "Dark Ship" or "Dead Ship" condition. Very Bad, and the longer it lasted was commensurate with the severity of the ass chewing you would get from the ChEng and Capt. So over the course of my Naval Career, I was conditioned to respond to Silence as a form of an Alarm. Silence became a glaring alarm to me. More so when stationed on an Aircraft Carrier.

This conditioning has stuck with me 10 years later. To this very day, I have two large pedestal Fans and a Large Ceiling fan that must be in operation all night. If not, it just becomes to quiet for me to be able to sleep. When we travel, I pack two fans! If the power goes out, I am up and awake in a blink! 

So much like your Train sounds sooth you, I have created my own Engine Room sounds that sooth me. Just thought this was kind of funny and interesting. I guess I had never thought about the soothing part.


----------



## gurkey

Still wondering, why there should be a differentiation in loudness treatment for music and movie content.

Any content should be treated the same and be independent from the type of source material, any adjustements referring to the "reference level" should then be made by the individual user if needed and if there is no automatic mode in doing this like in movie content. Most music and movie content has been mixed anyway follwing the intent of the mixing engineer(s) and does therefore differ mostly in the way things are treated by the mixing engineers taste.
Why should music and movie then be treated differently as some are suggesting ? What's been treated is by nature often identical and from the same sources and should follow the same (psycho-)acoustic laws.

The "chaos" some (or many) are experiencing in handling this rather common situation is because of this - from my point of view - artificial differentiation which is been introduced by the originators of DEQ.

I personally would expect, that Flechter Munson type treatment should be done either a) (variable but static) by a preset reference level, if it exists or b) (additionally) incrementally (variable but static) by the user to his liking if there is none. 
Any further treatment should be avoided and should follow the "natural" flow of dynamics within the material itself as it happens in every common listening situation. Many audible differences between what we "hear live in concert" and what's been presented to us from a sound source within our personal listening room is due to the differences in sound "recording" and sound "listening" in front of the original sound source.

The complexity of evaluating and adjusting dynamically the frequency response (and microdynamics) within a given content is in my judgement "infinite" as stated by others here before and dependent on the listeners preferences but can not be handled by a common algorithm, because everyone would like to have his personal preferences treated differently. I don't see a common law which should be followed here because it would introduce an artificial element into the contents and frequency response of the whole system as is been done already by the existing version(s) of DEQ.


----------



## David Aiken

gurkey said:


> Still wondering, why there should be a differentiation in loudness treatment for music and movie content.
> 
> Any content should be treated the same and be independent from the type of source material, any adjustements referring to the "reference level" should then be made by the individual user if needed and if there is no automatic mode in doing this like in movie content. Most music and movie content has been mixed anyway follwing the intent of the mixing engineer(s) and does therefore differ mostly in the way things are treated by the mixing engineers taste.
> Why should music and movie then be treated differently as some are suggesting ? What's been treated is by nature often identical and from the same sources and should follow the same (psycho-)acoustic laws.
> 
> The "chaos" some (or many) are experiencing in handling this rather common situation is because of this - from my point of view - artificial differentiation which is been introduced by the originators of DEQ.
> 
> I personally would expect, that Flechter Munson type treatment should be done either a) (variable but static) by a preset reference level, if it exists or b) (additionally) incrementally (variable but static) by the user to his liking if there is none.
> Any further treatment should be avoided and should follow the "natural" flow of dynamics within the material itself as it happens in every common listening situation. Many audible differences between what we "hear live in concert" and what's been presented to us from a sound source within our personal listening room is due to the differences in sound "recording" and sound "listening" in front of the original sound source.
> 
> The complexity of evaluating and adjusting dynamically the frequency response (and microdynamics) within a given content is in my judgement "infinite" as stated by others here before and dependent on the listeners preferences but can not be handled by a common algorithm, because everyone would like to have his personal preferences treated differently. I don't see a common law which should be followed here because it would introduce an artificial element into the contents and frequency response of the whole system as is been done already by the existing version(s) of DEQ.


The CRITICAL difference between music and movie content for something like DEQ goes back to the mastering of the audio.

There is a standard for mastering movie content based on a Reference Level which delivers peaks of 105 dB. Movie content is mastered at Reference Level. What DEQ compensates for is the drop in the sensitivity of our ears as SPLs drop, and the amount of compensation provided is based on how much below Reference Level we are listening at. Since there is a Reference Level we know that if you're listening to the movie content at a master volume setting of -20 dB, you're listening at a level 20 dB lower than the content was mastered at and the difference in the sensitivity of our ears is known for that drop. DEQ tries to restore the perceived tonal balance at Reference Level.

Music recordings are not mastered to a standard. The level of the content on the recording depends on the personal judgement of the engineer. Some music recordings may be rendered "accurately", i.e. as the engineer heard them and with the tonal balance he intended us to hear, when your master volume level is set to 0 dB as movie content is mastered, but other recordings may be rendered "accurately" when the master volume is set to -10 dB or =20 dB or to -7 dB or pretty much any level at all, even to a + number. Without knowing the master volume level at which the particular recording is rendered accurately, you can't determine the correct amount of DEQ to apply. If the music recording was mastered at a level which is reproduced accurately at a master volume setting of 0 db, DEQ will work correctly. If it were mastered so that it is reproduced accurately at a level of -10 dB and you listen to it at -20 dB you need the compensation for a 10 dB drop in level but DEQ is referenced to 0 dB and will provide the compensation for a drop of 20 dB in level which is too much and the bass and highest frequencies will be boosted too much.

There's no standardisation for music mastering and it's really too late to start now. Music recording practices were fixed long before anyone thought to standardise sound track mastering and probably the only reason, or at least the main reason, that we have a standard for movie content mastering is so that soundtracks can be reproduced identically in any cinema because the sound systems in cinemas are set up to a particular standard. When it comes to home music systems there is no standardisation of the system and even if there were standardisation for the mastering of the recording you'd run into problems with playback if you compared results with 2 different systems in the same room and with identical equipment except one system had speakers with 95 dB sensitivity and the other had speakers of 85 dB sensitivity. That difference alone would generate a 10 dB difference in volume setting in order to produce identical SPLs in the room. If the systems used AVRs with Audyssey and a setup which calibrates playback level so that you got the same SPL for the same master volume setting with both sets of speakers, then you could hope that a standard could be developed but the majority of music systems aren't calibrated in that way and without that sort of uniformity from one listening setup to another, standardising music mastering is not going to be high on anyone's list of "nice to do" developments.

So, while music mastering remains in the "at the engineer's personal whim" level, there's absolutely no way to make any dynamic EQ system like DEQ work properly with music recordings.

It's not that there is a differentiation in the way that DEQ treats music and movie content. The problem is that DEQ doesn't differentiate because it doesn't know how to differentiate between them since music recordings aren't mastered to the known level that movie content is mastered to and different music recordings are actually mastered to different levels.

Addition: Actually there is a way around the lack of standardisation of music mastering. If you knew the peak level on the recording at the engineer's listening position when he mastered the record, you could provide provision in the Relative Level Offset adjustment to enter that level, or the difference between that level and 105 dB, and Audyssey could then calculate the correct amount of DEQ to provide for that recording. That information could be provided on the recording's packaging and it would work really well for classical recordings where a whole disc is mastered to the same level. With popular music recordings, however, each track can actually be mastered with slightly different peak levels so different amounts of DEQ could be required for each track and you would have to be prepared to change the RLO setting for each track in order to get the proper result. That change could be made going forward but without that information for the millions of recordings made prior to the provision of that information we would still have the same problem we currently have for all music recordings made before the implementation of that change.

And of course being able to benefit from such a change with music recordings would require that your AVR receive a firmware update which changed the RLO settings menu to give you provision to input either the actual peak level or the precise difference between that level and 105 dB. Most AVRs would not receive such an update and you would need to buy a new AVR with that facility in order to benefit from it, plus it would require Audyssey to develop the required new version of their product in order to give you that facility.


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> Still wondering, why there should be a differentiation in loudness treatment for music and movie content.
> 
> Any content should be treated the same and be independent from the type of source material, any adjustements referring to the "reference level" should then be made by the individual user if needed and if there is no automatic mode in doing this like in movie content. Most music and movie content has been mixed anyway follwing the intent of the mixing engineer(s) and does therefore differ mostly in the way things are treated by the mixing engineers taste.
> Why should music and movie then be treated differently as some are suggesting ? What's been treated is by nature often identical and from the same sources and should follow the same (psycho-)acoustic laws.
> 
> The "chaos" some (or many) are experiencing in handling this rather common situation is because of this - from my point of view - artificial differentiation which is been introduced by the originators of DEQ.
> 
> I personally would expect, that Flechter Munson type treatment should be done either a) (variable but static) by a preset reference level, if it exists or b) (additionally) incrementally (variable but static) by the user to his liking if there is none.
> Any further treatment should be avoided and should follow the "natural" flow of dynamics within the material itself as it happens in every common listening situation. Many audible differences between what we "hear live in concert" and what's been presented to us from a sound source within our personal listening room is due to the differences in sound "recording" and sound "listening" in front of the original sound source.
> 
> *The complexity of evaluating and adjusting dynamically the frequency response (and microdynamics) within a given content is in my judgement "infinite" as stated by others here before and dependent on the listeners preferences but can not be handled by a common algorithm, because everyone would like to have his personal preferences treated differently.* I don't see a common law which should be followed here because it would introduce an artificial element into the contents and frequency response of the whole system as is been done already by the existing version(s) of DEQ.


Hi,

I agree with much of what you are saying, and I particularly agree with the part I bolded. As you know, I made some suggestions, in a post back on Page 87, that I think would simplify DEQ's operation, and make it more versatile, if we could design it that way today. 

But, I would not characterize what DEQ is doing as an "artificial differentiation" between movies and music. I don't think that two-channel music (or, frankly even 5.1 music, if there was any then) came into their thinking in any way, when DEQ was created. DEQ was specifically designed to address some issues with 5.1 movies, in home theater systems, where people choose to listen at below Reference levels. And, any differentiation that occurred as a result of that design intention was simply a byproduct of the specific problem they were trying to address.

You mentioned classical music earlier. As you know, acoustic instruments have a limited bass range. Very few instruments can play below about 60Hz, and even then it is mostly the low fundamentals of those instruments that go lower. And, there are relatively few musical passages that call for a great deal of


----------



## mogorf

gurkey said:


> Still wondering, why there should be a differentiation in loudness treatment for music and movie content.


Hi gurkey, me wondering, too. 



> Any content should be treated the same and be independent from the type of source material, any adjustments referring to the "reference level" should then be made by the individual user if needed and if there is no automatic mode in doing this like in movie content. Most music and movie content has been mixed anyway following the intent of the mixing engineer(s) and does therefore differ mostly in the way things are treated by the mixing engineers taste.
> Why should music and movie then be treated differently as some are suggesting ? What's been treated is by nature often identical and from the same sources and should follow the same (psycho-)acoustic laws.


A very complex question, indeed! So here's my take on the issue. Firstly we surely already know that DEQ is not a "stand alone" tool, but it must work in very close cooperation with MultEQ (any flavor). Why? Because when we unpack our brand new AVR and hook it up for the first time the first thing we need to do is run MultEQ. That will set (among others) the channel trims for each and every speaker in the system to "reference" 0 dB. This will allow DEQ to know that the MV setting of 0 dB will be the point where she has absolutely nothing to do.

But then, we also know that it is film soundtracks that are recorded to known standards (SMTPE standard) meaning the spectral balance of the audio contents will be played back on out HT systems as it was recorded by the sound engineers. We also know in the studio they listen to the audio contents at 0 dB MV, thus whatever tone controls they might use will only allow/replicate the same spectral balance at home on our systems once we also set the MV to 0 dB. Actually "0 dB" in this context means there is zero deviation in SPL and especially in spectral balance between studio mixing and home listening SPL.



> The "chaos" some (or many) are experiencing in handling this rather common situation is because of this - from my point of view - artificial differentiation which is been introduced by the originators of DEQ.


Not really, this is not artificial but a real life problem with today's recorded music. "Loudness war" comes to mind where music industry engineers push the recording levels up very close to 0 dB while film industry engineers have no way out but to follow the SMTPE standard and take care not to exceed -20 dB, or even -27 dB for the Center Channel. Then when we listen to music on our HT systems we find the volume of music recordings are abnormally high compared to our film listening levels. What do we do? We start to turn down MV, right? What happens? DEQ starts to boost lows (and highs) abnormally. Arrgh! 



> I personally would expect, that Flechter Munson type treatment should be done either a) (variable but static) by a preset reference level, if it exists or b) (additionally) incrementally (variable but static) by the user to his liking if there is none.


Sorry to be so much straight forward, but this is plain wrong.  While every loudness control program works best with preset reference (please refer to film industry), the idea of the enduser adjusting it to his/her liking would be the end of the world!!!!!! Why? Because of the way our human ears work, which is beyond our control and believe it or not I'm sure 99.99% of the population is not aware of what Fletcher & Munson did back in the 1930's. Once I tried to start a conversation with family, friends and other acquaintances on the topic of "how human ears work" they just stared at me and even after a lengthy explanation there was not only no consensus, but I was the one shying away as a kinda "wirdo" with my silly topic. LOL Now I know I'm in the right circules with this topic! 




> Any further treatment should be avoided and should follow the "natural" flow of dynamics within the material itself as it happens in every common listening situation. Many audible differences between what we "hear live in concert" and what's been presented to us from a sound source within our personal listening room is due to the differences in sound "recording" and sound "listening" in front of the original sound source.


Well, this will be the case whenever we listen at 0 Db MV setting. Once we start to turn down MV thing will start a new life. This is all becasue Man invented the Volume Control!!! 



> The complexity of evaluating and adjusting dynamically the frequency response (and microdynamics) within a given content is in my judgement "infinite" as stated by others here before and dependent on the listeners preferences but can not be handled by a common algorithm, because everyone would like to have his personal preferences treated differently. I don't see a common law which should be followed here because it would introduce an artificial element into the contents and frequency response of the whole system as is been done already by the existing version(s) of DEQ.


The common algorithm is called "equal loudness curve", a biological phenomenon beyond our control. The only thing an amplifier designer can do is to follow Mother Natures "rule" and trick the human ears to believe/perceive whatever is heard with MV turned down will sound the same when MV is not turned down.


----------



## David Aiken

^^^

+1 to Mike and Feri's comments.

DEQ can work "reasonably" well with movie content because of 2 facts. The first is that the change in our ear's sensitivity at different SPLs is reasonably uniform for everyone. If it weren't, and if the change were highly individual with large variances, there would be no point in even trying to develop a system which worked because what worked for one person would work for only a few and everyone else would require differing amounts of compensation for the same change in SPL. Without that reasonable uniformity in sensitivity over the majority of people the best solution, really the only solution, would be tone controls and everyone could make their own adjustment.

The second fact is that because the movie industry came up with a standard, actually a package of standards covering mastering at one end and playback in theatres at the other end, there is a very high degree of uniformity in movie content mastering practices.

Put those 2 things together and you can come up with a dynamic EQ compensation system such as DEQ.

If you don't have one of those things you would need to be able to input data concerning the missing item in order to calculate the compensation required. If there were no consistency in the change in sensitivity in our hearing you would need to personally have your hearing tested and be able to input data concerning your particular hearing sensitivity in order to have the right amount of compensation calculated. If there were no consistency in the mastering you would need to be able to input data about how the particular recording was mastered in order to calculate the right amount of compensation to use with that recording, and you would need to do that separately for each recording you listened to. And if there were no consistence in both of those things you would need to enter data for both in order to calculate the right amount of compensation on a person by person and recording by recording basis. 

The simple fact is that if you are going to try to provide compensation for something you need to know what you're compensating for. If there is consistency in what you're compensating for then you can come up with a system which can do the job without you needing to tell it each time what the circumstances requiring compensation are. If there's no consistency in what you're compensating for, you have to be able to specify what the circumstances requiring compensation are if you are going to be able to calculate the compensation required for that set of circumstances. There is no way to get around that requirement.


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> ^^^
> 
> +1 to Mike and Feri's comments.
> 
> DEQ can work "reasonably" well with movie content because of 2 facts. The first is that the change in our ear's sensitivity at different SPLs is reasonably uniform for everyone. If it weren't, and if the change were highly individual with large variances, there would be no point in even trying to develop a system which worked because what worked for one person would work for only a few and everyone else would require differing amounts of compensation for the same change in SPL. Without that reasonable uniformity in sensitivity over the majority of people the best solution, really the only solution, would be tone controls and everyone could make their own adjustment.
> 
> The second fact is that because the movie industry came up with a standard, actually a package of standards covering mastering at one end and playback in theatres at the other end, there is a very high degree of uniformity in movie content mastering practices.
> 
> Put those 2 things together and you can come up with a dynamic EQ compensation system such as DEQ.
> 
> If you don't have one of those things you would need to be able to input data concerning the missing item in order to calculate the compensation required. If there were no consistency in the change in sensitivity in our hearing you would need to personally have your hearing tested and be able to input data concerning your particular hearing sensitivity in order to have the right amount of compensation calculated. If there were no consistency in the mastering you would need to be able to input data about how the particular recording was mastered in order to calculate the right amount of compensation to use with that recording, and you would need to do that separately for each recording you listened to. And if there were no consistence in both of those things you would need to enter data for both in order to calculate the right amount of compensation on a person by person and recording by recording basis.
> 
> The simple fact is that if you are going to try to provide compensation for something you need to know what you're compensating for. If there is consistency in what you're compensating for then you can come up with a system which can do the job without you needing to tell it each time what the circumstances requiring compensation are. If there's no consistency in what you're compensating for, you have to be able to specify what the circumstances requiring compensation are if you are going to be able to calculate the compensation required for that set of circumstances. There is no way to get around that requirement.


+1. Fully and duly agree!


----------



## David Aiken

CommanderROR said:


> Ignore my question. I found the reply above. 2.2db per 5db. That's pretty heavy handed. Means my -30db standard listening really drives up the bass...


I tried to write an explanation about why that 2.2db per 5db compensation wasn't going to be as "heavy handed" in practice as it sounds but I kept getting tangled up trying to keep it simple. In the end I came up with a quick and dirty test I could try in order to illustrate the impact of DEQ in real life.

I set Audyssey to Flat, and set my master volume level to your -30 dB standard listening level. I dug out a stereo recording of pink noise and put it on, and I used an app on my iPhone to measure the SPL.

With the meter set to Flat weighting the SPL at my listening position was 58.5 dB with DEQ off and 64 dB with DEQ on. That boost you think is heavy handed, and which will be around 13 dB of boost at 30 Hz or so, resulted in an overall increase in SPL of only 6 or so dB. Because of the reduced sensitivity of our ears at low frequencies, a low frequency boost does not increase overall SPL level as much as you might think.

I then repeated the exercise but this time I used the A weighting curve on the meter. The A curve reduces the sensitivity of the meter at low frequencies and is intended to mimic the ear's reduced sensitivity. It is used for hearing protection monitoring and the readings it gives equate roughly to how loud we perceive the sound to be. A weighted measurements are always lower in level than C or Flat weighted levels.

With DEQ off, the A weighted measurement was 55 dB, a bit lower than the Flat weighted measurement which I expected. With DEQ on, the A weighted measurement was 55.4 dB. also lower than the Flat weighted measurement which I expected, but actually much lower than I expected it to be. 

In other words, that "heavy handed" boost you are worried about actually produces a very small increase in perceived loudness of the overall sound.

Now I expect some people to jump in and start driving holes in my test technique. Don't bother, I'm very aware of the holes. This is a very quick and dirty, and a very rough, test and I would never consider trying to present this data in a professional journal. I actually have a research project I designed and conducted published in a peer reviewed professional journal though it was not a hearing related project, but I point this fact out to show that I do know what I'm talking about when I say that I know this experiment with DEQ definitely does not measure up to professional standards and that I have a pretty good idea of what all of the problems with it are.

And I do question the very small increase in the A weighted measurement that I recorded. I expected the increase to be less than the 6 dB increase I measured with the Flat weighting on the meter which was roughly what I was expecting but I was expecting the increase to be around 3 or 4 dB, not a mere 0.5 dB. That really surprised me and I do think it may be a little on the low side.

What this test does indicate quite clearly, and I don't think any professional audiologists reading this would disagree in the slightest, is that a boost in bass levels of around 13 dB at 30 Hz sounds like a big boost, after all 10 dB is regarded as roughly a doubling in perceived volume in the midrange, but this is in the low bass where our hearing is significantly less sensitive than it is in the midrange and the boost is frequency dependent. It reduces to zero boost at a little over 200 Hz where our ears are still less sensitive than they are in the midrange. While we don't perceive a sound at 30 Hz as being equally loud as a sound at 1,000 Hz with the same SPL, we also don't perceive an increase in level at 30 Hz as being as great as an increase in level of the same amount at 1000 Hz. The actual change in our perception of total volume for pink noise introduced by the boost provided by DEQ is very small when compared to the size of the actual boost involved. 

Really, the best advice I can give you if you think the DEQ boost is going to be heavy handed because it's roughly 2.2db per 5db is to try it and see. I think you're going to be surprised at how much milder it is going to seem given that it actually is a boost of around 13 dB at 30 Hz at your listening levels.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

David,

You clearly really know what you are doing, and I have no issues with your test technique. I like that you did it. 

There are two elements I might add to your conclusion, though, one of which I'm sure you thought of. What one person might hear that leads him to describe something, at a particular volume, as "heavy handed" can vary a bit from individual-to-individual. I remember some similar discussion when people were talking about "warm" a few days ago. You and I might listen to the same db level the OP did, and either hear something completely different from "heavy handed", or use completely different words to describe what we heard. 

The other idea is one which I mentioned in my first long post on DEQ. And, FWIW, I am still trying to wrap my head around what it means with respect to the DEQ boost. We know that DEQ reaches maximum effect at 30Hz, and continues down to 20Hz and lower, with about +2.2db per -5 MV. So far, so good, because there is a lot of


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... It would be interesting to see if there was any variation in the results if white noise and pink noise were used as test material rather than frequency sweeps but I don't think that information would be of any use to us.


Three guys [two of them were Matson and Ashley] wrote an article in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, sometime in the '70s, called "Plain and Fancy Test Signals for Music Reproduction Systems." It's been a while, but I believe they ended up preferring a swept sinusoid signal over all other candidates, including noise signals, for largely theoretical reasons. In a later discussion, Ashley cautions that one has to be up on one's autocorrelation functions, Fourier transforms, etc., to use noise correctly. That lets some of us out, unless we want to expend a great deal of energy boning up. He maintains that noise tells us little about why loudspeakers sound different, and that noise measurements reproduced in magazines appear to be much flatter than the speakers really are (as seen when one uses a sweep?). Other researchers conducted experiments with sweeps v.s. other test signals (noise, square waves, several others I don't remember) and concurred that a swept sine wave *plus* a variety of distortion measures are the best. 

Audyssey's "pings" conducted with the very speaker placement, room and MLP(s) one is using may beat all (?). Somewhere there is a distortion measure on REW, but rumor is that it may not be too meaningful. I'd be interested in one that measured amplitude modulation distortion and frequency modulation distortion, and some transient response and dynamic range measures, just out of curiosity, rather than need.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> David,
> 
> You clearly really know what you are doing, and I have no issues with your test technique. I like that you did it.
> 
> There are two elements I might add to your conclusion, though…


Mike,

The 2 elements you raised are both relevant. The most I hoped to demonstrate is that the perceived boost was going to be a lot less than the actual boost and my test did that. It's a really rough and ready test as I said, good for not much more than a quick "proof of concept" and it does demonstrate that my concept, that the perceived boost was going to be much less than the actual boost, was correct. It doesn't do a good job of demonstrating just how much less the perception is going to be than the actual boost, and it doesn't even start to address the question of how an individual listener is going to feel about the perceived boost. I have no idea how I would go about designing a quick and dirty test to do that so don't start hoping for a follow up on that point 

And the anomaly you raise as your second element is certainly going to affect how the individual listener is going to feel about the perceived boost.

I am glad to see that my test technique meets with some approval. I think that my test design succeeded a lot better than my discarded attempts at an explanation.


----------



## gurkey

@*mogorf* 

It looks at least to me, as if I didn't express myself clearly (enough), because some of your statements in your comments doen't match what I tried to describe. 

My hook to Fletcher Munson curves and all the later follow ups was, that besides refering it to an reference level, if available, there should be an individual correction factor available for this, because those are only statistically averaged graphs, meaning, that they will show some individual diversifications if referred to the individual listener. 
If no reference level is available per se, like in recorded musical content, one must match those curves anyway to ones own interpretation of "reference level" in this case. That's what I meant and which I don't interpret as "plain wrong"... because thats the way its already been done (ROL).

That this would and should be hooked to a "volume control" and be variable in this respect is without doubt and I didn't state otherwise at least in my perspective.

Any further manipulation of those "Fletcher Munson" curves with respect to some specific (but unknown ?) algorithm should be avoided, because of the inherent complexity and unknown chracteristics of such manipulations. In real life listening there is no one, who turns bass and treble "compensation" continously up or down depending on some "constructed mechanisms" (averaged mean level or microdynamics) like it seems to be done within DEQ.

PS.: After a (personal ?) reference level has been established (and Fletcher Munson correction has thus been applied) I don't want a sound fluctuating between very soft and very loud to change in its frequency response according to the momentary (averaged ?) Fletcher Munson level it has at that single moment. What happens if not a single sound but a complex signal is been used ? This dosen't happen in "real life" either. The sound of a drum playing at a very soft level should not been "touched" when it approches a crescendo or just been hit harder or its original character will be lost by this manipulation. If it will cross several loudness levels during this transition so it be as it always has been the case. A whispering voice should not been handled differently in comparison to someone shouting out loud.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... Knowing your love for BR's of older movies, I have recently been giving some thought to whether DEQ is actually as applicable to the conversion of a movie to 5.1, which was originally recorded in stereo? I don't have a good answer to that question, but intuitively, I think that there would be a difference between* a converted two-channel movie*, and one which was specifically designed to have content in 6 channels, and which was mixed to the Dolby/THX Reference standard.
> 
> I don't think I know enough about how older stereo movies are converted to 5.1 to pursue this thought very far. But, it seems somewhat analogous to the conversion of a stereo signal, into surround, via something like PLII. The process would obviously be more complicated with a conversion of a stereo movie to 5.1, but I don't know how much low bass the original movie would have, for instance. And, without low bass, below about 50Hz or 60Hz, I just don't know how relevant DEQ could be, even on a theoretical level.
> 
> It seems to me that DEQ is entirely a creation from the age of subwoofers--of 5.1 movies with significant low bass; of material intended to be placed in center channels and surround channels; and of Reference volume levels. If we remove any of those factors, DEQ's whole reason for existence, and the operating theory that gave birth to it, are jeopardized from a theoretical standpoint. That doesn't mean that it can't still work for other things, but that goes back to the analogy of using a flat head screwdriver to stir paint, in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Some of this depends on what we mean by "Stereo." There were _*very few*_, if any, _*2 channel theatrical *_movies. Some TV shows, even today, have 2 channel sound (Downton Abby), and some of these sound good with PL II Movie, the main advantage over straight two channel being that the voices come out of the center channel, instead of being spread out across the whole front array. When *CinemaScope* was introduced in 1953 it was exclusively a* 4 channel* medium, 3 channels behind the screen and 1 mono surround that was either manually switchable to the off-screen left side, off-screen right side, or "all surround" including rear, or automatically switched to whatever surround configuration the filmmakers wanted. The automatic switching was guided by a signal tone on the mono surround track (number 4) that would operate a mechanism in the booth that would temporarily send to the sound to the desired location. Since the guide tones hovered around 40 Hz on the control/surround track, there was a sharp HPF just above that, keeping the guide tones from going to the surround speakers themselves. That wasn't as bad as it may sound, because the usual surround speakers were in speaker enclosures just big enough to accommodate a crammed-in 15" extended range speaker (such as a JBL D130 or the equivalent Altec) that rolled off about there, anyway. 20th Century Fox valiantly tried to get all theaters installing CinemaScope to also install 4 channel stereo equipment to accommodate 'scope's magnetic 4 channel tracks, even to the extent of buying the projection booth sound heads and amplifiers for them, but since the theater or the chain would have to buy and install the speakers, etc., many refused (and not just in the boonies), so Fox wimped out and sold them the CinemaScpope projection equipment anyway, and started to issue "magoptical" prints that had 4 magnetic stripes and one conventional mono optical soundtrack for unequipped theaters. *Panavision* followed suit when they came along at the end of the decade. Some studios started to record wonderful soundtrack music in mono, and issue it in horrible mono optical. This was tragic for movie sound, and resulted in such travesties as The Magnificent Seven (1960) being heard only in mono. When they make a Blu-ray out of such a movie, they often provide a choice between "Original Mono," and "Re-channeled" [simulated] 5.1" Often both versions sound bad. A true 4 channel stereo film should sound good, with the same three channels in front as are in front in the cinema, and the mono surround being fed to the HT surrounds, as needed. *VistaVision* films were almost always released in mono, but some of the music was recorded in magnetic stereo, and, if the restorers go back to the original musical elements, the disk can be issued in true stereo. One such case was Vertigo (1958), at least the DVD version. I don't own the Blu-ray, and there is some ambiguity in the reviews as to whether the true stereo music elements the restorers used survive in the Blu-ray. So many VistaVision films were mono, that the rare music elements recorded in true stereo were probably recorded in whatever number of tracks the filmmakers decided to use. The various 70 mm formats carried* 6 magnetic tracks*, originally 5 channels behind the screen and a mono surround guided the way the 35 mm ones were*;* later, when faux silk banners hung from the marquees reading "Dolby Stereo," for 70 mm there were three channels in use behind the screen, plus a subwoofer, and two surround channels out in the theater. Reduction prints in 35 mm had to manage with 4 tracks. Three panel Cinerama used *7 sound tracks*, and D150 was rumored to have* 8*. For some 70 mm films, the original music tracks were recorded using the full 6 track format, and for others the music recording was done on fewer tracks, then spread over 5 or 6 tracks in the final mix. 

It seems to me that all 4 to 8 channel movies could be mixed easily into 5.1, and would work well with DEQ, if DEQ worked well (couldn't resist). In my experience in our HT, the sub is helpful with all of them because the music does have significant content below our 80 Hz bass management crossover. In the '50s and '60s the typical large theater speaker systems (except surrounds) were specified to reach 40 Hz "smoothly" and be "usable" to 30 Hz, and the film mixers knew that, and used thundering bass, when appropriate. Ben-Hur (1959) had several such moments. Sometimes, the Blu-ray version is less than thundering, if the mixers went back to the original elements, because, in the analog days, the bass was sometimes held back until the final mix, and there is no guarantee the Blu-ray folk will know that. In those cases, my preference is to turn up the sub and the bass control, rather than use DEQ. Even the surrounds were beefy in 70 mm roadshow and three panel Cinerama theaters, usually big JBL or Altecs. Now, many theater speakers are Klipsch. Bose and Cerwin Vega, also, tried their hand at theatrical sound.


----------



## mogorf

gurkey said:


> @*mogorf*
> 
> It looks at least to me, as if I didn't express myself clearly (enough), because some of your statements in your comments doen't match what I tried to describe.
> 
> My hook to Fletcher Munson curves and all the later follow ups was, that besides refering it to an reference level, if available, there should be an individual correction factor available for this, because those are only statistically averaged graphs, meaning, that they will show some individual diversifications if referred to the individual listener.
> If no reference level is available per se, like in recorded musical content, one must match those curves anyway to ones own interpretation of "reference level" in this case. That's what I meant and which I don't interpret as "plain wrong"... because thats the way its already been done (ROL).
> 
> That this would and should be hooked to "volume control" is without doubt and I didn't state otherwise at least in my perspective.
> 
> Any further manipulation of those "Fletcher Munson" curves with respect to some specific (but unknown ?) algorithm should be avoided, because of the inherent complexity and unknown chracteristics of such manipulations, In real life listening there is no one, who turns bass and treble "compensation" continously up or down depending on some "constructed mechanisms" (averaged mean level or microdynamics) like it seems to be done within DEQ.


In real life of course there is no one who turns bass and treble up and down. This is the exact case with the AVR when we have MV set to 0 dB. 

What I'm trying to convey is there are occasions when we need to take a bit more time to digest the case when MV is turned down. At 0 dB MV DEQ does nothing coz there's nothing for DEQ to do. Things become different with MV turned down especially with soft and loud parts that fall on different loudness curves, but DEQ puts them back where they belong. This is what Audyssey Labs addressed with DEQ via several years of R&D and sold the license to highly reputed AVR makers.

DEQ can always be turned off.


----------



## gurkey

Still I seem to be "misinterpreted".

I don't (and never did ) question, that musical content does not has an established reference level, thus one has to make up his own by setting the volume control accordingly to his liking and apply bass and treble correction correspondingly by using something like / similar to ROL/DEQ or just the tone controls although lacking by other standards. I edited my former post to make this clear if it hasn't been before.
What i still question in DEQ is that "dynamic" element which I can't recognize as being needed or even valid in the context of dynamic signal content. In my opinion it does distort in a relevant way the signal / content been delivered to the listener and seems to be one of the reasons, why some people are obviously dissatisfied with the presentation. It doesn't help to turn of DEQ completely, as been suggested , because then you lose the otherwise valid loudness correction function of DEQ no matter if musical or movie content.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Or as a number of us do, you can create your own bass boost, which is specific to the content, and to your listening volume. Personally, I find that I need little to no bass boost with classical music, as I will simply adjust the volume to where things sound in proper equilibrium to me. For movies, however, I find that I need a significant sub boost to get the audible and tactile bass, at very low, and even ultra low frequencies, that I enjoy. That is particularly true for action movies. Having some familiarity with my general preferences, it is quite easy for me to go back-and-forth between the settings. Finding a single algorithm, and a single setting, which are equally appropriate for everything we listen to, is asking a lot, in my opinion.

There are many audio/HT setups that operate without the specific equivalent of DEQ, as a standalone system. And, there really isn't just one "right way" to compensate for the Equal loudness Curves, because low bass content, and user preference with respect to that content, can vary so much. I think that the nature and method of maintaining, or restoring acoustic equilibrium, at whatever volume level, is very room/system/user dependent. In other words, YMMV!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

gurkey said:


> Still I seem to be "misinterpreted".
> 
> What i still question in DEQ is that "dynamic" element *which I can't recognize as being needed or even valid in the context of dynamic signal content*. In my opinion it does distort in a relevant way the signal / content been delivered to the listener and seems to be one of the reasons, why some people are obviously dissatisfied with the presentation. It doesn't help to turn of DEQ completely, as been suggested , because then you lose the otherwise valid loudness correction function of DEQ no matter if musical or movie content.


This "dynamic" element has already been explained in details by Chris K. several times. AVR makers are still paying their licensing fees to Audyssey Labs. Not liking it or not recognizing as being needed is a personal choice, not a scientific explanation, but "preference". Nothing wrong with that, IMHO.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> I think that the nature and method of maintaining, or restoring acoustic equilibrium, at whatever volume level, is very room/system/user dependent. In other words, YMMV!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Well Mike, actually acoustic equilibrium with varying volume level is a peculiar phenomenon that I think only and exclusively depends on how our human ears work. There are no other factors that have an influence here. Especially the room itself should have no impact on it. Reflections, absorptions, peaks and nulls, etc. are independent of SPL and will have the same impact at any MV setting. 

Meantime, our ears work exactly the same way outside. They are frequency dependent and that frequency dependency is level dependent regardless of the type of listening environment we are placed at.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Well Mike, actually acoustic equilibrium with varying volume level is a peculiar phenomenon that I think only and exclusively depends on how our human ears work. There are no other factors that have an influence here. Especially the room itself should have no impact on it. Reflections, absorptions, peaks and nulls, etc. are independent of SPL and will have the same impact at any MV setting.
> 
> Meantime, our ears work exactly the same way outside. They are frequency dependent and that frequency dependency is level dependent regardless of the type of listening environment we are placed at.


I understand what you mean, Feri,  But, I believe you may be overthinking what I wrote a little bit. It has become automatic for me to include rooms and systems in my YMMV statements. Who knows how much the room itself may influence our desire for more, or less low-bass, in relation to mid-bass, for instance? If we all had the same rooms, with the same geometry and room treatments; systems, in terms of the potential low extension of our subs, low extension of our speakers, and crossover settings; and the same versions of Audyssey, with equally well-executed calibrations; and exactly the same settings, including post-Audyssey sub boosts; it would be so much easier to discuss the differences in what we hear; and in what we do and don't like in what we hear; for exactly the same material, recorded and sourced in exactly the same way.

As it is, YMMV, usually seems like a safer way for me to express things. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I understand what you mean, Feri,  But, I believe you may be overthinking what I wrote a little bit. It has become automatic for me to include rooms and systems in my YMMV statements. Who knows how much the room itself may influence our desire for more, or less low-bass, in relation to mid-bass, for instance? If we all had the same rooms, with the same geometry and room treatments; systems, in terms of the potential low extension of our subs, low extension of our speakers, and crossover settings; and the same versions of Audyssey, with equally well-executed calibrations; and exactly the same settings, including post-Audyssey sub boosts; it would be so much easier to discuss the differences in what we hear; and in what we do and don't like in what we hear; for exactly the same material, recorded and sourced in exactly the same way.
> 
> As it is, YMMV, usually seems like a safer way for me to express things.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I fully understand and appreciate you position as always Mike. All I wanted to emphasize was that DEQ (or any other loudness control system) does not address room issues. Hope we are back on the same track, eh?


----------



## garygarrison

gurkey said:


> ... dependent on the listeners preferences but can not be handled by a common algorithm,* because everyone would like to have his personal preferences treated differently*. I don't see a common law which should be followed here because it would introduce an artificial element into the contents and frequency response of the whole system as is been done already by the existing version(s) of DEQ.


I have said some of this before, about two years ago, but this is a revised version, and mildly autobiographical*:
*

Originally, "volume" controls referred to room volume, literally. One set the volume control to match the volume of the room, usually by ear, so it was set low for one's tiny bedroom, a bit higher for the living room, and much higher for the hall in which the high school dance was held.
The hassle with volume controls was that when one's parents yelled "Turn it down!" one lost a lot of bass, and a bit of treble, due to the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves, which, indeed, are biological. It was hard to explain that to one's parents or grandparents.
The "cure" came in several varieties, each with flaws when used for music listening. These "cures" were commonly called "Loudness" controls. The simplest, most horrific, and most often seen version was a simple switch labeled Loudness ON v.s. Loudness OFF. With Loudness ON, the volume control became a Loudness control, i.e., one that imposed the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves, usually with an undisclosed reference point. If there had been one, it wouldn't help much, because of differences in speaker efficiency, room size, etc. There was no SPL measurement involved. Paul Klipsch pointed out that with highly efficient speakers, the Loudness control was "always wrong," because these speakers called for minimum rotation of the control, where the compensation was very great. Other makers of efficient speakers, like Electro-Voice, Altec, and JBL concurred. A better solution was to have *two* separate, continuously variable controls, one labeled Loudness and one labeled Volume. Yamaha embraced this solution, as did the Centralab company. There was still no keying in to measured SPL, but the human SPL meter was used. The user was instructed to put on a very loud record or two, and turn the Volume control up until the music was as loud as they ever would would want it (one's parents were encouraged to go to the grocery store), then turn down the Loudness control until the perceived SPL was at a comfortable level, and to use the Loudness control only, from then on, unless one was a tweaker (old definition). As the Loudness control was turned down, bass (and sometimes treble) was added, a la Fletcher-Munson, with a known, if subjective, reference point ("as loud as you would ever want it"). This reference point was in part a preference point. It took into account room size, speaker efficiency, and personal preference.
Audyssey calibration, of course, adjusts the whole system, so that when the Main Volume control is at 0, the measured SPL from a speaker (other than the sub), from the MLP hits 105 dB when the recording level hits full scale, i.e. the peak recording level, with movie sound*. *This takes into account the room size, speaker efficiency, etc., since it is based on an actual in-room measurement. There are many reasons why this isn't quite true some of the time, but later for that. Now that there is a measured, fixed reference point, DEQ's fixed use of the equal loudness curves should work fine.
I finally get that if someone is playing a movie very softly -- say 30 dB below reference, or 75 dB for peaks instead of the intended 105 dB -- not only will the "louder' parts, relatively speaking, need bass and treble compensation, but very soft passages would need even more compensation, because the bass and treble loss gets even more -- disproportionately -- extreme at lower levels, since the equal loudness curves are not parallel, etc. But DEQ doesn't sound "right" to me. Maybe it is being asked to do too much, as several have said. Maybe if it had a "listen ahead" function it would sound better, as Mike speculated.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> [*]I finally get that if someone is playing a movie very softly -- say 30 dB below reference, or 75 dB for peaks instead of the intended 105 dB -- not only will the "louder' parts, relatively speaking, need bass and treble compensation, but very soft passages would need even more compensation, because the bass and treble loss gets even more -- disproportionately -- extreme at lower levels, since the equal loudness curves are not parallel, etc. But DEQ doesn't sound "right" to me. Maybe it is being asked to do too much, as several have said. Maybe if it had a "listen ahead" function it would sound better, as Mike speculated.
> [/LIST]



I don't get that.

The sound is mastered to reference level, 105 dB peaks. Yes, some passages are loud and some are soft BUT those passages were loud/soft while the engineer was mastering it with 85 dB peaks and the engineer has the option of adjusting the bass and treble in the mix during the soft passages so those passages sound right. In effect, while mastering the engineer can compensate for differences in level from scene to scene during the movie.

So if the engineer has done that, and they have to for the soundtrack to sound "right" at all levels occurring during the movie, there's already an adjustment built into the sound track to make the soft passages sound "right" at reference level. All DEQ has to adjust for is the change in playback level you choose while playing the movie at home. There should be no need to provide additional compensation for soft passages during playback at low levels because compensation was already provided for those soft passages in the reference level mix, all that should need to be compensated for is the difference in playback level between reference level and your chosen level.

OK, the adjustment for soft passages made by the engineer at reference level may not be compensated for as well by DEQ at your chosen playback level as loud passages are compensated for but it should be close, probably "close enough".

And gurkey has raised the issues both of individual difference in hearing sensitivity, after all the Fletcher Munson curves are averages and there is individual deviation amongst people with good hearing and even more deviation amongst those with poor or damaged hearing, and personal taste. I would think that the individual differences may be a bigger issue when it comes to the appropriateness of providing compensation based on Fletcher Munson's work than is any degree of inaccuracy due to the engineer's compensation for soft passages while engineering the mix, and personal taste probably is as big or bigger an issue when it comes to how well DEQ "works" for the individual listener than these other issues.

If DEQ does not take individual hearing sensitivity into account it can never be completely accurate but taking individual hearing sensitivity into account requires much greater complexity in the software and individual hearing tests, and a way of inputting hearing test data into the software's database. I regard that as an impractical option which will almost certainly never see the light of day and which would become a nightmare for multi-listener situations when people start to ask for being able to generate a "best fit" solution for a group of regular listeners such as family members. Let's ignore casual listeners because we don't want to end up in the situation of inviting people over and at the end of the invitation saying "Oh, and by the way, get this particular hearing test done and bring your test report data in this format with you when you come."

There are ways that could be thought up for compensating for personal preference but they could get messy too.

Basically, things like Audyssey. both the various generations of MultEQ and the add ons like DEQ and Dynamic Volume, are never going to be able to take everything into account. Whatever solution anyone comes up with is going to be something which satisfies its designer's personal "good enough" test and that means it's also never going to pass everyone's "good enough" test. We really can't expect anything more. The problems being dealt with are extremely complex in many ways and perhaps we should be surprised and grateful that it works as well as it does, even if we all would like to see it do some things differently. I think the only answer to give someone asking for a solution which satisfies their personal beliefs about what should be done and their personal preferences for what they think the result should sound like is "Then write the software yourself or hire someone to write it to your requirements" and I think we know how many of us are capable of doing that.

On the question of whether DEQ is being asked to do too much and would benefit from a "look ahead" function, I'm wondering if the "cure" is something slightly different to a "look ahead" function. It may be being asked to do too much and the problem may be that there's not enough processing power and/or memory to perform what it's currently doing properly and what's required isn't "look ahead" but simply more processing power and memory to enable it to do what it's doing better than it's currently doing it.


----------



## anothermib

garygarrison said:


> (...)
> 
> [*]The "cure" came in several varieties, each with flaws when used for music listening. These "cures" were commonly called "Loudness" controls. The simplest, most horrific, and most often seen version was a simple switch labeled Loudness ON v.s. Loudness OFF. With Loudness ON, the volume control became a Loudness control, i.e., one that imposed the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves, usually with an undisclosed reference point.
> 
> (...)
> 
> [/LIST]



Following this discussion I am really really confused about three questions and I am not sure about the consensus view (if there is any). Let me try to put them out there together with what I currently believe to be the answer.

1) Do we believe that a loudness treatment of music content in general is needed and useful? 
- I believe the answer is yes. Music sounds much different at low volumes than it was intended to when mixed or recorded live.

2) Do we believe DEQ does a good job on it? 
- With RLO adjustment it is doing an ok job, but was not really designed for it. Several people feel that even a comparable blunt instrument like manual tone adjustment works better for them. Some (like me) keep using DEQ just out of convenience.

3) Do we believe that it is possible in a modern AVR by "throwing software at it" to provide a loudness function for music that is better than DEQ or manually changing the tone setting?
- My guess would be yes. And it is probably not much different from current DEQ - perhaps with some tweaks (as suggested in various posts) and with some consideration about what good default settings would be for music.

You may disagree with my current answers, but I would be interested to understand if there is indeed a common view on these questions.

Michael


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> Following this discussion I am really really confused about three questions and I am not sure about the consensus view (if there is any). Let me try to put them out there together with what I currently believe to be the answer.
> 
> 1) Do we believe that a loudness treatment of music content in general is needed and useful?
> - I believe the answer is yes. Music sounds much different at low volumes than it was intended to when mixed or recorded live.


I'll agree that something is very useful. "Need" is a rather strong term and whether or not I would agree with "need" depends on what you want to define as a "loudness treatment". Do you mean something automated and strongly correlated with master volume setting and hearing sensitivity or does your view of "loudness treatment" include something as basic and manual as tone controls?




> 2) Do we believe DEQ does a good job on it?
> - With RLO adjustment it is doing an ok job, but was not really designed for it. Several people feel that even a comparable blunt instrument like manual tone adjustment works better for them. Some (like me) keep using DEQ just out of convenience.


First, I think there's a lot to be said to convenience and the older I get the more I find myself valuing convenience and being willing to trade a little bit of performance for a gain in convenience.

I don't use my AV system for music and I don't think I'd be happy with DEQ in its current state for music. I run a separate music system and I simply set the volume to a level that works. That system has no room correction system or method of loudness compensation apart from tone controls and I actually have those defeated. I use no loudness compensation of any kind with music in that system, I just set the listening level to a level which works for me and my music listening levels are relatively low compared to the levels at which a number of my audiophile friends listen at, yet they and I regard me as an audiophile.




> 3) Do we believe that it is possible in a modern AVR by "throwing software at it" to provide a loudness function for music that is better than DEQ or manually changing the tone setting?
> - My guess would be yes. And it is probably not much different from current DEQ - perhaps with some tweaks (as suggested in various posts) and with some consideration about what good default settings would be for music.l


I think you could get a long way to providing a much better DEQ by providing a far more precise and flexible Relative Level Offset setting. If you could set it in steps of 1 dB and anywhere between 0dB, movie reference level, and -40 dB, I think you could do very well. If you could split the bass and high frequency adjustments and set them separately I think you would be even better off. 

I also think it would help a lot if DEQ "crunched the numbers" and implemented ifs filters a little better than it seems to do as well. I do think you lose a little transparency/clarity with DEQ.

As an alternative to that option, however, I would be happy with more flexible tone controls, especially if that flexibility included some provision for user selection of the hinge point at which the control starts to take effect and some provision for "shaping" the operating curve for the tone control and saving 2 or 3 tone control adjustment contours that you could select from a menu rather than having to manually change the settings every time you wanted a different tone control setting.

l


> You may disagree with my current answers, but I would be interested to understand if there is indeed a common view on these questions.
> 
> Michael


I think you'll see differing levels of agreement in response to different questions.


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Following this discussion I am really really confused about three questions and I am not sure about the consensus view (if there is any). Let me try to put them out there together with what I currently believe to be the answer.
> 
> 1) Do we believe that a loudness treatment of music content in general is needed and useful?
> - I believe the answer is yes. Music sounds much different at low volumes than it was intended to when mixed or recorded live.
> 
> 2) Do we believe DEQ does a good job on it?
> - With RLO adjustment it is doing an ok job, but was not really designed for it. Several people feel that even a comparable blunt instrument like manual tone adjustment works better for them. Some (like me) keep using DEQ just out of convenience.
> 
> 3) Do we believe that it is possible in a modern AVR by "throwing software at it" to provide a loudness function for music that is better than DEQ or manually changing the tone setting?
> - My guess would be yes. And it is probably not much different from current DEQ - perhaps with some tweaks (as suggested in various posts) and with some consideration about what good default settings would be for music.
> 
> You may disagree with my current answers, but I would be interested to understand if there is indeed a common view on these questions.
> 
> Michael


Hi Michael,

Those were interesting questions. One point I would make, however, when we discuss DEQ, is to stress that we try to talk about it in relation to 5.1 movies, rather than to music, because the deep bass requirements are very different between the two, as is the concept of a Reference volume. And, both of those differences factored heavily into the development of DEQ, as explained in several recent posts.

But, to answer your questions, I think that there would be some general consensus on question Number 1), particularly as it pertains to movies. Not everyone would feel a need to add bass to music, unless the volume dropped very low, as in Gary's example of parents telling us to turn down the volume, below what we feel is an appropriate listening level to begin with. But, nearly everyone would require a sub boost of some sort to hear the low and very low bass in movies, to our personal satisfaction, at below Reference listening levels. And, hardly any of us would feel that Reference volumes are "appropriate" (or even endurable) in a home theater environment. So, nearly everyone would have to add some bass compensation, in those circumstances, regardless of the specific method employed to do it.

Question Number 2) has never had consensus on the thread. It is my personal belief that more people use DEQ, in some form, and at some times, than do not. So, I would say that the majority of Audyssey owners do use DEQ, either by deliberate choice, or by simple default. But, it has always been the most controversial feature of Audyssey, and I don't believe there will ever be clear consensus as to whether it does a good job for everything. I think that we can probably move much closer to consensus, however, if we consider DEQ in the context for which it was designed, and ask whether it does a good job for 5.1 movies? As noted in Question 1), nearly everyone is going to have to use some kind of a sub boost, anyway, with 5.1 movies.

We could probably achieve some kind of consensus, on the thread, with respect to Question Number 3) as long as we didn't try to get too specific as to what improvements we would make to our idealized version of DEQ. Once we started to discuss specifics, there would be considerable divergence in opinion again. We shouldn't be surprised at that, though. Opinions diverge quite widely on even the simplest of things. And, a really workable form of loudness compensation, which is equally effective for all kinds of listening material, and for all kinds of listeners and listening preferences, would be anything but simple, in either design or implementation. Some believe that such an instrument has already been developed with DEQ. The fact that many don't, is the basis for the ongoing discussions.

I enjoy the theoretical discussions as much as anyone. More than most perhaps, since I initiate some of them. But, they are only useful as a matter of intellectual interest, and in helping us to better understand and implement our preferred methods of listening. In the end, regardless of theory, we will still all make the choices we make, with respect to DEQ. The ubiquitous YMMV. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## anothermib

David Aiken said:


> I'll agree that something is very useful. "Need" is a rather strong term and whether or not I would agree with "need" depends on what you want to define as a "loudness treatment". Do you mean something automated and strongly correlated with master volume setting and hearing sensitivity or does your view of "loudness treatment" include something as basic and manual as tone controls?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I think there's a lot to be said to convenience and the older I get the more I find myself valuing convenience and being willing to trade a little bit of performance for a gain in convenience.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use my AV system for music and I don't think I'd be happy with DEQ in its current state for music. I run a separate music system and I simply set the volume to a level that works. That system has no room correction system or method of loudness compensation apart from tone controls and I actually have those defeated. I use no loudness compensation of any kind with music in that system, I just set the listening level to a level which works for me and my music listening levels are relatively low compared to the levels at which a number of my audiophile friends listen at, yet they and I regard me as an audiophile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you could get a long way to providing a much better DEQ by providing a far more precise and flexible Relative Level Offset setting. If you could set it in steps of 1 dB and anywhere between 0dB, movie reference level, and -40 dB, I think you could do very well. If you could split the bass and high frequency adjustments and set them separately I think you would be even better off.
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it would help a lot if DEQ "crunched the numbers" and implemented ifs filters a little better than it seems to do as well. I do think you lose a little transparency/clarity with DEQ.
> 
> 
> 
> As an alternative to that option, however, I would be happy with more flexible tone controls, especially if that flexibility included some provision for user selection of the hinge point at which the control starts to take effect and some provision for "shaping" the operating curve for the tone control and saving 2 or 3 tone control adjustment contours that you could select from a menu rather than having to manually change the settings every time you wanted a different tone control setting.
> 
> 
> 
> l
> 
> 
> 
> I think you'll see differing levels of agreement in response to different questions.




David,

the word "need" may be too strong, but an automatic loudness treatment suitable for music would certainly make my list of "highly desirable" features. Much more so than many others like video scaling etc. that I would be fine leaving to other devices. The loudness treatment, however, needs to happen in the amplifier.

However, I must admit that I am listening to music at quite a wide range of volumes - depending on occasion. So I may be more passionate about it than others.

If the manufacturers offered an improved easily accessible manual tone control I may, like you, prefer this over DEQ as it is today. However, this doesn't really feel like "state of the art", when the basic code for compensating the loudness curve is already written. 

Michael


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> Those were interesting questions. One point I would make, however, when we discuss DEQ, is to stress that we try to talk about it in relation to 5.1 movies, rather than to music, because the deep bass requirements are very different between the two, as is the concept of a Reference volume. And, both of those differences factored heavily into the development of DEQ, as explained in several recent posts.
> 
> But, to answer your questions, I think that there would be some general consensus on question Number 1), particularly as it pertains to movies. Not everyone would feel a need to add bass to music, unless the volume dropped very low, as in Gary's example of parents telling us to turn down the volume, below what we feel is an appropriate listening level to begin with. But, nearly everyone would require a sub boost of some sort to hear the low and very low bass in movies, to our personal satisfaction, at below Reference listening levels. And, hardly any of us would feel that Reference volumes are "appropriate" (or even endurable) in a home theater environment. So, nearly everyone would have to add some bass compensation, in those circumstances, regardless of the specific method employed to do it.
> 
> Question Number 2) has never had consensus on the thread. It is my personal belief that more people use DEQ, in some form, and at some times, than do not. So, I would say that the majority of Audyssey owners do use DEQ, either by deliberate choice, or by simple default. But, it has always been the most controversial feature of Audyssey, and I don't believe there will ever be clear consensus as to whether it does a good job for everything. I think that we can probably move much closer to consensus, however, if we consider DEQ in the context for which it was designed, and ask whether it does a good job for 5.1 movies? As noted in Question 1), nearly everyone is going to have to use some kind of a sub boost, anyway, with 5.1 movies.
> 
> We could probably achieve some kind of consensus, on the thread, with respect to Question Number 3) as long as we didn't try to get too specific as to what improvements we would make to our idealized version of DEQ. Once we started to discuss specifics, there would be considerable divergence in opinion again. We shouldn't be surprised at that, though. Opinions diverge quite widely on even the simplest of things. And, a really workable form of loudness compensation, which is equally effective for all kinds of listening material, and for all kinds of listeners and listening preferences, would be anything but simple, in either design or implementation. Some believe that such an instrument has already been developed with DEQ. The fact that many don't, is the basis for the ongoing discussions.
> 
> I enjoy the theoretical discussions as much as anyone. More than most perhaps, since I initiate some of them. But, they are only useful as a matter of intellectual interest, and in helping us to better understand and implement our preferred methods of listening. In the end, regardless of theory, we will still all make the choices we make, with respect to DEQ. The ubiquitous YMMV.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Mike,

I appreciate the fact that DEQ is originally designed for movies. 

When asking what a software _should_ do the answer "what it is designed to do" is perfectly valid and for many people the only possible answer. 
However, I would count "what the user really wants it to do" as a valid answer as well. 

Given the fact, that many people are listening to music a lot I feel that exploring the right solution for music is certainly worth while. Even if in the end it doesn't involve DEQ at all.

I agree it is somewhat theoretical as we are not the product managers responsible for this. However, as a customer this discussion certainly helps me to evaluate how well the product managers did their job.

Michael


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> David,
> 
> the word "need" may be too strong, but an automatic loudness treatment suitable for music would certainly make my list of "highly desirable" features. Much more so than many others like video scaling etc. that I would be fine leaving to other devices. The loudness treatment, however, needs to happen in the amplifier.
> 
> However, I must admit that I am listening to music at quite a wide range of volumes - depending on occasion. So I may be more passionate about it than others.
> 
> If the manufacturers offered an improved easily accessible manual tone control I may, like you, prefer this over DEQ as it is today. However, this doesn't really feel like "state of the art", when the basic code for compensating the loudness curve is already written.
> 
> Michael


Michael, FWIW, I don't actually believe that the basic code for compensating for the Equal Loudness Contours is already written. All the Equal Loudness Contours tell us is that, on average, our ability to perceive bass volumes drops at a known rate, compared to other frequencies. But, nothing in the Equal Loudness Contours tell us how much bass we need to put back, or where in the bass frequencies to put it, at what reduction in master volume, in order to compensate for that perceived loss of bass volume.

A good example of that can be found with the application of DEQ. DEQ applies a maximum 2.2db bass boost for every -5 MV from Reference. But, years of anecdotal reports on this, and other threads, indicate that the great majority of users add another +3db to +6db on top of DEQ. So clearly, determining exactly how much bass to add at any given volume level is a tricky business, and may be very volume and user dependent. Again, the Equal Loudness Contours are based on a statistical average, so we can expect some individual variance in human perception, even before preference enters the equation.

I really don't think this is an easy or straightforward issue at all, when we factor in different types of listening material, different listening volumes, and different listeners.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> Michael, FWIW, I don't actually believe that the basic code for compensating for the Equal Loudness Contours is already written. All the Equal Loudness Contours tell us is that, on average, our ability to perceive bass volumes drops at a known rate, compared to other frequencies. But, nothing in the Equal Loudness Contours tell us how much bass we need to put back, or where in the bass frequencies to put it, at what reduction in master volume, in order to compensate for that perceived loss of bass volume.
> 
> A good example of that can be found with the application of DEQ. DEQ applies a maximum 2.2db bass boost for every -5 MV from Reference. But, years of anecdotal reports on this, and other threads, indicate that the great majority of users add another +3db to +6db on top of DEQ. So clearly, determining exactly how much bass to add at any given volume level is a tricky business, and may be very volume and user dependent. Again, the Equal Loudness Contours are based on a statistical average, so we can expect some individual variance in human perception, even before preference enters the equation.
> 
> I really don't think this is an easy or straightforward issue at all, when we factor in different types of listening material, different listening volumes, and different listeners.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Mike,

not as rhetorical questions- I really don't know the answer: 
Wouldn't even the average loudness curve like it is used in DEQ generally be a superior compensation than just the tone or SW setting? Assuming if it is applied with an average reference value for music and the ability to tweak the intensity of the correction? 

Or do we believe that at the end of the day the every individual listener needs to store a target eq curve per MV (eg every 10dB) in order to get a reasonable result?

Michael


----------



## gurkey

As a minimum I would enjoy a somewhat more adjustable version of DEQ if it would allow access to some of those (undocumented ?) "behind the scene" features, which are combined into DEQ right now:
- Fletcher Munson (or their modern incarnations by Robinson-Dadson or ISO 226 which are slightly different) like frequency corrections should be available but with more "fine tuning" options 
- the inherent "dynamic" feature of DynamicEQ should be switchable and / or adjustable
- the inherent level "enhancements" for surround speakers should be switchable and / or adjustable 
to allow individualization of those features to ones needs / likings. This would help / allow to adapt more easily and with less "side effects" to music and movie content.

I wouldn't mind some sort of "default setup" for those who don't want to get envolved further but a menu like option, where those parameters could be accessed (and adjusted) if needed.


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Mike,
> 
> not as rhetorical questions- I really don't know the answer:
> Wouldn't even the average loudness curve like it is used in DEQ generally be a superior compensation than just the tone or SW setting? Assuming if it is applied with an average reference value for music and the ability to tweak the intensity of the correction?
> 
> Or do we believe that at the end of the day the every individual listener needs to store a target eq curve per MV (eg every 10dB) in order to get a reasonable result?
> 
> Michael


It's another good question, and I don't really know the answer either. I can speak to some theoretical reasons why I don't think that the DEQ target curve works quite as well as it might. But, that is still just theoretical, and without testing my ideas there would be no way of knowing how well they would work, either. Some people believe that a good theory, or even a fairly good theory, will inevitably produce the desired results. And, some prefer to judge the actual results for themselves. One reason I keep trying to get us all to make a bit of a paradigm shift in our discussions of DEQ, though, is because theory and application align best when design intent is part of the conversation. That pesky 5.1 movie issue again. 

All I can really do is to answer you in terms of my own experience. I don't use subwoofers at all when I listen to music. With my speakers, I simply don't need them. And, my experience there is similar to what David also said. I can almost always get the bass I want, by controlling the master volume level. If I were turning down the volume to a really low listening level, as background music, for instance, I probably wouldn't be nearly as concerned with acoustic equilibrium, anyway, because I wouldn't really be concentrating on the music at that point. But, that is just my experience, and may not be relevant to someone else. That was the point I was making earlier, though, that our individual circumstances, experiences, systems, preferences, etc., may all be very different.

For 5.1 movies, and particularly for those with a lot of low bass, my situation changes completely. Now, I bass-manage all of my large and very capable speakers, and add in four powerful ported subwoofers. (It's a large room.) And now, I am not simply trying to enjoy bass down to about 50hz, or occasionally 30Hz, in music. I am pursuing significant bass into the low teens, and below, in 5.1 movies. And, because I am on a thick concrete pad, and because concrete doesn't transmit tactile ULF (


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> ...
> 
> I have never had a lot of experience with using extremely large variations in my listening volumes. I experimented with different volumes, added room treatments over a period of time, and finally settled on the volumes I like for movies, TV, and music. And, although I may change listening levels by 3db, or even 4db sometimes, that is about the most variance I would normally employ with respect to any single medium. So, I always listen to 5.1 movies at higher volumes than I use for music, but each separate medium would typically only have about a 3 or 4db swing in volume, depending on the specific material, or on my mood. Obviously, there could be some exceptions to that, so that is only a general observation.
> 
> ...



Ok, that is a fair point. Anyone that is listening within a comparably narrow range of MV wouldn't need a DynamicEQ or any automatic loudness treatment at all. They are better served by an eq curve they can tune and store per content type. The Audyssey app may be a solution for that if it gets launched.

I am missing the bass even if I play music at very low level, what you describe as "background music" and variations of 10 or even 20 dB depending on "how" I am listening are not that rare. So for me it is really a desired feature for music as well. 

To open another can of worms - does anyone know how are "the other guys" (eg YAPO volume) are doing on loudness treatment for music?

Michael


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Ok, that is a fair point. Anyone that is listening within a comparably narrow range of MV wouldn't need a DynamicEQ or any automatic loudness treatment at all. They are better served by an eq curve they can tune and store per content type. The Audyssey app may be a solution for that if it gets launched.
> 
> I am missing the bass even if I play music at very low level, what you describe as "background music" and variations of 10 or even 20 dB depending on "how" I am listening are not that rare. So for me it is really a desired feature for music as well.
> 
> To open another can of worms - does anyone know how are "the other guys" (eg YAPO volume) are doing on loudness treatment for music?
> 
> Michael


I think that you may be looking for justifications for why you like, or need, DEQ for music, and you really don't need a justification. I think that lots of people probably enjoy using DEQ for music. My only point in emphasizing design intent has been to keep people discussing this on the same page, with respect to the original purpose of DEQ. Its application works well in whatever way we think it works well.

I like old movies, and I like analogies, so here is one I was thinking of a little earlier with respect to this discussion. In the John Ford classic, Rio Grande, Trooper Tyree (played by Ben Johnson) has just volunteered for a dangerous rescue mission against the Apache, provided he can select the two men to accompany him. "Do you think you are a good judge of men, Trooper Tyree?" asks Colonel Yorke (played by John Wayne). "I think I'm a good judge of men I trust." Replies Tyree. "Good answer!" says Yorke.

I think it's a good answer here, too. We can discuss theory all we want, and all judge differently about how DEQ is intended to work, or how it should work. But, when it comes to deciding what we like in our own HT's systems, there is only one judge who really matters, and that is the person doing the actual listening. Some of the other fans of older movies may enjoy the analogy, as well as its relevance to any matter requiring individual and personal judgment, as opposed to general theory.


----------



## bmcn

Any comments on the long delayed Audyssey app promoted by Denon/Marantz? Bought a Denon 4300 today at Fry's and wonder if i should bother opening the box. Combined w/Audyssey's evisceration of their REQ product from its website, the recent change of ownership at DM could make the app's rollout more exciting than necessary.


----------



## gurkey

Probably nobody outside the new ownership knows, in what direction the D & M brands, which are the only major licensee of Audyssey measurement technology left (to my knowledge) from Audyssey Laboratories right now, will steer. The "Audyssey App" is a development of Audyssey Laboratories and thus at least up to now (?) independent of D & M. Its been sold by my understanding by Audyssey itself. The corresponding firmwares had been integrated already into the 2016er Denon & Marantz models and thus everything should stay on course at least for now (hopefully). But the availability of the Audyssey app has been delayed already several times...

What is going to happen to future AVR / processor generations in terms of measurement systems is still open. Some manufacturers (Yamaha, Pioneer/Onkyo/Integra, Anthem, DataSat, Lyngdorf, Trinnov etc.) went the direction of implementing their own measurement system with somewhat split opinion about either being successfull or very expensive, some chose Dirac as an external product but not without problems (Arcam, Emotiva etc.). Licensee fees and having their own way and proprietary technology seem to play a major role in this decision process.

What bothered me several month ago has been discussed already: Audyssey removed almost all references to its Audyssey measurement product in the meantime from its web site which doesn't bode well - at least im my opinion - for the future. 
But I could be mislead...


----------



## bmcn

gurkey said:


> ...But I could be mislead...


...or ignored, lol.

A curious sequence indeed.

Recall a comment, iirc by Audyssey's Chris, another firmware update is required when and if the app is released. Confident someone who frequents this thread knows the project's status.


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> Mike,
> 
> not as rhetorical questions- I really don't know the answer:
> Wouldn't even the average loudness curve like it is used in DEQ generally be a superior compensation than just the tone or SW setting? Assuming if it is applied with an average reference value for music and the ability to tweak the intensity of the correction?
> 
> Or do we believe that at the end of the day the every individual listener needs to store a target eq curve per MV (eg every 10dB) in order to get a reasonable result?
> 
> Michael


I guess my answer to the question is along the lines of a yes/no/maybe.

As far as an "average reference value for music" goes, probably good luck at finding one. I think you're going to be hard pressed to find an average value that works for popular music of all genres, classical, jazz, folk, country, and whatever your favourite genre that I have left out is. There's even going to significant variation across different companies in my view.

The model DEQ uses has one big advantage and one useful advantage over using just the tone and/or SW settings. The big advantage is it's contour which relates more accurately to the falloff in sensitivity of our ears than tone controls do while SW adjustments just work across the whole of the sub's operating range equally. The useful advantages of DEQ is convenience because it adjusts automatically to changes in level. You can just turn it on and forget it, you don't have to think about readjusting your tone controls every time you make a significant adjustment in listening level. 

I don't think every listener needs to store a target curve but the curve DEQ uses is based on the Fletcher Munson curves which are averages of results from a large number of people. Statistically we can expect a bell curve distribution of hearing sensitivity test results for people of roughly the same age who do not have hearing damage or problems of any kind. Bell curve distribution means that 66% of those tested will have results that fall within +/- 33% of the mean but that means that another third of those tested fall more than 33% from the mean and are likely to be less than satisfied by something based on Fletcher Munson. Even some of those within one standard deviation of the mean but close to the edge of the SD range may be less than satisfied. I think we could probably bet that after making allowance for individual preferences also, at least a third of users without hearing damage or problems aren't going to be completely happy with a system like DEQ, any system like DEQ, and perhaps half of those people may really actively dislike it and fail to use it. I don't think every individual listener would need to store a target EQ curve but I wouldn't mind betting that a significant minority would prefer to do so. The actual number who would do so if the opportunity were available is likely to be a bit less than that, how much less than that depending on how simply and user friendly the method of making individual adjustments to the settings are and just how easy they are to understand and for the user to be able to determine what they prefer will play a big part in determining how many people would use it. Make the process really simple, reliable, and user friendly and you could have 30-40% of users taking advantage of it. Make it hard, complex, and decidedly user unfriendly and you may only get 5 to 10% of users willing to struggle with it. It's not necessarily enough to offer something that works. You have to offer something that works and that people want to use and are happy to use, and wanting to use something and being happy to use it aren't the same thing.


----------



## garygarrison

anothermib said:


> Mike,
> not as rhetorical questions- I really don't know the answer*:*
> Wouldn't even the *average* loudness curve like it is used in DEQ generally be a superior compensation than just the tone or SW setting? Assuming if it is applied with an average reference value for music and the ability to tweak the intensity of the correction?
> *
> Or do we believe that at the end of the day the every individual listener needs to store a target eq curve per MV (eg every 10dB*) in order to get a reasonable result?
> 
> Michael


I'm not Mike, but *... * if you have to tweak the intensity of the correction (likely), you might as well tweak to your personal taste and hearing using low distortion devices like a tone control or subwoofer trim, rather than DEQ, which reduces clarity, IMO. If someone listens at very low volume, the tone controls on home theater equipment, with their meager compensation, might fail to provide enough comp in the range above the subwoofer and below the top of the high bass range. That's when something like DEQ might be better, but, hopefully it would be more transparent than DEQ as it now exists. 

Re: *"average* loudness curve," There was a cartoon in the first statistics book I ever saw, commenting on the concept of the arithmetical average. It showed a cannoneer speaking to a skeptical commander during a battle in some war in the past. Half of the canon balls had landed short of the target, and the rest had landed beyond the target. The cannoneer was saying, "That's true, sir, but on the average we're right on target." Of course that not the way it usually is with an average, but to a single given listener, in a given room, at the MLP, the amount of loudness compensation might well be wrong, even if it was the average. 

Taking music and movies separately: 


*For Music*: I think that at the end of the day, and much earlier, every individual listener needs to have a target EQ for *every music disk*, because of the wide and wild variations in music recording we have all mentioned *and* a preferred *MV* setting using that EQ and that disk. On quite a few music disk jewel cases I have attached label listing a suggested MV level, bass setting, treble setting, and sometimes subwoofer setting (if it deviates from my normal sub trim). Sometimes I change these labels if repeated listening has convinced me that I was wrong the first time. I usually start with the controls flat (except for the sub). In a later post, I'll mention the added usefulness a *real* control center (like in the Luxman I used to have) would provide in achieving this. I very rarely use DEQ on music. I usually use Audyssey FLAT.
*For Movies: *For the vast majority of Blu-rays made from *modern* movies, I don't need to change my usual movie settings, which include a moderate bass boost using the tone control, a sub boost, Audyssey FLAT, and *no* DEQ. I listen nearer to reference than most people (but I'm not the only one!). For movies originally recorded on *magnetic film* (1953 to sometime in the '70s), regardless of whether they were released to theaters with mag tracks, I usually use more bass boost and sub boost (because the final bass boost was usually added in the final mix for these magnetic movies, but the final mix is almost never used for transfer to Blu-ray, and the Blu-rays sound like it), and, for magnetic tracks before about the very late '60s I sometimes use plain Audyssey, i.e., Audyssey Reference (to roll off frequencies above about 10K, since there is often distortion there -- the original mixers often didn't hear this distortion because both the studio monitors used to mix movies and the speakers in the theaters were superb up to 9 or 10K, then dropped like a rock. Although the music recording studios began to use either "super tweeters" or speakers with better high frequency response in c.1957, the movie industry lagged behind because they were mixing for films that would be shown in theaters with speakers that didn't have much response above 10K. Movies with old *optical* original recordings, like Citizen Kane, or Casablanca may seem hopeless, but I think Audyssey Reference, with its roll-off, and some bass boost helps. In the case of Casablanca, with judicious bass boost, the airplane's motors at the end intensify the emotions, kind of like the way a timpani roll swells to fill the emotional space of an orchestra.


----------



## garygarrison

anothermib said:


> Following this discussion I am really really confused about three questions and I am not sure about the consensus view (if there is any). Let me try to put them out there together with what I currently believe to be the answer.
> 
> 1) Do we believe that a loudness treatment of music content in general is needed and useful?
> - I believe the answer is yes. Music sounds much different at low volumes than it was intended to when mixed or recorded live.
> 
> 2) Do we believe DEQ does a good job on it?
> - With RLO adjustment it is doing an ok job, but was not really designed for it. Several people feel that even a comparable blunt instrument like manual tone adjustment works better for them. Some (like me) keep using DEQ just out of convenience.
> 
> 3) Do we believe that it is possible in a modern AVR by "throwing software at it" to provide a loudness function for music that is better than DEQ or manually changing the tone setting?
> - My guess would be yes. And it is probably not much different from current DEQ - perhaps with some tweaks (as suggested in various posts) and with some consideration about what good default settings would be for music.
> 
> You may disagree with my current answers, but I would be interested to understand if there is indeed a common view on these questions.
> 
> Michael


1) Yes, but how? Some of us don't like DEQ, and, as Mike said, it was designed for the movies, with the industry's standardized reference level and special needs, not music. I think there is general agreement that a loudness device, somehow adjusted to music's unknown level (e.g., adjusted by ear) or careful use of a bass control and/or sub level is needed. If the music sounds great at your preferred volume level without such a device, fine. 

2) Some like it and some don't. I would think one would have to futz around with RLO with each new disk or source, since there are no standards for music recording, and sometimes none of the settings would be good. I think DEQ is a blunter instrument than tone controls, etc. especially for music.

3) I haven't noticed much agreement on this one.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> I do think you lose a little transparency/clarity with DEQ.
> 
> As an alternative to that option, however, I would be happy with more flexible tone controls, especially if that flexibility included some provision for user selection of the hinge point at which the control starts to take effect and some provision for "shaping" the operating curve for the tone control* ...*
> .


That loss of transparency/clarity is the main reason I don't like DEQ.

My late, lamented Luxman had 3 different hinge points and 3 different slopes on both the bass and the treble controls, as well as a "low boost" switch with two different user selected turnover points and their different slopes. I had great control! 

Before that, my McIntosh had regular tone controls, and a "bass trim" control to adjust the very deep bass.


----------



## primetimeguy

I'm curious if anyone had tried Dolby Volume as a replacement for DEQ. You can turn off the dynamic range compression component and essentially get the Dolby equivalent to DEQ. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

David Aiken said:


> ...
> 
> The model DEQ uses has one big advantage and one useful advantage over using just the tone and/or SW settings. The big advantage is it's contour which relates more accurately to the falloff in sensitivity of our ears than tone controls do while SW adjustments just work across the whole of the sub's operating range equally. The useful advantages of DEQ is convenience because it adjusts automatically to changes in level. You can just turn it on and forget it, you don't have to think about readjusting your tone controls every time you make a significant adjustment in listening level.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think every listener needs to store a target curve but the curve DEQ uses is based on the Fletcher Munson curves which are averages of results from a large number of people. Statistically we can expect a bell curve distribution of hearing sensitivity
> ...



That makes a lot of sense to me. The tone setting is quite unspecific and the actual spectral effect of sw trim will depend heavily on the configuration and cross over frequencies. So I am really wondering how likely it is to replicate anyone's actual sensitivity curve with that. 

Even most of the people that fall in the "tail" of the bell curve may need target curves that have essentially the same shape, but just a bit more or less increase than the average. That is what I meant when assuming the basic code for that is already written. 

The fact that some people (including me) seem to find the unspecific tone setting as god as or even superior to DEQ may indicate that it is not that incredibly sensitive as long as you have the ability to get roughly the right amount of bass increase out of such a solution and remove some of the unwanted byproducts of DEQ. 

Michael


----------



## anothermib

garygarrison said:


> ...
> 
> 3) I haven't noticed much agreement on this one.




That is the part that surprises me the most. I get the people that say they don't need it. However, considering how close DEQ seems to get already, in spite of the fact that it wasn't designed for it, I would be hard pressed saying "it can't be done". After all we are living in the software age.  


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> That is the part that surprises me the most. I get the people that say they don't need it. However, considering how close DEQ seems to get already, in spite of the fact that it wasn't designed for it, I would be hard pressed saying "it can't be done". After all we are living in the software age.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It can be done. There are some technical problems which are surmountable but the big issues are going to be user convenience issues. It would have to be made user friendly enough to attract people to use it.

I don't know why the emphasis on software and the ability to do anything with it. Sure, there are software problems and they are solvable but I think the real problem may prove to be hardware and having the AVR/pre-pro allocate enough computing power and RAM to the function to actually make it work given that AVRs/pre-pros have a lot of competing needs for those resources. Think of all the audio and video features offered by current AVRs/pre-pros and rememberer that it is possible for someone to be using nearly all of them at once while watching a movie which is probably the most complex task that AVRs/pre-pros are called on to do. It doesn't matter that the discussion here is about a better form of DEQ for music, it's going to be used for both music and movies and it has to work equally reliably in both areas so it's going to be the combined AV function that is the acid test. I actually wouldn't be surprised to hear that we're using more computing power to watch a movie on disc at home than it took to put a man on the moon, especially when you add in the computing power in your display and player as well as the AVR/pre-pro. Wars may even have been fought with less computing power and I think we're close to the limits of what our current equipment can achieve. An improved DEQ is likely to tax the hardware more, just as it demands more of software.

Software is critical but so is hardware and it's not getting as much mention as I think it needs. I suspect part of the problem with DEQ at present is hardware limitations. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the current version of DEQ could be made to work better if it had access to more computing power and memory.


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> That makes a lot of sense to me. The tone setting is quite unspecific and the actual spectral effect of sw trim will depend heavily on the configuration and cross over frequencies. So I am really wondering how likely it is to replicate anyone's actual sensitivity curve with that.
> 
> Even most of the people that fall in the "tail" of the bell curve may need target curves that have essentially the same shape, but just a bit more or less increase than the average. That is what I meant when assuming the basic code for that is already written.
> 
> The fact that some people (including me) seem to find the unspecific tone setting as god as or even superior to DEQ may indicate that it is not that incredibly sensitive as long as you have the ability to get roughly the right amount of bass increase out of such a solution and remove some of the unwanted byproducts of DEQ.
> 
> Michael


There are 2 tails to the bell curve and the needs in each tail are likely to be very different from each other plus, depending on how broadly the tails spread there's no reason to assume that the same configuration will work equally well for everyone in the same tail. Once we get to people with hearing damage we start to get into a whole new world of issues, including how you do a good job for people with significant differences between their ears. I don't think the needs for those falling into the tails, or for those with hearing problems, are going to be as easily dealt with as you think.

Re your last paragraph: did you really want to call tone controls "god"?


----------



## anothermib

David Aiken said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> Re your last paragraph: did you really want to call tone controls "god"?



Even I wouldn't go that far - though some of the discussion sounds like divine intervention may be required to get what I am looking for


----------



## gurkey

bmcn said:


> ...or ignored, lol.
> A curious sequence indeed.
> Recall a comment, iirc by Audyssey's Chris, another firmware update is required when and if the app is released. Confident someone who frequents this thread knows the project's status.


You asked and I answered to the best of my knowledge.
If being "ignored" then  doesn't really matter, does it ?


----------



## In.vincible

Finally did a few measurements. First is pure direct, next is Audyssey with my preferred settings (+3 sub boost, DEQ off) and last is an overlay. Looks like a decent dip around 80 Hz, and then a big hump around 100 Hz. Is there anything I can do about this?


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> Finally did a few measurements. First is pure direct, next is Audyssey with my preferred settings (+3 sub boost, DEQ off) and last is an overlay. Looks like a decent dip around 80 Hz, and then a big hump around 100 Hz. Is there anything I can do about this?


Hi, care to give us a journal on how you did the measurements? Was it a one point capture (probably with mic at MLP) or you did a multiple mic placement measurement (a la Audyssey style) and then averaged the results in REW?


----------



## In.vincible

mogorf said:


> Hi, care to give us a journal on how you did the measurements? Was it a one point capture (probably with mic at MLP) or you did a multiple mic placement measurement (a la Audyssey style) and then averaged the results in REW?


Still learning about the program and that sort of thing, but these were just single-pt measurements from my MLP.


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> Still learning about the program and that sort of thing, but these were just single-pt measurements from my MLP.


OK. Then why not try a multiple measurement scheme by using REW's averaging feature. Actually a one point shot will tell you nothing about room behavior and its not only Audyssey but Yamaha's YPAO or Pioneer's MCACC, etc. that does the same multi-point test. Please don't trust a single point measurement when it comes to evaluating the audio-sonic signature of your room. That will only tell you what the microphone "hears", but the result will still be far-far away from our human perception.


----------



## mthomas47

+1 to Feri's comments. I assume that this is just your front speakers and your sub. Is your crossover at 80Hz, where that dip is, and if so have you tried other crossovers? Can you hear anything that sounds a little off, when you play something with good mid-bass content. You can download test mixes, or demo clips, that will emphasize different parts of the bass frequency range.

That dip may disappear when you average several measurement positions around your head, and that will replicate the way our binaural hearing works. But, the reason I ask about whether you can actually hear anything amiss, is that our brains do a pretty good job of compensating for small dips, with undertones and overtones, that tend to mask a dip at a particular frequency. That's a good thing!


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Finally did a few measurements. First is pure direct, next is Audyssey with my preferred settings (+3 sub boost, DEQ off) and last is an overlay. Looks like a decent dip around 80 Hz, and then a big hump around 100 Hz. Is there anything I can do about this?





mogorf said:


> OK. Then why not try a multiple measurement scheme by using REW's averaging feature. Actually a one point shot will tell you nothing about room behavior and its not only Audyssey but Yamaha's YPAO or Pioneer's MCACC, etc. that does the same multi-point test. Please don't trust a single point measurement when it comes to evaluating the audio-sonic signature of your room. That will only tell you what the microphone "hears", but the result will still be far-far away from our human perception.





mthomas47 said:


> +1 to Feri's comments. I assume that this is just your front speakers and your sub. Is your crossover at 80Hz, where that dip is, and if so have you tried other crossovers? Can you hear anything that sounds a little off, when you play something with good mid-bass content. You can download test mixes, or demo clips, that will emphasize different parts of the bass frequency range.
> 
> That dip may disappear when you average several measurement positions around your head, and that will replicate the way our binaural hearing works. But, the reason I ask about whether you can actually hear anything amiss, is that our brains do a pretty good job of compensating for small dips, with undertones and overtones, that tend to mask a dip at a particular frequency. That's a good thing!


+1 to Feri and Mike's comments.

One other thing about dips and peaks. Trying to fill in a dip is a bit like trying to fill a bucket of water if there's a hole in the bucket. You can keep adding water but it keeps pouring out of the hole. Filling a dip in frequency response is a bit like that. The plot may show a 10 dB dip (example only, randomly chosen number) but adding a 10 dB boost at that frequency won't fill in the dip. Some of what you add disappears the same way part of the original signal level got lost, so you add a bit more and the same thing keeps happening. It ends up taking a lot more boost than you expect to fill in the dip and all of that additional boost keeps adding a heavier load on your system. It's not only power, the speaker drivers work a hell of a lot harder and you can drive them into clipping on peaks if you try to fill in dips so the standard response to dips is to do very little with them because, as Mike said, our brains do a good job of compensating for them. Peaks are a lot more audible than dips and it's a lot easier to level a peak than to fill in a dip.


----------



## David Aiken

A question regarding Audyssey mic placement patterns, probably more for Mike and Feri but anyone is welcome to respond.

I run a separate music only system which does not have a room correction system in the amp and I'm currently toying with the idea of replacing my existing integrated amp. I'm looking for something with digital inputs and I'm assembling a short list of contenders, one of which is the Lyngdorf TDAI 2170 which does have a room correction system which is different to Audyssey. While reading a bit about it I noticed that it's mic placement recommendations are very different to Audyssey's recommendation.

The Lyngdorf system uses a very different mic placement pattern. The initial mic position is at ear level at the main listening position but the other positions are randomly placed around the room, including at different heights, with the restriction that most are to be kept at least 1.5' or half a metre from the speakers and room surfaces though the last couple or so are to be placed within 1.5' of walls and the ceiling. In other words the idea is to sample the room as a whole, not just the listening area.

Do you know if anyone has tried such an extremely wide placement pattern with Audyssey and, if they have, what the results were like. I'm wondering about the pros and cons of trying such a placement pattern with Audyssey. My mic placement with Audyssey has always been a relatively close placement pattern that keeps within 2' of the main listening position.

I may get around to trying the Lyngdorf approach with Audyssey but I'd be interested in hearing what kind of experience anyone has had with such a wide placement pattern people have had with very wide mic placement patterns before trying, especially any traps and work arounds they may have come up with in order to get a reasonable result with it.


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> +1 to Feri's comments. I assume that this is just your front speakers and your sub. Is your crossover at 80Hz, where that dip is, and if so have you tried other crossovers? Can you hear anything that sounds a little off, when you play something with good mid-bass content. You can download test mixes, or demo clips, that will emphasize different parts of the bass frequency range.
> 
> That dip may disappear when you average several measurement positions around your head, and that will replicate the way our binaural hearing works. But, the reason I ask about whether you can actually hear anything amiss, is that our brains do a pretty good job of compensating for small dips, with undertones and overtones, that tend to mask a dip at a particular frequency. That's a good thing!


Yep, just fronts and sub. Pure direct was fronts only. I did try other crossovers (going higher actually seemed to smooth things out a little, but I'm talking like 100Hz, which seems too high). That dip is there with or without the sub. Things sound pretty good at the moment. Sometimes I feel there could be a little more bass, but it's just certain songs. Overall, the sound of my speakers alone with no sub seems bassier, but they can't dig as deep without the sub.

I may try a few more measurements around my seat and avg. them like you guys mentioned. At this point, I don't think there's really any adjustments I'm going to make (as far as moving speakers around, room treatments, etc), so this is kind of just for fun.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> A question regarding Audyssey mic placement patterns, probably more for Mike and Feri but anyone is welcome to respond.
> 
> I run a separate music only system which does not have a room correction system in the amp and I'm currently toying with the idea of replacing my existing integrated amp. I'm looking for something with digital inputs and I'm assembling a short list of contenders, one of which is the Lyngdorf TDAI 2170 which does have a room correction system which is different to Audyssey. While reading a bit about it I noticed that it's mic placement recommendations are very different to Audyssey's recommendation.
> 
> The Lyngdorf system uses a very different mic placement pattern. The initial mic position is at ear level at the main listening position but the other positions are randomly placed around the room, including at different heights, with the restriction that most are to be kept at least 1.5' or half a metre from the speakers and room surfaces though the last couple or so are to be placed within 1.5' of walls and the ceiling. In other words the idea is to sample the room as a whole, not just the listening area.
> 
> Do you know if anyone has tried such an extremely wide placement pattern with Audyssey and, if they have, what the results were like. I'm wondering about the pros and cons of trying such a placement pattern with Audyssey. My mic placement with Audyssey has always been a relatively close placement pattern that keeps within 2' of the main listening position.
> 
> I may get around to trying the Lyngdorf approach with Audyssey but I'd be interested in hearing what kind of experience anyone has had with such a wide placement pattern people have had with very wide mic placement patterns before trying, especially any traps and work arounds they may have come up with in order to get a reasonable result with it.


David,

As I understand it, Lyngdorf's Room Perfect system is based on an entirely different type of algorithm than is Audyssey's, and consequently, there would be no reason to expect them to use a similar calibration methodology. I don't understand the Lyngdorf system as well as I do Audyssey, although I used to follow a McIntosh thread where it was widely discussed. 

People have used very large mic patterns with Audyssey, with the kind of varying success that you would expect. But, they were never random mic placements around the room, due to Audyssey's system of fuzzy logic weighting. Audyssey is specifically trying to EQ a listening area, as opposed to an entire room. And keeping mic positions within a general listening area (and in a fairly compact pattern) makes it easier for Audyssey to do a good job of assigning control points. I have never understood precisely how Room Perfect works, and I don't believe that Lyngdorf has been very forthcoming, but I know that it is based on a different approach to EQing a space.

Based on what I recall from the McIntosh thread I followed, people who have had both XT-32, and Room Perfect, have not reported dramatic differences between the relative EQ results. However, a major advantage of Lyngdorf's system lies in the greater user adjustability it offers, with multiple pre-programmed target curves, and additional adjustments that a user can make to create his own. It also used to be quite expensive, although I have not followed that in the last couple of years. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CherylJosie

David Aiken said:


> The Lyngdorf system uses a very different mic placement pattern. The initial mic position is at ear level at the main listening position but the other positions are randomly placed around the room, including at different heights, with the restriction that most are to be kept at least 1.5' or half a metre from the speakers and room surfaces though the last couple or so are to be placed within 1.5' of walls and the ceiling. In other words the idea is to sample the room as a whole, not just the listening area.
> 
> Do you know if anyone has tried such an extremely wide placement pattern with Audyssey and, if they have, what the results were like.


I found the following:

When trying to calibrate with the main listening position right on the rear wall, putting the microphone so close to the boundary did a couple of bad things. First, it put the microphone where there is too much boundary reinforcement and the bass was weak everywhere else after cal. Second it was difficult to get decent sound from all the speakers and the surrounds were too close so their levels got set too low and they also played weak everywhere else but at the MLP.

When trying to calibrate with the main listening position near the center of the room, dual subwoofers became a must in this smallish irregular apartment. The bass was just too uneven with only one subwoofer and there was sort of a gap in the frequency response no matter how I tuned the sub placement. Adding a second one, and then positioning them via measurement and aligning them via measurement, and doing full manual cal using the graphic EQ was the best way to get smoothest response with natural tone across all channels.

When trying to calibrate with Audyssey in the final 11.1 system configuration with room treatments and manual measurements for subwoofer placement optimization and balance/phase done in advance, the EQ got easily confused if any of the microphone positions were too far off the direct on-axis position of any of the speakers. The 'fuzzy algorithm' does not seem so intelligent about interpreting what it hears far from the MLP. The levels are OK if the initial measurement is in the MLP but maybe in this small irregular space it is more difficult for the algorithm to hear what is going on in the room far off the MLP and adjust appropriately. I suspect that even the Lyngdorf system may have issues if you place the mic in a location that is 90 degrees or more off axis from any direct-radiating tweeters, but I also suspect that the Lyngdorf system assumes you have more resources and a much larger space to work with, so 'widely spaced and randomized' positions might not be all that much different when the scale is much larger.

Then the result I got with Audysey did not seem all that much smoother than with no EQ at all. It helped with the smaller broad wiggles but the larger excursions and the tighter wiggles just seemed out of its capability to do much with. Plus the overall shape of the response to target, and the slope of the target itself, were not so good. This was with MultEQ-XT32. Even turning on the 'phase matching bass', the feature that boosts the subwoofer by the 3dB people prefer with Audyssey and then also alters the subwoofer phase and crossover slope per bass-limited channel to match things up better at crossover for a more natural tone, did not fix this issue with the roughness of the response and the poor choice of target.

So I stuck to the graphic EQ instead and smoothed the natural in-room response somewhat toward the 'Harman target' of ~-4dB/decade (~-1dB/octave) and that sounded the best, even with just the front three channels tuned plus the subwoofers.

When trying to cal the subwoofers and integrate them with the bass limited channels, in this space the interaction between boundaries messes with the smoothness down low so much that it is basically impossible to get smooth bass at more than one height, so I made all my measurements at ear height. That fortunately works OK when lying down on the sofa height as well in this space. Standing up, no go. Manually measuring off axis, close to a boundary, at varying heights, no go. Gotta tune to the MLP here because the acoustics are difficult.



> I'm wondering about the pros and cons of trying such a placement pattern with Audyssey. My mic placement with Audyssey has always been a relatively close placement pattern that keeps within 2' of the main listening position.


Larger spaces with different speakers and better acoustics may be different story, but if you are in a confined space you should probably expect that you need to follow the instructions provided by Audyssey.



> I may get around to trying the Lyngdorf approach with Audyssey but I'd be interested in hearing what kind of experience anyone has had with such a wide placement pattern people have had with very wide mic placement patterns before trying, especially any traps and work arounds they may have come up with in order to get a reasonable result with it.


Suspecting that Lyngdorf may have a different approach that only EQs the bass when it detects off-axis measurement. That could be why they want such distributed sample since getting a smooth signal across the entire listening space is most difficult in the bass due to modal response and boundary interference. But not expert at all, this is just a guess. Maybe someone with more insider knowledge into the EQ system has a clearer take on this.

Also suspecting that Lyngdorf may have some other advanced tuning going on. Last I heard there was some EQ system under development somewhere that allowed for the algorithm to actually use all the speakers in the room to provide for clear, well-tuned bass from every speaker location using some sort of phased array algorithm. I do not remember who was working on it though and I do not know if it came to market. I just stumbled across it one day.

That is about all I can tell you. I am sort of new at this too.


----------



## David Aiken

Mike & CherylJosie,

Thanks for the replies.

My AV system is 2.2, not surround, which in some ways makes a big difference because it seems to open up the possibility of good listening over a wider area than I could use back in the days when I first used Audyssey in the same room with a surround system. Stereo is more forgiving of variations in seating position than surround is and I actually use 2 positions depending on whether I am in for a serious session or want to sprawl on the sofa which is close to one of the side walls and outside the measurement pattern area I've been using, and where the sound is still actually very good, perhaps not as good as at the main listening position but still very good.

It's a largish open plan space combining living and dining rooms and a kitchen area separated from the dining area by a protruding bench running across part of the width of the room. That combined area is not quite rectangular with a couple of small irregularities in the shape at the kitchen end. It's a fraction over 4.5 metres wide and 10 metres long and the system fires down the length of the space. It also opens into another large space where my audio system is, a hallway to the front door, and into a hallway to the bedrooms and other rooms. There are doors at the entry to the other rooms but the openings to the hallways and the space where the audio system is are completely open archways. It's a biggish room on it's own and there's a fair amount of conjoined space always open to it. I've seen conjoined spaces cause problems on occasion but here it actually seems to help somewhat and I suspect that the reason I get good sound in the space where the audio system is, a difficult L-shaped space, and in the living/dining areas is actually because the conjoined spaces create a number of other room dimensions besides the normal 3 length/width/height dimensions and help to smooth the room response. The 33'+ length of the living/dining/kitchen area helps also and there's even another 3.5 meter/11.5' added down the hall to the front door. Even without Audyssey the in room response sounds reasonably smooth and the most obvious benefit of Audyssey is in tightening and clarifying the mid to low bass in ways which are pleasing but not "make or break" by a long shot. I've had a system running in this room for as long without the aid of Audyssey as I have with and never felt that it sounded bad in either of my 2 listening positions.

I've made a couple of changes in the room recently and I've been meaning to run the Audyssey setup again but not getting around to it because things are sounding very nice anyway and I've been more prone to spend my time using the system rather than running setup. I don't run setup often but when I do I am sometimes willing to experiment a bit with my microphone pattern and, of course, if I'm unhappy with the result I'll also run it again almost immediately. I may end up trying a wider pattern when I do get around to running setup again but I'm thinking of that based on a number of factors which aren't applicable to most people. First, the Lyngdorf amp with the Lyngforf system which attracted my attention is a stereo amp and stereo is a very different issue to a surround system in a number of ways. Move too far from the main listening position with a stereo system and you lose good imaging but even so imaging holds up better than it does if you move too far from the main listening position with a surround system. With stereo you're likely to move further from one speaker and perhaps a little closer to the other but not significantly closer, or at least not in a room the size of mine with the listening positions I have whereas with a surround system it's easy to end up much closer to one of the surround speakers which brings it's own problems with it. In addition my room response is quite reasonable even without correction because of the size of the space and it's openness to a number of other areas in the house which also contribute to my room response, and the tonal balance holds up well over quite a wide area anyway. If a wider pattern works it's definitely not going to be a result you could generalise and apply to a surround system, especially a surround system in a smaller and more enclosed space. If I do try it, it's going to be on a "suck it and see" basis and I would be doing it at a time when I could sit and listen for half an hour to an hour immediately afterwards and then run it again if it doesn't deliver a result I like.


----------



## gurkey

@CherylJosie

If one acknowledges, what little information is avialable to Audyssey except the microphones "raw" data, I am still suprised, how often its works out quite satifactory. Because of this and its semi-automatic nature, it is prone to "misinformation" gathered from the microphone positions and will then "miscorrect" consequentially either. That is exactly the moment, where one has to provide additional "help" during measurements to direct where it should go.
No "real" data is available to the system for room dimension, ceiling height, layout, speaker and listening positions and all those parameters of surrounding decoration (drapery, furniture) and surfaces in general.
Any "fuzzy" algorithm can only use the information available within the different microphones positions and deduce from it. As far I know it "only" tries to differentiate by similar patterns and filters out local disturbances if possible, but there could be even more. It also should be doing something within the time domain, but its not clear to me at least, how and in what way this will influence its outcome. As such there is not much real "intelligence"  envolved from my point of view, because the information needed for this is (probably) mostly absent from the recorded data. Everything it does is deduced indirectly from the raw data available.


----------



## David Aiken

gurkey said:


> @CherylJosie
> 
> If one acknowledges, what little information is avialable to Audyssey except the microphones "raw" data, I am still suprised, how often its works out quite satifactory. Because of this and its semi-automatic nature, it is prone to "misinformation" gathered from the microphone positions and will then "miscorrect" consequentially either. That is exactly the moment, where one has to provide additional "help" during measurements to direct where it should go.
> No "real" data is available to the system for room dimension, ceiling height, layout, speaker and listening positions and all those parameters of surrounding decoration (drapery, furniture) and surfaces in general.
> Any "fuzzy" algorithm can only use the information available within the different microphones positions and deduce from it. As far I know it "only" tries to differentiate by similar patterns and filters out local disturbances if possible, but there could be even more. It also should be doing something within the time domain, but its not clear to me at least, how and in what way this will influence its outcome. As such there is not much real "intelligence"  envolved from my point of view, because the information needed for this is (probably) mostly absent from the recorded data. Everything it does is deduced indirectly from the raw data available.


I actually think Audyssey has a lot of information available to it other than the microphone's raw data. It has all of the research on acoustic behaviour in small rooms which provided the information on which Audyssey's operational behaviour was based and it applies that information to the raw data gathered from our specific room by the mic when it performs it's operation. Without that information there would be no Audyssey. Similarly I don't think any of the mic measurements provide "misinformation" but the choice of mic positions can result in a less than representative sampling of the general area in which measurements are made and that can lead to less acceptable results than a more representative sampling produces. Our big problem is that the variation in our rooms makes it impossible for us to know what positions will provide the most representative sampling and the best results. All we have is a fairly basic set of guidelines which we can often have difficulty relating to the "idiosyncrasies" of our particular room and the speaker placement and listening position location we have chosen.

I also think that everything Audyssey does is actually deduced directly, not indirectly, from the data gathered by the microphone. The processing applied to that data is complex. Since it probably involves reducing the data from multiple mic positions to a single data set, perhaps by some sort of weighted averaging process which perhaps includes calculating some sort of index of the overall deviation within the measurement area from the initial measurement at the main listening position, the data for the eventual calculation may vary in some ways from the actual raw data provided by each of the multiple measurements but I don't think that means that what Audyssey is doing is deduced indirectly from the raw data, nor do I think the logic is "fuzzy". I think the steps followed are actually very precise and "non-fuzzy", they have to be if repeatable results of reasonable quality are going to be generated but the manipulated data derived from the measurements made is certainly going to be "fuzzy" relative to the actual measurements since it is relates to an overall "picture" of what the sound is doing within the area sampled and is therefore more "generalised" and less specific than any of the individual measurements. When it comes to the operation of a software application I think the term "fuzzy logic" is a bit of a misnomer. The logic itself is anything but fuzzy, but it does involve a lot of manipulation of the data which can get transformed during that process into derived data and it can be difficult for the end user to relate the derived data and eventual result to the original data from which it was derived.

Basically the information needed falls into 2 categories, the data collected by the microphone measurements, and the knowledge obtained from extensive research on acoustic behaviour in what are relatively small spaces acoustically. That last category is certainly information not contained in the recorded data but it is the information required to "make sense" of the raw data collected by the microphone and it is that second category of information from which the processing algorithms have been derived. In other words, principles derived from data not gathered by our microphone measurements are applied to data gathered by our microphone measurements in order to derive filters which can be applied to the signal which Audyssey processes in order to generate a result at the listening position which better approximates what the developers regard as an optimum listening result.

There are 2 things which I think could be done to improve the quality of Audyssey's results in my view. One is the development of better algorithms and that doesn't depend on anything we as users can do. The other is giving Audyssey higher quality data from our specific room and that comes down to a better choice of microphone positions. There are 2 ways in which I think that better choice of microphone positions can be achieved. The first would be the provision of a better set of guidelines for mic positioning which could include things like guidance on how to determine the size and shape of the area in which the mic is to be placed and where within that area the microphone is better placed. Those guidelines would probably have to be based on some factors like room area and shape, size of the listening area, and where the listening area is placed in relation to room boundaries. The guidelines Audyssey currently provide fall short of that degree of general information. I do think it would help if we had some information about the test room setup Audyssey most certainly have and use as a testing environment for their developmental activities. That information could conceivably help us to better understand the basis behind Audyssey's guidelines and to relate them to our own specific circumstances, not only when it comes to taking our own measurements but also in relation to some of the decisions we make in relation to speaker and listening position placement within our own rooms, especially where our own rooms deviate from a basic rectangular shape.

The second way to improve the quality of our results is for the user to experiment with several different microphone placement patterns and spacings and to assess their response to the results delivered which would, over time, enable them to derive a pattern and spacing for the measurements which consistently delivers good results in their room.

In practice a large part of what we do in this thread is based on a small group of users experimenting in different ways and developing their own experience of results in different settings and providing advice based on that experience to users without that experience in an effort to fill out the extremely general guidelines provided by Audyssey with information that can help a user to find a measurement strategy better tailored to their specific room and setup. The limitation of this forum is that it relies on a limited range of setup experiences, anecdote, and the subjective assessments of the individuals providing the advice. That doesn't mean that the advice being given is automatically inferior in quality, it can actually be extremely high in quality, but it can be disorganised and advice from different persons can appear contradictory and confusing when in fact it really isn't contradictory but is actually a predictable outcome of different listening environments and setups.

I think Mike has done an extremely valuable service over time in attempting to codify and organise the results of a lot of that varying experience into clear and useful summaries but he, and anyone else who wants to attempt a similar endeavour, are limited by a lack of knowledge of the range of experience Audyssey has as a result of their developmental research and lack of knowledge of the experience of other users beyond what gets reported here and in any other forums they may be following. Even so, people like Mike are the best we have, and that best is very good and extremely valuable.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Thank you very much, David! That was a very nice compliment, and I appreciate it. FWIW, though, I think that we all contribute to the collective body of knowledge. I am just continuing something that older thread participants, such as Feri, started before me. Feri, just to be clear, I'm not calling you older, in the sense of a gray beard, which as it happens, you actually have. Just that you have been on the thread, contributing, for a long time. 

I liked all of your post, and I also liked Gurkey's. I don't want to try to speak for him, but I think the "misinformation" he was describing is something that we have previously noticed and discussed. For instance, if the Audyssey microphone gets too close to a hard surface, it can erroneously report too much high frequency sound (since the sound waves are bouncing into the microphone from such short range) causing the fuzzy logic algorithm to try to correct an actually non-existent problem.

I think that we all agree that Audyssey generally does a very good job with the information it gathers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Thank you very much, David! That was a very nice compliment, and I appreciate it. FWIW, though, I think that we all contribute to the collective body of knowledge. I am just continuing something that older thread participants, such as Feri, started before me. Feri, just to be clear, I'm not calling you older, in the sense of a gray beard, which as it happens, you actually have. Just that you have been on the thread, contributing, for a long time.
> 
> I liked all of your post, and I also liked Gurkey's. I don't want to try to speak for him, but I think the "misinformation" he was describing is something that we have previously noticed and discussed. For instance, if the Audyssey microphone gets too close to a hard surface, it can erroneously report too much high frequency sound (since the sound waves are bouncing into the microphone from such short range) causing the fuzzy logic algorithm to try to correct an actually non-existent problem.
> 
> I think that we all agree that Audyssey generally does a very good job with the information it gathers.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Keep doing what you're doing and you should expect compliments. That's the problem with karma, you get what you deserve


----------



## gurkey

It seems to me, that the availability of the so called "Audyssey App" has been postponed (again), now from March to June. 
That's quite bad, because many had high hopes and a renewed interest in Audyssey because of previously stated features like adaptability and ajustability to ones listening taste etc. 
Looks like its becoming an (almost) "never ending story" ...


----------



## bmcn

gurkey said:


> It seems to me, that the availability of the so called "Audyssey App" has been postponed (again), now from March to June...


No kidding about June? 48 hours ago Audyssey claimed the app is planned for release very soon. Thanks for the update.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> FWIW, though, I think that we all contribute to the collective body of knowledge. I am just continuing something that older thread participants, such as Feri, started before me. *Feri, just to be clear, I'm not calling you older, in the sense of a gray beard, which as it happens, you actually have. Just that you have been on the thread, contributing, for a long time.*
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the compliments Mike. Worry not, nowadays me being very close to 60, but still 59 and a bit more than a half I used to say actually I'm closer to 30 than to 20!!! True, isn't it?! 

OK, let's get back to Audyssey!


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> David,
> 
> As I understand it, Lyngdorf's Room Perfect system is based on an entirely different type of algorithm than is Audyssey's, and consequently, there would be no reason to expect them to use a similar calibration methodology. *I don't understand the Lyngdorf system as well as I do Audyssey*, although I used to follow a McIntosh thread where it was widely discussed.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


David, +1 to Mike. I'm also unable to comment on Lyngdorf system since I've had no experience with their room EQ system at all. Doing the Audyssey mic pattern as recommended by Audyssey in my opinion should be the starting point, try to do it as recommended by the maker, let it be a kinda "intended use" approach, and if you feel you're not satisfied with the acoustic outcome at your premises then start to experiment with different mic placements to the brim. 

How we know what is best for our ears is another tough question. In order to overcome this I'd recommend to use music for testing the setup. Yeap, music that we might know by heart and whatever is changed during calibration in our systems will better show us the difference between calibrations than using movie sound tracks. We all have enough experience with music like e.g. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, I presume, but might not have enough personal experience with the real life sound of explosions or shot guns heard in films produced by Michael Bay that are not an everyday part of our lives.

Just do it with YMMV in mind!


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> David, +1 to Mike. I'm also unable to comment on Lyngdorf system since I've had no experience with their room EQ system at all. Doing the Audyssey mic pattern as recommended by Audyssey in my opinion should be the starting point, try to do it as recommended by the maker, let it be a kinda "intended use" approach, and if you feel you're not satisfied with the acoustic outcome at your premises then start to experiment with different mic placements to the brim.
> 
> How we know what is best for our ears is another tough question. In order to overcome this I'd recommend to use music for testing the setup. Yeap, music that we might know by heart and whatever is changed during calibration in our systems will better show us the difference between calibrations than using movie sound tracks. We all have enough experience with music like e.g. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, I presume, but might not have enough personal experience with the real life sound of explosions or shot guns heard in films produced by Michael Bay that are not an everyday part of our lives.
> 
> Just do it with YMMV in mind!


Feri,

I've got a fair bit of experience with Audyssey, a year this time around and around 3 years a few years ago with a surround system. I've always used the recommended mic placement but I have been doing a bit tighter spacing recently than I used to. Audyssey's recommendations these days are also for a smaller measurement area than it was when I first had an AVR with Audyssey. If I do decide to vary the pattern it will be very much on an experimental basis for interest's sake.

I hear what you're saying about using music for testing the setup but that's actually something I never do, at least with my A/V system. I have a separate music system in a different room and the AV system is never used for music so I never use music for listening tests with it. I test it with soundtracks over a period of days, unless something sounds really wildly off straight away which is extremely rare but has happened once or twice, because that's what I listen to on this system so that's what I want to get right. The sounds of things like explosives aren't critical, they just have to give an emotionally satisfying blast when they occur and I couldn't care much if they sound real or not since I don't know what real explosions sound like. Somebody once set a bomb off a block and a half from the apartment my wife and I were living in and it woke everyone in the street up except me. I used to be a really heavy sleeper back then so sadly I missed my one chance to have some kind of memory of a real explosion, even if it was only of being woken up by one. What I do listen to in soundtracks are voices, both for naturalness of voice tone and for speech intelligibility, and for the tonality and depth of bass frequencies in soundtracks and some upper frequency things like absence of sibilance and harshness. Really if voices sound good, there's good quality deep bass and nothing distracting me with brightness in the highs, I'm happy. That may not sound like much to a lot of people but, believe me, I get very critical when it comes to judging the naturalness of voices and that is a pretty demanding test.

You said "We all have enough experience with music like e.g. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, I presume" and I don't know whether to say you're right, I have enough experience of Dark Side of the Moon or to say I have virtually no experience of it at all. Both are true. I was never into Pink Floyd and DSOT never grabbed me when it came out. I've given it a few decades since then with regular exposure to tracks at things like audio club meetings and it still hasn't grabbed me. Little experience at all, but enough for me. My usual go to track for a listening test on the audio system is Norma Winstone singing "Every Time We Say Goodbye" from her ECM album "Distances". Her voice, Glauco Venier's piano, and Klaus Gesing's reeds recorded in a studio in Udine. It's a quiet recording, the voice is almost hushed at times, the reeds are almost voice like at times (especially the bass clarinet) and the grand piano isn't played loud, but there's a wealth of expression and emotion in everyone's contribution and if that comes across at low levels with good tonal balance you've got a music system that can handle anything I want to listen to. After the last track there's a silence after everyone finishes and then Winstone's voice is heard asking the other two "What do you think?". If her speaking voice at that moment comes over sounding very natural I can be pretty sure a music system is going to sound really nice to me. As test material goes it's probably also as far from Dark Side of the Moon as it's possible to get. I think I could almost get away with using solo voice for a listening test for music given my tastes but I do want a bit more in the bottom end from an A/V setup which is why, with my A/V setup, I tend to play video content with some really deep bass in the background music as well as voice.


----------



## In.vincible

Here's where I'm at now. It seems using MultEQ cleans up the music a bit. With no EQ, I noticed that certain songs, rock in particular, just sound "noisy." The guitars sort of just sound too loud and overpowering. Engaging EQ tames this a bit, plus it seems to bring out the vocals. Overall, music sounds cleaner, more defined and not as harsh. It's probably my room, but I still find some music too brash, so along with using the Audyssey curve, I used tone controls to reduce treble by 1. It seems to do the trick. The graph below (green) is the Audyssey curve with a bit of a sub boost. The blue line is the same thing, but with treble -1. You can see it takes affect around 3K and above. It looks subtle on the graph, but I can definitely hear the difference.

Finally, the second graph is MultEQ vs pure direct.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Here's where I'm at now. It seems using MultEQ cleans up the music a bit. With no EQ, I noticed that certain songs, rock in particular, just sound "noisy." The guitars sort of just sound too loud and overpowering. Engaging EQ tames this a bit, plus it seems to bring out the vocals. Overall, music sounds cleaner, more defined and not as harsh. It's probably my room, but I still find some music too brash, so along with using the Audyssey curve, I used tone controls to reduce treble by 1. It seems to do the trick. The graph below (green) is the Audyssey curve with a bit of a sub boost. The blue line is the same thing, but with treble -1. You can see it takes affect around 3K and above. It looks subtle on the graph, but I can definitely hear the difference.
> 
> Finally, the second graph is MultEQ vs pure direct.


It's hard to tell what's causing the harshness from looking at the graphs. You've got those slight peaks at 300 and 400 Hz that are unaffected by the tone control and they're around the pitch of the top 2 strings played open on a guitar but I wouldn't have thought they were high enough in pitch to cause a sense of harshness and, as I said, they're unaffected by the tone control cut. The A at the 5th fret of the top string is 440 Hz, the A an octave higher at the 17th fret is 880 Hz, and things look relatively smooth and fine in that area. With electric guitars the amp and any effects being used can have effects much higher up and where I can see a difference due to the tone control cut is above 4 kHz. There's a slight bump at around 10 kHz which gets levelled by the tone control cut. Cymbals have a lot of energy up around 7-8 kHz and I wonder whether that slight bump at 10 kHz is the cause of your harshness. If so, it looks like the small cut in that rise, levelling it off before the HF rolloff continues, may be what's cleaning things up for you.

What counts is getting an end result you like so if Audyssey plus a sub boost and a slight cut with the treble tone control does it for you, then great. Enjoy.


----------



## David Aiken

Mike and Feri,

Well, it's Saturday morning. I just redid Setup but didn't try the Lyngdorf procedure. I also didn't quite do the recommended Audyssey. My 2 normal listening positions are around 90 cm apart so I did the second measurement 90 cm to the left of the MLP and the third measurement (my second listening position) 90 cm to the right of the MLP. Audyssey recommends a max of 2' from the MLP and I used 3' for those 2 measurements. All other positions were close to the MLP within the recommended distances and in Audyssey's recommended positions so 6 out of 8 measurements precisely followed Audyssey's recommendations and 2 were spaced wider in order to include a measurement at my second listening position in the mix and maintain a symmetrical set of measurements. 

I've just finished my first few minutes of testing and my initial response is very good, I think it's better than my previous result. It sounds more open and natural at the sofa listening position which is good. I'm also using Audyssey Reference with a 5 dB sub boost and nothing else. DEQ is off. On the last setup I ended up preferring Audyssey Flat with the sub boost and a treble tone control cut because Reference had a trace of harshness and a trace of sibilance. Both of those seem to be missing at present. It will take more time with it for me to make up my mind, have to try the usual room variations like opening and closing windows/doorss and curtains/blinds plus spending time in all of those positions with those variations.

You can guess what I'll be doing for Saturday afternoon.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> How we know what is best for our ears is another tough question. In order to overcome this I'd recommend to use music for testing the setup. Yeap, music that we might know by heart and whatever is changed during calibration in our systems will better show us the difference between calibrations than using movie sound tracks. We all have enough experience with music like e.g. Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon, I presume ....





David Aiken said:


> ... What I do listen to in soundtracks are voices, both for naturalness of voice tone and for speech intelligibility, and for the tonality and depth of bass frequencies in soundtracks and some upper frequency things like absence of sibilance and harshness. Really if voices sound good, there's good quality deep bass and nothing distracting me with brightness in the highs, I'm happy. That may not sound like much to a lot of people but, believe me, I get very critical when it comes to judging the naturalness of voices and that is a pretty demanding test.
> 
> ... I was never into Pink Floyd and DSOT never grabbed me when it came out. I've given it a few decades since then with regular exposure to tracks at things like audio club meetings and it still hasn't grabbed me. ...


The SACD of DSOTM sounds great at our house. It's far better than the bass-shy versions I've heard in the past, and having 5 channels is great! I don't know offhand if it is the original quadraphonic mix, with a derived center channel, or a new mix for SACD. I say this even though my favorite music is classical.

The music in films is very important to me, so I've used a "music in Blu-ray movies test" for set-up. But I have used straight non-movie music, as well.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> It's hard to tell what's causing the harshness from looking at the graphs. You've got those slight peaks at 300 and 400 Hz that are unaffected by the tone control and they're around the pitch of the top 2 strings played open on a guitar but I wouldn't have thought they were high enough in pitch to cause a sense of harshness and, as I said, they're unaffected by the tone control cut. The A at the 5th fret of the top string is 440 Hz, the A an octave higher at the 17th fret is 880 Hz, and things look relatively smooth and fine in that area. With electric guitars the amp and any effects being used can have effects much higher up and where I can see a difference due to the tone control cut is above 4 kHz. There's a slight bump at around 10 kHz which gets levelled by the tone control cut. Cymbals have a lot of energy up around 7-8 kHz and I wonder whether that slight bump at 10 kHz is the cause of your harshness. If so, it looks like the small cut in that rise, levelling it off before the HF rolloff continues, may be what's cleaning things up for you.
> 
> What counts is getting an end result you like so if Audyssey plus a sub boost and a slight cut with the treble tone control does it for you, then great. Enjoy.


Yeah, it's hard to tell exactly what's annoying me. Sometimes it's stuff like electric guitars, and other times it's female vocals. Sometimes when they get higher pitched and sing louder, it gets a bit harsh, almost like they're yelling at me instead of singing. Sometimes certain instruments or parts of songs just sound a little out of balance, too. Anyway, the EQ does seem to smooth things out, and that small change to the tone controls actually sounds much nicer so far.

When I was playing around with manual EQ, I noticed that I could reduce some of the harshness I was hearing by doing cuts around 2k and 4k, so those seem to be the problem areas. 

I went from Polk speakers to Whafedales, and I thought it would be a big improvement, but to be honest, it's not as big as I thought. They do sound good, but maybe it's that my room is having a bigger affect on my sound the the speakers.


----------



## drh3b

garygarrison said:


> The SACD of DSOTM sounds great at our house. It's far better than the bass-shy versions I've heard in the past, and having 5 channels is great! I don't know offhand if it is the original quadraphonic mix, with a derived center channel, or a new mix for SACD. I say this even though my favorite music is classical.
> 
> The music in films is very important to me, so I've used a "music in Blu-ray movies test" for set-up. But I have used straight non-movie music, as well.


I believe it is a "new" 5.1 mix on the SACD. If you get an immersion set, pushing $100, you get a bunch of versions, including Alan Parson's 4.0 mix from the seventies.


----------



## BGLeduc

drh3b said:


> I believe it is a "new" 5.1 mix on the SACD. If you get an immersion set, pushing $100, you get a bunch of versions, including Alan Parson's 4.0 mix from the seventies.


The existing SACD is a 2003 5.1 mix by long time Floyd engineer James Guthrie.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> Yeah, it's hard to tell exactly what's annoying me. Sometimes it's stuff like electric guitars, and other times it's female vocals. Sometimes when they get higher pitched and sing louder, it gets a bit harsh, almost like they're yelling at me instead of singing. Sometimes certain instruments or parts of songs just sound a little out of balance, too. Anyway, the EQ does seem to smooth things out, and that small change to the tone controls actually sounds much nicer so far.
> 
> When I was playing around with manual EQ, I noticed that I could reduce some of the harshness I was hearing by doing cuts around 2k and 4k, so those seem to be the problem areas.
> 
> I went from Polk speakers to Whafedales, and I thought it would be a big improvement, but to be honest, it's not as big as I thought. They do sound good, but maybe it's that my room is having a bigger affect on my sound the the speakers.



Hi,

It sounds as if you have already found some solutions to the occasional harshness that you hear. So, you may be in good shape now with your current settings. It is always possible that you are hearing something specific to a particular recording, as there could actually be a strident quality to some recordings, which your speakers are rendering faithfully. I mention that in part because you say that you only hear that harshness with certain recordings.

But, there are also a couple of things during calibration that can potentially contribute to a harsher sound, sometimes. First, if your main speakers aren't toed-in quite far enough to point directly at the Audyssey mic during calibration, Audyssey might boost the highs a little bit. The speakers might sound perfectly normal to you, but the Audyssey mic is far more sensitive than human hearing, and if the speakers were just a little off-axis, Audyssey might react to that.

Second, if the Audyssey mic were a little too close to a hard surface during calibration (or even closer than about 4" to a blanket) it could cause the Audyssey algorithm to overcorrect something that doesn't really need correcting. That could also result in an occasionally harsh sound.

Finally, as you suggested, there is the room itself. Some people like to concentrate on first reflection points, but I like to consider the room a little more holistically. A simple hand clap test will demonstrate whether you have excessive ringing in the room--if the sound lingers. If so, some additional softening materials (rug, drapes, acoustic panels, whatever) could help to reduce the occasional harshness you hear, while revealing more detail in your upper mid-range and treble frequencies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bmcn

In.vincible said:


> They do sound good, but maybe it's that my room is having a bigger affect on my sound the the speakers.


You must have a unusually good room because your graphs look great.


----------



## David Aiken

David Aiken said:


> Mike and Feri,
> 
> Well, it's Saturday morning. I just redid Setup but didn't try the Lyngdorf procedure. I also didn't quite do the recommended Audyssey. My 2 normal listening positions are around 90 cm apart so I did the second measurement 90 cm to the left of the MLP and the third measurement (my second listening position) 90 cm to the right of the MLP. Audyssey recommends a max of 2' from the MLP and I used 3' for those 2 measurements. All other positions were close to the MLP within the recommended distances and in Audyssey's recommended positions so 6 out of 8 measurements precisely followed Audyssey's recommendations and 2 were spaced wider in order to include a measurement at my second listening position in the mix and maintain a symmetrical set of measurements.
> 
> I've just finished my first few minutes of testing and my initial response is very good, I think it's better than my previous result. It sounds more open and natural at the sofa listening position which is good. I'm also using Audyssey Reference with a 5 dB sub boost and nothing else. DEQ is off. On the last setup I ended up preferring Audyssey Flat with the sub boost and a treble tone control cut because Reference had a trace of harshness and a trace of sibilance. Both of those seem to be missing at present. It will take more time with it for me to make up my mind, have to try the usual room variations like opening and closing windows/doorss and curtains/blinds plus spending time in all of those positions with those variations.
> 
> You can guess what I'll be doing for Saturday afternoon.


The follow up, after an afternoon and evening of hard work as a couch potato.

I'm happy with the result. I had been getting good results with my previous setup from some months ago but after turning DEQ off I'd had to experiment a bit to get things where I liked them. The new result seems to be better all round than the previous result, and with no need to modify things apart from the almost obligatory sub boost we all seem to engage in.

The biggest difference is at the top end which seems a little more open and a little less "hot" so voices sound a little more natural and with a bit more depth. I'm tempted to say that there's an improvement in the bottom end but I'm not certain whether there is, or whether the improvement at the top end is affecting my perception of the bottom end because I've often noticed over the years how a change at one end of the frequency range can affect my perceptions of the other end. If there is an improvement in the bottom end it's slight.

The other difference is that it sounds better at my sofa position than it did when I ran the recommended fairly close pattern at the main listening position. The main listening position remains good with the improvements mentioned, but the improvement at the sofa position is a bit more than the improvement at the main listening position. It seems using the wider spacing for the 2nd and 3rd positions to accommodate the sofa position and keep a symmetrical mic position on the other side while otherwise maintaining the standard Audyssey placement has improved the results at the sofa position which is very welcome.

I don't know how much I'd generalise from this result given that it's a 2.2 system so no surrounds. If I were using surrounds I don't think things would have worked as well because my sofa listening position is very close to where I would place the right surround speaker in a 5.1 setup and I think measuring in that position with surrounds would not work anywhere near as well as it did for me with my 2.2 system.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Yeah, it's hard to tell exactly what's annoying me. Sometimes it's stuff like electric guitars, and other times it's female vocals. Sometimes when they get higher pitched and sing louder, it gets a bit harsh, almost like they're yelling at me instead of singing. Sometimes certain instruments or parts of songs just sound a little out of balance, too. Anyway, the EQ does seem to smooth things out, and that small change to the tone controls actually sounds much nicer so far.
> 
> When I was playing around with manual EQ, I noticed that I could reduce some of the harshness I was hearing by doing cuts around 2k and 4k, so those seem to be the problem areas.
> 
> I went from Polk speakers to Whafedales, and I thought it would be a big improvement, but to be honest, it's not as big as I thought. They do sound good, but maybe it's that my room is having a bigger affect on my sound the the speakers.


Some recordings are harsher than others. Some musical performances are harsher than others, not every performer likes a "sweet" sound and some performers go for grunge, distortion, and in your face because that's the way they like it. 

An instrument or voice sounding out of balance at times is an interesting problem. There's a duet on Jennifer Warnes' "The Well" disc and every time I played it I used to notice an exaggeration of the male singer's voice on a particular phrase in the chorus. The rest of the song sounded great and extremely natural but some notes with that male voice just went odd every time. I never noticed this issue on any other disc. I changed my equipment rack to one which was designed to reduce or eliminate vibration problems. Not only did my sound improve but that problem with the male singer on that track disappeared never to return. In retrospect I can only put it down to a vibration induced resonance. Every now and then you come across a really bizarre problem which proves incredibly hard to track down. I never managed to track that down while it existed, and I didn't change my equipment rack in order to fix that problem, I'd actually thought of it as a vocal affectation on the singer's part so I wasn't regarding it as a problem. I only recognised it as a problem when it disappeared. It had to be something about the combination of fundamental and overtones in that one particular singer's voice which caused the problem because it never occurred on any other disc and that was the only disc I had with that singer on it.

You said you could reduce harshness with EQ by doing cuts around 2 kHz and 4 kHz. Were those cuts reducing response below 2 kHz and above 4kHz rather than a cut between 2 kHz and 4 kHz? If the cuts were below 2 kHz and above 4kHz it might be an idea to get your hearing tested. The 2-4 kHz range is the area in which the ear is most sensitive and if you're using cuts above and below that range then that would suggest to me that your hearing sensitivity is down a little in that range. That can actually be the first sign of noise related hearing damage and if you're turning the overall volume up a little to hear better in that range, which is an important range for speech intelligibility, then the boost in volume is likely to exacerbate any harshness caused by issues above 4 kHz. There's not much that can be done for noise related hearing damage apart from reducing your ongoing exposure to loud volume levels in order to prevent further degradation. It may be worth while getting that checked out. I know I have a slight loss in that range.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> ... The graph below (green) is the Audyssey curve with a bit of a sub boost. The blue line is the same thing, but with treble -1. You can see it takes affect around 3K and above. *It looks subtle on the graph, but I can definitely hear the difference ...*


One reason the effect of the treble control looks so subtle is that you have 10 dB between your lines. If you readjust REW to 5 dB increments [which I think you can do with an existing graph, if memory serves] it may be easier to estimate the number of dB difference the treble control makes at a certain frequency. Some untrustworthy sources claim that a Just Noticeable Difference is 2 dB [or even 3 dB!] but I'm convinced that with a complex, temporally changing stimulus like a piece of music, 1 dB differences in the upper middle and lower high frequencies are quite audible. 



In.vincible said:


> ... other times it's female vocals. Sometimes when they get higher pitched and sing louder, it gets a bit harsh, almost like they're yelling at me instead of singing. Sometimes certain instruments or parts of songs just sound a little out of balance, too. Anyway, the EQ does seem to smooth things out, and that small change to the tone controls actually sounds much nicer so far.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> ... It is always possible that you are hearing something specific to a particular recording, as there could actually be *a strident quality to some recordings*, which your speakers are rendering *faithfully* ...


Been there, heard that. Some speakers will reveal certain anomalies in a recording better than others. 



bmcn said:


> You must have a unusually good room because your graphs look great.


 They all *do* look good. What degree of smoothing are you using now? When you have your sound just the way you want it *by ear *-- and it sounds like you are getting close -- try an average of 8 curves with your calibrated mic in the same 8 positions the Audyssey mic was in, if you have the energy to do so. Or, try putting your head in those 8 positions, and see if the sound is appreciably different at different locations. In my case, it was, but it wasn't quite as big a deal as I feared it would be.


----------



## Foundation42

garygarrison said:


> The SACD of DSOTM sounds great at our house. It's far better than the bass-shy versions I've heard in the past, and having 5 channels is great! I don't know offhand if it is the original quadraphonic mix, with a derived center channel, or a new mix for SACD. I say this even though my favorite music is classical.
> 
> The music in films is very important to me, so I've used a "music in Blu-ray movies test" for set-up. But I have used straight non-movie music, as well.


The SACD of Darkside of the Moon does sound great and I was even more impressed with the 2011 SACD of Wish You Were Here with the 5.1 mix. I would love to see the same treatment for The Wall.

I hadn't put much time into comparing these with and without Audyssey running, but I'll have to give it a try.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> One reason the effect of the treble control looks so subtle is that you have 10 dB between your lines. If you readjust REW to 5 dB increments [which I think you can do with an existing graph, if memory serves] it may be easier to estimate the number of dB difference the treble control makes at a certain frequency. Some untrustworthy sources claim that a Just Noticeable Difference is 2 dB [or even 3 dB!] but I'm convinced that with a complex, temporally changing stimulus like a piece of music, 1 dB differences in the upper middle and lower high frequencies are quite audible.


In audio circles a "just noticeable difference" often seems to change meanings depending on the situation like a chameleon changes it's colour depending on its surroundings. It's amazing how often the change in level required to be detectable seems to vary depending on whether someone is trying to claim that something is audible or that something isn't audible, and the value chosen always works to the advantage of the claimant.

I'd agree with Gary that 1 dB differences in level are noticeable in the upper middle to low high frequencies with music. The amp in my music system and my AVR both have volume scales with 0.5 dB steps in level. I usually discern a very slight difference with a 0.5 dB change though some may claim that I'm hearing a difference because I know there is one. A 1.0 dB change is always noticeable. I rarely make a 0.5 dB change in level but if I do I'd say it's almost always a reduction of 0.5 dB and almost never an increase of 0.5 dB. For some reason if something sounds too loud a very small reduction can make the desired difference for me but if something sounds too soft a larger increase seems to be necessary for the desired effect.

Moore's "An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing" suggests that for wideband noise, and music is probably wideband noise, the smallest detectable change in level is around 0.5 to 1.0 dB. I think that a 0.5 dB change in level with music or speaking voice is noticeable at least some of the time.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> Some recordings are harsher than others. Some musical performances are harsher than others, not every performer likes a "sweet" sound and some performers go for grunge, distortion, and in your face because that's the way they like it.
> 
> An instrument or voice sounding out of balance at times is an interesting problem. There's a duet on Jennifer Warnes' "The Well" disc and every time I played it I used to notice an exaggeration of the male singer's voice on a particular phrase in the chorus. The rest of the song sounded great and extremely natural but some notes with that male voice just went odd every time. I never noticed this issue on any other disc. I changed my equipment rack to one which was designed to reduce or eliminate vibration problems. Not only did my sound improve but that problem with the male singer on that track disappeared never to return. In retrospect I can only put it down to a vibration induced resonance. Every now and then you come across a really bizarre problem which proves incredibly hard to track down. I never managed to track that down while it existed, and I didn't change my equipment rack in order to fix that problem, I'd actually thought of it as a vocal affectation on the singer's part so I wasn't regarding it as a problem. I only recognised it as a problem when it disappeared. It had to be something about the combination of fundamental and overtones in that one particular singer's voice which caused the problem because it never occurred on any other disc and that was the only disc I had with that singer on it.
> 
> You said you could reduce harshness with EQ by doing cuts around 2 kHz and 4 kHz. Were those cuts reducing response below 2 kHz and above 4kHz rather than a cut between 2 kHz and 4 kHz? If the cuts were below 2 kHz and above 4kHz it might be an idea to get your hearing tested. The 2-4 kHz range is the area in which the ear is most sensitive and if you're using cuts above and below that range then that would suggest to me that your hearing sensitivity is down a little in that range. That can actually be the first sign of noise related hearing damage and if you're turning the overall volume up a little to hear better in that range, which is an important range for speech intelligibility, then the boost in volume is likely to exacerbate any harshness caused by issues above 4 kHz. There's not much that can be done for noise related hearing damage apart from reducing your ongoing exposure to loud volume levels in order to prevent further degradation. It may be worth while getting that checked out. I know I have a slight loss in that range.


I was using the manual EQ function in Audyssey. I copied over the flat curve and adjusted from there. If I remember right, the biggest change I could make for the better was to reduce the 4K slider. The 2K one also helped a little, so that's why I'm thinking the annoying range (on certain music) is between 2 and 4K. It's not always harsh, but sometimes that range seems a little too loud compared to the rest of the music. This is compared to with MultEQ engaged. It could be that no EQ sounds louder in that area because Audyssey is actually cutting that area (the BBC dip?).

Anyway, I'm still going back and forth. Sometimes just throwing it in pure direct mode sounds good, and other times I like the EQ curve since I can tweak tone controls and bass.

I'm still looking to improve music performance, but not sure how much I more I can do at this point without spending a bunch of cash. I've considered upgrading my Marantz NR1403 to something with a better version of Audyssey. Supposedly, Marantzes are already considered fairly good for music, so not sure how much improvement is to be had. Also thinking about something like a BiFrost DAC. Not sure if that would be noticeably better than what's in my AVR?



garygarrison said:


> One reason the effect of the treble control looks so subtle is that you have 10 dB between your lines. If you readjust REW to 5 dB increments [which I think you can do with an existing graph, if memory serves] it may be easier to estimate the number of dB difference the treble control makes at a certain frequency. Some untrustworthy sources claim that a Just Noticeable Difference is 2 dB [or even 3 dB!] but I'm convinced that with a complex, temporally changing stimulus like a piece of music, 1 dB differences in the upper middle and lower high frequencies are quite audible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Been there, heard that. Some speakers will reveal certain anomalies in a recording better than others.
> 
> 
> They all *do* look good. What degree of smoothing are you using now? When you have your sound just the way you want it *by ear *-- and it sounds like you are getting close -- try an average of 8 curves with your calibrated mic in the same 8 positions the Audyssey mic was in, if you have the energy to do so. Or, try putting your head in those 8 positions, and see if the sound is appreciably different at different locations. In my case, it was, but it wasn't quite as big a deal as I feared it would be.


Been using 1/6 octave smoothing. Didn't try averaging positions yet, but may give it a shot.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> I was using the manual EQ function in Audyssey. I copied over the flat curve and adjusted from there. If I remember right, the biggest change I could make for the better was to reduce the 4K slider. The 2K one also helped a little, so that's why I'm thinking the annoying range (on certain music) is between 2 and 4K. It's not always harsh, but sometimes that range seems a little too loud compared to the rest of the music. This is compared to with MultEQ engaged. It could be that no EQ sounds louder in that area because Audyssey is actually cutting that area (the BBC dip?).
> 
> Anyway, I'm still going back and forth. Sometimes just throwing it in pure direct mode sounds good, and other times I like the EQ curve since I can tweak tone controls and bass.
> 
> I'm still looking to improve music performance, but not sure how much I more I can do at this point without spending a bunch of cash. I've considered upgrading my Marantz NR1403 to something with a better version of Audyssey. Supposedly, Marantzes are already considered fairly good for music, so not sure how much improvement is to be had. Also thinking about something like a BiFrost DAC. Not sure if that would be noticeably better than what's in my AVR?
> 
> 
> 
> Been using 1/6 octave smoothing. Didn't try averaging positions yet, but may give it a shot.


A cut at 4 kHz will affect both above and below 4 kHz but have little effect at 2 and 8 kHz. A cut at both 2 and 4 kHz will affect from below 2 kHz to above 4 kHz so it's going to do something in the same area as the Audyssey "BBC Dip" cut but whether it does more or less is going to depend on how big your cuts are and I don't know the shape of the Audyssey cut. You may, or should I say probably will, end up with a different shape to the curve. It's an octave band equaliser and it won't be capable of producing the same shape to the response curve as Audyssey does because Audyssey uses parametric eq and can insert more eq points than the octave points. If you're cutting the whole of the area between 2 and 4 kHz I wouldn't worry too much about my earlier comments about noise related hearing loss because if you had any of that you would probably be boosting that area.

I think if you're finding Audyssey Reference a little on the harsh side at times you should be able to do better with it by experimenting a bit with setup. Mike's comments about toe in are particularly relevant. The result also depends on your measurements and they can vary depending on things like mic placement positions, proximity to reflective surfaces and so on. You can try experimenting with slightly closer mic position spacings and even slightly wider placings, using blankets over things like coffee tables and leather chair/sofa surfaces and so on, and even removing things like coffee tables. Having curtains/blinds open or shut can make a difference, especially if they cover large window/sliding door glass surfaces. Having doors to adjacent areas open and shut can make a difference. Lots of things can affect the measurements you get and it's not only the high frequencies that can be causing your perception of harshness. The response in the low frequencies can affect our perception of the mids and highs because the balance between them affects our perception. Once you start playing around with these sorts of things it's really a matter of trying various things and seeing what effect they have. For example I have a large side window with a blind over it, and a large glass sliding door with a floor to ceiling fixed glass window next to it which has a curtain which can cover that whole glass area. For my measurements I close both window and door and close the blind and curtain so the glass surfaces are covered. When I'm using the system I usually have the curtain drawn back and the sliding door is often open but the result I get from measuring the way I do holds up well and gives a good result even with the curtain drawn back and the door open because while I get some increase in reflection of highs off the exposed glass, I also lose a lot of highs through the open door so I guess things are balancing out there. Having the door closed for measurements keeps any noise from outside affecting the measurements. 

I'm prepared to bet that there are things which you can do along those lines in your room which will give you a better result but working out what they are is a matter of experimentation and that takes time, and while I said that there are things you can do which should give you a better result, I can't say how much better that result will be. Every room and system is different. I would definitely adjust the toe in on your speakers, however, so that they point at the mic in the first measurement position as Mike suggested. Even toe in on your surrounds may help.


----------



## In.vincible

I would say Audyssey is improving things. Without it, music is a little harsher. EQ seems to clean it up a bit and take the edge off, so that seems like the best way to roll. I did just go back to toeing the speaker in (pointed right at my main seat). It seems counterintuitive, but I wouldn't say they sound much brighter this way. In fact, they seem to sound better. Maybe more balanced? Pure direct still sounds a little harsh, but I wouldn't say the toe-in makes it worse. Plus, that's what Wharfedale recommends in the manual.

I'll have to remeasure and see how the new graphs look this way.


----------



## In.vincible

This may be a bit more imformative. I took a few quick measurements. Audyssey is the red curve with my own tweaks (sub boosted +4 dB, treble -1, DEQ off). Surprised the toe-in made this much difference, but there it is. I see quite a bit of difference in the 1k to 3.5k range. Also, that big hump in the bass may have a little to do with my room, but I think it's mostly the speakers. I saw the freq. response of these measured in a review, and it had that same 100 Hz hump.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> I would say Audyssey is improving things. Without it, music is a little harsher. EQ seems to clean it up a bit and take the edge off, so that seems like the best way to roll. I did just go back to toeing the speaker in (pointed right at my main seat). It seems counterintuitive, but I wouldn't say they sound much brighter this way. In fact, they seem to sound better. Maybe more balanced? Pure direct still sounds a little harsh, but I wouldn't say the toe-in makes it worse. Plus, that's what Wharfedale recommends in the manual.
> 
> I'll have to remeasure and see how the new graphs look this way.


I think Audyssey does improve things but getting a result you really like can be a little tricky.

And some things that help can be counterintuitive. I've stopped counting the number of times I've been surprised because something I didn't think would be a good idea actually turned out to be a good idea.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> This may be a bit more imformative. I took a few quick measurements. Audyssey is the red curve with my own tweaks (sub boosted +4 dB, treble -1, DEQ off). Surprised the toe-in made this much difference, but there it is. I see quite a bit of difference in the 1k to 3.5k range. Also, that big hump in the bass may have a little to do with my room, but I think it's mostly the speakers. I saw the freq. response of these measured in a review, and it had that same 100 Hz hump.


David was giving you good advice. Getting speakers which are designed to have limited off-axis response, pointed right at your listening position, shouldn't necessarily make them sound brighter. So, your observation that they sound fine that way is in line with expectations. The slightly counterintuitive part is Audyssey's reaction to speakers which are supposed to be pointed toward the MLP, and aren't quite on axis. 

Our ears aren't sensitive enough to detect much, if any difference. But, the Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" the way we do. It is far more sensitive. And, if speakers are a little too much off-axis, Audyssey can detect a drop-off at higher frequencies and attempt to compensate for that drop-off. That compensation could take the form of boosting some frequencies that don't really need it, to the detriment of our sound quality. That slightly harsh sound you were hearing could be the result.

Learning to operate Audyssey in a particular room, with a particular system, can be a little like learning the idiosyncrasies of a car. Just how much pressure on the brake should you use, just how loose or stiff is the steering? It's not a perfect analogy, but once we develop the set-up and calibration technique that works well for that particular room/system, Audyssey can do its job of calibrating much more effectively.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> This may be a bit more imformative. I took a few quick measurements. Audyssey is the red curve with my own tweaks (sub boosted +4 dB, treble -1, DEQ off). Surprised the toe-in made this much difference, but there it is. I see quite a bit of difference in the 1k to 3.5k range. Also, that big hump in the bass may have a little to do with my room, but I think it's mostly the speakers. I saw the freq. response of these measured in a review, and it had that same 100 Hz hump.


The bump around 100 Hz doesn't surprise me. A lot of small 2 way stand mounts have a bump just above where they start rolling off. It gives the perception of a bit more bass response, and it probably improves and extends the bass response below the bump a bit. Actually it's a good example of why measurements shouldn't replace what we hear because it usually looks a lot worse than it sounds, and things would sound worse without it because the speaker would sound more bass shy. I've got a pair of Dynaudio Contour 1.3 SE 2 way stand mounts in my audio system and they have a -3 dB point of 37 Hz, down in floor stander territory. I've never seen a frequency response plot for them but the plot for the standard 1.3 shows a similar bump that's lower but a lot broader, from around 60 Hz to 100 Hz, and I would expect to see a similar result with mine. You don't really perceive it as a bump. Our perceptions are funny at times and things definitely don't always sound the way the measurements look. That bass bump is one example of things not sounding the way the measurements look and the BBC dip is another example. I think that in the environment for which the BBC designed its speakers with that dip, the room fills in the dip but the high frequencies don't get as much reinforcement from the room and the sound balances out very nicely as a result. The dip shows up in anechoic measurements where there is no room support but isn't noticeable in the spaces the speakers were designed for.

That's why relying too heavily on measurements to judge sound can be a bad thing, and why sometimes things can sound not as good if you make corrections that make the measurements look better.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... Moore's "An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing" suggests that for wideband noise, and music is probably wideband noise, the smallest detectable change in level is around 0.5 to 1.0 dB. I think that a 0.5 dB change in level with music or speaking voice is noticeable at least some of the time.


I agree 0.5 to 1.0 is sometimes detectable. It says the same thing in Fifty Seminal Papers on Human Hearing edited by somebody I've forgotten (c 1976), but I don't know where. I'm not sure I'd consider music to be wideband noise, but it certainly is wideband, LOL. George Gershwin said, "I often find music in the very heart of noise," though -- maybe if I listened to white noise a little more attentively ...


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> … George Gershwin said, "I often find music in the very heart of noise," though -- maybe if I listened to white noise a little more attentively ...


I once heard a radio interview with Lucky Oceans, a pedal steel guitar player if I remember correctly. It was an hour long interview program in which the interviewee was allowed to present 5 pieces of music which they could then comment on, as well as being interviewed about their own music. Oceans presented a piece for pipe and tabor, a renaissance dance played by his sister as one of his selections. It met with the interviewer's approval. His next selection was musique concrete, a collage of industrial sounds recorded in a factory. After about 30 seconds or so the interviewer stopped the track and said something like "That's horrible. Who would regard that as music?" Oceans replied "That's my other sister's music". 

It most certainly was broadband noise. Music is noise that you want to listen to


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> This may be a bit more imformative. I took a few quick measurements. Audyssey is the red curve with my own tweaks (sub boosted +4 dB, treble -1, DEQ off). Surprised the toe-in made this much difference, but there it is. I see quite a bit of difference in the 1k to 3.5k range. Also, that big hump in the bass may have a little to do with my room, but I think it's mostly the speakers. I saw the freq. response of these measured in a review, and it had that same 100 Hz hump.


These things are always interesting. 

You have a nice big deep bass boost -- bigger in the room than your electrical boost of 4 dB would lead us to expect -- which should make movie LFE sound awesome, and not affect most music, unless it adds a tad of modulation distortion below your crossover to the sub, but I wouldn't worry about it. 

Your midrange compensation (centered at about 2K) with Audyssey Reference is broader than mine, for some reason, which should reduce harshness.

Your Aud. Reference roll-off at the top is greater than what Audyssey claims (they say - 2 dB at 10K to - 6 dB at 20K). Which "flavor" of Audyssey do you have? Maybe the roll-off is different with different versions. That's O.K., if you like it. Someone's motto on another forum is, "If it sounds good, it is good."

Looking at your post again, I find that you didn't say whether you ran Audyssey again after your change in the toe in. If you didn't, some of the above may change if and when you do.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> These things are always interesting.
> 
> You have a nice big deep bass boost -- bigger in the room than your electrical boost of 4 dB would lead us to expect -- which should make movie LFE sound awesome, and not affect most music, unless it adds a tad of modulation distortion below your crossover to the sub, but I wouldn't worry about it.
> 
> Your midrange compensation (centered at about 2K) with Audyssey Reference is broader than mine, for some reason, which should reduce harshness.
> 
> Your Aud. Reference roll-off at the top is greater than what Audyssey claims (they say - 2 dB at 10K to - 6 dB at 20K). Which "flavor" of Audyssey do you have? Maybe the roll-off is different with different versions. That's O.K., if you like it. Someone's motto on another forum is, "If it sounds good, it is good."


The bass on movies is pretty darn crazy sometimes (in a good way). I remember Intersteller had some scene where it felt and sounded like I was on the rocket during launch. I'm using an SVS PB1000 and it's been great. I owned cheaper subs before this, but it was well worth the upgrade.

Surprisingly, after listening a little this evening, I think toeing in the speakers made a very nice difference for the better. Bass sounds better, fuller and more coherent now. I re-ran Audyssey, too, but I would say pure direct sounds better now, too. I still like the Audyssey curve for the bit of mellowness it seems to provide, and I think I still like the -1 on the treble. It takes the edge off just enough. That may be why it looks like I have more high-end rolloff.

I've got the MultEQ version.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> I once heard a radio interview with Lucky Oceans, a pedal steel guitar player if I remember correctly. It was an hour long interview program in which the interviewee was allowed to present 5 pieces of music which they could then comment on, as well as being interviewed about their own music. Oceans presented a piece for pipe and tabor, a renaissance dance played by his sister as one of his selections. It met with the interviewer's approval. His next selection was musique concrete, a collage of industrial sounds recorded in a factory. After about 30 seconds or so the interviewer stopped the track and said something like "That's horrible. Who would regard that as music?" Oceans replied "That's my other sister's music".
> 
> It most certainly was broadband noise. Music is noise that you want to listen to


Yes, how could I forget, since I once made a musique concrete tape using the sounds of the chemistry machines at my wife's lab. They sucked (in a good way), scraped, dinged, squealed and rattled, and the edited tape did sound musical. I used to play a snare (and other drums), but not a tabor, and I was at least trying to make it sound musical. I love the renaissance instrument called the "serpent" or the "snake." To me, it sounds like tuned noise, and I used a recording of it (along with many others) to pick out speakers. Gotta get the tuned noise right. I recommend it to anyone who would like to hear their speakers get a buzz on. Some speakers make it sound as though it is in the room. For anybody interested, it is featured in part of Terpsichore by Michael Praetorius. And, yes, like most instruments, it sounds a little better with Audyssey (Flat).


----------



## mogorf

> To whom it may concern!
> 
> Here's a post from Chris Kyriakakis on FB regarding the new smart phone app:
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis App is awaiting approval by Apple and Google.
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis I'm hoping iOS is this week and Android shortly after.


And here are some hints from Chris on the new features of the app:

Chris Kyriakakis Target curve editing, specification of the desired frequency range for correction (for those that want only the low frequencies corrected); saving multiple calibrations; turns MR compensation on-off as desired


----------



## nimitz87

I know it's a long shot but I'm looking to find a microphone for my dad's Integra DTR 7.8, is it possible to purchase a replacement microphone for such an old unit?


----------



## bmcn

mogorf said:


> And here are some hints from Chris on the new features of the app:
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis Target curve editing, specification of the desired frequency range for correction (for those that want only the low frequencies corrected); saving multiple calibrations; turns MR compensation on-off as desired


All three links to Chris' comments are broken for me.

Note a slight change to the traditional mic placement diagram.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dmholdings.AudysseyMultEq&hl=en


----------



## jdsmoothie

*Audyssey MultEQ Editor App*

The much awaited app has finally been released .... available for the 2016 and newer Denon and Marantz AVR/AVPs.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dmholdings.AudysseyMultEq&hl=en

https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/audyssey-multeq-editor-app/id1210584625?mt=8


This app will allow you to: 
•View the speaker detection results, to check correct installation
•View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems.
•Edit the Audyssey target curve for each channel pair to suit your tastes
•Adjust the overall EQ frequency for each channel pair
•Switch between 2 high frequency rolloff target curves
•Enable/Disable midrange compensation to make the sound brighter or smoother
•Save and load calibration results


****** Note the most recent round of firmware updates for the 2016 Denon and Marantz models also allows the AVR to use this new app so ensure your AVR has the most up to date firmware. ******


----------



## gurkey

That rumor about a further delay of the Audyysey App has been demystified. The Audyssey App is available now, although not in March but in April...


----------



## Mike_WI

jdsmoothie said:


> The much awaited app has finally been released .... available for the 2016 and newer Denon and Marantz AVR/AVPs.
> 
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dmholdings.AudysseyMultEq&hl=en
> 
> https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/audyssey-multeq-editor-app/id1210584625?mt=8
> 
> 
> This app will allow you to:
> •View the speaker detection results, to check correct installation
> •View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems.
> •Edit the Audyssey target curve for each channel pair to suit your tastes
> •Adjust the overall EQ frequency rolloff for each channel pair
> •Switch between 2 high frequency rolloff target curves
> •Enable/Disable midrange compensation to make the sound brighter or smoother
> •Save and load calibration results
> 
> 
> ****** Note the most recent round of firmware updates for the 2016 Denon and Marantz models also allows the AVR to use this new app so ensure your AVR has the most up to date firmware. ******


Bummer.
Doesn't work with my legacy Denon 5308CI (circa 2008).
I won't update AVR until HDMI 2.1 settled -- and everything works okay now.
Looking forward to better user interfaces for room correction though.
Please post some impressions and screen shots.

Mike


----------



## Threxx

On a whim I searched the app store just a few minutes ago for "Audyssey" and was shocked to see the app was there, apparently from just earlier today. I came here to say something but of course was not surprised it had already been posted.

The reason I've been anticipating this app so much is I want to be able to view all of the measurements and adjustments Audyssey has performed to my subwoofer... which for some reason is not shown in my X6300H's on screen menus (even though I've been told Audyssey IS still working its magic on the sub, it just won't tell me what it has done).

However in looking over the app description in detail and all available screen shots, I still see no mention of the sub/LFE channel? Before I spend $20 on this app I'd love to know if the feature is in there... if it's not, is it on their agenda to add, or did they just give up?

Also it's interesting to me that the app publisher is listed as "D&M Holdings" and not "Audyssey"... even though Audyssey does have their own developer account with Apple, as they've published other apps before. Maybe Audyssey is basically being bought out by D&M going forward?


----------



## IMWhizzle

Threxx said:


> On a whim I searched the app store just a few minutes ago for "Audyssey" and was shocked to see the app was there, apparently from just earlier today. I came here to say something but of course was not surprised it had already been posted.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I've been anticipating this app so much is I want to be able to view all of the measurements and adjustments Audyssey has performed to my subwoofer... which for some reason is not shown in my X6300H's on screen menus (even though I've been told Audyssey IS still working its magic on the sub, it just won't tell me what it has done).
> 
> 
> 
> However in looking over the app description in detail and all available screen shots, I still see no mention of the sub/LFE channel? Before I spend $20 on this app I'd love to know if the feature is in there... if it's not, is it on their agenda to add, or did they just give up?
> 
> 
> 
> Also it's interesting to me that the app publisher is listed as "D&M Holdings" and not "Audyssey"... even though Audyssey does have their own developer account with Apple, as they've published other apps before. Maybe Audyssey is basically being bought out by D&M going forward?




D&M is the mother of Denon and Marantz which this app is meant for.


----------



## Threxx

IMWhizzle said:


> D&M is the mother of Denon and Marantz which this app is meant for.


D&M is also, as far as I've heard, the only company still using Audyssey, so by default it's the only app this company is meant for. But still, to date, Audyssey has still been using their own branding for their software. So in the light of the fact that Audyssey's own website basically no longer acknowledges they even make correction software for receivers at all, I'm wondering if this is another hint that Audyssey is spinning this off and possibly just letting D&M buy out the tech (rather than develop their own as most others have done already).


----------



## shoeboo

Threxx said:


> However in looking over the app description in detail and all available screen shots, I still see no mention of the sub/LFE channel? Before I spend $20 on this app I'd love to know if the feature is in there... if it's not, is it on their agenda to add, or did they just give up?


It has sub measurement and expected post correction results but they are small and don't quite match my results from REW (umik-1) Won't be able to look into further for awhile but assuming it is the mic and not averaging multiple locations that is causing the difference. Pics of App vs REW pre-audyssey below: *note Audyssey app has x-axis starting at 20hz. Missing a lot of SPL.











Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## In.vincible

So while I had the upgrade bug, figured I'd go all out and get a new receiver, too Coming from MultEQ, I was very curious to see if XT32 would improve things. Here is a quick measurement of EQ (red line) on vs pure direct mode. It definitely did a better job on the bass the MultEQ could. The only thing I'm not sure about is the boost in the 3-10k range? Not sure that's really needed. I see there is an app coming out where customizing curves is now an option. Wonder if that would be worthwhile?

The other nice thing is, since the bass is smoothed out a bit, I feel like using DEQ for music is an option again. Before, the bass was just bloated and boomy with it on, but now, it's pretty good. Even with a 10 dB ref. offset and a boost to the sub, it's not troublesome.


----------



## IMWhizzle

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



In.vincible said:


> So while I had the upgrade bug, figured I'd go all out and get a new receiver, too Coming from MultEQ, I was very curious to see if XT32 would improve things. Here is a quick measurement of EQ (red line) on vs pure direct mode. It definitely did a better job on the bass the MultEQ could. The only thing I'm not sure about is the boost in the 3-10k range? Not sure that's really needed. I see there is an app coming out where customizing curves is now an option. Wonder if that would be worthwhile?
> 
> The other nice thing is, since the bass is smoothed out a bit, I feel like using DEQ for music is an option again. Before, the bass was just bloated and boomy with it on, but now, it's pretty good. Even with a 10 dB ref. offset and a boost to the sub, it's not troublesome.




Since I've installed my new speakers (4x Klipsch RP-280 with a 15 inch sub) I think that Audyssey takes away the brightness of the speakers and also the quality of the sound coming from the subwoofer for music and movies. I missed definition in the sound.

Turning off Audyssey fixed the issue. So no Audyssey for me anymore. Takes away too much life of the sound in my opinion. I've read the 101 and followed all the steps multiple times, but Audysssey XT32 degrades the sound quality in my room. It's also not a good feeling to know that every source will be downsampled to 24/48, including Bluray Pure Audio and SACD.

With my old Klipsch XF-48 speakers Audyssey XT32 worked a treat.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> So while I had the upgrade bug, figured I'd go all out and get a new receiver, too Coming from MultEQ, I was very curious to see if XT32 would improve things. Here is a quick measurement of EQ (red line) on vs pure direct mode. It definitely did a better job on the bass the MultEQ could. The only thing I'm not sure about is the boost in the 3-10k range? Not sure that's really needed. I see there is an app coming out where customizing curves is now an option. Wonder if that would be worthwhile?
> 
> The other nice thing is, since the bass is smoothed out a bit, I feel like using DEQ for music is an option again. Before, the bass was just bloated and boomy with it on, but now, it's pretty good. Even with a 10 dB ref. offset and a boost to the sub, it's not troublesome.


The app is now available which you will see if you read the posts just above yours.

If you're going to get the app and try it, remember one thing. You get better results from Audyssey if you have your room setup yielding the best results you can get from it because the better your room setup is, the less Audyssey has to correct for. We know that from past experience and that's also what Audyssey advise. We currently don't have any real body of user experience with the app but based on our experience with Audyssey my guess is that getting your room setup and also your basic Audyssey setup as good as you can without using the app will help when using the app. For example you found that getting toe in better helped your results. Don't change things that have helped in the past. Don't use the extra flexibility you get with the app to avoid fixing things that can be fixed in normal room setup and normal Audyssey setup. Get those right and then use the options available in the app to fine tune the basic results.

It's early days with the app, in fact it's the first day it's been available, so there aren't going to be many users here with experience of it to provide advice on best use of it so if you get the app you'll be an early adopter and breaking new ground. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it but it does mean that if you want advice on using it there may not be many users here with experience of it for a while so you may be on your own.

I don't know whether Mike or Feri or Gary or any of the other regular contributors have AVRs which are supported and also have the app. I don't have it and my AVR isn't supported. In order to have hands on user experience users are going to have an AVR that is supported and the app, and some time spent using the app and trying out the various options and that's going to take a little time.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> The app is now available which you will see if you read the posts just above yours.
> 
> If you're going to get the app and try it, remember one thing. You get better results from Audyssey if you have your room setup yielding the best results you can get from it because the better your room setup is, the less Audyssey has to correct for. We know that from past experience and that's also what Audyssey advise. We currently don't have any real body of user experience with the app but based on our experience with Audyssey my guess is that getting your room setup and also your basic Audyssey setup as good as you can without using the app will help when using the app. For example you found that getting toe in better helped your results. Don't change things that have helped in the past. Don't use the extra flexibility you get with the app to avoid fixing things that can be fixed in normal room setup and normal Audyssey setup. Get those right and then use the options available in the app to fine tune the basic results.
> 
> It's early days with the app, in fact it's the first day it's been available, so there aren't going to be many users here with experience of it to provide advice on best use of it so if you get the app you'll be an early adopter and breaking new ground. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it but it does mean that if you want advice on using it there may not be many users here with experience of it for a while so you may be on your own.
> 
> I don't know whether Mike or Feri or Gary or any of the other regular contributors have AVRs which are supported and also have the app. I don't have it and my AVR isn't supported. In order to have hands on user experience users are going to have an AVR that is supported and the app, and some time spent using the app and trying out the various options and that's going to take a little time.


Thanks. For 20 bucks I figure it's worth a try. I am fairly happy with how things are sounding now for music. This new amp definitely sounds a little different than my old one. Music is crystal clear, but maybe just a touch bright for my taste. I really like what Audyssey is doing for the bass, but I think the treble could use a bit of tweaking. Should be cool to play with.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> So while I had the upgrade bug, figured I'd go all out and get a new receiver, too Coming from MultEQ, I was very curious to see if XT32 would improve things. Here is a quick measurement of EQ (red line) on vs pure direct mode. It definitely did a better job on the bass the MultEQ could. The only thing I'm not sure about is the boost in the 3-10k range? Not sure that's really needed. I see there is an app coming out where customizing curves is now an option. Wonder if that would be worthwhile?
> 
> The other nice thing is, since the bass is smoothed out a bit, I feel like using DEQ for music is an option again. Before, the bass was just bloated and boomy with it on, but now, it's pretty good. Even with a 10 dB ref. offset and a boost to the sub, it's not troublesome.


This may just be me, but ... if you move your REW line so it goes right through the RED curve at 1kHz (the conventional place for the so-called "0" line), the 3 to 10K range will appear to be rather flat, rather than boosted. If you would like, you can evaluate the BLUE curve the same way, but, naturally, 1K has a different elevation on the Blue curve*;* you can put the line through the 1K point for the blue curve to look at the Pure-Direct results re: 1K

I wonder what it would look and sound like with Audyssey Flat?


----------



## muzz

I don't use DEQ at all, on my sub DSP(tuned with REW) or my 4300. I live alone, and 1 usually start ~ -10 and work up from there. I downloaded the app yesterday, it sees my avr fine, but haven't calibrated with it yet, as I watched Rogue One and Dr. Strange last night(both enjoyable)... hopefully by the weekend, but TBO, I loathe doing it!


----------



## primetimeguy

In.vincible said:


> So while I had the upgrade bug, figured I'd go all out and get a new receiver, too Coming from MultEQ, I was very curious to see if XT32 would improve things. Here is a quick measurement of EQ (red line) on vs pure direct mode. It definitely did a better job on the bass the MultEQ could. The only thing I'm not sure about is the boost in the 3-10k range? Not sure that's really needed. I see there is an app coming out where customizing curves is now an option. Wonder if that would be worthwhile?
> 
> The other nice thing is, since the bass is smoothed out a bit, I feel like using DEQ for music is an option again. Before, the bass was just bloated and boomy with it on, but now, it's pretty good. Even with a 10 dB ref. offset and a boost to the sub, it's not troublesome.


I would agree with you. Audyssey is boosting the highs a bit to meet its reference curve, which is removing the natural high frequency decay/rolloff your speakers have in your room. This is the same reason I am looking to upgrade to a new receiver that can use the app....or move away from Audyssey. eek!


----------



## drh3b

jdsmoothie said:


> The much awaited app has finally been released .... available for the 2016 and newer Denon and Marantz AVR/AVPs.
> 
> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.dmholdings.AudysseyMultEq&hl=en
> 
> https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/audyssey-multeq-editor-app/id1210584625?mt=8
> 
> 
> This app will allow you to:
> •View the speaker detection results, to check correct installation
> •View before and after results of the Audyssey calibration, making it easy to identify room problems.
> •Edit the Audyssey target curve for each channel pair to suit your tastes
> •Adjust the overall EQ frequency for each channel pair
> •Switch between 2 high frequency rolloff target curves
> •Enable/Disable midrange compensation to make the sound brighter or smoother
> •Save and load calibration results
> 
> 
> ****** Note the most recent round of firmware updates for the 2016 Denon and Marantz models also allows the AVR to use this new app so ensure your AVR has the most up to date firmware. ******


So, my, uh, 2016 Denon avr 4520ci will be able to use this, right?


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> Since I've installed my new speakers (4x Klipsch RP-280 with a 15 inch sub) I think that Audyssey takes away the brightness of the speakers and also the quality of the sound coming from the subwoofer for music and movies. I missed definition in the sound.
> 
> Turning off Audyssey fixed the issue. So no Audyssey for me anymore. Takes away too much life of the sound in my opinion. I've read the 101 and followed all the steps multiple times, but Audysssey XT32 degrades the sound quality in my room. It's also not a good feeling to know that every source will be downsampled to 24/48, including Bluray Pure Audio and SACD.
> 
> With my old Klipsch XF-48 speakers Audyssey XT32 worked a treat.


Hi,

You sound as if you already know what you are doing, and if you do decide not to use Audyssey that is certainly a decision that I will respect. But, since you posted, I may ask a couple of questions in an attempt to help. First, have you experimented with the toe-in on the new speakers to see if that makes any difference? Second, have you tried using Audyssey Flat with the new speakers? Third, have you tried turning off DEQ with Audyssey Flat engaged? Fourth, have you experimented with the tone controls with DEQ off? Finally, have you used an independent sub boost with DEQ on or off?

That is a lot of questions, but implementing new speakers in a familiar room is like implementing known speakers in an unfamiliar room. It's a brand new calibration protocol, with its own idiosyncrasies, and its own preferred settings. I hope that one of my suggestions is of some value to you. Audyssey, and particularly XT-32, can generally be helpful if we can get everything dialed in properly.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> This may just be me, but ... if you move your REW line so it goes right through the RED curve at 1kHz (the conventional place for the so-called "0" line), the 3 to 10K range will appear to be rather flat, rather than boosted. If you would like, you can evaluate the BLUE curve the same way, but, naturally, 1K has a different elevation on the Blue curve*;* you can put the line through the 1K point for the blue curve to look at the Pure-Direct results re: 1K
> 
> I wonder what it would look and sound like with Audyssey Flat?


Fully agree with Gary on how to interpret the RED curve or, if you look at it again doesn't the dip at 2 kHz look like the BBC-dip?


----------



## shoeboo

Does anyone have feedback on why the default target curve in the new app rolls off the low end? Did a quick search and have only seen discussion on reference curve rolling off high end. Can edit the curve to remove roll-off but was wondering why it is there in first place.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krholmberg

With the Galaxy S8 and LG G6 coming out in the next few weeks D&M better update this app to deal with the new screen dimensions/resolutions. Those phones will sell like crazy and I'm sure a lot of people who buy this app will be pretty upset if they upgrade their phone and can no longer calibrate their HT.

Sent from my T-Mobile device using Tapatalk


----------



## IMWhizzle

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You sound as if you already know what you are doing, and if you do decide not to use Audyssey that is certainly a decision that I will respect. But, since you posted, I may ask a couple of questions in an attempt to help. First, have you experimented with the toe-in on the new speakers to see if that makes any difference? Second, have you tried using Audyssey Flat with the new speakers? Third, have you tried turning off DEQ with Audyssey Flat engaged? Fourth, have you experimented with the tone controls with DEQ off? Finally, have you used an independent sub boost with DEQ on or off?
> 
> That is a lot of questions, but implementing new speakers in a familiar room is like implementing known speakers in an unfamiliar room. It's a brand new calibration protocol, with its own idiosyncrasies, and its own preferred settings. I hope that one of my suggestions is of some value to you. Audyssey, and particularly XT-32, can generally be helpful if we can get everything dialed in properly.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thank you for your help. I did took all the steps you have mentioned. My speakers al always toed in 30 degrees each and at least 20cm from the wall. My subwoofer is not corner loaded and 30cm from the wall. I've carefully positioned the speakers so Audyssey can correct, but not much. After calibrations I indeed upped the subwoofer level by 5db, but I didn't like it. It's not as powerful and subtle with The Audyssey toggled off. The 'body' of the bass and overall sound is missing while Audyssey is engaged. Without it the mid tones and especially the treble is more of my taste. Audyssey flat resulted in less highs and the soundstage sort of collapsed. I really didn't like it.

I never use DEQ, because of the diverse content which I am using, like music and movies. I don't like to change the ROL all the time.

I think that I chose the right speaker in the right room. Best purchase ever.

I must say that when I finally add my Atmos modules I will calibrate once again to check if things are better. But so far I just didn't like what Audyssey does to my new speakers. After all, preference is eventually more important than reference I think.


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> Thank you for your help. I did took all the steps you have mentioned. My speakers al always toed in 30 degrees each and at least 20cm from the wall. My subwoofer is not corner loaded and 30cm from the wall. I've carefully positioned the speakers so Audyssey can correct, but not much. After calibrations I indeed upped the subwoofer level by 5db, but I didn't like it. It's not as powerful and subtle with The Audyssey toggled off. The 'body' of the bass and overall sound is missing while Audyssey is engaged. Without it the mid tones and especially the treble is more of my taste. Audyssey flat resulted in less highs and the soundstage sort of collapsed. I really didn't like it.
> 
> I never use DEQ, because of the diverse content which I am using, like music and movies. I don't like to change the ROL all the time.
> 
> I think that I chose the right speaker in the right room. Best purchase ever.
> 
> I must say that when I finally add my Atmos modules I will calibrate once again to check if things are better. But so far I just didn't like what Audyssey does to my new speakers. After all, preference is eventually more important than reference I think.


You are very welcome, and I absolutely agree with you! My goal in using Audyssey EQ is to improve the sound quality of my system, in my room. If it is successful in doing that to my personal satisfaction, then I want to use it, and if it is not, then I don't. It sounds as if you are developing a nice HT, and I hope that the room EQ works out better for you somewhere down the road.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> This may just be me, but ... if you move your REW line so it goes right through the RED curve at 1kHz (the conventional place for the so-called "0" line), the 3 to 10K range will appear to be rather flat, rather than boosted. If you would like, you can evaluate the BLUE curve the same way, but, naturally, 1K has a different elevation on the Blue curve*;* you can put the line through the 1K point for the blue curve to look at the Pure-Direct results re: 1K
> 
> I wonder what it would look and sound like with Audyssey Flat?


Thanks. I tried 'flat' briefly, but it just sounded brighter. Not terrible, but I don't think I need the extra treble it provides.


----------



## zeus33

krholmberg said:


> With the Galaxy S8 and LG G6 coming out in the next few weeks .....



The G6 came out last week.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> This may just be me, but ... if you move your REW line so it goes right through the RED curve at 1kHz (the conventional place for the so-called "0" line), the 3 to 10K range will appear to be rather flat, rather than boosted. If you would like, you can evaluate the BLUE curve the same way, but, naturally, 1K has a different elevation on the Blue curve*;* you can put the line through the 1K point for the blue curve to look at the Pure-Direct results re: 1K
> 
> I wonder what it would look and sound like with Audyssey Flat?


Thanks. You mean something like this? I wasn't sure where that REW line was supposed to go...


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Thanks. You mean something like this? I wasn't sure where that REW line was supposed to go...


Yes.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Thanks. You mean something like this? I wasn't sure where that REW line was supposed to go...


Yes, like that. There is no boost, compared to flat, above 400 Hz on your RED curve, but appreciable boost below 400.. 

I think you can check boxes on REW, then click on "overlay" to have your RED and BLUE curves superimposed to better compare them (I haven't used REW in several years).

The small dip at 90 Hz might or might not be correctable with your bass control, which affects only the LF and RF. I use the bass control to cause the bass from about 80 to 150 Hz to gradually rise and meet the level of the boosted subwoofer at the 80 Hz crossover.


----------



## Alan P

drh3b said:


> So, my, uh, 2016 Denon avr 4520ci will be able to use this, right?


Nope, and the 4520 is a circa 2015 AVR.


----------



## torii

does it matter when measuring/testing if microphones are stereo or mono. I would think we could learn more by measuring in stereo...


----------



## David Aiken

torii said:


> does it matter when measuring/testing if microphones are stereo or mono. I would think we could learn more by measuring in stereo...


What do you want to measure/test?

If you're doing system setup and balancing speaker levels, you're measuring one speaker at a time and during the Audyssey setup you're measuring each speaker in up to 8 different locations. There's nothing to gain from measuring in stereo because stereo measurements would only measure 2 positions simultaneously and there would be differences in the result you got from each mic due to slight differences in mic response and differences due to the difference in location of each mic since the setup process uses 8 measurements and uses the delay between the signal being sent to the speaker and the signal being received from the mic to measure time delay which is used for distance calculation. Getting 2 results as you would from a stereo mic setup wouldn't give you a clear figure for the delay You get more precise information from measuring in mono and more information from taking measurements in a number of locations. That's why the setup process uses a mono mic which we place in a series of different positions. 

If Audyssey thought that the measurement process for setup could be improved by using a stereo mic they would provide a stereo mic instead of a mono mic for use during setup.

There may be things which are best measured in stereo but the sorts of things measured during the setup process aren't amongst them.


----------



## torii

I know the make/sell stereo mics. just makes sense to me that you would rather measure closer to what you hear. unless of course you only have 1 ear.


----------



## David Aiken

torii said:


> I know the make/sell stereo mics. just makes sense to me that you would rather measure closer to what you hear. unless of course you only have 1 ear.


OK, 2 things you need to consider.

First, setup is not about measuring what you hear, it's about measuring what the frequency and phase response is in a number of positions. It's about measuring what the room does to the sound rather than about how you hear the sound.

Second, the software for Audyssey and other room setup processes is written for use with a mono mic. The input socket you plug the mic into is also probably wired for mono input. If the software and mic input isn't specifically designed for stereo input, stereo input is not going to help the measurement process. With Audyssey, the software assumes you're using the supplied Audyssey mic. The software is optimised for the mic supplied and if you use a different mic you will not get optimum results. The software would need to be rewritten to take account of the characteristics of other mics in order to utilise them correctly and it isn't. There is no provision for telling the software that you are using a different mic or for changing the operation of the software in order to match it to other mics.

If the software is written for use with a specific mic, and the Audyssey software is, then you will only get the intended result if you use the specified mic.

There are audio measurement programs which make provision for the choice of other mics and you can use that software to balance your speaker levels but then you have to use the manual setup option, not the Audyssey setup option, and there is no provision for transferring frequency and phase information from other mics to the Audyssey processor. Even if there are theoretical advantages to making stereo measurements for setup purposes, and I don't think there are, there is no way to utilise measurements made with a stereo mic setup in Audyssey.


----------



## In.vincible

Things are sounding pretty good. Some of it may be due to the new amp which is pushing more power to the speakers (and whatever other magic it's doing), but music is sounding good. I got the Audyssey app and re-ran the calibration. One thing I noticed right away was that it set the sub to -5.5. When I ran it last night without the app, it set it to -8 dB. At any rate, I think it sounds better with more bass, so whatever. Other than that, speaker levels came out about the same, and the REW measurement looked similar.

There are a few options in the app, but I ultimately decided to leave things pretty much as is. The one thing I did was change the high freq. rolloff from version 1 to version 2, which supposedly applies a bit more rolloff for medium to large rooms.

Other than that, I turned on DEQ, set ref. offset to 10 dB, and boosted the sub by +4 dB. So far, I like what I'm hearing. Not sure how much going from MultEQ to XT32 changed the high end, but it really tamed a big bass peak that MultEQ couldn't. DEQ seems to work well even for music now that the bass peak is smoothed a bit.

Here is where I was with my Marantz NR1403 with MultEQ:










And here is where I'm at with the 6011 with XT32. Blue line is rolloff 1 and red is rolloff option 2.


----------



## torii

anyone have a recommendation for a great guide on how to interpret the different info the graphs of rew provide? for example, in the attached rew graph, what does it all mean? should I try to get the left to match the right? when I ran this test was a couple years ago and was only focused on a null I had around 40hz and 80hz...but I am sure there is more to deduce, just really dont know what I am suppose to do with the info.


----------



## muzz

Search REW in the forums, 
there are threads discussing Rew that will help more.


----------



## torii

yea, they just too long to weed thru. I mean 2000 pages plus...just looking for something visual, maybe like a powerpoint. no big deal, I can search I guess.


----------



## muzz

I can hardly see White background stuff(can hardly see my phone keypad letters) cuz of cataracts(surgery soon). Sorry. You'll learn more anyway. GL


----------



## Matt2026

muzz said:


> I can hardly see White background stuff(can hardly see my phone keypad letters) cuz of cataracts(surgery soon). Sorry. You'll learn more anyway. GL


Have you checked out the coming possibility: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/cat...ew-laser-surgery-for-cataracts-in-the-works#1

Looks like it hasn't been approved yet so maybe you can't wait however long it takes... I'm hoping its available by the time mine are bad enough to require surgery.

Hopt you come through it well


----------



## garygarrison

torii said:


> anyone have a recommendation for a great guide on how to interpret the different info the graphs of rew provide? for example, in the attached rew graph, what does it all mean? should I try to get the left to match the right?  when I ran this test was a couple years ago and was only focused on a null I had around 40hz and 80hz...but I am sure there is more to deduce, just really dont know what I am suppose to do with the info.


Someone did put together a guide on the AVS REW forum. I think it was Austin Jerry. EDIT: here it is; Alan put it in his signature: Getting Started with REW

Because your speakers are in two different places in the room, they will produce somewhat different curves.

Did you move the microphone between tests?

Is your room asymmetrical or are the walls each speaker's sound bounces off of very different in liveness or reflectivity? 

FWIW, after running Audyssey, my RF and LF curves are fairly different in places in the bass and midrange, but are much better than before Audyssey. Above about 4K they are essentially identical. I haven't figured out why, but I'm not complaining. Have others who have used Audyssey, then measured the results from the MLP with REW, found that the high frequencies from the RF & LF more nearly identical than the midrange and the bass?


----------



## muzz

Matt2026 said:


> Have you checked out the coming possibility: http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/cat...rum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL]
> 
> Looks like it hasn't been approved yet so maybe you can't wait however long it takes... I'm hoping its available by the time mine are bad enough to require surgery.
> 
> Hopt you come through it well


Hadn't seen that, I can't wait any longer, even daytime driving is hazardous now. May 9th #1 Woot Woot!

Thanks👍


----------



## Skylinestar

torii said:


> yea, they just too long to weed thru. I mean 2000 pages plus...just looking for something visual, maybe like a powerpoint. no big deal, I can search I guess.


You just have to read this user friendly pdf from @AustinJerry :
https://www.dropbox.com/s/zdhq72a1puyyxpr/REW 101 HTS Current Version.pdf?dl=0


----------



## In.vincible

About the BBC dip built into the Audyssey curve....it appears my speakers crossover at 4.5 kHz. Since the Audyssey dip is more around 2 kHz, is that going to be a problem? From what I'm hearing so far, it seems fine.


----------



## IMWhizzle

Okay, since I installed all my new speakers and repositioned them because of my wife, the manual calibration did not have a positive effect on the subwoofer. The subwoofer only has good bass while standing, so I guess there are not cancellations in my room. In the weekend I will try to calibrate the system again with the XT32. From there on I will tweak it manually again. The wife thinks that the new speakers are too deep so I was forced to move the couch to the back of the room, which messed the sound up. Does anyone have tips for me with the sub placement or other tips before I calibrate? Here is a picture of my room


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> About the BBC dip built into the Audyssey curve....it appears my speakers crossover at 4.5 kHz. Since the Audyssey dip is more around 2 kHz, is that going to be a problem? From what I'm hearing so far, it seems fine.


No problem. Chris K. (of Audyssey) says he's never heard a speaker that wasn't improved by the "midrange compensation" that is part of Audyssey Reference, regardless of where the crossover is. Some here disagree. I'm not sure whether Audyssey credits the BBC dip as the source of the idea. I thought it was the source, but heard some contrary rumors. 

I vastly prefer Audyssey FLAT with most program material, which, of course, has no "BBC dip," with an important exception*;* if there is any significant treble distortion from anywhere, Audyssey Reference, with the dip, tends to reduce it. 

I thought the new app gave us the choice of dip or no dip, even with Audyssey Reference.


----------



## gurkey

IMWhizzle said:


> Okay, since I installed all my new speakers and repositioned them because of my wife, the manual calibration did not have a positive effect on the subwoofer. The subwoofer only has good bass while standing, so I guess there are not cancellations in my room. In the weekend I will try to calibrate the system again with the XT32. From there on I will tweak it manually again. The wife thinks that the new speakers are too deep so I was forced to move the couch to the back of the room, which messed the sound up. Does anyone have tips for me with the sub placement or other tips before I calibrate? Here is a picture of my room


Looks pretty "naked" to me. Might have some nasty room modes and frequency dependent reverbration issues messing with the sound heard.
Some additional furniture, drapery and deco might be of minimum help though...


----------



## IMWhizzle

gurkey said:


> Looks pretty "naked" to me. Might have some nasty room modes and frequency dependet reverbration times messing with the sound heard.
> Some additional furniture, drapery and deco might be of minimum help though...




True, it was not problematic when the couch was closer to the listening position.


----------



## garygarrison

IMWhizzle said:


> Okay, since I installed all my new speakers and repositioned them because of my wife, the manual calibration did not have a positive effect on the subwoofer. *The subwoofer only has good bass while standing, so I guess there are not cancellations in my room.* In the weekend I will try to calibrate the system again with the XT32. *From there on I will tweak it manually again*. The wife thinks that the new speakers aretoo deep so I was forced to move the couch to the back of the room, which messed the sound up. Does anyone have tips for me with the sub placement or other tips before I calibrate? Here is a picture of my room


The ceiling to floor dimension can cause cancellations (nulls). The bass could be different in the sitting vs the standing condition because of that.

*"From there on I will tweak it manually again." *If you mean you'll tweak it by using the graphic sliders, that may remove the XT32 equalization.. Many AVRs & pre/pros will either turn Audyssey off, or require that it be turned off, when the manual virtual graphic sliders are used, unless you go through the base copy (not bass copy!), which is a very crude copy, compared to the hundreds of EQ points Audyssey uses. If you are just using the tone controls (which require DEQ to be off), then there is no problem. If you ever doubt whether Audyssey is still on, look at your Audyssey indicator light, if you have one.


----------



## IMWhizzle

garygarrison said:


> The ceiling to floor dimension can cause cancellations (nulls). The bass could be different in the sitting vs the standing condition because of that.
> 
> *"From there on I will tweak it manually again." *If you mean you'll tweak it by using the graphic sliders, that may remove the XT32 equalization.. Many AVRs & pre/pros will either turn Audyssey off, or require that it be turned off, when the manual virtual graphic sliders are used, unless you go through the base copy (not bass copy!), which is a very crude copy, compared to the hundreds of EQ points Audyssey uses. If you are just using the tone controls (which require DEQ to be off), then there is no problem. If you ever doubt whether Audyssey is still on, look at your Audyssey indicator light, if you have one.




Thanks. With manual calibration I meant getting the levels and distances right with my SPL app on my iPhone by Studio Six Digital and tape measure. I don't mean the manual eq with the curve copy.

Anyone has useful tips for the calibration of XT32 in my room, just in case my wife doesn't want to position the couch back on the earlier position.

Sorry for my English. I am from Holland.


----------



## David Aiken

IMWhizzle said:


> Okay, since I installed all my new speakers and repositioned them because of my wife, the manual calibration did not have a positive effect on the subwoofer. The subwoofer only has good bass while standing, so I guess there are not cancellations in my room. In the weekend I will try to calibrate the system again with the XT32. From there on I will tweak it manually again. The wife thinks that the new speakers are too deep so I was forced to move the couch to the back of the room, which messed the sound up. Does anyone have tips for me with the sub placement or other tips before I calibrate? Here is a picture of my room…


The room looks bare but I don't think the bareness is going to be a significant issue for room modes since most carpets and curtains aren't significant absorbers at low frequencies. If the cushions in the sofa are largely foam (looks like they may be) then they may actually provide a bit of bass absorption which could help with bass modes. I know replacing a sofa with a sprung suspension with one with thick foam cushions made a difference to bass response in my room. The bare surfaces, especially the timber floor, are likely to be more of a problem for high frequency reflections.

What is a possible issue for me is the placement of the surround speakers which are very close to the sofa and the bass and midrange drivers of those speakers are pointed directly at the sofa. That may cause some problems. I regularly get a phase error during setup from one of my speakers during setup and I think that's due to proximity to the end of my sofa. If you get phase error messages check your wiring and if they are wired correctly just hit the "Ignore" button. I'd prefer if the surrounds weren't that close and pointing at the sofa but it's hard to see an alternative. It looks like the setup is in a living room and that means compromises are usually necessary, especially when there are other people to consider, so see how it goes. If you can move the surrounds a little further from the sofa that may help.

I'd like to see a bit more rug or carpeting closer to the front speakers to assist with damping the first floor reflection from he front speakers and there's the big glass window area to affect high frequency reflection from the right side wall. Do you normally have the blind up or down when using the system. If you have it up normally, see what you think after running setup and if you're not happy try repeating setup with the blind down, then raise the blind for listening and see how that works.

I think the coffee table may be problematic. It's high with staggered heights, looks like the surfaces are reflective, and you've got china and glass objects on it which are also reflective at high frequencies. Removing the china and glass objects may help, and covering the table with a blanket during the setup process may also help. You may even find covering the table helps during serious listening sessions.

You said "The subwoofer only has good bass while standing, so I guess there are not cancellations in my room" but I think the fact that the bass is only good while standing does indicate an issue but it's hard to be certain about what it is. I'd experiment with temporarily removing the coffee table and using a chair to test seating positions immediately in front of your current seating position to see if you can get better bass by moving the sofa a little bit further. Use a chair to test out different distances rather than moving the sofa, and also test areas behind the sofa while kneeling with your head at your normal seated head height. You may be able to get better bass with a slightly different listening distance. You can also try toeing the sub in to point at the listening position which may have an effect on bass performance or even moving the sub a bit closer to the corner. I'd see if you can do something about getting better bass without Audyssey first before running setup because that will help Audyssey to get a better result.

People tend to make comments about rooms and furnishings but furnishings are a personal matter and living rooms aren't dedicated audio/home theatre spaces, especially if there are other people in the house and the room has to serve several purposes. I'd rather have a room that I like spending time in, even with some acoustic problems, than a room that was acoustically better but that I didn't enjoy being in. Mood definitely helps the listening experience and I don't think it should be ignored so in my experience living rooms and compromises go together. If there are changes to the room you can make which help with the sound, then make them but if making changes causes problems with others in the house then you're better off living with what you've got and keeping others happy rather than having the AV setup becoming a major point of contention and causing problems. Do what you can that is acceptable to others and then tweak the Audyssey results if you need to do so to get a better result. You've got options like using Audyssey Flat or Reference, adjusting the sub trims, leaving DEQ off and using tone controls, and doing things like opening or closing the blind and opening a window with or without the blind down when that's acceptable given the weather. You can get good results in a room with issues but you have to work a little harder to get them. You might ignore small changes that could help if you can make a big one or two but if you can't make the big ones then making as many small changes as possible becomes more important because a number of small improvements can add up to a sizeable improvement in the end.


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> Okay, since I installed all my new speakers and repositioned them because of my wife, the manual calibration did not have a positive effect on the subwoofer. The subwoofer only has good bass while standing, so I guess there are not cancellations in my room. In the weekend I will try to calibrate the system again with the XT32. From there on I will tweak it manually again. The wife thinks that the new speakers are too deep so I was forced to move the couch to the back of the room, which messed the sound up. Does anyone have tips for me with the sub placement or other tips before I calibrate? Here is a picture of my room


Hi,

Several others have already commented on possible mid-range and high frequency issues, so I will primarily concentrate on the bass. First, I would probably put furniture sliders under the sub to make life easier, and I would try several positions near where it is now. I think that I would move it closer to the wall for one thing. I would also try angling it, or squaring it up in the corner. If none of those options help, I would turn it at right angles, on the wall next to the radiator, so that it faces the TV.

If there is room for it next to the table with the lamp, that might also be a possibility. That would greatly increase your tactile bass for movies. I agree with David that getting your sub into a location where it works well without Audyssey will help when you run XT-32. And, that's mostly trial-and-error to find a good location. 

Audyssey should definitely be able to help with your bass frequencies. But, the sheer liveliness of the space from an acoustical standpoint, will limit Audyssey's effectiveness, in my opinion. Recognizing that this is your living room and that aesthetics are important, I would nevertheless try to find some ways to add some softening elements to the space.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## IMWhizzle

Guys, thanks for the assistance and tips. I will try these out this weekend and report back my findings in this thread. Looks like a challenge!


----------



## Alan P

torii said:


> anyone have a recommendation for a great guide on how to interpret the different info the graphs of rew provide? for example, in the attached rew graph, what does it all mean? should I try to get the left to match the right? when I ran this test was a couple years ago and was only focused on a null I had around 40hz and 80hz...but I am sure there is more to deduce, just really dont know what I am suppose to do with the info.


While Austin Jerry's guide will get you up and running, there really isn't a whole lot of discussion in it of how to actually interpret the results (as you have probably found). There is no primer on this that I'm aware of...the only way I found to learn is to read and participate in the REW threads here on AVS and in the REW section over at the Home Theater Shack forums.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> No problem. Chris K. (of Audyssey) says he's never heard a speaker that wasn't improved by the "midrange compensation" that is part of Audyssey Reference, regardless of where the crossover is. Some here disagree. I'm not sure whether Audyssey credits the BBC dip as the source of the idea. I thought it was the source, but heard some contrary rumors.
> 
> I vastly prefer Audyssey FLAT with most program material, which, of course, has no "BBC dip," with an important exception*;* if there is any significant treble distortion from anywhere, Audyssey Reference, with the dip, tends to reduce it.
> 
> I thought the new app gave us the choice of dip or no dip, even with Audyssey Reference.


There is an option to turn off the dip in the app. I just ending up leaving mine on since things sounded just a little harsher without it. 

For those using the app, or the pro kit, I'm curious to hear if you prefer High Freq. Rolloff 1 or 2. The second option provides a bit more rolloff, which seems good for my room since it's medium-sized and fairly reflective.


----------



## mthomas47

I am afraid that I will have to enjoy the new app vicariously for a while, as I am not planning to upgrade my AVR for at least another year or two. But, one aspect of the new app involves something that Gary and I (and Alan too, I think) used to wish for in our AV processors, and that is the equivalent of a tone control for each channel pair. The current tone controls implemented in most AVR's and AVP's only allow manipulation of the front speakers, and that only within a fixed algorithm. Having the ability to change the target curve for individual speaker pairs (and I assume for the center channel, as well) would be terrific. I am still waiting to hear whether the app allows for .1 channel adjustments too, but I can't think why it wouldn't.

In addition to tweaks that I might choose to do with my subs, there are two specific things that I would like to be able to adjust in my current system, but just for movie viewing. First, I would like to be able to add bass from about 50Hz up to my surround speakers, as they are very large speakers, crossed at 60Hz, which have lots of headroom. That would give me some nice additional mid-bass reinforcement when I use a heavy sub boost.

Second, I would like to be able to take a little bit of bass away from my center channel to improve the clarity and naturalness of voices, which I believe do not benefit from having much bass. I currently have my CC crossover at either 90 or 100 (I go back and forth). If I raise the crossover more, the subwoofers, which are boosted, kick-in more. If I go lower, the speaker itself adds a little more bass than I like. It would be nice to be able to set an 80Hz crossover and then take a little bass away from the CC itself, without having to add it back with the subs. And, if I could store those settings and use them only for movies, that would be even better.

The new app may be very cool to the extent that it lets users make those sorts of adjustments. More opportunities to tweak things!  I hope that app owners will keep experimenting, and post about what they discover.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## IMWhizzle

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Several others have already commented on possible mid-range and high frequency issues, so I will primarily concentrate on the bass. First, I would probably put furniture sliders under the sub to make life easier, and I would try several positions near where it is now. I think that I would move it closer to the wall for one thing. I would also try angling it, or squaring it up in the corner. If none of those options help, I would turn it at right angles, on the wall next to the radiator, so that it faces the TV.
> 
> If there is room for it next to the table with the lamp, that might also be a possibility. That would greatly increase your tactile bass for movies. I agree with David that getting your sub into a location where it works well without Audyssey will help when you run XT-32. And, that's mostly trial-and-error to find a good location.
> 
> Audyssey should definitely be able to help with your bass frequencies. But, the sheer liveliness of the space from an acoustical standpoint, will limit Audyssey's effectiveness, in my opinion. Recognizing that this is your living room and that aesthetics are important, I would nevertheless try to find some ways to add some softening elements to the space.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Ok, so I've moved the couch a couple of feet more towards the the main speakers, the rear towers are now behind the couch in an angle towards the mlp and placed the sub a couple of feet more to the right near the corner. What a difference! Wow, this is sound which I almost had in mind. I'm happy and my wife is happy. We measured the distances. The bass has character again, not boomy and with definition. Now everything is positioned in a way we both like. 

This weekend I will calibrate the system and report back.


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> Ok, so I've moved the couch a couple of feet more towards the the main speakers, the rear towers are now behind the couch in an angle towards the mlp and placed the sub a couple of feet more to the right near the corner. What a difference! Wow, this is sound which I almost had in mind. I'm happy and my wife is happy. We measured the distances. The bass has character again, not boomy and with definition. Now everything is positioned in a way we both like.
> 
> This weekend I will calibrate the system and report back.


That's excellent! I look forward to hearing about your new calibration.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I am afraid that I will have to enjoy the new app vicariously for a while, as I am not planning to upgrade my AVR for at least another year or two. But, one aspect of the new app involves something that Gary and I (and Alan too, I think) used to wish for in our AV processors…
> 
> I hope that app owners will keep experimenting, and post about what they discover.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I too am in the vicarious zone but may have to jump earlier than I would have wanted in order to get Dolby Vision capability in my AVR.

I'm running a 2.2 setup so the ability to make different settings for different speaker pairs isn't an issue for me but I'm either using Reference or using Flat with a treble tone control cut. I'd be very interested in seeing what using Reference with the midrange dip removed and experimenting with the 2 different high frequency roll offs. I also wonder whether the ability to adjust the sub settings might be a useful alternative to applying sub boost via the trim settings.

Add me to those who want to see app owners experimenting and posting about their discoveries,


----------



## David Aiken

IMWhizzle said:


> Ok, so I've moved the couch a couple of feet more towards the the main speakers, the rear towers are now behind the couch in an angle towards the mlp and placed the sub a couple of feet more to the right near the corner. What a difference! Wow, this is sound which I almost had in mind. I'm happy and my wife is happy. We measured the distances. The bass has character again, not boomy and with definition. Now everything is positioned in a way we both like.
> 
> This weekend I will calibrate the system and report back.


 A shift of one or two feet in listening position can make a big difference to what you hear in the bass. Bass can be extremely dependent on where you are in the room and moving a very small difference can sometimes make almost inaudible bass quite audible. Trying to get the same result with room correction or a boost to the sub level might not even be possible so it's always a good idea to experiment a little with the listening position location if you're having problems getting good bass. Moving the sub and/or changing its orientation to the room is the other thing to experiment with when there are bass issues. Making one or both of those changes can transform bass response in many cases.

It can be surprising as well how much getting a good bass result affects your perception of the rest of the frequency range.


----------



## IMWhizzle

David Aiken said:


> A shift of one or two feet in listening position can make a big difference to what you hear in the bass. Bass can be extremely dependent on where you are in the room and moving a very small difference can sometimes make almost inaudible bass quite audible. Trying to get the same result with room correction or a boost to the sub level might not even be possible so it's always a good idea to experiment a little with the listening position location if you're having problems getting good bass. Moving the sub and/or changing its orientation to the room is the other thing to experiment with when there are bass issues. Making one or both of those changes can transform bass response in many cases.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be surprising as well how much getting a good bass result affects your perception of the rest of the frequency range.




What you're describing here is exact the situation right now. The bass coming from the sub is balanced and sounds in harmony with the rest of the setup. It's more open and dynamic. No boominess or missing tones. I leave it this way and I'll calibrate with XT32 this weekend. I am curious of the result. If I don't like the eq I will leave the distances as Audyssey found them and calibrate everything to 75db with my iPhone app, including the sub.


----------



## garygarrison

IMWhizzle said:


> Thanks. With manual calibration I meant getting the levels and distances right with my SPL app on my iPhone by Studio Six Digital and tape measure. I don't mean the manual eq with the curve copy.
> 
> Anyone has useful tips for the calibration of XT32 in my room, just in case my wife doesn't want to position the couch back on the earlier position.
> 
> Sorry for my English. I am from Holland.


Your English is excellent.

Depending on whether the circuitry in your subwoofer causes a delay, the actual distance from the subwoofer to the listener may not be as good as the Audyssey measured distance, which really measures relative delay, rather than distance.

Your room looks fairly "Live." In its original position, the couch may have absorbed much of that. Some more absorbing material might help, but I don't know how that would fit with your decor. 

It looks like your subwoofer is the only speaker that sticks out into the room very far. If it crosses over low enough, making the bass from it non-directional, you could try it behind the couch, and rotated 90 degrees, so it doesn't push your couch forward too much.

Your picture doesn't show the wall behind the couch, or how far the couch is from the wall. If the wall is close, hanging something soft, like a tapestry, or thick cloth wall hanging might help. Also, there are decorative sound absorbing pads for sale in several of the acoustical treatment online catalogs. Be sure the vendor is audiophile oriented. You would want soft absorbers, not the hard, so called "acoustical tile" that contractors sometimes use.


----------



## David Aiken

IMWhizzle said:


> What you're describing here is exact the situation right now. The bass coming from the sub is balanced and sounds in harmony with the rest of the setup. It's more open and dynamic. No boominess or missing tones. I leave it this way and I'll calibrate with XT32 this weekend. I am curious of the result. If I don't like the eq I will leave the distances as Audyssey found them and calibrate everything to 75db with my iPhone app, including the sub.


If you don't like the EQ then just turn Audyssey off. There's no need to calibrate everything to 75 dB with your iPhone app. Audyssey setup does 2 things, it sets the trims for each speaker—what you would be doing if you calibrate everything to 75 dB with your iPhone app—and it creates 2 EQ curves, Flat and Reference. Setting the trims and doing the EQ are different things and turning Audyssey off disables the EQ but it doesn't affect the trims which should be correct. The result of doing a manual setup with your iPhone app and turning Audyssey off after doing the setup should be identical in theory. In practice they won't be absolutely identical because of differences in accuracy and sensitivity between the Audyssey mic and the mic in your iPhone, and because of differences in accuracy between Audyssey's software and your iPhone app, but the differences between the 2 results should not make a significant noticeable difference. Since you will have done the Audyssey setup in order to see how well the EQ works, I would not bother about doing a manual setup with your iPhone app if you don't like the EQ result, I'd just disable the EQ by turning Audyssey off.

If you don't like the EQ result, which will be Audyssey Reference if you run setup with the default settings, you have a range of options to modify the EQ if you don't like it. They include:

- changing the Audyssey setting to Flat instead of Reference.

- turning Dynamic EQ (DEQ) off since by default it gets set to on.

You can try both Flat and Reference with DEQ off and on for each to see if there is one of those 4 options you prefer more than the default Reference with DEQ on.

- if you turn DEQ off, you can use the tone controls to modify the result with both Flat and Reference.

- you can adjust the bass by adjusting the subwoofer trims. Most of us seem to use a boost to the sub trim setting with Audyssey.

- you can reduce the amount of DEQ applied by adjusting the Relative Offset setting.

And of course there is the option of just turning Audyssey off and disabling all EQ but keeping the speaker trim settings which Audyssey makes as mentioned above.

That's the adjustments available to you with the results from any given Audyssey setup. It's also possible to change the EQ by rerunning setup and using a different mic placement pattern (positions further apart of closer together). That won't change the basic trim settings Audyssey makes provided you keep the same mic position for the first measurement location but it will change the EQ results. Unfortunately there's no way to determine in advance which mic placements are more likely to give you a better EQ result so trying that comes down to running setup with different mic positions until you get a result you like. If you don't like the EQ result you get and you can't adjust it to something you like by adjusting the settings mentioned above, then you can tell us what kind of placement pattern you used for the mic (how far apart you placed the mic from the first position for the subsequent measurements) and what you don't like about the result and we may be able to give you some suggestions about what you can try.


----------



## IMWhizzle

David, first of all I sincerely thank you for sharing your knowledge. It's very informative and reassuring at the same time. 

The different options you have mentions when it comes to 'preference' are not unknown to me and are things I've done numerous time to finally settle for the sound with my old speakers. Since the Klipsch XF-48's were dull (too much bass and non detailed highs but great midtones) Audyssey fixed this sort of. I always thought that afterwards the sound was too 'thin' but I couldn't seem to find other settings which were closer to my tastes. So I upped the sub with 5db, left DEQ off and always chose the 'flat' setting, because I didn't like the high end roll off with the 'reference' setting. While calibrating, the mic positions were around 50cm between the first position. I also positioned the mic on a mic boom stand with a camera add on (one big screw that fits the mic perfectly). I also made sure that the mic was pointing straight up to the ceiling in a straight vertical line.

Now with my current speakers the sound with Audyssey off is simply breathtaking and exactly what I was looking for. More balanced, crips highs, great mid tones, and subtle but tight bass. These were my findings when the couch was positioned in the middle of the room. When placing the couch to its current place because it's a living room and esthetics are important, the sound as you know by now changed drastically. Now the biggest problems are solved because of subtle positioning choices my wife and I made this evening. 

My plan is to mic differently with the coming calibration. Less distances off each other, maybe 20 cm of the first mic position? I also will try to enable Dynamic Eq, but with a ROL of 15db, which delivers a good sound with all sources so I can enjoy any content at any time.

When I decide to toggle Audyssey off should I too leave the sub trim on the setting on which Audyssey set them? Is a 5db boos without Audyssey recommended? 

I will upload more pictures from different angles tomorrow morning, local time.


----------



## David Aiken

IMWhizzle said:


> David, first of all I sincerely thank you for sharing your knowledge. It's very informative and reassuring at the same time.
> 
> The different options you have mentions when it comes to 'preference' are not unknown to me and are things I've done numerous time to finally settle for the sound with my old speakers. Since the Klipsch XF-48's were dull (too much bass and non detailed highs but great midtones) Audyssey fixed this sort of. I always thought that afterwards the sound was too 'thin' but I couldn't seem to find other settings which were closer to my tastes. So I upped the sub with 5db, left DEQ off and always chose the 'flat' setting, because I didn't like the high end roll off with the 'reference' setting. While calibrating, the mic positions were around 50cm between the first position. I also positioned the mic on a mic boom stand with a camera add on (one big screw that fits the mic perfectly). I also made sure that the mic was pointing straight up to the ceiling in a straight vertical line.
> 
> Now with my current speakers the sound with Audyssey off is simply breathtaking and exactly what I was looking for. More balanced, crips highs, great mid tones, and subtle but tight bass. These were my findings when the couch was positioned in the middle of the room. When placing the couch to its current place because it's a living room and esthetics are important, the sound as you know by now changed drastically. Now the biggest problems are solved because of subtle positioning choices my wife and I made this evening.
> 
> My plan is to mic differently with the coming calibration. Less distances off each other, maybe 20 cm of the first mic position? I also will try to enable Dynamic Eq, but with a ROL of 15db, which delivers a good sound with all sources so I can enjoy any content at any time.
> 
> When I decide to toggle Audyssey off should I too leave the sub trim on the setting on which Audyssey set them? Is a 5db boos without Audyssey recommended?
> 
> I will upload more pictures from different angles tomorrow morning, local time.


If you prefer the sub boost with Audyssey I'd leave the boost as it is without Audyssey and see how I liked that, then adjust it if necessary. It's probably not going to be a boost with Audyssey/no boost without Audyssey issue, it's going to come down to how much boost you prefer with Audyssey and how much without, and they may well be different amounts.

Getting the wife on side and coming up with mutually acceptable positioning choices is a very good thing to do. It's much better than having a constant source of disagreement going.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I am afraid that I will have to enjoy the new app vicariously for a while, as I am not planning to upgrade my AVR for at least another year or two. But, one aspect of the new app involves something that Gary and I (and Alan too, I think) used to wish for in our AV processors, and that is the equivalent of a tone control for each channel pair. The current tone controls implemented in most AVR's and AVP's only allow manipulation of the front speakers, and that only within a fixed algorithm. Having the ability to change the target curve for individual speaker pairs (and I assume for the center channel, as well) would be terrific. I am still waiting to hear whether the app allows for .1 channel adjustments too, but I can't think why it wouldn't.
> 
> In addition to tweaks that I might choose to do with my subs, there are two specific things that I would like to be able to adjust in my current system, but just for movie viewing. First, I would like to be able to add bass from about 50Hz up to my surround speakers, as they are very large speakers, crossed at 60Hz, which have lots of headroom. That would give me some nice additional mid-bass reinforcement when I use a heavy sub boost.
> 
> Second, I would like to be able to take a little bit of bass away from my center channel to improve the clarity and naturalness of voices, which I believe do not benefit from having much bass. I currently have my CC crossover at either 90 or 100 (I go back and forth). If I raise the crossover more, the subwoofers, which are boosted, kick-in more. If I go lower, the speaker itself adds a little more bass than I like. It would be nice to be able to set an 80Hz crossover and then take a little bass away from the CC itself, without having to add it back with the subs. And, if I could store those settings and use them only for movies, that would be even better.
> 
> The new app may be very cool to the extent that it lets users make those sorts of adjustments. More opportunities to tweak things!  I hope that app owners will keep experimenting, and post about what they discover.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

I'll have to wait, too. 

Both my center channel situation and my solution for the "too much bass in the voices" anomaly are different from yours. My center channel is quite large (I think yours is, too) and Audyssey indicates its F3 is 40 Hz. The manufacturer places the F3 higher (about 53, but that's in their anechoic chamber, and my center channel is flush mounted in the wall). It has a great deal of headroom. Since my sub is boosted quite a bit (post Audyssey calibration), the 80 Hz center crossover I started with resulted in way too much bass in the voices, and too little clarity in same. Even though some frequency charts have the human voice's bass range stopping at 100 Hz on the bass end, there is quite a bit below that, such as the lowest F of 43*.*7 Hz, which a basso profondo can very occasionally be asked to sing. Even in dialog, there are bass undertones (for want of a better term) which go below 80 Hz (Longmire's voice, for instance, puts quite an undertone through our boosted sub, even though, without the sub, I wouldn't think of his voice as particularly deep). Raising the crossover puts even more bass into the dialog, because, as you say, the boosted sub kicks in even more. Fortunately the Audyssey evaluation of the F3, although probably correct, can be misleading. Although REW agrees that the F3 is 40 Hz in my room, the bass shelves down about 2 dB quite a bit higher. In no way is this a "bass heavy" speaker. So, I tried setting the center crossover at 40 Hz, utilizing the ~~ 2 dB down shelf to keep the dialog crisp, yet allowing the sub to stay boosted to the degree it is, since it won't be coming in -- for center duty -- until about 40 Hz. The crossovers to the sub for all other speakers are 80 Hz. The system has been set up that way for a while now, and it seems to improve dialog clarity quite a bit.

As you say, tone controls for every speaker pair, plus the sub and the center, would be great. I appreciate the difference between Reference and Preference, but I suspect the best way is to start with Reference (i.e., Audyssey calibration), then apply Preference, sparingly (or not).


----------



## David Aiken

This is a draft for comment and suggestions. It's close to a dot point guide to what you can do to modify Audyssey's response by using the controls provided by Audyssey and the AVR. If it is considered useful I can add a link to a final version in my signature and others can copy the link to their signatures as well.


*A quick guide to adjusting Audyssey results.*


Since we get a lot of queries about what to do when Audyssey doesn’t deliver a result that someone likes, I thought I’d try to do a summary of the options available for modifying Audyssey results without doing setup over or making room modifications. These can all be done with settings on your AVR.

First, however, let’s deal with one of the reasons why people don’t like Audyssey. There’s nothing magic about the Audyssey Reference EQ curve, it’s not a solution that is supposed to satisfy everyone. It’s a solution based on the preferences of a sample of listeners derived from listening tests with different EQ settings. In other words, it’s a result that suits more people than it doesn’t suit but not everyone will like it and not everyone who likes it is going to be equally happy with it. If you don’t like the result then you may well be one of the people who prefer a different EQ target than the target Audyssey came up with. There’s nothing wrong with that, there are no rights or wrongs about preferences. What I hope to do is to give those who don’t like it, or those who like it but would like to adjust it slightly, some help in making adjustments to it.

Second, there are no options in the AVR setting for changing the Audyssey target in any way. The new iOS/Android app which is supported by some recent AVRs does give you the option to change the Audyssey target in some ways. What you can do with the App is not going to be covered here. My AVR is not supported and I have no experience with the app. Some/most/all of the things I discuss here may be able to be used in conjunction with the app to adjust what you can do with the app. If you have the app and are using it, then you can try the suggestions here in addition to what you do with the app and see if they help but some suggestions may not work. I don't know whether using some of the app options will restrict access to the tone controls in the same way as using DEQ does.


*Assumption:* You have run setup and Audyssey is active and set to the default settings which are Audyssey Reference, Dynamic EQ (DEQ) on, Dynamic Volume off.

*Basic settings:* There are a choice of 3 which are Audyssey Reference, Audyssey Flat, and Off.

Flat produces a response with all frequencies basically equal in level at the main listening position. That’s not the way things usually sound in real life because high frequencies are easily absorbed at room surfaces and in air so what we tend to hear in a concert hall or a normal room is a sound with the high frequencies rolled off in level to some degree.

Reference produces a response with high frequencies starting to roll off a bit above 4 kHz, i.e. in the top 2 octaves of our hearing range, and with a bit of a dip in the response between 2 and 4 kHz. This is a curve that listening tests show a lot of people (but not everyone) prefer.

Off applies no EQ whatsoever but retains the speaker level settings and distances to ensure that each speaker is equal in level and that the sound from each speaker arrives at the listening position at the same time. This is basically the result you would get if you did a manual setup using a sound pressure level meter and test tones.

If you don’t like Audyssey Reference (the default) try Audyssey Flat. Some people prefer Reference for movies and Flat for music so you may prefer one for some things and the other for other source material.


Now to issues and possible solutions. The following adjustments can be made to both Reference and Flat settings so choose which of those 2 options you prefer and then try the following adjustments.


*Bass Problems*

1- There’s not enough bass. Lots of us think that. 

Try adjusting the subwoofer trim setting to make the sub louder and increasing it by 3 to 7 dB is common. Don’t adjust the trim setting to a positive number and if possible keep it below -2 or -3 dB. If you need to adjust it higher for a satisfactory result, then either increase the gain setting on your sub slightly rather than increasing the trim, or decrease the gain setting on the sub and run setup again in order to get Audyssey to set the sub to a lower trim setting in order to give you more headroom for increasing the trim. Increasing the sub’s gain setting may result in the sub clipping in loud passages and increasing the sub trim level above 0dB in the AVR settings may result in clipping in the AVR.


2- There’s too much bass. In order you can try:

(a) Use the Relative Level Offset setting to reduce the amount of boost applied by DEQ. There are 4 settings, 0 dB which is off, and -5, -10, and -15 dB which apply progressively greater cuts in the amount of boost DEQ applies.


(b) Turn DEQ off. DEQ adds a boost to the bass and high frequencies if you are listening at below reference level which is 0dB on the volume control. That compensates for the fact that we become less sensitive to bass and high frequencies as the loudness of the sound reduces. Most of us listen at below reference level so DEQ will be boosting the bass. Turning it off eliminates that boost. If the bass lour enough after after turning DEQ off you can either increase the sub trim setting or use the bass tone control to provide a bit of boost instead. See the comment above about increasing the sub trim setting. Turning DEQ off will affect the high frequencies so you may have to compensate for that.

(c) Reduce the Sub trim setting.


If you want more detail about subwoofer related settings and adjustments, refer to Mike Thomas’ Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii-44.html#post47140321


*Mid-range problems*

There's not much we can do about the mid range. The only things I can think of are:

(a) if the mids aren't loud enough try either using Audyssey Flat instead of Reference in order to eliminate the mid-range dip. 

(b) if the mids are too loud try using Audyssey Reference if you're using Audyssey Flat.

In both cases you may want to adjust either or both of the bass and high frequencies after that. You can do that by turning DEQ on if it's off and you want to increase the bass and highs, or you can turn DEQ off and use the tone controls to increase or decrease either or both of the bass and high frequencies.


*High Frequency problems*


1- The high frequencies aren’t loud enough/the sound is too dull.

(a) If you’re using Audyssey Reference, change to Audyssey Flat. If that’s too bright turn DEQ off if it is on, and if that is too bright or too dull, try adjusting the treble tone control.

(b) If DEQ is on, you can use the Relative Level Offset control to increase the high frequency boost. This will also affect your bass levels so if you were happy with them but just wanted to increase the brightness of the sound you are going to have to adjust for the increase in strength of the bass that comes with using Relative Level Offset.

(c) If DEQ is off you can use the treble tone control to brighten the sound.


2. The high frequencies are too loud/the sound is too bright.

(a) If you’re using Audyssey Flat, change to Audyssey Reference or turn DEQ off and use the treble tone control to adjust if necessary. That will reduce your bass levels also so you will have to compensate for that as well.

(b) If you’re using Audyssey Reference and DEQ is on, turn DEQ off and use the treble tone control to adjust the result if necessary. That will reduce your bass levels also so you will have to compensate for that as well.

*The last resort:* Turn Audyssey off and rely on sub trim settings and the tone controls.


*Additional notes:*

*DEQ and Loudness Management control:* There’s a loudness management control in the settings which applies to some Dolby soundtracks. It serves a similar function to DEQ. If your bass or highs are too strong some of the time with DEQ, check the loudness management control and turn it off if it’s on. I think it’s a good idea to turn it off anyway.

*Cinema EQ:* some/maybe all Marantz AVRs have a Cinema EQ setting. It does something similar to Audyssey Reference but I have seen suggestions that it also only applies to Dolby soundtracks. It’s off by default and it’s probably best to leave it off.


----------



## garygarrison

IMWhizzle said:


> What you're describing here is exact the situation right now. The bass coming from the sub is balanced and sounds in harmony with the rest of the setup. It's more open and dynamic. No boominess or missing tones. I leave it this way and I'll calibrate with XT32 this weekend. I am curious of the result. If I don't like the eq I will leave the distances as Audyssey found them and calibrate everything to 75db with my iPhone app, including the sub.


But feel free to turn up the sub after calibration, if you want to, then evaluate the EQ.


----------



## IMWhizzle

Here are more pictures of my room and placement of the speakers at the moment. I'm not sure if I should toe in the surrounds or not.


----------



## In.vincible

Any of you disable midrange compensation? Just wondering how it affects music, and if it would have a better or worse effect on dialogue in movies.


----------



## gurkey

Audysseys midrange compensation might be in some cases "superfluous" and anachronistic, but you have to evaluate it for yourself, if you like its effects or not. Some prefer it others don't.


----------



## vn800art

IMWhizzle said:


> Here are more pictures of my room and placement of the speakers at the moment. I'm not sure if I should toe in the surrounds or not.
> 
> I don't know your speajers, but I surely would try toeing at least 10°, maybe 15°
> 
> Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## IMWhizzle

vn800art said:


> IMWhizzle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are more pictures of my room and placement of the speakers at the moment. I'm not sure if I should toe in the surrounds or not.
> 
> I don't know your speajers, but I surely would try toeing at least 15°
> 
> Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the speakers are the Klipsch RP-280F model.
Click to expand...


----------



## vn800art

http://assets.klipsch.com/product-manuals/Reference-Premiere-Speakers-Manual.pdf
Oh, well, Your setup should look like that in page nr. 7 ( English language), preferred position A! I haven't found a radiation diagram for the speaker, but we must take note, If I haven't misunderstood the (short enough) technical data, that they are a Bass Reflex design via rear-firing Tractrix port, so they shouldn't be placed too close to the wall ... and your room ( as mine ) has L&R different situations!
But ... finding the sweet spot shouldn't be difficult, they are Big and Klipsch!
Regards
Alessandro

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> Here are more pictures of my room and placement of the speakers at the moment. I'm not sure if I should toe in the surrounds or not.


I don't know that the reasons for toeing-in the front speakers would be the same as for toeing-in the surround speakers, but I would try it to see what I think. The front speakers are, along with the center channel, supplying the bulk of the content, and having them pointed right at you can enhance imaging. The surround channels are mostly supplying ambience.

On the other hand, if the Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" the surround speakers on a more direct axis, it might try to boost them. I don't believe you would be as likely to hear that boost, as you would with the front speakers, due to the difference in content. But, I would still experiment with some toe-in to find out what sounds better before running Audyssey, and I would remain mindful of the possibility of a calibration boost, absent some toe-in. I hope all of that made sense to you.

I had thought to mention this earlier, and this is a good opportunity. I think that one reason the overall quality of your sound improved (and not just your bass) when you moved your sofa forward a couple of feet was primarily due to moving away from the back wall. I believe that you were getting a lot of very close early reflections from the wall that were creating some distortion. When two sounds arrive at our ears only milliseconds apart, the sound may appear garbled. When the sounds are spaced slightly further apart in time, our brains tend to focus on the first arriving sounds and to ignore the later arriving ones. I believe that is a large part of the difference you are now hearing in overall sound quality.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

gurkey said:


> Audysseys midrange compensation might be in some cases "superfluous" and anachronistic, but you have to evaluate it for yourself, if you like its effects or not. Some prefer it others don't.


Thanks. I guess I will just try turning it off and see how it sound. It does produce a pretty big dip in my freq. response range that I'm not really sure if necessary.

IMO, the best thing Audyssey is doing is EQ-ing the bass. I was thinking of setting the filter so it only EQs up to 500 or 1000 Hz just to see how it sounds, but I may just turn off MRC first.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> Thanks. I guess I will just try turning it off and see how it sound. It does produce a pretty big dip in my freq. response range that I'm not really sure if necessary.
> 
> IMO, the best thing Audyssey is doing is EQ-ing the bass. I was thinking of setting the filter so it only EQs up to 500 or 1000 Hz just to see how it sounds, but I may just turn off MRC first.


One of the coolest aspects of the new app is the flexibility it gives you to try different things. And, you might want to do that for as long as your curiosity, or endurance, holds out. Audio memory can be pretty short, though, so you might want to keep a log of some of your favorite setting combinations, along with a comment, or a perceived audio value between 1 and 10, or something along that line. 

I think that you will also experience some disconnect between what you can measure and what you can hear, so I would probably be mindful of that. Measurements are at their best as a problem-solving tool, in my opinion. But, your ears are the final arbiters of what you can actually hear, and of what you actually prefer.


----------



## Alan P

I'm sure most of you have seen this new thread, but just in case....

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## In.vincible

Played with the app some more and tried disabling the midrange dip. It's hard to compare because I can't have 2 curves saved to my AVR, so by the time I reload another one, I kind of forget the sound. It didn't seem like disabling MRC was really doing much for music, so I left it on. From measurements, it appears that my speakers have a bit of a hump around the 2K region (see below). The dip is supposed to make things sound a little less harsh, right? I figured it's better to just leave it.

Also, DEQ is more timid with my bass now that I have a flatter response, but I think it's still making the high end a bit bright with its treble boost. I wish there was a way to have it only work on the bass freqs, but I don't think that's possible?

The Audyssey ref. curve is definitely flatter in the bass than no EQ, but sometimes I find that pure direct has more kick to it, even without the sub. Probably that 100 Hz hump?


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Played with the app some more and tried disabling the midrange dip. It's hard to compare because I can't have 2 curves saved to my AVR, so by the time I reload another one, I kind of forget the sound. It didn't seem like disabling MRC was really doing much for music, so I left it on. From measurements, it appears that my speakers have a bit of a hump around the 2K region (see below). The dip is supposed to make things sound a little less harsh, right? I figured it's better to just leave it.
> 
> Also, DEQ is more timid with my bass now that I have a flatter response, but I think it's still making the high end a bit bright with its treble boost. I wish there was a way to have it only work on the bass freqs, but I don't think that's possible?
> 
> The Audyssey ref. curve is definitely flatter in the bass than no EQ, but sometimes I find that pure direct has more kick to it, even without the sub. Probably that 100 Hz hump?


Forget what the dip is "supposed to do". What counts is what you hear and whether what you hear works for you. The idea is to enjoy the sound and if you're not doing that then something is wrong. 

Also don't worry about the measurements too much. As Mike said, they can be a good aid in trouble shooting but the aim is not to get a nice looking plot on a graph, it's to get sound you enjoy a bit more. You'd rather be listening than looking at plots, right? Then worry about how things sound rather than how the plots look because the plots are never going to look as good as your system can sound.

Re DEQ and brightness: the app lets you choose between 2 high frequency roll off curves, doesn't it? If you're using the one with least roll off then try the other curve because the end result with DEQ will be a less bright high frequency range. It still may be a bit too bright for you but it may be less bright. Strangely a slight lift in the trim level for the subs may help with that because it's going to change your perception of the whole frequency range. If you're already using the curve with the most rolloff then try the lift in the subs anyway, simply to see if that change in perception of the overall balance does the trick for you.


----------



## mthomas47

+1

Invincible, I think you are getting (if getting isn't an understatement ) a little too obsessed with your frequency response. That's why people refer to this sort of thing as falling down the rabbit hole (re Alice in Wonderland). FR and good sound quality are not the same thing. If your ears detect a problem, or if you are curious what a flatter response sounds like, measurements can help you to define things and trouble-shoot them. But, if you are relying on measurements to tell you what "ought" to sound good, then that's going to be a long road with no good ending. Only your ears can tell you that one.


----------



## torii

any link to a confirmed "what audyssey cant do"?


----------



## CherylJosie

torii said:


> any link to a confirmed "what audyssey cant do"?


No EQ can fix a modal null or boundary reflection interference. Only acoustics (room shape, speaker/listening position, multiple subwoofers, acoustic treatments) can fix those.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> Forget what the dip is "supposed to do". What counts is what you hear and whether what you hear works for you. The idea is to enjoy the sound and if you're not doing that then something is wrong.
> 
> Also don't worry about the measurements too much. As Mike said, they can be a good aid in trouble shooting but the aim is not to get a nice looking plot on a graph, it's to get sound you enjoy a bit more. You'd rather be listening than looking at plots, right? Then worry about how things sound rather than how the plots look because the plots are never going to look as good as your system can sound.
> 
> Re DEQ and brightness: the app lets you choose between 2 high frequency roll off curves, doesn't it? If you're using the one with least roll off then try the other curve because the end result with DEQ will be a less bright high frequency range. It still may be a bit too bright for you but it may be less bright. Strangely a slight lift in the trim level for the subs may help with that because it's going to change your perception of the whole frequency range. If you're already using the curve with the most rolloff then try the lift in the subs anyway, simply to see if that change in perception of the overall balance does the trick for you.





mthomas47 said:


> +1
> 
> Invincible, I think you are getting (if getting isn't an understatement ) a little too obsessed with your frequency response. That's why people refer to this sort of thing as falling down the rabbit hole (re Alice in Wonderland). FR and good sound quality are not the same thing. If your ears detect a problem, or if you are curious what a flatter response sounds like, measurements can help you to define things and trouble-shoot them. But, if you are relying on measurements to tell you what "ought" to sound good, then that's going to be a long road with no good ending. Only your ears can tell you that one.


Thanks. I know what you mean about the rabbit hole, haha. I've been off this week, so I've had a lot of free time to putz around.

I did decide to use the curve with the larger rolloff. As for the rest of the EQ, if I play a recording that sounds a little harsh, it seems having Audyssey on reduces that a little compared to pure direct. Not sure if the midrange comp. is responsible for that, or something else Audyssey is doing. I wish I could flip between two reference curves quickly, but that doesn't seem possible since I can only end one at a time to the AVR. It makes comparing very difficult. Anyway, I think pure mode and the reference curve both sound good, so I will probably use both depending on my mood or the material.


----------



## David Aiken

torii said:


> any link to a confirmed "what audyssey cant do"?


It can't satisfy everyone. It's based on listening preferences from a sample of people and different people have different preferences. If your preferences agree with those of a large proportion of the people sampled then you'll probably like Audyssey Reference. If your preferences don't agree with a large proportion of the people sampled then you most probably won't like Audyssey Reference.

If you don't like Audyssey Reference there's Audyssey Flat or you can turn Audyssey off and go with the basic setup and tone controls. You've got some flexibility but it's never going to satisfy everyone.

And no other standardised, automated room correction system is going to satisfy everyone either but some of them may satisfy a particular individual more than Audyssey does.


----------



## In.vincible

Am I going to run into any problems with movies if I do something like this? Using the app, I set the cutoff for my mains to 500 Hz, so nothing above that is getting EQ'd. I left my center fully EQ'd from 20-20 kHz with the mid dip. At first, I tried running the center up to only 500 Hz, but the dialogue definitely sounded worse.

Music seems to sound a little better and more natural when I only let Audyssey EQ the bass region. According to REW measurements, most of the wonkiness in my room is going on below about 300 Hz, so I don't think Audyssey is doing a whole lot at the high end anyway (besides the HF rolloff), but my speakers are laid back at the top end as is.

**EDIT**

I think this is the magic sauce for music. 2-channel stuff is sounding very good. I did go back to DEQ at -10 dB offset. I think it's necessary to keep music from sounding too thin. Got my sub boosted just a little, and bass is phenomenal.


----------



## garygarrison

IMWhizzle said:


> Here are more pictures of my room and placement of the speakers at the moment. I'm not sure if I should toe in the surrounds or not.


My guess is that you should toe-in the surrounds. My left surr is aimed at the left ear of the person sitting in the center seat, and my right surr at that person's right ear. Sounds good with a film with good surround. It wouldn't hurt to try. When in doubt, try!

Your room looks like it would be better acoustically than before. Those slippers probably improve it quite a bit.


----------



## IMWhizzle

garygarrison said:


> My guess is that you should toe-in the surrounds. My left surr is aimed at the left ear of the person sitting in the center seat, and my right surr at that person's right ear. Sounds good with a film with good surround. It wouldn't hurt to try. When in doubt, try!
> 
> Your room looks like it would be better acoustically than before. Those slippers probably improve it quite a bit.




Thanks! I actually did what you've stated above. Waiting for my pair of Klipsch RP-140SA which will arrive any second now. After installation I will calibrate. So exciting!

Here are pictures of the current placement:


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> ... sometimes I find that pure direct has more kick to it, even without the sub. Probably that 100 Hz hump?


And with DEQ off, but Audyssey on, you can probably trade in your 90 Hz dip for a 100 Hz bump by using the bass control. Try it; you may get a kick out of it!


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Am I going to run into any problems with movies if I do something like this? Using the app, I set the cutoff for my mains to 500 Hz, so nothing above that is getting EQ'd. I left my center fully EQ'd from 20-20 kHz with the mid dip. At first, I tried running the center up to only 500 Hz, but the dialogue definitely sounded worse.
> 
> Music seems to sound a little better and more natural when I only let Audyssey EQ the bass region. According to REW measurements, most of the wonkiness in my room is going on below about 300 Hz, so I don't think Audyssey is doing a whole lot at the high end anyway (besides the HF rolloff), but my speakers are laid back at the top end as is.
> 
> **EDIT**
> 
> I think this is the magic sauce for music. 2-channel stuff is sounding very good. I did go back to DEQ at -10 dB offset. I think it's necessary to keep music from sounding too thin. Got my sub boosted just a little, and bass is phenomenal.


The only real problem is if you don't like the result. You have to make your mind up about that. 

There are 2 types of room problems. Below 300-500 Hz or so the problems have to do with bass modes causing uneven response with large peaks and dips in the room response. Above that the problems start to come down to things like imaging issues and brightness caused by uneven absorption at all frequencies and high reflectance at high frequencies, plus asymmetrical reflection patterns which affect the sound from different speakers differently. You can see the bass problems in a plot quite easily but some of the problems at higher frequencies can't be all that easily seen in a plot.

You seem to have found a combination of settings that work for you. That's what you're chasing. Now's the time to stop playing with changes and start some long term listening with the setup you now have, at least a week or so in order to get familiar with the sound because it takes time to do that and until you do that you won't be able to form a clear idea of what you now have and what you think could be improved. Stop experimenting and spend a week or two listening to as wide a range of stuff as you can in order to get familiar with what you've got before you start thinking about more changes. 

And from here on in if you're going to change something make only one change at a time so you know what you're doing and what effect that change has. Make 2 or more changes at once and it can be hard to work out which change did what and you may need to know which change did what when the result of changing 2 or more things at once is a combination of improvements and some things you don't like.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Your room looks like it would be better acoustically than before. Those slippers probably improve it quite a bit.


Significant improvement can be reached by placing another pair of slippers on the right side. Remember, a HT system is all about symmetry!


----------



## IMWhizzle

Okay, I just finished up calibrating all speakers with Audyssey. Thanks David for the golden tips, my system never sounded so good! I ended up preferring the flat curve for everything with dynamic eq on.

But the subwoofer is a different story. When I am standing the sub sounds good (after calibration) and then I sit down on my MLP and the bass bass less character and sort collapses. Adding a 3db boost helped a little. How is this possible, without Audyssey on the sub sounds good but the sprinkle which my latest calibration brings on the rest of the speakers is sort of gone. What can I do to change this? Should I play with the sub distance setting? How much?


----------



## muzz

Sub Crawl


----------



## IMWhizzle

muzz said:


> Sub Crawl




No, it helped to add 4db to the sub channel. I already did the subcrawl.


----------



## ma1746

I have goldenear triton 7's and a supercenter xl center up front. They have an internal crossover of 3.5khz, would they benefit from using audyssey flat? Or only equalizing up to like 200-400hz? I'm learning, but I believe the audyssey dup was designed for speakers with internal crossovers at 2khz correct?


----------



## mthomas47

torii said:


> any link to a confirmed "what audyssey cant do"?


+1 to CherylJosie's post. But, the theoretical aspects of what Audyssey or other automated room correction systems "can't" do is not as interesting to me as the empirical observation of what it can or can't do in a specific situation. For instance, I have seen advocates of room treatments strenuously arguing against the value of room EQ, as if room treatments and room EQ were mutually exclusive. I believe that they are complimentary.

I have also heard two-channel enthusiasts take the same kind of blanket approach: that room EQ is somehow going to impair the "natural" sound of their speakers, where it will actually be trying to minimize the invidious effects of the room on the sound which reaches the listener. And, I have heard various individuals theorize that frequencies above 400Hz, or in some cases, above 1000Hz, shouldn't be EQed because the EQ may potentially do more harm than good.

All of those viewpoints share one thing in common. They are all before-the-fact generalizations, rather than after-the-fact observations. Audyssey, or Dirac, or Room Perfect, or any other system of automated room EQ, may or may not work in a specific situation. As CherylJosie pointed out, that depends on room geometry, system and system setup, whether or not there are any room treatments, etc. But, we can only determine the actual efficacy of room correction on a case-by-case basis.

I am disappointed for any poster who tries to employ Audyssey, and who fails to get a satisfactory result. But, I am not disappointed for Audyssey, because it is just a tool. And no tool is perfect for every job, or works to the complete satisfaction of every user. One of the things that I think the members of this thread have done a good job of, over the years, is to help each other troubleshoot Audyssey-related issues on a case-by-case basis. Generally, issues relate to setup, or to calibration technique. Occasionally, they relate to the nature of the room itself, or just as importantly to user preference, which I believe is unchallengeable. But, the real efficacy of Audyssey, in a specific room, for a specific user, is something that can only be tested--and not simply hypothesized, in my opinion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> Okay, I just finished up calibrating all speakers with Audyssey. Thanks David for the golden tips, my system never sounded so good! I ended up preferring the flat curve for everything with dynamic eq on.
> 
> But the subwoofer is a different story. When I am standing the sub sounds good (after calibration) and then I sit down on my MLP and the bass bass less character and sort collapses. Adding a 3db boost helped a little. How is this possible, without Audyssey on the sub sounds good but the sprinkle which my latest calibration brings on the rest of the speakers is sort of gone. What can I do to change this? Should I play with the sub distance setting? How much?


I don't know. If you haven't already done so, please read the subwoofer guide, linked below, which explains why a sub boost is necessary post-calibration. Please also give us some detail about your calibration technique, including the microphone pattern, and how close the mic was to the sofa, etc.

You can play with different settings, such as Audyssey Flat, and the tone controls, but I think it would be best to start with fundamentals and work our way to the settings afterwards. As explained in my post above, most but not all, Audyssey-related issues can be traced to setup or calibration problems. So, let's stay with those for a bit.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Rereading what you wrote, I think that I am misinterpreted something. I think you are saying that you now enjoy Audyssey for everything except your subwoofer. If so, then the guide will definitely help you to understand this problem better. Different people seem to need/prefer different amounts of sub boost. That probably depends on a number of different factors. But, once we understand why some sub boost is likely to be needed after an Audyssey calibration, it is a simple matter to experiment to find out the best way to achieve it.

In your specific case, a sub boost of 3db to 6db (with DEQ engaged) would put you right in the average range that most people use. Depending on your master volume level, and the specific program material involved, you might also want to experiment with the RLO settings, or with DEQ off, and an even more sizeable sub boost. When it comes to how much bass a particular individual needs to hear in a particular room, with a particular soundtrack, at a particular volume level, a generalized algorithm such as Audyssey's DEQ can only take us so far. And then, we have to experiment with tweaking our bass to find out what we actually prefer.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> The only real problem is if you don't like the result. You have to make your mind up about that.
> 
> There are 2 types of room problems. Below 300-500 Hz or so the problems have to do with bass modes causing uneven response with large peaks and dips in the room response. Above that the problems start to come down to things like imaging issues and brightness caused by uneven absorption at all frequencies and high reflectance at high frequencies, plus asymmetrical reflection patterns which affect the sound from different speakers differently. You can see the bass problems in a plot quite easily but some of the problems at higher frequencies can't be all that easily seen in a plot.
> 
> You seem to have found a combination of settings that work for you. That's what you're chasing. Now's the time to stop playing with changes and start some long term listening with the setup you now have, at least a week or so in order to get familiar with the sound because it takes time to do that and until you do that you won't be able to form a clear idea of what you now have and what you think could be improved. Stop experimenting and spend a week or two listening to as wide a range of stuff as you can in order to get familiar with what you've got before you start thinking about more changes.
> 
> And from here on in if you're going to change something make only one change at a time so you know what you're doing and what effect that change has. Make 2 or more changes at once and it can be hard to work out which change did what and you may need to know which change did what when the result of changing 2 or more things at once is a combination of improvements and some things you don't like.


I think no EQ above 500 Hz sounds better on my mains for music. For movies, though, I'm not sure having the center fully EQ'd (with the midrange dip) is the best way to go. It seems like the fronts and center wouldn't blend as well this way. I only watched one TV show last night, but things did sound a little weird in a few spots. Not sure if it was just my imagination.


----------



## In.vincible

Played with things a bit...I think leaving full EQ on the center is the way to go. I tried turning off midrange comp on the center while leaving XT32 on, and dialogue became muddled and harder to hear. I switched MRC back on, and dialogue stood out more and became clearer.

As for the two front speakers, EQ-ing them only up to 500 Hz sounds wonderful for music. I think this is the sound I've been after. Music just sounds "right" now, and the bass region is amazing


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> I think no EQ above 500 Hz sounds better on my mains for music. For movies, though, I'm not sure having the center fully EQ'd (with the midrange dip) is the best way to go. It seems like the fronts and center wouldn't blend as well this way. I only watched one TV show last night, but things did sound a little weird in a few spots. Not sure if it was just my imagination.





In.vincible said:


> Played with things a bit...I think leaving full EQ on the center is the way to go. I tried turning off midrange comp on the center while leaving XT32 on, and dialogue became muddled and harder to hear. I switched MRC back on, and dialogue stood out more and became clearer.
> 
> As for the two front speakers, EQ-ing them only up to 500 Hz sounds wonderful for music. I think this is the sound I've been after. Music just sounds "right" now, and the bass region is amazing


Years ago I got into surround by starting with 2.1, going to 4.1, then to 5.1 and eventually for a while going to 6.1 before returning to 5.1. Each time I experimented by adding a pair of speakers I had spare and then buying speakers which matched my original mains. For the centre I borrowed a centre from my dealer but it didn't match the mains. Even though I used Audyssey it drove me crazy every time voices panned to or from the centre speaker from the front left or right because there was a noticeable change in the tonal character of the voice. I bought the matching centre for my mains and the problem went away.

If you do not apply EQ to the front speakers above 500 Hz and you fully EQ the centre, I suspect you're going to end up with some kind of tonal mismatch between the fronts and centre speakers. If the speakers are matched and if EQ isn't doing much in the vocal range then it may not be noticeable or only noticeable rarely. The problem with the midrange dip area is that it is in a significant range for voices, it's actually in the area where you first start to notice hearing loss for noise related hearing damage and the first hint that people with noise related hearing damage get that they do have a problem is difficulty hearing and understanding voices. Since the centre speaker plays a big role for dialogue I would be very cautious about creating differences in EQ between the centre and front speakers below around 5-5 kHz for multi-channel content because I would expect it to create problems with tonal shifts in voices as they pan from one speaker to another. How big a tonal shift you get is going to depend on the difference in EQ and how much it bothers you may vary quite a bit from person to person. I seem to pay a fair amount of attention to vocal tone so I may be more sensitive than many in this area but it is something to keep an eye (or ear) out for.

There are quite a few people who thing that the best strategy for room correction via EQ is to only EQ from 500 or 1000 Hz on down in order to smooth problems in the room at bass frequencies but to not touch the rest of the frequency range and you obviously fall into that group. I've never had a setup that allowed me to try that approach but I do run a separate music system with no electronic room correction in an acoustically treated room and I prefer that for music to the way music sounds on the AV system which uses Audyssey. Differences in preference for music and movies aren't uncommon, in fact I'd say they are relatively common. I don't know how easy it is to change Audyssey EQ settings using the app but if it is relatively easy you may find that your preferred approach is to use one EQ strategy for movies and another for music and just swap between them as needed. Effectively that's the kind of thing I do when I watch movies in one room and listen to music in another.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> Years ago I got into surround by starting with 2.1, going to 4.1, then to 5.1 and eventually for a while going to 6.1 before returning to 5.1. Each time I experimented by adding a pair of speakers I had spare and then buying speakers which matched my original mains. For the centre I borrowed a centre from my dealer but it didn't match the mains. Even though I used Audyssey it drove me crazy every time voices panned to or from the centre speaker from the front left or right because there was a noticeable change in the tonal character of the voice. I bought the matching centre for my mains and the problem went away.
> 
> If you do not apply EQ to the front speakers above 500 Hz and you fully EQ the centre, I suspect you're going to end up with some kind of tonal mismatch between the fronts and centre speakers. If the speakers are matched and if EQ isn't doing much in the vocal range then it may not be noticeable or only noticeable rarely. The problem with the midrange dip area is that it is in a significant range for voices, it's actually in the area where you first start to notice hearing loss for noise related hearing damage and the first hint that people with noise related hearing damage get that they do have a problem is difficulty hearing and understanding voices. Since the centre speaker plays a big role for dialogue I would be very cautious about creating differences in EQ between the centre and front speakers below around 5-5 kHz for multi-channel content because I would expect it to create problems with tonal shifts in voices as they pan from one speaker to another. How big a tonal shift you get is going to depend on the difference in EQ and how much it bothers you may vary quite a bit from person to person. I seem to pay a fair amount of attention to vocal tone so I may be more sensitive than many in this area but it is something to keep an eye (or ear) out for.
> 
> There are quite a few people who thing that the best strategy for room correction via EQ is to only EQ from 500 or 1000 Hz on down in order to smooth problems in the room at bass frequencies but to not touch the rest of the frequency range and you obviously fall into that group. I've never had a setup that allowed me to try that approach but I do run a separate music system with no electronic room correction in an acoustically treated room and I prefer that for music to the way music sounds on the AV system which uses Audyssey. Differences in preference for music and movies aren't uncommon, in fact I'd say they are relatively common. I don't know how easy it is to change Audyssey EQ settings using the app but if it is relatively easy you may find that your preferred approach is to use one EQ strategy for movies and another for music and just swap between them as needed. Effectively that's the kind of thing I do when I watch movies in one room and listen to music in another.


The tonal mismatch thing was kind of what I was worried about, but it doesn't seem too noticeable so far; I'll have to watch more. I'm kind of in a pickle because I don't want to fully EQ my mains for music, but I'm OK with them being fully EQ'd for movies. I really wish we could save at least two custom curves in the AVR.

If I only EQ'd my center to 500 Hz like the mains, I probably wouldn't have the tonal problems, but it sounds like Audyssey really cleans up the center channel sound and dialogue, so I kind of want to keep full EQ on the center.

Guess I will see how it goes. My only other option is to run full EQ on all speakers, and just use bypass L/R for music. Only problem with that is, the bass on my mains won't be getting EQ'd, and I don't think it sounds as good without it.


----------



## In.vincible

Just set my center Audyssey cutoff to 500 Hz, too, and the front soundstage definitely blends better. I will probably have to listen for a while and judge from there. Maybe my ears just need to adjust to the sound.


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> The tonal mismatch thing was kind of what I was worried about, but it doesn't seem too noticeable so far; I'll have to watch more. I'm kind of in a pickle because *I don't want to fully EQ my mains for music, but I'm OK with them being fully EQ'd for movies.* I really wish we could save at least two custom curves in the AVR.


Please note, there is no such a thing like EQ'ing for contents. A room EQ will take care of room/speaker interaction, but will have no effect on the program material itself, whatever it is, regardless of it being movie or music. Once you get the grasp of the above you will be able to trace your room vs. speaker setup anomalies and will successfully handle all issues that are in the way of your audio enjoyment.

On another note, we all know by now that the music industry is all over the map. Some recordings sound awesome on our systems while others lack bass, or carry no proper sound stage imaging, etc. Simply saying: garbage in - garbage out. Nothing we can do about it. Unfortunately. Live with it or dump it. A room EQ'd to perfection will regretfully show how bad some recordings are and the blame only goes to those who released that recording.


----------



## garygarrison

ma1746 said:


> I have goldenear triton 7's and a supercenter xl center up front. They have an internal crossover of 3.5khz, would they benefit from using audyssey flat? Or only equalizing up to like 200-400hz? I'm learning, but I believe the audyssey dup was designed for speakers with internal crossovers at 2khz correct?


Although Audyssey designed "midrange compensation" assuming that a great number of speakers have a crossover at about 2K, and although the BBC may have created the "BBC dip" for similar reasons (some writers deny it), Audyssey's Chris K claimed that he had never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with Audyssey's version of the dip. 

In my room, with my speakers, at my main listening position I prefer Audyssey Flat with some subwoofer boost after Audyssey calibration, and some boost of the bass control (which can only be used with DEQ off). With a few movies of the '50s, and '60s that had magnetic soundtracks, I prefer Audyssey Reference (i.e., just plain Audyssey), because there is a bit of treble distortion on some of these tracks (even the best theater and movie control room speakers rolled off above 10K or 12K Hz in those days, so it's possible that the original film mixers didn't hear the distortion). The Audyssey Reference treble roll-off (- 2 dB at 10K, -6 dB at 20K) helps with these. With virtually all modern movies, I prefer Audyssey Flat. Garbage in, garbage out -- unless you stop some of the garbage. I realize that Audyssey Reference is not intended to be a way to deal with magnetic soundtracks, but it does stop some of the garbage. Whatever works.

IMO, you should try all possibilities, especially if you have the app. Only you will be able to determine what is best in your room*;* see Mike's post on that topic (post # 2860).


----------



## ma1746

garygarrison said:


> Although Audyssey designed "midrange compensation" assuming that a great number of speakers have a crossover at about 2K, and although the BBC may have created the "BBC dip" for similar reasons (some writers deny it), Audyssey's Chris K claimed that he had never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with Audyssey's version of the dip.
> 
> In my room, with my speakers, at my main listening position I prefer Audyssey Flat with some subwoofer boost after Audyssey calibration, and some boost of the bass control (which can only be used with DEQ off). With a few movies of the '50s, and '60s that had magnetic soundtracks, I prefer Audyssey Reference (i.e., just plain Audyssey), because there is a bit of treble distortion on some of these tracks (even the best theater and movie control room speakers rolled off above 10K or 12K Hz in those days, so it's possible that the original film mixers didn't hear the distortion). The Audyssey Reference treble roll-off (- 2 dB at 10K, -6 dB at 20K) helps with these. With virtually all modern movies, I prefer Audyssey Flat. Garbage in, garbage out -- unless you stop some of the garbage. I realize that Audyssey Reference is not intended to be a way to deal with magnetic soundtracks, but it does stop some of the garbage. Whatever works.
> 
> IMO, you should try all possibilities, especially if you have the app. Only you will be able to determine what is best in your room*;* see Mike's post on that topic (post # 2860).


Thank you Gary. I do have the App, I'll mess around. Just wanted some background info since I have no idea what I'm doing!


----------



## DS-21

Note to mods: might be useful to make a new sticky thread for the MultEQ Editor app. 

Question about the app: if you disable correction for most or all channels in the app (e.g. nothing on the base layer, correction on the height layer) does DEQ still work for all channels? 

That way you could use DEQ while using an external box (eg miniDSP ddrc88bm or 10x10HD) to set bass management and target curve, but still have loudness compensation (and top layer EQ). And you could do Geddes-style multisub blending with your DSP's matrix router rather than crossovers if your mains are stout enough.


----------



## In.vincible

Does anyone happen to know if DEQ still boosts the treble if I use the app to limit Audyssey filters to a set freq.? I currently have them limited to 500 Hz and below.


----------



## IMWhizzle

Ok, I am done calibrating again and I left the distance and levels as Audyssey found them. I also upped the sub to 75db with my iPhone app and turned Audyssey off. I also added 4db on top of the Atmos elevation modules. The sound is brilliant. It appears that I love the sound of my Klipsch Reference Premiere line as is without eq. The sound is very big and detailed. Dynamic eq created to much in the surrounds which sounded off balance. Even without it, the sound just wasn't to my liking. My Marantz 6010 doesn't support the app so I did not have the ability to change one of the curves.

And yes, the sub sounds better a couple of inches closer to the wall on all seats. It doesn't matter if I sit or stand. That was the case with Audyssey on.

So off for me.


----------



## mthomas47

In.vincible said:


> Does anyone happen to know if DEQ still boosts the treble if I use the app to limit Audyssey filters to a set freq.? I currently have them limited to 500 Hz and below.


Now that really is a good use of measurements. Why don't you measure it both ways and see? I would expect that the app would override the EQ, but you should be able to determine that.


----------



## gurkey

@In.vincible
Loudness correction and room EQ (Audyssey etc.) usually don't have anything in common, because they serve completely different purposes. 
Thus I wouldn't expect that limiting Audysseys correction range would influence DEQs effectiveness in this respect. 
If it does I rather would interpret this as a bug, because DEQ would need specific switches to alter its behavior in certain respects.


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> @*In.vincible*
> Loudness correction and room EQ (Audyssey etc.) usually don't have anything in common, because they serve completely different purposes.
> Thus I wouldn't expect that limiting Audysseys correction range would influence DEQs effectiveness in this respect.
> If it does I rather would interpret this as a bug, because DEQ would need specific switches to alter its behavior in certain respects.


I think you are right about that. Shaping the frequency response would not be the same thing as shaping DEQ. The best method there would probably be to introduce more high frequency roll-off, if he wanted to off-set DEQ's treble boost. DEQ's treble boost is so mild, though, that I am a little surprised that it would cause much of an audible issue. At a listening level of -10, for instance, it appears from the graph in the FAQ that DEQ would boost a little less than 2db at frequencies above 10KHz. I have always considered that a pretty negligible boost, particularly for such high frequencies, but I suppose a lot could depend on the relative brightness of the room and/or speakers to start with.


----------



## CherylJosie

In.vincible said:


> Am I going to run into any problems with movies if I do something like this? Using the app, I set the cutoff for my mains to 500 Hz, so nothing above that is getting EQ'd. I left my center fully EQ'd from 20-20 kHz with the mid dip. At first, I tried running the center up to only 500 Hz, but the dialogue definitely sounded worse.
> 
> Music seems to sound a little better and more natural when I only let Audyssey EQ the bass region. According to REW measurements, most of the wonkiness in my room is going on below about 300 Hz, so I don't think Audyssey is doing a whole lot at the high end anyway (besides the HF rolloff), but my speakers are laid back at the top end as is.
> 
> **EDIT**
> 
> I think this is the magic sauce for music. 2-channel stuff is sounding very good. I did go back to DEQ at -10 dB offset. I think it's necessary to keep music from sounding too thin. Got my sub boosted just a little, and bass is phenomenal.


Receivers already make changes to the sound mode for music vs movies. For example, music sound mode blends the front l/c/r together for a more panoramic image, and DTS (on some receivers anyway) allows for manual adjustment of redirecting the center speaker signal toward the l/r channels (toward phantom center) in music mode, over a range of 5 of gradations.

EQ applied to the bass only will accomplish most of what room EQ is supposed to do anyway, fix the lumpiness in the modal region. Also maybe your center speaker has some frequency response or cabinet resonance issues that are tamed by some midrange attenuation. Hard to say without more measurements and being there to listen.

If it sounds good to you it is fine. Stop worrying and just do what works. You might want to spend a while listening to the system with no EQ at all though, just to get a feel for what the room and speakers themselves are actually doing. That might give you a better idea of what needs to be fixed.

I find that listening with no EQ makes the room and speakers re-appear. When I have my EQ on, they tend to vanish. What you want to happen is your room and speakers vanish and there is nothing but the sound of the program.

If you are having issues hearing the dialog, sometimes repositioning your center speaker can help, or re-orienting it vertically. Depends.


----------



## CherylJosie

Or you can always turn up the center channel level too.


----------



## CherylJosie

mogorf said:


> Significant improvement can be reached by placing another pair of slippers on the right side. Remember, a HT system is all about symmetry!


Even better is having another warm body inside those slippers.


----------



## CherylJosie

IMWhizzle said:


> When I am standing the sub sounds good (after calibration) and then I sit down on my MLP and the bass bass less character and sort collapses. Adding a 3db boost helped a little. How is this possible, without Audyssey on the sub sounds good but the sprinkle which my latest calibration brings on the rest of the speakers is sort of gone. What can I do to change this? Should I play with the sub distance setting? How much?


What you are experiencing is most likely a modal null or boundary reflection in the floor-to-ceiling dimension causing a dip in bass at ear height when seated.

The only thing you can do to 'fix' this is to reposition the speakers and listeners, but you can partially compensate by boosting the bass.

If you can post some measurements we can provide more help.

Audyssey canned target often leaves people underwhelmed with the bass. Boosting the subwoofer helps, but does not fix this problem. Also, the integration from sub to bass limited channels often has a dip due to phase mismatch interference. The EQ will not detect or fix this, but you can help by measuring and/or listening while changing the crossover frequency. Any phase anomaly between subwoofer and bass limited speaker is a potential source of positional frequency response changes also, but most likely in the crossover region or above, since the wavelengths are very long and small changes in position have little effect on longer wavelengths, at least regarding phase mismatch anyway.


----------



## CherylJosie

In.vincible said:


> Does anyone happen to know if DEQ still boosts the treble if I use the app to limit Audyssey filters to a set freq.? I currently have them limited to 500 Hz and below.


My receiver allows me to use DEQ and DV with Audyssey completely disabled. I suspect you are fine doing what you are doing.


----------



## mthomas47

CherylJosie said:


> My receiver allows me to use DEQ and DV with Audyssey completely disabled. I suspect you are fine doing what you are doing.


I don't think I have heard of that option being available prior to this. What receiver is that?


----------



## In.vincible

mthomas47 said:


> I think you are right about that. Shaping the frequency response would not be the same thing as shaping DEQ. The best method there would probably be to introduce more high frequency roll-off, if he wanted to off-set DEQ's treble boost. DEQ's treble boost is so mild, though, that I am a little surprised that it would cause much of an audible issue. At a listening level of -10, for instance, it appears from the graph in the FAQ that DEQ would boost a little less than 2db at frequencies above 10KHz. I have always considered that a pretty negligible boost, particularly for such high frequencies, but I suppose a lot could depend on the relative brightness of the room and/or speakers to start with.


I would measure it, but I'd have to re-send the curve to my AVR, measure, than re-send the custom curve, measure, etc. Kind of a PITA. Whatever DEQ is doing at the moment, I'm OK with it. Treble doesn't sound too boosted or harsh. I think the biggest change I made was limiting Audyssey to 500 Hz. Music never sounded better on my system.

I did try listening with no EQ at all, and the bass is no nearly as smooth. My speakers or room have a hump around 100 Hz which sounds pretty good on some music, but the rest of the bass region is peaky. EQ is very helpful in that area for sure.


----------



## CherylJosie

mthomas47 said:


> I don't think I have heard of that option being available prior to this. What receiver is that?


Onkyo TX-NR929.


----------



## In.vincible

Has anyone noticed DEQ causing dialogue intelligibility issues? I noticed that on some TV shows, the dialogue sounds a little muddy, male voices in particular. I turned it off, and clarity seems to have increased. Changing the reference offset didn't do a whole lot. Maybe some of this is due to the fact TV isn't mixed at the same levels as movies, so DEQ struggles with it a bit? I may turn it off for blurays as well.

It's kind of funny; I used to like DEQ for movies, but not for music. Now, I've flip flopped. I'm liking it for music, but not so much for TV/movies.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Can someone please explain how to use the audyssey app? I see the app was released for Iphone and Android. But how do you use the app with your amplifier? 

Audyssey cable goes to the amp, but what about the phone? How does the app know what the frequency response looks like? I guess I'm not understanding something here. Just trying to figure out how to connect everything up here. 

Can you run the Audyssey app on the PC/notebook? Please explain to a layman like me how this is done thanks! Sorry if I'm really asking stupid questions.


----------



## primetimeguy

In.vincible said:


> Has anyone noticed DEQ causing dialogue intelligibility issues? I noticed that on some TV shows, the dialogue sounds a little muddy, male voices in particular. I turned it off, and clarity seems to have increased. Changing the reference offset didn't do a whole lot. Maybe some of this is due to the fact TV isn't mixed at the same levels as movies, so DEQ struggles with it a bit? I may turn it off for blurays as well.
> 
> It's kind of funny; I used to like DEQ for movies, but not for music. Now, I've flip flopped. I'm liking it for music, but not so much for TV/movies.


A couple possibilities. The added bass boost is muddying things up for you some. Or the added surround boost is adding more energy to the rear making it harder to hear and focus on the front. Try turning the surrounds down a couple db with DEQ engaged. 

You could also try the music/flat curve which removes the midrange compensation dip which can muddy dialog too. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## primetimeguy

Stephan Mire said:


> Can someone please explain how to use the audyssey app? I see the app was released for Iphone and Android. But how do you use the app with your amplifier?
> 
> Audyssey cable goes to the amp, but what about the phone? How does the app know what the frequency response looks like? I guess I'm not understanding something here. Just trying to figure out how to connect everything up here.
> 
> Can you run the Audyssey app on the PC/notebook? Please explain to a layman like me how this is done thanks! Sorry if I'm really asking stupid questions.


Mic is connected to receiver as usual, but after each measurement the receiver sends the info to the phone app. 

No it cannot run on a PC. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Skylinestar

What's up with Audyssey XT32 boosting the highs from 2KHz-8KHz on my right speaker? Should I re-adjust my right speaker toe-in? Or shall I ignore it? The left speaker is flat though.

(The L & R speakers are symmetrically placed, same toe-in and at the same height.)


----------



## mogorf

Skylinestar said:


> What's up with Audyssey XT32 boosting the highs from 2KHz-8KHz on my right speaker? Should I re-adjust my right speaker toe-in? Or shall I ignore it? The left speaker is flat though.
> 
> (The L & R speakers are symmetrically placed, same toe-in and at the same height.)


Seems you have a dead tweeter. Try listening closely to the right speaker to detect whether you can hear highs from that speaker or not.


----------



## Skylinestar

mogorf said:


> Seems you have a dead tweeter. Try listening closely to the right speaker to detect whether you can hear highs from that speaker or not.


If the tweeter is dead, why >8KHz seems normal?
From my ear, the highs are OK. I'm running phantom center. If the R tweeter is dead, it will be obvious in all soundtracks.


----------



## mogorf

Skylinestar said:


> If the tweeter is dead, why >8KHz seems normal?
> From my ear, the highs are OK. I'm running phantom center. If the R tweeter is dead, it will be obvious in all soundtracks.


Can you swap the right & left speakers to see if the problem follows? Easier to change speaker cables on the back of the AVR.


----------



## Skylinestar

mogorf said:


> Can you swap the right & left speakers to see if the problem follows? Easier to change speaker cables on the back of the AVR.


Haven't tried that but will do.
Too bad I forgot to take the Pre-Audyssey measurements.
But here's one thing: Diagonally opposite the right speaker is an upright piano with gloss finish. Not sure if it will seriously skew the measurement. I'll try more experiment such as covering the piano will blankets. The females in my family will not love it.


----------



## butie120

Hi. Can anyone tell me how much Audyssey flattens out the frequency response of speakers? If someone say designs a speaker to play generally flat, and then someone buys a speaker that is not as flat across the range, does Audyssey essentially flatten it out to make it sound almost as good as the other speaker?


I guess I'm just curious how much the technology of Audyssey can help out a speaker that doesn't sound very good out of the box. Thanks!


----------



## mogorf

butie120 said:


> Hi. Can anyone tell me how much Audyssey flattens out the frequency response of speakers? If someone say designs a speaker to play generally flat, and then someone buys a speaker that is not as flat across the range, does Audyssey essentially flatten it out to make it sound almost as good as the other speaker?
> 
> 
> I guess I'm just curious how much the technology of Audyssey can help out a speaker that doesn't sound very good out of the box. Thanks!


First of all Audyssey does not flatten out a speaker, but it attempts to EQ the speaker to the room. You put the same speaker into another room and Audyssey will EQ it differently and it will EQ it differently even if you move it in your room.

Even in the above case I think you won't get a definite answer to your original question, at least not easily. Measurements are always there to (roughly) verify what Audyssey is doing to your speakers in your room.


----------



## David Aiken

Skylinestar said:


> What's up with Audyssey XT32 boosting the highs from 2KHz-8KHz on my right speaker? Should I re-adjust my right speaker toe-in? Or shall I ignore it? The left speaker is flat though.
> 
> (The L & R speakers are symmetrically placed, same toe-in and at the same height.)


You said they are symmetrically placed but that is positioning. Is the right speaker close to something like an open archway to another area or a doorway that was open during setup, or are there heavy curtains on one or more walls near it or anything else like that? Those things are going to affect what you hear from the speaker at the listening position and Audyssey is a ROOM correction system, not a SPEAKER correction system. The room affects the sound and there could be something about the room and its furnishings affecting the right speaker that isn't affecting the left speaker. 

The important question isn't why Audyssey is boosting the highs, it's whether the left and right speakers sound well balanced when you're playing stereo. If they do then Audyssey is correcting something in the room response and I would assume it wasn't a dead tweeter because a dead tweeter is dead, no output, and you will hear a difference.

But since you've said that it the highs sound fine I'd say it's not a dead tweeter and there's something about the room that's absorbing a lot of highs from the right speaker and making it sound weaker in that area than the left speaker does and Audyssyey has corrected the imbalance.


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> You said they are symmetrically placed but that is positioning. Is the right speaker close to something like an open archway to another area or a doorway that was open during setup, or are there heavy curtains on one or more walls near it or anything else like that? Those things are going to affect what you hear from the speaker at the listening position and Audyssey is a ROOM correction system, not a SPEAKER correction system. The room affects the sound and there could be something about the room and its furnishings affecting the right speaker that isn't affecting the left speaker.
> 
> The important question isn't why Audyssey is boosting the highs, it's whether the left and right speakers sound well balanced when you're playing stereo. If they do then Audyssey is correcting something in the room response and I would assume it wasn't a dead tweeter because a dead tweeter is dead, no output, and you will hear a difference.
> 
> But since you've said that it the highs sound fine I'd say it's not a dead tweeter and there's something about the room that's absorbing a lot of highs from the right speaker and making it sound weaker in that area than the left speaker does and Audyssyey has corrected the imbalance.


Skylinestar has an interesting issue here, indeed. Really curious to see the final outcome and the solution. 

As regards a dead tweeter you are right David: dead is dead!! But, IMHO, in a 2-way speaker there still is a woofer that might be pushed by the Audyssey test signals to perform way above the internal crossover (typically somewhere between 2 to 3 kHz), hence the graph showing a 7 dB boost az 5 kHz vs. 1 kHz and rolling off in the same manner as the other good speaker is rolling off. Fortunately Audyssey is testing with a relatively low 75 dB SPL which hopefully will do no harm to the remaining woofer. 

On another note, an upright piano with gloss finish may do a bit of harm to the overall flatness with close proximity to a speaker in the mid to high frequency range, but this is when I usually send a kind request to posters for a photo or two to see the real life layout.


----------



## drh3b

mogorf said:


> Seems you have a dead tweeter. Try listening closely to the right speaker to detect whether you can hear highs from that speaker or not.


When my speaker had a dead tweeter, Audyssey didn't even try to equalize above 1k. Just left it flat, It's a two way, so I guess it's more of a upper midrange/tweeter.

ETA speaker and crossover: Klipsch RC-62 II, crossover 1500 Hz


----------



## mogorf

drh3b said:


> When my speaker had a dead tweeter, Audyssey didn't even try to equalize above 1k. Just left it flat,


We don't know what speaker and internal crossover you had.


----------



## drh3b

mogorf said:


> We don't know what speaker and internal crossover you had.


Klipsch RC-62 II, crossover 1500 Hz


----------



## mogorf

drh3b said:


> Klipsch RC-62 II, crossover 1500 Hz


If crossover for the Klipsch RC-62 II is 1.5 kHz then why did Audyssey stop at 1 kHz. Just askin'.


----------



## drh3b

mogorf said:


> If crossover for the Klipsch RC-62 II is 1.5 kHz then why did Audyssey stop at 1 kHz. Just askin'.


I don't know. That's what I remember from a few months ago. Maybe it was 1500 Hz. All I know, is I got a new speaker, and it worked fine after that. I was just sharing my experience, not sure why you don't seem to believe me.


----------



## mogorf

drh3b said:


> I don't know. That's what a I remember from a few months ago. Maybe it was 1500 Hz. All I know, is I got a new speaker, and it worked fine after that. I was just sharing my experience, not sure why you don't seem to believe me.


I do believe you, I was just asking.  But now you say 1.5 kHz (maybe) and I still believe you. Did you do a REW sweep on that speaker to verify what was going on with a dead tweeter? Just asking again.  

Glad to hear your new speaker works fine!


----------



## In.vincible

I played around with the Audyssey app and set the filter cutoff to 500 Hz on my system. This sounded perfect for 2-ch music, but I don't think it sounded as good for movies/TV. I was always pretty happy with the default Audyssey calibration for movies, but felt music needed work. Anyway, as I spend more time watching TV and movies than listening to 2-ch, it seems I'll have to compromise. I switched back EQ-ing all speakers for the full freq. range and kept the midrange comp. (seems to sound a little better and less harsh this way). Unless anyone has suggestions, my only option for music appears to be running in Bypass L/R mode. This seems like a reasonable compromise. I think I still like the 500 Hz cutoff better, but bypass isn't bad, either. At least my sub is still getting EQ'd, and my mains are unfiltered.

Marantz or Audyssey needs to make it possible to save a couple of custom curves to the AVR. That way I could use reference for movies and my own tweaked one for music. Any chance of that happening in the future?


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> If crossover for the Klipsch RC-62 II is 1.5 kHz then why did Audyssey stop at 1 kHz. Just askin'.


A quick guess: He found out that Audyssey stopped EQing above 1 kHz by looking at the graphs the AVR shows which are pretty lacking in info and that's where the graphs stopped. The graphs show EQ bands and if they show octave bands and one is centred on 1 kHz, the next one would be centred on 2 kHz which is above the crossover so if Audyssey stopped EQing above crossover frequency then there would be no EQ showing at 2 kHz.

So EQ was probably applied up to the crossover, or at least to the point where the mid woofer was 3 dB down in the crossover to the tweeter but the info display we get on the AVR isn't particularly detailed or informative. My bet is that the problem with the statement about where EQ stopped has a lot more to do with the display than where EQ actually stopped being applied which was probably higher than 1 kHZ but a bit lower than 1.5 kHz.


----------



## In.vincible

Bypass mode doesn't sound as good with music as reference. I can tell the bass is not as smooth. Also, I thought the big difference I was hearing between Audyssey on vs pure direct was due to the entire EQ curve, but it turns out that it's the BBC dip. If I disable the dip, Audyssey on sounds almost just like pure direct (but with better bass). Will have to listen more, but it seems like leaving the dip in does mellow things just a bit, which I like. After all the tweaking with the app, I'm pretty much back to default settings, LOL.


----------



## drh3b

David Aiken said:


> A quick guess: He found out that Audyssey stopped EQing above 1 kHz by looking at the graphs the AVR shows which are pretty lacking in info and that's where the graphs stopped. The graphs show EQ bands and if they show octave bands and one is centred on 1 kHz, the next one would be centred on 2 kHz which is above the crossover so if Audyssey stopped EQing above crossover frequency then there would be no EQ showing at 2 kHz.
> 
> So EQ was probably applied up to the crossover, or at least to the point where the mid woofer was 3 dB down in the crossover to the tweeter but the info display we get on the AVR isn't particularly detailed or informative. My bet is that the problem with the statement about where EQ stopped has a lot more to do with the display than where EQ actually stopped being applied which was probably higher than 1 kHZ but a bit lower than 1.5 kHz.


Exactly. The graph goes from 1k to 20k with only marks in between them.


----------



## tezster

Not sure if this is directly related to Audyssey, but I thought I'd ask - if I set the crossover for my front LR channels to 80hz, and I play a 80hz test tone to the L/R speakers, how is the output distributed between the LR speakers and the subwoofer? Does each channel get attenuated -3dB, so the final combined output is 0dB?


----------



## mthomas47

tezster said:


> Not sure if this is directly related to Audyssey, but I thought I'd ask - if I set the crossover for my front LR channels to 80hz, and I play a 80hz test tone to the L/R speakers, how is the output distributed between the LR speakers and the subwoofer? Does each channel get attenuated -3dB, so the final combined output is 0dB?


Hi,

Each channel is calibrated to play at the same volume at the MLP, and except for the .1 LFE channel, each speaker is a separate channel. So, if you are playing at a master volume level of 0, each front speaker should be playing at that volume. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gurkey

Those 80 Hz crossover frequencies are measured at their -3db (F3) points.
Usually the ouputs of subwoofer and speaker will overlap over a certain frequency range depending on the order and corresponding slope of the filters used. Their levels at equivalent frequencies will (should) add up to "0" or a straight line at least in theory. But in reality this doesn't account for some irregularities in the frequency (and phase) responses of both units thus their sum may vary somewhat deviating from "0".


----------



## IMWhizzle

In.vincible said:


> I played around with the Audyssey app and set the filter cutoff to 500 Hz on my system. This sounded perfect for 2-ch music, but I don't think it sounded as good for movies/TV. I was always pretty happy with the default Audyssey calibration for movies, but felt music needed work. Anyway, as I spend more time watching TV and movies than listening to 2-ch, it seems I'll have to compromise. I switched back EQ-ing all speakers for the full freq. range and kept the midrange comp. (seems to sound a little better and less harsh this way). Unless anyone has suggestions, my only option for music appears to be running in Bypass L/R mode. This seems like a reasonable compromise. I think I still like the 500 Hz cutoff better, but bypass isn't bad, either. At least my sub is still getting EQ'd, and my mains are unfiltered.
> 
> Marantz or Audyssey needs to make it possible to save a couple of custom curves to the AVR. That way I could use reference for movies and my own tweaked one for music. Any chance of that happening in the future?




I think with Dirac Live this is possible.


----------



## mogorf

IMWhizzle said:


> I think with Dirac Live this is possible.


I still think you can not EQ a room for contents. No way.  EQ is for speaker-room interaction only.


----------



## In.vincible

IMWhizzle said:


> I think with Dirac Live this is possible.


That would be a nice feature.

Anyway, at the moment, I am just using the default XT32 reference curve. I tried turning off midrange comp., but video content (voices especially) just sound better, maybe more realistic with it on. I will probably just use the ref. curve for music, too, as it sounds pretty good, and mellows the sound just a bit.


----------



## vn800art

I think you would really like Auro3d! Maybe not with only 3 speakers, though! Can't work.
Sorry, but I see you are very ear/musical sensitive!

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## ma1746

In.vincible said:


> That would be a nice feature.
> 
> Anyway, at the moment, I am just using the default XT32 reference curve. I tried turning off midrange comp., but video content (voices especially) just sound better, maybe more realistic with it on. I will probably just use the ref. curve for music, too, as it sounds pretty good, and mellows the sound just a bit.




For me, I much prefer audyssey flat on my x3300. Flat removes the midrange comp and to my ears makes vocals sound much more realistic. The more I read on these forums it seems like more people prefer flat vs reference especially in a small room. Maybe it's a crossover issue with vocals? What are you using for a center?



65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## mogorf

ma1746 said:


> For me, I much prefer audyssey flat on my x3300. Flat removes the midrange comp and to my ears makes vocals sound much more realistic. The more I read on these forums it seems like more people prefer flat vs reference especially in a small room. Maybe it's a crossover issue with vocals? What are you using for a center?


Just out of curiosity what program material are you using to verify the difference between A. reference and A. flat?


----------



## ma1746

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



mogorf said:


> Just out of curiosity what program material are you using to verify the difference between A. reference and A. flat?




Always blu ray/uhd blu ray. I go back and forth between inglorious basterds with dts hdma and pacific rim or sully on uhd with atmos. Those movies have some of the better vocals to my ears. Also the dark knight rises on blu ray has excellent vocals, I'll use that also. I have a small 12x10 room and sit about 7 feet from my center. FYI I also use the Denon iPhone app as it's much easier and faster to switch curves on the fly. Reference to my ears sounded more restrained and less dynamic, not necessarily bad I just prefer flat. 


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## In.vincible

ma1746 said:


> For me, I much prefer audyssey flat on my x3300. Flat removes the midrange comp and to my ears makes vocals sound much more realistic. The more I read on these forums it seems like more people prefer flat vs reference especially in a small room. Maybe it's a crossover issue with vocals? What are you using for a center?
> 
> 
> 
> 65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


Could depend a lot on the speaker. I'm using a Wharfedale 10.CM. All my XOs are set to 80 Hz. I wouldn't say things sound bad without the midrange dip, but I seem to prefer it on. Maybe I'm just used to it because I've been using it for years now. The flat curve is too bright for me; I like the rolled off treble.


----------



## ma1746

In.vincible said:


> Could depend a lot on the speaker. I'm using a Wharfedale 10.CM. All my XOs are set to 80 Hz. I wouldn't say things sound bad without the midrange dip, but I seem to prefer it on. Maybe I'm just used to it because I've been using it for years now. The flat curve is too bright for me; I like the rolled off treble.




That's honestly all that matters man. So many people will tell you how things "should be" etc. if you're happy, run with it. My goldenears have the excellent silky ribbon tweeters which may be why there's no harshness or distracting brightness. My big thing is I don't want audyssey taking anything away from my speakers, which is why I prefer flat. 


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Just out of curiosity what program material are you using to verify the difference between A. reference and A. flat?


Hi Feri,

So much depends on our rooms, and on our individual hearing and hearing preferences, that I don't know that any of us can ever hear what someone else hears. But, if I specifically wanted to hear the difference between Reference and Flat, I would concentrate on high frequency material.

So, I might listen to a violin solo, or to a soprano singing high notes, or to chimes and bells. I think that it would be easier to hear differences with single instruments playing, without the clutter of very much accompaniment. And, I would probably use natural acoustical instruments such as a violin, or chimes, or the human voice, in order to take maximum advantage of familiarity with how things "should" sound.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

ma1746 said:


> That's honestly all that matters man. So many people will tell you how things "should be" etc. if you're happy, run with it. My goldenears have the excellent silky ribbon tweeters which may be why there's no harshness or distracting brightness. My big thing is I don't want audyssey taking anything away from my speakers, which is why I prefer flat.
> 
> 
> 65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


I hear you on that. I was kind of worried about Audyssey taking away the natural sound of my speakers, but it only seems to mellow them out a bit, which I like. I really liked the sound of music with Audyssey only EQ-ing up until about 500 Hz, but it didn't sound as good on movies as full EQ. Since I use the system for both, I figure just sticking with the reference curve is the best option. Not sure if it's my room or my speakers (they're still pretty new), but they sound a little rough sometimes, and the EQ seems to tame that.

I've read good things about those Goldenears  Enjoy!


----------



## vn800art

I've also liked flat, but have also tried L/R bypass and settled with this! Sr7011 btw, Klipsch Cornwall on the front.
Regards
Alessandro

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> So much depends on our rooms, and on our individual hearing and hearing preferences, that I don't know that any of us can ever hear what someone else hears. But, if I specifically wanted to hear the difference between Reference and Flat, I would concentrate on high frequency material.
> 
> So, I might listen to a violin solo, or to a soprano singing high notes, or to chimes and bells. I think that it would be easier to hear differences with single instruments playing, without the clutter of very much accompaniment. And, I would probably use natural acoustical instruments such as a violin, or chimes, or the human voice, in order to take maximum advantage of familiarity with how things "should" sound.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


All of the above sound clearly different in my room, with my speakers, on Audyssey Flat v.s. Audyssey Reference. Cymbal crashes and jingling keys also sound very different when played with those two options. I prefer Audyssey Flat almost all of the time.


----------



## In.vincible

I think I finally found Audyssey zen  It's probably a combination of things, upgrading speakers, amp (with XT32), speaker placement and tweaking a few settings, but music is sounding great. I think the biggest factor is XT32 is much more capable of giving me a smoother bass response than MultEQ. Also, I left the calibration as is, but I used the app to change to the High Freq. Rolloff 2. Sounds nice in my room. For music, I have DEQ on the -10 dB offset, use the reference curve (with the midrange comp. enabled) and boost the sub by 3 dB. Now I can finally relax and just listen 

Not everyone's type of music I'm sure, but this song has a sort of bass test built into it. The part around 2:24 has a couple bass drops. Back when I had MultEQ, it sounded good, but I could hear it get a little uneven. Now, it's killer. Not sure where it bottoms out, but this is one of those times when a sub really extends the low end.

https://youtu.be/T04UWqGPiq0?t=2m22s


----------



## primetimeguy

anyone have a frequency plot of high frequency roll 2 vs reference? Assuming it is more roll off correct? 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## In.vincible

primetimeguy said:


> anyone have a frequency plot of high frequency roll 2 vs reference? Assuming it is more roll off correct?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


Here's a graph from a single point measurement I took. It's the Audyssey ref. curve with some bass boost. Red is rolloff 2, blue is rolloff one. The other attachment is the room correction according to the Audysey app.


----------



## primetimeguy

In.vincible said:


> Here's a graph from a single point measurement I took. It's the Audyssey ref. curve with some bass boost. Red is rolloff 2, blue is rolloff one. The other attachment is the room correction according to the Audysey app.


I can see why you would prefer roll off 2. For what ever reason the reference curve doesn't have the typical roll off. You should be down a couple db at 10khz but you are not. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## In.vincible

primetimeguy said:


> I can see why you would prefer roll off 2. For what ever reason the reference curve doesn't have the typical roll off. You should be down a couple db at 10khz but you are not.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


I noticed that area varied depending on where the mic was. I should probably average a few measurements for a more accurate picture. Either way, it sounds better to me. On movies and TV, voices sound less sibilant with rolloff 2. Thought I'd tweak more things with the app, but just changing rolloffs seems to have done the trick for me


----------



## sdg4vfx

After doing an Audyssey setup my Denon receiver (1713) asks me to "store" the Audyssey data.

Is there a way to store more than one Audyssey data set and then choose which data set to load/use?

I would find this very useful for comparing Audyssey analysis setups, comparing two different sets of speakers (each with their own Audyssey analysis), comparing two different speaker placement setups, etc.


----------



## bmcn

sdg4vfx said:


> ...Is there a way to store more than one Audyssey data set and then choose which data set to load/use?..


No; their new app stores multiple cals on a phone/tablet.


----------



## sdg4vfx

bmcn said:


> No; their new app stores multiple cals on a phone/tablet.


Will the new app work with any Denon AVR that has the "network control" feature or only certain AVR models?

My model, the 1713, has "network control" that I can access via a web browser .


----------



## sdg4vfx

bmcn said:


> No; their new app stores multiple cals on a phone/tablet.


I just looked on their site and don't see anything about an app. What is it called?


----------



## mogorf

sdg4vfx said:


> I just looked on their site and don't see anything about an app. What is it called?


Look here: https://usa.denon.com/us/product/hometheater/upgrades/audysseymulteqeditorapp


----------



## sdg4vfx

Nevermind - found the app in the Apple Ap Store - description says it works with my AVR. Will update the firmware and give the app a try - thanks!


----------



## mogorf

sdg4vfx said:


> Nevermind - found the app in the Apple Ap Store - description says it works with my AVR. Will update the firmware and give the app a try - thanks!


Did you say you have the Denon AVR-1713? Unfortunately it's not listed for the new app.


----------



## sdg4vfx

Ah - I was looking at the "Denon Remote App", which does include support for the 1713.

The "Audyssey MultEQ Editor" app does not support any of the older units.

I'm still checking out the features of the Denon Remote App.

Also seeing if there is a way to save settings via the browser-network-control route.


----------



## pbarach

sdg4vfx said:


> After doing an Audyssey setup my Denon receiver (1713) asks me to "store" the Audyssey data.
> 
> Is there a way to store more than one Audyssey data set and then choose which data set to load/use?
> 
> I would find this very useful for comparing Audyssey analysis setups, comparing two different sets of speakers (each with their own Audyssey analysis), comparing two different speaker placement setups, etc.


Some Denon models (not sure about yours) let you control everything from a web page interface. Those models allow you to SAVE a config file on a computer. The file would include your Audyssey calibration. With those models, you can save several config files and then LOAD (using Denon's web interface) the one you want from the computer where it's saved. It takes a while each time, but it can be done.


----------



## HTNUT1975

Hey guys,

I have XT32 (Denon 4520), and I've read on several occasions where folks will turn up the subwoofer after calibration. I've been doing that "manually" on my sub, after calibration, and I believe I'm liking it (and liking DynEq a little less, as a result--I think). When people adjust their subs, and they do this "manually," does that mean they're physically turning up the volume on the sub itself, or are the adjusting the volume of the sub on the receiver itself? I've been fiddling with it physically on the sub, but not sure how much it is messing things up it at all.


----------



## In.vincible

HTNUT1975 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have XT32 (Denon 4520), and I've read on several occasions where folks will turn up the subwoofer after calibration. I've been doing that "manually" on my sub, after calibration, and I believe I'm liking it (and liking DynEq a little less, as a result--I think). When people adjust their subs, and they do this "manually," does that mean they're physically turning up the volume on the sub itself, or are the adjusting the volume of the sub on the receiver itself? I've been fiddling with it physically on the sub, but not sure how much it is messing things up it at all.


I bump mine up a few dBs, too, but I would use the trim in the AVR menu. There's nothing really wrong with using the physical knob, but if you want to put it back to where Audyssey set it, it's a little harder. The AVR trim is probably more precise.


----------



## David Aiken

HTNUT1975 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have XT32 (Denon 4520), and I've read on several occasions where folks will turn up the subwoofer after calibration. I've been doing that "manually" on my sub, after calibration, and I believe I'm liking it (and liking DynEq a little less, as a result--I think). When people adjust their subs, and they do this "manually," does that mean they're physically turning up the volume on the sub itself, or are the adjusting the volume of the sub on the receiver itself? I've been fiddling with it physically on the sub, but not sure how much it is messing things up it at all.





In.vincible said:


> I bump mine up a few dBs, too, but I would use the trim in the AVR menu. There's nothing really wrong with using the physical knob, but if you want to put it back to where Audyssey set it, it's a little harder. The AVR trim is probably more precise.


Wha In.vincible says. I have 2 identical REL subs which have slightly different trims and the click stops on the gain control on the subs are larger steps than the 0.5 dB steps that the trim controls in my AVR offer so I can make more precise adjustments by using the trims and it's also easier to get back to the original Audyssey settings using the AVR trims because I can just use the setting in Audyssey to revert to the Audyssey calibration.


----------



## mthomas47

HTNUT1975 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have XT32 (Denon 4520), and I've read on several occasions where folks will turn up the subwoofer after calibration. I've been doing that "manually" on my sub, after calibration, and I believe I'm liking it (and liking DynEq a little less, as a result--I think). When people adjust their subs, and they do this "manually," does that mean they're physically turning up the volume on the sub itself, or are the adjusting the volume of the sub on the receiver itself? I've been fiddling with it physically on the sub, but not sure how much it is messing things up it at all.


Hi,

Adding a sub boost, post-calibration, is normal and doesn't interfere with the filters that Audyssey set. It simply changes the acoustic balance of what you hear in a more positive way. As David and Invincible said, using the AVR trim is a more convenient and precise method of adding a sub boost. But, when you do that, it is somewhat important to keep your trim numbers negative--such as -3, or lower, if you can.

There is a complete explanation of the reasons for adding a sub boost, and of the relationship between sub gain and sub trim, in the subwoofer guide linked in my signature.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## HTNUT1975

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Adding a sub boost, post-calibration, is normal and doesn't interfere with the filters that Audyssey set. It simply changes the acoustic balance of what you hear in a more positive way. As David and Invincible said, using the AVR trim is a more convenient and precise method of adding a sub boost. But, when you do that, it is somewhat important to keep your trim numbers negative--such as -3, or lower, if you can.
> 
> There is a complete explanation of the reasons for adding a sub boost, and of the relationship between sub gain and sub trim, in the subwoofer guide linked in my signature.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the info, Mike. I read through the article and it was very helpful. With respect to DEQ, I've always preferred it until I started fiddling with the sub volume a little more. At the same time, I've been aware that a lot if not most of the audiophiles loathe DEQ, so I've worried I've become accustomed to something that isn't at all natural (akin to liking and getting accustomed to a "bright" and bluer color scheme that is off on a tv). So, I've been fiddling a little with the bass moreso as of late. Also, after reading reviews from folks using ARC and Dirac, I've wondered if I'm missing out on what my speakers really should be doing. lol


----------



## mthomas47

HTNUT1975 said:


> Thanks for the info, Mike. I read through the article and it was very helpful. With respect to DEQ, I've always preferred it until I started fiddling with the sub volume a little more. At the same time, I've been aware that a lot if not most of the audiophiles loathe DEQ, so I've worried I've become accustomed to something that isn't at all natural (akin to liking and getting accustomed to a "bright" and bluer color scheme that is off on a tv). So, I've been fiddling a little with the bass moreso as of late. Also, after reading reviews from folks using ARC and Dirac, I've wondered if I'm missing out on what my speakers really should be doing. lol


You are very welcome! I always duck a little when people start talking about "audiophiles" as it is a term that doesn't necessarily have complimentary connotations to everyone these days. 

DEQ is one of the more divisive aspects of Audyssey. Some people swear by it, and others swear at it. But, FWIW I wouldn't worry about having been corrupted by it. Just try experimenting with it off and then back on. What do you hear? If you add a larger bass boost, at your usual listening level, can you compensate for what DEQ was doing? Does a tone control bass boost help? 

As far as I am concerned, deciding whether or not you like DEQ for everything, or only for some things, or with a certain RLO setting, or not at all, is sort of like deciding between Reference and Flat. It is an entirely personal decision based on what you hear, in your room, with your system. It may vary somewhat depending on the listening material, and even on your own mood. And, who cares what anyone else, including me, says about it? 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

HTNUT1975 said:


> Thanks for the info, Mike. I read through the article and it was very helpful. With respect to DEQ, I've always preferred it until I started fiddling with the sub volume a little more. At the same time, I've been aware that a lot if not most of the audiophiles loathe DEQ, so I've worried I've become accustomed to something that isn't at all natural (akin to liking and getting accustomed to a "bright" and bluer color scheme that is off on a tv). So, I've been fiddling a little with the bass moreso as of late. Also, after reading reviews from folks using ARC and Dirac, I've wondered if I'm missing out on what my speakers really should be doing. lol


If, before calibration, you turn up the volume knob on your sub (itself), allowing Audyssey to give you a -11 (but not -12 !!) trim setting on the sub output of the AVR when it calibrates, you can then turn up the sub output on the AVR as much as 8 dB without going beyond the -3 dB level on the AVR trim. [A much clearer explanation of this is in Mike's article]. _*Then *_you can use the bass tone control (not the virtual sliders) on the AVR (usable only when the DEQ is turned OFF) to turn up the mid bass on your RF and LF speakers, so that the mid bass rises to meet the subwoofer bass, rather than there being a sudden change. In my system this provides a curve that rises smoothly toward the bass end, and improves the impact of bass drum, timpani, etc. Your mains should be set on "Small" (even if they are physically large) for the cleanest sound.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I always duck a little when people start talking about "audiophiles" as it is a term that doesn't necessarily have complimentary connotations to everyone these days.
> 
> DEQ is one of the more divisive aspects of Audyssey. Some people swear by it, and others swear at it. But, FWIW I wouldn't worry about having been corrupted by it. Just try experimenting with it off and then back on. What do you hear? If you add a larger bass boost, at your usual listening level, can you compensate for what DEQ was doing? Does a tone control bass boost help?
> 
> As far as I am concerned, deciding whether or not you like DEQ for everything, or only for some things, or with a certain RLO setting, or not at all, is sort of like deciding between Reference and Flat. It is an entirely personal decision based on what you hear, in your room, with your system. It may vary somewhat depending on the listening material, and even on your own mood. And, who cares what anyone else, including me, says about it?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Absolutely right about DEQ Mike. Yet, to understand DEQ clearly I think we must take it out of account when it comes to room EQ, speaker placement, toe-in or not, area rug in front of the Center Speaker, getting rid of the coffee table, putting up and installing bass traps or diffusors or absorbers on walls and the like. 

DEQ does not care about all the above. As we already know DEQ serves a totally different purpose and it comes into play when Master Volume is turned down from 0 dB ref coz from thereon our human ears start to behave differently. 

Grasping the role of DEQ will surely put its purpose on a different level, I'm sure. It's not supposed to be an audiophile issue, but a tool for those who frequently change their MV settings "on the fly". 

Milage may of course surely vary, but to me it seems pretty much difficult for us mortals to test and come out with a conclusion that DEQ works fine at MV -10 dB, but sounds aweful at -25 dB.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Absolutely right about DEQ Mike. Yet, to understand DEQ clearly I think we must take it out of account when it comes to room EQ, speaker placement, toe-in or not, area rug in front of the Center Speaker, getting rid of the coffee table, putting up and installing bass traps or diffusors or absorbers on walls and the like.
> 
> DEQ does not care about all the above. As we already know DEQ serves a totally different purpose and it comes into play when Master Volume is turned down from 0 dB ref coz from thereon our human ears start to behave differently.
> 
> Grasping the role of DEQ will surely put its purpose on a different level, I'm sure. It's not supposed to be an audiophile issue, but a tool for those who frequently change their MV settings "on the fly".
> 
> Milage may of course surely vary, but to me it seems pretty much difficult for us mortals to test and come out with a conclusion that DEQ works fine at MV -10 dB, but sounds aweful at -25 dB.


Hi Feri,

I saw a couple of posts the other day where you were making a similar distinction to what you said in the first paragraph, and I agreed with you then, and I agree with you now. The only reason that I typically include the room and the system in the variables which may influence what we like is the inherent difficulty in separating all the factors which may contribute to our preferences.

As for the volume issue, I'm not sure. I remember when Keith was active on the thread, he always used DEQ, and yet said that he didn't really miss it when he moved to Dirac. I always thought that the fact that he listened at a master volume of about -5 contributed to that, because DEQ was actually doing very little at that volume. And, I believe that there would only have been about a 1db surround boost. So, he was not deriving much real benefit from DEQ to begin with, and wouldn't notice as much if it were taken away.

As the volume drops, some people seem to like DEQ even more, and some seem to like it less. Even there, I am not sure that we can ever be certain of why that is? At best, automated algorithms are based on averages. I really do think that there is enough variation in our actual hearing, and also in the way our brains interpret what we hear, to keep us guessing on this sort of thing. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

I got my bass sounding good for music, but just wondering if you guys boost your sub a little for movies, too? I watched Deepwater Horizon last night, which is supposed to have some pretty big bass, but I didn't think it was very powerful. It was there, just not room shaking like I've heard before. My old system had a pretty big bass peak that Audyssey couldn't flatten out, but XT32 did, so that may be some of the difference I'm hearing.


----------



## ma1746

In.vincible said:


> I got my bass sounding good for music, but just wondering if you guys boost your sub a little for movies, too? I watched Deepwater Horizon last night, which is supposed to have some pretty big bass, but I didn't think it was very powerful. It was there, just not room shaking like I've heard before. My old system had a pretty big bass peak that Audyssey couldn't flatten out, but XT32 did, so that may be some of the difference I'm hearing.




I don't boost my sub at all. Xt32 set my bic f12 at around -3db and the atmos track on deepwater was absolutely thumping. I know a lot of people do boost their subs anywhere from 3-6 db's on movies, room dependent I'd imagine. My room is pretty small so it doesn't take much for my chest to hurt!


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## mogorf

In.vincible said:


> I got my bass sounding good for music, but just wondering if you guys boost your sub a little for movies, too? I watched Deepwater Horizon last night, which is supposed to have some pretty big bass, but I didn't think it was very powerful. It was there, just not room shaking like I've heard before. My old system had a pretty big bass peak that Audyssey couldn't flatten out, but XT32 did, so that may be some of the difference I'm hearing.


Hi In.vincible,

Here's my take on the bass issue in a nutshell:

1. FYR, MultEQ set my subwoofer trim to -6 dB which I think is a pretty decent setting coz it gives me a headroom of +18 dB (!) upward and -6 dB downward (if needed). 

2. Movies: I usually leave it at -6 dB most of the time, rarely have had a need to turn up the trim for a film, but had times when I needed to turn it down, like Tron:Legacy, a film heavily loaded with extra bass basically all through the movie.

3. Music: whoa, this is an issue we could talk about all day and still couldn't finish!! Right?  

In my experience the older the music the less bass it has. This is not a ground rule, of course, there may be lots of exemptions, but my observation is that the amount of bass recorded by the sound engineers increases by decade. Music from the 50's-60's really needs trimming up the sub, and as the decades advance the more amount of bass is recorded. 70's-80's still lack bass when sub trim is left as MultEQ set it, and so on, 90's-2000's-2010's are becoming better in the bass department, but still need care on my side to find an optimum of increase.

4. So, finally I settled with -6dB (MultEQ default) for most of the films and +2 dB (a +8 dB increase) for most of the music I listen to. Its mostly modern music, rock, pop and progressive beat and modern jazz. 

5. Conclusion: the trim setting is there for us to tweak our systems to our liking, we can do no harm, but enjoy our Preference settings once the system was set up for Reference. Nothing else matters, except that the beer needs to be cold!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ,
> ... As for the volume issue, I'm not sure. I remember when Keith was active on the thread, he always used DEQ, and yet said that he didn't really miss it when he moved to Dirac. I always thought that the fact that he listened at a master volume of about -5 contributed to that,* because DEQ was actually doing very little at that volume*. And, I believe that there would only have been about a 1db surround boost. So, he was not deriving much real benefit from DEQ to begin with, and wouldn't notice as much if it were taken away.
> 
> As the volume drops, some people seem to like DEQ even more, and some seem to like it less. Even there, I am not sure that we can ever be certain of why that is? At best, automated algorithms are based on averages. I really do think that there is enough variation in our actual hearing, and also in the way our brains interpret what we hear, to keep us guessing on this sort of thing.


As somebody who also listens to movies at near reference level (often 5 db below reference, but now that I have boosted the sub and the front speakers bass tone control even more, over a range of about 5 dB below to about 9 below) I believe I've noticed that just having DEQ engaged, even if it isn't contributing much in compensation, just having it in the circuit degrades the sound a bit, i.e., it is a little less clear, and, surprisingly, a little harsher at the same time. This probably is not that the very slight amount of extra bass and treble is putting a strain on amplifiers or speakers because they both are good to about 118 dB _continuous_ in a room my size, and the very few times I've had them up to about 110 dB peaks on an SPL meter (Fanfare for the Common Man) they have sounded amazingly clean and unstrained. As most of us know, full scale on Blu-rays, at reference MV is specified as 105 dB through the main speakers, and I believe it (although a few BDs and most DVDs seem to be mastered at a lower level). Also, to me, DEQ does seem to sound more congested as the volume gets lower. 

Is my perception of DEQ "muddying up" the sound even when only providing a slight bit of compensation in the same category as some audiophiles*** hearing problems when they know a certain amplifier (or, yea verily, Audyssey) is playing or who exude superlatives when using certain amazingly expensive cables? I doubt it, but at relatively high volumes, it's conceivable. At low volumes, the lack of openness and absence of a sense of transparency is obvious. Someday I'll arrange at least a single blind or maybe a double blind test, with the whole _other_ set of problems that entails. 

*** Negative connotation, this time, Mike.


----------



## In.vincible

mogorf said:


> Hi In.vincible,
> 
> Here's my take on the bass issue in a nutshell:
> 
> 1. FYR, MultEQ set my subwoofer trim to -6 dB which I think is a pretty decent setting coz it gives me a headroom of +18 dB (!) upward and -6 dB downward (if needed).
> 
> 2. Movies: I usually leave it at -6 dB most of the time, rarely have had a need to turn up the trim for a film, but had times when I needed to turn it down, like Tron:Legacy, a film heavily loaded with extra bass basically all through the movie.
> 
> 3. Music: whoa, this is an issue we could talk about all day and still couldn't finish!! Right?
> 
> In my experience the older the music the less bass it has. This is not a ground rule, of course, there may be lots of exemptions, but my observation is that the amount of bass recorded by the sound engineers increases by decade. Music from the 50's-60's really needs trimming up the sub, and as the decades advance the more amount of bass is recorded. 70's-80's still lack bass when sub trim is left as MultEQ set it, and so on, 90's-2000's-2010's are becoming better in the bass department, but still need care on my side to find an optimum of increase.
> 
> 4. So, finally I settled with -6dB (MultEQ default) for most of the films and +2 dB (a +8 dB increase) for most of the music I listen to. Its mostly modern music, rock, pop and progressive beat and modern jazz.
> 
> 5. Conclusion: the trim setting is there for us to tweak our systems to our liking, we can do no harm, but enjoy our Preference settings once the system was set up for Reference. Nothing else matters, except that the beer needs to be cold!


Haha, I know what you mean about older music being very light on the bass. Some of the stuff from the 50's and 60's sounds like it's all treble.

I'll have to experiment a bit with my sub for movies. I have it at +3 for most music, which sounds nice. I just felt some of the explosions on Deepwater were a little weak with it where Audyssey set it, but I'm not familiar with the movie. Also, I was watching with the volume around -18 or so.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> As somebody who also listens to movies at near reference level (often 5 db below reference, but now that I have boosted the sub and the front speakers bass tone control even more, over a range of about 5 dB below to about 9 below) I believe I've noticed that just having DEQ engaged, even if it isn't contributing much in compensation, just having it in the circuit degrades the sound a bit, i.e., it is a little less clear, and, surprisingly, a little harsher at the same time. This probably is not that the very slight amount of extra bass and treble is putting a strain on amplifiers or speakers because they both are good to about 118 dB _continuous_ in a room my size, and the very few times I've had them up to about 110 dB peaks on an SPL meter (Fanfare for the Common Man) they have sounded amazingly clean and unstrained. As most of us know, full scale on Blu-rays, at reference MV is specified as 105 dB through the main speakers, and I believe it (although a few BDs and most DVDs seem to be mastered at a lower level). Also, to me, DEQ does seem to sound more congested as the volume gets lower.
> 
> Is my perception of DEQ "muddying up" the sound even when only providing a slight bit of compensation in the same category as some audiophiles*** hearing problems when they know a certain amplifier (or, yea verily, Audyssey) is playing or who exude superlatives when using certain amazingly expensive cables? I doubt it, but at relatively high volumes, it's conceivable. At low volumes, the lack of openness and absence of a sense of transparency is obvious. Someday I'll arrange at least a single blind or maybe a double blind test, with the whole _other_ set of problems that entails.
> 
> *** Negative connotation, this time, Mike.


Hi Gary,

FWIW, I would bet on your perceptions being consistent, rather than involving some sort of expectation bias. You not only have a long music and audio background, but you are also very familiar with the sound of your speakers, in your room. Just as Feri has, you have settled on a sound that seems right to your perceptions, with your equipment, in your room.

A few weeks ago, I suggested a theory for something that DEQ might be doing with music that could color some of our perceptions of it. Whether it is valid or not, I don't know, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me. It starts with the proposition that DEQ was developed for 5.1 movies, and the algorithm assigns a low frequency boost accordingly. Starting at about 200Hz, DEQ adds an almost imperceptible bass boost. By 120Hz, the boost is about +1db per -5 MV, and that continues down to about 70Hz. Then from 70Hz down, the boost increases to a maximum of +2.2db at 30Hz, and it continues at +2.2db below 30Hz. (This more-or-less follows the Equal Loudness Contours with the notable exception of the


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> A few weeks ago, I suggested *a theory for something that* *DEQ might be doing with music that could color some of our perceptions of it.* Whether it is valid or not, I don't know, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.


Hiya Mike, trying to think "out of the box" suggests to me that Audyssey's DEQ knows nothing about what is being played. Film sound track or music should make no difference, I presume. As I know there is no tag in different program materials that would instruct DEQ to treat them differently. There is an electrical incoming signal that runs through the circuitry of the DSP and the output is treated equally regardless of the genre.

Should the Sherlock Holmes inside us wanna investigate the causes, we might need a different approach, something not revealed here yet, and once we find it it, it will surely help and lead us to a conclusion and good solution for the benefit of all.

Just seed for thought. Whaddaya think?


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hiya Mike, trying to think "out of the box" suggests to me that Audyssey's DEQ knows nothing about what is being played. Film sound track or music should make no difference, I presume. As I know there is no tag in different program materials that would instruct DEQ to treat them differently. There is an electrical incoming signal that runs through the circuitry of the DSP and the output is treated equally regardless of the genre.
> 
> Should the Sherlock Holmes inside us wanna investigate the causes, we might need a different approach, something not revealed here yet, and once we find it it, it will surely help and lead us to a conclusion and good solution for the benefit of all.
> 
> Just seed for thought. Whaddaya think?


Hi Feri,

I would love to know more about this subject. Unfortunately, all we can do is to speculate without knowing exactly how accurate some of our assumptions and conclusions are. But, I do draw a distinction between room EQ, which is totally content agnostic, and DEQ, which was developed specifically to restore acoustic equilibrium in 5.1 movies, at below Reference listening levels. I honestly believe that if DEQ had been designed specifically to restore acoustic equilibrium for music, as listening levels dropped, that the allocation of the bass boost would have followed a different pattern.

I think that unlike Audyssey, DEQ is a specialized tool designed for a specific purpose--restoring acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movies at below Reference levels. And, I believe that the RLO settings were developed and introduced later, partly from an awareness that DEQ wasn't working as well in music applications, as it was for its intended purpose. If it does work well for other applications, that seems to me to be more of a happy coincidence than an engineered result. 

I think that you know me well enough to believe me when I say that I am not trying to denigrate DEQ in any way, or to discourage anyone from using it. Seriously, we are friends, and if you and others like it for music, that's good enough for me.  This is just a theoretical discussion of why opinions on DEQ vary so widely, depending somewhat on content.

When we try to drill down into its function, it's clear to me that DEQ is not the same kind of generalized tool that Audyssey EQ is. Audyssey room EQ should, in theory at least, work equally well regardless of content. But, DEQ was developed for a very specific purpose, and I think that the way the algorithm is implemented would be different, if the designers' purpose had been different.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... DEQ might be imparting lower than natural fundamentals to some musical instruments. So, instead of hearing instruments with a symmetrical bass boost, we would hear one biased to the very low frequencies ...


 Yes, the lower notes might be over emphasized, and also the original room noise, and the lowest pitched reverberation, especially with orchestral recording, sometimes done in a great hall, or even a voluminous church (Chesky). In the old days, when vinyl was king, they weren't going to include much below below 50 Hz, because bass took up space and "inner groove distortion" encouraged keeping the bass attenuated at the end of a long work (such as symphony) just where we needed it! Given that, they engaged their bass roll-off switches on their microphones to prevent mic preamp distortion (in the mixing board), and limited the bass at several later stages. But, now, everything has changed. Many boards (all, I hope) don't have electronics to overload before the individual mic sliders. They don't have to limit bass for digital recordings, and that lets hall boom & bass reverb in (pop, rock and metal often do have limited bass, and no hall -- so those into home remastering find themselves putting bass back in). With classical in-hall recordings, even with close micing, I'm guessing DEQ might emphasize sub instrumental bass, including the hall. With speakers without grille cloth, you can sometimes see woofers or subwoofers pumping away generating sub-sonics that remain "sub" to the listener. This probably causes modulation distortion up to the crossover point. I suspect that the orchestral scores recorded for movies are done with some kind of filter in place to keep large room effects out. LFE is recorded in separate sessions.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> 
> And, since most acoustical instruments have little content below about 60Hz, and very little content below 30Hz, the stronger low bass boost might be counterproductive for some types of music. My theory was that by concentrating more SPL in the lowest frequencies (perhaps more appropriately so for movies) DEQ might be imparting lower than natural fundamentals to some musical instruments. So, instead of hearing instruments with a symmetrical bass boost, we would hear one biased to the very low frequencies.
> …


Below 60 Hz:E flat alto (MELLOPHONE), E flat contrabass sax, baritone sax,, accordion, harp, bass tuba, cello, double bass, electric bass, piano, pipe organ, some drums, synthesiser, need I go on?  Of course the notes down there don't get played all of the time, or even necessarily in any one piece of music. To put 60 Hz into context, the bottom E on a guitar, which does not have a particularly low extension, is 82 Hz and the double bass/electric bass has a bottom E an octave lower at 41 Hz while a piano's bottom A is 29 Hz and the piano is not usually thought of as a "bass" instrument.

You said that DEQ may impart lower than natural fundamentals but I don't think so. DEQ can only boost content that is there and imparting a lower fundamental would mean adding something that wasn't there.

Of course talking about the frequencies the instruments can go down to ignores the contribution of the recording venue and reverberation in that space which can add low content to the sound we hear. I don't think DEQ will add frequency content that wasn't picked up my the mic but the space may add frequencies that aren't produced by the instruments themselves. That's probably less likely to be picked up by the recording mic if the instruments are close miked than if the mic is some distance away.

At least that's what I think.

I think DEQ works less well with music because of the fact that music isn't mastered to the same standard as movies and also because low bass is often used in movies to enhance a feeling of fear/dread or to add dramatic weight to a scene and that mood enhancement requires higher bass levels than is normally the case with music but low bass is used in symphonic music in order to enhance those kinds of feelings at times.


I just bought a Devialet amp for my audio system and it has an "active speaker matching" feature which extends bass response of the speakers if a speaker profile is available for your speakers as it is for the Dynaudio Contour 1.3 SEs in the audio system. They claim the profile can extend the bass response of my Dyns from the natural -3 dB point of 37 Hz down to 23 Hz. I don't know if the 23 Hz claim is true but it does extend their low frequency response without boosting the overall natural bass levels noticeably and I'm surprised by what I'm hearing in the bottom end of music, even totally acoustic music, which I could not hear before and we're talking here about response from 40 Hz or so on down, music being reproduced with no bass tone boost or EQ of any kind apart from the speaker matching function. If there is no content below what I used to hear the sound I hear is basically identical to what I used to hear, the only difference being an added third to half octave or so of extension below what I used to get. What the active matching does is apparently to use a DSP profile created from measurements of frequency response, impedance, and cone excursion below 150 Hz to create a DSP profile which corrects for some of the natural roll off of the speaker while ensuring that the maximum excursion of the driver doesn't become large enough to create distortion or bottoming of the driver. Amazing what they seem to be able to use DSP to do.

I think there's actually quite a bit of below 60 Hz content in music but even when the fundamental is below there, the first overtone an octave higher is often equal in level to the fundamental and our ear/brain fills in the fundamental for us which is why speakers which don't go below 60 Hz can often provide a sense of satisfying bass though a bit of a bump in the frequency response just above roll off is often designed in to boost that impression. Even without the kind of processing the Devialet is doing, however, it's easy to hear how much content there is below 60 Hz just by swapping from a speaker with a -3dB point of around 55-60 Hz to one with a -3dB point of 40 Hz or lower. Not only do the notes you heard with the "smaller" speaker become a little louder due to the lower roll off frequency but the added extension enables you to hear quite a bit you never noticed or heard before and we wouldn't be hearing that lower content if there wasn't much below 60 Hz in most music.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Below 60 Hz:E flat alto (MELLOPHONE), E flat contrabass sax, baritone sax,, accordion, harp, bass tuba, cello, double bass, electric bass, piano, pipe organ, some drums, synthesiser, need I go on?  Of course the notes down there don't get played all of the time, or even necessarily in any one piece of music. To put 60 Hz into context, the bottom E on a guitar, which does not have a particularly low extension, is 82 Hz and the double bass/electric bass has a bottom E an octave lower at 41 Hz while a piano's bottom A is 29 Hz and the piano is not usually thought of as a "bass" instrument.
> 
> You said that DEQ may impart lower than natural fundamentals but I don't think so. DEQ can only boost content that is there and imparting a lower fundamental would mean adding something that wasn't there.
> 
> Of course talking about the frequencies the instruments can go down to ignores the contribution of the recording venue and reverberation in that space which can add low content to the sound we hear. I don't think DEQ will add frequency content that wasn't picked up my the mic but the space may add frequencies that aren't produced by the instruments themselves. That's probably less likely to be picked up by the recording mic if the instruments are close miked than if the mic is some distance away.
> 
> At least that's what I think.
> 
> I think DEQ works less well with music because of the fact that music isn't mastered to the same standard as movies and also because low bass is often used in movies to enhance a feeling of fear/dread or to add dramatic weight to a scene and that mood enhancement requires higher bass levels than is normally the case with music but low bass is used in symphonic music in order to enhance those kinds of feelings at times.
> 
> I think there's actually quite a bit of below 60 Hz content in music but even when the fundamental is below there, the first overtone an octave higher is often equal in level to the fundamental and our ear/brain fills in the fundamental for us which is why speakers which don't go below 60 Hz can often provide a sense of satisfying bass though a bit of a bump in the frequency response just above roll off is often designed in to boost that impression. Even without the kind of processing the Devialet is doing, however, it's easy to hear how much content there is below 60 Hz just by swapping from a speaker with a -3dB point of around 55-60 Hz to one with a -3dB point of 40 Hz or lower. Not only do the notes you heard with the "smaller" speaker become a little louder due to the lower roll off frequency but the added extension enables you to hear quite a bit you never noticed or heard before and we wouldn't be hearing that lower content if there wasn't much below 60 Hz in most music.


Hi David,

Both you and Gary made good posts on this subject, although you seemed to be taking slightly different positions. In your last paragraph, however, I think you came back to something closer to what I was saying with respect to DEQ. Most music does not have a lot of content below about 60Hz, but even when instruments are playing 60Hz notes, there are generally low fundamentals of those notes which may just be on the edge of our perceptions. We aren't as aware of those low fundamentals if they are played at the same volume as the first fundamental, or higher overtones, of those notes. But, what would happen if we played those low fundamentals at a much higher volume than the original fundamental and the higher overtones? Might we then become more aware of those previously threshold-level low fundamentals? You hear slightly more of those low fundamentals with speakers which have lower extension. What would happen if we deliberately cranked those lower notes with greater volumes than we did the higher notes?

That is exactly what DEQ does. To summarize, here is what we know. DEQ adds a bass boost which starts imperceptibly at 200Hz. From 120Hz to 70Hz the boost is about 1db, which is still pretty innocuous sounding. But, below 70Hz, the boost increases, reaching a maximum of about 2.2db per -5 MV at 30Hz, and continuing at 2.2db below 30Hz to the limit of the content. To put that in context, let's say that we are listening to a symphony orchestra at -15 MV. DEQ will add about 3db of boost to frequencies in the mid-bass range from 70Hz to 120Hz. And, it will add up to 6.6db to some frequencies below 70Hz. And, that maximum boost will continue below 30Hz, where we have agreed that music may have some low fundamentals which are pretty well masked when they are played at the same volume as higher frequencies. Speakers with lower extension may slightly reveal those lower frequencies, but just in a very natural sounding way, and perhaps as if we were listening in person.

But, DEQ has more than doubled the SPL of those low fundamentals: +6.6db compared to +3db at -15 MV. And, a 3.6db difference in volume can be pretty hard to ignore. Of course, if we listened at -20 MV, the difference would be even more marked: +8.8db compared to +4db. That's about a 5db difference in volume. Great for movies with deliberate low frequency effects which the film mixer really wanted us to hear. But, perhaps not as great for music, where low fundamentals would not typically be emphasized in the score or in the performance.

And, the problem is potentially even more severe than the above comparison demonstrates, due to an idiosyncrasy in human hearing, which is illustrated in the Equal Loudness Contours. As noted in an earlier post, at 1000Hz a phon (a doubling in perceived volume) equals +10db of SPL, by definition. Add 10db, the sound appears twice as loud. But, below 70Hz, the frequencies compress much more rapidly. At 30Hz and below an SPL increase of only 5db is perceived as a doubling in volume. So, DEQ is doing the max bass boost right where our perception of SPL changes. So, that 3.6db difference between mid-bass and low-bass that we spoke of earlier, could actually be equal to a *perceived* volume increase of about 72%. In some cases, that could really make the low fundamentals in music stand out in a way that they wouldn't otherwise.

I believe that is at least part of the reason that DEQ may sound bass-heavy for music involving acoustical instruments, where normally, the low fundamentals of notes would be played at equivalent volumes with the original fundamental of the note, and with its overtones. I don't believe that phenomenon would be nearly as noticeable for electronic or electronically-enhanced music as it is for acoustical music. But, I do believe that is at least a partial explanation for what some of us may hear with DEQ and music content.

I think that I may try to tackle the question of how DEQ might have been implemented differently, if it really had been specifically intended for music applications, rather than for 5.1 movies played at below Reference volume levels. But, I will do that in a separate post.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Mike,




mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> Both you and Gary made good posts on this subject, although you seemed to be taking slightly different positions. In your last paragraph, however, I think you came back to something closer to what I was saying with respect to DEQ.


I don't think I have come back significantly closer to what you were saying. I think I just made a few qualifications about what below 60 Hz content there is.



> Most music does not have a lot of content below about 60Hz, but even when instruments are playing 60Hz notes, there are generally low fundamentals of those notes which may just be on the edge of our perceptions. We aren't as aware of those low fundamentals if they are played at the same volume as the first fundamental, or higher overtones, of those notes. But, what would happen if we played those low fundamentals at a much higher volume than the original fundamental and the higher overtones? Might we then become more aware of those previously threshold-level low fundamentals? You hear slightly more of those low fundamentals with speakers which have lower extension. What would happen if we deliberately cranked those lower notes with greater volumes than we did the higher notes?


This is where I think you are starting to go wrong. I know what you mean when you say "We aren't as aware of those low fundamentals if they are played at the same volume as the first fundamental, or higher overtones" and what you mean is playback of a recording which records the level of those tones accurately but the fact is that when we're listening to music the fundamentals and the overtones aren't played at the same SPL because they were actually generating different SPLs when they were played live at the time of recording. Given a live instrument, an accurate recording, and playback at a level which matches the original performance level we'd hear a balance between fundamental and overtones the same as the audience would have heard. Change the playback element to playback at the mastering level if that was different to performance level and we'd hear the balance between fundamental and overtones the mastering engineer heard, and those 2 levels may not be identical.

If we play the lower fundamentals at higher volume than the original we will become more aware of threshold level fundamentals but we don't hear "slightly more" of "those fundamentals" with speakers with lower extension. We will hear more threshold level fundamentals if they're there because we will now be able to hear lower frequency tones, but we won't hear more of the fundamentals we could hear with our original speakers, we're already hearing them. We just hear them clearer and probably better definition when listening to a speaker with lower extension. I think you mean we'll now hear fundamentals at lower frequencies and I agree but your wording is ambiguous and I'm not certain that may not be leading you to think something that we don't have a basis for assuming.



> That is exactly what DEQ does. To summarize, here is what we know. DEQ adds a bass boost which starts imperceptibly at 200Hz. From 120Hz to 70Hz the boost is about 1db, which is still pretty innocuous sounding. But, below 70Hz, the boost increases, reaching a maximum of about 2.2db per -5 MV at 30Hz, and continuing at 2.2db below 30Hz to the limit of the content. We aren't as aware of those low fundamentals if they are played at the same volume as the first fundamental, or higher overtones.


Agreed, but you need to add in the fact that that boost is for reductions in MV below reference level. You've omitted that and you omit it in the next bit also.




> To put that in context, let's say that we are listening to a symphony orchestra at -15 MV. DEQ will add about 3db of boost to frequencies in the mid-bass range from 70Hz to 120Hz. And, it will add up to 6.6db to some frequencies below 70Hz. And, that maximum boost will continue below 30Hz, where we have agreed that music may have some low fundamentals which are pretty well masked when they are played at the same volume as higher frequencies. Speakers with lower extension may slightly reveal those lower frequencies, but just in a very natural sounding way, and perhaps as if we were listening in person.
> 
> But, DEQ has more than doubled the SPL of those low fundamentals: +6.6db compared to +3db at -15 MV. And, a 3.6db difference in volume can be pretty hard to ignore. Of course, if we listened at -20 MV, the difference would be even more marked: +8.8db compared to +4db. That's about a 5db difference in volume. Great for movies with deliberate low frequency effects which the film mixer really wanted us to hear. But, perhaps not as great for music, where low fundamentals would not typically be emphasized in the score or in the performance.


I think this is where you're going wrong. You got the math for the amount of boost right but that boost is compensation for reduced hearing sensitivity. Provided the recording was mastered at reference level, those boosts will actually work and reproduce the tonal balance we hear during playback at reference level which is what it's supposed to do. If the recording was mastered at lower than reference level DEQ will generate excessive boost so the boost at both low bass and mid bass but the issue isn't the difference between the amount of boost between those 2 levels. Each of those levels should have got less boost and the difference between the amount of boost each level receives will be less. The problem isn't that there's an x dB difference between them and that a difference of that size is noticeable. If the amount of correction being applied is correct for the difference between mastering level and listening level, that difference isn't noticeable, the balance sounds right. The problem is that with music, mastering level isn't reference level, the wrong amount of compensation is being calculated and applied, and the issue isn't that there's x dB difference between low and mid bass correction, it's that there's y dB difference between the correction applied and the correction which should have been applied if we were correcting for the real difference between mastering and listening levels. You're looking at the wrong difference here. What is important isn't the difference in amount of correction applied between low and mid bass. What's important is the difference between the amount of correction applied and the amount of correction which should have been applied because the recording wasn't mastered at reference level and that throws the correction calculations off. That's what Relative Level Offset is supposed to fix. Take a look at the difference between the amount of correction applied at an MV of 0 dB and one of -15 dB when different amounts of RLO are applied. Different levels of correction are applied at different RLO levels depending on frequency.

And DEQ is always calculated based on the hearing sensitivity curve at reference level playback. Master at a lower level, say 5 dB below reference level, and that curve is different so if you play the recording back at -15 dB MV then the correction required is for the difference between our hearing sensitivity at 5 dB below reference level and 15 dB below it. That's a 10 dB difference in level but the correction required isn't the same as that required to correct for playback of something mastered at reference level and played back at -10 dB MV, even though the difference between mastering and playback levels is the same in both cases. 




> And, the problem is potentially even more severe than the above comparison demonstrates, due to an idiosyncrasy in human hearing, which is illustrated in the Equal Loudness Contours. As noted in an earlier post, at 1000Hz a phon (a doubling in perceived volume) equals +10db of SPL, by definition. Add 10db, the sound appears twice as loud. But, below 70Hz, the frequencies compress much more rapidly. At 30Hz and below an SPL increase of only 5db is perceived as a doubling in volume. So, DEQ is doing the max bass boost right where our perception of SPL changes. So, that 3.6db difference between mid-bass and low-bass that we spoke of earlier, could actually be equal to a *perceived* volume increase of about 72%. In some cases, that could really make the low fundamentals in music stand out in a way that they wouldn't otherwise.


I think you're making a mistake here as well. You keep referring to the Equal Loudness Contours but they are really only relevant if the probably unlikely case that we are perceiving the 30 Hz note as equal in volume to the 1 kHz note at reference level. What if we're not perceiving them as equal in loudness, what if both are equal in SPL so the 30 hz note is perceived as softer, or what if they aren't perceived as equal in loudness and don't measure as equal in SPL? You're basing your whole argument here on numbers relating to a special case, equal loudness, and it's not going to be the normal case. Yes, it takes different increases in SPL at 30 Hz and 1 kHz to be perceived as a doubling of volume but say you have 2 tones, one at 30 Hz and one at 1 kHz. Say we're talking a loudness level of 60 phons. The SPL of the 1 kHz tone is 60 dB whole that of the 30 Hz tone is around 90 dB. Increase the loudness of both to 70 phons, a perceived doubling of volume at both frequencies, and the respective SPLs are now 70 dB and 95 dB or so, your 5 dB increase.

Right, now let's take a very different example. Once again we have 2 tones, one at 30 Hz and one at 1 kHz but this time they aren't 60 phons in loudness, they're 60 dB SPL. The perceived level of each is a bit under 10 phons and 60 phons respectively. Do a 10 dB increase to both so each is now 70 dB SPL and the perceived loudness levels are now 27 phons (roughly, hard to read the graph I have) and 70 phons respectively. The perceived loudness of the 1 kHz tone has doubled but the perceived loudness of the 30 Hz tone has increased by 18 or so phons for a 10 dB increase in SPL. It's perceived loudness has increased dramatically relative to the 1 kHz tone but it is still perceived as much softer than the 1 kHz tone..

And what we have going on in real life music probably falls somewhere between those 2 examples most of the time. By focussing on the equal loudness curve and ignoring the fact that the low bass and mid bass and mid range are rarely equal loudness in practice, you're getting the wrong impression of what DEQ is doing. The SPL generated at a particular MV is much closer to a flat response, equal SPL, than it is to a response curve which follows the equal loudness contours. 

That's the problem with getting our heads around this. We've got different ways of looking at what's going on and if we start looking at things from the perspective of what is perceived as equal loudness when we're playing with an MV control which adjusts SPL rather than perceived loudness, and then toss in DEQ which compensates for differences in how we perceive the loudness but ignore the fact that it's starting from a master volume or SPL basis and then we add in the fact that for music the mastering level of the recording is all over the place and that a different level, movie studio reference level, is being used to calculate the DEQ correction. There's far too many places to start to go wrong in all of this and while I will readily admit that I think you've gone wrong in a couple of places, I'll equally readily admit to a lack of confidence in whether I've avoided going wrong in the same or other or in even more places than I think you've gone wrong in.

One thing I will say, and this may be the basis for a lot of our apparent differences on this topic, is that we're both looking at the same plots of the Equal Loudness contours and I think you keep looking at the equal loudness curves themselves and I keep looking for where particular frequencies on the curves fall on the SPL scale. I think we're each looking at the same data from different angles, emphasising different things as a result, and coming at it from slightly different viewpoints anyway apart from that particular difference but I think that specific difference may prove to be the critical one in what's keeping us on different sides of the fence here.

Every time I pick up this topic I keep thinking it's a can of worms and that it's holding about 10 phons worth more worms (i.e. twice as many) as it did the last time I picked up this topic. I'd like to think my understanding is improving over time but I fear my confusion is getting worse. There's a proverb about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing which suggests we're better off with more knowledge. On this question I'm fast coming to the conclusion that more knowledge is a dangerous thing, that ignorance is bliss, and I'm starting to devoutly wish for more bliss in my life.

And I've spent far too long writing this and I'm too drained to go back and reread it to make sure that I've made sense along the way. Maybe I'll revisit it after lots of coffee and lots of useful comments from you and Feri.


----------



## torii

that why buying speakers is of so much importance. your speaker choice makes all of this mute if you pick the right speakers for your ears imo.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

I don't think I went wrong at all, David. But, thank you for your comments! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> I don't think I went wrong at all, David. But, thank you for your comments!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Your response reminds me of the cover of a copy of Stereophile some decades ago which had a photo of 2 different amps and the statement that "If one of these amps is right the other has to be wrong" emblazoned in large print next to it. 

I don't think you're wrong on the principle of what's going on and why there is a problem but I do think you are getting something wrong when you work the numbers for the boost as you did in the post I replied to and compare the levels of the mid bass boost to low bass boost, and I think you're getting something about the "scale" of the problem wrong there. My big concern is not the why or how in your position as much as it is with the "how much of a problem it is" when you start to try to quantify it.

But as I said, I only think you're getting something wrong there. I'm not certain, and I'm not certain I'm not getting something wrong either, or everything wrong for that matter. In fact I'm pretty sure I am getting something wrong here but I think I am right on some things. At present though, I just keep coming away from reading your number crunching and thinking that you've got the numbers you're starting from right but that they're getting crunched wrong if that makes sense. You may well be right and perhaps I'll finally get it but at the moment I think I'm just getting further and further away from getting it.


----------



## garygarrison

RE: post number 2957

Wheew!

*I* should have had some coffee before reading that, David*. 

*I still wonder if a continuously variable RLO (kind of like the Centralab or Yamaha two knob loudness control) that one could set by ear would not be better. Or, for that matter, just setting one's bass, treble and, perhaps, subwoofer controls by ear once the MV setting has been set. 

My head hurts.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> RE: post number 2957
> 
> Wheew!
> 
> *I* should have had some coffee before reading that, David*.
> 
> *I still wonder if a continuously variable RLO (kind of like the Centralab or Yamaha two knob loudness control) that one could set by ear would not be better. Or, for that matter, just setting one's bass, treble and, perhaps, subwoofer controls by ear once the MV setting has been set.
> 
> My head hurts.


How about the good old days when the options were turn the damn thing up, boost the bass tone control because you're a purist who frowns on use of the "loudness control", or listen at a lower volume and learn to like having a bit less bass and highs in the mix because you're a real purist who frowns on anything but a volume control and you aren't even sure about that? 

At least I was certain I understood what the options did back then.


----------



## mthomas47

*If DEQ had been developed primarily for music applications*

Being a glutton for punishment, I decided to speculate about what DEQ might have looked like if it had been developed for music applications rather than for 5.1 movies. In Post 2956 I tried to explain why some of us may hear more low bass than we prefer to, in music, when we engage DEQ. I really can't explain my theory any better than I did, so it will have to stand or fall on its own merits. But, several of us who have tried DEQ for music have reported hearing a less clear and somewhat bass-heavy sound. So, if DEQ had been developed with music in mind, rather than to restore acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movies at below Reference listening levels, what might have been the difference in the development of DEQ?

First, and most obviously, there would have been no relationship to Reference, so the peak volume levels of 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the LFE channel would have had no relevance at all. Nor would the nominal average volume of 85db to which our AVR's are calibrated. So, the first thing that would have changed would be the increasing application of DEQ, in 5db increments, below master volume levels of 0.0. There would be no Reference point to start with (that exists only for 5.1 movies) and consequently no relationship whatsoever to 0.0 MV. So, no +2.2db bass boost per -5 MV.

Second, there would be no Reference Level Offsets (RLO's) for the same reason as the above, because there would be no Reference to offset from. What then would we use to implement the bass boost (which is what I will concentrate on)? Where would it start, how much boost would there be, and how might it increase? Well, setting some simple ground rules for ourselves, let's assume that we still want to maintain DEQ's two-tiered operation, which we may not understand very well, but which we know allows DEQ to make on-the-fly adjustments. Let's assume that we want to maintain the max bass boost of 2.2db, added in some definite increments, depending on the nature of the music, and on our preferred listening levels. And, we want those bass boosts to somewhat follow the Equal Loudness Contours as the current version of DEQ attempts to do.

I would simply implement the hypothetical system in the same way that tone controls are implemented. Both Gary and David referenced those as simpler systems, and I agree. Dolby PLII implements its internal controls in a similar way, as does Audyssey's Dynamic Volume and Low frequency Containment features. The designers simply create a series of settings, let's say 1 through 6 for discussion purposes. A setting of 1 would implement a maximum bass boost of 2.2db (with the corresponding,


----------



## David Aiken

^

Mike,

If you leave out a "reference level" and calculation based on how much the MV setting deviates from that level and implement as you suggest I think you end up with simply a tone control system, hopefully a lot more intelligent and flexible tone control system than many devices have, but still a tone control system. I don't think that's a bad option and in fact in many ways I think it's a really good option, but it isn't "DEQ" in terms of being something specifically engineered to compensate for a known hearing behaviour.

What I think would be interesting if it could be implemented would be an option with the current DEQ which allowed you to set reference level to "movies" which would engage the current system, or "music" which would enable you to define the "reference level" to be used and to have the ear's sensitivity at that listening level be the basis of the calculation of the correction. I think DEQ only has data for 1 reference level and calculates correction for deviation from that level whereas I'd like to see it have data for lots of reference levels and be able to calculate corrections based on deviation from your chosen reference level so what you would do is adjust MV till the music "sounded right" to you, apart from being too loud, set that as your "reference" level, and then adjust the MV setting to your preferred listening level and have DEQ maintain the tonal balance you heard at the level you designated as "reference" .

OK, there's problems with having to turn the volume up first to get a setting that allows you to turn the volume down but you could have a control which alternatively allows you just to specify a MV setting as reference with options in 5dB steps (all the way from +20 dB to - 40 dB should cover the necessary range) and you'd just experiment using that adjustment to get a correction that made things "sound right" to you at your current listening level.

If we were going to go your route with something that worked like tone controls what I might like to see instead of your approach is a variable slope on the tone control filter so as you increase the amount of adjustment applied, the slope of the adjustment becomes steeper to compensate for the increasing loss of sensitivity at the extremes of our hearing range as SPL drops. I don't know if that could be made to work in practice, perhaps it couldn't, but I'd like to be able to try that as well as to be able to try my suggestion of being able to reset the reference level setting.

And that "I'd like to be able to try" is, I think, critical. We can sit around and devise alternatives based on our beliefs about what is currently theoretically wrong with DEQ and what we don't like about what we hear when we use it, but I can pretty much guarantee that just as there are different views on DEQ right now, there's going to be different views on how well any specific alternative approach works and I've had enough experience with audio over the years to know that when I tried them, a lot of the things I thought would make a positive difference to my system turned out to make a negative difference and more than a few of the things I thought would be bad for the sound actually turned out to be good. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of any sound related adjustment is in the listening and we need to be able to listen in order to find out if something works or not.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> How about the good old days when the options were turn the damn thing up, boost the bass tone control because you're a purist who frowns on use of the "loudness control", or listen at a lower volume and learn to like having a bit less bass and highs in the mix because you're a real purist who frowns on anything but a volume control and you aren't even sure about that?
> 
> At least I was certain I understood what the options did back then.


Yes, we understood what the options did a little better back then, and the manuals gave us graphs of tone control action, and with some preamps we could select turnover frequency, deep bass (below 70 Hz) alteration, etc. [these are features my 1980 Luxman had]. 

IMO, the "purists" and "real purists" were not so pure because the recordings were anything but flat. Compulsively declining to adjust bass and treble (by ear) to produce "high fidelity to the _*imagined*_ original" (which is all we can ever hope for), or to just plain adjust to taste, would mean that you were stuck with the record as it was, with your speakers as they were, in your room as it was, which didn't very closely resemble anyone's preference, or what the music sounded like in the studio, or in the hall in which the recording was made. Although the mixers made the original recording as flat as their equipment would let them (unless they engaged the microphone bass roll-off switch, which was often the case), even as those reels were turning, they were experimenting with EQ on a secondary board. Most of the engineers I saw (during the 1970s and early '80s) didn't even look at the sliders (or knobs); they just started moving (or turning) them right away, and tuning by ear. They used this preliminary, experimental EQ that no one outside of the control room would ever hear as a very rough guide to the touch up they created in the next stage of the recording. Of course, they mixed & EQ'd the music by their lights and by their speakers, which might well be different than the end user's. The main monitor speakers I saw ranged from Altec 604Es that were accidentally wired out of phase, and left that way because someone (?) liked them better that way, through various customized Altec, Westlake, JBL, Klipsch and others. There were two-way, three-way, and four-way designs, each with their supporters. Almost all used horn tweeters and midrange, and two used horn-loaded bass. There were also the cheap & bad little speakers, often perched on the top of the board, that were used to make sure that the EQ that sounded good with whatever good monitor speakers the studio happened to have would also sound acceptable over the awful speakers John/Jane Q. Public happened to have. I can understand this attempt, but its validity is in doubt. There were often control room treatments, but nobody ever mentioned room EQ, and the few graphic/parametric equalizers I saw in control rooms were turned off and out of the circuit. Nowadays, virtually all control rooms are EQ'd, but as the graph of the frequency response of various EQ'd control rooms that Keith once posted here showed, they are appreciably different from one another. Back to the '70s/'80s, after they made the final EQ'd ("sweetened") mix tape, they then shaved off the deep bass to allow for transfer to vinyl. After the producer and artists approved the tape, a (usually 2 channel) mix down tape went to the cutting lathe room, where, sometimes, more bass filters were applied, sometimes with an automated system, and the lathe continuously adjusted grove spacing to allow the bass that was still there to be transferred to disk without one groove invading another, or otherwise distorting. I should add that I saw some cutting rooms that were awash in cigarette ashes. At the present, for Pop, Rock, Metal, etc., company policy and producer preference (or not!) often dictate very strange EQ, with the deep bass (~~35 to 90 Hz ?) attenuated, and the midrange boosted, so the "loudness wars" can wheel on and on. The only (partial) cure for all this is to use whatever control(s) we have, and adjust_* by ear.*_ As far as I can tell, all this is independent of whatever DEQ would be doing, even if it was working perfectly, by compensating for less than reference level playback.


----------



## ma1746

I have a question on internal crossovers. What sounds/sound range is produced by a tweeter? And what kind of sounds fall within that range on movies? I'm thinking like rain/breaking glass/vocals etc, are those the kinds of sounds that typically are produced by a tweeter? Whenever I stick my head close to my speakers I usually hear sound from the mid range and tweeters at the same time. New to all this and trying to learn, thanks!


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## David Aiken

ma1746 said:


> I have a question on internal crossovers. What sounds/sound range is produced by a tweeter? And what kind of sounds fall within that range on movies? I'm thinking like rain/breaking glass/vocals etc, are those the kinds of sounds that typically are produced by a tweeter? Whenever I stick my head close to my speakers I usually hear sound from the mid range and tweeters at the same time. New to all this and trying to learn, thanks!
> 
> 
> 65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


That's a good question but the answer is a bit like "How long is a piece of string?" The range handled by a tweeter depends on the tweeter and on the crossover and different speakers are the result of different choices about the driver to be used for the tweeter and what the crossover frequency for it is going to be.

A speaker driver has a range in which it can operate usefully. You can feed any speaker driver a full range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) signal but it will work better in a given part of that range. Tweeters work better in the higher part of that range and often handle from around 2.5 kHz on up to 20 kHz or higher but that's a pretty general statement and some tweeters go lower, some go much higher, and you have to go digging if you want to find out the range covered by the tweeter in a given speaker. That range I mentioned makes it sound like tweeters handle most of the range but that's only 4 octaves of the 10 octave range humans are usually regarded as being able to hear and most of that range is only concerned with reproducing the overtones which give lower notes their tonal characteristics.

I don't know where the tweeters in your Triton 7's start working from, and it can vary a lot from speaker to speaker, so I can't tell you what sounds are being reproduced by your tweeters. If we work on the basis of sound above 2.5 kHz, then what we're talking about is the top octave or so of the piano, the very top end of some other musical instruments but most instruments don't produce notes up into that range, high pitched percussion such as some bells and things like cymbals, and the higher overtones of pretty much every sound imaginable, the overtones which help contribute to whether the sound sounds "sweet" or "harsh" to us. You aren't going to find the fundamentals, the lowest part of any sound, for very many musical notes or for much in the way of natural sounds up in the range handled by a tweeter, and there aren't many natural sounds up that high either, maybe something like a whistle in wind sounds or something like that. Most of that is handled by the mid range and bass drivers, but the tweeter handles a very large amount of those parts of a sound that make it the kind of sound it is. The fundamentals of most sounds, musical or natural, are below 4 kHz and most are actually well below 4 kHz. The fundamentals of the majority of sounds, and by "majority" I simply mean more than half of the sounds we hear, are below the range handled by tweeters. 

I hope that goes some way to answering your question.


----------



## ma1746

David Aiken said:


> That's a good question but the answer is a bit like "How long is a piece of string?" The range handled by a tweeter depends on the tweeter and on the crossover and different speakers are the result of different choices about the driver to be used for the tweeter and what the crossover frequency for it is going to be.
> 
> 
> 
> A speaker driver has a range in which it can operate usefully. You can feed any speaker driver a full range (20 Hz to 20 kHz) signal but it will work better in a given part of that range. Tweeters work better in the higher part of that range and often handle from around 2.5 kHz on up to 20 kHz or higher but that's a pretty general statement and some tweeters go lower, some go much higher, and you have to go digging if you want to find out the range covered by the tweeter in a given speaker. That range I mentioned makes it sound like tweeters handle most of the range but that's only 4 octaves of the 10 octave range humans are usually regarded as being able to hear and most of that range is only concerned with reproducing the overtones which give lower notes their tonal characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where the tweeters in your Triton 7's start working from, and it can vary a lot from speaker to speaker, so I can't tell you what sounds are being reproduced by your tweeters. If we work on the basis of sound above 2.5 kHz, then what we're talking about is the top octave or so of the piano, the very top end of some other musical instruments but most instruments don't produce notes up into that range, high pitched percussion such as some bells and things like cymbals, and the higher overtones of pretty much every sound imaginable, the overtones which help contribute to whether the sound sounds "sweet" or "harsh" to us. You aren't going to find the fundamentals, the lowest part of any sound, for very many musical notes or for much in the way of natural sounds up in the range handled by a tweeter, and there aren't many natural sounds up that high either, maybe something like a whistle in wind sounds or something like that. Most of that is handled by the mid range and bass drivers, but the tweeter handles a very large amount of those parts of a sound that make it the kind of sound it is. The fundamentals of most sounds, musical or natural, are below 4 kHz and most are actually well below 4 kHz. The fundamentals of the majority of sounds, and by "majority" I simply mean more than half of the sounds we hear, are below the range handled by tweeters.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that goes some way to answering your question.




Thanks for the detailed explanation, that makes lots of sense. I believe my internal crossovers on my tritons and supercenter are 4.5 khz from what I read somewhere online. I absolutely love my speakers and their ribbon tweeters are highly regarded. But I realized when I got them I didn't really know what tweeters actually did! Thanks again. 


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## garygarrison

ma1746 said:


> I have a question on internal crossovers. What sounds/sound range is produced by a tweeter? And what kind of sounds fall within that range on movies? I'm thinking like rain/breaking glass/vocals etc, are those the kinds of sounds that typically are produced by a tweeter? Whenever I stick my head close to my speakers I usually hear sound from the mid range and tweeters at the same time. New to all this and trying to learn, thanks!
> 
> 
> 65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


It depends on the crossover frequency. In a two-way speaker design (one with a woofer and tweeter only, and no midrange speaker) the crossover is liable to be somewhere between 1,000 Hz and 3,000 Hz. The tweeter would produce the fundamental frequencies of extremely high notes (the highest note on the piano has a fundamental frequency of 4,186 Hz), but also the overtones of those notes, which provide the shimmer and richness and individual characteristic sound of each instrument. A violin and a piano can produce the same note, but it will sound very different on each, due to a different set and volume of the many overtones. Much of this information would be delivered through the tweeter. In a 3 or 4 way system, the tweeter would cut in much higher up, and be less likely to transmit fundamental tones. I have 3 way speakers (4 way if you count the separate subwoofer), and the tweeters come in at about 4,500 Hz, therefore it is unlikely that any fundamentals would come through them, except in the case of electronic music, or, conceivably, orchestra bells. In other words, it is mostly shimmer. When there is a cymbal crash, most of the initial impact would come through my midrange speaker(s), but most of the shimmer would come through my tweeter. I'd think that the same would be true with your example of broken glass. Most of the sound of rain would come through my midrange (or even the woofer) but the hissing sound of rain, and the overtones of the splatter would come through the tweeter. With vocals, women's voices get much of their richness through my tweeter, but most of the fundamentals come through the midrange, or even the woofer. Men's voices, of course, are lower, but the clarity with which the lyrics are heard, partly determined by the fricative consonants, often depends on the tweeter. 

If you know the crossover frequencies of your speakers (Google them if you don't) you can look at the chart linked below and get a good idea of what is happening. Look at how far up the overtones (harmonics) of the violin and the cymbals go!

Crossovers are not "brick walls" that turn on the exact crossover the manufacturer specifies. Some fade out what is below the crossover frequency, and fade in what is above at 6 dB per octave, others have crossovers slopes as steep as 18 dB per octave. There are good arguments on each side of the issue as to which kind of slope is best.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm


----------



## bigapp

Guys,
Great discussion thanks for asking and answering. I thought I understand tweeters and crossovers, however, I learned something new today and that makes it a great day! That chart really helps and I didn't realize how much the different instruments really crossed across all the frequency to create their full sound.


----------



## mthomas47

David,

You are of course correct that the Audyssey engineers wouldn't be compensating for deviations from a Reference volume level. But, that was the whole point of the exercise, since there are no Reference levels for music. As you know, Reference is a term of art reserved for 5.1 movies recorded in accordance with Dolby and THX Reference standards. Whether or not DEQ would still be compensating for known hearing behavior though is an interesting question, as the implementation of a music Dynamic EQ could still be dynamic (in its real time, two-tier adjustments) and it could still generally follow the Equal Loudness Contours.

The starting point might represent an informed guess by the engineers as to the average listening volume. (They did that to some extent with their selection of +2db per -5 increment in MV.) And, that's why I picked a default setting of 3 to illustrate, based on a "typical" volume level of -15 to -20 MV. What I really did, though, was to try to put myself in the Audyssey engineers' shoes, and then to design a music DEQ, with the full knowledge that it couldn't have a Reference level. But, it could still compensate to some extent for the way human hearing works.

It would inevitably involve some participation from the user, just as a tone control would. But, that user participation is already inherent in the listening level, the RLO setting, the additional sub boost, etc. So, I deliberately tried to keep as many features of DEQ as I could on the assumption that the same engineers, designing for a slightly different purpose, would nevertheless have employed some of the same premises and reached some of the same conclusions.

What I came up with is *not* my ideal system. It is simply the system that I might imagine working better for music, within the original research and analytical conclusions of the engineers who designed DEQ as it is today. And, I definitely did try to remain true to some of their premises and analytical conclusions in imagining how they might have designed DEQ for music. The 2.2db bass boost is a prime example of that, as I'm not sure that it has any essential validity.

One of the things that I find very interesting is how much of the Audyssey and DEQ implementation actually depends on averages. The Reference Curve is based on average listener responses. The Equal Loudness Contours (ELC) are based on an average. As you and I have previously noted, actual listeners probably follow a bell curve. Then the 2.2db bass boost per -5 MV (in an attempt to equalize back to the ELC) must also have been based on some sort of average. And, not an entirely successful one, if the number of people who boost their subs on top of DEQ is any indication.

So, we have averages of human hearing in the form of the Equal Loudness Contours being corrected by average responses in the form of bass boosts. Averages on top of averages. I think that for music especially, the most we could ever hope for is to allow users more latitude for individual preference. Perhaps the new Audyssey app will move Audyssey much closer in that direction, and make some of the DEQ issues moot over time.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ma1746

garygarrison said:


> It depends on the crossover frequency. In a two-way speaker design (one with a woofer and tweeter only, and no midrange speaker) the crossover is liable to be somewhere between 1,000 Hz and 3,000 Hz. The tweeter would produce the fundamental frequencies of extremely high notes (the highest note on the piano has a fundamental frequency of 4,186 Hz), but also the overtones of those notes, which provide the shimmer and richness and individual characteristic sound of each instrument. A violin and a piano can produce the same note, but it will sound very different on each, due to a different set and volume of the many overtones. Much of this information would be delivered through the tweeter. In a 3 or 4 way system, the tweeter would cut in much higher up, and be less likely to transmit fundamental tones. I have 3 way speakers (4 way if you count the separate subwoofer), and the tweeters come in at about 4,500 Hz, therefore it is unlikely that any fundamentals would come through them, except in the case of electronic music, or, conceivably, orchestra bells. In other words, it is mostly shimmer. When there is a cymbal crash, most of the initial impact would come through my midrange speaker(s), but most of the shimmer would come through my tweeter. I'd think that the same would be true with your example of broken glass. Most of the sound of rain would come through my midrange (or even the woofer) but the hissing sound of rain, and the overtones of the splatter would come through the tweeter. With vocals, women's voices get much of their richness through my tweeter, but most of the fundamentals come through the midrange, or even the woofer. Men's voices, of course, are lower, but the clarity with which the lyrics are heard, partly determined by the fricative consonants, often depends on the tweeter.
> 
> If you know the crossover frequencies of your speakers (Google them if you don't) you can look at the chart linked below and get a good idea of what is happening. Look at how far up the overtones (harmonics) of the violin and the cymbals go!
> 
> Crossovers are not "brick walls" that turn on the exact crossover the manufacturer specifies. Some fade out what is below the crossover frequency, and fade in what is above at 6 dB per octave, others have crossovers slopes as steep as 18 dB per octave. There are good arguments on each side of the issue as to which kind of slope is best.
> 
> http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm




Excellent post, thank you very much!


65" LGB6, Denon x3300 (5.1.2), 2x Goldenear triton 7 mains, Goldenear supercenter xl center, 2x fluance xlbp surrounds, 2x micca m-8c for in ceiling top middle Dolby atmos, bic f12 subwoofer, Ps4 pro, UBD-k8500.


----------



## mthomas47

+1 

I agree! That was a very good post.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... The starting point might represent an informed guess by the engineers as to the average listening volume. (They did that to some extent with their selection of +2db per -5 increment in MV.) And, that's why I picked a default setting of 3 to illustrate, based on a "typical" volume level of -15 to -20 MV. What I really did, though, was to try to put myself in the Audyssey engineers' shoes, and then to design a music DEQ, with the full knowledge that it couldn't have a Reference level. But, it could still compensate to some extent for the way human hearing works.
> 
> It would inevitably involve some participation from the user, just as a tone control would. But, that user participation is already inherent in the listening level, the RLO setting, the additional sub boost, etc. So, I deliberately tried to keep as many features of DEQ as I could on the assumption that the same engineers, designing for a slightly different purpose, would nevertheless have employed some of the same premises and reached some of the same conclusions.
> 
> ... One of the things that I find very interesting is how much of the Audyssey and DEQ implementation actually depends on averages.
> 
> ... So, we have averages of human hearing in the form of the Equal Loudness Contours being corrected by average responses in the form of bass boosts. *Averages on top of averages*. *I think that for music especially, the most we could ever hope for is to allow users more latitude for individual preference* ...


Sounds good, and for those who want a DEQ-like device for music, I think this would be an improvement over the movie targeted DEQ that exists now. I'm still concerned with the veiling and slight distortion that the current DEQ seems to impose. I don't know what causes it. Does it have something to do with the two tier function? The old continuously variable Centralab or Yamaha loudness controls did not seem to add any distortion, so I'd be tempted to go that way, even though they wouldn't be two tier. They had two continuously variable knobs. One knob is labeled "Volume" and one "Loudness."

Here is how I would use that type of control. Let's say I got a new CD in the mail of the *1812 Overture*. I'd listen once all the way through, with my most common tone control settings, and Audyssey Flat with no loudness-like device engaged. If I was happy with the performance, I would then turn to the two knob loudness control. I believe that the technique is to turn the "loudness" knob up all the way (with *no* music playing!). In this position, the "loudness" control provides *no* compensation. Then I would turn the "volume" control up until the music would be "as loud as you would ever want it" (Centralab instructions) in the loudest part of the finale of *1812*. That might be thought of as my "Reference Level" (even though -- I assure all readers -- I know there isn't one) for that CD, with my equipment, room and ears. Then I would turn *down* the "loudness" control until I reached my preferred SPL-- by ear -- for that music, as rendered on that particular CD. As I turn the "loudness" knob down, more and more compensation, a la Fletcher-Munson, is provided. That way, I would have dealt with my preferences, without having to use averages. I would probably write down the settings, to use as a basis for future playings of that CD. Of course, in practice, after I got used to the controls, I would probably manipulate both knobs at once, getting a trial setting on the first playing of the CD. The settings would vary a bit, depending on my mood, and the mood of my equipment.

Of course, with *1812*, I'd be liable to set it so high that no loudness compensation would be needed. I can hear it now, the full orchestra, the brass band, the cannon, and the 20 ton church bells...


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> Y…The only (partial) cure for all this is to use whatever control(s) we have, and adjust_* by ear.*_ As far as I can tell, all this is independent of whatever DEQ would be doing, even if it was working perfectly, by compensating for less than reference level playback.





mthomas47 said:


> …
> What I came up with is *not* my ideal system. It is simply the system that I might imagine working better for music, within the original research and analytical conclusions of the engineers who designed DEQ as it is today. And, I definitely did try to remain true to some of their premises and analytical conclusions in imagining how they might have designed DEQ for music. The 2.2db bass boost is a prime example of that, as I'm not sure that it has any essential validity.…
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Gary & Mike,

Looking at the question of DEQ vs tone controls, I think on reflection that 2 purposes are being served, and people use one or the other for 2 different purposes. One is adjusting for shifts in tonal balance due to the listening level being different from the mastering level, and the other being to change the tonal character of the sound to suit our preferences for more or less bass and/or more or less highs. DEQ is designed to deal with the first purpose and is less helpful dealing with the second issue while tone controls are probably intended more for the second purpose and are less useful in dealing with the first. Unfortunately our AVRs don't let us use both together.

I think DEQ as it stands could be modified to allow for the user to set the "reference level" and more flexible tone controls are always possible. Perhaps the best solution would be giving us both of those options and the option of using them together as well. If we're going to create a shopping list, let's pack it full of as many goodies as possible and hope we get at least one of them 

Mike,

Averages. If I just said "Yes, averages…" would that say it all for both of us? Averages are great and they work for most people, but "most" just means a bit over 50% and also ignores the question of just how well they work for some of the people for whom they work. For some things, and for the kind of compensation DEQ is intended to provide, relying on averages is the best that can be done unless you want to give the user absolute control over every bit of the target response curve and that makes things way too complex for many users plus costs a lot more to implement. Averages are really useful for some things and DEQ is one of those things in my view, but using them doesn't give us a "one size fits all" solution while it does give a lot of uninformed people the idea that the result is a "one size fits all" solution which should work for them personally (the term "uninformed people" is not meant in a negative sense, it's just the only way I can think of quickly referring to those without the background knowledge to understand the shortcomings of the data involved and it's "degree of fit" to the population as a whole").

Edit: On further reflection I realised that tone controls aren't Audyssey's problem, they're the domain of the AVR manufacturer so we can't put them on our wish list for Audyssey. I don't know whether the restriction on using tone controls in conjunction with DEQ is because of something to do with DEQ or a decision by the AVR manufacturer, Marantz in my case. Depending on what the facts are there, getting DEQ and tone controls to work in conjunction with each other may be more difficult than it sounds on the surface.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> I don't know whether the restriction on using tone controls in conjunction with DEQ is because of something to do with DEQ or a decision by the AVR manufacturer, Marantz in my case. Depending on what the facts are there, getting DEQ and tone controls to work in conjunction with each other may be more difficult than it sounds on the surface.


This will be a little serpentine. I think Chris K. once said that (some?) AVR manufacturers were worried about headroom if Audyssey (itself) and the virtual graphic sliders were used together, and that was the reason we can't use the sliders at the same time Audyssey is engaged. We can use the base copy function, then change the sliders, since the total boost available with base copy + maximum slider boost is no greater than maximum slider boost alone. Chris characterized base copy as "useless," and I agree, because it uses only a relatively few EQ points, compared to the "hundreds" Audyssey uses. Perhaps the AVR people feel that using DEQ + the regular (not graphic) tone controls would threaten headroom, but I have a hard time believing that, since the tone controls typically have a range of +/- 6 dB (the range having shrunk from +/- 18 to 20 dB in the Golden Age), and DEQ's compensation only increases as the volume goes *down.* Some AVRs are so compromised and delicate, though, who knows? They may clip if you look at them cross-eyed. Given the caution needed in keeping the AVR subwoofer trim below -3 (on a trim range of +/- 12 dB) to avoid clipping, anything is conceivable.


----------



## In.vincible

Kind of flipping back and forth between DEQ ref. offset 10 and 15 dB. If I turn it off totally, my speakers really lack bass. The bass comes back if I run them in pure direct mode, but then I'm missing on EQ and also the low extension that the sub provides. DEQ helps restore the fullness to music, but it's a balancing act. On modern music that seems to be mixed at ridiculously high levels, the 15 dB offset with just a little sub boost seems to work pretty well. Using the 10 offset is _okay_, but bass gets a little droney depending on the song.


----------



## In.vincible

Back to 10 offset, haha. 15 doesn't seem to cut it on some tunes. 10 may not be perfect for all music, but in general, it works pretty well. I can just tweak the sub output if I feel there's too little or too much bass.

Not sure if this is a good approach, but when tweaking the Auydssey settings for music, I tried to get it to sound close to pure direct (at least in the bass dept). I seem to get the closest match with ref. offset 10 and a little sub boost.


----------



## David Aiken

In.vincible said:


> Kind of flipping back and forth between DEQ ref. offset 10 and 15 dB. If I turn it off totally, my speakers really lack bass. The bass comes back if I run them in pure direct mode, but then I'm missing on EQ and also the low extension that the sub provides. DEQ helps restore the fullness to music, but it's a balancing act. On modern music that seems to be mixed at ridiculously high levels, the 15 dB offset with just a little sub boost seems to work pretty well. Using the 10 offset is _okay_, but bass gets a little droney depending on the song.


I think you may be falling into a trap we all fall into from time to time, even after we know it's there, and that's swapping between settings at short intervals to compare one against the other. It can actually end up making you less certain about what's best at times. I don't know how many times I've fallen into that trap, and how many times I've had to step back from it, over the years. and I still fall into it from time to time.

DEQ, RLO, and volume are all interconnected and affect your perception of bass. If you change RLO and volume and start playing with sub settings as well, it's easy to lose track of what's going on and difficult to get a handle on which change is doing what. I think what you may need to do at this stage is to leave the sub alone, set DEQ to one setting, either -10 or -15, and don't touch it for at least a week. Play music and if the bass response doesn't sound quite right just adjust volume to try and get the bass level sounding in the ball park with a decent overall volume because your perception of bass is going to change as you change the volume. Get a handle on how a particular RLO level sounds and how volume interacts with it, and get used to it because it's often hard to judge how a particular setting works until you grow used to it and if you're changing both RLO and volume from album to album or even track to track you aren't going to get used to a given RLO setting. After a week or so try the other RLO setting and do the same thing, live with it and just use the volume control and accustom yourself to that, and then swap back to the first setting. I often find that it's the swap back to the first setting after a reasonable period which makes things clear for me, but I have to live with both options for a while first. I think you'll get a clearer idea of which of the 2 settings is going to work best for most of the music you play if you try that rather then trying quick a/b comparisons.

Once you know which RLO setting works best for most things, then start playing with small changes in the sub setting and do the same thing there, make a change and live with it for a week or so before making a change, living with the change for a similar period, and then swapping back to see which you prefer. See how that setting works when you work with it and just using volume to adjust your perception of the bass. 

No RLO setting is going to be best for all music, there's too much variability in music mastering levels and even in the bass on different recordings for one level to be perfect for everything and doing relatively quick changes isn't going to help you work out how to get it perfect for each album, in fact you probably can't get it perfect for each album simply because some albums will always sound better than others. What you need to aim for, and settle for, is a result that you're happy with for each album and I think you can find a result you're happy to leave relatively untouched most of the time provided you really get a handle on what a given change does but every now and then you're likely to come across an album which really does need a different RLO setting to sound good.

Relatively quick a/b comparisons are handy for some things and they can often get you into the rough area you want reasonably quickly and reliably but once you get into that area and you're trying to decide between one setting or another then quick comparisons can become quite unreliable and confusing and if you find yourself swapping between settings then it can be an indication that the setting you're adjusting isn't the right setting to deliver the shift you want which is why I think it may be time to stop adjusting RLO between 10 and 15 and start using the volume control to "fine tune" the result because you should be able to get results which fall between what you get at those 2 settings with volume changes where you have smaller adjustment steps which will alter your perception of the bass.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> ... but bass gets a little *droney* depending on the song.


I think I know what you mean by droney. I hate that. I like the bass to have snap or boom or highly detailed texture, and not be an amorphous blob. I have probably never heard excellent bass with DEQ, but I have with Audyssey + sub boost + bass tone control fine tuning.

Both A/B comparisons and long term listening, with the music just washing over you, have their place, but both should be blind, IMO. If there is someone else in your household, you can have them set your controls for one of your options, then switch to the other (either back and forth, OR switching after a week or so) without telling you which option is playing. The trouble with A/B instant comparisons is that it might put your brain in a "judging" mode, which may be quite different than a relaxed, immersed in music, mode. During your week long trials, adjust the volume as you ordinarily would, which may mean a different volume setting for every recording and for every one of your moods. That's just the nature of music listening. I insist on having the volume control within reach while listening, and I use the silky smooth knob, instead of the remote. Since I don't buy into the electromythology of speaker cable length affecting the sound (under about 25 feet with 12 gauge -- I believe McIntosh's results) my pre/pro is right next to my chair. When I sit down to listen, I turn the volume up from minimal and there is inevitably a place where it's "just right." Higher is worse, and lower is worse. I don't know what that's all about. Do the rest of you experience that?


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …When I sit down to listen, I turn the volume up from minimal and there is inevitably a place where it's "just right." Higher is worse, and lower is worse. I don't know what that's all about. Do the rest of you experience that?


I definitely experience that, and I think it happens right about where you get the volume you're listening at to the same level that the recording engineer was listening as he mastered the recording and there's no need for anything like DEQ or tone controls or whatever,. The tonal balance falls into place, everything fits just right, and you sit back with a silly grin on your face and forget everything but the music.


----------



## In.vincible

David Aiken said:


> I think you may be falling into a trap we all fall into from time to time, even after we know it's there, and that's swapping between settings at short intervals to compare one against the other. It can actually end up making you less certain about what's best at times. I don't know how many times I've fallen into that trap, and how many times I've had to step back from it, over the years. and I still fall into it from time to time.
> 
> DEQ, RLO, and volume are all interconnected and affect your perception of bass. If you change RLO and volume and start playing with sub settings as well, it's easy to lose track of what's going on and difficult to get a handle on which change is doing what. I think what you may need to do at this stage is to leave the sub alone, set DEQ to one setting, either -10 or -15, and don't touch it for at least a week. Play music and if the bass response doesn't sound quite right just adjust volume to try and get the bass level sounding in the ball park with a decent overall volume because your perception of bass is going to change as you change the volume. Get a handle on how a particular RLO level sounds and how volume interacts with it, and get used to it because it's often hard to judge how a particular setting works until you grow used to it and if you're changing both RLO and volume from album to album or even track to track you aren't going to get used to a given RLO setting. After a week or so try the other RLO setting and do the same thing, live with it and just use the volume control and accustom yourself to that, and then swap back to the first setting. I often find that it's the swap back to the first setting after a reasonable period which makes things clear for me, but I have to live with both options for a while first. I think you'll get a clearer idea of which of the 2 settings is going to work best for most of the music you play if you try that rather then trying quick a/b comparisons.
> 
> Once you know which RLO setting works best for most things, then start playing with small changes in the sub setting and do the same thing there, make a change and live with it for a week or so before making a change, living with the change for a similar period, and then swapping back to see which you prefer. See how that setting works when you work with it and just using volume to adjust your perception of the bass.
> 
> No RLO setting is going to be best for all music, there's too much variability in music mastering levels and even in the bass on different recordings for one level to be perfect for everything and doing relatively quick changes isn't going to help you work out how to get it perfect for each album, in fact you probably can't get it perfect for each album simply because some albums will always sound better than others. What you need to aim for, and settle for, is a result that you're happy with for each album and I think you can find a result you're happy to leave relatively untouched most of the time provided you really get a handle on what a given change does but every now and then you're likely to come across an album which really does need a different RLO setting to sound good.
> 
> Relatively quick a/b comparisons are handy for some things and they can often get you into the rough area you want reasonably quickly and reliably but once you get into that area and you're trying to decide between one setting or another then quick comparisons can become quite unreliable and confusing and if you find yourself swapping between settings then it can be an indication that the setting you're adjusting isn't the right setting to deliver the shift you want which is why I think it may be time to stop adjusting RLO between 10 and 15 and start using the volume control to "fine tune" the result because you should be able to get results which fall between what you get at those 2 settings with volume changes where you have smaller adjustment steps which will alter your perception of the bass.


I think I'm good with the 10 dB offset. That seems to be the setting I've stuck with the longest, and it sounds good on most music, except sometimes songs that are very bass heavy. Then it can be a little much, but not terrible. Sometimes I like the extra boom anyway. I'm at +3 dB on the sub, so I'll listen that way for a while and see if I feel it needs tweaked. If anything, maybe I could turn it down just a hair, but on most stuff, I like it


----------



## David Aiken

When it's a little bass heavy, try changing the volume slightly. Strangely turning up the volume may be the answer. As you raise the volume, the amount of boost DEQ applies is going to reduce as the low frequencies become more audible to you. The overall level of the bass will raise slightly but the midrange is also going to get a little louder due to the volume increase. The mids are going to change at a different rate to the bass and it's possible that actually raising the volume slightly may give you the balance between bass and mids that you're seeking. Then again it may not and turning the volume down may be the answer but experiment to find out what works. You've got adjustment steps of 5 dB for your RLO setting and adjustment steps of 0.5 dB for volume so it should be possible to find some intermediate steps that fall between what you hear with RLO at -15 and what you hear with it at -10.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I think I know what you mean by droney. I hate that. I like the bass to have snap or boom or highly detailed texture, and not be an amorphous blob. I have probably never heard excellent bass with DEQ, but I have with Audyssey + sub boost + bass tone control fine tuning.
> 
> Both A/B comparisons and long term listening, with the music just washing over you, have their place, but both should be blind, IMO. If there is someone else in your household, you can have them set your controls for one of your options, then switch to the other (either back and forth, OR switching after a week or so) without telling you which option is playing. The trouble with A/B instant comparisons is that it might put your brain in a "judging" mode, which may be quite different than a relaxed, immersed in music, mode. During your week long trials, adjust the volume as you ordinarily would, which may mean a different volume setting for every recording and for every one of your moods. That's just the nature of music listening. I insist on having the volume control within reach while listening, and I use the silky smooth knob, instead of the remote. Since I don't buy into the electromythology of speaker cable length affecting the sound (under about 25 feet with 12 gauge -- I believe McIntosh's results) my pre/pro is right next to my chair. When I sit down to listen, I turn the volume up from minimal and there is inevitably a place where it's "just right." Higher is worse, and lower is worse. I don't know what that's all about. Do the rest of you experience that?


Hi Gary,

I'm not sure I buy the use of blind testing to decide what you like in the privacy of your own home and listening system. Blind testing can potentially remove expectation bias or confirmation bias from an audition, so doing something like that before investing in a more expensive amplifier, or costly cables, seems quite prudent. Needing to do blind testing to decide whether or not we like DEQ, or which RLO setting to use, or how much tone or subwoofer boost we prefer, seems a little over the top to me. After all, we aren't trying to prove anything to anyone else, and we aren't engaging in an expenditure, we are just pleasing ourselves about our settings.

Unless I have an immediate intuitive reaction to something--and that would usually be a negative reaction--long listening sessions in which I simply allow a conclusion to form on its own work best for me. If I'm in doubt, I may try going back-and-forth to form an analytical conclusion, but that's not typically my preferred way to listen. I used to do that sometimes, with Audyssey on and off, before I got bass traps, in order to learn more about what low frequency distortion sounded like. And, that was very helpful. But, in general, I will form an impression of what I do or don't like over time, and in an unstressful way. I suspect that you approach things in a similar fashion, although your process may be more deliberately analytical than mine in this respect.

The volume question is interesting. I think that I am probably more volume-conscious about movies than I am with music. For movies, I want to hear dialogue at just about the right volume, but I also want to be conscious of how loud the really extreme volumes in the movie can be. For music, I am probably a little more forgiving, where I can still be pretty content within a +/- range of about a decibel. I certainly pick a volume, but depending on what I am listening to, not every track will be at exactly the same volume anyway, so perhaps that contributes to my greater flexibility with music. I probably do still have a favorite volume for every track. But, I may just not bother to make constant adjustments if I am within that +/- 1db range. 

It's always interesting to compare both listening similarities, and differences, with people whose overall tastes and preferences are so compatible with our own.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I'm not sure I buy the use of blind testing to decide what you like in the privacy of your own home and listening system. Blind testing can potentially remove expectation bias or confirmation bias from an audition, so doing something like that before investing in a more expensive amplifier, or costly cables, seems quite prudent. Needing to do blind testing to decide whether or not we like DEQ, or which RLO setting to use, or how much tone or subwoofer boost we prefer, seems a little over the top to me. After all, we aren't trying to prove anything to anyone else, and we aren't engaging in an expenditure, we are just pleasing ourselves about our settings.
> 
> The volume question is interesting. I think that I am probably more volume-conscious about movies than I am with music. For movies, I want to hear dialogue at just about the right volume, but I also want to be conscious of how loud the really extreme volumes in the movie can be. For music, I am probably a little more forgiving, where I can still be pretty content within a +/- range of about a decibel. I certainly pick a volume, but depending on what I am listening to, not every track will be at exactly the same volume anyway, so perhaps that contributes to my greater flexibility with music. I probably do still have a favorite volume for every track.


Hi Mike, 

Because I am biased, but not necessarily prejudiced, against DEQ, I would prefer a blind comparison of DEQ v.s. sub volume/bass control conditions. The trouble is that there is at least one, and probably two tell-tale characteristics that would tip off which condition I was listening to (I _think_). So it's probably too late for me. 

I sometimes do change the volume from track to track, especially with music. With classical music, I don't generally change volume from movement to movement, but with other kinds of music I occasionally do. No matter what, though, for a given track there is probably a volume that sounds "right" for my mood at the moment. As I adjust the volume, I do think +/- 1 dB makes a difference in "rightness."


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Because I am biased, but not necessarily prejudiced, against DEQ, I would prefer a blind comparison of DEQ v.s. sub volume/bass control conditions. The trouble is that there is at least one, and probably two tell-tale characteristics that would tip off which condition I was listening to (I _think_). So it's probably too late for me.
> 
> I sometimes do change the volume from track to track, especially with music. With classical music, I don't generally change volume from movement to movement, but with other kinds of music I occasionally do. No matter what, though, for a given track there is probably a volume that sounds "right" for my mood at the moment. As I adjust the volume, I do think +/- 1 dB makes a difference in "rightness."


Hi Gary,

I like the distinction you made between prejudice and bias. But, even the word "bias" has potentially negative connotations. I would substitute the word "preference". I know that you already understand all that I am about to say perfectly well. But, to continue the thought, if you like the color blue better than green, is that a bias, or simply a preference? If you cook something and think it needs a little more seasoning, are you biased toward adding more seasoning, or do you simply trust your sense of taste just then? Or, to use your example of volume that is "right" for your mood of the moment, are you biased toward that volume, or do you simply prefer it because it sounds right to you? Obviously, those are all rhetorical questions.

I respect your desire to be objective about DEQ. But, knowing you as I think I do, I don't believe that it is just the theory of DEQ that you don't like. I believe it is what you hear when you listen to it. Perhaps having already identified differences in the way that DEQ sounds to you, you would be more likely to notice those differences in a blind test. But, I suspect that you would notice those differences anyway, as you did when you first concluded that you preferred an alternative way to normalize bass in your system.

I don't discount the influence that other people's perspectives and preferences can have on our own. But, before I really knew anything about Audyssey, or the theory behind DEQ, I discovered that I didn't like DEQ for music. It was enabled by default when I did my first calibration, and after a day or two, I was asking (or reading) about how to disable it. So, in my case at least, it wasn't the theory behind DEQ that made me not appreciate it for music, it was simply my instinctive reaction to the sound. Later, several of us have tried to search for explanations for what we are hearing with DEQ, when it is applied to acoustical music, but that has been primarily an after-the-fact discussion, in my opinion. I think that the intent of DEQ, and the theory behind it, are perfectly legitimate as they apply to 5.1 movies. But, even there, whether a given individual will prefer DEQ for movies is an entirely personal decision.

I remember when people used to engage in very heated discussions on the thread about reference versus preference. I'm sure that you do, as well. To me, when I read those exchanges, it was always a question of preference. The clothes we decide to wear today, in the fabrics and colors we choose, reflect our visual and/or tactile preferences. The foods and beverages we consume, prepared or served as we like them, reflect our appetite preferences. Why should the music we choose to listen to, or the movies we choose to watch, at the volumes and settings we prefer, be any different? Again, that is a somewhat rhetorical question, now that people on the forum have become slightly more open to other peoples' perspectives and preferences. 

FWIW, I do make a deliberate distinction between the advice that I try to give to other people, and my own personal preferences. When I advise someone else, I try to understand his goals, and to see things from his perspective, rather than from my own, although that can never be entirely possible. But, when it comes to my own preferences, I simply try to remain open to other peoples' perspectives, and to experimentation, and then let the chips and my own choices fall where they may. I suspect that your own approach is very similar. 


Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Gary,

I'm with Mike. As you said, you know what's going on and you can identify what is playing because you know the sound with and without DEQ, you know what to listen for. Blind testing isn't a possibility for you. The only question is whether you're picking one option over the other because it actually sounds better to you or because you think it should sound better because of your beliefs about DEQ but in the end I think that's irrelevant. You've made a choice and you like that choice, and the goal of the exercise is to get a result you enjoy listening to.

Let's say we've got a different listener who doesn't know the differences between with and without DEQ, doesn't know what to listen for. Once again I don't think it matters if the test isn't blind. They're going to pick the one they prefer and that choice isn't going to cost them anything, they've already paid for the AVR. It's just a setting and they to find out which one sounds best to them. I think we can trust their self interest to ensure they go for the one that sounds best to them.

Sighted testing is not always inferior to blind. If it's a choice between A and B, there is a difference between A and B, and the difference is what you're interested in, then you really don't have the option of conducting a blind test because you have to be able to discern the difference in order to make a choice. That's why blind tests don't make sense when you're trying to discover what your preference is. It's a totally different thing if you're trying to work out whether you can actually hear a difference but if you're certain there is an audible difference, and we are when it comes to DEQ, and you want to know whether you think that things sound better with or without that setting engaged, you don't have an option to do blind testing because you're comparing things you can discern and identify anyway.

Once you know there truly is a difference and the question is which way do you prefer things, blind testing is impossible because you know what the difference is and can pick which is which. Sighted testing is sometimes the only option we have.


----------



## robc1976

Updated my entire theatre and added 2nd row of seating. I have used audyysey for 6 years plus but with only 3 seats. I know it is suggested to use "tighter" mic positions but with my seats its not possible plus rear seats are on 12" riser so mic will have to be raise.

I was thinking a mic position in every seat (6) then 2 positions in front of MLP.


is it okay to raise mic 6" for rear seats and 3ft back?


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> Updated my entire theatre and added 2nd row of seating. I have used audyysey for 6 years plus but with only 3 seats. I know it is suggested to use "tighter" mic positions but with my seats its not possible plus rear seats are on 12" riser so mic will have to be raise.
> 
> I was thinking a mic position in every seat (6) then 2 positions in front of MLP.
> 
> is it okay to raise mic 6" for rear seats and 3ft back?


Hi Rob,

Sure, it's okay. This is one of those trial-and-error situations, where you just have to try some different mic configurations in order to decide what works best for you. If you concentrate most of your mic positions, more-or-less at ear level in the front row, you may get better sound quality in the front row, than in the back row. And, depending on how much the back row is actually used, that could be a good thing or a bad thing.

On the other hand, if you distribute the mic positions more evenly, as you are suggesting, with just a little more emphasis on the front row, you may get a more equivalent calibration between the two rows. And, only you can decide whether that costs you something in the front row, and whether or not it is worth it. I wouldn't hesitate to try several different mic configurations, each time listening afterwards in multiple seating positions, to determine what if any trade-offs you hear. Then, you can pick the compromise that best satisfies your specific tastes and objectives.

If you don't mind posting your conclusion, it would be interesting to hear what you discover when you experiment, and what if any compromises you feel you are making with the solution you pick. FWIW, I think that there may be some degree of experimentation involved, even with only a couple of seating positions. With six seats in two rows, I would expect a greater likelihood that there would be some trade-offs somewhere, but you may get lucky.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Rob,
> 
> Sure, it's okay. This is one of those trial-and-error situations, where you just have to try some different mic configurations in order to decide what works best for you. If you concentrate most of your mic positions, more-or-less at ear level in the front row, you may get better sound quality in the front row, than in the back row. And, depending on how much the back row is actually used, that could be a good thing or a bad thing.
> 
> On the other hand, if you distribute the mic positions more evenly, as you are suggesting, with just a little more emphasis on the front row, you may get a more equivalent calibration between the two rows. And, only you can decide whether that costs you something in the front row, and whether or not it is worth it. I wouldn't hesitate to try several different mic configurations, each time listening afterwards in multiple seating positions, to determine what if any trade-offs you hear. Then, you can pick the compromise that best satisfies your specific tastes and objectives.
> 
> If you don't mind posting your conclusion, it would be interesting to hear what you discover when you experiment, and what if any compromises you feel you are making with the solution you pick. FWIW, I think that there may be some degree of experimentation involved, even with only a couple of seating positions. With six seats in two rows, I would expect a greater likelihood that there would be some trade-offs somewhere, but you may get lucky.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 with my 3 seats I actually had a screw with anchor under panel, I would attach a tape measure to it to get ear distance exactly. I actually the past few weeks prefer audyssey off but you still keep trims/distance. I then boosted bass ect. It sounded much more dynamic. New panels on ceiling for rear seats and "dayton DSS-4 spikes on subs have made huge diffference. It just sounds a bit muffled and less dynamic with audyssey on.

I was thinking about getting audyssey Pro but others suggested REW 1st, I got that with USB mic.


----------



## bmcn

garygarrison said:


> This will be a little serpentine...


Hi Gary and all,

After installing new front L&R's rated 4 Ohms and test measured @ 84 dB efficiency the new Audyssey app set the L +2 and R + 3.5.

The ones they replaced were rated 4 Ohms and 90 dB efficiency; Aud set both -1.5.

Is it unusual for Aud to call for this much boost and does it indicate a shortcoming of the amp driving much less efficient speakers?


----------



## David Aiken

bmcn said:


> Hi Gary and all,
> 
> After installing new front L&R's rated 4 Ohms and test measured @ 84 dB efficiency the new Audyssey app set the L +2 and R + 3.5.
> 
> The ones they replaced were rated 4 Ohms and 90 dB efficiency; Aud set both -1.5.
> 
> Is it unusual for Aud to call for this much boost and does it indicate a shortcoming of the amp driving much less efficient speakers?


The difference in setting between the new L & R setting is interesting. Are they in the same locations as the old ones, same sort of speaker, same toe in, same measurement positions and mic spacing? There has to be a reason for a 1.5 dB difference in setting.

But to your question. Your new speakers are 6 dB less efficient than the old ones so they should need 6 dB more output to produce the same volume level so you would expect the trims to be set around 6 dB higher for the new speakers. If we look at the right speaker, the trim setting has changed from -1.5 dB to +3.5 dB which is a 5 dB increase, pretty much exactly what you would expect given that speaker ratings aren't a reliable guide to in room performance. The right speaker actually requires 1 dB less boost than the speaker specifications would indicate and the left speaker requires even less again so either the speaker specifications aren't an accurate guide to in room performance, and they never are which could mean that the new speakers work better than your previous ones did in your room, but from the numbers the amp is having an easier job with your new speakers than you would expect from the difference in sensitivity.

It definitely doesn't indicate a shortcoming of the amp driving much less efficient speakers but positive trim settings can indicate that the amp is underpowered for the speaker/room/listening distance combinationat. If you find yourself running the master volume level up around close to 0 dB or higher a lot of the time in order to get a high enough listening level to suit your tastes, I would take that as an indication that you may be better off with an AVR with a noticeably higher power output.


----------



## bmcn

David Aiken said:


> ...I would take that as an indication that you may be better off with an AVR with a noticeably higher power output.


Hi David and thanks for your usual thorough reply.

Yes new speakers are in exact same position as the ones they replaced, their width almost exactly the same and height only 2" shorter. Mic position is same for both pair. Aud's distance measurement for new and old speakers is the same.

New speakers require -13 MV to obtain ~+ 40 dB above noise floor @ 1 kHz. Old speakers require -15 MV.

Thanks for the reminder of the 1.5 dB difference between the new L&R. Sub is located approximately 5' to the right of the right speaker and with the new speaker config I raised the volume dial on the sub a few ticks; perhaps Aud increased the RF's level to compensate for the increased output from the sub. Aud set sub -7, and I have no inclination yet to increase sub's level post Aud. 

Parasound 1500a is driving Aerial Acoustics 7B's; perhaps it is time for another amp.


----------



## sixtytooneratio

Are any receivers being manufactured anymore that offer Audessey???


----------



## mogorf

sixtytooneratio said:


> Are any receivers being manufactured anymore that offer Audessey???


Why not visit Denon and Marantz homepage?


----------



## David Aiken

bmcn said:


> Hi David and thanks for your usual thorough reply.
> 
> Yes new speakers are in exact same position as the ones they replaced, their width almost exactly the same and height only 2" shorter. Mic position is same for both pair. Aud's distance measurement for new and old speakers is the same.
> 
> New speakers require -13 MV to obtain ~+ 40 dB above noise floor @ 1 kHz. Old speakers require -15 MV.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder of the 1.5 dB difference between the new L&R. Sub is located approximately 5' to the right of the right speaker and with the new speaker config I raised the volume dial on the sub a few ticks; perhaps Aud increased the RF's level to compensate for the increased output from the sub. Aud set sub -7, and I have no inclination yet to increase sub's level post Aud.
> 
> Parasound 1500a is driving Aerial Acoustics 7B's; perhaps it is time for another amp.


The change in height of the speakers could be the reason for the 1.5 dB difference between left and right, especially if one speaker is closer to a corner than the other or there is some other factor providing speaker support to the left speaker.

I just googled your amp and saw that it has a gain ("volume") control on the back panel. If that isn't turned up to the max you could try turning it up a bit more than it is and running setup again. That should bring your trim settings down so you may not need a new amp. In any event I was thinking in terms of you using an AVR for all channels and putting an increased demand on 2 channels with an AVR can adversely affect their performance on other channels. Since you're using a separate amp for the L and R speakers that concern doesn't apply and you've actually taken the load for those 2 channels off the AVR power amps so I would think the raised trim settings for those 2 channels are far less likely to be an issue for you than I initially thought.


----------



## bmcn

David Aiken said:


> ...I would think the raised trim settings for those 2 channels are far less likely to be an issue for you than I initially thought.


Gain pots for both channels are at max. Good thoughts David. Thank you.


----------



## mthomas47

bmcn said:


> Hi David and thanks for your usual thorough reply.
> 
> Yes new speakers are in exact same position as the ones they replaced, their width almost exactly the same and height only 2" shorter. Mic position is same for both pair. Aud's distance measurement for new and old speakers is the same.
> 
> New speakers require -13 MV to obtain ~+ 40 dB above noise floor @ 1 kHz. Old speakers require -15 MV.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder of the 1.5 dB difference between the new L&R. Sub is located approximately 5' to the right of the right speaker and with the new speaker config I raised the volume dial on the sub a few ticks; perhaps Aud increased the RF's level to compensate for the increased output from the sub. Aud set sub -7, and I have no inclination yet to increase sub's level post Aud.
> 
> Parasound 1500a is driving Aerial Acoustics 7B's; perhaps it is time for another amp.





bmcn said:


> Gain pots for both channels are at max. Good thoughts David. Thank you.



FWIW, I'm not seeing anything in your posts to indicate that your existing amp is not sufficient. Having some of your trim levels in the regular channels in the positive range is not that unusual, and it is a completely different issue than running subs with AVR trim levels above 0.0. So, unless you are experiencing something that you haven't yet related, I think that David's explanation for why the slightly less sensitive speakers require higher trim levels is correct, and there is no problem at all with that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

bmcn said:


> Hi Gary and all,
> 
> After installing new front L&R's rated 4 Ohms and test *measured @ 84 dB efficiency *the new Audyssey app set the L +2 and R + 3.5.
> 
> *The ones they replaced were rated 4 Ohms and 90 dB efficiency; *Aud set both -1.5.
> 
> Is it unusual for Aud to call for this much boost and does it indicate a shortcoming of the amp driving much less efficient speakers?


As far as I can tell, all is well. I agree with Mike and David.

Whether your amplifier has high enough power for speakers rated at 84 dB/1W/1M is another question, the answer to which depends on the size of your room, your listening distance, and your desired SPL. A rating of 84 dB is pretty low. Your former speakers were of about average efficiency. The new ones would take 4 times the power in watts (6 dB) to produce a sound of the same SPL. My guess is that your 200 *+ *watt amplifier would just barely produce the 105 dB level needed for reference level peaks at the main listening position, in a 3k to 4k cubic foot room. Of course I'm just guessing at several parameters. There is a fairly good calculator available at http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html.

The designer of your amplifier, John Curl, was someone I knew (slightly) in the San Francisco Bay Area in the '70s. I knew him when he was just starting at Berkeley Custom Electronics. He seemed to be a brilliant guy, so I'm betting that your amp is a good one!


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> It just sounds a bit muffled and less dynamic with audyssey on.


I've noticed a few complaints that Audyssey makes the sound muffled &/or less dynamic on this and other forums lately. 


Muffled. This surprises me. "Muffled," to me, means the treble or midrange has been impeded, and both the treble (except for one peak that is scotched) and midrange are boosted when I engage Audyssey, both in subjective impression and via measurement. This does not increase harshness, but does increase clarity. robc1976, would you characterize your sound system as "bright" without Audyssey? Maybe Audyssey overcompensated? My speakers have the reputation of being bright, yet Audyssey makes them a bit brighter (which I like).
Less dynamic. I suspect this may be because a room/speaker combination might cause a peak at one or more bass frequencies, and when Audyssey removes that peak, the music sounds less dynamic. If there is a 5 to 10 dB bass peak (not at all out of the question) that Audyssey removes, an overall decreased impact may be experienced. Try turning up the Main Volume a bit, and the dynamic sound may appear to come back. Or not.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> I've noticed a few complaints that Audyssey makes the sound muffled &/or less dynamic on this and other forums lately.
> 
> 
> Muffled. This surprises me. "Muffled," to me, means the treble or midrange has been impeded, and both the treble (except for one peak that is scotched) and midrange are boosted when I engage Audyssey, both in subjective impression and via measurement. This does not increase harshness, but does increase clarity. robc1976, would you characterize your sound system as "bright" without Audyssey? Maybe Audyssey overcompensated? My speakers have the reputation of being bright, yet Audyssey makes them a bit brighter (which I like).
> Less dynamic. I suspect this may be because a room/speaker combination might cause a peak at one or more bass frequencies, and when Audyssey removes that peak, the music sounds less dynamic. If there is a 5 to 10 dB bass peak (not at all out of the question) that Audyssey removes, an overall decreased impact may be experienced. Try turning up the Main Volume a bit, and the dynamic sound may appear to come back. Or not.


 my room is for HT only, audyssey seems to almost take detail away, mid range is almost hollow but high frequency seems very hollow also even on "flat". With it off bass is deeper and a lot cleaner through out. The detail is improved also. Midrange I really hear improvement in. I still use tone controls to dial treble down a bit so I will say a bit bright with it off.


----------



## David Aiken

robc1976 said:


> with my 3 seats I actually had a screw with anchor under panel, I would attach a tape measure to it to get ear distance exactly. I actually the past few weeks prefer audyssey off but you still keep trims/distance. I then boosted bass ect. It sounded much more dynamic. New panels on ceiling for rear seats and "dayton DSS-4 spikes on subs have made huge diffference. It just sounds a bit muffled and less dynamic with audyssey on.
> 
> I was thinking about getting audyssey Pro but others suggested REW 1st, I got that with USB mic.



Looking at things from a different perspective to Gary I notice the mention that you've preferred Audyssey off for the past few weeks coupled with a mention of new ceiling panels and spikes on subs. Did either of those 2 changes coincide with preferring Audyssey off, and did you run setup again after making those changes?

I have no experience with Gik acoustic panels, never seen them in Australia, but I do have a number of REALTraps panels in the listening room where my audio system is located (no Audyssey on that system). I know from experience that adding additional panels or even moving some panels by just a matter of inches can change the tonal balance and character of the sound I get. If you added panels and didn't rerun setup I can easily imagine things sounding a bit muffled after the change. With the spikes on the sub, if they contributed to an increase in level and you didn't rerun setup that contribute to a sense of things being muffled and lacking dynamics because of the shift in tonal balance. I think a fair bit of our perception of transient response actually comes from the highs rather than the lows and increasing the lows can sometimes cause a perception of slower bass and/or less attack.

In any event I seem to regularly suggest to people when they are unsatisfied with the way things sound after making a change that they actually live with the sound for a while, at least a week or so. We tend to respond favourably when our expectations are satisfied and negatively when they aren't. If the sound changes and the result isn't what we're used to, the unfamiliarity of the new sound can often result in an initially negative impression but I've discovered that if I live with the new sound for several days and allow myself to adapt to it and get used to it, I often come to prefer it to what I was getting previously. I think that initially I tend to hear what's missing from the old sound and I have to learn to give up on listening for that before I can start to hear what is now there, and hearing what is there can result in a very different assessment at times to the one you make when you're hearing what isn't there.

Even if you ran setup again, Audyssey affects some sound characteristics more than others so it can still be a good idea to live with a new setup result for a little while before making a final decision.


----------



## robc1976

David Aiken said:


> Looking at things from a different perspective to Gary I notice the mention that you've preferred Audyssey off for the past few weeks coupled with a mention of new ceiling panels and spikes on subs. Did either of those 2 changes coincide with preferring Audyssey off, and did you run setup again after making those changes?
> 
> I have no experience with Gik acoustic panels, never seen them in Australia, but I do have a number of REALTraps panels in the listening room where my audio system is located (no Audyssey on that system). I know from experience that adding additional panels or even moving some panels by just a matter of inches can change the tonal balance and character of the sound I get. If you added panels and didn't rerun setup I can easily imagine things sounding a bit muffled after the change. With the spikes on the sub, if they contributed to an increase in level and you didn't rerun setup that contribute to a sense of things being muffled and lacking dynamics because of the shift in tonal balance. I think a fair bit of our perception of transient response actually comes from the highs rather than the lows and increasing the lows can sometimes cause a perception of slower bass and/or less attack.
> 
> In any event I seem to regularly suggest to people when they are unsatisfied with the way things sound after making a change that they actually live with the sound for a while, at least a week or so. We tend to respond favourably when our expectations are satisfied and negatively when they aren't. If the sound changes and the result isn't what we're used to, the unfamiliarity of the new sound can often result in an initially negative impression but I've discovered that if I live with the new sound for several days and allow myself to adapt to it and get used to it, I often come to prefer it to what I was getting previously. I think that initially I tend to hear what's missing from the old sound and I have to learn to give up on listening for that before I can start to hear what is now there, and hearing what is there can result in a very different assessment at times to the one you make when you're hearing what isn't there.
> 
> Even if you ran setup again, Audyssey affects some sound characteristics more than others so it can still be a good idea to live with a new setup result for a little while before making a final decision.


I ran it after as it was slightly better in bass response because of speaker spikes, actually made a good difference. Sounded even better than before with audyssey off. I will live with it for a few before making a final decision. I want to be clear that I am NOT saying it sounds bad with audyssey at all....just prefer it off. My friends also agree. I think audyysey gets a bit tricky in a treated room to be honest.


----------



## David Aiken

robc1976 said:


> I ran it after as it was slightly better in bass response because of speaker spikes, actually made a good difference. Sounded even better than before with audyssey off. I will live with it for a few before making a final decision. I want to be clear that I am NOT saying it sounds bad with audyssey at all....just prefer it off. My friends also agree. I think audyysey gets a bit tricky in a treated room to be honest.


*Theoretically* Audyssey should be able to do a better job in a treated room but there's a saying which says that while there is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is. I've never tried running Audyssey in a treated room. I've got a fair bit of experience with treated rooms and a fair bit of experience with Audyssey in untreated rooms and absolutely no experience of Audyssey in a treated room so I have no idea how well they play together but in theory you should get better results using both.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I ran it after as it was slightly better in bass response because of speaker spikes, actually made a good difference. Sounded even better than before with audyssey off. I will live with it for a few before making a final decision. I want to be clear that I am NOT saying it sounds bad with audyssey at all....just prefer it off. My friends also agree. I think audyysey gets a bit tricky in a treated room to be honest.


That's an interesting observation. In general, I agree with David that Audyssey should be more effective in a treated room than in an untreated one, because it wouldn't have to be dealing with early reflections. People who theorize about the difficulty of making corrections in the time domain sometimes conclude that room correction does more harm than good above 400Hz or so. Like all such theories, I believe it depends on the room, and to some extent on the setup and calibration methodology, as to whether Audyssey can be helpful in a virtually untreated room.

But, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Audyssey can be helpful in a more treated room. I use the phrase "more treated" because there could be a very broad continuum of what constitutes a treated room, ranging from a little to a lot. I can't really theorize about why your room might sound worse with Audyssey engaged, since you added more room treatment. My starting point for any discussion like that is to first examine the calibration methodology, which might be expected to need to change somewhat with different acoustical conditions, and the post-calibration settings, which might also need to change.

But, if you believe that you have thoroughly investigated both of those issues, then I have nothing more to offer regarding why Audyssey might be impairing the sound quality now in a way that it didn't before. I suppose that, considering the age of your AVR, you might consider trying a different microphone. They tend to degrade first in the higher frequencies. But, if that doesn't work, then this just has to be considered a YMMV situation. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting observation. In general, I agree with David that Audyssey should be more effective in a treated room than in an untreated one, because it wouldn't have to be dealing with early reflections. People who theorize about the difficulty of making corrections in the time domain sometimes conclude that room correction does more harm than good above 400Hz or so. Like all such theories, I believe it depends on the room, and to some extent on the setup and calibration methodology, as to whether Audyssey can be helpful in a virtually untreated room.
> 
> But, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the idea that Audyssey can be helpful in a more treated room. I use the phrase "more treated" because there could be a very broad continuum of what constitutes a treated room, ranging from a little to a lot. I can't really theorize about why your room might sound worse with Audyssey engaged, since you added more room treatment. My starting point for any discussion like that is to first examine the calibration methodology, which might be expected to need to change somewhat with different acoustical conditions, and the post-calibration settings, which might also need to change.
> 
> But, if you believe that you have thoroughly investigated both of those issue, then I have nothing more to offer regarding why Audyssey might be impairing the sound quality now in a way that it didn't before. I suppose that, considering the age of your AVR, you might consider trying a different microphone. They tend to degrade first in the higher frequencies. But, if that doesn't work, then this just has to be considered a YMMV situation.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


its funny you say that, I have X7200WA denon arriving today. I am going to do some more testing. I will say I have done well over 500 vslibrstions with audyssey. I take it almost to serious. I have mesurements to put mics in different spots. The sound just seems more alive with it off. I have considered maybe I just like it louder? I started a thread in klipsch forum and most klipsch owners prefer it off but all agree audyssey does great with trim/distance/ sub distance wich I still retain. I am going to use rew with my usb mic and see what room is actually doing.


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> its funny you say that, I have X7200WA denon arriving today. I am going to do some more testing. I will say I have done well over 500 vslibrstions with audyssey. I take it almost to serious. I have mesurements to put mics in different spots. The sound just seems more alive with it off. I have considered maybe I just like it louder? I started a thread in klipsch forum and most klipsch owners prefer it off but all agree audyssey does great with trim/distance/ sub distance wich I still retain. I am going to use rew with my usb mic and see what room is actually doing.


This may not be related to your problem, but because your RF7iis are rated at 101dB @ 2.83V / 1m, more than 10 dB higher than the sensitivity of the typical speaker (approx. [email protected] 2.83v /1m), I'm wondering if Audyssey set any of your trims at -12. If so, it is impossible to know if Audyssey would have set them farther into the negative range if it could. If they are at -12, there are steps that can be taken to keep this from throwing the calibration off. A setting of -12 wouldn't affect the EQ filter set Audyssey put in place, but might affect levels, compared to your center channel. How sensitive is your center channel compared to your RF7iis? 

As far as just liking it louder, that's conceivable. Does this mean that the overall SPL is lower with Audyssey engaged? That could give the _*impression*_ of more limited dynamics. Go ahead and crank it up with Audyssey on and see! One reason SPL has to be equalized in A/B speaker tests is there is a marked tendency for the louder speaker (within reason) to sound better and more exciting.

If your room provides a complex set of reflections -- pleasant ones -- it is conceivable that Audyssey's time domain correction reduces some of them, making the sound more bland. This would jibe with your observation that it sounds more "alive" with Audyssey off. If Audyssey reduced complexity in the first place, then you put in some more absorbing panels, they could be the panels that broke the camel's back. Complexity is one of Berlyne's cortical arousal boosting variables, which, if pleasant, can be most captivating.

Your REW results will be very interesting! I'd love to see one that overlays Audyssey Off and Audyssey Flat. This is easy to do with REW.

The one complication with REW is that most people use just one mic position (at the MLP). It might be good to run some tests with that one position, then repeat, with your measurement mic in all of the 8 positions that you put your Audyssey mic in, and average the results. An average is not quite the same as Audyssey's proprietary "fuzzy logic," but it still might be informative. You could use a weighted mean, with the positions nearer the MLP getting more weight (?), on the grounds that the farther out mic positions are less typical (?) of the listening positions in your room.

Just grasping at straws, and trying to understand why Audyssey serves you so poorly, and seems to provide a considerable improvement at my place.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> This may not be related to your problem, but because your RF7iis are rated at 101dB @ 2.83V / 1m, more than 10 dB higher than the sensitivity of the typical speaker (approx. [email protected] 2.83v /1m), I'm wondering if Audyssey set any of your trims at -12. If so, it is impossible to know if Audyssey would have set them farther into the negative range if it could. If they are at -12, there are steps that can be taken to keep this from throwing the calibration off. A setting of -12 wouldn't affect the EQ filter set Audyssey put in place, but might affect levels, compared to your center channel. How sensitive is your center channel compared to your RF7iis?
> 
> As far as just liking it louder, that's conceivable. Does this mean that the overall SPL is lower with Audyssey engaged? That could give the _*impression*_ of more limited dynamics. Go ahead and crank it up with Audyssey on and see! One reason SPL has to be equalized in A/B speaker tests is there is a marked tendency for the louder speaker (within reason) to sound better and more exciting.
> 
> If your room provides a complex set of reflections -- pleasant ones -- it is conceivable that Audyssey's time domain correction reduces some of them, making the sound more bland. This would jibe with your observation that it sounds more "alive" with Audyssey off. If Audyssey reduced complexity in the first place, then you put in some more absorbing panels, they could be the panels that broke the camel's back. Complexity is one of Berlyne's cortical arousal boosting variables, which, if pleasant, can be most captivating.
> 
> Your REW results will be very interesting! I'd love to see one that overlays Audyssey Off and Audyssey Flat. This is easy to do with REW.
> 
> The one complication with REW is that most people use just one mic position (at the MLP). It might be good to run some tests with that one position, then repeat, with your measurement mic in all of the 8 positions that you put your Audyssey mic in, and average the results. An average is not quite the same as Audyssey's proprietary "fuzzy logic," but it still might be informative. You could use a weighted mean, with the positions nearer the MLP getting more weight (?), on the grounds that the farther out mic positions are less typical (?) of the listening positions in your room.
> 
> Just grasping at straws, and trying to understand why Audyssey serves you so poorly, and seems to provide a considerable improvement at my place.


Gary, it doesn't serve me poorly...just better off lol! 

My 4 RF7II are nowhere near -12. I had the issue in my other room and had to used a 5Db signal connect. My center is very sensitive also at 99DB

Attached are my trims and speaker distances


----------



## RavenBF

I know this has been asked probably a million times, but do you prefer to use MultEQ XT and Dynamic EQ or not? For some reason my Marantz dropped all my Audyssey settings and I didn't notice it at first. My audio did sound off and I was wondering what was up, and then I noticed that my fronts had reverted to large and digging deeper saw that all my settings were off. To me, there was a difference in sound which is why I started looking. I did a restore but I am wondering if I should just run a whole new Audyssey setup. Any opinions are greatly appreciated since I have only really had this set up (fronts, center, surrounds and AVR) since January I am still learning the best way to tweak the system. Thanks!!


----------



## mthomas47

RavenBF said:


> I know this has been asked probably a million times, but do you prefer to use MultEQ XT and Dynamic EQ or not? For some reason my Marantz dropped all my Audyssey settings and I didn't notice it at first. My audio did sound off and I was wondering what was up, and then I noticed that my fronts had reverted to large and digging deeper saw that all my settings were off. To me, there was a difference in sound which is why I started looking. I did a restore but I am wondering if I should just run a whole new Audyssey setup. Any opinions are greatly appreciated since I have only really had this set up (fronts, center, surrounds and AVR) since January I am still learning the best way to tweak the system. Thanks!!


Hi,

Based on what you said, I don't see a reason to run a new Audyssey calibration, if you have been pretty well satisfied with the one you started with. However, there is some art to achieving a good calibration, and some additional practice probably wouldn't hurt.

The filters that Audyssey sets as part of it's room correction process are intended to make your speakers sound better in your room. The filters are attempting to achieve a flatter frequency response at your listening position than would otherwise exist with room influences affecting your sound. DEQ is a separate software program that is enabled by default when you run a calibration. It can be turned off and back on repeatedly without affecting the EQ that Audyssey performed. The same thing is true for the other settings.

Whether you personally like the way that XT sounds in your room, and/or the way that DEQ sounds, are the only important questions. Preferences vary on everything related to audio (and with everything else, for that matter) and you can get other peoples' opinions pro and con, and still not learn anything about your own preferences.

I would just continue to experiment, and then make a note of some of your favorite settings in case a future software update wipes them out again. I could easily recreate all of my favorite settings from scratch if I had to. But, I hope I don't have to. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

For music listening, it seems that when Audyssey is engaged, DEQ is almost a requirement. If I just run XT32 and turn off DEQ, the bass is really lacking. It doesn't seem to be just the really deep bass, either. It's also bass the the mains are producing. Now if I switch to pure direct mode, bass and fullness come back. 

I can leave Audyssey without DEQ and boost the sub a ton, but the result just isn't what I'd call good. The other approach is to use tone controls and bump up the bass a little, but even that doesn't sound great. For my system at least, I either need Audyssey on with DEQ, or just run it in pure direct.


----------



## RavenBF

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Based on what you said, I don't see a reason to run a new Audyssey calibration, if you have been pretty well satisfied with the one you started with. However, there is some art to achieving a good calibration, and some additional practice probably wouldn't hurt.
> 
> The filters that Audyssey sets as part of it's room correction process are intended to make your speakers sound better in your room. The filters are attempting to achieve a flatter frequency response at your listening position than would otherwise exist with room influences affecting your sound. DEQ is a separate software program that is enabled by default when you run a calibration. It can be turned off and back on repeatedly without affecting the EQ that Audyssey performed. The same thing is true for the other settings.
> 
> Whether you personally like the way that XT sounds in your room, and/or the way that DEQ sounds, are the only important questions. Preferences vary on everything related to audio (and with everything else, for that matter) and you can get other peoples' opinions pro and con, and still not learn anything about your own preferences.
> 
> I would just continue to experiment, and then make a note of some of your favorite settings in case a future software update wipes them out again. I could easily recreate all of my favorite settings from scratch if I had to. But, I hope I don't have to.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the input!!! At the moment I actually like them better being on....in time who knows. I really think my fronts switching to large is what threw me off with how my audio was performing, which led me to finding all the other stuff. As of right now I am fine with the restore, everything seems to be working fine and I have no issues with the sound. I am still trying to figure why my Marantz dropped the settings, maybe a power outage or a firmware update...even though I don't remember seeing one lol. Thanks again.


----------



## IMWhizzle

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

I've used a couple of Audyssey XT32 calibrations, but it didn't satisfy my needs. Then I went on and played with the REW simulator and here is the result:










Mind blowing sound with greats bass, mid tones and fidelity in the highs. I only left the Audyssey distance and level settings on, then bumped up the trim of my sub with 9db (0db in the AVR) with an 80hz crossover all around and 150hz on the Atmos modules. I also used a SPL meter to double check the results. Also I've used the SPL meter for measuring the subwoofer distance setting. It turned out that I needed to bump up the distance with 6ft to have the highest SPL.

There is a huge rug on the floor (you can hardly see it on the photo) and the material of the couch helps a lot with reflections.

This sound, is AWESOME! Audyssey off for me for movies and music. It was to harsh at times and the bass didn't sound great. Now it is.


----------



## mthomas47

IMWhizzle said:


> I've used a couple of Audyssey XT32 calibrations, but it didn't satisfy my needs. Then I went on and played with the REW simulator and here is the result:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mind blowing sound with greats bass, mid tones and fidelity in the highs. I only left the Audyssey distance and level settings on, then bumped up the trim of my sub with 9db (0db in the AVR) with an 80hz crossover all around and 150hz on the Atmos modules. I also used a SPL meter to double check the results. Also I've used the SPL meter for measuring the subwoofer distance setting. It turned out that I needed to bump up the distance with 6ft to have the highest SPL.
> 
> There is a huge rug on the floor (you can hardly see it on the photo) and the material of the couch helps a lot with reflections.
> 
> This sound, is AWESOME! Audyssey off for me for movies and music. It was to harsh at times and the bass didn't sound great. Now it is.


Hi,

I'm happy that you have the sound that you want now. I'm not too surprised that Audyssey struggled a little bit in the higher frequencies in your room. You have a lot of hard surfaces and some angles which might also create early reflection issues. I believe that smaller rooms with a lot of early reflections are those most likely to give Audyssey problems above about 400Hz. 

As for the bass, most people add a sub boost post-calibration, even with Audyssey (and DEQ) engaged. The important thing, though, is that you have achieved a sound you like.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> ... If I just run XT32 and turn off DEQ, the bass is really lacking.* It doesn't seem to be just the really deep bass, either. It's also bass the the mains are producing.* Now if I switch to pure direct mode, bass and fullness come back.
> 
> I can leave Audyssey without DEQ and boost the sub a ton, but the result just isn't what I'd call good. The other approach is to use tone controls and bump up the bass a little, but even that doesn't sound great. For my system at least, I either need Audyssey on with DEQ, or just run it in pure direct.


I assume you have tried using BOTH the bass tone control and the subwoofer boost (a little, not "a ton"), together. The bass tone control affects just the LF and RF. With Audyssey on, when my bass tone control is at +6 dB, and my sub (crossover @ 80) is also at +6 dB, with all main speakers set on "small," they produce a smooth elevation of the bass that is not overwhelming, and is much cleaner and less distorted than DEQ (IMO), without DEQ's annoying treble boost (a shortcoming on some, but not all, music disks). The fact that the center is getting no boost doesn't seem to be a problem. 

Please remind me how loudly you generally play your music (perhaps as a range of dB below Audyssey calibrated 0) ... just curious.

I really don't know why virtually all of us have a bass deficit when using Audyssey. An explanation often offered is that we *like* some of the bass room peaks that Audyssey dutifully takes away. Naturally, you would still get any room peaks with Pure Direct, unless you take them away with room treatment, traps, etc. But this explanation doesn't seem adequate to me (intuition rules!). I may be lucky because the smooth bass boost I get with tone control + sub boost, with Audyssey on, sounds much better than Pure Direct or DEQ with Audyssey on, at my house.


----------



## IMWhizzle

garygarrison said:


> I assume you have tried using BOTH the bass tone control and the subwoofer boost (a little, not "a ton"), together. The bass tone control affects just the LF and RF. With Audyssey on, when my bass tone control is at +6 dB, and my sub (crossover @ 80) is also at +6 dB, with all main speakers set on "small," they produce a smooth elevation of the bass that is not overwhelming, and is much cleaner and less distorted than DEQ (IMO), without DEQ's annoying treble boost (a shortcoming on some, but not all, music disks). The fact that the center is getting no boost doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> Please remind me how loudly you generally play your music (perhaps as a range of dB below Audyssey calibrated 0) ... just curious.
> 
> I really don't know why virtually all of us have a bass deficit when using Audyssey. An explanation often offered is that we *like* some of the bass room peaks that Audyssey dutifully takes away. Naturally, you would still get any room peaks with Pure Direct, unless you take them away with room treatment, traps, etc. But this explanation doesn't seem adequate to me (intuition rules!) I may be lucky because the smooth bass boost I get with tone control + sub boost, with Audyssey on, sounds much better than Pure Direct or DEQ with Audyssey on, at my house.




Interesting. I didn't try out this setting. How much db of sub boost did you raise the sub without tone control?


----------



## torii

when I experimented with rew today, deq on at 0 was way over my limits (no headroom) and if I used 10 or 15 it was too little. best was to turn deq off and tone control +2. sub trim at -4. Im sure everyone is different, just need to experiment. at my chosen settings I have 10db of headroom which I think is enough.


----------



## garygarrison

IMWhizzle said:


> Interesting. I didn't try out this setting. How much db of sub boost did you raise the sub *without* tone control?


I've tried many, many different degrees of sub boost, *with and without* using tone controls. I guess you could call me a tweaker (no, not that kind). Just about whenever I've tried sub boost alone (crossover at 80 Hz), sooner or later I've noticed that the mid and high bass frequencies ~~ 80 Hz to ~~200 Hz needed boost too, so I have used the bass tone control as well as sub boost. Some of the impact sound of bass drum and tympani (the "smack" of beater against head) is well above our usual 80 Hz crossover to the sub, so, if deficient, need boost higher in the spectrum than the sub usually operates (or is very rolled off, i.e., 35 dB/octave, or 35 dB down at 160 Hz). To determine where the impact sound may reside (potentially different on different recordings) I've experimented with playing orchestral music with kettledrums and a big bass drum (Telarc has a good one) with just my mains on (set on "small"), then with just the subwoofer on, in both cases with the crossover set at 80 Hz. The best way I can describe the result is that if the big drums make a sound like a "Baooom," the "Ba" comes mostly through the mains, and the "ooom" comes mostly through the sub. Sometimes it is a "Poom" with the "P" transient coming through the mains, and the "oom" coming through the sub. It's interesting that the sound of a great rush of air on the "P" transient tends to come through the mains, but the feeling of the great rush of air hitting one's pants legs tends to come through the sub. Enough of this! In any case, I tend to use both the bass control and the sub boost. In the old days, before I started using tone control boost as well, I guess I used an average of *6 dB sub boost without any tone control boost*, but sometimes a lot more. Now I use 6 dB bass control boost plus 6 dB subwoofer boost, depending on the recording. There certainly are problem recordings. One is the movie How the West Was Won, which I saw in a roadshow Cinerama presentation, with 7 channel sound, so I pretty well know how the filmmakers wanted it (their people set it up in the theater). The Blu-ray doesn't have nearly as much bass as the Cinerama version (my home theater has great bass and punch), and the orchestra is too bright. After much experimentation (before showing it to anyone) I gave it the most extreme EQ I've ever used, *all by ear*, with repeated trials: First, I turned down the treble control to *-* 5 dB (I hardly ever use anything except the neutral, 0, no cut, no boost, setting on the treble control). Second, I set the bass control for *+* 6 dB (max), and put my custom bass processor into the circuit, set for *+* 3 dB, bringing the total boost for mid bass to 9 dB. Third, I boosted the subwoofer by 14 (!) dB, well into the danger-of-clipping zone -- with this movie, precious little was going into the sub, so it was safe. I did turn the MV down just a bit for the running-the-rapids sequence, because it has a prolonged bass underpinning. Why did this movie require such extreme steps? My hypothesis is that the people who put it on Blu-ray had not seen the Cinerama version, so they didn't know how it was supposed to sound. If they used the first generation music elements (advisable) they may not have realized that mixers in those days recorded the first generation flat, to avoid accidental over recording when there was an 80 - 100 piece orchestra sitting there being paid. Later, mixers would goose the bass and the dynamics -- especially with roadshow movies -- at their leisure, when doing the mix down. So, it isn't a big surprise that there was not nearly as much bass on the Blu-ray as there was in the theater.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Gary's posts on this are excellent, so I won't try to embellish them. I will simply say that I believe he is correct that people who prefer the bass in their rooms, without Audyssey engaged, are probably hearing distortions that they may like at certain frequencies. To be fair, I don't think that very many people report preferring the bass in their rooms with Audyssey off. Complaints about Audyssey sounding worse nearly always focus on mid-range or higher frequencies. And, as noted in an earlier post, that can relate to the nature of the room itself. A lot of early reflections in a smaller room can give any system of automated room correction some problems. However, good setup and experienced calibration technique can sometimes serve to mitigate those problems, so that Audyssey can be more effective.

But, the low frequencies are a completely different matter, as Audyssey is nearly always effective at smoothing out the frequency response below about 400Hz. The problem there is that if we are not used to hearing less distorted bass, some of us may not like the sound of it at first. I am distinguishing that reaction from the "Why do I have less bass after running an Audyssey calibration?" question, as that relates more to setting all of the channels in an audio system to the same SPL, as measured at the main listening position. That question is addressed in detail in the subwoofer guide linked in my signature.

Focusing just on the issue of someone potentially preferring distorted bass, though, let's define distortion in this context. It simply means that some frequencies are emphasized, while others are masked, or reduced by dips in the frequency response. If someone has a peak at 40Hz, for instance, due to room modes, that peak will make sounds at that frequency stand out more than sounds at 35Hz or 45Hz. Reduce the peak, so that all of the frequencies sound more equal, and it may sound less exciting at first. But, turning Audyssey off and on, while listening to a variety of different material, should help to educate our hearing to what Audyssey is actually doing, and why it's important. After a while, with some practice, it's fairly easy to hear distortion in low frequencies.

Once we have achieved relatively undistorted bass, it's just a matter of achieving the overall bass volumes which are comfortable for us, with the particular program material we are listening to. For some people, DEQ works perfectly for that, although it is still common to add some additional sub boost to DEQ, particularly for modern blockbuster or action movies. For others, the use of an independent sub boost, without DEQ, seems to work better. In that case, I agree with Gary that using the tone controls to balance the mid and upper bass, with the low bass played by the subs, can be very helpful. But, how much bass to add either with or without DEQ is completely a matter of user preference.

The subwoofer guide linked in my signature can help to explain how much DEQ is boosting bass at a particular master volume level. Most people typically report adding 3db to 6db of boost for bass heavy movies in addition to DEQ. How much independent sub boost would be required to roughly equal the boost that DEQ is providing at a particular master volume, for people preferring not to use DEQ, is just a mathematical calculation.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

Hey guys. Great to see Mike, Gary and the gang still doing such great work in the (new) Audyssey thread! I see the same issues keep on coming up just as they did in the 'old days', with some great advice being offered to help resolve things, or at least make them understood.   All the best, Keith.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> *Subwoofer Levels**:*
> 
> The most commonly asked question on the Audyssey thread these days involves subwoofer settings. There is a fairly universal perception that ....


Great post Mike. Do you want me to copy it and add it to the FAQ? As you know, I don't follow this thread these days due to other commitments and also the fact that I have been a long time user of Dirac Live now and so am no longer using XT32. It is a shame that I cannot hand the FAQ over to you so that you have editing rights to it. If this is possible with Moderator intervention, let me know. I am sure things have moved on a lot since I first wrote the FAQ all those years ago (back in 2008). (We have the new Audyssey app for one thing...). Let me know....

All the best, Keith.


----------



## IMWhizzle

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Gary's posts on this are excellent, so I won't try to embellish them. I will simply say that I believe he is correct that people who prefer the bass in their rooms, without Audyssey engaged, are probably hearing distortions that they may like at certain frequencies. To be fair, I don't think that very many people report preferring the bass in their rooms with Audyssey off. Complaints about Audyssey sounding worse nearly always focus on mid-range or higher frequencies. And, as noted in an earlier post, that can relate to the nature of the room itself. A lot of early reflections in a smaller room can give any system of automated room correction some problems. However, good setup and experienced calibration technique can sometimes serve to mitigate those problems, so that Audyssey can be more effective.
> 
> But, the low frequencies are a completely different matter, as Audyssey is nearly always effective at smoothing out the frequency response below about 400Hz. The problem there is that if we are not used to hearing less distorted bass, some of us may not like the sound of it at first. I am distinguishing that reaction from the "Why do I have less bass after running an Audyssey calibration?" question, as that relates more to setting all of the channels in an audio system to the same SPL, as measured at the main listening position. That question is addressed in detail in the subwoofer guide linked in my signature.
> 
> Focusing just on the issue of someone potentially preferring distorted bass, though, let's define distortion in this context. It simply means that some frequencies are emphasized, while others are masked, or reduced by dips in the frequency response. If someone has a peak at 40Hz, for instance, due to room modes, that peak will make sounds at that frequency stand out more than sounds at 35Hz or 45Hz. Reduce the peak, so that all of the frequencies sound more equal, and it may sound less exciting at first. But, turning Audyssey off and on, while listening to a variety of different material, should help to educate our hearing to what Audyssey is actually doing, and why it's important. After a while, with some practice, it's fairly easy to hear distortion in low frequencies.
> 
> Once we have achieved relatively undistorted bass, it's just a matter of achieving the overall bass volumes which are comfortable for us, with the particular program material we are listening to. For some people, DEQ works perfectly for that, although it is still common to add some additional sub boost to DEQ, particularly for modern blockbuster or action movies. For others, the use of an independent sub boost, without DEQ, seems to work better. In that case, I agree with Gary that using the tone controls to balance the mid and upper bass, with the low bass played by the subs, can be very helpful. But, how much bass to add either with or without DEQ is completely a matter of user preference.
> 
> The subwoofer guide linked in my signature can help to explain how much DEQ is boosting bass at a particular master volume level. Most people typically report adding 3db to 6db of boost for bass heavy movies in addition to DEQ. How much independent sub boost would be required to roughly equal the boost that DEQ is providing at a particular master volume, for people preferring not to use DEQ, is just a mathematical calculation.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




From a scientific perspective I must say that you're right. But, 20 or 30 years ago room correction software for consumers didn't exist in the living room (maybe only for the elite). People were enjoying their setup. I do I believe that speaker positing is a great way to start out. Also the distance setting is important. Those are the two things I keep from the Audyssey measurement.

I know Michael Jackson music inside and out, heard it on almost every possible way and by that I mean his discography starting from the "Off The Wall" album. When I listen to it with Audyssey on, it's horrible.

When turning Audyssey off it's magic and the way it should be listened to in my room. 

Also important is the subwoofer distance setting. Which I use to smooth out the overlap in the crossover area.

EDIT: I must add that I positioned the sub and the towers according to a room simulation with the REW application. I was looking for an evened out frequency response, without dips and peaks. Granted, the way everything is positioned right now is without audible dips and not much bumps. I guess I don't like a flat frequency response which takes out all the warmth in my opinion in my room. Maybe later when I have a new house I will take it to a HT level in a dedicated treated room. I think that Audyssey then has less challenges compared to my current living room space.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Great post Mike. Do you want me to copy it and add it to the FAQ? As you know, I don't follow this thread these days due to other commitments and also the fact that I have been a long time user of Dirac Live now and so am no longer using XT32. It is a shame that I cannot hand the FAQ over to you so that you have editing rights to it. If this is possible with Moderator intervention, let me know. I am sure things have moved on a lot since I first wrote the FAQ all those years ago (back in 2008). (We have the new Audyssey app for one thing...). Let me know....
> 
> All the best, Keith.


Hi Keith,

It's really nice to hear from you. I have been hoping that you would come back and tell us about the new theater you were building. It sounded exciting and I will follow your link to it.

Thank you very much for the compliment! You are more than welcome to add the post, or any portions of it that you think will fit, to the FAQ. Frankly, editing the FAQ seems like a daunting task to me. Every time I look at it, I am impressed again by the amount of effort that you devoted to it. My computer skills are pretty rudimentary compared to yours, so I may be content to just leave the FAQ in your capable hands, even if that means it only gets tweaked every year or two. As you say, most of the same questions keep resurfacing. And, although I think that we develop more insight into some things as time passes, the basic information in the FAQ is still very relevant and helpful.

Don't be a stranger! We miss having you drop in, Dirac or not. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> I assume you have tried using BOTH the bass tone control and the subwoofer boost (a little, not "a ton"), together. The bass tone control affects just the LF and RF. With Audyssey on, when my bass tone control is at +6 dB, and my sub (crossover @ 80) is also at +6 dB, with all main speakers set on "small," they produce a smooth elevation of the bass that is not overwhelming, and is much cleaner and less distorted than DEQ (IMO), without DEQ's annoying treble boost (a shortcoming on some, but not all, music disks). The fact that the center is getting no boost doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> Please remind me how loudly you generally play your music (perhaps as a range of dB below Audyssey calibrated 0) ... just curious.
> 
> I really don't know why virtually all of us have a bass deficit when using Audyssey. An explanation often offered is that we *like* some of the bass room peaks that Audyssey dutifully takes away. Naturally, you would still get any room peaks with Pure Direct, unless you take them away with room treatment, traps, etc. But this explanation doesn't seem adequate to me (intuition rules!). I may be lucky because the smooth bass boost I get with tone control + sub boost, with Audyssey on, sounds much better than Pure Direct or DEQ with Audyssey on, at my house.


I played around with DEQ off and bass boost on the tone control and sub. I didn't listen very extensively this way, but I think I still prefer DEQ with the 10 db offset. I listen to music at anywhere from -30 to maybe -15, but typically I'm around -20. 

A lot of this must be room dependent, but the lack of bass with Audyssey engaged seems to be a very common complaint. My speakers seem to have a natural hump around the 80-100 Hz region, so I'm probably hearing more of that with Audyssey off vs on. Audyssey tries to flatten that area. Thing is, sometimes that extra bass sounds better for tunes.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> It's really nice to hear from you. I have been hoping that you would come back and tell us about the new theater you were building. It sounded exciting and I will follow your link to it.


Hi Mike. Yes please do drop in to the thread and take a look!



mthomas47 said:


> Thank you very much for the compliment! You are more than welcome to add the post, or any portions of it that you think will fit, to the FAQ. Frankly, editing the FAQ seems like a daunting task to me. Every time I look at it, I am impressed again by the amount of effort that you devoted to it. My computer skills are pretty rudimentary compared to yours, so I may be content to just leave the FAQ in your capable hands, even if that means it only gets tweaked every year or two. As you say, most of the same questions keep resurfacing. And, although I think that we develop more insight into some things as time passes, the basic information in the FAQ is still very relevant and helpful.


OK - thanks. I will add your excellent post to the FAQ as soon as I can.



mthomas47 said:


> Don't be a stranger! We miss having you drop in, Dirac or not.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 Very kind of you to say so, after all this time.


----------



## kbarnes701

@mthomas47

Houston, we have a problem.

Mike - the FAQ is locked, presumably because the thread is closed, so I can't edit it or indeed make any further changes to it. It is set in stone for all time 

If a Mod could give me access to it, I could copy the entire thread to this new Audyssey thread, which will make editing it in the future possible. Not sure what the best course of action is. Any suggestions? Irritatingly, I did have a complete copy of it with all the hyperlinks and BB code in it in my text editor on an old hard drive. But when we moved house last year I threw the old drive away not thinking I'd ever need anything on it again. Damn! If I still had that drive all I'd need to do is CTRL-A and then start a new post and CTRL-V. I used to do that all the time when I was creating the FAQ originally. Ho hum...

Best, Keith


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> @*mthomas47*
> 
> Houston, we have a problem.
> 
> Mike - the FAQ is locked, presumably because the thread is closed, so I can't edit it or indeed make any further changes to it. It is set in stone for all time
> 
> If a Mod could give me access to it, I could copy the entire thread to this new Audyssey thread, which will make editing it in the future possible. Not sure what the best course of action is. Any suggestions? Irritatingly, I did have a complete copy of it with all the hyperlinks and BB code in it in my text editor on an old hard drive. But when we moved house last year I threw the old drive away not thinking I'd ever need anything on it again. Damn! If I still had that drive all I'd need to do is CTRL-A and then start a new post and CTRL-V. I used to do that all the time when I was creating the FAQ originally. Ho hum...
> 
> Best, Keith


Darn, I hadn't thought of that possibility. I would defer to you on potential ways to do this, as my IT skills are pretty limited. But, I might start by quoting or PMing the moderator who closed the old thread and started this Part II thread to find out what might be feasible.


----------



## garygarrison

kbarnes701 said:


> Great post Mike. Do you want me to copy it and add it to the FAQ? As you know, I don't follow this thread these days due to other commitments and also the fact that I have been a long time user of Dirac Live now and so am no longer using XT32. It is a shame that I cannot hand the FAQ over to you so that you have editing rights to it. If this is possible with Moderator intervention, let me know. I am sure things have moved on a lot since I first wrote the FAQ all those years ago (back in 2008). (We have the new Audyssey app for one thing...). Let me know....
> 
> All the best, Keith.


A great idea!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... Frankly, editing the FAQ seems like a daunting task to me. Every time I look at it, I am impressed again by the amount of effort that you devoted to it. My computer skills are pretty rudimentary compared to yours, so I may be content to just leave the FAQ in your capable hands, even if that means it only gets tweaked every year or two. As you say, most of the same questions keep resurfacing. And, although I think that we develop more insight into some things as time passes, the basic information in the FAQ is still very relevant and helpful ...
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Also workable! 

Keith, I have included the link to the FAQ in my posts on other forums several times. I usually bill it as "The *best* source for understanding Audyssey."


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> A great idea!





garygarrison said:


> Also workable!
> 
> Keith, I have included the link to the FAQ in my posts on other forums several times. I usually bill it as "The *best* source for understanding Audyssey."


Gary,

Thank you very much for the vote of confidence! But, given my relatively limited IT abilities (hyperlink? ) I think that I would just as soon have Keith keep the FAQ, if he is willing.

My own writing style is also probably better suited to more of an article, or essay format, than to the FAQ's Q&A format. I really enjoyed doing the post that Keith quoted, and I may do other long ones in the future. But, they are very time consuming, and I don't always have the luxury of having as much of that as I would like.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Skylinestar

In.vincible said:


> For music listening, it seems that when Audyssey is engaged, DEQ is almost a requirement. If I just run XT32 and turn off DEQ, the bass is really lacking. It doesn't seem to be just the really deep bass, either. It's also bass the the mains are producing. Now if I switch to pure direct mode, bass and fullness come back.
> 
> I can leave Audyssey without DEQ and boost the sub a ton, but the result just isn't what I'd call good. The other approach is to use tone controls and bump up the bass a little, but even that doesn't sound great. For my system at least, I either need Audyssey on with DEQ, or just run it in pure direct.


Talking about bass boost, here's a discussion which I've started a few years ago:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-level-relative-reference-level.html

You'll be surprised how crazy some people are


----------



## kbarnes701

Well I am happy to maintain the FAQ but somehow we need to enable editing facilities for me. 

*@MODERATORS.*... is there some way that the original FAQ post can be moved to this thread so I regain editing rights?

*@GUYS*..... this will of course wreck all the links in all those posts where the FAQ is quoted.
*
@MODERATORS*.... is it possible to replace the original FAQ post with a link to the moved FAQ post, if it is indeed possible to move it? That way anyone following an old link will still be able to get to the FAQ?

Anyone got any other/better ideas?


----------



## mthomas47

Mike Lang said:


> Continued from "Official" Audyssey thread.


Hi Mike,

Do you know if there is any way to move the Audyssey FAQ to this Part II thread, so that it can be updated and edited by the author? If so, is it possible to replace the original FAQ post with a link to the moved FAQ post, if it is indeed possible to move it? That way anyone following an old link will still be able to get to the FAQ?

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## Mike Lang

Post one of this thread is now the FAQ but it's already created a database error. It may break this thread like the last one. This software was not designed to contain that much data in a post/thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

Mike Lang said:


> Post one of this thread is now the FAQ but it's already created a database error. It may break this thread like the last one. This software was not designed to contain that much data in a post/thread.


Mike, with respect, that is odd. The FAQ has been running in more or less its present form for a number of years. AIUI the original thread was closed due to the thread length causing problems for people when editing and posting, not because of the FAQ.

If I can get editing rights to the FAQ I can break it into two smaller (but still lengthy posts) if that will help, although I do find it odd that the thread functioned properly for years despite the length of the FAQ.

Kind Regards,

Keith

EDIT: I just tried the FAQ in post 1 and it seems to be working properly.

There is a Tech Addendum to the FAQ and a '101' procedural post which perhaps also ought to be moved to this thread? These may or may not be referenced in the FAQ - I can't recall but I will check it all through tomorrow (it's late at night here right now). 

The '101' and the Tech Addendum (the two posts following the FAQ in the original thread) are much shorter than the FAQ so shouldn’t cause any problems.

Thanks very much for your intervention and help with all this.


----------



## kbarnes701

@mthomas47

Mike - given the issues raised by Mike above, it may not be a good idea to add your excellent contribution to the FAQ, thus making it longer still.

Suggestion: if Mike could clear posts 2, 3, and 4 and copy the '101' to post 2 and the Tech Addendum to post 3, then post 4 could be your own info. Just a thought - then all the info would be in one place.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> @*mthomas47*
> 
> Mike - given the issues raised by Mike above, it may not be a good idea to add your excellent contribution to the FAQ, thus making it longer still.
> 
> Suggestion: if Mike could clear posts 2, 3, and 4 and copy the '101' to post 2 and the Tech Addendum to post 3, then post 4 could be your own info. Just a thought - then all the info would be in one place.


Hi Keith,

I do like the idea of having all the info in one place, and I also like the idea of being able to go back and enlarge on that post if I ever want to add more sections to it. If Mike can do what you have suggested, I think that would be a great idea. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## In.vincible

Just wondering about the two different high freq. rolloff curves...I tried using #2 for a while, but sometimes I think dialogue sounds a bit less intelligible. Just switched back to #1 , and there seems to be more clarity. Has anyone else noticed this? I know dialogues is typically at much lower freqs. than the rolloff, but it does seem to have an effect.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Just wondering about the two different high freq. rolloff curves...I tried using #2 for a while, but sometimes I think dialogue sounds a bit less intelligible. Just switched back to #1 , and there seems to be more clarity. Has anyone else noticed this? I know dialogues is typically at much lower freqs. than the rolloff, but it does seem to have an effect.


I can't use the app with my pre/pro. Does Audysey give you a graph of the two roll-offs, or a description? The one and only roll-off used in Audyssey Reference can be described as starting at about 7.5K Hz, down 2 dB at 10K, and down 6 dB at 20K. Is that one of the two choices available with the app? [I tried clicking on the blue #1 and #2 in your post, and nothing happened]

Both male and female voices have content (overtones and/or fricative sounds) as high as about 8K, and more subtle content as high as 15K. These regions might be important in providing clarity with some dialogue. When characters have strong accents, my family and I can understand better with Audyssey Flat than with Audyssey Reference. The high frequencies may be important in conveying mood, as well. I used to have a preamp with a "scratch filter" that provided roll-off starting at 7K. A male voice sounded appreciably duller with the filter engaged. As a friend said, it took the smile out of his voice.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> I can't use the app with my pre/pro. Does Audysey give you a graph of the two roll-offs, or a description? The one and only roll-off used in Audyssey Reference can be described as starting at about 7.5K Hz, down 2 dB at 10K, and down 6 dB at 20K. Is that one of the two choices available with the app? [I tried clicking on the blue #1 and #2 in your post, and nothing happened]
> 
> Both male and female voices have content (overtones and/or fricative sounds) as high as about 8K, and more subtle content as high as 15K. These regions might be important in providing clarity with some dialogue. When characters have strong accents, my family and I can understand better with Audyssey Flat than with Audyssey Reference. The high frequencies may be important in conveying mood, as well. I used to have a preamp with a "scratch filter" that provided roll-off starting at 7K. A male voice sounded appreciably duller with the filter engaged. As a friend said, it took the smile out of his voice.


Yep, they can be chosen from the app. I always used to use rolloff 1, and never really had intelligibility issues. Since switching to rolloff 2, I've noticed dialogues seems a bit muffled sometimes, especially male voices. I only watched one TV show last night after going back to the first rolloff, but it did seem better to me. Unfortunately, I prefer rolloff 2 a little more for music, but the AVR will only store one custom curve at a time. _Really_ wish it could store at least two.

Here's the two rolloff target curves:


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Yep, they can be chosen from the app. I always used to use rolloff 1, and never really had intelligibility issues. Since switching to rolloff 2, I've noticed dialogues seems a bit muffled sometimes, especially male voices. I only watched one TV show last night after going back to the first rolloff, but it did seem better to me. Unfortunately, I prefer rolloff 2 a little more for music, but the AVR will only store one custom curve at a time. _Really_ wish it could store at least two.
> 
> Here's the two rolloff target curves:


Thanks for the curves. I presume the divisions are 5 dB, and the frequency range shown is maybe 20 - 20K. I really wish they had tried labels. The midrange compensation dip is about 1 db more than I expected, and curve #1 looks a lot like the Audyssey Reference curve on our older pre/pros and AVRs.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> Thanks for the curves. I presume the divisions are 5 dB, and the frequency range shown is maybe 20 - 20K. I really wish they had tried labels. The midrange compensation dip is about 1 db more than I expected, and curve #1 looks a lot like the Audyssey Reference curve on our older pre/pros and AVRs.


Labels would've been nice for sure 

Here's what I actually measured (just at one point). Red is rolloff 2.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Labels would've been nice for sure
> 
> Here's what I actually measured (just at one point). Red is rolloff 2.


Thanks again. That's a pretty nice looking curve, particularly in the bass! Did the mic move at all (even an inch) between measurements? The reason I'm asking is because the curve with the *least* roll-off overall (#1) has the *largest* dip (about 5 dB) at 20K. Could be tweeter beaming at ultra high frequencies if the mic moved (?). Are your speakers aimed at the MLP, and was that where the mic was?


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> Thanks again. That's a pretty nice looking curve, particularly in the bass! Did the mic move at all (even an inch) between measurements? The reason I'm asking is because the curve with the *least* roll-off overall (#1) has the *largest* dip (about 5 dB) at 20K. Could be tweeter beaming at ultra high frequencies if the mic moved (?). Are your speakers aimed at the MLP, and was that where the mic was?


Thanks, I think it sounds pretty good  I don't think the mic moved at all between measurements, but I've repeated it with the mic in roughly the same spot, but not exactly, and the results look slightly different. I really should've just taken an average of measurements like Audyssey does, but I'm not very familiar with REW yet.

I have the speakers toed-in towards the MLP. If I were sitting there, they'd probably be just a little off the sides of my head, instead of being aimed directly at my face. Anyway, that measurement was with some tweaks. I think I had DEQ on with a ref. offset of 10 db, and maybe a 4 dB boost to the sub. Since then, I switched DEQ to 15 offset and only boosted sub by +3. This is all for music. For TV and movies, I haven't boosted the sub at all. Been using 0 offset for movies, but 10 offset for TV.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> I assume you have tried using BOTH the bass tone control and the subwoofer boost (a little, not "a ton"), together. The bass tone control affects just the LF and RF. With Audyssey on, when my bass tone control is at +6 dB, and my sub (crossover @ 80) is also at +6 dB, with all main speakers set on "small," they produce a smooth elevation of the bass that is not overwhelming, and is much cleaner and less distorted than DEQ (IMO), without DEQ's annoying treble boost (a shortcoming on some, but not all, music disks). The fact that the center is getting no boost doesn't seem to be a problem.
> 
> Please remind me how loudly you generally play your music (perhaps as a range of dB below Audyssey calibrated 0) ... just curious.
> 
> I really don't know why virtually all of us have a bass deficit when using Audyssey. An explanation often offered is that we *like* some of the bass room peaks that Audyssey dutifully takes away. Naturally, you would still get any room peaks with Pure Direct, unless you take them away with room treatment, traps, etc. But this explanation doesn't seem adequate to me (intuition rules!). I may be lucky because the smooth bass boost I get with tone control + sub boost, with Audyssey on, sounds much better than Pure Direct or DEQ with Audyssey on, at my house.


For 2-ch. music, I was running the XT32 reference curve with DEQ on, ref offset -15 dB, sub boosted +3. This sounded pretty good, but I still had the feeling there was too much treble (my room is bright). Bass wasn't bad, but maybe had just a tiny bit of bloat. It's too bad we can't use tone controls with DEQ on, because I think if I could just reduce the treble one notch, I'd be happy. Also, DEQ is boosting treble, as well as bass. I could do without the treble boost, no matter how minor.

Anyway, I tried out your method tonight. Turned off DEQ, engaged tone controls and set bass to +3, treble to -1. I bumped up the sub to +4 to get a little more bass, but may go even higher. Just from some brief listening, this sounds really good. The bass is definitely there, but it's natural sounding. I noticed you said you boosted bass by +6. On my AVR, that is the max I can do, so I figured +3 is right in the middle, and a little safer. Would there be any harm in maxing out at +6? That might be a little too much for my taste anyway.

Thanks for the tips. This method seems to work nicely without the artificial-ness of DEQ. I like that I can use tone controls to really dial things in. I suppose I could try editing the Audyssey curve with the app, but that would be opening a whole other can of worms.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> ... Anyway, I tried out your method tonight. Turned off DEQ, engaged tone controls and set bass to +3, treble to -1. I bumped up the sub to +4 to get a little more bass, but may go even higher. Just from some brief listening, this sounds really good. The bass is definitely there, but it's natural sounding. I noticed you said you boosted bass by +6. On my AVR, that is the max I can do, so I figured +3 is right in the middle, and *a little safer. Would there be any harm in maxing out at +6?* That might be a little too much for my taste anyway.
> 
> Thanks for the tips. This method seems to work nicely without the artificial-ness of DEQ. I like that I can use tone controls to really dial things in. I suppose I could try editing the Audyssey curve with the app, but that would be opening a whole other can of worms.


As long as you have your LF and RF speakers set to SMALL on your AVR, I doubt if there would be any harm in using +6 on the bass tone control because those speakers will be rolled off below your crossover, and less will be required of your AVR power, as well. The bass tone control boost does not affect anything except the R&L front channels, and, with the SMALL setting, rolls them off before the signal gets to the power amp stage of the AVR. Is your crossover to the sub at 80 Hz, or somewhere else? What is the RMS power in watts per channel of your AVR when only 2 channels are operating? What is the rated sensitivity of your Right and Left front speakers?


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> I really don't know why virtually all of us have a bass deficit when using Audyssey. An explanation often offered is that we *like* some of the bass room peaks that Audyssey dutifully takes away. Naturally, you would still get any room peaks with Pure Direct, unless you take them away with room treatment, traps, etc. But this explanation doesn't seem adequate to me (intuition rules!). I may be lucky because the smooth bass boost I get with tone control + sub boost, with Audyssey on, sounds much better than Pure Direct or DEQ with Audyssey on, at my house.


My view FWIW is that it is a fundamental flaw in the design of the Audyssey Target Curve. Audyssey's aim is to deliver a 'flat' (more or less) frequency response after calibration. However, all of the extensive research conducted by Harman showed that overwhelmingly listeners do not prefer a flat response, but a response which tilts _smoothly_ down from bass to treble, by about 6dB-ish. Note the stress on 'smoothly'.

The chart below shows the preference results of a series of tests conducted by Harman:










The red plot at the top (the most preferred) is the so-called 'Harman curve'. Look at the two plots at the bottom of the chart (the least preferred). Notice how closely the bottom one resembles the Audyssey curve?

Here is an interesting paper by Floyd Toole in which he examines user preferences in some detail, supported by numerous test results. It is an interesting read and, in Toole's usual way, written in a pleasing, easy-to-follow style.

Since I switched my allegiances to Dirac Live, I immediately noticed that, even with the automated Dirac Target Curve, there is no sense that the bass is 'lacking'. Here is the Dirac Target Curve (Auto - ie without any user adjustment for preference):










See how much more closely it approaches the target curve preferred overwhelmingly in the Harman tests? It isn’t an exact copy but it is close, with the smooth downward tilt. (Note the plot is for Left and Right channels - the sub plot would just carry the curve onwards as expected). In fact I adjust mine to very closely resemble the Harman Curve and am delighted with the results. 

Here is an example of one of my own target curves:










Given that one can't adjust the Audyssey Curve (is that still true - I am not familiar with the Audyssey App at all?) what can be done? Well, the traditional answer is still a good one - raise the sub trim level 3dB or even a bit more until what you hear is what you prefer. There is, IIRC, a section in the FAQ on this. As the Toole paper attached shows, there is nothing wrong with preference! This won't be as useful as having the ability to shape the curve, but it can overcome this issue of "where's my bass gone?" to a good extent.


----------



## Marc Alexander

I like my bass +10dB hot, with a MV of -10dB (this is on Audyssey and non-Audyssey systems). Occasionally I knock the bass as low as +6dB hot for some content, but not often. (I always recommend a +3dB boost post Audyssey at a minimum). I have always referenced this chart and targeted the JBL(Harman) curve. 










It looks similar to the what Keith posted but with a +9dB bass boost. Maybe for the surveys they removed the bass boosts from each target curve as to not skew the results.

Edit: Actually it appears that the B&K curve most closely approximates the curve from the Harman testing (I should try it). 

I'm currently using Ausyssey Pro, not the app (which has a superior curve editor and windowing, but inferior microphones).


----------



## kbarnes701

Marc Alexander said:


> I like my bass +10dB hot, with a MV of -10dB (this is on Audyssey and non-Audyssey systems). Occasionally I knock the bass as low as +6dB hot for some content, but not often. (I always recommend a +3dB boost post Audyssey at a minimum). I have always referenced this chart and targeted the JBL(Harman) curve.
> 
> 
> It looks similar to the what Keith posted but with a +9dB bass boost. Maybe for the surveys they removed the bass boosts from each target curve as to not skew the results.
> 
> Edit: Actually it appears that the B&K curve most closely approximates the curve from the Harman testing (I should try it).
> 
> I'm currently using Ausyssey Pro, not the app (which has a superior curve editor and windowing, but inferior microphones).



+1. 

In the old days (by which I mean the days when I used to post a lot in this thread ) people often seemed reluctant to boost their bass from wherever Audyssey set it, as though Audyssey was somehow the one and only way to do things and any deviation was 'wrong'. But of course, there is no one and only target curve and preference plays a large part in our enjoyment of our audio systems. An important takeaway from the Harman research and the Toole papers is that most people, most of the time, actually prefer pretty much the same thing! And that preference is demonstrated in the 'Harman curve', so clearly there should not only be no reluctance to boosting our bass, but in fact it has been shown to be the right approach for the majority of people. 

An important caveat is the room. If the room is untreated, or poor in the way it controls the bass frequencies, then it can deliver bass which rings like a bell. The louder the bass, the worse the ringing. In these conditions, one needs to be careful about applying bass boosts since lesser bass of decent quality is preferable to more bass of lesser quality. This in itself means that everyone will have a different requirement, and again this feeds into preference. 

Audyssey is not some sort of magic bullet and the first port of call for excellent sound should be the room. If it is at all possible to apply acoustic treatments, then this cannot be recommended highly enough, especially as it is a relatively low cost upgrade, as well as being the one that almost invariably delivers the biggest return on investment. If, for whatever reason, specialist treatments are not possible (eg WAF) then a fair bit can be done by using 'natural' room treatments such as area rugs, heavy drapes, bookshelves, big absorbent sofas etc. This is not a substitute for proper acoustic treatments of course but is often all that someone can do.

In addition to that, careful placement of speakers and subs (especially the latter) can do a lot to control the impact of the room on the sound. After that, REQ is all that is left. But the more one can do to get the basics of good sound reproduction right, the easier Audyssey will find it to tidy up the odds and ends.

My summary would be - get the room as right as you can, let Audyssey do what it can, and then boost the sub trim if that gives you a sound which you prefer.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> As long as you have your LF and RF speakers set to SMALL on your AVR, I doubt if there would be any harm in using +6 on the bass tone control because those speakers will be rolled off below your crossover, and less will be required of your AVR power, as well. The bass tone control boost does not affect anything except the R&L front channels, and rolls them off before the signal gets to the power amp stage of the AVR. Is your crossover to the sub at 80 Hz, or somewhere else? What is the RMS power in watts per channel of your AVR when only 2 channels are operating? What is the rated sensitivity of your Right and Left front speakers?


Cool. I was wondering if the tone control would affect the sub (they didn't seem to be). This is good because I think where the bass is lacking is from my towers themselves. Bass control can be used to boost those, and sub trim can boost the sub. All speakers are set to small, and XO is at 80 Hz. Speaker sensitivity is 90 dB, and my Marantz is rated for 110W per channel (I think regardless of how many channels I'm running).


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> +1.
> 
> In the old days (by which I mean the days when I used to post a lot in this thread ) people often seemed reluctant to boost their bass from wherever Audyssey set it, as though Audyssey was somehow the one and only way to do things and any deviation was 'wrong'. But of course, there is no one and only target curve and preference plays a large part in our enjoyment of our audio systems. An important takeaway from the Harman research and the Toole papers is that most people, most of the time, actually prefer pretty much the same thing! And that preference is demonstrated in the 'Harman curve', so clearly there should not only be no reluctance to boosting our bass, but in fact it has been shown to be the right approach for the majority of people.
> 
> An important caveat is the room. If the room is untreated, or poor in the way it controls the bass frequencies, then it can deliver bass which rings like a bell. The louder the bass, the worse the ringing. In these conditions, one needs to be careful about applying bass boosts since lesser bass of decent quality is preferable to more bass of lesser quality. This in itself means that everyone will have a different requirement, and again this feeds into preference.
> 
> Audyssey is not some sort of magic bullet and the first port of call for excellent sound should be the room. If it is at all possible to apply acoustic treatments, then this cannot be recommended highly enough, especially as it is a relatively low cost upgrade, as well as being the one that almost invariably delivers the biggest return on investment. If, for whatever reason, specialist treatments are not possible (eg WAF) then a fair bit can be done by using 'natural' room treatments such as area rugs, heavy drapes, bookshelves, big absorbent sofas etc. This is not a substitute for proper acoustic treatments of course but is often all that someone can do.
> 
> In addition to that, careful placement of speakers and subs (especially the latter) can do a lot to control the impact of the room on the sound. After that, REQ is all that is left. But the more one can do to get the basics of good sound reproduction right, the easier Audyssey will find it to tidy up the odds and ends.
> 
> My summary would be - get the room as right as you can, let Audyssey do what it can, and then boost the sub trim if that gives you a sound which you prefer.


I agree with all of that. People who have not employed room treatments may underestimate their importance with respect to overall sound quality, all the way down to about 50Hz.

I think that the relationship between master volume and sub boost is also extremely important. At least it is if we are to believe the Equal Loudness Contours and their relationship to Reference volumes. Someone who is listening at -5 MV is much less likely to need a significant sub boost than someone who is listening at -15 is likely to. Assuming that the film mixer who did the 5.1 movie soundtrack really knew his business, there will be an appropriate frequency equilibrium at approximately 0.0 MV. However, as the MV drops, we will become more and more conscious of a reduction in low bass sounds (which in action movies particularly, carry much of the audio special effects) and we will need to compensate for that diminution with increased sub boosts. So, a small sub boost in a Dirac target curve might be just right at -5 MV, and not nearly enough at -15 MV, or lower.

Of course, how much variation in our hearing might occur at particular frequencies is an issue too, as the Equal Loudness Contours are just based on averages of human hearing. Actual hearing probably follows more of a bell curve, with some people hearing bass frequencies at louder than average levels, and vice-versa. And, then there is the factor already mentioned which involves psycho-acoustic preference as distinct from either general averages or even from individual physiological hearing capabilities. 

My favorite AVS expression remains: YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Of course, how much variation in our hearing might occur at particular frequencies is an issue too, as the Equal Loudness Contours are just based on averages of human hearing. Actual hearing probably follows more of a bell curve, with some people hearing bass frequencies at louder than average levels, and vice-versa. And, then there is the factor already mentioned which involves psycho-acoustic preference as distinct from either general averages or even from individual physiological hearing capabilities.
> 
> My favorite AVS expression remains: YMMV!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Good point about human hearing capabilities in terms of reduced SPL. I normally only watch movies at something approaching Reference level anyway so it's easy for me - one curve is all I need. HST, as my DDRC-88A can store 4 curves, all selectable at the press of a remote button, I do have more than one curve loaded with one being specifically for lower listening levels (eg if my wife is watching with me as she does on occasion). Consequently I have no need for anything like Dynamic EQ etc (and of course DEQ tries to aim for that Audyssey 'flat' curve we were discussing above, but at different settings of the MV, so I'd still need a bass boost).


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> …
> 
> Here is an interesting paper by Floyd Toole in which he examines user preferences in some detail, supported by numerous test results. It is an interesting read and, in Toole's usual way, written in a pleasing, easy-to-follow style.…


Keith,

Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that paper by Toole before, and you're right about his style.

I'll add one other comment about Toole. Many years ago I started getting interested in room treatment and, like many, bought and read Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics" and adopted his treatment strategy which was basically bass traps in the corners and panels at the front and side wall first reflection points. It works and it improved my sound considerably. Everest quotes and relies heavily on Toole's research at many points. Some years later Toole's book "Sound Reproduction Loudspeakers and Rooms" was published and it was no surprise that Toole relied heavily on Toole's research (grin) but his recommendation was different to Everest's. Toole recommended treatment of the front and rear walls for absorption and/of diffusion but actually leaving the side first reflection points untreated because he said that most listeners preferred that because it helped widen the soundstage. Since I was extremely happy with the results of treating those side wall first reflections I had problems with that recommendation and ignored it for a couple of years but one day, after making some other changes in my room, I moved the panels I had covering the side wall first reflection points to the front wall. As Toole suggested I perceived a wider sound stage and I preferred that. My side wall first reflection points have remained untreated since and my front wall remains more heavily treated than Everest suggests. This is in the room my audio system is in and I don't use Audyssey or any other electronic room correction in that system, just physical room treatment. I do use Audyssey in my TV system which is in the living room.

When Toole talks about preferences he's really on solid ground about what people actually do like and for anyone who wants to try doing some physical treatment of a room then Toole's own recommendations are a really good starting point in my view. He not only knows his physical acoustics, he knows his psychoacoustics and how to create the kind of sound result that most people really do prefer. There will be some who won't like the result of Toole's recommendations, some people really do have very different preferences to others, but starting with Toole's recommendations is in my view probably the best starting point for most people and I've learnt to pay a lot of attention and give a lot of credence to Toole when he says that people tend to prefer a particular thing. I've learnt that when he says that, then I'm probably going to prefer what he says people tend to prefer and it's worth my while to try what he's suggesting.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Cool. I was wondering if the tone control would affect the sub (they didn't seem to be). This is good because I think where the bass is lacking is from my towers themselves. Bass control can be used to boost those, and sub trim can boost the sub. All speakers are set to small, and XO is at 80 Hz. Speaker sensitivity is 90 dB, and my Marantz is rated for 110W per channel (*I think regardless of how many channels I'm running*).


If the Marantz is typical of AVRs, the 110W per channel is for 2 channels operating only. The power in watts per channel would be less for all channels operating. Using the 2 channel rating for the overall advertised rating in the AVR market, in which most people are intending to run 5.1 or 7.1 movies, is a bit of an alternative fact. But for music, you are only running 2 channels, so you are probably getting 110 w.p.c. with *music*. With *movies*, with all speakers still set to SMALL, your sub will handle the outrageous true LFE, especially if you have your LPF for LFE set at 120, with your regular (bass management) XO still set for 80. If there is a lot of big music in the movie (a concert feature, or Rozsa or John Williams) with all your surrounds, center, RF & LF draining power, you might hear a little distortion when hitting the reference level peak through main speakers of 105 dB at the MLP -- but, IIRC, you say you don't run near reference, right? About the only way to know what the *continuous* or *peak* output of an AVR with all channels operating is would be to look up reviews in which there are bench tests with all channels operating. Some magazines, like Home Theater, used to do these, maybe still do (I stopped reading it, and all HT & audio mags -- a simple act of sanitation). Back in the bad old days when I read nearly all of them, most AVRs provided about 85% of their two channel rating with all channels operating. If that still holds, and your Marantz is typical, you would get something like 93 w.p.c. continuous, all channels operating. I'm not sure what that would get you with 90 dB sensitive towers. One power calculator, with your two towers, gives me 106 dB, speakers near a wall, 93 w.p.c., 10 feet away, 90 dB sensitive speakers. A very stringent (even though they make very sensitive speakers) Klipsch chart gives me 105 dB, near a wall, 90 w.p.c., 3,000 cu ft. room, R=200, 90 dB sensitive speakers ... but both of these assume the loud sound is divided equally between the two towers. If drums are off to the side, _*fff* *presto barbaro *_(a Leonard Bernstein term), the part coming through that one tower would take almost all of the brunt, so that, above about 80 Hz (where some percussion, and piano peak impact is, and where brass and some electronic music quasi-continuous blare is) you might need more like 180 w.p.c. -- but you play at least 10 dB below reference, right? You're probably fine.


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> If the Marantz is typical of AVRs, the 110W per channel is for 2 channels operating only. The power in watts per channel would be less for all channels operating. Using the 2 channel rating for the overall advertised rating in the AVR market, in which most people are intending to run 5.1 or 7.1 movies, is a bit of an alternative fact. But for music, you are only running 2 channels, so you are probably getting 110 w.p.c. with *music*. With *movies*, with all speakers still set to SMALL, your sub will handle the outrageous true LFE, especially if you have your LPF for LFE set at 120, with your regular (bass management) XO still set for 80. If there is a lot of big music in the movie (a concert feature, or Rozsa or John Williams) with all your surrounds, center, RF & LF draining power, you might hear a little distortion when hitting the reference level peak through main speakers of 105 dB at the MLP -- but, IIRC, you say you don't run near reference, right? About the only way to know what the *continuous* or *peak* output of an AVR with all channels operating is would be to look up reviews in which there are bench tests with all channels operating. Some magazines, like Home Theater, used to do these, maybe still do (I stopped reading it, and all HT & audio mags -- a simple act of sanitation). Back in the bad old days when I read nearly all of them, most AVRs provided about 85% of their two channel rating with all channels operating. If that still holds, and your Marantz is typical, you would get something like 93 w.p.c. continuous, all channels operating. I'm not sure what that would get you with 90 dB sensitive towers. One power calculator, with your two towers, gives me 106 dB, speakers near a wall, 93 w.p.c., 10 feet away, 90 dB sensitive speakers. A very stringent (even though they make very sensitive speakers) Klipsch chart gives me 105 dB, near a wall, 90 w.p.c., 3,000 cu ft. room, R=200, 90 dB sensitive speakers ... but both of these assume the loud sound is divided equally between the two towers. If drums are off to the side, _*fff* *presto barbaro *_(a Leonard Bernstein term), the part coming through that one tower would take almost all of the brunt, so that, above about 80 Hz (where some percussion, and piano peak impact is, and where brass and some electronic music quasi-continuous blare is) you might need more like 180 w.p.c. -- but you play at least 10 dB below reference, right? You're probably fine.


Thanks for the info. Not sure what the amp is pushing out with all channels playing, but I only have 3.1 anyway I typically listen around -20 to -15, so I'm not approaching reference levels. I can't imagine listening that loudly to music; it'd be pretty dang loud in my room.


----------



## garygarrison

In.vincible said:


> Thanks for the info. Not sure what the amp is pushing out with all channels playing, but I only have 3.1 anyway I typically listen around -20 to -15, so *I'm not approaching reference levels.* I can't imagine listening that loudly to music;* it'd be pretty dang loud in my room*.


 
All that being true, you don't have to worry about your amp power.

As you may know, in a small room, especially without treatment, the *loudness* can be greater than the *SPL* would indicate. That's because, by convention, *loudness* is a perceptual phenomenon which is measured only by an individual's or group's self-report (comparing two or more sources, two or more stimuli, or using rating scales, etc.), and can be affected by things other than *SPL*, but *SPL *is an objective measurement done with a meter (for that stimulus and that position in that room, with that meter, at that weighting etc., etc.). Small rooms often generate early reflections that are perceived as part of the original sound coming out of the speakers, since they are so close temporally. In addition, they can be unpleasant, mimicking the sound of SPL so high it is painful (continuous levels above 120 dB; hearing damage occurs at a lower level, if the sound is continuous). Also, the rooms most of us have in our homes are small enough so that standing wave phenomena may have an unpleasant effect on frequencies below about 300 Hz. As I understand it, if you have a standard 8 foot ceiling, there will be a room peak (caused by ceiling and floor) at 1/2 the ceiling height, just about at ear level when seated. That's one. Always standing up when listening to music or watching a movie won't help much, because of all of the other axial modes. Once again, as I understand it, Audyssey and other room correction devices can help bring down room and speaker peaks, but can do nothing about room nulls. Such devices can boost some dips that are not due to the room, but due to the speakers, etc.

Also, if one doesn't have enough amp power for their speaker sensitivity, or speakers with lowish headroom, and turns up the volume, as the amp approaches or reaches clipping, or a speaker is straining, someone is likely to feel it is too loud. Since with loudness, we are talking about perception, it is. That perception is triggered by whatever combination of preference, life experience, individual hearing mechanism, distortion, room effects, or actual SPL are in effect. Partial solutions are partial. One can use amps &/or speakers with more headroom, much diffusion and the "right" amount of absorption, have nonparallel walls or nonparallel floor/ceiling, favorable proportions, bass traps, Audyssey, etc., etc. 

If room volume is over 20,000 cubic feet (the size of a rather small theater or a large control room), something that sounds like reference level may well occur at the reference level SPL, i.e., 105 dB brief peaks through main speakers, 115 dB brief peaks through subwoofers. Neither the arbitrary figure of 85 dB that professionals use (allowing 20 dB headroom through main speakers) nor the more home-user friendly arbitrary figure of 75 dB that Audyssey uses (allowing 30 dB headroom through main speakers -- so it comes to the same thing, 105 dB brief peaks) are really averages, although they are often called that. In rooms like most home users have, to sound like reference level, a lower SPL must be selected. The chart below has been floating around. I think it originated with THX. Needless to say, they mean the SPL that will probably sound like reference level in smaller rooms. My room is 4,243 cu.ft., with a nonparallel ceiling, using a formula by Jeff Cooper, and absorption/diffusion. So, while the chart indicates I should use 7 dB below reference (85 minus 78 dB), on well recorded movies (most of the modern ones), I can get away with 5 dB below reference level, as did Keith in his old room (and perhaps the new one ... Keith?). Most of our guests don't find it "too loud*;*" if the two who do are present, we turn it down, perhaps as low as 10 dB below reference. We never set it arbitrarily, but set the dialog to a natural level, and that usually ends up something like 5 to 8 dB below reference. I don't remember what volume your room is.

*EDIT: *O.K., the chart, in the form I have, will not paste in anything but Martian. The basic idea is that for a 20,000 cu foot room or larger, one should use reference level SPL *itself*, (105 dB brief peaks, 115 dB brief peaks through sub, 85 dB nominal with standard band-limited pink noise 500 to 2K Hz, the equivalent produced after Audyssey calibration by setting the MV at 0 dB). For rooms that are considerably smaller*:

*5,000 to 9,999 cu.ft. one should use 5 dB below reference
1,500 to 4,999 cu.ft. one should use 7 dB below reference
< 1,499 cu. ft. one should use 9 dB below reference

YMMV


----------



## In.vincible

garygarrison said:


> All that being true, you don't have to worry about your amp power.
> 
> As you may know, in a small room, especially without treatment, the *loudness* can be greater than the *SPL* would indicate. That's because, by convention, *loudness* is a perceptual phenomenon which is measured only by an individual's or group's self-report (comparing two or more sources, two or more stimuli, or using rating scales, etc.), and can be affected by things other than *SPL*, but *SPL *is an objective measurement done with a meter (for that stimulus and that position in that room, with that meter, at that weighting etc., etc.). Small rooms often generate early reflections that are perceived as part of the original sound coming out of the speakers, since they are so close temporally. In addition, they can be unpleasant, mimicking the sound of SPL so high it is painful (continuous levels above 120 dB; hearing damage occurs at a lower level, if the sound is continuous). Also, the rooms most of us have in our homes are small enough so that standing wave phenomena may have an unpleasant effect on frequencies below about 300 Hz. As I understand it, if you have a standard 8 foot ceiling, there will be a room peak (caused by ceiling and floor) at 1/2 the ceiling height, just about at ear level when seated. That's one. Always standing up when listening to music or watching a movie won't help much, because of all of the other axial modes. Once again, as I understand it, Audyssey and other room correction devices can help bring down room and speaker peaks, but can do nothing about room nulls. Such devices can boost some dips that are not due to the room, but due to the speakers, etc.
> 
> Also, if one doesn't have enough amp power for their speaker sensitivity, or speakers with lowish headroom, and turns up the volume, as the amp approaches or reaches clipping, or a speaker is straining, someone is likely to feel it is too loud. Since with loudness, we are talking about perception, it is. That perception is triggered by whatever combination of preference, life experience, individual hearing mechanism, distortion, room effects, or actual SPL are in effect. Partial solutions are partial. One can use amps &/or speakers with more headroom, much diffusion and the "right" amount of absorption, have nonparallel walls or nonparallel floor/ceiling, favorable proportions, bass traps, Audyssey, etc., etc.
> 
> If room volume is over 20,000 cubic feet (the size of a rather small theater or a large control room), something that sounds like reference level may well occur at the reference level SPL, i.e., 105 dB brief peaks through main speakers, 115 dB brief peaks through subwoofers. Neither the arbitrary figure of 85 dB that professionals use (allowing 20 dB headroom through main speakers) nor the more home-user friendly arbitrary figure of 75 dB that Audyssey uses (allowing 30 dB headroom through main speakers -- so it comes to the same thing, 105 dB brief peaks) are really averages, although they are often called that. In rooms like most home users have, to sound like reference level, a lower SPL must be selected. The chart below has been floating around. I think it originated with THX. Needless to say, they mean the SPL that will probably sound like reference level in smaller rooms. My room is 4,243 cu.ft., with a nonparallel ceiling, using a formula by Jeff Cooper, and absorption/diffusion. So, while the chart indicates I should use 7 dB below reference (85 minus 78 dB), on well recorded movies (most of the modern ones), I can get away with 5 dB below reference level, as did Keith in his old room (and perhaps the new one ... Keith?). Most of our guests don't find it "too loud*;*" if the two who do are present, we turn it down, perhaps as low as 10 dB below reference. We never set it arbitrarily, but set the dialog to a natural level, and that usually ends up something like 5 to 8 dB below reference. I don't remember what volume your room is.
> 
> *EDIT: *O.K., the chart, in the form I have, will not paste in anything but Martian. The basic idea is that for a 20,000 cu foot room or larger, one should use reference level SPL *itself*, (105 dB brief peaks, 115 dB brief peaks through sub, 85 dB nominal with standard band-limited pink noise 500 to 2K Hz, the equivalent produced after Audyssey calibration by setting the MV at 0 dB). For rooms that are considerably smaller*:
> 
> *5,000 to 9,999 cu.ft. one should use 5 dB below reference
> 1,500 to 4,999 cu.ft. one should use 7 dB below reference
> < 1,499 cu. ft. one should use 9 dB below reference
> 
> YMMV


Interesting stuff. Thanks for your detailed posts!


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> So, while the chart indicates I should use 7 dB below reference (85 minus 78 dB), on well recorded movies (most of the modern ones), I can get away with 5 dB below reference level, as did Keith in his old room (and perhaps the new one ... Keith?). Most of our guests don't find it "too loud*;*" if the two who do are present, we turn it down, perhaps as low as 10 dB below reference. We never set it arbitrarily, but set the dialog to a natural level, and that usually ends up something like 5 to 8 dB below reference. I don't remember what volume your room is.


+1 to the long post I quoted above from.

Yes, in the old room, which was heavily treated as you may recall, my usual listening level was about -5dB from Reference. The new room is much bigger - for comparison the old room had a volume of less than 950 cu ft while the new room will be more like 3,500 cu feet. It will be heavily treated of course. It will be interesting to see where the usual listening level settles down at - it may still be -5dB. That is what I am expecting anyway. I have designed everything so that genuine Reference Levels of 105dB peaks are achievable in the room, but I entirely agree with you that, subjectively, in small rooms (and 3,500 cu ft is a small room in this context) we perceive the sound to be louder than it actually measures.


----------



## robc1976

robc1976 said:


> Gary, it doesn't serve me poorly...just better off lol!
> 
> My 4 RF7II are nowhere near -12. I had the issue in my other room and had to used a 5Db signal connect. My center is very sensitive also at 99DB
> 
> Attached are my trims and speaker distances


Gsry, I got my new denon receiver and trim levels are very different, actually funny. It has boosted most of the speakers, center ect, even subs. I think I had a worn out mic to be honest. My biggest complaint was muffled and this seems to have confirmed my complaint...it was lower than it should. Keep in mind I listen at reference volume, never gets changed that way I notice a change.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> Gsry, I got my new denon receiver and trim levels are very different, actually funny. It has boosted most of the speakers, center ect, even subs. I think I had a worn out mic to be honest. My biggest complaint was muffled and this seems to have confirmed my complaint...it was lower than it should. Keep in mind I listen at reference volume, never gets changed that way I notice a change.


That's excellent news that it wasn't Audyssey's room correction creating that muffled sound you heard. I hope you are enjoying your new Denon. I seem to recall someone suggesting that an older mic might be the culprit, as they do tend to degrade first in the higher frequencies. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> That's excellent news that it wasn't Audyssey's room correction creating that muffled sound you heard. I hope you are enjoying your new Denon. I seem to recall someone suggesting that an older mic might be the culprit, as they do tend to degrade first in the higher frequencies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I wonder why they degrade. "Good" condenser mics don't, AFAIK. We aren't supposed to expose them to high humidity or high heat or bang them around, though. Some dynamic mics, OTOH, can be slammed into the stage (like Country Joe used to do). The RE15 advertisements used to show it being used to drive nails. I imagine almost no Audyssey user does either of these things, and also doesn't store them in the laundry room or kitchen. Maybe it happens in shipping?


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> I wonder why they degrade. "Good" condenser mics don't, AFAIK. We aren't supposed to expose them to high humidity or high heat or bang them around, though. Some dynamic mics, OTOH, can be slammed into the stage (like Country Joe used to do). The RE15 advertisements used to show it being used to drive nails. I imagine almost no Audyssey user does either of these things, and also doesn't store them in the laundry room or kitchen. Maybe it happens in shipping?


mine had no nicks or anything kept in dry place, maybe mic cord gets pulled on to much?


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's excellent news that it wasn't Audyssey's room correction creating that muffled sound you heard. I hope you are enjoying your new Denon. I seem to recall someone suggesting that an older mic might be the culprit, as they do tend to degrade first in the higher frequencies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I haven't listened to it yet but judging by these numbers it seems like a bsd mic, speakers and mic are in exact spot.

Old audyssey trim settings

Front L: -5.5
Front R: -6.0
Center : -9.5
Front wide L: -7.0
Front wide R -6.5
Front Height L: -2.5
Front Height R: -2.0
Surround R: -6.0
Surround L: -6.5
Surround back L: -2.0
Surround back R: -2.0
Sub #1 -8.0
Sub #2 -5.5

New AVR audyssey trim settings

Front L: -3.0
Front R: -3.5
Center : -7.0
Front wide L: -4.0
Front wide R -5.0
Front Height L: 0.0
Front Height R: 0.0
Surround R: -3.5
Surround L: -4.0
Surround back L: +2.5
Surround back R: +2.0
Sub #1 -7.0
Sub #2 -7.5


----------



## robc1976

Is this the correct cable to use to extend audyssey mic cord? 

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AZTWWY8/ref=cm_sw_r_fm_apa_JHaezb8RANE3Q


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> mine had no nicks or anything kept in dry place, maybe mic cord gets pulled on to much?





robc1976 said:


> Is this the correct cable to use to extend audyssey mic cord?
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AZTWWY8/ref=cm_sw_r_fm_apa_JHaezb8RANE3Q


I would guess that a compromised mic cord would either cause hum or an intermittent connection -- but how would we know that, since we don't listen to what the mic is picking up or passing on? I don't know, but perhaps Audyssey would re-run the calibration had there been intermittence or hum, just as it re-runs with louder pings if there is too much noise in the room. But who knows? 

That extension cable looks like it would work, but too long a cable might cause treble roll-off *on the mic's part*, which I would think would cause Audyssey to turn up the treble on playback. Also, I would expect that a 2 wire mic cable as long as the one that comes with the mic would pick up some hum. They can't filter out hum at the mic input, because that would under-represent the bass at 60 Hz (or, worse, at 120 Hz). So I really don't know.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> I would guess that a compromised mic cord would either cause hum or an intermittent connection -- but how would we know that, since we don't listen to what the mic is picking up or passing on? I don't know, but perhaps Audyssey would re-run the calibration had there been intermittence or hum, just as it re-runs with louder pings if there is too much noise in the room. But who knows?
> 
> That extension cable looks like it would work, but too long a cable might cause treble roll-off *on the mic's part*, which I would think would cause Audyssey to turn up the treble on playback. Also, I would expect that a 2 wire mic cable as long as the one that comes with the mic would pick up some hum. They can't filter out hum at the mic input, because that would under-represent the bass at 60 Hz (or, worse, at 120 Hz). So I really don't know.


 Agreed, only extending it 6ft.


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> I wonder why they degrade. "Good" condenser mics don't, AFAIK. We aren't supposed to expose them to high humidity or high heat or bang them around, though. Some dynamic mics, OTOH, can be slammed into the stage (like Country Joe used to do). The RE15 advertisements used to show it being used to drive nails. I imagine almost no Audyssey user does either of these things, and also doesn't store them in the laundry room or kitchen. Maybe it happens in shipping?


They look like they are probably pretty low-cost mics. What would we guess at - a couple of dollars each in China? So it's probably unreasonable to have very high expectations of them. I used to keep mine in a ziploc bag with some silica gel, and in a cool a place as I could find in the house 'just in case'. I never, AFAIK, experienced any problems with mic degradation, but then, how would we know unless the result was really obviously poor?

One of the big things Audyssey used to make over the (expensive) Pro kit was how it featured a much superior mic. I guess we can't expect too much from a mic that comes 'free' with the AVR. For example, the mic that I use with Dirac was $100 and that *seems* like pretty good mic - but I doubt very many of us are mic experts, so again, who's to say? One thing we can probably be sure of is that Denon and Marantz don't want to add more than a few extra dollars to the AVR price just for the Audyssey mic - by all accounts the Audyssey license itself isn't cheap.

At the end of the day, pretty much everyone who uses Audyssey should hear a noticeable improvement in their SQ. If they don't, then chances are something is amiss with their measuring technique or their setup or their room or whatever (all covered at length in the FAQ) and the mic should probably be the suspect of last resort.


----------



## kbarnes701

robc1976 said:


> Is this the correct cable to use to extend audyssey mic cord?
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AZTWWY8/ref=cm_sw_r_fm_apa_JHaezb8RANE3Q


Yes. There's a specific section in the FAQ on extension cables if you want to know more - it addresses the issue Gary raises above (HF roll-off).


----------



## atledreier

I've got a troublesome room, mainly due to a single, unmoveable sub (Infinite baffle manifold). Audyssey is struggling with it, and even tiny variations in the mic pattern create huge differences in the end result. I don't have measurements yet, I plan to do a battery of testing once I have some time to burn with an empty house. Now, I use the recommended, tight microphone pattern (about 40-50cm spread sideways, 20cm spread forward). i've tried with a few measurements slightly higher than ear height, but they are univerally bad sounding. My best correction was a quick 4- point measurement. It sounded awesome, but since it was just a quickie I didn't save it, of course... 
My main listening position is close to the center of the room, but I have some flexibility. it was the best sounding position (possible) in the room unequalized, however. 
I have no EQ on my sub other than Audyssey MulteQ XT32 (Denon AVR4311), and a huge 40Hz peak means my sub trim is WAY down and I think maybe Audyssey is seeing the trailing side of that peak as the F3 of the IB. It will happily do 10Hz at Reference, but Audyssey can't know that by looking at the signal, so I can't blame the auto setup process on that one. 
Anyways, came here to vent a little as I had great hopes for XT32 in this setup. I've used it before with amazing results. Is there anything I could try, besides additional EQ on the sub to take that peak down before Audyssey calibration? The midbass also vary a lot between calibrations, which is probably die to sub integration being "off". The trims seem reasonable, as does distances. The sub is usually 4-8dB down when measured with a calibrated meter and pink noise, though. The level matching routine before the actual chirps want my sub even lower in volume, and the trims usually end up at around -6 to -8 for the sub. Again, most likely that huge 40Hz peak that throws it off.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> I've got a troublesome room, mainly due to a single, unmoveable sub (Infinite baffle manifold). Audyssey is struggling with it, and even tiny variations in the mic pattern create huge differences in the end result. I don't have measurements yet, I plan to do a battery of testing once I have some time to burn with an empty house. Now, I use the recommended, tight microphone pattern (about 40-50cm spread sideways, 20cm spread forward). i've tried with a few measurements slightly higher than ear height, but they are univerally bad sounding. My best correction was a quick 4- point measurement. It sounded awesome, but since it was just a quickie I didn't save it, of course...
> My main listening position is close to the center of the room, but I have some flexibility. it was the best sounding position (possible) in the room unequalized, however.
> I have no EQ on my sub other than Audyssey MulteQ XT32 (Denon AVR4311), and a huge 40Hz peak means my sub trim is WAY down and I think maybe Audyssey is seeing the trailing side of that peak as the F3 of the IB. It will happily do 10Hz at Reference, but Audyssey can't know that by looking at the signal, so I can't blame the auto setup process on that one.
> Anyways, came here to vent a little as I had great hopes for XT32 in this setup. I've used it before with amazing results. Is there anything I could try, besides additional EQ on the sub to take that peak down before Audyssey calibration? The midbass also vary a lot between calibrations, which is probably die to sub integration being "off". The trims seem reasonable, as does distances. The sub is usually 4-8dB down when measured with a calibrated meter and pink noise, though. The level matching routine before the actual chirps want my sub even lower in volume, and the trims usually end up at around -6 to -8 for the sub. Again, most likely that huge 40Hz peak that throws it off.


If you can apply independent EQ to the sub before running Audyssey, then do so. The better the start you give Audyssey the better the result will be. You are probably correct in your assumption about the peak at 40Hz - get rid of it if you can and I bet you will see a big improvement from the Audyssey cal.


----------



## atledreier

Thanks. Selling the EQ was part of the financing for the Audyssey equipped AVR, though.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> Thanks. Selling the EQ was part of the financing for the Audyssey equipped AVR, though.


Damn  Well if you can't move the sub and you can’t move the MLP, and you can't EQ the sub... I think it's safe to say you have a problem 

You could perhaps pick up a cheap secondhand PEQ unit like a Behringer Feedback Destroyer and use that to tame the peak before running Audyssey. You can pick them up on eBay for $45 or so. Mind you, you'd also need REW (free) and a mic (maybe $99 unless you can find one secondhand). Short of that I can't see any way forward. Anyone else??


----------



## atledreier

I have a MiniDSP 8x8 that I've sold, but not delivered yet. I'll give it a try, it already has the EQ for the sub and everything. If it improves things I'll look into getting a 2x4 or something.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> I have a MiniDSP 8x8 that I've sold, but not delivered yet. I'll give it a try, it already has the EQ for the sub and everything. If it improves things I'll look into getting a 2x4 or something.


That would do the job!  And cheap enough.


----------



## robc1976

kbarnes701 said:


> They look like they are probably pretty low-cost mics. What would we guess at - a couple of dollars each in China? So it's probably unreasonable to have very high expectations of them. I used to keep mine in a ziploc bag with some silica gel, and in a cool a place as I could find in the house 'just in case'. I never, AFAIK, experienced any problems with mic degradation, but then, how would we know unless the result was really obviously poor?
> 
> One of the big things Audyssey used to make over the (expensive) Pro kit was how it featured a much superior mic. I guess we can't expect too much from a mic that comes 'free' with the AVR. For example, the mic that I use with Dirac was $100 and that *seems* like pretty good mic - but I doubt very many of us are mic experts, so again, who's to say? One thing we can probably be sure of is that Denon and Marantz don't want to add more than a few extra dollars to the AVR price just for the Audyssey mic - by all accounts the Audyssey license itself isn't cheap.
> 
> At the end of the day, pretty much everyone who uses Audyssey should hear a noticeable improvement in their SQ. If they don't, then chances are something is amiss with their measuring technique or their setup or their room or whatever (all covered at length in the FAQ) and the mic should probably be the suspect of last resort.


 Wish I could use this mic I have with audyssey.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00N4Q25R8/ref=cm_sw_r_fm_apa_DDhezb2078JP3


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I wonder why they degrade. "Good" condenser mics don't, AFAIK. We aren't supposed to expose them to high humidity or high heat or bang them around, though. Some dynamic mics, OTOH, can be slammed into the stage (like Country Joe used to do). The RE15 advertisements used to show it being used to drive nails. I imagine almost no Audyssey user does either of these things, and also doesn't store them in the laundry room or kitchen. Maybe it happens in shipping?


Hi Gary,

I was hoping that David or someone else would know the answer to this question, because I don't. I read an explanation for it once that made sense at the time, but can't recall it now. I do know that the mic degradation to which I referred is not related to physical damage. And, it was Audyssey who has been quoted as saying that the mics typically loose high frequency accuracy first. It's probably more humidity related, as you noted above. And, as Keith said, they are very inexpensive mics, after all. I have always kept a backup just in case I ever got a really wonky calibration, but so far, so good.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

robc1976 said:


> Wish I could use this mic I have with audyssey.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00N4Q25R8/ref=cm_sw_r_fm_apa_DDhezb2078JP3


Yes that's the one I use with Dirac Live and my DDRC-88As.


----------



## robc1976

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes that's the one I use with Dirac Live and my DDRC-88As.


 are you saying I can use that mic with audyssey?


----------



## mthomas47

atledreier said:


> I've got a troublesome room, mainly due to a single, unmoveable sub (Infinite baffle manifold). Audyssey is struggling with it, and even tiny variations in the mic pattern create huge differences in the end result. I don't have measurements yet, I plan to do a battery of testing once I have some time to burn with an empty house. Now, I use the recommended, tight microphone pattern (about 40-50cm spread sideways, 20cm spread forward). i've tried with a few measurements slightly higher than ear height, but they are univerally bad sounding. My best correction was a quick 4- point measurement. It sounded awesome, but since it was just a quickie I didn't save it, of course...
> My main listening position is close to the center of the room, but I have some flexibility. it was the best sounding position (possible) in the room unequalized, however.
> I have no EQ on my sub other than Audyssey MulteQ XT32 (Denon AVR4311), and a huge 40Hz peak means my sub trim is WAY down and I think maybe Audyssey is seeing the trailing side of that peak as the F3 of the IB. It will happily do 10Hz at Reference, but Audyssey can't know that by looking at the signal, so I can't blame the auto setup process on that one.
> Anyways, came here to vent a little as I had great hopes for XT32 in this setup. I've used it before with amazing results. Is there anything I could try, besides additional EQ on the sub to take that peak down before Audyssey calibration? The midbass also vary a lot between calibrations, which is probably die to sub integration being "off". The trims seem reasonable, as does distances. The sub is usually 4-8dB down when measured with a calibrated meter and pink noise, though. The level matching routine before the actual chirps want my sub even lower in volume, and the trims usually end up at around -6 to -8 for the sub. Again, most likely that huge 40Hz peak that throws it off.


Hi,

I thought that Keith made some good suggestions. I'm not sure that I can add to them, but I do have some questions and a couple of comments. First, if you aren't measuring, how are you so sure that you have a huge peak at 40Hz? Is this something you can hear, and you have hypothesized that it is occurring at 40Hz, or have you run some sort of online predictive program? I haven't heard of Audyssey being fooled into thinking that a peak at a particular frequency is an F3 point before, nor would I expect that single peak, however large, to affect your trim levels. So, something sounds off to me. I believe that I would do a microprocessor reset (or two) before proceeding further.

Second, you said that you once got a very good sounding calibration with a quick four-point calibration. I might try to recapture that. Ordinarily, I would expect people to get better calibrations when Audyssey has more sampling data to work with. But, every situation is potentially different, and if you believe that you get appreciably better sound from a three-point or four-point calibration than you do from using all seven mic positions, then I would just go with what sounds better.

The post calibration measurement using Audyssey's internal pink noise and an SPL meter may be off, as the internal pink noise will bypass any filters that Audyssey set, and because many SPL meters can be inaccurate for low frequencies. Do the other trim levels seem to be measuring accurately? Ultimately, I think that you will need to be able to measure in order to solve this problem, and some kind of external DSP is probably also going to be necessary. In a tough room, a single sub (however powerful) can struggle, so you have that going against you. But, start with a reset, and then try for an abbreviated calibration to see if you can get things to sound better now.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

robc1976 said:


> are you saying I can use that mic with audyssey?


No - I am saying that is the one I use with Dirac Live. Audyssey requires you use the mic that comes with your AVR (or the one that comes with the Pro Kit for those who have it).


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I thought that Keith made some good suggestions. I'm not sure that I can add to them, but I do have some questions and a couple of comments. First, if you aren't measuring, how are you so sure that you have a huge peak at 40Hz?


Very good point Mike. I thought he was measuring. If not, then I agree with you - how does he know he has a peak at 40Hz and what level it is?


----------



## atledreier

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I thought that Keith made some good suggestions. I'm not sure that I can add to them, but I do have some questions and a couple of comments. First, if you aren't measuring, how are you so sure that you have a huge peak at 40Hz? Is this something you can hear, and you have hypothesized that it is occurring at 40Hz, or have you run some sort of online predictive program? I haven't heard of Audyssey being fooled into thinking that a peak at a particular frequency is an F3 point before, nor would I expect that single peak, however large, to affect your trim levels. So, something sounds off to me. I believe that I would do a microprocessor reset (or two) before proceeding further.
> 
> Second, you said that you once got a very good sounding calibration with a quick four-point calibration. I might try to recapture that. Ordinarily, I would expect people to get better calibrations when Audyssey has more sampling data to work with. But, every situation is potentially different, and if you believe that you get appreciably better sound from a three-point or four-point calibration than you do from using all seven mic positions, then I would just go with what sounds better.
> 
> The post calibration measurement using Audyssey's internal pink noise and an SPL meter may be off, as the internal pink noise will bypass any filters that Audyssey set, and because many SPL meters can be inaccurate for low frequencies. Do the other trim levels seem to be measuring accurately? Ultimately, I think that you will need to be able to measure in order to solve this problem, and some kind of external DSP is probably also going to be necessary. In a tough room, a single sub (however powerful) can struggle, so you have that going against you. But, start with a reset, and then try for an abbreviated calibration to see if you can get things to sound better now.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I see the confusion. I said I haven't measured THIS particular setup yet. I have the MiniDSP with the previous (manual) EQ on it still, and I've tried a quick 8-point calibration which I also didn't care too much for. The problem is that I have incredible bass levels nearly everywhere else in the room BUT in the sweetspot. I walked around the room while playing some bass heavy music just now, and I can suddenly understand why my wife is complaining about the bass levels in the rest of the house. 

Im currently setting up the measurement stuff to do some REW sweeps to see what's what with the new AVR.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> I see the confusion. I said I haven't measured THIS particular setup yet. I have the MiniDSP with the previous (manual) EQ on it still, and I've tried a quick 8-point calibration which I also didn't care too much for. The problem is that I have incredible bass levels nearly everywhere else in the room BUT in the sweetspot. I walked around the room while playing some bass heavy music just now, and I can suddenly understand why my wife is complaining about the bass levels in the rest of the house.
> 
> Im currently setting up the measurement stuff to do some REW sweeps to see what's what with the new AVR.


Hang on, I'm _more_ confused now  When you say you have incredible bass everywhere else in the room except MLP, and your wife complains about the overall level of bass leaking into the rest of the house, do you mean that at MLP you are *lacking* bass? This sounds like you are sitting in a null, and EQ can't fix that. I thought the issue was a _peak_ at 40hz?


----------



## atledreier

I am confused too now. I measured the current setup with XT32 enabled (and DynEQ, forgot to disable it), and with Audyssey disabled. I triple checked what was enabled and disabled, because I was very surprised. It's also no wonder I think the Audyssey calibration seems a little thin and lean.....

Yes, I checked several times..... The flatter one is Audyssey off, just manual EQ of the subwoofer.

Edit:
I'll do the reset dance a few times and go back to scratch on the manual EQ before I do anything. Some of the stuff I've been hearing obviously was the old AVR playing wicked tricks on me! There is hope yet!


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I was hoping that David or someone else would know the answer to this question, because I don't. I read an explanation for it once that made sense at the time, but can't recall it now. I do know that the mic degradation to which I referred is not related to physical damage. And, it was Audyssey who has been quoted as saying that the mics typically loose high frequency accuracy first. It's probably more humidity related, as you noted above. And, as Keith said, they are very inexpensive mics, after all. I have always kept a backup just in case I ever got a really wonky calibration, but so far, so good.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I haven't been following the thread as closely as I normally do for a while. I've been a bit distracted by other things like a new grandson and spending time playing with him, plus dealing with the new Devialet in my audio system which has ended up requiring me to play all sorts of games with the location and height of my REALTraps in order to get the kind of sound I like since the Devialet sounds very different to the NAD it replaced and there's no room correction or electronic EQ in that system so it's all manual tweaking which can end up taking a lot more time.

I have no answers on the mic question but I would wonder whether some mic problems aren't a result of cable datage. It's a pretty thin cable which seems to develop kinks rather easily and I wonder whether over time flexing of the cable at the connections and/or dealing with kinks could start to cause problems. It's that kind of thing which seems to be the main factor for any failures I get over time with ear buds for my iPod, and cheaper ear buds seem to fail faster than more expensive ones with heavier/stronger cables.


----------



## Alan P

atledreier said:


> My main listening position is close to the center of the room, but I have some flexibility.





atledreier said:


> I see the confusion. I said I haven't measured THIS particular setup yet. I have the MiniDSP with the previous (manual) EQ on it still, and I've tried a quick 8-point calibration which I also didn't care too much for. The problem is that I have incredible bass levels nearly everywhere else in the room BUT in the sweetspot. I walked around the room while playing some bass heavy music just now, and I can suddenly understand why my wife is complaining about the bass levels in the rest of the house.
> 
> Im currently setting up the measurement stuff to do some REW sweeps to see what's what with the new AVR.


The center of the room is the absolute worst spot for the MLP, especially with only a single sub...and even more so with a single sub that cannot be moved. Try moving the MLP closer to the front or back wall and you will likely hear major improvements in the bass (as you just found by walking around the room).


----------



## mogorf

atledreier said:


> I am confused too now. I measured the current setup with XT32 enabled (and DynEQ, forgot to disable it), and with Audyssey disabled. I triple checked what was enabled and disabled, because I was very surprised. It's also no wonder I think the Audyssey calibration seems a little thin and lean.....
> 
> Yes, I checked several times..... The flatter one is Audyssey off, just manual EQ of the subwoofer.
> 
> Edit:
> I'll do the reset dance a few times and go back to scratch on the manual EQ before I do anything. Some of the stuff I've been hearing obviously was the old AVR playing wicked tricks on me! There is hope yet!


Hi atledreier, those two graph do really look odd, not something one would expect, right?

This is the usual time when members are asked (if possible) to post a couple of pictures of their room setup showing the layout of speakers/sub(s) and anything else that may be relevant for a closer scrutiny allowing a kinda troubleshooting. These must be some trouble there, I presume.


----------



## atledreier

Yeah, I figure I'll start a new thread as it's not really Audyssey specific as such. This thread tends to get a little more attention, though.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> I am confused too now. I measured the current setup with XT32 enabled (and DynEQ, forgot to disable it), and with Audyssey disabled. I triple checked what was enabled and disabled, because I was very surprised. It's also no wonder I think the Audyssey calibration seems a little thin and lean.....
> 
> Yes, I checked several times..... The flatter one is Audyssey off, just manual EQ of the subwoofer.
> 
> Edit:
> I'll do the reset dance a few times and go back to scratch on the manual EQ before I do anything. Some of the stuff I've been hearing obviously was the old AVR playing wicked tricks on me! There is hope yet!


You need to measure with Audyssey switched off and anything else that can influence the result also defeated. This will give you the 'vanilla' response in the room. Then turn Audyssey on and measure again. Turn DEQ off for this or it will give you a result dependent on your MV setting. Also makes sure all the features such as Dynamic Volume etc are turned off. The measurements are meaningless if tonal manipulation is taking place inside your AVR.

While you are doing the measuring, take some measurements from different locations in the room. Your earlier information sounds as if you are sitting in a null (backed up by your seating location in the center of the room (which I had missed in your earlier post). If you are sitting in a null, no amount of Audyssey tweakery will solve the problem - you will have to physically move MLP or sub or both.

The odd thing in your posted graph is that the green trace looks OK but the red trace has this significant dip. But as your measuring technique is suspect then we can't pin too much on the graph at this time IMO.


----------



## atledreier

My measurement technique is fine, I wanted to see what Audyssey did that was off, and the measeurements confirmed what I heard. 

The green trace is in the MLP with Audyssey "OFF", which also defeats any DynamicEQ and DynamicVolume processing. To be certain I switched those to "OFF" before disabling XT32 for the "raw" measurements. The green trace is with only the MiniDSP manual EQ for the subwoofer. I'll do more measurements tonight, with everything completely disabled, and some with only single channels active (sub and L/R) at different positions in the room. Just for fun I took a measurement near the rear wall, because the bass there was REALLY thumping even at very low volumes. A 30dB peak at 28Hz kinda explains why... 

Edit:
I'll create a new thread tonight with more info about the room and system in general, as it's only borderline Audyssey related at this point.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> My measurement technique is fine, I wanted to see what Audyssey did that was off, and the measeurements confirmed what I heard.
> 
> The green trace is in the MLP with Audyssey "OFF", which also defeats any DynamicEQ and DynamicVolume processing. To be certain I switched those to "OFF" before disabling XT32 for the "raw" measurements. The green trace is with only the MiniDSP manual EQ for the subwoofer. I'll do more measurements tonight, with everything completely disabled, and some with only single channels active (sub and L/R) at different positions in the room. Just for fun I took a measurement near the rear wall, because the bass there was REALLY thumping even at very low volumes. A 30dB peak at 28Hz kinda explains why...
> 
> Edit:
> I'll create a new thread tonight with more info about the room and system in general, as it's only borderline Audyssey related at this point.


The green trace may have Audyssey off but that doesn't mean everything which can affect the response is off. Eg you could have Dolby Volume engaged. Not saying you did but your measurements are suspect. For example, you now mention that there is some separate EQ running on the sub. It is impossible to use the measurements as any sort of indicator as to what is wrong unless we are 100% certain of what the measurements actually show.


----------



## atledreier

kbarnes701 said:


> The green trace may have Audyssey off but that doesn't mean everything which can affect the response is off. Eg you could have Dolby Volume engaged. Not saying you did but your measurements are suspect. For example, you now mention that there is some separate EQ running on the sub. It is impossible to use the measurements as any sort of indicator as to what is wrong unless we are 100% certain of what the measurements actually show.


I see the confusion, and I apologize for my unclear post, measurements and messages. I'll take this to another thread and come back here if Audyssey is still misbehaving after I get the room up to a proper level of performance.


----------



## kbarnes701

atledreier said:


> I see the confusion, and I apologize for my unclear post, measurements and messages. I'll take this to another thread and come back here if Audyssey is still misbehaving after I get the room up to a proper level of performance.


OK. no worries. Just trying to explain one of the reasons you’re not getting much help here. If I were you, I'd disable everything possible and then measure a 'vanilla' measurement from MLP and some other locations in the room, so you can evaluate the sound in the room as it stands. Then see if there are any improvements you can make by physical means - eg moving MLP, moving subs, adding another sub (borrow one if possible), adding absorption and so on***. If you get an improvement as a result of all this - ie you have done as much as you can in the room - then run Audyssey and see how you get on and if Audyssey brings any additional benefits, as it probably will. Good luck! 

*** Even if these changes can't be made permanent, they can still be very useful in helping you understand where the problems are arising and what, if anything, you can do about them. If you can't move speakers/subs, then try moving MLP. Sitting in the center of the room is a really bad idea.


----------



## mthomas47

atledreier said:


> I see the confusion, and I apologize for my unclear post, measurements and messages. I'll take this to another thread and come back here if Audyssey is still misbehaving after I get the room up to a proper level of performance.


Hi,

As far as I am concerned, you would be perfectly welcome to post pictures here, and to engage in ongoing discussions about room, setup, measurements, etc. This thread has always been a resource for Audyssey users, and for people who are interested in Audyssey. And, that resource frequently involves troubleshooting rooms, systems, setups, calibration procedures, or anything else audio-related that people want help with.

I am not discouraging you from starting a new thread if you want to or believe that you will get more help that way. But, in my opinion, there is no need for you to worry about being off-topic. This thread exists as a resource for all of us, and I would encourage people to use it that way. And, it's not as if there are a lot of other conversations competing for time right now. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> As far as I am concerned, you would be perfectly welcome to post pictures here, and to engage in ongoing discussions about room, setup, measurements, etc. This thread has always been a resource for Audyssey users, and for people who are interested in Audyssey. And, that resource frequently involves troubleshooting rooms, systems, setups, calibration procedures, or anything else audio-related that people want help with.
> 
> I am not discouraging you from starting a new thread if you want to or believe that you will get more help that way. But, in my opinion, there is no need for you to worry about being off-topic. This thread exists as a resource for all of us, and I would encourage people to use it that way. And, it's not as if there are a lot of other conversations competing for time right now.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


+1.


----------



## atledreier

Excellent. I'll start off with all the basic information:

Denon AVR4311
Klipsch RF82
quad IB318 in opposed manifold, powered by EP2500 bridged. Located central on the front wall, center of manifold 75cm off the floor.

Room is 4m wide, 6,5m long and 2,35m ceiling height. Current (troublesome) MLP is 2,7m from the rear wall.
The back half of the room is slightly wider, 4,5m, so there is a very slight L-shape to the room. The room widens on the left side by 0,5m about where the MLP is located.
I have "bass"traps in all four wall-wall corners, the rear ones floor to ceiling, the fron ones about 120cm tall, floorstanding. I have 10cm panels in the 1st reflection point of the FR/FL. Fronts are located 125cm from the front wall, 55cm from the sides (measured from the horn mouth). The screen is about 120cm from the front wall.

AVR is just factory reset, and these measurements are completely "raw". Sub has a 250Hz low pass set in the AVR (highest it will go). No EQ on the sub or fronts, nothing enabled in the AVR or MiniDSP. Trims are neutral, as mentioned the AVR was freshly reset.
Measurement mic is the Audyssey pro mic and preamp, connected to a SoundBlaster USB soundcard and the laptop on the couch in the pictures.

What else can I provide to make it easier to get some insights?

I'll measure a few alternative positions just to get a "feel" for what's what in the room.

Edit:
Added two measurements, Sub and FL at varying distances from the rear wall of the room. The "NoAudyssey" measurements are from the original MLP, 270cm from the rear wall.


----------



## mthomas47

atledreier said:


> Excellent. I'll start off with all the basic information:
> 
> Denon AVR4311
> Klipsch RF82
> quad IB318 in opposed manifold, powered by EP2500 bridged. Located central on the front wall, center of manifold 75cm off the floor.
> 
> Room is 4m wide, 6,5m long and 2,35m ceiling height. Current (troublesome) MLP is 2,7m from the rear wall.
> The back half of the room is slightly wider, 4,5m, so there is a very slight L-shape to the room. The room widens on the left side by 0,5m about where the MLP is located.
> I have "bass"traps in all four wall-wall corners, the rear ones floor to ceiling, the fron ones about 120cm tall, floorstanding. I have 10cm panels in the 1st reflection point of the FR/FL. Fronts are located 125cm from the front wall, 55cm from the sides (measured from the horn mouth). The screen is about 120cm from the front wall.
> 
> AVR is just factory reset, and these measurements are completely "raw". Sub has a 250Hz low pass set in the AVR (highest it will go). No EQ on the sub or fronts, nothing enabled in the AVR or MiniDSP. Trims are neutral, as mentioned the AVR was freshly reset.
> Measurement mic is the Audyssey pro mic and preamp, connected to a SoundBlaster USB soundcard and the laptop on the couch in the pictures.
> 
> What else can I provide to make it easier to get some insights?
> 
> I'll measure a few alternative positions just to get a "feel" for what's what in the room.
> 
> Edit:
> Added two measurements, Sub and FL at varying distances from the rear wall of the room. The "NoAudyssey" measurements are from the original MLP, 270cm from the rear wall.


Hi, 

I will just post a few quick thoughts before leaving to go out of town. First, would you also please measure both front speakers, both with and without the sub? Second, is that center position the best measured location for the sub, as it appears that you have some room to shift it around a bit back there?

Given the fact that you have bass traps in all four corners, I would have expected your overall low frequency response to look a little better. Perhaps showing both front speakers will improve things. I can't tell from the photos exactly what your bass traps are made of, or how they are positioned. But, if you are able to pull them out from the corners by 4" to 6" to create an air pocket behind them, that will increase their effectiveness and lower the frequencies that they can affect. 4" is the recommended minimum; 6" is better.

You are currently slightly beyond the halfway point of the room. Have you tried moving the sofa back a few more inches to escape some of the nulls? Sometimes, even 6" or so can make a difference.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## atledreier

I have a set of measurements around the MLP that I'll upload as soon as I can. 

In other news, i moved my MLP way back in the room, currently 1m from the rear wall of the room. I did a quick manual EQ of the sub, and ran Audyssey setup. The midbass is a lot smoother in this position, but the infrasonics are completely gone. It measures flat'ish to 10Hz, but it's like playing on potent bookshelf speakers. I have no idea what that is about. the good thing about that position is that the trims and EQ of the sub pretty much eliminate the shaking in the rest of the house since the room gain is so much stronger near the wall.

Edit: the only measurement I have handy right now. This is sub and FL, just manual EQ, before Audyssey in the new MLP. This is the setup that has no infrasonics at all. You should think this would shake it up pretty hard at ten below reference, but nope... :-(


----------



## garygarrison

atledreier said:


> I have a set of measurements around the MLP that I'll upload as soon as I can.
> 
> In other news, i moved my MLP way back in the room, currently 1m from the rear wall of the room. I did a quick manual EQ of the sub, and ran Audyssey setup. The midbass is a lot smoother in this position, *but the infrasonics are completely gone.* *It measures flat'ish to 10Hz, but it's like playing on potent bookshelf speakers. I have no idea what that is about*. the good thing about that position is that the trims and EQ of the sub pretty much eliminate the shaking in the rest of the house since the room gain is so much stronger near the wall.
> 
> Edit: the only measurement I have handy right now. This is *sub and FL, just manual EQ*, before Audyssey in the new MLP. *This is the setup that has no infrasonics at all*. You should think this would shake it up pretty hard at ten below reference, but nope... :-(


The infrasonics are showing up well on the graph, so the question becomes why aren't you feeling them? 

Possibilities??*:*


The midrange/treble range (not shown on graph from this new MLP) is sufficiently intense to make it necessary to turn up the bass even more for the system to sound balanced almost all the way down to 10 Hz.
The floor is firmer near the wall where the new MLP is, keeping you from feeling frequencies below 20 Hz when sitting on the couch in its new position. Is it a wood floor? Some wood floors are springy at the middle, and firm near walls.


----------



## atledreier

My basstraps are the Euro equivalent of OC703 in a classic triangle "chunk". I'll pull the out from the wall a little bit and see if that helps at all.

My floor is a concrete slap with wood laminate. It does NOT move whatsoever. All the tactile infrasonics are through the couch. I'll provide the requested measurements when I get home from work.
I'd also be interested in checking what Audyssey could do with an un-equalized sub that has a 30dB hump. It should give it some headroom to play with, at least. ;-)


----------



## mthomas47

atledreier said:


> My basstraps are the Euro equivalent of OC703 in a classic triangle "chunk". I'll pull the out from the wall a little bit and see if that helps at all.
> 
> My floor is a concrete slap with wood laminate. It does NOT move whatsoever. All the tactile infrasonics are through the couch. I'll provide the requested measurements when I get home from work.
> I'd also be interested in checking what Audyssey could do with an un-equalized sub that has a 30dB hump. It should give it some headroom to play with, at least. ;-)


It may be that there is something in between your previous position and your current one which will work even better. Some of this is sheer trial-and-error. I agree with Gary, that you may need more sub boost now to feel tactile ULF.

Here is something that you can try to enhance the tactile ULF, even on laminate over a concrete slab. Put a couple of thicknesses of plywood or MDF under your sofa. Something between 1 and 1.5" (say 25mm to 35mm) should work. Concrete does transmit some tactile energy, as does the air. But, the effects are hard to feel on concrete, and they are attenuated by distance, which is why more SPL may be helpful. Having a wood surface under the sofa for it to "float" on can help to introduce more tactile response in low frequencies.


----------



## atledreier

In the central position I have that "the couch is moving" sensation, though. The levels measure in the same region, so I just don't get it. 

Anyways, the subwoofer isn't really moveable, seeing as it's in a hole in the actual wall (infinite baffle), so I'm pretty much stuck with that location inless I wanna rebuild that wall. And that's not an option I have currently.


----------



## mthomas47

atledreier said:


> In the central position I have that "the couch is moving" sensation, though. The levels measure in the same region, so I just don't get it.
> 
> Anyways, the subwoofer isn't really moveable, seeing as it's in a hole in the actual wall (infinite baffle), so I'm pretty much stuck with that location inless I wanna rebuild that wall. And that's not an option I have currently.


I don't always get it either, but I do know that SPL, which is what you are measuring, is not the same thing as tactile response. And, a smoother frequency response is not at all the same thing as feeling bass vibrations through a sofa. But, that's why I suggested that so much of this is trial-and-error to discover what actually works. I think you are just looking for the best compromise you can find between FR and TR, because they are completely different things and are measured in completely different ways.

I can attest to the fact that using a wood riser under a sofa or chair can increase TR. David Gage, of Deep Sea Sound, performed tests with several different materials and thicknesses of risers on concrete a couple of years ago to test the hypothesis, and I have incorporated the idea into my room with good results. But, it's an incremental increase, not a night-and-day difference, so again, I think you are just looking for the best compromise you can find between FR and TR. And, I still think that in a position where you get a smoother FR, you may need more bass SPL to experience the same sensations you are used to feeling.


----------



## David Aiken

atledreier said:


> My basstraps are the Euro equivalent of OC703 in a classic triangle "chunk". I'll pull the out from the wall a little bit and see if that helps at all.
> 
> My floor is a concrete slap with wood laminate. It does NOT move whatsoever. All the tactile infrasonics are through the couch. I'll provide the requested measurements when I get home from work.
> I'd also be interested in checking what Audyssey could do with an un-equalized sub that has a 30dB hump. It should give it some headroom to play with, at least. ;-)


1- Is that one of your bass traps in the background of the second photo you posted above? Is the triangular wedge completely made up of the OC703 equivalent or is it a triangular box with a front layer of the OC703 equivalent with a triangular shaped void behind? That's important because if it's a box with a layer of absorption material in front and a void behind, pulling it out from the corner probably won't help and may actually reduce the effectiveness of the trap. On the other hand if it's a solid wedge of absorption material then pulling it out a little bit could help, I'd suggest pulling it out about 4 to 8 inches from both walls of the corner. You'll have to experiment to find the most effective distance.

The reason for the above distinction is that absorption layers work better with an air space behind them and if the trap is a box with a layer of absorption material in front and a void behind, it already has the air space behind it, that's what the internal void is there for, so pulling the trap out from the wall is not going to change the size of the void which is determined by the size of the triangular box and the thickness of the absorption layer, and creating a space between the solid walls of the box and the walls of the room could result in the creation of a space which resonates and introduces its own problems. On the other hand, if the trap is nothing but an OC703 equivalent wrapped to prevent shedding of fibreglass fibres, then pulling it out from the wall a bit will introduce a space behind it which could help absorption and improve the trap's effectiveness. 

2- You said your floor is a concrete slab with wood laminate and doesn't move. Concrete slabs do transmit vibration but the floor itself may be floating on a layer of insulation that absorbs vibration and which reduces the transmission of vibration from sub to floor and from floor to couch. Alternatively the couch itself may be absorbing and damping vibrations transmitted from the floor so that you don't feel them. Whatever, just because a floor is a concrete slab doesn't mean that it doesn't move and in any event it doesn't have to move very much at all in order to transmit noticeable vibration to something sitting on it like a couch. If tactile vibrations aren't being transmitted to the couch by your floor then either something is damping the physical transmission of vibration from the sub to the floor and/or damping the physical transmission of vibration from floor to couch. Mike's suggestion of a wood riser under the couch would be one way of improving physical transmission of vibration from floor to couch. You can also look at the sub and how it contacts the floor. Some subs have vibration absorbing feet which reduce the physical transmission of vibration. If your sub has such feet, replacing them with metal or wooden feet of the same size could help in a similar way to having the riser under the couch. If the sub is on a vibration absorbing platform such as an Auralex Subdude then removing the platform could help but if you increase the transmission of vibration from sub to floor you may get unwanted results such as problems from vibration affecting your gear or resonances excited in furniture or walls in contact with the floor. I would be careful with attempts to increase the physical transmission of vibration to the floor because of the possibility of creating undesirable side effects.

Edit: I just noticed that you said the sub is mounted in the wall so it's not sitting on the floor. That is going to reduce physical transmission of vibration from sub to floor considerably, the main route for transmission of vibration to the floor is likely to be airborne. You can try Mike's suggestion of a riser under the couch but your best option may actually be one of the buttkicker type devices if you want a tactile vibration effect.


----------



## atledreier

You're not reading all the text in my messages. In my original MLP in the center of the room I have great tactile response. The couch moves, my hair and clothes move, but there is no more measured ULF response. In my current MLP I get very little tactile response, but it measures close to flat well into the teens. 

My basstraps are a combination of triangles and straddled panels. I have "solid" triangles on the floor in all four corners, with panels straddling the corner on top of those. I have two smaller triangle chunks behind the straddling panels in the rear traps.

And yes, the sub is not touching the floor, it is hanging on the wall, unmoveable due to the design.


----------



## Skylinestar

mogorf said:


> Seems you have a dead tweeter. Try listening closely to the right speaker to detect whether you can hear highs from that speaker or not.


Kindly refer to post 22633 in the REW thread. I've posted a measurement of the compression driver (with Audyssey off).
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...es-how-interpret-graphs-755.html#post52915457


----------



## mogorf

Skylinestar said:


> Kindly refer to post 22633 in the REW thread. I've posted a measurement of the compression driver (with Audyssey off).
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-au...es-how-interpret-graphs-755.html#post52915457


If you swap the power out cables on the back of the AVR will the problem follow the speaker?


----------



## Skylinestar

mogorf said:


> If you swap the power out cables on the back of the AVR will the problem follow the speaker?


Always follow the speaker


----------



## mogorf

Skylinestar said:


> Always follow the speaker


I think this narrows down the problem to the speaker, right? What do you actually hear? Do you experience a kinda distortion?


----------



## Fizban19

Hi all...I'm new to Audyssey and will be getting my first receiver with Audyssey very soon....I wanted to read up on some stuff before the new receiver arrives, however, clicking on the first option of this thread on the first page doesn't link to anything....can someone post a link to the "Audyssey newcomer 101"?


----------



## garygarrison

Fizban19 said:


> Hi all...I'm new to Audyssey and will be getting my first receiver with Audyssey very soon....I wanted to read up on some stuff before the new receiver arrives, however, clicking on the first option of this thread on the first page doesn't link to anything....can someone post a link to the "Audyssey newcomer 101"?


This will take you to BOTH "Audyssey 101" and "Audyssey FAQ" Both are highly recommended. After you digest both of them, you can go to Mike's (mthomas) subwoofer instructions. All of the above are far better than my Marantz manual, and better than other sources I have seen. 

First: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" includes both Audyssey 101 and Audyssey FAQ

Then: "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" 

I would prefer reading all of the above before running Audyssey. It would take about an hour, with some pauses for thought. 

I might as well share my biases right away: 1) Be sure to try turning Dynamic EQ off for playback (check to make sure Audyssey is still *on; *some AVRs have an Audyssey indicator light) 2) Follow Mike's advice in "Guide to Subwoofer Levels" to turn up the subwoofer a bit after first running Audyssey in the way he specifies. That way, you won't overload the AVR subwoofer output, but you will increase bass, which both most people here and Harmon and other research indicate most people prefer. 3) be sure to compare Audyssey Reference (i.e., just plain Audyssey, or "Movie") to Audyssey Flat (i.e., "Music"). Some like Flat, and some like Reference (which rolls off the treble a bit). 

Persist. In my Music Room & Home Theater, Audyssey helps a great deal in increasing clarity, smoothness, etc.


----------



## gadgtfreek

Quick question, I am thinking about playing with gain matching my dual subs. 

After they are gain matched, and XT32 sets them at say -4 and -8 for example, what happens then since they are level matched again? I have seen one recommendation for split the difference at say -6, and then adjust them together from there.

Thanks.


----------



## David Aiken

gadgtfreek said:


> Quick question, I am thinking about playing with gain matching my dual subs.
> 
> After they are gain matched, and XT32 sets them at say -4 and -8 for example, what happens then since they are level matched again? I have seen one recommendation for split the difference at say -6, and then adjust them together from there.
> 
> Thanks.



The reason XT32 set different trim levels for your subs is because they are producing different sound levels at the listening position. You probably started out with the same gain setting on each sub but because of there different positions in the room one is getting more room support than the other or is closer to you than the other or both, so one sounds louder at the listening position than the other. XT32 is correcting for that so that each sub produces the same sound level at the listening position.

If you “split the difference” you will probably end up with the same overall level at the listening position as Audyssey is currently delivering but one sub will be louder than the other and that may make it easier to identify the location of each sub as a separate source which is what you do not want to do. The goal is to have each sub producing the same sound level at the listening position, not to have the trim levels set by Audyssey identical for each sub. Identical trim levels is WRONG if the sound level delivered by each sub at the listening position is not identical. It’s like XT32 setting different trim settings for your front left and front right speakers. You don’t “split the difference” with them and set them to the same level because you will shift the balance of the sound from one side of the room to the other by some degree.

Simply adjust each sub by the same amount so if you want to increase the overall level of the subs by 3 dB for example, simply adjust the -4 sub to -1 and the -8 sub to -5.

If you want to have XT32 set the same trim level for both subs then you are going to need to reduce the sub’s gain setting for the -4 sub and run Audyssey setup again. It is worth doing that if the amount you want to increase the subs by is going to raise one of the sub’s trim settings to more than about -3 because you can run into problems then as noted in Mike’s excellent post on setting sub levels.

There is nothing special about having XT32 set both subs to the same trim level. I’ve got a 1.5 dB difference in my sub trim levels from my setup process and I would bet that most of us running 2 subs have slightly different trim settings for each sub. Just adjust each sub by the same amount and keep the difference that Audyssey set.


----------



## mthomas47

gadgtfreek said:


> Quick question, I am thinking about playing with gain matching my dual subs.
> 
> After they are gain matched, and XT32 sets them at say -4 and -8 for example, what happens then since they are level matched again? I have seen one recommendation for split the difference at say -6, and then adjust them together from there.
> 
> Thanks.


There have always been slightly different schools of thought with respect to gain-matching versus level-matching. In my opinion, as long as your subs are relatively well gain-matched, then they will be doing relatively equal work. But, as David said, Audyssey's goal is to produce the same SPL at the listening position, and from a listening standpoint, that is even more important.

If subs are gain-matched in advance, and then result in different trim settings, it is because their position in the room is causing them to need different trim levels to produce the same volume at the MLP. Just adjust them symmetrically, using either the gain controls or the trim controls at that point, in order to get the sub boost you want. As long as the settings aren't way far apart, they will still be doing about the same amount of work. And, you will hear/feel the same volumes at the MLP.

Regards,
Mike

Edit:

There was a discussion of this subject on a Rythmik subwoofer thread recently, which noted that changing the gain or trim levels of your subs asymmetrically, post-calibration, can change the EQ that Audyssey has done. When the subs are level-matched at the MLP, Audyssey sets control points to pull-down peaks and fill-in dips from the combined response of the subs. If you increase the volume of one sub and not the other, or increase one while decreasing the other, that changes the level playing field that Audyssey started with. It may create a measurable difference in the frequency response, in addition to creating changes in what you hear at the MLP. I will add a note about this to the subwoofer guide.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Edit:
> 
> There was a discussion of this subject on a Rythmik subwoofer thread recently, which noted that changing the gain or trim levels of your subs asymmetrically, post-calibration, can change the EQ that Audyssey has done. When the subs are level-matched at the MLP, Audyssey sets control points to pull-down peaks and fill-in dips from the *combined* response of the subs. If you increase the volume of one sub and not the other, or increase one while decreasing the other, that changes the level playing field that Audyssey started with. It may create a measurable difference in the frequency response, in addition to creating changes in what you hear at the MLP. I will add a note about this to the subwoofer guide.


Am I right in assuming that a similar problem does _*not*_ occur when we change the trim level when using a *single* sub, because Audyssey does not measure that sub in combination with any other speaker, but measures the single sub and each of the other speakers individually, one by one? 

Also, is it true that even though the main speakers (and a single sub) are measured individually, if someone uses LARGE and LFE + Main (I know this is not usually recommended), and both one main and the sub have a big peak centered at the same frequency, say, 40 Hz, the main and sub will either combine to make an even bigger peak at 40 Hz if in phase, or will attenuate each other if out of phase? Under these circumstances, Audyssey may fix the problem, but will there be a further problem if the sub trim is changed, and the main's trim is not, since, while these speakers are not measured together, with LARGE/LFE+Main they will *play* together at 40 Hz?

Another thing just floated forward in my memory banks. Years ago, I read that Chris K suggested ignoring the phase switch on subwoofers, (or arbitrarily setting it at 0?) and letting Audyssey take care of the phase, since the phase switch on subs only addresses the phase over a minor range of frequencies. That always confused me. So did the reputed difference between phase and polarity. How does Audyssey address phase better, over a wider set of frequencies, than the presumably polarity solution of a subwoofer phase switch. Insight, anyone? 

Oops, here comes another. I also heard that in a big room, with widely spaced speakers, they have "essentially random phase." Right, wrong, or what?


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's excellent news that it wasn't Audyssey's room correction creating that muffled sound you heard. I hope you are enjoying your new Denon. I seem to recall someone suggesting that an older mic might be the culprit, as they do tend to degrade first in the higher frequencies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It had to be bad mic because with my new AVR my room sounds absolutely insane but the reference curve kills audyysey flat this time??? I did make some changes, here they are.

1. I am not one that gets sold on high dollar cables ect but found a bunch of audioquest gear my late father had (silver 300 bananna plugs, black mamba II interconnects) and my jaw litterly dropped at the difference. Some companies may be fake, audio quest silver series is not.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> Am I right in assuming that a similar problem does _*not*_ occur when we change the trim level when using a *single* sub, because Audyssey does not measure that sub in combination with any other speaker, but measures the single sub and each of the other speakers individually, one by one?


Correct, but I think that the Audyssey people might say that you're thinking about it in the wrong terms when you think about it measuring the 2 subs in combination with each other vs measuring speakers individually. I think they might view what they're doing with the dual sub situation is not measuring 2 speakers in combination but rather measuring the LFE channel output at the listening position. The other speakers are measured individually but each is also the only speaker assigned to a given channel whereas when there are 2 subs, they are both involved in reproduction of a single channel, the LFE channel.



> Also, is it true that even though the main speakers (and a single sub) are measured individually, if someone uses LARGE and LFE + Main (I know this is not usually recommended), and both one main and the sub have a big peak centered at the same frequency, say, 40 Hz, the main and sub will either combine to make an even bigger peak at 40 Hz if in phase, or will attenuate each other if out of phase? Under these circumstances, Audyssey may fix the problem, but will there be a further problem if the sub trim is changed, and the main's trim is not, since, while these speakers are not measured together, with LARGE/LFE+Main they will *play* together at 40 Hz?


My understanding, very imperfect as it is and possibly in need of correction, is that Audyssey's filters will apply corrections for the speaker down to it's measured -3 dB point and I assume that will happen even when the -3 dB point is below the crossover frequency since the crossover isn't a brick wall. There is a range of frequencies in which both speaker and sub are contributing to the overall level and phase of the signal and Audyssey needs to ensure that the filters for both speakers and sub are active throughout that range. I don't think the problem with reinforcement/cancellation will arise if you simply engage the LFE + Main option. I assume that changing the sub's trim isn't going to cause a cancellation either. I suspect both LFE + Main, and/or increasing the sub's trim level will serve to increase the level across that range simply because the filters for sub and speaker are going to be designed to sum the signal because that's what's required if you just accept them anyway. I could be wrong, and I'm not saying that results will be as qualitatively good as just having the sub set to LFE and increasing the trim for the sub.




> Another thing just floated forward in my memory banks. Years ago, I read that Chris K suggested ignoring the phase switch on subwoofers, (or arbitrarily setting it at 0?) and letting Audyssey take care of the phase, since the phase switch on subs only addresses the phase over a minor range of frequencies. That always confused me. So did the reputed difference between phase and polarity. How does Audyssey address phase better, over a wider set of frequencies, than the presumably polarity solution of a subwoofer phase switch. Insight, anyone?


No idea how it's done but phase modification seems to be fairly common in DSP processing of various kinds so I've always accepted that it is being done. 



> Oops, here comes another. I also heard that in a big room, with widely spaced speakers, they have "essentially random phase." Right, wrong, or what?


Here I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the phase of the speakers in such a situation is not going to be "essentially random", it's going to be exactly what it is in any other room and with any other spacing of the speakers. The phase of the speakers will not change with placement. The room does effect the sound we hear at the listening position and those listening position and room effects can include phase differences between speakers. Let's assume a small room with not widely spaced speakers, a room that whoever made the comment you quoted would not consider would result in the speakers having "essentially random phase". If you move around the room while something is playing, the sound you hear from each speaker is only going to be in phase with each other whenever you are equidistant from both speakers and both speakers are emitting the same sound in phase. At every other point in the room the sound you hear from the 2 speakers isn't going to be in phase and how much out of phase it's going to be is going to depend on the difference in distance to each speaker. It's also going to be frequency dependent due to the difference in length of the wavelengths at different frequencies. Even equidistant from each speaker, different notes which were reproduced in phase with each other by the speakers may be out of phase with each other at the listening position due to the difference in wavelength. I'm not certain that's the kind of thing the person who made that comment was talking about but for sound content involving multiple frequencies at the same time (i.e. things like music and anything with an overtone structure like voices or natural sounds, anything other than a pure single frequency sine wave) there are going to phase differences at the main listening position compared to what the speaker is emitting, and there's going to be other phase differences at positions other than the main listening position and the size of those differences is going to depend on the location of the listening position relative to the speaker position and on frequency. That's going to be true in absolutely every room, regardless of size and regardless of the width of speaker placement. Most of the time we don't notice them, with or without Audyssey, and we may notice them less with it but I doubt it's possible to avoid noticing then in at least some rooms under some circumstances. It's not a situation that can be fixed perfectly no matter what we do. My feeling is that it's only going to be a problem if we can hear it and it disturbs us, and what we do then is going to be what we do to solve any sound related problem: try one or more of changing speaker position, changing listening position location, physical acoustic treatment, electronic room correction, and so on.

I realise none of the above is really perfect answers but it's about the best I can do. With regard to your last couple of questions, yes, there are issues but I wonder how audible they are going to be or perhaps I should say how often they are going to be audible, and they're going to crop up with or without Audyssey. Audyssey should help with those issues and I think Audyssey is a reasonable tool to use but it's still possible to get bad results with reasonable tools. How you use the tool contributes to the result and we know that making changes in things like mic placement patterns can affect our results. There's a bit of art, or perhaps craft, as well as science in using Audyssey or any other form of electronic or physical room correction and that means that results are going to be variable depending on the user as well as on the situation.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

That's a good post, David!


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> That's a good post, David!


Thanks, Mike.


----------



## RockDawg

*Will Audyssey render a more powerful amp useless?*

I've been wondering something. I have a Marantz 7702mkII, Emotiva UPA-7 and GoldenEar Triton 3+ speakers. I came from a lower level Onkyo TR-NX626 AVR and some Klipsch Reference RB-41 II series Bookshelves and the volume level on the new system doesn't seem to get nearly as loud. The GoldenEar are rated at 90db efficiency vesus 91 for the Klipsh and I assumed the UPA-7 was putting out far more power than the Onkyo AVR. The are in different rooms but the funny part is the new system is in a much smaller dedicated theater whereas the smaller system in a great room with vaulted ceiling and a very open floor plan.

Anyway, I've read that Audyssey adjusts levels so that 0db on the volume control is a certain level. Does this mean that if I were to upgrade to say a XPA-7 3rd Gen it would just lower the levels even more to account for the extra power and yield the same volume level?


----------



## mthomas47

RockDawg said:


> I've been wondering something. I have a Marantz 7702mkII, Emotiva UPA-7 and GoldenEar Triton 3+ speakers. I came from a lower level Onkyo TR-NX626 AVR and some Klipsch Reference RB-41 II series Bookshelves and the volume level on the new system doesn't seem to get nearly as loud. The GoldenEar are rated at 90db efficiency vesus 91 for the Klipsh and I assumed the UPA-7 was putting out far more power than the Onkyo AVR. The are in different rooms but the funny part is the new system is in a much smaller dedicated theater whereas the smaller system in a great room with vaulted ceiling and a very open floor plan.
> 
> Anyway, I've read that Audyssey adjusts levels so that 0db on the volume control is a certain level. Does this mean that if I were to upgrade to say a XPA-7 3rd Gen it would just lower the levels even more to account for the extra power and yield the same volume level?


Hi,

I think you already know the answer to your question. Audyssey calibrates your system so that 0.0 MV at your main listening position equals Reference for 5.1 movies. Add more sensitive speakers, or a more powerful amplifier, and 0.0 MV will still equal Reference. If you did add those things, you would just have more headroom to achieve or exceed Reference volumes. As long as you can increase your MV to satisfactory levels, without distortion, the precise listening level you use is irrelevant.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

I posted this in the REW thread but also wanted to ask here:

So, I finally decided to get a boom mic stand (samson mk-10) and position the mic ideally. I should get it in tomorrow. 

I've attached some pics of the MLP and current 5.1 speaker setup.



































































Question is do I want mic tip (currently UMIK-1 and YPAO mics) exactly at ear level like where the flash drive is on the pillows or do I want it higher so the mic isn't thrown off by the surface of the sleep number mattress/pillows.

I have read the suggestions in the Audyssey FAQ but my scenario is quite atypical so I'm wondering if I need to keep the mic well clear of the mattress and whether I should leave the pillows in place or not. Also, whether I should keep the bed in its slight incline I use for listening or just set it flat to keep it out of the way.

Also, should the boom be directly behind the bed given the speaker placement angles? What are some good guidelines for keeping the boom from getting in between the speakers and mic tip?

And when I get Audyssey XT32 later in the fall, where should measures 2-8 be considering the MLP is single listener only and I tend to stay on the left half of bed. Right wall is 3 feet from MLP.


Thanks in advance


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Separate question is does the Audyssey mic, YPAO mic, MCACC mic etc. all use the same size threaded connector?


----------



## drh3b

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> And when I get Audyssey XT32 later in the fall, where should measures 2-8 be considering the MLP is single listener only and I tend to stay on the left half of bed. Right wall is 3 feet from MLP.
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance


Can't make any suggestions about the rest, but you could just run Audyssey twice at the MLP, and see what happens. It's a lot easier, and if it works for you, you save some hassle. I've been doing that as my system slowly takes form, and it sounds good, don't know how it measures, but it's worth trying. I know some people have used it with success.


----------



## drh3b

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Separate question is does the Audyssey mic, YPAO mic, MCACC mic etc. all use the same size threaded connector?


The Audyssey mike will thread onto a standard camera tripod. Don't know for a fact, but I would assume the rest do as well.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

drh3b said:


> The Audyssey mike will thread onto a standard camera tripod. Don't know for a fact, but I would assume the rest do as well.


got this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0032D0P84?tag=vs-avsforum-convert-20 so it can go in same mic clip as UMIK-1 for REW


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> I posted this in the REW thread but also wanted to ask here:
> 
> So, I finally decided to get a boom mic stand (samson mk-10) and position the mic ideally. I should get it in tomorrow.
> 
> I've attached some pics of the MLP and current 5.1 speaker setup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question is do I want mic tip (currently UMIK-1 and YPAO mics) exactly at ear level like where the flash drive is on the pillows or do I want it higher so the mic isn't thrown off by the surface of the sleep number mattress/pillows.
> 
> I have read the suggestions in the Audyssey FAQ but my scenario is quite atypical so I'm wondering if I need to keep the mic well clear of the mattress and whether I should leave the pillows in place or not. Also, whether I should keep the bed in its slight incline I use for listening or just set it flat to keep it out of the way.
> 
> Also, should the boom be directly behind the bed given the speaker placement angles? What are some good guidelines for keeping the boom from getting in between the speakers and mic tip?
> 
> And when I get Audyssey XT32 later in the fall, where should measures 2-8 be considering the MLP is single listener only and I tend to stay on the left half of bed. Right wall is 3 feet from MLP.
> 
> Thanks in advance


Hi,

You may have to experiment a bit to find the mic technique that works best, but here is what I would probably try first. I would leave the bed as you will have it when watching/listening. I would probably remove one of the pillows and cover the remaining pillow and a portion of the bed with something absorbent, such as a soft blanket or fluffy towel. That will keep high frequency reflections from bouncing into the Audyssey mic, causing Audyssey to try to over-correct something that isn't really a problem. Then, I would keep the tip of the mic about 6" away from the surface of the towel or blanket. That should correspond quite closely to your actual ear height when you put the second pillow back and lie down.

I would also use a pretty tight mic pattern--maybe 18" by 18", or something like that. And, I would not go behind the pillow with any of my measurements. The same thing will be true when you move to XT-32. Just keep all 8 mic positions within a fairly small area. If you want to, you can try raising your mic height about 2" or 3" above ear level for two of your mic positions. But, your basic calibration technique would be the same whether you were using 6 positions or 8.

Let us know what you discover after you have experimented a little. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted this in the REW thread but also wanted to ask here:
> 
> So, I finally decided to get a boom mic stand (samson mk-10) and position the mic ideally. I should get it in tomorrow.
> 
> I've attached some pics of the MLP and current 5.1 speaker setup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question is do I want mic tip (currently UMIK-1 and YPAO mics) exactly at ear level like where the flash drive is on the pillows or do I want it higher so the mic isn't thrown off by the surface of the sleep number mattress/pillows.
> 
> I have read the suggestions in the Audyssey FAQ but my scenario is quite atypical so I'm wondering if I need to keep the mic well clear of the mattress and whether I should leave the pillows in place or not. Also, whether I should keep the bed in its slight incline I use for listening or just set it flat to keep it out of the way.
> 
> Also, should the boom be directly behind the bed given the speaker placement angles? What are some good guidelines for keeping the boom from getting in between the speakers and mic tip?
> 
> And when I get Audyssey XT32 later in the fall, where should measures 2-8 be considering the MLP is single listener only and I tend to stay on the left half of bed. Right wall is 3 feet from MLP.
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> You may have to experiment a bit to find the mic technique that works best, but here is what I would probably try first. I would leave the bed as you will have it when watching/listening. I would probably remove one of the pillows and cover the remaining pillow and a portion of the bed with something absorbent, such as a soft blanket or fluffy towel. That will keep high frequency reflections from bouncing into the Audyssey mic, causing Audyssey to try to over-correct something that isn't really a problem. Then, I would keep the tip of the mic about 6" away from the surface of the towel or blanket. That should correspond quite closely to your actual ear height when you put the second pillow back and lie down.
> 
> I would also use a pretty tight mic pattern--maybe 18" by 18", or something like that. And, I would not go behind the pillow with any of my measurements. The same thing will be true when you move to XT-32. Just keep all 8 mic positions within a fairly small area. If you want to, you can try raising your mic height about 2" or 3" above ear level for two of your mic positions. But, your basic calibration technique would be the same whether you were using 6 positions or 8.
> 
> Let us know what you discover after you have experimented a little.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks; will try that.

Right now I only have a single point for my version of YPAO and I use the same spot for sub PEQ with MiniDSP and REW (UMIK-1).

Jerry from the REW thread gave slightly different advice of removing both pillows and placing the mic (at least) 12 inches above the mattress in the MLP for first measurement. 

(Though I assume that the mic will end up in the same place, the main difference being the first pillow and the blanket present or not.)

My mattress is a sleep number in case it matters, so it is an air mattress with a lot of foam padding on all sides and above and below the air chamber. Though I have a thick winter blanket that should provide a lot of absorption properties.


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Thanks; will try that.
> 
> Right now I only have a single point for my version of YPAO and I use the same spot for sub PEQ with MiniDSP and REW (UMIK-1).
> 
> Jerry from the REW thread gave slightly different advice of removing both pillows and placing the mic (at least) 12 inches above the mattress in the MLP for first measurement.
> 
> (Though I assume that the mic will end up in the same place, the main difference being the first pillow and the blanket present or not.)
> 
> My mattress is a sleep number in case it matters, so it is an air mattress with a lot of foam padding on all sides and above and below the air chamber. Though I have a thick winter blanket that should provide a lot of absorption properties.


You are very welcome! Jerry has a lot of experience and his approach should also work well. I personally like using an absorbent blanket and then getting the mic position closer to where the actual ear position would be. I thought about the possibility of the foam padding of the air mattress being sufficient by itself, but I know the blanket technique will work. 

Incidentally, I did forget to answer one of your questions regarding the boom mic stand. I have never found the position of the stand to be a significant factor in any of my calibrations, although I have tried it in many positions. I believe that Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting system probably prevents it from being an issue. I would just put the stand behind the bed where it can reach all of my mic positions.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks; will try that.
> 
> Right now I only have a single point for my version of YPAO and I use the same spot for sub PEQ with MiniDSP and REW (UMIK-1).
> 
> Jerry from the REW thread gave slightly different advice of removing both pillows and placing the mic (at least) 12 inches above the mattress in the MLP for first measurement.
> 
> (Though I assume that the mic will end up in the same place, the main difference being the first pillow and the blanket present or not.)
> 
> My mattress is a sleep number in case it matters, so it is an air mattress with a lot of foam padding on all sides and above and below the air chamber. Though I have a thick winter blanket that should provide a lot of absorption properties.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very welcome! Jerry has a lot of experience and his approach should also work well. I personally like using an absorbent blanket and then getting the mic position closer to where the actual ear position would be. I thought about the possibility of the foam padding of the air mattress being sufficient by itself, but I know the blanket technique will work.
> 
> Incidentally, I did forget to answer one of your questions regarding the boom mic stand. I have never found the position of the stand to be a significant factor in any of my calibrations, although I have tried it in many positions. I believe that Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting system probably prevents it from being an issue. I would just put the stand behind the bed where it can reach all of my mic positions.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think I'll remove both pillows and use the blanket as well (a bit of both approaches). 

The length of the UMIK-1 and the adapter I got for the YPAO mic should add enough length so that the mic tip is at ear level or slightly higher. 

This should allow the usb cable attached to the bottom of the UMIK-1 enough space so it is not bending at a sharp angle (miniUSB connector is kinda flimsy).


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Thanks, I think I'll remove both pillows and use the blanket as well (a bit of both approaches).
> 
> The length of the UMIK-1 and the adapter I got for the YPAO mic should add enough length so that the mic tip is at ear level or slightly higher.
> 
> This should allow the usb cable attached to the bottom of the UMIK-1 enough space so it is not bending at a sharp angle (miniUSB connector is kinda flimsy).



I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but you don't want to use your UMIK-1 to perform an Audyssey calibration. For that, you need to use the Audyssey mic that came with your AVR. It isn't as good a microphone as the UMIK-1, but it is calibrated for the Audyssey software, and the UMIK-1 isn't.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I think I'll remove both pillows and use the blanket as well (a bit of both approaches).
> 
> The length of the UMIK-1 and the adapter I got for the YPAO mic should add enough length so that the mic tip is at ear level or slightly higher.
> 
> This should allow the usb cable attached to the bottom of the UMIK-1 enough space so it is not bending at a sharp angle (miniUSB connector is kinda flimsy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but you don't want to use your UMIK-1 to perform an Audyssey calibration. For that, you need to use the Audyssey mic that came with your AVR. It isn't as good a microphone as the UMIK-1, but it is calibrated for the Audyssey software, and the UMIK-1 isn't.
Click to expand...

UMIK-1 for REW 

YPAO mic for Yamaha AVR 

(Don't have Audyssey yet, planning on buying Denon X3300W or X3400H in fall.)


----------



## RockDawg

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think you already know the answer to your question. Audyssey calibrates your system so that 0.0 MV at your main listening position equals Reference for 5.1 movies. Add more sensitive speakers, or a more powerful amplifier, and 0.0 MV will still equal Reference. If you did add those things, you would just have more headroom to achieve or exceed Reference volumes. As long as you can increase your MV to satisfactory levels, without distortion, the precise listening level you use is irrelevant.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


No. I do not already know the answer to my question. Hence my asking. With my current setup Audyssey lowered the levels on every speaker. Presumably to achieve making 0 on my volume bar a specific db. If I buy a new amp with twice the output power, won't it just lower the levels even further to keep 0 at that same db? If so, that would render that extra power mostly useless wouldn't it? There's only so much room past 0 to further turn the volume up. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

RockDawg said:


> No. I do not already know the answer to my question. Hence my asking. With my current setup Audyssey lowered the levels on every speaker. Presumably to achieve making 0 on my volume bar a specific db. If I buy a new amp with twice the output power, won't it just lower the levels even further to keep 0 at that same db? If so, that would render that extra power mostly useless wouldn't it? There's only so much room past 0 to further turn the volume up.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


I wasn't being snarky. It appeared to me that you did know the answer to your question and were just seeking confirmation, which I gave you. Audyssey will always calibrate your system to Reference. The speakers and their placement in the room will determine their trim levels, so the individual trim levels shouldn't change much, if at all, with a more powerful amplifier. If you add a more powerful amplifier to your system, that will give you more overall headroom and potentially reduce the possibility of distortion. But, that will only be useful, if you are already pushing your current amplifier close to its limits.

Here are some aspects of this to consider. A doubling in amplifier power creates 3db in additional SPL. So, if you had an amplifier which generated 100 watts RMS per channel, and you bought a 200 watt per channel amplifier, you would only gain an additional 3db in total SPL. As a general rule, more amplifier power is unnecessary unless you have relatively inefficient speakers. But, if Audyssey lowered the trim levels on every speaker, then by definition, you do not have particularly inefficient speakers. Hence, there would be no need for a more powerful amplifier on that account.

Another thing to bear in mind, though, is that you can not only increase your AVR master volume control higher than 0.0, but you can also increase the individual trim levels from where Audyssey set them. You can use a combination of increases in MV and trim levels to the limits of your amplifiers and speakers. Audyssey will eventually stop allowing you to increase the master volume and the trim levels any further, but by then you would probably be experiencing audible distortion, anyway.

The bottom line here is that if you want to add a more powerful amplifier then the one you currently have, go ahead. It won't hurt anything and Audyssey will not prevent you from being able to use the additional 3db of output that you will gain. But, unless you are already pushing your amplifier pretty close to its limits, you may not derive any benefit from the additional 3db of headroom.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## citsur86

*Audyssey Questions*

First, just wanted to see if anyone has other ideas regarding my current process/wiring. I have a Marantz SR-6011 with Audyssey XT32 so two Subwoofer Outputs. I have two subwoofers in my room and an additional iNuke amp that drives 4 Aurasound Pro Shakers.

Here is how I wire everything during Audyssey runs. Notice the iNuke amp is off during calibration:










After calibration is done, I simply turn the iNuke amp on, and play some demo action content at -10 MV (since I never listen louder than that). During that content, I lower the knobs on the iNuke just below clipping the Auras at their loudest.










This has the downside of applying Subwoofer 2 outputs EQ to the Tactiles as well, but I don't seem to really notice any issue. Other option would be to split the subs out of subwoofer 1 during Audysey calibration and have the iNuke off of Subwoofer 2, still not on or plugged in during calibration. With this I lose the Ch Level and Distance settings the AVR will do for the two subs, but gain the ability to run the tactiles out of an "EQ Free" subwoofer slot. I believe the way I am doing it (not this way) is best. Thoughts?


Second question is completely unrelated. I've read that Audyssey is basically doing an average across all 8 mic locations for which it outputs it's chirp tones. I've read that some people decide to keep the mic in 1 location for all 8 runs in order to get sound ideal at the 1 location they actually sit in. I've also read that some people stop after the first 3 runs as it will provide better response at the first and second listening position since there is less to average? Any truth to this?


----------



## mthomas47

I will respond to the calibration part. There wouldn't be any point to leaving the mic in the same spot 8 times. If you were going to do that, you might just as well have Audyssey calculate after the first series of test tones. The whole point in using multiple positions is to give Audyssey sufficient information about your listening area to do fuzzy logic weighting of the FR.

Measurements done at a single point in space don't actually correspond to the way we hear. Our hearing is binaural, and both ears contribute to the information that reaches our brains. Calibrating (or measuring the FR) at a single point right between our eyes may actually work in some cases. And, the same thing might be true for using only 3 mic positions. But, it is generally better to use the full suite of microphone positions.

I would recommend starting with a relatively small mic pattern, perhaps about 18" by 18", for a single listening position, and only drop back to fewer mic positions, if measurements or audible perceptions clearly indicated an equivalent or better result with fewer than the recommended number of mic positions. Some degree of trial-and-error is typically required to find the best mic pattern for a particular room and audio system. 

And, measurements which confirm the validity of a calibration should also be taken at several positions around the head, and not just at a single point in space, in order to conform to the way that we actually hear. REW can average the results of several clustered measurements to give a much more accurate picture of the frequency response.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## RockDawg

mthomas47 said:


> I wasn't being snarky. It appeared to me that you did know the answer to your question and were just seeking confirmation, which I gave you. Audyssey will always calibrate your system to Reference. The speakers and their placement in the room will determine their trim levels, so the individual trim levels shouldn't change much, if at all, with a more powerful amplifier. If you add a more powerful amplifier to your system, that will give you more overall headroom and potentially reduce the possibility of distortion. But, that will only be useful, if you are already pushing your current amplifier close to its limits.
> 
> Here are some aspects of this to consider. A doubling in amplifier power creates 3db in additional SPL. So, if you had an amplifier which generated 100 watts RMS per channel, and you bought a 200 watt per channel amplifier, you would only gain an additional 3db in total SPL. As a general rule, more amplifier power is unnecessary unless you have relatively inefficient speakers. But, if Audyssey lowered the trim levels on every speaker, then by definition, you do not have particularly inefficient speakers. Hence, there would be no need for a more powerful amplifier on that account.
> 
> Another thing to bear in mind, though, is that you can not only increase your AVR master volume control higher than 0.0, but you can also increase the individual trim levels from where Audyssey set them. You can use a combination of increases in MV and trim levels to the limits of your amplifiers and speakers. Audyssey will eventually stop allowing you to increase the master volume and the trim levels any further, but by then you would probably be experiencing audible distortion, anyway.
> 
> The bottom line here is that if you want to add a more powerful amplifier then the one you currently have, go ahead. It won't hurt anything and Audyssey will not prevent you from being able to use the additional 3db of output that you will gain. But, unless you are already pushing your amplifier pretty close to its limits, you may not derive any benefit from the additional 3db of headroom.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Then let's assume I want to quadruple my power and I love it really loud. If Audyssey is always setting 0db at the same db level then isn't all that extra power actually unavailable to me? Or maybe I am misunderstanding something - if, with say a 100 watt/channel amp, 0db is ~80% on the volume level and I add a 400 watt/channel amp and recalibrate, does the 0db position on the volume bar move lower (say ~60%)? If not, I fail to see how all the extra power is essentially wasted (if you want to try and use it).


----------



## mthomas47

RockDawg said:


> Then let's assume I want to quadruple my power and I love it really loud. If Audyssey is always setting 0db at the same db level then isn't all that extra power actually unavailable to me? Or maybe I am misunderstanding something - if, with say a 100 watt/channel amp, 0db is ~80% on the volume level and I add a 400 watt/channel amp and recalibrate, does the 0db position on the volume bar move lower (say ~60%)? If not, I fail to see how all the extra power is essentially wasted (if you want to try and use it).



Perhaps I am just not doing a very good job of trying to explain this, but it would probably help if I knew whether you were just speaking hypothetically, or if you have actually encountered a problem getting enough volume in your system. If you went from a 100 watt per channel amp to a 400 watt per channel amp, you would gain a total of 6db of potential additional SPL (100 X 2 = 3db; 200 X 2 = another 3db.) But, the usable volume in a room is determined much more by the sensitivity of the speakers, and by their distance from the listening position, than it is by the amount of amplifier power you have available. There are some types of speakers, 4 ohm planar speakers for example, which can take a lot of amp power to drive them. But, with most direct drivers it is more a matter of how much "normal" power the speakers need, and how much they can tolerate before they begin to distort or to overheat.

If you have sufficiently capable speakers to be able to exceed Reference volumes, it may not take a lot of amp power to do that. And it certainly isn't hard to find out by increasing your volume level. An example of a highly efficient speaker would be some sort of compression driver which produces 100+db at 2.0 volts in free air. On the other hand, if you have speakers that only produce 84db under those same conditions, you can see that it would take much more amp power to get the less sensitive speakers to play as loud as the 100db speakers, since there is a 16db difference to start with. And, if those less sensitive speakers were 15' or 20' from your MLP, you might have trouble running enough power through them to get them loud enough. (800 watts per channel would still only give you 9db more SPL than the 100 watts you started with.)

And, the less sensitive speakers might distort badly, and be damaged, long before you could push enough power through them to achieve really high SPL levels. So, it's really more about your speakers, your room, and your listening distance, than it is about your amp. If your speakers are registering well into the negative range in your trim levels, and you have 80 to 100 watts per channel of amplification, you should be able to hit SPL levels that will make your ears bleed. If you can't, or if you hear distortion when you try, then you probably need even more sensitive speakers; typically horn-type speakers.

But, Audyssey shouldn't be a negative factor in the equation under any of the circumstances that we have discussed. Again, Audyssey won't keep you from playing your system as loudly as it is capable of playing. I think that my AVR lets me go up about 11db above 0.0 MV (Reference), if I were ever crazy enough to try, and I could also increase trim levels that were well into the negative, until my whole system ran out of headroom. There are people with horn drivers who have run their systems above 130db (105db with 115db LFE is Reference) with Audyssey engaged, although that includes heavy bass boosts, and not many of them have ever done it for very long. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... If you add a more powerful amplifier to your system, that will give you *more overall headroom* and potentially *reduce the possibility of distortion*. ...
> 
> ... The bottom line here is that if you want to add a more powerful amplifier then the one you currently have, go ahead. It won't hurt anything and* Audyssey will not prevent you from being able to use the additional* ... *output* that you will gain. ...


 [ellipses and bolding mine -GG]



RockDawg said:


> Then let's assume I want to quadruple my power and I love it really loud. If Audyssey is always setting 0db at the same db level then isn't all that extra power actually unavailable to me?


The extra power will be completely available to you for instantaneous *peaks**. *If your speakers are _*so*_ efficient that you can get the maximum peak power you desire with a low powered amplifier, you might not *need* the extra power, but it's there for you, nonetheless. Audyssey sets 0 on your main volume control so that each regular speaker produces 105 dB (115 dB for subwoofers) at your Main Listening Position when your movie (e.g., a Blu-ray disc) produces the loudest sound available to the recordist. This is what the movie industry calls "full scale" (_*fs*_)*. * Paul Klipsch (who often recorded -- and sometimes measured -- the Arkansas Symphony Orchestra) said, "... you need 115 dB at your ears to produce the blood stirring peaks of a symphony orchestra." When using a peak reading meter, some have measured 120 or 125 dB peaks. There is nothing about Audyssey that prevents you from turning the main volume control beyond 0, but you probably won't want to. I think Keith and I are the high volume champions on this thread, and we generally use about 5 dB below reference (or lower). 

Let's look at what it takes to produce 105 dB at a normal listening position, with typical speakers. 

In a room of about* 3,000 cu. ft*., with a MLP *at 13 feet*, with a *typical* speaker (efficiency of 90 dB at 1watt at 1 meter) it takes 128 watts to produce 105 dB at that 13 feet.. Since many good amplifiers have 3 dB dynamic headroom, we could say that we would need an amp that is honestly rated at only 64 watts per channel, 20 to 20K Hz, all channels operating, to produce our 105 dB for just an instant (conventionally 20 to 200ms) for the typical speaker. Even so, 128 watts must be produced for that fraction of a second*;* it is merely that some amplifiers rated at half the power can produce that 128 watts for a moment. Some amplifiers can't. In any case, a 3 dB or more safety margin is a good idea. 

Some movies appear to be recorded below reference, so the consumer will turn them up. After increasing the playback volume, instantaneous peaks at higher than 105 dB for main speakers and 115 dB for the subwoofer(s) are permitted. A more powerful amp may come in handy here, and Audyssey doesn't interfere with cranking it up. With Audyssey on, with classical music disks, my system has very occasionally reached peak levels of 110 dB, measured with a Radio Shack needle meter, and given needle ballistics, those peaks could have been as much as 120 dB.


----------



## David Aiken

RockDawg said:


> Then let's assume I want to quadruple my power and I love it really loud. If Audyssey is always setting 0db at the same db level then isn't all that extra power actually unavailable to me? Or maybe I am misunderstanding something - if, with say a 100 watt/channel amp, 0db is ~80% on the volume level and I add a 400 watt/channel amp and recalibrate, does the 0db position on the volume bar move lower (say ~60%)? If not, I fail to see how all the extra power is essentially wasted (if you want to try and use it).


Liking it loud is one thing but that doesn't answer the question of how loud is "loud".

At reference level, 0 dB, you will get a sound level of 105 dB at the listening position when a sound on the disc has been mastered at 0 dB. No discs contain sound mastered above 0 dB, that's the way disca are mastered, so the loudest sound on any disc you can have will be 105 dB at your listening position when you set the master volume to 0 dB. Regular listening to levels of 105 dB for around 7 minutes a day can result in hearing damage. Hearing protection guidelines here in Australia require workers to wear hearing protection if exposed to an average level of 85 dB for 8 hours a day. 105 dB is loud, it's as loud as you get in a cinema which is a much bigger space than your living room and most of us find that we can't handle that kind of level in a room the size of a normal living room or HT theatre room. 

So, you can turn the master volume level to +18 dB if you wish and that's going to produce peaks of 123 dB at your listening position. At that level you're into levels that can produce hearing damage if you listen sounds that average that kind of level for a matter of seconds a day on a regular daily basis. It's good to like things "loud" but do you really want to like them so loud that they're going to damage your hearing over time? You may enjoy the loudness but you won't enjoy what you're hearing once the damage occurs. What you lose first with noise induced hearing loss is the range between 2 and 4 kHz and what that mans is that you start to have difficulty understanding speech, you find it difficult to hear what people are saying to you. As the damage progresses, the range over which you have difficulty starts to broaden and you can become clinically deaf. You can also develop tinnitus, a persistent ringing in the ears which makes everything unenjoyable.

If you go to a bigger amp in order to get things louder and you routinely listen at levels that most people consider "too loud", that's what you're setting yourself up for. Having a bigger amp to handle instantaneous peaks which last a mere fraction of a second can improve sound quality because it contributes to transient response and makes sounds like drum strikes and gunshots sound better but the total time involved for those instantaneous peaks isn't going to cause problems, and you're going to have instantaneous peaks above 105 dB when you're listening at reference level. The extra amp power isn't wasted.

As Gary and Mike have said, having the extra power is useful, and your AVR will use it even when the master volume level is set below 0 dB, but listening at levels of 0 dB and higher on a regular basis is going to reduce your enjoyment of sound in the long term. If you want to buy a bigger amp because you like it loud then do so, but use the extra power for what it's intended for, for better handling of instantaneous peaks, and not for destroying your hearing. Master volume settings of -5 to -10 dB are more than sufficient to satisfy almost any person who loves to listen loud provided the AVR has enough power to drive the speakers to that level without clipping.

Addition: The loudest you'll ever hear anything in a cinema is going to be at the same 0 dB master level setting that Audyssey sets. They use larger amps in cinemas because they have to produce that sound pressure level in a much bigger space than your living room. If you want things in your living room to sound as loud as they get in a cinema with a sound system that produces really impressive loud peak levels, just set your master volume level to 0 db and you'll be hearing exactly the same loudness levels on those peaks as you hear in the cinema but you'll also probably find that level less enjoyable in your living room than you do in the cinema because of the way the much smaller room volume affects the sound you're hearing.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... use the extra power for what it's intended for, for better handling of instantaneous peaks, and not for destroying your hearing. Master volume settings of -5 to -10 dB are more than sufficient to satisfy almost any person who loves to listen loud provided the AVR has enough power to drive the speakers to that level without clipping ...


-- and providing the recording was made at reference level. Many movies are, but I strongly suspect that a few are recorded at a lower level to leave room for occasional big peaks. I also suspect that some, like Star Trek -- Into Darkness are victims of the opposite procedure, compressed or limited with the effects crammed up against the very top (e.g., at 95 to 105 dB*/* 105 to 115 dB through the sub). I usually use a level of 5 dB below reference, or a few dB lower, but I ended up turning Into Darkness down about 4 or 5 times.

If your system has adequate headroom (able to produce reference level peaks, as listed above, without obviously increased distortion), one good approach is to simply adjust the dialog in that particular film to a realistic level. 

OSHA tolerable levels as of 2008 start with 90 dB for 8 hours, and end with 115 dB for 15 minutes. These are quasi-continuous levels, not continuous in the sense an audio oscillator tone is continuous, but noise that is relatively steady, without getting appreciably softer or louder. They make their measurements with A weighting. Music is usually measured with a C weighting. OSHA uses a SLOW setting, and I, for one, measure music with the FAST setting. Classical music can have instantaneous peaks as high as any type of music, but these peaks are usually comparatively brief. Rock and Metal tend to be "all loud," (i.e., more nearly continuous). Continuous high levels are more damaging than brief peaks of the same level.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> -- and providing the recording was made at reference level. Many movies are, but I strongly suspect that a few are recorded at a lower level to leave room for occasional big peaks. I also suspect that some, like Star Trek -- Into Darkness are victims of the opposite procedure, compressed or limited with the effects crammed up against the very top (e.g., at 95 to 105 dB*/* 105 to 115 dB through the sub). I usually use a level of 5 dB below reference, or a few dB lower, but I ended up turning Into Darkness down about 4 or 5 times.
> 
> If your system has adequate headroom (able to produce reference level peaks, as listed above, without obviously increased distortion), one good approach is to simply adjust the dialog in that particular film to a realistic level.
> 
> OSHA tolerable levels as of 2008 start with 90 dB for 8 hours, and end with 115 dB for 15 minutes. These are quasi-continuous levels, not continuous in the sense an audio oscillator tone is continuous, but noise that is relatively steady, without getting appreciably softer or louder. They make their measurements with A weighting. Music is usually measured with a C weighting. OSHA uses a SLOW setting, and I, for one, measure music with the FAST setting. Classical music can have instantaneous peaks as high as any type of music, put these peaks are usually comparatively brief. Rock and Metal tend to be "all loud," (i.e., more nearly continuous). Continuous high levels are more damaging than brief peaks of the same level.


Re OSHA levels:

I'm in Australia, different laws and standards. The view here was basically that US laws/standards did not require employers to do enough to protect the hearing of their employees. The standards here in 2001 before I retired and stopped following the standards required hearing protection starting at an average exposure of 85 dBA for 8 hours a day and with the exposure time halving for each 3 dB increase in level so 8 hours for an average 88 dBA, 2 hours for an average 91 dBa, 1 hour for an average 94 dBA and so on. That comes out to 8 minutes for average 103 dBA and 4 minutes for average 106 dBA. 

If you're going to try to work out your average listening level you need a sound pressure level meter which does that. Decibels are a logarithmic scale and you can't average decibel levels the same way you average things like your daily weight or your driving speed.

There are 2 things to note about these standards. First they're based on working exposure so they assume the same exposure 5 days a week over time. Most of us don't work in jobs that give us that sort of exposure and most of us don't get those sorts of exposure elsewhere in our lives. The second thing is that avoiding those exposure levels/times doesn't guarantee that you won't damage your hearing just as exceeding them without protection doesn't guarantee that you will. Different people have different degrees of sensitivity to hearing damage and guidelines like the Australian and OSHA standards are considered opinions as to what's a generally safe level. I think a part of the reason for the difference in standards in Australia and the US has to do with how much input employee organisations/representatives vs employer organisations/representatives get to making the standard because the level it gets set at commits employers to doing things if they have noise levels in their workplace above the standard set and doing something about it costs the employer money. Hearing protection action is cheaper for employers in the US than it is in Australia and probably more employees develop some level of hearing damage in the US than in Australia. That's the trade off involved in these standards. When it comes to hearing protection for what you do away from work you're on your own and can set your own standard but you need to remember that working standards are set based on a working day and ignore the effect of the rest of the day because you're responsible for yourself then and your ears are affected by 24 hour a day exposure. If your total 24 hour exposure includes an average of over 85 dBA or so for 8 hours, or 90 dBA if you want to use the OSHA level and you're doing that regularly as in 4-5 days a week or so, you are putting yourself at risk of hearing damage. Your ears may be more susceptible to damage than the average person's and you could run into problems with lower total exposure levels, closer to the Australian standard, or your ears could be less susceptible to damage than the average and it might take levels closer to or slightly higher than the US standard, but once you move up into average exposure levels of 85-90 dBA for a total of 8 hours a day on a regular basis you are putting your hearing at risk.

Other things like impulse pressure, the kind of shock sound pressure wave from something like a gun being fired close to your ears or similar sounds aren't included in the sort of noise exposure covered by the standards. A single high level impulse sound wave can cause permanent damage if the sound is loud enough.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Re OSHA levels:
> 
> I'm in Australia, different laws and standards. The view here was basically that US laws/standards did not require employers to do enough to protect the hearing of their employees. The standards here in 2001 before I retired and stopped following the standards required hearing protection starting at an average exposure of 85 dBA for 8 hours a day and with the exposure time halving for each 3 dB increase in level so 8 hours for an average 88 dBA, 2 hours for an average 91 dBa, 1 hour for an average 94 dBA and so on. That comes out to 8 minutes for average 103 dBA and 4 minutes for average 106 dBA.
> 
> If you're going to try to work out your average listening level you need a sound pressure level meter which does that. Decibels are a logarithmic scale and you can't average decibel levels the same way you average things like your daily weight or your driving speed.
> 
> There are 2 things to note about these standards. First they're based on working exposure so they assume the same exposure 5 days a week over time. Most of us don't work in jobs that give us that sort of exposure and most of us don't get those sorts of exposure elsewhere in our lives. The second thing is that avoiding those exposure levels/times doesn't guarantee that you won't damage your hearing just as exceeding them without protection doesn't guarantee that you will. Different people have different degrees of sensitivity to hearing damage and guidelines like the Australian and OSHA standards are considered opinions as to what's a generally safe level. I think a part of the reason for the difference in standards in Australia and the US has to do with how much input employee organisations/representatives vs employer organisations/representatives get to making the standard because the level it gets set at commits employers to doing things if they have noise levels in their workplace above the standard set and doing something about it costs the employer money. Hearing protection action is cheaper for employers in the US than it is in Australia and probably more employees develop some level of hearing damage in the US than in Australia. That's the trade off involved in these standards. When it comes to hearing protection for what you do away from work you're on your own and can set your own standard but you need to remember that working standards are set based on a working day and ignore the effect of the rest of the day because you're responsible for yourself then and your ears are affected by 24 hour a day exposure. If your total 24 hour exposure includes an average of over 85 dBA or so for 8 hours, or 90 dBA if you want to use the OSHA level and you're doing that regularly as in 4-5 days a week or so, you are putting yourself at risk of hearing damage. Your ears may be more susceptible to damage than the average person's and you could run into problems with lower total exposure levels, closer to the Australian standard, or your ears could be less susceptible to damage than the average and it might take levels closer to or slightly higher than the US standard, but once you move up into average exposure levels of 85-90 dBA for a total of 8 hours a day on a regular basis you are putting your hearing at risk.
> 
> Other things like impulse pressure, the kind of shock sound pressure wave from something like a gun being fired close to your ears or similar sounds aren't included in the sort of noise exposure covered by the standards. A single high level impulse sound wave can cause permanent damage if the sound is loud enough.


I suspect that the main cause of the difference between the Australian and US standards is, as you say, the Australian embrace of worker participation in setting the standards and/or the American allergy to same. Developing an empirically accurate set of standards may await study by unfettered scientists working independently of labor or management (or government?). 

Bass sound pressure may well cause hearing damage, even if it is perceived to be of lower SPL by the human hearing mechanism. Since I think "A" weighting is inappropriate for measuring music, I'll use the notation dBC to indicate using "C" weighting. If they used "C" weighting in industry, they would get higher readings (some of the time), because "C" counts the bass, while "A" largely ignores it. "C," in a sense, is a stricter measurement method. Much of the energy in music occurs within a few octaves of 100 Hz: kettledrum and bass drum beats, the left hand on the piano, etc. To sound as loud as a midrange note, a bass note will have to have a higher SPL. Orchestra members will oblige. To find the overall SPL of a passage, it doesn't make sense (to me) to measure with a scale that renders 100 Hz 20 dB lower in SPL than it really is, nor does it make sense to all but ignore (render at 40 dB lower than reality) a mighty organ pipe, just because it hovers near 30 Hz.










An average, or other measure of central tendency (whichever one a good SPL meter can provide), may be appropriate for industrial noise or some Rock or some Metal, but I doubt that such a measure would be very meaningful for either orchestral music or most movies. A Mahler symphony has long passages that are in the 70-80 dBC range ("medium level") or lower, and some magnificently loud passages in the 90s, and very brief peaks -- leading edges -- in the 105 to 115 dBC range. An average, median, or mode might be misleading in determining safety, because there are so many medium level parts that they mathematically overwhelm the rarer truly loud passages. It might be better to measure only the loud passages as a safety check. Even the loud passages in classical music are still pretty variegated compared to much Rock/Metal. I doubt if a rip roaring Beethoven finale with readings in the 90 to 105 dBC level, and those repeated, but very, very brief peaks of up to 115 dBC would cause hearing damage. 

For movies, too, you wouldn't want a true average. Dialog passages and silent passages probably shouldn't be counted. If the loudest passages occasionally linger in the 90s and hit 105 dBC once in a while (the maximum if you have an Audyssey calibrated system and don't turn the MVC above Reference), I doubt there would be a hearing damage problem. Action Movies should be played with caution, though. Pacific Rim, even though it didn't have what audio people would call a "continuously" loud signal, had extremely loud sound over such long periods of time that it could be dangerous. I understand that Edge of Tomorrow is a speaker killer. Incidentally, using the "A" weighting would have underestimated the SPL of the loud parts of both of these films. 

I usually just set the dialog at a natural level. In a test, I measured the normal, live, human conversation of real, living people in our HT at the same distance that we would sit from the center speaker, and got 60 to 65 dBC, with brief peaks of 70 to 75 dBC. On another occasion, I set the dialog level by ear in a film, without looking at the MVC, and got just about the same levels. Then I looked at the MVC, and it read 6 dB below reference, just about my usual level.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> 
> An average, or other measure of central tendency (whichever one a good SPL meter can provide), may be appropriate for industrial noise or some Rock or some Metal, but I doubt that such a measure would be very meaningful for either orchestral music or most movies. A Mahler symphony has long passages that are in the 70-80 dBC range ("medium level") or lower, and some magnificently loud passages in the 90s, and very brief peaks -- leading edges -- in the 105 to 115 dBC range. An average, median, or mode might be misleading in determining safety, because there are so many medium level parts that they mathematically overwhelm the rarer truly loud passages. It might be better to measure only the loud passages as a safety check. Even the loud passages in classical music are still pretty variegated compared to much Rock/Metal. I doubt if a rip roaring Beethoven finale with readings in the 90 to 105 dBC level, and those repeated, but very, very brief peaks of up to 115 dBC would cause hearing damage. …


Gary,

I'm going to disagree with you about differences between industrial noise and music, and about whether averages are appropriate for measuring music levels for hearing protection.

What I was taught in the lectures on hearing protection which I had in my course was that there is no difference between sounds we enjoy listening to, like music or soundtracks, and sounds we don't like listening to, such as noise of various kinds, when it comes to propensity for hearing damage. They're all sound and the 2 factors defining risk are level and exposure time. I understand orchestral musicians now routinely use hearing protection of various kinds during rehearsals though not for performances. That's because rehearsals routinely involve repetition of particular passages and go on for longer than the normal performance so exposure time is high and actual sound pressure levels within the orchestra are much higher than in the audience much further away from the source of the sound. I was told that some level of hearing loss is common amongst orchestral musicians.

As for the reliability of averages for determining level of risk, I'm going to sidestep that question a bit and say the data that everyone bases their standards on, both in the US and Australia and elsewhere, all comes from studies in which exposure was measured using meters which averaged exposure over time. The standards were based on that data so they all use that measurement technique for determining exposure level. There may be a more accurate or reliable way of getting an exposure measurement for risk assessment purposes but I haven't heard of any work being done to develop such a measure or to validate it. Averages may not be perfect but I suspect that the range of human variability and differences in susceptibility may mean that there is no really precise measure which might be significantly more reliable over large population groups. Averages are what we've got so that's what gets used and there are now quite a range of sound pressure level meters designed to meet the standards for hearing protection available and employers have a large financial interest in that equipment. It's going to take a lot to get them to scrap that and move to a new measurement technique requiring different measuring equipment so I doubt standards authorities are seriously considering are looking for an alternative measurement technique and no equipment manufacturer is going to develop a line which doesn't meet the standards because industry would not buy it and it's hard for researchers to do studies to develop a different measurement technique if it involves exposing subjects to noise levels that don't meet the noise protection standards so we're probably stuck with what we've got unless someone produces compelling evidence for something else.

My feeling is that what we've got is basically the best anyone could come up with at the time and adoption of the standards we have, and the measurement technique used, locked a lot of things in place so change to alternative measures is going to be very difficult.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

This is a good discussion to which I can't contribute much except to note that there doesn't seem to me to be much disagreement in your fundamental thinking. Something that really stands out for me is the extent to which there is variation in human hearing and in hearing preference. I think that variation runs the gamut from a liking for and tolerance of loudness, to the variation in how we hear and perceive specific frequencies within our hearing range. As David noted in an earlier post, some people may be able to endure prolonged exposure to higher SPL levels without damaging their hearing than other people. And, vice-versa.

But, that only addresses the physical mechanism of hearing: what frequencies we hear best and what SPL levels we can endure without physical damage. It doesn't address the neurological or psychological aspects of hearing, and those are interesting as well. It has always been my belief that some people are neurologically wired to respond more or less strongly to physical stimulus. So, lights may seem brighter, noises may seem louder, smells and tastes may seem stronger, etc. And, that would be less a matter of the physical structure of the eyes or ears, or of the number of smell/taste receptors, than it would be a matter of how our brains interpret those physical stimuli. It's a hardware versus software issue. And, I believe that both tolerance for SPL, and preference for SPL, may be tied as closely to those neurological/psychological factors as to any physical mechanisms.

I also think that Gary made an interesting point with respect to bass frequencies, but I would have pursued it a little further, because I also think that has a bearing on the original point of potential listening damage from high SPL levels. Gary likes to illustrate his points primarily with music and I like to use 5.1 movies. Some of us who watch 5.1 movies, such as Edge of Tomorrow are using very substantial sub boosts, even if we are at well below Reference MV levels.

In my case, I have boosted four very powerful subs, with deep low frequency extension, to +16db post-Audyssey at listening levels of about -10 or -11. And, there is only so much of that I can endure. Although, my normal channels are only producing peaks in the upper 90's (7-channel system), in that case, my sub channel is producing peaks in at least the low 120's. And, in some movies such as Batman Versus Superman those low bass peaks can be numerous and sustained. I believe that can also jeopardize our hearing. Most of us probably do have a greater neurological/psychological tolerance for low bass sounds at high volumes. But, speaking for myself at least, I also believe that prolonged exposure to those low bass sounds at high SPL can result in hearing damage. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> This is a good discussion to which I can't contribute much except to note that there doesn't seem to me to be much disagreement in your fundamental thinking. Something that really stands out for me is the extent to which there is variation in human hearing and in hearing preference. I think that variation runs the gamut from a liking for and tolerance of loudness, to the variation in how we hear and perceive specific frequencies within our hearing range. As David noted in an earlier post, some people may be able to endure prolonged exposure to higher SPL levels without damaging their hearing than other people. And, vice-versa.
> 
> But, that only addresses the physical mechanism of hearing: what frequencies we hear best and what SPL levels we can endure without physical damage. It doesn't address the neurological or psychological aspects of hearing, and those are interesting as well. It has always been my belief that some people are neurologically wired to respond more or less strongly to physical stimulus. So, lights may seem brighter, noises may seem louder, smells and tastes may seem stronger, etc. And, that would be less a matter of the physical structure of the eyes or ears, or of the number of smell/taste receptors, than it would be a matter of how our brains interpret those physical stimuli. It's a hardware versus software issue. And, I believe that both tolerance for SPL, and preference for SPL, may be tied as closely to those neurological/psychological factors as to any physical mechanisms.
> 
> I also think that Gary made an interesting point with respect to bass frequencies, but I would have pursued it a little further, because I also think that has a bearing on the original point of potential listening damage from high SPL levels. Gary likes to illustrate his points primarily with music and I like to use 5.1 movies. Some of us who watch 5.1 movies, such as Edge of Tomorrow are using very substantial sub boosts, even if we are at well below Reference MV levels.
> 
> In my case, I have boosted four very powerful subs, with deep low frequency extension, to +16db post-Audyssey at listening levels of about -10 or -11. And, there is only so much of that I can endure. Although, my normal channels are only producing peaks in the upper 90's (7-channel system), in that case, my sub channel is producing peaks in at least the low 120's. And, in some movies such as Batman Versus Superman those low bass peaks can be numerous and sustained. I believe that can also jeopardize our hearing. Most of us probably do have a greater neurological/psychological tolerance for low bass sounds at high volumes. But, speaking for myself at least, I also believe that prolonged exposure to those low bass sounds at high SPL can result in hearing damage.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Great post as usual. I think, but have no supporting evidence. That we might not sense, or realize, how heavy and loud low bass damages our hearing. I suspect we seem to be able to tolerate louder low frequencies than high frequencies. At least in my situation that is certainly the case. Higher Frequencies at loud levels begin to annoy me almost immediately. Conversely, loud low frequencies, take much longer to being to annoy. The SPL may be measured at equal levels, yet we seem to tolerate one more than the other. 

Therefore I speculate that we must be very judicious and cautious about exposing our ears to prolonged high levels of low bass frequencies. Since our ears don't sense the SPL as too high or damaging. It is easy to forget that prolonged exposure to high spl of any flavor can be damaging to our hearing.

The above is pure speculation on my part. Based on recent experiences using my subs as higher levels. I have noticed an up tic in "Ear ringing" post movie. The only part of the Movies that was loud was the Subs. 

Do loud low frequencies do as much damage to our hearing as same level high frequencies? I think Yes, and more so, since we seem to be able to tolerate these low frequencies at higher levels for longer exposure periods. There is real danger here and I think it is important to warn new Owners of powerful subs to be cautious in this regard.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike,
> 
> Great post as usual. I think, but have no supporting evidence. That we might not sense, or realize, how heavy and loud low bass damages our hearing. I suspect we seem to be able to tolerate louder low frequencies than high frequencies. At least in my situation that is certainly the case. Higher Frequencies at loud levels begin to annoy me almost immediately. Conversely, loud low frequencies, take much longer to being to annoy. The SPL may be measured at equal levels, yet we seem to tolerate one more than the other.
> 
> Therefore I speculate that we must be very judicious and cautious about exposing our ears to prolonged high levels of low bass frequencies. Since our ears don't sense the SPL as too high or damaging. It is easy to forget that prolonged exposure to high spl of any flavor can be damaging to our hearing.
> 
> The above is pure speculation on my part. Based on recent experiences using my subs as higher levels. I have noticed an up tic in "Ear ringing" post movie. The only part of the Movies that was loud was the Subs.
> 
> Do loud low frequencies do as much damage to our hearing as same level high frequencies? I think Yes, and more so, since we seem to be able to tolerate these low frequencies at higher levels for longer exposure periods. There is real danger here and I think it is important to warn new Owners of powerful subs to be cautious in the regard.


Thanks, Adam! I agree with you. I had thought to add something to my post and this is a good opportunity to do it. You made the point on the JTR subwoofer thread that different rooms may have different bass peaks which make different movies or parts of movies appear to have more impactful bass. I thought that was a good point and, I think it has SPL implications, as well. Even with EQ control points in place, if we have a room mode at 14Hz, for instance, coinciding with a 14Hz port tune and strong 14Hz content, we may get higher peak SPL at 14Hz than we do at other frequencies. And, that may be difficult to capture with SPL measurements (I don't usually try) but may nevertheless take a toll on our hearing.

I have also experienced sensations that suggest that I have over-exposed myself to too much low bass SPL at times. My most memorable recent example of that was Batman Versus Superman. I turned both the volume and the bass boost down about 45 minutes into the movie, but it took several weeks for my hearing to fully recover, assuming that it has. I believe that it has. I do know that not all loud sounds which result in discomfort and some after effects, also result in permanent damage, but I don't want to try to walk whatever fine line may exist between the two very often or for very long.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Adam! I agree with you. I had thought to add something to my post and this is a good opportunity to do it. You made the point on the JTR subwoofer thread that different rooms may have different bass peaks which make different movies or parts of movies appear to have more impactful bass. I thought that was a good point and, I think it has SPL implications, as well. Even with EQ control points in place, if we have a room mode at 14Hz, for instance, coinciding with a 14Hz port tune and strong 14Hz content, we may get higher peak SPL at 14Hz than we do at other frequencies. And, that may be difficult to capture with SPL measurements (I don't usually try) but may nevertheless take a toll on our hearing.
> 
> I have also experienced sensations that suggest that I have over-exposed myself to too much low bass SPL at times. My most memorable recent example of that was Batman Versus Superman. I turned both the volume and the bass boost down about 45 minutes into the movie, but it took several weeks for my hearing to fully recover, assuming that it has. I believe that it has. I do know that not all loud sounds which result in discomfort and some after effects, also result in permanent damage, but I don't want to try to walk whatever fine line may exist between the two very often or for very long.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Happy Sunday to you Sir!

You put a finer point on it. Your referenced movie is a perfect example. I disliked this movie for the specific reason of far too much bass. Too long, too much. So completely overdone. IMHO, good sound tracks will have touches of deep bass. Here and there. But once the bass starts to become the primary sound of the entire movie. Well, it becomes overdone and fatiguing. As has been said many times before. Hearing Damage is measured by SPL over Time. This specific movie, and many others like it. Seem to be designed (Sound wise) to intentionally cause hearing damage.

FYI. If you have after effects, or suffer ringing in your ears after exposure. The damage has been done. When you notice it, sadly, it is already too late. We here, who love everything Audio and Video may be creating the "Perfect Storm" environment. To cause unrepairable damage to our hearing.

I know in my case I must be very cautious. When I was doing FR sweeps and measurements using Omnimic and Rew, I was surprised and shocked at the SPL peaks my equipment was now capable of producing. As Subs become more and more capable, while at the same time, we are immune to feeling, sensing or otherwise being "aware" of the presence of damaging levels of bass. It becomes a recipe for disaster in regards to preserving our hearing. At some point. We will need a passive device, placed in the room, to detect and alarm when in-room SPL reaches damaging levels. Like a Smoke Alarm! Except for Sound.

I am considering dialing down my Subs as I type this response


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

If I run my sub too hot for an extended period, I do get listening fatigue/irritation/pressure in my ears. I can also get a similar effect from cranking up MV. And more dramatic increases can cause that in minutes.

Also, I think modal peaks and the ringing they add to the source signal make this happen at a lower SPL in my room than it would in a highly treated ht room. I do use sub PEQ cut only filters to eliminate the largest peaks but there is still plenty of ringing in the waterfall plots in the 15Hz to 50Hz region.

I've actually found that YPAO on my Yamaha AVR sets sub level just right subjectively speaking. Based on REW measures after YPAO, I can say it runs things hotter than reference, somewhere between 5 and 10dB hot depending on how you interpret a full range cc+sub measure.

I don't listen loud though, about -30MV or a little lower. That's after setting trims to 75dB with -30dBFS signal like Audyssey.

I will say this... after using the boom mic stand vs. a mini-tripod for the UMIK-1/REW and vs. placing the YPAO mic on pillows for YPAO, my bass is so clear it is almost completely transparent at times, only drawing attention to itself when the content calls for it. Also, the surrounds don't localize much at all, blending with the fronts extremely well. I certainly couldn't say that before.

As for the auto PEQ YPAO does for the speakers, I still have to turn that off because it irritates my ears even though it doesn't sound particularly bad. However, it still is better sounding after using the boom mic stand.

To anyone new to Audyssey or any form of audio measurements, I would say don't ignore best practices like I did for years. Simply because you don't know what you're missing until you experience it for the first time. I spent a lot of time playing with my sub placement and sub PEQ via MiniDSP 2x4 unbalanced and with REW in general for that matter. However, in the end, a $20 boom mic stand made one of the most dramatic improvements in smoothness and clarity of bass I've noticed in a long time. For example, before a crossover above 80Hz was boomy/muddy... now I can easily go to 100Hz with no bad sounds at all.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> …
> 
> I also think that Gary made an interesting point with respect to bass frequencies, but I would have pursued it a little further, because I also think that has a bearing on the original point of potential listening damage from high SPL levels. Gary likes to illustrate his points primarily with music and I like to use 5.1 movies. Some of us who watch 5.1 movies, such as Edge of Tomorrow are using very substantial sub boosts, even if we are at well below Reference MV levels.
> 
> In my case, I have boosted four very powerful subs, with deep low frequency extension, to +16db post-Audyssey at listening levels of about -10 or -11. And, there is only so much of that I can endure. Although, my normal channels are only producing peaks in the upper 90's (7-channel system), in that case, my sub channel is producing peaks in at least the low 120's. And, in some movies such as Batman Versus Superman those low bass peaks can be numerous and sustained. I believe that can also jeopardize our hearing. Most of us probably do have a greater neurological/psychological tolerance for low bass sounds at high volumes. But, speaking for myself at least, I also believe that prolonged exposure to those low bass sounds at high SPL can result in hearing damage.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Mike,
> 
> Great post as usual. I think, but have no supporting evidence. That we might not sense, or realize, how heavy and loud low bass damages our hearing. I suspect we seem to be able to tolerate louder low frequencies than high frequencies. At least in my situation that is certainly the case. Higher Frequencies at loud levels begin to annoy me almost immediately. Conversely, loud low frequencies, take much longer to being to annoy. The SPL may be measured at equal levels, yet we seem to tolerate one more than the other.
> 
> Therefore I speculate that we must be very judicious and cautious about exposing our ears to prolonged high levels of low bass frequencies. Since our ears don't sense the SPL as too high or damaging. It is easy to forget that prolonged exposure to high spl of any flavor can be damaging to our hearing.
> 
> The above is pure speculation on my part. Based on recent experiences using my subs as higher levels. I have noticed an up tic in "Ear ringing" post movie. The only part of the Movies that was loud was the Subs.
> 
> Do loud low frequencies do as much damage to our hearing as same level high frequencies? I think Yes, and more so, since we seem to be able to tolerate these low frequencies at higher levels for longer exposure periods. There is real danger here and I think it is important to warn new Owners of powerful subs to be cautious in this regard.


Mike,

The dBA weighting curve for hearing protection gives less "weight" to low frequencies but it doesn't ignore them. Loud sound at low frequencies does contribute to hearing damage, it apparently does not contribute as strongly to damage as do higher frequencies.. As for turning our subs up considerably, if you took measurements using the dBA weighting of the levels with your subs both with and without the boost you would likely find a higher result with the boost but perhaps not as much as you would expect.

Adam,

I suspect that your "Based on recent experiences using my subs as higher levels. I have noticed an up tic in "Ear ringing" post movie. The only part of the Movies that was loud was the Subs." owes a lot to the fact that you probably don't regard the levels you listen at as loud, you listened at the same MV setting you're used to, and the sound was louder with the only change being the subs. Even with sub boost, and I have my subs boosted by 5 dB and use DEQ, the subs are going to be loudest when the rest of the frequency range is loudest. You and I are both retired which means we're "of an age" where our high frequency hearing has declined so we don't notice the highs as much so what I think you're reporting actually comes down to the bass being noticeably louder than what you're used to and since that's what's making the overall sound level louder at the same MV setting, you're perceiving the subs as being the only loud part. I don't think that's quite accurate.

If your ears are ringing after a movie, my advice would be to turn things down. Ears ringing can be a warning sign that things are too loud. If your ears didn't ring before you boosted the subs, turn the sub boost down a bit and see if you can find a boost setting that is higher than you previously listened at, lower than your current setting, and which doesn't result in your ears ringing. It might also be an indication that a hearing test is warranted. Warning: audiologists only test to up around 8 kHz so of you want to get some info about your high frequency hearing you'll be out of luck with an audiologist. Basically they're interested in people's ability to hear and understand normal sounds like speech and they're not at all interested in whether we can appreciate the glories of high quality sound reproduction. Having said that, it also has to be said that the first place where noise induced hearing loss shows up is between around 2 and 4 kHz and the first warning that people have of it is usually an increasing difficulty in understanding what other people are saying. This is different from what my wife, a psychologist, used to call "male selective hearing loss" which she described as being my inability to hear her when she asked me to take the garbage out but to be able to hear her extremely well if she whispered "your meal is on the table". Noise induced hearing loss is bad because it strikes at the core of our ability to communicate with each other by slowly destroying our ability to understand what others are saying to us.

There is another possibility for your ears ringing and that is that you have an ear infection. I once had a bad ear infection along with a perforated eardrum and was walking past a church when someone rang the church bell and the pain I felt was really bad. As I discovered the hard way, you can be more sensitive to sound levels when you have ear problems.


----------



## garygarrison

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> ... Based on recent experiences using my subs as higher levels. I have noticed an up tic in "Ear ringing" post movie ...


This brings up an interesting point probably related to Mike's point about individual differences in tolerance (and preference), or in differences in the real SPL in out HTs, or concert venues. I like both music and movies really loud, if they were meant to be by the composers or filmmakers, both in my HT and in commercial cinemas. I've also played in orchestras. I've heard rock bands live (with ear protection) and once, in the Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco, there was a conglomerate of bands, with speakers piled skyward, stretching all the way across an intersection (with the Mayor's blessing) that was so loud that the dirt was bouncing off the sidewalk in rhythm with the music -- I forcefully plugged my ears before approaching that one, and left shortly there after because my fingers and arms were too tired to continue. Having established my high SPL credentials, I'll say that I have *never, never* experienced ringing ears during or after any of these experiences. Once I was in a marching band and experienced ear drum tingling when marching right next to the big bass drum (it was rehearsal, so I left the ranks, and got permission to march in a different position). 

David, I think orchestra members wearing ear protection during rehearsal is a understandable precaution. A player sitting in the row right in front of the trumpets would have a difficult time with some music. But in the rest of the orchestra, not so much. A have the impression, though, that orchestra members experience deafness much more rarely than Rock musicians used to, before they started wearing ear protection. Orchestra SPL, during loud passages *only*, has been variously measured, often without enough detail as to method or mic position, as 102 dBC max, toward the front of the audience, SLOW (not very useful, to my way of thinking) by an audio magazine writer, 100 dBC very loud passage average, 115 dBC instantaneous peaks (Klipsch), and in the high 90s to low 100s dBC, very rarely 110 dBC by me, on several occasions, over the years, either in the orchestra or a few rows out in the audience, BUT, until recently, I had no way to measure instantaneous peaks. I could have added 13 dB to account for needle ballistics failing to register the briefest peaks, which would put my results in line with Klipsch's, but I'm not sure how valid an enterprise that would be.

I'd expect industrial noise to be very different than orchestral music in various SPL ways. I'd guess industrial noise is more continuous, while orchestral music would be more varied -- unless we are measuring something like a pile driver, which is not continuous, but goes on and on, longer than most repetitive loud sounds in music. When I worked (with ear protection) in a factory for one week only (I quit, because I couldn't take the mind numbing repetition), the sound was more midrange-ish than orchestral works with bass passages.


----------



## garygarrison

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> ... far too much bass. Too long, too much. So completely overdone ...
> 
> ... At some point. We will need a passive device, placed in the room, to detect and alarm when in-room SPL reaches damaging levels ...


On the rare occasions when we run an "action movie," I take an SPL meter with me to my seat, and if things sound too outrageous, sneak a peak at it. In in-between movies that may be mixtures of action, comedy, and drama, like The Heat, there may be a surprise explosion here and there, but they don't bother me, because, while not instantaneous, they are brief. In something like Amadeus, or The Music Lovers (Tchaikovsky) there is gloriously loud music, but nothing to threaten hearing, IMO. Ditto for Fantasia 2000*;* it has very great impact in the final section (The Firebird), but nothing threatening, even at "live" SPL, once again, IMO.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> David, I think orchestra members wearing ear protection during rehearsal is a understandable precaution. A player sitting in the row right in front of the trumpets would have a difficult time with some music. But in the rest of the orchestra, not so much. A have the impression, though, that orchestra members experience deafness much more rarely than Rock musicians used to, before they started wearing ear protection. Orchestra SPL, during loud passages *only*, has been variously measured, often without enough detail as to method or mic position, as 102 dBC max, toward the front of the audience, SLOW (not very useful, to my way of thinking) by an audio magazine writer, 100 dBC very loud passage average, 115 dBC instantaneous peaks (Klipsch), and in the high 90s to low 100s dBC, very rarely 110 dBC by me, on several occasions, over the years, either in the orchestra or a few rows out in the audience, BUT, until recently, I had no way to measure instantaneous peaks. I could have added 13 dB to account for needle ballistics failing to register the briefest peaks, which would put my results in line with Klipsch's, but I'm not sure how valid an enterprise that would be.
> 
> I'd expect industrial noise to be very different than orchestral music in various SPL ways. I'd guess industrial noise is more continuous, while orchestral music would be more varied -- unless we are measuring something like a pile driver, which is not continuous, but goes on and on, longer than most repetitive loud sounds in music. When I worked (with ear protection) in a factory for one week only (I quit, because I couldn't take the mind numbing repetition), the sound was more midrange-ish than orchestral works with bass passages.


Gary,

No doubt you're right about there being differences between industrial noise and music, orchestral or otherwise. The problem is that I doubt anyone has much in the way of data on the differences and their effect on the rate of hearing loss on people exposed to different sorts of sound at high levels. What exists is probably mostly to do with industrial noise and the results of that have probably been applied to musicians on the basis that standards developed for reducing hearing loss amongst industrial workers have proven to be beneficial. I suspect from a regulator's viewpoint that life would start to get incredibly messy if they had one standard for industrial workers, another for rock musicians, another for orchestral musicians, another for chamber group and small acoustic group musicians and so on. As far as regulation goes it's a hell of a lot easier having a single standard, a "one size fits all" solution.

Re the mid-range nature of industrial noise vs the wider bandwidth nature of music and the effect of that: the region in which noise related hearing damage first appears is the range in which the ear is most sensitive. There's a logic to that if you think about it, and a logic to using A weighting for hearing protection measurements since A weighting gives more weighting to the range in which the ear is most sensitive and less to bass frequencies where the ear is less sensitive. That lack of sensitivity in bass obviously comes with some protective effect when it comes to protecting us from adverse effects of high noise.

I realise that in this response and my previous one I've basically been saying that we've got more data and research on industrial noise than we do on high music levels and other loud sounds. One thing I came to realise a long time ago when it came to trying to find research data on some things is that while what you want data on may be interesting, research costs money and it's a lot harder to find research on things which are interesting but which affect only small numbers of people in relative terms or which don't have a financial payoff in some way. Orchestral and rock musicians don't pay research bills and they don't have industry organisations which are financially well enough off to fund the cost of a really decent quality research project on the effect of loud music on hearing damage so that means that they have to accept what data there is and that is primarily from industrial areas where high sound pressure levels tend to be more continuous and/or more sustained than they are in some forms of music plus far more people are suffering hearing damage and more funds are available from various sources to fund research.

I think your statement that hearing damage is more common in rock musicians than in orchestral musicians is correct but I wonder whether, if we went back to somewhere around 1930 and compared the incidence of hearing damage in orchestral musicians to the incidence of damage in musicians playing popular music it might not have actually been higher in orchestral musicians because of the higher sound pressure levels generated by a large group of musicians en masse compared to what could be generated by a much smaller group of musicians when both groups were limited to acoustic instruments. Amplification allows a group of 3 or 4 rock musicians to generate much higher sound pressure levels than a symphony orchestra can, and to generate much more sustained sound at those levels. Maybe a large swing band in the '30s could go close to matching orchestral peak levels but probably very few other musical groups using unamplified instruments could match orchestral levels. Amplification changed the situation rather dramatically.


----------



## Teremei

Ok subjectively, does anything beat Audyssey MultEQ XT32? I picked up a Sony 1080 for a few reasons (Atmos, smart auto input switching). But after just a little bit of a demo I'm probably going to stick with my x4000 right now. I'm using a 5.2 set up. I might just add some heights and rears to that instead. I am a big fan of XT32. After comparing it to the sony the best way I can describe it is it "tightens" the sound. That's for the bass, surround, center dialogue. Everything is just more clean and sharp.

So I'm just curious, are there any other high end room correcting software out there that competes with the quality of Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I mean it's all subjective based on personal taste. Unfortunately for me, I bought an expensive receiver right before atmos really took off. Having said that, I'd still rather have a 7.2, or even 9.2 system without atmos than a 5.1.2 that doesn't tighten up the sound nearly as good as XT32.


----------



## citsur86

Teremei said:


> Ok subjectively, does anything beat Audyssey MultEQ XT32? I picked up a Sony 1080 for a few reasons (Atmos, smart auto input switching). But after just a little bit of a demo I'm probably going to stick with my x4000 right now. I'm using a 5.2 set up. I might just add some heights and rears to that instead. I am a big fan of XT32. After comparing it to the sony the best way I can describe it is it "tightens" the sound. That's for the bass, surround, center dialogue. Everything is just more clean and sharp.
> 
> So I'm just curious, are there any other high end room correcting software out there that competes with the quality of Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I mean it's all subjective based on personal taste. Unfortunately for me, I bought an expensive receiver right before atmos really took off. Having said that, I'd still rather have a 7.2, or even 9.2 system without atmos than a 5.1.2 that doesn't tighten up the sound nearly as good as XT32.




From what I’ve read, Dirac Live is probably the only thing better than XT32 that you can do for auto room correction. 

Do you know the answer to this? If you run all 3-8 Audyssey locations with the Audyssey mic in one location, will you get better response at that one spot?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Teremei

that I do not know. I usually run 2-3 close spots and I get more than pleasing results.


----------



## citsur86

Teremei said:


> that I do not know. I usually run 2-3 close spots and I get more than pleasing results.


I just ran all 8 (from AVR) and instead of doing last 2 behind, I moved them 5" left and right of MLP center I measured as measurement 3. Wound up with great response! Check out my Frequency Response graphs in my sig.

Another question from the group. When would you use Cinema EQ, and what is it doing? How about Loudness Management? How is that different than Audyssey LFC?

Does it make sense to always leave Dynamic EQ on since I never listen at reference and like to hear the Bass?


----------



## kbarnes701

Teremei said:


> Ok subjectively, does anything beat Audyssey MultEQ XT32? I picked up a Sony 1080 for a few reasons (Atmos, smart auto input switching). But after just a little bit of a demo I'm probably going to stick with my x4000 right now. I'm using a 5.2 set up. I might just add some heights and rears to that instead. I am a big fan of XT32. After comparing it to the sony the best way I can describe it is it "tightens" the sound. That's for the bass, surround, center dialogue. Everything is just more clean and sharp.
> 
> So I'm just curious, are there any other high end room correcting software out there that competes with the quality of Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I mean it's all subjective based on personal taste. Unfortunately for me, I bought an expensive receiver right before atmos really took off. Having said that, I'd still rather have a 7.2, or even 9.2 system without atmos than a 5.1.2 that doesn't tighten up the sound nearly as good as XT32.


This probably isn’t the right thread to be discussing alternatives to Audyssey, but since you brought it up, here's my two cents.

I switched from Audyssey XT32 to Dirac Live a couple of years ago. I use Dirac Live with the MiniDSP DDRC-88A processor sitting in between my pre and power amps. There is no doubt at all that Dirac Live delivers a superior result. It does this for various reasons, one of which is that it is a mixed-phase solution (as opposed to XT32's minimum-phase solution) and this means that Dirac Live effectively corrects _independently_ in the time domain as well as in the frequency domain. Note the use of the word 'independently'. XT32 claims to make time domain corrections, but it only does so as a result of corrections made in the frequency domain - if you reduce a peak by 6dB or more, then you are reducing the energy going into the room at that frequency and this will have the knock-on effect of improving the reverberation times caused by that peak. So Dirac Live has a really big advantage there.

Also. Dirac Live runs on a laptop so is not hampered by the processing power of the AVR itself. And a further benefit of that is that one can use it as 'auto-correction' (like XT32) if one wishes, but can also, easily, make very significant modifications to the target curve, to shape the response to your individual preference, room and speakers. No more 'where's my bass gone?' that you hear so often in Audyssey discussions. So Dirac Live is a much more sophisticated EQ tool.

BUT.... you also have to remember that the MiniDSP DDRC-88A with the Dirac Live software costs close on $1,000. You also have to have a reference quality mic and a laptop. And there is a learning curve to getting all of this working together properly. You also need separate power amplifiers (although Dirac Live is now being offered in a couple of AVRs from the 'higher end' manufacturers such as Anthem).

So Audyssey XT32 is a bargain. It comes free with your AVR and even includes a mic. It is also incredibly easy to use and it automates the whole process so there is limited opportunity for user error (if you follow the guidelines in the FAQ and 101).

Having enjoyed Dirac Live for two years or more, would I go back to XT32? No I would not. But if I didn't have the budget for Dirac Live, or the inclination to learn how to use it to best advantage, would I be happy with XT32. Yes I would.

There is always something better around the corner, but it comes with strings attached and at a price. For the fully automated room EQ system, at a bargain basement price, XT32 knocks the socks off its competitors such as YPAO, MCACC etc. If you want to do better, yes you can, but it will cost you. Pretty much sums up life I guess


----------



## kbarnes701

citsur86 said:


> Another question from the group. When would you use Cinema EQ,


Never. If your system is properly set up and EQd with XT32 you shouldn't need it.




citsur86 said:


> and what is it doing?


It enhances bass response and smooths the blend between front speakers and the subs (allegedly). The idea is to compensate for problems caused by the fact that HTs are much smaller than mastering suites in Hollywood.





citsur86 said:


> How about Loudness Management?


Again you shouldn’t need it if you are running XT32 and Dynamic EQ. It attempts to boost the bass as the volume is reduced, to compensate for the way human hearing works. But so does XT32 and it does it better.



citsur86 said:


> How is that different than Audyssey LFC?


LFC is a pointless gimmick. It sets out to prevent bass annoying your neighbours or your sleeping family. But all it does in reality is cut the bass off.



citsur86 said:


> Does it make sense to always leave Dynamic EQ on since I never listen at reference and like to hear the Bass?


Yes, leave it on for movies. The fact you never listen at Reference is precisely why you need it. At Reference DEQ doesn't do anything. But as you reduce the volume, DEQ adjusts the spectral balance to favour the low end, which is what 'disappears' first as sounds become softer. Take a look at the FAQ - there is a whole section in there devoted to XT32. XT32 isn’t perfect but for most people it works pretty well. It is designed to work with Movie soundtracks which are mastered to a Reference level. It doesn't work especially well with music which has no similar standards. Just check out the FAQ.


----------



## kbarnes701

citsur86 said:


> Do you know the answer to this? If you run all 3-8 Audyssey locations with the Audyssey mic in one location, will you get better response at that one spot?


No. Check out the FAQ answer on this:

*d)2. Do I really need to use all the available Audyssey mic positions?*

Chris Kyriakakis, Audyssey CTO, says you are *guaranteeing* bad sound if you do all measurements from one spot.


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> I think Keith and I are the high volume champions on this thread, and we generally use about 5 dB below reference (or lower).


Yes indeed. In the smaller spaces that are HTs, genuine reference appears to be 'too loud'. _Subjectively_, in our smaller rooms, I find that -5dB 'sounds like Reference' would in a real cinema.

I agree with all the content of your earlier post from which I quoted above.

I’d add that 'sounding loud' is often a sign of clipping, lack of headroom, overstretching speakers, distortion etc etc. As you know for sure, a clean, comfortable system with bags of headroom can be played very loud without 'sounding loud' and is another reason to be cautious and perhaps use a dB meter to determine the exact SPLs being generated. As you know, I am in the middle of setting up a new purpose-designed HT and the other day I ran some brief checks on my LCR speakers (JBL 3677). It was playing loud for sure, but until I put the meter on it I had absolutely no idea I was listening at 110dB. Clean, comfortable, bags of headroom - but deceptively loud. (I mention this as it ties in with the other recent discussion in the thread).


----------



## citsur86

kbarnes701 said:


> Never. If your system is properly set up and EQd with XT32 you shouldn't need it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It enhances bass response and smooths the blend between front speakers and the subs (allegedly). The idea is to compensate for problems caused by the fact that HTs are much smaller than mastering suites in Hollywood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again you shouldn’t need it if you are running XT32 and Dynamic EQ. It attempts to boost the bass as the volume is reduced, to compensate for the way human hearing works. But so does XT32 and it does it better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LFC is a pointless gimmick. It sets out to prevent bass annoying your neighbours or your sleeping family. But all it does in reality is cut the bass off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, leave it on for movies. The fact you never listen at Reference is precisely why you need it. At Reference DEQ doesn't do anything. But as you reduce the volume, DEQ adjusts the spectral balance to favour the low end, which is what 'disappears' first as sounds become softer. Take a look at the FAQ - there is a whole section in there devoted to XT32. XT32 isn’t perfect but for most people it works pretty well. It is designed to work with Movie soundtracks which are mastered to a Reference level. It doesn't work especially well with music which has no similar standards. Just check out the FAQ.




Than is for the response, I actually did read through the FAQ a while back. For music I believe the recommendation was to run Dynamic EQ with -10 to create a flatter response. I think it said something like the more cut you chose, the less bass it adds per step down from reference. 0 adds the most I believe (good for movies as you said). Mostly I didnt understand that Cinema EQ and Loudness Magement were simply older/worse versions of Dynamic EQ and LFC. I actually do use LFC for late night viewing when my 2 year old is sleeping. I live in a single family house so neighbors are a problem, but lord help me if I wake the baby - I will incur the wrath of the Mrs


----------



## kbarnes701

citsur86 said:


> Than is for the response, I actually did read through the FAQ a while back. For music I believe the recommendation was to run Dynamic EQ with -10 to create a flatter response. I think it said something like the more cut you chose, the less bass it adds per step down from reference. 0 adds the most I believe (good for movies as you said). Mostly I didnt understand that Cinema EQ and Loudness Magement were simply older/worse versions of Dynamic EQ and LFC. I actually do use LFC for late night viewing when my 2 year old is sleeping. I live in a single family house so neighbors are a problem, but lord help me if I wake the baby - I will incur the wrath of the Mrs


With music DEQ is hit or miss because it has no way to know what is 'correct' to begin with. It can sound better or worse, depending on the recording. Best way is to evaluate it on a disc by disc basis. LFC does reduce the annoyance factor but only by just removing most of the bass! A simple tone control can do the same. You might prefer Dynamic Volume in 'Midnight' mode - worth a try.

*g)1. What is Dynamic Volume?*


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

kbarnes701 said:


> This probably isn’t the right thread to be discussing alternatives to Audyssey, but since you brought it up, here's my two cents.
> 
> I switched from Audyssey XT32 to Dirac Live a couple of years ago. I use Dirac Live with the MiniDSP DDRC-88A processor sitting in between my pre and power amps. There is no doubt at all that Dirac Live delivers a superior result. It does this for various reasons, one of which is that it is a mixed-phase solution (as opposed to XT32's minimum-phase solution) and this means that Dirac Live effectively corrects _independently_ in the time domain as well as in the frequency domain. Note the use of the word 'independently'. XT32 claims to make time domain corrections, but it only does so as a result of corrections made in the frequency domain - if you reduce a peak by 6dB or more, then you are reducing the energy going into the room at that frequency and this will have the knock-on effect of improving the reverberation times caused by that peak. So Dirac Live has a really big advantage there.
> 
> Also. Dirac Live runs on a laptop so is not hampered by the processing power of the AVR itself. And a further benefit of that is that one can use it as 'auto-correction' (like XT32) if one wishes, but can also, easily, make very significant modifications to the target curve, to shape the response to your individual preference, room and speakers. No more 'where's my bass gone?' that you hear so often in Audyssey discussions. So Dirac Live is a much more sophisticated EQ tool.
> 
> BUT.... you also have to remember that the MiniDSP DDRC-88A with the Dirac Live software costs close on $1,000. You also have to have a reference quality mic and a laptop. And there is a learning curve to getting all of this working together properly. You also need separate power amplifiers (although Dirac Live is now being offered in a couple of AVRs from the 'higher end' manufacturers such as Anthem).
> 
> So Audyssey XT32 is a bargain. It comes free with your AVR and even includes a mic. It is also incredibly easy to use and it automates the whole process so there is limited opportunity for user error (if you follow the guidelines in the FAQ and 101).
> 
> Having enjoyed Dirac Live for two years or more, would I go back to XT32? No I would not. But if I didn't have the budget for Dirac Live, or the inclination to learn how to use it to best advantage, would I be happy with XT32. Yes I would.
> 
> There is always something better around the corner, but it comes with strings attached and at a price. For the fully automated room EQ system, at a bargain basement price, XT32 knocks the socks off its competitors such as YPAO, MCACC etc. If you want to do better, yes you can, but it will cost you. Pretty much sums up life I guess


To stay on topic, I want to focus on the XT32 side of things. Based on what I've read on AVS and elsewhere I was under the impression that minimum phase correction is just bands of PEQ and that XT32 uses FIR taps/control points instead which can fix phase issues that simple PEQ cannot. I was also under the impression that it handled subs, bass, mids, and highs all like this whereas Dirac Live, for example, uses minimum phase for the subs (some kind of PEQ).

So, are you saying that XT32 is just an advanced form of PEQ? Or that FIR taps can be minimum phase and as a result, not be able to solve phase issues directly (unless cutting or boosts peaks and dips, respectively, would indirectly solve the phase issue)?

Could you clarify? I though I was just getting the hang of understanding the differences between FIR and IIR filters, but you post seems to suggest I have more learning to do.


----------



## kbarnes701

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> To stay on topic, I want to focus on the XT32 side of things. Based on what I've read on AVS and elsewhere I was under the impression that minimum phase correction is just bands of PEQ and that XT32 uses FIR taps/control points instead which can fix phase issues that simple PEQ cannot. I was also under the impression that it handled subs, bass, mids, and highs all like this whereas Dirac Live, for example, uses minimum phase for the subs (some kind of PEQ).
> 
> So, are you saying that XT32 is just an advanced form of PEQ? Or that FIR taps can be minimum phase and as a result, not be able to solve phase issues directly (unless cutting or boosts peaks and dips, respectively, would indirectly solve the phase issue)?
> 
> Could you clarify? I though I was just getting the hang of understanding the differences between FIR and IIR filters, but you post seems to suggest I have more learning to do.



You are reading things I didn't write 

Here are a couple of very good papers which will clarify things:

The issues you mention are explored in some depth in these papers.

ON ROOM CORRECTION AND EQUALIZATION OF SOUND SYSTEMS
MATHIAS JOHANSSON, DIRAC RESEARCH AB


 Digital Room Correction Benefits, Common Pitfalls and the State of the Art


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

kbarnes701 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> To stay on topic, I want to focus on the XT32 side of things. Based on what I've read on AVS and elsewhere I was under the impression that minimum phase correction is just bands of PEQ and that XT32 uses FIR taps/control points instead which can fix phase issues that simple PEQ cannot. I was also under the impression that it handled subs, bass, mids, and highs all like this whereas Dirac Live, for example, uses minimum phase for the subs (some kind of PEQ).
> 
> So, are you saying that XT32 is just an advanced form of PEQ? Or that FIR taps can be minimum phase and as a result, not be able to solve phase issues directly (unless cutting or boosts peaks and dips, respectively, would indirectly solve the phase issue)?
> 
> Could you clarify? I though I was just getting the hang of understanding the differences between FIR and IIR filters, but you post seems to suggest I have more learning to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are reading things I didn't write
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here are a couple of very good papers which will clarify things:
> 
> The issues you mention are explored in some depth in these papers.
> 
> ON ROOM CORRECTION AND EQUALIZATION OF SOUND SYSTEMS
> MATHIAS JOHANSSON, DIRAC RESEARCH AB
> 
> 
> Digital Room Correction Benefits, Common Pitfalls and the State of the Art
Click to expand...

I just read through the 2nd link. Have read the 1st before but need to review as some of it is currently above my head. Thanks for these links.

Do you have anything of the sort for Audyssey XT32?


----------



## Buddylee123

Is this link broken or does it not work for just me?

1. Click Here To Follow Our 'Audyssey 101' For First Time Audyssey Users.


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> Than is for the response, I actually did read through the FAQ a while back. For music I believe the recommendation was to run Dynamic EQ with -10 to create a flatter response. I think it said something like the more cut you chose, the less bass it adds per step down from reference. 0 adds the most I believe (good for movies as you said). Mostly I didnt understand that Cinema EQ and Loudness Magement were simply older/worse versions of Dynamic EQ and LFC. I actually do use LFC for late night viewing when my 2 year old is sleeping. I live in a single family house so neighbors are a problem, but lord help me if I wake the baby - I will incur the wrath of the Mrs


Keith has already done a good job of answering your questions, but I do want to add that the use of DEQ, either with or without RLO adjustments, and either with or without independent sub boosts, is strictly a user preference issue which is completely unrelated to the room EQ that Audyssey performs. It is similar to preferences for Audyssey Reference versus Audyssey Flat. Neither is "correct" in any absolute sense, or for any specific type of content.

For a more complete description of what DEQ does, I would encourage you to also read the subwoofer guide, linked below. Beyond that, I would just encourage you to experiment widely to discover what you really like best. And, don't be too surprised if a setting which works well for one genre, or even for a particular piece of material within a genre, doesn't work as well for something else.

We all tend to seek initial confirmation from others regarding setting preferences. But, over time we discover that setting preferences are actually very individualistic, and that they may vary somewhat depending on both content, and on our own moods at times. And then, we gradually just learn from experience what we personally prefer and we use those settings. But, the only way we can get there is through personal experimentation. It's sort of like asking someone else which dessert tastes better. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Is it just me, or does that first white paper make anyone else's brain feel fuzzy and hurt, lol.


----------



## mogorf

Hi to All,

Since, as I see, the time domain correction issue has come up again, for a fraction of a moment please allow me to reflect a bit on what I have learned on Audyssey taming room reflections and the way it is implemented. Just like for the frequency correction, Audyssey collects information on room reflections from each mic position, groups them into clusters and the algorithm looks for similarities. Then the common ones are going to be the ones that are treated first. Fuzzy logic takes care of all the rest.

Here's a quote from Chris K.: "A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times) are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response. When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously. 

The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."

Getting back to real life, we can always do the "proof of the pudding" test by listening to materials that might give us a clear picture on what could have been achieved in the reflections department.

Among the many musical instruments out there I have come to the conclusion that percussions are the ones we can easily use to see how well Audyssey is doing (or not) in our rooms when it comes to suppressing/minimizing reflections. These instruments typically have a sudden impact with a rapid decay making them ideal for our test purposes.

We may find a lot of music matching the above criteria, however I usually recommend Particia Barber's: "What a Shame" title. When listening carefully we can concentrate on the bongos coming from the Right channel. Toggling Audyssey on/off while all ears are on the bongos may help to reveal whether room reflections are being tamed or not. Particularly to me this means I can spot the bongos with Audyssey OFF, but with Audyssey ON I can even pin point the exact location of the sound source. Taking an analogy from photography this is like looking at a blurred image vs. a sharp one. 

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mogorf said:


> Hi to All,
> 
> Since, as I see, the time domain correction issue has come up again, for a fraction of a moment please allow me to reflect a bit on what I have learned on Audyssey taming room reflections and the way it is implemented. Just like for the frequency correction, Audyssey collects information on room reflections from each mic position, groups them into clusters and the algorithm looks for similarities. Then the common ones are going to be the ones that are treated first. Fuzzy logic takes care of all the rest.
> 
> Here's a quote from Chris K.: "A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times) are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response. When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously.
> 
> The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."
> 
> Getting back to real life, we can always do the "proof of the pudding" test by listening to materials that might give us a clear picture on what could have been achieved in the reflections department.
> 
> Among the many musical instruments out there I have come to the conclusion that percussions are the ones we can easily use to see how well Audyssey is doing (or not) in our rooms when it comes to suppressing/minimizing reflections. These instruments typically have a sudden impact with a rapid decay making them ideal for our test purposes.
> 
> We may find a lot of music matching the above criteria, however I usually recommend Particia Barber's: "What a Shame" title. When listening carefully we can concentrate on the bongos coming from the Right channel. Toggling Audyssey on/off while all ears are on the bongos may help to reveal whether room reflections are being tamed or not. Particularly to me this means I can spot the bongos with Audyssey OFF, but with Audyssey ON I can even pin point the exact location of the sound source. Taking an analogy from photography this is like looking at a blurred image vs. a sharp one.
> 
> Just my 2 cents.


thanks for simplifying it, I can grasp decay rates and imaging/sound stage more easily than the more technical stuff


----------



## Teremei

kbarnes701 said:


> This probably isn’t the right thread to be discussing alternatives to Audyssey, but since you brought it up, here's my two cents.
> 
> I switched from Audyssey XT32 to Dirac Live a couple of years ago. I use Dirac Live with the MiniDSP DDRC-88A processor sitting in between my pre and power amps. There is no doubt at all that Dirac Live delivers a superior result. It does this for various reasons, one of which is that it is a mixed-phase solution (as opposed to XT32's minimum-phase solution) and this means that Dirac Live effectively corrects _independently_ in the time domain as well as in the frequency domain. Note the use of the word 'independently'. XT32 claims to make time domain corrections, but it only does so as a result of corrections made in the frequency domain - if you reduce a peak by 6dB or more, then you are reducing the energy going into the room at that frequency and this will have the knock-on effect of improving the reverberation times caused by that peak. So Dirac Live has a really big advantage there.
> 
> Also. Dirac Live runs on a laptop so is not hampered by the processing power of the AVR itself. And a further benefit of that is that one can use it as 'auto-correction' (like XT32) if one wishes, but can also, easily, make very significant modifications to the target curve, to shape the response to your individual preference, room and speakers. No more 'where's my bass gone?' that you hear so often in Audyssey discussions. So Dirac Live is a much more sophisticated EQ tool.
> 
> BUT.... you also have to remember that the MiniDSP DDRC-88A with the Dirac Live software costs close on $1,000. You also have to have a reference quality mic and a laptop. And there is a learning curve to getting all of this working together properly. You also need separate power amplifiers (although Dirac Live is now being offered in a couple of AVRs from the 'higher end' manufacturers such as Anthem).
> 
> So Audyssey XT32 is a bargain. It comes free with your AVR and even includes a mic. It is also incredibly easy to use and it automates the whole process so there is limited opportunity for user error (if you follow the guidelines in the FAQ and 101).
> 
> Having enjoyed Dirac Live for two years or more, would I go back to XT32? No I would not. But if I didn't have the budget for Dirac Live, or the inclination to learn how to use it to best advantage, would I be happy with XT32. Yes I would.
> 
> There is always something better around the corner, but it comes with strings attached and at a price. For the fully automated room EQ system, at a bargain basement price, XT32 knocks the socks off its competitors such as YPAO, MCACC etc. If you want to do better, yes you can, but it will cost you. Pretty much sums up life I guess



Believe it or not, this is the post I was looking for. Thanks!! I was hoping for a little kick in the right direction. I'm keeping the x4000 and just adding 2 bookshelf front height speakers for now. I would miss XT32 too much.


----------



## Buddylee123

Does Audyssey work with Dolby Atmos?


----------



## mogorf

Buddylee123 said:


> Does Audyssey work with Dolby Atmos?


Yes. All AVRs with Dolby Atmos on board will be EQ'd by Audyssey accordingly.


----------



## mogorf

Teremei said:


> Believe it or not, this is the post I was looking for. Thanks!! I was hoping for a little kick in the right direction. I'm keeping the x4000 and just adding 2 bookshelf front height speakers for now. * I would miss XT32 too much.*


Huh?


----------



## Teremei

mogorf said:


> Huh?


Well I was going to replace my denon x4000 with a sony that has atmos. But I am keeping the denon with it's amazing audyssey multiEQ XT32 and to get a little kick of improvement in sound I'm just going to move up from a 5.2 klipsch sound system to a 7.2 by adding a couple klipsch bookshelfs as front heights. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## mogorf

Teremei said:


> Well I was going to replace my denon x4000 with a sony that has atmos. But I am keeping the denon with it's amazing audyssey multiEQ XT32 and to get a little kick of improvement in sound I'm just going to move up from a 5.2 klipsch sound system to a 7.2 by adding a couple klipsch bookshelfs as front heights. Sorry for the confusion.


Gotchsya.


----------



## drh3b

Teremei said:


> Well I was going to replace my denon x4000 with a sony that has atmos. But I am keeping the denon with it's amazing audyssey multiEQ XT32 and to get a little kick of improvement in sound I'm just going to move up from a 5.2 klipsch sound system to a 7.2 by adding a couple klipsch bookshelfs as front heights. Sorry for the confusion.


The trick to upgrading to Atmos, keeping XT32, and getting a new receiver is to wait for the current crop of Denons to go on clearance. If you just want 2 Atmos speakers, the AVR-X3300W is the one. For 4 Atmos, the AVR-X4300 is the one. Importantly to both of us, both have XT32.


----------



## Teremei

drh3b said:


> The trick to upgrading to Atmos, keeping XT32, and getting a new receiver is to wait for the current crop of Denons to go on clearance. If you just want 2 Atmos speakers, the AVR-X3300W is the one. For 4 Atmos, the AVR-X4300 is the one. Importantly to both of us, both have XT32.


Alright thanks man, but honestly Atmos is not a high need right now. Not sure I even have the room for atmos speakers where it doesn't look clunky, I do not like elevation speakers on top of my towers, looks bad.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> But, over time we discover that setting preferences are actually very individualistic, and that they may vary somewhat depending on both content, and on our own moods at times. And then, we gradually just learn from experience what we personally prefer and we use those settings. But, the only way we can get there is through personal experimentation. It's sort of like asking someone else which dessert tastes better.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


My sound system sometimes shows signs of a mood disorder.


----------



## kbarnes701

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> I just read through the 2nd link. Have read the 1st before but need to review as some of it is currently above my head. Thanks for these links.
> 
> Do you have anything of the sort for Audyssey XT32?


Not really. Audyssey don't reveal very much about how XT32 works. Most of what we have dragged out of them over the years is in the FAQ


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

kbarnes701 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read through the 2nd link. Have read the 1st before but need to review as some of it is currently above my head. Thanks for these links.
> 
> Do you have anything of the sort for Audyssey XT32?
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. Audyssey don't reveal very much about how XT32 works. Most of what we have dragged out of them over the years is in the FAQ
Click to expand...

Thanks, I recently read the whole FAQ and 101.


----------



## mogorf

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Thanks, I recently read the whole FAQ and 101.


You can awlays do a search on AskAudyssey or join Audyssey Tech Talk on FB where Chris K. will answers you directly.


----------



## kbarnes701

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Thanks, I recently read the whole FAQ and 101.


Good stuff. The FAQ is a reliable and unbiased source of information because it contains the distilled, hands-on experience of numerous very qualified Forum members, changed and added to over time as new experiences came to light. Many AVS members have also done a lot of measurements and analysis as well, to find the 'inner secrets' of XT32 - the Technical Addendum is the most obvious example of this where members busted open some of the Audyssey 'myths' that had been perpetrated for most of Audyssey's existence.

The conclusion reached by this co-operative of highly experienced members was that, of the various versions of Audyssey, XT32 is by far and away the best.

Like every other room EQ system on the market, XT32 has its benefits and its drawbacks. But the great benefit of XT32 is that is is 'free', or at least included, with your Denon or Marantz AVR and it does do a very creditable EQing with audible benefits. While it isn’t the best you can get, it is by far from the worst (Onkyo's AccuEQ might still hold that crown!) and anyone who has XT32 on board should strive to get the very best out of it (which is, again, where the FAQ comes in).


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Good stuff. The FAQ is a reliable and unbiased source of information because it contains the distilled, hands-on experience of numerous very qualified Forum members, changed and added to over time as new experiences came to light. Many AVS members have also done a lot of measurements and analysis as well, to find the 'inner secrets' of XT32 - the Technical Addendum is the most obvious example of this where members busted open some of the Audyssey 'myths' that had been perpetrated for most of Audyssey's existence.
> 
> The conclusion reached by this co-operative of highly experienced members was that, of the various versions of Audyssey, XT32 is by far and away the best.
> 
> Like every other room EQ system on the market, XT32 has its benefits and its drawbacks. But the great benefit of XT32 is that is is 'free', or at least included, with your Denon or Marantz AVR and it does do a very creditable EQing with audible benefits. While it isn’t the best you can get, it is by far from the worst (Onkyo's AccuEQ might still hold that crown!) and anyone who has XT32 on board should strive to get the very best out of it (which is, again, where the FAQ comes in).


Hi Keith,

The FAQ was a tremendous undertaking and remains a remarkable resource. I don't know of another resource of its type that I would compare it to. And, although many people contributed to the information that went into the FAQ, the great bulk of the writing, as well as the formatting and hyperlinks were all the work of one highly committed and capable person. Let's see now, what was his name? 

I think that your recent posts have been very helpful and very objective. With respect to where XT-32 rates on the scale of best room correction systems, though, I think it's important to keep the question in perspective. Unless someone is specifically a room correction hobbyist, and there certainly are some, having the "best" available room correction may be less important than having a room correction system that appropriately and adequately serves our purposes. It's not just a question of economics, in my opinion, although I do agree that XT-32 is an admirably affordable room correction system.

Leaving aside the subjective nature of "best", I think that all of us find AVR's or AVP's, external amplifiers, speakers, subwoofers, and so on, which satisfy our requirements for sound quality and for overall integration into our audio/HT systems. Few of us even attempt to identify a hypothetical and inevitably subjective "best" as opposed to components that we personally like, and which suitably serve our purposes.

I think that the same thing can be said for Audyssey, and for its various versions. To the extent that some version of Audyssey assists in producing subjectively excellent and satisfactory sound quality in a particular room, it can be thought of as an unqualified success. And, unless a hypothetically "better" form of room correction could be guaranteed to make significant audible improvements, in addition to any measurable improvements, a better and more expensive form of room correction might be superfluous. 

To the extent that any version of Audyssey is not quite satisfactory to the particular user, due to the nature of the problems in a particular room, or due to a desire for a different form of user control, or simple curiosity; or where the pursuit of "best" is an end in itself; other room correction alternatives (including XT-32, Dirac, Room Perfect, or even Trinnov) might be worth exploring. And then, cost would become an important factor in the equation. But, I think that it's helpful to keep the issue of "best" room correction system in some context in order to make the discussion meaningful.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

The Audyssey FAQ and 101 resources here are the most in depth and accurate info I have seen for any topic in quite some time. And once I finally read through all of it, I learned a lot and will likely be reading it again when I finally upgrade my AVR this fall. I'm sure reading it again, I will better understand details that were new to me previously.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> Leaving aside the subjective nature of "best", I think that all of us find AVR's or AVP's, external amplifiers, speakers, subwoofers, and so on, which satisfy our requirements for sound quality and for overall integration into our audio/HT systems. Few of us even attempt to identify a hypothetical and inevitably subjective "best" as opposed to components that we personally like, and which suitably serve our purposes.…


My take on that messy topic, from the perspective of someone with 2 systems, an audio only system in a room with physical acoustical treatment and no electronic room correction, and an AV system using XT32 and with no physical room correction other than furniture/curtains/blinds etc.

For a start I wouldn't know how to work out what's best. It's not that the assessment of "best" is subjective, it's that the ideal acoustical characteristics for different sorts of content are different. The conditions which are best for symphonic music aren't the best for vocal or small group music, especially if the music includes fast solo instrument passages. Speech intelligibility can be more important in some assessments than in others. If we're going to talk "best", we're going to have to talk, and specify, content before we talk quality. Audyssey is designed for multi-channel soundtrack playback whereas Dirac is much more flexible and allows the user to to tailor the result for the content they're going to be listening to and that makes a difference

Then there's the issue of ease of use because the harder it is to use a system the less likely it becomes that the user is going to be able to get the best out of it. Lot's of people want a simple process they can use without having to understand what they're doing, they just want to follow the instructions. Someone like that is likely to get better results with Audyssey than with a system like Dirac, but someone who'd prepared to put in the time to come to grips with using a system like Dirac intelligently is going to get better results with it. It's useless to know that Dirac can do better than XT32 if you aren't going to learn how to use it properly in order to get the benefit of what it can deliver.

So we've got the issue of the effect of content and suitability of the system for the user both playing into things before we get to an outcome we're going to make an assessment of.

I have no doubt that Keith is right and that Dirac can deliver better results than XT32 but that will only be with a user who can use Dirac well enough to get better results. The problem is that a lot of people assume that if something can deliver better results, they can get those better results with it if they try but they don't have the knowledge and/or experience to do so and don't want to put the effort into doing so. As a result they end up with worse results and then say that the people who said the better product was superior were wrong. 

The question of which is best can't be answered without considering the ability of the user to make the most of the system and that means the inferior system is going to be the best system for a lot of people. It's easy as relatively competent users of our various systems to say one is better than another and for us to agree on which is best based on the capabilities of the respective systems, but when it comes to giving advice to someone about which is best it's easy to end up giving the wrong advice if you don't consider who you're giving the advice to. Sometimes who's going to be using it is more important than what it can do.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> I think that your recent posts have been very helpful and very objective. With respect to where XT-32 rates on the scale of best room correction systems, though, I think it's important to keep the question in perspective. Unless someone is specifically a room correction hobbyist, and there certainly are some, having the "best" available room correction may be less important than having a room correction system that appropriately and adequately serves our purposes.


Absolutely agreed. I thought I'd said more or less the same but maybe it didn't come across as intended. XT32 is a terrific REQ system and one I personally was very happy with for several years. But in absolute terms, Dirac Live is better. But then again, to install Dirac Live cost me an additional $1,000 on top of my AVR (which also has XT32). And that was for 7 channel EQ. To do my 4 overhead speakers for Atmos, it was another $1,000. So it isn’t really an apples to apples comparison with XT32. After all, if DL didn’t outperform XT32, people would be pretty pissed, having spent an additional two grand! 



mthomas47 said:


> It's not just a question of economics, in my opinion, although I do agree that XT-32 is an admirably affordable room correction system.


My point there was to emphasise the _value_ which XT32 offers. Considering you pay no more for a D&M receiver than any of the others, XT32 effectively comes 'free of charge' and for a REQ system of XT32's capability, that makes it remarkable value for money IMO.



mthomas47 said:


> Leaving aside the subjective nature of "best", I think that all of us find AVR's or AVP's, external amplifiers, speakers, subwoofers, and so on, which satisfy our requirements for sound quality and for overall integration into our audio/HT systems. Few of us even attempt to identify a hypothetical and inevitably subjective "best" as opposed to components that we personally like, and which suitably serve our purposes.


Indeed. But the difference between XT32 and DL isn't 'hypothetical' or 'subjective'. It is a real difference which can be both heard and measured.



mthomas47 said:


> I think that the same thing can be said for Audyssey, and for its various versions. To the extent that some version of Audyssey assists in producing subjectively excellent and satisfactory sound quality in a particular room, it can be thought of as an unqualified success. And, unless a hypothetically "better" form of room correction could be guaranteed to make significant audible improvements, in addition to any measurable improvements, a better and more expensive form of room correction might be superfluous.


Two things wrt to this. First is that *IMO *the non-XT32 versions of Audyssey aren't really worth having. I am sorry if this will annoy those who have those other versions, but if you go back to the FAQ's Tech Addendum, there is some pretty convincing proof in there of what I am saying. And second, yes, I can *guarantee* that DL will make a significant and audible improvement. But at a pretty steep financial cost. Every one of the long-time Audyssey XT32 fans who switched to DL will tell you exactly the same over on the DDRC-88A thread.



mthomas47 said:


> To the extent that any version of Audyssey is not quite satisfactory to the particular user, due to the nature of the problems in a particular room, or due to a desire for a different form of user control, or simple curiosity; or where the pursuit of "best" is an end in itself; other room correction alternatives (including XT-32, Dirac, Room Perfect, or even Trinnov) might be worth exploring. And then, cost would become an important factor in the equation. But, I think that it's helpful to keep the issue of "best" room correction system in some context in order to make the discussion meaningful.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I am sure we are agreeing. I started by making it clear that I would _expect_ DL to be better than XT32 since it costs $1,000 more than XT32! IMO they are not competitors for each other really, even though their aim is similar. Comparing them without mentioning the massively greater cost of XT32 would be manifestly unfair.

Please note that I am not intending to start any sort of DL vs XT32 'war' here. Both have their place but there can't be any pretending that XT32's results aren't significantly behind those of DL. But that is like saying a Mustang is significantly inferior to a Ferrari La Ferrari - well yeah, given that one costs so much more than the other!


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> My take on that messy topic, from the perspective of someone with 2 systems, an audio only system in a room with physical acoustical treatment and no electronic room correction, and an AV system using XT32 and with no physical room correction other than furniture/curtains/blinds etc.
> 
> For a start I wouldn't know how to work out what's best. It's not that the assessment of "best" is subjective, it's that the ideal acoustical characteristics for different sorts of content are different. The conditions which are best for symphonic music aren't the best for vocal or small group music, especially if the music includes fast solo instrument passages. Speech intelligibility can be more important in some assessments than in others. If we're going to talk "best", we're going to have to talk, and specify, content before we talk quality. Audyssey is designed for multi-channel soundtrack playback whereas Dirac is much more flexible and allows the user to to tailor the result for the content they're going to be listening to and that makes a difference
> 
> Then there's the issue of ease of use because the harder it is to use a system the less likely it becomes that the user is going to be able to get the best out of it. Lot's of people want a simple process they can use without having to understand what they're doing, they just want to follow the instructions. Someone like that is likely to get better results with Audyssey than with a system like Dirac, but someone who'd prepared to put in the time to come to grips with using a system like Dirac intelligently is going to get better results with it. It's useless to know that Dirac can do better than XT32 if you aren't going to learn how to use it properly in order to get the benefit of what it can deliver.
> 
> So we've got the issue of the effect of content and suitability of the system for the user both playing into things before we get to an outcome we're going to make an assessment of.
> 
> I have no doubt that Keith is right and that Dirac can deliver better results than XT32 but that will only be with a user who can use Dirac well enough to get better results. The problem is that a lot of people assume that if something can deliver better results, they can get those better results with it if they try but they don't have the knowledge and/or experience to do so and don't want to put the effort into doing so. As a result they end up with worse results and then say that the people who said the better product was superior were wrong.
> 
> The question of which is best can't be answered without considering the ability of the user to make the most of the system and that means the inferior system is going to be the best system for a lot of people. It's easy as relatively competent users of our various systems to say one is better than another and for us to agree on which is best based on the capabilities of the respective systems, but when it comes to giving advice to someone about which is best it's easy to end up giving the wrong advice if you don't consider who you're giving the advice to. Sometimes who's going to be using it is more important than what it can do.


Hi David. Not disagreeing with any of that, but I would point out that Dirac Live has a 'fully auto' mode which is just as easy to use as XT32. Put the mic in 9 different positions around MLP and press the button. Just the same as with XT32. Of course, anyone who does that and stops there isn't really getting the best value from their $1,000 investment and the user control offered by DL is phenomenal. There is more effort involved in using the options but it is fairly easy to grasp. The hard part is deciding what type of curve you really want, and why, more than using the software to achieve it. I started with DL by just using the 'auto-target' curve, which gives a rough approximation of the universally preferred (to flat) Harman Curve. I was thrilled with the result too. But the big gains came, for me, in learning how to modify the curve to my own speakers, room and preference.


----------



## Molon_Labe

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi David. Not disagreeing with any of that, but I would point out that Dirac Live has a 'fully auto' mode which is just as easy to use as XT32. Put the mic in 9 different positions around MLP and press the button. Just the same as with XT32. Of course, anyone who does that and stops there isn't really getting the best value from their $1,000 investment and the user control offered by DL is phenomenal. There is more effort involved in using the options but it is fairly easy to grasp. The hard part is deciding what type of curve you really want, and why, more than using the software to achieve it. I started with DL by just using the 'auto-target' curve, which gives a rough approximation of the universally preferred (to flat) Harman Curve. I was thrilled with the result too. But the big gains came, for me, in learning how to modify the curve to my own speakers, room and preference.


Well said and I agree 100%

On another note...how the heck are you buddy? Miss ya


----------



## kbarnes701

Molon_Labe said:


> Well said and I agree 100%
> 
> On another note...how the heck are you buddy? Miss ya


Hey buddy! How the heck are you? I am good thanks. Massively influenced by your posts on the subject, I have 3 JBL 3677s in my new HT (link in sig). It will be up and running in about two weeks. Had a demo yesterday when they hooked up the speakers and the subs - awesome! and this was without any room EQ at all or even channel levels and distances set properly.

A slightly funny story, due to the way the subs are installed I had to remove the plate amp from the powered sub (of my master slave pair) and reinstall it upside down, to put the controls on the side I could reach (previously the plate amp was on the back). I did this about 4 weeks ago and then forgot all about it. When we came to do the test yesterday (which was really just to check everything was wired OK) I had forgotten the amp was upside down and I roughly set the gain control knob to 3 clicks from the bottom which I thought would be a good starting point. We put the John Wick club scene on and OMG, when the shooting started I thought the building was coming down. I had, of course, actually set the gain to 3 clicks from the *top*. I have never heard my Submersives play like that before. I can tell you what - even in a 3,500 cu ft room, I ain't gonna need more than two Submersives. 

Sorry for the OT guys. Mods - please delete if you feel so inclined.


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi David. Not disagreeing with any of that, but I would point out that Dirac Live has a 'fully auto' mode which is just as easy to use as XT32. Put the mic in 9 different positions around MLP and press the button. Just the same as with XT32. Of course, anyone who does that and stops there isn't really getting the best value from their $1,000 investment and the user control offered by DL is phenomenal. There is more effort involved in using the options but it is fairly easy to grasp. The hard part is deciding what type of curve you really want, and why, more than using the software to achieve it. I started with DL by just using the 'auto-target' curve, which gives a rough approximation of the universally preferred (to flat) Harman Curve. I was thrilled with the result too. But the big gains came, for me, in learning how to modify the curve to my own speakers, room and preference.


Keith,

Thanks for the comment. I've got no personal experience of Dirac so I didn't know about the auto option.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for the comment. I've got no personal experience of Dirac so I didn't know about the auto option.


No worries. Yes, in 'auto' mode using DL is pretty much the same as using XT32. You put the 1st mic position at MLP, then click to measure and then rinse and repeat for the remaining 8 positions. Pretty much the same with XT32, except you do it on a laptop running the calibration software that comes as part of the package. Once all 9 measurements have been taken, you click 'Optimize' to create the filters and the laptop sends the raw data over to Sweden via the Internet, where the filters are created and then sent back to your laptop, It takes a minute or so. The filters are created on a hugely powerful super-computer - apparently our puny laptops don't have sufficient grunt to do the numerous calculations, or at least not in a sensible time period.

Anyway, back to topic before I get my wrist slapped


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

kbarnes701 said:


> No worries. Yes, in 'auto' mode using DL is pretty much the same as using XT32. You put the 1st mic position at MLP, then click to measure and then rinse and repeat for the remaining 8 positions. Pretty much the same with XT32, except you do it on a laptop running the calibration software that comes as part of the package. Once all 9 measurements have been taken, you click 'Optimize' to create the filters and the laptop sends the raw data over to Sweden via the Internet, where the filters are created and then sent back to your laptop, It takes a minute or so. The filters are created on a hugely powerful super-computer - apparently our puny laptops don't have sufficient grunt to do the numerous calculations, or at least not in a sensible time period.
> 
> Anyway, back to topic before I get my wrist slapped


Keith,

Great to see you back. A long break. I took one too....4k,HDR, Atmos, DTS:X drew me back in.......Last time we talked was about using the Onkyo TX NR5007. One of the very first independent Sub out AVRs and the first to introduce Height Channels. AFAIK. Learning what Audyssey could and could not do back then? We have come so far and the majority of this knowledge has indeed come from AVS Members. Anyhow, welcome back Keith


----------



## kbarnes701

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Keith,
> 
> Great to see you back. A long break. I took one too....4k,HDR, Atmos, DTS:X drew me back in.......Last time we talked was about using the Onkyo TX NR5007. One of the very first independent Sub out AVRs and the first to introduce Height Channels. AFAIK. Learning what Audyssey could and could not do back then? We have come so far and the majority of this knowledge has indeed come from AVS Members. Anyhow, welcome back Keith


Wow! A real voice from the past! Great to hear from you. I've often wondered if you were still enjoying the hobby, and clearly you are! Remember the last time we probably 'spoke' was when I bought the stand-alone bass equaliser unit - I forget now what it was called - the SVS AS-EQ1 maybe? It added XT32 to an AVR that didn't have inbuilt XT32 - a neat unit but was overtaken by general progress in the AVR world. Really good to know you're still involved in all this.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

kbarnes701 said:


> Wow! A real voice from the past! Great to hear from you. I've often wondered if you were still enjoying the hobby, and clearly you are! Remember the last time we probably 'spoke' was when I bought the stand-alone bass equaliser unit - I forget now what it was called - the SVS AS-EQ1 maybe? It added XT32 to an AVR that didn't have inbuilt XT32 - a neat unit but was overtaken by general progress in the AVR world. Really good to know you're still involved in all this.


HI Keith,

Yep, you nailed it! SVS AS-EQ1 and I bought one as well (thanks to you). Did what Audyssey of the time did not in the low freq range. I recently resold it when upgrading the AVR. Got a good chunk of my money back and surprisingly it sold quick. 

Still involved? Well lets just say I know how to hit the "Place Order" button. This Hobby/Addiction has become complicated to the extreme. So much new stuff to learn, its like starting from scratch. 

Of all the new technology available today. Atmos and DTS:X reign supreme to me. Finally what I expected and wanted from my old 5007 and the Audyssey Wide/Height, is now reality with Atmos and DTS:X. Sometimes, I don't even turn on the TV 

My compliments to you BTW. You have done an incredible job with this thread. Kudos my old Friend.


----------



## kbarnes701

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> HI Keith,
> 
> Yep, you nailed it! SVS AS-EQ1 and I bought one as well (thanks to you). Did what Audyssey of the time did not in the low freq range. I recently resold it when upgrading the AVR. Got a good chunk of my money back and surprisingly it sold quick.


Same story here. Sold mine real quick to a guy in Holland. 



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Still involved? Well lets just say I know how to hit the "Place Order" button. This Hobby/Addiction has become complicated to the extreme. So much new stuff to learn, its like starting from scratch.
> 
> Of all the new technology available today. Atmos and DTS:X reign supreme to me. Finally what I expected and wanted from my old 5007 and the Audyssey Wide/Height, is now reality with Atmos and DTS:X. Sometimes, I don't even turn on the TV


Yes, I too am loving Atmos and DTS:X. I was one of the very early adopters of Atmos and was fortunate enough to have contacts in Dolby, London, so have been privileged to visit their awesome Atmos setups at their Soho Square HQ. It is the biggest step forward in home audio since discrete 5.1 IMO.



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> My compliments to you BTW. You have done an incredible job with this thread. Kudos my old Friend.


Well thanks Adam! But I have taken a backseat here really and the job has been picked up by some other very capable guys, notably Mike (mthomas47) who does a terrific job. I occasionally update the FAQ if someone brings something to my attention but mostly we seemed to ace it way back and it stands as useful resource for anyone new to Audyssey. As a non-Audyssey user these days I just drop in from time to time to see what the latest hot topics are - mostly the same as they ever were of course


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

kbarnes701 said:


> David Aiken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keith,
> 
> Thanks for the comment. I've got no personal experience of Dirac so I didn't know about the auto option.
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. Yes, in 'auto' mode using DL is pretty much the same as using XT32. You put the 1st mic position at MLP, then click to measure and then rinse and repeat for the remaining 8 positions. Pretty much the same with XT32, except you do it on a laptop running the calibration software that comes as part of the package. Once all 9 measurements have been taken, you click 'Optimize' to create the filters and the laptop sends the raw data over to Sweden via the Internet, where the filters are created and then sent back to your laptop, It takes a minute or so. The filters are created on a hugely powerful super-computer - apparently our puny laptops don't have sufficient grunt to do the numerous calculations, or at least not in a sensible time period.
> 
> Anyway, back to topic before I get my wrist slapped
Click to expand...

Supercomputer in Sweden... wow, that's cutting edge, no wonder it costs way more than XT32.


----------



## drh3b

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Supercomputer in Sweden... wow, that's cutting edge, no wonder it costs way more than XT32.


What?! Are you implying my Denon AVR4520ci doesn't have a supercomputer built in?


----------



## bmcn

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Supercomputer in Sweden... wow, that's cutting edge, no wonder it costs way more than XT32.


I now feel so unempowered.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

drh3b said:


> What?! Are you implying my Denon AVR4520ci doesn't have a supercomputer built in?


easy there, it's all relative


----------



## mogorf

Hi Guys,

Since the issue of Audyssey vs. Dirac Live has come up here recently on this thread, based on the available information I've created a comparison chart between these two RC systems for our further discussions:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9ac1y58d9r4ro8/AudysseyvsDiracLive comparison20170608.xlsx?dl=0

Please take a look at it and feel free to comment, amend, agree or disagree, as you like. This just seed for thought as always.


----------



## kbarnes701

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Supercomputer in Sweden... wow, that's cutting edge, no wonder it costs way more than XT32.


Hahaha. Yes, apparently the calculations would take far too long on a normal laptop. I guess this shows the complexity of the work that is being performed to create the filters. Or... it may be a way of protecting their IP from reverse engineering. Or both


----------



## kbarnes701

mogorf said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Since the issue of Audyssey vs. Dirac Live has come up here recently on this thread, based on the available information I've created a comparison chart between these two RC systems for our further discussions:
> 
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/t9ac1y58d9r4ro8/AudysseyvsDiracLive comparison20170608.xlsx?dl=0
> 
> Please take a look at it and feel free to comment, amend, agree or disagree, as you like. This just seed for thought as always.


It's not really worthwhile to try to compare them IMO. But as you asked for comments:



You rightly note the comparison between XT32's minimum phase solution and Dirac's mixed phase solution. Only a true mixed phase solution can correct independently in the time domain. Huge amount of detail in the paper I posted a link to recently to support this.


The Harman Curve is not _universally_ preferred, I agree. It is _overwhemingly_ preferred. My bad. The supporting data for the remark is in Toole's book and in various papers which are easily found on the Internet. For the benefit of anyone who is not au fait with the term, the harman Curve has a smooth downward slope from bass to treble. In tests it is overwhelmingly preferred to a 'flat' curve, which gives rise to the observation that "the bass is lacking". This is probably the most common observation people make after running Audyssey XT32 and usually results in the advice to 'boost the bass with the trim by a few dB". Supporting data *here* from Dr Sean Olive.


The difference is easily heard and measured in fact. Time domain correction is important in this regard. The XT32 curve cannot be adjusted.


I thought DEQ could be engaged if correction was turned off these days? ICBW. DEQ isn’t needed when you can shape the curve to anything you like and have 4 such curves available at the touch of a button.


Is this the right thread to be comparing alternative correction methods?

Edited to add this chart from the research which shows overwhelmingly why people prefer the Harman Curve (as it has become known).










As can be seen, the overwhelming preference is for the curves which slope smoothly down by about 1dB/octave from bass to treble. Audyssey (but not XT32, although the target curve is essentially the same) was included in these tests of different Room EQ systems. Do my eyes deceive me, or do I spot a 'mid range compensation' dip at 2kHz in the least-preferred result (in turquoise at the bottom)? 

*This is what Dr Olive has to say about it:*

_"*A flat in-room target response is clearly not the optimal target curve for room equalization*. The preferred room corrections have a target response that has a smooth downward slope with increasing frequency. This tells us that listeners prefer a certain amount of natural room gain. Removing the room gain, makes the reproduced music sound unnatural, and too thin, according to these listeners. This also makes perfect sense since the recording was likely mixed in room where the room gain was also not removed; therefore, to remove it from the consumers' listening room would destroy spectral balance of the music as intended by the artist."_ Source here. My bolding above.


----------



## mthomas47

It's been a while since I read the Harman research on FR curves, but I'm not sure that I remember the phrase "overwhelmingly preferred". A gently sloping curve was preferred by a substantial majority. But, if that particular preference follows most human sensory preferences, there would be a bell curve with some people preferring even more slope than the Harman curve, and others not preferring any downward slope to the treble. I think a lot depends on the equipment and the room, too. In a completely untreated room, I suspect that more people would prefer a downward slope. In my fairly well-treated room, I much prefer Audyssey Flat, and always have. I think that there are others on the thread who have the same preference.

Harman's research (along with Olive, Toole, and others) also found a strong preponderance of preference for not treating first reflections from side walls. Apparently most people were either unaware of the distortions they were hearing from those early reflections, or were willing to tolerate them for the greater sense of expansiveness (wider soundstage) that they heard when the side walls weren't treated. That majority preference is certainly not shared by everyone who is serious about room EQ, and again makes the point that all of this will be a matter of personal preference. Statistical probability can only take us so far.

The issue of a rising bass response is slightly different from the issue of a gently sloping treble response, in my opinion, because there is a physical mechanism in play there, and not just a psycho-acoustic preference involved. At below Reference volumes, low bass sounds drop-off much faster than those sounds in our more normal hearing range. At -5 MV, we might hardly notice that drop-off, but at -10, and -15, and -20 MV, and lower, we would be much more likely to notice. And, as most people seem to listen in about that -10 to -20 range, the great majority of us would be more likely to add bass back in 5.1 movies which contain a lot of


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> It's been a while since I read the Harman research on FR curves, but I'm not sure that I remember the phrase "overwhelmingly preferred". A gently sloping curve was preferred by a substantial majority. But, if that particular preference follows most human sensory preferences, there would be a bell curve with some people preferring even more slope than the Harman curve, and others not preferring any downward slope to the treble. I think a lot depends on the equipment and the room, too. In a completely untreated room, I suspect that more people would prefer a downward slope. In my fairly well-treated room, I much prefer Audyssey Flat, and always have. I think that there are others on the thread who have the same preference.
> 
> Harman's research (along with Olive, Toole, and others) also found a strong preponderance of preference for not treating first reflections from side walls. Apparently most people were either unaware of the distortions they were hearing from those early reflections, or were willing to tolerate them for the greater sense of expansiveness (wider soundstage) that they heard when the side walls weren't treated. That majority preference is certainly not shared by everyone who is serious about room EQ, and again makes the point that all of this will be a matter of personal preference. Statistical probability can only take us so far.
> 
> The issue of a rising bass response is slightly different from the issue of a gently sloping treble response, in my opinion, because there is a physical mechanism in play there, and not just a psycho-acoustic preference involved. At below Reference volumes, low bass sounds drop-off much faster than those sounds in our more normal hearing range. At -5 MV, we might hardly notice that drop-off, but at -10, and -15, and -20 MV, and lower, we would be much more likely to notice. And, as most people seem to listen in about that -10 to -20 range, the great majority of us would be more likely to add bass back in 5.1 movies which contain a lot of


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Indeed, preference is preference and what one man likes another man doesn’t and so on. But the Harman Curve has always been the majority preference of most people doing the listening tests and is generally regarded as the curve that most people prefer. Obviously we all have different tastes etc, but it is perverse of Audyssey, in a way, to insist on a 'flat' response (which pretty much everybody disliked as you can see on the chart above) and which almost always gives rise to the comment, after running Audyssey, of "where's my bass gone?". IDK about this new thread but that was the most frequently asked question in the original thread. By contrast, in the DDRC88A thread, not a single member made a similar remark after running Dirac. As Dr Olive says, the reason most prefer a curve like the Harman Curve is that we are used to listening in rooms and rooms have room gain, and the content was likely made with room gain baked in. So it does seem odd to me for Audyssey to just ignore that and plow ahead with a 'flat' curve.
> 
> I don't think this is really the thread to discuss this. If there is already a thread where different REQ systems are discussed, then we should probably take it there, and if there isn't maybe we should start one. I don't see how it's helpful to Audyssey users to have this discussion here or to start a long discussion comparing DL vs XT32. I know it was me who initially mentioned DL but I think I did so in a measured way, without getting into some sort of dick swinging contest. Since then, well... you know....


Hi Keith,

I'm not talking about Dirac versus Audyssey at all, and speaking for myself don't mind anything you have said. I just found the discussion interesting and thought it was worthwhile to distinguish between a preference for a gently sloping treble range, and the more nearly universal need to boost bass at below Reference volumes. I believe that they flow from different causal factors, as one has to do with the nature of human hearing, and the other has more to do with majoritarian psycho-acoustic preference. 

Audyssey undoubtedly thought that they were addressing the majority preference in their own way with the Audyssey Reference curve acting in combination with DEQ. Downsloping treble with the Reference curve, and upsloping bass with DEQ. Unfortunately, at best, they were striking some sort of middle ground. But then, in my opinion, that's the whole problem with predetermined curves. I would much prefer to start with Flat and then shape things to my own room and tastes. And, I'm not saying that to generate further comparisons among EQ systems, as some of us have found ways to shape things somewhat even with the more traditional versions of Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bmcn

kbarnes701 said:


> Hahaha. Yes, apparently the calculations would take far too long on a normal laptop. I guess this shows the complexity of the work that is being performed to create the filters. Or... it may be a way of protecting their IP from reverse engineering. Or both


Pure speculation.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

bmcn said:


> kbarnes701 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hahaha. Yes, apparently the calculations would take far too long on a normal laptop. I guess this shows the complexity of the work that is being performed to create the filters. Or... it may be a way of protecting their IP from reverse engineering. Or both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure speculation.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, when it comes to proprietary technologies sometimes personal and repeated observations from users/reviewers and speculation is all we have to work with.

For example, the Audyssey FAQ and 101 has more useful information about Audyssey than provided by the actual source of the arc tech. A lot of it is far more substantial than speculation but still it is based on user experiences both enthusiasts and industry experts.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> 
> Harman's research (along with Olive, Toole, and others) also found a strong preponderance of preference for not treating first reflections from side walls. Apparently most people were either unaware of the distortions they were hearing from those early reflections, or were willing to tolerate them for the greater sense of expansiveness (wider soundstage) that they heard when the side walls weren't treated. That majority preference is certainly not shared by everyone who is serious about room EQ, and again makes the point that all of this will be a matter of personal preference. Statistical probability can only take us so far.
> 
> …
> Mike



Mike, 

As usual I’m in pretty strong agreement with your comments but I would like to throw in an extra personal comment about your paragraph above.

Years ago when I first got interested in acoustic treatment of my room for music listening purposes I read Everest’s Master Handbook of Acoustics, Toole’s book had not then been written, and started experimenting with DIY treatments based on Everest’s recommendations. Those recommendations included absorption at the side wall first reflection points and I liked the result. My DIY treatments were eventually replaced by RealTraps Mondo panels and I liked the results even more. Then Toole’s book came out and I read the bit about people preferring to leave the side wall untreated. I thought “that can’t be right” because I really liked the result I’d been getting with absorption on the side walls.

It took me around 2 years to actually get around to trying things with the side walls untreated, so strong was my liking for the results I’d been getting with them treated. Call it a strong “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” response if you like, but eventually I decided to try it so I moved the panels from the side reflection points to some untreated spots on the wall behind the speakers and discovered that I preferred the result with more absorption behind the speakers and the side walls untreated. In fact I preferred that result fairly strongly. Things have stayed that way in that room with my audio system ever since. I should add that the audio system is stereo only and I don’t use any form of electronic room correction with that setup, just physical acoustic treatment.

I was extremely surprised at both the fact that I did prefer the side walls untreated and also at the strength of my preference given my earlier experience. There had been other changes in the room over the years since the initial setup with side wall treatment and those changes would have influenced what I heard when I removed the side wall absorption and the way the room was when I first treated the side walls probably had a strong influence on my preference for side wall treatment when I first introduced it so my preference for it when I introduced it was probably not unjustified and quite understandable hence my surprise at my reaction to removing it.

Even so, I can understand some people preferring side wall treatment. Preferences are intensely personal/subjective and we ignore that fact at our peril. There’s also a lot of misconceptions about physical acoustical treatment in my view. Yes, it does improve the quality of what we hear and I think every room will be improved by it but I’ve come to realise over the years that it’s easy to jump from that view to the view that there’s a single approach to treatment that will work for everyone and I’ve come to realise that is simply not the case. Different types of music require different acoustic environments for best results. You want a longer reverb time for best results with symphonic music than you do for vocal music or solo instrumental music with fast passages, especially in the lower ranges, where the kind of reverberation time that adds richness to symphonic music can destroy the clarity of articulation required for vocal performances and instrumental music. If your side wall is a large expanse of floor to ceiling window you may well want side wall treatments at the first reflection points to tame a bright side wall reflection and so on. Then there’s personal factors like a person who really likes bass passages and isn’t so interested in the mids and highs and the person with the opposite interests and so on. There is no “one size fits all” solution when it comes to physical treatment but I’ve come across many people who think there is and who think that their approach is just what everyone else needs. I think those people do more harm than good in some ways.

As an extension of that, I also think that there is no single electronic room correction solution that works for everyone so I think the new Audyssey app is probably a very good thing since it gives people the option of tailoring their result in some new and different ways. Pity it isn’t available for my AVR or I would have been playing with it in my AV system. Dirac has that flexibility. The downside to that flexibility is knowing how to tailor the results to get the outcome you want. Numbers and data on preferences and the like are all great information to have and useful guides for experimentation but they make very bad targets for people to aim for in my view because our preferences are individual. If you find out that a particular set of numbers or the most preferred result match your individual preferences then they can represent a good target to aim for but if they don’t match your preferences they’re a very bad target to aim for. If you’re listening to music or watching a movie for your personal enjoyment, and most of us are, then if you’ve got what you think is the theoretically ideal result and you’re not enjoying it you’re doing the wrong thing in my view and it doesn’t matter what anyone else says, or even what everyone else says. Your enjoyment and appreciation of what you’re listening to is what counts and maximising that is the right way to go, even if it means getting a result which statistics on listener preferences say is the least preferred result. In your system for your own enjoyment the best result is the one you personally most prefer and learning to trust your own judgement is the best thing you can do. It can also be a hard thing to do but it does yield results you enjoy.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Good post, David, and I agree with all of it! FWIW, I also prefer to treat the wall immediately behind each of my speakers, but partly due to their placement in my large room, don't find a need to treat first reflections from side walls. One thing I might add to your experience with initially treating the side walls, and liking the result, is the role that expectation bias can have in our listening preferences. If we believe that a substantial majority of people like a particular thing, or that experts recommend it, we may also believe that we are supposed to like it, as well. 

Blind A/B tests can be difficult to implement in our personal home theaters, so to me the next best thing is wide experimentation over a fairly long period of time. Sometimes I hear something that I immediately like better-- a speaker, or a particular setting, for instance. In other cases, I may go back-and-forth for quite a while before settling on what I like best. What I have enjoyed in the past is the ability to experiment with acoustical treatments of various kinds over a period of time.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

^

Mike,

My audio system is in a very asymmetrical room, L-shaped with a few other idiosyncrasies, and not what most of the guys in our local audio club consider to be the room I should have the system in. The system has been in that room for 15 years now with essentially the same speaker placement and listening position location for that whole time because I haven't found any other setup which works as well but the furnishings have changed over time and the acoustic treatment placement has been progressively fine tuned over that period yet I still find there's more I can learn about the acoustic properties of the room. Every now and then I play with the location of particular acoustic panels and I find myself going back and forth for a while in order to find out what works best for me and I can still be surprised at the results. Doing things like removing several bookcases and a pile of books in the process, or going to lower and wider CD shelving, or changing the chairs to a different chair and sofa with fabric rather than reflective coverings have all ended up resulting in changed locations for some acoustic treatments. A week ago I changed the speakers from stand mounts to floor standers, the first speaker change in that whole 15 year period, and had to move several panels and lower the height of every one of them in order to rebalance the low frequency response in the room. I've discovered that if you have moveable acoustic treatments rather than treatments that are permanently fixed in place, experimentation with them can be an ongoing exercise, even after years, and you can still be surprised at the results you get.

Now maybe if I was an acoustical engineer with all of the right measurement tools and software I could come up with an arrangement that I wouldn't feel a need to play with from time to time but I'd probably miss the adventure of the occasional bit of tinkering and the surprises it can give.

Re expectation bias: you're right and it does play a part. I don't think it did in my initial setup because I had the bookcases and more books than you can throw a stick at down one side wall and an open archway into a hallway on the other side wall and the 2 side walls were as different as it was possible for them to be so the side wall treatments did a lot to balancing the reflectivity of the 2 side walls. Removing the bookcases put a bare wall on that side and there was a similar bare wall on the other side of the hallway the archway opened into yielding a much more balanced side wall reflection situation and I didn't remove the side wall absorption until well after I removed the bookcases. I'm not saying that expectation bias didn't affect my initial judgements on side wall treatment but there are good reasons for assuming that the initial side wall treatments were actually preferable to untreated side walls when the bookcases and books were in place. Expectation bias may have strengthened my initial preference for the side wall treatment but I think I would still have preferred it if there was no expectation bias present. It's important to remember that bias doesn't necessarily cause us to prefer the option we would prefer if we did not have the bias, it may only strengthen that preference. If things are close then bias can tip us one way rather than the other but if things aren't close and the better option is actually the one the bias tips us towards, we are going to end up with the same preference with or without the bias present. Bias doesn't always result in us choosing the wrong option.

Addition: I have found that strong initial likes tend to be more reliable for me than strong initial dislikes so, if anything, I'd say I'm personally more susceptible to expectation bias on the dislike side of things to the like side of things but that may not be true for everyone else. If we pay attention over time we tend to learn which way our biases are more likely to lead us into error and get a bit more cautious with our initial judgements in those situations.


----------



## garygarrison

Rolling off the high frequencies does nothing good for me, unless there is a little high frequency distortion in the source that needs to be masked. So I generally like Audyssey Flat, and flat response above about, maybe, 500 Hz. But, below about 500 I like the bass to climb, very slowly, toward the bass end, until it reaches about a 10 dB peak at the bottom. I can achieve this by a combination of bass boost with the bass tone control (*not* the virtual sliders!) into the LF & RF, and a sub trim boost. 

An additional reason some people might like bass boost in *music* recordings might be that the deep bass is often attenuated on current pop disks. In *movies*, while the effects are full of bass, some orchestral
music score recordings have insufficient bass.


----------



## mogorf

I've read all the comments so far with great interest and it was interesting to see how the "universally preferred" language boiled down to plain "personal preference". This gives the strength again to this forum and it's members, indeed.

One thing I'd still like to point out is that, IMHO, Dirac Live is not an RC system that is superior by quantums to what Audyssey can do, and annuls Audyssey's MultEQ (especially non-XT32 versions) beyond recognition. It's just another brand on the market letting us all decide whethere we want it or not. Let this not make remaining Audyssey owners feel themselves as 2nd class citizens in a world where we all are free to choose what suits our wishes and desires, and what our wallets are capable to endure. 

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> I've read all the comments so far with great interest and it was interesting to see how the "universally preferred" language boiled down to plain "personal preference". This gives the strength again to this forum and it's members, indeed.
> 
> One thing I'd still like to point out is that, IMHO, Dirac Live is not an RC system that is superior by quantums to what Audyssey can do, and annuls Audyssey's MultEQ (especially non-XT32 versions) beyond recognition. It's just another brand on the market letting us all decide whethere we want it or not. Let this not make remaining Audyssey owners feel themselves as 2nd class citizens in a world where we all are free to choose what suits our wishes and desires, and what our wallets are capable to endure.
> 
> Thanks!


I think this is a good point, Feri. I do believe that Dirac Live represents an advancement in technology, and I understand that there is an even newer version of it on the horizon. And, I personally welcome all such advances, just as I do with smartphones, displays, subwoofers, etc. But, a newer and theoretically better technology does not necessarily invalidate older technology. When Gary says that he gets excellent audible and measurable results with XT, for instance, that statement has a lot of credibility for me, irrespective of the theoretical advantages of XT-32 which I happen to have.

Someone who is already getting satisfactory results from any version of Audyssey may very well wish to upgrade to a more advanced version, or to another system of EQ entirely, at some point. But, as with speakers, amplifiers, subwoofers, and all other components of an audio system, currently satisfactory results may leave relatively little incentive to change, particularly as improvements may become increasingly incremental, rather than profound, with each subsequent upgrade.

All of our audio systems represent our personal implementations of our own interests and preferences, and I think it is important to keep that idea in context when we discuss any technological advances and the potential benefits pertaining to them. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Feri, Mike, et al,

I prefer the mentality of "Ignorance is Bliss" approach. 

In so many aspects of AV. Most of us are far better off never knowing............................................


Since every singe time I discover a thing I have been missing. It ends up costing me dearly.....

My System NEVER sounded SO Good!


----------



## kbarnes701

mogorf said:


> I've read all the comments so far with great interest and it was interesting to see how the "universally preferred" language boiled down to plain "personal preference". This gives the strength again to this forum and it's members, indeed.
> 
> One thing I'd still like to point out is that, IMHO, Dirac Live is not an RC system that is superior by quantums to what Audyssey can do, and annuls Audyssey's MultEQ (especially non-XT32 versions) beyond recognition. It's just another brand on the market letting us all decide whethere we want it or not. Let this not make remaining Audyssey owners feel themselves as 2nd class citizens in a world where we all are free to choose what suits our wishes and desires, and what our wallets are capable to endure.
> 
> Thanks!


Nobody wants to make Audyssey users feel like 'second class citizens', certainly not me. XT32 is an excellent REQ system which served me very well for many years.

But you make an opinion and assertion here " _Dirac Live is not an RC system that is superior by quantums to what Audyssey can do._.". To give some credibility to this assertion it would be useful to know on what basis it is made. What, for example, is your experience with Dirac Live? How did you evaluate it and compare it with XT32? What data do you have to support your opinion?

I have considerable hands-on experience with both XT32 and Dirac Live. I can tell you from that experience, from extensive listening tests and from measured data that Dirac Live actually *is* a significantly superior REQ to Audyssey XT32 in various different ways. My view is also supported by many experienced former users of Audyssey, and former contributors to this thread, who have subsequently adopted Dirac Live. You can read their experiences and views in the DDRC-88A thread on AVS.

Now of course, since Dirac Live and the DDRC-88A cost around $1,000, one would expect, demand even, that it was superior to a REQ system which comes free with an AVR - this is why comparisons between the two are fairly pointless.

It does not help to advance understanding when opinion is presented as fact, so I look forward to some objective analysis to support your claim above.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> I think this is a good point, Feri. I do believe that Dirac Live represents an advancement in technology, and I understand that there is an even newer version of it on the horizon. And, I personally welcome all such advances, just as I do with smartphones, displays, subwoofers, etc. But, a newer and theoretically better technology does not necessarily invalidate older technology. When Gary says that he gets excellent audible and measurable results with XT, for instance, that statement has a lot of credibility for me, irrespective of the theoretical advantages of XT-32 which I happen to have.


I never think that presenting opinion as fact is "good", Mike. Let's see the substantiation behind the offered opinion before we come to a conclusion with regard to its merit. How much hands-on experience does the commenter offer? What data is he offering to support his assertions? By what method did he evaluate the two systems and how did this method bring him to his conclusion? And so on. Without such objectivity, an opinion is just an opinion and is worthless in any sort of objective evaluation of different technologies, systems etc. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but such entitlement does not validate the opinion in any way or contribute to its worth.

You are right that a newer, more advanced technology does not invalidate an older, less sophisticated technology. The older technology continues to work as it did before. Because there are now OLED TVs on the market, it does not stop one's older LCD TV from working. But neither does it make sense to somehow deny the superiority of the new technology in some sort of evangelical crusade for the older technology.

I used to get exceptionally good results from XT32. If I still used it, I would still get those good results. But I get significantly better results from using a more sophisticated technology. And since I have direct hands-on experience of both, I am at least a credible witness. Of course, these better results come at a significant financial cost and also require an investment in time to learn how to get the best out of the technology offered.

This is not somehow 'knocking', or demeaning, or devaluing Audyssey in any way and could not be seen that way by anyone adopting a rational stance. XT32 is an excellent REQ system. No doubt about it. For what it costs (effectively nothing) it is astonishingly good. But it is ludicrous to suppose that nothing is better, or that nothing else can improve on it or that others are not RC systems that are superior by quantums to what Audyssey can do. In all of life, there are degrees of effectiveness, degrees of quality, degrees of performance, from the poor to the SOTA and room equalisation is no different.



mthomas47 said:


> Someone who is already getting satisfactory results from any version of Audyssey may very well wish to upgrade to a more advanced version, or to another system of EQ entirely, at some point. But, as with speakers, amplifiers, subwoofers, and all other components of an audio system, currently satisfactory results may leave relatively little incentive to change, particularly as improvements may become increasingly incremental, rather than profound, with each subsequent upgrade.


This is true. However, Dirac Live is more than an incremental upgrade to XT32. It is a very significant upgrade with audible and measurable benefits. Not one of the former XT32 aficionados who switched to Dirac Live has switched back to XT32, nor would do so (as evidenced from many remarks in the DDRC-88A thread). Again, this is not to take anything away from XT32, but realistically all but the evangelical can surely see that it is eminently possible to advance, to go beyond, to outperform and so on? And again, I repeat that there is a considerable financial cost involved, so we are not even comparing apples with apples.



mthomas47 said:


> All of our audio systems represent our personal implementations of our own interests and preferences, and I think it is important to keep that idea in context when we discuss any technological advances and the potential benefits pertaining to them.


Of course. But to present opinion as fact serves nobody, advances the discussion not at all. Our preferences are indeed our preferences but we don't present them as some sort of objective fact.


----------



## kbarnes701

On a related but different topic, regardless of any REQ system available, if one spent $1,000 on room treatments, the difference would be much more substantial than that of using REQ and represent a far better use of the money. REQ is the frosting on the cake, not the cake.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> ^
> 
> Mike,
> 
> My audio system is in a very asymmetrical room, L-shaped with a few other idiosyncrasies, and not what most of the guys in our local audio club consider to be the room I should have the system in. The system has been in that room for 15 years now with essentially the same speaker placement and listening position location for that whole time because I haven't found any other setup which works as well but the furnishings have changed over time and the acoustic treatment placement has been progressively fine tuned over that period yet I still find there's more I can learn about the acoustic properties of the room. Every now and then I play with the location of particular acoustic panels and I find myself going back and forth for a while in order to find out what works best for me and I can still be surprised at the results. Doing things like removing several bookcases and a pile of books in the process, or going to lower and wider CD shelving, or changing the chairs to a different chair and sofa with fabric rather than reflective coverings have all ended up resulting in changed locations for some acoustic treatments. A week ago I changed the speakers from stand mounts to floor standers, the first speaker change in that whole 15 year period, and had to move several panels and lower the height of every one of them in order to rebalance the low frequency response in the room. I've discovered that if you have moveable acoustic treatments rather than treatments that are permanently fixed in place, experimentation with them can be an ongoing exercise, even after years, and you can still be surprised at the results you get.
> 
> Now maybe if I was an acoustical engineer with all of the right measurement tools and software I could come up with an arrangement that I wouldn't feel a need to play with from time to time but I'd probably miss the adventure of the occasional bit of tinkering and the surprises it can give.
> 
> Re expectation bias: you're right and it does play a part. I don't think it did in my initial setup because I had the bookcases and more books than you can throw a stick at down one side wall and an open archway into a hallway on the other side wall and the 2 side walls were as different as it was possible for them to be so the side wall treatments did a lot to balancing the reflectivity of the 2 side walls. Removing the bookcases put a bare wall on that side and there was a similar bare wall on the other side of the hallway the archway opened into yielding a much more balanced side wall reflection situation and I didn't remove the side wall absorption until well after I removed the bookcases. I'm not saying that expectation bias didn't affect my initial judgements on side wall treatment but there are good reasons for assuming that the initial side wall treatments were actually preferable to untreated side walls when the bookcases and books were in place. Expectation bias may have strengthened my initial preference for the side wall treatment but I think I would still have preferred it if there was no expectation bias present. It's important to remember that bias doesn't necessarily cause us to prefer the option we would prefer if we did not have the bias, it may only strengthen that preference. If things are close then bias can tip us one way rather than the other but if things aren't close and the better option is actually the one the bias tips us towards, we are going to end up with the same preference with or without the bias present. Bias doesn't always result in us choosing the wrong option.
> 
> Addition: I have found that strong initial likes tend to be more reliable for me than strong initial dislikes so, if anything, I'd say I'm personally more susceptible to expectation bias on the dislike side of things to the like side of things but that may not be true for everyone else. If we pay attention over time we tend to learn which way our biases are more likely to lead us into error and get a bit more cautious with our initial judgements in those situations.


David, not disagreeing with much of that, but an observation. What you say is doubtless true for music reproduction, especially 2 channel music reproduction, produced with no adherence to any common standards and thus at the whim of whoever produced it.

But I maintain that this does not hold true for multi-channel movie soundtracks. If the Director intended a certain acoustic environment, he has the means to 'bake it into' the recording/mix. So a conversation taking place in a desert has no reflected sound, no ambiance etc. A conversation taking place in an interrogation cell has a specific ambiance and acoustic environment - maybe 'dull' and 'closed in' to create menace, a feeling of detachment etc. A conversation taking place in a cave has a reverberant acoustic, creating the sense of a large space and so on. All of these different acoustic are baked in by the Director and his sound team and reproduced for playback by numerous speakers and channels, now including immersive audio as well.

The Director has no way of knowing what the playback environment will be, so he cannot take any account of it in his final mix. if you play back the desert scene in a reverberant room, then you are adding an effect never intended and not desired. If you play back the cave scene in a reverberant room, you are adding greater reverberation than was intended. None of it is needed since all the acoustic environment, atmosphere, ambiance etc is already there in the mix, able to replayed by a good 11 speaker plus sub system at home.

Thus for m/ch movies reproduced properly at home, deader is better. In fact, highly dead is best of all. It is the only way to reproduce what the content creators intended you to hear and there is no need to add an 'additional' acoustic layer which, by definition, will be different for each and every room (that is not deader).

Just my 2 cents and not intending to start a long, off-topic discussion. Just a different POV.


----------



## mthomas47

Keith,

Please don't make this another interminable debate between you and Feri. It's been so peaceful here over the last year.  Let's all agree that Dirac Live represents a useful technological advancement. How much audible difference it makes will inevitably depend on the specific room and the specific individual. As you say, the greatest differences actually lie in the appropriate implementation of room treatments and not of EQ, anyway.

I may very well upgrade to Dirac Live when I do my next AVR upgrade, but if so Dirac Live will be only part of the reason for the upgrade. Meanwhile, I don't think that all of the Audyssey owners need to have their noses rubbed in the superiority of DL. The initial posts were informative and helpful. We all want to know about newer technology. But, a debate on the real and/or perceived merits of DL versus Audyssey is much less helpful on an Audyssey owner's thread.

FWIW, I truly mean to say all of this in a friendly way. You apologized for too much DL talk when it wasn't really necessary. But, now the situation is deteriorating, and I'm suggesting that you may want to reconsider after all. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

Yeah. Once again, I am done with this thread and the way it is impossible to discuss anything without evangelism raising its head repeatedly. Thanks for reminding me why I, and many others, left the thread in the first place. Life is too short to waste it on this  Bye all.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

^Just want to add that XT32 isn't entirely free with the AVR... until the Denon AVR-X3300W, XT32 was not offered in AVRs for less than $1,500 MSRP and now it is still a considerable $1,000 MSRP. And I bet it was even pricier in previous years, considering it is 7 years old technology. And with the Marantz models, getting XT32 is currently at least $1,400 MSRP.

So, there are licensing fees plus the AVR needs enough processing power for XT32. And to someone like me, even $1K-$1.4K MSRP is not 'cheap'. My current AVR is an entry level Yamaha that is worth a couple hundred bucks at most and came with an HTiB, which has now all been replaced with better speakers/sub.


----------



## RockDawg

David Aiken said:


> Liking it loud is one thing but that doesn't answer the question of how loud is "loud".
> 
> At reference level, 0 dB, you will get a sound level of 105 dB at the listening position when a sound on the disc has been mastered at 0 dB. No discs contain sound mastered above 0 dB, that's the way disca are mastered, so the loudest sound on any disc you can have will be 105 dB at your listening position when you set the master volume to 0 dB. Regular listening to levels of 105 dB for around 7 minutes a day can result in hearing damage. Hearing protection guidelines here in Australia require workers to wear hearing protection if exposed to an average level of 85 dB for 8 hours a day. 105 dB is loud, it's as loud as you get in a cinema which is a much bigger space than your living room and most of us find that we can't handle that kind of level in a room the size of a normal living room or HT theatre room.
> 
> So, you can turn the master volume level to +18 dB if you wish and that's going to produce peaks of 123 dB at your listening position. At that level you're into levels that can produce hearing damage if you listen sounds that average that kind of level for a matter of seconds a day on a regular daily basis. It's good to like things "loud" but do you really want to like them so loud that they're going to damage your hearing over time? You may enjoy the loudness but you won't enjoy what you're hearing once the damage occurs. What you lose first with noise induced hearing loss is the range between 2 and 4 kHz and what that mans is that you start to have difficulty understanding speech, you find it difficult to hear what people are saying to you. As the damage progresses, the range over which you have difficulty starts to broaden and you can become clinically deaf. You can also develop tinnitus, a persistent ringing in the ears which makes everything unenjoyable.
> 
> If you go to a bigger amp in order to get things louder and you routinely listen at levels that most people consider "too loud", that's what you're setting yourself up for. Having a bigger amp to handle instantaneous peaks which last a mere fraction of a second can improve sound quality because it contributes to transient response and makes sounds like drum strikes and gunshots sound better but the total time involved for those instantaneous peaks isn't going to cause problems, and you're going to have instantaneous peaks above 105 dB when you're listening at reference level. The extra amp power isn't wasted.
> 
> As Gary and Mike have said, having the extra power is useful, and your AVR will use it even when the master volume level is set below 0 dB, but listening at levels of 0 dB and higher on a regular basis is going to reduce your enjoyment of sound in the long term. If you want to buy a bigger amp because you like it loud then do so, but use the extra power for what it's intended for, for better handling of instantaneous peaks, and not for destroying your hearing. Master volume settings of -5 to -10 dB are more than sufficient to satisfy almost any person who loves to listen loud provided the AVR has enough power to drive the speakers to that level without clipping.
> 
> Addition: The loudest you'll ever hear anything in a cinema is going to be at the same 0 dB master level setting that Audyssey sets. They use larger amps in cinemas because they have to produce that sound pressure level in a much bigger space than your living room. If you want things in your living room to sound as loud as they get in a cinema with a sound system that produces really impressive loud peak levels, just set your master volume level to 0 db and you'll be hearing exactly the same loudness levels on those peaks as you hear in the cinema but you'll also probably find that level less enjoyable in your living room than you do in the cinema because of the way the much smaller room volume affects the sound you're hearing.


I think the problem is I am miss understanding something. When Audyssey calibrates 0db to 105db, is that meaning it's calibrating 0db on the preamp's volume scale to 105db? That's what I was assuming. 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

RockDawg said:


> I think the problem is I am miss understanding something. When Audyssey calibrates 0db to 105db, is that meaning it's calibrating 0db on the preamp's volume scale to 105db? That's what I was assuming.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


Hi,

It is a little confusing, but you might want to Google Dolby or THX Reference to understand it better. 0.0 master volume equates to 85db, which is the nominal average Reference volume for 5.1 movies. I use the term nominal average because the actual average can vary from movie to movie. From that nominal average volume of 85db, there can be peaks of up to 105db in the regular channels, and of up to 115db in the .1 LFE channel.

Movies recorded at Reference levels cannot have peaks of more than 105db, and 115db for LFE, although whether they do in fact have peaks that high, or how many, or for what specific duration, is undefined. Reference volume is a way of trying to provide standardization to the movie industry, but in actual application there is still considerable variation in implementation. In any event, a calibrated AVR or AVP should produce 85db at 0.0 MV, as measured at the main listening position, with an 85db test tone and a properly calibrated SPL meter.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

I'm pretty sure it's 75dB with AVR internal test tones these days. Using -30dBFS signal to compensate. Same for auto room correction in most current AVR/AVP.

That is what I have read everywhere else on AVS including the REW thread and AVR owner's thread.

I believe the reason is that most people complained 85dB test tones are too loud and so they were lowered to 75dB. However, it should not matter in the end because instead of 85dB with -20dBFS signal it is 75dB with -30dBFS signal so the end result is identical.

*Regarding auto room correction, it can go above 75dB if the noise floor is higher than normal.


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> I'm pretty sure it's 75dB with AVR internal test tones these days. Using -30dBFS signal to compensate. Same for auto room correction in most current AVR/AVP.
> 
> That is what I have read everywhere else on AVS including the REW thread and AVR owner's thread.
> 
> I believe the reason is that most people complained 85dB test tones are too loud and so they were lowered to 75dB. However, it should not matter in the end because instead of 85dB with -20dBFS signal it is 75dB with -30dBFS signal so the end result is identical.
> 
> *Regarding auto room correction, it can go above 75dB if the noise floor is higher than normal.


What you have written is absolutely correct, but that wasn't the question he asked.  Reference is a nominal average of 85db, as measured at the MLP. The AVR's and AVP's use a 75db test tone to perform the calibration, and as you said, that is because 85db is too loud for most people. But, after the calibration is complete, the AVR internally recalibrates by adding 10db to the volume, so that 0.0 equals 85db. 

After calibration, if you were to play external test tones through your AVR, and measure the results at your MLP, a 75db test tone should approximately equal -10 MV, and an 85db test tone should approximately equal 0.0 MV. (I say approximately for the sake of completeness, as there may be variances between the Audyssey microphone and the SPL meter used to check the results.)

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure it's 75dB with AVR internal test tones these days. Using -30dBFS signal to compensate. Same for auto room correction in most current AVR/AVP.
> 
> That is what I have read everywhere else on AVS including the REW thread and AVR owner's thread.
> 
> I believe the reason is that most people complained 85dB test tones are too loud and so they were lowered to 75dB. However, it should not matter in the end because instead of 85dB with -20dBFS signal it is 75dB with -30dBFS signal so the end result is identical.
> 
> *Regarding auto room correction, it can go above 75dB if the noise floor is higher than normal.
> 
> 
> 
> What you have written is absolutely correct, but that wasn't the question he asked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reference is a nominal average of 85db, as measured at the MLP. The AVR's and AVP's use a 75db test tone to perform the calibration, and as you said, that is because 85db is too loud for most people. But, after the calibration is complete, the AVR internally recalibrates by adding 10db to the volume, so that 0.0 equals 85db.
> 
> After calibration, if you were to play external test tones through your AVR, and measure the results at your MLP, a 75db test tone should approximately equal -10 MV, and an 85db test tone should approximately equal 0.0 MV.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

I see, I had a feeling we were talking about somewhat different things.

One observation I have made is that some movies reduce the sound of dialogue and soft sounds to effectively increase the dynamic range with respect to peaks. A lot of horror movies do this for example... it makes the jump scares more effective.

On the other hand, comedies and dramas often have a much narrower dynamic range so the difference between dialogue and peaks including music is less jarring.

However, there will always be exceptions as filmmakers are free to do what they want with respect to dynamic range and dialogue levels, amongst other things...


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

What the Hell just happened????????

I was only gone for a few hours. Damn..........I truly hope Keith is not gone for good. As long as the back and forth remains civil and constructive. From what I read it was just fine. I for one am interested (even if I posted previously that "Ignorance is bliss") in learning the nuanced differences between Audyssey and the Other Room Correction software/hardware solutions that may be available. 

Is this the proper thread to have that conversation? Perhaps not. But the way I see it, as long as it furthers our understanding of what Audyssey is capable of, and what it does not, and can not do. Then its appropriate conversation here. 

Maybe I am missing something? I don't post in here often. Mainly because I feel out of my depth and that I have little to contribute. However, I DO read all the posts and absorb as much as I can. I thought we were doing fine and then BAM!!!! Keith please reconsider your position. We (read I) can learn so much from these comparison conversations. Your experience using both systems is very valuable, and I sure hope you will continue to grace us with mind dumps from time to time. So go away, cool off, but do come back! You are most welcome in this thread.


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> David, not disagreeing with much of that, but an observation. What you say is doubtless true for music reproduction, especially 2 channel music reproduction, produced with no adherence to any common standards and thus at the whim of whoever produced it.
> 
> But I maintain that this does not hold true for multi-channel movie soundtracks. If the Director intended a certain acoustic environment, he has the means to 'bake it into' the recording/mix…
> 
> Thus for m/ch movies reproduced properly at home, deader is better. In fact, highly dead is best of all. It is the only way to reproduce what the content creators intended you to hear and there is no need to add an 'additional' acoustic layer which, by definition, will be different for each and every room (that is not deader).
> 
> Just my 2 cents and not intending to start a long, off-topic discussion. Just a different POV.


Keith,

I agree with you that for HT the deader the better if you want to reproduce what the Director intended, and the experience I related with my acoustic treatment was most definitely in a music only system and there are no common standards for music reproduction.

But the simple fact is that the research shows that there is a variation in preference in relation to listening response and we've got those nice frequency plots to prove it. Frequency plots tell us nothing about the liveness or deadness of a room so we don't know what impact that has on preferences in relation to that study but if there's one thing I'm prepared to bet on, it's if there is something which makes a difference to the sound we hear, there will be preferences playing a part in people's response to that factor. I tend to like to hear things the way they were intended to be heard but I know a few people who are utterly convinced that they know better than the recording artists/directors/recording and mastering engineers and so on when it comes to how something **SHOULD** sound regardless of whatever anyone involved in making or releasing the production says.

My basic point when it comes down to preference is that if you're in this for the enjoyment then what counts is maximising your enjoyment and that usually means satisfying your preferences no matter how justified or unjustified they are. Basically, if someone isn't enjoying the results they get with their own system then I think they're doing something wrong. The right result for an individual is the one they really enjoy and I think that even if what they enjoy is something I can't stand.


----------



## David Aiken

RockDawg said:


> I think the problem is I am miss understanding something. When Audyssey calibrates 0db to 105db, is that meaning it's calibrating 0db on the preamp's volume scale to 105db? That's what I was assuming.
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> It is a little confusing, but you might want to Google Dolby or THX Reference to understand it better. 0.0 master volume equates to 85db, which is the nominal average Reference volume for 5.1 movies. I use the term nominal average because the actual average can vary from movie to movie. From that nominal average volume of 85db, there can be peaks of up to 105db in the regular channels, and of up to 115db in the .1 LFE channel.
> 
> Movies recorded at Reference levels cannot have peaks of more than 105db, and 115db for LFE, although whether they do in fact have peaks that high, or how many, or for what specific duration, is undefined. Reference volume is a way of trying to provide standardization to the movie industry, but in actual application there is still considerable variation in implementation. In any event, a calibrated AVR or AVP should produce 85db at 0.0 MV, as measured at the main listening position, with an 85db test tone and a properly calibrated SPL meter.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I think your explanation is misleading. A master volume setting of 0 dB equates to a of 105 dB at the listening position for a signal mastered in the soundtrack at 0 dB but the calibration originally was done with a signal at -20 dB producing a listening level of 85 dB so the peak level of 0 dB on a soundtrack would deliver 105 dB.

You correctly talk about a MV setting of 0 dB delivering average levels of 85 dB with the ability to reach peaks of 105 dB as required but the only way to achieve that is for the level used for calibration to be mastered at a level of -20 dB because if you calibrated to 85 dB using an signal mastered at 0 dB you would have to turn the master volume setting up to +20 dB in order to hear a peak at 105 dB since signals mastered at 0 dB in the soundtrack would only be reproduced at 85 dB after such a calibration.

Essentially a MV setting of 0 dB means that peaks of 0 dB in the soundtrack will be reproduced at 105 dB.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I think your explanation is misleading. A master volume setting of 0 dB equates to a of 105 dB at the listening position for a signal mastered in the soundtrack at 0 dB but the calibration originally was done with a signal at -20 dB producing a listening level of 85 dB so the peak level of 0 dB on a soundtrack would deliver 105 dB.
> 
> You correctly talk about a MV setting of 0 dB delivering average levels of 85 dB with the ability to reach peaks of 105 dB as required but the only way to achieve that is for the level used for calibration to be mastered at a level of -20 dB because if you calibrated to 85 dB using an signal mastered at 0 dB you would have to turn the master volume setting up to +20 dB in order to hear a peak at 105 dB since signals mastered at 0 dB in the soundtrack would only be reproduced at 85 dB after such a calibration.
> 
> Essentially a MV setting of 0 dB means that peaks of 0 dB in the soundtrack will be reproduced at 105 dB.


I understand what you are saying David, and that's why the subject is confusing.  To my knowledge, nobody uses 105db test tones. But, if you do use an external 85db test tone, you will find that a MV setting of 0.0 on a properly calibrated AVR corresponds to that 85db test tone. From that 0.0 volume level, a properly calibrated system may be theoretically capable (depending on the system) of producing peak levels of 105db in the regular channels and 115db in the LFE channel. 

I agree that Reference is 105/115, but that is just for peaks, which may not even exist in a given movie, as not all movies even have peaks at that volume. If you prefer to explain this in a different way, I will respect that, but using the nominal 85db average with potential peaks not to exceed 105 and 115db seems to me like the easiest way for other people to understand it. I think that is particularly so if anyone ever wants to verify 0.0 MV after the fact, as a 75db external test tone should pretty reliably correspond to approximately -10 MV, and an 85db external test tone should pretty reliably correspond to approximately 0.0 MV.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> David Aiken said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> I think your explanation is misleading. A master volume setting of 0 dB equates to a of 105 dB at the listening position for a signal mastered in the soundtrack at 0 dB but the calibration originally was done with a signal at -20 dB producing a listening level of 85 dB so the peak level of 0 dB on a soundtrack would deliver 105 dB.
> 
> You correctly talk about a MV setting of 0 dB delivering average levels of 85 dB with the ability to reach peaks of 105 dB as required but the only way to achieve that is for the level used for calibration to be mastered at a level of -20 dB because if you calibrated to 85 dB using an signal mastered at 0 dB you would have to turn the master volume setting up to +20 dB in order to hear a peak at 105 dB since signals mastered at 0 dB in the soundtrack would only be reproduced at 85 dB after such a calibration.
> 
> Essentially a MV setting of 0 dB means that peaks of 0 dB in the soundtrack will be reproduced at 105 dB.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying David, and that's why the subject is confusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my knowledge, nobody uses 105db test tones. But, if you do use an external 85db test tone, you will find that a MV setting of 0.0 on a properly calibrated AVR corresponds to that 85db test tone. From that 0.0 volume level, a properly calibrated system may be theoretically capable (depending on the system) of producing peak levels of 105db in the regular channels and 115db in the LFE channel.
> 
> I agree that Reference is 105/115, but that is just for peaks, which may not even exist in a given movie, as not all movies even have peaks at that volume. If you prefer to explain this in a different way, I will respect that, but using the nominal 85db average with potential peaks not to exceed 105 and 115db seems to me like the easiest way for other people to understand it. I think that is particularly so if anyone ever wants to verify 0.0 MV after the fact, as a 75db external test tone should pretty reliably correspond to approximately -10 MV, and an 85db external test tone should pretty reliably correspond to approximately 0.0 MV.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Disney World of Wonder BD uses -20dBFS test tones for manual level setting (probably -30dBFS for sub/LFE). 

However, Spears and Munsil HD Benchmark 2nd edition uses -30dBFS for speakers and -40dBFS for sub/LFE channel.

I don't think 85dB is necessarily the standard for external test tones these days. Mainly because 85dB is twice as loud as 75dB and test tones are not fun to listen to a loud levels. So, same reason 75dB is preferred these days for internal test tones/arc.

As to reference level, I don't know if average or peak is more important but since we don't know which movies are exactly following the 85dB average 'rule' the peak figure matters more to me as it lets me know at a given MV the maximum spl a peak can be. Though with subs it is more complicated with bass management and running things hot.


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Disney World of Wonder BD uses -20dBFS test tones for manual level setting (probably -30dBFS for sub/LFE).
> 
> However, Spears and Munsil HD Benchmark 2nd edition uses -30dBFS for speakers and -40dBFS for sub/LFE channel.
> 
> I don't think 85dB is necessarily the standard for external test tones these days. Mainly because 85dB is twice as loud as 75dB and test tones are not fun to listen to a loud levels. So, same reason 75dB is preferred these days for internal test tones/arc.
> 
> As to reference level, I don't know if average or peak is more important but since we don't know which movies are exactly following the 85dB average 'rule' the peak figure matters more to me as it lets me know at a given MV the maximum spl a peak can be. Though with subs it is more complicated with bass management and running things hot.


Hi,

It really is confusing isn't it?  I don't think we are quite communicating yet. We agree that most test tones in use these days are 75db test tones. And, once a system is calibrated, that same test tone played through that calibrated system will correspond to a master volume of -10 at the MLP, as the AVR will automatically do an internal adjustment so that 0.0 MV equals 85db.

It is important to know that your system is theoretically calibrated to 105db for the regular (satellite) channels and 115db for the LFE channel. But, it's only a theoretical calibration unless your AV system is actually capable of producing transient SPL's of 105db for the regular channels, and 115db for the .1 channel.

And, nothing in your calibration guarantees that. That is strictly a function of your speaker/sub capabilities, vis-a-vis room placement, listening distance, room gain, etc. And, even if your system can produce SPL levels of 105db and 115db, there may not be any content to correspond to that in many 5.1 movies. Blockbusters and action movies yes, other movies, perhaps not.

Any way that people find easiest to understand Reference is perfectly fine with me, but I believe that the way I have been explaining it, in terms of a nominal average volume of 85db with transient peaks up to, but not exceeding 20db and 30db higher than that nominal average, seems like as good a way as any. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> I understand what you are saying David, and that's why the subject is confusing.  To my knowledge, nobody uses 105db test tones. But, if you do use an external 85db test tone, you will find that a MV setting of 0.0 on a properly calibrated AVR corresponds to that 85db test tone. From that 0.0 volume level, a properly calibrated system may be theoretically capable (depending on the system) of producing peak levels of 105db in the regular channels and 115db in the LFE channel.
> 
> I agree that Reference is 105/115, but that is just for peaks, which may not even exist in a given movie, as not all movies even have peaks at that volume. If you prefer to explain this in a different way, I will respect that, but using the nominal 85db average with potential peaks not to exceed 105 and 115db seems to me like the easiest way for other people to understand it. I think that is particularly so if anyone ever wants to verify 0.0 MV after the fact, as a 75db external test tone should pretty reliably correspond to approximately -10 MV, and an 85db external test tone should pretty reliably correspond to approximately 0.0 MV.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


The issue is reference level has nothing to do with average level. Reference level simply means peaks in the main channels are 105db. Test tones may be produced at lower levels just to properly calibrate the peaks, ie -20db tones will produce 85db but that has no impact on average level of any recording. Average level could be any level, dialog could be any level. The only thing that reference level defines is the peak level of 105db.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Regarding my boom mic stand (samson mk-10), I have a couple of questions:

The supplied mic clip is a bit loose for my UMIK-1 vs. the one on the mini-tripod the UMIK-1 came with... will this affect measurements? (It seems to stay in place, but requires much less force to insert or remove.)

I know the boom mic stand is supposed to only touch the floor. Does this also apply to the usb cable hanging from the UMIK-1 and YPAO mic for that matter?


(not sure if any of this matters, so I wanted to ask)


----------



## mthomas47

primetimeguy said:


> The issue is reference level has nothing to do with average level. Reference level simply means peaks in the main channels are 105db. Test tones may be produced at lower levels just to properly calibrate the peaks, ie -20db tones will produce 85db but that has no impact on average level of any recording. * Average level could be any level, dialog could be any level. The only thing that reference level defines is the peak level of 105db.*


Yes, that's why I have been using the term "nominal average", because the actual average could be higher or lower than 85db, just as peaks may not ever reach 105db and 115db in a given movie. Reference is merely an allowance, not a prescribed level of 105db for the satellites. We all agree that Reference establishes a limit of no more than 105db for the satellite channels, and 115db for the LFE channel. So far so good. But, here was the original question:

"I think the problem is I am miss understanding something. When Audyssey calibrates 0db to 105db, is that meaning it's calibrating *0db* on the preamp's volume scale to *105db*? That's what I was assuming."

I replied that Audyssey calibrates 0.0 MV at 85db. Period! That's all I have ever said. The rest has been parsing language as people have mentioned 75db test tones and suggested that there are other ways of explaining Reference. And, I am fine with other explanations, although a full explanation of Reference for any given room and system, and for any given movie, is actually quite complicated. But, there was only one way that I saw to answer the question that was asked. Audyssey calibrates a 0.0 master volume to equal 85db.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Yes, that's why I have been using the term "nominal average", because the actual average could be higher or lower than 85db, just as peaks may not ever reach 105db and 115db in a given movie. Reference is merely an allowance, not a prescribed level of 105db for the satellites. We all agree that Reference establishes a limit of no more than 105db for the satellite channels, and 115db for the LFE channel. So far so good. But, here was the original question:
> 
> "I think the problem is I am miss understanding something. When Audyssey calibrates 0db to 105db, is that meaning it's calibrating *0db* on the preamp's volume scale to *105db*? That's what I was assuming."
> 
> I replied that Audyssey calibrates 0.0 MV at 85db. Period! That's all I have ever said. The rest has been parsing language as people have mentioned 75db test tones and suggested that there are other ways of explaining Reference. And, I am fine with other explanations, although a full explanation of Reference for any given room and system, and for any given movie, is actually quite complicated. But, there was only one way that I saw to answer the question that was asked. Audyssey calibrates a 0.0 master volume to equal 85db.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Ok, but audyssey does not calibrate 0.0 on the volume dial to 85db, it calibrates it to 105db. It just so happens to use a - 20 test tone to do so. 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Yes, that's why I have been using the term "nominal average", because the actual average could be higher or lower than 85db, just as peaks may not ever reach 105db and 115db in a given movie. Reference is merely an allowance, not a prescribed level of 105db for the satellites. We all agree that Reference establishes a limit of no more than 105db for the satellite channels, and 115db for the LFE channel. So far so good. But, here was the original question:
> 
> "I think the problem is I am miss understanding something. When Audyssey calibrates 0db to 105db, is that meaning it's calibrating *0db* on the preamp's volume scale to *105db*? That's what I was assuming."
> 
> I replied that Audyssey calibrates 0.0 MV at 85db. Period! That's all I have ever said. The rest has been parsing language as people have mentioned 75db test tones and suggested that there are other ways of explaining Reference. And, I am fine with other explanations, although a full explanation of Reference for any given room and system, and for any given movie, is actually quite complicated. But, there was only one way that I saw to answer the question that was asked. Audyssey calibrates a 0.0 master volume to equal 85db.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I would let your post go unchallenged but for 2 things.

First, the statement "I replied that Audyssey calibrates 0.0 MV at 85db. Period! That's all I have ever said." My problem is that "Period!" element which implies that 85 dB at a MV setting of 0.0 is the whole of what reference level is calibrated to. Second, the assertion that the rest has been "parsing language".

I could accept the statement that Audyssey calibrates a master volume setting of 0.0 dB to a listening level of 85 dB PROVIDED you had given a reference level for the signal level which generates an 85 dB listening level and you did not provide a reference. That signal level is -20 dB and calibrating a MV setting of 0.0 dB to 85 dB for a -20 dB level signal is the same as calibrating the MV setting of 0.0 dB to 105 dB for a 0.0 dB level signal (peak level which can be mastered). Without specifying the strength of the signal which generates an 85 dB level at an MV setting of 0.0 your statement is incomplete and meaningless because, regardless of what the MV setting of 0.0 dB is calibrated to, an MV setting of 0.0 will deliver a listening level which could span a 50 dB or more range depending on the actual signal level being reproduced. A master volume setting of 0.0 dB will only generate a listening level of 85 dB for one precise signal strength and to leave that aspect of the conditions out of your statement makes it an ambiguous and misleading statement. Without that bit of extra information your statement could be read as indicating that Audyssey calibrates the master volume setting so that the peak loudness level, a signal level of 0 dB, will generate a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB. The signal level involved is an essential part of the reference level specification and cannot be ignored or omitted if you're going to define what reference level is.

Most of the comments you have asserted to be mere "parsing language" specified that missing bit of information, the signal level required to generate a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB. The comments you criticised as "parsing language" actually gave a complete and accurate statement of what Audyssey calibrates the master volume level to. It's irrelevant whether someone defines the calibration level as 85 dB for a signal level of -20 dB or as 105 dB for a signal level of 0 dB because both of those statements come to the same thing, but to say that a master volume level of 0.0 dB is calibrated to produce a listening level of 85 dB "Period!" without specifying a signal level simply fails to fully and accurately define how the master volume setting is calibrated and it is not "parsing language" to assert that the signal level is required and needs to be specified.

I'm sorry but if we're going to state what "reference level" is calibrated to we need to specify 3 things, the master volume setting, the listening level it generates, and the signal strength used to generate that listening level. You can't define reference level if you omit one of those 3 parameters, all 3 are equally essential.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I would let your post go unchallenged but for 2 things.
> 
> First, the statement "I replied that Audyssey calibrates 0.0 MV at 85db. Period! That's all I have ever said." My problem is that "Period!" element which implies that 85 dB at a MV setting of 0.0 is the whole of what reference level is calibrated to. Second, the assertion that the rest has been "parsing language".
> 
> I could accept the statement that Audyssey calibrates a master volume setting of 0.0 dB to a listening level of 85 dB PROVIDED you had given a reference level for the signal level which generates an 85 dB listening level and you did not provide a reference. That signal level is -20 dB and calibrating a MV setting of 0.0 dB to 85 dB for a -20 dB level signal is the same as calibrating the MV setting of 0.0 dB to 105 dB for a 0.0 dB level signal (peak level which can be mastered). Without specifying the strength of the signal which generates an 85 dB level at an MV setting of 0.0 your statement is incomplete and meaningless because, regardless of what the MV setting of 0.0 dB is calibrated to, an MV setting of 0.0 will deliver a listening level which could span a 50 dB or more range depending on the actual signal level being reproduced. A master volume setting of 0.0 dB will only generate a listening level of 85 dB for one precise signal strength and to leave that aspect of the conditions out of your statement makes it an ambiguous and misleading statement. Without that bit of extra information your statement could be read as indicating that Audyssey calibrates the master volume setting so that the peak loudness level, a signal level of 0 dB, will generate a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB. The signal level involved is an essential part of the reference level specification and cannot be ignored or omitted if you're going to define what reference level is.
> 
> Most of the comments you have asserted to be mere "parsing language" specified that missing bit of information, the signal level required to generate a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB. The comments you criticised as "parsing language" actually gave a complete and accurate statement of what Audyssey calibrates the master volume level to. It's irrelevant whether someone defines the calibration level as 85 dB for a signal level of -20 dB or as 105 dB for a signal level of 0 dB because both of those statements come to the same thing, but to say that a master volume level of 0.0 dB is calibrated to produce a listening level of 85 dB "Period!" without specifying a signal level simply fails to fully and accurately define how the master volume setting is calibrated and it is not "parsing language" to assert that the signal level is required and needs to be specified.
> 
> I'm sorry but if we're going to state what "reference level" is calibrated to we need to specify 3 things, the master volume setting, the listening level it generates, and the signal strength used to generate that listening level. You can't define reference level if you omit one of those 3 parameters, all 3 are equally essential.


I agree; to me the best definitions of reference level include all 3 and are usually:

1. 105dB peaks for speakers and 115dB peaks for LFE at 0MV and 0dBFS

2. 75dB for manual speaker calibration at 0MV and -30dBFS (also applies to Audyssey with low noise floors)... -40dBFS for LFE/0MV/75dB


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I would let your post go unchallenged but for 2 things.
> 
> First, the statement "I replied that Audyssey calibrates 0.0 MV at 85db. Period! That's all I have ever said." My problem is that "Period!" element which implies that 85 dB at a MV setting of 0.0 is the whole of what reference level is calibrated to. Second, the assertion that the rest has been "parsing language".
> 
> I could accept the statement that Audyssey calibrates a master volume setting of 0.0 dB to a listening level of 85 dB PROVIDED you had given a reference level for the signal level which generates an 85 dB listening level and you did not provide a reference. That signal level is -20 dB and calibrating a MV setting of 0.0 dB to 85 dB for a -20 dB level signal is the same as calibrating the MV setting of 0.0 dB to 105 dB for a 0.0 dB level signal (peak level which can be mastered). Without specifying the strength of the signal which generates an 85 dB level at an MV setting of 0.0 your statement is incomplete and meaningless because, regardless of what the MV setting of 0.0 dB is calibrated to, an MV setting of 0.0 will deliver a listening level which could span a 50 dB or more range depending on the actual signal level being reproduced. A master volume setting of 0.0 dB will only generate a listening level of 85 dB for one precise signal strength and to leave that aspect of the conditions out of your statement makes it an ambiguous and misleading statement. Without that bit of extra information your statement could be read as indicating that Audyssey calibrates the master volume setting so that the peak loudness level, a signal level of 0 dB, will generate a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB. The signal level involved is an essential part of the reference level specification and cannot be ignored or omitted if you're going to define what reference level is.
> 
> Most of the comments you have asserted to be mere "parsing language" specified that missing bit of information, the signal level required to generate a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB. The comments you criticised as "parsing language" actually gave a complete and accurate statement of what Audyssey calibrates the master volume level to. It's irrelevant whether someone defines the calibration level as 85 dB for a signal level of -20 dB or as 105 dB for a signal level of 0 dB because both of those statements come to the same thing, but to say that a master volume level of 0.0 dB is calibrated to produce a listening level of 85 dB "Period!" without specifying a signal level simply fails to fully and accurately define how the master volume setting is calibrated and it is not "parsing language" to assert that the signal level is required and needs to be specified.
> 
> I'm sorry but if we're going to state what "reference level" is calibrated to we need to specify 3 things, the master volume setting, the listening level it generates, and the signal strength used to generate that listening level. You can't define reference level if you omit one of those 3 parameters, all 3 are equally essential.


Hi David,

I think that the ongoing discussion about Reference is occurring due to some conflation of two separate concepts. The first concept is what is Dolby or THX Reference? That one is easy, and we all agree on it. "Reference" is a volume level of 105db for satellite channels and 115db for the LFE channel, in a 5.1 movie. Those volume levels are maximums for brief transient peak volumes, typically lasting only a few seconds at a time. And, a nominal average volume of 85db is assumed as part of the Reference standard, which is -20db than the max allowance for the satellite channels and -30db for the LFE (.1) channel.

The second concept is how do AV systems calibrate satellite channels and the LFE channel to correspond to Reference? And, that is an entirely different question with an entirely different answer. Originally, an 85db test tone was used to calibrate AV systems to Reference. And, each satellite speaker in a system, and the combined output of the subwoofers in the .1 channel, would be calibrated to that 85db SPL as measured at the MLP. That use of an 85db test tone changed about 10 years ago for most calibrations systems, as explained in earlier posts and as explained again below.

But, what is Reference and how are AV systems calibrated to Reference are two entirely separate concepts, which need to be discussed separately. The first concept defines what "Reference" actually is in order to provide standardization to the movie industry. The second concept involves finding a way to calibrate AV systems so that they can play movies at some known volume level. Not every AV system can produce Reference volumes. And, not every AV system can produce Reference volumes for the full frequency range. I believe that originally the Dolby Reference standard called for the .1 channel to be able to produce 115db at 25Hz, for instance. Today, with the advances in subwoofer technology, that would be considered a fairly modest standard. But, even so, many AV systems would not be able to produce 115db at 25Hz at the MLP. And, the same thing would be true for the 105db transient peaks which the satellite channels would be required to produce at Reference volumes. 

So, what Reference is as a movie standard and what an individual system can produce at the MLP are completely different. And, the way that HT systems are calibrated took that essential difference into account, by originally using the nominal average volume of 85db to calibrate to 0.0 MV, which is Reference. Trying to simplify the explanation of how the industry arrived at the calibration method that was selected, it was assumed at the time that if an AV system could handle prolonged SPL's of 85db, as measured at the MLP, it would also be able to handle brief sustained bursts 20db higher in the satellite channels and 30db higher in the .1 LFE channel.

So, an 85db test tone was originally selected and was the standard of the industry for a time. And, 0.0 MV corresponded to a steady state tone of 85db. 85db, however, is quite loud. And, as was noted in previous posts, so many people complained that the test tones used for calibration were too loud, that systems such as Audyssey moved to a 75db test tone. Now, the use of a 75db test tone is pretty well the standard of the industry (although there may still be some older calibration systems which use an 85db test tone). And, each channel in an HT (or audio) system has a 75db test tone (or a series of them) played through it. That is the volume level of the chirps we hear when an Audyssey calibration is performed. And, each channel has its trim level set so that it will play the desired volume at the MLP when the master volume is set to Reference (0.0).

But, there is one more component to the process. The nominal average volume for Reference is 85db, not 75db. So, at the end of the calibration process, after trim levels for all satellite channels have been set to play 75db at the MLP at a master volume of 0.0, the AVR does an internal recalibration to add 10db to the volume levels. So, that if you adjust your volume level to 0.0, each channel which is capable of playing that loudly will produce a constant sound level of 85db, as measured at the MLP. (As noted by Feri, in a subsequent post, 20db are added to the .1 LFE channel, so that the LFE channel will play 95db at 0.0 MV, as measured at the MLP.)

Now, this is perfectly easy to test. People can set their volume level to 0.0 and either play some music or a movie segment (conversation, for instance) which has a relatively steady volume level. Allowing for some differences between the Audyssey mic and the SPL meter, that steady volume level should measure approximately 85db at the MLP. 

Whether every movie will necessarily have transient peak volumes of 105 and 115db is a different question, as is the question of what an actual average volume level would be for a particular movie. And, whether every channel in a given audio system can actually produce steady sustained volumes of 85db and transient peak volumes of 105db for the satellite channels, and 115db for the .1 channel, is an entirely different question from the way that AVR's and AVP's are calibrated. But, they are calibrated based on an 85db nominal average level, generally through the use of a 75db test tone, followed by an internal recalibration to 85db (95db for the LFE channel). And again, it is very easy for anyone who is curious to prove that to himself. 0.0 MV equals (approximately) 85db average volume, as measured at the MLP, on a properly calibrated system.

In actual practice, in either movie viewing or music listening, there will be broad swings in volume, from times when the sound level approaches the noise floor of the listening room, to times when dynamic peaks take the sound to very intense levels. At a setting of 0.0 MV, a system which is actually capable of producing volume levels that high will indeed play content that peaks at 105db for the satellite channel and 115db for the .1 LFE channel. But, it will all start with a calibration process which is based on a nominal average volume of 85db.

It has always been a fairly confusing subject, for everyone, which is one reason that I have tried my best to clarify it.  I hope that this more detailed explanation helps everyone who has been posting about it. Some independent research or independent testing will easily confirm the accuracy of what I am saying. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I think that the ongoing discussion about Reference is occurring due to some conflation of two separate concepts The first concept is what is Dolby or THX Reference? That one is easy, and we all agree on it. "Reference" is a volume level of 105db for satellite channels and 115db for the LFE channel, in a 5.1 movie. Those volume levels are maximums for brief transient peak volumes, typically lasting only a few seconds at a time. And, a nominal average volume of 85db is assumed as part of the Reference standard, which is -20db than the max allowance for the satellite channels and -30db for the LFE (.1) channel.


I think you've nailed that Mike.  Thanks for the explanation. So, anything above the Reference Level of 85 db SPL at MLP for satellites, or the Reference Level of 95 dB SPL at MLP for LFE will fall into an additional safety zone for sudden peaks or transients.

Here are two graphs that show the THX concept of "Reference Level" at 85 dB SPL for satellites, and at 95dB SPL for the LFE channel:

For Satellites:










For LFE:










Full article here.


----------



## mthomas47

Thanks, Feri!  And, thanks also for including something I forgot---that the AVR/AVP automatically adds 10db more to the LFE channel than it does to the satellites. I think all of this can be confusing enough even when we distinguish between Reference, as a film industry standard, and the specific way in which our HT and/or audio systems are calibrated to a known volume level at 0.0 MV. Without that distinction, it is immensely more so.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Feri!  And, thanks also for including something I forgot---that the AVR/AVP automatically adds 10db more to the LFE channel than it does to the satellites. I think all of this can be confusing enough even when we distinguish between Reference, as a film industry standard, and the specific way in which our HT and/or audio systems are calibrated to a known volume level at 0.0 MV. Without that distinction, it is immensely more so.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yeah, yeah, to tell you the truth Mike, in the past I was also referring to Reference Level as being 105/115 dB for satellites/ LFE, respectively, instead of 85/95 dB!


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I think that the ongoing discussion about Reference is occurring due to some conflation of two separate concepts. The first concept is what is Dolby or THX Reference? That one is easy, and we all agree on it. "Reference" is a volume level of 105db for satellite channels and 115db for the LFE channel, in a 5.1 movie. Those volume levels are maximums for brief transient peak volumes, typically lasting only a few seconds at a time. And, a nominal average volume of 85db is assumed as part of the Reference standard, which is -20db than the max allowance for the satellite channels and -30db for the LFE (.1) channel.
> 
> The second concept is how do AV systems calibrate satellite channels and the LFE channel to correspond to Reference? And, that is an entirely different question with an entirely different answer. Originally, an 85db test tone was used to calibrate AV systems to Reference. And, each satellite speaker in a system, and the combined output of the subwoofers in the .1 channel, would be calibrated to that 85db SPL as measured at the MLP. That use of an 85db test tone changed about 10 years ago for most calibrations systems, as explained in earlier posts and as explained again below.
> 
> But, what is Reference and how are AV systems calibrated to Reference are two entirely separate concepts, which need to be discussed separately. The first concept defines what "Reference" actually is in order to provide standardization to the movie industry. The second concept involves finding a way to calibrate AV systems so that they can play movies at some known volume level. Not every AV system can produce Reference volumes. And, not every AV system can produce Reference volumes for the full frequency range. I believe that originally the Dolby Reference standard called for the .1 channel to be able to produce 115db at 25Hz, for instance. Today, with the advances in subwoofer technology, that would be considered a fairly modest standard. But, even so, many AV systems would not be able to produce 115db at 25Hz at the MLP. And, the same thing would be true for the 105db transient peaks which the satellite channels would be required to produce at Reference volumes.
> 
> So, what Reference is as a movie standard and what an individual system can produce at the MLP are completely different. And, the way that HT systems are calibrated took that essential difference into account, by originally using the nominal average volume of 85db to calibrate to 0.0 MV, which is Reference. Trying to simplify the explanation of how the industry arrived at the calibration method that was selected, it was assumed at the time that if an AV system could handle prolonged SPL's of 85db, as measured at the MLP, it would also be able to handle brief sustained bursts 20db higher in the satellite channels and 30db higher in the .1 LFE channel.
> 
> So, an 85db test tone was originally selected and was the standard of the industry for a time. And, 0.0 MV corresponded to a steady state tone of 85db. 85db, however, is quite loud. And, as was noted in previous posts, so many people complained that the test tones used for calibration were too loud, that systems such as Audyssey moved to a 75db test tone. Now, the use of a 75db test tone is pretty well the standard of the industry (although there may still be some older calibration systems which use an 85db test tone). And, each channel in an HT (or audio) system has a 75db test tone (or a series of them) played through it. That is the volume level of the chirps we hear when an Audyssey calibration is performed. And, each channel has its trim level set so that it will play the desired volume at the MLP when the master volume is set to Reference (0.0).
> 
> But, there is one more component to the process. The nominal average volume for Reference is 85db, not 75db. So, at the end of the calibration process, after trim levels for all satellite channels have been set to play 75db at the MLP at a master volume of 0.0, the AVR does an internal recalibration to add 10db to the volume levels. So, that if you adjust your volume level to 0.0, each channel which is capable of playing that loudly will produce a constant sound level of 85db, as measured at the MLP. (As noted by Feri, in a subsequent post, 20db are added to the .1 LFE channel, so that the LFE channel will play 95db at 0.0 MV, as measured at the MLP.)
> 
> Now, this is perfectly easy to test. People can set their volume level to 0.0 and either play some music or a movie segment (conversation, for instance) which has a relatively steady volume level. Allowing for some differences between the Audyssey mic and the SPL meter, that steady volume level should measure approximately 85db at the MLP.
> 
> Whether every movie will necessarily have transient peak volumes of 105 and 115db is a different question, as is the question of what an actual average volume level would be for a particular movie. And, whether every channel in a given audio system can actually produce steady sustained volumes of 85db and transient peak volumes of 105db for the satellite channels, and 115db for the .1 channel, is an entirely different question from the way that AVR's and AVP's are calibrated. But, they are calibrated based on an 85db nominal average level, generally through the use of a 75db test tone, followed by an internal recalibration to 85db (95db for the LFE channel). And again, it is very easy for anyone who is curious to prove that to himself. 0.0 MV equals (approximately) 85db average volume, as measured at the MLP, on a properly calibrated system.
> 
> In actual practice, in either movie viewing or music listening, there will be broad swings in volume, from times when the sound level approaches the noise floor of the listening room, to times when dynamic peaks take the sound to very intense levels. At a setting of 0.0 MV, a system which is actually capable of producing volume levels that high will indeed play content that peaks at 105db for the satellite channel and 115db for the .1 LFE channel. But, it will all start with a calibration process which is based on a nominal average volume of 85db.
> 
> It has always been a fairly confusing subject, for everyone, which is one reason that I have tried my best to clarify it.  I hope that this more detailed explanation helps everyone who has been posting about it. Some independent research or independent testing will easily confirm the accuracy of what I am saying.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I am aware of the differences between mastering levels and the calibration used in the mastering studio and what Audyssey or other systems do when we calibrate our systems but my big problem with your statement that Audyssey calibrates a master volume setting of 0.0 dB to a listening level of 85 dB remains. That statement is meaningless without including a reference to the signal level required to produce 85 dB listening levels which you consistently omitted in your responses.

Also Audyssey does not calibrate to an "average level". If we're going to use your statement that it calibrates to 85 dB, it calibrates a specific -20 dB level to 85 dB. Theres no average involved in the calibration. The 85 dB level may have been chosen because someone thought it was an average but the test tone doesn't vary over a range of signal strengths and Audyssey doesn't care about averages, it just concerns itself with ensuring that your system reproduces signals of particular levels at specific listening levels, and it ensures that a -20 dB level is reproduced at 85 dB. That means that a peak signal level of 0 dB will be reproduced at 105 dB, provided of course that your speakers and AVR are jointly capable of generating 105 dB for a 0 dB signal level. A system with low sensitivity speakers and a low powered AVR may not be capable of doing so.

I think the talk of averages muddies the water because averages aren't used in the calibrations. A signal level corresponding to a listening level of 85 dB may have been chosen because someone thought it represented an average listening level but ss you said, a lot of movies do not have an average level of 85 dB. In fact, when we're talking about the average level of movie soundtracks I'd much rather see the average expressed in terms of signal level because the average level of a soundtrack can only be expressed in terms of signal level. I doubt anyone has any really accurate idea of what the average listening level for movies in the home is since most of us listen at varying levels below reference level anyway and we have no way of determining that average but it is certainly possible to determine the average level of the soundtrack signal for a given movie. One thing is certain and that is that averaging isn't involved in the calibration process, a test tone of a specific level is used and the system is calibrated to deliver a specific listening level for a tone of that strength at a master volume level of 0.0 dB. 

As I said earlier, when we say what reference level is, we have to specify both the signal level and the listening level for a specified master volume setting. All 3 values are required in order to define what reference level means. Simply saying that reference level for Audyssey is a listening level of 85 dB at a master volume setting of 0.0 dB omits a critical element, the fact that the signal level being reproduced at 85 dB at that meter volume setting is a signal level of -20 dB.


----------



## mogorf

On another (interesting) note here's how Audyssey sets the trims with the chirps as once explained by Chris K.:

"Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500 Hz-2 kHz range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL."

"For subwoofer level same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz."

Good to know, eh?


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

I recently watched John Wick: Chapter 2 BD (rental version from redbox). This had the DD 5.1 version of the soundtrack but it had incredible dynamic range. The difference between dialogue/soft ambient sounds vs. the loudest peaks was absolutely staggering. I was listening around -30MV so the dialogue level was pretty mild but the peaks were much, much louder... far more than most BD movies I watch, even the ones with Atmos or lossless audio.

Pretty sure this exception was using a nominal average well below 85dB to make the peaks really stand out. In fact, it had about 4 layers of sound (very soft, mild, moderately loud, and extremely loud).


----------



## cgpublic

*Wick Wows*



PlasmaPZ80U said:


> I recently watched John Wick: Chapter 2 BD (rental version from redbox). This had the DD 5.1 version of the soundtrack but it had incredible dynamic range. The difference between dialogue/soft ambient sounds vs. the loudest peaks was absolutely staggering. I was listening around -30MV so the dialogue level was pretty mild but the peaks were much, much louder... far more than most BD movies I watch, even the ones with Atmos or lossless audio.
> 
> Pretty sure this exception was using a nominal average well below 85dB to make the peaks really stand out. In fact, it had about 4 layers of sound (very soft, mild, moderately loud, and extremely loud).


Watched Wick 2 4K UHD last night on the system in my sig. The PQ/HDR/AQ/Atmos on this disc is wowsy; one of the best UHD I've watched to date. We can only imagine if this was a Dolby Vision disc.


----------



## garygarrison

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> I recently watched John Wick: Chapter 2 BD (rental version from redbox). This had the DD 5.1 version of the soundtrack but it had incredible dynamic range. *The difference between dialogue/soft ambient sounds vs. the loudest peaks was absolutely staggering*. I was listening around -30MV so the dialogue level was pretty mild but the peaks were much, much louder... far more than most BD movies I watch, even the ones with Atmos or lossless audio.
> 
> Pretty sure this exception was* using a nominal average well below 85dB to make the peaks really stand out*. In fact, it had about* 4 layers of sound* (*very soft, mild, moderately loud, and extremely loud*).



Did you turn your Main Volume Control up a bit, because of the dialogue/soft ambient sounds being a little softer than usual? I hope so, because that's just what the filmmakers probably wanted you to do. It's a time honored technique ... still, -30MV on an calibrated room/sound system is pretty low.

In orchestral _*music*_ as in_* film sores*_, there are often* 8 layers*, to use your term, of loudness: _*ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, *_and_* fff. *_IMO, HT sound systems and BDs should be able to handle them all, from "as soft as possible," i.e., _*ppp*_ to "very, very loud, i.e.," _*fff. *_Sometimes, the composer calls for louder passages yet. Stravinsky marks the end of the Firebird Suite _*ffff*_, which is heartening, because that means I am probably playing Fantasia 2000 at the right level. A few composers have used _*ffffff *_and louder. Sometimes the perceived loudness is affected by the speed and accenting the composer puts in the score, as in Leonard Bernstein's _*fff*_* presto barbaro*, for On the Waterfront, which means just what you'd think. The end of The Great Gate of Kiev is either _*fff or ffff *_(I forget, and it depends on the instrument) and the great gong part is marked_* sfffz*_, which means really sock it with all you've got, and hope your bones don't shake loose. With luck, the most extreme demands of orchestral music will be below about 80 Hz, and will go to the subwoofer(s), which is entitled to woof at 115 dB at reference level, which is pretty much the orchestra and pipe organ's loudest, when measured a ways out in the audience -- unless you have a true peak reading meter. I sometimes wonder if the film people made a mistake specifying 105 dB at the listening position as full scale for the regular speakers. Why not allow them to go up to 115 dB, measured from MLP, like the subs? Was this because of some kind of saturation or distortion problem with the main channels? 

For *music* or *sound effects*, but *not* *dialogue*, the middle-middle SPL (or mezzo-mezzo, if you prefer) is sometimes thought of as 85 dB at the Main Listening Position. Presumably that would be right between _*mp*_ and _*mf*_, also know as medium level. Loud would be approx. 90 to 100 dB, very loud would be about 105 or so, and very, very loud (_*fff*_) might be about 110 dB. Remember, it doesn't, or shouldn't, last very long. The infernal bass machine can play through the sub at 110 or 115 dB. I doubt if we can do _*ffff, *_without sneaking our volume above reference, which I do for the end of Fantasia 2000 (Firebird). That BD is so clean and undistorted that I haven't had complaints.

 After the dialogue starts I always reset the MVC by ear. When I have measured dialogue SPL I usually got 60 to 70 dB, running the MVC at 5 dB below reference. These dialog levels are far below the presumably "dry lab" result reported in the text of a well known calculator, which states that compared to the peaks, "normal dialog is going to be at least 85 to 90 dB." I think he is assuming that dialogue is about 15 or 20 dB below the peaks in the main channels. I think normal dialogue is more like 3o to 40 dB below peaks of 100 dB (my MVC ends up being set at about 5 dB below reference), which is what I've measured, while still getting staggering peaks in sound and music. If dialogue were only 15 or 20 dB below the peaks, either the dialogue would be much too loud, or the sound and music peaks would be way below "staggering."


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Yeah, I had turned it up about 3-5dB. And technically it was a bit above -30MV. Still dialogue was on the softer side except when the characters were yelling.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Did you turn your Main Volume Control up a bit, because of the dialogue/soft ambient sounds being a little softer than usual? I hope so, because that's just what the filmmakers probably wanted you to do. It's a time honored technique ... still, -30MV on an calibrated room/sound system is pretty low.
> 
> In orchestral _*music*_ as in_* film sores*_, there are often* 8 layers*, to use your term, of loudness: _*ppp, pp, p, mp, mf, f, ff, *_and_* fff. *_IMO, HT sound systems and BDs should be able to handle them all, from "as soft as possible," i.e., _*ppp*_ to "very, very loud, i.e.," _*fff. *_Sometimes, the composer calls for louder passages yet. Stravinsky marks the end of the Firebird Suite _*ffff*_, which is heartening, because that means I am probably playing Fantasia 2000 at the right level. A few composers have used _*ffffff *_and louder. Sometimes the perceived loudness is affected by the speed and accenting the composer puts in the score, as in Leonard Bernstein's _*fff*_* presto barbaro*, for On the Waterfront, which means just what you'd think. The end of The Great Gate of Kiev is either _*fff or ffff *_(I forget, and it depends on the instrument) and the great gong part is marked_* sfffz*_, which means really sock it with all you've got, and hope your bones don't shake loose. With luck, the most extreme demands of orchestral music will be below about 80 Hz, and will go to the subwoofer(s), which is entitled to woof at 115 dB at reference level, which is pretty much the orchestra and pipe organ's loudest, when measured a ways out in the audience -- unless you have a true peak reading meter. I sometimes wonder if the film people made a mistake specifying 105 dB at the listening position as full scale for the regular speakers. Why not allow them to go up to 115 dB, measured from MLP, like the subs? Was this because of some kind of saturation or distortion problem with the main channels?
> 
> For *music* or *sound effects*, but *not* *dialogue*, the middle-middle SPL (or mezzo-mezzo, if you prefer) is sometimes thought of as 85 dB at the Main Listening Position. Presumably that would be right between _*mp*_ and _*mf*_, also know as medium level. Loud would be approx. 90 to 100 dB, very loud would be about 105 or so, and very, very loud (_*fff*_) might be about 110 dB. Remember, it doesn't, or shouldn't, last very long. The infernal bass machine can play through the sub at 110 or 115 dB. I doubt if we can do _*ffff, *_without sneaking our volume above reference, which I do for the end of Fantasia 2000 (Firebird). That BD is so clean and undistorted that I haven't had complaints.
> 
> After the dialogue starts I always reset the MVC by ear. When I have measured dialogue SPL I usually got 60 to 70 dB, running the MVC at 5 dB below reference. These dialog levels are far below the presumably "dry lab" result reported in the text of a well known calculator, which states that compared to the peaks, "normal dialog is going to be at least 85 to 90 dB." I think he is assuming that dialogue is about 15 or 20 dB below the peaks in the main channels. I think normal dialogue is more like 3o to 40 dB below peaks of 100 dB (my MVC ends up being set at about 5 dB below reference), which is what I've measured, while still getting staggering peaks in sound and music. If dialogue were only 15 or 20 dB below the peaks, either the dialogue would be much too loud, or the sound and music peaks would be way below "staggering."


Hi Gary,

As usual, that was a very informative post. It's been quite a while since I had to remember music notations, and I enjoyed your examples. In the past, I have tried to piece together some of what went on when the Reference standard was developed. As best I can determine, there would have been several factors in play with respect to how movies were to be recorded and how they could be played back in either commercial theaters or home theaters.

From what I have read, a number of Dolby engineers and film industry insiders met to discuss developing a Reference standard for what they termed 5.1 movies. I believe that it was Harman who suggested using .1 to designate the LFE channel that they wanted to use. First, they settled on two variables: the average volume of 85db, and the maximum volume of 105db for the satellites. My understanding is that the two numbers were developed in conjunction both as an 85db up number, and as a 105db down number.

I do not believe that the average volume of 85db was ever originally tied to dialogue, although some people later took it to mean that. There were some directors and film mixers involved in the discussions, and they selected 85db as a target number for the average volume level of an entire movie. My understanding is that that average would be the average of all the low SPL moments and the high SPL moments, and the in-between moments, averaged for the length of the movie. It would be very difficult for anyone but the film mixer, measuring the SPL for an entire movie, to determine the numerical average SPL, but I do not believe that it would ever correspond to dialogue, at some particular point in a movie, except by sheerest coincidence.

Having an additional 20db above the average for the entire movie was the margin that they allowed themselves. That was the bottom up aspect of the standard. I believe that the top down aspect has something to do with what they believed was a safe listening level. I don't know whether they based the 105db on 1000Hz, or on a frequency range such as 500Hz to 2000Hz, but I believe it would have been something like that. And, I have read that there was some concern about making movie Reference dangerously loud. There have been some studies that show that people can tolerate lower frequency SPL at higher levels, without hearing damage, than they can higher frequency SPL, so I believe that was a factor in the decision to allow the LFE channel to have higher peak SPL levels than the satellite channels.

As I believe you already know, the reason to allow the LFE channel to have higher peak levels than the satellite channels has to do with the Equal Loudness Contours. Since we don't hear frequencies below about 200Hz nearly as well as we do those in the 400Hz to 4000Hz range, the frequencies in the LFE channel (exclusively playing content from about 120Hz and down) would need to play at a higher volume level than the mixed content in the satellite channels.

I have read that the LFE peak level of 115db was mathematically derived from the satellite peak of 105db, so the 105db standard definitely came first and the 115db standard second. The assembly agreed that the LFE channel should have an extra 10db above the max peak SPL level of the satellite channels. So, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, the 85db average and the 105db peak, for the satellite channels, were selected in conjunction with each other, as explained above, and the LFE peak of 115db was derived from them.

As stated earlier, It would be very difficult for the average listener to determine what the actual average level of a movie is. I think it would take some pretty sophisticated measuring equipment, combined with an ability to average durations of very soft and loud passages, to figure it out. First, I think that we would have to somehow eliminate the LFE channel to keep from skewing the average. And then, we would be averaging all of those passages from just a little above the noise floor of the room (maybe from about 35 to 45db) with those passages going all the way up to peaks of 105db, and everything in between. 

But, whatever the average for a particular movie happened to be, it would be very unlikely to correspond to the dialogue level at some random point in the movie. Again, I believe that the directors and film mixers selected 85db as an average that they thought they could work with, and not as a number that every movie would try to hit. The upper limit of 105db would have given the director and film mixer a dynamic range of about 65db above the noise floor of an average room.

It is possible, as you have noted before, that some directors may try to game the system a little. If they set dialogue levels deliberately low, they may encourage people to turn up their volumes to even higher levels. I wonder, though, since I know that many film makers are well aware that the great majority of people in home theaters already listen at below Reference levels. So, I'm not sure that the strategy would be likely to generate a very meaningful net increase in dynamic range. It might add something, I'm just not sure how much.

I agree with you that dialogue levels of 85db would be ear bleedingly loud. That's the same reason that our AVR's don't use an 85db test tone anymore. (An 85db test tone would be double the volume of the ones we use now, and they can be pretty loud until we get used to them.) Most of us set our volume level to a comfortable level for dialogue, and to a level where peak SPL is not overwhelming, and that level will measure whatever it measures at the MLP. For you, it appears that movies played back at about -5 MV, yield normal dialogue levels of about 60db to 70db. And, that sounds about right. My own dialogue levels would measure just a little lower than that, but not a great deal so. And, a lot would depend on the particular movie.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> [/FONT] After the dialogue starts I always reset the MVC by ear. When I have measured dialogue SPL I usually got 60 to 70 dB, running the MVC at 5 dB below reference. These dialog levels are far below the presumably "dry lab" result reported in the text of a well known calculator, which states that compared to the peaks, "normal dialog is going to be at least 85 to 90 dB." I think he is assuming that dialogue is about 15 or 20 dB below the peaks in the main channels. I think normal dialogue is more like 3o to 40 dB below peaks of 100 dB (my MVC ends up being set at about 5 dB below reference), which is what I've measured, while still getting staggering peaks in sound and music. If dialogue were only 15 or 20 dB below the peaks, either the dialogue would be much too loud, or the sound and music peaks would be way below "staggering."


Speech in normal life is generally regarded as being around 65-70 dB or so and background noise levels of 65 dB or so start to impact on our ability to understand what people are saying.


----------



## garygarrison

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> *Yeah, I had turned it up about 3-5dB*. And technically it was a bit above -30MV.* Still dialogue was on the softer side except when the characters were yelling*.


... And with dialog *still* "on the softer side" compared to your usual, *even though* you had turned up MV about 3 to 5 dB, it's conceivable that the filmmakers allowed themselves more headroom for peaks of 3 to 5 dB *plus* the number of dB by which the dialogue was still soft. That could do the trick.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

garygarrison said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, I had turned it up about 3-5dB*. And technically it was a bit above -30MV.* Still dialogue was on the softer side except when the characters were yelling*.
> 
> 
> 
> ... And with dialog *still* "on the softer side" compared to your usual, *even though* you had turned up MV about 3 to 5 dB, it's conceivable that the filmmakers allowed themselves more headroom for peaks of 3 to 5 dB *plus* the number of dB by which the dialogue was still soft. That could do the trick.
Click to expand...

Probably; I'm still struggling to understand the significance of the 85dB/95dB nominal average relative to the 105dB/115dB peaks (speakers/LFE). Mainly because as mentioned above it is an average, not the dialogue or any other particular component's actual levels. As least it's significance to the end user...


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

David Aiken said:


> garygarrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> After the dialogue starts I always reset the MVC by ear. When I have measured dialogue SPL I usually got 60 to 70 dB, running the MVC at 5 dB below reference. These dialog levels are far below the presumably "dry lab" result reported in the text of a well known calculator, which states that compared to the peaks, "normal dialog is going to be at least 85 to 90 dB." I think he is assuming that dialogue is about 15 or 20 dB below the peaks in the main channels. I think normal dialogue is more like 3o to 40 dB below peaks of 100 dB (my MVC ends up being set at about 5 dB below reference), which is what I've measured, while still getting staggering peaks in sound and music. If dialogue were only 15 or 20 dB below the peaks, either the dialogue would be much too loud, or the sound and music peaks would be way below "staggering."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speech in normal life is generally regarded as being around 65-70 dB or so and background noise levels of 65 dB or so start to impact on our ability to understand what people are saying.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't like highly compressed content where if you want loud enough peaks the dialogue level seems unnaturally loud (relatively speaking).


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> As usual, that was a very informative post. It's been quite a while since I had to remember music notations, and I enjoyed your examples. In the past, I have tried to piece together some of what went on when the Reference standard was developed. As best I can determine, there would have been several factors in play with respect to how movies were to be recorded and how they could be played back in either commercial theaters or home theaters.
> 
> From what I have read, a number of Dolby engineers and film industry insiders met to discuss developing a Reference standard for what they termed 5.1 movies.* I believe that it was Harman who suggested using .1 to designate the LFE* *channel *that they wanted to use. First, they settled on two variables: the average volume of 85db, and the maximum volume of 105db for the satellites. My understanding is that the two numbers were developed in conjunction both as an 85db up number, and as a 105db down number. ...
> 
> *I do not believe that the average volume of 85db was ever originally tied to dialogue*, although some people later took it to mean that ... There were some directors and film mixers involved in the discussions, and they selected 85db as a target number for the average volume level of an entire movie ... *but I do not believe that it would ever correspond to dialogue, at some particular point in a movie, except by sheerest coincidence.*
> 
> Having an additional 20db above the average for the entire movie was the margin that they allowed themselves. That was the bottom up aspect of the standard. I believe that the top down aspect has something to do with what they believed was a safe listening level. I don't know whether they based the 105db on 1000Hz, or on a frequency range such as 500Hz to 2000Hz, but I believe it would have been something like that. And, I have read that there was some concern about making movie Reference dangerously loud. There have been some studies that show that people can tolerate lower frequency SPL at higher levels, without hearing damage, than they can higher frequency SPL, soI believe that was a factor in the decision to allow the LFE channel to have higher peak SPL levels than the satellite channels.
> 
> As I believe you already know, the reason to allow the LFE channel to have higher peak levels than the satellite channels has to do with the Equal Loudness Contours. Since we don't hear frequencies below about 200Hz nearly as well as we do those in the 400Hz to 4000Hz range, the frequencies in the LFE channel (exclusively playing content from about 120Hz and down) would need to play at a higher volume level than the mixed content in the satellite channels. ...
> 
> 
> 
> *But, whatever the average for a particular movie happened to be, it would be very unlikely to correspond to the dialogue level at some random point in the movie.* Again, I believe that the directors and film mixers selected 85db as* an average that they thought they could work with,* and not as a number that every movie would try to hit. The upper limit of 105db would have given the director and film mixer a dynamic range of about 65db above the noise floor of an average room.
> 
> It is possible, as you have noted before, that some directors may try to game the system a little. If they set dialogue levels deliberately low, they may encourage people to turn up their volumes to even higher levels. I wonder, though, since I know that many film makers are well aware that the great majority of people in home theaters already listen at below Reference levels. So, I'm not sure that the strategy would be likely to generate a very meaningful net increase in dynamic range. It might add something, I'm just not sure how much.
> 
> I agree with you that dialogue levels of 85db would be ear bleedingly loud. That's the same reason that our AVR's don't use an 85db test tone anymore. (An 85db test tone would be double the volume of the ones we use now, and they can be pretty loud until we get used to them.)Most of us set our volume level to a comfortable level for dialogue, and to a level where peak SPL is not overwhelming, and that level will measure whatever it measures at the MLP. For you, it appears that movies played back at about -5 MV, yield normal dialogue levels of about 60db to 70db. And, that sounds about right. My own dialogue levels would measure just a little lower than that, but not a great deal so. And, a lot would depend on the particular movie.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Thanks for the information. 

I thought it was Tomlinson Holman who suggested using *.*1 to designate the LFE channel. I think he was sitting in a group of people, probably at the convocation you mentioned, and spoke from the floor, "why not call it *.*1?" I think I read that in a chatty history somewhere. Naturally, I could be wrong. 

I agree the 85 dB level was probably never tied to dialog, and it would have been a mistake if it ever was. 

The reason I usually readjust the MV to make the dialog natural and realistic, is that I'm assuming that natural and realistic is the subjective level they mix it to, and the louder and softer parts of the movie will therefore be where the filmmakers want them to be. Most times, the dialog is fine (60 to 70 dB) at my usual setting of 5 dB below reference, but some movies -- including those in which filmmakers try to game the system -- need the readjustment. I would think that in movies like 
John Wick: Chapter 2 (haven't seen it) the lower dialog level would encourage people to turn it up by a few dB, just as PlasmaPZ80U did (sorry, Plasma, I don't know your real name. I feel like I've just called someone THX1138). BTW, people on at least one other forum are talking about Wick:2's incredible dynamics.

The only reason I brought up 85 dB in the same breath as dialogue, is that the guy who wrote that online calculator _erroneously_ (IMO) assumed that the maximum output of a sound system strongly influenced the level at which it would be played, and dictated dialogue playback level.  "Most moderate HT systems are capable of 102 to 107 dB peaks at a decent (10+ feet) listening position, at these peak levels the normal dialog is going to be at least 85-90dB, within the range where permanent hearing loss can occur."  Elephant feathers!

I agree that they probably selected average and peak levels they could work with ... especially if they could game the system.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks for the information.
> 
> I thought it was Tomlinson Holman who suggested using *.*1 to designate the LFE channel. I think he was sitting a group of people, probably at the convocation you mentioned, and spoke from the floor, "why not call it *.*1?" I think I read that in a chatty history somewhere. Naturally, I could be wrong.
> 
> I agree the 85 dB level was probably never tied to dialog, and it would have been a mistake if it ever was.
> 
> The reason I usually readjust the MV to make the dialog natural and realistic, is that I'm assuming that natural and realistic is the subjective level they mix it to, and the louder and softer parts of the movie will therefore be where the filmmakers want them to be. Most times, the dialog is fine (60 to 70 dB) at my usual setting of 5 dB below reference, but some movies -- including those in which filmmakers try to game the system -- need the readjustment. I would think that in movies like
> John Wick: Chapter 2 (haven't seen it) the lower dialog level would encourage people to turn it up by a few dB, just as PlasmaPZ80U did (sorry, Plasma, I don't know your real name. I feel like I've just called someone THX1138). BTW, people on at least one other forum are talking about Wick:2's incredible dynamics.
> 
> The only reason I brought up 85 dB in the same breath as dialogue, is that the guy who wrote that online calculator _erroneously_ (IMO) assumed that the maximum output of a sound system strongly influenced the level at which it would be played, and dictated dialogue playback level.  "Most moderate HT systems are capable of 102 to 107 dB peaks at a decent (10+ feet) listening position, at these peak levels the normal dialog is going to be at least 85-90dB, within the range where permanent hearing loss can occur."  Elephant feathers!
> 
> I agree that they probably selected average and peak levels they could work with ... especially if they could game the system.


Hi Gary,

You are absolutely right! Holman, not Harman.  It's probably not the first time I have mixed up the names. I have seen that on-line calculator, and have also seen others refer to average dialogue levels as corresponding to 85db. I knew that you knew better, as we have discussed dialogue before, but I wanted to write something a little more comprehensive about those relationships and your post was an excellent segue.

I had thought about extending what I wrote to address a broader discussion of Reference with respect to our home theater systems. Other threads have discussed the difficulty of ever listening at "Reference" in some sort of absolute terms, and we have touched on it in this thread at times. But, I thought that it would only make the things I was saying a little more confusing, so I will save that for another occasion. I find the whole topic extremely interesting.

We probably all address natural sounding dialogue, and dialogue intelligibility, in slightly different ways. For instance, if film mixers reduce dialogue levels in a movie, I may turn up just the center channel volume to compensate, rather than increasing the overall listening level. That is particularly the case if the dynamic peaks are still hitting 105db, because I want to balance natural and intelligible dialogue with peak volumes that are not uncomfortably loud for me. I do like more ULF and the tactile sensations which accompany it than many others seem to, though, so I am nearly always at or above 115db for the LFE channel.

One other technique which I have experimented with in the past, to make dialogue stand out more from the ambient sounds, is to slightly increase the distance setting on the center channel. That will make sounds from the CC arrive imperceptibly sooner than other sounds, and since our brains tend to pay more attention to first arriving sounds, that may make voices stand out a little more. Of course, some ambient noise is also baked into the CC, so none of these measures is foolproof. But, I have experimented with the distance setting again recently with some success. The film mixers game the system, and we game the film mixers. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

^^^

Gary and Mike.

I suspect there may be a common misunderstanding about just what "average levels" means given that we're dealing with decibels which are values utilising a logarithmic scale. We're all used to arithmetic averages where you get the average by adding the different values and dividing by the number of items, so the average of 2,3 and 4 is 2 +3 +4 divided by 3 and equals 3. You can't average dB levels that way. Somewhere back in one of my text books is a description of the method for averaging sound pressure levels and it's quite complex, plus you have to take into account time at each level.

It would be easy for someone mastering a soundtrack to master the dialogue so that it was at -20 dB in soundtrack level terms in the final soundtrack so that it would play back at 85 dB SPL at reference level but I think it would be pretty impossible to deliberately master the soundtrack so that the dialogue level was also the average level of the soundtrack. I suspect a computer program could do it but the result would be unlikely to work for every scene and after the engineer had tweaked the levels the computer set to levels that worked better, the average would have changed.

In any event, the average level is going to depend massively on the type of movie. An action movie with lots of booms, bangs, noisy scenes like high speed car chases with engine sounds pumped up and so on, is going to have a higher average level than a drama with a soundtrack comprised of speech, some environmental sounds, and a background music track that doesn't include loud, surging, dramatic highpoints but even though the average soundtrack levels are going to be very different you aren't going to want the speech reproduced at a much higher level in the drama than you are in the action movie, and that's what's going to happen if you mix both soundtracks to the same average level.

Even if voice levels are mixed at a level that gets reproduced at higher than 65-70 dB or so, they're probably never going to get mixed to be reproduced at levels of 85 dB or so because we would perceive the actors to be shouting their lines which would jar strongly with the way they appeared to be communicating on screen.


----------



## jmbgator

kbarnes701 said:


> Again you shouldn’t need it if you are running XT32 and Dynamic EQ. It attempts to boost the bass as the volume is reduced, to compensate for the way human hearing works. But so does XT32 and it does it better.


If my AVR only supports MultEQ, should I also leave 'Loudness Management' off? I currently have Dynamic EQ turned 'On' and turn Dynamic Volume 'On' whenever I need to not bother my family, otherwise its off.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ^^^
> 
> Gary and Mike.
> 
> I suspect there may be a common misunderstanding about just what "average levels" means given that we're dealing with decibels which are values utilising a logarithmic scale. We're all used to arithmetic averages where you get the average by adding the different values and dividing by the number of items, so the average of 2,3 and 4 is 2 +3 +4 divided by 3 and equals 3.* You can't average dB levels that way.* Somewhere back in one of my text books is a description of the method for averaging sound pressure levels and it's quite complex, plus *you have to take into account time at each level*.
> .


Would some other term work, like typical level, medium level, central value, central tendency, median value, modal value? One of the first 4 might work if we are speaking subjectively and approximately (?) Do we have a source that says what Dolby and THX meant by "average?"

Moving on.

If we had two values, *40 dB* (e.g., HT noise floor, or the softest ambient sounds pumped through the surround channels) and *105 dB* (loudest sound through a main speaker) the *CESVA* calculator for* averaging dBs* gives us *102 dB *which is much higher than the arithmetic average (mean) of* 72.5 dB*. Oddly, the arithmetic average intuitively seems more like what I would mean (no pun) if I casually and subjectively talked about a "medium level." As far as I can see, the *CESVA *calculator *doesn't take time into account*. https://www.cesva.com/en/support/db-calculator/

This is from http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/manipula.htm

"Suppose that the 4 different measurements of the sound pressure level at a particular location are 96dB, l00dB, 90dB, and 97dB, then the average sound pressure level is given by : 
 _Lp_= 10 log10 [(1/4) (109.6 + 1010 + 109 + 109.7)]

= 97dB


[Or, if you like something a little more byzantine]*:* 

 " ... the* time average decibel level*, Lp, is given by :








​

.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Would some other term work, like typical level, medium level, central value, central tendency, median value, modal value? One of the first 4 might work if we are speaking subjectively and approximately (?) Do we have a source that says what Dolby and THX meant by "average?"
> 
> Moving on.
> 
> If we had two values, *40 dB* (e.g., HT noise floor, or the softest ambient sounds pumped through the surround channels) and *105 dB* (loudest sound through a main speaker) the *CESVA* calculator for* averaging dBs* gives us *102 dB *which is much higher than the arithmetic average (mean) of* 72.5 dB*. Oddly, the arithmetic average intuitively seems more like what I would mean (no pun) if I casually and subjectively talked about a "medium level." As far as I can see, the *CESVA *calculator *doesn't take time into account*. https://www.cesva.com/en/support/db-calculator/
> 
> This is from http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/manipula.htm
> 
> "Suppose that the 4 different measurements of the sound pressure level at a particular location are 96dB, l00dB, 90dB, and 97dB, then the average sound pressure level is given by :
> _Lp_= 10 log10 [(1/4) (109.6 + 1010 + 109 + 109.7)]
> 
> = 97dB
> 
> 
> [Or, if you like something a little more byzantine]*:*
> 
> " ... the* time average decibel level*, Lp, is given by :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> .



Hi Gary,

It is my belief that time is a factor in calculating the average SPL of a particular film. And, I strongly suspect that film mixers work with an algorithm which can automatically calculate an average based on the number of 105db peaks, and 95db moments, and 70db dialogue moments, and whispers, and quiet noise floor moments, and everything else. The only way that the average could be meaningful would be for the duration of the movie. And, that interpretation is consistent with what I have read about the original intent of the Reference standard.

The 85db average was never tied to a particular moment in a movie, anymore than it was tied to dialogue. It was always an average for the volume levels of the movie considered as a whole, with their quiet moments and their up to 105db peaks for the satellites. And, it's just a conceptual standard, not a requirement. So, some films might be recorded at a somewhat lower or higher "average" level and no one but the film mixer would know exactly what that average was. In the same way, not all films will necessarily have peaks of 105db for the satellites and 115db for the LFE channel. As I think you and I both understand, those are upper limits, not mandatory requirements for 5.1 movies.

But, the 85db average (which I have at times termed a nominal average) and the upper limits of 105/115 do provide some degree of rigor to 5.1 movies, which in their absence, would have none. And, the 85db average does provide a means for calibrating home theater systems to a Reference level. Without the 85db average as an industry standard, I believe it would be very hard to do so.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> Would some other term work, like typical level, medium level, central value, central tendency, median value, modal value? One of the first 4 might work if we are speaking subjectively and approximately (?) Do we have a source that says what Dolby and THX meant by "average?"
> 
> Moving on.
> 
> If we had two values, *40 dB* (e.g., HT noise floor, or the softest ambient sounds pumped through the surround channels) and *105 dB* (loudest sound through a main speaker) the *CESVA* calculator for* averaging dBs* gives us *102 dB *which is much higher than the arithmetic average (mean) of* 72.5 dB*. Oddly, the arithmetic average intuitively seems more like what I would mean (no pun) if I casually and subjectively talked about a "medium level." As far as I can see, the *CESVA *calculator *doesn't take time into account*. https://www.cesva.com/en/support/db-calculator/
> 
> This is from http://personal.cityu.edu.hk/~bsapplec/manipula.htm
> 
> "Suppose that the 4 different measurements of the sound pressure level at a particular location are 96dB, l00dB, 90dB, and 97dB, then the average sound pressure level is given by :
> _Lp_= 10 log10 [(1/4) (109.6 + 1010 + 109 + 109.7)]
> 
> = 97dB
> 
> 
> [Or, if you like something a little more byzantine]*:*
> 
> " ... the* time average decibel level*, Lp, is given by :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> .


Gary,

I said that averaging dB levels got messy  Do we want an average like your first calculation which just considers levels and not times, or do we want a time weighted average for something like a movie soundtrack? My feeling is that I'd opt for the time weighted average and the easiest way to do that is to use a meter with an averaging function like the ones used for hearing protection purposes. Otherwise we've got the problem of what SPLs you choose to average if you're only going to use a couple of levels because that leads to the problem in your example where the average of 40 dB and 105 dB is 72.5 dB because I'd be prepared to bet that very little of any soundtrack is actually down around the noise floor level and a more realistic minimum level would probably be based on _pp_ type levels rather than _ppp_ type levels, and they're probably going to be closer to 50 dB in level than 40 dB.

I don't think I've ever seen anything which indicates what Dolby and THX mean by "average". They would certainly have the equipment to do a time weighted average of a soundtrack but that doesn't mean that the time weighted average is what they mean by average. They could even mean something working into which 15-20 dB range that more than half the movie utilises and taking the median point of that range which would probably lean towards the time weighted average but wouldn't match it precisely. "Average" is such a delightfully vague term in many situations, especially when used with no indication of the overall range of values being averaged and whether some kind of weighting is or isn't being applied.

In any event, does the term "average level" have any practical value for us when we're using our systems? We don't calibrate our systems to an average value, we calibrate to a test tone with a specific value. It doesn't matter whether the level of the tone we calibrate to was chosen because someone thought it was an average level, we're still going to get 105 dB peaks at the loudest moments if we're listening at reference level, most of us listen at lower than reference level, and we set our listening level based on things like do the voices sound OK and can we make easily understand what's being said. We may turn things up a bit from there if the peaks aren't loud enough for us and we may engage a bit of dynamic compression if the peaks are too loud for us, but I think the reason why firms like Audyssey choose to use an 85 dB level for calibration really is irrelevant to us in practice. What we care about are things like is the dialogue loud enough for us to understand clearly without it being too loud, are the booms loud enough in action movies (if we watch that sort of movie) to sound impressive, and whether the bass levels are loud enough to give us whatever we're chasing bass for, whether that be a punch in the chest sensation or a sense of real depth to the bass or both.


----------



## sk280

Hello All,

I'm in Australia and I have Marantz NR1504 and have lost the Audyssey mic. I read the mic compatible for this model is ACM1HB.

I have an old Denon 591 unit with a mic DM-A409 mic. This mic however is not recognised by the Marantz NR1504.

Then I tried MIC-5000 from an older Onkyo Multi EQ XT which the Marantz recognises but sets all speakers to -12 DB and also says the Phase is set incorrectly. The phase however is set correctly.

I've also read DM-A409 mic is supposed to be compatible with Marantz ACM1HB. Is this true?

In short, how do I rule out if its a problem with the unit or incompatible mic?

If I were to get a ACM1HB mic, will this be compatible?

I'd really appreciate if anyone could help. Thanks in advance.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

As I said earlier, I don't think the 85dB average figure matters to the typical end user. The peaks (full scale) do as you know the maximum spl you can get for a given MV.

Anyhow, I have a more pressing matter to ask about. In my current 5.1 setup I have a bare bones Yamaha AVR that has YPAO that auto peq's the speakers and a MiniDSP for sub PEQ. The YPAO auto PEQ for speakers caused irritation/listening fatigue when on even though I don't hear anything badly distorted/grating/harsh, etc. It is a single measure version of YPAO, probably on par with Audyssey 2EQ or worse. Despite using best practices for mic placement and measurement, I never prefer using this auto PEQ vs not.

Now as for the sub PEQ with REW/MiniDSP I like it a lot as long as no boost filters are used. If even a little boost is used, I get listening fatigue and irritation in my ears despite no obvious bad noises and no headroom/distortion issues by the numbers. I suspect the added ringing of the boost filters plus the existing ringing in my small, square untreated room is why. It is 12 by 12 by 8 feet high (1150 cubic feet).

So, what I'm worried about is what if boost eq of any kind irritates/fatigues my ears... does that mean even Audyssey XT32 could have that issue for me? Or would my current issues be tied to simple PEQ/single measure position/lesser processing power for room correction/etc?


----------



## mthomas47

sk280 said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I'm in Australia and I have Marantz NR1504 and have lost the Audyssey mic. I read the mic compatible for this model is ACM1HB.
> 
> I have an old Denon 591 unit with a mic DM-A409 mic. This mic however is not recognised by the Marantz NR1504.
> 
> Then I tried MIC-5000 from an older Onkyo Multi EQ XT which the Marantz recognises but sets all speakers to -12 DB and also says the Phase is set incorrectly. The phase however is set correctly.
> 
> I've also read DM-A409 mic is supposed to be compatible with Marantz ACM1HB. Is this true?
> 
> In short, how do I rule out if its a problem with the unit or incompatible mic?
> 
> If I were to get a ACM1HB mic, will this be compatible?
> 
> I'd really appreciate if anyone could help. Thanks in advance.


Hi,

In theory, the ACM1HB and the DM-A409 mics are compatible. I double-checked that in the FAQ. But, if your Marantz doesn't recognize the DM-A409 you tried, then that may not be the case in all instances. You can try a microprocessor reset on your Marantz and then try the Denon mic again to see if that helps. But, otherwise, I would recommend just buying an ACM1HB replacement mic from an authorized source. I know that Amazon has them.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> As I said earlier, I don't think the 85dB average figure matters to the typical end user. The peaks (full scale) do as you know the maximum spl you can get for a given MV.
> 
> Anyhow, I have a more pressing matter to ask about. In my current 5.1 setup I have a bare bones Yamaha AVR that has YPAO that auto peq's the speakers and a MiniDSP for sub PEQ. The YPAO auto PEQ for speakers caused irritation/listening fatigue when on even though I don't hear anything badly distorted/grating/harsh, etc. It is a single measure version of YPAO, probably on par with Audyssey 2EQ or worse. Despite using best practices for mic placement and measurement, I never prefer using this auto PEQ vs not.
> 
> Now as for the sub PEQ with REW/MiniDSP I like it a lot as long as no boost filters are used. If even a little boost is used, I get listening fatigue and irritation in my ears despite no obvious bad noises and no headroom/distortion issues by the numbers. I suspect the added ringing of the boost filters plus the existing ringing in my small, square untreated room is why. It is 12 by 12 by 8 feet high (1150 cubic feet).
> 
> So, what I'm worried about is what if boost eq of any kind irritates/fatigues my ears... does that mean even Audyssey XT32 could have that issue for me? Or would my current issues be tied to simple PEQ/single measure position/lesser processing power for room correction/etc?


Hi,

That's a good question, but I don't know the answer. I do know that XT-32 is not a panacea. If you are, as you speculate, particularly susceptible to hearing distortion, then I think that your best course of action would be to try to reduce ringing (also sometimes called slap echo) in your room. And, I believe that those effects can go all the way down to about 50 to 70Hz.

I like XT-32 very much and it has always been helpful to me in my room. But, by far my biggest audio improvements have come from reducing ringing in my room, via both bass traps and other acoustical treatments. Others have speculated in the past that a small room with hard surfaces is a perfect storm for any sort of room correction. If you can soften your room a bit, you may be in a better position to enjoy the benefits of room correction, and better overall audio quality as well.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said earlier, I don't think the 85dB average figure matters to the typical end user. The peaks (full scale) do as you know the maximum spl you can get for a given MV.
> 
> Anyhow, I have a more pressing matter to ask about. In my current 5.1 setup I have a bare bones Yamaha AVR that has YPAO that auto peq's the speakers and a MiniDSP for sub PEQ. The YPAO auto PEQ for speakers caused irritation/listening fatigue when on even though I don't hear anything badly distorted/grating/harsh, etc. It is a single measure version of YPAO, probably on par with Audyssey 2EQ or worse. Despite using best practices for mic placement and measurement, I never prefer using this auto PEQ vs not.
> 
> Now as for the sub PEQ with REW/MiniDSP I like it a lot as long as no boost filters are used. If even a little boost is used, I get listening fatigue and irritation in my ears despite no obvious bad noises and no headroom/distortion issues by the numbers. I suspect the added ringing of the boost filters plus the existing ringing in my small, square untreated room is why. It is 12 by 12 by 8 feet high (1150 cubic feet).
> 
> So, what I'm worried about is what if boost eq of any kind irritates/fatigues my ears... does that mean even Audyssey XT32 could have that issue for me? Or would my current issues be tied to simple PEQ/single measure position/lesser processing power for room correction/etc?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> That's a good question, but I don't know the answer. I do know that XT-32 is not a panacea. If you are, as you speculate, particularly susceptible to hearing distortion, then I think that your best course of action would be to try to reduce ringing (also sometimes called slap echo) in your room. And, I believe that those effects can go all the way down to about 50 to 70Hz.
> 
> I like XT-32 very much and it has always been helpful to me in my room. But, by far my biggest audio improvements have come from reducing ringing in my room, via both bass traps and other acoustical treatments. Others have speculated in the past that a small room with hard surfaces is a perfect storm for any sort of room correction. If you can soften your room a bit, you may be in a better position to enjoy the benefits of room correction, and better overall audio quality as well.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was worried about that because given that my listening room is also a bedroom, passive room treatments are not really an option at this time.

To your knowledge are there any room correction systems that can be set to avoid any boost EQ? I know that advanced versions of YPAO (RSC and multipoint measurement) let you tweak the PEQ filters after running YPAO but I still believe some FIR taps are applied before the PEQ (part of reflected sound control), which is not adjustable.

I really want Audyssey XT32 to work for me but maybe I should have a backup plan in case it doesn't. I know a $1K AVR should have many other features and SQ benefits too, but I'm mainly getting one for superior room correction to what I have now.


----------



## mthomas47

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Thanks, I was worried about that because given that my listening room is also a bedroom, passive room treatments are not really an option at this time.
> 
> To your knowledge are there any room correction systems that can be set to avoid any boost EQ? I know that advanced versions of YPAO (RSC and multipoint measurement) let you tweak the PEQ filters after running YPAO but I still believe some FIR taps are applied before the PEQ (part of reflected sound control), which is not adjustable.
> 
> I really want Audyssey XT32 to work for me but maybe I should have a backup plan in case it doesn't. I know a $1K AVR should have many other features and SQ benefits too, but I'm mainly getting one for superior room correction to what I have now.


You are welcome! As far as I know, by definition, any system of room correction would involve both potential boosts and potential cuts at various frequencies. You may be able to control the frequencies which are affected to some extent with Dirac, or with the new Audyssey app, but there would still be some potential boosts.

I remember seeing some photos of your bedroom, so I understand your problem with respect to room treatments, but I might still investigate some broadband traps or panels, or try to add some more softening influences in the form of wall hangings. When you do buy a new AVR, I would make sure that you have a trial period, perhaps from Best Buy or someplace like that. That will give you an opportunity to investigate what XT-32 can do for you over a period of a couple of weeks or so. If it works, great. If not, then as you say, maybe it's not worth the additional investment.

I do think you will have to try it, though, to be sure. Speculation can only take us so far with this sort of thing, and it's likely that there will be some trade-offs---perhaps more of something you do like, combined with more of something that you don't. And then, you will need some time to explore workarounds (in the form of settings, for instance) and to decide where you are willing to compromise. In my opinion, it can take a lot of time and effort to develop a really superior listening space, and superior sound quality, even if you start with a pretty good room. And, there are bound to be some compromises along the way.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

mthomas47 said:


> PlasmaPZ80U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, I was worried about that because given that my listening room is also a bedroom, passive room treatments are not really an option at this time.
> 
> To your knowledge are there any room correction systems that can be set to avoid any boost EQ? I know that advanced versions of YPAO (RSC and multipoint measurement) let you tweak the PEQ filters after running YPAO but I still believe some FIR taps are applied before the PEQ (part of reflected sound control), which is not adjustable.
> 
> I really want Audyssey XT32 to work for me but maybe I should have a backup plan in case it doesn't. I know a $1K AVR should have many other features and SQ benefits too, but I'm mainly getting one for superior room correction to what I have now.
> 
> 
> 
> You are welcome! As far as I know, by definition, any system of room correction would involve both potential boosts and potential cuts at various frequencies. You may be able to control the frequencies which are affected to some extent with Dirac, or with the new Audyssey app, but there would still be some potential boosts.
> 
> I remember seeing some photos of your bedroom, so I understand your problem with respect to room treatments, but I might still investigate some broadband traps or panels, or try to add some more softening influences in the form of wall hangings. When you do buy a new AVR, I would make sure that you have a trial period, perhaps from Best Buy or someplace like that. That will give you an opportunity to investigate what XT-32 can do for you over a period of a couple of weeks or so. If it works, great. If not, then as you say, maybe it's not worth the additional investment.
> 
> I do think you will have to try it, though, to be sure. Speculation can only take us so far with this sort of thing, and it's likely that there will be some trade-offs---perhaps more of something you do like, combined with more of something that you don't. And then, you will need some time to explore workarounds (in the form of settings, for instance) and to decide where you are willing to compromise. In my opinion, it can take a lot of time and effort to develop a really superior listening space, and superior sound quality, even if you start with a pretty good room. And, there are bound to be some compromises along the way.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

I'm thinking I'll try an AVR with Audyssey XT32 to start (around September-October) and if after trying various different mic placements/measuring techniques and playing with various settings including Audyssey app I still don't prefer Audyssey to off, then I will look into a similar priced Yamaha, etc. Some of those room correction softwares can let you manually tweak the PEQ filters after auto setup. So, I could set any boost filters to zero gain. However, such a software may not help much in the bass region, which is where my system could use the most help.


----------



## mthomas47

*Reference Levels*

I need to eat some crow on the issue of 85db average volume levels! 

I wanted to be sure that I was putting out correct information regarding how movies are recorded/measured with respect to an average volume level, so I consulted a respected film mixer who posts on the forum. You have seen some of his movies, and his user name is FilmMixer. His answer surprised me. Here is my original question, via PM, and his response:

_"Hi,

We have had some discussion on the Audyssey thread lately about Reference. I realize that it's a very complicated topic, but thought I would ask you to try to clarify one aspect of it for me. How do film mixers calculate the average volume level of a movie? Is there some sort of algorithm which averages the SPL levels for the full duration of the movie---averaging longer soft or medium volumes, with briefer peak level volumes, to arrive at an overall average? Or is some other method employed? I am not concerned with trying to duplicate that measurement process, I am just curious about what kind of process is used.

I assume that not every movie will average exactly 85db, regardless of what averaging process is used, and that's fine too. I expect that some movies will be recorded a little softer, or a little louder, based on the director and film mixer's strategic objectives, just as I assume that not all movies will necessarily try to reach peak volumes of 105db and 115db. Are those assumptions correct?

Thanks for the help!

Regards,
Mike"
_

_"Hello Mike. 

There is no averaging. 

85db SPL only refers to the calibrated standardized levels of the rooms. 

So yes. Every film is different. I have a certain place where I like the dialog to sit, so I mix it that way and set the tone for any given film. Comedies are usually quieter and action films obviously louder. There is no one absolute. 

We don't measure loudness on films. 

TV has specs that must be adhered to or the mix will be rejected. There are tools that measure in real time to give you both average and peak values. There are also tools available to get the content in spec if need by. I'm talking about audio workstation plug ins. 

Let me know if I can answer anything else "


_The fact that all audio systems calibrate a master volume of 0.0 to that standard 85db level is still an important concept. That would be true for Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, Anthem, McIntosh, etc. But, that is simply to maintain consistency of playback for 5.1 movies and TV shows. Apparently, it really doesn't correspond to any average volume levels in the movie. And, movies may or may not have 105db peaks for the satellite channels and 115db peaks for the LFE channel, but if they do and if our systems are capable of playing them, we will hear those peaks at 0.0 MV once our systems are calibrated to the 85db standard.

I thought that all of this was worth passing along for those who may read these pages in the future, as well as for those who have been posting on the subject.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sk280

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> In theory, the ACM1HB and the DM-A409 mics are compatible. I double-checked that in the FAQ. But, if your Marantz doesn't recognize the DM-A409 you tried, then that may not be the case in all instances. You can try a microprocessor reset on your Marantz and then try the Denon mic again to see if that helps. But, otherwise, I would recommend just buying an ACM1HB replacement mic from an authorized source. I know that Amazon has them.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for your reply Mike. Yes my DM-A409 is a mic from an older model. I've read there are 2 versions of DM-A409 and the older version might not be compatible with the newer models.

I called the authorized sales centre here in Australia and they quoted $82 AUD shipped, Ouch (

If any Aussies reading this forum would let me borrow for a day so I can confirm the unit working, I'll be much appreciated.

Thanks again Mike.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I need to eat some crow on the issue of 85db average volume levels! /
> ... I consulted a respected film mixer who posts on the forum. You have seen some of his movies, and his user name is FilmMixer. His answer surprised me ...
> 
> _"Hello Mike.
> 
> There is no averaging.
> 
> 85db SPL only refers to the calibrated standardized levels of the rooms ...
> 
> ... I have a certain place where I like the dialog to sit, so I mix it that way and set the tone for any given film. Comedies are usually quieter and action films obviously louder ... _


Hi Mike,

As I recall, crow tastes a lot like chicken ... 

Thanks for contacting FilmMixer and getting back to us.

I'm assuming that they all have a certain place they like the dialog to sit that varies a little with the individual mixer and the film. I guess they place a big explosion or a section of music marked *fff *or greater right up against 105/115, but it may involve some trial and error, while listening for distortion. In recording music on full coat 35mm magnetic film, Bob and Wilma Fine wanted the absolute maximum dynamic range, so they asked the orchestra to play the loudest passage, while adjusting the sliders to loudest level that didn't produce objectionable distortion, and used that slider position for the whole recording. It wasn't quite as simple as that, but that's the gist.


----------



## pbz06

Hello,

I just bought some Definitive Technology 9060s for the front and 9040s for surround (they are all bipole). I'm running them with an HSU sub and a Marantz sr7011 that came with Audyssey xt32. My question is regarding the Audyssey, so I'm not sure if I should ask here or in the speaker thread.

I hooked up the fronts with only speaker wire and not the built in subwoofer, since I have my own. I have a mic and small tripod and ran through the setup like normal. Audyssey reports to the AVR to set my front crossovers to 150hz which does not seem accurate at all, let alone the gap between the sub and localization.

For comparison, my Polk Audio RTi8's in the exact same locations in the exact room were registering at 40hz.

Any suggestions? Is this have something to do with the nature of the speakers? I've already went through the FAQ and understand that Audyssey is calculating the -3db point but 150hz just seems off and messes up the sound.


----------



## drh3b

pbz06 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just bought some Definitive Technology 9060s for the front and 9040s for surround (they are all bipole). I'm running them with an HSU sub and a Marantz sr7011 that came with Audyssey xt32. My question is regarding the Audyssey, so I'm not sure if I should ask here or in the speaker thread.
> 
> I hooked up the fronts with only speaker wire and not the built in subwoofer, since I have my own. I have a mic and small tripod and ran through the setup like normal. Audyssey reports to the AVR to set my front crossovers to 150hz which does not seem accurate at all, let alone the gap between the sub and localization.
> 
> For comparison, my Polk Audio RTi8's in the exact same locations in the exact room were registering at 40hz.
> 
> Any suggestions? Is this have something to do with the nature of the speakers? I've already went through the FAQ and understand that Audyssey is calculating the -3db point but 150hz just seems off and messes up the sound.


Those speakers have very small drivers, and a very small subwoofer. If you've got the built in subwoofers off, the 150 Hz crossover is probably right. turn the built in subwoofers on, and try again. You can manually set the crossover at 80 Hz or wherever you choose after calibration.


----------



## pbz06

drh3b said:


> Those speakers have very small drivers, and a very small subwoofer. If you've got the built in subwoofers off, the 150 Hz crossover is probably right. turn the built in subwoofers on, and try again. You can manually set the crossover at 80 Hz or wherever you choose after calibration.


Thank you, that makes sense. I re-read the instructions for the speakers and it does suggest to run them as "full/large" even when not using the built-in sub because that's how it will utilize the drivers to their full extent. Interesting, because it says to not use Auto Calibration...


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> Thank you, that makes sense. I re-read the instructions for the speakers and it does suggest to run them as "full/large" even when not using the built-in sub because that's how it will utilize the drivers to their full extent. Interesting, because it says to not use Auto Calibration...


That last part is not good advice. You definitely do want to have your 10" woofer engaged, and you may want to make sure that the gain control is set to about the mid-point. Without that 10" woofer, your next largest driver is only 4.5". But, after your Audyssey calibration, you also want to set the speakers to Small with at least a 60hz crossover. Your built-in sub will still be working, even with an 80Hz crossover, but it will never be as efficient at producing mid-bass and low bass SPL as your HSU subwoofer will be.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I need to eat some crow on the issue of 85db average volume levels!
> 
> I wanted to be sure that I was putting out correct information regarding how movies are recorded/measured with respect to an average volume level, so I consulted a respected film mixer who posts on the forum. You have seen some of his movies, and his user name is FilmMixer. His answer surprised me. Here is my original question, via PM, and his response:
> 
> …
> 
> [/I]The fact that all audio systems calibrate a master volume of 0.0 to that standard 85db level is still an important concept. That would be true for Denon/Marantz, Yamaha, Pioneer, Sony, Onkyo, Anthem, McIntosh, etc. But, that is simply to maintain consistency of playback for 5.1 movies and TV shows. Apparently, it really doesn't correspond to any average volume levels in the movie. And, movies may or may not have 105db peaks for the satellite channels and 115db peaks for the LFE channel, but if they do and if our systems are capable of playing them, we will hear those peaks at 0.0 MV once our systems are calibrated to the 85db standard.
> 
> I thought that all of this was worth passing along for those who may read these pages in the future, as well as for those who have been posting on the subject.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks for that.

The reply doesn't surprise me because mastering to an average level really doesn't make any sense. Having a fixed peak level of 105 dB (115 dB for LFE) does make sense, as does the fact that not all movies reach that peak level. If movies were mastered to an average level, all movies would tend to sound pretty similar in overall level which they don't. What does count is the balance between levels for dialogue which "sound right" so you don't get the impression that people are shouting when they're speaking normally and you're not struggling to understand what they're saying because the level is too low, and having peaks and soft passages at levels which sound appropriate to what's happening on screen at the time. The level that speech is mastered at is going to depend on the scene in question and things like whether the characters are speaking normally or shouting or whispering because those changes in level have to be maintained, and the level of the background sounds and music is going to have to be set to allow speech intelligibility to be maintained in those scenes, unless you specifically don't want the audience to be able to clearly hear the speech at a given moment which is sometimes the case for dramatic purposes. Having said that, there has to be a "sweet spot" or range for normal spoken dialogue if it's to sound like normal spoken dialogue and the level of the background sounds and any musical score in the background is going to have to be mastered to avoid compromising our ability to understand what the characters are saying and my bet is that the "sweet spot" for normal speech levels is going to have to be considerably lower than 85 dB or it isn't going to sound like normal speech which is much lower than 85 dB in real life.


----------



## pbz06

mthomas47 said:


> That last part is not good advice. You definitely do want to have your 10" woofer engaged, and you may want to make sure that the gain control is set to about the mid-point. Without that 10" woofer, your next largest driver is only 4.5". But, after your Audyssey calibration, you also want to set the speakers to Small with at least a 60hz crossover. Your built-in sub will still be working, even with an 80Hz crossover, but it will never be as efficient at producing mid-bass and low bass SPL as your HSU subwoofer will be.


Thanks guys for the suggestions. I resolved the issue and it's kind of embarrassing  The DefTechs need a separate power supply to activate the mid/low woofers. The way the instructions are written in the manual, it made it seem like the sub still activates with speaker wire and are only needed to be plugged in when you want to use the subwoofer as your dedicated sub for LFE and really low frequencies. Since I was running an HSU sub, I thought I didn't need to plug them in.

Anyway, since I did, I can still set to "small" and crossover to 80hz and it sounds a ton better. When I ran Audyssey again, it registered them as full band and set it to 40hz (which I can switch back to small/80).


----------



## drh3b

pbz06 said:


> Thanks guys for the suggestions. I resolved the issue and it's kind of embarrassing  The DefTechs need a separate power supply to activate the mid/low woofers. The way the instructions are written in the manual, it made it seem like the sub still activates with speaker wire and are only needed to be plugged in when you want to use the subwoofer as your dedicated sub for LFE and really low frequencies. Since I was running an HSU sub, I thought I didn't need to plug them in.
> 
> Anyway, since I did, I can still set to "small" and crossover to 80hz and it sounds a ton better. When I ran Audyssey again, it registered them as full band and set it to 40hz (which I can switch back to small/80).


It's easy to misinterpret things in manuals sometimes. I think we all make our share of silly mistakes. I know I do. Sounds like you did exactly the right thing. At least, you did what I do.  (I've got towers up front crossed at 80, as well.)


----------



## garygarrison

drh3b said:


> It's easy to misinterpret things in manuals sometimes. I think we all make our share of silly mistakes. I know I do. Sounds like you did exactly the right thing. At least, you did what I do.  (I've got towers up front crossed at 80, as well.)


Especially when they are written with what Norman Mailer called, "a dead stick's prose." Or have different parts written by different people, with no consultation or overall editorship (according to a friend in the industry who shall remain nameless). Or don't tell us that "base [ not bass] copy" isn't really even close to a real copy.

There was a time when manuals were clearly written. I'd say the mid '80s and before. McIntosh, for instance, or Dyna, or even Luxman which had to be translated from the Japanese, or SME that had to be translated from English into the North American Language. 

Sic transit gloria


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Especially when they are written with what Norman Mailer called, "a dead stick's prose." Or have different parts written by different people, with no consultation or overall editorship (according to a friend in the industry who shall remain nameless). Or don't tell us that "base [ not bass] copy" isn't really even close to a real copy.
> 
> There was a time when manuals were clearly written. I'd say the mid '80s and before. McIntosh, for instance, or Dyna, or even Luxman which had to be translated from the Japanese, or SME that had to be translated from English into the North American Language.
> 
> Sic transit gloria


I think that expression is more appropriate on a Munday.


----------



## Klipschfn

Denon 4520ci
All klipsch speakers
Rf-7 II mains 
rc-64 II center 
RB10 (heights)
rb61 II (wides)
rp250s surrounds
sw 115 sub


So I setup my system and ran audyssey XT32 in like 6 positions. I have done the same thing with my previous speakers and noticed I have to turn these up a lot louder. Before if I was at about -10.0DB is would be loud and if I went to 0.0db it would be SUPER LOUD......I watched a blu ray and a netflix movie and had to set it to 0.0db and it still was not very loud...why is that? The receiver only goes up to 16db and thats the MAX. (I haven't tried that afraid to go max)

All speakers are set to 80hz...pretty sure the sub was set to 120hz and the volume knob on back of sub is probably 40% turn on.

Here is what the AUD EQ automatically set up for each speaker.
front L -5.0db
front L H - -2.0db
center -5.5db
front R H -0.5db
front R -6.0db
front R Wide -5.5db
surround right -7.0db
surround left -4.5db
forgot what left wide was
subwoofer was -5.5db

also set to 8ohm

I just dont understand why I have to turn it up so loud to get it as loud as it was with the other speakers.


----------



## mthomas47

Klipschfn said:


> Denon 4520ci
> All klipsch speakers
> Rf-7 II mains
> rc-64 II center
> RB10 (heights)
> rb61 II (wides)
> rp250s surrounds
> sw 115 sub
> 
> 
> So I setup my system and ran audyssey XT32 in like 6 positions. I have done the same thing with my previous speakers and noticed I have to turn these up a lot louder. Before if I was at about -10.0DB is would be loud and if I went to 0.0db it would be SUPER LOUD......I watched a blu ray and a netflix movie and had to set it to 0.0db and it still was not very loud...why is that? The receiver only goes up to 16db and thats the MAX. (I haven't tried that afraid to go max)
> 
> All speakers are set to 80hz...pretty sure the sub was set to 120hz and the volume knob on back of sub is probably 40% turn on.
> 
> Here is what the AUD EQ automatically set up for each speaker.
> front L -5.0db
> front L H - -2.0db
> center -5.5db
> front R H -0.5db
> front R -6.0db
> front R Wide -5.5db
> surround right -7.0db
> surround left -4.5db
> forgot what left wide was
> subwoofer was -5.5db
> 
> also set to 8ohm
> 
> I just dont understand why I have to turn it up so loud to get it as loud as it was with the other speakers.


Hi,

I can't really answer your question, but I do have some observations. First, your front left and front right speakers look as if they are getting unusually high trim levels. Klipsch towers like those would ordinarily be way down in the negative range. I might double-check that they are wired correctly. Second, based on your post, you are running 9 speakers from the single AVR. That means that each channel is getting substantially less wattage than would be the case if you were only running 5 channels, or even 7. I'm not saying that you need an auxiliary amp to run your fronts, but it's something that I might keep in mind if none of my trouble-shooting suggestions help. Third, you probably need to turn up your sub by several decibels to hear the louder bass you may want to hear. I would recommend just increasing the sub gain level by a couple of clicks.

You can try a microprocessor reset on your Denon. That is sometimes helpful with AVR's in general. If you have another compatible Audyssey microphone, you can also try that to see if the mic might be giving you trouble, although honestly it was mostly the front speakers that looked off with respect to the trim levels. I would also recommend running all 8 mic positions whenever you calibrate. If you don't want to go behind your seating position, just keep all 8 in front and out to the side.

Again, I'm not really sure what the problem is here, and perhaps someone else will have some better ideas, but let us know if any of those suggestions help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Klipschfn

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I can't really answer your question, but I do have some observations. First, your front left and front right speakers look as if they are getting unusually high trim levels. Klipsch towers like those would ordinarily be way down in the negative range. I might double-check that they are wired correctly. Second, based on your post, you are running 9 speakers from the single AVR. That means that each channel is getting substantially less wattage than would be the case if you were only running 5 channels, or even 7. I'm not saying that you need an auxiliary amp to run your fronts, but it's something that I might keep in mind if none of my trouble-shooting suggestions help. Third, you probably need to turn up your sub by several decibels to hear the louder bass you may want to hear. I would recommend just increasing the sub gain level by a couple of clicks.
> 
> You can try a microprocessor reset on your Denon. That is sometimes helpful with AVR's in general. If you have another compatible Audyssey microphone, you can also try that to see if the mic might be giving you trouble, although honestly it was mostly the front speakers that looked off with respect to the trim levels. I would also recommend running all 8 mic positions whenever you calibrate. If you don't want to go behind your seating position, just keep all 8 in front and out to the side.
> 
> Again, I'm not really sure what the problem is here, and perhaps someone else will have some better ideas, but let us know if any of those suggestions help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thanks for the reply. When I hooked up the speakers I thought I had it hooked up right but when I ran audyssey it had me swap the red and black speaker wires on the mains as an error. When I swapped it worked it way thru audyssey with no problem. 

Receiver specs say this.
Fully discrete, mono AMP construction and high current power supply for all 9 channels (150 W x 9 ch, 8ohm 20-20kHz 0.05%). Powerful, dynamic yet naturally smooth and stable sound reproduction is available.
Doesn't that mean all 9 channels should get the same power? 

I will turn the sub up to like -2-3db....should I turn up the volume dial on back of sub. its at around 40%.

Also when I swapped speakers to klipsch I did a hard reset on the denon.


Also when I connect the ethernet cable to the back I can never get it to connect so I have never done a firmware upgrade and I have had it for a couple years...How important is the upgrade? and why wont it connect?


----------



## mthomas47

Klipschfn said:


> Thanks for the reply. When I hooked up the speakers I thought I had it hooked up right but when I ran audyssey it had me swap the red and black speaker wires on the mains as an error. When I swapped it worked it way thru audyssey with no problem.
> 
> Receiver specs say this.
> Fully discrete, mono AMP construction and high current power supply for all 9 channels (150 W x 9 ch, 8ohm 20-20kHz 0.05%). Powerful, dynamic yet naturally smooth and stable sound reproduction is available.
> Doesn't that mean all 9 channels should get the same power?
> 
> I will turn the sub up to like -2-3db....should I turn up the volume dial on back of sub. its at around 40%.
> 
> Also when I swapped speakers to klipsch I did a hard reset on the denon.
> 
> 
> Also when I connect the ethernet cable to the back I can never get it to connect so I have never done a firmware upgrade and I have had it for a couple years...How important is the upgrade? and why wont it connect?


You are very welcome. Sometimes Audyssey gives you an error message in error.  I would double-check my wiring and when you are sure that it's correct just ignore the Audyssey error message. You will need to rerun your calibration once you rewire the front speakers. Having the fronts wired backwards could explain the whole problem you are having with the volume. I would turn up the volume on the sub itself. Just increase the gain setting to 50% or so, if you want more bass. That will keep your AVR sub trim level negative (-3 or lower). And, that's important at higher master volume levels.

All of your speakers will be getting the same amount of wattage, depending on the demands of the material. But, with 9 channels, you will probably be down to about 80 watts per channel. Now that we suspect that your fronts are wired backwards, though, I don't think that sufficient amp power is likely to be an issue.

I have no idea how important the firmware upgrades are likely to be, but I would want to be sure that I was getting them, in any case. Perhaps you have a bad Ethernet cable, or perhaps you have to adjust something in your settings to tell it to recognize the connection. That might be a Denon owner's thread question. JD Smoothie can usually help with that sort of thing.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I think that expression is more appropriate on a Munday.


LOL. I almost missed the "u" instead of the "o." Very worldly of you.


----------



## garygarrison

Klipschfn said:


> Denon 4520ci
> All klipsch speakers
> Rf-7 II mains
> rc-64 II center
> RB10 (heights)
> rb61 II (wides)
> rp250s surrounds
> sw 115 sub
> 
> 
> So I setup my system and ran audyssey XT32 in like 6 positions. I have done the same thing with my previous speakers and noticed I have to turn these up a lot louder. Before if I was at about -10.0DB is would be loud and if I went to 0.0db it would be SUPER LOUD......I watched a blu ray and a netflix movie and had to set it to 0.0db and it still was not very loud...why is that? The receiver only goes up to 16db and thats the MAX. (I haven't tried that afraid to go max)
> 
> All speakers are set to 80hz...pretty sure the sub was set to 120hz and the volume knob on back of sub is probably 40% turn on.
> 
> Here is what the AUD EQ automatically set up for each speaker.
> front L -5.0db
> front L H - -2.0db
> center -5.5db
> front R H -0.5db
> front R -6.0db
> front R Wide -5.5db
> surround right -7.0db
> surround left -4.5db
> forgot what left wide was
> subwoofer was -5.5db
> 
> also set to 8ohm
> 
> I just dont understand why I have to turn it up so loud to get it as loud as it was with the other speakers.



 Just out of curiosity, what were your previous speakers? What was their sensitivity rating? At 101 dB, 2.83V, 1m, RF7iis should require very little power to get very loud. Klipsch assumes that they would be somewhere near a wall, not out in the middle of a room, but I assume yours are fairly close to a wall, because that's now the norm. Out in a room, they could lose 3 dB, or so, sensitivity, but, unless your room is huge and your listening distance great, they would be fine. Are your speakers toed in toward the main listening position? Klipsch was one of the first to advocate that (in almost any room).
In your case it doesn't matter, but "150 w x 9 channels" is misleading, IMO. When Denon finally gets around to listing their specs, they say, "8 ohm, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, 0.05% 2ch Drive, 150 W." "Two ch. drive" means only two channels were operating during the test. That asks a lot less of the amp's power supply than does running all 9 channels. So, it is very likely that you are getting less than 150 w.p.c. perhaps the 80 w.p.c. Mike mentioned. About the only way to find out is to read some reviewer's bench test of the Denon, with 9 channels operating. Don't place a lot of blame on Denon; almost all companies do this with AVRs, but not when listing the specs of their separate power amps [usually]. This might be a problem with many speakers, but not yours. RF7iis, in a 3,000 cu ft room of average liveness, at normal distance would need about 17 "real" w.p.c. to produce 105 dB _*continuous*_, but don't try it; it's not good for your ears or your speakers. You can be confident about the needed peaks, unless your room is truly, outrageously, large.
You don't have Dynamic Volume on, do you? That would compress peaks.
I would turn the knob on the sub up to 12:00 O'clock or above before running Audyssey. That will force your AVR sub trim level down, to prevent its clipping. Then I would turn up the sub to taste after running Audyssey -- most people do.


----------



## Klipschfn

I will check those wires. The speakers I would say are about a 12-16" from the corner and toed in to my MLP.

Previous speakers were Focal Chorus....had 836v for mains and 800c for center....I had those setup at one point to 9.1 and they still got very loud with the same denon.

I had dynamic on at first and turned it off and didnt notice a difference....do you keep yours on or off?


----------



## garygarrison

Klipschfn said:


> I will check those wires. The speakers I would say are about a 12-16" from the corner and toed in to my MLP.
> 
> Previous speakers were Focal Chorus....had 836v for mains and 800c for center....I had those setup at one point to 9.1 and they still got very loud with the same denon.
> 
> I had dynamic on at first and turned it off and didnt notice a difference....do you keep yours on or off?


There are two "dynamics," Dynamic Volume, which turns down the loud parts, and turns up the soft parts, so you can listen late at night, with thin walls, and, perhaps, with people sleeping nearby. With dynamic material, it should make an appreciable difference, in violation of the intentions of the filmmakers, composers, and mixers, so I keep it OFF! The other one is Dynamic EQ (DEQ), that compensates for attenuated bass & treble perception at low volumes. Some people like it, some don't, I don't, so I keep it OFF. I use the tone controls (not the virtual sliders -- they can't be used with Audyssey) instead (especially the bass control). Audyssey, with bass tone control boost, sub boost, DEQ off, DV off, is the best thing that ever happened to my HT and my music system.


----------



## Klipschfn

Just reset the Denon and reran audyssey and its the same situation....U have to turn it up to 0.0db to get it even semi loud...I have to turn it up to like 6db before it actually gets loud like it used to around -10db.

I was expecting these klipsch to absolutely scream at 0.0 so I dont know what going on.

I tried turning audyssey off and even switch the amp assign to just 5.1 and it doesnt reall get louder. I also did all 8 positions....

should I try to add a couple of db to the mains...right now its set at -7.0db for them would adjusting them to like -3.0db help or just screw everything up?


----------



## garygarrison

Klipschfn said:


> Just reset the Denon and reran audyssey and its the same situation....U have to turn it up to 0.0db to get it even semi loud...I have to turn it up to like 6db before it actually gets loud like it used to around -10db.
> 
> I was expecting these klipsch to absolutely scream at 0.0 so I dont know what going on.
> 
> I tried turning audyssey off and even switch the amp assign to just 5.1 and it doesnt reall get louder. I also did all 8 positions....
> 
> should I try to add a couple of db to the mains...right now its set at -7.0db for them would adjusting them to like -3.0db help or just screw everything up?


It won't hurt to turn up any or all speakers to - 3.0 dB with the AVR trims *...* BUT ... something is wrong, IMO. The Klipsch speakers are 9 dB more efficient than the Focals. I agree with Mike that with your speakers we would expect the trims to be "way down in the negative range." My circuitous calculations, taking into account the difference in the sensitivity of your speakers and mine, and rashly assuming your room is about the size as mine (about 4,200 cu.ft.), and your MLP is about as far away as mine (according to Audyssey, 16 feet), Audyssey would have been expected to set your RF7iis to a trim level of about -10*.*0 dB, which is about 5 dB lower than it did, at least on your first run. I know it might seem counter-intuitive that Audyssey didn't set your trim as low as it should have, when your speakers are not loud enough as they are, but, IMO this is one symptom of something being wrong*;* there may be other symptoms as well. If Audyssey had set your speakers at the right level, you would have been free to turn up the trims after calibration, but, depending on what is wrong, you might not need to. I think you need to know what is causing the problem.

Both speaker and AVR manufacturers have been known to occasionally reverse the polarity of the wiring. As unlikely as that seems, especially across many channels, Audyssey did initially flag your speakers as being out of phase. Was that true of just two of your speakers? Being out of phase would practically kill the bass from your 80 Hz crossover up well into the mid-bass as high as, maybe, 250 Hz. Do you have a test disk with a phase test on it? 

There are two crossover-ish settings you need to adjust. Put the subwoofer itself on "Bypass" or whatever setting takes its crossovers out of the game. Set your bass management crossover to 80 Hz (as I think you have), or higher, if Audyssey recommends that. The other one, also on your AVR is not a true crossover, but is a low pass filter in the AVR that lets the special low frequency effects into the sub (these two bass signals are mixed together before coming out of your AVR's "subwoofer out" RCA). Most people set that one to 120 Hz, once again, on the AVR, not on the subwoofer itself. On my Marantz (the same owners as Denon) this is called LPF for LFE. 

I guess you could have either a defective mic or a defective mic circuit in your AVR. What do other people think? I know it's a headache, but I'd consider contacting both Klipsch and Denon, if you don't solve this in a week or so. If you do call them, good luck getting somebody who can be helpful. Both companies used to have a crack technical service staff, but not necessarily now. I seriously doubt if it is your speakers, especially if the lack of loudness is on all channels, but anything's possible. On the Klipsch forum, the Chief Engineer, Roy Delgado, sometimes answers questions, time permitting. I think his forum name is Chief Bonehead.


----------



## mogorf

Klipschfn said:


> I will check those wires. The speakers I would say are about a 12-16" from the corner and toed in to my MLP.
> 
> Previous speakers were Focal Chorus....had 836v for mains and 800c for center....I had those setup at one point to 9.1 and they still got very loud with the same denon.
> 
> I had dynamic on at first and turned it off and didnt notice a difference....do you keep yours on or off?


Do you still have those Focal Chorus speakers? Can you put them back just for testing?


----------



## Klipschfn

My room is smaller then yours its about 13x13 so I sit maybe 10-12 feet back. I do still have the focals...However last night I rented John Wick 2 on blu ray and it was for sure louder and sounded fantastic....I think I wound up watching it at -8.0db A couple of scenes I felt like it would attract the neighbors cause it was real loud......The movie I tested before was Mission Impossible 3 (also blu ray) during a big bridge bombing and shooting scene and that was the one at low volume....Could the blu ray of made the difference?


----------



## garygarrison

Klipschfn said:


> My room is smaller then yours its about 13x13 so I sit maybe 10-12 feet back. I do still have the focals...However last night I rented John Wick 2 on blu ray and it was for sure louder and sounded fantastic....I think I wound up watching it at -8.0db A couple of scenes I felt like it would attract the neighbors cause it was real loud......The movie I tested before was Mission Impossible 3 (also blu ray) during a big bridge bombing and shooting scene and that was the one at low volume....*Could the blu ray of made the difference?*


Klipschfn,

Yes. Always use multiple Blu-rays (or multiple music disks) to evaluate a sound system.

Blu-ray.com reviews the sound quality in John Wick 2 this way: "... overwhelming sonic tendencies with another blisteringly effective Dolby Atmos track. From the first seconds of the movie, when an incredible chase between Wick and a motorcyclist offers a near riot of panning sounds and LFE, it's clear this film is going for the gusto in a major way with respect to sound design." On the disk, Blu-ray,com lists it as in* Dolby True HD,* which is *lossless**.*

On the other hand, they don't review Mission Impossible 3, but were annoyed by MI *2*'s use of a *lossy* audio format. MI* 3* was in *plain old Dolby Digital 5.1* (on the Blu-ray), which I have found to be generally inferior and less dynamic than either *Dolby Tru HD* or *DTS Master Audio*, as well as *"plain old"* being* lossy*. There may also have been some human putting a limiter on it, who knows what our species will do?

I am annoyed whenever I see just "Dolby Digital" on my Marantz front panel screen. It seems "plain old" is encountered on Blu-ray at least twice as often as Dolby Tru HD, or the many, many DTS Master Audio disks. While certainly minor compared to most of what is important in life, I find myself resenting it. Wasn't Blu-ray supposed to have *lossless* sound as a matter of course? What happened? Did the Russians somehow hack the Blu-ray production factories, too? Aren't modern soundtracks supposed to be well recorded?

Sinking in misanthropy,

Gary


----------



## Klipschfn

garygarrison said:


> Klipschfn,
> 
> Yes. Always use multiple Blu-rays (or multiple music disks) to evaluate a sound system.
> 
> Blu-ray.com reviews the sound quality in John Wick 2 this way: "... overwhelming sonic tendencies with another blisteringly effective Dolby Atmos track. From the first seconds of the movie, when an incredible chase between Wick and a motorcyclist offers a near riot of panning sounds and LFE, it's clear this film is going for the gusto in a major way with respect to sound design." On the disk, Blu-ray,com lists it as in* Dolby True HD,* which is *lossless**.*
> 
> On the other hand, they don't review Mission Impossible 3, but were annoyed by MI *2*'s use of a *lossy* audio format. MI* 3* was in *plain old Dolby Digital 5.1* (on the Blu-ray), which I have found to be generally inferior and less dynamic than either *Dolby Tru HD* or *DTS Master Audio*, as well as *"plain old"* being* lossy*. There may also have been some human putting a limiter on it, who knows what our species will do?
> 
> I am annoyed whenever I see just "Dolby Digital" on my Marantz front panel screen. It seems "plain old" is encountered on Blu-ray at least twice as often as Dolby Tru HD, or the many, many DTS Master Audio disks. While certainly minor compared to most of what is important in life, I find myself resenting it. Wasn't Blu-ray supposed to have *lossless* sound as a matter of course? What happened? Did the Russians somehow hack the Blu-ray production factories, too? Aren't modern soundtracks supposed to be well recorded?
> 
> Sinking in misanthropy,
> 
> Gary



Thanks for all the replies.


----------



## gurkey

Klipschfn said:


> Thanks for the reply. When I hooked up the speakers I thought I had it hooked up right but when I ran audyssey it had me swap the red and black speaker wires on the mains as an error. When I swapped it worked it way thru audyssey with no problem.
> 
> Receiver specs say this.
> Fully discrete, mono AMP construction and high current power supply for all 9 channels (150 W x 9 ch, 8ohm 20-20kHz 0.05%). Powerful, dynamic yet naturally smooth and stable sound reproduction is available.
> Doesn't that mean all 9 channels should get the same power?
> I will turn the sub up to like -2-3db....should I turn up the volume dial on back of sub. its at around 40%.
> Also when I swapped speakers to klipsch I did a hard reset on the denon.
> Also when I connect the ethernet cable to the back I can never get it to connect so I have never done a firmware upgrade and I have had it for a couple years...How important is the upgrade? and why wont it connect?


I would recheck the speaker wiring. Audyssey might have falsely stated a phase error as happens quite often due do some acoustical problems and the algorithm used for this, but if the wiring is OK on both sides of your speaker cables then you usually shouldn't do anything or some of your speakers are now playing out of phase, which screws up the sound field and might cause some weird side effects.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

How much sound comes from Front Height Speakers?


----------



## garygarrison

JACKIEGAGA said:


> How much sound comes from Front Height Speakers?


I don't know, because I don't have them, but dollars to donuts it depends on the movie. That's the state of affairs with normal side and back surround, as well. 

Irrelevant, but interesting: Chesky (and others) managed to produce (unreliable) up and down cues from horizontal 2 channel!
All of my speakers have tweeters that are about the same height off the floor (about 50" as opposed to my seated ear height of about 48"), and my side surrounds are slightly behind the audience, but movies that have a lot of side surround sometimes seem to have convincing "up" and "down" all along on the side walls. Examples: The Grey, Dr. Strange, and, appropriately enough, The Impossible.


----------



## grassy

Just a quick Thankyou to Audyssey for allowing me to switch over my Audyssey pro licence for my AVPA1HD to The 8802A without paying a cent.You probably did not have to do that guys but you did and it's really appreciated,so thankyou.I will remember that next time i am buying a new pre/pro and whatever else.Great service and could not ask for more.


----------



## Tatts4Life

Well I'm kind of pissed now. Many years ago I bought an Onkyo reciever and it was faithful up until maybe 2014 when I started having issues with some hdmi ports not working when first turning on the system. So in 2015 I bought the Onkyo Tx-nr1030 because it's what I could afford at the time. Well now that we're finally going to be moving into a space where we can have a semi good setup for a home theater system I find out that my AVR doesn't have Audyssey anymore and instead uses something else that only takes one measurement. It wasn't until recently that I saw some YouTube videos and read some articles talking about how Audyssey's multiple measurements was the best thing to have because it gave you a sound bubble instead of just one point of measurement. Then I also find out that my reciever doesn't support the new 4K HDR which disappoints me. Guess I'll have to save up for a Denon are another reciever for the future.


----------



## asere

If after audyssey I got a trim of say -6 and I want to bump up the trim on the avr. What other way is there other then going into manual mode? I read here it's not a good idea to change the trim under manual option (internal test tones) because I won't be using audyssey.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> If after audyssey I got a trim of say -6 and I want to bump up the trim on the avr. What other way is there other then going into manual mode? I read here it's not a good idea to change the trim under manual option because I won't be using audyssey.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


How's this for a quick response? (I was just checking the thread.) You can raise the AVR trim in either the Audio menu or the Speaker menu without affecting the Audyssey filters in any way. On some AVR's, the use of the Speaker/Manual/Level settings works in all audio sources where the Audio menu changes are source-dependent. With my Marantz AVR, I can make global changes in either location.

There are advantages to keeping your subwoofer trim well in the negative range, so if you want to add more than 2 or 3db, I would recommend just increasing the gain on your subwoofer a little. Doing that also won't affect your Audyssey calibration. There is a detailed explanation of all that in the subwoofer guide, linked below.

Regards,
Mike

Note: What you may remember reading is that the internal test tones are an unreliable way to test for SPL measured with an SPL meter, as they bypass the Audyssey filters that were set. But, the fact that they are disconnected from the Audyssey filters works in our favor when we want to make manual adjustments in trim levels.


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> How's this for a quick response? (I was just checking the thread.) You can raise the AVR trim in either the Audio menu or the Speaker menu without affecting the Audyssey filters in any way. On some AVR's, the use of the Speaker/Manual/Level settings works in all audio sources where the Audio menu changes are source-dependent. With my Marantz AVR, I can make global changes in either location.
> 
> There are advantages to keeping your subwoofer trim well in the negative range, so if you want to add more than 2 or 3db, I would recommend just increasing the gain on your subwoofer a little. Doing that also won't affect your Audyssey calibration. There is a detailed explanation of all that in the subwoofer guide, linked below.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


On my x4200 there is manual and that's out of the question and there is Audio and it says Sub Level Adjust. Is that the one?

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> On my x4200 there is manual and that's out of the question and there is Audio and it says Sub Level Adjust. Is that the one?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


In the Speaker menu, under Manual, you should have the option to make trim adjustments for all of the channels, including the subwoofer channel. That's the one with the test tones. You just won't hear much when you play an internal test tone through your sub. If you say, it's out of the question, okay, but in some Denon's I believe that is the place to make global (rather than source-specific) adjustments. The Sub Level Adjust in the Audio menu is what I usually use with My Marantz 7008. And adjustments made there are always global on my AVR. So, just experiment to find out which one works better for your 4200.


----------



## drh3b

asere said:


> On my x4200 there is manual and that's out of the question and there is Audio and it says Sub Level Adjust. Is that the one?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk





mthomas47 said:


> In the Speaker menu, under Manual, you should have the option to make trim adjustments for all of the channels, including the subwoofer channel. That's the one with the test tones. You just won't hear much when you play an internal test tone through your sub. If you say, it's out of the question, okay, but in some Denon's I believe that is the place to make global (rather than source-specific) adjustments. The Sub Level Adjust in the Audio menu is what I usually use with My Marantz 7008. And adjustments made there are always global on my AVR. So, just experiment to find out which one works better for your 4200.


I'm pretty sure the manual settings are what you want, you aren't affecting Audyssey by using them. The white noise is annoying, but it's how you do it. I have a Denon, and that's how it works for me. Remember, most of us manually change our large speakers to small, and adjust our crossovers manually, and that doesn't affect Audyssey, why would manually changing trims?


----------



## asere

mthomas47 said:


> In the Speaker menu, under Manual, you should have the option to make trim adjustments for all of the channels, including the subwoofer channel. That's the one with the test tones. You just won't hear much when you play an internal test tone through your sub. If you say, it's out of the question, okay, but in some Denon's I believe that is the place to make global (rather than source-specific) adjustments. The Sub Level Adjust in the Audio menu is what I usually use with My Marantz 7008. And adjustments made there are always global on my AVR. So, just experiment to find out which one works better for your 4200.


Thanks. When I said manual is out the question is because you are not supposed to use internal test tones if you used audyssey.
Under Audio and Sub Level I can make changes but you cannot use an spl meter. You hear the sub but no tones)
Can you use a meter that way?





Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## asere

drh3b said:


> I'm pretty sure the manual settings are what you want, you aren't affecting Audyssey by using them. The white noise is annoying, but it's how you do it. I have a Denon, and that's how it works for me. Remember, most of us manually change our large speakers to small, and adjust our crossovers manually, and that doesn't affect Audyssey, why would manually changing trims?


I know. After audyssey I usually go into manual and place MV at 80db and use a meter to change the trim. The audyssey faq says that's not a good idea using internal test tones. That's my confusion.

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

asere said:


> Thanks. When I said manual is out the question is because you are not supposed to use internal test tones if you used audyssey.
> Under Audio and Sub Level I can make changes but you cannot use an spl meter. You hear the sub but no tones)
> Can you use a meter that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk





asere said:


> I know. After audyssey I usually go into manual and place MV at 80db and use a meter to change the trim. The audyssey faq says that's not a good idea using internal test tones. That's my confusion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


You need to go back and re-read Mike's (well written, and completely clear) posts above. There is absolutely NO ISSUE with using the manual adjustments to add a few dB to your sub trim. It WILL NOT effect your Audyssey calibration.


----------



## drh3b

asere said:


> I know. After audyssey I usually go into manual and place MV at 80db and use a meter to change the trim. The audyssey faq says that's not a good idea using internal test tones. That's my confusion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


Well, if I understand you right, you are trying to set levels with an SPL meter using external tones. This would be awkward, but you could run your external tone, bounce into manual setting, make a trim adjustment, bounce back, check your meter, and so on.


----------



## asere

drh3b said:


> Well, if I understand you right, you are trying to set levels with an SPL meter using external tones. This would be awkward, but you could run your external tone, bounce into manual setting, make a trim adjustment, bounce back, check your meter, and so on.


Well I meant the avr tones. On another note. When using a calibration dvd for video the changes are done from the disc using the tv settings. But for audio the disc plays a tone but where do you change the trim? 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

asere said:


> Well I meant the avr tones. On another note. When using a calibration dvd for video the changes are done from the disc using the tv settings. But for audio the disc plays a tone but where do you change the trim?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


In the manual speaker settings.


----------



## asere

Alan P said:


> In the manual speaker settings.


I can't do that. When I go to manual those tones come on and overrides the dvd ones. 

Sent from my SM-G900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

You have to play the DVD tones, then go into manual and adjust, then go back out and see where the SPL is. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.


----------



## drh3b

Alan P said:


> You have to play the DVD tones, then go into manual and adjust, then go back out and see where the SPL is. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.


That's what I was trying to say.


----------



## LinekerAVS

I'm having a problem with my new Pv1D. The sound coming from the sub is out of routine, disturbing, bass, click click, bad sound. 
You can watch this problem on the link.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ixLQWgWTau4&feature=youtu.be

In some movie scenes this problem is heard in low frequency stages. Even when the Avr volume is -20/ -25 dB. Avr and Pv1D decrease by lowering the gain and levels, but the effect of subwoofer is not felt. Even if you prefer not to use it, I will reduce all the settings.

I use Denon 3808 CI with Pv1D. With Cm7 / Cmc2 / Cm1 .. I sent the product to the local BW authority regarding the problem. I updated the software and sent it back !!! But the problem continues. The problem with the local dealer before intensively left on the drive, now heavily on the right drive !! 

This sound is visible when Audyseyy Dynamic EQ is open. Very little is heard when it is removed. 
When the Dyn eq is turned off, maybe it can be surpassed with the settings to be made via the amp and sub! 
However dyn eq is going out of gratitude, dyn eq want to use sub when open! 

I'm thinking of buying the new B & W Db3D which will be out. I have the same problem with the fear that I live on-line. 


Could there be a problem with Audyssey Dyn EQ?
There was a comment that made such a contribution;
It is known, that some version of Audyssey MultEQ XT had an intermediate bug, which caused a rising frequency response in the bass region during normalisation of the signal output (subwoofer) in the final stage of the measuring process. It has been corrected later on by a bug fix. 


Thank you.


----------



## mthomas47

LinekerAVS said:


> I'm having a problem with my new Pv1D. The sound coming from the sub is out of routine, disturbing, bass, click click, bad sound.
> You can watch this problem on the link.
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ixLQWgWTau4&feature=youtu.be
> 
> In some movie scenes this problem is heard in low frequency stages. Even when the Avr volume is -20/ -25 dB. Avr and Pv1D decrease by lowering the gain and levels, but the effect of subwoofer is not felt. Even if you prefer not to use it, I will reduce all the settings.
> 
> I use Denon 3808 CI with Pv1D. With Cm7 / Cmc2 / Cm1 .. I sent the product to the local BW authority regarding the problem. I updated the software and sent it back !!! But the problem continues. The problem with the local dealer before intensively left on the drive, now heavily on the right drive !!
> 
> This sound is visible when Audyseyy Dynamic EQ is open. Very little is heard when it is removed.
> When the Dyn eq is turned off, maybe it can be surpassed with the settings to be made via the amp and sub!
> However dyn eq is going out of gratitude, dyn eq want to use sub when open!
> 
> I'm thinking of buying the new B & W Db3D which will be out. I have the same problem with the fear that I live on-line.
> 
> 
> Could there be a problem with Audyssey Dyn EQ?
> There was a comment that made such a contribution;
> It is known, that some version of Audyssey MultEQ XT had an intermediate bug, which caused a rising frequency response in the bass region during normalisation of the signal output (subwoofer) in the final stage of the measuring process. It has been corrected later on by a bug fix.
> 
> 
> Thank you.


Hi,

In my opinion, the problem is not with your AVR or with Audyssey. The sound that I hear on that video is, I believe, the sound of the subwoofer driver hitting it's limiters. That is, the excursion of the woofer moving outward is literally knocking against the enclosure sides causing the clicking sound. Unfortunately, I believe that those subwoofers are highly overrated in terms of the amount of bass they can produce. You essentially have two 8" drivers, in a very small enclosure, powered by only 400 watts. So, again in my opinion, you are simply driving the sub beyond it's limits. Perhaps a better room placement will enable it to do more. Or, you could consider an upgrade. If the sub is new, you might be able to get a refund and move to a more powerful sub. I would move away from the B&W subs if I were you. A good Internet Direct sub would be able to produce *much* more bass without the bad noises. Look at SVS subs, for instance.

The reason that DEQ is causing it to sound bad is because DEQ is deliberately boosting the bass at anything below Reference levels, by adding about 2,2db per -5 MV below Reference. Reference is a master volume of 0.0. At -20 MV, DEQ would be adding 8.8db of bass boost. At -25, DEQ would add 11db of bass boost. You can try turning off DEQ and applying a more modest boost of your own. For instance, you might try adding only 4 or 5db of sub boost in your AVR controls at a master volume of -20, or -25, instead of the larger amount that DEQ adds. Coupled with better sub placement (Google the phrase "sub crawl") the use of a small independent sub boost, in place of DEQ might help.

I believe that your long-term solution, though, is likely to require a subwoofer upgrade. That is a very small subwoofer.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## LinekerAVS

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> In my opinion, the problem is not with your AVR or with Audyssey. The sound that I hear on that video is, I believe, the sound of the subwoofer driver hitting it's limiters. That is, the excursion of the woofer moving outward is literally knocking against the enclosure sides causing the clicking sound. Unfortunately, I believe that those subwoofers are highly overrated in terms of the amount of bass they can produce. You essentially have two 8" drivers, in a very small enclosure, powered by only 400 watts. So, again in my opinion, you are simply driving the sub beyond it's limits. Perhaps a better room placement will enable it to do more. Or, you could consider an upgrade. If the sub is new, you might be able to get a refund and move to a more powerful sub. I would move away from the B&W subs if I were you. A good Internet Direct sub would be able to produce *much* more bass without the bad noises. Look at SVS subs, for instance.
> 
> The reason that DEQ is causing it to sound bad is because DEQ is deliberately boosting the bass at anything below Reference levels, by adding about 2,2db per -5 MV below Reference. Reference is a master volume of 0.0. At -20 MV, DEQ would be adding 8.8db of bass boost. At -25, DEQ would add 11db of bass boost. You can try turning off DEQ and applying a more modest boost of your own. For instance, you might try adding only 4 or 5db of sub boost in your AVR controls at a master volume of -20, or -25, instead of the larger amount that DEQ adds. Coupled with better sub placement (Google the phrase "sub crawl") the use of a small independent sub boost, in place of DEQ might help.
> 
> I believe that your long-term solution, though, is likely to require a subwoofer upgrade. That is a very small subwoofer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


If the problem is as small as the size, I guess the problem applies to all Pv1D?

Could it be the solution to the new Db3D subwoofer?
Db3D, Pv1D as well as an 8 "dual driver.
I have to get a refund to go to a different brand.
Return may not be easy!
Without this strange sound coming out of some of the stages, PV1D is a good enough sub


----------



## mthomas47

LinekerAVS said:


> If the problem is as small as the size, I guess the problem applies to all Pv1D?
> 
> Could it be the solution to the new Db3D subwoofer?
> Db3D, Pv1D as well as an 8 "dual driver.
> I have to get a refund to go to a different brand.
> Return may not be easy!
> Without this strange sound coming out of some of the stages, PV1D is a good enough sub


Hi,

I am sympathetic to your situation. Returns for refund aren't always easy. But, it may be worth your while to try in this case, or even to sell the sub to someone else if that isn't possible. Small drivers, with small amplifier power, in a small cabinet, simply cannot produce very loud and/or low bass. So, the subwoofer probably works just fine until you ask it to do too much. And, what it is trying to do in your video definitely seems like too much for the sub to handle. 

I think that you would have the same problem with another PV1D. And honestly, looking at the specifications for the new DB3D subwoofer, I don't think that you could expect much improvement in low frequency extension or volume there either. If you were able to get a refund, there would be other subwoofers you could buy for the same amount of money, or even for much less, which would give you *much* better performance.

I try to never encourage people to buy a particular brand of subwoofers, or to discourage them from a particular brand, either. But, since you posted to say that you are experiencing problems, and posted a video demonstrating what you are experiencing, I feel obligated to give you objective advice. And, objectively speaking, as cool as those little subs look visually, they are simply not capable of doing much at all below about 30Hz or so. And, they aren't capable of very high volumes even at higher frequencies. In this case, you are paying a very high price for the name and the appearance. I believe that it would be in your interest to move to a better performing subwoofer if you can arrange to do it. And, moving to a different brand would greatly increase your performance to cost options.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

LinekerAVS said:


> If the problem is as small as the size, I guess the problem applies to all Pv1D?
> 
> Could it be the solution to the new Db3D subwoofer?
> Db3D, Pv1D as well as an 8 "dual driver.
> *I have to get a refund to go to a different brand.*
> Return may not be easy!
> Without this strange sound coming out of some of the stages, PV1D is a good enough sub


Rather than an actual refund, won't they take the subs back and *apply the full price you paid to the purchase of a more expensive sub*? I've persuaded dealers to do that kind of thing without difficulty. I traded in a Teak reel to reel for the full price I paid that dealer for it toward two Crown reel to reels. I did the same thing by exchanging a collection of components for one I was buying. I assume dealers still want customers to be happy and come back over the years. 

The bigger the sub cone (s) and the bigger the box (within limits), and the bigger the built-in amp, the more earth moving it will *tend* to be, *probably* with less modulation distortion.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Rather than an actual refund, won't they take the subs back and *apply the full price you paid to the purchase of a more expensive sub*? I've persuaded dealers to do that kind of thing without difficulty. I traded in a Teak reel to reel for the full price I paid that dealer for it toward two Crown reel to reels. I did the same thing by exchanging a collection of components for one I was buying. I assume dealers still want customers to be happy and come back over the years.
> 
> The bigger the sub cone (s) and the bigger the box (within limits), and the bigger the built-in amp, the more earth moving it will *tend* to be, *probably* with less modulation distortion.


Hi Gary,

Perhaps I was inferring incorrectly, but I took his earlier posts to mean that his dealer just carries the B&W subs. They do make a 12" model in a significantly larger cabinet that would probably work very well. But, it retails for $4500 here, and perhaps even more where the OP is located. The difference between subs from some of the proprietary speaker makers, and a number of Internet Direct subs, is phenomenal these days from a cost to performance basis. Even if the OP can afford to move up to the 10" version at $3500, or the 12" version at $4500, I really hate to see him do it when there are much better sub choices available for much less money.

Regards,
Mike

Incidentally, Happy 4th of July!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Perhaps I was inferring incorrectly, but I took his earlier posts to mean that his dealer just carries the B&W subs.


Hi Mike,

This may be true. I hope not, because one brand stores annoy me. But I can take it. In the Internet Age, it is hard to *hear* a component before buying it, especially in comparison to another component (with either long term "wash over you" comparisons or ABX blind testing). Can we imagine anyone buying a pair of $1,200,000 Magico Ultimates without hearing them? O.K, if an individual could afford those, that person would fly to Berkeley to hear them, and stay as long as needed, unless the speakers' been-on-acid-too-long appearance stopped them. The Magicos could *be* the Ultimate for all I know, but I'd want to hear a few other brands/models in the same room, like we did in the Bronze Age.

But, of course, subwoofers are *cheap*, by comparison. A Magico sub can be had for $36,000. As you say, a 12" B&W is available for $4,500. But, I agree with you*;* I hope *LinekerAVS*, can look at (and hear!) some large subwoofers in the SVS line for under $1,000, the bigger, the better (probably). I _*think*_ SVS will allow one to audition one at home for a while (45 days?). That way he could compare a SVS to his current B&Ws, and the subs of any friends willing to move them to his home, temporarily ... and he might discover other brands that way.

On sub driver & box size, I am haunted by Hoffman's Iron Law, i.e., when speakers must reproduce bass, you can have *only two* of the following three: Bass Extension, Efficiency and Small Size. Someone might say, "Active sub woofers have their own amp, so why do we care about efficiency?" We care because lower efficiency drivers require ever more powerful subwoofer amplifiers (some have opted for 6,000 watts), with prices to match. There are all kinds of ways to fudge the Iron Law (not quite as Iron as we thought), but only because corollaries are needed, and fudging comes at a price. If the cone excursion is too great there is the danger of increased modulation distortion. One reason subwoofers "get away with it" -- to a degree -- is that, for *music listening*, they can be rolled off above about 80 Hz (or lower) so upper bass tones don't have to "ride" on a cone that is pumping back and forth reproducing bass tones in the neighborhood of 35 Hz. Indeed, for *movies*, I wonder if the alternate LPF point of 80 Hz for LFE (so *both* the LFE and the bass management signals from the main channels roll off above 80 Hz) discussed in the FAQ produces greater clarity because of relieving the sub of wide excursion duty for LFE between about 120Hz and about 80Hz, rather than the poor engineering of some movies. Probably both? There are DIY (or even store-bought) horn loaded subwoofers that are extraordinarily efficient and have very low distortion, but, in keeping with the Iron Law, they don't go as low as excellent subs of more conventional designs, and they are sometimes bigger than a refrigerator -- but so are some bass traps.

*EDIT:

* *Happy 4th to all!* I once heard a historian say that the Declaration Committee (Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Sherman and Livingston) realized that nearly no one thought that all men were entitled to equal rights, but hoped that, by writing it into the Declaration, it would come to pass, sooner or later (relying on self-fulling prophesy?). How about women? Abigail Adams, wife of John, pointed out to him that women would not be bound by laws they had no voice in making (i.e., they couldn't vote), because being so bound would be equivalent to the "taxation without representation," John so hated. Jefferson, mysteriously, may well have believed that all were entitled equal rights bestowed by their Creator, but (?) experienced insufficient cognitive dissonance to cause him to free his slaves. Adams (a *non-*slave holder) reminded him that the Revolution would never truly be complete until the slaves were freed. When asked if he thought Jefferson was actually sleeping with one or more slaves, Adams replied that he didn't know, but that possibility, whether true or false, could provide a metaphor for the very institution of slavery itself.


----------



## grassy

Hey guys i am using the audyssey pro kit and after selecting com3 port i am getting a "communication time out error" I am using the marantz 8802a with the latest pro software so is there anything i am missing.


----------



## dftkell

Quick question: my Denon X2300W asks that I set the gain/volume on my subs to halfway before running the Audyssey calibration. After the calibration is done, it has set the level of my subs to -16db.

Should I decrease the gain and run again? -16db seems extreme but maybe it doesn't matter?

Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gurkey

Any sub gain (level) adjustment leading to a correction value below -11.5db does not work (lower limit -12db), because the hardware and algorithms (?) only allow for this. 
Thus turn down the sub a bit. Often a 09:00 o'clock position (looking from behind) is a good starting point .


----------



## mthomas47

dftkell said:


> Quick question: my Denon X2300W asks that I set the gain/volume on my subs to halfway before running the Audyssey calibration. After the calibration is done, it has set the level of my subs to -16db.
> 
> Should I decrease the gain and run again? -16db seems extreme but maybe it doesn't matter?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi,

I was not aware that it was even possible to have a trim level of -16. As Gurkey said, the trim levels are only supposed to be able to go down to -12, and -11.5 is as low as you would normally want to be. For more information on adjusting levels during and after calibration, please read the subwoofer guide linked below.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bmcn

dftkell said:


> ...Should I decrease the gain and run again? -16db seems extreme but maybe it doesn't matter?


Yes.

Recommended subwoofer target is ~-6 dB. Lower the level on your sub and depending if you're using the AVR or the new app, take 1 or 3 measurements, then have Audyssey calculate.

After it sets the sub's trim to the target area, run a full cal. When listening with Audy you may wish to increase the sub level on the AVR to your preference.


----------



## Buddylee123

I found this statement on another thread but figured I would ask about it here. "The funny is, anyone with a Denon or Marantz using Audyssey automatically has everything they input downsampled to 48khz for Audyssey processing". Is this true? Does it affect the sound quality of Blu-rays?


----------



## bmcn

Buddylee123 said:


> I found this statement on another thread but figured I would ask about it here. "The funny is, anyone with a Denon or Marantz using Audyssey automatically has everything they input downsampled to 48khz for Audyssey processing". Is this true?...


Yes, same apparently is true for Dirac.


----------



## mogorf

Buddylee123 said:


> I found this statement on another thread but figured I would ask about it here. "The funny is, anyone with a Denon or Marantz using Audyssey automatically has everything they input downsampled to 48khz for Audyssey processing". Is this true? Does it affect the sound quality of Blu-rays?


 According to Chris Kyriakakis: "Well it's not an Audyssey rule... it takes 2x to 4x more processing to run any digital algorithm at these high sampling rates. The AVR makers have to decide whether to add this processing as it comes at a cost. Audyssey will process any sampling rate it is given, but so far it is only given 48 kHz."

Does it affect the sound quality? No way. When a couple of decades ago the sampling rate for a CD disc was developed, engineers said it should be double the highest frequency any man can ever hear and a little bit more. So they decided it should be 22 kHz (and a bit more), hence the basic 44.1 kHz, coz its double of 22 kHz and a bit more by 0.1 kHz. That's the way engineers think. 

Actually any sample rate above 44.1 kHz is just a waste of resources, i.e. nothing but marketing hype. 

Hope this help.


----------



## Buddylee123

mogorf said:


> According to Chris Kyriakakis: "Well it's not an Audyssey rule... it takes 2x to 4x more processing to run any digital algorithm at these high sampling rates. The AVR makers have to decide whether to add this processing as it comes at a cost. Audyssey will process any sampling rate it is given, but so far it is only given 48 kHz."
> 
> Does it affect the sound quality? No way. When a couple of decades ago the sampling rate for a CD disc was developed, engineers said it should be double the highest frequency any man can ever hear and a little bit more. So they decided it should be 22 kHz (and a bit more), hence the basic 44.1 kHz, coz its double of 22 kHz and a bit more by 0.1 kHz. That's the way engineers think.
> 
> Actually any sample rate above 44.1 kHz is just a waste of resources, i.e. nothing but marketing hype.
> 
> Hope this help.


Thank you, that helps a lot. Really looking forward to trying Audyssey out. If it performs as good as or better than the MCACC Pro on my Pioneer, it will make me happy.


----------



## Ed Oz

*Sub volume too loud after Audyssey calibration*

I seem to have the opposite problem to most posters: my sub level is too high...by far.

I back it off - by at least 1/3 - using the sub level control on the sub amp which is after the Denon 1713 AVR, and it's sometimes still to loud.

Although I haven't measured the speaker levels using tones, I listen mostly at a level lower than reference.

Perhaps DEQ is creating an issue?


----------



## Ed Oz

Ed Oz said:


> I seem to have the opposite problem to most posters: my sub level is too high...by far.
> 
> I back it off - by at least 1/3 - using the sub level control on the sub amp which is after the Denon 1713 AVR, and it's sometimes still to loud.
> 
> Although I haven't measured the speaker levels using tones, I listen mostly at a level lower than reference.
> 
> Perhaps DEQ is creating an issue?


More...although the manual implies (or so I interpret it) that I can turn DEQ off after Audyssey setup is run by choosing restore from the menu. That choice is either restore settings...yes/no.

Must I run Audyssey again in order to choose DEQ on or off?

If so, that's a frustrating and lengthy process simply to defeat DEQ.


----------



## mthomas47

Ed Oz said:


> I seem to have the opposite problem to most posters: my sub level is too high...by far.
> 
> I back it off - by at least 1/3 - using the sub level control on the sub amp which is after the Denon 1713 AVR, and it's sometimes still to loud.
> 
> Although I haven't measured the speaker levels using tones, I listen mostly at a level lower than reference.
> 
> Perhaps DEQ is creating an issue?





Ed Oz said:


> More...although the manual implies (or so I interpret it) that I can turn DEQ off after Audyssey setup is run by choosing restore from the menu. That choice is either restore settings...yes/no.
> 
> Must I run Audyssey again in order to choose DEQ on or off?
> 
> If so, that's a frustrating and lengthy process simply to defeat DEQ.


Hi,

The Denon manuals are notoriously confusing. You don't need to run Audyssey again, or to restore settings in order to disengage DEQ. Just turn it off in your Audio/Audyssey menu. You can use any of the Audyssey settings, including the two Audyssey curves, DEQ, Dynamic Volume, trim controls, distance settings, and crossovers (I may have left several features out ) without affecting the filters Audyssey set for your various channels.

Experimentation to decide what settings you prefer, for what type of program material, is an important part of the overall Audyssey experience in my opinion.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## drh3b

Ed Oz said:


> More...although the manual implies (or so I interpret it) that I can turn DEQ off after Audyssey setup is run by choosing restore from the menu. That choice is either restore settings...yes/no.
> 
> Must I run Audyssey again in order to choose DEQ on or off?
> 
> If so, that's a frustrating and lengthy process simply to defeat DEQ.


Mike, as usual, is right. I would add, turn everything off except Audyssey itself for starters.
If your Denon is like mine, you want to go to Audio>Audyssey to turn DEQ, etc off.
The other settings he mentioned like trim and speaker config are under Speakers>Manual Setup.


----------



## Ed Oz

drh3b said:


> Mike, as usual, is right. I would add, turn everything off except Audyssey itself for starters.
> If your Denon is like mine, you want to go to Audio>Audyssey to turn DEQ, etc off.
> The other settings he mentioned like trim and speaker config are under Speakers>Manual Setup.


Thanks much for the replies. Very helpful.

I'm shut down for the night, however...I think that "Audyssey" was greyed out under "Audio" which is why I couldn't see/find any advanced adjustments.

I'll check again tomorrow. In the meantime...if this rings a bell with any of you...please give me a head's up as to how to access the Audyssey settings when not running calibration (and, therefore, with the mic disconnected).

Thanks again.


----------



## LinekerAVS

mthomas47 said:


> LinekerAVS said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the problem is as small as the size, I guess the problem applies to all Pv1D?
> 
> Could it be the solution to the new Db3D subwoofer?
> Db3D, Pv1D as well as an 8 "dual driver.
> I have to get a refund to go to a different brand.
> Return may not be easy!
> Without this strange sound coming out of some of the stages, PV1D is a good enough sub
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I am sympathetic to your situation. Returns for refund aren't always easy. But, it may be worth your while to try in this case, or even to sell the sub to someone else if that isn't possible. Small drivers, with small amplifier power, in a small cabinet, simply cannot produce very loud and/or low bass. So, the subwoofer probably works just fine until you ask it to do too much. And, what it is trying to do in your video definitely seems like too much for the sub to handle.
> 
> I think that you would have the same problem with another PV1D. And honestly, looking at the specifications for the new DB3D subwoofer, I don't think that you could expect much improvement in low frequency extension or volume there either. If you were able to get a refund, there would be other subwoofers you could buy for the same amount of money, or even for much less, which would give you *much* better performance.
> 
> I try to never encourage people to buy a particular brand of subwoofers, or to discourage them from a particular brand, either. But, since you posted to say that you are experiencing problems, and posted a video demonstrating what you are experiencing, I feel obligated to give you objective advice. And, objectively speaking, as cool as those little subs look visually, they are simply not capable of doing much at all below about 30Hz or so. And, they aren't capable of very high volumes even at higher frequencies. In this case, you are paying a very high price for the name and the appearance. I believe that it would be in your interest to move to a better performing subwoofer if you can arrange to do it. And, moving to a different brand would greatly increase your performance to cost options.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Hi,
Pv1D seller is same, paradigm anthem dealer.
Is there a product I can choose from these brands instead of Pv1d?
I do not want to experience the problem that I live in PV1D !!
Can the Prestige 1000W 12 "driver fit you?
A different paradigm / anthem subwoofer model?
Ty


----------



## mthomas47

LinekerAVS said:


> Hi,
> Pv1D seller is same, paradigm anthem dealer.
> Is there a product I can choose from these brands instead of Pv1d?
> I do not want to experience the problem that I live in PV1D !!
> Can the Prestige 1000W 12 "driver fit you?
> A different paradigm / anthem subwoofer model?
> Ty


Hi,

I definitely think that the Prestige 1000 would be a big upgrade over what you have now. In fact, I would say that it is roughly comparable to an SVS SB13, which is a very good sub indeed. And, Paradigm is a very reputable speaker maker, so you would have confidence that you were getting a quality product. If you ever found yourself wanting even more, you would still be able to move up to the Prestige 2000, which would be an even more powerful model.

But, I would try the Prestige 1000 first. I think it might be just what you are looking for. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Ed Oz said:


> I seem to have the opposite problem to most posters: my sub level is too high...by far.
> 
> I back it off - by at least 1/3 - using the sub level control on the sub amp which is after the Denon 1713 AVR, and it's sometimes still to loud.
> 
> Although I haven't measured the speaker levels using tones, I listen mostly at a level lower than reference.
> 
> Perhaps DEQ is creating an issue?


What was your subwoofer trim setting after running Audyssey? If it was at -12dB, that is the lower limit and you would need to turn down the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey until you get a trim that is "in range". Typically, anything from -11.5dB to -8.0dB.


----------



## Alan P

Ed Oz said:


> Thanks much for the replies. Very helpful.
> 
> I'm shut down for the night, however...*I think that "Audyssey" was greyed out under "Audio" *which is why I couldn't see/find any advanced adjustments.
> 
> I'll check again tomorrow. In the meantime...if this rings a bell with any of you...please give me a head's up as to how to access the Audyssey settings when not running calibration (and, therefore, with the mic disconnected).
> 
> Thanks again.


Did you complete the Audyssey setup by selecting Caculate and then Store? It sounds like you may not have finished the calibration if Audyssey is greyed out....


----------



## drh3b

Alan P said:


> Did you complete the Audyssey setup by selecting Calculate and then Store? It sounds like you may not have finished the calibration if Audyssey is greyed out....


That's what I was thinking as well.


----------



## LinekerAVS

mthomas47 said:


> LinekerAVS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> Pv1D seller is same, paradigm anthem dealer.
> Is there a product I can choose from these brands instead of Pv1d?
> I do not want to experience the problem that I live in PV1D !!
> Can the Prestige 1000W 12 "driver fit you?
> A different paradigm / anthem subwoofer model?
> Ty
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I definitely think that the Prestige 1000 would be a big upgrade over what you have now. In fact, I would say that it is roughly comparable to an SVS SB13, which is a very good sub indeed. And, Paradigm is a very reputable speaker maker, so you would have confidence that you were getting a quality product. If you ever found yourself wanting even more, you would still be able to move up to the Prestige 2000, which would be an even more powerful model.
> 
> But, I would try the Prestige 1000 first. I think it might be just what you are looking for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thank you for reply Mike;
I try to manage this problem with some personal settings;
Dyn eq: on
Dyn Vol: On / day
Avr sub ch level: -5dB
Avr audio setting: lfe -3 dB
Pv1D: Eq3
I will manage with these settings until I find a basic solution.
The vendor wanted to resend the product to determine the problem.
Undecided to send !!
As an option, db3d or db2d (budget can exceed)
And change with the paradigm brand subwoofer (about $ 1,700)
??


----------



## mthomas47

LinekerAVS said:


> Thank you for reply Mike;
> I try to manage this problem with some personal settings;
> Dyn eq: on
> Dyn Vol: On / day
> Avr sub ch level: -5dB
> Avr audio setting: lfe -3 dB
> Pv1D: Eq3
> I will manage with these settings until I find a basic solution.
> The vendor wanted to resend the product to determine the problem.
> Undecided to send !!
> As an option, db3d or db2d (budget can exceed)
> And change with the paradigm brand subwoofer (about $ 1,700)
> ??


You are very welcome, and I hope it all works out for you! If you are asking my advice, with the question marks, I would probably try to exchange the subwoofer you have for the Paradigm Prestige 1000, or if you want to pay more, for the Prestige 2000. My belief is that your PV1D is simply not very powerful, and I would prefer to trust a Paradigm subwoofer to be a better permanent solution, compared to the other choices. I think that the Prestige 1000 would be a better choice than the DB2D, for instance. And, the Prestige 2000 would be a better choice than the DB1D, in my opinion. However, if you are still interested in B&W subwoofers, then the DB2D would represent an upgrade to your current sub.

Please let me know what you end up deciding, and let me know if I can help with anything else. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

LinekerAVS said:


> Thank you for reply Mike;
> I try to manage this problem with some personal settings;
> Dyn eq: on
> Dyn Vol: On / day
> Avr sub ch level: -5dB
> Avr audio setting: lfe -3 dB
> Pv1D: Eq3
> I will manage with these settings until I find a basic solution.
> The vendor wanted to resend the product to determine the problem.
> Undecided to send !!
> As an option, db3d or db2d (budget can exceed)
> And change with the paradigm brand subwoofer (about $ 1,700)
> ??


IMO, Dynamic Volume should only be used when absolutely necessary, like when someone is sleeping in the house. It compresses the dynamics and defeats the composer's intentions.

With a good subwoofer, you probably won't need it. Does your current subwoofer distort when playing highly dynamic material?


----------



## gurkey

DynamicVolume, especially in the light position, enhances the dialogue legibility without compressing the dynamic range audibly that much (noticeably).
After some hesitation I have it now constantly activated in my living room setup after a longer "trial" period.
It keeps us from constantly adjusting the volume to have everything in perspective without being overwhelmed.


----------



## gerchy

Is there a way to see the original frequency response curve before Audyssey did its job?
I have a configuration file from my SR7009. I was not using the pro installer kit.


----------



## gurkey

Not really, but the graphic EQ of some units after an Audyssey measurement does show a rough view of proposed corrections which in turn can show (rough too) existent frequency deviations as an overview.


----------



## Ed Oz

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The Denon manuals are notoriously confusing. You don't need to run Audyssey again, or to restore settings in order to disengage DEQ. Just turn it off in your Audio/Audyssey menu. You can use any of the Audyssey settings, including the two Audyssey curves, DEQ, Dynamic Volume, trim controls, distance settings, and crossovers (I may have left several features out ) without affecting the filters Audyssey set for your various channels.
> 
> Experimentation to decide what settings you prefer, for what type of program material, is an important part of the overall Audyssey experience in my opinion.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, Mike...especially your comment regarding the Denon manual. I've been around audio (and then video) since I was a teen (many moons ago) and can't believe how confounding I've found this manual to be. 

In any case...I had a few moments and managed to figure out that the greyed out Audyssey option was because at one time (I guess) I had inadvertently clicked on the Pure option rather than Movie on the remote. Once I clicked on Movie, the other options became available.

I turned off the DEQ (yes, it was on) and problem solved.

In my experience...going back to the ever-present loudness switch/button on early hi-fi gear...such features never work...even the Denon DEQ version of it. F-M curve be damned, boosting bass level that way for low overall volume listening has never given me satisfactory results.

(Now I can deal with the illogical - to me - placement of various parameter adjustments under their respective menu items.)

Ed


----------



## Ed Oz

Alan P said:


> Did you complete the Audyssey setup by selecting Caculate and then Store? It sounds like you may not have finished the calibration if Audyssey is greyed out....


Yes. See separate post for why I was experiencing the greyed-out Audyssey option.

Thanks, Alan!!


----------



## Ed Oz

Alan P said:


> What was your subwoofer trim setting after running Audyssey? If it was at -12dB, that is the lower limit and you would need to turn down the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey until you get a trim that is "in range". Typically, anything from -11.5dB to -8.0dB.


Thanks much, Alan.

I had no idea.

As I recall, the Denon manual had me set my sub volume at 1/2 before running Audyssey.

After reading your reply...my sub setting post-Audyssey is indeed at -12. I'll do as you suggest and post my findings.

Turning off the DEQ (see separate post) tamed the bass over-boom I was hearing at lower volume levels.


----------



## garygarrison

gerchy said:


> Is there a way to see the original frequency response curve before Audyssey did its job?
> I have a configuration file from my SR7009. I was not using the pro installer kit.


If you have a calibrated mic, run an REW (free, online) curve with Audyssey "off, then with Audyssey "on." Use the REW "overlay" button to superimpose the curves. Very informative. Even without a calibrated mic, you can see the relative difference across the frequency spectrum.


----------



## gerchy

gurkey said:


> Not really, but the graphic EQ of some units after an Audyssey measurement does show a rough view of proposed corrections which in turn can show (rough too) existent frequency deviations as an overview.


Yes, it does but it's not very informative if one wants to see detailed response, room modes, etc.



garygarrison said:


> If you have a calibrated mic, run an REW (free, online) curve with Audyssey "off, then with Audyssey "on." Use the REW "overlay" button to superimpose the curves. Very informative. Even without a calibrated mic, you can see the relative difference across the frequency spectrum.


I can do this for my current setup, yes, but I'd like to see the curve of my previous one. I'd settle for calibrated curve too.

Thank you, both.


----------



## Mitch57

I posted this in the "Official Marantz AV 7703 Thread as well.

So, my dealer replaced my troublesome 7702mkii with the latest 7703. I ran Audyssey 3 times and it continues to set my surround channel levels to -12. How do I correct that? Do I have a defective Microphone?

With my 7702mkii, in the same room with the same furnishings, I got the following readings with Audyssey.

Front L =- 6.5
Center = -4.5
Front R = -4.0
Surround R = -8.0
Surround L = -5.5
Subwoofer 1 = -9.5
Subwoofer 2 = -7.0

On my brand new 7703 Audyssey set my levels to the following:

Front L = -11.5
Center = -10.5
Front R = -11
Surround R = -12
Surround L = -12
Subwoofer 1 = -8.0
Subwoofer 2 = -9.0

I also updated it to the latest firmware version and then did a factory reset 6 times. Totally different reading for basically the exact same setup.

Anyone have any ideas on what's happening here?


----------



## gurkey

Those settings depend upon speaker efficiency, power amp gain, speaker placement etc.
Did you measure with the mike coming with the 7703 ? Did you replace or move anything ?


----------



## Mitch57

gurkey said:


> Those settings depend upon speaker efficiency, power amp gain, speaker placement etc.
> Did you measure with the mike coming with the 7703 ? Did you replace or move anything ?


Yep. Used the mic that came with the unit. Nothing changed in my room except one thing. I added a Verizon LTE Network Extender for my cell phones which is inside my equipment cabinet with my Audio gear. I did see in the 7703 instructions that cell phones could interfere with Audyssey.

That's the only thing that's changed in my room. I'll try running Audyssey with that disconnected. Seems odd to me that this would cause an issue but who knows.


----------



## Ed Oz

*More Audyssey calibration results that don't make sense (to me)*



Alan P said:


> What was your subwoofer trim setting after running Audyssey? If it was at -12dB, that is the lower limit and you would need to turn down the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey until you get a trim that is "in range". Typically, anything from -11.5dB to -8.0dB.


Ran Audyssey again...several times.

In previous calibrations, the sub distance came out at around 16' which is correct. The last trun of the evening, it came out at 0.5'. Obviously...not correct. So...after I stored results, I manually reset the sub distance.

However, each time I calibrated, the sub level came out at -12dB even though I successively lowered the volume control on the NHT SA-1 amp from 12:00 to 10 then 9 then 8. (Yes..the NHT SW-1s is connected to the SA-1 speaker outputs, not the line out.) Also, the subjective sub level when running the test remained about the same no matter what the volume control setting.

Ran Audyssey one last time. Results:

* L/R speakers defaulted to full band although they are small (NHT SuperOne). Half the time when I've run Audyssey, it chooses "full band" or "large" and the other half "small."
* Speaker distances change even though I set up the mic in the exact same positions for each run through. Granted...not a lot of difference...a foot or so...(except for the sub extremes)...still.
* Whether volume control on sub amp is at 12:00 or all the way down at 7:00, Audyssey always returns a value of -12db & the subjective loudness of the sub remains the same in each run.

This is my first experience with Audyssey and I have no idea what to make of some of the results.

I'm sure some of you have had much more experience and hope that you can guide me in resolving these issues.

Thanks!

Ed


----------



## garygarrison

Ed Oz said:


> Ran Audyssey again...several times.
> 
> In previous calibrations, the sub distance came out at around 16' which is correct. The last trun of the evening, it came out at 0.5'. Obviously...not correct. So...after I stored results, I manually reset the sub distance.
> 
> However, *each time I calibrated, the sub level came out at -12dB even though I successively lowered the volume control on the NHT SA-1 amp from 12:00 to 10 then 9 then 8.* (*Yes..the NHT SW-1s is connected to the SA-1 speaker outputs, not the line out.) Also, the subjective sub level when running the test remained about the same no matter what the volume control setting.*
> 
> Ran Audyssey one last time. Results:
> 
> * L/R speakers defaulted to full band although they are small (NHT SuperOne). Half the time when I've run Audyssey, it chooses "full band" or "large" and the other half "small."
> * Speaker distances change even though I set up the mic in the exact same positions for each run through. Granted...not a lot of difference...a foot or so...(except for the sub extremes)...still.
> ** Whether volume control on sub amp is at 12:00 or all the way down at 7:00, Audyssey always returns a value of -12db & the subjective loudness of the sub remains the same in each run.
> *
> This is my first experience with Audyssey and I have no idea what to make of some of the results.
> 
> I'm sure some of you have had much more experience and hope that you can guide me in resolving these issues.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ed


Let me understand this. The SA-1 is a separate amp intended to power the subwoofer NHT-SW1, which has no amp in it, and the SA-1 is fed by your Denon's subwoofer out, right? If not, please let me know.

Is the volume control (on the SA-1) being *bypassed* somehow? 

"_Whether volume control on sub amp is at 12:00 or all the way down at 7:00, Audyssey always returns a value of -12db & the subjective loudness of the sub remains the same in each run_." 

If the subjective volume had not remained the same, I'd think that the sub was much more than 12 dB too loud, and that it needs much more attenuation -- but since the subjective volume of the sub doesn't change when you turn it down, that's not it, unless the sample signal you are listening to is very soft and is difficult to hear properly because of the Fletcher-Munson effect.. Is it pink noise? Music? Have you checked it with an SPL meter? I'm grasping at straws. 

Rest, have a glass of wine (if you imbibe) and read these, just in case there is an answer there: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"  and "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" I guarantee they are better than the Denon manual!

If you suspect the SA-1 volume control is being bypassed, or you suspect it of other perfidious misbehavior, try calling 1-800-NHT-9993

Best of luck!


----------



## Fivez

_When measuring with a mic stand, try to avoid positioning the boom arm between the mic and the speakers._

How is this even possible? Like, with a traditional 7.1 setup, isn't the arm going to be in every spot?


----------



## bmcn

Fivez said:


> _When measuring with a mic stand, try to avoid positioning the boom arm between the mic and the speakers._
> 
> How is this even possible? Like, with a traditional 7.1 setup, isn't the arm going to be in every spot?


I read that too, so I place the mic stand behind the sofa.


----------



## Ed Oz

garygarrison said:


> Let me understand this. The SA-1 is a separate amp intended to power the subwoofer NHT-SW1, which has no amp in it, and the SA-1 is fed by your Denon's subwoofer out, right? If not, please let me know.
> 
> Is the volume control (on the SA-1) being *bypassed* somehow?
> 
> "_Whether volume control on sub amp is at 12:00 or all the way down at 7:00, Audyssey always returns a value of -12db & the subjective loudness of the sub remains the same in each run_."
> 
> If the subjective volume had not remained the same, I'd think that the sub was much more than 12 dB too loud, and that it needs much more attenuation -- but since the subjective volume of the sub doesn't change when you turn it down, that's not it, unless the sample signal you are listening to is very soft and is difficult to hear properly because of the Fletcher-Munson effect.. Is it pink noise? Music? Have you checked it with an SPL meter? I'm grasping at straws.
> 
> Rest, have a glass of wine (if you imbibe) and read these, just in case there is an answer there: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"  and "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" I guarantee they are better than the Denon manual!
> 
> If you suspect the SA-1 volume control is being bypassed, or you suspect it of other perfidious misbehavior, try calling 1-800-NHT-9993
> 
> Best of luck!


Grasping it straws describes it well, Gary.

You're spot on re: passive sub & external amp, and my initial thoughts exactly re: the sub possibly being much too loud and needing a ton of attenuation. That doesn't seem to be the case.

So far, I've only run the Audyssey calibration. The sub sample signal to which I was referring was Audyssey's tone burst used when running the calibration for all five speakers. Afterwards, I listened to the results with (very briefly) one movie & Denon's internally generated white noise.

Next step is to test with music and see if the sub amp volume control has any effect. If not, then I'll call NHT since I have no idea how the volume control would be bypassed. Never had a problem like this over the years.

If it does have an effect, then....I'll have to rethink this.

Watch it turn out to be something obvious!

In any case, can't do any more testing until tomorrow. This time perhaps I'll start with drink in hand!

Thanks and will keep you posted (even if it is some dumbass oversight on my part.)

Ed


----------



## Lindros88

I have identical dual subwoofers and whenever I run Audyssey Multeq, it's setting the subwoofers way too loud. The subs are gain matched and placed equidistant from the mlp. If I calibrate each independently, it sets to trim to -2.0db and the subs sound good, but when I try to calibrate both subs together, it sets the sub channel to +4.5db and both subs sound loud and boomy. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## asere

Lindros88 said:


> I have identical dual subwoofers and whenever I run Audyssey Multeq, it's setting the subwoofers way too loud. The subs are gain matched and placed equidistant from the mlp. If I calibrate each independently, it sets to trim to -2.0db and the subs sound good, but when I try to calibrate both subs together, it sets the sub channel to +4.5db and both subs sound loud and boomy. What am I doing wrong?


You are setting the gain to low. You can always bring the + trim down from the avr but it's best to go up on the gain and run audyssey and get a trim in the - below -12 and then if it's too low go up on the trim from the avr and stay in the - or even 0 trim. That way you have more headroom and avoids clipping the sub amp. 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


----------



## Lindros88

asere said:


> You are setting the gain to low. You can always bring the + trim down from the avr but it's best to go up on the gain and run audyssey and get a trim in the - below -12 and then if it's too low go up on the trim from the avr and stay in the - or even 0 trim. That way you have more headroom and avoids clipping the sub amp.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


Alright, thanks. I'll try raising the gain and recalibrating later tonight.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Let me understand this. The SA-1 is a separate amp intended to power the subwoofer NHT-SW1, which has no amp in it, and the SA-1 is fed by your Denon's subwoofer out, right? If not, please let me know.
> 
> Is the volume control (on the SA-1) being *bypassed* somehow?
> 
> "_Whether volume control on sub amp is at 12:00 or all the way down at 7:00, Audyssey always returns a value of -12db & the subjective loudness of the sub remains the same in each run_."
> 
> If the subjective volume had not remained the same, I'd think that the sub was much more than 12 dB too loud, and that it needs much more attenuation -- but since the subjective volume of the sub doesn't change when you turn it down, that's not it, unless the sample signal you are listening to is very soft and is difficult to hear properly because of the Fletcher-Munson effect.. Is it pink noise? Music? Have you checked it with an SPL meter? I'm grasping at straws.
> 
> Rest, have a glass of wine (if you imbibe) and read these, just in case there is an answer there: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"  and "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" I guarantee they are better than the Denon manual!
> 
> If you suspect the SA-1 volume control is being bypassed, or you suspect it of other perfidious misbehavior, try calling 1-800-NHT-9993
> 
> Best of luck!


All are very good suggestions made by Gary, worth to follow. (Especially the glass of wine,  ). Yet, as I see this is not the way Audyssey is supposed to work. Over the years on this thread many Audyssey owners have reported pretty consistent calibration results both level and distance wise for all speakers including sub(s) when they were repeated in the same room. 

If nothing else works, my suggestion for today would be to do a complete microprocessor (or factory) reset. There may be a small glitch in the program that causes the symptoms described. Best is to do a series of resets, like 5-6 in a row.

Report back, please!


----------



## mthomas47

Ed Oz said:


> Ran Audyssey again...several times.
> 
> In previous calibrations, the sub distance came out at around 16' which is correct. The last trun of the evening, it came out at 0.5'. Obviously...not correct. So...after I stored results, I manually reset the sub distance.
> 
> However, each time I calibrated, the sub level came out at -12dB even though I successively lowered the volume control on the NHT SA-1 amp from 12:00 to 10 then 9 then 8. (Yes..the NHT SW-1s is connected to the SA-1 speaker outputs, not the line out.) Also, the subjective sub level when running the test remained about the same no matter what the volume control setting.
> 
> Ran Audyssey one last time. Results:
> 
> * L/R speakers defaulted to full band although they are small (NHT SuperOne). Half the time when I've run Audyssey, it chooses "full band" or "large" and the other half "small."
> * Speaker distances change even though I set up the mic in the exact same positions for each run through. Granted...not a lot of difference...a foot or so...(except for the sub extremes)...still.
> * Whether volume control on sub amp is at 12:00 or all the way down at 7:00, Audyssey always returns a value of -12db & the subjective loudness of the sub remains the same in each run.
> 
> This is my first experience with Audyssey and I have no idea what to make of some of the results.
> 
> I'm sure some of you have had much more experience and hope that you can guide me in resolving these issues.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Ed


Hi Ed,

I have no idea what's going on with the subwoofer amp. According to a quick search I did, that's only a 90 watt amplifier, so I can't imagine it is actually too loud. If anything, I think you might be alert for something a little more robust when the opportunity presents itself. I have nothing to add to what Gary and Feri said. I do think that a microprocessor reset is worth a try.

With respect to the other two issues you mentioned, I don't see anything too unusual. With respect to the speaker distance settings, I wouldn't expect the distances to change by a foot, but an inch or two would be pretty normal, as it is very difficult to place the mic in exactly the same position (for mic position 1) between Audyssey runs. Again, a microprocessor reset can't hurt.

For the Small versus Large issue, that could also be dependent on mic placement. Audyssey will measure the point at which a speaker (pair in this case) is losing 3db of SPL, and will report that frequency to the AVR. The AVR will then set the speaker as either Large, or Small with a crossover, depending on it's own internal algorithm. (Note, a speaker's low extension can be strongly influenced by boundary gain.) If a speaker is right on the edge of 40Hz, even moving the mic an inch could tip the reported F3 point one way or the other. It doesn't really matter, though, as you will want to set the speakers as Small with about an 80Hz crossover, regardless.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Lindros88

asere said:


> You are setting the gain to low. You can always bring the + trim down from the avr but it's best to go up on the gain and run audyssey and get a trim in the - below -12 and then if it's too low go up on the trim from the avr and stay in the - or even 0 trim. That way you have more headroom and avoids clipping the sub amp.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


I raised the gain and got a -6.5 on the sub level. The bass doesn't sound muddy anymore, so it solved that problem, but the volume level is still louder when I calibrate them together. Is this to be expected with dual subs? 

If I calibrate each one independantly, I don't get as much volume from either, but when I calibrate them together, I get more volume from both. It's not a perceived increase in volume either. If I put my hand against it, it is definitely vibrating more, even when the master volume is at the same setting. 

Isn't it also strange that audyssey would set the trim higher, when they are calibrated together, versus separately Shouldn't two subs playing the audyssey chirps, mean the trim would be set lower, rather than higher, since it's more volume?


----------



## asere

Lindros88 said:


> I raised the gain and got a -6.5 on the sub level. The bass doesn't sound muddy anymore, so it solved that problem, but the volume level is still louder when I calibrate them together. Is this to be expected with dual subs?
> 
> If I calibrate each one independantly, I don't get as much volume from either, but when I calibrate them together, I get more volume from both. It's not a perceived increase in volume either. If I put my hand against it, it is definitely vibrating more, even when the master volume is at the same setting.
> 
> Isn't it also strange that audyssey would set the trim higher, when they are calibrated together, versus separately Shouldn't two subs playing the audyssey chirps, mean the trim would be set lower, rather than higher, since it's more volume?


Yes with both you get more volume. Audyssey goal is to calibrate both at 75 db. Audyssey does not set the trim the avr does. 
How does your entire system sound after Audyssey?



Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Lindros88 said:


> I raised the gain and got a -6.5 on the sub level. The bass doesn't sound muddy anymore, so it solved that problem, but the volume level is still louder when I calibrate them together. Is this to be expected with dual subs?
> 
> If I calibrate each one independantly, I don't get as much volume from either, but when I calibrate them together, I get more volume from both. It's not a perceived increase in volume either. If I put my hand against it, it is definitely vibrating more, even when the master volume is at the same setting.
> 
> Isn't it also strange that audyssey would set the trim higher, when they are calibrated together, versus separately Shouldn't two subs playing the audyssey chirps, mean the trim would be set lower, rather than higher, since it's more volume?


Hi,

What you are describing does not sound like normal behavior to me, but I have no explanation for why it may be happening. If you are really curious about this you may want to include descriptions of your subs and photos of how they are connected. If you have one sub, Audyssey will set the trim level for that sub so that at 0.0 MV the sub is playing 95db (75db test tone + 20db added in the AVR for the LFE channel; 10db for the other channels). If you have dual subs, the total volume level will be the same as it was for one sub, but the trim levels for each sub should be slightly lower, as they are splitting the work. If you have four subs, the total volume level will still be the same as it was for one sub, but the trim levels should be slightly lower yet, as the workload is divided among four subs.

I have no explanation for why trim levels would be higher for two subs than for a single sub, nor for why the subs seem to be working harder when you put your hand on the cabinets. Feri often recommends a microprocessor reset when an AVR, or the Audyssey software within it, seems to be glitching. That can't hurt. FWIW, I don't see any inherent harm in what is happening, unless you are concerned that you will run out of headroom, but I can't explain why it is happening.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Lindros88

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> What you are describing does not sound like normal behavior to me, but I have no explanation for why it may be happening. If you are really curious about this you may want to include descriptions of your subs and photos of how they are connected. If you have one sub, Audyssey will set the trim level for that sub so that at 0.0 MV the sub is playing 95db (75db test tone + 20db added in the AVR for the LFE channel; 10db for the other channels). If you have dual subs, the total volume level will be the same as it was for one sub, but the trim levels for each sub should be slightly lower, as they are splitting the work. If you have four subs, the total volume level will still be the same as it was for one sub, but the trim levels should be slightly lower yet, as the workload is divided among four subs.
> 
> I have no explanation for why trim levels would be higher for two subs than for a single sub, nor for why the subs seem to be working harder when you put your hand on the cabinets. Feri often recommends a microprocessor reset when an AVR, or the Audyssey software within it, seems to be glitching. That can't hurt. FWIW, I don't see any inherent harm in what is happening, unless you are concerned that you will run out of headroom, but I can't explain why it is happening.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


My setup is pretty simple. I have a Denon 1612, which has 1 sub preout and Audyssey MultEQ. I have identical HSU VTF-3 MK5 subs. There is a Y splitter in the back of the receiver and two identical 25 foot cables running to each sub. The subs are on the sidewalls, flanking the mlp, symmetrically placed.

I did do a microprocessor reset, but it didn't make a difference. It doesn't sound bad, just way too loud. Asere's advice on getting the trim level out of the positive range, got rid of the boominess. I guess I'll just have to manually lower the volume level in the receiver. It's probably time to upgrade to a new receiver soon anyway. Thanks.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Maybe a bad Audyssey mic...?


----------



## fredxr2d2

Lindros88 said:


> My setup is pretty simple. I have a Denon 1612, which has 1 sub preout and Audyssey MultEQ. I have identical HSU VTF-3 MK5 subs. There is a Y splitter in the back of the receiver and two identical 25 foot cables running to each sub. The subs are on the sidewalls, flanking the mlp, symmetrically placed.
> 
> I did do a microprocessor reset, but it didn't make a difference. It doesn't sound bad, just way too loud. Asere's advice on getting the trim level out of the positive range, got rid of the boominess. I guess I'll just have to manually lower the volume level in the receiver. It's probably time to upgrade to a new receiver soon anyway. Thanks.





Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Maybe a bad Audyssey mic...?





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> What you are describing does not sound like normal behavior to me, but I have no explanation for why it may be happening. If you are really curious about this you may want to include descriptions of your subs and photos of how they are connected. If you have one sub, Audyssey will set the trim level for that sub so that at 0.0 MV the sub is playing 95db (75db test tone + 20db added in the AVR for the LFE channel; 10db for the other channels). If you have dual subs, the total volume level will be the same as it was for one sub, but the trim levels for each sub should be slightly lower, as they are splitting the work. If you have four subs, the total volume level will still be the same as it was for one sub, but the trim levels should be slightly lower yet, as the workload is divided among four subs.
> 
> I have no explanation for why trim levels would be higher for two subs than for a single sub, nor for why the subs seem to be working harder when you put your hand on the cabinets. Feri often recommends a microprocessor reset when an AVR, or the Audyssey software within it, seems to be glitching. That can't hurt. FWIW, I don't see any inherent harm in what is happening, unless you are concerned that you will run out of headroom, but I can't explain why it is happening.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



The only thing that I can think of for why it is setting the trim levels higher with both subs playing is due to phase cancellation. But that wouldn't account for the subs playing louder - in fact it should sound softer. Ironically, the symmetrical placement of subs may be causing cancellation at the MLP and causing weird Audyssey behavior when both are connected. Personally, I'd recommend a miniDSP 2x4 and REW to set delays and impulse response for dual subs, especially without a version of Audyssey that will do that for you.


----------



## citsur86

After Audyssey calibration I always take a listen to the volume levels of the various speakers as they sound to me at MLP. I generally close my eyes and turn the lights off to try to be able to focus on just the volume levels per speaker. I often make .5 to 2db changes to at least half of the speakers to make them sound equal in volume. Is it better to do this or should I just trust Audyssey and leave everything except the sub channels alone (I like to boost them regardless). What are people's thoughts?


----------



## David Aiken

Lindros88 said:


> I raised the gain and got a -6.5 on the sub level. The bass doesn't sound muddy anymore, so it solved that problem, but the volume level is still louder when I calibrate them together. Is this to be expected with dual subs?
> 
> If I calibrate each one independantly, I don't get as much volume from either, but when I calibrate them together, I get more volume from both. It's not a perceived increase in volume either. If I put my hand against it, it is definitely vibrating more, even when the master volume is at the same setting.
> 
> Isn't it also strange that audyssey would set the trim higher, when they are calibrated together, versus separately Shouldn't two subs playing the audyssey chirps, mean the trim would be set lower, rather than higher, since it's more volume?





Lindros88 said:


> My setup is pretty simple. I have a Denon 1612, which has 1 sub preout and Audyssey MultEQ. I have identical HSU VTF-3 MK5 subs. There is a Y splitter in the back of the receiver and two identical 25 foot cables running to each sub. The subs are on the sidewalls, flanking the mlp, symmetrically placed.
> 
> I did do a microprocessor reset, but it didn't make a difference. It doesn't sound bad, just way too loud. Asere's advice on getting the trim level out of the positive range, got rid of the boominess. I guess I'll just have to manually lower the volume level in the receiver. It's probably time to upgrade to a new receiver soon anyway. Thanks.


I haven't been following the thread closely for a bit so I may be missing something from earlier posts in which case ignore me.

OK, the subs are on either side of the MLP. I don't think the symmetric placement of the subs is going to affect anything. What I wonder is where the MLP is in relation to the 2 subs, is it equidistant from both or is it closer to one sub than the other?

When you calibrate the subs individually you don't have to worry about the interaction between the sound from each sub. When you calibrate them together there's interaction between the sound from the 2 subs and you get reinforcements and cancellations at different points. If there's cancellations occurring at the MLP then the combined level of the 2 subs will be lower than the level of a single sub so the trim will get set higher. Audyssey doesn't know there are 2 subs because there's only 1 sub output being calibrated, as far as it's concerned there's only one sub and if there's cancellation of some kind going on at the MLP the combined level of the 2 subs is going to be less than the level of a single sub, hence the difference in trim settings. Of course the amount of cancellation going on is going to be frequency dependent and influenced by the room dimensions and MLP placement and there's going to be some reinforcement at some frequencies also but the overall level from the 2 subs combined could be less than the level from a single sub.

Once we start talking about an MLP that isn't equidistant from the 2 subs and/or rooms that aren't symmetrical, even if that difference in symmetry is due to things like furniture or windows (glass "leaks" bass) or different wall construction (say dry wall behind one sub and brick or cement behind the other) things start to get even more complex and unpredictable.

I don't think the difference in the trim settings between separate calibrations for each sub and a calibration of the combined output of both subs is an issue in and of itself. What should count is how the result sounds and if the sound you get with the result from the combined calibration sounds good to you, then go with it. If the trim setting is high, increase the gain setting on both subs until you can get a trim setting that is less than 0 dB and lower than -3 dB if possible for the reasons given in Mike's sub guide. You're listening to combined subs so you want the response with the subs working together to be right. If you can't increase the gain setting enough with the subs in their current placement, move one of the subs to a different position and break the symmetrical placement of them. That will change the interaction between them and affect how they sum together at the listening position. You may have to experiment a bit to find a different placement that works but provided the sub crossover frequency is low enough, 80 Hz or lower, the asymmetrical placement should not affect imaging and your impression of where low frequencies are coming from, or at least not affect that very often.

In the end what counts is what you hear when you're listening to something. The fact that the trim settings you get when calibrating the subs separately and when calibrating them combined are different is interesting in an academic sense and says something about what's happening at low frequencies in your room but if you listen with the 2 subs working then what counts, actually the only thing that counts, is what's happening when both are working and how the combined output sounds at the listening position. That's what you need to be concerned about getting right. I use 2 identical subs on the same wall with one closer to a side wall than the other and quite different furniture arrangements and walls on either side of the subs and my AVR has 2 sub outputs so both subs get calibrated individually during the Audyssey setup and they end up with different trim settings but the result sounds fine. It's also worth noting that when Audyssey does measure each sub separately if you have 2 sub outputs on your AVR as I do, it sets the trims for each sub separately but it calculates the corrections for the combination of the 2 subs, not individual corrections for each sub. It's what happens with the combined output that counts and I end up with a single correction being applied for both subs just as you end up with a single correction being applied when you do the setup process with both subs operating.


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> After Audyssey calibration I always take a listen to the volume levels of the various speakers as they sound to me at MLP. I generally close my eyes and turn the lights off to try to be able to focus on just the volume levels per speaker. I often make .5 to 2db changes to at least half of the speakers to make them sound equal in volume. Is it better to do this or should I just trust Audyssey and leave everything except the sub channels alone (I like to boost them regardless). What are people's thoughts?


Hi,

That's an interesting question. I believe that Audyssey does a very good job of setting channel levels to play at equal levels at the MLP. The problem is that Audyssey does that in a vacuum, so to speak, with respect to the listener and with respect to real world content. Let's take the listener, for example. What if you don't hear as well out of one ear, either due to some permanent hearing loss, or just temporarily due to a head cold, or one ear not quite clearing from a recent plane ride? I have observed that happening to me a few times. In that case, you might want to adjust some trim levels on the affected side.

Listening content is another variable. I sometimes watch movies that seem to be biased slightly toward one side or the other. I suspect that is more likely with streaming or satellite transmissions than with BR content. But, that unbalanced sound is something I have observed occasionally. 2-channel music is often biased slightly toward one side or the other, but is generally not long enough in duration to be worth adjusting for. A 2-hour movie on the other hand can be very irritating if the channels are not in balance.

My take on this is that Audyssey is accurate in what it does, but that it is listener and content agnostic. If you get better results by permanently adjusting some trim levels slightly, or if on a particular day, or for a particular type of content, you feel a need to re-balance the trim levels, there is no harm in it. You are pleasing yourself, after all. I would just be careful to remember the original level settings in case you want to be able to go back to them for the majority of your listening. You can always restore settings, but that will restore all of them, including any that you might have wanted to retain as you have set them.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

citsur86 said:


> After Audyssey calibration I always take a listen to the volume levels of the various speakers as they sound to me at MLP. I generally close my eyes and turn the lights off to try to be able to focus on just the volume levels per speaker. I often make .5 to 2db changes to at least half of the speakers to make them sound equal in volume. Is it better to do this or should I just trust Audyssey and leave everything except the sub channels alone (I like to boost them regardless). What are people's thoughts?


Hey citsur,

When you perform this exercise, are you using the internal test tones or an external source? Either way, your method isn't _the most exact_ way to go about setting speaker levels, but if you like the resulting sound, so be it! I just want to remind you that the internal tones bypass the Audyssey EQ filters. 

Personally, I set levels using the internal tones and an SPL meter as opposed to REW+USB mic since I have done it both ways on my system and they result in pretty much the exact same results.


----------



## citsur86

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's an interesting question. I believe that Audyssey does a very good job of setting channel levels to play at equal levels at the MLP. The problem is that Audyssey does that in a vacuum, so to speak, with respect to the listener and with respect to real world content. Let's take the listener, for example. What if you don't hear as well out of one ear, either due to some permanent hearing loss, or just temporarily due to a head cold, or one ear not quite clearing from a recent plane ride? I have observed that happening to me a few times. In that case, you might want to adjust some trim levels on the affected side.
> 
> Listening content is another variable. I sometimes watch movies that seem to be biased slightly toward one side or the other. I suspect that is more likely with streaming or satellite transmissions than with BR content. But, that unbalanced sound is something I have observed occasionally. 2-channel music is often biased slightly toward one side or the other, but is generally not long enough in duration to be worth adjusting for. A 2-hour movie on the other hand can be very irritating if the channels are not in balance.
> 
> My take on this is that Audyssey is accurate in what it does, but that it is listener and content agnostic. If you get better results by permanently adjusting some trim levels slightly, or if on a particular day, or for a particular type of content, you feel a need to re-balance the trim levels, there is no harm in it. You are pleasing yourself, after all. I would just be careful to remember the original level settings in case you want to be able to go back to them for the majority of your listening. You can always restore settings, but that will restore all of them, including any that you might have wanted to retain as you have set them.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike! Very good points all around. I find myself boosting the ceiling and far left surrounds most as my MLP is about 3 feet from surround right and 10 feet from surround left. Same relative differences for rear right surround vs rear left surround. I find the effects that get sent their way during movies aren't noticeable enough without a slight boost. I also will generally boost my front heights slightly to increase the front sound-stage. Most of all, my center normally gets boosted +3db to +4db or so. My wife and I both agree that during bluray playback the voices are often too low. This has the negative effect of narrowing the sound field and taking away the front left and right benefit a bit. I realize my next upgrade needs to be my center speaker. I currently have a CM Center S2 which I think is too small for my space and compared to my other speakers. I think I need a CM Center 2 S2.



Alan P said:


> Hey citsur,
> 
> When you perform this exercise, are you using the internal test tones or an external source? Either way, your method isn't _the most exact_ way to go about setting speaker levels, but if you like the resulting sound, so be it! I just want to remind you that the internal tones bypass the Audyssey EQ filters.
> 
> Personally, I set levels using the internal tones and an SPL meter as opposed to REW+USB mic since I have done it both ways on my system and they result in pretty much the exact same results.


Alan, that's a great point! I have been using the AVR's internal test tones. I didn't realize these are playing back without Audyssey EQ filters. That could definitely have an impact on the volume levels. Though you saying you've used them with similar results makes me think maybe not so impactful. REW won't really work for me since I mostly care about the ceiling, surrounds, rear surrounds, and heights. I may just continue using the test tones through the AVR having UMIK-1 through REW measuring SPL at MLP (wow, that's a mouthful!). I'll compare my own hearing (subjective) levels vs. what REW and the UMIK-1 say. Come to think of it, I'll first just measure what Audyssey comes up with using UMIK-1. It will be interested to see if it registers SPL the same across all speakers following Audyssey at MLP.


----------



## Alan P

The difference with/without Audyssey EQ can be dramatic, it depends on how much Audyssey had to "correct" your particular room. In my case, Audyssey doesn't really have to do much so the difference is inconsequential.

Isn't there some sort of Atmos test disc out yet??


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Let's take the listener, for example. What if you don't hear as well out of one ear, either due to some permanent hearing loss, or just temporarily due to a head cold, or one ear not quite clearing from a recent plane ride? I have observed that happening to me a few times. In that case, you might want to adjust some trim levels on the affected side.


 *citsur, 

*If you are running movies for yourself alone, it makes sense to adjust the right/left balance of the sound for your own ears. If you are expecting an audience, and you know you don't hear as well out of one ear, it may be better to let Audyssey do the balancing. Audyssey is quite accurate in that way. I'm not sure if Audyssey looks at all the frequencies in the spectrum to adjust balance, or whether it simply uses 500 to 2,000 Hz (a common industry practice), or what.

Some people find that the results using _*test disk*_ pink noise (which goes through all Audyssey filters) and the results obtained with the_* internal*_ pink noise in an AVR are _*quite*_ different, presumably because of a high degree of correction the room needs, and other people find it makes *almost no difference*. In my room, the difference is *huge*.


----------



## Lindros88

asere said:


> Yes with both you get more volume. Audyssey goal is to calibrate both at 75 db. Audyssey does not set the trim the avr does.
> How does your entire system sound after Audyssey?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


I somehow missed your post earlier. Everything else is fine with the calibration. Your suggestion to get the sub trim out of the positive range was very helpful advice. It got rid of the boominess. Thanks.


----------



## Lindros88

fredxr2d2 said:


> The only thing that I can think of for why it is setting the trim levels higher with both subs playing is due to phase cancellation. But that wouldn't account for the subs playing louder - in fact it should sound softer. Ironically, the symmetrical placement of subs may be causing cancellation at the MLP and causing weird Audyssey behavior when both are connected. Personally, I'd recommend a miniDSP 2x4 and REW to set delays and impulse response for dual subs, especially without a version of Audyssey that will do that for you.





David Aiken said:


> I haven't been following the thread closely for a bit so I may be missing something from earlier posts in which case ignore me.
> 
> OK, the subs are on either side of the MLP. I don't think the symmetric placement of the subs is going to affect anything. What I wonder is where the MLP is in relation to the 2 subs, is it equidistant from both or is it closer to one sub than the other?
> 
> When you calibrate the subs individually you don't have to worry about the interaction between the sound from each sub. When you calibrate them together there's interaction between the sound from the 2 subs and you get reinforcements and cancellations at different points. If there's cancellations occurring at the MLP then the combined level of the 2 subs will be lower than the level of a single sub so the trim will get set higher. Audyssey doesn't know there are 2 subs because there's only 1 sub output being calibrated, as far as it's concerned there's only one sub and if there's cancellation of some kind going on at the MLP the combined level of the 2 subs is going to be less than the level of a single sub, hence the difference in trim settings. Of course the amount of cancellation going on is going to be frequency dependent and influenced by the room dimensions and MLP placement and there's going to be some reinforcement at some frequencies also but the overall level from the 2 subs combined could be less than the level from a single sub.
> 
> Once we start talking about an MLP that isn't equidistant from the 2 subs and/or rooms that aren't symmetrical, even if that difference in symmetry is due to things like furniture or windows (glass "leaks" bass) or different wall construction (say dry wall behind one sub and brick or cement behind the other) things start to get even more complex and unpredictable.
> 
> I don't think the difference in the trim settings between separate calibrations for each sub and a calibration of the combined output of both subs is an issue in and of itself. What should count is how the result sounds and if the sound you get with the result from the combined calibration sounds good to you, then go with it. If the trim setting is high, increase the gain setting on both subs until you can get a trim setting that is less than 0 dB and lower than -3 dB if possible for the reasons given in Mike's sub guide. You're listening to combined subs so you want the response with the subs working together to be right. If you can't increase the gain setting enough with the subs in their current placement, move one of the subs to a different position and break the symmetrical placement of them. That will change the interaction between them and affect how they sum together at the listening position. You may have to experiment a bit to find a different placement that works but provided the sub crossover frequency is low enough, 80 Hz or lower, the asymmetrical placement should not affect imaging and your impression of where low frequencies are coming from, or at least not affect that very often.
> 
> In the end what counts is what you hear when you're listening to something. The fact that the trim settings you get when calibrating the subs separately and when calibrating them combined are different is interesting in an academic sense and says something about what's happening at low frequencies in your room but if you listen with the 2 subs working then what counts, actually the only thing that counts, is what's happening when both are working and how the combined output sounds at the listening position. That's what you need to be concerned about getting right. I use 2 identical subs on the same wall with one closer to a side wall than the other and quite different furniture arrangements and walls on either side of the subs and my AVR has 2 sub outputs so both subs get calibrated individually during the Audyssey setup and they end up with different trim settings but the result sounds fine. It's also worth noting that when Audyssey does measure each sub separately if you have 2 sub outputs on your AVR as I do, it sets the trims for each sub separately but it calculates the corrections for the combination of the 2 subs, not individual corrections for each sub. It's what happens with the combined output that counts and I end up with a single correction being applied for both subs just as you end up with a single correction being applied when you do the setup process with both subs operating.


I think you and Fred are on to something. I did a bunch of different placements and calibrations today and the problem is only happening with the subs flanking the mlp. When I had them in opposite diagonal corners, I got a normal trim level. Even when I had one right behind the couch and the other one at the front of the room, I got a decent trim setting. Just had to raise it a few decibels. When they are flanking the mlp, I'm getting the really loud trim setting. Calibrating them individually at that same position, I was getting -8.0db. Together, I'm getting -2.0db, though it seems knocking the trim down to -9.0 is fixing the issue.

My room is rectangular, but it opens up into other areas. It's funny you mention the walls, because the rear left sub is against drywall and the rear right sub is against some drywall and some concrete. The MLP is smack dab in the middle of both subs. This symmetrical sub placement is actually the best sounding location for them in the room. I'm unable to localize either sub. The bass just sounds like it's coming from everywhere. As long as this issue isn't keeping Audyssey from doing it's job properly, then I'm satisfied. Thanks for such a detailed reply.


----------



## asere

Lindros88 said:


> I somehow missed your post earlier. Everything else is fine with the calibration. Your suggestion to get the sub trim out of the positive range was very helpful advice. It got rid of the boominess. Thanks.


No problem. I'm glad that part got resolved 

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


----------



## citsur86

Alan P said:


> The difference with/without Audyssey EQ can be dramatic, it depends on how much Audyssey had to "correct" your particular room. In my case, Audyssey doesn't really have to do much so the difference is inconsequential.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't there some sort of Atmos test disc out yet??



You read my mind with the Atmos disk. I have one and it has test tones. That’s not a bad idea. However it would be somewhat tough to listen to the tone playing back and then go to levels, adjust, and back out. This will change test tones from atmos disk to AVR test tones and back again. I’ll give it a shot. Coincidentally, Audyssey updated the app today so I’m gonna give that another shot to see if it calibrated as well as the AVR based Audyssey calibration. 



garygarrison said:


> *citsur,
> 
> *If you are running movies for yourself alone, it makes sense to adjust the right/left balance of the sound for your own ears. If you are expecting an audience, and you know you don't hear as well out of one ear, it may be better to let Audyssey do the balancing. Audyssey is quite accurate in that way. I'm not sure if Audyssey looks at all the frequencies in the spectrum to adjust balance, or whether it simply uses 500 to 2,000 Hz (a common industry practice), or what.
> 
> Some people find that the results using _*test disk*_ pink noise (which goes through all Audyssey filters) and the results obtained with the_* internal*_ pink noise in an AVR are _*quite*_ different, presumably because of a high degree of correction the room needs, and other people find it makes *almost no difference*. In my room, the difference is *huge*.


As far as I know I have no hearing loss greater than a normal 31 year old would. I’ll give the Atmos disk based tones a shot tonight following calibration.


----------



## garygarrison

citsur86 said:


> You read my mind with the Atmos disk. I have one and it has test tones. That’s not a bad idea. However it would be somewhat tough to listen to the tone playing back and then go to levels, adjust, and back out. This will change test tones from atmos disk to AVR test tones and back again. I’ll give it a shot. Coincidentally, Audyssey updated the app today so I’m gonna give that another shot to see if it calibrated as well as the AVR based Audyssey calibration.
> 
> I’ll give the Atmos disk based tones a shot tonight following calibration.


Do you have an SPL meter? Use the disk based tones (really pink noise, I hope) and write down how many dB up or down the noise is for a given channel from the MLP. Measure all channels one at a time in just one measuring session. Then go into the trims, and apply the corrections, while ignoring the AVR's internal test noise. Then measure the results. Due to some speakers compressing changes in intensity (one thing speaker manufacturers don't like to talk about, and rarely specify) you may find that to correct a speaker that is 2 dB too low, you may have to apply a little more than 2 dB boost. Many AVRs and pre/pros allow you to do this in 1/2 dB increments. 

Use "C" weight on the meter. Most people use "slow," which is easier to deal with. I like to use "slow," then check "fast" to make sure the center of the needle swing makes sense, i.e., produces the same eyeballed reading as "slow." It usually does. OCD is a fine art.


----------



## citsur86

garygarrison said:


> Do you have an SPL meter? Use the disk based tones (really pink noise, I hope) and write down how many dB up or down the noise is for a given channel from the MLP. Measure all channels one at a time in just one measuring session. Then go into the trims, and apply the corrections, while ignoring the AVR's internal test noise. Then measure the results. Due to some speakers compressing changes in intensity (one thing speaker manufacturers don't like to talk about, and rarely specify) you may find that to correct a speaker that is 2 dB too low, you may have to apply a little more than 2 dB boost. Many AVRs and pre/pros allow you to do this in 1/2 dB increments.
> 
> Use "C" weight on the meter. Most people use "slow," which is easier to deal with. I like to use "slow," then check "fast" to make sure the center of the needle swing makes sense, i.e., produces the same eyeballed reading as "slow." It usually does. OCD is a fine art.


Thanks for the tips. I don't have a dedicated stand-alone SPL meter, but my UMIK-1 and REWs built in SPL meter should do the trick. Here is the process I plan to follow:

1) Run Audyssey.
2) Measure the level per speaker and record them using the Atmos disk test tones and MV set to 0. 
3) Adjust each speaker to boost or trim based on how far away they are from 75db in my first set of recording. 
4) Measure the level per speaker using the Atmos disk test tones and MV set to 0 and check to make sure they are all 75db at MLP.

Seem good?


----------



## citsur86

Finished that exercise and here's where I wound up!




























I realize it's not perfect or as good as someone with more subs and/or a better room, but for anyone following my journey you know this is VERY good for me.


----------



## Methodical_1

Lindros88 said:


> I have identical dual subwoofers and whenever I run Audyssey Multeq, it's setting the subwoofers way too loud. The subs are gain matched and placed equidistant from the mlp. If I calibrate each independently, it sets to trim to -2.0db and the subs sound good, but when I try to calibrate both subs together, it sets the sub channel to +4.5db and both subs sound loud and boomy. What am I doing wrong?


Check the link in my signature. It explains exactly how to set your sub. As the poster above stated, you want to get Audyessey to set you sub in the -db range, but not at -12. I get mine to -10 to -11 db by setting the gain on my subs at 2 o'clock. Yours may be different, but try 2 o'clock.


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> Thanks Mike! Very good points all around. I find myself boosting the ceiling and far left surrounds most as my MLP is about 3 feet from surround right and 10 feet from surround left. Same relative differences for rear right surround vs rear left surround. I find the effects that get sent their way during movies aren't noticeable enough without a slight boost. I also will generally boost my front heights slightly to increase the front sound-stage. Most of all, my center normally gets boosted +3db to +4db or so. My wife and I both agree that during bluray playback the voices are often too low. This has the negative effect of narrowing the sound field and taking away the front left and right benefit a bit. I realize my next upgrade needs to be my center speaker. I currently have a CM Center S2 which I think is too small for my space and compared to my other speakers. I think I need a CM Center 2 S2.
> 
> 
> 
> Alan, that's a great point! I have been using the AVR's internal test tones. I didn't realize these are playing back without Audyssey EQ filters. That could definitely have an impact on the volume levels. Though you saying you've used them with similar results makes me think maybe not so impactful. REW won't really work for me since I mostly care about the ceiling, surrounds, rear surrounds, and heights. I may just continue using the test tones through the AVR having UMIK-1 through REW measuring SPL at MLP (wow, that's a mouthful!). I'll compare my own hearing (subjective) levels vs. what REW and the UMIK-1 say. Come to think of it, I'll first just measure what Audyssey comes up with using UMIK-1. It will be interested to see if it registers SPL the same across all speakers following Audyssey at MLP.





citsur86 said:


> Finished that exercise and here's where I wound up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize it's not perfect or as good as someone with more subs and/or a better room, but for anyone following my journey you know this is VERY good for me.


Hi,

Your frequency response does look good. But, it seems to me that what you were saying in your first post has very little to do with the exercise you performed in the table above. In the earlier posts you were asking whether other people liked to adjust their trim levels to improve the perceptual balance of their HT systems. In the exercise you just performed, you perfected the actual measured balance. Measurable SPL balance and perceptual balance are completely different things. Audyssey is generally pretty good with respect to actual SPL balance, although as you demonstrated there may be some slight variance. But, if you want to change the perceived balance, so that the CC sounds louder, for instance, you need to do that by ear, not by measurement.

So, I think you need to decide what your objectives are. If you want perfection in a table, then you have achieved it. If you want to hear dialogue better, or to expand the front soundstage, or to emphasize overhead content, or whatever, then neither internal nor external test tones will be much help for that. You will just need to listen to some real world content and make adjustments based on what you hear. That's the idea I was responding to in my original post.

Everyone is correct that the internal AVR test tones bypass the Audyssey filters, and that is very important if you are trying to double-check Audyssey to see how accurately it set the channels with respect to 75db or with respect to each other. But, it's not important at all with respect to making adjustments to increase the relative volume of the CC, for instance. The test tone just gives you a metric so that you can hear how much relative SPL increase a .5db adjustment is, or a 1db adjustment, or whatever you are attempting.

But, it's still trial-and-error to hear how much adjustment you need. You tweak the channel volume upward with the test tone, listen to the real world material, and then adjust some more as needed. For the CC and the subs, you can make those adjustments on-the-fly in the Audio menu. But, for the other channels (and for all global adjustments with some AVR's) you will need to use the test tones. And, then as Alan said in an earlier post, it's just lather, rinse, repeat until you have the channels set where they sound best to you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## citsur86

@mthomas47 I understand what you’re saying but want to clarify my reasons behind doing what I did. The process I explained that I used to do with listening speaker by speaker and changing using internal test tones was not apply the Audyssey calibration as you and others mentioned. So, my thought was that maybe the levels were actually fine and I was making the level decision based on the wrong thing. By adjusting all levels to 75 (sub to 85) through the non AVR tones (atmos disc) I thought that I might wind up in the place I originally wanted to go.


----------



## garygarrison

citsur86 said:


> @*mthomas47* I understand what you’re saying but want to clarify my reasons behind doing what I did. The process I explained that I used to do with listening speaker by speaker and changing using internal test tones was not apply the Audyssey calibration as you and others mentioned. So, my thought was that maybe the levels were actually fine and I was making the level decision based on the wrong thing. By adjusting all levels to 75 (sub to 85) through the non AVR tones (atmos disc) I thought that I might wind up in the place I originally wanted to go.


Your results look good.

I predict you'll end up turning up the center channel. Ironically, despite the higher quality of modern soundtracks, the dialog is sometimes recorded sloppily. A word or two may be lost here and there. IMO, this would NEVER occur with soundtracks of the '50s, '60s, and '70s, even with the horrible optical ones. We run a fair number of movies from those eras, and never miss a word. Not so with modern movies. Actors drop their voices for dramatic effect, which is fine, but the mixers should carefully make sure that the words are intelligible. Our center channel is set 2 dB "hot" compared to the other channels, just to avoid the annoyance of missed words. When we know a movie well, and know dialog won't be a problem, we may turn the center down 2 dB, to the level of the other channels, to get proportionally more soundtrack orchestra. 

And, of course, the subwoofer channel is always adjusted to taste.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Your results look good.
> 
> I predict you'll end up turning up the center channel. Ironically, despite the higher quality of modern soundtracks, the dialog is sometimes recorded sloppily. A word or two may be lost here and there. IMO, this would NEVER occur with soundtracks of the '50s, '60s, and '70s, even with the horrible optical ones. We run a fair number of movies from those eras, and never miss a word. Not so with modern movies. Actors drop their voices for dramatic effect, which is fine, but the mixers should carefully make sure that the words are intelligible. Our center channel is set 2 dB "hot" compared to the other channels, just to avoid the annoyance of missed words. When we know a movie well, and know dialog won't be a problem, we may turn the center down 2 dB, to the level of the other channels, to get proportionally more soundtrack orchestra.
> 
> And, of course, the subwoofer channel is always adjusted to taste.


Gary, my workaround for perfect dialog intelligibility is turning on subtitles. Never missed a word, ever!! Even when actors drop their words!! Works for me like a charm!!


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Gary, my workaround for perfect dialog intelligibility is turning on subtitles. Never missed a word, ever!! Even when actors drop their words!! Works for me like a charm!!


Yeah, but then...if you are a relatively slow reader, like myself...you end up missing some of the on-screen action.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Yeah, but then...if you are a relatively slow reader, like myself...you end up missing some of the on-screen action.


Just imagine Alan that English is not my first language, so subtitles are sometimes no kidding for me. Slow reader, eh? In that case a 120' film may take 180' with all the rewind and pause involved! HT is fun!


----------



## citsur86

garygarrison said:


> Your results look good.
> 
> I predict you'll end up turning up the center channel. Ironically, despite the higher quality of modern soundtracks, the dialog is sometimes recorded sloppily. A word or two may be lost here and there. IMO, this would NEVER occur with soundtracks of the '50s, '60s, and '70s, even with the horrible optical ones. We run a fair number of movies from those eras, and never miss a word. Not so with modern movies. Actors drop their voices for dramatic effect, which is fine, but the mixers should carefully make sure that the words are intelligible. Our center channel is set 2 dB "hot" compared to the other channels, just to avoid the annoyance of missed words. When we know a movie well, and know dialog won't be a problem, we may turn the center down 2 dB, to the level of the other channels, to get proportionally more soundtrack orchestra.
> 
> And, of course, the subwoofer channel is always adjusted to taste.




Yeah I have boosted the center 2db. It helps for dialogue but what I’ve come to realize is that a good amount of the action sound effects and other movie sound go to the center. So by turning it up for dialogue I find I lose a considerable amount of benefit of the fronts and front heights because they wind up being over powered by the center. I just found out I can get a CM Center 2 S2 for $680 new so I may go that route and sell the CM Center S2 for $600.


----------



## kbarnes701

mogorf said:


> Does it affect the sound quality? No way. When a couple of decades ago the sampling rate for a CD disc was developed, engineers said it should be double the highest frequency any man can ever hear and a little bit more. So they decided it should be 22 kHz (and a bit more), hence the basic 44.1 kHz, coz its double of 22 kHz and a bit more by 0.1 kHz. That's the way engineers think.




The exact sampling rate of 44.1 kHz is inherited from a method of 
converting digital audio into an analog video signal for storage on video 
tape, which was the most affordable way to store it at the time the CD 
specification was being developed. A device that turns an analog audio 
signal into PCM audio, which in turn is changed into an analog video 
signal is called a PCM adapter.

PCM technology could store six samples (three samples per each stereo 
channel) in a single horizontal line. A standard NTSC video signal has 
245 usable lines per field, and 59.94 fields/s, which works out at 44,056 
samples/s. Similarly PAL has 294 lines and 50 fields, which gives 44,100 
samples/s.


----------



## Matt2026

kbarnes701 said:


> The exact sampling rate of 44.1 kHz is inherited from a method of
> converting digital audio into an analog video signal for storage on video
> tape, which was the most affordable way to store it at the time the CD
> specification was being developed. A device that turns an analog audio
> signal into PCM audio, which in turn is changed into an analog video
> signal is called a PCM adapter.
> 
> PCM technology could store six samples (three samples per each stereo
> channel) in a single horizontal line. A standard NTSC video signal has
> 245 usable lines per field, and 59.94 fields/s, which works out at 44,056
> samples/s. Similarly PAL has 294 lines and 50 fields, which gives 44,100
> samples/s.


Good to see ya pop in Keith. Just want to say your new Cowshed Cinema HT is looking marvelous!!! WOW


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Gary, my workaround for perfect dialog intelligibility is turning on subtitles. Never missed a word, ever!! Even when actors drop their words!! Works for me like a charm!!


Feri,

I know some others who do this. But if the cinematographer had wanted a bunch of letters across the image ....

Feri and Alan,

When I was in college, I was determined to double my reading speed, while maintaining high comprehension. It was all the rage then. A few years before, JFK had introduced Congress to Evelyn Wood, who took on the challenge of improving their reading. It was a tough job. I will not comment on the reading skills of today's "leaders." Anyway, foreign films with their subtitles were a big help in my speed training.


----------



## kbarnes701

Matt2026 said:


> Good to see ya pop in Keith. Just want to say your new Cowshed Cinema HT is looking marvelous!!! WOW


Hey thanks buddy! And thanks for popping into the build thread. The Cowshed Cinema is nearly finished now and I have been enjoying my movies again recently after a 9 month cold turkey. I have EQd with Audyssey XT32 and also with Dirac Live and I will post the measurements here when I am happy that I have achieved the best results that both are capable of. A bit more work to do yet finessing the acoustic treatments. I will also be posting some better pics of the Cowshed soon I hope (we had a Pro photographer in last week to take pics for the install company and they have promised me a set).

WRT to this thread, I do follow along now and then but have given up posting mostly for reasons you can probably work out  Mike and the guys are doing a fabulous job here anyway!

Best, Keith


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> Feri,
> 
> I know some others who do this. But if the cinematographer had wanted a bunch of letters across the image ....


Indeed. I think that if people are experiencing regular dialog unintelligibility issues, then they should be looking carefully at their setups to try to discover what is wrong. As has been pointed out, there are occasional movies which have 'mumbled' dialog or the occasional poorly recorded short section, but overall modern movies achieve astonishingly high levels of quality in their soundtracks and nobody should need to use subtitles on a regular basis (other than foreign language movies of course where the viewer doesn't speak the language of the movie) in order to follow the dialog.

I think most people will find that difficulty in understanding dialog somehow clears up almost magically when they treat their rooms effectively. Getting rid of unwanted reflections is the first, and probably the single most important, step. Absent a good room treatment scheme, improvements can often be made by getting rid of reflective coffee tables, ensuring the centre speaker is competent, ensuring the centre speaker is not pushed back onto a shelf or cabinet (as one often sees) and, of course, ensuring that all the channels are balanced WRT to level, frequency response and delays. XT32 is pretty good at the latter, so attention should then be focused on the physical aspects of the room.


----------



## citsur86

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

My dialogue issues from two years back we’re what actually led me to seek help from this forum. Back then I had a 7.1 with 5 of those speakers being from a cheap home theater in a box set. Since then, (and to the disgruntlement of my wife), I’ve upgraded every single speakers except my fronts (because they were the only good speakers in my setup back then), gotten 2 fantastic subwoofers, AND expanded to a 11.2 + 4 transducer setup and a 120” projector drop down over tv setup. AVS Forumitis at its best/worst. 

Anyways I originally solved my Center channel issues by moving my fronts further away from the center to open up the front sound stage and upgrading the center from a small cheap HTIB center to a CM Center S2. I think since then, with the addition of all my subbage and other speakers, my center is back to getting drown out and I need to upgrade to the CM Center 2 S2. I’ve asked in the B&W thread if they think that’ll help. I can get the CM Center 2 S2 new for $680 and sell the CM Center S2 for probably $500. So net $180


----------



## kbarnes701

citsur86 said:


> My dialogue issues from two years back we’re what actually led me to seek help from this forum. Back then I had a 7.1 with 5 of those speakers being home theater in a box crap. Since I’ve upgraded every single speakers except my fronts (because they were the only good speakers in my setup back then) and both subwoofers AND expanded to a 11.2 + 4 transducer setup and a 120” projector drop down over tv setup.
> 
> Anyways I originally solved my Center channel issues by moving my fronts further away from the center to open up the front sound stage and upgrading the center from a small cheap HTIB center to a CM Center S2. I think since then, with the addition of all my subbage and other speakers, my center is back to getting drown out and I need to upgrade to the CM Center 2 S2. I’ve asked in the B&W thread if they think that’ll help. I can get the CM Center 2 S2 for $680 and sell the CM Center S2 for probably $500. So net $180


If your setup is properly balanced for levels, delays etc, then the centre speaker should never be 'drowned out' by the other speakers or subs. Assuming you have successfully run Audyssey (which version do you have?) your system will be set up so that all the speakers and the sub are at the same level (loudness) from MLP.

The centre channel is possibly the most important in the entire system as it carries almost all of the dialog as well as doing a lot of the other heavy lifting across the front three. A good speaker is therefore required and it is vital to set it up properly. I would ensure first of all that all your channels are playing at the same correct level after running Audyssey. You will need an SPL meter for this. If you don't have one, download a free one for your smartphone - it will be good enough to check levels consistency even if it doesn't give an absolute result. If it is true that your centre channel is playing less loudly than the other channels, then something is amiss with the Audyssey calibration, so report back to the thread for further help. I would not buy a new speaker until I was sure that the current speaker is set up correctly.

For the sake of completeness, I should add that the very best way to set up across the front is to use three identical speakers for LCR wherever possible. If it isn't possible, so be it - just then ensure that what you have is performing as well as it can.


----------



## citsur86

kbarnes701 said:


> If your setup is properly balanced for levels, delays etc, then the centre speaker should never be 'drowned out' by the other speakers or subs. Assuming you have successfully run Audyssey (which version do you have?) your system will be set up so that all the speakers and the sub are at the same level (loudness) from MLP.
> 
> 
> 
> The centre channel is possibly the most important in the entire system as it carries almost all of the dialog as well as doing a lot of the other heavy lifting across the front three. A good speaker is therefore required and it is vital to set it up properly. I would ensure first of all that all your channels are playing at the same correct level after running Audyssey. You will need an SPL meter for this. If you don't have one, download a free one for your smartphone - it will be good enough to check levels consistency even if it doesn't give an absolute result. If it is true that your centre channel is playing less loudly than the other channels, then something is amiss with the Audyssey calibration, so report back to the thread for further help. I would not buy a new speaker until I was sure that the current speaker is set up correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> For the sake of completeness, I should add that the very best way to set up across the front is to use three identical speakers for LCR wherever possible. If it isn't possible, so be it - just then ensure that what you have is performing as well as it can.



Yep so I just performed this activity (see link below)

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-part-ii-113.html#post54266193

a couple nights ago. I don’t have a stand alone SPL Meter but I used my UMIK-1 and REW to take readings from an Atmos Demo discs set of test tones. I can say confidently that all speakers are properly calibrated to 75db now. I’m using XT32 from a Marantz SR-6011 to calibrate. I also learned a while back that sometimes the dialogue at the low quite whispering scenes is meant to be VERY low SPL whereas the speaker at same level may wind up blowing your eardrums out during the action scenes. I understand part of it is just that, but when the dialogue becomes hard to hear during the louder scenes, there’s something up. Could also just be ringing in my room I guess. I just thought at more capable center might help as it did at my last upgrade. 

Unfortunately I can’t have a tower B&W 684 S1 as my center since I have a toy shelf installed under the tv for my 2 year old son’s toys (in a futile attempt to keep the house neat). I also have read that the same 3 speakers for front left, center, and front right is ideal.


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> My dialogue issues from two years back we’re what actually led me to seek help from this forum. Back then I had a 7.1 with 5 of those speakers being from a cheap home theater in a box set. Since then, (and to the disgruntlement of my wife), I’ve upgraded every single speakers except my fronts (because they were the only good speakers in my setup back then), gotten 2 fantastic subwoofers, AND expanded to a 11.2 + 4 transducer setup and a 120” projector drop down over tv setup. AVS Forumitis at its best/worst.
> 
> Anyways I originally solved my Center channel issues by moving my fronts further away from the center to open up the front sound stage and upgrading the center from a small cheap HTIB center to a CM Center S2. I think since then, with the addition of all my subbage and other speakers, my center is back to getting drown out and I need to upgrade to the CM Center 2 S2. I’ve asked in the B&W thread if they think that’ll help. I can get the CM Center 2 S2 new for $680 and sell the CM Center S2 for probably $500. So net $180


Hi,

I like the fact that you moved your front speakers a little further apart. I believe that could help. And, I understand about not being able to match your CC to your fronts. The real difference between your old CC and the new one you are getting is in the size of the bass drivers. And, the lower frequency response could also be helpful. I think that there are several factors which can influence dialogue clarity in addition to the very valid ones Keith mentioned in his post. Among them are DEQ, and sub boost vis-a-vis your crossover setting. 

First, with respect to DEQ, if you are listening at near Reference volumes, DEQ will have little to no effect. But, if you are listening at -10 MV, which is pretty common, DEQ will be adding about 2db of bass boost to your CC, and about 4.4db of boost to your subs. The amount of boost varies slightly by frequency, with 1db down to 70Hz, and more below that. At -15 MV, the CC would be getting an additional 3db of bass boost. That CC bass boost can conceivably affect dialogue clarity, by imparting additional chest resonance to voices. Head tones sound much clearer and are easier to understand than chest tones.

The second factor that I think can affect dialogue clarity, in some cases, is the amount of sub boost employed either on top of DEQ or in place of DEQ. I have found that with a 100Hz crossover, for instance, a strong sub boost can also impart a husky tone to voices. To me, they sound less natural that way, and particularly when there is music or loud surround ambiance in the track, dialogue clarity can be compromised. If you are using a strong sub boost, as I do, the obvious solution is to reduce the crossover to 80Hz, which doesn't allow the large sub boost to affect the natural timbre of voices as much. 

But, to do that, you need to have a CC which is capable of effectively utilizing a lower crossover. That is where the larger bass drivers in the 2 S2 could help. The in-room response will probably be around 40Hz or so, and that should enable you to use a slightly lower crossover than you are using now and still have sufficient headroom. If I were you, I would experiment with turning off DEQ, if you are using it now. I can't remember whether you are. If you do turn it off, you will probably need to compensate with some additional sub boost. But, I have found that the combination of DEQ off, and a slightly lower crossover, can positively affect dialogue clarity. 

Again, in order to make the lower crossover work, without jeopardizing the available headroom for other frequencies, the CC has to have an appropriate F3 point in-room. I always recommend setting crossovers at least 1/2 octave higher than the crossover your AVR sets (particularly for anything under 80Hz). In my own system, I use a full octave to insure ample headroom. I hope this helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Feri,
> 
> I know some others who do this. But if the cinematographer had wanted a bunch of letters across the image ....
> 
> Feri and Alan,
> 
> When I was in college, I was determined to double my reading speed, while maintaining high comprehension. It was all the rage then. A few years before, JFK had introduced Congress to Evelyn Wood, who took on the challenge of improving their reading. It was a tough job. I will not comment on the reading skills of today's "leaders." Anyway, foreign films with their subtitles were a big help in my speed training.


I fully agree with all that you have said Gary, meantime there are really particular cases when setting up center speaker with utmost care or doing room treatments to the brim will still not yield the desired dialog intelligibility coz of reasons beyond our HT configurations. 

Namely, some of us might remember the film back from 1996 titled "Trainspotting". If my memory serves me well I recall that that film before entering the North-American market was requested by the US distributor to be partly redubbed (no subtitles would have helped here) for the American ears due to its massive Scottish slang mixed with their local accent and speedy talk. 

So, I think dialog intelligibility is not always just a technical issue, but a bit more! 

Just for fun here's a clip from the above movie:


----------



## garygarrison

citsur86 said:


> I understand part of it is just that, but when the dialogue becomes hard to hear during the louder scenes, there’s something up. Could also just be ringing in my room I guess.


Just wondering, do you have absorption at the First Reflection Points, as seen from the MLP, for the CC specifically? I know some people believe in absorption at the FRPs relative to all speakers, and others believe in none, to keep the sound more lively. A compromise is to put absorption at the FRPs relative to the CC only.

If dialogue intelligibility is a problem when loud, I agree, something's up. We have never had problems when dialogue is loud, just for the mumbles, particularly when it is with an accent, like cockney (or related), sometimes with the more extreme Australian varieties. 

With the CC at 2 dB above the others, we don't have a problem, except in the rarest incidents (1 or 2 films a year at 2 a week). Back when I used Audyssey Reference, there were problems a little more often. When I switched from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat in the middle of screening The Walker the dialog cleared right up. That was the beginning of the end of Aud. Ref. for me. Subsequently, we found that soundtrack music, effects, and dialogue all seem more natural with Aud. Flat, at least in out HT.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> I fully agree with all that you have said Gary, meantime there are really particular cases when setting up center speaker with utmost care or doing room treatments to the brim will still not yield the desired dialog intelligibility coz of reasons beyond our HT configurations.
> 
> Namely, some of us might remember the film back from 1996 titled "Trainspotting". If my memory serves me well I recall that that film before entering the North-American market was requested by the US distributor to be partly redubbed (no subtitles would have helped here) for the American ears due to its massive Scottish slang mixed with their local accent and speedy talk.
> 
> So, I think dialog intelligibility is not always just a technical issue, but a bit more!
> 
> Just for fun here's a clip from the above movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwDmg74rhCw


Outrageous accents, outrageous movie. Actually the dialogue was not a big problem for us --- we may well have run the re-dubb. The only problem I had with the dialogue was that there were other tracks running in my head, saying, "Why are they like that?" Why are they saying that?" If dreams/hallucinations were more rational, I would have been asking, "Why is he seeing that?" All of the above was competing with the dialogue, and no amount of Sonex would have helped, unless I wrapped a couple of layers of it around my head. Not since Last Year at Marienbad did a film seem that strange. Admittedly, both got through to my unconscious from time to time. I'd invite more in, but the place is a mess.


----------



## citsur86

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I like the fact that you moved your front speakers a little further apart. I believe that could help. And, I understand about not being able to match your CC to your fronts. The real difference between your old CC and the new one you are getting is in the size of the bass drivers. And, the lower frequency response could also be helpful. I think that there are several factors which can influence dialogue clarity in addition to the very valid ones Keith mentioned in his post. Among them are DEQ, and sub boost vis-a-vis your crossover setting.
> 
> First, with respect to DEQ, if you are listening at near Reference volumes, DEQ will have little to no effect. But, if you are listening at -10 MV, which is pretty common, DEQ will be adding about 2db of bass boost to your CC, and about 4.4db of boost to your subs. The amount of boost varies slightly by frequency, with 1db down to 70Hz, and more below that. At -15 MV, the CC would be getting an additional 3db of bass boost. That CC bass boost can conceivably affect dialogue clarity, by imparting additional chest resonance to voices. Head tones sound much clearer and are easier to understand than chest tones.
> 
> The second factor that I think can affect dialogue clarity, in some cases, is the amount of sub boost employed either on top of DEQ or in place of DEQ. I have found that with a 100Hz crossover, for instance, a strong sub boost can also impart a husky tone to voices. To me, they sound less natural that way, and particularly when there is music or loud surround ambiance in the track, dialogue clarity can be compromised. If you are using a strong sub boost, as I do, the obvious solution is to reduce the crossover to 80Hz, which doesn't allow the large sub boost to affect the natural timbre of voices as much.
> 
> But, to do that, you need to have a CC which is capable of effectively utilizing a lower crossover. That is where the larger bass drivers in the 2 S2 could help. The in-room response will probably be around 40Hz or so, and that should enable you to use a slightly lower crossover than you are using now and still have sufficient headroom. If I were you, I would experiment with turning off DEQ, if you are using it now. I can't remember whether you are. If you do turn it off, you will probably need to compensate with some additional sub boost. But, I have found that the combination of DEQ off, and a slightly lower crossover, can positively affect dialogue clarity.
> 
> Again, in order to make the lower crossover work, without jeopardizing the available headroom for other frequencies, the CC has to have an appropriate F3 point in-room. I always recommend setting crossovers at least 1/2 octave higher than the crossover your AVR sets (particularly for anything under 80Hz). In my own system, I use a full octave to insure ample headroom. I hope this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thanks for the detailed response. Been a crazy day, so haven’t had a chance to respond until now. I tried turning off DEQ, but even after turning the volume up a lot (since everything instantly seemed to be at a much lower volume)s, dialogue was still really low. I am using a 80hz global crossover as Audyssey sets all my speakers to 80 or below crossover and I definitely didn’t want to use any crossover under 80hz. 



garygarrison said:


> Just wondering, do you have absorption at the First Reflection Points, as seen from the MLP, for the CC specifically? I know some people believe in absorption at the FRPs relative to all speakers, and others believe in none, to keep the sound more lively. A compromise is to put absorption at the FRPs relative to the CC only.
> 
> If dialogue intelligibility is a problem when loud, I agree, something's up. We have never had problems when dialogue is loud, just for the mumbles, particularly when it is with an accent, like cockney (or related), sometimes with the more extreme Australian varieties.
> 
> With the CC at 2 dB above the others, we don't have a problem, except in the rarest incidents (1 or 2 films a year at 2 a week). Back when I used Audyssey Reference, there were problems a little more often. When I switched from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat in the middle of screening The Walker the dialog cleared right up. That was the beginning of the end of Aud. Ref. for me. Subsequently, we found that soundtrack music, effects, and dialogue all seem more natural with Aud. Flat, at least in out HT.



I have no room treatments since my Home Theater is technically my living room first and that would never fly with the misses 

It’s not that dialogue is unintelligible when the volume is loud or soft, more just that it occasionally seems drown out by other movie sounds. It’s as if it is too blended into the sound tracks. And not all movies are like this. I was watching Interstellar and it seemed that way a few times in the movie. I watched John Wick 2 and the dialogue was fine throughout. It seems during Atmos tracks everything is fine. When watching 5.1 or 7.1 content using Dolby Surround, I seem to run across this issue. I tried changing Audyssey DEQ to flat and try the same scenes again where I had trouble and the dialogue was much better. Maybe its because I’m relatively close to the front and center speakers?


----------



## garygarrison

citsur86 said:


> I have no room treatments since my Home Theater is technically my living room first and that would never fly with the misses


 It may be good that the left wall is far away, through the arch, with nothing to return an early reflection except the pillars, which are round, therefore diffusing. 

I assume that you and your wife sit in the two large seats directly in front of the center speaker.


----------



## citsur86

garygarrison said:


> It may be good that the left wall is far away, through the arch, with nothing to return an early reflection except the pillars, which are round, therefore diffusing.
> 
> I assume that you and your wife sit in the two large seats directly in front of the center speaker.




The surround left is far away but not through the arch. Here it is from MLP:










And yes we sit directly in front of cc. My seat is more centered than hers. Hers is slight to the left.


----------



## garygarrison

garygarrison said:


> It may be good that the left wall is far away, through the arch, with nothing to return an early reflection except the pillars, which are round, therefore diffusing.





citsur86 said:


> The surround left is far away but not through the arch. Here it is from MLP:


I meant that an early reflection of dialogue from the Center Channel probably wouldn't be returned from the left side, at least not soon enough to be an interfering "early" reflection.


----------



## citsur86

garygarrison said:


> I meant that an early reflection of dialogue from the Center Channel probably wouldn't be returned from the left side, at least not soon enough to be an interfering "early" reflection.




Ohh I see. Sorry, was a longgggg day yesterday.


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> Ohh I see. Sorry, was a longgggg day yesterday.


You are welcome, although I'm sorry that the suggestions didn't work. Gary's suggestion that you try Audyssey Flat, though, does seem to have helped. I also use Audyssey Flat. One of the things that the Reference curve does is to create a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. The theory behind it was that most speakers crossover from mid-range to tweeter at about 2500Hz (where the dip is deepest) and that dropping the SPL at that point would create a smoother transition between the drivers.

With modern crossovers, the dip is probably not very useful even in theory, and since the dip occurs right in the middle of the human hearing range, it is possible that the dip could affect dialogue clarity by removing some of the harmonics (overtones) which lend clarity to voices. Consonants, for instance, tend to be higher in pitch, and distinguishing among "C", "D", "G", "P", "T", and "V" might sometimes require those higher frequencies affected by the dip. That's just a theory, but it could help to explain why you are hearing dialogue more clearly with the Flat setting.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## citsur86

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, although I'm sorry that the suggestions didn't work. Gary's suggestion that you try Audyssey Flat, though, does seem to have helped. I also use Audyssey Flat. One of the things that the Reference curve does is to create a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. The theory behind it was that most speakers crossover from mid-range to tweeter at about 2500Hz (where the dip is deepest) and that dropping the SPL at that point would create a smoother transition between the drivers.
> 
> With modern crossovers, the dip is probably not very useful even in theory, and since the dip occurs right in the middle of the human hearing range, it is possible that the dip could affect dialogue clarity by removing some of the harmonics (overtones) which lend clarity to voices. Consonants, for instance tend to be higher in pitch, and distinguishing among "C", "D", "G", "P", "T", and "V" for instance, might sometimes require those higher frequencies affected by the dip. That's just a theory, but it could help to explain why you are hearing dialogue more clearly with the Flat setting.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Very interesting theory. So what you were saying about upgrading the center channel was basically that the only thing it would do would be to allow me to crossover lower than I already was. However, since I’m already crossing over at 80 Hz you think it probably would not help much?


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> Very interesting theory. So what you were saying about upgrading the center channel was basically that the only thing it would do would be to allow me to crossover lower than I already was. However, since I’m already crossing over at 80 Hz you think it probably would not help much?


If your crossover were at 100Hz, or higher, I think that being able to drop to 80Hz would probably help with dialogue clarity, given a sizeable sub boost. But, if you are already at 80Hz, I don't really think that it would help. And, I probably would not try to run the CC you were considering below 80Hz. Having the larger bass drivers might give you just a little more undistorted headroom at 80Hz, and that could allow the mid-range and treble frequencies to have a little cleaner sound, but it seems to me that it would be a very incremental benefit, if there were any benefit at all.

If there were a way to try one, on approval, without having to definitely commit yourself to the purchase, it might be worth a try to find out whether it could make a difference.


----------



## citsur86

mthomas47 said:


> If your crossover were at 100Hz, or higher, I think that being able to drop to 80Hz would probably help with dialogue clarity, given a sizeable sub boost. But, if you are already at 80Hz, I don't really think that it would help. And, I probably would not try to run the CC you were considering below 80Hz. Having the larger bass drivers might give you just a little more undistorted headroom at 80Hz, and that could allow the mid-range and treble frequencies to have a little cleaner sound, but it seems to me that it would be a very incremental benefit, if there were any benefit at all.
> 
> If there were a way to try one, on approval, without having to definitely commit yourself to the purchase, it might be worth a try to find out whether it could make a difference.



Since it’s a special order, if I buy it, I keep it. However, at the price I’m getting it, I’m thinking I might be able to resell it for at least what I pay. It’s a $1,250 speaker at Best Buy. I can get it for $680+tax.


----------



## pbarach

kbarnes701 said:


> If your setup is properly balanced for levels, delays etc, then the centre speaker should never be 'drowned out' by the other speakers or subs. Assuming you have successfully run Audyssey (which version do you have?) your system will be set up so that all the speakers and the sub are at the same level (loudness) from MLP.


Generally, I agree. However Dynamic EQ can mess things up on certain material. Programs from the BBC on TV or on disc sometimes overwhelm the dialogue in the center channel with overly loud surrounds and subwoofer audio. I always turn DEQ off for material from the BBC.


----------



## tjcinnamon

garygarrison said:


> Just wondering, do you have absorption at the First Reflection Points, as seen from the MLP, for the CC specifically? I know some people believe in absorption at the FRPs relative to all speakers, and others believe in none, to keep the sound more lively. A compromise is to put absorption at the FRPs relative to the CC only.
> 
> If dialogue intelligibility is a problem when loud, I agree, something's up. We have never had problems when dialogue is loud, just for the mumbles, particularly when it is with an accent, like cockney (or related), sometimes with the more extreme Australian varieties.
> 
> With the CC at 2 dB above the others, we don't have a problem, except in the rarest incidents (1 or 2 films a year at 2 a week). Back when I used Audyssey Reference, there were problems a little more often. When I switched from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat in the middle of screening The Walker the dialog cleared right up. That was the beginning of the end of Aud. Ref. for me. Subsequently, we found that soundtrack music, effects, and dialogue all seem more natural with Aud. Flat, at least in out HT.


I'm gonna give that a try.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> First, with respect to DEQ, if you are listening at near Reference volumes, DEQ will have little to no effect. But, if you are listening at -10 MV, which is pretty common, DEQ will be adding about 2db of bass boost to your CC, and about 4.4db of boost to your subs. The amount of boost varies slightly by frequency, with 1db down to 70Hz, and more below that. At -15 MV, the CC would be getting an additional 3db of bass boost. That CC bass boost can conceivably affect dialogue clarity, by imparting additional chest resonance to voices. Head tones sound much clearer and are easier to understand than chest tones.
> 
> The second factor that I think can affect dialogue clarity, in some cases, is the amount of sub boost employed either on top of DEQ or in place of DEQ. I have found that with a 100Hz crossover, for instance, a strong sub boost can also impart a husky tone to voices. To me, they sound less natural that way, and particularly when there is music or loud surround ambiance in the track, dialogue clarity can be compromised. If you are using a strong sub boost, as I do, the obvious solution is to reduce the crossover to 80Hz, which doesn't allow the large sub boost to affect the natural timbre of voices as much.


Interesting. I am not sure I agree with you here Mike. I know DEQ has various problems associated with it - for example, the untamable surround channel boost. But I have never experienced it having any negative impact on dialog intelligibility. Nor am I sure that, in a properly setup system, loud bass should cause this sort of issue. For example, last night I watched the new _Yimou Zhang _movie _The Great Wall_. As always, I watched this at 'home reference' (-5dB). The bass in this movie is awesome. It is loud, deep and literally room and furniture shaking. And it features all the way through the movie. As you may recall, I have dual Seaton Subversives - that is 4 x 15 inch drivers with 6,000 watts of amplification, and I have no constraints on loudness etc. So my bass is probably about as formidable as it gets for 99% of AVS members. Yet throughout this movie, I had absolutely zero problems with dialog, which is beautifully recorded and superbly prioritised, even in the wildest action scenes. (And there are some wild action scenes in this popcorn movie!).

If DEQ is causing dialog intelligibility problems, then something is wrong IMO - either with DEQ or with the system setup. As you know I no longer use DEQ but I do run a Harman Curve with a significant 6dB bass boost from about 70Hz down.

It may be that in certain setups and certain rooms, DEQ is adding to an inherent problem, but IMO DEQ is unlikely to be the cause of the problem.


----------



## kbarnes701

pbarach said:


> Generally, I agree. However Dynamic EQ can mess things up on certain material. Programs from the BBC on TV or on disc sometimes overwhelm the dialogue in the center channel with overly loud surrounds and subwoofer audio. I always turn DEQ off for material from the BBC.


DEQ was never intended to work with TV content, only movie content which is mastered to known and defined standards. The correct thing to do with DEQ is to turn it off for anything other than movie content.


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> Outrageous accents, outrageous movie. Actually the dialogue was not a big problem for us --- we may well have run the re-dubb. The only problem I had with the dialogue was that there were other tracks running in my head, saying, "Why are they like that?" Why are they saying that?" If dreams/hallucinations were more rational, I would have been asking, "Why is he seeing that?" All of the above was competing with the dialogue, and no amount of Sonex would have helped, unless I wrapped a couple of layers of it around my head. Not since Last Year at Marienbad did a film seem that strange. Admittedly, both got through to my unconscious from time to time. I'd invite more in, but the place is a mess.


This isn't an issue of dialog _intelligibility_ though. it's an issue of dialog _comprehension_. Clearly, if one doesn't speak/understand the language that the movie is made in, then dialog is going to be pretty incomprehensible even if it is perfectly intelligible. Same goes for heavy accents or dialects as in the movie mentioned. In that movie (T2) the dialog was beautifully recorded and prioritised although to most Americans it would have been pretty incomprehensible.

I haven't seen _L'Année Dernière à Marienbad _for years. I agree with your analysis  And, as was mentioned earlier, being an older movie, the dialog was beautifully clear - and, in my case, I didn't need the subtitles


----------



## JosephTonyStark

Hello all,

Sorry for the sideways picture but I have a question about using a boom mic stand with my Audyssey mic. I'm good with the keeping the arm from being between the listening spot and the speakers, but am unsure of the mic orientation. The adapter I have will allow it to point straight out, parallel with the boom or at a 90-degree angle as shown in the picture. Whichever I do, I know the mic tip needs to be at ear height. 

Could someone chime in and tell me what orientation is best? Thanks in advance.....


----------



## bmcn

JosephTonyStark said:


> ...Could someone chime in and tell me what orientation is best?...


Pointing it to the ceiling is the most common practice I've read.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Interesting. I am not sure I agree with you here Mike. I know DEQ has various problems associated with it - for example, the untamable surround channel boost. But I have never experienced it having any negative impact on dialog intelligibility. Nor am I sure that, in a properly setup system, loud bass should cause this sort of issue. For example, last night I watched the new _Yimou Zhang _movie _The Great Wall_. As always, I watched this at 'home reference' (-5dB). The bass in this movie is awesome. It is loud, deep and literally room and furniture shaking. And it features all the way through the movie. As you may recall, I have dual Seaton Subversives - that is 4 x 15 inch drivers with 6,000 watts of amplification, and I have no constraints on loudness etc. So my bass is probably about as formidable as it gets for 99% of AVS members. Yet throughout this movie, I had absolutely zero problems with dialog, which is beautifully recorded and superbly prioritised, even in the wildest action scenes. (And there are some wild action scenes in this popcorn movie!).
> 
> If DEQ is causing dialog intelligibility problems, then something is wrong IMO - either with DEQ or with the system setup. As you know I no longer use DEQ but I do run a Harman Curve with a significant 6dB bass boost from about 70Hz down.
> 
> It may be that in certain setups and certain rooms, DEQ is adding to an inherent problem, but IMO DEQ is unlikely to be the cause of the problem.


Hi Keith,

You may very well be correct! At best, I think that this is likely to be a YMMV issue. And, you made a good point about DEQ perhaps simply being a contributing factor to some underlying problem. I also like the distinction you made between dialogue intelligibility (from a clarity standpoint) and dialogue comprehension from the standpoint of accents or mumbling. Unfortunately, for many of us, it may often be a combination of factors which can reduce dialogue comprehension. My approach is typically to help someone trouble-shoot the more obvious causes of dialogue problems first, as you did in your original post on the subject, and then add more arcane ones as the trouble-shooting process evolves.

But, FWIW, here is my experience with DEQ, in this specific context. Some other people have reported similar experiences. DEQ adds approximately 1db per -5 MV of bass boost, to all channels, from about 120Hz down to 70Hz. (The amount of boost increases below 70hz.) At a listening volume of -5 MV, that single decibel boost, occurring in such a narrow frequency range, would probably be virtually inaudible to most of us. But, what if we are listening at a MV of -15 or -20 as many people do? Would a 3db or 4db change in bass in the frequency range from 70hz to 120Hz potentially affect the timbre of voices? And, if it did affect vocal timbre, would the somewhat artificial amplification of low fundamentals make human speech a little more difficult for some of us to hear and comprehend? I believe that it did in my system.

Low voices may be inherently more difficult for some of us to hear and understand than somewhat higher pitched voices. Apparently this can vary quite a bit among individuals. I believe that I find additional bass coloration, to the natural timbre of human voices, distracting if nothing else, and therefore slightly less comprehensible. A fairly obvious case of an actor who's natural voice timbre is very low is James Earl Jones, whose voice can reach down to about 70Hz at times. His enunciation, and slow and deliberate rate of speech, make him very easy to understand. And, of course, some of that had it's roots in his early stuttering, and his interest in poetry. He truly embodies speech intelligibility.

But, when normal voices, and particularly of people who do not enunciate clearly, are somewhat bass-enhanced, they may become distracting and/or more difficult to comprehend for some people. Up until 2 or 3 years ago, I used DEQ routinely for movies. Once I started to experiment with turning DEQ off, without changing any other variables in my system, I found that I could hear/comprehend dialogue more clearly. I was able to compensate for the surround boost, which can also make dialogue more difficult to distinguish. But, I found the roughly 3db bass boost that DEQ was employing in my center channel to be distracting and somewhat unnatural sounding for both male and female voices. And, perhaps the slightly lower vocal timbre was affecting my dialogue comprehension in much the same way that an actor mumbling might have. If nothing else, I just didn't like the effect.

Incidentally, a colleague of mine, who suffers from tinnitus, has the opposite experience. He finds deeper voices to be inherently more intelligible than even medium-pitched voices, so I doubt that DEQ could have any adverse effect on speech intelligibility or comprehension for him at even very low listening levels (with correspondingly higher bass boosts). I used him as an example because he and I discussed this phenomenon recently, but any of us with "normal" hearing could have fairly broad variances, within the full frequency spectrum, even before factoring in issues of age-related hearing loss.

This was never a night-and-day difference for me. It was a good deal more subtle than that. But, it did make a difference for me when I went back-and-forth with DEQ on and off. And, when other measures for enhancing speech intelligibility either are not available, or have failed, this is just one more tool in the tool box that people can consider trying. I doubt that the difference would even be audible at -5 MV, and perhaps barely so at -10 MV. But, at -15 (which appears to be about the AVS average) and below, it could be worth trying. Based on what I have read, however, some of the utility of such a measure would probably depend on the specific way in which different individuals hear different frequencies. 

Sorry for the long post, but this stuff is interesting, as you said. The differences in the way that we perceive sound, and the individual preferences which we develop, are among the aspects of this AV hobby that interest me most.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> I fully agree with all that you have said Gary, meantime there are really particular cases when setting up center speaker with utmost care or doing room treatments to the brim will still not yield the desired dialog intelligibility coz of reasons beyond our HT configurations.
> 
> Namely, some of us might remember the film back from 1996 titled "Trainspotting". If my memory serves me well I recall that that film before entering the North-American market was requested by the US distributor to be partly redubbed (no subtitles would have helped here) for the American ears due to its massive Scottish slang mixed with their local accent and speedy talk.
> 
> So, I think dialog intelligibility is not always just a technical issue, but a bit more!
> 
> Just for fun here's a clip from the above movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwDmg74rhCw


I just rewatched Trainspotting a couple weeks back in preparation for T2, and even though it is one of my all time favorite movies, I simply couldn't get through it without subtitles.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> I just rewatched Trainspotting a couple weeks back in preparation for T2, and even though it is one of my all time favorite movies, I simply couldn't get through it without subtitles.


Alan, were you watching with the original sound track or the version re-dubbed for American ears?


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

Hey Mike.

I think you are right that there are many possible variables going on here. If DEQ is starting its influence at 120Hz, then the chosen crossover will play a part too. I used to cross my MKS150s at 100Hz for example, so there would have been much less impact from DEQ than for someone who crosses at, say, 60Hz.

As always, I come back to the room. Dialog unintelligibility is almost always a function of the room IMO and IME. So anyone who experiences problems probably needs to address the room issues first. Electronic EQ (of which I count DEQ as a form) can only do so much - the room is always the biggest influencing factor on the sound we hear. What I can say, without doubt, is that I am sure that the overwhelming majority of movies coming out of Hollywood do _not_ have dialog that is difficult to understand or hear properly. I'd say that, here, this is a 1% sort of issue, with the odd mumbled line rather than any sort of ingrained problem. So if *I *can hear dialog without any issues then it can't be something baked into the recording or the disc - it has to be the system or the room.

Of course, you could be right that DEQ is contributing to the problem (or even causing it sometimes). TBH, I have never really liked DEQ anyway. I very much disliked the way it, improperly, boosts the surround channels for one thing. For another, it always seemed to me to be a form of sticking plaster for the problems caused by Audyssey targeting a 'flat' curve and removing the room gain which people overwhelmingly prefer. I know DEQ is meant to compensate for the realities of human hearing being bass-deficient as loudness drops, but there are other, better, ways to address that IMO, and DEQ is usually used to address the '_where's my bass gone?'_ after running an Audyssey calibration, as much as it is for 'Fletcher-Munson reasons'. Of course, HST, I was blessed in that when listening at my typical -5dB, DEQ wasn't really doing anything much anyway so could be safely turned off. It is interesting that you too prefer it off rather than on.

As always, the quest for sonic perfection is a long and winding road, with many side-turnings and dead-ends.


----------



## kbarnes701

Alan P said:


> I just rewatched Trainspotting a couple weeks back in preparation for T2, and even though it is one of my all time favorite movies, I simply couldn't get through it without subtitles.


 Unfortunately, no amount of electronic gizmodifiycation is going to help you with that accent and dialect! Subtitles to the rescue! I have English friends who struggle with some of the American regional accents too and they put on subtitles to assist them. it's an interesting area, but not one that is relevant to the issue of dialog intelligibility as such.

Interestingly, I can understand every word of Spud's job interview in Transporting, but my wife can't understand a single word! (And yes, she is a native English speaker) so it's not just you guys across the water who have this issue with that particular clip 

There's a lovely scene in the Terence Stamp movie, _The Limey_, where he addresses an American police chief in perfect cockney (London) slang and the police chief listens in utter bewilderment for a few minutes before letting Stamp's character have his way "even though I could;t follow a goddam word you said".  Great movie too.


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> You may very well be correct! At best, I think that this is likely to be a YMMV issue. And, you made a good point about DEQ perhaps simply being a contributing factor to some underlying problem. I also like the distinction you made between dialogue intelligibility (from a clarity standpoint) and dialogue comprehension from the standpoint of accents or mumbling. Unfortunately, for many of us, it may often be a combination of factors which can reduce dialogue comprehension. My approach is typically to help someone trouble-shoot the more obvious causes of dialogue problems first, as you did in your original post on the subject, and then add more arcane ones as the trouble-shooting process evolves.
> 
> But, FWIW, here is my experience with DEQ, in this specific context. Some other people have reported similar experiences. DEQ adds approximately 1db per -5 MV of bass boost, to all channels, from about 120Hz down to 70Hz. (The amount of boost increases below 70hz.) At a listening volume of -5 MV, that single decibel boost, occurring in such a narrow frequency range, would probably be virtually inaudible to most of us. But, what if we are listening at a MV of -15 or -20 as many people do? Would a 3db or 4db change in bass in the frequency range from 70hz to 120Hz potentially affect the timbre of voices? And, if it did affect vocal timbre, would the somewhat artificial amplification of low fundamentals make human speech a little more difficult for some of us to hear and comprehend? I believe that it did in my system.
> 
> Low voices may be inherently more difficult for some of us to hear and understand than somewhat higher pitched voices. Apparently this can vary quite a bit among individuals. I believe that I find additional bass coloration, to the natural timbre of human voices, distracting if nothing else, and therefore slightly less comprehensible. A fairly obvious case of an actor who's natural voice timbre is very low is James Earl Jones, whose voice can reach down to about 70Hz at times. His enunciation, and slow and deliberate rate of speech, make him very easy to understand. And, of course, some of that had it's roots in his early stuttering, and his interest in poetry. He truly embodies speech intelligibility.
> 
> But, when normal voices, and particularly of people who do not enunciate clearly, are somewhat bass-enhanced, they may become distracting and/or more difficult to comprehend for some people. Up until 2 or 3 years ago, I used DEQ routinely for movies. Once I started to experiment with turning DEQ off, without changing any other variables in my system, I found that I could hear/comprehend dialogue more clearly. I was able to compensate for the surround boost, which can also make dialogue more difficult to distinguish. But, I found the roughly 3db bass boost that DEQ was employing in my center channel to be distracting and somewhat unnatural sounding for both male and female voices. And, perhaps the slightly lower vocal timbre was affecting my dialogue comprehension in much the same way that an actor mumbling might have. If nothing else, I just didn't like the effect.
> 
> Incidentally, a colleague of mine, who suffers from tinnitus, has the opposite experience. He finds deeper voices to be inherently more intelligible than even medium-pitched voices, so I doubt that DEQ could have any adverse effect on speech intelligibility or comprehension for him at even very low listening levels (with correspondingly higher bass boosts). I used him as an example because he and I discussed this phenomenon recently, but any of us with "normal" hearing could have fairly broad variances, within the full frequency spectrum, even before factoring in issues of age-related hearing loss.
> 
> This was never a night-and-day difference for me. It was a good deal more subtle than that. But, it did make a difference for me when I went back-and-forth with DEQ on and off. And, when other measures for enhancing speech intelligibility either are not available, or have failed, this is just one more tool in the tool box that people can consider trying. I doubt that the difference would even be audible at -5 MV, and perhaps barely so at -10 MV. But, at -15 (which appears to be about the AVS average) and below, it could be worth trying. Based on what I have read, however, some of the utility of such a measure would probably depend on the specific way in which different individuals hear different frequencies.
> 
> Sorry for the long post, but this stuff is interesting, as you said. The differences in the way that we perceive sound, and the individual preferences which we develop, are among the aspects of this AV hobby that interest me most.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Also keep in mind the bass boost starts well above 120hz, more like the 300-400hz range depending on volume level.


----------



## mthomas47

primetimeguy said:


> Also keep in mind the bass boost starts well above 120hz, more like the 300-400hz range depending on volume level.


Good point! According to the graphs in the technical addendum of the FAQ, DEQ starts to add a tiny boost ( a fraction of a decibel) at about 240Hz. That boost remains almost imperceptibly small on the graphs until 120Hz where it grows to 1db per -5 MV below Reference, and it continues to be stable at 1db until 70hz, where it increases again. For purposes of what we might actually be able to hear, though, I think that it's the 120Hz and under boost that would be significant.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Alan, were you watching with the original sound track or the version re-dubbed for American ears?


Oh, original all the way Feri! I can not stand over-dubbed movies...


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Good point! According to the graphs in the technical addendum of the FAQ, DEQ starts to add a tiny boost ( a fraction of a decibel) at about 240Hz. That boost remains almost imperceptibly small on the graphs until 120Hz where it grows to 1db per -5 MV below Reference, and it continues to be stable at 1db until 70hz, where it increases again. For purposes of what we might actually be able to hear, though, I think that it's the 120Hz and under boost that would be significant.


I didn't check the graphs in the FAQ, rather was going off this one

http://www.avsforum.com/photopost/data/2379762/7/7a/7a783604_DEQ.jpeg

Once you get below -20db from reference I'd say the 200-300hz becomes perceptible.

I agree with you in the


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> But, FWIW, here is my experience with DEQ, in this specific context. Some other people have reported similar experiences. DEQ adds approximately 1db per -5 MV of bass boost, to all channels, from about 120Hz down to 70Hz. (The amount of boost increases below 70hz.) At a listening volume of -5 MV, that single decibel boost, occurring in such a narrow frequency range, would probably be virtually inaudible to most of us. But, what if we are listening at a MV of -15 or -20 as many people do? Would a 3db or 4db change in bass in the frequency range from 70hz to 120Hz potentially affect the timbre of voices? And, if it did affect vocal timbre, would the somewhat artificial amplification of low fundamentals make human speech a little more difficult for some of us to hear and comprehend? I believe that it did in my system.
> 
> Low voices may be inherently more difficult for some of us to hear and understand than somewhat higher pitched voices. Apparently this can vary quite a bit among individuals. I believe that I find additional bass coloration, to the natural timbre of human voices, distracting if nothing else, and therefore slightly less comprehensible. A fairly obvious case of an actor who's natural voice timbre is very low is James Earl Jones, whose voice can reach down to about 70Hz at times. His enunciation, and slow and deliberate rate of speech, make him very easy to understand. And, of course, some of that had it's roots in his early stuttering, and his interest in poetry. He truly embodies speech intelligibility.
> 
> But, when normal voices, and particularly of people who do not enunciate clearly, are somewhat bass-enhanced, they may become distracting and/or more difficult to comprehend for some people. Up until 2 or 3 years ago, I used DEQ routinely for movies. Once I started to experiment with turning DEQ off, without changing any other variables in my system, I found that I could hear/comprehend dialogue more clearly. I was able to compensate for the surround boost, which can also make dialogue more difficult to distinguish. But, I found the roughly 3db bass boost that DEQ was employing in my center channel to be distracting and somewhat unnatural sounding for both male and female voices. And, perhaps the slightly lower vocal timbre was affecting my dialogue comprehension in much the same way that an actor mumbling might have. If nothing else, I just didn't like the effect.
> 
> Incidentally, a colleague of mine, who suffers from tinnitus, has the opposite experience. He finds deeper voices to be inherently more intelligible than even medium-pitched voices, so I doubt that DEQ could have any adverse effect on speech intelligibility or comprehension for him at even very low listening levels (with correspondingly higher bass boosts). I used him as an example because he and I discussed this phenomenon recently, but any of us with "normal" hearing could have fairly broad variances, within the full frequency spectrum, even before factoring in issues of age-related hearing loss.
> 
> …


Mike,

I think several things may be going on.

For a start I find that my impression of high frequencies changes when I change bass levels and my impression of bass levels changes to a lesser degree when I change high frequency levels. I can't remember ever seeing anything on this effect and I don't tend to notice it as much in my TV system where I use Audyssey and any changes in the calibration tend to include changes with both. I can't remember finding DEQ causing this effect for me to such a degree that it affects voice intelligibility but I do notice it in my audio system in a different room where I only use physical treatments and moving the treatments tends to affect one end of the frequency range more than the other. Moving treatments also tends to change the direct/reflected sound balance a bit also and that may be part of what causes what I notice with that system. Overall, for me, I'd probably say that increasing the bass level in my audio system can tend to reduce voice intelligibility on songs to some degree but the amount it does so varies with the singer and the recording. The variation with singers probably does depend on the pitch and tonal character of their voices to some degree.

When it comes to individual listeners I think we have a lot of variables. A major one which you haven't mentioned is noise induced hearing loss which shows up first in the vocal range. The first sign that people have that they are suffering from noise induced hearing loss is difficulty in hearing/understanding speech because the loss starts in the range where our hearing is most sensitive and spreads out from there. Our hearing is most sensitive in the range occupied by voices. There's also evidence that women are more sensitive to higher frequency sounds and men more sensitive to lower frequency sounds but of course with individual differences you can't generalise from that to a blanket statement that a change in low frequency levels is going to affect the ability of males to understand speech more than it will affect the ability of females to do so. What I can say from my own personal experience is that if I find an increase in low frequency levels changing the timbre of a female voice and deepening it, I seem to be more likely to have difficulty understanding that voice but I know I have very mild loss from noise so that may also be playing a part for me. Increasing low frequency levels also tends to increase the decay time of the sound (louder sounds take longer to decay to inaudibility than softer sounds because the starting point is louder and the drop in level required to reach inaudibility is greater) and increases in decay time tends to blur sounds so they are less distinct, so that could be part of the cause of this effect. Then there's things like tinnitus which occurs in the higher frequencies so it can probably mask high frequency aspects of sound which affect speech intelligibility for the sufferer and a small amount of low frequency reinforcement may help the sufferer perceive the lower frequency aspects of sound which help with speech intelligibilty. Finally there's the fact that background sound levels above a certain level start to mask voices and reduce intelligibility and the frequency of those sounds plays a part in that, whether the background sounds be environmental in the room, something Audyssey has no control over, or in the soundtrack itself. Even time of day may have an effect because I think my audio system tends to sound slightly clearer and everything is slightly more distinct at night after around 8.00 pm when the load on the power grid is lower. I also have solar panels on my roof and I have heard some people in my audio club report that they believe the inverters in solar power systems add noise to the line and that if you have a solar power system then your audio system will sound better at night when the inverter is inactive. I'm not certain on that one.

There's probably a few other factors involved as well but those are the ones I can think of.

Overall I think Keith is right in his assessment that it isn't a problem which is simply a DEQ problem. I think what's going on when people talk about DEQ affecting speech intelligibility for them is probably a rather complex mix of things involving how well their speakers work in the voice range, their room, their Audyssey calibration result (we all know that can vary depending on things like our mic placement during the setup process), how well the soundtrack has been mastered which also can be variable, ambient noise in the environment, and the individual's own hearing. Which is the most important factor for a given individual is going to vary depending on the mix of all factors in their personal situation and when we end up discussing this issue here in a particular case we tend not to have information about a lot of those factors.

As far as Audyssey's role in this mix is concerned I'd suggest that if someone is having trouble with speech intelligibility the things they could try are to turn DEQ off if it's on, on if it's off, and if it's off they could also try experimenting with slight treble and/or bass boosts with the tone controls, plus also playing around with slight increases or decreases in the master volume setting. All of those things are going to make slight differences one way or the other either in the voice range or in the relationship of the voice range to the rest of the frequency range and one of them may help the particular individual but what helps one person may make things worse for others so results with those adjustments is definitely going to be variable and it's going to be up to each individual to discover whether any of those options help for them.


----------



## pbarach

JosephTonyStark said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Sorry for the sideways picture but I have a question about using a boom mic stand with my Audyssey mic. I'm good with the keeping the arm from being between the listening spot and the speakers, but am unsure of the mic orientation. The adapter I have will allow it to point straight out, parallel with the boom or at a 90-degree angle as shown in the picture. Whichever I do, I know the mic tip needs to be at ear height.
> 
> Could someone chime in and tell me what orientation is best? Thanks in advance.....


The tip of the mic should always be pointed straight up.


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I think several things may be going on.


A very good and comprehensive post indeed David. 

For a little fun and to top it off here's a clip from Peter Kay on misheard song lyrics. My favorites are Michael Jackson's burgers and Celine Dion's hot dogs. Enjoy! Hope it puts a smile on your face like it did on mine!


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> A very good and comprehensive post indeed David.
> 
> For a little fun and to top it off here's a clip from Peter Kay on misheard song lyrics. My favorites are Michael Jackson's burgers and Celine Dion's hot dogs. Enjoy! Hope it puts a smile on your face like it did on mine!


It put a smile on my face 

With all the double entendres and mishearing I won't even go near the topic of diction.


----------



## mogorf

David Aiken said:


> It put a smile on my face
> 
> With all the double entendres and mishearing I won't even go near the topic of diction.


And nothing attributed to DEQ, right?


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> For a start I find that *my impression of high frequencies changes when I change bass levels* and my impression of bass levels changes to a lesser degree when I change high frequency levels..


When I first noticed that (decades ago) it took the form of midrange and treble clarity decreasing when a bass control was turned up. I assumed that it was because of modulation distortion, or something like that, under the influence of bass boost, in the relatively cheap two way speaker system I had then. Since then I have noticed that midrange and treble clarity can sometimes increase when I turn off my subwoofer at the on-the-wall power switch. Why would turning off a completely separate speaker, with separate amplification, reproducing a different frequency range affect midrange and treble clarity? My hypothesis is that bass sounds sometimes have a masking effect on midrange and treble sounds.


----------



## garygarrison

kbarnes701 said:


> I haven't seen _L'Année Dernière à Marienbad _for years. I agree with your analysis  And, as was mentioned earlier, being an older movie, the dialog was beautifully clear - and, in my case, I didn't need the subtitles


It looks great on a large 2.35:1 screen! Even though it is quite bizarre, I do notice that it speaks to me in some way. I can't get my family to watch it with me, though.

About 6 years after Marienbad premiered, a director -- I think it was Zeffirelli -- wrote to Kubrick, regarding 2001, saying, "You made me dream, eyes wide open." He could have said that about Marienbad, as well.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> When I first noticed that (decades ago) it took the form of midrange and treble clarity decreasing when a bass control was turned up. I assumed that it was because of modulation distortion, or something like that, under the influence of bass boost, in the relatively cheap two way speaker system I had then. Since then I have noticed that midrange and treble clarity can sometimes increase when I turn off my subwoofer at the on-the-wall power switch. Why would turning off a completely separate speaker, with separate amplification, reproducing a different frequency range affect midrange and treble clarity? My hypothesis is that bass sounds sometimes have a masking effect on midrange and treble sounds.


Gary,

My initial realisation many years ago that changes to one of the low, mid or high frequencies affected the other two ranges came when I realised that, for me, when I got the mid range right the low and high frequencies seemed to "fall into place" for me and sound correct. From there I started learning that what I often needed to do to get the mid range right, and the mids tend to be most critical to me, I often had to play with the extremes rather than the mids. OK, overall balance involves having all 3 in proportion with each other but it was a big shift to me to start to work with the idea that if one of the ranges didn't sound right the problem could be that one of the other ranges, a range which wasn't the one attracting my attention, was the range that needed to be dealt with. I think we tend to believe that if one range doesn't sound right then that's the range where the problem is and I was discovering that wasn't necessarily the case.

I'm not certain that bass sounds can mask midrange or treble sounds but I do think that if the effect of a bass boost extends high enough to start to affect the fundamental of a mid range sound it can change the timbre of the mid range sound by changing the balance between the fundamental and overtones. If that happens I think it can affect our perception of the sound and, for something like a voice, it may affect our perception of the intelligibility of the voice. If our hearing in the voice range is fine, or only mildly diminished, that may make the difference between being able to understand what's being said easily and having to struggle to understand what's being said. If the change in the balance of the fundamental and overtones is large enough, and/or if our hearing is more severely diminished, it could make a bigger difference. I suspect in part this may be due to the fact that we are fairly sensitive to voice tone and colourations and a shift in the tonal character to a timbre that doesn't sound right to us may reduce our ability to understand speech in a way similar to that in which we can often find it hard to understand what's being said if the speaker has a strong accent and their pronunciation is not what we're used to.


----------



## kbarnes701

primetimeguy said:


> Also keep in mind the bass boost starts well above 120hz, more like the 300-400hz range depending on volume level.


Yes this is true - the boost does start at about 250Hz, but it is very tame until it gets to about 80Hz. The graph below shows the impact of DEQ - there are various other similar graphs in the FAQ Tech Addendum.

While I am prepared to believe that the bass boost which DEQ applies could have some sort of impact in dialog intelligibility in some circumstances and systems, I find it hard to really take on board since the bass boost DEQ applies is nowhere near as strong as the bass boost I apply in my favoured Dirac target curve, and even with that bass boost and two Submersives with 4 x 15 inch drivers all let loose, I have no problems with dialog at all. I rest my case at the room/setup.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> 
> Overall I think Keith is right in his assessment that it isn't a problem which is simply a DEQ problem. I think what's going on when people talk about DEQ affecting speech intelligibility for them is probably a rather complex mix of things involving how well their speakers work in the voice range, their room, their Audyssey calibration result (we all know that can vary depending on things like our mic placement during the setup process), how well the soundtrack has been mastered which also can be variable, ambient noise in the environment, and the individual's own hearing. Which is the most important factor for a given individual is going to vary depending on the mix of all factors in their personal situation and when we end up discussing this issue here in a particular case we tend not to have information about a lot of those factors.
> 
> As far as Audyssey's role in this mix is concerned I'd suggest that if someone is having trouble with speech intelligibility the things they could try are to turn DEQ off if it's on, on if it's off, and if it's off they could also try experimenting with slight treble and/or bass boosts with the tone controls, plus also playing around with slight increases or decreases in the master volume setting. All of those things are going to make slight differences one way or the other either in the voice range or in the relationship of the voice range to the rest of the frequency range and one of them may help the particular individual but what helps one person may make things worse for others so results with those adjustments is definitely going to be variable and it's going to be up to each individual to discover whether any of those options help for them.


Good post. Age-related hearing loss is a good suspect! IDK the average age of AVS members but I am betting that those who have spent a small fortune on AV gear and dedicated rooms etc etc are not in the first flush of youth.  As you say, age-related hearing loss primarily affects the voice frequencies so this is a good candidate for further investigation. Especially for those who cannot simply turn up their MV to approaching Reference to compensate. As DEQ has more and more impact as the MV is reduced, then this could well be a contributing factor of some sort - easily checked by simply turning it on and off as you suggest.


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> When I first noticed that (decades ago) it took the form of midrange and treble clarity decreasing when a bass control was turned up. I assumed that it was because of modulation distortion, or something like that, under the influence of bass boost, in the relatively cheap two way speaker system I had then. Since then I have noticed that midrange and treble clarity can sometimes increase when I turn off my subwoofer at the on-the-wall power switch. Why would turning off a completely separate speaker, with separate amplification, reproducing a different frequency range affect midrange and treble clarity? My hypothesis is that bass sounds sometimes have a *masking* effect on midrange and treble sounds.


You got it right there Gary in the word I bolded. 

"Auditory masking occurs when the perception of one sound is affected by the presence of another sound."

There's lots of info out there about it - a good place to start for anyone interested is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_masking


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> It looks great on a large 2.35:1 screen! Even though it is quite bizarre, I do notice that it speaks to me in some way. I can't get my family to watch it with me, though.
> 
> About 6 years after Marienbad premiered, a director -- I think it was Zeffirelli -- wrote to Kubrick, regarding 2001, saying, "You made me dream, eyes wide open." He could have said that about Marienbad, as well.


Enough of us and our fancy, foreign 50-year-old movies (and in black and white too!) - we'll be getting a reprimand if we carry on like this  

(For anyone wondering what on earth we are discussing, here's the IMDB page.)


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes this is true - the boost does start at about 250Hz, but it is very tame until it gets to about 80Hz. The graph below shows the impact of DEQ - there are various other similar graphs in the FAQ Tech Addendum.
> 
> While I am prepared to believe that the bass boost which DEQ applies could have some sort of impact in dialog intelligibility in some circumstances and systems, I find it hard to really take on board since the bass boost DEQ applies is nowhere near as strong as the bass boost I apply in my favoured Dirac target curve, and even with that bass boost and two Submersives with 4 x 15 inch drivers all let loose, I have no problems with dialog at all. I rest my case at the room/setup.


Keith,

I absolutely agree with you that room and set-up are far more important factors in determining dialogue intelligibility. I actually mentioned the potential effect of DEQ just as a possible trouble-shooting measure, and the discussion ended-up becoming a little more focused on that issue than I ever intended. At best, some listeners might notice some effect from DEQ under some circumstances. But, the other factors you mentioned would be far more important, in my opinion, and in my experience.

I think, though, that the reason you never experience any dialogue intelligibility problems even with a significant bass boost has to do with the frequencies involved. As noted in an earlier post, even the lowest fundamentals, in a very deep voice such as that of James Earl Jones, only go down to about 70Hz. So boosts occurring below about 80Hz would have little to no effect on vocal timbre. But, if you want to test this to hear whether you can distinguish unnatural sounding timbre changes, and whether they can affect dialogue clarity (perhaps via the masking effect that Gary referred to) there is an easy way to do it.

Just leave all of your other crossovers where you normally have them, and raise the crossover on your center channel to 120Hz. If you want to make the situation more extreme, temporarily add another couple of db to your sub boost. I would expect you to hear a distinct timbral shift in voices coming from the CC, with a significant sub boost and a 120Hz crossover, compared to what you would experience with an 80Hz crossover.

I use an even more aggressive house curve than you do, although at a somewhat lower listening volume. But, as long as the crossover on my CC is at 80Hz, the bass boost doesn't affect voices in a perceptible way. If, however, I were to increase my crossover to 120Hz (or sometimes even 100Hz) with that same bass boost, I would hear a distinct bass coloration to some voices. I have experienced that in my system, and it works along the same principle as what I was describing with DEQ. I can definitely distinguish the effect on voices and speech of significant bass boosts in the 90Hz to 120Hz range. 

I want to be very clear, partly for the sake of the many people on the thread who love DEQ, that I am not discouraging anyone from using DEQ. Nor, do I mean this as any type of specific criticism of DEQ. I originally mentioned this as just one of many things that someone could try in an effort to improve dialogue intelligibility. And, it would strictly be on a YMMV basis. Room factors and proper set-up would be far more important. And, not everyone would necessarily even notice timbral changes in voices, or be bothered by them if he did. There is just too much variance in human hearing and individual preference for this to be a very significant factor for most of us. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Keith, I just remembered something you said earlier about limiting your house curve to a boost from about 70Hz down. I actually do something very similar, when I don't use DEQ, and I keep my crossovers no higher than 80Hz. But, with all of your sub boost occurring below 70Hz, I don't know that the test I suggested would work. In order to reproduce the effect that I was talking about, you would also need to introduce a higher sub boost--up to about 120Hz. I don't know if it is worth the trouble to change that additional variable in your system in order to determine the effect of bass boosts on voices, but I thought I had better mention that aspect in case you did want to mess with it.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I absolutely agree with you that room and set-up are far more important factors in determining dialogue intelligibility. I actually mentioned the potential effect of DEQ just as a possible trouble-shooting measure, and the discussion ended-up becoming a little more focused on that issue than I ever intended. At best, some listeners might notice some effect from DEQ under some circumstances. But, the other factors you mentioned would be far more important, in my opinion, and in my experience.
> 
> I think, though, that the reason you never experience any dialogue intelligibility problems even with a significant bass boost has to do with the frequencies involved. As noted in an earlier post, even the lowest fundamentals, in a very deep voice such as that of James Earl Jones, only go down to about 70Hz. So boosts occurring below about 80Hz would have little to no effect on vocal timbre. But, if you want to test this to hear whether you can distinguish unnatural sounding timbre changes, and whether they can affect dialogue clarity (perhaps via the masking effect that Gary referred to) there is an easy way to do it.
> 
> Just leave all of your other crossovers where you normally have them, and raise the crossover on your center channel to 120Hz. If you want to make the situation more extreme, temporarily add another couple of db to your sub boost. I would expect you to hear a distinct timbral shift in voices coming from the CC, with a significant sub boost and a 120Hz crossover, compared to what you would experience with an 80Hz crossover.
> 
> I use an even more aggressive house curve than you do, although at a somewhat lower listening volume. But, as long as the crossover on my CC is at 80Hz, the bass boost doesn't affect voices in a perceptible way. If, however, I were to increase my crossover to 120Hz (or sometimes even 100Hz) with that same bass boost, I would hear a distinct bass coloration to some voices. I have experienced that in my system, and it works along the same principle as what I was describing with DEQ. I can definitely distinguish the effect on voices and speech of significant bass boosts in the 90Hz to 120Hz range.
> 
> I want to be very clear, partly for the sake of the many people on the thread who love DEQ, that I am not discouraging anyone from using DEQ. Nor, do I mean this as any type of specific criticism of DEQ. I originally mentioned this as just one of many things that someone could try in an effort to improve dialogue intelligibility. And, it would strictly be on a YMMV basis. Room factors and proper set-up would be far more important. And, not everyone would necessarily even notice timbral changes in voices, or be bothered by them if he did. There is just too much variance in human hearing and individual preference for this to be a very significant factor for most of us.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I think we are pretty much in agreement on this one Mike, following the lengthy discussion. We do seem to have gotten sidetracked down the DEQ path - generally speaking I am sure that the majority of people who have dialog issues can fix them by attending to their room and their general setup, trying to tame unwanted reflections, removing shiny coffee tables, ensuring the centre speaker isn't pushed to the back of a shelf, aiming of room symmetry where they can and so on. Turning DEQ on and off is another tool in their tool chest.

I do think we can largely rule out poorly recorded or mixed content. Sure, this does happen, but it is rare IME and not something which by any means affects a whole movie's dialog track. I often see photos of people's rooms which are just 100% hard, reflective surfaces, and I do wonder how they manage to hear ANY dialog at all among the overall chaos of sounds bouncing backwards and forwards, building up and up as they do so. Just a small amount of attention to the room and even just two acoustic panels would usually make an audible difference. WAF will usually tolerate a couple of panels, in colours which complement the room décor, and especially if those 'artwork' panels are chosen (see GIK website). One at each of the first reflection points can work wonders.


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Keith,
> 
> I absolutely agree with you that room and set-up are far more important factors in determining dialogue intelligibility. I actually mentioned the potential effect of DEQ just as a possible trouble-shooting measure, and the discussion ended-up becoming a little more focused on that issue than I ever intended. At best, some listeners might notice some effect from DEQ under some circumstances. But, the other factors you mentioned would be far more important, in my opinion, and in my experience.
> 
> I think, though, that the reason you never experience any dialogue intelligibility problems even with a significant bass boost has to do with the frequencies involved. As noted in an earlier post, even the lowest fundamentals, in a very deep voice such as that of James Earl Jones, only go down to about 70Hz. So boosts occurring below about 80Hz would have little to no effect on vocal timbre. But, if you want to test this to hear whether you can distinguish unnatural sounding timbre changes, and whether they can affect dialogue clarity (perhaps via the masking effect that Gary referred to) there is an easy way to do it.
> 
> Just leave all of your other crossovers where you normally have them, and raise the crossover on your center channel to 120Hz. If you want to make the situation more extreme, temporarily add another couple of db to your sub boost. I would expect you to hear a distinct timbral shift in voices coming from the CC, with a significant sub boost and a 120Hz crossover, compared to what you would experience with an 80Hz crossover.
> 
> I use an even more aggressive house curve than you do, although at a somewhat lower listening volume. But, as long as the crossover on my CC is at 80Hz, the bass boost doesn't affect voices in a perceptible way. If, however, I were to increase my crossover to 120Hz (or sometimes even 100Hz) with that same bass boost, I would hear a distinct bass coloration to some voices. I have experienced that in my system, and it works along the same principle as what I was describing with DEQ. I can definitely distinguish the effect on voices and speech of significant bass boosts in the 90Hz to 120Hz range.
> 
> I want to be very clear, partly for the sake of the many people on the thread who love DEQ, that I am not discouraging anyone from using DEQ. Nor, do I mean this as any type of specific criticism of DEQ. I originally mentioned this as just one of many things that someone could try in an effort to improve dialogue intelligibility. And, it would strictly be on a YMMV basis. Room factors and proper set-up would be far more important. And, not everyone would necessarily even notice timbral changes in voices, or be bothered by them if he did. There is just too much variance in human hearing and individual preference for this to be a very significant factor for most of us.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


That graph to me would be very audible with male voices with almost a 3db bump by the time you hit 100hz. Also, I don't think crossover setting has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter where the 100-200hz is coming from, center channel or sub, it have the same impact. 

I go back and forth on using DEQ. It can impact dialog but so does the choice of Ref/Flat curves, probably more so. I typically will set my master volume to what I feel is good for the movie/program (-20 or so for TV, closer to -10 for movies. Then I adjust RLO so that my volume setting is about 10db from this new reference point. This gives me a curve with a slight bass boost but not overwhelming.


----------



## mthomas47

primetimeguy said:


> That graph to me would be very audible with male voices with almost a 3db bump by the time you hit 100hz. Also, I don't think crossover setting has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter where the 100-200hz is coming from, center channel or sub, it have the same impact.
> 
> I go back and forth on using DEQ. It can impact dialog but so does the choice of Ref/Flat curves, probably more so. I typically will set my master volume to what I feel is good for the movie/program (-20 or so for TV, closer to -10 for movies. Then I adjust RLO so that my volume setting is about 10db from this new reference point. This gives me a curve with a slight bass boost but not overwhelming.


Hi,

It's audible to me too. I think that there are two different concepts involved here. One is DEQ, which adds a boost directly to the center channel of 4db at -20 MV. And, that 4db boost goes up to 120Hz. The second concept involves systems where DEQ is not employed, such as in Keith's Dirac system. Now, depending on how the sub boost is implemented, the crossover does matter, because the bass sounds may still color voices. As you say, it doesn't matter where the bass boost is coming from with respect to the effect that we are describing.

The boost can come directly from the CC via DEQ, or the boost can come from the sub, with a high crossover. But, even with a large sub boost, and no DEQ, an 80Hz crossover neutralizes the effect for me. The key for me, in either case, is to keep bass boost from coloring voices, and 80Hz seems to be a pretty good dividing line for me to be able to accomplish that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> It's audible to me too. I think that there are two different concepts involved here. One is DEQ, which adds a boost directly to the center channel of 4db at -20 MV. And, that 4db boost goes up to 120Hz. The second concept involves systems where DEQ is not employed, such as in Keith's Dirac system. Now, depending on how the sub boost is implemented, the crossover does matter, because the bass sounds may still color voices. As you say, it doesn't matter where the bass boost is coming from with respect to the effect that we are describing.
> 
> The boost can come directly from the CC via DEQ, or the boost can come from the sub, with a high crossover. But, even with a large sub boost, and no DEQ, an 80Hz crossover neutralizes the effect for me. The key for me, in either case, is to keep bass boost from coloring voices, and 80Hz seems to be a pretty good dividing line for me to be able to accomplish that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Agree

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

primetimeguy said:


> That graph to me would be very audible with male voices with almost a 3db bump by the time you hit 100hz. Also, I don't think crossover setting has anything to do with it. It doesn't matter where the 100-200hz is coming from, center channel or sub, it have the same impact.


If you have human voice coming from the subwoofer then something is seriously wrong.

The fundamental for male voice is usually reckoned to be 85-180Hz, with female voices usually somewhat higher at about 160-250Hz. And these are the extremes and the deepest that a voice can generally go in 'normal' people. (I am excluding people like Barry White and James Earl Jones as these are outliers.) So most of human speech is way above any frequency at which the sub should be playing. So the XO does seem to me to have something to do with it. If you are crossing at 80Hz, typically, then almost all male speech is coming from the centre speaker, and all female speech, with nothing coming from the sub. Dialog intelligibility isn't about the very low frequencies anyway.



primetimeguy said:


> I go back and forth on using DEQ. It can impact dialog but so does the choice of Ref/Flat curves, probably more so. I typically will set my master volume to what I feel is good for the movie/program (-20 or so for TV, closer to -10 for movies. Then I adjust RLO so that my volume setting is about 10db from this new reference point. This gives me a curve with a slight bass boost but not overwhelming.


Using RLO is a useful tweak but really it shouldn't be necessary to do much tweaking in order to render dialog intelligible in 99% of cases.

Dialog intelligibility (or the lack of it) comes up time and time again, yet IME 99% of the time with movies dialog is perfectly clear. Indeed the movie mixers go to enormous lengths to ensure it. I think David touched on a likely reason for the everlasting nature of the discussion and this is age-related hearing loss (or noise-related) - very many people suffer from this and its most prominent effect is in the frequency range of the human voice. No amount off tweaking will fix that!


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The key for me, in either case, is to keep bass boost from coloring voices, and 80Hz seems to be a pretty good dividing line for me to be able to accomplish that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yes, it was no accident that 80Hz became to the go-to frequency for the typical sub/mains XO. It is almost always a good starting point, and usually a good finishing point for most people too. 

What XOs are people using? I am using 80Hz with the new JBL 3677s for my LCR set, 90Hz for my side and rear surrounds (Tannoy D8i) and 100Hz for my Atmos overhead set (Tannoy Di6DC). I choose the crossovers after measuring the in-room response, but a good general rule of thumb is to cross over a full octave above the F3 of the main speakers. In my case, I have good usable output from the 3677s down to 40Hz, good useable output from the D8is down to 50Hz and similar for the Di6DCs down to 60Hz. Not quite a full octave but close enough.


----------



## kbarnes701

How easy it is to get sucked back in


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> How easy it is to get sucked back in


It's entirely your own fault,  although in your defense, this thread always did have some interesting discussions.

You and I follow the same philosophy with respect to the one octave cushion. Four of my large vintage Bozak speakers are


----------



## Matt2026

kbarnes701 said:


> How easy it is to get sucked back in


Nature abhors a vacuum


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> It's entirely your own fault,  although in your defense, this thread always did have some interesting discussions.
> 
> You and I follow the same philosophy with respect to the one octave cushion. Four of my large vintage Bozak speakers are


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> OMG - 14 x 12in woofers!!  Which Bozaks do you have? The Google Images page for 'Bozak' shows numerous models.


I actually have four pairs, including a pair of B-302 Urban's not currently in use. The ones in my audio system all have some customized features including modern capacitors and a crossover modification. To start with I have a customized pair of Concert Grands in the Modern cabinet. They have four 12" woofers, two 8" mid-range drivers, and eight 2" tweeters in a column array. According to the Bozak association, those seem to be the only Concert Grands ever made with the 8" mid-range drivers. They have a beautiful sound, and they are wall-loaded for maximum extension. Those 240lb speakers require a big room, which I have, and good separation which I have. Rudy Bozak recommended about 20' of separation for optimum coherence and soundstage, and mine are equilateral with my MLP at 21'.

The next size down in my system are the more placement-friendly B-400 Symphonies (150lbs) in the Classic cabinet. (All of the cabinets are walnut veneer, but the cabinet design varies a little.) The Symphonies were Rudy's personal favorites because they are more flexible to use. They don't benefit quite as much from wall loading, since the two 12" woofers are one above the other on one side of the cabinet, and they can be angled nicely for optimum toe-in. In addition to the dual 12" woofers, each has a single 6" mid-range driver, and a column array of eight 2" tweeters.

My little guys, which function as rear surrounds are the B-313 Concerto's. They are smaller bookshelf versions (65lbs) of the B-302, and work very well on stands. They have a single 12" woofer, a 6" mid-range, and two 2" tweeters. In mine, I have rotated the tweeters into a vertical alignment so that all of my tweeters will be in vertical columns and at the same height.

I generally try not to talk about my speakers because it takes a lot of effort to explain them, and even more to explain how I have them configured. Don't ask!  But, in honor of your distinguished presence on the thread, I made an exception. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

Fascinating. I am a big fan of vintage speakers, even though I don't currently own any. Speakers haven;t changed much in concept over the years - what has changed has been the materials used and the computers which now aid their overall design. So a good pair of speakers back then should be a good pair of speakers right now. I wonder if yours were designed for tube amps at all? If so, they may have been voiced specifically for that. I'd love to hear a pair of the Bozaks with a good tube amp. (I know that tube amps go against my grain of 'transparency to the source at all costs' but to me they are like classic of vintage cars - something we used to love and still *can* love in the right circumstances.)

I had a pair of Tannoy Westminsters for years (my then wife used to call them 'Westmonsters') and I so loved those speakers. They were huge and we moved house and I could no longer accommodate them so they had to go. Fortunately, like a much-loved horse you can no longer care for, they went to a good and loving home  I bet they are still giving someone a lot of pleasure today.

Fascinating setup you have there Mike. It's kind of the total opposite of what I have here, but I am betting it sounds very good indeed.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> But, in honor of your distinguished presence on the thread, I made an exception.


Schmoozer!


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Fascinating. I am a big fan of vintage speakers, even though I don't currently own any. Speakers haven;t changed much in concept over the years - what has changed has been the materials used and the computers which now aid their overall design. So a good pair of speakers back then should be a good pair of speakers right now. I wonder if yours were designed for tube amps at all? If so, they may have been voiced specifically for that. I'd love to hear a pair of the Bozaks with a good tube amp. (I know that tube amps go against my grain of 'transparency to the source at all costs' but to me they are like classic of vintage cars - something we used to love and still *can* love in the right circumstances.)
> 
> I had a pair of Tannoy Westminsters for years (my then wife used to call them 'Westmonsters') and I so loved those speakers. They were huge and we moved house and I could no longer accommodate them so they had to go. Fortunately, like a much-loved horse you can no longer care for, they went to a good and loving home  I bet they are still giving someone a lot of pleasure today.
> 
> Fascinating setup you have there Mike. It's kind of the total opposite of what I have here, but I am betting it sounds very good indeed.


Thank you very much, Keith! I really like my subs, but I love my Bozaks. I first discovered them in the early 70's and have never heard anything else I like as well, although I have had a number of other speakers over the years. I was always audio first. HT is comparatively recent for me. I can imagine how you felt having to get rid of your Tannoy's. I believe I remember you talking about them years ago on the thread. But, as you say, a good speaker can last nearly indefinitely with care, so I'm sure that someone is still enjoying them.

The early Bozak speakers were paired with tube amps, and some Bozak owners still prefer them that way. Rudy Bozak, though, was quite progressive and believed that solid state amps offered advantages that the tubes couldn't match. So, he ran his personal Bozaks with SS amps. I have never tried mine with a tube amp, but they have an extremely natural sound with modern amplifiers, and I have always been content with that.


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> Good post. Age-related hearing loss is a good suspect! IDK the average age of AVS members but I am betting that those who have spent a small fortune on AV gear and dedicated rooms etc etc are not in the first flush of youth.  As you say, age-related hearing loss primarily affects the voice frequencies so this is a good candidate for further investigation. Especially for those who cannot simply turn up their MV to approaching Reference to compensate. As DEQ has more and more impact as the MV is reduced, then this could well be a contributing factor of some sort - easily checked by simply turning it on and off as you suggest.


Keith, I mentioned noise related hearing loss and you refer to age related hearing loss. Those are 2 quite different issues. I don't have a background in audiology but I did have to study a bit on noise related hearing loss while I was getting my professional health and safety qualifications many years ago. That problem definitely starts in the 2-4 kHz range and spreads out from there.

My limited understanding of age related hearing loss is that it is a progressive loss of high frequency hearing, or at least that it starts that way. I'm 70 in a couple of months and the last time I tried testing my hearing using a test disc, I could no longer hear highs above somewhere in the 12-15 kHz range. That does not affect speech intelligibility. I've got no idea how low that loss can eventually extend but I would not expect age related hearing loss to be a factor for someone experiencing problems with speech intelligibility that they were associating with the use of DEQ unless that loss had extended down to somewhere in the 7-10 kHz range and was starting to impact on their ability to notice things like sibilance in voices.

Noise related damage is more likely to be an issue than age related decline and with the rise of amplification in music, much louder live music in popular/rock music concerts, much louder listening habits because our equipment can deliver louder levels, and the use of headphones as well, there's a large range of factors that could start to cause noise related hearing loss in most of us besides the sort of causes I studied back when I was getting my qualifications.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> It's entirely your own fault,  although in your defense, this thread always did have some interesting discussions.
> 
> You and I follow the same philosophy with respect to the one octave cushion. Four of my large vintage Bozak speakers are


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> Keith, I mentioned noise related hearing loss and you refer to age related hearing loss. Those are 2 quite different issues. I don't have a background in audiology but I did have to study a bit on noise related hearing loss while I was getting my professional health and safety qualifications many years ago. That problem definitely starts in the 2-4 kHz range and spreads out from there.
> 
> My limited understanding of age related hearing loss is that it is a progressive loss of high frequency hearing, or at least that it starts that way. I'm 70 in a couple of months and the last time I tried testing my hearing using a test disc, I could no longer hear highs above somewhere in the 12-15 kHz range. That does not affect speech intelligibility. I've got no idea how low that loss can eventually extend but I would not expect age related hearing loss to be a factor for someone experiencing problems with speech intelligibility that they were associating with the use of DEQ unless that loss had extended down to somewhere in the 7-10 kHz range and was starting to impact on their ability to notice things like sibilance in voices.
> 
> Noise related damage is more likely to be an issue than age related decline and with the rise of amplification in music, much louder live music in popular/rock music concerts, much louder listening habits because our equipment can deliver louder levels, and the use of headphones as well, there's a large range of factors that could start to cause noise related hearing loss in most of us besides the sort of causes I studied back when I was getting my qualifications.


Yes, you are right to make the distinction between noise-related and age-related hearing loss. Nonetheless, the No 1 reason for older people to visit a hearing aid centre is "I find it difficult to follow along with conversations" so there must be some correlation with speech intelligibility and loss of hearing due to old age.

Whichever it is, noise or age, I think it is a big contributor to the perennial "I can't hear the dialog" discussions which come up all the time in these threads. I am told that more people need hearing aids and don't have them than need them and do have them, so this must be a factor to take into account during these discussions. And of course, it's one that no amount of advice on setup, room treatments, speaker positioning etc etc can fix. People may be looking for a system-based solution when what they need is an audiologist 

I only joined in the discussion to point out that it is, usually, not the fault of the content and the way it was recorded. The good news on that is that it means the issue can be fixed one way or another, so long as the cause is properly identified in the first place. The whole DEQ thing then took on a life of its own, as so often happens on AVS, and provided an interesting sub-discussion in its own right (and on topic too, as a bonus!).


----------



## kbarnes701

garygarrison said:


> For music, I sometimes eliminate the subwoofer. I leave it on for organ, but most other music recordings have tighter bass with just the main speakers, set on "LARGE," and the pre/pro set for "Subwoofer NO."


I don't listen to music in the HT but I have never felt the need for a sub in my music system. Caveat: so long as one has good, decently large speakers of course. There isn't much music content below 40Hz in the sort of music I like, so the need for a sub has never really presented itself here. Currently, since the house move, I don't have a 'proper' music system set up - when I do I may go for small bookshelf speakers and then augment these with a (hidden) sub of some sort. It won;t need to work very hard to get to 40Hz so it can be small and discreet. I have the two channel version of Dirac Live and will probably use this on the music system when I get around to it.



garygarrison said:


> For a *few* problem movies, I have some extreme settings. For instance, after hours of experimentation, including running parts of the movie over and over again, the only way I could get the very bright sounding BD of How The West Was Won to sound the way I recall it in Cinerama, is to run it at Audyssey Reference, at very high volume, but with the Treble control at* -*5, Bass control at +6, FL & FR "LARGE" (this movie only!) LFE + Main (this movie only!), LPF for LFE 150 Hz (this movie only!), Sub trim +8 (this movie only!), all crossovers at 100 HZ (this movie only!).


Blimey as we limeys say  That is dedication above and beyond the call! I haven't seen that movie in years - must dig it out!


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, you are right to make the distinction between noise-related and age-related hearing loss. Nonetheless, the No 1 reason for older people to visit a hearing aid centre is "I find it difficult to follow along with conversations" so there must be some correlation with speech intelligibility and loss of hearing due to old age.
> 
> Whichever it is, noise or age, I think it is a big contributor to the perennial "I can't hear the dialog" discussions which come up all the time in these threads. I am told that more people need hearing aids and don't have them than need them and do have them, so this must be a factor to take into account during these discussions. And of course, it's one that no amount of advice on setup, room treatments, speaker positioning etc etc can fix. People may be looking for a system-based solution when what they need is an audiologist
> 
> I only joined in the discussion to point out that it is, usually, not the fault of the content and the way it was recorded. The good news on that is that it means the issue can be fixed one way or another, so long as the cause is properly identified in the first place. The whole DEQ thing then took on a life of its own, as so often happens on AVS, and provided an interesting sub-discussion in its own right (and on topic too, as a bonus!).


I agree that it's not usually going to be the fault of the content.

I suspect you're also right that the no. 1 reason for older people visiting a hearing aid centre is likely to be difficulty following conversations because that really does hit us "where we live" and makes social interaction incredibly difficult. The problem is pinning down a cause for that. You're probably right that there is an association with age but that doesn't necessarily mean that age related hearing loss is a cause. Loss from noise related damage is progressive and gets worse over time, and older people have had more time for it to get worse. Given that age related loss tends to occur in the high frequencies and progress down whereas noise related loss starts in the mids and spreads out, I'd lean towards a progression of noise related loss over time as a more common cause than age related loss but I'm guessing, this is getting way outside my limited area of knowledge so I may call it quits on that. I think it would be an interesting sub-discussion, especially since I hit 70 in a month and a half, but it would go off topic and that wouldn't be a bonus.

One thing is certain and that is that when someone says "I can't hear the dialogue" or "I can't understand the dialogue", there are 3 possible areas the problem can arise from. They are poorly mastered content, a problem with the playback, and a problem with the person's hearing. Hearing loss tends to be progressive and isn't noticed until it's bad enough to start causing problems for the sufferer and, since up to then they haven't noticed a problem, I think there's a tendency to assume that the problem has to arise from poorly mastered content or playback issues and I would certainly check those areas first but if someone can't solve the problem that way then a hearing test is going to be a good idea.


----------



## garygarrison

kbarnes701 said:


> Yes, you are right to make the distinction between noise-related and age-related hearing loss. Nonetheless, the No 1 reason for older people to visit a hearing aid centre is "I find it difficult to follow along with conversations" so there must be some correlation with speech intelligibility and loss of hearing due to old age.
> 
> Whichever it is, noise or age, I think it is a big contributor to the perennial "I can't hear the dialog" discussions which come up all the time in these threads. I am told that more people need hearing aids and don't have them than need them and do have them, so this must be a factor to take into account during these discussions. And of course, it's one that no amount of advice on setup, room treatments, speaker positioning etc etc can fix. People may be looking for a system-based solution when what they need is an audiologist
> 
> I only joined in the discussion to point out that it is, usually, not the fault of the content and the way it was recorded. The good news on that is that it means the issue can be fixed one way or another, so long as the cause is properly identified in the first place. The whole DEQ thing then took on a life of its own, as so often happens on AVS, and provided an interesting sub-discussion in its own right (and on topic too, as a bonus!).


I hope noise is less of a threat than in the past. Now people wear ear protection on noisy jobs (I hope), or when enjoying hobbies like shooting (I hope). In the United States, there is no longer a military draft, so exposure to loud sounds in training or combat affects a smaller number of people (I hope). On the other hand, my daughter informs me that some live, reinforced music is still much louder, and more continuously so, than our movies at 5 dB below reference (she keeps her distance from bands, and caries ear protection). My wife and daughter just saw The Book of Mormon, at the Pantages in Hollywood (a large venue), sat in the balcony, and 1/3 of the way back in that. They left the theater with numb ears. 

Other threats to hearing, like smoking, have become less popular (I hope).

We haven't found a way to avoid getting older (despite some best selling books on the topic), but we have found a way to protect our ears (I hope). 

With luck, hearing aids will be much better by the time we need them.


----------



## DAB

couldn't fine it -easily- . I will set my Denon x3100w AVR control for speakers to small> let Audyssey do ti's magic.
However, how should i set my BR play's menu- for speakers- > all small + sub. Or large +sub.
Distance at correct distance > or _0_.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> I agree that it's not usually going to be the fault of the content.
> 
> One thing is certain and that is that when someone says "I can't hear the dialogue" or "I can't understand the dialogue", there are 3 possible areas the problem can arise from. They are poorly mastered content, a problem with the playback, and a problem with the person's hearing. Hearing loss tends to be progressive and isn't noticed until it's bad enough to start causing problems for the sufferer and, since up to then they haven't noticed a problem, I think there's a tendency to assume that the problem has to arise from poorly mastered content or playback issues and I would certainly check those areas first but if someone can't solve the problem that way then a hearing test is going to be a good idea.


+1.


----------



## kbarnes701

DAB said:


> couldn't fine it -easily- . I will set my Denon x3100w AVR control for speakers to small> let Audyssey do ti's magic.
> However, how should i set my BR play's menu- for speakers- > all small + sub. Or large +sub.
> Distance at correct distance > or _0_.


Good question and one I don't remember coming up before in this thread.

The speaker settings in the BD player are for when you are using the analog connections and doing bass management in the player. I assume you are using HDMI to connect your player to your AVR, so you can ignore those settings in the player.

Which player do you have BTW?


----------



## asere

When adding a nearfield sub for midbass. Do you include the midbass sub when calibrating with audyssey or exclude it in the calibration since the subs are different? 
I'm thinking on using the Behringer B1200D for midbass along with Kreisel 12012 sub. 


Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

asere said:


> When adding a nearfield sub for midbass. Do you include the midbass sub when calibrating with audyssey or exclude it in the calibration since the subs are different?
> I'm thinking on using the Behringer B1200D for midbass along with Kreisel 12012 sub.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


Hi,

That's a good question and people have tried it both ways with mixed results. If you include the B1200 in your calibration, Audyssey will stop EQing at the point where the MBM is down in response by 3db, which should be at about 50Hz, depending on where you set the HPF on that sub. That would leave your Kreisel unEQed in a range where most rooms really benefit from it.

On the other hand, if you EQ without the B1200 in your system, and then add it in later, via a Y-connector, Audyssey won't know that it has been added to the system, so the control points for the Kreisel will still be operational. The disadvantage with this approach is that the Behringer gets the same EQ that the Kreisel does, even though it's frequency response is inevitably somewhat different.

Based on the discussions on the Nearfield Ported MBM thread, though, most people have been able to achieve the best overall results using that second approach. That is partly because the MBM can still typically provide some FR smoothing, in it's narrow frequency range, even without originally having been EQed in conjunction with the Kreisel; and partly because the nearfield MBM is being added to the system primarily for increased mid-bass tactile response, even if that comes at some expense to the specific FR.

You could certainly post your question on that thread for additional perspectives.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## citsur86

asere said:


> When adding a nearfield sub for midbass. Do you include the midbass sub when calibrating with audyssey or exclude it in the calibration since the subs are different?
> I'm thinking on using the Behringer B1200D for midbass along with Kreisel 12012 sub.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk




Not exactly the same thing but I disable my subfloor mounted tactile transducers while running Audyssey XT32 calibration. I find in REW sweeps at least they they cause a large but narrow dip at the crossover point.


----------



## mogorf

asere said:


> When adding a nearfield sub for midbass. Do you include the midbass sub when calibrating with audyssey or exclude it in the calibration since the subs are different?
> I'm thinking on using the Behringer B1200D for midbass along with Kreisel 12012 sub.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk


asere, if I may, I would always go for two identical subs or no two subs. Putting a more capable and a less capable sub into the system just doesn't cut in for me. I know of people who can easily become insane of timre matching their satellites, yet will never understand why and how the same can be forgotten in the bass department. Wouldn't it be like putting different size tires on our cars? Now that would be a rough a ride, eh?


----------



## Alan P

Feri,

I invite you to join us in the MBM thread...you may just change your mind.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Feri,
> 
> I invite you to join us in the MBM thread...you may just change your mind.


Alan, what is MBM thread, please.


----------



## Alan P

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html


Wow Alan, you're pulling my leg. LOL That's a thread with 2500+ posts!  What's the point of using different capability subs in the same system?


----------



## DAB

*Factory reset*

Do I need to reun Audyssey setting if I factory reset my Denon x3100w..
I just did the calibration last week????


----------



## bigapp

DAB said:


> Do I need to reun Audyssey setting if I factory reset my Denon x3100w..
> I just did the calibration last week????


Yes, you just set everything back to out of box settings.


----------



## bmcn

DAB said:


> Do I need to reun Audyssey setting if I factory reset my Denon x3100w..
> I just did the calibration last week????


If you used the app just reload the cal file to the AVR.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Wow Alan, you're pulling my leg. LOL That's a thread with 2500+ posts!  What's the point of using different capability subs in the same system?


Hi Feri,

Yeah, that's a long thread, but the engineer in you might find some of the technical discussions very interesting. I have monitored that thread, and participated at times, because I have found some of the discussions of tactile response very interesting. I hope that Alan won't mind if I synopsize some of the reasoning behind the use of a mid-bass module (MBM).

First, the use of MBM's in HT systems is not a new concept. Dr. Earl Geddes, a respected audio engineer, recommended subwoofer systems consisting of three subs (two MBM's and a low bass sub) at least 12 or 15 years ago. He believed that bass frequencies above 50Hz and continuing up to about 100 or 120Hz were really the heart of an HT system. That is the frequency range in which most people experience "chest punch".

In recent years, some HT enthusiasts have been exploring ways to increase those mid-bass tactile sensations. And, ported MBM's with a limited frequency range, and a tuning point of around 50 to 60Hz, located close to the listening position have proved very effective in generating that additional tactile energy (via increased particle velocity) that they are looking for. In some cases, the people implementing MBM's have also found that they can smooth out dips in the mid-bass range that they could not otherwise affect.

Of course, many of the people implementing MBM's have measuring capabilities and miniDSP's at their disposal, so that they can see as well as hear the effects that one or more MBM's have on their HT systems, and so that they can make adjustments to the frequency response if necessary. Others have added MBM's purely for the sound and feel, irrespective of measurements..

I have never been personally tempted to implement an MBM in my system, although I have enjoyed the audio discussions and the physics (what I can follow of it) behind tactile response as opposed to SPL. And, nothing I am explaining in my post represents a personal endorsement of trying this for a particular system. But, the people such as Alan, who have tried it, seem to like the results very much. In some respects, it is comparable to the implementation of tactile transducers in an HT system, although the mechanism for achieving tactile response is different. And, some people have both MBM's and TT's in their HT systems.

As you know, there is a lot of room for personal preference in both audio in general, and for HT systems in particular. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> Yeah, that's a long thread, but the engineer in you might find some of the technical discussions very interesting. I have monitored that thread, and participated at times, because I have found some of the discussions of tactile response very interesting. I hope that Alan won't mind if I synopsize some of the reasoning behind the use of a mid-bass module (MBM).
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the thread link Alan and for the synopsis Mike. There's always something to learn!


----------



## DAB

bmcn said:


> If you used the app just reload the cal file to the AVR.


What APP ???


----------



## bigapp

DAB said:


> What APP ???


 Since you're asking you don't have it and so don't have a previous calibration you can resend to the unit, I'm also not sure if it works with a 3100. The app is Audyssey Multi EQ editor for IOS and Android cost is 20 bucks. Lets you run a calibration from the phone and then edit the curve. The settings it picked are stored in the phone and can be emailed out as well.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... He believed that *bass frequencies above 50Hz and continuing up to about 100 or 120Hz* were really the heart of an HT system. *That is the frequency range in which most people experience "chest punch"* ...
> 
> ... generating that* additional tactile energy (via increased particle velocity)* that they are looking for ...
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hmm; interesting. 

I have long been uncomfortable with people merely turning up a subwoofer to increase bass impact (chest punch??), or even to produce a Harmon-like room curve. If the sub is crossed over at, say, 80 Hz (even though the crossover is not a brick wall), boosting the sub increases the deep bass but does relatively little to the bass above 80 or 90 up to about 200Hz, which overlaps, to a degree, with the bass range cited by Dr. Geddes. My main front speakers, alone (without the sub) can produce quite a pants leg flapping wind in the room, chest thump and temporarily throw my work table out of square (e.g., with the timpani and other drums in "Fanfare for the Common Man"). I don't know enough about it to decide if this qualifies as "increased particle velocity." Does it? 

Anyway, by using tone controls and a little bass booster box my audio dealer built for me, increasing the bass going to my LF and RF speakers by up to 9 dB, without any noticeable increase in distortion, does increase chest punch. My sub remains connected, operating with an 80 Hz crossover, and boosted.

For now, I have sufficient thump and punch, but I'll venture into the other thread from time to time.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Hmm; interesting.
> 
> I have long been uncomfortable with people merely turning up a subwoofer to increase bass impact (chest punch??), or even to produce a Harmon-like room curve. If the sub is crossed over at, say, 80 Hz (even though the crossover is not a brick wall), boosting the sub increases the deep bass but does relatively little to the bass above 80 or 90 up to about 200Hz, which overlaps, to a degree, with the bass range cited by Dr. Geddes. My main front speakers, alone (without the sub) can produce quite a pants leg flapping wind in the room, chest thump and temporarily throw my work table out of square (e.g., with the timpani and other drums in "Fanfare for the Common Man"). I don't know enough about it to decide if this qualifies as "increased particle velocity." Does it?
> 
> Anyway, by using tone controls and a little bass booster box my audio dealer built for me, increasing the bass going to my LF and RF speakers by up to 9 dB, without any noticeable increase in distortion, does increase chest punch. My sub remains connected, operating with an 80 Hz crossover, and boosted.
> 
> For now, I have sufficient thump and punch, but I'll venture into the other thread from time to time.


I think you will find the discussions interesting, Gary. An aspect of the whole situation that I find interesting is the extent to which different people seem aware of chest compression, or the chest punch that accompanies a drum strike or a gunshot. I believe that people who add these MBM's may either tend to be extremely fond of that chest punch phenomenon, or may tend to be slightly less sensitive to it and need some supplement for that reason.

I do know that some people who put MBM's directly behind them, or elsewhere in the nearfield and very nearfield, seemed still to be incapable of feeling strong chest punch sensations, even with a 10db MBM boost. We had an interesting discussion at one time about how much of that might have been physiological, with respect to the size or structure of the chest cavity, and neurological, with respect to how our brains are wired to recognize and respond to that particular physical stimulus.

My own experience is quite similar to yours. I can feel chest punch from my large speakers, without any subs in my system, and playing music at moderate volumes. But, I think that I just happen to be wired to be more sensitive to that particular phenomenon. My understanding is that what you are describing, though, is SPL driven. We certainly can feel chest punch from sound pressure, as well. 

The increased particle velocity occurs to a much high degree with a ported sub, near it's port tune, and is particularly noticeable (and measurable) in the near field. That's why ported subs with deliberately limited bandwidths, and port tunes in the 50 to 60Hz area are chosen for deployment. Increases in particle velocity will occur near their port tunes and increased chest punch will typically result.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> Yeah, that's a long thread, but the engineer in you might find some of the technical discussions very interesting. I have monitored that thread, and participated at times, because I have found some of the discussions of tactile response very interesting. I hope that Alan won't mind if I synopsize some of the reasoning behind the use of a mid-bass module (MBM).


I didn't mind at all Mike, and I would say your synopsis was much better than I would have done.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> First, the use of MBM's in HT systems is not a new concept. Dr. Earl Geddes, a respected audio engineer, recommended subwoofer systems consisting of three subs (two MBM's and a low bass sub) at least 12 or 15 years ago. He believed that bass frequencies above 50Hz and continuing up to about 100 or 120Hz were really the heart of an HT system. That is the frequency range in which most people experience "chest punch".


Very true. Since I did my new HT, I have been using JBL 3677s for the LCR set (15 inch drivers) and they have insane mid-bass. Even though I have been running dual Subversives for years, I am marvelling at the additional 'chest punch' and mid-range bass that the 3677s are delivering. It is something I haven't really experienced before to this extent.

Of course, most people do not have room for three monster (and fugly) JBL 3677s, so in those cases a relatively small (and possibly hidden) MBM sub could be the solution. Certainly once one has experienced real mid-range power, it becomes addictive. I imagine you get plenty from those Bozaks of yours!.


----------



## LRZNole

Question for the group...I have a Denon S910W avr with Harman Kardon HKTS 18 satellite speakers & sub-woofer and a Martin Logan Motion 8 center channel. I recently added the new center and ran Audyssey and it set the center crossover at 60hz, the fronts at 200hz and the rears at 150hz.

1) I read the rating for the ML center was 75hz....so should I change the Audyssey setting from 60hz to 80hz?

2) With regard to the satellites I realize they are small but after reviewing a number of different threads someone indicated they were rated for 105hz. Should I keep the high settings from Audyssey at 200 and 150hz or would you lower them to both 150hz or even lower to say 120hz? I am also not sure if my room/speaker location is causing the high crossover results. My viewing area has a front and rear wall, the left side is a double sliding glass door and the right side opens to an open dining/living/entry so I am not sure if the speakers which from the rear face this area if it would impact the results.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## mthomas47

LRZNole said:


> Question for the group...I have a Denon S910W avr with Harman Kardon HKTS 18 satellite speakers & sub-woofer and a Martin Logan Motion 8 center channel. I recently added the new center and ran Audyssey and it set the center crossover at 60hz, the fronts at 200hz and the rears at 150hz.
> 
> 1) I read the rating for the ML center was 75hz....so should I change the Audyssey setting from 60hz to 80hz?
> 
> 2) With regard to the satellites I realize they are small but after reviewing a number of different threads someone indicated they were rated for 105hz. Should I keep the high settings from Audyssey at 200 and 150hz or would you lower them to both 150hz or even lower to say 120hz? I am also not sure if my room/speaker location is causing the high crossover results. My viewing area has a front and rear wall, the left side is a double sliding glass door and the right side opens to an open dining/living/entry so I am not sure if the speakers which from the rear face this area if it would impact the results.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Hi,

First, with respect to your ML center channel, I would recommend raising the crossover to at least 80Hz. You can also experiment with a slightly higher crossover if you like, just to find out how things sound that way. I looked at the specs on your HK speakers, and unfortunately, I think that the crossover settings may reflect their actual in-room performance. Some manufacturers routinely inflate specs. In this case, those are 3" drivers and they are even described just as mid-range drivers, rather than mid-range/bass drivers. I would not lower any crossovers if I were you. What Audyssey is detecting, and what your Denon is setting, probably reflects the speakers' actual performance in your room.

If you want to share a photo of your room, and especially the front of the room, it's possible that there may be some recommendations that will improve overall performance. But, that is essentially a desktop computer surround system, where the listener would typically be sitting very close to all of the speakers. As the speakers try to provide normal listening volumes at a distance, they run out of gas pretty quickly and that affects the low frequency response. That's also probably part of the reason why the front crossovers are higher than the rear crossovers. Aren't they further away from your listening position?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## LRZNole

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> First, with respect to your ML center channel, I would recommend raising the crossover to at least 80Hz. You can also experiment with a slightly higher crossover if you like, just to find out how things sound that way. I looked at the specs on your HK speakers, and unfortunately, I think that the crossover settings may reflect their actual in-room performance. Some manufacturers routinely inflate specs. In this case, those are 3" drivers and they are even described just as mid-range drivers, rather than mid-range/bass drivers. I would not lower any crossovers if I were you. What Audyssey is detecting, and what your Denon is setting, probably reflects the speakers' actual performance in your room.
> 
> If you want to share a photo of your room, and especially the front of the room, it's possible that there may be some recommendations that will improve overall performance. But, that is essentially a desktop computer surround system, where the listener would typically be sitting very close to all of the speakers. As the speakers try to provide normal listening volumes at a distance, they run out of gas pretty quickly and that affects the low frequency response. That's also probably part of the reason why the front crossovers are higher than the rear crossovers. Aren't they further away from your listening position?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike...I did increase the ML center to 80hz and I think it sounds ok. Yes the fronts are farther from the listening position so I that explains the different crossovers. I will likely replace the fronts in the future but was just curious if they should be so high but I guess since they are small it is to be expected. I will try to attach a picture.


----------



## LRZNole

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> First, with respect to your ML center channel, I would recommend raising the crossover to at least 80Hz. You can also experiment with a slightly higher crossover if you like, just to find out how things sound that way. I looked at the specs on your HK speakers, and unfortunately, I think that the crossover settings may reflect their actual in-room performance. Some manufacturers routinely inflate specs. In this case, those are 3" drivers and they are even described just as mid-range drivers, rather than mid-range/bass drivers. I would not lower any crossovers if I were you. What Audyssey is detecting, and what your Denon is setting, probably reflects the speakers' actual performance in your room.
> 
> If you want to share a photo of your room, and especially the front of the room, it's possible that there may be some recommendations that will improve overall performance. But, that is essentially a desktop computer surround system, where the listener would typically be sitting very close to all of the speakers. As the speakers try to provide normal listening volumes at a distance, they run out of gas pretty quickly and that affects the low frequency response. That's also probably part of the reason why the front crossovers are higher than the rear crossovers. Aren't they further away from your listening position?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks and here is a picture. By the way does it make any difference that the satellites each have 2, 3" drivers and 1, 1" (not sure what it is actually)?


----------



## mthomas47

LRZNole said:


> Thanks and here is a picture. By the way does it make any difference that the satellites each have 2, 3" drivers and 1, 1" (not sure what it is actually)?


You are very welcome! Yes, it does help that each speaker has two 3" drivers, but they are still having to work very hard in that size room.

The photos do suggest part of the problem with the front speakers. The right front speaker is essentially floating in space, and it isn't getting any boundary gain from a wall as the left front speaker is getting. And, crossovers are set in pairs based on the weaker of the two speakers, which in this case is the right one.

If you want to rearrange things slightly so that your cabinets are on the outside and your front speakers are on the inside of your cabinets, and just a little closer to your display, it should help. That will put a wall behind the right speaker and also slightly reduce the distance that they have to cover to your sofa. If you can, try that and see if it helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## LRZNole

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Yes, it does help that each speaker has two 3" drivers, but they are still having to work very hard in that size room.
> 
> The photos do suggest part of the problem with the front speakers. The right front speaker is essentially floating in space, and it isn't getting any boundary gain from a wall as the left front speaker is getting. And, crossovers are set in pairs based on the weaker of the two speakers, which in this case is the right one.
> 
> If you want to rearrange things slightly so that your cabinets are on the outside and your front speakers are on the inside of your cabinets, and just a little closer to your display, it should help. That will put a wall behind the right speaker and also slightly reduce the distance that they have to cover to your sofa. If you can, try that and see if it helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Great that was going to be my next question. I have the same issue with the right rear as it is basically floating too since it is turned into the listening area but can't really do much with that one.

Appreciate your help!


----------



## LRZNole

Well I moved the fronts so that they now flank the tv on each side with the display cabinets now on the outside. I ran Audyssey again and got 150 Hz on the fronts, 120 Hz on the rears and again 60 Hz on the center which I bumped up to 80 Hz and may even go to 100 Hz but not sure yet.

Thanks again for your help.


----------



## Alan P

LRZNole said:


> Well I moved the fronts so that they now flank the tv on each side with the display cabinets now on the outside. I ran Audyssey again and got 150 Hz on the fronts, 120 Hz on the rears and again 60 Hz on the center which I bumped up to 80 Hz and may even go to 100 Hz but not sure yet.
> 
> Thanks again for your help.


Just to add to Mike's great advice, I would recommend you pull your center speaker forward so that the front of the speaker overhangs the edge of the cabinet it is resting on by at least a half an inch. This will improve dialog intelligibility by reducing the very early reflections caused by the cabinet.


----------



## LRZNole

Alan P said:


> Just to add to Mike's great advice, I would recommend you pull your center speaker forward so that the front of the speaker overhangs the edge of the cabinet it is resting on by at least a half an inch. This will improve dialog intelligibility by reducing the very early reflections caused by the cabinet.


Thanks for the advice Alan but it would look rather weird if it came all the way out due to the depth of the cabinet so I keep it more towards the back.


----------



## garygarrison

LRZNole said:


> Thanks for the advice Alan but it would look rather weird if it came all the way out due to the depth of the cabinet so I keep it more towards the back.


Just a thought ... * Do* you have voice intelligibility problems? Or do the voices sound a bit cavernous? With Audyssey, the latter might not happen, and if it sounds good don't fix it, but if there are issues, and if pulling the center speaker forward looks _*too*_ weird to tolerate, a dark brown piece of thick fabric (like a rug runner, but not on the floor) laying under the center speaker, on the cabinet, coming all the way to the front might help tone down very early reflections. Some people have these for purely decorative purposes*;* we have one on an antique buffet in our dining room. Because of the nature of the location and lighting, ours looks more like a piece of dark medieval tapestry than would a solid color, but you might like a pattern. To each his own. It's amazing how many of these things are available at fabric stores, both online and brick and mortar, or even at Home Depot! Incidentally, about where your center speaker would be, we have an antique clock, toward the back, just about the size of your center. IMO it looks like it belongs.

I think your left front and right front are toed in a little bit. If so, that is likely to be a good thing. That you have moved your left front away from the sliding glass door is good. You could experiment with putting your sub fully in the corner facing out at a 45 degree angle, for (the possibility) of better bass -- this one is mildly controversial. Some say corner placement reduces certain kinds of distortion, and increases available headroom by 3 to 6 dB. Others say that corner placement produces more but less even bass.  I have witnessed demonstrations to the contrary, and saw one photo-image of bass energy patterns that made corner placement look very good for a subwoofer. People who put full range speakers in a corner have to take a few (easy) steps to avoid early midrange and treble reflections. Of course, any changes would call for rerunning Audyssey.


----------



## LRZNole

garygarrison said:


> Just a thought ... * Do* you have voice intelligibility problems? Or do the voices sound a bit cavernous? With Audyssey, the latter might not happen, and if it sounds good don't fix it, but if there are issues, and if pulling the center speaker forward looks _*too*_ weird to tolerate, a dark brown piece of thick fabric (like a rug runner, but not on the floor) laying under the center speaker, on the cabinet, coming all the way to the front might help tone down very early reflections. Some people have these for purely decorative purposes*;* we have one on an antique buffet in our dining room. Because of the nature of the location and lighting, ours looks more like a piece of dark medieval tapestry than would a solid color, but you might like a pattern. To each his own. It's amazing how many of these things are available at fabric stores, both online and brick and mortar, or even at Home Depot! Incidentally, about where your center speaker would be, we have an antique clock, toward the back, just about the size of your center. IMO it looks like it belongs.
> 
> I think your left front and right front are toed in a little bit. If so, that is likely to be a good thing. That you have moved your left front away from the sliding glass door is good. You could experiment with putting your sub fully in the corner facing out at a 45 degree angle, for (the possibility) of better bass -- this one is mildly controversial. Some say corner placement reduces certain kinds of distortion, and increases available headroom by 3 to 6 dB. Others say that corner placement produces more but less even bass. I have witnessed demonstrations to the contrary, and saw one photo-image of bass energy patterns that made corner placement look very good for a subwoofer. People who put full range speakers in a corner have to take a few (easy) steps to avoid early midrange and treble reflections. Of course, any changes would call for rerunning Audyssey.


Hi Gary,

I attached the setup I have now after moving the left and right. As you can see the sub is now on the outside of the left and near the corner of the wall. My OCD can't bring me to move the center but we don't notice any problems with voice quality or any type of cavern effect. Moving the speakers were they are now resulted in better results albeit still for small satellites. Overall it sounds pretty good but I will try to upgrade the left & right in the future to more traditional floorstanding speakers.

Thanks for the advice.


----------



## jkozlow3

Question about the Audyssey app...

Does the new app allow you to tell Audyssey not to EQ anything above a certain frequency (i.e. 200-500Hz)?

If so, is anyone doing this? How are the results?


----------



## drh3b

jkozlow3 said:


> Question about the Audyssey app...
> 
> Does the new app allow you to tell Audyssey not to EQ anything above a certain frequency (i.e. 200-500Hz)?
> 
> If so, is anyone doing this? How are the results?


In answer to your first question, I believe so, but there is a thread dedicated to the app where you should be able to get answers to your questions.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## jkozlow3

drh3b said:


> In answer to your first question, I believe so, but there is a thread dedicated to the app where you should be able to get answers to your questions.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


Thanks!

Edit: After reading the thread you suggested, it *is* indeed possible to set the cutoff at the Schroeder frequency if desired, limiting Audyssey to only correct the low frequencies!! Many people have used the app to do just this, setting the Audyssey limit to 500Hz or less. Frequencies above this are untouched by Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

jkozlow3 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Edit: After reading the thread you suggested, it *is* indeed possible to set the cutoff at the Schroeder frequency if desired, limiting Audyssey to only correct the low frequencies!! Many people have used the app to do just this, setting the Audyssey limit to 500Hz or less. Frequencies above this are untouched by Audyssey.


Be sure to try it *both* with full range EQ and with "below Schroeder only." You may want to measure Schroeder for your room, unless you have, and it is actually about 500Hz -- it's 144Hz in my room. I think REW supplied me with that information a few years ago. Audyssey actually does a great job in my room with the upper and mid frequencies, providing more clarity, and a more "free floating" and "airy" sound (please excuse the audiophile buzz terms), than with Audyssey off. This is especially true with Audyssey Flat. I wish the app would work with my Marantz, but I bought it too soon. It would provide a whole new playing field for my OCD.


----------



## Ed Oz

After a deluge of work projects, I got back to my Audyssey setup over the past few days. I've read through many of the postings here as well as those on the Ask Audyssey board/blog.

I attempted to ask the following questions over there to see what the "official" answers would be, however I kept getting an error message so here I am again.

My questions involve sub levels and choosing FLE or "LFE + Main" in my Denon AVR menu. 

I'm still am not clear on...(1) even with the volume control turned ALL THE WAY DOWN to minimum on my NHT sub amp (mated with an SW1), I still get an Audyssey trim reading of -12db which - I believe - means that the sub level is still higher than reference. How is this possible? 

(2) My L/C/R and surround speakers are set to "small" and the crossover point for all is manually set at 80Hz. The Ask Audyssey blog recommens ALWAYS choosing the "LFE" setting instead of "LFE + Main." 

However, doesn't using LFE mean that ONLY the LFE feed is being sent to the sub and that NONE of the bass on a soundtrack that's assigned to the L/C/R & surround channels is being reproduced? If so, why would one not want to hear the L/C/R & surround bass information?

Thanks, as always, for your help!


----------



## Justin4894

I'm curious has anyone with powered towers such as Definitive Technology upgraded from Audyssey Multeq or XT to XT32? Was there a noticeable difference in sound quality with the built in subs?


----------



## drh3b

Justin4894 said:


> I'm curious has anyone with powered towers such as Definitive Technology upgraded from Audyssey Multeq or XT to XT32? Was there a noticeable difference in sound quality with the built in subs?


I haven't done it personally, but XT32 has many more filters than other versions for all speakers, not just the subwoofer, and I would think it would handle the bass in those towers better.


----------



## mthomas47

Ed Oz said:


> After a deluge of work projects, I got back to my Audyssey setup over the past few days. I've read through many of the postings here as well as those on the Ask Audyssey board/blog.
> 
> I attempted to ask the following questions over there to see what the "official" answers would be, however I kept getting an error message so here I am again.
> 
> My questions involve sub levels and choosing FLE or "LFE + Main" in my Denon AVR menu.
> 
> I'm still am not clear on...(1) even with the volume control turned ALL THE WAY DOWN to minimum on my NHT sub amp (mated with an SW1), I still get an Audyssey trim reading of -12db which - I believe - means that the sub level is still higher than reference. How is this possible?
> 
> (2) My L/C/R and surround speakers are set to "small" and the crossover point for all is manually set at 80Hz. The Ask Audyssey blog recommens ALWAYS choosing the "LFE" setting instead of "LFE + Main."
> 
> However, doesn't using LFE mean that ONLY the LFE feed is being sent to the sub and that NONE of the bass on a soundtrack that's assigned to the L/C/R & surround channels is being reproduced? If so, why would one not want to hear the L/C/R & surround bass information?
> 
> Thanks, as always, for your help!



Hi,

I can't answer your first question. Forgetting Audyssey's trim settings for a moment, when Audyssey plays a test tone through that sub, what do you hear from the sub, and what SPL do you measure with a sound meter? An AVS representative named jdsmoothie may be able to help you to trouble-shoot this particular problem if you want to send him a PM.

The answer to your second question is one that I can help with. As long as your speakers are set to Small, all bass in the regular channels, below the crossover point you select, will be routed to your subwoofer. The LFE channel is a separate channel (the .1 in 5.1 or 7.1). It was created as a way to provide additional low frequency effects (LFE) beyond those that could be contained in the regular channels, and it has the capability to attain peak levels 10db louder than the peaks in the regular channels. Those peak volumes are 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the .1 LFE channel.

Your sub is is intended to supplement the bass in the regular channels (below the crossover selected) and to exclusively play the bass in the LFE channel. So, that is the normal operation of an HT system, using proper bass management, consisting of setting speakers to Small with a crossover. LFE+Main is also known as double bass, because that is literally what it does--it doubles the bass in the regular channels. Instead of sending only the bass below the crossover to the sub, all bass in the main channels is played by both the front speakers and the sub, resulting in double bass. As a general rule, however, that doubling of bass is likely to create distortion in your system as your speakers are almost certain to be out of phase with your sub(s).

The use of LFE+Main will not affect the LFE channel in any way. Again, it is simply doubling the bass in the main channels by playing the same bass through two different sources. But, unless you have a very good reason for using that feature, and are sure that it isn't creating distortion, then you are much better off just using appropriate bass management, consisting of setting your speakers to Small with a crossover.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Spidacat

Justin4894 said:


> I'm curious has anyone with powered towers such as Definitive Technology upgraded from Audyssey Multeq or XT to XT32? Was there a noticeable difference in sound quality with the built in subs?


I didn't notice a huge difference, but I also have 2 "true" subwoofers, so I'm not using the full capabilities of the powered woofers in my DefTech towers. I have them crossed over at 80 Hz for movies and 60 Hz for music.


----------



## Ed Oz

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I can't answer your first question. Forgetting Audyssey's trim settings for a moment, when Audyssey plays a test tone through that sub, what do you hear from the sub, and what SPL do you measure with a sound meter? An AVS representative named jdsmoothie may be able to help you to trouble-shoot this particular problem if you want to send him a PM.
> 
> The answer to your second question is one that I can help with. As long as your speakers are set to Small, all bass in the regular channels, below the crossover point you select, will be routed to your subwoofer. The LFE channel is a separate channel (the .1 in 5.1 or 7.1). It was created as a way to provide additional low frequency effects (LFE) beyond those that could be contained in the regular channels, and it has the capability to attain peak levels 10db louder than the peaks in the regular channels. Those peak volumes are 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the .1 LFE channel.
> 
> Your sub is is intended to supplement the bass in the regular channels (below the crossover selected) and to exclusively play the bass in the LFE channel. So, that is the normal operation of an HT system, using proper bass management, consisting of setting speakers to Small with a crossover. LFE+Main is also known as double bass, because that is literally what it does--it doubles the bass in the regular channels. Instead of sending only the bass below the crossover to the sub, all bass in the main channels is played by both the front speakers and the sub, resulting in double bass. As a general rule, however, that doubling of bass is likely to create distortion in your system as your speakers are almost certain to be out of phase with your sub(s).
> 
> The use of LFE+Main will not affect the LFE channel in any way. Again, it is simply doubling the bass in the main channels by playing the same bass through two different sources. But, unless you have a very good reason for using that feature, and are sure that it isn't creating distortion, then you are much better off just using appropriate bass management, consisting of setting your speakers to Small with a crossover.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, Mike. That makes sense.

Will check sub level with an SPL meter and post results.

A lifetime in home audio, car stereo: no problem understanding anything. HT? What a confusing mess. (Or maybe it's just me.)


----------



## mthomas47

Ed Oz said:


> Thanks, Mike. That makes sense.
> 
> Will check sub level with an SPL meter and post results.
> 
> A lifetime in home audio, car stereo: no problem understanding anything. HT? What a confusing mess. (Or maybe it's just me.)


You are very welcome! I wish I could tell you that it's just you, but I can't.  The same things that are confusing you now have confused many others as well, including me. Sometimes, I can glibly rattle off an explanation of LFE+Main, for instance. But, if I haven't thought about the subject in a while all bets are off. Anyone who thinks that modern HT systems (including the processors that run them, and the automated room correction systems that enhance them) are simple and intuitive is a whole lot smarter than I am.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I wish I could tell you that it's just you, but I can't.  The same things that are confusing you now have confused many others as well, including me. Sometimes, I can glibly rattle off an explanation of LFE+Main, for instance. But, if I haven't thought about the subject in a while all bets are off. *Anyone who thinks that modern HT systems (including the processors that run them, and the automated room correction systems that enhance them) are simple and intuitive is a whole lot smarter than I am.*


Mike,

I'm sorry but I can't let that bolded comment pass unchallenged 

I don't think those people are smarter, I think it's a generation gap and different experience. We "grey beards", to use a description given to us some time ago, grew up with stereo and bemoan the loss of simplicity that we associate with that gear but in it's own way stereo was just as arcane. We learnt how to deal with things through using speaker and listening position placement, toe in, speaker rake, and if we wanted to go even further we started delving into the rabbit holes of physical acoustic treatment and things like speaker design and radiation patterns. We didn't adjust menu settings, we made physical changes, and we became familiar with doing things that way so that became intuitive to us. Modern HT equipment came as a rude shock to me, and I suspect to you, and we faced a whole new learning curve.

We came to grips with computers the hard way, learning with text based interfaces like DOS but take a look at the people who grew up with us, their parents, using computers. They just started using them and they approached computers with a whole different attitude and style to the way we did it. Computers weren't something new and unfamiliar to them, they'd always "been there". I suspect modern HT systems are similar to computers in that respect also. If someone grows up in an environment where HT systems are the usual sound systems rather than stereo and their interaction with adjusting the sound has always been via the use of setup menus and, more recently, automated setup processes, their approach to and understanding of HT is going to be very different to ours and I think that is what you're picking up on. Those people didn't have to come to grips with the kind of physical setup processes we had to internalise, they just learnt to deal with modern HT systems by playing with them where we learnt by trying to understand what they do by and to some degree mentally translating what they do into some kind of framework based on our understanding of what we used to do before HT. In a sense we have to "unlearn" some things in order to learn how to make the most of modern HT systems, we have to learn to do things in a different way to the way we learnt to control sound reproduction results whereas they don't have to do the "unlearning" we have to do. The things we learnt to do habitually are what is simple and intuitive to us and doing things differently doesn't seem simple and intuitive. It's different for those who learn with HT systems rather than with gear that doesn't offer the kind and level of control that HT gear provides.

I don't think they're smarter, I think they just learnt things in a different way with different gear. Initial experience builds very strong habits, beliefs, and expectations and we just happen to approach all of this stuff with a different set of habits, beliefs and expectations to people who grew up in an environment of HT gear rather than stereo gear.


----------



## garygarrison

Quote: Originally Posted by *Ed Oz*  ​ _
... A lifetime in home audio, car stereo: no problem understanding anything. HT? What a confusing mess. (Or maybe it's just me.)_

_________________________________________________​ 
The HT manuals, at least the ones I've seen, are written far more poorly than the old, two channel, audiophile ones.

What you are saying, David, is true too, IMO. In addition to the age of introduction variable [they grew up with PCs "always there"], groups in certain age cohorts, e.g., grey beards v.s. millennials, have a different amounts of practice in dealing with complicated technology and with convoluted, contradictory, labyrinthine instructions, even those that require one to go to many widely separated pages of a manual only to find an ambiguous -- or incorrect -- answer. I have the impression that millennials seem to be more willing to practice "the only way round is through," even though that phrase was coined by a guy who was grey long before we were (unless at least one of you is far older than I suspect). How do they go through? Those keys start clicking at the speed of light before I even finish asking the question. They try and try until they get an answer that works. Speaking for myself, I always wanted to work step by step and be able to justify the steps as I took them, e.g., simplifying an equation line by line, writing a justification to the right of each line, like "Distribution." In about 1990, when they brought us our first PCs (late, I know, but before the White House had them!), a colleague said to the brand new computer department, "Please train us step by step, starting with:

STEP 1. Sit down in the chair."


----------



## gurkey

Ed Oz said:


> After a deluge of work projects, I got back to my Audyssey setup over the past few days. I've read through many of the postings here as well as those on the Ask Audyssey board/blog.
> 
> I attempted to ask the following questions over there to see what the "official" answers would be, however I kept getting an error message so here I am again.
> 
> My questions involve sub levels and choosing FLE or "LFE + Main" in my Denon AVR menu.
> 
> I'm still am not clear on...(1) even with the volume control turned ALL THE WAY DOWN to minimum on my NHT sub amp (mated with an SW1), I still get an Audyssey trim reading of -12db which - I believe - means that the sub level is still higher than reference. How is this possible?
> 
> (2) My L/C/R and surround speakers are set to "small" and the crossover point for all is manually set at 80Hz. The Ask Audyssey blog recommens ALWAYS choosing the "LFE" setting instead of "LFE + Main."
> 
> However, doesn't using LFE mean that ONLY the LFE feed is being sent to the sub and that NONE of the bass on a soundtrack that's assigned to the L/C/R & surround channels is being reproduced? If so, why would one not want to hear the L/C/R & surround bass information?
> 
> Thanks, as always, for your help!


(Most of this has probably been said in other posts before mine):

Aside from the fact, that a strong room mode might cause a local (at microphone positions) strong (peak) level even at the subs least sensitive level position, could it be, that either 
a) your subwoofer input is overly sensitive or 
b) your are using the wrong input or
c) that vibrations (structure-borne noises) of some kind reach the microphone whilst playing the Audyssey measurement signal through the sub ?

If you use a Y-adapter for the sub, remove it and connect the sub directly. 

LFE (only) means, that the sub plays the LFE channel signal plus anything below (bass) the crossover frequencies from all the other speakers set to small.
LFE+Main means, that the main speakers set to large in addition to the sub play the LFE channel signal and the bass content below the crossover frequency in tandem, which often results in an overly emphasized boomy and non-linear bass (due to signal addition), because Audyssey does not correct for speakers playing the same signal in parallel. This usually could be the source of all sorts of problems. 

Thus the later should - in general - be avoided...


----------



## Ed Oz

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I wish I could tell you that it's just you, but I can't.  The same things that are confusing you now have confused many others as well, including me. Sometimes, I can glibly rattle off an explanation of LFE+Main, for instance. But, if I haven't thought about the subject in a while all bets are off. Anyone who thinks that modern HT systems (including the processors that run them, and the automated room correction systems that enhance them) are simple and intuitive is a whole lot smarter than I am.


First: thanks again for the input. Much appreciated.

Here's where I'm at. I ran Audyssey again. The distances it calculated to each speaker & sub were spot on. It set my NHT L/C/R to large so I reset them manually to "small." I manually set xovers for L/C/R and surround speakers to 80Hz. Sub mode: LFE. Dynamic EQ and Volume: off. 

I also chose the Audyssey Flat setting. My older ears have some high end loss and so eliminating the Audyssey high end rolloff was not a problem to my ears.

I auditioned a few movies with strong surround effects & lowered those speaker levels by 3dB because they are in line with my main listening position and are too distracting at reference level. 

Finally...I checked all levels with white noise & an SPL meter. Audyssey had matched to L/R speakers perfectly, however Center was down 3.5dB relative to L & R so I raised it to match them.

Even though Audyssey "said" that the sub trim level was -12dB, the measured SPL matched the L/R (and now Center) with the amp volume control set to 9:00. That's what I had settled on by ear and there it stayed.

Until next time...

Ed


----------



## Kezzbot

Just wondering if you folks can tell me if the DSP will flatten out a frequency response curve of a subwoofer ie. make it sound better, louder at lower frequencies. 

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Kezzbot said:


> Just wondering if you folks can tell me if the DSP will flatten out a frequency response curve of a subwoofer ie. make it sound better, louder at lower frequencies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk
> 
> Sent from my SM-N920I using Tapatalk


Hi,

Audyssey will definitely attempt to flatten out the frequency response, all the way down to 10Hz. XT-32 has more control points than earlier versions and can typically do more, but the other versions can also be effective. Reducing peaks and dips in the FR will help the bass to sound clearer and more uniform. How loud it sounds is a user discretion issue, with respect to the listening volume of the subwoofer. If you want the sub to be louder, you turn up the volume on it. (Peaks at certain frequencies can actually sound louder initially than a smoother, more uniform response, although once we get used to a cleaner sound we recognize those peaks as sounding boomy and unnatural.)

Regards,
Mike


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

*MultEQ and Dynamic EQ*

I have read the FAQ, and it's like reading Chinese in braille to me, lol. Anyhow, once Audyssey has run, this would be the MultEQ setting and separate from Dynamic EQ correct? From what I read, you don't want to use Dynamic EQ for normal listening correct?


----------



## mthomas47

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> I have read the FAQ, and it's like reading Chinese in braille to me, lol. Anyhow, once Audyssey has run, this would be the MultEQ setting and separate from Dynamic EQ correct? From what I read, you don't want to use Dynamic EQ for normal listening correct?


Hi,

Try reading the subwoofer guide, linked below. It may explain DEQ in a simpler, but more detailed way. You are correct that MultEQ, along with the other Audyssey versions, provide the filters which regulate the frequency response as measured at the listening position(s). DEQ is a completely separate software program that attempts to compensate for the changes in how we hear certain frequencies, at below Reference volume levels. 

Although DEQ is engaged by default, whenever an Audyssey calibration is performed, it's use for whatever type of listening material is strictly a user-preference issue. Some people like it for everything, others don't use it all, and everything in between. It's strictly a YMMV issue, based on what you hear and what you like. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

mthomas47 said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have read the FAQ, and it's like reading Chinese in braille to me, lol. Anyhow, once Audyssey has run, this would be the MultEQ setting and separate from Dynamic EQ correct? From what I read, you don't want to use Dynamic EQ for normal listening correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Try reading the subwoofer guide, linked below. It may explain DEQ in a simpler, but more detailed way. You are correct that MultEQ, along with the other Audyssey versions, provide the filters which regulate the frequency response as measured at the listening position(s). DEQ is a completely separate software program that attempts to compensate for the changes in how we hear certain frequencies, at below Reference volume levels.
> 
> Although DEQ is engaged by default, whenever an Audyssey calibration is performed, it's use for whatever type of listening material is strictly a user-preference issue. Some people like it for everything, others don't use it all, and everything in between. It's strictly a YMMV issue, based on what you hear and what you like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

As always, thanks Mike. On mobile and I see no way to like your post, so consider this my like for now. If I remeber when I get home, I'll give it a like then.


----------



## grendelrt

When they say to use the Flat curve for smaller rooms or well treated, what is the definition of small? My room has been treated some, still in process, and is about 15x18x8, seating is about 9ft from center channel, would that be considered small?


----------



## pbarach

^^I don't know of any formal definition of "small room." It's a matter of preference, so try "flat" and see if you like it better than "regular flavor" Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> ^^I don't know of any formal definition of "small room." It's a matter of preference, so try "flat" and see if you like it better than "regular flavor" Audyssey.


grendelrt,

I agree with pbarach. Play several disks from your music and movie collection, then use whichever setting sounds best to you as your default setting. Then if a future disk sounds too bright or harsh, try regular Audyssey (if you are on Audyssey Flat), and if a given disk sounds too lifeless, bland, dull or muffled, try Audyssey Flat (if you are on regular Audyssey).

I use Audyssey Flat for *almost* everything in my moderately treated 4,243 cu. ft. room. The figure I've seem most often for a "normal" size room is about 3,000 cu. ft., so yours, at 2,160 cu. ft. might qualify as "small." But let your ears decide.


----------



## grendelrt

Yeah I tried this weekend for a couple minutes just with some atmos demos, I need to figure out some good demo material to test with. I noticed some slight differences so far but not much, I ran rew for both and there was a slight difference with the mid range compensation area and Rolloff above 10k. Right now I am leaving it on flat until I have more time to tune with rew.


----------



## tbaucom

I have a quick question. I was discussing the differences between Dynamic EQ and YPAO Volume on another thread. I no longer have an Audyssey AVR but I have owned several in the past. I currently own a Yamaha 3060. 

It was mentioned in the other thread that Dynamic EQ boost the subwoofer channel output level. I was not aware of this. I know Dynamic EQ boosts the surround output level but was under the impression that it increased bass output by modifying the entire EQ curve relative to volume and this increase applied to all channels. Can anyone verify with measurements how Dynamic EQ works? Does it boost the subwoofer channel output level itself in addition to adjusting the EQ cure for all channels?


----------



## mthomas47

tbaucom said:


> I have a quick question. I was discussing the differences between Dynamic EQ and YPAO Volume on another thread. I no longer have an Audyssey AVR but I have owned several in the past. I currently own a Yamaha 3060.
> 
> It was mentioned in the other thread that Dynamic EQ boost the subwoofer channel output level. I was not aware of this. I know Dynamic EQ boosts the surround output level but was under the impression that it increased bass output by modifying the entire EQ curve relative to volume and this increase applied to all channels. Can anyone verify with measurements how Dynamic EQ works? Does it boost the subwoofer channel output level itself in addition to adjusting the EQ cure for all channels?


Hi,

DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, including the sub channel, in accordance with a fixed algorithm. It also slightly boosts the upper treble range in the regular channels. It does this in an attempt to compensate for the relatively softer sounds of the low bass and high treble frequencies at below Reference volumes. A thorough explanation of DEQ's operation (and why it was deemed necessary) is included in the subwoofer guide, linked below. You can also look in the Technical Addendum of the Audyssey FAQ, linked below, to see graphs illustrating DEQ's operation.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

tbaucom said:


> I have a quick question. I was discussing the differences between Dynamic EQ and YPAO Volume on another thread. I no longer have an Audyssey AVR but I have owned several in the past. I currently own a Yamaha 3060.
> 
> It was mentioned in the other thread that Dynamic EQ boost the subwoofer channel output level. I was not aware of this. I know Dynamic EQ boosts the surround output level but was under the impression that it increased bass output by modifying the entire EQ curve relative to volume and this increase applied to all channels. Can anyone verify with measurements how Dynamic EQ works? Does it boost the subwoofer channel output level itself in addition to adjusting the EQ cure for all channels?


It boosts the frequency response for all channels the same, sub, main and surround channels. So depending on your speaker settings, such has as crossover or small/large, the bass boost may happen in different channels for the same sound. 

Then there is the overall level boost applied to the surround channels in addition to the frequency dependent boost. This boost is only in the surrounds and not the front channels or sub. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## tbaucom

primetimeguy said:


> It boosts the frequency response for all channels the same, sub, main and surround channels. So depending on your speaker settings, such has as crossover or small/large, the bass boost may happen in different channels for the same sound.
> 
> Then there is the overall level boost applied to the surround channels in addition to the frequency dependent boost. This boost is only in the surrounds and not the front channels or sub.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


That is exactly my understanding of how Dynamic EQ works. It adjusts the overall frequency response in both the lows and highs to approximate a fletcher munson curve.In the other thread I was being told that it boosts the subwoofer channel output in addition to adjusting the overall EQ. I did not think it to be the case but was asking for verification because I have no way to do it anymore. The thread I a referring to is in this forum comparing YPAO volume to Dynamic EQ.


----------



## gurkey

There are lots of "stories" about DEQ and its effects floating around.

DEQ in general is a dynamic replacement for the former "static" loudness correction switch, but it varies its response depending on the actual differences to the pre-adjusted reference level. It tries to follow thereby the famous "Fletcher-Munson" (the newer/later implementations to be exact, like ISO R226 / R454 or the results of studies by Robinson-Dadson etc ) curves of equal loudness to compensate for deficiencies of the human hearing. In this respect it does not really "boost" bass and highs frequencies in a conventional meaning but compensates for those stated - statistical - deficiencies of human hearing to achieve equal loudness of "all" frequencies at listening levels below "reference". Because those curves are based upon a statistical (averaged) model, there are individual differences in the way one perceives / "hears" those differences mentioned aside from personal "taste". Thus another "reference" parameter with four adjustment levels has been added to adjust those curves of equal loudness to the specific needs and prepositions of an individual person.

A 2nd point mentioned is the boosting of the surrounds (~+3db ? from my memory) in Audyssey, if DEQ is active, which follows proven scientific theory of lowered aural sensitivity for sounds emanating from behind, but fits only if surrounds are mounted strictly behind the listener (MLP) as described by the ITU-R BS positioning scheme, where surrounds are supposed to be placed at +/- (100°-120) with respect to a virtual middle line perpendicular to the fronts or back surrounds at appr. +/- 150° (opposite to the fronts) referred to the same line on a virtual circle. 
Many people have their surrounds mounted directly sideways or even in front of them, which creates a problem then, because the surrounds (and the sound sources) are not behind them, as expected, thus invalidating the presumptions made. Because of this predictable situation I don't know, why this "boost" has not been set up as "switchable" by Audyssey, but that is the way it works right now. It too is been influenced by the reference parameter for DEQ. Due to this some people feel disturbed others perfectly fine with it, when DEQ is activated.


----------



## tbaucom

gurkey said:


> There are lots of "stories" about DEQ and its effects floating around.
> 
> DEQ in general is a dynamic replacement for the former "static" loudness correction switch, but it varies its response depending on the actual differences to the pre-adjusted reference level. It tries to follow thereby the famous "Fletcher-Munson" (the newer/later implementations to be exact, like ISO R226 / R454 or the results of studies by Robinson-Dadson etc ) curves of equal loudness to compensate for deficiencies of the human hearing. In this respect it does not really "boost" bass and highs frequencies in a conventional meaning but compensates for those stated deficienciesof the human hearing to achieve equal loudness at lower listening levels as "reference". Because those curves are based upon a statistical (averaged) model, there are individual differences in the way one perceives / "hears" those differences mentioned. Thus another "reference" parameter with four adjustment levels has been added to adjust those curves of equal loudness to the specific needs and prepositions of an individual person.
> 
> A 2nd point mentioned is the boosting of the surrounds (~+3db ? from my memory), which follows proven scientific theory but fits only if the surrounds are mounted strictly behind the listener (MLP) as described by the ITU-R BS positioning scheme, where surrounds are supposed to be placed at +/- (100°-120) with respect to a virtual middle line perpendicular to the fronts or back surrounds at +/- 150° referred to the same line.
> Many people have their surrounds mounted sideways or even in front of them, which creates a problem then, because the surrounds are not behind them as expected, thus invalidating the presumptions made. Because of this I don't know, why this "boost" has not been set up as "switchable" by Audyssey, but that is the way it works right now. It too is been influenced by the reference parameter for DEQ.


Thanks. Again this has always been my understanding of how Dynamic EQ works. There is user in another thread stating differently. I no longer have an AVR with Dynamic EQ so I can not run any tests. Please see the thread below.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2909572-yamaha-ypao-volume-adaptive-drc.html


----------



## gurkey

tbaucom said:


> Thanks. Again this has always been my understanding of how Dynamic EQ works. There is user in another thread stating differently. I no longer have an AVR with Dynamic EQ so I can not run any tests. Please see the thread below.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re.../2909572-yamaha-ypao-volume-adaptive-drc.html


I know. I tried to answer there yesterday already but through some carelessness on my side I lost the contents of my post before I could finalize and publish it.


----------



## Lindros88

I have 2 identical subwoofers and I'm calibrating with Audyssey MultEQ. For some reason, the audyssey subwoofer chirps are always louder from one subwoofer, even though the subs are gain matched. The subs are on the sidewalls, slightly behind the listening position. Is this normal? 

Also, when I calibrate both of them together, the sub on the left always ends up being louder than the sub on the right. I'm pretty sure it isn't because of room location, because if I calibrate each sub independently, they both seem to put out equal volume levels. It's only once they are calibrated together, that the sub on the left ends up noticeably louder than the one on the right. I can't figure out why this is happening.


----------



## David Aiken

Lindros88 said:


> I have 2 identical subwoofers and I'm calibrating with Audyssey MultEQ. For some reason, the audyssey subwoofer chirps are always louder from one subwoofer, even though the subs are gain matched. The subs are on the sidewalls, slightly behind the listening position. Is this normal?
> 
> Also, when I calibrate both of them together, the sub on the left always ends up being louder than the sub on the right. I'm pretty sure it isn't because of room location, because if I calibrate each sub independently, they both seem to put out equal volume levels. It's only once they are calibrated together, that the sub on the left ends up noticeably louder than the one on the right. I can't figure out why this is happening.


The subs are in different positions in the room but gain matching will not ensure that the chirps during calibration sound equally loud. How loud the chirps sound, and how loud they measure, depends on room factors including the placement of the subs in the room (are they absolutely symmetrical), the surroundings around each sub (room openings, windows,carpets, soft furnishings), and distance from the mic which may not be identical, just as where you stand listening while the chirps are happening may not be the same distance from each sub. 

You say that when you calibrate them together one is louder than the other but when you calibrate them independently both seem to be equal in volume. How are you doing the 2 calibrations because the reason for the difference in result almost certainly has something to do with the way you're doing the 2 calibrations.


----------



## Lindros88

David Aiken said:


> The subs are in different positions in the room but gain matching will not ensure that the chirps during calibration sound equally loud. How loud the chirps sound, and how loud they measure, depends on room factors including the placement of the subs in the room (are they absolutely symmetrical), the surroundings around each sub (room openings, windows,carpets, soft furnishings), and distance from the mic which may not be identical, just as where you stand listening while the chirps are happening may not be the same distance from each sub.
> 
> You say that when you calibrate them together one is louder than the other but when you calibrate them independently both seem to be equal in volume. How are you doing the 2 calibrations because the reason for the difference in result almost certainly has something to do with the way you're doing the 2 calibrations.


The subs are symmetrically placed, but the surroundings are different for each sub. The sub on the right is closer to a corner and there is some concrete in the walls and the sub on the left is against drywall, with no concrete. At first, I thought the chirps being louder in one than the other, was due to room location, but the louder one is always louder, regardless of where it is in the room. I have swapped the subs to confirm this.

As for how I'm doing the calibrations, when doing just one sub, I'm putting the mic in the middle of the couch and I always end up getting a good trim level. When calibrating both subs at the same time, I was putting the mic in that same spot, but I would end up with a much louder trim level. Someone on here told me that could be due to a cancellation created when both subs are on at the same time and it seemed like that was the case, since if I put my head in that spot, the bass does sound quieter there.

I don't know if this is an audyssey problem or a subwoofer problem. But I don't think it's a subwoofer problem because when I calibrate the one with the quieter chirps, it sounds just fine. Only when they are calibrated together, does the left sub always end up louder than the right sub, no matter which subwoofer it is. I have found that switching the phase to 180 degrees on the right sub after calibration, results in stronger bass at one listening position, but makes it sound softer pretty much everywhere else. Also, I have done a factory reset on the receiver and listened to stuff before audyssey calibration and the subs sound much more even than post calibration.


----------



## mthomas47

Lindros88 said:


> The subs are symmetrically placed, but the surroundings are different for each sub. The sub on the right is closer to a corner and there is some concrete in the walls and the sub on the left is against drywall, with no concrete. At first, I thought the chirps being louder in one than the other, was due to room location, but the louder one is always louder, regardless of where it is in the room. I have swapped the subs to confirm this.
> 
> As for how I'm doing the calibrations, when doing just one sub, I'm putting the mic in the middle of the couch and I always end up getting a good trim level. When calibrating both subs at the same time, I was putting the mic in that same spot, but I would end up with a much louder trim level. Someone on here told me that could be due to a cancellation created when both subs are on at the same time and it seemed like that was the case, since if I put my head in that spot, the bass does sound quieter there.
> 
> I don't know if this is an audyssey problem or a subwoofer problem. But I don't think it's a subwoofer problem because when I calibrate the one with the quieter chirps, it sounds just fine. Only when they are calibrated together, does the left sub always end up louder than the right sub, no matter which subwoofer it is. I have found that switching the phase to 180 degrees on the right sub after calibration, results in stronger bass at one listening position, but makes it sound softer pretty much everywhere else. Also, I have done a factory reset on the receiver and listened to stuff before audyssey calibration and the subs sound much more even than post calibration.



Hi,

I really don't have a clue why this is happening, and since you have tried a factory reset and tried reversing the sub positions, I'm not even sure what else to trouble-shoot in order to identify the source of the problem. If your subs have two inputs, as some do, I would try both, and I would also make sure that I reverse the Y-connector to make sure that one of the leads isn't defective. Maybe there are other things to try, but I'm dry at the moment. 

But, trouble-shooting the source of the problem to one side, it seems to me that you need to decide whether you are benefiting overall from the Audyssey calibration. If you are not benefiting from the filters that Audyssey sets, then just calibrate your system manually, writing down distances or any other information you think will help from your last calibration. That will solve the problem of having one sub playing too loud. 

Alternatively, if you do believe that you benefit from the Audyssey EQ, then I would just reduce the gain slightly on the too-loud sub post-calibration. Gain-matching is good in order to insure that both subs are performing equal work, but in this case, I would be much more interested in level-matching the subs.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Lindros88 said:


> The subs are symmetrically placed, but the surroundings are different for each sub. The sub on the right is closer to a corner and there is some concrete in the walls and the sub on the left is against drywall, with no concrete. At first, I thought the chirps being louder in one than the other, was due to room location, but the louder one is always louder, regardless of where it is in the room. I have swapped the subs to confirm this.
> 
> As for how I'm doing the calibrations, when doing just one sub, I'm putting the mic in the middle of the couch and I always end up getting a good trim level. When calibrating both subs at the same time, I was putting the mic in that same spot, but I would end up with a much louder trim level. Someone on here told me that could be due to a cancellation created when both subs are on at the same time and it seemed like that was the case, since if I put my head in that spot, the bass does sound quieter there.
> 
> I don't know if this is an audyssey problem or a subwoofer problem. But I don't think it's a subwoofer problem because when I calibrate the one with the quieter chirps, it sounds just fine. Only when they are calibrated together, does the left sub always end up louder than the right sub, no matter which subwoofer it is. I have found that switching the phase to 180 degrees on the right sub after calibration, results in stronger bass at one listening position, but makes it sound softer pretty much everywhere else. Also, I have done a factory reset on the receiver and listened to stuff before audyssey calibration and the subs sound much more even than post calibration.


OK. For a start, if the sub on the right is closer to a corner than the sub on the left, they aren't symmetrically placed in the room. Symmetric placement would have them both the same distance from the corner. They may be symmetrically placed relative to the speakers and screen but they aren't symmetrically placed in the room and the one that is placed closer to a corner will get more support from the room if the walls are identical in both corners. The concrete in the walls will also result in the right sub getting more reinforcement than the sub on the left which has walls without concrete. Individually measured at exactly the same measurement point with the same gain setting for each sub, the right hand sub should measure louder than the left hand sub but that could be affected by the location of things like open archways to other spaces and where those openings are in the room. You said the left hand sub always ends up louder which is not what I would expect given the information you provided about the walls and the distance from the corners but other things in the room could end up producing that result.

Second, when you measure one sub individually you will end up with a certain trim setting, let's say -3 dB. Repeat the measurement with both subs connected and both with the same gain setting as when you measured the single sub and you will get a different trim setting, probably somewhere in the range of -5 to -9 dB or so. That's because you now have 2 subs each delivering the same sound and the second sub's sound is adding to the first sub's sound so in order to deliver the same listening level at the measurement point, the trim has to be increased to compensate for the fact that you're now getting more volume from the combination of both subs. The reason I can't predict just what the new trim setting is going to be is because I don't know how much louder/softer the first sub is to the second sub given their differences due to the differences in their room surroundings. What counts is the level you get and if you measure the single sub with a test tone after individual calibration and the 2 subs with the same test tone after they have been calibrated together, the level should be the same or extremely close to the same. Note that here I'm talking about measuring after calibration which means you can't use the AVR's test tones, you have to use a signal from a test disc like the Spears and Munsil disc or something similar and measure with a sound pressure level meter of some kind. The differences in trim settings between single and both subs is to ensure you get that result. 2 subs won't give you a louder sub level after calibration but each sub will be working less hard so that the combined output is the same as the output from a single sub setup.

Finally, if the sub that measures loudest—call it sub A—is always louder than the other sub—sub B—if you swap sub A to the position sub B is in and sub B to the position that sub A is in if you measure both individually, then the 2 subs are outputting different levels of sound for the same gain setting. In other words the subs aren't actually identical. You would expect some slight differences between them because though they are supposedly identical each will measure slightly differently if you measure them separately under absolutely identical conditions. There's always slight variations from one sub to another. There should not be a significant difference but a difference of 0.5 to 1.0 dB or so between both subs measured separately under absolutely identical conditions would not be surprising in my view.

Bass performance in a room is extremely variable. I once was auditioning a pair of speakers at a dealer's. They were close to full range ribbon speakers with a 10" woofer handling frequencies below around 200 Hz. I was playing a track with a pronounced, regularly occurring, deep bass drum beat and sitting in the chair at the dealer's preferred listening position. I could not hear the bass drum beat at all, and this was a drum beat I had no problems hearing in my own room at home with my own speakers which had a smaller driver handling both mids and bass. According to the speaker's specifications I should have been able to hear the bass drum beat clearly, and I would have expected it to be more prominent than it was on my own speakers at home. I stood up and started walking to the equipment rack to change the disc and at around 2 feet in front of the listening chair I suddenly heard the bass drum quite loudly. I stood there and it came around again, precisely on the beat. I stepped back one step towards the listening chair and the bass drum was again inaudible. That's an extreme difference, greater than you would normally expect in a room, but it does go to demonstrate that small differences in things can make a very big difference in bass response in a room.

Changing the phase will make a difference too and you don't want to change the sub phase after calibration.

I don't think it's an Audyssey problem. Audyssey sets trims based on what it measures and what it measures is going to be different if you measure one sub than what it measures if you measure both. Measuring both, each sub is going to measure differently for the chirps sent to it, and it's not only going to measure different levels for the 2 subs but different frequency and phase responses. When it calibrates for the 2 subs it creates a filter to correct the combined output of both, and that combined output at the measurement position is going to be different than the individual output of each sub at the measurement position.

Finally, you say the subs sound "much more even" before calibration than after calibration. I don't doubt your perception but I suspect that if you could see the results of measurements of the output of the combines subs before and after calibration the result after calibration would be smoother than the result before calibration. Unfortunately most AVRs and Audyssey don't give us the opportunity to actually compare the before and after measurement results, we have to rely on our ears, and in some things our ears or rather our brains aren't all that accurate as measuring instruments. We have a strong tendency to regard what we're used to as sounding better than what we aren't used to and that means that we can have have a tendency to prefer the pre-calibration sound to the post-calibration sound. My recommendation would be to do an Audyssey calibration with both subs, accept the calibration results, listen with Audyssey on for a couple of weeks and then turn Audyssey off. After a couple of weeks you should be accustomed to the sound of the results Audyssey delivers and you may well find that you then prefer the results with Audyssey to the results without. Changes in bass performance can be one of the most noticeable aspects of Audyssey calibration and if the result is quite a bit different to the sound without Audyssey and you're used to the sound without Audyssey, there's a fair chance that you would prefer the without Audyssey result to the with Audyssey result initially.


----------



## Lindros88

Wow, thanks for the responses. I'll try everything that was mentioned and see what happens. How bad is it to put the audyssey mic in a spot where a cancellation is occurring? Should I avoid putting it there?


----------



## grendelrt

What are the current thoughts on positions 7 and 8 on the Audyssey recommended locations picture, the last two that are behind in the couch in the center. I know at one point some people were either ignoring them or moving them elsewhere. I have always used them, but thinking I may try something different, any suggestions on alternate areas to use instead of those or should I really just stick with them.


----------



## David Aiken

Lindros88 said:


> Wow, thanks for the responses. I'll try everything that was mentioned and see what happens. How bad is it to put the audyssey mic in a spot where a cancellation is occurring? Should I avoid putting it there?


Try and find a spot where a cancellation isn't occurring. Cancellations occur in different places for different frequencies and you can't avoid having some degree of cancellation occurring for some frequencies at the listening position. You'll get the strongest bass response right at a wall but that's a really bad listening position for the other frequencies and makes it impossible to use rear surround speakers if you have them plus it would force you to put the side surrounds in corners as well which isn't good.

Place the mic at the position you sit at when viewing movies/listening to music. The goal of the exercise is to let Audyssey correct for the room caused response issues at that position. If at all possible, try and place the listening position at the point in the room where things sound best without Audyssey because there's less to correct at that spot but if you're setting up for surround sound and movies it's quite possible that the spot where you get the best sound without Audyssey is a bad spot for viewing movies and/or for setting up surround speakers so it's actually quite possible that the best place for the listening position/viewing position for movies isn't going to be the best place for sound without Audyssey. Find a listening/viewing position that works for the room, move it backwards or forwards or sideways a few feet if you can and moving it delivers better sounds and doesn't cause any problems, and measure at that listening position.


----------



## David Aiken

grendelrt said:


> What are the current thoughts on positions 7 and 8 on the Audyssey recommended locations picture, the last two that are behind in the couch in the center. I know at one point some people were either ignoring them or moving them elsewhere. I have always used them, but thinking I may try something different, any suggestions on alternate areas to use instead of those or should I really just stick with them.


Not using all positions, or moving some of the positions MAY produce better results, it MAY produce worse results, and you can't predict what you'll get. Start with the recommended placement and if you're unhappy with the result then it may be worth trying variations on the recommended placement but no one can give you a mic placement pattern that is guaranteed to give you either the best result in your room, or a result that you will prefer the most in your room, and those two outcomes aren't necessarily the same thing given that not everyone prefers the same thing.

If you want to start varying things I'd probably start with the recommended pattern but experiment with putting positions 2-8 closer to, or a little further from, position 1 as a starting point but even doing that may not make your current result any better and could make it worse. If your current result sounds fine to you, then I'd stick with that. It's more fun using your system and enjoying music or movies than it is running endless recalibration trying to find the mic setup which gives you the best result because the only way of knowing you've got the best result is continuing to run more calibrations to satisfy yourself that you can't get it any better.


----------



## grendelrt

For this text, I have high back chairs (ear level is prob 1-2 inches below the back of the chair). So I should push the mic 12 inches forward of the chair, how high above the chair, minimum possible or a little more like 3 inches ( i like to be able to reproduce haha) or something? Also with the final 2 positions (7,8) behind the chairs, should I also make those 12 inches or more behind the backs of the seats as well? Thanks!!



> Exception: if your chair backs are quite high, you will need to raise the mic so that it can 'see' the rear surrounds or surrounds. Also, do not put the mic closer than about 12 to 15 inches to the backrest of the chair, even if this means it is not exactly where your head is when listening.


----------



## confinoj

*Speaker distance limitation issue*

I don't know if this is an Audyssey limitation or a Denon limitation. I have a 5.2.4 setup with Klipsch RP speakers and dual SVS PC12+. One sub is wireless (outlaw OWA4) so adds some timing delay (around 15ms). See sig for details of equipment. Paired with a Denon X4300H. I recently reran Audyssey due to re-positioning some speakers. I needed to manually correct my front atmos upfiring speaker distance as it was measuring directly to speaker and not ceiling bounce path. When I do this I get an message stating speaker distance invalid. It seems it's actually referring to my wireless sub distance which Audyssey calculates at 31.1ft. If I try to make any manual change to speaker distances it will reduce the sub speaker distance to 28.5. Any higher triggers the invalid speaker distance message and it will get reduced back. If I restore Audyssey settings it goes back to 31.1 feet but then I can't fix the atmos speaker distances. The Denon manual does say that difference between speaker distances has to be less than 20ft. This seems to be the limitation as I have a surround at 8.5ft so add 20 and you get the max distance it's allowing me to keep sub at (28.5ft) if I try to make any manual changes to any speaker. If I increase surround distance the max manual sub distance increases by the same interval. This seems like an odd limitation. Is this a Denon or Audyssey limitation? My choice seems to be have the wireless sub delay be short by 2.6ft or atmos speaker short by 1.6ft. I figure the sub timing is probably more important in a dual sub setup. Also I can't notice the 1.6 ft difference for the atmos speakers. This is also assuming that if default Audyssey distances are untouched it actually is using it's measured 31.1ft delay and not 28.5. Anyone else run into this limitation?


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> For this text, I have high back chairs (ear level is prob 1-2 inches below the back of the chair). So I should push the mic 12 inches forward of the chair, how high above the chair, minimum possible or a little more like 3 inches ( i like to be able to reproduce haha) or something? Also with the final 2 positions (7,8) behind the chairs, should I also make those 12 inches or more behind the backs of the seats as well? Thanks!!


Hi,

You can get different advice on this sort of thing, but here is mine. First, you want to calibrate your system with mic position 1 where your ears are, and you want at least some of your other mic positions to be in the same horizontal and vertical plane where your ears are too. So, I would not recommend an initial mic position 12" forward of your chair. Instead, I would put an absorbent blanket over the back of any chair that will be in close contact with the Audyssey microphone. That will allow you to get the mic within about 4" or 5" of the chair back, without encountering any comb filtering issues. 4" would actually correspond fairly well to the distance from the back of your head to the middle of your ear canal. So, my mic position 1, and several others, would be close to the chair back(s).

Second, I would try to keep my mic positions at ear level whenever possible. At worst, the rear surrounds might be a little occluded by the chair back. But, I honestly don't think we are likely to notice the absolute sound quality of those speakers the way we will with those in our front soundstage, or those directly out to the side. This may be something you will need to experiment with to decide what you prefer, but my inclination would be to stay pretty close to ear level for all but a couple of mic positions. The last two positions might be close to the head and up 2" or 3" perhaps. (I would not go behind the chair with any mic positions. That would only be important if other people were sitting behind you. In my opinion, that only creates unnecessary and possibly misleading information for the fuzzy logic weighting to resolve.)

Remember also, that as you move the mic position forward, as you would normally do for at least two or three mic placements, that the angle to the rear speakers will change, and the Audyssey mic will be able to "see" those speakers more clearly. I believe that having some mic positions forward of the chair, and a couple slightly higher than the others, will give Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting algorithm all the information that it needs for rear surrounds. But, meanwhile, you will be appropriately emphasizing the sound quality of the more important speakers by keeping your mic at ear level.

Third, I would always start by using the complete suite of mic positions, although your mic pattern can be as small as you like, including 24" by 24" or even 12" by 12". Only, if you discover through extensive trial-and-error that you can still optimize your calibration with fewer than the recommended number of mic positions, would I go down in number. All of this is subject to trial-and-error to discover what works best in your room, but I suspect that following the advice above will be the most likely way to achieve good results.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

thanks for the reply, I will try the blanket next time for the reasons you stated on the first position.


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> thanks for the reply, I will try the blanket next time for the reasons you stated on the first position.


You are very welcome, but just leave the blanket where it is during the full calibration. It won't do any harm. Your body will be where the blanket was when you are actually listening to something, and the blanket will help for some of the other mic positions, too. For instance, most people will go out to each side of mic 1 by anywhere from about 6" to 18", but they will stay close to the chair or sofa back in the process.

I actually do 5 of my 8 total positions within about 4" to 6" of the chair back. Some are just a little beyond where my ears would be and some are out beyond where they would be if I turned my head or leaned to one side. In my particular case, a closer mic pattern actually gives me a more uniform room EQ, over a wider area, than a large pattern does. But, that's a YMMV issue, so you will have to experiment to find out what works best for you.


----------



## Sachb

Did any1 Notice that keeping the below settings makes The Avr Sound more Livlier , Full :

MultEQ XT/32 : Reference
Dynamic EQ : OFF
Dynamic Volume : Light

I use these settings and prefer it for Playing Music.


----------



## pbarach

Sachb said:


> Did any1 Notice that keeping the below settings makes The Avr Sound more Livlier , Full :
> 
> MultEQ XT/32 : Reference
> Dynamic EQ : OFF
> Dynamic Volume : Light
> 
> I use these settings and prefer it for Playing Music.


Dynamic Volume is compressing the dynamic range of your music. Listen that way if you like, but for me it's the opposite of what I want when I listen to music.

Dynamic Volume is handy when you can't hear the dialogue clearly because you have the volume turned down in order not to have your ears blown out or your neighbors disturbed by explosive sound effects. That's the only time I use it.


----------



## Dave-T

I had my Av buddy come over last night because I was just not happy with how my system was sounding 5.1.4 Atmos setup, the phrase I used was "thin". I have deep bass from sub and it melds good with front three speakers but spatial voice did not have presence if you know what I mean. Audyssey set fronts to full range and all other speakers to 40Hz. I switched everything to small and was told to put the LFE in my 8802a to 80Hz. For speaker I have:

B&W CWm7.3 F/C/R - Frequency response 43Hz - 28Hz
B&W CWM7.4 surrounds Frequency response 47Hz - 28Hz
B&W CCM682 Atmos speakers 4 Frequency response 35Hz - 50Hz
Sub Velodyne DD10 Frequency response 18Hz -120Hz

after Audyessy calibration I set to:

fronts -80Hz
center -80Hz
surrounds -80Hz
Atmos - 80Hz.

LFE in processor 80Hz (I was told by a sound engineer from JL audio to this plus add 12' to the distance of the sub)

My friend switched things up he left speakers set to small but:

fronts - 90Hz
center 90Hz
surounds 90Hz
Atmos - 100Hz

LFE in processor to 90Hz


things do sound better just not sure if crossing the Atmos speakers at 100Hz is correct, what do you guys/gals set your to? definitely sounds less muddy and thin spatialy. Why is this if the speakers have such low frequency response.

Thank you for any input

Dave-


----------



## krabapple

Any image on these threads that's hosted by photobucket is now not available. e.g., in the AVSF Audyssey FAQ, the 'official' mic positioning diagram can't be viewed, the image placeholder says 'please update your account to enable third party hosting'.

I assume mods are aware of this, but a search of 'photobucket' on this thread yielded no results. So I thought I'd mention it.


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> I had my Av buddy come over last night because I was just not happy with how my system was sounding 5.1.4 Atmos setup, the phrase I used was "thin". I have deep bass from sub and it melds good with front three speakers but spatial voice did not have presence if you know what I mean. Audyssey set fronts to full range and all other speakers to 40Hz. I switched everything to small and was told to put the LFE in my 8802a to 80Hz. For speaker I have:
> 
> B&W CWm7.3 F/C/R - Frequency response 43Hz - 28Hz
> B&W CWM7.4 surrounds Frequency response 47Hz - 28Hz
> B&W CCM682 Atmos speakers 4 Frequency response 35Hz - 50Hz
> Sub Velodyne DD10 Frequency response 18Hz -120Hz
> 
> after Audyessy calibration I set to:
> 
> fronts -80Hz
> center -80Hz
> surrounds -80Hz
> Atmos - 80Hz.
> 
> LFE in processor 80Hz (I was told by a sound engineer from JL audio to this plus add 12' to the distance of the sub)
> 
> My friend switched things up he left speakers set to small but:
> 
> fronts - 90Hz
> center 90Hz
> surounds 90Hz
> Atmos - 100Hz
> 
> LFE in processor to 90Hz
> 
> 
> things do sound better just not sure if crossing the Atmos speakers at 100Hz is correct, what do you guys/gals set your to? definitely sounds less muddy and thin spatialy. Why is this if the speakers have such low frequency response.
> 
> Thank you for any input
> 
> Dave-


Hi Dave,

It is always difficult to know exactly how speakers will actually perform in a room, because the location of the speakers plays such an important part in their performance. It isn't just room modes, it is also your distance from the speakers that matters. And, even with reputable manufacturer's such as B&W, the specifications are not always reliable. In this case, B&W shows your ceiling speakers as already down 6db at 35Hz (quasi-anechoically), and that makes sense with a single 8" mid-range/woofer.

Using a higher crossover may be offloading enough of the marginal bass from the Atmos speakers to enable the upper bass and mid-range to play more clearly and emphatically. And, the higher crossover may also enable the 8" speaker to integrate better with your subs. After all, even with a 100Hz crossover, it is still playing 75Hz sounds just 6db softer, and 50Hz sounds 12db softer. That gradual transition from speaker to subwoofer (at a slightly higher crossover frequency) can often result in a smoother, yet less muddled sound.

I really like the one octave rule for setting crossovers. So, with those speakers registering a 40Hz crossover in-room, I would use a minimum crossover of 80Hz, as you did, and I wouldn't mind in the least experimenting with a higher one. In your case, the slightly higher crossover does seem to have given you better overall sound, and that's the ultimate objective.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Dgreen97

*Receiver sounds better with audyssey off?*

I have the denon x1300w, I bought it partially because it has audyssey multiEQ XT on it, and I've tried running this thing 4 times now to get a good sound out of it but I haven't been able to do that. I read the FAQ on here and the 101 guide but still get the same results of not sounding good. The midrange is too pronounced, it sets the bass too low and the treble too high. The receiver sounds a lot better with audyssey completely off and no changes to EQ at all. What's up with this? I thought audyssey was supposed to improve the sound not make it worse, and if thats the case why wouldn't I just go with a pioneer AVR instead like the vsx lx101?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Dgreen97 said:


> I have the denon x1300w, I bought it partially because it has audyssey multiEQ XT on it, and I've tried running this thing 4 times now to get a good sound out of it but I haven't been able to do that. I read the FAQ on here and the 101 guide but still get the same results of not sounding good. The midrange is too pronounced, *it sets the bass too low* and the treble too high. The receiver sounds a lot better with audyssey completely off and no changes to EQ at all. What's up with this? I thought audyssey was supposed to improve the sound not make it worse, and if thats the case why wouldn't I just go with a pioneer AVR instead like the vsx lx101?


Regarding the low bass, if you read the FAQ, then you know to raise the subwoofer level about +3-5 db to suit your personal preference using the Manual Setup menu. Also, although the vast majority will prefer Audyssey ON vs. OFF, some may not prefer it ON in which case you may want to try using the Audyssey MultEQ Editor app (iOS/Android, $20USD) in which you can customize the Audyssey EQ curve to suit your personal preference.


----------



## Dgreen97

yes i did that, im not talking about the bass here. I'm talking about that it sets the midrange in a weird way so it sounds overly processed and then the treble is too high.


----------



## torii

audyssey on reduces my treble alot, many may not like that.

other than that really cant tell much difference in rew frequency response curves.


----------



## mthomas47

Dgreen97 said:


> I have the denon x1300w, I bought it partially because it has audyssey multiEQ XT on it, and I've tried running this thing 4 times now to get a good sound out of it but I haven't been able to do that. I read the FAQ on here and the 101 guide but still get the same results of not sounding good. The midrange is too pronounced, it sets the bass too low and the treble too high. The receiver sounds a lot better with audyssey completely off and no changes to EQ at all. What's up with this? I thought audyssey was supposed to improve the sound not make it worse, and if thats the case why wouldn't I just go with a pioneer AVR instead like the vsx lx101?





Dgreen97 said:


> yes i did that, im not talking about the bass here. I'm talking about that it sets the midrange in a weird way so it sounds overly processed and then the treble is too high.


Hi,

There is no guarantee that Audyssey will work equally well for every room, system, and preference. So, as with any technology, there is that going in. But, if you aren't getting good results and want to try to do some problem-solving to sort things out, you can post some photos showing your front soundstage and tell us a little about the calibration technique you used. It may be that something in your set-up and/or calibration technique will jump out. 

A program of automated room EQ, such as Audyssey, can very often improve sound quality in a room, particularly with respect to lower frequencies. But, depending on set-up and calibration process, it can also exacerbate already existing problems, or even create new ones, at higher frequencies. After years of participating in this thread, I feel very comfortable in saying that, for many people, it is not a set-it and forget-it technology. 

But, for people willing to invest some time in it, Audyssey can usually improve sound quality in low frequencies without jeopardizing sound quality in higher frequencies. Of course, that won't be true in all cases, and individual results will vary. For instance, some people do get additional clarity in higher frequencies, as well. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## yanks1

For 2.1 music I never listen to room correction; straight through my P5 preamp to 2 channel Amp. For 9 channel 5.1.4 then yes I use room correction


----------



## Dgreen97

forgot to mention the other issue im having as well, there is a 2-3 second delay on audio when using bluetooth on the x1300w. No clue why this is happening, on the pioneer receiver I had there was no delay. any ideas?


----------



## garygarrison

Dgreen97 said:


> I have the denon x1300w, I bought it partially because it has audyssey multiEQ XT on it, and I've tried running this thing 4 times now to get a good sound out of it but I haven't been able to do that. I read the FAQ on here and the 101 guide but still get the same results of not sounding good. The *midrange is too pronounced*, it sets the *bass too low* and the *treble too high*. The receiver sounds a lot better with audyssey completely off and no changes to EQ at all. What's up with this? I thought audyssey was supposed to improve the sound not make it worse, and if thats the case why wouldn't I just go with a pioneer AVR instead like the vsx lx101?





[B said:


> torii[/B];54627942]*audyssey on reduces my treble alot*, many may not like that.
> 
> other than that really cant tell much difference in* rew frequency response curves*.


Here we have one user saying Audyssey sets the treble too high, and another says Audyssey reduces the treble a lot.. There could be an explanation for both, but we would have to know more about the rooms, speakers, and procedure used.
*
Dgreen97*, the midrange and treble will seem too high if the bass is too low. Almost everyone turns up the subwoofer *after *running Audyssey. That might be a first step, then switch back and forth between Audyssey on and off, and see what you think. If you would like, you could run REW to see a response graph at the main listening position, but you will need a calibrated microphone (about $100, see the thread on AVS about USB mic REW measurements). This will help you set the subwoofer to flat, if you would like to see what that sounds like. All this may be unnecessary, though. If you listen alone, try using Audyssey mic positions fairly closely surrounding where your head would be when listening. If you run movies or 5.0/5.1 music for a group of people, use the mic positions Audyssey recommends. It takes most people several tries to get a really good correction for their rooms and audience configurations. I love what Audyssey ultimately did for my sound. As Mike said, please post a picture of your set-up. If you still have too much treble (after turning up the subwoofer), and you happen to be using Audyssey Flat, try switching to Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey), which rolls off the treble a bit. 

*torii*, maybe your room is pretty good as is if you don't see much difference in the REW curves. Is it treated? Are you using Audyssey Reference or Audyssey Flat? As you probably know, the latter has more treble. I use Audyssey Flat for most recordings and movies.


----------



## Tyrindor

Dgreen97 said:


> I have the denon x1300w, I bought it partially because it has audyssey multiEQ XT on it, and I've tried running this thing 4 times now to get a good sound out of it but I haven't been able to do that. I read the FAQ on here and the 101 guide but still get the same results of not sounding good. The midrange is too pronounced, it sets the bass too low and the treble too high. The receiver sounds a lot better with audyssey completely off and no changes to EQ at all. What's up with this? I thought audyssey was supposed to improve the sound not make it worse, and if thats the case why wouldn't I just go with a pioneer AVR instead like the vsx lx101?


Story of my life. I've had a love/hate relationship with audyssey for years.

There are a LOT of people that think their setup sounds better without any EQ at all. There's also a LOT of people that think Audyssey is miracle worker. Personally, after hearing how Audyssey XT32 handles everything in my fully treated 23x17x10 dedicated home theater running 7.2.4, I am inclined to just leave it off. I don't trust it anymore after seeing how it EQs a setup that is _picture perfect_ in terms of layout. It sucked a lot of life out, even when using the flat EQ and turning the subs up +5. Sure, if I hook up a EQ mic and do some sweeps in REW, audyssey appears to be doing amazing things but what matters is your ears not some chart. I find in heavily treated rooms it tends to miss the ballpark. Audyssey seems to filter lots of echo from it's results, and if you get rid of that echo it starts to filter meaningful data and produce bad results (my theory). Audyssey actually works better for me if I take all my GIK acoustic panels down, but it sounds significantly worse having an untreated room.

If you don't like the results... I recommend running it once with 1 position to get all your delays/distances/levels set, manually set crossovers to 80hz, LFE to 120hz, and all speakers to small, then disable audyssey and see if you like how your system sounds. I bought a receiver with XT32 which is significantly more expensive and ended up not using it either.


----------



## gurkey

Dgreen97 said:


> yes i did that, im not talking about the bass here. I'm talking about that it sets the midrange in a weird way so it sounds overly processed and then the treble is too high.


Unfortunately, Audyssey does not do its "miracles"  for everyone as some are expecting. As soon as the algorithmic model it is based on is not valid anymore to a large extend it may need some additional help from the user.

First of all, how is the frequency dependent reverberation time in your listening room ? 
If it is a rather clean, modern, sparingly decorated room it may have a to long reverberation time for the mids and highs, which would make the sound come out less transparent and overly aggressive. 
If it is on the other side heavily decorated (drapery, stores, furniture, carpet etc.) it might be sounding rather dull and somehow "dead". 

If your are sitting close to a wall or measuring near it, the resulting bass may get "thin". Whilst the 1st measurement should be at ear height at your MLP (head position), all the other measurements in a run afterwards should be at least 1' or more away from any walls or large surfaces. Don't spread them out to far (more than ~20" from position 1) or your corrections filters might be getting rather ineffective. Don't use pillows or anything similar to place the microphone onto or hand-hold it, because this may change the frequency response negatively due to near field effects and noise transfer. Textile or leather type surfaces nearby the microphone may have a detrimental influence too. Many things to consider in some cases...

There is an "Audyssey Setup Guide" and Q &A here in the thread and an extensive "How to..." to get up and running with satisfactory results. Some experimenting may still be needed though...


----------



## Dgreen97

The way audyssey is hyped you would think it works miracles but that wasn't the case for me and apparently a lot of other people. Makes me wonder why I bought this denon then and if I should just get a pioneer elite with MCACC. I liked the results of MCACC a lot better, the basic version even, when I had the vsx 532. It was much much easier to setup and you didn't need to read tons of documentation just to figure out how to get the best results so I don't know what's up with audyssey but apparently its not just plug and play.


----------



## mthomas47

Dgreen97 said:


> The way audyssey is hyped you would think it works miracles but that wasn't the case for me and apparently a lot of other people. Makes me wonder why I bought this denon then and if I should just get a pioneer elite with MCACC. I liked the results of MCACC a lot better, the basic version even, when I had the vsx 532. It was much much easier to setup and you didn't need to read tons of documentation just to figure out how to get the best results so I don't know what's up with audyssey but apparently its not just plug and play.


Hi,

I'm not sure where Audyssey is hyped other than in Audyssey's own marketing materials. At one time, you might have encountered a lot of hype on this thread, but I think that has largely subsided now. I believe that most of us who hang out on this thread are aware of Audyssey's strengths, and are also aware that it is definitely not just plug-and-play for many people. Of course, some people actually do get lucky on their very first try with Audyssey.

Based on my reading of the thread, over a period of about 8 years, the great majority of people who try Audyssey find it helpful. I would put that percentage as high as 90% or higher. (It should be noted that some people who don't like the basic theory of automated room correction have never actually tried Audyssey and are just reacting to it's theoretical attributes.) But, there have been a number of instances where people who are experienced with Audyssey have simply not been able to get it to work well for their specific rooms and audio systems. 

I don't know that anyone on this thread would consider Audyssey a miracle worker, but the fact is that in the great majority of cases, where someone is having a problem getting Audyssey to help, rather than to hurt with the sound, there are speaker set-up issues or calibration technique issues responsible for that. For the majority of people I have seen willing to make a time investment with Audyssey, it can be an effective way to improve the overall sound quality in a home theater or audio system, and particularly for bass frequencies. Again, I would estimate that number at around 90% or higher.

But, if you are looking for somebody to tell you that you are wrong to want a simpler system, such as the Pioneer you had, which doesn't do much but which also doesn't require any learning curve or time investment, then I can't do that. I think that everyone has to decide for himself what his audio priorities are, how much effort he is willing to invest, and whether or not he is getting the results he wants from something like Audyssey. People on this thread have a history of always being glad to help with Audyssey-related issues. But, most of us don't want to try to convince other people that they should use Audyssey no matter what, or like Audyssey no matter what.

To me, Audyssey is just a tool. Like many tools, we get out of it what we put into it. And, also like many tools, it is not always going to be the proper tool for every job. Whether or not to use it, or to invest time in it, is something that only the individual user can decide. I know that you were partly blowing-off steam, but there are always a number of people silently reading along on these owner threads and I thought that a more comprehensive response might be helpful.

If you want some help with Audyssey, you can certainly find it here. But, if you decide to go back to a Pioneer, I don't think that anyone here will try to talk you out of it. Frankly, the "fan-boy" owner's threads leave me kind of cold, anyway. This is all just my personal perspective on the issue, though, so someone else may have an entirely different point of view. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure where Audyssey is hyped other than in Audyssey's own marketing materials. At one time, you might have encountered a lot of hype on this thread, but I think that has largely subsided now. I believe that most of us who hang out on this thread are aware of Audyssey's strengths, and are also aware that it is definitely not just plug-and-play for many people. Of course, some people actually do get lucky on their very first try with Audyssey.
> 
> Based on my reading of the thread, over a period of about 8 years, the great majority of people who try Audyssey find it helpful. I would put that percentage as high as 90% or higher. (It should be noted that some people who don't like the basic theory of automated room correction have never actually tried Audyssey and are just reacting to it's theoretical attributes.) But, there have been a number of instances where people who are experienced with Audyssey have simply not been able to get it to work well for their specific rooms and audio systems.
> 
> *I don't know that anyone on this thread would consider Audyssey a miracle worker, but the fact is that in the great majority of cases, where someone is having a problem getting Audyssey to help, rather than to hurt with the sound, there are speaker set-up issues or calibration technique issues responsible for that. For the majority of people I have seen willing to make a time investment with Audyssey, it can be an effective way to improve the overall sound quality in a home theater or audio system, and particularly for bass frequencies. Again, I would estimate that number at around 90% or higher.
> *
> But, if you are looking for somebody to tell you that you are wrong to want a simpler system, such as the Pioneer you had, which doesn't do much but which also doesn't require any learning curve or time investment, then I can't do that. I think that everyone has to decide for himself what his audio priorities are, how much effort he is willing to invest, and whether or not he is getting the results he wants from something like Audyssey. People on this thread have a history of always being glad to help with Audyssey-related issues. But, most of us don't want to try to convince other people that they should use Audyssey no matter what, or like Audyssey no matter what.
> 
> To me, Audyssey is just a tool. Like many tools, we get out of it what we put into it. And, also like many tools, it is not always going to be the proper tool for every job. Whether or not to use it, or to invest time in it, is something that only the individual user can decide. I know that you were partly blowing-off steam, but there are always a number of people silently reading along on these owner threads and I thought that a more comprehensive response might be helpful.
> 
> If you want some help with Audyssey, you can certainly find it here. But, if you decide to go back to a Pioneer, I don't think that anyone here will try to talk you out of it. Frankly, the "fan-boy" owner's threads leave me kind of cold, anyway. This is all just my personal perspective on the issue, though, so someone else may have an entirely different point of view.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I like your post on the subject very much Mike. Yet, IMHO, in the bolded part the word Audyssey may easily be substituted with MCACC or YPAO or any other room RC system, coz it's so true (as you pointed out) that the necessity of *speaker-setup issues* and *calibration technique* *issues* need always be taken into account, actually no way out. Or in other words: "there's no free lunch, eh?"


----------



## grendelrt

Anyone read this thread? 
http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html

Curious to see thoughts on the conclusions for Audyssey that were observed. The final conclusions are interesting, 


> Beyond that, the main requirements for getting good results are that:
> the first measurement is at LPC, even though we know there are disturbances there and often no line-of-sight to surrounds, as there is important data needed at that position for the room correction program to get best performance from the front main speakers
> the remaining measurement positions, all in the center plane, should be different distances from the chair back
> all within one foot of LPC, if possible, although line-of-sight to surrounds is important for these measurements. With Audyssey, measurement points farther than 12 inches from LPC give compromised FR and softened, imprecise SS&I, so are only useful if smoothed FR across several seats is the goal.


This part really interested me, saying basically the first position should be ear height, center point between ears, even if it is below the chair back.


----------



## ShoutingMan

Not sure if I'm asking an Audyssey question or a Marantz question, so I'll start here. Punt me to the Marantz thread if suitable 

I re-ran Audyssey calibration this afternoon on my Marantz 7702mkII, having a quiet weekday afternoon and a new stand for more convenient positioning of mic. The Audyssey output (below in the spoiler tags) produces odd distances for the subwoofers. They are physically located about 11 feet and 6 feet (respectively) from the "1" mic position; not 23 and 35 feet Audyssey determines. Maybe this is an artifact of the in-wall subs being driven by Triad amps having a shorter delay compared to the rest of the speakers going through Marantz amps?

The other detail I notice is it sets the cutoff for the Front Speakers as 40Hz. But I remembered that was answered last year 

Output in spoiler tags:


Spoiler






Code:


Distances
Front L: 11.4 ft
Front R: 11.7 ft
Center: 11.2 ft
[B]Subwoofer 1: 22.8 ft
Subwoofer 2: 34.6 ft[/B]
Surround L: 8.7 ft
Surround R: 6.3 ft
Surround Back L: 11.3 ft
Surround Back R: 10.9 ft
Top Front L: 6.7 ft
Top Front R: 7.4 ft
Top Rear L: 7.0 ft
Top Rear R: 7.6 ft

Levels
Front L: -2.5 dB 
Front R: -2.0 dB
Center: -3.0 dB
Subwoofer 1: -10.0 dB
Subwoofer 2: -7.5 dB
Surround L: -0.5 dB
Surround R: -3.5 dB
Surround Back L: +2.5 dB
Surround Back R: +1.0 dB
Top Front L: -2.5 dB
Top Front R: -2.0 dB
Top Rear L: -2.0 dB
Top Rear R: -1.5 dB

Crossovers
[B]Front: 40 Hz
Center: 40 Hz[/B]
Surround: 60 Hz
Surr Back: 60 Hz
Top Front: 80 Hz
Top Rear: 80 Hz


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> Anyone read this thread?
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
> 
> Curious to see thoughts on the conclusions for Audyssey that were observed. The final conclusions are interesting,
> 
> This part really interested me, saying basically the first position should be ear height, center point between ears, even if it is below the chair back.


Hi,

I haven't read the thread, but I tend to be a little wary of generalizations, such as restricting all mic positions to 12" or less from the MLP. I do believe that it is important to start with the first mic position at ear level, even if it is below the chair back. And, I think that more people have gotten good results in the last few years with slightly tighter mic patterns. But, a number of people on this thread have had good success by keeping the majority of mic positions at ear level, and only going 2" or 3" higher than ear level for a couple of positions.

I made the point in a recent post that sound quality from the speakers in the front soundstage, or off to the side, is of greatest importance. And, that is why I prefer to keep most of the mic positions at ear level. I think that is helpful in part because our hearing is more acute to the front and to the sides, and partly because the content in the front is of greater importance. Rear surrounds, particularly, mainly contain ambient sounds and sound effects. 

So, I have always favored trying to keep the mic at ear level for all but a couple of the mic positions. Another point that I made in that earlier post is that as we move the mic out away from the chair back (and I like to come forward about 20" or 22") the more the angle of incidence to the rear surrounds changes, and the better the Audyssey microphone can "see" the speakers. Those mic positions away from the chair, in conjunction with a couple of mic positions a couple of inches higher, should give the fuzzy logic weighting algorithm all of the information it needs to correctly EQ the rear surround speakers, in any case. And, I believe that technique works fine in the great majority of rooms.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## drh3b

ShoutingMan said:


> Not sure if I'm asking an Audyssey question or a Marantz question, so I'll start here. Punt me to the Marantz thread if suitable
> 
> I re-ran Audyssey calibration this afternoon on my Marantz 7702mkII, having a quiet weekday afternoon and a new stand for more convenient positioning of mic. The Audyssey output (below in the spoiler tags) produces odd distances for the subwoofers. They are physically located about 11 feet and 6 feet (respectively) from the "1" mic position; not 23 and 35 feet Audyssey determines. Maybe this is an artifact of the in-wall subs being driven by Triad amps having a shorter delay compared to the rest of the speakers going through Marantz amps?
> 
> The other detail I notice is it sets the cutoff for the Front Speakers as 40Hz. But I remembered that was answered last year
> 
> Output in spoiler tags:
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Distances
> Front L: 11.4 ft
> Front R: 11.7 ft
> Center: 11.2 ft
> [B]Subwoofer 1: 22.8 ft
> Subwoofer 2: 34.6 ft[/B]
> Surround L: 8.7 ft
> Surround R: 6.3 ft
> Surround Back L: 11.3 ft
> Surround Back R: 10.9 ft
> Top Front L: 6.7 ft
> Top Front R: 7.4 ft
> Top Rear L: 7.0 ft
> Top Rear R: 7.6 ft
> 
> Levels
> Front L: -2.5 dB
> Front R: -2.0 dB
> Center: -3.0 dB
> Subwoofer 1: -10.0 dB
> Subwoofer 2: -7.5 dB
> Surround L: -0.5 dB
> Surround R: -3.5 dB
> Surround Back L: +2.5 dB
> Surround Back R: +1.0 dB
> Top Front L: -2.5 dB
> Top Front R: -2.0 dB
> Top Rear L: -2.0 dB
> Top Rear R: -1.5 dB
> 
> Crossovers
> [B]Front: 40 Hz
> Center: 40 Hz[/B]
> Surround: 60 Hz
> Surr Back: 60 Hz
> Top Front: 80 Hz
> Top Rear: 80 Hz


Typically, the circuitry in sub woofers delays the signal a tiny bit, which makes the subwoofer appear further away to Audyssey. Don't worry about it.


----------



## mthomas47

ShoutingMan said:


> Not sure if I'm asking an Audyssey question or a Marantz question, so I'll start here. Punt me to the Marantz thread if suitable
> 
> I re-ran Audyssey calibration this afternoon on my Marantz 7702mkII, having a quiet weekday afternoon and a new stand for more convenient positioning of mic. The Audyssey output (below in the spoiler tags) produces odd distances for the subwoofers. They are physically located about 11 feet and 6 feet (respectively) from the "1" mic position; not 23 and 35 feet Audyssey determines. Maybe this is an artifact of the in-wall subs being driven by Triad amps having a shorter delay compared to the rest of the speakers going through Marantz amps?
> 
> The other detail I notice is it sets the cutoff for the Front Speakers as 40Hz. But I remembered that was answered last year


Hi,

As you know, Audyssey is simply measuring timing as opposed to actual distance. Your speakers are all powered by your amplifier(s). But, as you noted, your subs have internal amplifiers with their own internal processing which is usually several milliseconds behind your AVR. Since the sounds from all your sources need to arrive at your MLP at the same time, Audyssey will typically set subwoofer distances further away in order to speed up the subwoofer sound arriving at the MLP. Your speakers are set to operate the same way. A speaker further away will actually start it's sound a millisecond or more before a speaker nearer to the MLP, so that the sounds will arrive at the same time.

It's always a good idea to raise crossover, preferably to about 80Hz, or at least to about one octave higher than the reported F3 point. In this case, that would be 80Hz. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I haven't read the thread, but I tend to be a little wary of generalizations, such as restricting all mic positions to 12" or less from the MLP. I do believe that it is important to start with the first mic position at ear level, even if it is below the chair back. And, I think that more people have gotten good results in the last few years with slightly tighter mic patterns. But, a number of people on this thread have had good success by keeping the majority of mic positions at ear level, and only going 2" or 3" higher than ear level for a couple of positions.
> 
> I made the point in a recent post that sound quality from the speakers in the front soundstage, or off to the side, is of greatest importance. And, that is why I prefer to keep most of the mic positions at ear level. I think that is helpful in part because our hearing is more acute to the front and to the sides, and partly because the content in the front is of greater importance. Rear surrounds, particularly, mainly contain ambient sounds and sound effects.
> 
> So, I have always favored trying to keep the mic at ear level for all but a couple of the mic positions. Another point that I made in that earlier post is that as we move the mic out away from the chair back (and I like to come forward about 20" or 22") the more the angle of incidence to the rear surrounds changes, and the better the Audyssey microphone can "see" the speakers. Those mic positions away from the chair, in conjunction with a couple of mic positions a couple of inches higher, should give the fuzzy logic weighting algorithm all of the information it needs to correctly EQ the rear surround speakers, in any case. And, I believe that technique works fine in the great majority of rooms.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yeah I have been staying inside the 2 ft rule which gives me a nice bubble that contains the main two listening positions. I will probably try starting 4" out at ear height on my next run for the primary spot then ear height on the forward spots, and up a little for the rear spots near the seat backs. Also will be doing the blanket since my 4 home theater seats are all leather. Should I restrict the blanket to directly at the listening position being measured? And how thick of a blanket are we talking here of what is needed to drape over the seating?


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> Yeah I have been staying inside the 2 ft rule which gives me a nice bubble that contains the main two listening positions. I will probably try starting 4" out at ear height on my next run for the primary spot then ear height on the forward spots, and up a little for the rear spots near the seat backs. Also will be doing the blanket since my 4 home theater seats are all leather. Should I restrict the blanket to directly at the listening position being measured? And how thick of a blanket are we talking here of what is needed to drape over the seating?


I try to keep the Audyssey mic about 18" away from any hard or smooth surfaces, such as a leather chair. So, I drape the blanket accordingly. Something fluffy and absorbent works well for me. But, one time I had the bright idea that if a single fluffy blanket worked well, then two thick blankets would work even better. Yeah, that theory doesn't work with hot sauce, either.  

Doubling the thick blankets actually interfered with the way that Audyssey was hearing mid-range frequencies and caused some over-boosting (harshness) in that range. For the same reason, I always try to stay at least 4" away from the surface of the blanket. But, this is just trial-and-error really to discover what works acceptably in your specific situation.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

grendelrt said:


> Anyone read this thread?
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
> 
> Curious to see thoughts on the conclusions for Audyssey that were observed. The final conclusions are interesting,
> 
> This part really interested me, saying basically the first position should be ear height, center point between ears, even if it is below the chair back.


Even though the author sometimes uses a plural form (chair*s*), it seems that the technique he settled on for Audyssey is intended for a single individual viewing a movie or listening to music. Audyssey's advertisements always seem to show multiple seats, so an audience of more than one was probably Audyssey's target. That would seem to fit Audyssey's use of 8 mic positions and proprietary "fuzzy logic," rather than simple averaging. Solo listeners can try the author's hypotenusal  inclined plane method if they would like.

The research was posted over two years ago*; *did we ever discuss it? 

I'm glad we have a low backed couch. We planned our HT that way to allow the surrounds (slightly behind the couch, and to the sides) to be heard clearly. Even though our low backed couch is cloth covered, we used a very soft blanket over it anyway, just in case.


----------



## grendelrt

mthomas47 said:


> I try to keep the Audyssey mic about 18" away from any hard or smooth surfaces, such as a leather chair. So, I drape the blanket accordingly. Something fluffy and absorbent works well for me. But, one time I had the bright idea that if a single fluffy blanket worked well, then two thick blankets would work even better. Yeah, that theory doesn't work with hot sauce, either.
> 
> Doubling the thick blankets actually interfered with the way that Audyssey was hearing mid-range frequencies and caused some over-boosting (harshness) in that range. For the same reason, I always try to stay at least 4" away from the surface of the blanket. But, this is just trial-and-error really to discover what works acceptably in your specific situation.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thats actually really helpful though cause I have a couple small fuzzy blankets in the room I was going to use both, but I will stick to one :O



garygarrison said:


> Even though the author sometimes uses a plural form (chair*s*), it seems that the technique he settled on for Audyssey is intended for a single individual viewing a movie or listening to music. Audyssey's advertisements always seem to show multiple seats, so an audience of more than one was probably Audyssey's target. That would seem to fit Audyssey's use of 8 mic positions and proprietary "fuzzy logic," rather than simple averaging. Solo listeners can try the author's hypotenusal  inclined plane method if they would like.
> 
> The research was posted over two years ago*; *did we ever discuss it?
> 
> I'm glad we have a low backed couch. We planned our HT that way to allow the surrounds (slightly behind the couch, and to the sides) to be heard clearly. Even though our low backed couch is cloth covered, we used a very soft blanket over it anyway, just in case.


Yeah I love my HT seating, but the high backed seats add that extra PITA factor when having to decide how to work around them haha.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> I like your post on the subject very much Mike. Yet, IMHO, in the bolded part the word Audyssey may easily be substituted with MCACC or YPAO or any other room RC system, coz it's so true (as you pointed out) that the necessity of *speaker-setup issues* and *calibration technique* *issues* need always be taken into account, actually no way out. Or in other words: "there's no free lunch, eh?"


Thank you, Feri! That's a good point! I don't know as much as I would like to about some of the other RC systems, so I don't know how much calibration technique affects the final result. I would expect that technique might matter more where the automated system is doing more, but I'm not sure. I am pretty sure, though, that good set-up would yield better results with virtually any system of automated EQ.

Perhaps this is circuitous thinking to some people, but I have always felt that the fact that Audyssey reveals defects in speaker positioning, that we don't necessarily hear without Audyssey, is a good thing rather than a bad thing. Every change I ever made due to a problem that Audyssey exacerbated (and made more noticeable to me) actually resulted in better overall sound quality even without Audyssey engaged. I realize that's a YMMV sort of thing, but that was my experience.

When speakers weren't toed-in just right, for instance, Audyssey would do strange things to the sound (usually making the mid-range or high frequencies sound harsher.) When I experimented with adjusting the speaker toe-in to remove the artifacts that Audyssey had created, either the tone improved slightly, or the soundstage sounded fuller, or both. I probably wouldn't have ever noticed if Audyssey hadn't pulled my attention to those speakers. Maybe I'm just a glass half-full type, but that's how I always looked at it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gurkey

grendelrt said:


> Anyone read this thread?
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
> 
> Curious to see thoughts on the conclusions for Audyssey that were observed. The final conclusions are interesting,
> This part really interested me, saying basically the first position should be ear height, center point between ears, even if it is below the chair back.


The reason for this is rather simple. Audyssey collects a lot of its primary parameters on pos 1 (delay, level, lower frequency limit (f3)?, phase etc.) whilst the following passes are meant for collecting and setting up data and parameters for the individual correction filters. Thus pos 1 has to be spot on whilst the others are been weighted and evaluated for that main listening area which dictates a slightly different usage and handling of those positions.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you, Feri! That's a good point! I don't know as much as I would like to about some of the other RC systems, so I don't know how much calibration technique affects the final result. I would expect that technique might matter more where the automated system is doing more, but I'm not sure. I am pretty sure, though, that good set-up would yield better results with virtually any system of automated EQ.
> 
> Perhaps this is circuitous thinking to some people, but I have always felt that the fact that Audyssey reveals defects in speaker positioning, that we don't necessarily hear without Audyssey, is a good thing rather than a bad thing. Every change I ever made due to a problem that Audyssey exacerbated (and made more noticeable to me) actually resulted in better overall sound quality even without Audyssey engaged. I realize that's a YMMV sort of thing, but that was my experience.
> 
> When speakers weren't toed-in just right, for instance, Audyssey would do strange things to the sound (usually making the mid-range or high frequencies sound harsher.) When I experimented with adjusting the speaker toe-in to remove the artifacts that Audyssey had created, either the tone improved slightly, or the soundstage sounded fuller, or both. I probably wouldn't have ever noticed if Audyssey hadn't pulled my attention to those speakers. Maybe I'm just a glass half-full type, but that's how I always looked at it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


A glass half full type? I've been accused of being a glass half empty type*;* my response is usually, "Let's fill up the glass!" Sometimes this is a PITA, but OCD helps some of us fine tune things. Having good advisors like the members of this forum multiplies one's chances. I think good results are either the result of the infinite taking of pains or good luck. I think adjusting room treatments, mic positions, etc. until one's significant other(s) think you are ready to be certified is worth the effort. A little luck wouldn't hurt.

I just found my notes from my early tinkering around with Audyssey. It turns out that the reduction in deep bass imposed by Audyssey was objectively true, not just my pining away for missing bass peaks caused by room anomalies. Comparing playback with Audyssey ON to Audyssey OFF, Aud. ON cut the bass an average of 7 dB below 70 Hz, i.e., 7 dB below the 0 line, according to REW measurements I took a few years ago, before I was a forum member. Oddly, I don't have to turn up the sub a full 7 dB to get the 7 dB back -- but, because of my preference, I turn up the sub to an even higher level.

Another oddity is that music, and especially movie soundtracks, seem to sound a bit better from the side seats of our 5 seat couch (i.e., from the far left seat or the far right seat)*; *the soundstage isn't as wide, but the tonality, for want of a better term) seems slightly better. I'm quite happy with my system and Audyssey, but I still ponder these things from time to time.


----------



## gurkey

Individual handling of the measurement process is - most of the time - the name of the game because ones situation at home might not follow the general path often suggested. Some even must experiment during that process. But some knowledge about physics and acoustics usually helps ( a lot).

All common (low cost) measurement (room EQ) systems are based upon certain models of a common room. As soon as the individual room and the personal setup deviates more than a certain amount from the basic parameters set by that model it might get somewhat tricky to find an ad hoc solution. One of the main reasons why the setup guide etc. published in this thread has became so enormous and huge. Some will never make it, because of personal taste, expectations, prejudice and some not so common acoustical parameters like reverberation times. It's to be expected... 

That's nothing special for Audyssey and if you look at the other room EQ threads for YPAO, MCACC, Dirac etc. it gets not better as soon as something is "different", although many don't realize this at 1st.


----------



## ShoutingMan

drh3b said:


> Typically, the circuitry in sub woofers delays the signal a tiny bit, which makes the subwoofer appear further away to Audyssey. Don't worry about it.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> As you know, Audyssey is simply measuring timing as opposed to actual distance. Your speakers are all powered by your amplifier(s). But, as you noted, your subs have internal amplifiers with their own internal processing which is usually several milliseconds behind your AVR. Since the sounds from all your sources need to arrive at your MLP at the same time, Audyssey will typically set subwoofer distances further away in order to speed up the subwoofer sound arriving at the MLP. Your speakers are set to operate the same way. A speaker further away will actually start it's sound a millisecond or more before a speaker nearer to the MLP, so that the sounds will arrive at the same time.
> 
> It's always a good idea to raise crossover, preferably to about 80Hz, or at least to about one octave higher than the reported F3 point. In this case, that would be 80Hz.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you both! That is of course completely obvious once you state it. But I'd turned myself in a circle in what Audyssey was doing with the measurements. I have DSP amps for the subs which of course will add delay in the lines increasing their apparent distance. 

Now to scan the FAQ and see what it says about measurement approach for multi-row seating, high-ish back leather chairs, and all that good stuff


----------



## gurkey

Just to add to that.
Audyssey normally adjust the phase of both the sub(s) and the corresponding speaker at the pre-determined (-3db) lower corner frequency by adding some further delay to correct for phase differences. 
This will make the sub(s) look further way because of that additional delay. Due to the large wavelength at bass frequencies this may add up to several feet. If you need further information about this please look at the published patent literature of Audyssey. Unfortunately this will only hold true for the suggested minimum crossover frequency. If one changes that crossover frequency to his liking and to make further use of the subs capabilities you may have to fine-tune that subwoofer delay somehow to compensate for the differences, i.e. from minimum suggested 60 Hz to 80 Hz. If not, this might introduce a small (measurable) dip in the crossover region but with rather limited consequences...


----------



## grendelrt

gurkey said:


> Just to add to that.
> Audyssey normally adjust the phase of both the sub(s) and the corresponding speaker at the pre-determined (-3db) lower corner frequency by adding some further delay to correct for phase differences.
> This will make the sub(s) look further way because of that additional delay. Due to the large wavelength at bass frequencies this may add up to several feet. If you need further information about this please look at the published patent literature of Audyssey. Unfortunately this will only hold true for the suggested minimum crossover frequency. If one changes that crossover frequency to his liking and to make further use of the subs capabilities you may have to fine-tune that subwoofer delay somehow to compensate for the differences, i.e. from minimum suggested 60 Hz to 80 Hz. If not, this might introduce a small (measurable) dip in the crossover region but with rather limited consequences...


Do you feel that is you have a dip at crossover freq (measured) due to the above you should leave it be or adjust (in my case add a couple feet) to get a measurement without the dip?

Edit: My most recent audyssey measurement showing the dip at crossover, aud flat vs aud flat with sub distance +3ft


----------



## gurkey

You might try to fill a larger dip (or wiggle) by changing the subs delay somewhat and measuring / checking the resulting frequency response afterwards. This might need some experimenting to be successful. But if it's rather small I probably wouldn't bother. Thus it depends. If you want to try it, see if you can fill that appr. -6db to -7db dip. It could be the result of other causes too, but you wouldn't really know, if you didn't try...


----------



## grendelrt

gurkey said:


> You might try to fill a larger dip (or wiggle) by changing the subs delay somewhat and measuring / checking the resulting frequency response afterwards. This might need some experimenting to be successful. But if it's rather small I probably wouldn't bother. Thus it depends. If you want to try it, see if you can fill that appr. -6db to -7db dip. It could be the result of other causes too, but you wouldn't really know, if you didn't try...


Maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but I did fill the dip, red line is audyssey stock, blue line is after I changed the distance on the sub (delay). Maybe I miread your post, I thought you were saying sometimes its better to leave the dip than to mess with the settings.


----------



## mogorf

grendelrt said:


> Do you feel that is you have a dip at crossover freq (measured) due to the above you should leave it be or adjust (in my case add a couple feet) to get a measurement without the dip?
> 
> Edit: My most recent audyssey measurement showing the dip at crossover, aud flat vs aud flat with sub distance +3ft


Did you measure this at one single point (probably at the MLP) or this is a result of multi-point measurement averaged in REW?


----------



## grendelrt

mogorf said:


> Did you measure this at one single point (probably at the MLP) or this is a result of multi-point measurement averaged in REW?


I did a check from 2 other points (Seat spots) with and without the 3ft and there was less dip using the 3ft extra delay on those spots.


----------



## mogorf

grendelrt said:


> I did a check from 2 other points (Seat spots) with and without the 3ft and there was less dip using the 3ft extra delay on those spots.


If you are doing single point measurements just in order to check you will be really misguided by what REW will show you. 

Doing a multi-point measurement and averaging them in REW will bring you much closer to what is happening in your room.


----------



## mdameron

A few days ago I added a second identical sub to an older single-sub-out MultEQ AVR. I have a ton of experience with Audyssey and all the settings on this receiver. The subs are not equidistant. One is farfield, and the new one is nearfield. The subs do not have phase switches, just delay dials. They are connected via a Y adapter.

When I first received the sub, I didn't bother re-running Audyssey. I simply plugged it in and ran with it. It was obvious there were cancellations going on, as it seemed quieter with 2 than with 1. So I just added delay by ear on the NF sub until it was awesome and I was certain the house was going to fall down. 

Then I decided to run Audyssey so I could get the benefit of EQ. I first used REW to more precisely time align the NF sub and had the frequency responses summing together nicely. Then, I re-ran Audyssey, and it more than doubled the subwoofer distance I had when I only had the FF sub (from ~11' to ~24') . And, now it doesn't sound that great, with the tactile response completely gone. 

What should I try next?


----------



## mthomas47

mdameron said:


> A few days ago I added a second identical sub to an older single-sub-out MultEQ AVR. I have a ton of experience with Audyssey and all the settings on this receiver. The subs are not equidistant. One is farfield, and the new one is nearfield. The subs do not have phase switches, just delay dials. They are connected via a Y adapter.
> 
> When I first received the sub, I didn't bother re-running Audyssey. I simply plugged it in and ran with it. It was obvious there were cancellations going on, as it seemed quieter with 2 than with 1. So I just added delay by ear on the NF sub until it was awesome and I was certain the house was going to fall down.
> 
> Then I decided to run Audyssey so I could get the benefit of EQ. I first used REW to more precisely time align the NF sub and had the frequency responses summing together nicely. Then, I re-ran Audyssey, and it more than doubled the subwoofer distance I had when I only had the FF sub (from ~11' to ~24') . And, now it doesn't sound that great, with the tactile response completely gone.
> 
> What should I try next?


Hi,

In this case, if I were you, I would run Audyssey to allow it to set filters, and then I would use REW and the individual delay dials on the subs to tweak things to my satisfaction. I often hear advice to make tweaks before running Audyssey, and it's possible that it works well to do that in some cases. But, there is always the possibility that Audyssey will undo something, and particularly something related to phase or to delay, so I would try making that kind of tweak post-Audyssey.

Edit: Just to clarify something, adjusting the delay settings on the subs (or changing the sub gains) will not interfere with the control points that Audyssey set. So, you will still have the benefit of Audyssey's best efforts to smooth out peaks and valleys in the frequency response. You will simply be overlaying your own tweaks on top of the EQed response.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mdameron

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> In this case, if I were you, I would run Audyssey to allow it to set filters, and then I would use REW and the individual delay dials on the subs to tweak things to my satisfaction. I often hear advice to make tweaks before running Audyssey, and it's possible that it works well to do that in some cases. But, there is always the possibility that Audyssey will undo something, and particularly something related to phase or to delay, so I would try making that kind of tweak post-Audyssey.
> 
> Edit: Just to clarify something, adjusting the delay settings on the subs (or changing the sub gains) will not interfere with the control points that Audyssey set. So, you will still have the benefit of Audyssey's best efforts to smooth out peaks and valleys in the frequency response. You will simply be overlaying your own tweaks on top of the EQed response.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for replying.

the thing is, setting the delay on the near sub first is required for the "real" frequency response to be visible to audyssey. If I leave the delay at 0 on both subs, there are huge nulls from 30-60 hz. So then Audyssey would boost that range. But then if I were to add the delay manually after the fact, those nulls would be resolved anyway and have a huge peak. 

I'm thinking what I need to do is start over from the beginning and run Audyssey with only the far field sub on to set its "audyssey distance" in the AVR. Then run REW to set the delay knob on the near sub relative to the audyssey distance of the far sub. Then, run audyssey again with both subs on. It might not make a difference. Previously I set the delay knob on the near sub while the far sub had the default AVR distance setting.

1) Run audyssey on far sub to get a real distance setting.
2) disable multeq so no eq is applied
3) Turn on near sub, use REW to dial in near sub's delay relative to far sub.
4) re-run audyssey


----------



## Alan P

Hmmm...would this work?

Adjust the delay knob and run Audyssey until you get a distance setting in the AVR of "0" (or close to it)? Wouldn't that then be the "correct" distance knob setting??

Correct me if this is not the right way to think about it....


----------



## mthomas47

mdameron said:


> Thanks for replying.
> 
> the thing is, setting the delay on the near sub first is required for the "real" frequency response to be visible to audyssey. If I leave the delay at 0 on both subs, there are huge nulls from 30-60 hz. So then Audyssey would boost that range. But then if I were to add the delay manually after the fact, those nulls would be resolved anyway and have a huge peak.
> 
> I'm thinking what I need to do is start over from the beginning and run Audyssey with only the far field sub on to set its "audyssey distance" in the AVR. Then run REW to set the delay knob on the near sub relative to the audyssey distance of the far sub. Then, run audyssey again with both subs on. It might not make a difference. Previously I set the delay knob on the near sub while the far sub had the default AVR distance setting.
> 
> 1) Run audyssey on far sub to get a real distance setting.
> 2) disable multeq so no eq is applied
> 3) Turn on near sub, use REW to dial in near sub's delay relative to far sub.
> 4) re-run audyssey


You are very welcome! I don't know whether the specific method you are outlining will work or not. I think that some of this just has to be a trial-and-error process. What I am saying, though, is that you simply need to do whatever is necessary for Audyssey to run its calibration process. If that means setting delays first, so be it. But, after Audyssey has run, be prepared to redo that delay setting procedure using REW, and listening to the result. The changes you make to the delays and to the sub gains, post-calibration, will not affect the control points that Audyssey's set. So, you can have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## David Aiken

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...would this work?
> 
> Adjust the delay knob and run Audyssey until you get a distance setting in the AVR of "0" (or close to it)? Wouldn't that then be the "correct" distance knob setting??
> 
> Correct me if this is not the right way to think about it....


Won't work. Audyssey doesn't measure distance, it measures the time delay between its test tone and the mic return. That delay in microseconds is converted to a distance using a value for the speed of sound. If you adjust the delay knob on the sub, all you can do is dial in more delay than the delay already occurring due to distance and the sub's internal circuitry. You can never get Audyssey to deliver a distance setting of 0 unless you stick the mic right in front of the sub's driver and the other data measuered is then going to be useless plus the time delay setting is going to be off.


----------



## Tyrindor

I've been using audyssey for years and I can't really recommend it anymore unless you are thoroughly testing the results with REW. It just doesn't work right half the time and sometimes causes larger problems regardless of mic position, sofa, and speaker/sub placement. I've been messing with my new dedicated HT setup for days now. I'd consider myself pretty experienced in this field, but Audyssey keeps making things worse.

Red/Purple = no audyssey
Green = audyssey XT32

Audyssey smooths out some minor problems in the low end, but creates a major problem at 40hz. Even the PEQ on my subs can't fix the 40hz dip it creates. You aren't going to notice a -/+ 5DB difference in real content, but you will notice a -20db null at 40hz, so I am just giving up on Audyssey unless someone has any tips on fixing this issue. It sounds fantastic without it enabled and it does basically nothing noticeable 400hz and above.

I am in a fully treated 23x17x10 room (about 35% coverage), so I'd imagine that's why audyssey doesn't need to do much. To my eyes, the non-audyssey seems good. Audyssey produces better results in the 60-200hz range, so if I can fix it from creating that dip then that'd be preferred.


----------



## garygarrison

Tyrindor said:


> I've been using audyssey for years and I can't really recommend it anymore unless you are thoroughly testing the results with REW. It just doesn't work right half the time and sometimes causes larger problems regardless of mic position, sofa, and speaker/sub placement. I've been messing with my new dedicated HT setup for days now. I'd consider myself pretty experienced in this field, but Audyssey keeps making things worse.
> 
> Red/Purple = no audyssey
> Green = audyssey XT32
> 
> Audyssey smooths out some minor problems in the low end, but creates a major problem at 40hz. Even the PEQ on my subs can't fix the 40hz dip it creates. You aren't going to notice a -/+ 5DB difference in real content, but you will notice a -20db null at 40hz, so I am just giving up on Audyssey unless someone has any tips on fixing this issue. It sounds fantastic without it enabled and it does basically nothing noticeable 400hz and above.
> 
> I am in a fully treated 23x17x10 room (about 35% coverage), so I'd imagine that's why audyssey doesn't need to do much. To my eyes, the non-audyssey seems good. Audyssey produces better results in the 60-200hz range, so if I can fix it from creating that dip then that'd be preferred.


I wonder what Audyssey is reacting to that causes that 40 Hz dip? Or could it be an artifact of using fewer mic positions for REW than for Audyssey? Can your REW mic be in a 40Hz null? Are you using just one mic position when you run REW, or are you using the same number and location with your calibrated mic as you use with the Audyssey mic, and averaging them? I think Chris K. of Audyssey advocates a more complex RMS way of simulating Audyssey results with REW. My tentative understanding is that there is a big difference between using a few mic positions and using the full Hateful Eight in some rooms, and not in others.

If all the listening is going to be done from one or two seats, have you tried clustering the mic positions within that small area, rather than spreading them out? 

Since you have used Audyssey for years, did it perform better in former rooms than it does in your new HT? 

I agree that Audyssey seems to improve response between 60 to 200, but it also seems to help between 4K and 9K. In my set-up, one of the biggest improvements is Audyssey knocking down a broad peak centered at about 8K. Clarity and smoothness seem much improved.

My "problem" [it's not really much of a problem] in my room (25 x 16.75 x an average of 10.16 feet for the ceiling which is sloped up toward the back) is the opposite of yours*; *I have a broad peak at 40 Hz when measured from the MLA, but not so much at other mic positions.


----------



## Tyrindor

garygarrison said:


> I wonder what Audyssey is reacting to that causes that 40 Hz dip? Or could it be an artifact of using fewer mic positions for REW than for Audyssey? Can your REW mic be in a 40Hz null? Are you using just one mic position when you run REW, or are you using the same number and location with your calibrated mic as you use with the Audyssey mic, and averaging them? I think Chris K. of Audyssey advocates a more complex RMS way of simulating Audyssey results with REW. My tentative understanding is that there is a big difference between using a few mic positions and using the full Hateful Eight in some rooms, and not in others.
> 
> If all the listening is going to be done from one or two seats, have you tried clustering the mic positions within that small area, rather than spreading them out?
> 
> Since you have used Audyssey for years, did it perform better in former rooms than it does in your new HT?
> 
> I agree that Audyssey seems to improve response between 60 to 200, but it also seems to help between 4K and 9K. In my set-up, one of the biggest improvements is Audyssey knocking down a broad peak centered at about 8K. Clarity and smoothness seem much improved.
> 
> My "problem" [it's not really much of a problem] in my room (25 x 16.75 x an average of 10.16 feet for the ceiling which is sloped up toward the back) is the opposite of yours*; *I have a broad peak at 40 Hz when measured from the MLA, but not so much at other mic positions.


Audyssey and REW mics are setup in the exact same spot using a tripod. I used one mic position for that specific test, but I moved the mic around that area doing ~6 other readings afterwards and there was no difference. I only care about the MLP so my 8 audyssey mic positions are closely cluster as you described. In past rooms, audyssey has been a hit or miss for me. This is the first room i've had that is this flat without any calibration, so audyssey has to do it's job more to improve upon that.

Maybe next weekend I will mess with it more.


----------



## shoeboo

Tyrindor said:


> Audyssey and REW mics are setup in the exact same spot using a tripod. I used one mic position for that specific test, but I moved the mic around that area doing ~6 other readings afterwards and there was no difference. I only care about the MLP so my 8 audyssey mic positions are closely cluster as you described. In past rooms, audyssey has been a hit or miss for me. This is the first room i've had that is this flat without any calibration, so audyssey has to do it's job more to improve upon that.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe next weekend I will mess with it more.




What crossover are you using?


----------



## Tyrindor

shoeboo said:


> What crossover are you using?


80hz on everything. Audyssey sets my fronts to Large but I change them to Small/80hz since I have dual PB13 Ultra subs.

If I had to guess why this is happening, Audyssey is likely trying to tame that mild 50hz peak and in doing so creates a large null in the 40hz range. This is why i've always wondered why Audyssey doesn't test it's corrections and fine tune them further. It guesses, and sometimes it guesses really wrong because it's impossible for the software to know the results of an EQ tweak without measuring again afterwards.

It takes literally _forever_ to do 8 audyssey positions with 7.2.4 setup, so I'll try to work on it further this next weekend. I don't see why it'd be any different though, I can't imagine it picked up background noise or anything. I put the mic on a tripod, and I leave the room completely before running each test. My noise floor in the room at the time was only 21-23dB which is absurdly quiet.


----------



## mogorf

Tyrindor said:


> Audyssey and REW mics are setup in the exact same spot using a tripod. I used one mic position for that specific test, but I moved the mic around that area doing ~6 other readings afterwards and there was no difference. I only care about the MLP so my 8 audyssey mic positions are closely cluster as you described. In past rooms, audyssey has been a hit or miss for me. This is the first room i've had that is this flat without any calibration, so audyssey has to do it's job more to improve upon that.
> 
> Maybe next weekend I will mess with it more.


Did you do the averaging of REW readings as Gary suggested?


----------



## Tyrindor

mogorf said:


> Did you do the averaging of REW readings as Gary suggested?


The chart was the center of the MLP on a tripod. I then moved the mic a foot in each direction around that and they were all the exact same results in the 0-200hz range. A +/- 1dB difference on a couple frequencies, so averaging them would pretty much look the same. The 40hz dip was the same in each result.

These are the same mic positions I use for Audyssey too, since I really only care about the main listening position. My only guess is it is trying to tame 50hz, and wrecks 40hz in the process. This weekend I will try to use the PEQ on my subs to tame the 50hz peak before running audyssey and see if it still happens. Also, if I turn the phase control to 180 on both my subs AFTER running audyssey, the 40hz dip is mostly fixed. If I run Audyssey again with phase 180, the dip comes back. Hope it's not a faulty mic or something.

Overall though, my non-calibrated result seems flatter than 99% of rooms I think? Not in a huge rush to fix minor problems that I may not notice in real content. Leaving audyssey off might not be a terrible idea, I don't use DyanmicEQ anymore because the new HT is soundproof and I basically watch everything at reference (or very near it) anyway. :devil:


----------



## mthomas47

Tyrindor said:


> The chart was the center of the MLP on a tripod. I then moved the mic a foot in each direction around that and they were all the exact same results in the 0-200hz range. A +/- 1dB difference on a couple frequencies, so averaging them would pretty much look the same. The 40hz dip was the same in each result.
> 
> These are the same mic positions I use for Audyssey too, since I really only care about the main listening position. My only guess is it is trying to tame 50hz, and wrecks 40hz in the process. This weekend I will try to use the PEQ on my subs to tame the 50hz peak before running audyssey and see if it still happens. Also, if I turn the phase control to 180 on both my subs AFTER running audyssey, the 40hz dip is mostly fixed. If I run Audyssey again with phase 180, the dip comes back. Hope it's not a faulty mic or something.
> 
> Overall though, my non-calibrated result seems flatter than 99% of rooms I think? Not in a huge rush to fix minor problems that I may not notice in real content. Leaving audyssey off might not be a terrible idea, I don't use DyanmicEQ anymore because the new HT is soundproof and I basically watch everything at reference (or very near it) anyway. :devil:


Hi,

I'm sorry that XT-32 seems to be introducing a big dip at about 40Hz, and I can't account for it. XT-32 has 4096 control points (taps) available to the .1 channel, though, which allows for fairly precise adjustments to the frequency response. I am having a hard time believing that Audyssey aimed at 50Hz and hit 40Hz instead. But, I don't have another explanation to suggest.

Presumably your subs are already in the best positions you can put them before Audyssey attempts to EQ the response? I ask because I see a lot of peaks and valleys above 50Hz, both with and without Audyssey. Room treatments certainly help, but below about 120Hz it takes fairly thick bass traps, and perhaps a lot of them, to have a very significant effect on the FR.

To your point of just leaving Audyssey off, though, I think that is always an option with any version of Audyssey. Measurements notwithstanding, I think that our ears need to be the final judge of what Audyssey is doing. For instance, I have fairly extensive bass trapping (among other treatments) in my large room. The good news is that I have excellent bass reinforcement and low frequency containment in the room. The bad news is that the irregular geometry in the room creates a lot of peaks and dips which I just can't tame without room correction.

The other day, I decided to experiment with some things again, and tried turning XT-32 off for the first time in a while. My bass below about 80Hz or 100Hz sounded very occluded without Audyssey. After becoming used to a clearer sound, that boomier sound is just unlistenable to me. Irrespective of other portions of the frequency range (and Audyssey also helps with my mid-range frequencies, and doesn't adversely affect my treble) I would use Audyssey solely for the mid-bass frequencies and below.

But, that is the bottom line for me. If you can't hear a difference with Audyssey on, then it doesn't matter whether it's on or not. If the sound is definitely better with it off, and you are convinced that you can't improve it with further experimentation, then just leave Audyssey off.  

I wish I could offer some additional trouble-shooting suggestions, but other than initial subwoofer placement, I can't think of any.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## gurkey

Wasn't XT32 using > 10.000 (10.240 to be exact; 512 *20) control points for each channel as being published by Audyssey ?


----------



## mthomas47

gurkey said:


> Wasn't XT32 using > 10.000 (10.240 to be exact; 512 *20) control points for each channel as being published by Audyssey ?


They never specified a number. Their charts always showed that XT-32 had 512 times "X", with X being 2EQ. But, they never told us what X was. My own speculation about X had been that the earliest version of Audyssey was similar to a parametric filter, with anywhere from 8 to 12 control points per channel. A couple of years ago someone on an audio theory thread looked up the specific chip that XT-32 uses (I believe he looked at the patent) and found that it has 4096 control points per filter (channel). That number corresponds well to previous speculation that 2EQ would have had about 8 to 12 taps, as 4096 / 512 = 8.


----------



## bmcn

_Audyssey MultEQ® XT32 is the most advanced and accurate room correction solution to remove acoustical distortion. It uses equalization filters with more than ten thousand individual control points..._

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chriskyriakakis


----------



## mthomas47

bmcn said:


> _Audyssey MultEQ® XT32 is the most advanced and accurate room correction solution to remove acoustical distortion. It uses equalization filters with more than ten thousand individual control points..._
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/chriskyriakakis


That corresponds to what Keith put in the FAQ. I'm just not sure that it is correct. Of course, depending on how you interpreted what Chris said, several filters (at 4096 control points per filter) would add up to more than 10,000.

I'm not sure how much effort we want to put into this issue, anyway though, when it comes to the subwoofer channel. Even if we assume that XT-32 is EQing every individual frequency from 200Hz (or 400Hz if any subwoofers can make meaningful sounds that high) down to 10Hz, it is difficult for me to understand how the algorithm could use more control points than there are individual frequencies to control. (400 - 10 = 390.) So, it seems to me that for the .1 channel, whether there were 10,000 taps, or "only" 4096, XT-32 would only be able to use a fraction of the number of control points available to it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bmcn

mthomas47 said:


> ...So, it seems to me that for the .1 channel, whether there were 10,000 taps, or "only" 4096, XT-32 would only be able to use a fraction of the number of control points available to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Haven't seen that claim in more recent publications, and it appears to be presented as a total; could be marketing hokum. Not to quibble, frequencies, similar to any numerator x-0, are divisible.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> That corresponds to what Keith put in the FAQ. I'm just not sure that it is correct. Of course, depending on how you interpreted what Chris said, several filters (at 4096 control points per filter) would add up to more than 10,000.
> 
> I'm not sure how much effort we want to put into this issue, anyway though, when it comes to the subwoofer channel. Even if we assume that XT-32 is EQing every individual frequency from 200Hz (or 400Hz if any subwoofers can make meaningful sounds that high) down to 10Hz, it is difficult for me to understand how the algorithm could use more control points than there are individual frequencies to control. (400 - 10 = 390.) So, it seems to me that for the .1 channel, whether there were 10,000 taps, or "only" 4096, XT-32 would only be able to use a fraction of the number of control points available to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I think you're counting 20 Hz, 21 Hz, 22 Hz and up as individual frequencies but those frequencies aren't the only frequencies. 20.1 Hz is a different frequency to 20 Hz, and 20.15 Hz is a different frequency to 20.1 Hz and so on. There's way more frequencies between 20 Hz and 200 Hz than you're thinking of, in fact there's an infinite number of frequencies within the range.

Having said that, there's also only 3 and a half octaves or so between 20 Hz and 200 Hz and that only amounts to 42 or so notes of the musical scale but that number needs to get multiplied a few times since there are several different tuning standards in existence. Everyone thinks of A= 440 Hz for the tuning standard but period instruments for baroque and renaissance classical music use a couple of other standards with A tuned lower and there are also modern orchestras using a couple of higher tuned standards. If there are 181 exact "x.0" frequencies between 20 Hz and 200 Hz, there's probably more than 200 musical note pitches in use between 20 Hz and 200 Hz because of the different tuning standards in use. Of course, when you start to look at instruments like the double bass and cello and trombone which allow the player to glide their pitch smoothly between different notes, and that is actually done at times, you could also say that there are an infinite number of musical pitches between any two adjacent notes of the musical scale, just as there are an infinite number of frequencies.

I don't think counting frequencies or musical pitches within a given frequency range is the way to look at what may be needed in tap points for room correction.

I learnt the start of my very basic understanding of room acoustics from Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics". In it he refers to a study which showed that an empty Coke bottle, acting as a Helmholtz resonator, absorbs 5.9 Sabins at its resonant frequency of 185 Hz but that the absorption has a bandwidth between +/- 3 dB points of only 0.67 Hz. If you are going to try to correct for deviations like that in a room response then you may have to have correction points at intervals of less than 1 Hz in order to make a smooth response. Most room problems have much wider bandwidths than that and I also can't see many rooms having several problems as narrowly defined as the absorption suckout from a Coke bottle but correcting for a deviation in room response like that might require several tap points within a fairly narrow frequency band so I suspect that more tap points might be required for low frequency room correction than we think.

Even so, like you I find it difficult to see how as many as 4096 tap points could be used to correct the .1 channel, though I can understand why a lot more tap points may be needed than we might initially think.


Addition: I just realised that someone may read the above and object that we tend not to correct for dips but only for peaks. That's true, but we correct for peaks by adding dips and some physical correction is done using Helmholtz resonators designed and tuned to absorb a peak at a specific frequency. Tailoring an electronic correction that reproduces the correction achieved by a precisely tuned Helmholtz resonator may actually require more than a single tap point. Several tap points may be required to correct for a single peak so looking at a room response curve with x number of points requiring correction may well require the use of several times that number of tap points given that the correction has to be tailored to produce a smooth response and the deviations being corrected may not be symmetrical in behaviour around their nominal frequency.


----------



## Tyrindor

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm sorry that XT-32 seems to be introducing a big dip at about 40Hz, and I can't account for it. XT-32 has 4096 control points (taps) available to the .1 channel, though, which allows for fairly precise adjustments to the frequency response. I am having a hard time believing that Audyssey aimed at 50Hz and hit 40Hz instead. But, I don't have another explanation to suggest.
> 
> Presumably your subs are already in the best positions you can put them before Audyssey attempts to EQ the response? I ask because I see a lot of peaks and valleys above 50Hz, both with and without Audyssey. Room treatments certainly help, but below about 120Hz it takes fairly thick bass traps, and perhaps a lot of them, to have a very significant effect on the FR.
> 
> To your point of just leaving Audyssey off, though, I think that is always an option with any version of Audyssey. Measurements notwithstanding, I think that our ears need to be the final judge of what Audyssey is doing. For instance, I have fairly extensive bass trapping (among other treatments) in my large room. The good news is that I have excellent bass reinforcement and low frequency containment in the room. The bad news is that the irregular geometry in the room creates a lot of peaks and dips which I just can't tame without room correction.
> 
> The other day, I decided to experiment with some things again, and tried turning XT-32 off for the first time in a while. My bass below about 80Hz or 100Hz sounded very occluded without Audyssey. After becoming used to a clearer sound, that boomier sound is just unlistenable to me. Irrespective of other portions of the frequency range (and Audyssey also helps with my mid-range frequencies, and doesn't adversely affect my treble) I would use Audyssey solely for the mid-bass frequencies and below.
> 
> But, that is the bottom line for me. If you can't hear a difference with Audyssey on, then it doesn't matter whether it's on or not. If the sound is definitely better with it off, and you are convinced that you can't improve it with further experimentation, then just leave Audyssey off.
> 
> I wish I could offer some additional trouble-shooting suggestions, but other than initial subwoofer placement, I can't think of any.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I have quite a lot of 6 inch 2x4ft traps around the room, and the corners are completely covered with GIK tri traps. Overall I have about 35% wall coverage, and 80% of it is 6 inch panels. The remaining 20% of it is 4 inch panels.

Wonder if this is the cause. It's weird to me that 25-40hz has almost zero ringing, the exact spot Audyssey causes the wide dip in. Then some pretty large ringing in the 50+ areas. Perhaps I need to find tune my sub placement more.


----------



## Alan P

Tyrindor said:


> I have quite a lot of 6 inch 2x4ft traps around the room, and the corners are completely covered with GIK tri traps. Overall I have about 35% wall coverage, and 80% of it is 6 inch panels. The remaining 20% of it is 4 inch panels.
> 
> Wonder if this is the cause. It's weird to me that 25-40hz has almost zero ringing, the exact spot Audyssey causes the wide dip in. Then some pretty large ringing in the 50+ areas. Perhaps I need to find tune my sub placement more.


With all of those treatments, I am quite surprised that your bass response is so poor pre-Audyssey. Have you exhausted all subwoofer placement options to try and flatten the response a bit more before presenting it to Audyssey?

A tripod is not the best support to use for the Audyssey mic...inevitably, at least one leg is sitting on top of a piece of furniture. Depending on the resonant frequency of said furniture, this can sometimes effect the Audyssey measurements...sometimes quite severely. I would suggest investing in a boom mic stand instead.

Lastly, it _could _be a bad Audyssey mic.


----------



## Tyrindor

Alan P said:


> With all of those treatments, I am quite surprised that your bass response is so poor pre-Audyssey. Have you exhausted all subwoofer placement options to try and flatten the response a bit more before presenting it to Audyssey?
> 
> A tripod is not the best support to use for the Audyssey mic...inevitably, at least one leg is sitting on top of a piece of furniture. Depending on the resonant frequency of said furniture, this can sometimes effect the Audyssey measurements...sometimes quite severely. I would suggest investing in a boom mic stand instead.
> 
> Lastly, it _could _be a bad Audyssey mic.


I tried both subs in front corners, 1/4 out from front corners, opposite corners, and one sub center on backwall with another sub in the front in various places. I haven't tried to the left and right of sofa because it won't work in this setup. Every position I try has the same problem on the waterfall, which makes me believe that's whats confusing audyssey. I don't really know what to do at this point, I spent a LOT of money on treatment and building this dedicated HT room. 23x17x10 should be good dimensions with little problems. 

Another problem I am having is moving the subs around gets WIDELY different results until I run audyssey once and it sets the delays. Should I just set delays to 0 and find the best spots? My current method is pretty tedious. Move subs, run audyssey once to get delays correct, turn it off to see response. Dual subs in a pain in the butt. 

Also I have a dip right at crossover (80hz), and nothing I do fixes it. I tried moving the mic forward and backward 1-2 feet, adjusting the phases on the subs, and also adjusting the delays +/- 10 feet in 1 foot increments. Nothing fixes that crossover dip...

Here's both subs in the front corners 1/4 off the side walls.... Same story despite vastly different positions. Dark green is audyssey off. What on earth could cause 25-40hz to have zero ringing, then 50-80 to have tons? That doesn't make sense to me given this much treatment.


----------



## Tyrindor

My theory appears to have been correct. Using the PEQ on my subs I turned down 50hz with a 5.7 Q filter range by -12dB. This was the result after audyssey. To test if it was a fluke, I reset the PEQ on my subs and re-ran audyssey and the problem returned. Exact same mic positions. This is very baffling that this worked, this more or less proves audyssey was bugging out in my room and turning down the wrong frequencies...?

Everything here looks very good to my eyes, other than the dip after the 80hz crossover.


----------



## Tyrindor

Here's the results after fine tweaking the sub distance setting to fix that crossover phase problem. Seems... good to me?

My friend has the same audyssey mic model #, so he will be bringing his mic this weekend just to compare results with my mic.


----------



## garygarrison

Tyrindor said:


> Here's the results after fine tweaking the sub distance setting to fix that crossover phase problem. Seems... good to me?
> 
> My friend has the same audyssey mic model #, so he will be bringing his mic this weekend just to compare results with my mic.


Much, Much better! Congratulations!

There is no reason why your room shouldn't sound fine, with all your treatments, so I'm glad you finally got good results. Your room proportions fit in Bolt's contour (just barely, but in, nonetheless). I know it is verboten to think about "magic proportions" nowadays, other than avoiding a square or a cube, but yours are in the zone, so your eigentons should be happy.. So, good treatments, good proportions, and Audyssey no longer confused -- who could ask fir anything more?


----------



## Tyrindor

garygarrison said:


> Much, Much better! Congratulations!
> 
> There is no reason why your room shouldn't sound fine, with all your treatments, so I'm glad you finally got good results. Your room proportions fit in Bolt's contour (just barely, but in, nonetheless). I know it is verboten to think about "magic proportions" nowadays, other than avoiding a square or a cube, but yours are in the zone, so your eigentons should be happy.. So, good treatments, good proportions, and Audyssey no longer confused -- who could ask fir anything more?



Thanks. Here's 5 positions averaged (one dead center of MLP, and 4 about 6" around it). It suffers a little bit over the above 1 mic position but overall seems pretty good? More or less +/- 5dB with a few mild exceptions. 

Part of me wants to keep going and try to get it better by inching my subs/sofa around, but then I'm always afraid i'll do something and never get it as good again, lol.


----------



## Sachb

pbarach said:


> Dynamic Volume is compressing the dynamic range of your music. Listen that way if you like, but for me it's the opposite of what I want when I listen to music.
> 
> Dynamic Volume is handy when you can't hear the dialogue clearly because you have the volume turned down in order not to have your ears blown out or your neighbors disturbed by explosive sound effects. That's the only time I use it.


Ya but it also increases the Volume even if you're listening at lower volumes. I feel Dynamic EQ is not much of a help as it increases Bass and treble leaving behind the Mid range. This feature of Audyssey is almost useless. Without mid range one cannot enjoy the warmth of a music.


----------



## gurkey

mthomas47 said:


> That corresponds to what Keith put in the FAQ. I'm just not sure that it is correct. Of course, depending on how you interpreted what Chris said, several filters (at 4096 control points per filter) would add up to more than 10,000.
> 
> I'm not sure how much effort we want to put into this issue, anyway though, when it comes to the subwoofer channel. Even if we assume that XT-32 is EQing every individual frequency from 200Hz (or 400Hz if any subwoofers can make meaningful sounds that high) down to 10Hz, it is difficult for me to understand how the algorithm could use more control points than there are individual frequencies to control. (400 - 10 = 390.) So, it seems to me that for the .1 channel, whether there were 10,000 taps, or "only" 4096, XT-32 would only be able to use a fraction of the number of control points available to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I have read that number (>10,000) numerous times from Chris K and others even relating that to each filter (per channel) in my understanding.
As far as I understood this, each channel got just one single filter constructed of up to 10,000 control points depending on the number of problems found. In relation to the frequency range the time window (task cycle) for each section varies: low frequencies => slow, higher frequencies => faster. 
This has been provided as an argument that the jump from MultEQ XT to XT32 has made the large increase of control points possible without needing a lot more DSP-bandwidth.

What I found in addition is this:



> *Flavors of MultEQ*
> Audyssey room correction technology comes in four solutions: MultEQ XT32, MultEQ XT, MultEQ and 2EQ. While they are all built on the same core science, each is designed to operate within the constraints of the available DSP processing power.
> 
> *MultEQ XT32
> *Our newest and most accurate room correction solution with *more than ten thousand individual control points* allowing finer details of the room’s problems to be captured and corrected. The ultra high resolution filters are applied to all channels including the subwoofers, with the most obvious benefit being heard in the low frequency range where correction is needed the most.
> *MultEQ XT*
> Our advanced resolution room correction solution with high resolution equalization filters for satellites and subwoofers. Most products with MultEQ XT are installer-ready and can be calibrated by an Audyssey Registered Installer to provide even higher performance for even the most demanding large or odd-shaped rooms.
> *MultEQ*
> Our standard resolution room correction solution that uses mid-level resolution filters for satellites and subwoofers.
> *2EQ*
> Our basic resolution room correction solution that uses basic resolution filters for the satellites, but does not apply a filter to the subwoofers.
> 
> *MultEQ Comparison Chart*
> Features *MultEQ XT32 MultEQ XT **MultEQ 2EQ*
> Filter resolution (satellites) 512x 16x 2x x
> Filter resolution (subwoofer) 512x 128x 128x N/A
> Number of Measurement Positions 8* 8* 6 3
> Adaptive Low Frequency Correction Yes Yes Yes N/A
> Crossover, Polarity, Delays, Levels Yes Yes Yes Yes




Note: some formatting got lost somehow in that quote above...

The number of control points mentioned (>10,000) plus the multiplier (512) for XT32 got me to that calculation, because 20 * 512 = 10,240 (>10,000) is the nearest value I arrived at.


----------



## Alan P

Tyrindor said:


> Here's the results after fine tweaking the sub distance setting to fix that crossover phase problem. Seems... good to me?
> 
> My friend has the same audyssey mic model #, so he will be bringing his mic this weekend just to compare results with my mic.


Happy to see you got it sorted! That is a very nice looking graph...BUT, how does it SOUND??


----------



## bmcn

gurkey said:


> I have read that number (>10,000) numerous times from Chris K and others even relating that to each filter (per channel) in my understanding...


Kudos for raising a valid point.


----------



## Tyrindor

Alan P said:


> Happy to see you got it sorted! That is a very nice looking graph...BUT, how does it SOUND??


I generally prefer having both subs up front being it's more "in your face" especially for music. In my old room I tried all those recommended dual sub positions, and I could always isolate the sub in the back even with a 80hz crossover. So far not having that problem in this much larger ~3900 CU room. However, in this larger room both subs up front really doesn't give even bass unless I move the sofa too close to the front.

My waterfall I think is the biggest problem. I reposted my waterfall from the previous posts since the decay times are virtually the same even with the good frequency sweep. There's gotta be a reason why audyssey was doing what it was doing, and I think my decay times is what confused it. I can hear 25-40hz decay faster than 40-80hz in some scenes because it's decay time is like 3-4 times longer, but that's mainly because I know what I am listening for and I have super sensitive ears. 99% would never notice...

I will likely get some bass panels that target the 40-80hz range, but I really risk over deadening the room. Honestly the room already might be a bit too dead with ~160ms decay times, and 90hz+. 35% coverage is a lot of absorption. There might be a way to re-arrange my panels and deaden some of that without getting more panels. Best way to do that is to play some 50-70hz waves and walk around the room I'd imagine?

Whats the ideal decay time for


----------



## Alan P

^^^

If I was you, I would continue this conversation in the REW thread. But...

Passive bass traps that will effect


----------



## gurkey

Most DIY Helmholtz resonators are hard to tune for the exact frequency they had been designed for originally for one reason or another.
Another alternative would be a D(ouble) B(ass) A(rray) - DBA, which solves the same problems in a completely different way by "killing" the resonances (room modes) through interference.


----------



## Tyrindor

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> If I was you, I would continue this conversation in the REW thread. But...
> 
> Passive bass traps that will effect


----------



## Alan P

^^^

WF definitely looks better at 450ms, but you have something strange going on from 40-60hz which looks like a phase issue to me. You still haven't said what subs you are using, and I have a couple more questions:

- Are your speakers set to "small"?
- Where are your crossovers set?
- Have you time-aligned the subs to each other?
- Have you time-aligned the subs to the mains (i.e. "Sub Distance Tweak")?
- Are you in the US or in Europe?


----------



## Tyrindor

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> WF definitely looks better at 450ms, but you have something strange going on from 40-60hz which looks like a phase issue to me. You still haven't said what subs you are using, and I have a couple more questions:
> 
> - Are your speakers set to "small"?
> - Where are your crossovers set?
> - Have you time-aligned the subs to each other?
> - Have you time-aligned the subs to the mains (i.e. "Sub Distance Tweak")?
> - Are you in the US or in Europe?


It's in the previous post, dual SVS PB13 ultras.

Yes
80hz
I'm not really sure how to properly time allign. I run audyssey, which causes the common dip at crossover, I then randomly increase and decrease the sub distances until the dip is fixed. I think I am at +3 and +4 feet on the subs to fix the dip, which was a tweak suggested to me in the past. If I don't do it, the setup sounds significantly worse with rock music. Should I adjust both subs distances the same?
US

Subs are at 0 phase, and I did have to turn 50hz down by -12dB on each subs PEQ in order for audyssey to stop screwing everything up. I do not know what could possibly be causing any phase issues in that range, perhaps my room dimensions just boost those frequencies a lot. I see the same results no matter where I put the subs or mic.

Exact room dimensions are 22' 2" x 16' 8" x 10' 2". Sofa is centered, 9 feet from back wall 13 feet from front wall. Completely sealed room.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Ooops, sorry I missed you listing your subs.

Are you using Audyssey XT32 then? If so, it should time-align the subs to each other without issue.

When performing the sub distance tweak, you do indeed want to add/subtract distance equally on both subs so that the subs stay aligned with each other. With the SDT, you are aligning the entire sub "system" with the Mains and/or Center channel.

Here is the long version.

And here is a condensed version:


Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
Add to the sub distance setting (both subs equally if using an AVR with dual sub calibration) in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
Re-measure
Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


----------



## Tyrindor

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Ooops, sorry I missed you listing your subs.
> 
> Are you using Audyssey XT32 then? If so, it should time-align the subs to each other without issue.
> 
> When performing the sub distance tweak, you do indeed want to add/subtract distance equally on both subs so that the subs stay aligned with each other. With the SDT, you are aligning the entire sub "system" with the Mains and/or Center channel.
> 
> Here is the long version.
> 
> And here is a condensed version:
> 
> 
> Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
> Add to the sub distance setting (both subs equally if using an AVR with dual sub calibration) in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
> Re-measure
> Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
> You can repeat the process with the L/R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


Yes, those results are XT32 with +4 feet on Sub1 and +3 feet on Sub2 adjustments. I will set them both to +3, might be the phase issue you are seeing. I did L/R+subs, but your reasoning to do CC+subs makes sense, i'll probably go back over it in the near future.

Overall, I think I can call this good enough. I have a hard time imaging it could sound much better. I kind of want to tame that 50hz decay but that's $$$ and I doubt it'd even be a very noticeable improvement.


----------



## Alan P

Tyrindor said:


> Exact room dimensions are 22' 2" x 16' 8" x 10' 2". Sofa is centered, 9 feet from back wall 13 feet from front wall. Completely sealed room.


I am not the smartest when it comes to calculating room modes, but by punching your room dimensions into this calculator, I see that the wavelength at 51hz is exactly 22' 2"...that's gotta mean _something_, but like I said, I'm not sure what.


----------



## Tyrindor

Alan P said:


> I am not the smartest when it comes to calculating room modes, but by punching your room dimensions into this calculator, I see that the wavelength at 51hz is exactly 22' 2"...that's gotta mean _something_, but like I said, I'm not sure what.


In the process of building the room I measured it out and used that same calculator. I noticed that too, and wanted to go about a foot longer but that was the existing house dimension. Likely why I see a higher decay at 50hz than any other frequency.

At the end of the day, even "perfect" dimensions have problems and we end up having to treat the problems and/or EQ them out as best as we can. I think it's time to call this "good enough". It sounds great to my ears. 

Thanks for your help.


----------



## garygarrison

Tyrindor said:


> In the process of building the room I measured it out and used that same calculator. I noticed that too, and wanted to go about a foot longer but that was the existing house dimension. Likely why I see a higher decay at 50hz than any other frequency.
> 
> At the end of the day, even "perfect" dimensions have problems and we end up having to treat the problems and/or EQ them out as best as we can. I think it's time to call this "good enough". It sounds great to my ears.
> 
> Thanks for your help.


If it's good enough, it's good enough. I remember a time when people did none of this, and some had very good sound, others less so. You can always run movies and listen to music for a few years, then, perhaps revisit the issue. When I did that, I studied up a little, then said "**** it, it's good enough!" And it is.

Just don't over deaden your room.


----------



## mthomas47

Tyrindor said:


> Yes, those results are XT32 with +4 feet on Sub1 and +3 feet on Sub2 adjustments. I will set them both to +3, might be the phase issue you are seeing. I did L/R+subs, but your reasoning to do CC+subs makes sense, i'll probably go back over it in the near future.
> 
> Overall, I think I can call this good enough. I have a hard time imaging it could sound much better. I kind of want to tame that 50hz decay but that's $$$ and I doubt it'd even be a very noticeable improvement.



FWIW, it's worth, I agree with you, and Alan, and Gary, that it's time to call it a day and just enjoy things as they are. If you had an issue at 80Hz or 100Hz, I believe that it might be more noticeable. But, an issue at 50Hz is much less likely to be audible, and our brains tend to compensate pretty well for low frequency anomalies, anyway. If you had a big peak at 50Hz, it might be different, but you have already pulled that down. So, I think that things look good now, and if they also sound good, then you're all set. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## IgorZep

gurkey said:


> The number of control points mentioned (>10,000) plus the multiplier (512) for XT32 got me to that calculation, because 20 * 512 = 10,240 (>10,000) is the nearest value I arrived at.


The topic of filter resolution of different versions of Audissey and control points/taps was discussed long time ago already. You can find it here:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...hread-faq-post-51779-a-2477.html#post32016633

Basically the outcome is that 'x' is equal to 32 (effective) taps assuming the sampling frequency is 48kHz (true for all implementations of Audyssey up to today AFAIK). 'Effective' because XT32 uses multirate filters to optimize processing resources and it doesn't have as many taps as formula would suggest, but the filter resolution in the end is still as if the filter would have all the taps according to the formula (remember 'x' is the resolution constant, not the number of physical taps).


----------



## anoutsos

I have a question about volume and reference level of Dynamic EQ. I understand that the effect of DEQ decreases the closer the volume is to reference level. However, I have some recordings that have been recorded at lower volume than the rest of my music. How does Audyssey know how loud the recording is to adjust the EQ proportionally? For example, if the volume is set to reference level but the music is relatively much quieter than what DEQ expects at that volume, does it apply zero correction?


----------



## mthomas47

anoutsos said:


> I have a question about volume and reference level of Dynamic EQ. I understand that the effect of DEQ decreases the closer the volume is to reference level. However, I have some recordings that have been recorded at lower volume than the rest of my music. How does Audyssey know how loud the recording is to adjust the EQ proportionally? For example, if the volume is set to reference level but the music is relatively much quieter than what DEQ expects at that volume, does it apply zero correction?


Hi,

The way DEQ works is strictly related to your master volume. When Audyssey first calibrates your system, it does so with respect to Reference for 5.1 movies. "Reference" for the purposes of calibration means that at a master volume of 0.0, your regular channels are playing at an average volume of 85db and your .1 LFE channel is playing at an average volume of 95db, as measured at the MLP (main listening position). Then, assuming that your audio system is capable of achieving those levels, your regular channels will play any peaks up to 105db and your .1 LFE channel will play peaks up to 115db in 5.1 movies. And, all 5.1 movies are intended to have maximum peaks of 105db in the regular channels and 115db in the LFE channel, so your HT system will be in correspondence with 5.1 movie Reference at a master volume of 0.0.

DEQ was created specifically to compensate for reduced bass and treble in 5.1 movies, played at below Reference volumes, and it automatically adds boosts in accordance with its programming as you reduce your master volume below 0.0. But, since it was created specifically for Reference levels of 5.1 movies, and since music doesn't have any Reference standards, DEQ really bears no relationship at all to music listening. However, that is not to say that you might not still enjoy using it for music, or that it might not still work fine for that purpose. 

But, to answer your question, Audyssey will have no way of knowing the recording level of your music. It will simply add boost as your listening volume drops below 0.0, in accordance with its programming. Those boosts may sound just right or they may not. You may be able to make the boosts sound more appropriate, via the Reference Level Offset settings, or you may not. The use of DEQ for music and TV shows is even more a YMMV matter than it is for 5.1 movies. Some people enjoy using DEQ for everything and some don't. I suspect that it is likely to work best, for music, in situations where your listening volume is pretty constant, and DEQ's effects can be fairly constant and predictable as well.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

anoutsos said:


> I have a question about volume and reference level of Dynamic EQ. I understand that the effect of DEQ decreases the closer the volume is to reference level. However, I have some recordings that have been recorded at lower volume than the rest of my music. How does Audyssey know how loud the recording is to adjust the EQ proportionally? For example, if the volume is set to reference level but the music is relatively much quieter than what DEQ expects at that volume, does it apply zero correction?


As Mike said, there is no standard recording level for music so Audyssey cannot take it into account. DEQ is designed for use with soundtracks where there is a standard it is based on.

Having said that, in the Audyssey settings there is a setting called "Reference Level Offset" which is intended to help with playback of material which isn't mastered to the soundtrack standard. You can try experimenting with the options in that setting to see if one of them works better for you but be aware that different music recordings may require different settings, you may not find one you're happy with, and you'll need to reset the setting to the default 0 dB reference setting when you want to watch a movie.

If I remember correctly from earlier discussions of this setting here, Reference Level Offset introduces lower levels of DEQ so it is aimed at material mastered at a higher level than movie soundtracks which would mean it would make things worse for content mastered at lower levels so it may not help you at all but it is the only setting available which modifies the amount of correction DEQ applies.


----------



## garygarrison

Where is everybody?

Why would playing a certain disk turn Audyssey off? Specifically, when I run "*The Classic Film Scores of Franz Waxman" *in my OPPO player, Audyssey goes off, as does the Audyssey indicator light on my Marantz pre-pro. This results in somewhat duller sound than I'm used to, and deprives me of what may be yet another marvelous recording by K. E. Willkinson.  When I then go to Audio Adjust, I find that all mention of Audyssey is gone.

The disk is from High Definition Tape Transfers and is an imageless Blu-ray. It is a 4 channel 24bit/192KHz recording utilizing DTS-HD Master Audio. It says all that all over the box. The Marantz pre-pro's screen correctly tells me that it is playing DTS-HDMSTR. The disk was made from a discrete Quadraphonic tape from 1974.

I play multi-channel music disks frequently, on SACD, DVD-A, etc., and, of course, Blu-ray movies, all without difficulty -- and Audyssey stays on. I've had disks from HDTT before, but always on DVD-A 

Ideas?


----------



## DR_LaRRY_PEpPeR

@garygarrison, that's because the sampling rate is too high for the Audyssey processing to work with...  I know it was like that in 2009, and I was disappointed to to see recently that the situation hasn't changed. (I'm looking at the Denon X4300H people! )

If you want the Audyssey (and who wouldn't?), you would have to convert in the player to 48 kHz PCM (I don't think 96 kHz works either)...


----------



## Madmax67

DR_LaRRY_PEpPeR said:


> @garygarrison, that's because the sampling rate is too high for the Audyssey processing to work with...  I know it was like that in 2009, and I was disappointed to to see recently that the situation hasn't changed. (I'm looking at the Denon X4300H people! )
> 
> If you want the Audyssey (and who wouldn't?), you would have to convert in the player to 48 kHz PCM (I don't think 96 kHz works either)...


Page 293 and 295 of the X4300H's manual says otherwise unless I'm missing something. I'm not a high sample rate high bit guy myself. CD quality is about where I draw my diminishing returns line so this topic isn't much in my wheelhouse. I can read a manual though.


----------



## rlb

I have a Denon X3300 and recently downloaded the Audyssey MultEQ editor app to my iphone. The write up says that it will enable/disable midrange compensation to make the vocal region brighter or smoother. Would appreciate input on which of the two is the default mode if running Audyssey setup without the app.


----------



## DR_LaRRY_PEpPeR

Madmax67 said:


> Page 293 and 295 of the X4300H's manual says otherwise unless I'm missing something. I'm not a high sample rate high bit guy myself. CD quality is about where I draw my diminishing returns line so this topic isn't much in my wheelhouse. I can read a manual though.


Ahh... I haven't looked at the PDF manual yet, just the online version. Found this page I was thinking of: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4300H/NA/EN/UJDCSYmnhhjnbb.php

But I see it only says (for MultEQ XT32):

**9* This item cannot be selected when a DTS:X format with a sampling frequency of over 48 kHz is input.

So, in the case of the 4300 (and whatever earlier "family") anyway, there's only a sampling rate limit with DTS:X! I recall seeing something else that only applied to DTS:X as well...

That's cool, but I still assume @garygarrison's Marantz loses Audyssey because of the high sampling rate?


----------



## Madmax67

rlb said:


> I have a Denon X3300 and recently downloaded the Audyssey MultEQ editor app to my iphone. The write up says that it will enable/disable midrange compensation to make the vocal region brighter or smoother. Would appreciate input on which of the two is the default mode if running Audyssey setup without the app.


I believe that's Audyssey Reference .


----------



## Madmax67

DR_LaRRY_PEpPeR said:


> Ahh... I haven't looked at the PDF manual yet, just the online version. Found this page I was thinking of: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4300H/NA/EN/UJDCSYmnhhjnbb.php
> 
> But I see it only says (for MultEQ XT32):
> 
> **9* This item cannot be selected when a DTS:X format with a sampling frequency of over 48 kHz is input.
> 
> So, in the case of the 4300 (and whatever earlier "family") anyway, there's only a sampling rate limit with DTS:X! I recall seeing something else that only applied to DTS:X as well...


Ah, ok. I see what you're talking about there.



> That's cool, but I still assume @garygarrison's Marantz loses Audyssey because of the high sampling rate?


Common sense would say yes. Must be something with the higher sample rate and DTS that's too much for Audyssey to handle?


----------



## pbarach

Madmax67 said:


> Ah, ok. I see what you're talking about there.
> 
> 
> 
> Common sense would say yes. Must be something with the higher sample rate and DTS that's too much for Audyssey to handle?


Very odd; Audyssey works fine with 24/192 kHz stereo FLAC files. although I know these files are downsampled in order for Audyssey to work on them.


----------



## primetimeguy

rlb said:


> I have a Denon X3300 and recently downloaded the Audyssey MultEQ editor app to my iphone. The write up says that it will enable/disable midrange compensation to make the vocal region brighter or smoother. Would appreciate input on which of the two is the default mode if running Audyssey setup without the app.


If running without the app, midrange compensation is on for the reference curve and off for the flat curve. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## rlb

Madmax67 said:


> I believe that's Audyssey Reference .


I also believe that's true; but does Audyssey Reference include midrange compensation?


----------



## Madmax67

rlb said:


> I also believe that's true; but does Audyssey Reference include midrange compensation?


Yes it does.


----------



## mwhals

I ended up adding +5 db to my base, because Audessey 32 set the base way too low.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

mwhals said:


> I ended up adding +5 db to my base, because Audessey 32 set the base way too low.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


Almost everyone turns up their bass response after running Audyssey, especially people who playback at less than reference level, due to the lower sensitivity of the ears in the bass range at lower volume. Actually, nobody I know of on this thread habitually plays back at reference level itself. Keith and I are apparently champions in this regard, and we tend to play back at 5 dB below reference or lower. 

The Harmon people found that most people like a response curve that has the bass higher than the treble. Let Audyssey smooth out the bumps, dips, and kinks in the curve with its _hundreds_ of corrections, then turn up the bass until it reflects your preference (within reason). 

See techniques and cautions in Mike's excellent discussion of the subject at "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"


----------



## jjackkrash

Hey folks, I just installed a completely new system in the living room, 5.1.4, with in-ceiling Canton 880 overheads and Denon 4300H. I ran Audyssey twice it set the Top Front Right speaker at +12 both times, with every other speaker between -1 and -4. When I run the connection test from set-up assistant (which plays music to confirm speakers are connected), the Top Front Right is now noticeably louder than every other speaker.

Any reasons to look for why Audyssey is picking this speaker over the rest to level boost comparatively 12-16 dBs? Something is amiss. I can pull out Omni Mic to if I need to, but probably not until this weekend.


----------



## mthomas47

jjackkrash said:


> Hey folks, I just installed a completely new system in the living room, 5.1.4, with in-ceiling Canton 880 overheads and Denon 4300H. I ran Audyssey twice it set the Top Front Right speaker at +12 both times, with every other speaker between -1 and -4. When I run the connection test from set-up assistant (which plays music to confirm speakers are connected), the Top Front Right is now noticeably louder than every other speaker.
> 
> Any reasons to look for why Audyssey is picking this speaker over the rest to level boost comparatively 12-16 dBs? Something is amiss. I can pull out Omni Mic to if I need to, but probably not until this weekend.


Hi,

My first thought is that the issue is with the speaker rather than Audyssey. Perhaps a tweeter is defective, for instance, or perhaps it needs to be swiveled more toward the MLP. I would probably test whether it is the speaker by changing the connections (reverse wire Top Front Right and Top Front Left) and then rerunning Audyssey to see whether the problem follows the speaker, or remains with that channel.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jjackkrash

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> My first thought is that the issue is with the speaker rather than Audyssey. Perhaps a tweeter is defective, for instance, or perhaps it needs to be swiveled more toward the MLP. I would probably test whether it is the speaker by changing the connections (reverse wire Top Front Right and Top Front Left) and then rerunning Audyssey to see whether the problem follows the speaker, or remains with that channel.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Winner, winner, chicken dinner! I reran Audyssey with the new mic and got very similar results. Then I checked the eq "results" and Audyssey is not applying any eq to this speaker above 900hz (unlike every other speaker). So I now strongly suspect the tweeter is not working. I will verify with the swap method like you suggest when I get a chance with a quiet house. So, thanks.


----------



## citsur86

jjackkrash said:


> Winner, winner, chicken dinner! I reran Audyssey with the new mic and got very similar results. Then I checked the eq "results" and Audyssey is not applying any eq to this speaker above 900hz (unlike every other speaker). So I now strongly suspect the tweeter is not working. I will verify with the swap method like you suggest when I get a chance with a quiet house. So, thanks.




I had a similar thing happening with an in ceiling that turned out to be wired incorrectly. I put red in black and black in....well you get it. In my case I believe Audyssey did tell me that it was a polarity issue and even illustrated that I had it wired wrong. So maybe not your issue - but worth checking?


----------



## Phil Carter

G'day folks!

First off, thanks a million for maintaining this thread. It's been very helpful indeed. My last Audyssey calibration was years ago when I bought my previous receiver and the technology has definitely advanced. 

So I've bought a new Denon AVR-X1400H to go along with our new 4K TV and 4K Blu-ray player. I ran a standard initial Audyssey calibration using the rocketship stand, ear height for each measurement, but I think I should probably rerun it with better mic positioning. The X1400H has Audyssey MultEQ XT with 8 listening positions, but positions 7 and 8 are intended to be *behind* the main listening position, and because our couch sits against the back wall, that's not possible. I measured 7 and 8 by placing the mic on top of the headrests of the couch, but realized after I'd finished that I shouldn't have done that, either, because you're not supposed to use any positions closer than 12-15 inches to the back wall, or closer than 12-15 to the headrest. 

From what I understand in the FAQ, as long as the first listening position is correct, and seven additional measurements all within 2-3 feet of the original position are taken, it doesn't matter where exactly the seven additional ones are taken. Is that correct? What would you folks recommend?

I'm attaching two photos of our living room layout, seen from approximately where the center speaker sits at the front of the room. The rear wall is formed by the fireplace (we never use it, so we placed the couch against that), with two small alcoves on either side that are filled by bookcases. The rear surrounds sit directly to the side of the couch, against each side wall. 

Thanks in advance for any replies!


----------



## mthomas47

Phil Carter said:


> G'day folks!
> 
> First off, thanks a million for maintaining this thread. It's been very helpful indeed. My last Audyssey calibration was years ago when I bought my previous receiver and the technology has definitely advanced.
> 
> So I've bought a new Denon AVR-X1400H to go along with our new 4K TV and 4K Blu-ray player. I ran a standard initial Audyssey calibration using the rocketship stand, ear height for each measurement, but I think I should probably rerun it with better mic positioning. The X1400H has Audyssey MultEQ XT with 8 listening positions, but positions 7 and 8 are intended to be *behind* the main listening position, and because our couch sits against the back wall, that's not possible. I measured 7 and 8 by placing the mic on top of the headrests of the couch, but realized after I'd finished that I shouldn't have done that, either, because you're not supposed to use any positions closer than 12-15 inches to the back wall, or closer than 12-15 to the headrest.
> 
> From what I understand in the FAQ, as long as the first listening position is correct, and seven additional measurements all within 2-3 feet of the original position are taken, it doesn't matter where exactly the seven additional ones are taken. Is that correct? What would you folks recommend?
> 
> I'm attaching two photos of our living room layout, seen from approximately where the center speaker sits at the front of the room. The rear wall is formed by the fireplace (we never use it, so we placed the couch against that), with two small alcoves on either side that are filled by bookcases. The rear surrounds sit directly to the side of the couch, against each side wall.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any replies!


Hi Phil,

I agree with you that, over the years, this thread has been one of the most helpful on the forum. And the "help" torch just keeps being passed on. The first suggestion I would make is to pull your couch forward about 3" and put a 1" or 2" deep acoustic panel over the stone fireplace above the couch. The rough texture of the stone will have a diffusing element to it, but you are still likely to get a lot of mid and high frequency reflections that will present as distortion. Just a small acoustic panel or two, designed to resemble art work, might make a lot of difference in your sound. Having acoustic panels behind the couch would also enable you to get your measurement mic closer to the couch (within about 6") and closer to where your ears will actually be.

You are correct not to put the mic on top of the sofa, and you are also correct that the specific location of your other 7 mic positions doesn't really matter. I would probably try to keep all of my mic positions within a total enclosure pattern of about 24" by 24" if I were you. I would also consider using a boom mic stand, rather than the paper one that came with your AVR. Something like this would work well: 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQOFG6W/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_20?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

One final thought concerns your coffee table. Since it is directly in line with your center channel and with the sound coming from your front speakers, I might consider a soft tablecloth or throw placed over it. That would also reduce the mid and high frequency reflections that can cause audible distortion. Audyssey can be a very effective means of improving sound quality, but particularly for mid and high frequencies, the more help we can give it with our initial set-ups, the more effective it can be.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Phil Carter

Thanks Mike for the response!

Acoustic panels are probably a no for the same reason that a throw or tablecloth over the coffee table would be a no -- the WAF is too low.  She enjoys our home theater when it gives us nice sound and picture, but when it starts interfering with the decor, then she puts her foot down. 

I will probably remeasure using eight mic positions that stay near the couch, now that I know the specific position and order doesn't matter as much as keeping them in about a 2" radius from the original measurement spot. I appreciate the confirmation on that. I know a boom mic is better than the rocketship stand, but we do have a camera tripod (my wife is a photography enthusiast) which should be a huge improvement. The rocketship stand was just for a relatively quick initial measurement anyway. 

Thanks again!


----------



## mthomas47

Phil Carter said:


> Thanks Mike for the response!
> 
> Acoustic panels are probably a no for the same reason that a throw or tablecloth over the coffee table would be a no -- the WAF is too low.  She enjoys our home theater when it gives us nice sound and picture, but when it starts interfering with the decor, then she puts her foot down.
> 
> I will probably remeasure using eight mic positions that stay near the couch, now that I know the specific position and order doesn't matter as much as keeping them in about a 2" radius from the original measurement spot. I appreciate the confirmation on that. I know a boom mic is better than the rocketship stand, but we do have a camera tripod (my wife is a photography enthusiast) which should be a huge improvement. The rocketship stand was just for a relatively quick initial measurement anyway.
> 
> Thanks again!


Hi Phil,

You are very welcome! I am glad if I were able to help a little, and please let us know if you need assistance in dialing things in the way you like. I completely understand about the WAF/aesthetic aspect. FWIW, I think that simply having some magazines and books on your coffee table, as you do now, will help to scatter the mid and high-frequency reflections. The worst case scenario, acoustically, would be to have a completely bare, smooth surface.

When I suggested acoustic panels behind the couch, I was actually thinking of something decorative. And, perhaps that could even tie-in with your wife's photography hobby. That part might be worth a try.  Here is one company that makes decorative acoustic panels. There are others, and some of them will let you use your own images and just do a digital transfer to the panels you want to order. Even something like three 1' by 1' panels might make a noticeable difference in your sound. 

https://www.acoustimac.com/acousticart/acartall-1x1/

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... When I suggested acoustic panels behind the couch, I was actually thinking of something decorative. And, perhaps that could even tie-in with your wife's photography hobby. That part might be worth a try.  Here is one company that makes decorative acoustic panels. There are others, and some of them will let you use your own images and just do a digital transfer to the panels you want to order. Even something like three 1' by 1' panels might make a noticeable difference in your sound.
> 
> https://www.acoustimac.com/acousticart/acartall-1x1/
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Phil,

I would recommend the 2" thick ones [see their graph of the acoustical effect]. Mike's idea of three panels would be very aesthetically appealing. I'm assuming your fireplace is about 7 feet wide. If so, you might be able to fit in three 1' x 2' horizontal panels, which would, obviously, cover a greater area (in the FAQ they say they are open to making custom sizes). An alternative would be to mount two 3' x 2' panels -- oriented horizontally -- with two of her photos side by side with a space between them equal to the space on each end. She could shoot something special for the panels, if she wants. Or, instead of two distinct pictures, each of the panels could provide a view of the same thing, as if through two window panes looking out at a vista. It happens that a 3' x 2' panel has a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, the same as a 35 mm still camera negative (24 mm x 36 mm).


Mike,

Glad you found that website; what a great idea!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Phil,
> 
> I would recommend the 2" thick ones [see their graph of the acoustical effect]. Mike's idea of three panels would be very aesthetically appealing. I'm assuming your fireplace is about 7 feet wide. If so, you might be able to fit in three 1' x 2' horizontal panels, which would, obviously, cover a greater area (in the FAQ they say they are open to making custom sizes). An alternative would be to mount two 3' x 2' panels -- oriented horizontally -- with two of her photos side by side with a space between them equal to the space on each end. She could shoot something special for the panels, if she wants. Or, instead of two distinct pictures, each of the panels could provide a view of the same thing, as if through two window panes looking out at a vista. It happens that a 3' x 2' panel has a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, the same as a 35 mm still camera negative (24 mm x 36 mm).
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Glad you found that website; what a great idea!


Those are good suggestions, Gary! And, thanks for the compliment. But, as with many of the things we suggest to each other, it's not my original idea. That's one of the strengths of a forum like this one, though. Someone has already tried almost everything, and we all borrow ideas from each other.


----------



## psuKinger

Anybody on here have any experience upgrading from an AVR that has Audyssey MultEQ XT to one with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and care to comment on what (if any) improvements it may have had on bass management?

My room is kind of odd-ball. 18'x22', but an "open floor plan" such that the right side of the room has a "back wall" (about 10' long), but then the remaining 12' (left side) "opens" to the kitchen/dinette. The living room is carpeted, but that 12' opening to the kitchen/dinette is hardwood.

My SVS PB-1000 sub makes the room rattle. Namely a picture frame my wife has hung along that "back partial wall" (right side), and the gas fireplace along the front wall (also on the right side). Most rattling/problems I experience seem to emanate from that right side (with the back wall and fireplace), and not the left side (open, even though there are windows along that wall). They don't rattle with every thump; it only happens at certain frequencies.

I did make one minor/half-hearted attempt at some "bass traps" via some "MyBecca" corner traps purchased on Amazon. It didn't help. My ability to heavily treat this room is pretty limited without taking a major hit to my WAF (so it's not gonna happen).

Any opinions/insight on what, if any, help/benefit I might realize by upgrading to XT32 would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## mthomas47

psuKinger said:


> Anybody on here have any experience upgrading from an AVR that has Audyssey MultEQ XT to one with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and care to comment on what (if any) improvements it may have had on bass management?
> 
> My room is kind of odd-ball. 18'x22', but an "open floor plan" such that the right side of the room has a "back wall" (about 10' long), but then the remaining 12' (left side) "opens" to the kitchen/dinette. The living room is carpeted, but that 12' opening to the kitchen/dinette is hardwood.
> 
> My SVS PB-1000 sub makes the room rattle. Namely a picture frame my wife has hung along that "back partial wall" (right side), and the gas fireplace along the front wall (also on the right side). Most rattling/problems I experience seem to emanate from that right side (with the back wall and fireplace), and not the left side (open, even though there are windows along that wall). They don't rattle with every thump; it only happens at certain frequencies.
> 
> I did make one minor/half-hearted attempt at some "bass traps" via some "MyBecca" corner traps purchased on Amazon. It didn't help. My ability to heavily treat this room is pretty limited without taking a major hit to my WAF (so it's not gonna happen).
> 
> Any opinions/insight on what, if any, help/benefit I might realize by upgrading to XT32 would be greatly appreciated.


Hi,

In theory, at least, XT-32 is a superior system with respect to the full frequency range, and especially with respect to bass frequencies, because more EQ resources are concentrated in the bass frequencies. In actual practice, it is difficult to predict how beneficial the difference between XT and XT-32 will be in a particular instance.

But, what you are describing may not be something that you can address with room EQ, and certainly not with bass traps. What I would do, if I were you, is to decouple my sub from the floor, so that the floor won't directly transmit vibrations to other parts of the room. The fact that the rattling only happens at certain frequencies is normal. You could probably make something yourself with several thicknesses of carpet or foam rubber, or if you wanted to buy something, something like this would work well. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SVRLR06/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1

I think that this, or something like it, will solve your problem. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## fredxr2d2

psuKinger said:


> Anybody on here have any experience upgrading from an AVR that has Audyssey MultEQ XT to one with Audyssey MultEQ XT32, and care to comment on what (if any) improvements it may have had on bass management?
> 
> My room is kind of odd-ball. 18'x22', but an "open floor plan" such that the right side of the room has a "back wall" (about 10' long), but then the remaining 12' (left side) "opens" to the kitchen/dinette. The living room is carpeted, but that 12' opening to the kitchen/dinette is hardwood.
> 
> My SVS PB-1000 sub makes the room rattle. Namely a picture frame my wife has hung along that "back partial wall" (right side), and the gas fireplace along the front wall (also on the right side). Most rattling/problems I experience seem to emanate from that right side (with the back wall and fireplace), and not the left side (open, even though there are windows along that wall). They don't rattle with every thump; it only happens at certain frequencies.
> 
> I did make one minor/half-hearted attempt at some "bass traps" via some "MyBecca" corner traps purchased on Amazon. It didn't help. My ability to heavily treat this room is pretty limited without taking a major hit to my WAF (so it's not gonna happen).
> 
> Any opinions/insight on what, if any, help/benefit I might realize by upgrading to XT32 would be greatly appreciated.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> In theory, at least, XT-32 is a superior system with respect to the full frequency range, and especially with respect to bass frequencies, because more EQ resources are concentrated in the bass frequencies. In actual practice, it is difficult to predict how beneficial the difference between XT and XT-32 will be in a particular instance.
> 
> But, what you are describing may not be something that you can address with room EQ, and certainly not with bass traps. What I would do, if I were you, is to decouple my sub from the floor, so that the floor won't directly transmit vibrations to other parts of the room. The fact that the rattling only happens at certain frequencies is normal. You could probably make something yourself with several thicknesses of carpet or foam rubber, or if you wanted to buy something, something like this would work well.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00DI5AXNI/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=AYBEI5H4QO168&psc=1
> 
> I think that this, or something like it, will solve your problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Mike's suggestion may work, but my biggest solution to rattles was actually a bit lower cost/tech: felt furniture pads. Put one or two on the back of picture frames and it should eliminate rattles.

I also think that Mike is right in that a better version of Audyssey is not going to help with your rattling issue.


----------



## psuKinger

mthomas47 said:


> But, what you are describing may not be something that you can address with room EQ, and certainly not with bass traps. What I would do, if I were you, is to decouple my sub from the floor, so that the floor won't directly transmit vibrations to other parts of the room. The fact that the rattling only happens at certain frequencies is normal. You could probably make something yourself with several thicknesses of carpet or foam rubber, or if you wanted to buy something, something like this would work well.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00SVRLR06/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER&psc=1
> 
> I think that this, or something like it, will solve your problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Nice pro-tip. Thanks so much. I'm gonna look into this.


----------



## garygarrison

fredxr2d2 said:


> Mike's suggestion may work, but *my biggest solution to rattles was actually a bit lower cost/tech: felt furniture pads. Put one or two on the back of picture frames and it should eliminate rattles.*
> 
> I also think that Mike is right in that a better version of Audyssey is not going to help with your rattling issue.


Go ahead and put padding under the sub, as Mike recommended. 

As Fred said, for pictures, felt works. So does neoprene -- if the picture is hanging by wire, you would just need two little squares of it near the bottom of the picture. 

Be sure to keep both felt and neoprene far, far away from flame or heat. What part of your gas fireplace rattles?

If a door rattles, a tiny neoprene square in the jam to hold it steady by putting slight stress on the bolt usually does the trick. 

Some loud sound has great impact at 100 Hz, or so, which is above the usual crossover to the sub.

Please let us know if you still have rattles after trying these strategies.


----------



## WiscoNYC

I have an X2200W and just upgraded my subwoofer from a crappy Pioneer to an SVS SB-1000. I did a subcrawl to make sure that the location the Pioneer had been in was still good for the SVS. It was. I ran Audyssey (with the gain at 10oclock) and it set the sub level at +1.5. I bumped the gain to 12oclock and reran Audyssey. Now the sub was set to +0.5. With the Pioneer sub in that location (granted it was ported) I would typically get a sub level of -5 or -6.

From everything I've read it seems people don't typically set the gain higher than 12oclock and ideally get a negative level from Audyssey.

The sub sounds good. This is my first quality subwoofer though so good means better than the crap I had before.

I just want to make sure it's ok to run the sub that high. Would there be a benefit of adjusting the gain to 2oclock and rerunning Audyssey? Or any other recommendations of how I should go about setting things up?


----------



## fredxr2d2

WiscoNYC said:


> I have an X2200W and just upgraded my subwoofer from a crappy Pioneer to an SVS SB-1000. I did a subcrawl to make sure that the location the Pioneer had been in was still good for the SVS. It was. I ran Audyssey (with the gain at 10oclock) and it set the sub level at +1.5. I bumped the gain to 12oclock and reran Audyssey. Now the sub was set to +0.5. With the Pioneer sub in that location (granted it was ported) I would typically get a sub level of -5 or -6.
> 
> From everything I've read it seems people don't typically set the gain higher than 12oclock and ideally get a negative level from Audyssey.
> 
> The sub sounds good. This is my first quality subwoofer though so good means better than the crap I had before.
> 
> I just want to make sure it's ok to run the sub that high. Would there be a benefit of adjusting the gain to 2oclock and rerunning Audyssey? Or any other recommendations of how I should go about setting things up?


I would increase the sub gain until you get a negative trim in the AVR.


----------



## WiscoNYC

fredxr2d2 said:


> I would increase the sub gain until you get a negative trim in the AVR.


Thanks. That's what I was thinking, but was worried I'd be pushing the sub too hard.

Should I be aiming for something around -5, or given that I'm only at +0.5 with the gain at 12oclock should I just bump it up to 2oclock and take what I can get?


----------



## fredxr2d2

WiscoNYC said:


> Thanks. That's what I was thinking, but was worried I'd be pushing the sub too hard.
> 
> Should I be aiming for something around -5, or given that I'm only at +0.5 with the gain at 12oclock should I just bump it up to 2oclock and take what I can get?


SVS subs have dsp limiters on them, so it is very hard to damage them. I would aim for -5 to -6, and, personally, I would boost it to -3 after the calibration, but different people have different bass needs.


----------



## WiscoNYC

fredxr2d2 said:


> SVS subs have dsp limiters on them, so it is very hard to damage them. I would aim for -5 to -6, and, personally, I would boost it to -3 after the calibration, but different people have different bass needs.


That's good to know. I'll give that a shot tonight. Thanks so much.


----------



## mthomas47

WiscoNYC said:


> I have an X2200W and just upgraded my subwoofer from a crappy Pioneer to an SVS SB-1000. I did a subcrawl to make sure that the location the Pioneer had been in was still good for the SVS. It was. I ran Audyssey (with the gain at 10oclock) and it set the sub level at +1.5. I bumped the gain to 12oclock and reran Audyssey. Now the sub was set to +0.5. With the Pioneer sub in that location (granted it was ported) I would typically get a sub level of -5 or -6.
> 
> From everything I've read it seems people don't typically set the gain higher than 12oclock and ideally get a negative level from Audyssey.
> 
> The sub sounds good. This is my first quality subwoofer though so good means better than the crap I had before.
> 
> I just want to make sure it's ok to run the sub that high. Would there be a benefit of adjusting the gain to 2oclock and rerunning Audyssey? Or any other recommendations of how I should go about setting things up?


Hi,

I think this issue is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface. Fred's advice to go ahead and increase the gain level on the SB1000 is correct. There should be no harm in setting the gain to 2:00. The gain controls on subs, even from the same manufacturer, will vary from model to model. So, where the gain is set, in relation to another sub, may not tell you too much. I would say that most people probably don't need to go too much above the 12:00 setting, but it varies, and there is nothing wrong with going higher.

On the other hand, if you do set the gain to 2:00 and still do not get a strongly negative trim level (let's say about -3 to -5) then you may be running into an inherent limitation in the size and power of that particular sealed sub. Give it a try, rerunning Audyssey, and let us know what happens.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## WiscoNYC

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think this issue is a little more complicated than it seems on the surface. Fred's advice to go ahead and increase the gain level on the SB1000 is correct. There should be no harm in setting the gain to 2:00. The gain controls on subs, even from the same manufacturer, will vary from model to model. So, where the gain is set, in relation to another sub, may not tell you too much. I would say that most people probably don't need to go too much above the 12:00 setting, but it varies, and there is nothing wrong with going higher.
> 
> On the other hand, if you do set the gain to 2:00 and still do not get a strongly negative trim level (let's say about -3 to -5) then you may be running into an inherent limitation in the size and power of that particular sealed sub. Give it a try, rerunning Audyssey, and let us know what happens.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. That was sort of my feeling in going from a boomy cheap ported sub to a flatter sealed sub. Eventually I'll be upgrading to a quality ported sub for my TV/movie watching and this SVS will be moved to my separate music-only stereo setup. But for the time being I figured it would serve as a big improvement over my old sub.


----------



## gurkey

@*Wisco*NYC

There is one further thing to consider, if changing the gain of the sub on the sub himself.
The sum of the gain Audyssey applies plus the gain of the sub itself will normally result in same output level, because Audyssey measures the output level of the sub(s) and adjusts accordingly.
But what might change to the better or the worse is the reaction of an automatic turn-on trigger, because that functionality changes in accordance to the absolute level of the input signal.
Thus you should test your existing trigger circuit afterwards, if used, if it still functions to your satisfaction.


----------



## grendelrt

Hey guys, we were discussing the blanket method over leather couches a few weeks ago. I did some testing and was looking for some advice before my next Audyssey run. I have been in the process of building new acoustic panels , so I was looking at the ETC graphs for my room. My center channel has a nice large spike due to the backs of the chairs. So I grabbed some blankets and tested, one blanket was not enough to remove the spike, two blankets was. I noticed this also affected the SPL graph changing it a bit. I guess my question would be , do you think it would be more beneficial to my Audyssey run to add the two blankets (keeping the mic around 4 or so inches of the chair) to get rid of the reflections or would you ignore the reflections to leave the measurement more pure? 

Blankets vs No Blankets (Spike is at 10M, the earlier spike it being remedied by a ceiling panel)

















Same measurements SPL graph


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

grendelrt said:


> Hey guys, we were discussing the blanket method over leather couches a few weeks ago. I did some testing and was looking for some advice before my next Audyssey run. I have been in the process of building new acoustic panels , so I was looking at the ETC graphs for my room. My center channel has a nice large spike due to the backs of the chairs. So I grabbed some blankets and tested, one blanket was not enough to remove the spike, two blankets was. I noticed this also affected the SPL graph changing it a bit. I guess my question would be , do you think it would be more beneficial to my Audyssey run to add the two blankets (keeping the mic around 4 or so inches of the chair) to get rid of the reflections or would you ignore the reflections to leave the measurement more pure?
> 
> Blankets vs No Blankets (Spike is at 10M, the earlier spike it being remedied by a ceiling panel)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same measurements SPL graph


Hi grendelrt,

While I am by no means an expert in things Audyssye, I do have a similar situation. I have two leather recliners in direct opposition to the front 3 speakers. I used Audyssey, OmniMic and REW. 

Every room is different. I can not stress this enough and there are very few Fixed answers when it comes to your particular question. Some items in a listening room can present acoustic problems. Such as being to reflective acoustically. Audyssey is designed to take all these things into account and develop filters to get as flat as possible for the room measured. Audyssey can only fix what you tell it, or measure.

If you cover an item or move another out of the room to do measurement, and then post measure put the item back in the room. You have now effectively changed the Acoustics signature of the room beyond what Audyssey corrected for. So it gets complicated, and brings us back to every room is different.

If possible this is my recommendation. Run Audyssey on your room in the exact way/conditions you intend to use the room. Let Audyssey complete the calibration and save the cal file. Run Audyssey again, with items covered or moved to improve the rooms acoustics. Save this Audyssey cal file.

Then load either file and audition the sound. Take a few days and listen to a variety of source material from Music to Movies. Take some notes about what you hear (good and bad) what you like and what you don't. Then load the other Audyssey Calibration File and repeat the process. In the end, your only goal should be to pick the calibration YOU like the best. That is the end goal we all need to remain focused upon. I have myself struggled with halting my obsession with interpreting calibration graphs and attempting to achieve "Flatness" and lost focus on finding the sweet spot of what sounds best to my ears. In the end, I did exactly what I described above and went with the calibration that sounded best.

BTW, to make sure I did not influence my own decision. I renamed all my calibration files randomly. So I did not know what calibration file was what. I loaded them and picked the one that sounded best.

Good luck Sir!


----------



## rizorith

Been having a hard time getting an answer to this. About a month ago, before I bought my Denon X1300, someone on this forum said I should spend the $10 to get the X32 Audyssey upgrade. How do I go about doing this?


----------



## mthomas47

rizorith said:


> Been having a hard time getting an answer to this. About a month ago, before I bought my Denon X1300, someone on this forum said I should spend the $10 to get the X32 Audyssey upgrade. How do I go about doing this?


Hi,

According to the product description, your Denon has XT. XT-32 is a different version of Audyssey, and you can't upgrade from one version to another without buying a different AVR. Each version of Audyssey is integral to the particular AVR it is sold with.

What the other person was probably talking about is the Audyssey mobile phone app which allows more user control over the frequency response. I believe that the cost of the app is $20, and you can find out more information about it on this thread: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

grendelrt said:


> Hey guys, we were discussing the blanket method over leather couches a few weeks ago. I did some testing and was looking for some advice before my next Audyssey run. I have been in the process of building new acoustic panels , so I was looking at the ETC graphs for my room. My center channel has a nice large spike due to the backs of the chairs. So I grabbed some blankets and tested, one blanket was not enough to remove the spike, two blankets was. I noticed this also affected the SPL graph changing it a bit. I guess my question would be , do you think it would be more beneficial to my Audyssey run to add the two blankets (keeping the mic around 4 or so inches of the chair) to get rid of the reflections or would you ignore the reflections to leave the measurement more pure?
> 
> Blankets vs No Blankets (Spike is at 10M, the earlier spike it being remedied by a ceiling panel)
> …


I don't know, and I I don't think anyone can know.

if you asked the question whether doing the calibration with or without the blankets made a difference, I'd give a definite "yes" answer. The problem is knowing just what the difference will be and whether or not you will like that difference. Those are things we don't know, and things which you can only know by doing the calibration both ways yourself.

My advice is to do the calibration one way, either with or without the blanket, and see if you're happy with the result. If you are, live with it. If you're not happy with the result try the other way and see if you're happy with it. If you are, then live with it. If not, then start thinking about other things to try.

Unfortunately there is no guaranteed method of doing a calibration that will deliver a result you like. Following the standard recommendations works for most people, where "most" equals more than 50%, but it doesn't work for everyone and users have reported improvements with modifications to the standard process such as using a blanket over a chair or sofa but not everyone gets the same result with the same technique and not everyone likes the same sort of result. I think there's always going to be a bit of "suck it and see" to the process.

In your case I'd probably try running the calibration with the blanket this time. The frequency plot you got with the blanket looks slightly smoother and if you've been unhappy in some way with the previous result then trying something different in the process is a good idea but there's no guarantee. In the end some of us have had to try a few different things and find out what works for us and what doesn't. I had to work out whether to do the calibration with curtains drawn or not and a coffee table in its normal position or not. The results weren't bad one way or the other in either case, but I preferred the result a little bit more one way than the other and that's the problem. The difference in result between doing the calibration one way and then another is usually not "night and day", it's smaller but noticeable and which is better comes down to personal preference.

S


----------



## MOberhardt

Does anyone know of any current Audyssey Receivers support RIHD for controlling peripherals? I'm so used to it now after my old Onkyo's now I'm in the market for a new unit I'm struggling to find something that ticks all my boxes. I'd nearly settled on a Demon, but started reading the manual...


----------



## Falconsfan71

Ok.. new to Denon (X4300H) and new to Audyssey. I’m coming from a Pioneer Elite VSX-90 with MCAAC Pro to MultEQ XT32 and am having a hard time getting the settings and sound like I want. I even got the App and re-ran Audyssey with it. My crossover settings are too high on my center and side surrounds. Also, my side and rear surrounds seem too loud. And, I can’t get my subs dialed in just right. I feel like they’re being “held back”. I’ve read through some of this thread and read some Audyssey tips. I have DT Studio Monitor 45 fronts, ProCenter 2000, four ProMonitor 800 surrounds, and dual VTF-3.5’s. The speakers seem too loud for the subs and at higher volumes seem too “bright”. I’m not getting that pounding out of dual 15” subs like I should be. Advice needed...?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

^^

The crossover issue may have something to do with where you placed the mic during calibration. Did you use a boom mic stand? That can really improve your calibration results. It's well worth the ~$30 for the mic stand and adapter that others have recommended in this thread. 

Did you look at the little graphs that show what adjustments Audyssey has made? They aren't very detailed, but they will give you a general idea of what happened.

If your surrounds seem too loud, turn off Dynamic EQ--this feature raises the volume of the sub and surrounds when you are listening at less than reference level (which is 0 dB on your Denon main volume control after calibration).

Concerning the comment about bass: If you are used to overemphasized bass, the more balanced bass level post-calibration will sound anemic to you. That being said, many people end up increasing the subwoofer trim level on their receiver by 3-5 dB because they prefer it to the setting that Audyssey arrived at.


----------



## Falconsfan71

pbarach said:


> ^^
> 
> 
> 
> The crossover issue may have something to do with where you placed the mic during calibration. Did you use a boom mic stand? That can really improve your calibration results. It's well worth the ~$30 for the mic stand and adapter that others have recommended in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you look at the little graphs that show what adjustments Audyssey has made? They aren't very detailed, but they will give you a general idea of what happened.
> 
> 
> 
> If your surrounds seem too loud, turn off Dynamic EQ--this feature raises the volume of the sub and surrounds when you are listening at less than reference level (which is 0 dB on your Denon main volume control after calibration).
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning the comment about bass: If you are used to overemphasized bass, the more balanced bass level post-calibration will sound anemic to you. That being said, many people end up increasing the subwoofer trim level on their receiver by 3-5 dB because they prefer it to the setting that Audyssey arrived at.




Thanks for the reply. I’m using the supplied “rocket” mic stand but I make sure it’s not too close to the back of the sofa. I also make sure it’s pointing directly up and is at ear level. When doing the 8 positions I keep it in a tight pattern (no more than 16”-18” front the first position). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Falconsfan71 said:


> Ok.. new to Denon (X4300H) and new to Audyssey. I’m coming from a Pioneer Elite VSX-90 with MCAAC Pro to MultEQ XT32 and am having a hard time getting the settings and sound like I want. I even got the App and re-ran Audyssey with it. My crossover settings are too high on my center and side surrounds. Also, my side and rear surrounds seem too loud. And, I can’t get my subs dialed in just right. I feel like they’re being “held back”. I’ve read through some of this thread and read some Audyssey tips. I have DT Studio Monitor 45 fronts, ProCenter 2000, four ProMonitor 800 surrounds, and dual VTF-3.5’s. The speakers seem too loud for the subs and at higher volumes seem too “bright”. I’m not getting that pounding out of dual 15” subs like I should be. Advice needed...?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi Falconsfan71,

1. What exactly is the sound you are looking for and lacking after calibration of your Denon with Audysey XT32 on board? 
2. Are you listening to movies or music?
3. As regards bass what's the trim level of your subwoofer after Audyssey?


----------



## Falconsfan71

mogorf said:


> Hi Falconsfan71,
> 
> 1. What exactly is the sound you are looking for and lacking after calibration of your Denon with Audysey XT32 on board?
> 2. Are you listening to movies or music?
> 3. As regards bass what's the trim level of your subwoofer after Audyssey?




First off, yes my room sucks! It’s terrible acoustically.. I know this! Also, it’s not the ideal layout (side and rear surrounds are wall mounted around 9.5’-10’ high and angled down - 11’ ceiling)). My living room / breakfast area is roughly 22’x16’x11’ and fully open to the kitchen and to two hallways. 

I played part of a movie and it seemed fine. My issue is when playing music. Maybe “Online Music > Pandora” is not the ideal reference.. I don’t know. It was not an issue with my old Pioneer. That’s one “con” to me with the Denon as far as not having Pandora actually through the AVR. As someone said in another post, there’s no LFE coming in through Online Music. Is there? I don’t know, but it’s music and it has bass..? 

I’ve tried several combinations with my subs and this AVR / Audyssey. The last calibration was the best as far the subs. I have both subs gain around 10 o’clock and Audyssey came back at -6.5 and -9.5 and I bumped then both +3db. 

I really want to like this new Denon x4300h and Audyssey.. maybe I’ll find a calibration I’m happy with. I’ll run it again this weekend and give that $20 App another chance. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Falconsfan71

Here’s a pic or two... this was before I got the Denon AVR and AC Infinity fan.






































Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Falconsfan71 said:


> First off, yes my room sucks! It’s terrible acoustically.. I know this! Also, it’s not the ideal layout (side and rear surrounds are wall mounted around 9.5’-10’ high and angled down - 11’ ceiling)). My living room / breakfast area is roughly 22’x16’x11’ and fully open to the kitchen and to two hallways.
> 
> I played part of a movie and it seemed fine. My issue is when playing music. Maybe “Online Music > Pandora” is not the ideal reference.. I don’t know. It was not an issue with my old Pioneer. That’s one “con” to me with the Denon as far as not having Pandora actually through the AVR. As someone said in another post, there’s no LFE coming in through Online Music. Is there? I don’t know, but it’s music and it has bass..?
> 
> I’ve tried several combinations with my subs and this AVR / Audyssey. The last calibration was the best as far the subs. I have both subs gain around 10 o’clock and Audyssey came back at -6.5 and -9.5 and I bumped then both +3db.
> 
> I really want to like this new Denon x4300h and Audyssey.. maybe I’ll find a calibration I’m happy with. I’ll run it again this weekend and give that $20 App another chance.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Your room is a nice size, with a beautiful (diffusing) fireplace
Being open to the kitchen and hallways isn't too good, making room pressurising more difficult.
Reflections off the coffee table might be a minor problem, but it is soooo beautiful!
I guess we could say that there is not true LFE coming through online music sources -- LFE is a movie term, and usually refers to movie low frequency effects -- but there should be bass being sent to your subwoofer under the rubric of Bass Management. To get it, speakers should be set for small. It sounds like you are getting it, it is just not good. If Pandora has music sources that run 5.1 (instead of the 5.0 most multichannel SACDs have), they probably mix it down into whatever number of channels they send out. I don't know if Pandora is a high or low quality source. Players would be expected to be the best sources*:* SACD, DVD-A, CD, vinyl, etc. for music, and Blu-ray for movies. Some people regard the persistance of MP-3 as an insult to consumers. Enough editorialising.
I'm not sure what you mean by "not having Pandora actually through the AVR." Did your old Pioneer have it in the tuner section as an option, but the Denon makes you bring it in from an outside source, which you (eventually) run through the Denon and Audyssey?


----------



## Falconsfan71

garygarrison said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "not having Pandora actually through the AVR." Did your old Pioneer have it in the tuner section as an option, but the Denon makes you bring it in from an outside source, which you (eventually) run through the Denon and Audyssey?



Yes, Pioneer has it as an option just like Tuner. Once you log in it’s so simple and has your whole playlist right there. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Falconsfan71 said:


> Yes, Pioneer has it as an option just like Tuner. Once you log in it’s so simple and has your whole playlist right there.
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi,

You have already gotten good advice, so there isn't much for me to add. But, there are a couple of things. First, if you are going to keep your Denon, I recommend getting a decent boom mic stand, rather than using the little cardboard stand that came with your AVR. The paper one is better than nothing, but that's a pretty low bar. There are a lot of different kinds available. Here is one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQOFG6W/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_22?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

If you do decide not to use DEQ in order to avoid the surround boost, you will probably want to add even more of an independent sub boost that you would with DEQ enabled, as DEQ adds its own bass boost. As Gary noted, very little streamed music, and none from Pandora, will be 5.1. Without the .1 LFE channel, you might need to add more independent bass boost to compensate for that. Don't forget that if you turn off DEQ, you can also add more mid-bass to your front speakers, via the tone control. Different sources are very likely to require different settings, and that may particularly be true as you move from movies to music.

You really may not be missing anything by not having Pandora networked through your Denon. I can't speak for Pioneer, but the streaming quality networked through my Marantz 7008 AVR was very low when I listened to it several years ago. From the sound, I would guess that it was about 96 kbps. Perhaps they have upgraded that streaming source, but if not, I wouldn't recommend it anyway.

It can take some effort to optimize our use of Audyssey, and the success rate will never be 100%. But, I would stay with it for a while and try to perfect your calibration and your settings, if I were you. The vast majority of people who use Audyssey do gain some noticeable (and measurable) improvement in audio quality. I hope that you will too.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Falconsfan71

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You have already gotten good advice, so there isn't much for me to add. But, there are a couple of things. First, if you are going to keep your Denon, I recommend getting a decent boom mic stand, rather than using the little cardboard stand that came with your AVR. The paper one is better than nothing, but that's a pretty low bar. There are a lot of different kinds available. Here is one: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00BQOFG6W/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_22?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> If you do decide not to use DEQ in order to avoid the surround boost, you will probably want to add even more of an independent sub boost that you would with DEQ enabled, as DEQ adds its own bass boost. As Gary noted, very little streamed music, and none from Pandora, will be 5.1. Without the .1 LFE channel, you might need to add more independent bass boost to compensate for that. Don't forget that if you turn off DEQ, you can also add more mid-bass to your front speakers, via the tone control. Different sources are very likely to require different settings, and that may particularly be true as you move from movies to music.
> 
> You really may not be missing anything by not having Pandora networked through your Denon. I can't speak for Pioneer, but the streaming quality networked through my Marantz 7008 AVR was very low when I listened to it several years ago. From the sound, I would guess that it was about 96 kbps. Perhaps they have upgraded that streaming source, but if not, I wouldn't recommend it anyway.
> 
> It can take some effort to optimize our use of Audyssey, and the success rate will never be 100%. But, I would stay with it for a while and try to perfect your calibration and your settings, if I were you. The vast majority of people who use Audyssey do gain some noticeable (and measurable) improvement in audio quality. I hope that you will too.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Mike, thanks for the encouraging words. I do like the DEQ. So far, for tv and movies I use Reference with DEQ on and Dialog Adjust on. For music I use Flat with DEQ 10db offset. For music, I had to bump the subs +3db in the Ch Lev Adj but it still doesn’t have that pounding bass. Yes, I will stay at it and try different things and try different settings. I’ll get a mic stand and run Audyssey again. To be continued...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vader182

Hey guys, I'm trying to setup my HT in my new apartment and encountering an issue. I can either get A.) extremely detailed, lush and immersive sound that's disappointingly low on bass _or_ B.) really bassy, full sound that lacks detail and is a little muddy.

Here's my setup:

Receiver: Denon 2112
Speakers: Jamo S606. 

They are two big towers and each are bi-amped, center, and two surrounds. The towers have woofers in the sides. My old sub, an impact mini, stopped working last year and I don't have the budget for a new one. 

Settings:

A.) Audyssey Flat (Audyssey isn't any bassier but lacks lushness), EQ Day, Offset 0, Cinema EQ On. This mode produces a very detailed and beautiful sound. 

B.) Audyssey off, Cinema EQ On, Tone: +2 bass / +1 treb sounds best. 

The towers are set to "large" and crossover is set to "full band." Crossover for center/surrounds are at 80hz. Basically, I know the woofers in the towers are capable of delivering a really terrific bass response since option B.) is an ideal bass response for my apartment but I can't get the audyssey software to calibrate that type of bass response into the settings. 

Any and all help would be hugely appreciated, I'm losing my mind a little here. There has to be a way to get the better bass inside of Audyssey. Thanks!


-Vader


----------



## mthomas47

Vader182 said:


> Hey guys, I'm trying to setup my HT in my new apartment and encountering an issue. I can either get A.) extremely detailed, lush and immersive sound that's disappointingly low on bass _or_ B.) really bassy, full sound that lacks detail and is a little muddy.
> 
> Here's my setup:
> 
> Receiver: Denon 2112
> Speakers: Jamo S606.
> 
> They are two big towers and each are bi-amped, center, and two surrounds. The towers have woofers in the sides. My old sub, an impact mini, stopped working last year and I don't have the budget for a new one.
> 
> Settings:
> 
> A.) Audyssey Flat (Audyssey isn't any bassier but lacks lushness), EQ Day, Offset 0, Cinema EQ On. This mode produces a very detailed and beautiful sound.
> 
> B.) Audyssey off, Cinema EQ On, Tone: +2 bass / +1 treb sounds best.
> 
> The towers are set to "large" and crossover is set to "full band." Crossover for center/surrounds are at 80hz. Basically, I know the woofers in the towers are capable of delivering a really terrific bass response since option B.) is an ideal bass response for my apartment but I can't get the audyssey software to calibrate that type of bass response into the settings.
> 
> Any and all help would be hugely appreciated, I'm losing my mind a little here. There has to be a way to get the better bass inside of Audyssey. Thanks!
> 
> 
> -Vader


Hi,

If Audyssey off sounds muddy, then Audyssey is doing something good for your low frequencies. That is what we would expect it to do. Why don't you try to experiment a little bit with your settings? Since you don't have a subwoofer, you won't be able to increase bass that way. But, if you turn off DEQ, you can still use your tone controls to add bass to your front speakers as you are doing in B).

I would also experiment a bit with both Audyssey (Reference) and Audyssey Flat, just to make sure which you prefer. I like Flat, and if that is your preference, it's fine. But, give yourself a little time to try both curves, with and without DEQ. And, you can adjust the treble a bit with the tone control, if DEQ is off. That's just something else to try. 

There are several variables involved, and you are looking for just the right combination of settings for your particular room and preferences. It's entirely possible that different settings will give you better results for different types of listening material, so that's something to be aware of, too.

I understand about not being able to afford a new subwoofer right now, but a pair of 8" woofers, driven by an AVR, is not going to give you a great deal of clean bass. Until you are able to afford a subwoofer, I would settle for quality (clarity) over quantity (muddiness). That means going with some variation of A) with Audyssey on. That's why I suggested experimenting further with your settings with Audyssey engaged.

I don't know how much information to try to pack into one post, but the passive bi-amping you are doing won't really help. It won't hurt anything, either, but you aren't getting anything from it. I don't say that to be unkind, but you will hear that eventually, so it might as well be now. Just do a Google search for passive bi-amping and you will understand what I mean.

Try experimenting a little bit, along the lines I suggested, and let us know what happens. Good luck! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Vader182

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If Audyssey off sounds muddy, then Audyssey is doing something good for your low frequencies. That is what we would expect it to do. Why don't you try to experiment a little bit with your settings? Since you don't have a subwoofer, you won't be able to increase bass that way. But, if you turn off DEQ, you can still use your tone controls to add bass to your front speakers as you are doing in B).
> 
> I would also experiment a bit with both Audyssey (Reference) and Audyssey Flat, just to make sure which you prefer. I like Flat, and if that is your preference, it's fine. But, give yourself a little time to try both curves, with and without DEQ. And, you can adjust the treble a bit with the tone control, if DEQ is off. That's just something else to try.
> 
> There are several variables involved, and you are looking for just the right combination of settings for your particular room and preferences. It's entirely possible that different settings will give you better results for different types of listening material, so that's something to be aware of, too.
> 
> I understand about not being able to afford a new subwoofer right now, but a pair of 8" woofers, driven by an AVR, is not going to give you a great deal of clean bass. Until you are able to afford a subwoofer, I would settle for quality (clarity) over quantity (muddiness). That means going with some variation of A) with Audyssey on. That's why I suggested experimenting further with your settings with Audyssey engaged.
> 
> I don't know how much information to try to pack into one post, but the passive bi-amping you are doing won't really help. It won't hurt anything, either, but you aren't getting anything from it. I don't say that to be unkind, but you will hear that eventually, so it might as well be now. Just do a Google search for passive bi-amping and you will understand what I mean.
> 
> Try experimenting a little bit, along the lines I suggested, and let us know what happens. Good luck!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the quick response! 

Regarding bi-amping the Jamo's, I'm using the extra 2 surrounds and perhaps it's just placebo (totally possible) but it seems to have an extended soundstage and much finer detailing. I may play with this just to see if my ears are deceiving me. 

I'll absolutely play with those setting combinations. To be honest, I wasn't aware I could leave Audyssey on with DEQ off and use Tone Control. What's so peculiar, though, is that the woofers (small as they are) pack quite a bite when boosting the tone control to +1/+2 bass. I'm not sure why Audyssey isn't taking advantage of that and I'm sure it would deliver a much smoother curve regardless of using the tone control. 

If you can recommend a (super) cheap sub that will decently compliment my system without scaring off the neighbors I would appreciate that as well. Christmas isn't too far off after all . 


-Vader


----------



## mthomas47

Vader182 said:


> Thank you for the quick response!
> 
> Regarding bi-amping the Jamo's, I'm using the extra 2 surrounds and perhaps it's just placebo (totally possible) but it seems to have an extended soundstage and much finer detailing. I may play with this just to see if my ears are deceiving me.
> 
> I'll absolutely play with those setting combinations. To be honest, I wasn't aware I could leave Audyssey on with DEQ off and use Tone Control. What's so peculiar, though, is that the woofers (small as they are) pack quite a bite when boosting the tone control to +1/+2 bass. I'm not sure why Audyssey isn't taking advantage of that and I'm sure it would deliver a much smoother curve regardless of using the tone control.
> 
> If you can recommend a (super) cheap sub that will decently compliment my system without scaring off the neighbors I would appreciate that as well. Christmas isn't too far off after all .
> 
> 
> -Vader


You are very welcome! Part of what Audyssey is probably doing is knocking down some peaks in your mid-bass frequencies. Those peaks make your bass sound louder, but the trade-off is in loss of clarity. The unEQed bass sounds muddier because it is. You are hearing distortion. I don't know if you can have your cake and eat it too, with your current system. The goal is obviously to have clear bass, but plenty of it. And, that takes more woofage, to be able to play all of the frequencies fairly loudly without having to rely on room-induced peaks in the frequency response. But, the use of the tone controls to add bass, with Audyssey engaged, is worth a try.

There is a good thread regarding subwoofers under $300. Jim Wilson is an excellent resource, and I would trust his recommendations, if you want to post there. Here is a link to it: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s.../1364182-list-budget-subwoofers-300-less.html

If you can move up a little higher in price, SVS makes very good subwoofers, and you can sometimes find good deals in their Outlet Store. You can also contact them to see if they will have any sort of Christmas sale, which might offer additional savings.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Falconsfan71

I posted this in the MultEQ Editor App Thread but thought I’d share here... 

Finally!!! (I hope lol). I ran Audyssey again (twice) this morning with the App and I think I’ve found a calibration/sound I really like. This is what I did, whether it’s right or wrong, and others may do it differently. A few things I did may not have made a difference but maybe it did. 

I raised the mic about two inches from where I had it for my previous runs. I also laid a blanket over the back of the leather sofa (folded in half). I set the gain on both subs (VTF3.5) to around 11 o’clock and then level matched them (as close to 75db as I could get - back around 10 o’clock) as Audyssey started. I ran all 8 positions keeping the mic less than 16”-18” from the mlp. 

After calibration I turned MRC off and used the target curve to adjust the center and surrounds a little. My subs were at -8 and -9 so I bumped them to -5 and -6 then adjusted the gain on both subs back to 11 o’clock. I did all that within the app then sent it to the 4300. I changed the fronts from 60hz to 80hz and left DEQ on. Then I went to Online Music > AVR Options > Channel Level Adjust as I was listening to some music and bumped both subs +3.0. Wow what a difference. 

Then I turned the subs off and just listened to the fronts with different music in Stereo Mode. Then I went to Multi Channel Stereo and listened to just the surrounds with the fronts unhooked and listened to them with a couple of movie clips in Dolby Digital+. Then I hooked the fronts back up and turned the subs back on... I’m really impressed! The front speakers just sound better and the surrounds sound better and neither are as bright as before. Oh, and the subs are finally kicking like they should be. By the way, I found I like tv and movies with Reference and even music sounds better in Reference with DEQ on and 10db offset. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Falconsfan71 said:


> I posted this in the MultEQ Editor App Thread but thought I’d share here...
> 
> Finally!!! (I hope lol). I ran Audyssey again (twice) this morning with the App and I think I’ve found a calibration/sound I really like. This is what I did, whether it’s right or wrong, and others may do it differently. A few things I did may not have made a difference but maybe it did.
> 
> I raised the mic about two inches from where I had it for my previous runs. I also laid a blanket over the back of the leather sofa (folded in half). I set the gain on both subs (VTF3.5) to around 11 o’clock and then level matched them (as close to 75db as I could get - back around 10 o’clock) as Audyssey started. I ran all 8 positions keeping the mic less than 16”-18” from the mlp.
> 
> After calibration I turned MRC off and used the target curve to adjust the center and surrounds a little. My subs were at -8 and -9 so I bumped them to -5 and -6 then adjusted the gain on both subs back to 11 o’clock. I did all that within the app then sent it to the 4300. I changed the fronts from 60hz to 80hz and left DEQ on. Then I went to Online Music > AVR Options > Channel Level Adjust as I was listening to some music and bumped both subs +3.0. Wow what a difference.
> 
> Then I turned the subs off and just listened to the fronts with different music in Stereo Mode. Then I went to Multi Channel Stereo and listened to just the surrounds with the fronts unhooked and listened to them with a couple of movie clips in Dolby Digital+. Then I hooked the fronts back up and turned the subs back on... I’m really impressed! The front speakers just sound better and the surrounds sound better and neither are as bright as before. Oh, and the subs are finally kicking like they should be. By the way, I found I like tv and movies with Reference and even music sounds better in Reference with DEQ on and 10db offset.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


That sounds like an excellent success story to me. There really isn't any right or wrong to this. It's just what works best for you, in your particular room. And, it does seem to me that you observed the recommended protocols for sub gain/trim setting in the process. I would call that a good job! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Falconsfan71

mthomas47 said:


> That sounds like an excellent success story to me. There really isn't any right or wrong to this. It's just what works best for you, in your particular room. And, it does seem to me that you observed the recommended protocols for sub gain/trim setting in the process. I would call that a good job!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Mike, I’m kinda in awe really. I had to make myself turn off the music! I’m watching football highlights now. But I can’t imagine what going to bigger fronts or towers would do or even adding a separate Amp with them. I was doubting this Denon and Audyssey honestly until today. It took me a month to find my liking and I’m happy as a kid in a candy store right now! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... There are several variables involved, and you are looking for just the right combination of settings for your particular room and preferences. *It's entirely possible that different settings will give you better results for different types of listening material, so that's something to be aware of, too*. ...


*Vader*, 

I agree with everything Mike said. 

Your results may differ, but in my 4,243 cu. ft., moderately treated room I found*:

*

I like *Audyssey FLAT* for most movies, particularly newer ones (after about the 1980s). Music sounds like it might in a live performance, with sparkle, a great sense of timbre, and the dialogue is crisp, more so than without Audyssey. I turn up the subwoofer a little. Your option, until you get a subwoofer, would be to turn up the bass tone control (this will work only with DEQ off). Don't use the virtual sliders, because they can't be used with Audyssey.. 

For any movies that sound harsh, or older movies, I like *Audyssey Reference* (sometimes called just plain Audyssey, or Movie). Some movies from the great magnetic recording era (1953 through the mid 1970s, with 4,6,7 or 8 channel stereo) sounded beautiful up to about 8K, above which there was some distortion. People in the cinemas of that era never heard the distortion, because movie theater speakers rolled off sharply above about 10KHz. Audyssey Reference provides a roll off intended to be right for most home environments, but it works to filter out the distortion in these movies, too. It reduces response by 2 dB at 10 K, and 6 dB at 20K. All this applies to movies with magnetic soundtracks. Movies with optical soundtracks (usually mono), were pretty hopeless, until Dolby improved the medium later on. Sometimes, the in-studio original recording was magnetic, but the release prints were optical, therefore sucked. When restoring Hitchcock's Vertigo, Robert A. Harris and James C. Katz went back to the archived original magnetic music elements, so the Blu-ray has a beautiful stereo soundtrack (for the music) that the cinema audiences never heard during the first 38 years of the film's existence! As expected, it sounds best, IMO, with Audyssey Reference. 

 It sounds like Cinema EQ does about the same thing as Audyssey Reference, but if that is true, and you use them both, you double the roll-off, which is not likely to be what you want. Also, with newer movies, if you use Cinema EQ with Audyssey FLAT, you will miss some of the cortex tingling sparkle of Audyssey Flat.


----------



## Alan P

Falconsfan71 said:


> Mike, thanks for the encouraging words. I do like the DEQ. So far, for tv and movies I use Reference with DEQ on and Dialog Adjust on. For music I use Flat with DEQ 10db offset. For music, I had to bump the subs +3db in the Ch Lev Adj but it still doesn’t have that pounding bass. Yes, I will stay at it and try different things and try different settings. I’ll get a mic stand and run Audyssey again. To be continued...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Have you tried playing with the "Restorer" setting on the Denon? I like this set to ON using the lowest setting (3) for music. It makes all my music sources sound a bit "fuller".


----------



## pbarach

Alan P said:


> Have you tried playing with the "Restorer" setting on the Denon? I like this set to ON using the lowest setting (3) for music. It makes all my music sources sound a bit "fuller".


I think it's disabled for everything other than mp3 sources.


----------



## Alan P

pbarach said:


> I think it's disabled for everything other than mp3 sources.


Hmmm...using my Denon 4520, I can enable the Restorer on any audio file (FLAC, MP3, WAV). I have not tried with an actual CD since I haven't actually played one in years.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> Have you tried playing with the "Restorer" setting on the Denon? I like this set to ON using the lowest setting (3) for music. It makes all my music sources sound a bit "fuller".


Interesting. I don't use MP3 and the like, but I'm curious. Does it make CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, FLAC, WAV, etc., sound fuller? There is nothing like Restorer on my older Marantz, but someday I'll have to replace it.


----------



## pbarach

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...using my Denon 4520, I can enable the Restorer on any audio file (FLAC, MP3, WAV). I have not tried with an actual CD since I haven't actually played one in years.


My error--it works on every digital audio file except hi-resolution WAVs and FLACs. I didn't try it with a CD.


----------



## Falconsfan71

Alan P said:


> Have you tried playing with the "Restorer" setting on the Denon? I like this set to ON using the lowest setting (3) for music. It makes all my music sources sound a bit "fuller".



Alan, no I haven’t but maybe I’ll see what that sounds like. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> Interesting. I don't use MP3 and the like, but I'm curious. Does it make CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, FLAC, WAV, etc., sound fuller? There is nothing like Restorer on my older Marantz, but someday I'll have to replace it.


Gary,

As I said earlier, I haven't spun a disc in years so I can't really comment on that. All of my media is immediately ripped to my NAS (mostly FLAC, but some MP3s from the 90s before I knew what I was doing, a few multi-channel SACDs ripped to FLAC, and some WAV files as well).

I can tell you that the Restorer function does make all of my rips sound quite a bit better. With it off, the music just doesn't sound as "full"; it seems to give a bit more bass, a bit more treble and better midrange as well.

I think the Restorer is a band-aid to cover up an inherent flaw on Denon AVRs. I have had other AVRs that sounded just as good as the Denon+Restorer without any processing turned on at all. 

I've been eyeballing a Yamaha 3070 for my next upgrade.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Gary,
> 
> As I said earlier, I haven't spun a disc in years so I can't really comment on that. All of my media is immediately ripped to my NAS (mostly FLAC, but some MP3s from the 90s before I knew what I was doing, a few multi-channel SACDs ripped to FLAC, and some WAV files as well).
> 
> I can tell you that the Restorer function does make all of my rips sound quite a bit better. With it off, the music just doesn't sound as "full"; it seems to give a bit more bass, a bit more treble and better midrange as well.
> 
> I think the Restorer is a band-aid to cover up an inherent flaw on Denon AVRs. I have had other AVRs that sounded just as good as the Denon+Restorer without any processing turned on at all.
> 
> I've been eyeballing a Yamaha 3070 for my next upgrade.



Hi to All,

This is what Denon has to say about restorer:

*Restorer* 

Compressed audio formats such as MP3, WMA (Windows Media Audio) and MPEG-4 AAC reduce the amount of data by eliminating signal components that are hard for the human ear to hear. The “Restorer” function generates the signals eliminated upon compression, restoring the sound to conditions near those of the original sound before compression. It also restores the original bass characteristics for a rich and expanded tonal range.

*Mode* 


High:

Optimized mode for compressed sources with very weak highs (64 kbps and under).

Medium:

Apply suitable bass and treble boost for all compressed sources (96 kbps and under).

Low:

Optimized mode for compressed sources with normal highs (96 kbps and over).

Off:

Do no use “Restorer”.



This item can be set with analog signals or PCM signal (Sample Rate = 44.1/48 kHz) is input.

 This item default setting for “Online Music”, “iPod/USB” and “Bluetooth” is “Low”. All others are set to “Off”.

This cannot be set when the sound mode is set to “Direct” or “Pure Direct”.

“Restorer” settings are stored for each input source.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> ... All of my media is immediately ripped to my NAS (mostly FLAC, but some MP3s from the 90s before I knew what I was doing, a few multi-channel SACDs ripped to FLAC, and some WAV files as well).
> 
> I can tell you that the Restorer function does make *all* of my rips *sound quite a bit better*. With it off, the music just doesn't sound as *"full"*; it seems to give a bit more bass, a bit more treble and better midrange as well.
> 
> I think the Restorer is a band-aid to cover up an inherent flaw on Denon AVRs. I have had other AVRs that sounded just as good as the Denon+Restorer without any processing turned on at all.
> 
> I've been eyeballing a Yamaha 3070 for my next upgrade.





mogorf said:


> Hi to All,
> This is what Denon has to say about restorer:
> *Restorer*
> Compressed audio formats such as MP3, WMA (Windows Media Audio) and MPEG-4 AAC reduce the amount of data by eliminating signal components that are hard for the human ear to hear. The “Restorer” function generates the signals eliminated upon compression, restoring the sound to conditions near those of the original sound before compression. It also restores the original bass characteristics for a rich and expanded tonal range ...


Hi Alan, 

Do you prefer FLAC or WAV? Why?

Back when your were spinning disks, and you first started to rip onto FLAC or WAV, did they sound discernibly different than the CD or SACD source?

As you can see, I'm not streaming music yet. [I've tried streaming a few movies via Netflix, and they seem to be just a tad worse visually than disks of the same movie. The sound, too, seems a bit less "airy," or "alive." I'd better stop before I lapse into audiophile lexicon. Sometimes the same movie that is in 5.1 or greater on disk,comes through in 2.0 or 2.1]

"Fullness." I used to love my moving coil Ortofon phono cartridge, because it sounded "fuller" than the available competition. I was never able to understand what the extra fullness was composed of, exactly, other than there was a little more bass, and a bit mote treble at the very top, yet no amount of fooling around with the bass or treble with my other cartridges would produce the "fullness" of the Ortofon. I'd love to have a "fullness' switch to make the comparison, but I realize that unless the manufacturer tells me exactly what it does, or I could measure it on REW, I would be uneasy. But that's me.

If you go over to Yamaha, you won't have Audyssey. Please let us know how the two systems compare in your room and with your speakers.

Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> Do you prefer FLAC or WAV? Why?
> 
> Back when your were spinning disks, and you first started to rip onto FLAC or WAV, did they sound discernibly different than the CD or SACD source?


I have to admit that I always rip to FLAC now, any WAV files I have came from _other _sources. 

I do have a few tracks duplicated in FLAC and WAV formats, and to my ears, there is no discernible difference. Also, no discernible difference between either format and their CD counterpart. I'd even go as far to say that 320kbs MP3 is _virtually _indistinguishable from CD.





> As you can see, I'm not streaming music yet. [I've tried streaming a few movies via Netflix, and they seem to be just a tad worse visually than disks of the same movie. The sound, too, seems a bit less "airy," or "alive." I'd better stop before I lapse into audiophile lexicon. Sometimes the same movie that is in 5.1 or greater on disk,comes through in 2.0 or 2.1]


Streaming music sources have come a long way in the last few years, but I still keep my own collection and listen to physical media (albeit, in a digital form). I use Spotify at work sometimes, but that is about it. I do agree that Netflix and Amazon Prime are definitely not on par with bluray quality with neither video nor audio...at least, not yet.




> If you go over to Yamaha, you won't have Audyssey.


I haven't been using Audyssey for a while now.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Interesting. I don't use MP3 and the like, but I'm curious. Does it make CDs, SACDs, DVD-As, FLAC, WAV, etc., sound fuller? There is nothing like Restorer on my older Marantz, but someday I'll have to replace it.


Hi Gary,

My Marantz SR7008 does have a similar feature to the one that Alan and Feri are describing. It is called M-Dax and it is in the Audio Menu. I believe that it has been around for a while. This is probably another of those many YMMV things, but when I experimented with it several years ago, I didn't find it helpful. I find 96 kbps music inherently unlistenable, either with or without M-Dax. Some tracks played at that compression level can be fine, but anything with much high frequency content (and some low frequency content) can sound audibly compressed and a bit harsh or screechy to me.

M-Dax did do something to the sound when I tried it with some 96 kbps material, but I don't recall it seeming like a good thing at the time. I believe it probably attenuates outlying frequencies (primarily high frequencies) to reduce audible compression, thereby strengthening the mid-range frequencies. That might account for the additional "fullness" that Alan was describing.

I remember also trying M-Dax with some 192 kbps material and thinking that I lost some clarity/brilliance in the high frequencies, but I also lost some high frequency clarity from the bit rate itself. It's been several years, so I am just going from my memory of what I tried. These days I try not to listen to anything below 320 kbps. But, of course not all of the distortion artifacts that we may hear come from the streaming or playing source (including records). Some of it comes from the original recording.

I find that to be the case with Spotify Premium, for instance. The streaming source is always 320 kbps and that is pretty uncompressed from an audibility standpoint, but the quality of the actual recordings can vary widely. If it is a track I really like, perhaps a very old one that I can't find otherwise, I will put up with the poor recording quality to listen to it anyway. I can't see M-Dax helping very much with that, either though.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## smdelaney

Alan P said:


> I do have a few tracks duplicated in FLAC and WAV formats, and to my ears, there is no discernible difference. Also, no discernible difference between either format and their CD counterpart.* I'd even go as far to say that 320kbs MP3 is virtually indistinguishable from CD*.


I'd love to hear some commentary on that observation and see if it can be supported empirically. My rips are ALL MP3 but other than the ones I've purchased they are all at 320kbs. I've toyed with re-ripping my library to FLAC but as that won't give me HD quality I'm not convinced that it is worth the time and effort. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## 01svtL

Went to set up Audyssey after moving my sub to a different spot in the room (after sub crawl) and after checking the first location, it said something about the subwoofer (SVS PC-2000) possibly being out of phase and to check its settings. That's when the phase was set on 0 on the back of the sub. So, I cancelled, turned the phase to 90 and re-ran - same notice. Then I turned it to 180, and same thing again. Any idea what the phase on my sub should be set at and if I should be concerned? I went ahead and ran the full setup with it set on 180, and I don't really hear anything "off," but I don't want to damage the speaker, and would prefer to get it "in phase" if it is truly out.


----------



## amitjm1980

I recently purchased a Marantz 1607 to upgrade my home theater setup. I've read that these receivers tend to sound great in stereo mode as well, and my listening probably tends to be 50/50 movies/music. For my fronts, I'm running Superzero 2.1's along with a sub of course. I'm curious if most folks have Audyssey on or off when listening to music in stereo? I want to get the most out of the NHT's when listening to music.

Thanks.


----------



## pvherm

amitjm1980 said:


> I recently purchased a Marantz 1607 to upgrade my home theater setup. I've read that these receivers tend to sound great in stereo mode as well, and my listening probably tends to be 50/50 movies/music. For my fronts, I'm running Superzero 2.1's along with a sub of course. I'm curious if most folks have Audyssey on or off when listening to music in stereo? I want to get the most out of the NHT's when listening to music.
> 
> Thanks.


Off. My Denon 4520 has a L/R bypass feature which disables audyssey for stereo listening. Still EQ's the sub, I believe.


----------



## Pianist718

*audyssey multeq xt32 is Killing Me! Turning it OFF!*

I am pretty frustrated unfortunately but Audyssey is just doing crazy things to my sound. Just look at the EQ photos below. When I compare audyssey vs audyssey OFF, for movies the difference is not so big. I hear more treble in voices with it being OFF and bass is somewhat similar ... that's mostly with TrueHD sound. Now, when I watch music clips or movie trailers, the difference is huge. Bass is so much more pronounced with EQ being OFF.

Why is audyssey making such drastic changes to the low frequencies? My home theater is decently treated. I have 6 panels and heavy curtains. I clap and don't get that ringing sound of echo. Should I just forget about audyssey multeq xt32?

Thank you

P.S. In a perfect scenario, I would keep the toned down dialog that I get with audyssey but the lack of bass is just bad. Only problem is that I don't know how that can be done.


----------



## Jon S

You know, analyzing frequency response will only be as accurate as the microphone being used to measure it. I'm not sure what you are using but it looks like a tablet. If so, the tablet's microphone would be really be suspect. In fact, the only way to accurately measure the frequency response is to use a calibrated microphone with a matching program...

I would take your measurements with a grain of salt.

If you are using the AVR microphone and its corresponding mic, then it would mean that your basic setup of your subs are wrong, the bass is too loud in the position where the mic is located. Audyssey will try to compensate the excessive bass by cutting it down. If you feel the bass is subpar, then just boost it back to where you want it. Audyssey is only trying to give you an accurate response. If you don't like it, change it to your hearts delight...


----------



## garygarrison

amitjm1980 said:


> I recently purchased a Marantz 1607 to upgrade my home theater setup. I've read that these receivers tend to sound great in stereo mode as well, and my listening probably tends to be 50/50 movies/music. For my fronts, I'm running Superzero 2.1's along with a sub of course. I'm curious if most folks have Audyssey on or off when listening to music in stereo? I want to get the most out of the NHT's when listening to music.
> Thanks.


I love Audyssey. I listen to nearly everything with Audyssey ON, but I do not use Dynamic EQ and I do not use Dynamic Volume. Two channel sources have always sounded better with Audyssey when I've switched between Audyssey ON and Audyssey OFF to make the comparison (many times, particularly at first).. A few points:


Music discs are not recorded at a standard level the way movies are, so Audyssey's DEQ feature doesn't know exactly how much compensation to use, because it doesn't know how far below control room level you are playing a given piece of music. I don't like DEQ even with movies, but at least, with movies, it has a standard to which to hew.
It takes most people a few Audyssey calibration attempts to get it just right. See "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" likely a better guide than the one in your manual. 

 Sometimes a listener's treasured bass response is composed largely of room modes, which Audyssey will partly remove. That's a good thing, but your bass response may sound weak after Audyssey. The cure is to turn up your subwoofer a few dB after running Audyssey. Some people turn up the bass tone control on the AVR a bit, too (usable only with DEQ off).
. Don't turn both the sub and the bass tone control way up because your Left Front and Right Front speakers might not be able to take it (the bass tone control doesn't affect the sub, or any speakers other than the LF and RF. I predict that your AVR (acting on Audyssey's measurement of the point your main speakers are down by 3 dB) will cross over at about 100 to 150 Hz, so the bass tone control may not be necessary. If your crossover ends up being set to 80 Hz, or so, you should probably use both a sub boost and a bass tone control boost, both after running Audyssey.
I think your AVR provides a choice between Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey in the Marantz nomenclature, I think) and Audyssey FLAT. You should switch back and forth to see which you prefer.
Good Luck! Please let us know how it works out.


----------



## M Code

Try different microphone positions...
Looks like the microphone is picking up some nasty standing waves..
However note that about 5 years back there was a large number of out-of-spec Audyssey microphones got shipped out..

Just my $0.02...


----------



## pbarach

amitjm1980 said:


> I recently purchased a Marantz 1607 to upgrade my home theater setup. I've read that these receivers tend to sound great in stereo mode as well, and my listening probably tends to be 50/50 movies/music. For my fronts, I'm running Superzero 2.1's along with a sub of course. I'm curious if most folks have Audyssey on or off when listening to music in stereo? I want to get the most out of the NHT's when listening to music.
> 
> Thanks.


Why would you not want the benefits of room correction when listening to music? Just turn off Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, and you're good to go.


----------



## Pianist718

Jon S said:


> You know, analyzing frequency response will only be as accurate as the microphone being used to measure it. I'm not sure what you are using but it looks like a tablet. If so, the tablet's microphone would be really be suspect. In fact, the only way to accurately measure the frequency response is to use a calibrated microphone with a matching program...
> 
> I would take your measurements with a grain of salt.
> 
> If you are using the AVR microphone and its corresponding mic, then it would mean that your basic setup of your subs are wrong, the bass is too loud in the position where the mic is located. Audyssey will try to compensate the excessive bass by cutting it down. If you feel the bass is subpar, then just boost it back to where you want it. Audyssey is only trying to give you an accurate response. If you don't like it, change it to your hearts delight...


I am using the MIC that came with my Denon 4311. 
By the way, not sure how to increase the bass other than boosting it in Channel volume but that would only boost the sub ... what about boosting frequencies above 60hz as the chart shows that it lowered everything below 120hz.


----------



## jdsmoothie

Your L/R speakers are too close to the corners, so bring them forward about 1-2'. Can't see the C speaker, but bring it forward on the shelf as well to likely extend beyond the door opening.

Otherwise, you're best served resolving Audyssey related issues by posting your questions in the Audyssey thread linked below.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html


----------



## wmarkw

Moved to a new house and got my rear speakers installed yesterday so ran my audyssey. The distance numbers are throwing me off with my sub. I have a wireless Klipsch 112 sub that is behind my couch/listening position which is no more than 4-5 feet. Audyssey is throwing out 26-28 feet. I ran it twice with 4 different listening positions and it gave the same distances with levels of -.5 and 2.5. What gives? Also I'm totally confused with Dynamic EQ; didnt realize it was for compensating sounds for night time viewing; thought that was Dynamic VOL. I always leave DV off when watching movies but do most people leave off DV EQ as well? We watched Wonder Woman last night and it sounded really good. Sub thumping but not distorted sounding. This is a new sub but with my previous 10" sub i would get levels around -5. Any help or pointers appreciated. Thanks.

eta: set my gain less than the half way mark; i remember JD saying to set it at the 8 'oclock position.

*This??* 26. You may also notice that Audyssey has set your subwoofer distance from the Main Listening Position much greater than it actually is if you measured it with a tape measure. This is perfectly normal. Audyssey does not measure the actual distance, but the delay between the signal leaving the subwoofer and arriving at the mic. Because many subwoofers have internal circuitry and filters inside them, they can add a significant delay to the sound arriving at the mic. Audyssey takes this delay into account and sets the subwoofer distance accordingly. Do NOT change the subwoofer distance manually.


----------



## Matt2026

wmarkw said:


> Moved to a new house and got my rear speakers installed yesterday so ran my audyssey. The distance numbers are throwing me off with my sub. I have a wireless Klipsch 112 sub that is behind my couch/listening position which is no more than 4-5 feet. Audyssey is throwing out 26-28 feet. I ran it twice with 4 different listening positions and it gave the same distances with levels of -.5 and 2.5. What gives? Also I'm totally confused with Dynamic EQ; didnt realize it was for compensating sounds for night time viewing; thought that was Dynamic VOL. I always leave DV off when watching movies but do most people leave off DV EQ as well? We watched Wonder Woman last night and it sounded really good. Sub thumping but not distorted sounding. This is a new sub but with my previous 10" sub i would get levels around -5. Any help or pointers appreciated. Thanks.
> 
> eta: set my gain less than the half way mark; i remember JD saying to set it at the 8 'oclock position.
> 
> *This??* 26. You may also notice that Audyssey has set your subwoofer distance from the Main Listening Position much greater than it actually is if you measured it with a tape measure. This is perfectly normal. Audyssey does not measure the actual distance, but the delay between the signal leaving the subwoofer and arriving at the mic. Because many subwoofers have internal circuitry and filters inside them, they can add a significant delay to the sound arriving at the mic. Audyssey takes this delay into account and sets the subwoofer distance accordingly. Do NOT change the subwoofer distance manually.


There is likely some delay in the signal link and sub. Audyssey does not set it by the physical distance. If there is a delay then Audyssey tells the AVR it is further away so the AVR will output the sub frequencies sooner so that they arrive at your listening position at the same time as the sounds from your L/C/R speakers.. at least that's how I understand it. Maybe someone more knowledgeable then I am will have a different answer for you


----------



## mthomas47

Pianist718 said:


> I am pretty frustrated unfortunately but Audyssey is just doing crazy things to my sound. Just look at the EQ photos below. When I compare audyssey vs audyssey OFF, for movies the difference is not so big. I hear more treble in voices with it being OFF and bass is somewhat similar ... that's mostly with TrueHD sound. Now, when I watch music clips or movie trailers, the difference is huge. Bass is so much more pronounced with EQ being OFF.
> 
> Why is audyssey making such drastic changes to the low frequencies? My home theater is decently treated. I have 6 panels and heavy curtains. I clap and don't get that ringing sound of echo. Should I just forget about audyssey multeq xt32?
> 
> Thank you
> 
> P.S. In a perfect scenario, I would keep the toned down dialog that I get with audyssey but the lack of bass is just bad. Only problem is that I don't know how that can be done.





Pianist718 said:


> I am using the MIC that came with my Denon 4311.
> By the way, not sure how to increase the bass other than boosting it in Channel volume but that would only boost the sub ... what about boosting frequencies above 60hz as the chart shows that it lowered everything below 120hz.



Hi,

I have several observations. First, those frequency response graphs on your Denon are virtually worthless. In theory, they attempt to depict (in a very gross way) the EQ that Audyssey is attempting to do, although not what it actually did. In actual practice, it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from them. XT-32 sets thousands of control points for each channel. Seeing a few broad frequencies can be very deceptive. Even the creator of Audyssey considered them mostly a marketing device; because who doesn't like to look at cool graphs?

Second, Audyssey is a very sophisticated system of room EQ. It can pick-up things that your ears won't hear and exacerbate them sometimes, so proper set-up and calibration technique can be extremely important. JD's suggestion to move your speakers out a little is a good one. I would also toe them in a bit toward your main listening position. I would also keep all 8 of my mic positions in a fairly tight pattern when I calibrate, and make sure that the Audyssey mic doesn't get too close to any walls or other hard surfaces. Again, it will "hear" reflections from those surfaces in a way that you won't.

When you run your Audyssey calibration, I would put a fluffy blanket over the back of the sofa, during the calibration. You can remove it afterwards. Otherwise, you may get some comb filtering from the proximity of the Audyssey mic to the smooth leather surface of the sofa. With a blanket over the back, you can place your mic within about 6" of the sofa back and much closer to where your ears will be. I would also invest in a boom mic stand, rather than using the cardboard one that came with your AVR. Something like this would be good: 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002D0KOG/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_27?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

Finally, once you believe that you have a good calibration, I would experiment with some settings. DEQ on and off, for instance. Audyssey versus Flat, as another example. They are slightly different target curves. Flat leaves the mid and high frequencies completely alone, once they are EQed. The Audyssey (Reference) curve attenuates the high frequencies slightly and puts in a mid-range compensation in the form of a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. You can read more about those curves in the FAQ, linked below. They may or may not sound different to you. If they do, just trust your ears and go with the one you like.

I would also experiment a bit with adding bass yourself. If you increase the bass coming from your subs, it will go up to (and slightly above) your crossover points for your regular channels, and a little above 120Hz for the LFE channel. If you want to understand more about why you hear less bass with Audyssey engaged, and the best way to get it back, there is a thorough treatment of that subject in the subwoofer guide, linked below. The guide also explains the action of DEQ in some detail.

You can always choose to turn Audyssey off and do without room correction. But, if you are willing to invest some time and effort in it, you can usually achieve much better sound quality with it on. It's sort of like adding room treatments. It's a little bit of trouble to put them where they need to go, and there may be some trial-and-error involved. But, the results can be very worthwhile.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Pianist718

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have several observations. First, those frequency response graphs on your Denon are virtually worthless. In theory, they attempt to depict (in a very gross way) the EQ that Audyssey is attempting to do, although not what it actually did. In actual practice, it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from them. XT-32 sets thousands of control points for each channel. Seeing a few broad frequencies can be very deceptive. Even the creator of Audyssey considered them mostly a marketing device; because who doesn't like to look at cool graphs?
> 
> Second, Audyssey is a very sophisticated system of room EQ. It can pick-up things that your ears won't hear and exacerbate them sometimes, so proper set-up and calibration technique can be extremely important. JD's suggestion to move your speakers out a little is a good one. I would also toe them in a bit toward your main listening position. I would also keep all 8 of my mic positions in a fairly tight pattern when I calibrate, and make sure that the Audyssey mic doesn't get too close to any walls or other hard surfaces. Again, it will "hear" reflections from those surfaces in a way that you won't.
> 
> When you run your Audyssey calibration, I would put a fluffy blanket over the back of the sofa, during the calibration. You can remove it afterwards. Otherwise, you may get some comb filtering from the proximity of the Audyssey mic to the smooth leather surface of the sofa. With a blanket over the back, you can place your mic within about 6" of the sofa back and much closer to where your ears will be. I would also invest in a boom mic stand, rather than using the cardboard one that came with your AVR. Something like this would be good:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002D0KOG/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_27?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> Finally, once you believe that you have a good calibration, I would experiment with some settings. DEQ on and off, for instance. Audyssey versus Flat, as another example. They are slightly different target curves. Flat leaves the mid and high frequencies completely alone, once they are EQed. The Audyssey (Reference) curve attenuates the high frequencies slightly and puts in a mid-range compensation in the form of a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. You can read more about those curves in the FAQ, linked below. They may or may not sound different to you. If they do, just trust your ears and go with the one you like.
> 
> I would also experiment a bit with adding bass yourself. If you increase the bass coming from your subs, it will go up to (and slightly above) your crossover points for your regular channels, and a little above 120Hz for the LFE channel. If you want to understand more about why you hear less bass with Audyssey engaged, and the best way to get it back, there is a thorough treatment of that subject in the subwoofer guide, linked below. The guide also explains the action of DEQ in some detail.
> 
> You can always choose to turn Audyssey off and do without room correction. But, if you are willing to invest some time and effort in it, you can usually achieve much better sound quality with it on. It's sort of like adding room treatments. It's a little bit of trouble to put them where they need to go, and there may be some trial-and-error involved. But, the results can be very worthwhile.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike for such detailed info.

I re-ran the set up again and now it sounds a bit better, especially when I changed cross over to 60hz and increase sub from -1 to +5. WHen I compare Audyssey ON vs OFF, biggest difference now is that when it's OFF I get louder high frequencies (not liking them at all). After increase the sub, lows are now somewhat similar when I turn it ON or OFF, so maybe I will stick with Audyssey ON. If I feel the bug of running Audyssey set up again, I'll try to keep my mic in closer proximity to main listening zone, AND, definitely will try the towel covering the couch as my mic was somewhat close to that reflection.


----------



## amitjm1980

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have several observations. First, those frequency response graphs on your Denon are virtually worthless. In theory, they attempt to depict (in a very gross way) the EQ that Audyssey is attempting to do, although not what it actually did. In actual practice, it is very difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from them. XT-32 sets thousands of control points for each channel. Seeing a few broad frequencies can be very deceptive. Even the creator of Audyssey considered them mostly a marketing device; because who doesn't like to look at cool graphs?
> 
> Second, Audyssey is a very sophisticated system of room EQ. It can pick-up things that your ears won't hear and exacerbate them sometimes, so proper set-up and calibration technique can be extremely important. JD's suggestion to move your speakers out a little is a good one. I would also toe them in a bit toward your main listening position. I would also keep all 8 of my mic positions in a fairly tight pattern when I calibrate, and make sure that the Audyssey mic doesn't get too close to any walls or other hard surfaces. Again, it will "hear" reflections from those surfaces in a way that you won't.
> 
> When you run your Audyssey calibration, I would put a fluffy blanket over the back of the sofa, during the calibration. You can remove it afterwards. Otherwise, you may get some comb filtering from the proximity of the Audyssey mic to the smooth leather surface of the sofa. With a blanket over the back, you can place your mic within about 6" of the sofa back and much closer to where your ears will be. I would also invest in a boom mic stand, rather than using the cardboard one that came with your AVR. Something like this would be good:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002D0KOG/ref=ox_sc_sfl_title_27?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
> 
> Finally, once you believe that you have a good calibration, I would experiment with some settings. DEQ on and off, for instance. Audyssey versus Flat, as another example. They are slightly different target curves. Flat leaves the mid and high frequencies completely alone, once they are EQed. The Audyssey (Reference) curve attenuates the high frequencies slightly and puts in a mid-range compensation in the form of a dip between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. You can read more about those curves in the FAQ, linked below. They may or may not sound different to you. If they do, just trust your ears and go with the one you like.
> 
> I would also experiment a bit with adding bass yourself. If you increase the bass coming from your subs, it will go up to (and slightly above) your crossover points for your regular channels, and a little above 120Hz for the LFE channel. If you want to understand more about why you hear less bass with Audyssey engaged, and the best way to get it back, there is a thorough treatment of that subject in the subwoofer guide, linked below. The guide also explains the action of DEQ in some detail.
> 
> You can always choose to turn Audyssey off and do without room correction. But, if you are willing to invest some time and effort in it, you can usually achieve much better sound quality with it on. It's sort of like adding room treatments. It's a little bit of trouble to put them where they need to go, and there may be some trial-and-error involved. But, the results can be very worthwhile.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks everyone. I sat for an hour listening to music in stereo switching back and forth with Audyssey on and off, and the difference with Audyssey on (dynamic EQ and volume off) is definitely apparent and sounds much better. Appreciate the feedback.


----------



## mthomas47

Pianist718 said:


> Thanks Mike for such detailed info.
> 
> I re-ran the set up again and now it sounds a bit better, especially when I changed cross over to 60hz and increase sub from -1 to +5. WHen I compare Audyssey ON vs OFF, biggest difference now is that when it's OFF I get louder high frequencies (not liking them at all). After increase the sub, lows are now somewhat similar when I turn it ON or OFF, so maybe I will stick with Audyssey ON. If I feel the bug of running Audyssey set up again, I'll try to keep my mic in closer proximity to main listening zone, AND, definitely will try the towel covering the couch as my mic was somewhat close to that reflection.


You are very welcome!  If your situation is like mine was, it may take a little while to get your calibration routine dialed-in, and to find the settings you like. I do recommend reading the subwoofer guide, though. You are much better off leaving the gain setting on your sub fairly high and keeping your AVR subwoofer trim well into negative numbers. Ideally, you would want to end up with a trim setting of no more than about -3, after you have added whatever sub boost you want to use. There are a couple of different ways to do that, explained in detail in the guide.


----------



## garygarrison

Pianist718 said:


> Thanks Mike for such detailed info.
> 
> I re-ran the set up again and now it sounds a bit better, especially when I changed cross over to 60hz and increase sub from -1 to +5. WHen I compare Audyssey ON vs OFF, biggest difference now is that when it's OFF I get louder high frequencies (not liking them at all). After increase the sub, lows are now somewhat similar when I turn it ON or OFF, so maybe I will stick with Audyssey ON. If I feel the bug of running Audyssey set up again, I'll try to keep my mic in closer proximity to main listening zone, AND, definitely will try the towel covering the couch as my mic was somewhat close to that reflection.


What was your crossover point before you changed it to 60 Hz?


----------



## Pianist718

garygarrison said:


> What was your crossover point before you changed it to 60 Hz?


Well, Audyssey made my bookshelf speakers "Large" and I changed them back to SMALL. Cross over it did 40hz for mains and 80 or 60 for surrounds.


----------



## mthomas47

Pianist718 said:


> Well, Audyssey made my bookshelf speakers "Large" and I changed them back to SMALL. Cross over it did 40hz for mains and 80 or 60 for surrounds.


Gary's question was a very good one. Your Ascend speakers are very nice speakers, with a good reputation, but if they are the ones in your signature, I believe they only have a 5 1/4" driver for the bass frequencies. Setting a crossover of 80Hz, or even 100Hz, will do two things. First, it will allow your speakers to play the frequencies above about 100Hz with more headroom and clarity, as more of the bass load is transferred to your much more powerful subwoofer.

Second, as you increase the sub boost, you will be affecting more mid-bass as well as low-bass frequencies. Your system should immediately sound better with a crossover higher than 60Hz, and any increases you make to your sub volume should have much more impact. The only reason I can see to use lower than about a 90Hz or 100Hz crossover in this case would involve being especially sensitive to subwoofer localization. And, with your sub on the front wall, I can't see how that factor would even come into play.

Try higher crossovers. I think you will like what that does.


----------



## garygarrison

*The Neverending Journey*



Pianist718 said:


> Well, Audyssey made my bookshelf speakers "Large" and I changed them back to SMALL. *Cross over it did 40hz for mains* and 80 or 60 for surrounds.


IMO, you were right in changing from "Large" to "Small." 

I'm flabbergasted that speakers as small as your LF and RF were measured as having a 3 dB down point of 40 Hz. Part of this may be due to them being pretty much in corners. Most speakers that size would roll off considerably higher. 

The most common crossover point is 80 Hz, leaving the lowest octave of music (except for organ/electronic) to the sub. By setting your crossover as low as 60 Hz, you may have forfeited your ability to boost bass from 60 Hz to 120 Hz, unless you use the "true" tone control labeled "Bass" which becomes available only with DEQ OFF (and DV off, I think). Don't use the virtual sliders because they can't be used with Audyssey. Typically, the Bass tone control (on an AVR) provides up to 6 dB boost, and the lower the frequency, the greater the boost (up to 6 dB). The Bass tone control affects the LF and RF only, and will have a minimal effect with your mains set to "Small," since they will gradually fade out below your crossover point, if they remain set on "Small." That's O.K., though, because you can boost the bass below crossover to the sub by any reasonable amount with the gain control on the sub itself (after running Audyssey), or to a lesser degree with the sub trim in the AVR. An excellent work up on how to juggle the sub gain (on the sub) and the sub trim (in the AVR). as well as manipulating the Audyssey set up to produce a low trim level, that can then be turned up some after calibration, without overloading, can be found in Mike's subwoofer guide. "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ" So, if you leave the crossover set for 60 Hz, you can boost the bass just a bit from 60 Hz to 120 Hz afterrunning Audyssey, and boost the bass below 60 Hz by raising the sub gain (the knob on the sub itself) *after* running Audyssey. On the other hand, if you were to change the crossover to 80 Hz or 100 Hz, you would decrease the strain on your small main speakers. So, with the crossover at, say, 90 Hz, you could turn up the sub (after Audyssey calibration) to let it do the heaving lifting, then increase the bass up to about 120 Hz with the Bass tone control. 

Unlike others, I'd probably leave your LF and RF in the corners. Compared to a position farther out into the room, you should get 3 or 4 dB more headroom with them in the corners. If there is a problem with imaging, an acoustically absorbent pad could be put on each side wall to prevent early reflections from the speaker. It could be about 2 feet square and start where a yardstick temporarily placed across the front surface of the speaker would touch the wall, and extend 2 feet farther into the room. Of course, you would have to run Audyssey again. 

But, I'm "dry labing" this. Let your ears be your guide. Don't be too surprised if you change some settings or strategies during your first year or two with Audyssey.


----------



## Pianist718

mthomas47 said:


> Gary's question was a very good one. Your Ascend speakers are very nice speakers, with a good reputation, but if they are the ones in your signature, I believe they only have a 5 1/4" driver for the bass frequencies. Setting a crossover of 80Hz, or even 100Hz, will do two things. First, it will allow your speakers to play the frequencies above about 100Hz with more headroom and clarity, as more of the bass load is transferred to your much more powerful subwoofer.
> 
> Second, as you increase the sub boost, you will be affecting more mid-bass as well as low-bass frequencies. Your system should immediately sound better with a crossover higher than 60Hz, and any increases you make to your sub volume should have much more impact. The only reason I can see to use lower than about a 90Hz or 100Hz crossover in this case would involve being especially sensitive to subwoofer localization. And, with your sub on the front wall, I can't see how that factor would even come into play.
> 
> Try higher crossovers. I think you will like what that does.


Thank you. Definitely will try it, BUT, I am curious at what frequency sound becomes non directional. Meaning that wether a sub or speaker is playing that frequency, it does not project sound. When I go from 80hz to 60hz it feels as if I get more bass.


----------



## mthomas47

Pianist718 said:


> Thank you. Definitely will try it, BUT, I am curious at what frequency sound becomes non directional. Meaning that wether a sub or speaker is playing that frequency, it does not project sound. When I go from 80hz to 60hz it feels as if I get more bass.


You are welcome! That's a hard question. Part of the problem in answering it is that we rarely hear single frequencies. We also hear undertones and overtones. Overtones of a frequency may still draw our attention, and we might feel tactile sensations which also provide directional cues. Empirically speaking, though, most people cannot localize a subwoofer at 80Hz or under.

I agree with Gary that you need to let your ears be your guide, but it is perplexing to me that a 60Hz crossover could provide more bass than an 80Hz one with your 5" woofers. It may be that when you tried that crossover last time, you had not yet boosted your subs. In my opinion, you should get significantly better bass at 60Hz, from your sub, than you should from your front speakers. Try listening to something with some good mid-bass, perhaps something like John Wick, during one of the many gunfight scenes. With a sub boost, your Rythmik should walk all over your Ascends as you raise the crossover to 80Hz or higher.

On the other hand, as you raise your crossover, particularly to about 100Hz, you can experiment with using your tone control to augment the mid-bass that your front speakers are playing. Of course, you would have to turn off DEQ to use that feature. That is not something that I would recommend doing with a 60Hz crossover for those speakers. Even the bass boost that DEQ provides to those speakers would worry me a little with a 60Hz crossover. Those are very nice speakers, but they were never designed to play much low bass.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## klimo

*quick Audyssey xt32 Q?*

When you normally run xt32 you have to run it 6 times from 6 different position, that are all very close to each other. 

In order to save time for a temporary calibration , can you just run it once from the initial position?


----------



## mthomas47

klimo said:


> When you normally run xt32 you have to run it 6 times from 6 different position, that are all very close to each other.
> 
> In order to save time for a temporary calibration , can you just run it once from the initial position?


Hi,

XT and XT-32 actually require (recommend) using 8 mic positions. Some people use fewer than 8 mic positions even for full calibrations. In general, the fuzzy logic weighting system is designed to work better when we give it more information, so it is advisable to use all 8 mic positions (although they can be pretty close together) when doing a "permanent" calibration.

If you are doing a temporary calibration, to test AVR sub trim settings for instance, then you can use the minimum number of mic positions that your AVR requires in order to calibrate. In my slightly older Marantz SR7008, I can calibrate after just one mic position. I have read that with some newer Denon/Marantz AVR's, a minimum of three mic positions is required before Audyssey will calibrate.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

How much impact do reflections affect an audyssey calibration? My two side surround speakers lose some line of sight if the outside two seats on my seating are fully up, but when I recline them to be even with the 2 inside seats (MLP) they cause some early reflections. Trying to decide if I should calibrate with them reclined to preserve more line of sight or up and remove the reflections.


----------



## mthomas47

grendelrt said:


> How much impact do reflections affect an audyssey calibration? My two side surround speakers lose some line of sight if the outside two seats on my seating are fully up, but when I recline them to be even with the 2 inside seats (MLP) they cause some early reflections. Trying to decide if I should calibrate with them reclined to preserve more line of sight or up and remove the reflections.


That's an interesting question, and I might try a couple of different methods to determine what sounds best. Audyssey definitely picks-up early reflections and may attempt to compensate, or in the case of comb filtering effects due to mic proximity to a hard surface, overcompensate for them.

If I were addressing the situation you describe, I think that my first thought would be to recline the seats and cover them with a blanket to keep the Audyssey mic from overreacting to them. Then, after calibration, I would return them to their normal listening position (or leave them reclined if someone is actually using them that way) and remove the blanket. I think that would give you the line-of-sight improvement that you may want without incurring spurious reflections as a result. But, some of this is simply trial-and-error to determine what sounds best.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## grendelrt

mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting question, and I might try a couple of different methods to determine what sounds best. Audyssey definitely picks-up early reflections and may attempt to compensate, or in the case of comb filtering effects due to mic proximity to a hard surface, overcompensate for them.
> 
> If I were addressing the situation you describe, I think that my first thought would be to recline the seats and cover them with a blanket to keep the Audyssey mic from overreacting to them. Then, after calibration, I would return them to their normal listening position (or leave them reclined if someone is actually using them that way) and remove the blanket. I think that would give you the line-of-sight improvement that you may want without incurring spurious reflections as a result. But, some of this is simply trial-and-error to determine what sounds best.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Good idea with the blankets, I am already going to have to do that with the back rests as well. I have so many variables at this point, it would take me a decade to try out all the combinations. I agree with your thought though, probably best of both worlds.


----------



## citsur86

mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting question, and I might try a couple of different methods to determine what sounds best. Audyssey definitely picks-up early reflections and may attempt to compensate, or in the case of comb filtering effects due to mic proximity to a hard surface, overcompensate for them.
> 
> If I were addressing the situation you describe, I think that my first thought would be to recline the seats and cover them with a blanket to keep the Audyssey mic from overreacting to them. Then, after calibration, I would return them to their normal listening position (or leave them reclined if someone is actually using them that way) and remove the blanket. I think that would give you the line-of-sight improvement that you may want without incurring spurious reflections as a result. But, some of this is simply trial-and-error to determine what sounds best.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I've thought to do the blanket thing before too in the past, as I have reflective leather couches. I've even tried it and wound up with results that were improved when running REW sweeps vs not having the blankets. When I removed the blankets and re-did my sweeps, the REW sweeps produced results that were _worse_ than when I just let Audyssey do it's thing with the couches uncovered. So, I arrived at the conclusion that if the blankets weren't always going to be there and I ran Audyssey with them in place, the EQ Audyssey creates in that case will be for an environment that won't really exist. I figured it would be better to let the reflections happen as they normally will, and let Audyssey do it's best to EQ based on that sound.

Is this thinking flawed? I'm not being sarcastic or challenging your recommendation at all. I am asking honestly as I would like to learn.


----------



## 01svtL

citsur86 said:


> I've thought to do the blanket thing before too in the past, as I have reflective leather couches. I've even tried it and wound up with results that were improved when running REW sweeps vs not having the blankets. When I removed the blankets and re-did my sweeps, the REW sweeps produced results that were _worse_ than when I just let Audyssey do it's thing with the couches uncovered. So, I arrived at the conclusion that if the blankets weren't always going to be there and I ran Audyssey with them in place, the EQ Audyssey creates in that case will be for an environment that won't really exist. I figured it would be better to let the reflections happen as they normally will, and let Audyssey do it's best to EQ based on that sound.
> 
> Is this thinking flawed? I'm not being sarcastic or challenging your recommendation at all. I am asking honestly as I would like to learn.


Very interested to hear the response to this. I'm in the same boat with leather couches/chairs.


----------



## darthray

01svtL said:


> Very interested to hear the response to this. I'm in the same boat with leather couches/chairs.





citsur86 said:


> I've thought to do the blanket thing before too in the past, as I have reflective leather couches. I've even tried it and wound up with results that were improved when running REW sweeps vs not having the blankets. When I removed the blankets and re-did my sweeps, the REW sweeps produced results that were _worse_ than when I just let Audyssey do it's thing with the couches uncovered. So, I arrived at the conclusion that if the blankets weren't always going to be there and I ran Audyssey with them in place, the EQ Audyssey creates in that case will be for an environment that won't really exist. I figured it would be better to let the reflections happen as they normally will, and let Audyssey do it's best to EQ based on that sound.
> 
> Is this thinking flawed? I'm not being sarcastic or challenging your recommendation at all. I am asking honestly as I would like to learn.



Very informative information to know about, fabric seating vs leather.
Does not apply to me, since I use fabric, but nice to know no less.


Ray


----------



## Falconsfan71

Same interest here as to if you should use a blanket...? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

citsur86 said:


> I've thought to do the blanket thing before too in the past, as I have reflective leather couches. I've even tried it and wound up with results that were improved when running REW sweeps vs not having the blankets. When I removed the blankets and re-did my sweeps, the REW sweeps produced results that were _worse_ than when I just let Audyssey do it's thing with the couches uncovered. So, I arrived at the conclusion that if the blankets weren't always going to be there and I ran Audyssey with them in place, the EQ Audyssey creates in that case will be for an environment that won't really exist. I figured it would be better to let the reflections happen as they normally will, and let Audyssey do it's best to EQ based on that sound.
> 
> Is this thinking flawed? I'm not being sarcastic or challenging your recommendation at all. I am asking honestly as I would like to learn.



Hi,

I think it's a very fair question. I don't believe that your thinking is flawed, but it is sometimes very hard to predict what will happen with respect to speaker and sub placement, room treatments, and with automated room EQ, until we actually try something. Your personal experience, in your room, trumps a theory of what might work best. That's why it is usually advisable to experiment with multiple scenarios, unless the first one we try just happens to nail it. I also think that our ears have to be the final arbiters of what sounds best with respect to both the use of room treatments and the application of room EQ.

I do think that there is a valid reason why putting a blanket over the back of a couch or chair, during calibration only, can work well. But, reasons aside, we still ultimately have to let our ears make the final determination. The Audyssey microphone is omnidirectional. If we get that microphone too close to a hard surface (such as a wall or the back of a leather chair) during the calibration process, the microphone may pick-up many secondary reflections from that hard surface. And, if it does, it may try to correct a non-existent problem in the higher frequencies. When that happened in my room, early in my calibration experiments, the result was a harsher sound in the high frequencies.

So, using a blanket over the back of the chair, during calibration, allows us to place the Audyssey microphone in closer proximity to where our ears will actually be. And, that has some benefit in my experience, and in the experience of a number of other Audyssey users. The alternative to using a blanket to prevent Audyssey from overreacting to the proximity of an omnidirectional mic to a hard surface is to stay further away from that surface. Audyssey recommends keeping the mic at least 12" from a hard surface during calibration, and 18" may be better. But, if we do that, we aren't focusing the timing and SPL exactly at the MLP, and we aren't EQing exactly where our ears are.

(As an aside, I should note that REW notwithstanding, we won't hear what the Audyssey microphone "hears". First, we will actually be sitting with our heads and bodies covering the surfaces that are reflecting high frequencies into the Audyssey mic. Second, the reflections from a couch back would be arriving so close in time to the direct sound that our ears and brains would not be able to distinguish a difference. But the Audyssey microphone would "hear" them all, and to the Audyssey software, it might seem as if too much were happening at those high frequencies, compared to the other frequencies. That could result in an attempt to get too busy at those high frequencies, causing unnecessary correction and concomitant harsh sounds. That's why Audyssey recommends keeping the mic away from hard surfaces during calibration.)

So, I think that there is something intrinsically different between the idea of using a blanket over a chair or couch back during calibration, in order to prevent spurious reflections at close range from tainting the calibration, and making more draconian changes to the listening area. In the case of the OP's question, I suggested trying a couple of different approaches to discover what actually works best, but I did like the idea of reclining the seats to allow better line-of sight for the Audyssey microphone. He was concerned, though, about spurious reflections, in that case. They would be spurious because the seats wouldn't actually be reclined during actual listening. So, the blanket idea might also work there. Or, it might not.

I have confidence in the idea of using a blanket over a leather chair back, during calibration, in order to get the Audyssey microphone closer to our actual listening position. The theory behind why it should work is solid, and Chris K. has endorsed it as a workable and appropriate method. But, even so, that doesn't mean it will work well in every case. And, as we go beyond that methodology to more general applications, such as covering coffee tables or outlying seats with blankets, we have even less solid theory to support the effort. But, with or without solid theory, what works best in actual practice will still be a matter of trial-and-error, and the results will probably vary based on both the room and on user preference.

I hope that this longer explanation of my personal thoughts on the subject are helpful. Ultimately, though, it's still one of those YMMV issues. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## citsur86

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think it's a very fair question. I don't believe that your thinking is flawed, but it is sometimes very hard to predict what will happen with respect to speaker and sub placement, room treatments, and with automated room EQ, until we actually try something. Your personal experience, in your room, trumps a theory of what might work best. That's why it is usually advisable to experiment with multiple scenarios, unless the first one we try just happens to nail it. I also think that our ears have to be the final arbiters of what sounds best with respect to both the use of room treatments and the application of room EQ.
> 
> I do think that there is a valid reason why putting a blanket over the back of a couch or chair, during calibration only, can work well. But, reasons aside, we still ultimately have to let our ears make the final determination. The Audyssey microphone is omnidirectional. If we get that microphone too close to a hard surface (such as a wall or the back of a leather chair) during the calibration process, the microphone may pick-up many secondary reflections from that hard surface. And, if it does, it may try to correct a non-existent problem in the higher frequencies. When that happened in my room, early in my calibration experiments, the result was a harsher sound in the high frequencies.
> 
> So, using a blanket over the back of the chair, during calibration, allows us to place the Audyssey microphone in closer proximity to where our ears will actually be. And, that has some benefit in my experience, and in the experience of a number of other Audyssey users. The alternative to using a blanket to prevent Audyssey from overreacting to the proximity of an omnidirectional mic to a hard surface is to stay further away from that surface. Audyssey recommends keeping the mic at least 12" from a hard surface during calibration, and 18" may be better. But, if we do that, we aren't focusing the timing and SPL exactly at the MLP, and we aren't EQing exactly where our ears are.
> 
> (As an aside, I should note that REW notwithstanding, we won't hear what the Audyssey microphone "hears". First, we will actually be sitting with our heads and bodies covering the surfaces that are reflecting high frequencies into the Audyssey mic. Second, the reflections from a couch back would be arriving so close in time to the direct sound that our ears and brains would not be able to distinguish a difference. But the Audyssey microphone would "hear" them all, and to the Audyssey software, it might seem as if too much were happening at those high frequencies, compared to the other frequencies. That could result in an attempt to get too busy at those high frequencies, causing unnecessary correction and concomitant harsh sounds. That's why Audyssey recommends keeping the mic away from hard surfaces during calibration.)
> 
> So, I think that there is something intrinsically different between the idea of using a blanket over a chair or couch back during calibration, in order to prevent spurious reflections at close range from tainting the calibration, and making more draconian changes to the listening area. In the case of the OP's question, I suggested trying a couple of different approaches to discover what actually works best, but I did like the idea of reclining the seats to allow better line-of sight for the Audyssey microphone. He was concerned, though, about spurious reflections, in that case. They would be spurious because the seats wouldn't actually be reclined during actual listening. So, the blanket idea might also work there. Or, it might not.
> 
> I have confidence in the idea of using a blanket over a leather chair back, during calibration, in order to get the Audyssey microphone closer to our actual listening position. The theory behind why it should work is solid, and Chris K. has endorsed it as a workable and appropriate method. But, even so, that doesn't mean it will work well in every case. And, as we go beyond that methodology to more general applications, such as covering coffee tables or outlying seats with blankets, we have even less solid theory to support the effort. But, with or without solid theory, what works best in actual practice will still be a matter of trial-and-error, and the results will probably vary based on both the room and on user preference.
> 
> I hope that this longer explanation of my personal thoughts on the subject are helpful. Ultimately, though, it's still one of those YMMV issues.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


As usual, that was an extremely helpful and well thought out response. It makes a lot of sense to me. It even got me thinking to give the couch recline and cover idea a try as my couch also has reclining seats (and I often recline in them during movie watching). I think I will give this a shot tonight and see how it goes.

Thanks,
Mike (I'm also a Mike  )


----------



## David Aiken

citsur86 said:


> I've thought to do the blanket thing before too in the past, as I have reflective leather couches. I've even tried it and wound up with results that were improved when running REW sweeps vs not having the blankets. When I removed the blankets and re-did my sweeps, the REW sweeps produced results that were _worse_ than when I just let Audyssey do it's thing with the couches uncovered. So, I arrived at the conclusion that if the blankets weren't always going to be there and I ran Audyssey with them in place, the EQ Audyssey creates in that case will be for an environment that won't really exist. I figured it would be better to let the reflections happen as they normally will, and let Audyssey do it's best to EQ based on that sound.
> 
> Is this thinking flawed? I'm not being sarcastic or challenging your recommendation at all. I am asking honestly as I would like to learn.


I think it's flawed thinking.

You're measuring with the mic in front of a chair with reflective leather covering so the mic is picking up reflections from the chair if you don't cover the chair with a blanket. When you're actually using the system, the leather of the chair is covered by you so you're not hearing reflections from the leather surface or at most only a small amount of reflection from any leather you aren't physically covering with your body. If you don't want to cover the chair with a blanket and you do want to measure the same environment that exists when you're using the system, then you have to take your measurements with someone actually sitting in the chair, and any other normal viewers sitting where they usually sit. You can't take the measurements while someone is sitting in the chair because you can't place the mic in the space occupied by someone's head.

The blanket isn't a perfect approximation of how things are when you're sitting in the chair. The uncovered chair isn't a perfect approximation of how things are when you're sitting in the chair. There's no way to get an exact measurement of what the room is like during normal use but the aim of the exercise is to get a result that makes your use of the system more enjoyable. If you don't like the result you get with the chair uncovered and you prefer the result you get doing the measurements with the chair covered by a blanket, why would you not measure with the blanket in place and then use the result you get from those measurements?

It's easy to overthink things. Audyssey's profile isn't a magic profile that suits everyone. It's based on research on people's preferences and it reflects a "majority view". We don't know how well it reflects your personal view or my personal view. We get different results from our measurements if we use slightly different mic placements or leave a door or window open one time and not the next time we do a full calibration, and so on. There's no way of guaranteeing a perfect measurement process that will deliver the ideal Audyssey result and no guarantee that we—you or I or anyone else doing the process—will personally like the result we get. 

The practical solution to the process is to follow Audyssey's instructions as well as we can and see if we like the result. If we don't like the result then either we live with it anyway, try the process again changing something that changes the result and gives us a result we do like, or we stop using Audyssey and try other options for changing the way the system sounds. Those are the only options we have.

The problem in my room isn't a leather chair, it's a steel topped coffee table. I remove it from the room when I do my setup and put it back afterwards. I want to have the coffee table there and there's usually things like books and remotes and other stuff on it breaking up the reflections from it anyway, but I don't like the result I get if I do my measurements with the table in place so I remove it. 

Your reason for using Audyssey should be to get a more enjoyable listening result. The aim is not to produce a result that implements some specific target response curve perfectly because we can't do that when we don't do measurements of the room as it is in actual use with every normal listener sitting where they would normally sit during normal use, and the aim is definitely not to live with a result that we don't enjoy. If making a change in the measurement process, whether that be in mic positioning or using a blanket over a leather chair or removing a coffee table from the room during measurements, produces a result that suits us more than the result we get if we don't make that change, then the best thing to do is to make that change in our measurement procedure and get the result we prefer more because the reason for using Audyssey is to get a more enjoyable result.


----------



## pbarach

citsur86 said:


> I've thought to do the blanket thing before too in the past, as I have reflective leather couches. I've even tried it and wound up with results that were improved when running REW sweeps vs not having the blankets. When I removed the blankets and re-did my sweeps, the REW sweeps produced results that were _worse_ than when I just let Audyssey do it's thing with the couches uncovered. So, I arrived at the conclusion that if the blankets weren't always going to be there and I ran Audyssey with them in place, the EQ Audyssey creates in that case will be for an environment that won't really exist. I figured it would be better to let the reflections happen as they normally will, and let Audyssey do it's best to EQ based on that sound.
> 
> Is this thinking flawed? I'm not being sarcastic or challenging your recommendation at all. I am asking honestly as I would like to learn.


I don't think your thinking is flawed. Also, we know that the Audyssey calibration is not done with people sitting on those leather couches, which undoubtedly has an effect on the acoustics of the room. Clothed people are in the rooms when we listen, and Audyssey doesn't measure what that does to room acoustics. Certainly we are (when clothed!) more sound absorbent than a leather couch.


----------



## garygarrison

*Somewhere, *I read that a crew acoustically treating/balancing a concert hall placed burlap sacks stuffed with fluff in most of the seats to simulate an audience, on the grounds that a room full of empty seats would not acoustically resemble a full house. 

It sounds weird, but that shouldn't be too hard to do. If your regular movie audience has a few folk who wear spectacles, be sure to put glasses on a few of the sacks.


----------



## dr_gallup

Just get some crash test dummies or maybe some scarecrows.


----------



## Alan P

pbarach said:


> Clothed people are in the rooms when we listen....


Speak for yourself, sir!


----------



## Pianist718

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! That's a hard question. Part of the problem in answering it is that we rarely hear single frequencies. We also hear undertones and overtones. Overtones of a frequency may still draw our attention, and we might feel tactile sensations which also provide directional cues. Empirically speaking, though, most people cannot localize a subwoofer at 80Hz or under.
> 
> I agree with Gary that you need to let your ears be your guide, but it is perplexing to me that a 60Hz crossover could provide more bass than an 80Hz one with your 5" woofers. It may be that when you tried that crossover last time, you had not yet boosted your subs. In my opinion, you should get significantly better bass at 60Hz, from your sub, than you should from your front speakers. Try listening to something with some good mid-bass, perhaps something like John Wick, during one of the many gunfight scenes. With a sub boost, your Rythmik should walk all over your Ascends as you raise the crossover to 80Hz or higher.
> 
> On the other hand, as you raise your crossover, particularly to about 100Hz, you can experiment with using your tone control to augment the mid-bass that your front speakers are playing. Of course, you would have to turn off DEQ to use that feature. That is not something that I would recommend doing with a 60Hz crossover for those speakers. Even the bass boost that DEQ provides to those speakers would worry me a little with a 60Hz crossover. Those are very nice speakers, but they were never designed to play much low bass.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


YOU ARE THE MAN! 
It's like you gave me so much more control over my sound. I changed it to 110hz crossover and it sounds so much better. In fact, I can easily manipulate lower frequencies by now changing the level of sub. You gave my my LFE back.


----------



## mthomas47

Pianist718 said:


> YOU ARE THE MAN!
> It's like you gave me so much more control over my sound. I changed it to 110hz crossover and it sounds so much better. In fact, I can easily manipulate lower frequencies by now changing the level of sub. You gave my my LFE back.



That's outstanding! I'm glad it worked.  The bass is such an important component of HT movie watching.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Mike is the man. He has helped me numerous times, to either tweak something, or just to confirm my thinking was correct.


----------



## mthomas47

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Mike is the man. He has helped me numerous times, to either tweak something, or just to confirm my thinking was correct.


Thank you for the nice comment! I enjoy being able to help a little, as others have helped me.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Pianist718

mthomas47 said:


> That's outstanding! I'm glad it worked.  The bass is such an important component of HT movie watching.


Now if I could only do the same to my high frequencies. Currently high frequencies are OK but just a tad muted. If I turn off Audessey or set it to L/R off it makes the sound a bit too harsh for my liking (too much volume in high frequencies). If I could modify it somehow without re-running Audessey, that would be great.


----------



## primetimeguy

Pianist718 said:


> Now if I could only do the same to my high frequencies. Currently high frequencies are OK but just a tad muted. If I turn off Audessey or set it to L/R off it makes the sound a bit too harsh for my liking (too much volume in high frequencies). If I could modify it somehow without re-running Audessey, that would be great.


Have you tried the flat/music curve? 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Pianist718

primetimeguy said:


> Have you tried the flat/music curve?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Just did and it's nice to have that option but I wish I could get sound between Audyssey ON and FLAT. Either way, no big deal.


----------



## primetimeguy

Pianist718 said:


> Just did and it's nice to have that option but I wish I could get sound between Audyssey ON and FLAT. Either way, no big deal.


You could try what I did, point the microphone at each speaker when running audyssey. It can be tricky and you need good timing but it causes the kick to see a bit more high frequencies and therefore provide more rolloff. Then you can use the music/flat curve which will now be close to previous reference curve only not using midrange compensation. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Pianist718 said:


> Just did and it's nice to have that option but I wish I could get sound between Audyssey ON and FLAT. Either way, no big deal.


Hi,

If you are satisfied with where you are now, then you can stop there.  But, if you are willing to keep experimenting, you still have some options to tweak your sound a bit. The Flat curve doesn't attenuate the high frequencies the way that the Audyssey (Reference) curve does. It also doesn't have a dip in the mid-range between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. But, without any high frequency attenuation at all, you may wish for something in between the two, as you said. I think of it as the Goldilocks scenario: Too much; too little; just right.

If you are willing to turn-off DEQ, two things will happen. First, DEQ is slightly boosting the high frequencies. Most of us don't really notice that treble boost much, but on top of Flat, it may be a cumulative thing. So, the first thing that will happen if you turn off DEQ is that you will lose the treble boost that DEQ provides. The second thing that will happen is that your tone controls (which affect the front speakers) will no longer be grayed-out. So, you can try Flat with a decibel or two less treble, or you can try Audyssey with a couple of decibels or so more treble. One of those two options of curve and treble tone control, should get you to that "just right" point.

Of course, when you turn off DEQ, you will also lose the bass boost that DEQ provides. So, if you try that scenario, you will need to use more independent sub boost to compensate. That's no problem, you can use as much as you need to get back to where you were with DEQ engaged. And, with your crossover at 110Hz, I wouldn't mind boosting the bass in the front speakers by a db or two, using that same tone control. There is actually a lot more user adjustability with Audyssey than many people realize, if we are willing to experiment a little to find the particular combination of settings that suits us best.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

mthomas47 said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike is the man. He has helped me numerous times, to either tweak something, or just to confirm my thinking was correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the nice comment! I enjoy being able to help a little, as others have helped me.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

You're quite welcome, and I would venture to say you have helped many here.


----------



## Pianist718

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you are satisfied with where you are now, then you can stop there.  But, if you are willing to keep experimenting, you still have some options to tweak your sound a bit. The Flat curve doesn't attenuate the high frequencies the way that the Audyssey (Reference) curve does. It also doesn't have a dip in the mid-range between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. But, without any high frequency attenuation at all, you may wish for something in between the two, as you said. I think of it as the Goldilocks scenario: Too much; too little; just right.
> 
> If you are willing to turn-off DEQ, two things will happen. First, DEQ is slightly boosting the high frequencies. Most of us don't really notice that treble boost much, but on top of Flat, it may be a cumulative thing. So, the first thing that will happen if you turn off DEQ is that you will lose the treble boost that DEQ provides. The second thing that will happen is that your tone controls (which affect the front speakers) will no longer be grayed-out. So, you can try Flat with a decibel or two less treble, or you can try Audyssey with a couple of decibels or so more treble. One of those two options of curve and treble tone control, should get you to that "just right" point.
> 
> Of course, when you turn off DEQ, you will also lose the bass boost that DEQ provides. So, if you try that scenario, you will need to use more independent sub boost to compensate. That's no problem, you can use as much as you need to get back to where you were with DEQ engaged. And, with your crossover at 110Hz, I wouldn't mind boosting the bass in the front speakers by a db or two, using that same tone control. There is actually a lot more user adjustability with Audyssey than many people realize, if we are willing to experiment a little to find the particular combination of settings that suits us best.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I offer you to move to Wayne, NJ and be my neighbor. I am sure my wife would love to see the beginning of The Dark Night movie (what I usually use to tune my HT) for the 100s time as we make it sound perfect.


----------



## Tgrds

Question for you all:

After running Audyssey XT32 why could I not go back to manually using my Graphic EQ settings?

What happened to cause this:

Yesterday I ran an 8 position Audyssey XT32 calibration on my Denon X3300W system shown in my signature below and everything went great. After listening to my system post calibration in both flat and reference I decided I actually liked the sound a bit better when I had used my manual settings. So I turned Audyssey off and went back to my manual settings; however, the Graphic EQ would no longer work. In the end after trying a number of things including a soft reset I had to do a hard reset of the microprocessor then manually put all of my settings back in. Now everything is back to normal.


----------



## garygarrison

Tgrds said:


> Question for you all:
> 
> After running Audyssey XT32 why could I not go back to manually using my Graphic EQ settings?
> 
> What happened to cause this:
> 
> Yesterday I ran an 8 position Audyssey XT32 calibration on my Denon X3300W system shown in my signature below and everything went great. After listening to my system post calibration in both flat and reference I decided I actually liked the sound a bit better when I had used my manual settings. So I turned Audyssey *off* and went back to my manual settings; however, the Graphic EQ would no longer work. In the end after trying a number of things including a soft reset I had to do a hard reset of the microprocessor then manually put all of my settings back in. Now everything is back to normal.



I've never tried what you did, so I don't really know, but Denon and Marantz are part of the same parent company, and I think I remember that, on my Marantz, my choices are Audysey, Audyssey Flat, OFF and Manual. Do you have a "Manual" (rather than an "OFF") option to try? Or is that what you did? It would be great if you could switch back and forth between your manual settings and the Audyssey corrections.

Exactly what do you like better about your manual settings? If it is something simple like "more bass," you can use Audyssey to produce a relatively smooth curve, then turn up the bass for the mains with one of the "true" tone controls -- the bass control -- _*not*_ the Graphic EQ virtual sliders, since they can't be used with Audyssey. Because turning up a smooth curve is better than turning up a bumpy one, Audyssey can help, even if you are going to change the EQ a bit after using it. Also, the bass and treble controls will only work with DEQ turned off. Bass "happens" in both the mains (set to "small") and the subwoofer, extending from about 20 Hz to 200/250 Hz. Bass below crossover to the sub (e.g., 80 Hz) can be adjusted _*after*_ running Audyssey by adjusting the sub trim in the AVR. There are tricks to adjusting the sub level optimally (to your taste), so see*:*

"Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
and
"Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"


----------



## bmcn

Tgrds said:


> Question for you all:
> 
> After running Audyssey XT32 why could I not go back to manually using my Graphic EQ settings?
> 
> What happened to cause this:
> 
> Yesterday I ran an 8 position Audyssey XT32 calibration on my Denon X3300W system shown in my signature below and everything went great. After listening to my system post calibration in both flat and reference I decided I actually liked the sound a bit better when I had used my manual settings. So I turned Audyssey off and went back to my manual settings; however, the Graphic EQ would no longer work. In the end after trying a number of things including a soft reset I had to do a hard reset of the microprocessor then manually put all of my settings back in. Now everything is back to normal.


Try the app.


----------



## Alan P

Tgrds said:


> Question for you all:
> 
> After running Audyssey XT32 why could I not go back to manually using my Graphic EQ settings?
> 
> What happened to cause this:
> 
> Yesterday I ran an 8 position Audyssey XT32 calibration on my Denon X3300W system shown in my signature below and everything went great. After listening to my system post calibration in both flat and reference I decided I actually liked the sound a bit better when I had used my manual settings. So I turned Audyssey off and went back to my manual settings; however, the Graphic EQ would no longer work. In the end after trying a number of things including a soft reset I had to do a hard reset of the microprocessor then manually put all of my settings back in. Now everything is back to normal.


Gary guessed correctly. All you have to do is change the Audyssey setting from "OFF" to "GEQ" and the GEQ settings will no longer be greyed out in the Audio menu.


----------



## bmcn

Alan P said:


> Gary guessed correctly...


The poster's AVR is compatible with the app. If he tries it, my guess is he'll never use GEQ again.


----------



## primetimeguy

I ran across this over the weekend and was thinking of giving it a try.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hometheater/comments/5zfpgt/i_finally_got_audyssey_calibration_to_use_my_own/

Can someone point me to a cheap mic pre-amp I could use to attempt this?


----------



## Tony Le

Hello,
After I ran the Audyssey calibration I did a subwoofer compression sweep measurements, I noticed sub frequency response output volume was not the same as the receiver volume increase. For example, if the master volume increases 5dB the volume output of the subwoofer theoretically will increase 5dB, however that was not the case, the subwoofer FR output volume gain was about half ~2.5dB (see attached graph). I contacted Audyssey support site and this is their response.

"Dynamic EQ increases low frequencies as master volume is turned down and does nothing at 0dB (reference volume). This means in your example it does the opposite. 
At your starting low volume Dynamic EQ has increased low frequencies. At 5dB increased master volume you can expect that Dynamic EQ is no longer increasing those low frequencies as much. This means that those frequencies did not increase by +5dB as they were being increased by Dynamic EQ and lost some of the EQ increase as the master volume was closer to reference level.If you do not want those frequencies altered with master volume changes, you will need to disable Dynamic EQ."

Is this normal? I have looked at other forum members subwoofer compression sweep charts, their charts do not do that ( a 5dB increase in MV which relates to a 5dB output increase in volume). Thank you for your help.


----------



## primetimeguy

Tony Le said:


> Hello,
> After I ran the Audyssey calibration I did a subwoofer compression sweep measurements, I noticed sub frequency response output volume was not the same as the receiver volume increase. For example, if the master volume increases 5dB the volume output of the subwoofer theoretically will increase 5dB, however that was not the case, the subwoofer FR output volume gain was about half ~2.5dB (see attached graph). I contacted Audyssey support site and this is their response.
> 
> "Dynamic EQ increases low frequencies as master volume is turned down and does nothing at 0dB (reference volume). This means in your example it does the opposite.
> At your starting low volume Dynamic EQ has increased low frequencies. At 5dB increased master volume you can expect that Dynamic EQ is no longer increasing those low frequencies as much. This means that those frequencies did not increase by +5dB as they were being increased by Dynamic EQ and lost some of the EQ increase as the master volume was closer to reference level.If you do not want those frequencies altered with master volume changes, you will need to disable Dynamic EQ."
> 
> Is this normal? I have looked at other forum members subwoofer compression sweep charts, their charts do not do that ( a 5dB increase in MV which relates to a 5dB output increase in volume). Thank you for your help.


Do you have dynamic eq turned on? 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## primetimeguy

primetimeguy said:


> Do you have dynamic eq turned on?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Or dynamic volume? 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Tony Le said:


> Hello,
> After I ran the Audyssey calibration I did a subwoofer compression sweep measurements, I noticed sub frequency response output volume was not the same as the receiver volume increase. For example, if the master volume increases 5dB the volume output of the subwoofer theoretically will increase 5dB, however that was not the case, the subwoofer FR output volume gain was about half ~2.5dB (see attached graph). I contacted Audyssey support site and this is their response.
> 
> "Dynamic EQ increases low frequencies as master volume is turned down and does nothing at 0dB (reference volume). This means in your example it does the opposite.
> At your starting low volume Dynamic EQ has increased low frequencies. At 5dB increased master volume you can expect that Dynamic EQ is no longer increasing those low frequencies as much. This means that those frequencies did not increase by +5dB as they were being increased by Dynamic EQ and lost some of the EQ increase as the master volume was closer to reference level.If you do not want those frequencies altered with master volume changes, you will need to disable Dynamic EQ."
> 
> Is this normal? I have looked at other forum members subwoofer compression sweep charts, their charts do not do that ( a 5dB increase in MV which relates to a 5dB output increase in volume). Thank you for your help.


I think the Audyssey people were correct. It sounds like DEQ is doing its job as you increase volume. I'd actually expect a greater non-parallelism (by measurement, not by ear -- as SPL increases, your ears hear more bass, therefore need less compensation from DEQ). Your three lines are pretty close to point by point parallel in the usual sub range (below 80, 90 or 100 Hz). By how much are they off? My non-calibrated eyeballs estimate the difference to be about 1 dB ... is that correct? That difference could be because DEQ compensates less in the bass range at 5 dB higher volume. Also, measurements with an error of merely 1 dB are rare in the acoustical world, at least in my acoustical world.


----------



## Tony Le

primetimeguy said:


> Or dynamic volume?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


This happens when dynamic EQ is ON. When it's disabled this does not happen. The interesting thing is the main speakers are not affected with Dynamic EQ ON. Seems like this only happen to LFE signals.

MultEQ XT32: Reference
Dynamic EQ: ON
Reference level:0dB
Dynamic Volume: OFF


----------



## primetimeguy

Tony Le said:


> This happens when dynamic EQ is ON. When it's disabled this does not happen. The interesting thing is the main speakers are not affected with Dynamic EQ ON. Seems like this only happen to LFE signals.
> 
> MultEQ XT32: Reference
> Dynamic EQ: ON
> Reference level:0dB
> Dynamic Volume: OFF


It is happening in the main channels to just to a lesser degree and you haven't noticed

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Tony Le

garygarrison said:


> I think the Audyssey people were correct. It sounds like DEQ is doing its job as you increase volume. I'd actually expect a greater non-parallelism (by measurement, not by ear -- as SPL increases, your ears hear more bass, therefore need less compensation from DEQ). Your three lines are pretty close to point by point parallel in the usual sub range (below 80, 90 or 100 Hz). By how much are they off? My non-calibrated eyeballs estimate the difference to be about 1 dB ... is that correct? That difference could be because DEQ compensates less in the bass range at 5 dB higher volume. Also, measurements with an error of merely 1 dB are rare in the acoustical world, at least in my acoustical world.


 They were off about half of the input gain (e.g 5dB increase in MV i got about ~2.5dB volume gain),


----------



## Tony Le

primetimeguy said:


> It is happening in the main channels to just to a lesser degree and you haven't noticed
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Main channels outputs were as expected , increased MV 10dB resulted 10dB volume gain(see chart below).


----------



## primetimeguy

Tony Le said:


> Main channels outputs were as expected , increased MV 10dB resulted 10dB volume gain(see chart below).


Trust us, it is happening. Impact stops by about 300hz and may only be a db or so by 100hz.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Oh, wait.  Your SPL is pretty high, therefore perhaps DEQ is contributing little or nothing. The SPL of Audyssey "pings" or pro band limited pink noise is supposed to be about 75 dB to allow for main channel peaks of 105 dB (115 sub), and you are above 75 dB with your sweep. If DEQ is not acting, it's conceivable you are seeing a bit of compression, but no big deal.

The graph of your mains starts above the frequency of usual sub crossovers.

In any case, I'd think to measure compression you should have DEQ off, and DV off.


----------



## Tony Le

Tony Le said:


> This happens when dynamic EQ is ON. When it's disabled this does not happen. The interesting thing is the main speakers are not affected with Dynamic EQ ON. Seems like this only happen to LFE signals.
> 
> MultEQ XT32: Reference
> Dynamic EQ: ON
> Reference level:0dB
> Dynamic Volume: OFF





garygarrison said:


> Oh, wait.  Your SPL is pretty high, therefore perhaps DEQ is contributing little or nothing. The SPL of Audyssey "pings" or pro band limited pink noise is supposed to be about 75 dB to allow for main channel peaks of 105 dB (115 sub), and you are above 75 dB with your sweep. If DEQ is not acting, it's conceivable you are seeing a bit of compression, but no big deal.
> 
> The graph of your mains starts above the frequency of usual sub crossovers.
> 
> In any case, I'd think to measure compression you should have DEQ off, and DV off.


Thanks its a quick snapshot, just happened i cut it out at that low range frequency. For the main speaker I did a sweep from 100hz to 10Khz, subwoofer from 10hz to 200hz. My main channels crossovers at 80hz


----------



## Tgrds

garygarrison said:


> Exactly what do you like better about your manual settings? If it is something simple like "more bass," you can use Audyssey to produce a relatively smooth curve, then turn up the bass for the mains with one of the "true" tone controls -- the bass control -- _*not*_ the Graphic EQ virtual sliders, since they can't be used with Audyssey. Because turning up a smooth curve is better than turning up a bumpy one, Audyssey can help, even if you are going to change the EQ a bit after using it. Also, the bass and treble controls will only work with DEQ turned off. Bass "happens" in both the mains (set to "small") and the subwoofer, extending from about 20 Hz to 200/250 Hz. Bass below crossover to the sub (e.g., 80 Hz) can be adjusted _*after*_ running Audyssey by adjusting the sub trim in the AVR. There are tricks to adjusting the sub level optimally (to your taste), so see*:*



Thank you for your thoughts I will work to implement them. I have uneven hearing damage with emphasis around 8 kHz and matching constant ringing around that frequency. Thus, I use GEQ’s to effectively lower the dB from about 3 KHz to 11 kHz to minimize my perceived pain. In general I do not like high frequency sound and wish to limit this coming out of my speakers. 



Alan P said:


> Gary guessed correctly. All you have to do is change the Audyssey setting from "OFF" to "GEQ" and the GEQ settings will no longer be greyed out in the Audio menu.


Yes you all are correct and I did exactly this; however, when switching the GEQ on it did not work or I should say nothing happened with the speakers tonal output. Meaning, think switching a light bulb switch from the OFF to the ON position. The light bulb switch worked just fine switching from the OFF to the ON position but the light bulb did not turn on.



bmcn said:


> The poster's AVR is compatible with the app. If he tries it, my guess is he'll never use GEQ again.


Thank you for the suggestion. I will download the app and work with this when I run Audyssey again this weekend.


----------



## Alan P

Tony Le said:


> Hello,
> After I ran the Audyssey calibration I did a subwoofer compression sweep measurements, I noticed sub frequency response output volume was not the same as the receiver volume increase. For example, if the master volume increases 5dB the volume output of the subwoofer theoretically will increase 5dB, however that was not the case, the subwoofer FR output volume gain was about half ~2.5dB (see attached graph). I contacted Audyssey support site and this is their response.
> 
> "Dynamic EQ increases low frequencies as master volume is turned down and does nothing at 0dB (reference volume). This means in your example it does the opposite.
> At your starting low volume Dynamic EQ has increased low frequencies. At 5dB increased master volume you can expect that Dynamic EQ is no longer increasing those low frequencies as much. This means that those frequencies did not increase by +5dB as they were being increased by Dynamic EQ and lost some of the EQ increase as the master volume was closer to reference level.If you do not want those frequencies altered with master volume changes, you will need to disable Dynamic EQ."
> 
> Is this normal? I have looked at other forum members subwoofer compression sweep charts, their charts do not do that ( a 5dB increase in MV which relates to a 5dB output increase in volume). Thank you for your help.


DEQ is working exactly as it should (adding about 2.2dB for every 5dB under 0MV), and as I said in your other thread, you should never have DEQ engaged for compression sweeps.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> DEQ is working exactly as it should (adding about 2.2dB for every 5dB under 0MV), and as I said in your other thread, you should never have DEQ engaged for compression sweeps.


Alan et al,

And then let's not forget that DEQ has a two-tier operation, so a 2.2 dB boost for every 5 dB under 0 dB MV maybe true, but only in case the input signal is 0 dB (electric). When the program material changes from loud to soft DEQ will apply more boost to the soft part whilst the MV knob stays at the same volume setting. Hence the name DYNAMIC. But we all know this, right?


----------



## Tony Le

Alan P said:


> DEQ is working exactly as it should (adding about 2.2dB for every 5dB under 0MV), and as I said in your other thread, you should never have DEQ engaged for compression sweeps.


Thanks for you help. You answered my question. I had DynEQ ON, turned it OFF, working now thanks again.


----------



## Redskin

Alan P said:


> DEQ is working exactly as it should (adding about 2.2dB for every 5dB under 0MV), and as I said in your other thread, you should never have DEQ engaged for compression sweeps.


I am confident this was asked before, so apologies for the repeat. 

Does DEQ do this equally for all frequencies below the crossover, or does it bump up a certain frequency range?

Thanks!

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

******* said:


> I am confident this was asked before, so apologies for the repeat.
> 
> Does DEQ do this equally for all frequencies below the crossover, or does it bump up a certain frequency range?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


I don't think DEQ cares about the crossover; it just applies boost wherever it is needed, both below and above the crossover.

Rather than a "flat" boost, I would think DEQ follows the equal loudness curves. 










See the post by Feri (mogorf, above) for a description of another kind of comp DEQ also provides.

If I guessed wrong, my apologies! Is this covered in the FAQ? Audyssey FAQ


----------



## mthomas47

******* said:


> I am confident this was asked before, so apologies for the repeat.
> 
> Does DEQ do this equally for all frequencies below the crossover, or does it bump up a certain frequency range?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


Hi,

There is a detailed explanation of how DEQ applies boost in the subwoofer guide, linked below, and graphs showing its effects in the technical addendum to the FAQ. The short answer is that Gary is right in saying that DEQ attempts to correspond somewhat to the Equal Loudness Contours with more bass boost applied below 120Hz and continuing down to 30Hz, where it levels off. DEQ also applies a slight treble boost above 10KHHz. Since the bass boost is applied to all of the channels, and not just to the .1 LFE channel, the boost applied is not dependent on the crossovers selected.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Redskin

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> There is a detailed explanation of how DEQ applies boost in the subwoofer guide, linked below, and graphs showing its effects in the technical addendum to the FAQ. The short answer is that Gary is right in saying that DEQ attempts to correspond somewhat to the Equal Loudness Contours with more bass boost applied below 120Hz and continuing down to 30Hz, where it levels off. DEQ also applies a slight treble boost above 10KHHz. Since the bass boost is applied to all of the channels, and not just to the .1 LFE channel, the boost applied is not dependent on the crossovers selected.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Cool...thanks Gary and Mike! I read through the entire guide last night (amazing guide, btw) but it was on Tapatalk on my phone and couldn't get to the links...I will read more tonight on my computer when I get back home.

I am REALLY excited that DEQ works this way! Cant wait to try it. I feared that it would bump up the tactile region in the 60hz range at the cost of the deep bass. This really is also much better (at least in theory) than simply equally boosting the entire sub level, that I have always done in the past.

Sent from my LG-H830 using Tapatalk


----------



## Falconsfan71

Anyone here have experience with Definitive Technology super towers and Audyssey? I just got a pair of BP8080’s with built-in 12” subs. Def Tech recommends not using LFE and just using speaker wire connections and setting them to Large. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spidacat

Falconsfan71 said:


> Anyone here have experience with Definitive Technology super towers and Audyssey? I just got a pair of BP8080’s with built-in 12” subs. Def Tech recommends not using LFE and just using speaker wire connections and setting them to Large.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I just use speaker wire to the normal terminals (no separate wire to the LFE) and set them to small since I have "real" subs as well. The active woofers do a pretty nice job for music, but are no match for a real sub for movies. I set the crossover to 60 Hz for music and 80 Hz for movies. If you have a sub in addition to the built in powered woofers, let the sub do it's job.


----------



## garygarrison

Falconsfan71 said:


> Anyone here have experience with Definitive Technology super towers and Audyssey? I just got a pair of BP8080’s with built-in 12” subs. Def Tech recommends not using LFE and just using speaker wire connections and setting them to Large.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I'm surprised.


----------



## Falconsfan71

garygarrison said:


> I'm surprised.




Surprised? Do you care to comment or add anything? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Falconsfan71 said:


> Surprised? Do you care to comment or add anything?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi,

I don't want to try to speak for Gary, but I suspect he is surprised because it's not very good advice. Having large tower speakers, and using them without subs to listen to most 2-channel music ( including multi-channel music with PLII or whatever) is one thing. Using those same speakers as "Large" without subs for demanding 5.1 movie content is something else again. Regardless of the capabilities of the speakers, very few will be as capable as good subwoofers for producing low undistorted bass. DefTech has a tendency to be overly optimistic in their speaker/subwoofer specifications, so the advice can also be a little misleading in that respect.

I believe that, with very few exceptions, bass management is our friend when it comes to demanding (bass heavy) 5.1 content. That means setting speakers to Small, with a crossover, and allowing our dedicated external subwoofers to do the heavy lifting below about 60 or 80Hz. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't want to try to speak for Gary, but I suspect he is surprised because it's not very good advice. Having large tower speakers, and using them without subs to listen to most 2-channel music ( including multi-channel music with PLII or whatever) is one thing. Using those same speakers as "Large" without subs for demanding 5.1 movie content is something else again. Regardless of the capabilities of the speakers, very few will be as capable as good subwoofers for producing low undistorted bass. DefTech has a tendency to be overly optimistic in their speaker/subwoofer specifications, so the advice can also be a little misleading in that respect.
> 
> I believe that, with very few exceptions, bass management is our friend when it comes to demanding (bass heavy) 5.1 content. That means setting speakers to Small, with a crossover, and allowing our dedicated external subwoofers to do the heavy lifting below about 60 or 80Hz.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


While waiting for Gary to come back I fully agree with Mike's comments. Yet, I think there is another aspect to Tower speakers having subwoofers built-in and set to Large, namely the case that we loose the chance to do a "subwoofer crawl", i.e. to find the best place in the room where we can get deep, smooth and even bass. And that place rarely coincides with the placement of the Towers aiming for best stereo imaging.


----------



## Falconsfan71

@mthomas47 @mogorf
This may not be a true Audyssey question but does pertain setting up before Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I have a Denon X4300H and I just got these DT 8080 towers. I have a ProCenter 2000 with ProMonitor 800’s as side and rear surrounds. I also have two VTF-3 MK5 subs but selling one and only using one. The one is more than plenty along with the two 12” tower subs. What I’m trying to figure out is the best setup for these.. wiring? sub cables to LFE? set to small or large? Crossover? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Falconsfan71 said:


> Anyone here have experience with Definitive Technology super towers and Audyssey? I just got a pair of BP8080’s with built-in 12” subs. Def Tech recommends not using LFE and *just using speaker wire connections and setting them to Large. *





Spidacat said:


> I just use speaker wire to the normal terminals (no separate wire to the LFE) and set them to small since I have "real" subs as well.* The active woofers do a pretty nice job for music, but are no match for a real sub for movies*. I set the crossover to 60 Hz for music and 80 Hz for movies.* If you have a sub in addition to the built in powered woofers, let the sub do it's job*.





garygarrison said:


> I'm surprised.





Falconsfan71 said:


> Surprised? Do you care to comment or add anything?


Sorry! It's just that I don't usually hear of a manufacturer recommending that*.* Mike's response covered almost all of the subject, but I will add a bit. The subwoofer output of an AVR or a Pre/Pro carries a *mix *of true Low Frequency Effects and other bass (including the bass part of the music below crossover) that would otherwise go to _*all*_ of the other speakers, and sends all of it that is below crossover to the subwoofer, instead.. This works when the main speakers are set to Small or when "LFE + Main" or "double bass" is used, with the RF and LF set to Large. The latter is not recommended, especially with modern movies, for phase cancellation and "Main Strain" reasons. With Def Tech's recommendation, what gets connected to the DTs, from what amplifier outputs? Some of the LFE the movie people put in may not get out into your room. Does DT recommend *also* using the sub out and an individual sub? What happens to the deep bass (below about 80 Hz) that is normally re-channeled from the center and the surrounds to the sub? Some of the LFE, in some movies, goes down to 10 Hz, at high volume.

I would like to better understand.


----------



## Alan P

I am not Mike or Feri, but if you have a capable subwoofer in the system (and you do), it is usually advised to set the DTs up as a full range speaker (no LFE cable to the speaker) and set them to "small" in the AVR.

I would start at 80hz for the crossover and experiment with higher (90hz, 100hz) and maybe even lower (60hz). This sort of depends on what Audyssey comes back with for your initial crossovers.


----------



## Falconsfan71

Thanks @Alan P


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> I am not Mike or Feri, but if you have a capable subwoofer in the system (and you do), it is usually advised to set the DTs up as a full range speaker (no LFE cable to the speaker) and set them to "small" in the AVR.
> 
> I would start at 80hz for the crossover and experiment with higher (90hz, 100hz) and maybe even lower (60hz). This sort of depends on what Audyssey comes back with for your initial crossovers.


Exactly!


----------



## drh3b

Falconsfan71 said:


> @mthomas47 @mogorf
> This may not be a true Audyssey question but does pertain setting up before Audyssey MultEQ XT32. I have a Denon X4300H and I just got these DT 8080 towers. I have a ProCenter 2000 with ProMonitor 800’s as side and rear surrounds. I also have two VTF-3 MK5 subs but selling one and only using one. The one is more than plenty along with the two 12” tower subs. What I’m trying to figure out is the best setup for these.. wiring? sub cables to LFE? set to small or large? Crossover?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





Alan P said:


> I am not Mike or Feri, but if you have a capable subwoofer in the system (and you do), it is usually advised to set the DTs up as a full range speaker (no LFE cable to the speaker) and set them to "small" in the AVR.
> 
> I would start at 80hz for the crossover and experiment with higher (90hz, 100hz) and maybe even lower (60hz). This sort of depends on what Audyssey comes back with for your initial crossovers.


This might be a bad thought, but presumably the two Deftechs will be equidistant from the MLP, so I wonder if it would be worth the time to experiment and y connect the two Deftech subwoofers, and plug them in to one subwoofer output, and hook the HSU to the other.
Just trying to make more work for you, Falconsfan!


----------



## Falconsfan71

drh3b said:


> This might be a bad thought, but presumably the two Deftechs will be equidistant from the MLP, so I wonder if it would be worth the time to experiment and y connect the two Deftech subwoofers, and plug them in to one subwoofer output, and hook the HSU to the other.
> 
> Just trying to make more work for you, Falconsfan!




Yep! I’m going to try them both ways and see which way works best. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## anothermib

Hi, quick question for the experts: Is it ok doing the measurements with the microphone facing downwards? That way it would be still at 90 degrees to the speaker, but it is much easier to reach ear level from behind the mlp.


----------



## Falconsfan71

anothermib said:


> Hi, quick question for the experts: Is it ok doing the measurements with the microphone facing downwards? That way it would be still at 90 degrees to the speaker, but it is much easier to reach ear level from behind the mlp.




I’m no expert but Audyssey states that you want the mic straight up pointing towards the ceiling. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> Hi, quick question for the experts: Is it ok doing the measurements with the microphone facing downwards? That way it would be still at 90 degrees to the speaker, but it is much easier to reach ear level from behind the mlp.


Each AVR with Audyssey on-board has a calibration file that was recorded with the test mic facing the ceiling. The orinetation will mainly affect the high frequency region, therefore any other way the mic is facing may degrade your results. Try to follow "intended-use" for best outcome. 

Care to expand a bit on your worries regarding reaching ear level from behind the mlp?


----------



## anothermib

mogorf said:


> Each AVR with Audyssey on-board has a calibration file that was recorded with the test mic facing the ceiling. The orinetation will mainly affect the high frequency region, therefore any other way the mic is facing may degrade your results. Try to follow "intended-use" for best outcome.
> 
> Care to expand a bit on your worries regarding reaching ear level from behind the mlp?




With the mount I am using it would just be easier to horizontally reach across the backrest of the seat and then downwards with the microphone. Not a big deal really, just easier. 
I was thinking these microphones may just have a horizontal and a vertical frequency characteristic, but you are right there may be more complex directional dependencies. 

Thanks for the quick replies.


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> With the mount I am using it would just be easier to horizontally reach across the backrest of the seat and then downwards with the microphone. Not a big deal really, just easier.
> I was thinking these microphones may just have a horizontal and a vertical frequency characteristic, but you are right there may be more complex directional dependencies.
> 
> Thanks for the quick replies.


Welcome!


----------



## primetimeguy

anothermib said:


> With the mount I am using it would just be easier to horizontally reach across the backrest of the seat and then downwards with the microphone. Not a big deal really, just easier.
> I was thinking these microphones may just have a horizontal and a vertical frequency characteristic, but you are right there may be more complex directional dependencies.
> 
> Thanks for the quick replies.


They do indeed. I actually didn't like the boost in high frequencies that audyssey applied so I pointed the mic at the speakers so it saw more high frequencies and reduced the boost. Doing so also made the audyssey corrected response pretty much match the high frequency response of my speakers without audyssey. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> They do indeed. I actually didn't like the boost in high frequencies that audyssey applied so I pointed the mic at the speakers so it saw more high frequencies and reduced the boost. Doing so also made the audyssey corrected response pretty much match the high frequency response of my speakers without audyssey.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


I think in your case I would have investigated the case coz it is not the intention of Audyssey to boost highs, no matter what! My first clue might be that you had a bad mic.  

Sharing unjustified advice may not be the real purpose of this thread. Agree?


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> I think in your case I would have investigated the case coz it is not the intention of Audyssey to boost highs, no matter what! My first clue might be that you had a bad mic.
> 
> Sharing unjustified advice may not be the real purpose of this thread. Agree?


Agree it is not but there are plenty of cases if you search the web for graphs showing boost in the 5-8khz range vs uncorrected. My guess it is more mic related than anything. The mics are only +/-2 which can be a big difference if bass is down 2 and treble is up 2.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> Hi, quick question for the experts: Is it ok doing the measurements with the microphone facing downwards? That way it would be still at 90 degrees to the speaker, but it is much easier to reach ear level from behind the mlp.


I think having the mic pointing at 90 degrees to the sound path is only part of what's critical. The mic is going to be more sensitive to sound coming at it from above than it is to sound coming from below when you have it pointing to the ceiling. Turn it upside down and you reverse that, plus the floor or, more probably, your seat surface is going to be a lot closer to the mic when it is pointing down than the ceiling is to it when it is pointing up. All of that is going to change the way the mic picks up reflections from the ceiling and floor/seating surfaces and the balance between those reflections. Data from reflections is a major factor considered by the Audyssey algorithms.

I haven't tried using the mic pointing down but my immediate reaction because of the reasons given above is that it is not something you should try. I would be absolutely prepared to guarantee that it will give you a different result and almost absolutely prepared to guarantee that it will give you a result you won't like as much simply because of the effects it is going to have on the treatment of reflections arriving from above and below ear level.


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> Agree it is not but there are plenty of cases if you search the web for graphs showing boost in the 5-8khz range vs uncorrected. My guess it is more mic related than anything. The mics are only +/-2 which can be a big difference if bass is down 2 and treble is up 2.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


What was the resolution of those plenty of cases? Any info to share?


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> What was the resolution of those plenty of cases? Any info to share?


What do you mean by resolution?


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> What do you mean by resolution?
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


I mean how were the cases with boost in the 5-8khz range solved. A bad mic? Wrong speaker placement? Etc.


----------



## anothermib

David Aiken said:


> I think having the mic pointing at 90 degrees to the sound path is only part of what's critical. The mic is going to be more sensitive to sound coming at it from above than it is to sound coming from below when you have it pointing to the ceiling. Turn it upside down and you reverse that, plus the floor or, more probably, your seat surface is going to be a lot closer to the mic when it is pointing down than the ceiling is to it when it is pointing up. All of that is going to change the way the mic picks up reflections from the ceiling and floor/seating surfaces and the balance between those reflections. Data from reflections is a major factor considered by the Audyssey algorithms.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't tried using the mic pointing down but my immediate reaction because of the reasons given above is that it is not something you should try. I would be absolutely prepared to guarantee that it will give you a different result and almost absolutely prepared to guarantee that it will give you a result you won't like as much simply because of the effects it is going to have on the treatment of reflections arriving from above and below ear level.




Thanks. I guess what we are saying is that the most basic results like levels, distances and the main frequency response (eg room modes etc) will probably come out the same, but there may be more complex, subtle differences that are just hard to predict. I will do it "by the book" to be on the safe side.


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> I mean how were the cases with boost in the 5-8khz range solved. A bad mic? Wrong speaker placement? Etc.


They weren't, it is just on observation after viewing many audyssey before and after charts. Some people were happy with the sound and others may decided to turn audyssey off. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

*^^^*

There are always quite a few people silently reading along on owner's threads like this one. And, at any given time, some of them reading along here may be new to Audyssey. For that reason, it may be important to periodically reiterate "best practice" advice. Audyssey was designed to work in a particular way, and as Feri has pointed out, that includes the direction that the calibrated mic is designed to point. It is intended to point upwards, although it is not necessary that it be precisely perpendicular to the floor.

In my experience on this thread, and others where Audyssey is discussed, Audyssey works best when it is employed properly and carefully. There are always exceptions, but I believe that the vast majority of Audyssey users benefit from using best practice methods to set-up their HT systems, and to run their calibrations. There have been specific instances where some very experienced users have not been able to get Audyssey to work well in their particular rooms; or where they simply prefer to do without it for whatever reason. But, I believe that they represent a very small minority of Audyssey users.

For most people posting on this thread to ask questions, or to seek trouble-shooting advice, good set-up and calibration technique combined with some experimentation with various post-calibration settings, will result in better overall audio quality. Where someone does not get satisfactory results from a best practice approach and decides to experiment with a non-conventional technique of set-up or calibration (such as pointing the Audyssey mic directly at speakers or using fewer than the recommended number of mic positions) more power to him. The ultimate goal is to have a sound system that sounds good to the individual user in his specific room. And, how he gets there is less important than the fact that he does finally achieve a satisfactory result.

But, long-time participants in this thread will always advise Audyssey users to fully exhaust the best practice advice found in the FAQ, and elsewhere on the thread, because it represents a considerable body of practical experience in what actually works best in the vast majority of cases. Most Audyssey problems can be resolved with good set-up and calibration technique, and through the imaginative use of post-calibration settings. And, that's why this thread has had such a long and successful run. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

anothermib said:


> Thanks. I guess what we are saying is that the most basic results like levels, distances and the main frequency response (eg room modes etc) will probably come out the same, but there may be more complex, subtle differences that are just hard to predict. I will do it "by the book" to be on the safe side.


Basically, yes, but with some qualifications.

Reflections arrive later than the direct sound and are affected by what they reflect from and by the direction from which they arrive. Reflections from your 4 walls will be unaffected by whether the mic is pointing up or down but that's not the case for reflections from the floor and ceiling. Ceilings aren't usually carpeted but floors often are, and ceiling reflections aren't normally partially blocked by the base of the mic because that's below the mic when the mic is pointing up while some floor and seating reflections can be blocked by the base of the mic because they're arriving from below. Those factors do affect the frequency balance of the floor and ceiling reflections reaching the mic. Turn the mic upside down and you reverse that situation for floor and ceiling reflections. Depending on your room, the difference could be minor or large enough to be significant. That difference will also be greater if you have an Atmos setup with height speakers located in the ceiling or placed on top of your other speakers and aimed up at the ceiling to reflect down to the listening position.

There are times when we do recommend changes to the standard Audyssey mic placement recommendations, such as suggesting a tighter or wider spacing pattern for the mic or covering leather seating with a towel, but none of those changes affect the result for ceiling reflections which usually would tend to be stronger than floor reflections anyway. Turning the mic upside down so it points to the seat and the floor is probably going to weaken the result for ceiling reflections and possibly strengthen the result for floor reflections. It will change the balance between the strength of those reflections and it will influence the result.

You can always try it and see what result you get. You certainly won't break anything and you can report the results here, I for one would be interested in hearing how you think it changed your result, but I do think it's pretty well certain that you won't get a better result and that you will get a result you don't like, and that means that I think doing a setup with the mic pointing down is going to be an unproductive waste of time.

When we do recommend that someone makes a change to the standard Audyssey instructions we do so because we want to influence the result because the processing algorithms that Audyssey uses are fixed and our only way of changing the result is to change the measurement input. Having the mic pointing down is unlikely to change the input from the mic in a way which will result in the algorithms producing a better result because it is going to change the way the floor and ceiling reflections are recorded while not changing anything else the mic records. It's extremely unlikely that changing the balance of how the mic records floor and ceiling reflections will change the result in a useful way.


----------



## garygarrison

primetimeguy said:


> ... I actually didn't like the boost in high frequencies that audyssey applied so I pointed the mic at the speakers so it saw more high frequencies and reduced the boost. Doing so also made the audyssey corrected response pretty much match the high frequency response of my speakers without audyssey.





mogorf said:


> I think in your case I would have investigated the case coz it is not the intention of Audyssey to boost highs, no matter what! My first clue might be that you had a bad mic.





primetimeguy said:


> Agree it is not but there are plenty of cases if you search the web for graphs showing *boost in the 5-8khz range vs uncorrected. *My guess it is more mic related than anything. The mics are only +/-2 which can be a big difference if bass is down 2 and treble is up 2.





mogorf said:


> ... how were the cases with boost in the 5-8khz range solved. A bad mic? Wrong speaker placement? Etc.





primetimeguy said:


> They weren't, it is just on observation after viewing many audyssey before and after charts. Some people were happy with the sound and others may decided to turn audyssey off.


In my case, although Audyssey boosted the treble between 1.5K and 4.5K Hz an average of 4 to 5 dB, that was a true *correction*, bringing the level for those frequencies up to match the response below 1.5K. In addition, Audyssey pulled down a broad peak centered on 8K, and boosted above about 10 K. So the net effect on the treble was to adjust it to match lower frequencies, and to smooth it out. It also pushed up a dip at about 350Hz and pulled down twin peaks at 120 and 160Hz, while providing up to 4 dB boost below 40 Hz. The final curve was considerably smoother than the raw one, and sounded a lot better, especially clearer. So, for me, the alteration of the original curve seems pretty impartial.


----------



## Falconsfan71

Do I lose Audyssey settings/EQ if... 

If I change front speakers from Small to Large then go back to Small? 

If I lower the hz on a speaker group? ..such as, if I change surrounds from 150 to 120? 

If I change the Speaker Configuration? ..if I turn off surrounds then turn them back on? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Falconsfan71 said:


> Do I lose Audyssey settings/EQ if...
> 
> If I change front speakers from Small to Large then go back to Small?
> 
> If I lower the hz on a speaker group? ..such as, if I change surrounds from 150 to 120?
> 
> If I change the Speaker Configuration? ..if I turn off surrounds then turn them back on?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Audyssey room correction program is entirely separate from any of the features that you mentioned. Changing any of those things repeatedly, or changing distances, or turning DEQ on and off, will all leave the filters that Audyssey set completely unaffected.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Falconsfan71

mthomas47 said:


> The Audyssey room correction program is entirely separate from any of the features that you mentioned. Changing any of those things repeatedly, or changing distances, or turning DEQ on and off, will all leave the filters that Audyssey set completely unaffected.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Ok, great! I saw someone state that if you change the speaker configuration and then change it back that the saved calibration is lost. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## muad'dib

I was playing around with EQ mode (with audyssey tuned off), and have some questions..

First, I like the audyssey FLAT setting for a more crisp sound..

So I copied flat curve to eq mode, and chose to adjust each speaker seperate ..
Before I made any adjustments, I test with audyssey flat direct to eq mode (using flat as a copy)

What I found, was eq mode sounded better... Did not have thst Vail over the sound.. And bass seemed to be same.. Not boomy and tight..

I Thrn went back into eq mode and adjusted eq.. I noticed audyssey had 4k and above below 0 line.. So I bumped 4k and up to +2db for a nice crisp sound..

Questions are..
1- even though you can only adjust a few eq frequencies, is the copy from the flat mode really adjusting more than we can't touch or see?
2- is time domain adjustment also copied to eq mode?
3- since we can't adjust sub channel in eq mode, are the subs still using audyssey bass eq for time domain etc? As bass sounds same when compared to audyssey on.. But if you choose no audyssey and no eq, the bass is now boomy (since its the uncorrected raw input signal)
4- is eq mode down sampling to 48khz like audyssey does when on..

All I can say now with manual eq (from a copy of flat) and making all treble 4k and up set to 0db or more, its like using the audyssey app and not letting correcting above 4k(if you 0 put frequencies above thst)without negatives of audyssey.. 

Im rather happy with sound now.. More alive and not having life sucked out


----------



## garygarrison

muad'dib said:


> I was playing around with EQ mode (with audyssey tuned off), and have some questions..
> 
> First, I like the audyssey FLAT setting for a more crisp sound..
> 
> So I copied flat curve to eq mode, and chose to adjust each speaker seperate ..
> Before I made any adjustments, I test with audyssey flat direct to eq mode (using flat as a copy)
> 
> What I found, was eq mode sounded better... Did not have thst Vail over the sound.. And bass seemed to be same.. Not boomy and tight..
> 
> I Thrn went back into eq mode and adjusted eq.. I noticed audyssey had 4k and above below 0 line.. So I bumped 4k and up to +2db for a nice crisp sound..
> 
> Questions are..
> 1- even though you can only adjust a few eq frequencies, is the copy from the flat mode really adjusting more than we can't touch or see?
> 2- is time domain adjustment also copied to eq mode?
> 3- since we can't adjust sub channel in eq mode, are the subs still using audyssey bass eq for time domain etc? As bass sounds same when compared to audyssey on.. But if you choose no audyssey and no eq, the bass is now boomy (since its the uncorrected raw input signal)
> 4- is eq mode down sampling to 48khz like audyssey does when on..
> 
> All I can say now with manual eq (from a copy of flat) and making all treble 4k and up set to 0db or more, its like using the audyssey app and not letting correcting above 4k(if you 0 put frequencies above thst)without negatives of audyssey..
> 
> Im rather happy with sound now.. More alive and not having life sucked out




The most important thing is how it sounds to you!
I think your questions might be best answered by Chris K., the Chief Technical Officer and co-founder of Audyssey. I don't know if he is still answering questions on Facebook (I am not on Facebook).   On the other hand, someone here may have kept up with new developments enough and may be well versed enough to answer you.
Several years ago (2011) I asked Chris K a similar group of questions regarding my Marantz pre/pro with Audyssey built in. At that time, he pointed out that copying to EQ mode (in those days called "Base Copy" -- not "bass copy") produced only a very crude copy, that did not use data from all of the potentially hundreds of Audyssey EQ points, and in his opinion was "worthless." Things may have changed.
If you have the app, that may be a more appropriate way to experiment.


----------



## primetimeguy

garygarrison said:


> In my case, although Audyssey boosted the treble between 1.5K and 4.5K Hz an average of 4 to 5 dB, that was a true *correction*, bringing the level for those frequencies up to match the response below 1.5K. In addition, Audyssey pulled down a broad peak centered on 8K, and boosted above about 10 K. So the net effect on the treble was to adjust it to match lower frequencies, and to smooth it out. It also pushed up a dip at about 350Hz and pulled down twin peaks at 120 and 160Hz, while providing up to 4 dB boost below 40 Hz. The final curve was considerably smoother than the raw one, and sounded a lot better, especially clearer. So, for me, the alteration of the original curve seems pretty impartial.


Here is a recent example of the boost I mentioned. Would be nice to know root cause.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2806249

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> Here is a recent example of the boost I mentioned. Would be nice to know root cause.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2806249
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


My problem with the recent example (htpc-geek, post #1568 ) is that I don't know whether he made the measurements in REW at a single point (most probably at MLP) or he made a series of measurement with mic placed as when doing the Audyssey run and averaged them in REW. This crutial info is unfortunately missing from his description therefore its really hard to comment on his REW graphs.


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> My problem with the recent example (htpc-geek, post #1568 ) is that I don't know whether he made the measurements in REW at a single point (most probably at MLP) or he made a series of measurement with mic placed as when doing the Audyssey run and averaged them in REW. This crutial info is unfortunately missing from his description therefore its really hard to comment on his REW graphs.


I don't think it matters as long as both measurements are the same. 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> I don't think it matters as long as both measurements are the same.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk


Of course it matters. These are not to be regarded as "relative" measurements, but absolutely need a clear picture of what is going on in the room. A single measurement in space will never tell the whole story. But we already know that!


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> Of course it matters. These are not to be regarded as "relative" measurements, but absolutely need a clear picture of what is going on in the room. A single measurement is space will never tell the whole story. But we already know that!


Right but if I do a single position calibration and then a single position measurement then it is valid. And in doing so I am looking at just what audyssey does in that position and not confounding things with multiple positions. Again, wouldn't use this for actual calibration, rather just to try and understand why is audyssey doing what it is. I'm away on vacation for the week but am going to try some new things in the weeks after I return and can share the results. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## htpc-geek

My app vs avr measurements weren't taken to try and prove a point one way or the other in this thread. They were for me comparing the app in my room vs the avr and how much I could tweak it. For my purposes in the other thread, they worked great. I would discourage anybody from using them to try and prove a different point.


----------



## Alan P

muad'dib said:


> I was playing around with EQ mode (with audyssey tuned off), and have some questions..
> 
> First, I like the audyssey FLAT setting for a more crisp sound..
> 
> So I copied flat curve to eq mode, and chose to adjust each speaker seperate ..
> Before I made any adjustments, I test with audyssey flat direct to eq mode (using flat as a copy)
> 
> What I found, was eq mode sounded better... Did not have thst Vail over the sound.. And bass seemed to be same.. Not boomy and tight..
> 
> I Thrn went back into eq mode and adjusted eq.. I noticed audyssey had 4k and above below 0 line.. So I bumped 4k and up to +2db for a nice crisp sound..
> 
> Questions are..
> 1- even though you can only adjust a few eq frequencies, is the copy from the flat mode really adjusting more than we can't touch or see?
> 2- is time domain adjustment also copied to eq mode?
> 3- since we can't adjust sub channel in eq mode, are the subs still using audyssey bass eq for time domain etc? As bass sounds same when compared to audyssey on.. But if you choose no audyssey and no eq, the bass is now boomy (since its the uncorrected raw input signal)
> 4- is eq mode down sampling to 48khz like audyssey does when on..
> 
> All I can say now with manual eq (from a copy of flat) and making all treble 4k and up set to 0db or more, its like using the audyssey app and not letting correcting above 4k(if you 0 put frequencies above thst)without negatives of audyssey..
> 
> Im rather happy with sound now.. More alive and not having life sucked out


I have recently been enjoying the sound on my Denon 4520 a bit more since I switched Audyssey off and copied the Audyssey Flat curve to the GEQ. Not sure if I can answer all of your questions, though.

1) I do not believe that the COPY function is doing any more than copying a "rough estimate" of the Audyssey filters. There are only a few EQ bands available to the GEQ, so the Audyssey filter set has to be dumbed down a lot.

2) Not sure, but doubtful.

3) The subs are definitely NOT still using the Audyssey filters and my REW graphs reflect that. There is however at least one band of GEQ in the modal region at 63hz (I believe).

4) Not sure.


----------



## muad'dib

Alan P said:


> I have recently been enjoying the sound on my Denon 4520 a bit more since I switched Audyssey off and copied the Audyssey Flat curve to the GEQ. Not sure if I can answer all of your questions, though.
> 
> 1) I do not believe that the COPY function is doing any more than copying a "rough estimate" of the Audyssey filters. There are only a few EQ bands available to the GEQ, so the Audyssey filter set has to be dumbed down a lot.
> 
> 2) Not sure, but doubtful.
> 
> 3) The subs are definitely NOT still using the Audyssey filters and my REW graphs reflect that. There is however at least one band of GEQ in the modal region at 63hz (I believe).
> 
> 4) Not sure.


Awesome to hear I'm not the only one that likes the flat copies to manual eq better 

I have an Antimode for bass, so guess I still need it after all.. ☺

Thanks for input...

I'm just very glad they have the manual eq flat curve copy feature..


----------



## stevenhk

*Time for an Audyssey revamp*

Quick question, potentially long answer. Hopefully someone will be able to share some insight. 

I am getting ready to upgrade my preamp, Marantz AV7702 to an AV7704, and it hit me that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is 8 years old, an eternity in our world. 

Any idea when we will see the next upgrade of substance or a complete revamping of the equalization system? 

Seems well overdue. 

Thank you, Steve


----------



## mogorf

stevenhk said:


> Quick question, potentially long answer. Hopefully someone will be able to share some insight.
> 
> I am getting ready to upgrade my preamp, Marantz AV7702 to an AV7704, and it hit me that Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is 8 years old, an eternity in our world.
> 
> Any idea when we will see the next upgrade of substance or a complete revamping of the equalization system?
> 
> Seems well overdue.
> 
> Thank you, Steve


What feature are you missisng? Honestly!


----------



## Falconsfan71

So, if I go into Setup > Audio > Audyssey > MultEQ XT32 and set to L/R Bypass that only affects the front speakers, right? What is it changing? Or what would I be missing? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Falconsfan71 said:


> So, if I go into Setup > Audio > Audyssey > MultEQ XT32 and set to L/R Bypass that only affects the front speakers, right? What is it changing? Or what would I be missing?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It would simply eliminate the filters that Audyssey set for your front speakers. You might like that, or you might not. Your call! 



I think that I will use this post to also respond to the previous question about a new and improved version of XT-32. I am skeptical that it will happen. I don't think that there is much financial incentive to do it, and not much apparent interest from the creators. I believe that XT-32 took the basic Audyssey concept as far as the creators were willing to go. Simply adding more filters wouldn't make much difference. And more time domain correction would probably require more processing power in the AVP's and AVR's even if the creators were interested in the work required to do it. The more recent phone app which allows for more user control of the curves that Audyssey generates was years in development. I'm not expecting anything else, although I could certainly be surprised.

The fact that XT-32 is a number of years old is not a very important factor to me. Of more importance is whether or not XT-32 is satisfactory in assisting with good quality sound. If it is, then its age is not a factor. If it isn't, then its age is not a factor. I still enjoy using tone controls at times, and I still thoroughly enjoy PLII, and they are much older technologies than XT-32.

There is always going to be a newer best thing, in audio as in other technologies. But, even with something like Dirac, the actual audible benefits may be relatively insignificant compared to XT-32. I believe that a very small minority of buyers would upgrade solely for that modest benefit. Without a really noticeable audible benefit there won't be much reason to seek newer technologies, and that gets back to the lack of financial incentive for Audyssey. If anything, more AVR makers are offering their own dumbed-down versions of automated room EQ.

I consider myself more interested in room correction than most, and I may very well try something else when I next upgrade my AVR. But, I won't do that primarily for even a demonstrably superior room correction. Frankly, good enough is good enough. I would be upgrading for other reasons than just room correction, and if I changed it would be mostly out of curiosity. And, if I won't change just for room correction, then I suspect that the great majority of AVR buyers wouldn't either. XT-32 is both a mature and successful technology. As long as it continues to work well for the great majority of Audyssey users, I believe that it will be around for a number of years to come.

That's just my point of view, but I did want to share it, for what it may be worth.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## stevenhk

mogorf said:


> What feature are you missisng? Honestly!


I guess that means you have no insight?...

Sometimes we don't know what we would like to have until we see it. Audyssey is fantastic. Better would be better. 

Some top of mind ideas: Faster/more accurate hands off setup, Full Atmos integration. Better high frequency management, bass reverb control. Better interface.


----------



## drh3b

What I think would be interesting is if Audyssey would leverage what they have into a unique product. I've read, maybe here, maybe in my imagination, that subht can actually EQ 4 subs. If true, it would be cool to see Audyssey put that on the market with a good interface for tweaking. That would be a unique product.


----------



## krumme

Its difficult to explain how valuable this audessey app is for good sound and music.
Xt32 is fantastic in many ways but could i use it on my linkwitz orion if i could not lower freq where it apllies correction to aprox 800Mhz? No.
Would i have to do something else if i could no ajust sub curve myself for some problems at 25Hz. Yes but the app solved that for me.
Xt32 is fine and the mic is plenty precise. What i need is not more filter what not but more manual control. More knowledge. And ways to use that knowledge.


----------



## primetimeguy

Even though I've been using Audyssey for many, many years it seems I am always tweaking things (settings, mic positions, etc) to get even better sound. I was starting to head down the rabbit hole of plugging the mic into a DSP and tweaking the response before going to the receiver to impact the audyssey calibration. Still not out of the question but there is quite a bit to making that work and maybe some limitations. In searching around I came across the thread below on another forum I frequent. I had seen it before but never gave it much attention. I decided to give the mic positions a try and I'm glad I did. Best imaging I have had with Audyssey! 

So for others maybe not quite happy with Audyssey or looking to tweak I highly recommend giving it a try.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html

So I'm happy again for a few weeks until the next tweak bug bites me.


----------



## audiofan1

primetimeguy said:


> Even though I've been using Audyssey for many, many years it seems I am always tweaking things (settings, mic positions, etc) to get even better sound. I was starting to head down the rabbit hole of plugging the mic into a DSP and tweaking the response before going to the receiver to impact the audyssey calibration. Still not out of the question but there is quite a bit to making that work and maybe some limitations. In searching around I came across the thread below on another forum I frequent. I had seen it before but never gave it much attention. I decided to give the mic positions a try and I'm glad I did. Best imaging I have had with Audyssey!
> 
> So for others maybe not quite happy with Audyssey or looking to tweak I highly recommend giving it a try.
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
> 
> So I'm happy again for a few weeks until the next tweak bug bites me.


 interesting as I've never seen that method before, I have a decent run now but will give it a shot


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> Even though I've been using Audyssey for many, many years it seems I am always tweaking things (settings, mic positions, etc) to get even better sound. I was starting to head down the rabbit hole of plugging the mic into a DSP and tweaking the response before going to the receiver to impact the audyssey calibration. Still not out of the question but there is quite a bit to making that work and maybe some limitations. In searching around I came across the thread below on another forum I frequent. I had seen it before but never gave it much attention. I decided to give the mic positions a try and I'm glad I did. Best imaging I have had with Audyssey!
> 
> So for others maybe not quite happy with Audyssey or looking to tweak I highly recommend giving it a try.
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
> 
> So I'm happy again for a few weeks until the next tweak bug bites me.


To be frank with you primetimeguy, the method of single point setup is pretty much against anything we've learned throughout this thread on getting best results with Audyssey and is completely un-scientific. Do it at you own risk, please.


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> To be frank with you primetimeguy, the method of single point setup is pretty much against anything we've learned throughout this thread on getting best results with Audyssey and is completely un-scientific. Do it at you own risk, please.


I agree with you but if you read the thread you'll realize it's not actually a single point just everything at a center plane and it really helps with left to right Imaging

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> I agree with you but if you read the thread you'll realize it's not actually a single point just everything at a center plane and it really helps with left to right Imaging
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Sorry, but no interest on my side for stuff like that. Feel free to do as you wish.


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> Sorry, but no interest on my side for stuff like that. Feel free to do as you wish.


Don't know it until you tried it. ;-)


----------



## pbarach

primetimeguy said:


> Don't know it until you tried it. ;-)


I'll save my current config file and try this "center plane" method when I get a chance--I have to find a quiet time when people aren't running their lead blowers!

If I don't like it, I can reload the old config file, and nothing is lost.


----------



## audiofan1

primetimeguy said:


> Even though I've been using Audyssey for many, many years it seems I am always tweaking things (settings, mic positions, etc) to get even better sound. I was starting to head down the rabbit hole of plugging the mic into a DSP and tweaking the response before going to the receiver to impact the audyssey calibration. Still not out of the question but there is quite a bit to making that work and maybe some limitations. In searching around I came across the thread below on another forum I frequent. I had seen it before but never gave it much attention. I decided to give the mic positions a try and I'm glad I did. Best imaging I have had with Audyssey!
> 
> So for others maybe not quite happy with Audyssey or looking to tweak I highly recommend giving it a try.
> 
> http://www.hometheatershack.com/for...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
> 
> So I'm happy again for a few weeks until the next tweak bug bites me.





audiofan1 said:


> interesting as I've never seen that method before, I have a decent run now but will give it a shot


 Alright! did the calibration and so far so good with the Atmos disc I have on hand. I'm off to watch "Logan" and see what I think. The results for levels and crossover were a bit different for my sides surrounds (bi-pole with center firing mid and tweet) and it actually set them to where I do post calibration The same goes for my 4 ceiling speakers but with their crossover this time at 60-40hz vs say 60-80hz I've long suspected things could be a bit better when factoring in the 4 Atmos speakers and this configuration may just have nailed it (preliminary of course) I'll post back once the movies i have planed to night are done


----------



## pbarach

The first post in this thread has a link to Audyssey 101 that doesn't work anymore. 

Also, this link in the FAQ is to the diagram showing Audyssey's recommendations for mic placement, but this link is to a photobucket.com page that is no longer hosting the diagram: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html#d3

Can someone fix these for the benefit of newcomers?

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> The first post in this thread has a link to Audyssey 101 that doesn't work anymore.
> 
> Also, this link in the FAQ is to the diagram showing Audyssey's recommendations for mic placement, but this link is to a photobucket.com page that is no longer hosting the diagram: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...6770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html#d3
> 
> Can someone fix these for the benefit of newcomers?
> 
> Thanks!


Pardon my Internet ignorance, but WTF is Photobucket? An interloper who has wormed in between us and material to which we have always had free access? Is this the reincarnation of Sam's Cafe? O.K,, I'm hearing it was a "free" service (paid for by advertising) for years, but, during the summer it ripped off its mask, and imposed a $399/year fee. So .... does this mean that the diagram showing the mic placement was originally put in the FAQ by someone (for "free") who must now decide whether it is worth $399/year to keep it and their other diagrams/drawings/photos available to others (us) on "third party sites?' If so, why is Pbucket asking ME to update my account? I don't HAVE an account! Do I small _rodentia_?


----------



## Matt2026

garygarrison said:


> Pardon my Internet ignorance, but WTF is Photobucket? An interloper who has wormed in between us and material to which we have always had free access? Is this the reincarnation of Sam's Cafe? O.K,, I'm hearing it was a "free" service (paid for by advertising) for years, but, during the summer it ripped off its mask, and imposed a $399/year fee.


Photobucket.com is an image hosting site where you can put photos then use a link to share your photos.

"What is Photobucket? Photobucket has been around since 2003 and has pioneered 3rd Party Hosting.
We offer a variety of services, so that you can effortlessly enjoy your memories."


----------



## primetimeguy

Matt2026 said:


> Photobucket.com is an image hosting site where you can put photos then use a link to share your photos.
> 
> "What is Photobucket? Photobucket has been around since 2003 and has pioneered 3rd Party Hosting.
> We offer a variety of services, so that you can effortlessly enjoy your memories."


And it is no longer free, hence the broken links to images on this site and many others.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/4/15919224/photobucket-broken-images-amazon-ebay-etsy-paid-update

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthernCA

How do I access "Official" Audessey .... Part I thread?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> How do I access "Official" Audessey .... Part I thread?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Hi,

This will take you there. It's a little long. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...fficial-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a.html

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> This will take you there. It's a little long. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...fficial-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a.html
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


"_It's a little long._"


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> This will take you there. It's a little long. http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...fficial-audyssey-thread-faq-post-51779-a.html
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It takes me here. Could you repost please?










Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthernCA

I am using Tapatalk app. May be that is why it is not directing to the right place. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> I am using Tapatalk app. May be that is why it is not directing to the right place.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


That could be. The link takes me to Page One of the original thread started in 2007. But, I'm on a desktop computer rather than a smartphone.


----------



## MrGrim999

Hey guys! I added 2 speakers to my surround system and ran audyssey again. During each listening position , I noticed some of the speakers ran twice one louder than the other . I thought maybe this was normal with a 5.1.2 config? Has anyone else had this happen?


----------



## mogorf

MrGrim999 said:


> Hey guys! I added 2 speakers to my surround system and ran audyssey again. During each listening position , I noticed some of the speakers ran twice one louder than the other . I thought maybe this was normal with a 5.1.2 config? Has anyone else had this happen?


Your case of some speakers running twice suggests there was some ambient noise detected by Audyssey and in order to avoid mis-correction the system will raise the calibration level on a second run. Nothing wrong here, that's the way Audyssey works. Worry not!


----------



## MrGrim999

mogorf said:


> Your case of some speakers running twice suggests there was some ambient noise detected by Audyssey and in order to avoid mis-correction the system will raise the calibration level on a second run. Nothing wrong here, that's the way Audyssey works. Worry not!


Thanks for the response. I added SVS Prime Elevations for Atmos. I previously had my Bowers 683 S2's bi amped using those extra channels. I really hope it's just my imagination and a matter of tweaking the levels but I swear I hear a difference from my fronts.


----------



## garygarrison

MrGrim999 said:


> Thanks for the response. I added SVS Prime Elevations for Atmos. I previously had my Bowers 683 S2's bi amped using those extra channels. I really hope it's just my imagination and a matter of tweaking the levels but I swear I hear a difference from my fronts.


What kind of difference?

I assume you ran Audyssey again. It is difficult to get the mics in exactly the same places twice. I'd expect the results to be similar (from the fronts), but not identical. Was the crossover frequency and the slope to the sub(s) the same both times? Did you move the fronts, the sub, your listening position, or large pieces of furniture? 

How much power is available to the fronts now that you are no longer bi-amping? I don't know your amp size or room size, but in a 4000 cu.ft. room of average liveness, @ 13 feet you would need about 120 watts to each 683 S2 to get 105 dB (reference level peak above 80 Hz) out of each of them at the main listening position. Dynamic power being what it is, you might be able to get away with an honest, full bandwidth, all channels operating, 60 wts RMS per channel for each front channel, but I wouldn't want to try it. The 89 dB sensitivity of the 683s isn't low, but it's not high, either.

Good luck!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> What kind of difference?
> 
> I assume you ran Audyssey again. It is difficult to get the mics in exactly the same places twice. I'd expect the results to be similar (from the fronts), but not identical. Was the crossover frequency and the slope to the sub(s) the same both times? Did you move the fronts, the sub, your listening position, or large pieces of furniture?
> 
> How much power is available to the fronts now that you are no longer bi-amping? I don't know your amp size or room size, but in a 4000 cu.ft. room of average liveness, @ 13 feet you would need about 120 watts to each 683 S2 to get 105 dB (reference level peak above 80 Hz) out of each of them at the main listening position. Dynamic power being what it is, you might be able to get away with an honest, full bandwidth, all channels operating, 60 wts RMS per channel for each front channel, but I wouldn't want to try it. The 89 dB sensitivity of the 683s isn't low, but it's not high, either.
> 
> Good luck!


Hi Gary,

In addition to the point you made about it being difficult to repeat calibration results identically, I think that our acoustic memories are highly unreliable, and so are our psycho-acoustic reactions. My audio system can sound a little different from day-to-day, without any changes having been made at all. Sometimes, it sounds very different.

I believe that happens in the same way that foods taste a little more or less appetizing on different days, or the way that some colors can appear more vivid or appealing on different days. In other words, the way that our brains perceive stimuli is variable, and not fixed and absolute. I think that accounts for a lot of the tinkering that many of us do with our audio/HT systems.

The bi-amping that the OP referred to is a red herring, in this case. He said that he was using the extra channels in his AVR. That is passive bi-amping and would have no effect on the overall SPL or headroom in his system.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I do think it's possible that, in adding two more speakers to his system, the OP now has a little less total headroom available for his front speakers during demanding passages. But, I think it's unlikely that would show up during normal listening unless he were trying to listen at pretty high master volumes. I believe that any apparent audio differences are more likely to be attributable to the unreliability of our audio memories.


----------



## dr_gallup

If Audyssey is having to re-run certain speakers at higher levels because of background noise I would think that noise could be affecting the final Audyssey curves. I always make sure EVERYTHING in the house is shut off. Of course there could be external noise you can't control but that would invalidate the results. I think he needs to get the house quiet and re-run the entire calibration.


----------



## mogorf

dr_gallup said:


> If Audyssey is having to re-run certain speakers at higher levels because of background noise I would think that noise could be affecting the final Audyssey curves. I always make sure EVERYTHING in the house is shut off. Of course there could be external noise you can't control but that would invalidate the results. I think he needs to get the house quiet and re-run the entire calibration.


Yes, this is what we with OCD will do, nevertheless when Audyssey increases test-tone level it is doing the right thing. 

This is how Chris K. explained the measurement sequence:

"During measurement, the initial chirp is approx. 75 dB SPL for a nominal listening distance and speaker sensitivity. The chirp repeats several times per speaker and this has the benefit of increasing the signal to noise ratio in the measurement.

Also, Audyssey listens to the background noise in between chirps. If it's above the required minimum then it repeats the sequence of chirps at a higher level to make sure it gets meaningful measurements."


On another note, there are those of us who like to do the calibration when honey and the kids are visiting grandma while making sure all HVAC in the house are turned off together with disconnecting the fridge in the kitchen. And all this done in the middle of the night when street traffic is low. Good luck!


----------



## dr_gallup

mogorf said:


> On another note, there are those of us who like to do the calibration when honey and the kids are visiting grandma while making sure all HVAC in the house are turned off together with disconnecting the fridge in the kitchen. And all this done in the middle of the night when street traffic is low. Good luck!


That's exactly what I do but also turn off any lights on dimmers and fluorescent lights and put the cat out! I also check flightradar24.com for incoming planes.


----------



## mogorf

dr_gallup said:


> That's exactly what I do but also turn off any lights on dimmers and fluorescent lights and put the cat out! I also check flightradar24.com for incoming planes.


The way to do!!!!!


----------



## pbarach

dr_gallup said:


> That's exactly what I do but also turn off any lights on dimmers and fluorescent lights and put the cat out! I also check flightradar24.com for incoming planes.


My street is quiet on Sunday mornings (except for church bells a couple of times) before people start lawn mowers and leaf blowers. So I was recalibrating last weekend and my significant other developed a cough that happened on the fifth or sixth time I did measurement #3  I gave her a cough drop and then was able to proceed.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> In addition to the point you made about it being difficult to repeat calibration results identically, I think that our acoustic memories are highly unreliable, and so are our psycho-acoustic reactions. My audio system can sound a little different from day-to-day, without any changes having been made at all. Sometimes, it sounds very different.
> 
> I believe that happens in the same way that foods taste a little more or less appetizing on different days, or the way that some colors can appear more vivid or appealing on different days. In other words, the way that our brains perceive stimuli is variable, and not fixed and absolute. I think that accounts for a lot of the tinkering that many of us do with our audio/HT systems.
> 
> The bi-amping that the OP referred to is a red herring, in this case. He said that he was using the extra channels in his AVR. That is passive bi-amping and would have no effect on the overall SPL or headroom in his system.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: I do think it's possible that, in adding two more speakers to his system, the OP now has a little less total headroom available for his front speakers during demanding passages. But, I think it's unlikely that would show up during normal listening unless he were trying to listen at pretty high master volumes. I believe that any apparent audio differences are more likely to be attributable to the unreliability of our audio memories.


I may not have read the section in which he explained how he did the bi-amping. I assumed he was splitting the frequency range in two with an active crossover (DIY, if necessary) and using the extra (power) amps in his AVR the way bi-ampers use separate monoblocks. I am familiar with bi-amping and (probably worthless) bi-wiring, but I must admit I am not acquainted with passive bi-amping. Is it just sending an identical signal through two separate power amp channels, one to the woofer(s), and one to the tweeter(s)? If so, how is the tweeter protected? To provide this protection, is a passive crossover used anyway? 

Given that AVR manufacturers are not known for their candor in describing power output, I agree that, if he likes it LOUD, the AVR may be overtaxed. It all depends on what the honest w.p.c. is. Years ago, I looked at bench reports in home theater magazines, and found, in my sample, that AVRs came in at about 80% of their advertised power, when all channels were operating.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I may not have read the section in which he explained how he did the bi-amping. I assumed he was splitting the frequency range in two with an active crossover (DIY, if necessary) and using the extra (power) amps in his AVR the way bi-ampers use separate monoblocks. I am familiar with bi-amping and (probably worthless) bi-wiring, but I must admit I am not acquainted with passive bi-amping. Is it just sending an identical signal through two separate power amp channels, one to the woofer(s), and one to the tweeter(s)? If so, how is the tweeter protected? To provide this protection, is a passive crossover used anyway?
> 
> Given that AVR manufacturers are not known for their candor in describing power output, I agree that, if he likes it LOUD, the AVR may be over taxed. It all depends on what the honest w.p.c. is. Years ago, I looked at bench reports in home theater magazines, and found, in my sample, that AVRs came in at about 80% of their advertised power, when all channels were operating.


Hi Gary,

The give away for me was when he said that he was using extra channels in his AVR to bi-amp his front speakers. Despite misleading marketing, they can't be effectively used that way. Passive bi-amping is anything short of active bi-amping. Active bi-amping requires the following four things. First, there must be two separate external amplifiers (they can't both be internal to the AVR). You mentioned using monoblocks and that would be an example of an external amp that could be used for this purpose.

Second, the speaker to be bi-amped has to have separate wiring terminals for treble/mid-range, and for bass. Third, there has to be a way to disconnect the speaker's internal crossovers (usually a bridge plate connected to the wiring terminals). As long as the internal "passive" crossovers are engaged, they will control what frequencies are sent to which driver and how much voltage goes to which driver. Fourth, there has to be an external active (powered) crossover to replace the disconnected internal crossovers. And, the trick there is knowing how to set the new powered crossovers. That last part can be tricky, as I understand it.

Bi-wiring and passive bi-amping really amount to the same thing. Neither actually affects the available headroom of the speakers in question. And, neither changes the voltage going to the various drivers, or the frequencies at which the various drivers crossover from one to the other.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## amill94

Hey guys, I'm hoping you don't mind checking out my Audyssey results and giving some input. I have Martin Logan Sourcer fronts, Matinee center, speakercraft Aim 8 in ceilings for rear slightly behind and obviously above the couch and the sub is an HSU VTF-15H. I recently upgraded my receiver to a Marantz 7012. I ran Audyssey using the MultEQ app on my iphone. 

Initial settings set by Audyssey were as follows. I also measured the following db with my radio shack meter. My subwoofer gain volume was set to the "9 o'clock" position, crossover was disabled.
FL +0.5 - 73db
C +3.5 - 74db
FR +0.5 - 73db
SR -1.0 - 72db
SL - 1.5 - 72db
Sub - 6.0 - 73db

I bumped the subwoofer to -2.5 since the faq recommended subs set to a range of -3.0 to +3.0.

I also went in and changed the fronts/center/rear crossovers to 80hz. Speaker size was already set to small and lfe + main is off. 

Then I ran my HSU test CD and got the following db measurements with the AVR value set to "0".

16hz - 87db
20hz - 91db
25hz - 93db
31.5hz - 94db
40hz - 98db
50hz - 98db
63hz - 97db
80hz - 93db
100hz - 90db
125hz - 90db

Attached are the before and afters for the room. The room isn't the best for acoustics. The ceiling is vaulted and open to the upstairs. Behind the seating area where I took the measurements, there is no wall, it's open to the kitchen. 





















































The system sounds much more balanced than before, but I feel like I'm a bit lower on the mid bass as before with my old receiver.

Anyway, I guess if you guys can give me your thoughts on if this looks good or not or what could be improved, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

amill94 said:


> Hey guys, I'm hoping you don't mind checking out my Audyssey results and giving some input. I have Martin Logan Sourcer fronts, Matinee center, speakercraft Aim 8 in ceilings for rear slightly behind and obviously above the couch and the sub is an HSU VTF-15H. I recently upgraded my receiver to a Marantz 7012. I ran Audyssey using the MultEQ app on my iphone.
> 
> The system sounds much more balanced than before, but I feel like I'm a bit lower on the mid bass as before with my old receiver.
> 
> Anyway, I guess if you guys can give me your thoughts on if this looks good or not or what could be improved, I'd appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks.


Hi,

First of all, I think that your frequency response looks very good. It appears that Audyssey did just what you want it to. But, there are a couple of suggestions I would make with respect to the bass. The advice in the FAQ, regarding AVR trim settings has been superseded in recent years. Now, it is recommended to stay below -3, and preferably below -5 in the AVR trim to reduce the possibility of clipping the subwoofer signal. There is a detailed explanation of that in the subwoofer guide linked below.

One way to do that would be to rerun Audyssey with your gain control set to 10:00 or 11:00, in an effort to get trim levels of about -10 or -11. That would give you several decibels of adjustment in your AVR while still staying at about -5. Additional sub increases beyond that should be made with your sub gain. And, that is what I think you are lacking right now. You just need to have your sub playing more bass.

Another way to do it, if you don't want to rerun Audyssey, and particularly since you already have such good results, would be just to set your trim control back to about -5 and increase the gain as much as you want to. Even a setting of 1:00 or 2:00 should be alright. Once you get a fairly smooth frequency response, which you have, the rest is just about creating the house curve (primarily for bass frequencies) that you like. You might also consider using the app to bump the mid-bass region a bit from about 40Hz up. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## amill94

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> First of all, I think that your frequency response looks very good. It appears that Audyssey did just what you want it to. But, there are a couple of suggestions I would make with respect to the bass. The advice in the FAQ, regarding AVR trim settings has been superseded in recent years. Now, it is recommended to stay below -3, and preferably below -5 in the AVR trim to reduce the possibility of clipping the subwoofer signal. There is a detailed explanation of that in the subwoofer guide linked below.
> 
> One way to do that would be to rerun Audyssey with your gain control set to 10:00 or 11:00, in an effort to get trim levels of about -10 or -11. That would give you several decibels of adjustment in your AVR while still staying at about -5. Additional sub increases beyond that should be made with your sub gain. And, that is what I think you are lacking right now. You just need to have your sub playing more bass.
> 
> Another way to do it, if you don't want to rerun Audyssey, and particularly since you already have such good results, would be just to set your trim control back to about -5 and increase the gain as much as you want to. Even a setting of 1:00 or 2:00 should be alright. Once you get a fairly smooth frequency response, which you have, the rest is just about creating the house curve (primarily for bass frequencies) that you like. You might also consider using the app to bump the mid-bass region a bit from about 40Hz up.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the response. It's funny, as I saw the link in your signature when I was browsing this page and was already reading your post about sub level adjustment. Great info btw. 

I'll take your advice on keeping my current settings and adjusting from there. My wife and son were out of the house this morning, and I had the dog outside along with keeping the hvac system off. I probably won't get that chance again for a bit. I'll drop the level on the AVR to about -5 and then bump the gain on the sub to about 10 o'clock or so. 

Is there any sort of video or guide you can recommend regarding adjusting frequencies in the app? I'm assuming I just pull up the main "room" graph and then drag the line where i'd like it in the frequency range I'd like to adjust?

Thanks again!


----------



## mthomas47

amill94 said:


> Thank you for the response. It's funny, as I saw the link in your signature when I was browsing this page and was already reading your post about sub level adjustment. Great info btw.
> 
> I'll take your advice on keeping my current settings and adjusting from there. My wife and son were out of the house this morning, and I had the dog outside along with keeping the hvac system off. I probably won't get that chance again for a bit. I'll drop the level on the AVR to about -5 and then bump the gain on the sub to about 10 o'clock or so.
> 
> Is there any sort of video or guide you can recommend regarding adjusting frequencies in the app? I'm assuming I just pull up the main "room" graph and then drag the line where i'd like it in the frequency range I'd like to adjust?
> 
> Thanks again!


You are very welcome, and I appreciate the compliment on the guide. I don't have any personal experience with the app. But, you could do a Google search for instruction videos, or post your question on the Audyssey app thread.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## garygarrison

amill94 said:


> ... The system sounds much more balanced than before, *but I feel like I'm a bit lower on the mid bass as before with my old receiver ...*


There is mid bass, and there is mid bass. You can turn up the sub, and probably should, following Mike's advice in order to not clip either the Marantz sub output, or the input in the sub itself. If your crossover to the sub is, say, 80Hz, turning up the sub will increase bass up to and beyond 80 Hz, but less and less as you move up the frequency spectrum. I find it helpful to use my Marantz's tone controls to turn up the bass a bit between 80 Hz and 150 or 200 Hz, where much mid bass impact (attack) is. The leading edge and "smack" of some drums can be considerably higher than the "oom" of the deep bass that goes through the sub. The tone controls can only be used if DEQ is off.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... *Bi-wiring and passive bi-amping really amount to the same thing*. Neither actually affects the available headroom of the speakers in question. And, neither changes the voltage going to the various drivers, or the frequencies at which the various drivers crossover from one to the other ...
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


That's what I suspected. The question that springs to mind is, "What good is it (other than making money for manufacturers)?" Now I did hear an argument that they avoid a magnetic back current of some kind arising from the wide excursion of a woofer. Some of us have woofers that only need to move over a narrow excursion (thanks to horn loading or very large speaker boxes), so I think I'll ignore that hypothesis.


----------



## g.costanza

I've found a strange audyssey issue. While my system was in transition and I didn't have a sub, I set fronts to large and surrounds to small. After audyssey setup I was playing around with the various settings (reference, flat, off, L+R bypass). I noticed an increased bass response in L+R bypass mode. I ran some measurements with a cross spectrum labs umik1 and REW. The measurements backup what my ears were hearing...increased bass in L+R bypass vs OFF. Even the high frequencies are boosted in L+R bypass mode. *Why?* Ignore the dip around 100hz in the measurements. That's obviously a room bass null from the position the mic was in. Graph resolution is 1/12 octave.


----------



## mthomas47

g.costanza said:


> I've found a strange audyssey issue. While my system was in transition and I didn't have a sub, I set fronts to large and surrounds to small. After audyssey setup I was playing around with the various settings (reference, flat, off, L+R bypass). I noticed an increased bass response in L+R bypass mode. I ran some measurements with a cross spectrum labs umik1 and REW. The measurements backup what my ears were hearing...increased bass in L+R bypass vs OFF. Even the high frequencies are boosted in L+R bypass mode. *Why?* Ignore the dip around 100hz in the measurements. That's obviously a room bass null from the position the mic was in. Graph resolution is 1/12 octave.


Hi,

I started to try to answer this question when I was in a hurry and botched the answer, which I subsequently deleted. I can't promise that I won't botch it again, but at least I can take more time in doing it. 

First, was DEQ on when you took your measurements? If it were, then that would explain why the high frequencies are boosted a little compared to Audyssey off. DEQ adds a boost above 10KHz, which is where the Green line shows the increase. The increased boost in the Blue line (Bypass) at about 45Hz and 75Hz looks like two peaks that Audyssey pulled down nicely. It looks to me as if you are getting a good bit of room gain, with fairly large peaks at 45Hz and 75Hz. Perhaps DEQ further exacerbated that when you bypassed the front speakers.

To me, the FR from a little under 30Hz up to a little over 80Hz looks almost ruler flat with Audyssey fully engaged. I would probably start with that, and then add a boost to my bass if I felt like it. If you turned DEQ off, you could add a bass boost with your tone controls. Conversely, you could also use the tone controls to reduce the treble in the front speakers if you wanted to.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## g.costanza

mthomas47 said:


> g.costanza said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've found a strange audyssey issue. While my system was in transition and I didn't have a sub, I set fronts to large and surrounds to small. After audyssey setup I was playing around with the various settings (reference, flat, off, L+R bypass). I noticed an increased bass response in L+R bypass mode. I ran some measurements with a cross spectrum labs umik1 and REW. The measurements backup what my ears were hearing...increased bass in L+R bypass vs OFF. Even the high frequencies are boosted in L+R bypass mode. *Why?* Ignore the dip around 100hz in the measurements. That's obviously a room bass null from the position the mic was in. Graph resolution is 1/12 octave.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I started to try to answer this question when I was in a hurry and botched the answer, which I subsequently deleted. I can't promise that I won't botch it again, but at least I can take more time in doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, was DEQ on when you took your measurements? If it were, then that would explain why the high frequencies are boosted a little compared to Audyssey off. DEQ adds a boost above 10KHz, which is where the Green line shows the increase. The increased boost in the Blue line (Bypass) at about 45Hz and 75Hz looks like two peaks that Audyssey pulled down nicely. It looks to me as if you are getting a good bit of room gain, with fairly large peaks at 45Hz and 75Hz. Perhaps DEQ further exacerbated that when you bypassed the front speakers.
> 
> To me, the FR from a little under 30Hz up to a little over 80Hz looks almost ruler flat with Audyssey fully engaged. I would probably start with that, and then add a boost to my bass if I felt like it. If you turned DEQ off, you could add a bass boost with your tone controls. Conversely, you could also use the tone controls to reduce the treble in the front speakers if you wanted to.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Ok. Thanks. Yes, I think what is happening is dynamic EQ is causing the boosted low and high frequencies when I?m in L+R Bypass mode. I thought L+R Bypass turned all audyssey "effects" off going to the left and right speakers, which I thought would have included dynamic EQ.


----------



## mthomas47

g.costanza said:


> Ok. Thanks. Yes, I think what is happening is dynamic EQ is causing the boosted low and high frequencies when I?m in L+R Bypass mode. I thought L+R Bypass turned all audyssey "effects" off going to the left and right speakers, which I thought would have included dynamic EQ.


You are very welcome! I have never actually thought about what would happen to DEQ in Bypass mode. But, I do know that what the L+R Bypass mode does is to eliminate the Audyssey filters (the EQ process) for the front speakers. DEQ is a separate software program, which is an adjunct to the room correction. It does make some sense that the separate DEQ program would be unaffected by the Bypass mode. It would be easy to test by running a new measurement suite with DEQ off.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I have never actually thought about what would happen to DEQ in Bypass mode. But, I do know that what the L+R Bypass mode does is to eliminate the Audyssey filters (the EQ process) for the front speakers. DEQ is a separate software program, which is an adjunct to the room correction. It does make some sense that the separate DEQ program would be unaffected by the Bypass mode. It would be easy to test by running a new measurement suite with DEQ off.


On a second note Guys, why would anyone want to bypass the Audyssey EQ on L+R only, and leave the EQ "on" for the rest of the speakers in the system. IMHO, this might be one of the most unuseful features ever built into an AVR. Oh, I get it, it can be useful to compare how the L+R sounds with and without EQ, but noting more, really! Isn't it like disinflating the front L+R tires on our cars while leaving the rears and the spare tire factory set! A rough ride resulting in an unbalanced state, eh?  YMMV, of course!


----------



## g.costanza

mthomas47 said:


> g.costanza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Thanks. Yes, I think what is happening is dynamic EQ is causing the boosted low and high frequencies when I?m in L+R Bypass mode. I thought L+R Bypass turned all audyssey "effects" off going to the left and right speakers, which I thought would have included dynamic EQ.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very welcome! I have never actually thought about what would happen to DEQ in Bypass mode. But, I do know that what the L+R Bypass mode does is to eliminate the Audyssey filters (the EQ process) for the front speakers. DEQ is a separate software program, which is an adjunct to the room correction. It does make some sense that the separate DEQ program would be unaffected by the Bypass mode. It would be easy to test by running a new measurement suite with DEQ off.
Click to expand...

I did remeasure with dynamic EQ off and in L+R Bypass on and the result was the same as when audyssey was set to off. I always considered dynamic EQ as part of audyssey, so I figured it would be bypassed in L+R Bypass, but I was wrong. Conversely, u cannot use dynamic EQ without audyssey.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> On a second note Guys, why would anyone want to bypass the Audyssey EQ on L+R only, and leave the EQ "on" for the rest of the speakers in the system. IMHO, this might be one of the most unuseful features ever built into an AVR. Oh, I get it, it can be useful to compare how the L+R sounds with and without EQ, but noting more, really! Isn't it like disinflating the front L+R tires on our cars while leaving the rears and the spare tire factory set! A rough ride resulting in an unbalanced state, eh?  YMMV, of course!


I would tend to agree with you, Feri. I have never seen a lot of point to L+R Bypass. But then, I rarely challenge anyone else's preferences. I just try to answer their questions if I can.

Once you realize that there are large numbers of people who like to wear Lederhosen and dance to Polka music (which even copious amounts of beer can only partly explain) your understanding of the breadth of audio preference really expands.


----------



## userben

If audyssey doesn't apply correction below 10Hz what could cause this?

After taking all 8 measurements for XT32, I engaged multeq and measured response at mlp (calibrated umik + rew). It had done a good job of taming fr for the most part, but there's a significant lift @ ~ 8.8Hz (sub port tuning just shy of 14Hz, no hpf). It might make sense if there was boost being applied just above this point but it seems to show the opposite.

Spoke to audyssey support who confirmed no correction below 10Hz and stated a single point measurement cannot display the info gathered by the 8 point setup; which got me thinking. I suggested taking the minimum setup positions but all at mlp, to see if the same thing occurs. Support advised against using single position and to try the app. 

Decided to try and find any hotspots where room interaction might be causing audyssey to see extended fr by running rew sweeps at the same locations used when performing the setup, or within a few mm at least. But then even if it did show (which I couldn't find) it wouldn't explain why boost beyond range?


----------



## mthomas47

userben said:


> If audyssey doesn't apply correction below 10Hz what could cause this?
> 
> After taking all 8 measurements for XT32, I engaged multeq and measured response at mlp (calibrated umik + rew). It had done a good job of taming fr for the most part, but there's a significant lift @ ~ 8.8Hz (sub port tuning just shy of 14Hz, no hpf). It might make sense if there was boost being applied just above this point but it seems to show the opposite.
> 
> Spoke to audyssey support who confirmed no correction below 10Hz and stated a single point measurement cannot display the info gathered by the 8 point setup; which got me thinking. I suggested taking the minimum setup positions but all at mlp, to see if the same thing occurs. Support advised against using single position and to try the app.
> 
> Decided to try and find any hotspots where room interaction might be causing audyssey to see extended fr by running rew sweeps at the same locations used when performing the setup, or within a few mm at least. But then even if it did show (which I couldn't find) it wouldn't explain why boost beyond range?



Hi,

Perhaps someone else will have a better answer, but I will give you my best guess. We have always been told that Audyssey EQ's between 10Hz and 22KHz. But, how would they implement that type of stop-on-a-dime control? Is there really such a thing as a brick wall filter? I would speculate that on the low end they implement a high pass filter with a very steep roll-off--perhaps even a sixth order roll-off. But, even if they started the HPF at 11Hz, it's possible that it could still be adding some correction (in this case, some boost) just slightly below 10Hz. And, that's really what we are looking at here--some boost about 1.2Hz below the point at which room correction is supposed to stop.

I think that a room correction system that is stopping within a measured ~1Hz of when it's supposed to is doing pretty well. That is particularly true when you consider the potential variables of the relative accuracy of the Audyssey measurement and the REW measurement. FWIW, curiosity aside, I would probably be grateful for a little bit of boost at 8.8Hz as long as it didn't cause an apparent loss of headroom or any port chuffing from my sub(s).

Again curiosity aside, I would probably be a little more concerned about the dip that Audyssey can't fill just below the tuning point of the sub, because the attempt that Audyssey is undoubtedly making is probably costing some headroom. It can try to add up to 9db to boost a dip.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## userben

Thanks for your response Mike, I was under the impression boosting below port tuning is a big no-no. I want to use DEQ since it sounds great but even at -10 offset I'm scared about bottoming.
I have a mic2200 on order to add a hpf at 12Hz which should fix this hopefully.

Edit: I have tried to simulate the loss/gain in headroom by boosting 8.8Hz 6db or adding a hpf. Obviously this isn't accounting for other correction and room gain but Green (untouched) is over 100W before reaching x-max, Red (boosted) just 37W, Blue is a 12db butterworth @ 12Hz, increasing handling to over 600W. Move that up to 20Hz (orange) and it should handle it's rated 1000W but not really worth doing that I think.


----------



## g.costanza

mogorf said:


> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are very welcome! I have never actually thought about what would happen to DEQ in Bypass mode. But, I do know that what the L+R Bypass mode does is to eliminate the Audyssey filters (the EQ process) for the front speakers. DEQ is a separate software program, which is an adjunct to the room correction. It does make some sense that the separate DEQ program would be unaffected by the Bypass mode. It would be easy to test by running a new measurement suite with DEQ off.
> 
> 
> 
> On a second note Guys, why would anyone want to bypass the Audyssey EQ on L+R only, and leave the EQ "on" for the rest of the speakers in the system. IMHO, this might be one of the most unuseful features ever built into an AVR. Oh, I get it, it can be useful to compare how the L+R sounds with and without EQ, but noting more, really! Isn't it like disinflating the front L+R tires on our cars while leaving the rears and the spare tire factory set! A rough ride resulting in an unbalanced state, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YMMV, of course!
Click to expand...

Not a very good analogy

Using room EQ would b more like a vehicle?s active suspension. It can help compensate for serious bumps in the road (ie, your room), so the ride u get in your car approximates a smoother road. 
Many people don?t believe in system EQ above the Schroeder frequency of their room. These ppl only want to EQ the bass/subwoofer portion of their system. They may also want to EQ surround speakers that can get crazy frequency response alterations to their sound due to being mounted on walls and sometimes near corners where many speakers were never designed (voiced) to be placed. Therefore if your main speakers are crossed over near the Schroeder frequency, and u want to hear them in their unadulterated form, but yet want the bass eq?d as well as the surrounds, L+r Bypass can b a good option to experiment with.


----------



## garygarrison

g.costanza said:


> Therefore if your main speakers are crossed over near the Schroeder frequency, and* u want to hear them in their unadulterated form*, but yet want the bass eq?d as well as the surrounds, L+r Bypass can b a good option to experiment with.


Ay, there's the rub!  

IMHO, no one will ever hear their speakers in unadulterated form. With no room EQ, I would expect the room tp adulterate them, even a well treated room. I would think that good room treatment plus good room EQ would get us closer, by removing some of the anomalies that the room imposes. An anechoic chamber's "neutrality" sounds pretty terrible, partly because speakers are not really voiced to sound good in one, and because recordings cannot really capture the complex reverberation of the original venue, particularly a concert hall, IMO. Maybe when we get 20.1! Room EQ gives us starting point, which we can alter to create high fidelity to the _*imagined*_ original. Although, in my set-up I prefer Audyssey Flat + the use of tone controls, the setting of which varies with the recording (and my mood), the Audyssey people do maintain that Audyssey Reference (~~ -2dB @ about 2K, - 2 dB @ 10 K, -6 dB @ 20K) sounds better much of the time. Although the figures vary a little with room size and personal take/taste, much of the industry agrees that a declining top end is a good idea (Harman/JBL, Crown, SMPTE, etc.) These complications are not surprising, because recordings are not flat, rooms are not flat, speakers are not flat. People tend to prefer reproduction that is not flat, but is not jagged either. See J. Gordon Holt, "Down with flat!" in the *Stereophile *archive and the Harman research.


----------



## g.costanza

garygarrison said:


> Ay, there's the rub!
> 
> IMHO, no one will ever hear their speakers in unadulterated form. With no room EQ, I would expect the room tp adulterate them, even a well treated room. I would think that good room treatment plus good room EQ would get us closer, by removing some of the anomalies that the room imposes. An anechoic chamber's "neutrality" sounds pretty terrible, partly because speakers are not really voiced to sound good in one, and because recordings cannot really capture the complex reverberation of the original venue, particularly a concert hall, IMO. Maybe when we get 20.1! Room EQ gives us starting point, which we can alter to create high fidelity to the _*imagined*_ original. Although, in my set-up I prefer Audyssey Flat + the use of tone controls, the setting of which varies with the recording (and my mood), the Audyssey people do maintain that Audyssey Reference (~~ -2dB @ about 2K, - 2 dB @ 10 K, -6 dB @ 20K) sounds better much of the time. Although the figures vary a little with room size and personal take/taste, much of the industry agrees that a declining top end is a good idea (Harman/JBL, Crown, SMPTE, etc.) These complications are not surprising, because recordings are not flat, rooms are not flat, speakers are not flat. People tend to prefer reproduction that is not flat, but is not jagged either. See J. Gordon Holt, "Down with flat!" in the *Stereophile *archive and the Harman research.


I use audyssey xt32, but people do make a convincing argument about only eq-ing below the Schroeder frequency. Supposedly the newer xt32 program does way less above, and way more below the schroeder frequency vs. the older, simpler versions. There's an article about it somewhere on here.
"Sound quality" is subjective. We all have preferences. I'm glad to see Audyssey gives people the chance to use the their program for only eq'ing the bass and surrounds, if that is what they prefer. 
I've been playing around a LOT with my new cross spectrum labs calibrated umik-1 mic and the REW program. I never realised how much the HEIGHT of the woofers in my speaker affected the response! I've been living with a wide dip around 100 hz for a loooong time. Raising my speakers 1 ft eliminated it :grin:
I sit 12 ft from my speakers, so the new 1 ft height difference didn't have a negative affect on the high frequencies.


----------



## lovingdvd

*Clarification on EQing a single MLP*

I read the details in the Audyssey FAQ about mic positioning and EQing specifically for one seat and have a few questions please. For reference I have the Marantz 8802A with Audyssey XT32



> One more point about the Main Listening Position. If you are primarily interesting in getting the best result for just one seat (either because you are the only listener or you are the only listener who really cares about audio fidelity), then place the mic for position 1 at the centre of that seat. If, however, you wish to consider other seats, then place the mic in the centre of the listening area for position 1.


The above explains my situation exactly. I have a 9.4.6 setup (only 7.4.4 active). Even tho my room is 31' x 16' and has two rows, I only care about one single seat.  I understand from the FAQ that I should do my MLP as position 1 but that I should still do all 8 positions in total, moving about 2 feet around the MLP.

When I sit in my Paliser chair, the seat back is about maybe 4" or so higher than my ears. Therefore it blocks the direct "line of sight" from the rear surrounds and also from the top-rear ceiling speakers. The FAQ says that in this situation we should raise the mic so it clears the seatback and has a direct line of sight. However in reality this means that when I am seated my ears are not hearing in position 1 what the Audyseey assumed it would be hearing, since they are below the seat back. In particular this means that the Level of these speakers will need to be louder. I can tune this after the fact, but it seems counterintuitive to me to have to redo that. Likewise perhaps it should have boosted some frequencies from these partially blocked speakers to help offset being blocked by the seatback.

If you guys and please clarify the best approach and why or if I should still blindly follow the mic positioning advice and not make adjustments, or perhaps I should make adjustments and how, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I read the details in the Audyssey FAQ about mic positioning and EQing specifically for one seat and have a few questions please. For reference I have the Marantz 8802A with Audyssey XT32
> 
> 
> 
> The above explains my situation exactly. I have a 9.4.6 setup (only 7.4.4 active). Even tho my room is 31' x 16' and has two rows, I only care about one single seat.  I understand from the FAQ that I should do my MLP as position 1 but that I should still do all 8 positions in total, moving about 2 feet around the MLP.
> 
> When I sit in my Paliser chair, the seat back is about maybe 4" or so higher than my ears. Therefore it blocks the direct "line of sight" from the rear surrounds and also from the top-rear ceiling speakers. The FAQ says that in this situation we should raise the mic so it clears the seatback and has a direct line of sight. However in reality this means that when I am seated my ears are not hearing in position 1 what the Audyseey assumed it would be hearing, since they are below the seat back. In particular this means that the Level of these speakers will need to be louder. I can tune this after the fact, but it seems counterintuitive to me to have to redo that. Likewise perhaps it should have boosted some frequencies from these partially blocked speakers to help offset being blocked by the seatback.
> 
> If you guys and please clarify the best approach and why or if I should still blindly follow the mic positioning advice and not make adjustments, or perhaps I should make adjustments and how, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!


Hi,

I would never recommend that someone blindly follow mic positioning advice (or any similar advice) without some experimentation. Odds are that your overhead speakers may actually have a line-of-sight to the Audyssey mic when it is at ear level. So, your main concern would probably be your rear surrounds. As you stated, if you raise your mic above the chair level, then none of your speakers will be aligned with your ear level, including the vastly more important front soundstage. If your rear surrounds don't have a clear sightline to the Audyssey mic, the worst that will happen is that Audyssey may compensate by boosting the high frequencies a little bit for those speakers. 

In my opinion, the choice is clear. I would much rather get the front soundstage (and the majority of the other speakers) right, than to tilt my whole calibration toward satisfying an optimum sightline to my rear surrounds. Or even to my rear surrounds and rear overheads. But, maybe there is a way to satisfy both concerns. My favorite calibration pattern is fairly tight, with all 8 mic positions within about a 22" area (front-to-back and side-to-side). But, for my last two positions, I come in even closer to my ears on each side, and I raise the mic level by about 2" to 3". That seems to help even when a sightline to the rear surrounds isn't a concern, and I suspect that it would also help in your specific situation. 

I would encourage you to experiment a little to discover the specific microphone pattern that works best in your room. Again, speaking personally, I tried a number of different mic patterns before settling on the one that sounded best to me. And, in each case, I used some familiar music and listened quite critically to the results. I'm sure that you will be able to discover what mic pattern actually sounds the best in your HT. 

Incidentally, I would recommend placing a fluffy blanket over your seat back during the calibration only (unless you like fluffy blankets ). That will enable you to get the Audyssey mic within about 4" of the chair back, and where your ears are, without getting comb filtering effects from the proximity of the Audyssey mic to a hard surface.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would never recommend that someone blindly follow mic positioning advice (or any similar advice) without some experimentation. Odds are that your overhead speakers may actually have a line-of-sight to the Audyssey mic when it is at ear level. So, your main concern would probably be your rear surrounds. As you stated, if you raise your mic above the chair level, then none of your speakers will be aligned with your ear level, including the vastly more important front soundstage. If your rear surrounds don't have a clear sightline to the Audyssey mic, the worst that will happen is that Audyssey may compensate by boosting the high frequencies a little bit for those speakers.
> 
> In my opinion, the choice is clear. I would much rather get the front soundstage (and the majority of the other speakers) right, than to tilt my whole calibration toward satisfying an optimum sightline to my rear surrounds. Or even to my rear surrounds and rear overheads. But, maybe there is a way to satisfy both concerns. My favorite calibration pattern is fairly tight, with all 8 mic positions within about a 22" area (front-to-back and side-to-side). But, for my last two positions, I come in even closer to my ears on each side, and I raise the mic level by about 2" to 3". That seems to help even when a sightline to the rear surrounds isn't a concern, and I suspect that it would also help in your specific situation.
> 
> I would encourage you to experiment a little to discover the specific microphone pattern that works best in your room. Again, speaking personally, I tried a number of different mic patterns before settling on the one that sounded best to me. And, in each case, I used some familiar music and listened quite critically to the results. I'm sure that you will be able to discover what mic pattern actually sounds the best in your HT.
> 
> Incidentally, I would recommend placing a fluffy blanket over your seat back during the calibration only (unless you like fluffy blankets ). That will enable you to get the Audyssey mic within about about 4" of the chair back, and where your ears are, without getting comb filtering effects from the proximity of the Audyssey mic to a hard surface.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Great advice Mike. Thank you! I think the real challenge is that it is very difficult to A/B the Audyseey calibration results. It can be hard enough to tell the difference with fast switching if that was even possible, but between the 15 minute load/save and not having memory positions for different calibrations, I'm not sure how much value there is in experimenting (since it will be hard to detect the difference). I presume that you could fairly easily tell the difference between a bad calibration and a good one. But what I'm trying to do of course is tell the difference between a great one versus and even greater one. 

Thanks for the info about a fluffy blanket. I was just getting ready to ask about the distance from the seatback for the mic, because the FAQ says 1-2 feet away from the back, and clearly that's not where your head rests. Sounds like you are saying that 4" is a good distance with a fuzzy blanket in place so that's what I'll try.


----------



## MBrown2020

lovingdvd said:


> I read the details in the Audyssey FAQ about mic positioning and EQing specifically for one seat and have a few questions please. For reference I have the Marantz 8802A with Audyssey XT32
> 
> 
> 
> The above explains my situation exactly. I have a 9.4.6 setup (only 7.4.4 active). Even tho my room is 31' x 16' and has two rows, I only care about one single seat.  I understand from the FAQ that I should do my MLP as position 1 but that I should still do all 8 positions in total, moving about 2 feet around the MLP.
> 
> When I sit in my Paliser chair, the seat back is about maybe 4" or so higher than my ears. Therefore it blocks the direct "line of sight" from the rear surrounds and also from the top-rear ceiling speakers. The FAQ says that in this situation we should raise the mic so it clears the seatback and has a direct line of sight. However in reality this means that when I am seated my ears are not hearing in position 1 what the Audyseey assumed it would be hearing, since they are below the seat back. In particular this means that the Level of these speakers will need to be louder. I can tune this after the fact, but it seems counterintuitive to me to have to redo that. Likewise perhaps it should have boosted some frequencies from these partially blocked speakers to help offset being blocked by the seatback.
> 
> If you guys and please clarify the best approach and why or if I should still blindly follow the mic positioning advice and not make adjustments, or perhaps I should make adjustments and how, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!


I also have Paliser chairs with power recline. I just recline them slightly before calibrations which lowers the seatback 4-5" enough to get a line of sight on all speakers. I also use a fluffy blanket on seatback to prevent reflections. You could also just remove the seatback for the calibration and put it back on when your done.


----------



## lovingdvd

*No EQ applied for Surround Back channels above 1kHz - is this a bug?*

I just got done with an 8 position calibration. I recall reading a while ago that we should not read into the EQ graph results too much, but I do like to look at them just to get a rough idea of what Audyseey is doing. Normally these graphs show results anywhere from -15dB to +10db across the range for each channel. This last calibration I did today showed the same typical graphs, which is a good thing, except the Surround Back channels showed nothing on the EQ graph from 1Kh and up. I've never seen this before on any channel on any calibration run. Then again I've only done maybe 3 calibrations so maybe this is normal.

Please see the attached images to see what I mean. Notice how the graph just cuts off at 1kHz and up. As a comparison, I also included a graph from a previous calibration, measured using roughly the same 8 mic positions. On this last run, this Surround Back channel showing no EQ about 1kHz is the only channel like that - all graphs for the other channels in this calibration show results across the entire range.

Is this a glitch? Surely Audyssey cannot think that NO calibration is needed above 1kHz for this channel, especially since ALL other channels have something going on +/- for the FULL range. So I don't know if it really did not apply any EQ about 1kHz, or perhaps there is a glitch in the graph that's causing it not to display the graph properly, or maybe it has a valid reason for not applying any EQ?

Therefore I am wondering if the results from this calibration can be trusted, and if I should redo it. And if I rerun it, I'm not sure the results would be difference.


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> I read the details in the Audyssey FAQ about mic positioning and EQing specifically for one seat and have a few questions please. For reference I have the Marantz 8802A with Audyssey XT32
> 
> 
> 
> The above explains my situation exactly. I have a 9.4.6 setup (only 7.4.4 active). Even tho my room is 31' x 16' and has two rows, I only care about one single seat.  I understand from the FAQ that I should do my MLP as position 1 but that I should still do all 8 positions in total, moving about 2 feet around the MLP.
> 
> When I sit in my Paliser chair, the seat back is about maybe 4" or so higher than my ears. Therefore it blocks the direct "line of sight" from the rear surrounds and also from the top-rear ceiling speakers. The FAQ says that in this situation we should raise the mic so it clears the seatback and has a direct line of sight. However in reality this means that when I am seated my ears are not hearing in position 1 what the Audyseey assumed it would be hearing, since they are below the seat back. In particular this means that the Level of these speakers will need to be louder. I can tune this after the fact, but it seems counterintuitive to me to have to redo that. Likewise perhaps it should have boosted some frequencies from these partially blocked speakers to help offset being blocked by the seatback.
> 
> If you guys and please clarify the best approach and why or if I should still blindly follow the mic positioning advice and not make adjustments, or perhaps I should make adjustments and how, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!



NOTE: Mike's and my posts crossed in the Ether. As you can see, we are both members of the Fuzzy/Fluffy Blanket society. He is quite right*;* don't sacrifice the front for the back!

I'd think there is no perfect solution. 

You could:


Raise the mic, as the FAQ advises. That would EQ the speakers and the room for a position that does have a "direct line of sight" from the rear and the top rear ceiling speakers. Later, from your seat in the high backed chair, you would hear this EQ'd sound the same way you would hear a "real" sound from the rear of your room -- it would have somewhat attenuated high frequencies, due to being obstructed by your seat back, but it should sound plausible for sounds behind you, even though it may not be quite what the filmmakers intended. That is one way to look at the FAQ recommendations concerning the EQ issues, only. You may want to turn up the rear SPL, either to taste, or when pink noise from the rear matches the level from the front, as measured by an SPL meter, REW, or your ears (don't use the AVR's pink noise generator because that noise doesn't go through the Audyssey EQ correction you have so painstakingly set up*;* use a disk in your player that contains pink noise. I believe the standard balancing noise is band limited to 500 Hz - 2,000 Hz, but that's another story and another discussion)
Put the mic at ear level. If your seat backs are leather, or made of some other shiny material, put a few layers of towel or fuzzy blanket over the seat back while running Audyssey calibration.  Either leave the level set the way Audyssey sets it, or change it to taste. I don't have the high back problem, but I run my surrounds a little "hot" because some movies seem to use the surrounds very minimally, with less sound from the side/rear than I prefer. Those movies that use the surrounds more fully are still not too loud most of the time. The same variation is true with multichannel music on SACD. The manager of our local art house is driven crazy by patrons asking him to turn up the surrounds. He tried telling them that the theater was calibrated, and the degree to which the surrounds are used is the filmmakers' choice. He may have now turned up the surrounds by a few dB.
A very few people turn their surrounds around and aim them toward the rear, or in one case, toward a wooden, curved (convex) diffusser/reflector at the juncture of the rear ceiling and wall, like a Bonner (looking something like the convex front of a JBL Paragon, only not so elongated). The idea is to spread a diffused version of the rear sound abound the room, then let Audyssey EQ it, from whichever mic position the user prefers. The goal is not to necessarily replicate the filmmakers' intentions, but to set up a nice sounding sound field. Something like using bi-directional (bi-polar, if you must) speakers. 

On a slightly different subject, IMO, if someone were to write a series of helpful hints about setting up a HT, it would include the following:


No high backed chairs. Use low or medium backed couch(s).
No recliners*;* they encourage somnolent detachment
No coffee tables*;* they produce troublesome reflections
Don't over or under damp
Use diffusers or diffusing surfaces (if it is a multipurpose room in addition to a HT, use objets d'art, sculpture, bookshelves and books, etc.) as well as absorption.
Read:  "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" and "Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"
Leaf through Building a Recording Studio, by Jeff Cooper, a book aimed at building a HOME studio, many acoustical techniques apply to HTs, as well. Try your local library, it is very expensive! Reportedly, Cooper has designed studios for, or acted as a consultant to, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Francis Ford Coppola, as well as Polygram, Capitol, EMI Records, MCA Universal, and Warner Bros 

Leaf through the THX portfolio for theater builders -- I think they will still send you a copy if you contact them.

.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I just got done with an 8 position calibration. I recall reading a while ago that we should not read into the EQ graph results too much, but I do like to look at them just to get a rough idea of what Audyseey is doing. Normally these graphs show results anywhere from -15dB to +10db across the range for each channel. This last calibration I did today showed the same typical graphs, which is a good thing, except the Surround Back channels showed nothing on the EQ graph from 1Kh and up. I've never seen this before on any channel on any calibration run. Then again I've only done maybe 3 calibrations so maybe this is normal.
> 
> Please see the attached images to see what I mean. Notice how the graph just cuts off at 1kHz and up. As a comparison, I also included a graph from a previous calibration, measured using roughly the same 8 mic positions. On this last run, this Surround Back channel showing no EQ about 1kHz is the only channel like that - all graphs for the other channels in this calibration show results across the entire range.
> 
> Is this a glitch? Surely Audyssey cannot think that NO calibration is needed above 1kHz for this channel, especially since ALL other channels have something going on +/- for the FULL range. So I don't know if it really did not apply any EQ about 1kHz, or perhaps there is a glitch in the graph that's causing it not to display the graph properly, or maybe it has a valid reason for not applying any EQ?
> 
> Therefore I am wondering if the results from this calibration can be trusted, and if I should redo it. And if I rerun it, I'm not sure the results would be difference.


I might be inclined to wonder if the rear surrounds are functioning properly. You could try turning down the trims on the other speakers and playing something that would let you hear your rear surrounds. Turn up their trims if necessary. (You can always default back to the original settings.) You should be able to tell if the tweeters/mids in those speakers are working at all. If they are, I have no idea why Audyssey would not be attempting any EQ over 1000Hz.

You can certainly redo the calibration, but I might consider doing a microprocessor reset first, if you determine that the rear surrounds appear to be functioning normally.


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> I might be inclined to wonder if the rear surrounds are functioning properly. You could try turning down the trims on the other speakers and playing something that would let you hear your rear surrounds. Turn up their trims if necessary. (You can always default back to the original settings.) You should be able to tell if the tweeters/mids in those speakers are working at all. If they are, I have no idea why Audyssey would not be attempting any EQ over 1000Hz.
> 
> You can certainly redo the calibration, but I might consider doing a microprocessor reset first, if you determine that the rear surrounds appear to be functioning normally.


Thanks. Yes I can confirm the tweeters are working just fine in the Surround Backs. But as I discussed above earlier today, the mic is mostly blocked by the seatback of my Paliser chairs. I purposely did this calibration with the mic at ear level when seated, which is a couple inches below the back of the reclined seatback (no direct line of sight to the tweeters. So your post made me think - perhaps too much of the highs are being blocks, so Audyssey can't get a good measurement about 1kHz and ops instead to just leave it alone? I had the mic very close - not way under, but probably blocked - and only blocked maybe in measurement one, and certainly not in all measurements.

One "trick" I may be able to do is note the Levels it set for the Surround Backs and redo the calibration with the mic a little higher to be sure it clears for all measurements. Then adjust the Levels back to where they measured for this calibration, so its more what I need to make up for the seatback.

Sound like a plan? I'll rerun this calibration in a few hours and report back!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks. Yes I can confirm the tweeters are working just fine in the Surround Backs. But as I discussed above earlier today, the mic is mostly blocked by the seatback of my Paliser chairs. I purposely did this calibration with the mic at ear level when seated, which is a couple inches below the back of the reclined seatback (no direct line of sight to the tweeters. So your post made me think - perhaps too much of the highs are being blocks, so Audyssey can't get a good measurement about 1kHz and ops instead to just leave it alone? I had the mic very close - not way under, but probably blocked - and only blocked maybe in measurement one, and certainly not in all measurements.
> 
> One "trick" I may be able to do is note the Levels it set for the Surround Backs and redo the calibration with the mic a little higher to be sure it clears for all measurements. Then adjust the Levels back to where they measured for this calibration, so its more what I need to make up for the seatback.
> 
> Sound like a plan? I'll rerun this calibration in a few hours and report back!


You could do that, but if I were sure the rear surrounds are functioning properly, I would just recline the seat back slightly as another poster suggested. Having the seat slightly reclined while calibrating, and then upright while listening, shouldn't adversely affect anything. But, it should give the mic a clear sightline to the rear surrounds. I actually had assumed you had used this technique when I questioned whether the rear surrounds were functioning properly.


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> You could do that, but if I were sure the rear surrounds are functioning properly, I would just recline the seat back slightly as another poster suggested. Having the seat slightly reclined while calibrating, and then upright while listening, shouldn't adversely affect anything. But, it should give the mic a clear sightline to the rear surrounds. I actually had assumed you had used this technique when I questioned whether the rear surrounds were functioning properly.


Ah yes, but I should have explained - the seats are already full reclined, which is my primary seated position (these Paliser seats do not recline as much as others). So I want to do the measurements with the seats in the position I'll be sitting in. Here's my updated plan - I will do a test with a single, one mic position calibration. I know this is far from good, but the point is just to see if Audyssey applies EQ above 1kHZ. So I will repeat this test a few times and figure out what height the mic needs to be at in order for it to apply the EQ, since I can learn this much faster with a 1 position session. Then once I know that, I'll repeat the full 8 point calibration with the mic at least at that height. This assumes the mic height is the issue, which I'll find out from a single position mic test or two. Will report back soon. Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Ah yes, but I should have explained - the seats are already full reclined, which is my primary seated position (these Paliser seats do not recline as much as others). So I want to do the measurements with the seats in the position I'll be sitting in. Here's my updated plan - I will do a test with a single, one mic position calibration. I know this is far from good, but the point is just to see if Audyssey applies EQ above 1kHZ. So I will repeat this test a few times and figure out what height the mic needs to be at in order for it to apply the EQ, since I can learn this much faster with a 1 position session. Then once I know that, I'll repeat the full 8 point calibration with the mic at least at that height. This assumes the mic height is the issue, which I'll find out from a single position mic test or two. Will report back soon. Thanks!


That sounds like a good plan, and you won't know the outcome until you try it. But, there is one thing I would keep in mind. You don't know for sure that Audyssey would do anything good with the rear surrounds above 1000Hz. And, they are mostly providing ambient sound and sound effects anyway. So, I would be careful not to compromise the audio quality of my front soundstage in an effort to get Audyssey to EQ speakers that might not necessarily benefit much anyway--which is where we started with all of this. 

And that is where critical listening comes in. I have never tried to A/B two calibrations. As you say, the time interval is too long. But, what I have done is to listen carefully and critically after a calibration, sometimes over a period of a couple of days. And I have usually been able to fairly easily hear artifacts resulting from a sub-optimal calibration.

I have always seen an audio system as a balancing of interests, where every single aspect can't necessarily be perfect, but where the overall sound quality can be very close. And, I always emphasize the front soundstage because that is what I will notice the most for critical listening. But, that's one of those YMMV things.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> ... I think the real challenge is that it is very difficult to A/B the Audyseey calibration results. It can be hard enough to tell the difference with fast switching if that was even possible, but between the 15 minute load/save and not having memory positions for different calibrations, I'm not sure how much value there is in experimenting (since it will be hard to detect the difference)..





mthomas47 said:


> .... As you say, the time interval is too long. But, what I have done is to listen carefully and critically after a calibration, sometimes over a period of a couple of days. And I have usually been able to fairly easily hear artifacts resulting from a sub-optimal calibration ....


I don't know whether your AVR, lovingdvd, will allow this, but on my Marantz pre/pro, I can't switch between two different calibrations, BUT I can switch very rapidly between a calibration and a non-calibration (my system without Audyssey) to see if there is an improvement with Audyssey. I hit "menu" on the remote, then >Audio/video Adjust>Audio Adjust>[skip Surround Parameter and Tone]>Audyssey Settings>and land on MultiEQ XT (in your case, MultiEQ XT 32), the right and left arrows allow me to go to OFF. A right arrow takes me back to Audyssey. The switching takes just about exactly 1 second. The 0.75 second pause is annoying, but not fatal. With my set-up there is a distinct improvement with Audyssey. The same basic technique lets me compare Audyssey and Audyssey FLAT (anther distinct improvement) and Audyssey FLAT and Manual (whatever manual settings I have used by manipulating the virtual EQ sliders, which can't be used with Audyssey (a step down in quality, usually), and Manual and OFF (depends), then I'm back to OFF v.s. Audyssey again. For me, with 80 to 90% of music, and with movies made after about 2000, Audyssey FLAT gives me what I want. For source material with a little distortion in the extreme highs, I switch over to Audyssey Reference.


----------



## darthray

garygarrison said:


> I don't know whether your AVR, lovingdvd, will allow this, but on my Marantz pre/pro, I can't switch between two different calibrations, BUT I can switch very rapidly between a calibration and a non-calibration (my system without Audyssey) to see if there is an improvement with Audyssey. I hit "menu" on the remote, then >Audio/video Adjust>Audio Adjust>[skip Surround Parameter and Tone]>Audyssey Settings>and land on MultiEQ XT (in your case, MultiEQ XT 32), the right and left arrows allow me to go to OFF. A right arrow takes me back to Audyssey. The switching takes just about exactly 1 second. The 0.75 second pause is annoying, but not fatal. * With my set-up there is a distinct improvement with Audyssey.* The same basic technique lets me compare Audyssey and *Audyssey FLAT* (anther distinct improvement) and Audyssey FLAT and Manual (whatever manual settings I have used by manipulating the virtual EQ sliders, which can't be used with Audyssey (a step down in quality, usually), and Manual and OFF (depends), then I'm back to OFF v.s. Audyssey again. For me, with 80 to 90% of music, and with movies made after about 2000, Audyssey FLAT gives me what I want. For source material with a little distortion in the extreme highs, I switch over to Audyssey Reference.


 
I am also very happy with the results of Audyssey flat, since my room have acoustic treatment, and does not require the curve offer with Audyssey.
So I leave-it at that.


With that said, if it sound good. Why mess-it up, of course some movies will sound less spectacular. But it could be just an Inferior Recording from the studio, since not all recording are created equal, I just live with-it.


Ray


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> I might be inclined to wonder if the rear surrounds are functioning properly...


Ding ding dine. I hate to say it, but my rear surrounds are not putting out high frequencies, at least according to my ear when listening to playback. Listening to them they sound flat/muffled compared to the other speakers. That said, listening to the 8802A generated pink noise in the Levels check I can certainly hear pink noise coming from the tweeter. This is a KEF 3160RL-THX. The crossover is listed at 340Hz, 2.5kHz. 

Here's the rub - these speakers are tucked behind acoustic fabric, so I can't get to them without temporarily ruining my decor and then having someone come back out to tuck the fabric back in. 

To test it some more I changed the wiring at the rack so that my Surround Right channel was redirected to the physical Surround Back Right channel. Then I reran Audyssey with the mic in a clear line of sight and in the EQ result graphs it now shows the Surround Right as cut off around 1kHz. So this tells me it may not be an issue with the 8802A microprocessor. I can also say for certain that the Audyssey "chirp" from these two speakers sounds very flat - there is clearly no high frequency in the chirp, compared to listening to the chirp from the other speakers.

It's hard to imagine that this is a physical issue with TWO speakers, which occurred at the same time. I use Multi-Channel stereo mode when listening casually and hanging out at the back of the room. I would have noticed this prior to today, I would think. Also what are the odds that this happened to both speakers at the same time. There are 7 other 3160's in the system and they are all fine. That said, it is quite concerning that when I re-routed the side surround, which was sounding fine, to one of these troubled speakers, the problem still occurred, so that seems to suggest it is not in the 8802A itself?

I'm wondering how I can go about troubleshooting this, especially without getting to the speaker... I can change the wiring at the rack so that the Surround Back left/right acts like the Front Main L/R. Then hook up a laptop and do a frequency sweep using a UMC-1 mic and REW and see what that measures? Maybe put the 8802A into Pure Direct mode so all its processing is off.

Or maybe I should try this microprocessor reset or cold boot or something on the 8802A as perhaps the easiest way to try a blind fix? How do you prefer them. What steps would you recommend I take to troubleshoot this. I'm really hoping it is not the actual speakers. They are under warranty, but physically getting to them will be a bear as well as the expense by having someone re-tuck the fabric, which is not an easy feat unfortunately with the patterned fabric I have. :yikes:

Thanks!


----------



## lovingdvd

lovingdvd said:


> Ding ding dine. I hate to say it, but my rear surrounds are not putting out high frequencies, at least according to my ear when listening to playback. Listening to them they sound flat/muffled compared to the other speakers. That said, listening to the 8802A generated pink noise in the Levels check I can certainly hear pink noise coming from the tweeter. This is a KEF 3160RL-THX. The crossover is listed at 340Hz, 2.5kHz.
> 
> Here's the rub - these speakers are tucked behind acoustic fabric, so I can't get to them without temporarily ruining my decor and then having someone come back out to tuck the fabric back in.
> 
> To test it some more I changed the wiring at the rack so that my Surround Right channel was redirected to the physical Surround Back Right channel. Then I reran Audyssey with the mic in a clear line of sight and in the EQ result graphs it now shows the Surround Right as cut off around 1kHz. So this tells me it may not be an issue with the 8802A microprocessor. I can also say for certain that the Audyssey "chirp" from these two speakers sounds very flat - there is clearly no high frequency in the chirp, compared to listening to the chirp from the other speakers.
> 
> It's hard to imagine that this is a physical issue with TWO speakers, which occurred at the same time. I use Multi-Channel stereo mode when listening casually and hanging out at the back of the room. I would have noticed this prior to today, I would think. Also what are the odds that this happened to both speakers at the same time. There are 7 other 3160's in the system and they are all fine. That said, it is quite concerning that when I re-routed the side surround, which was sounding fine, to one of these troubled speakers, the problem still occurred, so that seems to suggest it is not in the 8802A itself?
> 
> I'm wondering how I can go about troubleshooting this, especially without getting to the speaker... I can change the wiring at the rack so that the Surround Back left/right acts like the Front Main L/R. Then hook up a laptop and do a frequency sweep using a UMC-1 mic and REW and see what that measures? Maybe put the 8802A into Pure Direct mode so all its processing is off.
> 
> Or maybe I should try this microprocessor reset or cold boot or something on the 8802A as perhaps the easiest way to try a blind fix? How do you prefer them. What steps would you recommend I take to troubleshoot this. I'm really hoping it is not the actual speakers. They are under warranty, but physically getting to them will be a bear as well as the expense by having someone re-tuck the fabric, which is not an easy feat unfortunately with the patterned fabric I have. :yikes:
> 
> Thanks!


Update @mthomas47 - I was able to test with my UMC-1 and REW yet, but I did a quick and dirty test. I rewired the rack so that my Surround Back left/right were the front main L/R as far as the 8802A was concerned, and put the 8802A into pure direct mode. Then I played a frequency sweep video from YouTube. Just going by ear, once it got around 1.5kHz it started dropping out in volume and by 4kHZ the tone was completely inaudible. Then I repeated the same test but with two other identical 3160 speakers plugged in as L/R and the tones out of those speakers played up to the 10kHZ that the test tone track went up to.

Based on this, can we say 100% that something has gone bad with these speakers? Or it it still possible that it is somehow related to the amps or 8802A? Considering that the tones play fine from the other identical speakers when I simply swap the speaker wire at the 8802A (example: remove Surround Rear wire from 8802A back panel, plug in a different speaker wire into the same spot it was) and rerun the tests and the tones play fine except for these two Surround Rear speakers, it sure sounds like a physical problem with the speakers. Do you agree? Is there anything left to try before tearing apart my fabric, track and sending the speakers back to KEF??


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, i have 2 subwoofers (after a long time without), one at my left front and one "nearfield" beside my seat.
The front sub is a XTZ 1x12, and the 2nd nearfield is a XTZ 12.17
The 1x12 is set for the lowest sub bass possible, the 12.17 is set so it will do Mid-bass (EQ2 and both ports open).
These settings are on the XTZ subs itself, not the receiver !

So if i do an Audyssey setup, do i set the subs in a neutral XTZ eq setting, or do i keep them in the XTZ eq setting i want and then do the Audyssey run ?


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> ... I rewired the rack so that my Surround Back left/right were the front main L/R as far as the 8802A was concerned, and put the 8802A into pure direct mode. Then I played a frequency sweep video from YouTube. Just going by ear, once it got around 1.5kHz it started dropping out in volume and by 4kHZ the tone was completely inaudible. Then I repeated the same test but with two other identical 3160 speakers plugged in as L/R and the tones out of those speakers played up to the 10kHZ that the test tone track went up to ...


*If* your tweeters are blown out, can you figure out what happened, to keep it from happening again? Did they ever work all the way to the top? Could you have blown the tweeters out by running a frequency sweep too loudly? How powerful are your amps in watts per channel, all channels operating? Do you have a powered subwoofer to take the burden off your main channel amps? The reason for the last two questions is that many audiophiles (and some manufactures) believe that if you run your amps into clipping (e.g., if the LFE is powerful and you are running it through your regular amps and speakers), it is the tweeters that are likely to blow because of the clipping (I think distortion approaching a square wave can occur). The reason I say, "many audiophiles (and some manufacturers") is that every time this comes up on another forum, one scientifically oriented individual denies it. In any case, some very good tweeters will only take about 4 watts continuous input, even if there is no clipping (the content in music is down by about 15 dB or so in the usual tweeter range).


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Update @*mthomas47* - I was able to test with my UMC-1 and REW yet, but I did a quick and dirty test. I rewired the rack so that my Surround Back left/right were the front main L/R as far as the 8802A was concerned, and put the 8802A into pure direct mode. Then I played a frequency sweep video from YouTube. Just going by ear, once it got around 1.5kHz it started dropping out in volume and by 4kHZ the tone was completely inaudible. Then I repeated the same test but with two other identical 3160 speakers plugged in as L/R and the tones out of those speakers played up to the 10kHZ that the test tone track went up to.
> 
> Based on this, can we say 100% that something has gone bad with these speakers? Or it it still possible that it is somehow related to the amps or 8802A? Considering that the tones play fine from the other identical speakers when I simply swap the speaker wire at the 8802A (example: remove Surround Rear wire from 8802A back panel, plug in a different speaker wire into the same spot it was) and rerun the tests and the tones play fine except for these two Surround Rear speakers, it sure sounds like a physical problem with the speakers. Do you agree? Is there anything left to try before tearing apart my fabric, track and sending the speakers back to KEF??


Hi,

My first thought when I saw you mention that the speakers were behind acoustical fabric was that the fabric is attenuating high frequencies. Are any of your other speakers behind the same type and thickness of fabric? I believe that even acoustically transparent screens can slightly attenuate high frequencies by a decibel or two. An additional layer of acoustical fabric, over any fabric that may already be covering the drivers, could be just enough to knock down your higher frequencies in the way you are describing.

If these are the only speakers covered in this way, then the fabric itself might be my first starting point, and the only way to verify whether that is the culprit is to remove the fabric and test the speakers again without the fabric in the way. I would definitely try this before sending the speakers back to KEF.

I agree that it is unlikely that two speakers went out at the same time, unless you were playing them at very high volumes, so I would look for a simpler explanation first. FWIW, I also think that you would have been much less likely to notice a specific problem with those speakers previously, while listening in multi-channel stereo, as all of your speakers would have been playing exactly the same stereo content.

You can always try a microprocessor reset in order to exhaust every possibility. But, I think that the systematic trouble shooting you have already done, does pretty well rule out your Marantz as the cause of the problems with the rear surrounds. If you do determine that the fabric itself is the problem, I am not sure what your next course of action will be. But, I think it is highly probable that the problem lies with either the speakers themselves, or with the fabric which covers them. Please keep us posted on what you find out.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi, i have 2 subwoofers (after a long time without), one at my left front and one "nearfield" beside my seat.
> The front sub is a XTZ 1x12, and the 2nd nearfield is a XTZ 12.17
> The 1x12 is set for the lowest sub bass possible, the 12.17 is set so it will do Mid-bass (EQ2 and both ports open).
> These settings are on the XTZ subs itself, not the receiver !
> 
> So if i do an Audyssey setup, do i set the subs in a neutral XTZ eq setting, or do i keep them in the XTZ eq setting i want and then do the Audyssey run ?



Hello again,

As we discussed previously, I believe that your best course of action is to set both subs to their full frequency range (neutral XTZ setting) and then run Audyssey. Once Audyssey has set its control points for the full combined frequency range of the two subs, you can go back into the internal settings of the 12.17 and set if for mid-bass and 2EQ.

But, start with both subs as nearly the same as you can get them, so that Audyssey will EQ the full frequency range. Otherwise, Audyssey will stop setting any control points where the 12.17 starts to roll-off due to its mid-bass and 2EQ settings. And, in that case, all of the frequencies under about 40Hz will be unEQed for the 1x12.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> *If* *your tweeters are blown out, can you figure out what happened, to keep it from happening again*? Did they ever work all the way to the top? Could you have blown the tweeters out by running a frequency sweep too loudly? How powerful are your amps in watts per channel, all channels operating? Do you have a powered subwoofer to take the burden off your main channel amps? The reason for the last two questions is that many audiophiles (and some manufactures) believe that if you run your amps into clipping (e.g., if the LFE is powerful and you are running it through your regular amps and speakers), it is the tweeters that are likely to blow because of the clipping (I think distortion approaching a square wave can occur). The reason I say, "many audiophiles (and some manufacturers") is that every time this comes up on another forum, one scientifically oriented individual denies it. In any case, some very good tweeters will only take about 4 watts continuous input, even if there is no clipping (the content in music is down by about 15 dB or so in the usual tweeter range).





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> My first thought when I saw you mention that the speakers were behind acoustical fabric was that the fabric is attenuating high frequencies. Are any of your other speakers behind the same type and thickness of fabric? I believe that even acoustically transparent screens can slightly attenuate high frequencies by a decibel or two. An additional layer of acoustical fabric, over any fabric that may already be covering the drivers, could be just enough to knock down your higher frequencies in the way you are describing.
> 
> If these are the only speakers covered in this way, then the fabric itself might be my first starting point, and the only way to verify whether that is the culprit is to remove the fabric and test the speakers again without the fabric in the way. I would definitely try this before sending the speakers back to KEF.
> 
> I agree that it is unlikely that two speakers went out at the same time, unless you were playing them at very high volumes, so I would look for a simpler explanation first. FWIW, I also think that you would have been much less likely to notice a specific problem with those speakers previously, while listening in multi-channel stereo, as all of your speakers would have been playing exactly the same stereo content.
> 
> You can always try a microprocessor reset in order to exhaust every possibility. But, I think that the systematic trouble shooting you have already done, does pretty well rule out your Marantz as the cause of the problems with the rear surrounds. If you do determine that the fabric itself is the problem, I am not sure what your next course of action will be. But, I think it is highly probable that the problem lies with either the speakers themselves, or with the fabric which covers them. Please keep us posted on what you find out.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks guys. At this point I am fairly certain that the tweeters on these to speakers are blown. See the attached measured sweeps for those two Surround Back channels, and compare it to another identical speaker I measured which is also behind the same acoustically transparent fabric. These were measured with a UMC-1 from about 1 foot away aimed right at the tweeter, through the fabric. As you can see from the attached REW graph, the good speaker measures beautifully. The two bad ones fall off right at the crossover point (spec says crossover is 340Hz, 2.5kHz). I measured every speaker full sweep before installation last year so I know they were good at the time I put them in.

For all three measurements I connected the speaker wires to the main Front Left channel. Therefore nothing else changes including the amp used or 8802A internals for that channel. IOW I measured speaker 1, then removed its speaker wires at the rack from Main Left and then plugged in the speaker wires for speaker 2 into the same Main Left, measured, then did the same for the 3rd speaker. With this approach the ONLY variable each time was the physical speaker connected.

*Based on this test, do you think it is 100% safe to concluded definitively that the tweeters are bad?* It certainly seems so, but before I got ripping apart the fabric and track to get the speakers out and send them back I would like to know for sure that there is not something I may be missing and the speakers themselves may actually be fine.

My amps are Emotiva XPA-2 Gen3, powered at 240v. It says 550 Amps for 4 ohm loads. For reference my speakers are KEF 3160THX. My listening bed using these speakers and I the loudest I play at is "reference". The crossovers for all speakers are at 80Hz. I have not run any frequency sweeps or tests prior to these diagnostics so they wouldn't have been blown from this. Is it possible that Audyssey added too much boost? 

Previously the surround backs were set with a level of -3dB, compared to the L/C/R level of -6 dB. However I recently raised it to 0dB after I found with a SPL meter that when seated the chair seatback was making the speakers sound lower. And perhaps coincidentally, when I decided to rerun Audyseey yesterday for the first time in a year (which led me to realizing something was wrong with the speakers, see my posts from yesterday in this thread) Audyseey picked a level of +1 dB for these surrounds.

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that this issue happened over the weekend, perhaps when I watched an Atmos movie at reference (0 dB), which I rarely do (normally loudest I listen to is about -3dB). All other speakers are fine expect these back two. At any rate, I thought these KEFs could handle reference no problem. That is why I wonder if its some Audyssey boost in combination with the output that caused this. 

See the attached Audyssey EQ graph for these speakers. I recall reading that you cannot go by these graphs as is does not really tell you what EQ is being applied? But that said, it is rather alarming if Audyssey is adding +10dB of boost to the high end (see attached Audyseey EQ graph). That said, just about all my speakers including the ones that are in great shape have EQ graphs that show a very similar +10db in the EQ graphs.

Would love to know what you guys think could have happened here... Gary you hit the nail right on the head - its critical to determine how this happened. Its going to be a major PITA to get to these speakers and then get the track reinstalled and fabric tucked (done by a professional). It is what it is, so I'm surprisingly not overly upset about it - however I need to make sure this does not happen again particularly due to the level of labor, cost and complexity involved in uninstalling and reinstalling the speakers.

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks guys. At this point I am fairly certain that the tweeters on these to speakers are blown. See the attached measured sweeps for those two Surround Back channels, and compare it to another identical speaker I measured which is also behind the same acoustically transparent fabric. These were measured with a UMC-1 from about 1 foot away aimed right at the tweeter, through the fabric. As you can see from the attached REW graph, the good speaker measures beautifully. The two bad ones fall off right at the crossover point (spec says crossover is 340Hz, 2.5kHz). I measured every speaker full sweep before installation last year so I know they were good at the time I put them in.
> 
> For all three measurements I connected the speaker wires to the main Front Left channel. Therefore nothing else changes including the amp used or 8802A internals for that channel. IOW I measured speaker 1, then removed its speaker wires at the rack from Main Left and then plugged in the speaker wires for speaker 2 into the same Main Left, measured, then did the same for the 3rd speaker. With this approach the ONLY variable each time was the physical speaker connected.
> 
> *Based on this test, do you think it is 100% safe to concluded definitively that the tweeters are bad?* It certainly seems so, but before I got ripping apart the fabric and track to get the speakers out and send them back I would like to know for sure that there is not something I may be missing and the speakers themselves may actually be fine.
> 
> My amps are Emotiva XPA-2 Gen3, powered at 240v. It says 550 Amps for 4 ohm loads. For reference my speakers are KEF 3160THX. My listening bed using these speakers and I the loudest I play at is "reference". The crossovers for all speakers are at 80Hz. I have not run any frequency sweeps or tests prior to these diagnostics so they wouldn't have been blown from this. Is it possible that Audyssey added too much boost?
> 
> Previously the surround backs were set with a level of -3dB, compared to the L/C/R level of -6 dB. However I recently raised it to 0dB after I found with a SPL meter that when seated the chair seatback was making the speakers sound lower. And perhaps coincidentally, when I decided to rerun Audyseey yesterday for the first time in a year (which led me to realizing something was wrong with the speakers, see my posts from yesterday in this thread) Audyseey picked a level of +1 dB for these surrounds.
> 
> At any rate, I'm pretty sure that this issue happened over the weekend, perhaps when I watched an Atmos movie at reference (0 dB), which I rarely do (normally loudest I listen to is about -3dB). All other speakers are fine expect these back two. At any rate, I thought these KEFs could handle reference no problem. That is why I wonder if its some Audyssey boost in combination with the output that caused this.
> 
> See the attached Audyssey EQ graph for these speakers. I recall reading that you cannot go by these graphs as is does not really tell you what EQ is being applied? But that said, it is rather alarming if Audyssey is adding +10dB of boost to the high end (see attached Audyseey EQ graph). That said, just about all my speakers including the ones that are in great shape have EQ graphs that show a very similar +10db in the EQ graphs.
> 
> Would love to know what you guys think could have happened here... Gary you hit the nail right on the head - its critical to determine how this happened. Its going to be a major PITA to get to these speakers and then get the track reinstalled and fabric tucked (done by a professional). It is what it is, so I'm surprisingly not overly upset about it - however I need to make sure this does not happen again particularly due to the level of labor, cost and complexity involved in uninstalling and reinstalling the speakers.
> 
> Thanks!


Hi,

You are very welcome, and I am sorry for your misfortune. I think that, based on your last tests and post, it is 100% certain that there is something wrong with the tweeters in your rear surround speakers. I don't see any option to removing them and hoping that the warranty will cover this. Perhaps you will never be certain what the specific cause was, but the fact that you boosted the speakers +3 and listened at Reference would be a good starting point.

For the future, I would probably not use an 80Hz crossover for those speakers if you intend to listen anywhere close to Reference. I would probably go up to about 100Hz. The bass frequencies put much more strain on the speakers, particularly at high listening levels, and it's possible that the tweeters got a bit starved for power in the process. My understanding is that more tweeters get blown by too little power than from having too much, although I believe that damage can occur either way.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You are very welcome, and I am sorry for your misfortune. I think that, based on your last tests and post, it is 100% certain that there is something wrong with the tweeters in your rear surround speakers. I don't see any option to removing them and hoping that the warranty will cover this. Perhaps you will never be certain what the specific cause was, but the fact that you boosted the speakers +3 and listened at Reference would be a good starting point.
> 
> For the future, I would probably not use an 80Hz crossover for those speakers if you intend to listen anywhere close to Reference. I would probably go up to about 100Hz. The bass frequencies put much more strain on the speakers, particularly at high listening levels, and it's possible that the tweeters got a bit starved for power in the process. My understanding is that more tweeters get blown by too little power than from having too much, although I believe that damage can occur either way.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. My acoustic engineer thinks the issue could have been caused by Audyssey applying too much HF correction. He says that if you measure a KEF farfield "power response" (like Audyssey does) you will see that the mid and high frequencies taper off. This is due to the speaker directivity. Audyssey tries to flatten the power response to a flat line, which will apply excessive HF boost. He says I should be VERY careful applying more than 3dB boost anywhere with a dome tweeter like the KEFs. 3dB boost requires double the amp power.

Is there any information on how much boost Audyssey may apply? Is there any option to limit this? I certainly want to use Audyssey as it greatly improves the sounds, but now I am very paranoid about it. I really need to better understand what its doing an how much EQ it's applied to know if that was the culprit or a major contributor to it. Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks Mike. My acoustic engineer thinks the issue could have been caused by Audyssey applying too much HF correction. He says that if you measure a KEF farfield "power response" (like Audyssey does) you will see that the mid and high frequencies taper off. This is due to the speaker directivity. Audyssey tries to flatten the power response to a flat line, which will apply excessive HF boost. He says I should be VERY careful applying more than 3dB boost anywhere with a dome tweeter like the KEFs. 3dB boost requires double the amp power.
> 
> Is there any information on how much boost Audyssey may apply? Is there any option to limit this? I certainly want to use Audyssey as it greatly improves the sounds, but now I am very paranoid about it. I really need to better understand what its doing an how much EQ it's applied to know if that was the culprit or a major contributor to it. Thanks!



You are very welcome! I understand your paranoia, and I don't blame you. But, Audyssey does not typically damage speakers, and a lot of people have KEF's. Audyssey can add up to 9db of boost. But, the real problem, in my opinion, was likely to have occurred because of three factors taken in conjunction. First, you were listening at Reference, which is a heavy load to start with for those speakers. Second, you had already boosted the RS speakers by 3db over the room correction that Audyssey had done. Third, you were using an 80Hz crossover. As noted in my previous post, a higher crossover would have been desirable at Reference or near-Reference listening volumes.

KEF makes a nice speaker, but those in-wall speakers are not especially high-efficiency speakers. If you really intend to listen to them again at Reference, then I think that you will need to take some additional precautions. Those precautions would include not using any additional boost on those speakers, and raising the crossover to relieve the total load on those speakers. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a lower crossover can put greater bass demands on a speaker, thereby starving an already challenged tweeter of the voltage it needs to play without distortion. And, as Gary noted earlier, distortion can damage a driver (and particularly a tweeter) by melting it's voice coil. I believe it is likely that that is what happened in your case.

If you have a recent model Marantz, that will let you use the Audyssey smartphone app, you may be able to target the frequencies in your rear surrounds a little more. But, I don't believe that the real problem is with Audyssey. There are just too many people who use Audyssey who don't experience similar problems. The intrinsic problem is likely to lie with the combination of the three factors I mentioned in my first paragraph. Just be more careful not to repeat those three in conjunction, with those speakers at that distance. 

They are fine speakers, but I believe they probably require a little more conservative treatment. The fact that you only noticed the problem after adding a 3db trim boost and listening at Reference (which you said you don't normally do) is highly indicative to me.  

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I understand your paranoia, and I don't blame you. But, Audyssey does not typically damage speakers, and a lot of people have KEF's. Audyssey can add up to 9db of boost.


Is there any way to know how much EQ it is adding and where, to each channel? Are the Graphs it displays reliable for that? I recall a year or two back people saying that you can't really go by the graphs to know what it is doing, but I don't know if that's accurate or why not, if so?



> But, the real problem, in my opinion, was likely to have occurred because of three factors taken in conjunction. First, you were listening at Reference, which is a heavy load to start with for those speakers. Second, you had already boosted the RS speakers by 3db over the room correction that Audyssey had done. Third, you were using an 80Hz crossover. As noted in my previous post, a higher crossover would have been desirable at Reference or near-Reference listening volumes.


Isn't 9dB of boost a huge amount? My acoustic engineer was very clear that anything more than 3dB could be very dangerous to a dome tweeter. It seems it may have been a combination of the level being raised PLUS whatever dB boost Audyssey was adding to the upper end. For instance if it was boosting the top end by 9dB and then adding 3 more dB on top of that, wow. Especially considering every 3dB requires twice the amount of power. And then to play are reference...



> KEF makes a nice speaker, but those in-wall speakers are not especially high-efficiency speakers.


Their sensitivity is rated at 90dB (2.83V/ 1m). Since its a 4 ohm speaker I think that translates than to 87 dB equivilent. Not too shabby but certainly not in the "over 90 dB club" as other types of speakers like horns and ribbons.



> If you really intend to listen to them again at Reference,


Probably not again. 



> then I think that you will need to take some additional precautions. Those precautions would include not using any additional boost on those speakers, and raising the crossover to relieve the total load on those speakers. It may seem counter-intuitive, but a lower crossover can put greater bass demands on a speaker, thereby starving an already challenged tweeter of the voltage it needs to play without distortion. And, as Gary noted earlier, distortion can damage a driver (and particularly a tweeter) by melting it's voice coil. I believe it is likely that that is what happened in your case.


I will talk with my acoustic engineer about raising the Surround Back left/right xo to 100Hz, as you make a great point. Not sure how much it will help. In my case did the settings cause the amp to clip which then sent distortion to the tweeter to fry it? I have Emotiva XPA Gen3 amps. Would a higher quality amp have prevented this perhaps?



> If you have a recent model Marantz, that will let you use the Audyssey smartphone app, you may be able to target the frequencies in your rear surrounds a little more. But, I don't believe that the real problem is with Audyssey. There are just too many people who use Audyssey who don't experience similar problems. The intrinsic problem is likely to lie with the combination of the three factors I mentioned in my first paragraph. Just be more careful not to repeat those three in conjunction, with those speakers at that distance.


I have the 8802A which does not support the app. But I plan to upgrade to its replacement in the spring as soon as its available.

I think where things went wrong was trying to boost the level on the rear back surrounds to make up for the fact that my seatback partially blocks the sound, so I needed it to be louder. Audyssey agreed and set the same level as I came up with manually once I reran it with the mic positioned partially blocked line of sight to the speaker. But I think the big lesson there is to put the mic over the seatback and if its lower because of the seatback, oh well...



> They are fine speakers, but I believe they probably require a little more conservative treatment. The fact that you only noticed the problem after adding a 3db trim boost and listening at Reference (which you said you don't normally do) is highly indicative to me.


Yes. They probably were on the edge of being pushed at my regular max listening level of around -2.5 to -5 dB. And going up to reference at 0 dB pushed them over the edge, given their boost. The other speakers are fine but those have Levels set in the -10 to -5.5dB range. So these Surround Backs that had the blown tweeter were quite the outlier for the boost they had relative to the other speakers. Well, at least I know where the limit is now, I think...

Thanks again!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Is there any way to know how much EQ it is adding and where, to each channel? Are the Graphs it displays reliable for that? I recall a year or two back people saying that you can't really go by the graphs to know what it is doing, but I don't know if that's accurate or why not, if so?
> 
> Isn't 9dB of boost a huge amount? My acoustic engineer was very clear that anything more than 3dB could be very dangerous to a dome tweeter. It seems it may have been a combination of the level being raised PLUS whatever dB boost Audyssey was adding to the upper end. For instance if it was boosting the top end by 9dB and then adding 3 more dB on top of that, wow. Especially considering every 3dB requires twice the amount of power. And then to play are reference...
> 
> Their sensitivity is rated at 90dB (2.83V/ 1m). Since its a 4 ohm speaker I think that translates than to 87 dB equivilent. Not too shabby but certainly not in the "over 90 dB club" as other types of speakers like horns and ribbons.
> 
> I will talk with my acoustic engineer about raising the Surround Back left/right xo to 100Hz, as you make a great point. Not sure how much it will help. In my case did the settings cause the amp to clip which then sent distortion to the tweeter to fry it? I have Emotiva XPA Gen3 amps. Would a higher quality amp have prevented this perhaps?
> 
> I have the 8802A which does not support the app. But I plan to upgrade to its replacement in the spring as soon as its available.
> 
> I think where things went wrong was trying to boost the level on the rear back surrounds to make up for the fact that my seatback partially blocks the sound, so I needed it to be louder. Audyssey agreed and set the same level as I came up with manually once I reran it with the mic positioned partially blocked line of sight to the speaker. But I think the big lesson there is to put the mic over the seatback and if its lower because of the seatback, oh well...
> 
> Yes. They probably were on the edge of being pushed at my regular max listening level of around -2.5 to -5 dB. And going up to reference at 0 dB pushed them over the edge, given their boost. The other speakers are fine but those have Levels set in the -10 to -5.5dB range. So these Surround Backs that had the blown tweeter were quite the outlier for the boost they had relative to the other speakers. Well, at least I know where the limit is now, I think...
> 
> Thanks again!


You are welcome! We all end up learning the hard way on some of this stuff. Taking your questions in a little different order, I think that your Emotiva amp is just fine. The issue isn't having insufficient amp power per se, it is the relatively low efficiency of the speakers combined with their distance from your listening position. You just need to recognize the limitations inherent in that combination and try not to push them too hard. I definitely do think that a higher crossover will help slightly. Low frequencies take much more amp power than high frequencies do.

The boost that Audyssey adds to a speaker is frequency-specific. So, if you have a dip at 120Hz or at 3000Hz, Audyssey may try to fill-in that dip. But, that is not at all the same thing as adding 3db of trim to a speaker, because now you are adding boost at every frequency in the speaker's passband. Adding boosts of up to 9db to bring-up dips at specific frequencies, tends to cancel out with the frequencies where Audyssey is pulling down a peak (by up to 24db). The difference between what Audyssey can boost and what it can pull down is deliberate in order to protect the speakers. Again, there is no history of Audyssey specifically damaging speakers. Most speaker damage is due to inadvertent user error.

The rough graphs that come with the Denon/Marantz units are pretty useless simply because they can convey so little meaningful information. XT-32 is capable of setting thousands of control points per channel, where the graph can show only about a dozen. And, the graphs are not a record of what Audyssey has actually done. They are simply graphing what Audyssey is trying to do. So, they have limited utility on several levels. In this case, the graphs helped you to determine that the tweeters were blown on your rear surrounds. So, that was a win. But, that is about the most that you can realistically expect to learn from them. They are mainly there for marketing purposes---because they look cool.

I would strongly encourage you to continue to trust XT-32's ability to help your HT system to sound better, as long as it delivers in that respect. I can't really prove it to you beyond what I have already said, but I don't believe that Audyssey damaged your speakers. If you had turned Audyssey off and done the same combination of things noted in my last post, I believe that the result would have been the same. You would still have damaged your rear surrounds. Your system would simply have sounded worse as it was happening. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd,

I have never heard of Audyssey blowing tweeters. I think Mike's points are well taken.

I agree that if your surrounds are very far behind you, or don't have a direct sight-line to your ears, they may be being asked to do too much, especially in the tweeter range.

Where are they, exactly? Are they buried in the back wall (31 feet away, if I remember correctly)? Or perhaps in the ceiling? If they could be put in the ceiling, just behind your seats, especially if the tweeters could be pointed at your ears, somehow, they would be using a lot less power.

To produce reference level *peaks* of 105 dB through each channel, your speakers, at 90 dB sensitivity, at 13 feet in a room about your size, would require 128 watts -- just for a moment or two, unless the movie mixers went crazy -- but that is pretty close, dB-wise, to the maximum recommended power of 180 watts KEF lists for those speakers. KEF doesn't list a labeled "power handling capacity" (the usual terminology). Movie mixers occasionally *do* go crazy. Just last night there was a movie with scraping metal and screaming children that went on entirely too long and made me worry about my tweeters. 

THX put out some information on how high an SPL sounds like Reference Level in smaller rooms. X dB is still X dB, but early reflections in smaller rooms make the perception of sound levels depart from the true SPL values. Is your room about 4,000 cu feet? If so, that would mean that if you playback at about 6 dB below reference, that level should sound about like reference (even though it isn't).


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> lovingdvd,
> 
> I have never heard of Audyssey blowing tweeters. I think Mike's points are well taken.
> 
> I agree that if your surrounds are very far behind you, or don't have a direct sight-line to your ears, they may be being asked to do too much, especially in the tweeter range.
> 
> Where are they, exactly? Are they buried in the back wall (31 feet away, if I remember correctly)? Or perhaps in the ceiling? If they could be put in the ceiling, just behind your seats, especially if the tweeters could be pointed at your ears, somehow, they would be using a lot less power.


The room is 31' x 16'. It has a "traditional" 9.1.6 Atmos layout. The rear surrounds (which blew) are about 15 feet away from the MLP. When seated in the fully reclined position (which is my main listening position) there is a line of from the top of my head to the tweeters. However my ears are not on the top of my head.  So the pillowtop-like headrest on the recliner gets in the way of the tweeters line of sight to my ears. In fairness, this room was carefully engineered and I knew ahead of time this would be the case. There were tradeoffs that had to be made because it is only a 7.5 foot ceiling. And we needed a fair amount of separation between the rear back surrounds and the top-rear ceiling speakers. So we put them up as high as we could without compromising the separation of the bed vs height layer.



> To produce reference level *peaks* of 105 dB through each channel, your speakers, at 90 dB sensitivity, at 13 feet in a room about your size, would require 128 watts -- just for a moment or two, unless the movie mixers went crazy -- but that is pretty close, dB-wise, to the maximum recommended power of 180 watts KEF lists for those speakers. KEF doesn't list a labeled "power handling capacity" (the usual terminology). Movie mixers occasionally *do* go crazy. Just last night there was a movie with scraping metal and screaming children that went on entirely too long and made me worry about my tweeters.


Is it accurate when they say it has 90dB sensitivity considering it is a 4 ohm load? I seem to remember calculating that on an apples to apples comparison with 8 ohm speakers it really would be more like 87 dB sensitivity...?

The XPA Gen3 amps are capable of delivering 550 watts into 4 ohms so there should be plenty of power without clipping/distorting, I would think? 

OK so 128 watts to generate reference level. Now - what happens if Audyssey has decided to apply a +9dB boost to the top end of those surround back speakers? Instead of sending 128 watts of power it could be sending double, or triple to the tweeter, due to that boost? That is why I wonder if Audyssey's boost could have played a role in the tweeters blowing out. Because otherwise those KEFs should be able to handle reference. From what I've heard the KEFs are rated very conservatively and can handle quite a bit more power than the stated.



> THX put out some information on how high an SPL sounds like Reference Level in smaller rooms. X dB is still X dB, but early reflections in smaller rooms make the perception of sound levels depart from the true SPL values. Is your room about 4,000 cu feet? If so, that would mean that if you playback at about 6 dB below reference, that level should sound about like reference (even though it isn't).


Very interesting. My room is fully acoustically treated and engineered for such from day 1 so I am not sure how much the reflections play a part (since reflections are going to be somewhat limited compared to say an untreated room). Very interesting to know. It seems after this experience I am done playing at reference. 

So here's my main question then... Is there really an accurate way to know just how much boost and level can be used to stay within a safe area for the tweeter? The common sense thing would be to stay within a conservative estimate. But by doing that, I may short change myself several dB that I could use to listen to things louder.

As a baseline I can say that I can listen at up to -3dB master volume with the rear surrounds set to a lovel no louder than -3dB, because I have done this for dozens of movies over the past year and never had a problem. Who knows how closely I've been skirting on the edge tho with those parameters... Now there was a double whammy at play here. The first whammy is that I went from my max volume of around -3 dB to listening at reference, 0 dB. That doubled the power sent to all the speakers. Then on TOP of that, I doubled it again by raising the rear surrounds levels from -3dB to 0dB. So if I understand what you guys are saying, I essentially quadrupled the power being sent to those rear speakers. And quadrupled that from an already very high level it was using to begin with just to support -3dB master volume with -3dB level on the rear surrounds.

When viewed in this context, am I right to think "No wonder why the darn tweeters blew!"?

Perhaps I would have been perfectly fine to play at 0 dB master had I not raised the levels on the surrounds? Or perhaps I would have been fine to raise the levels on the surrounds had I not gone past my normal max of -3dB?

Now, ultimately, I realize that to really get the best effect from the rear surrounds, they probably do need to be raised from -3dB to 0 dB. Or say -3dB to -1dB. Which I probably want to do with my replacement speakers so that the rear surround effect is best delivered. But of course now I am crazy-paranoid. I suppose if I really want to play it safe this means that if I raise the levels on the rear surrounds to 0dB, I need to lower the max volume I normally listen at to be more like -6dB instead of -3dB. However this may be selling myself short. Because perhaps it would be perfectly fine to raise the level of the surrounds to 0dB and keep the max volume at -3dB and make sure it never goes higher. Perhaps that is living on the edge. My main point/question here is how can this threshold and safety zone be adequately determined, without just being overly conservative to play it safe since the real number is not really known?

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> *
> "... play it safe since the real number is not really known?"*


Unfortunately, I think the above is the only answer, unless KEF is willing to give you more info, and answer your specific questions. 

For people who want to approach reference level, I tend to think speakers with a minimum efficiency of around 96 dB are in order, plus a sub (with a high crossover if necessary, as Mike says). That would put such users 6 dB ahead of where you are. It is a plus if those speakers also have high power handling, and good hardy tweeters. I once heard 2 little Klipsch Heresy IIs (97 dB efficiency, power handling 100 wts max continuous, 400 wts peak) fill a huge hall with hard driving rock (no sub). 

In the good old days of High Fidelity, before people started believing in expensive, magical speaker wires, people would commonly _*fuse*_ their speakers. Nowadays, inserting that 1/2 inch piece of thin wire between amp and speaker would be an anathema. Putting in a fuse was not a cure-all. Nothing could protect against someone pulling an RCA plug out of the input of a power amp. That hammer blow would deliver the full power of an amplifier to the speaker before a "fast blow" fuse could blow. I'm not sure how to calculate the needed value of the fuse, but somebody here should know. You want one of those little tubular glass ones with metal ends, fast blow, and the value in amps that will blow before your speaker does.

Part of the problem is that we aren't just playing music. Classical music and jazz have big peaks, but the leading edges of these peaks are very brief (maybe 20 to 200 ms). Movie effects -- like the scraping metal and screaming children I mentioned before -- can go on a while. I've always been concerned about the high pitched oscillator tone in 2001: A Space Odyssey*; *the astronauts put their hands over their ears, and so does nearly everyone in the audience. I turn it down for a moment or two.


----------



## VideoGrabber

garygarrison said:


> Unfortunately, I think the above is the only answer, unless KEF is willing to give you more info, and answer your specific questions.


Getting some input from KEF would certainly shed some light on the matter. [And perhaps you can get yours repaired for some price significantly less than what replacement cost would be... since only the central Uni-Q element was blown.]

I also want to add my condolences, @lovingdvd. Those are some really nice speakers, and not cheap at all.  Sorry to hear they got pushed past their limits, inadvertently, and unexpectedly. 

I'll just comment quickly that in spite of all that, it looks to me like they are simply not capable of producing reference level *in that room, at that distance*. Thus attempting to do so is bound to fail, after some undefined duration that is dependent on how far past their actual limits they are pushed.

I really gotta get some sleep now, but I'll try and come back later, and add a bit more explanation, for how I came to that conclusion.


----------



## vn800art

Sorry for irrupting in this thread.
As first I add my sorrows to @lovingdvd.
My concerns are:
I have old and new Klipsch and new Wharfedale 9.1 in my setup. I will immediately have a look at the Audissey curves post calibration. 
The question for the offended Kef owner here is if he could tell us what was the program/film/source he was lastly listening to at 0db output on his Marantz. To avoid problems!
Getting a bit paranoid about it eventually happening ! Even though, not for Klipsch ones, but I often find myself upping levels ... on SB Wharfedales!
Regards
Alessandro

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> ...To produce reference level *peaks* of 105 dB through each channel, your speakers, at 90 dB sensitivity, at 13 feet in a room about your size, would require 128 watts -- just for a moment or two, unless the movie mixers went crazy -- but that is pretty close, dB-wise, to the maximum recommended power of 180 watts KEF lists for those speakers. KEF doesn't list a labeled "power handling capacity" (the usual terminology). Movie mixers occasionally *do* go crazy. Just last night there was a movie with scraping metal and screaming children that went on entirely too long and made me worry about my tweeters.


From my MLP the LCRs are 12.5 feet. The Surround Backs, which are the ones with the blown tweeter, are about 17 feet. I can't say exactly when the tweeters blew, but I was listening to a musical in Atmos with lots of instruments blaring and possibly using the SB channels serving more as discrete channels than just for ambiance like what would be more typical in a movie. 



garygarrison said:


> Unfortunately, I think the above is the only answer, unless KEF is willing to give you more info, and answer your specific questions.


What information specifically should I ask for - what the "power handling capacity"?



VideoGrabber said:


> Getting some input from KEF would certainly shed some light on the matter. [And perhaps you can get yours repaired for some price significantly less than what replacement cost would be... since only the central Uni-Q element was blown.]
> 
> I also want to add my condolences, @lovingdvd. Those are some really nice speakers, and not cheap at all.  Sorry to hear they got pushed past their limits, inadvertently, and unexpectedly.
> 
> I'll just comment quickly that in spite of all that, it looks to me like they are simply not capable of producing reference level *in that room, at that distance*. Thus attempting to do so is bound to fail, after some undefined duration that is dependent on how far past their actual limits they are pushed.
> 
> I really gotta get some sleep now, but I'll try and come back later, and add a bit more explanation, for how I came to that conclusion.


Thanks. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on the matter. I'm not too distraught about this, but I will if it should happen again after I go through the trouble and expense to repair them. That is why I really want to understand more specifically how it happened and WHERE THE ACTUAL LIMITS are in my setup. Because I just don't want to play it safe and wind up settling for lower volume than I'd like, just because I wasn't sure where the line in the sand was, while in the meantime there could be plenty more safe headroom actually available than I realize.

*Guys - In my scenario, what do you think caused the damage to the tweeter? Was it simply too much clean power that the tweeter could not handle? Or could it have been DISTORTED power from the amp?* I am asking because I would like to know if the amp could have been at fault. I'm using all Emotiva XPA Gen3 which are rated for 550 watts per channel into the KEF 4 ohm load. I'm powering these on 240v which as I understand from Emotiva means they actually are capable of delivering even more power. So was the issue amp distortion or simple the amp likely did its job perfectly fine but the tweeter couldn't handle the amount of clean power??

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> From my MLP the LCRs are 12.5 feet. The Surround Backs, which are the ones with the blown tweeter, are about 17 feet. I can't say exactly when the tweeters blew, but I was listening to a musical in Atmos with lots of instruments blaring and possibly using the SB channels serving more as discrete channels than just for ambiance like what would be more typical in a movie.
> 
> 
> 
> What information specifically should I ask for - what the "power handling capacity"?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on the matter. I'm not too distraught about this, but I will if it should happen again after I go through the trouble and expense to repair them. That is why I really want to understand more specifically how it happened and WHERE THE ACTUAL LIMITS are in my setup. Because I just don't want to play it safe and wind up settling for lower volume than I'd like, just because I wasn't sure where the line in the sand was, while in the meantime there could be plenty more safe headroom actually available than I realize.
> 
> *Guys - In my scenario, what do you think caused the damage to the tweeter? Was it simply too much clean power that the tweeter could not handle? Or could it have been DISTORTED power from the amp?* I am asking because I would like to know if the amp could have been at fault. I'm using all Emotiva XPA Gen3 which are rated for 550 watts per channel into the KEF 4 ohm load. I'm powering these on 240v which as I understand from Emotiva means they actually are capable of delivering even more power. So was the issue amp distortion or simple the amp likely did its job perfectly fine but the tweeter couldn't handle the amount of clean power??
> 
> Thanks!


I am also interested in having someone else calculate the actual power handling capacity of your speakers. But, I have been consistent in believing that those speakers are not going to do well trying to play 105db peaks (prior to your 3db boost--108db peaks with it) in 5.1 movie content at a distance of 17'. I haven't mentioned it previously, but I believe that listening to Multi-Channel Stereo also worked against you in this case, because the rear surrounds would have been trying to play exactly the same content, at a louder SPL level, than the closer speakers in your front soundstage.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is the speakers and not your Emotiva amplifier that is the problem. Was it too much power for the tweeters to handle? Or was it a combination of that and the 80Hz crossover, which left them with too little margin for producing undistorted sound? The result could be the same whichever of those explanations is correct. And, you may never get a satisfactory explanation for exactly what it was. The most that you, or that almost any of us can do, is to take some elementary precautions, based on our understanding of the capabilities of our systems. 

First, as noted earlier, you need to understand the inherent limitation of a speaker with about an 87db sensitivity rating. That is not considered a Reference capable speaker at anything other than very close range. I suspect that the actual rating may be even a bit lower than that for high frequencies once the speaker is covered with acoustic fabric. It wouldn't make a big difference, but you are trying to count every decibel here.

It is also important to understand that manufacturers don't always tell us the frequency at which the speaker was rated at 90db for 4 Ohms. Was it 90db at 1000Hz? Higher, lower? The 90db sensitivity would have been a max RMS number, before distortion became too high. Trying to push even more power into the speaker would have just pushed the distortion even higher, perhaps damaging the speaker, as happened in your case. The 90db at 4 Ohms, or about 87db at 8 Ohms, are max RMS limits which the speaker can't realistically exceed (although boundary gain may help slightly).

So, how do you proceed in the future? First, I would let XT-32 set your trim levels, using whatever calibration technique you decide represents the best compromise for you. Second, I would not exceed those trim levels for those speakers. Third, I would set a higher crossover for those speakers--probably at least 100Hz. That will reduce the possibility of high frequency distortion at higher volumes. Fourth, I would consider the use of something like PLIIz rather than Multi-Channel Stereo if I really wanted to go loud with music. That will reduce the load on the rear surround speakers. Fifth, I would not go above about -3 with my master volume.

As you said, the rear surrounds represented a known compromise when you built your HT. And, I understand that perfectly. I believe, as noted in a previous post, that all of our audio systems represent some sort of compromise. But, now it is time to honor the compromise, or to find a way to re-position those speakers closer to your MLP. Apparently, the difference between 12.5' and 17' is the deal breaker for those speakers. That difference should be only a few decibels, but coupled with your 3db boost, it was clearly too much. Don't boost the rear surrounds above where Audyssey puts them, and keep your MV at about -3 or lower, and you should be fine.

Doing that, it's possible that you could be leaving just a little headroom on the table, but it won't be much. And, leaving a little headroom on the table is a good thing, anyway. As you approach the real limits of your speakers, there will be some distortion. That distortion may be partly masked by the sheer volume, but it's still likely to be somewhat audible if you really listen for it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## fredxr2d2

lovingdvd said:


> From my MLP the LCRs are 12.5 feet. The Surround Backs, which are the ones with the blown tweeter, are about 17 feet. I can't say exactly when the tweeters blew, but I was listening to a musical in Atmos with lots of instruments blaring and possibly using the SB channels serving more as discrete channels than just for ambiance like what would be more typical in a movie.
> 
> 
> 
> What information specifically should I ask for - what the "power handling capacity"?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on the matter. I'm not too distraught about this, but I will if it should happen again after I go through the trouble and expense to repair them. That is why I really want to understand more specifically how it happened and WHERE THE ACTUAL LIMITS are in my setup. Because I just don't want to play it safe and wind up settling for lower volume than I'd like, just because I wasn't sure where the line in the sand was, while in the meantime there could be plenty more safe headroom actually available than I realize.
> 
> *Guys - In my scenario, what do you think caused the damage to the tweeter? Was it simply too much clean power that the tweeter could not handle? Or could it have been DISTORTED power from the amp?* I am asking because I would like to know if the amp could have been at fault. I'm using all Emotiva XPA Gen3 which are rated for 550 watts per channel into the KEF 4 ohm load. I'm powering these on 240v which as I understand from Emotiva means they actually are capable of delivering even more power. So was the issue amp distortion or simple the amp likely did its job perfectly fine but the tweeter couldn't handle the amount of clean power??
> 
> Thanks!


I'd take a look at the simple calculator here:

http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html

If you put in that your speakers are 87dB and add in 550 watts of power, if they are not corner-loaded, you are still only barely getting enough power to supply reference level (not to mention above reference) at your listening position. All things considered, I would advocate for moving the speakers closer to you or getting more efficient speakers.


----------



## garygarrison

vn800art said:


> Sorry for irrupting in this thread.
> As first I add my sorrows to @*lovingdvd* .
> My concerns are:
> I have old and new Klipsch and new Wharfedale 9.1 in my setup. I will immediately have a look at the Audissey curves post calibration.
> The question for the offended Kef owner here is if he could tell us what was the program/film/source he was lastly listening to at 0db output on his Marantz. To avoid problems!
> Getting a bit paranoid about it eventually happening ! Even though, not for Klipsch ones, but I often find myself upping levels ... on SB Wharfedales!
> Regards
> Alessandro
> 
> Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


Which Klipsch speakers do you have? They are probably considerably more efficient than lovingdvd's KEF. 

The Wharfedale 9.1, however, has a sensitivity of only 86dB/2.83V/m, with recommended power of 20–100W, so be careful!!! That the *Stereophile *reviewer said the bass drum on _Firebird_ was lacking some authority means (to me) that it needs a subwoofer, as well.. 

I am interested in knowing what movie blew lovingdvd's tweeters, though.


----------



## lovingdvd

Hi guys - its very late so I just wanted to say thank you for your recent responses. I've read them and appreciate it. I just spent five hours to get to ONE of the two speakers that need repair due to the blown tweeter. KEF is sending me replacement drivers and I will need to install them myself (soldering 4 connections, some dismantling, hopefully not too bad, I'll take pics). It'll probably take me just as long to get it back into the wall, rerun the fabric track and stretch the fabric. Who knows if it'll ever look right, or if not I'll need to call in a pro. Fixing the speaker will I think turn out to be the easy part. Anyway I'll have more to say about this and what KEF said and answers to your questions tomorrow, err I mean later today.


----------



## lovingdvd

fredxr2d2 said:


> I'd take a look at the simple calculator here:
> 
> http://myhometheater.homestead.com/splcalculator.html
> 
> If you put in that your speakers are 87dB and add in 550 watts of power, if they are not corner-loaded, you are still only barely getting enough power to supply reference level (not to mention above reference) at your listening position. All things considered, I would advocate for moving the speakers closer to you or getting more efficient speakers.


No way to move the speakers - room was engineered with acoustic treatments from head to toe and no other place for the rears besides in the rear walls (6" fake walls in the rear with acoustic stretched fabric; ask me sometime how I managed to embed two 18" subs in the rear wall as well.  ). With these speakers embedded into rear wall corners, which are 45 degree angles as the "corners" I get +6dB bonus. See attachment.

More later today.


----------



## VideoGrabber

lovingdvd said:


> No way to move the speakers - room was engineered with acoustic treatments from head to toe and no other place for the rears besides in the rear walls (6" fake walls in the rear with acoustic stretched fabric; ask me sometime how I managed to embed two 18" subs in the rear wall as well.  ). With these speakers embedded into rear wall corners, which are 45 degree angles as the "corners" I get +6dB bonus. See attachment.
> 
> More later today.


OK, I see you are (slowly) getting there. You're definitely on the right track. That 14 dB path loss, due to the (comparatively) extreme distance, is a big part of the answer. Your current mistake though is entering 550W. You're not trying to determine how loud your Amp could go... your interest is in how much your speaker can handle. And you need to put in 180W there. That's 5 dB right there, that you don't actually have (but are trying to use anyway).

That corner loading is some new gain that you had previously not mentioned before, so that definitely helps you out. Though depending on how you have things treated, you may not be getting nearly that 6 dB you are hoping for there. That could be significantly less, due to absorption.

You're also expecting +3 dB gain from multi-speaker, but you're only going to get that if they're playing the same signal. In any event, Audyssey won't consider that when it's evaluating each speaker independently. And don't forget your -3 dB loss from the back of your chair, which you tweaked to compensate for. So your 109 dB SPL capacity estimate is significantly too high. Realistically, once you include all those factors, you could manage about 95-98 dB SPL, maximum sustained, at that listening position from that speaker. And as you push beyond that level, your tweeters would start to overheat. Aiming for 105 dB SPL (even though the amp may be capable, and wouldn't generate damaging harmonic and IM distortion products) simply isn't something the speaker can handle. 

*What's really killing you are the losses from that 15-17 feet behind the seats*, to the back wall. That's massive. You start out with 87 dB from the speaker with just 1W (and 109 dB at the max 180W)... which sounds great. But that's at 1 meter. Then you move 5+ meters away, losing 6 dB due to inverse-square, every time you double that. And then another "innocent" 3 dB of chair-back losses to boost for (hey, it's "just" double!). Since you mentioned the room is well-treated, you may also be absorbing quite a bit more of those tweeter-generated frequencies than you realize. It all adds up.

Based on all that, it's easy to see where kicking it up from your normal level to Reference, along with the 3 dB boost for your chair back, and some sustained high-output in the Rears, pushed you over the edge. You were already right at the limit, and didn't realize it. It's a *very* easy mistake to make.


----------



## garygarrison

VideoGrabber said:


> *... losing 6 dB due to inverse-square, every time you double that.* .


VideoGrabber,

I agree with everything you said, except for one detail. I believe we lose 6 dB for every doubling of distance *outside* in the open air. The example often given is if the speaker is sitting on top of a flagpole, with no surfaces nearby. The same is true in an anechoic chamber, but it may not hold all the way down to the bottom of a subwoofer's range. *Inside *a room of about lovingdvd's size the figure is about a 3 dB loss for every doubling of distance. Paul Klipsch confirmed this in the '70s by running a frequency sweep from 20 to 20K Hz, first with a microphone 2 feet from the speaker, then again at 16 feet from the speaker -- 3 doublings. The two curves averaged about 9 dB apart.


----------



## vn800art

garygarrison said:


> Which Klipsch speakers do you have? They are probably considerably more efficient than lovingdvd's KEF.
> 
> The Wharfedale 9.1, however, has a sensitivity of only 86dB/2.83V/m, with recommended power of 20–100W, so be careful!!! That the *Stereophile *reviewer said the bass drum on _Firebird_ was lacking some authority means (to me) that it needs a subwoofer, as well..
> 
> I am interested in knowing what movie blew lovingdvd's tweeters, though.


Hello! I have 2 Klipsch Cornwall made in 1979. Changed two tweeters ( 1 was blown maybe in 1995, they were my father's ones ), replaced xo's - Bob Crites helped sending all that was needed. Now I realize that the NEW Audissey eq that @lovingdvd posted is similar to the one I observed on my left Cornwall when I decided indeed it had a blown tweeter. I wish him to be as proud as me after the work will be ended! But ... he should need the photo of the previous Audissey Eq made about 1 year ago, to compare his work in replacing tweeters! Hope he has a copy somewhere!
I also finished 1 week ago the on ceiling installation in a multi decoders setup (TF & TR) of 4 Klipsch CP-6.
Yes, Wharfedale 9.1 are in my opinion 8Ohm compatible, NOT 8Ohm. I have another couple connected to a Sony Strda3500 es, nowhere less than volume around -6 to 0 to get details out. Speakers are very close to Mlp, in this case.
What worried me in the theater setup, was that also in my situation I had recently moved the SB Wharfedales to be the farthest couple of speakers from Mlp. Had a look at the Audissey Eq, nothing to worry about.
Cheerio to all!
Regards
Alessandro

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> VideoGrabber,
> 
> I agree with everything you said, except for one detail. I believe we lose 6 dB for every doubling of distance *outside* in the open air. The example often given is if the speaker is sitting on top of a flagpole, with no surfaces nearby. The same is true in an anechoic chamber, but it may not hold all the way down to the bottom of a subwoofer's range. *Inside *a room of about lovingdvd's size the figure is about a 3 dB loss for every doubling of distance. Paul Klipsch confirmed this in the '70s by running a frequency sweep from 20 to 20K Hz, first with a microphone 2 feet from the speaker, then again at 16 feet from the speaker -- 3 doublings. The two curves averaged about 9 dB apart.


Good catch, Gary! Several current speaker/sub makers have also confirmed a 3db decrease in SPL for a doubling of distance in-room, versus a 6db decrease quasi-anechoic. However we slice it though, a speaker which is rated at an efficiency of 87db is not going to reliably achieve Reference levels from a distance of 17'. The OP already has empirical evidence of what happened when he tried that. But, as long as he stays a little below Reference, and doesn't boost the rear surrounds beyond where Audyssey sets them, he should be fine.


----------



## lovingdvd

OK guys, here goes...



mthomas47 said:


> I am also interested in having someone else calculate the actual power handling capacity of your speakers. But, I have been consistent in believing that those speakers are not going to do well trying to play 105db peaks (prior to your 3db boost--108db peaks with it) in 5.1 movie content at a distance of 17'. I haven't mentioned it previously, but I believe that listening to Multi-Channel Stereo also worked against you in this case, because the rear surrounds would have been trying to play exactly the same content, at a louder SPL level, than the closer speakers in your front soundstage.


I made a mistake about my rear surrounds (the ones that blew) distance. It is fortunately shorter than 17' so that buys me a little more headroom. When I measure it from where my ears are with a laser measurer it is 14.2 feet. When I look at what Audyssey set the Distances to, with the mic positioned correctly and above the seatback, it set these at 15.4 and 15.5 feet. So let's use Audyssey's distance going forward.



> There is no doubt in my mind that it is the speakers and not your Emotiva amplifier that is the problem. Was it too much power for the tweeters to handle? Or was it a combination of that and the 80Hz crossover, which left them with too little margin for producing undistorted sound? The result could be the same whichever of those explanations is correct. And, you may never get a satisfactory explanation for exactly what it was. The most that you, or that almost any of us can do, is to take some elementary precautions, based on our understanding of the capabilities of our systems.


I agree. With hindsight it was a perfect storm that caused the tweeters to blow, which was my fault. Here are the factors in a nutshell:

Factor 1: A system that was probably already getting pretty close to pushing the limits of the rear surrounds as things stood, but with master volume never more than around -3dB and these speakers Levels also set to -3dB I never pushed the tweeter over the edge. Tho it seems I may have been pretty close.

Factor 2: Adding +3dB to the levels to try and compensate for the loss due to the seatback. Without me being aware of it at the time, this means that I was now sending twice the amount of power to these speakers for all listening levels, compared to how I have run the system in the last year since the room was built.

Factor 3: Deciding during a few musical numbers to crank the volume from around -3dB or -5dB, somewhere in that range most likely, to 0dB (this setting I am sure of it). Normally during an Atmos movie my ears could never tolerate it. But with clean undistorted music it sounded blissful. So again, without realizing it, I was now sending twice as much power to all speakers except the rear surrounds, which now were getting FOUR times the power that they have ever seen, because of their specific +3dB in factor 2.

Factor 4: As pointed out to me by @SteveH, the source material played a big role here too most likely. Apparently Chicago in Atmos uses the rear surround speakers as more discrete channels, playing what could be full range music, blaring instruments etc, whereas normally they are more general duty ambience type of channels. This full range of music and discrete channel use put a lot more demand on the speakers and the tweeter. Had it been a regular movie, it may have been fine.

Factor 5: Who knows what EQ boost Audyssey was also adding, probably +9dB on the highs. I want to circle back to that later.

So it seems that this was the perfect storm. Agree? Without all those factors 1-4 (and possibly 5) the speakers may have been fine. Although perhaps just the +3dB on the rear surrounds without also raising the master volume may have blown it as well.



> First, as noted earlier, you need to understand the inherent limitation of a speaker with about an 87db sensitivity rating. That is not considered a Reference capable speaker at anything other than very close range. I suspect that the actual rating may be even a bit lower than that for high frequencies once the speaker is covered with acoustic fabric. It wouldn't make a big difference, but you are trying to count every decibel here.


As a quick side note, the fabric is very acoustically transparent, but I have to go back and look at what that takes off the highs. It it at least -1dB and maybe as much as -3dB, or perhaps more. But I kind of remember it in that range.

*Question:* I want to specifically address the 87dB vs 90dB sensitivity of these speakers to make sure I understand this. The KEF spec on these speakers (KEF Ci3160-RL-THX) is listed as "90dB (2.83V/ 1m)". However, my understanding from what I researched a few years back, is that since the KEF's are 4 ohm speakers, that 90dB at 2.83V/1m is not the same in 1w/1m units that the SPL calculator is basing on things. And that specifically in terms of 1w/1m units, you need to adjust that 90dB sensitivity down to 87dB. IOW 90 dB spec for 2.83V/1M is REALLY 87 dB in 1w/1m. Am I correct on this? I am going to assume so and use 87 as the sensitivity in the calculator unless someone says I should be using 90 (I don't think so).



> It is also important to understand that manufacturers don't always tell us the frequency at which the speaker was rated at 90db for 4 Ohms. Was it 90db at 1000Hz? Higher, lower? The 90db sensitivity would have been a max RMS number, before distortion became too high. Trying to push even more power into the speaker would have just pushed the distortion even higher, perhaps damaging the speaker, as happened in your case. The 90db at 4 Ohms, or about 87db at 8 Ohms, are max RMS limits which the speaker can't realistically exceed (although boundary gain may help slightly).
> 
> So, how do you proceed in the future? First, I would let XT-32 set your trim levels, using whatever calibration technique you decide represents the best compromise for you


For sure. I understand the most important measure is the first one, because it uses that to set the Levels. I will make sure the mic is at least a couple inches over the height of the seatback. I don't really like having to do this, because that is not where my head is in the MLP (maybe 6" lower) which sounds a bit silly but I'm striving for perfection here.  Tho given the circumstances that is about the best I can expect to do.



> . Second, I would not exceed those trim levels for those speakers.


I totally understand why not to, at this point.  My main mistake was not realizing that turning the levels up +3dB was sending 2x power to the speaker. I had heard that before, but just wasn't thinking about the possible fallout from it.



> Third, I would set a higher crossover for those speakers--probably at least 100Hz. That will reduce the possibility of high frequency distortion at higher volumes.



How much headroom do you think that buys me? Do you think I would notice with all other speakers xo at 80hz to have those xo at 100hz? IOW I wonder if this is a worthwhile tradeoff.



> Fourth, I would consider the use of something like PLIIz rather than Multi-Channel Stereo if I really wanted to go loud with music. That will reduce the load on the rear surround speakers.


This came up in an earlier discussion so I just wanted to point out that I never have listened to multi-channel stereo loudly. I use it when sitting at the rear bar in the room and LOW levels like when watching a sporting event, because then you can clearly hear the announcers. Otherwise the system thinks you're 15 feet closer to the speakers and its hard to hear what they are saying and instead you here all the ambient surrounds. So I only mentioned this multi-channel stereo early in the context that I would have noticed sooner if the tweeters had been blown earlier because the highs would have been missing from the announcers voice. This is how I am quite confident that these tweeters had not been blown for a while without me noticing - as just a few days prior I listened to sports this way and they were fine. That is why I am 95% sure the issue happened during my Chicago musical "blow out" and I also know for sure that's when I turned the master volume to 0dB. 



> Fifth, I would not go above about -3 with my master volume.


I think I am good with that. I watch Neflix shows like Bloodline and Stranger Things at -2.5dB. That seems necessary because at the -5dB where I watch 4K Blu-rays or regular Blu-rays its not loud enough. And as mentioned, I can't listen to most movies without hurting my ears if the MV is higher than around -5dB. So a limit of -2.5dB I am good with.



> As you said, the rear surrounds represented a known compromise when you built your HT. And, I understand that perfectly. I believe, as noted in a previous post, that all of our audio systems represent some sort of compromise. But, now it is time to honor the compromise, or to find a way to re-position those speakers closer to your MLP. Apparently, the difference between 12.5' and 17' is the deal breaker for those speakers. That difference should be only a few decibels, but coupled with your 3db boost, it was clearly too much. Don't boost the rear surrounds above where Audyssey puts them, and keep your MV at about -3 or lower, and you should be fine.
> 
> Doing that, it's possible that you could be leaving just a little headroom on the table, but it won't be much. And, leaving a little headroom on the table is a good thing, anyway. As you approach the real limits of your speakers, there will be some distortion. That distortion may be partly masked by the sheer volume, but it's still likely to be somewhat audible if you really listen for it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


*Question:* After having raised the rear surrounds +3dB, I realized that they had been set too low and now I could hear much more "fullness" to the room. This was compensating for the headrest blocking. So, is it an option to raise those surrounds by 3dB, but then commit to never raising the MV above -6dB? So IOW raise the surrounds 3dB but lower the MV by the same amount. This would limit the ability to play more loudly through the rest of the system of course, but it may be an acceptable compromise if it means I can hear the surround rears as they should. Or maybe I can cheap the rears up say +1dB... Anyway I'm just wondering if I could do this (trading 3dB in the rears higher for 3dB lower overall MV) or if this is just asking for trouble again. As mentioned, the real PITA here was not the speaker repair but getting to them. I certainly do not want to have to deal with retucking the stretch fabric ever again if I can help it...




garygarrison said:


> ...I am interested in knowing what movie blew lovingdvd's tweeters, though.


As mentioned above this is a special Atmos edition of the movie Chicago (musical).



VideoGrabber said:


> OK, I see you are (slowly) getting there. You're definitely on the right track. That 14 dB path loss, due to the (comparatively) extreme distance, is a big part of the answer. Your current mistake though is entering 550W. You're not trying to determine how loud your Amp could go... your interest is in how much your speaker can handle. And you need to put in 180W there. That's 5 dB right there, that you don't actually have (but are trying to use anyway).


Thanks. I've updated my parameters in the SPL to adjust for the things you mentioned and change the distance to 15.5 feet from 17 feet, per what I said above (I had the wrong distance in my head). I use 87dB (not 90 that the KEF spec says, for reasons I also mentioned above, if this is wrong please let me know), amp power of 180 for reasons you say, # of speakers back to 1. However - could a reasonable argument be made that the rear surrounds most of the time are playing the same ambient material, perhaps with something different on top of the ambience? Because perhaps it should count as 1.5 speakers for this param or 1.33, but at any rate we'll just say 1 for this param for now. I'm going to take the full +6dB gain credit for being corner loaded. These baffles are installed into custom made air tight speaker boxes at the manufacturer's recommended cubic feet, and then installed in the corners of the room, tho angled in at 45 degrees, parallel to the back "corners" of my room.

That gives me 102dB (see attached). Now I am pretty sure these tweeters can handle at least 250w instead of the 180w, because the same exact Uni-q driver is in the Ci5160-RL-THX (which I use for my LCRs). The only difference between the 5160 and 3160 is that the 5160 has two extra drivers for the low-mid range. So I could be wrong, but if the Uni-q tweeter can handle per KEF's spec 250w then it can handle that in the 3160. If I am making a dangerous assumption here please let me know. That said, raising it from 180 to 250 only picks up about another 1.5dB, so now we are at about 103.5dB. Even if we assume it could safely handle 350w (which may be a very bad assumption, but I would think their numbers are very conservative) that still only brings it up to 105dB. But now we are really starting to push it. And perhaps this is where I've been all along - perhaps it can handle up to around this level just fine and reference 0dB MV, but when I bumped the levels for the rears by +3dB, that's where it pushed it over the edge...?



> That corner loading is some new gain that you had previously not mentioned before, so that definitely helps you out. Though depending on how you have things treated, you may not be getting nearly that 6 dB you are hoping for there. That could be significantly less, due to absorption.


Yea there room has a fair amount of absorption, but not overly done, because I purposely wanted the room a bit more "lively". If you can elaborate on what absorption could affect this I can let you know if that would apply in my case.



> You're also expecting +3 dB gain from multi-speaker, but you're only going to get that if they're playing the same signal. In any event, Audyssey won't consider that when it's evaluating each speaker independently.


Yes I discussed this just above. I wonder if we pick up maybe half-credit for this since I would think rear surrounds often are sending mostly the same signal, but not always.



> And don't forget your -3 dB loss from the back of your chair, which you tweaked to compensate for. So your 109 dB SPL capacity estimate is significantly too high. Realistically, once you include all those factors, you could manage about 95-98 dB SPL, maximum sustained, at that listening position from that speaker. And as you push beyond that level, your tweeters would start to overheat. Aiming for 105 dB SPL (even though the amp may be capable, and wouldn't generate damaging harmonic and IM distortion products) simply isn't something the speaker can handle.


Fair enough. But see my notes just above and the new attached SPL calc'ed values. I think 102-103dB is where I'm at. But indeed once you adjust for the -3dB due to the seat back we are talking maybe 99-100dB, which is a bit more than you have above, perhaps because yours was based on 17 feet and now I'm using 15.5 feet. Plus I may have taken a little more liberties there, like 250w speaker handling. I am still trying to get a number from KEF on the power handling capacity. Don't know if I'll get that.


> *What's really killing you are the losses from that 15-17 feet behind the seats*, to the back wall. That's massive. You start out with 87 dB from the speaker with just 1W (and 109 dB at the max 180W)... which sounds great. But that's at 1 meter. Then you move 5+ meters away, losing 6 dB due to inverse-square, every time you double that. And then another "innocent" 3 dB of chair-back losses to boost for (hey, it's "just" double!). Since you mentioned the room is well-treated, you may also be absorbing quite a bit more of those tweeter-generated frequencies than you realize. It all adds up.
> 
> Based on all that, it's easy to see where kicking it up from your normal level to Reference, along with the 3 dB boost for your chair back, and some sustained high-output in the Rears, pushed you over the edge. You were already right at the limit, and didn't realize it. It's a *very* easy mistake to make.


[/quote]

How does your opinion on that change when you weigh in what Gary said (quoted below) about it being 3dB not 6dB?

*Question*: That seatback is really an Achilles heel, isn't it? How would you guys suggest best dealing with it? As I said above it could be that I bump the levels on the rears and then take off 3dB from the MV max. Perhaps that's still loud enough and worth the tradeoff. Because even tho I destroyed my tweeters in the process, I learned that I am missing a fair amount of "surround sound" by not having the rear surrounds loud enough.

*Question:* So here's another bit of an oddity... Audssey has my LCRs at 14.7ft, 13.6ft and 14.6ft. Which isn't all that much further than the rear surrounds. Yet it has THOSE levels set between -5.0 to -6.0 (and speakers are behind an AT screen which causes about -1dB to -3dB loss across the range. Those speakers are the 5160s which are identical to the 3160s but with two extra drivers each. Considering that they are only about 1ft closer to the rears, I wonder why Audyssey sets the rears to -3.0dB? Seems like a big discrepancy for just 1 foot of distance different. The rear tweeters are about a foot higher, but that probably doesn't matter. Actually now that I am thinking about it, there is a highly engineered, huge baffle wall in the front of the room that the LCRs are "baked" into as part of the wall. That right there probably gives me about a +3dB gain over the corner-loaded rears. Make sense?

*Question:* Here's something I don't think anyone has addressed much yet, which is the boost that Audyssey is adding. As I posted a few days ago, my acoustic engineer says that Audyssey tries to flatter the response even those a speaker like KEF is not designed to be perfectly flat from a far field power measure (or whatever he called it). From my graphs it looks like Audyssey could be boosting many speakers, and certainly the surround backs by +5-10dB in the 2.5kHz and up range. Isn't that huge? We are talking about listening with the MV at around -3dB, but if it's adding say 9dB isn't that like sending certain high frequencies to the tweeter at say +6dB over reference?  If so there must be some serious headroom and power handling capability built into these Uni-q drivers, and its sustaining a lot more than we may be thinking it is (up until the point where I raised those rears +3dB and then it say ok forget it buddy!).



garygarrison said:


> VideoGrabber,
> 
> I agree with everything you said, except for one detail. I believe we lose 6 dB for every doubling of distance *outside* in the open air. The example often given is if the speaker is sitting on top of a flagpole, with no surfaces nearby. The same is true in an anechoic chamber, but it may not hold all the way down to the bottom of a subwoofer's range. *Inside *a room of about lovingdvd's size the figure is about a 3 dB loss for every doubling of distance. Paul Klipsch confirmed this in the '70s by running a frequency sweep from 20 to 20K Hz, first with a microphone 2 feet from the speaker, then again at 16 feet from the speaker -- 3 doublings. The two curves averaged about 9 dB apart.


See just above.



vn800art said:


> Hello! I have 2 Klipsch Cornwall made in 1979. Changed two tweeters ( 1 was blown maybe in 1995, they were my father's ones ), replaced xo's - Bob Crites helped sending all that was needed. Now I realize that the NEW Audissey eq that @lovingdvd posted is similar to the one I observed on my left Cornwall when I decided indeed it had a blown tweeter. I wish him to be as proud as me after the work will be ended! But ... he should need the photo of the previous Audissey Eq made about 1 year ago, to compare his work in replacing tweeters! Hope he has a copy somewhere!
> I also finished 1 week ago the on ceiling installation in a multi decoders setup (TF & TR) of 4 Klipsch CP-6.
> Yes, Wharfedale 9.1 are in my opinion 8Ohm compatible, NOT 8Ohm. I have another couple connected to a Sony Strda3500 es, nowhere less than volume around -6 to 0 to get details out. Speakers are very close to Mlp, in this case.
> What worried me in the theater setup, was that also in my situation I had recently moved the SB Wharfedales to be the farthest couple of speakers from Mlp. Had a look at the Audissey Eq, nothing to worry about.
> Cheerio to all!
> Regards
> Alessandro
> 
> Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


I do have a screenshot of the graphic EQ results from my old Audyssey run. How are you suggesting I use that? Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying about these graphs and their usefulness. 



mthomas47 said:


> Good catch, Gary! Several current speaker/sub makers have also confirmed a 3db decrease in SPL for a doubling of distance in-room, versus a 6db decrease quasi-anechoic. However we slice it though, a speaker which is rated at an efficiency of 87db is not going to reliably achieve Reference levels from a distance of 17'. The OP already has empirical evidence of what happened when he tried that. But, as long as he stays a little below Reference, and doesn't boost the rear surrounds beyond where Audyssey sets them, he should be fine.


Yes per above its 15.5' instead 17' (my bad info earlier), not that it makes much of a difference. As asked above, I wonder if I should go for 3dB less volume overall and bring up the rears 3dB beyond what Audyssey sets, or if that is just asking to blow more tweeters. I think in general what it comes down to is that I have a system that is capable of playing at or very close to reference, with the exception of the rear surrounds, which is why they blew.

Guys - is there any way to disconnect the speakers and actually scientifically measure the amount of power being sent to the speaker? So instead of guessing we could know "yes peak output to that speaker was 180w or 250w or warning warning warning over 300w"? It would be great if there was some sort of limiter that could guard the speakers, where I could say never deliver more than x watts into this channel for more than x milliseconds type of thing. I think QSC has some stuff to do it but very pricey and makes sense only as a part of their larger use-case.

So the latest from KEF is that they are sending out two new Uni-q drivers that hopefully will be here Friday. I will need to switch them out myself, which apparently involves a little basic disassembly and then un-soldering and re-soldering 4 wires. I'll then run a quick frequency sweep to confirm the speakers are back to good condition. Then I will rerun Audyssey with the mic above the seat back for the main position (I understand with the other positions it may be OK to be below the seatback or between the seats and partially blocked, or no?) and leave everything where Audyssey puts it. Then I'll see about maybe tweaking the levels for the surround backs based on the advice on my questions above and lowering the volume or just leaving things as is.

Regarding the 8802A replacement, as I understand it will have more control over Audyssey. Can I set limits, like don't boost speaker y more than x dB? I suppose it would also be very smart to tell it not to adjust above 10kHz or 14kHz, especially since I can't hear above 14kHz (and for guests that can, oh well  ) and perhaps that will give some headroom. Kind of silly otherwise to have Audyssey boosting signals at 15kHz or even 20kHz when they are inaudible (at least to me) and yet the most dangerous especially to a soft dome tweeter. Well they call it a soft dome I guess but technically its aluminium FWIW.

I really appreciate all the great feedback and support here guys - thank you so much. I'm looking forward to your feedback on this post and will keep you updated with my progress (and some pics) replacing the drivers!


----------



## VideoGrabber

garygarrison said:


> VideoGrabber,
> 
> I agree with everything you said, except for one detail. I believe we lose 6 dB for every doubling of distance *outside* in the open air. The example often given is if the speaker is sitting on top of a flagpole, with no surfaces nearby. The same is true in an anechoic chamber, but it may not hold all the way down to the bottom of a subwoofer's range. *Inside *a room of about lovingdvd's size the figure is about a 3 dB loss for every doubling of distance. Paul Klipsch confirmed this in the '70s by running a frequency sweep from 20 to 20K Hz, first with a microphone 2 feet from the speaker, then again at 16 feet from the speaker -- 3 doublings. The two curves averaged about 9 dB apart.


Thanks for that, Gary. The downsides of trying to squeeze off a quick response, when there are conditionals involved. The 6 dB cited is certainly an overly pessimistic (worst-case) estimate. For exactly the reasons you stated. Indoors, it will always be less lossy than that.

How much less is a matter for some debate, and is dependent upon a number of factors. I have read a number of other sources that suggest the actual number is usually closer to 4 or 5 dB indoors, though the one you cited at 3 dB is the most optimistic one I have heard of. I'm really not in any position to gauge LD's room, except to note that is is both medium-large, and well treated. I'd also note that it is the high frequencies in question here, which in a damped room are less likely to benefit from the enclosed space gain than lower frequencies would. So my inclination would be to tend towards more pessimistic, than optimistic.  That said, it's possible that 3 dB may be spot on. (I have measured between 4 and 5 dB myself, in the few situations I have experimented with. And those were in rooms smaller than LD's.)

Thanks for sharing the information resource. That's definitely good news, for a lot of folks trying to reach Reference level.


----------



## mthomas47

VideoGrabber said:


> Thanks for that, Gary. The downsides of trying to squeeze off a quick response, when there are conditionals involved. The 6 dB cited is certainly an overly pessimistic (worst-case) estimate. For exactly the reasons you stated. Indoors, it will always be less lossy than that.
> 
> How much less is a matter for some debate, and is dependent upon a number of factors. I have read a number of other sources that suggest the actual number is usually closer to 4 or 5 dB indoors, though the one you cited at 3 dB is the most optimistic one I have heard of. I'm really not in any position to gauge LD's room, except to note that is is both medium-large, and well treated. I'd also note that it is the high frequencies in question here, which in a damped room are less likely to benefit from the enclosed space gain than lower frequencies would. So my inclination would be to tend towards more pessimistic, than optimistic.  That said, it's possible that 3 dB may be spot on. (I have measured between 4 and 5 dB myself, in the few situations I have experimented with. And those were in rooms smaller than LD's.)
> 
> Thanks for sharing the information resource. That's definitely good news, for a lot of folks trying to reach Reference level.


Quick or not, it was still a good response! I think that the whole issue is a right muddle, as the Brit's might say. I have actually heard 3-4db used for in-room SPL decreases due to a doubling of distance, although I simplified that to 3db. But, I think that there are at least two factors which make it difficult to predict what the actual decrease in SPL will be.

First, there is the issue of boundary gain. If a speaker or sub moved further away from a listening position, but moved closer to a wall in the process, there might be less SPL decrease. Conversely, if a speaker or sub doubled its distance while also moving further away from boundaries, there might be more SPL decrease. The other factor might be whether every frequency reacts equally to room influences, and at what frequency the SPL is measured? I would expect frequencies under about 1000Hz to react more profoundly to speaker/sub movement within a room, than frequencies above that. Frequencies below about 400Hz might react even more.

I suspect that 3 to 4db is just an average, with lots of caveats applying.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

VideoGrabber said:


> Thanks for that, Gary. The downsides of trying to squeeze off a quick response, when there are conditionals involved. The 6 dB cited is certainly an overly pessimistic (worst-case) estimate. For exactly the reasons you stated. Indoors, it will always be less lossy than that.
> 
> How much less is a matter for some debate, and is dependent upon a number of factors. I have read a number of other sources that suggest the actual number is usually closer to 4 or 5 dB indoors, though the one you cited at 3 dB is the most optimistic one I have heard of. I'm really not in any position to gauge LD's room, except to note that is isboth medium-large, and well treated. I'd also note that it is the high frequencies in question here, which in a damped room are less likely to benefit from the enclosed space gain than lower frequencies would. So my inclination would be to tend towards more pessimistic, than optimistic.  That said, it's possible that 3 dB may be spot on. (I have measured between 4 and 5 dB myself, in the few situations I have experimented with. And those were in rooms smaller than LD's.)
> 
> Thanks for sharing the information resource. That's definitely good news, for a lot of folks trying to reach Reference level.





mthomas47 said:


> Quick or not, it was still a good response! I think that the whole issue is a right muddle, as the Brit's might say. I have actually heard 3-4db used for in-room SPL decreases due to a doubling of distance, although I simplified that to 3db. But, I think that there are at least two factors which make it difficult to predict what the actual decrease in SPL will be.
> 
> First, there is the issue of boundary gain.If a speaker or sub moved further away from a listening position, but moved closer to a wall in the process, there might be less SPL decrease. Conversely, if a speaker or sub doubled its distance while also moving further away from boundaries, there might be more SPL decrease. The other factor might be whether every frequency reacts equally to room influences, and at what frequency the SPL is measured? I would expect frequencies under about 1000Hz to react more profoundly to speaker/sub movement within a room, than frequencies above that. Frequencies below about 400Hz might react even more.
> 
> I suspect that 3 to 4db is just an average, with lots of caveats applying.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I agree with all of the above.

The particulars of the Klipsch experiment*:*

The single speaker was in the corner, and was not moved, therefore I would think boundary gain due to the speaker's environment would not be an issue. Only the microphone was moved, from 2 feet from the speaker to 16 feet from the speaker. I _*think*_ microphones could be subject to boundary gain, as well, and at only two feet from the speaker, there may be some, but if the first measurement (2') had increased SPL due to boundary gain regarding the microphone, and the second measurement (16') was done at a place that could deliver much less boundary gain, I would expect that would produce a *greater difference* in the two SPLs, but the average was still a mere 3 dB per doubling of distance. 

If the room used at Klipsch is the one I think it is, it would have had some Bonner Polycylindrical Diffusers back then, and otherwise untreated, except for a partial carpet. It was 25 x 16 feet, with a ceiling about 9 feet high, I think. 

The signal was a sweep from 20 to 20K.

There are other possible factors, but I think it would be fair to put them in the category Mike suggested, "a right muddle."
___________________​
Different, but vaguely related*:* in another post, Mike brought up the issue of it making a difference what frequency was used to measure speaker efficiency (or sensitivity). If a speaker maker wants to fudge their specs, they could pick a narrow band of frequencies that is at the speaker's peak efficiency, and measure there, and only there. Another way, that would produce different results, would be to measure with pink noise from 500 Hz to 2,000 Hz. A third way is to measure over the advertised bandwidth of the speaker, say, 30 Hz to 20K Hz. I have seen the method clearly specified *only* on the data sheets of a speaker company's *professional* line.
@*lovingdvd* If, someday, you decide to replace your speakers, here is a spreadsheet with a pretty good list of speakers that can reach Reference Level (and beyond, in some cases) in a room about your size. Many of them have a sensitivity of 100dB @ 2.83 V @ 1 M, which is what I would recommend.Link to Google Spreadsheet!


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> ... @*lovingdvd* If, someday, you decide to replace your speakers, here is a spreadsheet with a pretty good list of speakers that can reach Reference Level (and beyond, in some cases) in a room about your size. Many of them have a sensitivity of 100dB @ 2.83 V @ 1 M, which is what I would recommend.Link to Google Spreadsheet!


Thanks Gary. That is very unlikely for a number of reasons. One is that I am extremely happy with how the KEFs sound. I think they are often overlooked. They are also quite exceptional for music, as I do a fair amount of 2 channel listening in the room. Another reason these were an excellent fit is for their superbly wide dispersion, very critical to pull off Atmos in my room with just 7.5' ceilings and many of the fairly steep off axis speakers we had to deal with. Also the room was miticlously engineer around these speakers including the sound treatments specific to their dispersion characteristics. Not to mention that the room has extremely tight tolerances for fitting the speakers into the fake walls and star ceiling. Another reason is that it was one of the only speakers at the time (and perhaps mostly still) that I could do a full 9.4.6 setup and have the exact same drivers and sonic signature across the entire room. I had to give up some SPL in return and kind of forgot about that over the past year, until the tweeters sent me a stark reminder this weekend.


----------



## lovingdvd

Progress update: I got the 2nd of the 2 bad speakers out of the wall this evening. That one "only" took about 3 hours. The replacement drivers are coming tomorrow so I opened up the cover/dome of the driver to see what was waiting for me. See attached. This is above my pay grade guys - I'm gonna need some moral support here. :yikes: The thing that makes it especially challenging is that the dome doesn't come off because the wires have to be through it as you solder it. So I'm left with a pretty tight space in which to work. I only have a solder gun so I'm going to head to Home Depot tomorrow and pick up a soldering iron that's the "stick" type so it'll fit more easily into the space I have to work with. I'm also concerned about dripping solder onto the back of the driver, and also applying too much heat where the tiny wires behind the terminals come lose.

I have to make darn sure all wires have a permanent connection because if a wire should come off while behind the fabric one day.... And those tiny wires on the terminals behind the main ones - they look like they are made to be shorted with the main one. For instance the black wire on the front terminal with the tiny thin wire on the terminal behind it. If those are not supposed to be shorted, then I have almost no chance of pulling this off, as my soldering work is not so tidy and could easily wind up connecting both terminals together. Any hints on the best approach here? A 100 watt solder iron good for this? What's pictured here is the current bad driver. So I have to un-solder those 4 main wires and re-solder them to the new driver. After I figure out how to get the darn driver off the back face of the speaker - it appears to be glued down somehow.

Thanks!


----------



## VideoGrabber

lovingdvd said:


> OK guys, here goes...


Wow!  That's a mouthful! I'm not going to have time to comprehensively address all the points you raised, but I will comment on a few.


First off, I admire your interest in digging in, and trying to really understand what's going on here. Kudos for that. But OTOH, it seems to me like some of what you're attempting to do in accurately honing in on exactly where your limit is will be limited by tolerances and ranges that none of us here can accurately assess. You and we can say +1 dB here and -2 dB there, and run through all the component factors that feed into this. And you're (understandably) trying to finesse 0.5 dB here and there as well, to eke out the max. 

But the problem is that some of this is guess, and some may be wishful thinking. And when you get done, all those tolerance windows add up... they don't cancel out, or average. So when you asked me what impact I thought this and that may have had, I would concur with both Gary and Mike that it all does shift things up a bit. Perhaps something closer to 100 dB SPL may be a more "accurate" limit. But at the same time, those guesses go from +/-2 dB to maybe +/-5 dB. At the end of the day, at the conservative end of the range you're going to be just fine. And the closer you get to the "probably" OK end, the more you're flirting with disaster.  So, from my POV, your questions start to become, how risk-tolerant do you want to be?  [I was going to inject an Eastwood, _"Are you feelin' lucky..."_, but decided to resist the temptation.]




> With hindsight it was a perfect storm that caused the tweeters to blow, which was my fault. Here are the factors in a nutshell:


I agree that you have identified the contributing factors. One question you will have to make a decision on is after finding a realistic estimate, how close to the danger zone are you willing to flirt? 




> Factor 3: Deciding during a few musical numbers to crank the volume from around -3dB or -5dB, somewhere in that range most likely, to 0dB (this setting I am sure of it). *Normally during an Atmos movie my ears could never tolerate it*. But with clean undistorted music it sounded blissful. So again, without realizing it, I was now...


I think that's some pretty good insight right there. Your ears couldn't tolerate it, but in a special (and rather unique) case THEY can, but your speakers can't.




> Factor 4: As pointed out to me by @SteveH, the source material played a big role here too most likely. Apparently Chicago in Atmos uses the rear surround speakers as more discrete channels, playing what could be full range music, blaring instruments etc, whereas normally they are more general duty ambience type of channels. This full range of music and discrete channel use put a lot more demand on the speakers and the tweeter. Had it been a regular movie, it may have been fine.


This is a well-taken point that needs to be observed by more folks, as previously ambient channels start to carry larger burdens. And while those support channels ARE getting more surround and immersive content, they still generally do not start competing on an equal footing with the fronts. At least not in my limited experience. And for those that do try it, the result with most speakers will _most often_ be *distortion before destruction*. 

I'm trying to figure out ways to describe in an understandable way what I know only intuitively. And may even be guessing at here. Let's give this a shot: with most speakers, if you look at their distortion curves, they have a ramping up portion where they go from a low level of distortion to mid to high level. And you hear that, because there is a ramp. And back off. The KEFs you have may possess a different characteristic curve, where their distortion remains very low, even when pushed up to, *and even beyond* the point they were meant to operate. And then there is suddenly a huge "knee" in the curve, as the distortion suddenly spikes, and the transducer rapidly overheats. And to be clear, I'm not saying this IS the case with the KEF Uni-Qs... just that is a possibility that crossed my mind.

The other related issue is that from the Specs on these speakers, I see their range is stratospheric. I.e., they're rated up to 28 kHz. From my POV that is always a double-edged sword. It's good, because that means the speaker is very transparent through the entire audible bandwidth, and beyond. But it can also be dangerous, because if (for whatever reason... source material, harmonic distortion products, etc.) the speaker is asked to produce 'ultra' sonic frequencies, it will definitely do so... whether YOU and I can hear them, or not. So things we can't even hear can wind up causing a meltdown. And again, I'm not saying that IS what happened, but that type of thing CAN happen.

Lastly, I wanted to at least mention in passing that a 4 ohm speaker is not a 4 ohm speaker... at all frequencies. At some points it may be higher than that, and at others, lower. And what THAT means is that if the KEF drops lower at certain frequencies, even *more* current will flow. Which results in greater heat. But now we're getting a bit esoteric. And the KEFs may actually be 4 ohms _minimum_. ?? Since I haven't seen their impedance graph, I can't speak to that... only speculate.




> Factor 5: Who knows what EQ boost Audyssey was also adding, probably +9dB on the highs. I want to circle back to that later.


The most important take-away relating to that, from MY perspective, is that Audyssey does not know what the limits are for a speaker. If you ask for more, it will try. And the speaker will try. And you wind up replacing drivers.  It's up to you to know where to draw the line, because Audyssey doesn't.




> So it seems that this was the perfect storm. Agree? Without all those factors 1-4 (and possibly 5) the speakers may have been fine.


Well, sure. You were just fine... right up to the point where you no longer were. 




> Although perhaps just the +3dB on the rear surrounds without also raising the master volume may have blown it as well.


Yes. To either this factor, or any of the others. You can push things right up to the limit, and not even know. Then take the next 1 step past, and your luck runs out. So perhaps the point I'm trying to make is that to really avoid this in the future, you need to provide yourself with more than a razor-thin safety margin, based on a hopeful and very detailed analysis of factors *you can't precisely pinpoint*.  Though you are definitely trying. 




> As a quick side note, the fabric is very acoustically transparent, but I have to go back and look at what that takes off the highs. It it at least -1dB and maybe as much as -3dB, or perhaps more. But I kind of remember it in that range.


If it really is AT fabric, I'd be kind of shocked if it were more than 1 dB. Or perhaps 2. But it does worry me when you state "maybe" -3 dB, or more. This isn't a factor you want to guess at. And when you start talking about numbers at that level, you are really burning any headroom you had, at a horrific pace. But hopefully, that isn't really the case.




> *Question:* I want to specifically address the 87dB vs 90dB sensitivity of these speakers to make sure I understand this. The KEF spec on these speakers (KEF Ci3160-RL-THX) is listed as "90dB (2.83V/ 1m)". However, my understanding from what I researched a few years back, is that since the KEF's are 4 ohm speakers, that 90dB at 2.83V/1m is not the same in 1w/1m units that the SPL calculator is basing on things. And that specifically in terms of 1w/1m units, you need to adjust that 90dB sensitivity down to 87dB. IOW 90 dB spec for 2.83V/1M is REALLY 87 dB in 1w/1m. Am I correct on this? I am going to assume so and use 87 as the sensitivity in the calculator unless someone says I should be using 90 (I don't think so).


Short answer, yes, these speakers have a sensitivity of just 87 dbW. That is, with respect to 1 Watt. Longer answer is that due to some games that got played, the industry shifted to reporting things at 2.83V input (a voltage reference). And V-sqr/R for an 8-ohm driver is 8/8 = 1 watt. But at 4 ohms, that requires 2 watts to achieve that 90 dB rating. So to "normalize" things, you need to drop that 90 dB down to 87 dB.




> which sounds a bit silly but I'm striving for perfection here.


 NO! Tell me it isn't so! 




> *Question:* After having raised the rear surrounds +3dB, I realized that they had been set too low and now I could hear much more "fullness" to the room. This was compensating for the headrest blocking. So, is it an option to raise those surrounds by 3dB, but then commit to never raising the MV above -6dB? So IOW raise the surrounds 3dB but lower the MV by the same amount. This would limit the ability to play more loudly through the rest of the system of course, but it may be an acceptable compromise if it means I can hear the surround rears as they should.


I didn't want to skip over this one, because I think it's an important question. But yes, as long as you compensate the overall balance, such a thing is just fine. The question then becomes if you're satisfied with the price you're paying, for the alternate benefit you're receiving.




> Now I am pretty sure these tweeters can handle at least 250w instead of the 180w, because the same exact Uni-q driver is in the Ci5160-RL-THX (which I use for my LCRs). The only difference between the 5160 and 3160 is that the 5160 has two extra drivers for the low-mid range. So I could be wrong, but if the Uni-q tweeter can handle per KEF's spec 250w then it can handle that in the 3160. If I am making a dangerous assumption here please let me know.


You may be totally correct, since I see nothing wrong with what you are suggesting. BUT, it does sound dangerous to me, because KEF isn't making any such claim. Why not? 

In real-life, I'm an engineer, and I don't like making assumptions that are not based on supported facts. 'Maybe' and 'probably' aren't in my professional dictionary.  Even when I'm just doing hobby stuff.




> That said, raising it from 180 to 250 only picks up about another 1.5dB, so now we are at about 103.5dB. Even if we assume it could safely handle 350w (which may be a very bad assumption, but I would think their numbers are very conservative) that still only brings it up to 105dB. But now we are really starting to push it. And perhaps this is where I've been all along - perhaps it can handle up to around this level just fine and reference 0dB MV, but when I bumped the levels for the rears by +3dB, that's where it pushed it over the edge...?


And now we've arrived at what initiated my opening remarks. You're trying to finesse things, 0.5 dB at a time, and come up with the maximum SPL # you can possibly eke out. AND you're trying to nail down the precise spot, at X dB SPL where you're golden, and then +1 or +2 dB later, you're hosed. And then not do that.  So my caution to you is that, a) I don't think you can BE that precise, and b) een if you could, there are other mitigating factors that could conspire to ruin your carefully calculated scenario. E.g., how LONG you run the levels "hot". Which is to say, you can do exactly the same thing, at exactly the same levels, and be totally fine in one case, simply because the time duration is such that the generated heat has time to dissipate. And then turn around and do the SAME, and fry your drivers because the second time you did it for longer. 




> I wonder if we pick up maybe half-credit for this since I would think rear surrounds often are sending mostly the same signal, but not always.


And again, the trap of trying to eke out every tiny bit that you can.  Is your goal to be _"mostly, but not always safe"_? That's what I'm concerned that you're setting yourself up for.




> Guys - is there any way to disconnect the speakers and actually scientifically measure the amount of power being sent to the speaker? So instead of guessing we could know "yes peak output to that speaker was 180w or 250w or warning warning warning over 300w"?


Well, sure. That's always possible, though it requires either specialized equipment, or specialized knowledge. I say that because it's pretty easy to connect a voltmeter, and monitor voltage levels. But that's unlikely to show you the peak levels you're interested in, with any type of dynamic content. And then you have to translate that from volts into watts. A lot better would be a 'scope, or DSO. And while I'm an oddball that has half a dozen of those (at home!), I doubt you have one just sitting around. Best would be something like a LeCroy MSO (which no one has ever heard of), which can be programmed to take an input signal being monitored, and perform math on it *in real-time*. So essentially it does the V-sqr/R, and displays instantaneous Watts of power. And can do so on a spectrum graph. That way you can eyeball it, and see exactly what's going on.... at any point on the frequency chart.

Possibly better than that (complexity) though, might be a fast-thermal transfer sensor, which monitors the temperature on some specific spot on the KEF driver. You'd have to discuss that with KEF engineering though, because only they would know WHERE to attach that, and what the transfer coefficients were, to know from the outside what was going on inside. That's the kind of thing you run into with folks overclocking CPUs, not their rear-surround tweeters. 




> It would be great if there was some sort of limiter that could guard the speakers, where I could say never deliver more than x watts into this channel for more than x milliseconds type of thing. I think QSC has some stuff to do it but very pricey and makes sense only as a part of their larger use-case.


Yes, that is doable too, but costs. And there are so few that would want to pay for it, that it's really not a viable general product. People just decide not to run their systems so close to red-line.  You hot-rodder, you.


And now, sadly, I am out of gas, and out of time.  I feel carpal-tunnel setting in. Hopefully the above will be of some assistance. 

[I'm just gonna cross my fingers and shoot this off w/o proofreading it. And hope I haven't made any errors that are TOO embarrassing.]


----------



## lovingdvd

VideoGrabber said:


> Wow!  That's a mouthful! I'm not going to have time to comprehensively address all the points you raised, but I will comment on a few.
> 
> 
> First off, I admire your interest in digging in, and trying to really understand what's going on here. Kudos for that. But OTOH, it seems to me like some of what you're attempting to do in accurately honing in on exactly where your limit is will be limited by tolerances and ranges that none of us here can accurately assess. You and we can say +1 dB here and -2 dB there, and run through all the component factors that feed into this. And you're (understandably) trying to finesse 0.5 dB here and there as well, to eke out the max.
> 
> But the problem is that some of this is guess, and some may be wishful thinking. And when you get done, all those tolerance windows add up... they don't cancel out, or average. So when you asked me what impact I thought this and that may have had, I would concur with both Gary and Mike that it all does shift things up a bit. Perhaps something closer to 100 dB SPL may be a more "accurate" limit. But at the same time, those guesses go from +/-2 dB to maybe +/-5 dB. At the end of the day, at the conservative end of the range you're going to be just fine. And the closer you get to the "probably" OK end, the more you're flirting with disaster.  So, from my POV, your questions start to become, how risk-tolerant do you want to be?  [I was going to inject an Eastwood, _"Are you feelin' lucky..."_, but decided to resist the temptation.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you have identified the contributing factors. One question you will have to make a decision on is after finding a realistic estimate, how close to the danger zone are you willing to flirt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's some pretty good insight right there. Your ears couldn't tolerate it, but in a special (and rather unique) case THEY can, but your speakers can't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a well-taken point that needs to be observed by more folks, as previously ambient channels start to carry larger burdens. And while those support channels ARE getting more surround and immersive content, they still generally do not start competing on an equal footing with the fronts. At least not in my limited experience. And for those that do try it, the result with most speakers will _most often_ be *distortion before destruction*.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out ways to describe in an understandable way what I know only intuitively. And may even be guessing at here. Let's give this a shot: with most speakers, if you look at their distortion curves, they have a ramping up portion where they go from a low level of distortion to mid to high level. And you hear that, because there is a ramp. And back off. The KEFs you have may possess a different characteristic curve, where their distortion remains very low, even when pushed up to, *and even beyond* the point they were meant to operate. And then there is suddenly a huge "knee" in the curve, as the distortion suddenly spikes, and the transducer rapidly overheats. And to be clear, I'm not saying this IS the case with the KEF Uni-Qs... just that is a possibility that crossed my mind.
> 
> The other related issue is that from the Specs on these speakers, I see their range is stratospheric. I.e., they're rated up to 28 kHz. From my POV that is always a double-edged sword. It's good, because that means the speaker is very transparent through the entire audible bandwidth, and beyond. But it can also be dangerous, because if (for whatever reason... source material, harmonic distortion products, etc.) the speaker is asked to produce 'ultra' sonic frequencies, it will definitely do so... whether YOU and I can hear them, or not. So things we can't even hear can wind up causing a meltdown. And again, I'm not saying that IS what happened, but that type of thing CAN happen.
> 
> Lastly, I wanted to at least mention in passing that a 4 ohm speaker is not a 4 ohm speaker... at all frequencies. At some points it may be higher than that, and at others, lower. And what THAT means is that if the KEF drops lower at certain frequencies, even *more* current will flow. Which results in greater heat. But now we're getting a bit esoteric. And the KEFs may actually be 4 ohms _minimum_. ?? Since I haven't seen their impedance graph, I can't speak to that... only speculate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The most important take-away relating to that, from MY perspective, is that Audyssey does not know what the limits are for a speaker. If you ask for more, it will try. And the speaker will try. And you wind up replacing drivers.  It's up to you to know where to draw the line, because Audyssey doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, sure. You were just fine... right up to the point where you no longer were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. To either this factor, or any of the others. You can push things right up to the limit, and not even know. Then take the next 1 step past, and your luck runs out. So perhaps the point I'm trying to make is that to really avoid this in the future, you need to provide yourself with more than a razor-thin safety margin, based on a hopeful and very detailed analysis of factors *you can't precisely pinpoint*.  Though you are definitely trying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it really is AT fabric, I'd be kind of shocked if it were more than 1 dB. Or perhaps 2. But it does worry me when you state "maybe" -3 dB, or more. This isn't a factor you want to guess at. And when you start talking about numbers at that level, you are really burning any headroom you had, at a horrific pace. But hopefully, that isn't really the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short answer, yes, these speakers have a sensitivity of just 87 dbW. That is, with respect to 1 Watt. Longer answer is that due to some games that got played, the industry shifted to reporting things at 2.83V input (a voltage reference). And V-sqr/R for an 8-ohm driver is 8/8 = 1 watt. But at 4 ohms, that requires 2 watts to achieve that 90 dB rating. So to "normalize" things, you need to drop that 90 dB down to 87 dB.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO! Tell me it isn't so!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want to skip over this one, because I think it's an important question. But yes, as long as you compensate the overall balance, such a thing is just fine. The question then becomes if you're satisfied with the price you're paying, for the alternate benefit you're receiving.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You may be totally correct, since I see nothing wrong with what you are suggesting. BUT, it does sound dangerous to me, because KEF isn't making any such claim. Why not?
> 
> In real-life, I'm an engineer, and I don't like making assumptions that are not based on supported facts. 'Maybe' and 'probably' aren't in my professional dictionary.  Even when I'm just doing hobby stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And now we've arrived at what initiated my opening remarks. You're trying to finesse things, 0.5 dB at a time, and come up with the maximum SPL # you can possibly eke out. AND you're trying to nail down the precise spot, at X dB SPL where you're golden, and then +1 or +2 dB later, you're hosed. And then not do that.  So my caution to you is that, a) I don't think you can BE that precise, and b) een if you could, there are other mitigating factors that could conspire to ruin your carefully calculated scenario. E.g., how LONG you run the levels "hot". Which is to say, you can do exactly the same thing, at exactly the same levels, and be totally fine in one case, simply because the time duration is such that the generated heat has time to dissipate. And then turn around and do the SAME, and fry your drivers because the second time you did it for longer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, the trap of trying to eke out every tiny bit that you can.  Is your goal to be _"mostly, but not always safe"_? That's what I'm concerned that you're setting yourself up for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, sure. That's always possible, though it requires either specialized equipment, or specialized knowledge. I say that because it's pretty easy to connect a voltmeter, and monitor voltage levels. But that's unlikely to show you the peak levels you're interested in, with any type of dynamic content. And then you have to translate that from volts into watts. A lot better would be a 'scope, or DSO. And while I'm an oddball that has half a dozen of those (at home!), I doubt you have one just sitting around. Best would be something like a LeCroy MSO (which no one has ever heard of), which can be programmed to take an input signal being monitored, and perform math on it *in real-time*. So essentially it does the V-sqr/R, and displays instantaneous Watts of power. And can do so on a spectrum graph. That way you can eyeball it, and see exactly what's going on.... at any point on the frequency chart.
> 
> Possibly better than that (complexity) though, might be a fast-thermal transfer sensor, which monitors the temperature on some specific spot on the KEF driver. You'd have to discuss that with KEF engineering though, because only they would know WHERE to attach that, and what the transfer coefficients were, to know from the outside what was going on inside. That's the kind of thing you run into with folks overclocking CPUs, not their rear-surround tweeters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is doable too, but costs. And there are so few that would want to pay for it, that it's really not a viable general product. People just decide not to run their systems so close to red-line.  You hot-rodder, you.
> 
> 
> And now, sadly, I am out of gas, and out of time.  I feel carpal-tunnel setting in. Hopefully the above will be of some assistance.
> 
> [I'm just gonna cross my fingers and shoot this off w/o proofreading it. And hope I haven't made any errors that are TOO embarrassing.]


Amazing post and full of great answers for me and others to learn from - thank you so much for that.

You raise a great point. There is a lot of educated guesswork here, and all those guess could have us off by several dB, as far as where things really max out. That is why ideally it would be fantastic to know exactly how many watts were being put out in several extreme use case scenarios like the one that blew the tweeters. For instance I could reproduce that same scenario and see wow I sent 500 watts to those speakers, ok we know not to do that. The number obtained from that is useful because if it was 500 watts that blew them vs say 300 watts, then we have a great sense for where the line may be.

One clarification I'd like to make is that I do not want to know where the line is in the sand so that I can tip-toe right up to it and stop within 1dB. Rather, I want to know exactly where the line is so that I can then set a safe zone around it, which is not TOO conservative. Especially now, because I was burned by this experience and now I am going to be paranoid. Whereas before I was blissfully ignorant that I could blow a tweeter at those levels.

For example, I think 100dB is a fairly conservative line in the sand. If I choose that, then I would want to give myself say a 3dB cushion. Which meant never driving the system beyond 97dB, That's 8dB below reference and would be disappointing not to go louder. But if I knew 100dB was an accurate line in the sand I would have to try and stick to it. Well, what if the line in the sand is really 105dB. Now I can leave myself a 3dB cushion and say I will not play any louder than -3dB MV. That to me is very acceptable, because I NEVER listen louder than that. Except that once with Chicago - whoooops. 

Given that I have watched dozens of movies over the past year at around -4 to -5 dB MV since I set up the room and never had an issue, I think it is safe to continue to do that, provided I don't bring the rear levels up any further. Perhaps also switch to 100hz xo for those rears as Gary suggested to add a little more safety buffer

*Guys - there is one other scenario that comes to mind of something I did fairly recently that may have caused an issue....* Recall that I THINK the tweeters blew out while watching Chicago after raising those levels. However I can't be sure. I'll give 95% odds tho. However, about 3 weeks ago I rented a HDX movie from FandangoNow. I think it was Iron Man 3. I sent my MV to my usually -5dB-ish and the movie was really low. I wound up putting the volume up to about +10dB in order for it to sound like I normally listen to. And yes I am confident it was around the equivilent of -5dB give or take a few dB. However I couldn't hear it, but my guest said the speaker had a hiss to them (that went away when I muted or turned the MV back below 0dB. There was no unusual loud noise or anything odd with the audio during the movie and it sounded quite good. With hindsight this seems like a really bad idea to do such a thing. Could this have caused my blown tweeter issue? If there is source material that is really low like this movie was, is it ever OK to crank up the volume significantly to compensate, even if it means you are going as high a +10dB over reference?


----------



## drh3b

lovingdvd said:


> *Guys - there is one other scenario that comes to mind of something I did fairly recently that may have caused an issue....* Recall that I THINK the tweeters blew out while watching Chicago after raising those levels. However I can't be sure. I'll give 95% odds tho. However, about 3 weeks ago I rented a HDX movie from FandangoNow. I think it was Iron Man 3. I sent my MV to my usually -5dB-ish and the movie was really low. I wound up putting the volume up to about +10dB in order for it to sound like I normally listen to. And yes I am confident it was around the equivilent of -5dB give or take a few dB. However I couldn't hear it, but my guest said the speaker had a hiss to them (that went away when I muted or turned the MV back below 0dB. There was no unusual loud noise or anything odd with the audio during the movie and it sounded quite good. With hindsight this seems like a really bad idea to do such a thing. Could this have caused my blown tweeter issue? If there is source material that is really low like this movie was, is it ever OK to crank up the volume significantly to compensate, even if it means you are going as high a +10dB over reference?


I doubt it. That type of hiss is just you exploring the dynamic range of your amp. Apparently, the volume of the rental was so low that you had to turn your amp up so high that you heard the hiss. That is always there, it's just with a normal signal it's so far in the background you or anyone else can't hear it. If that low level hiss destroyed speakers, those of us that grew up in the seventies with our 100% analog sourced music, etc which had differing levels of hiss depending on the quality of the recording or our equipment would be going through speakers every day.

Signal/Noise ratio just isn't(which is what you were running up against) as important now as it was then. Pretty much any competently designed piece of modern electronics will have a good one these days, but back then, a much bigger issue.


----------



## garygarrison

*@lovingdvd:

*Some movies can fool you. I've run into a few in which the dialog was kept at a very low level in order to have the effects very loud, without breaching the full scale limit on the disk. If someone turns up the volume to make the dialog sound natural, the effects, and perhaps some of the music, in those movies will be above reference in the room, even though on the disk they will be at or below full scale. 

+ 10 dB is really asking for it! I thought Keith and I were the high volume champions at - 5 dB, but I stand corrected! 

I'm assuming you run your mains at SMALL. You should!

Some people here who usually playback at - 10, will turn up the subwoofer(s) a bit to provide more dynamic impact at a lower setting on the Main Volume Control. Before you even *think* about doing this, phone the manufacturer and discuss it with them, and read Mike's subwoofer strategy*: *"Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"


----------



## vn800art

@VideoGrabber : Sir, You are not only an experienced Engineer ( which I am not ), but a fine writer also, Chapeau, indeed. It's been a pleasure to read through Your post!

"I do have a screenshot of the graphic EQ results from my old Audyssey run. How are you suggesting I use that? Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying about these graphs and their usefulness. "

I only want to say You will run Audissey again after reassembling the speakers, so You can verify: 1) At what level Audissey set the high frequencies for your SB, 1 year ago. At this point You will have a look at the levels for all your speakers set, if you have one, also. And finally compare the same pages for the newly done cal..
Yesterday evening I checked mine and all speakers levels were in the -4 to -5 range, except the fronts which were -8 and -9 and the littlest one, the Vog, which was +1. Eq Graphics were scattered and no heavy and ample frequency amplification.
Some more about soldering. Here I can assure I have quite a good experience. If it's possible a Soldering Station with VARIABLE TEMPERATURE should be the best choice. Start experiment with some other spare pieces of wires and metal plates of similar thickness. In my opinion start with 70° C. My concerns with solders has always been not only applying too much , but also, having to do often with digital equipments, the transfer of unwanted transients, so I ended up in the last years (as I got pessimistic) using only a Gas solder, I used to bring as a safe soldering set on my sailing boat, should I have needed to redo some electrical connection. I also must say I used in the '80 a little hand pen solder ( maybe 40Watt) , always connected to the AC, to build a Weather Satellite scan converter, more than 60 IC, no errors and no fried IC. Remember to use frequently and keep at hand the wet sponge, to clean the tip and also lower its temperature. 
Must also add: wait for the pieces to arrive and start from there.
Keep posting as you need.

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk


----------



## lovingdvd

drh3b said:


> I doubt it. That type of hiss is just you exploring the dynamic range of your amp. Apparently, the volume of the rental was so low that you had to turn your amp up so high that you heard the hiss. That is always there, it's just with a normal signal it's so far in the background you or anyone else can't hear it. If that low level hiss destroyed speakers, those of use that grew up in the seventies with our 100% analog sourced music, etc which had differing levels of hiss depending on the quality of the recording or our equipment would be going through speakers every day.
> 
> Signal/Noise ratio just isn't(which is what you were running up against) as important now as it was then. Pretty much any competently designed piece of modern electronics will have a good one these days, but back then, a much bigger issue.


Thank you.



garygarrison said:


> *@lovingdvd:
> 
> *Some movies can fool you. I've run into a few in which the dialog was kept at a very low level in order to have the effects very loud, without breaching the full scale limit on the disk. If someone turns up the volume to make the dialog sound natural, the effects, and perhaps some of the music, in those movies will be above reference in the room, even though on the disk they will be at or below full scale.
> 
> + 10 dB is really asking for it! I thought Keith and I were the high volume champions at - 5 dB, but I stand corrected!
> 
> I'm assuming you run your mains at SMALL. You should!
> 
> Some people here who usually playback at - 10, will turn up the subwoofer(s) a bit to provide more dynamic impact at a lower setting on the Main Volume Control. Before you even *think* about doing this, phone the manufacturer and discuss it with them, and read Mike's subwoofer strategy*: *"Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"


Yes, all speakers including mains are set to small. I let the 4 18" subs handle the rest. Yes I run my subs about +5dB hot. Since I have 4 of them I get about a +6 dB boost, plus they can take a lot of power. According to the SPL calculator they can give me 115dB reference LFE.

To clarify, when I say I was at +10dB, it was only because the FandangoNow stream was so low. By my estimate about 15dB lower than it should have been. So although the MV was at +15dB, the volume level was more like -5dB. I was just wondering if it is safe to turn up the volume like that when the source level is so low?



vn800art said:


> "I do have a screenshot of the graphic EQ results from my old Audyssey run. How are you suggesting I use that? Sorry I didn't understand what you were saying about these graphs and their usefulness. "
> 
> I only want to say You will run Audissey again after reassembling the speakers, so You can verify: 1) At what level Audissey set the high frequencies for your SB, 1 year ago. At this point You will have a look at the levels for all your speakers set, if you have one, also. And finally compare the same pages for the newly done cal..
> 
> OK. Yes I have the EQ graphs and can compare them. They will probably look quite similar. I also have a UMC-1 and REW and I will measure a sweep to make sure the new tweeter is working as expected after repair.
> 
> I also plan to measure a sweep with Audyssey off, and another one with Audyssey on, so that I can get an idea of how much boost it is applying and where. That way I can take that into account. I am not sure, but if Audyssey is adding +9dB pretty much to 4kHz and up, then I have to be extra careful about the master volume. I look forward to the new Audyssey in the 8802A replacement which will enable me, I think, to limit the amount of EQ it does. For instance there's no point of it boosting anything above 14kHz because I can't hear that anyway.
> 
> I am also going to try out a 100hz xo on those surround rears per Gary's recommendation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday evening I checked mine and all speakers levels were in the -4 to -5 range, except the fronts which were -8 and -9 and the littlest one, the Vog, which was +1. Eq Graphics were scattered and no heavy and ample frequency amplification.
> 
> 
> 
> I would be VERY careful with that VOG speaker and a +1 level, especially relative to your others which are much lower like -8dB. I learned this the hard way as you may have read above. You are essentially driving your "little" VOG speaker with 3x the power compared to your others - make sure its tweeter can handle that at your max listening volume!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some more about soldering. Here I can assure I have quite a good experience. If it's possible a Soldering Station with VARIABLE TEMPERATURE should be the best choice. Start experiment with some other spare pieces of wires and metal plates of similar thickness. In my opinion start with 70° C. My concerns with solders has always been not only applying too much , but also, having to do often with digital equipments, the transfer of unwanted transients, so I ended up in the last years (as I got pessimistic) using only a Gas solder, I used to bring as a safe soldering set on my sailing boat, should I have needed to redo some electrical connection. I also must say I used in the '80 a little hand pen solder ( maybe 40Watt) , always connected to the AC, to build a Weather Satellite scan converter, more than 60 IC, no errors and no fried IC. Remember to use frequently and keep at hand the wet sponge, to clean the tip and also lower its temperature.
> Must also add: wait for the pieces to arrive and start from there.
> Keep posting as you need.
> 
> Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the advice on the soldering. I am planning to pick up a 60w pencil soldering iron. My main concern besides having to work within a tight space is that there are two very tiny wires soldered in the back sides of those terminals. So I am concerned that too much heat where I am soldering may transfer to the back of the terminal and weaken the solder join where those little wires are. Hopefully I can be quick and get the front wires soldered in before too much heat transfers to the back of those terminals. See previous picture a few posts back in this thread for reference.
Click to expand...


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> ...Third, I would set a higher crossover for those speakers--probably at least 100Hz. That will reduce the possibility of high frequency distortion at higher volumes...


Mike - I wanted to circle back with you on this. Can you please explain the theory behind this recommendation and how it can help. My understanding is that too much power, even if pure and clean power, is what likely damaged my tweeter. So my confusion is this - I would think that raising the xo to 100hz reduces the power needs of the OTHER drivers on the speaker (it has two woofers plus a mid/tweeter together), but the amount of power (in this case, too much power) going to the tweeter seems like it would be the same, or perhaps even MORE, since the other drivers on the speaker need less power. I'm sure I am incorrect in my thinking because you wouldn't be recommending this otherwise. What am I missing here? Thanks!


----------



## vn800art

To have much clearer ideas, about what's happened, I believe it is useful to have a look at those 1 year ago Audissey settings. Maybe even one Eq graph referred to the other (side) surrounds!

Inviato dal mio ASUS_Z00AD utilizzando Tapatalk
Edit:
In reply to @lovingdvd : Yes the risk could be that the tweeter blows and something goes back to the Pioneer Vsx lx50 that drives it. The Vog channel is, nevertheless, rarely used in my opinion, as I scarcely play original Auro3d content. It's the weak piece in my setup, in all senses, but I'm not keen to break it to upgrade it! And after all it's 8Ohm, as all the other speakers, it's only the littlest one.
Thanks for your attention
Regards
Alessandro


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Mike - I wanted to circle back with you on this. Can you please explain the theory behind this recommendation and how it can help. My understanding is that too much power, even if pure and clean power, is what likely damaged my tweeter. So my confusion is this - I would think that raising the xo to 100hz reduces the power needs of the OTHER drivers on the speaker (it has two woofers plus a mid/tweeter together), but the amount of power (in this case, too much power) going to the tweeter seems like it would be the same, or perhaps even MORE, since the other drivers on the speaker need less power. I'm sure I am incorrect in my thinking because you wouldn't be recommending this otherwise. What am I missing here? Thanks!


You are welcome! I am not sure that you are missing anything here, and I am not sure that I am correct. But, I believe that your Rear Surrounds will sound perceptually louder with a slightly higher crossover, as your subs will be playing more of the mid-bass at the same master volume (and trim) level. If I were in your place, I would experiment with a 100Hz or higher crossover to see if it sounds better for those speakers than an 80Hz crossover does. If so, that should help you to enjoy the content from those speakers more, while actually putting less overall strain on them. YMMV!

Another issue that has come up a couple of times is what is a safe listening level and how does that correspond to a potential boost of your Rear Surrounds (RS)? I have recommended that you not boost your RS's above where Audyssey puts them in your preferred calibration, and that you keep your MV at -3 or lower. But, you could certainly trade MV for RS boost on a one-to-one basis. So, +2db of RS boost = -5 MV; and +3 RS boost = -6 MV. I think that would still be a reasonably conservative way to approach your HT listening.

Gary made another suggestion that I think is worth consideration. You could increase the overall excitement of your music and movie listening by increasing the bass rather than the master volume. If you want to explore that possibility, please refer to the subwoofer guide linked below. I can't speak for other people, but with sufficient bass, I am usually content with lower listening levels than I would be with less bass. When you are looking for ways to protect speakers from excessive volume, that could definitely be worth exploring. And, if you haven't already done that, it may really enhance your listening experience in the process.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## neelesh

Random question.... is there any way to do Audyssey only on the sub? I have a Denon s730h (2017) and I had to redo the entire speakers + sub when I got the new subwoofer, and I wanted to run the sub a few times with the dial on the back of the sub at different positions to see what sounds best, but I don't want to run everything again and again.


----------



## pbarach

^^
No, you can't just recalibrate the sub. The only dial you might change on your sub is the gain (volume), but why not change the sub trim in your receiver instead? Doing that doesn't change the Audyssey calibration that has been stored.


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! I am not sure that you are missing anything here, and I am not sure that I am correct. But, I believe that your Rear Surrounds will sound perceptually louder with a slightly higher crossover, as your subs will be playing more of the mid-bass at the same master volume (and trim) level. If I were in your place, I would experiment with a 100Hz or higher crossover to see if it sounds better for those speakers than an 80Hz crossover does. If so, that should help you to enjoy the content from those speakers more, while actually putting less overall strain on them. YMMV!


Thanks - I'll give the 100hz xo a try.



> Another issue that has come up a couple of times is what is a safe listening level and how does that correspond to a potential boost of your Rear Surrounds (RS)? I have recommended that you not boost your RS's above where Audyssey puts them in your preferred calibration, and that you keep your MV at -3 or lower. But, you could certainly trade MV for RS boost on a one-to-one basis. So, +2db of RS boost = -5 MV; and +3 RS boost = -6 MV. I think that would still be a reasonably conservative way to approach your HT listening.


OK. I will have to see if its worth the tradeoff. Once I rerun Audyssey and the mic above the seat back I want to see where it sets the levels for the SB, and will go from there.



> Gary made another suggestion that I think is worth consideration. You could increase the overall excitement of your music and movie listening by increasing the bass rather than the master volume. If you want to explore that possibility, please refer to the subwoofer guide linked below. I can't speak for other people, but with sufficient bass, I am usually content with lower listening levels than I would be with less bass. When you are looking for ways to protect speakers from excessive volume, that could definitely be worth exploring. And, if you haven't already done that, it may really enhance your listening experience in the process.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I am already running my subs +5dB hot.  I will check out the guide tho, thank you for that.

*OK guys so here's an update:* Tonight I got the replacement drivers installed and soldered in. Was a bit of a struggle as I anticipated and let's hope those connections hold over the years (the connections were strong as I left them), as I don't want to have to go back into the wall again. I also managed to get the speakers back into the wall, so "all" that remains is re-tucking the acoustic fabric which is no small feat (beveled 45 degree corners, pattern fabric that is a little more stretchy in one direction than the other, etc). Once a tool I order for tucking the fabric arrives next week I'll give that a try.

It got late so I did not have time to run any sweeps and take measurements, or to run Audyssey. But I did put my two SB speakers into the system as front L and R and played some "stereo" music and it sounded incredible. I can tell just by listening that the issue is resolved and apparently I connected the internal wiring correctly. Tomorrow, err I mean later today, I will rerun a full 8 mic position Audyseey (with the mic above the seatback!!) and see what I get. I will also take a near field and MLP measure of the SB speaker with and without Audyssey while the speaker has no acoustic fabric in front of it. Then I will repeat these sane measures next week when the fabric is reinstalled and see how that affects dB and FR.

Stay tuned!


----------



## lovingdvd

*Questions about the Pro Kit*

Hi guys - I had a few questions / comments about the Pro Kit after reading the FAQ please:

1. It says the Pro Kit mic is accurate +/- 0.5dB compared to the standard mic that is +/- 2dB. 2dB?  That is huge. I got the Marantz 8802A a year ago - am I correct to assume then that my Audyssey mic is +/- 2dB in accuracy? Yikes. Last thing I was for my EQ is Audyssey pushing up my high frequencies up to 2dB MORE than may actually be necessary.

2. I've heard people "talking" about the new Audyssey app that's compatible with more recent AVRs and that supposedly support for the app will be on the replacement 8802A, which I plan to get this spring (regardless, since I want the extra 2 channels of Atmos). I couldn't find anything in the FAQ about this app. Is there a separate thread/FAQ for the app? Does the app replace the need for the Pro Kit, or is the Pro Kit still even better than the app, and if so how do they compare?

3. From the FAQ on the Pro Kit it sounds like you can only tell Audyssey to adjust the curve +/- 3dB. Can you also set a cutoff point? For instance if I wanted to tell it not to EQ anything over 14kHz?

*On a separate note* - Once I have run my new 8 mic position Audyseey (XT32, non-pro) later today I am going to hook up my 8802A RCA preout, once speaker at a time, to my laptop and run REW for each channel both with Audyssey on and off. This should show me exactly what Audyssey has done with the EQ. What seems great about this approach is that I will be able to measure the with and without Audyssey based on the signal and not have any skew from a measurement microphone or from any room nodes etc. My goal in particular is to understand how much boost Audyssey is adding, and where, on each channel. This should help me in knowing how hard I can and cannot drive my system. For instance if I see it has added +9dB to my Surround Back channels, then I know I need to especially careful with those levels and the MV especially as I approach "reference". Well I ALREADY know I need to be especially careful of those speakers, but this should give me more data. Does this sound like a good approach and has anyone tried this?

Thanks!


----------



## jvorn33

*Audyssey issues with center channel aka I might be losing my mind*

Hey all! Big HT enthusiast that finally got their first real setup in the last 2 weeks and have been slowly driven crazy by Audyssey.

*Setup*
L/C/R: RSL CG23 Mointor/Center x3
Surrounds: RSL C34E In-Ceiling x2
Subwoofer: RSL Speedwoofer 10s x1
AVR: Denon AVR-x3300w

I specifically got the X3300W because it was the cheapest model with the highest version of Audyssey I could find. After my research I thought this to be important as I have what is basically the worst case scenario room (this is all for living room).

Its an open concept living room with vaulted ceilings, giant wall of glass to the right (sliders to deck), hard surfaces out the wazoo (kitchen behind cough full of granite, cabinets, ect) and hard flooring (vinyl). We do have a nice big rug that goes from couch all the way to AV cabinet though.

The speakers are all wall mounted (2 flanking L and R of TV and one center below TV) and the Sub is to the right of the AV cabinet.

I ran Audyssey with all the info I learned in the wonderful guides posted here (all 8 positions, 2 ft from center cushion of the main couch, had the mic on a boom, ect) and the non-dialog (stuff coming from the L & R) and bass sound amazing... but the center is driving me nuts. It is incredibly noticeable as the sound profile (at least to me) appears widely different than whats coming out of the L & R. The dialog sounds sort of high pitched (artificially so) when non booming voice speakers are talking, or when anyone is whispering.

For example on LOTR, anytime Gandalf talks is sounds pretty good (bass-y voice), but when the hobbits talk or anyone is whispering it sounds artificially high.

The strangest thing of all is I accidentally discovered the "Direct" button and all the sudden everything sounded amazing (albeit a bit too harsh/loud, but all the detail was back and all the dialog sounded perfect). This threw me for a loop as I always viewed my room as "worst case" and in dire need of room correction.... so why would it sound so much better in Direct?

Sorry for the length, just trying to add as much detail as I can (again, probably going crazy).

Audyssey Settings from memory:
Recommend crossovers was L/C/R: 60Hz, Surround: 100 Hz, Sub: 120 Hz. Manufacturer recommendation was 100 Hz for everything, tried both and couldn't really tell a huge difference.


----------



## BrigadierAngus

*Audyssey issues with center channel aka I might be losing my mind*

Sounds to me like you should use your ears and adjust with those instead of relying on audyssey.. in my opinion let audyssey set the distance for your speakers and you adjust the pitches of bass and treble manually.


edit: is there a dialogue volume adjustment available from denon? I’ve never used denon so I’m not too familiar but Id there is you should consider dialing in that as well

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jdsmoothie

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html


----------



## Alan P

Highly reflective rooms can make Audyssey lose it's mind as well. 

Post this over in the Audyssey thread linked above and you will get some suggestions. Pics of the space would be very helpful as well.


----------



## jvorn33

Alan P said:


> Highly reflective rooms can make Audyssey lose it's mind as well.
> 
> Post this over in the Audyssey thread linked above and you will get some suggestions. Pics of the space would be very helpful as well.


Will do when I get home. Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

jvorn33 said:


> Will do when I get home. Thanks!


No need, looks like a Mod already moved it for you.


----------



## mthomas47

jvorn33 said:


> Hey all! Big HT enthusiast that finally got their first real setup in the last 2 weeks and have been slowly driven crazy by Audyssey.
> 
> *Setup*
> L/C/R: RSL CG23 Mointor/Center x3
> Surrounds: RSL C34E In-Ceiling x2
> Subwoofer: RSL Speedwoofer 10s x1
> AVR: Denon AVR-x3300w
> 
> I specifically got the X3300W because it was the cheapest model with the highest version of Audyssey I could find. After my research I thought this to be important as I have what is basically the worst case scenario room (this is all for living room).
> 
> Its an open concept living room with vaulted ceilings, giant wall of glass to the right (sliders to deck), hard surfaces out the wazoo (kitchen behind cough full of granite, cabinets, ect) and hard flooring (vinyl). We do have a nice big rug that goes from couch all the way to AV cabinet though.
> 
> The speakers are all wall mounted (2 flanking L and R of TV and one center below TV) and the Sub is to the right of the AV cabinet.
> 
> I ran Audyssey with all the info I learned in the wonderful guides posted here (all 8 positions, 2 ft from center cushion of the main couch, had the mic on a boom, ect) and the non-dialog (stuff coming from the L & R) and bass sound amazing... but the center is driving me nuts. It is incredibly noticeable as the sound profile (at least to me) appears widely different than whats coming out of the L & R. The dialog sounds sort of high pitched (artificially so) when non booming voice speakers are talking, or when anyone is whispering.
> 
> For example on LOTR, anytime Gandalf talks is sounds pretty good (bass-y voice), but when the hobbits talk or anyone is whispering it sounds artificially high.
> 
> The strangest thing of all is I accidentally discovered the "Direct" button and all the sudden everything sounded amazing (albeit a bit too harsh/loud, but all the detail was back and all the dialog sounded perfect). This threw me for a loop as I always viewed my room as "worst case" and in dire need of room correction.... so why would it sound so much better in Direct?
> 
> Sorry for the length, just trying to add as much detail as I can (again, probably going crazy).
> 
> Audyssey Settings from memory:
> Recommend crossovers was L/C/R: 60Hz, Surround: 100 Hz, Sub: 120 Hz. Manufacturer recommendation was 100 Hz for everything, tried both and couldn't really tell a huge difference.


Hi,

Before we throw Audyssey under the bus,  I think that I would try a little trouble-shooting. My first thought when you said that your left and right front speakers were wall-mounted, and your CC was under the Display, was that you might have some issues with timbre matching. If you can attach a picture or two of your front soundstage it will help. I would like to see how the CC is positioned, and also where it is relative to the front speakers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

*Back up and running, and why Audyssey is too Bright*

Hi guys - OK so I repaired the blown tweeters in the Surround Back (SB) and they are installed back in the wall. The acoustic fabric however is not back in place over the SB because I am waiting on a tool to arrive for that. I reran Audyssey this time with the mic above the seatback position. It picked -4.5dB for the Level of the SB. Previously it had picked -3.0dB, but that was with the fabric in front of it so that accounts for the difference. 

Attached are the results. Note the extreme EQ Audyssey is applying the HF in most of the speakers. My acoustic engineer explained what is happening. He said that if you measure a KEF farfield "power response" (like Audyssey does) without any EQ applied, you will see that the mid and high frequencies taper off. This is due to the speaker directivity and is intentionally part of the design. He says that Audyssey is seeing this designed tapering and mistaking that for something that needs to be corrected. In trying flatten the response it is therefore boosting the on-axis response of the speaker, even though this is well outside the region of the frequency range where the response is room dominated.

This causes two issues: 1) It is making the audio too "bright" by applying as much as +9dB boost across almost the entire 1kHZ and up region of many of the speakers (again, see the EQ graphs!). I read the FAQ about bright-sounding results and that info did not apply to this situation. The brightness is Audyssey mistaking a designed curve that tapers and trying to flatten it. And 2) This excessive amount of EQ is then dangerous to the tweeter as I approach reference. For instance even if I am -3dB below reference, if it's applying 9dB of boost to 1kHz and up, the tweeter may be essentially getting the equvilent of having the MV at +6dB. Whereas if I wasn't applying much if any boost to the HF range, say of the SB in particular, then I get a LOT more headroom to safely play closer to reference. So considering I don't need this extra boost in the first place, this just makes matters worse.

As I understand it, Dirac does not take this same approach of just blindly trying to flatten the response curve. However I really do not want to get into MiniDSP to get Dirac (especially messy for 16 channel calibration) or switch to another AVP that has it like a Datasat. 

Therefore it seems my best option is to TRY and be patient and wait for the 8802A replacement, which will support the Audyssey app. From what I've read, it sounds like the Audyssey app will give me MUCH more control, and allow me to limit the boost that it can apply and shape the curve.

That said, it will be a long wait between now and spring with my system being overly bright and me being concerned about playing too loudly and together with the Audyssey boost damaging more speakers. I assume there is no way to limit Audyssey's boost or control its curve currently with the 8802A. And I MUST use it, because it is doing a marvelous job for the low end < 200 Hz.

Edit: In the pics it shows the Audyssey crossovers it picked, however I changed them all to 80hz and set the speakers it marked as Large back to Small.

Ideas? Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Hi guys - OK so I repaired the blown tweeters in the Surround Back (SB) and they are installed back in the wall. The acoustic fabric however is not back in place over the SB because I am waiting on a tool to arrive for that. I reran Audyssey this time with the mic above the seatback position. It picked -4.5dB for the Level of the SB. Previously it had picked -3.0dB, but that was with the fabric in front of it so that accounts for the difference.
> 
> Attached are the results. Note the extreme EQ Audyssey is applying the HF in most of the speakers. My acoustic engineer explained what is happening. He said that if you measure a KEF farfield "power response" (like Audyssey does) without any EQ applied, you will see that the mid and high frequencies taper off. This is due to the speaker directivity and is intentionally part of the design. He says that Audyssey is seeing this designed tapering and mistaking that for something that needs to be corrected. In trying flatten the response it is therefore boosting the on-axis response of the speaker, even though this is well outside the region of the frequency range where the response is room dominated.
> 
> This causes two issues: 1) It is making the audio too "bright" by applying as much as +9dB boost across almost the entire 1kHZ and up region of many of the speakers (again, see the EQ graphs!). I read the FAQ about bright-sounding results and that info did not apply to this situation. The brightness is Audyssey mistaking a designed curve that tapers and trying to flatten it. And 2) This excessive amount of EQ is then dangerous to the tweeter as I approach reference. For instance even if I am -3dB below reference, if it's applying 9dB of boost to 1kHz and up, the tweeter may be essentially getting the equvilent of having the MV at +6dB. Whereas if I wasn't applying much if any boost to the HF range, say of the SB in particular, then I get a LOT more headroom to safely play closer to reference. So considering I don't need this extra boost in the first place, this just makes matters worse.
> 
> As I understand it, Dirac does not take this same approach of just blindly trying to flatten the response curve. However I really do not want to get into MiniDSP to get Dirac (especially messy for 16 channel calibration) or switch to another AVP that has it like a Datasat.
> 
> Therefore it seems my best option is to TRY and be patient and wait for the 8802A replacement, which will support the Audyssey app. From what I've read, it sounds like the Audyssey app will give me MUCH more control, and allow me to limit the boost that it can apply and shape the curve.
> 
> That said, it will be a long wait between now and spring with my system being overly bright and me being concerned about playing too loudly and together with the Audyssey boost damaging more speakers. I assume there is no way to limit Audyssey's boost or control its curve currently with the 8802A. And I MUST use it, because it is doing a marvelous job for the low end < 200 Hz.
> 
> Edit: In the pics it shows the Audyssey crossovers it picked, however I changed them all to 80hz and set the speakers it marked as Large back to Small.
> 
> Ideas? Thanks!


We may have to rename this thread the Official and Perpetual Blown KEF Tweeter Support Thread.  Just kidding--sort of.

Forget the relatively meaningless graphs for a moment. When you say the audio is too bright, what do you mean? Do you mean that you read it in a graph that the creator of Audyssey considers an essentially worthless marketing device? Or do you mean that your audio actually sounds too bright to you? If it's the latter, can you really hear a difference in the high frequencies coming from the rear surrounds? If the entire audio system sounds too bright, there may be some specific things that can be done to address that. And, to do that, we would need pictures of your room. But, I will only help if you promise to quit looking at the internal graphs. 

Sometimes people become obsessed with REW and chase tiny dips in the overall frequency response (that can't be heard) for months. I saw one person literally chase a dip at 70Hz for months. And, as is typically the case with narrow dips, it was never audible. You may enjoy the distinction of being the first person to become obsessed with the internal pre-Audyssey (not post-Audyssey) graphs. I promise you that Audyssey is not applying a consistent 9db boost to the rear surrounds from 1000Hz and up. That wouldn't be at all the way that Audyssey works, and it isn't at all consistent with the native frequency response of your speakers. They don't begin rolling off at 1000Hz and continue to be rolled-off all the way up to and above 10,000Hz. 

The bottom line here is that if you observe good trim/MV discipline with those speakers you will be fine, and if you don't you won't. And, other than observing that discipline, my primary focus at this point would just be on getting my system to sound good. I hope that my post does not come across as unduly harsh, because I have genuinely wanted to be helpful to you. And, I still feel that way.  

But, you are chasing your tail in circles at this point. If you want to get REW and measure what Audyssey is actually doing with your various speakers, that is one thing. But, becoming anxious about what you see in those internal graphs is a complete waste of your time right now. Just get your system sounding good, and don't go crazy with your rear surround trim and your master volume. And, include room pictures and a description of what you hear if you like, in place of graphs.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> We may have to rename this thread the Official and Perpetual Blown KEF Tweeter Support Thread.  Just kidding--sort of.
> 
> Forget the relatively meaningless graphs for a moment. When you say the audio is too bright, what do you mean? Do you mean that you read it in a graph that the creator of Audyssey considers an essentially worthless marketing device? Or do you mean that your audio actually sounds too bright to you? If it's the latter, can you really hear a difference in the high frequencies coming from the rear surrounds? If the entire audio system sounds too bright, there may be some specific things that can be done to address that. And, to do that, we would need pictures of your room. But, I will only help if you promise to quit looking at the internal graphs.


What I mean by too bright is what I am actually hearing, not what is in the graphs. It sounds overly harsh and shrill, especially at higher volumes (but way short of reference, like -15dB). As an example, I was listening to a MQA track of Prince in two channel mode (nothing to do with Rear Surrounds, we are past the blown tweeters at this point!  ) and in certain parts he is all but screaming (if you can recall that classic Prince "loud signing") and it was so shrill I had to turn it way down. That is just one example.



> Sometimes people become obsessed with REW and chase tiny dips in the overall frequency response (that can't be heard) for months. I saw one person literally chase a dip at 70Hz for months. And, as is typically the case with narrow dips, it was never audible. You may enjoy the distinction of being the first person to become obsessed with the internal pre-Audyssey (not post-Audyssey) graphs. I promise you that Audyssey is not applying a consistent 9db boost to the rear surrounds from 1000Hz and up.


Glad to hear those graphs are essentially meaningless. Too bad they do not show you either what it measured pre and post calibration, and/or a summary of what it ACTUALLY changed.



> That wouldn't be at all the way that Audyssey works, and it isn't at all consistent with the native frequency response of your speakers. They don't begin rolling off at 1000Hz and continue to be rolled-off all the way up to and above 10,000Hz.


From what I recall, when measured on-axis, the KEFs begin to roll off around 4kHZ and drop about 5dB until it reaches about 10kHZ, where it then flattens out again the rest of the way up to 20kHz and beyond. Again, that's from memory, but my acoustic engineer who is very familiar with these speakers as specifically told me that they are designed to roll off. And that Audyssey may be attempting to undo that, thinking it is helping, but overdoing it in the process.



> The bottom line here is that if you observe good trim/MV discipline with those speakers you will be fine, and if you don't you won't. And, other than observing that discipline, my primary focus at this point would just be on getting my system to sound good. I hope that my post does not come across as unduly harsh, because I have genuinely wanted to be helpful to you. And, I still feel that way.
> 
> But, you are chasing your tail in circles at this point. If you want to get REW and measure what Audyssey is actually doing with your various speakers, that is one thing. But, becoming anxious about what you see in those internal graphs is a complete waste of your time right now. Just get your system sounding good, and don't go crazy with your rear surround trim and your master volume. And, include room pictures and a description of what you hear if you like, in place of graphs.


In my younger days I would spend hours for just the smallest amount of improvement. Heck, now I just want to watch/listen and this calibration stuff is just a hurdle. So I am not looking to spend any more time than necessary on this. That said there are a few outstanding concerns:

1. What exactly is Audyssey doing with the boosts? Whether such boost are desirable or not, I need to know what they are, so I can take this into account for my overall MV. I went from "ignorance is bliss" and enjoying my system at whatever level I wanted, to complete paranoia after the blown tweeters. That was my bad, not Audyssey per se. But regardless I need to know what and where the boosts are so I can be sure not to repeat the same mistake. I am struggling with REW at the moment to be able to measure directly off the pre-outs with/without Audyssey and then I will know based on the signal itself exactly what it is doing.

2. As mentioned before, the concern is that Audyssey may be thinking its helping by flattening out the response, but the design of the speaker is not meant for that. So I will need more control over what it is doing and so I can set limits and curves. This will mean getting a new AVP which I am planning to do regardless (to get 2 more Atmos channels) that will then have the Audyssey app support, and or switching to Dirac if I can't get the level of control from Audyssey (but sounds like I can with the app). For instance some folks don't do any correction or very limited correction above the Schroeder Frequency - perhaps that'll work best in my room. But I don't have any way to do that at the moment with Audyssey XT32.

Thanks again!


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> What I mean by too bright is what I am actually hearing, not what is in the graphs. It sounds overly harsh and shrill, especially at higher volumes (but way short of reference, like -15dB). As an example, I was listening to a MQA track of Prince in two channel mode (nothing to do with Rear Surrounds, we are past the blown tweeters at this point!  ) and in certain parts he is all but screaming (if you can recall that classic Prince "loud signing") and it was so shrill I had to turn it way down. That is just one example.
> 
> Glad to hear those graphs are essentially meaningless. Too bad they do not show you either what it measured pre and post calibration, and/or a summary of what it ACTUALLY changed.
> 
> From what I recall, when measured on-axis, the KEFs begin to roll off around 4kHZ and drop about 5dB until it reaches about 10kHZ, where it then flattens out again the rest of the way up to 20kHz and beyond. Again, that's from memory, but my acoustic engineer who is very familiar with these speakers as specifically told me that they are designed to roll off. And that Audyssey may be attempting to undo that, thinking it is helping, but overdoing it in the process.
> 
> In my younger days I would spend hours for just the smallest amount of improvement. Heck, now I just want to watch/listen and this calibration stuff is just a hurdle. So I am not looking to spend any more time than necessary on this. That said there are a few outstanding concerns:
> 
> 1. What exactly is Audyssey doing with the boosts? Whether such boost are desirable or not, I need to know what they are, so I can take this into account for my overall MV. I went from "ignorance is bliss" and enjoying my system at whatever level I wanted, to complete paranoia after the blown tweeters. That was my bad, not Audyssey per se. But regardless I need to know what and where the boosts are so I can be sure not to repeat the same mistake. I am struggling with REW at the moment to be able to measure directly off the pre-outs with/without Audyssey and then I will know based on the signal itself exactly what it is doing.
> 
> 2. As mentioned before, the concern is that Audyssey may be thinking its helping by flattening out the response, but the design of the speaker is not meant for that. So I will need more control over what it is doing and so I can set limits and curves. This will mean getting a new AVP which I am planning to do regardless (to get 2 more Atmos channels) that will then have the Audyssey app support, and or switching to Dirac if I can't get the level of control from Audyssey (but sounds like I can with the app). For instance some folks don't do any correction or very limited correction above the Schroeder Frequency - perhaps that'll work best in my room. But I don't have any way to do that at the moment with Audyssey XT32.
> 
> Thanks again!


You are welcome, and I'm still glad to try to help. But, to do that, I will need to see pictures of your room. If in your last calibration, Audyssey over-boosted your high frequencies somehow, that is likely due to some aspect of your calibration technique. It didn't seem to be happening from your prior calibration, so it is very likely to be something that we can trouble-shoot. But, if I am going to invest that amount of time in it, I would like to be thorough and see pictures of your front soundstage and at least the front row of your seating. I also would like to see a photo taken from in front of your seating to the rear surrounds, so that I can get a sense of the angle involved.

I think it is likely that in trying to cater to the rear surrounds you simply got the mic too high or too near the chair. But, I don't want to jump to conclusions, so if you really want to work on this you will need to attach some photos. Every calibration can be different, and sometimes changing a single variable can make a significant difference. For that reason, most of us memorialize our more successful calibrations in a log or a diagram so that we can repeat them if necessary. Using Audyssey is part science and part art, as is the case with many tools. Some of us get lucky at the outset and sometimes we have to work at it a little.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> ... My acoustic engineer explained what is happening. He said that if you measure a KEF* farfield "power response" (like Audyssey does)* without any EQ applied, you will see that the mid and high frequencies taper off. This is due to the speaker directivity and is intentionally part of the design. He says that Audyssey is seeing this designed tapering and mistaking that for something that needs to be corrected. In trying flatten the response it is therefore boosting the on-axis response of the speaker, even though this is well outside the region of the frequency range where the response is room dominated. ...


 I think I remember that your rear surrounds are aimed 45 degrees into the room (as speakers in a 90 degree corner tend to be). Do straight lines coming from your rear surrounds cross behind your head (and behind the Audyssey mic positions), approximately at your ears (and the mics), or in front of your head (and the mics)?
.
I don't remember whether you tend to use Audyssey Reference (just plain Audysey) or Audyssey Flat. Audyssey Ref will roll off the treble by imposing a slope that the Audyssey engineers feel is correct for a Home Theater size room. It is much gentler that the X-curve (which is beginning to fall into disfavor even for commercial cinemas) and somewhat gentler than the SMPTE curve for 30 seat theaters, but still amounts to a very audible cut, resulting in -2 dB at 10K Hz, down to -6 dB at 20K Hz. It also imposes a dip centered at about 2K Hz to pull down any harshness at that point. Chris K. said he never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with that dip in place. Some others disagree. To me, with my system in my room, most music/movies sound better with Audyssey Flat, but some sound better with just plain Audyssey. 

Where do your KEFs crossover (internally)? They are 2-way, right?

Audyssey -- even XT32 --- attempts to make some corrections for gross loudspeaker anomalies as well as room effects, and, IMO, it should. XT32 invests most of the correction on the bass end, but still makes some correction at the top. It will turn down treble that is too loud, as well as boosting treble that is too soft (compared to flat). In my case, a broad peak at about 8K is turned down by Audyssey, but frequencies above 10K are turned up 4 to 5 dB. Your room may be deader than the average room Audyssey encounters. Sometimes, at least in my experience, reproduction that sounds too bright is actually bass shy, i.e., the treble and upper midrange are more or less flat, but the bass is attenuated. It's relative. Vinyl is notorious in this regard, because, I'm told, bass takes up a great deal of space, so bass is often rolled off in the mix. Movies that were remastered for disk in the early days of home theater, and not remastered recently, often have both bass and dynamics cut back to protect the little 3" or less speaker in many TVs. With modern Home Theater, with subwoofers, bass management, crossovers at the F3 or above and a separate LPF for LFE, this is hardly necessary, but without remastering, bass is sometimes rolled off. I suspect that the makers of flat screen TVs have responded to the tiny speaker blow out problem by inserting a HPF in the line. When we hooked a decent sound system up to a flat-screen we bought for the bedroom, and used "Audio-out" there was hardly any bass through very bass capable speakers. 

I, too, am trying to learn, so I'm curious about some things your engineer said: 1) I have usually heard "power response," as being taken in a sphere all around the speaker. I don't think Audyssey does that, but instead measures both the direct sound and the reflections from the 8 mic positions, both on and off axis, from wherever the 8 positions are, but typically from the audience area, and not in a circle, let alone a sphere, around the speaker. In any case, it seems to me that measurements in a sphere would not be very useful to Audyssey, especially with in wall speakers. Maybe the definition has changed, as is everything around my aging self. 2) Is your engineer saying that the KEFs are designed to roll off in the treble ONLY when heard or measured at a considerable distance, i.e., they would have had appreciably less roll-off at 1 meter? Or do they roll off about the same in the nearfield and farfield, providing they are equally close to being on-axis when measured from nearby or far? I recall seeing two 20 to 20K frequency plots of the same speaker, in an ordinary room (i.e. *not* anechoic), one at 2 feet from a speaker, and one at 16 feet from the same speaker, both on axis, in which the high frequencies were approximately the same, *especially* above about 5K ... hardly any variation with distance in the treble, but the two curves were quite different at 70 Hz (room modes?).


----------



## VideoGrabber

mthomas47 said:


> ... I will need to see pictures of your room.
> 
> I also would like to see a photo taken from in front of your seating to the rear surrounds, so that I can get a sense of the angle involved.


I'd agree that would be helpful, but IIRC, LD indicated at one point that his room is 16' wide, and 31' deep. So that does give us something to work with. (And I think his ceilings are low... like 7.5 feet? Which would be consistent with my recollection of about 3700 cuFt volume.)




garygarrison said:


> I think I remember that your rear surrounds are aimed 45 degrees into the room (as speakers in a 90 degree corner tend to be). Do straight lines coming from your rear surrounds cross behind your head (and behind the Audyssey mic positions), approximately at your ears (and the mics), or in front of your head (and the mics)?


Since his rear surrounds are corner-mounted, at 45-degrees, that implies that at the lateral mid-point (8' from each sidewall), his rears cross at the same distance out, as in. Thus also 8'. And his row of seating is even further forward than that. About 12.5-feet, from a back-of-the napkin calc, based on his reported hypotenuse of ~15'. (Sorry, my memory's not perfect. I recall mentions of 14-ish, and 17', and then a final correction of some kind.  ) Which then says they're crossing ~4.5 feet *behind *the MLP. If you have to separate your rears that much, using a time-intensity tradeoff (with a pre-cross) is a good way to go.



> Where do your KEFs crossover (internally)? They are 2-way, right?


I don't think so. LD will have to confirm, but I think his KEFs are 3-ways. The central Uni-Q driver is a coaxial unit, with the 1" tweeter embedded in the center (with a special waveguide of some sort), surrounded by a mid-driver. With a 6" woofer above and below that central 6" combo-driver. Crossovers are somewhere around 300 and 2 kHz. LD can provide specifics, but that's at least close.


----------



## VideoGrabber

OK, I should have just Googled it. If I have the model # right...

_"KEF's Ci3160RL-THX is an in-wall speaker certified to THX ULTRA2 standard featuring a 6.5in. Uni-Q driver array with a pair of 6.5in. MF drivers. You can position the Ci3160RL-THX as a front or rear side channel speakers, or position horizontally as a center channel."_

So 6.5" drivers, not 6", and the x-overs are at 340 Hz and 2.5 kHz. Sorry about the guessing, but I'm not still 100% sure I have the right model.


----------



## mthomas47

VideoGrabber said:


> I'd agree that would be helpful, but IIRC, LD indicated at one point that his room is 16' wide, and 31' deep. So that does give us something to work with. (And I think his ceilings are low... like 7.5 feet? Which would be consistent with my recollection of about 3700 cuFt volume.)
> 
> Since his rear surrounds are corner-mounted, at 45-degrees, that implies that at the lateral mid-point (8' from each sidewall), his rears cross at the same distance out, as in. Thus also 8'. And his row of seating is even further forward than that. About 12.5-feet, from a back-of-the napkin calc, based on his reported hypotenuse of ~15'. (Sorry, my memory's not perfect. I recall mentions of 14-ish, and 17', and then a final correction of some kind.  ) Which then says they're crossing ~4.5 feet *behind *the MLP. If you have to separate your rears that much, using a time-intensity tradeoff (with a pre-cross) is a good way to go.
> 
> I don't think so. LD will have to confirm, but I think his KEFs are 3-ways. The central Uni-Q driver is a coaxial unit, with the 1" tweeter embedded in the center (with a special waveguide of some sort), surrounded by a mid-driver. With a 6" woofer above and below that central 6" combo-driver. Crossovers are somewhere around 300 and 2 kHz. LD can provide specifics, but that's at least close.


Hi,

Your memory and your math look right to me, but my reasons for wanting to see photos of his room were more prosaic than that. The native sound of his speakers in the room is whatever it is at this point. If he can't move the rear surrounds, or change their angle in the corners, so be it. But, when we run an Audyssey calibration and get idiosyncratic results, such as Audyssey over-boosting the high frequencies, or making something in those frequencies sound harsh or screechy (where they didn't in a previous calibration), it is usually attributable to our calibration technique. 

My initial guess is that the results he got this last time have something to do with the microphone placement--probably with respect to its height or proximity to his chair back. But, I would like to be able to view the relationships of front speakers, front row, chair back height, and rear surrounds, before trying to trouble-shoot the calibration technique. This is usually a fixable problem.

Audyssey can't always repair already existing issues involving speaker capabilities or placement, but it is generally possible to keep Audyssey from exacerbating those issues, or from creating new ones. Some of that may involve relatively modest set-up changes (such as increasing the toe-in on the front speakers) and some of it may involve tweaking the calibration technique. I just want to see what we are working with here. 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: This is what the OP said he has: "KEF 3160RL-THX. The crossover is listed at 340Hz, 2.5kHz." So, you do have the right model.


----------



## VideoGrabber

mthomas47 said:


> ...my reasons for wanting to see photos of his room were more prosaic than that. ...
> 
> My initial guess is that the results he got this last time have something to do with the microphone placement--probably with respect to its height or proximity to his chair back. But, I would like to be able to view the relationships of front speakers, front row, chair back height, and rear surrounds, before trying to trouble-shoot the calibration technique. This is usually a fixable problem.
> 
> ... I just want to see what we are working with here.


Well, in all my years of troubleshooting, I know of no more reliable way of spending time spinning your wheels than operating in the dark.  It's like 2 blind men trying to describe an elephant, while working on opposite ends.  Each has a very different mental image.

So I am certainly with you on that.


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, and I'm still glad to try to help. But, to do that, I will need to see pictures of your room. If in your last calibration, Audyssey over-boosted your high frequencies somehow, that is likely due to some aspect of your calibration technique. It didn't seem to be happening from your prior calibration, so it is very likely to be something that we can trouble-shoot. But, if I am going to invest that amount of time in it, I would like to be thorough and see pictures of your front soundstage and at least the front row of your seating. I also would like to see a photo taken from in front of your seating to the rear surrounds, so that I can get a sense of the angle involved.
> 
> I think it is likely that in trying to cater to the rear surrounds you simply got the mic too high or too near the chair. But, I don't want to jump to conclusions, so if you really want to work on this you will need to attach some photos. Every calibration can be different, and sometimes changing a single variable can make a significant difference. For that reason, most of us memorialize our more successful calibrations in a log or a diagram so that we can repeat them if necessary. Using Audyssey is part science and part art, as is the case with many tools. Some of us get lucky at the outset and sometimes we have to work at it a little.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. Regarding the room - its pretty straight-forward. I said 16' x 31' feet but its really more like 15' x 28' after you account for the fake (fabric) wall build out and the front baffle wall (about 3' from real wall. It's a dedicated room, so essentially a rectangle with 2 rows of seats and a back bar. 

Also I would like to clarify something that's a little embarrassing but I think the case - I believe this issue with the HF boost and shrill-ness of the highs has been there since the beginning and was present in the initial calibration. I was just so burned out after a 3 year buildout and project I didn't have anything left in the tank to address it, nor did I care much too. I just wanted to enjoy the room and figured I'd punt on the audio calibration until some point where I had the energy to address it. Apparently we've reached that point. 

So despite a year of planning, professional engineering, including a full acoustical treatment and implementation, and all the crazy attention to detail that went into making this room, I never even ran a frequency sweep to measure the results.  However now that I have turned my attention to it, I realize what the issue is. It is the approach that Audyssey is taking, which apparently does not fit well with how the KEFs are designed. More on that below.



garygarrison said:


> I think I remember that your rear surrounds are aimed 45 degrees into the room (as speakers in a 90 degree corner tend to be). Do straight lines coming from your rear surrounds cross behind your head (and behind the Audyssey mic positions), approximately at your ears (and the mics), or in front of your head (and the mics)?


To clarify, the rear "corners" are actually 45 degree walls, and the speakers are mounted flat against the wall. Yes, this means they cross behind my head (and the mic position) by about 5 feet. This works well acoustically (even though it may not sound like it at first blush) because the KEFs have wide dispersion with excellent off-axis response, and over the 15.5' distance this means that at the MLP I am only 20 degrees off axis from the rear surrounds. Not ideal, but acceptable, and as you know it's all about compromises.



> I don't remember whether you tend to use Audyssey Reference (just plain Audysey) or Audyssey Flat. Audyssey Ref will roll off the treble by imposing a slope that the Audyssey engineers feel is correct for a Home Theater size room. It is much gentler that the X-curve (which is beginning to fall into disfavor even for commercial cinemas) and somewhat gentler than the SMPTE curve for 30 seat theaters, but still amounts to a very audible cut, resulting in -2 dB at 10K Hz, down to -6 dB at 20K Hz. It also imposes a dip centered at about 2K Hz to pull down any harshness at that point. Chris K. said he never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with that dip in place. Some others disagree. To me, with my system in my room, most music/movies sound better with Audyssey Flat, but some sound better with just plain Audyssey.


I use Reference. Flat measures even brighter.



> Where do your KEFs crossover (internally)? They are 2-way, right?


I see you guys already figured this out, they are the KEF Ci3160RL-THX and a 3-way.



> Audyssey -- even XT32 --- attempts to make some corrections for gross loudspeaker anomalies as well as room effects, and, IMO, it should. XT32 invests most of the correction on the bass end, but still makes some correction at the top. It will turn down treble that is too loud, as well as boosting treble that is too soft (compared to flat). In my case, a broad peak at about 8K is turned down by Audyssey, but frequencies above 10K are turned up 4 to 5 dB. Your room may be deader than the average room Audyssey encounters. Sometimes, at least in my experience, reproduction that sounds too bright is actually bass shy,


I can assure you that with 4 18" subs in the corners at 3000 wpc driving them, the room is not bass shy. 



> I, too, am trying to learn, so I'm curious about some things your engineer said: 1) I have usually heard "power response," as being taken in a sphere all around the speaker. I don't think Audyssey does that, but instead measures both the direct sound and the reflections from the 8 mic positions, both on and off axis, from wherever the 8 positions are, but typically from the audience area, and not in a circle, let alone a sphere, around the speaker. In any case, it seems to me that measurements in a sphere would not be very useful to Audyssey, especially with in wall speakers. Maybe the definition has changed, as is everything around my aging self. 2) Is your engineer saying that the KEFs are designed to roll off in the treble ONLY when heard or measured at a considerable distance, i.e., they would have had appreciably less roll-off at 1 meter? Or do they roll off about the same in the nearfield and farfield, providing they are equally close to being on-axis when measured from nearby or far? I recall seeing two 20 to 20K frequency plots of the same speaker, in an ordinary room (i.e. *not* anechoic), one at 2 feet from a speaker, and one at 16 feet from the same speaker, both on axis, in which the high frequencies were approximately the same, *especially* above about 5K ... hardly any variation with distance in the treble, but the two curves were quite different at 70 Hz (room modes?).


I can say for certain that at near-field it measures flat all the way up to 20kHz (and beyond). What he is saying is that at far-field measure, like say 12-13 feet from the speaker which is my MLP, it is _purposely designed_ to start rolling off around 4kHz, and I believe dropping about -3dB on its way from there to around 9kHz, then dropping a little more to around 12kHz which it then flattens out the rest of the way.

I do not understanding the reasoning behind this design, but I do know that it is intentional. I am also unsure, but I believe it is also an unusual design. If I understand what my engineer is saying, that design is what is tripping up Audyssey. He says Audyssey sees this as a room problem and adds boost to flatten the response. It thinks it did a great job in the process, but actually it just made the speaker sound too bright and gave it sound characteristics it is not designed to have. IOW it outsmarted itself. In the process it has made the sound more harsh, and has also greatly reduced headroom because with +9dB (!) added to the highend, think about what that means for the tweeter when the MV is set at reference  *I believe that is the whole issue in a nutshell.* Audyssey needs to be told NOT to flatten the curve. Which cannot be done with XT32 without a Pro Kit or the Audyssey app which the 8802A does not support. 




VideoGrabber said:


> I'd agree that would be helpful, but IIRC, LD indicated at one point that his room is 16' wide, and 31' deep. So that does give us something to work with. (And I think his ceilings are low... like 7.5 feet? Which would be consistent with my recollection of about 3700 cuFt volume.)


Right, you have some incredible attention to detail.  It's actually about 3800 ft^3.



> Since his rear surrounds are corner-mounted, at 45-degrees, that implies that at the lateral mid-point (8' from each sidewall), his rears cross at the same distance out, as in. Thus also 8'. And his row of seating is even further forward than that. About 12.5-feet, from a back-of-the napkin calc, based on his reported hypotenuse of ~15'. (Sorry, my memory's not perfect. I recall mentions of 14-ish, and 17', and then a final correction of some kind.  ) Which then says they're crossing ~4.5 feet *behind *the MLP.


Wow - that is impressive! You hit the nail pretty much right on the head. As I explained within this post, it is cross about 5-5.5' behind.



> If you have to separate your rears that much, using a time-intensity tradeoff (with a pre-cross) is a good way to go.


What is a time-intensity tradeoff (with a pre-cross) mean? Sorry I am not sure what you are saying here, but it sounds interesting. The very wide dispersion and off-axis performance of this speaker made it ideal for my room, not to mention that I love the KEF sound.



> I don't think so. LD will have to confirm, but I think his KEFs are 3-ways. The central Uni-Q driver is a coaxial unit, with the 1" tweeter embedded in the center (with a special waveguide of some sort), surrounded by a mid-driver. With a 6" woofer above and below that central 6" combo-driver. Crossovers are somewhere around 300 and 2 kHz. LD can provide specifics, but that's at least close.


Yes, close. 6.5" drivers and the info was provided in the post above.



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> Your memory and your math look right to me, but my reasons for wanting to see photos of his room were more prosaic than that. The native sound of his speakers in the room is whatever it is at this point. If he can't move the rear surrounds, or change their angle in the corners, so be it. But, when we run an Audyssey calibration and get idiosyncratic results, such as Audyssey over-boosting the high frequencies, or making something in those frequencies sound harsh or screechy (where they didn't in a previous calibration), it is usually attributable to our calibration technique.


Sorry, as clarified earlier in this post, Audyssey has done this over-boost to the HF since the beginning. Yesterday I tried several different variations of mic placement in multiple 8 point Audyssey runs, including mic height, and tighter vs wide circle of the 8 positions (I only care about the MLP despite 6 seats ) near the MLP. All resulted in essentially the same calibration.



> My initial guess is that the results he got this last time have something to do with the microphone placement--probably with respect to its height or proximity to his chair back. But, I would like to be able to view the relationships of front speakers, front row, chair back height, and rear surrounds, before trying to trouble-shoot the calibration technique. This is usually a fixable problem.
> 
> Audyssey can't always repair already existing issues involving speaker capabilities or placement, but it is generally possible to keep Audyssey from exacerbating those issues, or from creating new ones. Some of that may involve relatively modest set-up changes (such as increasing the toe-in on the front speakers) and some of it may involve tweaking the calibration technique. I just want to see what we are working with here.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: This is what the OP said he has: "KEF 3160RL-THX. The crossover is listed at 340Hz, 2.5kHz." So, you do have the right model.


The KEF speakers are designed not to be toed in. They are wide dispersion. I am only 20 degrees off-axis from the left and right mains. My acoustic engineer says Audyssey is applying excessive boost due to the nature of how it works and the (unusual?) designed rolloff of the speaker as explained above.



mthomas47 said:


> ...I promise you that Audyssey is not applying a consistent 9db boost to the rear surrounds from 1000Hz and up. That wouldn't be at all the way that Audyssey works, and it isn't at all consistent with the native frequency response of your speakers.


Well it may not be a consistent 9dB boost, but it sure is cracking it up way more than it should be. 

I spent nearly the entire day yesterday trying to get various laptops to work with REW and be able to measure the pre-outs. I only got as far as being able to measure the front speakers since I can only get REW working with 2 channel right now. So I created a baseline measure of the Front Left with Audyssey off, and then measured again with Audyssey on and DEQ off. Again, this is a measure of the signal coming out of the 8802A, no speakers measured here. The flat line is the measure with Audyssey off. The red line is with it on. 

This looks like pretty excessive boost to me. For reference, the baseline is at 74 dB. Audyssey has applied a 3dB boost around 4kHz which seems perfectly fine, but then keeps cranking it up, taking it up to a 6dB boost by the time it reaches 6kHz. Then keeps that boost until about 13kHz, when it then boosts it again by a total of 9dB when it reaches 17kHz.

Now I know earlier it was said that we cannot go by the Audyssey EQ graphs to know what Audyssey is doing. But this measurement of the signal actually confirms the EQ graph from Audyssey in reality IS pretty much exactly the correction it is apply. I attached the EQ graph from the Left speaker. Compare it to my measure of the pre-out. They match almost identically!! Is there reason to still believe that those EQ graphs are not representative of what Audyssey is actually doing, because based on my measurement with/without Audyssey the graphs sure seem to show exactly that it is doing.

So in summary, here is my current assessment and I'd like to know if you guys agree or if not, why:

- Audyssey is excessively boosting my HF, likely because it is trying to undo the natural frequency response. The Wides and center channel get far less boost (but still a lot, like up to +5dB because these are directly on-axis). But the others are getting about +5dB through around the 3-10kHz and a spike up toward +9dB at the top end.

- In my setup, this is a recipe for blowing a tweeter. I was overdriving those rears so that's on me, but at the same time I couldn't have known (at the time) that it was adding 9dB of boost toward the top end. If I'm in a questionable range near reference and then Audyssey is adding +9dB at the highest HF, well...

So what to do about it? Well there are a few options:

1. Get a Pro Kit. I think this would allow me to set the point at which Audyssey will stop correcting. Or just limit the boost to, say, no more than 3dB. This seems like a waste because I am 100% replacing my 8802A with the new model (8805) when it is available this spring (mainly for the additional 2 Atmos channels, but now also for the Audyssey app). So it's a waste to pay to buy a used pro kit and then also pay a $150 license fee. So that's just a waste of money. But I may be tempted if I can find a cheap pro kit, just as a good hold-me-over and so I can get a sense for what I want to do with the Audyssey app when I have the 8805.

2. Just try and be patient and wait for the 8805 and use the Audyssey app which it will support. This is the smartest option, but requires me to wait around 5 months and deal with my system the way it is currently.

3. Another option is to switch to Dirac, which I understand, will NOT blindly attempt to flatten the response like Audyssey XT32 does, plus of course has all the customization. Tho with the app I think Audyssey has closed that gap. This is an expensive option and adds a lot of complexity in the rack and more hardware to deal with (two MiniDSP 88A units - wow they have STILL not come out with more than an 8 channel 88A ) ...

4. Switch from the Marantz to another AVP with Dirac such as the Datasat LS10 (too pricey really) or the new upcoming Emotiva that has Dirac support and more Atmos channels. This Emotiva could be tempting because it would give me the Dirac along with more Atmos channels, instead of replacing my 8805 and still having to use Audyssey. I'm unfamiliar with the Audyssey app, but perhaps it will have all the flexibility I need. That way I can just stick with the Marantz.

Thoughts, questions and advice is greatly appreciated as always! Thank you all!!


----------



## drh3b

@lovingdvd

Not an elegant solution, but I would just use the tone control, and bring down the treble until the new Marantz comes out. While I think the Emotiva would be excellent, they have a reputation for having to work the bugs out at first, I wouldn't touch a fancy Emo prepro until it had been on the market for at least a year. Not unless you are comfortable with being a beta tester for all practical purposes. You might be able use something like this: https://www.minidsp.com/products/minidsp-in-a-box/minidsp-10x10-hd and reverse the over compensating, but I'd rather save the potential time and frustration, and just use the treble control.


----------



## lovingdvd

drh3b said:


> @lovingdvd
> 
> Not an elegant solution, but I would just use the tone control, and bring down the treble until the new Marantz comes out. While I think the Emotiva would be excellent, they have a reputation for having to work the bugs out at first, I wouldn't touch a fancy Emo prepro until it had been on the market for at least a year. Not unless you are comfortable with being a beta tester for all practical purposes. You might be able use something like this: https://www.minidsp.com/products/minidsp-in-a-box/minidsp-10x10-hd and reverse the over compensating, but I'd rather save the potential time and frustration, and just use the treble control.


Thanks! Yes that could be a perfect hold-me-over solution until the 8802A replacement arrives (and I agree with you exactly about the Emotiva BTW). I was thinking about possibly the treble control late last night after I had shut everything down, but I forgot about it by this morning.  I'll give it a try later this afternoon and will measure the results and report back. Hopefully the treble control can be used along with Audyssey EQ. Because I know with some controls they are either disabled with Audyssey on, or by turning some controls on it automatically turns Audyssey off. I'm also curious where the treble control kicks in - if its around 2-4kHz or possibly even a bit higher it can be a great temporary solution (even tho far from ideal) because mainly I'd be satisified, for now, to just lower the region from around 4kHz and up by about 5dB.


----------



## primetimeguy

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks! Yes that could be a perfect hold-me-over solution until the 8802A replacement arrives (and I agree with you exactly about the Emotiva BTW). I was thinking about possibly the treble control late last night after I had shut everything down, but I forgot about it by this morning.  I'll give it a try later this afternoon and will measure the results and report back. Hopefully the treble control can be used along with Audyssey EQ. Because I know with some controls they are either disabled with Audyssey on, or by turning some controls on it automatically turns Audyssey off. I'm also curious where the treble control kicks in - if its around 2-4kHz or possibly even a bit higher it can be a great temporary solution (even tho far from ideal) because mainly I'd be satisified, for now, to just lower the region from around 4kHz and up by about 5dB.


Typically it kicks in around 2k,with your actual setting hitting at 10k. So if you turn down treble 2db it will be down 2db at 10k, but the slope starts around 2k.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks! Yes that could be a perfect hold-me-over solution until the 8802A replacement arrives (and I agree with you exactly about the Emotiva BTW). I was thinking about possibly the treble control late last night after I had shut everything down, but I forgot about it by this morning.  I'll give it a try later this afternoon and will measure the results and report back. Hopefully the treble control can be used along with Audyssey EQ. Because I know with some controls they are either disabled with Audyssey on, or by turning some controls on it automatically turns Audyssey off. I'm also curious where the treble control kicks in - if its around 2-4kHz or possibly even a bit higher it can be a great temporary solution (even tho far from ideal) because mainly I'd be satisified, for now, to just lower the region from around 4kHz and up by about 5dB.


If you turn DEQ off, the tone controls will be available to you. Turning DEQ off will not affect the overall calibration in any way, as it is a separate software program. You may, however, find yourself wanting to boost your bass a little more if you have been accustomed to using DEQ.


----------



## garygarrison

VideoGrabber said:


> Well, in all my years of troubleshooting, I know of no more reliable way of spending time spinning your wheels than operating in the dark.  * It's like 2 blind men trying to describe an elephant, while working on opposite ends.*  Each has a very different mental image.
> 
> So I am certainly with you on that.


True, but each is partially correct.


----------



## lovingdvd

drh3b said:


> @lovingdvd
> 
> Not an elegant solution, but I would just use the tone control, and bring down the treble until the new Marantz comes out. While I think the Emotiva would be excellent, they have a reputation for having to work the bugs out at first, I wouldn't touch a fancy Emo prepro until it had been on the market for at least a year. Not unless you are comfortable with being a beta tester for all practical purposes. You might be able use something like this: https://www.minidsp.com/products/minidsp-in-a-box/minidsp-10x10-hd and reverse the over compensating, but I'd rather save the potential time and frustration, and just use the treble control.





primetimeguy said:


> Typically it kicks in around 2k,with your actual setting hitting at 10k. So if you turn down treble 2db it will be down 2db at 10k, but the slope starts around 2k.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk





mthomas47 said:


> If you turn DEQ off, the tone controls will be available to you. Turning DEQ off will not affect the overall calibration in any way, as it is a separate software program. You may, however, find yourself wanting to boost your bass a little more if you have been accustomed to using DEQ.


Thanks guys. I don't mind giving up DEQ. I liked its bass boost, but recall that I already run my subs +5dB hot so I think it'll be fine. I may tweak that a bit if I feel its lacking. Also from my measurements DEQ made the issue even worse, resulting in even more boost than without it, so I was planning to keep DEQ off anyway.

OK, attached is the latest graph showing my Front Left speaker with Audyssey On, DEQ off, with the treble set from 0 to -6dB. It looks like this will provide an excellent workaround until I can get the Audyssey app going with my 8802A replacement in the spring, or perhaps switch to another solution like Dirac, TBD. My acoustic engineer recommends no more than +3dB boost to the high end (for sake of protecting the tweeters, among other things) and -6dB on treble looks like it will do the trick nicely. However I am pretty used to the bright sound so it may be a little hard to give up. A compromise may be -5, -4 or perhaps -3. I haven't had a chance to listen yet - only did the measurements. Will do so tonight. Conveniently with the music awards on - hopefully they have a high quality 5.1 feed.

As you can see, the treble control works very nicely. It also confirms my measurement technique is correct on the preouts, as each measure differs at the tail end by 1dB, as would be expected. I'll report back on how I like the sound with the treble adjustment.

Thoughts and comments welcome as usual. Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

For @*lovingdvd* I hope Marantz (and several, if not all, AVR and pre/pro makers) have stopped this ridiculous practice, but, when I bought mine, the bass and treble* controls only affected the LF and RF speakers*. You tried the treble control on the Front Left speaker, which won't tell you if it will affect the surrounds. I have my fingers crossed for you. I'm referring to the true bass and treble controls that can be used only with DEQ turned off. _*If* _they have fixed that, the tone controls are a good solution for now, and would allow you to trim off about 6 dB of the approx. 9 dB boost at the very top. BEWARE of the virtual graphic sliders, because they can't be used with Audyssey, so the hundreds of Audyssey compensation points would be lost, substituting a fire-axe for a laser scalpel. Also, "base copy" (not "bass copy") makes only a very crude "copy" of the Audyssey comp curve. It would have been a great idea if it had high resolution, but it doesn't.

I believe that your 4 - 18" subs _*can*_ produce all the bass you -- or anyone -- would ever need, but, because Audyssey tends to reduce the bass to a lower level than most people want, and because the overall balance of your system right now is over-bright, turning up your subs even more than you already have might be a _*partial*_ solution to your problem. I've heard of people setting subs as much as 9 dB high, but you should start with Audyssey setting your sub trim at*- *11.5 to avoid overloading either the Marantz sub out, or the sub's input ---- see Mike's subwoofer guide in his signature. Looking at your graph, I would think a boost of about 8 dB higher than it is now (which measures about flat in the first graph you posted, but what happened in the second?) would be worth a try _*providing you have evidence it would not overload your subwoofers.*_


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> For @*lovingdvd* I hope Marantz (and several, if not all, AVR and pre/pro makers have stopped this ridiculous practice, but, when I bought mine, the bass and treble* controls only affected the LF and RF speakers*. You tried the treble control on the Front Left speaker, which won't tell you if it will affect the surrounds. I have my fingers crossed for you. I'm referring to the true bass and treble controls that can be used only with DEQ turned off. _*If* _they have fixed that, the tone controls are a good solution for now, and would allow you to trim off about 6 dB of the approx. 9 dB boost at the very top. BEWARE of the virtual graphic sliders, because they can't be used with Audyssey, so the hundreds of Audyssey compensation points would be lost, substituting a fire-axe for a laser scalpel. Also, "base copy" (not "bass copy") makes only a very crude "copy" of the Audyssey comp curve. It would have been a great idea if it had high resolution, but it doesn't.
> 
> I believe that your 4 - 18" subs _*can*_ produce all the bass you -- or anyone -- would ever need, but, because Audyssey tends to reduce the bass to a lower level than most people want, and because the overall balance of your system right now is over-bright, turning up your subs even more than you already have might be a _*partial*_ solution to your problem. I've heard of people setting subs as much as 9 dB high, but you should start with Audyssey setting your sub trim at*- *11.5 to avoid overloading either the Marantz sub out, or the sub's input ---- see Mike's subwoofer guide in his signature. Looking at your graph, I would think a boost of about 8 dB higher than it is now (which measures about flat) would be worth a try _*providing you have evidence it would not overload your subwoofers.*_


Great point about the treble Gary.  Anyone know if the treble effects the other channels beside the main L/R? I ask, because I can't measure any other channels right now with REW and pre-outs (spent the entire day yesterday trying to get it working across multiple laptops, finally had to settle on just measuring preouts on L/R for now). I suppose I will also be able to tell by putting my ear up to the tweeter in another channels and just listening with treble at -6 and 0 and see if there's a difference. If there's no noticeable difference with some HF music then I should be able to tell right away, I would think.

Regarding the subs - ALL graphs I've posted so far have had the subwoofers turned off. So that is why you are seeing that it looks like it needs to be turned up, since you're just seeing the response from the speaker with a xo set at 80. Attached is a measure of my subs only, both with and without Audyssey. You'll quickly see from that why I am still using Audyssey despite the issues with the high end.

In the coming days and weeks I will turn my attention to using REW and posting some measurements in that thread regarding the results mostly focusing on the low end, decay times, waterfall etc. I don't know a whole lot about it yet, or I should say I don't remember much from when I last went down that road in my old room 5+ years ago, but a quick look at the waterfall shows zero ringing issues, even with all that bass. I think by like 180ms all the bass is gone.   . Thanks to the room treatments I am sure.

Edit: I added the waterfall graph.


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> Great point about the treble Gary.  Anyone know if the treble effects the other channels beside the main L/R? I ask, because I can't measure any other channels right now with REW and pre-outs (spent the entire day yesterday trying to get it working across multiple laptops, finally had to settle on just measuring preouts on L/R for now). I suppose I will also be able to tell by putting my ear up to the tweeter in another channels and just listening with treble at -6 and 0 and see if there's a difference. If there's no noticeable difference with some HF music then I should be able to tell right away, I would think.
> 
> Regarding the subs - ALL graphs I've posted so far have had the subwoofers turned off. So that is why you are seeing that it looks like it needs to be turned up, since you're just seeing the response from the speaker with a xo set at 80. Attached is a measure of my subs only, both with and without Audyssey. You'll quickly see from that why I am still using Audyssey despite the issues with the high end.
> 
> In the coming days and weeks I will turn my attention to using REW and posting some measurements in that thread regarding the results mostly focusing on the low end, decay times, waterfall etc. I don't know a whole lot about it yet, or I should say I don't remember much from when I last went down that road in my old room 5+ years ago, but a quick look at the waterfall shows zero ringing issues, even with all that bass. I think by like 180ms all the bass is gone.   . Thanks to the room treatments I am sure.
> 
> Edit: I added the waterfall graph.


On my Marantz pre/pro, on the Tone Control screen (on the monitor) there is a gray box to the right of the Tone Control ON and Bass and Treble indicators. In thee gray box is a picture of a Home Theater in which the main L/R speakers are glowing blue, indicating ON, and all other speakers are white outlines on a depressing gray background, indicating OFF.


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> On my Marantz pre/pro, on the Tone Control screen (on the monitor) there is a gray box to the right of the Tone Control ON and Bass and Treble indicators. In thee gray box is a picture of a Home Theater in which the main L/R speakers are glowing blue, indicating ON, and all other speakers are white outlines on a depressing gray background, indicating OFF.


Thanks. I do not have such indicators on the 8802A. However just by listening with my ear up to the tweeter on the other speakers as I go from -6 to 0 I can tell that unfortunately the treble control only seems to apply to the L/R channels. As of this moment my plan is to try and wait it out for the 8802A replacement with support for the Audyssey app. In the meantime the treble control is a decent work around for 2 channel listening.


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks. I do not have such indicators on the 8802A. However just by listening with my ear up to the tweeter on the other speakers as I go from -6 to 0 I can tell that unfortunately the treble control only seems to apply to the L/R channels. As of this moment my plan is to try and wait it out for the 8802A replacement with support for the Audyssey app. In the meantime the treble control is a decent work around for 2 channel listening.


I was afraid of that. Sorry.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd, I haven't seen anyone suggest any of this yet, so.....

Have you tried listening to the system with Audyssey OFF? If not, try it out and let us know what you think of the sound from the speakers, disregarding the subs for now.

If you find the sound with Audyssey OFF too flat for your tastes, try going into the GEQ settings and copying the Audyssey Flat curve. From there, adjust the bands that are available to you to see if you can get a pleasing sound (from the speakers, still disregarding the subs at this point). You can adjust the bands while using REW to get a good idea of what you are doing. Granted, the GEQ is quite limited, but it may work for you.

If you can get a pleasing sound from your speakers, the subs are a very easy fix. From the graph you posted, it looks like all that Audyssey is doing to the sub is pulling down that single large peak at 38hz. You could easily do the same with a MiniDSP 2x4 for around $100 and a single EQ filter. 

Just food for thought.


----------



## lovingdvd

Alan P said:


> lovingdvd, I haven't seen anyone suggest any of this yet, so.....
> 
> Have you tried listening to the system with Audyssey OFF? If not, try it out and let us know what you think of the sound from the speakers, disregarding the subs for now.
> 
> If you find the sound with Audyssey OFF too flat for your tastes, try going into the GEQ settings and copying the Audyssey Flat curve. From there, adjust the bands that are available to you to see if you can get a pleasing sound (from the speakers, still disregarding the subs at this point). You can adjust the bands while using REW to get a good idea of what you are doing. Granted, the GEQ is quite limited, but it may work for you.
> 
> If you can get a pleasing sound from your speakers, the subs are a very easy fix. From the graph you posted, it looks like all that Audyssey is doing to the sub is pulling down that single large peak at 38hz. You could easily do the same with a MiniDSP 2x4 for around $100 and a single EQ filter.
> 
> Just food for thought.


Thanks Alan. I have a BFD and could use that. However there is some very important correction it is doing in the LCRs in the 100-400ish range to adjust for the baffle wall. Without that correction it sounds VERY muddy. I will look at the GEQ option. Thanks.


----------



## lovingdvd

*What extension cable*

Guys - I wonder if the extra HF boost is the result of my extension cable. I'm using a 20' stereo female on one end, male on the other end (2 black rings on pin). There is a link in the FAQ to an extension cable recommended by Audyssey, but the link is broken. Does anyone know the details on what extension cables work best and can you provide a link, preferably to something on Amazon prime? I suppose its possible that the HF are rolling off due to the cable, which then gives Audyssey low HF readings, causing this unnecessary boost...?


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> Guys - I wonder if the extra HF boost is the result of my extension cable. I'm using a 20' stereo female on one end, male on the other end (2 black rings on pin). There is a link in the FAQ to an extension cable recommended by Audyssey, but the link is broken. Does anyone know the details on what extension cables work best and can you provide a link, preferably to something on Amazon prime? I suppose its possible that the HF are rolling off due to the cable, which then gives Audyssey low HF readings, causing this unnecessary boost...?


I tend to doubt it, but _Stranger Things ...

_Is the reason you are using a stereo cable just that you happen to have one? I wouldn't think that the extra wire running close to, and parallel to, the others would make a difference, but in a world in which people spend hundreds of dollars for speaker cables, power cords, interconnects, and suspend their speaker wires from strings, in turn suspended from wooden pyramids crossing their floors in a straight line to insure they are as short as possible ... for all I know, they should be arranged in imperceptible arcs, following the Great Circle. 

Seriously though, I vaguely remember that 12 AWG *speaker* cable, not a microphone cable, 50 feet long had 0.7 dB loss at 20K Hz. It might have been somebody at the McIntosh amplifier company who ran the tests. Long lengths of microphone cable are typically 3 wire balanced, unlike the Audyssey mic cable. I think that's to cut down on hum, noise pickup (RF?), etc., though. Recording and concert venues are frequently a rat's nest of cables. 

Obviously, someone here will be able to provide a better answer than I can.


----------



## lovingdvd

garygarrison said:


> I tend to doubt it, but _Stranger Things ...
> 
> _Is the reason you are using a stereo cable just that you happen to have one? I wouldn't think that the extra wire running close to, and parallel to, the others would make a difference, but in a world in which people spend hundreds of dollars for speaker cables, power cords, interconnects, and suspend their speaker wires from strings, in turn suspended from wooden pyramids crossing their floors in a straight line to insure they are as short as possible ... for all I know, they should be arranged in imperceptible arcs, following the Great Circle.
> 
> Seriously though, I vaguely remember that 12 AWG *speaker* cable, not a microphone cable, 50 feet long had 0.7 dB loss at 20K Hz. It might have been somebody at the McIntosh amplifier company who ran the tests. Long lengths of microphone cable are typically 3 wire balanced, unlike the Audyssey mic cable. I think that's to cut down on hum, noise pickup (RF?), etc., though. Recording and concert venues are frequently a rat's nest of cables.
> 
> Obviously, someone here will be able to provide a better answer than I can.


. Yes, exactly - I've had a 20' 3.5mm extension cable lying around for about 10 years. I think I originally got it at Radio Shack. I use it to extend headphones sometimes in a different room. So yes it was just a matter of convenience and I never really gave it a second thought. Until yesterday when I started thinking that maybe the mic or readings are bad and the high frequencies are rolling off, making it look to Audyssey that the speakers are putting out a lot less HF then they are.

I ordered this cable http://a.co/4bUHgsl and it should be here tomorrow. I am curious whether it will make a difference. I feel like the chances are 80% I'll have the exact same result. Care to guess if it'll make a difference? The cable I have currently seems to have an OK build quality. Its not particularly thick or thin. Seems decent enough. So I guess my point is that I don't know how much different another cable is going to be, unless like you said, the fact that the other is stereo is somehow causing some interference or otherwise lessening the signal.


----------



## lovingdvd

*Wrong Levels.*

After running an 8 point XT32 my LCRs are set about 3dB too low compared to all other 9.4.6 speakers. I had mic at the same height and above the seat back. This is according to my handheld SPL and UMC-1. After my last ordeal lowing tweeters by tasing levels ilowered all other levels instead of raising the LCRs. Why doesn’t Audyssey get this right?

I set my volume on the AVP to 0dB and play the test tone from the AVP. Audysset has the trim set at -6dB for the L speaker. Yet the UMC-1 says the output is 72.5dB. So shouldn’t the trim really be set 2.5 higher? Same with all my trims now (with MV at 0 all measures are at 72.5 dB). So really now I think MV of 0 is actually -2.5dB in my system? But again, I’m concerned rasing all trims 2.5...?


----------



## primetimeguy

lovingdvd said:


> After running an 8 point XT32 my LCRs are set about 3dB too low compared to all other 9.4.6 speakers. I had mic at the same height and above the seat back. This is according to my handheld SPL and UMC-1. After my last ordeal lowing tweeters by tasing levels ilowered all other levels instead of raising the LCRs. Why doesn’t Audyssey get this right?
> 
> I set my volume on the AVP to 0dB and play the test tone from the AVP. Audysset has the trim set at -6dB for the L speaker. Yet the UMC-1 says the output is 72.5dB. So shouldn’t the trim really be set 2.5 higher? Same with all my trims now (with MV at 0 all measures are at 72.5 dB). So really now I think MV of 0 is actually -2.5dB in my system? But again, I’m concerned rasing all trims 2.5...?


Do you have a disk or external way to play the tones? The internal ones do not pass through Audyssey and are therefore uncorrected and may not represent reality. However, as long as they all measure the same I wouldn't be too worried about a couple 2db overall offset given the Audyssey mic is +/-2db anyway.


----------



## lovingdvd

primetimeguy said:


> lovingdvd said:
> 
> 
> 
> After running an 8 point XT32 my LCRs are set about 3dB too low compared to all other 9.4.6 speakers. I had mic at the same height and above the seat back. This is according to my handheld SPL and UMC-1. After my last ordeal lowing tweeters by tasing levels ilowered all other levels instead of raising the LCRs. Why doesn?t Audyssey get this right?
> 
> I set my volume on the AVP to 0dB and play the test tone from the AVP. Audysset has the trim set at -6dB for the L speaker. Yet the UMC-1 says the output is 72.5dB. So shouldn?t the trim really be set 2.5 higher? Same with all my trims now (with MV at 0 all measures are at 72.5 dB). So really now I think MV of 0 is actually -2.5dB in my system? But again, I?m concerned rasing all trims 2.5...?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a disk or external way to play the tones? The internal ones do not pass through Audyssey and are therefore uncorrected and may not represent reality. However, as long as they all measure the same I wouldn't be too worried about a couple 2db overall offset given the Audyssey mic is +/-2db anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes I can use Atmos 9.1.6 test tones. Good idea. Tho if the Audyssey mic is +/- 2dB. I'd expect each measurement to be consistent (aka always the same amount off). 2dB is a lot. Too bad they can't provide an option with the app version to use a higher quality mic.


----------



## lovingdvd

*Subwoofer distance tweak procedure*

In the main FAQ, Item "f)8" contains this:


> Further Reading: Download the Sub Distance Tweak Procedure Guide (pdf)


However the link to the dropbox is broken. Googling around I found an obfuscated version that apparently requires a trial to run. After more googling I came across a version of the document here: https://post76.hk/forum.php?mod=viewthread&action=printable&tid=241482

In summary, I am trying to address the exact issue this document addresses, which is how to manually tweak the time alignment of two subs to hopefully fix a nasty -10dB dip at 100hz. The instructions in that document are not exactly clear. Is there an alternative procedure that can be used, or other such techniques that have been discussed, or perhaps an updated version of that document? To be clear, I am not looking to use a MiniDSP for this - just need to tweak the sub1 vs sub2 Distance manually from my 8802A settings menu. Thanks!


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> In the main FAQ, Item "f)8" contains this:
> 
> 
> However the link to the dropbox is broken. Googling around I found an obfuscated version that apparently requires a trial to run. After more googling I came across a version of the document here: https://post76.hk/forum.php?mod=viewthread&action=printable&tid=241482
> 
> In summary, I am trying to address the exact issue this document addresses, which is how to manually tweak the time alignment of two subs to hopefully fix a nasty -10dB dip at 100hz. The instructions in that document are not exactly clear. Is there an alternative procedure that can be used, or other such techniques that have been discussed, or perhaps an updated version of that document? To be clear, I am not looking to use a MiniDSP for this - just need to tweak the sub1 vs sub2 Distance manually from my 8802A settings menu. Thanks!


Here (attached) is the original version of my Sub Distance Tweak document which is more detailed than the one you found. HTH.

(I had to ZIP it to meet the AVS file size requirement)


----------



## blackspider

Guys,

Need help regarding Dynamic EQ. 
For gaming i think i read some where to turn off dynamic eq, specially for pov games. I like the bass i m getting but find the surrounds are abit too high for few games. 
So if i put the dynamic eq reference level to say +15db that should lower the surrounds level? I normally play on low levels around -30db volume. Or dynamic eq is better to be turned off when gaming?
I play a lot of shooters games on the xbox so dunno what to do?


Thanks.


----------



## lovingdvd

kbarnes701 said:


> Here (attached) is the original version of my Sub Distance Tweak document which is more detailed than the one you found. HTH.
> 
> (I had to ZIP it to meet the AVS file size requirement)


Thank you! I am wondering if my large dip at 100hz is caused by a time alignment issue with my two subs, or some other issue. For reference, all my speakers are set to crossover at 80hz.

A few questions please:

1. Please see the attached 75-200hz.png. The measures plotted are an average of all 7 bed-level speakers with Audyssey off (green) and on (blue). The averages are very good approximations of what each individual of the 7 speakers measures. Notice the large -12dB dip at 100hz. That is my primary concern and what I am trying to solve.

2. Please see the attached subs-left.png. It shows the two subs only, with Audyssey off (green) and on (red), along with the subs+left-front with Audyssey off (blue) and on (orange). With the exception of a very narrow -2dB dip around 67hZ, the subs-only with Audyssey on looks excellent. But when you combine the left front with the subs you can see the large dip at 100hz come into play. To get a cleaner view, please see the attached altview-audy-on.png, which shows Audyssey on with the subs-only overlaid with the subs+front-left. (As a side note, I know your document says to focus first on the center channel, but I am more focused on the left/right at the moment with music in mind, but regardless as you can see from the Average measures the responses are essentially the same for all 7 speakers).

3. This -12dB dip is not at all present with Audyssey off. As I understand it, the Distance setting is still used even with Audyssey off. If that's the case, and the dip is only present with Audyssey on, does this mean the dip is being caused somehow by Audyssey, but something other than the time alignment? If so, what could be the cause and how should I troubleshoot it further?

4. Does this look to you like a time alignment issue that your distance tweak method should be able to address? If so - in your adjustment process, step 2, it says "If the measured response of the subwoofer(s) only is flat to the cross over point, then Audyssey found the correct distance settings." And that the subs in that scenario should be adjusted by the same amount and in the same direction. From the graphs I posted, would you say that applies to my situation (my subs-only measure flat to the xo point)? Outside the small dip (which I assume I should not worry about) at 67hz that seems to be the case, but I am not sure if I am reading it right.

5. In general, based on this, what would be your recommended approach and how solvable do you think it likely is?

Thank you so much - I really appreciate the help!!


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> 2. Please see the attached subs-left.png. It shows the two subs only, with Audyssey off (green) and on (red), along with the subs+left-front with Audyssey off (blue) and on (orange). With the exception of a very narrow -2dB dip around 67hZ, the subs-only with Audyssey on looks excellent. But when you combine the left front with the subs you can see the large dip at 100hz come into play. To get a cleaner view, please see the attached altview-audy-on.png, which shows Audyssey on with the subs-only overlaid with the subs+front-left. (As a side note, I know your document says to focus first on the center channel, but I am more focused on the left/right at the moment with music in mind, but regardless as you can see from the Average measures the responses are essentially the same for all 7 speakers).


When measuring the subs' response it is important to measure with the mains running as well because of the interraction between them at the crossover. It's OK to measure subs individually as part of a trouble shooting process, but for evaluation you need the subs and the mains working at the same time. That is the measurement that matters.



lovingdvd said:


> 3. This -12dB dip is not at all present with Audyssey off. As I understand it, the Distance setting is still used even with Audyssey off. If that's the case, and the dip is only present with Audyssey on, does this mean the dip is being caused somehow by Audyssey, but something other than the time alignment? If so, what could be the cause and how should I troubleshoot it further?


Yes, the delay (distance) setting is still in play with Audyssey turned off. Regardless of any EQ, you still need the sub delays to be set correctly. Once Audyssey is engaged then the levels of any given frequencies will be changed by the EQ applied and it is possibly this which is causing a different interaction between the mains and the subs.



lovingdvd said:


> 4. Does this look to you like a time alignment issue that your distance tweak method should be able to address? If so - in your adjustment process, step 2, it says "If the measured response of the subwoofer(s) only is flat to the cross over point, then Audyssey found the correct distance settings." And that the subs in that scenario should be adjusted by the same amount and in the same direction. From the graphs I posted, would you say that applies to my situation (my subs-only measure flat to the xo point)? Outside the small dip (which I assume I should not worry about) at 67hz that seems to be the case, but I am not sure if I am reading it right.


I think you have it right. Unfortunately, it is an iterative, trial and error process and can take some time. Start at the beginning and then change the distance setting 1 ft at a time, remeasure and see if you have made an improvement or not. If you have, add another foot and repeat. Keep repeating until you start to notice it getting worse again. Then back off one foot of delay and start remeasuring with the smallest delay increment possible and keep observing the difference you make until you can make no further improvement at all. If the first step gives you an immediate worse result, then change the 1ft distance setting in the other direction (minus if you added first time, plus if you subtracted first time).

From your results so far I;d say that there is every chance this is an issue around the crossover frequency and so the sub distance tweak may be able to give you an improvement. One other thing I'd try before doing the distance tweak is to change your sub phase control to the opposite setting (if you have such a control). IE, if it is currently 0 then change it to 180. This in itself can sometimes make a big difference. If you find it does, then leave it in the new position and then see if you can improve it any more by using the distance tweak.



lovingdvd said:


> 5. In general, based on this, what would be your recommended approach and how solvable do you think it likely is?
> 
> Thank you so much - I really appreciate the help!!


You are welcome. I should add that I haven't used Audyssey now for two or three years. I now use Dirac Live which gives me a huge amount of additional control and allows superior bass management in the Dirac box now as well as giving me the ability to finesse the response curve to suit my tastes, my room and my subs. I say this because my absence from Audyssey may well mean that other knowledgeable guys in this thread, such as Mike etc might be able to give you more detailed help. (I still receive notification emails for the thread and only popped back in when I saw you were having problems getting hold of the Sub Tweak Guide.

Good luck with it. Getting the sub/mains properly integrated is not a trivial task as you are finding!


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^^

BTW, you might also try using different crossovers on the mains. This will also impact the smoothness around the splice.


----------



## lovingdvd

kbarnes701 said:


> When measuring the subs' response it is important to measure with the mains running as well because of the interraction between them at the crossover. It's OK to measure subs individually as part of a trouble shooting process, but for evaluation you need the subs and the mains working at the same time. That is the measurement that matters.


I'm a little confused. I thought your guide was very clear about how certain measurements should be "sub only" for certain baseline measurements and comparisons?




> I think you have it right. Unfortunately, it is an iterative, trial and error process and can take some time. Start at the beginning and then change the distance setting 1 ft at a time, remeasure and see if you have made an improvement or not. If you have, add another foot and repeat. Keep repeating until you start to notice it getting worse again. Then back off one foot of delay and start remeasuring with the smallest delay increment possible and keep observing the difference you make until you can make no further improvement at all. If the first step gives you an immediate worse result, then change the 1ft distance setting in the other direction (minus if you added first time, plus if you subtracted first time).


Very clear, thanks. I will try this tonight.



> From your results so far I;d say that there is every chance this is an issue around the crossover frequency and so the sub distance tweak may be able to give you an improvement. One other thing I'd try before doing the distance tweak is to change your sub phase control to the opposite setting (if you have such a control). IE, if it is currently 0 then change it to 180. This in itself can sometimes make a big difference. If you find it does, then leave it in the new position and then see if you can improve it any more by using the distance tweak.


Yes I was thinking about the idea of trying the phase. However in my setup I do not have a way to change the phase; at least I don't think I do... I built these subs myself and they are passive, meaning they are just a woofer in a cabinet with no amplifier or circuitry at the sub. Likewise the sub amp does not have any DSP or switches for phase that I know of (just has gain controls). And I do not think the 8802A has an option to change the subwoofer phase - at least I can't find any such option in the menu or manual. I'll ask in the 8802A thread. Short of that, is there any other way to change the phase? I don't know if reversing the polarity of the wiring would do it (or if that even makes sense) but that's not an option at the subs (can't easily get to them) and not as easy as you may think at the rack based on how I have things wired together for the subs (could be done if I knew it would help, but a lot of work I'd rather avoid otherwise).



> You are welcome. I should add that I haven't used Audyssey now for two or three years. I now use Dirac Live which gives me a huge amount of additional control and allows superior bass management in the Dirac box now as well as giving me the ability to finesse the response curve to suit my tastes, my room and my subs. I say this because my absence from Audyssey may well mean that other knowledgeable guys in this thread, such as Mike etc might be able to give you more detailed help. (I still receive notification emails for the thread and only popped back in when I saw you were having problems getting hold of the Sub Tweak Guide.


I am interested in Dirac. However with my 9.4.6 setup I would need two MiniDSP 88A units and the added complexity of a dual 88A setup and all the extra wiring, not to mention the cost of the two 88A units. Compared to having the built-in Audyssey you can see why I favor first trying to get good results out of it. If I can't, then I'll have to consider Dirac. In the spring I will get the 8802A replacement when it comes out, which not only will give me 2 more active channels for Atmos, but also it has the new Audyssey "app" support. If you are not familiar with this new version of Audyssey, it provides a LOT more flexibility in terms of setting curves, EQ cutoffs and so forth, at least compared to the older version of Audyssey. That said, it may still be far less flexible than Dirac.

If you have a few minutes, please have a look at this: 



 which shows the Audyssey app in action and the features/controls it offers. I've been meaning to post this in the Dirac thread to get feedback from the group on it. I'm curious to know based on what you see there if Audyssey looks like it has significantly caught up (at least in terms of control and flexibility) and if not what advantages Dirac has?

BTW, I know Audyssey does not do the time alignment of the subs WITH the other speakers integrated - but will Dirac handle that? Or is it still the same of having to manually tweak the time alignment under Dirac as well?



> Good luck with it. Getting the sub/mains properly integrated is not a trivial task as you are finding!


Thanks you. Based on the graphs I've posted showing the current situation, assuming I am not able to improve on it much, how big of an issue do you think this is? IOW am I justified in spending a lot of time (and possibly a lot of money, if I have to switch to Dirac to solve this) to fix this dip? Or is this one of those things where it looks worse in the graph than it actually is and that in reality I won't notice much of a difference with it now vs if this dip was not there?


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> I'm a little confused. I thought your guide was very clear about how certain measurements should be "sub only" for certain baseline measurements and comparisons?


Subs only for setting up and getting the baseline sub response, yes. But when you want to evaluate how the room measures when you are listening, I would run the mains + subs for those measurements because the mains and the subs have a natural interaction around the splice and you want to see what this looks like. So measure mains only, individually, and then C+ Subs and/or L+R+Subs. (This is the only time I'd suggest measuring L&R together).



lovingdvd said:


> Yes I was thinking about the idea of trying the phase. However in my setup I do not have a way to change the phase; at least I don't think I do... I built these subs myself and they are passive, meaning they are just a woofer in a cabinet with no amplifier or circuitry at the sub. Likewise the sub amp does not have any DSP or switches for phase that I know of (just has gain controls). And I do not think the 8802A has an option to change the subwoofer phase - at least I can't find any such option in the menu or manual. I'll ask in the 8802A thread. Short of that, is there any other way to change the phase? I don't know if reversing the polarity of the wiring would do it (or if that even makes sense) but that's not an option at the subs (can't easily get to them) and not as easy as you may think at the rack based on how I have things wired together for the subs (could be done if I knew it would help, but a lot of work I'd rather avoid otherwise).


Don't worry about the phase if you can't change it anyway (neither can I on my dual Submersives). It is just another thing to try if it's possible. If it isn't you can do the same sort of thing by tweaking the delays.




lovingdvd said:


> I am interested in Dirac. However with my 9.4.6 setup I would need two MiniDSP 88A units and the added complexity of a dual 88A setup and all the extra wiring, not to mention the cost of the two 88A units.


Yes, that is what I am doing here in my room too. It is more complex (and costly) with two 88A units, but it's fairly straightforward. I wrote a guide to it in fact which you can find on the MiniDSP site 




lovingdvd said:


> Compared to having the built-in Audyssey you can see why I favor first trying to get good results out of it.


Absolutely.



lovingdvd said:


> If I can't, then I'll have to consider Dirac. In the spring I will get the 8802A replacement when it comes out, which not only will give me 2 more active channels for Atmos, but also it has the new Audyssey "app" support. If you are not familiar with this new version of Audyssey, it provides a LOT more flexibility in terms of setting curves, EQ cutoffs and so forth, at least compared to the older version of Audyssey. That said, it may still be far less flexible than Dirac.
> 
> If you have a few minutes, please have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ep8oVji_g0k which shows the Audyssey app in action and the features/controls it offers. I've been meaning to post this in the Dirac thread to get feedback from the group on it. I'm curious to know based on what you see there if Audyssey looks like it has significantly caught up (at least in terms of control and flexibility) and if not what advantages Dirac has?


This new version of Audyssey looks much more flexible and it does give some of the benefits of Dirac. But Dirac has also moved on now and the latest 88A units can do bass management in the units themselves, for example, which offers greater sophistication than doing it in the AVR. Dirac also is a mixed phase solution which many would say was better than Audyssey's minimum phase solution.



lovingdvd said:


> BTW, I know Audyssey does not do the time alignment of the subs WITH the other speakers integrated - but will Dirac handle that? Or is it still the same of having to manually tweak the time alignment under Dirac as well?


The latest version with inbuilt bass management can do what you suggest. I don't want to go too much into Dirac in this thread as it is OT and the last time it upset some of the thread participants.



lovingdvd said:


> Thanks you. Based on the graphs I've posted showing the current situation, assuming I am not able to improve on it much, how big of an issue do you think this is? IOW am I justified in spending a lot of time (and possibly a lot of money, if I have to switch to Dirac to solve this) to fix this dip? Or is this one of those things where it looks worse in the graph than it actually is and that in reality I won't notice much of a difference with it now vs if this dip was not there?


Well this is the million dollar question. A 12db dip is quite deep, but yours is also fairly narrow. When the dips are narrow they are much harder to detect by ear. I meant to ask you last time how it sounds? Are you noticing anything 'wrong' around 100Hz? And lack of slam or punch?


----------



## lovingdvd

kbarnes701 said:


> ...Yes, that is what I am doing here in my room too. It is more complex (and costly) with two 88A units, but it's fairly straightforward. I wrote a guide to it in fact which you can find on the MiniDSP site


Yes I read that last week. It gave me confidence I could get it working if I decide to go that way. Thank you for that.



> This new version of Audyssey looks much more flexible and it does give some of the benefits of Dirac. But Dirac has also moved on now and the latest 88A units can do bass management in the units themselves, for example, which offers greater sophistication than doing it in the AVR. Dirac also is a mixed phase solution which many would say was better than Audyssey's minimum phase solution.
> 
> The latest version with inbuilt bass management can do what you suggest. I don't want to go too much into Dirac in this thread as it is OT and the last time it upset some of the thread participants.


Apparently there is a no refund policy on the 88A, so it is a large commitment to try it while being uncertain of the improvement over what I have now. Although I suppose I could start with one 88A and see what improvement that makes (both in the graphs and by ear) and just do the 7.1 for starters. Then if I like the results, pick up the 2nd 88A. At any rate, I'll play around with the Distance time alignment tonight. If I can improve things that way it may keep me content with Audyssey for now. Otherwise I suppose I may have to look at Dirac. Yes, as to not get off topic I'll post my Dirac related thoughts and questions in the MiniDSP 88A thread. 



> Well this is the million dollar question. A 12db dip is quite deep, but yours is also fairly narrow. When the dips are narrow they are much harder to detect by ear. I meant to ask you last time how it sounds? Are you noticing anything 'wrong' around 100Hz? And lack of slam or punch?


I can't really say if I hear a problem or not. It's the type of thing where you probably need to hear it right and wrong to know what you're missing... As far as it being a fairly narrow dip, recall that the graphs I posted are averages of all 7 measures. Looking at some individual speakers together with the subs shows that in some cases the dip is even narrower but deeper (see attached red line which is a measurement of the Left Side surround with the subs) which is about -20dB, and in other cases like the center channel (shown in blue) it is less deep but wider (this one is about 75hz to 165hz from start to finish). See attached. 

Thanks!


----------



## AustinJerry

kbarnes701 said:


> The latest version with inbuilt bass management can do what you suggest. I don't want to go too much into Dirac in this thread as it is OT and the last time it upset some of the thread participants.


Not true, Keith. The Dirac calibration is completely independent of any bass management configuration in the 88A, and is unaware of the crossover settings. We can discuss in the 88A thread if you like. AFAIK, there are few, if any, room correction technologies that take into account the interaction of the mains and subs in order to optimize the splice.


----------



## sdrucker

AustinJerry said:


> Not true, Keith. The Dirac calibration is completely independent of any bass management configuration in the 88A, and is unaware of the crossover settings. We can discuss in the 88A thread if you like. AFAIK, there are few, if any, room correction technologies that take into account the interaction of the mains and subs in order to optimize the splice.


Arcos?

http://www.jblsynthesis.com/syn-arcos.html

(Seems like old times...happened to see this thread by accident)


----------



## lovingdvd

kbarnes701 said:


> ...
> I think you have it right. Unfortunately, it is an iterative, trial and error process and can take some time. Start at the beginning and then change the distance setting 1 ft at a time, remeasure and see if you have made an improvement or not. If you have, add another foot and repeat. Keep repeating until you start to notice it getting worse again. Then back off one foot of delay and start remeasuring with the smallest delay increment possible and keep observing the difference you make until you can make no further improvement at all. If the first step gives you an immediate worse result, then change the 1ft distance setting in the other direction (minus if you added first time, plus if you subtracted first time). From your results so far I;d say that there is every chance this is an issue around the crossover frequency and so the sub distance tweak may be able to give you an improvement.


Thanks Keith! I'm happy to report back that I was able to get what looks to be a great result. I tried at various distances and increments as you described. The best result was adding 4 feet to both Distances, those a good result can be had by adding 3 feet or 3.5 feet as well. 

See the attached sub-combo2. These measurements are with Audyssey On, with the mic at the MLP pointed at the ceiling and using the 90 degree narrow band UMK-1 calibration file. The red line is with the subs at the default Audyssey chosen Distances (15.5' and 17.2'), green line is adding 3.5 feet to both, but the blue line which adds 4 feet to both seemed to produce the most natural curve. The orange line is a measure of the subs only, with the 4 foot distance added to both, just as a sanity test to make sure it didn't mess up the subwoofer response (it didn't).

Some follow up questions please:

1. Do you agree that this has fully solved the integration issue between the subs and the mains and an overall very good result and that +4 is ideal based on the graph? As a side note, I also tried with other xo on the mains before doing the Distance tweaks, and that just made the large integration dip much worse and moved it around.

2. About the only artifact that shows up in the graphs from this Distance tweak is that it has raised the peak at around 53hZ from about +1 dB to about +3 dB. I assume this is a worthwhile trade-off compared to the -10dB dip at 100hz otherswise. I also suppose there is no way to get Audyssey to update its EQ based on this distance, without it recalculating the the distances.

3. Is it perfectly OK to add +4 feet in my situation? It seems like a lot, relative to the initial 15.5' and 17.2' measures (about +20%). I read in the guide not to go much below the actual distances, but it didn't provide any rule of thumb (that I recall) on how much distance you can reasonably add before introducing an issue. For instance I wouldn't want the bass to be slightly noticeably out of sync or cause other such acoustic issues. The sub it measured at 15.5', which is now set at 20.5', is actually 13.5 feet away. And the sub it measured at 17.2', which is now set at 21.2', is actually 15.5' away. Is 4' in a good range? At what point to you have to be concerned about adding too much distance.

4. OK with this the sub/main integration out of the way, I am turning my attention to the peaks and valleys in the 200hz - 2kHz range (which flattens out quite a bit after that). Those peaks and valleys are there with the original sub distances, and do not chance with the +4' added. And those peaks and valleys are also there with Audyssey off, and in fact Audyssey helps in this area a little, but not much. This same pattern of peaks and valleys is there for pretty much every speaker in the room, and is also there even from a near-field-ish measure of a single speaker from just 16" away. Any ideas how I can figure out what's causing this and how to go about better EQing it? 

Thanks!


----------



## javan robinson

Hey all, so I've done some scanning on this thread and a lot of this is WAY over my head but a few questions in regards to my setup.

The setup is a Paradigm Monitor v7 9 setup w/
2 Monitor 9 v7 towers
Center 3 v7
2 Mini Monitor v7 as sides
2 Cinema v.3 micro as rears
4 Canton 880 for Atmos

So I just got the Mini Monitors today and I am VERY impressed. These things are way bigger than I thought and to have these as side surrounds is incredible. They replaced a pair of Surround 3's that for my rectangle room - I just wasn't very impressed with.

So my main question is - Should I use the App to calibrate everything now or through the setup on my 6300h?

Also, a few questions as I'm aware of Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ, etc all of that but - 

On the app it says Midrange Compensation for each of the speakers and its turned on by default. I don't see this option on my AVR anywhere. Should I leave it on or off?

Now that I have my new minis hooked up, the first disc I popped in to test them was Lone Survivor, which has DTS:X and not Dolby Atmos. I go into the settings to make sure everything is correct and Under Audio>Surround Parameter, I noticed a setting that I never saw before (Probably because 95% of my movies are atmos) and the setting is "DTS Neural:X" and asking to be ON or OFF. Is this just a different setting to apply the upmixer? I want to listen to the movie soundtrack STRAIGHT, without any upmixing, so if I turn this OFF it will send the original audio that the audio engineers intended us to hear, correct?

Thanks gals and guys for any answers - mainly just wondering if I should calibrate with the app or the AVR and what the difference is.

Thank you all and have a great day!


----------



## javan robinson

Oh and the Surround 3's that have been since replaced with the monitors - They are the bipole/dipole design (I'm not sure which) - What is anyones opinion on using these as rear surrounds and do you think audyssey would correctly calibrate them as rears?


----------



## mthomas47

javan robinson said:


> Hey all, so I've done some scanning on this thread and a lot of this is WAY over my head but a few questions in regards to my setup.
> 
> The setup is a Paradigm Monitor v7 9 setup w/
> 2 Monitor 9 v7 towers
> Center 3 v7
> 2 Mini Monitor v7 as sides
> 2 Cinema v.3 micro as rears
> 4 Canton 880 for Atmos
> 
> So I just got the Mini Monitors today and I am VERY impressed. These things are way bigger than I thought and to have these as side surrounds is incredible. They replaced a pair of Surround 3's that for my rectangle room - I just wasn't very impressed with.
> 
> So my main question is - Should I use the App to calibrate everything now or through the setup on my 6300h?
> 
> Also, a few questions as I'm aware of Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ, etc all of that but -
> 
> On the app it says Midrange Compensation for each of the speakers and its turned on by default. I don't see this option on my AVR anywhere. Should I leave it on or off?
> 
> Now that I have my new minis hooked up, the first disc I popped in to test them was Lone Survivor, which has DTS:X and not Dolby Atmos. I go into the settings to make sure everything is correct and Under Audio>Surround Parameter, I noticed a setting that I never saw before (Probably because 95% of my movies are atmos) and the setting is "DTS Neural:X" and asking to be ON or OFF. Is this just a different setting to apply the upmixer? I want to listen to the movie soundtrack STRAIGHT, without any upmixing, so if I turn this OFF it will send the original audio that the audio engineers intended us to hear, correct?
> 
> Thanks gals and guys for any answers - mainly just wondering if I should calibrate with the app or the AVR and what the difference is.
> 
> Thank you all and have a great day!





javan robinson said:


> Oh and the Surround 3's that have been since replaced with the monitors - They are the bipole/dipole design (I'm not sure which) - What is anyones opinion on using these as rear surrounds and do you think audyssey would correctly calibrate them as rears?


Hi,

Welcome to the place where you can get some of your questions answered.  There is a separate thread for the smartphone app, and most of the people who hang out here are probably only going to be able to recycle information they have read there rather than experienced for themselves. I would probably scan the last few pages of that thread. Ultimately, I am sure that I would want to try it both ways to discover for myself whether the app gave me anything beyond what the original Audyssey program provides.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html

With respect to your other questions, first, you may not be able to hear any difference with MRC on or off, but I would personally prefer to leave it off. Audyssey should do fine with your bipole/dipole design. If not, the app may give you some user control that will help. DTS Neural:X is in fact an up-mixer. If it functions like PLIIx, it will pass through original DTS:X content unaltered, but if you are in any doubt, you can just turn it off when you have actual DTS:X content.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## javan robinson

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Welcome to the place where you can get some of your questions answered.  There is a separate thread for the smartphone app, and most of the people who hang out here are probably only going to be able to recycle information they have read there rather than experienced for themselves. I would probably scan the last few pages of that thread. Ultimately, I am sure that I would want to try it both ways to discover for myself whether the app gave me anything beyond what the original Audyssey program provides.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html
> 
> With respect to your other questions, first, you may not be able to hear any difference with MRC on or off, but I would personally prefer to leave it off. Audyssey should do fine with your bipole/dipole design. If not, the app may give you some user control that will help. DTS Neural:X is in fact an up-mixer. If it functions like PLIIx, it will pass through original DTS:X content unaltered, but if you are in any doubt, you can just turn it off when you have actual DTS:X content.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the suggestions and the link to the thread I really appreciate it!

I thought this thread and that one were one in the same, my bad!

Thank you again!


----------



## dennwood

*Audyssey MultEQ XT32 with dual dissimilar subs? Curves posted..*

I’ve been reading now for hours on the topic of dual sub tuning, DSP, and dual subs. Using a single sub vs dual sub scenario, and the Audyssey app, I’ve included images of both before/after curves. The amp is the Denon AVR-X3400H with dual (independent) sub outputs and Audyssey MultEQ XT32.

I also realize that pairing dissimilar subs is not a great idea. That said, the results correlate with what I’m hearing, smoother bass at the MLP.

Sub 1 is a Paradigm DSP-3200, 12”, dual front ported
Sub 2 is an old Sound Dynamics 10”, single front port.

The room is about 11x19, the 12” DSP-3200 is mid room (under the media rack) and sub 2 (10”) is just hiding in the foreground lower right corner of the panoramic image. This theater is very much under construction so I’m dialing in speaker location only right now. There are zero acoustic treatments now, but the room will get a lot of attention in this regard.

My one question: Can MultiEq XT32 competently manage subs like this? Comments on the curves?


----------



## Alan P

Smoother response with the 10" added in, but you are losing a lot of extension because the -3dB point of the 10" is so much higher than the 12". Audyssey will always EQ to the abilities of the lesser sub.


----------



## lovingdvd

@Alan P and all - any thoughts on this post above? http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-part-ii-133.html#post55233292 . Thanks!


----------



## primetimeguy

lovingdvd said:


> @Alan P and all - any thoughts on this post above? http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...audyssey-thread-part-ii-133.html#post55233292 . Thanks!


Stick with the 4ft, looks good. Mine subs actually require about the same adjustment. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

AustinJerry said:


> Not true, Keith. The Dirac calibration is completely independent of any bass management configuration in the 88A, and is unaware of the crossover settings. We can discuss in the 88A thread if you like. AFAIK, there are few, if any, room correction technologies that take into account the interaction of the mains and subs in order to optimize the splice.


Thanks Jerry. I am not sure what I really meant there! It is possible I was answering a question that the OP hadn't asked  My intention was to reinforce the idea of doing BM in the 88A as opposed to in the AVR, which has various benefits AIUI (although currently I am not doing it this way myself as my result is so good right now I feel no need to tinker).


----------



## kbarnes701

lovingdvd said:


> Thanks Keith! I'm happy to report back that I was able to get what looks to be a great result. I tried at various distances and increments as you described. The best result was adding 4 feet to both Distances, those a good result can be had by adding 3 feet or 3.5 feet as well.
> 
> See the attached sub-combo2. These measurements are with Audyssey On, with the mic at the MLP pointed at the ceiling and using the 90 degree narrow band UMK-1 calibration file. The red line is with the subs at the default Audyssey chosen Distances (15.5' and 17.2'), green line is adding 3.5 feet to both, but the blue line which adds 4 feet to both seemed to produce the most natural curve. The orange line is a measure of the subs only, with the 4 foot distance added to both, just as a sanity test to make sure it didn't mess up the subwoofer response (it didn't).
> 
> Some follow up questions please:
> 
> 1. Do you agree that this has fully solved the integration issue between the subs and the mains and an overall very good result and that +4 is ideal based on the graph? As a side note, I also tried with other xo on the mains before doing the Distance tweaks, and that just made the large integration dip much worse and moved it around.
> 
> 2. About the only artifact that shows up in the graphs from this Distance tweak is that it has raised the peak at around 53hZ from about +1 dB to about +3 dB. I assume this is a worthwhile trade-off compared to the -10dB dip at 100hz otherswise. I also suppose there is no way to get Audyssey to update its EQ based on this distance, without it recalculating the the distances.
> 
> 3. Is it perfectly OK to add +4 feet in my situation? It seems like a lot, relative to the initial 15.5' and 17.2' measures (about +20%). I read in the guide not to go much below the actual distances, but it didn't provide any rule of thumb (that I recall) on how much distance you can reasonably add before introducing an issue. For instance I wouldn't want the bass to be slightly noticeably out of sync or cause other such acoustic issues. The sub it measured at 15.5', which is now set at 20.5', is actually 13.5 feet away. And the sub it measured at 17.2', which is now set at 21.2', is actually 15.5' away. Is 4' in a good range? At what point to you have to be concerned about adding too much distance.
> 
> 4. OK with this the sub/main integration out of the way, I am turning my attention to the peaks and valleys in the 200hz - 2kHz range (which flattens out quite a bit after that). Those peaks and valleys are there with the original sub distances, and do not chance with the +4' added. And those peaks and valleys are also there with Audyssey off, and in fact Audyssey helps in this area a little, but not much. This same pattern of peaks and valleys is there for pretty much every speaker in the room, and is also there even from a near-field-ish measure of a single speaker from just 16" away. Any ideas how I can figure out what's causing this and how to go about better EQing it?
> 
> Thanks!


AFAICT you have made a substantial improvement and your perseverance has been worthwhile! Adding 4 ft is nothing to worry about - it is only about 4ms in time. The way I have always done it is to keep adding distance until I see the result starting to get worse again and then back it off a little and leave it. I haven't especially worried about the actual amount of delay I am adding or subtracting - just the result. I wouldn't personally worry about +2dB at 53Hz - this is always going to be set of trade-offs and compromises and all that matters is the end result.


So how does it sound now?


----------



## VideoGrabber

kbarnes701 said:


> Adding 4 ft is nothing to worry about - it is only about 4ms in time.


It might also be worth mentioning that at the frequency of interest, that seemingly large 4' is only ~1/3 of a wavelength. 

What is really being accomplished with the distance adjustment, is the phase is being shifted, so the nulls don't reinforce at the MLP (or wherever he located the mic).


----------



## dennwood

Alan P said:


> Smoother response with the 10" added in, but you are losing a lot of extension because the -3dB point of the 10" is so much higher than the 12". Audyssey will always EQ to the abilities of the lesser sub.


*Alan*, thanks for the reply. So you're saying the drop at 30Hz or so in the 2nd corrected curve with two subs is likely due to the decreased response of the 10" at that frequency.

If the SubEQ included with is capable of separately managing the two subs, I'm curious on why it just isn't combining both subs with separate FIR filters to compliment? I've noticed that during Audyssey xt32 Multieq calibration that both subs are tested only at MLP 1st position, (sub 1, then 2, then both together) but at testing positions 2-8 only sub 1 is activated. 

I was expecting the advantage of the AVR x3400H with two discrete sub outputs and SubEQ HT to allow individualised FIR filters for both subs? The documentation out there is not so clear on this point.




















Because the before curve on the two subs also shows the 30hz drop (about 3db), could this indicate a sub setup issue? The Paradigm has a phase dial (0 to 180) but the 10" sub does not. I may just try a few tests using the EQ app again to see if I can gain back that 3db in the "before" curve. Any suggestions?


----------



## lovingdvd

primetimeguy said:


> Stick with the 4ft, looks good. Mine subs actually require about the same adjustment.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk





kbarnes701 said:


> AFAICT you have made a substantial improvement and your perseverance has been worthwhile! Adding 4 ft is nothing to worry about - it is only about 4ms in time. The way I have always done it is to keep adding distance until I see the result starting to get worse again and then back it off a little and leave it. I haven't especially worried about the actual amount of delay I am adding or subtracting - just the result. I wouldn't personally worry about +2dB at 53Hz - this is always going to be set of trade-offs and compromises and all that matters is the end result.
> 
> 
> So how does it sound now?





VideoGrabber said:


> It might also be worth mentioning that at the frequency of interest, that seemingly large 4' is only ~1/3 of a wavelength.
> 
> What is really being accomplished with the distance adjustment, is the phase is being shifted, so the nulls don't reinforce at the MLP (or wherever he located the mic).


Great, thanks guys. Keith - in reality it wasn't much work at all, like your guide says near the end there's a shortcut which is just to try some distance tweaks without all the individual measurements etc (even tho I did those). The harder part was the upfront research learning what it was I was trying to accomplish and why, and how. The doing was pretty easy after that.  Thanks again for the hard work. How does it sound? Well I haven't really been able to really test it out yet, but preliminary the base sounds somewhat different - more "full" and perhaps more even. I suppose 100hz and the general 75-150hz area that was affected is a fairly important part of the range. Will report back on my subjective tests after I've really had a chance to listen to various material in detail.


----------



## mthomas47

dennwood said:


> *Alan*, thanks for the reply. So you're saying the drop at 30Hz or so in the 2nd corrected curve with two subs is likely due to the decreased response of the 10" at that frequency.
> 
> If the SubEQ included with is capable of separately managing the two subs, I'm curious on why it just isn't combining both subs with separate FIR filters to compliment? I've noticed that during Audyssey xt32 Multieq calibration that both subs are tested only at MLP 1st position, (sub 1, then 2, then both together) but at testing positions 2-8 only sub 1 is activated.
> 
> I was expecting the advantage of the AVR x3400H with two discrete sub outputs and SubEQ HT to allow individualised FIR filters for both subs? The documentation out there is not so clear on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the before curve on the two subs also shows the 30hz drop (about 3db), could this indicate a sub setup issue? The Paradigm has a phase dial (0 to 180) but the 10" sub does not. I may just try a few tests using the EQ app again to see if I can gain back that 3db in the "before" curve. Any suggestions?


Hi,

As you say the documentation is unclear, and some of that may be deliberate marketing obfuscation, but Audyssey in all versions, EQ's all subs as one, setting one group of control points for all the subs in a system. What it does do, with SubEQ, is to set distances (timing) and levels separately for two subs. When two subs with different frequency responses are EQed together, Audyssey simply stops setting control points where the combined sound of the subs is down by 3db. So, the roll-off point of the weaker sub determines how low the EQ goes. Audyssey does the same thing for the regular channels. It stops EQing at the F3 point of the speaker.

Your best bet when trying to pair a weaker sub with a stronger one is to locate the weaker sub closer to the MLP. That will at least give it a slight SPL advantage with respect to the stronger sub. Whether that will help it to roll-off just a little lower is a question that you can only answer through experimentation. But, if nothing else, it might sound better that way.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## dennwood

*Mike*, that is the information I was looking for exactly  Awesome.

The smaller sub will potentially behind seating, 6-7 ft from MLP...so this works out. I have a price of $640 CAD for a new (2nd) DSP-3200...hmmm.


----------



## garygarrison

dennwood said:


> ... Because the before curve on the two subs also shows the 30hz drop (about 3db), could this indicate a sub setup issue?


I'm no expert, and I've never had 2 subs in the same room/set up, but, just for ducks, I might try putting the less capable sub into a trihedral room corner, on the floor, pushed all the way in to the corner, diagonally oriented so a line bisecting the center of the speaker cone (the dust cap, if visible) splits the 90 degree angle of the corner in two, so the sub is aimed out into the room at 45 degrees. The (merely) anecdotal evidence I have heard over the years suggests that this could result in a variety of outcomes from good to bad. The best case scenario would be a 3 to 6 dB increase in bass on the low end for that sub, with conceivably more bass extension, so the - 3dB point of that sub might become lower. Or not. The worst case might be more uneven bass, with modes more fully activated. BUT, the second, better, sub might fill in some of the nulls, and it would be interesting to see what Audyssey -- or you with the app -- might do with it. 

It looks like you have a better room corner on the rear left than on the rear right.

There are anti-corner and pro-corner writers out there, including studio designers.

I'm aware that there is some potential contradiction between this suggestion and what Mike has said. As he indicated, it may be a matter of experimentation. I see you have a big projection screen. Perhaps your seating will be toward the rear of the room? It would be especially interesting if there were a room corner significantly nearer your main listening position than the main, better, subwoofer. That way, you might have your sub, and eat it too.

Good luck!


----------



## dennwood

*Gary*, What you're describing about the smaller sub is pretty close to it's current position, and orientation. The room design dictates seating at the rear..hardly ideal, but I'll have 4" of absorption along the entire back wall. The screen is a 125" AT, so about right for a 15.5' or so viewing distance.

I re-ran the Audyssey calibration with about 20 pieces of Roxul positioned on the front/rear walls and 1st reflection positions, and the open section at rear of the room covered with a canvas drop sheet (we'll have a curtain or absorptive bifold there). Interestingly enough the "treated" room dropped the crossover point of the 5 main speakers (Paradigm Millennia 30s) down to 40Hz. Previously it was choosing 60Hz for them. I also played with/without the midrange compensation and definitely prefer it _without_ on the 5 x Millennia 30s.

This testing has rather derailed the construction efforts, but at least now I have good idea on speaker/sub placement as well as target acoustic treatment areas. It's amazing how 20 pieces of Roxul leaned up/suspended on walls, and arranged on the floor makes such a dramatic improvement in the room. I've been researching absorption/diffusion for some time now, but never had my ears in a room to experiment with and without it.

I believe I now understand how so many fall into the theatre rabbit hole


----------



## mthomas47

dennwood said:


> *Gary*, What you're describing about the smaller sub is pretty close to it's current position, and orientation. The room design dictates seating at the rear..hardly ideal, but I'll have 4" of absorption along the entire back wall. The screen is a 125" AT, so about right for a 15.5' or so viewing distance.
> 
> I re-ran the Audyssey calibration with about 20 pieces of Roxul positioned on the front/rear walls and 1st reflection positions, and the open section at rear of the room covered with a canvas drop sheet (we'll have a curtain or absorptive bifold there). Interestingly enough the "treated" room dropped the crossover point of the 5 main speakers (Paradigm Millennia 30s) down to 40Hz. Previously it was choosing 60Hz for them. I also played with/without the midrange compensation and definitely prefer it _without_ on the 5 x Millennia 30s.
> 
> This testing has rather derailed the construction efforts, but at least now I have good idea on speaker/sub placement as well as target acoustic treatment areas. It's amazing how 20 pieces of Roxul leaned up/suspended on walls, and arranged on the floor makes such a dramatic improvement in the room. I've been researching absorption/diffusion for some time now, but never had my ears in a room to experiment with and without it.
> 
> I believe I now understand how so many fall into the theatre rabbit hole


Rabbit hole? What rabbit hole? 

That sounds good on the room treatments, although I'm not sure how that would affect the low frequency response of your speakers. Sometimes the crossovers change just a bit from calibration-to-calibration due to very slight differences in the microphone positions, or for other reasons that are hard to explain. I have one pair of speakers that can be either Large, or 40Hz, seemingly depending on how Audyssey is feeling that day.

Since you have Millennia 30 speakers and are also getting a good low frequency response from them, you might want to comment on this thread: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-sp...radigm-millenia-30-lcr-wall.html#post55246076

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

dennwood said:


> *Gary*, What you're describing about the smaller sub is pretty close to it's current position, and orientation. The room design dictates seating at the rear..hardly ideal, but I'll have 4" of absorption along the entire back wall. The screen is a 125" AT, so about right for a 15.5' or so viewing distance.
> 
> ... Interestingly enough the "treated" room dropped the crossover point of the 5 main speakers (Paradigm Millennia 30s) down to 40Hz. Previously it was choosing 60Hz for them.


I'm glad the room sounds better, and that the smaller sub is where it is. 

I'm amazed that the treatment lowered the crossover -- I can't figure out why. I would think that the Roxul would have no effect on frequencies below about 200 Hz, and for main speaker woofers of the size you have, I'd think 80 Hz would be about rock bottom. I think Paradigm rates their bass extension only to 75 Hz, and flat [+/- 2 dB, stricter than most] from only 110 up. Maybe something about your room is helping out their bass, and didn't show up until the treatments got rid of early mid and treble reflections. Since the speakers are so shallow, therefore close to a wall, maybe they are acting almost as though they are flush mounted, which would improve their bass, but Paradigm knows that, yet gives them extension to only 75 Hz. Are you intending to ever run a movie at, or near, Reference Level? If so, a higher crossover would tend to protect your main speakers.


----------



## dennwood

*Mike*, Audyssey has consistently (using the app, about 4 calibrations now) pegged the five Millenia 30s at 60 Hz, (small) for 3 tests, but the fourth (with the treatments) ended up with 40hz across the board. I've set them at 80Hz as the "before" charts in the app show them rolling off sharply at around 60Hz-70Hz. I'll edit this post later with some screen grabs from the app. I also have a set of ATMOS heights (Paradigm CI Home H65-R) which I have set at 90Hz. Paradigm suggested 34 litres as the backer box volume, sealed.

*Gary*, yep..the cross overs are indeed set up a bit to reflect the graphs of in-room testing. Both sub gains were set pretty low for testing via the app's interactive volume process...approx 9 o'clock on the gain dials. I like them tweaked a bit above that (post testing) like many have observed for a bit more rumble in the room. For my small space, there's a ton of head room there on the subs.

The H65-R ceiling speakers sound surprisingly good, although the backer boxes were a beast for them. The front faces are covered with the 1/4" ply + GG + two layers of drywall + GG ..and yes, they're stuffed 










Backer boxes ready to install for six LED lights and two Atmos ceiling speakers . The Atmos boxes are 34 litres (1.2 cubic feet) and will tuck up between basement ceiling joists.










This is the Millenia 30 center channel before/after graph. The roll off at 60-70 Hz looks similar for all five Millenia 30 speakers in the room.


----------



## garygarrison

dennwood said:


> This is the Millennia 30 center channel before/after graph. *The roll off at 60-70 Hz looks similar for all five Millenia 30 speakers in the room.*


Your center channel "after" graph looks great, one of the smoothest I've seen between about 60 Hz and 5K Hz. It would be easier to read if the values on the coordinates were in the picture. Is it possible to zoom out so they will show? I assume you are using Audyssey Reference, after removing the midrange compensation. Have you tried Audyssey Flat? I did several years ago, and found I liked it better with almost all modern movies, but liked the Audyssey Reference roll-off with movies made before about 2000.

With that roll-off at 60/70, it is possible you would be better off with a crossover even higher than 80 Hz, particularly if you are considering playing movies at or near reference level. 

I don't have the app, and my pre-pro is too old (all of about 7 years old!) to use it. Someday, I might upgrade, so I have a question. Are the "after" graphs a representation of the electronic (not acoustical) results after correction, like we would get by measuring the results at the *pre-outs* with something like REW, *OR* are they acoustical results in the room, measured anew, after running Audyssey, with 1 mic position (or several), like we would get by measuring the *new* room results with something like REW?


----------



## jamiebosco

Hi Guys
I wasn't sure where to put this- either here or the REW thread - let me know if you feel it's in the wrong place


I'm getting some "weird" results running Audyssey XT32 with my Denon 4311.


Audyssey keeps rolling my subs off under 30hz. I have 4 x SVS PB2000's in a 3000 cubic ft lounge room so I should have enough headroom that Audyssey shouldn't need to cut the Subs off so high.
At this point I've run Audyssey MANY times over the last week and the end results are the same each time. I have moved the seating back and forward as far as I can go in each direction in 6" increments - rerunning Audyssey each time - and the results have been pretty much the same. Without Audyssey engaged the subs extend down to 20hz (with a slight rise in response between 30hz to 20hz) but with Audyssey engaged the low bass is neutered.


I know this room is HORRIBLE for room gain- largish open plan,all glass and drywall - My old lounge room was much smaller and all brick and with 1 x PB12-NSD + 1 x PB-2000 had a pretty flat response into the high teens. I'm not expecting anything special or beyond the subs capabilities I don't think - reasonably flat between 20-80hz will do me fine!


The first 3 graphs where from the initial Audyssey Calibration. The next 2 are from another Audyssey calibration a few days later with the seating moved back about 12", the last 4 are from todays calibration using only 1 Audyssey mic position to see if that changed anything. The final 3 graphs are overlays showing the differences between Audyssey on vs off


I've been talking with Ed Mullen via email, but any additional info advice would be greatly appreciated!!!


----------



## fredxr2d2

garygarrison said:


> Your center channel "after" graph looks great, one of the smoothest I've seen between about 60 Hz and 5K Hz. It would be easier to read if the values on the coordinates were in the picture. Is it possible to zoom out so they will show? I assume you are using Audyssey Reference, after removing the midrange compensation. Have you tried Audyssey Flat? I did several years ago, and found I liked it better with almost all modern movies, but liked the Audyssey Reference roll-off with movies made before about 2000.
> 
> With that roll-off at 60/70, it is possible you would be better off with a crossover even higher than 80 Hz, particularly if you are considering playing movies at or near reference level.
> 
> I don't have the app, and my pre-pro is too old (all of about 7 years old!) to use it. Someday, I might upgrade, so I have a question. Are the "after" graphs a representation of the electronic (not acoustical) results after correction, like we would get by measuring the results at the *pre-outs* with something like REW, *OR* are they acoustical results in the room, measured anew, after running Audyssey, with 1 mic position (or several), like we would get by measuring the *new* room results with something like REW?


The app displays graphs of how it *thinks* it should look after room correction.


----------



## mogorf

jamiebosco said:


> Hi Guys
> I wasn't sure where to put this- either here or the REW thread - let me know if you feel it's in the wrong place
> 
> 
> I'm getting some "weird" results running Audyssey XT32 with my Denon 4311.
> 
> 
> Audyssey keeps rolling my subs off under 30hz. I have 4 x SVS PB2000's in a 3000 cubic ft lounge room so I should have enough headroom that Audyssey shouldn't need to cut the Subs off so high.
> At this point I've run Audyssey MANY times over the last week and the end results are the same each time. I have moved the seating back and forward as far as I can go in each direction in 6" increments - rerunning Audyssey each time - and the results have been pretty much the same. Without Audyssey engaged the subs extend down to 20hz (with a slight rise in response between 30hz to 20hz) but with Audyssey engaged the low bass is neutered.
> 
> 
> I know this room is HORRIBLE for room gain- largish open plan,all glass and drywall - My old lounge room was much smaller and all brick and with 1 x PB12-NSD + 1 x PB-2000 had a pretty flat response into the high teens. I'm not expecting anything special or beyond the subs capabilities I don't think - reasonably flat between 20-80hz will do me fine!
> 
> 
> The first 3 graphs where from the initial Audyssey Calibration. The next 2 are from another Audyssey calibration a few days later with the seating moved back about 12", the last 4 are from todays calibration using only 1 Audyssey mic position to see if that changed anything. The final 3 graphs are overlays showing the differences between Audyssey on vs off
> 
> 
> I've been talking with Ed Mullen via email, but any additional info advice would be greatly appreciated!!!


Hi Jamie,

Here's a tip for your troubleshooting. I think your subs each have an "Auto Standby" swith on their back side. Turn them "off" during calibration. Most probably the -30 dBfs test signal of Audyssey is not enough to wak up the subs. After calibration you may decide to use this wake up feature or not. I wouldn't use it coz I don't like sub waiting for a high enough signal to kick-in, rather I like the sub awake all the time, even with low level signals. Up to you.


----------



## dennwood

*Gary*, the before/after graphs in Audyssey don’t provide a scale, but the curve editor does. The scale should be the same.










Pretty sure that after graph show what response “should” be. That said, the Millenia 30s have a pretty flat response, at least in a test chamber . I’m not set up with REW and a mic, but now you have me interested ...


----------



## mthomas47

jamiebosco said:


> Hi Guys
> I wasn't sure where to put this- either here or the REW thread - let me know if you feel it's in the wrong place
> 
> 
> I'm getting some "weird" results running Audyssey XT32 with my Denon 4311.
> 
> 
> Audyssey keeps rolling my subs off under 30hz. I have 4 x SVS PB2000's in a 3000 cubic ft lounge room so I should have enough headroom that Audyssey shouldn't need to cut the Subs off so high.
> At this point I've run Audyssey MANY times over the last week and the end results are the same each time. I have moved the seating back and forward as far as I can go in each direction in 6" increments - rerunning Audyssey each time - and the results have been pretty much the same. Without Audyssey engaged the subs extend down to 20hz (with a slight rise in response between 30hz to 20hz) but with Audyssey engaged the low bass is neutered.
> 
> 
> I know this room is HORRIBLE for room gain- largish open plan,all glass and drywall - My old lounge room was much smaller and all brick and with 1 x PB12-NSD + 1 x PB-2000 had a pretty flat response into the high teens. I'm not expecting anything special or beyond the subs capabilities I don't think - reasonably flat between 20-80hz will do me fine!
> 
> 
> The first 3 graphs where from the initial Audyssey Calibration. The next 2 are from another Audyssey calibration a few days later with the seating moved back about 12", the last 4 are from todays calibration using only 1 Audyssey mic position to see if that changed anything. The final 3 graphs are overlays showing the differences between Audyssey on vs off
> 
> 
> I've been talking with Ed Mullen via email, but any additional info advice would be greatly appreciated!!!


Hi Jamie,

I don't know if there is any specific place that is best to ask for help, so here is fine as far as I am concerned. Here is what I see. There is a pretty consistent pattern in the graphs that the mid-bass frequency response is a mess without Audyssey. With Audyssey on and DEQ engaged, the overall bass response is pretty good, but you do get about 5db of roll-off from about 25Hz down to 20Hz, that doesn't exist with Audyssey off. I can't explain that at all.

I see that you have experimented a little with your seating position. Have you got the subs in the best possible locations? Harman and Toole disagree a bit on the placement of 4 subs, with Toole recommending corner placement. Where you are not getting as much low frequency extension as you would like, that corner placement option might be worth a try, if possible.

Graphed FR aside, what do you hear and feel in the low frequencies? Are you specifically aware of missing out on low frequency SPL and tactile sensations since moving to this larger, open room? If so, something I might try is putting one, or even two, of my subs in a nearfield placement.

You can probably detect a theme to my questions and suggestions. I can't explain why Audyssey would be knocking down the 25Hz to 20Hz range a little, and I also don't know how noticeable it is. But, if it really bugged me, I would probably get even more creative in my subwoofer placement, and try to give Audyssey even more low frequency SPL to work with. And, a nearfield placement would help to take the room out of the equation, while increasing tactile sensations.

One final thought involves some standard Audyssey trouble-shooting. You could try a few microprocessor resets of your AVR, and you could try a new Audyssey microphone. Audyssey mics typically degrade first in the high frequencies, but there is nothing to say that you couldn't have a mic that is going bad with respect to very low frequencies. I don't really see how that would cause Audyssey to roll-off some low bass, rather than to boost it, but I am grasping at straws here.

I hope that some of this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## blackspider

Guys,
Does the Audyssey "Flat" setting give better vocal & midrange compare to the reference setting??

Thanks.


----------



## pbarach

blackspider said:


> Guys,
> Does the Audyssey "Flat" setting give better vocal & midrange compare to the reference setting??
> 
> Thanks.


The Reference setting rolls off the upper frequencies, but I think this begins at a higher frequency than vocal and midrange. The Flat setting has no roll-off.


----------



## mthomas47

blackspider said:


> Guys,
> Does the Audyssey "Flat" setting give better vocal & midrange compare to the reference setting??
> 
> Thanks.


Hi,

As Pbarach said, the roll-off in the Reference curve starts gently at the upper end of the vocal range--around 4000Hz. Whether you would notice it as much for vocals as you might for some even higher frequency instruments is a question that only you can answer. What you might notice a little more is the mid-range compensation (also part of the Reference curve) which occurs between 2000Hz and 3000Hz. That is a dip of a few decibels that maxes at 2500Hz.

A preference for Audyssey, or for Audyssey Flat, is strictly one of those YMMV things. If you can hear a difference between the two settings, then pick the one you like better. If you can't hear a difference, then it won't matter which one you use. Personally, I like Flat better, but if I had to bet, I would bet that most people use the Audyssey curve, either by default, or by preference. A lot probably depends on your speakers, in your room; and the rest depends on you. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

blackspider said:


> Guys,
> Does the Audyssey "Flat" setting give better vocal & midrange compare to the reference setting??
> 
> Thanks.


Only you can decide that. The reference curve has midrange compensation which is a slight dip at 2khz which is also where our ears are most sensitive. Flat curve does not have that. Therefore the flat curve should sound more "articulate" but may also sound harsh with more treble. Let your ears decide. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## jamiebosco

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jamie,
> 
> I don't know if there is any specific place that is best to ask for help, so here is fine as far as I am concerned. Here is what I see. There is a pretty consistent pattern in the graphs that the mid-bass frequency response is a mess without Audyssey. With Audyssey on and DEQ engaged, the overall bass response is pretty good, but you do get about 5db of roll-off from about 25Hz down to 20Hz, that doesn't exist with Audyssey off. I can't explain that at all.
> 
> I see that you have experimented a little with your seating position. Have you got the subs in the best possible locations? Harman and Toole disagree a bit on the placement of 4 subs, with Toole recommending corner placement. Where you are not getting as much low frequency extension as you would like, that corner placement option might be worth a try, if possible.
> 
> Graphed FR aside, what do you hear and feel in the low frequencies? Are you specifically aware of missing out on low frequency SPL and tactile sensations since moving to this larger, open room? If so, something I might try is putting one, or even two, of my subs in a nearfield placement.
> 
> You can probably detect a theme to my questions and suggestions. I can't explain why Audyssey would be knocking down the 25Hz to 20Hz range a little, and I also don't know how noticeable it is. But, if it really bugged me, I would probably get even more creative in my subwoofer placement, and try to give Audyssey even more low frequency SPL to work with. And, a nearfield placement would help to take the room out of the equation, while increasing tactile sensations.
> 
> One final thought involves some standard Audyssey trouble-shooting. You could try a few microprocessor resets of your AVR, and you could try a new Audyssey microphone. Audyssey mics typically degrade first in the high frequencies, but there is nothing to say that you couldn't have a mic that is going bad with respect to very low frequencies. I don't really see how that would cause Audyssey to roll-off some low bass, rather than to boost it, but I am grasping at straws here.
> 
> I hope that some of this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 
Thanks Mike


Placement in this room is extremely limited, there is actually only no hard "corners" in the traditional sense as about 50% of the walls are floor to ceiling glass windows (I've included a rough drawing using paint). It is also a multi use room so subwoofers need to be kept away from foot traffic


I'm also thinking the Audyssey microphone may be the problem here.
Ed Mullen has been helping me and has been great,he thinks I should contact Audyssey because with Audyssey ON and DynEQ on I should be seeing a rising low end response at 15dB MV whereas Audyssey is cutting. The weird thing is the 20-40hz range looks to be (IMHO) pretty good, so there shouldn't be any need to cut anything really.


To answer your question it does still sound good with Audyssey engaged though. Just want to know WHY its doing what its doing


Cheers
Jamie


----------



## garygarrison

blackspider said:


> Guys,
> Does the Audyssey "Flat" setting give better vocal & midrange compare to the reference setting??
> 
> Thanks.


*Audyssey Flat* provides louder very high frequencies (exclusively overtones) from about 7K to 20K, and overtones of the human voice exist up there, even though no fundamental frequencies of voice are up there. This could translate to increased detail and clarity in the texture of the voice (even the speaking voice), particularly female voices. The fricative consonants may be clearer with Audyssey Flat. And, as one of my friends says, "You can better hear the spit rolling around." Another friend said, "It put the smile in his voice." Notice this last was a male voice. I would expect Dylan or Satchmo to sound more detailed with Audyssey Flat, but also, the pure sounding singers on the Amadeus soundtrack, the ghostly female singer in _Sinfonia Antartica, _or the soprano at the end of _Pomp and Circumstance _in Fantasia 2000 all sound clearer, even more ethereal with Audyssey Flat, in my room. 

*Audyssey Reference* rolls the very high frequencies off, about -2 dB at 10K Hz, and about - 6dB at about 20K Hz. 
*
Which one you will prefer* depends on your room, its treatments, your speakers, your seating position, your taste, but *most of all *[IMO]* the recording*. I generally prefer Audyssey Flat with *music*, and with *movies* made after about 2000. For older movies I tend to prefer Audyssey Reference (magnetic soundtracks often have a little distortion above about 8 K -- optical tracks tend to have a lot of distortion up there). Harsh CDs sound better with Audyssey Reference. 

Perhaps the most controversial thing Audyssey Reference does is to put a little dip in the response around 2K. That seems to reduce some harshness, but is generally unwanted by people who have truly fine sound systems. The new app allows the user to remove it.


----------



## jamiebosco

Ended up buying a new mic from Denon Australia for $100 (!!!) Hope it makes a difference!


----------



## mthomas47

jamiebosco said:


> Ended up buying a new mic from Denon Australia for $100 (!!!) Hope it makes a difference!



I hope so, too! Denon Australia is really hosing you, though, unless the exchange rate is different than what I thought it was. You just need an ACM1H microphone. If you can buy from Amazon, it's quite a bit cheaper: https://www.amazon.com/Denon-Audyss...696&sr=8-3&keywords=denon+audyssey+microphone


----------



## garygarrison

jamiebosco said:


> Ended up buying a new mic from Denon Australia for $100 (!!!) Hope it makes a difference!


Is that the Audyssey mic that* looks like* the one that came with the Denon? Another mic may be inappropriate to use in setting up Audyssey. The AVR or pre/pro has circuitry that is customized to match the characteristics of the cheap Audyssey mic. The going price for these in the United States is $25 to $30, I believe. If you have Audyssey Pro, it may use a better mic, but it still needs to be matched to the AVR, somehow. Maybe if there is a way to do that, Denon Australia recommended the Pro mic for your application ? Denon warns that a standard, calibrated, measurement mic should _*not*_ be used (see their website). Such mics do cost about $100. If you have any doubt, you may want to further discuss this with Denon.


----------



## jamiebosco

mthomas47 said:


> I hope so, too! Denon Australia is really hosing you, though, unless the exchange rate is different than what I thought it was. You just need an ACM1H microphone. If you can buy from Amazon, it's quite a bit cheaper: https://www.amazon.com/Denon-Audyss...696&sr=8-3&keywords=denon+audyssey+microphone




Ha! you have no idea about how hard Australia is done over when it comes to AV stuff. We pay 2-3 times the amount you guys pay in the US. For sure if I lived in the US I'd have dual JTR 4000ulfs!!
The mic I ordered is apparently the exact one my AVR came with from new, I have also asked on a local forum to borrow an Audyssey pyramid style mic for a few days, which should at least tell me if the mic is part of the problem 
cheers
Jamie


----------



## jamiebosco

garygarrison said:


> Is that the Audyssey mic that* looks like* the one that came with the Denon? Another mic may be inappropriate to use in setting up Audyssey. The AVR or pre/pro has circuitry that is customized to match the characteristics of the cheap Audyssey mic. The going price for these in the United States is $25 to $30, I believe. If you have Audyssey Pro, it may use a better mic, but it still needs to be matched to the AVR, somehow. Maybe if there is a way to do that, Denon Australia recommended the Pro mic for your application ? Denon warns that a standard, calibrated, measurement mic should _*not*_ be used (see their website). Such mics do cost about $100. If you have any doubt, you may want to further discuss this with Denon.



Hi Gary. Thanks for the reply!


As I said to Mike this should be the exact mic that came with the 4311. The AVR I bought had the mic still in its original small white box marked "DM-A409" and it appears to have never been used as the original owner of this 4311 has a Audyssey Pro Installer kit with its own mic. 


The mic I ordered from Denon Australia is definitely NOT the Pro kit mic (that one looks more like a umik-1 style mic)- its a pyramid style Audyssey mic. I can only imagine how much the Pro mic would cost in Aus!
We just pay sooooo much more than we should for AV gear. Denon 4300's still fetch $2500 over here. 
Also I rounded up the price of the mic, mic is $85+$10 postage, so $95AU (still crap though)


As a side note I'm on my 5th full 8-position Audyssey calibration this morning (urgh!) trying different seating & subwoofer combinations and each time is the same -the subs are down 5-7dB at 20hz with Audyssey ON compared with Audyssey OFF - and whilst it's not the biggest deal (first world problems I know) I DID pay out my ass for those 5-7dB at 20hz as PB-2000s are $1500ea here lol


----------



## Teremei

Ok


----------



## javan robinson

garygarrison said:


> *Audyssey Flat* provides louder very high frequencies (exclusively overtones) from about 7K to 20K, and overtones of the human voice exist up there, even though no fundamental frequencies of voice are up there. This could translate to increased detail and clarity in the texture of the voice (even the speaking voice), particularly female voices. The fricative consonants may be clearer with Audyssey Flat. And, as one of my friends says, "You can better hear the spit rolling around." Another friend said, "It put the smile in his voice." Notice this last was a male voice. I would expect Dylan or Satchmo to sound more detailed with Audyssey Flat, but also, the pure sounding singers on the Amadeus soundtrack, the ghostly female singer in _Sinfonia Antartica, _or the soprano at the end of _Pomp and Circumstance _in Fantasia 2000 all sound clearer, even more ethereal with Audyssey Flat, in my room.
> 
> *Audyssey Reference* rolls the very high frequencies off, about -2 dB at 10K Hz, and about - 6dB at about 20K Hz.
> *
> Which one you will prefer* depends on your room, its treatments, your speakers, your seating position, your taste, but *most of all *[IMO]* the recording*. I generally prefer Audyssey Flat with *music*, and with *movies* made after about 2000. For older movies I tend to prefer Audyssey Reference (magnetic soundtracks often have a little distortion above about 8 K -- optical tracks tend to have a lot of distortion up there). Harsh CDs sound better with Audyssey Reference.
> 
> Perhaps the most controversial thing Audyssey Reference does is to put a little dip in the response around 2K. That seems to reduce some harshness, but is generally unwanted by people who have truly fine sound systems. The new app allows the user to remove it.


Hm, interesting. Everything I've been hearing says to use Reference for Movies, and Flat for Music - I know it's not as cut and dry as that though; and thank you for taking the time to explain.

I'll have to watch a few more 4k movies and see which I like best.

And you mentioned that the App can remove the dip around 2k for the reference setting - do you mean just by changing it to flat, or is this another setting entirely?

Oh, and do you consider Paradigm Monitor Series v7 "very fine speakers" ? Lol


----------



## blackspider

thanks for the curve info. 

After Audyssey setup is it ok to increase the center channel level by 1db? right now after setup my center channel is on -3db.
Want to increase the center speaker level by 1db for better clarity of dialogue in movies. Is it common to do so? Is it betetr to increase the level by 1db in the main speaker level settigns or in the denon "dialog adjust" setting?



Thanks.


----------



## javan robinson

blackspider said:


> thanks for the curve info.
> 
> After Audyssey setup is it ok to increase the center channel level by 1db? right now after setup my center channel is on -3db.
> Want to increase the center speaker level by 1db for better clarity of dialogue in movies. Is it common to do so? Is it betetr to increase the level by 1db in the main speaker level settigns or in the denon "dialog adjust" setting?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Yes perfectly fine ! And change any level you want - and ALWAYS in the main level settings.


----------



## mthomas47

blackspider said:


> thanks for the curve info.
> 
> After Audyssey setup is it ok to increase the center channel level by 1db? right now after setup my center channel is on -3db.
> Want to increase the center speaker level by 1db for better clarity of dialogue in movies. Is it common to do so? Is it betetr to increase the level by 1db in the main speaker level settigns or in the denon "dialog adjust" setting?
> 
> Thanks.


You are welcome! I'll just add one thing to what Javan said. In some AVR's (and I believe this is the case with Denon's) if you want a change to be permanent for all sources, you will have to change the CC setting in the Speaker Level settings. But, a lot of people make CC adjustments, up or down, during movies, depending on how much ambient surround is mixed into that particular soundtrack or how low the dialogue level sounds. In that case, using the Dialogue Adjust feature is a convenient way to make CC adjustments in real time, while hearing the effects on the dialogue.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## blackspider

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! I'll just add one thing to what Javan said. In some AVR's (and I believe this is the case with Denon's) if you want a change to be permanent for all sources, you will have to change the CC setting in the Speaker Level settings. But, a lot of people make CC adjustments, up or down, during movies, depending on how much ambient surround is mixed into that particular soundtrack or how low the dialogue level sounds. In that case, using the Dialogue Adjust feature is a convenient way to make CC adjustments in real time, while hearing the effects on the dialogue.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


hmmn, i got a denon avrx2300 & there is 2 adjustments for dialog, one is "dialog adjust level" in the main audio settings & the other is "channel level adjust" which comes up when you click the "option" button when a source is selected. Which option you are talking about?

Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

blackspider said:


> hmmn, i got a denon avrx2300 & there is 2 adjustments for dialog, one is "dialog adjust level" in the main audio settings & the other is "channel level adjust" which comes up when you click the "option" button when a source is selected. Which option you are talking about?
> 
> Thanks.


You will have to experiment for yourself, as I don't have the same AVR you do. But, I was talking about the convenience of the "Dialogue Adjust Level".


----------



## zero83

*Audyssey with Dynamic EQ quesiton*

Hey Guys,

I have a Denon AVR X2300w. I am kind of overwhelmed with teh Audyssey Silver XT and Dynamic EQ features and have some questions

1: As a general rule, I will be listening to movies/videogames below Reference Lvl (0DB). What exactly will Dynamic EQ do? As I understand it I will still get full quality sound when listening below 0bd. Is that right?

2: I dont quite understand what everyoone means by reference offset of 5, 10 , or 15?

3: In regards to videogames why are people saying to keep Dynamic EQ off? 

4: If I use Dynamic EQ, will that negate my crossover settings, distance, size, volume, etc.?

Im sure I will think of more quesitons.

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

zero83 said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I have a Denon AVR X2300w. I am kind of overwhelmed with teh Audyssey Silver XT and Dynamic EQ features and have some questions
> 
> 1: As a general rule, I will be listening to movies/videogames below Reference Lvl (0DB). What exactly will Dynamic EQ do? As I understand it I will still get full quality sound when listening below 0bd. Is that right?
> 
> 2: I dont quite understand what everyoone means by reference offset of 5, 10 , or 15?
> 
> 3: In regards to videogames why are people saying to keep Dynamic EQ off?
> 
> 4: If I use Dynamic EQ, will that negate my crossover settings, distance, size, volume, etc.?
> 
> Im sure I will think of more quesitons.
> 
> Thanks


Hi, and welcome to the thread!

DEQ is pretty complicated. Rather than trying to answer your questions piecemeal, and then the follow-up questions, I will direct you to a comprehensive explanation of DEQ. The subwoofer guide linked in my signature explains DEQ in detail. You may also find some of the sections that precede the discussion of DEQ helpful.

DEQ will not in any way interfere with your crossover or distance settings. Nor will it interfere with the room correction that Audyssey performed. It is a separate software program designed to restore acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movies at below Reference listening levels. The guide explains all of that and more. You will have to decide for yourself how you prefer to employ it, for gaming, or for anything else. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zero83

mthomas47 said:


> Hi, and welcome to the thread!
> 
> DEQ is pretty complicated. Rather than trying to answer your questions piecemeal, and then the follow-up questions, I will direct you to a comprehensive explanation of DEQ. The subwoofer guide linked in my signature explains DEQ in detail. You may also find some of the sections that precede the discussion of DEQ helpful.
> 
> DEQ will not in any way interfere with your crossover or distance settings. Nor will it interfere with the room correction that Audyssey performed. It is a separate software program designed to restore acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movies at below Reference listening levels. The guide explains all of that and more. You will have to decide for yourself how you prefer to employ it, for gaming, or for anything else.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks so much for the helpful respone. I have read through some of it, I still dont quite grasp the whole offset thing. so if reference is 0 and I select a 15 offset, what would the volume have to be at before it engages. I guess thats what im confused on.


----------



## mthomas47

zero83 said:


> Thanks so much for the helpful respone. I have read through some of it, I still dont quite grasp the whole offset thing. so if reference is 0 and I select a 15 offset, what would the volume have to be at before it engages. I guess thats what im confused on.


You are very welcome! It's a lot to take in all at once, but all of the information you want is right there. This is from the guide:

"As with DEQ, in general, the RLO settings are applied in 5db increments. So, at the lightest RLO setting of -5, Reference is offset by -5db, and DEQ does nothing at a master volume of -5, and adds a bass boost of +2.2db at -10 MV. At an RLO setting of -15, which is the strongest setting, DEQ would not actually commence operation until a master volume of -20 was reached, and it would add only +2.2db of bass boost at that master volume."


----------



## Alan P

zero83 said:


> Thanks so much for the helpful respone. I have read through some of it, I still dont quite grasp the whole offset thing. so if reference is 0 and I select a 15 offset, what would the volume have to be at before it engages. I guess thats what im confused on.


Mike is so good at explainin' stuff. 

I just wanted to touch on the reason a lot of gamers recommend turning DEQ off; it is because of the directional ques you get, mostly in FPS type games. DEQ adds a boost to the surround channels that may (or may not) cause you to think an opponent is closer than they really are.

That is my understanding of it anyway.


----------



## zero83

Alan P said:


> zero83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks so much for the helpful respone. I have read through some of it, I still dont quite grasp the whole offset thing. so if reference is 0 and I select a 15 offset, what would the volume have to be at before it engages. I guess thats what im confused on.
> 
> 
> 
> Mike is so good at explainin' stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to touch on the reason a lot of gamers recommend turning DEQ off; it is because of the directional ques you get, mostly in FPS type games. DEQ adds a boost to the surround channels that may (or may not) cause you to think an opponent is closer than they really are.
> 
> That is my understanding of it anyway.
Click to expand...

So is it true that I can use an offset of 15db to play games? I guess thats what is confusing me


----------



## mthomas47

zero83 said:


> So is it true that I can use an offset of 15db to play games? I guess thats what is confusing me


Yes, absolutely!  I think that you just need to give yourself some time to absorb this stuff, and some time to try DEQ to find out what you actually like. You might play games with full DEQ (no RLO) and like it fine. Or you might not like it that way at all. But, that's a personal choice. If you play games at -15 MV, with an RLO setting of -15, DEQ won't be doing anything at all, and you might just as well turn it off. You can turn DEQ on and off without hurting anything.

If you are playing games at -20 MV, DEQ will do just a little bit of bass boost (+2.2db at low frequencies) and just a little surround boost (+1db). You might notice the surround boost and you might not. You might like the bass boost and you might not. You will understand both the action of DEQ, and your personal preferences better, when you try some different settings to find out how they sound to you. 

Again, you can try different settings with different kinds of program material to find out what you like best. And, if games are like movies and music, they won't all be recorded in exactly the same way. For instance, some games may already include louder surround action, and some might have less action in the surround channels. In the second case you might prefer an RLO setting of -10, instead of -15. There just isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of formula. It's dependent on what you hear, and what you like, with specific material.

Edit: I decided to add this. I don't know if it will help you or not. We all read things about what we are supposed to do, and supposed to like, in audio. I was the same way when I started with Audyssey. I sort of wanted other people to tell me what the "correct" settings were. And, I asked some people about their preferences. Mostly what I learned was to experiment with my settings, as I learned what the settings were doing, and to decide for myself what I liked. 

Someone else can certainly tell you to definitely use DEQ, with an RLO setting of -15, at a master volume of -20, but what if you don't happen to like the way things sound when you do that? Perhaps I am wrong in explaining things the way I have been, but I am just trying to jump start you to where you will eventually end up---experimenting and deciding for yourself what you actually like.


----------



## zero83

mthomas47 said:


> zero83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is it true that I can use an offset of 15db to play games? I guess thats what is confusing me
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, absolutely!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that you just need to give yourself some time to absorb this stuff, and some time to try DEQ to find out what you actually like. You might play games with full DEQ (no RLO) and like it fine. Or you might not like it that way at all. But, that's a personal choice. If you play games at -15 MV, with an RLO setting of -15, DEQ won't be doing anything at all, and you might just as well turn it off. You can turn DEQ on and off without hurting anything.
> 
> If you are playing games at -20 MV, DEQ will do just a little bit of bass boost (+2.2db at low frequencies) and just a little surround boost (+1db). You might notice the surround boost and you might not. You might like the bass boost and you might not. You will understand both the action of DEQ, and your personal preferences better, when you try some different settings to find out how they sound to you.
> 
> Again, you can try different settings with different kinds of program material to find out what you like best. And, if games are like movies and music, they won't all be recorded in exactly the same way. For instance, some games may already include louder surround action, and some might have less action in the surround channels. In the second case you might prefer an RLO setting of -10, instead of -15. There just isn't a one-size-fits-all kind of formula. It's dependent on what you hear, and what you like, with specific material.
> 
> Edit: I decided to add this. I don't know if it will help you or not. We all read things about what we are supposed to do, and supposed to like, in audio. I was the same way when I started with Audyssey. I sort of wanted other people to tell me what the "correct" settings were. And, I asked some people about their preferences. Mostly what I learned was to experiment with my settings, as I learned what the settings were doing, and to decide for myself what I liked.
> 
> Someone else can certainly tell you to definitely use DEQ, with an RLO setting of -15, at a master volume of -20, but what if you don't happen to like the way things sound when you do that? Perhaps I am wrong in explaining things the way I have been, but I am just trying to jump start you to where you will eventually end up---experimenting and deciding for yourself what you actually like.
Click to expand...

Thank you so much fir the reply. You are absolutly right. I am looking for a one size fits all answer but like you said once i get in tgere and play with different settings, im sure i will find one i like, and i can just leave it there.


----------



## zero83

I have one more question.
I read that with my reciever i can use auddyssey and deq per input.
Does that mean I have to run Audyssey for each input? Or is it a one time calibration as a whole, then on/off per input?
Sigh... so many variables ?


----------



## mthomas47

zero83 said:


> I have one more question.
> I read that with my reciever i can use auddyssey and deq per input.
> Does that mean I have to run Audyssey for each input? Or is it a one time calibration as a whole, then on/off per input?
> Sigh... so many variables ?


Lot's of variables and lot's of complexity to confuse us.  But, that's why I keep stressing some basic principles, because they will continue to guide you through most of those variables. DEQ is a separate software program that has nothing to do with the specific calibration/room EQ that Audyssey performed. You run Audyssey once, and then you can make any setting changes you want for different sources, or for different listening material within a source.

So, you can change from Audyssey on to off (and the room EQ will still be the same when you turn it back on). You can use Audyssey Flat or any of the other Audyssey settings. You can turn DEQ off and back on, and experiment with the various RLO settings. You can also change crossovers, distances, and levels, as I explained in my first post to you, without affecting the room EQ that Audyssey performed. The room EQ is a software program which is independent of the settings in the AVR, and the settings you use won't affect the control points set by that software program. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zero83

mthomas47 said:


> zero83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one more question.
> I read that with my reciever i can use auddyssey and deq per input.
> Does that mean I have to run Audyssey for each input? Or is it a one time calibration as a whole, then on/off per input?
> Sigh... so many variables ?
> 
> 
> 
> Lot's of variables and lot's of complexity to confuse us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, that's why I keep stressing some basic principles, because they will continue to guide you through most of those variables. DEQ is a separate software program that has nothing to do with the specific calibration/room EQ that Audyssey performed. You run Audyssey once, and then you can make any setting changes you want for different sources, or for different listening material within a source.
> 
> So, you can change from Audyssey on to off (and the room EQ will still be the same when you turn it back on). You can use Audyssey Flat or any of the other Audyssey settings. You can turn DEQ off and back on, and experiment with the various RLO settings. You can also change crossovers, distances, and levels, as I explained in my first post to you, without affecting the room EQ that Audyssey performed. The room EQ is a software program which is independent of the settings in the AVR, and the settings you use won't affect the control points set by that software program.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Ok so im understanding things correctly, Audyssey has its own calibration for my room. As soon as I turn it off I can change whatever i want, however when I turn it back on, it uses its saved calibration?
Sorry for all the questions.


----------



## mthomas47

zero83 said:


> Ok so im understanding things correctly, Audyssey has its own calibration for my room. As soon as I turn it off I can change whatever i want, however when I turn it back on, it uses its saved calibration?
> Sorry for all the questions.


I think we have Zero understanding, here.  You can change any settings you want whether Audyssey is on or off (although DEQ will be grayed-out when Audyssey is off). You can't change the calibration (the room EQ) that Audyssey performed by doing any of the things I mentioned in my post. And, yes, Audyssey saves the calibration even when you turn it off and then back on.


----------



## zero83

mthomas47 said:


> zero83 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so im understanding things correctly, Audyssey has its own calibration for my room. As soon as I turn it off I can change whatever i want, however when I turn it back on, it uses its saved calibration?
> Sorry for all the questions.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we have Zero understanding, here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can change any settings you want whether Audyssey is on or off. You can't change the calibration (the room EQ) that Audyssey performed by doing any of the things I mentioned in my post. And, yes, Audyssey saves the calibration even when you turn it off and then back on.
Click to expand...

Ok, so when you are talking about Audysseys own EQ, your are not talking about crossover, distance, etc. You are referong to the internal workings,of Ausyssey itself? Thats tge stuff i cant change.


----------



## neelesh

Random question... is going from MultiEQ to MultiEQXT a noticeable different? I know going to MultiEQXT 32 is a huge difference but wondering on the lower two. I searched and found one thread on that but there weren't many posts on that (it was more EQ XT vs 32).


----------



## mthomas47

neelesh said:


> Random question... is going from MultiEQ to MultiEQXT a noticeable different? I know going to MultiEQXT 32 is a huge difference but wondering on the lower two. I searched and found one thread on that but there weren't many posts on that (it was more EQ XT vs 32).


Hi,

It's a good question, but I'm not sure there is a good answer. XT is a later version of Audyssey, and it has more control points than MultEQ. In theory, the significant increase in the number of control points should translate into better room correction. In actual practice, that might or might not make a positive difference in the sound quality. I remember reading a number of years ago that some people who had upgraded from MultEQ to XT liked the result. But, knowing how short our audio memories are, I'm not sure how much faith to have in those reports.

I would approach the question in this way. If you already have MultEQ, and you are reasonably satisfied with the results you are getting, I wouldn't bother to upgrade. If you are not satisfied, an upgrade might be worthwhile, although as you noted, XT-32 would be a stronger upgrade. If you don't have either MultEQ or XT and are trying to decide which one to get, I would personally prefer to have the increased number of control points that XT offers, if the price difference between two different AVR's isn't a lot.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Teremei

Get XT32 as soon as you can. I would say hold off on the mid upgrade and just aim for XT32 some day. Make that your dream goal upgrade. Put the money saved not doing a mid upgrade to the XT32.


----------



## dennwood

Teremei said:


> Get XT32 as soon as you can. I would say hold off on the mid upgrade and just aim for XT32 some day. Make that your dream goal upgrade. Put the money saved not doing a mid upgrade to the XT32.


Coming from an older Denon 2310 (MultEQ) to an AVR-x3400h (MultiEQ XT32), I’d agree.

Turning off the EQ on the newer amp, the sound difference is rather surprising. Myself and listeners so far have been quite enthused with the sound. Having two discrete sub outputs and the Audyssey app to tweak are icing on the cake


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

@mthomas47, you Sir are an Angle in hiding! How you maintain that incredible helpful and cheery persona is remarkably incredible. May I have some of whatever it is you are drinking please?


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> @*mthomas47* , you Sir are an Angle in hiding! How you maintain that incredible helpful and cheery persona is remarkably incredible. May I have some of whatever it is you are drinking please?


Thank you very much, Adam! That will be the first, and probably the last time, that anybody ever called me an angel, in hiding or otherwise. 

But, I really appreciate the compliment. Everybody can use a lift sometimes, and you definitely gave me one.


----------



## zero83

I have one other general question about Audessey. On my Denon x2300w i will be getting, it has a setting for the Audyssey set up. Within that setting there is also manual option. Here I can tweak the settings that Audyssey has given me (crossover, distance, speaker volume). I have read extensivley about this, but i guess I dont understand. I have read the previous posts.

Are there other calibrations that Audyssey will do for room eq, or is that basically it? Leaving deq, and dynamic volume out of it.

Also I noticed aside for the audyssey menu i mentioned above, there is also another menu for audyssey settings in the general speaker setup portion. Why are there 2 places to change things?


----------



## lovingdvd

*Question on maxed out trims*

I read the subject on the importance of watching for maxed out trim levels on the speakers and subs and how to address them in the FAQ. Great info there. I'd like to clarify a few things.

I have the gains on my subwoofer amp set so that my subs measure at about 83dB on the first stage of the Audyssey EQ. However it sets the subs at -12dB each with every Audyssey run I've ever done. I then raise it to -7dB because I like them +5dB hot. However after reading the FAQ about maxing out the trims (I have a Marantz 8802A so my range allowed is -12dB to +12dB), I am thinking that I need to adjust my subwoofer amp gains to turn them down say another 3dB, then re-run Audyssey and see if I get an adjustment more like say -10dB. Because as the FAQ says, I don't know if it really would have tried to set the subs at say -15dB, in which case I may be running my subs more than +5dB hotter (in this example it would be +8dB hotter). I suppose I can also look at my REW results and see how hot the subs are?

My top front and top rear Atmos in-ceiling speakers are identical models and driven by the same external amp. The top front ceiling pair it sets at -11.5dB. This pair is 7 feet in front of me. For the rear ceiling pair it sets the trims at -12dB. This pair is about 10" closer. I'd rather not go through the trouble, expense and slightly extra complexity of adding a -10dB attenuator to those rear speakers, per the FAQ. Especially because I don't like that it drops the signal -10dB (-6dB would be better, but I don't see those available for XLR, only the -10dB is the smallest?). Do you think its a pretty safe assumption in my case that the -12dB is probably about right, since the ceiling pair at just 1 foot further and about the same angle is set to -11.5dB? I am assuming it must be very close. Maybe if it had the headroom it would have set them at -12.5dB? Is this (likely) slight difference needed going to be enough to go through the trouble about)?

*Also I am wondering if there may be a trick to set the Marantz to take 1dB or 2dB away from the rest of the system to provide this extra headroom?* For instance, let's say in reality the rear ceiling pair should be set at -13dB, but it maxes at -12dB. In this case, technically I could just increase ALL other trims besides the rear ceiling pair by 1dB and it would effectively do the same thing, right? Just my MV would be 1dB higher afterward. The FAQ talked about some trick but it seemed to apply only to internal amplification. In my case I am using all XLR pre-outs into external amps.

Come to think about it, my SPL has been measuring about 2dB higher with the MV set at 0dB (measures 77dB) ever since I changed my configuration to use these rear ceiling speakers, so I wonder if Audyssey is making this adjustment for me somehow? Perhaps not. But it does seem weird that before adding in the rear ceiling speakers I would measure about 73dB at MV 0 on the trims after Audyssey calibrations, and with this rear pair in the mix it now measures 77dB at MV 0....?


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> I read the subject on the importance of watching for maxed out trim levels on the speakers and subs and how to address them in the FAQ. Great info there. I'd like to clarify a few things.
> 
> I have the gains on my subwoofer amp set so that my subs measure at about 83dB on the first stage of the Audyssey EQ. However it sets the subs at -12dB each with every Audyssey run I've ever done. I then raise it to -7dB because I like them +5dB hot. However after reading the FAQ about maxing out the trims (I have a Marantz 8802A so my range allowed is -12dB to +12dB), I am thinking that I need to adjust my subwoofer amp gains to turn them down say another 3dB, then re-run Audyssey and see if I get an adjustment more like say -10dB. Because as the FAQ says, I don't know if it really would have tried to set the subs at say -15dB, in which case I may be running my subs more than +5dB hotter (in this example it would be +8dB hotter). I suppose I can also look at my REW results and see how hot the subs are?
> 
> My top front and top rear Atmos in-ceiling speakers are identical models and driven by the same external amp. The top front ceiling pair it sets at -11.5dB. This pair is 7 feet in front of me. For the rear ceiling pair it sets the trims at -12dB. This pair is about 10" closer. I'd rather not go through the trouble, expense and slightly extra complexity of adding a -10dB attenuator to those rear speakers, per the FAQ. Especially because I don't like that it drops the signal -10dB (-6dB would be better, but I don't see those available for XLR, only the -10dB is the smallest?). Do you think its a pretty safe assumption in my case that the -12dB is probably about right, since the ceiling pair at just 1 foot further and about the same angle is set to -11.5dB? I am assuming it must be very close. Maybe if it had the headroom it would have set them at -12.5dB? Is this (likely) slight difference needed going to be enough to go through the trouble about)?
> 
> *Also I am wondering if there may be a trick to set the Marantz to take 1dB or 2dB away from the rest of the system to provide this extra headroom?* For instance, let's say in reality the rear ceiling pair should be set at -13dB, but it maxes at -12dB. In this case, technically I could just increase ALL other trims besides the rear ceiling pair by 1dB and it would effectively do the same thing, right? Just my MV would be 1dB higher afterward. The FAQ talked about some trick but it seemed to apply only to internal amplification. In my case I am using all XLR pre-outs into external amps.
> 
> Come to think about it, my SPL has been measuring about 2dB higher with the MV set at 0dB (measures 77dB) ever since I changed my configuration to use these rear ceiling speakers, so I wonder if Audyssey is making this adjustment for me somehow? Perhaps not. But it does seem weird that before adding in the rear ceiling speakers I would measure about 73dB at MV 0 on the trims after Audyssey calibrations, and with this rear pair in the mix it now measures 77dB at MV 0....?


Hi,

I'm going to try to give you some brief answers and hope that this doesn't turn into an extended conversation.  First, I think that it would be a good idea to have your subs calibrated with initial trim levels no lower than about -11 (-11.5 max). The exact number doesn't matter, but I would want to be above -12.

Second, I think it's likely that the Top Rear speakers, which are calibrated at -12, are actually quite close to the ones that were set at -11.5. And, I wouldn't worry about the potentially small difference unless the Top Rear speakers sound louder than they should. In that case, then yes, you could turn all of the trim levels up a bit to re-balance your system, and just turn down your master volume a little to compensate for that. But, that's a lot of trouble to go to (and it would be hard to be exact, anyway) unless you actually hear something you don't like--such as excessive volume from that single pair of Top Rear speakers.

Finally, I have no idea why your system is now measuring a little louder than it was before. But, Audyssey's main objective was simply to make all of the channels in your system play at the same volume at your MLP. If your ears are satisfied that your system sounds balanced, then I wouldn't worry too much about what the exact volume is, because you will be adjusting the total volume upward and downward anyway, depending on the listening material and on your moods. As a general rule, if each channel in an audio system is playing at 75db, then their combined sound will be higher than that by at least a couple of decibels.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going to try to give you some brief answers and hope that this doesn't turn into an extended conversation.  First, I think that it would be a good idea to have your subs calibrated with initial trim levels no lower than about -11 (-11.5 max). The exact number doesn't matter, but I would want to be above -12.


Sounds good. Will give that a try shortly.



> Second, I think it's likely that the Top Rear speakers, which are calibrated at -12, are actually quite close to the ones that were set at -11.5.


Agreed. In fact checking with a SPL and test tones shows they are down about -2dB at the MLP compared to the top fronts. 



> And, I wouldn't worry about the potentially small difference unless the Top Rear speakers sound louder than they should. In that case, then yes, you could turn all of the trim levels up a bit to re-balance your system, and just turn down your master volume a little to compensate for that. But, that's a lot of trouble to go to (and it would be hard to be exact, anyway) unless you actually hear something you don't like--such as excessive volume from that single pair of Top Rear speakers.


It seems to sound OK. I feel like the sound is tilted a bit to favor the right side of the room. Not sure why, but will see if it clears up after re-running Audyssey. The reason I am a little concerned about the Levels is because when using a SPL meter at the same spot where the calibration mic was at (or REW with UMIK-1, which agrees with the SPL meter), some of my channels measure about +2dB more than others when playing *external*. Not sure why that would be...?


----------



## mdameron

Here's a topic out of left field...

I have two older Denon AVRs with plain audyssey. Been using them for years. This year I bought my first nice subwoofers, and used Audyssey like always to set them up. What I've noticed is that when you run subs hot, you need to turn down the crossover. In fact, I even had to lower the crossover on the sub's amp, which I understood is something you never do when you have Audyssey.

It seems to me that the receiver's crossover slope is too shallow, so when subs are running hot, they end up being too loud in the octaves that are supposed to be steeply rolled off. Which are the notes where it's easily localized. Even when lowering the LCR to 40hz crossover, the sub was still playing audible non-bass noises. Things like the low end of male voices or just other "noise" in movies. I crawled behind the subs and lowered the knob to roughly 80hz, and set all other crossovers in the AVR to 60hz. The result was a tremendous improvement in the overall sound. The sub got much cleaner and just blended much better. Hot subs with an 80hz crossover in the AVR is just intolerable to me. 

Has anyone else encountered this? I may cross post this in the Denon thread in case something else is going on.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Interesting! No "Thank you" or "Likes" to be found. Has everyone lost their manners ? 

If someone gives you help, it is common practice to give them a Like or a simple "Thank you". This serves a few purposes. One, it tells the person who tried to help and answer your question that you appreciate their time. Second, it may be a factor in how many additional questions you get answers/reply's. 

Its not hard....and it is the right thing to do. Show your appreciation for the Experts in here. They work hard to help us understand this complex stuff. I for one am very grateful for all the help I have received from the Audyssey Greybeards in here. Gentlemen, thanks again for your continued work in helping the regular "Joe AVS" guy figure this stuff out.


----------



## Kipa

*What factors affect the crossover point Audyssey sets?*

I am updating my subwoofer, so I recently spent the day auditioning contenders for a new unit. I listened to my system (Paradigm Millenia) with my old subwoofer (Martin Logan Dynamo), and 2 new SVS subwoofers I was auditioning (SB12-nsd and PB12-nsd). All were placed in the same spot. I would simply swap out the subwoofer, re-run Audyssey, then listen to a bunch of music/movie scenes to compare them. Nothing else changed.

Surprising to me, Audyssey kept changing the cross-over points of my mains. Over the course of a few hours, it used 90hz, 100hz, 110hz, and 120hz as the crossover point with the only change in each case being the subwoofer. This was very surprising to me as I didn't think the subwoofers performance would affect the crossover point. Is this incorrect?

Kipa


----------



## mthomas47

mdameron said:


> Here's a topic out of left field...
> 
> I have two older Denon AVRs with plain audyssey. Been using them for years. This year I bought my first nice subwoofers, and used Audyssey like always to set them up. What I've noticed is that when you run subs hot, you need to turn down the crossover. In fact, I even had to lower the crossover on the sub's amp, which I understood is something you never do when you have Audyssey.
> 
> It seems to me that the receiver's crossover slope is too shallow, so when subs are running hot, they end up being too loud in the octaves that are supposed to be steeply rolled off. Which are the notes where it's easily localized. Even when lowering the LCR to 40hz crossover, the sub was still playing audible non-bass noises. Things like the low end of male voices or just other "noise" in movies. I crawled behind the subs and lowered the knob to roughly 80hz, and set all other crossovers in the AVR to 60hz. The result was a tremendous improvement in the overall sound. The sub got much cleaner and just blended much better. Hot subs with an 80hz crossover in the AVR is just intolerable to me.
> 
> Has anyone else encountered this? I may cross post this in the Denon thread in case something else is going on.


Hi,

I have honestly never heard anyone mention that problem before, so it must be a very rare situation. I believe that most Audyssey equipped AVR's implement a second-order high pass filter for the speakers, and a fourth-order low pass filter for the subwoofers. So, when you set a crossover, the speakers would roll-off at a rate of 12db per octave below the crossover, and the subs would roll-off at a rate of 24db per octave above the crossover. (Someone please correct me if the information on which HPF and LPF is implemented is not right.)

If the above information is correct, then with a 60Hz crossover employed, your subs would roll-off by 8db at 80hz, by 16db at 100Hz, and by 24db at 120Hz. With an 80hz crossover, the subs would roll-off by 6db at 100Hz, and so on up to 160Hz (one octave). You really shouldn't be that aware of your subs, above the crossover point, in a properly functioning AVR.

I have boosted my subs by as much as 16db post-Audyssey, with 80Hz (and 100Hz for the center channel) crossovers in the past with no problems. Some others on the thread have used similar large boosts with crossovers of 100Hz on all of the channels. My first thought here is that there is some defect in your AVR. Did you try both older Denon's, and if so, did you get the same result with both of them? I might do a microprocessor reset or two, and then attempt to run Audyssey again.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

zero83 said:


> I have one other general question about Audessey. On my Denon x2300w i will be getting, it has a setting for the Audyssey set up. Within that setting there is also manual option. Here I can tweak the settings that Audyssey has given me (crossover, distance, speaker volume). I have read extensivley about this, but i guess I dont understand. I have read the previous posts.


Is there a question here, or just the questions below?




> Are there other calibrations that Audyssey will do for room eq, or is that basically it? Leaving deq, and dynamic volume out of it.


Audyssey sets distances and trim levels for the speakers, then will EQ the speaker/sub response to attempt to produce a flat response with your speakers in your room. As you have found, there are many Audyssey settings you can change after running Audyssey...but I'm not quite sure exactly what you are asking here.




> Also I noticed aside for the audyssey menu i mentioned above, there is also another menu for audyssey settings in the general speaker setup portion. Why are there 2 places to change things?


Sometimes there are even more than two places you can change things...I think AVR manufacturers do this to confuse people. 

J/K...they are just trying to make the AVR as flexible as possible, but it can get confusing. What settings in particular are you asking about?


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> I read the subject on the importance of watching for maxed out trim levels on the speakers and subs and how to address them in the FAQ. Great info there. I'd like to clarify a few things.
> 
> I have the gains on my subwoofer amp set so that my subs measure at about 83dB on the first stage of the Audyssey EQ. However it sets the subs at -12dB each with every Audyssey run I've ever done. I then raise it to -7dB because I like them +5dB hot. However after reading the FAQ about maxing out the trims (I have a Marantz 8802A so my range allowed is -12dB to +12dB), I am thinking that I need to adjust my subwoofer amp gains to turn them down say another 3dB, then re-run Audyssey and see if I get an adjustment more like say -10dB. Because as the FAQ says, I don't know if it really would have tried to set the subs at say -15dB, in which case I may be running my subs more than +5dB hotter (in this example it would be +8dB hotter). I suppose I can also look at my REW results and see how hot the subs are?
> 
> My top front and top rear Atmos in-ceiling speakers are identical models and driven by the same external amp. The top front ceiling pair it sets at -11.5dB. This pair is 7 feet in front of me. For the rear ceiling pair it sets the trims at -12dB. This pair is about 10" closer. I'd rather not go through the trouble, expense and slightly extra complexity of adding a -10dB attenuator to those rear speakers, per the FAQ. Especially because I don't like that it drops the signal -10dB (-6dB would be better, but I don't see those available for XLR, only the -10dB is the smallest?). Do you think its a pretty safe assumption in my case that the -12dB is probably about right, since the ceiling pair at just 1 foot further and about the same angle is set to -11.5dB? I am assuming it must be very close. Maybe if it had the headroom it would have set them at -12.5dB? Is this (likely) slight difference needed going to be enough to go through the trouble about)?
> 
> *Also I am wondering if there may be a trick to set the Marantz to take 1dB or 2dB away from the rest of the system to provide this extra headroom?* For instance, let's say in reality the rear ceiling pair should be set at -13dB, but it maxes at -12dB. In this case, technically I could just increase ALL other trims besides the rear ceiling pair by 1dB and it would effectively do the same thing, right? Just my MV would be 1dB higher afterward. The FAQ talked about some trick but it seemed to apply only to internal amplification. In my case I am using all XLR pre-outs into external amps.
> 
> Come to think about it, my SPL has been measuring about 2dB higher with the MV set at 0dB (measures 77dB) ever since I changed my configuration to use these rear ceiling speakers, so I wonder if Audyssey is making this adjustment for me somehow? Perhaps not. But it does seem weird that before adding in the rear ceiling speakers I would measure about 73dB at MV 0 on the trims after Audyssey calibrations, and with this rear pair in the mix it now measures 77dB at MV 0....?


Just to add to Mike's advice, you may see your speaker trims change slightly after you get the sub trim in-range. This is at least my experience.


----------



## Alan P

Kipa said:


> I am updating my subwoofer, so I recently spent the day auditioning contenders for a new unit. I listened to my system (Paradigm Millenia) with my old subwoofer (Martin Logan Dynamo), and 2 new SVS subwoofers I was auditioning (SB12-nsd and PB12-nsd). All were placed in the same spot. I would simply swap out the subwoofer, re-run Audyssey, then listen to a bunch of music/movie scenes to compare them. Nothing else changed.
> 
> *Surprising to me, Audyssey kept changing the cross-over points of my mains. Over the course of a few hours, it used 90hz, 100hz, 110hz, and 120hz as the crossover point with the only change in each case being the subwoofer. This was very surprising to me as I didn't think the subwoofers performance would affect the crossover point. * Is this incorrect?
> 
> Kipa


I've had this happen as well. Not sure why Audyssey behaves this way.


----------



## Alan P

mdameron said:


> Here's a topic out of left field...
> 
> I have two older Denon AVRs with plain audyssey. Been using them for years. This year I bought my first nice subwoofers, and used Audyssey like always to set them up. What I've noticed is that when you run subs hot, you need to turn down the crossover. In fact, I even had to lower the crossover on the sub's amp, which I understood is something you never do when you have Audyssey.
> 
> It seems to me that the receiver's crossover slope is too shallow, so when subs are running hot, they end up being too loud in the octaves that are supposed to be steeply rolled off. Which are the notes where it's easily localized. Even when lowering the LCR to 40hz crossover, the sub was still playing audible non-bass noises. *Things like the low end of male voices* or just other "noise" in movies. I crawled behind the subs and lowered the knob to roughly 80hz, and set all other crossovers in the AVR to 60hz. The result was a tremendous improvement in the overall sound. The sub got much cleaner and just blended much better. Hot subs with an 80hz crossover in the AVR is just intolerable to me.
> 
> Has anyone else encountered this? I may cross post this in the Denon thread in case something else is going on.


The low-end of (deep) male voices _should _be coming from the subs.


----------



## Alan P

lovingdvd said:


> It seems to sound OK. I feel like the sound is tilted a bit to favor the right side of the room. Not sure why, but will see if it clears up after re-running Audyssey. The reason I am a little concerned about the Levels is because when using a SPL meter at the same spot where the calibration mic was at (or REW with UMIK-1, which agrees with the SPL meter), *some of my channels measure about +2dB more than others when playing *external*. Not sure why that would be...?*


This is because the internal test tones bypass the EQ filters set by Audyssey, external test tones are run through the filters.


----------



## mthomas47

Kipa said:


> I am updating my subwoofer, so I recently spent the day auditioning contenders for a new unit. I listened to my system (Paradigm Millenia) with my old subwoofer (Martin Logan Dynamo), and 2 new SVS subwoofers I was auditioning (SB12-nsd and PB12-nsd). All were placed in the same spot. I would simply swap out the subwoofer, re-run Audyssey, then listen to a bunch of music/movie scenes to compare them. Nothing else changed.
> 
> Surprising to me, Audyssey kept changing the cross-over points of my mains. Over the course of a few hours, it used 90hz, 100hz, 110hz, and 120hz as the crossover point with the only change in each case being the subwoofer. This was very surprising to me as I didn't think the subwoofers performance would affect the crossover point. Is this incorrect?
> 
> Kipa


Hi Kipa,

You are correct in thinking that the subwoofer would not affect the crossover set for your mains, in any way. Each time you perform a calibration, it is likely that you move the Audyssey microphone slightly for the 6 or 8 mic positions, compared to a previous calibration. And crossovers, unlike distances and levels, are set based on an average of all of the mic positions, rather than on just the first mic position.

That is a wider spread than I would expect to see, but again it is probably microphone position dependent, if nothing about the speakers changed. As you may know, Audyssey is measuring the F3 point of your speaker pair (where the weaker of the two, due to its placement in the room, rolls off by 3db). That information is reported to your AVR, which sets the crossover for that speaker pair, based on its own internal algorithm.

From what you are seeing, I would probably want to set my crossover at 100Hz or higher, post-Audyssey, in any case. If you make a more serious effort to get the microphone positions back in almost exactly the same spots, and you still get such erratic results (even when you are using an appropriate boom mic stand) then I would try a couple of microprocessor resets of your AVR. That is the modern equivalent of kicking an old radiator or internal combustion engine.  But, it often works to reset a computer program to its default settings. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mdameron

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have honestly never heard anyone mention that problem before, so it must be a very rare situation. I believe that most Audyssey equipped AVR's implement a second-order high pass filter for the speakers, and a fourth-order low pass filter for the subwoofers. So, when you set a crossover, the speakers would roll-off at a rate of 12db per octave below the crossover, and the subs would roll-off at a rate of 24db per octave above the crossover. (Someone please correct me if the information on which HPF and LPF is implemented is not right.)
> 
> If the above information is correct, then with a 60Hz crossover employed, your subs would roll-off by 8db at 80hz, by 16db at 100Hz, and by 24db at 120Hz. With an 80hz crossover, the subs would roll-off by 6db at 100Hz, and so on up to 160Hz (one octave). You really shouldn't be that aware of your subs, above the crossover point, in a properly functioning AVR.
> 
> I have boosted my subs by as much as 16db post-Audyssey, with 80Hz (and 100Hz for the center channel) crossovers in the past with no problems. Some others on the thread have used similar large boosts with crossovers of 100Hz on all of the channels. My first thought here is that there is some defect in your AVR. Did you try both older Denon's, and if so, did you get the same result with both of them? I might do a microprocessor reset or two, and then attempt to run Audyssey again.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess my next step will be to reset the microprocessor on the living room system and re-run Audyssey (that's the only setup where I use nearfield). If it's the same afterward, I will then swap out the receivers and see if I get the same behavior on receiver #2 . If I do, I will chalk it up to my theory that the low pass filter on these receivers is not steep enough to offset the 6 db boost on the sub channel plus the boost added by Dynamic EQ. 

Can crossovers in AVRs break or otherwise go bad? Denon 591 & 1911, by the way.


----------



## mthomas47

mdameron said:


> Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess my next step will be to reset the microprocessor on the living room system and re-run Audyssey (that's the only setup where I use nearfield). If it's the same afterward, I will then swap out the receivers and see if I get the same behavior on receiver #2 . If I do, I will chalk it up to my theory that the low pass filter on these receivers is not steep enough to offset the 6 db boost on the sub channel plus the boost added by Dynamic EQ.
> 
> Can crossovers in AVRs break or otherwise go bad? Denon 591 & 1911, by the way.


You are very welcome! I'm glad to help if I can. I guess that any circuit can go bad. But, if you get the same results from both AVR's, then I think you will need to attribute what you are hearing to your nearfield subs. That is something that you didn't mention in your first post, and it is a very important factor, in my opinion.

Some people are simply more susceptible to subwoofer localization than others. I am a little bit as well. My guess is that the combination of nearfield subs, coupled with the boost you are using, is simply allowing you to be aware of your subs in a way that you wouldn't be if one of your subs were nearer your front soundstage.

If you had an older sub in that same nearfield location, it's possible that it simply wasn't powerful enough to call attention to itself in the same way that your new PSA 15V's are. If this does end up being the real problem, there are only a few things that you can do about it. First, and best, you can reposition one of your subs closer to the front soundstage, so that you won't be able to pick out the bass sounds as coming specifically from the sub(s).

Second, and less ideally, you can use sufficiently low crossovers for the front soundstage that you won't notice your nearfield subs quite as much. But, that will put more strain on your front three speakers, and use less of the operating capacity of your new subs, so that is not an optimum solution. Third, you can reduce the amount of subwoofer boost you are using in hopes of reducing the amount of localization. That solution will be better for your speakers, but worse for your listening enjoyment. And again, you won't be fully utilizing your subs.

Given the circumstances as you have described them in your second post, I strongly recommend that you try to reposition one of your subs, if at all possible. A lot of people enjoy having nearfield subs. I have one as well. But, I could never do that if I didn't also have a subwoofer located along my front soundstage to keep me from localizing the sound (and tactile feel) of my bass. 

A fourth order LPF for the subs is the standard of the industry, as far as I know. But, for people who are somewhat more susceptible to bass localization, as you certainly seem to be, correct subwoofer placement to minimize that effect is still extremely important.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> The low-end of (deep) male voices _should _be coming from the subs.


I agree. Here I find myself paraphrasing myself (from post number 2831)*:* Even though some frequency charts have the human voice's bass range stopping at about 100 Hz on the bass end, there *is* quite a bit *below* that, such as the lowest F of 43*.*7 Hz, which a basso profondo can very occasionally be asked to sing [this would be almost an octave below most subwoofer crossovers, i.e., 80 Hz). Even in dialog, there are bass undertones (for want of a better term) which go below 80 Hz (Longmire's voice, for instance, puts quite an undertone through our boosted sub, even though, without the sub, I wouldn't think of his voice as particularly deep).

Once a piece of misinformation (like the lower limit of the male human voice is 100 Hz) is out there, it's out there. I have run into that 100 Hz figure several times.


----------



## Alan P

Agreed Gary.

And, even if the lower limit of the male voice _was _100hz...and even if you are using an 80hz crossover to your sub...the lower end of the male voice would _still _be coming from your sub, albeit at a slightly lower level.


----------



## zero83

OK, I have read this entire FAQ and it was SOOO helpful! Thanks to all who contributed.

I read that I can change my trim levels after Audyssey has run but I dont understand how that wont mess up the calibration? Can someone please explain that to me. if Audyssey sets my speakers at a certain trim, and I want to ssay increase my sub, or my surrounds, wont that undo what adyssey has calibrated? I keep going back to the online manual for my reciever "Making changes to speaker settings will disable Audyssey"


----------



## pbarach

zero83 said:


> OK, I have read this entire FAQ and it was SOOO helpful! Thanks to all who contributed.
> 
> I read that I can change my trim levels after Audyssey has run but I dont understand how that wont mess up the calibration? Can someone please explain that to me. if Audyssey sets my speakers at a certain trim, and I want to ssay increase my sub, or my surrounds, wont that undo what adyssey has calibrated? I keep going back to the online manual for my reciever "Making changes to speaker settings will disable Audyssey"


Changing the trim levels doesn't change the adjustments to the speakers' frequency response curves that Audyssey calibrated and implemented, and it doesn't change the distance settings either. The Audyssey calibrations remain operative when you change the trim levels, but the overall volume for the trim-adjusted speaker(s) will be different.


----------



## garygarrison

zero83 said:


> I keep going back to the online manual for my reciever* "Making changes to speaker settings will disable Audyssey"*


To paraphrase Charles Dickens, if it says that, it is an *ss. 

As you may know, Denon and Marantz are owned by the same parent company. The same misleading sentence was in my Marantz manual of 2011. Your AVR is from 2016. They have had 5 years to correct it, and they haven't!


----------



## Jim1290

@mthomas47. Hi Mike, as promised that I will let you know which sub I choose to upgrade.
And I have chosen This one.
It took me quite sometime as other things distracted me. I better go post on its AVS thread.

Sorry everyone for off topic but I know this is Mike’s permanent residency here 
He taught me how to PM sometime ago and I simply forgot. It’s the age!


Jim


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> To paraphrase Charles Dickens, if it says that, it is an *ss.
> 
> As you may know, Denon and Marantz are owned by the same parent company. The same misleading sentence was in my Marantz manual of 2011. Your AVR is from 2016. They have had 5 years to correct it, and they haven't!


You know when Audyssey is disabled because you get a message "Not Available" onscreen if you try to change Audyssey from Flat to Reference or vice versa.


----------



## mthomas47

Jim1290 said:


> @*mthomas47* . Hi Mike, as promised that I will let you know which sub I choose to upgrade.
> And I have chosen This one.
> It took me quite sometime as other things distracted me. I better go post on its AVS thread.
> 
> Sorry everyone for off topic but I know this is Mike’s permanent residency here
> He taught me how to PM sometime ago and I simply forgot. It’s the age!
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

Fortunately, there are no residency taxes on the thread.  Thanks, for the update, and I think you made an excellent choice. If I were in the market for new subs, the Rythmik FV25HP is a sub that I would seriously consider. Please let me know how you like it, or if you post on the Rythmik thread, I will see your post.

Just as a reminder, If you want to PM someone, you can just left click on his user name above his avatar. (Thanks, Alan! See, I said I understood about the age issue.) There are other ways that involve going to your User CP, but clicking on someone's user name is the easiest. I understand the age issue, and thought I had better tell you how to do this while I still remember it myself. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Mike,

A small, yet important distinction; you would click on their name above their avatar, not their signature (which to me, is the stuff below the line at the bottom of a post).


----------



## Kipa

Mike, thank you for the information: great stuff. I did reset the processors (had never done so on my 7 year old Marantz AVR). The crossover variability problems went away, and I'm almost certain that the subs are blending with my mains better. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.

Happy Holidays,
Kipa




mthomas47 said:


> Hi Kipa,
> 
> You are correct in thinking that the subwoofer would not affect the crossover set for your mains, in any way. Each time you perform a calibration, it is likely that you move the Audyssey microphone slightly for the 6 or 8 mic positions, compared to a previous calibration. And crossovers, unlike distances and levels, are set based on an average of all of the mic positions, rather than on just the first mic position.
> 
> That is a wider spread than I would expect to see, but again it is probably microphone position dependent, if nothing about the speakers changed. As you may know, Audyssey is measuring the F3 point of your speaker pair (where the weaker of the two, due to its placement in the room, rolls off by 3db). That information is reported to your AVR, which sets the crossover for that speaker pair, based on its own internal algorithm.
> 
> From what you are seeing, I would probably want to set my crossover at 100Hz or higher, post-Audyssey, in any case. If you make a more serious effort to get the microphone positions back in almost exactly the same spots, and you still get such erratic results (even when you are using an appropriate boom mic stand) then I would try a couple of microprocessor resets of your AVR. That is the modern equivalent of kicking an old radiator or internal combustion engine.  But, it often works to reset a computer program to its default settings.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Kipa said:


> Mike, thank you for the information: great stuff. I did reset the processors (had never done so on my 7 year old Marantz AVR). The crossover variability problems went away, and I'm almost certain that the subs are blending with my mains better. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond.
> 
> Happy Holidays,
> Kipa


Hi Kipa,

You are very welcome, and I'm glad that things are working better now. Happy Holidays, to you, as well!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jsgrise

So I rerun Audyssey last week and I am very pleased with the results. I tried some new positions that looks like this:

.........4.....5..........
...6...2...1...3...7....
............8..............

1 = MLP and each positions are about 6-8 inches appart. 

Sounds is very detailed and articulate. Thought about sharing it!


----------



## wolverines06

Hey guys,
I was told to direct my question here. I’ve just completed my home theater installation. I have a Denon 1300 with the
Audyssey MultEQ XT. When I run the audyssey mic from the room where the receiver is, I end up about 10-15 feet short of seating positioning. Is it ok to use an extension cable to get that 10-15 ft I’m looking for? Can you guys reccomend a good extension cable? 
And final question, when setting up the sub(I have a svs pb12nsd), what should I have the adjustments on the back of the sub set to before I begin the audyssey calibration?
Thank you in advance


----------



## smallpox

*all trim levels above -12 on marantz av 7703*

I have a Marantz av 7703 and am using multi eq xt32. The trim levels are 2 subs at -6, fronts and surrounds at -12. Do I really need to purchase 4 attenuators? Is there something else I can do?

System; 2 emotiva mono blocks powering B&W 802D mains, Emotiva 3 channel powering B&W 802s surrounds and B&W center, 2 SVS sp 2000 subs


----------



## smallpox

Free idea for Audyssey. Start 'set up' by sending out test tones to the user from 20 to 20k. Have the user adjust trim levels until they can hear them. Use the data to set up a "reference curve". My ears would want higher trim levels on the high and low end.


----------



## lovingdvd

smallpox said:


> I have a Marantz av 7703 and am using multi eq xt32. The trim levels are 2 subs at -6, fronts and surrounds at -12. Do I really need to purchase 4 attenuators? Is there something else I can do?
> 
> System; 2 emotiva mono blocks powering B&W 802D mains, Emotiva 3 channel powering B&W 802s surrounds and B&W center, 2 SVS sp 2000 subs


Are your speakers all super-close to the MLP?


----------



## smallpox

lovingdvd said:


> Are your speakers all super-close to the MLP?


10 to 12 feet.


----------



## smallpox

Would lowering the sub volume 6 db lower all the other speakers?


----------



## lovingdvd

smallpox said:


> 10 to 12 feet.


What is their "efficiency" dB rating at 1w/1m? Unless they are super efficient, I'm not sure how these would be maxing out the -12dB range. As an experiment, you could try a dummy autocal and see how far away you have to move your mic back from the MLP to get the LCR speakers to not max out at -12dB. Don't use that calibration of course - it's just to get an idea of what the trims are really trying to say. For instance if you moved back another 3-5 feet and still got -12 that would say something compared to if it then went to say -9dB. Tho this of course would not solve your issues, its just more as data points in trying to understand what's happening.


----------



## lovingdvd

smallpox said:


> Would lowering the sub volume 6 db lower all the other speakers?


That's certainly a test worth trying, just to see if that's the cause. Let us know how it goes. To make things quicker you can do just a 1 mic position calibration and then examine your levels after that (no need to run all 8 positions until you know what's causing the issue).


----------



## Rich B.

Total neophyte, so please keep this in mind.

After running Audyssey the AVR plays 75 db "Reference Level" at 0 setting on the volume knob, correct? So, if I want to listen to a source at say 105 db... I just turn up the volume passed 0 to keep increasing the db's until the desired db's is reached?!? 

Thank you for your time.

Rich


----------



## garygarrison

Rich B. said:


> Total neophyte, so please keep this in mind.
> 
> After running Audyssey the AVR plays 75 db "Reference Level" at 0 setting on the volume knob, correct? So, if I want to listen to a source at say 105 db... I just turn up the volume passed 0 to keep increasing the db's until the desired db's is reached?!?
> 
> Thank you for your time.
> 
> Rich


When the main volume control is set to 0, you will get various different loudness levels, including rare peaks of 105 dB through the primary speakers. You should never set the main volume knob to above 0, when playing Blu-ray movies, IMO. I strongly suspect that ordinary DVDs have a lower standard level. Most people, to watch movies, set it lower, from as low as -20 dB for some, at -10 dB, or so, for many and to -5 dB for loudness freaks like Keith and me. 

My understanding is that Reference Level is defined as a maximum (peak) level of 105 dB from each regular (front and surround) speaker as measured from the Main Listening Position, and 115 dB maximum (peak) level from the subwoofer(s) from the MLP. These peak levels are also called *fs*, or full scale. These maximum (peak) levels are reached (very occasionally) by calibrating the AVR or pre/pro to produce a certain nominally "average" level with test tones, when the main volume control is set to 0. _*Audyssey does this automatically*_ when running the calibration. Audyssey uses a nominally "average" level of 75 dB with 30 dB headroom, producing the occasional peak of 105 dB through some or all of the main speakers. In your local, commercial, movie theater and other professional venues, the nominal "average" level is 85 dB with 20 dB headroom. These two schemes produce exactly the same peak levels (up to 105 dB through some or all of the main speakers)*; *Audyssey simply selected 75 dB, with more headroom, because test tones at 85 dB would be annoying to some consumers. 

Because of early reflections, THX recommends home playback at 5 dB below Reference for home theaters of large or medium size, or several dB lower than that for small rooms.

Neophytism lasts for a good number of years. I've had Audyssey since 2011, and I'm just beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel now.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Rich B. said:


> Total neophyte, so please keep this in mind.
> 
> After running Audyssey the AVR plays 75 db "Reference Level" at 0 setting on the volume knob, correct? So, if I want to listen to a source at say 105 db... I just turn up the volume passed 0 to keep increasing the db's until the desired db's is reached?!?
> 
> Thank you for your time.
> 
> Rich


Hi Rich,

Lots of us that have been using Audyssey for years still feel a little Neophytes-ish every time we read more about what Audyssey does and does not do. Just when you think you got it! The Boys at Audyssey come out with a new flavor and change the rules So, your certainly not alone in this feeling.

@garygarrison, gave you a great explanation and I have nothing to add to what he said. Right on point actually! Nice explanation Garry!

The only thing I want to motion, and its because these different medias are Mastered at the Recording Studios in different ways and volume/sound levels. For Movies and most TV type of content Gary's explanation is excellent. Once you have completed the calibration, you will find as you watch more Movies and TV that for this type of Film content the Volume setting is not a constant. There will be periods of silence, then basic volume for dialog and then very loud passage for action scenes or the like. The volume or loudness is very dynamic and will take some time for you to find where you like the level set. Something you will grow into per say.

Music is a different Bird! The Music recording industry is all over the place with how loud their material is Mastered at. And while some music genre like Classical Orchestral music will have a wide range for very soft passages that transition into considerably loud passages. Other types of Music like Pop, Dance, Rock and the like will have a more constant loudness level. What I have found is Music loudness from one Artist to another is all over the place. To prevent me from having to micro manage the Master Volume on my AVR, I usually engage some form of "Volume match" or "Volume Equalizer" function that are offered functions from many of the Music streaming platforms like Spotify and Apple Music player. These are Player software functions that helps keep the volume at a constant level from one song to the next. You probably already know of what I am speaking about.

Another point and then I'm done . Audyssey and trying to understand it, can be daunting and overwhelming if you are just starting out. My advice is to eat this "Elephant" one small bite at a time. This is indeed a very large Elephant. I found the best way to really truly understand this stuff was to try to absorb a minor function or aspect here. Then go play with my gear, ok, that did not sound right did it? and test out what I think I just learned. As your understanding grows, come back here to the Fountain of "All Things Audyssey", and ask another question.

There are no stupid questions here. Everyone is nice and willing to help others. We have a wonderful and welcoming group of fine knowledgeable people here. So come back and ask questions. Audyssey is awesome, complicated and temperamental at times, but I can't imagine living without what it does.

So "Welcome" to the Audyssey Thread and please come back and tell us what you discovered. Ask away.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

smallpox said:


> Would lowering the sub volume 6 db lower all the other speakers?


Hi smallpox,

Depends on how you go about lowering the Sub Volume. There are at least four (4) was to do this that I am aware of. They are:

1: Lower the Sub Trim "Gain" volume on the Sub Amp plate. This would be a global reduction.
2: Lower the Sub gain Trim Level on the AVR using AVR Input Specific (DVD, Bluray, TV, Phono) adjustment functions. 
3: Reduce the Master Calibration or Global Sub trim levels in the AVR, (this will be a Global reduction of the Sub Volume for all inputs).
4: Reduce the Master Volume Level of the AVR. Obviously this will result in reducing the Volume of ALL Speakers and Subs. Probably not how you intended to accomplish this Sub Volume reduction. But it is indeed one of the Methods.

So, if you accomplish this reduction of Sub Volume/Gain using 1, 2 or 3. It will not effect or reduce the actual Volume levels of all the other channels.

However, there may be a "Perception" situation created by lowering the Sub Gain and/or Volume whereby the other channels now sound a little louder because the Bass has been reduced. 

I hope I understood your question properly?


----------



## mthomas47

I want to add one thing to Gary's excellent post on Reference. The nominal average for 5.1 movies, and for many TV shows, is always 85db, with 20db of headroom to achieve peaks of 105db in the regular channels. The LFE channel is set a little differently, with a nominal average of 95db and 20db of headroom, for peaks of 115db. And, as Gary's post suggested, 85db test tones were originally used to calibrate our home theater systems so that 85db would correspond to 0.0 master volume. 

85db still corresponds to 0.0 MV. After Audyssey plays its 75db test tones, our AVR's and AVP's do an internal recalculation to add 10db to the master volume for the regular channels and 20db to the LFE channel. So, the result is the same as if we had done the calibration with an 85db test tone. This may seem like an unimportant distinction to what Gary said, but for people trying to understand what Reference is, and how their systems are calibrated with respect to Reference, it is still a valid one. 

A properly calibrated system will play 85db with 20db of headroom at 0.0 MV. At -5, that system will play 80db with peaks of up to 100db for the regular channels, and so on. At -5, the LFE channel would be hitting peaks of up to 110db. As Gary said, most people do not listen anywhere close to Reference. The average listening level on AVS is often quoted as being somewhere in the -10 to -20 range. And, there is good evidence to suggest that, in rooms under about 20,000^3, a listening level in the -5 to -7 range corresponds to Reference volumes in a full-sized movie theater, or in a film recording studio where the movie soundtrack was mastered.

Extremely high listening levels can be uncomfortable for many people and can potentially damage hearing. And, there seems to be considerable variance in how much volume is tolerable. So, for a particular individual to exceed his comfortable listening level, whatever it is, would probably be unwise. That general rule applies equally to movies and to music.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

wolverines06 said:


> Hey guys,
> I was told to direct my question here. I’ve just completed my home theater installation. I have a Denon 1300 with the
> Audyssey MultEQ XT. When I run the audyssey mic from the room where the receiver is, I end up about 10-15 feet short of seating positioning. Is it ok to use an extension cable to get that 10-15 ft I’m looking for? Can you guys reccomend a good extension cable?
> And final question, when setting up the sub(I have a svs pb12nsd), what should I have the adjustments on the back of the sub set to before I begin the audyssey calibration?
> Thank you in advance


Hi,

You can certainly use an extension cable. Any monaural 3.5mm extension cable should work. I would just look on Amazon for options.

Your SVS user manual will tell you what settings to use. Most of the settings will already be in the default position when you get the sub. I would start with the sub gain at about 11:00, and then make further adjustments (during the calibration process) in accordance with the procedure outlined in the subwoofer guide linked below.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

smallpox said:


> I have a Marantz av 7703 and am using multi eq xt32. The trim levels are 2 subs at -6, fronts and surrounds at -12. Do I really need to purchase 4 attenuators? Is there something else I can do?
> 
> System; 2 emotiva mono blocks powering B&W 802D mains, Emotiva 3 channel powering B&W 802s surrounds and B&W center, 2 SVS sp 2000 subs





smallpox said:


> Would lowering the sub volume 6 db lower all the other speakers?


Hi,

This may end up being complicated, so bear with me on it. First, lowering the volume on your subs won't have anything to do with the volume level on your speakers. All of the channel volume levels are set independently, and as you probably know, Audyssey's first goal is to set all of the channels to play the same volume, as measured at the MLP. When your trim levels are maxed out, you don't actually know what volume those channels are playing. They may be right on the money at -12, or they may be playing several decibels louder than they should be and your AVP just ran out of negative trim.

Second, there are a couple of different ways that you could tackle the problem, including using attenuators. But, let's try something else first. Try doing a couple of microprocessor resets to your AVP, and then run Audyssey again. It's possible that you will get different trim levels when you do that.

If, however, the trim levels still come back at -12, for all of your speakers except the center channel, then I would attempt to discover how far off the channel levels really are. The best way to do that would be to use an external test tone from a disc, and measure the five regular channels individually with an SPL meter (C-weighted, slow) at your main listening position (Audyssey mic position 1). You could try using a smartphone app to measure SPL. In a pinch, I might also use the internal test tones (which bypass the Audyssey calibration) and gamble that the filters that Audyssey set wouldn't have affected the overall SPL too much.

When you measure the five channels, let's say for example that the CC measures right at 75db, and the four other channels measure 77db. If the difference in SPL is only a few decibels, you could just turn up the volume on your CC by that same amount. You would also want a corresponding increase in the volume of your subwoofers, but most people play their subs louder than where Audyssey sets them anyway. In the situation I have described, you have just calibrated your entire system a little higher than Reference, and you will want to remember that -2 MV actually corresponds to Reference (0.0) in your system.

[This is one of the places where things get a little complicated, but don't worry about whether your center channel measures exactly 75db. It probably won't, as your SPL meter will have a built-in error factor, and so will the Audyssey microphone. It is extremely unlikely that the two different microphones will produce exactly the same results. But, each microphone should be consistent in its measurement of all five channels, whether it is measuring a little higher than 75db, or a little lower. What you are trying to determine is simply the difference between the measured SPL of the four channels set at -12, and the CC, which is set within the normal trim range. Remember that your ultimate goal is just to get all of your channels playing at the same volume at your MLP so that the sound will be balanced.]

Again, if Audyssey ran out of negative trim at -12, by only a couple of decibels or so, I would save myself a lot of trouble and just adjust the other channels up by that same amount. However, this method assumes that the four channels showing trim levels of -12 are symmetrical with each other, and they may not be. And, even if the four channels all measure the same, if the difference between those four channels and the CC is substantial, I would probably use the line level attentuators after all. I hope this explanation helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

mthomas47 said:


> I want to add one thing to Gary's excellent post on Reference. The nominal average for 5.1 movies, and for many TV shows, is always 85db, with 20db of headroom to achieve peaks of 105db in the regular channels. The LFE channel is set a little differently, with a nominal average of 95db and 20db of headroom, for peaks of 115db. And, as Gary's post suggested, 85db test tones were originally used to calibrate our home theater systems so that 85db would correspond to 0.0 master volume.
> 
> 85db still corresponds to 0.0 MV. After Audyssey plays its 75db test tones, our AVR's and AVP's do an internal recalculation to add 10db to the master volume for the regular channels and 20db to the LFE channel. So, the result is the same as if we had done the calibration with an 85db test tone. This may seem like an unimportant distinction to what Gary said, but for people trying to understand what Reference is, and how their systems are calibrated with respect to Reference, it is still a valid one.
> 
> A properly calibrated system will play 85db with 20db of headroom at 0.0 MV. At -5, that system will play 80db with peaks of up to 100db for the regular channels, and so on. At -5, the LFE channel would be hitting peaks of up to 110db. As Gary said, most people do not listen anywhere close to Reference. The average listening level on AVS is often quoted as being somewhere in the -10 to -20 range. And, there is good evidence to suggest that, in rooms under about 20,000^3, a listening level in the -5 to -7 range corresponds to Reference volumes in a full-sized movie theater, or in a film recording studio where the movie soundtrack was mastered.
> 
> Extremely high listening levels can be uncomfortable for many people and can potentially damage hearing. And, there seems to be considerable variance in how much volume is tolerable. So, for a particular individual to exceed his comfortable listening level, whatever it is, would probably be unwise. That general rule applies equally to movies and to music.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Great explanations from you and Gary. Who maintains the FAQ? It would be great to have these explanations added to it.

After my Audyssey calibration I used the Dolby Atmos 9.1.6 test tones to double check the levels. I was surprised at first to see all the measurements set way to high at 0dB. I just lowered the MV 10dB and then checked the levels, figuring that the 75 vs 85dB was just something to do with how Audyssey measures. Now I understand why the discrepancy. 

On a related note Matt - last we left off I was saying that Audyssey was not setting my levels perfectly evenly. Using the Atmos test tones and REW and UMIK-1 I determined that Audyssey's levels were very close, but needed a little touching up. The center channel and all ceiling channels needed to be raised 1dB and a couple other channels 0.5dB. The center channel in particular was interesting to see Audyssey set it 1.5dB lower than the L/R, considering the MLP is directly in the middle off the LCR and the distance is only 1 foot closer. I'm not sure of the math-to-distance ratio, but on paper doesn't 1.5dB loss over 1 foot seem like it would be more than would be expected (speakers efficiency is 87dB @ 1w/1m)? At any rate, considering that the UMIK-1 has greater accuracy than the Audyssey mic (+/- 1dB vs +/- 2dB) I trust my UMIK-1 to be most accurate for this so I went by that.

I've been watching movies lately with the MV at around -10dB. From what I recall, measuring casually with my iPhone app, dialog without much else going on, is in the mid or upper 70s dB, sound effects in actions scenes are around upper 80s dB, with occasional peaks in the low 90s dB, and LFE peaks around low 100s dB (also note I run my subs about +7 dB hot).



mthomas47 said:


> ...Again, if Audyssey ran out of negative trim at -12, by only a couple of decibels or so, I would save myself a lot of trouble and just adjust the other channels up by that same amount...


Generally that may be OK, especially with just a click or two like 1dB change. But with the caveat that if he does this he need to remember that his system is really playing back x dB louder than the MV suggests. If he is playing at or near reference, that could present an issue for the safety of his speakers/tweeters, especially if one follows that procedure and uses more than several clicks.


----------



## mthomas47

lovingdvd said:


> Great explanations from you and Gary. Who maintains the FAQ? It would be great to have these explanations added to it.
> 
> After my Audyssey calibration I used the Dolby Atmos 9.1.6 test tones to double check the levels. I was surprised at first to see all the measurements set way to high at 0dB. I just lowered the MV 10dB and then checked the levels, figuring that the 75 vs 85dB was just something to do with how Audyssey measures. Now I understand why the discrepancy.
> 
> Generally that may be OK, especially with just a click or two like 1dB change. But with the caveat that if he does this he need to remember that his system is really playing back x dB louder than the MV suggests. If he is playing at or near reference, that could present an issue for the safety of his speakers/tweeters, especially if one follows that procedure and uses more than several clicks.


Thanks for the positive feedback on the Reference post.  It's an interesting and complex subject. And, we are only scratching the surface of it in these posts. Keith Barnes, with whom you corresponded a while back, is the author and curator of the FAQ, but he isn't around much these days. However, all of the relevant Reference discussion is included in my subwoofer guide, linked below, so it is available to anyone who frequents the thread.

I agree with what you are saying about adjusting a CC trim level, versus using line level attenuators. Anyone using that technique (which has been suggested by Chris Kyriakakis, the creator of Audyssey) needs to exercise some care in implementation. And, as I noted, I probably wouldn't make very significant adjustments to the CC trim level. The OP won't know how much adjustment may be required until he measures the five channels.

But, it is important to read all of a post, and to follow the advice in the context of the entire post. I certainly hope that anyone reading this thread is doing that. For instance, in an earlier paragraph in that same post, I noted that:

_"In the situation I have described, you have just calibrated your entire system a little higher than Reference, and you will want to remember that -2 MV actually corresponds to Reference (0.0) in your system."_

And later in the same paragraph you quoted from, I also noted the following:

_"And, even if the four channels all measure the same, if the difference between those four channels and the CC is substantial, I would probably use the line level attentuators after all."

_Regards,
Mike


----------



## smallpox

lovingdvd said:


> Great explanations from you and Gary. Who maintains the FAQ? It would be great to have these explanations added to it.
> 
> After my Audyssey calibration I used the Dolby Atmos 9.1.6 test tones to double check the levels. I was surprised at first to see all the measurements set way to high at 0dB. I just lowered the MV 10dB and then checked the levels, figuring that the 75 vs 85dB was just something to do with how Audyssey measures. Now I understand why the discrepancy.
> 
> On a related note Matt - last we left off I was saying that Audyssey was not setting my levels perfectly evenly. Using the Atmos test tones and REW and UMIK-1 I determined that Audyssey's levels were very close, but needed a little touching up. The center channel and all ceiling channels needed to be raised 1dB and a couple other channels 0.5dB. The center channel in particular was interesting to see Audyssey set it 1.5dB lower than the L/R, considering the MLP is directly in the middle off the LCR and the distance is only 1 foot closer. I'm not sure of the math-to-distance ratio, but on paper doesn't 1.5dB loss over 1 foot seem like it would be more than would be expected (speakers efficiency is 87dB @ 1w/1m)? At any rate, considering that the UMIK-1 has greater accuracy than the Audyssey mic (+/- 1dB vs +/- 2dB) I trust my UMIK-1 to be most accurate for this so I went by that.
> 
> I've been watching movies lately with the MV at around -10dB. From what I recall, measuring casually with my iPhone app, dialog without much else going on, is in the mid or upper 70s dB, sound effects in actions scenes are around upper 80s dB, with occasional peaks in the low 90s dB, and LFE peaks around low 100s dB (also note I run my subs about +7 dB hot).
> 
> 
> 
> Generally that may be OK, especially with just a click or two like 1dB change. But with the caveat that if he does this he need to remember that his system is really playing back x dB louder than the MV suggests. If he is playing at or near reference, that could present an issue for the safety of his speakers/tweeters, especially if one follows that procedure and uses more than several clicks.


I guess I don't understand why Audyssey would not set the lowest trim at 0 and adjust off of that. My subs are at -6 and the center is at -9, the rest at -12. The Audyssey 101 talked about lowering the trim by the same amount to all of the speakers. Can you really do that if the db scale is non linear? If you had 1000 watt mono blocks, would Audyssey be able to set the trim? Would the trim levels, relative to each other, be the same at 75 db versus 90db reference? if I thought about it, could I come up with more questions?


----------



## mthomas47

smallpox said:


> I guess I don't understand why Audyssey would not set the lowest trim at 0 and adjust off of that. My subs are at -6 and the center is at -9, the rest at -12. The Audyssey 101 talked about lowering the trim by the same amount to all of the speakers. Can you really do that if the db scale is non linear? If you had 1000 watt mono blocks, would Audyssey be able to set the trim? Would the trim levels, relative to each other, be the same at 75 db versus 90db reference? if I thought about it, could I come up with more questions?


I am absolutely sure that you could come up with more questions, some of which no one here could probably answer.  But, we can help once you have a more fundamental understanding of how Audyssey works, and what it is trying to do to in the first place. 

Please read the subwoofer guide, linked below, to give you a solid foundation on what Audyssey is doing and why. I believe that is as simple and straightforward an explanation as is available. Once you feel that you understand that, please reread my response to you in Post 4085 and I think it will make more sense.

One of several things that the guide will help to explain is that Audyssey doesn't set the trim levels relative to each other. It sets each of the trim levels independently and relative to a fixed standard: 75db.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> One of several things that the guide will help to explain is that Audyssey doesn't set the trim levels relative to each other. It sets each of the trim levels independently and relative to a fixed standard: 75db.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


And here's how its done:

Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500 Hz-2kHz range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL.

For the subwoofer channel same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz.


----------



## Rich B.

garygarrison, Adamg (Ret-Navy), and mthomas47, thank you for the detailed responses. I greatly appreciate them.

I just can't get my head around all the money spent on equipment that results in a system that is basically set to play at 75 db. While I do love movies, and there is nothing like a calibrated system. I just ask my self while wanting to listen to loud music... is this it?!? Where did the loud volume go. Maybe I am missing something like just adding more db level equally to each channel, but was concerned that would effect the Audyssey calibration. I apologize that I was not clearer on my initial questions, and hope this makes more sense of what I was asking. 

Adamg (Ret-Navy), thank you for your service.


Rich


----------



## lovingdvd

mogorf said:


> And here's how its done:
> 
> Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500 Hz-2kHz range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL.
> 
> For the subwoofer channel same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz.


Thanks for that. My understanding is that when pink noise is used with an SPL meter that gives an RMS reading of level. And I believe it is Audyssey's stance that this is not as accurate as a spectrum based method, and is particularly inaccurate for subwoofer level setting. That said, I did use pink noise with my UMIK-1 to fine tune the level setting for the speakers (as described in my post above), but left the subs as set by Audyssey.

Speaking of subwoofer trims... My subs were set by Audyssey to -11.5dB and -8dbB, which I believe to be quite accurate. I have added a +9dB boost. So now my trims are at -2.5 and +1dB. I can turn the gain knob up on my sub amps by one notch, which will raise my levels by +4dB. Would I be better off, signal to noise-wise, to do this and then lower the trims by 4dB (to -6.5dB and-5dB)? The absolute levels would be the same, but the signal coming to the AVR would be a little stronger. I am not sure if this matters at all, but I'm not crazy about using values about 0dB in the trims. *Thoughts please?*


----------



## pbarach

Rich B. said:


> garygarrison, Adamg (Ret-Navy), and mthomas47, thank you for the detailed responses. I greatly appreciate them.
> 
> I just can't get my head around all the money spent on equipment that results in a system that is basically set to play at 75 db. While I do love movies, and there is nothing like a calibrated system. I just ask my self while wanting to listen to loud music... is this it?!? Where did the loud volume go. Maybe I am missing something like just adding more db level equally to each channel, but was concerned that would effect the Audyssey calibration. I apologize that I was not clearer on my initial questions, and hope this makes more sense of what I was asking.
> 
> Adamg (Ret-Navy), thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> Rich


Rich: When the system is set to reference level, post-Audyssey calibration, that means when your main volume level is at 0 dB it can handle peak levels of 105 dB in any channel and 115 dB in LFE. If you are seeking peak levels higher than 105 dB, good luck with the future of your hearing!

https://www.powersoundaudio.com/pages/reference-level-part-one


----------



## primetimeguy

Rich B. said:


> garygarrison, Adamg (Ret-Navy), and mthomas47, thank you for the detailed responses. I greatly appreciate them.
> 
> I just can't get my head around all the money spent on equipment that results in a system that is basically set to play at 75 db. While I do love movies, and there is nothing like a calibrated system. I just ask my self while wanting to listen to loud music... is this it?!? Where did the loud volume go. Maybe I am missing something like just adding more db level equally to each channel, but was concerned that would effect the Audyssey calibration. I apologize that I was not clearer on my initial questions, and hope this makes more sense of what I was asking.
> 
> Adamg (Ret-Navy), thank you for your service.
> 
> 
> Rich


Your system will play well above 75db. It's just that if you used full scale test tones for calibration you'd go deaf as they'd be 105db. For this reason the tones are - 30db from full scale and the reason they play back at 75db. Reference level just means that 105db will be the highest output from any of the main channels when you set the volume to 0. Essentially it is determining the max level that can be output. From there the person mixing the audio track can do anything from there on down. 


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Rich B. said:


> garygarrison, Adamg (Ret-Navy), and mthomas47, thank you for the detailed responses. I greatly appreciate them.
> 
> I just can't get my head around all the money spent on equipment that results in a system that is basically set to play at 75 db. While I do love movies, and there is nothing like a calibrated system. I just ask my self while wanting to listen to loud music... is this it?!? Where did the loud volume go. Maybe I am missing something like just adding more db level equally to each channel, but was concerned that would effect the Audyssey calibration. I apologize that I was not clearer on my initial questions, and hope this makes more sense of what I was asking.
> 
> Adamg (Ret-Navy), thank you for your service.
> 
> Rich


Hi Rich,

Pbarach already gave you the essence of it. Reference was created specifically for 5.1 movies. But, even if there had never been such a thing as THX and Dolby Reference, you would still want to have all of the speakers in your audio system playing at the same volume level, so that the sound of the various speakers would be balanced at your listening position. 

Once that balanced sound is achieved, via your Audyssey (or other) calibration, your can turn up your master volume to any level which pleases you. As noted in a previous post, the majority of us probably listen to most material somewhere between -10 MV and -20 MV, but that is purely a matter of personal preference. You can listen as loudly as your speakers will play and your hearing will stand. 

In addition, almost all of us prefer to add sub boost, post-Audyssey, for reasons explained in the subwoofer guide linked below. Anyone who is struggling to understand some of the fundamental Audyssey concepts would be well served by reading the guide. It explains what Audyssey is doing for all of the channels, and why, as simply and clearly as possible.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lovingdvd

pbarach said:


> Rich: When the system is set to reference level, post-Audyssey calibration, that means when your main volume level is at 0 dB it can handle peak levels of 105 dB in any channel and 115 dB in LFE. If you are seeking peak levels higher than 105 dB, good luck with the future of your hearing!
> 
> https://www.powersoundaudio.com/pages/reference-level-part-one





primetimeguy said:


> Your system will play well above 75db. It's just that if you used full scale test tones for calibration you'd go deaf as they'd be 105db. For this reason the tones are - 30db from full scale and the reason they play back at 75db. Reference level just means that 105db will be the highest output from any of the main channels when you set the volume to 0. Essentially it is determining the max level that can be output. From there the person mixing the audio track can do anything from there on down.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Also folks should keep in mind that playing at or near reference can damage your speakers, depending on the distance of your speakers to the MLP and their efficiency (and the power and quality of your amps as well). So even IF your ears may tolerate it, your speakers may not.


----------



## Rich B.

Thank you for all the information and assistance. In time, I am sure that I will have other questions.

Rich


----------



## geodon005

*Question about crossover settings for in-ceiling speakers*

I have a 5.1 speaker setup consisting of 5 matching (what was considered at the time several years ago) high-end Niles Audio in-ceiling speakers and an SVS PB-2000 sub (I have an oddly-shaped great room where my home theater is set up which precluded the use of traditional floor-standing speakers). I just ran an Audyssey XT32 calibration on my new Denon AVR and - for the first time I can remember using Audyssey (I used it on older AVRs) - it actually correctly identified my speakers as small! However, it also directed the AVR to set the crossover to 40Hz. Now, while my speakers are relatively beefy for in-ceiling speakers (8-inch woofers, and a frequency response of 35 - 22000 Hz), I know 40Hz is too low. 

A few years back, I was told it was a good idea to set the crossover to 100Hz to minimize any "boundary effects" from the speakers being flush with the ceiling. Is this still good advice, or should I look into some other crossover setting?

Thanks for your expert advice. . .


----------



## mthomas47

geodon005 said:


> I have a 5.1 speaker setup consisting of 5 matching (what was considered at the time several years ago) high-end Niles Audio in-ceiling speakers and an SVS PB-2000 sub (I have an oddly-shaped great room where my home theater is set up which precluded the use of traditional floor-standing speakers). I just ran an Audyssey XT32 calibration on my new Denon AVR and - for the first time I can remember using Audyssey (I used it on older AVRs) - it actually correctly identified my speakers as small! However, it also directed the AVR to set the crossover to 40Hz. Now, while my speakers are relatively beefy for in-ceiling speakers (8-inch woofers, and a frequency response of 35 - 22000 Hz), I know 40Hz is too low.
> 
> A few years back, I was told it was a good idea to set the crossover to 100Hz to minimize any "boundary effects" from the speakers being flush with the ceiling. Is this still good advice, or should I look into some other crossover setting?
> 
> Thanks for your expert advice. . .


Hi,

I will lead with the answer and then add some explanation. You should probably set your ceiling speakers to at least 80Hz, and 100Hz might be better. If you can't hear a difference between 80Hz and 100Hz, then I would go with the higher crossover.

Audyssey isn't actually identifying your speakers as "Large" or as "Small" with a crossover. Audyssey is simply measuring the in-room frequency response of your speakers and reporting the F3 point to your AVR. The F3 point is the frequency where your speakers are down by 3db in SPL. Your AVR then sets the speakers to Large if that F3 point is a little under 40Hz, and to Small if the F3 point is about 40Hz or higher. The AVR will always round up to the next higher crossover, but where that rounding occurs probably varies a little depending on the AVR's own internal programming. This feature is one which AVR makers insist on for reasons explained in the FAQ.

As a general rule, it is a good idea to set speakers to at least 80Hz, particularly for 5.1 movies, in order to allow the subwoofer(s) in an HT system to do most of the heavy lifting. If you are used to 100Hz, and it sounds just as good to you as 80Hz, it is probably better to use the slightly higher crossover in order to give your speakers more dynamic headroom.

I can't really respond to the ceiling boundary effects issue, or why a 20Hz crossover difference might be important. If in doubt, I would trust my ears and use the crossover I prefer.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## geodon005

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I will lead with the answer and then add some explanation. You should probably set your ceiling speakers to at least 80Hz, and 100Hz might be better. If you can't hear a difference between 80Hz and 100Hz, then I would go with the higher crossover.
> 
> Audyssey isn't actually identifying your speakers as "Large" or as "Small" with a crossover. Audyssey is simply measuring the in-room frequency response of your speakers and reporting the F3 point to your AVR. The F3 point is the frequency where your speakers are down by 3db in SPL. Your AVR then sets the speakers to Large if that F3 point is a little under 40Hz, and to Small if the F3 point is about 40Hz or higher. The AVR will always round up to the next higher crossover, but where that rounding occurs probably varies a little depending on the AVR's own internal programming. This feature is one which AVR makers insist on for reasons explained in the FAQ.
> 
> As a general rule, it is a good idea to set speakers to at least 80Hz, particularly for 5.1 movies, in order to allow the subwoofer(s) in an HT system to do most of the heavy lifting. If you are used to 100Hz, and it sounds just as good to you as 80Hz, it is probably better to use the slightly higher crossover in order to give your speakers more dynamic headroom.
> 
> I can't really respond to the ceiling boundary effects issue, or why a 20Hz crossover difference might be important. If in doubt, I would trust my ears and use the crossover I prefer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the clear explanation and your recommendations.


----------



## Dave-T

Pease Help - Audyessy set my Atmos top front L to -3.5 top front R -4.5 top rear L -2.5 and top rear R -3.0. If I want all of the atoms speakers to be at -.05 than i would add +4 to all of the atmos speakers because the top front R is -4.5 so it would be then TFL +0.5 , TFR -0.5 , TRL +1.5 , TRR +1.0. By doing that I would keep the settings that Audyseey gave me using the special formula but bumping all of the atmos speakers up to -0.5. I also bumped up the center channel to -3.0 from -4.0. Am i screwing anything up by changing the atmos speakers and center channel, i did not mess with the distances just the trims? Do I need to add to the other channels i did not touch because I added to the atmos speakers and center channel? Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks in advance for your help and probably my ignorance. 

dave-t


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Pease Help - Audyessy set my Atmos top front L to -3.5 top front R -4.5 top rear L -2.5 and top rear R -3.0. If I want all of the atoms speakers to be at -.05 than i would add +4 to all of the atmos speakers because the top front R is -4.5 so it would be then TFL +0.5 , TFR -0.5 , TRL +1.5 , TRR +1.0. By doing that I would keep the settings that Audyseey gave me using the special formula but bumping all of the atmos speakers up to -0.5. I also bumped up the center channel to -3.0 from -4.0. Am i screwing anything up by changing the atmos speakers and center channel, i did not mess with the distances just the trims? Do I need to add to the other channels i did not touch because I added to the atmos speakers and center channel? Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks in advance for your help and probably my ignorance.
> 
> dave-t


Hi Dave,

We all need a little help with some of this at times, but I'll admit that I can't see what you are trying to accomplish by changing your trim levels on the Atmos speakers. All of the speakers are measured individually by Audyssey, and all of them have trim levels assigned based on the SPL they produce at the main listening position. The MLP is always microphone position 1. Their specific location in the room, and their interaction with the room as the result of that location, will influence their trim levels. It would be very unusual for all of your ceiling speakers to measure exactly the same and to have exactly the same trim settings.

When Audyssey has finished its calibration, all of the speakers in your audio system will play at the same SPL at your MLP. And, that's exactly what you want them to do. I wouldn't change trim levels on any of your speakers without a specific purpose in mind. An example of a reason to change trim settings, would be having a stopped-up left ear that requires you to boost the volume on that side for a while.

The center channel is a little different, though. People frequently boost that channel to make dialogue more intelligible, and to make the sound from the CC stand out a little more from all the surround sound effects in some movies. So, boosting the center channel, or boosting the subwoofer(s) in order to get more bass, is perfectly normal. But, I would leave the other trim levels where Audyssey put them. I hope this answers your question. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> We all need a little help with some of this at times, but I'll admit that I can't see what you are trying to accomplish by changing your trim levels on the Atmos speakers. All of the speakers are measured individually by Audyssey, and all of them have trim levels assigned based on the SPL they produce at the main listening position. The MLP is always microphone position 1. Their specific location in the room, and their interaction with the room as the result of that location, will influence their trim levels. It would be very unusual for all of your ceiling speakers to measure exactly the same and to have exactly the same trim settings.
> 
> When Audyssey has finished its calibration, all of the speakers in your audio system will play at the same SPL at your MLP. And, that's exactly what you want them to do. I wouldn't change trim levels on any of your speakers without a specific purpose in mind. An example of a reason to change trim settings, would be having a stopped-up left ear that requires you to boost the volume on that side for a while.
> 
> The center channel is a little different, though. People frequently boost that channel to make dialogue more intelligible, and to make the sound from the CC stand out a little more from all the surround sound effects in some movies. So, boosting the center channel, or boosting the subwoofer(s) in order to get more bass, is perfectly normal. But, I would leave the other trim levels where Audyssey put them. I hope this answers your question.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike I will put it back then. just seems like the Atmos speakers are not very loud and feel like I never hear them. I have B&W CCm682 speakers running off a Rotel RMB-1565 (5x100). I will however be swapping out my Rotel RMb-1565 with my Rotel RMB-1575 (class D 5x250) because I just got a Rotel RMb-1585 (class AB 5x200)for all of the bed channels. When I get make the swap do need to rerun audyessy because i will be giving the atmos speakers more power? The RMb-1575 will push the atmos speakers to the high end of the recommended wattage while the current amp is on the low end of the suggested wattage hopefully more power will give more life to the Atmos speakers.


----------



## lovingdvd

Dave-T said:


> Pease Help - Audyessy set my Atmos top front L to -3.5 top front R -4.5 top rear L -2.5 and top rear R -3.0. If I want all of the atoms speakers to be at -.05 than i would add +4 to all of the atmos speakers because the top front R is -4.5 so it would be then TFL +0.5 , TFR -0.5 , TRL +1.5 , TRR +1.0. By doing that I would keep the settings that Audyseey gave me using the special formula but bumping all of the atmos speakers up to -0.5. I also bumped up the center channel to -3.0 from -4.0. Am i screwing anything up by changing the atmos speakers and center channel, i did not mess with the distances just the trims? Do I need to add to the other channels i did not touch because I added to the atmos speakers and center channel? Am I understanding this correctly? Thanks in advance for your help and probably my ignorance.
> 
> dave-t


To add to what Mike said, generally it is risky to start adding to the trims without knowing exactly what the output level is. Because in doing so you run a serious risk of damaging your speakers especially if you play at or near reference volume. Use the Dolby Atmos test tones downloadable from their website - play them back and note their SPL level - how do those compare to your other speakers when set at the Audyssey defined trims?


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Thanks Mike I will put it back then. just seems like the Atmos speakers are not very loud and feel like I never hear them. I have B&W CCm682 speakers running off a Rotel RMB-1565 (5x100).


You are very welcome! I see now what you are trying to accomplish.  I would post on the Atmos thread and see if anyone there has some additional insights. Although I don't have Atmos, my understanding is that you wouldn't hear your ceiling speakers all of the time. But, you certainly should hear them sometimes. 

Perhaps it's a setting issue that someone can advise you on, but if not, I don't see anything wrong with raising all of the ceiling speakers symmetrically by a couple of decibels. They would still have different trim levels--just a couple of decibels higher than what they are now.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1585.html


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I see now what you are trying to accomplish.  I would post on the Atmos thread and see if anyone there has some additional insights. Although I don't have Atmos, my understanding is that you wouldn't hear your ceiling speakers all of the time. But, you certainly should hear them sometimes.
> 
> Perhaps it's a setting issue that someone can advise you on, but if not, I don't see anything wrong with raising all of the ceiling speakers symmetrically by a couple of decibels. They would still have different trim levels--just a couple of decibels higher than what they are now.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...y-atmos-thread-home-theater-version-1585.html


Thank you


----------



## mogorf

Dave-T said:


> Thanks Mike I will put it back then. just seems like the Atmos speakers are not very loud and feel like I never hear them. I have B&W CCm682 speakers running off a Rotel RMB-1565 (5x100). I will however be swapping out my Rotel RMb-1565 with my Rotel RMB-1575 (class D 5x250) because I just got a Rotel RMb-1585 (class AB 5x200)for all of the bed channels. When I get make the swap do need to rerun audyessy because i will be giving the atmos speakers more power? The RMb-1575 will push the atmos speakers to the high end of the recommended wattage while the current amp is on the low end of the suggested wattage hopefully more power will give more life to the Atmos speakers.


Actually the more power your new Rotel will output the more Audyssey will trim down your Atmos speakers in order to reach reference levels. That's the way it works. In otherwords, a more powerful amp will not make your Atmos speakers louder. Hope this helps.


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Thanks Mike I will put it back then. just seems like the Atmos speakers are not very loud and feel like I never hear them. I have B&W CCm682 speakers running off a Rotel RMB-1565 (5x100). I will however be swapping out my Rotel RMb-1565 with my Rotel RMB-1575 (class D 5x250) because I just got a Rotel RMb-1585 (class AB 5x200)for all of the bed channels. When I get make the swap do need to rerun audyessy because i will be giving the atmos speakers more power? The RMb-1575 will push the atmos speakers to the high end of the recommended wattage while the current amp is on the low end of the suggested wattage hopefully more power will give more life to the Atmos speakers.


Hi Dave,

I responded to your original post just as you were editing it, so I missed everything after the first two sentences. Feri has already made the point that having a more powerful amplifier won't give you louder ceiling speakers, from the standpoint of the Audyssey calibration, because Audyssey will still be setting all of the speakers to play 75db as measured at the MLP, regardless of the amplifier capability. (All speaker/amp combinations should be able to play 75db.)

But, what a more powerful amplifier may give you is a little more headroom, if as you say, your speakers are a little undernourished now. I am still puzzled as to why you aren't hearing your Atmos speakers, and if it does turn out to be some sort of setting issue, I hope you will let us know the outcome. But, if you do get lower trim levels as a result of having more amp power, that will give you more confidence that you can increase the trim gain on the Atmos speakers if you still want to do so. I would probably start with just a couple of decibels and listen to that before going a lot higher.

As Lovingdvd observed, you always want to be a little careful with your speakers, particularly if you are approaching Reference volumes. But, most of us don't listen that loud, and with a little bit of care, I think you will be alright. I wouldn't want to invest in Atmos speakers and not be able to enjoy them properly, either.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## aron7awol

Has anyone else observed that if you are close to the maximum negative sub trim, Audyssey will boost rather than cut? I have always kept a very low sub trim in order to prevent clipping on really loud transients with bass management enabled, but doing so may be preventing Audyssey from having cuts at its disposal for EQ. I'm not 100% sure this is what is occurring, but I did notice that Audyssey was seemingly only boosting when it would have made sense to cut, when comparing sweeps with Audyssey on and off. I then re-calibrated with a higher sub trim (something like -3) and it then did a lot more cutting and ended up with a much better response. If this is actually happening, the best solution may be to calibrate Audyssey with the sub at a level that will result in a trim closer to 0, and then use a meter/mic to drop the sub trim down to prevent clipping and readjust with the amp's gain.


----------



## garygarrison

lovingdvd said:


> Also folks should keep in mind that playing at or near reference can damage your speakers, depending on the distance of your speakers to the MLP and their efficiency (and the power and quality of your amps as well). So even IF your ears may tolerate it, your speakers may not.


I agree with lovingdvd, and I love highly dynamic sound.

Here on AVS, somewhere, there is a list of speakers that can play at Reference level . I think they specify room size and listening distance. Fortunately, it is a long list. If I find it later, I'll *edit* this post and insert a link. These speakers are not cheap, many costing about $3K per speaker, or more. Some speakers marketed as home theater speakers can't handle it.

Sometimes, due to the wide range of speaker efficiencies out there, a speaker with a lower power handling capacity, but with higher efficiency, may be able to withstand a moderately prolonged peak SPL better than some speakers with higher power handling capacity. By "a moderately prolonged peak," I have in mind some of the 1 and 2 second long super loud peaks crammed up against the main channel 105 dB upper limit in Star Trek: Into Darkness or Pacific Rim (achieved by using compressors or limiters, then cranking up the recording volume??) *not* the 20 to 200 milisecond super loud peaks found in music. I just happen to have some data handy. With a speaker with a sensitivity of 85 dB/2.83v/1M ("inefficient") and 300 watts power handling, it would take 427 watts to reach 105 dB at 13 feet in a 4,000 cu ft room of average liveness. Speaker damage would be possible, as would amplifier clipping. With a speaker of a typical sensitivity of 90 dB/2.83v/1M and 100 watts power handling, it would take 128 watts to provide the same 105 dB as above. Speaker damage would be conceivable. With a speaker with a sensitivity of 101 dB/2.83v/1M ("highly efficient"), 100 watts power handling, it would take only 16 watts to produce our 105 dB at the 13 foot MLP; no problem.

*EDIT:* The link is persnickety, so you can type in "Reference Capable Speakers" in the AVS search box. You probably want the Google spread sheet because it allows you to access annotations. Of course, the list is not complete, but they are working on it.


----------



## vn800art

garygarrison said:


> Here on AVS, somewhere, there is a list of speakers that can play at Reference level . I think they specify room size and listening distance. Fortunately, it is a long list. If I find it later, I'll *edit* this post and insert a link. These speakers are not cheap, many costing about $3K per speaker, or more. Some speakers marketed as home theater speakers can't handle it.
> 
> *EDIT:* The link is persnickety, so you can type in "Reference Capable Speakers" in the AVS search box. You probably want the Google spread sheet because it allows you to access annotations. Of course, the list is not complete, but they are working on it.


Link to my drive, found this maybe 1 month ago, here on AVS, naturally : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_dzdE3g5KpAJ1Pns8oY-yaFIJdVWZ1L7/view?usp=drivesdk
Edit: Access maybe now open to everybody!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I agree with lovingdvd, and I love highly dynamic sound.
> 
> Here on AVS, somewhere, there is a list of speakers that can play at Reference level . I think they specify room size and listening distance. Fortunately, it is a long list. If I find it later, I'll *edit* this post and insert a link. These speakers are not cheap, many costing about $3K per speaker, or more. Some speakers marketed as home theater speakers can't handle it.
> 
> Sometimes, due to the wide range of speaker efficiencies out there, a speaker with a lower power handling capacity, but with higher efficiency, may be able to withstand a moderately prolonged peak SPL better than some speakers with higher power handling capacity. By "a moderately prolonged peak," I have in mind some of the 1 and 2 second long super loud peaks crammed up against the main channel 105 dB upper limit in Star Trek: Into Darkness or Pacific Rim (achieved by using compressors or limiters, then cranking up the recording volume??) *not* the 20 to 200 milisecond super loud peaks found in music. I just happen to have some data handy. With a speaker with a sensitivity of 85 dB/2.83v/1M ("inefficient") and 300 watts power handling, it would take 427 watts to reach 105 dB at 13 feet in a 4,000 cu ft room of average liveness. Speaker damage would be possible, as would amplifier clipping. With a speaker of a typical sensitivity of 90 dB/2.83v/1M and 100 watts power handling, it would take 128 watts to provide the same 105 dB as above. Speaker damage would be conceivable. With a speaker with a sensitivity of 101 dB/2.83v/1M ("highly efficient"), 100 watts power handling, it would take only 16 watts to produce our 105 dB at the 13 foot MLP; no problem.
> 
> *EDIT:* The link is persnickety, so you can type in "Reference Capable Speakers" in the AVS search box. You probably want the Google spread sheet because it allows you to access annotations. Of course, the list is not complete, but they are working on it.


I was thinking about this issue in another context recently, and I think that like a lot of audio topics, it is very complicated. While I agree that trying to play Reference levels is likely to result in speaker damage for many speakers, the damage may occur either from trying to use too much power for the speaker, or from using too little. As I understand it, clipping can occur when a driver doesn't receive enough voltage for the signal it is reproducing. Round sound waves become squared-off, and damage can occur, particularly if the signal is prolonged. Anything that causes speakers to overheat may result in damage, such as a melted voice coil. 

I think that, depending on the room, and on the system, some degree of trial-and-error may be necessary to determine whether a system is Reference-capable. One way to do that would be to conduct compression tests for the various speakers in a system. A less exact, and more pragmatic method, might involve making gradual volume adjustments while listening for any indication of distortion. The latter method is obviously not foolproof, as we may not notice distortion until it is already too late. But, in any event, it may not be a purely mathematical exercise to determine what is a Reference-capable system, because there are so many variables in play.

For instance, when we use speaker sensitivity numbers, how certain are we that the manufacturer's are all measuring their speakers in exactly the same way? If a speaker is reported as being 98db at 2.83v/1m, is everyone measuring the same frequency range, or are some of the speaker makers cherry-picking a particular frequency where the speaker can produce that SPL? And, what about room placement? Will a speaker necessarily demonstrate a fixed increase in SPL, compared to a quasi-anechoic measurement, or will that gain be somewhat dependent on the speaker placement within a room? (The answer to that one is definitely yes. Speaker placement is extremely important with respect to room gain.)

Even the distance/SPL ratios that we like to use are somewhat questionable. For instance, while a speaker may lose 6db of SPL for each doubling of distance outdoors, in a room that SPL loss may measure somewhere in the 3 to 4db range. That variable may actually work in our favor with respect to our system capabilities. As I have been thinking about this subject recently, I have concluded that while mathematical calculations of Reference capability are useful and indicative, they may not always be conclusive.

In order to be certain that an audio system will play at Reference, we first have to have a high degree of confidence that the speaker/amplifier specs are accurate, and even then we still have to exercise some care with regard to speaker placement. For instance, adverse room modes, at low frequencies, might negatively impact a speaker's ability to play at Reference, and crossover selection could either help with that problem or exacerbate it. Even automated room EQ is a wild card when it comes to a system's overall capability to play 5.1 content at Reference volumes.

The good news is that, other than wishing to have bragging rights that we have Reference-capable systems, the great majority of us on AVS will probably never need to have Reference systems, as we will never wish to drive our systems to those volume levels. And, for those who really do wish to listen at Reference, some care will be needed not only in the selection of system components, but in the implementation of the audio system in a room, as well. And, that's where either careful measurement of system capabilities and/or careful listening will be required. Like a lot of things in audio, I believe that the development of a Reference-capable HT system is probably a process. And that process requires some investment of time, and some degree of practical experience.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I was thinking about this issue in another context recently, and I think that like a lot of audio topics, it is very complicated. While I agree that trying to play Reference levels is likely to result in speaker damage for many speakers, the damage may occur either from trying to use too much power for the speaker, or from using too little. As I understand it, clipping can occur when a driver doesn't receive enough voltage for the signal it is reproducing. Round sound waves become squared-off, and damage can occur, particularly if the signal is prolonged. Anything that causes speakers to overheat may result in damage, such as a melted voice coil.
> 
> I think that, depending on the room, and on the system, some degree of trial-and-error may be necessary to determine whether a system is Reference-capable. One way to do that would be to conduct compression tests for the various speakers in a system. A less exact, and more pragmatic method, might involve making gradual volume adjustments while listening for any indication of distortion. The latter method is obviously not foolproof, as we may not notice distortion until it is already too late. But, in any event, it may not be a purely mathematical exercise to determine what is a Reference-capable system, because there are so many variables in play.
> 
> For instance, when we use speaker sensitivity numbers, how certain are we that the manufacturer's are all measuring their speakers in exactly the same way? If a speaker is reported as being 98db at 2.83v/1m, is everyone measuring the same frequency range, or are some of the speaker makers cherry-picking a particular frequency where the speaker can produce that SPL? And, what about room placement? Will a speaker necessarily demonstrate a fixed increase in SPL, compared to a quasi-anechoic measurement, or will that gain be somewhat dependent on the speaker placement within a room? (The answer to that one is definitely yes. Speaker placement is extremely important with respect to room gain.)
> 
> Even the distance/SPL ratios that we like to use are somewhat questionable. For instance, while a speaker may lose 6db of SPL for each doubling of distance outdoors, in a room that SPL loss may measure somewhere in the 3 to 4db range. That variable may actually work in our favor with respect to our system capabilities. As I have been thinking about this subject recently, I have concluded that while mathematical calculations of Reference capability are useful and indicative, they may not always be conclusive.
> 
> In order to be certain that an audio system will play at Reference, we first have to have a high degree of confidence that the speaker/amplifier specs are accurate, and even then we still have to exercise some care with regard to speaker placement. For instance, adverse room modes, at low frequencies, might negatively impact a speaker's ability to play at Reference, and crossover selection could either help with that problem or exacerbate it. Even automated room EQ is a wild card when it comes to a system's overall capability to play 5.1 content at Reference volumes.
> 
> The good news is that, other than wishing to have bragging rights that we have Reference-capable systems, the great majority of us on AVS will probably never need to have Reference systems, as we will never wish to drive our systems to those volume levels. And, for those who really do wish to listen at Reference, some care will be needed not only in the selection of system components, but in the implementation of the audio system in a room, as well. And, that's where either careful measurement of system capabilities and/or careful listening will be required. Like a lot of things in audio, I believe that the development of a Reference-capable HT system is probably a process. And that process requires some investment of time, and some degree of practical experience.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It's complicated, for sure.

If I'm going to show guests a movie I've seen in our HT before, before anyone arrives I go to the loudest part (or the most sonically offensive part -- more on that later) and use the "gradual volume adjustments" method *if* the previous viewing indicated I'd have to use a setting lower than 5 dB below Reference. 

"_For instance, while a speaker may lose 6db of SPL for each doubling of distance outdoors, in a room that SPL loss may measure somewhere in the 3 to 4db rang_e." 

I absolutely agree, and this is often missed. For the 13 foot example in my previous post, I used 3 dB for each doubling of distance, starting with 39.37" (1M), proceeding through two doublings to 157.48" (13 feet) and that agrees closely with my SPL meter readings. 

"... _when we use speaker sensitivity numbers, how certain are we that the manufacturer's are all measuring their speakers in exactly the same way?_"

I believe, but could be wrong, the AES approved method is to measure the sensitivity over the advertised bandwidth of the speaker in 1/2 space, within an anechoic chamber. But some (many) speakers are not designed for 1/2 space. Some manufacturers list both anechoic sensitivity and room sensitivity. Others just use room sensitivity. Some of those put a tiny footnote indicating superscript by the sensitivity spec, and a very fine print footnote reading something like "Sensitivity with recommended positioning in average listening room." Room sensitivity is usually measured with a wall close behind a speaker, which is sitting on the floor, getting wall and floor loading, unless the speaker is designed to be on a stand, in which case it is measured near a wall on its stand. Room sensitivity is conventionally thought to be about 3 or 4 dB higher than anechoic in 1/2 space. Some manufacturers just add 3 or 4 dB to their anechoic results (if any). I've heard of some who measure (if at all) at either 1K, or at a peak in the response, but I don't know whether to believe that. As bad as this sounds, I guess that subtracting 4 dB from the sensitivity ratings would be properly conservative if the speaker company is reputable. As bad as this sounds, it's nothing compared to the games AVR manufacturers play, IMO.

"... _for those who really do wish to listen at Reference _..." 

Possibly, "_wish to_" are the operative words. So far, those of us who get close to Reference (Keith and I) have stayed about 5 or 6 dB below. This approximates the THX guideline for rooms our (current) size, and 6 dB below Reference requires only 1/4 of the amplifier wattage that Reference needs. We got there by adjusting movies by ear. Others have expressed a desire to listen at reference, but I doubt if they have experienced true Reference level (i.e., gone above about -5, -4, -3, etc.), unless they have a room devoid of early reflections, and huge enough to make modes so low in fundamental pitch that they are less of a problem, or truly wonderful bass traps. Using room correction software is a big help -- unlike most people, I think Audyssey helps smooth out my frequency response quite well and pleasingly _*way*_ above Schroeder (like almost 4 octaves above). Maybe it's just a set of happy accidents.

IMO, "too loud" occurs when any one of three things happens*:* 

1) When it sounds too loud, BUT, while there are obviously large individual differences in this, distortion from any source tends to make "too loud" happen at lower dB levels. So, distortion from the recording, the amplifier (especially IM and clipping), or the speakers (even a little distortion can make "too loud" happen prematurely, but speakers being overdriven are intolerable). A speaker that can't gracefully produce 95 dB can sound "too loud" at that level, but a speaker that can produce 105 dB without objectionable distortion may not sound "too loud," even though it is 10 dB "louder" in SPL.

2) When it seems to interfere with the aesthetics of the film, rather than reinforce them. 

3) When OSHA SPL limits for the duration of time are breeched (OSHA says that 115 dB is permissible for 15 minutes of relatively steady sound that has the variability they specify, as measured with an A-weighted SPL meter (it should be mentioned that Austrailia -- thanks David -- has somewhat stricter standards). Although subwoofer levels can hover at 115 dB -- but never for 15 minutes, and presumably never with as little variation as in the OSHA signal, moving 5 or 6 dB lower than Reference provides some protection. When the sound mixers take steps to provide the loudest possible sound by manipulating compression and/or limiting and cranking up the volume, even I will turn it down -- several times in Star Wars*:* Into Darkness, after having started at 5 dB below reference.

"Loudness" itself is often considered a perceptual/psychological phenomenon, depending on the interaction of several variables, and subjectively measured by rating scales, rank ordering, or seat of the pants characterization. "SPL" (Sound Pressure Level) is a relatively straightforward "objective" measurement done with an SPL meter, which must be set to "slow" or "fast," "A" or "C" weighted, etc. with 0 to 180 degree incidence, etc, etc. REW and a calibrated mic can also be used. They are "objective," but the results can be manipulated. "Volume" originally referred to the volume of the room*;* the larger the room, the greater the clockwise rotation of the Volume control that was needed.


----------



## Robto

*Really low bass

*How does Audyssey deal with the really low bass? Presumably the test tone reveals the capabilities of the subwoofer - its low end 5 dB point or whatever. And presumably Audyssey doesn't try to improve the low extension by boosting frequencies below that. But what DOES it do? Does it just leave everything at the "natural" level? Or does it apply a filter to cut out frequencies below the sub's natural roll-off point? Having spent a lot of money on a sub capable of playing really low, I don't want Audyssey depriving me of that low end extension!


----------



## geodon005

*Question about when Audyssey is not engaged*

When Audyssey is not engaged, do the speaker settings that were made during the calibration remain? The reason I am asking is that the newest firmware update for my Denon AVR added DTS Virtual:X, which disables Audyssey, and while I know that I would lose Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume if Virtual:X is selected, I am curious about the rest of the settings.


----------



## pbarach

geodon005 said:


> When Audyssey is not engaged, do the speaker settings that were made during the calibration remain? The reason I am asking is that the newest firmware update for my Denon AVR added DTS Virtual:X, which disables Audyssey, and while I know that I would lose Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume if Virtual:X is selected, I am curious about the rest of the settings.


While it's disengaged (i.e., OFF), what you lose is the alterations to the speakers' frequency response. The distances, levels, and crossovers set by Audyssey are maintained. And if you made any changes to these settings after calibration, those changes will stay in place. 

When you turn Audyssey back on again, all of its featur4s and settings are still there.

CAVEAT: I have an x4000 and have not (cannot) add DTS Virtual:X.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> "... _when we use speaker sensitivity numbers, how certain are we that the manufacturer's are all measuring their speakers in exactly the same way?_"
> 
> I believe, but could be wrong, the AES approved method is to measure the sensitivity over the advertised bandwidth of the speaker in 1/2 space, within an anechoic chamber. But some (many) speakers are not designed for 1/2 space. Some manufacturers list both anechoic sensitivity and room sensitivity. Others just use room sensitivity. Some of those put a tiny footnote indicating superscript by the sensitivity spec, and a very fine print footnote reading something like "Sensitivity with recommended positioning in average listening room." Room sensitivity is usually measured with a wall close behind a speaker, which is sitting on the floor, getting wall and floor loading, unless the speaker is designed to be on a stand, in which case it is measured near a wall on its stand. Room sensitivity is conventionally thought to be about 3 or 4 dB higher than anechoic in 1/2 space. Some manufacturers just add 3 or 4 dB to their anechoic results (if any). I've heard of some who measure (if at all) at either 1K, or at a peak in the response, but I don't know whether to believe that. As bad as this sounds, I guess that subtracting 4 dB from the sensitivity ratings would be properly conservative if the speaker company is reputable. As bad as this sounds, it's nothing compared to the games AVR manufacturers play, IMO.


Most of the actual speaker reviews with measurements that I've seen show a tendency on the part of speaker manufacturers to rate the sensitivity of their speakers as higher than it actually is. Usually it's only by a dB or two but sometimes by significantly more. Some manufacturers are worse than others on this.



> "... _for those who really do wish to listen at Reference _..."
> 
> Possibly, "_wish to_" are the operative words. So far, those of us who get close to Reference (Keith and I) have stayed about 5 or 6 dB below. This approximates the THX guideline for rooms our (current) size, and 6 dB below Reference requires only 1/4 of the amplifier wattage that Reference needs. We got there by adjusting movies by ear. Others have expressed a desire to listen at reference, but I doubt if they have experienced true Reference level (i.e., gone above about -5, -4, -3, etc.), unless they have a room devoid of early reflections, and huge enough to make modes so low in fundamental pitch that they are less of a problem, or truly wonderful bass traps. Using room correction software is a big help -- unlike most people, I think Audyssey helps smooth out my frequency response quite well and pleasingly _*way*_ above Schroeder (like almost 4 octaves above). Maybe it's just a set of happy accidents.
> 
> …


To expand on what Gary said:

It takes time for sound to decay (die away to silence) in a room and there's a measurement—reverberation time—which gives an indication of that. The problem with the RT measurement is that it defines the time for a pulse signal, not continuing sound, to decay by a given amount, usually by 60 dB . If you're playing something at 105 dB then the RT60 decay time is probably a good indication of how long it's going to take for a pulse to decay to ambient noise levels which are around the 40-50 dB mark in many environments but we're not dealing with pulses when we're watching movies. We're dealing with continuous sound, sounds that persist for a period and which keep reinforcing the reverberation in the room, which extends the reverberation time. Most small rooms, and our home theatre and listening rooms are small rooms in acoustical terms, have longer reverberation times than are ideal for ensuring good quality reproduction of some music types (longer decay times interfere with speech intelligibility for instance, and can turn bass lines into sludge). Add to that the effects of hearing sensitivity because our ears become more sensitive to bass and high frequencies as listening level increases so those parts of the sound spectrum sound louder relative to the mid-range, and you can start to understand whyTHX recommend lower than reference levels for small rooms. Reference level may sound fine in a cinema that is much larger than your room at home, and where you're sitting a lot further from the speakers than you are at home, but reference level will usually sound unpleasant in rooms the size of those we have at home.

If you want to reproduce the audio sound you experience in a cinema at home in a much smaller room, you'll get much closer to doing that by playing things at a lower level and perhaps using DEQ or a small amount of bass boost to compensate for the difference in your ear's sensitivity at the lower level.

The bottom line is that room size makes a huge difference as Gary said, and our perception of loudness depends on psychological factors as well as on the actual level of the sound. We tend to perceive sounds of the same actual level as being louder in a smaller room than we perceive them to be in larger rooms, and cinema spaces are much much larger rooms than our rooms at home. It doesn't take reference level at home to produce the same perception of loudness that you have listening to a soundtrack at reference level in a cinema. If you want to be able to listen at reference level at home and hear things the way you hear them in a cinema, then just using a correction system like Audyssey isn't going to do it. You're going to have to invest in a lot of physical acoustic treatment, professional grade treatment that's a lot more effective and broad band than much of the physical acoustic treatment products sold for home theatre and listening room use, and you would probably want to invest in the services of an acoustic engineer to measure your room and advise on the types and placement of those physical treatments in order to get it really right. Even then the acoustic engineer would probably recommend listening at some level below reference level.

It's OK to like your soundtracks loud and to want to listen to movies at loud levels but it's a mistake to think that in order to reproduce the effects you hear in a cinema you have to listen to the soundtrack at the same level that you listen to it at in the cinema.


----------



## mthomas47

Robto said:


> *Really low bass
> 
> *How does Audyssey deal with the really low bass? Presumably the test tone reveals the capabilities of the subwoofer - its low end 5 dB point or whatever. And presumably Audyssey doesn't try to improve the low extension by boosting frequencies below that. But what DOES it do? Does it just leave everything at the "natural" level? Or does it apply a filter to cut out frequencies below the sub's natural roll-off point? Having spent a lot of money on a sub capable of playing really low, I don't want Audyssey depriving me of that low end extension!


Hi,

Audyssey won't deprive you of your low frequency extension. Audyssey's goal in setting filters is to keep individual frequencies from playing too loudly or too softly. So, to the extent that Audyssey is successful with it's control points, all of the frequencies played by a speaker, or a subwoofer, will be reasonably flat. That is particularly important with bass frequencies, because room modes will cause peaks and valleys in the frequency response. You may already understand all of that, but I thought it was worth reviewing anyway--partly for someone silently reading along.

Once Audyssey has measured a speaker's (or a subwoofer's) frequency response, it will stop setting control points where the speaker is down by 3db. The frequencies below that F3 point will simply not be EQed at all. The purpose of stopping the control points at that natural 3db roll-off frequency is to avoid over-boosting a speaker or a sub beyond its capabilities. So, the only thing that will govern the sub's SPL and frequency response below it's measured in-room F3 point is its own natural roll-off in conjunction with its interaction with the room.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## VideoGrabber

mthomas47 said:


> In addition, almost all of us prefer to add sub boost, post-Audyssey, for reasons *explained in the subwoofer guide linked below*. Anyone who is struggling to understand some of the fundamental Audyssey concepts would be well served by reading the guide. It explains what Audyssey is doing for all of the channels, and why, as simply and clearly as possible.


What guide? The "guide linked below" is invisible. 

I'm just pulling your leg, but not everyone can see it, due to the text color selected.


----------



## garygarrison

VideoGrabber said:


> What guide? The "guide linked below" is invisible.
> 
> I'm just pulling your leg, *but not everyone can see it, due to the text color selected*.


 To @*VideoGrabber* 

Huh? 

On my laptop, the link is medium blue on a very light blue background, and it shows up very well. When I go to the guide itself, it looks normal -- just thought I'd let you know. When I go back to Mike's post 4095, which seems to be the one you responded to, it is the same story, perfectly readable. The only place I see the deep Navy Blue background (which would make the blue link nearly invisible) is on the reproduction you posted -- but not on the upper part of your post. Is there a different background color [a so-called "theme" in computer-speak], i.e., deep Navy Blue, used by some AVS users?


----------



## VideoGrabber

garygarrison said:


> Is there a different background color [a so-called "theme" in computer-speak], i.e., deep Navy Blue, used by some AVS users?


Yes, there is! And I should have mentioned that in my post.  It's called Retro, and some of us old-timers have used it for a couple decades. 

It's a 'night' theme, that works well to avoid scorched eyeballs during the wee hours of the morning. The other options are Default, Dark, and Mobile.

[At the very bottom of each page in the lower left corner, there is a drop-down QuickSelect list that has 4 'styles'. It can also be selected in your Control Panel/Settings & Options/Miscellaneous.]


----------



## mthomas47

*Happy Holidays, everyone!*


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> *Happy Holidays, everyone!*


Happy holidays to all!


----------



## jamiebosco

jamiebosco said:


> Hi Guys
> I wasn't sure where to put this- either here or the REW thread - let me know if you feel it's in the wrong place
> 
> 
> I'm getting some "weird" results running Audyssey XT32 with my Denon 4311.
> 
> 
> Audyssey keeps rolling my subs off under 30hz. I have 4 x SVS PB2000's in a 3000 cubic ft lounge room so I should have enough headroom that Audyssey shouldn't need to cut the Subs off so high.
> At this point I've run Audyssey MANY times over the last week and the end results are the same each time. I have moved the seating back and forward as far as I can go in each direction in 6" increments - rerunning Audyssey each time - and the results have been pretty much the same. Without Audyssey engaged the subs extend down to 20hz (with a slight rise in response between 30hz to 20hz) but with Audyssey engaged the low bass is neutered.
> 
> 
> I know this room is HORRIBLE for room gain- largish open plan,all glass and drywall - My old lounge room was much smaller and all brick and with 1 x PB12-NSD + 1 x PB-2000 had a pretty flat response into the high teens. I'm not expecting anything special or beyond the subs capabilities I don't think - reasonably flat between 20-80hz will do me fine!
> 
> 
> The first 3 graphs where from the initial Audyssey Calibration. The next 2 are from another Audyssey calibration a few days later with the seating moved back about 12", the last 4 are from todays calibration using only 1 Audyssey mic position to see if that changed anything. The final 3 graphs are overlays showing the differences between Audyssey on vs off
> 
> 
> I've been talking with Ed Mullen via email, but any additional info advice would be greatly appreciated!!!


.........hmmm the plot thickens

Had the house to myself yesterday for a few hours to "futz" around with my setup and thought I'd test out putting one of the subs in the back of the room and see if it helped the response. I tried this when i got the last 2 subs and it measured well, but can't keep them there as they would be in the way. 

Anyway I ran the front 3 off SW1 preout and the back one on SW2. I turned off Audyssey and ran a REW sweep and immediately noticed that I had extension down to 15hz again, definitely not perfect but better than rolling off at 25hz and falling off a cliff at 20hz. But here's the kicker..... The rear sub wasn't even turned on!!!!! I did a bunch of sweeps to make sure it wasn't a fluke and pretty much any where I put the mic I measured fairly flat to 15-16hz. No matter where I measured I was gaining 5+dB under 20hz compared to the literally 100s of previous sweeps that all dropped off at 20hz

I was running out of time so I put the rear sub back up front and used splitters to run all 4 PB-2000's off the SW1 preout and ran a quick and rough Audyssey calibration.
The overall graph ended up slightly "bumpier" than some of my previous calibrations but I think that is because I did it in about 5 minutes and only used 4 measurement positions. 

I remember @Mark Seaton mentioning in a thread that sometimes if all subs are close together and equidistant to the MLP you can get better results using only one preout. 
Maybe thats whats happening here.... 

Jamie 
(I tried tagging Mark but it won't work on my phone)


----------



## jamiebosco

Whilst the graphs aren't "chalk and cheese" - there's clearly a visible (and audible) difference between running all 4 x subs off 1 SW pre-out compared to using both with 2 subs on each. This is closer to the extension I got in my old house with the PB12-NSD + PB-2000


----------



## ratm

Hi everyone,

Just got done running Aud for the first time and jeez I think my results are weird so I am hoping you all can help. First of all, here is my set up:

X3300W into XPA 3
HTD Level 3 bookshelf for L and R
HTD Level 3 Center
Passive Capitvator 2400 powered by a EP4000 and Mic 2200. 

I followed the directions of both the Audyssey 101 and on the Denon to the letter, though I dont know why I needed to raise my crossover on the Mic 2200 to 150hz. After running the 8 positions, its setting my L and R crossover to 60hz and my Center to 40hz. That seems awfully low to me, especially given the Cap2400's ability. It also set the L and R to +1, the Center to -5 and the Sub to -6. 

Do these seem right?


----------



## mthomas47

ratm said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Just got done running Aud for the first time and jeez I think my results are weird so I am hoping you all can help. First of all, here is my set up:
> 
> X3300W into XPA 3
> HTD Level 3 bookshelf for L and R
> HTD Level 3 Center
> Passive Capitvator 2400 powered by a EP4000 and Mic 2200.
> 
> I followed the directions of both the Audyssey 101 and on the Denon to the letter, though I dont know why I needed to raise my crossover on the Mic 2200 to 150hz. After running the 8 positions, its setting my L and R crossover to 60hz and my Center to 40hz. That seems awfully low to me, especially given the Cap2400's ability. It also set the L and R to +1, the Center to -5 and the Sub to -6.
> 
> Do these seem right?


Hi,

Welcome to the thread! First, you always want to have your subwoofers set to max, with respect to the frequencies they can play, as they will be playing well above your crossover to the speakers, although at an attenuated volume level. They will do the same thing for the LFE channel, which goes up to 120Hz.

Audyssey and Denon combine to set crossovers slightly above the measured F3 point (-3db roll-off) of your speakers. Those initial Large/Small and crossover settings are not recommendations, and they are not coordinated with what your sub can do. They are just individual observations which inform you as to where your speakers are rolling-off in your room, and where Audyssey filters are being set. Audyssey stops setting filters for each channel at that same measured F3 point.

Just raise all three crossovers to at least 80Hz, and 90 or 100Hz might sound even better. If you want more subwoofer output, you can raise your subwoofer trim level by a decibel or two. But, if you want more sub boost than that, I would probably recalibrate in an effort to get a lower initial trim level. The subwoofer guide, linked below, will explain the best way to do that during your calibration. It will also help to explain a little more about what Audyssey is doing, and why.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I decided to edit this to note that if you want more sub boost, you can also simply increase the gain level on your 2400, without having to rerun Audyssey. But, I would still encourage you to read the guide.


----------



## ratm

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Welcome to the thread! First, you always want to have your subwoofers set to max, with respect to the frequencies they can play, as they will be playing well above your crossover to the speakers, although at an attenuated volume level. They will do the same thing for the LFE channel, which goes up to 120Hz.
> 
> Audyssey and Denon combine to set crossovers slightly above the measured F3 point (-3db roll-off) of your speakers. Those initial Large/Small and crossover settings are not recommendations, and they are not coordinated with what your sub can do. They are just individual observations which inform you as to where your speakers are rolling-off in your room, and where Audyssey filters are being set. Audyssey stops setting filters for each channel at that same measured F3 point.
> 
> Just raise all three crossovers to at least 80Hz, and 90 or 100Hz might sound even better. If you want more subwoofer output, you can raise your subwoofer trim level by a decibel or two. But, if you want more sub boost than that, I would probably recalibrate in an effort to get a lower initial trim level. The subwoofer guide, linked below, will explain the best way to do that during your calibration. It will also help to explain a little more about what Audyssey is doing, and why.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. I will read that sub guide. Having a new issue as running Audyssey negated the ability for my Xbox One S to send UHD audio as bitstream as its telling me that my receiver can't decode the audio. UGH!


----------



## pbarach

I have a center channel speaker that is DEFINITELY not even close to full-range, yet Audyssey calibrations routinely want them set to LARGE. And my mains make some sound down to 40 Hz, but nothing below that--and Audyssey says they are LARGE as well. I just set them all to 80 Hz, and that works fine.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Since this subject comes up so often, on this and other threads, I have added a section on crossovers to my subwoofer guide, linked below. It seemed useful to have some of the explanation in the same place as the discussion of subwoofer settings, and I included some narrative that I think helps to explain things a bit. As always, comments are welcome if something needs additional clarification. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MeganElisabeth

*Audyssey Redo?*

I have recently moved my speakers on taller stands (not any further away) and was wanting to know if I need to setup audyssey again or if it doesn't measure height in calibration?


----------



## dennwood

A few pages back I had posted the results of using 1 sub, then 2 dissimilar subs, and now finally, 2 matched subs. I ended up returning the Denon AVR-X3400 and upgrading to the AVR-X4400. The setup with two Paradigm DSP-3200s is clearly the winner  Going from ATMOS 5.1.2 to 7.1.4 (11 channels) is night and day better!! I put my older Denon 2310 amp back into service providing the extra two (LR, RF) channels of amplification required to supplement the X4400s 9 channels of amplification. Audyssey XT32 did a great job matching up the extra four speakers which are not Paradigms.





































The 1st sub is in the equipment rack, while the 2nd sub is in the foreground corner of the picture.


----------



## primetimeguy

MeganElisabeth said:


> I have recently moved my speakers on taller stands (not any further away) and was wanting to know if I need to setup audyssey again or if it doesn't measure height in calibration?


Yes, I would run it again. Height of the tweeter will impact the measurements. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## MeganElisabeth

primetimeguy said:


> MeganElisabeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have recently moved my speakers on taller stands (not any further away) and was wanting to know if I need to setup audyssey again or if it doesn't measure height in calibration?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would run it again. Height of the tweeter will impact the measurements.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thank you very much!


----------



## garygarrison

primetimeguy said:


> Yes, I would run it again. *Height of the tweeter will impact the measurements*.


So might less bass loading from the floor, and the effect of any cavity under the speaker. Stands that are monolithic blocks of the same L and W dimensions as the bottom of the speaker enclosure may save a bit more bass response for you, compared to stands that have spindly legs, in which case you could lose some SPL in the bottom octave or so. I realize you will be using a subwoofer (I hope), but the main speakers roll off gradually, and continue to provide some bass below the crossover. Under some circumstances space under a speaker box formed by mounting it on legs can destroy the bottom octave of response and cause dips in the next 2 octaves. That doesn't necessarily mean you would prefer the sound with the cavity filled -- that could go either way -- but you need to re-run Audyssey, so it "knows" what you've done, and can try to make the bass flat down to the - 3dB point with those speakers (subject to a roll off conforming to the crossover slope), in that position, in your room, on your stands.


----------



## MeganElisabeth

Whenever I have run Audyssey every single time the results vary.. with the exact same room setup. Back to back results. Not extreme differences but still some. So would you just set median levels based on the various results?


----------



## cutthatcity

so im sure this has been talked about before but i wanted to get someones two cents. i am playing around with the settings, i previously had dynamic eq on and dynamic volume on low (my wife usually doesnt like it louder than -30 or so). my subwoofer is at +1. now this was giving me somewhat boomy results sometimes and i had turned up the volume enhancer (whatever its called on the denon) to +4.

anyways i set my sub to +3, turned dynamic volume off, volume enhance off, and dynamic eq to -15 offset and it seems to give a lot more clarity. does this reasoning make sense? am i better off turning dynamic eq off all together and just upping the sub a few more db?


----------



## kbarnes701

A very Happy New Year to all my old Audyssey buddies!


----------



## mthomas47

MeganElisabeth said:


> Whenever I have run Audyssey every single time the results vary.. with the exact same room setup. Back to back results. Not extreme differences but still some. So would you just set median levels based on the various results?


Hi,

Extremely minor differences in microphone placement during calibrations can cause small level setting differences, and sometimes crossover differences, as well. And, even if the mic placements really could be identical from calibration to calibration, there is still no guarantee that there couldn't be slightly different results. If you get wide variations and a calibration result that you really don't like, I would rerun the calibration to improve whatever it is you are trying to improve.

But, if the results of a particular calibration sound good to you, I wouldn't worry about resetting levels to some sort of median point. I would just leave the settings as they are. Of course, changing the trim level on a subwoofer, or on a center channel, or whatever, to achieve a specific purpose is a little different thing. But, I wouldn't mess with trim levels just because there were minor differences among calibrations.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

cutthatcity said:


> so im sure this has been talked about before but i wanted to get someones two cents. i am playing around with the settings, i previously had dynamic eq on and dynamic volume on low (my wife usually doesnt like it louder than -30 or so). my subwoofer is at +1. now this was giving me somewhat boomy results sometimes and i had turned up the volume enhancer (whatever its called on the denon) to +4.
> 
> anyways i set my sub to +3, turned dynamic volume off, volume enhance off, and dynamic eq to -15 offset and it seems to give a lot more clarity. does this reasoning make sense? am i better off turning dynamic eq off all together and just upping the sub a few more db?


Hi,

I would recommend that you read the subwoofer guide linked below. As a general rule, it is better to increase the gain on the subwoofer in order to keep the AVR trim in negative numbers. Depending on the way that your gain is implemented in your subwoofer, you may actually get more bass that way even at low listening levels.

The guide also has a thorough discussion of DEQ that will help you understand exactly what DEQ is doing. At a listening level of -30, with an RLO setting of -15, DEQ is still adding about 6.6db to the very low frequencies, and proportionally less to the mid-bass frequencies. For some content (and depending on the specific capabilities of your subwoofer) you might prefer that emphasis on the


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> A very Happy New Year to all my old Audyssey buddies!



Happy New Year to you as well! But, what do you mean when you say "old" buddies?


----------



## MeganElisabeth

mthomas47 said:


> MeganElisabeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever I have run Audyssey every single time the results vary.. with the exact same room setup. Back to back results. Not extreme differences but still some. So would you just set median levels based on the various results?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Extremely minor differences in microphone placement during calibrations can cause small level setting differences, and sometimes crossover differences, as well. And, even if the mic placements really could be identical from calibration to calibration, there is still no guarantee that there couldn't be slightly different results. If you get wide variations and a calibration result that you really don't like, I would rerun the calibration to improve whatever it is you are trying to improve.
> 
> But, if the results of a particular calibration sound good to you, I wouldn't worry about resetting levels to some sort of median point. I would just leave the settings as they are. Of course, changing the trim level on a subwoofer, or on a center channel, or whatever, to achieve a specific purpose is a little different thing. But, I wouldn't mess with trim levels just because there were minor differences among calibrations.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks so much! Yeah, I guess maybe it's just not quite as accurate as I thought it would be? I'm leaving the mic in the same position yet the levels bounce all around with back to back testing. Sometimes close and sometimes not really. I've just decided to use the median between the two that were closest in results.


----------



## cutthatcity

mthomas47 said:


> cutthatcity said:
> 
> 
> 
> so im sure this has been talked about before but i wanted to get someones two cents. i am playing around with the settings, i previously had dynamic eq on and dynamic volume on low (my wife usually doesnt like it louder than -30 or so). my subwoofer is at +1. now this was giving me somewhat boomy results sometimes and i had turned up the volume enhancer (whatever its called on the denon) to +4.
> 
> anyways i set my sub to +3, turned dynamic volume off, volume enhance off, and dynamic eq to -15 offset and it seems to give a lot more clarity. does this reasoning make sense? am i better off turning dynamic eq off all together and just upping the sub a few more db?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I would recommend that you read the subwoofer guide linked below. As a general rule, it is better to increase the gain on the subwoofer in order to keep the AVR trim in negative numbers. Depending on the way that your gain is implemented in your subwoofer, you may actually get more bass that way even at low listening levels.
> 
> The guide also has a thorough discussion of DEQ that will help you understand exactly what DEQ is doing. At a listening level of -30, with an RLO setting of -15, DEQ is still adding about 6.6db to the very low frequencies, and proportionally less to the mid-bass frequencies. For some content (and depending on the specific capabilities of your subwoofer) you might prefer that emphasis on the
Click to expand...


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Happy New Year to you as well! But, what do you mean when you say "old" buddies?


They would be buddies I have had for some time


----------



## Matt2026

kbarnes701 said:


> A very Happy New Year to all my old Audyssey buddies!


Hi Kieth, I may not be one of your old Audyssey buddies but I am "old" so close enough for me 

Wishing you a HAPPY NEW YEAR filled with hours of enjoying your "cowshed" and many blessings!


----------



## garygarrison

cutthatcity said:


> so im sure this has been talked about before but i wanted to get someones two cents. i am playing around with the settings, i previously had dynamic eq on and dynamic volume on low (my wife usually doesnt like it louder than -30 or so). my subwoofer is at +1. now this was giving me somewhat boomy results sometimes and i had turned up the volume enhancer (whatever its called on the denon) to +4.
> 
> anyways i set my sub to +3, turned dynamic volume off, volume enhance off, and dynamic eq to -15 offset and it seems to give a lot more clarity. does this reasoning make sense? am i better off turning dynamic eq off all together and just upping the sub a few more db?


Just try everything you can think of, and keep records (I need to tell myself that). 

I, for one, like DEQ completely off, with the sub turned up quite a bit, and the bass tone control turned up to taste (it, and the treble control, become available *only* when DEQ is off). Don't use the virtual sliders, because they can't be used with Audyssey, unless what Marantz (and perhaps Denon) named "base copy" is used, which only copies the Audyssey EQ *quite crudely*, and loses a lot of the information provided by Audyssey's hundreds of EQ points. Understandably, Chris K., the co-founder of Audyssey dislikes "base copy." I don't know what Marantz's sister company, Denon, calls this function. When you get settings you like, check to make sure the Audyssey indicator light is on.

A volume of -30 dB in an Audyssey calibrated AVR is pretty low, IMO. There are many factors that cause people to prefer low volume, starting with simple personal preference. Women, in general, have greater hearing sensitivity, particularly in the higher frequencies, but this effect is lessening now that fewer people are smoking (male smokers used to vastly outnumber female ones), and ear protection is worn in industry (but not in war). *But*, there are artifactual variables that sometime come into play. A carefully treated room can help. Audyssey can help, IMO. I have no idea what speakers you have, but if you ever change them, try reestablishing your usual volume levels, and see if you and your wife might like a slightly higher volume. My guess is that the film score composers probably hope you are playing back at about - 10 or above, after all the fudge factors THX and others propose get plugged in. Speakers that are well regarded, get positive reviews, and sound somewhat similar at low volume, may sound quite different at higher volume. IM distortion can make louder sound quite noxious. A "good" speaker may sound fine at moderate volume, but sound terrible during loud passages. I was looking at a chart recently that looked at radically different distortion figures for high quality ("studio quality") speakers. One highly rated speaker had *six times* the IM distortion as another highly rated speaker, when both were playing at 105 dB (105 dB is a reference level peak, but, since this was at 1 meter, the speakers would have to be turned up even farther to produce 105 dB at a plausible MLP). The more distorting speaker had 10% IM, which is quite annoying, possibly painful (you can hear IM like this, at your own selected volume, from time to time, on the soundtrack of Woodstock). The figures for the same two speakers were even farther apart -- a 16:1 ratio -- with harmonic distortion, which, fortunately, is generally less noxious. Since no reviewer I know of measures speaker distortion since the death of the great Heyser, I presume most of the manufacturers are very happy.


----------



## cutthatcity

garygarrison said:


> cutthatcity said:
> 
> 
> 
> so im sure this has been talked about before but i wanted to get someones two cents. i am playing around with the settings, i previously had dynamic eq on and dynamic volume on low (my wife usually doesnt like it louder than -30 or so). my subwoofer is at +1. now this was giving me somewhat boomy results sometimes and i had turned up the volume enhancer (whatever its called on the denon) to +4.
> 
> anyways i set my sub to +3, turned dynamic volume off, volume enhance off, and dynamic eq to -15 offset and it seems to give a lot more clarity. does this reasoning make sense? am i better off turning dynamic eq off all together and just upping the sub a few more db?
> 
> 
> 
> Just try everything you can think of, and keep records (I need to tell myself that).
> 
> I, for one, like DEQ completely off, with the sub turned up quite a bit, and the bass tone control turned up to taste (it, and the treble control, become available *only* when DEQ is off). Don't use the virtual sliders, because they can't be used with Audyssey, unless what Marantz (and perhaps Denon) named "base copy" is used, which only copies the Audyssey EQ *quite crudely*, and loses a lot of the information provided by Audyssey's hundreds of EQ points. Understandably, Chris K., the co-founder of Audyssey dislikes "base copy." I don't know what Marantz's sister company, Denon, calls this function. When you get settings you like, check to make sure the Audyssey indicator light is on.
> 
> A volume of -30 dB in an Audyssey calibrated AVR is pretty low, IMO. There are many factors that cause people to prefer low volume, starting with simple personal preference. Women, in general, have greater hearing sensitivity, particularly in the higher frequencies, but this effect is lessening now that fewer people are smoking (male smokers used to vastly outnumber female ones), and ear protection is worn in industry (but not in war). *But*, there are artifactual variables that sometime come into play. A carefully treated room can help. Audyssey can help, IMO. I have no idea what speakers you have, but if you ever change them, try reestablishing your usual volume levels, and see if you and your wife might like a slightly higher volume. My guess is that the film score composers probably hope you are playing back at about - 10 or above, after all the fudge factors THX and others propose get plugged in. Speakers that are well regarded, get positive reviews, and sound somewhat similar at low volume, may sound quite different at higher volume. IM distortion can make louder sound quite noxious. A "good" speaker may sound fine at moderate volume, but sound terrible during loud passages. I was looking at a chart recently that looked at radically different distortion figures for high quality ("studio quality") speakers. One highly rated speaker had *six times* the IM distortion as another highly rated speaker, when both were playing at 105 dB (105 dB is a reference level peak, but, since this was at 1 meter, the speakers would have to be turned up even farther to produce 105 dB at a plausible MLP). The more distorting speaker had 10% IM, which is quite annoying, possibly painful (you can hear IM like this, at your own selected volume, from time to time, on the soundtrack of Woodstock). The figures for the same two speakers were even farther apart -- a 16:1 ratio -- with harmonic distortion, which, fortunately, is generally less noxious. Since no reviewer I know of measures speaker distortion since the death of the great Heyser, I presume most of the manufacturers are very happy.
Click to expand...

Well it is in my living room. Speakers are all svs prime with svs ultra center. For actual movie watching we usually put it at - 20. At this volume calibrated, the subwoofers put out enough bass to rattle the tv mount at certain frequencies (that part is annoying, but my point is that it's fairly loud)


----------



## garygarrison

cutthatcity said:


> Well it is in my living room. Speakers are all svs prime with svs ultra center. For actual movie watching we usually put it at - 20. At this volume calibrated, the subwoofers put out enough bass to rattle the tv mount at certain frequencies (that part is annoying, but my point is that it's fairly loud)


Well, after complaining about reviewers who don't measure IM, I found out that Home Theater Shack does! If you have SVS Prime Towers, Home Theater Shack measured them at a decent IM level (1.4%), but stopped at 95 dB. If you ever entertained the idea of playing at what would sound like Reference Level, you would need 10 more dB* - *the THX fudge factor of 5 or 6 dB = 4 or 5 db more than 95 dB. You would need about 130 watts to get to 105 dB at 13 feet*;* to get to 100 dB, you would need less than 65 watts. Hopefully, the IM would still be O.K. at 100 dB.


----------



## kbarnes701

Matt2026 said:


> Hi Kieth, I may not be one of your old Audyssey buddies but I am "old" so close enough for me
> 
> Wishing you a HAPPY NEW YEAR filled with hours of enjoying your "cowshed" and many blessings!


Thanks old buddy  And HNY2U2.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Well, after complaining about reviewers who don't measure IM, I found out that Home Theater Shack does! If you have SVS Prime Towers, Home Theater Shack measured them at a decent IM level (1.4%), but stopped at 95 dB. If you ever entertained the idea of playing at what would sound like Reference Level, you would need 10 more dB* - *the THX fudge factor of 5 or 6 dB = 4 or 5 db more than 95 dB. You would need about 130 watts to get to 105 dB at 13 feet*;* to get to 100 dB, you would need less than 65 watts. Hopefully, the IM would still be O.K. at 100 dB.


Hi Gary,

I admire your research in finding IM data on the SVS primes. I thought I would add something to your analysis, and then use your post to segue to a more general discussion of loudness vis-a-vis Reference. I know that you already know this, as we have both posted about it, but the OP wouldn't really need to get to 105db to hear the equivalent of Reference volumes. In a room under about 20,000^3, 100db would sound approximately as loud as 105db would sound in a movie theater or film mixing studio. In a room of less than about 2500^3 or so, even 98db might sound as loud as Reference.

But, I think it would be interesting to broaden the discussion beyond what Reference sounds like in a particular room. I have been giving some thought to the ongoing discussion of Reference volume and to what extent people are actually expected to listen at volumes approaching 100 or 105db. First, nothing I have read about the creation of the Dolby and THX Reference standard suggests that the originators of that standard ever actually expected people to listen at that level in home theater environments. My understanding is that they were simply trying to find a way to provide standardization for maximum sound levels in film scores (and to be able to calibrate commercial theaters to a common standard). And, they chose maximum sound pressure levels for "Reference" which they believed would be below the threshold of hearing damage for most people.

But, levels which are below the threshold of hearing damage, and levels which are comfortable (enjoyable) to a particular individual are two very different things. Leaving that difference aside for a moment, it might also have been interesting to see whether an even more conservative maximum level would have been chosen if the Reference standard had been created in a country with more stringent standards regarding potentially harmful SPL-- say, if the Reference standard had been developed in Australia, for instance.

But, what about the Reference standard as it exists? Do film mixers really expect people to listen to movies at Reference volumes? That's an interesting question, and it probably depends somewhat on the individual mixer. I know that some directors are especially fond of high volumes for both the normal channels and the LFE channel. Some film scores such as Batman Versus Superman are almost unrelentingly loud, and have extremely strong low bass effects throughout the movie. Other directors and film mixers don't seem as interested in utilizing the maximum allowable SPL's as often, if at all, during a movie as movie volumes can vary quite widely.

So, I wonder if the idea that we are supposed to listen at or near Reference levels, even in a movie theater, is actually correct, or if that is an idea that has just taken on a life of its own on forums such as AVS? I remember that when Dolby/THX certified theaters were using a commercial version of Audyssey XT to calibrate movie theaters to Reference, we heard reports of theaters turning down their sound levels due to complaints from theater patrons. I have been in IMAX theaters where the sheer noise level was uncomfortable and where I was glad to leave at the end of the movie.

And, I also know that on threads where film mixers have commented on their own preferences, several have stated that they don't listen at Reference volumes on their home theater systems. The ones I remember said that they preferred to listen to even their own movies, at home, at -5 MV or less. And, they are very accustomed to not only how the movies should sound, but also to loud sounds, in general.

I think that last point is very important. If we forget HT systems for a moment and just think about noise in the abstract, many people do not enjoy very loud sounds. Some people cover their ears more quickly as an ambulance goes by, or on a construction site, or with a jet doing a flyover. Helicopters, leaf blowers, and chain saws can all affect some people much more than others. 

Many people choose to sit in the rear of concert halls, or even to wear special ear plugs for certain classical music performances. I recall that Floyd Toole wears Etymotic ear plugs partly to protect his hearing, when he flies on airplanes, as do some professional musicians during rehearsals or performances. So, our tolerance for, and enjoyment of, loud noises varies considerably, irrespective of its application to a music or HT context.

According to what I have read on the forum, the average HT listening level is in the -10 to -20 range. And, if anything, I think that the overall average is probably a little lower than -15. But, even if we take that nominal -10 to -20 guesstimate at face value, think of the range that implies. -10 is twice as loud as -20. That's a lot of difference. And, the actual preferred listening range is probably from around 0 to -30. -20 is twice as loud as -30, and -10 is twice as loud as -20, and 0 is twice as loud as -10. That means that 0 is eight times as loud as -30.  That's an enormous preference range.

We sometimes think that differences in our preferred listening levels are attributable to distortion--either in our speakers or in our rooms. And, that certainly can be a factor, although not a factor that could account for the wide disparity in listening levels shown above. But, I also know many AVS members with well-treated rooms (including myself) who simply don't enjoy extremely loud noises. It isn't just loud music or loud sound effects that we may not enjoy as much as others do, it may be loudness in general. And, that enormous preference range, I cited above, is an excellent indication of that.

A while back on the thread, we discussed the potential difficulty in precisely defining Reference in a home theater system. And, if we could, we would still find that movies are all over the place with respect to loudness. But, I think it is also important to recognize that Reference listening may not be a universal goal to begin with. We all like the idea of having a Reference-capable system--just because. But, the number of us who actually want to subject ourselves to extremely loud volumes on a regular basis is probably pretty small. And, I suspect that includes many of the people who helped to develop the Reference standard, and many of the film mixers who implement it. 

Hearing damage is only one potential aspect of high noise levels, although it's a very important one. Our own personal and subjective preference is at least equally important. Just as some of us will prefer more highly seasoned food than others, I believe that we will inherently enjoy louder or softer listening levels. And, the explanations for why we prefer what we do may combine physiological, neurological, and environmental differences among us. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Mike, and HNY2U. Just a few comments as I am 'here'
> 
> 
> I know that you already know this, as we have both posted about it, but the OP wouldn't really need to get to 105db to hear the equivalent of Reference volumes. In a room under about 20,000^3, 100db would sound approximately as loud as 105db would sound in a movie theater or film mixing studio.


Absolutely right. As someone who prefers Reference level listening (for various reasons), and who has paid close attention in movie theaters, even to the extent of taking an SPL meter in with me, I can confirm that, subjectively, in my HT, -5dB sounds the same as Reference in a commercial cinema, as far as I can tell for sure. 



mthomas47 said:


> But, I think it would be interesting to broaden the discussion beyond what Reference sounds like in a particular room. I have been giving some thought to the ongoing discussion of Reference volume and to what extent people are actually expected to listen at volumes approaching 100 or 105db. First, nothing I have read about the creation of the Dolby and THX Reference standard suggests that the originators of that standard ever actually expected people to listen at that level in home theater environments.


There is a good chance that that is because the creators of content are concerned almost exclusively with reproduction in commercial theaters. The home audio experience is very much a poor relation most of the time.



mthomas47 said:


> But, levels which are below the threshold of hearing damage, and levels which are comfortable (enjoyable) to a particular individual are two very different things. Leaving that difference aside for a moment, it might also have been interesting to see whether an even more conservative maximum level would have been chosen if the Reference standard had been created in a country with more stringent standards regarding potentially harmful SPL-- say, if the Reference standard had been developed in Australia, for instance.


Reference level is only 85dB average, and 105/115 LFE peaks. AFAIK there is no country which believes that 85dB for two or so hours can cause any sort of hearing damage. And the maximum 105dB is usually only for a fleeting moment, even in action movies. So I doubt very much that hearing damage is going to be a real concern for people at home, most of whom can't even approach Reference cleanly anyway.



mthomas47 said:


> But, what about the Reference standard as it exists? Do film mixers really expect people to listen to movies at Reference volumes?


They do in cinemas because that is what every cinema is supposed to be calibrated for.



mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting question, and it probably depends somewhat on the individual mixer. I know that some directors are especially fond of high volumes for both the normal channels and the LFE channel. Some film scores such as Batman Versus Superman are almost unrelentingly loud, and have extremely strong low bass effects throughout the movie. Other directors and film mixers don't seem as interested in utilizing the maximum allowable SPL's as often, if at all, during a movie as movie volumes can vary quite widely.


This is true - stand up Mr Nolan. But when movies are mixed with _average_ levels well above 85dB, they are NOT being mixed properly.



mthomas47 said:


> So, I wonder if the idea that we are supposed to listen at or near Reference levels, even in a movie theater, is actually correct, or if that is an idea that has just taken on a life of its own on forums such as AVS?


Not sure where that idea comes from Mike. Reference Level playback is a mandated standard for commercial movie theaters. Of course, the beauty of a home cinema is that you can listen at any level you prefer!



mthomas47 said:


> I remember that when Dolby/THX certified theaters were using a commercial version of Audyssey XT to calibrate movie theaters to Reference, we heard reports of theaters turning down their sound levels due to complaints from theater patrons. I have been in IMAX theaters where the sheer noise level was uncomfortable and where I was glad to leave at the end of the movie.


IMAX theaters are, IME, very poor wrt to SQ. I too have had to wear earplugs in some movies in IMAX. Nowadays I generally avoid IMAX theaters anyway, for various reasons, this being one of them.



mthomas47 said:


> And, I also know that on threads where film mixers have commented on their own preferences, several have stated that they don't listen at Reference volumes on their home theater systems. The ones I remember said that they preferred to listen to even their own movies, at home, at -5 MV or less. And, they are very accustomed to not only how the movies should sound, but also to loud sounds, in general.


Indeed - but you have already explained why. In small spaces (like HTs, even big ones, the perception of Reference is about right at about 5dB below actual Reference. There is good scientific research on why this is so.



mthomas47 said:


> I think that last point is very important. If we forget HT systems for a moment and just think about noise in the abstract, many people do not enjoy very loud sounds. Some people cover their ears more quickly as an ambulance goes by, or on a construction site, or with a jet doing a flyover. Helicopters, leaf blowers, and chain saws can all affect some people much more than others.


Most of those are continuous noise (during the duration of the noise I mean) at very high SPLs. I have measured my own leaf blower (and all of my domestic tools) and it runs at a staggering, ear-damaging 110dB *all the time it is running*. Good ear defenders are essential. 



mthomas47 said:


> According to what I have read on the forum, the average HT listening level is in the -10 to -20 range. And, if anything, I think that the overall average is probably a little lower than -15. But, even if we take that nominal -10 to -20 guesstimate at face value, think of the range that implies. -10 is twice as loud as -20. That's a lot of difference. And, the actual preferred listening range is probably from around 0 to -30. -20 is twice as loud as -30, and -10 is twice as loud as -20, and 0 is twice as loud as -10. That means that 0 is eight times as loud as -30.  That's an enormous preference range.


Many people (maybe even most people) cannot achieve Reference levels cleanly. They run their amps into clipping and this 'sounds really loud' without actually being really loud. In my HT for example, not one person has ever said that 'it sounds loud'. They don't even seem to be aware that it IS all that loud. I attribute this to the fact that I have 100dB sensitive speakers, 200 watts of power, and can hit Reference using about 16 of those watts, driving speakers that can play Reference all day long. (This is one reason why I also believe that 'hi-fi' type speakers are wholly unsuited to use in HTs where one wishes to achieve realistic (ie Reference) levels.




mthomas47 said:


> We sometimes think that differences in our preferred listening levels are attributable to distortion--either in our speakers or in our rooms. And, that certainly can be a factor, although not a factor that could account for the wide disparity in listening levels shown above. But, I also know many AVS members with well-treated rooms (including myself) who simply don't enjoy extremely loud noises. It isn't just loud music or loud sound effects that we may not enjoy as much as others do, it may be loudness in general. And, that enormous preference range, I cited above, is an excellent indication of that.


As I say, the joy of HT is that once can listen at any level one prefers 



mthomas47 said:


> A while back on the thread, we discussed the potential difficulty in precisely defining Reference in a home theater system. And, if we could, we would still find that movies are all over the place with respect to loudness.


That is not generally true. It is occasionally true. I watch a movie every day, in a HT calibrated for 'home reference' (-5dB on the MV, properly calibrated system). The last movie where I had to touch the MV to take it from -5dB was the one you mention above (Batman Vs Superman) which is mixed insanely loud. And I played that movie the day it came out, so I can leave you to figure out how many movies have played perfectly at -5dB. So far from being all over the place, they are remarkably consistent (as I'd expect them to be given the care mixers take ober them usually).



mthomas47 said:


> But, I think it is also important to recognize that Reference listening may not be a universal goal to begin with.


Absolutely. Preference at home is perfectly acceptable. And for many, Reference isn't a realistic possibility anyway.



mthomas47 said:


> We all like the idea of having a Reference-capable system--just because.


People might like the idea. In reality it is not easy to achieve, especially when using the typical 'domestic' speakers many use, with sensitivities in the 85dB area, and amps that can manage 75 watts when all channels are driven. Given typical seating distances, you do the math 



mthomas47 said:


> But, the number of us who actually want to subject ourselves to extremely loud volumes on a regular basis is probably pretty small.


I agree the number of people who can achieve it is probably pretty small. Clipping distortion is horrible and 'sounds' really loud.

We often read of people having dialogue intelligibility issues, or having to 'ride' the volume control. This can have various reasons behind it, but I am willing to bet that one of them is that they set the MV to a comfortable level for dialogue and then have to wind it back for peaks because it 'sounds so loud'. Chances are it's clipping. I find it interesting that if I set dialogue to a 'natural and comfortable level, and then check the MV, it is right there at -5dB give or take a dB. And I just can't remember the last time I had any issues with dialogue intelligibility at all.



mthomas47 said:


> And, I suspect that includes many of the people who helped to develop the Reference standard, and many of the film mixers who implement it.


You said earlier that the pros you can recall mentioning it run their home systems at about -5dB. That is subjectively Reference level for the home.



mthomas47 said:


> Hearing damage is only one potential aspect of high noise levels, although it's a very important one. Our own personal and subjective preference is at least equally important. Just as some of us will prefer more highly seasoned food than others, I believe that we will inherently enjoy louder or softer listening levels. And, the explanations for why we prefer what we do may combine physiological, neurological, and environmental differences among us.


Aside from the possibility of hearing damage at an average of 85dB, I agree with you here. There is nothing wrong with preference. People use their hard-earned to pay for their HTs and they have the inalienable right to use them in any way they wish. My advice to people whose systems can't achieve Reference -5dB, without 'sounding loud' or just plain terrible, is to stop trying. Enjoy the movie at the level which 'sounds right'.

But Reference (-5dB at home) is a massively important standard and one which differentiates movie standards from the mess that is music mixes.

Good chat. Enjoyed it


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> But, I think it would be interesting to broaden the discussion beyond what Reference sounds like in a particular room. I have been giving some thought to the ongoing discussion of Reference volume and to what extent people are actually expected to listen at volumes approaching 100 or 105db. First, nothing I have read about the creation of the Dolby and THX Reference standard suggests that the originators of that standard ever actually expected people to listen at that level in home theater environments. My understanding is that they were simply trying to find a way to provide standardization for maximum sound levels in film scores (and to be able to calibrate commercial theaters to a common standard). And, they chose maximum sound pressure levels for "Reference" which they believed would be below the threshold of hearing damage for most people.
> 
> ".…


Mike,

A good topic for discussion.

I think a big part of the problem is simply the term "Reference level". Just because something is calibrated to a reference level doesn't mean that it needs to be listened to at the same level. You have to have a "reference level" if you're going to calibrate to a standard, and it makes sense to set that level fairly loud to ensure that clipping isn't going to occur if the level gets turned up. A reference level for calibration purposes shouldn't be regarded automatically as a recommended level for listening. The problem is that the moment you start talking about something as a "reference level" amongst a group of people without the technical background to know what "reference level" means within the context of a document setting out a standard, a lot of those people are going to start thinking that "reference level" applies to the level they should be listening at rather than simply being the level used for calibrating the system.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> A good topic for discussion.
> 
> I think a big part of the problem is simply the term "Reference level". Just because something is calibrated to a reference level doesn't mean that it needs to be listened to at the same level. You have to have a "reference level" if you're going to calibrate to a standard, and it makes sense to set that level fairly loud to ensure that clipping isn't going to occur if the level gets turned up. A reference level for calibration purposes shouldn't be regarded automatically as a recommended level for listening. The problem is that the moment you start talking about something as a "reference level" amongst a group of people without the technical background to know what "reference level" means within the context of a document setting out a standard, a lot of those people are going to start thinking that "reference level" applies to the level they should be listening at rather than simply being the level used for calibrating the system.


Excellent point. As with many things in life, just because you can doesn't mean you have to 

I am trying to recreate the experience of a very good commercial cinema, at home, so for me true Reference (adjusted -5dB for smaller rooms) is essential. But that's just me.


----------



## SouthernCA

Someone here said "Reference level is only 85dB average, and 105/115 LFE peaks"

I agree. The reference standard is actually 85 dB and not 105 dB. 105 dB is reserved for occasional peaks. 

So if your sound system can deliver 85 dB average sound level and have some 20dB in reserve, we are good to go.

However, I am not sure if most amps can do these 20 dB peaks or most speakers can take that much power even if amps can deliver. 

An 85dB sensitivity speaker should produce 85dB at 3 ft with 2.87 volts (About 2 watts for a 4 ohm speaker). For two speakers this will be 88 dB at 3 ft. For 6 ft, it would be 82 dB. And at 12 ft, 76 dB. (With 2 watts each channel for 4 ohm load).

In order to get 85 dB, (9 dB more), we would need 16 watts per channel average amp power. And for +20 dB transients, we would need a whole lot of power and current and I am not sure most book shelf speakers can handle that much current or power even for a shirt time, even if out amplifiers can provide it. (Remeber need to double the power for each 3dB increase).

In most cases amplifiers can not provide the necessary power and would clip.

Please correct me where I may have made a mistake. 


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Aside from the possibility of hearing damage at an average of 85dB, I agree with you here. There is nothing wrong with preference. People use their hard-earned to pay for their HTs and they have the inalienable right to use them in any way they wish. My advice to people whose systems can't achieve Reference -5dB, without 'sounding loud' or just plain terrible, is to stop trying. Enjoy the movie at the level which 'sounds right'.
> 
> But Reference (-5dB at home) is a massively important standard and one which differentiates movie standards from the mess that is music mixes.
> 
> Good chat. Enjoyed it


Thanks, Keith! It is an interesting subject. One point that I suspect you already know is that 85db is not an actual SPL average for movies. I believe it was originally discussed in the development of the Reference standard as a way to add context to the discussion of the approximate dynamic range of a movie. But, films aren't actually scored to an "average" volume of 85db. They are scored to whatever level the director and sound mixer choose, and how often (if ever), and for how long, they hit crescendos of up to 105db for the regular channels, and 115db for the LFE channel, is entirely at the discretion of the film makers. Some movies do sustain quite loud listening levels compared to others.

Although 85db is a number which is very important for audio system calibration purposes, it has no particular significance to film mixers in recording film soundtracks. We had a very involved discussion of this a while back and I ended up consulting FilmMixer to get an authoritative take on the question. He said that TV shows often do attempt to regulate the "average" volume of a show to a particular SPL standard, but that it doesn't happen at all with movies. So, movies can have average volumes of 75 or 80db, or they can be much higher than 85db, at the discretion of the director and the film mixer. That is part of what I meant when I said that movies can be all over the place in volume, although they will not typically exceed the peak Reference standards.

As for how loud even a steady 85db volume level sounds to different people, much less the frequency and duration of crescendos which can be as high as 105/115, that is very much a matter of individual interpretation. And, with anatomical and neurological differences, it is inevitable that hearing damage could be a variable as well, with some people suffering effects at lower levels, and with others not suffering (or noticing) the same effects until much higher levels are reached. Distortion is certainly an important variable in our ability to endure/enjoy loudness, but the reason I cited examples which had nothing to do with audio systems was to demonstrate that different people are also more or less comfortable with louder or softer sounds to start with. 

I agree entirely that the Reference standard is invaluable. I simply thought it was worth pointing out that not everyone will actively pursue Reference or near Reference levels, irrespective of room/system capabilities. In fact, of the many people I am acquainted with on the forum who have well-treated rooms and audio systems that can hit Reference levels, very few actually prefer to listen above about -10. You are one of those proud few.  Human diversity, in almost everything, may or may not be a good thing. But, it is definitely a thing. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> …
> Although 85db is a number which is very important for audio system calibration purposes, it has no particular significance to film mixers in recording film soundtracks. We had a very involved discussion of this a while back and I ended up consulting FilmMixer to get an authoritative take on the question. He said that TV shows often do attempt to regulate the "average" volume of a show to a particular SPL standard, but that it doesn't happen at all with movies. So, movies can have average volumes of 75 or 80db, or they can be much higher than 85db, at the discretion of the director and the film mixer. That is part of what I meant when I said that movies can be all over the place in volume, although they will not typically exceed the peak Reference standards.
> …


And that makes eminent sense. 

Let's say you have a movie where the only sound on the soundtrack is people talking. No one actually whispers or shouts during the course of the movie but sometimes a person speaks a little more loudly or softly than they do at other times and different speakers speak at slightly different SPLs. Normal speech is usually considered to be something around 65 dB in level so mastering that soundtrack to an average level of 85 dB would leave you thinking that the characters spent a lot of their time shouting which would not be the case. It might be reasonable to master an action movie with a lot of gunfire and explosions and other sound effects to an average level of 85 dB but mastering a quiet, dialogue heavy, movie with no sounds other than, say, speech, normal household and office sounds, a bit of traffic, and a musical score with no loud peaks to the same average level as the action movie would mean that if you listened to both at reference level you'd come away thinking that the action movie had a really good dynamic soundtrack and the other movie was mastered overly loud.

It's simply impossible to set a level that can be used as a standard average level for mastering all movies. You could set such a level for action movies but you'd need to set a different level for other movies and you'd probably need to have a number of different levels because of the differences in the nature of the soundtracks for different movies. You really can't master to a formula and the worst thing that could happen would be to hand the soundtracks of 2 very different movies, say a movie like "The Revenant" with a lot of scenes that are very quiet, and an action movie like one of the Star Trek or X-Men movies, or "Batman vs Superman", to a mastering engineer and have him/her master both movies to the same average level. If the result worked for one of the 2 movies, it would definitely not work for the other movie. The differences in level in the quite scenes and the different proportions of quiet scene time to loud scene time over the total soundtrack are simply too different for the same average level to work for both.

And BTW for anyone who wants to try averaging the level of a soundtrack at home, the dB scale is a logarithmic scale. Averaging isn't as simple as just taking some samples, adding their values together and dividing by the number of samples like you would do to average your weight over a period of time. It's a lot more complex than that and really the only way to do it reliably at home is to use a sound pressure level meter which is capable of reporting average SPLs. A lot of meters that people use at home like the Radio Shack meters and similar devices don't do averages and a lot of phone app meters don't do averages either. If you have a meter that can do averages then I'd suggest playing 2 movies with very different soundtracks, leaving your AVR's volume control set to the same level for both movies, and measuring the SPL of each of those movies over the course of the whole movie. I'm prepared to bet you'll come up with a different average for each movie.



> In fact, of the many people I am acquainted with on the forum who have well-treated rooms and audio systems that can hit Reference levels, very few actually prefer to listen above about -10. You are one of those proud few. Human diversity, in almost everything, may or may not be a good thing. But, it is definitely a thing.


I find that one of the reasons I turn the volume up is in order to make something like speech or song lyrics a little clearer and easier for me to understand, and distortion in the signal and unwelcome room effects make speech and lyrics harder for me to understand. One of the things I noticed when I first tried acoustically treating my room around 20 years ago was that the sound I was hearing was clearer and I found myself listening at lower levels.

My normal listening level with Audyssey and DEQ engaged tends to be around -20 dB but there are some movies where I find myself increasing the level, perhaps up to close to -10 dB and it's extremely rare that I go above that. The reason when I do increase the volume is almost always because the movie hasn't been mastered to play as loudly as most movies. The fact that we do need to turn up the volume for some movies and not for others is in itself a reasonable indication that all movies are not mastered to the same average level. I have 2 movies in my collection which are almost inaudible at times if I play them with the volume set to -20 dB and even at -5 dB or so I sometimes think voices are too soft. Both are Japanese movies and I listen to the Japanese soundtrack which I don't understand while following the dialogue via subtitles so in the case of these 2 movies I'm actually not turning up the volume in order to understand the dialog, I'm actually turning up the volume so I can hear the soundtrack at a reasonable level. The average level at which those 2 movies are mastered is significantly lower than the average level at which most movies in my collection are mastered.


----------



## pbarach

kbarnes701 said:


> Excellent point. As with many things in life, just because you can doesn't mean you have to
> 
> I am trying to recreate the experience of a very good commercial cinema, at home, so for me true Reference (adjusted -5dB for smaller rooms) is essential. But that's just me.


I have been to commercial theaters with very good audio, and I find many action-type films to be intolerably loud. I don't want to leave the theater with my ears ringing. If there are action movies I want to see without waiting for the BD or a streamed version, I will wear earplugs. The last overly loud film I saw was Baby Driver--I forgot my earplugs and sat there with my fingers in my ears for most of the movie. Not fun.

After reports from friends about the excessively loud audio in the Star Wars movie, I decided to skip it.


----------



## kbarnes701

What is this heresy I see before my eyes! 

At a stroke, and on the Audyssey thread itself to boot, you have denied one of the very _raisons d'etre_ of Audyssey: that when the system is properly calibrated, setting the MV to 0dB will enable it, if it is so capable, to play at *Movie Reference Level*!




mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Keith! It is an interesting subject. One point that I suspect you already know is that 85db is not an actual SPL average for movies. I believe it was originally discussed in the development of the Reference standard as a way to add context to the discussion of the approximate dynamic range of a movie. But, films aren't actually scored to an "average" volume of 85db. They are scored to whatever level the director and sound mixer choose, and how often (if ever), and for how long, they hit crescendos of up to 105db for the regular channels, and 115db for the LFE channel, is entirely at the discretion of the film makers. Some movies do sustain quite loud listening levels compared to others.


I suspect some crossedness in our wires here. Obviously, the Director will, for artistic intent, at times wish that some sounds play louder than the average level of sound and at other times, softer. He may, for example, mandate that a crucial footstep plays louder than an 'averagely loud' footstep, in which case he may decide it should be subjectively twice as loud and so it will end up at 95dB. Or he may decide it should be softer than an 'averagely loud' footstep, say twice as soft subjectively, so it will end up at 75dB. But no matter what the Director's intent, the movie will be mixed to Reference standards, and these are not subjective or matters of opinion, but are defined.

SMPTE has RP200. Here is an extract from it (or more accurately, from an article discussing it - you have to pay to read SMPTE papers):

*Appendix 2: SMPTE Practice*
All quoted monitor SPL calibration figures in this paper are referenced to -20 dB FS. The "theatre standard", *Proposed SMPTE Recommended Practice: Relative and Absolute Sound Pressure Levels for Motion-Picture Multichannel Sound Systems, *SMPTE Document RP 200, defines the calibration method in detail. In the 1970's the value was quoted as "85 at 0 VU" but as the measurement methods became more sophisticated, this value proved to be in error. It has now become "85 at -18 dB FS" with 0 VU remaining at -20 dBFS (sine wave). The history of this metamorphosis is interesting. A VU meter was originally used to do the calibration, and with the advent of digital audio, the VU meter was calibrated with a sine wave to -20 dB FS. However, it was forgotten that a VU meter does not average by the RMS method, which results in an error between the RMS electrical value of the pink noise and the sine wave level. While 1 dB is the theoretical difference, the author has seen as much as a 2 dB discrepancy between certain VU meters and the true RMS pink noise level. 
The other problem is the measurement bandwidth, since a widerange voltmeter will show attenuation of the source pink noise signal on a long distance analog cable due to capacitive losses. The solution is to define a specific measurement bandwidth (20 kHz). By the time all these errors were tracked down, it was discovered that the historical calibration was in error by 2dB. Using pink noise at an RMS level of -20 dBFS RMS must correctly result in an SPL level of only 83 dB. In order to retain the magic "85" number, the SMPTE raised the specified level of the calibrating pink noise to -18dB FS RMS, but the result is the identical monitor gain. One channel is measured at a time, the SPL meter set to C weighting, slow. The K-System is consistent with RP 200 only at K-20. I feel it will be simpler in the long run to calibrate to 83 dB SPL at the K-System meter's 0 dB rather than confuse future users with a non-standard +2 dB calibration point.​
The above references the long-standing discussion abouyt the -18dB issue, but this is of no consequence to us right now, since the quoted passage makes more than clear the importance of the Reference Level standard and the fact that all monitor calibrations are referenced to -20dB FS. That is, 85dB at 0 on the MV (for us amateurs) and on the VU meters for the Pros.

As we are in an Audyssey thread, we can do no better than to quote the revered Chris Kyriakakis himself, where he says on Audyssey's Zendesk (in December 2011):

For the record, the SMPTE reference is 85 dB SPL (C, Slow) for –20 dBFS. There is SMPTE RP 200 that mentions –18 dBFS so that it matches the EBU standard. In any case, MultEQ uses 85 dB for –20 dBFS as the intended level.​
Chris obligingly refers to the -18 DB FS issue too.

Then we have the highly credible Acoustic Frontiers website, who chime in with:

*THX REFERENCE LEVEL EXPLAINED

What is ‘THX Reference Level’?*
*Reference level is a calibrated volume setting used for both movie production (in dubbing stages and post production houses) and reproduction (in screening rooms and theaters).* The human hearing system is non-linear, especially in the bass, so having a consistent playback level – a reference – is critical if the mix is to translate from one production house to another and audiences are to hear the director’s intent in terms of the balance in the soundtrack between dialog, effects and ambiance. 

*Reference level for all channels except low frequency effects is calibrated by adjusting the audio chain such that a pink noise signal recorded at -20dB relative to full scale (0dB) creates 85dB sound pressure level as measured with a C weighted SPL meter at the seating locations. Volume levels are adjusted for each channel individually until they read 85dB. The master volume control setting associated with this playback level is then set to a nominal 0dB, or reference level. *​
Crucially, they add:

*The history behind this is that sound engineers and producers generally work so that the average recording level for dialog in movie soundtrack is -20dB. *This allows for 20dB of dynamic range in the soundtrack. The low frequency effects channel is calibrated higher, so that a -20dB signal reaches 95dBC at the seating locations. (My bolding)​
And touching on our home systems, as calibrated by Audyssey they add: 

In the home it works slightly differently. Most pre-processor and audio video receivers have embedded pink noise test tones used for level setting that are recorded at -30dB relative to full scale. Using these tones the level of individual speakers are adjusted to 75dB as measured with a C weighted SPL meter at the listening position. Note that the low frequency effects signal is nearly always internally set to be to be 10dB louder than that for the speakers so that the end user’s life is simplified and the subwoofer is calibrated to 75dB rather than the 85dB one might expect.

The concept of reference level ensures that the content is produced and reproduced at the same absolute volume level and is cemented in the THX certification process for theaters and consumer gear.​
'Cemented in' no less 

Finally, a short quote from THX thrmselves:

THX Certified Audio products are designed to let you experience movies the way they were meant to be heard. On every THX Certified AV Receiver the “0” on the volume dial represents THX Reference Level, the exact volume level used by the moviemakers and sound artists in the studio.​
So we can see from all of this the clear assertion that movies are engineered and mixed to the 'Reference' standard, which is -20dB FS, that is to say 85dB, meaning peak loudness at 0dB on the MV (with the differences for LFE which we are well aware of). 



mthomas47 said:


> Although 85db is a number which is very important for audio system calibration purposes, it has no particular significance to film mixers in recording film soundtracks.


I hope that the extracts above show that this is very much not the case. There are literally hundreds of similar articles available via Google, all of which more or less say the same thing.



mthomas47 said:


> We had a very involved discussion of this a while back and I ended up consulting FilmMixer to get an authoritative take on the question. He said that TV shows often do attempt to regulate the "average" volume of a show to a particular SPL standard, but that it doesn't happen at all with movies.


TV isn't relevant. I didn't see the comment by Marc but he may well have been discussing the compression that TV often uses, or another issue altogether, but I struggle to believe that he denies that Reference Level is the standard to which mixers do their work.



mthomas47 said:


> So, movies can have average volumes of 75 or 80db, or they can be much higher than 85db, at the discretion of the director and the film mixer. That is part of what I meant when I said that movies can be all over the place in volume, although they will not typically exceed the peak Reference standards.


They are definitely not 'all over the place'. This is evidenced in many ways, not the least that I have not had to touch the MV more than once in dozens of movies, where it has resolutely remained at -5dB in my HT (and by coincidence, where it generally resides in Marc's own HT).



mthomas47 said:


> As for how loud even a steady 85db volume level sounds to different people, much less the frequency and duration of crescendos which can be as high as 105/115, that is very much a matter of individual interpretation. And, with anatomical and neurological differences, it is inevitable that hearing damage could be a variable as well, with some people suffering effects at lower levels, and with others not suffering (or noticing) the same effects until much higher levels are reached. Distortion is certainly an important variable in our ability to endure/enjoy loudness, but the reason I cited examples which had nothing to do with audio systems was to demonstrate that different people are also more or less comfortable with louder or softer sounds to start with.


Everyone will have their own idea of what is subjectively loud. That is the point of 'subjectively'. But it has no relevance to the matter under discussion, which is what Reference Level actually is and how movies re mixed accordingly.



mthomas47 said:


> I agree entirely that the Reference standard is invaluable. I simply thought it was worth pointing out that not everyone will actively pursue Reference or near Reference levels, irrespective of room/system capabilities. In fact, of the many people I am acquainted with on the forum who have well-treated rooms and audio systems that can hit Reference levels, very few actually prefer to listen above about -10. You are one of those proud few.  Human diversity, in almost everything, may or may not be a good thing. But, it is definitely a thing.


As I said twice before, one of the beauties of having a HT is that one can listen at whatever level one chooses. Many will choose to listen at less than Reference. Often this will be because their systems cannot play Reference cleanly, so naturally, rather than listening to a distorted mess, they choose a lower SPL. At other times, it will be pure preference, as some other contributors have just mentioned. However, in a commercial cinema, we have no choice and we listen at Reference (if the cinema is properly calibrated. If it isn't, I wouldn't visit it twice anyway).


----------



## kbarnes701

pbarach said:


> I have been to commercial theaters with very good audio, and I find many action-type films to be intolerably loud. I don't want to leave the theater with my ears ringing. If there are action movies I want to see without waiting for the BD or a streamed version, I will wear earplugs. The last overly loud film I saw was Baby Driver--I forgot my earplugs and sat there with my fingers in my ears for most of the movie. Not fun.
> 
> After reports from friends about the excessively loud audio in the Star Wars movie, I decided to skip it.


Again this is your inalienable right to preference. But whatever one's preference, movies are mixed to Reference (as defined in my long post above). And, since we are in the Audyssey thread, as calibrated by Audyssey so that 0dB on the MV achieves the exact same loudness heard in the mixing rom, if the system is capable of it.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> What is this heresy I see before my eyes!
> 
> At a stroke, and on the Audyssey thread itself to boot, you have denied one of the very _raisons d'etre_ of Audyssey: that when the system is properly calibrated, setting the MV to 0dB will enable it, if it is so capable, to play at *Movie Reference Level*!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I suspect some crossedness in our wires here.* Obviously, the Director will, for artistic intent, at times wish that some sounds play louder than the average level of sound and at other times, softer. He may, for example, mandate that a crucial footstep plays louder than an 'averagely loud' footstep, in which case he may decide it should be subjectively twice as loud and so it will end up at 95dB. Or he may decide it should be softer than an 'averagely loud' footstep, say twice as soft subjectively, so it will end up at 75dB. But no matter what the Director's intent, the movie will be mixed to Reference standards, and these are not subjective or matters of opinion, but are defined.
> 
> SMPTE has RP200. Here is an extract from it (or more accurately, from an article discussing it - you have to pay to read SMPTE papers):*Appendix 2: SMPTE Practice*
> All quoted monitor SPL calibration figures in this paper are referenced to -20 dB FS. The "theatre standard", *Proposed SMPTE Recommended Practice: Relative and Absolute Sound Pressure Levels for Motion-Picture Multichannel Sound Systems, *SMPTE Document RP 200, defines the calibration method in detail. In the 1970's the value was quoted as "85 at 0 VU" but as the measurement methods became more sophisticated, this value proved to be in error. It has now become "85 at -18 dB FS" with 0 VU remaining at -20 dBFS (sine wave). The history of this metamorphosis is interesting. A VU meter was originally used to do the calibration, and with the advent of digital audio, the VU meter was calibrated with a sine wave to -20 dB FS. However, it was forgotten that a VU meter does not average by the RMS method, which results in an error between the RMS electrical value of the pink noise and the sine wave level. While 1 dB is the theoretical difference, the author has seen as much as a 2 dB discrepancy between certain VU meters and the true RMS pink noise level.
> The other problem is the measurement bandwidth, since a widerange voltmeter will show attenuation of the source pink noise signal on a long distance analog cable due to capacitive losses. The solution is to define a specific measurement bandwidth (20 kHz). By the time all these errors were tracked down, it was discovered that the historical calibration was in error by 2dB. Using pink noise at an RMS level of -20 dBFS RMS must correctly result in an SPL level of only 83 dB. In order to retain the magic "85" number, the SMPTE raised the specified level of the calibrating pink noise to -18dB FS RMS, but the result is the identical monitor gain. One channel is measured at a time, the SPL meter set to C weighting, slow. The K-System is consistent with RP 200 only at K-20. I feel it will be simpler in the long run to calibrate to 83 dB SPL at the K-System meter's 0 dB rather than confuse future users with a non-standard +2 dB calibration point.​The above references the long-standing discussion abouyt the -18dB issue, but this is of no consequence to us right now, since the quoted passage makes more than clear the importance of the Reference Level standard and the fact that all monitor calibrations are referenced to -20dB FS. That is, 85dB at 0 on the MV (for us amateurs) and on the VU meters for the Pros.
> 
> As we are in an Audyssey thread, we can do no better than to quote the revered Chris Kyriakakis himself, where he says on Audyssey's Zendesk (in December 2011):For the record, the SMPTE reference is 85 dB SPL (C, Slow) for –20 dBFS. There is SMPTE RP 200 that mentions –18 dBFS so that it matches the EBU standard. In any case, MultEQ uses 85 dB for –20 dBFS as the intended level.​Chris obligingly refers to the -18 DB FS issue too.
> 
> Then we have the highly credible Acoustic Frontiers website, who chime in with:*THX REFERENCE LEVEL EXPLAINED
> 
> What is ‘THX Reference Level’?*
> *Reference level is a calibrated volume setting used for both movie production (in dubbing stages and post production houses) and reproduction (in screening rooms and theaters).* The human hearing system is non-linear, especially in the bass, so having a consistent playback level – a reference – is critical if the mix is to translate from one production house to another and audiences are to hear the director’s intent in terms of the balance in the soundtrack between dialog, effects and ambiance.
> 
> *Reference level for all channels except low frequency effects is calibrated by adjusting the audio chain such that a pink noise signal recorded at -20dB relative to full scale (0dB) creates 85dB sound pressure level as measured with a C weighted SPL meter at the seating locations. Volume levels are adjusted for each channel individually until they read 85dB. The master volume control setting associated with this playback level is then set to a nominal 0dB, or reference level. *​Crucially, they add:*The history behind this is that sound engineers and producers generally work so that the average recording level for dialog in movie soundtrack is -20dB. *This allows for 20dB of dynamic range in the soundtrack. The low frequency effects channel is calibrated higher, so that a -20dB signal reaches 95dBC at the seating locations. (My bolding)​And touching on our home systems, as calibrated by Audyssey they add:In the home it works slightly differently. Most pre-processor and audio video receivers have embedded pink noise test tones used for level setting that are recorded at -30dB relative to full scale. Using these tones the level of individual speakers are adjusted to 75dB as measured with a C weighted SPL meter at the listening position. Note that the low frequency effects signal is nearly always internally set to be to be 10dB louder than that for the speakers so that the end user’s life is simplified and the subwoofer is calibrated to 75dB rather than the 85dB one might expect.
> 
> The concept of reference level ensures that the content is produced and reproduced at the same absolute volume level and is cemented in the THX certification process for theaters and consumer gear.​'Cemented in' no less
> 
> Finally, a short quote from THX thrmselves:THX Certified Audio products are designed to let you experience movies the way they were meant to be heard. On every THX Certified AV Receiver the “0” on the volume dial represents THX Reference Level, the exact volume level used by the moviemakers and sound artists in the studio.​So we can see from all of this the clear assertion that movies are engineered and mixed to the 'Reference' standard, which is -20dB FS, that is to say 85dB, meaning peak loudness at 0dB on the MV (with the differences for LFE which we are well aware of).
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that the extracts above show that this is very much not the case. There are literally hundreds of similar articles available via Google, all of which more or less say the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> TV isn't relevant. I didn't see the comment by Marc but he may well have been discussing the compression that TV often uses, or another issue altogether, but I struggle to believe that he denies that Reference Level is the standard to which mixers do their work.
> 
> 
> 
> They are definitely not 'all over the place'. This is evidenced in many ways, not the least that I have not had to touch the MV more than once in dozens of movies, where it has resolutely remained at -5dB in my HT (and by coincidence, where it generally resides in Marc's own HT).
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone will have their own idea of what is subjectively loud. That is the point of 'subjectively'. But it has no relevance to the matter under discussion, which is what Reference Level actually is and how movies re mixed accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> As I said twice before, one of the beauties of having a HT is that one can listen at whatever level one chooses. Many will choose to listen at less than Reference. Often this will be because their systems cannot play Reference cleanly, so naturally, rather than listening to a distorted mess, they choose a lower SPL. At other times, it will be pure preference, as some other contributors have just mentioned. However, in a commercial cinema, we have no choice and we listen at Reference (if the cinema is properly calibrated. If it isn't, I wouldn't visit it twice anyway).


Hi Keith,

I have underlined and bolded an early sentence which I believe is the key to an apparent difference in what we are saying. But, it is only an apparent difference. I would never wish to be guilty of heresy. 

"Reference" is a standard which includes peak volume levels of up to 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the LFE channels. That never changes, and once an audio system, whether in a commercial theater or in a home audio system is calibrated to Reference, it will play at the same volume level at which a 5.1 movie was mixed.

But, how are audio systems to be calibrated to that 105/115db standard? No one ever proposed using 105db test tones (and internally adding 10db to the LFE channel). Few home theater systems could play those 105db levels at the MLP and no one could stay in the room with those test tones even if some HT systems (such as yours) could play them. So, a standard of 85db was chosen for calibration purposes. (Even that proved to be too loud, which is why the audio industry, including Audyssey went down to 75db test tones.)

You will notice that all of the uses of the 85db standard refer to calibration. That is indeed the standard of the industry with respect to the calibration of an audio system to Reference. And, once an audio system has been calibrated to that 85db standard, it will be playing at Reference levels with a master volume setting of 0.0.

But, 85db has nothing at all to do with the average volume level of a particular movie. It is just a number somewhat arbitrarily chosen to suggest an adequate dynamic range between "nominal" average levels of 85db and peak levels of 105/115db. And, it was selected specifically for calibration purposes and not for specific adherence in the mixing of soundtracks. David very succinctly explained why adhering to a precise average of 85db would be difficult in the extreme. And, there is a wealth of empirical evidence that movies do not, in fact, try to hit an average SPL of 85db. They are all over the place in average level, but are never intended to exceed 105/115 in maximum SPL. 

Again, Reference is max levels of 105/115. 85db is simply the calibration standard which is universally used to get audio systems to play at the same level as the way they were mixed. And, an audio system which is properly calibrated to reference and playing at a master volume of 0.0 will play a movie score, at the same SPL as it was mixed, whether the average SPL in that film score is 75db or 95db, or anywhere in between.

Here is the PM correspondence I had with Marc (FilmMixer) on this issue: 

 My question:

"*Reference Average of 85db* 
Hi,

We have had some discussion on the Audyssey thread lately about Reference. I realize that it's a very complicated topic, but thought I would ask you to try to clarify one aspect of it for me. How do film mixers calculate the average volume level of a movie? Is there some sort of algorithm which averages the SPL levels for the full duration of the movie---averaging longer soft or medium volumes, with briefer peak level volumes, to arrive at an overall average? Or is some other method employed? I am not concerned with trying to duplicate that measurement process, I am just curious about what kind of process is used.

I assume that not every movie will average exactly 85db, regardless of what averaging process is used, and that's fine too. I expect that some movies will be recorded a little softer, or a little louder, based on the director and film mixer's strategic objectives, just as I assume that not all movies will necessarily try to reach peak volumes of 105db and 115db. Are those assumptions correct?

Thanks for the help!

Regards,
Mike" 




"*Re:Reference Average of 85db* 
Hello Mike. 

There is no averaging. 

85db SPL only refers to the calibrated standardized levels of the rooms. 

So yes. Every film is different. I have a certain place where I like the dialog to sit, so I mix it that way and set the tone for any given film. Comedies are usually quieter and action films obviously louder. There is no one absolute. 

We don't measure loudness on films. 



TV has specs that must be adhered to or the mix will be rejected. There are tools that measure in real time to give you both average and peak values. There are also tools available to get the content in spec if need by. I'm taking about audio workstation plug ins. 

Let me know if I can answer anything else 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk"


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^ It's getting to be too cumbersome to quote your original (and my quoted test in your original) so I'll just make some generic comments.

It may be the use of the word 'average' which is causing the discussion. I agree it is misleading to some extent but it has just become a sort of shorthand. In the mixing studio, the system is calibrated to -20dB FS (full scale being an absolute maximum of 105dB/115dB LFE). Thus the Reference system is playing 85dB 'on average' or 'typically'. Sometimes louder, sometimes softer, and as Marc says below, a RomCom will have 'average' levels below those of an action movie. Nonetheless -20dB FS is Reference Level and all mixers adhere to it. This means that the 'reference level' has to be 85dB. No getting around that. 

I think Marc answered the question that was asked, but it was a loaded question, asking as it did " How do film mixers calculate the average volume level of a movie?". The answer to that question is, as Marc says, "they don't". If instead one had asked him what Reference Level meant, he would have said what the articles I quoted from say.

Enough of this anyway. I'm not sure it is OT anyway, and people are no doubt wanting to ask genuine Audyssey questions so we should move it elsewhere I think if we want to continue. You and I are usually on the same page anyway.


----------



## SouthernCA

Thanks @kbarnes701

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^ It's getting to be too cumbersome to quote your original (and my quoted test in your original) so I'll just make some generic comments.
> 
> It may be the use of the word 'average' which is causing the discussion. I agree it is misleading to some extent but it has just become a sort of shorthand. In the mixing studio, the system is calibrated to -20dB FS (full scale being an absolute maximum of 105dB/115dB LFE). Thus the Reference system is playing 85dB 'on average' or 'typically'. Sometimes louder, sometimes softer, and as Marc says below, a RomCom will have 'average' levels below those of an action movie. Nonetheless -20dB FS is Reference Level and all mixers adhere to it. This means that the 'reference level' has to be 85dB. No getting around that.
> 
> I think Marc answered the question that was asked, but it was a loaded question, asking as it did " How do film mixers calculate the average volume level of a movie?". The answer to that question is, as Marc says, "they don't". If instead one had asked him what Reference Level meant, he would have said what the articles I quoted from say.
> 
> Enough of this anyway. I'm not sure it is OT anyway, and people are no doubt wanting to ask genuine Audyssey questions so we should move it elsewhere I think if we want to continue. You and I are usually on the same page anyway.


1- the word "average" in this discussion is another misleading term, like "reference". You can calculate an average level after you've finished the mix but you can't mix something so that the average level at the end of the mix will come out at a particular level. You can only mix so that each bit you're mixing at a particular moment sounds the way you want it to sound. Average soundtrack levels do vary and, as you say, movies aren't mixed to achieve a given average level, they're mixed to sound the way the director wants them to sound.

2- I think this discussion is on topic because questions about reference level, what it means, and its application in playback on our systems are a recurring topic from time to time. I think it is a genuine Audyssey related question.

The big issue for the end user like us, in my view, is whether we need to listen with our systems set to reference level (Master Volume setting to 0 dB) or some other setting. Obviously if we were listening in the mastering studio, or a completely identical space, and we wanted to hear what the engineer heard then the answer is "yes". We aren't in the studio or an identical space, however, and our rooms are usually less well acoustically treated and often smaller than the mastering studio and our systems in many cases aren't capable of handling the same high volume peaks as gracefully as the mastering system. I have no doubt that listening to a soundtrack at reference level in the studio in which it was mixed/mastered is going to sound really great but listening to that same soundtrack at the same level in a very acoustically different environment with a different system is not going to sound the same and in all probability I think it's going to sound worse and most of us are going to be better off listening at a lower level in our home environments. How much lower is going to depend on a lot of room, system, setup, and personal preference issues but I do think that most of us are better served by listening at a lower than reference level in a home environment.


----------



## primetimeguy

David Aiken said:


> 1- the word "average" in this discussion is another misleading term, like "reference". You can calculate an average level after you've finished the mix but you can't mix something so that the average level at the end of the mix will come out at a particular level. You can only mix so that each bit you're mixing at a particular moment sounds the way you want it to sound. Average soundtrack levels do vary and, as you say, movies aren't mixed to achieve a given average level, they're mixed to sound the way the director wants them to sound.
> 
> 2- I think this discussion is on topic because questions about reference level, what it means, and its application in playback on our systems are a recurring topic from time to time. I think it is a genuine Audyssey related question.
> 
> The big issue for the end user like us, in my view, is whether we need to listen with our systems set to reference level (Master Volume setting to 0 dB) or some other setting. Obviously if we were listening in the mastering studio, or a completely identical space, and we wanted to hear what the engineer heard then the answer is "yes". We aren't in the studio or an identical space, however, and our rooms are usually less well acoustically treated and often smaller than the mastering studio and our systems in many cases aren't capable of handling the same high volume peaks as gracefully as the mastering system. I have no doubt that listening to a soundtrack at reference level in the studio in which it was mixed/mastered is going to sound really great but listening to that same soundtrack at the same level in a very acoustically different environment with a different system is not going to sound the same and in all probability I think it's going to sound worse and most of us are going to be better off listening at a lower level in our home environments. How much lower is going to depend on a lot of room, system, setup, and personal preference issues but I do think that most of us are better served by listening at a lower than reference level in a home environment.


I agree with you on the term average confusing things and shouldn't be part of the discussion. 

One of the last times this topic came up I think the end result was everyone agreed that reference level is not an SPL, rather must include the input signal level and associated SPL. This is in line with most of the references kbarnes701 mentioned earlier, they all state 85db at -20dbFS input, which yields 105db peaks. So this reference really establishes the peak level of a channel but says nothing about where the average of rest of the mix must reside.


----------



## Kevin Desai

*Audyssey Eq vs Audyssey eq XT*

Hey guys, I am getting the Denon S720 for $175 and the Denon X1300W for $300. I know the main difference is the Audyssey version. I have a small room, 12*17 and this is my first home theater system. Just wanted to get an opinion if S720 will work fine and if it has any other major differences from the X1300W.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> 1- the word "average" in this discussion is another misleading term, like "reference". You can calculate an average level after you've finished the mix but you can't mix something so that the average level at the end of the mix will come out at a particular level. You can only mix so that each bit you're mixing at a particular moment sounds the way you want it to sound. Average soundtrack levels do vary and, as you say, movies aren't mixed to achieve a given average level, they're mixed to sound the way the director wants them to sound.


Hi David. I agree. We can bandy about all these terms all day long but what it boils down to is that there* is *such a thing as Reference Level, and it is defined by SMPTE (and others) as -20dB FS, which inevitably leaves us with the question 'what does the resulting 85dB actually mean?'. 'Average level' is probably as good a lay description as any, albeit it is misleading.

Of course, there has to be an 'average level' - it's just math after all. Take all of the different levels in any analysis of any sound and, well, average them. But that's not really going to get us anywhere either 



David Aiken said:


> 2- I think this discussion is on topic because questions about reference level, what it means, and its application in playback on our systems are a recurring topic from time to time. I think it is a genuine Audyssey related question.
> 
> The big issue for the end user like us, in my view, is whether we need to listen with our systems set to reference level (Master Volume setting to 0 dB) or some other setting. Obviously if we were listening in the mastering studio, or a completely identical space, and we wanted to hear what the engineer heard then the answer is "yes". We aren't in the studio or an identical space, however, and our rooms are usually less well acoustically treated and often smaller than the mastering studio and our systems in many cases aren't capable of handling the same high volume peaks as gracefully as the mastering system. I have no doubt that listening to a soundtrack at reference level in the studio in which it was mixed/mastered is going to sound really great but listening to that same soundtrack at the same level in a very acoustically different environment with a different system is not going to sound the same and in all probability I think it's going to sound worse and most of us are going to be better off listening at a lower level in our home environments. How much lower is going to depend on a lot of room, system, setup, and personal preference issues but I do think that most of us are better served by listening at a lower than reference level in a home environment.


All rooms sound different to all other rooms for sure. This is why some Directors etc prefer one over another (eg Skywalker). But our objective with regard to sound levels is fairly easy - we need a system which can cleanly hit 105dB peaks (115 for LFE). If the syetem cannot do that, then it cannot play at Reference and it can never equate to what the content creators heard, regardless of room.

As for "most of us are going to be better off listening at a lower level in our home environments", I have already agreed that this is demonstrably true. Simply because most home systems aren't capable of hitting Reference cleanly. In those cases it is better to listen at a lower level than to try to push the system to somewhere it can't go.

My objective in my HT was always to create a room in which I can listen cleanly at Reference levels should I want to. It clearly will not be an identical room to that in which the movie was mixed. But, from personal experience as well as objective research, I know that what I have here is a very good 'private screening room' designed to proper professional standards wrt to sound containment, acoustic treatment, room proportions etc etc, and of course speaker and subs choice. Not everyone is fortunate enough to do this - and indeed until I moved house, neither was I - but my previous Hobbit Theater also gave me endless hours of movie pleasure (and as it happened could also play Reference cleanly).

Whether any individual is comfortable or not with Reference Level playback is something entirely for them. But nobody can surely deny that it is a worthwhile goal to be able to play at Reference? As you said earlier, because you can doesn't mean you have to.  But if one does prefer lower levels, it is good to know that the system has the headroom for any peak that can be thrown at it (especially in the bass region).


----------



## kbarnes701

primetimeguy said:


> I agree with you on the term average confusing things and shouldn't be part of the discussion.
> 
> One of the last times this topic came up I think the end result was everyone agreed that reference level is not an SPL, rather must include the input signal level and associated SPL. This is in line with most of the references kbarnes701 mentioned earlier, they all state 85db at -20dbFS input, which yields 105db peaks. So this reference really establishes the peak level of a channel but says nothing about where the average of rest of the mix must reside.


Precisely. The only absolutely mandated part is that the SPL will never exceed 105dB/115dB. But one can't ignore the -20dB FS, which is the actual definition of 'Reference Level' 

Set the system up so that the loudest peak is 105dB, and that's the job done. Everything else falls where it falls.

Then the question is just about whether the system can cleanly play 105 dB or 115dB in the bass. And most can't. So for most people this is an entirely theoretical discussion. And brings me back to my usual advice - if the system can't play to Reference Levels, enjoy it at the levels it can play to cleanly and sit back and watch the movie


----------



## mthomas47

Kevin Desai said:


> Hey guys, I am getting the Denon S720 for $175 and the Denon X1300W for $300. I know the main difference is the Audyssey version. I have a small room, 12*17 and this is my first home theater system. Just wanted to get an opinion if S720 will work fine and if it has any other major differences from the X1300W.


Hi Kevin,

Unless money is extremely tight, I would recommend buying the X1300 over the S720. I might also look at other alternatives on sites such as Accesories4Less, if there are some specific features you are looking for that the 1300 doesn't have.

Two differences between the two receivers jump out at me. First, the 1300 has almost double the amplifier power to distribute among up to 7 channels. The total amplifier power difference between the two receivers won't matter for two-channel use, but it will for multi-channel use. Second, I believe that XT, with its eight mic positions and greater number of control points, offers some potential advantages compared to MultEQ. They aren't necessarily overwhelming advantages in actual practice, but for the modest cost difference, I would prefer to have XT.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

Kevin Desai said:


> Hey guys, I am getting the Denon S720 for $175 and the Denon X1300W for $300. I know the main difference is the Audyssey version. I have a small room, 12*17 and this is my first home theater system. Just wanted to get an opinion if S720 will work fine and if it has any other major differences from the X1300W.


I'd echo Mike's advice. If you can, go for the AVR with the better version of Audyssey in it. XT is a significant step up from the basic MultEQ and will reward you with potentially better imaging, better bass and better all-round sound quality. I am guessing that you won't have a dedicated room, and probably very little, if anything, in the way of acoustic treatments, so the best Room EQ you can afford becomes even more important.

Good luck with your new HT. May I direct you to the Audyssey FAQ and 101 Guide which will help you get the best out of your new unit and Audyssey.


----------



## Kevin Desai

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Kevin,
> 
> Unless money is extremely tight, I would recommend buying the X1300 over the S720. I might also look at other alternatives on sites such as Accesories4Less, if there are some specific features you are looking for that the 1300 doesn't have.
> 
> Two differences between the two receivers jump out at me. First, the 1300 has almost double the amplifier power to distribute among up to 7 channels. The total amplifier power difference between the two receivers won't matter for two-channel use, but it will for multi-channel use. Second, I believe that XT, with its eight mic positions and greater number of control points, offers some potential advantages compared to MultEQ. They aren't necessarily overwhelming advantages in actual practice, but for the modest cost difference, I would prefer to have XT.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike! Great answer. I will go for the 1300 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Kevin,
> 
> Unless money is extremely tight, I would recommend buying the X1300 over the S720. I might also look at other alternatives on sites such as Accesories4Less, if there are some specific features you are looking for that the 1300 doesn't have.
> 
> Two differences between the two receivers jump out at me. First, the 1300 has almost double the amplifier power to distribute among up to 7 channels. The total amplifier power difference between the two receivers won't matter for two-channel use, but it will for multi-channel use. Second, I believe that XT, with its eight mic positions and greater number of control points, offers some potential advantages compared to MultEQ. They aren't necessarily overwhelming advantages in actual practice, but for the modest cost difference, I would prefer to have XT.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


To Kevin et al,

To have an absolutely clear picture on the difference between MultEQ and MultEQ XT here' s Audyssey's comparison chart. As you can see:

1. MultEQ XT has more filter resolution for the speakers (sometimes called satellites) than MultEQ
2. Both versions have the same high resolution for the subwoofer channel which makes your decision easier.










While MultEQ XT will have finer resolution for the speakers, you may rest assured that there will be no difference in the subwoofer channel. I would buy MultEQ XT!


----------



## SouthernCA

kbarnes701 said:


> Hi David. I agree. We can bandy about all these terms all day long but what it boils down to is that there* is *such a thing as Reference Level, and it is defined by SMPTE (and others) as -20dB FS, which inevitably leaves us with the question 'what does the resulting 85dB actually mean?'. 'Average level' is probably as good a lay description as any, albeit it is misleading.
> 
> Of course, there has to be an 'average level' - it's just math after all. Take all of the different levels in any analysis of any sound and, well, average them. But that's not really going to get us anywhere either
> 
> 
> 
> All rooms sound different to all other rooms for sure. This is why some Directors etc prefer one over another (eg Skywalker). But our objective with regard to sound levels is fairly easy - we need a system which can cleanly hit 105dB peaks (115 for LFE). If the syetem cannot do that, then it cannot play at Reference and it can never equate to what the content creators heard, regardless of room.
> 
> As for "most of us are going to be better off listening at a lower level in our home environments", I have already agreed that this is demonstrably true. Simply because most home systems aren't capable of hitting Reference cleanly. In those cases it is better to listen at a lower level than to try to push the system to somewhere it can't go.
> 
> My objective in my HT was always to create a room in which I can listen cleanly at Reference levels should I want to. It clearly will not be an identical room to that in which the movie was mixed. But, from personal experience as well as objective research, I know that what I have here is a very good 'private screening room' designed to proper professional standards wrt to sound containment, acoustic treatment, room proportions etc etc, and of course speaker and subs choice. Not everyone is fortunate enough to do this - and indeed until I moved house, neither was I - but my previous Hobbit Theater also gave me endless hours of movie pleasure (and as it happened could also play Reference cleanly).
> 
> Whether any individual is comfortable or not with Reference Level playback is something entirely for them. But nobody can surely deny that it is a worthwhile goal to be able to play at Reference? As you said earlier, because you can doesn't mean you have to.  But if one does prefer lower levels, it is good to know that the system has the headroom for any peak that can be thrown at it (especially in the bass region).


Good point. I would like to get your comments on what would it take to create a system that is CAPABLE of playing at reference level and if bookshelf speakers (like Kef LS50s) with low sensitivity and subs can even achieve it.

LS50 have 85 dB sensitivity. And max spl of 107 dB. Distortion measured at 90 dB at 2 meters is given below.

Could we create an HT system capable of playing at reference level using these speakers? If yes, what power amp capacity would we need and what distortion levels can be expected? Listening position is 12 ft from the speakers. Room size is 2400 cubic feet. 

I had posted my calculations earlier and concluded that it might not be possible. Just wanted to see your estimate and judgement.









Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

SouthernCA said:


> Good point. I would like to get your comments on what would it take to create a system that is CAPABLE of playing at reference level and if bookshelf speakers (like Kef LS50s) with low sensitivity and subs can even achieve it.
> 
> LS50 have 85 dB sensitivity. And max spl of 107 dB. Distortion measured at 90 dB at 2 meters is given below.
> 
> Could we create an HT system capable of playing at reference level using these speakers? If yes, what power amp capacity would we need and what distortion levels can be expected? Listening position is 12 ft from the speakers. Room size is 2400 cubic feet.
> 
> I had posted my calculations earlier and concluded that it might not be possible. Just wanted to see your estimate and judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


The distortion measurement didn't come through, at least on my screen.

I would guess that those speakers are not capable of reference, or if they are, it would be a squeaker. I probably would not try for reference. You would need a very powerful amplifier (perhaps 200 watts, or considerably *more*, true RMS per channel, 20 to 20,000 Hz. while *all* channels are operating -- not just two) to achieve that -- most AVRs won't -- and you might damage your speakers. Either an amp that is too small (clipping distortion melting voice coils) or two big (conventional burn out) could destroy your speakers. 

Your room is small enough so that you may be able to get something that *sounds like* reference in there (due to early reflections, etc.), but your Audyssey calibrated AVR's Main Volume Control would be quite a ways below 0, and should not be turned up too far. How far is too far? When you hear distortion from a cleanly recorded movie, you've gone too far. Hopefully, that would not be too late for the safety of your speakers. Please be careful. 

Set your main speakers to "SMALL" on the AVR, and make sure you have a good subwoofer. Audyssey will give you information on where to set the crossover. You might want to consider setting the crossover a bit higher than Audyssey suggests, to protect the main speakers, providing your sub is hardy. Turning up a good sub with overload protection on it can give the illusion of reference, and confer more "authority" on the average and soft passages, as well.

Buying speakers with true sensitivity greater than about 95 dB (10X the sensitivity of yours) and high power handling capacity solves many problems for the small minority of us who would like to try approach reference. Even the three individuals I know of stay at or below -5 on the main volume control.


----------



## SouthernCA

garygarrison said:


> The distortion measurement didn't come through, at least on my screen.
> 
> I would guess that those speakers are not capable of reference, or if they are, it would be a squeaker. I probably would not try for reference. You would need a very powerful amplifier (perhaps 200 watts, or considerably *more*, true RMS per channel, 20 to 20,000 Hz. while *all* channels are operating -- not just two) to achieve that -- most AVRs won't -- and you might damage your speakers. Either an amp that is too small (clipping distortion melting voice coils) or two big (conventional burn out) could destroy your speakers.
> 
> Your room is small enough so that you may be able to get something that *sounds like* reference in there (due to early reflections, etc.), but your Audyssey calibrated AVR's Main Volume Control would be quite a ways below 0, and should not be turned up too far. How far is too far? When you hear distortion from a cleanly recorded movie, you've gone too far. Hopefully, that would not be too late for the safety of your speakers. Please be careful.
> 
> Set your main speakers to "SMALL" on the AVR, and make sure you have a good subwoofer. Audyssey will give you information on where to set the crossover. You might want to consider setting the crossover a bit higher than Audyssey suggests, to protect the main speakers, providing your sub is hardy. Turning up a good sub with overload protection on it can give the illusion of reference, and confer more "authority" on the average and soft passages, as well.
> 
> Buying speakers with true sensitivity greater than about 95 dB (10X the sensitivity of yours) and high power handling capacity solves many problems for the small minority of us who would like to try approach reference. Even the three individuals I know of stay at or below -5 on the main volume control.


Thanks. That is what my calculations showed. One question though: 

why would we need the same power amp for all channels? I understand most of the sound (and I assume the power) comes from the center channel. So if I buy a high sensitivity center channel speaker and have sufficient amp power to support reference spl, wouldn't that suffice? Can surround speakers be powered with a lower power amp? Not sure about L and R channel power requirements. I am assuming that they have much less content than center channel. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks. That is what my calculations showed. One question though:
> 
> why would we need the same power amp for all channels? I understand most of the sound (and I assume the power) comes from the center channel. So if I buy a high sensitivity center channel speaker and have sufficient amp power to support reference spl, wouldn't that suffice? Can surround speakers be powered with a lower power amp? Not sure about L and R channel power requirements. I am assuming that they have much less content than center channel.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Hi,

I think that Gary nailed it when he said that your speakers won't play Reference volumes, but may not ever need to in your size room. You should get about a 7db advantage compared to what the same SPL would sound like in a >15,000^3 movie theater (which is all movie theaters). But, you raise an interesting question with respect to all channels needing to play the max volumes at the same time. It can happen at certain moments in a movie, but it wouldn't happen routinely throughout most movies. (It would happen if you were trying to play multi-channel stereo at Reference: 0.0 MV.)

I don't think that simply getting a more efficient CC would address the basic problem with respect to the other speakers, although it might be a good idea for its own sake as long as you were satisfied with the timbre match. Your front soundstage will be playing most of your content. The CC will be playing nearly all of the time, but the front speakers will also be doing their share at the same time for most loud content (not dialogue, but loud scenes in general).

If they can't keep up with the CC, your sound will be unbalanced, and as you push them they will distort. I don't believe that any amount of amplifier power will help you in this respect. Those 85db speakers were simply not designed to play extremely high volumes. They have other virtues which you can enjoy, but they were never intended to be able to play 105db levels at any distance. And, they would distort and eventually become damaged if you tried to make them do it.

Part of the reason that I started the whole discussion of Reference was in an effort to demonstrate that Reference volumes need not necessarily be a goal for a particular HT system. Most of us, by far, don't care to listen nearly that loud. And, as Gary and I have both pointed out, even the most hard-core Reference enthusiasts mostly listen at about -5db in home theater environments (where the room itself amplifies the perceived volume). I think that you should just enjoy your audio system for what it can do, rather than regretting what it can't. A lot of people really like the sound of KEF speakers. 

If, however, you decide that you really want to have a Reference-capable system, you are going to have to start with speakers a lot more powerful than your KEF bookshelf speakers. I believe that the inherent capabilities of the speakers is far more important than how much amplifier power you can add, when it comes to reaching SPL's of over 100db at a distance of 12'.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that Gary nailed it when he said that your speakers won't play Reference volumes, but may not ever need to in your size room. You should get about a 7db advantage compared to what the same SPL would sound like in a >15,000^3 movie theater (which is all movie theaters). But, you raise an interesting question with respect to all channels needing to play the max volumes at the same time. It can happen at certain moments in a movie, but it wouldn't happen routinely throughout most movies. (It would happen if you were trying to play multi-channel stereo at Reference: 0.0 MV.)
> 
> I don't think that simply getting a more efficient CC would address the basic problem with respect to the other speakers, although it might be a good idea for its own sake as long as you were satisfied with the timbre match. Your front soundstage will be playing most of your content. The CC will be playing nearly all of the time, but the front speakers will also be doing their share at the same time for most loud content (not dialogue, but loud scenes in general).
> 
> If they can't keep up with the CC, your sound will be unbalanced, and as you push them they will distort. I don't believe that any amount of amplifier power will help you in this respect. Those 85db speakers were simply not designed to play extremely high volumes. They have other virtues which you can enjoy, but they were never intended to be able to play 105db levels at any distance. And, they would distort and eventually become damaged if you tried to make them do it.
> 
> Part of the reason that I started the whole discussion of Reference was in an effort to demonstrate that Reference volumes need not necessarily be a goal for a particular HT system. Most of us, by far, don't care to listen nearly that loud. And, as Gary and I have both pointed out, even the most hard-core Reference enthusiasts mostly listen at about -5db in home theater environments (where the room itself amplifies the perceived volume). I think that you should just enjoy your audio system for what it can do, rather than regretting what it can't. A lot of people really like the sound of KEF speakers.
> 
> If, however, you decide that you really want to have a Reference-capable system, you are going to have to start with speakers a lot more powerful than your KEF bookshelf speakers. I believe that the inherent capabilities of the speakers is far more important than how much amplifier power you can add, when it comes to reaching SPL's of over 100db at a distance of 12'.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for a detailed reply. My intention was to better understand the concept of reference level and how various channels are mixed in a sound track than to make ls50 do reference. 



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks. That is what my calculations showed. One question though:
> 
> why would we need the same power amp for all channels?* I understand most of the sound (and I assume the power) comes from the center channel*. So if I buy a high sensitivity center channel speaker and have sufficient amp power to support reference spl, wouldn't that suffice? Can surround speakers be powered with a lower power amp? Not sure about L and R channel power requirements. I am assuming that they have much less content than center channel.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk





mthomas47 said:


> ... I don't think that simply getting a more efficient CC would address the basic problem with respect to the other speakers, although it might be a good idea for its own sake as long as you were satisfied with the timbre match. Your front soundstage will be playing most of your content. The CC will be playing nearly all of the time, *but* the front speakers will also be doing their share at the same time for *most loud content* (not dialogue, but loud scenes in general).
> 
> If they can't keep up with the CC, your sound will be unbalanced, and as you push them they will distort. I don't believe that any amount of amplifier power will help you in this respect. Those 85db speakers were simply not designed to play extremely high volumes. They have other virtues which you can enjoy, but they were never intended to be able to play 105db levels at any distance. And, they would distort and eventually become damaged if you tried to make them do it.
> 
> ... A lot of people really like the sound of KEF speakers.
> 
> ... If, however, you decide that you really want to have a Reference-capable system, you are going to have to start with speakers a lot more powerful than your KEF bookshelf speakers. I believe that the inherent capabilities of the speakers is far more important than how much amplifier power you can add, when it comes to reaching SPL's of over 100db at a distance of 12'.


Yes, KEF is a grand old brand. [EDIT & CORRECTION: I deleted a few sentences here, because I somehow confused KEF with KLH. I should go soak my head in alphabet soup.] KEF is a grand old brand nonetheless, 56 years old, with close research ties to the BBC

IMO, all of Mike's points are well taken, and should answer your question. I would be upset if most of the power came from the center channel in my system! The reality is that the center channel "will be playing nearly all of the time," as Mike put it, because that's where almost all of the dialog comes from. I love hearing my front three speakers providing a wall of sound (or a seamless curtain) across the 17 foot sound stage. There is an earth-moving grandeur during such moments in a film score, or during the interaction of the score and a good soundscape. To do this, the left front and right front must put out their (more or less even) share of the power. My center is as capable as my sides (at least down to 40 Hz), and sometimes I wish film mixers would put a bit more music and effects in the center!


----------



## garygarrison

See my correction of post number 4177, above.


----------



## jsgrise

Do you guys know if the Subwoofer trim is set before or after EQ when running Audyssey?


----------



## Alan P

^^^

I asked that question quite awhile ago and never really got a definitive answer. I would be good to know because some peoples uncorrected response can be quite a bit higher in SPL (at least at certain frequencies) than the post-Audyssey EQ'ed response.

My gut tells me that Audyssey sets the trims with the uncorrected response because the first mic position sets trims and distances.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> I asked that question quite awhile ago and never really got a definitive answer. I would be good to know because some peoples uncorrected response can be quite a bit higher in SPL (at least at certain frequencies) than the post-Audyssey EQ'ed response.
> 
> My gut tells me that Audyssey sets the trims with the uncorrected response because the first mic position sets trims and distances.


Hi Alan,

It is a good question with respect to subwoofers, as the uncorrected response could be different for some frequencies. But, since Audyssey is measuring an entire frequency range, and not just a specific frequency, I'm not sure it would make any difference in actual practice. My understanding is also that Audyssey measures SPL and timing for all of the channels in microphone position 1, and sets levels and distances accordingly. Crossovers are set based on the fuzzy weighted average of all of the mic positions. 

It isn't possible to check trim levels without letting Audyssey calculate, though, and that calculation would involve setting control points. In older models, we could tell Audyssey to calculate based on just the first mic position, where it takes three mic positions in some newer models. But, whether Audyssey was calculating after one mic position, or three, or eight, Audyssey would still be EQing as part of that calculation, so I'm still not sure whether Audyssey sets trim levels before or after EQing. I just waffled on this one, as it does make sense to me that the initial setting would occur prior to calibration, and would not be influenced by the calibration. But, I really don't know.

I'm going to go back to my earlier statement that it probably doesn't matter, since the trim level would be based on Audyssey's interpretation of a subwoofer's entire frequency range (and not just of a selected corrected or uncorrected frequency) anyway. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Leon!

Guys have I interfered with what Audyssey configured when I started pressing the colored "movie movie music game pure" buttons at the bottom of the remote? I see each has "stereo, dolby, neural, matrix" etc. options, which of those is the default setting, where was it before I pressed any of them? MOvie/dolby digital?

Or are the audyssey settings still applied regardless of which different sound modes? Just want to know what the default was.


----------



## mthomas47

Leon! said:


> Guys have I interfered with what Audyssey configured when I started pressing the colored "movie movie music game pure" buttons at the bottom of the remote? I see each has "stereo, dolby, neural, matrix" etc. options, which of those is the default setting, where was it before I pressed any of them? MOvie/dolby digital?
> 
> Or are the audyssey settings still applied regardless of which different sound modes? Just want to know what the default was.


Hi Leon,

The Audyssey EQ is an entirely separate software program which is not affected at all by your sound mode selection. Your AVR may have a default sound mode, but again, that won't have anything at all to do with your room EQ.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Leon!

Ok thanks. Now that I got my crossover adjusted (IDK why audyssey left it so low) and playing with those different modes, trying to decide which sound I like better, what MCACC or Audyssey left me with. JUst wanted to make sure I didn't defeat audyssey with those buttons.


----------



## jsgrise

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> I asked that question quite awhile ago and never really got a definitive answer. I would be good to know because some peoples uncorrected response can be quite a bit higher in SPL (at least at certain frequencies) than the post-Audyssey EQ'ed response.
> 
> My gut tells me that Audyssey sets the trims with the uncorrected response because the first mic position sets trims and distances.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> It is a good question with respect to subwoofers, as the uncorrected response could be different for some frequencies. But, since Audyssey is measuring an entire frequency range, and not just a specific frequency, I'm not sure it would make any difference in actual practice. My understanding is also that Audyssey measures SPL and timing for all of the channels in microphone position 1, and sets levels and distances accordingly. Crossovers are set based on the fuzzy weighted average of all of the mic positions.
> 
> It isn't possible to check trim levels without letting Audyssey calculate, though, and that calculation would involve setting control points. In older models, we could tell Audyssey to calculate based on just the first mic position, where it takes three mic positions in some newer models. But, whether Audyssey was calculating after one mic position, or three, or eight, Audyssey would still be EQing as part of that calculation, so I'm still not sure whether Audyssey sets trim levels before or after EQing. I just waffled on this one, as it does make sense to me that the initial setting would occur prior to calibration, and would not be influenced by the calibration. But, I really don't know.
> 
> I'm going to go back to my earlier statement that it probably doesn't matter, since the trim level would be based on Audyssey's interpretation of a subwoofer's entire frequency range (and not just of a selected corrected or uncorrected frequency) anyway. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


In my case it seems to matter because of a large peak I have around 25-50Hz. Audyssey put the axe in it and therefore the sub is obviously weaker than before EQ. If It relies on the pre-EQ output, after EQ will be too weak and would need some good trim increase.


----------



## mthomas47

jsgrise said:


> In my case it seems to matter because of a large peak I have around 25-50Hz. Audyssey put the axe in it and therefore the sub is obviously weaker than before EQ. If It relies on the pre-EQ output, after EQ will be too weak and would need some good trim increase.


Hi,

We may be talking a little apples and oranges here. The subwoofer may sound softer after EQ than it did before, since Audyssey is pulling down a 25 to 50Hz peak. But, it is doing that in order to provide a smoother frequency response--without large peaks and valleys. So, it certainly would not be uncommon for a subwoofer to sound softer (as in less boomy) post-calibration.

But, whether Audyssey set the trim level of a subwoofer prior to calibration, or post-calibration, it would be setting the level based on the total FR and not just based on a peak at a certain frequency range. Even more importantly, though, regardless of when the trim level was set, it would calibrate the subwoofer to play at exactly the same SPL as the other channels in an audio system. And, because we don't hear bass frequencies as well as other frequencies (in our more normal hearing range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz) the subwoofer would sound softer in relation to the other channels. And, we would need to increase our subwoofer trim level. 

The average sub trim increase post-Audyssey appears to be about +3db to +6db, with DEQ engaged. If DEQ is not engaged, the typical sub level increase is much greater. But, this whole issue is one of those YMMV things. There is a thorough explanation of how Audyssey works in that regard, and why subwoofer level increases are usually necessary, in the subwoofer guide linked below.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jsgrise

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> We may be talking a little apples and oranges here. The subwoofer may sound softer after EQ than it did before, since Audyssey is pulling down a 25 to 50Hz peak. But, it is doing that in order to provide a smoother frequency response--without large peaks and valleys. So, it certainly would not be uncommon for a subwoofer to sound softer (as in less boomy) post-calibration.
> 
> But, whether Audyssey set the trim level of a subwoofer prior to calibration, or post-calibration, it would be setting the level based on the total FR and not just based on a peak at a certain frequency range. Even more importantly, though, regardless of when the trim level was set, it would calibrate the subwoofer to play at exactly the same SPL as the other channels in an audio system. And, because we don't hear bass frequencies as well as other frequencies (in our more normal hearing range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz) the subwoofer would sound softer in relation to the other channels. And, we would need to increase our subwoofer trim level.
> 
> *The average sub trim increase post-Audyssey appears to be about +3db to +6db, with DEQ engaged*. If DEQ is not engaged, the typical sub level increase is much greater. But, this whole issue is one of those YMMV things. There is a thorough explanation of how Audyssey works in that regard, and why subwoofer level increases are usually necessary, in the subwoofer guide linked below.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you Mike, I appreciate your help a lot. Can we agree that, in my case, if Audyssey (or AVR) sets the level *pre*-EQ, the average FR will be greater than post-EQ?

Also, thanks for letting me know that boosting the sub trim 3-6dB with DEQ was normal practice as I wasn't too sure about that.


----------



## jsgrise

@mthomas47 Just read your _*"Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"*_ post and WOW! Thanks for taking the time to explain in detail all the variables with Audyssey, sub levels, etc.

I too find that turning up the gain on the iNuke gives me more power and headroom than using the AVR subwoofer trim.


----------



## mogorf

jsgrise said:


> Thank you Mike, I appreciate your help a lot. Can we agree that, in my case, if Audyssey (or AVR) sets the level *pre*-EQ, the *average FR* will be greater than post-EQ?
> 
> Also, thanks for letting me know that boosting the sub trim 3-6dB with DEQ was normal practice as I wasn't too sure about that.


What is average FR, please?


----------



## jsgrise

mogorf said:


> What is average FR, please?


An average of the level per frequency in a given bandwith? I am not a connaisseur like you guys so I might just be wrong. It was my idea...


----------



## David Aiken

SouthernCA said:


> Good point. I would like to get your comments on what would it take to create a system that is CAPABLE of playing at reference level and if bookshelf speakers (like Kef LS50s) with low sensitivity and subs can even achieve it.
> 
> LS50 have 85 dB sensitivity. And max spl of 107 dB. Distortion measured at 90 dB at 2 meters is given below.
> 
> Could we create an HT system capable of playing at reference level using these speakers? If yes, what power amp capacity would we need and what distortion levels can be expected? Listening position is 12 ft from the speakers. Room size is 2400 cubic feet.
> 
> I had posted my calculations earlier and concluded that it might not be possible. Just wanted to see your estimate and judgement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


What Gary said…

A speaker with 85 dB sensitivity would need to be driven by 100 watts to reach 105 dB **BUT** I think we should add some caveats to that:

- speaker sensitivity specs are often "optimistic" and independent test reports often reveal lower sensitivities than specified. Stereophile's test report actually rated the LS50s at 84.5 dB which is pretty close to 85 dB but you would need a bit more than 100 watts to compensate for that half dB difference.

- but here's the big one: sensitivity ratings are measured at a standard 1 metre distance. Are you listening at a 1 metre distance? No. Well reference level is based on measurements at the actual listening position, not some standard distance from the speaker. The SPL you hear at the listening position is dropping off at somewhere between 3 and 6 dB per doubling of distance depending on how far away from the speaker you are and whether you're still in the speaker's acoustic near field where the level drops by 3 dB for every doubling of distance or further away and in the acoustic far field. If you're 4 metres ( a bit over 12 ft) away from the speakers you're probably going to need something like 400 watts to reach 105 dB at the listening position assuming the sound drops off at 3 dB for each doubling of distance all the way out to 4 metres and you'll be out of the near field before then so you're going g to need even more than that. What that also means is that the level at the 1 metre distance used to rate sensitivity is going to be much higher than 105 dB, 6 dB higher or more, and that's higher than the peak 107 dB that the speaker is specified as being able to reach. What that means is that unless you're sitting very close to the speakers you aren't going to be able to get levels of 105 dB at the listening position, even if you have a big enough amp to deliver the watts you need.

Then, as Gary said, most AVRs can't deliver their peak output into all channels and their specs for peak output power usually relate to driving only 1 or 2 channels. Whatever output power you would need to drive the LS50s to 105 dB, if you could do that at your listening distance, you're going to need amplification that is capable of delivering that power to all channels simultaneously so that's going to mean you won't be using an AVR, you'll need a pre-pro and a number of power amps instead.

So, as Gary said, if you want to reach reference level in your room you're going to have to consider higher sensitivity speakers, probably a genuine 95 dB sensitive or better so make sure the manufacturer's rating isn't optimistic, which are capable of outputting peaks of 110 dB or higher so you can get 105 dB at your listening position, and you're going to need lots of power, say 200 watts per channel or possibly more, even with sensitive speakers.

Note also that "reference level" is a calibration standard and it requires each speaker to deliver a peak of 105 dB. If all channels are working and delivering that peak you will have 5 speakers each producing 105 dB at the listening level plus the subs probably producing their peak of 115 dB so the total SPL you will be hearing is going to be around 115 dB in total. Reference level doesn't mean the actual peak SPL at the listening position is 105 dB, it means that the peak from each speaker is 105 dB at the listening level and the peak from the .1 LFE channel is 115 dB. The dB scale is logarithmic and SPLs add logarithmically so 5 channels of 105 dB sound is going to sum to a bit over 111 dB which is around 4 dB lower than the sub's peak of 115 dB and that means the total peak is going to be just a bit above 115 dB, maybe 116 dB or so.

That's my take on the requirements.


----------



## mogorf

jsgrise said:


> Thank you Mike, I appreciate your help a lot. Can we agree that, in my case, if Audyssey (or AVR) sets the level *pre*-EQ, the average FR will be greater than post-EQ?
> 
> Also, thanks for letting me know that boosting the sub trim 3-6dB with DEQ was normal practice as I wasn't too sure about that.


Following Mike's advice, which is always appropriate, is the way to go, indeed! In the meantime, I think it might be worth to get down to a bit more details on everyday "best practices" with DEQ and subwoofer trim tweaking! 

We know that our AVRs can be tipically used for movies, music and/or gaming. This is solely my "best practice", so YMMV, but here's what I usually do:

1. Movies: I leave the sub trim as set by MultEQ after calibration, in my case it is at -6 dB. I do believe that movies are (most probably and hopefully!) recorded to knows standards, thus leaving the setting "as is" brings me pretty good and enjoyable bass and LFE.

2. Music: since the music industry has no such strict standards as the film industry does have, bass in music can easily be all over the map. As I've experienced, bass contents does not only vary from recording to recording, but the older it is the more lack of bass prevails. So, in order to please my ears I usually bump up the trim level by + 4 dB, or sometimes even to + 8 dB on the subwoofer. I do this not in order to have an "overkill" of bass, but simply trying to restore something that is too low for my taste! 

3. Gaming: I'm not a gamer, so sorry, I'm not in a position to comment on that.

Hope this helps to develope your own "best practice" schemes.


----------



## jsgrise

mogorf said:


> 1. Movies: I leave the sub trim as set by MultEQ after calibration, in my case it is at -6 dB. I do believe that movies are (most probably and hopefully!) recorded to knows standards, thus leaving the setting "as is" brings me pretty good and enjoyable bass and LFE.
> 
> 2. Music: since the music industry has no such strict standards as the film industry does have, bass in music can easily be all over the map. As I've experienced, bass contents does not only vary from recording to recording, but the older it is the more lack of bass prevails. So, in order to please my ears I usually bump up the trim level by + 4 dB, or sometimes even to + 8 dB on the subwoofer. I do this not in order to have an "overkill" of bass, but simply trying to restore something that is too low for my taste!


Agreed for Music but although Movies are supposed to be recorded following standards, I feel they can be all over the map also. Some have hot bass and some not which leave us no choice but to constantly adjust the trim (i.e.: Dunkirk)


----------



## mthomas47

jsgrise said:


> @*mthomas47* Just read your _*"Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"*_ post and WOW! Thanks for taking the time to explain in detail all the variables with Audyssey, sub levels, etc.


Thank you very much for the kind words!  And, you are always welcome to any help I can give you on this stuff.


----------



## SouthernCA

jsgrise said:


> @mthomas47 Just read your _*"Guide to Subwoofer Levels, Audyssey Setup, and DynamicEQ"*_ post and WOW! Thanks for taking the time to explain in detail all the variables with Audyssey, sub levels, etc.
> 
> I too find that turning up the gain on the iNuke gives me more power and headroom than using the AVR subwoofer trim.


Please let me know where I can find that guide. Thanks. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

SouthernCA said:


> Please let me know where I can find that guide. Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk




Look at Mike’s signature @mthomas47


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Candid

SouthernCA said:


> Please let me know where I can find that guide. Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-audyssey-thread-part-ii-44.html#post47140321


----------



## SouthernCA

jsgrise said:


> Look at Mike’s signature @mthomas47
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Signature is not clickable for me. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

SouthernCA said:


> Signature is not clickable for me.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk




That’s odd...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> Signature is not clickable for me.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Tapatalk can be funky sometimes. Go to Page 44, post 1297 of this thread.


----------



## kbarnes701

SouthernCA said:


> Good point. I would like to get your comments on what would it take to create a system that is CAPABLE of playing at reference level and if bookshelf speakers (like Kef LS50s) with low sensitivity and subs can even achieve it.
> 
> LS50 have 85 dB sensitivity. And max spl of 107 dB. Distortion measured at 90 dB at 2 meters is given below.
> 
> Could we create an HT system capable of playing at reference level using these speakers? If yes, what power amp capacity would we need and what distortion levels can be expected? Listening position is 12 ft from the speakers. Room size is 2400 cubic feet.


Others have give comprehensive answers to this already, but I'll just add one or two things as they occur to me.

As the other guys have said, the short answer is "no".

The Kefs are good speakers but, like pretty much all 'hi-fi' speakers, they are not, IMO, suited for the reference level reproduction of movie soundtracks. They are not nearly sensitive enough (85dB) and have nowhere near the power handling (107dB max) to be able to meet Reference Level standards (which is the question asked - whether you *want* to play at Reference is irrelevant to your question).

My advice to anyone setting up a dedicated HT room is always the same: forget so-called 'hi-fi' brands and look towards the Pro end of the speaker and amplifier world. There, the designers of the gear have specifically met the unique challenges of reproducing movie soundtracks.

To this end, you will find that high sensitivity speakers have the ability to play cleanly without dynamic compression. This is very important for movies where the sound is constantly (in many movies) exploiting the full dynamic range, requiring an effortless and clean reproduction of everything from a whisper to an explosion. Most standard consumer speakers, with typical soft-dome tweeters just can't deliver the goods in any reasonably sized space.

So for speakers with high sensitivity and high power handling, check out Pro ranges. You can choose outstanding, but expensive, makes like Procella. Or choose JBL which offer astonishing value and have a huge choice of models. Or Mackies, or even the Emotiva active monitors if they still do them. Some makes offer most of what you would need and are readily available - eg MK Sound with their excellent S150s. And Tannoy make great Pro speakers at affordable prices too. And in the USA there are probably a lot more I don't know about which aren't available in the UK.

Since, in a HT, you spend most of the time in the dark or (ideally) your speakers are concealed and/or behind an AT screen, you can ensure that all of the cost has gone into the sound and not into providing expensive veneers and designer cabinetry and so on, which is another benefit of the speakers I mention above.

So, in a nutshell, choose speakers for the job, not for appearance. Go for high sensitivity - 95dB plus, and high power handling - 110 dB for example or more. Look at Pro speakers - read their specs not a glossy, consumer brochure. Avoid soft-dome tweeters (usually).

WRT to amplification, again look at Pro gear - eg Crown amps. These are purpose-designed to work their butts off, all day long and they have the power to deliver the dynamism you need, going nowhere near clipping while they do it. And they represent astonishing value for money. Go for 200 wpc if possible and you will be all set.

Finally, choose subs that can deliver 115dB cleanly. The LFE track demands 115dB at Reference, but remember that subs also handle redirected bass content via Bass Management, so ideally you need some extra headroom to allow for that too. For 5 bass managed channels, allow an additional 6dB and for 7 BM channels, an additional 8dB or so. Check the subs you choose can hit 120-125dB cleanly and you are there.

If you do all of the above, you will have a system that can play at Reference, cleanly and smoothly without 'sounding loud'. This is especially important for the peaks - they may only take up 5% of the movie, but you want to be able to play them effortlessly, without clipping or other forms of distortion.

One other thing - remember that the most important component in any HT is the room itself. So get it acoustically treated. Study the GIK website for advice and videos on how to do this for a reasonable cost.

Then sit back and enjoy movies as they are meant to be heard (and seen)


----------



## kbarnes701

Here's an example of a good, affordable Pro cinema speaker from Tannoy, ideal for a small dedicated HT. They are pig ugly of course, but check out the specs. They will play all day long at reference, are compact, have an incredibly dynamic sound, have good sensitivity, peak power handling for 119dB - and best of all, they are very affordable.

Full disclosure: I use them as my surrounds (with JBL 3677s up front and Tannoy Di6DCi as my overhead four).

If you can put these behind an AT screen in a small HT, they would make a great LCR identical, matching set across the front. They also do a bigger DC12i (http://www.proacousticsusa.com/tannoy-dc12i-definition-install-loudspeaker.html)version/

http://www.proacousticsusa.com/brands/tannoy/tannoy-dc8i-definition-install-loudspeaker.html


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> We may be talking a little apples and oranges here. The subwoofer may sound softer after EQ than it did before, since Audyssey is pulling down a 25 to 50Hz peak. But, it is doing that in order to provide a smoother frequency response--without large peaks and valleys. So, it certainly would not be uncommon for a subwoofer to sound softer (as in less boomy) post-calibration.
> 
> But, whether Audyssey set the trim level of a subwoofer prior to calibration, or post-calibration, it would be setting the level based on the total FR and not just based on a peak at a certain frequency range. Even more importantly, though, regardless of when the trim level was set, it would calibrate the subwoofer to play at exactly the same SPL as the other channels in an audio system. And, because we don't hear bass frequencies as well as other frequencies (in our more normal hearing range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz) the subwoofer would sound softer in relation to the other channels. And, we would need to increase our subwoofer trim level.
> 
> The average sub trim increase post-Audyssey appears to be about +3db to +6db, with DEQ engaged. If DEQ is not engaged, the typical sub level increase is much greater. But, this whole issue is one of those YMMV things. There is a thorough explanation of how Audyssey works in that regard, and why subwoofer level increases are usually necessary, in the subwoofer guide linked below.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Since I didn't know the answer either, I thougth it would be best to "Ask Audyssey". So here's the Q&A with Chris over on FB:

Qte

Me: 

Hi Chris! Please allow me to ask some in-depth details on "how MultEQ works". Namely, this is about the trim setting of the subwoofer channel. We already know that MultEQ looks into the 30-80 Hz range to determine the subwoofer channel level.


But, is this done before or after the EQ curve is calculated? The puzzle to me is that it takes place before EQ'ing since the trims are set from the first measurement position at the MLP when the frequency response is still uncorrected/uncalculated. 



It would be good to know because some peoples' uncorrected response can be quite a bit different (higher or lower) in SPL (at least at certain frequencies) than the post-MultEQ EQ'ed response. 
Same question for the satellites where Mult EQ looks at the 500Hz-2kHz range. Or is there something else going on? 



Thanks as always.









Chris: 

Since the trim settings remain on even when MultEQ is turned off, we have to set them prior to the EQ filter calculation. However, there is an additional "trim" to worry about: matching the level of each speaker to itself when MultEQ is turned on and off. This level is applied to the filter itself.

Unqte


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Since I didn't know the answer either, I thougth it would be best to "Ask Audyssey". So here's the Q&A with Chris over on FB:
> 
> Qte
> 
> Me:
> 
> Hi Chris! Please allow me to ask some in-depth details on "how MultEQ works". Namely, this is about the trim setting of the subwoofer channel. We already know that MultEQ looks into the 30-80 Hz range to determine the subwoofer channel level.
> 
> 
> But, is this done before or after the EQ curve is calculated? The puzzle to me is that it takes place before EQ'ing since the trims are set from the first measurement position at the MLP when the frequency response is still uncorrected/uncalculated.
> 
> 
> 
> It would be good to know because some peoples' uncorrected response can be quite a bit different (higher or lower) in SPL (at least at certain frequencies) than the post-MultEQ EQ'ed response.
> Same question for the satellites where Mult EQ looks at the 500Hz-2kHz range. Or is there something else going on?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks as always.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris:
> 
> Since the trim settings remain on even when MultEQ is turned off, we have to set them prior to the EQ filter calculation. However, there is an additional "trim" to worry about: matching the level of each speaker to itself when MultEQ is turned on and off. This level is applied to the filter itself.
> 
> Unqte


Thanks for checking on that, Feri! That's good information to have, and I'm going to include a note on it in the Guide. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks for checking on that, Feri! That's good information to have, and I'm going to include a note on it in the Guide.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


My pleasure Mike!


----------



## SouthernCA

kbarnes701 said:


> Others have give comprehensive answers to this already, but I'll just add one or two things as they occur to me.
> 
> As the other guys have said, the short answer is "no".
> 
> The Kefs are good speakers but, like pretty much all 'hi-fi' speakers, they are not, IMO, suited for the reference level reproduction of movie soundtracks. They are not nearly sensitive enough (85dB) and have nowhere near the power handling (107dB max) to be able to meet Reference Level standards (which is the question asked - whether you *want* to play at Reference is irrelevant to your question).
> 
> My advice to anyone setting up a dedicated HT room is always the same: forget so-called 'hi-fi' brands and look towards the Pro end of the speaker and amplifier world. There, the designers of the gear have specifically met the unique challenges of reproducing movie soundtracks.
> 
> To this end, you will find that high sensitivity speakers have the ability to play cleanly without dynamic compression. This is very important for movies where the sound is constantly (in many movies) exploiting the full dynamic range, requiring an effortless and clean reproduction of everything from a whisper to an explosion. Most standard consumer speakers, with typical soft-dome tweeters just can't deliver the goods in any reasonably sized space.
> 
> So for speakers with high sensitivity and high power handling, check out Pro ranges. You can choose outstanding, but expensive, makes like Procella. Or choose JBL which offer astonishing value and have a huge choice of models. Or Mackies, or even the Emotiva active monitors if they still do them. Some makes offer most of what you would need and are readily available - eg MK Sound with their excellent S150s. And Tannoy make great Pro speakers at affordable prices too. And in the USA there are probably a lot more I don't know about which aren't available in the UK.
> 
> Since, in a HT, you spend most of the time in the dark or (ideally) your speakers are concealed and/or behind an AT screen, you can ensure that all of the cost has gone into the sound and not into providing expensive veneers and designer cabinetry and so on, which is another benefit of the speakers I mention above.
> 
> So, in a nutshell, choose speakers for the job, not for appearance. Go for high sensitivity - 95dB plus, and high power handling - 110 dB for example or more. Look at Pro speakers - read their specs not a glossy, consumer brochure. Avoid soft-dome tweeters (usually).
> 
> WRT to amplification, again look at Pro gear - eg Crown amps. These are purpose-designed to work their butts off, all day long and they have the power to deliver the dynamism you need, going nowhere near clipping while they do it. And they represent astonishing value for money. Go for 200 wpc if possible and you will be all set.
> 
> Finally, choose subs that can deliver 115dB cleanly. The LFE track demands 115dB at Reference, but remember that subs also handle redirected bass content via Bass Management, so ideally you need some extra headroom to allow for that too. For 5 bass managed channels, allow an additional 6dB and for 7 BM channels, an additional 8dB or so. Check the subs you choose can hit 120-125dB cleanly and you are there.
> 
> If you do all of the above, you will have a system that can play at Reference, cleanly and smoothly without 'sounding loud'. This is especially important for the peaks - they may only take up 5% of the movie, but you want to be able to play them effortlessly, without clipping or other forms of distortion.
> 
> One other thing - remember that the most important component in any HT is the room itself. So get it acoustically treated. Study the GIK website for advice and videos on how to do this for a reasonable cost.
> 
> Then sit back and enjoy movies as they are meant to be heard (and seen)


Thanks. Good points. In fact, using good stereo speakers that are low sensitivity and low max spl fir HT may be injurious to them even if you are using them at low average spl levels because of the points you mentioned. Dynamic passages can result in severe clipping and thus heat and destroy the voice coils of these speakers. 

My amp does not have any automatic clipping protection. Are there amps that do?


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

SouthernCA said:


> My amp does not have any automatic clipping protection. Are there amps that do?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Again, this is another plus for Pro amps which almost invariably allow you to adjust inputs and outputs for clipping and also have clipping warning lights.

I don't know offhand any consumer amps that have these features - it isn't anything you need worry about with regard to speakers so long as you make sure that the speakers you use, along with the amps you choose, are reasonably well-matched so that the speaker can handle the power from the amp gracefully, and still deliver the SPLs you need.

The Tannoys, for example, that I linked to earlier can handle peaks of 520 watts and SPLs of 119dB peak. Tannoy recommend amps n the 100-260 watt range (into 8 ohms) for these speakers, so if you use that as a guide you will be OK. Unfortunately, manufacturers of consumer speakers hardly ever provide much in the way of useful specs and/or FR graphs (one wonders why) so this is another point in favour of the Pro makes.

The bigger 12 inch driver Tannoys I linked to have even more impressive figures:

97dB sensitivity
Peak power handling 800 watts
Max SPL average 120 dB, peak 126dB
Recommended amp power 400 watts (8 ohms).

I doubt you would ever run either into clipping, so long as you had a beefy enough amp. My DC8i's are used for surround duties and are driven happily with 150 watts each. If I used them for LCR I'd use my 200 watts per channel amps. Same with the bigger DC12i models - 200 watts per channel for a front LCR set would be fine in a typical-large HT room.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^^

Example of the useful type of spec sheets you get with Pro speakers.


----------



## MeanMachine

*BI Amp Audessy question*

AVR - Marantz 5010 

Setup 5.1 

Question: 

Before running Audessy should I select Bi Amp (the front towers are bi amped) or should I run it as 5.1 - THEN select bi amp after Audessy?

I other words will Audessy calculate the towers as bi amp? or as surround speakers?? 

Thx


----------



## SouthernCA

kbarnes701 said:


> - it isn't anything you need worry about with regard to speakers so long as you make sure that the speakers you use, along with the amps you choose, are reasonably well-matched so that the speaker can handle the power from the amp gracefully, and still deliver the SPLs you need.




Most consumer amps or AVRs are rated at 100 watts per channel and can not tolerate a 20 or 30 dB dB dynamic spike without clipping at any practical listening level. It will require 100+ times the power than what is provided at the listening level. 

Why do you say that ls50 with consumer grade amps don't have to worry about clipping or resulting damage. Please explain. 



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

MeanMachine said:


> AVR - Marantz 5010
> 
> Setup 5.1
> 
> Question:
> 
> Before running Audessy should I select Bi Amp (the front towers are bi amped) or should I run it as 5.1 - THEN select bi amp after Audessy?
> 
> I other words will Audessy calculate the towers as bi amp? or as surround speakers??
> 
> Thx


Hi,

For a more complete answer you would have to provide more information about your speakers, but I am 99.99% certain that you are talking about passive bi-amping. If you intend to wire your front speakers to two different amplifier terminals in your AVR, then just go ahead and do it to begin with. You will be selecting those speakers as front speakers in the speaker configuration menu, and Audyssey will recognize them as such. So, everything will work fine from an Audyssey perspective.

Since, someone else will tell you this, even if I don't, I will say that you won't accomplish anything with passive bi-amping. It won't actually increase your headroom or your available SPL for the front speakers, and it won't improve their sound. It won't hurt anything to wire them that way. It just won't do anything at all. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MeanMachine

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> For a more complete answer you would have to provide more information about your speakers, but I am 99.99% certain that you are talking about passive bi-amping. If you intend to wire your front speakers to two different amplifier terminals in your AVR, then just go ahead and do it to begin with. You will be selecting those speakers as front speakers in the speaker configuration menu, and Audyssey will recognize them as such. So, everything will work fine from an Audyssey perspective.
> 
> Since, someone else will tell you this, even if I don't, I will say that you won't accomplish anything with passive bi-amping. It won't actually increase your headroom or your available SPL for the front speakers, and it won't improve their sound. It won't hurt anything to wire them that way. It just won't do anything at all.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hey thanks no I'm just hooking up top and bottom terminals on my 684 S2 towers back to the Marantz 5010 .... Do I select Bi Amp in the Amp configuration first? then run Audessy or run Audessy as a 5.1 which is how it's setup with two rear speakers - then set it to bi amp after I've run Audessy? 

Thx


----------



## mthomas47

MeanMachine said:


> Hey thanks no I'm just hooking up top and bottom terminals on my 684 S2 towers back to the Marantz 5010 .... Do I select Bi Amp in the Amp configuration first? then run Audessy or run Audessy as a 5.1 which is how it's setup with two rear speakers - then set it to bi amp after I've run Audessy?
> 
> Thx


You are welcome! I'm sorry, I meant to have answered your question. If the Marantz 5010 offers a bi-amp setting, then just go ahead and set it to that before you run Audyssey. I honestly don't think it will make a particle of difference to Audyssey whether you do it that way or not, but in general, I would prefer to configure things the way I intended to operate them, before running Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... The average sub trim increase post-Audyssey appears to be about +3db to +6db, with DEQ engaged. If DEQ is not engaged, the typical sub level increase is much greater. But, this whole issue is one of those YMMV things. ...


Years ago, when I first set up Audyssey, I found that, as measured by REW, with the calibrated mic at the MLP, the bass roll-off after Audyssey adjusted it was *real*, i.e., not just my missing some anomalous bass peaks caused by the room, or my being in love with my former heavy bass. I'm still not clear on why Audyssey rolled it off.  With DEQ OFF, according to REW, post Audyssey bass below about 90 Hz was about 7 dB below the level of the sound above 90Hz (i.e.,7 dB below the 0 line on the graph, which goes through the 1K Hz point). 

Later, setting the sub level by ear (DEQ OFF, as always) I eventually settled on an 8 dB boost (i.e., .-3.5 on the trim in my Marantz, 8 dB over the -11.5, Audyssey set it at, after I "tricked" it by turning up the sub gain on the sub itself, as advised by Mike and others). It is interesting to me that this setting by ear is only 1 dB away from the what would have been called for to compensate for the average deficit Audyssey imposed.

Don't get me wrong, I love Audyssey, once the bass deficit is fixed.

For some movies of the magnetic era (1953 to ~~ the 1980s), which are often transferred to Blu-ray without restoring the bass temporarily removed when recording the original music elements (a long story, PM me if interested), I use even more bass boost. I haven't heard any clipping of the sub output on the Marantz, perhaps because these soundtracks are bass shy to begin with, for reasons given above. Higher settings would probably cause clipping on BDs of new movies, especially action pictures, which I rarely play.


----------



## jsgrise

garygarrison said:


> Years ago, when I first set up Audyssey, I found that, as measured by REW, with the calibrated mic at the MLP, the bass roll-off after Audyssey adjusted it was *real*, i.e., not just my missing some anomalous bass peaks caused by the room, or my being in love with my former heavy bass. I'm still not clear on why Audyssey rolled it off.  With DEQ OFF, according to REW, post Audyssey bass below about 90 Hz was about 7 dB below the level of the sound above 90Hz (i.e.,7 dB below the 0 line on the graph, which goes through the 1K Hz point).
> 
> Later, setting the sub level by ear (DEQ OFF, as always) I eventually settled on an 8 dB boost (i.e., .-3.5 on the trim in my Marantz, 8 dB over the -11.5, Audyssey set it at, after I "tricked" it by turning up the sub gain on the sub itself, as advised by Mike and others). It is interesting to me that this setting by ear is only 1 dB away from the what would have been called for to compensate for the average deficit Audyssey imposed.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I love Audyssey, once the bass deficit is fixed.


My experience is similar in my room with my setup. I now use a net 3dB+ boost in the bass region + a negative High Shelf Filter to give the low end a kick.


----------



## anothermib

mogorf said:


> Since I didn't know the answer either, I thougth it would be best to "Ask Audyssey". So here's the Q&A with Chris over on FB:
> ...
> 
> Chris:
> 
> Since the trim settings remain on even when MultEQ is turned off, we have to set them prior to the EQ filter calculation. However, there is an additional "trim" to worry about: matching the level of each speaker to itself when MultEQ is turned on and off. This level is applied to the filter itself.
> 
> Unqte



I recall that there were discussions to which extent the AVR test tones are expected to have identical SPL after the Audyssey calibration. One argument was that generally they won’t as they are bypassing the Audyssey filters. 
Based on this answer I would conclude that in general they should - or am I missing another factor?


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> I recall that there were discussions to which extent the AVR test tones are expected to have identical SPL after the Audyssey calibration. One argument was that generally they won’t as they are bypassing the Audyssey filters.
> Based on this answer I would conclude that in general they should - or am I missing another factor?


I think that, in general, that is correct. The test tones are unaffected by the filters that Audyssey sets for the various channels. And, after an Audyssey calibration, if we play the test tones for each of the channels in turn, without adjusting any trim levels, they should sound and measure the same at the MLP (mic position 1). 

Where I think that the general discussion of level-matching becomes even more complicated is in the example that Gary cited, where according to REW, his


----------



## kbarnes701

SouthernCA said:


> Most consumer amps or AVRs are rated at 100 watts per channel and can not tolerate a 20 or 30 dB dB dynamic spike without clipping at any practical listening level. It will require 100+ times the power than what is provided at the listening level.
> 
> Why do you say that ls50 with consumer grade amps don't have to worry about clipping or resulting damage. Please explain.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


I said so long as the amp and the speakers are reasonably well matched (with the implication that the user will be sensible with the MV and not try to hit Reference with an amp/speaker combination that can't manage it). I think my complete post makes my point clear.


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> I think that, in general, that is correct. The test tones are unaffected by the filters that Audyssey sets for the various channels. And, after an Audyssey calibration, if we play the test tones for each of the channels in turn, without adjusting any trim levels, they should sound and measure the same at the MLP (mic position 1).
> 
> Where I think that the general discussion of level-matching becomes even more complicated is in the example that Gary cited, where according to REW, his


----------



## Bauncer

Greetings! My first post here after lurking for some time and slowly upgrading my HT setup. Hoping folks might be able to help out. 

I'm having some issues with my Audyssey calibration, but only very recently (*!*). Specifically with the Crossovers, the sub volume, and the Left surround speaker being out of phase. The weird thing is, prior to this weekend, the setup has gone just fine and it set things quite appropriately. The only thing I changed this time around was to pull my front speakers a few more inches away from the wall and angle them towards the MLP more accurately.

I have read many posts in this thread and others on the forum so I'm fairly confident that I'm going through all the steps correctly, and that my speaker and mic placements are good (as good as can be for my smallish room).

My system is 5.1 with all Klipsch speakers with a Marantz 6012 receiver.

Front: RP-160m
Center: RP-450c
Surrounds: B-10 (need to upgrade these next..)
Subs: Dual R-12SW (placed at either sides of the room)

So as I mentioned above, the crossover problem. After all is said and done with the process, Audyssey sets my front, surround and center crossovers to 250hz, 250hz, and 150hz respectively. Sometimes it will set the fronts to 200hz. This seems very wrong to me, considering the speaker capabilities, and the fact that in the past (as recently as 1 week ago) it has set them to 80hz (front, surrounds) and 60hz (center).

It will also sometimes detect the Left Surround speaker as out of phase. If I re-run the step it is all good again. I haven't touched the cables or moved that speaker at all, so, yeah... Not sure what is happening with that.

When setup starts I set the subs to around 75db as instructed, however this time around I had to *raise *the gain on the sub to hit that 75db, whereas before, the dial was a notch or two below where it wants them to be now. The levels it sets at the end are good however, at -10 and -10.5.

I've run it multiple times to verify, and keep ending up with similar results, so I'm not sure what more I can do. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the mic is dying or broken in some way?


----------



## mthomas47

Bauncer said:


> Greetings! My first post here after lurking for some time and slowly upgrading my HT setup. Hoping folks might be able to help out.
> 
> I'm having some issues with my Audyssey calibration, but only very recently (*!*). Specifically with the Crossovers, the sub volume, and the Left surround speaker being out of phase. The weird thing is, prior to this weekend, the setup has gone just fine and it set things quite appropriately. The only thing I changed this time around was to pull my front speakers a few more inches away from the wall and angle them towards the MLP more accurately.
> 
> I have read many posts in this thread and others on the forum so I'm fairly confident that I'm going through all the steps correctly, and that my speaker and mic placements are good (as good as can be for my smallish room).
> 
> My system is 5.1 with all Klipsch speakers with a Marantz 6012 receiver.
> 
> Front: RP-160m
> Center: RP-450c
> Surrounds: B-10 (need to upgrade these next..)
> Subs: Dual R-12SW (placed at either sides of the room)
> 
> So as I mentioned above, the crossover problem. After all is said and done with the process, Audyssey sets my front, surround and center crossovers to 250hz, 250hz, and 150hz respectively. Sometimes it will set the fronts to 200hz. This seems very wrong to me, considering the speaker capabilities, and the fact that in the past (as recently as 1 week ago) it has set them to 80hz (front, surrounds) and 60hz (center).
> 
> It will also sometimes detect the Left Surround speaker as out of phase. If I re-run the step it is all good again. I haven't touched the cables or moved that speaker at all, so, yeah... Not sure what is happening with that.
> 
> When setup starts I set the subs to around 75db as instructed, however this time around I had to *raise *the gain on the sub to hit that 75db, whereas before, the dial was a notch or two below where it wants them to be now. The levels it sets at the end are good however, at -10 and -10.5.
> 
> I've run it multiple times to verify, and keep ending up with similar results, so I'm not sure what more I can do. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the mic is dying or broken in some way?


Hi and welcome to the thread! There are two things I would try. First, I would do a microprocessor reset. If it doesn't work, repeat it a couple of times. If that still doesn't work, then I would order a replacement microphone. My guess is that your mic has gone bad, but just in case it is something with the AVR that a reset will fix, I would try that first.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

Bauncer said:


> Greetings! My first post here after lurking for some time and slowly upgrading my HT setup. Hoping folks might be able to help out.
> 
> I'm having some issues with my Audyssey calibration, but only very recently (*!*). Specifically with the Crossovers, the sub volume, and the Left surround speaker being out of phase. The weird thing is, prior to this weekend, the setup has gone just fine and it set things quite appropriately. The only thing I changed this time around was to pull my front speakers a few more inches away from the wall and angle them towards the MLP more accurately.
> 
> I have read many posts in this thread and others on the forum so I'm fairly confident that I'm going through all the steps correctly, and that my speaker and mic placements are good (as good as can be for my smallish room).
> 
> My system is 5.1 with all Klipsch speakers with a Marantz 6012 receiver.
> 
> Front: RP-160m
> Center: RP-450c
> Surrounds: B-10 (need to upgrade these next..)
> Subs: Dual R-12SW (placed at either sides of the room)
> 
> So as I mentioned above, the crossover problem. After all is said and done with the process, Audyssey sets my front, surround and center crossovers to 250hz, 250hz, and 150hz respectively. Sometimes it will set the fronts to 200hz. This seems very wrong to me, considering the speaker capabilities, and the fact that in the past (as recently as 1 week ago) it has set them to 80hz (front, surrounds) and 60hz (center).
> 
> It will also sometimes detect the Left Surround speaker as out of phase. If I re-run the step it is all good again. I haven't touched the cables or moved that speaker at all, so, yeah... Not sure what is happening with that.
> 
> When setup starts I set the subs to around 75db as instructed, however this time around I had to *raise *the gain on the sub to hit that 75db, whereas before, the dial was a notch or two below where it wants them to be now. The levels it sets at the end are good however, at -10 and -10.5.
> 
> I've run it multiple times to verify, and keep ending up with similar results, so I'm not sure what more I can do. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the mic is dying or broken in some way?


Greetings!

Firstly I would do a microprocessor reset (factory reset). Look up the procedures in the Marantz's Manual. Do it at least 5-6 times in a row. Hope this helps!


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> My theory always has been that this flat bass curve sounds „wrong“ to many people as everyone simply expects bass room gain. Most music is probably actually mixed in rooms with some room gain, so the bass sounds too weak if one forces the bass down to a flat curve. Ideally one want a smooth curve without peaks, but with a reasonable room gain. In that theory this would be the underlying reason why most people giving the bass a few extra dB post Audyssey.


That is it in a nutshell. A flat curve (YKWIM!) is not preferred by many people. In the most comprehensive tests undertaken, by Harman (and also by Toole), people overwhelmingly prefer a smooth but gently rising response (rising towards the lower end). To most, this sounds 'natural' or 'right'. IIRC, Toole attributes it to generations of listening in a closed space (eg a room), where room gain delivers a rising response at the bottom end. IMO Audyssey would have done much better to acknowledge this and to aim for a 'Harman curve' type of response. But it is what it is. Most people simply raise their sub level by a few dB to compensate. This isn't a perfect solution as it creates a 'hump' starting from the XO frequency, where what is ideally required is a smooth upward slope from 15kHz to the lowest frequencies the system can reproduce satisfactorily. But it is a simple fix and satisfies most who use it. To get a more sophisticated solution requires the expenditure of more cash and/or more time (to learn how to use the chosen solution).


----------



## kbarnes701

Bauncer said:


> I'm having some issues with my Audyssey calibration, but only very recently (*!*). Specifically with the Crossovers, the sub volume, and the Left surround speaker being out of phase. The weird thing is, prior to this weekend, the setup has gone just fine and it set things quite appropriately. The only thing I changed this time around was to pull my front speakers a few more inches away from the wall and angle them towards the MLP more accurately.
> 
> 
> It will also sometimes detect the Left Surround speaker as out of phase. If I re-run the step it is all good again. I haven't touched the cables or moved that speaker at all, so, yeah... Not sure what is happening with that.
> 
> When setup starts I set the subs to around 75db as instructed, however this time around I had to *raise *the gain on the sub to hit that 75db, whereas before, the dial was a notch or two below where it wants them to be now. The levels it sets at the end are good however, at -10 and -10.5.
> 
> I've run it multiple times to verify, and keep ending up with similar results, so I'm not sure what more I can do. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the mic is dying or broken in some way?


Mike has suggested a couple of good ideas. I wonder if you could put the speakers back to their original positions and run Audyssey again. If you still get the problems then you will know that moving the speakers isn't the cause. If the problem goes away, then you have identified the cause.

The sub gain issue points more to a mic or AVR problem, but the above might be worth doing. You don;t need to run a full calibration - just do 3 positions.


----------



## Bauncer

mthomas47 said:


> Hi and welcome to the thread! There are two things I would try. First, I would do a microprocessor reset. If it doesn't work, repeat it a couple of times. If that still doesn't work, then I would order a replacement microphone. My guess is that your mic has gone bad, but just in case it is something with the AVR that a reset will fix, I would try that first.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





mogorf said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Firstly I would do a microprocessor reset (factory reset). Look up the procedures in the Marantz's Manual. Do it at least 5-6 times in a row. Hope this helps!





kbarnes701 said:


> Mike has suggested a couple of good ideas. I wonder if you could put the speakers back to their original positions and run Audyssey again. If you still get the problems then you will know that moving the speakers isn't the cause. If the problem goes away, then you have identified the cause.
> 
> The sub gain issue points more to a mic or AVR problem, but the above might be worth doing. You don;t need to run a full calibration - just do 3 positions.


Thanks guys!

I will try all of the above. 

I do have a mic from a Denon receiver that appears to be the same model number. I can try that too if I have no luck otherwise. I haven't yet since I figured it was best to always use the one that came with the receiver.


----------



## drh3b

mthomas47 said:


> Hi and welcome to the thread! There are two things I would try. First, I would do a microprocessor reset. If it doesn't work, repeat it a couple of times. If that still doesn't work, then I would order a replacement microphone. My guess is that your mic has gone bad, but just in case it is something with the AVR that a reset will fix, I would try that first.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





mogorf said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Firstly I would do a microprocessor reset (factory reset). Look up the procedures in the Marantz's Manual. Do it at least 5-6 times in a row. Hope this helps!





Bauncer said:


> Greetings! My first post here after lurking for some time and slowly upgrading my HT setup. Hoping folks might be able to help out.
> 
> I'm having some issues with my Audyssey calibration, but only very recently (*!*). Specifically with the Crossovers, the sub volume, and the Left surround speaker being out of phase. The weird thing is, prior to this weekend, the setup has gone just fine and it set things quite appropriately. The only thing I changed this time around was to pull my front speakers a few more inches away from the wall and angle them towards the MLP more accurately.
> 
> I have read many posts in this thread and others on the forum so I'm fairly confident that I'm going through all the steps correctly, and that my speaker and mic placements are good (as good as can be for my smallish room).
> 
> My system is 5.1 with all Klipsch speakers with a Marantz 6012 receiver.
> 
> Front: RP-160m
> Center: RP-450c
> Surrounds: B-10 (need to upgrade these next..)
> Subs: Dual R-12SW (placed at either sides of the room)
> 
> So as I mentioned above, the crossover problem. After all is said and done with the process, Audyssey sets my front, surround and center crossovers to 250hz, 250hz, and 150hz respectively. Sometimes it will set the fronts to 200hz. This seems very wrong to me, considering the speaker capabilities, and the fact that in the past (as recently as 1 week ago) it has set them to 80hz (front, surrounds) and 60hz (center).
> 
> It will also sometimes detect the Left Surround speaker as out of phase. If I re-run the step it is all good again. I haven't touched the cables or moved that speaker at all, so, yeah... Not sure what is happening with that.
> 
> When setup starts I set the subs to around 75db as instructed, however this time around I had to *raise *the gain on the sub to hit that 75db, whereas before, the dial was a notch or two below where it wants them to be now. The levels it sets at the end are good however, at -10 and -10.5.
> 
> I've run it multiple times to verify, and keep ending up with similar results, so I'm not sure what more I can do. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the mic is dying or broken in some way?


I would try a soft reset first, unplug the receiver for at least 10 minutes. If that doesn't work, as Mthomas and Mogorf have suggested, microprocessor resets and then a new mike. Kbarnes suggestion of moving back the speakers makes sense, too.


----------



## drh3b

Bauncer said:


> Thanks guys!
> 
> I will try all of the above.
> 
> I do have a mic from a Denon receiver that appears to be the same model number. I can try that too if I have no luck otherwise. I haven't yet since I figured it was best to always use the one that came with the receiver.


If you have a 2nd mic, try it first, then you can remove it(or not) from the equation.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> That is it in a nutshell. A flat curve (YKWIM!) is not preferred by many people. In the most comprehensive tests undertaken, by Harman (and also by Toole), people overwhelmingly prefer a smooth but gently rising response (rising towards the lower end). To most, this sounds 'natural' or 'right'. IIRC, Toole attributes it to generations of listening in a closed space (eg a room), where room gain delivers a rising response at the bottom end. IMO Audyssey would have done much better to acknowledge this and to aim for a 'Harman curve' type of response. But it is what it is. Most people simply raise their sub level by a few dB to compensate. This isn't a perfect solution as it creates a 'hump' starting from the XO frequency, where what is ideally required is a smooth upward slope from 15kHz to the lowest frequencies the system can reproduce satisfactorily. But it is a simple fix and satisfies most who use it. To get a more sophisticated solution requires the expenditure of more cash and/or more time (to learn how to use the chosen solution).




Fortunately the recent generation of AVR let us see and edit the Audyssey target curve. I am still experimenting with that. 
I tried something similar to what you are describing - a linear curve starting at around +8dB at 20 Hz going through 0 at 600 Hz continuing linearly. I felt that that had too much mid bass and was too soft on the highs. Perhaps I need to play a bit more with the parameters.
What I liked more is flat down to about 120Hz and then linear to 6dB at 60Hz. So some sort of hump may not a bad thing now you can just make that consistent across speakers independent of cross over. Unfortunately A/B comparison is a bit hard to do as it takes a minute to load the new Audyssey curve.


----------



## garygarrison

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks. Good points. In fact, using good stereo speakers that are low sensitivity and low max spl fir HT may be injurious to them even if you are using them at low average spl levels because of the points you mentioned. Dynamic passages can result in severe clipping and thus heat and destroy the voice coils of these speakers.
> 
> *My amp does not have any automatic clipping protection. Are there amps that do?*


My NAD power amps have a "soft clipping" option, but I don't use it because: 


I don't want one more thing in the circuit. There is enough junk in there, so I limit it to the junk I actively like, such as Audyssey (Flat), but not DEQ, for instance.
I probably would never need it, with front speakers (including center) that each produce 107 dB at 13 feet (the main listening position), with just 16 watts. The surrounds are a bit more iffy, in that they take more like 64 watts to produce 107 dB at the MLP, but their rated power handling is 100 watts continuous, 400 watts peak, so I'll risk it.
Can I hear any difference between "Soft clipping ON" and "Soft clipping OFF?" Well, maybe. I wore out my fingers switching back and forth on loud passages, and came up with a firm "maybe."


----------



## Bauncer

Update on my calibration problems.

I tried the other mic first at 3 positions and checked the results, and they seemed better. The crossovers were closer at 90hz and 40hz and the sub gain dials were back down to where they should have been.

So then i factory reset the receiver as a "let's just start from scratch" step.

With the new mic plugged in I did a full Audyssey run using all positions, and it's brought things back in line again. Guess I'm throwing that other mic in the closet...

Thanks again for the suggestions everyone! Pretty straightforward but I'm happy for now.


----------



## mogorf

Bauncer said:


> Update on my calibration problems.
> 
> I tried the other mic first at 3 positions and checked the results, and they seemed better. The crossovers were closer at 90hz and 40hz and the sub gain dials were back down to where they should have been.
> 
> So then i factory reset the receiver as a "let's just start from scratch" step.
> 
> With the new mic plugged in I did a full Audyssey run using all positions, and it's brought things back in line again. Guess I'm throwing that other mic in the closet...
> 
> Thanks again for the suggestions everyone! Pretty straightforward but I'm happy for now.


Enjoy good sound!


----------



## mthomas47

Since I have a little spare time right now (always a dangerous thing ) I thought I might come back to some discussion regarding bass boosts and room gain. The point of view was recently expressed that Audyssey flattens out room gain and that is why we need to add a sub boost. I don't think that is quite correct. Room correction systems, including Audyssey, do try to remove room-induced influences from the sound, in order to achieve a flatter frequency response.

But, those room influences for bass frequencies would present as both peaks and dips. Room gain would always enable subwoofers to achieve more low bass output in a room. But, it would be up to the user to utilize that additional low-bass output, by making DSP adjustments, and/or by adding sub boost, once a relatively flat frequency response had been achieved. Achieving that initial flat frequency response, by minimizing peaks and dips in the FR, is the whole point of automated room EQ.

I think that good music recording studios, and film mixing studios (which are much larger) try hard to produce soundtracks that sound just the way that the mixers intend them to sound. And, they typically take great pains to not allow the recording environment to influence the sound. They do this by heavily treating the studios to eliminate room influences throughout the frequency range. If they want additional bass in a track, they mix in the amount that they want, rather than relying on room gain to supply it. Then, when we play back a good recording, from a good source, we will ideally be able to hear the soundtrack more-or-less as it was recorded.

It will always be more-or-less as it was recorded, because our speakers, subwoofers, and room will all influence the sound. The room particularly will add and subtract bass, somewhat capriciously, depending on the geometry of the room and on the specific location of all of the speakers and subwoofers in the room. Room correction attempts to remove the more extreme additions and subtractions of bass that are occurring at various frequencies, and in theory, restores the recording to more-or-less its original state.

I believe that the reasons why we may want to add more bass to a recording, either with or without room correction, are two-fold. First, we don't hear bass frequencies as well as we do those in our normal (strong) hearing range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz. That is especially the case at more moderate listening levels. Second, some of us may simply want more bass than others, due to idiosyncrasies in our individual hearing, and due to differences in our listening preferences. As with the volume issue, we just don't all hear in exactly the same way, and we don't all like exactly the same things in what we do hear. 

The point was made that a number of tests have demonstrated that most people prefer a rising bass response--a Harman curve. And, that finding is entirely consistent with earlier (and more recent) research into the way we hear specific frequencies. The Equal Loudness Contours demonstrate that we don't hear frequencies below about 200Hz, and particularly those below about 70Hz, nearly as well as we do those in that 400Hz to 4000Hz range I referred to earlier.

That is one reason that the Reference standard is important for home theater systems. Our hearing drops off faster in the lower (and very high) frequencies than it does in the middle of our hearing range, and as the listening level drops, we hear lower frequencies in a much less satisfying way than we did when the volume was louder. The Reference standard gives us a baseline for where the sounds of a 5.1 movie are in the specific equilibrium that was originally intended.

The point was also made that Audyssey should have developed a better Reference curve to account for that rising bass response. Well it did, but the designers just chose to implement it in a different way. As I understand it, DEQ was always designed to create that rising bass response that a Harman curve calls for. Whether DEQ is entirely successful in that regard is another question. I suspect that if DEQ were being developed today, it might look a little different, as the industry has evolved a bit during the time since DEQ was first developed.

My own point of view is that automated Reference curves (as opposed to a flat frequency response) are inherently geared to a hypothetical average preference and will always suffer from that liability. Granted that almost all of us prefer a rising response, exactly how much do we want, and where should it start and end? Will a person listening at -5 MV prefer the same amount of additional bass that someone listening at -15 MV prefers? DEQ was specifically developed to try to address the variability in bass preferred at different listening levels, but it still relies on assumptions regarding what a "typical" listener might prefer with respect to a rising curve. And, in my opinion, any system that starts with assumptions regarding "typical" listener preferences will have inherent limitations.

I offer that last part to say that the ultimate solution, in my opinion, lies in the direction that Room Perfect, Dirac, and now the Audyssey app, have taken. Simply start with a flat frequency response (or as flat as room correction can make it) and then allow the individual user to modify the response as he chooses. Of course, there will still always be room for systems that set default Reference curves (with DEQ enabled) for those who want to simply run a calibration and then sit back and enjoy an audio system. But, I think that the difficulty of ever finding a one-size-fits all house curve will always make some user adjustments, and particularly for those that involve bass frequencies, necessary for many of the types of people who hang-out on a place such as AVS forum. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

Very educational post as always Mike. Luv it when you have some extra time on your hand! 


What I would like to share in this discussion on "bass issues" is that I would definitely break it into two parts, namely a) film and b) music, coz I think many of us use our HT systems for both media.


With film my preference in the Bass Department is ususally "reference", i.e. throughout the several years I've been using MultEQ + DEQ I found that the subwoofer channel trim set by MultEQ during calibration of channel levels (in my case set @ -6 dB) gives me all the pleasure I need in the form of deep, smooth and even bass. I can not recall even one movie when I had the desire to increase the sub trim, yet, I remember some films where I even needed to lower that trim. 


As regards music, which I also love to listen to through my HT, is another case. I think I always mention that I believe I'm not increasing bass for music when I turn up the trim for the subwoofer channel, but "restore" the missing low frequencies of the specific recording. I think this makes a whola-lotta big difference. 



And, of course, as always: YMMV!


----------



## jsgrise

mthomas47 said:


> Since I have a little spare time right now (always a dangerous thing ) I thought I might come back to some discussion regarding bass boosts and room gain.
> ...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you mike for taking the time to share your thoughts! 

I will try to take some measurements with Audyssey ON/OFF to compare the levels and response and post it here. Don't know when I'll have the time though...


----------



## mogorf

Hi Guys,

On a slow Monday evening here's an interesting discussion I had a while back with Chris K. on FB about mic placement:

Qte

Me: 

Chris et al,


Recently I did some thinking to myself and came up with something like a brave idea. Well, ...brave to me, although this might have been brought up by others, so here goes.


Usually when we place the Audyssey mic (apart from MLP), we always have a guessing game whether its in the right position or not, and this dilemma is regardless of a multi-seater layout or a narrower one-man position.


So, to resolve the dilemma, how about doing/trying the following method in order to have first hand info (read: curves) of our room acoustics and its visible anomalies spot-by-spot:


1. Turn off Audyssey completely.
2. Set up the measuring rig for REW (or similar).
3. Take as many measurements as you can (20-30 maybe) around where you or your buddies will sit (optional), then average the results in REW. (Don't forget to take note of all the measurement spots, this info will be needed later on.)
4. Take a close scrutiny at all these measurement curves, overlap them in REW, note the similarities with regards to peaks and dips. Disregard where they are not similar.
5. Make a shortlist of 8 areas (1 MLP + 7 more) that are similar that you want to eq with Audyssey MultEQ.
6. Place the Audyssey mic to those selected areas and run MultEQ.


Please don't ask me questions, just send your comments, recommendations, further ideas, or just say this guy is a lunatic.  


I know this procedure might be a bit tedious and time consuming, ...but hey,...are we in a hurry? 

Chris: 

Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters". 

Unqte 

Seed for thought and maybe an idea worth to consider even for other RC systems as well.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> On a slow Monday evening here's an interesting discussion I had a while back with Chris K. on FB about mic placement:
> 
> Qte
> 
> Me:
> 
> Chris et al,
> 
> 
> Recently I did some thinking to myself and came up with something like a brave idea. Well, ...brave to me, although this might have been brought up by others, so here goes.
> 
> 
> Usually when we place the Audyssey mic (apart from MLP), we always have a guessing game whether its in the right position or not, and this dilemma is regardless of a multi-seater layout or a narrower one-man position.
> 
> 
> So, to resolve the dilemma, how about doing/trying the following method in order to have first hand info (read: curves) of our room acoustics and its visible anomalies spot-by-spot:
> 
> 
> 1. Turn off Audyssey completely.
> 2. Set up the measuring rig for REW (or similar).
> 3. Take as many measurements as you can (20-30 maybe) around where you or your buddies will sit (optional), then average the results in REW. (Don't forget to take note of all the measurement spots, this info will be needed later on.)
> 4. Take a close scrutiny at all these measurement curves, overlap them in REW, note the similarities with regards to peaks and dips. Disregard where they are not similar.
> 5. Make a shortlist of 8 areas (1 MLP + 7 more) that are similar that you want to eq with Audyssey MultEQ.
> 6. Place the Audyssey mic to those selected areas and run MultEQ.
> 
> 
> Please don't ask me questions, just send your comments, recommendations, further ideas, or just say this guy is a lunatic.
> 
> 
> I know this procedure might be a bit tedious and time consuming, ...but hey,...are we in a hurry?
> 
> Chris:
> 
> Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".
> 
> Unqte
> 
> Seed for thought and maybe an idea worth to consider even for other RC systems as well.


Hi Feri,

Thank you for the compliment on my post! As for your suggestion of a pre-measurement exercise to determine the best potential mic positions, I agree with Chris. That is a very cool idea! 

I like Chris' suggestion to look for, and avoid, extreme deviations in the FR. That also makes a lot of sense, and it is what you were trying to accomplish, anyway.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## VideoGrabber

mogorf said:


> Firstly I would do a microprocessor reset (factory reset). Look up the procedures in the Marantz's Manual. Do it at least 5-6 times in a row.


This is a bit of a tangent, but since I've read this recommendation (literally) hundreds of times (most often from @jdsmoothie), I have to ask if anyone has a clue why *so many* Resets are necessary?

I.e., it's obvious why *one* reset could be required, for any number of reasons. Micro-based systems get their brains scrambled all the time, due to buggy code. And there's only one way to fix that. This happens embarrassingly frequently, for all kinds of devices.

And as an embedded-systems engineer, I could see how there may be a possibility that cascading resets might affect other subsystems, that may not be touched by the first one. For example, in addition to their front-end control processor, these AVRs have networking, HDMI, Audyssey, etc. subsystems, that are MCU-controlled. And perhaps the first Reset doesn't reset everything.

But "5 or 6" seems to be the well-accepted mantra, and I have trouble understanding how any more than (possibly) 3 would have any effect at all? Or is this simply a case of _"if 3 is good, then 4 or 5 (or 6) is mo-better"_?  The only other plausible hypothesis I could come up with is that sometimes when a Reset is performed, it doesn't actually "take". I.e., it's a no-op, so you need to repeat it. But I've never run into this, in my own development work.*


[* There is one situation where I HAVE seen such behavior, which is due to bad timing. I.e., a Reset always causes some form of NV memory (Flash, EEPROM, NVRAM, etc.) to be erased, which takes a certain amount of time to complete. And then fresh data gets written in. If the erase-process doesn't allow enough time, then the memory doesn't get properly/fully cleared. But that's a newbie mistake that no AVR-vendor should ever be making. (Even if they fail to perform a proper post-erase verification check, and just "assume" it's all good.)]


----------



## VideoGrabber

mthomas47 said:


> The point was also made that Audyssey should have developed a better Reference curve to account for that rising bass response. Well it did, but the designers just chose to implement it in a different way. As I understand it, DEQ was always designed to create that rising bass response that a Harman curve calls for.


An interesting thought, but my understanding was that at Reference Level (MV=0), DEQ had no effect, anywhere in the spectrum. Is that incorrect?


----------



## garygarrison

I don't know why it is recommended to do the reset repeatedly. It may help. Perhaps there is a clue in Videograbber's post. When it was suggested that I turn a device off, and start over, if it didn't work the first time, I would turn the component on and off, on and off. Sometimes it would start to work properly. I have repeated many procedures over and over to "make sure," even when there was no evidence whatsoever that doing it many times would help (OCD). I used to be amused watching people hit an elevator call button over and over, in of all places, the Psych building. I'd be tempted to say it was part of human nature, and exclusive to us, but that's exactly what lab rats do. They beat a rapid tattoo on that lever.


----------



## mthomas47

VideoGrabber said:


> An interesting thought, but my understanding was that at Reference Level (MV=0), DEQ had no effect, anywhere in the spectrum. Is that incorrect?


Hi,

That is correct! The idea behind Reference, though, is that at the original volume level of a 5.1 movie, the bass will be in the proper equilibrium with all of the other frequencies.* So, at 0.0 MV, a listener would theoretically be hearing the soundtrack exactly as the film mixer intended for him to hear it, including all of the bass effects. And, no rising house curve would be required, because the film mixer would have added his own appropriate bass levels.*

At least that was the theory behind DEQ. We understand now that a listening level of about -5 to -7 MV is actually equivalent to Reference in rooms of about 15,000^3 or less, so at -5 MV, it is likely that we would actually be hearing about 2db more bass than what a film mixer had intended, when DEQ is engaged. 

Of course, where music is concerned, all bets are off. Since there is no Reference volume, there can consequently be no Reference curve. Although I think that the idea behind DEQ was clever, the fundamental problem that I see with any pre-programmed house curve is that it can't account for differences in how we hear specific frequencies, differences in program material (especially including music), and differences in personal preference (which may not be exactly the same thing as differences in hearing). In the end, many serious listeners will still be adding and subtracting bass according to their own specific requirements.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> DEQ was specifically developed to try to address the variability in bass preferred at different listening levels, but it still relies on assumptions regarding what a "typical" listener might prefer with respect to a rising curve. And, in my opinion, any system that starts with assumptions regarding "typical" listener preferences will have inherent limitations.


All good points Mike, but I take issue with this one. DEQ's objective is to restore perceived bass to its proper level as the volume (SPL) decreases. This doesn't really have a bearing on the preferences discovered during the Harman tests. AFAICR there is no mention in the Harman research of the listening level used, but we can be certain that it was consistent across all the tests and still most people expressed a clear preference for a smooth and gently rising curve from high to low end (about +6dB). Toole attributes this to thousands of years of human beings living in closed environments (caves to homes) and thus we have evolved to prefer the type of sound we have become evolutionarily accustomed to. Whatever the listening level, we will prefer a smooth rise towards the bass. DEQ is there simply to compensate for the fact that our hearing is less sensitive to low frequencies, not to replace thousands of years of evolutionary preference.

Also you will recall the tests of various room EQ systems which Sean Olive performed, where Audyssey's 'flat curve' was the least liked by those listening.

There isn't really any doubt about user preferences in this area. While DEQ is a reasonably good way to try to restore the perceived bass we 'lose' at lower listening SPLs, it doesn't alter the reason why Audyssey's targeting of a 'flat curve' was flawed.

The attachments show Olive's findings and his conclusions are are self-explanatory.

Note the graph showing perceived vs measured and how the gently rising response is seen as 'flat' and how the flat (Audyssey) response is seen as 'bass light'.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^

For the sake of completeness, the full Sean Olive presentation is linked, which includes details of how the tests were conducted as well as the slides in the post above.

Well worth a look IMO.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/z3pa8vln8...aluation of Room Correction Products.zip?dl=1

Click the link to download (too large to attach directly).


----------



## primetimeguy

kbarnes701 said:


> All good points Mike, but I take issue with this one. DEQ's objective is to restore perceived bass to its proper level as the volume (SPL) decreases. This doesn't really have a bearing on the preferences discovered during the Harman tests. AFAICR *there is no mention in the Harman research of the listening level used, but we can be certain that it was consistent *across all the tests and still most people expressed a clear preference for a smooth and gently rising curve from high to low end (about +6dB). Toole attributes this to thousands of years of human beings living in closed environments (caves to homes) and thus we have evolved to prefer the type of sound we have become evolutionarily accustomed to. Whatever the listening level, we will prefer a smooth rise towards the bass. DEQ is there simply to compensate for the fact that our hearing is less sensitive to low frequencies, not to replace thousands of years of evolutionary preference.
> 
> Also you will recall the tests of various room EQ systems which Sean Olive performed, where Audyssey's 'flat curve' was the least liked by those listening.
> 
> There isn't really any doubt about user preferences in this area. While DEQ is a reasonably good way to try to restore the perceived bass we 'lose' at lower listening SPLs, it doesn't alter the reason why Audyssey's targeting of a 'flat curve' was flawed.
> 
> The attachments show Olive's findings and his conclusions are are self-explanatory.
> 
> Note the graph showing perceived vs measured and how the gently rising response is seen as 'flat' and how the flat (Audyssey) response is seen as 'bass light'.


See the bolded part. That is one area they do not address. I thought I recall seeing the tests were done at a "typical listening" level. What would their curves look like if that had listened at movie reference? Who knows, maybe they have done those tests but we just don't have access to the data.

My gut says yes, at typical listening levels, people prefer a boost in the bass. But as the listening level goes up then less is needed. I've never understood how some of the target curves (JBL Synthesis for one) show a +6db or more boost in the low freq. Sure it sounds good with some low level music, but crank it up and play a movie near reference and it is way too much in my mind.


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> See the bolded part. That is one area they do not address. I thought I recall seeing the tests were done at a "typical listening" level. What would their curves look like if that had listened at movie reference? Who knows, maybe they have done those tests but we just don't have access to the data.
> 
> My gut says yes, at typical listening levels, people prefer a boost in the bass. But as the listening level goes up then less is needed. I've never understood how some of the target curves (JBL Synthesis for one) show a +6db or more boost in the low freq. Sure it sounds good with some low level music, but crank it up and play a movie near reference and it is way too much in my mind.


Please also note this test used the old stand-alone Audyssey "box" which at that time didn't have DEQ on board, so for a fair comparison it would have been better to use 0 dB MV. Just my 2 c.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Please also note this test used the old stand-alone Audyssey "box" which at that time didn't have DEQ on board, so for a fair comparison it would have been better to use 0 dB MV. Just my 2 c.


I agree with you! This was discussed quite a bit on the thread at the time the tests were published. DEQ has always had its supporters and its detractors. But, if someone is comparing Reference curves, the Audyssey default Reference curve has DEQ engaged. A comparison test of house Reference curves should either be performed at Reference (which would be much too loud for the majority of the test audience), or it should be performed at typical listening levels (probably about -15 MV) with DEQ engaged.

My last post on the subject, though, points out what I believe is the real problem with any automated house curve. Different people will inevitably prefer a different rising bass curve, and they may very well prefer a different house curve as they move from one kind of listening material to another--such as from movies to music, or even for different types or tracks of music.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I agree with you! This was discussed quite a bit on the thread at the time the tests were published. DEQ has always had its supporters and its detractors. But, if someone is comparing Reference curves, the Audyssey default Reference curve has DEQ engaged. A comparison test of house Reference curves should either be performed at Reference (which would be much too loud for the majority of the test audience), or it should be performed at typical listening levels (probably about -15 MV) with DEQ engaged.
> 
> My previous post on the subject, though, points out what I believe is the real problem with any automated house curve. Different people will inevitably prefer a different rising bass curve, and they may very well prefer a different house curve as they move from one kind of listening material to another--such as from movies to music, or even for different types or tracks of music.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


How about a real-life live concert Mike? Each and every person in the audience will have different hearing, different seat, different age, etc., but no house-curve!! So, what can the conductor do to satisfy all?


----------



## kbarnes701

primetimeguy said:


> See the bolded part. That is one area they do not address. I thought I recall seeing the tests were done at a "typical listening" level. What would their curves look like if that had listened at movie reference? Who knows, maybe they have done those tests but we just don't have access to the data.
> 
> My gut says yes, at typical listening levels, people prefer a boost in the bass. But as the listening level goes up then less is needed. I've never understood how some of the target curves (JBL Synthesis for one) show a +6db or more boost in the low freq. Sure it sounds good with some low level music, but crank it up and play a movie near reference and it is way too much in my mind.


As the listening level goes up to 0dB (Reference) then the bass becomes 'correct'. Listen below that and you will need to boost it. But I listen at -5dB and also favor the smooth upward slope, as do most even at Reference. All that DEQ does is try to give an upward slope as the MV drops.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> I agree with you! This was discussed quite a bit on the thread at the time the tests were published. DEQ has always had its supporters and its detractors. But, if someone is comparing Reference curves, the Audyssey default Reference curve has DEQ engaged. A comparison test of house Reference curves should either be performed at Reference (which would be much too loud for the majority of the test audience), or it should be performed at typical listening levels (probably about -15 MV) with DEQ engaged.
> 
> My last post on the subject, though, points out what I believe is the real problem with any automated house curve. Different people will inevitably prefer a different rising bass curve, and they may very well prefer a different house curve as they move from one kind of listening material to another--such as from movies to music, or even for different types or tracks of music.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Indeed. That is why EQ systems which allow shaping of the target curve will always be the best idea.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> I agree with you! This was discussed quite a bit on the thread at the time the tests were published. DEQ has always had its supporters and its detractors. But, if someone is comparing Reference curves, the Audyssey default Reference curve has DEQ engaged. A comparison test of house Reference curves should either be performed at Reference (which would be much too loud for the majority of the test audience), or it should be performed at typical listening levels (probably about -15 MV) with DEQ engaged.
> 
> My last post on the subject, though, points out what I believe is the real problem with any automated house curve. Different people will inevitably prefer a different rising bass curve, and they may very well prefer a different house curve as they move from one kind of listening material to another--such as from movies to music, or even for different types or tracks of music.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I think there is too much focus here on DEQ. People generally prefer a smooth upward slope. It doesn't matter of they have DEQ on, or room EQ running etc etc. All that things like DEQ and room EQ do is 'distort' the curve in order to try to emulate the ideal - and for most the ideal is a smooth upward slope.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> How about a real-life live concert Mike? Each and every person in the audience will have different hearing, different seat, different age, etc., but no house-curve!! So, what can the conductor do to satisfy all?


That's an excellent question, Feri! And a good point!  But, I think that's where the self-selecting nature of individual preferences comes in. The orchestra plays at the volume it plays, but different people will choose to sit closer to the orchestra or further away. There is also a surprising number of regular concert goers who take special etymotic-type ear plugs with them in case they don't get the seats they want, or in case the music is still too loud irrespective of their seat preferences.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> That's an excellent question, Feri! And a good point!  But, I think that's where the self-selecting nature of individual preferences comes in. The orchestra plays at the volume it plays, but different people will choose to sit closer to the orchestra or further away. There is also a surprising number of regular concert goers who take special etymotic-type ear plugs with them in case they don't get the seats they want, or in case the music is still too loud irrespective of their seat preferences.


Fully agree with you Mike! Life itself is PREFERENCE!! To each his own, right? That's where "ideal for most" looses its entire meaning!


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> I think there is too much focus here on DEQ. People generally prefer a smooth upward slope. It doesn't matter of they have DEQ on, or room EQ running etc etc. All that things like DEQ and room EQ do is 'distort' the curve in order to try to emulate the ideal - and for most the ideal is a smooth upward slope.


Hi Keith,

To repeat something you said earlier, I think that we agree on much more than we disagree. I believe that we are focusing on DEQ in this discussion, because we are talking about Audyssey, and DEQ is Audyssey's attempt at having a house curve. We may like what it does, or not, but we can't talk about an Audyssey Reference curve without also discussing DEQ.

I try to limit my personal opinions on most of my posts because I don't believe that my individual preferences have any particular relevance for anyone else. But, personally I prefer using Flat, without DEQ, and then implementing my own bass curve, which varies quite a bit depending on the specific content I listen to. But, there are way too many people who really do enjoy DEQ for me to just casually dismiss it.

I honestly don't know that there is an ideal curve which will please everyone, or even almost everyone. All the Sean Olive tests demonstrated was that most people preferred some slopes more than other slopes, or than no slope at all. (And, the Audyssey test didn't include DEQ, which would have contributed a rising bass slope at below Reference volumes.) Put those same people in their own rooms, with their own audio systems, and listening to their own varieties of listening material at their preferred listening levels, and the bass preferences would probably still be quite diverse. I really have no problem with that concept.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> *they may very well prefer a different house curve as they move from one kind of listening material to another*--such as from movies to music, or *even for different types or tracks of music.*
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


... or even different *movies*. When I am about to run a movie for the second time, I sometimes alter the bass to suit the movie before running it for guests. This is much more often true with older movies, than with the ones released in the 21st centuary. IIRC, the range of sub variation is about 7 dB, and about 9 dB for mid-bass [~~80 to 200 Hz] using the bass tone control, and in a few cases a special bass EQ box built for me by a friend who is an audio engineer. 

As to the Harman curve, descriptions vary. In the graph below, the idealized curve sinks by 10 dB from lowest bass [30 Hz -- it's rolled off below, possibly because this is a LCR curve] to highest treble [16K Hz]. The curve they achieved after using EQ is more like 15 dB. At least, I think that is the case -- they don't specify the units up the side, which I am assuming are dB. APA would have a cow. If we are talking dB, there is probably too much attenuation at the treble end for my taste.


Harman Curve


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> How about a real-life live concert Mike? Each and every person in the audience will have different hearing, different seat, different age, etc., but no house-curve!! *So, what can the conductor do to satisfy all?*





mthomas47 said:


> That's an excellent question, Feri! And a good point!  But, I think that's where the self-selecting nature of  individual preferences comes in. The orchestra plays at the volume it plays, but *different people will choose to sit closer to the orchestra or further away*. There is also a surprising number of regular concert goers who take special etymotic-type ear plugs with them in case they don't get the seats they want, or in case the music is still too loud irrespective of their seat preferences.



In my experience, most conductors do not try to satisfy all.  True artists that they are, they often try to satisfy themselves, only.  That's why different conductors' versions of the same selection vary so wildly.  Exceptions may be those who are trying for historically accurate performances, like those who use a smallish orchestra and chorus when presenting Handel's Messiah.   While I would never do that, I realize that small doesn't prevent loud, and the original was stirring enough to cause the King [and therefore everyone else] to stand during the Hallelujah Chorus.  

As was said earlier, humankind's long experience indoors may have conditioned us to want a curve with accentuated bass (although this is a bit Lamarckian -- our personal experience may be plenty).  We (I) like _*powerful*_ music when appropriate, and in a state of nature, _*powerful*_ forces -- thunder, waterfall, earthquake, and the occasional volcano speak basically in the bass.

I prefer the close seats, where occasional very loud passages hover around 100 dB, and there are peaks (milliseconds long) as high as 115 dB, fast, "C."  Keith, I too, have taken an SPL meter to both movies and concerts on (rare) occasion.  I find it interesting that the film industry's Reference SPL for peaks is so close to multiple measures of live orchestras from the close seats, for peaks (if you count the bass).

I couldn't afford the close seats for the showing of  Abel Gance's Napoleon with Carmine Coppola conducting a large live orchestra.  Nevertheless, the end of the film was as visually and auditorially moving as anything I have seen.  At the end, as the screen expanded to a Cinerama size triptych and the orchestra was joined by extra brass, percussion and the magnificent theater organ, it was overwhelming.  I still wonder what the experience would have been like in the first few rows.


----------



## VideoGrabber

mthomas47 said:


> I believe that we are focusing on DEQ in this discussion, because we are talking about Audyssey, and *DEQ is Audyssey's attempt at having a house curve*. We may like what it does, or not, but we can't talk about an Audyssey Reference curve without also discussing DEQ.


I'm pretty sure we can.    Once again, that wasn't my understanding.  Audyssey's Dynamic EQ was designed to simply codify the Fletcher-Munson curves (or more generally, equal-loudness contours), and compensate for reduced auditory sensitivity at the frequency extremes, *as the overall level decreases*.  It even allows you to set the threshold where that compensation begins to kick in.  That's it (though even that can be a significant benefit).  I've never read Chris comment anywhere that DEQ had any connection to a house-curve.  (Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't!    But I have read a significant quantity of comments from him.)

OTOH, Audyssey Reference does specifically attempt to implement what they consider to be a "house curve", or target response.  I.e., flat overall, but rolling off on the high end.  Chris HAS commented about this, more than once.  E.g.,

_"Contrary to popular belief, a target curve that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is not always the one that will produce the correct sound. There are several reasons for this including the fact that loudspeakers are much more directional at high frequencies than they are at low frequencies. This means that the balance of direct and room sound is very different at the high and low ends of the frequency spectrum.

The Audyssey Reference target curve setting (also called Movie in some products) makes the appropriate correction at high frequencies to alleviate this problem. A slight roll-off is introduced that restores the balance between direct and reflected sound.

The Audyssey Flat setting (also called Music in some products) uses the MultEQ filters in the same way as the Audyssey curve, but it does not apply a high frequency roll-off. This setting is appropriate for very small or highly treated rooms in which the listener is seated quite close to the loudspeakers. It is also recommended for all rooms when the receiver is in THX processing mode. This allows THX re-equalization to operate exactly as it was intended."_  (from Audyssey's Zendesk, 2009)

You are certainly correct that multiple researchers have commented on the validity of a "house-curve" that deviates more significantly than the modest Reference curve that Audyssey offers, Toole amongst them.  The idea being that there's a mid-frequency pivot-point, and frequencies above it should taper off slowly, and those below it increase slowly.  However, that has nothing to do with DEQ, which has a completely different purpose.  And the fact that Audyssey has never built in any of the low-end boost at Reference level (or even adequate boost WITH DEQ enabled, at more nominal levels) that many feel necessary is the reason why boosting bass, post-correction, is so widely performed (and has a whole section devoted to it, in the Guide).


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> To repeat something you said earlier, I think that we agree on much more than we disagree.


Always! 



mthomas47 said:


> I believe that we are focusing on DEQ in this discussion, because we are talking about Audyssey, and DEQ is Audyssey's attempt at having a house curve. We may like what it does, or not, but we can't talk about an Audyssey Reference curve without also discussing DEQ.


But DEQ *isn't* Audyssey's attempt at a house curve. DEQ is Audyssey's attempt at creating the same level of perceived bass as the volume reduces. The curve preferred by most people in the most comprehensive tests ever undertaken, by the most talented and able practitioners, was always one that sloped smoothly upwards towards the lower end.  This is true regardless of the SPL at the time. In every test, the 'Harman curve' as it came to be known, was preferred by the majority of testees. It has nothing to do with Fletcher-Munson which is just an observation that people hear bass less well as the SPL reduces, and DEQ is Audyssey's attempt at fixing this - DEQ doesn;t even do _anything at all_ when Reference level is reached, but people still prefer the upward slope at Reference (or at any other volume level).  This is where the confusion is arising I believe - the conflation of the 'ideal' Harman Curve type of curve and DEQ. 



mthomas47 said:


> I try to limit my personal opinions on most of my posts because I don't believe that my individual preferences have any particular relevance for anyone else. But, personally I prefer using Flat, without DEQ, and then implementing my own bass curve, which varies quite a bit depending on the specific content I listen to. But, there are way too many people who really do enjoy DEQ for me to just casually dismiss it.


Nobody is dismissing DEQ. It just isn't relevant to the discussion we're having. 



mthomas47 said:


> I honestly don't know that there is an ideal curve which will please everyone, or even almost everyone.


There isn't. Because everyone could have a slightly different preference. But what we know for certain is that in these comprehensive tests* the majority of testees always preferred a curve which rises smoothly upwards from top to bottom of the frequency response range.
*



mthomas47 said:


> All the Sean Olive tests demonstrated was that most people preferred some slopes more than other slopes, or than no slope at all.


Not really. The tests demonstrated that most people preferred an upward slope from top end to bottom end. If you review the graphs I posted earlier, you will see that the curve preferred by most people clearly shows this upward slope. As the curve is flattened, people like it less and less and by the time it ends up more or less totally flat, almost nobody prefers it. The graph showing subjective vs measured shows this very clearly. *People perceive the Harman Curve as being flat!
*



mthomas47 said:


> (And, the Audyssey test didn't include DEQ, which would have contributed a rising bass slope at below Reference volumes.)


DEQ doesn't matter. Any way of boosting the lower end would achieve the same result: the more you boost it (up to about +6dB or so) the more it is preferred. I'm not discussing the efficacy of Audyssey or DEQ here - I'm just discussing the curve that most people want.  DEQ isn't designed to simulate the Harman curve - it is designed to compensate for human hearing deficiencies at the low end as SPL diminishes.  It does not, and is not intended to, create a smooth upward curve from 20kHz to 20Hz. Look where the DEQ boost starts (there are graphs in the Tech Addendum to the FAQ). And, as I said before, by the time the MV hits 0dB, DEQ does nothing at all. 




mthomas47 said:


> Put those same people in their own rooms, with their own audio systems, and listening to their own varieties of listening material at their preferred listening levels, and the bass preferences would probably still be quite diverse. I really have no problem with that concept.


Of course. Everyone has different preferences. But the preference displayed by *most* people is for the Harman Curve. Toole and Olive are entirely clear about this.


----------



## kbarnes701

VideoGrabber said:


> I'm pretty sure we can.    Once again, that wasn't my understanding.  Audyssey's Dynamic EQ was designed to simply codify the Fletcher-Munson curves (or more generally, equal-loudness contours), and compensate for reduced auditory sensitivity at the frequency extremes, *as the overall level decreases*.  It even allows you to set the threshold where that compensation begins to kick in.  That's it (though even that can be a significant benefit).  I've never read Chris comment anywhere that DEQ had any connection to a house-curve.  (Of course, that doesn't mean he didn't!    But I have read a significant quantity of comments from him.)
> 
> OTOH, Audyssey Reference does specifically attempt to implement what they consider to be a "house curve", or target response.  I.e., flat overall, but rolling off on the high end.  Chris HAS commented about this, more than once.  E.g.,
> 
> _"Contrary to popular belief, a target curve that is flat from 20 Hz to 20 kHz is not always the one that will produce the correct sound. There are several reasons for this including the fact that loudspeakers are much more directional at high frequencies than they are at low frequencies. This means that the balance of direct and room sound is very different at the high and low ends of the frequency spectrum.
> 
> The Audyssey Reference target curve setting (also called Movie in some products) makes the appropriate correction at high frequencies to alleviate this problem. A slight roll-off is introduced that restores the balance between direct and reflected sound.
> 
> The Audyssey Flat setting (also called Music in some products) uses the MultEQ filters in the same way as the Audyssey curve, but it does not apply a high frequency roll-off. This setting is appropriate for very small or highly treated rooms in which the listener is seated quite close to the loudspeakers. It is also recommended for all rooms when the receiver is in THX processing mode. This allows THX re-equalization to operate exactly as it was intended."_  (from Audyssey's Zendesk, 2009)
> 
> You are certainly correct that multiple researchers have commented on the validity of a "house-curve" that deviates more significantly than the modest Reference curve that Audyssey offers, Toole amongst them.  The idea being that there's a mid-frequency pivot-point, and frequencies above it should taper off slowly, and those below it increase slowly.  However, that has nothing to do with DEQ, which has a completely different purpose.  And the fact that Audyssey has never built in any of the low-end boost at Reference level (or even adequate boost WITH DEQ enabled, at more nominal levels) that many feel necessary is the reason why boosting bass, post-correction, is so widely performed (and has a whole section devoted to it, in the Guide).


I replied before I read your post but you make the same points I was trying to make, but more eloquently. You are correct in all of my understanding of what DEQ is supposed to be for, and it is adamantly NOT to create a house curve along the lines of the Harman curve. Also you raise a good point that where Audyssey HAS attempted a house curve, it is aimed at being flat (with a bit of a drop-off at the HF), which is contrary to what most people want.

All of this is manifested very simply in the question that was most frequently asked in the old Audyssey thread. After running Audyssey, people asked *"Where has my bass gone?" * Well we know where it went - it went when Audyssey made their curve 'flat'. And even with DEQ, people still asked the same question and they *still* boosted their bass by a few (or several in some cases) dB.


----------



## kbarnes701

^^^

A good survey would be to ask this question:

_How many people using Audyssey and also using DEQ, also boost their bass by a few dB after Audyssey has finished its calibration of the system?
_
I bet that the result would show that a) most people boost their bass after running Audyssey and b) most people run DEQ all the time (for movies).

This pretty much shows that DEQ is not doing the job of replicating the generally preferred Harman Curve. This is not surprising, as it was never intended to.


----------



## anothermib

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> A good survey would be to ask this question:
> 
> 
> 
> _How many people using Audyssey and also using DEQ, also boost their bass by a few dB after Audyssey has finished its calibration of the system?
> 
> _
> 
> I bet that the result would show that a) most people boost their bass after running Audyssey and b) most people run DEQ all the time (for movies).
> 
> 
> 
> This pretty much shows that DEQ is not doing the job of replicating the generally preferred Harman Curve. This is not surprising, as it was never intended to.




My impression is that most people are adding at least a few dB to the bass independent of DEQ. I know I always have. The reason may just be that there is still some additional bass desired even at higher volumes. 

The reverse question may be interesting as well, though there is probably much less data. How many people feel the need for an additional loudness functionality after having dialed in a proper house curve? I have always been using DEQ for music as I am listening at a wide range of volumes, but I basically stopped using DEQ since I can adjust the target curve using the app.

Talking about concerts - it would be interesting to compare a typical mix to something like the Harman curve. My impression is that even at open air concerts usually the bass instruments deliberately are mixed louder, to make it sound as if there was a substantial room gain. So at least the mixer thinks that this is how it is supposed to sound.


----------



## kbarnes701

anothermib said:


> My impression is that most people are adding at least a few dB to the bass independent of DEQ. I know I always have. The reason may just be that there is still some additional bass desired even at higher volumes.


That is my impression too. And I always did when I used to use Audyssey.



anothermib said:


> The reverse question may be interesting as well, though there is probably much less data. How many people feel the need for an additional loudness functionality after having dialed in a proper house curve? I have always been using DEQ for music as I am listening at a wide range of volumes, but I basically stopped using DEQ since I can adjust the target curve using the app.


Interesting. Since I switched to Dirac and created my own house curve (along the lines of the Harman Curve as it happens) I have never felt the need for any loudness compensation. Of course I always listen at a set MV of -5dB so my experience isn't typical. But a lot of the old Audyssey diehards switched to Dirac at more or less the same time, and in the Dirac thread, not one of them reported any need to have loudness compensation - even those listening primarily to music and using a range of MV settings.



anothermib said:


> Talking about concerts - it would be interesting to compare a typical mix to something like the Harman curve. My impression is that even at open air concerts usually the bass instruments deliberately are mixed louder, to make it sound as if there was a substantial room gain. So at least the mixer thinks that this is how it is supposed to sound.


I don't know about that one. But it makes sense - on the Sean Olive tests, the graph showing subjective vs measured shows that that (your assumption above) is what people want - a subjective impression of 'flat' which in reality is a rising curve towards the bass end.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

The above posts are absolutely correct with respect to an Audyssey house curve. My original discussion was all about Reference and what DEQ is designed to do with respect to that. DEQ was, in fact, specifically designed to correspond somewhat to the Equal Loudness Contours, as listening levels drop below Reference, and my last statement that DEQ was Audyssey's attempt at a house curve was a mental glitch.  

Mea culpa!

We know that most people reporting on their experiences with Audyssey and DEQ have said that they add an average of about 3db to 6db on top of what DEQ is adding. And, as I point out in the subwoofer guide, that represents an indication that DEQ may not be entirely successful even in its attempt to compensate for reductions in listening levels. 

The reason that I think I confused the term "house curve" in the context of DEQ, is related to the discussion of the Sean Olive tests. People listening to Audyssey, in comparison to other systems of automated EQ, would have been hearing bass levels at the same SPL as all of the other frequencies. And, the bass would have sounded very unsatisfying at a typical listening level of about -15 MV.

Had those same tests been conducted with DEQ engaged, Audyssey would have seemed to be creating something of a house curve at that below Reference listening level, by virtue of its bass boost. But, as noted by all of us, all DEQ would really have been doing was attempting to restore acoustic equilibrium (to higher frequencies, as well) at below Reference volumes. And, based on the "typical" experience with DEQ, that still might not have been enough bass for most people in the listening tests.

I continue to believe that it is difficult to find a one-size-fits-all house curve that is suitable for a wide range of listening levels, individual preferences, and different kinds of listening material. But, I certainly don't disagree that having a selection of available house curves, as Room Perfect used to do, would be desirable. In my opinion, even Audyssey's only semi-successful attempt to restore acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movies, at below Reference listening levels, is strong evidence of the difficulty involved in the development of a pre-programmed house curve that will satisfy the conditions noted in the first sentence. Circling back to a point made in an earlier post, the real solution, in my opinion, lies in more user control of the frequency response.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

kbarnes701 said:


> ^^^
> 
> A good survey would be to ask this question:
> 
> _How many people using Audyssey and also using DEQ, also boost their bass by a few dB after Audyssey has finished its calibration of the system?
> _
> I bet that the result would show that a) most people boost their bass after running Audyssey and b) most people run DEQ all the time (for movies).
> 
> This pretty much shows that DEQ is not doing the job of replicating the generally preferred Harman Curve. This is not surprising, as it was never intended to.


I disagree. I think more people on this thread use RLO to reduce the bass or complain about too much bass with DynEQ. But until someone has the data we can just agree to disagree. 

The issue we have is we cannot directly compare the Harman curve to DynEQ because we don't know the levels at which the Harman curve was preferred. If I compare DynEQ at a volume of -15 or -10db from reference to the Harman curve we are now getting in the ballpark of the curves being similar. Audyssey just believes this curve is not needed at reference level. For Harman we don't know. We only know their slope was preferred at the level they tested at. Maybe it applies generally for all volumes but I sure would be curious as to the preferred curve 10db louder and 10db quieter than what the previous study used (which we have no idea what that level was).

I also think each person listens at a particular level most of the time. For this reason a fixed curve generally works.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> The above posts are absolutely correct with respect to an Audyssey house curve. My original discussion was all about Reference and what DEQ is designed to do with respect to that. DEQ was, in fact, specifically designed to correspond somewhat to the Equal Loudness Contours, as listening levels drop below Reference, and my last statement that DEQ was Audyssey's attempt at a house curve was a mental glitch.
> 
> Mea culpa!


I knew we were at cross-purposes somewhere! 



mthomas47 said:


> We know that most people reporting on their experiences with Audyssey and DEQ have said that they add an average of about 3db to 6db on top of what DEQ is adding. And, as I point out in the subwoofer guide, that represents an indication that DEQ may not be entirely successful even in its attempt to compensate for reductions in listening levels.
> 
> The reason that I think I confused the term "house curve" in the context of DEQ, is related to the discussion of the Sean Olive tests. People listening to Audyssey, in comparison to other systems of automated EQ, would have been hearing bass levels at the same SPL as all of the other frequencies. And, the bass would have sounded very unsatisfying at a typical listening level of about -15 MV.


Yes, but this adds to the mystery of why Audyssey ignored the evidence and pushed ahead with a 'flat curve' anyway. If the evidence shows people's preference is for a rising curve, then why not bake that into the EQ?



mthomas47 said:


> Had those same tests been conducted with DEQ engaged, Audyssey would have seemed to be creating something of a house curve at that below Reference listening level, by virtue of its bass boost. But, as noted by all of us, all DEQ would really have been doing was attempting to restore acoustic equilibrium (to higher frequencies, as well) at below Reference volumes. And, based on the "typical" experience with DEQ, that still might not have been enough bass for most people in the listening tests.


That is certainly how it appears, and why most people still add a few dB even when using DEQ.



mthomas47 said:


> Circling back to a point made in an earlier post, the real solution, in my opinion, lies in more user control of the frequency response.


I agree and it is one reason I made the switch to Dirac. But this brings with it a need to understand and control and so on. Most people (ie those not on AVS) probably want an automated system that they can run once and then forget. Audyssey would be ideal for this *IF *they had a baked-in curve that most people want. But giving them a basically 'flat' curve leaves them dissatisfied and they come here to ask 'where's my bass gone since I ran Audyssey?' I just find it a difficult thing to understand. Even though Dirac has bags of flexibility and a very simple-to-use curve editor, their baked-in, automated curve resembles the Harman Curve. I guess they did it this way because they know that will satisfy the majority of people who want an automated EQ system, but one they can adjust easily if they feel a need or if they have some sort of special situation.

By way of example, here is a Dirac plot showing the Target Curve (orange) - the upslope is about 5dB or so. The blue trace is my old M&K S150 speakers L&R 'natural/ucnorrected' response, which interestingly also follow roughly along too (room is treated).


----------



## kbarnes701

primetimeguy said:


> I disagree. I think more people on this thread use RLO to reduce the bass or complain about too much bass with DynEQ. But until someone has the data we can just agree to disagree.


Back in the day when I was writing the FAQ, one of the most-asked questions was 'where's my bass gone?'. These people weren't complaining about Audyssey adding _too much_ bass, but not giving them _enough _bass. But sure, when they use DEQ, then a whole load of other issues come into play, especially if they want to use DEQ with music sources, which is the only time you'd need to use RLO. But we were discussing movies and Reference Level and target curves really, not music.



primetimeguy said:


> The issue we have is we cannot directly compare the Harman curve to DynEQ because we don't know the levels at which the Harman curve was preferred. If I compare DynEQ at a volume of -15 or -10db from reference to the Harman curve we are now getting in the ballpark of the curves being similar. Audyssey just believes this curve is not needed at reference level. For Harman we don't know. We only know their slope was preferred at the level they tested at. Maybe it applies generally for all volumes but I sure would be curious as to the preferred curve 10db louder and 10db quieter than what the previous study used (which we have no idea what that level was).


The only person comparing the Harman Curve with DEQ was Mike, who has accepted that he had a crossed wire somewhere along the way. DEQ has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Harman Curve or why that curve is generally preferred by most listeners.



primetimeguy said:


> I also think each person listens at a particular level most of the time. For this reason a fixed curve generally works.


This is certainly true for me who listens to 99% of my movies at -5dB ('Home Reference'). It won't usually be true for music listeners, where the levels are all over the place due top lack of standardisation. For those who want the perceived bass to sound right at lower SPLs, that is where DEQ comes into play. But DEQ is a red herring in this discussion - regardless of DEQ, a smooth upward slope is preferred by most people: Olive's extensive research demonstrates it without ambiguity. 

Once one has established that one wants a smooth upward slope, all that DEQ does is attempt to deliver this perceptually, at lower SPLs.


----------



## primetimeguy

kbarnes701 said:


> a smooth upward slope is preferred by most people: Olive's extensive research demonstrates it without ambiguity.


Can you point me to at what listening levels these studies were done? Were they done at movie reference level or at a "casual" listening level? 

The Harman study is not conclusive in that a sloped curve is preferred at all listening levels. They never tested for that, unless I missed that data somewhere.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> I knew we were at cross-purposes somewhere!
> 
> Yes, but this adds to the mystery of why Audyssey ignored the evidence and pushed ahead with a 'flat curve' anyway. If the evidence shows people's preference is for a rising curve, then why not bake that into the EQ?
> 
> I agree and it is one reason I made the switch to Dirac. But this brings with it a need to understand and control and so on. Most people (ie those not on AVS) probably want an automated system that they can run once and then forget. Audyssey would be ideal for this *IF *they had a baked-in curve that most people want. But giving them a basically 'flat' curve leaves them dissatisfied and they come here to ask 'where's my bass gone since I ran Audyssey?' I just find it a difficult thing to understand. Even though Dirac has bags of flexibility and a very simple-to-use curve editor, their baked-in, automated curve resembles the Harman Curve. I guess they did it this way because they know that will satisfy the majority of people who want an automated EQ system, but one they can adjust easily if they feel a need or if they have some sort of special situation.
> 
> By way of example, here is a Dirac plot showing the Target Curve (orange) - the upslope is about 5dB or so. The blue trace is my old M&K S150 speakers L&R 'natural/ucnorrected' response, which interestingly also follow roughly along too (room is treated).


I honestly don't think it's a mystery why Audyssey implements a flat curve. I think that all systems of automated room EQ have to start with a flat curve. The first responsibility of the room EQ is simply to remove peaks and dips in the frequency response (although the adjusted frequency range may vary), so that the overall FR will be relatively flat. It's what happens after that flat curve is developed that varies depending on the automated system. 

Audyssey was first developed and commercially implemented what, about 15 years ago? That pre-dated the Sean Olive tests by a number of years. I think that the designers of Audyssey, who as you will recall, conducted their own listening tests, made several decisions. One decision was to offer a flat curve, which I believe is the original one, created whenever a calibration is run. A second decision was to implement a Reference curve, by default. That Reference curve included a gently sloping top-end and mid-range compensation.

A third decision was to include a program of bass and treble boost to compensate for the way that we hear bass and treble frequencies at below Reference listening levels. And that program (DEQ) was applied in conjunction with the Reference curve, by default. I think that DEQ was actually a very clever idea, but as with everything, the Devil's in the details. I once did an extensive analysis of DEQ on the thread in which I enumerated the ways in which I believe that the designers made some incorrect assumptions, and the ways in which I believe they got some details wrong even for the good assumptions.

Audyssey and DEQ were the early forerunners for the other forms of automated room correction which came later, such as Room Perfect, Dirac Live, and Trinnov. And, Audyssey, particularly in its most advanced form (XT-32) is still superior to some forms of automated room EQ which have been developed more recently. With the release of the smartphone app, Audyssey has finally reached another watershed in allowing some more meaningful user control. 

It's entirely possible that you are right that Audyssey could satisfy more people with a baked-in rising bass curve that exists even at Reference levels. But, I'm not sure. The average of about +3db to +6db that most people seem to add to DEQ is a pretty big range. And, there are outliers in both directions, even so. Dirac, in the graph you posted is adding very little to your bass (perhaps 2 to 3db). If you were listening at -10, or -15, or -20, would that same amount of baked-in house curve still satisfy you? Perhaps you are just lucky enough to have exactly the right amount of additional bass to suit your hearing, and your preference for bass, at your typical listening level of -5. 

Similarly, both Chris K and Feri have said that having DEQ enabled nails their preferred bass for movies, at their individual listening levels, although interestingly, they both add more bass for music. This seems to me to be one of those classic YMMV situations, where many people will still add and subtract bass depending on the specific program content, and on their mood of the moment. That last factor is important for some of us. I know that my listening moods vary, and that I don't always want exactly the same amount of bass, irrespective of differences in program material.

To me, this is an inherently unsolvable problem. We know that we hear bass frequencies less well as the overall volume declines. And, we know that most people like a smoothly rising bass response. But, the details of how we achieve a house curve that will satisfy us for completely different types of listening material, played at a wide range of listening levels, among individuals with different hearing and different bass preferences, in differently treated rooms, are an audio equivalent of a Rubik's Cube, in my opinion.

It's a little like trying to develop a universal formula for how much tartar sauce to put on steaks. What's that you say, you don't particularly like tartar sauce to start with? Who knew? Dirac's baked-in curve looks very conservative to me, in much the way that DEQ seems to most of us to be somewhat conservative in restoring bass at below Reference levels. If I were designing a baked-in bass curve, I would prefer to err conservatively. And, as a chef, I would do the same thing with sauces. (Don't try to tell a New Orleans chef that.)

But, as you say Dirac's real strength is in the easy user control. I think that Dirac is very cool, and I may try it at some point in the future. But, meanwhile, I have learned how to make Audyssey do what I want it to. Most people who are willing to invest a little time probably get to a similarly comfortable place. And personally, I find myself changing my bass levels anyway, depending on my listening material and on my mood at the moment. YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I decided to add some things with respect to the three curves that people much preferred in the Sean Olive listening tests. I remember being very interested in those results when they came out, and thinking that even with the overall strong preference for a rising bass curve, the preferences for one of the three "winning" curves still demonstrated a fair bit of diversity of individual listener variance. And, that makes sense. Even the Equal Loudness Contours are just based on averages of human hearing.

But, let's take the idea of our normal hearing range being strongest from about 400Hz to 4000Hz, and falling off more rapidly below 200Hz. That, not coincidentally, corresponds somewhat to the human vocal range. It makes sense that our hearing would be evolutionarily-adapted to correspond somewhat to the vocal range of our species. If we forget for a moment, the phenomenon of declining volume, and just concentrate on the basic concept of the Equal Loudness Contours, it also makes sense that we might prefer to have louder low bass frequencies, particularly below about 70Hz (which is where our hearing really starts to drop off) irrespective of the listening level.

So, it follows, that most of us (perhaps excluding those among us who are unusually sensitive to low frequencies) would prefer a rising bass curve at virtually any volume level. Exactly how much additional bass we might prefer would still probably have an individualized component, as it did in Olive's tests, but we would nearly all prefer to have some.

The problem, though, is that the creators of DEQ did get it right, with the theory of declining volume requiring larger bass additions. So, simply adding a 3db boost, let's say, at a master volume of -5, would not sound at all the same as adding that same 3db boost at a master volume of -15, or at -25. That's a point I have been making in a number of posts. Our ability to discern bass frequencies really does decline more rapidly as the volume drops, although there is undoubtedly some individual variance in that ability.

This is not to suggest that all systems of automated EQ should implement both a house curve, which includes a bass boost, and a system of compensating for what happens when volume levels are reduced below some point such as Reference. So, I am not suggesting that DEQ, or the equivalent, should be more universal. As noted earlier, DEQ has some issues of its own.

I am simply making the point, that necessarily, any bass curve which relies on a single application of bass boost (such as 3db) will be limited in its effectiveness at varying volume levels. The nature of the Equal Loudness Contours makes that conclusion inescapable. So ultimately, we are back again to the need to add variable and individualized bass boosts, depending on specific program material, individualized hearing capabilities and bass preferences, and specific listening levels. In my opinion, standardized house curves can never be enough in and of themselves.


----------



## emerson1

I have a Yamaha RX-V673 with YPAO. My setup is pretty basic and low budget. Klipsch Icon speakers all around, and BIC PL-200 sub.

Would it be worth upgrading to a Denon X1300 just for Audyssey?


----------



## SouthernCA

IIRC, In one of the posts, Dr. Toole mentioned that a truly flat frequency curve taken in anechoic chamber often results in a curve similar to Harman Curve when recorded in a room. 

Just some food for thought. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## kbarnes701

primetimeguy said:


> Can you point me to at what listening levels these studies were done? Were they done at movie reference level or at a "casual" listening level?
> 
> The Harman study is not conclusive in that a sloped curve is preferred at all listening levels. They never tested for that, unless I missed that data somewhere.


It is conclusive that at the SPLs they did test at, the upward slope was preferred by most. This isn't really an area of dispute.


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> I think that all systems of automated room EQ have to start with a flat curve.


Dirac Live is generally acknowledged as the most sophisticated of the 'consumer' EQ systems and that doesn't have a flat curve as its auto-target curve. I posted a graph showing it earlier.


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> IIRC, In one of the posts, Dr. Toole mentioned that a truly flat frequency curve taken in anechoic chamber often results in a curve similar to Harman Curve when recorded in a room.
> 
> Just some food for thought.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


I think it's a good thought! Rooms of about 15,000^3 or less amplify low bass frequencies, particularly those under about 30Hz, depending on the size of the room. From what I have read about real anechoic chambers, we wouldn't enjoy being in them very much. One chamber I have read about can induce some pretty serious anxiety in a short period of time, as we are so accustomed to hearing sound in more normal listening environments, including the outdoors where we still hear some reflected sound and ambient noises.

The real problem with bass frequencies heard inside a room is in getting the peaks (minus the cancellations or dips) to occur where we want them to. For instance, a large peak at 60Hz could make frequencies below that even harder to hear than they would be otherwise.


----------



## mthomas47

kbarnes701 said:


> Dirac Live is generally acknowledged as the most sophisticated of the 'consumer' EQ systems and that doesn't have a flat curve as its auto-target curve. I posted a graph showing it earlier.



Hi Keith,

As noted, I think that Dirac is very cool, and I liked your graph. I wasn't referring to a "target" curve, though. I was simply observing that in order to get to any target curve, it would first be necessary to EQ to a flat frequency response. At least, I believe that is correct. It would seem to me infinitely easier to try to get all of the frequencies in alignment first, and then to just selectively boost the specific ones required, in order to create a smoothly rising bass response.

I understood the point you were making that you would like for Audyssey to have implemented a different target curve than the one they did, and I think that is a perfectly valid statement. But, I think they would have still started with Flat, and then perhaps might have chosen better to implement some rising bass in addition to their DEQ program. As I said in my edit, I think that it is pretty reasonable to suppose that most people would like a rising bass response, irrespective of listening volume. So, you made a good point! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Keith,
> 
> As noted, I think that Dirac is very cool, and I liked your graph. I wasn't referring to a "target" curve, though. I was simply observing that in order to get to any target curve, it would first be necessary to EQ to a flat frequency response. At least, I believe that is correct. It would seem to me infinitely easier to try to get all of the frequencies in alignment first, and then to just selectively boost the specific ones required, in order to create a smoothly rising bass response.
> 
> I understood the point you were making that you would like for Audyssey to have implemented a different target curve than the one they did, and I think that is a perfectly valid statement. But, I think they would have still started with Flat, and then perhaps might have chosen better to implement some rising bass in addition to their DEQ program. As I said in my edit, I think that it is pretty reasonable to suppose that most people would like a rising bass response, irrespective of listening volume. So, you made a good point!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yes, this makes sense to me. The problem is, Audyssey started with flat and ended with flat. Dirac may have started with flat in the 'engine room' but then created an auto-target with the preferred upward slope. That is why I said it is a mystery to me earlier - I wasn't referring to the inner machinations to get all the frequencies in alignment, but to the end result. It's still a mystery to me, but then it isn't alone in that regard 

Have we done this to death now? I think we probably have


----------



## mthomas47

I'm deliberately not addressing this post to anyone, so that no one will be obligated to respond to any of it. I do that sometimes. 

I see conversations, such as the one on house curves, as opportunities to explore complex subjects in a way that enhances our own understanding. And, most of my longer posts, by far, are also written for people who may be silently reading along. So, when I write a really lengthy post, it is not so much addressed to the person I may be responding to at the moment, as it may be simply an analytical exercise, which I believe may be valuable for its own sake. For instance, we may not know how well we really understand a subject until we try to explain it to someone else. I certainly find that to be the case.

In the conversation that just occurred, two valuable insights emerged, in my opinion. And, they are both connected to the Equal Loudness Contours. If we accept the validity of the Equal Loudness Contours as an explanation for how human hearing works at different frequencies and different volume levels, then two propositions follow from that. First, most of us will prefer a rising bass response at virtually any volume level. The exact amount may vary, but we simply won't hear bass frequencies as well as those in our more normal hearing range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz.

(Perhaps there are circumstances where our listening level is so loud, that we just want to turn it down, and the bass frequencies are irrelevant to that overall loudness. But, at any more-or-less comfortable, or desirable listening level, we are likely to prefer a rising bass response.)

Studying the Equal Loudness Contours, and accepting their validity, also requires that we accept a second proposition. And, that proposition is that as listening levels decline, our ability to hear low frequencies (and high ones too) declines faster than it does for those in our normal hearing range. So, if we find the perfect bass equilibrium at -5 MV, that equilibrium will no longer be perfect if we reduce the volume to -15 MV, and even less so at -25 MV. 

The real insight that has emerged from the conversation that just took place is the need to accept both of those propositions, or neither, because the Equal Loudness Contours demonstrate both of those concepts quite clearly. In retrospect, we shouldn't have needed Sean Olive's test to determine that people would have preferred a rising bass slope. And, I suspect that the researchers understood that better than I do, before they even started their tests.

Similarly, the creators of Audyssey and DEQ clearly understood the proposition that bass (and treble) sounds fall off faster as listening levels go down, as that is the entire basis of DEQ. What is interesting to me is why they didn't also implement a house curve to begin with, as another asked, unless they did in fact think that DEQ would also have worked to satisfy the need for a house curve at below Reference levels. If so, they appear to have been mistaken where the majority of Audyssey users are involved.

I think it is a little easier to understand why Dirac didn't implement something like DEQ in addition to their gentle house curve. I think that they would surely have understood the concept perfectly well, and the example of DEQ had been in the industry for years. I think that they simply decided that it would be too complicated to design a variable rising bass response that would satisfy everybody at every listening level. And, I think they were correct in that decision. Dirac owners are free to listen at whatever levels they like and to add (or possibly subtract) bass at their pleasure. And, I know that many Dirac owners do. 

In any event, I have found the discussion of the Equal Loudness Contours interesting in the context of both propositions, and I hope that others have too. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

primetimeguy said:


> ... we don't know the levels at which the Harman curve was preferred. ... We only know their slope was preferred at the level they tested at. Maybe it applies generally for all volumes but I sure would be curious as to the preferred curve 10db louder and 10db quieter than what the previous study used (which we have no idea what that level was).
> 
> I also think each person listens at a particular level most of the time. For this reason a fixed curve generally works.


The center (1K Hz) of the version of the Harman curve I put in post 4253 appears to be at about 78 dB. Whether that scale is really in dB is still an open question (to me) because they inadequately labeled it "Transfer Function."

The curves Keith posted produced by the various room correction systems seem to vary at their centers from about 65 dB to almost 90 dB, with the least preferred one at 65 dB -- I realize they may have just separated the curves for clarity, but then they should have deleted the SPL scale at the side (IMO), which _*this time*_ they labeled as SPL in dB. 

Does anyone know 1) if all the tests were done at the same SPL at 1K and 2) what SPL that was?

On the subject of preference, I tend to run Jazz with the bass at Audyssey's version of flat, with the sub at the level to which Audyssey adjusted it. That helps Miles stand out (in a 3D-ish way) against the background, and hides some of the room (or other) anomalies that got recorded onto those marvelous old tapes. Classical or modern orchestral or organ tend to get a fair amount of bass boost, as do movies.


----------



## primetimeguy

garygarrison said:


> The center (1K Hz) of the version of the Harman curve I put in post 4253 appears to be at about 78 dB. Whether that scale is really in dB is still an open question (to me) because they inadequately labeled it "Transfer Function."
> 
> The curves Keith posted produced by the various room correction systems seem to vary at their centers from about 65 dB to almost 90 dB, with the least preferred one at 65 dB -- I realize they may have just separated the curves for clarity, but then they should have deleted the SPL scale at the side (IMO), which _*this time*_ they labeled as SPL in dB.
> 
> Does anyone know 1) if all the tests were done at the same SPL at 1K and 2) what SPL that was?
> 
> On the subject of preference, I tend to run Jazz with the bass at Audyssey's version of flat, with the sub at the level to which Audyssey adjusted it. That helps Miles stand out (in a 3D-ish way) against the background, and hides some of the room (or other) anomalies that got recorded onto those marvelous old tapes. Classical or modern orchestral or organ tend to get a fair amount of bass boost, as do movies.


Agree, they just separated them to better show the curves. As to what the level was I do not know. If I recall the testing correctly, it was done with music content and using a single mono speaker.


----------



## epetti

mthomas47 said:


> Studying the Equal Loudness Contours, and accepting their validity, also requires that we accept a second proposition. And, that proposition is that as listening levels decline, our ability to hear low frequencies (and high ones too) declines faster than it does for those in our normal hearing range. So, if we find the perfect bass equilibrium at -5 MV, that equilibrium will no longer be perfect if we reduce the volume to -15 MV, and even less so at -25 MV.
> 
> Similarly, the creators of Audyssey and DEQ clearly understood the proposition that bass (and treble) sounds fall off faster as listening levels go down, as that is the entire basis of DEQ. What is interesting to me is why they didn't also implement a house curve to begin with, as another asked, unless they did in fact think that DEQ would also have worked to satisfy the need for a house curve at below Reference levels. If so, they appear to have been mistaken where the majority of Audyssey users are involved.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Audyssey DEQ and even flat bass response assumptions seem like they'd have a degree of validity when the mastering conditions are known. So Reference level in movies gives you a bass line of where those mastering made decisions on relative volume of bass versus high frequencies. Then DEQ can use the equal loudness curves to make relative adjustments as you lower the volume. 

But with music there are no standards and no way (that I know of) to know what level any particular album was mastered at. So you can always dial to taste but it sure would be nice to know what the "artist intent" was and you could adjust from there. And without that even though there's a DEQ offset it's really all guesswork as to what the baseline is.

It does make me wonder how much the "ideal" room curve from those studies was dependent on what music was played for the study, what level that music was mastered at, and what level it was played back at. I think the general tilt direction would be the same, but the degree could change significantly.

But, for movies where there is a standard I would think that a more predictable target curve with loudness adjustment should be achievable. (With delta on top of that for individual taste.) Whether DEQ and Audyssey Reference is successful at that or not...


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Very interesting conversation going on here. In a word "Deep".

In no way am I arguing any of the points raised. But a thought occurred to me while reading the previous 3 pages about the Audyssey Flat Curve decision. In the context of the time these types of decisions were being made. What was the Audyssey target market? I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting it may have been the Home Movie/Audio enthusiast? Most of this decision process took place at least 15 years ago, perhaps more.

The thought that occurred to me was about capability and capacity of the average Home Audio enthusiast to obtain, build and or purchase Subwoofers from the Audio Market that had the capability to produce Reference Level Bass in most room sizes without great amounts of distortion? I honestly do not know the answer to this question. I suspect, without any facts, that the market lacked product lines of "Subwoofers" of significant capability to match or keep pace with the rest of their speakers in the room. Just offering this up as a point of consideration. Perhaps to some degree, the Guys at Audyssey knew this FR zone to be the Achilles heel of the majority of Home Theatres/Audio rooms. Perhaps this knowledge of limited Low frequency reproduction capability played some small role in the decision process. I.E. the Flat Curve.

Fast forward to present and the market is flush with products capable of achieving and surpassing Reference Level Sub Bass content in almost any room.

This is just a hypothesis. And I will be the first to admit, it could be completely wrong. As I used many "assumptions" in my thought process based solely on my own journey with Audyssey and Subwoofers, over the past 15 or so years.

Thinking can be dangerous. Thinking out loud, doubly so!


----------



## kbarnes701

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Very interesting conversation going on here. In a word "Deep".
> 
> In no way am I arguing any of the points raised. But a thought occurred to me while reading the previous 3 pages about the Audyssey Flat Curve decision. In the context of the time these types of decisions were being made. What was the Audyssey target market? I'm going out on a limb here and suggesting it may have been the Home Movie/Audio enthusiast? Most of this decision process took place at least 15 years ago, perhaps more.
> 
> The thought that occurred to me was about capability and capacity of the average Home Audio enthusiast to obtain, build and or purchase Subwoofers from the Audio Market that had the capability to produce Reference Level Bass in most room sizes without great amounts of distortion? I honestly do not know the answer to this question. I suspect, without any facts, that the market lacked product lines of "Subwoofers" of significant capability to match or keep pace with the rest of their speakers in the room. Just offering this up as a point of consideration. Perhaps to some degree, the Guys at Audyssey knew this FR zone to be the Achilles heel of the majority of Home Theatres/Audio rooms. Perhaps this knowledge of limited Low frequency reproduction capability played some small role in the decision process. I.E. the Flat Curve.
> 
> Fast forward to present and the market is flush with products capable of achieving and surpassing Reference Level Sub Bass content in almost any room.
> 
> This is just a hypothesis. And I will be the first to admit, it could be completely wrong. As I used many "assumptions" in my thought process based solely on my own journey with Audyssey and Subwoofers, over the past 15 or so years.
> 
> Thinking can be dangerous. Thinking out loud, doubly so!



Hey old buddy! Long time no type. Glad to see you are still following the thread  Interesting points you raise there.

BTW, I've moved along a fair way since the old days when you kindly got the SVS ASEQ1 for me  There's a link to my new HT in my sig if you want to take a look.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

kbarnes701 said:


> Hey old buddy! Long time no type. Glad to see you are still following the thread  Interesting points you raise there.
> 
> BTW, I've moved along a fair way since the old days when you kindly got the SVS ASEQ1 for me  There's a link to my new HT in my sig if you want to take a look.


Hi again Keith,

Good to see you back in form here as well. Ahhh the old days when we tried to figure out what Audyssey was. Not very surprising we are STILL having that discussion. Albeit with gobs of more knowledge, but we keep kicking the ball around.

The SVS AS-EQ-1 Unit. I though you had forgotten . Back when we were playing with our brand spanking new Onkyo NR-5007's that had this fancy new Height and Wide channels? What? Won't last, just a fad, we were told. I even remember having a conversation with a fine gentleman at SVS about how to hook up my new Subs to my AVR. He did not believe me when I told him the 5007 had dual Sub outs! Then he quickly, and incorrectly surmised they were internally summed and a mono signal with a internal splitter. Nope I told him, I can adjust them individually in distance and level. I don't think he believed me! I think they "Onkyo" may have been the first major AVR manufacturer to have separate dual sub outs! I could be wrong, but I don't recall any others at the time.

You and I could argue all day long and still be friends at the end of the day. I see noting has changed there  

You know Audyssey had a working version (limited to 9 operational channels) of ATMOS/DTS X years ahead of the completion. I always wonder what happened? Did they sell the concept to Dolby or DTS or were they unable to get market penetration like Dolby has? Audyssey DSX was the cutting edge and the forbearer of ATMOS/DTS X. So for me at least, having had front "Heights" and "Wides" for about a decade now, ATMOS & DTS X is not the major shift in the Movie Sound Stage it is to many others. I do love ATMOS, don't get me wrong.

On a side note. Maybe nostalgia got the best of me during my last round of upgrading. I bought the Denon 7200wa solely because it still had the Audyssey DSX Height and Wide configuration capability.

You upgrade path has resembled more of a Moon Shot trajectory! I have followed in silence, but you honestly left me in the dust years ago. Hell I just very recently broke down and bought OmniMic and got REW. For me, it was like trying to untangle a bath tub size ball of Cotton Candy.  Its simple they all said!!!

Any who, welcome back my old friend. Great to see you posting in this thread again. You are in good company here, one of the best threads in AVS. Everyone is eager to share and learn and everyone treats each other with respect.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> I'm deliberately not addressing this post to anyone, so that no one will be obligated to respond to any of it. I do that sometimes.
> 
> …
> 
> In the conversation that just occurred, two valuable insights emerged, in my opinion. And, they are both connected to the Equal Loudness Contours. If we accept the validity of the Equal Loudness Contours as an explanation for how human hearing works at different frequencies and different volume levels, then two propositions follow from that. First, most of us will prefer a rising bass response at virtually any volume level. The exact amount may vary, but we simply won't hear bass frequencies as well as those in our more normal hearing range from about 400Hz to 4000Hz.
> …
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I'm going to disagree on this point. I don't think you can jump from the fact that because our ears are less sensitive at low frequencies than at the mid frequencies, we prefer a rising bass response. If you want a simple reason for why I hold that view, then I will just point out that our ears are also less sensitive at high frequencies and we don't prefer a rising high frequency response to compensate for that, in fact the studies show that we prefer a falling high frequency response. If the reason we prefer a rising low frequency response is because our ears are less sensitive in that region then it should also follow that we would prefer a rising high frequency response for the same reason. That isn't true.

I don't know why we prefer a rising bass response but one possibility I can think of is that it's an evolutionary adaption to our experience of listening to sound in enclosed spaces, going all the way back to our cave man days, because room reinforcement in *enclosed* spaces tends to boost the level of the bass frequencies but not the high frequencies and we've just come to expect sound in enclosed spaces to have a rising bass response so we think the sound is "wrong" if it doesn't.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not suggesting that the Equal Loudness Contour data is wrong or that people don't have a preference for a rising bass response. Both of those things are undeniably true. I just don't think that we can conclude that the reason for our preference for a rising bass response lies in the Equal Loudness contours if we don't also have a preference for a rising high frequency response for the same reason.

There has to be a reason for our preference for a rising bass response but I don't think the reduced sensitivity of our ears at low frequencies is that reason.

Edit: replaced "low" with "enclosed" in my second para.


----------



## mogorf

Guys,

Can anyone share a link or two to this "caveman" theory? Nothing comes up with google or I might be using wrong keywords. Thanks.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I'm going to disagree on this point. I don't think you can jump from the fact that because our ears are less sensitive at low frequencies than at the mid frequencies, we prefer a rising bass response. If you want a simple reason for why I hold that view, then I will just point out that our ears are also less sensitive at high frequencies and we don't prefer a rising high frequency response to compensate for that, in fact the studies show that we prefer a falling high frequency response. If the reason we prefer a rising low frequency response is because our ears are less sensitive in that region then it should also follow that we would prefer a rising high frequency response for the same reason. That isn't true.
> 
> I don't know why we prefer a rising bass response but one possibility I can think of is that it's an evolutionary adaption to our experience of listening to sound in enclosed spaces, going all the way back to our cave man days, because room reinforcement in low spaces tends to boost the level of the bass frequencies but not the high frequencies and we've just come to expect sound in enclosed spaces to have a rising bass response so we think the sound is "wrong" if it doesn't.
> 
> Don't get me wrong here. I'm not suggesting that the Equal Loudness Contour data is wrong or that people don't have a preference for a rising bass response. Both of those things are undeniably true. I just don't think that we can conclude that the reason for our preference for a rising bass response lies in the Equal Loudness contours if we don't also have a preference for a rising high frequency response for the same reason.
> 
> There has to be a reason for our preference for a rising bass response but I don't think the reduced sensitivity of our ears at low frequencies is that reason.


I agree, David. And so, FWIW, does Floyd


----------



## kbarnes701

mogorf said:


> Guys,
> 
> Can anyone share a link or two to this "caveman" theory? Nothing comes up with google or I might be using wrong keywords. Thanks.


Can you explain how you'd get room gain without a room?


----------



## kbarnes701

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi again Keith,
> 
> Good to see you back in form here as well. Ahhh the old days when we tried to figure out what Audyssey was. Not very surprising we are STILL having that discussion. Albeit with gobs of more knowledge, but we keep kicking the ball around.


It never ceases to amaze me how much discussion a fairly straightforward, automated room EQ system can generate.



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> The SVS AS-EQ-1 Unit. I though you had forgotten .


How could I? It gave us the benefits of XT32 in the bass, when we only had XT.



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> You and I could argue all day long and still be friends at the end of the day. I see noting has changed there


Sign of real friends I guess 



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> You know Audyssey had a working version (limited to 9 operational channels) of ATMOS/DTS X years ahead of the completion. I always wonder what happened? Did they sell the concept to Dolby or DTS or were they unable to get market penetration like Dolby has? Audyssey DSX was the cutting edge and the forbearer of ATMOS/DTS X. So for me at least, having had front "Heights" and "Wides" for about a decade now, ATMOS & DTS X is not the major shift in the Movie Sound Stage it is to many others. I do love ATMOS, don't get me wrong.


Well, object-based audio is a pretty huge step-up from Audyssey's extraction method (DSX) but sure, I know what you mean. I initially loved DSX and then came to really dislike it, the more I listened to it. I've never had wides though, although it's interesting that they have resurfaced as a potential speaker location with Atmos.



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> On a side note. Maybe nostalgia got the best of me during my last round of upgrading. I bought the Denon 7200wa solely because it still had the Audyssey DSX Height and Wide configuration capability.


I suspect you are not alone there 



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> You upgrade path has resembled more of a Moon Shot trajectory! I have followed in silence, but you honestly left me in the dust years ago. Hell I just very recently broke down and bought OmniMic and got REW. For me, it was like trying to untangle a bath tub size ball of Cotton Candy.  Its simple they all said!!!


LOL. I assume you have the totally indispensable guide to REW created by AustinJerry? If you don't, let me know and I'll find the link for it. It really does explain how to get the best out of REW. I use Omnimic as well - it is quicker to set up but lacks the finesse of REW (for my use anyway). Very handy program though.



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Any who, welcome back my old friend. Great to see you posting in this thread again. You are in good company here, one of the best threads in AVS. Everyone is eager to share and learn and everyone treats each other with respect.


Thanks Adam. I'm not really 'back' as such - just got sucked in - so easy to do.


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> Guys,
> 
> Can anyone share a link or two to this "caveman" theory? Nothing comes up with google or I might be using wrong keywords. Thanks.


Feri,

I don't have a source for that suggestion, it's just that sound in enclosed spaces sounds different to sound in open spaces and I think it's reasonable to assume that we've come to expect sound in enclosed spaces to sound a certain way. I'm open to considering any alternative suggestion that you or anyone else has.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> Feri,
> 
> I don't have a source for that suggestion, it's just that sound in enclosed spaces sounds different to sound in open spaces and I think it's reasonable to assume that we've come to expect sound in enclosed spaces to sound a certain way. I'm open to considering any alternative suggestion that you or anyone else has.


I too think that it is more than reasonable. Ever since humans started to live inside (initially in caves, later in rooms) a good part of their listening experiences will have taken place 'indoors'. As you rightly observe, sounds sound different in enclosed spaces than they do in the open air. If anyone doubts this all they need do is take their speakers outside and play something familiar. One thing they will immediately notice is that there is a phenomenon which has come to be known as 'room gain'. 

Room gain, as you know, but maybe others don't, is, in our context, the extra SPL a low frequency sound source gains when it is placed in a room, a corner, a car or indeed in any enclosed environment as opposed to an open space or anechoic environment. The gain resulting from simply taking a subwoofer (or any source of low frequency sound - eg a double bass) into an enclosed space is considerable. 

It is only a small step to go from that knowledge to the proposition that one of the reasons people mostly prefer a gently rising bass is that their auditory experiences, formed over generations (and inside enclosed spaces) have enabled them to be 'comfortable' with what they have become accustomed to. It's similar to the reason why people like open fires even when they have more efficient and convenient forms of heating their homes, or why men often favour women with well-defined characteristics suitable for the production of healthy offspring, or why many are afraid of spiders - it's been bred into us over generations.

*Regardless of all of that, Olive conducted numerous tests into the 'curve' that most people prefer, and the answer always comes out the same:* it's something very similar to the Harman Curve - and it definitely isn't a 'flat response'. So those aiming for a flat in-room response will almost always be disappointed (_"I love Audyssey but where's my bass gone!?"_) and they will attempt every whichway to get that bass back, often by the simple expedient of turning up the sub trim by a few dB. I can't really see any serious person failing to understand any of this TBH, and am surprised that the discussion is still going on.


----------



## David Aiken

kbarnes701 said:


> …
> 
> *Regardless of all of that, Olive conducted numerous tests into the 'curve' that most people prefer, and the answer always comes out the same:* it's something very similar to the Harman Curve - and it definitely isn't a 'flat response'. So those aiming for a flat in-room response will almost always be disappointed (_"I love Audyssey but where's my bass gone!?"_) and they will attempt every whichway to get that bass back, often by the simple expedient of turning up the sub trim by a few dB. I can't really see any serious person failing to understand any of this TBH, and am surprised that the discussion is still going on.


Keith,

I think the reason the discussion is still going on is simple. For a start it takes a bit of time and effort to read and get a basic understanding of room acoustics and most people don't take the time and effort. Then there's the fact that the good info out there, like Toole's book, isn't an easy read and there's a hell of a lot of shorter and easier reads available on the internet which have been written by people without Toole's knowledge and experience and which either propagates or perpetuates misunderstandings and errors. For example I don't know how many things I've read on the net telling me that if you want to acoustically treat a listening room you should avoid absorption and rely on diffusion, despite the fact that diffusion needs space in which to develop and at least one leading maker of diffusion products suggests a minimum distance of 10' between their products and the listener in order to allow for the diffusion to develop and to avoid the artefacts that may be heard if you sit too close to the diffusor, and that means that if you're going to use diffusors on opposite walls then you need at least 20' between those walls which makes for a bigger room than many of us have. Diffusion is great if you have a big enough room but in a smaller room absorption is better. Too many people on the internet are pushing "one approach fits all" solutions and if there's one thing we can say about room acoustics it's that one approach doesn't fit all situations and rooms but we all like simple solutions and that predisposes us to give credence to the information offering the simplest solution unless we have sufficient knowledge to be able to see the errors in that information.

And then there's the fact that companies like Audyssey and Dirac claim that their systems fix room problems, which they can, but when you're making a big selling point out of ease of use then you're going to want to gloss over the fact that a bit of user understanding and a bit of time and effort in the use of the system can pay big dividends because a lot of people wanting ease of use want the ability to get a "perfect" result first time with little more than a single press of a button and no other requirements on their part.

I think it would be great if someone could come up with a system which did give a great result first time with a single button press but we're a long way from that, especially when we also need to factor in personal preferences if we want to move from a good or great result to a result that is just what the user prefers.

In my view Audyssey's big failing is obvious. What they should have done is instead of giving us the Reference option, they should have left us with the Flat curve and given us a "tilt" control so that we could simple tile the flat response down at the high end and up at the low end and let us adjust that to our liking with some test track we played back at reference level, and then let us apply DEQ to that result to adjust for the change in our perceptions of the sound when we listen at lower levels. I think that approach would satisfy a lot more of us than the current Audyssey options do.

Having said that, I get the feeling that the ability to use the Audyssey app with more recent AVRs than mine probably goes a lot further towards what I would like to see in Audyssey control options than what I have available to me with my Marantz 6010 which can't be adjusted using the Audyssey app.


----------



## Chucka

"given us a "tilt" control so that we could simple tile the flat response down at the high end and up at the low end"

This would be a great feature to add to the app


----------



## primetimeguy

Chucka said:


> "given us a "tilt" control so that we could simple tile the flat response down at the high end and up at the low end"
> 
> This would be a great feature to add to the app


Isn't that what bass and treble do? 

To be honest that is all I'm looking for, bass and treble that controls all channels not just front left and right. My bass control starts around 400hz and treble at 1 or 2k I don't recall. I know Yamaha receivers apply them to all channels but no audyssey 


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

primetimeguy said:


> Isn't that what bass and treble do?
> 
> To be honest that is all I'm looking for, bass and treble that controls all channels not just front left and right. My bass control starts around 400hz and treble at 1 or 2k I don't recall. I know Yamaha receivers apply them to all channels but no audyssey
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


No, the bass and treble controls only affect the bass and the highs but don't touch the midrange so they will let you shelve the bass up and the treble down but they don't affect the mids. A tilt control affects the whole frequency range and affects it evenly.


----------



## kbarnes701

David Aiken said:


> I think the reason the discussion is still going on is simple. For a start it takes a bit of time and effort to read and get a basic understanding of room acoustics and most people don't take the time and effort. Then there's the fact that the good info out there, like Toole's book, isn't an easy read and there's a hell of a lot of shorter and easier reads available on the internet which have been written by people without Toole's knowledge and experience and which either propagates or perpetuates misunderstandings and errors.


This is indeed true, David. I would nonetheless recommend Toole's book to _everyone _who is interested in improving their SQ. For those who find it heavy-going, I generally recommend that people read the second section of the book first, where Toole gives his practical suggestions, and then read the first section, where he gives the 'science' behind the recommendations in section two. This can give an easier pathway into the book, but admittedly much of the second section will have to be taken on faith, and might not make total sense even, until the first section is read. Math is not my strongest subject, but eventually even I managed to understand most of the first section (after a few readings sometimes). Toole has an easy writing style, but as you imply, the content is, of necessity, sometimes heavy-going.



David Aiken said:


> For example I don't know how many things I've read on the net telling me that if you want to acoustically treat a listening room you should avoid absorption and rely on diffusion, despite the fact that diffusion needs space in which to develop and at least one leading maker of diffusion products suggests a minimum distance of 10' between their products and the listener in order to allow for the diffusion to develop and to avoid the artefacts that may be heard if you sit too close to the diffusor, and that means that if you're going to use diffusors on opposite walls then you need at least 20' between those walls which makes for a bigger room than many of us have. Diffusion is great if you have a big enough room but in a smaller room absorption is better.


Agreed. I always suggest people start with absorption in typical sized 'hobbyist' rooms. Usually it is all they need. They can add diffusion later if their room warrants it. In my old Hobbit room I had no diffusion at all - but bags of absorption and that room sounded incredible. In the Cowshed HT, I have mainly absorption with a little diffusion added - but even that was the insistence of the installers. I'd have been just as happy with all-absorption. 

Whatever people decide to do, it can't be stressed too often, IMO, how important the room is in the whole system: the single most important component. It's one which is sadly neglected as people rush to buy new AVRs and speakers and subs, much of which often won't give them what they are looking for, when even three or four acoustic panels will make a big improvement. Electronic EQ is terrific and has brought better sound to many people, but it isn't a substitution for room treatments. 



David Aiken said:


> Too many people on the internet are pushing "one approach fits all" solutions and if there's one thing we can say about room acoustics it's that one approach doesn't fit all situations and rooms but we all like simple solutions and that predisposes us to give credence to the information offering the simplest solution unless we have sufficient knowledge to be able to see the errors in that information.


Again, agreed. For those who want to start on the road to treatments, I can suggest no better than they look at the GIK website, with all the useful info and videos found there, and then ask GIK to give them a _free_ room treatment plan. It costs nothing to do that, and it is a great start.



David Aiken said:


> And then there's the fact that companies like Audyssey and Dirac claim that their systems fix room problems, which they can, but when you're making a big selling point out of ease of use then you're going to want to gloss over the fact that a bit of user understanding and a bit of time and effort in the use of the system can pay big dividends because a lot of people wanting ease of use want the ability to get a "perfect" result first time with little more than a single press of a button and no other requirements on their part.


I think this is very true of Audyssey, whose room EQ system has been specifically aimed at 'typical' AVR buyers. Most of these want a 'single button push' approach and Audyssey have given them it, and for most it will work satisfactorily. The strength of this thread shows there are many people, however, who want to dig deeper. I think Dirac is somewhat different. For a start, Dirac Live and the miniDSP DDRC-88A cost in the region of $1,000. Not cheap. And the 88A requires separate pre and power amplification. And although Dirac does offer a fully automated EQ process, that isn't really the aim of it. The true strength lies in Dirac's flexibility and adjustability and the simplicity of tailoring a target curve to suit individual needs, preferences and rooms. We are now seeing AVRs coming on to the market which feature Dirac Live and this represents a simpler way into Dirac's benefits. For those with the budgets for these AVRs I commend this solution.



David Aiken said:


> I think it would be great if someone could come up with a system which did give a great result first time with a single button press but we're a long way from that, especially when we also need to factor in personal preferences if we want to move from a good or great result to a result that is just what the user prefers.


I don't think it will ever happen. Each individual, each room and each setup are different and the EQ solution which will always work best is the one which takes account of this and allows the user to tailor the result. Auto EQ is a terrific first step and for many (me included) it can stimulate the interest and desire to go to the next level, to start measuring with REW or OmniMic and to seek more sophisticated solutions.



David Aiken said:


> In my view Audyssey's big failing is obvious. What they should have done is instead of giving us the Reference option, they should have left us with the Flat curve and given us a "tilt" control so that we could simple tile the flat response down at the high end and up at the low end and let us adjust that to our liking with some test track we played back at reference level, and then let us apply DEQ to that result to adjust for the change in our perceptions of the sound when we listen at lower levels. I think that approach would satisfy a lot more of us than the current Audyssey options do.


Could not agree more with you. The sad part, I think, is that Audyssey hasn't really developed as it should have done. We have had XT32 now as the pinnacle (I discount the Pro Kit as something designed primarily to satisfy installers and to allow them to charge more for very little improvement, if any, over XT32) for several years, with no real improvement to the algorithms etc. It's as if Audyssey have lost interest. At the same time, every mainstream AVR manufacturer other than D&M has given up on Audyssey and sought a solution elsewhere, usually proprietary) and this can't have inspired Audyssey a great deal to invest more in development. Something along the lines you suggest above would have given them back their edge and improved the product significantly.



David Aiken said:


> Having said that, I get the feeling that the ability to use the Audyssey app with more recent AVRs than mine probably goes a lot further towards what I would like to see in Audyssey control options than what I have available to me with my Marantz 6010 which can't be adjusted using the Audyssey app.


Indeed. Since I dropped out several AVR iterations ago, I am not up to speed with those developments of course. There don't seem to be many users in this thread discussing the benefits of the App though.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I'm going to disagree on this point. I don't think you can jump from the fact that because our ears are less sensitive at low frequencies than at the mid frequencies, we prefer a rising bass response. If you want a simple reason for why I hold that view, then I will just point out that our ears are also less sensitive at high frequencies and we don't prefer a rising high frequency response to compensate for that, in fact the studies show that we prefer a falling high frequency response. If the reason we prefer a rising low frequency response is because our ears are less sensitive in that region then it should also follow that we would prefer a rising high frequency response for the same reason. That isn't true.
> 
> I don't know why we prefer a rising bass response but one possibility I can think of is that it's an evolutionary adaption to our experience of listening to sound in enclosed spaces, going all the way back to our cave man days, because room reinforcement in *enclosed* spaces tends to boost the level of the bass frequencies but not the high frequencies and we've just come to expect sound in enclosed spaces to have a rising bass response so we think the sound is "wrong" if it doesn't.
> 
> Don't get me wrong here. I'm not suggesting that the Equal Loudness Contour data is wrong or that people don't have a preference for a rising bass response. Both of those things are undeniably true. I just don't think that we can conclude that the reason for our preference for a rising bass response lies in the Equal Loudness contours if we don't also have a preference for a rising high frequency response for the same reason.
> 
> There has to be a reason for our preference for a rising bass response but I don't think the reduced sensitivity of our ears at low frequencies is that reason.
> 
> Edit: replaced "low" with "enclosed" in my second para.





David Aiken said:


> Feri,
> 
> I don't have a source for that suggestion, it's just that sound in enclosed spaces sounds different to sound in open spaces and I think it's reasonable to assume that we've come to expect sound in enclosed spaces to sound a certain way. I'm open to considering any alternative suggestion that you or anyone else has.


Hi David,

I enjoyed your post and thought you made an excellent point. I believe that I have a partial explanation for the fact that most of us prefer a rising bass slope and yet may not prefer the same thing with a treble slope.

Before getting to that, though, I just can't refrain any longer from addressing Floyd Toole's caveman theory of evolutionary adaptation. I have great respect for Dr Toole as an audio engineer, but when it comes to anthropology, he shouldn't quit his day job. There just isn't any evidence that early **** sapiens lived in caves for the thousands of years it would have taken to create that kind of universal hearing adaptation. And, that kind of lengthy (and universal) cave dwelling would have affected our species in far more identifiable ways than just the way that we hear, and like, bass frequencies. 

There is, however, much evidence that the earliest **** sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated to Asia and Europe, moving nomadically in search of sources of food (hunter-gather culture) and water. Shelter was whatever could be found or created, depending on the topography and climate. The idea of cave-dwelling man was sort of a 19th Century European/American myth, fostered by cave paintings, and some stone age tools and remains, found in caves. That makes perfect sense, as caves offered a dry and stable environment for early art, and for the preservation of human and cultural remains, away from the effects of sun, rain, wind, and other destructive influences.

Using cave paintings (and some remains) to conclude that we all lived in caves for thousands of years, while adapting evolutionarily to the sounds of cave walls, would be a little like concluding that mammoths and sabre tooth tigers all lived in tar pits because of the remains found in La Brea, California. I know that this isn't your personal theory. You were simply repeating something that someone else had said, but I just don't think we should let it stand. There isn't a speck of evidence to support that idea, and it doesn't really pass scrutiny on multiple levels.

But, you still made an excellent point, and I didn't mind you disagreeing with my earlier conclusion at all. It just made me think about this some more, which is sort of the whole point of these conversations to begin with. So, if the explanation doesn't lie in cave-dwelling adaptation, why might we prefer a rising bass curve to a stable or rising treble curve? Well, I think part of the answer lies in the Equal Loudness Contours. If we study an Equal Contours graph, we see that we continue to hear high frequencies at lower volumes much better than we do low frequencies. The phon lines denoting loudness become only slightly closer together for high frequencies, where they become much closer together for low frequencies. So, as noted above, we hear high frequencies much better than we do low frequencies.

Incidentally, as you know, the whole concept of Reference volumes is based on that fact. Reference is based on maximum levels of 105db for the regular channels, but 115db for the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. So, that special bass channel is specifically intended to provide augmentation to the frequencies below 120Hz of 10 times the loudness of those in our regular channels. And, even with that LFE channel providing bass sounds that are 10 times as loud as those in the regular channels (for 5.1 movies and some music) most of us still find ourselves wanting to add some additional bass via some sort of sub boost or house curve. 

So, we don't hear very low frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, but we also don't hear them as well as we do very high frequencies. Our drop-off in hearing acuity is not symmetrical between the very low frequencies and the very high frequencies. To me, that extreme drop-off in low frequencies, compared to all other frequencies, still helps to explain why there is a pretty universal desire for a rising bass response at any relatively comfortable listening level. (As noted in an earlier post, if overall loudness becomes acutely uncomfortable, we probably won't be worrying about adding more bass in order to preserve acoustic balance.)

But, I think that there is another factor to the issue beyond the one of how loudly we hear different frequencies. I believe that the first part of that factor is also supported by the Equal Loudness Contours. I think that we tolerate too much bass loudness much better than we tolerate too much treble loudness. Very loud high frequencies can be acutely uncomfortable. Very loud low frequencies can be startling, or even frightening, but they have to be much louder than corresponding high frequencies to be acutely uncomfortable. Examples of that fact abound, but I know you already know that from your career.

The second part of the other factor which I think explains why we may prefer a rising bass response and not wish to have even a stable treble response, much less a corresponding rising response, lies in the way that we react to distortion. High frequency distortion is much more uncomfortable to the average person than low frequency distortion. We hear low frequency distortion all of the time. Some easy music examples include boom boxes, car's with subwoofers, even Zumba classes at a gym. It's basically boomy, one-note bass. As semi-audiophiles (to use an inoffensive term) we might disdain those sounds, but they don't hurt our ears in the way that high frequency distortion does. Think of fingernails on a chalkboard.

Now lets move inside a room. And here, I would turn the cave idea completely around. Rooms reflect high frequencies and amplify some low frequencies, while cancelling others. But, we not only tolerate more low frequency volume better than we do high frequency volume, we also tolerate low-frequency distortion (boomy, one-note bass) better than we do high frequency distortion which may sound screechy, piercing, or whatever other term we use to describe it. When people add treatments to their rooms, in order to reduce reflections causing slap echo or ringing, they may find themselves better able to tolerate higher loudness levels in their rooms. But, that is because the upper-mid and high-frequency reflections were uncomfortable in a way that low frequency room gain was not. Or at least, not to as great an extent.

The research I have seen indicates that after room treatment, most people can listen about 3db louder than they did before adding the treatments. That would constitute a 30% increase in volume, which is pretty reasonable. (As a side note, my experience with adding room treatments was similar to yours. Additional clarity allows me to listen more comfortably at any volume, but doesn't necessarily inspire me to listen louder. But, room treatments definitely made the Audyssey Flat curve more comfortable for me, by taking some of the high frequency distortion out of the room.)

Wrapping-up this lengthy post, for anyone still reading it,  I think we now have a pretty good explanation for why we may almost universally prefer a rising bass response, but may not enjoy a similar rising, or even neutral, treble response. We may in fact prefer a falling treble response. First, we don't hear bass frequencies nearly as well as we do treble frequencies, so we have to amplify bass frequencies more than we do treble frequencies. And second, treble frequencies may cause acute audio discomfort in a way that bass frequencies are less likely to do. That discomfort may be exacerbated by distortion in a room, because we also don't tolerate treble distortion as well as we do bass distortion.

There is another aspect to this, that would be interesting to explore which relates to our fondness for low-pitched sounds in general, as opposed to how we hear them and tolerate them, compared to high frequencies. But, I'm dry right now. Others may be able to add things that I have missed, but I'm going to go ahead and put this out there for general comment and hopefully not ridicule. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## primetimeguy

David Aiken said:


> No, the bass and treble controls only affect the bass and the highs but don't touch the midrange so they will let you shelve the bass up and the treble down but they don't affect the mids. A tilt control affects the whole frequency range and affects it evenly.


Yes, agree, was just saying you can get close. Only part I am missing is 400hz - 1kz. So pretty reasonable and built in capability.


----------



## tiggere

Quick question...I have run Audyssey twice in my room once before treatment and once after...sometime after that I have either changed a setting or done something and now the Audyssey is grayed out and its telling me I have to retest when I hit the restore button...I'm not sure what I have changed that would make it stop using the Audyssey calibration so that would be nice to figure out but why is the file just gone?

P.S. super noob - so if you try to explain use small words


----------



## MackGuyver

I picked up a Marantz AV7703 yesterday for a good price and my first impressions are quite good. After setting up and running Audyssey, I'm blown away by how much the calibration has improved with the x32. The clarity and directionality are unreal in my 7.1.2 system with the Atmos tracks I played last night. 

The sub, however, seems neutered, to put it mildly. I verified that the levels are correct using a Dolby test disc, so it's not that, but something isn't right. I later noticed that Dynamic Compression and Loudness Management were enabled, and turning them off and making sure other settings like that were off helped, but there's still not much bass.

I've had several home theaters for over 25 years and used to calibrate cinemas so it's not just getting used to equalized bass. I'll have to measure some frequency sweeps to see what's happening, but I think I might have found at least one issue with Audyssey.

All three front channels are at -12, so I think that might be part of the problem. The sub is at -8.5 (I set the level to 75dB with Audyssey prior to calibration), and the other channels are all around -7.5-8.5. Based on the FAQs, the sub shouldn't be any less than -3.5 and it sounds like some In-Line XLR Attenuators would help, right?


----------



## mthomas47

MackGuyver said:


> I picked up a Marantz AV7703 yesterday for a good price and my first impressions are quite good. After setting up and running Audyssey, I'm blown away by how much the calibration has improved with the x32. The clarity and directionality are unreal in my 7.1.2 system with the Atmos tracks I played last night.
> 
> The sub, however, seems neutered, to put it mildly. I verified that the levels are correct using a Dolby test disc, so it's not that, but something isn't right. I later noticed that Dynamic Compression and Loudness Management were enabled, and turning them off and making sure other settings like that were off helped, but there's still not much bass.
> 
> I've had several home theaters for over 25 years and used to calibrate cinemas so it's not just getting used to equalized bass. I'll have to measure some frequency sweeps to see what's happening, but I think I might have found at least one issue with Audyssey.
> 
> All three front channels are at -12, so I think that might be part of the problem. The sub is at -8.5 (I set the level to 75dB with Audyssey prior to calibration), and the other channels are all around -7.5-8.5. Based on the FAQs, the sub shouldn't be any less than -3.5 and it sounds like some In-Line XLR Attenuators would help, right?



Hi,

The in-line attenuators might be a good idea, but if you trust your measurements, then I would first use that Dolby test disc to make sure that the front three speakers are set to the same level as the other channels in your system. If they are right on the money in SPL, compared to the other channels, I might not bother with the attenuators, because the -12 setting is valid. If however you suspect, or determine through measurement, that your front three channels are in fact louder than the other channels, then you will need the attenuators.

If the front three channels are playing louder than the other speakers in your system, then that could contribute to your perception of decreased bass. Otherwise, the levels of the front three channels wouldn't have anything to do with the amount of bass that you now perceive. What would be important, though, is the fact that we don't hear bass frequencies as well as we do other frequencies, and when all channels are set equally (and EQed) the bass is typically lacking. 

For a thorough explanation of that phenomenon with Audyssey, and for recommendations as to the best ways to add sub boost, please refer to the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MackGuyver

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The in-line attenuators might be a good idea, but if you trust your measurements, then I would first make sure that the front three speakers are set to the same level as the other channels in your system. If they are right on the money in SPL, compared to the other channels, I might not bother with the attenuators, because the -12 setting is valid. If however you suspect, or determine through measurement, that your front three channels are in fact louder than the other channels, then you will need the attenuators.
> 
> If the front three channels are playing louder than the other speakers in your system, then that could contribute to your perception of decreased bass. Otherwise, the levels of the front three channels wouldn't have anything to do with the amount of bass that you now perceive. What would be important, though, is the fact that we don't hear bass frequencies as well as we do other frequencies, and when all channels are set equally (and EQed) the bass is typically lacking.
> 
> For a thorough explanation of that phenomenon with Audyssey, and for recommendations as to the best ways to add sub boost, please refer to the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, thank you for your helpful reply and I'll use my RTA to check the channel levels again tonight with some test tones on Blu-ray. I think they were pretty close so perhaps the -12 is okay.

In terms of the sub, I think your "Sixth" note might explain it. When Audyssey gave me the initial sub level error, the gain was set to ~92dB, which level matched at 0 trim on my previous THX preamp. I think I'll re-run Audyssey and set the sub gain to around 85dB to see if that helps. I'll give the Audyssey app a try on my phone as well.

Thanks again for your help,
Ian


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I enjoyed your post and thought you made an excellent point. I believe that I have a partial explanation for the fact that most of us prefer a rising bass slope and yet may not prefer the same thing with a treble slope.
> 
> Before getting to that, though, I just can't refrain any longer from addressing Floyd Toole's caveman theory of evolutionary adaptation. I have great respect for Dr Toole as an audio engineer, but when it comes to anthropology, he shouldn't quit his day job. There just isn't any evidence that early **** sapiens lived in caves for the thousands of years it would have taken to create that kind of universal hearing adaptation. And, that kind of lengthy (and universal) cave dwelling would have affected our species in far more identifiable ways than just the way that we hear, and like, bass frequencies.
> 
> There is, however, much evidence that the earliest **** sapiens originated in Africa and then migrated to Asia and Europe, moving nomadically in search of sources of food (hunter-gather culture) and water. Shelter was whatever could be found or created, depending on the topography and climate. The idea of cave-dwelling man was sort of a 19th Century European/American myth, fostered by cave paintings, and some stone age tools and remains, found in caves. That makes perfect sense, as caves offered a dry and stable environment for early art, and for the preservation of human and cultural remains, away from the effects of sun, rain, wind, and other destructive influences.
> 
> Using cave paintings (and some remains) to conclude that we all lived in caves for thousands of years, while adapting evolutionarily to the sounds of cave walls, would be a little like concluding that mammoths and sabre tooth tigers all lived in tar pits because of the remains found in La Brea, California. I know that this isn't your personal theory. You were simply repeating something that someone else had said, but I just don't think we should let it stand. There isn't a speck of evidence to support that idea, and it doesn't really pass scrutiny on multiple levels.
> 
> But, you still made an excellent point, and I didn't mind you disagreeing with my earlier conclusion at all. It just made me think about this some more, which is sort of the whole point of these conversations to begin with. So, if the explanation doesn't lie in cave-dwelling adaptation, why might we prefer a rising bass curve to a stable or rising treble curve? Well, I think part of the answer lies in the Equal Loudness Contours. If we study an Equal Contours graph, we see that we continue to hear high frequencies at lower volumes much better than we do low frequencies. The phon lines denoting loudness become only slightly closer together for high frequencies, where they become much closer together for low frequencies. So, as noted above, we hear high frequencies much better than we do low frequencies.
> 
> Incidentally, as you know, the whole concept of Reference volumes is based on that fact. Reference is based on maximum levels of 105db for the regular channels, but 115db for the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. So, that special bass channel is specifically intended to provide augmentation to the frequencies below 120Hz of 10 times the loudness of those in our regular channels. And, even with that LFE channel providing bass sounds that are 10 times as loud as those in the regular channels (for 5.1 movies and some music) most of us still find ourselves wanting to add some additional bass via some sort of sub boost or house curve.
> 
> So, we don't hear very low frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, but we also don't hear them as well as we do very high frequencies. Our drop-off in hearing acuity is not symmetrical between the very low frequencies and the very high frequencies. To me, that extreme drop-off in low frequencies, compared to all other frequencies, still helps to explain why there is a pretty universal desire for a rising bass response at any relatively comfortable listening level. (As noted in an earlier post, if overall loudness becomes acutely uncomfortable, we probably won't be worrying about adding more bass in order to preserve acoustic balance.)
> 
> But, I think that there is another factor to the issue beyond the one of how loudly we hear different frequencies. I believe that the first part of that factor is also supported by the Equal Loudness Contours. I think that we tolerate too much bass loudness much better than we tolerate too much treble loudness. Very loud high frequencies can be acutely uncomfortable. Very loud low frequencies can be startling, or even frightening, but they have to be much louder than corresponding high frequencies to be acutely uncomfortable. Examples of that fact abound, but I know you already know that from your career.
> 
> The second part of the other factor which I think explains why we may prefer a rising bass response and not wish to have even a stable treble response, much less a corresponding rising response, lies in the way that we react to distortion. High frequency distortion is much more uncomfortable to the average person than low frequency distortion. We hear low frequency distortion all of the time. Some easy music examples include boom boxes, car's with subwoofers, even Zumba classes at a gym. It's basically boomy, one-note bass. As semi-audiophiles (to use an inoffensive term) we might disdain those sounds, but they don't hurt our ears in the way that high frequency distortion does. Think of fingernails on a chalkboard.
> 
> Now lets move inside a room. And here, I would turn the cave idea completely around. Rooms reflect high frequencies and amplify some low frequencies, while cancelling others. But, we not only tolerate more low frequency volume better than we do high frequency volume, we also tolerate low-frequency distortion (boomy, one-note bass) better than we do high frequency distortion which may sound screechy, piercing, or whatever other term we use to describe it. When people add treatments to their rooms, in order to reduce reflections causing slap echo or ringing, they may find themselves better able to tolerate higher loudness levels in their rooms. But, that is because the upper-mid and high-frequency reflections were uncomfortable in a way that low frequency room gain was not. Or at least, not to as great an extent.
> 
> The research I have seen indicates that after room treatment, most people can listen about 3db louder than they did before adding the treatments. That would constitute a 30% increase in volume, which is pretty reasonable. (As a side note, my experience with adding room treatments was similar to yours. Additional clarity allows me to listen more comfortably at any volume, but doesn't necessarily inspire me to listen louder. But, room treatments definitely made the Audyssey Flat curve more comfortable for me, by taking some of the high frequency distortion out of the room.)
> 
> Wrapping-up this lengthy post, for anyone still reading it,  I think we now have a pretty good explanation for why we may almost universally prefer a rising bass response, but may not enjoy a similar rising, or even neutral, treble response. We may in fact prefer a falling treble response. First, we don't hear bass frequencies nearly as well as we do treble frequencies, so we have to amplify bass frequencies more than we do treble frequencies. And second, treble frequencies may cause acute audio discomfort in a way that bass frequencies are less likely to do. That discomfort may be exacerbated by distortion in a room, because we also don't tolerate treble distortion as well as we do bass distortion.
> 
> There is another aspect to this, that would be interesting to explore which relates to our fondness for low-pitched sounds in general, as opposed to how we hear them and tolerate them, compared to high frequencies. But, I'm dry right now. Others may be able to add things that I have missed, but I'm going to go ahead and put this out there for general comment and hopefully not ridicule.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. 

Even if all what you say is right. And much if it may be, it does not explain why we prefer a sloping frequency curve. 

You see, most music we listen to is created and balanced by a music producer rather than recorded live without frequency balance. So if the sound studio room had the audio system set as flat, the producer would have already pumped the low frequencies to his liking before creating the CD. And that CD would sound the best if our system is also set with a flat frequency response. Of course the same would be true if most music producers keep their audio systems with sloping frequency response. 

So the real question may be: How was the music studio audio system set up where the CD was mastered?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> Even if all what you say is right. And much if it may be, it does not explain why we prefer a sloping frequency curve.
> 
> You see, most music we listen to is created and balanced by a music producer rather than recorded live without frequency balance. So if the sound studio room had the audio system set as flat, the producer would have already pumped the low frequencies to his liking before creating the CD. And that CD would sound the best if our system is also set with a flat frequency response. Of course the same would be true if most music producers keep their audio systems with sloping frequency response.
> 
> So the real question may be: How was the music studio audio system set up where the CD was mastered?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Thank you! I think it is generally right, but the Devil's in the details. 

It seems to me, though, that the bass that the music producer mixed into the CD would only be in the proper equilibrium, in your room, if you could be sure that you were listening at the same volume he intended. If you were listening at a lower volume than his mix intended, then the bass would still sound relatively less loud in your room, and you might want to boost it. And, that's because low frequencies fall-off faster than other frequencies. That also assumes that the mixer's bass preferences and your own bass preferences happened to coincide. You might prefer even louder bass than he did.

I think that the only place that we can make any sense at all of equilibrium in an HT system, corresponding to the intended equilibrium in a soundtrack, is with 5.1 movies, and with HT systems which are calibrated to Reference. For any other kinds of listening material, the same general rules of preference for rising bass might apply, but it would be virtually impossible to know how closely what you were doing corresponded to the original mix.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you! I think it is generally right, but the Devil's in the details.
> 
> It seems to me, though, that the bass that the music producer mixed into the CD would only be in the proper equilibrium, in your room, if you could be sure that you were listening at the same volume he intended. If you were listening at a lower volume than his mix intended, then the bass would still sound relatively less loud in your room, and you might want to boost it. And, that's because low frequencies fall-off faster than other frequencies. That also assumes that the mixer's bass preferences and your own bass preferences happened to coincide. You might prefer even louder bass than he did.
> 
> I think that the only place that we can make any sense at all of equilibrium in an HT system, corresponding to the intended equilibrium in a soundtrack, is with 5.1 movies, and with HT systems which are calibrated to Reference. For any other kinds of listening material, the same general rules of preference for rising bass might apply, but it would be virtually impossible to know how closely what you were doing corresponded to the original mix.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Fully agree with you Mike! This again only goes to show our sorrow owing to the unfortunate case that the music industry is not standardized. 

As regards the standardized film industry and why some people still like to have more bass, my only clue is that that is the preference of those people. Nothing wrong with that, really!  Especially when they are in their Mancave!!!


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you! I think it is generally right, but the Devil's in the details.
> 
> It seems to me, though, that the bass that the music producer mixed into the CD would only be in the proper equilibrium, in your room, if you could be sure that you were listening at the same volume he intended. If you were listening at a lower volume than his mix intended, then the bass would still sound relatively less loud in your room, and you might want to boost it. And, that's because low frequencies fall-off faster than other frequencies. That also assumes that the mixer's bass preferences and your own bass preferences happened to coincide. You might prefer even louder bass than he did.
> 
> I think that the only place that we can make any sense at all of equilibrium in an HT system, corresponding to the intended equilibrium in a soundtrack, is with 5.1 movies, and with HT systems which are calibrated to Reference. For any other kinds of listening material, the same general rules of preference for rising bass might apply, but it would be virtually impossible to know how closely what you were doing corresponded to the original mix.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. 

That makes sense. Now, I am sure we have many music producers here. Or others who know the music producing set up and process. 

What is the volume music most often played in the studio when it is mixed? And how are most studios set up - flat or sloping frequency curve?

My guess would be that the music is NOT mixed louder than what I play at home, but i could be wrong. 

And most studios are set with a flat frequency response curve, but again I could be wrong. 

And if both of those assumptions are correct, it is still a mystery why most people prefer sloping frequency response at listening levels. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you! I think it is generally right, but the Devil's in the details.
> 
> It seems to me, though, that the bass that the music producer mixed into the CD would only be in the proper equilibrium, in your room, if you could be sure that you were listening at the same volume he intended. If you were listening at a lower volume than his mix intended, then the bass would still sound relatively less loud in your room, and you might want to boost it. And, that's because low frequencies fall-off faster than other frequencies. That also assumes that the mixer's bass preferences and your own bass preferences happened to coincide. You might prefer even louder bass than he did.
> 
> I think that the only place that we can make any sense at all of equilibrium in an HT system, corresponding to the intended equilibrium in a soundtrack, is with 5.1 movies, and with HT systems which are calibrated to Reference. For any other kinds of listening material, the same general rules of preference for rising bass might apply, but it would be virtually impossible to know how closely what you were doing corresponded to the original mix.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


And then we have the issue of whether or not a movie was remastered for the home or not. I recall reading that when remastered they typically use a lower level (5-7db or so?) and make adjustments from there. When this gets put to disc does this mean 0db on our volume dial is still reference (it's just 5-7db from theatrical) or does this mean 5-7db lower is reference. 

I go with the assumption that most big feature films are remastered for home/Blu nowadays.


----------



## anothermib

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> Even if all what you say is right. And much if it may be, it does not explain why we prefer a sloping frequency curve.
> 
> You see, most music we listen to is created and balanced by a music producer rather than recorded live without frequency balance. So if the sound studio room had the audio system set as flat, the producer would have already pumped the low frequencies to his liking before creating the CD. And that CD would sound the best if our system is also set with a flat frequency response. Of course the same would be true if most music producers keep their audio systems with sloping frequency response.
> 
> So the real question may be: How was the music studio audio system set up where the CD was mastered?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk



I don’t know how the systems in typical mixing studios are balanced. I am quite sure that 99% of end users are listening to systems that have some amount of room gain. It may differ, and as it rightfully has been pointed out the listening volume is another factor. 
However, I would be surprised if people take an extra effort to artificially remove all room gain in the mixing studio to create tracks that have way too much bass for virtually all end customers.


----------



## mthomas47

MackGuyver said:


> Mike, thank you for your helpful reply and I'll use my RTA to check the channel levels again tonight with some test tones on Blu-ray. I think they were pretty close so perhaps the -12 is okay.
> 
> In terms of the sub, I think your "Sixth" note might explain it. When Audyssey gave me the initial sub level error, the gain was set to ~92dB, which level matched at 0 trim on my previous THX preamp. I think I'll re-run Audyssey and set the sub gain to around 85dB to see if that helps. I'll give the Audyssey app a try on my phone as well.
> 
> Thanks again for your help,
> Ian


You are very welcome, Ian! I will be interested to hear how you make out. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

primetimeguy said:


> And then we have the issue of whether or not a movie was remastered for the home or not. I recall reading that when remastered they typically use a lower level (5-7db or so?) and make adjustments from there. When this gets put to disc does this mean 0db on our volume dial is still reference (it's just 5-7db from theatrical) or does this mean 5-7db lower is reference.
> 
> I go with the assumption that most big feature films are remastered for home/Blu nowadays.


I think you make a good point, and I believe that many (most?) high-quality movies probably are re-mastered for home release. I have read some discussion about how widespread that practice may be, and to what extent the home versions are specifically identified on the label. Add in the fact that movies may actually be mastered at different volume levels to start with, and that our individual rooms may exert slightly different influences on the sound, and Reference in terms of an absolute SPL number may be somewhat elusive. But, that's not really a bad thing, in my opinion, as in the end, we will want to cater to our own listening preferences, anyway.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I enjoyed your post and thought you made an excellent point. I believe that I have a partial explanation for the fact that most of us prefer a rising bass slope and yet may not prefer the same thing with a treble slope.
> 
> Before getting to that, though, I just can't refrain any longer from addressing Floyd Toole's caveman theory of evolutionary adaptation…
> 
> But, you still made an excellent point, and I didn't mind you disagreeing with my earlier conclusion at all. It just made me think about this some more, which is sort of the whole point of these conversations to begin with. So, if the explanation doesn't lie in cave-dwelling adaptation, why might we prefer a rising bass curve to a stable or rising treble curve? Well, I think part of the answer lies in the Equal Loudness Contours. If we study an Equal Contours graph, we see that we continue to hear high frequencies at lower volumes much better than we do low frequencies. The phon lines denoting loudness become only slightly closer together for high frequencies, where they become much closer together for low frequencies. So, as noted above, we hear high frequencies much better than we do low frequencies.
> 
> Incidentally, as you know, the whole concept of Reference volumes is based on that fact. Reference is based on maximum levels of 105db for the regular channels, but 115db for the LFE (low frequency effects) channel. So, that special bass channel is specifically intended to provide augmentation to the frequencies below 120Hz of 10 times the loudness of those in our regular channels. And, even with that LFE channel providing bass sounds that are 10 times as loud as those in the regular channels (for 5.1 movies and some music) most of us still find ourselves wanting to add some additional bass via some sort of sub boost or house curve.
> 
> So, we don't hear very low frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, but we also don't hear them as well as we do very high frequencies. Our drop-off in hearing acuity is not symmetrical between the very low frequencies and the very high frequencies. To me, that extreme drop-off in low frequencies, compared to all other frequencies, still helps to explain why there is a pretty universal desire for a rising bass response at any relatively comfortable listening level. (As noted in an earlier post, if overall loudness becomes acutely uncomfortable, we probably won't be worrying about adding more bass in order to preserve acoustic balance.)
> 
> But, I think that there is another factor to the issue beyond the one of how loudly we hear different frequencies. I believe that the first part of that factor is also supported by the Equal Loudness Contours. I think that we tolerate too much bass loudness much better than we tolerate too much treble loudness. Very loud high frequencies can be acutely uncomfortable. Very loud low frequencies can be startling, or even frightening, but they have to be much louder than corresponding high frequencies to be acutely uncomfortable. Examples of that fact abound, but I know you already know that from your career.
> 
> The second part of the other factor which I think explains why we may prefer a rising bass response and not wish to have even a stable treble response, much less a corresponding rising response, lies in the way that we react to distortion. High frequency distortion is much more uncomfortable to the average person than low frequency distortion. We hear low frequency distortion all of the time. Some easy music examples include boom boxes, car's with subwoofers, even Zumba classes at a gym. It's basically boomy, one-note bass. As semi-audiophiles (to use an inoffensive term) we might disdain those sounds, but they don't hurt our ears in the way that high frequency distortion does. Think of fingernails on a chalkboard.
> 
> Now lets move inside a room. And here, I would turn the cave idea completely around. Rooms reflect high frequencies and amplify some low frequencies, while cancelling others. But, we not only tolerate more low frequency volume better than we do high frequency volume, we also tolerate low-frequency distortion (boomy, one-note bass) better than we do high frequency distortion which may sound screechy, piercing, or whatever other term we use to describe it. When people add treatments to their rooms, in order to reduce reflections causing slap echo or ringing, they may find themselves better able to tolerate higher loudness levels in their rooms. But, that is because the upper-mid and high-frequency reflections were uncomfortable in a way that low frequency room gain was not. Or at least, not to as great an extent.
> 
> The research I have seen indicates that after room treatment, most people can listen about 3db louder than they did before adding the treatments. That would constitute a 30% increase in volume, which is pretty reasonable. (As a side note, my experience with adding room treatments was similar to yours. Additional clarity allows me to listen more comfortably at any volume, but doesn't necessarily inspire me to listen louder. But, room treatments definitely made the Audyssey Flat curve more comfortable for me, by taking some of the high frequency distortion out of the room.)
> 
> …
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks for saying "Floyd Toole's caveman theory of evolutionary adaptation". I wondered where that idea popped into my memory from and it seems it was from Toole's book which I read a long time ago. Don't know whether I agree with you on your assessment of the theory but that's irrelevant here.

I agree that the equal loudness curves aren't symmetrical but that rolloff in sensitivity on the high frequency side is still pretty dramatic and I can't see the degree in difference in sensitivity at low and high frequencies being enough to account for, or contribute to, a preference for a falling curve in the highs. I think our loss of sensitivity in the high frequencies is still great enough to expect a rising curve in the highs if that loss of sensitivity is the reason for our preference for the rising curve in the lows.

I do accept that we find loud highs more uncomfortable than loud lows, at least I do, and that could contribute to a preference for a falling curve in the highs.

When it comes to rooms you said "Rooms reflect high frequencies and amplify some low frequencies, while cancelling others." That's not quite correct. The low frequency amplification at some frequencies and cancellation at others is due to the fact that there are far fewer room modes being activated at low frequencies than at high frequencies. Actually the same modal behaviour occurs at all frequencies but the far greater number of room modes per octave at higher frequencies actually smooths the overall response. The far lower number of room modes per octave in the low bass, often just one or two modes in the lowest octave and 2 or 3 modes in the octave above that, makes it much easier to hear the modal effects which is why modal behaviour is problematic at low frequencies but not at high frequencies.

When it comes to rooms reflecting high frequencies, I think you're mistaken again. Some common surfaces found in rooms such as glass and metallic surfaces in furniture and windows are very good reflectors of high frequencies but other surfaces such as plasterboard walls are much less reflective at high frequencies, surfaces like fabric curtains and seating covers are actually reasonably good absorbers of high frequencies, and highs are actually absorbed by air extremely well in comparison to the absorption of low frequencies by air which is why high frequencies aren't audible over great distances while low frequencies can be. Overall high frequencies are absorbed much more easily than lows and decay more quickly in a room than low frequencies which is why reverberation in rooms and closed spaces is predominantly low frequency in nature. Rooms sustain low frequencies much better than they sustain high frequencies even though some uniformly present room surfaces such as glass are much better at reflecting high frequencies than they are at reflecting low frequencies. I stand by my view that high frequencies roll off faster in enclosed spaces than do low frequencies, and I still tend to believe that part of the reason for our preference for a response that is rising in the low frequencies and falling in the highs is due in part to that behaviour of sound in enclosed spaces.

As for the listening level preferences of people with physically treated rooms, it seems our experience is pretty similar when it comes to greater clarity of sound and a trend to lower listening levels but I think that we may have reached different explanations for that result. You said "room treatments definitely made the Audyssey Flat curve more comfortable for me, by taking some of the high frequency distortion out of the room." but I'd be inclined to say that room treatments deliver a more pleasing result because they contribute to a response curve which is rising in the lows, falling in the highs, and is going to better approximate the preference noted by studies by people like Toole. In my case I actually prefer the change I hear in the lows, with greater clarity and better definition of low notes, than I do the roll off in the highs that the treatments deliver. I will admit that I'm now 70 and my high frequency hearing is no longer as good as it was a couple of decades ago which may in part explain why I tend to explain the benefit of what I hear with physical treatments in terms of how it affects me at the low end rather than at the high end but I don't think that's the whole of the reason for our difference here. I suspect that our different views on how sound behaves in rooms predispose us to look for reasons for what's going on in different areas and as a result we sometimes come up with different explanations for the same effect.


----------



## primetimeguy

anothermib said:


> I don’t know how the systems in typical mixing studios are balanced. I am quite sure that 99% of end users are listening to systems that have some amount of room gain. It may differ, and as it rightfully has been pointed out the listening volume is another factor.
> However, I would be surprised if people take an extra effort to artificially remove all room gain in the mixing studio to create tracks that have way too much bass for virtually all end customers.


Well, if the studio follows the x curve it will be flat without any room gain as a starting point. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Before Audyssey, and before Blu-ray, I used to manually boost high frequencies on excellent recordings, to get the engaging texture and detail I so love. With bad recordings, at least those containing high frequency distortion (often on CDs or old movies), I had to keep the treble control flat (or less). Now, with Audyssey Flat and, say, DTS HD Master, I no longer need to add treble boost. Audyssey Flat boosts the treble by about 4 to 5 dB in my treated room (except for a slight cut centered at 8K), and with the usual clean, undistorted Blu-ray, SACD or DVD-A, I can revel in luminous high frequency detail with Audyssey Flat and the treble control flat.

So, with a good recording, I don't like my treble cut at all. I do like the bass to slope up toward the lower frequencies, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, depending on the source.

I should add that in the '70s, in my circle of young audiophile friends, our default setting for really good recordings (such as Direct to Disk, or 15 ips stereo 1/2 track, first generation, tape), was pretty much Bass Control +2 and Treble Control + 2, with no loudness compensation, at a high volume (but probably not quite Reference). On my old McIntosh c28 preamp (I'm looking, at the manual) B +2 would be about +7.5 dB at 70 Hz, and T +2 would be about + 6 dB at 10K. With the average stereo Lp, we would often retain the bass boost, but play the treble flat to defend against high frequency distortion.


----------



## anothermib

garygarrison said:


> ...
> I should add that in the '70s, in my circle of young audiophile friends, our default setting for really good recordings (such as Direct to Disk, or 15 ips stereo 1/2 track, first generation, tape), was pretty much Bass Control +2 and Treble Control + 2, with no loudness compensation, at a high volume (but probably not quite Reference). On my old McIntosh c28 preamp (I'm looking, at the manual) B +2 would be about +7.5 dB at 70 Hz, and T +2 would be about + 6 dB at 10K. With the average stereo Lp, we would often retain the bass boost, but play the treble flat to defend against high frequency distortion.




I am wondering how big the volume difference needs to get before loudness compensation is actually required by most people. Assuming you have adjusted bass and treble perfectly to someone’s taste a certain level how much lower can you go in volume before most people will say „at this low volume I need more bass“. It clearly is the case at large volume differences - say >40dB, but is it actually true as well for 10 or 15dB?


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> I am wondering how big the volume difference needs to get before loudness compensation is actually required by most people. Assuming you have adjusted bass and treble perfectly to someone’s taste a certain level how much lower can you go in volume before most people will say „at this low volume I need more bass“. It clearly is the case at large volume differences - say >40dB, but is it actually true as well for 10 or 15dB?


This is vey easy to test. Set MV to -15 dB, turn DEQ ON-OFF and listen!


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> I am wondering how big the volume difference needs to get before loudness compensation is actually required by most people. Assuming you have adjusted bass and treble perfectly to someone’s taste a certain level how much lower can you go in volume before most people will say „at this low volume I need more bass“. It clearly is the case at large volume differences - say >40dB, but is it actually true as well for 10 or 15dB?


I think this is a very interesting question and one I have been thinking about as well. But, I suspect that the answer will prove to be very complicated and also very situation-specific. I have been thinking about trying to write a comprehensive layman's explanation of the Equal Loudness Contours, and how they affect our listening preferences, for inclusion in the subwoofer guide. But, that's going to be quite an undertaking if I decide to do it, and just trying to address some of the variables in your question is an indication of how daunting a challenge it will be.

FWIW, I personally think that most people do prefer (need) to have more bass at -10 or -15 MV than they would at Reference, for instance. I believe that the same thing would be true for most of us if we had our bass frequencies at the right equilibrium with other frequencies, starting at -10 MV, and then we dropped the volume to -20 or -25. I am not sure of that, because most of us don't actually listen that way. We generally pick a much smaller volume range and then make our preferred bass adjustments within that smaller range. But, dropping the volume by 10 or 15db would be a pretty big range.

DEQ is surely predicated on the assumption that decreases in volume of 5 or 10db will require additional bass. And, most Audyssey users seem to like that particular aspect of DEQ, so there must be something to it. A decrease in SPL of 10db results in sounds which we perceive as only half as loud at 1000Hz. And, lower frequencies fall-off much faster than the 1000Hz frequency does. But, I think that the real difficulty in answering your question lies in the number of variables involved. The answer probably could not and would not be the same for everyone or for every situation. So, let's consider some of the variables.

First, the Equal Loudness Contours represent averages of "normal" human hearing in tests conducted using pure tones and listening with headphones. But, in music and movies, tones aren't pure. We hear undertones and overtones of notes/sounds which influence our perceptions of what we hear. The Equal Loudness Contours may tell us something about the additional SPL we typically need to hear 30Hz in equilibrium with 1000Hz. But, we don't hear that 30Hz frequency in isolation. We also hear overtones of that frequency which influence our perception of that low bass frequency. And, those overtones don't require as much volume to be heard. (This is an aspect of the issue that I don't understand very well at this point, and I believe it would be very difficult to quantify.) 

Second, taking the room out of the equation in listening tests does more than just remove room gain, room reflections, and various types of distortion from the equation, although all of those factors influence our perceptions of loudness and our desire for more volume at particular frequencies. Listening with headphones also eliminates tactile sensations which strengthen and reinforce our perception of bass frequencies. There are very long and serious threads on AVS devoted to the mid-bass tactile sensation characterized as chest punch, for instance, and to the ULF (ultra-low frequency:


----------



## anothermib

mogorf said:


> This is vey easy to test. Set MV to -15 dB, turn DEQ ON-OFF and listen!




Well that is an interesting experiment. In the past I took that as well as clear evidence that active loudness compensation is absolutely vital for a proper sound. Recently I am less sure of that. The experiment may actually mainly just reconfirm that a flat curve is not preferred.
An alternative test may be to listen at 0dB and to turn on and off a bass enhancement of a few db. I would guess many people will still prefer the bass enhanced version. 
The actual test for my question would be to get the response right at -10 including the desired bass increase and change then to -20. I personally am still ok with the result, more than the DEQ on/off experience would have led me to believe in the past, but I may not be typical.


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> DEQ is surely predicated on the assumption that decreases in volume of 5 or 10db will require additional bass.


I think that they do, but the increase in voiume for the surrounds (also part of DEQ) sometimes makes them too loud with certain video material (I never use DEQ for music).


----------



## mogorf

anothermib said:


> Well that is an interesting experiment. In the past I took that as well as clear evidence that active loudness compensation is absolutely vital for a proper sound. Recently I am less sure of that. The experiment may actually mainly just reconfirm that a flat curve is not preferred.
> An alternative test may be to listen at 0dB and to turn on and off a bass enhancement of a few db. I would guess many people will still prefer the bass enhanced version.
> The actual test for my question would be to get the response right at -10 including the desired bass increase and change then to -20. I personally am still ok with the result, more than the DEQ on/off experience would have led me to believe in the past, but I may not be typical.


Well, I'm not really sure what you would like to achive here. You say you might not be typical, but rest assured your ears are surely typical. They are human ears and even if there is a diviation from one person to another in the bass department its not as big as you might think. Of course "Preference" is another - non-biological - phenomenon.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> I think that they do, but the increase in voiume for the surrounds (also part of DEQ) sometimes makes them too loud with certain video material (I never use DEQ for music).


I agree with you about the surround boost, and there are a couple of other things that I don't really like about DEQ. But, that is why I phrased it the way I did. I think that most people do enjoy that particular aspect of increased bass, as volumes drop.

"DEQ is surely predicated on the assumption that decreases in volume of 5 or 10db will require additional bass. And, most Audyssey users seem to like that particular aspect of DEQ, so there must be something to it."


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> I think this is a very interesting question and one I have been thinking about as well. But, I suspect that the answer will prove to be very complicated and also very situation-specific. I have been thinking about trying to write a comprehensive layman's explanation of the Equal Loudness Contours, and how they affect our listening preferences, for inclusion in the subwoofer guide. But, that's going to be quite an undertaking if I decide to do it, and just trying to address some of the variables in your question is an indication of how daunting a challenge it will be.
> 
> FWIW, I personally think that most people do prefer (need) to have more bass at -10 or -15 MV than they would at Reference, for instance. I believe that the same thing would be true for most of us if we had our bass frequencies at the right equilibrium with other frequencies, starting at -10 MV, and then we dropped the volume to -20 or -25. I am not sure of that, because most of us don't actually listen that way. We generally pick a much smaller volume range and then make our preferred bass adjustments within that smaller range. But, dropping the volume by 10 or 15db would be a pretty big range.
> 
> DEQ is surely predicated on the assumption that decreases in volume of 5 or 10db will require additional bass. And, most Audyssey users seem to like that particular aspect of DEQ, so there must be something to it. A decrease in SPL of 10db results in sounds which we perceive as only half as loud at 1000Hz. And, lower frequencies fall-off much faster than the 1000Hz frequency does. But, I think that the real difficulty in answering your question lies in the number of variables involved. The answer probably could not and would not be the same for everyone or for every situation. So, let's consider some of the variables.
> 
> First, the Equal Loudness Contours represent averages of "normal" human hearing in tests conducted using pure tones and listening with headphones. But, in music and movies, tones aren't pure. We hear undertones and overtones of notes/sounds which influence our perceptions of what we hear. The Equal Loudness Contours may tell us something about the additional SPL we typically need to hear 30Hz in equilibrium with 1000Hz. But, we don't hear that 30Hz frequency in isolation. We also hear overtones of that frequency which influence our perception of that low bass frequency. And, those overtones don't require as much volume to be heard. (This is an aspect of the issue that I don't understand very well at this point, and I believe it would be very difficult to quantify.)
> 
> Second, taking the room out of the equation in listening tests does more than just remove room gain, room reflections, and various types of distortion from the equation, although all of those factors influence our perceptions of loudness and our desire for more volume at particular frequencies. Listening with headphones also eliminates tactile sensations which strengthen and reinforce our perception of bass frequencies. There are very long and serious threads on AVS devoted to the mid-bass tactile sensation characterized as chest punch, for instance, and to the ULF (ultra-low frequency:


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Back to the "How did the Studio record the original mix" conversation.! Some use headphones right? Others use highly specialized and heavily treated rooms. Then we have the various genre sound templates or EQ setup. Deeper bass for hip hop, dance, etc. Higher treble boost for classical and so on. 

My point, IMHO, I think with all these degrees of variation in the Recording process. It may be quite impossible for us to ever hear the music exactly as it was recorded. Very few of us have specialied rooms the equal of Big Name Recodring Studios. In the end, we all make whatever adjustments deemed necessary to fit our individual listening enviromant. There probably never will be a global standard or repeatability. This applies to Movie content as much as Music.

This conversation takes me back to my 10 band Graphic Equalizer days! Might just be the single pice of kit that started my life long "Tweaking" Journey! I was constantly and unknowingly changing the settings for various music content. Thinking back, almost always and exclusively boosting the Bass and flatteing out the Trebbel. Admitiley I had no clue what I was actualy doing


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> Well, I'm not really sure what you would like to achive here. You say you might not be typical, but rest assured your ears are surely typical. They are human ears and even if there is a diviation from one person to another in the bass department its not as big as you might think. Of course "Preference" is another - non-biological - phenomenon.


I think person to person variability is a major factor. A quick Google search turned up this.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...fferent-age-groups-by-decade-in-men-and-women


Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthernCA

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Back to the "How did the Studio record the original mix" conversation.! Some use headphones right? Others use highly specialized and heavily treated rooms. Then we have the various genre sound templates or EQ setup. Deeper bass for hip hop, dance, etc. Higher treble boost for classical and so on.
> 
> My point, IMHO, I think with all these degrees of variation in the Recording process. It may be quite impossible for us to ever hear the music exactly as it was recorded. Very few of us have specialied rooms the equal of Big Name Recodring Studios. In the end, we all make whatever adjustments deemed necessary to fit our individual listening enviromant. There probably never will be a global standard or repeatability. This applies to Movie content as much as Music.
> 
> This conversation takes me back to my 10 band Graphic Equalizer days! Might just be the single pice of kit that started my life long "Tweaking" Journey! I was constantly and unknowingly changing the settings for various music content. Thinking back, almost always and exclusively boosting the Bass and flatteing out the Trebbel. Admitiley I had no clue what I was actualy doing


Thanks. It is understandable that most listeners would like to tweak music to their tastes.

What intrigues me the most is why most people like more bass than what the producer intended. In a normal distribution some people should like less bass while others like more bass. It somehow points to a factor that leads to us hearing less bass at the home than what the producer heard at his studio. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## MackGuyver

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Ian! I will be interested to hear how you make out.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, I ended up running Audyssey multiple times using the app (well worth the $20, btw) with the sub gain turned up until I got a -11 trim. Then with the volume a Reference and using LFE test tones on my old _Dolby Explore our World_ DVD, I backed off the sub gain until was able to get the level match with the other channels at +3 trim using my the AudioTool app with a calibrated mic.

Oddly, at Reference, my channels were all at 80dB, C-weighted. I was expecting them to be at 85/-20dB which is what the DVD was mastered at, and compared to the THX preamp I just replaced, I had the volume at -15, vs. -20 for the same _perceived _volume level when watching movies.

Regardless of that, though, the end result is a perfect level match and my bass levels, without any boost, are perfect. It was a really roundabout way of doing it, but it worked in the end. I also ended up removing the DSpeaker Antimode 8033C that I have been using after comparing it with and without Audyssey showed very little to no improvement. 

When I finished, I watched _It _in 4K/Atmos last night and the soundtrack was spot-on, in all aspects.

Thanks again for your help,
Ian


----------



## primetimeguy

This is an interesting read regarding measurements from live music venues.

http://assets.madebydelta.com/docs/senselab/publications/Live-concert-sound-quality.pdf

Check out the huge bass boost of 15db+.


----------



## SouthernCA

primetimeguy said:


> I think person to person variability is a major factor. A quick Google search turned up this.
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure...fferent-age-groups-by-decade-in-men-and-women
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Does it show that as we age, we need to increase treble just to hear it. Not sure if I am reading it correctly 

If that is correct, that will show that most people above 30 will need to increase treble in their systems. 

But of course it also means that if the producer was 50 years old, a younger listener would have to increase the bass to hear it as the 50 year old producer heard.

Again, not sure if I am understanding the charts Correctly.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

anothermib said:


> The mind is capable to make many adjustments between the actual sensory input and the final perception..


 Indeed, this is one of the basic differences between sensation and perception


----------



## primetimeguy

SouthernCA said:


> Does it show that as we age, we need to increase treble just to hear it. Not sure if I am reading it correctly
> 
> If that is correct, that will show that most people above 30 will need to increase treble in their systems.
> 
> But of course it also means that if the producer was 50 years old, a younger listener would have to increase the bass to hear it as the 50 year old producer heard.
> 
> Again, not sure if I am understanding the charts Correctly.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


That's pretty much how I read it. Always knew high frequencies were first to go but first time I've seen something like this and seen at huge differences. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

primetimeguy said:


> I think person to person variability is a major factor. A quick Google search turned up this.
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure...fferent-age-groups-by-decade-in-men-and-women


Interesting article.

They were measuring* thresholds* with *pure tones; *hearing may change as SPL increases to levels far above threshold, and the stimuli increase in complexity (e.g., becoming music) due to bio-mechanical factors as well as the difference SPL and complexity induced arousal of the cerebral cortex (and in movies with outrageous LFE, sympathetic fight/flight arousal!) may make (Berlyne: Aesthetics and Psychobiology) . 

In most of the 20th Century, gender differences in exposure to industrial noise, military noise, and smoking made men and women even more different than they were when this study was done (2010?). Now, with ear protection, the decline in smoking, and the absence of a military draft for men, the difference may have shrunk.


----------



## David Aiken

SouthernCA said:


> Does it show that as we age, we need to increase treble just to hear it. Not sure if I am reading it correctly
> 
> If that is correct, that will show that most people above 30 will need to increase treble in their systems.
> 
> But of course it also means that if the producer was 50 years old, a younger listener would have to increase the bass to hear it as the 50 year old producer heard.
> 
> Again, not sure if I am understanding the charts Correctly.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


It's easy to get that idea but I think in practice it doesn't work that way or at least not to the degree that you would think.

I'm 70 and the last time I tried playing with a test disc a few years back I couldn't hear test tones above around 12 kHz but I have no desire to turn the treble up. My system still reproduces the tonal characteristics of music with the same kind of character that I hear when I listen to live music because that hearing loss applies to live music also. We don't ask the musicians at a live concert to turn the high frequencies up and provided the system reproduces music so that it sounds the way it sounds to me at a live performance, I don't want to turn the highs up. If I did turn them up then recorded music would end up sounding brighter to me than live music does.

I suspect that as long as the loss in the high frequencies doesn't extend low enough to start interfering with something like speech intelligibility and what you're listening to sounds tonally the same as what live music or speech sounds, then few people are going to want to turn the highs up. The other thing you need to remember is that the process of deterioration in the high frequencies from ageing is very gradual so it's not a process you notice and you adjust to it without even noticing it.

Also hearing loss from loud sound levels doesn't start in the high frequencies where many people seem to think it starts. It actually starts in the mid-frequencies between 2 and 4 kHz and eventually extends out from there in both directions. The first thing people with noise related hearing loss tend to notice is not a fall off in the high frequencies but that they start to have problems understanding what people are saying because the loss starts in the frequency range where our ears are most sensitive and that range is extremely important to our ability to understand speech.


----------



## mogorf

primetimeguy said:


> I think person to person variability is a major factor. A quick Google search turned up this.
> https://www.researchgate.net/figure...fferent-age-groups-by-decade-in-men-and-women
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


I'm a bit reluctant to accept this graph as a valid one. If we take a closer look it says men (60-69) have a rolloff of 20 dB at 4 kHz and 40 dB at 8 kHz compared to 1 kHz. I'm 61 and now I feel hurt!


----------



## primetimeguy

mogorf said:


> I'm a bit reluctant to accept this graph as a valid one. If we take a closer look it says men (60-69) have a rolloff of 20 dB at 4 kHz and 40 dB at 8 kHz compared to 1 kHz. I'm 61 and now I feel hurt!


Agree it seems drastic and much more than I would have expected, but if you search you can find similar studies such as

http://www.pnwaudiology.com/age-related-hearing-loss/



Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## MackGuyver

Here are my results from the Android app for anyone interested - I'm very pleased with the results and I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this amazing FAQ!


----------



## SouthernCA

David Aiken said:


> It's easy to get that idea but I think in practice it doesn't work that way or at least not to the degree that you would think.
> 
> I'm 70 and the last time I tried playing with a test disc a few years back I couldn't hear test tones above around 12 kHz but I have no desire to turn the treble up. My system still reproduces the tonal characteristics of music with the same kind of character that I hear when I listen to live music because that hearing loss applies to live music also. We don't ask the musicians at a live concert to turn the high frequencies up and provided the system reproduces music so that it sounds the way it sounds to me at a live performance, I don't want to turn the highs up. If I did turn them up then recorded music would end up sounding brighter to me than live music does.
> 
> I suspect that as long as the loss in the high frequencies doesn't extend low enough to start interfering with something like speech intelligibility and what you're listening to sounds tonally the same as what live music or speech sounds, then few people are going to want to turn the highs up. The other thing you need to remember is that the process of deterioration in the high frequencies from ageing is very gradual so it's not a process you notice and you adjust to it without even noticing it.
> 
> Also hearing loss from loud sound levels doesn't start in the high frequencies where many people seem to think it starts. It actually starts in the mid-frequencies between 2 and 4 kHz and eventually extends out from there in both directions. The first thing people with noise related hearing loss tend to notice is not a fall off in the high frequencies but that they start to have problems understanding what people are saying because the loss starts in the frequency range where our ears are most sensitive and that range is extremely important to our ability to understand speech.


Excellent points. thank you. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthernCA

David Aiken said:


> It's easy to get that idea but I think in practice it doesn't work that way or at least not to the degree that you would think.
> 
> I'm 70 and the last time I tried playing with a test disc a few years back I couldn't hear test tones above around 12 kHz but I have no desire to turn the treble up. My system still reproduces the tonal characteristics of music with the same kind of character that I hear when I listen to live music because that hearing loss applies to live music also. We don't ask the musicians at a live concert to turn the high frequencies up and provided the system reproduces music so that it sounds the way it sounds to me at a live performance, I don't want to turn the highs up. If I did turn them up then recorded music would end up sounding brighter to me than live music does.
> 
> I suspect that as long as the loss in the high frequencies doesn't extend low enough to start interfering with something like speech intelligibility and what you're listening to sounds tonally the same as what live music or speech sounds, then few people are going to want to turn the highs up. The other thing you need to remember is that the process of deterioration in the high frequencies from ageing is very gradual so it's not a process you notice and you adjust to it without even noticing it.
> 
> Also hearing loss from loud sound levels doesn't start in the high frequencies where many people seem to think it starts. It actually starts in the mid-frequencies between 2 and 4 kHz and eventually extends out from there in both directions. The first thing people with noise related hearing loss tend to notice is not a fall off in the high frequencies but that they start to have problems understanding what people are saying because the loss starts in the frequency range where our ears are most sensitive and that range is extremely important to our ability to understand speech.


Excellent points. Thank you.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Most audiograms I've seen, even those in research papers, stop about an octave too low (i.e. at 8K). I fully realize that in a clinical population of older folk there isn't much hearing, if any, between 8K and 16K Hz, but I suspect that the real reason for stopping at 8K is tradition, borne of the amazing coincidence that hearing aids of the 1950s that applied correction above 8K were too difficult to design and build cost efficiently, and the same companies made the audiometers. I may have read that accusation in Fifty Seminal Papers on Human Hearing when I skimmed it (looking for the pony) in about 1975, but I can't say for sure.
My father, a carpenter, had hearing loss due to driving too many nails and working close to saws, etc., but he had some hearing above 8K, as measured by my test disk. When he listened to music I would turn up my childhood/teen tweeter (JBL 075) and he could hear more detail. At the time, I had an argument with the audiologist, who said something like, "HiFi nuts _*think*_ they can hear above 8K, but they can't." She was a chain smoker, so maybe she couldn't -- but her audiometer didn't go above 8K, so she might not have known (and she obviously wasn't a "HiFi nut"). A few days later, a friend and I found we could hear 16K clearly, even from behind either a JBL 030 or a Klipsch Cornwall, at normal volume (not at a potentially misleading threshold). Ah, youth!
In about 2003, there was a symposium, called something like “The Promise of Hair Cell Regeneration.” Regrowth of hair cells in the inner ear was explored, starting with hair cell regeneration in various creatures from birds to zebrafish. There was a review article in 2017 about recent advancements in regeneration of auditory hair cells in the journal Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. For those who are curious, it should be online at no cost, because this journal really believes that science is, by definition, *public and verifiable*, unlike some others.


----------



## Mike_WI

*Rahul Mittal et al. 2017*



garygarrison said:


> Most audiograms I've seen, even those in research papers, stop about an octave too low (i.e. at 8K). I fully realize that in a clinical population of older folk there isn't much hearing, if any, between 8K and 16K Hz, but I suspect that the real reason for stopping at 8K is tradition, borne of the amazing coincidence that hearing aids of the 1950s that applied correction above 8K were too difficult to design and build cost efficiently, and the same companies made the audiometers. I may have read that accusation in Fifty Seminal Papers on Human Hearing when I skimmed it (looking for the pony) in about 1975, but I can't say for sure.
> My father, a carpenter, had hearing loss due to driving too many nails and working close to saws, etc., but he had some hearing above 8K, as measured by my test disk. When he listened to music I would turn up my childhood/teen tweeter (JBL 075) and he could hear more detail. At the time, I had an argument with the audiologist, who said something like, "HiFi nuts _*think*_ they can hear above 8K, but they can't." She was a chain smoker, so maybe she couldn't -- but her audiometer didn't go above 8K, so she might not have known (and she obviously wasn't a "HiFi nut"). A few days later, a friend and I found we could hear 16K clearly, even from behind either a JBL 030 or a Klipsch Cornwall, at normal volume (not at a potentially misleading threshold). Ah, youth!
> In about 2003, there was a symposium, called something like “The Promise of Hair Cell Regeneration.” Regrowth of hair cells in the inner ear was explored, starting with hair cell regeneration in various creatures from birds to zebrafish. There was a review article in 2017 about recent advancements in regeneration of auditory hair cells in the journal Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience. For those who are curious, it should be online at no cost, because this journal really believes that science is, by definition, *public and verifiable*, unlike some others.


Being published doesn't mean immune to criticism or revision, but here is article...

Recent Advancements in the Regeneration of Auditory Hair Cells and Hearing Restoration
Rahul Mittal et alia
Front. Mol. Neurosci., 31 July 2017 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00236
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnmol.2017.00236/full



> Neurosensory responses of hearing and balance are mediated by receptors in specialized neuroepithelial sensory cells. Any disruption of the biochemical and molecular pathways that facilitate these responses can result in severe deficits, including hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction. Hearing is affected by both environmental and genetic factors, with impairment of auditory function being the most common neurosensory disorder affecting 1 in 500 newborns, as well as having an impact on the majority of elderly population. Damage to auditory sensory cells is not reversible, and if sufficient damage and cell death have taken place, the resultant deficit may lead to permanent deafness. Cochlear implants are considered to be one of the most successful and consistent treatments for deaf patients, but only offer limited recovery at the expense of loss of residual hearing. Recently there has been an increased interest in the auditory research community to explore the regeneration of mammalian auditory hair cells and restoration of their function. In this review article, we examine a variety of recent therapies, including genetic, stem cell and molecular therapies as well as discussing progress being made in genome editing strategies as applied to the restoration of hearing function.


...



> Conclusions
> Recent advancements in technologies have opened up several promising avenues to combat hearing loss with a great translational potential. However, many challenges still exist that make it extremely difficult to properly regenerate hair cells. Proper orientation, tonotopic arrangement, appropriate integration, as well as adequate innervation of the cells all have to be considered to provide a functional solution to hearing loss. Of the different strategies outlined, gene will require considerable improvement in order to better control gene targeting, editing and expression. AAV are currently the popular choice in delivering these gene therapies, but with the advent of other more sophisticated gene editing technologies like the CRISPR/Cas9 system, it is likely that these newer strategies will also become extremely useful in sensory regeneration research. While the technical capability of these methods have been explored in supporting cells and inner hair cells, there has not been substantial understanding of pathologic mechanisms to advance these strategies into effective therapies. At most, inner ear gene therapy has largely focused on gene replacement or amplification, but these tactics are only effective in recessive deafness. Since some dominant forms of deafness result from single point mutations, gene-editing technologies including CRISPR/Cas9 will become a valuable tool to deliver therapy in the near future.
> 
> Due to limited ability of hair cells to regenerate, this aspect of hearing loss will continue to receive the most attention to develop novel treatment modalities. The main therapeutic strategies will tend to implicate resetting the course of the reprogramming of supporting cells to a proliferative progenitor state followed by a differentiation phase where both new hair cells and supporting cells are produced. One other stem cell option may in the future be the ex vivo expansion of a patient’s own stem cells and then reintroduction into a damage site such as spiral ganglion. Our comprehension of the underlying mechanisms is not yet complete enough to progress into tangible, working treatments. However, the auditory community working in the field of regenerative medicine is positive that with the evolution of new technologies, treatments for inner ear sensory disorders are sure to emerge.


----------



## BNestico

Hi fellas, I’m pretty sure I know the answer to my own question but I wanna just make sure so I’m not wasting my time. I bought a new Denon AVR X4300 at the end of December and hooked it up and ran Audyssey. I just thought of it now that since I first ran Audyssey I’ve since removed my X-mas tree from the room and put the carpet back that was on the floor in the middle of the room. I’m assuming I should now run Audyssey again? None of my speakers or seats have moved but I’m figuring that the sound is going to react to the room differently now?


----------



## mthomas47

BNestico said:


> Hi fellas, I’m pretty sure I know the answer to my own question but I wanna just make sure so I’m not wasting my time. I bought a new Denon AVR X4300 at the end of December and hooked it up and ran Audyssey. I just thought of it now that since I first ran Audyssey I’ve since removed my X-mas tree from the room and put the carpet back that was on the floor in the middle of the room. I’m assuming I should now run Audyssey again? None of my speakers or seats have moved but I’m figuring that the sound is going to react to the room differently now?


Hi,

I'm not sure that it would make a big difference in the post-Audyssey sound if you recalibrate now, but if you are like most people on the thread, your OCD won't let you rest until you do recalibrate.  And, it might make a difference, particularly for some higher frequencies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

The recent discussions on the thread regarding Reference volumes, bass boosts, and the Equal Loudness Contours, inspired me to try to add a new section to my subwoofer guide. I have spent a lot of time, over the last several days, working on a section entitled: Bass Frequencies, Room Gain, and The Equal Loudness Contours. In addition to laying a stronger foundation for some of the ongoing discussions, I try to explain why we like bass so much to begin with, and why we may add bass boosts and not want to add corresponding treble boosts. 

There is a fair bit of speculation included in that section, but I believe that most of the speculation is based on things we already know. I hope that people will find the discussion interesting, and perhaps informative as well. It was a very complicated section to write, and I am confident that I will be adding detail or clarity over the coming days and weeks. But, I think it is far enough along to let it stand on its own for a while, and I hope that anyone interested will take a look at it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> The recent discussions on the thread regarding Reference volumes, bass boosts, and the Equal Loudness Contours, inspired me to try to add a new section to my subwoofer guide. I have spent a lot of time, over the last several days, working on a section entitled: Bass Frequencies, Room Gain, and The Equal Loudness Contours. In addition to laying a stronger foundation for some of the ongoing discussions, I try to explain why we like bass so much to begin with, and why we may add bass boosts and not want to add corresponding treble boosts.
> 
> There is a fair bit of speculation included in that section, but I believe that most of the speculation is based on things we already know. I hope that people will find the discussion interesting, and perhaps informative as well. It was a very complicated section to write, and I am confident that I will be adding detail or clarity over the coming days and weeks. But, I think it is far enough along to let it stand on its own for a while, and I hope that anyone interested will take a look at it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, I think you've made an excellent write-up on bass issues in close correspondence with why we may like it so much. 

My addendum to your guide would be to go into a bit more details on why Mother Nature made our ears work as they work in frame of equal loudness contours, i.e. why we loose sensitivity in the bass department whenever volume (SPL) goes down. 

Research on the subject explains this phenomenon due to making us humans not to hear our own heart beat (a low tone sound attack in our bodies every second or so), thus avoiding us humans to feel discomfort in our every day lives. Clever, eh?  

This, I'm sure will bring about much more understanding to many of us on what really is going on! My thoughts!


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> ... Research on the subject explains this phenomenon due to making us humans not to hear our own heart beat (a low tone sound attack in our bodies every second or so), thus avoiding us humans to feel discomfort in our every day lives. Clever, eh?  ...


One day, in Death Valley, the wind stopped totally, and there were essentially no sounds from the environment, so my friend and I each stretched out on the valley floor and just listened. Our hearts were very loud indeed, and we could hear fluids flowing through out bodies. We were convinced that what we were hearing was not just gastrointestinal activity, but the blood coursing through our veins and arteries. I could hear activity in the head/neck region. Yes, it was sort of a religious experience, but that's the way it is in Nature's anechoic chamber.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> The recent discussions on the thread regarding Reference volumes, bass boosts, and the Equal Loudness Contours, inspired me to try to add a new section to my subwoofer guide. I have spent a lot of time, over the last several days, working on a section entitled: Bass Frequencies, Room Gain, and The Equal Loudness Contours. In addition to laying a stronger foundation for some of the ongoing discussions, I try to explain why we like bass so much to begin with, and why we may add bass boosts and not want to add corresponding treble boosts.
> 
> …


Mike,

Another useful contribution to your subwoofer guide.

In the section on Room Gain you say "Mark Seaton has stated that all rooms of about 15,000^3 or less will provide somewhere between about 6db and 18db of bass reinforcement. That would be true even in rooms which open to other parts of the house. Small rooms would typically get much more room gain than larger rooms."

That statement is true but it omits a few interesting links to the previous section on bass frequencies in relation to rooms which are open to other parts of the house. In a closed rectangular room you've got 3 dimensions (length, width and height) which determine the modal frequencies. In a room which is open to another area, you effectively add another dimension through the opening to the wall opposite it. That's a longer dimension than the actual room dimension on that axis so it adds a lower modal frequency to the room's behaviour than the modal frequency due to the room axis and that creates further possibilities for reinforcement and cancellation of frequencies within the room. You also lose some room gain because a lot of the sound exiting the room through the opening is not reflected back into the room. Some sound is reflected back into the room but how much depends on the characteristics of the space outside the room.

When you have a room open to another space you have a situation of "conjoined spaces". That's generally frowned upon because it introduces an element of unpredictability to the acoustic behaviour of the room and I've seen a showroom in an audio store that opened into another area, the result being that the bass just rolled off below 100 Hz and getting decent bass response was pretty difficult. Sometimes the conjoined space can work to your benefit and actually help to smooth the modal behaviour of your room. I suspect you usually get a bit of good and bad from having a conjoined space associated with your room but whether the good will outweigh the bad or vice versa is going to depend on the 2 rooms involved and probably also on the placement of speakers and listening position in your room. One thing I can promise anyone working with such a situation is that trying to deal with it without using something like Audyssey can be very difficult because all of the "rules" people tend to follow about placement of speakers and listening position are based on experience with closed rectangular rooms. Be prepared to experiment and learn how to work with the room and you can get good results but trying to force the room to do what you want will almost certainly not succeed. Electronic room correction systems like Audyssey can help a lot but getting good results become a bit trickier. If you want to get reliable, repeatable results with Audyssey in a closed room you just have to make sure that everything in the room is the same every time you do the setup process. With a conjoined space you have to make sure that things are the same in the conjoined space as well. My AV setup is in a living room which has another room opening into it (door to that room gets closed every time) plus an archway to a hallway leading to several other rooms so I have to take care about whether the doors to those other rooms are open or closed as well as the state of the windows in any rooms to which I leave the doors open. The decision as to whether a door is left open or closed during setup is based on whether that door is usually open or closed when the system is in use.

It would be great if we could all have dedicated rooms for our systems which could be closed off from adjoining spaces so we didn't have to deal with the complications that conjoined spaces create but the reality for many, perhaps even most, of us is that we don't have the luxury of a closed room and we do have the complications of a conjoined space. You can still get good results, even extremely good results in some cases, but you do need to consider the other room in your setup and you do need to spend time experimenting and discovering what works best for your particular setup. I've yet to see a set of guidelines for dealing with conjoined spaces and the only thing I've discovered by myself that works is that you have to be prepared to play with different setups and different placements of acoustic treatments and furniture, keeping the things that work and rejecting the things that work. Over time you can get better and better results but it probably won't happen quickly and you can still discover surprising things about your room's acoustic behaviour after years of using the room. Just try changing speakers and replacing stand mounts with a rear firing port with floor standers with a front firing port which load the room in an entirely different way and have to adjust your speaker placement into the bargain and you find yourself back at square one and your room exhibiting some things you never noticed previously. I learnt that one the hard way.


----------



## SouthernCA

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> That makes sense. Now, I am sure we have many music producers here. Or others who know the music producing set up and process.
> 
> What is the volume music most often played in the studio when it is mixed? And how are most studios set up - flat or sloping frequency curve?
> 
> My guess would be that the music is NOT mixed louder than what I play at home, but i could be wrong.
> 
> And most studios are set with a flat frequency response curve, but again I could be wrong.
> 
> And if both of those assumptions are correct, it is still a mystery why most people prefer sloping frequency response at listening levels.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Looks like I was mistaken here. As per Dr. Toole (quoted below), most mixing is done at much higher spl levels and in that case it is reasonable to assume that when that music is played at lower levels at home, listeners prefers sloping frequency curve. 

Here is Dr. Toole's quote from another thread. 

" One of the significant issues involves the circle of confusion in a special aspect - typical recordings are monitored at higher sound levels than consumers usually play them. Hence, an average listener is pleased by a subtle bass boost - and correctly so. Over the years I have visited numerous recording studios, and designed a few. Frequently I have had to retreat to the rear wall and plug my ears. No wonder recording engineers have hearing loss as an occupational hazard."

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

SouthernCA said:


> Looks like I was mistaken here. As per Dr. Toole (quoted below), most mixing is done at much higher spl levels and in that case it is reasonable to assume that when that music is played at lower levels at home, listeners prefers sloping frequency curve.
> 
> Here is Dr. Toole's quote from another thread.
> 
> " One of the significant issues involves the circle of confusion in a special aspect - typical recordings are monitored at higher sound levels than consumers usually play them. Hence, an average listener is pleased by a subtle bass boost - and correctly so. Over the years I have visited numerous recording studios, and designed a few. Frequently I have had to retreat to the rear wall and plug my ears. No wonder recording engineers have hearing loss as an occupational hazard."


We visited about 25 or more recording studios in the San Francisco Bay Area, and a few theaters and churches in two terms of a course called Discover Your Ears at SFSU. We heard a lot of live recording and playback. The sound was very loud, but not painful or (reportedly, at least) excessive to anyone in the classes, women (with their more acute hearing) included. With Dr. Toole, it might be a matter of _*preference*_, if we assume the studios he visited had good equipment and acoustics. Consumers tend to play their music and movies much lower than that, except for a few of us (3 on the forum that I know about), and even we play movies at 5 to 7 dB below Reference, which is about what THX predicts would "_*sound like*_ Reference" in rooms our sizes, with early reflections (and some treatment). Most people opt for lower levels for some, or many, or most, of the following reasons: *1) Preference* (the people Mike talked about who would sit near the back at a live orchestral concert) * 2) Gross imbalance* of bass, midrange, and treble. Even though there are no SPL or recording level standards for music recording, Pop, Rock, Metal, etc. is often mixed with bass severely cut*; *the "suits" sometimes require that (in an attempt to win the loudness wars??), whether the mixers or the artists want it or not. Even classical may be bass-shy if the mix was done for vinyl. Remastering is a possible solution, but most of us can live with simple bass boost, instead. *3) Distortion* in the recording, the playback equipment, or the room acoustics. Many inexpensive AVRs and some speakers can't handle 105 dB (or even 100 dB) peaks without dramatic increases in distortion *4) The neighbors*, or others in the family.

*Movie mixes* -- at least the mixes of the music scores -- are quite variable in bass to treble balance, for reasons that passeth all understanding. Even a sound track to a single film can vary. Take The Man Who Would Be King. Please. In the theater, with a magnetic soundtrack, the Maurice Jarre score sounded wonderful. At home, the soundtrack Lp vinyl with a high end cartridge and arm was just as good. But the DVD, Blu-ray, and whatever they use to put it on TV are all a screechy mess. It is helped -- some -- by considerable bass boost and some treble cut. I can understand the LFE being variable, depending on the kind of movie it is, but, IMO, an orchestral score should sound like it is being played by an orchestra. Even at 5 to 7 dB below Reference, I use some low and mid bass boost, occasionally a lot (but no DEQ).

*Music Recordings *all bets are off -- season to taste.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> Another useful contribution to your subwoofer guide.
> 
> In the section on Room Gain you say "Mark Seaton has stated that all rooms of about 15,000^3 or less will provide somewhere between about 6db and 18db of bass reinforcement. That would be true even in rooms which open to other parts of the house. Small rooms would typically get much more room gain than larger rooms."
> 
> That statement is true but it omits a few interesting links to the previous section on bass frequencies in relation to rooms which are open to other parts of the house. In a closed rectangular room you've got 3 dimensions (length, width and height) which determine the modal frequencies. In a room which is open to another area, you effectively add another dimension through the opening to the wall opposite it. That's a longer dimension than the actual room dimension on that axis so it adds a lower modal frequency to the room's behaviour than the modal frequency due to the room axis and that creates further possibilities for reinforcement and cancellation of frequencies within the room. You also lose some room gain because a lot of the sound exiting the room through the opening is not reflected back into the room. Some sound is reflected back into the room but how much depends on the characteristics of the space outside the room.
> 
> When you have a room open to another space you have a situation of "conjoined spaces". That's generally frowned upon because it introduces an element of unpredictability to the acoustic behaviour of the room and I've seen a showroom in an audio store that opened into another area, the result being that the bass just rolled off below 100 Hz and getting decent bass response was pretty difficult. Sometimes the conjoined space can work to your benefit and actually help to smooth the modal behaviour of your room. I suspect you usually get a bit of good and bad from having a conjoined space associated with your room but whether the good will outweigh the bad or vice versa is going to depend on the 2 rooms involved and probably also on the placement of speakers and listening position in your room. One thing I can promise anyone working with such a situation is that trying to deal with it without using something like Audyssey can be very difficult because all of the "rules" people tend to follow about placement of speakers and listening position are based on experience with closed rectangular rooms. Be prepared to experiment and learn how to work with the room and you can get good results but trying to force the room to do what you want will almost certainly not succeed. Electronic room correction systems like Audyssey can help a lot but getting good results become a bit trickier. If you want to get reliable, repeatable results with Audyssey in a closed room you just have to make sure that everything in the room is the same every time you do the setup process. With a conjoined space you have to make sure that things are the same in the conjoined space as well. My AV setup is in a living room which has another room opening into it (door to that room gets closed every time) plus an archway to a hallway leading to several other rooms so I have to take care about whether the doors to those other rooms are open or closed as well as the state of the windows in any rooms to which I leave the doors open. The decision as to whether a door is left open or closed during setup is based on whether that door is usually open or closed when the system is in use.
> 
> It would be great if we could all have dedicated rooms for our systems which could be closed off from adjoining spaces so we didn't have to deal with the complications that conjoined spaces create but the reality for many, perhaps even most, of us is that we don't have the luxury of a closed room and we do have the complications of a conjoined space. You can still get good results, even extremely good results in some cases, but you do need to consider the other room in your setup and you do need to spend time experimenting and discovering what works best for your particular setup. I've yet to see a set of guidelines for dealing with conjoined spaces and the only thing I've discovered by myself that works is that you have to be prepared to play with different setups and different placements of acoustic treatments and furniture, keeping the things that work and rejecting the things that work. Over time you can get better and better results but it probably won't happen quickly and you can still discover surprising things about your room's acoustic behaviour after years of using the room. Just try changing speakers and replacing stand mounts with a rear firing port with floor standers with a front firing port which load the room in an entirely different way and have to adjust your speaker placement into the bargain and you find yourself back at square one and your room exhibiting some things you never noticed previously. I learnt that one the hard way.


Hi David,

Thanks for the nice comment about the new section, and thanks for the informative post on room gain. I agree with all of it! I was out of town on business yesterday, and couldn't respond to anything. But, I woke up yesterday morning wanting to add some things to the new section, and I may include a couple of additional sentences on room gain. In my opinion, room gain is much too complicated for me to attempt an in-depth explanation in my guide. Even the real audio/subwoofer experts such as Toole, Harman, Welti, Geddes, and Seaton, to name a few, determine final subwoofer placement, phase, and DSP, on a trial-and-error basis in individual rooms.

Part of what Mark was talking about was the combination of room mode gain and boundary gain (proximity to walls), that would occur even in a room with three walls and a ceiling, that was open to the outdoors for what should be the fourth boundary wall. Fortunately, many people with open floor plans are still able to get good sound pressure levels as long as they are in reasonably close proximity to their subs.

Although there are on-line calculators which will help us to determine what our primary axial and tangential room modes are, subwoofer location, in relation to the MLP, will determine to what extent we actually get constructive gain at a particular frequency. And, they still won't account for boundary gain, which may also add significantly to our SPL. I decided that the best I could do with the subject was just to introduce it, and link the Data-Bass article to demonstrate some of the variables involved--even with four strategically placed subwoofers.

Incidentally, to your point about Audyssey, in a separate article, they demonstrated how much room EQ was able to smooth out the frequency response of those four subwoofers. (I don't have a link to that one, but it should be on the Data-Bass website.)

I have also experienced the effects of opening and closing doors, which you discussed. Back before I had quite as much subwoofage as I do now, I used to experiment with selectively opening doors to my large mixed-use room. I could either seal the room, or open some doors to it. With two doors open to a certain width, I found that I could create a kind of Helmholtz resonator to emphasize


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

@mthomas47,

Excellent and very detailed new expansions. Great work. The Subwoofer Guide sure has grown! A wealth of information, intricately descriptive, sculpted detail and presented in welcoming understandable language. Kudos upon kudos Sir! We are lucky to have you at AVS as a major contributor of conveying the impossibly complex. I come away with new and fresh insights each and every time I read the Guide. 

A suggestion if you will. Consider adding some type of "Date" annotation for newly added or reworded sections of the Guide. This would be most beneficial to those of us who wish to go straight to the new edits and updates. As I have mentioned before and will mention again! Your writing style is superb Sir!


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> @*mthomas47* ,
> 
> Excellent and very detailed new expansions. Great work. The Subwoofer Guide sure has grown! A wealth of information, intricately descriptive, sculpted detail and presented in welcoming understandable language. Kudos upon kudos Sir! We are lucky to have you at AVS as a major contributor of conveying the impossibly complex. I come away with new and fresh insights each and every time I read the Guide.
> 
> A suggestion if you will. Consider adding some type of "Date" annotation for newly added or reworded sections of the Guide. This would be most beneficial to those of us who wish to go straight to the new edits and updates. As I have mentioned before and will mention again! Your writing style is superb Sir!


Hi Adam,

Thank you very much for your high praise! It means a lot to me, as that guide has been a lot of work.  I have really enjoyed writing it, as the research and writing have taught me a lot, and other people do really seem to benefit from it. 

With respect to some system of annotation to illustrate when edits are made, I don't see how that would work, as I constantly add and tweak things. The number of footnotes would be overwhelming. Just for fun, which it wasn't really,  I went back just now to see how many edits I have done to the original post that became the guide. In the 16 months since then, I have done 241 edits. (Edit: Now, 245.)

It took me 75 edits, over a period of multiple days to write that new three-part section, since I will normally write two or three paragraphs, save them to the post so I won't lose them, and then read them in the more readable post format to see how I like what I wrote. Then, I will tweak them for clarity and add to them for content. Just since your post, I added two more paragraphs, that I think are helpful, to the very end of the guide.

The best I have thought to do, so far, is to post an announcement for anyone interested, whenever I add a new section, such as the one on Setting Crossovers, or the latest one on Bass Frequencies, Room Gain, and The Equal Loudness Contours. I think that good explanations and clarity take a lot of attention to detail. So, I'm frequently tweaking something. And, if someone asks a question that I think really belongs in the guide, I will try to answer it in a post first, and then add something also answering it in the guide. And, hopefully, I answer it even better in the guide.

So far, that's the best solution I can think of. Thanks again, Adam! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> Thanks for the nice comment about the new section, and thanks for the informative post on room gain. I agree with all of it! I was out of town on business yesterday, and couldn't respond to anything. But, I woke up yesterday morning wanting to add some things to the new section, and I may include a couple of additional sentences on room gain. In my opinion, room gain is much too complicated for me to attempt an in-depth explanation in my guide. Even the real audio/subwoofer experts such as Toole, Harman, Welti, Geddes, and Seaton, to name a few, determine final subwoofer placement, phase, and DSP, on a trial-and-error basis in individual rooms.
> 
> …
> 
> Although there are on-line calculators which will help us to determine what our primary axial and tangential room modes are, subwoofer location, in relation to the MLP, will determine to what extent we actually get constructive gain at a particular frequency. And, they still won't account for boundary gain, which may also add significantly to our SPL. I decided that the best I could do with the subject was just to introduce it, and link the Data-Bass article to demonstrate some of the variables involved--even with four strategically placed subwoofers.


Mike,

I've linked 2 paragraphs that were separated in your response,

Trial by error is really the only way to address some things. The online calculators are great for determining modal frequencies for a room but. as you say, they don't determine how much actual gain or cancellation is going to occur at a frequency and one of the reasons for that is because the amount of gain or cancellation depends on both speaker placement and listening position placement. Let's toss in wall, floor, and ceiling construction and stiffness too while we're at it. I won't say that it would be impossible to program a calculator that could give us info about the gains and cancellations as well but it would not be a trivial programming task and just how non-trivial that task would be is evidenced by the fact that no-one seems to have done it in the years since the first on-line calculators appeared.

As for providing an in-depth explanation of room gain, or of the effects of conjoined spaces, I agree that it's too complicated. I think "in-depth" for some of this stuff equates too "text book length" and even if a few people read it and understand it, they're still going to be faced with the fact that they're going to be using trial by error to determine placement and other issues. Much easier to do as you've done and say there's a hell of a lot to some of these things and even the experts use trial by error so you're going to have to use trial by error too. I think the best any of us can do is point people in the direction of the trials we've personally made which have been most helpful for us and to steer people away from the trials that really didn't work for us while at the same time describing our particular room and setup situation a bit so the reader can get an idea of just how much their situation may be similar or different to our situation.





> Part of what Mark was talking about was the combination of room mode gain and boundary gain (proximity to walls), that would occur even in a room with three walls and a ceiling, that was open to the outdoors for what should be the fourth boundary wall. Fortunately, many people with open floor plans are still able to get good sound pressure levels as long as they are in reasonably close proximity to their subs.



I sometimes think it's surprising, given the potential problems and how much variation there is in rooms, that it's actually possible to get reasonable results at all but I think quite reasonable results are possible in most rooms, even rooms that have quite noticeable problems, if people are prepared to put a bit of time and effort into a trial and error approach. Once you start to get a feel for what works and what doesn't work in a room, the process becomes a lot quicker and easier and it's often surprising how much difference quite small changes can make. One thing I think people should consider doing if they're really having problems with getting a decent Audyssey result is to turn Audyssey off and do some trial and error without it, then try running Audyssey setup once they've got things sounding as good as they can without Audyssey. 



> Incidentally, to your point about Audyssey, in a separate article, they demonstrated how much room EQ was able to smooth out the frequency response of those four subwoofers. (I don't have a link to that one, but it should be on the Data-Bass website.)
> 
> I have also experienced the effects of opening and closing doors, which you discussed. Back before I had quite as much subwoofage as I do now, I used to experiment with selectively opening doors to my large mixed-use room. I could either seal the room, or open some doors to it. With two doors open to a certain width, I found that I could create a kind of Helmholtz resonator to emphasize


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> @mthomas47,
> 
> Excellent and very detailed new expansions. Great work. The Subwoofer Guide sure has grown! A wealth of information, intricately descriptive, sculpted detail and presented in welcoming understandable language. Kudos upon kudos Sir! We are lucky to have you at AVS as a major contributor of conveying the impossibly complex. I come away with new and fresh insights each and every time I read the Guide.
> 
> A suggestion if you will. Consider adding some type of "Date" annotation for newly added or reworded sections of the Guide. This would be most beneficial to those of us who wish to go straight to the new edits and updates. As I have mentioned before and will mention again! Your writing style is superb Sir!


I couldn't agree more. Further more Mike's willingness to help through PM's and answer noob and not so noob questions has helped me get things sorted with my system or alleviate concerns I may have had about something I was doing, or wanted to do. Always very clear descriptive answers, never condescending, but more importantly, uses his valuable time to help. Bravo Zulu Mike.


----------



## mthomas47

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> I couldn't agree more. Further more Mike's willingness to help through PM's and answer noob and not so noob questions has helped me get things sorted with my system or alleviate concerns I may have had about something I was doing, or wanted to do. Always very clear descriptive answers, never condescending, but more importantly, uses his valuable time to help. Bravo Zulu Mike.


You and Adam are too kind! I enjoy helping when I can. Knowing that you feel that way about it makes me feel very good. So, thanks!


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

mthomas47 said:


> You and Adam are too kind! I enjoy helping when I can. Knowing that you feel that way about it makes me feel very good. So, thanks!


You're quite welcome.


----------



## criskoe

Hey guys. I just got my first avr. Denon 3400h. With some reference premier klipsch speakers all around and a klipsch r-110sw. So far I'm pretty happy with it but the sub not so much. I got it all in a package so yeah. I know I would of been better of with a different sub but due to the package deal it's gunna have to do for now. Ive been reading and reading trying to get the most out of this lil guy I can. 

Anyways My question is audyssey seems to be working great but had a question about the actual sounds during calibration. When I start it and level the sub to about 79db to get -9 the noise it outputs is a deep audible rumble. But moving forward doing the mic placement calibration when it gets to the sub it's just a very very faint knocking noise coming from the sub. Is that normal? Can the avr really properly set eq for the sub with that tiny tiny knocking noise? The rest of the speakers make the loud wap wap wap noise but the sub is like tap tap tap ever so quiet. Lol 

Any input? 

Thanks.


----------



## drh3b

criskoe said:


> Hey guys. I just got my first avr. Denon 3400h. With some reference premier klipsch speakers all around and a klipsch r-110sw. So far I'm pretty happy with it but the sub not so much. I got it all in a package so yeah. I know I would of been better of with a different sub but due to the package deal it's gunna have to do for now. Ive been reading and reading trying to get the most out of this lil guy I can.
> 
> Anyways My question is audyssey seems to be working great but had a question about the actual sounds during calibration. When I start it and level the sub to about 79db to get -9 the noise it outputs is a deep audible rumble. But moving forward doing the mic placement calibration when it gets to the sub it's just a very very faint knocking noise coming from the sub. Is that normal? Can the avr really properly set eq for the sub with that tiny tiny knocking noise? The rest of the speakers make the loud wap wap wap noise but the sub is like tap tap tap ever so quiet. Lol
> 
> Any input?
> 
> Thanks.


It's been a while since I did a calibration, but that sounds normal to me.


----------



## mthomas47

criskoe said:


> Hey guys. I just got my first avr. Denon 3400h. With some reference premier klipsch speakers all around and a klipsch r-110sw. So far I'm pretty happy with it but the sub not so much. I got it all in a package so yeah. I know I would of been better of with a different sub but due to the package deal it's gunna have to do for now. Ive been reading and reading trying to get the most out of this lil guy I can.
> 
> Anyways My question is audyssey seems to be working great but had a question about the actual sounds during calibration. When I start it and level the sub to about 79db to get -9 the noise it outputs is a deep audible rumble. But moving forward doing the mic placement calibration when it gets to the sub it's just a very very faint knocking noise coming from the sub. Is that normal? Can the avr really properly set eq for the sub with that tiny tiny knocking noise? The rest of the speakers make the loud wap wap wap noise but the sub is like tap tap tap ever so quiet. Lol
> 
> Any input?
> 
> Thanks.


Hi,

That used to bug me, too. But, that's the way it sounds to all of us. I think that it's a function of the way that Audyssey is implementing the subwoofer test tones, irrespective of how powerful our subs are, or how many we have. For the initial test tone, I believe that Audyssey is only sending out a tone with a limited bandwidth: 30Hz to 80Hz. That tone is used to set the subwoofer trim level (and timing) and it sounds louder because it is primarily in the mid-bass range. The subsequent subwoofer test tones are going down to 10Hz, and are much less audible.

I believe that is the correct explanation for what we hear during subwoofer calibration. If Feri or anyone else can shed additional light on this, please pitch in.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## criskoe

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That used to bug me, too. But, that's the way it sounds to all of us. I think that it's a function of the way that Audyssey is implementing the subwoofer test tones, irrespective of how powerful our subs are, or how many we have. For the initial test tone, I believe that Audyssey is only sending out a tone with a limited bandwidth: 30Hz to 80Hz. That tone is used to set the subwoofer trim level (and timing) and it sounds louder because it is primarily in the mid-bass range. The subsequent subwoofer test tones are going down to 10Hz, and are much less audible.
> 
> I believe that is the correct explanation for what we hear during subwoofer calibration. If Feri or anyone else can shed additional light on this, please pitch in.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks guys for the info. I'm having a heck of a time trying to get this little 10 to sound ok for the space and just wanted to make sure audyssey was actually working properly for the sub. Good to know. 

One other question. After you run audyssey you are able to look at the curves and eq it sets for all the speakers but not the sub? Why is that? Also if you want to manually eq the speakers you can but again not the sub. 

Is this a feature just not available for the 3400h?


----------



## drh3b

criskoe said:


> Thanks guys for the info. I'm having a heck of a time trying to get this little 10 to sound ok for the space and just wanted to make sure audyssey was actually working properly for the sub. Good to know.
> 
> One other question. After you run audyssey you are able to look at the curves and eq it sets for all the speakers but not the sub? Why is that? Also if you want to manually eq the speakers you can but again not the sub.
> 
> Is this a feature just not available for the 3400h?


If you have the app, you should be able to manually eq the sub.


----------



## mthomas47

criskoe said:


> Thanks guys for the info. I'm having a heck of a time trying to get this little 10 to sound ok for the space and just wanted to make sure audyssey was actually working properly for the sub. Good to know.
> 
> One other question. After you run audyssey you are able to look at the curves and eq it sets for all the speakers but not the sub? Why is that? Also if you want to manually eq the speakers you can but again not the sub.
> 
> Is this a feature just not available for the 3400h?


Hi,

You are very welcome! Audyssey will work properly for the sub, but the sub may not work properly for the space. You really do need to be realistic about what that sub can do in your room. You can always turn Audyssey off to compare the uncorrected response with the corrected one to listen to what effect Audyssey is having on your bass frequencies. 

I believe that the curves you are talking about are the ones you can look at on your display, from your AVR itself. Those are very crude representations of what Audyssey was attempting to correct, and do not accurately depict what it did. They are mostly there for marketing purposes. I believe that the manual EQ that you can do with the virtual sliders only goes down to 63Hz. It is just a very basic graphic equalizer.

You will undoubtedly think of more questions. Some of them may be answered in the subwoofer guide, linked below. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## UncleSpud

I have a 2013 Onkyo TXNR 929 receiver, one of Onkyo's last to have Audyssey. On the version of Audyssey it has, it's possible to adjust the tone control (bass and treble), plus or minus 10db while engaging Dynamic EQ.

I'm thinking of getting either a new Denon or Marantz receiver, and I've noticed that the latest version of Audyssey defeats tone controls when Dynamic EQ is in play.

I like boosting treble a bit and I prefer to keep Dynamic EQ engaged all the time. Is there a workaround on the newer versions of Audyssey? I wonder why D&M and/or Audyssey decided to lock out tone controls with Dynamic EQ.


----------



## MackGuyver

UncleSpud said:


> I have a 2013 Onkyo TXNR 929 receiver, one of Onkyo's last to have Audyssey. On the version of Audyssey it has, it's possible to adjust the tone control (bass and treble), plus or minus 10db while engaging Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I'm thinking of getting either a new Denon or Marantz receiver, and I've noticed that the latest version of Audyssey defeats tone controls when Dynamic EQ is in play.
> 
> I like boosting treble a bit and I prefer to keep Dynamic EQ engaged all the time. Is there a workaround on the newer versions of Audyssey? I wonder why D&M and/or Audyssey decided to lock out tone controls with Dynamic EQ.


If you buy the $20 for iOS/Android, you can customize your curves and boost the treble.


----------



## UncleSpud

MackGuyver said:


> If you buy the $20 for iOS/Android, you can customize your curves and boost the treble.


Perfect! Thanks Mack.


----------



## MackGuyver

UncleSpud said:


> MackGuyver said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy the $20 for iOS/Android, you can customize your curves and boost the treble.
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect! Thanks Mack.
Click to expand...

You're welcome, but make sure the app supports whatever you buy as it doesn't support every AVR / Preamp.


----------



## garygarrison

UncleSpud said:


> I have a 2013 Onkyo TXNR 929 receiver, one of Onkyo's last to have Audyssey. On the version of Audyssey it has, it's possible to adjust the tone control (bass and treble), plus or minus 10db while engaging Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I'm thinking of getting either a new Denon or Marantz receiver, and I've noticed that the latest version of Audyssey defeats tone controls when Dynamic EQ is in play.
> 
> I like boosting treble a bit and I prefer to keep Dynamic EQ engaged all the time. Is there a workaround on the newer versions of Audyssey? I wonder why D&M and/or Audyssey decided to lock out tone controls with Dynamic EQ.


I assume that, in addition to defeating the bass and treble controls, the virtual graphic EQ sliders that boost/cut across the spectrum, as on other AVRs, can't be used when Audyssey is on (other than with Base Copy, which only very approximately copies Audyssey's curve, sacrificing zillions of EQ points Audyssey provides). 

A few of us on the forum don't use DEQ, but like (or love) Audyssey. I play back at about 5 to 7 dB below reference, so DEQ would do me little good even if I liked it. To me, it removes a little openness and adds a slight bit of distortion. I do use the bass and treble controls a bit, and hear no bad effects. The bass/treble tone controls on my Marantz add or cut only 6 dB, though.


----------



## UncleSpud

garygarrison said:


> I assume that, in addition to defeating the bass and treble controls, the virtual graphic EQ sliders that boost/cut across the spectrum, as on other AVRs, can't be used when Audyssey is on (other than with Base Copy, which only very approximately copies Audyssey's curve, sacrificing zillions of EQ points Audyssey provides).
> 
> A few of us on the forum don't use DEQ, but like (or love) Audyssey. I play back at about 5 to 7 dB below reference, so DEQ would do me little good even if I liked it. To me, it removes a little openness and adds a slight bit of distortion. I do use the bass and treble controls a bit, and hear no bad effects. The bass/treble tone controls on my Marantz add or cut only 6 dB, though.


Unfortunately, my receiver doesn't have Multi EQ X32, which means that I don't have the three compensation curves or the ability to set or adjust below reference levels. If I did, I might view DEQ in a different light. If I get either the Marantz SR 6012 or the Denon AVR X4400 that I'm considering, I'll give your adjustments a try.


----------



## mthomas47

UncleSpud said:


> I have a 2013 Onkyo TXNR 929 receiver, one of Onkyo's last to have Audyssey. On the version of Audyssey it has, it's possible to adjust the tone control (bass and treble), plus or minus 10db while engaging Dynamic EQ.
> 
> I'm thinking of getting either a new Denon or Marantz receiver, and I've noticed that the latest version of Audyssey defeats tone controls when Dynamic EQ is in play.
> 
> I like boosting treble a bit and I prefer to keep Dynamic EQ engaged all the time. Is there a workaround on the newer versions of Audyssey? I wonder why D&M and/or Audyssey decided to lock out tone controls with Dynamic EQ.


Hi,

As far as I know, it is your Onkyo that is the aberration and not recent D&M products. I believe that all of the D&M AVR's and AVP's have always worked that way, and I'm pretty sure that Onkyo used to work that way as well.

DEQ's whole purpose is to try to restore bass and treble equilibrium to 5.1 movie tracks at below Reference listening levels. It does that by implementing pre-programmed bass and treble boosts, depending on the specific master volume level. If you were to implement tone control boosts or cuts of your own, they would affect a wide portion of the frequency range of your front speakers, and DEQ's pre-programmed action would no longer be relevant to your specific listening level. Rightly or wrongly, I am pretty sure that was what the Audyssey engineers were thinking when they designed DEQ to work the way it normally does.

Are you sure that you don't have more than one Audyssey curve in your Onkyo audio menu? There would ordinarily be something in the Audyssey section labeled "Flat" or "Music". That curve doesn't have any high-frequency roll-off at all. Incidentally, if you want to understand more about how DEQ actually works, there is a detailed description of its action in the subwoofer guide linked below. 

The Guide also explains how you can get whatever independent sub boosts you want in the event that you don't care to use DEQ, such as when people prefer to use the tone controls. Of course, if you get one of the newer D&M AVR's, you will also have access to the app.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jimjr

Good morning. I apologize in advance for what is probably a basic question but I couldn't find the exact answer I'm looking for in the FAQs.

I have a Denon receiver (AVR-X4400H) with MultiEQX32. My question concerns the importance of maintaining (or not) a fixed mic height during 8-point calibrations. My main listening position is a couch with a seatback that extends above ear level. The six calibration points in front of the seatback have clear line of sight to the front speakers when placed at ear level but the two points behind the seatback do not. My three options for setting the mic height are: 

(1) raise the mic to a fixed height above ear level for all 8 points to clear the seatback;

(2) leave the mic fixed at ear level for all 8 points even though the two rear points don't have clear line of sight; and 

(3) leave the front six points fixed at ear level and raise the two rear points to a level that clears the seatback. What would you recommend? I suspect that option (2) is not a good idea but I am struggling with choosing between (1) and (3) because I do not know how important it is to maintain a fixed height across all measuring points.

I have a boom mic stand so maintaining a fixed height across calibration points is not an issue. Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

jimjr said:


> Good morning. I apologize in advance for what is probably a basic question but I couldn't find the exact answer I'm looking for in the FAQs.
> 
> I have a Denon receiver (AVR-X4400H) with MultiEQX32. My question concerns the importance of maintaining (or not) a fixed mic height during 8-point calibrations. My main listening position is a couch with a seatback that extends above ear level. The six calibration points in front of the seatback have clear line of sight to the front speakers when placed at ear level but the two points behind the seatback do not. My three options for setting the mic height are:
> 
> (1) raise the mic to a fixed height above ear level for all 8 points to clear the seatback;
> 
> (2) leave the mic fixed at ear level for all 8 points even though the two rear points don't have clear line of sight; and
> 
> (3) leave the front six points fixed at ear level and raise the two rear points to a level that clears the seatback. What would you recommend? I suspect that option (2) is not a good idea but I am struggling with choosing between (1) and (3) because I do not know how important it is to maintain a fixed height across all measuring points.
> 
> I have a boom mic stand so maintaining a fixed height across calibration points is not an issue. Thanks.


Hi,

I will give you a two-part answer to your question, recognizing that there is a certain amount of experimentation required in your final microphone selections. First, I do not think it is a good idea to go behind your main listening position (MLP) with any mic placements unless there are additional listening positions back there. So, if you had a second row of seating, for instance, then you might want to deploy two or three of your 8 mic positions to that back row. 

But, otherwise, I believe that it is not generally advisable (or at all helpful) to go behind your listening position. I believe that all you are likely to accomplish by doing that is to make Audyssey more aware of reflections from a wall behind your couch, and you won't hear those reflections in the same way that an omnidirectional microphone would, anyway. So, I would keep all 8 of my mic positions either in line with or forward of, the MLP, which is mic position 1. 

Second, it can sometimes be useful to run a couple of mic positions a couple of inches higher than the other six, which should be right at ear level. For some reason, a lot of Audyssey users, including myself, have gotten improved calibrations by giving Audyssey just a little bit of information about sound in close proximity to the MLP (and our heads) but just a little higher than ear level. Most people only do that for two mic positions and I stay fairly close to my head with those two. Others have also reported good success with that approach.

One other suggestion I would make is to cover your couch back with an absorbent blanket, just during the calibration. Then you can remove it. That will prevent the omnidirectional Audyssey mic from paying attention to the early reflections from the couch back, which we will never hear. And, that in turn will allow you to position the Audyssey microphone closer to where your ears are actually located (say within about 4" or 5" of the blanket). That comb-filtering effect from getting the Audyssey microphone too close to a hard or smooth surface (such as a wall or couch back) is well understood on the thread. Again, we don't hear high frequencies in the same way that the Audyssey microphone does, so we have to take precautions with what we want it to hear and react to.

Let us know if you need any additional help, and please also let us know how you get on with your calibration.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jimjr

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I will give you a two-part answer to your question, recognizing that there is a certain amount of experimentation required in your final microphone selections. First, I do not think it is a good idea to go behind your main listening position (MLP) with any mic placements unless there are additional listening positions back there. So, if you had a second row of seating, for instance, then you might want to deploy two or three of your 8 mic positions to that back row.
> 
> But, otherwise, I believe that it is not generally advisable (or at all helpful) to go behind your listening position. I believe that all you are likely to accomplish by doing that is to make Audyssey more aware of reflections from a wall behind your couch, and you won't hear those reflections in the same way that an omnidirectional microphone would, anyway. So, I would keep all 8 of my mic positions either in line with or forward of, the MLP, which is mic position 1.
> 
> Second, it can sometimes be useful to run a couple of mic positions a couple of inches higher than the other six, which should be right at ear level. For some reason, a lot of Audyssey users, including myself, have gotten improved calibrations by giving Audyssey just a little bit of information about sound in close proximity to the MLP (and our heads) but just a little higher than ear level. Most people only do that for two mic positions and I stay fairly close to my head with those two. Others have also reported good success with that approach.
> 
> One other suggestion I would make is to cover your couch back with an absorbent blanket, just during the calibration. Then you can remove it. That will prevent the omnidirectional Audyssey mic from paying attention to the early reflections from the couch back, which we will never hear. And, that in turn will allow you to position the Audyssey microphone closer to where your ears are actually located (say within about 4" or 5" of the blanket). That comb-filtering effect from getting the Audyssey microphone too close to a hard or smooth surface (such as a wall or couch back) is well understood on the thread. Again, we don't hear high frequencies in the same way that the Audyssey microphone does, so we have to take precautions with what we want it to hear and react to.
> 
> Let us know if you need any additional help, and please also let us know how you get on with your calibration.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike:

Thank you very much for taking what was no doubt a long time to craft a response to my inquiry. It was clear, detailed and easy to follow and I appreciate it.

Thanks to your guidance, last evening I was able to get to what I think was a pretty good improvement to my initial calibration. What threw me off the first time was the graphic Denon uses to guide the mic placement around the various measuring points. The graphic shows points 7 and 8 behind the couch icon. Now I know better.

I started with your suggestion of putting thick blankets over the seatbacks. My couch is leather, so I imagine the mic was picking up quite a few reflections. I took the first measurement at ear level in the middle of the couch about 9-10" from the seatback. The second and third measurements were at the same height and distance from the seatback, approximately 18-20" on either side of the first measurement. The fourth, fifth and sixth measurements were taken at the same height and about 13" in front of the first three measurements (roughly the end of the seat cushion). The seventh and eighth measurements were elevated about 2-3" and located mid-way between the first and second, and first and third measurements, respectively, and about four inches from the seatback (so, slightly aft of the first three measurements and about 4" in front of the seatbacks). Does that sound about right to you?

Again, thanks very much for your help.

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

jimjr said:


> Mike:
> 
> Thank you very much for taking what was no doubt a long time to craft a response to my inquiry. It was clear, detailed and easy to follow and I appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks to your guidance, last evening I was able to get to what I think was a pretty good improvement to my initial calibration. What threw me off the first time was the graphic Denon uses to guide the mic placement around the various measuring points. The graphic shows points 7 and 8 behind the couch icon. Now I know better.
> 
> I started with your suggestion of putting thick blankets over the seatbacks. My couch is leather, so I imagine the mic was picking up quite a few reflections. I took the first measurement at ear level in the middle of the couch about 9-10" from the seatback. The second and third measurements were at the same height and distance from the seatback, approximately 18-20" on either side of the first measurement. The fourth, fifth and sixth measurements were taken at the same height and about 13" in front of the first three measurements (roughly the end of the seat cushion). The seventh and eighth measurements were elevated about 2-3" and located mid-way between the first and second, and first and third measurements, respectively, and about four inches from the seatback (so, slightly aft of the first three measurements and about 4" in front of the seatbacks). Does that sound about right to you?
> 
> Again, thanks very much for your help.
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

You are very welcome for the help! I was glad to give it. I think that ought to be a very successful calibration pattern. I believe that the key to any good calibration is how the quality of the resulting sound appeals to you. So, if it sounds better, then it is.

One thing you said sparked my curiosity, though. You mentioned doing the first three microphone positions about 9" or 10" from the seatback. From that, I might infer that you are sitting very upright when you watch movies or listen to music. If, on the other hand, you are frequently leaning back with your head against the couch, then I would move the first three mic positions a little closer to the blanket. I don't know that starting with your first three positions 4" or 5" closer to the couch will make any perceptible difference in the sound. But, that might at least put those positions closer to where your ears will actually be.

Even if do you move the first three mic positions a little closer to the couch, I would still come forward about the same distance that you did before. That will help as you lean forward or shift your position. I believe that most people get their best and most consistent results when they EQ a fairly compact listening area, and it sounds to me as if you are already doing that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jimjr

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> You are very welcome for the help! I was glad to give it. I think that ought to be a very successful calibration pattern. I believe that the key to any good calibration is how the quality of the resulting sound appeals to you. So, if it sounds better, then it is.
> 
> One thing you said sparked my curiosity, though. You mentioned doing the first three microphone positions about 9" or 10" from the seatback. From that, I might infer that you are sitting very upright when you watch movies or listen to music. If, on the other hand, you are frequently leaning back with your head against the couch, then I would move the first three mic positions a little closer to the blanket. I don't know that starting with your first three positions 4" or 5" closer to the couch will make any perceptible difference in the sound. But, that might at least put those positions closer to where your ears will actually be.
> 
> Even if do you move the first three mic positions a little closer to the couch, I would still come forward about the same distance that you did before. That will help as you lean forward or shift your position. I believe that most people get their best and most consistent results when they EQ a fairly compact listening area, and it sounds to me as if you are already doing that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, again, Mike.

In answer to your question, I did not select positions 1-3 based on actual seating positions as you correctly suspected. I selected mic positions for these three initial readings about 5-6" forward of normal seating positions to provide some horizontal variation for positions 7-8. Otherwise, 1-3 and 7-8 would pretty much be in a line about 3-4" from the seatback, except for some slight vertical variation. Would you recommend I reverse those respective lines, with positions 1-3 at actual seating positions and maybe 7-8 slightly forward? Then the pattern would look more like this:

4 5 6
7 8
2 1 3

instead of the current pattern:

4 5 6
2 1 3
7 8

Or do you have an even better idea? I welcome your thoughts.

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

jimjr said:


> Thanks, again, Mike.
> 
> In answer to your question, I did not select positions 1-3 based on actual seating positions as you correctly suspected. I selected mic positions for these three initial readings about 5-6" forward of normal seating positions to provide some horizontal variation for positions 7-8. Otherwise, 1-3 and 7-8 would pretty much be in a line about 3-4" from the seatback, except for some slight vertical variation. Would you recommend I reverse those respective lines, with positions 1-3 at actual seating positions and maybe 7-8 slightly forward? Then the pattern would look more like this:
> 
> 4 5 6
> 7 8
> 2 1 3
> 
> instead of the current pattern:
> 
> 4 5 6
> 2 1 3
> 7 8
> 
> Or do you have an even better idea? I welcome your thoughts.
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

As you may know, the actual order of the mic positions doesn't matter, although your first microphone position is always the MLP. It is at that first mic position that sound levels and timing are intended to converge, so it's a good idea to get that one right at the center point of your ears, and close to where you head will actually be located.

Here is what I do, for whatever it is worth. First, I use a blanket and get mic 1 within 4" or 5" of that. The next two mic positions are out about 10" or 11" to each side and still in line with 1. So, 1, 2, 3 are in a line about 5" from the leather chair back. Then I go forward from 2 by about 20" and forward of 3" by about 20". That takes care of numbers 4 and 5, and those four points (2, 3, 4, and 5) create a roughly 20" by 20" box. Number 6 is directly forward of 1 by about 14" and within the box. Numbers 7 and 8 are close to my head, maybe 5" out to each side from number 1, and even a little closer to the chair back. But, they are also about 2" or 3" higher than the other six positions, which seems to help.

I arrived at that pattern partly through trial-and-error, and partly by trying to figure out what I wanted to accomplish. Whether that exact mic pattern will be useful to you or not is one of those YMMV questions. But, I do think it is important to start with mic position 1 where your head actually is, and I personally find it useful to concentrate more of the mic positions fairly close to my head.

Audyssey uses a system of fuzzy-logic weighting to set filters, and aberrations in the frequency response could conceivably skew Audyssey's results. So, it has always made sense to me that we would want to present Audyssey with a reasonably compact and uniform listening area. For most people, doing that seems to result in the most consistently clear calibrations.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jimjr

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> As you may know, the actual order of the mic positions doesn't matter, although your first microphone position is always the MLP. It is at that first mic position that sound levels and timing are intended to converge, so it's a good idea to get that one right at the center point of your ears, and close to where you head will actually be located.
> 
> Here is what I do, for whatever it is worth. First, I use a blanket and get mic 1 within 4" or 5" of that. The next two mic positions are out about 10" or 11" to each side and still in line with 1. So, 1, 2, 3 are in a line about 5" from the leather chair back. Then I go forward from 2 by about 20" and forward of 3" by about 20". That takes care of numbers 4 and 5, and those four points (2, 3, 4, and 5) create a roughly 20" by 20" box. Number 6 is directly forward of 1 by about 14" and within the box. Numbers 7 and 8 are close to my head, maybe 5" out to each side from number 1, and even a little closer to the chair back. But, they are also about 2" or 3" higher than the other six positions, which seems to help.
> 
> I arrived at that pattern partly through trial-and-error, and partly by trying to figure out what I wanted to accomplish. Whether that exact mic pattern will be useful to you or not is one of those YMMV questions. But, I do think it is important to start with mic position 1 where your head actually is, and I personally find it useful to concentrate more of the mic positions fairly close to my head.
> 
> Audyssey uses a system of fuzzy-logic weighting to set filters, and aberrations in the frequency response could conceivably skew Audyssey's results. So, it has always made sense to me that we would want to present Audyssey with a reasonably compact and uniform listening area. For most people, doing that seems to result in the most consistently clear calibrations.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, Mike. Sketching out your configuration, it sounds like it's not a whole lot different from the one I have right now. Move positions 1-3 back about 4-5 inches and it's almost the same pattern. But I get your point about making sure position 1 is on target. I just sprung for the Audyssey MultEQ Editor app. Maybe I'll give your pattern a shot to christen it.

J


----------



## LowDUB

I hope I can get some help. I recently upgraded to a denon 2400h from a onkyo 608 that only had 2eq. My sub is just not the same. I'm getting more port noise when I had none before. It may just be me but I've taken several calibrations and it just doesn't seem the same. I feel like I'm turning my trim way down when I didn't have to before. I have not touched my gain at all. Thanks in advance.


----------



## primetimeguy

LowDUB said:


> I hope I can get some help. I recently upgraded to a denon 2400h from a onkyo 608 that only had 2eq. My sub is just not the same. I'm getting more port noise when I had none before. It may just be me but I've taken several calibrations and it just doesn't seem the same. I feel like I'm turning my trim way down when I didn't have to before. I have not touched my gain at all. Thanks in advance.


My guess is you have dynamic eq enabled. Try turning it off. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## LowDUB

primetimeguy said:


> My guess is you have dynamic eq enabled. Try turning it off.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


I just found a setting call loud management and it was set to on/auto. I turned that off and it seems to be better. I do have dynamic eq on. I'll try it off next. Thank you

Tried dynamic eq off. Sounded the same.

I did start out with a -6.5db trim level so I thought that was good.


EDIT
I re-ran the calibration with a hair higher gain and got -11.5. I upped it to -7.5. It's better but not great. I followed the pattern from a few posts ago.


----------



## ricarva

*Audyssey XT32 with Atmos 5.1.2 Setup: did I just damage my speakers?*

Hi, everyone


To set the stage: I have a Demon X4400H receiver, with B&W 683 as fronts, HTM61 as center, 686 surrounds, and now two Dali Alteco C-1 for my front heights. My sub is a BKElec XLS200-DF.

Yesterday I went about running the Audyssey setup to calibrate everything. This was pretty much my first time running the procedure. Went ahead and did some listening right after the setup, since I had no reason to expect things to be too off after such a supposedly comprehensive process.

First impressions were very good: my system sounds really good right now, and the added height channels seemed to already be helping in filling the room with sound.

I then went for some Atmos demos, namely the "Amaze" trailer.

Again, all good going in. The bird fly-by got me grinning, and when the rain scene came up, I was trying to listen to the subtleties. And then the thunder rolls in, and I though "interesting, different, but... Is it supposed to sound like *that*"?

I got up, re-ran the scene, and it was clear: my 686 surrounds were being given a thunderous (!) beating with very-low-frequency content, and where distorting all over the place. The mid/woofer was moving *allot*.

Going into the Audyssey results page, I then saw my surrounds had been configured by Audyssey as "Large". Heck, all of my speaker were at "Large", apart from my heights.

Setting them to "Small" cleared up most of the distortion, but then the crossovers were still set to low: 40Hz for all speakers in the base layer, and 60Hz for the heights.

Two questions for you guys to try and help me with:

- Could I have damaged my surrounds with this mishap? How can I thoroughly check if they're ok?

- Isn't this a very basic - and potentially dangerous - flaw in the Audyssey implementation? How does it set a speaker rated (and I do understand that in-room behavior can be different, but still) with a 55Hz low end as "Large" and/or with such a low crossover?

Thanks in advance for your input.

Cheers,

Ricardo


----------



## SuperFist

The reason you're getting distortion is because your subwoofer isn't made to go down that low!

Most likely, you don't have a subwoofer that goes below 30hz so I'm pretty sure you're hearing pretty bad port chuffing because it hits HARD and LOUD! You'd need a more capable, expensive audiophile sub to handle the bass in this demo... because it is absolutely GLORIOUS!!! 

This demo has been graphed, as shown below, on the The Ultimate List of BASS in Movies w/ Frequency Charts thread.



aron7awol said:


> Funny that you are mentioning the Amaze Atmos Demo, as I just came on here to post that I think it contains one of the most powerful bass moments of any content out there.
> 
> MrGrey, do you mind graphing this demo? PM me if you don't already have it and I can share.
> 
> In the process of testing and tweaking my new sub, I've been running through some of the known monster bass scenes, noting when I hit my amp's limit. I'm currently running a house curve that rolls off below 10Hz, and on the Hulk Punch scene I'm able to get up to -13MV, but with this Amaze demo I can only get up to -16MV. Any bass moment that is 3dB louder than the Hulk Punch must be up on the list of most powerful ever.





MrGrey said:


> *Amaze (Lossless-ATMOS)*
> *https://thedigitaltheater.com/index.php/dolby-trailers/*
> ​


----------



## jdsmoothie

ricarva said:


> Going into the Audyssey results page, I then saw my surrounds had been configured by Audyssey as "Large". Heck, all of my speaker were at "Large", apart from my heights.
> 
> Setting them to "Small" cleared up most of the distortion, but then the crossovers were still set to low: 40Hz for all speakers in the base layer, and 60Hz for the heights.
> 
> Two questions for you guys to try and help me with:
> 
> - Could I have damaged my surrounds with this mishap? How can I thoroughly check if they're ok?
> 
> - Isn't this a very basic - and potentially dangerous - flaw in the Audyssey implementation? How does it set a speaker rated (and I do understand that in-room behavior can be different, but still) with a 55Hz low end as "Large" and/or with such a low crossover?
> 
> Thanks in advance for your input.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ricardo


A. If you review either of the Audyssey FAQ sticky thread or post 3 in the 2017 Denon AVR Owner's thread, you would have read that after running Audyssey, the recommendation that any speakers set to LARGE should be reset to SMALL and to raise their crossovers up to 80Hz.

1. Unlikely any damage occurred especially when you did not allow the distortion to play long.
2. Audyssey doesn't set the LARGE setting, rather the AVR does when a speaker is found to be able to handle a < 50Hz signal in their present location in the room.


----------



## ricarva

jdsmoothie said:


> A. If you review either of the Audyssey FAQ sticky thread or post 3 in the 2017 Denon AVR Owner's thread, you would have read that after running Audyssey, the recommendation that any speakers set to LARGE should be reset to SMALL and to raise their crossovers up to 80Hz.


Thanks for pointing that out, JD. Actually, after the fact, I remembered having read something along these lines a couple of months ago, here on Avsforum, when I was in the research phase and trying to figure out what AVR to get. Sure enough, at the time I went through both threads you mention.

I guess that yesterday, in my new-speaker-3d-audio-XT32-induced excitement, I went and jumped the shark... :-(


----------



## ricarva

SuperFist said:


> The reason you're getting distortion is because your subwoofer isn't made to go down that low!


Thanks for your input, though the issue isn't with my sub. On that front I think I'm ok, even for this particular piece of content; the XLS200-DF is rated to be able to go down to 17Hz.

My problem came from being a bit thick in the head and not adjusting settings after running Audyssey, and thus having these low frequencies fed to my humble bookshelf surrounds...

One question, though: in the graph, what do the green and red plots refer to? Thanks.


----------



## gorman42

When was the last time that Audyssey technology was updated? MultiEQX32 is the latest one, right? When was it introduced? Are there rumors on further developments around the corner? I need to change my current Yamaha RX-A3010 in order to get 4K switching (and Atmos) but since I still don't have a 4K display I'm wondering if it might be worth to start updating the receiver or if it would be better to wait right till the point when I'll buy the 4K display.


----------



## Zach_N85

*Audyssey and Dynamic EQ*

Proud new Denon X3400H owner here  Fantastic amp, loving it so far.

I have set up Audyssey and calibrated the full 8 listening points. I think it strikes a good balance after leveling the speakers.

I do have a question about Dynamic EQ though: Does DEQ simply enhance the surrounds and bass levels to match reference levels at lower volumes, or does it also apply some form of compression to the sound?

In other words, am I losing audio quality and clarity by using it? I'm fond of warm bass and live in a small apartment, listening at reference level is impossible, so I prefer listening with DEQ on, but just wanted to educate myself further on the subject.

P.S. I don't like or use Dynamic Volume.

Thx


----------



## gorman42

Zach_N85 said:


> Proud new Denon X3400H owner here  Fantastic amp, loving it so far.
> 
> I have set up Audyssey and calibrated the full 8 listening points. I think it strikes a good balance after leveling the speakers.
> 
> I do have a question about Dynamic EQ though: Does DEQ simply enhance the surrounds and bass levels to match reference levels at lower volumes, or does it also apply some form of compression to the sound?
> 
> In other words, am I losing audio quality and clarity by using it? I'm fond of warm bass and live in a small apartment, listening at reference level is impossible, so I prefer listening with DEQ on, but just wanted to educate myself further on the subject.
> 
> P.S. I don't like or use Dynamic Volume.Thx


From my past Onkyo days, I seem to remember that Dynamic EQ "simply" raises the frequencies where human hearing has problems at lower SPLs, in order to offer a balanced sound even at lower volumes. Compression happens with Dynamic Volume.


----------



## mthomas47

Zach_N85 said:


> Proud new Denon X3400H owner here  Fantastic amp, loving it so far.
> 
> I have set up Audyssey and calibrated the full 8 listening points. I think it strikes a good balance after leveling the speakers.
> 
> I do have a question about Dynamic EQ though: Does DEQ simply enhance the surrounds and bass levels to match reference levels at lower volumes, or does it also apply some form of compression to the sound?
> 
> In other words, am I losing audio quality and clarity by using it? I'm fond of warm bass and live in a small apartment, listening at reference level is impossible, so I prefer listening with DEQ on, but just wanted to educate myself further on the subject.
> 
> P.S. I don't like or use Dynamic Volume.
> 
> Thx


Hi,

Dynamic Volume definitely does have compression, but DEQ doesn't. There is a thorough discussion of DEQ's purpose, and its operation, in the subwoofer guide, linked below. As for whether you personally decide that it improves your audio quality or detracts from it, that is one of those YMMV questions. I would guess that more people like it than do not, but I think that the only opinion that matters is yours. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Zach_N85

Thanks guys, appreciate your comments.

Another question: I have changed the volume levels Audyssey has set up for my speakers. I felt that in order to really hear something I would have to go -10db when listening to almost everything. I have also set my Subwoofer at 0db from the AVR (I did not touch the Sub's volume knob post calibration).

I was told by a friend who is very knowledgeable on the subject of HT that changing the levels doesn't impair Audyssey's frequency calibration and room corrections. 

However, was wondering whether changing speaker levels post calibration damages DEQ's function?


----------



## mthomas47

Zach_N85 said:


> Thanks guys, appreciate your comments.
> 
> Another question: I have changed the volume levels Audyssey has set up for my speakers. I felt that in order to really hear something I would have to go -10db when listening to almost everything. I have also set my Subwoofer at 0db from the AVR (I did not touch the Sub's volume knob post calibration).
> 
> I was told by a friend who is very knowledgeable on the subject of HT that changing the levels doesn't impair Audyssey's frequency calibration and room corrections.
> 
> However, was wondering whether changing speaker levels post calibration damages DEQ's function?


Hi Zach,

I wouldn't change the volume levels of my speakers, without a good reason, if I were you. Audyssey calibrated your levels so that all of the channels would play the same volume at the MLP. I'm not sure I understand the reason from your explanation. I doubt that there will be a meaningful effect on DEQ, though, unless you changed the trim levels by really large amounts. And, even then, if you like the way things sound, then where's the harm?

Please read the Guide, starting at the beginning, and you will have a much better idea of what Audyssey is actually doing, and why it is doing things that way. That will give you a much better grounding in everything, including the best way to adjust your subwoofer levels, which is not the way you did it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Zach_N85

Thanks Mike, the guide is really long and will require at least 1 hour of reading I assume, so I have to make up time for that  Nonetheless it looks extremely detailed and thorough, I'll definitely give it a read.

I have changed Audyssey's speaker levels simply because I didn't like how everything felt very toned down even at -10db volume, I have kept the ratio of raised levels to match those of the calibration, meaning, if my fronts were -6db, center -5db and surrounds -4 db, I changed my fronts to -3db, center to -2db and surrounds to -1db, (-3db on all to keep the same volume), with the exception of the Sub which was calibrated to -7db.

Personally I don't like reaching 0db on the amp, and I prefer the louder sound at the -20db to -10db range, hence my reason for raising the speaker levels. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## mthomas47

Zach_N85 said:


> Thanks Mike, the guide is really long and will require at least 1 hour of reading I assume, so I have to make up time for that  Nonetheless it looks extremely detailed and thorough, I'll definitely give it a read.
> 
> I have changed Audyssey's speaker levels simply because I didn't like how everything felt very toned down even at -10db volume, I have kept the ratio of raised levels to match those of the calibration, meaning, if my fronts were -6db, center -5db and surrounds -4 db, I changed my fronts to -3db, center to -2db and surrounds to -1db, (-3db on all to keep the same volume), with the exception of the Sub which was calibrated to -7db.
> 
> Personally I don't like reaching 0db on the amp, and I prefer the louder sound at the -20db to -10db range, hence my reason for raising the speaker levels. Hope that makes sense.


Hi Zach,

If you think that the Guide was long to read, you should see how much time I have put into writing it. And, I update it and edit it all the time. 

I thought that you must be adjusting your trim levels upward in a symmetrical fashion. There is nothing at all wrong with doing that, but it is far simpler to simply raise your master volume level by the amount you wish. The total SPL will end up being exactly the same, and the demand on your amplifier will be exactly the same, regardless of which method you use. In pointing that out, I don't mean any offense. I just wanted you to know. Sometimes, we end up jumping through complicated hoops, with our audio systems, to get to exactly the same result.

One side effect of doing things the way you have done them is that DEQ will still be operating as if you are at -10 MV, since its operation is tied to the master volume and not to the individual trim levels. So, it will still be providing -10 MV bass and treble boosts for every channel on top of your actual -7 MV listening level. That roughly 2.2db difference in the bass boost, for instance, might be a good thing or not, depending on your system capabilities and your individual preferences.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## michail71

I've gone through several calibration cycles now with my sub. I'm already down to 1/4 on the sub's trim level knob but I'm still getting -12dB. Should I be concerned about going too low on the sub's own setting? It's a Klipsch R-12SW.


----------



## mthomas47

michail71 said:


> I've gone through several calibration cycles now with my sub. I'm already down to 1/4 on the sub's trim level knob but I'm still getting -12dB. Should I be concerned about going too low on the sub's own setting? It's a Klipsch R-12SW.


Hi Michail,

Something doesn't sound right. That's a 12" subwoofer with a 200 watt amplifier. Unless your room is really tiny, and you are practically sitting on top of the sub, you should be at a higher trim level with the gain turned down to the 9:00 position. You can try one more time, if the gain control will go any lower, but I suspect that there is a problem with either the AVR or with the microphone.

You can try several microprocessor resets. Try at least three with proper intervals between them. If that doesn't work, I would order a new microphone. I don't understand why a defective microphone would read too much bass (it should work in reverse) but I can't think what else could be happening at the moment. Good luck, and let us know what happens. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Zach_N85

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Zach,
> 
> If you think that the Guide was long to read, you should see how much time I have put into writing it. And, I update it and edit it all the time.
> 
> I thought that you must be adjusting your trim levels upward in a symmetrical fashion. There is nothing at all wrong with doing that, but it is far simpler to simply raise your master volume level by the amount you wish. The total SPL will end up being exactly the same, and the demand on your amplifier will be exactly the same, regardless of which method you use. In pointing that out, I don't mean any offense. I just wanted you to know. Sometimes, we end up jumping through complicated hoops, with our audio systems, to get to exactly the same result.
> 
> One side effect of doing things the way you have done them is that DEQ will still be operating as if you are at -10 MV, since its operation is tied to the master volume and not to the individual trim levels. So, it will still be providing -10 MV bass and treble boosts for every channel on top of your actual -7 MV listening level. That roughly 2.2db difference in the bass boost, for instance, might be a good thing or not, depending on your system capabilities and your individual preferences.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike, that makes a lot of sense! I'll definitely keep investigating it and see how it affects the sound experience. 

If I understand you correctly, what you mean is that DEQ will give a boost which is suitable for -10db, while I'm listening at -7db, does that mean I will be receiving less impact from DEQ in that case, or more of it?

Thanks again.

P.S. I did not take anything you said as an offense, on the contrary, I'm learning a lot by reading your posts.


----------



## mthomas47

Zach_N85 said:


> Thanks Mike, that makes a lot of sense! I'll definitely keep investigating it and see how it affects the sound experience.
> 
> If I understand you correctly, what you mean is that DEQ will give a boost which is suitable for -10db, while I'm listening at -7db, does that mean I will be receiving less impact from DEQ in that case, or more of it?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> P.S. I did not take anything you said as an offense, on the contrary, I'm learning a lot by reading your posts.


You are very welcome, Zach! Incidentally, that's a pretty bada** looking avatar.  If I understand DEQ's operation properly, it will be adding about 2.2db more bass boost than you would normally get at a MV setting of -7.

Here is how I believe DEQ works. Between 0 and -4.5 MV, I believe that DEQ does nothing at all. From -5 to -9.5 MV, I believe that DEQ adds 2.2db of bass boost at some frequencies. From -10 to -14.5 MV, I believe that DEQ will add 4.4db of bass boost. And, so on. Everything in DEQ is based on 5db increments, so that is the way I think that the designers set-up the algorithm.

Since you will be listening at the equivalent of -7MV, and your MV will be set at -10 MV, I believe that you will get 2.2db more bass boost than you would have gotten had you simply increased your MV to -7. As noted in my previous post, that may or may not be a good thing, but it shouldn't be an extremely significant difference, in any case.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## michail71

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Michail,
> 
> Something doesn't sound right. That's a 12" subwoofer with a 200 watt amplifier. Unless your room is really tiny, and you are practically sitting on top of the sub, you should be at a higher trim level with the gain turned down to the 9:00 position. You can try one more time, if the gain control will go any lower, but I suspect that there is a problem with either the AVR or with the microphone.
> 
> You can try several microprocessor resets. Try at least three with proper intervals between them. If that doesn't work, I would order a new microphone. I don't understand why a defective microphone would read too much bass (it should work in reverse) but I can't think what else could be happening at the moment. Good luck, and let us know what happens.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for your help! It's a smallish room but not that small.  The room where it's located is 15x20 with an open kitchen to the side and 10 foot ceilings.

When I play the test tone should the sub sound about the same as the other channels?

What do you mean about the microprocessor rests and intervals?

I was surprised the Fronts and Centers were turned down too but I did some reading and learned that it's from having efficient speakers at close proximity (roughly 11 feet). I had been trying out a Yamaha receiver before and I think it had the YPAO levels tuned closer to 0dB. I forget what it had done with the sub. 

Front L -4.5dB
Front R -5.0dB
Center -7.5dB
Sub -12.0dB


----------



## mthomas47

michail71 said:


> Thanks for your help! It's a smallish room but not that small.  The room where it's located is 15x20 with an open kitchen to the side and 10 foot ceilings.
> 
> When I play the test tone should the sub sound about the same as the other channels?
> 
> What do you mean about the microprocessor rests and intervals?
> 
> I was surprised the Fronts and Centers were turned down too but I did some reading and learned that it's from having efficient speakers at close proximity (roughly 11 feet). I had been trying out a Yamaha receiver before and I think it had the YPAO levels tuned closer to 0dB. I forget what it had done with the sub.
> 
> Front L -4.5dB
> Front R -5.0dB
> Center -7.5dB
> Sub -12.0dB


You are welcome! I agree that your room isn't small enough for that to be normal behavior. I didn't think it would be. Don't forget to try just a little lower gain setting if you can. If that doesn't work, look up microprocessor reset in your owner's manual and follow the directions. It will tell you how long to wait before restarting your AVR. That is the interval I was referring to. If the first reset doesn't work, try a couple more. That will reset your AVR to factory settings and may resolve your subwoofer issue. 

The subwoofer test tone plays much lower frequencies, so it will sound different from the test tones for the other channels. Since you are new to Audyssey, you may want to read the Guide linked below. That will take some time, but it will help you to understand what Audyssey is doing and why.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

LowDUB said:


> I re-ran the calibration with a hair higher gain and got -11.5. I upped it to -7.5. It's better but not great. I followed the pattern from a few posts ago.


- 11.5 is the perfect place for the trim to fall, after calibration, if the maximum cut is -12, as on most AVRs. That shows that you had the gain knob on the subwoofer set optimally. I would think that if you do _*not*_ recalibrate and up the trim on the AVR to *-4*, which will give you a total of 7.5 dB bass boost, it would help. 

Most people don't like a response curve that is flat, and prefer the bass end to be something like 7 to 10 dB higher than the treble end. Furthermore, I think the Harman people found that most people thought that a curve elevated in the bass was the most realistic, i.e., sounded natural and "flat." Audyssey, and other room correction devices *are *helpful, though, because you want a smooth curve which you can then elevate at the bass end, rather than a kinky curve.

What main volume control setting do you most often use?


----------



## LowDUB

garygarrison said:


> - 11.5 is the perfect place for the trim to fall, after calibration, if the maximum cut is -12, as on most AVRs. That shows that you had the gain knob on the subwoofer set optimally. I would think that if you do _*not*_ recalibrate and up the trim on the AVR to *-4*, which will give you a total of 7.5 dB bass boost, it would help.
> 
> Most people don't like a response curve that is flat, and prefer the bass end to be something like 7 to 10 dB higher than the treble end. Furthermore, I think the Harman people found that most people thought that a curve elevated in the bass was the most realistic, i.e., sounded natural and "flat." Audyssey, and other room correction devices *are *helpful, though, because you want a smooth curve which you can then elevate at the bass end, rather than a kinky curve.
> 
> What main volume control setting do you most often use?


Thanks for your reply. I normally listen between 60-70mv. I have been adjusting between-7.5 to -6.5db trim level.


----------



## garygarrison

ricarva said:


> To set the stage: I have a Demon X4400H receiver, with B&W 683 as fronts, HTM61 as center, 686 surrounds, and now two Dali Alteco C-1 for my front heights. My sub is a BKElec XLS200-DF.



Put your ear in front of each woofer and tweeter to confirm they are all working.
Play, at moderate volume, some music containing a lot of bass, and listen (at close range) for any scraping sound, or other distortion. Then, with the speakers set for "small" run them more loudly, and listen again.
Your surrounds are inefficient (i.e. of low sensitivity, rated @85 dB @ 2.83V @ 1 Meter), so take a lot of power in watts to operate at a high SPL, yet I couldn't find a power handling capacity listed for them, so we don't know how much they can take. All B & W lists is recommended amplifier power, which is a bit of a fudge, IMO. They do warn that the signal needs to be unclipped. Some companies test for power handling capacity by running band limited pink noise at a given crest factor (6 dB?) through the speaker for a few hours, gradually increasing the 
SPL until the speaker fails. They do this with more than one speaker, of course. The number of watts at which some speakers, 1/2 of the speakers, or all of the speakers fail (depending on the company) is the power handling capacity. Some manufacturers might reduce that figure by a few watts, for safety. B&W is an excellent company, but I'm disappointed that they didn't list power handling. 

I don't know if they are marketed specifically as surround speakers -- are they? If so, they would expect them to be run "small."

If they sound good, they are probably O.K., but please set them for "small."


----------



## Zach_N85

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Zach! Incidentally, that's a pretty bada** looking avatar.  If I understand DEQ's operation properly, it will be adding about 2.2db more bass boost than you would normally get at a MV setting of -7.
> 
> Here is how I believe DEQ works. Between 0 and -4.5 MV, I believe that DEQ does nothing at all. From -5 to -9.5 MV, I believe that DEQ adds 2.2db of bass boost at some frequencies. From -10 to -14.5 MV, I believe that DEQ will add 4.4db of bass boost. And, so on. Everything in DEQ is based on 5db increments, so that is the way I think that the designers set-up the algorithm.
> 
> Since you will be listening at the equivalent of -7MV, and your MV will be set at -10 MV, I believe that you will get 2.2db more bass boost than you would have gotten had you simply increased your MV to -7. As noted in my previous post, that may or may not be a good thing, but it shouldn't be an extremely significant difference, in any case.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Cheers Mike, on the explanation, and the avatar compliment as well


----------



## geodon005

*How-tos for the Audyssey app*

Mike:

I am using the Audyssey app for my calibrations and, while it has worked perfectly, I really have no idea what do do with the information it gives me. I look at the graphs and am not sure what they tell me (other than providing an overall flatter response) and what, if any, changes I could make to improve the sound quality.

Are there any general pointers you could provide (one specific question I have is whether or not to engage Midrange Compensation, which the app allows me to turn on or off)? I have perused the FAQ, but not found anything specifically pertaining on how to use the data provided by the app. 

Thanks!


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Zach! Incidentally, that's a pretty bada** looking avatar.  If I understand DEQ's operation properly, it will be adding about 2.2db more bass boost than you would normally get at a MV setting of -7.
> 
> Here is how I believe DEQ works. Between 0 and -4.5 MV, I believe that DEQ does nothing at all. From -5 to -9.5 MV, I believe that DEQ adds 2.2db of bass boost at some frequencies. From -10 to -14.5 MV, I believe that DEQ will add 4.4db of bass boost. And, so on. *Everything in DEQ is based on 5db increments, so that is the way I think that the designers set-up the algorithm.
> *
> Since you will be listening at the equivalent of -7MV, and your MV will be set at -10 MV, I believe that you will get 2.2db more bass boost than you would have gotten had you simply increased your MV to -7. As noted in my previous post, that may or may not be a good thing, but it shouldn't be an extremely significant difference, in any case.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, the above bolded part in your post has given me a bit of consideration on how you might have come to the conclusion that DEQ works with 5 dB increments. Care to expand on that a bit? Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

geodon005 said:


> Mike:
> 
> I am using the Audyssey app for my calibrations and, while it has worked perfectly, I really have no idea what do do with the information it gives me. I look at the graphs and am not sure what they tell me (other than providing an overall flatter response) and what, if any, changes I could make to improve the sound quality.
> 
> Are there any general pointers you could provide (one specific question I have is whether or not to engage Midrange Compensation, which the app allows me to turn on or off)? I have perused the FAQ, but not found anything specifically pertaining on how to use the data provided by the app.
> 
> Thanks!


Hi,

The FAQ hasn't been updated, by its author, in several years and the app is quite recent. And, I haven't felt qualified to comment on the app in my Guide, as I haven't personally tried it yet.

Deciding how to use the app most advantageously is a pretty personal decision. For instance, if the treble frequencies in your room sounded very bright, even with the Audyssey curve, you might want to experiment with a high-frequency roll-off. Or you might try bringing up the mid-bass (say between 50Hz and 120Hz) to get more chest punch. A lot of it would just be trial-and-error for me, starting with some listening goal in mind, and then making adjustments to decide whether I could make an improvement in the sound.

If you are already fairly happy with the sound, I would just live with it for a while, and then do some unstressful experimentation as the mood strikes you. The mid-range compensation is a feature of the Audyssey curve. It introduces a dip several decibels deep, starting at 2000Hz and concluding at 3000Hz. The dip is deepest at 2500Hz, which is designed to correspond to the crossover point in most three-way speakers between the mid-range driver and the tweeter. The thought was that a dip there would provide a smoother transition. Unless you can hear a difference between having it on, and having it off, I wouldn't worry about it.

The app's usefulness really lies in being able to tailor the sound in your room a little more to your own preferences. But, unless you can identify something specific that you want or need to improve, the app may not be terribly useful to you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Mike, the above bolded part in your post has given me a bit of consideration on how you might have come to the conclusion that DEQ works with 5 dB increments. Care to expand on that a bit? Thanks.


Hi Feri,

I'm not quite sure what you are asking me, but I will take a stab at it, anyway.  We know that DEQ implements its boosts in 5db increments, meaning that the boost increases as a user goes from Reference to -5, to -10, to -15 and so on. DEQ also uses 5db increments to implement the Reference Level Offsets, utilizing settings of -5, -10, and -15. So, everything DEQ does is predicated on a uniform pattern of adjustments at 5db intervals, or increments. 

Putting on an engineer hat, I tried to deduce the most logical and orderly way to implement the boosts. It made sense to me that DEQ wouldn't leave 0.0 MV completely alone and then suddenly implement a 2.2db bass boost at -0.5 MV. Picking a mid-point seemed equally random to me, so I concluded that DEQ would implement the first boost right at -5 MV, and not before. From that, I concluded that the next boost would occur right at -10, and not before. And, so on. In other words the boosts would occur at exactly 5db intervals. 

I apologize if my use of the term "increment" was a little ambiguous in this context. I didn't mean that DEQ would make boosts in increments of 5db, but that the incremental boosts it does make would occur in a regular pattern of 5db intervals. Now, everybody is probably confused. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you are asking me, but I will take a stab at it, anyway.  We know that DEQ implements its boosts in 5db increments, meaning that the boost increases as a user goes from Reference to -5, to -10, to -15 and so on. DEQ also uses 5db increments to implement the Reference Level Offsets, utilizing settings of -5, -10, and -15. So, everything DEQ does is predicated on a uniform pattern of adjustments at 5db intervals, or increments.
> 
> Putting on an engineer hat, I tried to deduce the most logical and orderly way to implement the boosts. It made sense to me that DEQ wouldn't leave 0.0 MV completely alone and then suddenly implement a 2.2db bass boost at -0.5 MV. Picking a mid-point seemed equally random to me, so I concluded that DEQ would implement the first boost right at -5 MV, and not before. From that, I concluded that the next boost would occur right at -10, and not before. And, so on. In other words the boosts would occur at exactly 5db intervals.
> 
> I apologize if my use of the term "increment" was a little ambiguous in this context. I didn't mean that DEQ would make boosts in increments of 5db, but that the incremental boosts it does make would occur in a regular pattern of 5db intervals. Now, everybody is probably confused.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hiya Mike, thanks for your kind reply, though I need to state even if I can not say for everyone, but I am really not confused. 

Actually, I'm not sure DEQ really implements its boost in 5 dB increments. I see no reason to do that. That would be too coarse for adjustment. (For the time being let's put RLO aside.)

Let's think about the second-tier of DEQ where the loudness curve is adjusted seamlessly in real time depending on soft or loud parts of a given passage. Then why would the first-tier have a 5dB step?

Just thinking out loud!


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hiya Mike, thanks for your kind reply, though I need to state even if I can not say for everyone, but I am really not confused.
> 
> Actually, I'm not sure DEQ really implements its boost in 5 dB increments. I see no reason to do that. That would be too coarse for adjustment. (For the time being let's put RLO aside.)
> 
> Let's think about the second-tier of DEQ where the loudness curve is adjusted seamlessly in real time depending on soft or loud parts of a given passage. Then why would the first-tier have a 5dB step?
> 
> Just thinking out loud!


You are welcome, and at least two of us aren't confused then.  I thought it might have been my use of the word "increment" that seemed ambiguous to you. What I am suggesting is probably something you could measure if you were so inclined, as I am just discussing the master volume related boosts that DEQ implements. But, we are talking about two entirely different things when you mention the second-tier aspect of loud/soft passages at a given listening level. 

I am strictly describing what I believe is the action of DEQ at a given master volume level. As you know, from measurements taken by a number of people, DEQ implements approximately a 1db boost between 70db and 120db, and a gradually increasing boost, maxing out at 2.2db, at 30Hz and below. That's not a coarse boost at all. That's a reasonably fine adjustment to start with.

What I am saying is that I don't think that DEQ divides that 1db boost into .11db increments and then implements +.11db at -0.5 MV, +.22db at -1 MV, +.33db at -1.5 MV, and so on. I believe that DEQ waits until a master volume of -5 is reached, and then implements the entire 1db of boost between about 70Hz and 120Hz. I think that is by far the simplest and most elegant way to implement the algorithm, and I can't see the Audyssey engineers unnecessarily complicating their own process. The .11db increments would be too small to be remotely audible, so why would they break things down that far? 

Actually, those incremental increases would be so small that I think it would be hard to measure them without pretty sophisticated measuring equipment. But, you could always ask Chris whether boosts are implemented at specific 5db master volume intervals. The two-tier process is something else entirely, however, and something that Audyssey has never explained. So, I won't even try to speculate about how those adjustments are implemented. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Hmmm...I may have to try and measure this next time I have the REW rig out, but I'm pretty sure that DEQ's boost is not implemented at +/-5MV increments. I think I would notice if I went from -10.5MV to -10MV and all of a sudden the bass was 2.2dB louder.

Just sayin'.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...I may have to try and measure this next time I have the REW rig out, but I'm pretty sure that DEQ's boost is not implemented at +/-5MV increments. I think I would notice if I went from -10.5MV to -10MV and all of a sudden the bass was 2.2dB louder.
> 
> Just sayin'.


I'm pretty sure that's not gonna happen Alan.


----------



## primetimeguy

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...I may have to try and measure this next time I have the REW rig out, but I'm pretty sure that DEQ's boost is not implemented at +/-5MV increments. I think I would notice if I went from -10.5MV to -10MV and all of a sudden the bass was 2.2dB louder.
> 
> Just sayin'.


Agree. I was planning to take some other measurements tonight so I'll see if I have time to grab a few on this. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## oso101

Just got a refurbished Denon AVR X1400H and want to get a boom stand & clip for the Audyssey mic.

Will the stand and clip recommended in the FAQ work with the mic that comes with this AVR?


----------



## primetimeguy

Hopefully this image helps. I enabled DynEQ and then took measurements from -25db to -20db in 1db increments. In Omnimic I then added an offset to each to bring the midrange of all measurements to the -20db level. You can see that every 1db change in volume had a small change in the amount of DynEQ. Therefore it is a continuous algorithm rather than a stair step of 5db adjustments. The overall change in level at 40hz is about 2.4db over this 5db range of volume which falls inline with previous measurements people have done.


----------



## mthomas47

primetimeguy said:


> Hopefully this image helps. I enabled DynEQ and then took measurements from -25db to -20db in 1db increments. In Omnimic I then added an offset to each to bring the midrange of all measurements to the -20db level. You can see that every 1db change in volume had a small change in the amount of DynEQ. Therefore it is a continuous algorithm rather than a stair step of 5db adjustments. The overall change in level at 40hz is about 2.4db over this 5db range of volume which falls inline with previous measurements people have done.


Thanks for running that test and sharing it! It's not much fun to be completely wrong.  But, I have been there before, and I would rather know the right answer than to continue to put out incorrect information. So, I'm glad we all know now, what Feri and Alan already believed to be the case. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

oso101 said:


> Just got a refurbished Denon AVR X1400H and want to get a boom stand & clip for the Audyssey mic.
> 
> Will the stand and clip recommended in the FAQ work with the mic that comes with this AVR?


If the mic is a little silver tower with a screw hole in the bottom, yes.


----------



## mon01ith

Sorry if this is buried in this thread, but I've been a YPAO person for the last 3 receivers, and have been looking at Marantz. Just to clarify, are the current models still unable to edit the eq bands after running calibration? I see on the app you can view the curves and it states you can make changes in speaker pairs? (as apposed to individual speaker adjustments? ) but the reliability of the app has me nervous that I want to trust that as a functioning method.


----------



## Alan P

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...I may have to try and measure this next time I have the REW rig out, but I'm pretty sure that DEQ's boost is not implemented at +/-5MV increments. I think I would notice if I went from -10.5MV to -10MV *and all of a sudden the bass was 2.2dB louder.*
> 
> Just sayin'.





mogorf said:


> I'm pretty sure that's not gonna happen Alan.


Oops...I should have said "2.2dB _quieter_". 





primetimeguy said:


> Hopefully this image helps. I enabled DynEQ and then took measurements from -25db to -20db in 1db increments. In Omnimic I then added an offset to each to bring the midrange of all measurements to the -20db level. You can see that every 1db change in volume had a small change in the amount of DynEQ. Therefore it is a continuous algorithm rather than a stair step of 5db adjustments. The overall change in level at 40hz is about 2.4db over this 5db range of volume which falls inline with previous measurements people have done.


Thanks for doing that so quickly...no idea when I would have gotten around to it.


----------



## gorman42

gorman42 said:


> When was the last time that Audyssey technology was updated? MultiEQX32 is the latest one, right? When was it introduced? Are there rumors on further developments around the corner? I need to change my current Yamaha RX-A3010 in order to get 4K switching (and Atmos) but since I still don't have a 4K display I'm wondering if it might be worth to start updating the receiver or if it would be better to wait right till the point when I'll buy the 4K display.


Anyone? I ask because I see Yamaha kind of constantly updating their YPAO algorithm, so I'd like to understand how old is MultiEQ X32 by now. Need to update my Yamaha A3010 for 4K/Atmos stuff.
Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

gorman42 said:


> Anyone? I ask because I see Yamaha kind of constantly updating their YPAO algorithm, so I'd like to understand how old is MultiEQ X32 by now. Need to update my Yamaha A3010 for 4K/Atmos stuff.
> Thanks.


Hi,

If you already like the sound quality that you are getting from your Yamaha, then there might not be any reason to change to another brand. I understand that some of the newer high-end Yamaha AVR's now feature a version of YPAO that allows for more low-frequency EQ. That has always been an advantage of XT-32, and of some other Audyssey versions.

I don't remember the year that XT-32 was introduced, probably either 2011 or 2012, but I'm not sure that its age is an important factor. XT-32 is still a very sophisticated system of room correction, and when room correction works well, it simply works. But, that has always been a YMMV proposition, depending heavily on user preference.

The new Audyssey app which was introduced a year or so ago allows for more user control of the frequency response, which some Audyssey users really seem to enjoy. I am not aware of any plans for future updates, but who knows about that sort of thing? 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kbarnes701

gorman42 said:


> Anyone? I ask because I see Yamaha kind of constantly updating their YPAO algorithm, so I'd like to understand how old is MultiEQ X32 by now. Need to update my Yamaha A3010 for 4K/Atmos stuff.
> Thanks.


XT32 hasn't been updated for several years. Either Audyssey believe it is 'perfect' and therefore no improvements can possibly be made to it, or Audyssey has 'lost interest' in domestic room EQ. Or, possibly most likely, the cost of developing it further is not commercially viable for them - of the mainstream manufacturers only the Denon & Marantz group offer XT32 these days so Audyssey's market and potential revenue stream from XT32 is limited.

HST, XT32 works as well as it ever did and people have been happy with it from the beginning. The thing to consider IMO is whether you feel that other room EQ solutions have been developed in the interim which might offer you more than XT32. There are several solutions to choose from and all have their merits and drawbacks. I'd advise you to do your research across AVS and see what you think. Obviously in an Audyssey thread you will only get advice on Audyssey! Good luck.


----------



## mogorf

A bit of OT, but a very interesting video of the two boosters of Falcon Heavy landing with double sonic booms. Have your headphones ready! Now, those two boosters did move quite a bit of air around their surroundings, didn't they?







 No subwoofer with LFE could do better I bet! Wish I was there to hear this boom!!! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=62&v=Z_kfM-BmVzQ


----------



## IAH

gorman42 said:


> Anyone? I ask because I see Yamaha kind of constantly updating their YPAO algorithm, so I'd like to understand how old is MultiEQ X32 by now. Need to update my Yamaha A3010 for 4K/Atmos stuff.
> Thanks.


For what its worth, I recently went from YPAO to Audyssey XT32, and though I have only done a preliminary run thus far (and haven't had a chance to take measurements or tweak it any), it does sound (to me) quite a bit smoother than YPAO. Or rather, YPAO seemed a little "brighter". This is mainly in reference to vocals.


----------



## markmanner

Hi, if I change my Surround and Center channel connection from my AVR to my power amp from unbalanced RCA to XLR Balanced, would that require re-running my Audyssey setup? I am not sure if the difference in signal between balanced and unbalanced matters.
Thanks, in particular if this is qualifies as a stupid question.
Best,
Mark


----------



## primetimeguy

markmanner said:


> Hi, if I change my Surround and Center channel connection from my AVR to my power amp from unbalanced RCA to XLR Balanced, would that require re-running my Audyssey setup? I am not sure if the difference in signal between balanced and unbalanced matters.
> Thanks, in particular if this is qualifies as a stupid question.
> Best,
> Mark


If you have an SPL meter you can just recheck the levels. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## markmanner

primetimeguy said:


> If you have an SPL meter you can just recheck the levels.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Good idea,
thanks,


----------



## Skylinestar

kbarnes701 said:


> XT32 hasn't been updated for several years. Either Audyssey believe it is 'perfect' and therefore no improvements can possibly be made to it, or Audyssey has 'lost interest' in domestic room EQ. Or, possibly most likely, the cost of developing it further is not commercially viable for them - of the mainstream manufacturers only the Denon & Marantz group offer XT32 these days so Audyssey's market and potential revenue stream from XT32 is limited.
> 
> HST, XT32 works as well as it ever did and people have been happy with it from the beginning. The thing to consider IMO is whether you feel that other room EQ solutions have been developed in the interim which might offer you more than XT32. There are several solutions to choose from and all have their merits and drawbacks. I'd advise you to do your research across AVS and see what you think. Obviously in an Audyssey thread you will only get advice on Audyssey! Good luck.


It's far from perfect. Imagine if I add a center speaker to 4.1.4 system, making a 5.1.4 system, I have to re-do the whole Audyssey sweeps for every speaker, which is time consuming. One of the simplest gripe.


----------



## primetimeguy

Skylinestar said:


> It's far from perfect. Imagine if I add a center speaker to 4.1.4 system, making a 5.1.4 system, I have to re-do the whole Audyssey sweeps for every speaker, which is time consuming. One of the simplest gripe.


The same is true for pretty much all room eq products regardless of vendor. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

I'm not sure that there is a way around that issue. Your audio system is either automatically calibrated to Reference or it isn't. And, the individual speakers in that system are either EQed or they aren't. Once you add new speakers to the system, I think that the automated calibration routines, and the room EQ have to be invalidated, because they are no longer correct for the audio system as a whole.

Audyssey turns off automatically, in that case, and we are back to using a manual calibration for those new speakers, if we don't choose to rerun Audyssey. And, we won't have any EQ, in that case. But, I think that automated room EQ has to work that way, whether it is Audyssey, or YPAO, or Dirac, or whatever.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Warbird7

Sorry I know these Multi EQ questions have been asked, but I could not find them.

Multi EQ questions:
- I can over ride the Crossover settings that result from a calibration, by changing the Manual Crossover settings?

Audyssey App questions:
- If calibration is performed via the frront panel / remote the App does nothing correct? You cannot load the existing config from the AVR-X8500H into the App.
- If calibration is performed via the App then the calibration data is only in the App? It does not stay in the AVR. One must download the data from the App into the AVR?


----------



## drh3b

Warbird7 said:


> Sorry I know these Multi EQ questions have been asked, but I could not find them.
> 
> Multi EQ questions:
> - I can over ride the Crossover settings that result from a calibration, by changing the Manual Crossover settings?
> 
> Audyssey App questions:
> - If calibration is performed via the frront panel / remote the App does nothing correct? You cannot load the existing config from the AVR-X8500H into the App.
> - If calibration is performed via the App then the calibration data is only in the App? It does not stay in the AVR. One must download the data from the App into the AVR?


Yes x3


----------



## Zach_N85

Hey guys, I'm feeling that Audyssey calibrated my Center channel too low compared to my mains. 

My fronts were set to -5db and the center at -6db. I raised my levels symmetrically to -2db for mains and -3db for center (This is because I prefer getting more volume in the -20db to -10db range than sub -10db), but I am still feeling that the center channel is calibrated too low. 

The dialog sometimes sounds very low, more so when gaming than watching BluRay content though, but still noticeable in both cases. I know that it's not recommended to change the volume ratios Audyssey has set, but in my case, the center sounds best with an offset of +2db from my mains. This breaks the calibration paradigm, but sounds better...

I was just wondering if this can jive well with the rest of the calibration, or is it a no-no.

Thanks


----------



## MackGuyver

Zach_N85 said:


> Hey guys, I'm feeling that Audyssey calibrated my Center channel too low compared to my mains.
> 
> My fronts were set to -5db and the center at -6db. I raised my levels symmetrically to -2db for mains and -3db for center (This is because I prefer getting more volume in the -20db to -10db range than sub -10db), but I am still feeling that the center channel is calibrated too low.
> 
> The dialog sometimes sounds very low, more so when gaming than watching BluRay content though, but still noticeable in both cases. I know that it's not recommended to change the volume ratios Audyssey has set, but in my case, the center sounds best with an offset of +2db from my mains. This breaks the calibration paradigm, but sounds better...
> 
> I was just wondering if this can jive well with the rest of the calibration, or is it a no-no.
> 
> Thanks


First thing is to check the levels - you can download them for free from Dolby here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html

You'll need a calibrated sound pressure level (SPL) or calibrated mic for your phone with a compatible app (e.g, the Dayton Audio iMM-6 mic and AudioTool app for Android).

Movies and many TV shows are mixed to a standard and if you don't feel dialogue is loud enough, it's likely an issue with the levels. Your adjustment might actually be correct but it's best to make them all the same level.

If you don't have access to that, why don't you just run the calibration again? I know it's a pain, but varying mic heights between measurements and other little changes can improve the results.


----------



## Spidacat

I think it's pretty common to boost the center a bit. It depends on the capabilities of the your center, where you have it located (far above or below tweeter level of your mains), and if you have any "obstructions" (like a glass coffee table) between your center and MLP. Plus it's your system and you should use it as you see fit. The easiest thing to do is play some test tones (Disney's WOW disc or Dolby test tones) outside of Audyssey and see if Audyssey simply set it a little low, or if you just prefer it boosted a bit.


----------



## Zach_N85

MackGuyver said:


> First thing is to check the levels - you can download them for free from Dolby here: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/guide/test-tones.html
> 
> You'll need a calibrated sound pressure level (SPL) or calibrated mic for your phone with a compatible app (e.g, the Dayton Audio iMM-6 mic and AudioTool app for Android).
> 
> Movies and many TV shows are mixed to a standard and if you don't feel dialogue is loud enough, it's likely an issue with the levels. Your adjustment might actually be correct but it's best to make them all the same level.
> 
> If you don't have access to that, why don't you just run the calibration again? I know it's a pain, but varying mic heights between measurements and other little changes can improve the results.


Thanks Mack, I've actually ran the calibration twice, and got the same result...

As for the center, it's very efficient, Audyssey identified it as full band, cross was set to 40hz, which I raised to 80, and the pre calibration EQ curve was surprisingly nearly perfect:










So I know that there's probably no issue with the speaker itself. I don't have access to an SPL meter at the moment, but I am definitely planning on getting one to perfect my room calibration.

If you can recommend a reasonably priced one I'd appreciate that 

Zach



Spidacat said:


> I think it's pretty common to boost the center a bit. It depends on the capabilities of the your center, where you have it located (far above or below tweeter level of your mains), and if you have any "obstructions" (like a glass coffee table) between your center and MLP. Plus it's your system and you should use it as you see fit. The easiest thing to do is play some test tones (Disney's WOW disc or Dolby test tones) outside of Audyssey and see if Audyssey simply set it a little low, or if you just prefer it boosted a bit.


As mentioned above, the center itself is very capable and efficient, which was supported by the calibration.

You are actually spot on in terms of my positioning, and obstacles: My center is located below mains twitter level and is slightly obstructed by a coffee table.










I can try angling it up towards my direction and see if that helps.

Will try the test tones and update you guys.

Thanks for the quick responses!


----------



## David Aiken

^ If you prefer things that way, then it's not a "no-no". The aim is to get results you like, not results that someone tells you are "correct" unless you really like that particular result.

It looks like you're using a different centre speaker to your mains so they may have different sensitivities which could be the reason Audyssey set the centre trim level a dB lower, Manufacturer specs for trim levels often don't match the results in test reports where measurements are made so even if the specs for the speakers are the same, the centre might have a different sensitivity than your mains. Add to that the fact that your centre speaker is in a different location to the mains and may be closer to the wall so it could be getting a bit more boundary reinforcement and/or that the centre is physically a little closer in a direct line to the main measurement position and you have other reasons for why the centre was given a different trim setting. There's lots of reasons why Audyssey could be correctly setting the trim for the centre speaker differently to the trim for the mains and the fact that there is a difference doesn't prove that Audyssey got it wrong. I'm not saying that Audyssey always gets things perfect, or that it got things perfect on this occasion, but I am saying that a 1 dB difference—which is a small difference in trim levels—and the feeling that "dialog sometimes sounds very low" doesn't clearly prove that the centre was set too low. The dialog could be sounding very low to you because it was deliberately mixed that way by the engineer (they sometimes get things wrong too).

There's another thing you have to consider. If you were used to listening to the system with the centre and mains set to the same trim levels before your calibration, or with the centre set a little higher than the mains, then your immediate response to the Audyssey setting is going to be that you will think the centre sounds too low, regardless of whether it's right or not. If you're used to hearing things one way and things change, your initial reaction is often to think that they now sound wrong because the sound is different to what you expect which is the sound you're used to. If you live with the new sound for a few days to a week or so and become used to it, you may find that you actually prefer the new sound and that you're noticing improvements that you didn't notice initially. I'm not saying you will come to that conclusion over time, I'm saying that you might come to that conclusion because familiarity with a sound and expectations of what you are going to hear certainly do influence our impressions when we make a change, and our first impressions are not always our final impressions.

Having said that, you could live with the Audyssey result for those few days to a week and still end up thinking that Audyssey set the centre a little low. That could be because it did set the centre too low, or because you just like the centre a little higher than the mains in the same way as some people like more bass than other people, or even because you've got a little hearing loss in the mid range where voice content lies so you need the centre channel a little louder to help with voice intelligibility.

There's no way any of us here can confirm whether your centre was set a little low but the one thing I can tell you is that adjusting the trim as you have done is quite alright if it produces a result you like and there's nothing wrong with doing that. If what you've done works for you then good, you've done the right thing. You're supposed to enjoy the sound you're getting and if adjusting the trim of the centre speaker by 2 dB does that for you that's fine. A lot of us, including me, adjust the trim of our subs a lot more than that and we don't worry about whether or not it's right, we do it because it sounds better to us and that's the same reason why you've adjusted your centre trim. Enjoy!


Edit: I just saw your photos. Having the centre in the cabinet like that puts it in a different environment to the mains when it comes to boundary support and that will make a difference. It will also change the tonal character of the centre's sound somewhat which may end up making voices a little less clear. I don't think that's an ideal place to have a centre speaker but it's the place you've got. You could try stuffing the space around the centre with something like acoustic foam to see whether that makes a difference. It may help, it may not, but I think it's worth a try. Speakers, including centre speakers, tend to be made to work best in open space unless they're specifically made for in-wall or ceiling mounting and speakers made to work in open space do not work their best when placed in a space like the one in your TV unit or in bookcases.


----------



## MackGuyver

@Zach_N85 I didn't find that Audyssey set my levels as well as I'd have liked (some were off by up to 3dB and the sub was WAY off), so I'd try to level match. The microphone and app I mentioned in my previous post are probably the cheapest and best way to go as it gives you a calibrated SPL and a real-time equalizer that does a lot more, too. The SPLs on Amazon are mostly made in China junk and Radioshack no longer makes the one we all used to recommend.

Angling the speaker up a bit would probably help a bit, too, but remember that you'll need to re-run Audyssey for anything other than a very minor tweak.

All that said, some material does seem to be mixed with low dialog - some seasons of Breaking Bad for example, but if it's a consistent issue, it's likely the levels. Also, with a sub in place, you should always set all of your speakers to Small and a crossover of 80Hz should be a good setting for that speaker.


----------



## Zach_N85

Thanks a lot for your detailed reply David! I appreciate it.

Indeed the center location is not ideal but as said it's what I've got. I don't want to mount the TV because the viewing height is currently perfect for me.

It may seem constricted in the cabinet, but the back end of the cabinet is fully open and is roughly 8" from the wall.

Regarding the Sub, I hear ya, Audyssey set my Sub to -7db but I don't agree to that and I set it to 0db, sounds great to me, and I love the Bass.

Your advice is sound and I'll take it, I'll live with it for several days and judge later. I think all of you helped me a lot for now 

Thanks


----------



## Zach_N85

MackGuyver said:


> @Zach_N85 I didn't find that Audyssey set my levels as well as I'd have liked (some were off by up to 3dB and the sub was WAY off), so I'd try to level match. The microphone and app I mentioned in my previous post are probably the cheapest and best way to go as it gives you a calibrated SPL and a real-time equalizer that does a lot more, too. The SPLs on Amazon are mostly made in China junk and Radioshack no longer makes the one we all used to recommend.
> 
> Angling the speaker up a bit would probably help a bit, too, but remember that you'll need to re-run Audyssey for anything other than a very minor tweak.
> 
> All that said, some material does seem to be mixed with low dialog - some seasons of Breaking Bad for example, but if it's a consistent issue, it's likely the levels. Also, with a sub in place, you should always set all of your speakers to Small and a crossover of 80Hz should be a good setting for that speaker.


Yup, all speakers are of course set to Small and the cross is at 80Hz for the Center. I cross my mains at 100Hz though, just because I like to let the bass roll a little bit more in the R/L channels.

I have a friend who has a professional SPL meter, I'll ask him to come round my place and do some measurements.

Cheers.


----------



## ggsantafe

Zach_N85 said:


> Yup, all speakers are of course set to Small and the cross is at 80Hz for the Center. I cross my mains at 100Hz though, just because I like to let the bass roll a little bit more in the R/L channels.
> 
> I have a friend who has a professional SPL meter, I'll ask him to come round my place and do some measurements.
> 
> Cheers.


In addition to what others have said - try moving center speaker out so that it extends at least an inch or two past the shelf it is resting on - this will also help minimize reflections


----------



## mogorf

ggsantafe said:


> In addition to what others have said - try moving center speaker out so that it extends at least an inch or two past the shelf it is resting on - this will also help minimize reflections


+1.

Moreover, nudging the center by an inch or so will surely help recuding first reflections, yet, tilting it to face seated ear hight will give you more improvements. Speakers will not only deliver their highest SPL when on-axis to our ears, but will also show their widest frequency response. End result: much more improved dialog intelligibility! Go for it!


----------



## garygarrison

Zach_N85 said:


> I have a friend who has a professional SPL meter, I'll ask him to come round my place and do some measurements.


Here is something that may or may not make a great difference, depending on how much correction Audyssey needed to make in your room and with your equipment. If you use your friend's SPL meter, _*DON'T*_ use the test noise built in to your AVR, because it does not send the noise through the Audyssey corrections. What you would get is correctly adjusted channel balance if you never ran Audyssey, and never will have Audyssey engaged when watching movies. You should use an OUTSIDE source for the pink noise, such as a test disk played in your Blu-ray player. That way the pink noise will go through the filters Audyssey set up, and will truly balance your channels as you will hear them. In my case, the channel balance with and without Audyssey (using a noise on disk v. using the noise generated in the AVR) are _*radically*_ different. Another forum member fond that, in his room, there was hardly any difference at all.

Are you the only person who watches movies or listens to music on your set-up? Or are there sometimes groups of 2, 4, 5 or whatever? If you are the sole listener/watcher, using an SPL meter at the Main Listening Position, perhaps waving it around just a bit, and taking an average, may be O.K. With groups of listeners, Audyssey's "Fuzzy Logic***" 8 microphone position method can more finely tune the levels to provide the best experience for the group.

Or, you can skip all that, and just leave your center channel slightly boosted compared to the level Audyssey set. I very strongly suspect that Audyssey set your levels correctly, and it is the filmmakers who screwed up. In my HT, about one out of 10 to 20 movies (we look at about 2 per week) has dialog that is not as clear as it should be, particularly when foreign accents are involved (try Trainspotting). We simply turn up the volume, or the center channel.


----------



## MackGuyver

@garygarrison - thanks for adding that - it's why I suggested he download the Dolby tones, but I totally forgot to explain why!


----------



## Zach_N85

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Thanks again for all your much appreciated replies and help guys. This community is so helpful and insightful. I'll definitely try all your suggestions and update back. Zach


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RCElectricFlyer

*Audyssey Questions*

The information contained in this thread is excellent. Thank you to all contributors and especially kbarnes701 for the amazing summary of information.

I have been looking for a new AVR for a long time with the objective of getting modern HDMI support and bass management capability. I'm a tinkerer, so if it wasn't for the need to address HDMI, I probably would have stayed with my current Yamaha AVR and went the miniDSP/REW route.

So just the other day I got a Denon AVR X3400H (Yay!) and now I have MultEQ and the companion Editor. My hope was that this would negate the need for any outboard processing but now I'm having second thoughts based on the functional limitations. I have used it a few times and these questions have popped up.

1. How does Audyssey blend the EQ'd and non EQ'd portions when the frequency range is lowered with the Editor?
2. There is no curve editor for the bass/LFE channels. The curves shown for Front, Center and Surround appear to roll off based on their determined F3 in the room. How do you know what low frequency response you are getting when adjusting these in the frequency range covered by the bass/LFE channels?
3. I only really want/need correction below (possibly well below) the Schroeder frequency. Using the 8 relatively close spaced microphone locations recommended does a poor job for me at low frequencies. For example, correction is too extreme for the first modal which in my case is nulled at the listening position (near room center). Is there any reason I can't use wide microphone spacings to tame the corrections being applied if I'm throwing away results at higher frequencies ? 

Cheers.


----------



## Moosee

*Audyssey XT32 reading speakers out of Phase??*

My set up is as follows;

Marantz AV 7704
Emotiva XPA-3 for LCR
EMOTIVA XPA-4.2 for all surrounds
All Axiom Speakers

The Marantz 7704 and the XPA4.2 are brand new to my setup and when I ran Audyessy XT32 last night to dial everything in, It reads that all my surround speakers are out of phase. The mains on my old XPA all read normal. Is there something I’m missing, or is there a problem with the AMP??? They seem to sound ok, but I’m not sure I would tell the difference on a surround speaker.
Everything is connected with XLR interconnects on both amps. I think its very strange that it reads every speaker out of phase on the new rig. I’m 100% positive all wires are hooked up correctly. When I ran Audyessy on my previous AVR every speaker properly registered in phase.
I will put a email out to Emotiva and Marantz Technical support as well, but my experience tells me I will get a faster answer here. 

Any thoughts? Should I hook them all up backwards for ****s and giggles to see if it reads in phase?
Moose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jdsmoothie

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html


----------



## mthomas47

RCElectricFlyer said:


> The information contained in this thread is excellent. Thank you to all contributors and especially kbarnes701 for the amazing summary of information.
> 
> I have been looking for a new AVR for a long time with the objective of getting modern HDMI support and bass management capability. I'm a tinkerer, so if it wasn't for the need to address HDMI, I probably would have stayed with my current Yamaha AVR and went the miniDSP/REW route.
> 
> So just the other day I got a Denon AVR X3400H (Yay!) and now I have MultEQ and the companion Editor. My hope was that this would negate the need for any outboard processing but now I'm having second thoughts based on the functional limitations. I have used it a few times and these questions have popped up.
> 
> 1. How does Audyssey blend the EQ'd and non EQ'd portions when the frequency range is lowered with the Editor?
> 2. There is no curve editor for the bass/LFE channels. The curves shown for Front, Center and Surround appear to roll off based on their determined F3 in the room. How do you know what low frequency response you are getting when adjusting these in the frequency range covered by the bass/LFE channels?
> 3. I only really want/need correction below (possibly well below) the Schroeder frequency. Using the 8 relatively close spaced microphone locations recommended does a poor job for me at low frequencies. For example, correction is too extreme for the first modal which in my case is nulled at the listening position (near room center). Is there any reason I can't use wide microphone spacings to tame the corrections being applied if I'm throwing away results at higher frequencies ?
> 
> Cheers.


Hi,

You are asking some fairly complicated questions, and you may want to repeat some of them on the Audyssey app thread:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html

But, I will take a crack at answering them. 

1. I don't believe that Audyssey does any blending. If you change the frequency range with the curve editor, you just change it, presumably because it sounds better to you that way.

2. I think you would have to measure with REW to determine how a curve involving the front three channels affects the frequencies (if it affects them at all) below the F3 point of those speakers.

3. If your main listening position is located in a null, there will be very little that Audyssey can do to help you, irrespective of microphone placement. But, you can certainly try wider microphone patterns if you like. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean, though, you are hoping that if you spread your microphone positions out more, that Audyssey will be more effective in adding boosts. 

But, if you are really getting cancellation at some low-frequencies, then more boost (Audyssey can add up to +9db) won't be helpful, because the null will be too deep and the boost will have no practical effect. Audyssey can affect relatively shallow dips, but not true nulls which are V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, dips in the frequency response.

Assuming that your MLP is located in a null, then adding another subwoofer, or moving your MLP forward or backward slightly (perhaps by just a foot or two), are probably the only ways to address it. Placing a subwoofer in the nearfield, within 1 meter of your listening position, would be another possible approach, as that would somewhat take the room out of the equation.

Ultimately, I believe that you may need to get up and running with REW to resolve this issue. You mentioned that you had already considered using that tool. It can sometimes be very helpful in enhancing automated room EQ. It would allow you to see exactly what you are dealing with, and how things change as you try some different approaches to the problem. Alternatively, you may be able to solve this by ear, if you are willing to experiment and then to listen carefully to the resulting bass response.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## windshear

I seem to recall that some of the Emotiva amps were inverting the phase between input and output and it is likely the new amplifier is doing this, especially since it is only apparent on all the surround channels with that amp.


----------



## RCElectricFlyer

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You are asking some fairly complicated questions, and you may want to repeat some of them on the Audyssey app thread:
> 
> But, I will take a crack at answering them.
> 
> 1. I don't believe that Audyssey does any blending. If you change the frequency range with the curve editor, you just change it, presumably because it sounds better to you that way.
> 
> 2. I think you would have to measure with REW to determine how a curve involving the front three channels affects the frequencies (if it affects them at all) below the F3 point of those speakers.
> 
> 3. If your main listening position is located in a null, there will be very little that Audyssey can do to help you, irrespective of microphone placement. But, you can certainly try wider microphone patterns if you like. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean, though, you are hoping that if you spread your microphone positions out more, that Audyssey will be more effective in adding boosts.
> 
> But, if you are really getting cancellation at some low-frequencies, then more boost (Audyssey can add up to +9db) won't be helpful, because the null will be too deep and the boost will have no practical effect. Audyssey can affect relatively shallow dips, but not true nulls which are V-shaped, rather than U-shaped, dips in the frequency response.
> 
> Assuming that your MLP is located in a null, then adding another subwoofer, or moving your MLP forward or backward slightly (perhaps by just a foot or two), are probably the only ways to address it. Placing a subwoofer in the nearfield, within 1 meter of your listening position, would be another possible approach, as that would somewhat take the room out of the equation.
> 
> Ultimately, I believe that you may need to get up and running with REW to resolve this issue. You mentioned that you had already considered using that tool. It can sometimes be very helpful in enhancing automated room EQ. It would allow you to see exactly what you are dealing with, and how things change as you try some different approaches to the problem. Alternatively, you may be able to solve this by ear, if you are willing to experiment and then to listen carefully to the resulting bass response.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the reply, Mike. I'll check the Audyssey app thread.

1. I just wondered how Audyssey mates the (lower) corrected portion to the uncorrected portion. Maybe it just matches the general level in the transition area.

2. Just in case my explanation isn't clear, I'm asking what modifying the Front, Center or Surround curve does to the *bass or LFE channel*. I can't find any place to separately modify the bass or LFE channel - there is no curve for it. The odd thing to me is that these Front, Center and Surround channels already have early LF rollof shown in the application, so what is happening in the bass/LFE channel when modifying this part of the curve which is already falling off? I suppose it is increasing the level correspondingly, but the visualization provided is poor.

3. You are absolutely right. Physics assures there is nothing that can be done about the null. So I'm definitely NOT asking Audyssey to add more correction to compensate for the null. I am actually asking for the opposite to average out the compensation. It is struggling way too much to compensate around the MLP which is causing incredibly high levels of the first mode at the room boundaries with correspondingly large subwoofer cone excursions. I suppose the good news is it shows that Audyssey is working. Unfortunately, the location of the MLP is not negotiable with the decorating committee. 

I have two subs and have already, after many hours of experimentation, found locations I am quite pleased with. I believe I have got very close to the best overall room response I can get at the MLP before compensation. I suppose the first mode null at the MLP might be somewhat addressable by co-locating one of the subs at/near the MLP. This is not practical at all in my case.


----------



## RCElectricFlyer

RCElectricFlyer said:


> ...I can't find any place to separately modify the bass or LFE channel - there is no curve for it. The odd thing to me is that these Front, Center and Surround channels already have early LF rollof shown in the application, so what is happening in the bass/LFE channel when modifying this part of the curve which is already falling off?...


Doh! I just discovered there IS an editable *Subwoofer * curve in the Curve Editor. I didn't scroll down to see it. That covers question 2. Whoops...


----------



## bobknavs

The Emotiva XPA Gen3 amps said that the amps invert the phase when using the XLR inputs. (But not using the RCA inputs.)

https://www.stereophile.com/content/emotiva-xpa-gen3-two-channel-power-amplifier-measurements

It's too bad that there isn't a simple way to test this. I've had false inverted phase flags from Audyssey in the past.


----------



## M Code

Common issue...
Both Audyssey and YPAO often report back a loudspeaker is out-of-phase..
Apparently this can be caused by a reflection from the loudspeaker's cabinet edge, or when measuring loudspeaker's frequency response reflection..
Double check your wiring, most likely all is well..

We have installed many, many AV systems using the name brand Room EQ systems, by far the best for end-results was the EQ software developed by Dr.Toole's R&D team @ Harman. Basically the software made (2) measurements; (1) near-field and (1) far-field.. This was used in the high-end HK and JBL Synthesis components, but sadly now HK has abandoned the AVR & audio component biz as they make more $ in the 12V OE info-tainments systems....

Just my $0.02...


----------



## klimo

Same issue. Happened with my center channel. 2 different speakers with 2 different amps (1 with AVR amp other with XPA-3). Chalked it up to Audyssey as I've seen this complaint come up numerous times.


----------



## pbz06

I've had this issue in the past. Make sure your surrounds are stable (if on stands) and also be aware if they are close to side walls or reflection points. One of my towers once did that and the remedy was to tighten one of the feet to be even on the ground. Sometimes also try running again with the Mic ensuring is stable also.


----------



## Moosee

pbz06 said:


> I've had this issue in the past. Make sure your surrounds are stable (if on stands) and also be aware if they are close to side walls or reflection points. One of my towers once did that and the remedy was to tighten one of the feet to be even on the ground. Sometimes also try running again with the Mic ensuring is stable also.


100% fault with the Amp. I switched to RCA interconnects and everything measured back in phase. EMOTIVA rep called me back and tried to explain what was up, but I?m having a hard time understanding it. He claims that there is no difference in the sound of a speaker that is hooked up in phase/polarity or not. All that matters is that they are all in the same phase... IE/ all in phase or all out of phase. If I want to use the XLR connections he suggested to either reverse the 3 front speakers polarity so they all show out of phase. Or if I was bothered by them showing out of phase I could reverse the polarity on all of my surrounds. What do you make of that? Seems kinda goofy to me. I may just use the RCA connections if there is no loss in quality?? Also doesn?t make sense that the old amps XLR inputs are not out of phase if that?s the way they are suppose to be.


----------



## DOC1963

Moosee said:


> 100% fault with the Amp. I switched to RCA interconnects and everything measured back in phase. EMOTIVA rep called me back and tried to explain what was up, but I?m having a hard time understanding it. He claims that there is no difference in the sound of a speaker that is hooked up in phase/polarity or not. All that matters is that they are all in the same phase... IE/ all in phase or all out of phase. If I want to use the XLR connections he suggested to either reverse the 3 front speakers polarity so they all show out of phase. Or if I was bothered by them showing out of phase I could reverse the polarity on all of my surrounds. What do you make of that? Seems kinda goofy to me. I may just use the RCA connections if there is no loss in quality?? Also doesn?t make sense that the old amps XLR inputs are not out of phase if that?s the way they are suppose to be.


He is correct. “*Absolute*” phase can be inverted without a noticeable effect in overall sound. However, “*relative*” phase must be maintained for all speakers in the group or cancellations can occur.

For whatever unknown reason, the XPA “Gen3” series amps do invert absolute phase on the XLR outputs (as confirmed in the Stereophile measurements of the XPA-5 Gen3). But as you have found, the easiest solution is to use the unbalanced outputs which do maintain absolute phase (which would be hard to screw up) or reverse the polarity at the speaker outputs of the XPA-4.2.

Since neither your Marantz AVP nor the XPA-4.2 are fully differential designs (truly “balanced”), there’s really nothing to be gained by using the XLR inputs (or outputs) other than for the benefit of using cables with better inherent external noise rejection. However, there are many “shielded” unbalanced cables available that can perform just as well as XLR cables for short runs (less than 12 feet).

If it were me, and knowing that establishing “relative” phase is an important component, I would just stick with using the unbalanced connections and take any questions of phase relationships out of play.


----------



## Stephen Hopkins

When I added my in-ceiling ATMOS speakers a few nights back and re-ran XT32, it picked up one of them as out of phase. I didn't want to get back into the ceiling to check the wiring at the speaker, so I flipped the +/- at the receiver and checked again which fixed it... would this seemingly confirmed that +/- was miswired on the speaker end, or could XT32 report an incorrect phase AND it be corrected by swapping +/- at the AVR even if it were wired correctly to begin with?


----------



## markmanner

*Modifications after Audyssey run*

Hello, I have read the FAQ, and may have missed this, so apologies if so. When I recently ran Audyssey on my new ATMOS setup (added a 2nd sub and 4 top speakers), the Audyssey results set the 4 top speakers and my center to small (as I expected), and my front L/R and surround L/R to large. If I now change the front and surrounds to small, will that adversely affect the validity of the Audyssey corrections? I admit that it pains me to change the front speakers in particular to small, given how massive they are and how good the bass response is, but I assume I should do that--less so for my surrounds, although they too are actually pretty big and capable speakers. I have modified the LFE crossover to 100 (a compromise between 80 and 120), and to 80 for the Front l/r, surround l/r, center, and top overhead speakers.
Thanks for the advice,
Best
Mark


----------



## drh3b

markmanner said:


> Hello, I have read the FAQ, and may have missed this, so apologies if so. When I recently ran Audyssey on my new ATMOS setup (added a 2nd sub and 4 top speakers), the Audyssey results set the 4 top speakers and my center to small (as I expected), and my front L/R and surround L/R to large. If I now change the front and surrounds to small, will that adversely affect the validity of the Audyssey corrections? I admit that it pains me to change the front speakers in particular to small, given how massive they are and how good the bass response is, but I assume I should do that--less so for my surrounds, although they too are actually pretty big and capable speakers. I have modified the LFE crossover to 100 (a compromise between 80 and 120), and to 80 for the Front l/r, surround l/r, center, and top overhead speakers.
> Thanks for the advice,
> Best
> Mark


Yes, you can change the speakers from large to small without invalidating the Audyssey corrections.


----------



## markmanner

drh3b said:


> Yes, you can change the speakers from large to small without invalidating the Audyssey corrections.


Thanks, a couple more questions/comments. I have changed the speaker config to small everywhere and as I noted changed the crossovers to 80 hz for all speakers, and modified the LFE setting to 100, using the 'manual' speaker config settings on my AVR. When I look at the Audyssey information page on my AVR, after that modification it still shows the large/small speaker settings and older 60hz crossover setting. I assume that this is just because that is what Audyssey set when it ran, not that my manual settings are not overriding the Audyssey settings now. Related to this is the behavior I see when I run the ATMOS test tones through my system. Before any adjustments to the Audyssey settings, the volume on a SPL meter shows the Surrounds and top rear speakers to be a bit higher, and my front l/r to be a bit lower. I have adjusted the levels up a bit on the fronts, and down a bit on the surrounds and top rear speakers using the manual level controls on my speaker setup page on my AVR. This also doesn't change the historical Audyssey levels that are displayed when I look at the Audyssey information page. However, when using my SPL meter to check levels now on the ATMOS test tones, I find that they are fairly closely balanced after the adjustment. Some ATMOS reference material (like start of Mad Max or parts of Oblivion), now sound more 'balanced' (by that I mean harder to localize specific speakers, and not so much of a feeling that too much sound is coming from above and behind me). Am I thinking about this correctly, and doing things that seem to be in accord with Audyssey setup standards and practices?
Thanks for the help on this,
Best
Mark


----------



## mthomas47

markmanner said:


> Thanks, a couple more questions/comments. I have changed the speaker config to small everywhere and as I noted changed the crossovers to 80 hz for all speakers, and modified the LFE setting to 100, using the 'manual' speaker config settings on my AVR. When I look at the Audyssey information page on my AVR, after that modification it still shows the large/small speaker settings and older 60hz crossover setting. I assume that this is just because that is what Audyssey set when it ran, not that my manual settings are not overriding the Audyssey settings now. Related to this is the behavior I see when I run the ATMOS test tones through my system. Before any adjustments to the Audyssey settings, the volume on a SPL meter shows the Surrounds and top rear speakers to be a bit higher, and my front l/r to be a bit lower. I have adjusted the levels up a bit on the fronts, and down a bit on the surrounds and top rear speakers using the manual level controls on my speaker setup page on my AVR. This also doesn't change the historical Audyssey levels that are displayed when I look at the Audyssey information page. However, when using my SPL meter to check levels now on the ATMOS test tones, I find that they are fairly closely balanced after the adjustment. Some ATMOS reference material (like start of Mad Max or parts of Oblivion), now sound more 'balanced' (by that I mean harder to localize specific speakers, and not so much of a feeling that too much sound is coming from above and behind me). Am I thinking about this correctly, and doing things that seem to be in accord with Audyssey setup standards and practices?
> Thanks for the help on this,
> Best
> Mark


Hi Mark,

Nothing that you have done invalidates your Audyssey calibration. Nor is it violating any best practice guidelines. My guess is that when you measured, using the Atmos test tones, DEQ was engaged. And, DEQ boosts the surround (and overhead) channels relative to the front three channels, at below Reference levels. If you don't like what it is doing in that regard, you can make the adjustment that you did, or turn DEQ off, or try one of the RLO settings to reduce the effect of DEQ.

It might be helpful to read the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature. It will explain the action of DEQ in some detail, as well as some other aspects of Audyssey that you might find interesting.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Nothing that you have done invalidates your Audyssey calibration. Nor is it violating any best practice guidelines. My guess is that when you measured, using the Atmos test tones, DEQ was engaged. And, DEQ boosts the surround (and overhead) channels relative to the front three channels, at below Reference levels. If you don't like what it is doing in that regard, you can make the adjustment that you did, or turn DEQ off, or try one of the RLO settings to reduce the effect of DEQ.
> 
> It might be helpful to read the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature. It will explain the action of DEQ in some detail, as well as some other aspects of Audyssey that you might find interesting.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, DEQ is probably why I was experiencing what I thought was a calibration error in Audyssey regarding the Surrounds. I have been using Room Perfect on a 2 channel setup for years, and Audyssey too on HT setups, so I think I did a careful Audyssey run. However, I neglected to think about what DEQ might have been doing. I will turn DEQ off and re-measure the ATMOS test tones with my SPL meter and reference material, and I bet that I am going to find the levels too loud up front since I dropped the rears. I will probably go back and reset levels to what Audyssey did and de-select DEQ when I don't like what it is doing. Thanks for the great advice.

[Edit: after turning off DEQ, the ATMOS test tones indicate pretty close balance on all the speaker volumes from the MLP using the Audyssey settings. I now understand better what is going on, thanks to the great advice here.]


----------



## pbarach

markmanner said:


> Thanks, a couple more questions/comments. I have changed the speaker config to small everywhere and as I noted changed the crossovers to 80 hz for all speakers, and modified the LFE setting to 100, using the 'manual' speaker config settings on my AVR. When I look at the Audyssey information page on my AVR, after that modification it still shows the large/small speaker settings and older 60hz crossover setting.


The Audyssey information screen shows what Audyssey calibration did to your system concerning the crossovers. The changes you made after calibration don't show up on this screen, but your changes are in effect despite what the information screen shows.


----------



## markmanner

pbarach said:


> The Audyssey information screen shows what Audyssey calibration did to your system concerning the crossovers. The changes you made after calibration don't show up on this screen, but your changes are in effect despite what the information screen shows.


Thanks


----------



## gurkey

Any LFE filter settings should never been touched, as the LFE channel will (usually) contain (mono) signals up to ~120Hz by mutual agreement as a (almost) given standard.
Why this can be modified on some units I do not understand, because it misleads some users in changing this setting thus changing the LFE contents behavior.


----------



## markmanner

pbarach said:


> The Audyssey information screen shows what Audyssey calibration did to your system concerning the crossovers. The changes you made after calibration don't show up on this screen, but your changes are in effect despite what the information screen shows.





gurkey said:


> Any LFE filter settings should never been touched, as the LFE channel will (usually) contain (mono) signals up to ~120Hz by mutual agreement as a (almost) given standard.
> Why this can be modified on some units I do not understand, because it misleads some users in changing this setting thus changing the LFE contents behavior.


Hi, in reading the FAQ here (Audyssey 101 faq c5), there seems to be some debate about whether 80 or 120 is the correct setting, which is why I set mine to 100 as a compromise. I take it you think it should be 120? The argument to reduce it given in the c5 faq is based upon 'boominess' in the 100-120 range. I suppose that I could experiment. Frankly, the bass sounds great at LPF for LFE set a 100, 80 or 120 in my system (which could be a reflection of my perceptual inadequacies).


----------



## gurkey

Any "boominess" is not a question of the LFE channels upper filter frequency response (low pass) but a question of correcting the frequency response of any speaker and subwoofer involved by a room EQ system, i.e. Audyssey. 
One therefore should not change the cutoff-frequency for the LFE channels without proper knowledge and experience about what he is doing. 

For very specific conditions it is discussed to fine tune the frequency response after measurements by adjusting the overall (additive) filter response curve, taking into consideration the filter response slope of that LFE cutoff filter. But this never ever should been used as a general setup guide line for manipulating the LFE cut-off filter.


----------



## jbnpaul

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markmanner

gurkey said:


> Any "boominess" is not a question of the LFE channels upper filter frequency response (low pass) but a question of correcting the frequency response of any speaker and subwoofer involved by a room EQ system, i.e. Audyssey.
> One therefore should not change the cutoff-frequency for the LFE channels without proper knowledge and experience about what he is doing.
> 
> For very specific conditions it is discussed to fine tune the frequency response after measurements by adjusting the overall (additive) filter response curve, taking into consideration the filter response slope of that LFE cutoff filter. But this never ever should been used as a general setup guide line for manipulating the LFE cut-off filter.


So the take away for an ignorant user like myself is to leave it set at 120?


----------



## pbarach

markmanner said:


> So the take away for an ignorant user like myself is to leave it set at 120?


 That's right.


----------



## garygarrison

markmanner said:


> So the take away for an ignorant user like myself is to leave it set at 120?


Mark, 

I would guess*:*


If the Audyssey calibration is *perfect* , and your subwoofer is also *perfect*, setting LPF for LFE at 120 will let you hear the closest to what the mixers intended, whether your taste is similar to theirs or not.
It is alleged that some mixers, soundscape designers, etc. go overboard on LFE. But one would think the director would reign them in, if s/he is an auteur. France's favorite American auteur (Jerry Lewis) mentions the importance of the director controlling the sound mix in his book, The Total Filmmaker. In any case, meticulous directors try to make every detail of the sound express their vision, taste, etc. I hope. With movies you secretly preview before showing them to guests, you may adjust the LFE to taste, if you feel that is necessary. I've found it so only about 4 times. If the mixers have gone wild, you might hear less of that wildness with a setting of 80.
There is not a great difference between an LPF for LFE setting of 80 and 120, even though it is 1/2 of an octave, because of the overlap. Because you are using 100, there is an even smaller difference.
There may be a little less apparent distortion when using 80 than when using 120, unless those wily mixers snuck some true LFE into the main channels (unlikely, but conceivable).
I alternated between using 80 and 120, and finally settled on 120, for drama's sake, but when I (very rarely) hear a bit of distortion in the LFE, I wonder if I would be hearing it with a setting of 80.


For anyone who doesn't happen to know, LPF (low pass filter) for LFE is completely different than the crossover to the sub from the main speakers. That crossover is part of bass management, affects music (and conceivably dialog, if a Basso Profundo is speaking ... the lowest undertones of Sam Elliot), and is often set at 80 Hz, and higher for speakers that don't reach 80 so well). The subwoofer output from the AVR mixes LFE the filmmakers put there with whatever (music, etc.) is below the crossover to the sub. This consists of bass that is part of the signal that would otherwise be sent to speakers set on "Small," but isn't, because they're set on "Small."


----------



## markmanner

garygarrison said:


> Mark,
> 
> I would guess*:*
> 
> 
> If the Audyssey calibration is *perfect* , and your subwoofer is also *perfect*, setting LPF for LFE at 120 will let you hear the closest to what the mixers intended, whether your taste is similar to theirs or not.
> It is alleged that some mixers, soundscape designers, etc. go overboard on LFE. But one would think the director would reign them in, if s/he is an auteur. France's favorite American auteur (Jerry Lewis) mentions the importance of the director controlling the sound mix in his book, The Total Filmmaker. In any case, meticulous directors try to make every detail of the sound express their vision, taste, etc. I hope. With movies you secretly preview before showing them to guests, you may adjust the LFE to taste, if you feel that is necessary. I've found it so only about 4 times.
> There is not a great difference between an LPF for LFE setting of 80 and 120, even though it is 1/2 of an octave, because of the overlap. Because you are using 100, there is an even smaller difference.
> There may be a little less apparent distortion when using 80 than when using 120, unless those wily mixers snuck some true LFE into the main channels (unlikely, but conceivable).
> I alternated between using 80 and 120, and finally settled on 120, for drama's sake, but when I (very rarely) hear a bit of distortion in the LFE, I wonder if I would be hearing it with a setting of 80.
> 
> 
> For anyone who doesn't happen to know, LPF (low pass filter) for LFE is completely different than the crossover to the sub from the main speakers. That crossover is part of bass management, affects music (and conceivably dialog, if a Basso Profundo is speaking ... the lowest undertones of Sam Elliot), and is often set at 80 Hz, and higher for speakers that don't reach 80 so well). The subwoofer output from the AVR mixes LFE the filmmakers put there with whatever (music, etc.) is below the crossover to the sub. This consists of bass that is part of the signal that would otherwise be sent to speakers set on "Small," but isn't, because they're set on "Small."


Thanks to you, and to pbarach and gurkey (and others) for the very helpful advice.
I hope to be able to reciprocate someday.
Best regards,
Mark


----------



## Islandborn

Greetings Gents- Just wanted to chime in and say TY to the OP for this awesome thread and AVS forum as well!! Finally upgraded my old trusty JBL L series 7.2 home theater setup with my old Onkyo 809 to some Atmos goodness. I live in a 2 story home, about 4000 SF. Travertine tile floors with open floor plan, so needless to say, my home theater livingroom is not very ideal. That being said, I still always wanted to try Atmos.

I decided to make the jump and purchased some Klipsch RP-140 SA's along with a new Denon 7200 WA. With my OCD, I probably ran Audyssey 20 times already, but I think I got it to where my ears are finnally happy and content! As others have said numerous times, I hate how low the subs have to be set to use the Audyssey calibration but at 9 o'clock gain setting on the control knob, both my subs hit around 75. 

After Audyssey, they were trimmed at around -10-11, so I was able to run them a little hot at around -5. I know increasing trims is just like increasing master volume, but I also bumped my trims up on all the speakers +2 DB. I ran a bunch of the Atmos demos and I am so pleased with the Atmos surround sound I have achieved with these up-firing speakers along with the new Denon receiver and my trusty old JBL L series speakers. 

I can finally sit back and enjoy the upwards of 100+ blu rays I have purchased before but never watched because I was waiting for this day when I would be able to enjoy with the Atmos experience! Thanks again for the thread. Off to watch Mad Max and Transformers!!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mark,
> 
> I would guess*:*
> 
> 
> If the Audyssey calibration is *perfect* , and your subwoofer is also *perfect*, setting LPF for LFE at 120 will let you hear the closest to what the mixers intended, whether your taste is similar to theirs or not.
> It is alleged that some mixers, soundscape designers, etc. go overboard on LFE. But one would think the director would reign them in, if s/he is an auteur. France's favorite American auteur (Jerry Lewis) mentions the importance of the director controlling the sound mix in his book, The Total Filmmaker. In any case, meticulous directors try to make every detail of the sound express their vision, taste, etc. I hope. With movies you secretly preview before showing them to guests, you may adjust the LFE to taste, if you feel that is necessary. I've found it so only about 4 times. If the mixers have gone wild, you might hear less of that wildness with a setting of 80.
> There is not a great difference between an LPF for LFE setting of 80 and 120, even though it is 1/2 of an octave, because of the overlap. Because you are using 100, there is an even smaller difference.
> There may be a little less apparent distortion when using 80 than when using 120, unless those wily mixers snuck some true LFE into the main channels (unlikely, but conceivable).
> I alternated between using 80 and 120, and finally settled on 120, for drama's sake, but when I (very rarely) hear a bit of distortion in the LFE, I wonder if I would be hearing it with a setting of 80.
> 
> 
> For anyone who doesn't happen to know, LPF (low pass filter) for LFE is completely different than the crossover to the sub from the main speakers. That crossover is part of bass management, affects music (and conceivably dialog, if a Basso Profundo is speaking ... the lowest undertones of Sam Elliot), and is often set at 80 Hz, and higher for speakers that don't reach 80 so well). The subwoofer output from the AVR mixes LFE the filmmakers put there with whatever (music, etc.) is below the crossover to the sub. This consists of bass that is part of the signal that would otherwise be sent to speakers set on "Small," but isn't, because they're set on "Small."


Hi Gary,

FWIW, I do hear a little bit of difference between the default setting of 120Hz and the 80Hz setting that I generally use for the LFE channel. Like yourself, I have gone back-and-forth between the settings a number of times, and I wouldn't say that there is a lot of difference. But, I do use a substantial sub boost with movies, and I believe that the bass is just a touch clearer with the 80Hz setting.

The LFE channel doesn't implement a brick wall filter. So, even with an 80Hz LPF, we still get 100Hz and 120Hz content. It's just played at a somewhat attenuated volume. I believe the LPF implements a 24db per octave slope, so 100Hz would be down about 6db from the 80Hz SPL's. I find that the lower LPF seems to concentrate just a little more SPL in the lower frequencies, although that difference may also be very subtle.

I suspect that someone who enjoys more mid-bass might find the higher LPF more suitable, and that someone who is not quite as intent on having the mid-bass frequencies from that channel might find the slighter better clarity of the 80Hz setting worthwhile. As with everything else in our hobby, there is a real YMMV aspect to this issue.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pojojo

Is it normal for Audyssey to introduce noise to the speakers? I noticed, especially with the L R surrounds, that there is an audible "white noise" coming from them. Is this because Audyssey boosts some ranges, causing noise? I say this because when I listen with Audyssey turned off, the surrounds get very low. I also checked the levels set by Audyssey, and they're not outrageous (-3.5 dB, same as my fronts). Happens with or without dynamic EQ enabled.

I have XT32 on the Denon X3400H.

Also, does anyone know if the pre-outs on that receiver supply enough voltage to make an external amp worthwhile? I'm running some low impedance speakers and would hate to be hamstrung by something I didn't foresee. Looking into the Monolith 7 channel amp by monoprice eventually.


----------



## steakhouse_

I had quite audible noise with audyssey on at the surround speakers on my old onkyo 3008 but my x4400 seems fine. The noise was also there without DynEQ (which boosts the surrounds plus treble) but was clearly amplified using DynEQ. 

In a German forum one guy has a strange issue with two subs and audyssey. He found out that measuring the first position sub 1 and two were measured and then together just as advertised. At position 2-8 there was only a sweep audible from sub 1 (but both flashed up in the GUI). After the measurement both subs played. Did someone check on this and listened if both subs are beign measured across all measurement positions? He conducted the measurement via the receiver (not with the app).


----------



## anothermib

Hi, I noticed that in my system Audyssey tends to consistently set the trim levels of the ceiling speakers about 1-2dB too high. This is very apparent even with the AVR test tones, but can be confirmed as well with the Dolby tones and an SPL meter. 
I am wondering if the Audyssey mic has less sensitivity above the horizontal axis or if that is due to the smaller frequency range of the ceiling speakers.
Has anyone else noticed a similar behavior? Or is something else going wrong in my setup?


----------



## mthomas47

anothermib said:


> Hi, I noticed that in my system Audyssey tends to consistently set the trim levels of the ceiling speakers about 1-2dB too high. This is very apparent even with the AVR test tones, but can be confirmed as well with the Dolby tones and an SPL meter.
> I am wondering if the Audyssey mic has less sensitivity above the horizontal axis or if that is due to the smaller frequency range of the ceiling speakers.
> Has anyone else noticed a similar behavior? Or is something else going wrong in my setup?


Hi,

That's an interesting question. The trim levels are set from the first microphone position. Unless there were a line-of-sight issue, I don't see why the microphone would be at fault. For instance, I can't remember that problem being reported with rear surround speakers, which are often a couple of feet above ear level, or with front height speakers.

Depending on the size and capabilities of the ceiling speakers, I guess that they might have less SPL in the 500Hz to 2000Hz range that is used to set regular speaker trim levels. However, if those speakers were less sensitive, or if the microphone were registering the SPL lower than it should have, the trim levels would be raised accordingly, but should still be set to the same final 75db level as the other channels. 

So, I have no explanation. There was a recent poster who was measuring with DEQ engaged, and that was boosting all of the surround channels, but I can't think of a good reason why only the ceiling speakers would be measuring louder than the rest. Maybe someone else has something.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## anothermib

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's an interesting question. The trim levels are set from the first microphone position. Unless there were a line-of-sight issue, I don't see why the microphone would be at fault. For instance, I can't remember that problem being reported with rear surround speakers, which are often a couple of feet above ear level, or with front height speakers.
> 
> Depending on the size and capabilities of the ceiling speakers, I guess that they might have less SPL in the 500Hz to 2000Hz range that is used to set regular speaker trim levels. However, if those speakers were less sensitive, or if the microphone were registering the SPL lower than it should have, the trim levels would be raised accordingly, but should still be set to the same final 75db level as the other channels.
> 
> So, I have no explanation. There was a recent poster who was measuring with DEQ engaged, and that was boosting all of the surround channels, but I can't think of a good reason why only the ceiling speakers would be measuring louder than the rest. Maybe someone else has something.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thanks for commenting. Yes, if I am the only one that is getting these results it may remain a mystery. 
If the trim is measured in the 0.5-2k range the speakers should be perfectly fine. DEQ is off and doesn’t affect the ceiling speaker levels anyway. 
Microphone characteristics is my only remaining idea if the sensitivity only reduces at comparable high angles. 
It is not a huge deal, I am fine tuning levels generally anyway. I was just curious as that discrepancy for the ceiling speakers was very consistent and obvious over many Audyssey runs. Many actually like to run the ceiling speakers a bit hotter, but I find it sounds more balanced if they are at the same level.


----------



## Alan P

markmanner said:


> Hello, I have read the FAQ, and may have missed this, so apologies if so. When I recently ran Audyssey on my new ATMOS setup (added a 2nd sub and 4 top speakers), the Audyssey results set the 4 top speakers and my center to small (as I expected), and my front L/R and surround L/R to large. If I now change the front and surrounds to small, will that adversely affect the validity of the Audyssey corrections? I admit that it pains me to change the front speakers in particular to small, given how massive they are and how good the bass response is, but I assume I should do that--less so for my surrounds, although they too are actually pretty big and capable speakers. I have modified the LFE crossover to 100 (a compromise between 80 and 120), and to 80 for the Front l/r, surround l/r, center, and top overhead speakers.
> Thanks for the advice,
> Best
> Mark


Wow! Even I would have a hard time setting those speakers to small...you have a very impressive system there sir!

Wilson Maxx2: 410lbs each and $45K/ pair. 
https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-maxx2-loudspeaker-specifications


----------



## Alan P

In other news...

I'm back to using Audyssey Flat _and _DEQ. Can you believe it?! 




Alan P said:


> I have recently been enjoying the sound on my Denon 4520 a bit more since I switched Audyssey off and copied the Audyssey Flat curve to the GEQ...................


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> In other news...
> 
> I'm back to using Audyssey Flat _and _DEQ. Can you believe it?!


Wow Alan!  Flat is flat, no debate, but what do you newly experience with DEQ? Do you use it for every program material, movies, 2CH CD music, concert videos? How does music sound when set for background listening at -50 dB MV? What about DEQ boosting surrounds? What about RLO? Did you leave it at 0 dB or else? Me curious like cat to hear your finding! 

Enjoy!


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> In other news...
> 
> I'm back to using Audyssey Flat _and _DEQ. Can you believe it?!


Hi Alan,

I think it's exciting to keep track of your preferred mode of the moment.  

All kidding aside, things don't sound exactly the same to me every day. Sometimes, for instance, I will think that the bass sounds extremely prominent in a music listening session. Some of that may be the particular tracks that I am playing at that time, but I know that a large part of it is the variability of my own perceptions. When things sound very different to me, I may make some adjustments, also depending on my mood, or I may just ride it out, knowing that it's me more than it is my settings.

I wonder how much of what you have been experiencing with Audyssey on/off; Graphic Equalizer; Flat/Reference; DEQ off/on is attributable to your own perceptual variability?

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I decided to add to this a little in order to make a point more clearly. I think that we are all searching for the perfect combination of settings. But, I'm really not sure that there is such a thing, because even if hypothetically speaking, all of our listening material could sound the same in some totally objective sense, it never could when filtered through our subjective minds.


----------



## Alan P

I recently added a couple Crowson MAs to my setup. In the process of integrating them, I made some changes to my sub delays, distances and levels. During this whole process, I tried turning Audyssey back on...and much to my surprise, I liked it! Thought to myself, "if I like what Audyssey is doing now, what about DEQ?". I flipped the switch, and lo and behold it sounded good to me again! Not sure which tweak made my system Audyssey/DEQ friendly once again, but I'll take it. 

I'm using DEQ for everything; RLO=0 for music and movies, RLO=-15 for TV.

Music sounds great at all volume levels and I do enjoy the bass boost when listening at lower MV levels.

I overcome the surround boost as I always have by just reducing the trim on the surrounds by 5dB each.


My favorite thing that DEQ does is it keeps my MAs feeling nice and powerful regardless of MV level.


----------



## Alan P

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> I think it's exciting to keep track of your preferred mode of the moment.
> 
> All kidding aside, things don't sound exactly the same to me every day. Sometimes, for instance, I will think that the bass sounds extremely prominent in a music listening session. Some of that may be the particular tracks that I am playing at that time, but I know that a large part of it is the variability of my own perceptions. When things sound very different to me, I may make some adjustments, also depending on my mood, or I may just ride it out, knowing that it's me more than it is my settings.
> 
> I wonder how much of what you have been experiencing with Audyssey on/off; Graphic Equalizer; Flat/Reference; DEQ off/on is attributable to your own perceptual variability?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It very well could be, as you put it, my "perceptual variability". However, this time I believe it was due to me adding equipment and changing a bunch of settings. 

However, I agree with you that sometimes the system just sounds better/worse/or just different based on mood. I've definitely experienced this over the years.


----------



## David Aiken

pojojo said:


> Is it normal for Audyssey to introduce noise to the speakers? I noticed, especially with the L R surrounds, that there is an audible "white noise" coming from them. Is this because Audyssey boosts some ranges, causing noise? I say this because when I listen with Audyssey turned off, the surrounds get very low. I also checked the levels set by Audyssey, and they're not outrageous (-3.5 dB, same as my fronts). Happens with or without dynamic EQ enabled.
> 
> I have XT32 on the Denon X3400H.
> 
> Also, does anyone know if the pre-outs on that receiver supply enough voltage to make an external amp worthwhile? I'm running some low impedance speakers and would hate to be hamstrung by something I didn't foresee. Looking into the Monolith 7 channel amp by monoprice eventually.


I can't answer your second question but I'll have a go at the first.

Any audio processing is likely to introduce some noise but usually not at a noticeable level. What I suspect is going on is something different. The trim level really doesn't tell you all that much about what Audyssey is doing since Audyssey is really a room correction application. Besides setting trims to balance speaker levels, what it does is to create filters that change some of the frequency characteristics of the signal being fed to the speaker and that means that some frequencies are going to be boosted and others will be cut. The tonal character of the sound changes, and how it changes will depend on the boosts and cuts made which will vary from speaker to speaker. Surrounds are usually smaller than the fronts and have different frequency responses, and they are also to the side or slightly behind you where your hearing sensitivity is lower but in a different way to the way we're used to seeing hearing sensitivity shown in the Fletcher Munson equal loudness curves.

You say the noise is "audible" but how loud is it? If it's just audible then I suspect what you're noticing may be a change in the character of the sound coming from the speaker because the tonal balance with Audyssey on is going to be different to the tonal character with Audyssey off. If your hearing is slightly reduced in a frequency band that Audyssey is boosting the boost may be just enough to shift the sound of that frequency band from just below your personal level of audibility to just above it so now you're noticing something about the "white noise" that all speakers emit when there is no signal that you weren't previously aware of. There's also the issue that we can often be quite sensitive to changes because we're hearing something we weren't used to or expecting and when that happens we tend to find that we stop noticing what's been bothering us once we get familiar with it because our brain filters it out. We can still notice it if we consciously listen for it but if we're not actually directing our attention to it, we no longer notice it. You may find that happening over a period of a few days to a week or two.

Hearing a "white noise" from a speaker isn't unusual and the audibility of that noise depends on how high you have the master volume control set and how close you are to the speaker. It can also be influenced by reflections from room surfaces and probably several other things as well.

The first thing I'd do is to check your speaker connections at both the speaker and the AVR and make sure they're tight. If any of the connections are loose, tighten them and see if that solves the problem.

Provided the speaker isn't too close to you and you don't have the master volume set at a higher than normal listening level I wouldn't be too worried if the sound is audible but not really loud, and it it isn't noticeable when the speaker is actually playing sound. If the sound is loud, and if it's audible when there's sound playing then I'd think that something could be wrong but whether or not the problem is in Audyssey or the speaker is harder to tell. If you're hearing it in one surround only, or louder in one surround than the other, try swapping the surrounds. If what you're hearing moves with the speaker when you make the swap then there's likely a problem with the speaker rather than the AVR. To really do the swap properly you should run Audyssey setup again when you make the swap because your speakers may not be absolutely identical in their response but even just making the swap and listening with your current Audyssey filters may tell you something.


----------



## pbarach

anothermib said:


> Hi, I noticed that in my system Audyssey tends to consistently set the trim levels of the ceiling speakers about 1-2dB too high. This is very apparent even with the AVR test tones, but can be confirmed as well with the Dolby tones and an SPL meter.
> I am wondering if the Audyssey mic has less sensitivity above the horizontal axis or if that is due to the smaller frequency range of the ceiling speakers.
> Has anyone else noticed a similar behavior? Or is something else going wrong in my setup?


Note that the AVR test tones bypass Audyssey, so they cannot be used for level-setting with an SPL meter. The "Dolby tone"--are those from a disc or from the AVR?


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> Wow! Even I would have a hard time setting those speakers to small...you have a very impressive system there sir!
> 
> Wilson Maxx2: 410lbs each and $45K/ pair.
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/wilson-audio-specialties-maxx2-loudspeaker-specifications


Wow! Me too, given that these speakers still haven't crossed the 0 line at just below 30 Hz in _*Stereophile**'s*_ listening room (with room gain), and do almost as well in an anechoic chamber! 

*markmanner*, I don't recall, have you tried bass management crossover points much lower than usual, such as 40 Hz, instead of the usual 80 Hz, while keeping the LPF for LFE at your (wise) compromise point of 100 Hz? 

I'm curious, how do you like what Audyssey does for you with speakers of that quality? Do you generally use Audyssey Flat, or plain Audyssey (Audyssey Reference)? DEQ? Can you subjectively compare Audyssey On to Audyssey Off on your system (if you have time)?

Thanks.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> In other news...
> 
> I'm back to using Audyssey Flat _and _DEQ. Can you believe it?!


Yes, I believe it! 

In regard to your earlier post, I think Chris K said you can't really "copy" the Audyssey curve, with its hundreds of points, only a very crude approximation of it. My Marantz pre/pro has a "base" -- not bass -- "copy" function, which Chris called either "useless" or some similar characterization. Is the GEQ a graphic equalizer? (Duh! Doh!) In about 2005 to 2010 I drove myself crazy with a pair of graphic EQs, trying to fine tune my system. I think they were 1/3 octave, with about 30 sliders per channel. Adjusting one slider would alter a neighboring frequency just enough to be maddening. They added audible noise to the system, particularly noticeable during soft passages in the classical music I love. After 5 years of this I was certifiable. They now sit in the garage awaiting the Great e-Bay Day. Comparatively speaking, Audyssey is a miracle, and Audyssey Flat is as close as I need to be, after I add broad bass boost, below about 150 Hz.


----------



## markmanner

*.*



garygarrison said:


> Wow! Me too, given that these speakers still haven't crossed the 0 line at just below 30 Hz in _*Stereophile**'s*_ listening room (with room gain), and do almost as well in an anechoic chamber!
> 
> *markmanner*, I don't recall, have you tried bass management crossover points much lower than usual, such as 40 Hz, instead of the usual 80 Hz, while keeping the LPF for LFE at your (wise) compromise point of 100 Hz?
> 
> I'm curious, how do you like what Audyssey does for you with speakers of that quality? Do you generally use Audyssey Flat, or plain Audyssey (Audyssey Reference)? DEQ? Can you subjectively compare Audyssey On to Audyssey Off on your system (if you have time)?
> 
> Thanks.


Hi AlanP and garygarrison, thanks for your comment, they are nice speakers (I don't mind saying so since I didn't make them!). I listened to them initially in my home theater system set to large, as well as my surrounds set to large (they are Sophia 2s and are pretty bass capable as well, though not as much as the Maxx2s), and it sounded pretty good. When I recently added a second sub and the 4 atmos ceiling speakers, and then redid Audyssey, I set all speakers to small with the crossovers at 80. I'm going to listen to them for a week or so like that, then maybe go back in and change the crossover for the Maxx2's to 40 and Sophia2's to 60, and see what it sounds like. I will report. FWIW, for two channel stereo music I use a stand alone DAC (the Auralic Vega) run through a C50 preamp, and then a MEN220 for room correction on the Maxx2s (using Room Perfect), with no subwoofer in the chain. The C50 is used in passthru mode when I do home theater. Interestingly, even in passthru to my AVR, the MEN220 corrections to the Maxx2s are still active, and the Audyssey corrections are applied to the Maxx2s as corrected for the room by Room Perfect. Audyssey doesn't do much to the frequency curve on the Maxx2's bass response given the RP corrections in place. It is a somewhat complicated system, but sounds great for 2 channel music and great when in home theater mode. 
Mark

[edit, I will do some audyssey on/off and flat/reference tests and report. I do generally like having Audyssey on, and have experimented some with DEQ on or off. I like what DEQ does at low listening levels, but don't like the noticeable surround and top rear atmos boost at my normal listening level. As a result, I have been adjusting levels a bit with DEQ on at the listening level I usually use for home theater so the levels are balanced. There may be a better way of doing this using the Reference Level Offset in Audyssey, but I haven't had time to try it yet]


----------



## anothermib

pbarach said:


> Note that the AVR test tones bypass Audyssey, so they cannot be used for level-setting with an SPL meter. The "Dolby tone"--are those from a disc or from the AVR?




Thanks for your comments. Yes, it is these kind of questions I am asking myself as well to cover all the possible issues. 

The dolby tones are a test video they are publishing for different Atmos setups on their website I am keeping that on a NAS. That should be quite reliable IMHO.

On the AVR test tones. I would trust them slightly less. However, it was my understanding from recent discussions on this forum that Audyssey is setting the actual trim for the unfiltered signal and is working any further adjustment that may be needed directly into the filter. So in theory they should be at equal levels as well even if they bypass the filters. 

If Audyssey is getting the ceiling trim right for everyone else it must be a specific issue with my measurement or with my verification (or my ears). In general it is less of problem if the entire layer is running 1dB hot, much less than if there were a front/rear or left/right imbalance. 

Unless there are any other ideas I will probably shelf that one for now with the other „unsolved audio mysteries“. Some of them just get solved over time .


----------



## steakhouse_

anothermib said:


> Thanks for your comments. Yes, it is these kind of questions I am asking myself as well to cover all the possible issues.
> 
> The dolby tones are a test video they are publishing for different Atmos setups on their website I am keeping that on a NAS. That should be quite reliable IMHO.
> 
> On the AVR test tones. I would trust them slightly less. However, it was my understanding from recent discussions on this forum that Audyssey is setting the actual trim for the unfiltered signal and is working any further adjustment that may be needed directly into the filter. So in theory they should be at equal levels as well even if they bypass the filters.
> 
> If Audyssey is getting the ceiling trim right for everyone else it must be a specific issue with my measurement or with my verification (or my ears). In general it is less of problem if the entire layer is running 1dB hot, much less than if there were a front/rear or left/right imbalance.
> 
> Unless there are any other ideas I will probably shelf that one for now with the other „unsolved audio mysteries“. Some of them just get solved over time .


Be aware that you also have to turn dynamic EQ off to measure the channel levels.


----------



## garygarrison

anothermib said:


> However, it was my understanding from recent discussions on this forum that Audyssey is setting the actual trim for the unfiltered signal and is working any further adjustment that may be needed directly into the filter. *So in theory they should be at equal levels as well even if they bypass the filters.*


I haven't had my afternoon caffeine, but this doesn't seem quite right to me. I could try to explain, but I haven't had my afternoon caffeine.

Maybe ... if thepink noise generated by the AVR is equal in the room, from the MLP, in every channel, even though it* bypasses* the filters, then how will pink noise measure if it, like music and movie soundtracks, *does* go through the filters?


----------



## pojojo

Few more questions. I have the same fronts as rears (KEF LS50), yet Audyssey sets the surrounds at a 110 hz crossover, and the fronts at 60 hz. Is there a reason for this? Should I manually keep them at the same crossover since they are the same speaker? Furthermore, they are almost identically spaced from the listening position, and at the same height as well. One of the surrounds is quite close against the wall, however.

From the limited knowledge I have, this seems drastic, unless Audyssey is accounting for something I'm not.

EDIT: watched a movie, and as I suspected, having the same speaker give a different sound was kind of jarring during scenes where music was playing on all speakers. Put them all at 80hz and it sounded better.


----------



## anothermib

garygarrison said:


> I haven't had my afternoon caffeine, but this doesn't seem quite right to me. I could try to explain, but I haven't had my afternoon caffeine.
> 
> Maybe ... if thepink noise generated by the AVR is equal in the room, from the MLP, in every channel, even though it* bypasses* the filters, then how will pink noise measure if it, like music and movie soundtracks, *does* go through the filters?




This is an important point when it comes to level adjustment. I was thinking exactly the same thing you described until very recently. However, then I came across the following statement:



Code:


 Chris Kyriakakis : Since the trim settings remain on even when MultEQ is turned off, we have to set them prior to the EQ filter calculation. However, there is an additional "trim" to worry about: matching the level of each speaker to itself when MultEQ is turned on and off. This level is applied to the filter itself.

From that I would conclude that the levels for all speakers _should_ be identical after a successful Audyssey calibration, even for signals that bypass the filter. 
If applying the filter would reduce the total level by, say X dB in removing excess peaks. Then the filter will be set in a way that raises the entire spectrum to compensate for that delta of X dB.

I believe that can be seen in the MultEQ app. The target curves are at +1dB in most of the frequency range before they roll of at the high and low end. If you raise e.g. the low end the entire curve moves down. 

There may be other effects that may make the AVR pink noise levels sound differently than what Audyssey calibrated. However, if I understand correctly what Chris was saying above, it would not be the fact that they bypass the filter. 

This is pretty crucial for understanding what to expect and not to expect from the level calibration. So please, by all means let me know if I am going wrong at some point here.


----------



## mthomas47

pojojo said:


> Few more questions. I have the same fronts as rears (KEF LS50), yet Audyssey sets the surrounds at a 110 hz crossover, and the fronts at 60 hz. Is there a reason for this? Should I manually keep them at the same crossover since they are the same speaker? Furthermore, they are almost identically spaced from the listening position, and at the same height as well. One of the surrounds is quite close against the wall, however.
> 
> From the limited knowledge I have, this seems drastic, unless Audyssey is accounting for something I'm not.
> 
> EDIT: watched a movie, and as I suspected, having the same speaker give a different sound was kind of jarring during scenes where music was playing on all speakers. Put them all at 80hz and it sounded better.


Hi,

Audyssey is measuring the in-room response of each speaker in the room, and reporting that information to the AVR, which is setting crossovers for each speaker pair based on the F3 point of the weaker performing speaker in a pair. Room placement will definitely affect bass response, which is what the crossover is based on. There are some good explanations of all this in the Guide linked in my signature. Here is a direct link to the section on setting crossovers: 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#C

Deciding how to adjust your crossovers after a calibration is in part a trial-and-error process. When in doubt, I would always go up from wherever my AVR set the crossover. And, for reasons explained in the Guide, I would rarely, if ever, go down from where my AVR set the crossover. In your specific case, I would not lower the surrounds below 110Hz. I would just adjust the front speakers upward until I could no longer hear any tonal differences between the two pairs of speakers. That might mean that you are setting the front speakers at 90Hz or at 100Hz. Your ears will have to be the judge of what sounds best.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Marc Alexander

I haven't visited this thread for a while. Has it been discussed that IMAX theaters are now calibrated with XT32? 

https://www.imax.com/content/imax-difference
https://www.imax.com/content/imaxaudyssey

I've visited a digital IMAX (dual Barco DLPs) only once in the last several years (The Force Awakens). I just learned that Black Panther has an hour of IMAX 1.9:1 [exclusive] footage, plus Infinity War and its follow up were shot 100% in IMAX 1.9:1 (ARRI). 

I will be checking out Black Panther in IMAX and hope that the sound is close to what I experience with Cinemark XD, which is consistently great. My experience with Regal RPX, AMC ETX, and Galaxy DFX is very limited. I've only been to one RPX/Atmos showing (The Last Jedi) so far and wasn't blown away. My local 70mm IMAX (film) is adequate but not close to Cinemark's XD.


----------



## garygarrison

Marc Alexander said:


> I haven't visited this thread for a while. Has it been discussed that IMAX theaters are now calibrated with XT32?
> 
> https://www.imax.com/content/imax-difference
> https://www.imax.com/content/imaxaudyssey
> 
> I've visited a digital IMAX (dual Barco DLPs) only once in the last several years (The Force Awakens). I just learned that Black Panther has an hour of IMAX 1.9:1 [exclusive] footage, plus Infinity War and its follow up were shot 100% in IMAX 1.9:1 (ARRI).
> 
> I will be checking out Black Panther in IMAX and hope that the sound is close to what I experience with Cinemark XD, which is consistently great. My experience with Regal RPX, AMC ETX, and Galaxy DFX is very limited. I've only been to one RPX/Atmos showing (The Last Jedi) so far and wasn't blown away. My local 70mm IMAX (film) is adequate but not close to Cinemark's XD.


If I recall correctly, several years ago, there was a debate on the forum as to whether IMAX used conventional (HT type) Audyssey, a special Audyssey, or merely an Audyssey-like room EQ. As Marc Alexander's links show, IMAX now definitely uses Audyssey XT32.

I haven't seen IMAX in many years, but I need to go back and experience the new formats.

I don't see why (non-digital) IMAX 70 mm didn't use an aspect ratio of 2.2:1, which is, perhaps, the most comfortable AR (for me, at least). There would have been higher print costs, but with a lower number of theaters to provide for than with conventional formats, that might have been tolerable. With the film running horizontally, 2.2:1 would be _about_ 1.93" high and 4.25" wide, smaller than a 4 x 5 (e.g., Graflex) negative, but almost 5 times the area of the classic 70 mm print (Todd-AO/Super Panavision 70) and about 1.75 times the area of the original IMAX 70 mm prints (approx. 1.25:1), with room for 6 soundtracks (but, does IMAX have double system sound, instead? If so, more area for the picture!). If they could design a digital format with that AR and that resolution, fine, but I tend to doubt it. Wouldn't that take about 20K? I'm glad they have changed the shape to 1.9:1, and now use a very slightly curved screen (San Francisco had an IMAX screen as flat as the proverbial board). That should look more panoramic than the old screen. Maybe it is close enough for Rock 'n Roll. 

I also wish they would just shoot entire movies in IMAX, rather than changing the AR and size of the image part way in. Sure that was dramatic at first, but it wreaks havoc when the Blu-ray version is projected on a constant height 'scope screen at home.

In fact, why doesn't the entire world conform to my preferences? Man, have I got some suggestions!


----------



## Marc Alexander

garygarrison said:


> I also wish they would just shoot entire movies in IMAX, rather than changing the AR and size of the image part way in. Sure that was dramatic at first, but it wreaks havoc when the Blu-ray version is projected on a constant height 'scope screen at home.


Actually, they have already finished filming Avengers: Infinity War and its unnamed sequel in 100% IMAX/ARRI 1.9:1!

I fear that IMAX will have exclusivity and all other showings will get cropped 2.35:1. BOO


----------



## garygarrison

Marc Alexander said:


> I fear that IMAX will have exclusivity and all other showings will get cropped 2.35:1. BOO


It says as much on IMDB.


----------



## Marc Alexander

garygarrison said:


> It says as much on IMDB.


Travesty!


----------



## CBdicX

*Audyssey vs THX*

Hi, 
i use THX certified 7.1.4 speakers, the Magnat Cinema Ultra THX serie, also the SUB 300 THX subwoofer.
I have the LPF of LFE set to 80 Hz as i use a Denon X6400H, not THX certified so "need" to set this manual to 80 Hz for the THX sub, i use also the THX input, not the Line input.
The speakers are recomended to be set with an X-over of 80 Hz, Audyssey sets them different, Fonts 40 Hz, center 60 Hz, other speakers 80 Hz.
Should i set them in THX specs (all 80 Hz) or what Audyssey is setting ?

Thanks.....


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> *Audyssey vs THX*
> 
> Hi,
> i use THX certified 7.1.4 speakers, the Magnat Cinema Ultra THX serie, also the SUB 300 THX subwoofer.
> I have the LPF of LFE set to 80 Hz as i use a Denon X6400H, not THX certified so "need" to set this manual to 80 Hz for the THX sub, i use also the THX input, not the Line input.
> The speakers are recomended to be set with an X-over of 80 Hz, Audyssey sets them different, Fonts 40 Hz, center 60 Hz, other speakers 80 Hz.
> Should i set them in THX specs (all 80 Hz) or what Audyssey is setting ?
> 
> Thanks.....


Hi,

Audyssey and your AVR are setting your crossovers based on the measured in-room response of your speakers. But, I believe that you will be much better served by resetting them manually to 80Hz. The initial crossover setting doesn't constitute a recommendation by Audyssey. It is just an initial automated setting based on the speakers' measured roll-offs, at their in-room locations.

The section direct linked below has more information on the subject if you are interested:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#C

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Audyssey and your AVR are setting your crossovers based on the measured in-room response of your speakers. But, I believe that you will be much better served by resetting them manually to 80Hz. The initial crossover setting doesn't constitute a recommendation by Audyssey. It is just an initial automated setting based on the speakers' measured roll-offs, at their in-room locations.
> 
> The section direct linked below has more information on the subject if you are interested:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#C
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike,


thank you, i will make a start in reading your link 
So 80 Hz for all speakers it is.
Magnat made it also possible on the Sub to use Line input if the receiver is not THX certified.
On THX input all the controls do not work, the only thing i read is when i want to use the sub as a "THX" sub, it needs the LPF of LFE on 80 Hz.
Do you think it will be better to use the sub in THX mode, or run it in Line mode with an LPF of LFE 120 Hz ?


Thank you !


----------



## LowDUB

I just replaced my sub cable with a new monoprice onyx series since it was my last old monster cable i had. And I noticed the bass was less. I ran audessy and I had to raise the gain on my sub a good bit to hit -11.5 trim. I wonder if my old cable was bad or new one is bad. Or am I just being stupid. Any input would be appreciated


----------



## Marc Alexander

LowDUB said:


> I just replaced my sub cable with a new monoprice onyx series since it was my last old monster cable i had. And I noticed the bass was less. I ran audessy and I had to raise the gain on my sub a good bit to hit -11.5 trim. I wonder if my old cable was bad or new one is bad. Or am I just being stupid. Any input would be appreciated


How long are the cables? What happened when you switched back to the old cable?


----------



## LowDUB

Marc Alexander said:


> How long are the cables? What happened when you switched back to the old cable?


I have not switched back yet. The monster cable was 24ft, my new one is 15ft


----------



## Marc Alexander

LowDUB said:


> I have not switched back yet. The monster cable was 24ft, my new one is 15ft


Why did you replace the Monster?


----------



## LowDUB

Marc Alexander said:


> Why did you replace the Monster?


I was replacing my speaker wire because I got new speakers and I figured that cable was 10yrs+ old

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Marc Alexander

LowDUB said:


> I was replacing my speaker wire because I got new speakers and I figured that cable was 10yrs+ old
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


They last forever when gold plated. Go back to the Monster. If things normalize then exchange or get a refund from Monoprice.


----------



## LowDUB

Marc Alexander said:


> They last forever when gold plated. Go back to the Monster. If things normalize then exchange or get a refund from Monoprice.


Ok I will try my old cable. It sounded fine after I re-ran audessy. So I just thought it was odd that I had to raise my gain

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## Marc Alexander

LowDUB said:


> Ok I will try my old cable. It sounded fine after I re-ran audessy. So I just thought it was odd that I had to raise my gain
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


That is very odd. A longer cable often will add more series resistance but it should not make a big difference unless the sub has an unusually low input impedance.


----------



## LowDUB

Marc Alexander said:


> That is very odd. A longer cable often will add more series resistance but it should not make a big difference unless the sub has an unusually low input impedance.


I'm going to listen more when I get home. I appreciate your help

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> thank you, i will make a start in reading your link
> So 80 Hz for all speakers it is.
> Magnat made it also possible on the Sub to use Line input if the receiver is not THX certified.
> On THX input all the controls do not work, the only thing i read is when i want to use the sub as a "THX" sub, it needs the LPF of LFE on 80 Hz.
> Do you think it will be better to use the sub in THX mode, or run it in Line mode with an LPF of LFE 120 Hz ?
> 
> 
> Thank you !


You are very welcome! I am not really familiar with the THX mode. Most people just use the line input. Personally, I don't see a lot of disadvantage in using an 80Hz LPF of LFE. I believe that may have been the original Dolby/THX standard for the LFE channel, anyway. Several years ago Mark Seaton and Roger Dressler (one of the original Dolby engineers) suggested that most of the LFE content above 80Hz was random noise and not meaningful bass content. Some of that discussion is captured in the Audyssey FAQ, linked in my signature.

I tried using a lower LPF than the default 120Hz that our AVR's usually implement and found that I liked that setting. For me, at least, the bass seems a little clearer and may also concentrate what seems to be more SPL in the low-frequencies. But, I believe that is one of those YMMV questions, where the bass quantity may be slightly greater with a 120Hz setting, and the clarity may be slightly greater with an 80Hz setting. You could try both to determine whether you hear any difference, and if so, which one you like better.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rxp91

Going to give Auddssey another go after tweaking my home theatre for a while. I've started sitting very close to my 65" OLED (1m). The sub is right next to it. Can anyone comment on bass correction when you sit 1m away from a sub? Because it's "near field" are room interactions not worried about? Do you get flat bass by default?

I do wish Auddssey would actually measure it's corrected response rather than giving an assumptive graph!


----------



## steakhouse_

For lower frequencies even 1m will still be dominated by room modes. When 1m distance to the sub means that you sit in the middle of the room it may be even worse since you will have several cancellations.


----------



## mthomas47

rxp91 said:


> Going to give Auddssey another go after tweaking my home theatre for a while. I've started sitting very close to my 65" OLED (1m). The sub is right next to it. Can anyone comment on bass correction when you sit 1m away from a sub? Because it's "near field" are room interactions not worried about? Do you get flat bass by default?
> 
> I do wish Auddssey would actually measure it's corrected response rather than giving an assumptive graph!


Hi,

The only way to be sure what your actual frequency response is would be to measure independently with something like REW. And, the only practical way for Audyssey to do what you are suggesting would be for Audyssey to measure your system as a whole, after it has set filters for all of the channels in your system. That would take a completely different software program. Even Dirac Live, which is a newer and more expensive room correction program, only shows estimates of the room correction it is attempting to make.

I think the more important question is not, exactly what is Audyssey doing, but how do things sound afterwards?

With respect to your question about a nearfield subwoofer, one meter is typically a good distance for minimal room mode influence. Boundary gain will still occur. As you move even closer to your MLP, room modes will have less and less effect. At about one driver (the woofer in your sub) diameter distance, room modes will have no effect at all on the frequency response.

Based on what I have seen, most people who measure subwoofers at one meter in their rooms get good bass frequency responses even before room correction. And, of course, Audyssey will have a much easier time of EQing low-frequencies when the native response is good to start with. I would bet that you are getting a pretty good frequency response from your nearfield sub. And, if you want to try moving it even a little closer, the very low-bass FR should improve even more. 

But again, all this is just theory. The real question is whether you are satisfied with your bass performance?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rxp91

Thanks mthomas47, it's exactly what I was thinking re: 1 m performance. I am satisfied with bass performance, especially tacticle impact with two Quake 10B transducers but I recently got a SVS PC-2000 for another room and can easily slide it (furniture sliders) into the main theatre room so am planning on placing that directly behind my head and the XT32 multi sub will be great for that!


----------



## TomCruz

markmanner said:


> Hello, I have read the FAQ, and may have missed this, so apologies if so. When I recently ran Audyssey on my new ATMOS setup (added a 2nd sub and 4 top speakers), the Audyssey results set the 4 top speakers and my center to small (as I expected), and my front L/R and surround L/R to large. If I now change the front and surrounds to small, will that adversely affect the validity of the Audyssey corrections? I admit that it pains me to change the front speakers in particular to small, given how massive they are and how good the bass response is, but I assume I should do that--less so for my surrounds, although they too are actually pretty big and capable speakers. I have modified the LFE crossover to 100 (a compromise between 80 and 120), and to 80 for the Front l/r, surround l/r, center, and top overhead speakers.
> Thanks for the advice,
> Best
> Mark


I also initially had the same thought, however realized that setting them to small gives a lot of detail in music. This is more so when u use an external amp for the mains as then the remaining sound much better. Of course this is assuming that you at least have a 100wrms or higher sub.


----------



## markmanner

TomCruz said:


> I also initially had the same thought, however realized that setting them to small gives a lot of detail in music. This is more so when u use an external amp for the mains as then the remaining sound much better. Of course this is assuming that you at least have a 100wrms or higher sub.


Thanks for the comment on this, it is helpful. I now have mine to small and it sounds really good. It was just hard to do initially!
Based on some advice from others here, I am using a 40hz crossover for the 2 main L/R speakers, which seems to work well.


----------



## Astennu

I seem to have run into a strange bug With the Audessey app and a Denon X4400W.
I added 2 extra rear hight speakers so i now have a 5.1.4 setup instead of 5.1.2

But no matter what i do after each calibration the front left speaker has a flat line for the after calibration results in the app.
And sometimes also the before gives a flat line but most of the time that one does display correct results.

I did not have this issue when i calibrated for 5.1 or 5.1.2. 
Anyone seen this before?

Edit:
Resolved it: It happened with Amp Selection 9.1 + Top Front & Top Rear
Now i use Front Height & Surr Height 

and somehow it now works fine :/
I have no clue why the Front Tower was not giving results with the old setting.


----------



## Donkeychote

I'm having a very hard time getting consistent results for subwoofer levels with Audyssey. On different runs, I get everything from -11dB to +4dB. All other speakers are much more consistent run to run.

I've gone through most of the FAQ on the first page, got a mic stand and so on, but I still get the same results. I don't have an SPL meter at the moment, but before I run out and get one, is there something obvious that could cause this?


----------



## RCElectricFlyer

Here are my main observations with using Audyssey FWIW.

I have had somewhat mixed results with Audyssey. Fortunately, the drawbacks can be largely avoided. This is where I'm at after a couple of weeks of fiddling:

Audyssey is used most extensively on Centre and Left/Right Surround channels. It is also used in a limited way for the two subwoofer channels and bypassed for the main stereo pair. Bandwidth is set to about 250 Hz for the centre and surround channels. With this setting, Audyssey has improved intelligibility and realism for these channels. I think the improvement is the result of addressing near boundary reinforcement which would be unique to these channels. i.e. exaggerated low midrange and upper bass (resulting in "chestiness" and "boominess") is removed. This is by far the biggest benefit. Applying correction over the entire frequency range introduced a "lifeless" quality as described below for the Front L+R.

There is also some benefit in improving LF response, but not as much as I had hoped. I think this is due to problems with the listening room and the location of the MLP and not necessarily an Audyssey problem. I had to tame down the correction by severely limiting the effective correction bandwidth.

I found that when listening to two-channel audio in particular, applying Audyssey correction to any portion of the Front L+R took seemed to adversely affect the audio. The modified response and what seemed to me to be a muting of transients made the audio comparatively lifeless. I have a good stereo pair positioned for good imaging. They are well separated from boundaries and don't exhibit the problems of the centre and surround channels. So defeating Audyssey completely for these seems to work best.

So in summary, for the setup there is a good benefit in addressing boundary reinforcement for some audio channels and surprisingly little improvement at low frequencies due to the room and MLP.


----------



## mthomas47

Donkeychote said:


> I'm having a very hard time getting consistent results for subwoofer levels with Audyssey. On different runs, I get everything from -11dB to +4dB. All other speakers are much more consistent run to run.
> 
> I've gone through most of the FAQ on the first page, got a mic stand and so on, but I still get the same results. I don't have an SPL meter at the moment, but before I run out and get one, is there something obvious that could cause this?


Hi,

Sorry to hear that you are having problems! I don't recall hearing about results that are quite that erratic, but assuming that the subwoofer itself is functioning properly, it seems clear that there is a glitch in the calibration. 

The first thing I would do is to perform three microprocessor resets, following the directions in your owner's manual. If that doesn't fix the problem, the second thing I would try is a new Audyssey microphone. That will be easier than sending the AVR in for servicing. I think that's the next step if neither of the first two measures works. Good luck!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## blackspider

Is it ok to run the center speaker Hot after audyssey? I mean by 1 or 2db? 
In few tv shows i feel the dialog volume does get a bit low.


Thanks.


----------



## mogorf

blackspider said:


> Is it ok to run the center speaker Hot after audyssey? I mean by 1 or 2db?
> In few tv shows i feel the dialog volume does get a bit low.
> 
> 
> Thanks.


Its absolutely OK, but I wouldn't call 1 or 2 dB "hot". Actually it is +/- 3 dB that is percived as a noticable change for the humans ears. Nonetheless, please feel free to experiment on your system. You will do no harm. 

One more thought. Center speaker placement is always critical when it comes to dialog intelligibility. Best is to make (tilt) the Center speaker to face seated ear hight, coz that's the position where the speaker will not only deliver its highest SPL (Sound Pressure Level), but will also show the widest frequency range.

Hope this helps.


----------



## mthomas47

blackspider said:


> Is it ok to run the center speaker Hot after audyssey? I mean by 1 or 2db?
> In few tv shows i feel the dialog volume does get a bit low.
> 
> Thanks.


Yes, that's fine. It won't affect your Audyssey EQ at all. Some TV shows, and movies, don't have very clear dialogue to begin with, particularly if there is a lot of ambient sound coming from surround channels. So, a lot of people boost their center channels a little.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Hi Feri! We were right in sync on the timing of that.


----------



## Donkeychote

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry to hear that you are having problems! I don't recall hearing about results that are quite that erratic, but assuming that the subwoofer itself is functioning properly, it seems clear that there is a glitch in the calibration.
> 
> The first thing I would do is to perform three microprocessor resets, following the directions in your owner's manual. If that doesn't fix the problem, the second thing I would try is a new Audyssey microphone. That will be easier than sending the AVR in for servicing. I think that's the next step if neither of the first two measures works. Good luck!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the advice. I've done 3 microprocessor resets, and gone through 2 Audyssey runs, and both give -12dB for the sub. It seems low, but after a few quick tests, subjectively it sounds right.
I'll try some more runs later on, to see if at least all the runs are consistent. Then I'll worry about why it puts the trim so low.


----------



## mthomas47

Donkeychote said:


> Thanks for the advice. I've done 3 microprocessor resets, and gone through 2 Audyssey runs, and both give -12dB for the sub. It seems low, but after a few quick tests, subjectively it sounds right.
> I'll try some more runs later on, to see if at least all the runs are consistent. Then I'll worry about why it puts the trim so low.


You are welcome! That sounds like progress. You may want to turn down the gain on the sub just a bit. That will give you a slightly higher trim setting. You may want to read the subwoofer guide which is linked in my signature. It explains what happens during calibration, and how to tweak things post-calibration. It explains a lot of other things too, as I don't seem to know when to stop. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## blackspider

mogorf said:


> Its absolutely OK, but I wouldn't call 1 or 2 dB "hot". Actually it is +/- 3 dB that is percived as a noticable change for the humans ears. Nonetheless, please feel free to experiment on your system. You will do no harm.
> 
> One more thought. Center speaker placement is always critical when it comes to dialog intelligibility. Best is to make (tilt) the Center speaker to face seated ear hight, coz that's the position where the speaker will not only deliver its highest SPL (Sound Pressure Level), but will also show the widest frequency range.
> 
> Hope this helps.





mthomas47 said:


> Yes, that's fine. It won't affect your Audyssey EQ at all. Some TV shows, and movies, don't have very clear dialogue to begin with, particularly if there is a lot of ambient sound coming from surround channels. So, a lot of people boost their center channels a little.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Edit: Hi Feri! We were right in sync on the timing of that.


Thanks for the info, will bump it up by 1.5-2db & see if its better  Its basically Narcos(Tv Show) on netflix that i find the dialog abit low in volume.


Cheers.


----------



## mogorf

Donkeychote said:


> Thanks for the advice. I've done 3 microprocessor resets, and gone through 2 Audyssey runs, and both give -12dB for the sub. It seems low, but after a few quick tests, subjectively it sounds right.
> I'll try some more runs later on, to see if at least all the runs are consistent. Then I'll worry about why it puts the trim so low.


Another quick tip would be to check the cable from AVR to Subwoofer. Things happen. I've had a bad cable in the past that caused loss of bass randomly (after calibration). Replaced cable and problem went away.


----------



## Donkeychote

I've started to read through the subwoofer calibration guide. I'll take me a while to get through it, but more info is always better, even if it will take time to understand everything properly.


----------



## Alan P

Donkeychote said:


> I'm having a very hard time getting consistent results for subwoofer levels with Audyssey. On different runs, I get everything from -11dB to +4dB. All other speakers are much more consistent run to run.
> 
> I've gone through most of the FAQ on the first page, got a mic stand and so on, but I still get the same results. I don't have an SPL meter at the moment, but before I run out and get one, is there something obvious that could cause this?


Is your sub set to "Auto-On"? If so, it may not always be coming out of sleep mode during calibration which could cause the swings in sub trim you are seeing. If your sub does have an Auto-On switch, I would suggest you set it to Always On before running Audyssey.




Donkeychote said:


> Thanks for the advice. I've done 3 microprocessor resets, and gone through 2 Audyssey runs, and both give -12dB for the sub. It seems low, but after a few quick tests, subjectively it sounds right.
> I'll try some more runs later on, to see if at least all the runs are consistent. Then I'll worry about why it puts the trim so low.


-12dB is the lower limit for Audyssey and as Mike suggested, reading his comprehensive and informative guide will give you all the details on why that is not desirable.


----------



## Donkeychote

My sub is set to auto-on, and on the first reading I would always hear it coming out of stand-by on the first sweep, so re-ran that measurement to be sure.
After I did the 3 microprocessor resets yesterday, I ran Audyssey 5 times and it came out as -12 every time, so I think the consistency issue is resolved.
Then turned down the sub volume knob, and nog got -4dB 2 times in a row, so I think my problem is solved.

I'm still reading through the subwoofer guide, it's really informative, but after a couple of paragraphs I always have to pause and think about it a bit to understand it properly. Not that it isn't well-written, but english isn't my main language, so it involves a bit more thinking on my part. I'm about 1/4 of the way through now, and if I have follow-up questions, I'll ask them in that thread.


----------



## lax01

Probably asked and answered a hundred times in this thread... but just looking for confirmation:

#1 - My couch is directly against the backwalll of my living room...I assume, despite it not being the central seating position, that I should still place the mic (at least) two feet away from the backwall (and thus more forward (closer to the TV/front array) than the actual central seating position), correct?

#2 - Also, while reading the first time guide it mentioned something along the lines that a tri-pod is sometimes difficult to use when doing the calibration because two legs are on the couch and one may be on the floor. As long as the mic remains pointed towards the ceiling and at the same height, it shouldn't matter that two of the legs are on the couch and one is on the ground? Or 3 are are on the couch or just one....correct?

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lax01 said:


> Probably asked and answered a hundred times in this thread... but just looking for confirmation:
> 
> #1 - My couch is directly against the backwalll of my living room...I assume, despite it not being the central seating position, that I should still place the mic (at least) two feet away from the backwall (and thus more forward (closer to the TV/front array) than the actual central seating position), correct?
> 
> #2 - Also, while reading the first time guide it mentioned something along the lines that a tri-pod is sometimes difficult to use when doing the calibration because two legs are on the couch and one may be on the floor. As long as the mic remains pointed towards the ceiling and at the same height, it shouldn't matter that two of the legs are on the couch and one is on the ground? Or 3 are are on the couch or just one....correct?
> 
> Thanks!


Hi Josh,

If it is at all possible to do so, I would pull the couch at least a few inches away from that wall. This isn't just an Audyssey calibration issue. It is a matter of getting a lot of mid and high-frequencies bouncing off that wall and into your ears. If you are able to pull even 6" forward from the wall, that might be enough to help. And, it might provide enough space to hang a picture, or a piece of wall art, or a tapestry, or an acoustic panel to help with reflections from the wall. That will improve your audio quality exclusive of Audyssey.

Where Audyssey is concerned, I think that if you can keep the microphone about 18" away from the wall, that will probably be enough. If I were not able to permanently put something on the wall behind the couch to break up reflections, then I might consider putting some kind of fabric on the wall and over the couch back, just temporarily during the calibration process.

The omnidirectional Audyssey microphone will "hear" those reflections I described even more acutely than you will, and it will react to them by trying to do too much correction of high frequencies. That can actually increase audible distortion. Putting something on that wall temporarily will at least keep Audyssey from exacerbating the already existing situation. And, if you have something on the wall to kill reflections, you can move your Audyssey mic within about 4" to 6" of the couch back and much closer to where you ears will really be.

If I were you, I would get a boom mic stand with an extendable arm. That way you can keep the base of the stand on the floor, where it belongs, and just extend the arm wherever you want it to go. Something like this would work well: 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...fl_title_11?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2KDBGPI4VU5M7

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Just to expand slightly on Mike's great advice; the reason you do not want the tripod legs contacting the couch is because the couch will vibrate (esp. during sub cal), and those vibrations can travel up the legs to the mic, possibly skewing the measurements.


----------



## lax01

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Josh,
> 
> If it is at all possible to do so, I would pull the couch at least a few inches away from that wall. This isn't just an Audyssey calibration issue. It is a matter of getting a lot of mid and high-frequencies bouncing off that wall and into your ears. If you are able to pull even 6" forward from the wall, that might be enough to help. And, it might provide enough space to hang a picture, or a piece of wall art, or a tapestry, or an acoustic panel to help with reflections from the wall. That will improve your audio quality exclusive of Audyssey.
> 
> Where Audyssey is concerned, I think that if you can keep the microphone about 18" away from the wall, that will probably be enough. If I were not able to permanently put something on the wall behind the couch to break up reflections, then I might consider putting some kind of fabric on the wall and over the couch back, just temporarily during the calibration process.
> 
> The omnidirectional Audyssey microphone will "hear" those reflections I described even more acutely than you will, and it will react to them by trying to do too much correction of high frequencies. That can actually increase audible distortion. Putting something on that wall temporarily will at least keep Audyssey from exacerbating the already existing situation. And, if you have something on the wall to kill reflections, you can move your Audyssey mic within about 4" to 6" of the couch back and much closer to where you ears will really be.
> 
> If I were you, I would get a boom mic stand with an extendable arm. That way you can keep the base of the stand on the floor, where it belongs, and just extend the arm wherever you want it to go. Something like this would work well:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B...fl_title_11?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=A2KDBGPI4VU5M7
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the detailed information...unfortunately, it would look odd if the couch was a few inches away from the wall...the room just isn't that big. It is not a dedicated theater room and I just need to make sacrifices and hope the Audyssey can help even it out. We do have framed pictures behind the couch already but they also have a glass face, so I'd guess that isn't good for SQ either. I was able to place the microphone above the couch back (which isn't very high - its low profile) so there really was 20 or so uninterrupted air between the mic and the back wall (which hopefully helped reduce the impacts of the reflections).

When I ran the calibration today, I made sure I was 20-24" away from the back wall at all times...it wasn't THAT far off from the actual listening position.



Alan P said:


> Just to expand slightly on Mike's great advice; the reason you do not want the tripod legs contacting the couch is because the couch will vibrate (esp. during sub cal), and those vibrations can travel up the legs to the mic, possibly skewing the measurements.


Thanks...I don't have a sub in my configuration (due to apartment living and not wanting noise violations). The Audyssey configuration did not seem to fire any LFE so I'm assuming I'm okay...


----------



## garygarrison

lax01 said:


> #1 - My couch is directly against the backwalll of my living room...I assume, despite it not being the central seating position, that I should still place the mic (at least) two feet away from the backwall (and thus more forward (closer to the TV/front array) than the actual central seating position), correct?





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Josh,
> If it is at all possible to do so, I would pull the couch at least a few inches away from that wall. This isn't just an Audyssey calibration issue.* It is a matter of getting a lot of mid and high-frequencies bouncing off that wall and into your ears.* If you are able to pull even 6" forward from the wall, that might be enough to help. And, it might provide enough space to hang a picture, or a piece of wall art, or a tapestry, or an acoustic panel to help with reflections from the wall.


Back in the 1980s, we had a listening room in which the seats were against the back wall. We moved them out about 6 or 8 inches. That improved the sound in general and the imaging, especially. Then we installed some 4 inch thick "professional thickness" Sonex that reduced reflections and absorbed above about 400 Hz (thinner Sonex was not spec'd down that far). The improvement was considerable for the reasons given by Mike, above. It's possible that the rear wall would still reinforce the sound below 400 Hz., but, nowadays, Audyssey should take care of that. When we prepared the house for sale we covered the Sonex with thin cloth and, out of curiosity, checked the sound. The thin cloth didn't seem to interfere with the job the Sonex did.









There may be something better now, for $$$, some of it* decorative, in solid colors or patterns. *Look at the *acoustical specs*. Some people use thick spun "glass" ("rock wool" "rox wool?" "ROXUL?") insulation covered with a thin cloth, but just the thought of it makes me itch.

EDIT*: *Glass can be pretty terrible that close to the ears, even without worrying about Audyssey*. * Can you consider moving the glass covered pictures to another wall, and putting good looking absorbers, or at least, as Mike suggests, a tapestry, in their place?


----------



## Matt2026

lax01 said:


> Thanks for the detailed information...unfortunately, it would look odd if the couch was a few inches away from the wall...the room just isn't that big. It is not a dedicated theater room and I just need to make sacrifices and hope the Audyssey can help even it out. We do have framed pictures behind the couch already but they also have a glass face, so I'd guess that isn't good for SQ either. I was able to place the microphone above the couch back (which isn't very high - its low profile) so there really was 20 or so uninterrupted air between the mic and the back wall (which hopefully helped reduce the impacts of the reflections).
> 
> When I ran the calibration today, I made sure I was 20-24" away from the back wall at all times...it wasn't THAT far off from the actual listening position.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks...I don't have a sub in my configuration (due to apartment living and not wanting noise violations). The Audyssey configuration did not seem to fire any LFE so I'm assuming I'm okay...





garygarrison said:


> Back in the 1980s, we had a listening room in which the seats were against the back wall. We moved them out about 6 or 8 inches. That improved the sound in general and the imaging, especially. Then we installed some 4 inch thick "professional thickness" Sonex that reduced reflections and absorbed above about 400 Hz (thinner Sonex was not spec'd down that far). The improvement was considerable for the reasons given by Mike, above. It's possible that the rear wall would still reinforce the sound below 400 Hz., but, nowadays, Audyssey should take care of that. When we prepared the house for sale we covered the Sonex with thin cloth and, out of curiosity, checked the sound. The thin cloth didn't seem to interfere with the job the Sonex did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There may be something better now, for $$$, some of it* decorative, in solid colors or patterns. *Look at the *acoustical specs*. Some people use thick spun "glass" ("rock wool" "rox wool?" "ROXUL?") insulation covered with a thin cloth, but just the thought of it makes me itch.
> 
> EDIT*: *Glass can be pretty terrible that close to the ears, even without worrying about Audyssey*. * Can you consider moving the glass covered pictures to another wall, and putting good looking absorbers, or at least, as Mike suggests, a tapestry, in their place?


There are also panels available with artwork covering, either stock photos they have or you can supply your own photo... There are other places so this link is just to give you an idea if you wish to pursue it further... The initial price you'll see isn't representative of what you'll likely need as price goes up with size  and there may be extra charge if they use a photo you supply (just a guess). I haven't purchased this type of item so can't make any personal recommendation but I may do so in the future.


----------



## robc1976

May have been answered before but if you prefer audyysey off will you still retain the sub/speaker trims & distances? 

I am not saying audyssey sounds bad at all but with it off it has more punch, seems clearer and has more depth.

Not a big deal but when audyssey is engaged I get a high pitch noise in speaker.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> ... when audyssey is engaged I get a high pitch noise in speaker.


Can you describe the noise? No way should that happen. Maybe we can help.

Have you read this? 
Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## steakhouse_

I remember that some of the last gen Denons had some noise with Audyssey engaged. 






Maybe it is the same issue.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> Can you describe the noise? No way should that happen. Maybe we can help.
> 
> Have you read this?
> Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


I have read it 1000X lol! I love calibrating with Audyssey. I am very methodical about placement of the mic.

I have a boom that extends 7ft so I can take all measurements from behind 1st row of seating so its not in line with speaker, I don't worry about 2nd row lol

I put room exactly how I sit in it, but mic exactly at tweeter height, mic is 15" away from seat back. Only think I have never done is have mic higher than seat backs...seems a bit high. Also have never calibrated in really tight circle around one area.

No measurement is more than 2ft.

There is absolutely no noise in room.

Room is heavily treated, with 1st reflections on sidewalls, ceiling, absorbtion and diffusion on rear wall. Bass traps from ceiling to floor.

***Noise

I hear a high frequency whine in speaker with Audyssey engaged, with it disabled I hardly can hear it.

Also, with each measurement before the ping I hear a "click click"

Receiver is Denon 7200wa


All speakers are spiked and toed in with laser 2-3" outside of shoulders for fronts, and 1 foot outside shoulders for wide's.

Speakers:

RF7II - fronts
RF7II - wide's
RC-64II -Center
RF7II - surrounds
RB61II - Heights
RB61II - Surround back

2-15" A5-350 Elemental design subs with 1000 watt amps

If there is any suggestions I am all ears! 

Room below









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

steakhouse_ said:


> I remember that some of the last gen Denons had some noise with Audyssey engaged.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2ALQh8_yTA
> 
> Maybe it is the same issue.


That's it! 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

*THX sub is to loud.*


Hi, have a THX sub and when i use the THX input all controls are not active, all is controled by the receiver and THX settings in the sub.
So when i do a Audyssey run it will detect the sub being to loud (sub dB numbers are red)
and on screen it tells me to turn down the sub volume.
But i can not do that because the sub controles do not work in THX mode.
So how can i bypass this problem ?


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> *THX sub is to loud.*
> 
> 
> Hi, have a THX sub and when i use the THX input all controls are not active, all is controled by the receiver and THX settings in the sub.
> So when i do a Audyssey run it will detect the sub being to loud (sub dB numbers are red)
> and on screen it tells me to turn down the sub volume.
> But i can not do that because the sub controles do not work in THX mode.
> So how can i bypass this problem ?


Hi,

The only reason you would need to turn the sub down is if the resulting trim levels were at -12 on Denon/Marantz units. And, even then, there wouldn't necessarily be any harm in having that -12 setting. Audyssey is trying to calibrate your subwoofer to a uniform SPL of 75db. It does that through a combination of sub gain level (which you would typically set manually during the subwoofer level-matching phase) and AVR trim level (which Audyssey sets automatically based on the subwoofer gain level). As subwoofer gain goes up, the AVR trim is set correspondingly lower, and vice-versa. If you lower the sub gain too much, you get a very high trim level--sometimes even in positive numbers.

The first section of the Guide, linked below, explains this process in more detail, but the explanation above should be sufficient to make the process clear. Just ignore Audyssey's instruction to turn down the gain on your sub and finish your calibration. Afterwards, you can leave the trim setting on your sub where it is, or you can raise it slightly to achieve more bass. As a general rule, I wouldn't raise the trim level above about -5 (for reasons explained in the Guide) but depending on where your trim level starts after calibration, you may have more than enough room to add sub boosts, while staying in good negative trim numbers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> I have read it 1000X lol! I love calibrating with Audyssey. I am very methodical about placement of the mic.
> 
> I have a boom that extends 7ft so I can take all measurements from behind 1st row of seating so its not in line with speaker, I don't worry about 2nd row lol
> 
> I put room exactly how I sit in it, but mic exactly at tweeter height, mic is 15" away from seat back. Only think I have never done is have mic higher than seat backs...seems a bit high. Also have never calibrated in really tight circle around one area.
> 
> No measurement is more than 2ft.
> 
> There is absolutely no noise in room.
> 
> Room is heavily treated, with 1st reflections on sidewalls, ceiling, absorbtion and diffusion on rear wall. Bass traps from ceiling to floor.
> 
> ***Noise
> 
> I hear a high frequency whine in speaker with Audyssey engaged, with it disabled I hardly can hear it.
> 
> Also, with each measurement before the ping I hear a "click click"
> 
> Receiver is Denon 7200wa
> 
> 
> All speakers are spiked and toed in with laser 2-3" outside of shoulders for fronts, and 1 foot outside shoulders for wide's.
> 
> Speakers:
> 
> RF7II - fronts
> RF7II - wide's
> RC-64II -Center
> RF7II - surrounds
> RB61II - Heights
> RB61II - Surround back
> 
> 2-15" A5-350 Elemental design subs with 1000 watt amps
> 
> If there is any suggestions I am all ears!
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Hi,

I have several suggestions to make. First, the "click, click" normally means that the AVR is switching listening modes. I would try three microprocessor resets to see if that fixes the problem. I don't know that there is anything inherently wrong with the clicking, but I know it can be annoying. Second, I don't know whether you have DEQ engaged, but I would try turning it off to see if that reduces the high-pitched whine you are hearing from your speakers. That would definitely be annoying to me.

Turning Audyssey off (or on and off several times) won't affect your settings. With respect to the calibration itself, I would put a blanket over any seats where you are calibrating. Remove it afterwards. That will allow you to get the omnidirectional Audyssey mic closer to your actual ear position (about 4" from the seat back) during calibration, without having comb-filtering from proximity to a hard surface.

I also wouldn't go behind the first row with any mic positions, if the MLP is what you want to concentrate on. I might, however, go just 2" to 3" higher for a couple of mic positions. That additional information seems to result in improved audio quality, sometimes. The combination of getting your Audyssey mic closer to your actual listening position for some of your measurements and sampling just a little higher for a couple of positions may give you improved audio quality. Then, you just need to get rid of the whine. Hopefully microprocessor resets and disabling DEQ will help. You may need more independent subwoofer boost to compensate for the bass if you turn off DEQ.

I hope that some of this helps. You have a very attractive HT! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have several suggestions to make. First, the "click, click" normally means that the AVR is switching listening modes. I would try three microprocessor resets to see if that fixes the problem. I don't know that there is anything inherently wrong with the clicking, but I know it can be annoying. Second, I don't know whether you have DEQ engaged, but I would try turning it off to see if that reduces the high-pitched whine you are hearing from your speakers. That would definitely be annoying to me.
> 
> Turning Audyssey off (or on and off several times) won't affect your settings. With respect to the calibration itself, I would put a blanket over any seats where you are calibrating. Remove it afterwards. That will allow you to get the omnidirectional Audyssey mic closer to your actual ear position (about 4" from the seat back) during calibration, without having comb-filtering from proximity to a hard surface.
> 
> I also wouldn't go behind the first row with any mic positions, if the MLP is what you want to concentrate on. I might, however, go just 2" to 3" higher for a couple of mic positions. That additional information seems to result in improved audio quality, sometimes. The combination of getting your Audyssey mic closer to your actual listening position for some of your measurements and sampling just a little higher for a couple of positions may give you improved audio quality. Then, you just need to get rid of the whine. Hopefully microprocessor resets and disabling DEQ will help. You may need more independent subwoofer boost to compensate for the bass if you turn off DEQ.
> 
> I hope that some of this helps. You have a very attractive HT!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I have actually tried the blanket and have a screw where center channel sits so I can attach tape measure to it to get exact ear location but got same result as 15" away.

I have always had DEQ off run sub 5DB hot and boost the surrounds 1-2DB, same with audyssey off.

I will say I have always gone behind seats for 2 measurements. Never all in front seats.

The clicking is only when doing calibration from each channel before the audyssey ping comes on.


With auddessy off It sounds more "full" with same detail.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

I was thinking instead of having mic exactly at ear tweeter height but put mic above height of recliners

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have several suggestions to make. First, the "click, click" normally means that the AVR is switching listening modes. I would try three microprocessor resets to see if that fixes the problem. I don't know that there is anything inherently wrong with the clicking, but I know it can be annoying. Second, I don't know whether you have DEQ engaged, but I would try turning it off to see if that reduces the high-pitched whine you are hearing from your speakers. That would definitely be annoying to me.
> 
> Turning Audyssey off (or on and off several times) won't affect your settings. With respect to the calibration itself, I would put a blanket over any seats where you are calibrating. Remove it afterwards. That will allow you to get the omnidirectional Audyssey mic closer to your actual ear position (about 4" from the seat back) during calibration, without having comb-filtering from proximity to a hard surface.
> 
> I also wouldn't go behind the first row with any mic positions, if the MLP is what you want to concentrate on. I might, however, go just 2" to 3" higher for a couple of mic positions. That additional information seems to result in improved audio quality, sometimes. The combination of getting your Audyssey mic closer to your actual listening position for some of your measurements and sampling just a little higher for a couple of positions may give you improved audio quality. Then, you just need to get rid of the whine. Hopefully microprocessor resets and disabling DEQ will help. You may need more independent subwoofer boost to compensate for the bass if you turn off DEQ.
> 
> I hope that some of this helps. You have a very attractive HT!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


My mic placement in pic (#7 & 8) are 15" behind seats, I raise the mic up above seat backs for those positions.

2nd pic is line where mic is placed at tweeter height (1"from actual ear height)










Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

Other thing I am thinking is maybe I am mis judging loudness for quality. I do listen at 0 for movies and +1-2 for games. With audyssey off will it be louder? I am guessing so? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

robc1976 said:


> May have been answered before but if you prefer audyysey off will you still retain the sub/speaker trims & distances?
> 
> I am not saying audyssey sounds bad at all but with it off it has more punch, seems clearer and has more depth.
> 
> Not a big deal but when audyssey is engaged I get a high pitch noise in speaker.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I don't know whatr's causing the high-pitched noise or why you don't like the sound with Audyssey on--but yes, speaker trims and distances are retained when you turn Audyssey off. In fact you can change them without destroying the Audyssey curves--they will still be there if you turn Audyssey back on, but then they will use the speaker trim and distance settings that you've set yourself.


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> Other thing I am thinking is maybe I am mis judging loudness for quality. I do listen at 0 for movies and +1-2 for games. With audyssey off will it be louder? I am guessing so?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but it certainly might be louder. Bass sounds are often louder with room correction off. And, even significant bass traps won't do much below about 60Hz, so Audyssey could absolutely be helping with mid-bass and low-frequencies. My own interest is in clarity. I can get as dynamic sound as I want from my speakers and my subwoofers, assuming that the source material is good. But, Audyssey definitely helps me to achieve additional bass clarity, despite extensive bass trapping and four well-placed subwoofers. But, every room is different, and so are our listening preferences. 

I suspect that your room is already sufficiently well-treated that you aren't noticing a lot of difference in audio quality for the higher frequencies when Audyssey is on. But, you might want to listen critically to some bass played by acoustic instruments, with Audyssey off, and with Audyssey on. I would suggest music played by acoustic instruments because it is much easier to judge audio fidelity with natural instruments, than it is with synthesized ones or with bass-enhanced music.

Incidentally, I still think that it would be worth your while to try some microprocessor resets to see if you can get rid of the clicks when you run a calibration. Of course, if you aren't planning to run Audyssey, then there won't be any need to solve that particular problem. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but it certainly might be louder. Bass sounds are often louder with room correction off. And, even significant bass traps won't do much below about 60Hz, so Audyssey could absolutely be helping with mid-bass and low-frequencies. My own interest is in clarity. I can get as dynamic sound as I want from my speakers and my subwoofers, assuming that the source material is good. But, Audyssey definitely helps me to achieve additional bass clarity, despite extensive bass trapping and four well-placed subwoofers. But, every room is different, and so are our listening preferences.
> 
> I suspect that your room is already sufficiently well-treated that you aren't noticing a lot of difference in audio quality for the higher frequencies when Audyssey is on. But, you might want to listen critically to some bass played by acoustic instruments, with Audyssey off, and with Audyssey on. I would suggest music played by acoustic instruments because it is much easier to judge audio fidelity with natural instruments, than it is with synthesized ones or with bass-enhanced music.
> 
> Incidentally, I still think that it would be worth your while to try some microprocessor resets to see if you can get rid of the clicks when you run a calibration. Of course, if you aren't planning to run Audyssey, then there won't be any need to solve that particular problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Very good points, high frewuency are about the same but a bit muffled with audyssey on but bass is about the same. I will say flat sounds a bit better because of my highly treated room.

I also have used tone controls to add a bit of bass to front sound stage

+5db bass
+2db treble

I wonder if I need mic higher than seat backs? Also going to try just calibrating front row.



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> That's an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but it certainly might be louder. Bass sounds are often louder with room correction off. And, even significant bass traps won't do much below about 60Hz, so Audyssey could absolutely be helping with mid-bass and low-frequencies. My own interest is in clarity. I can get as dynamic sound as I want from my speakers and my subwoofers, assuming that the source material is good. But, Audyssey definitely helps me to achieve additional bass clarity, despite extensive bass trapping and four well-placed subwoofers. But, every room is different, and so are our listening preferences.
> 
> I suspect that your room is already sufficiently well-treated that you aren't noticing a lot of difference in audio quality for the higher frequencies when Audyssey is on. But, you might want to listen critically to some bass played by acoustic instruments, with Audyssey off, and with Audyssey on. I would suggest music played by acoustic instruments because it is much easier to judge audio fidelity with natural instruments, than it is with synthesized ones or with bass-enhanced music.
> 
> Incidentally, I still think that it would be worth your while to try some microprocessor resets to see if you can get rid of the clicks when you run a calibration. Of course, if you aren't planning to run Audyssey, then there won't be any need to solve that particular problem.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Dumb question, how do you did a microprocessor reset? Never have done one lol

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> *...*I hear a high frequency whine in speaker with Audyssey engaged, with it disabled I *hardly* can hear it.* ...*
> 
> *... *I am all ears!


WOW, may I say WOW, what a great looking home theater! 

As to the whine*:*

Maybe this is your problem*:* "I am all ears!" 

Because you can still hear it, albeit "hardly," with Audyssey *off*, could Audyssey merely be turning up the treble, in the range of the whine, thus making a barely audible whine into an annoyingly louder one? Even though my speakers have the rep of being "bright" (as do yours), Audyssey turned up the frequencies between about 1K and 10K, and even more boost between 10K and 16K. Yet, the balance was improved (the "brightness" was evidently due to a couple of peaks, which Audyssey scotched). If there was a whine there, it would therefore probably be worse with Audyssey. 

What is your best guess as to the frequencies that make up the whine?

It would be interesting to see what Denon and Chris K (of Audyssey) would say about this*.* Denon may not answer your email, but I believe Chris K still answers questions on Facebook.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> WOW, may I say WOW, what a great looking home theater!
> 
> As to the whine*:*
> 
> Maybe this is your problem*:* "I am all ears!"
> 
> Because you can still hear it, albeit "hardly," with Audyssey *off*, could Audyssey merely be turning up the treble, in the range of the whine, thus making a barely audible whine into an annoyingly louder one? Even though my speakers have the rep of being "bright" (as do yours), Audyssey turned up the frequencies between about 1K and 10K, and even more boost between 10K and 16K. Yet, the balance was improved (the "brightness" was evidently due to a couple of peaks, which Audyssey scotched). It there was a whine there, it would therefore probably be worse with Audyssey.
> 
> What is your best guess as to the frequencies that make up the whine?
> 
> It would be interesting to see what Denon and Chris K (of Audyssey) would say about this*.* Denon may not answer your email, but I believe Chris K still answers questions on Facebook.


I appreciate that! Lot of work on that room lol! 

The whine with audyssey doesn't bother me at all unless in a almost silent scene. 

I just can't figure out why with audyssey off it sounds more full of sound. Maybe I am judging quality vs loudness. 

I am going to calibrate again in a few but only front row.

Do you think rasing the mic above ear/tweeter height would be okay? Rear height is 43.5" and seat back is in the area of 48"

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

robc1976 said:


> *... *I just can't figure out why with audyssey off it sounds more *full* of sound. Maybe I am judging quality vs loudness. *...*
> *...*
> Do you think rasing the mic above ear/tweeter height would be okay? Rear height is 43.5" and seat back is in the area of 48"


First, I must say that Audyssey is one of the best things to ever happen to my sound system, providing greater clarity and naturalness. To maintain balance, I'm one of the ones who boosts the bass, after running Audyssey.

Although a popular chart of frequencies, instrumental ranges, and subjective characterizations http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm puts *"fullness" *just above *"warmth" *and just below *"honk"* [i.e., "fullness" = ~~~ 275 Hz to ~~~500 Hz], I don't know if that matches *your* perception. To *me*, fullness has much more to do with generous response below about 250 Hz, i.e., lower midrange and all of the bass.

Many complain that there seems to be *less* low and mid bass (subs*:*10 Hz to about 80 Hz) and less high bass (main speakers*:* about 80 Hz to the top of the bass range) *with* *A**udyssey* than *without*. As the FAQ says, "where has my bass gone?" There have been at least three proposed conceivable explanations (and at least three related "cures"), for this phenomenon. All three may be in operation, to a degree. 



We fall in love with some room peaks in the bass, and when Audyssey removes them, we think our sound systems are "bass-shy." Listening with Audyssey on for a few days or weeks will habituate us to the new, much flatter, more natural, sound. That's the proposed cure. My experience sitting in the audience seats, fairly close to orchestras, during fortunately free rehearsals, reveals that while there may be less bass than at home during soft and medium passages, during great climaxes there seems to be more (I can't count times I was playing in an orchestra, because of proximity to percussion, piano, tuba, etc.).
Audyssey does actually, if slightly, attenuate overall bass [i.e., not just at room peaks] in a verifiable way. One of my early REW/calibrated mic tests did show such a roll-off in the bass. I reported it about 1 year ago (?) on the forum. It was from one mic position in the MLP, with one of the front speakers. The cure was to turn up the sub, and turn up the bass control (*not* the virtual graphic sliders, which can't be used with Audyssey, except with base -- not bass -- copy, which is a very crude copy. My equipment is too old to use the app). The bass control only affects the LF and RF speakers, but a little boost, amount depending on the source material, above 80 Hz, up to about 250 Hz, not achievable by turning up the sub, does help what I call "fullness." I don't usually use DEQ.
As indicated by the Harman and other research, most people not only prefer a response curve with the bass end louder than the treble end, in some studies they perceive such a curve as being "flat."
If your rear height is 43.5" and the seat backs are 48" the only thing that occurs to me to do would be to raise your rear height -- at least the tweeters -- and aim them down a little. Some people, and some commercial cinemas, do that.

BTW, congratulations, you're the winner. Keith and I often play movies at 5 dB below reference, but if you play at 0 in an Audyssey calibrated set-up, you play the loudest.


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> First, I must say that Audyssey is one of the best things to ever happen to my sound system, providing greater clarity and naturalness. To maintain balance, I'm one of the ones who boosts the bass, after running Audyssey.
> 
> Although a popular chart of frequencies, instrumental ranges, and subjective characterizations http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm puts *"fullness" *just above *"warmth" *and just below *"honk"* [i.e., "fullness" = ~~~ 275 Hz to ~~~500 Hz], I don't know if that matches *your* perception. To *me*, fullness has much more to do with generous response below about 250 Hz, i.e., lower midrange and all of the bass.
> 
> Many complain that there seems to be *less* low and mid bass (subs*:*10 Hz to about 80 Hz) and less high bass (main speakers*:* about 80 Hz to the top of the bass range) *with* *A**udyssey* than *without*. As the FAQ says, "where has my bass gone?" There have been at least three proposed conceivable explanations (and at least three related "cures"), for this phenomenon. All three may be in operation, to a degree.
> 
> 
> 
> We fall in love with some room peaks in the bass, and when Audyssey removes them, we think our sound systems are "bass-shy." Listening with Audyssey on for a few days or weeks will habituate us to the new, much flatter, more natural, sound. That's the proposed cure. My experience sitting in the audience seats, fairly close to orchestras, during fortunately free rehearsals, reveals that while there may be less bass than at home during soft and medium passages, during great climaxes there seems to be more (I can't count times I was playing in an orchestra, because of proximity to percussion, piano, tuba, etc.).
> Audyssey does actually, if slightly, attenuate overall bass [i.e., not just at room peaks] in a verifiable way. One of my early REW/calibrated mic tests did show such a roll-off in the bass. I reported it about 1 year ago (?) on the forum. It was from one mic position in the MLP, with one of the front speakers. The cure was to turn up the sub, and turn up the bass control (*not* the virtual graphic sliders, which can't be used with Audyssey, except with base -- not bass -- copy, which is a very crude copy. My equipment is too old to use the app). The bass control only affects the LF and RF speakers, but a little boost, amount depending on the source material, above 80 Hz, up to about 250 Hz, not achievable by turning up the sub, does help what I call "fullness." I don't usually use DEQ.
> As indicated by the Harman and other research, most people not only prefer a response curve with the bass end louder than the treble end, in some studies they perceive such a curve as being "flat."
> If your rear height is 43.5" and the seat backs are 48" the only thing that occurs to me to do would be to raise your rear height -- at least the tweeters -- and aim them down a little. Some people, and some commercial cinemas, do that.
> 
> BTW, congratulations, you're the winner. Keith and I often play movies at 5 dB below reference, but if you play at 0 in an Audyssey calibrated set-up, you play the loudest.


Now that is a post full of awesome information! Thank you gary! 

I have a mic for REW but rew loose so complicated

My ear height is 43.5" and seat back is 48" and I raised mic up and it sounds a lot better! I still prefer audussey off and so did 3 other people.


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

robc1976 said:


> If there is any suggestions I am all ears!


Get all equipment with lights in the back of the room.


----------



## robc1976

Gary J said:


> Get all equipment with lights in the back of the room.


Equipment has no lights on it except the receiver, I. Actually thought about putting equipment in a control room.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary J

"all" with lights.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

OK...apologies in advance for the questions but I'm going to be setting up my room with a new system for the first time in nearly a decade and have some questions. I currently have an Audyssey calibrated Onkyo HTIB and am moving to a Denon S930H and a 7.2 Klipsch Reference speaker system.

1. Looking at the FAQ for the dual subs, it seems that Denon uses the Y-method in it's two sub inputs. By my reading, I play the internal test tone on one sub with the other off, adjust the gain/sub volume to 72dB, and then repeat with the other sub. Once that's done, then run MultiEQ. Is that correct? Confused because it also states to set the sub gain/volume to 12 O'Clock (assuming that's for only one sub). The goal is for the subs to flank the TV stand, inside the L/R floor speakers. 

2. Our seating arrangement is a L-Shape not quite sectional (three person couch mostly centered, and then two person love seat against a large window). Couch is four feet from the rear wall . Do I use each seat on the couch for three measuring points (starting with the centered seat), and then three on the floor in front? Do I utilize any points on the love seat?

3. What settings should I use for Reference Level Offset and Dynamic Volume? Dynamic EQ will be on and I'll use Reference for MultiEQ

Thanks for any help!


----------



## robc1976

Gary J said:


> "all" with lights.


Lol! You don't notice them in the least

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## markmanner

markmanner said:


> Thanks for the comment on this, it is helpful. I now have mine to small and it sounds really good. It was just hard to do initially!
> Based on some advice from others here, I am using a 40hz crossover for the 2 main L/R speakers, which seems to work well.


As a follow up to crossover settings discussed here for my system, I just got setup for REW, and some preliminary testing seems to indicate that setting my front L/R speakers to cross at 80hz makes the 20-50 hz bass response less lumpy than using 40hz or 60hz as the crossover. It does add a dip at around 120hz that wasn't there before, but it eliminates or reduces several dips in the 20-50hz range. This is most noticeable at the primary listening position, where I suppose the interaction with the L/R speaker bass output may be most severe. The suggestion to try 40 or 60hz was a good one, based upon the flat frequency response of my large main L/R speakers in the 30hz neighborhood. I changed the LPF for LPE from 80 to 100 to 120, and saw basically no difference in the REW plots. That may not be a surprise on a frequency sweep, but perhaps there could still be difference on real movie content that would make one better than the other. Not sure how to test that. As a result, I am leaving it at my prior compromise setting of 100hz.


Seeing what is happening in REW is very interesting. I am still new to REW so have a lot to learn.


----------



## Gary J

robc1976 said:


> Lol! You don't notice them in the least
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Sorry the eye is drawn to them. Consult a HT Design specialist.


----------



## robc1976

Gary J said:


> Sorry the eye is drawn to them. Consult a HT Design specialist.


So if I put them in the rear my eye will be drawn to rear of room....OMG! I won't be able to watch the movie.

Dude, the bright screen is what my eye is drawn to not the dim little light on the receiver that I could cover with a piece of tape ot o% window tint.

Either way, it doesn't bother me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

markmanner said:


> As a follow up to crossover settings discussed here for my system, I just got setup for REW, and some preliminary testing seems to indicate that setting my front L/R speakers to cross at 80hz makes the 20-50 hz bass response less lumpy than using 40hz or 60hz as the crossover. It does *add a dip at around 120hz* that wasn't there before, but it eliminates or reduces several dips in the 20-50hz range. This is most noticeable at the primary listening position, where I suppose the interaction with the L/R speaker bass output may be most severe. ... .


It might be interesting to put the REW mic in a few different locations within the MLP to see if the 120 Hz dip occurs in them all. If you sit in exact center of the MLP, with the customary head clamp, then replace yourself with the mic, putting the mic where your nose was, the mic will not be in the position formerly occupied by either ear.  Seriously, though, just about the only thing Edgar Villchur (AR) and Paul Klipsch agreed on was that they didn't like equalizers, because the EQ needed changed if the listener's head moved a few inches. Audyssey attempts to get around this using 8 mic positions and its proprietary Fuzzy Logic system. It works pretty well for me, EQing for a 5 seat couch, with the narrowest available seats (guests need to be very friendly to be comfortable), with the center three seats being the priority. I imagine that those who often listen alone, and use a tight mic pattern around the area where their head would be, might conquer the rogue dip problem. 

FWIW [probably nothing], if I remember correctly, in the _*Stereophile*_ review of the MAXX II, they provided a 1/3 octave graph of its response, averaged over 30 degrees, in the reviewer's listening room. There was a minor dip between about 110 Hz and 210 Hz, and the lowest point in the entire graph was about 165 Hz [about -2.5 dB]. As I said, it probably means nothing, but there is still this phantom of my former self lurking about that believed that curves in magazines, in different environments, meant something.


----------



## markmanner

garygarrison said:


> It might be interesting to put the REW mic in a few different locations within the MLP to see if the 120 Hz dip occurs in them all. If you sit in exact center of the MLP, with the customary head clamp, then replace yourself with the mic, putting the mic where your nose was, the mic will not be in the position formerly occupied by either ear.  Seriously, though, just about the only thing Edgar Villchur (AR) and Paul Klipsch agreed on was that they didn't like equalizers, because the EQ needed changed if the listener's head moved a few inches. Audyssey attempts to get around this using 8 mic positions and its proprietary Fuzzy Logic system. It works pretty well for me, EQing for a 5 seat couch, with the narrowest available seats (guests need to be very friendly to be comfortable), with the center three seats being the priority. I imagine that those who often listen alone, and use a tight mic pattern around the area where their head would be, might conquer the rogue dip problem.
> 
> FWIW [probably nothing], if I remember correctly, in the _*Stereophile*_ review of the MAXX II, they provided a 1/3 octave graph of its response, averaged over 30 degrees, in the reviewer's listening room. There was a minor dip between about 110 Hz and 210 Hz, and the lowest point in the entire graph was about 165 Hz [about -2.5 dB]. As I said, it probably means nothing, but there is still this phantom of my former self lurking about that believed that curves in magazines, in different environments, meant something.


Hi Gary, I will check multiple mic positions and see what I get. I did check multiple positions with the 40HZ crossover, and the dips varied a good bit. It will be interesting to see what those same positions show now with the 80HZ crossover. Your recall of the Stereophile article is great! It would be 'funny' or something if that was what I was seeing! More REW to come. [ I have had the Maxx2s for awhile. I was mostly a 2 channel music person, but got into HT, and repurposed what I had. I'm a fan of HT now, but still like pure 2 channel with a hi fidelity source].


----------



## Gary J

robc1976 said:


> So if I put them in the rear my eye will be drawn to rear of room....OMG! I won't be able to watch the movie.
> 
> Dude, the bright screen is what my eye is drawn to not the dim little light on the receiver that I could cover with a piece of tape ot o% window tint.
> 
> Either way, it doesn't bother me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


You asked "If there is any suggestions I am all ears!", I answered.


----------



## robc1976

Gary J said:


> You asked "If there is any suggestions I am all ears!", I answered.


I respect your answer

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MarkyM

*Audyssey Crossover Selection Question*

I'm preparing to run Audyssey XT32 on my new Denon X3400 and I have a question I haven't seen answered in here or in the FAQ.

I have already (years ago) removed the large 35-55Hz bass hump at the main listening position in my room using REW and a programmable Behringer EQ in the subwoofer line.

This all hinges on all speakers being set to Small and the xovers all to 80 Hz.

If I already have all speakers set to Small and their xovers at 80Hz, will Audyssey respect that and keep them there? 

Or will it still try to set my mains to Large and lower the xovers? If so, it seems to me that running Audyssey will be a waste of time.

Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

Yes, Audyssey will reset the LARGE/SMALL assignments and crossovers as it sees fit. However, running Audyssey is hardly a waste of time since it will set proper levels, distances and will EQ the rest of your speakers. Is it really that hard to change the speakers back to small and set the crossover where you prefer?? I've run Audyssey dozens of times and it doesn't take me very long at all to change the settings back to my preference.


----------



## MarkyM

Alan P said:


> Yes, Audyssey will reset the LARGE/SMALL assignments and crossovers as it sees fit. However, running Audyssey is hardly a waste of time since it will set proper levels, distances and will EQ the rest of your speakers. Is it really that hard to change the speakers back to small and set the crossover where you prefer?? I've run Audyssey dozens of times and it doesn't take me very long at all to change the settings back to my preference.


OK thanks,

No, its not hard at all to change the settings back.

My point is that I'm concerned it'll end up with the wrong filters since the measurements will be done with the wrong settings. 

In this case it will see too much bass from the FL/FR towers since it will have set the xovers too low. So it'll end up with filters in there it won't need, correct?

It seems to me it would be much better if it allowed you to set the xovers permanently ahead of time to avoid it having to work with false readings during the run.


----------



## Alan P

Well, if you don't like what Audyssey does, you can always turn it off and you'll be right back where you were.


----------



## mthomas47

MarkyM said:


> OK thanks,
> 
> No, its not hard at all to change the settings back.
> 
> My point is that I'm concerned it'll end up with the wrong filters since the measurements will be done with the wrong settings.
> 
> In this case it will see too much bass from the FL/FR towers since it will have set the xovers too low. So it'll end up with filters in there it won't need, correct?
> 
> It seems to me it would be much better if it allowed you to set the xovers permanently ahead of time to avoid it having to work with false readings during the run.


Hi,

Your situation is somewhat unique. Most people will not have already used REW and a Behringer to make such a specific change. But, how do you know that Audyssey won't be able to deal perfectly well with the same situation that you already fixed? If you still have REW, you can certainly measure the post-calibration results to see exactly what Audyssey did. And, if you still have the Behringer, you can always tweak the FR results with that, or use the Audyssey app, if you have a model that supports it. 

You may be concerned about a problem that doesn't exist. Let us know what you discover!  And, if you want to understand why Audyssey operates the way it does, there is a section on setting crossovers, in the subwoofer guide linked below, which explains it in some detail.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MarkyM

Alan P said:


> Well, if you don't like what Audyssey does, you can always turn it off and you'll be right back where you were.


This is true. Good point!


----------



## MarkyM

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Your situation is somewhat unique. Most people will not have already used REW and a Behringer to make such a specific change. But, how do you know that Audyssey won't be able to deal perfectly well with the same situation that you already fixed? If you still have REW, you can certainly measure the post-calibration results to see exactly what Audyssey did. And, if you still have the Behringer, you can always tweak the FR results with that, or use the Audyssey app, if you have a model that supports it.
> 
> You may be concerned about a problem that doesn't exist. Let us know what you discover!  And, if you want to understand why Audyssey operates the way it does, there is a section on setting crossovers, in the subwoofer guide linked below, which explains it in some detail.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


OK thanks.

I’ll give it try this weekend.


----------



## garygarrison

MarkyM said:


> OK thanks,
> 
> No, its not hard at all to change the settings back.
> 
> My point is that I'm concerned it'll end up with the wrong filters since the measurements will be done with the wrong settings.
> 
> In this case it will see too much bass from the FL/FR towers since it will have set the xovers too low. So it'll end up with filters in there it won't need, correct?
> 
> It seems to me it would be much better if it allowed you to set the xovers permanently ahead of time to avoid it having to work with false readings during the run.


I *think* -- and others will correct me if I'm wrong -- that the following things are true*:
*

It's not Audyssey that sets your speakers to LARGE; Audyssey merely reports the F3 (3 dB down point of each speaker in your system) to your AVR or AVP (pre-pro), and the AVR/AVP sets speaker "size" (it isn't necessarily a mater of size, just bass response) according to the programming the AVR designers provided. I seem to recall that Chris K, the CTO, and chief designer of Audyssey said he wished that it was impossible to set speakers to LARGE when a subwoofer was being used with Audyssey ON, and one of the manufacturers told him it was to avoid problems with people who spent a lot of money on large main speakers that dug deeply into the bass. I felt some of that cognitive dissonance-like discomfort myself, but it soon resolved.
Audyssey measures each of your speakers full range, ignoring where you have set crossovers, and applies the EQ filters from the top all the way down to the F3 point of each speaker. It will not apply any EQ to a given speaker below its F3 point. After the AVR/AVP does what it will with that information, the user may -- and should -- reset all speakers to SMALL. A good starting point at which to set the crossovers is 80 Hz, but if Audyssey measures a higher F3 for a given speaker the user should set the crossover *above* that. Mike, what is the guideline for that? Thanks.
The "large" or bass capable main speakers in a HT will still respond, but considerably more softly, tapering off, below the crossovers. This roll-off should increase clarity and detail because most subwoofers do a better job down there, usually with less distortion. Most main speakers will produce more unwanted artifacts ("sidebands"), THD, AMD, FMD, doubling etc., below their optimum range, to say nothing of comb filtering in interaction with the sub..
 When well set-up, Audyssey can greatly improve a sound system.

See Mike's subwoofer/bass guide. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I *think* -- and others will correct me if I'm wrong -- that the following things are true*:
> *
> 
> It's not Audyssey that sets your speakers to LARGE; Audyssey merely reports the F3 (3 dB down point of each speaker in your system) to your AVR or AVP (pre-pro), and the AVR/AVP sets speaker "size" (it isn't necessarily a mater of size, just bass response) according to the programming the AVR designers provided. I seem to recall that Chris K, the CTO, and chief designer of Audyssey said he wished that it was impossible to set speakers to LARGE when a subwoofer was being used with Audyssey ON, and one of the manufacturers told him it was to avoid problems with people who spent a lot of money on large main speakers that dug deeply into the bass. I felt some of that cognitive dissonance-like discomfort myself, but it soon resolved.
> Audyssey measures each of your speakers full range, ignoring where you have set crossovers, and applies the EQ filters from the top all the way down to the F3 point of each speaker. It will not apply any EQ to a given speaker below its F3 point. After the AVR/AVP does what it will with that information, the user may -- and should -- reset all speakers to SMALL. A good starting point at which to set the crossovers is 80 Hz, but if Audyssey measures a higher F3 for a given speaker the user should set the crossover *above* that. Mike, what is the guideline for that? Thanks.
> The "large" or bass capable main speakers in a HT will still respond, but considerably more softly, tapering off, below the crossovers. This roll-off should increase clarity and detail because most subwoofers do a better job down there, usually with less distortion. Most main speakers will produce more unwanted artifacts ("sidebands"), THD, AMD, FMD, doubling etc., below their optimum range, to say nothing of comb filtering in interaction with the sub..
> When well set-up, Audyssey can greatly improve a sound system.
> 
> See Mike's subwoofer/bass guide. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


Hi Gary,

Good post, and thanks for mentioning the Guide! As you know, I have been adding several new sections to it over the last couple of weeks. If Audyssey measures a lower F3 point than 40Hz, I believe that most users could probably afford to employ a 60Hz crossover. I really like the 1/2 to 1 octave rule, which is to set crossovers at least 1/2 octave above wherever the F3 point was measured. But, above 80Hz, I think it may be a little less important to raise crossovers higher than wherever our AVR's set them, as frequencies above about 80Hz or 100Hz won't put nearly as much demand on our speakers/amplifiers as lower bass frequencies will. 

An exception to that is where a user knows that the manufacturer's spec for that particular speaker is much higher than the AVR crossover setting. Of course, the higher we go above 80Hz, the more likely we may be to be able to localize our subwoofers, so I see the whole process of setting crossovers as something which requires some experimentation to discover what we like.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> Good post, and thanks for mentioning the Guide! As you know, I have been adding several new sections to it over the last couple of weeks. If Audyssey measures a lower F3 point than 40Hz, I believe that most users could probably afford to employ a 60Hz crossover. I really like the 1/2 to 1 octave rule, which is to set crossovers at least 1/2 octave above wherever the F3 point was measured. But, above 80Hz, I think it may be a little less important to raise crossovers higher than wherever our AVR's set them, as frequencies above about 80Hz or 100Hz won't put nearly as much demand on our speakers/amplifiers as lower bass frequencies will.
> 
> An exception to that is where a user knows that the manufacturer's spec for that particular speaker is much higher than the AVR crossover setting. Of course, the higher we go above 80Hz, the more likely we may be to be able to localize our subwoofers, so I see the whole process of setting crossovers as something which requires some experimentation to discover what we like.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Great post, so audyysey always sets mine all to 40Htz and of course I set them to 80htz. So your saying 60Htz might be better option? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## robc1976

garygarrison said:


> I *think* -- and others will correct me if I'm wrong -- that the following things are true*:
> *
> 
> It's not Audyssey that sets your speakers to LARGE; Audyssey merely reports the F3 (3 dB down point of each speaker in your system) to your AVR or AVP (pre-pro), and the AVR/AVP sets speaker "size" (it isn't necessarily a mater of size, just bass response) according to the programming the AVR designers provided. I seem to recall that Chris K, the CTO, and chief designer of Audyssey said he wished that it was impossible to set speakers to LARGE when a subwoofer was being used with Audyssey ON, and one of the manufacturers told him it was to avoid problems with people who spent a lot of money on large main speakers that dug deeply into the bass. I felt some of that cognitive dissonance-like discomfort myself, but it soon resolved.
> Audyssey measures each of your speakers full range, ignoring where you have set crossovers, and applies the EQ filters from the top all the way down to the F3 point of each speaker. It will not apply any EQ to a given speaker below its F3 point. After the AVR/AVP does what it will with that information, the user may -- and should -- reset all speakers to SMALL. A good starting point at which to set the crossovers is 80 Hz, but if Audyssey measures a higher F3 for a given speaker the user should set the crossover *above* that. Mike, what is the guideline for that? Thanks.
> The "large" or bass capable main speakers in a HT will still respond, but considerably more softly, tapering off, below the crossovers. This roll-off should increase clarity and detail because most subwoofers do a better job down there, usually with less distortion. Most main speakers will produce more unwanted artifacts ("sidebands"), THD, AMD, FMD, doubling etc., below their optimum range, to say nothing of comb filtering in interaction with the sub..
> When well set-up, Audyssey can greatly improve a sound system.
> 
> See Mike's subwoofer/bass guide. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


That is a unbelievable piece of literature, VERY good read. I thought I was boosting my sub to much +5DB with audyseey off...I really wanted to go to +8Db as it sounded perfect like that.

I have heard DEQ gives boost to surrounds and subs but how much.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## steakhouse_

garygarrison said:


> I *think* -- and others will correct me if I'm wrong -- that the following things are true*:
> *
> 
> It's not Audyssey that sets your speakers to LARGE; Audyssey merely reports the F3 (3 dB down point of each speaker in your system) to your AVR or AVP (pre-pro), and the AVR/AVP sets speaker "size" (it isn't necessarily a mater of size, just bass response) according to the programming the AVR designers provided. I seem to recall that Chris K, the CTO, and chief designer of Audyssey said he wished that it was impossible to set speakers to LARGE when a subwoofer was being used with Audyssey ON, and one of the manufacturers told him it was to avoid problems with people who spent a lot of money on large main speakers that dug deeply into the bass. I felt some of that cognitive dissonance-like discomfort myself, but it soon resolved.
> Audyssey measures each of your speakers full range, ignoring where you have set crossovers, and applies the EQ filters from the top all the way down to the F3 point of each speaker. It will not apply any EQ to a given speaker below its F3 point. After the AVR/AVP does what it will with that information, the user may -- and should -- reset all speakers to SMALL. A good starting point at which to set the crossovers is 80 Hz, but if Audyssey measures a higher F3 for a given speaker the user should set the crossover *above* that. Mike, what is the guideline for that? Thanks.
> The "large" or bass capable main speakers in a HT will still respond, but considerably more softly, tapering off, below the crossovers. This roll-off should increase clarity and detail because most subwoofers do a better job down there, usually with less distortion. Most main speakers will produce more unwanted artifacts ("sidebands"), THD, AMD, FMD, doubling etc., below their optimum range, to say nothing of comb filtering in interaction with the sub..
> When well set-up, Audyssey can greatly improve a sound system.
> 
> See Mike's subwoofer/bass guide. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


Yout should set the crossover one octave above the 3 to ensure that the crossover filters add up correctly. This is one of the reasons why most why Audyssey setting the F3 = crossover point is simply wrong.

One point to think about when using speakers as large is that you have to ensure that the mains and the subs have to be in phase for alle the frequencies in the bass to have a proper constructive addition of LFE and mains if the director of the content mixes the same signal to the mains and the LFE (whis is often the case with music). Mostly the mains would have a different CB tuning than the subs or the subs would be CB which makes tham have a different group delay. The result is that they would not add up correctly or might even cancel out. You can circumvent this problem by setting a crossover at 80-120Hz so you would only have to set the correct pahse or delay for a small area around the crossover frequency. This is possible via tha phase knob or the tuning of the delay.


----------



## MarkyM

garygarrison said:


> I *think* -- and others will correct me if I'm wrong -- that the following things are true*:
> *
> 
> It's not Audyssey that sets your speakers to LARGE; Audyssey merely reports the F3 (3 dB down point of each speaker in your system) to your AVR or AVP (pre-pro), and the AVR/AVP sets speaker "size" (it isn't necessarily a mater of size, just bass response) according to the programming the AVR designers provided. I seem to recall that Chris K, the CTO, and chief designer of Audyssey said he wished that it was impossible to set speakers to LARGE when a subwoofer was being used with Audyssey ON, and one of the manufacturers told him it was to avoid problems with people who spent a lot of money on large main speakers that dug deeply into the bass. I felt some of that cognitive dissonance-like discomfort myself, but it soon resolved.
> Audyssey measures each of your speakers full range, ignoring where you have set crossovers, and applies the EQ filters from the top all the way down to the F3 point of each speaker. It will not apply any EQ to a given speaker below its F3 point. After the AVR/AVP does what it will with that information, the user may -- and should -- reset all speakers to SMALL. A good starting point at which to set the crossovers is 80 Hz, but if Audyssey measures a higher F3 for a given speaker the user should set the crossover *above* that. Mike, what is the guideline for that? Thanks.
> The "large" or bass capable main speakers in a HT will still respond, but considerably more softly, tapering off, below the crossovers. This roll-off should increase clarity and detail because most subwoofers do a better job down there, usually with less distortion. Most main speakers will produce more unwanted artifacts ("sidebands"), THD, AMD, FMD, doubling etc., below their optimum range, to say nothing of comb filtering in interaction with the sub..
> When well set-up, Audyssey can greatly improve a sound system.
> 
> See Mike's subwoofer/bass guide. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


Great info.

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> Great post, so audyysey always sets mine all to 40Htz and of course I set them to 80htz. So your saying 60Htz might be better option?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Thank you!  I was actually saying that if Audyssey measures your speakers as


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you!  I was actually saying that if Audyssey measures your speakers as


----------



## mthomas47

markmanner said:


> Hi Mike, as I posted above, although I have very bass capable main speakers which Audyssey measured as Large, I found using REW that setting them to Small with a 40 hz or 60 hz crossover ended up with a less flat 20-60hz bass spl plot in REW than setting them to 80hz. I am a believer now in what you and other have said about moving past the impulse to keep speakers set to large, no matter how 'large' they are.
> One other question that I have read a bit about is whether to use REW to help use your Sub's internal eq controls to tweak the subs before running Audyssey, or after. I have Audyssey XT32 with SubEQ on my AVR. What is your opinion on that? My ignorant thought would be to use the Sub's eq after Audyssey, since presumably you will have lost the ability to change the Sub's eq without messing up the Audyssey adjustments. I guess if you don't need or want to use the Sub eq after Audyssey that it might not matter.
> 
> Thanks as usual,
> Mark


Hi Mark,

You are very welcome! I think that it takes some time to come around to the idea of relying more heavily on our subwoofers, by setting higher crossovers. I know that it did for me. I also have very large full-range speakers.

If you believe that there will be some benefit to tweaking your frequency response with the internal DSP of your subwoofer, then I would suggest experimenting with that after running Audyssey. As long as you are measuring, and being conservative about upward adjustments below about 25Hz, I can't see where you would be likely to mess anything up with respect to the filters that Audyssey set.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

markmanner said:


> Hi Mike, as I posted above, although I have very bass capable main speakers which Audyssey measured as Large, I found using REW that setting them to Small with a 40 hz or 60 hz crossover ended up with a less flat 20-60hz bass spl plot in REW than setting them to 80hz. I am a believer now in what you and other have said about moving past the impulse to keep speakers set to large, no matter how 'large' they are.
> One other question that I have read a bit about is whether to use REW to help use your Sub's internal eq controls to tweak the subs before running Audyssey, or after. I have Audyssey XT32 with SubEQ on my AVR. What is your opinion on that? My ignorant thought would be to use the Sub's eq after Audyssey, since presumably you will have lost the ability to change the Sub's eq without messing up the Audyssey adjustments. I guess if you don't need or want to use the Sub eq after Audyssey that it might not matter.
> 
> Thanks as usual,
> Mark


Hi Mark,

I have a similar setup with regards to EQ Automation that you mentioned. In regards to in what sequence should you do things. I found doing my REW manual tweaks to the subs to get the FR as flat as I was able. before I ran Audyssey or Sub EQ resulted in a superior end result.

I suppose you could try both methods to decide for yourself what works best for your arrangement and room acoustic dynamics. You could save the first run EQ file (assuming your AVR provides that ability) so reverting to the first EQ would be easier if you like the first run better than the second.

The hard part for anyone to predict is what your room Acoustic Dynamics will do to shape the final sound (FR). When they say EVERY room is different. That is so very true. In the end, its not the Sub or Speakers we hear. But the ROOM is what defines what we hear. Experimentation is the rule of the day. The rest is just theory.

What really matters at the end of the day is how you like the sound signature achieved. Good luck Sir and enjoy the experimentation journey. It will be full of learning and some surprises along the way.


----------



## MarkyM

MarkyM said:


> OK thanks.
> 
> I’ll give it try this weekend.


Ran it this morning. Music is very important to me so running in Stereo mode right now. I have to say that this XT32 version of Audyssey is vastly superior to the older, simpler ones. I was worried about it killing stereo music imaging but that seems OK so far.

It actually kept all speakers on Small. But the xovers were set a bit low as I have seen here is normal. I raised them back to 80Hz and I don’t think that hurt anything.

I kept my previous subwoofer EQ on (only in the line to the sub) during the run and it worked pretty darn well! The time alignment is huge. The bass seemed to be lagging behind a bit before. I get now that’s why the measured distance as set by Audyssey is longer than the actual physical distance. Thank you to Mike for the bass article! Excellent stuff. It looks like I’ll be at about +6.0 to +7.5dB on the sub for my “house curve”.

I bought the Audyssey app to look at the curves but it wants me to do another run from the app. Is there any way to load the current settings into the app?

Thanks!


----------



## MarkyM

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I have a similar setup with regards to EQ Automation that you mentioned. In regards to in what sequence should you do things. I found doing my REW manual tweaks to the subs to get the FR as flat as I was able. before I ran Audyssey or Sub EQ resulted in a superior end result.
> 
> I suppose you could try both methods to decide for yourself what works best for your arrangement and room acoustic dynamics. You could save the first run EQ file (assuming your AVR provides that ability) so reverting to the first EQ would be easier if you like the first run better than the second.
> 
> The hard part for anyone to predict is what your room Acoustic Dynamics will do to shape the final sound (FR). When they say EVERY room is different. That is so very true. In the end, its not the Sub or Speakers we hear. But the ROOM is what defines what we hear. Experimentation is the rule of the day. The rest is just theory.
> 
> What really matters at the end of the day is how you like the sound signature achieved. Good luck Sir and enjoy the experimentation journey. It will be full of learning and some surprises along the way.


Agreed. I had run REW years ago with a Behringer DSP 1124P programmable EQ in the line to the sub to get rid of a huge bass bump at my listening position.

I left this in while running Audyssey and I think it worked out really well!

This allowed Audyssey to get the time alignment right, taking the existing EQ into account. I could tell because the Audyssey set distance to the sub is longer than the physical measured distance.


----------



## drh3b

MarkyM said:


> Ran it this morning. Music is very important to me so running in Stereo mode right now. I have to say that this XT32 version of Audyssey is vastly superior to the older, simpler ones. I was worried about it killing stereo music imaging but that seems OK so far.
> 
> It actually kept all speakers on Small. But the xovers were set a bit low as I have seen here is normal. I raised them back to 80Hz and I don’t think that hurt anything.
> 
> I kept my previous subwoofer EQ on (only in the line to the sub) during the run and it worked pretty darn well! The time alignment is huge. The bass seemed to be lagging behind a bit before. I get now that’s why the measured distance as set by Audyssey is longer than the actual physical distance. Thank you to Mike for the bass article! Excellent stuff. It looks like I’ll be at about +6.0 to +7.5dB on the sub for my “house curve”.
> 
> I bought the Audyssey app to look at the curves but it wants me to do another run from the app. Is there any way to load the current settings into the app?
> 
> Thanks!


Unfortunately, no. To use the app, you have to use the app to run the measurements. I don't think any of the regular "gray beards" use the app(yet), so you might want to look at this thread for app specific questions. Before using the app, I'd make a copy of your settings to a usb stick in case you like the AVR driven results better than the app driven results. For me, the app and the AVR did pretty much the same to my ears, I didn't measure to verify. Others have gotten substantially different results. YMMV.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-22.html#post55827350


----------



## MarkyM

drh3b said:


> Unfortunately, no. To use the app, you have to use the app to run the measurements. I don't think any of the regular "gray beards" use the app(yet), so you might want to look at this thread for app specific questions. Before using the app, I'd make a copy of your settings to a usb stick in case you like the AVR driven results better than the app driven results. For me, the app and the AVR did pretty much the same to my ears, I didn't measure to verify. Others have gotten substantially different results. YMMV.
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-22.html#post55827350


Thanks. I found the thread on the app and have read about the issues with it.

Excellent advice but already done. No problem though. The app sounded about the same to me.

I found that Flat is too bright sounding but Reference is too dull sounding. And the app only allows you to work with the Reference curve.

So what I did was use the “MultEQ Filter Frequency Range” feature to limit the Audyssey corrections for the Front LR speakers to 400Hz and below. So the bass is intact but it doesn’t mess with the mids/highs.

That works for me so far with stereo music. I also heeded the advice here to set the sub’s volume control higher than 75dB so as not reducing headroom when boosting it later.

Now I have to come up with a plan for the other 5 speakers in the surround modes which are still too bright on Flat and too dull on Reference. I’m just leaving them on Flat for now in all surround modes.

That app defintely still needs work. But at least I could fix things for stereo music listening.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Have a new system and am running floor standing fronts for the first time. Set all to small, ran Audyssey, and it set the mains to large with a crossover of 40Hz (Center at 80 and surrounds at 120). Have the bass set to LFE on the Denon for the dual subs.

Does this sound right? Any changes? Suggestions? Have to lower the gain on the subs (-12db is Audyssey's trim) so will be running again after my TV is in place tomorrow.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Have a new system and am running floor standing fronts for the first time. Set all to small, ran Audyssey, and it set the mains to large with a crossover of 40Hz (Center at 80 and surrounds at 120). Have the bass set to LFE on the Denon for the dual subs.
> 
> Does this sound right? Any changes? Suggestions? Have to lower the gain on the subs (-12db is Audyssey's trim) so will be running again after my TV is in place tomorrow.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Hi,

If I were you, I would reset the main speakers to Small, with an 80Hz crossover. They are probably already set to Small if you are showing a 40Hz crossover. The direct link below will take you to a detailed explanation on setting crossovers, which will explain some things. The section just ahead of that one covers the calibration process and gain/trim settings. If it's a quiet afternoon, you may not mind doing a little reading. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D

Regards,
Mike


----------



## robc1976

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you!  I was actually saying that if Audyssey measures your speakers as


----------



## mthomas47

robc1976 said:


> Mike,
> 
> Audyssey set my speakers to large with 40htz crossover but I put them to small with 80htz.
> 
> Are you saying since they are set to large (bass capable for sure) I should try 60htz?
> 
> If they where set to small by audyysey means they are not bass capable.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Hi,

No, I am saying that you should set them exactly where you did.  Keep them at Small with an 80Hz crossover. I am including a direct link to an article that will explain crossovers in a little more detail than we can in posts.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D

Regards,
Mike


----------



## MarkyM

MarkyM said:


> Thanks. I found the thread on the app and have read about the issues with it.
> 
> Excellent advice but already done. No problem though. The app sounded about the same to me.
> 
> I found that Flat is too bright sounding but Reference is too dull sounding. And the app only allows you to work with the Reference curve.
> 
> So what I did was use the “MultEQ Filter Frequency Range” feature to limit the Audyssey corrections for the Front LR speakers to 400Hz and below. So the bass is intact but it doesn’t mess with the mids/highs.
> 
> That works for me so far with stereo music. I also heeded the advice here to set the sub’s volume control higher than 75dB so as not reducing headroom when boosting it later.
> 
> Now I have to come up with a plan for the other 5 speakers in the surround modes which are still too bright on Flat and too dull on Reference. I’m just leaving them on Flat for now in all surround modes.
> 
> That app definitely still needs work. But at least I could fix things for stereo music listening.


OK, I finally got things sounding pretty good on all speakers!

I'm going to stick with the app because its the only way to be able to turn off the stupid "Midrange Compensation" on the Reference curve and bring the highs back up (to speaker original) by using the “MultEQ Filter Frequency Range” settings.

The Flat curve is still too bright sounding for me and there is no way to edit that.

FYI...the "Curve Editor" in the app is a complete joke since it can only be adjusted by finger. There really needs to be an advanced mode with full parametric controls.


----------



## Alan P

A "too bright" Audyssey cal can sometimes be attributed to having the mic too close to a reflective surface such as a wall or a leather/vinyl couch. Are you avoiding these type of issues during calibration?


----------



## MarkyM

Alan P said:


> A "too bright" Audyssey cal can sometimes be attributed to having the mic too close to a reflective surface such as a wall or a leather/vinyl couch. Are you avoiding these type of issues during calibration?


As best as I can given the limitations of the space. No leather furniture but a low ceiling directly over the MLP. No reflective surfaces to the sides at all. Back wall more than 24" away and covered with Auralex foam.


----------



## garygarrison

MarkyM said:


> As best as I can given the limitations of the space. No leather furniture but *a low ceiling directly over the MLP*. No reflective surfaces to the sides at all. Back wall more than 24" away and covered with Auralex foam.


How low is low? The old 8' standard ceiling has been giving way to a 7' 5" or so ceiling for the last 40 years or so. Bad news for audio, IMO. Living room ceilings of 11 or 12' feet high used to be common (of course, "Great Rooms" still have high ceilings). 

Just on general principles, if you have "a low ceiling directly over the MLP" you might consider putting some Auralex, or equivalent, on the ceiling directly above all listening chairs. I'm glad you covered the back wall. But, don't over deaden the room in general.


----------



## MarkyM

garygarrison said:


> How low is low? The old 8' standard ceiling has been giving way to a 7' 5" or so ceiling for the last 40 years or so. Bad news for audio, IMO. Living room ceilings of 11 or 12' feet high used to be common (of course, "Great Rooms" still have high ceilings).
> 
> Just on general principals, if you have "a low ceiling directly over the MLP" you might consider putting some Auralex, or equivalent, on the ceiling directly above all listening chairs. I'm glad you covered the back wall. But, don't over deaden the room in general.


6’8”: It’s where the heating ductwork is boxed in.

I do wish my basement was 12 course but it’s not. The rest is drop ceiling at barely 7’. That’s where my Atmos speakers are. On either side of the box.

In any case, using the “limit” sliders in the app worked very well. The system sounds great now! 

Plus my mains sound more like themselves again...but better integrated with the sub and smoother in the lower mids.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

OK...finally got all my gear set up, art on the walls for my wife, and ran Audyssey. I have a Klipsch Reference 7.2 speaker system with a Denon S930H. Distances were good, though subs were slightly farther away. Trim on the subs is -6dB, set to LFE output to the receiver. Question, as usual, is with crossovers. Audyssey set them as follows:

L/R Mains 40Hz Large
Center 80Hz Small
Surrounds 120Hz Small

I know I should set the mains to small and raise them but do I go to 60 or 80? Are the surrounds correct? Also to use the settings, I usually run DynEQ On with the Reference curve (Flat for music) and a 0dB offset (10dB for music). I do a lot of gaming and was wondering what, if any, I should adjust there. I've also looked at Dynamic Volume but can't find a sweet spot. It tends to raise the surrounds too high in lower volumes than I'd prefer.

Thanks for any help and suggestions!


----------



## mthomas47

JohnnytheSkin said:


> OK...finally got all my gear set up, art on the walls for my wife, and ran Audyssey. I have a Klipsch Reference 7.2 speaker system with a Denon S930H. Distances were good, though subs were slightly farther away. Trim on the subs is -6dB, set to LFE output to the receiver. Question, as usual, is with crossovers. Audyssey set them as follows:
> 
> L/R Mains 40Hz Large
> Center 80Hz Small
> Surrounds 120Hz Small
> 
> I know I should set the mains to small and raise them but do I go to 60 or 80? Are the surrounds correct? Also to use the settings, I usually run DynEQ On with the Reference curve (Flat for music) and a 0dB offset (10dB for music). I do a lot of gaming and was wondering what, if any, I should adjust there. I've also looked at Dynamic Volume but can't find a sweet spot. It tends to raise the surrounds too high in lower volumes than I'd prefer.
> 
> Thanks for any help and suggestions!


Hi Johnny,

If I were you, I would set your front speakers to Small with an 80Hz crossover. (Does your Denon really set speakers to Large, with a crossover? Normally, it's either/or: either Large, or Small with a crossover. I have never heard of Large with a 40Hz crossover before.)

Most people I have heard comment about Dynamic Volume don't use it, unless they are in situations where they really need to control the volume level for close neighbors or sleeping children, or something similar. Many of us have never had a reason to use it at all, particularly as it compresses the dynamic range of the listening material.

I can't really give you any advice on what settings you should use for gaming. I believe that the selections of Audyssey versus Flat; or DEQ off, or on, or on with an RLO; are all matters of personal preference. I think that you will just need to experiment to discover what you like with particular program material. And, don't be too surprised if your preferences change from time-to-time. That can happen, based on different movies, or music, or even depending on our moods on different days.

If you want to understand what DEQ is doing and why, there is a section in the Guide, linked below, which explains DEQ in some detail. But, unfortunately, it can only explain something of DEQ's actions and not how different individuals may choose to use it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Johnny,
> 
> If I were you, I would set your front speakers to Small with an 80Hz crossover. (Does your Denon really set speakers to Large, with a crossover? Normally, it's either/or: either Large, or Small with a crossover. I have never heard of Large with a 40Hz crossover before.)
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I'd have to run it again but after Audyssey the speaker setting page said the floor mains (R28F) were large, and in the crossover screen the mains may have been grayed out but still listing 40Hz...maybe the lowest selection? After changing the L/R to "Small" was the 40Hz selectable and I could boost to 80Hz.

Thanks for the help! I've read the FAQ and get what the curves, DynEq, and RLO mean...it's just hard to find a practical answer rather than "user preference". I just want to be told the right setting, LOL!


----------



## MarkyM

*Denon Support Ticket*

I just filed a support ticket with Denon Support asking for an ETA on a new bug fix release for the app:
"Your question has been received. A member of our support team will get back to you soon."
*Question Reference # 180317-000086*



Date Created: 03/16/2018 01:36 PM
Date Last Updated: 03/16/2018 01:36 PM
Status: Unresolved


----------



## meak81

Hello I'm looking for some advice. I have a 2.1 set up, I ran audyssey on my x4200w receiver and now my bass seems less. I have my fronts set to small with xover at 80hz, my sub is HSU VTF-2 MK3 and I have that set up with one port plugged and xover set to out. Is it because I have my receiver set on stereo? Can I turn on dynamic EQ or is that option only for surround sound set ups? We use our system for movies, cable tv and gaming so I would really like to get the best bang possible from my 2.1 set up. I hope i put this in the right thread as I believe it is audyssey related. Any help will be greatly appreciated.


----------



## mthomas47

meak81 said:


> Hello I'm looking for some advice. I have a 2.1 set up, I ran audyssey on my x4200w receiver and now my bass seems less. I have my fronts set to small with xover at 80hz, my sub is HSU VTF-2 MK3 and I have that set up with one port plugged and xover set to out. Is it because I have my receiver set on stereo? Can I turn on dynamic EQ or is that option only for surround sound set ups? We use our system for movies, cable tv and gaming so I would really like to get the best bang possible from my 2.1 set up. I hope i put this in the right thread as I believe it is audyssey related. Any help will be greatly appreciated.


Hi,

You can certainly use DEQ. It usually defaults to an on position, anyway, whenever you run an Audyssey calibration. You can also boost your subwoofer to a higher level. Audyssey set it to play at the same level as your other speakers, based on a 75db test tone. But, we don't hear bass frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, so adding some bass boost post-Audyssey (even with DEQ engaged) is completely normal.

Setting your receiver to Stereo is perfectly fine for two-channel music. For 5.1 movies, and most TV, though, you will want to be in one of the surround modes so that you can take advantage of the .1 LFE channel.

If you want to read more about how Audyssey works, why most people add sub boosts, and the best ways to do it, Section II of the subwoofer guide, linked in my signature, explains all of that in detail.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## meak81

Thanks for your quick reply☺ So even though I only have a 2.1 set up I can still use a surround mode Like Dolby digital? I won't miss out on any sound effects or dialog?


----------



## mthomas47

meak81 said:


> Thanks for your quick reply☺ So even though I only have a 2.1 set up I can still use a surround mode Like Dolby digital? I won't miss out on any sound effects or dialog?


You are very welcome! That's correct. The surround mode will just downmix to your two speakers, but it will still be able to send LFE content to your subwoofer. I'm not sure that your subwoofer can receive .1 LFE content in Stereo. I don't believe that it can.


----------



## meak81

mthomas47 said:


> meak81 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your quick reply☺ So even though I only have a 2.1 set up I can still use a surround mode Like Dolby digital? I won't miss out on any sound effects or dialog?
> 
> 
> 
> You are very welcome! That's correct. The surround mode will just downmix to your two speakers, but it will still be able to send LFE content to your subwoofer. I'm not sure that your subwoofer can receive .1 LFE content in Stereo. I don't believe that it can.
Click to expand...

Ok great, thank you again! I will play around with it when I get home.


----------



## markmanner

*Sub PEQ after Audyssey*



mthomas47 said:


> ..If you believe that there will be some benefit to tweaking your frequency response with the internal DSP of your subwoofer, then I would suggest experimenting with that after running Audyssey. As long as you are measuring, and being conservative about upward adjustments below about 25Hz, I can't see where you would be likely to mess anything up with respect to the filters that Audyssey set.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, after running Audyssey, I ran REW and got an spl plot. I then did 3 peq curves in each of my subs as follows: 26hz, 6db boost, shape Q3(medium width), 35hz, 5db boost, Q3; 42hz, 6db boost, shape Q6 (relatively narrow). After that I re-ran REW. Attached is a pic showing the pre and post REW 10-100 hz frequency spl plot. What do you think about the advisability that?


----------



## mthomas47

markmanner said:


> Hi Mike, after running Audyssey, I ran REW and got an spl plot. I then did 3 peq curves in each of my subs as follows: 26hz, 6db boost, shape Q3(medium width), 35hz, 5db boost, Q3; 42hz, 6db boost, shape Q6 (relatively narrow). After that I re-ran REW. Attached is a pic showing the pre and post REW 10-100 hz frequency spl plot. What do you think about the advisability that?


Hi Mark,

It definitely looks better after the tweaks you did, but it also looks as if you are dealing with a lot of issues between 25Hz and 50Hz. There are two schools of thought regarding when to do independent peq. I initially presented one approach when I said that it is generally better to do independent tweaks after running Audyssey. Adam presented another approach when he said that he got better results using peq first.

I think that a lot depends on the magnitude of the adjustments you are trying to make. If they are significant, then doing them first can work better. If you are just polishing the Audyssey results, or adding a house curve, then it's better to do that after running Audyssey.

In this case, it seems to me that there is a lot to try to straighten out in that 25Hz to 50Hz range. If you don't mind experimenting some more, I think that I would try leaving the same adjustments in place and run Audyssey again. Your prior adjustments may be just enough for Audyssey to be able to get a better grip on the dips at several frequencies and to bring them up a bit.

Then, you can run REW again and compare the two frequency responses to see which one you like better. I would listen to it both ways, as well, to determine whether you can hear any difference. What you are doing independently, and what Audyssey is doing, will consume some subwoofer headroom, so once you have the FR where you want it, you may want to run a compression test with REW to make sure that you still have plenty of headroom. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> ...
> In this case, it seems to me that there is a lot to try to straighten out in that 25Hz to 50Hz range. If you don't mind experimenting some more, I think that I would try leaving the same adjustments in place and run Audyssey again. Your prior adjustments may be just enough for Audyssey to be able to get a better grip on the dips at several frequencies and to bring them up a bit.
> 
> Then, you can run REW again and compare the two frequency responses to see which one you like better. I would listen to it both ways, as well, to determine whether you can hear any difference. What you are doing independently, and what Audyssey is doing, will consume some subwoofer headroom, so once you have the FR where you want it, you may want to run a compression test with REW to make sure that you still have plenty of headroom.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I like that idea. I will run Audyssey again now with those adjustments and see what I come up with.
Thanks Mike, 
Mark
[PS, I think that what I have done so far does make the bass sound better, so I am moving in the right direction]


----------



## leszek1

How does Audyssey deal with time delay through FIR filter? Since it's using thousands of taps the delay has to be tens of ms or in layman's terms tens of feet of speaker distance and I don't see that big of a range adjustment in most AVRs.


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> .... What you are doing independently, and what Audyssey is doing, will consume some subwoofer headroom, so once you have the FR where you want it, you may want to run a compression test with REW to make sure that you still have plenty of headroom.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, on the headroom question, my SB16Us are now set to -33 and -35db. Does that alone indicate that I am not headroom challenged, or is that a more subtle issue?
Mark


----------



## mthomas47

markmanner said:


> Mike, on the headroom question, my SB16Us are now set to -33 and -35db. Does that alone indicate that I am not headroom challenged, or is that a more subtle issue?
> Mark


Hi Mark, 

Those are extremely low gain settings--perhaps the lowest I recall hearing about. It is hard for me to imagine that there could be any potential headroom issues with those gain settings.

On the other hand, there is another aspect to using gain settings that low which makes me curious. I know that with the newer subwoofers, SVS changed the gain structure to be able to achieve more dynamic range, at lower gain levels, than was the case with the older digital models. I believe I remember hearing that the 16 Ultras (and the new 4000 series) can achieve full output (depending on AVR trim level) at -10 and even -20 gain settings. But, it may not be possible to do at very low gain settings.

That may not be a problem if you don't ever want more bass for peak scenes in movies. But, I would be curious to know what the low gain setting does to your subwoofers' abilities to achieve their full potency. And, that could conceivably bring the headroom question back into play. If I were you, I would run the question of using very low gain settings by Ed Mullen, just to see what he says about it. Please let me know the answer he gives you, if you decide to do that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> Those are extremely low gain settings--perhaps the lowest I recall hearing about. It is hard for me to imagine that there could be any potential headroom issues with those gain settings.
> 
> On the other hand, there is another aspect to using gain settings that low which makes me curious. I know that with the newer subwoofers, SVS changed the gain structure to be able to achieve more dynamic range, at lower gain levels, than was the case with the older digital models. I believe I remember hearing that the 16 Ultras (and the new 4000 series) can achieve full output (depending on AVR trim level) at -10 and even -20 gain settings. But, it may not be possible to do at very low gain settings.
> 
> That may not be a problem if you don't ever want more bass for peak scenes in movies. But, I would be curious to know what the low gain setting does to your subwoofers' abilities to achieve their full potency. And, that could conceivably bring the headroom question back into play. If I were you, I would run the question of using very low gain settings by Ed Mullen, just to see what he says about it. Please let me know the answer he gives you, if you decide to do that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I will check with Ed. For what it is worth, now that I have done the PEQ (still haven't rerun Audyssey as we discussed, but will), the bass is pretty impressive. On Blade Runner 2049, it sounded pretty good before, but now it is spectacular. I don't know if I could stand much more bass frankly, running at -10/-12 db on my AV (range is -80 to +18 on mine, Ref. is probably actually at 0). On Godzilla 2014, the MUTO's stomping around sound like they are on my house!
Mark
[BTW, my AV trim levels are at -5.5 on the subs, with the subs set at -31/33 volume]


----------



## Dave-T

Is there a tutorial for how to use the Audyssey MultEQ Editor App similar to what type of support there is for Audyessy on this thread? I have to say you guys have done a great job at explaining how to utilize and get the most out of Audyessy XT32. I am upgrading my marantz 8802a processor to the Marantz av8805 and it has the app and I want to get familiar with the app process before it arrives.

Thanks in advance.

dave-t


----------



## drh3b

Dave-T said:


> Is there a tutorial for how to use the Audyssey MultEQ Editor App similar to what type of support there is for Audyessy on this thread? I have to say you guys have done a great job at explaining how to utilize and get the most out of Audyessy XT32. I am upgrading my marantz 8802a processor to the Marantz av8805 and it has the app and I want to get familiar with the app process before it arrives.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> dave-t


Unfortunately, no. It's not too hard to pick up, a lot of the options are the same as on the receiver/prepro. There is a thread dedicated to it where you can get help.
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## MarkyM

MarkyM said:


> 6’8”: It’s where the heating ductwork is boxed in.
> 
> I do wish my basement was 12 course but it’s not. The rest is drop ceiling at barely 7’. That’s where my Atmos speakers are. On either side of the box.
> 
> In any case, using the “limit” sliders in the app worked very well. The system sounds great now!
> 
> Plus my mains sound more like themselves again...but better integrated with the sub and smoother in the lower mids.


Update:
So I ended up doing another run from the app with the mic more exactly at my ear level and squarely pointed straight up to the ceiling. Also, I used a tighter pattern with the 8 mic positions, moving the mic only about 6 inches at a time around the MLP.

Now, while Flat is still too bright, Reference sounds good! (with the first HF rolloff curve in the app - the one on the left) and I don't have to use the limit sliders in the app anymore. The highs on my FL/FR mains are very similar to what they are when Ausdyssey is off or set to L/R Bypass.

Since I had previously EQ'd a big bass room mode out with REW and a Behringer programmable EQ (6 years ago!), the next thing I'm going to do is use the limit slider for the sub (only) to remove the additional Audyssey corrections on the sub. This should bring back my "house curve" I had set before and hopefully remove the 20Hzrolloff from the app. Then, hopefully, I'll be done and can enjoy the system


----------



## markmanner

markmanner said:


> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Those are extremely low gain settings--perhaps the lowest I recall hearing about. It is hard for me to imagine that there could be any potential headroom issues with those gain settings.
> 
> On the other hand, there is another aspect to using gain settings that low which makes me curious. I know that with the newer subwoofers, SVS changed the gain structure to be able to achieve more dynamic range, at lower gain levels, than was the case with the older digital models. I believe I remember hearing that the 16 Ultras (and the new 4000 series) can achieve full output (depending on AVR trim level) at -10 and even -20 gain settings. But, it may not be possible to do at very low gain settings.
> 
> That may not be a problem if you don't ever want more bass for peak scenes in movies. But, I would be curious to know what the low gain setting does to your subwoofers' abilities to achieve their full potency. And, that could conceivably bring the headroom question back into play. If I were you, I would run the question of using very low gain settings by Ed Mullen, just to see what he says about it. Please let me know the answer he gives you, if you decide to do that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> I will check with Ed. For what it is worth, now that I have done the PEQ (still haven't rerun Audyssey as we discussed, but will), the bass is pretty impressive. On Blade Runner 2049, it sounded pretty good before, but now it is spectacular. I don't know if I could stand much more bass frankly, running at -10/-12 db on my AV (range is -80 to +18 on mine, Ref. is probably actually at 0). On Godzilla 2014, the MUTO's stomping around sound like they are on my house!
> Mark
> [BTW, my AV trim levels are at -5.5 on the subs, with the subs set at -31/33 volume]
Click to expand...

Mike, Ed Mullen said full power down to around -24 on the new sub amps. He suggested dropping trim in AVR to -12 from -5 and then increasing sub volume by 7db to get them close to the -24 level.


----------



## iStorm

@mthomas47 is this the thread I should be reading as well? Your signature directed me to another version of this but is now locked. So don't read the other thread, but read this one instead, correct? Thanks again. I'm also going to read your subwoofer one too.


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> @*mthomas47* is this the thread I should be reading as well? Your signature directed me to another version of this but is now locked. So don't read the other thread, but read this one instead, correct? Thanks again. I'm also going to read your subwoofer one too.


Hi,

Just read this:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


----------



## iStorm

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just read this:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


Hey I also wanted to make sure I knew everything about Audssey and the way it works as well so I was just seeing if this is the most up to date thread to setting up my speakers as well for both of my Denon receivers that use Audssey XT 32? 

It mentions in this thread that for movies that surrounds should be set to dipole mode. Why is that? I have them in bipole currently but don't really know the difference.

I will also read the sub thread as well. 
Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> Hey I also wanted to make sure I knew everything about Audssey and the way it works as well so I was just seeing if this is the most up to date thread to setting up my speakers as well for both of my Denon receivers that use Audssey XT 32?
> 
> It mentions in this thread that for movies that surrounds should be set to dipole mode. Why is that? I have them in bipole currently but don't really know the difference.
> 
> I will also read the sub thread as well.
> Thanks!


Hi,

This article will explain the difference between bipole and dipole speakers. There is no clear consensus among audio experts as to which configuration is better. If you like your surround sound as you have it now, then I wouldn't worry about changing it. Sometimes, the advice you read in threads like this one is a little too definite. I believe that we always have to make allowances for different rooms, different perceptions, and different preferences.

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/surround-speaker-dipole-vs-bipole

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

I have switchable dipole/bipole speakers and read years ago that if they are mounted to the sides of the MLP they should be set to dipole, and if mounted behind the MLP, bipole. So, that is how mine have been set for 20 years or so.


----------



## iStorm

Alan P said:


> I have switchable dipole/bipole speakers and read years ago that if they are mounted to the sides of the MLP they should be set to dipole, and if mounted behind the MLP, bipole. So, that is how mine have been set for 20 years or so.


This is excellent information! Downstairs in the basement I have the SVS ultra surrounds at ear level on the sides of the MLP and in my room they're to the sides as well but just higher up to clear a bookshelf. It sounds like my SVS ultras and the Emotiva e2s need to be set to dipole then! 

Will I need to rerun Audyssey if changing from bipole to dipole? I'm assuming yes. 

Also what is the best solution for my bedroom for really late night listening. I would prefer to use my Emotiva setup since it's a lot clearer than the tv speakers but the sub seems to still hit really hard with dynamic volume set to Heavy and the volume of the avr at a crazy -50. So dynamic volume must not hurt the sub any then? 

Would it be better to just go Direct on the sound mode for late night listening since it turns off all processing and disables the sub completely? 

Finally for the theater room do I want loud management set to ON? I never noticed this setting before but it's set to ON. 

Thanks much!


----------



## Alan P

iStorm said:


> TWill I need to rerun Audyssey if changing from bipole to dipole? I'm assuming yes.


Yes.




> Also what is the best solution for my bedroom for really late night listening. I would prefer to use my Emotiva setup since it's a lot clearer than the tv speakers but the sub seems to still hit really hard with dynamic volume set to Heavy and the volume of the avr at a crazy -50. So dynamic volume must not hurt the sub any then?


I don't use DV so I can't say for certain, but it should be reducing the sub output. You could always just turn the sub down. 




> Finally for the theater room do I want loud management set to ON? I never noticed this setting before but it's set to ON.


Loudness Management should be off for any sort of critical listening as it will add compression to the incoming audio.


----------



## BNestico

Can anyone tell me if there’s a trick to just calibrate your subs with Audyssey and not have to go through the entire thing? I’ve been trying my subs in different locations throughout my room and it sucks having to go through the entire set up process every time.


----------



## pbarach

BNestico said:


> Can anyone tell me if there’s a trick to just calibrate your subs with Audyssey and not have to go through the entire thing? I’ve been trying my subs in different locations throughout my room and it sucks having to go through the entire set up process every time.


No, there is no trick like that--you either do the whole calibration or no calibration. And it makes sense that Audyssey works that way, because moving around the subs will affect the way that the other speakers should be calibrated around the area of the crossover frequency.


----------



## markmanner

BNestico said:


> Can anyone tell me if there’s a trick to just calibrate your subs with Audyssey and not have to go through the entire thing? I’ve been trying my subs in different locations throughout my room and it sucks having to go through the entire set up process every time.


I think Mike Thomas (or someone, apologies Mike if not you) suggested in his Audyssey/Subwoofer threads that for testing purposes you can do a truncated Audyssey run with just a couple positions rather than the usual 6 or 8. I think that when doing the Audyssey run there will be a box to complete the process early. This will let you see how it is looking in various spots, then when you find what you like you can do a full run. Others may comment on this,
Mark

[Edit: to speed up the process for testing of sub placements, you could also tell your AVR that you only have the subs and Front L/R speaker. It won't be perfect but perhaps it would let you check a lot of positions quickly]


----------



## mthomas47

BNestico said:


> Can anyone tell me if there’s a trick to just calibrate your subs with Audyssey and not have to go through the entire thing? I’ve been trying my subs in different locations throughout my room and it sucks having to go through the entire set up process every time.





markmanner said:


> I think Mike Thomas (or someone, apologies Mike if not you) suggested in his Audyssey/Subwoofer threads that for testing purposes you can do a truncated Audyssey run with just a couple positions rather than the usual 6 or 8. I think that when doing the Audyssey run there will be a box to complete the process early. This will let you see how it is looking in various spots, then when you find what you like you can do a full run. Others may comment on this,
> Mark
> 
> [Edit: to speed up the process for testing of sub placements, you could also tell your AVR that you only have the subs and Front L/R speaker. It won't be perfect but perhaps it would let you check a lot of positions quickly]


You are right, Mark! I have a note about that in the section on calibration in the Guide. In some of the slightly older AVR's, such as my Marantz SR7008, it is possible to calibrate after the first microphone position. In the newer Marantz/Denon units, I believe that it is necessary to do the first three mic positions. As you say, there should be a box with the option to either calibrate, or to continue.

I have never tried just changing my speaker configuration, but that would also be an ingenious way to abbreviate the calibration process, particularly for someone wanting to measure the blend between subs and CC, or between subs and front speakers. If someone had an Atmos system, that could really save some time.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I guess I should add that Audyssey sets filters for each channel independently, with no regard for what other channels are doing. And, crossovers for the regular channels (the speakers) are set solely based on their measured F3 points. Audyssey measures the FR of each speaker and reports that information to the AVR, which then sets the crossovers in accordance with its own programming. The crossovers are set by the AVR, while the filters are set by Audyssey. The crossover setting process is explained in some detail in this section:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D


----------



## BNestico

Well I found the sweet spot now with my subs. Now I’m wondering if I should run it again tomorrow anyway because I put the gain knob on both my subs (old style SVS 525 watt BASH amps) right at 1/4 before I ran Audyssey and it set both my subs at 0.0 on the AVR. Wondering if I shouldn’t turn the subs up and try to get the volume in the avr down to about -5 or so. On a side note, XT32 really is amazing. I had my subs in the same position as they are now when I originally got the 2nd sub. The MCACC on the Pioneer VSX-1122 I had at the time could never make them work in the front corners of the room. I could alway localize the one on the left. Now, with the subs in the same position XT32 makes it seem like a completely different room.


----------



## mthomas47

BNestico said:


> Well I found the sweet spot now with my subs. Now I’m wondering if I should run it again tomorrow anyway because I put the gain knob on both my subs (old style SVS 525 watt BASH amps) right at 1/4 before I ran Audyssey and it set both my subs at 0.0 on the AVR. Wondering if I shouldn’t turn the subs up and try to get the volume in the avr down to about -5 or so. On a side note, XT32 really is amazing. I had my subs in the same position as they are now when I originally got the 2nd sub. The MCACC on the Pioneer VSX-1122 I had at the time could never make them work in the front corners of the room. I could alway localize the one on the left. Now, with the subs in the same position XT32 makes it seem like a completely different room.


That's excellent! I am glad to hear that you are enjoying XT-32. I would definitely raise the gain on the subs and then rerun Audyssey. If possible, you do want to keep your AVR trim fairly low, and your gain correspondingly high. That not only helps with potential clipping, but it can also enable you to take better advantage of your full output capabilities.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BNestico

mthomas47 said:


> That's excellent! I am glad to hear that you are enjoying XT-32. I would definitely raise the gain on the subs and then rerun Audyssey. If possible, you do want to keep your AVR trim fairly low, and your gain correspondingly high. That not only helps with potential clipping, but it can also enable you to take better advantage of your full output capabilities.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yea that’s what I was thinking, when I had the subs in their last positions the volumes on both were set at about a quarter and they were in the negatives. So I just figured they’d work this way too. My dogs hate the WAP! WAP! WAP! WAP! from the speakers and I’m about tired of it too but hopefully tomorrow will be the last time I have to do it for a while. 

Also a little hack for anyone who might be a drummer that finds themselves in this hobby. I found that cymbal stands work very well for placing the Audyssey mic. I have an old boom stand that I’ve dedicated to mic duty and I’m able to put the mic exactly where I want it regardless of furniture.


----------



## Oil of OLED

Does anyone use Audyssey LFC to prevent complaints from neighbors? Is it effective with a downfiring sub, or would I be better off with a front-firing option?

My subwoofer is on a wooden floor; I assume I should get a thick carpet square to isolate it a bit?

SubDude? Bass traps? What's the best way to contain low frequencies at the lowest cost to SQ? I can enjoy late night surround sound safely using Dynamic Volume — if I can just get the bass under control I can enjoy my system worry-free. Thanks in advance for any replies.


----------



## BNestico

Oil of OLED said:


> Does anyone use Audyssey LFC to prevent complaints from neighbors? Is it effective with a downfiring sub, or would I be better off with a front-firing option?
> 
> My subwoofer is on a wooden floor; I assume I should get a thick carpet square to isolate it a bit?
> 
> SubDude? Bass traps? What's the best way to contain low frequencies at the lowest cost to SQ? I can enjoy late night surround sound safely using Dynamic Volume — if I can just get the bass under control I can enjoy my system worry-free. Thanks in advance for any replies.


Try the SVS isolation feet. They worked pretty good for me.


----------



## mthomas47

Oil of OLED said:


> Does anyone use Audyssey LFC to prevent complaints from neighbors? Is it effective with a downfiring sub, or would I be better off with a front-firing option?
> 
> My subwoofer is on a wooden floor; I assume I should get a thick carpet square to isolate it a bit?
> 
> SubDude? Bass traps? What's the best way to contain low frequencies at the lowest cost to SQ? I can enjoy late night surround sound safely using Dynamic Volume — if I can just get the bass under control I can enjoy my system worry-free. Thanks in advance for any replies.


Hi,

Some people do use the low-frequency containment feature, or they reduce their master volume or subwoofer volume to avoid bothering neighbors. You can certainly put something under the subwoofer to isolate it a bit from a suspended wood floor. That will help with unwanted vibrations within the room, and in adjoining spaces.

But, bass frequencies are omnidirectional, and low-bass frequencies travel through all of the surfaces within a room to adjoining spaces. Controlling your overall volume, or your subwoofer volume, or attenuating low-frequencies with LFC, are probably going to be the only reliable ways to resolve the problem.

Remember that LFC attenuates low-frequencies in all of the channels and not just for the subwoofer. Dynamic Volume will compress low and high-frequencies a bit in order to maintain a more uniform volume level. That is also a feature you might try. I think that you will just need to experiment with different volume levels, and settings, to find the best overall compromise for your specific situation.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## iStorm

Hey guys down in the basement I have 2 movie chairs with center console on each side of each other and then a walkway in between.. I'll show a picture below, but what is the best spot to use as my MLP when Calibrating with the mic? Would I do step 1 for example for the mic in the chair that I listen to in the most? 

I tried to calibrate it just putting the mic at ear level in the center of the floor where the walkway is in between both chair sets, but I'm not getting that good of dialogue from the center this way. I also should mention I already have my center channel angled up with the tweeter at ear level.

Here is a picture:










As you can noticed there is a slight walkway in the middle.. that is where I was putting the mic before, but I was thinking about doing it in the chair to the left of the middle where I usually sit (to the left of the TV). 

Thanks in advance


----------



## Alan P

Oil of OLED said:


> Does anyone use Audyssey LFC to prevent complaints from neighbors? Is it effective with a downfiring sub, or would I be better off with a front-firing option?
> 
> My subwoofer is on a wooden floor; I assume I should get a thick carpet square to isolate it a bit?
> 
> SubDude? Bass traps? What's the best way to contain low frequencies at the lowest cost to SQ? I can enjoy late night surround sound safely using Dynamic Volume — if I can just get the bass under control I can enjoy my system worry-free. Thanks in advance for any replies.


Just wanted to add to Mike's spot-on (per usual) advice and say that it will make absolutely no difference whether you are using a down-firing or front-firing sub...bass is bass. 



EDIT: OK, maybe a slight difference if you are talking about downstairs neighbors...in that case, the down-firing sub may annoy them a bit more.


----------



## Alan P

iStorm said:


> Hey guys down in the basement I have 2 movie chairs with center console on each side of each other and then a walkway in between.. I'll show a picture below, but what is the best spot to use as my MLP when Calibrating with the mic? Would I do step 1 for example for the mic in the chair that I listen to in the most?
> 
> I tried to calibrate it just putting the mic at ear level in the center of the floor where the walkway is in between both chair sets, but I'm not getting that good of dialogue from the center this way. I also should mention I already have my center channel angled up with the tweeter at ear level.
> 
> As you can noticed there is a slight walkway in the middle.. that is where I was putting the mic before, but I was thinking about doing it in the chair to the left of the middle where I usually sit (to the left of the TV).
> 
> Thanks in advance


The MLP is, by definition, the Main Listening Position and the first measurement should be exactly where your head would be while listening.

I would also make sure to cover your chair back with some big fluffy towels in order to reduce unwanted reflections during calibration.


----------



## iStorm

Alan P said:


> The MLP is, by definition, the Main Listening Position and the first measurement should be exactly where your head would be while listening.
> 
> I would also make sure to cover your chair back with some big fluffy towels in order to reduce unwanted reflections during calibration.


Hey, here are some more pictures of the room, please let me know if you have any other recommendations:

So literally use some towels that I would shower with to put over the chairs? Won't this mess with the calibration since I am not going to have the towels permanently there?

Do you think with where the surrounds are at they need to be in dipole mode? 
Also what do you think about the sub placement in the back of the chair?

Thanks


----------



## iStorm

Alan P said:


> The MLP is, by definition, the Main Listening Position and the first measurement should be exactly where your head would be while listening.
> 
> I would also make sure to cover your chair back with some big fluffy towels in order to reduce unwanted reflections during calibration.


I forget to add... So MLP is always just for the main person watching? So if it is always my fiance and I, I just need to pick the spot who listens more? 

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> Hey guys down in the basement I have 2 movie chairs with center console on each side of each other and then a walkway in between.. I'll show a picture below, but what is the best spot to use as my MLP when Calibrating with the mic? Would I do step 1 for example for the mic in the chair that I listen to in the most?
> 
> I tried to calibrate it just putting the mic at ear level in the center of the floor where the walkway is in between both chair sets, but I'm not getting that good of dialogue from the center this way. I also should mention I already have my center channel angled up with the tweeter at ear level.
> 
> Here is a picture:
> 
> 
> As you can noticed there is a slight walkway in the middle.. that is where I was putting the mic before, but I was thinking about doing it in the chair to the left of the middle where I usually sit (to the left of the TV).
> 
> Thanks in advance


Hi,

That's an interesting question which was hotly debated on the thread at various times. (I have edited-out something based on the additional pictures in your subsequent post. I would definitely not make mic position 1 the open space between the two pairs of chairs. I would start with mic position 1 where my head would be. And, I would angle the center channel a little toward that spot.)

My personal perspective is that if you are the only one who is using the sound system most of the time, that you will get much better results if mic position one is where your head is. Audyssey is usually going to EQ a fairly large area, in any case, depending both on the size of your microphone pattern and the relative uniformity of the native frequency response within the seating area. The main things that change with the placement of mic position 1 are the timing and trim levels of the various channels.

Timing differences should be relatively modest, but the closer you are to the speakers on your left or on your right, or the more off-center you are with respect to a phantom center created by two front speakers, the more that you may notice differences in volume from those speakers. So, many (most) people who are the main users of their audio systems probably choose to concentrate timing and trim levels on their personal listening chairs. But, this is strictly a YMMV issue. There isn't a right or wrong way to do it--just a personal preference.

One thing that confuses me a little about your post is the fact that you hear some dialogue difference, calibrating from the center position between the seats. Does the center channel aim directly at that spot? If so, assuming that you are typically the only user, you might want to consider biasing it (or angling it) a little toward your listening position. Some center channels don't have very good horizontal dispersion characteristics.

Something to keep in mind when you do decide where to position mic 1 is that most people who watch/listen with you will not be nearly as attuned as you will be to audio nuances. Most HT/audio hobbyists are far more likely to notice subtle changes, or imperfections, in audio than their significant other or their guests. Again, YMMV!

Regards,
Mike


Edit: With respect to the blanket over the chair back during calibration, the reason why that works is explained in detail in the section linked below. You really need to read this stuff if you want to understand how things work. Scroll down to Room EQ and Calibration Techniques.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#B


----------



## iStorm

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's an interesting question which was hotly debated on the thread at various times. Before answering, though, I think I will point out something else. If I understood what you said, you usually sit in the chair next to the wall, where the blanket is. Have you tried sitting in the other chair? I would expect you to get better overall sound if you got further away from the speaker on that wall.
> 
> My personal perspective is that if you are the only one who is using the sound system most of the time, that you will get much better results if mic position one is where your head is. Audyssey is usually going to EQ a fairly large area, in any case, depending both on the size of your microphone pattern and the relative uniformity of the native frequency response within the seating area. The main things that change with the placement of mic position 1 are the timing and trim levels of the various channels.
> 
> Timing differences should be relatively modest, but the closer you are to the speakers on your left or on your right, or the more off-center you are with respect to a phantom center created by two front speakers, the more that you may notice differences in volume from those speakers. So, many (most) people who are the main users of their audio systems probably choose to concentrate timing and trim levels on their personal listening chairs. But, this is strictly a YMMV issue. There isn't a right or wrong way to do it--just a personal preference.
> 
> One thing that confuses me a little about your post is the fact that you hear some dialogue difference, calibrating from the center position between the seats. Does the center channel aim directly at that spot? If so, assuming that you are typically the only user, you might want to consider biasing it (or angling it) a little toward your listening position. Some center channels don't have very good horizontal dispersion characteristics.
> 
> Something to keep in mind when you do decide where to position mic 1 is that most people who watch/listen with you will not be nearly as attuned as you will be to audio nuances. Most HT/audio hobbyists are far more likely to notice subtle changes, or imperfections, in audio than their significant other or their guests. Again, YMMV!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Edit: With respect to the blanket over the chair back during calibration, the reason why that works is explained in detail in the section linked below. You really need to read this stuff if you want to understand how things work.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#B


Hey thanks for the reply again Mike! Most of the time that this space is used it is just me and my fiance or it is me, my fiance, and my parents. I always sit at the chair that doesn't have the blanket on it. Looking at the picture, do I have the surrounds too low? They are just slightly above ear level. SVS recommends 24-36 inches I believe above ear height. I'm not sure if I measured.

Now that you see the surrounds, do you think dipole would be a better option for the surrounds? 

So knowing that I typically sit in the chair to the right of the one with the blanket and my fiance typically sits in the chair opposite of me (the one opposite of the walkway so to the right of the center walkway). Where is it best to do the microphone 1? I'm assuming at my chair? What about for the other mic positions for this room? I know it is tricky since I have a center walkway and then 2 couches basically. Any help would be appreciated. 

Thanks I have been going through the guides but haven't finished them all yet. I just feel like I have been messing with this stuff forever now and can never seem to get anything right and always have to change everything. 

As for the center, I can't angle it with the stand I have it on. I already have door stoppers on it to elevated it on the 2nd shelf of a glass stand.


----------



## Alan P

iStorm said:


> Hey, here are some more pictures of the room, please let me know if you have any other recommendations:
> 
> So literally use some towels that I would shower with to put over the chairs? Won't this mess with the calibration since I am not going to have the towels permanently there?
> 
> Do you think with where the surrounds are at they need to be in dipole mode?
> Also what do you think about the sub placement in the back of the chair?


Mike gave you a link to explain the purpose of the towel(s). 

RE: dipole vs. bipole...I would try it both ways and see which you prefer. This hobby is not always about hard and fast rules, a large part of it is _preference _and the only way to find out what you prefer is by experimentation.

RE: sub placement...NF (near-field) placement like in your pic _should _result in more TR (tactile response) along with helping to remove the influence of the room. That being said, no one here can tell you from a pic or diagram where in your room the sub will work the best. The way to find out is...you guessed it...experimentation! If you want to dive a bit deeper down the rabbit hole, then REW+calibrated mic. 



iStorm said:


> I forget to add... So MLP is always just for the main person watching? So if it is always my fiance and I, *I just need to pick the spot who listens more?*


In most cases, it's who _appreciates _it more. 


Read Mike's guide, it will clear up a lot for you.


----------



## Alan P

iStorm said:


> Hey thanks for the reply again Mike! Most of the time that this space is used it is just me and my fiance or it is me, my fiance, and my parents. I always sit at the chair that doesn't have the blanket on it. Looking at the picture, do I have the surrounds too low? They are just slightly above ear level. SVS recommends 24-36 inches I believe above ear height. I'm not sure if I measured.
> 
> Now that you see the surrounds, do you think dipole would be a better option for the surrounds?
> 
> So knowing that I typically sit in the chair to the right of the one with the blanket and my fiance typically sits in the chair opposite of me (the one opposite of the walkway so to the right of the center walkway). Where is it best to do the microphone 1? I'm assuming at my chair? What about for the other mic positions for this room? I know it is tricky since I have a center walkway and then 2 couches basically. Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks I have been going through the guides but haven't finished them all yet. I just feel like I have been messing with this stuff forever now and can never seem to get anything right and always have to change everything.
> 
> As for the center, I can't angle it with the stand I have it on. I already have door stoppers on it to elevated it on the 2nd shelf of a glass stand.


If you both sit in the center-most chairs, I don't think you need to worry about angling the center, it should be fine.

Since you are using dipole/bipole surrounds, they may be mounted a bit on the low side...but first, how does it sound to you? Are the surrounds overwhelming at all?

I've been "messing with [home theater] stuff" for over 25 years...it's a never ending journey my friend.


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> Hey thanks for the reply again Mike! Most of the time that this space is used it is just me and my fiance or it is me, my fiance, and my parents. I always sit at the chair that doesn't have the blanket on it. Looking at the picture, do I have the surrounds too low? They are just slightly above ear level. SVS recommends 24-36 inches I believe above ear height. I'm not sure if I measured.
> 
> Now that you see the surrounds, do you think dipole would be a better option for the surrounds?
> 
> So knowing that I typically sit in the chair to the right of the one with the blanket and my fiance typically sits in the chair opposite of me (the one opposite of the walkway so to the right of the center walkway). Where is it best to do the microphone 1? I'm assuming at my chair? What about for the other mic positions for this room? I know it is tricky since I have a center walkway and then 2 couches basically. Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks I have been going through the guides but haven't finished them all yet. I just feel like I have been messing with this stuff forever now and can never seem to get anything right and always have to change everything.
> 
> As for the center, I can't angle it with the stand I have it on. I already have door stoppers on it to elevated it on the 2nd shelf of a glass stand.


You are welcome! I edited my previous post based on the additional pictures. I definitely think that mic position 1 should be where your head is. If you pull your center channel forward a little (which would be good anyway) you should be able to angle it a little. You can either have a money seat, or you can have every seat equal, but somewhat equally bad. It's your choice.

If I were you, I would turn loose of the bipole/dipole issue. If you can't hear any difference between the two modes, then there isn't one. Personally, I would just stay with bipole and move on to more important issues. Your surround speaker height looks fine.

It's okay to ask for advice. We all need a little reassurance at times, but if you simultaneously second-guess every single thing you are doing, you won't get anywhere. There is no hurry here. Just take your time, read a bit, experiment when you feel like it, and let yourself get wherever it is you want to go a little more gradually. Instant gratification with respect to HT is very rare. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## iStorm

Alan P said:


> Mike gave you a link to explain the purpose of the towel(s).
> 
> RE: dipole vs. bipole...I would try it both ways and see which you prefer. This hobby is not always about hard and fast rules, a large part of it is _preference _and the only way to find out what you prefer is by experimentation.
> 
> RE: sub placement...NF (near-field) placement like in your pic _should _result in more TR (tactile response) along with helping to remove the influence of the room. That being said, no one here can tell you from a pic or diagram where in your room the sub will work the best. The way to find out is...you guessed it...experimentation! If you want to dive a bit deeper down the rabbit hole, then REW+calibrated mic.
> 
> 
> 
> In most cases, it's who _appreciates _it more.
> 
> 
> Read Mike's guide, it will clear up a lot for you.


Hey thanks for the reply and I apologize if I'm asking too many questions that can be answered by reading the full articles. I have read some of it and some of it is confusing. 

Anyways I will finish it all. All in all I gave my SVS gear to my parents for allowing us to stay here and I'm just trying to do my best to give them and my fiance and me a good experience while we live here. 

Everything budget wise is all out of my pocket because they don't see the value in modern technology until I actually show them or let them listen to what it sounds like. 

For instance their plasma died and I got them a good deal on an OLED tv from Cleveland plasma. Now they have 4 OLEDS in the house. If it wasn't for me showing them what a beautiful display looked like, then they would have never spent over 10k+ on a 77" oled tv. So if I tell them they need an extra sub or acoustic panels to eliminate reflections they are not going to see the value of it. 

So overall after trying out 3 positions the nearfield behind the seat gives me the most shake which I like so I'll just stick with that. I was just seeing if you had any other ideas for nearfield that might work with all 4 chairs and shake them all? 

Having closets in the back of the room makes it pretty tricky. I just don't want to waste time putting a sub somewhere that won't even be good for sound acoustics at all. 

Having said that, would having the sub nearfield back behind all of the chairs be a good idea at all? Like in between the walkway/movie shelves? Obviously I would have it a bit further back so it doesn't get in the way of the center walkway but having it literally in the center between those two movie shelfs? Or maybe taking out the movie shelfs if I did this? I'm not sure if they matter since the pc13 ultra is a cylinder down firing sub. 

I realize it all comes down to playing with different setups and I have gotten to the point where I've made my family mad sometimes because I fiddle with things too much.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

As I've said, there is no way for us to tell where in the room your sub will work best. You're just gonna have to do it like we do...start pushing! 

Are you aware that you can lay that sub down on it's side without any loss of performance? Opens up even more placement options! Enjoy!!


----------



## garygarrison

BNestico said:


> Also a little hack for anyone who might be a drummer that finds themselves in this hobby. I found that cymbal stands work very well for placing the Audyssey mic. I have an old boom stand that I’ve dedicated to mic duty and I’m able to put the mic exactly where I want it regardless of furniture.


Interesting idea. I'm a former drummer (orchestra and band), but I sold my last cymbal stand. I predict you will enjoy the sound of cymbals and their complex overtones with a Well-Tempered Audyssey. I'm curious to know which you prefer with cymbals, Audyssey [reference] or Audyssey Flat.


----------



## Oil of OLED

Alan P said:


> Just wanted to add to Mike's spot-on (per usual) advice and say that it will make absolutely no difference whether you are using a down-firing or front-firing sub...bass is bass.
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: OK, maybe a slight difference if you are talking about downstairs neighbors...in that case, the down-firing sub may annoy them a bit more.


Thanks! This is a happy ending. My *upstairs* neighbor gave the output from my emotiva basx8 the thumbs up with LFC set to just 1. Seems like a little goes a long way


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... most people who watch/listen with you will not be nearly as attuned as you will be to audio nuances. Most HT/audio hobbyists are far more likely to notice subtle changes, or imperfections, in audio than their significant other or their guests. Again, YMMV! ...


While I agree, I would add that some of the people, some of the time, including hardened non-audiophiles in the audience, may have their enjoyment of the music or movie affected by the audio nuances without realizing that this is what is happening. This might be particularly true with dynamics, general complexity of the audio, high frequency detail/complexity and the rest of Berlyne's variables** * These nuances of reproduction may also affect memorability, the rating they would give the movie or music, etc. But, as you say, for many people, the nuances would not make a difference. YMMV and TMMV

* D. E. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology


----------



## iStorm

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! I edited my previous post based on the additional pictures. I definitely think that mic position 1 should be where your head is. If you pull your center channel forward a little (which would be good anyway) you should be able to angle it a little. You can either have a money seat, or you can have every seat equal, but somewhat equally bad. It's your choice.
> 
> If I were you, I would turn loose of the bipole/dipole issue. If you can't hear any difference between the two modes, then there isn't one. Personally, I would just stay with bipole and move on to more important issues. Your surround speaker height looks fine.
> 
> It's okay to ask for advice. We all need a little reassurance at times, but if you simultaneously second-guess every single thing you are doing, you won't get anywhere. There is no hurry here. Just take your time, read a bit, experiment when you feel like it, and let yourself get wherever it is you want to go a little more gradually. Instant gratification with respect to HT is very rare.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I think I responded to the wrong thread when I was responding a few minutes ago.

It is always at least 2 people in the theater in the basement (me and my fiancé or my parents). It is occasionally sometimes all 4 of us, but usually it is just my parents or me and my fiancé. So with that said, what would be the best way to calibrate the mic positions? As I mentioned yesterday, I sit in the seat that is closest to the center walkway to the right of the TV and then when it is 2 people in there the other person sits on the opposite side of right by the walkway to the left of the TV. Thats' why I figured putting it in the center would be a good idea, but again, I'm not really versed in this. I am starting to read both of these write-ups and see if that helps, but I will still need guidance on where to put the mic. 

As far as the dipole vs bipole thing. I haven't actually tried it and I have noticed if I sit on the chair that is closest to the wall when there are 4 people in the room, the surround comes out of there basically in your face. Maybe that's why Alan suggested that if they are side surrounds and no back surrounds then dipole is the way to go because they are out of phase?

As for the height, I read two different variations. I thought that side surrounds were supposed to be ear level with the tweeters like every other speaker in the room but when I re-read the SVS ultra surround manual it says to place them 24 to 36 inches above head height. So wouldn't that mean that I should put them higher up on the wall? This would probably help with being pretty much right up on the surround speaker on that outer chair by the wall too, right?

I responded to the center channel thing in the other thread. Since it is not just me listening to the dialogue, I will just keep the center non angled, but when you say to move the center forward more, how much further can I move it? Does it need to be like hanging off the stand or something? It seems like it is pretty much flush with the end of the stand already at the base of the center channel, wouldn't that eliminate the reflections?

I will definitely try the towel trick and read the subwoofer thread as mentioned right after I'm done replying even though I don't understand it all. 

Finally, when I tow in the front towers, where would the optimal spot be to match the tweeters up? Would I match one up with the left chair MLP (my chair) and then match the other tweeter in line towed to the right chair (my fiance's chair)? That makes the most sense to me. 

Thanks and sorry for all of the continued questions. I'm trying to get this dialed in so everyone can enjoy. 



Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> As I've said, there is no way for us to tell where in the room your sub will work best. You're just gonna have to do it like we do...start pushing!
> 
> Are you aware that you can lay that sub down on it's side without any loss of performance? Opens up even more placement options! Enjoy!!


Hey Alan, I posted a picture in the other thread, but this is what I have right now which is similar to what I had at my condo when we just had one couch and we couch always feel the crazy bass shake our chairs. It seems like with it here it will still shake the other 2 chairs (my parents chairs if they sit in there) a bit as well. I will just have to run it as hot as possible like +5DB on the receiver and then another +3 volume or so on the amp on the sub.

I just need to know if the driver's base should be touching the corner wall or if it should be breathing a bit from the wall like other speakers so out a couple of inches. I know for instance if I have my SB 12 sealed sub in the corner in my bedroom right up against the wall it is a lot boomier so I had to pull it out a bit. Is that the same for the cylinder style sub or is it okay flush up against the wall?

Here is the pictures I posted in the other thread: thanks


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> Try a few, and go with the one that sounds the best.
> 
> Your room and speakers are arranged fairly symmetrically.
> 
> I'd think your seat (head position) would be the MLP. I get pretty good results, with a 5 seat couch, with 3 mic positions at ear height (one at each ear position, and one where the center of my head would be), and the other 5 positions spread around the other seats. The really surprising thing is that the two end seats are good. Given age and gender, your fiance probably has the best ears, everything else being equal. Which of those 4 people are audiophiles, and which are not?
> 
> Having the surrounds a little high avoids the heads of the listeners, or the seat backs, casting sonic shadows. I like them somewhat behind the listeners instead of straight to the side, for the same reason. In your local commercial theater, the surrounds are probably somewhat high, and the studio mixers know that.


Hey Gary, thanks for your reply! This room with this 2 of theses 2 seater with center console couch recliners is just tricky because the center of the listening area where the center channel points is exactly in the center where the walkway is. That's why I figured the mic would go there, but then again no one can listen to anything there so it makes it tricky so that's why it makes sense for the mic to be based around my listening position as the MLP.

This is what I wrote in the other thread to Mike and see if you agree or disagree on my thinking when it comes to calibrating with my MLP in mind versus how I have it calibrated in the center walkway right now. It would be helpful to get as many perspectives on this as possible. 

*"If I am gathering this right then this is how the different mic positions would be based off of Mic 1 at my seat. 

Mic 2 would be ear height sitting on the console (if you look at the picture the console is right in between the 2 seats. It would be directly to my left. 

Mic 3 would be the right of me at ear level on the walkway (floor) next to my "money" seat.

Mic 4 would be on the floor at the front of my seat (on the floor where my feet are).

Mic 5 would be in front of my center console on the floor at ear height.

Mic 6 would be in front of the walkway right by my chair on the floor where my chair ends. 

Mic 7 would be behind my couch positioned right in between the console and my seat.

Mic 8 would be behind my couch in between the walkway and my seat at the edge of my seat.

So with this mic positioning none of the mic positions would be geared close to the other couch, correct? Or do I have this all wrong? 

Before I had it like this:

Mic 1 at center walkway on floor at ear height
Mic 2 on my chair at ear height
Mic 3 on the chair of the other couch closest to the walkway at ear height
Mic 4 in front of the walkway on the floor
Mic 5 in front of my chair
Mic 6 in front of the chair on the other couch closest to the walkway (my fiance's seat when she sits with me).
Mic 7 In between my chair and the walkway
Mic 8 In between the walkway and the other couch chair 

Please let me know. I hope this explains it all well."*

I have started reading the threads and I'm already confused on the dipole versus bipole thing. It says that for movies and from what Audyssey recommends dipole is best but then on the blu-ray.com article from 2008 it sounds like bipole might be preferred due to the newer 5.1 and 7.1 setups. Everything I have read also states that the side surrounds are usually at ear level and that's why Audyssey shows it like that in their diagrams but specifically for MOVIE watching it is recommended to have the side surrounds 2 to 3 feet above ear level when sitting down. I'm assuming that means that the tweeters on the side surrounds need to be 2 to 3 feet above where my ear level when sitting is, correct?

Finally, so when you say having them a little high avoid sonic shadows, it would be a good idea for me to put them up 2 to 3 feet then from ear level when sitting? I just only want to drill into the wall one last time and get the side surrounds exactly where they need to go. Since both of the surrounds that I have (ultra surrounds SVS and Emotiva E2s) are ones with basically 2 speakers in one, I attach them to the wall so that the middle of the speaker (the shiny part for the SVS ultra surrounds and the big woofer on the E2 Emotivas) are both in line with the ear level. This way you have a portion of the speaker diffusing one way and then the other speaker diffusing the other way. If that makes sense? Is this okay since putting them further back even more is going to get into the back wall almost for this room. I am kind of limited for this room putting them in the back of me a bit, don't you think?

Thanks again


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm,

Don't be as concerned about what is "correct" or "recommended" as about what sounds good.

I wouldn't have any of the microphone positions on the floor, unless you mean that a mic stand would be sitting on the floor, and the mic diaphragm itself would be at seated ear level with, perhaps, a few positions (maybe 2) above ear level, and in front of the chairs. Pick one configuration, randomly, if necessary, and try it, and then listen to the result for a few weeks, trying all the chairs. If you think it is better than without Audyssey (you can switch Audyssey off and on during playback to compare) and it sounds good, keep it.

It takes several movies, over several weeks, to judge the surround, unless you're lucky and rent something like The Grey [a downer] in which the incident that happens about 1/4 or 1/3 of the way in can put surround all around you (with just 5.1), nearby, especially along the side walls and the front, and even some up and down (my surrounds are a little higher than people's heads).

Since you have the surrounds directly to the sides, you don't have to worry about seat back sonic shadows, just the sonic shadows caused by people's heads. I'd raise the surround speakers up a little.


----------



## markmanner

*Reference level in my setup*

Hi, this may not be completely on topic, but it does in some sense given what Audyssey is designed to do. I have seen some other threads about reference volume, but they are old and no activity now, and I also didn't see anything exactly on point other than some comments about whether your system can reach reference levels cleanly. Anyway, hopefully readers of this thread can comment on this. I used an online calculator to see what watts per channel were required to get reference peak levels of 105 db spl for the components of my 5.2.4 system using speaker distances and the sensitivity data below. 

At the Master Listening Position, 105 db without adding anything in for wall or corner enhancement required the following:

Front R/L ([email protected]/1m): *138 *watts [2ch. amp with 300 rated watts all channels driven];
Center ([email protected]/1m): *93* watts [3ch. amp with 300 rated watts all channels driven];
Surround R/L ([email protected]/1m): *83* watts [3ch. amp with 300 rated watts all channels driven];
Front Top R/L and Rear Top R/L ([email protected]/1m): *140* watts [5ch. amp with 200 rated watts all channels driven];

The above wattages needed for 105 db at MLP are separately calculated with multiple speaker reinforcement included just for the particular pair or group, and not for all 9 driven at once. As a rough estimate of what would happen with all driven, if I include a multiple speaker reinforcement number of -9db (which is what the calculator says for 9 speakers), that would increase the atmos speakers by 3 db, and the Front and Surround pairs by 6db, and the Center by 9db. If those numbers are plugged in, the required watts all drop further. There is also nothing added to reflect the contribution of my two powered subwoofers. I don't see a calculator for that, but as the 'reference' level peak for subs is 115 db, I am not sure how it would be reflected/incorporated here.

Given the above, it would appear to me that I would have no problem reaching reference levels with minimal distortion. Am I missing something? From an experience point of view, when I play at 0MV setting, it sounds loud and clear.


----------



## garygarrison

markmanner said:


> Hi, this may not be completely on topic, but it does in some sense given what Audyssey is designed to do. I have seen some other threads about reference volume, but they are old and no activity now, and I also didn't see anything exactly on point other than some comments about whether your system can reach reference levels cleanly. Anyway, hopefully readers of this thread can comment on this. I used an online calculator to see what watts per channel were required to get reference peak levels of 105 db spl for the components of my 5.2.4 system using speaker distances and the sensitivity data below.
> 
> At the Master Listening Position, 105 db without adding anything in for wall or corner enhancement required the following:
> 
> Front R/L ([email protected]/1m): *138 *watts [2ch. amp with 300 rated watts all channels driven];
> Center ([email protected]/1m): *93* watts [3ch. amp with 300 rated watts all channels driven];
> Surround R/L ([email protected]/1m): *83* watts [3ch. amp with 300 rated watts all channels driven];
> Front Top R/L and Rear Top R/L ([email protected]/1m): *140* watts [5ch. amp with 200 rated watts all channels driven];
> 
> The above wattages needed for 105 db at MLP are separately calculated with multiple speaker reinforcement included just for the particular pair or group, and not for all 9 driven at once. As a rough estimate of what would happen with all driven, if I include a multiple speaker reinforcement number of -9db (which is what the calculator says for 9 speakers), that would increase the atmos speakers by 3 db, and the Front and Surround pairs by 6db, and the Center by 9db. If those numbers are plugged in, the required watts all drop further. There is also nothing added to reflect the contribution of my two powered subwoofers. I don't see a calculator for that, but as the 'reference' level peak for subs is 115 db, I am not sure how it would be reflected/incorporated here.
> 
> Given the above, it would appear to me that I would have no problem reaching reference levels with minimal distortion. Am I missing something? From an experience point of view, when I play at 0MV setting, it sounds loud and clear.



What is the continuous and peak power handling capacity of each of your speakers? That spec is sometimes unreliable, but you might as well be aware of the speaker manufacturer's take on it..

_*Stereophile*_ measured the MaXX2 at a few dB below the sensitivity at which Wilson rated it. Here is that article: https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/805wilson/index.html I'll be back to give you one more piece of info, so stay tuned. I'm back. Here is a Google spread sheet of Reference Capable Loudspeakers. They are on no particular order. I saw some Wilsons on the list, but didn't see the MaXX2s there, but go ahead and look -- I'll bet you find them! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jq4FP-YVxsTHV4_IDzIXx1UMhMZIYA2yDXd9wjUEW9c/edit#gid=0


----------



## markmanner

garygarrison said:


> What is the continuous and peak power handling capacity of each of your speakers? That spec is sometimes unreliable, but you might as well be aware of the speaker manufacturer's take on it..
> 
> _*Stereophile*_ measured the MaXX2 at a few dB below the sensitivity at which Wilson rated it. Here is that article: https://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/805wilson/index.html I'll be back to give you one more piece of info, so stay tuned. I'm back. Here is a Google spread sheet of Reference Capable Loudspeakers. They are on no particular order. I saw some Wilsons on the list, but didn't see the MaXX2s there, but go ahead and look -- I'll bet you find them! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jq4FP-YVxsTHV4_IDzIXx1UMhMZIYA2yDXd9wjUEW9c/edit#gid=0


Hi Gary, I will check on the specs. I saw the list of speakers, but the way it was put together seemed to be in part based on owners sending in info to the creator of it, so it is probably not necessarily comprehensive. I will see if I can figure it out and add to it if appropriate.
[Edit: your comment about the Maxx2 Front L/R makes me recall that I read somewhere that the 105 spec may be measured with respect to the Front L/R speakers only? Is that correct or is it 105 db with all channels driven?]


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> iStorm,
> 
> Don't be as concerned about what is "correct" or "recommended" as about what sounds good.
> 
> I wouldn't have any of the microphone positions on the floor, unless you mean that a mic stand would be sitting on the floor, and the mic diaphragm itself would be at seated ear level with, perhaps, a few positions (maybe 2) above ear level, and in front of the chairs. Pick one configuration, randomly, if necessary, and try it, and then listen to the result for a few weeks, trying all the chairs. If you think it is better than without Audyssey (you can switch Audyssey off and on during playback to compare) and it sounds good, keep it.
> 
> It takes several movies, over several weeks, to judge the surround, unless you're lucky and rent something like The Grey [a downer] in which the incident that happens about 1/4 or 1/3 of the way in can put surround all around you (with just 5.1), nearby, especially along the side walls and the front, and even some up and down (my surrounds are a little higher than people's heads).
> 
> Since you have the surrounds directly to the sides, you don't have to worry about seat back sonic shadows, just the sonic shadows caused by people's heads. I'd raise the surround speakers up a little.


Hey, I have since read the subwoofer thread that m. thomas wrote and spent over half of my day (5+ hours reading it) and do not feel like it helped any with the explanation of any of this... It was just really technical driven and my fiance fell asleep. That's why reading things like this that I am not familiar with is better asked on the forums by people who actually understand this stuff.. What I got from the entire article after 5+ hours of reading was everything is pretty much YMMV and do whatever sounds best for the room type. That really doesn't help. I realize by asking for your guy's help it is not going to be clear cut to put something exactly right here and it is going to work 100% of the time.. but I figured since you guys are more well versed in this that you can give me recommendations on what to do.

I used to have the Grey but sold it off because I thought it was a terrible movie. Are there any other movies you can think of that would be a good test for the surrounds for dipole vs bipole and the sub having the driver against the wall vs port close to the wall? 

When I was talking about Mic positions I was always talking about putting the microphone stand on the floor with the microphone itself at ear height. From the other thread I went ahead and ordered the Boom Mic stand with mic holder for $19.75 on Amazon. That seems like a better alternative than the paper one I've been using that comes with my 2 Denon receivers. 

It sounds like I need to place the surrounds higher up but in the same position as they currently are. I will go off of the suggested 2-3 feet per SVS manual and Blu-ray.com as suggested in this thread. 

Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> ... I used to have the Grey but sold it off because I thought it was a terrible movie. Are there any other movies you can think of that would be a good test for the surrounds for dipole vs bipole and the sub having the driver against the wall vs port close to the wall? ...
> 
> ... It sounds like I need to place the surrounds higher up but in the same position as they currently are. I will go off of the suggested 2-3 feet per SVS manual and Blu-ray.com as suggested in this thread. ...


For the surrounds, maybe The Impossible (*NOT* the current one, but the *2012* film about a tourist family in Thailand caught in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami). You could always rent the Blu-ray version of The Grey just to evaluate your surround set-up. It's not too bad with an SSRI. Perhaps you can stream that one sequence, but there is no guarantee that either the SQ or the surround will be as good when streaming. I've noticed that the SQ in particular is sometimes not as good when streamed. Maybe it's streaming itself, or it is more compressed deliberately, or the gorilla got into the control room almost every time I've tried streaming. Maybe Dunkirk. Or Star Trek Into Darkness. Others, please chime in!

To test sub position, you can use the above, or a *test disk* and your ears, or an SPL meter, or REW (which gives you a graph of the sweep -- see the thread on AVS) or a music disk with plenty of bass ("In the Hall of the Mountain King" or "Fanfare for the Common Man."). The Crystal Clear Records version of Sonic Spectaculars, which includes Fanfare for the Common Man, makes my pants legs flap in the wind, and throws my desk out of square. Seriously. There are some movies I don't like that have powerful sub stuff, including Pacific Rim.


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> For the surrounds, maybe The Impossible (*NOT* the current one, but the *2012* film about a tourist family in Thailand caught in the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami). You could always rent the Blu-ray version of The Grey just to evaluate your surround set-up. It's not too bad with an SSRI. Perhaps you can stream that one sequence, but there is no guarantee that either the SQ or the surround will be as good when streaming. I've noticed that the SQ in particular is sometimes not as good when streamed. Maybe it's streaming itself, or it is more compressed deliberately, or the gorilla got into the control room almost every time I've tried streaming. Maybe Dunkirk. Or Star Trek Into Darkness. Others, please chime in!
> 
> To test sub position, you can use the above, or a *test disk* and your ears, or an SPL meter, or REW (which gives you a graph of the sweep -- see the thread on AVS) or a music disk with plenty of bass ("In the Hall of the Mountain King" or "Fanfare for the Common Man."). The Crystal Clear Records version of Sonic Spectaculars, which includes Fanfare for the Common Man, makes my pants legs flap in the wind, and throws my desk out of square. Seriously. There are some movies I don't like that have powerful sub stuff, including Pacific Rim.


Thanks buddy. I have Dunkirk in 4K along with star trek into darkness in 4K. I have most 4Ks that are out. I tried music when I was testing out different positions but I used YouTube and i think streaming just compressing all audio really bad. If you think about how large of a file just for a good blu ray audio track like DTS MA, it's like 20gb versus a 5.1 track on Netflix is probably about 200mb or less lol. 

I've always had to crank up Netflix movies to reference level and it still doesn't sound anywhere near the blu ray quality. 

I can't believe I'm still up. It's 4am wow. I've been trying everything to get these audio setups perfect so I don't need to tinker anymore. I wish my sub wasn't so large or else I would have put it in the MLP seat and did the sub crawl. 

Speaking of SPL meter. What would I do with it to measure sub levels? Would I sit at the MLP and measure the dbs in different spots or something? What would this do for me? What content do I test it on like the pink noise from the receiver or what?

Thanks buddy


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> I've been trying everything to get these audio setups perfect* so I don't need to tinker anymore*. I wish my sub wasn't so large or else I would have put it in the MLP seat and did the sub crawl.
> 
> Speaking of SPL meter. What would I do with it to measure sub levels? Would I sit at the MLP and measure the dbs in different spots or something? What would this do for me? What content do I test it on like the pink noise from the receiver or what?


Visualize your self driving down a highway. There are road signs with rather large numbers on them*:

*Number of miles to Saturn

Number of light years to Andromeda 

Number of decades until Gary gets organized

Number of decades until we don't need to tinker anymore.

* * * * * * * *

On second thought, using an SPL meter might not be a great idea, since a sub produces a *range* of frequencies. Which ones do you value most? The low ones or the relatively high ones (near your crossover, e.g., 80 Hz). With pink noise (from any source), you won't be able to distinguish between them, and you would have to turn off all speakers except the sub, if you can. You could use a series of bass tones from a test record. Make a data sheet that lists the frequencies of the tones, and columns with the sub positions, and enter all results, in dB, from the head position of your MLP, with the mic on a boom stand e.g.*:* 
FQ upright in corner ... on its side in corner ... behind MLP on side ... behind MLP upright
80
70
63
50
40
31.5
25
20
If you are most interested in the lowest frequencies, heed only those, and pick the sub position that produces the highest SPL for those. Unfortunately, most test disks stop at 20 Hz, a holdover from the 2 channel stereo days. Maybe one of the HT ones does not.


Or, you could just stick the sub all the way into the corner, upright, and call it a day.​​


----------



## Matt2026

garygarrison said:


> Or, you could just stick the sub all the way into the corner, upright, and call it a day.


That would basically be me. I'm an old guy and we used to go out, buy some equipment, 2 channel stereo, take it home, wire it up and enjoy

I'm a plug and play kinda guy. Put together my tiny HT setup 4 years ago. I mentioned recently that I moved my sub from the front wall where it has been since I bought it and placed it directly behind my seating.

I've never run Audyssey, just set the distances manually and adjusted each speaker volume to the same level by ear. System sounds great to ME and I enjoy watching TV and movies on my setup


----------



## Alan P

iStorm said:


> I can't believe I'm still up. It's 4am wow. I've been trying everything to get these audio setups perfect so I don't need to tinker anymore. I wish my sub wasn't so large or else I would have put it in the MLP seat and did the sub crawl.


From reading your posts iStorm, you sound a lot like me...you want to get every last drop of performance out of the hard-earned cash you spent on all that home theater gear and I sympathize with your plight.

You can look back to my early posts here on AVS and find that I was a lot like you...asking for the "perfect" settings for this or that piece of equipment. People did help, but what helped the most was just reading and learning...and that is something that you're not going to absorb and put into action in a few days/weeks/months.

You should resign yourself now to the fact that your setup will not be perfect for quite some time...maybe not ever, I know I don't consider mine "perfect" and I still tweak more often than I probably should. If you want to get close to "perfect", you'll have to put in the time and _learn_.


The guys on this thread and others have given you some great advice on specific questions, and if you have any specific questions concerning mthomas's guide, feel free to ask for clarification on any point you aren't understanding!


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> From reading your posts iStorm, you sound a lot like me...you want to get every last drop of performance out of the hard-earned cash you spent on all that home theater gear and I sympathize with your plight.
> 
> You can look back to my early posts here on AVS and find that I was a lot like you...asking for the "perfect" settings for this or that piece of equipment. People did help, but what helped the most was just reading and learning...and that is something that you're not going to absorb and put into action in a few days/weeks/months.
> 
> You should resign yourself now to the fact that your setup will not be perfect for quite some time...maybe not ever, I know I don't consider mine "perfect" and I still tweak more often than I probably should. If you want to get close to "perfect", you'll have to put in the time and _learn_.
> 
> 
> The guys on this thread and others have given you some great advice on specific questions, and if you have any specific questions concerning mthomas's guide, feel free to ask for clarification on any point you aren't understanding!


And, what seems to be "perfect," or at least excellent, with one movie or one music disk won't be for another. The various sound mixers, directors, composers/conductors (when they even have a say) have differing tastes, and the control rooms in which the mixes are created are different (contrary to rumor and industry policy -- Keith once posted a set of sweeps for various control rooms, and they are all over the frigg'n map! ), and, lastly, the media are different (original recordings made on modern digital tracks v. magnetic tracks (phased out -- sorry for the double meaning -- in the late '70s and early '80s), v. mono-optical tracks of the '30s and 40's, becoming less common in the '50s. 

I find that getting this stuff "right," for my taste, is, as my grandpappy never said, like carrying a horse up a ladder.


----------



## Aliens

*Rythmik FVX15*

LFE connection
Volume - mid
Delay Phase - 90
Crossover - 120
LPF slope - 12dB
Bass extension - low
Power - on


Denon AVR-X4400H

I'm trying to calibrate my entertainment room with the new Denon. During the setup phase, Audyssey is looking for 75dB and shows my initial calibration at 40.9dB and tells me to raise the volume to get to 75dB. I can turn the volume to high or off and it still registers 40.9dB while the volume does increase and decrease. I though I may have a defective mic, but I continued running Audyssey and had no further problems. That was yesterday. I wanted to give it another try today to see if I could get the sub correctly calibrated and had the same readings. At a loss.


----------



## bmcn

Aliens said:


> Volume - mid
> Delay Phase - 90
> Crossover - 120
> LPF slope - 12dB
> Bass extension - low
> Power - on
> 
> Denon AVR-X4400H
> 
> During the setup phase, Audyssey calibrates the sub at 40.9. I can turn the volume to high or off and it still registers 40.9 while the volume does increase and decrease. I though I may have a defective mic, but I continued running Audyssey and had no further problems. That was yesterday. I wanted to give it another try today to see if I could get the sub correctly calibrated and had the same readings. At a loss.


"calibrates the sub at 40.9"

Distance?


----------



## Aliens

Aliens said:


> LFE connection
> Volume - mid
> Delay Phase - 90
> Crossover - 120
> LPF slope - 12dB
> Bass extension - low
> Power - on
> 
> 
> Denon AVR-X4400H
> 
> I'm trying to calibrate my entertainment room with the new Denon. During the setup phase, Audyssey is looking for 75dB and shows my initial calibration at 40.9dB and tells me to raise the volume to get to 75dB. I can turn the volume to high or off and it still registers 40.9dB while the volume does increase and decrease. I though I may have a defective mic, but I continued running Audyssey and had no further problems. That was yesterday. I wanted to give it another try today to see if I could get the sub correctly calibrated and had the same readings. At a loss.


Did a reset of the receiver and still have the problem. Ordered a new mic.


----------



## markmanner

*Audyssey Microphone always connected?*

Hi, I tried searching to see if this had been answered, but didn't see anything. It is a bit of a contortion to plug and unplug my Audyssey microphone in the rear of my AVR. Is there any reason to not just leave it plugged in, maybe not forever but for one or two weeks at a time when testing various configurations? Audyssey has a couple of 'remove microphone' messages when the testing phase is complete. I would guess that is just a helpful reminder and not a directive, but I don't know.
Thanks for any thoughts on this not very important question.
Best,
Mark


----------



## dimanata2007

*Q:* A week ago or so I moved the sub and rerun Audyssey and no matter what I've tried it was not picking up my sub that was working perfectly before that. I checked the sub cable, setting, went and changed SUB to YES manually and ran Audyssey 3-4 times and every time it would set the system as 5.0. I had no other options, but reset the processor, only after that on the first run Audyssey picked up the sub. 
Yesterday I moved my speakers again and decided to rerun Audyssey and to my frustration the same thing happened again: 3 runs, 5.0 configuration, no subwoofer.... The only fix I came up with is to hard reset the AVR again.
WTF??? Is it Audissey or AVR related issue? Why after a hard reset Audyssey picks up the sub with no issues, but refuses t see it a few days-weeks later?

*Another question:* my setup is pretty capable and I never complained about mid bass before. When I switched to the x2400h right away I've noticed that mid bass got weak, not as realistic as before. I tried different settings and combination, but still can't find an EQ setting to increase the mid bass. 

Currently, after the last Audyssey my setting is:
Front- Small, crossed at 40, 
FL level -7, FR level -8

Center- Small, crossed at 60
Center level -6

Surround- Small, crossed at 150
SL level -4 , SR level -4.5

Sub - Yes, Sub level -12

Dialog level adjust ON, +1db
Subwoofer level +1
Cinema EQ- OFF
MultEQxt - ON, Reference, Reference level 10db
Dynamic Volume- OFF.

Any suggestions on what to turn ON or OFF to bring more mid bass?


----------



## markmanner

dimanata2007 said:


> *Q:* A week ago or so I moved the sub and rerun Audyssey and no matter what I've tried it was not picking up my sub that was working perfectly before that. I checked the sub cable, setting, went and changed SUB to YES manually and ran Audyssey 3-4 times and every time it would set the system as 5.0. I had no other options, but reset the processor, only after that on the first run Audyssey picked up the sub.
> Yesterday I moved my speakers again and decided to rerun Audyssey and to my frustration the same thing happened again: 3 runs, 5.0 configuration, no subwoofer.... The only fix I came up with is to hard reset the AVR again.
> WTF??? Is it Audissey or AVR related issue? Why after a hard reset Audyssey picks up the sub with no issues, but refuses t see it a few days-weeks later?
> 
> *Another question:* my setup is pretty capable and I never complained about mid bass before. When I switched to the x2400h right away I've noticed that mid bass got weak, not as realistic as before. I tried different settings and combination, but still can't find an EQ setting to increase the mid bass.
> 
> Currently, after the last Audyssey my setting is:
> Front- Small, crossed at 40,
> FL level -7, FR level -8
> 
> Center- Small, crossed at 60
> Center level -6
> 
> Surround- Small, crossed at 150
> SL level -4 , SR level -4.5
> 
> Sub - Yes, Sub level -12
> 
> Dialog level adjust ON, +1db
> Subwoofer level +1
> Cinema EQ- OFF
> MultEQxt - ON, Reference, Reference level 10db
> Dynamic Volume- OFF.
> 
> Any suggestions on what to turn ON or OFF to bring more mid bass?


Hi, this may be useless or not helpful, but I found that setting my Front L/R speakers crossover to 80 got more bass not less, due to some apparent interference issues. You might try that and also maybe the center at 80. My Front L/R are very bass capable, so that wasn't the reason that I raised the crossover.
Mark


----------



## Alan P

Can't really offer advice on your problem with the sub intermittently not being detected. Is the AVR still under warranty? If so, maybe time to get it replaced...?

Concerning your settings and lack of mid-bass; your crossovers seem to be a bit on the low side, however you do have pretty capable mains. The Audyssey determined sub trim of -12dB is however a "no go". You need to reduce the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey until you get an initial sub trim that is above -12dB as that is the lower limit and you do not know if the AVR wanted to set the sub to -12dB or -25dB.

You should avoid using the Dialogue Lvl and Subwoofer Lvl settings. Stick with using the globally applied speaker/sub trim levels instead.

Are you using Dyn EQ? You didn't mention it...


----------



## Alan P

markmanner said:


> Hi, I tried searching to see if this had been answered, but didn't see anything. It is a bit of a contortion to plug and unplug my Audyssey microphone in the rear of my AVR. Is there any reason to not just leave it plugged in, maybe not forever but for one or two weeks at a time when testing various configurations? Audyssey has a couple of 'remove microphone' messages when the testing phase is complete. I would guess that is just a helpful reminder and not a directive, but I don't know.
> Thanks for any thoughts on this not very important question.
> Best,
> Mark


Shouldn't be an issue leaving the mic plugged in.


----------



## dimanata2007

markmanner said:


> Hi, this may be useless or not helpful, but I found that setting my Front L/R speakers crossover to 80 got more bass not less, due to some apparent interference issues. You might try that and also maybe the center at 80. My Front L/R are very bass capable, so that wasn't the reason that I raised the crossover.
> Mark


I've tried 80 in the past and just as an experiment tried it yesterday again, imo it takes away some realism and "wideness", but doesn't add any mid bass.


----------



## dimanata2007

Alan P said:


> Can't really offer advice on your problem with the sub intermittently not being detected. Is the AVR still under warranty? If so, maybe time to get it replaced...?
> 
> Concerning your settings and lack of mid-bass; your crossovers seem to be a bit on the low side, however you do have pretty capable mains. The Audyssey determined sub trim of -12dB is however a "no go". You need to reduce the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey until you get an initial sub trim that is above -12dB as that is the lower limit and you do not know if the AVR wanted to set the sub to -12dB or -25dB.
> 
> You should avoid using the Dialogue Lvl and Subwoofer Lvl settings. Stick with using the globally applied speaker/sub trim levels instead.
> 
> Are you using Dyn EQ? You didn't mention it...


The AVR is still under warranty and actually I already exchanged one due to clicking noises when Audyssey was running. Hopefully it was just some weird temporary issue, I rerun Audyssey yesterday again and it picked up the sub at the first run. Interesting that all distances increased by 0.3-0.5 ft per Audyssey and I all I've done moved the sub about 6" further away from the corner, right now the sub is exactly 12" away from the far right corner of the room and due to the speakers/furniture layout I can't move it anywhere else.
I dropped the sub gain to 2.5 (goes from 0 to 10 and last time it was set at 5) and re-calibrated the system:

Front- Full (I've changed it to Small, crossed at 40)
Center- Small, crossed at 60
Surround- Small, crossed at 150

Levels new and (old values):
FL level -6.5(-6), FR level -5(-5)
Center level -7.5(7.5)
SL level -3.5(-4.5) , SR level -4(-4)
Sub level -9.5 (-12)


MultEQxt - ON, Reference, 
Dynamic EQ - ON, Reference level 10db 
Dynamic Volume- OFF. 

Dialog level adjust ON, +1db
Subwoofer level OFF/zero
Cinema EQ- OFF
Dynamic Volume- OFF. 

After the calibration I test watched a few episodes of Guardians and The last jedi and neither at mains crossed at 60 or 80 or 120 the system had enough definition and bass, so I had to turn the gain on the sub to 5.

I think my set up sounds a bit more dramatic now, but still, what would you recommend to turn ON or OFF to improve the mid bass?


----------



## mthomas47

dimanata2007 said:


> The AVR is still under warranty and actually I already exchanged one due to clicking noises when Audyssey was running. Hopefully it was just some weird temporary issue, I rerun Audyssey yesterday again and it picked up the sub at the first run. Interesting that all distances increased by 0.3-0.5 ft per Audyssey and I all I've done moved the sub about 6" further away from the corner, right now the sub is exactly 12" away from the far right corner of the room and due to the speakers/furniture layout I can't move it anywhere else.
> I dropped the sub gain to 2.5 (goes from 0 to 10 and last time it was set at 5) and re-calibrated the system:
> 
> Front- Full (I've changed it to Small, crossed at 40)
> Center- Small, crossed at 60
> Surround- Small, crossed at 150
> 
> Levels new and (old values):
> FL level -6.5(-6), FR level -5(-5)
> Center level -7.5(7.5)
> SL level -3.5(-4.5) , SR level -4(-4)
> Sub level -9.5 (-12)
> 
> 
> MultEQxt - ON, Reference,
> Dynamic EQ - ON, Reference level 10db
> Dynamic Volume- OFF.
> 
> Dialog level adjust ON, +1db
> Subwoofer level OFF/zero
> Cinema EQ- OFF
> Dynamic Volume- OFF.
> 
> After the calibration I test watched a few episodes of Guardians and The last jedi and neither at mains crossed at 60 or 80 or 120 the system had enough definition and bass, so I had to turn the gain on the sub to 5.
> 
> I think my set up sounds a bit more dramatic now, but still, what would you recommend to turn ON or OFF to improve the mid bass?


Hi,

You may need a more powerful sub, and particularly one that develops more mid-bass SPL. Something like a PSA V1801 might be an expensive solution, but it could be one that you plan ahead for. Another possibility is shown at the bottom of this post.

Meanwhile, I think that there are a couple of things you can try. One thing that you can do is to turn off DEQ and compensate for it with more sub boost. DEQ concentrates more SPL below 70Hz (and especially below 30Hz) than it does above. That can be a good thing for the low-frequencies, but if the mid-bass is lacking, then DEQ works against you a little in that regard.

If you turn DEQ off, you will probably want to increase your sub boost a good bit more. You can just do that with the gain control if you want to, and if necessary, you can also add a few decibels with your AVR trim. I wouldn't increase the AVR trim beyond -5, though, and I would still start with more gain boost. If you add sub boost this way, you will be adding it symmetrically to all bass frequencies covered by the subwoofer.

Then, I would increase the crossover setting for the main speakers to either 80 or 90Hz and I would add up to 6db of bass boost with the tone control. I might start with about 3db and go up gradually. The bass boost in the tone control will be concentrated more in the mid and upper-bass regions. Your ears will have to be the judge of whether that works for you, and if so, how much tone boost to add. That will only affect your front speakers, and the tone controls are only enabled when DEQ is off.

If those two measures don't give you enough mid-bass, then I think you will have to look at a subwoofer upgrade of some sort. One approach would be to add something like this and position it right behind your listening position: 

https://www.americanmusical.com/Ite...MIou6e6cSe2gIVEI3ICh0yAAtOEAYYAyABEgLNgfD_BwE

That subwoofer is specifically designed to emphasize mid-bass frequencies. It is also possible that, if you have the Audyssey app, there is a way to jack-up the mid-bass a little bit with that. But, since you didn't mention it, I am assuming that you don't have that capability with your AVR.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

dimanata2007 said:


> ...Dialog level adjust ON, +1db...


Mike gave you some great advice on most of your points, I just wanted to reiterate that using the Dialogue Lvl Adj setting is a bad idea. The reason for this is that on most AVRs as soon as you turn it on it will reset the Center trim level to "0" and _then _add your boost on top of that. So, with your current center trim level of -7.5dB and using a +1dB in Dialogue Lvl Adj, you are running your center +8.5dB hot from where Audyssey set it.


----------



## dimanata2007

Alan P said:


> Mike gave you some great advice on most of your points, I just wanted to reiterate that using the Dialogue Lvl Adj setting is a bad idea. The reason for this is that on most AVRs as soon as you turn it on it will reset the Center trim level to "0" and _then _add your boost on top of that. So, with your current center trim level of -7.5dB and using a +1dB in Dialogue Lvl Adj, you are running your center +8.5dB hot from where Audyssey set it.


ok. I see.
It just helps with dialog clarity. Would you recommend to raise the center trim to -6.5 instead?


----------



## dimanata2007

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You may need a more powerful sub, and particularly one that develops more mid-bass SPL. Something like a PSA V1801 might be an expensive solution, but it could be one that you plan ahead for. Another possibility is shown at the bottom of this post.
> 
> Meanwhile, I think that there are a couple of things you can try. One thing that you can do is to turn off DEQ and compensate for it with more sub boost. DEQ concentrates more SPL below 70Hz (and especially below 30Hz) than it does above. That can be a good thing for the low-frequencies, but if the mid-bass is lacking, then DEQ works against you a little in that regard.
> 
> If you turn DEQ off, you will probably want to increase your sub boost a good bit more. You can just do that with the gain control if you want to, and if necessary, you can also add a few decibels with your AVR trim. I wouldn't increase the AVR trim beyond -5, though, and I would still start with more gain boost. If you add sub boost this way, you will be adding it symmetrically to all bass frequencies covered by the subwoofer.
> 
> Then, I would increase the crossover setting for the main speakers to either 80 or 90Hz and I would add up to 6db of bass boost with the tone control. I might start with about 3db and go up gradually. The bass boost in the tone control will be concentrated more in the mid and upper-bass regions. Your ears will have to be the judge of whether that works for you, and if so, how much tone boost to add. That will only affect your front speakers, and the tone controls are only enabled when DEQ is off.
> 
> If those two measures don't give you enough mid-bass, then I think you will have to look at a subwoofer upgrade of some sort. One approach would be to add something like this and position it right behind your listening position:
> 
> https://www.americanmusical.com/Ite...MIou6e6cSe2gIVEI3ICh0yAAtOEAYYAyABEgLNgfD_BwE
> 
> That subwoofer is specifically designed to emphasize mid-bass frequencies. It is also possible that, if you have the Audyssey app, there is a way to jack-up the mid-bass a little bit with that. But, since you didn't mention it, I am assuming that you don't have that capability with your AVR.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


IDK if it's right to blame the sub. I never complained about mid bass before I switched the AVR. In the past, after MCACC calibration I even had to trim it down a bit. I know that BIC is not a very "loud" name and their subs a cheap, but since it sounded better with the old AVR most likely it's not the sub's fault.
When you say "turn off DEQ", do you mean turn off DEQ completely or just change Reference level to 0dB?


----------



## mthomas47

dimanata2007 said:


> IDK if it's right to blame the sub. I never complained about mid bass before I switched the AVR. In the past, after MCACC calibration I even had to trim it down a bit. I know that BIC is not a very "loud" name and their subs a cheap, but since it sounded better with the old AVR most likely it's not the sub's fault.
> When you say "turn off DEQ", do you mean turn off DEQ completely or just change Reference level to 0dB?



I'm not blaming the sub or knocking BIC.  I'm just responding to your issue. Turn off DEQ in the Audyssey menu and you will be able to experiment with the potential solutions I mentioned. I don't know whether they will work for you or not, but they are worth a try.


----------



## primetimeguy

dimanata2007 said:


> The AVR is still under warranty and actually I already exchanged one due to clicking noises when Audyssey was running. Hopefully it was just some weird temporary issue, I rerun Audyssey yesterday again and it picked up the sub at the first run. Interesting that all distances increased by 0.3-0.5 ft per Audyssey and I all I've done moved the sub about 6" further away from the corner, right now the sub is exactly 12" away from the far right corner of the room and due to the speakers/furniture layout I can't move it anywhere else.
> I dropped the sub gain to 2.5 (goes from 0 to 10 and last time it was set at 5) and re-calibrated the system:
> 
> Front- Full (I've changed it to Small, crossed at 40)
> Center- Small, crossed at 60
> Surround- Small, crossed at 150
> 
> Levels new and (old values):
> FL level -6.5(-6), FR level -5(-5)
> Center level -7.5(7.5)
> SL level -3.5(-4.5) , SR level -4(-4)
> Sub level -9.5 (-12)
> 
> 
> MultEQxt - ON, Reference,
> Dynamic EQ - ON, Reference level 10db
> Dynamic Volume- OFF.
> 
> Dialog level adjust ON, +1db
> Subwoofer level OFF/zero
> Cinema EQ- OFF
> Dynamic Volume- OFF.
> 
> After the calibration I test watched a few episodes of Guardians and The last jedi and neither at mains crossed at 60 or 80 or 120 the system had enough definition and bass, so I had to turn the gain on the sub to 5.
> 
> I think my set up sounds a bit more dramatic now, but still, what would you recommend to turn ON or OFF to improve the mid bass?


Since you crossed over your front speakers at 40hz, if you want more midbass you'll need to use the bass setting in the receiver since you no longer have midbass from the sub. I'd recommend 80hz for your speakers and then up the trim on the sub a few db. Or try setting DynEQ offset to 0db which will give you the most bass.


----------



## Alan P

dimanata2007 said:


> ok. I see.
> It just helps with dialog clarity. Would you recommend to raise the center trim to -6.5 instead?


Do you have an SPL meter so you can verify just how much boost you are adding to the center using the Dialogue Lvl adjustment? If it is indeed +8.5dB over Audyssey, that is a lot more than most folks need to add to make it acceptable. More like 2-3dB max is the norm around here.




dimanata2007 said:


> IDK if it's right to blame the sub. I never complained about mid bass before I switched the AVR. In the past, after MCACC calibration I even had to trim it down a bit. I know that BIC is not a very "loud" name and their subs a cheap, but since it sounded better with the old AVR most likely it's not the sub's fault.
> When you say "turn off DEQ", do you mean turn off DEQ completely or just change Reference level to 0dB?


The problem is that MCACC does not EQ the subwoofer...Audyssey does.

You've gotten used to a "peaky" response and now that it is taken away, you are missing it. If you could compare measurement graphs of your old response vs. new, I'm betting you will see a very large peak somewhere around 50-60hz. 

The F122 isn't known for a particularly flat response out of the box...


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> You've gotten used to a "peaky" response and now that it is taken away, you are missing it. If you could compare measurement graphs of your old response vs. new, I'm betting you will see a very large peak somewhere around 50-60hz.
> 
> The F122 isn't known for a particularly flat response out of the box...


I remember reading a comment from a JBL engineer to the effect that speaker manufacturers have learned that most people like a little bump in the bass around 60 Hz as long as the advertising assures them that the speaker is really flat*. **dimanata2007*, I can see that if you had a pleasant bump in the bass, you wouldn't want to give it up. I left a ~~ 40 Hz bump in my response. 

There are many reasons to have the bass pumped up a bit, and the treble slightly attenuated. 


 Harman and other research suggests that most people like the bass end of the spectrum about 9 or 10 dB higher than the treble end.
While with very distortion free recordings (many Blu-rays) flat treble might be preferred, especially in a heavily treated room, with untreated rooms &/or somewhat distorted treble, a slightly rolled off treble can help. Audyssey Reference (plain Audyssey) can provide that. See "Down with Flat" by J. Gordon Holt (the founder of Stereophile) in the Stereophile archive, online.
Many music recordings have bass shaved off. See Chris A's threads on the need for home "demastering" on the Klipsch community forum.
The realism and "wideness" (could have just as easily been "wildness") you mentioned need strong mid bass, as well as bass down to, say, 35 Hz (down to 16Hz to 32 Hz for organ, depending.), and down to the 20s for special effects. (or even to 10 Hz for a few movies) . Any attenuation down there should be counteracted, if the sub can take it. Some can't.
Given all the above, why do we want Audyssey to flatten our frequency response? Because it is better to start with smooth, rather with kinky or zig zag frequency response, then apply bass boost, and possibly a little treble cut. This can be done with DEQ OFF, using sub boost by making sure the gain on the sub itself is fairly high, and turning up the sub trim on the AVR no higher than* -*5 (the onset of distortion may vary with the AVR or the AVP, i.e., pre/pro), as well as turning up the bass tone control (mine goes up to +6 dB, and I keep it full most of the time). The latter will boost the mid bass in your main LF and RF speakers. It won't do much below your crossover, but to my ear, anyway, mid bass is between about 90 Hz and 200 Hz. The major sound of the kick drum, for instance, is from 200 Hz down to 30 Hz, sounds like about 60 Hz (to me), and actually produces sound, mostly fricative, all the way up to 16K, believe it or not! The impression it makes is heavily dependent on how long the sound of each beat lasts, and, for drums that are not heavily damped, the lower the frequency, the longer the duration of the sound. A big classical orchestra bass drum (like the infamous Telarc bass drum) tends to sound lower in pitch, and at least sounds like the sound lasts longer. As an experiment, to figure out where the _IMPACT_ is, you can set your crossover to a fixed point (I'd recommend 80Hz), turn off all speakers except the sub, then play some mid bass content, bass drum being a good source. Then, compare that sound to the sound with the sub off and your main speakers on, with the same music. I'll wager that the impact is mostly above 80, and the long lasting deep bass is below. In other words when reproducing a BuhOOM, the "Buh" comes mainly through the main speakers, and the OOM through the sub. YMMV. The regular bass control will influence the mid bass more, and the sub level the lower bass, but, because the crossover is not a "brick wall" the bass control will continue to boost the bass that the main LF, RF speakers are reproducing a ways below the crossovers.


A final question, *dimanata2007*, how does the true wattage rating per channel of your current AVR compare with that of your old AVR? By "true" wattage rating, I mean at 20 to 20K Hz, 8 Ohms, 2 channels operating (or more if the manufacturer is honest and brave enough to spec with more than two), at a decent distortion level, e.g., 0.08 %? Since your AVR delivers some of the mid bass you are concerned with (unless you turn your crossover up to about 120 or higher, if it goes higher) it is important it has the "umph" the old one had. You are using the same sub, so that wouldn't be a factor, unless you have moved either it or the main listening position.


----------



## dimanata2007

Alan P said:


> Do you have an SPL meter so you can verify just how much boost you are adding to the center using the Dialogue Lvl adjustment? If it is indeed +8.5dB over Audyssey, that is a lot more than most folks need to add to make it acceptable. More like 2-3dB max is the norm around here.


I don't have one, but based on what I hear there is no way Dialog level adds 8.5dB



> The problem is that MCACC does not EQ the subwoofer...Audyssey does.
> You've gotten used to a "peaky" response and now that it is taken away, you are missing it. If you could compare measurement graphs of your old response vs. new, I'm betting you will see a very large peak somewhere around 50-60hz.
> The F122 isn't known for a particularly flat response out of the box...


Maybe much older MCACC was not equalizing subs, but the newer versions do. I got on the "HT train" about 10 years ago and at least my second Pioneer's MCACC (and it was a low end model) had the sub EQ. Detection, test tones, distance, trim level - MCACC does and shows everything that Audyssey does, MCACC even has the manual adjustment. 
I've researched the F-12 before I bought and as far as I know all BIC subs are tuned to have a mid bass bump at around 60hz to make it sound bigger more powerful and if Audyssey really trimmed it down, that's exactly what I'm missing.


----------



## dimanata2007

garygarrison said:


> I remember reading a comment from a JBL engineer to the effect that speaker manufacturers have learned that most people like a little bump in the bass around 60 Hz as long as the advertising assures them that the speaker is really flat*. **dimanata2007*, I can see that if you had a pleasant bump in the bass, you wouldn't want to give it up. I left a ~~ 40 Hz bump in my response.
> 
> There are many reasons to have the bass pumped up a bit, and the treble slightly attenuated.
> 
> 
> Harman and other research suggests that most people like the bass end of the spectrum about 9 or 10 dB higher than the treble end.
> While with very distortion free recordings (many Blu-rays) flat treble might be preferred, especially in a heavily treated room, with untreated rooms &/or somewhat distorted treble, a slightly rolled off treble can help. Audyssey Reference (plain Audyssey) can provide that. See "Down with Flat" by J. Gordon Holt (the founder of Stereophile) in the Stereophile archive, online.
> Many music recordings have bass shaved off. See Chris A's threads on the need for home "demastering" on the Klipsch community forum.
> The realism and "wideness" (could have just as easily been "wildness") you mentioned need strong mid bass, as well as bass down to, say, 35 Hz (down to 16Hz to 32 Hz for organ, depending.), and down to the 20s for special effects. (or even to 10 Hz for a few movies) . Any attenuation down there should be counteracted, if the sub can take it. Some can't.
> Given all the above, why do we want Audyssey to flatten our frequency response? Because it is better to start with smooth, rather with kinky or zig zag frequency response, then apply bass boost, and possibly a little treble cut. This can be done with DEQ OFF, using sub boost by making sure the gain on the sub itself is fairly high, and turning up the sub trim on the AVR no higher than* -*5 (the onset of distortion may vary with the AVR or the AVP, i.e., pre/pro), as well as turning up the bass tone control (mine goes up to +6 dB, and I keep it full most of the time). The latter will boost the mid bass in your main LF and RF speakers. It won't do much below your crossover, but to my ear, anyway, mid bass is between about 90 Hz and 200 Hz. The major sound of the kick drum, for instance, is from 200 Hz down to 30 Hz, sounds like about 60 Hz (to me), and actually produces sound, mostly fricative, all the way up to 16K, believe it or not! The impression it makes is heavily dependent on how long the sound of each beat lasts, and, for drums that are not heavily damped, the lower the frequency, the longer the duration of the sound. A big classical orchestra bass drum (like the infamous Telarc bass drum) tends to sound lower in pitch, and at least sounds like the sound lasts longer. As an experiment, to figure out where the _IMPACT_ is, you can set your crossover to a fixed point (I'd recommend 80Hz), turn off all speakers except the sub, then play some mid bass content, bass drum being a good source. Then, compare that sound to the sound with the sub off and your main speakers on, with the same music. I'll wager that the impact is mostly above 80, and the long lasting deep bass is below. In other words when reproducing a BuhOOM, the "Buh" comes mainly through the main speakers, and the OOM through the sub. YMMV. The regular bass control will influence the mid bass more, and the sub level the lower bass, but, because the crossover is not a "brick wall" the bass control will continue to boost the bass that the main LF, RF speakers are reproducing a ways below the crossovers.
> 
> 
> A final question, *dimanata2007*, how does the true wattage rating per channel of your current AVR compare with that of your old AVR? By "true" wattage rating, I mean at 20 to 20K Hz, 8 Ohms, 2 channels operating (or more if the manufacturer is honest and brave enough to spec with more than two), at a decent distortion level, e.g., 0.08 %? Since your AVR delivers some of the mid bass you are concerned with (unless you turn your crossover up to about 120 or higher, if it goes higher) it is important it has the "umph" the old one had. You are using the same sub, so that wouldn't be a factor, unless you have moved either it or the main listening position.


Looks like that "a little bump in the bass around 60 Hz" is exactly what is missing in my new set up.
I didn't have a chance to "play" with settings and EQ yesterday, but I've tried to cross my fronts at 80 before and didn't feel what I'm looking for. 

*Here are the specs for my old AVR:*
Continuous average power output of 80
watts* per channel, min., at 8 ohms, from
20 Hz to 20 000 Hz with no more than
0.2 %** total harmonic distortion
Front (stereo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 W + 80 W
Power output (1 kHz, 8 Ω, 0.05 %)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 W per channel
Power Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 W

*x2400h specs:*
Front:
95 W + 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
125 W + 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
Center:
95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
Surround:
95 W + 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
125 W + 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
Surround back:
95 W + 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
125 W + 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
Power consumption: 500 W

I moved the sub an additional 6" away from the corner, but my MLP hasn't been changed.
Q: What distance should I keep between the mic 1-2-3 etc positions when I'm running Audyssey? Some one said no more than a foot apart? Is it correct?


----------



## Luminated67

Here’s a head scratcher, I performed the Audyssey setup and the system said my front left speaker was the wrong polarity so I switched it over performed the setup again only to find it saying the same thing. Is there an issue with the speaker?


----------



## Medi0gre

Luminated67 said:


> Here’s a head scratcher, I performed the Audyssey setup and the system said my front left speaker was the wrong polarity so I switched it over performed the setup again only to find it saying the same thing. Is there an issue with the speaker?


Try putting a blanket on your mlp chair, probably reflections

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

Luminated67 said:


> Here’s a head scratcher, I performed the Audyssey setup and the system said my front left speaker was the wrong polarity so I switched it over performed the setup again only to find it saying the same thing. Is there an issue with the speaker?


From the FAQ located on the first page of this thread. 

Why is Audyssey reporting that my speakers are out of phase?


----------



## mthomas47

dimanata2007 said:


> Looks like that "a little bump in the bass around 60 Hz" is exactly what is missing in my new set up.
> I didn't have a chance to "play" with settings and EQ yesterday, but I've tried to cross my fronts at 80 before and didn't feel what I'm looking for.
> 
> *Here are the specs for my old AVR:*
> Continuous average power output of 80
> watts* per channel, min., at 8 ohms, from
> 20 Hz to 20 000 Hz with no more than
> 0.2 %** total harmonic distortion
> Front (stereo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 W + 80 W
> Power output (1 kHz, 8 Ω, 0.05 %)
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 W per channel
> Power Consumption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 W
> 
> *x2400h specs:*
> Front:
> 95 W + 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
> 125 W + 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
> Center:
> 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
> 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
> Surround:
> 95 W + 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
> 125 W + 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
> Surround back:
> 95 W + 95 W (8 Ω/ohms, 20 Hz – 20 kHz with 0.08 % T.H.D.)
> 125 W + 125 W (6 Ω/ohms, 1 kHz with 0.7 % T.H.D.)
> Power consumption: 500 W
> 
> I moved the sub an additional 6" away from the corner, but my MLP hasn't been changed.


Did you move the subwoofer 6" further away from the corner for aesthetic reasons, or is there an audible advantage to doing it? I see several options here. First, you can experiment along the lines that Gary and I suggested. Set your crossover to at least 80Hz (I would also try 90Hz), and turn off DEQ, and add an independent sub boost to your BIC, and try increasing the bass going to the front speakers via the tone control. (You can only use the tone control when DEQ is off.)

The reason this may help is that DEQ emphasizes lower bass frequencies more than it does mid-bass frequencies, and it affects all of the channels and not just the .1 LFE channel. Where someone specifically wants more mid-bass, this can potentially be a better solution than DEQ. The advantage of this approach, if it works, is that you can enjoy the overall smoother sound of your speakers and subwoofers, while still getting a bit more of the mid-bass bump you are used to.

The other alternative is to simply turn-off Audyssey, and of course, you could still try all of the suggestions in the first paragraph. Let us know what happens when you experiment. You can turn DEQ off and back on, and Audyssey off and back on, as many times as you like without affecting the filters that Audyssey set when you turn Audyssey back on again. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

dimanata2007 said:


> I moved the sub an additional 6" away from the corner, but my MLP hasn't been changed.


In addition to trying everything else, try putting the sub back where it was. If that position is not all the way into the corner, also try the sub pushed all the way into the corner, so that there is just the thickness of a piece of paper between the two rear corners of the sub and the walls, with the sub driver pointing 45 degrees into the room.


----------



## markmanner

primetimeguy said:


> Since you crossed over your front speakers at 40hz, if you want more midbass you'll need to use the bass setting in the receiver since you no longer have midbass from the sub. I'd recommend 80hz for your speakers and then up the trim on the sub a few db. Or try setting DynEQ offset to 0db which will give you the most bass.


Hi, I may not understand it, but I didn't think that setting the crossover on the front speakers at 40 did anything to what the subs are outputting, rather, it affects what the front speakers are doing. The LPF for LFE setting in the sub does affect what the sub is doing, however. I am asking for my education, not to argue, so I will appreciate information on this. * [Edit, I think that I should clarify this to say that the front speaker crossover doesn't affect the LFE channel, but it does affect the allocation of bass from the non-LFE channel, and I think that is what primetimeguy was referring to. Is this correct? Thanks]*
Best,
Mark


----------



## mthomas47

markmanner said:


> Hi, I may not understand it, but I didn't think that setting the crossover on the front speakers at 40 did anything to what the subs are outputting, rather, it affects what the front speakers are doing. The LPF for LFE setting in the sub does affect what the sub is doing, however. I am asking for my education, not to argue, so I will appreciate information on this. As I noted in a post above, I have observed some interference when setting my front speakers at 40 or 60 rather than 80, but I don't think that is related to a modification of the signal going to the subs.
> Best,
> Mark


Hi Mark,

I don't want to answer for primetimeguy, but the crossover affects both what the speaker and the subwoofer are doing with respect to bass in the regular channels. The subwoofer will continue to play the LFE channel, based on the LPF setting. Rather than repeat it all, I will just direct you to an article on setting crossovers to explain how a crossover affects both a speaker and a subwoofer. This is a direct link to that section:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D

Regards,
Mike


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I don't want to answer for primetimeguy, but the crossover affects both what the speaker and the subwoofer are doing with respect to bass in the regular channels. The subwoofer will continue to play the LFE channel, based on the LPF setting. Rather than repeat it all, I will just direct you to an article on setting crossovers to explain how a crossover affects both a speaker and a subwoofer. This is a direct link to that section:
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, I read that and edited my post in between you reading it, and your reply. I got it now!
Thanks
Mark


----------



## gubarenko

All pictures in the FAQ are not working.


----------



## Paapaa

gubarenko said:


> All pictures in the FAQ are not working.


The simplest fix is to install "Photobucket Hotlink Fix" to Chrome (I guess those exists for other good browsers too):

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/photobucket-hotlink-fix/kegnjbncdcliihbemealioapbifiaedg

This brings the photos back. Another solution is for the uploader to upgrade the subscription (and pay?). 

The best solution would be to start using another image hosting service. But @kbarnes701 should do it himself.


----------



## kbarnes701

Paapaa said:


> The simplest fix is to install "Photobucket Hotlink Fix" to Chrome (I guess those exists for other good browsers too):
> 
> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/photobucket-hotlink-fix/kegnjbncdcliihbemealioapbifiaedg
> 
> This brings the photos back. Another solution is for the uploader to upgrade the subscription (and pay?).
> 
> The best solution would be to start using another image hosting service. But @kbarnes701 should do it himself.


It's thanks to Dropbox deciding that Public links would be terminated. All the photos were linked from my Public Dropbox account. I'll take a look at the FAQ when I get the chance. I use a different hosting service now of course. Great move for Dropbox to do this.

EDIT: I took a quick look - I can only see two placeholders that need fixing. Can someone please point me to the specific Answers which have become a problem? Thanks.


----------



## dimanata2007

mthomas47 said:


> Did you move the subwoofer 6" further away from the corner for aesthetic reasons, or is there an audible advantage to doing it? I see several options here. First, you can experiment along the lines that Gary and I suggested. Set your crossover to at least 80Hz (I would also try 90Hz), and turn off DEQ, and add an independent sub boost to your BIC, and try increasing the bass going to the front speakers via the tone control. (You can only use the tone control when DEQ is off.)
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





garygarrison said:


> In addition to trying everything else, try putting the sub back where it was. If that position is not all the way into the corner, also try the sub pushed all the way into the corner, so that there is just the thickness of a piece of paper between the two rear corners of the sub and the walls, with the sub driver pointing 45 degrees into the room.


My sub is sitting in the far right corner of the room in line with my fronts and TV and the driver is pointing inside of the room about 35 degrees. The F-12 has rear firing port, so the port is firing directly into the corner. Due to the placement of the furniture, speakers and couch, I can't move it anywhere else. The sub is sitting next to the wall that separates our TV room and kitchen and after I increased the sub gain, the stuff in the kitchen cabinets that hanging on the same wall began to vibrate  that much, that we can hear that in the TV room and besides messing up the sound it was pissing off my wife... At 12" away from the apex of the corner, it sounds as good and as big as before, maybe even a bit cleaner, but with no vibration in the kitchen. 

I had no chance to change the AVR setting yet, but definitely would try all your suggestions this weekend.


----------



## dimanata2007

I'm happy to report that I've found my lost mid bass! 
First I've changed the cross point for the fronts from 60 to 80 and honestly I felt very little if any difference. Then, as suggested by Mike, I turned off DEQ and felt the difference right away. I felt no need to add bass through tone control. After a few test runs I turned the sub gain one more point up and changed the cross point back to 60. IDK, seems to me at 60 it just sounds a bit wider and more realistic, not much and not always, but in some episodes it does. 
We are watching Thor Ragnarok tonight and since this movie should have a very good .1 LFE track it should be a good test drive for the new setting. 
Thanks to everyone.
p.s. I've watched Thor Ragnarok and re watched Jack the giant slayer (and that's one of the movies with the most loaded .1 track I've ever seen and if you haven't seen you absolutely should ) and so far I like my latest setting at least as much as I liked the sound before I switched the AVR. Also, I made a small "*******" kind corner bass trap and put it in the corner behind the sub and I think it helped with the vibration issue on the other side of the wall.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

*Audyssey multeq-xt32 with def tech BP9020's*

Hi all,

New Denon X3400H with Def Tech BP9020's with internal subwoofers: Audyssey says my subwoofers are to high. So i went thru and clicked on SW LEVEL MATCH and try to adjust them to between 72-78 db as shown by the OSD. I used the dials on the back of the BP9020's and the best i could set them down to was about 77db on the left speaker and 79 db on the right speaker. Well my final calibration shows the subwoofers at -12. I know i have a bass heavy room but you would think i could dial the BP9020's down enough to calibrate within a -10 to 0 setting?? 

Do you guys with Def Tech towers with powered subwoofers use: direct mode or without direct mode when running Audyssey XT32? 

What else can i do to run Audyssey and get the subwoofers to calibrate between -10 & 0? I have the BP9020 dials set at the 9 o-clock position? Can't go any lower.

System sounds pretty good and has good bass output in my room. I just don't know how much lower then -12 they are set at. I read -12 is the limit in Audyssey? I would much prefer to see a -8 or something close to it. 



Yesterday I had all kinds of problems with this new receiver and Audyssey calibrations. 1st problem was when Audyssey started the calibration it didn't reconize a center speakers? So i didn't get very far. After checking my new CS9040 and the speaker wire by replacing them with a different wire and my Klipsch speaker (got same results) i then had to do a hard reset on the receiver. 

Then starting all over again it said my 1st subwoofer was to high and i had no 2nd subwoofer which i did? Then when trying to SW level match the OSD DB meter wouldn't read a number? 

So after another hard reset and a firmware update i was able to run a 8 point Audyssey calibration but again it sets my subwoofers to -12? I can't turn them down any further so i can not get a -10 thru 0 setting?? All the other speakers look correct. 

I am wondering if i have a defective New X3400H receiver? I have run Audyssey many many times on my Marantz and older Denon receiver and never had problems like this? However this is my 1st receiver with Audyssey XT32 and 1st time setting up powered subwoofer towers. 

Plus after running thru the 8 point set up, It never asks me to safe the results? Is this normal on Audyssey XT32? I could always safe the results on my Marantz with XT. 

Another problem is it sets my BP9020's to large which is normal. But when i go in and manually change them to small, i still can not do any center channel or subwoofer adjustments? like the fronts are still set to large but there not? Until i turn the receiver off and back on again then it lets me do adjustments? Again is this normal with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 or the Denon 3400H? 

I want to make sure i have a good receiver that is not defective within my 30 days return policy.

thanks


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Having issues with the subs being set too low can happen, and can be alleviated by inserting an inline attenuator...however, with all the other strangeness you have going on with your new AVR, I would probably try to get a replacement if I was you.

Not being able to SAVE the calibration, not being able to adjust the speaker size without a power cycle and the sub level screen not displaying are definitely not normal behavior.


FYI: most people with DT speakers that have built-in subs just run them as full range speakers and cross over to their "real" sub as normal. I take it you do not have a separate subwoofer...?


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Having issues with the subs being set too low can happen, and can be alleviated by inserting an inline attenuator...however, with all the other strangeness you have going on with your new AVR, I would probably try to get a replacement if I was you.
> 
> Not being able to SAVE the calibration, not being able to adjust the speaker size without a power cycle and the sub level screen not displaying are definitely not normal behavior.
> 
> 
> *FYI: most people with DT speakers that have built-in subs just run them as full range speakers and cross over to their "real" sub as normal. I take it you do not have a separate subwoofer...?*


I would surely do as Alan suggests. Treat the DT speakers with their built-in "subs" as a front speaker for L & R and buy (or save up) for a real subwoofer (or two) with a driver dia. 12/15/18 (bigger the better). 

L & R speakers are to be setup for best sound stage imaging, while subs due to the loss of directionality of our ears tipically below 80 Hz are to be placed in-room for optimal bass. This usually never corresponds to the location of either L or R speakers. Google "subwoofer crawl" for more info.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Having issues with the subs being set too low can happen, and can be alleviated by inserting an inline attenuator...however, with all the other strangeness you have going on with your new AVR, I would probably try to get a replacement if I was you.
> 
> Not being able to SAVE the calibration, not being able to adjust the speaker size without a power cycle and the sub level screen not displaying are definitely not normal behavior.
> 
> 
> FYI: most people with DT speakers that have built-in subs just run them as full range speakers and cross over to their "real" sub as normal. I take it you do not have a separate subwoofer...?


Actually it's the opposite, Audyssey XT32 says each of my subs are to high and wants me to turn them down to a calibrated 75db it wants to see before it goes further in the speaker set up calibration. I could only get them down to about 79 to 81 db with the adjustable dial on the back of each Def Tech BP9020. Then after the 8 position calibration, it states Audyssey is applying room eq. Then it's says it's complete. No Save option like my old Marantz SR5008 with XT. Maybe this is how the new Audyssey XT32 is? 

Then looking at my speaker levels in manual speaker set up, it set both subwoofers to -12. All other speakers look good and match what my XT did in my Marantz. I would prefer to see them at -9 or anything higher then -12 because i read that is the limit Audyssey shows. 

I do have a very bass heavy room. It's small and as you can see in the picture, one of the speakers is in the corner and the other is out in the open. Audyssey showed the right speaker subwoofer as being about 8 db louder then the left which makes since to me.











CORRECT: No seperate subwoofer and absolutely no place for one with tower speakers, Reason i went with the Def Tech BP9000 speakers. Choose the BP9020's because of the size of room. 

Believe me, they sound very good and bass is plenty with this room set up as a 5.2.2. I had Def Tech Mythos 2's on wall and a seperate 12" sealed sub then a ported 10" sub in that right corner before. The dual powered subs in the BP9020's sound much better then the single SVS or RSL that i had in there. That's not the problem, the system sounds awesome but i can not turn the subs down lower because of the calibration setting of -12? I really didn't want to run the Def Techs as large because i like the control of LFE and running the towers as small helps the receiver as well.

I do know Def Tech recommends running these as full range but my thinking was the LFE channel has a 10db boost and i would have bass management at my finger tips with the remote.

The other issues i had are a concern as well! After calibration i could go into speaker setting and set the fronts to small from large but couldn't do any bass management until turning the receiver off then on again, then it recognized the small setting on the fronts. wondering if it has something to do with the -12 setting for the subwoofers? 

I am thinking like you! I probably should get a replacement receiver but what a hassle!

Maybe i will post in the Def Tech speaker thread as well.


----------



## mogorf

RKSKYDANCER said:


> Actually it's the opposite, Audyssey XT32 says each of my subs are to high and wants me to turn them down to a calibrated 75db it wants to see before it goes further in the speaker set up calibration. I could only get them down to about 79 to 81 db with the adjustable dial on the back of each Def Tech BP9020. Then after the 8 position calibration, it states Audyssey is applying room eq. Then it's says it's complete. No Save option like my old Marantz SR5008 with XT. Maybe this is how the new Audyssey XT32 is?
> 
> Then looking at my speaker levels in manual speaker set up, it set both subwoofers to -12. All other speakers look good and match what my XT did in my Marantz. I would prefer to see them at -9 or anything higher then -12 because i read that is the limit Audyssey shows.
> 
> I do have a very bass heavy room. It's small and as you can see in the picture, one of the speakers is in the corner and the other is out in the open. Audyssey showed the right speaker subwoofer as being about 8 db louder then the left which makes since to me.
> 
> View attachment 2387710
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CORRECT: *No seperate subwoofer* and absolutely no place for one with tower speakers, Reason i went with the Def Tech BP9000 speakers. Choose the BP9020's because of the size of room.
> 
> Believe me, they sound very good and bass is plenty with this room set up as a 5.2.2. I had Def Tech Mythos 2's on wall and a seperate 12" sealed sub then a ported 10" sub in that right corner before. The dual powered subs in the BP9020's sound much better then the single SVS or RSL that i had in there. That's not the problem, the system sounds awesome but i can not turn the subs down lower because of the calibration setting of -12? I really didn't want to run the Def Techs as large because i like the control of LFE and running the towers as small helps the receiver as well.
> 
> I do know Def Tech recommends running these as full range but my thinking was the LFE channel has a 10db boost and i would have bass management at my finger tips with the remote.
> 
> The other issues i had are a concern as well! After calibration i could go into speaker setting and set the fronts to small from large but couldn't do any bass management until turning the receiver off then on again, then it recognized the small setting on the fronts. wondering if it has something to do with the -12 setting for the subwoofers?
> 
> I am thinking like you! I probably should get a replacement receiver but what a hassle!
> 
> Maybe i will post in the Def Tech speaker thread as well.


If you have no separate subwoofer in your system then there is no way out to set a crossover. You can't cross over bass coz you have nowhere to cross it over. Hope you understand this!


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

mogorf said:


> I would surely do as Alan suggests. Treat the DT speakers with their built-in "subs" as a front speaker for L & R and buy (or save up) for a real subwoofer (or two) with a driver dia. 12/15/18 (bigger the better).
> 
> L & R speakers are to be setup for best sound stage imaging, while subs due to the loss of directionality of our ears tipically below 80 Hz are to be placed in-room for optimal bass. This usually never corresponds to the location of either L or R speakers. Google "subwoofer crawl" for more info.


Yes i know about everything you are saying. One thing you are forgetting, All of us don't have perfect rooms or a dedicated theater room to apply your recommendation. Been doing this for a very long time and realize what your saying but sub crawl will do no good in my living room. No room for a seperate subwoofer let alone 2 with towers.( reason for the BP9020's) No room to crawl along the walls because there is no walls open to set a subwoofer up at. (see picture & read thread above). Like i said, bass is not the problem here. Actualy to much bass is the problem according the Ausyssey EQ-XT32. Never said the system sounds bad. Room is only 1400 cu ft. Can hit 100db with ease even below reference level. Sounds very good. 

My issue is with the Audyssey multieq-XT32 and the bass management setting the subwoofers to -12 and a few other odd issues i mentioned.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

mogorf said:


> If you have no separate subwoofer in your system then there is no way out to set a crossover. You can't cross over bass coz you have nowhere to cross it over. Hope you understand this!


I do have seperate subwoofers. The BP9000 series have seperate powered subs in the towers that you can connect as LFE and run as you would a seperate (box style subwoofer) by setting the towers to small in your receiver and using the LFE channel for bass management. They are powered. No difference. Or you can run the BP9020's as full range (large) towers by not connecting the LFE or using mains + LFE in your AVR. 

Surely you know this?


----------



## mogorf

RKSKYDANCER said:


> I do have seperate subwoofers. The BP9000 series have seperate powered subs in the towers that you can connect as LFE and run as you would a seperate (box style subwoofer) by setting the towers to small in your receiver and using the LFE channel for bass management. They are powered. No difference. Or you can run the BP9020's as full range (large) towers by not connecting the LFE or using mains + LFE in your AVR.
> 
> Surely you know this?


Those are not "separate subs", please! A separate sub is phisically separate from each tower speaker!


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

mogorf said:


> Those are not "separate subs", please! A separate sub is phisically separate from each tower speaker!


 "Oh brother" here we go again. Another thread troll that can't answer the questions related to the post. Only worried about how to make yourself feel proud that you own 4 or more 18" 1000 watt subs and how much better your system is then someone elses. I can care less as to what you think a subwoofer is or isn't. I posted looking for answers to my Audyssey questions: If you don't know the answers why post anything?? Please!


----------



## mthomas47

RKSKYDANCER said:


> "Oh brother" here we go again. Another thread troll that can't answer the questions related to the post. Only worried about how to make yourself feel proud that you own 4 or more 18" 1000 watt subs and how much better your system is then someone elses. I can care less as to what you think a subwoofer is or isn't. I posted looking for answers to my Audyssey questions: If you don't know the answers why post anything?? Please!


Hi,

I wasn't going to post, but that last one needs a response. First, Feri is an electrical engineer and one of the most experienced Audyssey users I know. He doesn't have 4 giant subs, and he was only trying to help you. After all, he and Alan and I have seen many people post about problems getting good calibrations with self-powered speakers offered by DefTech and Klipsch to name two. Second, insulting people who are trying to help you really isn't a great way to get more help. But, I'll try.

This was included in your original post: "However this is my 1st receiver with Audyssey XT32 and 1st time setting up powered subwoofer towers." XT-32 operates exactly like the other versions of Audyssey. You could have a defective AVR, or you could just be having the problem we have seen before with trying to integrate self-powered towers.

If I were you, I would forget about the -12 trim setting for a bit and concentrate on whether there is any way to get your speaker settings to work. I can't understand why your AVR won't let you set your speakers to Small and keep them there, unless it doesn't recognize your powered 8" drivers as separate subwoofers. Are you sure that you have them connected to the AVR correctly?

I would PM @jdsmoothie for setup advice. If everything is setup correctly, and he doesn't have any other troubleshooting help to offer, I would return the AVR. Good luck!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I wasn't going to post, but that last one needs a response. First, Feri is an electrical engineer and one of the most experienced Audyssey users I know. He doesn't have 4 giant subs, and he was only trying to help you. After all, he and Alan and I have seen many people post about problems getting good calibrations with self-powered speakers offered by DefTech and Klipsch to name two. Second, insulting people who are trying to help you really isn't a great way to get more help. But, I'll try.
> 
> This was included in your original post: "However this is my 1st receiver with Audyssey XT32 and 1st time setting up powered subwoofer towers." XT-32 operates exactly like the other versions of Audyssey. You could have a defective AVR, or you could just be having the problem we have seen before with trying to integrate self-powered towers.
> 
> If I were you, I would forget about the -12 trim setting for a bit and concentrate on whether there is any way to get your speaker settings to work. I can't understand why your AVR won't let you set your speakers to Small and keep them there, unless it doesn't recognize your powered 8" drivers as separate subwoofers. Are you sure that you have them connected to the AVR correctly?
> 
> I would PM @jdsmoothie for setup advice. If everything is setup correctly, and he doesn't have any other troubleshooting help to offer, I would return the AVR. Good luck!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

My AVR will let me go in after calibration and set the front speakers to small. However it won't let me go to audio settings after that and do any adjustments on Dialog level, subwoofer level, restorer or graphic EQ settings as it should after setting the fronts to small. ( see pictures) Now if i turn the AVR off then back on, i can go in there and the fronts are still set to small and now i can do adjustments on those 4 items as they are now lit up so you can click on them? Picture is before turning off the AVR. As you can see i can not select them for adjustments until turning off the AVR then back on. To me this is not normal.



















My question or questions are very simple and straight forward for someone who knows Audyssey MultEQ-XT32 and has use it. Is this normal or not? Is this even related to the audyssey calibration? This is why i came to the Audyssey thread. For answers to my questions. That's what these forums are for, correct? 

As for your buddy Feri, I'm serious! i can careless what he considers a subwoofer is or isn't. That is not my question. Why he or anyone else has to jump on a post or thread and type things not even related to the question at hand is beyond me. He's one of the most experienced Audyssey users?? Why not answer my Audyssey questions then?

As for the Def Tech BP9000 series speakers or even the Golden Ear powered towers, there's no different as far as connecting them as if you were connecting passive towers with a seperate powered subwoofer. Speaker wire to speakers, RCA sub cable to LFE in and power cable connected to wall. Both systems should calibrate the same with LFE connected to AVR. The AVR doesn't know if the powered drivers are in a tower speaker or a box. Am i missing something here? I have used many seperate powered subwoofers in the past and was able to dial in a calibrated number of around -4 or -5 with Audyssey XT with ease. Why are subwoofers in the BP9020 towers different in calibration? I should be able to dial them down to a 75db calibration which i can't with XT32? This is my problem i can't seem to solve yet? 

It very well could be a defective new Denon receiver but this is my 1st time using XT32 and Def Tech towers with powered subwoofers ( sorry Feri! ) so i want to make sure i understand this system or set up before pinning the receiver as defective. 

As for connections, yes i ran thru some speaker test on the Receiver before running Audyssey and all checked out fine on the OSD. The X3400H has 2 seperate sub outs and i am running seperate RCA sub cables to each BP9020 tower along with your normal + & - speaker wire and power cords plugged into the wall from the towers. rear sub dials set at 12 oclock. I am a long time audio buff so i do know alot about connecting systems up and get them calibrated manually and with YPAO and Audyssey XT but by no means am i a expert. 

Thanks for posting and trying to help!
SKy


----------



## markmanner

RKSKYDANCER said:


> Mike,
> 
> My AVR will let me go in after calibration and set the front speakers to small. However it won't let me go to audio settings after that and do any adjustments on Dialog level, subwoofer level, restorer or graphic EQ settings as it should after setting the fronts to small. ( see pictures) Now if i turn the AVR off then back on, i can go in there and the fronts are still set to small and now i can do adjustments on those 4 items as they are now lit up so you can click on them? Picture is before turning off the AVR. As you can see i can not select them for adjustments until turning off the AVR then back on. To me this is not normal.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2387816
> 
> 
> View attachment 2387818
> 
> 
> My question or questions are very simple and straight forward for someone who knows Audyssey MultEQ-XT32 and has use it. Is this normal or not? Is this even related to the audyssey calibration? This is why i came to the Audyssey thread. For answers to my questions. That's what these forums are for, correct?
> 
> As for your buddy Feri, I'm serious! i can careless what he considers a subwoofer is or isn't. That is not my question. Why he or anyone else has to jump on a post or thread and type things not even related to the question at hand is beyond me. He's one of the most experienced Audyssey users?? Why not answer my Audyssey questions then?
> 
> As for the Def Tech BP9000 series speakers or even the Golden Ear powered towers, there's no different as far as connecting them as if you were connecting passive towers with a seperate powered subwoofer. Speaker wire to speakers, RCA sub cable to LFE in and power cable connected to wall. Both systems should calibrate the same with LFE connected to AVR. The AVR doesn't know if the powered drivers are in a tower speaker or a box. Am i missing something here? I have used many seperate powered subwoofers in the past and was able to dial in a calibrated number of around -4 or -5 with Audyssey XT with ease. Why are subwoofers in the BP9020 towers different in calibration? I should be able to dial them down to a 75db calibration which i can't with XT32? This is my problem i can't seem to solve yet?
> 
> It very well could be a defective new Denon receiver but this is my 1st time using XT32 and Def Tech towers with powered subwoofers ( sorry Feri! ) so i want to make sure i understand this system or set up before pinning the receiver as defective.
> 
> As for connections, yes i ran thru some speaker test on the Receiver before running Audyssey and all checked out fine on the OSD. The X3400H has 2 seperate sub outs and i am running seperate RCA sub cables to each BP9020 tower along with your normal + & - speaker wire and power cords plugged into the wall from the towers. rear sub dials set at 12 oclock. I am a long time audio buff so i do know alot about connecting systems up and get them calibrated manually and with YPAO and Audyssey XT but by no means am i a expert.
> 
> Thanks for posting and trying to help!
> SKy


I'm not Mike, but your follow up post is still relatively unpleasant. I think Mike gave you all the advice that may be available at this stage. Good luck getting help with your system. 
Mark


----------



## primetimeguy

markmanner said:


> I'm not Mike, but your follow up post is still relatively unpleasant. I think Mike gave you all the advice that may be available at this stage. Good luck getting help with your system.
> Mark


Agree, I won't be giving up my time to help given those responses. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

RKSKYDANCER said:


> Mike,
> 
> My AVR will let me go in after calibration and set the front speakers to small. However it won't let me go to audio settings after that and do any adjustments on Dialog level, subwoofer level, restorer or graphic EQ settings as it should after setting the fronts to small. ( see pictures) Now if i turn the AVR off then back on, i can go in there and the fronts are still set to small and now i can do adjustments on those 4 items as they are now lit up so you can click on them? Picture is before turning off the AVR. As you can see i can not select them for adjustments until turning off the AVR then back on. To me this is not normal.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 2387816
> 
> 
> View attachment 2387818


I know that those options will be greyed out while playing back certain codecs...what were you playing at the time? Was it nothing? If is was nothing, than that is not normal behavior, AFAIK.

As long as you have Audyssey enabled, the Graphic EQ should not be usable. I say "should not" because this may be different with the newer Audyssey AVRs...you could check the Official thread for your AVR for info on that. As a matter of fact, you will probably get better answers all together if you post all of your questions in that thread.






> As for the Def Tech BP9000 series speakers or even the Golden Ear powered towers, there's no different as far as connecting them as if you were connecting passive towers with a seperate powered subwoofer. Speaker wire to speakers, RCA sub cable to LFE in and power cable connected to wall. Both systems should calibrate the same with LFE connected to AVR. The AVR doesn't know if the powered drivers are in a tower speaker or a box. Am i missing something here? I have used many seperate powered subwoofers in the past and was able to dial in a calibrated number of around -4 or -5 with Audyssey XT with ease. Why are subwoofers in the BP9020 towers different in calibration? I should be able to dial them down to a 75db calibration which i can't with XT32? This is my problem i can't seem to solve yet?


I can't give you a difinitive answer as to why you can't seem to turn your subs down far enough for Audyssey to give you an acceptable sub trim, but...as I mentioned earlier...you could easily install a couple of inline attenuators and you would be golden.

https://www.parts-express.com/harrison-labs-6-db-rca-line-level-audio-attenuator-pair--266-242






> As for connections, yes i ran thru some speaker test on the Receiver before running Audyssey and all checked out fine on the OSD. The X3400H has 2 seperate sub outs and i am running seperate RCA sub cables to each BP9020 tower along with your normal + & - speaker wire and power cords plugged into the wall from the towers. rear sub dials set at 12 oclock. I am a long time audio buff so i do know alot about connecting systems up and get them calibrated manually and with YPAO and Audyssey XT but by no means am i a expert.


You could try running both "subs" off of a single sub out from the AVR using a y-splitter. Since both are equidistant from your MLP, it shoudn't make any difference in delay settings and having both subs gain matched may improve things. It may help, it may not...worth a shot!


----------



## sid369

Hi all, 

Got my first 5.1 setup with a denon 3300w receiver. I am using sony cores bookshleves in the front and using of the speakers as center channel. I am tempraraily using q100 as surrounds, still trying to deicde which speakers to keep. It a 20x20X8 room and using a 4k projector and one side of the room is open. 

The subwoofer is a EMotiva Basx S8, down firing subwoofer which for now is in the front right. Apple tv 4k is directly connected to the receiver, using movie and dolby surround. 


I ran audyssey last night 

Levels 

Front L +1.5db
Front R +1.5db
Center -0.5db
Subwoofer - 7.00db
surround L -0.5 db
surround R -0.5db

Crossoer 
front 120hz
center 80hz
surround 40hz
Sub LFE 80hz



I am trying to get the best sound out of my setup, any help would be appreciated,


----------



## markmanner

sid369 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Got my first 5.1 setup with a denon 3300w receiver. I am using sony cores bookshleves in the front and using of the speakers as center channel. I am tempraraily using q100 as surrounds, still trying to deicde which speakers to keep. It a 20x20X8 room and using a 4k projector and one side of the room is open.
> 
> The subwoofer is a EMotiva Basx S8, down firing subwoofer which for now is in the front right. Apple tv 4k is directly connected to the receiver, using movie and dolby surround.
> 
> 
> I ran audyssey last night
> 
> Levels
> 
> Front L +1.5db
> Front R +1.5db
> Center -0.5db
> Subwoofer - 7.00db
> surround L -0.5 db
> surround R -0.5db
> 
> Crossoer
> front 120hz
> center 80hz
> surround 40hz
> Sub LFE 80hz
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to get the best sound out of my setup, any help would be appreciated,


Hi, I might try increasing the gain on the subwoofer slightly, and then re-running Audyssey. That will cause an overall reduction in the gain trim on your other speakers (and sub too) so that all your trim levels will be 0 or slightly below. After running Audyssey, I would change the crossovers on your surround to 80 hz too (leave the fronts at 120 hz). On the Sub, how about trying an LPF for LFE of 120hz.
How does it sound? Where are your surroung speakers located in relation to where you sit? On the sub trim after running Audyssey, you can experiment with adding in your AVR trim level settings 3 to 6 db if you want more bass. For example, if after running Audyssey, your subs trim ends up -11, you could raise it to -8 or -5, and see how you like it. Turn off dynamic volume. You can see how you like DEQ.


----------



## Falconsfan71

@RKSKYDANCER

I have the BP8080’s now and a Denon X4300H which has the XT32. I’m still fairly new at all this myself. I have mine set around 10 o’clock on the sub gain and using the LFE option as well. Some can say what they want but running those two 12” subs as LFE improved my sound and helped fill some nulls in my room. I had no issues setting them up and running Audyssey. They were around -8db after Audyssey and that’s where I left them. They are set to Small at 80hz. I have a Hsu VTF-3 MK sub and sometimes I just turn it off and listen to music with just the towers. If you have MultEQ on then some of that shouldn’t be “grayed out” but the Graphic EQ will be. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

sid369 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Got my first 5.1 setup with a denon 3300w receiver. I am using sony cores bookshleves in the front and using of the speakers as center channel. I am tempraraily using q100 as surrounds, still trying to deicde which speakers to keep. It a 20x20X8 room and using a 4k projector and one side of the room is open.
> 
> The subwoofer is a EMotiva Basx S8, down firing subwoofer which for now is in the front right. Apple tv 4k is directly connected to the receiver, using movie and dolby surround.
> 
> 
> I ran audyssey last night
> 
> Levels
> 
> Front L +1.5db
> Front R +1.5db
> Center -0.5db
> Subwoofer - 7.00db
> surround L -0.5 db
> surround R -0.5db
> 
> Crossoer
> front 120hz
> center 80hz
> surround 40hz
> Sub LFE 80hz
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to get the best sound out of my setup, any help would be appreciated,


Your Audyssey results look quite OK, although I'm a bit bothered about Fronts @ 120 Hz. Care to share some photos of your room setup? That may shed some light on your Fronts outcome. Sub LFE is best when set to 120 Hz instead of 80 Hz.


----------



## mthomas47

sid369 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Got my first 5.1 setup with a denon 3300w receiver. I am using sony cores bookshleves in the front and using of the speakers as center channel. I am tempraraily using q100 as surrounds, still trying to deicde which speakers to keep. It a 20x20X8 room and using a 4k projector and one side of the room is open.
> 
> The subwoofer is a EMotiva Basx S8, down firing subwoofer which for now is in the front right. Apple tv 4k is directly connected to the receiver, using movie and dolby surround.
> 
> 
> I ran audyssey last night
> 
> Levels
> 
> Front L +1.5db
> Front R +1.5db
> Center -0.5db
> Subwoofer - 7.00db
> surround L -0.5 db
> surround R -0.5db
> 
> Crossoer
> front 120hz
> center 80hz
> surround 40hz
> Sub LFE 80hz
> 
> I am trying to get the best sound out of my setup, any help would be appreciated,


Hi,

I read Mark's post and have a couple of thoughts to add to his. First, the trim settings for all of the channels are made independently, based on their measured in-room performance. So, unfortunately, changing the gain level on the subwoofer won't affect the trim levels that Audyssey sets for the other channels. You can rerun Audyssey if you like, following the system that Mark suggested, or you can just increase the gain on your subwoofer to add more bass. The result will be the same with either method.

The reason that the trim levels on your front speakers are a little high is because they are fairly small bookshelf speakers with 5" woofers. That's the same reason that your AVR set their crossover to 120Hz. And, as Mark said, you should leave it there. I might consider trying just a little higher crossover for the CC too, since it has the same native capabilities as the front speakers. Perhaps you might experiment with 90Hz or 100Hz.

I would definitely raise the crossover on the surrounds to 80Hz. Then, as Mark said, you could experiment with a little higher LPF of LFE setting. The default is usually 120Hz, although some people find that a slightly lower setting provides more bass clarity. This is strictly a user preference issue. Keeping the subwoofer in the front soundstage for now will probably help with respect to localization, since the crossover on your front speakers is a little high. But, you shouldn't lower that crossover. You can always raise crossovers from where your AVR set them, but it isn't a good idea to lower them.

I don't know how far away you are from your TV and front speakers, but I hope that you are being a little bit conservative with your master volume. You should be fine, but you don't want to try to push those speakers too hard.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

Alan P said:


> I know that those options will be greyed out while playing back certain codecs...what were you playing at the time? Was it nothing? If is was nothing, than that is not normal behavior, AFAIK.


Alan,

After very 1st calibration, My 1st sound test was with my BD player with MAD MAX fury road in Dolby Atmos. This is when i notice those items listed as being greyed out. Then it came to mind that maybe it was the movie? This is when i turned my system back on after turning the movie off and everthing was good. No grey outs. Then decided to run 2nd Audyssey calibration sequence, i didn't play any sources and went straight to Audio settings and set the fronts to small. Went to audio to see and sure enough those selected items were greyed out again! 

Today decided to turn on the AVR and take a look. Now only dialog level adj and restorer was greyed out? Subwoofer level was good? don't know what to think now. tried some different sound modes including auto with TV 2 channel as source. Same thing. I even turned Audyssey from reference to off, everything stayed the same? Things are just not acting right from what i am use to in the past with Audyssey XT. 



Alan P said:


> As long as you have Audyssey enabled, the Graphic EQ should not be usable. I say "should not" because this may be different with the newer Audyssey AVRs...you could check the Official thread for your AVR for info on that. As a matter of fact, you will probably get better answers all together if you post all of your questions in that thread.


 I agree, i just have not made it there yet. I think i may take your very first advise and call the seller and get a replacement receiver. Now i am wondering if i should go with the X2400H and forget about all the hype for Audyssey Multieq-XT32? Or is it really making a difference in cleaner dialog and other area's of my sound system? 








Alan P said:


> I can't give you a difinitive answer as to why you can't seem to turn your subs down far enough for Audyssey to give you an acceptable sub trim, but...as I mentioned earlier...you could easily install a couple of inline attenuators and you would be golden.
> 
> https://www.parts-express.com/harrison-labs-6-db-rca-line-level-audio-attenuator-pair--266-242


excellent! thanks for the tip and link. I may very well need these. 








Alan P said:


> You could try running both "subs" off of a single sub out from the AVR using a y-splitter. Since both are equidistant from your MLP, it shoudn't make any difference in delay settings and having both subs gain matched may improve things. It may help, it may not...worth a shot!


I thought about this to but i went with the X3400H for the multieq-xt32 and it's ability to EQ both subs seperately. If it's no benifit with the BP9020's as they sit then i might as well go with the AVR-X2400H unless XT32 benifits in overall sound? I must admit the systems sounds very good. But i can't contribute that to XT32 alone because everything is new in my set up except the rear surrounds. 



Falconsfan71 said:


> @RKSKYDANCER
> 
> I have the BP8080’s now and a Denon X4300H which has the XT32. I’m still fairly new at all this myself. I have mine set around 10 o’clock on the sub gain and using the LFE option as well. Some can say what they want but running those two 12” subs as LFE improved my sound and helped fill some nulls in my room. I had no issues setting them up and running Audyssey. They were around -8db after Audyssey and that’s where I left them. They are set to Small at 80hz. I have a Hsu VTF-3 MK sub and sometimes I just turn it off and listen to music with just the towers. If you have MultEQ on then some of that shouldn’t be “grayed out” but the Graphic EQ will be.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Falconsfan,

I did see your video on youtube when you did your calibration... but you had the Def Tech 45's as your front at that time. Do you remember when doing Audyssey calibrations with your 4300H if you had a option to save your settings after room correction took place? I have run 3 different full 8 point audyssey calibrations and not once did i see a option to save the settings?? 

It just says calibration is complete?? Then i go in to audio and check the speaker setting and it all looks good except the sub trims being at -12 and the grey outs. So i am assuming the calibration was saved? Maybe with these new 2018 models the save settings option is no longer there? In fact in the Denon on line guide i don't see anything about clicking on save after calibrations.


----------



## Falconsfan71

RKSKYDANCER said:


> Alan,
> 
> 
> 
> After very 1st calibration, My 1st sound test was with my BD player with MAD MAX fury road in Dolby Atmos. This is when i notice those items listed as being greyed out. Then it came to mind that maybe it was the movie? This is when i turned my system back on after turning the movie off and everthing was good. No grey outs. Then decided to run 2nd Audyssey calibration sequence, i didn't play any sources and went straight to Audio settings and set the fronts to small. Went to audio to see and sure enough those selected items were greyed out again!
> 
> 
> 
> Today decided to turn on the AVR and take a look. Now only dialog level adj and restorer was greyed out? Subwoofer level was good? don't know what to think now. tried some different sound modes including auto with TV 2 channel as source. Same thing. I even turned Audyssey from reference to off, everything stayed the same? Things are just not acting right from what i am use to in the past with Audyssey XT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, i just have not made it there yet. I think i may take your very first advise and call the seller and get a replacement receiver. Now i am wondering if i should go with the X2400H and forget about all the hype for Audyssey Multieq-XT32? Or is it really making a difference in cleaner dialog and other area's of my sound system?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> excellent! thanks for the tip and link. I may vary well need these.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought about this to but i went with the X3400H for the multieq-xt32 and it's ability to EQ both subs seperately. If it's no benifit with the BP9020's as they sit then i might as well go with the AVR-X2400H unless XT32 benifits in overall sound? I must admit the systems sounds very good. But i can't contribute that to XT32 alone because everything is new in my set up except the rear surrounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Falconsfan,
> 
> 
> 
> I did see your video on youtube when you did your calibration... but you had the Def Tech 45's as your front at that time. Do you remember when doing Audyssey calibrations with your 4300H if you had a option to save your settings after room correction took place? I have run 3 different full 8 point audyssey calibrations and not once did i see a option to save the settings??
> 
> 
> 
> It just says calibration is complete?? Then i go in to audio and check the speaker setting and it all looks good except the sub trims being at -12 and the grey outs. So i am assuming the calibration was saved? Maybe with these new 2018 models the save settings option is no longer there? In fact in the Denon on line guide i don't see anything about clicking on save after calibrations.



You have to save it on a USB drive. But now I use the MultEQ Editor App and it saves to the App. I got better results using the App and I like being able to turn off the Mid Range Compensation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markmanner

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I read Mark's post and have a couple of thoughts to add to his. First, the trim settings for all of the channels are made independently, based on their measured in-room performance. So, unfortunately, changing the gain level on the subwoofer won't affect the trim levels that Audyssey sets for the other channels. You can rerun Audyssey if you like, following the system that Mark suggested, or you can just increase the gain on your subwoofer to add more bass. The result will be the same with either method.
> 
> The reason that the trim levels on your front speakers are a little high is because they are fairly small bookshelf speakers with 5" woofers. That's the same reason that your AVR set their crossover to 120Hz. And, as Mark said, you should leave it there. I might consider trying just a little higher crossover for the CC too, since it has the same native capabilities as the front speakers. Perhaps you might experiment with 90Hz or 100Hz.
> 
> I would definitely raise the crossover on the surrounds to 80Hz. Then, as Mark said, you could experiment with a little higher LPF of LFE setting. The default is usually 120Hz, although some people find that a slightly lower setting provides more bass clarity. This is strictly a user preference issue. Keeping the subwoofer in the front soundstage for now will probably help with respect to localization, since the crossover on your front speakers is a little high. But, you shouldn't lower that crossover. You can always raise crossovers from where your AVR set them, but it isn't a good idea to lower them.
> 
> I don't know how far away you are from your TV and front speakers, but I hope that you are being a little bit conservative with your master volume. You should be fine, but you don't want to try to push those speakers too hard.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for correcting my goof on the other speaker trim level question so nicely Mike!
Mark


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> *As long as you have Audyssey enabled, the Graphic EQ should not be usable*. I say "should not" because this may be different with the newer Audyssey AVRs...you could check the Official thread for your AVR for info on that.


I agree with Alan. If you ever are able to use the Graphic EQ, check your Audyssey indicator light on your AVR. Unless the newer AVRs *are* different in this respect, that light -- and Audyssey -- will be *off* showing that Audyssey has declined to work with the Graphic Virtual Sliders. If you still want to add some EQ while using Audyssey, and DEQ is off, you can use the tone controls which will allow a subtle (up to 6 dB on the AVRs and pre/pros I've seen) bit of EQ through the main front speakers only. When the mains are on small, the bass control still provides an audible bass boost, the better to shake hands with a slightly boosted sub.


----------



## staaled

I would like to use the editing functions of the ADSY app, without a new calibration session.
But the app starts with speaker layout , place mic etc.
Is there a way to skip this? And keep my currrent setting ?


----------



## Dave-T

I have a mic placement question, after reading through the first page it realized something I never did and wonder what to do. First off I have In-Wall speakers for my Front LCR, Surrounds for my 5.1.4 setup. I might also add that I am short 5"5" so when placing the in-wall speakers I could not place the tweeters at ear level because the speakers would be on the ground ( I have B&W CWm7.3 speakers attached is a link http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Installation-Speakers/In-Wall-In-Ceiling/CWM7-3.html). The tweeters are about 1 foot about my ear. So the question is do I place the top of the Audyessy mic at my ear level or at the speaker tweeter? Also the center channel is below the tv so that tweeter is below my ears. So again What would be the best height for the mic position? I have been placing the mic at my ear level with all previous calibrations but am due for a new calibration because I have a marantz 8805 on order.

Thanks you for any help.


----------



## sid369

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I read Mark's post and have a couple of thoughts to add to his. First, the trim settings for all of the channels are made independently, based on their measured in-room performance. So, unfortunately, changing the gain level on the subwoofer won't affect the trim levels that Audyssey sets for the other channels. You can rerun Audyssey if you like, following the system that Mark suggested, or you can just increase the gain on your subwoofer to add more bass. The result will be the same with either method.
> 
> The reason that the trim levels on your front speakers are a little high is because they are fairly small bookshelf speakers with 5" woofers. That's the same reason that your AVR set their crossover to 120Hz. And, as Mark said, you should leave it there. I might consider trying just a little higher crossover for the CC too, since it has the same native capabilities as the front speakers. Perhaps you might experiment with 90Hz or 100Hz.
> 
> I would definitely raise the crossover on the surrounds to 80Hz. Then, as Mark said, you could experiment with a little higher LPF of LFE setting. The default is usually 120Hz, although some people find that a slightly lower setting provides more bass clarity. This is strictly a user preference issue. Keeping the subwoofer in the front soundstage for now will probably help with respect to localization, since the crossover on your front speakers is a little high. But, you shouldn't lower that crossover. You can always raise crossovers from where your AVR set them, but it isn't a good idea to lower them.
> 
> I don't know how far away you are from your TV and front speakers, but I hope that you are being a little bit conservative with your master volume. You should be fine, but you don't want to try to push those speakers too hard.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike and Mark for taking the time to answer my questions, I will definitely make some adjustments. The speakers are sitting on top of a 2.5 feet high bookshelf and these in enough open space around it. the center channel is a bit lower sitting under the screen, i would say 1 feet high from the ground.The distance for the front speakers to listening position shows was 15 feet. I ran the test using the mic on top of the rocket that came with the receiver.

When I go into audio even after running audyssey, the audyssey button is grayed out. I remember once I was able to go back and turn off the DEQ and DVolume, but now I cant find it.

Can also someone explain simply what these Hz numbers means and what is the relation to each other.

I am also planning to add two atmos speakers, I have to run audyssey again correct?


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> I have a mic placement question, after reading through the first page it realized something I never did and wonder what to do. First off I have In-Wall speakers for my Front LCR, Surrounds for my 5.1.4 setup. I might also add that I am short 5"5" so when placing the in-wall speakers I could not place the tweeters at ear level because the speakers would be on the ground ( I have B&W CWm7.3 speakers attached is a link http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/Installation-Speakers/In-Wall-In-Ceiling/CWM7-3.html). The tweeters are about 1 foot about my ear. So the question is do I place the top of the Audyessy mic at my ear level or at the speaker tweeter? Also the center channel is below the tv so that tweeter is below my ears. So again What would be the best height for the mic position? I have been placing the mic at my ear level with all previous calibrations but am due for a new calibration because I have a marantz 8805 on order.
> 
> Thanks you for any help.


Hi Dave,

I think that you should still position the microphone at ear height. What you are trying to do is to EQ the sound that reaches your ears, regardless of where the sound is coming from. For general sound quality purposes, it is desirable to have tweeters at about ear height, or at least pointed toward the ears, if they are above or below ear height. Unfortunately, that is not always possible, as in this case. 

But, also in general, you want to have the microphone located where you are, irrespective of that. In your situation, the microphone will be just a little below the front speaker tweeter height, and a little above the center speaker tweeter height. Being right at ear level is still the best you can do. Some of us get good results by allowing two mic positions to be just a couple of inches above ear height, but I would keep the others at the center of your ear canal, seated.

In looking at your photo, I noticed something that I would do if I were you. Your CC has to beam straight across the top of the cabinet below your TV. You will almost certainly be getting some comb-filtering, which is a type of high-frequency distortion. I would put some kind of soft (thick) fabric directly under the CC, if I were you, in order to mitigate that. Unlike the blanket over the chair technique, which is done just during calibration (and which you probably don't need to use), I would leave the fabric on top of the cabinet all of the time.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

sid369 said:


> Thanks Mike and Mark for taking the time to answer my questions, I will definitely make some adjustments. The speakers are sitting on top of a 2.5 feet high bookshelf and these in enough open space around it. the center channel is a bit lower sitting under the screen, i would say 1 feet high from the ground.The distance for the front speakers to listening position shows was 15 feet. I ran the test using the mic on top of the rocket that came with the receiver.
> 
> When I go into audio even after running audyssey, the audyssey button is grayed out. I remember once I was able to go back and turn off the DEQ and DVolume, but now I cant find it.
> 
> Can also someone explain simply what these Hz numbers means and what is the relation to each other.
> 
> I am also planning to add two atmos speakers, I have to run audyssey again correct?


Hi Sid,

You are very welcome! If Audyssey is grayed out, then it is turned-off. You can go into your Audio menu to turn it back on, or you may need to run another calibration. You really need to use a better mic stand than the one that came with your AVR. I am going to link a Guide that you should read. Section I of that Guide recommends a mic stand and provides a lot of basic information on system setup and Audyssey calibration.

The Hz numbers which were quoted in relation to your crossovers are frequencies. For instance, 80Hz is a bass frequency (80 cycles per second). It is one octave higher (8 notes per octave) than 40Hz. Reading the Guide, and particularly the section on bass frequencies, will give you a better understanding of this subject. 

You do need to rerun Audyssey whenever you add new speakers to your system. This next advice is intended to be helpful, so I hope that you will take it that way. If I were you, I would hold-off on adding Atmos speakers just yet. Your front soundstage is very weak for the 15' distance from your listening position. Frankly, those speakers are designed for very small rooms where you can sit quite close to your speakers. Sound pressure levels decline with distance, which is why I was suggesting to be careful with the volume levels for those speakers.

If I were you, I would concentrate on getting a better/stronger front soundstage first, and then add Atmos speakers once I had something satisfactory. You could do some research on speakers--there are always speaker threads running. Or, you could start your own thread. I think you would benefit much more from taking your time, and developing your overall system strength, before adding more channels to your current system. Again, I hope that you will take that advice in the spirit in which it is given. 

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> I think that you should still position the microphone at ear height. What you are trying to do is to EQ the sound that reaches your ears, regardless of where the sound is coming from. For general sound quality purposes, it is desirable to have tweeters at about ear height, or at least pointed toward the ears, if they are above or below ear height. Unfortunately, that is not always possible, as in this case.
> 
> But, also in general, you want to have the microphone located where you are, irrespective of that. In your situation, the microphone will be just a little below the front speaker tweeter height, and a little above the center speaker tweeter height. Being right at ear level is still the best you can do. Some of us get good results by allowing two mic positions to be just a couple of inches above ear height, but I would keep the others at the center of your ear canal, seated.
> 
> In looking at your photo, I noticed something that I would do if I were you. Your CC has to beam straight across the top of the cabinet below your TV. You will almost certainly be getting some comb-filtering, which is a type of high-frequency distortion. I would put some kind of soft (thick) fabric directly under the CC, if I were you, in order to mitigate that. Unlike the blanket over the chair technique, which is done just during calibration (and which you probably don't need to use), I would leave the fabric on top of the cabinet all of the time.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks mike I will give your suggestions a try. My system currently sounds great but I like to tinker with my system now and then to see if I can just get a tad more out it. As you just a tiny change came make a huge improvement sometimes.

Thanks again,

dave


----------



## staaled

I would like to use editing with the ADSY app without a new calibration.
The app however starts with speaker layout, place mic etc.
Is there way to avoid this?


----------



## sid369

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Sid,
> 
> You are very welcome! If Audyssey is grayed out, then it is turned-off. You can go into your Audio menu to turn it back on, or you may need to run another calibration. You really need to use a better mic stand than the one that came with your AVR. I am going to link a Guide that you should read. Section I of that Guide recommends a mic stand and provides a lot of basic information on system setup and Audyssey calibration.
> 
> The Hz numbers which were quoted in relation to your crossovers are frequencies. For instance, 80Hz is a bass frequency (80 cycles per second). It is one octave higher (8 notes per octave) than 40Hz. Reading the Guide, and particularly the section on bass frequencies, will give you a better understanding of this subject.
> 
> You do need to rerun Audyssey whenever you add new speakers to your system. This next advice is intended to be helpful, so I hope that you will take it that way. If I were you, I would hold-off on adding Atmos speakers just yet. Your front soundstage is very weak for the 15' distance from your listening position. Frankly, those speakers are designed for very small rooms where you can sit quite close to your speakers. Sound pressure levels decline with distance, which is why I was suggesting to be careful with the volume levels for those speakers.
> 
> If I were you, I would concentrate on getting a better/stronger front soundstage first, and then add Atmos speakers once I had something satisfactory. You could do some research on speakers--there are always speaker threads running. Or, you could start your own thread. I think you would benefit much more from taking your time, and developing your overall system strength, before adding more channels to your current system. Again, I hope that you will take that advice in the spirit in which it is given.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


First, I appreciate and ask for more of your patience and every bit of advice is taken in good spirit. I do have to say though, that although it sounds like that the speakers may be inadequate (based on scientific reasoning). I am actually not finding them inadequate, the sound at the volume I am listening is fine, and I don't listen loud between 60-70 volume, and -15db --20db (in DB format). 

I just want to make sure that I am taking advantage of what I have to the fullest. 

In my audio menu I did not see an option to turn it on, I may have missed it, but I will recheck.

Are there any buttons that can be used on the remote to quickly engage DEQ or Dynamic volume without going into the menu every time. 
I will be using it mostly for Movie and tv shows, should I keep pure mode in "Auto"


----------



## Alan P

RKSKYDANCER said:


> Alan,
> 
> After very 1st calibration, My 1st sound test was with my BD player with MAD MAX fury road in Dolby Atmos. This is when i notice those items listed as being greyed out. Then it came to mind that maybe it was the movie? This is when i turned my system back on after turning the movie off and everthing was good. No grey outs. Then decided to run 2nd Audyssey calibration sequence, i didn't play any sources and went straight to Audio settings and set the fronts to small. Went to audio to see and sure enough those selected items were greyed out again!
> 
> Today decided to turn on the AVR and take a look. Now only dialog level adj and restorer was greyed out? Subwoofer level was good? don't know what to think now. tried some different sound modes including auto with TV 2 channel as source. Same thing. I even turned Audyssey from reference to off, everything stayed the same? Things are just not acting right from what i am use to in the past with Audyssey XT.


AFAIK, Restorer is only available with 2CH sources, and if it was greyed out when you were playing a 2CH source, something is definitely amiss.





> Now i am wondering if i should go with the X2400H and forget about all the hype for Audyssey Multieq-XT32? Or is it really making a difference in cleaner dialog and other area's of my sound system?


It is not "hype"...XT32 is considerably better than XT. Unless you seriously blew your budget on your AVR and have deep buyer's remorse, I would strongly discourage you from stepping down to XT. 





> I thought about this to but i went with the X3400H for the multieq-xt32 and it's ability to EQ both subs seperately. If it's no benifit with the BP9020's as they sit then i might as well go with the AVR-X2400H unless XT32 benifits in overall sound?


As I eluded to above, XT32 does much more than just "EQ" your subs separately. Technically, it is the SubEQ HT portion of XT32 that calibrates the subs independently (distances and levels). However, they are both still EQ'ed as one sub system. So, if both subs are equidistant to the MLP, SubEQ HT is essentially doing nothing and in this situation some folks have found an improvement in the sound by running both subs off of a single output even with SubEQ HT. If you do try this, realize that XT32 will still be using it's advanced algorithms to EQ your subs and satellite speakers much better than XT would. 





> Do you remember when doing Audyssey calibrations with your 4300H if you had a option to save your settings after room correction took place? I have run 3 different full 8 point audyssey calibrations and not once did i see a option to save the settings??
> 
> It just says calibration is complete?? Then i go in to audio and check the speaker setting and it all looks good except the sub trims being at -12 and the grey outs. So i am assuming the calibration was saved? Maybe with these new 2018 models the save settings option is no longer there? In fact in the Denon on line guide i don't see anything about clicking on save after calibrations.


Yup, reviewing the online guide for your AVR does indeed prove that there is no longer a "SAVE" option at the end of calibration. They must have removed it for some reason.

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3400H/NA/EN/GFNFSYnuokgukf.php

Is there a reason you aren't using the app for calibration??


----------



## Alan P

staaled said:


> I would like to use editing with the ADSY app without a new calibration.
> The app however starts with speaker layout, place mic etc.
> Is there way to avoid this?


Nope. If you want to use the app, you have to calibrate with the app.


----------



## mthomas47

sid369 said:


> First, I appreciate and ask for more of your patience and every bit of advice is taken in good spirit. I do have to say though, that although it sounds like that the speakers may be inadequate (based on scientific reasoning). I am actually not finding them inadequate, the sound at the volume I am listening is fine, and I don't listen loud between 60-70 volume, and -15db --20db (in DB format).
> 
> I just want to make sure that I am taking advantage of what I have to the fullest.
> 
> In my audio menu I did not see an option to turn it on, I may have missed it, but I will recheck.
> 
> Are there any buttons that can be used on the remote to quickly engage DEQ or Dynamic volume without going into the menu every time.
> I will be using it mostly for Movie and tv shows, should I keep pure mode in "Auto"


You are welcome, and I'm glad your system sounds good. Using the Pure Mode disables Audyssey, and Audyssey features such as DEQ and Dynamic Volume are only available when Audyssey is turned on. Audyssey can be turned off and then back on without changing the EQ.


----------



## sid369

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome, and I'm glad your system sounds good. Using the Pure Mode disables Audyssey, and Audyssey features such as DEQ and Dynamic Volume are only available when Audyssey is turned on. Audyssey can be turned off and then back on without changing the EQ.


Apologies in advance for some really stupid questions. 

1. Is there a way to rest the receiver to factory settings and start over.
2. Pure mode cycles through 3 settings correct, which should I choose?
3. "Audyssey can be turned off and then back on without changing the EQ" can you tell me how?
4. By EQ do you mean the sound modes?


----------



## staaled

Alan P said:


> Nope. If you want to use the app, you have to calibrate with the app.


Thanks.
I’ll calibrate then.


----------



## dennwood

Here's an update more or less to show how room treatments can really improve speaker response with Audyssey. I provided results from just the front right speaker (Paradigm Millenia 30) as it was quite a problem before treatments..but now corrects (and sounds) a lot better with room treatments..and more importantly, the column added beside it. The room is now 7.1.4, using a Denon AVR-X4400H and AVR-2310 amp.

For reference:










Before pic of the space:




















And below, the graphs with the full array of side, back and front wall treatments, false screen, and columns (which also have a role in the speaker response). Note the dramatic increase in the 40 to 90 Hz response of nearly 10db. Roughly translated, the right speaker has about twice the response with treatments than without in the 40-90Hz range. What does this sound like? A lot more bass from that speaker, that now matches the left speaker (which is in a corner) for response. Previously, it sounded like the right and left were different speakers, even with correction applied. The graphs tell an interesting story as the red plot below is pretty much an ideal curve with very smooth response. The end result is very clear dialog and a room which does a very good job of recreating music and film scores as they were recorded in the studio.



















Response from the two Paradigm subs looks good too:


----------



## mthomas47

sid369 said:


> Apologies in advance for some really stupid questions.
> 
> 1. Is there a way to rest the receiver to factory settings and start over.
> 2. Pure mode cycles through 3 settings correct, which should I choose?
> 3. "Audyssey can be turned off and then back on without changing the EQ" can you tell me how?
> 4. By EQ do you mean the sound modes?


Hi Sid,

No apologies needed, but for the first two questions, you will need to consult your owner's manual. There is a lot for all of us to learn and understand about home theater, so it's going to take a while for things to click. I seriously suggest that you try to read as much of the Guide as you can. It was written specifically to help. And, don't worry if you don't get everything right away. It will still be there when you go back to it to try again. To be perfectly honest, I can't possibly remember all the information in the Guide either, so it helps me too when I need to refer to something. 

You can turn Audyssey off and back on again in the Audio menu. When you turn it on, the same filters that Audyssey set for your various channels will still be operational. That is the room EQ aspect of Audyssey. Room equalization is a process of trying to improve the room/speaker interaction which inevitably occurs whenever speakers (including subwoofers) are placed in an enclosed space. Enclosed in this sense simply means in a room.

The sound modes are completely different. They control the type of surround sound you are getting (or not getting if you select stereo). If your owner's manual doesn't explain them, you can Google them. Good luck and be patient in learning about this stuff. It's tempting to simply keep asking questions, but you really need to try to learn as much as you can on your own, and only ask for clarification or help when you really need it. Otherwise, you will never really understand what you are doing. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## drh3b

sid369 said:


> Apologies in advance for some really stupid questions.
> 
> 1. Is there a way to rest the receiver to factory settings and start over.
> 2. Pure mode cycles through 3 settings correct, which should I choose?
> 3. "Audyssey can be turned off and then back on without changing the EQ" can you tell me how?
> 4. By EQ do you mean the sound modes?


Yes there is a way to reset the AVR. There is a support thread for pretty much all Denon receivers by year, and instructions for resetting them are within the first several posts of the thread. What model do you have? It would probably be a good idea to subscribe to the relevant Denon thread, they are active and have several helpful people posting in each.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

Alan P said:


> AFAIK, Restorer is only available with 2CH sources, and if it was greyed out when you were playing a 2CH source, something is definitely amiss.


i will double check on this again. I thought for sure it was greyed out when playing TV content but i could be wrong since i've been trying so many different modes and sources.







Alan P said:


> It is not "hype"...XT32 is considerably better than XT. Unless you seriously blew your budget on your AVR and have deep buyer's remorse, I would strongly discourage you from stepping down to XT.


 Nope, Got a great deal on the new AVR-X3400H. Had 4 receivers picked out: Yamaha TSR7810 or RX-A770, Onkyo TX-RZ620 and Denon AVR-X2400H.
I actually bought and still had unboxed the TX-RZ620 in my den before coming upon the deal on the Denon X3400H. I decided at the last minute to give it a try because of Multeq-XT32. 
It may or may not have been a good decision?? I truely enjoyed my Marantz with XT. Can't say the same about XT32 yet? I have 30 days to get it working right before the Denon goes back!







Alan P said:


> As I eluded to above, XT32 does much more than just "EQ" your subs separately. Technically, it is the SubEQ HT portion of XT32 that calibrates the subs independently (distances and levels). However, they are both still EQ'ed as one sub system. So, if both subs are equidistant to the MLP, SubEQ HT is essentially doing nothing and in this situation some folks have found an improvement in the sound by running both subs off of a single output even with SubEQ HT. If you do try this, realize that XT32 will still be using it's advanced algorithms to EQ your subs and satellite speakers much better than XT would.


 Thanks for this info and tips on XT32. Hopefully i will be able to try the 1 sub out with spliter to both tower LFE's. Also wanted to try running the BP9020's as full range (large) as Def tech recommends. But as mentioned earlier had problems right out of the box with Audyssey calibrations and this receiver. Maybe i will have to do a factory reset and start over. 







Alan P said:


> Yup, reviewing the online guide for your AVR does indeed prove that there is no longer a "SAVE" option at the end of calibration. They must have removed it for some reason.


 This is what i have been saying all along. Everyone keeps saying you must click on the save button after running calibration?? It's not a option on this new Denon AVR-X3400H. 

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3400H/NA/EN/GFNFSYnuokgukf.php



Alan P said:


> Is there a reason you aren't using the app for calibration??


 Yes! i want to make sure this receiver is good to go and not defective before signing up for the app and trying it out. My plan all along was to use it. It is another reason i went with the Denon over the Yamaha & Onkyo. 

I think i need to really sit back and start over with this Denon. Do a factory reset and see what happens.

Thanks for all the help!
Sky


----------



## sid369

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Sid,
> 
> No apologies needed, but for the first two questions, you will need to consult your owner's manual. There is a lot for all of us to learn and understand about home theater, so it's going to take a while for things to click. I seriously suggest that you try to read as much of the Guide as you can. It was written specifically to help. And, don't worry if you don't get everything right away. It will still be there when you go back to it to try again. To be perfectly honest, I can't possibly remember all the information in the Guide either, so it helps me too when I need to refer to something.
> 
> You can turn Audyssey off and back on again in the Audio menu. When you turn it on, the same filters that Audyssey set for your various channels will still be operational. That is the room EQ aspect of Audyssey. Room equalization is a process of trying to improve the room/speaker interaction which inevitably occurs whenever speakers (including subwoofers) are placed in an enclosed space. Enclosed in this sense simply means in a room.
> 
> The sound modes are completely different. They control the type of surround sound you are getting (or not getting if you select stereo). If your owner's manual doesn't explain them, you can Google them. Good luck and be patient in learning about this stuff. It's tempting to simply keep asking questions, but you really need to try to learn as much as you can on your own, and only ask for clarification or help when you really need it. Otherwise, you will never really understand what you are doing.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yes, thanks again and I have been reading the manual online, as my 3300w receiver did not come with a manual, since I bought a amazon warehouse deal.
I was able to retest all 8 points and it set to 
front 120hz
center 60hz 
surround 80hz

I was able to also get to audyssey through the menu this time and I will keep playing with it. so far I like it, but I need to adjust the bass, its either too boomy or cant hear it at all.


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> I think that you should still position the microphone at ear height. What you are trying to do is to EQ the sound that reaches your ears, regardless of where the sound is coming from. For general sound quality purposes, it is desirable to have tweeters at about ear height, or at least pointed toward the ears, if they are above or below ear height. Unfortunately, that is not always possible, as in this case.
> 
> But, also in general, you want to have the microphone located where you are, irrespective of that. In your situation, the microphone will be just a little below the front speaker tweeter height, and a little above the center speaker tweeter height. Being right at ear level is still the best you can do. Some of us get good results by allowing two mic positions to be just a couple of inches above ear height, but I would keep the others at the center of your ear canal, seated.
> 
> In looking at your photo, I noticed something that I would do if I were you. Your CC has to beam straight across the top of the cabinet below your TV. You will almost certainly be getting some comb-filtering, which is a type of high-frequency distortion. I would put some kind of soft (thick) fabric directly under the CC, if I were you, in order to mitigate that. Unlike the blanket over the chair technique, which is done just during calibration (and which you probably don't need to use), I would leave the fabric on top of the cabinet all of the time.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mke,

What kind of material should I put on top of my cabinet to prevent the comb-filtering? can you recommend something? the speaker is 3' long and the cabinet is 1'.5" wide.

Thanks

dave


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Mke,
> 
> What kind of material should I put on top of my cabinet to prevent the comb-filtering? can you recommend something? the speaker is 3' long and the cabinet is 1'.5" wide.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> dave


Hi Dave,

There are a couple of different ways you could go. One way would be to just buy a plush microfiber which is doubled-up, or tripled, to be about 1/4" or 1/2" thick. You could probably find several different colors that could work at any fabric store. A more elaborate solution would involve putting a foam carpet pad on the cabinet and then covering it with a single layer of plush microfiber in the color you want. I have done things like that before in order to get a little more attenuation of mid-and upper frequencies. Here is the type of pad I am talking about (there are many) and you could cut one to the exact size you want.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01F6HVJ9M/ref=ox_sc_act_title_2?smid=AK8KODIOTRXHK&th=1

Regards,
Mike


----------



## dimanata2007

RKSKYDANCER said:


> Alan,
> 
> I thought about this to but i went with the X3400H for the multieq-xt32 and it's ability to EQ both subs seperately. If it's no benifit with the BP9020's as they sit then i might as well go with the AVR-X2400H unless XT32 benifits in overall sound? I must admit the systems sounds very good. But i can't contribute that to XT32 alone because everything is new in my set up except the rear surrounds.


If you can shell out $200 more for the x3400h, go for the x3400 that rated at 105 WPC and should be a little louder. The x2400 is rated at 95 WPC and feels under powered.


----------



## MackGuyver

For those of you with the Klispch / Emotiva Gen2 setups like myself...I thought my -12 levels were about right, but then I changed my furniture. After taking out some really absorbent stuff, the levels were noticeably off, so I ordered some XLR attenuators (Whirlwind IMPAD10s, which seem well-built). 

I just finished my cal using the Audyssey app and my LCR front speaker levels (with the -10dB cut) are -3.5, -6.5, and -3.5. Needless to say, the -12 was nowhere even close!

Just wanted to pass that along as it looks like they are pretty much mandatory for 94dB+ sensitivity speakers with Emotiva (and likely other brand) amps that don't have adjustable gain.


----------



## RKSKYDANCER

*Audyssey multeq-xt32 with def tech BP9020's 5.2.2*



Alan P said:


> Yup, reviewing the online guide for your AVR does indeed prove that there is no longer a "SAVE" option at the end of calibration. They must have removed it for some reason.
> 
> http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3400H/NA/EN/GFNFSYnuokgukf.php
> 
> Is there a reason you aren't using the app for calibration??


Today i started over: Did a factory reset on the Denon X3400H. Turned on receiver and went thru all the set up steps again. This time all went good. I was able to level match the powered subwoofers in the BP9020's to 76db on the DB meter on the OSD. Ran all 8 position test without a problem. Subwoofers came in at -11 this time! Still more then i wanted but at least i can now say there not maxed out at -12 or more. I have the subwoofer dials set at the 8 O-clock position on the towers.
Went in and set the BP9020's speakers to small. I adjusted the crossover settings for the fronts and center speakers to 80hz from 40 (fronts) and 50 (center) left the surrounds at 90hz and the atmos fronts at 110hz. Changed the LFE channel to 80hz from 120hz. This helped immensely with the bass not being so boomy. ( especially for music) DEf Tech recommends you do this if using LFE with the BP9000 series speakers.

Depending on what source i use, most the time i run MultEQ XT32 on with L/R bypass, Dynamic EQ on and Dynamic volume: light. This gives me the best overall sound especially when using the Dolby atmos speakers or DTS:X sound modes during DSD multi channel or movies in 5.2.2. 

Finally getting somewhere with Multeq-XT32 and it's results. Both movies and music are very immersive and room filling especially with Atmos content and DTS:X modes. Tried the Def Tech BP9020's as large, no LFE and in 2 channel pure direct. They sound very good this way as well.

I am seeing about a 83db listening level at the main seating position with a -25 volume setting and between 95db and 100db with a -10 volume setting. Main seating position is about 16 ft from the front speakers. Dynamics are very good. This Denon X3400H has plenty of power to run my 7 speakers and sounds very clean in doing so. Of course it helps that the Def Tech speakers have a sensitivity rating between 90 and 92. 


Biggest mistake i made was thinking Audyssey Multeq-xt32 in this 2017 Denon AVR was going to operate like my Audyssey multeq-XT in my 5 year old Marantz! It does not. After posting on here i decided to sit back and read the Denon manual in the Audyssey sections and learn the Sound modes and surround parameters on XT32. Also some of the info at the beginning of this thread needs to be updated. 

It also didn't help when the 1st time i tried to run the Audyssey calibration on this new Denon X3400H with all new speakers i got error messages that it didn't recognize the center speaker 4 times in a row. I know darn well it was connected properly and the speaker worked because i did a speaker test before trying to run Audyssey. I then tried my Klipsch speaker in it's place with same results! Then after a hard reset it finally recognized the center but then told me sub 1 was to high but wouldn't show me a reading on the DB meter when trying to set it? Then it gave me a error message that sub 2 was not recognized? Then after another hard reset and a firmware update, things started working ok. Talk about buggy sofware? Then no (save settings) like my XT in my Marantz SR5008. 

I thought for sure i had a bad AVR or Audyssey mic or something was not right. Turns out most of it was operator error (me) and not following proceedure and seeing how XT32 operates. Still not sure about the error messages as to what caused them? All i know is it operated flawlessly today after the factory reset and following the flow chart to a tee in the manual. 

Maybe in a few weeks i will try the Audyssey app and run a calibration with it and see what results i get with it.


----------



## garygarrison

RKSKYDANCER said:


> ... This time all went good.
> 
> ... Also some of the info at the beginning of this thread needs to be updated.


I'm glad Audyssey finally worked well for you. 

What part(s) of the info at the beginning of the thread need(s) to be updated?


----------



## Josh B.

Hi guys,

if I want to run my subs hotter where do I set the trim?

Setup -> Speakers -> Manual Setup -> Levels or
Setup -> Audio -> Subwoofer Level Adjust?


----------



## mthomas47

Josh B. said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> if I want to run my subs hotter where do I set the trim?
> 
> Setup -> Speakers -> Manual Setup -> Levels or
> Setup -> Audio -> Subwoofer Level Adjust?


Hi,

Some AVR's, such as my Marantz, allow you to make global changes in the trim level in either menu. A global change stays where you put it with any source or program content. Other AVR's only allow global changes in the Speaker Menu. You will have to experiment to determine which way your AVR works. Obviously, the Audio Menu is the more convenient place to make changes, because you can adjust the subwoofer volume on-the-fly, without missing any of your program, and hear the change in bass as it is occurring.

Whichever way you do it, however, it is a good idea to keep trim levels in the negative range (-5 is a good number) and to make substantial sub boosts with the sub gains themselves. You would just raise the sub gains symmetrically. The AVR trim levels, particularly in the Audio Menu, are convenient for adjusting subwoofer volumes upward and downward slightly, but you want most of your boost to come from the subwoofer amps themselves. To understand all of this better, you might want to read the second section of the Guide, linked in my signature. This is a direct link to that section:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#C

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ggsantafe

I have a Denon 6200 with with XT32-the last few times I've checked my Audyssey settings I've noticed that Dynamic Volume has been enabled in the medium setting, even though I've never made that selection, and even though I've subsequently turned off DV!
Just wondering if anyone else has encountered this problem, and if so, how have you resolved it.


----------



## Paapaa

I have never read a good explanation how DynamicEQ reference level offset affects what I hear.

Let's say I'm listening to some content without DynamicEQ. *What happens* (what frequencies are boosted/attenuated), *when*:

1. I turn DynamicEQ on with offset 0dB?
2. I change the offset from 0db to 5db?
3. From 5dB to 10dB?
4. From 10dB to 15dB?


----------



## mthomas47

Paapaa said:


> I have never read a good explanation how DynamicEQ reference level offset affects what I hear.
> 
> Let's say I'm listening to some content without DynamicEQ. *What happens* (what frequencies are boosted/attenuated), *when*:
> 
> 1. I turn DynamicEQ on with offset 0dB?
> 2. I change the offset from 0db to 5db?
> 3. From 5dB to 10dB?
> 4. From 10dB to 15dB?


Hi,

I'm going to provide a direct link to a fairly thorough explanation of what DEQ does. Reference Level Offset is explained at the bottom of that section. If I were you, I would read the explanation of what DEQ does first. Then, the way that the RLO settings affect the operation of DEQ will make more sense. There are examples of different RLO settings that should clearly answer your question.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#F

Regards,
Mike


----------



## uswebbs

Thanks so much for all this info. I dismissed/disabled the older Audyssey versions, but the XT32 is really adds a lot of value to my system. But SO many options, so very helpful for step-by-steps guides and explanations! Thank you


----------



## Paapaa

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm going to provide a direct link to a fairly thorough explanation of what DEQ does.


Thank you for the link, that was a very clear explanation!


----------



## CommanderROR

While I understand what Dyn EQ does and have seen quite a few measurements done, I m still not entirely happy with it. My gripe is mainly with the Surround boost that completely ruins the balance for me. At -25db my Surrounds and Rear Hight Speakers are 5db boosted which is considerable!
I've compensated for that, but of coursE as soon as I touch the Volume controls, everything is out of alignment again.

More problematic for me is Dynamic Volume. If I set it to "Light" then the general Volume gets boosted by about 15db, meaning my listening level rises from -25db to -40db and even then some sources are still louder. Voices get a gigantic boost in many cases and the level of general compression "feels" quite large. It is very helpful to have voices boosted, but it seems a little much, even on the weakest setting.
Has anyone ever measured how much DV actually affects the dynamic Range on current AVRs with XT32…?


----------



## mthomas47

CommanderROR said:


> While I understand what Dyn EQ does and have seen quite a few measurements done, I m still not entirely happy with it. My gripe is mainly with the Surround boost that completely ruins the balance for me. At -25db my Surrounds and Rear Hight Speakers are 5db boosted which is considerable!
> I've compensated for that, but of coursE as soon as I touch the Volume controls, everything is out of alignment again.
> 
> More problematic for me is Dynamic Volume. If I set it to "Light" then the general Volume gets boosted by about 15db, meaning my listening level rises from -25db to -40db and even then some sources are still louder. Voices get a gigantic boost in many cases and the level of general compression "feels" quite large. It is very helpful to have voices boosted, but it seems a little much, even on the weakest setting.
> Has anyone ever measured how much DV actually affects the dynamic Range on current AVRs with XT32…?


Hi,

Although the general theory behind DEQ is sound (pun intended), the application has always been somewhat controversial. Some people like using it and some don't. If you are making moderate master volume adjustments, and still prefer having DEQ on, try using an RLO setting of -5. That might help.

Of course, you can also turn DEQ off and try using your own subwoofer boosts instead. Some people like having the tone controls available to them when they do that, although they only affect the front speakers. With DEQ off, you might find yourself having to add and subtract a little bass boost when you adjust your MV, but you won't have to worry about the surround channels changing. (Some people seem to be more sensitive to the DEQ surround boosts than others are.)

Dynamic Volume is primarily used by people who need to manage the listening level, due to sleeping children or the like, while still being able to hear dialogue. Relatively few listeners have ever mentioned preferring DV on the Audyssey thread, and knowing that it intentionally compresses the content, in order to normalize the volume, keeps most of the experienced HT users away from it except for reasons of necessity. So, I don't know whether anyone has ever tried to measure the compression. Offhand, I can't recall any such measurements.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CommanderROR

Thanks Mike!
I am pretty comfortable with Dyn EQ 0db Offset. It's really just the Surround boost that annoys me. Something like that should really be left up to the user preference...

Dyn Volume is a strange one. In some cases it's fine, in others it is far too much even on "light". If it didn't change the general Sound level so much, I would just turn it on as needed, but since I always have to adjust the general Sound level considerably before and after it's a bit of a hassle...


----------



## MackGuyver

CommanderROR said:


> Thanks Mike!
> I am pretty comfortable with Dyn EQ 0db Offset. It's really just the Surround boost that annoys me. Something like that should really be left up to the user preference...
> 
> Dyn Volume is a strange one. In some cases it's fine, in others it is far too much even on "light". If it didn't change the general Sound level so much, I would just turn it on as needed, but since I always have to adjust the general Sound level considerably before and after it's a bit of a hassle...


I agree with you on the surrounds. It seems to work well until about -25dB or so and then the surrounds seem to be too boosted for my preference. I typically listen from -10 to -30 so I find the feature a bonus for most of my listening. Perhaps it's worse with a 7- vs. 5-channel set up due to the rear channels, but I haven't experimented with that. Also, some surround mixes, particularly for TV shows, seem to have the surround channels mixed a bit high, which is annoying even without Dyn EQ.

If you want to check out how it affects the volume levels, play some pink noise (not the built-in test tones) and use a SPL to check out the difference in levels as you lower the volume from Reference with Dyn EQ engaged. The sub and surrounds go up considerably compared to the LCR channels.


----------



## torkibe

There's no accuEQ thread so I'll ask this here since I *think* the same would apply to Audessy... I've read that it's ok to extend the cable up to 25ft. What I cannot seem to find is if I should use a mono cable or a stereo cable? I assume mono as the mic appears to be mono. Anyone?


----------



## drh3b

torkibe said:


> There's no accuEQ thread so I'll ask this here since I *think* the same would apply to Audessy... I've read that it's ok to extend the cable up to 25ft. What I cannot seem to find is if I should use a mono cable or a stereo cable? I assume mono as the mic appears to be mono. Anyone?


You can tell by the plug. 
If this is your mike, it's a mono plug, so get a mono cable.
https://www.pbtech.co.nz/product/AUDOKY50001/Onkyo-ACCU-EQ-Setup-Microphone-for-Onkyo-or-Integr


----------



## cfraser

Is it safe to assume that all Audyssey mikes of the same model number are essentially "the same", within their calibration tolerance?

I would like to use the same Audyssey mike I always use, since it's already mounted on the mike stand with a gizmo that makes sure it's level and has a plumb bob for targeting the same locations I always use i.e. a kluge but solid mike stand mount... (new is X4400, older gear with same mike is X4000 and 7702).


----------



## mthomas47

cfraser said:


> Is it safe to assume that all Audyssey mikes of the same model number are essentially "the same", within their calibration tolerance?
> 
> I would like to use the same Audyssey mike I always use, since it's already mounted on the mike stand with a gizmo that makes sure it's level and has a plumb bob for targeting the same locations I always use i.e. a kluge but solid mike stand mount... (new is X4400, older gear with same mike is X4000 and 7702).


Hi,

I like the fact that you included the phrase "within their calibration tolerance". I wouldn't expect widely varying results from different mics, but I have definitely seen some differences reported on various threads. Yes, your old microphone will work perfectly well. Frankly, I think that it's a good idea to use a mic that you know gives you good results to start with. That should make any post-calibration tweaking you do a little easier.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

mthomas47 said:


> ...Frankly, I think that it's a good idea to use a mic that you know gives you good results to start with. That should make any post-calibration tweaking you do a little easier. ...


This is what I was thinking. I have a lot of historical Audyssey results from different gear, most of which is XT32. Since I'm re-doing my overhead Atmos speakers/amps soon, plus probably lowering some of the surrounds, I decided to only do the minimum Audyssey mike positions, using the "same old mike". Got identical results (within ±0.5dB) to the (8 position) results last done ~3 years ago with the 7702, and 4 years ago with the X4000. Didn't even "verify" with REW, since it's only temporary for a few weeks at most, but I _really _missed the Audyssey when I was operating for a couple days without it on the new AVR.

The Audyssey procedure seems a little different than what I last recall i.e. you can't do just one position then calculate, what I used to like to do at the beginning of any Audyssey session to make sure something "crazy" isn't going on. Also the sub matching seems a little more integrated than what I recall, but I know from experience that I need to skip it here otherwise the sub levels it wants are higher than IMO optimal, and it lets you skip through it.


----------



## Holland108

Audyssey on my 6200 gives me only strange "echo" in voices from left and right speaker.
While ATMOS soundtrack offers great clear voices from all spreakers, Audyssey adds echo left and right.
When people are speaking, walking from left to right for example, they sound like they are standing in an empty room, even if the scene is outside.
Center voices are OK. The rest is plain unnatural.

Do you have the similar experience? Any wrong setting? I couldnt find it.
It irritates me so much I dont use Audyssey anymore.


----------



## Farva_84

*How consistent is audyssey multieq xt?*

I had my denon 3808 calibrated, using all eight calibration points, to a def tech procinema 600 5.1 and really enjoyed the results. However, I got a little curious and decided to plug in some polk rt35i's on the front L/R to see if I was missing anything. Again, using all eight cal. points, I didn't really get anything new or better out of the polks so I went back to the procinema 600's and re-calibrated again. Fast forward a bit, I lucked into a polk cs400i center channel to go with the rti's. I decided to try them out for the front soundstage, and in an effort to conserve time, I calibrated the system using only 4 listening points; 3pts across the couch in the MLP and then one more about 3ft in front of the MLP. The results from this calibration were absolutely astounding throughout the whole system, the best it has ever sounded by far. I'm assuming using less calibration points, in MY particular circumstances, has made a world of difference for the better with the polks. Now I'm wondering if it would do the same thing for my Def Tech's. Long story short, I want to try my def tech's out with the new calibration strategy, but I also don't want to lose what I've got. Do you think, in the event the def tech's don't rise to the challenge, that audyssey will reproduce the same results a second time if I need to put the polks back? Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

Farva_84 said:


> I had my denon 3808 calibrated, using all eight calibration points, to a def tech procinema 600 5.1 and really enjoyed the results. However, I got a little curious and decided to plug in some polk rt35i's on the front L/R to see if I was missing anything. Again, using all eight cal. points, I didn't really get anything new or better out of the polks so I went back to the procinema 600's and re-calibrated again. Fast forward a bit, I lucked into a polk cs400i center channel to go with the rti's. I decided to try them out for the front soundstage, and in an effort to conserve time, I calibrated the system using only 4 listening points; 3pts across the couch in the MLP and then one more about 3ft in front of the MLP. The results from this calibration were absolutely astounding throughout the whole system, the best it has ever sounded by far. I'm assuming using less calibration points, in MY particular circumstances, has made a world of difference for the better with the polks. Now I'm wondering if it would do the same thing for my Def Tech's. Long story short, I want to try my def tech's out with the new calibration strategy, but I also don't want to lose what I've got. Do you think, in the event the def tech's don't rise to the challenge, that audyssey will reproduce the same results a second time if I need to put the polks back? Thanks


Hi,

That's a good question. I believe that if you can recreate the same microphone positions, and keep everything else the same (such as using a blanket over the back of your listening chair during calibration) the EQ results will be very similar. But, I think that it can take some effort, and perhaps some practice, to use exactly the same procedure as the one where you previously got the best results.

When I was first seriously experimenting with Audyssey, I kept a log of the different mic positions I tried, along with the crossovers and trim settings that resulted, and with some of my subjective impressions. I gradually homed in on a mic pattern that I liked, and I have used it ever since. I may not get the microphone back in exactly the same placements for all 8 positions, but I get fairly close, and my results stay pretty consistent. Once you find a mic placement you really like, I encourage you to make a chart that shows where those mic positions were, +/- an inch or two.

Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with just using 4 mic positions if that gives you the results that you like best. But, it probably has more to do with the location of the mic positions you tried than it does with the number of them. In theory, at least, the greater number of mic positions should enable Audyssey to do a better job, as you give it more information about the listening area you want to EQ. If you would like to read a little more about calibration technique, including the use of a blanket as mentioned above, this is a direct link to a section on the subject:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#B

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

^ I do much the same thing. Let's face it: usually the person posting in this forum/thread is the fussiest person (audio-wise) in the room, unless it's a member gathering... So: there's only one MLP, and that's where I/you sit.

From my experiments years ago with XT32, and I'm still in the same room, I found that a very small pattern around the MLP gave the best results. Not _too _small, because that was awful e.g. I'd say a circle the diameter of your head is "too small" for measurement positions, I tried that too. Measuring somewhere within a 12-18" diameter "circle" around the MLP worked extremely well for my ("fully" treated) smallish 12x18x9' room. I also checked each set of Audyssey measurement locations with REW to see how the results varied. Once I found the (obviously IMO) 8 best locations, and listened to the results for quite a while, I marked them _really _well. 

Having pretty much exactly repeatable mike positions is really necessary when doing quasi-scientific experiments with Audyssey and REW. [That's why I had to make a "jig" for the mike holder on my mike stand (same as the one in the Pro kit), mentioned a bit above.] You need to find out what works for you and your room. The people who say "Audyssey doesn't work" probably tried it once or twice, but long-time users know it really takes a lot more work than that, and the gear manuals really make it sound kind of trivial and "once is enough". That said, most people I've talked to who are moderately fussy (at least) find that mike positions within an ~2' circle around the center of the listening area, rather than all over it, gives the best results.


----------



## mogorf

Here is something more for those who like to measure to find the best mic spots prior to running MultEQ. This was a discussion with Chris K. on FB a while ago where we exchanged views on a "brave idea".


----------



## lax01

I hate this thread...always makes me want to re-run Audyssey to see if I'm missing anything...

Couple of questions - I just placed some IsolateIt insulators under my center channel as I was noticing what appeared to be resonance with the TV stand the center channel was sitting on - deeper voices really boomed and distorted. The little IsolateIt pads really helped and dialogue seems clearer to me - especially deep voices. Long story short, should I re-calibrate with Audyssey? I'm thinking it couldn't hurt...

Second question - should the mic always be level and is there a specific "front orientation" for the mic? Or as long as it is pointed straight up and perpendicular to the ground, you are good?


----------



## cfraser

lax01 said:


> I hate this thread...always makes me want to re-run Audyssey to see if I'm missing anything...
> 
> Couple of questions - I just placed some IsolateIt insulators under my center channel as I was noticing what appeared to be resonance with the TV stand the center channel was sitting on - deeper voices really boomed and distorted. The little IsolateIt pads really helped and dialogue seems clearer to me - especially deep voices. Long story short, should I re-calibrate with Audyssey? I'm thinking it couldn't hurt...
> 
> Second question - should the mic always be level and is there a specific "front orientation" for the mic? Or as long as it is pointed straight up and perpendicular to the ground, you are good?


^ First question: funny, I did something similar last night. Very new AVR (X4400) just installed in rack, it hums a bit, but the rack shelf/spacing/nearby wall/etc. seemed to amplify it somehow. Previous devices (7702, X4000) were on Vibrapods, probably for the same reason, which I forgot about, thought it was just me being anal. So I put the 'pods under the X4400's feet, and much reduced noise, sounds "normal" to me. I did not re-do Audyssey, since I had just done it, and my settings are temporary anyway. If you can notice a sonic diff, then I'd save the current settings JIC you want to re-visit them, then re-do it. [In my case, it was a more "mechanical" noise that was so relatively low in amplitude I'd be a bit surprised if the Audyssey mike picked it up, I had to stick my head practically into the rack to hear it..]

Second question: pointed straight up, as shown by a circular bubble level, so by default it's parallel to the floor too (hopefully), is good.


----------



## Alan P

Farva_84 said:


> I had my denon 3808 calibrated, using all eight calibration points, to a def tech procinema 600 5.1 and really enjoyed the results. However, I got a little curious and decided to plug in some polk rt35i's on the front L/R to see if I was missing anything. Again, using all eight cal. points, I didn't really get anything new or better out of the polks so I went back to the procinema 600's and re-calibrated again. Fast forward a bit, I lucked into a polk cs400i center channel to go with the rti's. I decided to try them out for the front soundstage, and in an effort to conserve time, I calibrated the system using only 4 listening points; 3pts across the couch in the MLP and then one more about 3ft in front of the MLP. The results from this calibration were absolutely astounding throughout the whole system, the best it has ever sounded by far. I'm assuming using less calibration points, in MY particular circumstances, has made a world of difference for the better with the polks. Now I'm wondering if it would do the same thing for my Def Tech's. Long story short, I want to try my def tech's out with the new calibration strategy, but I also don't want to lose what I've got. Do you think, in the event the def tech's don't rise to the challenge, that audyssey will reproduce the same results a second time if I need to put the polks back? Thanks


Does your AVR not have the ability to save a calibration (via the web interface or app)?


----------



## lax01

cfraser said:


> ^ First question: funny, I did something similar last night. Very new AVR (X4400) just installed in rack, it hums a bit, but the rack shelf/spacing/nearby wall/etc. seemed to amplify it somehow. Previous devices (7702, X4000) were on Vibrapods, probably for the same reason, which I forgot about, thought it was just me being anal. So I put the 'pods under the X4400's feet, and much reduced noise, sounds "normal" to me. I did not re-do Audyssey, since I had just done it, and my settings are temporary anyway. If you can notice a sonic diff, then I'd save the current settings JIC you want to re-visit them, then re-do it. [In my case, it was a more "mechanical" noise that was so relatively low in amplitude I'd be a bit surprised if the Audyssey mike picked it up, I had to stick my head practically into the rack to hear it..]
> 
> Second question: pointed straight up, as shown by a circular bubble level, so by default it's parallel to the floor too (hopefully), is good.


Thanks - but does your mic have a bubble level? Mine certainly does not. I've been manually making sure that the mic is mostly level (with a full size level)


----------



## cfraser

^ No bubble level standard, I made a special mike holder for my mike stand with that and some other "features" built in, for when I was doing a lot of Audyssey experiments several years ago. You can get very small bubble levels that you could gently set on top of the Audyssey mike.

It's much easier to use a half-decent tripod though, they usually have (multiple) levels built in. I tend to use the tripod for the REW mike, mike stand for the Audyssey one, because I'm measuring back and forth with both. My tripod has a "swing head", so can get into most seating positions OK.

Edit: when I said "bubble level" and "level" above, I meant a _circular _one. You can get them from ~1/2" to a couple inches in diameter, quite cheap. I find the larger ones much easier to use, thus the mike jig I made to hold a large one. I don't even know how important aiming "perfectly" straight up is, eyeballing it may be good enough, but I was trying to conduct my experiments with "exactly" repeatable mike positions and orientation, so that results would be more fairly comparable.


----------



## Overrid3

I guess this is a given, but Audyssey is supposed to improve imaging and soundstage, right? I turned it off last night for some music (was just listening in pure direct mode), which sounded pretty good, but it seemed that the vocals were coming from the right side. This probably makes sense since that speaker is in a corner, and the left speaker is near an archway that opens into another room. Anyway, engaging Audy seemed to put the vocals dead center. For a second, I thought my center speaker was on, but it wasn't.

**edit**

Just to add to this, engaging Audy definitely changes the soundstage. It centers the vocals more, but also seems to narrow the soundstage, like most of the sound is coming from the center. What really ruins it for me is the lack of bass. I've been listening to 2 ch with DEQ off since it's usually just too over the top, so that could be why. Without DEQ, the bass is just gone from my speakers. I've tried boosting the sub a bit, and even used tone controls to raise the bass to the speakers. It sounds better, but then I'll flip to 'direct' mode on my Marantz, and the bass is back. Also, the bass seems tighter and more natural this way. I like Audy for movies, though.


----------



## Farva_84

When I "save the configuration" through the ip address interface, does the saved file contain all of the audyssey calibration info? And does anyone know if the saved file title makes a difference? The reason I ask is that the file saved to my chromebook without the "C:\Denon\" prefix...it simply saved itself as config.dat. Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

Overrid3 said:


> I guess this is a given, but Audyssey is supposed to improve imaging and soundstage, right? I turned it off last night for some music (was just listening in pure direct mode), which sounded pretty good, but it seemed that the vocals were coming from the right side. This probably makes sense since that speaker is in a corner, and the left speaker is near an archway that opens into another room. Anyway, engaging Audy seemed to put the vocals dead center. For a second, I thought my center speaker was on, but it wasn't.
> 
> **edit**
> 
> Just to add to this, engaging Audy definitely changes the soundstage. It centers the vocals more, but also seems to narrow the soundstage, like most of the sound is coming from the center. What really ruins it for me is the lack of bass. I've been listening to 2 ch with DEQ off since it's usually just too over the top, so that could be why. Without DEQ, the bass is just gone from my speakers. I've tried boosting the sub a bit, and even used tone controls to raise the bass to the speakers. It sounds better, but then I'll flip to 'direct' mode on my Marantz, and the bass is back. Also, the bass seems tighter and more natural this way. I like Audy for movies, though.


Hi,

Everyone hears things a little bit differently, so in the end we just have to please ourselves with what we like. With respect to Audyssey focusing the soundstage a little too much into the center, I might experiment with my toe-in (or out) a little more. That's a shot in the dark, but it might be worth a try. There is a Guide, linked in my signature, that makes some suggestions in the very first section about speaker setup and Audyssey calibration techniques. There might be something in there that can help.

I am a little bit surprised that the bass sounds tighter and more natural with Audyssey off. That's an unusual experience. There may very well be more bass when you turn Audyssey off, if Audyssey has pulled down a peak in the mid-bass for instance, especially somewhere around 50 to 70Hz. We seem to be especially sensitive to changes in that frequency range. And, you might very well like the sound of that better. But, it is very unlikely that the bass will be tighter or more natural with Audyssey off. Unless you have multiple subs, and/or an exceptional room, bass frequencies will normally have peaks and dips throughout the frequency response. Those are caused by room modes, and as noted above, they are pretty inescapable. 

What Audyssey does is to smooth-out some of those random peaks and dips so that the speakers and the subwoofer(s) can play in a more linear way, which is what they were designed to do before the room got hold of them. Audyssey is usually consistently helpful below about 500Hz. And, when the random bass peaks and dips are removed, we should be able to hear the music the way it was actually recorded.

I am not saying that you shouldn't like the sound you like. If you prefer Audyssey off for music, then that's the way to listen to it. But, I might give it a little time to see if you get used to hearing what should be more accurate bass. If you are, in fact, hearing a peak at a particular frequency, you may find in time that the more natural and tighter sound actually occurs when the peak is removed. 

This is just speculation on my part, but I thought I should respond in case you were seeking suggestions, and not just posting some impressions. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Overrid3

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Everyone hears things a little bit differently, so in the end we just have to please ourselves with what we like. With respect to Audyssey focusing the soundstage a little too much into the center, I might experiment with my toe-in (or out) a little more. That's a shot in the dark, but it might be worth a try. There is a Guide, linked in my signature, that makes some suggestions in the very first section about speaker setup and Audyssey calibration techniques. There might be something in there that can help.
> 
> I am a little bit surprised that the bass sounds tighter and more natural with Audyssey off. That's an unusual experience. There may very well be more bass when you turn Audyssey off, if Audyssey has pulled down a peak in the mid-bass for instance, especially somewhere around 50 to 70Hz. We seem to be especially sensitive to changes in that frequency range. And, you might very well like the sound of that better. But, it is very unlikely that the bass will be tighter or more natural with Audyssey off. Unless you have multiple subs, and/or an exceptional room, bass frequencies will normally have peaks and dips throughout the frequency response. Those are caused by room modes, and as noted above, they are pretty inescapable.
> 
> What Audyssey does is to smooth-out some of those random peaks and dips so that the speakers and the subwoofer(s) can play in a more linear way, which is what they were designed to do before the room got hold of them. Audyssey is usually consistently helpful below about 500Hz. And, when the random bass peaks and dips are removed, we should be able to hear the music the way it was actually recorded.
> 
> I am not saying that you shouldn't like the sound you like. If you prefer Audyssey off for music, then that's the way to listen to it. But, I might give it a little time to see if you get used to hearing what should be more accurate bass. If you are, in fact, hearing a peak at a particular frequency, you may find in time that the more natural and tighter sound actually occurs when the peak is removed.
> 
> This is just speculation on my part, but I thought I should respond in case you were seeking suggestions, and not just posting some impressions.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hey Mike, thanks for the info! With Audy off, there is more bass for sure, at least at certain freqs. I can be playing a song, and it doesn't sound bad with it on, but if I flip to direct mode, there's an increase, and the music just sounds more full. According to some reviews, my speakers (Wharfdale Diamond towers) have a bass hump around the 100 Hz region. If Audy is flattening this out, that could be the difference I'm hearing.

I'll definitely listen more and see how it goes. It's nice to be able to switch back and forth depending on my mood


----------



## tdidona

Noob question for the Audyssey pros that I'm sure has been covered somewhere, but I couldn't find via search. I have a Denon AVR-X3400H I just set up and ran Audyssey with on a 5.1 system. As is typical, from what I read, the crossovers were set at 40HZ front/center and 60HZ surround. I changed them to 80HZ via the manual set up. I also bumped up my sub trim 2.5 db from -7.5 to -5. But when I did this I lose the Audyssey menu under audio, and therefore lose the ability to turn on Dynamic EQ and volume. I only get the Audyssey menu back when I revert back to the Audyssey settings, which have the crossovers and sub trim I don't want. Have I made these changes incorrectly in the AVR? I'd obviously like to keep Dynamic EQ on, and the ability to use Dynamic Volume if needed. Thanks for any input.


----------



## mthomas47

tdidona said:


> Noob question for the Audyssey pros that I'm sure has been covered somewhere, but I couldn't find via search. I have a Denon AVR-X3400H I just set up and ran Audyssey with on a 5.1 system. As is typical, from what I read, the crossovers were set at 40HZ front/center and 60HZ surround. I changed them to 80HZ via the manual set up. I also bumped up my sub trim 2.5 db from -7.5 to -5. But when I did this I lose the Audyssey menu under audio, and therefore lose the ability to turn on Dynamic EQ and volume. I only get the Audyssey menu back when I revert back to the Audyssey settings, which have the crossovers and sub trim I don't want. Have I made these changes incorrectly in the AVR? I'd obviously like to keep Dynamic EQ on, and the ability to use Dynamic Volume if needed. Thanks for any input.


Hi,

That is not typical behavior from your AVR. You should be able to change any of those settings manually, without affecting your Audyssey calibration in any way. Unless someone else has a better suggestion, I would try a microprocessor reset (or several) to see if I could restore appropriate functionality to my AVR. You will need to consult your owner's manual to see how to do that. 

Afterwards, it will be necessary to run Audyssey again, but hopefully things will work properly at that point. You should be able to change any settings, or to turn Audyssey on and off manually, at any time. Good luck and let us know what you discover. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

^ It almost sounds like he changed something else under Manual, perhaps accidentally, something like the Amp Assign config would do it. This is not hard to do accidentally (I found out...) when e.g. poking at the front panel menu controls.


----------



## tdidona

cfraser said:


> ^ It almost sounds like he changed something else under Manual, perhaps accidentally, something like the Amp Assign config would do it. This is not hard to do accidentally (I found out...) when e.g. poking at the front panel menu controls.


I think this is what did it. I actually changed from one sub to two to account for the Buttkickers I have set up, which I didn't want to include in the Audyssey calibration. It seems that in doing this I can't access the Audyssey menu anymore. Any suggestions on the best way to incorporate the Buttkickers into the Audyssey set up, I just assumed (maybe incorrectly), that it wouldn't be able to calibrate them properly. Thanks for the information, this site/thread has been extremely helpful.


----------



## mthomas47

tdidona said:


> I think this is what did it. I actually changed from one sub to two to account for the Buttkickers I have set up, which I didn't want to include in the Audyssey calibration. It seems that in doing this I can't access the Audyssey menu anymore. Any suggestions on the best way to incorporate the Buttkickers into the Audyssey set up, I just assumed (maybe incorrectly), that it wouldn't be able to calibrate them properly. Thanks for the information, this site/thread has been extremely helpful.


Aha!  That's a completely different situation. Audyssey is disabled whenever you add another channel in your speaker configuration menu. It does that because the new speaker or subwoofer would not be receiving the benefit of any EQ. 

You were correct to add-in your TT's post-calibration. But, if you only have one sub, and two sub outs on your AVR, then you will need to Y-connect the buttkickers into the same sub out that your subwoofer goes into. That way, Audyssey won't recognize the fact that you have added another component to your system.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Overrid3

About crossovers...

Audyssey chose 40 Hz for my mains and 90 Hz for my center (which is a little odd since it's a fairly large speaker). In this case, I probably shouldn't follow the THX guidelines of setting everything at 80 Hz, should I? I've read it's OK to raise the XO set by Audy, but not lower it. So, my center should stay at 90? Also, my mains are rated down to 30 Hz, but this is likely marketing. I'm thinking maybe setting them to 60 Hz is a more reasonable thing to do?


----------



## tdidona

mthomas47 said:


> Aha!  That's a completely different situation. Audyssey is disabled whenever you add another channel in your speaker configuration menu. It does that because the new speaker or subwoofer would not be receiving the benefit of any EQ.
> 
> You were correct to add-in your TT's post-calibration. But, if you only have one sub, and two sub outs on your AVR, then you will need to Y-connect the buttkickers into the same sub out that your subwoofer goes into. That way, Audyssey won't recognize the fact that you have added another component to your system.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks so much for your help and this thread, it's been a real asset for me in setting this up.


----------



## mthomas47

Overrid3 said:


> About crossovers...
> 
> Audyssey chose 40 Hz for my mains and 90 Hz for my center (which is a little odd since it's a fairly large speaker). In this case, I probably shouldn't follow the THX guidelines of setting everything at 80 Hz, should I? I've read it's OK to raise the XO set by Audy, but not lower it. So, my center should stay at 90? Also, my mains are rated down to 30 Hz, but this is likely marketing. I'm thinking maybe setting them to 60 Hz is a more reasonable thing to do?


I am going to give you a direct link to a section on crossovers which will explain what is happening when your crossovers are set. Audyssey is actually just measuring your speakers' low-frequency response at their specific locations in the room, and then reporting that information to your AVR, which sets crossovers in accordance with its own programming.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D

90 or 100Hz would be a good number for your CC. Which you prefer might depend somewhat on how much sub boost you are using. From a starting crossover of 40Hz, I would probably try an 80Hz crossover for the front speakers. If you have a good subwoofer, that should improve your mid-bass, and it will also make your bass tone control more effective for the front speakers, without over-driving them.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Overrid3

mthomas47 said:


> I am going to give you a direct link to a section on crossovers which will explain what is happening when your crossovers are set. Audyssey is actually just measuring your speakers' low-frequency response at their specific locations in the room, and then reporting that information to your AVR, which sets crossovers in accordance with its own programming.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D
> 
> 90 or 100Hz would be a good number for your CC. Which you prefer might depend somewhat on how much sub boost you are using. From a starting crossover of 40Hz, I would probably try an 80Hz crossover for the front speakers. If you have a good subwoofer, that should improve your mid-bass, and it will also make your bass tone control more effective for the front speakers, without over-driving them.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks!


----------



## primetimeguy

Here is a post from Chris today on Facebook...

Dear friends, my Audyssey odyssey was a journey of love that started in 2002. Along the way I was fortunate to have worked with amazing people who helped change the world of audio that we all love. And I feel privileged to have connected with all of you that pushed us to do better. It’s time for me to seek new adventures now! As Odysseus so aptly said: “make your libations, launch me safely on my way - to one and all, farewell” --Chris

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

primetimeguy said:


> Here is a post from Chris today on Facebook...
> 
> Dear friends, my Audyssey odyssey was a journey of love that started in 2002. Along the way I was fortunate to have worked with amazing people who helped change the world of audio that we all love. And I feel privileged to have connected with all of you that pushed us to do better. It’s time for me to seek new adventures now! As Odysseus so aptly said: “make your libations, launch me safely on my way - to one and all, farewell” --Chris
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Chris is an audio icon who made my listening, and therefore my life, better.


----------



## lax01

Similar to this great FAQ thread/post, is there a thread/guide with basic speaker placement and setup information. I've always just measured to ensure everything was equidistant but never really took the time to determine if my placement and distances made sense for my seating position. 

Been searching around but I'm wondering if anyone has a good all-in-one guide...

Thanks!


----------



## mthomas47

lax01 said:


> Similar to this great FAQ thread/post, is there a thread/guide with basic speaker placement and setup information. I've always just measured to ensure everything was equidistant but never really took the time to determine if my placement and distances made sense for my seating position.
> 
> Been searching around but I'm wondering if anyone has a good all-in-one guide...
> 
> Thanks!


I think I know of one.  I will link you to the full Guide, but Section I has just what you may be looking for.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lax01

mthomas47 said:


> I think I know of one.  I will link you to the full Guide, but Section I has just what you may be looking for.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


HAH! I think I overlooked that link your signature because I assumed it was for Subwoofers and Bass setup...will take a look! Thanks!


----------



## Overrid3

mthomas47 said:


> I am going to give you a direct link to a section on crossovers which will explain what is happening when your crossovers are set. Audyssey is actually just measuring your speakers' low-frequency response at their specific locations in the room, and then reporting that information to your AVR, which sets crossovers in accordance with its own programming.
> 
> http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D
> 
> 90 or 100Hz would be a good number for your CC. Which you prefer might depend somewhat on how much sub boost you are using. From a starting crossover of 40Hz, I would probably try an 80Hz crossover for the front speakers. If you have a good subwoofer, that should improve your mid-bass, and it will also make your bass tone control more effective for the front speakers, without over-driving them.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Well, I figured out one thing....make sure the sub is plugged in!! LOL. I was trying to adjust the level on my AVR and was like, wow, this thing blends so seemlessly; I can't even tell it's boosted. Turns out the cable was loose, and it wasn't making bass 

Now that it's working again, I did some playing and I'm back to trying out DEQ for music. When it's off, I can fiddle with boosting the sub and tone controls, but I can't seem to re-create that fullness that DEQ provides. So I switched it back on, with a 10 offset from reference, and things are sounding good. With DEQ on, I only have to boost the sub a few dBs, and the bass is plentiful. Still playing around with the reference curve vs 'bypass L/R' though.


----------



## mthomas47

Overrid3 said:


> *Well, I figured out one thing....make sure the sub is plugged in!! LOL.* I was trying to adjust the level on my AVR and was like, wow, this thing blends so seemlessly; I can't even tell it's boosted. Turns out the cable was loose, and it wasn't making bass
> 
> Now that it's working again, I did some playing and I'm back to trying out DEQ for music. When it's off, I can fiddle with boosting the sub and tone controls, but I can't seem to re-create that fullness that DEQ provides. So I switched it back on, with a 10 offset from reference, and things are sounding good. With DEQ on, I only have to boost the sub a few dBs, and the bass is plentiful. Still playing around with the reference curve vs 'bypass L/R' though.


I think you're onto something there!  I'm glad that you've got it sorted now. You might also want to try the Audyssey Flat setting.


----------



## Overrid3

mthomas47 said:


> I think you're onto something there!  I'm glad that you've got it sorted now. You might also want to try the Audyssey Flat setting.


Yes, the sub works much better when the cable is connected  Played some music with DEQ on, but I think it's a bit much even with the ref. offsets. I went back to just boosting the sub, and adding a little bass with the tone controls. That approach just sounds a little more natural to me. Also went back and for between the Audyssey 'reference' curve and 'bypass L/R.' I think I'm sticking with reference. I know some people will knock using Audyssey for music listening, but it really does seem to improve things. The vocals are planted solidly in the middle, which isn't always the case with bypass. Aside from that, certain music can sound a bit too bright at times, and it seems that the reference curve also helps with that (I guess because it's correcting for the room and also rolling off the highs a touch).


----------



## CommanderROR

Probably a waste of time, but for those that are as fed up with the Audyssey DynEQ volume boost on the Surroubds as I am, I opened a petition. Maybe we can get enough Votes to make Denon/Marantz/Audyssey at least consider offering an option to turn this off!

Thanks!

https://www.change.org/p/denon-audyssey-dynamic-eq-allow-users-to-toggle-the-surround-boost-on-and-off?recruiter=155804150&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition


----------



## Oil of OLED

I'm using LFC to keep my neighbors happy. Does it make any sense to turn up the volume on my subs post-calibration? LFC set to 1 attenuates the bass a lot, but my subs still give the floor a nice hard slap and I'd like to get the most that I can out of my situation. In the LFC context, I'm also curious as to whether I should replace my 2 cheap subs with a nicer/larger one.


----------



## mthomas47

Oil of OLED said:


> I'm using LFC to keep my neighbors happy. Does it make any sense to turn up the volume on my subs post-calibration? LFC set to 1 attenuates the bass a lot, but my subs still give the floor a nice hard slap and I'd like to get the most that I can out of my situation. In the LFC context, I'm also curious as to whether I should replace my 2 cheap subs with a nicer/larger one.


Hi,

Those are both somewhat difficult questions to answer. The first one will just take some experimentation. I assume that you are using LFC because your neighbors have complained about the bass sounds. You could try boosting your bass a little to counteract the effects of the attenuation. Alternatively, you could turn off the LFC, make sure that DEQ is off, maybe engage Dynamic volume, and see if you could find a good compromise that way. I think that it's just a matter of trial-and-error to find a sweet spot where you can enjoy your bass content a little more, and where they won't complain.

You mentioned that your subs still give the floor a good slap. Based on that statement, it's possible that your neighbors are feeling vibrations through the floor as much as they are actually hearing bass sounds. If so, you could try putting something under the subs to decouple them slightly from the floor. Something like a doubled piece of carpet pad that you could get at Lowe's would help with that. You are not really affecting the bass SPL when you do that. You are just reducing vibrations, which may be felt in adjoining structures.

Given what you said in your post, I don't know that this in an ideal time to upgrade. You could definitely benefit from having a larger and better subwoofer. A larger, better, more expensive sub is going to give you more undistorted SPL, and lower extension. But right now, more bass SPL isn't exactly what you need. And, lower bass frequencies travel through adjoining structures more than mid-bass frequencies do. So, as you add more low-frequency extension with a better subwoofer, the problem of low-frequencies disturbing your neighbors will be likely to increase. 

Your current subs have some low-frequency limitations. Somewhere around 30 or 35Hz is probably about the best they are going to do with any meaningful SPL. But, the more that you add SPL below those frequencies, the more that your neighbors will both hear and feel them. In the absence of a neighbor upgrade, I'm not sure that this is the best time for a subwoofer upgrade.  

You can certainly try it, but I'm not sure that you would be able to enjoy a better subwoofer unless your current ones really don't sound very good. As I said, the normal reasons to upgrade from smaller dual subs to a larger single sub would be for more SPL and/or lower extension. I might save my money and bide my time, if I were you. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Overrid3

Overrid3 said:


> Yes, the sub works much better when the cable is connected  Played some music with DEQ on, but I think it's a bit much even with the ref. offsets. I went back to just boosting the sub, and adding a little bass with the tone controls. That approach just sounds a little more natural to me. Also went back and for between the Audyssey 'reference' curve and 'bypass L/R.' I think I'm sticking with reference. I know some people will knock using Audyssey for music listening, but it really does seem to improve things. The vocals are planted solidly in the middle, which isn't always the case with bypass. Aside from that, certain music can sound a bit too bright at times, and it seems that the reference curve also helps with that (I guess because it's correcting for the room and also rolling off the highs a touch).


I think someone mentioned this a while back, but regarding DEQ for music, has anyone tried turning it off and tweaked the bass and subwoofer levels instead? With DEQ off, I have my sub boosted +5 from the Audyssey cal., and I have my bass tone control at +3. This is all using the Audy 'ref' curve. Sounds pretty nice for 2-ch tunes.

Another thing with this method of DEQ off vs DEQ on, is tone controls are available. DEQ with the ref offset sounds pretty good, but I don't really feel I need it to be boosting treble. I'd prefer if it'd only work on the low end. And unfortunately, DEQ locks us out of the tone controls, so I can't tweak things


----------



## Oil of OLED

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Those are both somewhat difficult questions to answer.


No doubt! Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful response. This thread never disappoints. I meant to imply that the nice hard floor slap was a good thing — my neighbor is upstairs, so the LFC-set-to-1 "floor slap" is nice because it gives me a bit of bass oomph without wall/ceiling vibrations. I'd love it if I could set LFC to the equivalent of 0.5 or so.

I will try turning off Dynamic EQ! I've been loath to take that step but it would be good to experiment. Thanks again.


----------



## tdidona

Hoping to ask another question to the experts on this exremely helpful thread. I did the sub crawl today and sound a pretty optimal nearfield place for my sub, an older HSU VTF3-MK2. Powerful but I know I need way more sub in my 4,000 cu. ft. room, or at least I thought. When I re-ran Audyssey, it has you move sub gain until you're around 75-78 db, which effectively made me turn my sub almost off, I was probably around 7 o'clock on the sub gain. My sub trim was set at -7.5 db. When I played a movie there was absolutely no bass, so I moved the sub gain up to around 10 o'clock and sub trim to -5, and it sounded great, or at least closer to what I was expecting. Any ideas on why Audyssey would set my sub so low during set up? When I did my original set up I had a less than optimal placement for the sub and it also had me turn it way down, but now as far down as this time. Sub is not in a corner, but next to a wall. Just curious if there's anything I can do to get this set up more accurately, so I don't have to continually play around with sub gain and trim, but I guess that's the name of the game. Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

tdidona said:


> Hoping to ask another question to the experts on this exremely helpful thread. I did the sub crawl today and sound a pretty optimal nearfield place for my sub, an older HSU VTF3-MK2. Powerful but I know I need way more sub in my 4,000 cu. ft. room, or at least I thought. When I re-ran Audyssey, it has you move sub gain until you're around 75-78 db, which effectively made me turn my sub almost off, I was probably around 7 o'clock on the sub gain. My sub trim was set at -7.5 db. When I played a movie there was absolutely no bass, so I moved the sub gain up to around 10 o'clock and sub trim to -5, and it sounded great, or at least closer to what I was expecting. Any ideas on why Audyssey would set my sub so low during set up? When I did my original set up I had a less than optimal placement for the sub and it also had me turn it way down, but now as far down as this time. Sub is not in a corner, but next to a wall. Just curious if there's anything I can do to get this set up more accurately, so I don't have to continually play around with sub gain and trim, but I guess that's the name of the game. Thanks.


Hi,

That's good timing; I was just checking the thread. When you moved your sub, you got it to a better location with respect to either boundary gain or room modes, and Audyssey set a lower trim level in response. To understand what is happening when Audyssey calibrates your system and sets your subwoofer trim level, you need to read Section II of the Guide, linked in my signature. Audyssey's job is to calibrate all of the channels in an HT system to play at the same volume as measured at the MLP (main listening position). And, a subwoofer's inherent capability, gain setting, and location determine what trim level Audyssey will set to make it match the volume of the other channels.

But, we don't hear bass frequencies as well as we do those in our normal hearing range, so we typically need to increase the bass, after Audyssey has finished calibrating, in order to restore acoustic equilibrium, especially at below Reference volume levels. DEQ helps with that, but may or may not be sufficient. Most people add a sub boost on top of DEQ, and may add even more boost without DEQ engaged.

The Guide will explain all of this in more detail and tell you more about Reference in the process.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## apexgrin

Oil of OLED said:


> I'm using LFC to keep my neighbors happy. Does it make any sense to turn up the volume on my subs post-calibration? LFC set to 1 attenuates the bass a lot, but my subs still give the floor a nice hard slap and I'd like to get the most that I can out of my situation. In the LFC context, I'm also curious as to whether I should replace my 2 cheap subs with a nicer/larger one.


I've found that using a little LFC along with Dynamic Volume (medium for me) at night keeps my sleeping fiance happy and still results in good sound, with the loudest impacts taken down a notch by the dyn volume. 

Personally I'd wait until you can afford two nicer subs, and likely when you're not in an apartment anyways.


----------



## Alan P

Overrid3 said:


> I think someone mentioned this a while back, but regarding DEQ for music, has anyone tried turning it off and tweaked the bass and subwoofer levels instead?


Many people in the history of this thread prefer running sans DEQ, myself included. However, I have went so far as to not only turn off DEQ, but to turn Audyssey off altogether...and it provided me with a more pleasing sound to my ears. 


If you are going to turn DEQ off, calculate your sub trim boost based on the fact that DEQ will boost the sub by ~2.2dB for every -5MV under Reference (0MV). For example, if you typically listen at -15MV with DEQ, you would add roughly 6.6dB to the sub trim to get the same effect without DEQ.

Keep in mind that the Bass tone control only effects the FL/FR speakers, not the subwoofer(s).


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

I liked Alan's explanation of how to calculate your probable subwoofer boost if you turn DEQ off, but there is something I would like to add to it. First, DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels, and not just the subwoofers, so initially at least, a DEQ boost may sound stronger than a numerical calculation of -15 MV = +6.6db might imply. So, you might find yourself adding a little more than a 1/1 ratio of subwoofer boost, even if you use the bass tone control too.

There is a second aspect to DEQ which could make it sound relatively more powerful initially, with a 1/1 calculation, although you would probably only notice it with very low-bass content. The 2.2db boost that Alan mentioned is not uniform. DEQ only adds 1.1db of boost down to 70Hz, and then progressively adds more at lower frequencies, until it reaches a maximum of +2.2db at 30Hz and under. That low-weighted boost sounds proportionally heavier to me with low-bass content than an equivalent full-range boost does. So, I think that I use proportionately more subwoofer boost without DEQ engaged than I would if it were engaged. (I hope that all made sense. )

I think that where I am going with this is that you can use some estimates to get you in the general ballpark, but you will still have to rely on your own hearing to tell you how much subwoofer and tone control boost to add to make things sound the way you want them to. Boosting without DEQ doesn't sound exactly the same to me as DEQ does. And, that is sort of the point of doing it, but exactly how much independent sub boost you will like with either one is probably very much a user preference issue.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> Boosting without DEQ doesn't sound exactly the same to me as DEQ does. And, that is sort of the point of doing it, but exactly how much independent sub boost you will like with either one is probably very much a user preference issue.
> Regards,
> Mike


I agree. And, even if the sub level and the bass control could be set so the amount of bass boost was substantially the same as with DEQ at the same SPL, there are still two reasons (IMO) that DEQ might sound worse than no DEQ with the sub level and bass tone control carefully set. They are: 1) DEQ seems to add a very slight amount of distortion that the bass tone control and the sub level do not. Please forgive me for sounding like a high end audiophile, but the sound is a little less "open" and "free floating" than without DEQ. This "purity" doesn't go away when the sub level and the bass control are used instead. . 2) DEQ also turns up the treble a bit, unnecessarily, IMO. The treble does not sound as "pure" [here I go again] as it does if the treble tone control is used. And, with most recordings, I'll bet you won't need to use treble boost.


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> Many people in the history of this thread prefer running sans DEQ, myself included. However, I have went so far as to not only turn off DEQ, but to turn Audyssey off altogether...and it provided me with a more pleasing sound to my ears.
> 
> 
> If you are going to turn DEQ off, calculate your sub trim boost based on the fact that DEQ will boost the sub by ~2.2dB for every -5MV under Reference (0MV). For example, if you typically listen at -15MV with DEQ, you would add roughly 6.6dB to the sub trim to get the same effect without DEQ.
> 
> Keep in mind that the Bass tone control only effects the FL/FR speakers, not the subwoofer(s).


Thanks! That's interesting. For now, I ended up with my sub boosted by +4, and I normally listen around -20 to maybe -15 if I wanna get really crazy  I tried not using tone controls, but music just plain sounds better with them. Audyssey seems to take some of the bass out of my speakers, which can't be recovered by boosting the sub, but the bass tone control is great for that. Also, -1 on the treble takes the edge off just a bit.


----------



## Overrid3

garygarrison said:


> I agree. And, even if the sub level and the bass control could be set so the amount of bass boost was substantially the same as with DEQ at the same SPL, there are still two reasons (IMO) that DEQ might sound worse than no DEQ with the sub level and bass tone control carefully set. They are: 1) DEQ seems to add a very slight amount of distortion that the bass tone control and the sub level do not. Please forgive me for sounding like a high end audiophile, but the sound is a little less "open" and "free floating" than without DEQ. This "purity" doesn't go away when the sub level and the bass control are used instead. . 2) *DEQ also turns up the treble a bit, unnecessarily, IMO.* The treble does not sound as "pure" [here I go again] as it does if the treble tone control is used. And, with most recordings, I'll bet you won't need to use treble boost.


This is exactly my problem with DEQ. If not for the treble boost, I think I'd use it with a ref. offset of 10, and a very small boost to my sub. I think maybe one option to avoid this would be to use the Audy app, and set the cutoff to 500 Hz or something. I'm thinking that would prevent Audy from doing anything to the high end, which could be good or bad.


----------



## NinBri64

For what it's worth, in my personal experience, Spotify(really all music) I have set to Direct (no Audyssey and therefore no DEQ, etc) and it just sounds fantastic. Some music sounds good with Audyssey, some sounds terrible, but I found the least frustrating setting is no Audyssey for music which makes all music sound fantastic in my setup. 

Movies and TV is a totally different animal for me and I MUCH prefer with Audyssey enabled. Movies: DEQ RLO 0, TV: DEQ RLO 10 and I've never looked back. I have not boosted the sub at all post Audyssey and it's absolutely tight and monstrous in movies when appropriate; 80hz crossover on all speakers, 150hz Atmos modules. I did lower the surrounds though because like others have reported, the surround volume is out of balance with the fronts with DEQ enabled. I lowered the surround levels by about 6db and the sound stage at all volumes seems correct up front to my ears with movies. 

Surprisingly lowering my surround volume also DRASTICALLY improved the Atmos bouncing effect from my Atmos enabled speakers. When I was new to my setup and tinkering with settings all day and night, I didn't realize how much the surround was boosted by DEQ and I complained that I had practically no Atmos effect. I guess my surround sound speakers were so loud they were masking the perceived Atmos bounce or something, but when I lowered my surrounds by 6db, I still hear surround sound clear as day but almost like magic I heard Atmos effects overhead. I couldn't believe how fantastic it sounds now from simply lowering the over boosted DEQ surround volume. I wish there were setting to choose to disable the surround boost but keep the dynamic bass eq boost at lower volumes because that sounds great.


----------



## CommanderROR

Yes, the Surround boost is not well explained by Audyssey/Denon and it also took me a while to understand it and conpensate for it. I wish Aidyssey would let us turn it on amd off seperately from DynEQ. Sadly they don't have any such plans, and the petition I started about it and posted here isn't going anywhere.


----------



## MarkyM

NinBri64 said:


> For what it's worth, in my personal experience, Spotify(really all music) I have set to Direct (no Audyssey and therefore no DEQ, etc) and it just sounds fantastic. Some music sounds good with Audyssey, some sounds terrible, but I found the least frustrating setting is no Audyssey for music which makes all music sound fantastic in my setup.


This was true for me also with my older Denon 3808ci with the earlier version of Audyssey. In fact, I was running it in Direct mode for 2ch music with an external analog crossover (so I could use my sub) to an external stereo amp. It just never sounded "right" to me through the AVR in Stereo mode.

But...

It is not true with my new Denon X3400H that has the newer and much better Audyssey XT32. Everything, music included, sounds better with Audyssey on. For music I do also have DEQ on but with the -15 offset.


----------



## Overrid3

MarkyM said:


> This was true for me also with my older Denon 3808ci with the earlier version of Audyssey. In fact, I was running it in Direct mode for 2ch music with an external analog crossover (so I could use my sub) to an external stereo amp. It just never sounded "right" to me through the AVR in Stereo mode.
> 
> But...
> 
> It is not true with my new Denon X3400H that has the newer and much better Audyssey XT32. Everything, music included, sounds better with Audyssey on. For music I do also have DEQ on but with the -15 offset.


I used to run my older AVR in "bypass L/R" mode, which is basically Audy off for the mains, but that had XT, I think. My latest receiver has XT32, and I think it does sound better turned on for music. Not that direct sounds bad, but when I engage Audy, the imaging is so clear, and the vocals are dead center. It sounds like they're coming out of my center-channel speaker (even though it's off). So yeah, it seems that having the higher-end version of Audy make a difference. It also EQ'd my sub much better.


----------



## kbarnes701

Flying visit. I have (finally) added back the missing images to questions D3 and H2 in the FAQ. These changes are in_ this thread's FAQ only_. The 'original' thread is locked so I cannot make the changes there.


----------



## garygarrison

kbarnes701 said:


> Flying visit. I have (finally) added back the missing images to questions D3 and H2 in the FAQ. These changes are in_ this thread's FAQ only_. The 'original' thread is locked so I cannot make the changes there.



Thanks, Keith.


----------



## jtowers11

Hi, I ran XT32 when I first got my receiver (Denon 3400H) and it sounded great. I recently ran it again and now the highs are very pronounced. Sounds very "tinny." I read through the FAQ (especially the "Why are my high frequencies bright or harsh since running Audyssey" section) and I did everything correctly. 

1) How do you view/modify the EQ for individual speakers? I'd like to check if it actually has significantly boosted the highs or decreased the mid/low or if I'm just being crazy. 

2) What is the fastest way to toggle Audyssey on/off while something is playing, so I can watch a little with it on, then a little with it off, etc to see which I prefer?

Thanks


----------



## pbarach

jtowers11 said:


> Hi, I ran XT32 when I first got my receiver (Denon 3400H) and it sounded great. I recently ran it again and now the highs are very pronounced. Sounds very "tinny." I read through the FAQ (especially the "Why are my high frequencies bright or harsh since running Audyssey" section) and I did everything correctly.
> 
> 1) How do you view/modify the EQ for individual speakers? I'd like to check if it actually has significantly boosted the highs or decreased the mid/low or if I'm just being crazy.
> 
> 2) What is the fastest way to toggle Audyssey on/off while something is playing, so I can watch a little with it on, then a little with it off, etc to see which I prefer?
> 
> Thanks


1) You can't modify the EQ for individual speakers.

2) There is no fast way to toggle Audyssey on/off; you have to go through the menus, which means you cycle through the various Audyssey modes to reach OFF.


----------



## jtowers11

pbarach said:


> 1) You can't modify the EQ for individual speakers.


Do you mean that Audyssey EQ's individual speakers but you just can't modify what it's doing? (and if you can't modify it, can you at least view it?)
Or do you mean that I've misunderstood what Audyssey does and it doesn't EQ individual speakers at all?


----------



## mogorf

jtowers11 said:


> Hi, I ran XT32 when I first got my receiver (Denon 3400H) and it sounded great. I recently ran it again and now the highs are very pronounced. Sounds very "tinny." I read through the FAQ (especially the "Why are my high frequencies bright or harsh since running Audyssey" section) and I did everything correctly.
> 
> 1) How do you view/modify the EQ for individual speakers? I'd like to check if it actually has significantly boosted the highs or decreased the mid/low or if I'm just being crazy.
> 
> 2) What is the fastest way to toggle Audyssey on/off while something is playing, so I can watch a little with it on, then a little with it off, etc to see which I prefer?
> 
> Thanks



Hi,


If nothing has changed in your room, no speaker re-positioning, no new furniture, etc. and the "tinny" sound comes from all speakers in your system then I suspect a bad Audyssey mic. Can you borrow a mic from a friend or co-worker to verify the case?


----------



## pbarach

jtowers11 said:


> Do you mean that Audyssey EQ's individual speakers but you just can't modify what it's doing? (and if you can't modify it, can you at least view it?)
> Or do you mean that I've misunderstood what Audyssey does and it doesn't EQ individual speakers at all?


Audyssey does modify individual speakers (and if you have two subs, it equalizes them as a pair). You cannot change the EQ for single speakers--if you don't like the result, your only option is to redo the whole calibration.

I have a Denon x4000, and you can view the EQ curves after calibration. The curves show the adjustments that Audyssey made to each speaker and to the sub(s), but they are coarsely drawn. If you have a different model of receiver, I can't say whether you can view the curves.


----------



## jtowers11

mogorf said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> If nothing has changed in your room, no speaker re-positioning, no new furniture, etc. and the "tinny" sound comes from all speakers in your system then I suspect a bad Audyssey mic. Can you borrow a mic from a friend or co-worker to verify the case?


No I don't know anyone else who has one. Can you buy a replacement? I've kept the mic in the box on a shelf the entire time I've had it so I'm not sure how it could have been damaged. 

I'm also curious if this is actually how it is supposed to sound, and I just got used to listening to the "wrong" sound. That's why I thought it would be useful to be able to at least see the modifications Audyssey is making.

Edit: found the place to view the curves.


----------



## mogorf

jtowers11 said:


> No I don't know anyone else who has one. Can you buy a replacement? I've kept the mic in the box on a shelf the entire time I've had it so I'm not sure how it could have been damaged.
> 
> I'm also curious if this is actually how it is supposed to sound, and I just got used to listening to the "wrong" sound. That's why I thought it would be useful to be able to at least see the modifications Audyssey is making.



Try to contact Denon or Audyssey service ([email protected]). They should be able to provide replacement mics.


----------



## mthomas47

jtowers11 said:


> No I don't know anyone else who has one. Can you buy a replacement? I've kept the mic in the box on a shelf the entire time I've had it so I'm not sure how it could have been damaged.
> 
> I'm also curious if this is actually how it is supposed to sound, and I just got used to listening to the "wrong" sound. That's why I thought it would be useful to be able to at least see the modifications Audyssey is making.
> 
> Edit: found the place to view the curves.



Hi,

The Audyssey mics can degrade even when they are just sitting unused, so that can be an alternative to consider. Replacement mics can be found on Amazon.

There are a number of things that can occur during a calibration that can adversely affect high-frequencies. They are the frequencies most susceptible to minor changes in speaker, or in mic positioning, and from comb-filtering due to microphone proximity to hard surfaces. The first section of the Guide, linked in my signature, has some detailed tips regarding issues that can affect an Audyssey calibration that go well beyond the advice in the FAQ.

Once you have achieved what you believe is your best Audyssey calibration (and I would follow the tips in Section I of the Guide before buying a new mic) there are some settings you can experiment with to improve your high-frequency sound quality. For instance, many people don't realize that DEQ boosts the high-frequencies by about 1db for every -5 MV. In some circumstances, that relatively modest boost could exacerbate brightness in a room. Once DEQ is disabled, the tone controls are available to you, and you can try reducing the treble on the front speakers slightly.

Don't get me wrong, I expect that the problem here is either a bad calibration or a bad microphone. But, there are some remedial measures that someone can also try, once he has performed an optimal calibration, with a properly-operating microphone.

Regards,
Mike


Edit, I wouldn't count too much on being able to tell anything very meaningful from the AVR curves. They are very coarse representations of corrections that Audyssey was trying to make. But, the actual Audyssey control points number in the thousands per channel.


----------



## garygarrison

On my Marntz I can compare Audyssey to Audyssey OFF, but there is about a three quarters of a second of silence between. The initial set-up is to go to Audio/video adjust > Audio Adjust > Audyssey Settings> then I'm ready. There is a bar at the top of the screen that can read "Audyssey" or a bunch of other things. By starting at "Audyssey" and going backwards, it goes back to Audyssey. You can switch back and forth to your heart's content, which I urge you to do with several different recordings. [/SIZE]

Right now, I'm listening to the CD soundtrack of Morricone's The Mission. It is a very bright recording, but, although I usually listen with Audyssey Flat, I listen to this one with just plain Audyssey, which reduces both the high treble, and the midrange at about 2K Hz. It improves it considerably and Audyssey sounds better to me than OFF, even in this case.



jtowers11 said:


> I'm also curious if this is actually how it is supposed to sound, and I just got used to listening to the "wrong" sound.


This can happen. Do you listen to a lot of live music? Paul Klipsch used to advise people to go to live concerts several times before picking out a speaker, to "re-calibrate their ears." 

Does the "tinny" sound occur on most of your recordings?


----------



## ox1216

So my Integra DTR 70.1 from 2009 gave out and it broke my heart..I loved that thing!! It was simple for me to use..Pluged in the mic, calibrated my room and put in the blu ray and was really happy!! Did the same thing with a Marantz I just purchased (6012) only thing is now my speakers (particularly the center channel) sound like everyone is under water...The only remedy is switching the mode from Dolby HD, to "Multi Ch Stereo" but I feel like I missing something and its overcompensating across all channels. On the Integra I loved watching movies with "Uncompressed Audio in True HD or DTS"...I'M super frustrated but I'm sure Im doing something wrong. 

Set up is a dedicated room..Polk SRS fronts, Klipsch Reference series center 64 and 2 sides, Outlaw LFM1-ex

Any help would be great!!!

Alan


----------



## mthomas47

ox1216 said:


> So my Integra DTR 70.1 from 2009 gave out and it broke my heart..I loved that thing!! It was simple for me to use..Pluged in the mic, calibrated my room and put in the blu ray and was really happy!! Did the same thing with a Marantz I just purchased (6012) only thing is now my speakers (particularly the center channel) sound like everyone is under water...The only remedy is switching the mode from Dolby HD, to "Multi Ch Stereo" but I feel like I missing something and its overcompensating across all channels. On the Integra I loved watching movies with "Uncompressed Audio in True HD or DTS"...I'M super frustrated but I'm sure Im doing something wrong.
> 
> Set up is a dedicated room..Polk SRS fronts, Klipsch Reference series center 64 and 2 sides, Outlaw LFM1-ex
> 
> Any help would be great!!!
> 
> Alan



Hi Alan,

Anything I say is just speculation, but it's possible that you don't like what DEQ (DynamicEQ) is doing in your system. That is a separate program from the EQ that Audyssey performs for the various channels. My suggestion is to read the Guide linked in my signature--especially Section I which deals with speaker setup and the calibration process. Once you feel pretty comfortable about the calibration itself, you can experiment with the settings a little more. 

Of course, you can try just turning off DEQ now in the Audio menu, but it would probably still be a good idea to read the Guide. If you turn off DEQ, you will probably want to add some sub boost. You may also want to experiment with both Audyssey and Audyssey Flat. They can make some subtle differences in the sound.

You have more user-control than some people realize at first, with Audyssey-equipped AVR's, but it can sometimes take a while to learn how to use some of the features, to achieve the specific sound qualities you prefer. There may be simpler automatic calibration and room EQ systems out there, but there aren't any better ones for the money. I think that Audyssey is worth a little time investment, but that's sort of a YMMV thing. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jtowers11

Thank you to the people who replied with feedback about my issue.

I ran it again, this time with the ceiling fan turned on since I usually have it on when I'm listening. And now the "tinny" sound is gone and everything sounds great. The fan is much higher than the speakers so it seems bizarre that that would have an effect on it, though it's also possible I had the mic a few inches off from where it was before and it ended up making a difference.



garygarrison said:


> O
> This can happen. Do you listen to a lot of live music? Paul Klipsch used to advise people to go to live concerts several times before picking out a speaker, to "re-calibrate their ears."
> 
> Does the "tinny" sound occur on most of your recordings?


I rarely listen to music on this setup, I did play some and thought it sounded very good but don't really have a point of reference to compare to. I noticed the weird sound when watching Blu Ray movies.


----------



## chamelious

Hi All, 

Recently upgraded my living room to Denon X3400H + M Audio bronze 5.1. 

Having a bit of trouble getting the best out of it, wondered if anyone has any wisdom I've missed regarding audyssey. 

My Room:
imgur . com/a/Hhcsm98(remove spaces)

I already know its not ideal, i know my surrounds are in the wrong place, i'm just doing the best i can with what i have. 

The problem:
With DEQ and DEV off, the sound seems reasonably balanced, but doesn't sound very "good" and the dynamic range is too high for watching films with. I understand why this is, reference level, its what DEQ and DEV is for, etc. 

As soon as i turn DEQ on, the sound is much "better", but i have big problems with dialogue being too quiet. So far my only actual usable solution is using DEQ and DEV on light, AND using the "dialogue boost" option at around 1-2db. This does work but its not ideal, as obviously loads of stuff comes through the C channel as well as dialogue, and the boost makes it jump out, and it sounds even crispier than without the boost. 

I know my C channel shouldn't be inside a console. Its hanging off the edge as much as possible, its also tilted up towards the listening position. I've actually tried removing this speaker altogether and running a film without it. It didn't help, and i guess its testament to how well matched these speaker are that it really didn't sound all that different. 

What i've tried:
I've re-run audyssey a bunch of times, most recently i tried putting some baffling up on the wall behind the sofa to reduce reflections (i am planning some treatment for this wall at least), and using a tighter mic pattern for the mic placement on the 8 tests. (Listening position is directly in front of C, mains are toed in and roughly the same distance apart as from the LP). It didn't seem to make much difference in the result though. I've tried every combination of settings i could find/think of. My crossovers are set correctly. (80, 100, 110, then 150+LFE for the sub section). 

Many thanks for any help.


----------



## pbarach

^^^

When the movie is very loud and the dialog from the center channel is too soft, I turn Dynamic EQ to ON, which automatically turns on Dynamic Volume. Then I turn Dynamic EQ OFF , which on my Denon x4000 leaves Dynamic Volume ON. I set it to HEAVY and use spoken movie dialog to adjust the master volume level so it's at a good level for me. This procedure seems to leave the center channel dialog audible while compressing the extreme dynamics to a tolerable level.

I have my center on a stand in front of the TV stand, tilted back enough so it's aimed directly at the main listening position directly in front of it. Although ideally all the front speakers would be equidistant from the main listening position, Audyssey compensates for that by calculating an appropriate delay during calibration.


----------



## mthomas47

chamelious said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Recently upgraded my living room to Denon X3400H + M Audio bronze 5.1.
> 
> Having a bit of trouble getting the best out of it, wondered if anyone has any wisdom I've missed regarding audyssey.
> 
> My Room:
> imgur . com/a/Hhcsm98(remove spaces)
> 
> I already know its not ideal, i know my surrounds are in the wrong place, i'm just doing the best i can with what i have.
> 
> The problem:
> With DEQ and DEV off, the sound seems reasonably balanced, but doesn't sound very "good" and the dynamic range is too high for watching films with. I understand why this is, reference level, its what DEQ and DEV is for, etc.
> 
> As soon as i turn DEQ on, the sound is much "better", but i have big problems with dialogue being too quiet. So far my only actual usable solution is using DEQ and DEV on light, AND using the "dialogue boost" option at around 1-2db. This does work but its not ideal, as obviously loads of stuff comes through the C channel as well as dialogue, and the boost makes it jump out, and it sounds even crispier than without the boost.
> 
> I know my C channel shouldn't be inside a console. Its hanging off the edge as much as possible, its also tilted up towards the listening position. I've actually tried removing this speaker altogether and running a film without it. It didn't help, and i guess its testament to how well matched these speaker are that it really didn't sound all that different.
> 
> What i've tried:
> I've re-run audyssey a bunch of times, most recently i tried putting some baffling up on the wall behind the sofa to reduce reflections (i am planning some treatment for this wall at least), and using a tighter mic pattern for the mic placement on the 8 tests. (Listening position is directly in front of C, mains are toed in and roughly the same distance apart as from the LP). It didn't seem to make much difference in the result though. I've tried every combination of settings i could find/think of. My crossovers are set correctly. (80, 100, 110, then 150+LFE for the sub section).
> 
> Many thanks for any help.



Hi,

It appears to me that you have already read the Guide, linked in my signature, as you mention several measures that are recommended with respect to setup. There are several things about your post, though, that I am having trouble understanding. What do you mean when you say that with DEQ and Dynamic volume off, the dynamic range is too high for watching films? I understand why things might not sound as good with DEQ off, if you aren't compensating for that by boosting your subs, but I don't understand the dynamic range part at all.

You do have subwoofers in your system, don't you? (The picture of your room didn't post correctly.) For most people, dynamic range is a good thing. It is the difference between the loudest and softest portions of a movie. Directors and film mixers use that dynamic range to create suspense and contrast in scenes. Most of us set the master volume where things sound pretty comfortable, and where we can hear dialogue comfortably. If we need to boost the center channel a little, due to all of the action in a movie, we do that. If we want more bass (without the surround boost and without DEQ boosting bass in the CC) we just turn DEQ off and add an independent subwoofer boost to compensate. 

Doing that should give you more of what you are looking for, if I understand you correctly. Dynamic Volume will, in fact, restrict the dynamic range by compressing loud and soft passages into the center a little more. But, it will do so at the expense of some of the extreme high and low-frequencies, and we just won't hear that content quite as well. If you need to maintain a more constant volume level while someone else is sleeping, or for your neighbors, I get that. But, are you saying that you prefer that for yourself? Nothing wrong with that--just trying to clarify what it is you are trying to accomplish. 

My other question involves your LFE setting. Are you saying that your LPF of LFE is set to 150Hz, or are you saying something else? It should be set to the max on your subwoofers, so that they will play full-band, but your LPF should be set no higher than 120Hz in your AVR.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## watermanpc

Hi mates!, I need some help here...I recently purchased a second hand onkyo 3008...it seems to perform perfectly fine and strong...yesterday, i decided to reset the unit to make a clear start (the settings and previous audyssey calibration were there from the previous user) and make the audyssey calibration...reset went fine, and every setting was defaulted correctly. However, Im not able to perform the audyssey calibration for some reason...

I connect the calibration mic (ACM1HB) and the calibration menu starts, then everything is correctly configured and I press enter to start the meassurements but suddenly, 2 strong relay clicks happen (the same as when you start the receiver and the speakers icons appear) and the start menu appears again without any kind of message?¿?¿?¿?¿?...the first time I started the proccess, I could hear the left front channel chirping but after 3 or 4 timers this started to happen (relay clicks and back to the main audyssey menu)...now I cant even hear a single sound from the calibration as it INMEDIATELY interrupts followed by 2 relay clicks and back to the main menu?¿?¿?¿. I have tried with and without subwoofer and same thing...if I enable subwoofer, I can see the screen asking me to adjust level to 75db for a second or so but then relay clicks and back to main menu for no reason...

I have performed countless resets (like 10 times, using VCR+Stand by button until "clear" appears in the screen), leaved the receiver unplugged for several hours, and tried another old mic I have just to make sure its not a mic problem. Nothing works :-(

The unit works fine and sounds amazing but I cant get audyssey to work. Last firmware installed...any idea whats going on here?...


thanks a lot!!


----------



## chamelious

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> It appears to me that you have already read the Guide, linked in my signature, as you mention several measures that are recommended with respect to setup. There are several things about your post, though, that I am having trouble understanding. What do you mean when you say that with DEQ and Dynamic volume off, the dynamic range is too high for watching films? I understand why things might not sound as good with DEQ off, if you aren't compensating for that by boosting your subs, but I don't understand the dynamic range part at all.
> 
> You do have subwoofers in your system, don't you? (The picture of your room didn't post correctly.) For most people, dynamic range is a good thing. It is the difference between the loudest and softest portions of a movie. Directors and film mixers use that dynamic range to create suspense and contrast in scenes. Most of us set the master volume where things sound pretty comfortable, and where we can hear dialogue comfortably. If we need to boost the center channel a little, due to all of the action in a movie, we do that. If we want more bass (without the surround boost and without DEQ boosting bass in the CC) we just turn DEQ off and add an independent subwoofer boost to compensate.
> 
> Doing that should give you more of what you are looking for, if I understand you correctly. Dynamic Volume will, in fact, restrict the dynamic range by compressing loud and soft passages into the center a little more. But, it will do so at the expense of some of the extreme high and low-frequencies, and we just won't hear that content quite as well. If you need to maintain a more constant volume level while someone else is sleeping, or for your neighbors, I get that. But, are you saying that you prefer that for yourself? Nothing wrong with that--just trying to clarify what it is you are trying to accomplish.
> 
> My other question involves your LFE setting. Are you saying that your LPF of LFE is set to 150Hz, or are you saying something else? It should be set to the max on your subwoofers, so that they will play full-band, but your LPF should be set no higher than 120Hz in your AVR.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi, Thanks for this. 

There is indeed a sub, i have the full m audio bronze 5.1 set with floorstanders, its set up as you say in the last paragraph. 

To sum up, i'm having trouble maintaining an acceptable dynamic range, while maintaining audibility of the dialogue. I understand films have a very high dynamic range, which is fine if you have a dedicated room in a detached house, but no good in a living room of a terrace 

The only workable solution I've found is to use the "dialogue adjust" option of 1-1.5DB, alongside DEQ and dynamic volume on light. Anything else either results in too much dynamic range, inaudible dialogue, or both. 

I'm looking at some acoustic treatment for my room but i don't expect it to help all that much. 

To be honest, i understand my issue is probably never getting "fixed". The system is designed to be played back really loud, and the features designed to compensate for when you listen back below reference, just aren't good enough.


----------



## pbarach

chamelious said:


> To be honest, i understand my issue is probably never getting "fixed". The system is designed to be played back really loud, and the features designed to compensate for when you listen back below reference, just aren't good enough.


No, it's the _movies_ you watch that are designed to be played back at high volume. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it sometimes doesn't mix well with apartment living or housemates that hate loud volumes. 

Have you considered a good pair of headphones? Not the ideal solution, but you should be able to hear the dialogue without getting blasted by sound effects.


----------



## jtowers11

Is it possible to save Audyssey configurations, so I can switch between one set of settings, and another, to make sure the new one sounds better?

I see a similar question to this in the FAQ but it only covers Onkyo and Denon "CI networking models" (don't know what that is). I have a Denon 3400H.


----------



## watermanpc

watermanpc said:


> Hi mates!, I need some help here...I recently purchased a second hand onkyo 3008...it seems to perform perfectly fine and strong...yesterday, i decided to reset the unit to make a clear start (the settings and previous audyssey calibration were there from the previous user) and make the audyssey calibration...reset went fine, and every setting was defaulted correctly. However, Im not able to perform the audyssey calibration for some reason...
> 
> I connect the calibration mic (ACM1HB) and the calibration menu starts, then everything is correctly configured and I press enter to start the meassurements but suddenly, 2 strong relay clicks happen (the same as when you start the receiver and the speakers icons appear) and the start menu appears again without any kind of message?¿?¿?¿?¿?...the first time I started the proccess, I could hear the left front channel chirping but after 3 or 4 timers this started to happen (relay clicks and back to the main audyssey menu)...now I cant even hear a single sound from the calibration as it INMEDIATELY interrupts followed by 2 relay clicks and back to the main menu?¿?¿?¿. I have tried with and without subwoofer and same thing...if I enable subwoofer, I can see the screen asking me to adjust level to 75db for a second or so but then relay clicks and back to main menu for no reason...
> 
> I have performed countless resets (like 10 times, using VCR+Stand by button until "clear" appears in the screen), leaved the receiver unplugged for several hours, and tried another old mic I have just to make sure its not a mic problem. Nothing works :-(
> 
> The unit works fine and sounds amazing but I cant get audyssey to work. Last firmware installed...any idea whats going on here?...
> 
> 
> thanks a lot!!



please, anyone can help me?, thanks!


----------



## mogorf

watermanpc said:


> please, anyone can help me?, thanks!



Hi,


The only thing I can recommend at the moment is to blow some compressed air into the headphone socket or plug in/out a headphone jack. Let's see what happens!


----------



## pbarach

jtowers11 said:


> Is it possible to save Audyssey configurations, so I can switch between one set of settings, and another, to make sure the new one sounds better?
> 
> I see a similar question to this in the FAQ but it only covers Onkyo and Denon "CI networking models" (don't know what that is). I have a Denon 3400H.


Page 217 of the manual describes how to save your configuration to a USB flash drive, and then how to reload the saved configuration from the flash drive to the AVR. Whether the saved config includes Audyssey settings, I can't tell from the manual. If it does, you can save diffferent Audyssey configurations on separate flash drives and then reload them at will.


----------



## watermanpc

mogorf said:


> Hi,
> 
> 
> The only thing I can recommend at the moment is to blow some compressed air into the headphone socket or plug in/out a headphone jack. Let's see what happens!


Thanks for the tip man, will try and come back to report...btw, yesterday, after LOTS of trials, there was a try where the receiver made the tones for ALL the speakers correctly and showing "now meassuring" in the screen...however after the first run, again the main audyssey menu without any kind of message?¿?¿? and after that I pushed enter again to start again and INMEDIATELY (less than a fraction of a second) the speaker screen of meassurement appears and again main audyssey menu without any info of WHY? this is happening...Im really desperate with this...


----------



## mthomas47

watermanpc said:


> Thanks for the tip man, will try and come back to report...btw, yesterday, after LOTS of trials, there was a try where the receiver made the tones for ALL the speakers correctly and showing "now meassuring" in the screen...however after the first run, again the main audyssey menu without any kind of message?¿?¿? and after that I pushed enter again to start again and INMEDIATELY (less than a fraction of a second) the speaker screen of meassurement appears and again main audyssey menu without any info of WHY? this is happening...Im really desperate with this...


 Hi,

I don't blame you for being upset. I held off saying anything, hoping that someone else would have some suggestions. And, I would definitely try what Feri suggested. Personally, I suspect that you just have a defective AVR. If so, no amount of tinkering or resetting is going to help. I don't know whether you can return or exchange it. Fingers crossed that you don't have to, but I am afraid that may be the only solution.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## drh3b

watermanpc said:


> Thanks for the tip man, will try and come back to report...btw, yesterday, after LOTS of trials, there was a try where the receiver made the tones for ALL the speakers correctly and showing "now meassuring" in the screen...however after the first run, again the main audyssey menu without any kind of message?¿?¿? and after that I pushed enter again to start again and INMEDIATELY (less than a fraction of a second) the speaker screen of meassurement appears and again main audyssey menu without any info of WHY? this is happening...Im really desperate with this...


I don't know if you already tried this, but sometimes unplugging a receiver for a while, overnight(or in my particular case, a couple of months) will reset it, and it will start working properly. Worth trying.


----------



## watermanpc

Hi guys!, thanks a ton for the help...tried already all you sugested with no succes ...so, I decided to try dissasembling the cover and take a look inside I though maybe there is something lose connection somewhere and believe it or not this is what I found:



this connection is lose, do you think could be the problem? I mean, of course it shouldnt be that way but maybe it has nothing to do with the audyssey thing, which btw I have no idea "where" is located the audyssey thing, I mean where is the chip/chips in charge of it and the calibration so I can take a look...Also would be worth some "guide" or something like that to dissasembly the front panel if you guys know of some...

thanks for your help!


----------



## garygarrison

watermanpc said:


> Hi guys!, thanks a ton for the help...tried already all you sugested with no succes  ...so, I decided to try dissasembling the cover and take a look inside I though maybe there is something lose connection somewhere and believe it or not this is what I found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this connection is lose, do you think could be the problem? I mean, of course it shouldnt be that way but maybe it has nothing to do with the audyssey thing, which btw I have no idea "where" is located the audyssey thing, I mean where is the chip/chips in charge of it and the calibration so I can take a look...Also would be worth some "guide" or something like that to dissasembly the front panel if you guys know of some...
> 
> thanks for your help!



If there was a picture sent in the above post, it didn't come through on my screen.


I was going to recommend looking for a cracked circuit board or a charred or melted component. As unlikely as that is, both happened to me (after several years) with my late, lamented, expensive Luxman integrated amp. A McIntosh and Luxman repair station said they wouldn't try to fix it for any amount of money. I didn't test that statement. Lexicon told me the same thing about their CP1.



AVRs and AVPs are so complicated, and so proprietary (in the case of Audyssey) there are very few repair people around anymore. 



If you can reconnect whatever was loose, it might be worth a shot.


You might have to cheer up and move on to a new unit with the updated and newer Audyssey XT32 -- be sure to get a configuration with the new Audyssey App.


If you are comfortable and experienced in repair (or have a friend who is) and yours is a TXNR-3008-BS, take a look at this.

file:///C:/Users/Warden/AppData/Local/Temp/Onkyo-TXNR-3008-BS-*Service-Manual*.pdf


But FIRST look at the "Trouble Shooting" section of your owner's manual.


Good Luck.


----------



## watermanpc

nevermind, already in touch with the previous owner.


----------



## CrazyCramers

Hey guy, I have a Denon AVR-X4400H and its KILLING my bass from LCR which are capable 8" pro woofers that they are rated to 60HZ but with REW they measures WAY lower.. Anyway Audyssey is stealing ALL their bass. I even tried using the MultEQ app to boost all the lower FQ and still sounds like absolute garbage. I tried L/R Bypass, which was a little better but still really lack luster. I shut off Audyssey and BAM bass is back in business. 

Im one who wants bass where it belongs- not off loaded to the subs- Am i doing something wrong with the app? it sounds like the bass is really someone just slapping the inside of the cone of the woofer. I run a 5.2.4 setup and it to handle the other speakers but honestly after shutting it off and setting all speakers to 75DB via rew and UMIK-1 its night and day - For instence when i run audyssey it sets my LCR at 120HZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF they are DIY Kit that are rated for 60hz i know they can and do go massively lower- yet audyssey sets them at a higher Xover than my pile of garbage .4 speakers which are like 4" tiny satellite speakers. AVR up to date i take 4/5 measurments as small room - ive never seen such garbage...Should i leave it off? run it and post results and maybe get some help with setup?


----------



## garygarrison

CrazyCramers said:


> Hey guy, I have a Denon AVR-X4400H and its KILLING my bass from LCR which are capable 8" pro woofers that they are rated to 60HZ but with REW they measures WAY lower.. Anyway Audyssey is stealing ALL their bass. I even tried using the MultEQ app to boost all the lower FQ and still sounds like absolute garbage. I tried L/R Bypass, which was a little better but still really lack luster. I shut off Audyssey and BAM bass is back in business.
> 
> Im one who wants bass where it belongs- not off loaded to the subs- Am i doing something wrong with the app? it sounds like the bass is really someone just slapping the inside of the cone of the woofer. I run a 5.2.4 setup and it to handle the other speakers but honestly after shutting it off and setting all speakers to 75DB via rew and UMIK-1 its night and day - For instence when i run audyssey it sets my LCR at 120HZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF they are DIY Kit that are rated for 60hz i know they can and do go massively lower- yet audyssey sets them at a higher Xover than my pile of garbage .4 speakers which are like 4" tiny satellite speakers. AVR up to date i take 4/5 measurments as small room - ive never seen such garbage...Should i leave it off? run it and post results and maybe get some help with setup?



*See f)5 in the FAQ [linked below]*

Please see these two: 
 Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## David Aiken

CrazyCramers said:


> Hey guy, I have a Denon AVR-X4400H and its KILLING my bass from LCR which are capable 8" pro woofers that they are rated to 60HZ but with REW they measures WAY lower.. Anyway Audyssey is stealing ALL their bass. I even tried using the MultEQ app to boost all the lower FQ and still sounds like absolute garbage. I tried L/R Bypass, which was a little better but still really lack luster. I shut off Audyssey and BAM bass is back in business.
> 
> Im one who wants bass where it belongs- not off loaded to the subs- Am i doing something wrong with the app? it sounds like the bass is really someone just slapping the inside of the cone of the woofer. I run a 5.2.4 setup and it to handle the other speakers but honestly after shutting it off and setting all speakers to 75DB via rew and UMIK-1 its night and day - For instence when i run audyssey it sets my LCR at 120HZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF they are DIY Kit that are rated for 60hz i know they can and do go massively lower- yet audyssey sets them at a higher Xover than my pile of garbage .4 speakers which are like 4" tiny satellite speakers. AVR up to date i take 4/5 measurments as small room - ive never seen such garbage...Should i leave it off? run it and post results and maybe get some help with setup?


To add to Gary's response-

You say your woofers are rated to 60 Hz and are being set to 75 Hz by Audyssey, and you say the speakers are "DIY Kit". First, speaker ratings are usually set on the basis of anechoic measurements which means measurements which don't take the effects of the room into consideration. The actual bass performance you get in a room depends on a number of factors which can affect it greatly. Things like how close the speakers are to a wall is one factor with bass performance improving as the speaker gets closer to the wall, with maximum boost from the room occurring with speakers placed in the corners but another factor is the location of the listening position. Because of the way room modes, aka "standing waves", work, bass levels in the room vary depending on the location of the listening position and in some listening positions in a room you will get good bass response, in others you may find the bass totally missing in action. Audyssey measures the speaker performance at your listening position and it sets the crossover at the point where the bass measures -3dB for the first time because it's pretty impossible to start filling in the holes in the bass response caused by room modes. No matter what your speaker specs are, your speaker and listening position placements can result in you never being able to get the specified response. Secondly, speaker specifications are often optimistic because they help sell speakers and many speaker manufacturers quote unrealistic specs so the specs you're reporting may well be inaccurate.

In order to get better bass response from your speakers you can try moving them back a little closer to the wall so the room provides a bit more reinforcement, and also try moving your listening position forward or back a bit in small steps. Do this with Audyssey turned off and playing music with a good bass line and find the listening position which gives the best bass response. Once you've found that, leave your listening position there and rerun the setup process so Audyssey bases it's results on the new position.

Most of us tend to manually adjust the subwoofer trim setting that Audyssey sets so that we get a bit more bass boost. Also you can consider turning Audyssey's DEQ setting on, especially if you do a lot of your listening at lower volume levels, because our ears are less sensitive to bass frequencies at lower volumes. Some people like and use DEQ, some don't. I use it because I listen at moderate levels and it does help. If you do a lot of your listening with your volume control set to levels of -10 dB or lower then you probably are going to have to either adjust your sub trim setting and/or use DEQ if you want to have good bass levels because of the lower sensitivity of your ears at those listening levels. How much you adjust your sub trim setting by is going to depend on whether or not you use DEQ and you will need to adjust the trim setting by a greater amount if you don't use DEQ.

Finally, the reason you get more "BAM" when you turn Audyssey off might be because you're sitting in an area where a room mode is boosting a low frequency but you may not be getting good bass between that frequency and where Audyssey sets your crossover because that region is in a null from another room mode. Bass/low frequency response below 200-300 Hz is vey uneven in rooms and a bass peak at a low frequency can result in bass sounding impressive but it's not even bass. Audyssey tries to produce an even bass response and it lowers bass peaks so it can give the impression that you have less bass when you're getting better bass but without a peak at a particular frequency. Try living with the Audyssey result for a week or so to give yourself time to get used to it and see what you think about the bass response when you adjust to the difference in the overall sound and bass balance. You may well find yourself actually preferring the result with Audyssey because you find yourself actually hearing things in the bass which you never noticed before.


----------



## CrazyCramers

David Aiken said:


> To add to Gary's response-
> 
> You say your woofers are rated to 60 Hz and are being set to 75 Hz by Audyssey, and you say the speakers are "DIY Kit". First, speaker ratings are usually set on the basis of anechoic measurements which means measurements which don't take the effects of the room into consideration. The actual bass performance you get in a room depends on a number of factors which can affect it greatly. Things like how close the speakers are to a wall is one factor with bass performance improving as the speaker gets closer to the wall, with maximum boost from the room occurring with speakers placed in the corners but another factor is the location of the listening position. Because of the way room modes, aka "standing waves", work, bass levels in the room vary depending on the location of the listening position and in some listening positions in a room you will get good bass response, in others you may find the bass totally missing in action. Audyssey measures the speaker performance at your listening position and it sets the crossover at the point where the bass measures -3dB for the first time because it's pretty impossible to start filling in the holes in the bass response caused by room modes. No matter what your speaker specs are, your speaker and listening position placements can result in you never being able to get the specified response. Secondly, speaker specifications are often optimistic because they help sell speakers and many speaker manufacturers quote unrealistic specs so the specs you're reporting may well be inaccurate.
> 
> In order to get better bass response from your speakers you can try moving them back a little closer to the wall so the room provides a bit more reinforcement, and also try moving your listening position forward or back a bit in small steps. Do this with Audyssey turned off and playing music with a good bass line and find the listening position which gives the best bass response. Once you've found that, leave your listening position there and rerun the setup process so Audyssey bases it's results on the new position.
> 
> Most of us tend to manually adjust the subwoofer trim setting that Audyssey sets so that we get a bit more bass boost. Also you can consider turning Audyssey's DEQ setting on, especially if you do a lot of your listening at lower volume levels, because our ears are less sensitive to bass frequencies at lower volumes. Some people like and use DEQ, some don't. I use it because I listen at moderate levels and it does help. If you do a lot of your listening with your volume control set to levels of -10 dB or lower then you probably are going to have to either adjust your sub trim setting and/or use DEQ if you want to have good bass levels because of the lower sensitivity of your ears at those listening levels. How much you adjust your sub trim setting by is going to depend on whether or not you use DEQ and you will need to adjust the trim setting by a greater amount if you don't use DEQ.
> 
> Finally, the reason you get more "BAM" when you turn Audyssey off might be because you're sitting in an area where a room mode is boosting a low frequency but you may not be getting good bass between that frequency and where Audyssey sets your crossover because that region is in a null from another room mode. Bass/low frequency response below 200-300 Hz is vey uneven in rooms and a bass peak at a low frequency can result in bass sounding impressive but it's not even bass. Audyssey tries to produce an even bass response and it lowers bass peaks so it can give the impression that you have less bass when you're getting better bass but without a peak at a particular frequency. Try living with the Audyssey result for a week or so to give yourself time to get used to it and see what you think about the bass response when you adjust to the difference in the overall sound and bass balance. You may well find yourself actually preferring the result with Audyssey because you find yourself actually hearing things in the bass which you never noticed before.



Ill clarify a bit- speakers rated 60hz Audyssey is setting them to 100/120, Subwoofer is fine- My LCR are being destroyed by audyssey I shut off audyssey and manually set LCR to 74DB with rew and i have all the bass i was missing. I dont have any other locations to put speakers as its a family room. i did try it wih audyssey on for weeks, all bass is redirected to subs and i mean ALL- it sets My LCR which can easily go to 40hz at 120HZand sets my auro/atmos satellite speakers which are tiny 4" speakers at 90/100HZ lol


----------



## cfraser

^ That should not be happening. Could your Audyssey microphone be damaged? As far as the bass rating for your speakers: as David said, that's under specific circumstances, almost idealized. OTOH all my 7.1 base speakers are rated for 40Hz, and that's exactly the XO that Audyssey sets them at. Did you check the distortion of your speakers at e.g. 60Hz with REW? (Seriously, check that with REW, many people don't go past checking frequency response.) It's harder to hear distortion at low frequencies, and it can get pretty damn high...Audyssey rejects a lot of it, but not nearly all, so it may declare an XO a lot higher than you might expect.


----------



## CrazyCramers

cfraser said:


> ^ That should not be happening. Could your Audyssey microphone be damaged? As far as the bass rating for your speakers: as David said, that's under specific circumstances, almost idealized. OTOH all my 7.1 base speakers are rated for 40Hz, and that's exactly the XO that Audyssey sets them at. Did you check the distortion of your speakers at e.g. 60Hz with REW? (Seriously, check that with REW, many people don't go past checking frequency response.) It's harder to hear distortion at low frequencies, and it can get pretty damn high...Audyssey rejects a lot of it, but not nearly all, so it may declare an XO a lot higher than you might expect.


Ill take some sweeps of LCR and post distortion and current response now that i have Audyssey off. And i agree it should not be happening- ive never experienced this before. Hell my old SR7010 always set Xover at exact FQ my speakers were rated for it was nice.


----------



## CrazyCramers

Hmm this looks like garbage- to my newbie eyes- really hate these DIY speakers


----------



## garygarrison

CrazyCramers said:


> Ill take some sweeps of LCR and post distortion and current response now that i have Audyssey off. And i agree it should not be happening- ive never experienced this before. * Hell my old SR7010 always set Xover at exact FQ my speakers were rated for it was nice.*



Same room or different room? Same speaker location, or different? Same MLP or not?


----------



## garygarrison

CrazyCramers said:


> *Hmm this looks like garbage*- to my newbie eyes- really hate these DIY speakers



Garbage in ...



Some people say to start out by depicting just *THD* and *Third Harmonic* (a very irritating part of distortion). Deselect the others. You can do that without re-running the sweep.

If you put *%* on the ordinate [y] it will speak to you in familiar language [*%].*

I have no idea what the standards are, other than a THD of 1.75% to 2 % is considered extremely good for a speaker (unlike an amp), but it depends on many things, including*: *SPL, frequency, etc. 

Someone else can give you more info. There are a couple of REW threads on AVS.

THD may be tame compared to Modulation distortion -- which is something people fight about. I don't know of a way to measure it with REW, but maybe there is.

.







"First there was a mountain, then there was no mountain, then there was." *First *there was robust research, from several quarters, showing that it was quite annoying when above about 2%. I'm told it happens when there is fairly wide diaphragm excursion and an upper tone (with music, many tones) must to ride on a diaphragm already pumping because of a lower tone(s). Multiple side-bands that were not in the original signal form. Dividing the spectrum with crossovers or bi-amping [not bi-wiring] cuts down on it. IMO, one reason we can tolerate our subwoofers is they are crossed over [~~ 80 Hz] so that their pumping cones do not take higher frequencies along for the ride. Also, by setting our LCR main speakers and our surrounds to "Small" we beneficially limit their excursion, purifying the high bass of their woofers. Using larger woofers, several of them, large cabinets, may help. *Then* two manufacturers of speakers with wide excursion and a fair amount of modulation distortion wrote articles saying it was not much of a problem. *Then*, more recently, the pendulum, Foucault-like, swung back, and people are taking modulation distortion seriously again. Some listening tests by *Stereophile *may have started the reversal.


----------



## cfraser

Re _CrazyCramer_'s REW plot:
Yes, it would be good to see third harmonic distortion, and to know which colored line is which. I'm going to assume the (usually) highest curve is the fundamental. It looks as though an XO somewhere between 40Hz and 50Hz wouldn't be unreasonable, and if 50Hz isn't an option for you (it's not for me in the Denons/Marantzes I've had), then an XO determination of 60Hz doesn't seem unreasonable to me, with the little I know of your setup etc.


----------



## David Aiken

CrazyCramers said:


> Hmm this looks like garbage- to my newbie eyes- really hate these DIY speakers


Looking at that graph you have a sharp drop-off of over 10 dB just above 100 Hz. That's why Audyssey is setting your crossover at 120 Hz.

As crasser said above, you could try setting the crossover lower, but I wouldn't try setting it lower than 60 Hz because the bass starts rolling off without recovery around there. There is a problem with setting the crossover lower. Audyssey will not provide correction for the speakers below the crossover frequency it sets so from 120 Hz on down to where you set the crossover the speaker is not going to get any correction and the plot shows a lot of room for correction below 120 Hz. Personally, I would not set the crossover frequency lower than Audyssey sets it because of that fact.

Audyssey is designed to work in a particular way and it uses a 3 dB drop-off as the trigger for where it sets the crossover. The user cannot change that. There are other room correction systems out there that work differently including Dirac and Yamaha's system. I have no idea whether they would be more to your liking with your system and your room but one of them may be better at doing what you want than Audyssey. With an in-room response like that in your plot, however, any system is going to have a lot of problem boosting the bass of your speakers below 60 Hz because of the roll off. The dip between 70 and 80 Hz and the dip just above 100 Hz are both probably due to room modes and most probably can not be smoothed completely by room correction. If you're going to look at other room correction systems, I would strongly recommend doing so via a home trial which lets you hear what they are capable of accomplishing with your system in your room because they may not do much better than Audyssey. There are limits to what can be achieved with room correction software.

What may help for you is actually physical room treatment, specifically bass traps which can do a lot to smooth out the peaks and troughs of bass response in a room. I can't make any guarantees because it's going to depend a lot on what bass traps you try and where you can place them (corners are regarded as the best locations) but if you could smooth that big dip above 100 Hz out enough by using bass traps, then Audyssey may well set the crossover frequency for your speakers lower.

So I think you have 3 options available to you. They are to:

1- keep your current speakers and Audyssey and try smoothing the bass response in your room with bass traps in order to allow Audyssey to set a lower crossover frequency;

2- keep your current speakers and try a different room correction system than Audyssey to see if that gives you a lower crossover for your speakers;

3- change your current speakers to speakers which deliver better bass response in your room.

You said that your speakers were specified as having bass extension down to around 40 Hz. That specification looks like wishful thinking based on the plot you've provided because they simply start rolling off at close to 12 dB per octave from around 60 Hz. I don't think it's possible to get good bass response to much below 60 Hz from those speakers based on your plot.


----------



## cfraser

^ I found out yesterday that the MultEQ app will correct _below _the XO if you set your speakers to Large (in the app). It appears that if your speakers are capable of Full Band response, Audyssey does this by itself and corrects below the XO it determines anyway (it did this to some of my speakers with a determined XO of 40Hz). This is a new Audyssey concept to me...I'm new to the app and haven't done anything beyond basics with it. Which is all I wanted to do anyway. I have the same X4400 as _CrazyCramers_, using it as a pre-pro, so the app is an option for him too. (My purpose for getting the app was to _prevent _high-frequency correction, not to extend low-frequency speaker correction...but I'll take it.)


----------



## David Aiken

^ "…MultEQ app will correct below the XO if you set your speakers to Large (in the app). It appears that if your speakers are capable of Full Band response, Audyssey does this by itself and corrects below the XO it determines anyway…"

But if your speakers are capable of full band response my understanding was that they were set to "Large" and a crossover was not determined. If YOU manually set the speaker to "Small", then a crossover of 40 Hz was automatically set but my understanding was that this was done by Denon/Marantz rather than being actually set by Audyssey.

I know you can do some things with the MultEQ app that you can't do with your AVR settings options but I did not think this was one of them. If you can do this, I'm not certain that I would recommend doing it because if you look at that plot that CrazyCramers provided, you're looking at something around a 20+ dB boost at 40 Hz which could be a big imposition on the AVR and it may even result in the driver bottoming badly in louder passages. Trying to extend low frequency extension significantly via EQ isn't a good idea because you're forcing the driver to deliver output at frequencies below it's normal operating range and you're applying large power boosts at low frequency which places heavy demands on the amp. I would be very careful about how much I tried to extend the bass response of CrazyCramer's speakers in this way. If I were going to try it, I'd go slowly by starting at 80 Hz and then dropping it to lower settings gradually after playing some loud passages to see how the drivers handled the boost. If problems started to occur with either the speakers or the AVR I'd go back to the last crossover frequency which did not have problems and stop there rather than trying to get a bit more extension.


----------



## cfraser

^ Hey David, trust me, it's a new Audyssey concept to me, and really caught me off-guard. I haven't "investigated" it further since the other day, I really need to play with the app more, so that I'm as confident with what the app does as I am familiar with the...idiosyncracies...of regular Audyssey. There really isn't a lot of definitive info on the app (essentially none actually), nothing remotely like the Audyssey FAQ here.

I may be confusing _CrazyCramers_ with somebody else, but I was thinking he didn't have a sub (yet). So I was thinking that since XO is moot, and since he'd be running his speakers full band/range, he would want as much low-frequency correction as he could get. But I get your points. In my case, what I see Audyssey did is "massive" attenuation in the low frequency range down to ~40Hz, then a tiny bit of boost in the sub-40Hz range. (This is for my surround back speakers which are located on back wall almost in a corner, with bass traps right below.) But for his speakers, yes the boost could be a problem, and it looks like it would end up having huge distortion. Still, IMO it's worth a try/look, you never know what MultEQ might come up with. I mean it's no real extra work, just a few finger pokes and an upload, plus a few minutes. He could have his REW microphone set up and see what it looks like compared to only correcting to the determined XO.

Edit: after further thought, I don't think I've ever run Audyssey in a system without subs. Certainly not my own, or anybody else's either. So that is a big hole in my Audyssey experience. More edit: oops, slight lie there, my bedroom stereo system doesn't have a sub, and I only used the XT32 there "because I could", didn't put any effort into it, no REW "verification" etc.


----------



## MackGuyver

David Aiken said:


> if you look at that plot that CrazyCramers provided, you're looking at something around a 20+ dB boost at 40 Hz which could be a big imposition on the AVR and it may even result in the driver bottoming badly in louder passages.


First, I don't think Audyssey will provide anywhere near 20dB of correction (don't think it does) and second, if you need 20dB of correction, you've got *serious* issues with either the speaker, the room, or both.

EDIT - just to clarify, if you're trying to boost a speaker that much at the bottom of it's frequency response, that means the speaker isn't physically capable to producing those frequencies. All speakers, even the biggest, baddest subwoofers have a frequency response that they can produce and Audyssey can't defy the laws of physics


----------



## mthomas47

MackGuyver said:


> First, I don't think Audyssey will provide anywhere near 20dB of correction (don't think it does) and second, if you need 20dB of correction, you've got *serious* issues with either the speaker, the room, or both.
> 
> EDIT - just to clarify, if you're trying to boost a speaker that much at the bottom of it's frequency response, that means the speaker isn't physically capable to producing those frequencies. All speakers, even the biggest, baddest subwoofers have a frequency response that they can produce and Audyssey can't defy the laws of physics



Hi,

You are definitely right about Audyssey not boosting a frequency by 20db. Audyssey can apply up to 20db cuts, but it is limited to 9db boosts, for exactly the reasons you state. Audyssey will not apply any EQ at all to a speaker or a subwoofer once it detects a 3db roll-off in the transducer's frequency response. That is specifically done in order to protect them.

The measurement at the first microphone position is factored into the total, but is primarily used to determine volume and timing. Then, it continues to measure the frequency response in subsequent mic positions, in part to determine where natural roll-offs are occurring (as opposed to cancellation). It then sets control points (using fuzzy-weighted logic) based on that more detailed information, and stops setting them where a transducer rolls-off naturally by 3db. The AVR also sets the crossovers for the various channels based on the full 6 or 8 point information from all of the channels.

If someone has a 20db increase at a particular frequency, post-Audyssey, that wasn't the result of Audyssey boosting the SPL by 20db, because it can't do that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

MackGuyver said:


> First, I don't think Audyssey will provide anywhere near 20dB of correction (don't think it does) and second, if you need 20dB of correction, you've got *serious* issues with either the speaker, the room, or both.
> 
> EDIT - just to clarify, if you're trying to boost a speaker that much at the bottom of it's frequency response, that means the speaker isn't physically capable to producing those frequencies. All speakers, even the biggest, baddest subwoofers have a frequency response that they can produce and Audyssey can't defy the laws of physics


You're right. Audyssey only lets you adjust trims by +/- 12 dB so you can't get a 20 dB boost.

BUT take a look at the frequency plot supplied and the original statement that the speaker is supposed to extend down to 40 Hz. The range from 40 Hz to 20 kHz spans from around 60 dB to around 92 Hz, approx 30 dB. You could boost the bass by 12 dB and cut the peaks by 12 dB and still not cover it. Audyssey stops correcting when the bass drops by 3 dB, probably because a 3 dB boost requires twice the power, so if we look at a 15 dB range. 3 dB boost in the bass to 12 dB cut on peaks, we can correct from about 50 Hz on up.

If you look at my earlier comments you will see I pointed out that I thought the speaker specification was optimistic and that there were room problems. and suggested other alternatives. The comment you're responding to concerned why I was against trying to extend the Audyssey correction below where the crossover was being set because of the amount of correction required in the bass which is excessive if the OP wanted to get the frequency extension to 40 Hz that he says his speakers should be capable of.


----------



## cfraser

^ I thought the "concensus"  was he shouldn't bother trying to use those speakers much below 60Hz. And when he gets a sub, the standard XO of 80Hz would be just about "perfect" for them. So no need to toss/junk them, there are plenty of less capable speakers used in millions of setups. As for just about everybody, getting a decent sub (or more than one) solves a lot of problems. Don't know if he's still around, but he has the tools and is apparently willing to learn to use them.

The MultEQ app is another tool worth taking a look at, it allows some Audyssey adjustments that IMO should have been built-in to AVRs/pre-pros years ago, even in a simplified form. It seems to me Audyssey has been intentionally hobbled by a certain stubborness of the (ex) principal(s). If not for that, if a MultEQ-equivalent had been around 2-3 years ago, then I bet many people wouldn't have moved to ARC and Dirac in the first place, and once you have, no reason to come back. Standard Audyssey is just too rigid for 2018, may have been OK for 2008. All we wanted was a few options! They could have easily offered something like a binary option, to correct above e.g. 500Hz or not (or sub/bass correction only). MRC or not. When you're including XT32 in $4k devices you have to be more open-minded.


----------



## David Aiken

cfraser said:


> ^ I thought the "concensus"  was he shouldn't bother trying to use those speakers much below 60Hz. *And when he gets a sub*, the standard XO of 80Hz would be just about "perfect" for them. So no need to toss/junk them, there are plenty of less capable speakers used in millions of setups. As for just about everybody, getting a decent sub (or more than one) solves a lot of problems. Don't know if he's still around, but he has the tools and is apparently willing to learn to use them.
> 
> …


But he has a sub, possibly more than one:



CrazyCramers said:


> Ill clarify a bit- speakers rated 60hz Audyssey is setting them to 100/120, *Subwoofer is fine*- My LCR are being destroyed by audyssey I shut off audyssey and manually set LCR to 74DB with rew and i have all the bass i was missing. I dont have any other locations to put speakers as its a family room. *i did try it wih audyssey on for weeks, all bass is redirected to subs* and i mean ALL- it sets My LCR which can easily go to 40hz at 120HZand sets my auro/atmos satellite speakers which are tiny 4" speakers at 90/100HZ lol


If he did not have a sub, all speakers would be set to large and the crossovers he'x complaining about would not have been set to 120 Hz. Crossovers are only set when there is a sub for the bass to be handed to.


----------



## CrazyCramers

Sorry life kicking my butt, Yes i have subs- A VBSS which in its current location during "Setup" i got at moderate volume 8HZ 75DB, and i have a Dayton Sub1500 until l figure out what is next for subs. 

As for the speakers capabilities- i mean they slam pretty well now with Audyssey off. Ill have to take some measurements. The thing is Audyssey Bypass L/R dosnt work it still alters signal. Which is extremely annoying, X4400H granted is not the top tier unit but still $1600 + $20 for app and i cant tweak my LCR. I have to have Audyssey off which id like to keep on for all remaining speakers. But after having Audyssey off and setting each speaker to 75DB via REW and UMIK-1, i see no reason to have Audyssey anymore. besides killing my LCR it has you set subs and then blasts them afterwords. My VBSS was shaking my house at -20 on avr, and it felt and sounded like i could go no further. Where as with it off my Sub shakes things with more precision and i can go to 0 and not worry. Audyssey just will not tolerate modification, even with the app i tried boosting 40HZ and up by 12DB and made 0 difference. 

I think at this point Audyssey is not a tool i need in my system, it does more harm then good.
I cant stand the 80HZ xover bs it sounds like absolute garbage and drives me insane. I know many will argue it but i localize bass a bit more than average user- When i watch a movie and say Hulk is smashing someones face in - i want to hear it where its meant to be not a tinned out version and the slam off at the subs - cringe


----------



## cfraser

Sorry about that guys, I mixed up different threads. Of course he has subs...

You know, I have some movies that sound extremely different, and IMO much better, when I set my XOs at 40Hz instead of 80Hz. Much more exciting. I have the amps and speakers that can handle it. No way I'm getting into that "you can't localize below 80Hz" BS that seems to be promulgated by...the usual suspects. *I* can hear it, everybody I've demoed it to can hear it...who is this "general public" who can't hear it? I do usually run with XOs at 80Hz though.


----------



## CrazyCramers

cfraser said:


> Sorry about that guys, I mixed up different threads. Of course he has subs...
> 
> You know, I have some movies that sound extremely different, and IMO much better, when I set my XOs at 40Hz instead of 80Hz. Much more exciting. I have the amps and speakers that can handle it. No way I'm getting into that "you can't localize below 80Hz" BS that seems to be promulgated by...the usual suspects. *I* can hear it, everybody I've demoed it to can hear it...who is this "general public" who can't hear it? I do usually run with XOs at 80Hz though.



Yeah im not one those crazy fanatics lol its just bass- i have pretty darn good hearing. Movies are so much more exciting for me with a 40hz xover- 80hz sounds like a Walmart special radio  My end goal is to have every channel be able be a full(ish) range speaker- that i can have them all at like 40hz, granted that would needs some more amplification hahah but that is way way down the road.


----------



## David Aiken

CrazyCramers said:


> Sorry life kicking my butt, Yes i have subs- A VBSS which in its current location during "Setup" i got at moderate volume 8HZ 75DB, and i have a Dayton Sub1500 until l figure out what is next for subs.
> 
> As for the speakers capabilities- i mean they slam pretty well now with Audyssey off. Ill have to take some measurements. The thing is Audyssey Bypass L/R dosnt work it still alters signal. Which is extremely annoying, X4400H granted is not the top tier unit but still $1600 + $20 for app and i cant tweak my LCR. I have to have Audyssey off which id like to keep on for all remaining speakers. But after having Audyssey off and setting each speaker to 75DB via REW and UMIK-1, i see no reason to have Audyssey anymore. besides killing my LCR it has you set subs and then blasts them afterwords. My VBSS was shaking my house at -20 on avr, and it felt and sounded like i could go no further. Where as with it off my Sub shakes things with more precision and i can go to 0 and not worry. Audyssey just will not tolerate modification, even with the app i tried boosting 40HZ and up by 12DB and made 0 difference.
> 
> I think at this point Audyssey is not a tool i need in my system, it does more harm then good.
> I cant stand the 80HZ xover bs it sounds like absolute garbage and drives me insane. I know many will argue it but i localize bass a bit more than average user- When i watch a movie and say Hulk is smashing someones face in - i want to hear it where its meant to be not a tinned out version and the slam off at the subs - cringe


Re your first paragraph: It sounds to me like you have something wrong in your settings on the Denon. The Audyssey Bypass L/R setting should probably be worse for bass response with your speakers because the sub won't get any bass from the L and R speakers and they're rolling off from 60 Hz on down in your room. With the bypass setting Audyssey also doesn't correct the rest of the range so it's not correcting the mids and highs and our perception of bass does seem to depend to some degree on overall tonal balance. I've noticed that changes to high frequency response which don't affect the actual bass output of my system sometimes do affect my perception of that bass output, sometimes for the better, sometimes worse, so your sense that the bass is better without Audyssey on may be due in part to a difference in the rest of the frequency range. The Bypass L/R mode does not affect the centre channel which will continue to get Audyssey correction. Something certainly is going on but I can't come up with an explanation or any suggestions other than those I made earlier. Bass traps will probably help if you can get sufficient bass absorption, and they may help you get the crossover that Audyssey sets down to 80 Hz but I think you are unlikely to be able to get it lower with bass traps and you may not feel that bass traps are an option in your room given that it is your family room.


You also said "I think at this point Audyssey is not a tool i need in my system, it does more harm then good." Audyssey is designed to deliver a result that most people find pleasing but "most people" is not all people and what we're talking about here is a target derived from an analysis of personal preferences of people who participated in tests. Your personal preferences may well be different to those of "most people" which would mean that Audyssey simply is not going to satisfy you and it is not the tool you want. Unfortunately Audyssey offers very little in the way of options to allow a user to modify the Audyssey target to their personal preference. The MultEQ app provides the most flexibility for users and if you can't get a result you like using the options in it, then I don't think you are going to be able to get Audyssey to give you something you like.

You said you didn't have this sort of problem using the SR7010 which is made by Marantz. Denon and Marantz are owned by the same owner and both should function identically with Audyssey but if you had better results with the Marantz perhaps you could try borrowing a Marantz and seeing if you do better with it. I doubt a change of AVR back to Marantz will change things but if it did that might be an indication that the problem is a fault with your Denon or its mike. Trying to organise a home trial with a Marantz may be useful for that reason.

Sorry I can't think of anything else.


----------



## cfraser

To be "fair" about what I said above: I should remember that the people I'm talking to here, and the people I would demo audio stuff to, are _not _the "general public". So the Audyssey people may be correct when talking about the McDonalds-style "general public", the actual true general public who make up the vast majority of people, if that's who you're catering to.


----------



## David Aiken

I did think of something else. I know you said you can't move the speakers because they're in a family room so this may not help but I'll offer it for consideration.

Looking at the plot you provided you have that dip between 100 and 120 Hz and further dips at 100-110Hz intervals as the frequency rises. That's a room mode effect and would be related to a room dimension of somewhere between 9.5 and 11.3 feet. There's another dip between 60 and 80 Hz which is a different mode that would relate to a room dimension of somewhere between 14 and 18 feet or so.

I don't know which wall is behind your L and R speakers and I don't know whether the speakers are placed equal distances from the side walls If they aren't equal distances from the side walls and you can move one of them to make the distance to its side wall equal to the distance of the other from the side wall, then try that because the modes generated by each speaker will then cancel the mode generated by the other along that room width dimension. If you can't do that then try moving one of them a little bit closer to or further from the other, even a foot or two change in distance may help with one of those modes. You'll probably find the maximum benefit if both speakers are a quarter of the room width away from their side wall, measured to the centre of the woofer, and give or take an inch or so. Also try moving the L and R speakers a little forward or back, even if it's only a few inches to a foot or so, in case you've got a cancellation related to the quarter wavelength (the distance from the wall behind the speaker to the woofer) reinforcing either of those 2 modes. You could also try adjusting the toe in slightly, either more towards the listening position or a little further out from the listening position, or slightly tilting the speakers up so that they load the room slightly differently.

For the other dimension, try placing some sort of absorption on the wall behind you. It doesn't have to be acoustic panels, even something like a couple of bookcases full of books could help if you have them.

Bass traps in the corners would be better for dealing with room modes but if you can't manage that because it's a family room, adjusting the speaker locations sideways would be the best way if you can manage it, especially if the speakers are space out across the 14-18 foot dimension. Even shifting one speaker a foot or two closer to or further from the other may help a bit and getting something absorptive against the wall behind you would also be beneficial. If I've guessed right about the room dimensions it may not take a big shift in speaker position to produce a useful benefit which may result in Audyssey coming up with a lower crossover point. Even a move of 6-12" or so, possibly with a change in toe in or a slight speaker tilt may help Try what you can if you can get away with even a small shift because small moves can sometimes help.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... our perception of bass does seem to depend to some degree on overall tonal balance.* I've noticed that changes to high frequency response which don't affect the actual bass output of my system sometimes do affect my perception of that bass output, sometimes for the better, sometimes worse *...



I have experienced this, too.

I wonder if some of this is because instruments we think of as bass instruments _*ALSO *_have frequency content that is far, far above.

A *KICK DRUM* has frequencies as high as *1K, 2K *and* 4K Hz* which are sometimes long enough and loud enough to hear. I would assume these are the papery sounds of the beater hitting the head. Theoretically, they extend to *16K*, but are so short and so soft that they may be inaudible.

I have a super cool three dimensional graph of kick drum frequency characteristics, but, unlike other images, I can't seem to paste it onto the forum.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> I have experienced this, too.
> 
> I wonder if some of this is because instruments we think of as bass instruments _*ALSO *_have frequency content that is far, far above.
> 
> A *KICK DRUM* has frequencies as high as *1K, 2K *and* 4K Hz* which are sometimes long enough and loud enough to hear. I would assume these are the papery sounds of the beater hitting the head. Theoretically, they extend to *16K*, but are so short and so soft that they may be inaudible.
> 
> I have a super cool three dimensional graph of kick drum frequency characteristics, but, unlike other images, I can't seem to paste it onto the forum.


Gary,

I think highs at 4 kHz aren't high enough to account for the experiences I've had which informed my comment. I've thought about why I should perceive things the way I do quite a few times and I suspect it may be related to the way our hearing sensitivity behaves at the extremes. At low volumes both low and high frequencies aren't perceived as being as loud as the mids, and as you turn the volume up the highs and lows are perceived as getting louder faster than the mids do. That's what the Fletcher Munson curves tell us.

I wonder if what's going on is that the change triggering my perception makes one end of the range, either the highs or the lows, sound louder or softer than I'm used to with that music and my brain interprets that as the volume having been changed so for a period until I become accustomed to the new balance I also perceive the sound at the other end of the range as changing in the same way. The perception always seems to be short lived for me. I notice it after making a change and it persists while the change still seems unfamiliar to me, but tends to disappear when I've become accustomed to the new tonal balance.

In a way it seems like it could be related to the reason that BBC engineers put the "BBC dip" into the frequency response of some of the monitors they designed. If I remember correctly the monitors in which the dip was first introduced were small monitors designed for use in mobile studios which were basically set up in the back of a truck so small room, probably with lots of acoustic treatment to control the effects of room support at the low end and lots of reflective surfaces which produced a hot top end. The end result with a flat speaker response may have been a sense of a speaker with little at the bottom and a slightly dead top end. What the dip did was to provide the effect of a boost at both ends so the engineer got the sense of a more natural bottom and top end. In effect they designed a speaker built with room correction hard wired into it specifically for the spaces they used it in by using the fact that we expect the bass and highs to have a certain loudness relative to the mids so boosting the extremes resulted in a perception of louder playback levels with the more extended lows and highs we tend to hear at higher volume levels.

I think it's a psychoacoustic effect rather than anything related to the frequency content of certain types of sounds but I could be wrong and there may be other things contributing to the effect including the spectrum of some low frequency sounds.


----------



## cfraser

And now I want to dig out my books on psychoacoustics...can't believe I filed them away (to make room for more BDs on the shelves...).

What are your opinions on restricting the Audyssey correction range? Why should or shouldn't I correct the full range Audyssey allows? I can't hear very well above 13kHz last time I had it checked, apparently "normal" for my age, or at least nothing that needed correcting. Right now I'm only correcting under 500Hz, a limit I set arbitrarily as a first try. Sounds OK. Bass sounds much stronger/more prominent than I prefer though, easy enough to correct, but it's not annoying me.


----------



## mthomas47

cfraser said:


> And now I want to dig out my books on psychoacoustics...can't believe I filed them away (to make room for more BDs on the shelves...).
> 
> What are your opinions on restricting the Audyssey correction range? Why should or shouldn't I correct the full range Audyssey allows? I can't hear very well above 13kHz last time I had it checked, apparently "normal" for my age, or at least nothing that needed correcting. Right now I'm only correcting under 500Hz, a limit I set arbitrarily as a first try. Sounds OK. Bass sounds much stronger/more prominent than I prefer though, easy enough to correct, but it's not annoying me.



Personally, I don't think that there is a one-size-fits all answer to your question. I think that the relationships among speakers (including setup) room (including its specific sound characteristics) and room correction (including calibration technique) are quite complicated. And, there is a trial-and-error quality to the way they fit together.

My own belief is that nearly everyone will benefit from Audyssey (and especially from XT and XT-32) from about 500Hz down. Above 500Hz, people may theoretically benefit more from XT-32 than from XT, due to the greater number of control points with XT-32, and due to the way the room correction is implemented. XT-32 is a little less fussy in the high-frequencies than XT is. But, that's just theory--either could work well in some cases, and not so well in other cases, where mid and high-frequencies are concerned. FWIW, XT-32 works very well in my room for mid and high-frequencies, and I know that XT works very well in Gary's room.

I think that someone who really wants to benefit from the various versions of Audyssey should start by letting Audyssey EQ the full frequency range to see what he thinks. But, in saying that, I would also add that I think that part of the goal of a good calibration is to present Audyssey with as optimal a system setup as we can, and to perform as careful a calibration as we can. 

I have never been able to see Audyssey as a simple set-it and forget-it system. I think that, in some cases, it can take some effort to reap the benefits of low-frequency correction, without jeopardizing the mid and high-frequency performance. But, it can also be worthwhile. Based on things I have read about the app, I'm not sure that people always get quite as good calibrations when they perform their room EQ that way as they do just using the normal Audyssey program.

The first section of the Guide, linked in my signature, has some suggestions on how to maximize Audyssey calibrations. There is also a separate section on the Equal Loudness Contours, with some detailed discussion of how we hear (and feel) bass frequencies, if you don't want to dig out your books on psychoacoustics.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

CrazyCramers said:


> I think at this point Audyssey is not a tool i need in my system, it does more harm then good.
> I cant stand the 80HZ xover bs it sounds like absolute garbage and drives me insane. *I know many will argue it but i localize bass a bit more than average user*- When i watch a movie and say Hulk is smashing someones face in - i want to hear it where its meant to be not a tinned out version and the slam off at the subs - cringe



Hi CrazyCramers,


If you think you are ET or you have super power over bass localization I'd suggest to read this excellent blog written by Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey Labs on the dilemma of "Large vs. Small"  where light is shed on the more than intersting phemomenon on how our  (and your) human ears react to directionality clues and how it is lost as frequency  drops. A good and worthwhile read, indeed:


*"Large vs. Small*

Do you have a subwoofer in your system? Great. Then your speakers are small. Before you get all upset, read on. This is one of those audio myths whose time has come to be busted. To understand why, we need to talk about Bass Management.


In the early days of home theater it was thought that in order to reproduce the full movie surround experience at home it was necessary to place 5 large loudspeakers in the room. The reason for the size was the woofers. To play at theatrical reference levels and reproduce the deepest bass available in the content requires each speaker to have 12” or larger woofers. Let’s just say that this theory didn’t get very far in the real world.

A better and more practical approach came after studying human perception. The mechanisms that we use to determine the direction of arrival of sound depend on the frequency. At high frequencies the wavelength of sound is small and so sound coming from the side is shadowed by our head. That creates a level difference between the sound reaching the ear closest to the source and the ear on the other side. Our brain analyzes these level differences and produces an estimate of where the sound is coming from. But at lower frequencies, the wavelength of sound gets longer and our head is not large enough to produce a level difference at the two ears. Instead, we analyze the difference in time of arrival of sound at the two ears. Sound arrives first at the closest ear and we use that to determine the direction. But even that ability fails us below about 80 Hz. The wavelengths get very large and it was found in listening tests that 80 Hz is the frequency below which most people can not localize the direction of sound.

Taking advantage of this apparent “deficiency” in our hearing was what made home theater practical for millions of homes. Five satellite speakers of reasonable size could now be used because they no longer required large woofers. A subwoofer (or two) can reproduce the lower octaves and it can be placed out of sight since its content is not directional.

But there is also a practical advantage: directing the bass to a dedicated subwoofer channel with its own amplifier greatly improves the headroom in the main channels. The idea behind this was proposed in a Society of Motion Picture Engineers (SMPTE) meeting in 1987. The participants could not agree on the minimum number of channels required for surround sound on film. Various numbers were being shouted out until a voice was heard from the back: “We need 5.1”. Everyone’s head turned around to look at Tom Holman. He proceeded to explain what he meant: Take the low frequency content from all 5 channels and redirect it away from the satellite speakers to the subwoofer. If we do the math, then the content below 80 Hz is 0.004 of the audible 20,000 Hz bandwidth. But 5.004 didn’t sound as catchy so Tom rounded up to 5.1. By the way, don’t make the amateur mistake of calling it 5 dot 1. It is a decimal: 5 point 1.

Fast forward to the early 90s when the first DSP powered home theater receivers started to appear. Along with progress came complexity. Some industry forces believed that Bass Management should be an option that could be turned on and off by the consumer. That’s not necessarily a bad idea, but to make an informed decision requires much more knowledge about the system than what was available to the typical consumer. So, the Large and Small rule of thumb was established. The idea was to look at the size of your speakers and decide whether their woofers were “large enough” to reproduce the lowest octaves at the required levels. It was a noble thought, but looking at it 15 years later I believe that it has led to nothing but massive confusion. The poor consumer was led to believe that Large is somehow a good thing and was then left wondering why there was nothing coming out of their subwoofer.

Redirecting the bass to the subwoofer relieves the receiver amplifiers from having to work on reproducing the low frequencies and this greatly improves the headroom. 

Here is a better rule: All speakers are Small. In today’s complicated AVR lingo that just means: If you have a subwoofer you should always turn bass management on. Always. Even if your receiver clings to the past and automatically sets your speakers to Large."


Should you agree with all the above or not will not change the laws of physics described above!  Hope this helps!


----------



## cfraser

mthomas47 said:


> But, in saying that, I would also add that I think that part of the goal of a good calibration is to present Audyssey with as optimal a system setup as we can, and to perform as careful a calibration as we can.


Agreed. I just picked this part of your post because this is what I found out several years ago when I first moved from XT to XT32 (with ARC in between). Room treatments (including bass traps) help Audyssey a lot, probably obviously. And also experimenting with my subs' settings so that Audyssey has to do as little as possible. That really helps a lot too in the all-important low frequencies. With REW of course.

Using the app I have the "Reference" curve that only has correction below 500Hz (so no MRC by default), and the "Flat" curve that has full-range correction (and no MRC). They do sound quite different. Wish I could have a lot more curves instantly swappable, or even just _one _more curve, something in between the two.


----------



## mogorf

cfraser said:


> Agreed. I just picked this part of your post because this is what I found out several years ago when I first moved from XT to XT32 (with ARC in between). Room treatments (including bass traps) help Audyssey a lot, probably obviously. And also experimenting with my subs' settings so that Audyssey has to do as little as possible. That really helps a lot too in the all-important low frequencies.



+1 to presenting Audyssey a setup that it can work with. I usually call this stage a "cold setup"


----------



## lax01

mogorf said:


> Hi CrazyCramers,
> 
> 
> If you think you are ET or you have super power over bass localization I'd suggest to read this excellent blog written by Chris Kyriakakis of Audyssey Labs on the dilemma of "Large vs. Small"  where light is shed on the more than intersting phemomenon on how our  (and your) human ears react to directionality clues and how it is lost as frequency  drops. A good and worthwhile read, indeed:
> 
> 
> *"Large vs. Small*
> 
> Do you have a subwoofer in your system? Great. Then your speakers are small. Before you get all upset, read on. This is one of those audio myths whose time has come to be busted. To understand why, we need to talk about Bass Management.


So...what's the suggestion (which I haven't seen a great explanation anywhere when this is discussed) when you have 5.0.2 and two front tower speakers and a relatively large center channel. Living in an apartment, I just can't justify the subwoofer. And actually, the towers have powered subwoofers in them but I have seen turned them off for a couple of reasons. 1) They are terrible (I actually think one of the amps is dead) 2) they were still shaking the floor and I'm pretty sure I was annoying my neighbors. So, should I set all my speakers to Large? Or just the towers?

Thanks!


----------



## mogorf

lax01 said:


> So...what's the suggestion (which I haven't seen a great explanation anywhere when this is discussed) when you have 5.0.2 and two front tower speakers and a relatively large center channel. Living in an apartment, I just can't justify the subwoofer. And actually, the towers have powered subwoofers in them but I have seen turned them off for a couple of reasons. 1) They are terrible (I actually think one of the amps is dead) 2) they were still shaking the floor and I'm pretty sure I was annoying my neighbors. So, should I set all my speakers to Large? Or just the towers?
> 
> Thanks!



If you don't have a subwoofer in your system you have no choice to set your speakers to small coz there is nowhere to redirect bass. Your best option at the moment is to use your towers with the built-in powered subs at one single speaker. I also live in an apartment and I have no problem to justify a subwoofer. I never listen at 0 dB master volume, so I never had a debate with my neighbors. You can always use Dynamic Volume or LFC or both. Having a subwoofer is divine!


----------



## CrabRangoon

mthomas47 said:


> I think that someone who really wants to benefit from the various versions of Audyssey should start by letting Audyssey EQ the full frequency range to see what he thinks. But, in saying that, I would also add that I think that part of the goal of a good calibration is to present Audyssey with as optimal a system setup as we can, and to perform as careful a calibration as we can.


I’m curious how it’s best for me to calibrate in XT32 with my given room layout. My MLP (initial calibration spot) is dead center across from my front soundstage (only a 3.1 system), however all other seats are to my left and I have a nearby wall on the right. Regardless of my real world sitting arrangements, should I just continue the calibration with the mic in the 8 spots it requests, based upon my MLP as number 1? Further, my couch against the back wall means the seated position (and calibration positions) are 20” from the wall. It requests the mic be no closer than 20” from the wall, so I skip position 7 and 8? Or do I simply place the mic nearer the back wall?

So far I am running with the mic in some, but not all, requested positions.


----------



## David Aiken

cfraser said:


> And now I want to dig out my books on psychoacoustics...can't believe I filed them away (to make room for more BDs on the shelves...).
> 
> What are your opinions on restricting the Audyssey correction range? Why should or shouldn't I correct the full range Audyssey allows? I can't hear very well above 13kHz last time I had it checked, apparently "normal" for my age, or at least nothing that needed correcting. Right now I'm only correcting under 500Hz, a limit I set arbitrarily as a first try. Sounds OK. Bass sounds much stronger/more prominent than I prefer though, easy enough to correct, but it's not annoying me.


Gee, can't hear very well above 13 kHz very well, and that's normal for your age. You're young, I can't hear 12 kHz very well any more but I'm 71 in a couple of months. I'll assume you/re younger than me because I don't want to think that your older than me and your ears are better than mine   I'd like to think I'm doing well for my age. Please don't take that away from me.

OK, to restrict the Audyssey range or not? It's a serious question and I don't have an answer based on theory but I've got some answers based on other things.

Answer 1: Don't restrict the range. Other people who are listening to the system with you may well appreciate correction over a much wider range than makes a difference for you and why deny them that when providing it doesn't cost you anything or reduce your own enjoyment.

Answer 2: Taking a position based solely on my own listening pleasure and not considering others, I personally still would not restrict the range. Hearing is funny. I've seen comments and reports over the year that indicate that sound above the top of our hearing range can influence what we "hear". I have no idea how much research has been done in that area and I think research would be difficult. For example, can some people really hear a difference between an SACD and a CD of the same music, or between a 44.1/16 FLAC file and a 24/96 FLAC file? The SACD and 24/96 file can deliver frequencies well above 20 kHz and some claim to hear a difference. I think we can accept that some people actually DO hear a difference but is that due to the presence of the higher frequencies, or the difference in bits, or differences in how DSD and PCM DACs work or what? No easy answers but doing full range correction isn't going to harm my listening experience or reduce my enjoyment and it costs me nothing, and it just may make a difference in some way. That way may not depend on the correction at the higher frequencies but rather something like some problem introduced by band limiting the correction.

Personal anecdote: My music system is separate to my AV setup and doesn't use Audyssey. I use an Antipodes server running Roon Core and feed files from my own library and Tidal streaming to a Devialet amp via ethernet over my network (the Devialet has an ethernet input to its DAC). The Devialet can't unpack MQA but Roon recently became able to do the first unfold so I can now pass a 96/24 signal from a Tidal 48/24 MQA stream and I have the option as well of playing the 44.1/16 standard CD quality file from Tidal. I've tried all 3 and I've gone back to running with the 44.1/16 option every time. The 2 MQA options I have both sound slightly artificial to me and one of the differences between them and the 44.1/16 stream is the higher frequencies but there are other differences as well in bit rate and mastering. Am I really hearing a difference and if I am, what's the reason for the difference? I can't answer the question but I enjoy 44.1/16 streams more than the MQA options. I also tend to prefer SACD playback from disc to CD playback of the same recording so there I go for the higher frequency option. In both cases there's a lot going on above the top of my hearing range but there's also differences "behind the scenes" that are related to providing those differences in the high frequency range. All I know is that I perceive differences and I don't know the cause

So I have no answer but I don't hear anything which annoys me or reduces my enjoyment in the highs when using Audyssey as it is so I'd be cautious about using it over a reduced range and since I have friends over for movie nights at times and some of them are younger than me and/or have better hearing than me, I'd prefer to let Audyssey continue to provide full range correction even if it's only for their enjoyment rather than my own.


----------



## cfraser

^ I'm kind of thinking the way you are too. After whining about being "forced" to do a full-range correction over the years. I am almost a decade younger than you. That "13kHz test" was 3-4 years ago, may be 12kHz now... 

I also have a "separate music system" in the same room as the HT. I call it my "analog system" strictly because the preamp is such, but I also mostly listen to stuff I ripped myself, that I stream to a "smart terminal device" then to a DAC etc. So convenient! Some LPs. Both A/V and music systems share the same Front speakers/subs/amplifiers (multiple inputs to the stereo amp). No A/V pre-pro I've ever heard comes close to that "modest" (as they can go) stereo preamp, it makes such a diff (literally, differential from DACs to amplifier inputs). It has no room correction other than what can be done in the analog domain.

I have zero probs listening to CD-quality audio. I never upsample it, or to be more accurate, listen to it upsampled for long. If it was all available in 96/24, I sure would prefer that, but to be honest, my taste in (most) music doesn't deserve better than 44.1/16.

You don't remember me, but I'm pretty sure you're the same David Aiken who helped me work on some "novel" isolation methods quite a few years ago, elsewhere. Does that sound like you?


----------



## David Aiken

cfraser said:


> You don't remember me, but I'm pretty sure you're the same David Aiken who helped me work on some "novel" isolation methods quite a few years ago, elsewhere. Does that sound like you?


That does sound horribly like me and I'm sorry but you're right, I don't remember.


----------



## CrazyCramers

I think maybe Xover is killing speakers heres sweeps at MLP and at woofer.  Not disagreeing with anything except "myth" we cant localize bass- thats just hog wash- We can here down to what 18HZ if hearing is not shot- so not a crazy thing to state you can hear 40HZ lol-- I have NO issue setting to smell EXCEPT - all my bass is gone. Music and movies there is no bass. there is Zero scientific proof we cant localize bass- Now if we were talking cables changing tones and making better sound- im with ya its snake oil. but to say we arent hearing bass at a certain point especially the FQ we can hear i cant get behind that i need hard scientific proof-  

Im just trying to understand why with Audyssey i have zero bass from LCR subs get every ounce of it and even using L/R Bypass they are still deprived


----------



## CrazyCramers

David Aiken said:


> I did think of something else. I know you said you can't move the speakers because they're in a family room so this may not help but I'll offer it for consideration.
> 
> Looking at the plot you provided you have that dip between 100 and 120 Hz and further dips at 100-110Hz intervals as the frequency rises. That's a room mode effect and would be related to a room dimension of somewhere between 9.5 and 11.3 feet. There's another dip between 60 and 80 Hz which is a different mode that would relate to a room dimension of somewhere between 14 and 18 feet or so.
> 
> I don't know which wall is behind your L and R speakers and I don't know whether the speakers are placed equal distances from the side walls  If they aren't equal distances from the side walls and you can move one of them to make the distance to its side wall equal to the distance of the other from the side wall, then try that because the modes generated by each speaker will then cancel the mode generated by the other along that room width dimension. If you can't do that then try moving one of them a little bit closer to or further from the other, even a foot or two change in distance may help with one of those modes. You'll probably find the maximum benefit if both speakers are a quarter of the room width away from their side wall, measured to the centre of the woofer, and give or take an inch or so. Also try moving the L and R speakers a little forward or back, even if it's only a few inches to a foot or so, in case you've got a cancellation related to the quarter wavelength (the distance from the wall behind the speaker to the woofer) reinforcing either of those 2 modes. You could also try adjusting the toe in slightly, either more towards the listening position or a little further out from the listening position, or slightly tilting the speakers up so that they load the room slightly differently.
> 
> For the other dimension, try placing some sort of absorption on the wall behind you. It doesn't have to be acoustic panels, even something like a couple of bookcases full of books could help if you have them.
> 
> Bass traps in the corners would be better for dealing with room modes  but if you can't manage that because it's a family room, adjusting the speaker locations sideways would be the best way if you can manage it, especially if the speakers are space out across the 14-18 foot dimension. Even shifting one speaker a foot or two closer to or further from the other may help a bit and getting something absorptive against the wall behind you would also be beneficial. If I've guessed right about the room dimensions it may not take a big shift in speaker position to produce a useful benefit which may result in Audyssey coming up with a lower crossover point. Even a move of 6-12" or so, possibly with a change in toe in or a slight speaker tilt may help Try what you can if you can get away with even a small shift because small moves can sometimes help.




ill try some different things- not sure whats up or if the Xover is absolute garbage or room here is sweep at MLP and at woofer- depressing for amount i paid for them about ready to torch these piles of junk


----------



## lax01

mogorf said:


> If you don't have a subwoofer in your system you have no choice to set your speakers to small coz there is nowhere to redirect bass. Your best option at the moment is to use your towers with the built-in powered subs at one single speaker. I also live in an apartment and I have no problem to justify a subwoofer. I never listen at 0 dB master volume, so I never had a debate with my neighbors. You can always use Dynamic Volume or LFC or both. Having a subwoofer is divine!


Wait, why small? I absolutely have the ability to set all of my speakers to Large. In fact, I have the front L/R towers set to Large right now...Center, rear surrounds and Atmos speakers set to small...


----------



## mogorf

lax01 said:


> Wait, why small? I absolutely have the ability to set all of my speakers to Large. In fact, I have the front L/R towers set to Large right now...Center, rear surrounds and Atmos speakers set to small...



You may need to consult your AVR's manual to see how center, rear surrounds and Atmos speakers redirect bass when set to small. Proably bass in this case is sent to front L/Rs. Dunno your AVR's features.


----------



## garygarrison

CrazyCramers said:


> I think maybe Xover is killing speakers heres sweeps at MLP and at woofer.  Not disagreeing with anything except "myth" we cant *localize* bass- thats just hog wash- We can *here* down to what* 18HZ* if hearing is not shot- so not a crazy thing to state you can *hear 40HZ* lol-- I have NO issue setting to smell EXCEPT - all my bass is gone. Music and movies there is no bass. there isZero scientific proof we cant* localize bass-* Now if we were talking cables changing tones and making better sound- im with ya its snake oil. but to say we arent *hearing*bass at a certain point especially the FQ we can hear i cant get behind that i need hard scientific proof-
> 
> Im just trying to understand why with Audyssey i have zero bass from LCR subs get every ounce of it and even using L/R Bypass they are still deprived



_*Localizing*_ bass is very different than _*hearing*_ bass.  Nobody says that bass down to the 18 Hz you cite and below can't be sensed, although some people would rather call it feeling rather than hearing.  My impression is that I can feel it and hear it a little, if it is loud enough.  None of this is localizing.  When we first had our subwoofer, which we set at 80 Hz, I thought I could localize its bass -- but that was before we redid our room and it turned out that the wall right near the sub was rattling a bit, giving away its location.     



lax01 said:


> Wait, why small? I absolutely have the ability to set all of my speakers to Large. In fact, I have the front L/R towers set to Large right now...Center, rear surrounds and Atmos speakers set to small...



I think Feri was saying that "small is not an option" without a sub (sounds like a John Glenn quote) when he said, "... you have no choice to set your speakers to small coz there is nowhere to redirect bass."  You have no choice because the choice is gone*;* you have to use Large for the* towers*, until you get a sub, *unless* you want to use the subs you don't like that are in the towers -- and one of those built in subs doesn't work, right?.


----------



## RCElectricFlyer

garygarrison said:


> _*Localizing*_ bass is very different than _*hearing*_ bass.  Nobody says that bass down to the 18 Hz you cite and below can't be sensed, although some people would rather call it feeling rather than hearing.  My impression is that I can feel it and hear it a little, if it is loud enough.  None of this is localizing.  When we first had our subwoofer, which we set at 80 Hz, I thought I could localize its bass -- but that was before we redid our room and it turned out that the wall right near the sub was rattling a bit, giving away its location...


Also, reproducing a low frequency like 18 Hz (assuming it is a pure tone to start with) tends to generate more unwanted harmonic content due to non-linearities in the driver motor and suspension over large excursions.  As a result, the harmonic(s) can sometimes be heard over the fundamental and an untrained ear may not discern them as harmonic(s).  This is especially true 1) at higher SPL and 2) because the human ear is more sensitive to the higher frequency of the harmonic(s).  These distortion harmonic(s) can also provide localization cues.


----------



## lax01

mogorf said:


> You may need to consult your AVR's manual to see how center, rear surrounds and Atmos speakers redirect bass when set to small. Proably bass in this case is sent to front L/Rs. Dunno your AVR's features.


It's a Denon S720W - but I'll check



garygarrison said:


> I think Feri was saying that "small is not an option" without a sub (sounds like a John Glenn quote) when he said, "... you have no choice to set your speakers to small coz there is nowhere to redirect bass."  You have no choice because the choice is gone*;* you have to use Large for the* towers*, until you get a sub, *unless* you want to use the subs you don't like that are in the towers -- and one of those built in subs doesn't work, right?.


Got it - well, its more I don't *want* a sub due to current apartment situation. Wish I could get one and then this would be easy. All speakers set to small and forget about it. 

The towers even have pre-amp in for the sub-woofers so I could run the pre-amp out from the AVR to the subs for dual-sub setup...

Anyway, thanks


----------



## rlwings

*Audyssey is driving me crazy!*

.....OK, Audyssey is driving me crazy! Lol.....


I am trying to calibrate a 2.1 system only, so...


Equipment\Procedure

Marantz SR 5012 AVR with Audyssey 'XT' using included mic

Mic boom stand on carpeted floor
Elac Uni-Fi speakers@ 9 feet away

Elac 10" 100W sub (Non eq) set properly @ 9 feet away
Used all mic positions (8) evenly spaced no more than 2 feet apart from MLP or from any wall or seatback.

AVR set to 'Small' and crossover set to 80
Listened to both 'Refrence' and 'Flat' curve


Problem:
Every  calibration sounds too bright... Then I did the exact same procedure  with another mic from the exact same Marantz AVR model (I have two) and  brightness disappears and leaves audio perfection. However, even when  Audyssey gets it close, I've noticed that the final outcome can still  vary substantially from calibration to calibration.


I  read all the forums, and I performed the calibrations meticulously.  (Many times). But it escapes me how I get super bright calibrations  using the included mic, but I get a good calibration using a different  mic from the same model. (Purchased 1 month apart).

The mics were positioned in the MLP at tweeter height. (As are my ears). 

Anyone know what the symptoms of a bad mic might be? Or what might be going on.

Lastly,  I'd like to make a comment about Audyssey... What good is a calibration  system which produces a different calibration every time... It might  shoot for Reference, but it seems to vary greatly from run to run. How  is it not consistant?


----------



## garygarrison

RCElectricFlyer said:


> Also, reproducing a low frequency like 18 Hz (assuming it is a pure tone to start with) tends to generate more unwanted harmonic content due to non-linearities in the driver motor and suspension over large excursions. As a result, the harmonic(s) can sometimes be heard over the fundamental and an untrained ear may not discern them as harmonic(s). This is especially true 1) at higher SPL and 2) because the human ear is more sensitive to the higher frequency of the harmonic(s). These distortion harmonic(s) can also provide localization cues.



Large excursions can produce unwanted harmonics as you say, and in the case of modulation distortion, can also produce side bands that are harmonically unrelated to the fundamental and, according to a couple of articles I read, sound pretty terrible, and blur the sound as well. As I understand it, it is fortunate that we crossover our subwoofers at about 80 Hz or below (when capable), so any side bands produced will be of relatively low frequency, and not up the scale where the ear is more sensitive. Even though the sub/AVR sub crossover is not the proverbial "brick wall," I'm guessing that the side bands, since an artifact of extreme subwoofer excursion, will stay in Vegas and will not enter the regular woofer (the satellite woofer) or any of the other speakers. One way or two way systems, rather than our three or four way Home Theater speakers (including subwoofers) don't have this advantage. Systems with satellite systems that don't reach fairly low in the bass, and mandate high bass management subwoofer crossovers (like 110 or 150 Hz) may pass through the sub enough higher side bands to allow localization, but these side bands cant get into the satellites. Is that correct? Of course, if the satellites themselves have wide excursion, they, too, can generate unwanted side bands.


There is a movement afoot to build DIY horn loaded subwoofers, that have hardly any cone excursion, but to generate very low tones, they must be huge. I saw a photo of one that extended from the floor to high ceiling, and was quite wide, as well. Another approach would be to dig out the basement below the sound room, making it into a large horn that would speak into the sound room. What a lot of work*:*

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-medi...l_progressive,q_80,w_636/17m9fl5m88azyjpg.jpg


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> .....OK, Audyssey is driving me crazy! Lol.....
> 
> 
> I am trying to calibrate a 2.1 system only, so...
> 
> 
> Equipment\Procedure
> 
> Marantz SR 5012 AVR with Audyssey 'XT' using included mic
> 
> Mic boom stand on carpeted floor
> Elac Uni-Fi [email protected] 9 feet away
> 
> Elac 10" 100W sub (Non eq) set properly @ 9 feet away
> Used all mic positions (8) evenly spaced no more than 2 feet apart from MLP or from any wall or seatback.
> 
> AVR set to 'Small' and crossover set to 80
> Listened to both 'Refrence' and 'Flat' curve
> 
> 
> Problem:
> Every calibration sounds too bright... Then I did the exact same procedure with another mic from the exact same Marantz AVR model (I have two) and brightness disappears and leaves audio perfection. However, even when Audyssey gets it close, I've noticed that the final outcome can still vary substantially from calibration to calibration.
> 
> 
> I read all the forums, and I performed the calibrations meticulously. (Many times). But it escapes me how I get super bright calibrations using the included mic, but I get a good calibration using a different mic from the same model. (Purchased 1 month apart).
> 
> The mics were positioned in the MLP at tweeter height. (As are my ears).
> 
> Anyone know what the symptoms of a bad mic might be? Or what might be going on.
> 
> Lastly, I'd like to make a comment about Audyssey... What good is a calibration system which produces a different calibration every time... It might shoot for Reference, but it seems to vary greatly from run to run. How is it not consistant?



My guesses are*:*


The mic that produces the super bright results is defective, and attenuates high frequencies (or mid-high frequencies) convincing Audyssey to boost the high frequencies to compensate.
It is very, very difficult to get a mic in exactly the same 8 positions, pointed straight up, two times in a row. My wife and I had to train ourselves to do it, looking at the mic from several different angles to make sure it was straight up. Getting it into the same 8 positions was equally hard. Eventually, we were able to get pretty good consistency.
Using your "good" mic, there are still other things to consider.


Too bright compared to what? Live music can be pretty bright. I assume you have tried several recordings, but they should include ones that use a variety of mic positions, i.e., close, medium, and distant (Mercury?), the old (and current Russian?) "cram a mic down every instrument" technique, the Decca mic tree, etc, etc. Read the liner notes, if it isn't obvious.
Is it a matter of balance? Almost everyone turns up their subwoofer(s) after running Audyssey. See explanations in 
Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
Audyssey FAQ Linked Here

Is your ceiling flat, angled or curved, high or low (less than 8 or 8.5 feet)?
Good Luck


----------



## David Aiken

^ In addition to what Gary said about different mic positions causing different results, there is another possible reason for getting a different result from different calibrations. The room could be different in each calibration.

How can the room change? Easy. Have curtains or blinds on a window open in one calibration and closed in another, a window or door open in one and closed in another. If you've got a coffee table between the speakers and the listening position and you have different things on it, or scattered in different positions, it could change depending on the nature of the things on the table (absorbent vs reflective as in cloth placemat covering the table in one calibration and no placement or a plastic or metal tray on the table in the other calibration) and so on.

If you want to get consistent calibration results you have to take care with your mic placement and get the same placement or as close to it as possible in every calibration, and you have to have the room in the same condition and setup every time. My room opens on one side into a hallway with several rooms opening from it and on the other side has a large window with roman blind and a large glass sliding door with a curtain. I've learnt I get my best results with the doors into the hallway closed, the window and patio door closed, and the blind down and curtain covering the glass door. I also move a coffee table each time I need to do a calibration. If I do all of those things I get consistent results, if I forget to do all of those things I start to get inconsistent results. The room affects the calibration because the calibration is intended to come up with corrections for what the room is doing so if you want consistent results the room has to be doing the same thing every time you do a calibration or the calibration is going to correct for different things and give a different result.


----------



## english210

I think this where I’m supposed to ask this...
Setting up an AV8802a, and during calibration it repeatedly ‘stuck’ on position 2, rear surround speakers not detected, although I heard the tones, and it ‘found’ them ok during position 1 calibration. Repeatedly checked connections, and they’re good, drivers are ok, per FAQ’s

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

rlwings said:


> .....OK, Audyssey is driving me crazy! Lol.....
> 
> I am trying to calibrate a 2.1 system only, so...
> 
> Equipment\Procedure
> 
> Marantz SR 5012 AVR with Audyssey 'XT' using included mic
> 
> Mic boom stand on carpeted floor
> Elac Uni-Fi [email protected] 9 feet away
> 
> Elac 10" 100W sub (Non eq) set properly @ 9 feet away
> Used all mic positions (8) evenly spaced no more than 2 feet apart from MLP or from any wall or seatback.
> 
> AVR set to 'Small' and crossover set to 80
> Listened to both 'Refrence' and 'Flat' curve
> 
> Problem:
> Every calibration sounds too bright... Then I did the exact same procedure with another mic from the exact same Marantz AVR model (I have two) and brightness disappears and leaves audio perfection. However, even when Audyssey gets it close, I've noticed that the final outcome can still vary substantially from calibration to calibration.
> 
> I read all the forums, and I performed the calibrations meticulously. (Many times). But it escapes me how I get super bright calibrations using the included mic, but I get a good calibration using a different mic from the same model. (Purchased 1 month apart).
> 
> The mics were positioned in the MLP at tweeter height. (As are my ears).
> 
> Anyone know what the symptoms of a bad mic might be? Or what might be going on.
> 
> Lastly, I'd like to make a comment about Audyssey... What good is a calibration system which produces a different calibration every time... *It might shoot for Reference, but it seems to vary greatly from run to run. How is it not consistant?*



Hi,

Let's assume for the moment that you could perform identical calibrations with two different mics--meaning that you got the mics back in exactly the same spot for every mic position. You could still have different results, in a couple of respects, due to slight variations in the mics themselves, or in specific room conditions. But, FWIW, you are conflating the concept of calibrating to Reference with the idea of differences in sound.

Audyssey calibrates your audio system to Reference when it sets each channel in your audio system to play a certain volume level when your master volume is set to 0.0. That volume level would be 105db peaks for the regular channel and 115db peaks for the LFE channel. After calibrating your system to Reference, which is done in mic position 1, Audyssey then sets filters (control points) for each of the channels to remove peaks and dips in the frequency response. It's the second aspect of the calibration process--the room EQ, that determines what you hear.

A slight difference in the placement of mic position 1 would be very unlikely to affect the overall volume level of the system, as Audyssey would still be calibrating all of the channels with the same 75db test tone. But, even minor variations in mic placement for the subsequent mic positions could absolutely affect the room EQ that Audyssey performed. So, Audyssey is always pretty reliable at setting volume levels to approximately Reference (+ or - a relatively modest error factor) but whether or not you like the way that things sound after a particular Audyssey calibration is an entirely different question. There is a certain trial-and-error aspect to that, especially for high-frequencies.

It is important to distinguish between those two different functions performed during an Audyssey calibration. With respect to your specific situation, I hope that I don't sound too pragmatic when I say that I would just continue to use the mic that sounds better, in the future, and get rid of the other one. As for the question about what's going on, the high-frequencies are the most susceptible to minute variations in mic placement, or other factors, and the Audyssey mics are most likely to degrade first for those same high-frequencies. It really takes very little to create variables for high-frequencies--the wave length of a 10,000Hz frequency is just a fraction over an inch long, and it moves at a speed of 10,000 cycles per second. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: It might be worthwhile to read the first two sections of the Guide, linked in my signature. The first section offers some tips to use during Audyssey calibrations, and the second section explains in some detail what Audyssey is actually doing during a calibration.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> My guesses are*:*
> 
> 
> The mic that produces the super bright results is defective, and attenuates high frequencies (or mid-high frequencies) convincing Audyssey to boost the high frequencies to compensate.
> It is very, very difficult to get a mic in exactly the same 8 positions, pointed straight up, two times in a row. My wife and I had to train ourselves to do it, looking at the mic from several different angles to make sure it was straight up. Getting it into the same 8 positions was equally hard. Eventually, we were able to get pretty good consistency.
> Using your "good" mic, there are still other things to consider.
> 
> 
> Too bright compared to what? Live music can be pretty bright. I assume you have tried several recordings, but they should include ones that use a variety of mic positions, i.e., close, medium, and distant (Mercury?), the old (and current Russian?) "cram a mic down every instrument" technique, the Decca mic tree, etc, etc. Read the liner notes, if it isn't obvious.
> Is it a matter of balance? Almost everyone turns up their subwoofer(s) after running Audyssey. See explanations in
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> Audyssey FAQ Linked Here
> 
> Is your ceiling flat, angled or curved, high or low (less than 8 or 8.5 feet)?
> Good Luck


 Thanks, ya, I'm starting to learn that slight variations of mic positioning can greatly effect the high end. Plus I really do feel that I also have a 'bad' mic... My ceilings are smooth flat and standard height.


When I say music sounds too bright I mean compared to the handful of songs I listen to over and over again for the purpose of familiarization during calibration. (My own reference point) When I hear the same songs in numerous different calibrations, I begin to zero in intuitively on where the proper 'flatish' response is located... I also look at the Audyssey graphs and can clearly see when way too much high end has been added compared to other runs which sounded much more natural.



Amazing that you got your wife to be a willing participant in audio calibration! Good for you in your choice of a mate!


----------



## rlwings

David Aiken said:


> ^ In addition to what Gary said about different mic positions causing different results, there is another possible reason for getting a different result from different calibrations. The room could be different in each calibration.
> 
> How can the room change? Easy. Have curtains or blinds on a window open in one calibration and closed in another, a window or door open in one and closed in another. If you've got a coffee table between the speakers and the listening position and you have different things on it, or scattered in different positions, it could change depending on the nature of the things on the table (absorbent vs reflective as in cloth placemat covering the table in one calibration and no placement or a plastic or metal tray on the table in the other calibration) and so on.
> 
> If you want to get consistent calibration results you have to take care with your mic placement and get the same placement or as close to it as possible in every calibration, and you have to have the room in the same condition and setup every time. My room opens on one side into a hallway with several rooms opening from it and on the other side has a large window with roman blind and a large glass sliding door with a curtain. I've learnt I get my best results with the doors into the hallway closed, the window and patio door closed, and the blind down and curtain covering the glass door. I also move a coffee table each time I need to do a calibration. If I do all of those things I get consistent results, if I forget to do all of those things I start to get inconsistent results. The room affects the calibration because the calibration is intended to come up with corrections for what the room is doing so if you want consistent results the room has to be doing the same thing every time you do a calibration or the calibration is going to correct for different things and give a different result.


Good points David... Who would have considered that moving stuff around a coffee table potentially changes a room?... I will add this type of thinking to my already obsessive routine while calibrating with Audyssey.  - Thanks for your post!


----------



## rlwings

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Let's assume for the moment that you could perform identical calibrations with two different mics--meaning that you got the mics back in exactly the same spot for every mic position. You could still have different results, in a couple of respects, due to slight variations in the mics themselves, or in specific room conditions. But, FWIW, you are conflating the concept of calibrating to Reference with the idea of differences in sound.
> 
> Audyssey calibrates your audio system to Reference when it sets each channel in your audio system to play a certain volume level when your master volume is set to 0.0. That volume level would be 105db peaks for the regular channel and 115db peaks for the LFE channel. After calibrating your system to Reference, which is done in mic position 1, Audyssey then sets filters (control points) for each of the channels to remove peaks and dips in the frequency response. It's the second aspect of the calibration process--the room EQ, that determines what you hear.
> 
> A slight difference in the placement of mic position 1 would be very unlikely to affect the overall volume level of the system, as Audyssey would still be calibrating all of the channels with the same 75db test tone. But, even minor variations in mic placement for the subsequent mic positions could absolutely affect the room EQ that Audyssey performed. So, Audyssey is always pretty reliable at setting volume levels to approximately Reference (+ or - a relatively modest error factor) but whether or not you like the way that things sound after a particular Audyssey calibration is an entirely different question. There is a certain trial-and-error aspect to that, especially for high-frequencies.
> 
> It is important to distinguish between those two different functions performed during an Audyssey calibration. With respect to your specific situation, I hope that I don't sound too pragmatic when I say that I would just continue to use the mic that sounds better, in the future, and get rid of the other one. As for the question about what's going on, the high-frequencies are the most susceptible to minute variations in mic placement, or other factors, and the Audyssey mics are most likely to degrade first for those same high-frequencies. It really takes very little to create variables for high-frequencies--the wave length of a 10,000Hz frequency is just a fraction over an inch long, and it moves at a speed of 10,000 cycles per second.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Edit: It might be worthwhile to read the first two sections of the Guide, linked in my signature. The first section offers some tips to use during Audyssey calibrations, and the second section explains in some detail what Audyssey is actually doing during a calibration.


 Hi Mike! I just finished reading your guide to subwoofer setup. (Which included much information about using Audyssey properly) Probably one of the best guides I have ever seen! Thank you for making such a wonderfully detailed and complete guide. I thought I had died and gone to heaven when I was linked to it by another AVS member the other day. It was exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find... I had sooo many unanswered questions about using Audyssey. Questions which I felt were obvious questions (like where do you put the mic for positions 7 and 8 if you're up against a wall?) and needed immediate answers. Audyssey was of little help and even the CEO seemed to be talking out of both sides of his mouth at times. Or I would get the feeling that he really didn't have a complete answer to give... Very frustrating to say the least. Up against a wall has got to be a large segment of the population. Ausyssey would have benefited by hiring you to write a proper instruction manual for them.

But you my friend took the time to address every little detail of using Audyssey. You scratched every itch with the most articulate guide I've ever seen... Again, thank you!


I am beginning to understand the reality surrounding mic placement and the upper frequencies. And I now realize that I was using EQing and reference interchangeably, which in fact are two different things... I just assumed that EQing was aimed at reaching a reference curve. But I guess that the term reference refers to reaching volume levels.

Quick question: What's the big deal about reference volume anyway? Lol... I mean who cares what level some sound engineer listened to the original copy at? We all choose the volume we want anyway... As long as our systems are calibrated flat, aren't we listening to a proportionally quieter but exact duplication of the original anyway. As long as it's EQ'd and balanced, what does a certain volume level (reference) have to do with the equation. I would think that relative speaker balance and flat response are the important factors.


Edit: I have a sneaking suspicion that you have already answered this question in your guid(s). Although I just read one of them there was a lot of information there. It probably hasn't 'clicked' yet...Which is why I downloaded it and intend to reread it several times until I get it.


Edit 2: Hi, I'm back again... So I do HDTV monitor calibrations for fun and it is common to calibrate the backlight to match the ambient lighting so that the image 'looks' equal to the image that the creators saw when they created it with their backlight setting in their ambient lighting conditions...It doesn't matter that the viewer uses the same lighting conditions. What matters is that his lighting conditions are proportionally equal to the creators... Isn't it the same thing in audio? We don't actually listen at reference volumes, but we listen to a proportionally similar balance which gives us the same thing.


Maybe it's all about the creators believing that in order to generate the proper emotional response from the viewer that he is asked to listen to the movie at reference levels.... But the truth is that I will have a proportionally scaled down emotional response to that same movie while listening to it at a comfortable level which will be proportionally satisfying.


Thanks, and sorry if I seem a little bit punchy. It's just that this endeavor has me a little frustrated.


----------



## David Aiken

rlwings said:


> Good points David... Who would have considered that moving stuff around a coffee table potentially changes a room?... I will add this type of thinking to my already obsessive routine while calibrating with Audyssey.  - Thanks for your post!


We could argue about how much moving stuff around a coffee table potentially changes a room (you didn't so don't think I'm trying to pick a fight which I'm not) but the sound quality in a room is not the same in every point in the room. All we need to look at for a proof of that is the way bass is experienced in a room and all anyone needs to do is stand in a corner, stand somewhere against a wall away from a corner, and stand or sit in several different places in the room and note the differences in the the level of bass. Well, bass is quite different to high frequencies and we don't hear the same sort of differences in the highs but, as has frequently been recommended here, if you have a high backed chair at the listening position and you take your measurements for the primary position close to the back of the chair, especially a chair with leather upholstery, you get a different measurement than you do if the chair is low backed and that's the reason why the recommendation to cover leather upholstery with a blanket is frequently made, and many people have achieved better results by following that advice and covering a chair back with a blanket. Likewise people have achieved better results by using a wider or closer pattern of mic placement because the measurements which are made measure the sound at specific points and those measurements are averaged to produce the data for the eventual result. If the points which are measured yield a good representative sample of the sound around the listening position you get a better result than if the points which are measured don't yield a good representative sample of the sound around the listening position.

So, to the coffee table and objects upon it. I referred to a coffee table between the speakers and the listening position. Reflections from such a table and the objects upon it can produce high frequency reflections from a reflection path which is not much longer than the length of the direct path from the speakers. There is some absorption in air of high frequencies and the amount of absorption increases the more air the sound passes through. "More air" in this case really means a longer sound path so it's easy to see that a reflection off a glass window located at a point which is not a first reflection point so it is going to be reflected one or more times again before it reaches the listening position, plus windows are in the walls which are usually further away from the listening position than a coffee table is, are going to be somewhat weaker in the highs than a first reflection arriving at the listening position after reflecting from a hard surfaced coffee table, especially one with a surface such as glass or metal which are very good at reflecting highs and just as reflections from a high back leather chair can affect the calibration results, so can reflections from a coffee table and the objects on it.

Now I'm not going to say we should take steps to kill all high frequency reflections. What I say is that these things can influence the results of a calibration and if we don't like the results we get then changing the high frequency reflections at the listening position by covering surfaces which could be boosting the amount of high frequency reflection if they are exposed, or exposing them if they are covered, and seeing what that produces as a result is a good idea. When you know what result each approach produces you can choose to go with the one that produces the result you like most. The same goes with any other change you may try like moving the listening position by some amount or moving the speakers closer to or further from the wall or changing toe in. The aim isn't to end up with a result that produces a specific frequency response at the listening position because different people prefer different results. The aim is to produce a result we personally like because the purpose of our systems is to produce a result we personally enjoy. We don't get detailed feedback in data form from our calibrations and unless we've been able to participate in a detailed study in which we expose ourselves to different frequency responses and get the opportunity to rate our enjoyment of those different responses, we really have no idea what kind of response at the listening position we would want to achieve in order to get a result we enjoy. All we can do is run calibrations and see whether we're happy with the result or not. If we aren't happy we change something in the room and its setup or the way we do our measurement procedure and try again, and keep trying until we get a result we're happy to stick and just enjoy. We probably aren't going to do many calibrations in a row but over time as we notice different things we don't like and try to remedy them, and as we recalibrate after equipment changes or room rearrangements, we can start to build up a bit of experience about what works for us and what doesn't, and basically most of the suggestions that get suggested here for people having problems come from that kind of hands on, trial and error experience over time.

And yes, there are some of us who at some time or other have been obsessive about getting a calibration we really like and have as a result personally tried a few more changes than others so since you referred to your "already obsessive routine", I have to say that you aren't alone and I'll plead guilty to that too. I also was obsessive enough to read a few books on acoustics to give me a bit more info on how to be more obsessive


----------



## David Aiken

rlwings said:


> Quick question: What's the big deal about reference volume anyway? Lol... I mean who cares what level some sound engineer listened to the original copy at? We all choose the volume we want anyway... As long as our systems are calibrated flat, aren't we listening to a proportionally quieter but exact duplication of the original anyway. As long as it's EQ'd and balanced, what does a certain volume level (reference) have to do with the equation. I would think that relative speaker balance and flat response are the important factors.


Simple answer: we hear a sound like white noise which has a flat frequency response differently at different volume levels. Our ears are less sensitive to both low and high frequencies as listening level decreases so lowering the volume has an effect a bit like using tone controls and cutting the bass and treble while raising the volume has an effect a bit like boosting the bass and treble tone controls. If you want to hear the tonal balance that the mastering engineer wanted you to hear when they mastered the sound track, you have to listen to the sound track at the same level that the mastering engineer heard, and by the same level I mean the sound has to be the same level at your listening position that it was at the mastering engineer's listening position, not the same volume level on the amplifier's volume control.

Engineers don't master every sound track to a reference level but they do their mastering on a system which has been calibrated to a particular standard and when we calibrate to "reference level" what we're trying to do is to at least ensure that our system is capable of reproducing at our listening position what the engineer heard at their listening position if we set our volume control to produce the same sound level at our listening position as the engineer heard.

So basically "reference level" refers to a standard for setting up the audio system. Actual listening level is another thing and most of us listen at lower than the level the "reference level" calibration uses, but there's also no guarantee that the mastering engineer mastered the soundtrack with his listening level set to the level used for his "reference level" calibration. Having your system calibrated to as close as possible to the mastering engineer's system should make achieving something like what the engineer wanted you to hear a lot easier.


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> Amazing that you got your wife to be a willing participant in audio calibration! Good for you in your choice of a mate!



We must have done something right -- we are coming up on our 43rd wedding anniversary. She really is wonderful. When we first met, in a class at UC Berkeley called Rock; Social Poetry of the '70s (actually more folk/pop than rock) one of the first things I noticed was that she didn't seem to have an agenda. She is openhearted and open minded, optimistic (much more so than I am) yet with a keen sense of social justice. Her education is in chemistry/medical technology, and her voracious reading is pretty broad in scope. She worked hard on our music room/library/home theater, helped me install a complicated upgrade in our front speakers, built and stained the diffusors, helped calibrate Audyssey, our projector, and helped with REW. Years ago she built me a wind synthesizer for a recording project, and helped me record both in the little "studio" in our house, at SFSU, and far afield. She is a wonderful mother and partner. There is no WAF in our house. She thinks our 52" tall speakers are "beautiful."


----------



## rlwings

David Aiken said:


> Simple answer: we hear a sound like white noise which has a flat frequency response differently at different volume levels. Our ears are less sensitive to both low and high frequencies as listening level decreases so lowering the volume has an effect a bit like using tone controls and cutting the bass and treble while raising the volume has an effect a bit like boosting the bass and treble tone controls. If you want to hear the tonal balance that the mastering engineer wanted you to hear when they mastered the sound track, you have to listen to the sound track at the same level that the mastering engineer heard, and by the same level I mean the sound has to be the same level at your listening position that it was at the mastering engineer's listening position, not the same volume level on the amplifier's volume control.
> 
> Engineers don't master every sound track to a reference level but they do their mastering on a system which has been calibrated to a particular standard and when we calibrate to "reference level" what we're trying to do is to at least ensure that our system is capable of reproducing at our listening position what the engineer heard at their listening position if we set our volume control to produce the same sound level at our listening position as the engineer heard.
> 
> So basically "reference level" refers to a standard for setting up the audio system. Actual listening level is another thing and most of us listen at lower than the level the "reference level" calibration uses, but there's also no guarantee that the mastering engineer mastered the soundtrack with his listening level set to the level used for his "reference level" calibration. Having your system calibrated to as close as possible to the mastering engineer's system should make achieving something like what the engineer wanted you to hear a lot easier.


Thanks David... I'll probably have to read it a few times before it all sinks in... It's funny, when I compare audio to video calibration it all seems so familiar. Visual acuity is not linear. We see brighter better than darker...So we use gamma curves to compensate for how the eye sees, and how monitors produce light... In other words we wouldn't want a flat response on a monitor. All the blacks would appear plugged up. No detail in the shadows, in the low end - Can't hear the bass


----------



## mthomas47

rlwings said:


> Hi Mike! I just finished reading your guide to subwoofer setup. (Which included much information about using Audyssey properly) Probably one of the best guides I have ever seen! Thank you for making such a wonderfully detailed and complete guide. I thought I had died and gone to heaven when I was linked to it by another AVS member the other day. It was exactly what I was looking for but couldn't find... I had sooo many unanswered questions about using Audyssey. Questions which I felt were obvious questions (like where do you put the mic for positions 7 and 8 if you're up against a wall?) and needed immediate answers. Audyssey was of little help and even the CEO seemed to be talking out of both sides of his mouth at times. Or I would get the feeling that he really didn't have a complete answer to give... Very frustrating to say the least. Up against a wall has got to be a large segment of the population. Ausyssey would have benefited by hiring you to write a proper instruction manual for them.
> 
> But you my friend took the time to address every little detail of using Audyssey. You scratched every itch with the most articulate guide I've ever seen... Again, thank you!
> 
> 
> I am beginning to understand the reality surrounding mic placement and the upper frequencies. And I now realize that I was using EQing and reference interchangeably, which in fact are two different things... I just assumed that EQing was aimed at reaching a reference curve. But I guess that the term reference refers to reaching volume levels.
> 
> Quick question: What's the big deal about reference volume anyway? Lol... I mean who cares what level some sound engineer listened to the original copy at? We all choose the volume we want anyway... As long as our systems are calibrated flat, aren't we listening to a proportionally quieter but exact duplication of the original anyway. As long as it's EQ'd and balanced, what does a certain volume level (reference) have to do with the equation. I would think that relative speaker balance and flat response are the important factors.
> 
> 
> Edit: I have a sneaking suspicion that you have already answered this question in your guid(s). Although I just read one of them there was a lot of information there. It probably hasn't 'clicked' yet...Which is why I downloaded it and intend to reread it several times until I get it.
> 
> 
> Edit 2: Hi, I'm back again... So I do HDTV monitor calibrations for fun and it is common to calibrate the backlight to match the ambient lighting so that the image 'looks' equal to the image that the creators saw when they created it with their backlight setting in their ambient lighting conditions...It doesn't matter that the viewer uses the same lighting conditions. What matters is that his lighting conditions are proportionally equal to the creators... Isn't it the same thing in audio? We don't actually listen at reference volumes, but we listen to a proportionally similar balance which gives us the same thing.
> 
> 
> Maybe it's all about the creators believing that in order to generate the proper emotional response from the viewer that he is asked to listen to the movie at reference levels.... But the truth is that I will have a proportionally scaled down emotional response to that same movie while listening to it at a comfortable level which will be proportionally satisfying.
> 
> 
> Thanks, and sorry if I seem a little bit punchy. It's just that this endeavor has me a little frustrated.



First, thank you very much for your nice comments about my Guide! It continues to be a work in progress, as I edit and add to it almost every week. David already gave you a very good answer to your question about why we calibrate our HT systems to Reference. It makes sense for us to calibrate our audio systems to some common standard, so that we can intelligently discuss our listening levels and our bass boosts, if nothing else. (And, programs such as DEQ are based on deviation from Reference.) Calibrating to a standard which is consistent with what film mixers intended serves the dual purpose of establishing a consistent calibration standard, and of allowing us to hear what they heard when we set our master volume to a certain level--0.0 MV.

Our HT systems can be very frustrating, especially when we don't really understand how everything works. That is one reason that I started the Guide--to help other people with what I think is a journey that most of us have to make. But, I think it helps if we don't try too hard to aim for perfection right out of the gate, and instead approach our audio as a process, where the more that we gradually understand, and invest our efforts strategically, the better our results will be. I think that your background in video calibration, and your exactitude, will serve you well in that respect. I'll bet that you didn't go from zero to sixty in less than six seconds on that either. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## iSeries

Hi,

This is probably a silly question. I have my speakers wired with some cheap 16awg wire. Everything is set up with the calibration and sounds great. Now, I've just been handed a big roll of excellent quality 14awg wire. I'm not someone who thinks this will magically improve sound quality, but I am wondering, would I need to run the calibration again after switching out the wire?


----------



## drh3b

iSeries said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is probably a silly question. I have my speakers wired with some cheap 16awg wire. Everything is set up with the calibration and sounds great. Now, I've just been handed a big roll of excellent quality 14awg wire. I'm not someone who thinks this will magically improve sound quality, but I am wondering, would I need to run the calibration again after switching out the wire?


Seems unlikely, unless you are running very long runs where 16awg wasn't appropriate in the first place.


----------



## iSeries

Thanks - the surrounds were around 25ft, should be ok?


----------



## drh3b

iSeries said:


> Thanks - the surrounds were around 25ft, should be ok?


Crutchfield says that 16 gauge is fine for up to 50 ft, so yes.


----------



## tjc50

Anyone have any input on this? Brand new denon x3300 ran aud once and it set all speakers to 0.0 . I learned this as later during a movie scene i wanted to turn up the bass and when i went to levels all speakers had the setting of 0.0?


----------



## mogorf

tjc50 said:


> Anyone have any input on this? Brand new denon x3300 ran aud once and it set all speakers to 0.0 . I learned this as later during a movie scene i wanted to turn up the bass and when i went to levels all speakers had the setting of 0.0?



Either a coincidence or a glitch. Try to run Audyssey again after a microprocessor reset. Look up Manual for procedures.


----------



## garygarrison

iSeries said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is probably a silly question. I have my speakers wired with some cheap 16awg wire. Everything is set up with the calibration and sounds great. Now, I've just been handed a big roll of excellent quality 14awg wire. I'm not someone who thinks this will magically improve sound quality, but I am wondering, would I need to run the calibration again after switching out the wire?



*If* you don't move the speakers -- *or anything else* -- I'd bet it wouldn't make a difference. 



If you have a wood floor, and have to move either the speakers (or the equipment rack, or anything that can reflect or absorb, i.e. anything larger than a physical विजेट), use masking tape or blue painter's tape pressed firmly against the floor to mark the exact position of each speaker or object, and move them back to exactly the same spot(s).


How long is your run? McIntosh used to have a chart of wire lengths and thickness needed.


Those of us who have OCD use speaker wire that is low resistance, low capacitance, etc., etc., but not particularly expensive, in an exercise reminiscent of Pascal's Wager. But, we refuse to put very small, incredibly expensive fleebles dead center on the wall between the speakers to improve the sound. Wait -- I have an African bowl hanging on the wall just there. I'd argue it's O.K., because 1) It was cheap 2) I already had it 3) It went up before calibration.


----------



## tjc50

Re ran aud it sets all distances levels etc etc... but when in a movie and i click the option to adjust levels it shows all speakers and subs at 0.0... is this normal? Are the aud settings still applied? My old denon showed the actual aud settings when i went to this option during a movie to change the subs levels


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> If you have a wood floor, and have to move either the speakers (or the equipment rack, or anything that can reflect or absorb, i.e. anything larger than a physical विजेट), use masking tape or blue painter's tape pressed firmly against the floor to mark the exact position of each speaker or object, and move them back to exactly the same spot(s).
> …


And if you have carpet you may be able to use velcro cable ties instead of tape to mark the position of things you're moving. The hook side of the cable tie adheres to short pile carpets very well though it probably wouldn't work on long piles like shag pile carpet.


----------



## rlwings

tjc50 said:


> Re ran aud it sets all distances levels etc etc... but when in a movie and i click the option to adjust levels it shows all speakers and subs at 0.0... is this normal? Are the aud settings still applied? My old denon showed the actual aud settings when i went to this option during a movie to change the subs levels


 The option to set the levels (Using the 'Option' button on the remote) Is not the same as the levels set by Audyssey in the main menu: ('Setup' button on the remote then 'Speakers' then Manual setup'.)


And make sure NOT to turn on: 'Main menu', 'Audio', 'Subwoofer Adjust' ... As this setting, if activated, will reset Audyssey's chosen subwoofer level back to zero.


----------



## cfraser

David Aiken said:


> And if you have short-pile carpet you may be able to use velcro cable ties instead of tape to mark the position of things you're moving. The hook side of the cable tie adheres to short pile carpets very well though it probably wouldn't work on long piles like shag pile carpet.


You are _so _delicate and caring.  I have short-pile carpet in my HT room. I mark the position of things with (colored) push-pins, they stick into the underpad quite well. But when I _really _want to mark something long-term, like my Audyssey measuring positions so I can fairly compare measurements etc., I delicately _hammer _in carpet tacks. You can't see them under the pile, but you can find them when you need to. Can't even feel them with bare feet. But you have to have a "system" so that your mike stand/tripod is always positioned a specific way wrt the marked positions.


----------



## David Aiken

cfraser said:


> You are _so _delicate and caring.  I have short-pile carpet in my HT room. I mark the position of things with (colored) push-pins, they stick into the underpad quite well. But when I _really _want to mark something long-term, like my Audyssey measuring positions so I can fairly compare measurements etc., I delicately _hammer _in carpet tacks. You can't see them under the pile, but you can find them when you need to. Can't even feel them with bare feet. But you have to have a "system" so that your mike stand/tripod is always positioned a specific way wrt the marked positions.


Never thought of push pins or carpet tacks. I actually started using the velcro cable ties with my audio system which is in a totally different room to my AV system which is where my AVR is. The audio system doesn't have a room correction system so no need for mic setup or anything like that but I have acoustic panels on stands and surprisingly tweaking the position of acoustic panels, sometimes by as little as an inch or two, can make a difference. When I want to move a panel I use the velcro cable ties to mark it's original position and I'll then use additional ones to mark second and third positions if I'm trying small shifts of position so I can go back to an earlier position precisely.

I know we have the FAQ and Mike's Guide but perhaps we could also use a post with a summary of useful hints such as the things people use to mark positions and the like, the "small things" which we've found to make the bigger things a little easier for us to do.


----------



## rlwings

*Where's the volume?*

Hey guys...

I've noticed that sometimes my volume will only go up to a certain number like 84 (Normal scale) then stop... Does this have something to do with Audyssey and the reference volume thing? ... Seems weird that the amp would be limited in it's potential volume levels... What a waste of the power that I know is still there... I must be missing something here. 

I do not have the volume limited in the main menu. (Marantz SR5012).

Thanks for any info\explanations.


----------



## cfraser

David Aiken said:


> ...but I have acoustic panels on stands and surprisingly tweaking the position of acoustic panels, sometimes by as little as an inch or two, can make a difference. When I want to move a panel I use the velcro cable ties to mark it's original position....


I also have "permanent" and somewhat largish "markers" _screwed _into the floor (I guess the hammer wasn't handy...) to mark the positions of my floor-standing speakers (I move them when vacuuming etc.). And for the optimum (IMO) MLP.

These markers are really only noticeable when you remove the speakers or furniture from their usual places. And it took _a lot_ of work to establish these positions, as well as the Audyssey microphone positions, so screw the next owner of the house and the hardwood floors underneath the carpet.  Really though, it's like painting: people will do floors the way they want, so you might as well use them as best suits your purpose. I had so many rugs on the HT room floor, and I spent so much time in that room and so much time maintaining the stupid floor, that I decided to cover it up with carpet...which of course is much better for taming the sound.


----------



## David Aiken

cfraser said:


> I also have "permanent" and somewhat largish "markers" _screwed _into the floor (I guess the hammer wasn't handy...) to mark the positions of my floor-standing speakers (I move them when vacuuming etc.). And for the optimum (IMO) MLP.
> 
> These markers are really only noticeable when you remove the speakers or furniture from their usual places. And it took _a lot_ of work to establish these positions, as well as the Audyssey microphone positions, so screw the next owner of the house and the hardwood floors underneath the carpet.  Really though, it's like painting: people will do floors the way they want, so you might as well use them as best suits your purpose. I had so many rugs on the HT room floor, and I spent so much time in that room and so much time maintaining the stupid floor, that I decided to cover it up with carpet...which of course is much better for taming the sound.


Can't do that sort of thing here, I've got a cement slab floor. It's got a ceramic tiled floor in the room where the video setup is so I can't nail, pin, or screw the floor without damaging tiles and the rug I use is an expensive designer rug i don't want to damage so tape and velcro strips are the options I use. The room with the audio system has carpet on the slab and I use the velcro strips there.

One way or another we find ways to work with the room as it is or we give up, and giving up is just another way of working with the room we have.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

I have a Marantz 6011 that was connected to DIRECTV now my Marantz is connected to my local cable company via TIVO. Should I re-run Audyssey set up again?


----------



## mthomas47

rlwings said:


> Hey guys...
> 
> I've noticed that sometimes my volume will only go up to a certain number like 84 (Normal scale) then stop... Does this have something to do with Audyssey and the reference volume thing? ... Seems weird that the amp would be limited in it's potential volume levels... What a waste of the power that I know is still there... I must be missing something here.
> 
> I do not have the volume limited in the main menu. (Marantz SR5012).
> 
> Thanks for any info\explanations.





JACKIEGAGA said:


> I have a Marantz 6011 that was connected to DIRECTV now my Marantz is connected to my local cable company via TIVO. Should I re-run Audyssey set up again?



Hi,

I decided to kill two birds with one post, if no one minds. 

First, for Jack, your Audyssey calibration is completely independent of content or source, so there is no need to run Audyssey again.


The question concerning a volume limitation interested me, and I wanted to confirm my recollection with my Marantz 7008 before replying. For instance, although my absolute (normal scale) volume control indicates that it goes up to 98, in actuality it will only go up to 94.5. On the other hand, 80 on the absolute scale corresponds to 0.0 (Reference) on the relative scale, so anything around 80 is very loud. But, the volume limitation of a particular AVR doesn't have anything at all to do with Reference.

If I were guessing, I would guess that the GUI was originally programmed to show a scale from 0 to 98, but how loudly our actual volume controls will play is dependent on the model, or on the specific programming built into the AVR. I am thinking of an analogy to an automobile speedometer which goes up to 160 mph, but how fast a car will actually run is dependent on the car's engine and on whatever internal governor is implemented. 

In general, I would expect the volume limitation of an AVR to be intended to protect it from being over-driven, but you could always contact Marantz for more information.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rlwings

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I decided to kill two birds with one post, if no one minds.
> 
> First, for Jack, your Audyssey calibration is completely independent of content or source, so there is no need to run Audyssey again.
> 
> 
> The question concerning a volume limitation interested me, and I wanted to confirm my recollection with my Marantz 7008 before replying. For instance, although my absolute (normal scale) volume control indicates that it goes up to 98, in actuality it will only go up to 94.5. On the other hand, 80 on the absolute scale corresponds to 0.0 (Reference) on the relative scale, so anything around 80 is very loud. But, the volume limitation of a particular AVR doesn't have anything at all to do with Reference.
> 
> If I were guessing, I would guess that the GUI was originally programmed to show a scale from 0 to 98, but how loudly our actual volume controls will play is dependent on the model, or on the specific programming built into the AVR. I am thinking of an analogy to an automobile speedometer which goes up to 160 mph, but how fast a car will actually run is dependent on the car's engine and on whatever internal governor is implemented.
> 
> In general, I would expect the volume limitation of an AVR to be intended to protect it from being over-driven, but you could always contact Marantz for more information.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 Thanks for your reply Mike... Concerning my volume control. I noticed it the other day after I hooked up a turntable. I was only able to turn up my volume control to 84 (normal scale) which produced a nice listening level, but not nearly as loud as I am able to turn up my other digital sources... I could tell that the amp could have gone up a lot higher if allowed. Luckily for me however I live in an apartment and would never turn it up much louder anyway. Still, I was curious as to why this limitation was place on the line level audio input at 84 (Out of 98).

Your analogy of an auto speedometer makes sense, but I wonder why my 'engine' is being 'speed' limited depending on the input.


----------



## ToBeFrank

*Why does audyssey rolloff my sub?*

The target curves in Audyssey's MultEQ app roll off the sub at 20Hz by about 7 dB. Why is that? Why don't I want that flat? For example, attached are the target curve and my audyssey corrected sub curve.


----------



## mthomas47

ToBeFrank said:


> The target curves in Audyssey's MultEQ app roll off the sub at 20Hz by about 7 dB. Why is that? Why don't I want that flat? For example, attached are the target curve and my audyssey corrected sub curve.



Hi,

Audyssey's job is to create a flat frequency response, without peaks and dips. The red "After" line shows Audyssey's attempt to pull-down the peaks and pull-up the dips. That probably is not an exact depiction of what Audyssey actually did, but it should be generally correct, and the result is clearly superior to the green "Before" line.

Sub placement within a room, and the use of multiple subs to reduce random peaks and dips will largely determine what Audyssey has to work with. Then, after the room EQ is performed, whether or not you want the frequency response to be absolutely flat is up to you. The curve editor can be used to create a house curve, or you can choose to leave things as flat as possible.

But, if your subwoofer is in the best position in the room (as determined by a sub crawl) and you have performed as competent a calibration as you can, then Audyssey has already done what it can to get your frequency response as flat as possible. There are some explanations in the Guide, linked in my signature, which may help you to understand what Audyssey is doing and how best to optimize its use. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rlwings

ToBeFrank said:


> The target curves in Audyssey's MultEQ app roll off the sub at 20Hz by about 7 dB. Why is that? Why don't I want that flat? For example, attached are the target curve and my audyssey corrected sub curve.


Maybe your sub can't produce 20hz at the same volume as the other frequencies so Audyssey rolls off the low end to accommodate your sub's actual performance capabilities. Or maybe there is a bass null at the mic positions and the sub can't output enough to compensate at 20hz.


----------



## ToBeFrank

mthomas47 said:


> The curve editor can be used to create a house curve, or you can choose to leave things as flat as possible.


Thank you for the response, but as my pictures show, the target curve is definitely not flat. It rolls off the low end, with the -3dB point looking to be around 30Hz (my sub, OTOH, is supposed to be +-3dB to 20Hz). So my question remains... why? Why does Audyssey think I would prefer this over an actual flat response? I've googled for this and come up empty. Older pics of audyssey show that they used to target a flat response.


----------



## ToBeFrank

rlwings said:


> Maybe your sub can't produce 20hz at the same volume as the other frequencies so Audyssey rolls off the low end to accommodate your sub's actual performance capabilities. Or maybe there is a bass null at the mic positions and the sub can't output enough to compensate at 20hz.


My sub is +-3dB down to 20Hz so if I modify the target curve to get rid of the roll off, I get a flat response.

Is anyone else using the MultEQ app? What does audyssey's default subwoofer target curve look like for you?


----------



## ToBeFrank

So the target curve has nothing to do with my room or my sub. It is Audyssey's default target curve. Here is a user asking the same question and showing the same target curve. Unfortunately, it looks like no one answered.


----------



## mthomas47

ToBeFrank said:


> So the target curve has nothing to do with my room or my sub. It is Audyssey's default target curve. Here is a user asking the same question and showing the same target curve. Unfortunately, it looks like no one answered.



Then try using Audyssey directly from your AVR instead of with your phone app, because I guarantee that standard Audyssey doesn't work that way. Audyssey simply measures the in-room frequency response down to 10Hz, and sets control points to make every frequency as close to the 75db test tone as possible. Incidentally, what a sub maker says is the frequency response of a particular sub, and what it actually measures at the MLP, inside a room, can be two completely different things.

I decided to add something to my post in case you haven't had a chance to read any of the Guide yet. Audyssey measures the in-room frequency response of the subwoofer(s) from multiple microphone positions and sets control points wherever there is a deviation in SPL from the 75db test tones. But, where a subwoofer starts to roll-off naturally by 3db, Audyssey stops setting control points, so that the subwoofer won't be over-driven beyond its capabilities. Where you see a roll-off occurring, down close to 20Hz, that may very well be the natural roll-off of the subwoofer, which Audyssey is deliberately leaving alone so as not to damage the sub.

Of course, if the app more or less consistently (as opposed to in a couple of anecdotal examples) rolls-off subwoofers at 20Hz, then that is a flaw in the app, and I wouldn't use it. If I were you, I would post my question on the following owner's thread to see if this is typical behavior with the phone app:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-re...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

ToBeFrank said:


> So the target curve has nothing to do with my room or my sub. It is Audyssey's default target curve. Here is a user asking the same question and showing the same target curve. Unfortunately, it looks like no one answered.


As far as I can tell, *in the app*, the sub target curve you see is not actually a "target" per se, it's Audyssey's target for your setup, and may vary for others. You can look in the mentioned thread at the sub target I posted, along with some from others, from about a week ago. I have about 10dB _less _rolloff at 20Hz in my target than many others have. I spent a lot of time previously "optimizing" my sub setup to help Audyssey, using REW.

Speaking about the app: IOW I do think Audyssey has an ideal target in mind. It adjusts the targets you see to as close to these ideal targets as possible, within the ability of what it believes are achievable with your setup. If your setup was "perfect" for Audyssey, you would see the Audyssey ideal target curves. IDK, this may be going on in the host device to some extent too, just that it wasn't so apparent before the app. There is definitely _some_ difference with the way the app and the host device handle the subs in XT32 though. This is all just my opinion based on limited observations. 

Edit: some e.g. variations of the Sub target curve. Yours is -7dB @ 20Hz, mine is -2dB @ 20Hz, several others had -11dB @ 20Hz. On a curve that's roughly at +1dB in its flat portion.


----------



## ToBeFrank

cfraser said:


> As far as I can tell, *in the app*, the sub target curve you see is not actually a "target" per se, it's Audyssey's target for your setup, and may vary for others. You can look in the mentioned thread at the sub target I posted, along with some from others, from about a week ago.


I found your posts. Thanks! It does look like Audyssey is adjusting the target curve based on the measured frequency response so my statement that my room/sub doesn't matter is incorrect. However, this contradicts what I have read elsewhere, e.g. @mthomas47's sub guide, where it is said that audyssey doesn't apply any filters below the F3 point. It also seems strange to me since I can adjust the target curve and be flat all the way to 25Hz. Below that I have no chance since the pre-correction graph shows I don't have much below that.


----------



## mthomas47

ToBeFrank said:


> I found your posts. Thanks! It does look like Audyssey is adjusting the target curve based on the measured frequency response so my statement that my room/sub doesn't matter is incorrect. However, this contradicts what I have read elsewhere, e.g. @*mthomas47* 's sub guide, where it is said that audyssey doesn't apply any filters below the F3 point. It also seems strange to me since I can adjust the target curve and be flat all the way to 25Hz. Below that I have no chance since the pre-correction graph shows I don't have much below that.


 Hi Frank,

I was just checking back on this thread right after you posted, so our timing is perfect. I suppose that anything is possible, particularly where a smartphone app is concerned, but Audyssey is designed to stop correcting at a channel's F3 point. Respectfully, I believe that you are piling speculation on top of speculation here in relying exclusively on the graphs generated by the app. As noted earlier, that is intended to be a picture of approximately what a corrected frequency response should look like.

It is not an actual corrected FR graph, because Audyssey isn't measuring its own performance. All of the measurements that Audyssey makes are used to generate the control points--not to measure their effect. Without wishing to be dismissive of the "After" graphs, it is hard to consider them terribly meaningful, with respect to details, and certainly not with respect to whether Audyssey is EQing below the F3 point of your subwoofer.

In order to be certain of what your subwoofer's F3 point is, you would need to measure your sub's uncorrected in-room performance with something such as REW. Then, using the same measurement positions, you would need to measure the corrected response to determine what Audyssey is actually doing to the FR. The genuine before-and-after measurements might conceivably bear some general resemblance to the crude graphs that the app generates, but they would be both qualitatively and quantitatively different.

I think it is sometimes easy to get so wrapped-up in what Audyssey might be doing, or doing wrong, that we concentrate on that rather than on whether we actually like the sound quality better or worse after an Audyssey calibration. But, if any of us really do want to second-guess the EQ that Audyssey performs, it may take a fairly significant time investment (learning and implementing REW or OmniMic) to do it properly. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

*ToBeFrank*: Actually he is not exactly "incorrect", because things changed with the MultEQ app, the info was/is correct for Audyssey sans the app. We are a bit sketchy _exactly_ what the app is doing all the time, but we're keeping an eye on it... 

Yes, I also noticed that MultEQ set some of my speakers up as Large (by itself!) and then corrected them down to 30Hz, whereas the lowest XO (AFAIK) is 40Hz. It chose 40Hz as the XO for all speakers (same as the host devices have: X4000, 7702 and X4400 now).


----------



## ToBeFrank

mthomas47 said:


> Respectfully, I believe that you are piling speculation on top of speculation here in relying exclusively on the graphs generated by the app. As noted earlier, that is intended to be a picture of approximately what a corrected frequency response should look like.


I don't believe I am. I also don't think the fact that the corrected response is not an actual measurement matters for this discussion. As we've already established, the target curve is based on the real uncorrected frequency response and what audyssey determines are the capabilities of my sub/room. I am then allowed to modify the target curve before applying it. What would be the point of that if it's not actually using the target curve to construct its filters? I think it's a little better than speculation to say that it is using that target curve that it is showing me.

I do agree that the only way to find out is to use REW with a calibrated mic, which I do have and have done before. But that was 9 years ago. Do mic's stay calibrated after such a time?


----------



## garygarrison

ToBeFrank said:


> So the target curve has nothing to do with my room or my sub. It is Audyssey's default target curve. Here is a user asking the same question and showing the same target curve. Unfortunately, it looks like no one answered.


 One of JBL's target curves shows a similar roll-off in the deep bass. I agree that, for Audyssey, this seems to be a change in point of view, because I seem to remember Chris K of Audyssey taking great pains to distinguish what they do from target curves. I suspect that frequencies that low are "troublesome" in most homes, in most sub locations and that most subs advertised to be smooth to 20 Hz (or 15 Hz, whatever) do so with considerable distortion and more roll-off than they admit to, so, to make the response flat, Audyssey would have to apply a hefty boost, causing even more distortion. If the Audyssey people read threads like this (I'm betting they do) they know most of us turn up our subs after running the Audyssey calibration, begging for more trouble. Since there is not often _*music*_ near 20 Hz (except rarely played notes on a Bösendorfer piano, contrabassoon, synthesizers, and some organs) and just the *LFE* the movie people put in, which is basically the infernal bass machine, thunder and explosions, manufacturers can, by rolling off the bass, avoid emails about muddy bass, broken pottery, and rattling heater registers, while providing an override for audiophiles with capable subs and dedicated HTs. Just a guess.


How does the *actual response* differ from the *after curve*? Here is my second guess: Actual response is what ever result one gets after applying a mirror image of response as measured from the 8 mic positions, subjected to Audyssey's proprietary "fuzzy logic" *combined with* any effect of loudspeaker compression (something loudspeaker manufacturers rarely talk about) at the playback level (even if it is 75 dB at 1K, from the MLP, or on the average, or with pink noise, etc., etc., there remains the problem that a 9 dB boost (Audyssey max boost) by Audyssey or imposed by a tone control setting, etc doesn't necessarily result in a 9 dB boost in the room, due to compression, and other factors, like treble beaming, etc.). There are others, no doubt, like the majority of mic positions being unrepresentative of anyone's actual ear positions, and not being handled well enough by Audyssey's algorithmic hoo-ha assigned to represent the three dimensional nature of the nearby space where there are neither ears nor mics, i.e., "getting a sense of the room." 



I _think_, for people who listen alone, and place some or most of the mics where the head/ears of the solo listener would normally be, an REW average might be an adequate simulation of the real "After Curve." Or not? For people who are trying for a compromise setting for an audience of 5 or so people (like me) there is little hope of determining a true "After Curve" because we don't know exactly how Audyssey's proprietary "fuzzy logic" processing works. We can be fairly sure it is different than an average, but how different in this or that individual case? 



Whenever "flat response" is mentioned, my brain is invaded by three things: 1) A graph that Keith once posted of frequency response in several professional control rooms, superimposed. It was a mess. 2) The article "Down with Flat!" by J. Gordon Holt, the founder of _*Stereophile*_;see the _*Stereophile*_ archive, online. 3) Plato's forms.


IMO, the point of using Audyssey is to reduce anomalies contributed by the room, including smoothing out the frequency response of the speaker/room combination to create a *starting point* for the creation of a preference curve. Now that I have achieved my average or nominal preference (much like the Harman curve, but not as attenuated in the treble) I find that most Blu-ray movies sound fine to me without changing the EQ (but the ones that do need help, often from the '50s through about 2,000 CE, may need long tweaking sessions before an audience arrives). Music recordings (CDs) may actually be worse than when Holt wrote his article. Many now seem to be boosted between 1K and 6k, or so, but Blu-rays are not. Orchestral SACDs are often better than CDs, possibly because they know who will be buying them.


----------



## pbarach

JACKIEGAGA said:


> I have a Marantz 6011 that was connected to DIRECTV now my Marantz is connected to my local cable company via TIVO. Should I re-run Audyssey set up again?


No, there is no need to do that. Audyssey needs to be rerun if you change your speakers, the furnishings or audio treatments in your room, or any external amplifiers that are plugged into your resource. It corrects the room, not the sources.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I decided to kill two birds with one post, if no one minds.
> 
> First, for Jack, your Audyssey calibration is completely independent of content or source, so there is no need to run Audyssey again.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





pbarach said:


> No, there is no need to do that. Audyssey needs to be rerun if you change your speakers, the furnishings or audio treatments in your room, or any external amplifiers that are plugged into your resource. It corrects the room, not the sources.


Thanks much appreciated


----------



## steakhouse_

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Frank,
> 
> I was just checking back on this thread right after you posted, so our timing is perfect. I suppose that anything is possible, particularly where a smartphone app is concerned, but Audyssey is designed to stop correcting at a channel's F3 point. Respectfully, I believe that you are piling speculation on top of speculation here in relying exclusively on the graphs generated by the app. As noted earlier, that is intended to be a picture of approximately what a corrected frequency response should look like.
> 
> It is not an actual corrected FR graph, because Audyssey isn't measuring its own performance. All of the measurements that Audyssey makes are used to generate the control points--not to measure their effect. Without wishing to be dismissive of the "After" graphs, it is hard to consider them terribly meaningful, with respect to details, and certainly not with respect to whether Audyssey is EQing below the F3 point of your subwoofer.
> 
> In order to be certain of what your subwoofer's F3 point is, you would need to measure your sub's uncorrected in-room performance with something such as REW. Then, using the same measurement positions, you would need to measure the corrected response to determine what Audyssey is actually doing to the FR. The genuine before-and-after measurements might conceivably bear some general resemblance to the crude graphs that the app generates, but they would be both qualitatively and quantitatively different.
> 
> I think it is sometimes easy to get so wrapped-up in what Audyssey might be doing, or doing wrong, that we concentrate on that rather than on whether we actually like the sound quality better or worse after an Audyssey calibration. But, if any of us really do want to second-guess the EQ that Audyssey performs, it may take a fairly significant time investment (learning and implementing REW or OmniMic) to do it properly.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Audyssey in fact DOES correct below F3. Not to flat but to create a 12db oct roll off.


----------



## tbaucom

steakhouse_ said:


> Audyssey in fact DOES correct below F3. Not to flat but to create a 12db oct roll off.


Yes. Audyssey has always corrected below the F3 for the satellites. It doesn't simply stop at that point. It tries to shape a 12db oct rolloff at the crossover that is set to match the 12 db rolloff of the high pass filter in the AVR. The goal is that when the 2 are combined you wind up with a 24db per octave high pass filter to match the 24db per octave low pass filter for the subwoofer. This is one of the reasons Chris started recommending not to change the crossover when using XT32.

With the pro kit, I was able to choose what crossover I wanted and have Audyssey create the 12db roll of at that point. With the standard version, it only does it at the one crossover point chosen by the AVR.


----------



## cfraser

^ Ah, that explains what I saw with the app. The decisions Audyssey makes are much more apparent/obvious because you can see them more clearly/explicitly than you can on the host device. The speakers Audyssey corrected below the F3 were in fact "satellites" i.e. not the front mains.


----------



## mthomas47

steakhouse_ said:


> Audyssey in fact DOES correct below F3. Not to flat but to create a 12db oct roll off.





tbaucom said:


> Yes. Audyssey has always corrected below the F3 for the satellites. It doesn't simply stop at that point. It tries to shape a 12db oct rolloff at the crossover that is set to match the 12 db rolloff of the high pass filter in the AVR. The goal is that when the 2 are combined you wind up with a 24db per octave high pass filter to match the 24db per octave low pass filter for the subwoofer. This is one of the reasons Chris started recommending not to change the crossover when using XT32.
> 
> With the pro kit, I was able to choose what crossover I wanted and have Audyssey create the 12db roll of at that point. With the standard version, it only does it at the one crossover point chosen by the AVR.





cfraser said:


> ^ Ah, that explains what I saw with the app. The decisions Audyssey makes are much more apparent/obvious because you can see them more clearly/explicitly than you can on the host device. The speakers Audyssey corrected below the F3 were in fact "satellites" i.e. not the front mains.



Thanks for the clarifications, but I think that we may all be talking slightly at cross-purposes right now. 

The original question, to which I responded, involved why the Audyssey app appeared to be rolling-off a subwoofer below what appeared to be its in-room F3 point? I noted that I couldn't speak for the app, but that was atypical behavior for the normal Audyssey program which stops EQing subwoofers at the F3 point. There is plenty of measured FR data to support that, and I think that we all agree on that.

Then, it was noted that while Audyssey doesn't EQ below the F3 point, it does roll-off the satellites with its own second-order filter, below the crossover point selected. That was helpful information that I had forgotten, if I ever knew it. Ah memory! (Does anyone know whether that filter also applies to crossovers used in conjunction with the front speakers when LFE+Main is employed? I assume that it would.)

But, when the term "satellites" was used, it was used as a generic term, meant to include all of the speakers except the subwoofers. So, the same filter would be implemented for all of the regular channels, including the front speakers. As for what the app actually does, below an F3 point, I honestly haven't been following the discussions on the other thread, so I can't really comment. It does seem a little weird to me that Audyssey would make any corrections at all below the F3 point, so I'm going to withhold judgment on that until someone demonstrates peaks as well as roll-offs. 

A second-order filter with a 12db per octave roll-off would already be implemented by the AVR, so I'm not sure exactly what to attribute a 3db roll-off for some of the surround speakers to. I guess you would have to calculate the amount of roll-off, as a function of the 8-note octave, to determine how much filtering was actually occurring--12db per octave, or 24db.

There! Clear as mud now! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tbaucom

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks for the clarifications, but I think that we may all be talking slightly at cross-purposes right now.
> 
> The original question, to which I responded, involved why the Audyssey app appeared to be rolling-off a subwoofer below what appeared to be its in-room F3 point? I noted that I couldn't speak for the app, but that was atypical behavior for the normal Audyssey program which stops EQing subwoofers at the F3 point. There is plenty of measured FR data to support that, and I think that we all agree on that.
> 
> Then, it was noted that while Audyssey doesn't EQ below the F3 point, it does roll-off the satellites with its own second-order filter, below the crossover point selected. That was helpful information that I had forgotten, if I ever knew it. Ah memory! (Does anyone know whether that filter also applies to crossovers used in conjunction with the front speakers when LFE+Main is employed? I assume that it would.)
> 
> But, when the term "satellites" was used, it was used as a generic term, meant to include all of the speakers except the subwoofers. So, the same filter would be implemented for all of the regular channels, including the front speakers. As for what the app actually does, below an F3 point, I honestly haven't been following the discussions on the other thread, so I can't really comment. It does seem a little weird to me that Audyssey would make any corrections at all below the F3 point, so I'm going to withhold judgment on that until someone demonstrates peaks as well as roll-offs.
> 
> A second-order filter with a 12db per octave roll-off would already be implemented by the AVR, so I'm not sure exactly what to attribute a 3db roll-off for some of the surround speakers to. I guess you would have to calculate the amount of roll-off, as a function of the 8-note octave, to determine how much filtering was actually occurring--12db per octave, or 24db.
> 
> There! Clear as mud now!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Read this. It explains that Audyssey does exactly what I described above.

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212344723-Strange-boost-below-the-lowest-detected-frequency-of-speaker-


----------



## tbaucom

tbaucom said:


> Read this. It explains that Audyssey does exactly what I described above.
> 
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212344723-Strange-boost-below-the-lowest-detected-frequency-of-speaker-


Also here:

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212346123-Does-MultEQ-optimize-the-crossover-region-between-satellite-speakers-and-subwoofer-


----------



## cfraser

Following on from the above, I was actually somewhat impressed by the "satellite" speakers the MultEQ app chose to correct below the XO. Upon consideration, and reviewing my old REW measurements from when I had the room treatments finished, and a bit of my own opinion , MultEQ chose correctly and wisely. For one thing, it did _not _correct my fronts which IMO do not even deserve to have a determined XO of 40Hz, but that's the XO Audyssey (or the host) has been choosing for it these days (7702, X4400), XT32 on the Denon X4000 used to always choose 60Hz and that *I* agree with. 

Edit: to clarify, MultEQ did these corrections below the XO strictly on its own accord. I told it nothing. No options, default. The host AVR had all (11) speakers set to Small, XO @ 80Hz for all speakers, two subs...pretty standard.


----------



## ToBeFrank

tbaucom said:


> Yes. Audyssey has always corrected below the F3 for the satellites. It doesn't simply stop at that point. It tries to shape a 12db oct rolloff at the crossover that is set to match the 12 db rolloff of the high pass filter in the AVR. The goal is that when the 2 are combined you wind up with a 24db per octave high pass filter to match the 24db per octave low pass filter for the subwoofer. This is one of the reasons Chris started recommending not to change the crossover when using XT32.
> 
> With the pro kit, I was able to choose what crossover I wanted and have Audyssey create the 12db roll of at that point. With the standard version, it only does it at the one crossover point chosen by the AVR.


The MultEQ app also allows you to do this. You can change the crossovers in the app, and then it uses those before doing the calculations.


----------



## tbaucom

ToBeFrank said:


> The MultEQ app also allows you to do this. You can change the crossovers in the app, and then it uses those before doing the calculations.


Thanks for the info. It is good to know that the app allows for this also. I have moved away from Audyssey to Dirac and have not used the app.

If sounds like maybe the only advantage pro has over the app is the ability to use a calibrated microphone. Maybe that is a feature audyssey will think about adding.


----------



## Chucka

tbaucom said:


> If sounds like maybe the only advantage pro has over the app is the ability to use a calibrated microphone. Maybe that is a feature audyssey will think about adding.


This would be an opportunity for Audyssey to make a little money by selling these direct while giving the upper end users what they want...a higher accuracy microphone.


----------



## steakhouse_

tbaucom said:


> Thanks for the info. It is good to know that the app allows for this also. I have moved away from Audyssey to Dirac and have not used the app.
> 
> If sounds like maybe the only advantage pro has over the app is the ability to use a calibrated microphone. Maybe that is a feature audyssey will think about adding.


And (as mentioned beforr) the ability to change crossovers without messing up the crossover region.

No, you can change the crossover but not the target curve that ensures the 12 db oct roll over below F3. For example a raised crossover will yield a flat response below F3. All audyssey AVRs apply a 12 db oct filter for the lowpass so this will be the acoustical rolloff which means your system will show cancellations due to the different crossovers (highpass is always 24 db oct). The ability to change crossovers afterwards is practically not usable because of this issue.


----------



## tbaucom

steakhouse_ said:


> And (as mentioned beforr) the ability to change crossovers without messing up the crossover region.


I don't know anything about the app. A poster above said it was possible to change the crossovers and have audyssey calculate the appropriate rolloff with the app. I have no way to verify it. Maybe you can test this?


----------



## steakhouse_

tbaucom said:


> I don't know anything about the app. A poster above said it was possible to change the crossovers and have audyssey calculate the appropriate rolloff with the app. I have no way to verify it. Maybe you can test this?


No but chris k wrote that the app does nothing different than the AVR. I also encountered the cancellations when changing crossovers.

Edit

I am not at home at the moment but I will recheck this. I do not know if I changed the crossovers in the app before uploading or just after I uploaded it in the AVR menu.


----------



## CBdicX

*3 center speakers*

Hello, will get a setup with *3 center speakers*, one below the 65" screen, and two above the screen.
If i do the Audyssey setup, must i do it with all 3 active, or just the 2 or 1 center ?

*the 2 above the screen are:*
https://www.magnat.de/en/detail/index/sCategory/2998892/sArticle/2999108


*the one below the screen is:*
https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra-lcr-100-thx

All 3 speakers are run by a Denon X8500H, the below center through the standard center output, and the 2 above are run by Height 3 custom set to center.
(i do use a Volume Control device so all 3 speaker will have the same SPL)
So all 3 get the same signal and Audyssey setting, do i EQ them together as "one" or EQ just the 2 above or 1 below center ?

The ATM 102 are Dolby Enabled speakers but mounted on the front wall , aimed to the MLP, so they are used as "direct fire". 

Hope its clear..........thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> *3 center speakers*
> 
> Hello, will get a setup with *3 center speakers*, one below the 65" screen, and two above the screen.
> If i do the Audyssey setup, must i do it with all 3 active, or just the 2 or 1 center ?
> 
> *the 2 above the screen are:*
> https://www.magnat.de/en/detail/index/sCategory/2998892/sArticle/2999108
> 
> 
> *the one below the screen is:*
> https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra-lcr-100-thx
> 
> All 3 speakers are run by a Denon X8500H, the below center through the standard center output, and the 2 above are run by Height 3 custom set to center.
> (i do use a Volume Control device so all 3 speaker will have the same SPL)
> So all 3 get the same signal and Audyssey setting, do i EQ them together as "one" or EQ just the 2 above or 1 below center ?
> 
> The ATM 102 are Dolby Enabled speakers but mounted on the front wall , aimed to the MLP, so they are used as "direct fire".
> 
> Hope its clear..........thanks.



Hi,

This is an unusual approach, so I am just winging-it with my answer. My guess is that you will want to EQ their combined response and hope for the best. But, I would be prepared to experiment with more than one calibration option.

Intuitively, I would expect the larger speaker, mounted below the screen, to be more important in terms of what you hear. And, I would expect the frequency responses to be different for the main speaker, and for the height speakers, irrespective of SPL matches. So, it may be an interesting experiment to decide whether you get better sound quality by having Audyssey EQ all three speakers together, or by having it only EQ the main speaker mounted below the screen. Those are the two options that I would expect to yield the best overall results.

As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if having only one height speaker above your normal CC worked better. That would introduce one fewer FR variable to deal with.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ToBeFrank

steakhouse_ said:


> No but chris k wrote that the app does nothing different than the AVR. I also encountered the cancellations when changing crossovers.
> 
> Edit
> 
> I am not at home at the moment but I will recheck this. I do not know if I changed the crossovers in the app before uploading or just after I uploaded it in the AVR menu.


I don't know which is actually correct. I do know the app does (or at least is says it does) all it's calculations when you send the data to the AVR. This is after you change the crossovers in the app.


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> This is an unusual approach, so I am just winging-it with my answer. My guess is that you will want to EQ their combined response and hope for the best. But, I would be prepared to experiment with more than one calibration option.
> 
> Intuitively, I would expect the larger speaker, mounted below the screen, to be more important in terms of what you hear. And, I would expect the frequency responses to be different for the main speaker, and for the height speakers, irrespective of SPL matches. So, it may be an interesting experiment to decide whether you get better sound quality by having Audyssey EQ all three speakers together, or by having it only EQ the main speaker mounted below the screen. Those are the two options that I would expect to yield the best overall results.
> 
> As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if having only one height speaker above your normal CC worked better. That would introduce one fewer FR variable to deal with.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike,


thanks for your thoughts 


The 2 above the screen do work as one as i needit to connect them serial, the 8500 will send a mono center signal to Height 3 Left.


For now i have 2 Kef T101 in the spot where the Magnats will come.
The Kef's "radiate" to much above the MLP as thay are near the ceiling and are flat on the front wall.
This is why i want to use the Magnats, even they are "Dolby bouncers", they are aimed to the MLP du to the DE angles they have.
And i prefer to stay with Magnat.


I did an Audyssey setup with all 3 active, but did not like the result, the Kef's had a "hissing" high after the setup.
Then i did a setup with only the Magnat center, after was done i actived the Kef's again, and all sounded great.
No more hissing highs, a good mix, i can not tell all 3 are working until i disable the 2 Kef's in the setup, then the vocals take a big dive down  
Now i have the vocals coming out of the screen, instade of hearing them below the screen.


Will try this also with the Magnats ATM that will replace the Kef"s, first all 3 cobined, then just with the main center and see whats better sounding.
Do not know if it makes any different that the Magnat ATM's are Dolby Enabled speakers, and the Kef's are not..........


Thanks for your help !


----------



## guyincognitoo

How does the jump from MultEQ XT to MultEQ XT32 compare to the jump from nothing to MultEQ XT? 

I currently have an Onkyo TX-NR709 with MultEQ XT and am planning on upgrading to either the Denon AVR-X2400H (XT) or AVR-X3400H (XT32). It is powering a 7.1 Energy Veritas setup in a pretty good sized room (600sqft) with an arched ceiling that goes from 6' to 14'. While I did notice a difference between no calibration and MultEQ XT, it wasn't a dramatic life changing one. I would consider myself to have above average ears but they aren't anywhere close to what some people on here have so I am wondering it the XT32 would be wasted on me. 

The only differences that would affect me between the two Denon's are the XT32 and slightly more power. Also the 3400 costs about 60% more than the 2400. 

Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> ... The 2 above the screen do work as one as i needit to connect them serial, the 8500 will send a mono center signal to Height 3 Left.
> 
> ... I did an Audyssey setup with all 3 active, but did not like the result, the Kef's *had a "hissing" high *after the setup. Then i did a setup with only the Magnat center, after was done i actived the Kef's again, and all sounded great.
> *No more hissing highs*, a good mix, i can not tell all 3 are working until i disable the 2 Kef's in the setup, then the vocals take a big dive down
> 
> *Now i have the vocals coming out of the screen,* instade of hearing them below the screen. ...



 Do you mean there is a steady hiss in the high frequencies *OR*
Sibilance -- a hissing that occurs only in speech when certain consonants are sounded (like "S"sounds -- "trussssssssst in me" -- Kaa, an Indian rock python, in _Jungle Book_).
If 1., your receiver is too hissy, or Audyssey isn't working correctly with your receiver/speakers/room. Note: if you are very close to the speakers, say within 5 to 6 feet, all systems will put out some audible hiss.
If 2. it is a judgement call. Movie companies try very hard to avoid excessive sibilance. Contrary to popular belief, some sibilance is natural to human speech. Some actors produce more than others. The closer the person speaking is to your ear, the more you will hear. The closer the person speaking is to the microphone, the more you will hear, unless it is filtered out, or a very good windscreen is used. I almost never hear it when watching a movie in our HT or in a commercial cinema. It seems to happen a little more often on TV. 






guyincognitoo said:


> How does the jump from MultEQ XT to MultEQ XT32 compare to the jump from nothing to MultEQ XT?
> 
> 
> 
> ... *While I did notice a difference between no calibration and MultEQ XT, it wasn't a dramatic life changing one.* I would consider myself to have above average ears but they aren't anywhere close to what some people on here have so I am wondering it the XT32 would be wasted on me ...



When I switch from no calibration to XT, the difference is very satisfying. I can hear very subtle sounds that seem to be missing or attenuated without XT. One place this happens is right at the beginning of Sketches of Spain by Miles Davis (along with the castanets). Another is in the movie, and on the soundtrack recording of Taxi Driver. With XT the sound is a little brighter than without, but appreciably clearer. A great deal probably depends on our two rooms, our listening distance, etc. I almost never use DEQ, and almost always use Audyssey Flat.



I have no way to compare XT to XT32, because I don't have XT32. 



Good Luck!


----------



## jtowers11

guyincognitoo said:


> How does the jump from MultEQ XT to MultEQ XT32 compare to the jump from nothing to MultEQ XT?
> 
> I currently have an Onkyo TX-NR709 with MultEQ XT and am planning on upgrading to either the Denon AVR-X2400H (XT) or AVR-X3400H (XT32). It is powering a 7.1 Energy Veritas setup in a pretty good sized room (600sqft) with an arched ceiling that goes from 6' to 14'. While I did notice a difference between no calibration and MultEQ XT, it wasn't a dramatic life changing one. I would consider myself to have above average ears but they aren't anywhere close to what some people on here have so I am wondering it the XT32 would be wasted on me.
> 
> The only differences that would affect me between the two Denon's are the XT32 and slightly more power. Also the 3400 costs about 60% more than the 2400.
> 
> Thanks



I've only compared nothing to XT32, but the difference to me is huge. When I first got my Denon 3400H I set up Audyssey immediately and have been using it ever since. I disabled it one day last week to see how it was, and I thought it sounded HORRIBLE with it off, at least compared to what I was used to. So if you say the difference from nothing to XT is fairly negligible, then I would assume the difference from XT to XT32 is significant. I can't provide any specific scenes to compare, but the big thing to me was that it just sounds more "lively," like I'm more immersed in the sound and what's happening when it's on compared to when it isn't.


----------



## jtowers11

How many of you use Flat instead of Reference, for movies? And do you have any thoughts or recommendations regarding this?
I tested a couple clips with Flat and it sounded about the same as Reference. I'm going to switch to Flat for a few days and see how it is over a few different movies. Wanted to see if anyone had info or anything to share regarding Flat vs Reference, in the context of a 5.1 Klipsch Reference setup on my Denon with XT32 for Bluray movies and Amazon Video TV shows.


----------



## CBdicX

garygarrison said:


> Do you mean there is a steady hiss in the high frequencies *OR*
> Sibilance -- a hissing that occurs only in speech when certain consonants are sounded (like "S"sounds -- "trussssssssst in me" -- Kaa, an Indian rock python, in _Jungle Book_).
> If 1., your receiver is too hissy, or Audyssey isn't working correctly with your receiver/speakers/room. Note: if you are very close to the speakers, say within 5 to 6 feet, all systems will put out some audible hiss.
> If 2. it is a judgement call. Movie companies try very hard to avoid excessive sibilance. Contrary to popular belief, some sibilance is natural to human speech. Some actors produce more than others. The closer the person speaking is to your ear, the more you will hear. The closer the person speaking is to the microphone, the more you will hear, unless it is filtered out, or a very good windscreen is used. I almost never hear it when watching a movie in our HT or in a commercial cinema. It seems to happen a little more often on TV.


With the hiss i mean the tweeters sound to sharp from the Kef's.
They draw to much attention to them after a Audyssey run with all 3 active.
When i ad the 2 Kef's after the Audyssey run this is no problem any more.
So i think Audyssey is not getting this right, or maybe it is but i do not like it.


The fist time i ad the Kef's this was also done after calibration, and that sounded good, so they run fine with the calibration Audyssey applies to the main center.
Like i told, i can not tell all 3 are working until i take the Kef's out of the setup, then the vocals take a dive........


Do not know if the Magnats will have a different response to working with the main center calibration as they are DE speakers with a bit different filter.
Maybe in this case i do need to make a Audyssey run with all 3 active, time will tell


----------



## CBdicX

jtowers11 said:


> How many of you use Flat instead of Reference, for movies? And do you have any thoughts or recommendations regarding this?
> I tested a couple clips with Flat and it sounded about the same as Reference. I'm going to switch to Flat for a few days and see how it is over a few different movies. Wanted to see if anyone had info or anything to share regarding Flat vs Reference, in the context of a 5.1 Klipsch Reference setup on my Denon with XT32 for Bluray movies and Amazon Video TV shows.



I also do not "hear" much differents in Flat or Reference, lets call it nothing


----------



## garygarrison

jtowers11 said:


> How many of you use Flat instead of Reference, for movies? And do you have any thoughts or recommendations regarding this?
> I tested a couple clips with Flat and it sounded about the same as Reference. I'm going to switch to Flat for a few days and see how it is over a few different movies. Wanted to see if anyone had info or anything to share regarding Flat vs Reference, in the context of a 5.1 Klipsch Reference setup on my Denon with XT32 for Bluray movies and Amazon Video TV shows.





CBdicX said:


> I also do not "hear" much differents in Flat or Reference, lets call it nothing



Audyssey recommends Reference for the typical room, and Flat for relatively close up listening in a heavily treated room. I guess my room is about half way between a heavily treated room and a typical room. I rarely watch action movies or rock movies*; *I often watch movies with a symphonic score. I know there is an overlap. My taste in music runs to classical, contemporary orchestral, jazz, and folk. All of the above tend to have more sparkle and detail when played using Flat.



For most movies, I use Flat, and I hear *quite a bit of difference* between Flat and Reference. It all depends on the movie --- or the music recording. Here is the way it stacks up*:* 



I use Flat  for typical movies made after about 2000 CE, along with subwoofer boost after Audyssey calibration for the sake of balance. I also use Flat for more than half of my music CDs, SACDs & DVD-As.
I use Reference for any movie *or* music disk that has significant high frequency distortion, or harsh strings. Some of the harsh string sound is probably filtered out by Reference's "mid range compensation," which attenuates the sound around 2K. True high frequency distortion is sometimes present on the otherwise marvelous magnetic 4 or 6 channel stereo film soundtracks of the '50s, '60s and '70s. Since the 2-way speakers used during most of that time (JBL and Altec) dropped like a rock above 10K -- even though they sometimes were spected out to 12K -- the filmmakers may not have known the distortion was there. Old optical mono movie sound usually doesn't have hardly any sound above 7 or 8K, so there is nothing up there to distort (and a filter is applied before transferring to disk). I have never heard the kind of high frequency distortion being discussed here from a Blu-ray disk of a modern digital recording, so I play all new-ish movies using the Flat setting.



YMMV.


----------



## Clou_dek

Click Here To Follow Our 'Audyssey 101' For First Time Audyssey Users.
- - - - - - 

Can someone link me the original and correct link? I just don't move from this page If I click it in the first post.


----------



## pbarach

jtowers11 said:


> How many of you use Flat instead of Reference, for movies? And do you have any thoughts or recommendations regarding this?
> I tested a couple clips with Flat and it sounded about the same as Reference. I'm going to switch to Flat for a few days and see how it is over a few different movies. Wanted to see if anyone had info or anything to share regarding Flat vs Reference, in the context of a 5.1 Klipsch Reference setup on my Denon with XT32 for Bluray movies and Amazon Video TV shows.


If you have a small or well-damped room, you don't need the treble cut that Reference adds to Flat. My listening room is carpeted and 13 x 14 feet, so Flat sounds better to me on movies as well as music.


----------



## cfraser

^ I _almost _always use Flat too. I have a "fully" but not what I would call a "heavily" treated room. It's 18x12x9'H. I always preferred Flat even before I did the room treatment. I prefer Reference for older material, like most movies/TV from the mid-50s or before, I find Reference tames their sometimes-annoying higher-frequency audio artifacts. I'm speaking of standard Audyssey Reference/Flat, not as modified by MultEQ app.

I found the difference between XT and XT32 to be substantial. Especially in the midrange and with the subs. I don't use Audyssey for music in general, unless it's a mch disc (BD, DVD-A, SACD) and then I do.


----------



## garygarrison

jimmix93 said:


> Click Here To Follow Our 'Audyssey 101' For First Time Audyssey Users.
> - - - - - -
> 
> Can someone link me the original and correct link? I just don't move from this page If I click it in the first post.



Audyssey FAQ Linked Here

 and
Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


----------



## Clou_dek

garygarrison said:


> Audyssey FAQ Linked Here
> 
> and
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


Thank you very much sir


----------



## Juiced46

I noticed a strange thing with my subwoofer last night and I think it has to do with the Audyssey calibration, but I am not sure what. 

I have a 21x17 room that is treated. I run dual subs. An Epik Empire to the left of my front row and an SVS SB12-NBD behind my 2nd row of seating. 

I have always used Audyssey correction with my Denon 4300. I started using the App as well over the winter. My Epik sub when listening to 2 channel stereo/multi channel stereo music always sounded muffled/muddy, especially in the lower end. I have my speakers set to small and my LFE @ 100hz, but it will do it with it set to 80hz as well. I run Audyssey on Reference, but I do get the muddy sound on Flat as well. No other compression is being used. So last night I decided to mess around alittle with it. In the app I tried lowering and raising the curve for the sub with zero success of the muddy sound. So I decided to shut off Audyssey completely. When I did this, it brought my sub to life. I could not believe how much cleaner and clear it sounded especially at the low end. It was a night and day difference. 

So my question is, what is Audyssey doing to my sub and how do I fix this?


----------



## garygarrison

Juiced46 said:


> I noticed a strange thing with my subwoofer last night and I think it has to do with the Audyssey calibration, but I am not sure what.
> 
> I have a 21x17 room that is treated. I run dual subs. An Epik Empire to the left of my front row and an SVS SB12-NBD behind my 2nd row of seating.
> 
> I have *always used Audyssey* correction with my Denon 4300. I started using the App as well over the winter.* My Epik sub* when listening to 2 channel stereo/multi channel stereo music* always sounded muffled/muddy*, especially in the lower end. I have my speakers set to small and my LFE @ 100hz, but it will do it with it set to 80hz as well. I run Audyssey on Reference, but I do get the muddy sound on Flat as well. No other compression is being used. So last night I decided to mess around alittle with it. In the app I tried lowering and raising the curve for the sub with zero success of the muddy sound. So I decided to shut off Audyssey completely. When I did this,* it brought my sub to life*. I could not believe how much cleaner and clear it sounded especially at the low end. It was a night and day difference.
> 
> So my question is, what is Audyssey doing to my sub and how do I fix this?



Is the problem there only with your Epik sub? Does the SVS SB12-NBD sound fine? If so, maybe it is the position of the sub in the room.


Are you using DEQ (Dynamic Equalization)? IMO, it makes my system sound somewhat muddy, jumbled, and a bit less transparent. I wouldn't call it a "night and day difference," but it is repeatable. It is much more noticeable when the soundtrack orchestra is playing than when there are sound effects. This happens even though DEQ is minimally activated when I use it, because I generally play movies within 5 to maybe 10 dB of reference level. Even though, unlike movies, music disks do not have a reference level, I generally play music at "live" SPL, and it sounds muddier with DEQ than without.


Audyssey *without* DEQ sounds much clearer with Audyssey on, than off, on my system.


Room peaks (which Audyssey attempts to remove) sometimes lend impact and excitement to music. Smooth response sometimes sounds dull by comparison. Restoring room peaks might conceivably have brought your sub "to life." Researchers (including the Harman people) have found that most people prefer somewhat elevated bass, but *smoothly* elevated bass, rather than bass with jagged peaks. _*Sometimes*,_ people perceive a curve with boosted bass and slightly attenuated treble as being "flat" compared to a curve that measures flat***. This can be achieved by running Audyssey, then turning up the subwoofer(s) AFTER running Audyssey. That way, you would be raising the bass on a *smooth* curve, rather than a kinky one. 

*** I'm sorry, as Paul Klipsch, who was also a pilot, used to say, "You can no more have a flat *curve*, than you can, even with pontoons, *land* on water."


----------



## cfraser

garygarrison said:


> *** I'm sorry, as Paul Klipsch, who was also a pilot, used to say, "You can no more have a flat *curve*, than you can, even with pontoons, *land* on water."


I can forgive you, as sometimes I _park _in my _drive_way. (Yeah, you've heard that one before...)

As far as subs that sound just fine with Audyssey on etc. for movies and mch music, but kind of suck with 2ch music: that's been my experience. I never blamed it on Audyssey... In fact I was disappointed that I never got to purchase one of those SVS Audyssey units that just did the subs (i.e. SubEQ only), I really wanted one for my stereo system after I had experienced SubEQ as part of the XT32 suite, but I was too late as they were discontinued by that point.

I find that AVRs are just not up to *my* requirements for stereo performance. Nor are any pre-pros that I've heard. They just don't compete with even a "modest" (but not exactly cheap...) stereo preamp. And the way all the other music sounds does seem to have an effect on how the bass is interpreted by our ears. Least for me...

That said, for 2ch music, I do not use Audyssey at all. Using REW I adjusted the SVS subs' internal DSP to be as good as I could, noted all the settings, made labels with them on and stuck them on the back of the subs, and I have no Audyssey at all and I change the sub settings when listening to stereo music. It's not as onerous as it might sound. I also have to feed a stereo signal into each sub, so extra cabling required. Yes, I went to some lengths to get decent stereo music, many people go much further...


----------



## Juiced46

garygarrison said:


> Is the problem there only with your Epik sub? Does the SVS SB12-NBD sound fine? If so, maybe it is the position of the sub in the room.
> 
> 
> Are you using DEQ (Dynamic Equalization)? IMO, it makes my system sound somewhat muddy, jumbled, and a bit less transparent. I wouldn't call it a "night and day difference," but it is repeatable. It is much more noticeable when the soundtrack orchestra is playing than when there are sound effects. This happens even though DEQ is minimally activated when I use it, because I generally play movies within 5 to maybe 10 dB of reference level. Even though, unlike movies, music disks do not have a reference level, I generally play music at "live" SPL, and it sounds muddier with DEQ than without.
> 
> 
> Audyssey *without* DEQ sounds much clearer with Audyssey on, than off, on my system.
> 
> 
> Room peaks (which Audyssey attempts to remove) sometimes lend impact and excitement to music. Smooth response sometimes sounds dull by comparison. Restoring room peaks might conceivably have brought your sub "to life." Researchers (including the Harman people) have found that most people prefer somewhat elevated bass, but *smoothly* elevated bass, rather than bass with jagged peaks. _*Sometimes*,_ people perceive a curve with boosted bass and slightly attenuated treble as being "flat" compared to a curve that measures flat***. This can be achieved by running Audyssey, then turning up the subwoofer(s) AFTER running Audyssey. That way, you would be raising the bass on a *smooth* curve, rather than a kinky one.
> 
> *** I'm sorry, as Paul Klipsch, who was also a pilot, used to say, "You can no more have a flat *curve*, than you can, even with pontoons, *land* on water."


To be honest, I am not sure if the 2nd sub is doing it since when I have 2 channel music on, I only listen in my first row and I really only hear the Epik. I do have DEQ on. I will have to try it with it off and see if that changes anything. I have actually positioned the sub in multiple spots in the room previously and I believe where I have it now is the best spot for it. My room is an odd layout so getting the bass or the same bass to all 8 seating positions has been a major major chore that I am still battling. 

I would rather use Audyssey then not. I usually do not listen to music that much and I have not noticed any issue with the sub during movies, but there is alot more going on when watching movies that maybe I just do not notice it. I will have to pay more attention to it though. But I can say for sure, it was a night and day difference. I was listening at pretty high levels to do the comparison.


----------



## artiecon

*Audyssey setup sets speakers to large*

After doing an Audyssey setup using all 8 points on my 7.0 system, I see that the automatic setup has set most of my speakers to large. The only one set to small is the center speaker. I am aware of the thoughts of many that all speakers should be set to small, but I have no sub, and my fronts are Cerwin Vega D9s which are easily capable of handling the bass. 


The room is 12ftx24ftx8ft and the fronts and rear surrounds are in the corners (fronts out about 3 ft from corner). Room is carpeted, walls and ceilings are hard (no coverings). Seating (and measurement points) are central


Should I override the automatic settings and set the surrounds, and surround backs to small? My old Pioneer MCACC set all to small except the fronts.


----------



## mthomas47

artiecon said:


> After doing an Audyssey setup using all 8 points on my 7.0 system, I see that the automatic setup has set most of my speakers to large. The only one set to small is the center speaker. I am aware of the thoughts of many that all speakers should be set to small, but I have no sub, and my fronts are Cerwin Vega D9s which are easily capable of handling the bass.
> 
> 
> The room is 12ftx24ftx8ft and the fronts and rear surrounds are in the corners (fronts out about 3 ft from corner). Room is carpeted, walls and ceilings are hard (no coverings). Seating (and measurement points) are central
> 
> 
> Should I override the automatic settings and set the surrounds, and surround backs to small? My old Pioneer MCACC set all to small except the fronts.



Hi,

Taking a quick look at your speakers, I think that it would be to your advantage to let your D9's handle most of the bass. So, I would probably try listening with everything but the front speakers set to Small, with an 80Hz crossover.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

artiecon said:


> After doing an Audyssey setup using all 8 points on my 7.0 system, I see that the automatic setup has set most of my speakers to large. The only one set to small is the center speaker. I am aware of the thoughts of many that all speakers should be set to small, but I have no sub, and my fronts are Cerwin Vega D9s which are easily capable of handling the bass.
> 
> 
> The room is 12ftx24ftx8ft and the fronts and rear surrounds are in the corners (fronts out about 3 ft from corner). Room is carpeted, walls and ceilings are hard (no coverings). Seating (and measurement points) are central
> 
> 
> Should I override the automatic settings and set the surrounds, and surround backs to small? My old Pioneer MCACC set all to small except the fronts.



If your AVR has a subwoofer "yes" and a subwoofer "no" set it on "no." I'm pretty sure you have done this already. 



Without a sub, your front left and front right need to be Large, if they can take it. I would think that a Cerwin Vegta 15 incher could take it if any normal -- non-sub -- speaker can, but there are some movies for which no non-sub can, if the volume is cranked up too far, and if LFE is being sent to the main channels. I hear that Edge of Tommorow might be one of those. A lot of this depends on whether your AVR mixes the "subwoofer" [LFE - special effects] output into the fronts when they are set on Large, and subwoofer "no" at a reduced level, or full, and/or with a protective filter (in this case "high pass") to roll off the deepest LFE bass, which can be as low as 10 Hz, theoretically). I don't remember whether there is an industry wide standard in this regard. Does anyone know?


There was an article floating around several years ago in which one mixer implied (or I inferred) that he sometimes did put some LFE into the main channels. Do I remember that correctly?


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> If your AVR has a subwoofer "yes" and a subwoofer "no" set it on "no." I'm pretty sure you have done this already.
> 
> 
> 
> Without a sub, your front left and front right need to be Large, if they can take it. I would think that a Cerwin Vegta 15 incher could take it if any normal -- non-sub -- speaker can, but there are some movies for which no non-sub can, if the volume is cranked up too far, and if LFE is being sent to the main channels. I hear that Edge of Tommorow might be one of those. A lot of this depends on whether your AVR mixes the "subwoofer" [LFE - special effects] output into the fronts when they are set on Large, and subwoofer "no" at a reduced level, or full, and/or with a protective filter (in this case "high pass") to roll off the deepest LFE bass, which can be as low as 10 Hz, theoretically). I don't remember whether there is an industry wide standard in this regard. Does anyone know?
> 
> 
> There was an article floating around several years ago in which one mixer implied (or I inferred) that he sometimes did put some LFE into the main channels. Do I remember that correctly?



Hi Gary,

A lot depends on the individual film mixer, but there is no standard for filtering out low-frequency content below 10Hz. On the other hand, most speakers, and particularly sealed ones, will just roll-off naturally, without damage, when asked to play very low-frequency content. They are really no different than subwoofers in that regard.

To my knowledge, there is never any LFE (115db) content programmed into the regular channels, although they can contain the same low-frequency content at the normal 105db peaks. The LFE channel is strictly a .1 channel. However, in the absence of subwoofers, LFE content is automatically redirected to the main speakers. I thought to mention this, but decided not to since the OP simply has no alternative anyway, if he wants to watch 5.1 movies without a subwoofer.

The problem with something like the 10Hz sine wave in the intro to Edge of Tomorrow comes when people try to play it at very high volume levels with significant subwoofer boosts. Particularly with ported subs, it can make voice coils overheat, potentially damaging the subs. As long as the OP is sensible about his volume levels and remembers that his Cerwin Vegas are not actually subwoofers, he should be fine. For instance, I have watched 5.1 movies without subwoofers and my sealed Bozaks can handle them okay. But, I'm not listening at, or near Reference when I have tried it. And, I just don't hear nearly as much bass that way.

If I were the OP, I would probably not engage DEQ, but even there, I think that some trial-and-error would tell him what his speakers can safely handle. Again, the presence of low-frequency content (even boosted by 10db as it is with LFE content) should not be inherently dangerous to speakers as long as we are sensible about our master volume levels. If the OP wants to watch movies at higher volume levels, then he really will need a subwoofer (or two).

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rlwings

*Why does Audyssey app boost High end more than AVR does? - (with pictures)*

Hello...

So I just got the Audyssey app and did a calibration... If you look at the attached pictures you will see that there seems to be a discrepancy between the in-AVR EQ graph and the correction graph in the app.

It seems that the Audyssey app calibration process added far more high-end than the AVR routine ever did.

Any idea what's going on? ... Are the in-AVR EQ graphs suppose to be consistent with the Audyssey app's measurements?

Sorry, it seems the attachments have been rotated. I don't know how to fix. :\

Thanks for any insight.


----------



## primetimeguy

rlwings said:


> Hello...
> 
> So I just got the Audyssey app and did a calibration... If you look at the attached pictures you will see that there seems to be a discrepancy between the in-AVR EQ graph and the correction graph in the app.
> 
> It seems that the Audyssey app calibration process added far more high-end than the AVR routine ever did.
> 
> Any idea what's going on? ... Are the in-AVR EQ graphs suppose to be consistent with the Audyssey app's measurements?
> 
> Sorry, it seems the attachments have been rotated. I don't know how to fix. :\
> 
> Thanks for any insight.


The app is showing you the predicted output after correction. Your receiver is showing you the applied correction. So different things and the graphs are not comparable. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## rlwings

primetimeguy said:


> The app is showing you the predicted output after correction. Your receiver is showing you the applied correction. So different things and the graphs are not comparable.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


 Thanks for your response. 

Question, do you know why the final result coming from the app seems to boost the high-end much more than the the AVR ever did before I used the app... Sound is much brighter using the app...Do the app and the AVR measure\calculate in the same way?


----------



## primetimeguy

rlwings said:


> Thanks for your response.
> 
> Question, do you know why the final result coming from the app seems to boost the high-end much more than the the AVR ever did before I used the app... Sound is much brighter using the app...Do the app and the AVR measure\calculate in the same way?


You would have to use something like REW or Omnimic to do some measurements and see if that is really the case. It could be mic placement or other differences too. People have reported the app giving slightly different results than the AVR but that usually has been in the bass region and not high frequencies.


----------



## rlwings

primetimeguy said:


> You would have to use something like REW or Omnimic to do some measurements and see if that is really the case. It could be mic placement or other differences too. People have reported the app giving slightly different results than the AVR but that usually has been in the bass region and not high frequencies.


Ya, pretty confusing. I've noticed this high frequency boost on both my identical systems in different rooms using the app compared to just using the AVR... Not sure why. I haven't delve into REV yet. Need to get a calibrated mic first. Just wondering if anybody else has noticed the same thing.


----------



## mogorf

rlwings said:


> Ya, pretty confusing. I've noticed this high frequency boost on both my identical systems in different rooms using the app compared to just using the AVR... Not sure why. I haven't delve into REV yet. Need to get a calibrated mic first. Just wondering if anybody else has noticed the same thing.



I think if you delve into REW you will get the same results. This might be a question to address directly to Chris K. at Audyssey Tech Talk on FB.


----------



## rlwings

mogorf said:


> I think if you delve into REW you will get the same results. This might be a question to address directly to Chris K. at Audyssey Tech Talk on FB.


Thanks. I went to the FB group and it seems that Chris is stepping down... The comments also suggest that Audyssey may not continue development as it is no longer on the Audyssey website.


----------



## mogorf

rlwings said:


> Thanks. I went to the FB group and it seems that Chris is stepping down... The comments also suggest that Audyssey may not continue development as it is no longer on the Audyssey website.



You may just put your question to Chris. He didn't step down from the FB forum. He's there and will surely come back to you. You have nothing to loose by asking, right?


----------



## rlwings

mogorf said:


> You may just put your question to Chris. He didn't step down from the FB forum. He's there and will surely come back to you. You have nothing to loose by asking, right?


Right! ... I will ask, thanks for the tip.


----------



## mogorf

rlwings said:


> Right! ... I will ask, thanks for the tip.



Welcome. Will see you over at FB. Me also curious like cat for the answer!


----------



## rlwings

lovingdvd said:


> Guys - I wonder if the extra HF boost is the result of my extension cable. I'm using a 20' stereo female on one end, male on the other end (2 black rings on pin). There is a link in the FAQ to an extension cable recommended by Audyssey, but the link is broken. Does anyone know the details on what extension cables work best and can you provide a link, preferably to something on Amazon prime? I suppose its possible that the HF are rolling off due to the cable, which then gives Audyssey low HF readings, causing this unnecessary boost...?


Sorry for late reply...

I don't use an extension cable and I'm getting the same issue as you. (Using the app) HF boosted to crazy levels. (See attached pic).


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> Sorry for late reply...
> 
> I don't use an extension cable and I'm getting the same issue as you. (Using the app) *HF boosted to crazy levels. *(See attached pic).



What you hear is the most important, BUT, in your *"After"* graph* the HF doesn't look "boosted to crazy levels" at all*. Perfectly flat results would place everything at the same height as the response at 1K. Audyssey achieved that through your upper midrange (1K to 7K), then, above about 7K your treble is dipping from there on up to the top. Maybe you just need to turn the subwoofer up a bit AFTER running Audyssey (as almost everyone does, due to having gotten used to a few bass room peaks -- in your case, about 50 Hz or 60 Hz, I can't quite tell -- which are now missed, *OR* just the very common desire to have the bass elevated above the SPL of the treble i.e., the Harman Curve). It could be a matter of preferred balance.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> What you hear is the most important, BUT, in your *"After"* graph* the HF doesn't look "boosted to crazy levels" at al*l. Maybe you just need to turn the subwoofer up a bit AFTER running Audyssey (as almost everyone does, due to having gotten used to a few bass room peaks -- in your case, about 50 Hz or 60 Hz, I can't quite tell -- which are now missed, *OR* just the very common desire to have the bass elevated above the SPL of the treble i.e., the Harman Curve). It could be a matter of preferred balance.


 Hi, thanks for your reply. 

My concern is with the AVR graph. The HF has topped out! ... But when I run Audyssey through the AVR only this graph shows much lower HF levels.

Why does the AVR graph top out only when using the app?

But I must admit, the actual sound seems much better since I've been using the app. There must be a difference in how the app calibrates\calculates because nothing else has changed. (Except the AVR graph).


----------



## artiecon

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> A lot depends on the individual film mixer, but there is no standard for filtering out low-frequency content below 10Hz. On the other hand, most speakers, and particularly sealed ones, will just roll-off naturally, without damage, when asked to play very low-frequency content. They are really no different than subwoofers in that regard.
> 
> To my knowledge, there is never any LFE (115db) content programmed into the regular channels, although they can contain the same low-frequency content at the normal 105db peaks. The LFE channel is strictly a .1 channel. However, in the absence of subwoofers, LFE content is automatically redirected to the main speakers. I thought to mention this, but decided not to since the OP simply has no alternative anyway, if he wants to watch 5.1 movies without a subwoofer.
> 
> The problem with something like the 10Hz sine wave in the intro to Edge of Tomorrow comes when people try to play it at very high volume levels with significant subwoofer boosts. Particularly with ported subs, it can make voice coils overheat, potentially damaging the subs. As long as the OP is sensible about his volume levels and remembers that his Cerwin Vegas are not actually subwoofers, he should be fine. For instance, I have watched 5.1 movies without subwoofers and my sealed Bozaks can handle them okay. But, I'm not listening at, or near Reference when I have tried it. And, I just don't hear nearly as much bass that way.
> 
> If I were the OP, I would probably not engage DEQ, but even there, I think that some trial-and-error would tell him what his speakers can safely handle. Again, the presence of low-frequency content (even boosted by 10db as it is with LFE content) should not be inherently dangerous to speakers as long as we are sensible about our master volume levels. If the OP wants to watch movies at higher volume levels, then he really will need a subwoofer (or two).
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 

Guys, thanks for the replies. JFYI, I never have the master volume higher than -10db and I am quite sensitive to overdriving the CVs since I have not had to replace the 15in cone supports. I don't have any of the latest movies except Interstellar UHD and I'm satisfied with the amount of bass I get. 


I mainly listen to SACD classical music which is 5.0 and I'll probably never have a Sub. I did set the surrounds and back surrounds to small.


----------



## rlwings

*Why are high frequencies topping out (+10db) when using the app?*

So does anybody know why the Audyssey graph in the AVR consistently shows topped-out high frequencies (+10db) from10khz-20khz when calibration is done through the phone app, but The same AVR graph shows 'normal' highs when the calibration is done through the AVR itself.

I am consistently getting two different sets of results in the high frequencies depending on whether I'm calibrating from the AVR or from the phone... See attached pic of the topped out high frequencies.

Ideas?


----------



## vett93

*Audyssey App*

I am thinking to get the Audyssey app. Will I need to do the setup all over again? Or it will allow me to tweak the current settings?

I changed AVR from Sony to Denon X4400H. I enjoy the greater control from X4400H. In particular, it allows me to control the sound dynamic range much better. However, the sound from Sony is cleaner and crisper. Will the Audyssey app help me improve the situation?

I am using the "FLAT" setting already.


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> So does anybody know why the Audyssey graph in the AVR consistently shows topped-out high frequencies (+10db) from10khz-20khz when calibration is done through the phone app, but The same AVR graph shows 'normal' highs when the calibration is done through the AVR itself.
> 
> I am consistently getting two different sets of results in the high frequencies depending on whether I'm calibrating from the AVR or from the phone... See attached pic of the topped out high frequencies.
> 
> Ideas?


I don't know the answer to your question, *but *...

Another question is, "Which one is *right*, if either one is*?*" 

Under some conditions, as much as a 10 dB boost, *conceivably*, might be appropriate, if your listening position and microphones are off axis, in a dead room, a 10 dB boost would not be out of the question. A photo or drawing of your room and speaker positions might be helpful. 



I don't know whether you were into audio back when [up through the 1980s] manufacturers used to allow for the need to boost a great deal by equipping preamps with tone controls that provided up to 18dB or 20 dB boost in the treble and bass. Notice that 10 dB treble boost is about 1/2 way up the treble boost curve on this typical graph.












In the bad old days, my friends and I, in overstuffed living rooms, typically used about 8dB treble and bass boost, set by ear, and our tweeters were pretty good. The Dynaco PAS 3, and the McIntosh C28 preamps I used to have had tone control action much like the one shown above. My Luxman L580 had more choices of compensation (and turnover frequencies) than you could shake a stick at [ancient idiom] but it didn't hold a candle to [antediluvian idiom] the automatic fine tuning across hundreds of points that Audyssey provides.

Audyssey gives my current system + 6 dB at 16K Hz, with the average of the 8 mic positions a little off axis. It does cut at 8K, though, to scotch [origin lost in the mists of antiquity] a peak. Yours [with app] is boosted 10 dB from about 7 or 8K up, and you did say something like, "I must admit it is sounding better with the app." So I'm guessing the app version is "correct."


----------



## Soulburner

After hours of doing 2 sub crawls and getting them to mesh as good as I can with REW, Audyssey created a phase cancellation between them. Is it okay to adjust the phase on the subs to smooth out my response afterward? Are there any undesirable effects this creates? I couldn't imagine leaving it that way. FR is much better now.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> I don't know the answer to your question, *but *...
> 
> Another question is, "Which one is *right*, if either one is*?*"
> 
> Under some conditions, as much as a 10 dB boost, *conceivably*, might be appropriate, if your listening position and microphones are off axis, in a dead room, a 10 dB boost would not be out of the question. A photo or drawing of your room and speaker positions might be helpful.
> Wow, thanks for your detailed reply garygarrison...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know whether you were into audio back when [up through the 1980s] manufacturers used to allow for the need to boost a great deal by equipping preamps with tone controls that provided up to 18dB or 20 dB boost in the treble and bass. Notice that 10 dB treble boost is about 1/2 way up the treble boost curve on this typical graph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the bad old days, my friends and I, in overstuffed living rooms, typically used about 8dB treble and bass boost, set by ear, and our tweeters were pretty good. The Dynaco PAS 3, and the McIntosh C28 preamps I used to have had tone control action much like the one shown above. My Luxman L580 had more choices of compensation (and turnover frequencies) than you could shake a stick at [ancient idiom] but it didn't hold a candle to [antediluvian idiom] the automatic fine tuning across hundreds of points that Audyssey provides.
> 
> Audyssey gives my current system + 6 dB at 16K Hz, with the average of the 8 mic positions a little off axis. It does cut at 8K, though, to scotch [origin lost in the mists of antiquity] a peak. Yours [with app] is boosted 10 dB from about 7 or 8K up, and you did say something like, "I must admit it is sounding better with the app." So I'm guessing the app version is "correct."


Yes, the question is which one is right or closer to being right.
Wow, thanks for your detailed reply garygarrison...

My bedroom is pretty dead so it makes sense that the higher frequencies are being boosted. (Working on photos of room after I clean it up, lol)

Yes I was into audio in the 80's and I do remember the bass and treble controls very well. I couldn't understand why audiophiles were always telling me to keep them flat for the best sound. I loved the effect of boosting those controls. Of course today I understand that some rooms will benefit from modest to sizable adjustments, but as a youngster I was attracted to the colorfulness...I had no clue about accuracy. 

So I'm beginning to get that larger boosts in the HF region can be normal in a dead room. And you're right that I did say that the App calibration sounded pretty good, bright, but good. So I am wondering if my old childhood attraction to colorfulness has come back to haunt me a bit... I mean I went back to my old AVR calibration and listened to it again and now IT sounds better to me! (more balanced and less crazy shiny at the top).

I guess this all comes down to a study of perception. But my gut instinct is that the AVR calibration is closer to the mark...

Please see attached two photos. One you've already seen, the one of the App calibration, and the other is of a new AVR calibration... Notice how the HF looks a little more reasonable in the AVR pic and not topped out like the app pic. (Topped out could also mean that it could have gone further if it was allowed to, so no differentiation at the top end frequencies!)

Both graphs keep occurring after each calibration session (or close to it)...My question is why the difference and as you say, which is correct? Am I the only one? I can't find anyone else with high HF app problems... Maybe it's a combination of my AVR Marantz SR5012 and the app, who knows... BTW, I have two of these receivers and this HF problem happens on each. Each in very different rooms. I even tried different microphones, same relative problem.


----------



## Soulburner

Soulburner said:


> After hours of doing 2 sub crawls and getting them to mesh as good as I can with REW, Audyssey created a phase cancellation between them. Is it okay to adjust the phase on the subs to smooth out my response afterward? Are there any undesirable effects this creates? I couldn't imagine leaving it that way. FR is much better now.


Answered my own question. Turns out, the ideal sub response pre-Audyssey doesn't necessarily give the best result post-Audyssey. Reason being, I needed to adjust the phase to get them to blend well, but Audyssey will mess that up. So you after you get them to blend well, you should put the phase back to 0 on both subs per page 1 of the thread and let Audyssey set the phase.


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> Yes, the question is which one is right or closer to being right.
> Wow, thanks for your detailed reply garygarrison...
> 
> My bedroom is pretty dead so it makes sense that the higher frequencies are being boosted. (Working on photos of room after I clean it up, lol)
> 
> Yes I was into audio in the 80's and I do remember the bass and treble controls very well. I couldn't understand why audiophiles were always telling me to keep them flat for the best sound. I loved the effect of boosting those controls. Of course today I understand that some rooms will benefit from modest to sizable adjustments, but as a youngster I was attracted to the colorfulness...I had no clue about accuracy.
> 
> So I'm beginning to get that larger boosts in the HF region can be normal in a dead room. And you're right that I did say that the App calibration sounded pretty good, bright, but good. So I am wondering if my old childhood attraction to colorfulness has come back to haunt me a bit... I mean I went back to my old AVR calibration and listened to it again and now IT sounds better to me! (more balanced and less crazy shiny at the top).
> 
> I guess this all comes down to a study of perception. But my gut instinct is that the AVR calibration is closer to the mark...
> 
> Please see attached two photos. One you've already seen, the one of the App calibration, and the other is of a new AVR calibration... Notice how the HF looks a little more reasonable in the AVR pic and not topped out like the app pic. (Topped out could also mean that it could have gone further if it was allowed to, so no differentiation at the top end frequencies!)
> 
> Both graphs keep occurring after each calibration session (or close to it)...My question is why the difference and as you say, which is correct? Am I the only one? I can't find anyone else with high HF app problems... Maybe it's a combination of my AVR Marantz SR5012 and the app, who knows... BTW, I have two of these receivers and this HF problem happens on each. Each in very different rooms. I even tried different microphones, same relative problem.


 Now that you have gone back to preferring the AVR version  maybe it's time to move from Reference to Preference. Audyssey is set up to give you Reference (no connection with the Flat v.s. Reference adjustments). I understand that the two "before" curves are different, but, IMO, topping out, providing "no differentiation" is neither good nor bad*;* even if Audyssey would have pushed some of those [very approximate] bars farther, if it could, it seems to me that if the App version is more correct, it is more correct, and if the AVR version is more correct, it is more correct. 

Are both your AVR and the AVR you use your App with version XT? I have XT, but no App. 

One other thing seems to be different, though. Audyssey has always said that its maximum boost is 9 dB, and in your photographs the Y axis [dB] clearly extends up to *+* 10 dB, as does your response above about 8K (hard to read).

I'd use one of your Audyssey curves as a "smoother than not" starting point, and then adjust by ear, AFTER, never before, running Audyssey, the way you used to do with your tone controls of old. The way many of us do that, after Audyssey, is by turning up the subwoofer to taste (see the cautions and instructions in Mike's Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences and Keith's (mostly) Audyssey FAQ Linked Here). Then we manipulate the bass tone control (accessible only if you are not using DEQ). Many listeners prefer a curve similar to the Harman curve, i.e., with the bass end about 9 or 10 dB higher than the treble end.

By the way, I never did see any sense in leaving tone controls set on "flat," unless by sheerest coincidence the recording, the speakers, and the room are flat. It is true that tone controls (and graphic equalizers) can impose some phase anomalies (Audyssey claims to be largely immune to that), but to my ears they aren't as serious as an unbalanced recording. Flat records are vanishingly rare. Even if the mixers wanted to produce a flat recording, today's recording company producers and executives would often overrule them, _*even*_ on classical and contemporary orchestral recordings. The nerve! Blu-ray movies seem to be better. There is no such thing as a flat speaker when said speaker is in a room. I remember seeing a graph for a $44,000 pair of speakers, the Wilson MAXX II, which measured +/- 5 dB in one of the *Stereophile* reviewers' rooms. One of the places it could have used a little boost was above 10K. That would make it better than most. An expensive Vanderstein was down 7.5 dB at 15K, and a YG 10 dB down at 15K, both in JA's room. With extensive and well planned room treatments, the situation can be improved. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of rooms? REW does." But even with REW there is controversy around whether to rely on one mic position, or three, or to exactly replicate all 8 Audyssey mic positions used to achieve the Audyssey corrected curve.

I, like Feri, am "curious like cat" about what Chris will say about the difference between your results with the App v.s. the AVR.


Good luck!


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> Now that you have gone back to preferring the AVR version  maybe it's time to move from Reference to Preference. Audyssey is set up to give you Reference (no connection with the Flat v.s. Reference adjustments). I understand that the two "before" curves are different, but, IMO, topping out, providing "no differentiation" is neither good nor bad*;* even if Audyssey would have pushed some of those [very approximate] bars farther, if it could, it seems to me that if the App version is more correct, it is more correct, and if the AVR version is more correct, it is more correct.
> 
> Are both your AVR and the AVR you use your App with version XT? I have XT, but no App.
> 
> One other thing seems to be different, though. Audyssey has always said that its maximum boost is 9 dB, and in your photographs the Y axis [dB] clearly extends up to *+* 10 dB, as does your response above about 8K (hard to read).
> I'd use one of your Audyssey curves as a "smoother than not" starting point, and then adjust by ear, AFTER, never before, running Audyssey, the way you used to do with your tone controls of old. The way many of us do that, after Audyssey, is by turning up the subwoofer to taste (see the cautions and instructions in Mike's Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences and Keith's (mostly) Audyssey FAQ Linked Here). Then we manipulate the bass tone control (accessible only if you are not using DEQ). Many listeners prefer a curve similar to the Harman curve, i.e., with the bass end about 9 or 10 dB higher than the treble end.
> 
> By the way, I never did see any sense in leaving tone controls set on "flat," unless by sheerest coincidence the recording, the speakers, and the room are flat. It is true that tone controls (and graphic equalizers) can impose some phase anomalies (Audyssey claims to be largely immune to that), but to my ears they aren't as serious as an unbalanced recording. Flat records are vanishingly rare. Even if the mixers wanted to produce a flat recording, today's recording company producers and executives would often overrule them, _*even*_ on classical and contemporary orchestral recordings. The nerve! Blu-ray movies seem to be better. There is no such thing as a flat speaker when said speaker is in a room. I remember seeing a graph for a $44,000 pair of speakers, the Wilson MAXX II, which measured +/- 5 dB in one of the *Stereophile* reviewers' rooms. One of the places it could have used a little boost was above 10K. That would make it better than most. An expensive Vanderstein was down 7.5 dB at 15K, and a YG 10 dB down at 15K, both in JA's room. With extensive and well planned room treatments, the situation can be improved. "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of rooms? REW does." But even with REW there is controversy around whether to rely on one mic position, or three, or to exactly replicate all 8 Audyssey mic positions used to achieve the Audyssey corrected curve.
> 
> I, like Feri, am "curious like cat" about what Chris will say about the difference between your results with the App v.s. the AVR.
> 
> 
> Good luck!


 Thanks again for your thoughtful and informative response Gary! ... I would like to reply to you but I can't give it the time it deserves right now. But I promise to return. 

In the meantime, feel free to go over to the Facebook group called: 'Audyssey Tech Talk' - There you will find my post asking Chris all about my problem. (You might have to join the group to see it though. Not sure) Luckily Chris answered right away! It should be at or near the top under my name, Randy L.


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> ... In the meantime, feel free to go over to the Facebook group called: 'Audyssey Tech Talk' - There you will find my post asking Chris all about my problem. (You might have to join the group to see it though. Not sure) Luckily Chris answered right away! It should be at or near the top under my name, Randy L.



Believe it or not, I don't have Facebook!:eeksurprise: I just can't bring myself to get it ...
Maybe someone can summarize the answer Chris gave.


----------



## drh3b

vett93 said:


> I am thinking to get the Audyssey app. Will I need to do the setup all over again? Or it will allow me to tweak the current settings?


You will have redo the setup from the app.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> Believe it or not, I don't have Facebook!:eeksurprise: I just can't bring myself to get it ...
> Maybe someone can summarize the answer Chris gave.


 Ok, I'm back...I wish I could copy the dialog between myself, Chris and the Audyssey Facebook group members. A lot of things were disscussed.... So in a nutshell, Chris admits to there being a difference between the way the app and the AVRs do their calculations due to the 'different platforms' leading to what he calls 'minor variances'. I posted my charts showing both results to the group. Then several group members posted their results all showing maxed out highs and rolled off lows.

Chris doesn't seem to know why this is happening to some people. He wonders if there was a firmware change in AVRs that might be effecting the results... A lot was said, but nothing was resolved.

Chris finally suggests that I write to Marantz due to the fact Marantz wrote the app and all Audyssey did was give them the base libraries or something.

I could write more but what's the point. Nothing was resolved. Suggestions of blown tweeters, bad mics, and measuring positions were floating around as possible causes... But I had ruled those things out so that wasn't it.

People on both the Android and OS side were experiencing problems.

Also, tonight I did another calibration with the app... Only 6 of the 8 left, right, and sub measurement sets were actually sent to the AVR! And the 'Flat" curve graph in the AVR was completely missing! No music could be heard while on the flat setting...Put it on reference and the music came back.... Re uploaded curve to AVR and 'Flat' curve comes back...But again only 6 of 8 measurement sets were transferred... I asked Chris about this...He said that "Both of those occurrences are not normal" And made him wonder about the firmware (upgrades) in the AVRs.


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> And made him wonder about the *firmware (upgrades)* in the AVRs.



Was Chris wondering about the firmware that *came* loaded into your AVR *when you bought it?* Or was he specifically wondering if you* missed *an important upgrade,or if *an upgrade you installed *went electronically cattywampus resulting in you not getting full Flat and Reference Audyssey service? Is yours an older AVR that might need a firmware upgrade? 


I would try to get a customer service phone number for Marantz, especially since it seems to be getting _*worse*_. When I wrote Marantz, they didn't answer. I like my Marantz pre-pro a lot, but it's not the company Saul Marantz started.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> Was Chris wondering about the firmware that *came* loaded into your AVR *when you bought it?* Or was he specifically wondering if you* missed *an important upgrade,or if *an upgrade you installed *went electronically cattywampus resulting in you not getting full Flat and Reference Audyssey service? Is yours an older AVR that might need a firmware upgrade?
> 
> I would try to get a customer service phone number for Marantz, especially since it seems to be getting _*worse*_. When I wrote Marantz, they didn't answer. I like my Marantz pre-pro a lot, but it's not the company Saul Marantz started.


 Both my Marantz SR5012's have the latest firmware installed ...Chris was wondering about the newest firmware(s) compatibility when they are functioning properly.

I would write to Marantz as well but to tell you the truth I'm getting real tired of all this and I really need a break. Besides it sounds like Marantz could care less... The program is glitchy as hell and everyone knows it... Now we are seeing inconsistencies in the results being produced... My gut feeling is that D&M knows all about it and is just hopping it will go away... I'm going back to AVR calibration for now... I feel like they just stole $28 from me here in Canada.

Here is my final post in the Audyssey Facebook group:

"I think the problem is either with the AVR's firmware updates, the phone's operating system updates, or the Audyssey app simply isn't working as intended with every receiver model. Not everybody does comparisons so some will never notice. Since the app isn't being updated regularly along side of AVR, OS, and Android updates, compatibility is probably eroding... When Windows has a major update many softwares immediately come out with updates to accommodate the changes to Windows... Isn't the same true for apps working with phone and AVR operating systems? When you change one you have to change the other. My gut sense is that they know about it (at least the programmer does) but are banking on a limited backlash from consumers. I don't think Chris is involved. Besides, he's stepped down. Maybe didn't like the way things were going with D&M and others. Things like this.


----------



## cfraser

rlwings said:


> Chris finally suggests that I write to Marantz due to the fact Marantz wrote the app and all Audyssey did was give them the base libraries or something.


Well, Denon says _they _didn't write it. Or don't maintain it, which was more the direction of my query to them. On behalf of their parent company, so I presume Marantz will say _they_ didn't write it either. I know you guys may not necessarily follow the MultEQ thread, but I have mentioned that neither Audyssey nor Sound United admit "ownership"/development of the app. This has been the frustrating part, because it's empirically evident that the app and the host device (AVR/pre-pro) process Audyssey differently in some ways, we don't need somebody to tell us that, it's obvious to anybody who uses it. 

Edit: now I have been one of the "lucky" people who hasn't had any real problems with the app...so far. A couple of very minor things that other guys figured out simple work-arounds for, but nothing related to the curves/sound, that has been just fine. No unexpected rolloffs or boosts. Some slight _consistent _differences between the app and the host results, using rigourously controlled microphone positions, but nothing bothersome (to me). I fought and IMO tamed the Audyssey demons several years ago, before I had means to adjust what Audyssey does. So instead I adjusted my gear/room to work with Audyssey's methods...much more tedious that way, but the work/results hasn't been "broken" with MultEQ, so there's that.


----------



## rlwings

cfraser said:


> Well, Denon says _they _didn't write it. Or don't maintain it, which was more the direction of my query to them. On behalf of their parent company, so I presume Marantz will say _they_ didn't write it either. I know you guys may not necessarily follow the MultEQ thread, but I have mentioned that neither Audyssey nor Sound United admit "ownership"/development of the app. This has been the frustrating part, because it's empirically evident that the app and the host device (AVR/pre-pro) process Audyssey differently in some ways, we don't need somebody to tell us that, it's obvious to anybody who uses it.
> 
> Edit: now I have been one of the "lucky" people who hasn't had any real problems with the app...so far. A couple of very minor things that other guys figured out simple work-arounds for, but nothing related to the curves/sound, that has been just fine. No unexpected rolloffs or boosts. Some slight _consistent _differences between the app and the host results, using rigourously controlled microphone positions, but nothing bothersome (to me). I fought and IMO tamed the Audyssey demons several years ago, before I had means to adjust what Audyssey does. So instead I adjusted my gear/room to work with Audyssey's methods...much more tedious that way, but the work/results hasn't been "broken" with MultEQ, so there's that.


 I agree with you. This whole thing is very frustrating... Especially when the powers that be keep contradicting each other... Who to believe? who to trust? Who to go to?

This is the answer Chris Kyriakakys gave to the app ownership question after I mentioned that I was using Android with the app.
"Ah Android... the Windows of the mobile world







 Can't help you with that. My experience is all on iOS. It sounds like you need to contact Marantz. They wrote the app, the UI, and the transfer code. Audyssey just provided the back end libraries for calculation."

If I wrote an app like this I wouldn't want to take ownership either!


----------



## jbnpaul

What is even more frustrating is you have to pay for this app.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rlwings

jbnpaul said:


> What is even more frustrating is you have to pay for this app.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ya, $28.00 here in Canada! ... I really feel ripped off. Not because of it's price, but because it's unusable and doesn't provide calibrations as good as the AVR alone does.


----------



## cfraser

^ At least there's no tax on that CA$28!


----------



## mthomas47

^^^


I hope that this doesn't come out sounding wrong, but I was always a little bit skeptical of the genuine value that such an inexpensive app was going to provide. I hoped that it would be terrific, but it always sounded a little too good to be true for the price.  And, I have a feeling that it was sort of rushed into production without a lot of thought being given to future maintenance.


----------



## rlwings

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> I hope that this doesn't come out sounding wrong, but I was always a little bit skeptical of the genuine value that such an inexpensive app was going to provide. I hoped that it would be terrific, but it always sounded a little too good to be true for the price.  And, I have a feeling that it was sort of rushed into production without a lot of thought being given to future maintenance.


As another member pointed out: "...The fact that they use it (the app) as a selling point..." Is not cool.


----------



## audiofan1

cfraser said:


> Well, Denon says _they _didn't write it. Or don't maintain it, which was more the direction of my query to them. On behalf of their parent company, so I presume Marantz will say _they_ didn't write it either. I know you guys may not necessarily follow the MultEQ thread, but I have mentioned that neither Audyssey nor Sound United admit "ownership"/development of the app. This has been the frustrating part, because it's empirically evident that the app and the host device (AVR/pre-pro) process Audyssey differently in some ways, we don't need somebody to tell us that, it's obvious to anybody who uses it.
> 
> Edit: now I have been one of the "lucky" people who hasn't had any real problems with the app...so far. A couple of very minor things that other guys figured out simple work-arounds for, but nothing related to the curves/sound, that has been just fine. No unexpected rolloffs or boosts. Some slight _consistent _differences between the app and the host results, using rigourously controlled microphone positions, but nothing bothersome (to me). I fought and IMO tamed the Audyssey demons several years ago, before I had means to adjust what Audyssey does. So instead I adjusted my gear/room to work with Audyssey's methods...much more tedious that way, but the work/results hasn't been "broken" with MultEQ, so there's that.





mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> I hope that this doesn't come out sounding wrong, but I was always a little bit skeptical of the genuine value that such an inexpensive app was going to provide. I hoped that it would be terrific, but it always sounded a little too good to be true for the price.  And, I have a feeling that it was sort of rushed into production without a lot of thought being given to future maintenance.





rlwings said:


> As another member pointed out: "...The fact that they use it (the app) as a selling point..." Is not cool.


 So far with the Marantz 8805 and the app all has been good distance for all speakers including subs is dead on as before as well as the crude result graph with no boost or cuts, I've sat in my fav listening chair and have had a blast trying different cut off points and even got around to trying a house curve on the subs with in 10 min give or take its uploaded and I'm listening. I'm sure there will be more tweaking of the app on whom ever created it but as it stands for me its a welcome addition and at $20 its a no brainier do to it solving all of my Audyssey gripes and my room has never sounded better


----------



## cfraser

audiofan1 said:


> ...solving all of my Audyssey gripes...


I had some minor ideas for the app, and I don't know if they're doable/appropriate for the app, or can _already _be done using it with clever manipulation, somehow.

Chris has always said that Dynamic EQ is an important part of the Audyssey system. So I've always tried to use it, at least since I moved to XT32 (from XT). And this is the outstanding "significant" gripe I still have with Audyssey, and I know it is shared by many: the effect DEQ has on the back surrounds. One of my app ideas is I would like to be able to disable DEQ for "pairs" of speakers, or even just the backs, but might as well have it available for all speakers. I understand the theory of how DEQ operates on the backs, and maybe it's correct (it kind of sounds so), but in practice it doesn't work well, and the theory may be more appropriate when applied _outdoors_ when hunting mammoths or such. If you could do this "little" thing with the app, I bet that would sell more copies, just as almost surely some people have bought it just to be able to remove the MRC for Reference, IMO another thing that may have seemed good _in theory_.

I don't know if you have checked what Audyssey does via the host vs the app with REW or Omnimic, but people do have some valid issues. They don't affect me in my own system, but they have proof that something unexpected and undesired is going on with the app...sometimes.


----------



## MackGuyver

I've officially given up on Audyssey. It's never sounded right, particularly the bass, despite trying everything on this and the other Audyssey threads. I got my calibrated MiniDSP mic yesterday, ran REW, and it confirmed my suspicions. Channel levels were off by 0-4dB, most by about 1.5dB and the LFE channel was -12dB off at reference level. The sub EQ also had a steep rolloff at 20dB (with or without the App) with Flat EQ.


I like what it does for clarity and I think Dynamic EQ works really well, but if it can't even set my channel levels right or give me normal bass, it's no good to me. I don't know if it's a bad (or just cheap) mic, the (BS?) psychoacoustic science, or what, but I spent years setting up cinemas, and have had home theaters since the 1990s, so I know when something doesn't sound right.


I think I'm going to ditch my Marantz AV7703 and go for an Anthem AVM60 with ARC.


I would like to thank everyone here for their advice and assistance and while it's not for me, I know that many of you are getting great results with Audyssey - I just wish I was one of them .


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> Both my Marantz SR5012's have the latest firmware installed ...Chris was wondering about the newest firmware(s) *compatibility* when they are functioning properly.





cfraser said:


> Well, Denon says _they _didn't write it. Or don't maintain it, which was more the direction of my query to them. On behalf of their parent company, so I presume Marantz will say _they_ didn't write it either.
> 
> 
> Edit: now I have been one of the "lucky" people who hasn't had any real problems with the app...so far. A couple of very minor things that other guys figured out simple work-arounds for, but nothing related to the curves/sound, that has been just fine. No unexpected rolloffs or boosts. Some slight _consistent _differences between the app and the host results, using rigourously controlled microphone positions, but nothing bothersome (to me). I fought and IMO tamed the Audyssey demons several years ago, before I had means to adjust what Audyssey does. So instead I adjusted my gear/room to work with Audyssey's methods...much more tedious that way, but the work/results hasn't been "broken" with MultEQ, so there's that.





mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> I hope that this doesn't come out sounding wrong, but I was always a little bit skeptical of the genuine value that such an inexpensive app was going to provide. I hoped that it would be terrific, but it always sounded a little too good to be true for the price.  And, I have a feeling that it was sort of rushed into production without a lot of thought being given to future maintenance.





audiofan1 said:


> So far with the Marantz 8805 and the app all has been good distance for all speakers including subs is dead on as before as well as the crude result graph with no boost or cuts, I've sat in my fav listening chair and have had a blast trying different cut off points and even got around to trying a house curve on the subs with in 10 min give or take its uploaded and I'm listening. I'm sure there will be more tweaking of the app on whom ever created it but as it stands for me its a welcome addition and at $20 its a no brainier do to it solving all of my Audyssey gripes and my room has never sounded better



*Hi rlwings,*

I don't have the app, so I'm not visualizing it very well, but is it conceivable that one of the custom room curves is engaged, or "stuck" in the "on" position, one that produces a bright curve with the frequencies above about 8K booted to the max (+10 dB)? Is there such a curve available? What happens if you go through all of the possible different curves, and come back to a neutral or flat one? Does it still read +10 dB?

I hope that *this* doesn't come out sounding wrong, but *audiofan1 *has a $4,500 Marantz preamp-processor (the AV 8805) *only* , (*no* power amps included), and you have a pair of $1,000 Marantz AVRs (the SR5012, with *seven* 100 watt power amps included on the chassis, which, in a sense, may take money away from the preamp - processor section. This would be NO EXCUSE for poor performance, but maybe they skimped on the interface with the app, or any self correcting aspect of the interface. I know we suspect the app itself, but Marantz threw everything but the kitchen sink into that AVR, at a comparatively low price. Yet, (to cut cost?) they put in XT instead of XT32, when XT was outdated in 2011 (outdated, but good, IMO, I'm happy with it, but went through several set ups, and got lucky). Just a thought.


As someone said earlier, it would be interesting to use REW to see if your response curve is *really* being adjusted that radically.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> *Hi rlwings,*
> 
> I don't have the app, so I'm not visualizing it very well, but is it conceivable that one of the custom room curves is engaged, or "stuck" in the "on" position, one that produces a bright curve with the frequencies above about 8K booted to the max (+10 dB)? Is there such a curve available? What happens if you go through all of the possible different curves, and come back to a neutral or flat one? Does it still read +10 dB?
> 
> I hope that *this* doesn't come out sounding wrong, but *audiofan1 *has a $4,500 Marantz preamp-processor (the AV 8805) *only* , (*no* power amps included), and you have a pair of $1,000 Marantz AVRs (the SR5012, with *seven* 100 watt power amps included on the chassis, which, in a sense, may take money away from the preamp - processor section. This would be NO EXCUSE for poor performance, but maybe they skimped on the interface with the app, or any self correcting aspect of the interface. I know we suspect the app itself, but Marantz threw everything but the kitchen sink into that AVR, at a comparatively low price. Yet, (to cut cost?) they put in XT instead of XT32, when XT was outdated in 2011 (outdated, but good, IMO, I'm happy with it, but went through several set ups, and got lucky). Just a thought.
> 
> As someone said earlier, it would be interesting to use REW to see if your response curve is *really* being adjusted that radically.


 Hi Gary...And please feel free to call me Randy... The app has only one curve (reference) which can be manipulated by use of several points placed along the curve by the user. The mid-range compensation can be turned on or off and the filters can be limited down to any frequency level... Oh yeah, and there are 2 different HF roll off options that can be applied if desired, but they are of minor consequence... There are no preset curves of the variety you speak of... One simply takes measurements, manipulates the resulting curve, then uploads it to his AVR. So I don't think it's stuck, however you do give me the idea to try reinstalling the app itself.

Edit: The following paragraph outlines something I have already shared to this group in an earlier post...

I don't know if I told this you (or this group) about my very unusual upload issue... As I was uploading a curve to the AVR I watched the phone closely. There is a dialog that tells you what is being uploaded. This dialog tells you that the information for each speaker is being uploaded. For example, in my case it said: "Uploading left front" then "Right front" then "Subwoofer" ... After it completes this round of uploads, it moves on to the next set of measurements (next mic position) and repeats this process... As I watched the dialog I counted how many sets of data were being sent...I counted only 6! (I took 8 measurements of all three speakers)... So as you see, not all the data made it to the AVR! I asked Chris about this on the Facebook forum and he said that this is definitely not normal behavior.

Perhaps this is causing the 'bright' issue. Who knows.

I agree that all companies 'skimp' if they feel they can get away with it  But it's also true that Marantz had to differientate their AVR models so giving the low ones MultEQ, the mid ones XT and XT32, and so on makes sense from a positioning point of view.

What puzzles me is I've heard that Marantz is more expensive than other AVR's feature for feature because they don't compromise on audio quality like others do. (Higher quality audio components, HDAM's, feedback circuitry, etc). I tried them all (Mainstream Best Buy brands) and I definitely hear better richer more detailed and dynamic sound coming from Marantz. I actually went through 7 or 8 receivers before I arrived at the 5012 and I'm convinced they are the best (for me) at these price points. - A lot of hard work. Best Buy hates me! 

By the way, I just returned one of my Marantz SR5012's to Best Buy today and traded it in for a Marantz SR6012! I'm so excited. Best Buy had a one-day sale on the 6012 and I only had one day left to return\exchange one of my 5012's... A stroke of good luck! ... Maybe the app will work better on the 6012 but I doubt it... I do get XT32 though. Can't wait to compare it to plain 'ol XT.  - So the Living room gets the new 6012 and the bedroom has the 5012. I never have to leave home! ... This hobby is killing me.


----------



## audiofan1

rlwings said:


> Hi Gary...And please feel free to call me Randy... The app has only one curve (reference) which can be manipulated by use of several points placed along the curve by the user. The mid-range compensation can be turned on or off and the filters can be limited down to any frequency level... Oh yeah, and there are 2 different HF roll off options that can be applied if desired, but they are of minor consequence... There are no preset curves of the variety you speak of... One simply takes measurements, manipulates the resulting curve, then uploads it to his AVR. So I don't think it's stuck, however you do give me the idea to try reinstalling the app itself.
> 
> Edit: The following paragraph outlines something I have already shared to this group in an earlier post...
> 
> I don't know if I told this you (or this group) about my very unusual upload issue... As I was uploading a curve to the AVR I watched the phone closely. There is a dialog that tells you what is being uploaded. This dialog tells you that the information for each speaker is being uploaded. For example, in my case it said: "Uploading left front" then "Right front" then "Subwoofer" ... After it completes this round of uploads, it moves on to the next set of measurements (next mic position) and repeats this process... As I watched the dialog I counted how many sets of data were being sent...I counted only 6! (I took 8 measurements of all three speakers)... So as you see, not all the data made it to the AVR! I asked Chris about this on the Facebook forum and he said that this is definitely not normal behavior.
> 
> Perhaps this is causing the 'bright' issue. Who knows.
> 
> I agree that all companies 'skimp' if they feel they can get away with it  But it's also true that Marantz had to differientate their AVR models so giving the low ones MultEQ, the mid ones XT and XT32, and so on makes sense from a positioning point of view.
> 
> What puzzles me is I've heard that Marantz is more expensive than other AVR's feature for feature because they don't compromise on audio quality like others do. (Higher quality audio components, HDAM's, feedback circuitry, etc). I tried them all (Mainstream Best Buy brands) and I definitely hear better richer more detailed and dynamic sound coming from Marantz. I actually went through 7 or 8 receivers before I arrived at the 5012 and I'm convinced they are the best (for me) at these price points. - A lot of hard work. Best Buy hates me!
> 
> By the way, I just returned one of my Marantz SR5012's to Best Buy today and traded it in for a Marantz SR6012! I'm so excited. Best Buy had a one-day sale on the 6012 and I only had one day left to return\exchange one of my 5012's... A stroke of good luck! ... Maybe the app will work better on the 6012 but I doubt it... I do get XT32 though. Can't wait to compare it to plain 'ol XT.  - So the Living room gets the new 6012 and the bedroom has the 5012. I never have to leave home! ... This hobby is killing me.


Congrats on the upgrade as I've heard the 6012 on its own is an incredible sounding piece and XT32 is an definite step up! To date I've only encountered one glitch with the app when it failed to upload the Flat curve (i.e no sound) but doing the upload again solved it aside from that its been flawless. I do take steps when uploading a tweaked curve and that's to restart my Galaxy S9 before hand and exiting out of each screen on the app using "*Done*"


----------



## rlwings

audiofan1 said:


> Congrats on the upgrade as I've heard the 6012 on its own is an incredible sounding piece and XT32 is an definite step up! To date I've only encountered one glitch with the app when it failed to upload the Flat curve (i.e no sound) but doing the upload again solved it aside from that its been flawless. I do take steps when uploading a tweaked curve and that's to restart my Galaxy S9 before hand and exiting out of each screen on the app using "*Done*"


 Thank you...Yes, the 6012 truly sounds amazing! Although the 5012 is no slouch, the 6012 actually sounds better. Probably due to the XT32, otherwise the audio components are the same in both units except for the addition of 'Anti Jidder' in the 6012 which I hear doesn't make that much of a difference anyway. Oh yeah and 10 more watts on the 6012.


About the app. I had the same 'missing the flat curve' issue as you. And yes, re-uploading does restore it. I really wish they would polish up this app. It could be great.


----------



## rlwings

*How to delete curves in app?*

Hey guys...


Anybody know how to delete saved curves in the app? I don't see how to do it.


Thanks.


----------



## cfraser

^ You use the Edit function, and the trashcan icon.

[Since you're in Canada, and just changed to the 6012, you'll appreciate the ridiculous BB price on the 7012. It's the Marantz "sister-model" to the Denon X4400 (that I have, used as a pre-pro for now). I was holding out for the 7012, but it has never cost less than 2.4X the X4400, which is the diff now. And 3X what I paid for the X4400 elsewhere. Crazy. I moved from the 7702 to the X4400, not much diff sound-wise...]


----------



## rlwings

cfraser said:


> ^ You use the Edit function, and the trashcan icon.
> 
> [Since you're in Canada, and just changed to the 6012, you'll appreciate the ridiculous BB price on the 7012. It's the Marantz "sister-model" to the Denon X4400 (that I have, used as a pre-pro for now). I was holding out for the 7012, but it has never cost less than 2.4X the X4400, which is the diff now. And 3X what I paid for the X4400 elsewhere. Crazy. I moved from the 7702 to the X4400, not much diff sound-wise...]


 Thanks for the info. Ya, I figured it out right after I posted the question! Lol...


Yes, Best Buy's regular pricing is ridiculous. I think they only do that to position products so that they only sell the ones they want\need to... I too have been watching the pricing on receivers. Marantz was one of the only brands that rarely saw discounts throughout the model year...But now that the new models are coming out I've noticed discounts starting to show up. First the NR1508 and NR1608, then the SR5012 and now the SR6012...I've never followed Marantz's pricing cycle before so I don't know if the 7000 and 8000 series will be discounted. Probably.


Very excited to have acquired my 6012 with XT32. Basically reached the best sound quality level with this AVR... Further improvements seem to be features and power, both of which I don't need. (Right now)


----------



## cfraser

^ I think XT32 all by itself is a very worthwhile feature upgrade. The 6012 is the sister-model to the X3400, and they have all the most important "good stuff" IMO. I needed the 7012/X4400 because I want to remove my separate amps for the Atmos overhead channels and use internal ones in the AVR for that instead, with external amps for just the base 7.1 channels (less space consumed, less heat from my hot amps).


----------



## garygarrison

rlwings said:


> Thanks for the info. Ya, I figured it out right after I posted the question! Lol...
> 
> 
> Yes, Best Buy's regular pricing is ridiculous. I think they only do that to position products so that they only sell the ones they want\need to... I too have been watching the pricing on receivers. Marantz was one of the only brands that *rarely* saw discounts throughout the model year...But now that the new models are coming out I've noticed discounts starting to show up. First the NR1508 and NR1608, then the SR5012 and now the SR6012...I've never followed Marantz's pricing cycle before so I don't know if the 7000 and 8000 series will be discounted. Probably.
> 
> 
> Very excited to have acquired my 6012 with XT32. Basically reached the best sound quality level with this AVR... Further improvements seem to be features and power, both of which I don't need. (Right now)



 What does the treble EQ look like on the 6012 with XT32? Can you post a pic of the EQ provided (the crude one) and the "Before" and "After" for both your Right and Left Front channels?
Time was (not long ago) that Marantz would pull their equipment from any dealer who discounted them, unless Marantz themselves initiated the discount. It was fun to watch the catalogs label the Marantz equipment "Special Price" or "Low Price," when they were indeed "special" or "low," but also equal to that of all other retailers, i.e., "special" in that, unlike products from several other companies, they couldn't be changed, and "low" in that they were not being sold at a lower price anywhere else. I didn't realize they had terminated this policy. Did you compare prices at a Big Box store to a specialty (e.g., smaller Home Theater) shop, or to catalogs/web? If the "no unofficial discount" policy happens to be still in effect, it might be a good idea to buy any future Marantz from a specialty dealer with a resident engineer/tech (unlikely at Best Buy) who has a grasp of technical issues. I used such a store and its EE for some 34 years. The tech was rated the "Best in the Bay Area" by the Bay Guardian, and I'll bet he was. He built me a piece of custom equipment, and customized two reel to reel Crowns for me. When we moved out of state, I found a guy up here who was probably equally good, and stayed with him for 9 years, until he retired. He built me custom equipment, also. Both routinely tested electronics they sold for several kinds of distortion, frequency response, clipping levels, etc. etc. They didn't assume things were working properly right "out of the box." Both were willing to talk for very long periods of time about sane and verifiable audio issues, either on the phone or in person. One gave me some diffusor/absorbers, no charge. The other, in order to provide discounts when they were verboten, would give generous trade-ins on equipment that was so old (from my childhood), and in such bad condition (rusted in basement) that it was difficult to name.


----------



## rlwings

*Fixed Audyssey app!!!*

Let me start by saying that this fix might not necessarily work for you. Nor am I convinced that it will be a permanent fix for me either. But I would be remiss if I didn't share it with you...


Today I was sitting around and remembering the difficulty I had maintaining a connection between my phone and my digital camera. I thought it was the camera app. (Sound familiar? Lol) I tried everything with little success...Until I read somewhere that by putting the phone in 'Airplane Mode' Then only turning the WiFi back on it would somehow restore the app's functionality. I wondered if the same thing might be true for the Audyssey app since both apps rely on the WiFi radio.


Well, I almost tripped over my coffee table in an effort to get to my phone as quickly as possible! Put it in Airplane Mode, turned the WiFi (only) back on, set up Audyssey...............And, BAM! What do you know, it worked flawlessly! It ran at 5 times the speed compared to before and showed me screens I've never seen before during upload to the AVR. The curves both arrived in the receiver, and get this, the maxed out highs were tamed! ... Most importantly, the sound was absolutely amazing! Honestly I almost cried with delight. I had finally found a way that works... I tried uploading a few times and it worked the same way every time. All the glitchieness previously experienced with this completely disappeared!


I should note that I also deleted and reinstalled the app prior to all this success so maybe that was the real issue, who knows. Also, this success story happened on my new Marantz SR6012 so maybe the speed I saw was due to a faster processor in the 6012 compared to my SR5012... But the glitchiness existed on the SR6012 prior to using my Airplane Mode solution. I probably would have experienced the same problems on the 6012 had I kept going.


I am real interested to try calibrating my 5012 in Airplane Mode now to see if that was the problem there too. Will report back. 


Edit: Unfortunately I just tried this 'fix' on the 5012 and it didn't work.  It was as slow and glitchy as ever. And it still appears to be sending 6 sets of data to the AVR, instead of 8... Remember I had 2 5012's that did this so I don't think it's a defective unit.


Edit: I should also mention that I am using a Samsung Galaxy S7 with the latest Android update.


----------



## rlwings

garygarrison said:


> What does the treble EQ look like on the 6012 with XT32? Can you post a pic of the EQ provided (the crude one) and the "Before" and "After" for either the LF or the RF channel?
> Time was (not long ago) that Marantz would pull their equipment from any dealer who discounted them, without Marantz initiating the discount. It was fun to watch the catalogs label the Marantzs "Special Price" or "Low Price," when they were indeed "special" or "low," but also equal to that of all other retailers, i.e., "special" in that, unlike products from several other companies, they couldn't be changed, and "low" in that they were not being sold at a lower price anywhere else. I didn't realize they had terminated this policy. Did you compare prices at a Big Box store to a specialty (smaller Home Theater) shop, to catalogs/web ?


Gary, please see my last post. I think we were writing at the same time... I will get back to you with new graphs soon.


----------



## Soulburner

I have Emotiva E2 surrounds. If I flip them to "inverted bipole" mode, which is both tweeters in phase with each other but out of phase with the woofer, do I need to re-run Audyssey?


----------



## drh3b

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> I hope that this doesn't come out sounding wrong, but I was always a little bit skeptical of the genuine value that such an inexpensive app was going to provide. I hoped that it would be terrific, but it always sounded a little too good to be true for the price.  And, I have a feeling that it was sort of rushed into production without a lot of thought being given to future maintenance.


The only thing I do with the app is limit correction to


----------



## mthomas47

Soulburner said:


> I have Emotiva E2 surrounds. If I flip them to "inverted bipole" mode, which is both tweeters in phase with each other but out of phase with the woofer, do I need to re-run Audyssey?


Hi,

I think that it would be advisable to run Audyssey again. It seems to me that would have to change the way that Audyssey will "hear" the high frequencies, and if so, then the correction will be different. On the other hand, the actual audible differences might be subtle. So, you could always make the change and just listen to how it sounds before you decide. If I did that, I would probably try Audyssey off and Audyssey on to determine whether the treble changes much between the two. If Audyssey weren't doing much to the high frequencies with the way that you have the E2's set now, then the change to inverted bipole mode might not be significant.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tonybradley

Just ran Audyssey on my new Denon X3400. It set my Mains to "Large". Reading through the FAQs, which is what I've always heard, if you have a Sub, always set your mains to Small as the Sub is designed specifically for the LFE. If I do that, do I need to Re-Run Audyssey, or would it just set to Large again? So, run it, then go back in and set to Small?

Curious.....even Kris from Audyssey said to never run LFE+Main and gave the good reasons, so why doesn't Audyssey always set the Mains to "Small" when Subwoofer = Yes? If that's the absolute best method, and only method that should be used when using a Subwoofer, not sure why Audyssey sets to Large even if your speakers are analyzed at full range.


----------



## mthomas47

tonybradley said:


> Just ran Audyssey on my new Denon X3400. It set my Mains to "Large". Reading through the FAQs, which is what I've always heard, if you have a Sub, always set your mains to Small as the Sub is designed specifically for the LFE. If I do that, do I need to Re-Run Audyssey, or would it just set to Large again? So, run it, then go back in and set to Small?
> 
> Curious.....even Kris from Audyssey said to never run LFE+Main and gave the good reasons, so why doesn't Audyssey always set the Mains to "Small" when Subwoofer = Yes? If that's the absolute best method, and only method that should be used when using a Subwoofer, not sure why Audyssey sets to Large even if your speakers are analyzed at full range.



Hi Tony,

There is a good explanation for how all of this works, and why it works that way, in Section IV of the Guide, linked in my signature. You don't have to run Audyssey again. You can change any settings you like without affecting the room EQ that Audyssey did. This is a direct link to the section on setting crossovers, but you may also want to start at the beginning of the Guide and read through it. The information contained in it covers some areas that the FAQ doesn't.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tonybradley

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> There is a good explanation for how all of this works, and why it works that way, in Section IV of the Guide, linked in my signature. You don't have to run Audyssey again. You can change any settings you like without affecting the room EQ that Audyssey did. This is a direct link to the section on setting crossovers, but you may also want to start at the beginning of the Guide and read through it. The information contained in it covers some areas that the FAQ doesn't.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#D
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you! I'll read through that thread this evening. I looked at it quickly and seems to answer some questions I had.


----------



## urgru

I’m getting a bit confused setting up two SVS SB12-NSD with a Denon x3400h. I ran setup with gain at 10 o’clock and got -11db and -12db. Re-ran at 8 o’clock and was told volume was too low. Adjusted dials until tone wa pretty flat at 75 and finished setup. Then got -12db trim on both. How can I get them into the recommended -3.5 to +3.5 range without ignoring the initial volume check?


----------



## rlwings

urgru said:


> I’m getting a bit confused setting up two SVS SB12-NSD with a Denon x3400h. I ran setup with gain at 10 o’clock and got -11db and -12db. Re-ran at 8 o’clock and was told volume was too low. Adjusted dials until tone wa pretty flat at 75 and finished setup. Then got -12db trim on both. How can I get them into the recommended -3.5 to +3.5 range without ignoring the initial volume check?


Wow, that's pretty strange... I thought the whole point of setting to 75db was so that Audyssey 'lands' within the target range. Maybe the subs are positioned in the room in such a way that there is a bass peak in the main listening position.... Also maybe try to do a cold reset with the receiver and subs and work the sub dials up and down a few times to clear the contacts just in case there is a issue with the volume distribution in the dial.


----------



## mthomas47

urgru said:


> I’m getting a bit confused setting up two SVS SB12-NSD with a Denon x3400h. I ran setup with gain at 10 o’clock and got -11db and -12db. Re-ran at 8 o’clock and was told volume was too low. Adjusted dials until tone wa pretty flat at 75 and finished setup. Then got -12db trim on both. How can I get them into the recommended -3.5 to +3.5 range without ignoring the initial volume check?





rlwings said:


> Wow, that's pretty strange... I thought the whole point of setting to 75db was so that Audyssey 'lands' within the target range. Maybe the subs are positioned in the room in such a way that there is a bass peak in the main listening position.... Also maybe try to do a cold reset with the receiver and subs and work the sub dials up and down a few times to clear the contacts just in case there is a issue with the volume distribution in the dial.



Hi,

Audyssey isn't actually aiming for a target range for the AVR trim. It is just setting the subwoofer volume to 75db, as measured at the main listening position (mic position 1). If you start with a high gain setting on the sub, Audyssey will set a correspondingly low trim level to be at 75db. If you start with a low gain setting, Audyssey will set a correspondingly high AVR trim level to still be at 75db. It is (more-or-less) an inverse relationship between gain and trim during the calibration process.

Urgru should just set his sub gains between 9:00 and 10:00, aiming for AVR trim levels of about -11. If one is at -12, I probably wouldn't worry too much as long as they are level-matched. Then, he will have ample trim level adjustment to get up to about -5, if he wants to. As a general rule, it is a good idea to keep trim levels well in the negative range to avoid clipping, and -5 is a good number. The information in the FAQ is outdated in that respect. +3 to -3 is no longer recommended as a user target range by any of the subwoofer makers I know.

The Guide, linked in my signature, explains what Audyssey is trying to do; the relationships among gain, trim, and master volume; and the best ways to add subwoofer boosts. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

I had the same issue last weekend. After keeping the Audyssey setup happy with 75dB, the end result was -8 and -10 for my subs.

I can't turn them down without Audyssey barking that they aren't at 75dB during level matching. As long as I'm not at -12 I think I'm okay.


----------



## mthomas47

Soulburner said:


> I had the same issue last weekend. After keeping the Audyssey setup happy with 75dB, the end result was -8 and -10 for my subs.
> 
> I can't turn them down without Audyssey barking that they aren't at 75dB during level matching. As long as I'm not at -12 I think I'm okay.



You are absolutely fine! Again, when you turn your gain up, so that the subwoofer is producing more than 75db as measured by the Audyssey mic in mic position 1, Audyssey is programmed to tell you that your gain level is too high. Just ignore that. Your gain level is actually just where you want it to be. When you tell Audyssey to continue, it will do so with no harm done, and it will simply set the lower AVR trim levels that we would prefer to have.

The Guide was initially written specifically to address this issue, and to explain why most of us need to add subwoofer boosts after an Audyssey calibration. The reason has to do with the difference between listening at Reference levels and listening at our normal listening levels. And, it has to do with the way we hear bass frequencies in relation to those in our normal hearing range. People are often advised to read the Guide in order to understand how Audyssey works, and to understand some of the relationships involved, but I have no idea how many people actually take the time to read it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rlwings

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Audyssey isn't actually aiming for a target range for the AVR trim. It is just setting the subwoofer volume to 75db, as measured at the main listening position (mic position 1). If you start with a high gain setting on the sub, Audyssey will set a correspondingly low trim level to be at 75db. If you start with a low gain setting, Audyssey will set a correspondingly high AVR trim level to still be at 75db. It is (more-or-less) an inverse relationship between gain and trim during the calibration process.
> 
> Urgru should just set his sub gains between 9:00 and 10:00, aiming for AVR trim levels of about -11. If one is at -12, I probably wouldn't worry too much as long as they are level-matched. Then, he will have ample trim level adjustment to get up to about -5, if he wants to. As a general rule, it is a good idea to keep trim levels well in the negative range to avoid clipping, and -5 is a good number. The information in the FAQ is outdated in that respect. +3 to -3 is no longer recommended as a user target range by any of the subwoofer makers I know.
> 
> The Guide, linked in my signature, explains what Audyssey is trying to do; the relationships among gain, trim, and master volume; and the best ways to add subwoofer boosts.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 Thanks Mike for clearing that up... So, you're saying that we would run the danger of clipping the line-level sub signal coming out of the AVR if the sub's gain level is too low. (Which would cause the AVR to output it's highest possible line-level signal, probably causing it to reach it's clipping levels, and thus arriving in a distorted state at the sub.) ?

Do I have his right? The sub output from the AVR is not amplified very much, just relative differences to tell the sub amp what to do.


----------



## mthomas47

rlwings said:


> Thanks Mike for clearing that up... So, you're saying that we would run the danger of clipping the line-level sub signal coming out of the AVR if the sub's gain level is too low. (Which would cause the AVR to output it's highest possible line-level signal, probably causing it to reach it's clipping levels, and thus arriving in a distorted state at the sub.) ?
> 
> Do I have his right? The sub output from the AVR is not amplified very much, just relative differences to tell the sub amp what to do.



You are very welcome! That's exactly right! There is also the possibility that a particular subwoofer won't be able to achieve maximum output levels with a low gain setting. So, if someone is going to be pushing his subwoofer(s) into high volume levels, keeping the gain fairly high will help to prevent the subwoofer from prematurely running out of gas. 

Subwoofers tested by Data-Bass, or by similar sites that do variations of CEA-2010 testing, always test with sub gain settings at max. And, for many subwoofers, that is the only way they can attain their max output. At moderate volume levels, that won't matter as much. At very high volume levels, it may.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

mthomas47 said:


> Soulburner said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had the same issue last weekend. After keeping the Audyssey setup happy with 75dB, the end result was -8 and -10 for my subs.
> 
> I can't turn them down without Audyssey barking that they aren't at 75dB during level matching. As long as I'm not at -12 I think I'm okay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely fine! Again, when you turn your gain up, so that the subwoofer is producing more than 75db as measured by the Audyssey mic in mic position 1, Audyssey is programmed to tell you that your gain level is too high. Just ignore that. Your gain level is actually just where you want it to be. When you tell Audyssey to continue, it will do so with no harm done, and it will simply set the lower AVR trim levels that we would prefer to have.
> 
> The Guide was initially written specifically to address this issue, and to explain why most of us need to add subwoofer boosts after an Audyssey calibration. The reason has to do with the difference between listening at Reference levels and listening at our normal listening levels. And, it has to do with the way we hear bass frequencies in relation to those in our normal hearing range. People are often advised to read the Guide in order to understand how Audyssey works, and to understand some of the relationships involved, but I have no idea how many people actually take the time to read it. /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Definitely. I read the guide several years ago and it was a big help, as well as the REW thread which helped me get started configuring and measuring. Many of the most helpful responses were yours, I recall.


----------



## cfraser

I have always ignored the Audyssey setup chirping at me about sub levels, right at the beginning of the cal. It always wanted me to boost the subs levels, and then in the end it set very large sub attenuations in the settings i.e. I boost the levels then Audyssey attenuates them = dumb. Something sure isn't right about the way that sub level-setting procedure works IME.

What I do is take 3 measurement positions without moving the mike (faster, and fine for this purpose), then calculate. See what the sub level settings are, adjust levels at subs to put within your desired range (say +/-3dB, I like 0dB). Repeat as often as required. If you have "digital" sub settings, then you'll likely only have to do this once more to "verify". Then do a proper set of readings. It takes little time and saves having to fool with that wonky sub level setting section. You can skip right past it BTW, I always do, it always complains even though I know the sub level settings are "correct", because in the end Audyssey ends up agreeing with me i.e. 0dB sub settings (which also means you could properly use the Sub Level Adjust function that's bugged on many [all?] current D&M AVRs).


----------



## mthomas47

cfraser said:


> I have always ignored the Audyssey setup chirping at me about sub levels, right at the beginning of the cal. It always wanted me to boost the subs levels, and then in the end it set very large sub attenuations in the settings i.e. I boost the levels then Audyssey attenuates them = dumb. Something sure isn't right about the way that sub level-setting procedure works IME.
> 
> What I do is take 3 measurement positions without moving the mike (faster, and fine for this purpose), then calculate. See what the sub level settings are, adjust levels at subs to put within your desired range (say +/-3dB, I like 0dB). Repeat as often as required. If you have "digital" sub settings, then you'll likely only have to do this once more to "verify". Then do a proper set of readings. It takes little time and saves having to fool with that wonky sub level setting section. You can skip right past it BTW, I always do, it always complains even though I know the sub level settings are "correct", because in the end Audyssey ends up agreeing with me i.e. 0dB sub settings (which also means you could properly use the Sub Level Adjust function that's bugged on many [all?] current D&M AVRs).



Hi,

If we don't understand the purpose behind what Audyssey is doing, it will probably always seem "dumb".  I do the same thing you do in order to get my trim levels where I want them. Then, with my gain levels where I want them to be, I proceed to do the full calibration. But, the Audyssey program actually facilitates that process.

The level-setting function of SubEQ is designed to set the subwoofer volumes at 75db, so that their combined volume will match the other channels, which are being tested individually. If your subwoofer gain settings produce a volume level lower than 75db, Audyssey will inform you of it. If your gain settings produce more than 75db, Audyssey will inform you of that. 

Once Audyssey has informed you that your subwoofers are currently producing either more or less than 75db, it is up to you to decide what to do about that. Some people will adjust their gain controls to 75db, and their calibration will proceed accordingly, producing whatever AVR trim levels they happen to produce. Others will follow what you and I believe is a better approach, and tell Audyssey to proceed with the calibration anyway. At that point, Audyssey will just whistle nonchalantly and follow the user's instructions. And, the AVR trim levels will be set just where we want them to be.

So, the way it operates in that level-matching process actually gives us more user control, to get our AVR trim levels exactly where we want them. No matter what method it uses, the end result has to be a combined subwoofer volume of 75db. Otherwise, the audio system can't be calibrated to produce Reference volumes at 0.0 MV. And, there also won't be a way for Audyssey to EQ the full frequency range of the audio system unless each channel is playing the same initial volume--75db.

Since there is a roughly inverse relationship between subwoofer gain and AVR trim (during the calibration process) I think that the way that Audyssey implemented the level-matching process actually makes a lot of sense. Personally, I like the user control it gives me to be able to set my trim levels wherever I want them, rather than having them set haphazardly, based on wherever I just happened to have the subwoofer gains set. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

^ Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. I'm always wary of posting these little "tips" because they probably sound like a bunch of gobbledy-**** to new users, but are really quite simple once you try it.

My "complaint" (not really, since I don't use it...) is about that sub level part of Audyssey is that it never used to be there. It just seemed to me to not be very helpful, but I guess it could be if you were running Audyssey for the very first time, or with brand new subs, and you had no idea what the proper sub settings should be. So I guess it's not really meant for me, or my circumstances, and I am kind of unfairly judging it. For me, it makes more work and gives worse results than "my way".


----------



## Juiced46

garygarrison said:


> Is the problem there only with your Epik sub? Does the SVS SB12-NBD sound fine? If so, maybe it is the position of the sub in the room.
> 
> 
> Are you using DEQ (Dynamic Equalization)? IMO, it makes my system sound somewhat muddy, jumbled, and a bit less transparent. I wouldn't call it a "night and day difference," but it is repeatable. It is much more noticeable when the soundtrack orchestra is playing than when there are sound effects. This happens even though DEQ is minimally activated when I use it, because I generally play movies within 5 to maybe 10 dB of reference level. Even though, unlike movies, music disks do not have a reference level, I generally play music at "live" SPL, and it sounds muddier with DEQ than without.
> 
> 
> Audyssey *without* DEQ sounds much clearer with Audyssey on, than off, on my system.
> 
> 
> Room peaks (which Audyssey attempts to remove) sometimes lend impact and excitement to music. Smooth response sometimes sounds dull by comparison. Restoring room peaks might conceivably have brought your sub "to life." Researchers (including the Harman people) have found that most people prefer somewhat elevated bass, but *smoothly* elevated bass, rather than bass with jagged peaks. _*Sometimes*,_ people perceive a curve with boosted bass and slightly attenuated treble as being "flat" compared to a curve that measures flat***. This can be achieved by running Audyssey, then turning up the subwoofer(s) AFTER running Audyssey. That way, you would be raising the bass on a *smooth* curve, rather than a kinky one.
> 
> *** I'm sorry, as Paul Klipsch, who was also a pilot, used to say, "You can no more have a flat *curve*, than you can, even with pontoons, *land* on water."





cfraser said:


> I can forgive you, as sometimes I _park _in my _drive_way. (Yeah, you've heard that one before...)
> 
> As far as subs that sound just fine with Audyssey on etc. for movies and mch music, but kind of suck with 2ch music: that's been my experience. I never blamed it on Audyssey... In fact I was disappointed that I never got to purchase one of those SVS Audyssey units that just did the subs (i.e. SubEQ only), I really wanted one for my stereo system after I had experienced SubEQ as part of the XT32 suite, but I was too late as they were discontinued by that point.
> 
> I find that AVRs are just not up to *my* requirements for stereo performance. Nor are any pre-pros that I've heard. They just don't compete with even a "modest" (but not exactly cheap...) stereo preamp. And the way all the other music sounds does seem to have an effect on how the bass is interpreted by our ears. Least for me...
> 
> That said, for 2ch music, I do not use Audyssey at all. Using REW I adjusted the SVS subs' internal DSP to be as good as I could, noted all the settings, made labels with them on and stuck them on the back of the subs, and I have no Audyssey at all and I change the sub settings when listening to stereo music. It's not as onerous as it might sound. I also have to feed a stereo signal into each sub, so extra cabling required. Yes, I went to some lengths to get decent stereo music, many people go much further...



So I did some more testing for my issue. With DEQ on, BOTH subs sound muddy and a bit distorted at very high levels. 

When I shut DEQ off but keep Audyssey on Reference or Flat, I am experiencing the same thing.

When Audyssey is off, the subs sound so much better. I can play it louder, it sounds way cleaner, the muddy'ness/distortion is gone and it plays the lower end much much cleaner. 

So where do I go from here? Should I adjust the sub curve in the App and see if it sounds better with Audyssey on? Run Audyssey again? Or just shut if off for 2 ch music and leave it as is? My concern is, if it sounds better off with 2ch music, I may be leaving room for improvement when watching movies if it is acting like this with 2ch music?


----------



## mthomas47

Juiced46 said:


> So I did some more testing for my issue. With DEQ on, BOTH subs sound muddy and a bit distorted at very high levels.
> 
> When I shut DEQ off but keep Audyssey on Reference or Flat, I am experiencing the same thing.
> 
> When Audyssey is off, the subs sound so much better. I can play it louder, it sounds way cleaner, the muddy'ness/distortion is gone and it plays the lower end much much cleaner.
> 
> So where do I go from here? Should I adjust the sub curve in the App and see if it sounds better with Audyssey on? Run Audyssey again? Or just shut if off for 2 ch music and leave it as is? My concern is, if it sounds better off with 2ch music, I may be leaving room for improvement when watching movies if it is acting like this with 2ch music?



Hi,

The first thing that I would do is to run Audyssey again, following the directions in Section I of the Guide. There is even a mic pattern you can try that is shown at the end of that section. The subsection that contains the mic pattern is titled Room EQ and Calibration Techniques. This is a direct link to Section I: 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#B

It can take a little experimentation to find a calibration that works well for our individual rooms and preferences. Once you find it, I would recommend writing down the mic pattern you used so that you can return to it later, if (when) you need to do another calibration. 

In the end, only you can decide to what extent Audyssey improves the sound in your room. If after you do your best to obtain a good calibration, you like the sound quality better with Audyssey off, then where's the harm in that? The whole idea here is to find a sound quality in your room that is pleasing to you. 

I would also note that you could certainly turn Audyssey off for music, and then on again for movies, if you find that you like the sound better for one and not the other. Turning Audyssey off and then back on again, or changing any of the settings, won't affect the room EQ that Audyssey has performed. So, you can experiment as much as you like. I change several things when I go from music to movies and back again. My bass boosts, for instance, change completely. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

Juiced46 said:


> So I did some more testing for my issue. With DEQ on, BOTH subs sound muddy and a bit distorted at very high levels.
> 
> When I shut DEQ off but keep Audyssey on Reference or Flat, I am experiencing the same thing.
> 
> When Audyssey is off, the subs sound so much better. I can play it louder, it sounds way cleaner, the muddy'ness/distortion is gone and it plays the lower end much much cleaner.
> 
> So where do I go from here? Should I adjust the sub curve in the App and see if it sounds better with Audyssey on? Run Audyssey again? Or just shut if off for 2 ch music and leave it as is? My concern is, if it sounds better off with 2ch music, I may be leaving room for improvement when watching movies if it is acting like this with 2ch music?


Excuse me if it was already covered, but what subs are these?

The only ways I could imagine getting this result is if, 1) it put your subs out of phase with each other. Did you have both subs set to the same phase before starting? Or, 2) the signal may be clipping if it has to apply too much boost due to a low level when measuring.

Just some guesses.


----------



## ToBeFrank

Anyone else having problems using Dynamic Volume and watching the World Cup? With DV on light, the crowd noise in all of the speakers is really loud while the center channel is muffled such that I can barely hear the commentators. Turning DV off completely solves it. I'm surprised DV has such a dramatic effect on the center channel.


----------



## garygarrison

ToBeFrank said:


> Anyone else having problems using Dynamic Volume and watching the World Cup? With DV on light, the crowd noise in *all* of the speakers is really loud while the center channel is *muffled *such that I can barely hear the commentators. Turning DV off completely solves it. I'm surprised DV has such a dramatic effect on the center channel.





I would think that Dynamic Volume would treat all channels the same, and it may be doing so. Are you playing the sound at stadium level in 5.1?
DV and DEQ and anything else we introduce to modify the sound will potentially frack it up. Audyssey itself has that potential, but, IMO, reduces so much of the effect of the other anomalies (room blurring, etc.) that it is worth it. I would only use DV if you have a sleeping baby or extremely thin apartment walls. The compression it introduces is distortion, pure and simple. Or, impure and complicated.
The commentators probably have the bass cut switches on their microphones turned on to make their voices crisper and more intelligible. Some mics have a switch that starts the bass rolling off at 150 Hz, which would be fine if they were not having to compete with crowd surges reaching as low as about 60 Hz, lasting as long as 10 seconds (including reverberation), ranging in level up to 105 dBA at the venue with occasional peaks approaching 110dBA. Commentary would have to be 10 dB louder to be understood during those surges. The preceding figures were from Navvab, Heilmann and Sulisz, http://www.ibpsa.org/proceedings/bs2009/bs09_2154_2161.pdf
I would be tempted to *not* use DV, and turn the volume down a little, and let the dynamic range play at its natural (wide) range of levels -- which can make the event *more exciting*.
I'll bet, and I may lose, that if you disabled your center channel, set the processor for stereo and played the commentary, noise and everything else in 2 channel stereo through your left front and right front speakers, the commentary would be equally hard to understand -- unless your center speaker is markedly inferior to your main fronts -- some are.
One of the most common complaints in running movies is that the dialog is hard to understand, especially when there is a lot of noise and LFE on the soundtrack. A solution is to turn up the center channel. My center channel has exactly the same speakers as the LF & RF, just in a different cabinet. Yet, my center has to be turned up 2 dB to make sure we can understand all of the dialog. This doesn't throw things out of balance, and makes the dialog intelligible on everything except Trainspotting.
If you are using Audyssey, and the commentary is muffled in the sense of lacking high frequencies, use Audyssey FLAT for the World Cup.


----------



## pbarach

ToBeFrank said:


> Anyone else having problems using Dynamic Volume and watching the World Cup? With DV on light, the crowd noise in all of the speakers is really loud while the center channel is muffled such that I can barely hear the commentators. Turning DV off completely solves it. I'm surprised DV has such a dramatic effect on the center channel.


I'm guessing your problem is actually Dynamic EQ, which turns on whenever you start Dynamic Volume. 

One thing to try is to turn on Dynamic Volume, then turn off Dynamic EQ. Dynamic Volume should stay on at the setting you previously chose (at least, that's what happens in my Denon x4000). If that doesn't work, you can always turn up the center channel trim on the receiver while watching the games. It won't lose your Audyssey config, and you can turn the trim back down after the game.


----------



## CBdicX

If i use for RH a different speaker serie (but same brand) as FH, will Audyssey correct for small sound differents in the 2 sets ?


----------



## mogorf

CBdicX said:


> If i use for RH a different speaker serie (but same brand) as FH, will Audyssey correct for small sound differents in the 2 sets ?



How different are those speakers? Can you name the brand/ Model #?


----------



## murlidher

CBdicX said:


> If i use for RH a different speaker serie (but same brand) as FH, will Audyssey correct for small sound differents in the 2 sets ?


I am using JBL control one for TF and JBL arena B15 for TR. I don't see much different set of sounds and audyssey did good work tuning them.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

mogorf said:


> How different are those speakers? Can you name the brand/ Model #?


 
Hi, here the speakers i want to use.


Front Height:
https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra/cinema-ultra-aeh-400-atm


Rear Height:
https://www.magnat.de/en/home-cinema/shadow/shadow/shadow-102-atm


Big price differents between the 2, Front has a 575,00 euro price, Rear will have a 279,00 euro price for a set.
Both will be used as Direct fire high on the wall, the 400 ATM has a switch, or Dolby Enabled or Direct, the 102 ATM will be just Dolby Enabled.


*EDIT:*


for ease of mind, i will go for the 400 ATM and keep all speakers in the same serie


----------



## kaydee6

ok, i have read through the entire thread and most of the subwoofer guide by Thomas. Took me a while!
Both of these threads are super helpful for me in setting up movie sound and importantly the music sound also.
I am both an audio and videophile and as you can imagine I have a pretty high expectation for music sound quality.
I am presently using the Denon 8500 av amp driving ATC 19 L/R and a C3C center. 2 rear surrounds are SVS bookshelfs.
After calibrating with Audyssey I am settled with the following settings:

*Movies*
Reference curve
DEQ ON
DV OFF
Cinema EQ OFF
Reference offset 0dB
Subwoofer level -9
Mid range compensation ON

*
Music*
Reference curve
DEQ OFF
DV OFF
Subwoofer level -9dB
Subwoofer Channel trim +5dB
Tone Bass +2dB
Mid range compensation ON

@garygarrison My music setting is mostly set based on your experience and in fact it sounds much better than with DEQ ON. I am curious on your current setting for music and appreciate if you could share your settings and if you have new preference now.


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> ok, i have read through the entire thread and most of the subwoofer guide by Thomas. Took me a while!
> Both of these threads are super helpful for me in setting up movie sound and importantly the music sound also.
> I am both an audio and videophile and as you can imagine I have a pretty high expectation for music sound quality.
> I am presently using the Denon 8500 av amp driving ATC 19 L/R and a C3C center. 2 rear surrounds are SVS bookshelfs.
> After calibrating with Audyssey I am settled with the following settings:
> 
> *Movies*
> Reference curve
> DEQ ON
> Reference offset 0dB
> Subwoofer level -9
> Mid range compensation ON
> 
> *
> Music*
> Reference curve
> DEQ OFF
> Subwoofer level -9dB
> Subwoofer Channel trim +5dB
> Tone Bass +2dB
> Mid range compensation ON
> 
> @*garygarrison* My music setting is mostly set based on your experience and in fact it sounds much better than with DEQ ON. I am curious on your current setting for music and appreciate if you could share your settings and if you have new preference now.



For *Music, *a lot depends on the recording. I find CDs quite variable in balance, and SACDs and DVD-As perhaps a little less so. I am not shy about changing the settings after an initial audition. That being said, typically I use*:*

Audyssey FLAT setting
DEQ and DV OFF
Bass Tone Control + 3 to +6 dB
Treble Control Flat (0)
Subwoofer gain high-ish, subwoofer trim on the Marantz AVP at a setting that yields an REW reading (in-room measurement at the Main Listening Position) of +4 to +8 dB down to about 20 Hz. I love bass! Almost everyone on the form boosts the sub a bit after running Audyssey. If there is a hint of bass distortion, I pull back the bass. This only happens about once every few years, even though I play music every day I am home. I do not hear distortion on the loudest timpani & bass drum beats and the other percussion (including tam-tam) of the Crystal Clear recording of Fanfare for the Common Man, which can read 110 dB on my Radio Shack meter, C weight, "Fast." 

One reason I don't use REW is that I play orchestral music at nearly "live" and close up level, so there wouldn't be much for DEQ to do. On the rare occasions I play Rock, I don't quite play it at what John Wassermann used to call "Fillmore Level," though. I've tried playing background music (at gatherings at our house) using REW, and two things sound wrong to my ears 1) The treble boost, although moderate, seems to be too much 2) Clarity suffers. The sound seems just a bit less transparent, and less free floating.


----------



## kaydee6

garygarrison said:


> For *Music, *a lot depends on the recording. I find CDs quite variable in balance, and SACDs and DVD-As perhaps a little less so. I am not shy about changing the settings after an initial audition. That being said, typically I use*:*
> 
> Audyssey FLAT setting
> DEQ and DV OFF
> Bass Tone Control + 3 to +6 dB
> Treble Control Flat (0)
> Subwoofer gain high-ish, subwoofer trim on the Marantz AVP at a setting that yields an REW reading (in-room measurement at the Main Listening Position) of +4 to +8 dB down to about 20 Hz. I love bass! Almost everyone on the form boosts the sub a bit after running Audyssey. If there is a hint of bass distortion, I pull back the bass. This only happens about once every few years, even though I play music every day I am home. I do not hear distortion on the loudest timpani & bass drum beats and the other percussion (including tam-tam) of the Crystal Clear recording of Fanfare for the Common Man, which can read 110 dB on my Radio Shack meter, C weight, "Fast."
> 
> One reason I don't use REW is that I play orchestral music at nearly "live" and close up level, so there wouldn't be much for DEQ to do. On the rare occasions I play Rock, I don't quite play it at what John Wassermann used to call "Fillmore Level," though. I've tried playing background music (at gatherings at our house) using REW, and two things sound wrong to my ears 1) The treble boost, although moderate, seems to be too much 2) Clarity suffers. The sound seems just a bit less transparent, and less free floating.


Thanks for the update and advice! I guess I still have some room to move the Bass tone to +3dB and possibly to +6dB on the sub. Have been reading up quite a bit on the harman curve and coming from the minimalist world of audiophiles, I need a paradigm change! However, from my short experience with AV amp sound quality through increasing the Bass region it really does make music so much more enjoyable. I do not use the flat and prefer the reference curve as I like fuller and warmer tone. Reference does that without losing details and the highs. Flat does lit up a bit much for me.

Regarding the Bass tone adjustment, would you know what are the frequencies affected by this adjustment?


----------



## mthomas47

kaydee6 said:


> Thanks for the update and advice! I guess I still have some room to move the Bass tone to +3dB and possibly to +6dB on the sub. Have been reading up quite a bit on the harman curve and coming from the minimalist world of audiophiles, I need a paradigm change! However, from my short experience with AV amp sound quality through increasing the Bass region it really does make music so much more enjoyable. I do not use the flat and prefer the reference curve as I like fuller and warmer tone. Reference does that without losing details and the highs. Flat does lit up a bit much for me.
> 
> Regarding the Bass tone adjustment, would you know what are the frequencies affected by this adjustment?



Hi,

Somewhere I have a reference for the approximate frequency range for the bass tone control in Denon/Marantz, but I believe that it's from about 70Hz to about 200Hz or higher. I wouldn't depend too heavily on my recollection of the exact frequencies, but those numbers should be in the ballpark.

Best-practice recommendations are just that--recommendations. But, if I were you, I would keep my subwoofer trim levels in negative numbers. That recommendation now comes from all of the subwoofer makers I have heard refer to the subject. Most name brand subwoofers don't seem to address the issue at all, but several of the ID subwoofer makers have. You will notice that recommendations regarding keeping sub AVR trim levels well in the negative range have evolved since the FAQ was written. It is, however, a point of emphasis in the Guide.

It's your audio system, and you should operate it in any way that you want to. But, there are two reasons for using the gain control on your subwoofer to boost your subs beyond a certain point. That point is typically about -5 trim, according to several recent sources. The first reason is that your subwoofer is more likely to clip with a high trim level. That clipping may or may not be audible to you, but it is a form of distortion, and it can overheat your voice coil. 

I wouldn't worry about it for music, unless it is bass-enhanced music, because most music won't go low enough, with already enhanced bass volumes, to put exorbitant demands on your subwoofer anyway. But, the low-bass in some 5.1 movies certainly can, especially with the LFE channel (the .1 channel) which is already recorded 10db louder than the regular channels.

The second reason involves your subwoofer's fundamental abilities to achieve max output levels. Many subs will simply not be able to achieve max output levels unless the gain levels are very high. So, just continuing to increase the trim control on your AVR may not result in higher bass volumes, although it could result in premature port chuffing for ported subs, or distortion for any sub. 

For, instance the max output levels which you see for subwoofers using CEA-2010 testing, and especially those that you see on sites such as Data-Bass, were all conducted with gain levels at max. So, increasing your gain control post-Audyssey is a way to insure that the bass boost you are adding is actually occurring. Otherwise, you may be boosting your AVR trim without actually obtaining an increase in bass volume, because at some point, the subwoofer will simply stop getting any louder. I will leave it to others to determine whether there could be a placebo effect sometimes.

There are special circumstances where using the trim control to add bass is really the only alternative. An example of that is Gary's situation, in which he built his subwoofer into a false wall, and really can't access the gain control. But, absent that sort of special circumstance, I believe that most people are much better off following the best practice recommendations of a number of subwoofer makers, two of whom are referred to by name in the Guide. And, there are several others who have also addressed the issue in the last couple of years, as people are adding more-and-more bass to their HT systems.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kaydee6

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Somewhere I have a reference for the approximate frequency range for the bass tone control in Denon/Marantz, but I believe that it's from about 70Hz to about 200Hz or higher. I wouldn't depend too heavily on my recollection of the exact frequencies, but those numbers should be in the ballpark.
> 
> Best-practice recommendations are just that--recommendations. But, if I were you, I would keep my subwoofer trim levels in negative numbers. That recommendation now comes from all of the subwoofer makers I have heard refer to the subject. Most name brand subwoofers don't seem to address the issue at all, but several of the ID subwoofer makers have. You will notice that recommendations regarding keeping sub AVR trim levels well in the negative range have evolved since the FAQ was written. It is, however, a point of emphasis in the Guide.
> 
> It's your audio system, and you should operate it in any way that you want to. But, there are two reasons for using the gain control on your subwoofer to boost your subs beyond a certain point. That point is typically about -5 trim, according to several recent sources. The first reason is that your subwoofer is more likely to clip with a high trim level. That clipping may or may not be audible to you, but it is a form of distortion, and it can overheat your voice coil.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it for music, unless it is bass-enhanced music, because most music won't go low enough, with already enhanced bass volumes, to put exorbitant demands on your subwoofer anyway. But, the low-bass in some 5.1 movies certainly can, especially with the LFE channel (the .1 channel) which is already recorded 10db louder than the regular channels.
> 
> The second reason involves your subwoofer's fundamental abilities to achieve max output levels. Many subs will simply not be able to achieve max output levels unless the gain levels are very high. So, just continuing to increase the trim control on your AVR may not result in higher bass volumes, although it could result in premature port chuffing for ported subs, or distortion for any sub.
> 
> For, instance the max output levels which you see for subwoofers using CEA-2010 testing, and especially those that you see on sites such as Data-Bass, were all conducted with gain levels at max. So, increasing your gain control post-Audyssey is a way to insure that the bass boost you are adding is actually occurring. Otherwise, you may be boosting your AVR trim without actually obtaining an increase in bass volume, because at some point, the subwoofer will simply stop getting any louder. I will leave it to others to determine whether there could be a placebo effect sometimes.
> 
> There are special circumstances where using the trim control to add bass is really the only alternative. An example of that is Gary's situation, in which he built his subwoofer into a false wall, and really can't access the gain control. But, absent that sort of special circumstance, I believe that most people are much better off following the best practice recommendations of a number of subwoofer makers, two of whom are referred to by name in the Guide. And, there are several others who have also addressed the issue in the last couple of years, as people are adding more-and-more bass to their HT systems.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 @mthomas47,

Thanks for the reply. Yes my gain on the sub is set so I get -9dB after Audyssey calibration. After which I add another +5dB to the sub channel trim on the option menu of the denon for music only. I guess that brings it to -4dB cut from the amp sub output?


----------



## kaydee6

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Somewhere I have a reference for the approximate frequency range for the bass tone control in Denon/Marantz, but I believe that it's from about 70Hz to about 200Hz or higher. I wouldn't depend too heavily on my recollection of the exact frequencies, but those numbers should be in the ballpark.
> 
> Best-practice recommendations are just that--recommendations. But, if I were you, I would keep my subwoofer trim levels in negative numbers. That recommendation now comes from all of the subwoofer makers I have heard refer to the subject. Most name brand subwoofers don't seem to address the issue at all, but several of the ID subwoofer makers have. You will notice that recommendations regarding keeping sub AVR trim levels well in the negative range have evolved since the FAQ was written. It is, however, a point of emphasis in the Guide.
> 
> It's your audio system, and you should operate it in any way that you want to. But, there are two reasons for using the gain control on your subwoofer to boost your subs beyond a certain point. That point is typically about -5 trim, according to several recent sources. The first reason is that your subwoofer is more likely to clip with a high trim level. That clipping may or may not be audible to you, but it is a form of distortion, and it can overheat your voice coil.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about it for music, unless it is bass-enhanced music, because most music won't go low enough, with already enhanced bass volumes, to put exorbitant demands on your subwoofer anyway. But, the low-bass in some 5.1 movies certainly can, especially with the LFE channel (the .1 channel) which is already recorded 10db louder than the regular channels.
> 
> The second reason involves your subwoofer's fundamental abilities to achieve max output levels. Many subs will simply not be able to achieve max output levels unless the gain levels are very high. So, just continuing to increase the trim control on your AVR may not result in higher bass volumes, although it could result in premature port chuffing for ported subs, or distortion for any sub.
> 
> For, instance the max output levels which you see for subwoofers using CEA-2010 testing, and especially those that you see on sites such as Data-Bass, were all conducted with gain levels at max. So, increasing your gain control post-Audyssey is a way to insure that the bass boost you are adding is actually occurring. Otherwise, you may be boosting your AVR trim without actually obtaining an increase in bass volume, because at some point, the subwoofer will simply stop getting any louder. I will leave it to others to determine whether there could be a placebo effect sometimes.
> 
> There are special circumstances where using the trim control to add bass is really the only alternative. An example of that is Gary's situation, in which he built his subwoofer into a false wall, and really can't access the gain control. But, absent that sort of special circumstance, I believe that most people are much better off following the best practice recommendations of a number of subwoofer makers, two of whom are referred to by name in the Guide. And, there are several others who have also addressed the issue in the last couple of years, as people are adding more-and-more bass to their HT systems.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 @mthomas47,

Thanks for the reply. Yes my gain on the sub is set so I get -9dB after Audyssey calibration. After which I add another +5dB to the sub channel trim on the option menu of the denon for music only. I guess that brings it to -4dB cut from the amp sub output?


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> Thanks for the update and advice! I guess I still have some room to move the Bass tone to +3dB and possibly to +6dB on the sub. Have been reading up quite a bit on the harman curve and coming from the minimalist world of audiophiles, I need a paradigm change! However, from my short experience with AV amp sound quality through increasing the Bass region it really does make music so much more enjoyable. I do not use the flat and prefer the reference curve as I like fuller and warmer tone. Reference does that without losing details and the highs. Flat does lit up a bit much for me.
> 
> Regarding the Bass tone adjustment, would you know what are the frequencies affected by this adjustment?



There may have been some miscommunication. I think I got stuck on your *Movies *setting*;* it didn't quite dawn on me that you used the AVR trim to provide some of your bass boost for* Music*, although when you list your "*music only*" settings, you do clearly say, "Subwoofer Channel trim +5dB." I should have read your post more carefully.

EDIT: It now seems like your trim on the AVR reads - 4 dB. Is that correct? If so, that is fine.


It is a mystery to some of us why the AVR manufacturers don't put a caution in the manuals about not using trim boosts way into the positive, or why they don't limit the trim to 0 and below, to prevent clipping. They may feel that you will turn down any bass that sounds distorted, and, since *music* doesn't usually use the special movie provision of .1 or LFE, this kind of distortion would rarely happen except in movies, if then. Maybe they think their AVR output will never overload. Still mysterious.



With most AVRs, the only way to get a great deal of bass through the sub, is to *turn the sub itself up, using the gain control on the sub. *As Mike says, it is not a good idea to try to achieve this with AVR trim. People who want a lot of bass -- Harman style -- are better off trying to turn the gain control on the sub so far up that Audyssey sets the trim on the AVR at something like - 10, -11, 0r -11.5 (but not -12, for reasons given in Mike's guide). *Then,* the AVR trim can be turned up as far as -3 probably without clipping. This would provide up to about 8.5 dB sub boost without audible distotion. That, in combination with Audyssey reference rolling off the very high frequencies, would be close to the Harman curve. (Aud. Ref. normally provides -2 dB at 10 KHz, up to -6 dB at 20Khz).


There are various versions in the literature as to what clips when there is clipping. One sub manufacturer said it's not so much the sub circuitry or mechanical parts that clip, but the "line driver" in the AVR, when the trim is set too high and loud program material happens. I think this is in Audyssey FAQ Linked Here somewhere. If the gain knob on the sub is the first thing in the sub the signal hits, and if it is a variable resistor with no circuitry before it, my understanding is that it is very difficult to overload a resistor. If, on the other hand, there is circuitry before the pot, as there is in some older mixing boards (for reasons beyond all understanding), the input can be overloaded, causing distortion.



My situation is different, as Mike says. Even so, the gain control on my sub was turned up before we built it into the wall, plus flush mounting with the wall provides a deep bass boost of about 4 dB. I use separate power amps that are plugged into an expensive independent preamplifier-processor (containing Audyssey). It's possible that it is capable of greater output without clipping than the average AVR. I once had a McIntosh premp that had 16 volts un-clipped output.


Here is a set of results of using the Bass Tone control on a Marantz/Denon that a forum member [Batpig] ran on "preamp out." NOTE: The true Bass and Treble controls only affect the LF and RF main channels, but are still useful in adjusting tonal balance. 
Tone control with “small” therefore Xover at 80 Hz? Tone control has little effect below 80, and is out at 60 Hz, because of “small” setting.









It looks like that is a non-linc. Try to search for tone control graph under Batpig in either the Official Audyssey thread, or the Official Audyssey thread part II
*Anyone have a copy of that graph?*


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> Regarding the Bass tone adjustment, would you know what are the frequencies affected by this adjustment?



I sure would run a curve right now, if it didn't involve massive reorientation of intrconnect cords and pulling my AVP out of its rack. Maybe someone else has run one, or will.


I was disappointed that Batpig's curve couldn't be transferred to this part of the forum.


On the Marantz/Denon AVRs, according to Batpig's tests using "pre-out" (not involving power amplification, speakers or room) it looks like, with the bass tone control up all the way (nominally +6dB), there is a boost of about 4.5 dB at 400 Hz, + 5 dB at 300 Hz, +7 dB at 200 Hz ... then, there is an artifact of sorts,and we are pretty sure of the source. The curve begins to move downward, instead of plateauing or continuing to rise. We presume this is because Batpig was crossing over to his subwoofer and probably had his main speakers on "small," as nearly universally advised. Batpig later acknowledged that was a probable cause. As you know, the tone controls only affect the FL and FR, so no bass EQ due to the tone controls would show in the sub range. The top of his graph is labeled "SW+FR." During the crossover process, the main speakers (in this case Front Right) would gradually fade down well above the stated crossover (perhaps at 80 Hz, or so), and 200 Hz is a plausible point of inflection, although a little higher than I would have expected (on my rig, room acoustics included, it's more like 150 Hz). Anyway, we can guess that the true output from the tone control circuit either levels off or continues to rise. What you would be getting, though, if your mains are set for "small" and you are crossed over to the sub, would probably be what Batpig got, to wit: 150 Hz +5dB, 100 +2 dB, 70 Hz +2dB, and 60 Hz no effect (0). Of course, your sub would rise to the occasion. Given the limited range of the bass tone control, in vivo (I don't care what you say, our HTs are alive!), what we are influencing is mid-bass, i.e., fullness, warmth, and the leading edge of boom and punch. 



Will the bass tone control enhance your bass much? There is little agreement about what is bass and what is not. In real music, it depends a lot on what instrument the fundamental is played on, and what overtones that instrument provides. The two opinions I have heard are "250 Hz and below," and, "Hey, where the various manufacturers cross over to their woofers," so that could be 400 Hz, 500 Hz, or 800Hz ... but some make woofers not limit themselves to woofing, but handle midrange duty as well, up to about 1.5 K Hz.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I sure would run a curve right now, if it didn't involve massive reorientation of intrconnect cords and pulling my AVP out of its rack. Maybe someone else has run one, or will.
> 
> 
> I was disappointed that Batpig's curve couldn't be transferred to this part of the forum.
> 
> 
> On the Marantz/Denon AVRs, according to Batpig's tests using "pre-out" (not involving power amplification, speakers or room) it looks like, with the bass tone control up all the way (nominally +6dB), there is a boost of about 4.5 dB at 400 Hz, + 5 dB at 300 Hz, +7 dB at 200 Hz ... then, there is an artifact of sorts,and we are pretty sure of the source. The curve begins to move downward, instead of plateauing or continuing to rise. We presume this is because Batpig was crossing over to his subwoofer and probably had his main speakers on "small," as nearly universally advised. Batpig later acknowledged that was a probable cause. As you know, the tone controls only affect the FL and FR, so no bass EQ due to the tone controls would show in the sub range. The top of his graph is labeled "SW+FR." During the crossover process, the main speakers (in this case Front Right) would gradually fade down well above the stated crossover (perhaps at 80 Hz, or so), and 200 Hz is a plausible point of inflection, although a little higher than I would have expected (on my rig, room acoustics included, it's more like 150 Hz). Anyway, we can guess that the true output from the tone control circuit either levels off or continues to rise. What you would be getting, though, if your mains are set for "small" and you are crossed over to the sub, would probably be what Batpig got, to wit: 150 Hz +5dB, 100 +2 dB, 70 Hz +2dB, and 60 Hz no effect (0). Of course, your sub would rise to the occasion. Given the limited range of the bass tone control, in vivo (I don't care what you say, our HTs are alive!), what we are influencing is mid-bass, i.e., fullness, warmth, and the leading edge of boom and punch.
> 
> 
> 
> Will the bass tone control enhance your bass much? There is little agreement about what is bass and what is not. In real music, it depends a lot on what instrument the fundamental is played on, and what overtones that instrument provides. The two opinions I have heard are "250 Hz and below," and, "Hey, where the various manufacturers cross over to their woofers," so that could be 400 Hz, 500 Hz, or 800Hz ... but some make woofers not limit themselves to woofing, but handle midrange duty as well, up to about 1.5 K Hz.



Hi Gary,

I'm glad that you were able to describe the tone control results in Batpig's example. I can't find his graph in any of my references anymore. Like yourself, I also employ the bass tone control. I especially use it with movies to achieve a little better blend with the substantial subwoofer boosts I employ. It would be interesting to compare the results of Batpig's test to the results with the same speaker set to Large, and no subwoofer. I would be interested in seeing how much the slope might change in that case.

I agree with your statement that there is little agreement about what is bass, and probably even less agreement about divisions within bass, such as mid-bass, low-bass, etc. Almost any such divisions seem somewhat arbitrary to me. I remember some conversations that you and I had about the number of speaker makers who choose crossovers from mid-range drivers to woofers in the 400Hz to 500Hz range. As you noted, some people may be influenced by those crossover decisions in their definitions of where bass frequencies start.

One way to look at that way of defining where bass frequencies start, would be to assume that the speaker makers are just arbitrarily choosing a frequency at which to crossover their drivers. And, that they have designed their speakers and crossovers in that same somewhat arbitrary way. Another way to look at that is that some of them have been aware that the way we hear frequencies changes at about 500Hz, and that they have designed their woofers and their crossovers with that in mind. In either case, it makes sense to me to define bass frequencies in conjunction with the Equal Loudness Contours, which show average human hearing dropping-off at just about 500Hz. So personally, I like to think of bass frequencies starting at 500Hz.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## fredxr2d2

So, I recently built a riser for a second row of seats in my theater. My initial thought is to run Audyssey from a midpoint in between the two rows to compromise on each row getting the right balance. Is that the general advice?

I also have REW and will measure after Audyssey, but I wanted to know what a good process was - or what people did generally with two rows.


----------



## mthomas47

fredxr2d2 said:


> So, I recently built a riser for a second row of seats in my theater. My initial thought is to run Audyssey from a midpoint in between the two rows to compromise on each row getting the right balance. Is that the general advice?
> 
> I also have REW and will measure after Audyssey, but I wanted to know what a good process was - or what people did generally with two rows.



Hi,

Audyssey generally does it's best work when it doesn't have to EQ too large an area. I think that you will just have to experiment to discover how much EQ you can obtain for the second row without adversely affecting the sound quality in the front row too much. And, you may have to prioritize.

Personally, I would probably start by establishing a baseline for the front row, by keeping all of my mic positions concentrated in front of, and to the sides of, the MLP. Then, once I had a good sense of the best SQ and FR I could get that way, I would experiment with putting a couple of mic positions behind the MLP by a couple of feet. Unless you are already able to present Audyssey with a good native response at multiple positions in both rows, I am skeptical that you will be able to obtain equivalent FR at multiple positions in both rows. And, starting at the midpoint of the two rows might work, or it might give you relatively little benefit for either row.

But, who knows? Every room is different. If you find the FR degrading in the front row, as you widen your mic pattern to include more of the second row, you will have to prioritize having more equivalency for both rows, or better SQ for the front row, which I assume will be used the most. There's no preordained right answer to this--only what you discover and decide.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## fredxr2d2

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Audyssey generally does it's best work when it doesn't have to EQ too large an area. I think that you will just have to experiment to discover how much EQ you can obtain for the second row without adversely affecting the sound quality in the front row too much. And, you may have to prioritize.
> 
> Personally, I would probably start by establishing a baseline for the front row, by keeping all of my mic positions concentrated in front of, and to the sides of, the MLP. Then, once I had a good sense of the best SQ and FR I could get that way, I would experiment with putting a couple of mic positions behind the MLP by a couple of feet. Unless you are already able to present Audyssey with a good native response at multiple positions in both rows, I am skeptical that you will be able to obtain equivalent FR at multiple positions in both rows. And, starting at the midpoint of the two rows might work, or it might give you relatively little benefit for either row.
> 
> But, who knows? Every room is different. If you find the FR degrading in the front row, as you widen your mic pattern to include more of the second row, you will have to prioritize having more equivalency for both rows, or better SQ for the front row, which I assume will be used the most. There's no preordained right answer to this--only what you discover and decide.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Thanks for the answer. I'm going to run Audyssey tonight and follow that up with some REW measurements. I'll see how it sounds and go from there.

I appreciate your helpful answers all the time!


----------



## fredxr2d2

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Audyssey generally does it's best work when it doesn't have to EQ too large an area. I think that you will just have to experiment to discover how much EQ you can obtain for the second row without adversely affecting the sound quality in the front row too much. And, you may have to prioritize.
> 
> Personally, I would probably start by establishing a baseline for the front row, by keeping all of my mic positions concentrated in front of, and to the sides of, the MLP. Then, once I had a good sense of the best SQ and FR I could get that way, I would experiment with putting a couple of mic positions behind the MLP by a couple of feet. Unless you are already able to present Audyssey with a good native response at multiple positions in both rows, I am skeptical that you will be able to obtain equivalent FR at multiple positions in both rows. And, starting at the midpoint of the two rows might work, or it might give you relatively little benefit for either row.
> 
> But, who knows? Every room is different. If you find the FR degrading in the front row, as you widen your mic pattern to include more of the second row, you will have to prioritize having more equivalency for both rows, or better SQ for the front row, which I assume will be used the most. There's no preordained right answer to this--only what you discover and decide.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Following up from last night (I'm at work, so I don't have access to my REW graphs, but hopefully my descriptions will do justice in their place):

I ran Audyssey twice.

The first time, I started with the mic between the two rows and did a large pattern of the seats on the riser and the seats on the floor. Measured with REW on the riser showed wild swings and dips including a hump at 30Hz and loss around the crossover. Overall, I lost bass in the 80-200Hz range and went from a fairly smooth downward slope to a lot of peaks and valleys. Listening to a few things revealed a lack of bass punch and the front soundstage sounded muted and indistinct, while the surrounds sounded overblown and called too much attention to themselves.

The second time, I ran it in my normal pattern around the seat on the riser, starting at the middle of the couch and following up with eight positions within a couple feet around that point. REW showed the response to be back to "normal" for me, which is a modest downward slope from 20Hz through the frequency range. I sat and listened to some familiar stuff (Force Awakens trailers in lossless DTS-MA or PCM) and noticed immediately that it sounded more "right" than the previous run. Upon consultation with my wife, we sat in the front and back rows and made some slight adjustments to get the balance slightly better (this was suggested by Audioholics in their "setting up a 2 row theater" article from 2008): raise the center by 1.5dB and lower the surrounds and rear ceiling speakers by 1.5dB. This really improved the sense of balance in the second row (the surrounds weren't as noticeable) and had no ill effects on the front row (which was already heavily center biased because the center is only about 4 feet away).

So far, it appears that Mike is right (as usual), and a smaller spread for a single listening position produced a better overall response for the whole room. If I get time this weekend, I may try measuring the various seats to see what other variations might be happening. I am pleased with the results right now, but more listening may change my tune.

Thanks again, Mike!


----------



## omk1980

Hi guys-

Spent the better part of the spring purchasing upgrades to my home theater setup. I'm using audyssey to calibrate my system but want to make sure i'm getting the best sound. here is my 7.2.4 setup:

denon x4400h

emotiva xpa-5 2nd gen for 2 fronts, center, and 2 surrounds

svs pb-2000 dual subs on inside of my towers

klipsch rp-280f x 2 tower speakers

klipsch rp-450c center

klipsch rp-250s x 2 as surrounds

klipsch rp-160m x 2 as rear surrounds

klipsch rp-140sa x 4 as upfiring atmos speakers on my towers and rear surrounds.

I've run the audyssey setup wizard. They have my subs as -6.5 for sub 1 and -6 for sub 2. the crossover frequency for fronts is 40hz, center is 40, surrouds is 120hz, surround rear is 40 hz, front dolby is 120hz, and rear dolby is 110hz. they have the front towers set to large which i've switched to small.

I've called svs and klipsch and i keep getting different answers re: setting. i've been told to keep sub levels on receiver at current spot and another rep telling me to increase it to 0db, and to adjust the gain on the sub dial itself.

I've been told to leave crossover for all speakers to 80 hz and someone will tell me to set the crossover to 20hz above the lowest range of the speaker.

I'm starting to think the bigger towers weren't necessary given the bigger subs. Just want to set this up as best i can. any and all input is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Edit:

Here are frequency responses for speakers per Klipsch spec sheets

Towers 32-25000 hz +/- 3db

Center 58-25000 hz +/- 3db

Surrounds 58-25000 hz +/- 3db

Surround rears 45-25000 hz +/- 3db

Atmos says they conform to Dolby Atmos specifications and crossover frequency is 2000 hz


----------



## drh3b

omk1980 said:


> klipsch rp-140sa x 4 as upfiring atmos speakers on my towers and rear surrounds.
> 
> I've run the audyssey setup wizard. They have my subs as -6.5 for sub 1 and -6 for sub 2. the crossover frequency for fronts is 40hz, center is 40, surrouds is 120hz, surround rear is 40 hz, front dolby is 120hz, and rear dolby is 110hz. they have the front towers set to large which i've switched to small.
> 
> I've called svs and klipsch and i keep getting different answers re: setting. i've been told to keep sub levels on receiver at current spot and another rep telling me to increase it to 0db, and to adjust the gain on the sub dial itself.
> 
> I've been told to leave crossover for all speakers to 80 hz and someone will tell me to set the crossover to 20hz above the lowest range of the speaker.
> 
> I'm starting to think the bigger towers weren't necessary given the bigger subs. Just want to set this up as best i can. any and all input is appreciated. Thanks in advance.


Set all the fronts to and rear surround to 80, unless you can localize the subs, then move them down to 60. Since you have the subs next to the towers, I find this unlikely with the fronts, anyway. The fronts can easily handle a lower crossover, but the subs sound better. The RP160m will have much lower output limits at 40, I wouldn't want them too low in any case.
You might not need such large towers, but I can tell you from personal experience with various Klipsch RP speakers is that the RP280f give you more headroom, even crossed at 80 Hz than lesser RP series speakers. In other words, their limits are much higher than even the next tower down, the RP260f. If you don't listen loudly, it might be unnecessary. Look at the bright side, with your setup, your ears will give up before your speakers will(maybe not the subwoofers, but the Klipsch will melt your ears before they give up).


----------



## omk1980

drh3b said:


> Set all the fronts to and rear surround to 80, unless you can localize the subs, then move them down to 60. Since you have the subs next to the towers, I find this unlikely with the fronts, anyway. The fronts can easily handle a lower crossover, but the subs sound better. The RP160m will have much lower output limits at 40, I wouldn't want them too low in any case.
> You might not need such large towers, but I can tell you from personal experience with various Klipsch RP speakers is that the RP280f give you more headroom, even crossed at 80 Hz than lesser RP series speakers. In other words, their limits are much higher than even the next tower down, the RP260f. If you don't listen loudly, it might be unnecessary. Look at the bright side, with your setup, your ears will give up before your speakers will(maybe not the subwoofers, but the Klipsch will melt your ears before they give up).


ok, so somewhere between 60-80hz for fronts, center, and rear surrounds? what about side surrounds and atmos?

Also, if i'm going to low on the crossover settings, am i neutering my dual svs subs?


----------



## drh3b

omk1980 said:


> ok, so somewhere between 60-80hz for fronts, center, and rear surrounds? what about side surrounds and atmos?
> 
> Also, if i'm going to low on the crossover settings, am i neutering my dual svs subs?


The ones that are already above 80 Hz, leave there. That means that Audyssey(or rather, the AVR, I believe) has ascertained they aren't effective below those points, and won't process those speakers below those points.
The center is really only supposed to go down to about 60 Hz, I'm mildly surprised that the AVR set a crossover of 40 Hz. The Rp280f will definitely play down to 40 Hz with some authority, but the SVS subs will sound cleaner, so you are wasting their abilities if you don't cross at 80 Hz. You can even try higher, 100 or 120, and go with what sounds best, but 80 Hz is a safe bet. You can go lower(not with the side surrounds or Atmos), but I would only do that if you are able to localize the subs, like I said, the subs are more capable than the towers below 80Hz(and maybe even higher).


----------



## mthomas47

omk1980 said:


> ok, so somewhere between 60-80hz for fronts, center, and rear surrounds? what about side surrounds and atmos?
> 
> Also, if i'm going to low on the crossover settings, am i neutering my dual svs subs?



Hi,

I agree completely with the advice that drh3b has already given you. There is a fairly clear explanation of what happens when you set crossovers in Section III of the Guide, linked in my signature. You will typically get very good results all the way around with an 80Hz crossover, and your towers will still be contributing somewhat to the overall sound, even below the crossover.

With respect to running your subwoofers hotter, I'm afraid you will often get varying advice (and frankly, bad advice) depending on who you talk to in tech support. Ed Mullen is the tech support engineer for SVS, and he would have told you to just leave your AVR sub trims at about -6, and add any subwoofer boosts with the gain controls on your subs. Just increase the gains symmetrically, so that the subs remain level-matched. Section II of the Guide addresses that issue in detail and explains why it's important to keep gain levels higher and AVR sub trim levels lower.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bobbyhollywood

I have used Audyssey with zero problems for many years, first on a Denon 5308 and now with a new Marantz 8012. I first set up the Marantz a few months ago with a 7.1.2 Atmos setup using a pair of Martin Logan up firing Atmos speakers.( My mains are Martin Logan Vignette wall speakers ) Setup went fine, but it became obvious over the next few months that the Atmos speakers did not reflect off my ceiling particularly well. I have replaced them with 4 Cambridge Audio MIN 12 mini speakers which I am able to position right below the ceiling directly above the four main left-right speakers.

However, I have now run Audyssey twice with the same disappointing results. Firstly, I can't raise the volume on my Totem Kin subwoofer high enough to match the 75db requested during the opening subwoofer setup. I match it as high as I can and then move on. But after two calibrations of the system, the dialogue on Atmos films has a pronounced echo effect and sounds muddier and quieter than it did on my previous calibration with the Martin Logans. My main test disc is Blade Runner 2049, but none of my discs sound like I know they should with Audyssey.

If I turn off Audyssey and just run Atmos through the basic system, the clarity of the sound returns and the 4 Atmos speakers pump out the proper signals when they're present. I do adjust the volume on them manually since they're smaller than my main speakers.

Any idea what I'm doing wrong ?


UPDATE - August 1 - Thanks to Mike (below) for nudging me towards the mic as the likely culprit. Marantz sent me a replacement free of charge and everything now works as it should.

Thanks, Mike !


----------



## mthomas47

bobbyhollywood said:


> I have used Audyssey with zero problems for many years, first on a Denon 5308 and now with a new Marantz 8012. I first set up the Marantz a few months ago with a 7.1.2 Atmos setup using a pair of Martin Logan up firing Atmos speakers.( My mains are Martin Logan Vignette wall speakers ) Setup went fine, but it became obvious over the next few months that the Atmos speakers did not reflect off my ceiling particularly well. I have replaced them with 4 Cambridge Audio MIN 12 mini speakers which I am able to position right below the ceiling directly above the four main left-right speakers.
> 
> However, I have now run Audyssey twice with the same disappointing results. Firstly, I can't raise the volume on my Totem Kin subwoofer high enough to match the 75db requested during the opening subwoofer setup. I match it as high as I can and then move on. But after two calibrations of the system, the dialogue on Atmos films has a pronounced echo effect and sounds muddier and quieter than it did on my previous calibration with the Martin Logans. My main test disc is Blade Runner 2049, but none of my discs sound like I know they should with Audyssey.
> 
> If I turn off Audyssey and just run Atmos through the basic system, the clarity of the sound returns and the 4 Atmos speakers pump out the proper signals when they're present. I do adjust the volume on them manually since they're smaller than my main speakers.
> 
> Any idea what I'm doing wrong ?



Hi,

I don't know that you are doing anything wrong at all, but Audyssey may be doing something it shouldn't. Assuming that nothing has changed in your calibration technique from your previous successful calibrations, I would look to the AVP, or to the microphone, as the source of the problem. If you have a spare Audyssey mic, perhaps from your older 5308, I would try calibrating with that.

A bad microphone was the first thing I thought of when you said that you couldn't raise the gain on your sub high enough to register as 75db. That is a very low volume level, and it suggests that your Audyssey microphone simply isn't hearing low-frequencies the way it should. That could also affect the sound from other speakers, if Audyssey boosts some low-frequencies to compensate for what it didn't hear during calibration. The Audyssey microphones can go bad, although so far, so good, with mine. But, I keep a spare microphone available, just in case. And, you should be able to use your warranty, or you can buy another one on Amazon.

The second thing you can try is several microprocessor resets with some time spaced between them. I don't really think that is likely to be the problem, in this case, but you never know what might be out of whack (that's a technical term ) with microprocessors. I hope that one of those suggestions helps.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bobbyhollywood

Thanks, Mike. I certainly suspected it might be a mic issue and your comments will send me in that direction to solve the problem. The mic worked fine during initial setup a few months ago, but who knows? The mic for the 5308 is long gone as I sold that unit when the new one arrived. Another telling issue is that the hard speaker claps used to calibrate often increased several times from the initial one indicating the initial tones were not loud enough for the mic to hear. They certainly sounded louder than I thought they had in previous calibrations.


----------



## PG55

Someone may have already asked this question however I can't seem to find much info about the Audyssey app? I have run the app using my ipad and then run the Audyssey from my Marantz sr5012 and all the results are identical except the speaker crossovers? Which are different for all except the sub. Does anyone have experience with the ihone/ipad app?


Thanks,
PG55


----------



## mogorf

PG55 said:


> Someone may have already asked this question however I can't seem to find much info about the Audyssey app? I have run the app using my ipad and then run the Audyssey from my Marantz sr5012 and all the results are identical except the speaker crossovers? Which are different for all except the sub. Does anyone have experience with the ihone/ipad app?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> PG55



What do you mean by "crossovers are different for all except the sub". The crossover frequency is the frequency where Bass Management crosses over bass from speaker to sub. It can not be different for speaker and sub.


----------



## PG55

Sorry for the confusing note. I meant that I am getting different crossover results from the ipad app vs. the Marantz Audyssey tool.
Crossovers
App AVR
Front 120 100
Center 60 60
surround 200 150


I am wondering which is more accurate? The app or the tool in the AVR?


----------



## drh3b

PG55 said:


> Sorry for the confusing note. I meant that I am getting different crossover results from the ipad app vs. the Marantz Audyssey tool.
> Crossovers
> App AVR
> Front 120 100
> Center 60 60
> surround 200 150
> 
> 
> I am wondering which is more accurate? The app or the tool in the AVR?


The AVR. The App doesn't work as well for some as others. I get the same results with either, but plenty of people get different results. As time goes on, the app gets better, but obviously still has a ways to go.


----------



## audiofan1

I get the same results I got with the Marantz 8802 (no app) and via the 8805 but with the app


----------



## mogorf

PG55 said:


> Sorry for the confusing note. I meant that I am getting different crossover results from the ipad app vs. the Marantz Audyssey tool.
> Crossovers
> App AVR
> Front 120 100
> Center 60 60
> surround 200 150
> 
> 
> I am wondering which is more accurate? The app or the tool in the AVR?



Gotcha! Are you running the latest version of the app? Its been upgraded recently to ver. 1.3.2.


----------



## garygarrison

_
_
_
_
_Is anybody there?_* *


----------



## Alan P




----------



## Francesion

*FR unchanged regardless of setting 'Large' or 'Small'*

Hi

I'm measuring the same frequency response in my front L/R speakers regardless of whether they are set 'Large' or 'Small' in the Audyssey 'Manual' settings.

The graph shows a comparison of the Front Left speaker; first set to Large and then to Small. I did the measurements with REW, using the headphone jack and a Y cable connected to AUX1 on Denon X4000 front panel, input set to Stereo.

To make certain speaker the was set to Small for the second measurement I made these 4 changes to in Setup menu:
1. Audio/Audyssey/MultEQ XT32/Reference
2. Speakers/Manual Setup/Speaker Configuration/Front=Small
3. Speakers/Manual Setup/Crossovers/Front=80Hz
4. 2Channel/Playback/Front=Small

The graphs are identical apart from the slightly different smoothings to separate the lines.

It seems to me that the Denon is still sending bass below the crossover to the front speaker, regardless of settings. I still wonder if I'm missing something obvious or if indeed the Bass Management system is faulty.

Ion


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Check to make sure you do not have LFE+Main turned on in the AVR.

Make sure you back out of the speaker setting menu when changing from Large to Small for the change to take effect.

To make absolutely certain you are measuring only the speakers, turn the subs off during measurement sweeps.


----------



## garygarrison

Francesion said:


> Hi
> 
> I did the measurements with REW, using the headphone jack and a Y cable connected to AUX1 on Denon X4000 front panel, input set to Stereo.



If Alan's recommendations don't fix it, please clarify the above wiring, especially the use of the headphone jack. I may be way off-base, but the headphone jack/circuit may be wired to ignore "Small" v.s. "Large," since one doesn't normally use a subwoofer (or Front Speakers) when listening on headphones.


Do you have pre-outs?


----------



## Alan P

^^^

I am assuming he meant that he is using the headphone jack on his laptop for output, which should be fine.


----------



## mthomas47

I have been thinking about something lately (which is always dangerous ) that I wanted to share with some other experienced thread members. We know that the way Audyssey is designed to work is that it measures the frequency response of all channels, and where a transducer (speaker or subwoofer) rolls-off naturally at 3db, Audyssey stops setting control points.

We have also seen and heard anecdotally, that Audyssey has in some instances, continued to set taps below the measured roll-off point. I think I understand how that may happen, and want to see if someone else can spot a flaw in my thinking. Audyssey is using a 75db test tone for all of the channels, and it's measuring from 22KHz down to 10Hz. So, the measurement range is sufficiently broad. But, I started to wonder about that 75db test tone. That's enough SPL to notice some roll-off for many speakers, but is it really enough SPL to accurately determine roll-off for many subwoofers?

To double-check my thinking, I looked at some frequency response graphs of subwoofers measured at 2m ground plane. And, I deliberately looked at some very small subwoofers. An example is the SVS SB1000, a small sealed subwoofer. That subwoofer was tested by SVS, using a 90db test tone, and you can see the gradual roll-off that begins a little below 30Hz. That's a quasi-anechoic measurement, so the subwoofer would do better in a room. But, if we were to drop the volume of the test tone to 75db, the subwoofer would not start to roll-off until somewhere around 20Hz. You can put a ruler (or piece of paper) at the 75db level and see what I mean in the image on the page linked below. (Apparently you have to click on View All Tech Info, each time.)

https://www.svsound.com/collections/1000-series/products/sb-1000

Now, as noted previously, room gain is going to add back a few decibels (or many in a small room) so that the natural roll-off point will already be lower than it was quasi-anechoically at 90db. So, there shouldn't typically be an 8 or 10db difference due to dropping down to a 75db test tone. But, there would still have to be some difference wouldn't there? That's because the subwoofer's natural roll-off just wouldn't occur at the same frequency, with such a low volume level as the 75db test tone produces. It would take louder volumes to properly illustrate the natural roll-off characteristics of many subwoofers.

Am I missing anything here, or will Audyssey inevitably be EQing below the F3 point in some instances, and especially with subwoofers? I know that, at one time, all of our HT systems were calibrated with an 85db test tone. But, that was abandoned in favor of a 75db test tone, because the 85db tones were too loud. Heck, the 75db test tones can sound very loud if we aren't used to them. But, I wonder if we gave up a little accuracy sometimes in setting speaker crossovers, and almost certainly in measuring where to stop setting control points for subwoofers, when we went to the 75db test tones?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Doesn't the slope of the roll off remain constant regardless of SPL??


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Doesn't the slope of the roll off remain constant regardless of SPL??



Perhaps it does, Alan. I just looked at some compression graphs and the slope is constant. But, I've never seen compression graphs done at 75db. Still, your point is probably valid. If the slope doesn't change at higher volumes, then it shouldn't at lower ones either. Oh well, just a thought (and obviously not a very good one).


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Doesn't the slope of the roll off remain constant regardless of SPL??



Agree! For a speaker there is no such a thing like DEQ, it should be constant regardless of SPL coz its frequency response vs. SPL is always linear. Well, up to the point where noise floor chimes in. But at 85 dB and even at 75 dB the - 3 dB pont at 82 dB or 72 dB will give sufficient results. Those SPLs are way above a rooom's noise floor.


----------



## garygarrison

Mike, your SVS link wouldn't take me anywhere (naturally!)


Perhaps compression is the key word.


It was commonplace, in the past, to speak of the usable bass extension going lower at lower SPL. Here is an excerpt from a 1963 review of what we would call a front speaker (i.e. not a subwoofer) in High Fidelity magazine. "The bass extended smoothly to well below 30 cycles [Hz to any young'uns reading this], with doubling occurring at about 20 to 23 cycles *depending on how hard the system was driven.* *At lower amplifier levels, the bass response actually went below 20 cps* [cycles per second -- Hz again].



Speaking of anecdotal, try this*: *back in the day, with a sufficiently bad, say 4" woofer, to hear the deepest bass (or the deep*er* bass) in "Also Sprach Zarathustra," or in "In the Hall of the Mountain King," or in "The Engulfed Cathedral," one had to turn the SPL *way down* and put one's ears within an inch or so of the speaker. It was amazing how deep that bass would go. With a test disk one such speaker (in a semi-open backed baffle) I had experience with, listened to from across the big room would seem to roll off precipitously at about 150 Hz (as I remember from the 1970s), but hung on down to about, maybe, 60 Hz -- significantly lower, anyway, when my ear was up against it, at very, very low SPL. If anybody has such a speaker, give it a try, but the source matters. Deep bass is routinely shaved off of most commercial recordings of Pop, Rock, Metal, and several other genres, with Jazz and Orchestral faring the best. If you'd like, look at the graphs, here*: 
*
https://community.klipsch.com/index...-restore-tracks/&tab=comments#comment-1831930


So, the F3 might be lower at 75 dB than at, say, 115 dB .... and might it be lower, as you originally suspected, at 75 dB than at 85 dB??


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mike, your SVS link wouldn't take me anywhere (naturally!)
> 
> Perhaps compression is the key word.
> 
> It was commonplace, in the past, to speak of the usable bass extension going lower at lower SPL. Here is an excerpt from a 1963 review of what we would call a front speaker (i.e. not a subwoofer) in High Fidelity magazine. "The bass extended smoothly to well below 30 cycles [Hz to any young'uns reading this], with doubling occurring at about 20 to 23 cycles *depending on how hard the system was driven.* *At lower amplifier levels, the bass response actually went below 20 cps* [cycles per second -- Hz again].
> 
> Speaking of anecdotal, try this*: *back in the day, with a sufficiently bad, say 4" woofer, to hear the deepest bass (or the deep*er* bass) in "Also Sprach Zarathustra," or in "In the Hall of the Mountain King," or in "The Engulfed Cathedral," one had to turn the SPL *way down* and put one's ears within an inch or so of the speaker. It was amazing how deep that bass would go. With a test disk one such speaker (in a semi-open backed baffle) I had experience with, listened to from across the big room would seem to roll off precipitously at about 150 Hz (as I remember from the 1970s), but hung on down to about, maybe, 60 Hz -- significantly lower, anyway, when my ear was up against it, at very, very low SPL. If anybody has such a speaker, give it a try, but the source matters. Deep bass is routinely shaved off of most commercial recordings of Pop, Rock, Metal, and several other genres, with Jazz and Orchestral faring the best. If you'd like, look at the graphs, here*:
> *
> https://community.klipsch.com/index...-restore-tracks/&tab=comments#comment-1831930
> 
> So, the F3 might be lower at 75 dB than at, say, 115 dB .... and might it be lower, as you originally suspected, at 75 dB than at 85 dB??



Hi Gary,

I just don't think that links like you.  It works fine for me when I click on it in my post. Never mind! I have, at best, a neutral relationship with my own computer. 

You bring up an interesting point, although I'm still not sure that the fundamental shape of the slope would change. But, I still like your point about hearing lower frequencies playing very softly. I forget sometimes that sealed transducers (both speakers and subs) can just keep going down in frequency response, although at lower-and-lower volumes. I remember a few years ago, a friend of mine telling me about something she tried with her custom Bozak B-302A's (in larger cabinets she had made for them). Those sealed speakers have a single 12" woofer. She said that she played descending test tones through them, and was able to hear a 16db test tone quite distinctly. 

She didn't like loud volumes. She even wore noise-reducing ear plugs when she went to some symphony concerts. So, she would probably have been playing a very soft test tone--perhaps only about 15db or so above the noise floor in her room. Let's say about 60db. But, I still remember being very impressed. Of course, during normal listening, even at low volumes, those very low-frequencies would have been pretty effectively masked by higher frequencies. But, they would still have been present, even if they couldn't audibly contribute anything. 

At some point, very low-frequencies do provide some additional weight to the sound, even when we can't hear them as distinct sounds. In this context, I might define very low-frequencies as about


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mthomas47 said:


> I remember a few years ago, a friend of mine telling me about something she tried with her custom Bozak B-302A's (in larger cabinets she had made for them). Those sealed speakers have a single 12" woofer. She said that she played descending test tones through them, and was able to hear a 16db test tone quite distinctly.


More likely she was hearing doubling overtones.


----------



## Francesion

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> Check to make sure you do not have LFE+Main turned on in the AVR.
> 
> Make sure you back out of the speaker setting menu when changing from Large to Small for the change to take effect.
> 
> To make absolutely certain you are measuring only the speakers, turn the subs off during measurement sweeps.


Thanks. I double-checked; the subs are set to LFE and NOT LFE+Main. Also, the subs were indeed turned off during the measurements. WRT 'backing out' of setting menu; I didn't see a 'Save' button; I just returned to top level menu.

Has anyone else tried to measure their speaker as Large then Small to compare the results? I want to ensure that my results are anomalous and there isn't a wider system bug.


----------



## mthomas47

Kal Rubinson said:


> More likely she was hearing doubling overtones.



It's certainly possible, but I believe that she played each tone distinctly, with plenty of separation time between them. FWIW, she is extremely experienced and knowledgeable. Among other things, she is the official Bozak historian for the Bozak Group. And, as I know you know, those B199 woofers are very capable, especially in a large cabinet volume. So, I was inclined to believe her.

Edit: I think it is physically possible that she heard a 16Hz test tone at about 60db. I was just looking for some comparative compression graphs for small sealed subwoofers. The SVS SB12-NSD was able to produce 71db at 10Hz, in a cubic volume that would have been just a fraction of that of the Bozak speaker--perhaps about 1/4 of the volume. The little guy was being pushed hard at that point, but even backing down the volume somewhat, it did 13Hz at 71db.

Of course, the motor strength and excursion would have been much greater in the subwoofer, and so would the available amp power, so the comparison is a little bit apples to oranges. But, I think that the difference between 16Hz and 10Hz (or 13Hz), and the difference between ~60db and 71db, is enough to make the comparison credible. 

Incidentally, I have read some research that suggests that we can hear individual test tones in isolation, at frequencies


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mthomas47 said:


> It's certainly possible, but I believe that she played each tone distinctly, with plenty of separation time between them. FWIW, she is extremely experienced and knowledgeable. Among other things, she is the official Bozak historian for the Bozak Group. And, as I know you know, those B199 woofers are very capable, especially in a large cabinet volume. So, I was inclined to believe her.


"Those sealed speakers have a single 12" woofer." I am skeptical that a single B199 can do it.


----------



## garygarrison

Kal Rubinson said:


> More likely she was hearing doubling overtones.





mthomas47 said:


> It's certainly possible, but I believe that she played each tone distinctly, with plenty of separation time between them. FWIW, she is extremely experienced and knowledgeable. Among other things, she is the official Bozak historian for the Bozak Group. And, as I know you know, those B199 woofers are very capable, especially in a large cabinet volume. So, I was inclined to believe her.
> 
> Edit: I think it is physically possible that she heard a 16Hz test tone at about 60db. I was just looking for some comparative compression graphs for small sealed subwoofers. The SVS SB12-NSD was able to produce 71db at 10Hz, in a cubic volume that would have been just a fraction of that of the Bozak speaker--perhaps about 1/4 of the volume. The little guy was being pushed hard at that point, but even backing down the volume somewhat, it did 13Hz at 71db.
> 
> Of course, the motor strength and excursion would have been much greater in the subwoofer, and so would the available amp power, so the comparison is a little bit apples to oranges. But, I think that the difference between 16Hz and 10Hz (or 13Hz), and the difference between ~60db and 71db, is enough to make the comparison credible.
> 
> Incidentally, I have read some research that suggests that we can hear individual test tones in isolation, at frequencies


----------



## drunkpenguin

Dumb Audyssey question.

Im upgrading my theater receiver which means my old one is getting moved to the living room. The living room is just a 2.1 setup with in-walls but I'd like to run Audyssey on it anyways. The problem is the mic won't reach since the AV gear is in another room.

If I put the receiver in the living room temp style and run some longer speaker cables (maybe 20') and then put the receiver back when done with shorter cables, that shouldnt effect the results should it? 

Also, for a 2.1 setup is it even worth all the trouble?


----------



## Alan P

drunkpenguin said:


> Dumb Audyssey question.
> 
> Im upgrading my theater receiver which means my old one is getting moved to the living room. The living room is just a 2.1 setup with in-walls but I'd like to run Audyssey on it anyways. The problem is the mic won't reach since the AV gear is in another room.
> 
> If I put the receiver in the living room temp style and run some longer speaker cables (maybe 20') and then put the receiver back when done with shorter cables, that shouldnt effect the results should it?
> 
> Also, for a 2.1 setup is it even worth all the trouble?


I would say it's probably not worth _that much_ trouble, especially considering your old AVR only has MultEQ. You can get an extension cable for the mic..._that _would probably be much less trouble.


----------



## drunkpenguin

My living room is the worst place on the planet for sound tho. It's large and open, wood floors, high ceilings, metal art on the walls, opens to the kitchen, windows everywhere, etc. I thought maybe I might be able to tame a small amount of the problems that room has. But like I said, its not the critical listening room so if you think the returns would be small at best I may not mess with it.


----------



## BRAC

Hello All,

I just added an Emotiva XPA3 GEN3 for my front 3 channels. I do have every intention of running new measurements, but my question is, is there an immediate need? Can I get away without for now. It can be a real challenge to get some alone/quiet time in my household to get through process. Lol

Has anyone noticed any significant difference in gain/volume after adding an external amp, versus the volume from AVR’s internal amps prior to rerunning Audyssey?

Much appreciated!


----------



## Alan P

drunkpenguin said:


> My living room is the worst place on the planet for sound tho. It's large and open, wood floors, high ceilings, metal art on the walls, opens to the kitchen, windows everywhere, etc. I thought maybe I might be able to tame a small amount of the problems that room has. But like I said, its not the critical listening room so if you think the returns would be small at best I may not mess with it.


If it was me, I would probably just set the distances (tape measure) and speaker trims (SPL meter) manually, then adjust the graphic EQ by ear.


----------



## Alan P

BRAC said:


> Hello All,
> 
> I just added an Emotiva XPA3 GEN3 for my front 3 channels. I do have every intention of running new measurements, but my question is, is there an immediate need? Can I get away without for now. It can be a real challenge to get some alone/quiet time in my household to get through process. Lol
> 
> Has anyone noticed any significant difference in gain/volume after adding an external amp, versus the volume from AVR’s internal amps prior to rerunning Audyssey?
> 
> Much appreciated!


If you have an SPL meter, you could just adjust the trims for the front three channels back to 75dB and no need to re-run Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

drunkpenguin said:


> My living room is the worst place on the planet for sound tho. It's large and open, wood floors, high ceilings, metal art on the walls, opens to the kitchen, windows everywhere, etc. I thought maybe I might be able to tame a small amount of the problems that room has. But like I said, its not the critical listening room so if you think the returns would be small at best I may not mess with it.


IMO, all listening is at least somewhat critical, but not in the sense that you have to try hard, but when music reaches out and grabs you with its textures, inner voices and dynamics. It would be a shame for reflections to overwhelm that process. 

A room like yours can sometimes be improved by*:*


Using thick, slip proof, area carpets. You don't have to anywhere near cover the floor.
If you have Venetian blinds slant them so they act as acoustic diffusers, breaking up the specular reflections from the window glass, either directing the now-variegated reflections to the now partly carpeted floor, or toward the high ceiling. It is probably good that your ceiling is high.
Put in some drapes, the thicker the better, heavy velour.
What are the dimensions of the room (including height)?
Consider putting in a few conventional absorbers and diffusers, if they complement your art works. Consider putting them at the first reflection points. Or not. This used to be a revealed law of physics, but is now becoming controversial. Your ears will tell. You want to get rid of most specular (mirror-like) reflections. Diffuse reflections are pretty much O.K., and may even be pleasant and help the room to sound more "musical" and larger. Or not.










If you can do all or part of this, it may improve the sound quite a bit. If you then use Audyssey, it will have a better chance of making an improvement. Some acoustically bright rooms are good.

I once had a very live room that -- at first -- everyone agreed had poor acoustics. It became the best sounding room I ever had. Unfortunately, we sold the house. One 10 foot by 15 foot Persian rug that covered about 1/2 of the floor area almost completely fixed the problem. The rest of the cure was tilting the Venetian blinds. I never had Audyssey in that house. A large, uneven brick fireplace served as an excellent diffuser.


I'd love to see the metal art work on your walls. Do you have pictures you could post? Is it art you have done? Selected?


Gary


----------



## rajugsw

*Bose and Audyssey - Please not hate posts*

Confession : I am a cone and domes kinda guy but after reading all the Bose hate on's, I decided to swap out my homebrew towers, dipolar surrounds, car amp powered Subwoofer and my trusty center channel with....wait for it...Bose !

I wanted a pair of 901's but they are no longer being sold through Bose retailers (i know...I know) and didn't want to take a chance on a used pair with matching equaizer (but I almost did and am still on the prowel for a pair with the intent to refurbish/restore and replace key components in the eq with better caps/resisitors.

I now am the the proud owner of Bose 251's for the L & R, an F1 Subwoofer, and three 151se's for the center and surrounds. Truth be told, they sounded like **** when set on "Pure Direct" mode om my Marantz SR5011. My homebrew cones and domes setup sounded great ( to my Proggy Rock and Roll ears) in Direct Mode (Sub on) and Pure Direct (Sub off). I only ran Audyssey to fix any level mismatch, no Eq.

First run of Audyessy using the $20 app revealed the Bose midrange "dip". Sound improved but was a bit harsh and muddy (kinda like cranking the treble and bass knobs when we were kids...we're all guilty). With the stylus on my Wife's 12.9" iPad, I flattened the peaks and valleys through the midrange region leading up to the treble without rolling off the highs as sharply as the original curve displayed. I can't believe the improvement ! The twiddlers sound more like a real point source (dare I say KEF, Fostex, and the like) and the "stereo everywhere" of the angles 251 twiddlers combined with the "articulated array" of the 151se surround, gives the system a real "outside the boxes" stereo image. While I like listening to a true focused stereo image, the out into your room sound is truly what I prefer even when listening to BeBop Jazz, Fusion Jazz, Classic & Prog Rock. Classical music too did not sound thin either.

Do I miss I homebrew ? Ya, maybe but my wife doesn't miss the big boxes setup in our apartment living room. One day I'll get either an elusive set of 901's or better yet B & W 800 series matching bookshelves for the front three and the same bookshelves for the surrounds slightly toed in.

As everyone on these know's Bose stands for "Bad On Stage Equalization" but at least I didn't return them before the 30 day trial period.

Again no negative Bose Bashing please....I'm happy and yes I have heard better but can't afford it at this time.


----------



## drunkpenguin

Well, when I say art I mean mostly Hobby Lobby stuff. We're not art collectors or anything. Heres a pic of the livingroom and the 1 piece of metal art thats my favorite. This one we actually bought from a local guy at a craft fair. 

But don't read my post wrong. I'm not at all interested in improving the acoustics of the living room. I have a dedicated theater where all thats been done. I just figure if an Audyssey capable receiver is going into the living room for the first time I might as well use it. Today I just hooked up the receiver temp style in the living room so the mic would reach the couches and ran it real quick. Tomorrow I'll get everything hooked up into the AV closet and see how it sounds. It should beat old the old receiver anyways. 

My real questions will start coming when my new receiver shows up for the theater. It will be my first with x32 so I'm sure I'll have some questions for you guys along the way.


----------



## garygarrison

BRAC said:


> Has anyone noticed any significant difference in gain/volume after adding an external amp, versus the volume from AVR’s internal amps prior to rerunning Audyssey?
> 
> Much appreciated!



The relative volume (Sound Pressure Level, SPL) could go either up or down, depending on the sensitivity of the inputs on the external (power) amp. The point of adding an external amp is not to increase SPL per se, but increase headroom, or the SPL of occasional peaks way above the average level, without annoying distortion or amplifier clipping distortion, which could blow out a speaker, especially a tweeter. 

Even though I usually play (classical) music at what I perceive to be orchestral level, an SPL meter would be reading about 75 to 90 dB during loud passages almost all of the time. Very occasionally, the SPL will peak at 100 dB (only twice during the magnificent Brahms Requiem conducted by Levine I am playing right now in 5 channel from a SACD). But, "the blood stirring level of a live symphony orchestra" (Paul Klipsch, who recorded and measured them for the fun of it) can reach very brief peaks of 115 dB, maybe higher. With speakers of average sensitivity (90 db/2.83v/1m) most AVRs wouldn't have a chance of getting there in a large living room or HT. Many external amps would, and at lower distortion. That's why I have external amps, even though I have front speakers of somewhere between 101 dB and 105 dB sensitivity, depending on who's measuring them, and how.


----------



## argentum246

Hello Experts,
With so much in-depth analysis as visible in posts above, I think this might be good place to ask questions wrt to Audyssey EqXT.

I have Denon x6200 with polk rti and center with SVS pb2000 sub. After a relocation, my Audyssey stopped working. It says speaker detect error, which is not true as i am able to hear the polks just fine with all the manual calibration. I did all types of resets on receiver many times. Even got another Audyssey mic. These mics work just fine on another receiver but not this one. So i suspect issue with receiver here. Spoke to a tech guy and he said system board needs replacement that costs around $1200 here !!that's not worth. Denon said to bring this unit to US for checkup and they shall fix the issue- which is not possible for me. I have set the parameters manually but i am not sure if i am getting the desired sound. I heard a lot about the Audyssey setup app but not sure if it uses its own logic to read and create best settings that i can use to re calibrate the speakers. In other words I wanted to know if the app uses phone's mic to read the testtones and then apply its logic and tell me settings (just like audyssey does on receiver ) that i can apply to the receiver hence bypassing the receiver's audyssey calibration completely. Is it even possible? Any other thoughts / recommendations / alternate suggestions are welcome.


----------



## drh3b

argentum246 said:


> Hello Experts,
> With so much in-depth analysis as visible in posts above, I think this might be good place to ask questions wrt to Audyssey EqXT.
> 
> I have Denon x6200 with polk rti and center with SVS pb2000 sub. After a relocation, my Audyssey stopped working. It says speaker detect error, which is not true as i am able to hear the polks just fine with all the manual calibration. I did all types of resets on receiver many times. Even got another Audyssey mic. These mics work just fine on another receiver but not this one. So i suspect issue with receiver here. Spoke to a tech guy and he said system board needs replacement that costs around $1200 here !!that's not worth. Denon said to bring this unit to US for checkup and they shall fix the issue- which is not possible for me. I have set the parameters manually but i am not sure if i am getting the desired sound. I heard a lot about the Audyssey setup app but not sure if it uses its own logic to read and create best settings that i can use to re calibrate the speakers. In other words I wanted to know if the app uses phone's mic to read the testtones and then apply its logic and tell me settings (just like audyssey does on receiver ) that i can apply to the receiver hence bypassing the receiver's audyssey calibration completely. Is it even possible? Any other thoughts / recommendations / alternate suggestions are welcome.


Try a microprocessor reset, or several in a row. Also, try unplugging the receiver overnight(soft reset).
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...ner-s-thread-faq-hdcp-2-2-a.html#post34728977

The app uses the receivers mike, not the phone or tablets. It does use its own logic, but it gets its data from the receiver.


----------



## argentum246

drh3b said:


> Try a microprocessor reset, or several in a row. Also, try unplugging the receiver overnight(soft reset).
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...ner-s-thread-faq-hdcp-2-2-a.html#post34728977
> 
> The app uses the receivers mike, not the phone or tablets. It does use its own logic, but it gets its data from the receiver.


I did all possible resets you mentioned and also soft reset but none helped. fact is..it worked fine before relocation not sure what broke up. Wish Audyssey sold its kits as separate hardware for ppl to try in case their systems do not have audyssey or it is not acting properly.


----------



## drh3b

argentum246 said:


> I did all possible resets you mentioned and also soft reset but none helped. fact is..it worked fine before relocation not sure what broke up. Wish Audyssey sold its kits as separate hardware for ppl to try in case their systems do not have audyssey or it is not acting properly.


Yeah, you said you did, I don't see how I missed that.  DO IT AGAIN UNTIL IT WORKS! 
Sounds like you've done as much as you can do. 
I think actually they did sell external units years ago. Not sure if they were still selling them when XT32 came out. But, they would cost almost as much as the replacement part. I think the external Dirac units cost thousandish.

Not sure what's available in your country, but here it is clearance season on various Marantz and Denon receivers, and for that money, it would make more sense to get a used or clearance receiver rather than spend $1200 on a repair.
Currently on clearance here, maybe worth checking into
Denon x3400h
Marantz SR6012
Soon:
Denon X4400h


----------



## Kal Rubinson

argentum246 said:


> I did all possible resets you mentioned and also soft reset but none helped. fact is..it worked fine before relocation not sure what broke up. Wish Audyssey sold its kits as separate hardware for ppl to try in case their systems do not have audyssey or it is not acting properly.


They used to sell it separately> I still have one in my basement.


----------



## Aliens

Using a Denon X4400H with SPL meter set to C-weight, slow, 80dB. Master volume set to 0dB.

After running Audyssey and using reference for several months, I decided to run the manual test today to see what kind of readings I would come up with. Is it normal to have an 11 point swing? As an example: Front left went from Audyssey's -4.0, to manual +7.0. Can this be correct? I have yet to play any music or videos to hear how this plays out.


----------



## Alan P

Aliens said:


> Using a Denon X4400H with SPL meter set to C-weight, slow, 80dB. Master volume set to 0dB.
> 
> After running Audyssey and using reference for several months, I decided to run the manual test today to see what kind of readings I would come up with. Is it normal to have an 11 point swing? As an example: Front left went from Audyssey's -4.0, to manual +7.0. Can this be correct? I have yet to play any music or videos to hear how this plays out.


Are you setting the speakers to 75dB? If so, that is quite a swing...

However, you should not be using the AVR's internal test tones to set speaker levels as they are not passed through the EQ filters that Audyssey set. Typically, this will account for a few dB of 'swing', your case is rare though. Try some external test tones (REW works great for this, or you can download them, or YouTube).


----------



## Aliens

Alan P said:


> Are you setting the speakers to 75dB? If so, that is quite a swing...
> 
> However, you should not be using the AVR's internal test tones to set speaker levels as they are not passed through the EQ filters that Audyssey set. Typically, this will account for a few dB of 'swing', your case is rare though. Try some external test tones (REW works great for this, or you can download them, or YouTube).



I was using the internal test tones, so I guess that accounts for the wide swing. If you are not supposed to use the internal test tones, then why are they in the manual setup to begin with? I have the Disney WOW I can use. Thanks, Alan.


----------



## Alan P

No problem.

There is a caveat with the WOW disc as well. See this post (by the producer of the Disney WOW disc, @RBFilms ) and the subsequent posts in that thread for some info on why the 3dB difference.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/150-...isney-improve-your-hd-pix-5.html#post20340114


----------



## Aliens

Aliens said:


> I have the Disney WOW I can use.



Turns out I don't know how to do this. I can get the disc to display and run the test tones, but I can't figure out how to get 'into' the Denon to make the changes.


----------



## Alan P

Aliens said:


> Turns out I don't know how to do this. I can get the disc to display and run the test tones, but I can't figure out how to get 'into' the Denon to make the changes.


You have to change the trim settings in the same place as when you use the internal tones. It's kind of a pain because you can't do it "on the fly" with external tones; you have to open TEST TONE, make the change, then back out to see where you are...lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## drunkpenguin

Question for everybody, I already asked Alan this question but he wasnt sure as it's kind of a weird deal, but maybe someone here has some experience. I have 2 SVS PC13 Ultras and I suspect one of them might be wired backwards internally as I had to reverse the phase on it before the 2 sounded good together. It was a refurbed sub so I think the odds are pretty good that its backwards. It sounds great this way, but this weekend I'll be recalibrating with a more modern receiver that supports XT32. Should I leave the 2 subs out of phase with each other before running calibration or should I put them both back to zero and let Audyssey try to sort it out?

I replace a driver in a PC13 one time and it was kinda tough so I don't wanna open it up again to verify if I don't have to.


----------



## garygarrison

drunkpenguin said:


> Question for everybody, I already asked Alan this question but he wasnt sure as it's kind of a weird deal, but maybe someone here has some experience. I have 2 SVS PC13 Ultras and I suspect one of them might be wired backwards internally as I had to reverse the phase on it before the 2 sounded good together. It was a refurbed sub so I think the odds are pretty good that its backwards. It sounds great this way, but this weekend I'll be recalibrating with a more modern receiver that supports XT32. Should I leave the 2 subs out of phase with each other before running calibration or should I put them both back to zero and let Audyssey try to sort it out?
> 
> I replace a driver in a PC13 one time and it was kinda tough so I don't wanna open it up again to verify if I don't have to.



Someone here will remember what Audyssey (Chris K) said about Audyssey adjusting phase at multiple points, rather than just one overall adjustment that the sub switch makes. *Anyone? * That may have a bearing on whether you should leave the subs as they are when running Audyssey.


The switch on the sub may be marked "Phase," but it might be better to think of it as "Polarity." When you threw the switch you reversed the polarity. http://totalproaudio.stevebunting.com/30/basics/phase-or-polarity/


----------



## Soulburner

drunkpenguin said:


> Question for everybody, I already asked Alan this question but he wasnt sure as it's kind of a weird deal, but maybe someone here has some experience. I have 2 SVS PC13 Ultras and I suspect one of them might be wired backwards internally as I had to reverse the phase on it before the 2 sounded good together. It was a refurbed sub so I think the odds are pretty good that its backwards. It sounds great this way, but this weekend I'll be recalibrating with a more modern receiver that supports XT32. Should I leave the 2 subs out of phase with each other before running calibration or should I put them both back to zero and let Audyssey try to sort it out?
> 
> I replace a driver in a PC13 one time and it was kinda tough so I don't wanna open it up again to verify if I don't have to.


With my recent experience, both subs need to be set to the same phase before running Audyssey. If you don't, you may end up with a bad phase cancellation somewhere. I couldn't get integration before I set them both to 0. Let Audyssey handle it, but measure to verify. Then do the "sub distance tweak" as needed to blend with your crossover. But keep in mind that is adjusting their combined delay, not individual delays.


----------



## Totemtimer

So I’ve read through the guide 3 times now and it’s so helpful. But, I need to confirm a few things.i am not doing single seat set up, I would like the LP to be my 2 seat sofa. So I lined up the middle of the couch with the middle of the center speaker. So, my first mic placement will be in the middle of the sofa. But will one of the suggested placements from the guide give me quality sound for both seats?The part I’m stuck on is if moving the mic 3 inches for the remaining 7 placements will be enough to get the best sound for my entire couch. Perhaps my change in direction per mic placement needs to be greater?I’m attaching a screen shot of the placement I plan on using and did use for my recliner set up. It is a Best Image clarity and good frequency response set up.
Thank you 
Logan










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

Soulburner said:


> With my recent experience, both subs need to be set to the same phase before running Audyssey. If you don't, you may end up with a bad phase cancellation somewhere. I couldn't get integration before I set them both to 0. Let Audyssey handle it, but measure to verify. Then do the "sub distance tweak" as needed to blend with your crossover. But keep in mind that is adjusting their combined delay, not individual delays.


 Yup! this is the way to do it,as I did so a week ago with REW and to be honest it was pretty easy


----------



## mthomas47

Totemtimer said:


> So I’ve read through the guide 3 times now and it’s so helpful. But, I need to confirm a few things.i am not doing single seat set up, I would like the LP to be my 2 seat sofa. So I lined up the middle of the couch with the middle of the center speaker. So, my first mic placement will be in the middle of the sofa. But will one of the suggested placements from the guide give me quality sound for both seats?The part I’m stuck on is if moving the mic 3 inches for the remaining 7 placements will be enough to get the best sound for my entire couch. Perhaps my change in direction per mic placement needs to be greater?I’m attaching a screen shot of the placement I plan on using and did use for my recliner set up. It is a Best Image clarity and good frequency response set up.
> Thank you
> Logan
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi Logan,

I am not sure what guide you are referring to, but using such a close mic pattern as the one described in your post may or may not work well for you. In general, slightly tighter mic patterns produce a more uniform response across a wider area. How tight does the mic pattern need to be to produce good results in a particular room, though, is the real question. I'll admit that I am a little skeptical about recommending quite that tight a pattern for multiple seats, but who knows?

I think that the first thing to understand about doing Audyssey calibrations is that some individual experimentation may be required. There really isn't such a thing as a universal mic pattern which will work well for every system, in every room. Audyssey recommends going out no more than 24" in any direction. I like going out about 10 to 12" to each side and about twice that forward. What will actually work best for you is something that you will have to discover through trial-and-error.

There is a subsection on Audyssey calibration tips in Section I of the Guide, linked in my signature. You may find that Section especially useful to help you get started. But, you may still need to experiment a bit to discover what works best in your room.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## velocci

Hi all, I have the demon avrx3400h. So far I only have my front left and right speakers. Should I still run the odyssey calibration?


----------



## mogorf

velocci said:


> Hi all, I have the demon avrx3400h. So far I only have my front left and right speakers. Should I still run the odyssey calibration?



Yes, definitely. Audyssey works fine for any number of speakers.


----------



## drunkpenguin

Well I had to run it twice. The first time I tried setting both speakers to 0 and had the same original problem with the subs cancelling each other out. So I put one on 180 and re ran it. I then adjusted levels with an SPL meter and changed the crossover on my mains from 60 to 80. Sounds fantastic to me. I dont think Im gonna need to "play" much more beyond this.


----------



## GaryWorth

I need a bit of help! I use 2 JBL synthesis S1S sub-woofers in my theater, both of them up front behind the AT screen wall facing the listeners. The problem I am having is when I run Audyssey 32XT it is giving me an error on the sub-woofers and will not continue. Both subs work fine and are producing house pounding bass, is there a known way to resolve this issue? Also I am mentioning that I have followed the troubleshooting steps in the FAQ.


----------



## tonybradley

*1 or 2 SVS Subs*

I have a new Denon X3400H that includes Audyssey XT32 with two Sub outputs.

For many, many years, I've used my SVS PB12-NSD Subwoofer. I have another Subwoofer I've actually only used a couple times. My friend gave it to me when he moved. He won it from SVS during a Giveaway many years ago. It was a Cylinder Prototype. It is Passive, so SVS sent him a Bosch Amplifier that I also have. It's much taller than the PC12 SVS made years ago as my friend had both the PC12 and this Prototype. I believe it's a 12" Sub by looking at the diameter of the cylinder. 

Would it be beneficial for me to utilize both this Cylinder Sub and the PB12-NSD in my room and run Audyssey, or would they be too dissimilar and using one be preferred? It doesn't appear SVS carries the PB12-NSD any longer, so if multiple Subs must be identical, I may be out of luck.


----------



## bigzee3

*Sub or AVR gain?*

Hi guys,

Really needs some help all a bit confusing. Yesterday I ran Audyssey after hooking up new speakers. Now the part that troubles me. My subwoofer which is a Sunfire HRS12 says in its manual to adjust gain to 12 o'clock before calibration but my Denon X4100 wanted me to adjust to 75db before calibration. So I sided with the Denon and tried get it close as possible to 75db. After running the 8 point calibration I ended up with Sub gain at -4 and then I boosted it a bit to -1 which is what I have always done. So my question is should I have followed the Subs advise or Denon before calibration?. Also I read that its best to have the trim at -5. So does that mean I would have to go with higher gain on the sub and overlook the AVRs 75db start point to make this happen. Can this be done without doing the entire 8 points calibration and if I finally get it done I assume I wont need to apply the extra 3db I normally do as the gain would already be higher or is that just to give me more head room before I add the extra 3db. Guys any help would be great.


----------



## Soulburner

bigzee3 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> Really needs some help all a bit confusing. Yesterday I ran Audyssey after hooking up new speakers. Now the part that troubles me. My subwoofer which is a Sunfire HRS12 says in its manual to adjust gain to 12 o'clock before calibration but my Denon X4100 wanted me to adjust to 75db before calibration. So I sided with the Denon and tried get it close as possible to 75db. After running the 8 point calibration I ended up with Sub gain at -4 and then I boosted it a bit to -1 which is what I have always done. So my question is should I have followed the Subs advise or Denon before calibration?.


You did it right.



bigzee3 said:


> Also I read that its best to have the trim at -5. So does that mean I would have to go with higher gain on the sub and overlook the AVRs 75db start point to make this happen.


Yes, exactly. You can go higher or lower than the 75dB point if you wish.



bigzee3 said:


> Can this be done without doing the entire 8 points calibration and if I finally get it done I assume I wont need to apply the extra 3db I normally do as the gain would already be higher or is that just to give me more head room before I add the extra 3db. Guys any help would be great.


I do a 1-point measurement, then calculate, then check sub levels. If they are between -6 and -10 I'm good to go. If not, I go higher or lower on the sub gain until I'm in that range. Then you can do the full 8-point measurement. This is to give yourself room to raise the levels, which tends to be needed on most systems.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> You did it right.
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly. You can go higher or lower than the 75dB point if you wish.
> 
> 
> I do a 1-point measurement, then calculate, then check sub levels. If they are between -6 and -10 I'm good to go. If not, I go higher or lower on the sub gain until I'm in that range. Then you can do the full 8-point measurement. This is to give yourself room to raise the levels, which tends to be needed on most systems.



If you can get Audyssey to set the AVR trim level for the sub at -11.5, you will have 6.5 dB of possible boost available to you before the trim hits -5 dB, the safe point to avoid AVR subwoofer output line driver clipping, in most cases. Some people get away with a little higher trim level without audible clipping. I'm not sure why, unless they keep the volume down, or their AVR or pre-pro/AVP (probably the latter) has higher clean output at the sub out than the typical AVR.


----------



## klimo

So, I'm planning on doing some experimenting with my subs. Is it possible to run just audyssey on the subs, while leaving the speakers along? It would really speed things up if I didn't have to go through all 11 other channels.


----------



## Soulburner

klimo said:


> So, I'm planning on doing some experimenting with my subs. Is it possible to run just audyssey on the subs, while leaving the speakers along? It would really speed things up if I didn't have to go through all 11 other channels.


I'm not sure why you would want to do this. Room correction is important up to at least 300Hz, the region in which your speakers will be fighting against room modes (and losing).

Alas, there is no way that I'm aware of to do this. If you try to add speakers after Audyssey setup, it will disable itself until you run it again.


----------



## drunkpenguin

klimo said:


> So, I'm planning on doing some experimenting with my subs. Is it possible to run just audyssey on the subs, while leaving the speakers along? It would really speed things up if I didn't have to go through all 11 other channels.


If you are just experimenting on sub placement couldn't you disable most of your other speakers? Run your tests at say a 3.1 setup? Assuming you plan to run a full test once your subs have been placed.


----------



## klimo

drunkpenguin said:


> If you are just experimenting on sub placement couldn't you disable most of your other speakers? Run your tests at say a 3.1 setup? Assuming you plan to run a full test once your subs have been placed.


Thats a great idea. I'm going to do that. Thanks!


----------



## mogorf

Soulburner said:


> I'm not sure why you would want to do this. *Room correction is important up to at least 300Hz, the region in which your speakers will be fighting against room modes (and losing).*
> 
> Alas, there is no way that I'm aware of to do this. If you try to add speakers after Audyssey setup, it will disable itself until you run it again.





Hi Soulburner,


Please allow me to keep the subject alive for a moment on your above bolded message. Recently some of us had a discussion with Chris Kyriakakis on FB on this issue and here's what he said: 



Qte


"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."


Unqte


I think I can agree with what Chris said, moreover, we have Audyssey, we paid for it so why not use it to the full extent. "Fighting" for good stereo imaging I think is at least as important as "fighting" against room modes!


Of course, we know that the on-board MultEQ can not be limited in frequency range, so this might be considered by folks who already own the smart phone MultEQ editor.



Anyone?


----------



## Soulburner

drunkpenguin said:


> klimo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I'm planning on doing some experimenting with my subs. Is it possible to run just audyssey on the subs, while leaving the speakers along? It would really speed things up if I didn't have to go through all 11 other channels.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are just experimenting on sub placement couldn't you disable most of your other speakers? Run your tests at say a 3.1 setup? Assuming you plan to run a full test once your subs have been placed.
Click to expand...

I do precisely that. When setting up a room, I get the subs perfect first. That includes placement, PEQ, rolloff slope, everything, measuring all the while. Even the seats may need to be tweaked during this phase. Then I work my way up the frequency range, doing the main speakers up to 300Hz. That includes placement for imaging, room mode avoidance, etc. Last, and something I have the least control over, is the high frequencies. They will do what they do, and I'll diffuse or absorb later as needed.

Final listening and tweaking to slopes and crossovers is always needed, too.

The surrounds are placed where they are, so they just get EQ'd once in the final setup and they're done.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Hi Soulburner,
> 
> Please allow me to keep the subject alive for a moment on your above bolded message. Recently some of us had a discussion with Chris Kyriakakis on FB on this issue and here's what he said:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> I think I can agree with what Chris said, moreover, we have Audyssey, we paid for it so why not use it to the full extent. "Fighting" for good stereo imaging I think is at least as important as "fighting" against room modes!
> 
> Of course, we know that the on-board MultEQ can not be limited in frequency range, so this might be considered by folks who already own the smart phone MultEQ editor.
> 
> Anyone?



Hi Feri,

I think it's a very interesting question that will never be answered definitively. Personally, I think that there just can't be a universal answer that fits every circumstance. I have read some of the points of view on both sides of the issue, and there is some logic to both points of view. But, just taking some arbitrary number such as 300Hz (my arbitrary number would be higher than that, anyway) and saying that it isn't a good idea to EQ above that seems, well, arbitrary to me. 

For one thing, the transition (Schroeder) frequency will vary depending on room size. In my very large room, it is fairly close to 100Hz. In a very small room, it might be about 250Hz. For another, what Chris is saying does make some sense to me. Something else that most people may not be considering with respect to higher frequencies (above say 500Hz or so) is related to the distance from the speakers to the MLP.

Transducers, such as a typical three-way speaker, are designed to have the SPL's of the various drivers converge at a particular distance from the source. For most three-way speakers, that assumed distance is probably about 3 to 4 meters. But, what if we are listening at a distance of less than 3 meters, or more than 4 meters, with that "typical" speaker? Having room EQ working to equalize the volume levels of the various drivers, to be equal at our actual listening distance, would be useful in that instance too. 

Frankly, I think that is often what people are referring to when they speak of Audyssey timbre-matching their speakers. Without Audyssey, the sounds of the various drivers may not converge, at equal volumes, at the same point in space. And, that could make specific frequencies sound out of whack. Note that the distance and SPL setting functions of Audyssey couldn't really address this issue. It would take control points at specific frequencies to do that.

Where the controversy about room correction seems to be the greatest is with respect to the time domain. If direct sounds from the speakers, and reflected sounds from various surfaces and objects in a room, are corrected at one point in space, they may not be correct at some other point in space--even just a few inches away. I understand the theory, but to me that's all it really is--just theory. We can only discover if Audyssey actually improves the sound of higher frequencies (or of low-frequencies) by experimenting with it. Audyssey on versus Audyssey off. Which do we prefer?

My personal viewpoint on this is that Audyssey is really not a set-it and forget-it system. It may take some effort with subwoofers (adjusting distance or phase, for instance) and it may take some effort with other channels (adjusting toe-in, experimenting with calibration patterns and techniques, adjusting settings) to derive the most benefit from the room correction process. But, the proof's in the pudding. With careful use, Audyssey, or any other method of automated room correction, will either improve the sound quality in a particular room, for a particular listener, or it won't.

It either works well for an individual, or it doesn't. Something very similar to that could probably be said about almost any technology or device. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

> Hi Feri,
> 
> I think it's a very interesting question that will never be answered definitively. Personally, I think that there just can't be a universal answer that fits every circumstance. I have read some of the points of view on both sides of the issue, and there is some logic to both points of view. But, just taking some arbitrary number such as 300Hz (my arbitrary number would be higher than that, anyway) and saying that it isn't a good idea to EQ above that seems, well, arbitrary to me. [unquote]
> 
> 
> Fully agree with you Mike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, the transition (Schroeder) frequency will vary depending on room size. In my very large room, it is fairly close to 100Hz. In a very small room, it might be about 250Hz. For another, what Chris is saying does make some sense to me. Something else that most people may not be considering with respect to higher frequencies (above say 500Hz or so) is related to the distance from the speakers to the MLP.[unquote]
> 
> 
> Transition frequencies varying with room size is another interesting issue. Maybe worth to be discussed in a bit more depth later on. What I gathered from Chris's explanation was mainly about evening out the relative frequency response deviations between front L&Rs full range, all up to 20 kHz, although I'm fully aware that e.g. in a non-symmetrical living room the targeted +/- 1 dB may be a dream waiting to come true. But hey, that can be easily measured with REW or the like. Dedicated HT room owners have a real advantage here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transducers, such as a typical three-way speaker, are designed to have the SPL's of the various drivers converge at a particular distance from the source. For most three-way speakers, that assumed distance is probably about 3 to 4 meters. But, what if we are listening at a distance of less than 3 meters, or more than 4 meters, with that "typical" speaker? Having room EQ working to equalize the volume levels of the various drivers, to be equal at our actual listening distance, would be useful in that instance too. Frankly, I think that is often what people are referring to when they speak of Audyssey timbre-matching their speakers. Without Audyssey, the sounds of the various drivers may not converge, at equal volumes, at the same point in space.[unquote]
> 
> 
> Agree again. Here I might also raise the issue of dispertion vs. frequency, especially at around crossover frequencies of a given speaker box which may significantly vary as we go up with frequency. Or in other words dispertion will surely get narrower and narrower from woofer to mid-woofer and from mid-woofer to tweeter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where the controversy about room correction seems to be the greatest is with respect to the time domain. If direct sounds from the speakers, and reflected sounds from various surfaces and objects in a room, are corrected at one point in space, they may not be correct at some other point in space--even just a few inches away. I understand the theory, but to me that's all it really is--just theory. We can only discover if Audyssey actually improves the sound of higher frequencies (or of low-frequencies) by experimenting with it. Audyssey on versus Audyssey off. Which do we prefer?[unquote]
> 
> 
> As I understand time domain "manipulations" of Audyssey, the algorithm works in the same manner as frequency response optimization, i.e. the software looks at impulse response (via the chirps), clusters them and uses fuzzy logic picking out similarities among the clusters to optimize them through a wider seating area. Probably far from being perfect, but optimization is usually said to be enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My personal viewpoint on this is that Audyssey is really not a set-it and forget-it system. It may take some effort with subwoofers (adjusting distance or phase, for instance) and it may take some effort with other channels (adjusting toe-in, experimenting with calibration patterns and techniques, adjusting settings) to derive the most benefit from the room correction process. But, the proof's in the pudding. With careful use, Audyssey, or any other method of automated room correction, will either improve the sound quality in a particular room, for a particular listener, or it won't.[unquote]
> 
> 
> Agree again. I always think a so-called cold setup - as you described above - is essential for best results prior to running MultEQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It either works well for an individual, or it doesn't. Something very similar to that could probably be said about almost any technology or device. [unquote]
> 
> 
> I think we couldn't agree more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> P.s.: Sorry, I forgot how to qte/unqte when replying between the lines. Help me out please so I can edit this post to look better. Thx. Anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Alan P

drunkpenguin said:


> Question for everybody, I already asked Alan this question but he wasnt sure as it's kind of a weird deal, but maybe someone here has some experience. I have 2 SVS PC13 Ultras and I suspect one of them might be wired backwards internally as I had to reverse the phase on it before the 2 sounded good together. It was a refurbed sub so I think the odds are pretty good that its backwards. It sounds great this way, but this weekend I'll be recalibrating with a more modern receiver that supports XT32. Should I leave the 2 subs out of phase with each other before running calibration or should I put them both back to zero and let Audyssey try to sort it out?
> 
> I replace a driver in a PC13 one time and it was kinda tough so I don't wanna open it up again to verify if I don't have to.





drunkpenguin said:


> Well I had to run it twice. The first time I tried setting both speakers to 0 and had the same original problem with the subs cancelling each other out. So I put one on 180 and re ran it. I then adjusted levels with an SPL meter and changed the crossover on my mains from 60 to 80. Sounds fantastic to me. I dont think Im gonna need to "play" much more beyond this.


Hey DP,

Did you connect each sub to it's own dedicated sub out, or are you still using the y-splitter? I only ask because if they are connected to their own sub outs, SubEQ HT should have been able to get the subs in-phase with each other with the distance setting.

What were the sub distance settings when both subs were set to "0"? What were they with the one sub set to "180"?


----------



## drunkpenguin

Alan P said:


> Hey DP,


I'm using both subwoofer outputs, 1 to each sub. I never looked at distance settings. I can check the current settings tonight. It may be my room that just requires this. I'm toying with the idea of putting the subs behind the AT screen, but that would be a bit of work and I havent convinced myself yet that I wanna do some more work lol. They sound really good the way I have them tho.


----------



## bigzee3

Soulburner said:


> You did it right.
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly. You can go higher or lower than the 75dB point if you wish.
> 
> 
> I do the 1-point measurement, then calculate, then check sub levels. If they are between -6 and -10 I'm good to go. If not, I go higher or lower on the sub gain until I'm in that range. Then you can do the full 8-point measurement. This is to give yourself room to raise the levels, which tends to be needed on most systems.



Thanks for info much appreciated,

Following your advise I turned the sub gain from about 9 o'clock to around 11 o'clock which after 1-point measurement gave -9.5. I thought that was good as i haven't really boosted more than 3db so it left a bit of room to play with. Did my usual 3db boost but haven't had time last night to play around with it. Regarding music if you went past the -5 safety zone let say -4 or -2 would that be ok?


----------



## bigzee3

garygarrison said:


> If you can get Audyssey to set the AVR trim level for the sub at -11.5, you will have 6.5 dB of possible boost available to you before the trim hits -5 dB, the safe point to avoid AVR subwoofer output line driver clipping, in most cases. Some people get away with a little higher trim level without audible clipping. I'm not sure why, unless they keep the volume down, or their AVR or pre-pro/AVP (probably the latter) has higher clean output at the sub out than the typical AVR.


Thanks,

I ended up at -9.5 which I think will be good as I haven't boosted more than -3 in the past.


----------



## David Aiken

mogorf said:


> Hi Soulburner,
> 
> 
> Please allow me to keep the subject alive for a moment on your above bolded message. Recently some of us had a discussion with Chris Kyriakakis on FB on this issue and here's what he said:
> 
> 
> 
> Qte
> 
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."
> 
> 
> Unqte
> 
> 
> I think I can agree with what Chris said, moreover, we have Audyssey, we paid for it so why not use it to the full extent. "Fighting" for good stereo imaging I think is at least as important as "fighting" against room modes!
> 
> 
> Of course, we know that the on-board MultEQ can not be limited in frequency range, so this might be considered by folks who already own the smart phone MultEQ editor.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone?


Feri,

No comment on full range EQ vs below Schroeder because no experience. I can make some comments on stereo imaging and Audyssey.

I have 2 different setups in my house. I have an AV system in the living room with a Marantz AVR driving a 2.2 setup using Audyssey. The room is open plan, basically rectangular with openings to other spaces, and a few of the usual acoustic issues (ceramic tiled floor, large area of glass windows and glass sliding door on one side, lots of reflective stuff on the other, etc). I get good stereo imaging and good sound with Audyssey.

I have a separate audio system in another room. This setup has no digital room correction but it has physical acoustic treatment. It's also open plan but it's L-shaped, glass on the wide front and narrower back walls, wider at the from t than the back, openings to other areas in both the wider front and narrower back portions, and with one corner cut off at 45 degrees where the hall on the other side of the wall takes a bend. At least it's carpeted. As you probably know, asymmetric rooms are a problem to deal with and no one provides instructions for physical acoustic treatment of them, every asymmetric room is different and you need to find your own solution. Over time I've played all sorts of games with where I've placed the panel absorbers (bass traps were easy, they went in the 4 main corners) and one of the things which stands out from my experience is that where you put the panel absorbers in this room makes significant differences to stereo imaging. It can make the soundstage wider, it can make it deeper, it can bring the centre image forward or push it back, and it can make the images sound more "solid" and focussed or it can make them less well defined, plus it can shift the centre image to one side or the other or locate it in the centre. Because of the different "shapes" of the left and right sides of the room (one straight, the other bent) the left and right side reflections in this room are very different, I've got a first reflection point from the left speaker on the left wall but no first reflection point from that speaker on the right wall because of where the wall bends at 45 degrees, and I've got no first reflection from the right speaker on the right wall (the opening to the hall is where I need a wall for a first reflection) and I do have a first reflection on the left wall from that speaker. The cut off corner creates 2 corners with a 135 degree bend rather than a 90 degree bend and that creates some interesting issues. Because the rear wall behind me is a fair way back from the listening position and doesn't extend more than a foot or so to the right of the listening position I've got a first reflection point from the left speaker on the rear wall but there is no first reflection from the right speaker because the bend in the room just behind me to my right blocks that path. I'm prepared to accept Chris' comment that once you put speakers in a room there responses are going to vary and I while I haven't measured my speakers in this room I would not be surprised to see them vary considerably yet despite that I have managed to achieve extremely good stereo imaging with that setup with a stereo image that is noticeably more well defined and "holographic" than I get in the AV system with Audyssey.

I have no reason to doubt the claim that "perfect" stereo imaging requires the 2 speakers to have matched responses but I find it difficult to believe that I have achieved a match of +/- 1 dB in this room with physical treatments placed by ear after lots of experimentation. In addition, given the variations in good imaging I have achieved at various stages in that experimentation with a good centred image but changes in breadth, depth,,and forwardness of the soundstage with very different placements of my panels, I find it even more difficult to believe that those different placements were all with +/- 1 dB of a perfect match, over the entire range up to 20 kHz. I can accept that matched responses is one of the things that contributes to good stereo imaging but I think that controlling the balance of left and right side reflections, both in level and also probably in direction, is equally if not more important given my experience.

As I get older I'm becoming more suspicious of claims that 1 element can be the critical element acoustically in any aspect of sound treatment whether that be digital or physical in nature. I think most of the acoustic effects we care about have several contributing factors and that good, even superb, results can be achieved by different means. Any intervention we make usually affects more than one contributing factor with the difference between interventions being the effect each has on the different factors it impacts. 

So, I suspect you can get good results by applying EQ only below Schroeder and also by applying EQ full range. You would probably do something else differently in the room and setup with each of those options if you wanted to get the absolute best results so, as in pretty much everything in this area, if we want to reach a conclusion based on a single difference with all other things being equal then we're going to be out of luck because all other things are never going to be equal. As you say, if we use Audyssey we don't have the option to restrict its operation to below the Schroeder frequency so we can't compare full range Audyssey to below Schroeder Audyssey and if we compare full range Audyssey to something else which is only below Schroeder then all other things aren't equal because nothing else will treat the region below Schroeder in precisely the same way that Audyssey is treating that region in its full range EQ.

Basically we have a choice of tools with different electronic correction options from a range of suppliers and different physical treatment options from a range of suppliers plus our own individual choices in which of those options we take and how we apply them in our room. Whichever option we end up settling on, the result will be different to what we could get from the other options, some times only by a small degree and some times quite significantly, and different people are going to gravitate to different options for a variety of personal reasons. Sometimes one of those reasons is because the theory provided for the superiority of a particular option appeals to us more than the theory provided for the other option. No one ever tries every available option and then chooses the one they think is the best, there's simply too many options and too much time and money required to make such a comparison and assessment. We short list for reasons such as availability, cost, ease of implementation, theoretical preferences, and even aesthetics, and end up picking an option, sometimes from a short list of one option only which makes the choice much easier. Once we've made our choice, then we have to make it work because, as Mike said earlier in a response to the OP, Audyssey isn't a set it and forget it solution and neither are any of the other options. All acoustic/room correction solutions should be packaged with a "some work on the part of the user required" warning in large print in a clearly visible place on the packaging.


----------



## drunkpenguin

Alan P said:


> What were the sub distance settings when both subs were set to "0"? What were they with the one sub set to "180"?


1 sub was set to 14' which is pretty accurate. The other is set at 20'. Should I be concerned?


----------



## garygarrison

Regarding Chris K's comment on [nearly] "perfect imaging" needing +/- 1 dB, I have never heard of anyone's system being that flat, and even if it could be achieved in the lab, could it be that flat from several listening positions? If I want it I can get +/- 1 dB above 800 Hz, providing the REW mic is placed in just the magic spot, and there is only the one mic placement (with Audyssey FLAT, of course). Below 800 Hz, we get +/- 2 dB down to 275 Hz, and below that I have imposed a smooth rise (with a couple of unavoidable bumps) up to + 9 dB at 40 Hz, with a slow decline down to 20 Hz. Schroeder may, or may not, be 144 Hz.

How's the imaging? It depends entirely on the recording. The front main L & R speakers describe a 60 degree angle as seen from the MLP. The imaging ranges from O.K., with some pooling around the L & R speakers, to very good with just the right recording. Oddly, the best orchestral imaging (most precise, with about 8 or 9 clear positions between the front speakers, while preserving some hall sound) I've heard in a movie so far was in the BD of Star Trek II -- The Wrath of the Khan (1982). We run 2 or 3 movies a week; I would have thought they would have equaled Khan's imaging in 36 years! I need to say it has very little deep bass, and does not have 360 degree surround in 5.1, like some (The Grey).

I'm not much of an imaging guy. All aspects are important, but I rank others much more highly.


*Prized the most *_(by me)
_
*Low Distortion* (modulation distortion, harmonic distortion, and audible distortion we haven't named yet, and that we don’t know how to measure).

*Realistic tonality* – individual instruments recognizable (independent of imaging). 

*Full dynamic range* up to 115 dB brief peaks at the ears (MLP) & good microdynamics. Plausible dynamic proportions. Low compression. .
*
Musical Gestalt easily triggered by speakers* (terminology from J. Gordon Holt). Spatiality. Orchestras sound like orchestras.

*Frequency response smooth* (few kinks), rather than flat, conforming to the Harman curve, at least in bass.


*Imaging* 

*Prized the least*

But that's just me.


----------



## David Aiken

^

Gary,

The comment from Chris that Feri quoted was not stating that "perfect imaging" needed a frequency response within +/- 1 dB, it was stating that it needed "the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz". That's a requirement that the sound from the 2 speakers needs to be very closely balanced in level, not flat in frequency response.

Is imaging important? In my view it's not important as a goal in and of itself but a well set up stereo or multichannel system should produce good imaging with good source material. If it doesn't then something is wrong and my experience has been that when something is wrong it usually affects the sound in more than one way so when a system doesn't image well, there's other things it doesn't do well. Poor imaging is one symptom of a problem somewhere in the system but it's not going to be the only symptom. Fix the problem, whatever it is, and all of the problem areas including imaging will improve. Good systems perform well in every area even if they may excel in different areas and some people may prefer a system to excel in imaging and some people prefer a system to excel in other areas but a good system which excels in imaging still has to do everything else well or it isn't a good system and a good system which excels in something else still has to do imaging well or it isn't a good system.


----------



## Soulburner

David Aiken said:


> ^
> 
> Gary,
> 
> The comment from Chris that Feri quoted was not stating that "perfect imaging" needed a frequency response within +/- 1 dB, it was stating that it needed "the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz". That's a requirement that the sound from the 2 speakers needs to be very closely balanced in level, not flat in frequency response.


Tomato, tomato


----------



## mthomas47

^^^
Personally, I find imaging in movies to be a little more important than imaging in most stereo music recordings, although if the imaging is off dramatically in a symphonic performance, that's hard for me to miss. Some movies, though, seem a little more left-centric or right-centric to me, and that's annoying, because there is more overall volume coming from one side of the soundstage than the other. When that happens, I adjust the trim level in one of the front speakers to compensate for it. I may notice that more than some people would since my front soundstage is relatively wide.

With stereo recordings of most music, however, and especially with something like jazz, I find that it is often difficult to define precise imaging, much less to worry about matching it. That is because vocal or instrument solos may come from the center, or from the left, or from the right, sort of arbitrarily, depending on the particular recording. 

Only where there should be an obviously even soundstage, sustained over a period of time, such as when a full symphony orchestra is playing, or with the ambient sounds and music in a movie, do I find that more precise left/right balance are important to me. As with everything in audio, I guess there may be a YMMV component to what we notice and what we care about. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

drunkpenguin said:


> 1 sub was set to 14' which is pretty accurate. The other is set at 20'. Should I be concerned?


Is that with one sub set to "180"? If so, this tells me that "180" is probably not the correct setting.

Run the first Audyssey mic position (I think the newer Denons require you to do the first 3 before you can "Calculate") with both subs at "0", then hit "Calculate". Check the results and let me know what the sub distances are. If they are much closer to each other your problem is not the subs being out of phase with each other, it is probably the speakers being out of phase with the subs and this should be remedied with the Sub Distance Tweak, not the phase dials on the subs.


----------



## cfraser

garygarrison said:


> *Imaging*
> 
> *Prized the least*
> 
> But that's just me.


For movies, OK, at least I won't argue the opinion. 

But for music, I prize imaging much higher, and I would never use Audyssey with any stereo music. For mch music, Audyssey is much more "acceptable, I would even say desirable. But that's just me too. 

Well, if I was lucky enough to have one of those old SVS Audyssey units that was just for subs, then I _would _use Audyssey for the subs (only) with stereo music since imaging isn't affected.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ^
> 
> Gary,
> 
> The comment from Chris that Feri quoted was not stating that "perfect imaging" needed a frequency response within +/- 1 dB, it was stating that it needed "the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz". That's a requirement that the sound from the 2 speakers needs to be very closely balanced in level, not flat in frequency response..


Right you are. I misread it. He seems to be saying that the two speakers need to have their peaks and dips within +/- 1 dB (2 dB max between a peak of one and trough of the other). I can get 2 speakers within 2 dB of each other at each peak and trough down to just below 100 Hz, then the curves go cattywampus. Well, just a little. They recover about 60Hz, and become nearly identical. This is all without the sub.

I like good imaging, when it doesn't seem over analytical, and I also like what might seem to be the opposite. I like blending to form a sound that is different than any individual instrument, and sometimes greater than the sum of the parts. That's what you get when you sit a ways back from the orchestra, maybe in about the 15th row. In fact, when I sit in the seats I can afford, and *listen to a live orchestra, I don't notice a lot of imaging*, except for things like cymbal flourishes, brass fanfares, or tympani attacks. I love the reverberant sound of an old large hall with sculpted plaster, and perhaps some wood. On occasion I will come home and play my sound system and think, "The imaging is too good" compared to the concert I just heard. One time, I sat in the front row of the balcony, and there was little, if any, imaging, except when the orchestra bells were played. 

I like recordings made with the Decca Tree mic set-up, including several recordist Wilkinson made. Properly used, "depth mics" 20 or more feet away can be good. So can minimalist techniques like Mercury Living Presence. As in everything, it all depends.


----------



## cfraser

^ And that is pretty much exactly why I want the imaging for _stereo_, and don't need it for mch (movies or music). Or to put it another way: I do not find Audyssey good for imaging, so I use Audyssey when I don't care much about imaging.


----------



## Soulburner

cfraser said:


> For movies, OK, at least I won't argue the opinion.
> 
> But for music, I prize imaging much higher, and I would never use Audyssey with any stereo music. For mch music, Audyssey is much more "acceptable, I would even say desirable. But that's just me too.
> 
> Well, if I was lucky enough to have one of those old SVS Audyssey units that was just for subs, then I _would _use Audyssey for the subs (only) with stereo music since imaging isn't affected.


Are you able to mitigate all bass modes without room correction? How do you deal with the different timing and level that reaches your ears from your left speaker as it interacts differently with the room than the right speaker?

Not meaning to put you on blast. I know Audyssey doesn't always get it right, but a lot of variables and their results are incumbent on the user. And, homes are far from the ideal place to play music, so the room really does mess things up.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> ... Some movies, though, seem a little more left-centric or right-centric to me, and that's annoying, because there is more overall volume coming from one side of the soundstage than the other.



Very, very annoying. How can they let that happen? Is nobody minding the store?


In vocal music, or, sometimes with a violin solo, nothing is worse than the soloist swaying back and forth when they are using two mics up front, as in the early days of stereo. Paul Klipsch called this "The soloist on the flying trapeze." I'm glad that technique is long gone.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Very, very annoying. How can they let that happen? Is nobody minding the store?
> 
> In vocal music, or, sometimes with a violin solo, nothing is worse than the soloist swaying back and forth when they are using two mics up front, as in the early days of stereo. Paul Klipsch called this "The soloist on the flying trapeze." I'm glad that technique is long gone.



Hi Gary,

Paul was always clever as well as being a talented speaker designer. I like that expression! The examples you used of vocal music and violin solos were spot on for me. There was something about the higher harmonics that seemed to be especially susceptible to the phenomenon you described. Violins and sopranos were two that I recall. The flute and the clarinet were also a problem--with the sound seeming to waver--never quite locking-in to a single location. I still have some older recordings where I would notice that. I remember that keeping my head very still for those tracks seemed to help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## audiofan1

garygarrison said:


> Very, very annoying. How can they let that happen? Is nobody minding the store?
> 
> 
> In vocal music, or, sometimes with a violin solo, nothing is worse than the soloist swaying back and forth when they are using two mics up front, as in the early days of stereo. Paul Klipsch called this "The soloist on the flying trapeze." I'm glad that technique is long gone.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> Paul was always clever as well as being a talented speaker designer. I like that expression! The examples you used of vocal music and violin solos were spot on for me. There was something about the higher harmonics that seemed to be especially susceptible to the phenomenon you described. Violins and sopranos were two that I recall. The flute and the clarinet were also a problem--with the sound seeming to waver--never quite locking-in to a single location. I still have some older recordings where I would notice that. I remember that keeping my head very still for those tracks seemed to help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 Lol you guys indeed! I remember in the old days before concluding every recording has a sweet spot,trying to get the strings and flutes to sit still at said volume! Use to drive me nuts


----------



## cfraser

Soulburner said:


> Are you able to mitigate all bass modes without room correction? How do you deal with the different timing and level that reaches your ears from your left speaker as it interacts differently with the room than the right speaker?
> 
> Not meaning to put you on blast. I know Audyssey doesn't always get it right, but a lot of variables and their results are incumbent on the user. And, homes are far from the ideal place to play music, so the room really does mess things up.


The room is fully treated and "symmetrical", I am very anal about that. Using REW etc. I did the best I could. I have 4 corner bass traps, but that is as far as I was willing to go, you need a huge amount of trapping/space to do a good job below 40Hz IME. But let me tell you, helping Audyssey by treating your room, especially re bass, makes it work much _much _better.


----------



## bigzee3

Guys,

Just wondering when we adjust the trim to -11 and ignore the 75db recommendation before calibration does that have any negative impact on all the other channels after calibration?


----------



## Soulburner

bigzee3 said:


> Guys,
> 
> Just wondering when we adjust the trim to -11 and ignore the 75db recommendation before calibration does that have any negative impact on all the other channels after calibration?


It's for the sub level only, so no.


----------



## bigzee3

Soulburner said:


> It's for the sub level only, so no.


Thanks again


----------



## garygarrison

bigzee3 said:


> Guys,
> 
> Just wondering when we adjust the trim to -11 and ignore the 75db recommendation before calibration does that have any negative impact on all the other channels after calibration?



No.


Also, if you have caused Audyssey to select a trim of -11, which would provide flat bass, you are free to then turn the AVR's sub output (the trim) up as high as -6, which would be a 5 dB boost. Of course, this boost has to be done after running Audyssey. The extra bass would be welcome with some movies, and with all music upon which the recording companies have imposed extreme deep bass attenuation, in order to allow the midrange (particularly upper midrange, about 1K to 8K) to be way, way up. When they do this, they can't leave the bass at its natural level or over-recording (and gross distortion) will occur. With the midrange way up, near the maximum recording level, and (too much) compression applied, the recording will sound "loud" to those who don't understand dynamics and/or don't re-adjust the volume between albums (as many readers know, this widespread mixing practice has earned the appellation "the loudness wars"). Music companies are deadly afraid that if they don't cut the bass their selections will need to be recorded at such a low level (to provide enough headroom for a realistic sounding kick drum or a bass guitar) that these selections will sound soft when interspersed with loudness wars recordings. It's the arms race with recorded music, instead of nuclear warheads. So *we* need to put the bass back. Unfortunately, it has sometimes been cut to a much lower level than putting 5 dB back will fix. Some people turn up the bass tone control (won't work with DEQ on), to increase the bass above crossover (two octaves or more, depending on how you define bass) in the LF and RF speakers, so it can rise to meet the level of the boosted sub. Another option is "de-mastering." See Chris A's post and two tutorials on
de-mastering in "The Missing Octave" on the Klipsch Community Forum. 

https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/155096-the-missing-octaves-audacity-remastering-to-restore-tracks/& 

[the link is a little persnickety; right click, then "open link in new tab"]


I don't know enough about it to say how Audacity gauges the compensation needed, but a remaster of Sgt. Pepper required about*:* 


An average of *+* 12 dB at 20 to 35 Hz
 An average of *+* 8 dB at 35 to 100 Hz
An average of *+* 4 dB at 100 to 400 Hz
etc., and
An average of - 4 dB at 2K to 4K
etc., and
An average of *+* 7 dB at 10K to 20 K


How many of you snuck (sneaked, if you're British) up the gain control on your sub far enough so that -6 on the AVR trim would provide a boost of 9, 10, or even 12 dB? You may have been right, at least on some recordings, and a few movies.


Classical and jazz recordings aren't as often subjected to bass attenuation as more popular and money making genres.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> No.
> 
> 
> Also, if you have caused Audyssey to select a trim of -11, which would provide flat bass, you are free to then turn the AVR's sub output (the trim) up as high as -6, which would be a 5 dB boost. Of course, this boost has to be done after running Audyssey. The extra bass would be welcome with some movies, and with all music upon which the recording companies have imposed extreme deep bass attenuation, in order to allow the midrange (particularly upper midrange, about 1K to 8K) to be way, way up. When they do this, they can't leave the bass at its natural level or over-recording (and gross distortion) will occur. With the midrange way up, near the maximum recording level, and (too much) compression applied, the recording will sound "loud" to those who don't understand dynamics and/or don't re-adjust the volume between albums (as many readers know, this widespread mixing practice has earned the appellation "the loudness wars"). Music companies are deadly afraid that if they don't cut the bass their selections will need to be recorded at such a low level (e.g. to provide enough headroom for a realistic sounding kick drum or a bass guitar) that these selections will sound soft when interspersed with loudness wars recordings. It's the arms race with recorded music, instead of nuclear warheads. So *we* need to put the bass back. Unfortunately, it has sometimes been cut to a much lower level than putting 5 dB back will fix. Some people turn up the bass control (won't work with DEQ on), to increase the bass above crossover (two octaves or more, depending on how you define bass) in the LF and RF speakers, so it can rise to meet the level of the boosted sub. Another option is "de-mastering." See Chris A's post and two tutorials on
> de-mastering in "The Missing Octave" on the Klipsch Community Forum.
> 
> https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/155096-the-missing-octaves-audacity-remastering-to-restore-tracks/&
> 
> [the link is a little persnickety; right click, then "open link in new tab"]
> 
> Classical and jazz recordings aren't as often subjected to bass attenuation as more popular and money making genres.


Interesting. Do you think that has any relation to why this is what it is? It makes sense when you think about how virtually all of us boost sub levels. Then you consider the Harman Curve, the research into preferences, etc...

However, the loudness wars hasn't always been a thing, and even older music can sound better with this curve. So, I'm not sure.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> Interesting. Do you think that has any relation to why this is what it is? It makes sense when you think about how virtually all of us boost sub levels. Then you consider the Harman Curve, the research into preferences, etc...
> 
> However, the loudness wars hasn't always been a thing, and even older music can sound better with this curve. So, I'm not sure.



I'm not sure, either.


I'm also not sure what recordings the Harman people used in their research. If they were commercial recordings, they might have received the mutilation described above, so no wonder people preferred the Harman curve.. If classical or jazz, maybe not, but I just read that even Chesky has a signature sound -- and I thought they did not!


In the past, there were other reasons to cut the bass, and a small reason to cut the highest treble just a little. Bass on vinyl records took up a lot of space, and loud bass, right at the end of a symphonic work, right where the "pinch effect" would be the greatest -- disaster! So they often cut the bass. Tone arm resonance was not our friend. Some phono cartridges had problems with very high frequencies, which frequencies were subject to groove damage. Those of us who bought demo and test records noticed they were often short, and, sometimes, there were few grooves toward the center. Hmmm.


Reel to reel tape did not require bass cuts, and neither did 4 track magnetic tracks for a minority of movies or 6 track for 70 mm, which is one of the many reasons those were sometimes the best sound around (optical analog tracks were hopeless; digital tracks were usually good).


When the CD came in, there was a lot of talk about how much potential it had for high dynamic range and full bodied bass. Too bad that in many cases, it remained just that -- potential.


So, the H curve lives. I like the bass boost, but I don't reduce the treble, unless my ears say it's necessary. We all probably have a default curve, then tweak around with any recording that doesn't sound "right." My default (Harman without the treble cut) sounds good with the vast majority of Blu-rays.


----------



## Soulburner

Gary,

That is great insight. You could write a book.

_Where's the Bass?_

Chapter 1 - Introduction
Chapter 2 - Bass as a casualty of recording and playback technologies
Chapter 3 - Bass as a casualty of the Loudness Wars
Chapter 4 - Techniques for restoring the balance?


----------



## pytek

I've read Official Audyssey Guide as well as Audyssey 101 and have one question. I live in a flat and I have a home theater set in a living-dining room (20 m^2). On the opposite side of this room I have table by the wall for 4 people. On occasions I need to move it to the center and unfold it, and after everyone leaves fold it again and move back to the wall. I'll add to that two movable armchairs on the sides of the sofa. I'm thinking about getting nice new AVR, probably Denon AVR-X3400H with XT32 calibration, mainly due to not the best room for HT. How big impact does this moving objects like armchairs or table with chairs (assuming it will be moved back very close to its original position) have on calibrated settings? Is it necesseary to re-calibrate it from times to times in such conditions?
Thanks


----------



## zeonstar

Hey all

I was sent to this thread to read the Audyssey 101 FAQ. But the link does not seem to work. Can someone direct link me to it?


----------



## mthomas47

pytek said:


> I've read Official Audyssey Guide as well as Audyssey 101 and have one question. I live in a flat and I have a home theater set in a living-dining room (20 m^2). On the opposite side of this room I have table by the wall for 4 people. On occasions I need to move it to the center and unfold it, and after everyone leaves fold it again and move back to the wall. I'll add to that two movable armchairs on the sides of the sofa. I'm thinking about getting nice new AVR, probably Denon AVR-X3400H with XT32 calibration, mainly due to not the best room for HT. How big impact does this moving objects like armchairs or table with chairs (assuming it will be moved back very close to its original position) have on calibrated settings? Is it necesseary to re-calibrate it from times to times in such conditions?
> Thanks





zeonstar said:


> Hey all
> 
> I was sent to this thread to read the Audyssey 101 FAQ. But the link does not seem to work. Can someone direct link me to it?



The Audyssey FAQ is linked in my signature. It is also the first post of this thread. The Guide, linked in my thread, may also be helpful to you. It contains HT/audio information not found in the FAQ. 


For Pytek: If I were you, I would calibrate with the furniture in the room the way you will have it the majority of the time. Some people have used tape on the floor, or other ways of marking locations of furniture which has to be moved around between calibrations. I would be especially careful to get chairs or sofas which are the primary listening positions back into the same location. I wouldn't worry about precision to the millimeter, but I wouldn't want to be off by much.

I think that once you have achieved a good calibration result, recalibrating every time you entertain would be a pain, but I would make a serious effort to get things back very close to where they were, when you do need to move things around. Section I of the Guide, linked below, will give you some helpful advice with respect to the room and the calibration process.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

pytek said:


> I've read Official Audyssey Guide as well as Audyssey 101 and have one question. I live in a flat and I have a home theater set in a living-dining room (20 m^2). On the opposite side of this room I have table by the wall for 4 people. On occasions I need to move it to the center and unfold it, and after everyone leaves fold it again and move back to the wall. I'll add to that two movable armchairs on the sides of the sofa. I'm thinking about getting nice new AVR, probably Denon AVR-X3400H with XT32 calibration, mainly due to not the best room for HT. How big impact does this moving objects like armchairs or table with chairs (assuming it will be moved back very close to its original position) have on calibrated settings? Is it necesseary to re-calibrate it from times to times in such conditions?
> Thanks


You didn't say whether you watch stuff only while the table is by the wall, only when it's in the centre and unfolded, or both and if you watch while the table is in both positions how often it is in each position.

The location of the table will almost certainly make a difference to the sound but it's hard to say how much of a difference it will make. I've got a coffee table between my screen/speakers and my listening position and I remove the coffee table to do my calibration and replace it after doing the calibration. I found I preferred the sound I got when listening with a calibration made with the table out of the way rather than with a calibration made with the table in place. It's a small difference in the highs. Whether I watch/listen to stuff with the door to my patio open or shut also makes a small difference but I calibrate with it shut. 

So, in my experience things like the location of your table in the room can definitely make a difference but, as I said, it's hard to predict how much of a difference. That's going to depend on things like the size of the table, it's location in the room relative to the speakers and listening position in both situations, and how reflective the surface of the table is. It may also depend on what kind of surface your floor has and how sound reflects between the floor and the under side of the table top. 

My recommendations:

1- If you only watch stuff when the table is in one position then calibrate with the table in that position. It's position may change slightly as you move it to and from that position over time because you may never get it back in exactly the same position but very small changes in its position are extremely unlikely to make a significant difference.

2- If you watch stuff with the table in both positions, calibrate with the table in the position it's in when you're most concerned about the sound. If you usually watch alone and move the table when you have friends over and the gathering has a strong social emphasis, then calibrate with the table where it is when you're alone. More people in the room changes things also but you're also less likely to notice small differences in sound when other people are there and there's some social chatting going on when you're watching stuff because you won't be attending to the sound in quite the same way as you do on your own. If your AVR allows it you can do a calibration with the table in each position, save each calibration, and swap between them but honestly there's a lot of other things that will change in the room at different times (windows open or closed, curtains/blinds open or closed, and so on) which are likely to make just as much difference and I doubt any of us swap calibrations for those things. I suspect most of us operate with one calibration and find it works fine with such changes.

3- It may take you a couple of tries to get the hang of doing a calibration and getting a result you like. Things like the positioning of the mic and how far apart you space the different measurement positions can be important but if you find that you can't get a result which quite satisfies you for both table locations with the table in the position that it's usually in, then try a calibration with the table in the other position and then see how that calibration works with the table in both positions. 

Audyssey is designed to produce a specific result which is based on research on people's preferences. That result satisfies a lot of people but it doesn't satisfy everyone and there's little in the way of options to adjust the result to suit a particular individual's preference for a slightly different result. The only real way of changing the Audyssey result in a substantive way is to change the outcome of the measurements made during calibration and things like changing the spacing on mic positions or changing the location or state of something in the room are the easiest ways of changing the measurement outcome. If doing something like that gives you a result you prefer more than if you simply follow the instructions precisely, then do what gives you the result you prefer. Audyssey is supposed to help you get a result you prefer more and if you have to adjust something in the room setup during calibration in order to get that result then that's fine. In all probability you should be able to get a result that works for both table positions but the only way to find out which position for the table gives you the best result is to try it with the table in each position.

One other suggestion: If your room has a hard floor you can try attaching carpet tiles to the underside of the table to damp reflections between that surface and the floor. That's a trick used in restaurants with hard surface floors when the reflective nature of the room causes problems when there are a lot of customers talking and the reflections in the room make it hard for people to clearly hear the conversation at their own table. If you're unhappy with the result you're getting and understanding dialogue is part of the reason for your unhappiness, that's a trick you can try. No one will notice the carpet tiles are on the underside of the table since they're effectively invisible, it doesn't affect your use of the table or room, and it can make a useful difference to your results.


----------



## pytek

This tip with a tape is really good!
I'll dig into your guide tomorrow, I'm sure it will be helpful, thanks for that.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> The Audyssey FAQ is linked in my signature. It is also the first post of this thread. The Guide, linked in my thread, may also be helpful to you. It contains HT/audio information not found in the FAQ.
> 
> 
> For Pytek: If I were you, I would calibrate with the furniture in the room the way you will have it the majority of the time. Some people have used tape on the floor, or other ways of marking locations of furniture which has to be moved around between calibrations. I would be especially careful to get chairs or sofas which are the primary listening positions back into the same location. I wouldn't worry about precision to the millimeter, but I wouldn't want to be off by much.
> 
> I think that once you have achieved a good calibration result, recalibrating every time you entertain would be a pain, but I would make a serious effort to get things back very close to where they were, when you do need to move things around. Section I of the Guide, linked below, will give you some helpful advice with respect to the room and the calibration process.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Great advice as always Mike. My situation is not as "serious" as Pytek's, but can you imagine my frustration when my otherwise beloved family members are watching TV and they push the coffee table to awkward postions with their feet. A PITA, indeed!


----------



## pytek

David Aiken said:


> My recommendations:
> [...]


This is extremely instructive, thanks for that as well! I only watch stuff while the table is by the wall, so I'll make measurements with this setup.


----------



## garygarrison

pytek said:


> ... I have table by the wall for 4 people. On occasions I need to move it to the center and unfold it, and after everyone leaves fold it again and move back to the wall. I'll add to that two movable armchairs on the sides of the sofa ...





mogorf said:


> ... My situation is not as "serious" as Pytek's, but can you imagine my frustration when my otherwise beloved family members are watching TV and they push the coffee table to awkward postions with their feet. A PITA, indeed!



When I was a teenager, I made slide shows and 8 mm movies with wild sync reel to reel music tracks, most of which were in stereo. I had a Silver King finely powdered aluminum projection screen that, if seen from head-on, had terrific brightness, color, depth, and resolution, and, because it didn't depolarize the light, was suitable for 3D. But if it was viewed from chairs off to the side, it was darker than any other screen. Naturally, the best stereo sound was also from dead center. So, I used black painted angle irons to fasten the chairs to the floor.


----------



## pbarach

Denon x4400 is shipping to me soon. Leaving aside the adjustability of the frequency curve, does the Audyssey app produce better-sounding results than MultiEQ XT32 operated from the AVR?


----------



## cfraser

pbarach said:


> Denon x4400 is shipping to me soon. Leaving aside the adjustability of the frequency curve, does the Audyssey app produce better-sounding results than MultiEQ XT32 operated from the AVR?


Not...necessarily. You'll never know until you try! But after what you've spent already, another $20 and you can have a lot of fun, or at least get $20 worth of bitching if you don't like it. I'm betting you'll get some good use from it, it's improved a lot from "then". Regardless, enjoy the AVR, IMO it's pretty decent kit.


----------



## drh3b

pbarach said:


> Denon x4400 is shipping to me soon. Leaving aside the adjustability of the frequency curve, does the Audyssey app produce better-sounding results than MultiEQ XT32 operated from the AVR?


It's YMMV. For me, I get excellent results either way. Some people don't, but I con't recall seeing complaints about that on the app thread like I have in the past.
I do think the app is worth it for both ease of use, and an easy way to save various calibrations.


----------



## murlidher

drh3b said:


> It's YMMV. For me, I get excellent results either way. Some people don't, but I con't recall seeing complaints about that on the app thread like I have in the past.
> I do think the app is worth it for both ease of use, and an easy way to save various calibrations.


Considering I am using audyssey basic version (NR1609), hope the app can help in fixing some of the basic version limitations....

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## sjm817

*2 Channel music and Audyssey*

I recently upgraded my Denon X2100W to X3400H which upgraded me from XT to XT32. After messing around with a few things, I see something when playing 2 ch music that I would like some comments on. I have a 5.1 setup with Klipsch RP280F fronts and an HSU VTF-3 MK5 sub. Crossovers set to 80 Hz. This setup is capable of decent bass from mains and sub. For music I was using stereo and Flat profile which would play in 2.1. Even with that big 15" sub, bass seemed to be lacking. No punch. I switched to Direct and it was much better. This seemed odd as Direct plays in 2.0. Looking at my Audyssey EQ results it looks like the bass freq was very attenuated (see pic). Since it is 2 ch source and no LFE, I guess not much bass is being sent to the sub because of that curve. 

I tried different settings and L/R bypass is much better. Sounds pretty much the same as Direct but plays in 2.1 Vs 2.0. With L/R bypass in Stereo, what is still being done? Is it basically Direct with the addition of being able to use 2.1? Does the EQ curve look strange? I dont have a pic from the X2100 with XT. I do recall a low freq attenuation curve but it was not as much.


----------



## Alan P

murlidher said:


> Considering I am using audyssey basic version (NR1609), hope the app can help in fixing some of the basic version limitations....
> 
> Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


I could be wrong, but that AVR is not on the list of compatible AVRs. They are all Denons on the list.

https://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/homecinema/avreceiver/audysseymulteqeditorapp


----------



## Alan P

sjm817 said:


> I recently upgraded my Denon X2100W to X3400H which upgraded me from XT to XT32. After messing around with a few things, I see something when playing 2 ch music that I would like some comments on. I have a 5.1 setup with Klipsch RP280F fronts and an HSU VTF-3 MK5 sub. Crossovers set to 80 Hz. This setup is capable of decent bass from mains and sub. For music I was using stereo and Flat profile which would play in 2.1. Even with that big 15" sub, bass seemed to be lacking. No punch. I switched to Direct and it was much better. This seemed odd as Direct plays in 2.0. Looking at my Audyssey EQ results it looks like the bass freq was very attenuated (see pic). Since it is 2 ch source and no LFE, I guess not much bass is being sent to the sub because of that curve.
> 
> I tried different settings and L/R bypass is much better. Sounds pretty much the same as Direct but plays in 2.1 Vs 2.0. With L/R bypass in Stereo, what is still being done? Is it basically Direct with the addition of being able to use 2.1? Does the EQ curve look strange? I dont have a pic from the X2100 with XT. I do recall a low freq attenuation curve but it was not as much.


Those graphs, aside from being pretty much useless (they are a VERY rough illustration of what Audyssey has done), show the boosts and cuts Audyssey has done. It looks to me like Audyssey has boosted the bass region, not cut it. I could be wrong, it happens quite often. 

Do you have your speakers set to small? Did you boost the sub trim post-Audyssey (a necessity for most folks around here)?

Where did Audyssey set your initial sub trim?


----------



## sjm817

Alan P said:


> Those graphs, aside from being pretty much useless (they are a VERY rough illustration of what Audyssey has done), show the boosts and cuts Audyssey has done. It looks to me like Audyssey has boosted the bass region, not cut it. I could be wrong, it happens quite often.
> 
> Do you have your speakers set to small? Did you boost the sub trim post-Audyssey (a necessity for most folks around here)?
> 
> Where did Audyssey set your initial sub trim?


Speakers are all set to small. Initially the mains were full range, center was 40Hz and surrounds were 60Hz. All are 80Hz now. Initial sub trim was -8. Now is -4. Even with -4 trim, Audyssey flat or reference in stereo 2.1 will have a lot less bass than Direct with 2.0. Again, L/R bypass stereo 2.1 seems very close to Direct.


----------



## mthomas47

sjm817 said:


> Speakers are all set to small. Initially the mains were full range, center was 40Hz and surrounds were 60Hz. All are 80Hz now. Initial sub trim was -8. Now is -4. Even with -4 trim, Audyssey flat or reference in stereo 2.1 will have a lot less bass than Direct with 2.0. Again, L/R bypass stereo 2.1 seems very close to Direct.



Hi,

Alan is probably going to tell you the same thing I am. It is very hard to know exactly what is happening on the basis of the information provided. This sort of situation is the reason that people so often recommend measuring the frequency response in a room, so that we can actually see what is happening to the FR.

If I were to speculate, I would imagine that Audyssey has pulled down a peak in the mid-bass, probably somewhere above 50Hz (although it could be a little lower). Audyssey's job is to try to smooth-out the frequency response, so that you don't have certain frequencies that are too loud or too soft, compared to other frequencies. But, sometimes a peak occurs in a place that is especially noticeable, and that's what may have happened here. You notice when Audyssey removes that peak. 

If I were you, I would just try adding some additional subwoofer boost to see if you can get back a little more of the overall bass you like. I would also recommend listening with Audyssey fully on for a while to see if you might find yourself becoming accustomed to more clarity in those mid-bass frequencies. You can always decide to use the Direct mode if you prefer, but if you give yourself some time, you may find that you are actually trading some clarity for a boom at a random frequency. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: You have probably already done this, but if you haven't done a subwoofer crawl, now might be a good time. Giving Audyssey the best available FR to start with is helpful. You may also want to try running a couple of calibrations to see if you can improve the results from your current one. There are a number of suggestions on setup and calibration technique in the Guide, linked below.


----------



## Alan P

Yup, Mike is on the same track I am. Once you become accustomed to peaky bass, flat bass can sound, well...flat.

Crank up the sub trim some more and give it a week or so.


----------



## sjm817

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Alan is probably going to tell you the same thing I am. It is very hard to know exactly what is happening on the basis of the information provided. This sort of situation is the reason that people so often recommend measuring the frequency response in a room, so that we can actually see what is happening to the FR.
> 
> If I were to speculate, I would imagine that Audyssey has pulled down a peak in the mid-bass, probably somewhere above 50Hz (although it could be a little lower). Audyssey's job is to try to smooth-out the frequency response, so that you don't have certain frequencies that are too loud or too soft, compared to other frequencies. But, sometimes a peak occurs in a place that is especially noticeable, and that's what may have happened here. You notice when Audyssey removes that peak.
> 
> If I were you, I would just try adding some additional subwoofer boost to see if you can get back a little more of the overall bass you like. I would also recommend listening with Audyssey fully on for a while to see if you might find yourself becoming accustomed to more clarity in those mid-bass frequencies. You can always decide to use the Direct mode if you prefer, but if you give yourself some time, you may find that you are actually trading some clarity for a boom at a random frequency.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Edit: You have probably already done this, but if you haven't done a subwoofer crawl, now might be a good time. Giving Audyssey the best available FR to start with is helpful. You may also want to try running a couple of calibrations to see if you can improve the results from your current one. There are a number of suggestions on setup and calibration technique in the Guide, linked below.


Thanks for all the suggestions. Yes I actually did the SW crawl. That was a pretty interesting exercise. There are only so many practical spots for the sub which I dont think is unusual. I listened and also did a "quick and dirty REW". Im sure you will LOL this but I didnt have anything else handy so here is what I did. I used an iphone dB meter app and ran a 0 - 100 sweep from Youtube. I had Audyssey EQ off, stereo and crossover set to 250 to keep the sound to sub. That seemed to work well. Where the sub was, there was this 10 dB drop at 55-60Hz. Was pretty flat otherwise. Next spot was all over the place and closer to the MLP than I really wanted anyway. Where it would up sounded good and was a pretty flat response. Location practicality wise is great as there is nothing there. It is a bit odd spot as it is behind and to the left the LF speaker. Not right on top of each other though. I should take a pic or a drawing.

I dont want to bother the group too much with this as much as you are helpful! There are a couple other challenges as the couch is against a wall. I used this guide for mic placement and did run it a few times.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB
_In this pattern, mic position 1 is about 4" in front of a blanket covered chair, which is the MLP. Positions 2 and 3 are out to each side of 1 by about 12". 4 and 5 are straight out in front of 2 and 3 by about 24". Number 6 is in a straight line out from 1, about 14" to 18" away. All six of those mic positions are right at ear height (the center of the ear canal). Positions 7 and 8 are in fairly close to the chair back--perhaps about 6" away from the blanket and about 6" out to the side of mic 1. Both of the last two positions are raised up by 2" or 3" above ear level. None of the mic positions go behind the chair. _

2--------1---------3
-----7--------8-----

---------6-----------

4-------------------5

Im thinking of trying out the Audyssey calibration app and see how that is.


----------



## sjm817

Alan P said:


> Yup, Mike is on the same track I am. Once you become accustomed to peaky bass, flat bass can sound, well...flat.
> 
> Crank up the sub trim some more and give it a week or so.


Thank you. I will spend some more time with it tweaking settings and will get there...


----------



## murlidher

Alan P said:


> I could be wrong, but that AVR is not on the list of compatible AVRs. They are all Denons on the list.
> 
> https://www.denon.co.uk/uk/product/homecinema/avreceiver/audysseymulteqeditorapp


It's marantz slim line receiver. It's compatible with app, just wanted to know if it can help in overcoming base line audyssey version

http://us.marantz.com/us/Products/Pages/ProductDetails.aspx?CatId=avreceivers&ProductId=NR1609 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> It looks to me like Audyssey has boosted the bass region, not cut it. I could be wrong, it happens quite often.



Isn't the OP's deep bass boosted, while the mid bass is turned down? (I can't read the frequencies on the graph -- too small and blurry.)


----------



## Totemtimer

Hey all. I’m having some issues with my system. I have a Denon 1400-h , Boston VR3s a VR12 center, Sony SSCS5 surrounds, and a Klipsch SW-350. I’ve ran Audyssey several times and it keeps giving my VR12 a crossover of 110. I don’t know what is wrong because that can’t be correct, right? It’s giving appropriate crossovers for my other speakers so it’s not a mic problem. I’ve read many times on the Audyssey set up guide on these forums that I can raise the crossover but never lower it. So idk what to do right now.
Thanks Logan



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> Isn't the OP's deep bass boosted, while the mid bass is turned down? (I can't read the frequencies on the graph -- too small and blurry.)


Yes that is what I see. Mid bass is attenuated like 15 dB This pic is a bit better


----------



## mthomas47

Totemtimer said:


> Hey all. I’m having some issues with my system. I have a Denon 1400-h , Boston VR3s a VR12 center, Sony SSCS5 surrounds, and a Klipsch SW-350. I’ve ran Audyssey several times and it keeps giving my VR12 a crossover of 110. I don’t know what is wrong because that can’t be correct, right? It’s giving appropriate crossovers for my other speakers so it’s not a mic problem. I’ve read many times on the Audyssey set up guide on these forums that I can raise the crossover but never lower it. So idk what to do right now.
> Thanks Logan
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi Logan,

Bass frequencies are strongly influenced by the room, and by specific speaker/subwoofer placement in the room. It is very possible that your center channel is simply not getting sufficient boundary reinforcement to allow it to warrant a lower crossover. There is no reason at all why Audyssey (and your AVR) would selectively single out one speaker for a higher crossover, unless that's the way it actually measures in the room. (Audyssey measures the low-frequency response, and your AVR sets the crossover according to its own programming.) 

In the absence of other information, I would trust the crossover that was set. I think that you could probably experiment with going down to 100Hz, if that improves the sound in a noticeable way. But, I wouldn't go any lower than that. Otherwise, you may try to force the center channel to try to play some low-frequencies, at higher volumes than it can play them without distortion, at that particular position in the room. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## audiofan1

Totemtimer said:


> Hey all. I’m having some issues with my system. I have a Denon 1400-h , Boston VR3s a VR12 center, Sony SSCS5 surrounds, and a Klipsch SW-350. I’ve ran Audyssey several times and it keeps giving my VR12 a crossover of 110. I don’t know what is wrong because that can’t be correct, right? It’s giving appropriate crossovers for my other speakers so it’s not a mic problem. I’ve read many times on the Audyssey set up guide on these forums that I can raise the crossover but never lower it. So idk what to do right now.
> Thanks Logan
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 Somethings off for sure as I use a VR12 as well and Audyssey will report 80hz and as low as 60hz. Insure both woofers are working and that the connections are correct but as Mike noted in the end placement just may be the culprit.


----------



## pbarach

*True or False?*

Someone posted to the Audyssey Tech Talk page that the Audyssey app "drops off the bass at 25 Hz or so and can't be defeated to extend lower." He also wrote that an advantage of the app over using the AVR's Audyssey calibration is that "you can get rid of midrange compensation if you wish."

So, two questions:

1. Is it true that the app doesn't calibrate below about 25 Hz?

2. Is it true that you must calibrate with the app in order to be able to switch off midrange compensation?


----------



## Dave-T

Wonder if I could get some help? I just got a second subwoofer, I am now running two JL Audio F112v2's with a Marantz 8802a processor. I level matched both subs with a 80Hz test tone, got the phase in alignment and and adjusted the polarity. I reran Audyessy and put in two subs. I had to run it twice because now I can't do the SW mating at 82 anymore because I get a -12. I reran Audyessy a second time and level matched at 77.2. Fist question how are you supposed to get both subs exactly the same in the SW level match the indictor moves so fast, I think I got 77.2 and 77.6. Everything ended fine with the results, however one sub - 9.0 and the other -11.0. I then used the Up/Down feature and put the one sub that was -11.0 to -5.5 and the other to -7.0. The second question is before with one sub I would then turn the volume dial on my sub for more impact, now with to subs how do I add more volume and not throw things off. If I raised the volume one sub could be louder than the other. When I connected the second sub I also used the second sub output not a y connector. Also did not use the slave feature that the JL Sub offers because I wanted to use the DARO DSP which I find very helpful. Any advice or explanation would be extremely appreciated. My system does sound way better with the second but I feel I can get a tad more by raising the vol, I just do not k now how without potentially screwing things up.

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## Kal Rubinson

pbarach said:


> 1. Is it true that the app doesn't calibrate below about 25 Hz?


False. The target curve rolls off but it does EQ.



> 2. Is it true that you must calibrate with the app in order to be able to switch off midrange compensation?


True. There is no option for MRC (on/off) with the in-built Audyssey setup procedure.


----------



## sjm817

I thought the Flat curve does not have MRC?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

sjm817 said:


> I thought the Flat curve does not have MRC?


I believe so but the Reference curve (which I prefer) has it as a default unless you use the app to defeat it.

BTW, this dichotomy explains why the comparison of Flat vs. Reference is complex without the app.


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Wonder if I could get some help? I just got a second subwoofer, I am now running two JL Audio F112v2's with a Marantz 8802a processor. I level matched both subs with a 80Hz test tone, got the phase in alignment and and adjusted the polarity. I reran Audyessy and put in two subs. I had to run it twice because now I can't do the SW mating at 82 anymore because I get a -12. I reran Audyessy a second time and level matched at 77.2. Fist question how are you supposed to get both subs exactly the same in the SW level match the indictor moves so fast, I think I got 77.2 and 77.6. Everything ended fine with the results, however one sub - 9.0 and the other -11.0. I then used the Up/Down feature and put the one sub that was -11.0 to -5.5 and the other to -7.0. The second question is before with one sub I would then turn the volume dial on my sub for more impact, now with to subs how do I add more volume and not throw things off. If I raised the volume one sub could be louder than the other. When I connected the second sub I also used the second sub output not a y connector. Also did not use the slave feature that the JL Sub offers because I wanted to use the DARO DSP which I find very helpful. Any advice or explanation would be extremely appreciated. My system does sound way better with the second but I feel I can get a tad more by raising the vol, I just do not k now how without potentially screwing things up.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave



Hi Dave,

The way you did the calibration is perfectly fine. It's very difficult to get two subwoofers to register exactly the same SPL during a calibration, by making gain adjustments, because the increments of adjustment are a little too gross. But, Audyssey ends up setting trim levels to a very close tolerance, so that the subwoofers are level-matched. 

All you need to do now is to increase your gains as symmetrically as possible. If you have an analogue gain knob on your subs, it may be advisable to mark your post-calibration starting point with a small piece of tape, so that you will be able to return to it if you ever want to (for a recalibration for instance). Then, just make symmetrical adjustments to the gains on both subwoofers to add as much bass boost as you want. As long as you increase the gains by the same amount, the subwoofers will still be level-matched.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> The way you did the calibration is perfectly fine. It's very difficult to get two subwoofers to register exactly the same SPL during a calibration, by making gain adjustments, because the increments of adjustment are a little too gross. But, Audyssey ends up setting trim levels to a very close tolerance, so that the subwoofers are level-matched.
> 
> All you need to do now is to increase your gains as symmetrically as possible. If you have an analogue gain knob on your subs, it may be advisable to mark your post-calibration starting point with a small piece of tape, so that you will be able to return to it if you ever want to (for a recalibration for instance). Then, just make symmetrical adjustments to the gains on both subwoofers to add as much bass boost as you want. As long as you increase the gains by the same amount, the subwoofers will still be level-matched.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


mike so if I understand you correctly, mark the volume knob on both subs to where it was level matched when running Audyseey. Then rain ether volume knob on both subs the same amount.

Thank you so much for the help! This makes sense if I am reading it correctly.

Dave


----------



## cfraser

Kal Rubinson said:


> I believe so but the Reference curve (which I prefer) has it as a default unless you use the app to defeat it.
> 
> BTW, this dichotomy explains why the comparison of Flat vs. Reference is complex without the app.


May I ask what you prefer about the Reference curve? Is this the stock Reference curve (from pre-pro), or one derived/customized via the app? For movies or mch music, or do you prefer the Reference for both?


----------



## Soulburner

mthomas47 said:


> Dave-T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder if I could get some help? I just got a second subwoofer, I am now running two JL Audio F112v2's with a Marantz 8802a processor. I level matched both subs with a 80Hz test tone, got the phase in alignment and and adjusted the polarity. I reran Audyessy and put in two subs. I had to run it twice because now I can't do the SW mating at 82 anymore because I get a -12. I reran Audyessy a second time and level matched at 77.2. Fist question how are you supposed to get both subs exactly the same in the SW level match the indictor moves so fast, I think I got 77.2 and 77.6. Everything ended fine with the results, however one sub - 9.0 and the other -11.0. I then used the Up/Down feature and put the one sub that was -11.0 to -5.5 and the other to -7.0. The second question is before with one sub I would then turn the volume dial on my sub for more impact, now with to subs how do I add more volume and not throw things off. If I raised the volume one sub could be louder than the other. When I connected the second sub I also used the second sub output not a y connector. Also did not use the slave feature that the JL Sub offers because I wanted to use the DARO DSP which I find very helpful. Any advice or explanation would be extremely appreciated. My system does sound way better with the second but I feel I can get a tad more by raising the vol, I just do not k now how without potentially screwing things up.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dave,
> 
> The way you did the calibration is perfectly fine. It's very difficult to get two subwoofers to register exactly the same SPL during a calibration, by making gain adjustments, because the increments of adjustment are a little too gross. But, Audyssey ends up setting trim levels to a very close tolerance, so that the subwoofers are level-matched.
> 
> All you need to do now is to increase your gains as symmetrically as possible. If you have an analogue gain knob on your subs, it may be advisable to mark your post-calibration starting point with a small piece of tape, so that you will be able to return to it if you ever want to (for a recalibration for instance). Then, just make symmetrical adjustments to the gains on both subwoofers to add as much bass boost as you want. As long as you increase the gains by the same amount, the subwoofers will still be level-matched.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

I'm concerned about his procedure. Whenever I have aligned my subs with phase first, Audyssey created a big cancellation somewhere in the response. It doesn't seem to be able to handle it. You really should set the phase of both subs to the same, or 0 to keep it simple. Let your AVR set them electronically.

I wouldn't worry too much about the level matching. I've learned to treat it as more of a suggestion.


----------



## garygarrison

cfraser said:


> May I ask what you prefer about the Reference curve? Is this the stock Reference curve (from pre-pro), or one derived/customized via the app? For movies or mch music, or do you prefer the Reference for both?



You didn't ask me, but ...


With an excellent music recording or a modern movie on Blu-ray, I tend to prefer the *"Flat"* curve (my room is moderately treated, but not as much as I imagine the Audyssey people have in mind when they say that "Flat" may be appropriate for heavily treated rooms with nearfield listening).


Some music recordings and BDs of older movies (before c.2,000***) have subtle high frequency distortion, and sometimes are on the harsh side. For these, I tend to prefer the *"Reference" *curve*;* the treble roll-off and the MRC tend to minimize the HF distortion and the harshness.




*** In making otherwise excellent recordings on _*magnetic*_ soundtracks (forget optical) in the '50s through the '70s, the mixers sometimes didn't worry about the uppermost octave of music -- theater loudspeakers by Altec and Jim Lansing in those days took a nosedive at about 11K H. That may have hidden most distortion above 11K. The Audyssey Reference curve goes part way in doing that.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

cfraser said:


> May I ask what you prefer about the Reference curve?


It sounds better balanced to me.


> Is this the stock Reference curve (from pre-pro), or one derived/customized via the app?


Both and when I use other EQs, like DiracLive, I use a similar FR profile.


> For movies or mch music, or do you prefer the Reference for both?


I make my choices based on mch music and play the movies the same way. I am not a movie guy.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> I'm concerned about his procedure. Whenever I have aligned my subs with phase first, Audyssey created a big cancellation somewhere in the response. It doesn't seem to be able to handle it. *You really should set the phase of both subs to the same, or 0 to keep it simple. Let your AVR set them electronically. *



That's similar to what Chris K., the CTO of Audyssey said. He said to set both subs to 0, arbitrarily, then let Audyssey set the phase. He seemed to indicate that Audyssey would improve the phase over a wide range of frequencies, whereas using a polarity switch would not. I'm not sure how this works.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> You didn't ask me, but ...
> 
> 
> With an excellent music recording or a modern movie on Blu-ray, I tend to prefer the *"Flat"* curve (my room is moderately treated, but not as much as I imagine the Audyssey people have in mind when they say that "Flat" may be appropriate for heavily treated rooms with nearfield listening).
> 
> 
> Some music recordings and BDs of older movies (before c.2,000***) have subtle high frequency distortion, and sometimes are on the harsh side. For these, I tend to prefer the *"Reference" *curve*;* the treble roll-off and the MRC tend to minimize the HF distortion and the harshness.


I've been using the Flat curve. My room is about 13' x 14', and I'm 7-8 ft away from the front speakers. Lawrence of Arabia on BluRay is an example (IMO) of an overly bright soundtrack that's more pleasant with the Reference curve.


----------



## cfraser

I prefer the Reference curve for older movies, the ones where the higher-frequency audio is not so clean as more modern movies, and in fact gets quite shrill once you get into the '30s with their penchant for (sometimes much!) elevated music volumes.

Generally I use the Flat curve though, almost always, and for my little mch music listening too. I am not "wed" to Flat though, will change it out as seems best to me. My room is 18x12x9'H and fully, but not "heavily", treated.

I was just wondering what Kal's thoughts were because I know he's been doing this for a long time with various Audyssey devices/implementations. I was also doing some new setups in the app to try out, so would see what he said and maybe incorporate that too.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I've been using the Flat curve. My room is about 13' x 14', and I'm 7-8 ft away from the front speakers. Lawrence of Arabia on BluRay is an example (IMO) of an overly bright soundtrack that's more pleasant with the Reference curve.



I agree, Lawrence certainly is too bright! To keep the brass from being too piercing, the over all SPL has to be too low to allow the drums to be sufficiently glorious! By using Audyssey Reference, the brass is much more tolerable*; *I still turn up the bass control to +6 dB, and make sure the sub trim is pretty far up. Then the drums can part one's hair, as they did in the theater, for the 70 mm version.


Such fine tuning should be done, IMO, with almost any older movie. Newer ones sound fine with my standard settings, including Audyssey Flat.


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dave,
> 
> The way you did the calibration is perfectly fine. It's very difficult to get two subwoofers to register exactly the same SPL during a calibration, by making gain adjustments, because the increments of adjustment are a little too gross. But, Audyssey ends up setting trim levels to a very close tolerance, so that the subwoofers are level-matched.
> 
> All you need to do now is to increase your gains as symmetrically as possible. If you have an analogue gain knob on your subs, it may be advisable to mark your post-calibration starting point with a small piece of tape, so that you will be able to return to it if you ever want to (for a recalibration for instance). Then, just make symmetrical adjustments to the gains on both subwoofers to add as much bass boost as you want. As long as you increase the gains by the same amount, the subwoofers will still be level-matched.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


MIke,

I attached a pic of what my LCR looks like now with the two subs. As you can see I took you prior recommendation and got a good quality rug pad for my AV cabinet to help with the refection it was causing, and it dramatically worked. In the picture you can see that both of my subs come pretty close to the bottom my Left and Right speaker. Have I created a reflection point? Should I add a piece of rug pad over each sub? The subs are 8.5 inches from the wall.

Thanks again

Dave


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> MIke,
> 
> I attached a pic of what my LCR looks like now with the two subs. As you can see I took you prior recommendation and got a good quality rug pad for my AV cabinet to help with the refection it was causing, and it dramatically worked. In the picture you can see that both of my subs come pretty close to the bottom my Left and Right speaker. Have I created a reflection point? Should I add a piece of rug pad over each sub? The subs are 8.5 inches from the wall.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> Dave



Hi Dave,

You are very welcome, and I'm happy to hear that the rug improved the sound quality in the room. You don't need to worry about doing anything similar with the subwoofers, though. Bass frequencies radiate omnidirectionally, and they don't reflect off surfaces in quite the same way that higher frequencies do. 

The reason that putting a rug in front of the listening position can be so effective is because higher frequencies mostly leave the speakers in a cone shape. (Some sound waves do radiate backward through the typically thinner back wall of the cabinet.) So, as they get several feet from the source, quite a few sound waves will have reflected off the floor, and into your ears, just enough behind the direct arriving sound to create some distortion. 

That won't happen with the bass frequencies played by your subwoofers. Those frequencies will simply radiate in all directions, going through some things, and bending from contact with others, rather than ricocheting in a straight line toward the listening area. I see that you put some acoustic fabric on the surface under your display, and I suspect that has also contributed to reducing early reflections from your in-wall center channel.

I might consider putting something similar (perhaps with black fabric over the top of the acoustic fabric) on the surface of the subwoofers to prevent early reflections from the other in-wall speakers. In an abundance of caution, I have done something similar with one of my subwoofers, which has a highly polished surface, and a speaker on a stand looming over it. I wouldn't expect this to make as dramatic a difference as the other things you have done, but I have found that every little bit helps when it comes to sound quality.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

I mentioned it in one of the Audyssey threads here, but I haven't been that impressed with my own correction curves using the app. There were lots of things I _thought _I wanted to change about the Ref/Flat curves, things that I always wished I could do. Pretty meh! so far, but I'll get down to it more in a couple months.

So I decided to "reset my Audyssey ears". I used the app to correct full-band for all my speakers where Audyssey would do it (i.e. below the XO too), and I removed the MRC from all speakers. Otherwise stock curves.

Considering almost the only times I use the Reference curve, the MRC actually "helps" for my purposes, I really didn't need to remove it. And since I usually run with an XO of 80Hz, and sometimes 40Hz for action/comic book movies, I didn't need the "below XO" correction either.

So basically I'm running, in practice, with stock Audyssey curves as built into the AVR/pre-pro!  I like them better than my own concoctions. Nice to have options though.

Edit: I should say that I treated my room and arranged/set-up the gear etc. as an iterative process specifically _with _(stock) Audyssey enabled and REW. I thought it sounded pretty good in the end, so it's not a huge suprise that it seems better that way. We'll see if I can improve it (IMO of course) in a couple months, once I'm fully baked-in to this sound again.


----------



## garygarrison

cfraser said:


> I mentioned it in one of the Audyssey threads here, but I haven't been that impressed with my own correction curves using the app. *There were lots of things I thought I wanted to change* about the Ref/Flat curves, things that I always wished I could do. Pretty meh! so far, but I'll get down to it more in a couple months.
> 
> *So I decided to "reset my Audyssey ears".* I used the app to correct full-band for all my speakers where Audyssey would do it (i.e. below the XO too), and I removed the MRC from all speakers. Otherwise stock curves ...
> 
> ... So basically I'm running, in practice, with stock Audyssey curves as built into the AVR/pre-pro!  I like them better than my own concoctions. Nice to have options though.
> 
> Edit: I should say that I treated my room and arranged/set-up the gear etc. as an iterative process specifically _with _(stock) Audyssey enabled and REW. I thought it sounded pretty good in the end, so it's not a huge suprise that it seems better that way.* We'll see if I can improve it (IMO of course) in a couple months, once I'm fully baked-in to this sound again*.



I think a couple of months of "bake in" is wise.


I've sometimes_ *thought*_ I've known exactly what my system/room needed, but then changed my mind when I heard it. My several months with a many band graphic equalizer (long before Audyssey) were very instructive. The most notable failure was my attempt to exaggerate some very high frequency response to provide a little more sparkle and brilliance and air. I found that recordings that needed it couldn't take it (more treble revealed more distortion), and those that didn't need it ... didn't need it! Naturally, I had no measuring equipment back then, except the Radio Shack meter, for which "correction" curves wildly disagreed with each other. None of this is to say that I don't impose some changes on the Audyssey Flat curve (my preference for most recordings) as heard from my MLP and a few adjacent seats. The curve Audyssey Flat came up with provides a cut in treble at 8K Hz, and about a 4 dB boost above 10 K, both relative to the SPL at 1K. I didn't know I had a peak at 8 K, but music sure sounds better without it. Audyssey pretty well smooths out the rest of the curve but I impose a bass boost below about 200 Hz that gradually increases on its way down to 20 Hz, both because I love bass, and because music providers often attenuate the low bass. I did this by ear, and change it for certain recordings.


I have found the following useful, though old hat.


1.* Calibrate your ears* with many live music experiences -- *but *they will all sound at least a little different, sometimes surprisingly so. Brass can be biting, golden, mellow, etc., even when paying the same piece of music in different halls, with different conductors at the helm. And different performances of Rock 'n Soul music by Country Joe, swinging his microphone on its long cord probably sounded very different depending on what kind of surfaces the microphone was crashing into. I've heard a string section sound dark, bright, rich, gutty, etc. One commonality is that, IMO, live _acoustical, instrumental_ music will never sound strained (What, never? Hardly ever!), at least not in the way overloaded audio components can make it sound.. 



2. After our sense of what live performances sound like is refreshed, we need to *go for high fidelity to the imagined original*. The imagined original is all we've got. There is no way to compare the recording to the way that particular performance sounded live. Even if we were in the original venue, moving to a different section of seats, or significantly changing the number of people present, could make a difference. The important thing is to make it sound *plausible*, as J. Gordon Holt, the founder of _Stereophile_, put it, it needs to trigger our musical *Gestalt*. He also said, "Down with flat." I get what he says, but it's better to start with a smooth curve like Audyssey gives us, rather than a kinky one, then alter it until it strongly reminds us of what is described in points 1 & 2. 



3. *Honor your preferences;* you have to be happy, even if this means disregarding points 1 and 2. If our sense of what live music sounds like has been refreshed, though, such disregard is extremely unlikely. If I wish for a bigger orchestra (and "full" orchestras range from about 60 players, through the typical 100 piece, up to the 120 piece with 2 choirs, for some Mahler, to 144 plus choir for one Schonberg), I find I end up increasing bass, sometimes SPL, and, for two channel music recordings, using Dolby PL II Music to utilize the center and surround channels. For SACDs with 5 channel sound, I'm part way there.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> I find I end up increasing bass, sometimes SPL, *and, for two channel music recordings, using Dolby PL II Music to utilize the center and surround channels.*


I have considered this as well, though it may be necessary to reduce the level of the surrounds so they play a supporting role rather than shout "I'M A DIFFERENT SPEAKER THAN YOUR MAINS, LISTEN TO MEEEEEE".


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> I have considered this as well, though it may be necessary to reduce the level of the surrounds so they play a supporting role rather than shout "I'M A DIFFERENT SPEAKER THAN YOUR MAINS, LISTEN TO MEEEEEE".



LOL. My PL II seems to keep the surrounds low, but I almost never use Dynamic EQ, which bizarrely turns up the surrounds.


I just listened to the Duke Ellington soundtrack for Anatomy of a Murder, 24 bit remastered, but still just 2 channel, with PL II, and the Beethoven Overtures on SACD, 4 channel, remastered from a Quadraphonic recording of the 1970s, and BOTH sounded great, with the main sound coming from the front, spilling just slightly over onto the front part of the side walls, with no gimmicky stuff from the surrounds, just the much advertised "room filling sound."


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> LOL. My PL II seems to keep the surrounds low, but I almost never use Dynamic EQ, which bizarrely turns up the surrounds.
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Duke Ellington soundtrack for Anatomy of a Murder, 24 bit remastered, but still just 2 channel, with PL II, and the Beethoven Overtures on SACD, 4 channel, remastered from a Quadraphonic recording of the 1970s, and BOTH sounded great, with the main sound coming from the front, spilling just slightly over onto the front part of the side walls, with no gimmicky stuff from the surrounds, just the much advertised "room filling sound."


You are fortunate to have PLII Music. I had that on my X2100W and really liked it. The PLII music puts just enough ambient sound in the surrounds to help fill the room. You can also adjust the front to rear and LR to center spread. My new X3400H doesnt have it. Replaced with Dolby Surround Upmixer which sounds like poo. The best I came up with is use multi channel stereo and use the channel adjust set to -12 center and -6 surrounds. Works pretty well.


----------



## cfraser

I rarely listen to mch music, but the mentioned points are understood. So I can't really comment on anybody's suggestions as I have no actual "preference"! But they are things I can try next time. Mostly I just use my regular Audyssey Flat settings for mch music.

For stereo music, I use an "analog" system, so no Audyssey. (My systems are "split" before the front stereo amp.) But using REW I tried to make the analog system bass response in the room similar to what it would be with Audyssey i.e. using the DSP settings in the subs, so I need to change the sub settings for stereo music, plus they needed stereo audio cables feeding each one for this (not as big a pain as it might sound to swap between analog/digital system subs, worth the 30 seconds IMO).


----------



## slimDub13

Ran Audyssey the other with both of my speakers set at 12.
Did not get any prodding to increase or lower the volume.

In any case i ended with Sub level on both speakers at 0dB.
Is this an ideal/normal level to be at?


Thanks for your input.


----------



## Soulburner

slimDub13 said:


> Ran Audyssey the other with both of my speakers set at 12.
> Did not get any prodding to increase or lower the volume.
> 
> In any case i ended with Sub level on both speakers at 0dB.
> Is this an ideal/normal level to be at?
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input.


Explain what you mean by "both of my speakers set at 12"? Do you mean the sub trim in the AVR was -12? In that case, it would be recommended to re-run Audyssey with your subs clicked down one or two notches so that you stay away from the maximum of -12.

Also, are both of your subs really in the same exact place?


----------



## slimDub13

Soulburner said:


> Explain what you mean by "both of my speakers set at 12"? Do you mean the sub trim in the AVR was -12? In that case, it would be recommended to re-run Audyssey with your subs clicked down one or two notches so that you stay away from the maximum of -12.
> 
> Also, are both of your subs really in the same exact place?


Sorry I was not clear.

I meant to say both of my subs' volume are set at 12 o'clock.

The subs are equidistant from each other.


----------



## Soulburner

slimDub13 said:


> Soulburner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain what you mean by "both of my speakers set at 12"? Do you mean the sub trim in the AVR was -12? In that case, it would be recommended to re-run Audyssey with your subs clicked down one or two notches so that you stay away from the maximum of -12.
> 
> Also, are both of your subs really in the same exact place?
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I was not clear.
> 
> I meant to say both of my subs' volume are set at 12 o'clock.
> 
> The subs are equidistant from each other.
Click to expand...

Ok. With that in mind, I re-read your post. I think you want your AVR to set the subs closer to -10. If you got a "0", run it again with just a single point measurement, then hit calculate and check levels. Adjust sub gain until you get closer to -10, then do the full set of measurements.


----------



## garygarrison

I don't know why the manuals are not clear on this. People on this forum, plus at least one outside expert, found that the chance of distortion increases if the sub trim on the AVR is set at 0, especially if you play your movies and music at loud levels. This surprised several of us, because 0 seems like a reasonable place for the operator -- or Audyssey -- to set it, since it is half way up. But empiricism trumps reason in our world, especially if the manufacturers are cutting costs. The distortion involved is is thought to be because the line driver for the subwoofer output on the AVR can go into clipping with the trim set that high. It is also _conceivable_ that the circuitry in the subwoofer itself might get overloaded, depending on the design. So, I think the current consensus is that, if possible, the AVR trim should be below -5 ... You might want to confirm that in Mike's guide, linked in his signature in any post by mthomas47. The trim can be as low as -11.5, if your trim goes as low as -12. Using -11.5 makes it possible to, _*after*_ running Audyssey, turn up your sub trim on the AVR 6 or 6.5 dB to punch up the bass without rising above -5. Most people end up turning up the sub trim on the AVR at least a little, for reasons explained in Mike's guide.


----------



## slimDub13

@garygarrison thanks for the explanation.


----------



## slimDub13

Soulburner said:


> Ok. With that in mind, I re-read your post. I think you want your AVR to set the subs closer to -10. If you got a "0", *run it again with just a single point measurement*, then hit calculate and check levels. Adjust sub gain until you get closer to -10, then do the full set of measurements.


Good idea.
Thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## bigzee3

*audio/subwoofer level adjustment*

Hi Guys,

Any thoughts regarding the audio/subwoofer level adjustment. Should I be using this or not. I've already done the set up and finished up at -9.5 and then boosted to -5 which is great. Just don't understand what that setting would do?.


----------



## garygarrison

bigzee3 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Any thoughts regarding the audio/subwoofer level adjustment. Should I be using this or not. I've already done the set up and finished up at -9.5 and then boosted to -5 which is great. Just don't understand what that setting would do?.



You are O.K. with it set as it is now.


For a lucid explanation of everything you could want to know about subwoofers and Audyssey, see*:* Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


----------



## pbarach

*Midrange compensation aka "the BBC dip"*

Now that I have the Audyssey app, I have the option of turning midrange compensation off.

Audyssey says generally to leave Midrange Compensation on:
https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation

Paul McGowan, founder of PS Audio, says many loudspeakers today are currently designed with something like the BBC dip tro compensate for harshness in the region where a woofer transitions to a tweeter:
https://www.psaudio.com/askpaul/is-the-bbc-dip-still-used-in-speakers/

What have others found when turning this feature off?


----------



## StuBerger

I am having so many newbie problems with my Marantz SR 6011 and a Klipsch speaker setup in my home theater kinda room. I have two rows of seating and the rear row on a 12” riser. I’ve had numerous recommendations of where to do the mic placements using Audyssey and it just seems I’m always lacking midrange and decent punch or clarity with the speakers. Subs seem fine. There isn’t really any sweet spot or MLP due to the two rows of seating. I know my room probably has a lot of acoustic issues but we’re stuck with them. I am a newbie and really wish I had a pro local that could help but I don’t. I’m using a tripod to hold the mic at position. Is it better to not use Audyssey or its DEQ and at Reference or Flat or....
It just seems for the equipment I have it should sound a lot better.. more presence and punch throughout the channels. It seems flat or without punch. 
I do go into the settings after I run Audyssey and change all speakers to small and xo at 80 but now wondering if this is smart or sticking with the original Audyssey settings and not going with the THX thing. I did buy the Audyssey app as well but heck I don’t know what I’m going to do with that without any knowledge or expertise.
My equipment is:
Marantz SR6011
Klipsch RF 82 and RC 62 up front
Klipsch RS 42 x 4 for surrounds
HSU VTF2 MK3 x2 for subs

First row is about 10’ from front speakers and second is about 16’ 

I’ll try to enclose a pic of seating and of channel levels after Audyssey. I just would like to get the best sound for our HT system.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

pbarach said:


> *Midrange compensation aka "the BBC dip"*
> 
> Now that I have the Audyssey app, I have the option of turning midrange compensation off.
> 
> Audyssey says generally to leave Midrange Compensation on:
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation
> 
> Paul McGowan, founder of PS Audio, says many loudspeakers today are currently designed with something like the BBC dip tro compensate for harshness in the region where a woofer transitions to a tweeter:
> https://www.psaudio.com/askpaul/is-the-bbc-dip-still-used-in-speakers/
> 
> What have others found when turning this feature off?


I have experimented with it but always prefer it off with my setups.


----------



## cfraser

pbarach said:


> *Midrange compensation aka "the BBC dip"*
> 
> Now that I have the Audyssey app, I have the option of turning midrange compensation off.
> ...
> What have others found when turning this feature off?


I prefer turning MRC _off _for _all _speakers. You can choose on/off per speaker, some people here prefer it on for certain speakers only.

But...do you ever watch "old" movies? "Old" varies by person here, I noticed some classifying it as before 2000! I generally classify it as '50s or older. For even older pre-'50s movies, I find MRC _on _sounds better to me, with the Reference curve (normally I use Flat for everything). Especially for old British movies ('30s-'50s), which I bet were most likely mixed down on speakers that had the BBC dip. (I might even have some of those speakers [but much newer] in one room here, not HT though.)

It only takes about a minute to upload a curve-set from the app. So go crazy at first...


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> *Midrange compensation aka "the BBC dip"*
> Now that I have the Audyssey app, I have the option of turning midrange compensation off.
> 
> 
> Audyssey says generally to leave Midrange Compensation on:
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation
> ...
> What have others found when turning this feature off?





Kal Rubinson said:


> I have experimented with it but always prefer it off with my setups.





cfraser said:


> I prefer turning MRC _off _for _all _speakers. You can choose on/off per speaker, some people here prefer it on for certain speakers only.
> 
> 
> But...do you ever watch "old" movies? "Old" varies by person here, I noticed some classifying it as before 2000! I generally classify it as '50s or older. For even older pre-'50s movies, I find MRC _on _sounds better to me, with the Reference curve (normally I use Flat for everything). Especially for old British movies ('30s-'50s), which I bet were most likely mixed down on speakers that had the BBC dip ...



RE: Midrange comp (MRC), movies (new, old, and very old) and music.


Well, I don't have the app, and my pre-pro won't work with it. I also don't have Pro. But, I have a great deal of experience switching back and forth between Audyssey FLAT (attempts flat 20 to 20K Hz, with *no* MRC) and Audyssey REFERENCE (MRC *on* and treble above about 7K slowly rolled off, to *-*2 dB at 10K and *-*6 dB at 20K). I know this is a confounding of variables, but it's what I have available, so, FWIW*:*

With *very good recordings* (that I had classified as such before I had Audyssey) whether they are movies on Blu-ray or DVD, or music on CD, SACD, DVD-A, or even a few reel to reel tapes, I prefer Audyssey FLAT, with, of course, *no*MRC.

With recordings, regardless of source or format, that are *harsh*, or have some annoying *distortion*, I tend to prefer Audyssey REFERENCE with its concomitant MRC (and high treble roll-off). Subjectively, what I perceive as "harsh" often sounds like it is in the neighborhood of 2K, once again, FWIW. 

*Movies* for which the sound was initially recorded on an analog *optical* medium (not counting Dolby optical), I prefer Audyssey Reference, with MRC. By our standards, traditional optical is pretty hopeless for the music involved (but worth the sacrifice to hear Bernard Herrmann's score flowing with the picture in Citizen Kane, *or* the remastered masters in Fantasia -- in a pale replica of Fantasound stereo, see Peck, Scientific American, January 1941, "What Makes Fantasia Click," *or* soundtracks for which there was no excuse, e.g., The Magnificent Seven made in 1960, in optical mono when magnetic stereo movies had been around for 8 stereo/mag packed years*;* there is a pseudo-multichannel remaster for Blu-ray). These optical tracks were severely rolled off in both the bass and treble, and had a fair amount of distortion and noise, to boot. 


For movies originally recorded on a *magnetic* medium (mostly after 1953), generally in 2 track, 4 track (some CinemaScope/Panavision, etc.), 6 track (70 mm), 7 track (true Cinerama) or 8 track (D150), it can go either way. If there is high frequency distortion or harshness, I like Audyssey Reference with MRC, or if undistorted, warm and clear, Audyssey Flat, *without *MRC. Many movies made in 1953 and later were originally recorded magnetically, and can be "saved" by remastering on BD. The original idea was to send mag prints to all equipped theaters, which were often in the cities, and reserve optical prints for the boonies. Unfortunately, it didn't work that way, and a goodly number of mono optical prints found their way to the cities. There is a good chance that a BD of such a movie would sound better in our HTs than in an unlucky theater back in the day!

With *digital* original recording there was no way for distortion to "hide" above 10 K or so (which is where monitor speakers used in the early magnetic era of the movies rolled off, sometimes dropping like a rock). For most such movies I prefer Audyssey Flat, with *no *MRC, naturally.


----------



## garygarrison

StuBerger said:


> ... *lacking midrange and decent punch or clarity* ...
> 
> 
> My equipment is:
> Marantz SR6011
> Klipsch RF 82 and RC 62 up front
> Klipsch RS 42 x 4 for surrounds
> HSU VTF2 MK3 x2 for subs
> 
> First row is about 10’ from front speakers and second is about 16’
> 
> I’ll try to enclose a pic of seating and of channel levels after Audyssey. I just would like to get the best sound for our HT system.



What THX thing?


Your AVR accepts info from Audyssey then makes recommendations based on the AVR manufacturer's point of view, not necessarily Audyssey's. If it was recommended that any speaker be set for "Large," it would probably be best to ignore that. The Audyssey people are dead set against any speaker being set to "Large." 


Try using Audyssey FLAT, rather than Audyssey when you play movies or music. You don't need to re-run the calibration, just switch back and forth between Audyssey and Audyssey Flat on the screen. Plain old Audyssey (often the default choice), AKA Audyssey Reference, puts a very slight dip in the midrange, and rolls off the highs a bit. Audyssey FLAT does neither. Using Audyssey Flat should increase the clarity and the midrange.

If you are using DEQ, you may want to try switching it out. Some of us think it can muddy up the sound. If you turn DEQ off, the tone controls become available to you. Unfortunately, they only affect the Front Left and Front Right speakers, but I find them helpful anyway. Most people here turn up their subwoofer a bit. The sub trim in the AVR should be at or below *-* 5 or the line driver on the AVR's sub output might overload and cause distortion, so for added "punch" turn up the sub at the gain knob that is on the sub itself, and turn up the bass tone control for your LF & RF speakers. 

You may have done all of the following already. Try to "toe-in" your Front Left and Front Right speakers a little more so that they are aimed at the center seats, not aimed so nearly straight ahead. Aim the center channel speaker at the center of the seating area, and perhaps tilt it up a little so people can look down the throat of the mid/tweeter horn. 

Maximum clarity is most likely when all regular speakers are set for "Small" in the AVR, regardless of what size they really are, and the main crossover for the sub(s) is set for 80 Hz.
Some extra clarity might be had if the LPF for LFE in the AVR is set for 80 rather than the 120 Hz that is usually recommended. I _*really *_didn't want to do this, so I resisted it for a period of years. Since a respected manufacturer of subwoofers, and some people here on the forum recommended it, I tried switching back and forth for a couple of months, and guess what, more clarity in the 80 Hz position! 


Check to see if all your speakers are wired for the same polarity ("in phase"). The speaker cable should be marked in some way so you can put + to + and - to - at both ends of each cable, and have the same polarity for all speakers. If you have a test disk, double check it with that. 


Read these*; *they are clearer than any manual since life was simple, technology did not double cross us, and 2 channels were a lot.


Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences

Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## Kal Rubinson

garygarrison said:


> RE: Midrange comp (MRC), movies (new, old, and very old) and music.


My comment on using reference w/o MRC is based entirely on modern, high-quality, mostly discrete multichannel, almost entirely classical music program material. Movies were/are not a consideration for me.


----------



## cfraser

Speaking for myself (only), I have a natural HF rolloff which I will attribute mostly to age.  Since I do try to take care of my hearing, have it tested fairly regularly over the years, etc. But I do know it really starts to roll-off above 12kHz. If it didn't, I also might prefer stock Reference for more things. But as it is, I need the Audyssey Flat "help" in the HFs, and it sure doesn't sound the slightest bit bright to me. Mostly talking movies here.


----------



## meegwell

Hello - I just ran set built in setup yesterday and am not thrilled with the results. I used the intro scenes to Fury Road as my test material and basically I get very little Atmos “impact”. Hard to tell it is even running atmos. 

I used the recomended mic positions (8) and maybe was a bit above ear height.

Here is system and room info: marantz SR8012 AVR, LG UHD/4K runnng the material on a UHD/4k/atmos disc. Klipsch RP all around a 7.1.4 with in ceiling heights, HSU mk15 sub. Carpeted room about 15x30 syemtrical rectengal with traditional 7.1.4 placement alough surrounds a bit high (my preference)...

Ive been in the surround game since Pro Logic through 5.1 and 7.1 systems and have used audessey products in the past. 

What should I try to troubleshoot first?

Thanks


----------



## cfraser

^ What is new in your system, or what caused you to do this new Audyssey run? Should be pretty fine with your gear. So one thing you can ask is about Fury Road, ask the guys in the Atmos thread how good it is; IIRC it's pretty good also for height effects, if that's your problem, but it's been a while since I played it, and those guys'll have the details.

If it's the AVR that's new, did what it replace have Audyssey/Atmos too? Or is this your first Atmos setup? What I'm getting at is what changed to give you this "no impact" opinion. Compared to what? But yes, Fury Road should have some "impact" regardless.  And since you know how to run Audyssey, and position the mic etc., we want to find out other things before we say something's broken (like the mic).


----------



## meegwell

cfraser said:


> ^ What is new in your system, or what caused you to do this new Audyssey run? Should be pretty fine with your gear. So one thing you can ask is about Fury Road, ask the guys in the Atmos thread how good it is; IIRC it's pretty good also for height effects, if that's your problem, but it's been a while since I played it, and those guys'll have the details.
> 
> If it's the AVR that's new, did what it replace have Audyssey/Atmos too? Or is this your first Atmos setup? What I'm getting at is what changed to give you this "no impact" opinion. Compared to what? But yes, Fury Road should have some "impact" regardless.  And since you know how to run Audyssey, and position the mic etc., we want to find out other things before we say something's broken (like the mic).


Thanks for the input. This whole system is new top to bottom, and my first Atmos. My last system was 7.1. I finally found the results in the Marantz settings are some things I believe are strange: I set my fronts as small (although they are physically large towers I want my sub doing the low end duty and understand “small” doesn’t mean physically small from Audyssey) but after calibration they were set to large. The crossovers were full range for the fronts, 60 for the surrounds, and 40 for the rear surrounds and heights. I am going to download the app and try it that way.


----------



## cfraser

^ You should set all the speakers to Small, and the XOs to 80Hz for all speakers (possibly higher for the ceiling speakers, but leave them as-is if >80Hz). This is a good starting position to make sonic judgments. You can most likely just leave it like that too. The app may or may not do a better job. The built-in Audyssey will do a good job, judge using that. When you're comfortable, you can try tuning it with the app. I don't think it's a good idea to "start" with the app.

Edit: since you may be new to the Marantz setup menus, you need to go into the Speakers/Manual Setup menu to make these changes _after _you run Audyssey. The settings Audyssey determined are perhaps "best case" info on how Audyssey saw your speakers, and how it could make corrections.

You may always use your speakers in a "lesser" way than Audyssey saw them: i.e. choose Small when Audyssey saw Large, choose XO=80Hz when Audyssey saw 40Hz, etc. If you choose to use your speakers in a "greater" way than Audyssey saw them, understand that _built-in_ Audyssey won't correct below the XO freq it determined.


----------



## garygarrison

meegwell said:


> Thanks for the input. This whole system is new top to bottom, and my first Atmos. My last system was 7.1. I finally found the results in the Marantz settings are *some things I believe are strange: I set my fronts as small *(although they are physically large towers I want my sub doing the low end duty and understand “small” doesn’t mean physically small from Audyssey) *but after calibration they were set to large.* The crossovers were full range for the fronts, 60 for the surrounds, and 40 for the rear surrounds and heights. I am going to download the app and try it that way.



Unless they have changed their policy, Marantz, not Audyssey, set your fronts to LARGE. AFAIK, most AVRs do this, if the speakers have decent bass response. Audyssey transmits the results to the AVR, and AVR "decides" what to do with that info. As one reviewer (who is a member of this forum -- I hope I remember his comment correctly) put it, it's as though the manufacturers are congratulating you on your speakers ("Excellent choice, sir!"). IMO, it would be far better to help you set up your equipment in the best, data based, way. The CTO and co-founder of Audyssey, Chris K., complained about this to one AVR company, and they indicated they didn't want the customers to feel they had wasted their money on speakers that reached far into the bass. Continue to set your fronts (and all speakers) to SMALL, but do it after you run the Audyssey calibration.


If you haven't already, check these out:
Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> Unless they have changed their policy, Marantz, not Audyssey, set your fronts to LARGE. AFAIK, most AVRs do this, if the speakers have decent bass response.


I don't think the manufacturers have changed their policy, based on the results I got from running XT32 on my newly purchased Denon x4400; its predecessor (x4000) also wanted some speakers set to LARGE, including my center channel with its 6" woofer. I set the crossover for everything to 80 Hz. 

My front mains have decent bass response, but when I tried the crossover for them at 60 Hz for 2-channel playback (which uses the subwoofers), the impact of bass was much less.


----------



## mthomas47

StuBerger said:


> I am having so many newbie problems with my Marantz SR 6011 and a Klipsch speaker setup in my home theater kinda room. I have two rows of seating and the rear row on a 12” riser. I’ve had numerous recommendations of where to do the mic placements using Audyssey and it just seems I’m always lacking midrange and decent punch or clarity with the speakers. Subs seem fine. There isn’t really any sweet spot or MLP due to the two rows of seating. I know my room probably has a lot of acoustic issues but we’re stuck with them. I am a newbie and really wish I had a pro local that could help but I don’t. I’m using a tripod to hold the mic at position. Is it better to not use Audyssey or its DEQ and at Reference or Flat or....
> It just seems for the equipment I have it should sound a lot better.. more presence and punch throughout the channels. It seems flat or without punch.
> I do go into the settings after I run Audyssey and change all speakers to small and xo at 80 but now wondering if this is smart or sticking with the original Audyssey settings and not going with the THX thing. I did buy the Audyssey app as well but heck I don’t know what I’m going to do with that without any knowledge or expertise.
> My equipment is:
> Marantz SR6011
> Klipsch RF 82 and RC 62 up front
> Klipsch RS 42 x 4 for surrounds
> HSU VTF2 MK3 x2 for subs
> 
> First row is about 10’ from front speakers and second is about 16’
> 
> I’ll try to enclose a pic of seating and of channel levels after Audyssey. I just would like to get the best sound for our HT system.



Hi,

I haven't checked on this thread recently, and you may already have solved some of the issues you were having since posting here. But, I do have a few observations to make. First, clarity and punch are two different things. I think that I can offer some suggestions to improve both, but it is important to distinguish between them. 

Mid-range clarity would be most evident with dialogue in movies, where you want to be able to hear every vowel and consonant. "Punch", or "slam", are words most people use to describe a tactile sensation created by a percussive mid-bass sound (typically in the 50Hz to 100Hz range). Kick drums, kettle drums, bass guitar chords, and gunshots in movies, would all be examples of percussive mid-bass sounds where we might experience "punch". 

To enhance mid-range clarity, the first thing you need to do is to pull your center channel forward so that it is overhanging the subwoofer it sits on by about an inch. You are almost certainly getting some comb-filtering from the top of that subwoofer, as mid and high frequencies are leaving the speaker in a cone shape. You would also probably benefit from some softening influences in the room--perhaps some acoustic panels. If you stand near your front row and clap your hands sharply, I think that you will hear some ringing (also called slap echo). That will interfere with your mid-range and treble clarity. 

The next thing to work on is your Audyssey calibration technique. Pick out one chair--presumably in the middle of your first row, as your main listening position (MLP) and then follow the directions shown in the subsection linked below. That will walk you through a process which will enable you to achieve more clarity in your system. Once you have done that, I would encourage you to follow Gary's advice to experiment with turning off DEQ. That may be reducing your clarity, as well, and you can always add back more independent subwoofer boost if you want to. You can also try Audyssey Flat to determine whether you can hear a difference, and whether or not you like it.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB

Once you believe that you have a good Audyssey calibration and have experimented a bit with DEQ off, and with some corresponding subwoofer boosts if necessary, there is a more advanced technique you can try to achieve both better mid-range clarity and more punch. It is called cascading crossovers, and there is a detailed explanation of what it does, and how to implement it, in the subsection linked below. 

Chest punch is essentially the product of SPL reproducing percussive mid-bass frequencies with sufficient volume to be felt. Cascading crossovers concentrate more SPL below about 80Hz or so (depending on the crossovers you pick) and it enhances both mid-range clarity and mid-bass punch in the process. I called it a slightly more advanced technique, so I would work on the other things I mentioned first. But, I'm pretty sure that this will help as well.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...woofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IIIC

It really wouldn't be a bad idea to read through all of at least Section I and Section III of the Guide. But, the specific subsections I linked for you should provide some immediate assistance. Let us know how things work out. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Unless they have changed their policy, Marantz, not Audyssey, set your fronts to LARGE. AFAIK, most AVRs do this, if the speakers have decent bass response. Audyssey transmits the results to the AVR, and AVR "decides" what to do with that info. As one reviewer (who is a member of this forum -- I hope I remember his comment correctly) put it, it's as though the manufacturers are congratulating you on your speakers ("Excellent choice, sir!"). IMO, it would be far better to help you set up your equipment in the best, data based, way. The CTO and co-founder of Audyssey, Chris K., complained about this to one AVR company, and they indicated they didn't want the customers to feel they had wasted their money on speakers that reached far into the bass. Continue to set your fronts (and all speakers) to SMALL, but do it after you run the Audyssey calibration.
> 
> 
> If you haven't already, check these out:
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> Audyssey FAQ Linked Here



Hi Gary,

I agree that the way that most AVR's set crossovers is confusing to most new HT owners. But, FWIW, there are a lot of things that we all have to learn about the operation of our audio and video systems, so I tend to treat learning about bass-management and crossovers as just one more thing that most of us need to understand. I also agree that for most audio applications, setting speakers to Small, with at least 80Hz crossovers, is best practice. That idea is expressed throughout the Guide. 

But speaking personally, I would not like to have my AVR setting crossovers for me in a way that I wouldn't be able to adjust in almost any form I wanted. The way that virtually all companies (not just Denon/Marantz) chose to implement this may be slightly clumsy, but it at least tells an informed user approximately where the F3 point of a speaker or speaker pair measured. And then, it gives us setting choices. 

Chris lobbied against ever being able to set speakers to "Large" if there were subwoofers in an HT system, but I like having those choices. For instance, I don't use subwoofers at all when I listen to music, and I know others with really capable speakers who do the same. So, for music, my speakers are always set to Large, with no subwoofers. I only add in my subwoofers, and bass-manage my speakers with "Small" settings and crossovers, for 5.1 movies.

I know that you also generally prefer having more not fewer choices in our audio systems, so I am really just preaching to the choir here. But, it is so easy for all of us to get caught-up in the HT, bass-management, aspect of our systems, that we forget that not everyone prefers to even use subwoofers for every audio application.

I decided to add that I think it would be very difficult for Audyssey (much less the AVR) to pick the best crossover for a speaker pair. (I remember that Audyssey Pro made recommendations for crossovers, but people often used the second or third choice listed.) That is because the room correction system can't hear the entire audio system, including subwoofers, playing in conjunction. It can only measure the individual components, one-at-a-time. So, the AVR can set an initial crossover, based on the reported F3 point, and its own algorithm, but it's still going to be up to the individual user to determine what sounds and/or measures the best overall. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

^ True, we all want options. But I think our consensus (if I may make it for everybody ) is that we should get away from the marketing-speak and go for the useful and the correct: i.e. instead of having _Speaker Size: Small/Large_ we should have _Bass Management: On/Off._ I think this would lead to more newbies making the correct decision, because who doesn't want their "bass managed", it at least _sounds _like a good idea, even if you don't know exactly what it is. Look at all the much more "complicated" decisions they expect AVR/pre-pro users to make...I think they could handle this one.


----------



## kaydee6

mthomas47 said:


> Chris lobbied against ever being able to set speakers to "Large" if there were subwoofers in an HT system, but I like having those choices. For instance, I don't use subwoofers at all when I listen to music, and I know others with really capable speakers who do the same. So, for music, my speakers are always set to Large, with no subwoofers. I only add in my subwoofers, and bass-manage my speakers with "Small" settings and crossovers, for 5.1 movies.
> 
> I know that you also generally prefer having more not fewer choices in our audio systems, so I am really just preaching to the choir here. But, it is so easy for all of us to get caught-up in the HT, bass-management, aspect of our systems, that we forget that not everyone prefers to even use subwoofers for every audio application.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, is there a reason why you do not use the sub for music?


----------



## mthomas47

kaydee6 said:


> Hi Mike, is there a reason why you do not use the sub for music?



Hi,

We are really getting into the realm of personal preference when we start talking about this sort of thing. But, for the types of music which I mostly enjoy--classical, jazz, and some world music--I honestly can't improve on the bass sound quality and seamless integration of my six large, sealed, vintage speakers. Without wishing to go into detail, I will say that I have those speakers arranged in a way that maximizes the music performance.

Then, for 5.1 movies, I add in my center channel, which is a very close timbre match, and my large ported subwoofers, and I am ready to rock in a completely different way. Now, I am interested in getting powerful tactile ULF sensations, which are harder to achieve in a large room, on a concrete pad. And, my subwoofers take things to a different level. It took me quite a while to put my room and my system together in the way I wanted them, but I really feel that, for me, I have the best of both worlds with the way I have things arranged. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kaydee6

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> We are really getting into the realm of personal preference when we start talking about this sort of thing. But, for the types of music which I mostly enjoy--classical, jazz, and some world music--I honestly can't improve on the bass sound quality and seamless integration of my six large, sealed, vintage speakers. Without wishing to go into detail, I will say that I have those speakers arranged in a way that maximizes the music performance.
> 
> Then, for 5.1 movies, I add in my center channel, which is a very close timbre match, and my large ported subwoofers, and I am ready to rock in a completely different way. Now, I am interested in getting powerful tactile ULF sensations, which are harder to achieve in a large room, on a concrete pad. And, my subwoofers take things to a different level. It took me quite a while to put my room and my system together in the way I wanted them, but I really feel that, for me, I have the best of both worlds with the way I have things arranged.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Nice! Must be sounding great for both music and movies.


----------



## StuBerger

mthomas47 said:


> StuBerger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am having so many newbie problems with my Marantz SR 6011 and a Klipsch speaker setup in my home theater kinda room. I have two rows of seating and the rear row on a 12” riser. I’ve had numerous recommendations of where to do the mic placements using Audyssey and it just seems I’m always lacking midrange and decent punch or clarity with the speakers. Subs seem fine. There isn’t really any sweet spot or MLP due to the two rows of seating. I know my room probably has a lot of acoustic issues but we’re stuck with them. I am a newbie and really wish I had a pro local that could help but I don’t. I’m using a tripod to hold the mic at position. Is it better to not use Audyssey or its DEQ and at Reference or Flat or....
> It just seems for the equipment I have it should sound a lot better.. more presence and punch throughout the channels. It seems flat or without punch.
> I do go into the settings after I run Audyssey and change all speakers to small and xo at 80 but now wondering if this is smart or sticking with the original Audyssey settings and not going with the THX thing. I did buy the Audyssey app as well but heck I don’t know what I’m going to do with that without any knowledge or expertise.
> My equipment is:
> Marantz SR6011
> Klipsch RF 82 and RC 62 up front
> Klipsch RS 42 x 4 for surrounds
> HSU VTF2 MK3 x2 for subs
> 
> First row is about 10’ from front speakers and second is about 16’
> 
> I’ll try to enclose a pic of seating and of channel levels after Audyssey. I just would like to get the best sound for our HT system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I haven't checked on this thread recently, and you may already have solved some of the issues you were having since posting here. But, I do have a few observations to make. First, clarity and punch are two different things. I think that I can offer some suggestions to improve both, but it is important to distinguish between them.
> 
> Mid-range clarity would be most evident with dialogue in movies, where you want to be able to hear every vowel and consonant. "Punch", or "slam", are words most people use to describe a tactile sensation created by a percussive mid-bass sound (typically in the 50Hz to 100Hz range). Kick drums, kettle drums, bass guitar chords, and gunshots in movies, would all be examples of percussive mid-bass sounds where we might experience "punch".
> 
> To enhance mid-range clarity, the first thing you need to do is to pull your center channel forward so that it is overhanging the subwoofer it sits on by about an inch. You are almost certainly getting some comb-filtering from the top of that subwoofer, as mid and high frequencies are leaving the speaker in a cone shape. You would also probably benefit from some softening influences in the room--perhaps some acoustic panels. If you stand near your front row and clap your hands sharply, I think that you will hear some ringing (also called slap echo). That will interfere with your mid-range and treble clarity.
> 
> The next thing to work on is your Audyssey calibration technique. Pick out one chair--presumably in the middle of your first row, as your main listening position (MLP) and then follow the directions shown in the subsection linked below. That will walk you through a process which will enable you to achieve more clarity in your system. Once you have done that, I would encourage you to follow Gary's advice to experiment with turning off DEQ. That may be reducing your clarity, as well, and you can always add back more independent subwoofer boost if you want to. You can also try Audyssey Flat to determine whether you can hear a difference, and whether or not you like it.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB
> 
> Once you believe that you have a good Audyssey calibration and have experimented a bit with DEQ off, and with some corresponding subwoofer boosts if necessary, there is a more advanced technique you can try to achieve both better mid-range clarity and more punch. It is called cascading crossovers, and there is a detailed explanation of what it does, and how to implement it, in the subsection linked below.
> 
> Chest punch is essentially the product of SPL reproducing percussive mid-bass frequencies with sufficient volume to be felt. Cascading crossovers concentrate more SPL below about 80Hz or so (depending on the crossovers you pick) and it enhances both mid-range clarity and mid-bass punch in the process. I called it a slightly more advanced technique, so I would work on the other things I mentioned first. But, I'm pretty sure that this will help as well.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...woofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IIIC
> 
> It really wouldn't be a bad idea to read through all of at least Section I and Section III of the Guide. But, the specific subsections I linked for you should provide some immediate assistance. Let us know how things work out. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...


AVS Forum Special Member
Join: Jun 2009
Posts: 1117
Southeastern Illinois

2 minutes ago · #5230 
Mike, thanks for all that info and guidance. My center channel is actually on a wall bracket just above the sub. I have a question concerning your comment on placement. With my space constrictions between both front speakers if I place the sub to either side between the fronts and center could I leave the center as is then without worrying that the sub sits further out or should I use the bracket that it’s sitting on now and just make a couple support legs for the front of a longer shelf to hold it above the sun and a 1” front clearance? I would turn the sub sideways but then you’d see the little green led power light. I enclosed a couple close up and remember the front and center are pretty close to the front seats if that matters and that brings one more question up.. since the space is small and the fronts are close to the first row would it be okay to move the fronts even closer to get close to the front of the center?


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I agree that the way that most AVR's set crossovers is confusing to most new HT owners. But, FWIW, there are a lot of things that we all have to learn about the operation of our audio and video systems, so I tend to treat learning about bass-management and crossovers as just one more thing that most of us need to understand. I also agree that for most audio applications, setting speakers to Small, with at least 80Hz crossovers, is best practice. That idea is expressed throughout the Guide.
> 
> But speaking personally, I would not like to have my AVR setting crossovers for me in a way that I wouldn't be able to adjust in almost any form I wanted. The way that virtually all companies (not just Denon/Marantz) chose to implement this may be slightly clumsy, but it at least tells an informed user approximately where the F3 point of a speaker or speaker pair measured. And then, it gives us setting choices.
> 
> Chris lobbied against ever being able to set speakers to "Large" if there were subwoofers in an HT system, but I like having those choices. For instance, I don't use subwoofers at all when I listen to music, and I know others with really capable speakers who do the same. So, for music, my speakers are always set to Large, with no subwoofers. I only add in my subwoofers, and bass-manage my speakers with "Small" settings and crossovers, for 5.1 movies.
> 
> I know that you also generally prefer having more not fewer choices in our audio systems, so I am really just preaching to the choir here. But, it is so easy for all of us to get caught-up in the HT, bass-management, aspect of our systems, that we forget that not everyone prefers to even use subwoofers for every audio application.
> 
> I decided to add that I think it would be very difficult for Audyssey (much less the AVR) to pick the best crossover for a speaker pair. (I remember that Audyssey Pro made recommendations for crossovers, but people often used the second or third choice listed.) That is because the room correction system can't hear the entire audio system, including subwoofers, playing in conjunction. It can only measure the individual components, one-at-a-time. So, the AVR can set an initial crossover, based on the reported F3 point, and its own algorithm, but it's still going to be up to the individual user to determine what sounds and/or measures the best overall.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike, 



I agree. You were preaching to at least one choir member, as you know. I want all possible options, but I wish they would use better labeling. 



I _sometimes _play music without the sub, so I, too, need the LARGE setting to be available for those occasions. 



Maybe the next generation of Audyssey should add a final step to it's routine -- to "listen" to the subwoofer(s) in concert (pun intended) with each satellite speaker. 



I don't want to muddy the waters, so I would think that *anyone who feels swamped might want to stop reading here*. 



As you know, I find that a *very *few -- three, so far -- *movies*benefit from LARGE, *with* the subwoofer, using the verboten LFE + Main to send the deep bass channeled to speakers set on LARGE also to the subwoofer. That gives me more impact, and additional bass centered at about 130 Hz, as I remember. The movies involved are all from the magnetic era*; *I believe the disk mixers went back to the original music, effects and dialog elements (a good thing) but failed to restore the bass the filmmakers habitually pushed into the final mix (in those days, with mag tracks). Those movies need all the bass they can get to sound like they did in the theater. When I tried comparing LARGE/LFE + Main to SMALL on *other movies* and on *music* disks over a period of weeks, SMALL had a little more bass detail and clarity.


----------



## mthomas47

StuBerger said:


> AVS Forum Special Member
> Join: Jun 2009
> Posts: 1117
> Southeastern Illinois
> 
> 2 minutes ago · #5230
> Mike, thanks for all that info and guidance. My center channel is actually on a wall bracket just above the sub. I have a question concerning your comment on placement. With my space constrictions between both front speakers if I place the sub to either side between the fronts and center could I leave the center as is then without worrying that the sub sits further out or should I use the bracket that it’s sitting on now and just make a couple support legs for the front of a longer shelf to hold it above the sun and a 1” front clearance? I would turn the sub sideways but then you’d see the little green led power light. I enclosed a couple close up and remember the front and center are pretty close to the front seats if that matters and that brings one more question up.. since the space is small and the fronts are close to the first row would it be okay to move the fronts even closer to get close to the front of the center?



Hi Stu,

You are very welcome! I just noticed your signature. I like it! 

You have a number of different options with your subwoofer, including laying it on it's side, in the same position that it's in now. If it works well in that location, placing it on it's side won't change anything, except to get it further away from the center channel. I would just pick the option you like best.

As a general rule, I would try to locate the front speakers where they sound the best. Getting the speakers closer to the front of the CC won't make a difference, but getting them further away from the wall might. Experimenting with them pulled a little further away from the wall won't hurt a thing and might increase your overall sound quality. Although most of the sound from a direct-firing speaker is forward, some of the mid-range frequencies, especially, will go through the back of the speaker cabinets and reflect off the wall behind the speakers. Having a little more distance from the wall might actually enhance their sound quality.

Don't worry about getting everything perfect all at once. If you are interested, just give yourself some time to experiment. It took me a while to get my front speakers positioned exactly the way I wanted them--just so far from the wall; just so much toe-in. When I made an improvement in the speaker placements I could hear a subtle change in the sound.

Those incremental improvements add-up, and Audyssey may actually penalize us for poor speaker placement by exacerbating issues that are pre-existing, but which may be below the threshold of audibility to us, or which we simply aren't equipped to notice. The Audyssey microphone will hear things that we can't, and will then try to fix them. So, Audyssey can actually help us to perfect speaker placement, and toe-in, by giving us a harsher sound when they aren't quite right. I hope that makes sense. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## StuBerger

mthomas47 said:


> StuBerger said:
> 
> 
> 
> AVS Forum Special Member
> Join: Jun 2009
> Posts: 1117
> Southeastern Illinois
> 
> 2 minutes ago · #5230
> Mike, thanks for all that info and guidance. My center channel is actually on a wall bracket just above the sub. I have a question concerning your comment on placement. With my space constrictions between both front speakers if I place the sub to either side between the fronts and center could I leave the center as is then without worrying that the sub sits further out or should I use the bracket that it’s sitting on now and just make a couple support legs for the front of a longer shelf to hold it above the sun and a 1” front clearance? I would turn the sub sideways but then you’d see the little green led power light. I enclosed a couple close up and remember the front and center are pretty close to the front seats if that matters and that brings one more question up.. since the space is small and the fronts are close to the first row would it be okay to move the fronts even closer to get close to the front of the center?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Stu,
> 
> You are very welcome! I just noticed your signature. I like it! /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif
> 
> You have a number of different options with your subwoofer, including laying it on it's side, in the same position that it's in now. If it works well in that location, placing it on it's side won't change anything, except to get it further away from the center channel. I would just pick the option you like best.
> 
> As a general rule, I would try to locate the front speakers where they sound the best. Getting the speakers closer to the front of the CC won't make a difference, but getting them further away from the wall might. Experimenting with them pulled a little further away from the wall won't hurt a thing and might increase your overall sound quality. Although most of the sound from a direct-firing speaker is forward, some of the mid-range frequencies, especially, will go through the back of the speaker cabinets and reflect off the wall behind the speakers. Having a little more distance from the wall might actually enhance their sound quality.
> 
> Don't worry about getting everything perfect all at once. If you are interested, just give yourself some time to experiment. It took me a while to get my front speakers positioned exactly the way I wanted them--just so far from the wall; just so much toe-in. When I made an improvement in the speaker placements I could hear a subtle change in the sound.
> 
> Those incremental improvements add-up, and Audyssey may actually penalize us for poor speaker placement by exacerbating issues that are pre-existing, but which may be below the threshold of audibility to us, or which we simply aren't equipped to notice. The Audyssey microphone will hear things that we can't, and will then try to fix them. So, Audyssey can actually help us to perfect speaker placement, and toe-in, by giving us a harsher sound when they aren't quite right. I hope that makes sense. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike... it suits me. LOL

So it would be okay to place the sub to either left or right of the center between the sub? I had a thought, the wall that the TV and front speakers are at on the other side is where the stereo equipment is. Could I possibly put the sub behind that wall and not mess things up or would it throw off Audyssey and the sound from it? I do have another same sub but older amp on it since I had to replace one, behind the second row of seating. You said on its side, wouldn’t that take easy from HSU’s idea of down firing? 
The front speakers are about where they can be since we got that walkway on the wall going toward the back of the room.


----------



## NCpowerlifter

So glad I stumbled upon this thread....

After spending some time reading through the plethora of information throughout this thread I decided to give my system a retune using all of the advice contained herein.

I'd just like to give a big thank you to everyone who's contributed in this thread, most especially around how to setup the menu configurations in the post measurement portion of the process.

One of my biggest mistakes was having my mains set incorrectly to large and crossed over at 40Hz. I really never thought it was an issue given the Triton 2s have a built-in, powered sub and are fully capable of "full range" reproduction.

After rerunning the calibration routine I set mains to small and crossed everything over at 80Hz with the exception of my satellites which Audyssey set to 150Hz therefore I left them alone. The end result is a much richer sound from the front stage and much cleaner bass with quite a bit more "pop".

Now I'll need to test it out with a good action movie and see how I like it. I recently picked up Fury UHD which should be wonderful for testing out the new calibration a little more thoroughly.


----------



## mthomas47

StuBerger said:


> Thanks Mike... it suits me. LOL
> 
> So it would be okay to place the sub to either left or right of the center between the sub? I had a thought, the wall that the TV and front speakers are at on the other side is where the stereo equipment is. Could I possibly put the sub behind that wall and not mess things up or would it throw off Audyssey and the sound from it? I do have another same sub but older amp on it since I had to replace one, behind the second row of seating. You said on its side, wouldn’t that take easy from HSU’s idea of down firing?
> The front speakers are about where they can be since we got that walkway on the wall going toward the back of the room.



I would definitely not put the subwoofer in a different room, but otherwise just put it where you think it looks/sounds the best, whether that's left/right or on its side. The fact that the subwoofer is down-firing won't have any material bearing on its performance, if you lay it on its side. In fact, if you lay it on its side, you may get slightly more boundary gain than you would with it upright. That is often the experience with the down-firing cylinder subs. Just try some different positions to decide where you like it.


----------



## StuBerger

mthomas47 said:


> StuBerger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Mike... it suits me. LOL
> 
> So it would be okay to place the sub to either left or right of the center between the sub? I had a thought, the wall that the TV and front speakers are at on the other side is where the stereo equipment is. Could I possibly put the sub behind that wall and not mess things up or would it throw off Audyssey and the sound from it? I do have another same sub but older amp on it since I had to replace one, behind the second row of seating. You said on its side, wouldn’t that take easy from HSU’s idea of down firing?
> The front speakers are about where they can be since we got that walkway on the wall going toward the back of the room.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would definitely not put the subwoofer in a different room, but otherwise just put it where you think it looks/sounds the best, whether that's left/right or on its side. The fact that the subwoofer is down-firing won't have any material bearing on its performance, if you lay it on its side. In fact, if you lay it on its side, you may get slightly more boundary gain than you would with it upright. That is often the experience with the down-firing cylinder subs. Just try some different positions to decide where you like it.
Click to expand...

Mike, the only way I can see placing the sub is turning it lengthwise on the wall and just cover the led power light with elec tape. When you say lay it on it’s side does that mean I can then have the sub further out than the center because it’s sitting low enough from the bottom of the center speaker? Also, it’s too bad I couldn’t place he sub behind the half wall where the stereo equipment sits. It’s just a separating wall that is open at one end about 3.5 feet. That would be a perfect solution at least for our room and cosmetic value. I tried placing the sub to either left or right from center and it’s still close by a few inches and looks odd and still sits farther out like it has been. The way it is now I’m just going to have to make a longer piece of wood to hold the center


----------



## mthomas47

StuBerger said:


> Mike, the only way I can see placing the sub is turning it lengthwise on the wall and just cover the led power light with elec tape. When you say lay it on it’s side does that mean I can then have the sub further out than the center because it’s sitting low enough from the bottom of the center speaker? Also, it’s too bad I couldn’t place he sub behind the half wall where the stereo equipment sits. It’s just a separating wall that is open at one end about 3.5 feet. That would be a perfect solution at least for our room and cosmetic value. I tried placing the sub to either left or right from center and it’s still close by a few inches and looks odd and still sits farther out like it has been. *The way it is now I’m just going to have to make a longer piece of wood to hold the center*



That might end-up being the best solution. If you put the subwoofer on the other side of that dividing wall, I believe that you will lose a lot of bass. But, nothing says you can't try it, it if you want to. 

Yes, if you lay the subwoofer on its side, it will be about 7" lower, and that may be enough. Since the higher frequency sound waves will be leaving the speaker in a cone shape (typically with about a 15 degree vertical dispersion) I believe that the subwoofer might be low enough that sound waves from the CC will hit the carpet in front of the subwoofer and be absorbed. But, that's just speculation. 

As with any of these suggestions, you will just have to try them to see how they work, visually and audibly. If you try it, with good calibration technique, and your sound quality and overall clarity improves, then you will know. I would probably try laying the subwoofer on its side before I would go to the trouble of building a longer wood platform, but you may get to that anyway in the end. If you do try laying the sub on its side, I would still rerun Audyssey, following the calibration advice in the subsection of the Guide I linked for you.


----------



## StuBerger

mthomas47 said:


> StuBerger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mike, the only way I can see placing the sub is turning it lengthwise on the wall and just cover the led power light with elec tape. When you say lay it on it’s side does that mean I can then have the sub further out than the center because it’s sitting low enough from the bottom of the center speaker? Also, it’s too bad I couldn’t place he sub behind the half wall where the stereo equipment sits. It’s just a separating wall that is open at one end about 3.5 feet. That would be a perfect solution at least for our room and cosmetic value. I tried placing the sub to either left or right from center and it’s still close by a few inches and looks odd and still sits farther out like it has been. *The way it is now I’m just going to have to make a longer piece of wood to hold the center*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might end-up being the best solution. If you put the subwoofer on the other side of that dividing wall, I believe that you will lose a lot of bass. But, nothing says you can't try it, it if you want to.
> 
> Yes, if you lay the subwoofer on its side, it will be about 7" lower, and that may be enough. Since the higher frequency sound waves will be leaving the speaker in a cone shape (typically with about a 15 degree vertical dispersion) I believe that the subwoofer might be low enough that sound waves from the CC will hit the carpet in front of the subwoofer and be absorbed. But, that's just speculation.
> 
> As with any of these suggestions, you will just have to try them to see how they work, visually and audibly. If you try it, with good calibration technique, and your sound quality and overall clarity improves, then you will know. I would probably try laying the subwoofer on its side before I would go to the trouble of building a longer wood platform, but you may get to that anyway in the end. If you do try laying the sub on its side, I would still rerun Audyssey, following the calibration advice in the subsection of the Guide I linked for you.
Click to expand...

I took two more pics.. I set the sub horizontal and pulled the wood shelf forward. I think there should be enough clearance now? One thing I had to do and I hope it’s okay. The shelf was a little wobbly so I took a few rubber floor protectors that was suppose to go on the feet of the theater seating if we had hard floors and put them together and am using them as a kinda shim to keep the center and shelf from wobbling but there resting on the sub. Those subs are heavy and never felt any movement before when they are giving audio. And it’s only about a inch in circumference. Do you think that’s okay because it would be a pain to do something different. 
Also, if I have two of the same subs and if I can turn the one that would be behind the dividing wall would I still loose a lot of bass and in bass you mean the mid bass or over all?


----------



## legierk

Sorry because I know this has probably already been asked a million times, but can someone tell me how to interpret this? Is this response before or after calibration? Is my center speaker deficient in the low end or is Audyssey cutting the low end?


----------



## garygarrison

StuBerger said:


> The shelf was a little wobbly so I took a few rubber floor protectors that was suppose to go on the feet of the theater seating if we had hard floors and put them together and am using them as a kinda shim to keep the center and shelf from wobbling but there resting on the sub. Those subs are heavy and never felt any movement before when they are giving audio. And it’s only about a inch in circumference. Do you think that’s okay because it would be a pain to do something different.
> Also, if I have two of the same subs and if I can turn the one that would be behind the dividing wall would I still loose a lot of bass and in bass you mean the mid bass or over all?



RE: your center*:*

There is an old dictum in Hi Fi*; *I don't know if it is BS. A speaker should not wobble, especially not wobble back and forth in the direction of cone movement. Some of the High End Golden Ears insist on spikes that go through a carpet (if any) and rest on the floor, partly to prevent the speakers from rocking back and forth on the cushion of the rug. My guess is that there would not be an audible effect, but who knows? That a center speaker does not put out a lot of bass, because the earth moving bass goes to the subwoofer, may render this not a problem for your center.
IMO, the center should be aimed right at someone sitting in MLP, or if you want to treat all seats equally, see what Mike says in the Guide.

RE: One sub being put behind the dividing wall*:* 



What is the wall made out of? Is it solid (rigid)? High mass may be better than low. Is it fastened to floor?
Is it a "pony wall?" Does it just go up a few feet, or all the way to the ceiling? I assume there is a gap somewhere, but a sketch might help us visualize how the bass from the second sub would get into the room. I apologize if you have already posted a sketch.
You could always *try* the second sub both behind the wall v.s. and out in the main room, and see what happens. I would think it would *not* be advisable, but when in doubt, be empirical. Take notes. Use your ears and a meter, both from the Main Listening Position. I'd use both music and a series of test tones from maybe 16 Hz on up to above both the regular crossover and the LPF for LFE. If you have REW and a calibrated mic, that sweep will work. If not, a test disc with tones along with a cheap meter will be O.K. You are merely comparing the overall effect of two positions of the second sub in combination with the first sub from the MLP, not trying to determine the actual "absolute" smoothness of the subs. You could make three graphs, overlayed*:*


a sub behind the wall, with one out front,
both subs out in front.
a single sub out front.
 You will see how they track, and whether there are any dips or peaks that vanish with any given position. 

Pay attention to any other differences. Does one configuration have more "punch" or sound "deeper?"


I guess you should run all these tests with Audyssey OFF, because the Audyssey curve you have now favors one of the three set-ups, right? After you determine the best place for each subwoofer, you can run Audyssey anew. See Mike's guide for how to fine tune (increase) bass response *after* running Audyssey.


Best of luck!


----------



## StuBerger

garygarrison said:


> StuBerger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The shelf was a little wobbly so I took a few rubber floor protectors that was suppose to go on the feet of the theater seating if we had hard floors and put them together and am using them as a kinda shim to keep the center and shelf from wobbling but there resting on the sub. Those subs are heavy and never felt any movement before when they are giving audio. And it’s only about a inch in circumference. Do you think that’s okay because it would be a pain to do something different.
> Also, if I have two of the same subs and if I can turn the one that would be behind the dividing wall would I still loose a lot of bass and in bass you mean the mid bass or over all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RE: your center*:*
> 
> There is an old dictum in Hi Fi*; *I don't know if it is BS. A speaker should not wobble, especially not wobble back and forth in the direction of cone movement. Some of the High End Golden Ears insist on spikes that go through a carpet (if any) and rest on the floor, partly to prevent the speakers from rocking back and forth on the cushion of the rug. My guess is that there would not be an audible effect, but who knows? That a center speaker does not put out a lot of bass, because the earth moving bass goes to the subwoofer, may render this not a problem for your center.
> IMO, the center should be aimed right at someone sitting in MLP, or if you want to treat all seats equally, see what Mike says in the Guide.
> 
> RE: One sub being put behind the dividing wall*:*
> 
> 
> 
> What is the wall made out of? Is it solid (rigid)? High mass may be better than low. Is it fastened to floor?
> Is it a "pony wall?" Does it just go up a few feet, or all the way to the ceiling? I assume there is a gap somewhere, but a sketch might help us visualize how the bass from the second sub would get into the room. I apologize if you have already posted a sketch.
> You could always *try* the second sub both behind the wall v.s. and out in the main room, and see what happens. I would think it would *not* be advisable, but when in doubt, be empirical. Take notes. Use your ears and a meter, both from the Main Listening Position. I'd use both music and a series of test tones from maybe 16 Hz on up to above both the regular crossover and the LPF for LFE. If you have REW and a calibrated mic, that sweep will work. If not, a test disc with tones along with a cheap meter will be O.K. You are merely comparing the overall effect of two positions of the second sub in combination with the first sub from the MLP, not trying to determine the actual "absolute" smoothness of the subs. You could make three graphs, overlayed*:*
> 
> 
> a sub behind the wall, with one out front,
> both subs out in front.
> a single sub out front.
> You will see how they track, and whether there are any dips or peaks that vanish with any given position.
> 
> 
> Pay attention to any other differences. Does one configuration have more "punch" or sound "deeper?"
> 
> Best of luck!
Click to expand...

Well, I’m going to try and have the sub up front sit parallel with the wall and I’m having a heavy duty pair of brackets made and going to paint them black. That will hold the center firmly and won’t have to support it like I did using the sub. I’ll leave the other sub behind the secretary nd row. I take the it from the few posts back the center is fine sitting over the sub as long as sitting at least a inch past the sub and shelf correct?
The wall that has the opening which is about 3’ opening is made of studs, 5/8 plywood on each side and then 1/2” drywall.
I do have the center aiming at ear level first row center. What guide are your talking about?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

legierk said:


> Sorry because I know this has probably already been asked a million times, but can someone tell me how to interpret this? Is this response before or after calibration?


Neither. It is the correction being applied by Audyssey.



> Is my center speaker deficient in the low end or is Audyssey cutting the low end?


It is rolling off the bass end. Probably because of bass management.


----------



## legierk

garygarrison said:


> What THX thing?
> 
> 
> Your AVR accepts info from Audyssey then makes recommendations based on the AVR manufacturer's point of view, not necessarily Audyssey's. If it was recommended that any speaker be set for "Large," it would probably be best to ignore that. The Audyssey people are dead set against any speaker being set to "Large."
> 
> 
> Try using Audyssey FLAT, rather than Audyssey when you play movies or music. You don't need to re-run the calibration, just switch back and forth between Audyssey and Audyssey Flat on the screen. Plain old Audyssey (often the default choice), AKA Audyssey Reference, puts a very slight dip in the midrange, and rolls off the highs a bit. Audyssey FLAT does neither. Using Audyssey Flat should increase the clarity and the midrange.
> 
> If you are using DEQ, you may want to try switching it out. Some of us think it can muddy up the sound. If you turn DEQ off, the tone controls become available to you. Unfortunately, they only affect the Front Left and Front Right speakers, but I find them helpful anyway. Most people here turn up their subwoofer a bit. The sub trim in the AVR should be at or below *-* 5 or the line driver on the AVR's sub output might overload and cause distortion, so for added "punch" turn up the sub at the gain knob that is on the sub itself, and turn up the bass tone control for your LF & RF speakers.
> 
> You may have done all of the following already. Try to "toe-in" your Front Left and Front Right speakers a little more so that they are aimed at the center seats, not aimed so nearly straight ahead. Aim the center channel speaker at the center of the seating area, and perhaps tilt it up a little so people can look down the throat of the mid/tweeter horn.
> 
> Maximum clarity is most likely when all regular speakers are set for "Small" in the AVR, regardless of what size they really are, and the main crossover for the sub(s) is set for 80 Hz.
> Some extra clarity might be had if the LPF for LFE in the AVR is set for 80 rather than the 120 Hz that is usually recommended. I _*really *_didn't want to do this, so I resisted it for a period of years. Since a respected manufacturer of subwoofers, and some people here on the forum recommended it, I tried switching back and forth for a couple of months, and guess what, more clarity in the 80 Hz position!
> 
> 
> Check to see if all your speakers are wired for the same polarity ("in phase"). The speaker cable should be marked in some way so you can put + to + and - to - at both ends of each cable, and have the same polarity for all speakers. If you have a test disk, double check it with that.
> 
> 
> Read these*; *they are clearer than any manual since life was simple, technology did not double cross us, and 2 channels were a lot.
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


Wow. Just tried all of these tips.....immediately noticed a huge difference in clarity (watching TV). Been battling a "muddy", 100-200hz thickness that makes dialogue difficult sometimes. Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

StuBerger said:


> ... I’m having a heavy duty pair of brackets made and going to paint them black. That will hold the center firmly and won’t have to support it like I did using the sub. I’ll leave the other sub behind the secretary nd row. I take the it from the few posts back the center is fine sitting over the sub as long as sitting at least a inch past the sub and shelf correct?
> The wall that has the opening which is about 3’ opening is made of studs, 5/8 plywood on each side and then 1/2” drywall.
> I do have the center aiming at ear level first row center. What guide are your talking about?


Home Depot probably has some ready made brackets that are very heavy duty. Painting them black is an excellent idea.

I believe 1" forward of the sub is fine for your center. Don't use drywall screws -- go well into one layer of plywood.

This is Mike's Guide: 
Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


----------



## smfins

*Audyssey editor app info?*

So I recently downloaded the editor app on my phone, and I've been playing with it. From what i can tell there really isn't any "Instructions" or any kind of tips or a tutorial anywhere? I know and understand the different aspects of it, but I haven't been able to figure out how to save different settings. Can I use one measurement and save several different settings from that one measurement? For instance, I'd like to have one saved that EQ's from 20-20,000 and one saved that only EQ's below 500 etc. Is that possible or would I have to do a whole new measurement in order to save different ones? Also, once I name a measurement, can I go in and change the name? Thanks for any help.


----------



## erudolph

smfins said:


> So I recently downloaded the editor app on my phone, and I've been playing with it. From what i can tell there really isn't any "Instructions" or any kind of tips or a tutorial anywhere? I know and understand the different aspects of it, but I haven't been able to figure out how to save different settings. Can I use one measurement and save several different settings from that one measurement? For instance, I'd like to have one saved that EQ's from 20-20,000 and one saved that only EQ's below 500 etc. Is that possible or would I have to do a whole new measurement in order to save different ones? Also, once I name a measurement, can I go in and change the name? Thanks for any help.



If you click the Edit button in the upper right corner of the home page, where the file is saved, you can select a file and then click a button in the upper left. This button in the upper left looks a bit like two overlapping pages. Clicking this will duplicate your original file. If you then click Edit and double click on the copy, you will be able to rename the copy. Let me know if this is clear enough. If not I can put up some screen shots.


----------



## smfins

erudolph said:


> If you click the Edit button in the upper right corner of the home page, where the file is saved, you can select a file and then click a button in the upper left. This button in the upper left looks a bit like two overlapping pages. Clicking this will duplicate your original file. If you then click Edit and double click on the copy, you will be able to rename the copy. Let me know if this is clear enough. If not I can put up some screen shots.


Yes! I think I have it down now. I appreciate the reply. On another note, what have most people been doing as far as what frequency for Audyssey to EQ up to? I had read somehwere to try up to 500 and allow the rest to stay as is and let your speakers keep their sound as intended by the manufacturer. I have copied my original audyysey reading and now have 4 saved. I have one from 20-20 with the Midrange comp on, one with it off. Then I have two the same way, but they are both 500 and below only. I've been switching back and forth, and I think I'm liking the below 500 with the Midrange compensation turned off. Keep in mind that most of my watching is of Bluray concerts with some movies sprinkled in. 
I'm curious to know what other members have tried and what the results were.


----------



## smfins

I’ve found another thing that I can’t figure out how to edit. I like to lower all of my surround channels by about 2db after running audyssey. Every time I load one of my saved setting it reverts back to the original settings and I have to go back in manually with the remote and change them all. I see that there is a page in the app to adjust these settings, but when I try, I can only delete the current setting and I can’t raise or lower it. Any help on this one would be greatly appreciated! I’ve included a screen shot of the page.


----------



## mthomas47

smfins said:


> I’ve found another thing that I can’t figure out how to edit. I like to lower all of my surround channels by about 2db after running audyssey. Every time I load one of my saved setting it reverts back to the original settings and I have to go back in manually with the remote and change them all. I see that there is a page in the app to adjust these settings, but when I try, I can only delete the current setting and I can’t raise or lower it. Any help on this one would be greatly appreciated! I’ve included a screen shot of the page.



Hi,

If I were you, I would post your question on the thread linked below. Perhaps someone there knows if there is a way to save those settings:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html

Approaching the issue from another direction, I would assume that you have DEQ engaged. Audyssey defaults to the Audyssey Reference curve, which has mid-range compensation, and to DEQ whenever a calibration is run. Among other things DEQ boosts the surround channels--by 1db for each -5 MV (master volume). 

Rather than manually adjusting your surround channels to defeat what DEQ is doing, you might want to experiment with turning DEQ off, or with using one of the RLO (reference level offset) settings. Those options are available in the Audyssey portion of your Audio menu. If you do try turning DEQ off, or using one of the RLO settings (which will have the effect of attenuating DEQ), then you might find that you need to add some subwoofer boost to compensate for that.

If you want to understand more about how DEQ (and its RLO settings) work, there is a thorough explanation of both here: 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kaydee6

smfins said:


> Yes! I think I have it down now. I appreciate the reply. On another note, what have most people been doing as far as what frequency for Audyssey to EQ up to? I had read somehwere to try up to 500 and allow the rest to stay as is and let your speakers keep their sound as intended by the manufacturer. I have copied my original audyysey reading and now have 4 saved. I have one from 20-20 with the Midrange comp on, one with it off. Then I have two the same way, but they are both 500 and below only. I've been switching back and forth, and I think I'm liking the below 500 with the Midrange compensation turned off. Keep in mind that most of my watching is of Bluray concerts with some movies sprinkled in.
> I'm curious to know what other members have tried and what the results were.


I have tried just audy below 500hz but decided to keep at 20-20. Reason is I want mid-range compensation on, reference curve to roll of at 10Khz as I'm averse to bright sounding equipment. And I also find that I get better phantom center and instruments localization with full audy. With refernce curve and DEQ RLO ar 5dB is the sweet spot of a good sound for 2 channels for me. Movie no doubt should stay at 20-20 as I believe the cohesion between all speakers will be better with full audy.


----------



## Dave-T

Is there a thread on how the MultEQ Editor app is used? I found a MultEQ Editor app thread that was 98 pages long and the first 15 pages was everybody complaining about how they have to buy a new receiver because their current unit does not have it, others trying to say that Dirac is still better and why and the app keeps crashing. The Audyessy step by step documents that Mike put together are great!!! is there a step by step for the MultEQ Editor app like what Mike did for Audyessy that explains what the features do and how to implement them. I am getting a new processor next week that uses the app and I want to get a handle on it before I get started.

Thanks,

Dave


----------



## mthomas47

Dave-T said:


> Is there a thread on how the MultEQ Editor app is used? I found a MultEQ Editor app thread that was 98 pages long and the first 15 pages was everybody complaining about how they have to buy a new receiver because their current unit does not have it, others trying to say that Dirac is still better and why and the app keeps crashing. The Audyessy step by step documents that Mike put together are great!!! is there a step by step for the MultEQ Editor app like what Mike did for Audyessy that explains what the features do and how to implement them. I am getting a new processor next week that uses the app and I want to get a handle on it before I get started.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave



Thanks, Dave! I appreciate the compliment. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything like what you are describing for the app. And, since I haven't experimented personally with the app, I don't think I would feel comfortable including the anecdotal comments I have read about it in my Guide. At the moment, it seems as if it's every man for himself, where the app is concerned. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Dave-T

mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Dave! I appreciate the compliment. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything like what you are describing for the app. And, since I haven't experimented personally with the app, I don't think I would feel comfortable including the anecdotal comments I have read about it in my Guide. At the moment, it seems as if it's every man for himself, where the app is concerned.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Ouch that hurts. Your write up is great for those Like me with ADHD who do not have the attention span to read through to many pages. I need to find someone to step up then.

Thanks again 

Dave


----------



## jabe00

Good afternoon

I'm completely new with this, I'm attaching a picture about the level after run, were my subwoofer got good level, but all my other speaker got -12,can someone tell me what that means?

I think I read somewhere that number is assigned when was not taken in consideration, but I'm not sure. Means I have to lower the level in the amps to get at least -4, right?


Thanks in advance.









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

jabe00 said:


> Good afternoon
> 
> I'm completely new with this, I'm attaching a picture about the level after run, were my subwoofer got good level, but all my other speaker got -12,can someone tell me what that means?
> 
> I think I read somewhere that number is assigned when was not taken in consideration, but I'm not sure. Means I have to lower the level in the amps to get at least -4, right?
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Hi,

When Audyssey calibrates your audio system, it measures the SPL of all of your channels, at the main listening position (mic position 1), with a 75db test tone. It then assigns AVR trim levels, based on the volume it measures, so that all of the channels will play the same volume at the MLP. 

Your subwoofer trims look good. But, all of your regular channels maxed-out the trim level of -12, meaning that you have very efficient speakers--probably 100db or higher. One way to deal with this issue is to put line level attenuators between all of your speakers and your AVR. The ones I am linking can be obtained from Amazon for $25.90 per pair, by clicking on other dealers, But, I can apparently only link this page: 

https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=VWKXETWBC6NAZD4G1F11

Since all of your regular channels came back at that same trim level, I would probably want to use the line level attenuators to figure out where the trim levels would be with them included. But, I might start with just a single pair of 6db attenuators. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jabe00

Thanks Mike,

I think my problem is maybe related to the amps for those speakers are set to high, I ran with then at 11 o clock, I'll put to 6 o'clock to see if Audyssey put then around -5 at least.

Thanks
Jose


mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> When Audyssey calibrates your audio system, it measures the SPL of all of your channels, at the main listening position (mic position 1), with a 75db test tone. It then assigns AVR trim levels, based on the volume it measures, so that all of the channels will play the same volume at the MLP.
> 
> Your subwoofer trims look good. But, all of your regular channels maxed-out the trim level of -12, meaning that you have very efficient speakers--probably 100db or higher. One way to deal with this issue is to put line level attenuators between all of your speakers and your AVR. The ones I am linking can be obtained from Amazon for $25.90 per pair, by clicking on other dealers, But, I can apparently only link this page:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=VWKXETWBC6NAZD4G1F11
> 
> Since all of your regular channels came back at that same trim level, I would probably want to use the line level attenuators to figure out where the trim levels would be with them included. But, I might start with just a single pair of 6db attenuators.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## drh3b

Dave-T said:


> Is there a thread on how the MultEQ Editor app is used? I found a MultEQ Editor app thread that was 98 pages long and the first 15 pages was everybody complaining about how they have to buy a new receiver because their current unit does not have it, others trying to say that Dirac is still better and why and the app keeps crashing. The Audyessy step by step documents that Mike put together are great!!! is there a step by step for the MultEQ Editor app like what Mike did for Audyessy that explains what the features do and how to implement them. I am getting a new processor next week that uses the app and I want to get a handle on it before I get started.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dave





mthomas47 said:


> Thanks, Dave! I appreciate the compliment. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything like what you are describing for the app. And, since I haven't experimented personally with the app, I don't think I would feel comfortable including the anecdotal comments I have read about it in my Guide. At the moment, it seems as if it's every man for himself, where the app is concerned.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


There is a small FAQ put together by Rec Head. It is not as comprehensive as the Audyssey Faq, but it answers some questions.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-28.html#post56565524

I don't know if it's a good idea to put a link to it in the larger Audyssey Faq, but I'll throw that idea out there anyway.


----------



## drh3b

Dave-T said:


> Ouch that hurts. Your write up is great for those Like me with ADHD who do not have the attention span to read through to many pages. I need to find someone to step up then.
> 
> Thanks again
> 
> Dave


If the Faq doesn't answer your questions, don't be afraid to ask questions on that thread. People on the thread are helpful, and have been where you are now.


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Thanks Mike,
> 
> I think my problem is maybe related to the amps for those speakers are set to high, I ran with then at 11 o clock, I'll put to 6 o'clock to see if Audyssey put then around -5 at least.
> 
> Thanks
> Jose
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



It sounds like you have a separate power amplifier or amplifiers with input sensitivity controls on them. If so, they will act as continuously variable attenuators, which should work well for you. Once you find a setting that causes Audyssey to set your levels properly, never touch the attenuator knobs again! Most of the ones I've dealt with are so touchy that a cross look could jar them into a 3 dB or more change in level. The ones on my old McIntosh power amps helped me expand the facility of my cursing.


----------



## jabe00

garygarrison said:


> It sounds like you have a separate power amplifier or amplifiers with input sensitivity controls on them. If so, they will act as continuously variable attenuators, which should work well for you. Once you find a setting that causes Audyssey to set your levels properly, never touch the attenuator knobs again! Most of the ones I've dealt with are so touchy that a cross look could jar them into a 3 dB or more change in level. The ones on my old McIntosh power amps helped me expand the facility of my cursing.


Yes, you right, I have 4 power amps 2 channels for all my speakers and another for my 2 18-22 subwoofers.

I was thinking that after Audyssey ran I can change the level back to 12 o'clock in my amps but you are telling me that I should left at 6 o'clock if that setting give the levels good in Audyssey. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Yes, you right, I have 4 power amps 2 channels for all my speakers and another for my 2 18-22 subwoofers.
> 
> I was thinking that after Audyssey ran I can change the level back to 12 o'clock in my amps but you are telling me that I should left at 6 o'clock if that setting give the levels good in Audyssey.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I think either way will work, if you can maintain equal SPL from the speakers, with the same signal, and an appropriate signal,** *as measured from the MLP. 

The main reason I suggested not touching the power amplifier sensitivity controls after Audyssey calibration is over (and the trim levels Audyssey set are within the acceptable range) is that it might be difficult to get all of the level controls back to *exactly* 12 o'clock, unless 12 o'clock is all the way up (maximum clockwise rotation). Your sensitivity controls might be easier to set than the ones in my old McIntoshes were. My current power amps (NAD) are no picknick, either. The input controls are just too abrupt. So I used attenuators on ALL channels, including sub and surrounds, ran Audyssey, then took them all off, only because I didn't want extra stuff in the circuit, even if it was minor stuff. Because the attenuators I used were 12 dB (confirmed by test), after removing the attenuators my new Reference Level became -12 dB, rather than 0, on the preamp's Main Volume (MV) control. Chris K., one of the founders and the chief technical officer of Audyssey confirmed that the Reference Level would change in that manner. So, if I set a movie by ear (usually by listening to dialogue) and the MV turned out to be - 17 that would mean I would be listening at 5 dB below Reference, which is the modal MV level for me. 

In your case, you could return the input sensitivity controls to 12 o'clock, if you can do it accurately, or you could leave them at 6 o'clock. It seems to me you would get extra headroom, provided by your very efficient speakers either way, since the attenuation occurs _*before*_ the power amplifiers.


*** I don't remember if Audyssey uses all, most, or just the standard range of test tones ("pings") to set SPL. The movie industry standard is 500 to 2K Hz (usually band limited pink noise, rather than pings), and that's what is on some of the test disks, like the Spears. That is a range in which our ears are very sensitive, so it's a range in which we would definitely notice imbalance between channels. There may be arguments in favor of using a wider range, but not a shorter one. There were a few disks, that I hope are gone now, that used a single tone, say 1K Hz, or a single 1/3 octave band or wobble tone to set &/or match SPL.


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> I have tried just audy below 500hz but decided to keep at 20-20. Reason is I want mid-range compensation on, reference curve to roll of at 10Khz as I'm averse to bright sounding equipment. And I also find that I get better phantom center and instruments localization with full audy. With refernce curve and DEQ RLO ar 5dB is the sweet spot of a good sound for 2 channels for me. Movie no doubt should stay at 20-20 as I believe the cohesion between all speakers will be better with *full audy*.


In my case, Audyssey removes a peak at 8K Hz, and turns up 10K Hz to 16 K Hz, as well as providing other meaningful EQ above 500 Hz. It makes the sound noticeably clearer and airier. I wouldn't want to be without it. I like full response from 20 to 20K i.e. Audyssey Flat, with the minimum number of dips or peaks, of the minimum magnitude, even though I can't hear the very top. If a recording is shrill, I will switch over to Audyssey Reference.

In a listening room, at least some of the ones *Stereophile* uses, several "High End" speakers show a dip at around 15 K Hz, according to that magazine's spatially averaged, in room tests. This dip can be on the order of 8 to 10 dB. The speaker proclaiming itself to be "the best on earth" (no names, please) had such a dip in the magazine's tests. Such speakers might be able to use Audyssey up at the top, to be heard by at least by some of the younger people on the forum. On the other hand, that nosedive, greater than the gradual one provided by Audyssey Reference, might hide some HF distortion. Clever. 

Is full audy anything like full monty?


----------



## jabe00

garygarrison said:


> I think either way will work, if you can maintain equal SPL from the speakers, with the same signal, and an appropriate signal,** *as measured from the MLP.
> 
> The main reason I suggested not touching the power amplifier sensitivity controls after Audyssey calibration is over (and the trim levels Audyssey set are within the acceptable range) is that it might be difficult to get all of the level controls back to *exactly* 12 o'clock, unless 12 o'clock is all the way up (maximum clockwise rotation). Your sensitivity controls might be easier to set than the ones in my old McIntoshes were. My current power amps (NAD) are no picknick, either. The input controls are just too abrupt. So I used attenuators on ALL channels, including sub and surrounds, ran Audyssey, then took them all off, only because I didn't want extra stuff in the circuit, even if it was minor stuff. Because the attenuators I used were 12 dB (confirmed by test), after removing the attenuators my new Reference Level became -12 dB, rather than 0, on the preamp's Main Volume (MV) control. Chris K., one of the founders and the chief technical officer of Audyssey confirmed that the Reference Level would change in that manner. So, if I set a movie by ear (usually by listening to dialogue) and the MV turned out to be - 17 that would mean I would be listening at 5 dB below Reference, which is the modal MV level for me.
> 
> In your case, you could return the input sensitivity controls to 12 o'clock, if you can do it accurately, or you could leave them at 6 o'clock. It seems to me you would get extra headroom, provided by your very efficient speakers either way, since the attenuation occurs _*before*_ the power amplifiers.
> 
> 
> *** I don't remember if Audyssey uses all, most, or just the standard range of test tones ("pings") to set SPL. The movie industry standard is 500 to 2K Hz (usually band limited pink noise, rather than pings), and that's what is on some of the test disks, like the Spears. That is a range in which our ears are very sensitive, so it's a range in which we would definitely notice imbalance between channels. There may be arguments in favor of using a wider range, but not a shorter one. There were a few disks, that I hope are gone now, that used a single tone, say 1K Hz, or a single 1/3 octave band or wobble tone to set &/or match SPL.


Hi,

I ran again a couple times, had to do a couple because I was getting Ambient Noise is to High or Level is to Low in the 7 position of 8.

After a couple try I got it work, but now you can see my results in the attached image, I really feel lost now, because the other day was too negative and now is over +10. 

The only I did is to change all the cables that connect the receiver to my power amps for a new and I think better ones.

I have the same power amps for all my speakers Dual Channel Crown XLS 1502, and after change the cables I put all of them at 3 PM.

To me all other speaker looks good but looks like maybe need more power for the fronts, what you think?

Thanks,
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## audiofan1

jabe00 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I ran again a couple times, had to do a couple because I was getting Ambient Noise is to High or Level is to Low in the 7 position of 8.
> 
> After a couple try I got it work, but now you can see my results in the attached image, I really feel lost now, because the other day was too negative and now is over +10.
> 
> The only I did is to change all the cables that connect the receiver to my power amps for a new and I think better ones.
> 
> I have the same power amps for all my speakers Dual Channel Crown XLS 1502, and after change the cables I put all of them at 3 PM.
> 
> To me all other speaker looks good but looks like maybe need more power for the fronts, what you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


It looks like the gain on the amp for the mains is way to low! Are your main speakers low sensitivity? If so
, try boosting the gain on the amp a few more db if possible as that can bring them in line below the 0 db level in the avr.


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Hi,
> 
> After a couple try I got it work, but now you can see my results in the attached image, I really feel lost now, because the other day was too negative and now is over +10.
> ...
> 
> 
> I have the same power amps for all my speakers Dual Channel Crown XLS 1502, and after change the cables I put all of them at *3 PM.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me all other speaker looks good but looks like maybe need more power for the fronts, what you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose



Hmmmm 



Is it possible that your surround speakers and your center are _*more*_ efficient than your Front Left and Front Right? That is an unusual situation, but it's possible. Audyssey seems to be turning your Front Left and Front Right way, way up. For them, *3 o'clock* on the sensitivity controls is way too low in "power" (too soft), so Audyssey is turning those two channels way up to compensate for that. I think. 



Try some intermediate setting like about 8 o'clock on the power amplifier input sensitivity controls for FL and FR, and run Audyssey mic position 1 only to see if it gives you a more reasonable setting, like - 3. If so, then run Audyssey, with all mic positions again.



What brand and model is each of your speakers? If you google each of them, you should be able to find their efficiency/sensitivity in either dB @ 1 watt @ 1 meter *or* dB @ 2.83 v @ 1 meter. 



Good luck! Let us know what happens.


----------



## mthomas47

jabe00 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I ran again a couple times, had to do a couple because I was getting Ambient Noise is to High or Level is to Low in the 7 position of 8.
> 
> After a couple try I got it work, but now you can see my results in the attached image, I really feel lost now, because the other day was too negative and now is over +10.
> 
> The only I did is to change all the cables that connect the receiver to my power amps for a new and I think better ones.
> 
> I have the same power amps for all my speakers Dual Channel Crown XLS 1502, and after change the cables I put all of them at 3 PM.
> 
> To me all other speaker looks good but looks like maybe need more power for the fronts, what you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Hi Jose,

FWIW, I think it is very unlikely that the problem lies with the gain control this time, and even more unlikely that your front speakers are less powerful or efficient than your other speakers. If you changed out all of the speaker cables, and only your front speakers reacted with the very high trim settings, then I would look to the cables first.

Try swapping-out the front cables with another pair from two of your other speakers. See if the problem follows the front speakers, or whether it follows the cables. If the problem follows the cables, then that particular pair of cables is defective and you just need to replace them. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## cfraser

I suppose it's also possible the input circuitry (such as the pots) might not be the same for all your "same model" amps. i.e. 3 o'clock would be a different gain for different pots, heck they could have even changed the pot type from linear to log etc., This sometimes happens with amps, I have some "same model" amps (not Crown) where they changed the input sensitivity circuitry after release.


----------



## garygarrison

Jose,

When you were talking about "12 o'clock," or "6 o'clock," or "3 o'clock," I assumed you were referring to a continuously variable input sensitivity control "pot" (or _potentiometer_). From what I see online it looks like each of your amps may have a 2 position switch, instead, that allows you to choose between 2 sensitivities only, appropriate for input voltages of 0.775 *V* RMS or 1.4 *V* RMS. 

Is that true?

I am still confused, though. At first I thought that one position of the switch might be too low and one too high, but there is only about 4 or 5 dB difference between them according to the chart below, and the fact that we are dealing in volts, not watts. The difference in the two Audyssey settings your two settings produced is 22 dB! 










So maybe it is the cables -- how did the experiment Mike suggested come out? Now that I re-read the following from your post, it looks like you may have changed the cables and changed setting of the input sensitivity at the same time, "after change the cables I put all of them at 3 PM." If so, maybe it is the combination of the two. 


Unless you have output level trim controls on the receiver you are using as a preamp, you may have to use attenuators.

FWIW, IMO, upgrading cables may be a waste of time. Any audible difference in performance in _*intact*_ cables is unlikely (i.e., electromythological) even though they range in price from about $5 to $40,000.


----------



## theaterofpain

The elephant in the room... people are running Audyssey with either very low-end speakers and/or in a poor acoustic environment (e.g., open floor plan with kitchen to left of MLP, cathedral ceiling above MLP, and tile all around). And then they expect miracles. I'll just get it out - not ALL circumstances warrant an Audyssey calibration. Sheesh.


----------



## jabe00

theaterofpain said:


> The elephant in the room... people are running Audyssey with either very low-end speakers and/or in a poor acoustic environment (e.g., open floor plan with kitchen to left of MLP, cathedral ceiling above MLP, and tile all around). And then they expect miracles. I'll just get it out - not ALL circumstances warrant an Audyssey calibration. Sheesh.


Yes, you right, I'm 100% sure that my room can be called a Theater Room, it's just a Plain Room/Area connected to the Dining room that I like to use to listen music and watch Movies.

Also I agree with you about my speakers, maybe are the worst in the market but are the ones I like it and till now I didn't think I need to change them, but I'm open to options.

For All:

Maybe this is something I was supposed to said before all this, but hope is not too late for that:

Guys, I never ran Audyssey before, I just wanted to see what Audyssey can do and what can't in my end, and also to see what can be better o need to be changed or lasty what need to be replaced (Maybe my Speakers)

Below is what I have:
1 Marantz SR602 as Receiver
2 Energy RC-70 Tower as Mains
1 Energy RC as Center
4 SVS Elevation Speaker as Surrounds
2 UM18-22 Dayton Ultimax for Subwoofer
4 Crown XLS 1502 for Mains/Center/Surrounds
1 iNUKE NU6000DSP for the Subwoofers

Attached is a couple pictures of my TV area after some modifications made by me.

Also im adding a picture from the Audyssey result from today after putting the cable that I had before and also putting the knob in the power amp all the way, so, no more power can be from the power amp. The result in the picture is after run the positions 1 to 3 and click in Complete.

I need to say that I really appreciate all the help I'm getting from all of you, so thanks, again thanks.



Thanks,
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jabe00

garygarrison said:


> Jose,
> 
> When you were talking about "12 o'clock," or "6 o'clock," or "3 o'clock," I assumed you were referring to a continuously variable input sensitivity control "pot" (or _potentiometer_). From what I see online it looks like each of your amps may have a 2 position switch, instead, that allows you to choose between 2 sensitivities only, appropriate for input voltages of 0.775 *V* RMS or 1.4 *V* RMS.
> 
> Is that true?
> 
> I am still confused, though. At first I thought that one position of the switch might be too low and one too high, but there is only about 4 or 5 dB difference between them according to the chart below, and the fact that we are dealing in volts, not watts. The difference in the two Audyssey settings your two settings produced is 22 dB!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So maybe it is the cables -- how did the experiment Mike suggested come out? Now that I re-read the following from your post, it looks like you may have changed the cables and changed setting of the input sensitivity at the same time, "after change the cables I put all of them at 3 PM." If so, maybe it is the combination of the two.
> 
> 
> Unless you have output level trim controls on the receiver you are using as a preamp, you may have to use attenuators.
> 
> FWIW, IMO, upgrading cables may be a waste of time. Any audible difference in performance in _*intact*_ cables is unlikely (i.e., electromythological) even though they range in price from about $5 to $40,000.


Yes, you right about the input sensitivity, see the attached pictures.

About the cables, just lowered a little see my picture 

Thanks
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jabe00

jabe00 said:


> Yes, you right about the input sensitivity, see the attached pictures.
> 
> About the cables, just lowered a little see my picture
> 
> Thanks
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


After playing with the input sensitivity and knob in the Crown for the mains I think I'm more close now as this is the best I was able to get after a couple hours playing. 

Should be trying to the get the mains around -5 like all the other or the -8.5 and -9.5 levels are acceptable values? 

The knob in the power amp for the mains only have 1 more move to full, should try? Or just move closer to the other with the remote control like some people do with the Subs, that after getting them around -9 then move to -5 to get more bass, what should do?

Thanks again, I appreciate your answers.

Thanks,
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## RafaelSmith

So i have a question about how to best do Audyssey now that I have added a 2nd row to my theater.

Also, technically....I do not sit in the center (i usually end up in left front seat since that is where my Ipad that controls everything is ) even thou what I have done is treat the center front as MLP. Conceptually , it seemed weird to use left front as MLP.

This rough drawing is what my current configuration for Audyssey was ...but I did that before getting the 2nd row.

Should I even worry about the 2nd row....since position mic back there would break the "2ft" limit that Audyssey recommends? Its always bugged me the wording that Audyssey uses implies placing mic at places where people will sit...but they say not to exceed 2ft from first position...does not match up but whatever.

Should I do a 2ft radius "bubble" centered between rows?

Or just leave as is.


----------



## fredxr2d2

RafaelSmith said:


> So i have a question about how to best do Audyssey now that I have added a 2nd row to my theater.
> 
> Also, technically....I do not sit in the center (i usually end up in left front seat since that is where my Ipad that controls everything is ) even thou what I have done is treat the center front as MLP. Conceptually , it seemed weird to use left front as MLP.
> 
> This rough drawing is what my current configuration for Audyssey was ...but I did that before getting the 2nd row.
> 
> Should I even worry about the 2nd row....since position mic back there would break the "2ft" limit that Audyssey recommends? Its always bugged me the wording that Audyssey uses implies placing mic at places where people will sit...but they say not to exceed 2ft from first position...does not match up but whatever.
> 
> Should I do a 2ft radius "bubble" centered between rows?
> 
> Or just leave as is.



I have 2 rows and got a much better result doing a smaller mic position around the MLP than doing a larger spread over the two rows.


----------



## cfraser

2' _radius_? I have found that measuring within a 2' _diameter _circle around the MLP does a very good job. But for a somewhat larger room, 2' radius might be better.

You have the right idea though, IME, you do not have to put the mic positions all over the sitting area, I disagree with this "suggestion" in various manufacturer documents or help screens that show it.


----------



## donktard

Not exactly audyssey question, but can anyone explain this mystery to me?
I have Denon X5200, with Audyssey XT32, two subs hooked to it. I ran audyssey today, all good, sounds good, no need to tweak.
Then I decide, while song is playing to turn on Subwoofer Level Adjust and funny thing happens. I just turn it ON, with levels on both subs set to 0 and subs get louder.  Is that a bug or something? Or is 0 not default level in Subwoofer Level Adjust settings?
Other relevant information: subs are crossed to 200 (with tiny bookshelves), I didn't touch trims on anything, dynamic EQ and volume is disabled.


----------



## David Aiken

donktard said:


> Not exactly audyssey question, but can anyone explain this mystery to me?
> I have Denon X5200, with Audyssey XT32, two subs hooked to it. I ran audyssey today, all good, sounds good, no need to tweak.
> Then I decide, while song is playing to turn on Subwoofer Level Adjust and funny thing happens. I just turn it ON, with levels on both subs set to 0 and subs get louder.  Is that a bug or something? Or is 0 not default level in Subwoofer Level Adjust settings?
> Other relevant information: subs are crossed to 200 (with tiny bookshelves), I didn't touch trims on anything, dynamic EQ and volume is disabled.


It's probably not a bug but it is a trap for the unwary.

When you check your sub level in the speaker configuration settings you'll see a level like, say, -5 dB. You're making the logical mistake of assuming that when you open the Subwoofer Adjust setting the 0 dB figure you see is referenced to the setting in the configuration and if you want to raise the sub level by 3 dB you just enter +3 dB in Subwoofer Adjust. That's wrong. The scales in both setting displays are the same so in Subwoofer Adjust you need to set the value to exactly the same value as shown in your configuration settings for the sub volume to be the same. By turning Subwoofer Adjustment on and leaving it at 0 dB you effectively raised the sub level by the difference between it's original setting and 0 dB. 

If the original setting was, for example, -5 dB and you wanted to raise the level by 3 dB using the Subwoofer Adjust option you would set the Subwoofer Adjust setting to -2 dB. Having it set to 0 dB would raise the level by 5 dB


So that's what's going on. By turning Subwoofer Adjust on and leaving it at 0 dB you actually told the AVR to boost your sub level. It's a stupid way to have things work and I don't think it's well explained in the manual anywhere, and you're not the first person to be caught by this problem. I beat you to it by several years and even I wasn't the first by a long shot. It's a really bad piece of interface design in my view.


----------



## donktard

David Aiken said:


> So that's what's going on. By turning Subwoofer Adjust on and leaving it at 0 dB you actually told the AVR to boost your sub level. It's a stupid way to have things work and I don't think it's well explained in the manual anywhere, and you're not the first person to be caught by this problem. I beat you to it by several years and even I wasn't the first by a long shot. It's a really bad piece of interface design in my view.



Lol, thats actually brutal. My sub trim is usually around -10, so no wonder my head always gets blown off when I turn on level adjust.


----------



## Soulburner

David Aiken said:


> It's probably not a bug but it is a trap for the unwary.
> 
> When you check your sub level in the speaker configuration settings you'll see a level like, say, -5 dB. You're making the logical mistake of assuming that when you open the Subwoofer Adjust setting the 0 dB figure you see is referenced to the setting in the configuration and if you want to raise the sub level by 3 dB you just enter +3 dB in Subwoofer Adjust. That's wrong. The scales in both setting displays are the same so in Subwoofer Adjust you need to set the value to exactly the same value as shown in your configuration settings for the sub volume to be the same. By turning Subwoofer Adjustment on and leaving it at 0 dB you effectively raised the sub level by the difference between it's original setting and 0 dB.
> 
> If the original setting was, for example, -5 dB and you wanted to raise the level by 3 dB using the Subwoofer Adjust option you would set the Subwoofer Adjust setting to -2 dB. Having it set to 0 dB would raise the level by 5 dB
> 
> 
> So that's what's going on. By turning Subwoofer Adjust on and leaving it at 0 dB you actually told the AVR to boost your sub level. It's a stupid way to have things work and I don't think it's well explained in the manual anywhere, and you're not the first person to be caught by this problem. I beat you to it by several years and even I wasn't the first by a long shot. It's a really bad piece of interface design in my view.


It is, but those who know about it could use it when they run into this problem: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html


----------



## CBdicX

*Cross over question*

Hi, switched to a "nice" looking speaker setup *to get some WAF * ;-)

Had the dark and not so nice looking Cinema Ultra serie from Magnat, now have a 7.1.2 setup with Fronts the *Kef T301*, a Magnat Quantum 1000 center, surrounds and Top Front all *Kef T101*.
The subwoofer is the big Magnat Cinema Ultra THX 300 subwoofer.

The Kef speakers all have the same specs, 80-30.000 Hz

All Kef speakers are set by Audyssey at a x-over off 120 Hz, exept the SB that set to 150 Hz, the Magnat center is set to 40 Hz.
The subwoofer is used in the THX setting, 80 Hz. (LPF of LFE = 120 Hz)

*Questions:*

1)
Should i lower the Kef x-over to say 100 Hz or leave it at the Audyssey setting ?

2)
And should i still use the sub as THX or use the line input and use a "manual" setting ?

Thanks for the help !


----------



## theaterofpain

So many subwoofer questions when you should just set them to zero after calibration and adjust the subs' volume directly manually/electronically to what you feel sounds right while watching some reference content. It really is that simple.


----------



## CBdicX

theaterofpain said:


> So many subwoofer questions when you should just set them to zero after calibration and adjust the subs' volume directly manually/electronically to what you feel sounds right while watching some reference content. It really is that simple.


Set what to zero ?
And set the sub to what setting manually ?


And its not just the subwoofer, also the relative high x-over Audyssye is setting for these speakers......


In the THX setting i can not set any thing, all is fixed to THX setting.


----------



## theaterofpain

Put the Sub volume in Audyssey at 0 (after calibration). Then manually (i.e., knob in back of sub) or electronically (BT control ala SVS type system) adjust the volume to what you feel sounds right. There is no reason to use your AVR to adjust sub volume.


----------



## drh3b

theaterofpain said:


> Put the Sub volume in Audyssey at 0 (after calibration). Then manually (i.e., knob in back of sub) or electronically (BT control ala SVS type system) adjust the volume to what you feel sounds right. There is no reason to use your AVR to adjust sub volume.


Seeing as my AVR has a remote, and my subwoofers don't, I'll pass.
I have a chair at the MLP for a reason.


----------



## CBdicX

theaterofpain said:


> Put the Sub volume in Audyssey at 0 (after calibration). Then manually (i.e., knob in back of sub) or electronically (BT control ala SVS type system) adjust the volume to what you feel sounds right. There is no reason to use your AVR to adjust sub volume.



Ok, i thought you mean something else.
But still do i use the x-over settings from Audyssey that is set on the high side, or manually set them back to say 100 Hz, 20 higher then the specs ?


And leave the sub on 80 Hz x-over or set this also to 100 ?


----------



## cfraser

^ Never lower the XO frequency below what Audyssey/AVR determines it to be. You may _raise _them though. The reason for this is Audyssey does not correct below the XO freq. So, you should leave any XO _above _80Hz where it is. And raise any XO below 80Hz to 80Hz (this is a good starting position, probably leave it there).


----------



## CBdicX

cfraser said:


> ^ Never lower the XO frequency below what Audyssey/AVR determines it to be. You may _raise _them though. The reason for this is Audyssey does not correct below the XO freq. So, you should leave any XO _above _80Hz where it is. And raise any XO below 80Hz to 80Hz (this is a good starting position, probably leave it there).



And leave the sub also at 80 (the THX setting) ?
Is this not causing the sub to play the higher freq. like the stuff above 80 Hz and then being detectable ?


----------



## legierk

Just a quick FYI: I broke out my unused, still-in-the-box Denon x4100w calibration mic (ACM1HB) to calibrate my 4311ci. The 4311ci mic (DM-A409), which has been on a boom mic stand for about 4-5 years, has been used on both AVRs extensively , the results leaving me a little wanting (high and mid clarity, low end extension, less boominess). I read that both mics should essentially be the same. However, I can report that the ACM1HB mic gave much better results on the 4311ci than I have had with the original mic. And this is not subjective, as I verified my listening by checking the Audyssey curves for each speaker, and the boosts and cuts are way less than they used to be. And the sound is not muddy or "dark" like it was. Now, I have mused that a potential reason for this is that the old mic may have gathered 4-5 years of dust in the windscreen. I don't know if it would ever be enough dust to affect the calibration however, but who know? In any event, I can't wait to recalibrate the theater's x4100w because if the results are similar to the results with the 4311 in the living room, it will be like a whole new theater.


----------



## cfraser

CBdicX said:


> And leave the sub also at 80 (the THX setting) ?
> Is this not causing the sub to play the higher freq. like the stuff above 80 Hz and then being detectable ?


I'm not following you exactly. But you should leave the LFE setting at 120Hz. This is the normal setting that almost everybody uses all the time. [I believe it's Roger Dressler who could give you some good reasons for _not _using 120Hz sometimes, but he doesn't have an "ordinary" system.]

XO is for bass management, it is the frequency _below_ which audio gets directed from speakers to the sub. This XO=80Hz is the "THX setting", it's for speakers.

The LFE setting is a different animal than the XO setting. Leave it in its 120Hz setting, don't adjust it. It basically means the whole LFE channel, everything below 120Hz, will go to the sub. That's what you want. [If you change this LFE setting from 120Hz to 80Hz, it _theoretically _means all the LFE between 80Hz and 120Hz would get "dropped" and you wouldn't hear it at all from the sub. Note that sound from the sub and LFE are _not _the same thing: the LFE is a separate audio channel, whereas the sub can play that LFE channel as well as any sound directed there by the Bass Management XO settings.]

So do this to get going decently:
LFE (for sub) at 120Hz.
XOs (for speakers) at 80Hz or whatever Audyssey says, whichever is *higher*.

These are the settings that almost everybody uses, all the time.


----------



## CBdicX

cfraser said:


> I'm not following you exactly. But you should leave the LFE setting at 120Hz. This is the normal setting that almost everybody uses all the time. [I believe it's Roger Dressler who could give you some good reasons for _not _using 120Hz sometimes, but he doesn't have an "ordinary" system.]
> 
> XO is for bass management, it is the frequency _below_ which audio gets directed from speakers to the sub. This XO=80Hz is the "THX setting", it's for speakers.
> 
> The LFE setting is a different animal than the XO setting. Leave it in its 120Hz setting, don't adjust it. It basically means the whole LFE channel, everything below 120Hz, will go to the sub. That's what you want. [If you change this LFE setting from 120Hz to 80Hz, it _theoretically _means all the LFE between 80Hz and 120Hz would get "dropped" and you wouldn't hear it at all from the sub. Note that sound from the sub and LFE are _not _the same thing: the LFE is a separate audio channel, whereas the sub can play that LFE channel as well as any sound directed there by the Bass Management XO settings.]
> 
> So do this to get going decently:
> LFE (for sub) at 120Hz.
> XOs (for speakers) at 80Hz or whatever Audyssey says, whichever is *higher*.
> 
> These are the settings that almost everybody uses, all the time.


 
Ok, if i understand you correct this is what i must do:


1)
Audyssey will set my Kef T101 and T301 at 150 and 120 Hz x-over, *i will leave it at that.*


2)
LPF of LFE will be set to *120 Hz*.


3)
I have a THX sub with a THX fixed setting of 80 Hz and fixed volume.
This sub is designed for a speaker set thats also THX but is not the speakers i use now !
I can also use a Line IN and manual set the x-over for the sub.
*What will be the correct way with the Kef's:*


1) Leave the sub at THX setting
2) Use the Line IN and set it to 120 Hz ? (the lowest Audyssey x-over)


We are getting there, thanks


----------



## legierk

CBdicX said:


> Ok, if i understand you correct this is what i must do:
> 
> 
> 1)
> Audyssey will set my Kef T101 and T301 at 150 and 120 Hz x-over, *i will leave it at that.*
> 
> 
> 2)
> LPF of LFE will be set to *120 Hz*.
> 
> 
> 3)
> I have a THX sub with a THX fixed setting of 80 Hz and fixed volume.
> This sub is designed for a speaker set thats also THX but is not the speakers i use now !
> I can also use a Line IN and manual set the x-over for the sub.
> *What will be the correct way with the Kef's:*
> 
> 
> 1) Leave the sub at THX setting
> 2) Use the Line IN and set it to 120 Hz ? (the lowest Audyssey x-over)
> 
> 
> We are getting there, thanks


I was not asked, but will try to help if possible:
1) Yes, leave this alone
2) Audyssey does not set LPF for LFE. Manual setting. Most recommend 120Hz so you don't "lose" anything that may have been recorded. 
3) Take the subs crossover out of the loop. You will do this by using the line in and set it to the highest frequency the sub's crossover has. If it is 200hz, set it there. In other words, set the sub's crossover at it's highest setting, whatever it is for your sub. The crossover is in the AVR. It would be ideal if the sub had a LFE input, thereby bypassing the sub's crossover altogether, but yours appears not to have that. Your comment says "Use the Line IN and set IT to 120hz." What is IT? If IT is the crossover setting in the sub, then no, set it to its highest setting as stated above. If IT refers to the crossover in the AVR (LPF for LFE), then yes 120hz is fine.


----------



## cfraser

I am unfamiliar with your sub and the speaker set it goes with. But just using general principles, I would use the Line In for your sub (to LFE from AVR), and set the LFE to 120Hz in the AVR. See how that goes.


----------



## CBdicX

legierk said:


> I was not asked, but will try to help if possible:
> 1) Yes, leave this alone
> 2) Audyssey does not set LPF for LFE. Manual setting. Most recommend 120Hz so you don't "lose" anything that may have been recorded.
> 3) Take the subs crossover out of the loop. You will do this by using the line in and set it to the highest frequency the sub's crossover has. If it is 200hz, set it there. In other words, set the sub's crossover at it's highest setting, whatever it is for your sub. The crossover is in the AVR. It would be ideal if the sub had a LFE input, thereby bypassing the sub's crossover altogether, but yours appears not to have that. Your comment says "Use the Line IN and set IT to 120hz." What is IT? If IT is the crossover setting in the sub, then no, set it to its highest setting as stated above. If IT refers to the crossover in the AVR (LPF for LFE), then yes 120hz is fine.



Hi, here a pic of the controls of the Magnat Cinema Ultra 300 subwoofer.
Highest x-over setting for Line IN is 150 Hz.


Just to be clear, i set:


1) LPF to LFE at 120 Hz


2) I use the Line IN on the sub and set it to 150 Hz


3) I leave all the speaker x-over setting from Audyssey as they are set (120 and 150 Hz)


Correct ?


----------



## legierk

CBdicX said:


> Hi, here a pic of the controls of the Magnat Cinema Ultra 300 subwoofer.
> Highest x-over setting for Line IN is 150 Hz.
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, i set:
> 
> 
> 1) LPF to LFE at 120 HzYes
> 
> 
> 2) I use the Line IN on the sub and set it to 150 Hz Yes
> 
> 
> 3) I leave all the speaker x-over setting from Audyssey as they are set (120 and 150 Hz)Yes
> 
> 
> Correct ?


Yes
I just read the manual for the sub. Didn't see where it says that the THX input is fixed at 80hz (not in English anyway). At any rate, the setting above will work fine. No need to use a Y connector either. Just plug the RCA from the Sub out on the AVR to either of the Line inputs. Most newer AVRs have a sub level indication during Audyssey calibration. Not sure if yours does, but either way, set the level on the sub about middle to start with. I like to end the calibration with the sub trim levels about -5 to 0. Some other guys on here may have a different opinion. Leave the Phase control at 0. The AVR will take care of that also.


----------



## CBdicX

legierk said:


> Yes
> I just read the manual for the sub. Didn't see where it says that the THX input is fixed at 80hz (not in English anyway). At any rate, the setting above will work fine. No need to use a Y connector either. Just plug the RCA from the Sub out on the AVR to either of the Line inputs. Most newer AVRs have a sub level indication during Audyssey calibration. Not sure if yours does, but either way, set the level on the sub about middle to start with. I like to end the calibration with the sub trim levels about -5 to 0. Some other guys on here may have a different opinion. Leave the Phase control at 0. The AVR will take care of that also.


 
Thank you Sir !
I thought THX used 80 Hz, Magnat says x-over and volume are fixed fot THX......
And leaving the x-over for the speakers at the high Audyssey x-over will not have me localize the sub ?


----------



## legierk

CBdicX said:


> Thank you Sir !
> I thought THX used 80 Hz, Magnat says x-over and volume are fixed fot THX......
> And leaving the x-over for the speakers at the high Audyssey x-over will not have me localize the sub ?


The manual actually says the sub crossover and level controls have no control when using the THX input. It did not say the crossover was fixed at 80hz. In fact, it says specifically that the THX input should be connected to the "LFE output", IMPLYING that the crossover is bypassed when using the THX input. Magnat surely knows that all "LFE outputs" (sub output in US lingo) are already crossed by the AVR.


A trickier issue is the level control. If the THX input bypasses the level control as the manual suggests, then I am not sure if the level would be compatible with the calibration of the AVR. When calibrating the sub(s), the AVR wants to "see" about 75db. It would take almost no effort to try it and see what happens.


As far as localizing the sub, your smallish speakers are already sending 150hz to the sub, and there is no way around that. 


One thing you should realize, that I sense from the discussion might be a little confusing, is that the LFE is a separate channel, just as the FL, FR, C, SL and SR are their own respective channels. So, the sub is, in reality getting the bass from SIX channels all combined. FL, FR and C is sending 0-120hz to the sub. SL and SR are sending 0-150hz to the sub. And finally, the LFE channel is sending 0-150hz (or whatever you choose for LPF for LFE). 


Since you are in Holland, I would call the manufacturer in Germany on Monday to ask about the THX input crossover function. Is the crossover bypassed when the THX input is used or not? The manual is not clear on this point. It appears to be written for average users and not tweakers, so to speak.


----------



## CBdicX

legierk said:


> The manual actually says the sub crossover and level controls have no control when using the THX input. It did not say the crossover was fixed at 80hz. In fact, it says specifically that the THX input should be connected to the "LFE output", IMPLYING that the crossover is bypassed when using the THX input. Magnat surely knows that all "LFE outputs" (sub output in US lingo) are already crossed by the AVR.
> 
> 
> A trickier issue is the level control. If the THX input bypasses the level control as the manual suggests, then I am not sure if the level would be compatible with the calibration of the AVR. When calibrating the sub(s), the AVR wants to "see" about 75db. It would take almost no effort to try it and see what happens.
> 
> 
> As far as localizing the sub, your smallish speakers are already sending 150hz to the sub, and there is no way around that.
> 
> 
> One thing you should realize, that I sense from the discussion might be a little confusing, is that the LFE is a separate channel, just as the FL, FR, C, SL and SR are their own respective channels. So, the sub is, in reality getting the bass from SIX channels all combined. FL, FR and C is sending 0-120hz to the sub. SL and SR are sending 0-150hz to the sub. And finally, the LFE channel is sending 0-150hz (or whatever you choose for LPF for LFE).
> 
> 
> Since you are in Holland, I would call the manufacturer in Germany on Monday to ask about the THX input crossover function. Is the crossover bypassed when the THX input is used or not? The manual is not clear on this point. It appears to be written for average users and not tweakers, so to speak.



Thank you.
This is why i like to set the x-over for the speakers to 80Hz, as the KEF manual says they can do 80Hz, to avoid localisation of the sub.
But i am told not to lower the Audyssey settings, so i will not.
Strange that Audyssey settings and what KEF says the speakers can do, are so far apart.
I do have the speakers on the wall for the "best proformance" 
I know the room is causing this, but almost double....... 


When i have the LFE OUT to the THX IN on the sub, and do a Audyssey run, the sub is set to -7 dB by Audyssey.
The sub manual says that the THX input must be used with a THX receiver, think like Onkyo......
I have a Denon X8500H, not a THX receiver, so if i follow the sub manual in must use Line in x-over set to 150, the highest Hz of the speakers set by Audyssey.


I will try both and see what will sound the best.


----------



## legierk

Don't get caught up in the whole THX business. It really means nothing for our purposes. -7 on the sub trim is almost perfect, so I would use the THX input on the sub. Speaker manufacturers say their products can do a lot of stuff they can't in the real world. I would trust what Audyssey is hearing rather than what is printed on some pamphlet. For example, Magnat's website says your sub can go down to 18hz. I really do not believe that, although the sub looks very capable. So take all those specs with a grain of salt.


----------



## Soulburner

legierk said:


> For example, Magnat's website says your sub can go down to 18hz. I really do not believe that, although the sub looks very capable. So take all those specs with a grain of salt.


It may do 18Hz, but not at -3dB. More like -6 or -10. It's way too small for a non-servo controlled sub to have flat extension that low.


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Thank you.
> This is why i like to set the x-over for the speakers to 80Hz, as the KEF manual says they can do 80Hz, to avoid localisation of the sub.
> But i am told not to lower the Audyssey settings, so i will not.
> Strange that Audyssey settings and what KEF says the speakers can do, are so far apart.
> I do have the speakers on the wall for the "best proformance"
> I know the room is causing this, but almost double.......
> 
> 
> When i have the LFE OUT to the THX IN on the sub, and do a Audyssey run, the sub is set to -7 dB by Audyssey.
> The sub manual says that the THX input must be used with a THX receiver, think like Onkyo......
> I have a Denon X8500H, not a THX receiver, so if i follow the sub manual in must use Line in x-over set to 150, the highest Hz of the speakers set by Audyssey.
> 
> 
> I will try both and see what will sound the best.



Hi,

You have already been getting good advice, but I wanted to offer another perspective on some things. First, it could well be a combination of inflated manufacturer specs, and room influences, that is causing your crossovers to be set so high. Some manufacturers routinely inflate the low-frequency capabilities of their speakers (and their subs). And, there are a number of different ways to do that, while walking a fine line just short of an outright falsehood. 

The issue of localization is one that you will have to answer for yourself. If you don't hear any localization with your crossovers set where your Denon put them, then you have nothing to worry about. In that case, you would probably be better off leaving your crossovers right where they are. And, you will definitely want your subwoofer's low-pass filter to be set as high as it will go. If you do hear some subwoofer localization, and it is bothersome to you, then you have a choice to make.

I think that there are two good reasons not to drop crossovers below where our AVR's set them after an Audyssey calibration. The first reason, as you know, involves the room EQ. Audyssey won't be setting any filters (control points actually) a little below the crossover assigned during the calibration. And, room correction is typically pretty helpful below at least 500Hz, and especially so below about 200Hz. So, there may be some real benefit to having that room correction for the frequencies just below the assigned crossover. 

On the other hand, we may sometimes make too much of that issue. People often choose to turn Audyssey off entirely, or to listen to music in Pure Direct (which eliminates room EQ), or to use LF/RF Bypass (which eliminates room EQ for just the front speakers). So, nothing terrible will necessarily happen, due to an unEQed frequency response, just because you choose to lower a crossover below where your AVR set it during calibration.

The second reason that it isn't typically a good idea to lower crossovers, post-calibration, has more to do with the native capabilities of your speakers than it does with room correction. If your speakers are rolling-off at a particular frequency, and you choose to make them play below that frequency anyway, you may just not hear very much at all of those frequencies, because they are playing those frequencies so softly. And, what you do hear may not sound very good--especially if the speakers are ported. (Ported transducers just don't do well when they try to play very far below their port tunes.)

With your sealed KEF speakers, I would also be inclined to be conservative. I don't think that you will damage them by trying to play them below the frequency where your Denon put your crossovers. At least, not as long as your listening levels don't get extremely loud. But, at best, there might be a hole where neither the KEF's, nor the subwoofer, is contributing much. 

If localization does become a real problem for you, though, you might try dropping your crossovers by just a little. I definitely wouldn't go all the way down to 80Hz. But, if a crossover were set by my AVR at 120Hz, and I liked the sound better at 100Hz, I would probably try that. It's really just a compromise, like the others that we sometimes make with our audio systems. Again, though, I would always be a little more conservative with my master volume after doing that. Just another point of view, FWIW. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

Thanks guys, you have been a great help !!


----------



## NCpowerlifter

Hi guys, hoping someone can help me out with Audyssey and what it does during a calibration session. 

I have a Denon AVR-X6400 receiver configured in 7.2.4 and had previously run Audyssey straight through the receiver. Upon completion I set all speakers to small with the crossovers at 80Hz as per the advice on the first page of this thread. The one exception were the rears which Audyssey set to 150Hz during the calibration routine and which I left alone. 

While reading a thread today I came across someone mentioning the Audyssey iPad app and figured I’d give it a try after looking it up in the App Store and seeing it was only $19. I was predominantly interested in seeing the correction graphs in order to try and discern what the application was doing behind the scenes. As you know, running the app via the receiver is basically a black box with no before/after visuals to speak of. 

So I ran the calibration process using 8 positions and was bewildered when the corrections were completely different than when running the same process through the receiver.  same mic positions, same external noise characteristics (quiet, very early a.n.) etc. 

The L/R mains were set to large with a 40Hz crossover (same as receiver only), the center was set to small with a 60Hz crossover and my ceiling mounted speakers were also set to small/60 Hz. This was quite different than the receiver only calibration where they were all set to 80Hz. The one standout were the rears which were set by the iPad Audyssey to crossover at 200Hz. This was strange to me as the receiver calibration process has always set them to 150Hz. I’m really confused as I figured the SW would pretty much function exactly the same and just provide me the graphs for visual representation and perhaps some minor tweaking. 

Does anyone have an idea of what might be going on? I certainly wasn’t planning on being this confused after using the iPad version of XT32. 

In addition, after looking at the graphs I have no idea what they’re telling me. Was hoping someone might have the secret decoder ring to help me understand what I’m looking at. Here are a few examples. 

Appreciate any help you guys can provide.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> ... a combination of inflated manufacturer specs, and room influences, that is causing your crossovers to be set so high Some manufacturers routinely inflate the low-frequency capabilities of their speakers (and their subs). And, there are a number of different ways to do that, while walking a fine line just short of an outright falsehood.



As far as I can tell, many, perhaps most, speaker manufacturers do this now, at both the low and high end of the frequency response spectrum, perhaps because the other guy is doing it. 



The manufacturers below will remain nameless:


There is the manufacturer of extremely high end speakers, who modestly states that their flagship is "The best loudspeaker on Earth," which can be yours for about $107,000, and advertises frequency response out to above 40K Hz, for which the family dog will be grateful, and +/- 1dB “in the audible band.” What happened when JA of_* S**tereophile *_measured it in a quasi-anechoic environment? He got +/- 2.5 dB, 30 Hz to 20K Hz. That's still excellent, of course, albeit only 2.5 times the peak-trough variability advertised. But how about in the real world, where, IMO, something like Audyssey is needed, namely in a listening room? _*Stereophile *_got: +7, -13 dB [ +/- 10 dB], 20 to 20K Hz. The high frequencies start rolling off at about 7K Hz, with - 3 dB at 10K, -7dB at 15K, and -13 dB at 20K. I wonder what this speaker measures, in a room, at 40K? 



There is little doubt that the speaker referred to above is excellent -- it's just that the manufacturer's frequency response claims may be hard to replicate. And, don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on them*;* their advertising is typical of speaker manufacturers, high end and low end. We can (usually) improve frequency response quit a bit with Audyssey. And the room and speaker location can make a huge difference, sometimes improving on the manufacturer's claims. My center speaker is advertised as being smooth to 53 Hz -- several users, including me, have a hard time getting there. *But*, I saw some of Jeff Cooper's claims of improvements in a variety of speakers' bass performance with flush mounting, and gave it a try. It lowered the F3 to 40 Hz, which I don't really need because of the sub.


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You have already been getting good advice.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike,


have you any idea what Magnat means with 


*THX connection*
*For connection to the LFE output of a THX licensed receiver.*


What will a THX receiver do different compared to a non THX receiver, concerning the LFE output to a THX subwoofer ?


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> have you any idea what Magnat means with
> 
> 
> *THX connection*
> *For connection to the LFE output of a THX licensed receiver.*
> 
> 
> What will a THX receiver do different compared to a non THX receiver, concerning the LFE output to a THX subwoofer ?



Hi,

I have no idea what Magnat means, but I don't think it matters because you don't have THX-rated speakers, which can appropriately use 80Hz crossovers, and which are the THX standard anyway. 

Given your speakers, and the crossovers that you have to use for your speakers, you want your subwoofer to be able to play 150Hz frequencies. I think that the THX setting may limit the high range of your subwoofer. To be on the safe side, I would use one of the Sub Line-in's (corrected) on the far right side of your amplifier, and I would increase the "crossover" (actually an LPF) to 150Hz. That will enable your subwoofer to appropriately support your speakers with their 120Hz and 150Hz crossovers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have no idea what Magnat means, but I don't think it matters because you don't have THX-rated speakers, which can appropriately use 80Hz crossovers, and which are the THX standard anyway.
> 
> Given your speakers, and the crossovers that you have to use for your speakers, you want your subwoofer to be able to play 150Hz frequencies. I think that the THX setting may limit the high range of your subwoofer. To be on the safe side, *I would use one of the Sub out's on the far right side of your amplifier, and I would increase the "crossover" (actually an LPF) to 150Hz.* That will enable your subwoofer to appropriately support your speakers with their 120Hz and 150Hz crossovers.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 
  (sorry)


Don't you mean Line IN ( on the sub amp) and then set the Crossover at 150 Hz on the sub amp ?
Do i need also to increase the LPF of LFE on the Denon to 150 Hz or leave it at 120 Hz ?


----------



## marantz545

NCpowerlifter said:


> Hi guys, hoping someone can help me out with Audyssey and what it does during a calibration session.
> 
> I have a Denon AVR-X6400 receiver configured in 7.2.4 and had previously run Audyssey straight through the receiver. Upon completion I set all speakers to small with the crossovers at 80Hz as per the advice on the first page of this thread. The one exception were the rears which Audyssey set to 150Hz during the calibration routine and which I left alone.
> 
> While reading a thread today I came across someone mentioning the Audyssey iPad app and figured I’d give it a try after looking it up in the App Store and seeing it was only $19. I was predominantly interested in seeing the correction graphs in order to try and discern what the application was doing behind the scenes. As you know, running the app via the receiver is basically a black box with no before/after visuals to speak of.
> 
> So I ran the calibration process using 8 positions and was bewildered when the corrections were completely different than when running the same process through the receiver.  same mic positions, same external noise characteristics (quiet, very early a.n.) etc.
> 
> The L/R mains were set to large with a 40Hz crossover (same as receiver only), the center was set to small with a 60Hz crossover and my ceiling mounted speakers were also set to small/60 Hz. This was quite different than the receiver only calibration where they were all set to 80Hz. The one standout were the rears which were set by the iPad Audyssey to crossover at 200Hz. This was strange to me as the receiver calibration process has always set them to 150Hz. I’m really confused as I figured the SW would pretty much function exactly the same and just provide me the graphs for visual representation and perhaps some minor tweaking.
> 
> Does anyone have an idea of what might be going on? I certainly wasn’t planning on being this confused after using the iPad version of XT32.
> 
> In addition, after looking at the graphs I have no idea what they’re telling me. Was hoping someone might have the secret decoder ring to help me understand what I’m looking at. Here are a few examples.
> 
> Appreciate any help you guys can provide.



The green lines are what your speaker response was before Audyssey made corrections... Those peaks and dips are generally the speakers interaction with the room.... Reflections, sound waves bouncing off of things etc. The red line is what is with Audyssey's corrections. It smooths out the frequency response so it is flat for your particular room. It is ok to raise the crossover points. If Audyssey set your mains to 40Hz, that is were it is detecting the roll off in your particular room for those speakers. Most people will tend to raise those up to around 80Hz, so that the sub can take care of the LFE.


The good thing with the app is that you can save those original settings and make a copy of that file. In the copy, you can then make changes- raise crossover points, turn midrange correct off, etc and see if it sounds better or worse. I am sure you can get a lot of help around here if you have any specific questions.


----------



## legierk

CBdicX said:


> (sorry)
> 
> 
> Don't you mean Line IN ( on the sub amp) and then set the Crossover at 150 Hz on the sub amp ?
> Do i need also to increase the LPF of LFE on the Denon to 150 Hz or leave it at 120 Hz ?



Yes I believe Mike was suggesting using one of the line ins on the sub. Set the sub crossover to it's max setting, which I believe is 150hz.


Here is where you are getting confused I think. The LPF for LFE is for LFE ONLY. It is NOT for the FL, FR, C, SL, SR and whatever else you may have in the room. It is ONLY for the LFE channel, which you may remember, is its OWN SEPERATE channel. The LFE channel only functions when a .1 channel is received, like in DD, DTS, ...any of the multichannel surround formats. 

Therefore, the .1 channel (LFE) is really for explosions, gunshots, etc. (Yes, I realize there is surround encoded music also, but we are taking baby steps here.) So a movie sound engineer says "I want this explosion to be super big, so I am going to send all of the 30hz-150hz info to the LFE channel. Now if you want to here ALL of that BOOM and RUMBLE, you'd have to set the LPF for LFE (on the AVR) to at least 150hz. If you set it to say 100hz, you are actually cutting out some of the sound the engineer placed there. Having said that, many on here (the forum, based on my reading) suggest that things get too "boomy" with the LPF for LFE set that high. Some would argue that setting it to say 120hz would "clean up" the explosion so it wouldn't be so "boomy". At this point it is a personal choice. (It's just an explosion).


Either way, if your sub is set to 150hz max, nothing above that will ever be reproduced by the sub, regardless of what channel it originated in. Your sub's crossover is the last "gatekeeper" so to speak. Setting it at its highest setting basically opens the gate so that whatever the AVR sends to the sub, it won't be stopped at the sub
s "gate". 


If it were me, I'd set the LPF for LFE on the AVR to its highest setting, if using your sub. I think, for example Denon's LPF goes up to 200hz (?). It doesn't matter, because your sub is going to block everything from 150hz-up anyway. Leave all the other crossovers that Audyssey sets the way they are, or raise them if you wish. But don't lower them.


Subs with internal crossovers are really not required anymore with modern AVRs. All you need is a box, a speaker and an amplifier (for the sub). The AVR does everything else. The internal crossovers are kind of a relic or holdover from the early days of stereo setups. Your AVR has 6 or more crossovers in it already. It has level controls and it also has DSP (Audyssey).


----------



## NCpowerlifter

marantz545 said:


> The green lines are what your speaker response was before Audyssey made corrections... Those peaks and dips are generally the speakers interaction with the room.... Reflections, sound waves bouncing off of things etc. The red line is what is with Audyssey's corrections. It smooths out the frequency response so it is flat for your particular room. It is ok to raise the crossover points. If Audyssey set your mains to 40Hz, that is were it is detecting the roll off in your particular room for those speakers. Most people will tend to raise those up to around 80Hz, so that the sub can take care of the LFE.
> 
> 
> The good thing with the app is that you can save those original settings and make a copy of that file. In the copy, you can then make changes- raise crossover points, turn midrange correct off, etc and see if it sounds better or worse. I am sure you can get a lot of help around here if you have any specific questions.


Thanks Maramtz545


----------



## tonybradley

Once I run Audyssey and then tweak my Subwoofer volume by going to the Speaker/Test Tone Menu (I like it a few dB higher than what Audyssey calibrates it)......what is the purpose of the "Audio/Subwoofer Level Adjust section?


----------



## gravi

legierk said:


> Yes I believe Mike was suggesting using one of the line ins on the sub. Set the sub crossover to it's max setting, which I believe is 150hz.
> 
> 
> Here is where you are getting confused I think. The LPF for LFE is for LFE ONLY. It is NOT for the FL, FR, C, SL, SR and whatever else you may have in the room. It is ONLY for the LFE channel, which you may remember, is its OWN SEPERATE channel. The LFE channel only functions when a .1 channel is received, like in DD, DTS, ...any of the multichannel surround formats.
> 
> Therefore, the .1 channel (LFE) is really for explosions, gunshots, etc. (Yes, I realize there is surround encoded music also, but we are taking baby steps here.) So a movie sound engineer says "I want this explosion to be super big, so I am going to send all of the 30hz-150hz info to the LFE channel. Now if you want to here ALL of that BOOM and RUMBLE, you'd have to set the LPF for LFE (on the AVR) to at least 150hz. If you set it to say 100hz, you are actually cutting out some of the sound the engineer placed there. Having said that, many on here (the forum, based on my reading) suggest that things get too "boomy" with the LPF for LFE set that high. Some would argue that setting it to say 120hz would "clean up" the explosion so it wouldn't be so "boomy". At this point it is a personal choice. (It's just an explosion).
> 
> 
> Either way, if your sub is set to 150hz max, nothing above that will ever be reproduced by the sub, regardless of what channel it originated in. Your sub's crossover is the last "gatekeeper" so to speak. Setting it at its highest setting basically opens the gate so that whatever the AVR sends to the sub, it won't be stopped at the sub
> s "gate".
> 
> 
> If it were me, I'd set the LPF for LFE on the AVR to its highest setting, if using your sub. I think, for example Denon's LPF goes up to 200hz (?). It doesn't matter, because your sub is going to block everything from 150hz-up anyway. Leave all the other crossovers that Audyssey sets the way they are, or raise them if you wish. But don't lower them.
> 
> 
> Subs with internal crossovers are really not required anymore with modern AVRs. All you need is a box, a speaker and an amplifier (for the sub). The AVR does everything else. The internal crossovers are kind of a relic or holdover from the early days of stereo setups. Your AVR has 6 or more crossovers in it already. It has level controls and it also has DSP (Audyssey).


Good explanation for LFE but when I thought about it I had a basic question and this may be a dumb question. With or without a dedicated LFE channel, if a system has n number of independent channels and each one of them is set to cross over to a sub, how does the sub play the low frequency part from multiple channels simultaneously? Does a sound engineer have to ensure that at any given point in time only one channel can have low frequency information? If so what is the frequency cut-off and who determines that level?


----------



## legierk

gravi said:


> Good explanation for LFE but when I thought about it I had a basic question and this may be a dumb question. With or without a dedicated LFE channel, if a system has n number of independent channels and each one of them is set to cross over to a sub, how does the sub play the low frequency part from multiple channels simultaneously? Does a sound engineer have to ensure that at any given point in time only one channel can have low frequency information? If so what is the frequency cut-off and who determines that level?


I looked for a block diagram of sorts to explain this, but did not find a suitable one. At any rate, we are kinda talking about how does Bass Management work. This guy does a pretty good job of explaining things.


----------



## mthomas47

gravi said:


> Good explanation for LFE but when I thought about it I had a basic question and this may be a dumb question. With or without a dedicated LFE channel, if a system has n number of independent channels and each one of them is set to cross over to a sub, how does the sub play the low frequency part from multiple channels simultaneously? Does a sound engineer have to ensure that at any given point in time only one channel can have low frequency information? If so what is the frequency cut-off and who determines that level?



Hi,

That's not quite how it works. There can be low-frequency content in any (or all) of the regular channels, and in the LFE channel, simultaneously. The LFE channel, which has content 10db louder than the regular channels, just gives the bass special effects more impact. Most really big bass sounds, such as the sound of an avalanche, or a major explosion, will come from multiple channels simultaneously. The speakers will play some of that sound, and the subwoofer(s) will play some of the sound--the part below the crossover and the part mixed into the LFE channel. But, most bass sounds in movies are complex, with harmonics at higher frequencies, and will involve both speakers and subwoofers, at least to some extent. 

Your subwoofer is simply playing the bass content that has been redirected to it, along with all of the LFE content, without any concern for which speaker the bass is coming from. For most people, bass sounds below about 80Hz are non-directional, so if we are using 80Hz crossovers, it really doesn't matter which channels have the bass encoded in them. The subwoofer will simply play all of the bass content it is supposed to, and we will hear the bass as if it is coming from the channels it is supposed to.

The reason that bass localization can sometimes be a problem is because crossovers may be higher than 80Hz, or we may sometimes pick-up tactile cues, or second harmonics, which allow us to localize the bass. That localization would enable us to tell that some of the bass which should obviously be coming from the explosion originating behind us, is actually coming from our subwoofer at the front of the room. Or, vice-versa. 

Ideally, we would use crossovers of about 80Hz, and even more ideally, we might have more than one subwoofer to contribute to the overall sense of bass envelopment, and to prevent any potential bass localization. But, that gives you a basic idea of how it is all supposed to work. For most people, in most HT systems, it works exactly as it is supposed to.

Regards,
Mike


Edit: seeing your next question, a subwoofer can play multiple bass sounds in exactly the same way that a speaker can. It is simply a speaker with a much lower (and more limited) frequency range. So, a speaker can play a saxophone and a tuba at the same time, and so can a subwoofer. Again, it doesn't care which speaker the bass is coming from. It just plays all the bass for a channel, below the crossover point for that channel. And, it plays for all the channels below their crossovers.


----------



## gravi

legierk said:


> I looked for a block diagram of sorts to explain this, but did not find a suitable one. At any rate, we are kinda talking about how does Bass Management work. This guy does a pretty good job of explaining things.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ASnhNFxWvo


He is explaining the difference between bass management and LFE channel, I get that. My question is more fundamental - if more than one channel has bass frequencies crossed over to a single sub, how does the sub play both the sounds simultaneously? For example, the left front channel has a trumpet and the right front has a tuba playing and assuming both have information below the crossover point of say 80 Hz, how will the sub play both at the same time? The two signals are combined? btw, i know this is off topic for the thread, I am just curious as to the physics of this.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

gravi said:


> He is explaining the difference between bass management and LFE channel, I get that. My question is more fundamental - if more than one channel has bass frequencies crossed over to a single sub, how does the sub play both the sounds simultaneously?


The signals are summed electrically in the same manner that any single channel can play more than one instrument or voice at a time.


----------



## gravi

Kal Rubinson said:


> The signals are summed electrically in the same manner that any single channel can play more than one instrument or voice at a time.


Thank you. I assumed there has to be multiplexing (like FDM for digital signals) and I also assume that is done by the AV processor.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

gravi said:


> Thank you. I assumed there has to be multiplexing (like FDM for digital signals) and I also assume that is done by the AV processor.


It is a quite simple analog electrical summation but the digital equivalent is not much more complex. How does your ear hear more than one sound at a time?


----------



## gravi

Kal Rubinson said:


> It is a quite simple analog electrical summation but the digital equivalent is not much more complex. How does your ear hear more than one sound at a time?


Got it. I actually looked online at text books and it is laughably simple, embarrassed to say I actually studied engineering way back. Acoustic summation is just adding sine waves, no complex muxing required, lol. Don;t know why I overthought this today but thank you for helping clear this, I can sleep well tonight


----------



## garygarrison

Kal Rubinson said:


> How does your ear hear more than one sound at a time?



That's a good analogy. How a listener simultaneously hears about 25 different groups of instruments, organ, and choir in a Mahler symphony, and follows them all (more or less), plus their combinations that may sound different than we might expect the sum of the parts to sound, plus hall reverberation all around, is nothing short of miraculous. There are simple physical explanations, the adding of waves, etc., but I still don't quite comprehend in any sort of satisfying way. So, like quantum mechanics, or thinking about the Big Bang, they remain awe inspiring and beautiful. We should be thunderstruck that loudspeakers can reproduce nearly the whole complex, but, in truth, they reproduce the cues and our marvelous brains decode them into the ineffable whole we call music.


----------



## NCpowerlifter

NCpowerlifter said:


> Hi guys, hoping someone can help me out with Audyssey and what it does during a calibration session.
> 
> I have a Denon AVR-X6400 receiver configured in 7.2.4 and had previously run Audyssey straight through the receiver. Upon completion I set all speakers to small with the crossovers at 80Hz as per the advice on the first page of this thread. The one exception were the rears which Audyssey set to 150Hz during the calibration routine and which I left alone.
> 
> While reading a thread today I came across someone mentioning the Audyssey iPad app and figured I’d give it a try after looking it up in the App Store and seeing it was only $19. I was predominantly interested in seeing the correction graphs in order to try and discern what the application was doing behind the scenes. As you know, running the app via the receiver is basically a black box with no before/after visuals to speak of.
> 
> So I ran the calibration process using 8 positions and was bewildered when the corrections were completely different than when running the same process through the receiver.  same mic positions, same external noise characteristics (quiet, very early a.n.) etc.
> 
> The L/R mains were set to large with a 40Hz crossover (same as receiver only), the center was set to small with a 60Hz crossover and my ceiling mounted speakers were also set to small/60 Hz. This was quite different than the receiver only calibration where they were all set to 80Hz. The one standout were the rears which were set by the iPad Audyssey to crossover at 200Hz. This was strange to me as the receiver calibration process has always set them to 150Hz. I’m really confused as I figured the SW would pretty much function exactly the same and just provide me the graphs for visual representation and perhaps some minor tweaking.
> 
> Does anyone have an idea of what might be going on? I certainly wasn’t planning on being this confused after using the iPad version of XT32.
> 
> In addition, after looking at the graphs I have no idea what they’re telling me. Was hoping someone might have the secret decoder ring to help me understand what I’m looking at. Here are a few examples.
> 
> Appreciate any help you guys can provide.


Bump

Does anyone know what these graphs mean and how to interpret them?


----------



## mthomas47

NCpowerlifter said:


> Hi guys, hoping someone can help me out with Audyssey and what it does during a calibration session.
> 
> I have a Denon AVR-X6400 receiver configured in 7.2.4 and had previously run Audyssey straight through the receiver. Upon completion I set all speakers to small with the crossovers at 80Hz as per the advice on the first page of this thread. The one exception were the rears which Audyssey set to 150Hz during the calibration routine and which I left alone.
> 
> While reading a thread today I came across someone mentioning the Audyssey iPad app and figured I’d give it a try after looking it up in the App Store and seeing it was only $19. I was predominantly interested in seeing the correction graphs in order to try and discern what the application was doing behind the scenes. As you know, running the app via the receiver is basically a black box with no before/after visuals to speak of.
> 
> So I ran the calibration process using 8 positions and was bewildered when the corrections were completely different than when running the same process through the receiver.  same mic positions, same external noise characteristics (quiet, very early a.n.) etc.
> 
> The L/R mains were set to large with a 40Hz crossover (same as receiver only), the center was set to small with a 60Hz crossover and my ceiling mounted speakers were also set to small/60 Hz. This was quite different than the receiver only calibration where they were all set to 80Hz. The one standout were the rears which were set by the iPad Audyssey to crossover at 200Hz. This was strange to me as the receiver calibration process has always set them to 150Hz. I’m really confused as I figured the SW would pretty much function exactly the same and just provide me the graphs for visual representation and perhaps some minor tweaking.
> 
> Does anyone have an idea of what might be going on? I certainly wasn’t planning on being this confused after using the iPad version of XT32.
> 
> In addition, after looking at the graphs I have no idea what they’re telling me. Was hoping someone might have the secret decoder ring to help me understand what I’m looking at. Here are a few examples.
> 
> Appreciate any help you guys can provide.





NCpowerlifter said:


> Bump
> 
> Does anyone know what these graphs mean and how to interpret them?



Hi,

There are a few things I can tell you. First, minor variations in crossover settings are not uncommon when we do multiple Audyssey runs, even with the AVR. So, I wouldn't be too concerned about the relatively small variations you saw. Some of those channels may have been on the bubble between a 60Hz crossover and an 80Hz crossover. A few Hz one way or the other, and the setting would change. 

As you may know, the crossovers are based on all 8 mic positions, so even some small variances in mic placement could affect the initial setting. And, perhaps the app is reporting things in a slightly different way to your AVR. Since, you will presumably be increasing all of the crossovers to 80Hz anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. And, if you like 150Hz better than 200Hz, I wouldn't be concerned about dropping the crossover on the rear speakers to 150Hz.

As for the graphs, they are just showing you projected before-and-after graphs of your frequency response by speaker. The first three graphs are showing you an approximation of your before Audyssey frequency response on the left and an approximation of the after response on the right. In the first two, you can see Audyssey trying to pull down a peak on the low-end. For the third one, the CC, you can see that Audyssey is mainly trying to reduce the amount of variation between the peaks and the dips, to get to a tighter, smoother FR. 

(I wouldn't be surprised if you were getting some comb filtering, or some other type of early reflections from the center channel. Posting a photograph of your front sound stage, and your center channel placement might help.)

The fourth graph is showing you the Reference target curve, including the mid-range compensation, which adds a dip between 1000Hz and 3000Hz. The fifth and final graph shows the same target curve with your 80Hz crossover implemented. That target curve will be rolling-off your FR below 80Hz.

Whether to use the app or the AVR to do calibrations is an entirely personal decision. If there is no essential difference in the sound quality with the two methods, then the app will offer you some additional user adjustability. If there is a definite difference in sound quality, then I would probably go with whatever offered me better sounding calibrations. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

Correct me if I'm wrong: a speaker producing multiple sounds within one cycle will, if asked to do too much, result in intermodulation distortion.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong: a speaker producing multiple sounds within one cycle will, if asked to do too much, result in intermodulation distortion.


I don't know, maybe*;* it may depend on terminology. A great deal of music requires this kind of proximity or superimposition, which happens in unrecorded acoustical music as well. *But*, speakers add a complication, which may be what you are thinking about. Some speakers require more excursion than others to produce the same frequency at the same SPL. I believe the rank order goes as follows: horn loaded speakers require the least excursion, speakers in large infinite baffle (sealed) enclosures are next, then ported speakers, which need the greatest excursion. I hope I don't have the last two reversed! The greater the excursion the greater the modulation distortion, everything else being equal. If a higher note has to ride back and forth on a speaker diaphragm simultaneously producing a lower note, sidebands unrelated to the original two tones are produced. I used two tones for purposes of illustration*;* in music, of course, there are many notes simultaneously produced. Three-way (or more way) speakers have less of a problem this way because the lower and higher notes are more likely to be produced by a different diaphragm, so fewer will be taken on a needless ride. In Home Theater, it's good that our subwoofers, with their wide excursion, crossover at a relatively low frequency, sparing much of the sound spectrum the ride. Horn subwoofers, with their very low excursion, seem to be becoming more popular (for those who can tolerate a subwoofer or two as tall as the room, but against the walls, or in corners) perhaps because of their relatively low modulation distortion, and tight, precise sound. For obvious reasons, modulation distortion in speakers is often called Doppler distortion. In the past, some speaker manufacturers who made high modulation distortion speakers argued that it was not seriously objectionable. Some years later, it is now being recognized as a major shortcoming of some speakers. _*Stereophile*_ ran a good article by Keith Howard on this in the November 21, 2004 issue. The meat is on the lower half of page three, IMO. https://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-3

In speakers, modulation distortion comes in two varieties: frequency modulation and amplitude modulation distortion. I believe frequency modulation distortion corresponds to intermodulation distortion in amplifiers, but I'm not absolutely sure I have the right one of the pair.

Regarding your original point, if several instruments are playing the same note at the same time, and they all are perfectly in tune [sic] they will all be at the same fundamental frequency, i.e., be within one cycle, as you put it, but producing a different patterns of overtones (1st, 2ond, 3rd harmonics all the way up, but at different amplitudes, with it being theoretically possible for a certain harmonic to be at 0 level, i.e. inaudible, depending on the timbre of the instrument being referred to, so if a violin and a trombone are both playing middle C, they will have the same fundamental -- 261.63 Hz* -- but the harmonics will have different prominences. We wouldn't expect a tuba playing a B1 (about 62 Hz) to have loud overtones at 16 K Hz. But it turns out that a kick drum has extremely soft overtones at 16K Hz, as do low piano notes. Every note played on a musical instrument has overtones that -- theoretically -- go all the way up, with selective attenuation. Also, when a 100 piece orchestra is playing, as in your example, the same frequency, to the cycle, is often produced simeltaneously by multiple instruments, as well as many fundamentals at frequencies that can be widely spaced, as well as myriad overtones. If they are reproduced by the same, wide excursion, diaphragm they don't always play well together. Merely spurious harmonics (or harmonics of higher than native SPL) that are harmonically related to the fundamental produce harmonic distortion, which can range from rather pleasant, but unwanted, to clearly objectionable. Sidebands that are unrelated harmonically to the original tones produce unpleasant modulation distortion. 


***There is not complete agreement that middle C is that frequency, of course. There are 4 candidates. https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/DanielleDaly.shtml


----------



## CFSM

I have a newbie question, just got a Integra 60.5 processor and when I start the setup process first step is to change the subwoofer volume so it reached 75db. I dont have enough range on the subwoofer to do that. Lowest I get is 88db. What should I do ?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

CFSM said:


> I have a newbie question, just got a Integra 60.5 processor and when I start the setup process first step is to change the subwoofer volume so it reached 75db. I dont have enough range on the subwoofer to do that. Lowest I get is 88db. What should I do ?


Get these: https://www.ebay.com/itm/PAIR-Harri...m=391074869008&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851


----------



## Skylinestar

Why does my Marantz receiver set a crossover of 200Hz to my speakers when Audyssey is cutting so much bass below 100Hz?


----------



## kbarnes701

*FAQ UPDATE*

Hey guys. I've tidied up the Audyssey FAQ today, fixing some broken links, removing the now pointless link to the moribund Audyssey Pro FAQ, fixing the links to the '101' and the 'Technical Addendum' and one or two other things that I spotted when working through it.

If anyone spots any broken links, or any part of the FAQ which isn't working the way it should, please PM me, or 'mention' me (@kbarnes701) and I will fix it. Please don't comment in the thread itself as I do not regularly follow the thread any more (having moved on from Audyssey).

Enjoy your Audyssey everyone and kudos to the regular posters who make this thread such a valuable ongoing resource. 

All the best, Keith.


----------



## pbarach

Kudos to you, Keith! You have undoubtedly helped many of us get the best out of Audyssey. You are a clear technical writer, which is rare!


----------



## CBdicX

Hi Guys,


is it better to use 2x 10" subwoofers (under the fronts) then 1x 12" if Audyssey sets my Kef T serie speakers at 120 and 150 Hz x-over to avoid that one sub will be to directional with these high x-over's ?
( 2x 12" will be to much to look at with the tiny T speakers)


----------



## kbarnes701

pbarach said:


> Kudos to you, Keith! You have undoubtedly helped many of us get the best out of Audyssey. You are a clear technical writer, which is rare!


Thanks so much  It's a two-way street -- I think my first ever post on AVS was in the Audyssey thread (asking for help). I learned more about AV in that thread than from any other resource and also made many new friends, some of whom I am still in contact with today, offline as well as online. It was a great honor and privilege to be invited by the many regular contributors of the original thread to create the Audyssey FAQ and it took up a good part of my life at that time.

If I have a regret it is that the development of Audyssey hasn't moved with the times, with XT32 being the pinnacle, achieved many years ago now. I know we have since been offered the App, but there have been no real changes to the underlying EQ capabilities. Then came the additional blow of the departure of Chris Kyriakakis who has been tireless in his help and support of all Audyssey users, initially in the original Audyssey thread on AVS and, later, via Facebook. Chris was always good-humored, patient and as knowledgeable as he was willing to help and support Audyssey users everywhere. Also, AVR manufacturers such as Onkyo and others started to move away from Audyssey to their own (possibly less capable?) solutions, leaving Denon and Marantz now as the sole mainstream supporters. I think all of that is unfortunate and I wish Audyssey would rise again to be the colossus of room EQ that it once was. Moreover, we are seeing a new breed of AVRs now supporting Dirac Live, from Emotiva to Arcam, to NAD and others and I feel that Audyssey is in danger of being left behind. This would be a tragedy IMO since there is room for competition and for different solutions to the age-old problem of making our rooms sound better via technology.

That said, in its 'purest' form -- XT32 -- Audyssey is still a superb room EQ solution which has brought, and is bringing, better sound to numerous enthusiasts the world over. Although I personally have moved on (to Dirac Live) for various reasons, I still have a soft spot for, and the fondest memories of, the many hours spent on the original Audyssey thread, soaking up the experience and knowledge of others and, when I was able, helping others get the best from their investment.

Of all those who have been such a tremendous help to myself and others, there are far too many names to mention for fear of omitting one due to poor recollection -- but you know who you are and on behalf of every Audyssey user everywhere, I salute you. Long may it continue


----------



## David Aiken

CBdicX said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> is it better to use 2x 10" subwoofers (under the fronts) then 1x 12" if Audyssey sets my Kef T serie speakers at 120 and 150 Hz x-over to avoid that one sub will be to directional with these high x-over's ?
> ( 2x 12" will be to much to look at with the tiny T speakers)


It's not about a sub being directional at 120 to 150 Hz, or at over 80 Hz. Directionality refers to the output of the speaker and subs are not directional, even main speakers are not directional, at 150 Hz. What you're worried about is the fact that people can start detecting where the source of a sound comes from once the frequency of the sound starts to become higher than 80 Hz or so. Some people are better than others at detecting the source of a sound so some people might be able to tell where the sound is coming from if it's below 80 Hz, some only if it's somewhere above 80 Hz. The 80 Hz figure is not precise.

So, with 1 sub you may be able to detect the sub as a separate sound source iii it's handling frequencies up to 150 Hz. If you use 2 subs you're going to end up "locating" the source of any frequency that you can personally locate a source for as coming from a location derived from both subs (as in stereo imaging) plus from the speaker for the channel delivering that sound because the crossover isn't absolute and the subs go higher than the crossover frequency and the speakers go lower as the sound from each "blends together" and rolls off over a shared portion of the frequency range.

2 subs can help smooth the frequency response in the bass range in a room but probably not if the subs are placed with the 2 main speakers because the main speakers are usually not in the best locations to provide good bass response so placing 2 subs there isn't going to help smooth the room response. Now let's say you have 2 subs placed that way and a localisable sound is routed to your 2 subs from the speaker with it's crossover set to 150 Hz. When you localise the sound you're going to largely hear it as a stereo image somewhere between the 2 subs but if it's coming from only one main channel, either L or R. only then the location is going to seem to be somewhere between the L and R speakers rather than at just one of those speakers. 2 subs isn't going to necessarily solve the problem you're worrying about but ***IT MAY*** do a better job of avoiding the problem than a single sub will. I've accented the "it may" in that statement because it may not do any better than a single sub.

In a choice between a single sub and 2 subs, I'd pick 2 identical 12"s over a single 12" but I don't know if I'd pick 2 identical 10"s over a single 12". I assume cost is going to be a factor so your price per 10" sub is going to be less than the 12" sub and that probably means that each 10" subs isn't going to perform individually as well as the 12" sub would. You're likely to get more extension from the single 12" than from the 10" subs and there may be other differences. You really have to compare the setup in your own room because all of this is going to come down to how those subs work in your room and at these frequencies how a sub works if highly dependent on where you place them in the room.

Probably the best thing I can say is that if you go for a single 12" sub, try to find a place where you get good bass response near the speaker that is being crossed over at 150 Hz rather than the one that is being crossed over at 120 Hz. If you go for 2 10" subs I'd try placing one of them that way, near to the speaker with the 150 Hz crossover. and I'd try to find a location for the other one on a different wall or in a corner in order to try and smooth the bass response over the room a bit better and give Audyssey an easier task at smoothing the sub response. You can make either way work but whichever way you go you're still may be able to hear the sound of some low frequencies as coming from the "wrong" spot but I suspect that this will happen a lot less than you're expecting and it is likely to be a small rather than a large problem. I'd go for the option which gives you the best bass response in your room, not the option you think may avoid apparent source location problems which I don't think are going to be as bad as you think.


----------



## PG55

NCpowerlifter said:


> Bump
> 
> Does anyone know what these graphs mean and how to interpret them?


 I also had different results when I ran the AVR vs. Multi EQ editor app and I contacted Audyssey Zen desk which is a good reference for all Audyssey related questions. Here is their response:


PG55


The app tends to have high detail when compared to the AVR, it is likely finding a different or early dip/roll off. Placing speakers closer to walls can help lower low frequency reproduction.

After calibration you can change the crossover to your preference, it will not affect room correction.


----------



## nashai13

*Audyssey calibration went wrong..*

Hello,
I own a denon 1300 avr 
Q acoustic 3050 floor speakers
Q acoustic 3070 center 
Tannoy tfx as rear spearks
Sub - SVS Sb1000
I have run calibration many times and it works great
Today after changing my sub position 
I ran calibration again and something went terrible wrong 
First thing it detected my center as large speaker (never happend before)
Second my sub level changed from -7.5 to -11 
Third it seems that I lost my mid-terble sound from front speaker
And my music (listening in stereo) sound like everything is under water :-(
It never happened before
Is there any way to return to previous calibration?
What did I do that i get this sound? 
I tried again doing 6 position instead of 8 (I always did 8) but it didnt helped
I am not sure but it is possible that last time i did calibration with the port foam of my front spearks were out and now its in
But i dont think that explain this huge different i get in the sound experience
Maybe the fact that today I did the calibration with some pillows on the sofa?
Thing is that my sofa is against the wall and the sofa pillow are higher than my ear level
So I need to either higher the mic above the pillow or I can move the pillows when doing the calibration 
What is preferred? 
I am very fusrating as till today it all sounds great except to some lack of bass 
which this is way I moved to sub 
Attached is a screenshot of my living speaker setting
Please notice that i switch between the sub and the left speaker and than I did the calibration 
Any advise will be helpful!
Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

nashai13 said:


> Hello,
> I own a denon 1300 avr
> Q acoustic 3050 floor speakers
> Q acoustic 3070 center
> Tannoy tfx as rear spearks
> Sub - SVS Sb1000
> I have run calibration many times and it works great
> Today after changing my sub position
> I ran calibration again and something went terrible wrong
> First thing it detected my center as large speaker (never happend before)
> Second my sub level changed from -7.5 to -11
> Third it seems that I lost my mid-terble sound from front speaker
> And my music (listening in stereo) sound like everything is under water :-(
> It never happened before
> Is there any way to return to previous calibration?
> What did I do that i get this sound?
> I tried again doing 6 position instead of 8 (I always did 8) but it didnt helped
> I am not sure but it is possible that last time i did calibration with the port foam of my front spearks were out and now its in
> But i dont think that explain this huge different i get in the sound experience
> Maybe the fact that today I did the calibration with some pillows on the sofa?
> Thing is that my sofa is against the wall and the sofa pillow are higher than my ear level
> So I need to either higher the mic above the pillow or I can move the pillows when doing the calibration
> What is preferred?
> I am very fusrating as till today it all sounds great except to some lack of bass
> which this is way I moved to sub
> Attached is a screenshot of my living speaker setting
> Please notice that i switch between the sub and the left speaker and than I did the calibration
> Any advise will be helpful!
> Thanks!



Moving a sub from along a wall to in a corner can give you 3 dB more sound pressure level ("volume") in the bass, so that might explain the change between - 7.5 and -11. You now have 3.5 dB more wiggle room, so you can turn your sub up 3.5 dB for more bass, if you want, by manually returning the sub trim on the AVR to - 7.5.


Try running the complete calibration (8 mic positions) again after others give you their advice.


The following resources are quite valuable:

Audyssey FAQ Linked Here



Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


----------



## tonybradley

tonybradley said:


> Once I run Audyssey and then tweak my Subwoofer volume by going to the Speaker/Test Tone Menu (I like it a few dB higher than what Audyssey calibrates it)......what is the purpose of the "Audio/Subwoofer Level Adjust section?


Can anyone tell me the difference between adjusting the Sub's volume via the Speaker/Test Tone Menu and the Audio/Subwoofer Level Adjust?


----------



## Alan P

nashai13 said:


> Hello,
> I own a denon 1300 avr
> Q acoustic 3050 floor speakers
> Q acoustic 3070 center
> Tannoy tfx as rear spearks
> Sub - SVS Sb1000
> I have run calibration many times and it works great
> Today after changing my sub position
> I ran calibration again and something went terrible wrong
> First thing it detected my center as large speaker (never happend before)
> Second my sub level changed from -7.5 to -11
> Third it seems that I lost my mid-terble sound from front speaker
> And my music (listening in stereo) sound like everything is under water :-(
> It never happened before
> Is there any way to return to previous calibration?
> What did I do that i get this sound?
> I tried again doing 6 position instead of 8 (I always did 8) but it didnt helped
> I am not sure but it is possible that last time i did calibration with the port foam of my front spearks were out and now its in
> But i dont think that explain this huge different i get in the sound experience
> Maybe the fact that today I did the calibration with some pillows on the sofa?
> Thing is that my sofa is against the wall and the sofa pillow are higher than my ear level
> So I need to either higher the mic above the pillow or I can move the pillows when doing the calibration
> What is preferred?
> I am very fusrating as till today it all sounds great except to some lack of bass
> which this is way I moved to sub
> Attached is a screenshot of my living speaker setting
> Please notice that i switch between the sub and the left speaker and than I did the calibration
> Any advise will be helpful!
> Thanks!


With that drastic of a change between calibrations, I would suspect a damaged Audyssey microphone.

The only way to revert to a previous calibration is if you saved it with the web interface (see your manual on how to do this).


----------



## Alan P

tonybradley said:


> Can anyone tell me the difference between adjusting the Sub's volume via the Speaker/Test Tone Menu and the Audio/Subwoofer Level Adjust?



Basically, it will reset your subwoofer level(s) to "0". Say, you have your sub set to -8dB in the Test Tone menu and you turn on Sub Lvl Adj and add 2dB. You are now running +10dB louder than before since the Sub Lvl Adj "feature" adjusts from "0".

If you are aware of this bug and know how to adjust correctly for it, you can use the Sub Lvl Adj feature. I always adjust sub and speaker levels in the Test Tone menu because it is a global setting. Sub Lvl Adj is per input.


----------



## tonybradley

Alan P said:


> Basically, it will reset your subwoofer level(s) to "0". Say, you have your sub set to -8dB in the Test Tone menu and you turn on Sub Lvl Adj and add 2dB. You are now running +10dB louder than before since the Sub Lvl Adj "feature" adjusts from "0".
> 
> If you are aware of this bug and know how to adjust correctly for it, you can use the Sub Lvl Adj feature. I always adjust sub and speaker levels in the Test Tone menu because it is a global setting. Sub Lvl Adj is per input.


Thanks for that info. I do appreciate it. I see no value in that menu then. I'll continue to adjust from the Test Tone menu.


----------



## Bytehoven

This may be covered somewhere in the thread, but let me ask this ...

When calibrating Audyssey with a receiver + an external receiver, and the external unit has an older relative volume scale of -80 - +15, 0 usually equals 80db, should the external receiver/amp be set at 0 for the calibration and use there after?

This setup is a denon 4300h (main) + denon 3806 (external).

Thanks.


----------



## erudolph

Alan P said:


> Basically, it will reset your subwoofer level(s) to "0". Say, you have your sub set to -8dB in the Test Tone menu and you turn on Sub Lvl Adj and add 2dB. You are now running +10dB louder than before since the Sub Lvl Adj "feature" adjusts from "0".
> 
> If you are aware of this bug and know how to adjust correctly for it, you can use the Sub Lvl Adj feature. I always adjust sub and speaker levels in the Test Tone menu because it is a global setting. Sub Lvl Adj is per input.



Say you have your sub set to -4dB in the Test Tone menu and you use Sub Lvl Adj to add 1dB. If you then put Sub Lvl Adj back to zero, will you once again have the -4dB output that was established in the Test Tone menu? Or will you have 0dB?


----------



## Alan P

erudolph said:


> Say you have your sub set to -4dB in the Test Tone menu and you use Sub Lvl Adj to add 1dB. If you then put Sub Lvl Adj back to zero, will you once again have the -4dB output that was established in the Test Tone menu? Or will you have 0dB?


As I understand it, you would have 0dB. To get back to your original trim settings, you need to turn Sub Lvl Adj OFF.

In your example above, if you wanted to add +1dB to the subs with your trims set at -4dB, you would turn on Sub Lvl Adj and set it to *-3dB*. The important thing to remember is that Sub Lvl Adj resets the sub trim to 0dB as soon as you turn it on.


----------



## David Aiken

erudolph said:


> Say you have your sub set to -4dB in the Test Tone menu and you use Sub Lvl Adj to add 1dB. If you then put Sub Lvl Adj back to zero, will you once again have the -4dB output that was established in the Test Tone menu? Or will you have 0dB?


There are 2 parts to the Sub Level Adjustment setup, an on/off choice and the level adjustment. If you set the level adjustment back to 0 dB while the on/off is set to on, then you have 0 dB, not the original -4 dB level. To get back to the original -4 dB level you either have to turn the Sub Level Adjustment off again (return that to its original default setting) or set t he level back to -4 dB if you want to leave the adjustment turned on.

It's an awful setting interface.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... It's an awful setting interface.



I don't have it on my old AVP. It sounds rather unnecessary and possibly counter productive. I hope it doesn't encourage people to consider 0 to be normal or neutral, and if they want sub boost, punch up the trim to +4 or +5, when various writers on the forum, including guest experts, have recommended keeping the trim on the AVR below -3, or even -5, to avoid clipping the line driver on the AVR or AVP subwoofer output, achievable by turning up the gain control on the sub itself to get Audyssey to set the trim to -11 or so (not maxed out at -12), giving the user up to a possible 6 dB of boost available before reaching a clipping level. Maybe the manufacturers have provided a great deal of additional headroom, to avoid this problem. Anyone who doesn't know about these should see*: *



Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences 

Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## ScottieBoysName

I've been messing around with a MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced, to time align two subs into a single input. I've literally measured the distance by hand, and then done the math to set the delay in the 2x4. I've heard that Audyssey can give me a distance measurement as well, and I'd like to do that to check against my own math. I'd like to run one distance measurement using Aud if possible...without going through the entire calibration. Is this possible?


----------



## pbarach

ScottieBoysName said:


> I've been messing around with a MiniDSP 2x4 Balanced, to time align two subs into a single input. I've literally measured the distance by hand, and then done the math to set the delay in the 2x4. I've heard that Audyssey can give me a distance measurement as well, and I'd like to do that to check against my own math. I'd like to run one distance measurement using Aud if possible...without going through the entire calibration. Is this possible?


You get no results from Audyssey without running the whole calibration sequence. However, if all you want is the sub distance, you can run a calibration using either one position or only a few, look at the results to get the sub distance measurement (which includes delay), and then discard the Audyssey calibration.

However, there is no guarantee that the sub delay when using Audyssey will be the same when another device is used.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

pbarach said:


> You get no results from Audyssey without running the whole calibration sequence. However, if all you want is the sub distance, you can run a calibration using either one position or only a few, look at the results to get the sub distance measurement (which includes delay), and then discard the Audyssey calibration.
> 
> However, there is no guarantee that the sub delay when using Audyssey will be the same when another device is used.


Well crap. That MIGHT help, but I'd be using the Audyssey mic for it, and the UMIK for Dirac and other measurements.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

pbarach said:


> You get no results from Audyssey without running the whole calibration sequence. However, if all you want is the sub distance, you can run a calibration using either one position or only a few, look at the results to get the sub distance measurement (which includes delay), and then discard the Audyssey calibration.
> 
> However, there is no guarantee that the sub delay when using Audyssey will be the same when another device is used.


Hmm, I'm mostly interested in the distance figure it gives.


----------



## garygarrison

ScottieBoysName said:


> Hmm, I'm mostly interested in the distance figure it gives.



Just to make sure you know: with some subwoofers, internal circuitry adds more time delay in addition to the delay already caused by the physical distance itself. To properly time align with these subs you need to take into account both distance and the additional time delay caused by the circuitry. Audyssey does this automatically, reputedly very well. I imagine this varies with the circuitry in the sub, and some may add almost no delay. I hear that some add an amount equivalent to moving the sub as much as 50% of the initial distance farther away.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

garygarrison said:


> Just to make sure you know: with some subwoofers, internal circuitry adds more time delay in addition to the delay already caused by the physical distance itself. To properly time align with these subs you need to take into account both distance and the additional time delay caused by the circuitry. Audyssey does this automatically, reputedly very well. I imagine this varies with the circuitry in the sub, and some may add almost no delay. I hear that some add an amount equivalent to moving the sub as much as 50% of the initial distance farther away.




Gotcha. A quick thought that comes into my mind is that if both my subs are identical, then the circuitry in each already delays them both the same from zero, effectively canceling out that variable if all I’m focused on is the distance physically separating each one, correct?


----------



## Alan P

ScottieBoysName said:


> Well crap. That MIGHT help, but I'd be using the Audyssey mic for it, and the UMIK for Dirac and other measurements.


Since you have a UMIK, do you have REW up and running? If so, you should be using REW's Impulse Response graphs to time align your subs. 

Using MiniDSP 2x4 to Time Align Multiple Subs on One Channel


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Alan P said:


> Since you have a UMIK, do you have REW up and running? If so, you should be using REW's Impulse Response graphs to time align your subs.
> 
> 
> 
> Using MiniDSP 2x4 to Time Align Multiple Subs on One Channel




That’s what Jerry suggested to me as well, but he said I should start with Audyssey and check it with REW’s Impulse Response. 

Two things I’m getting that are strange with Audyssey. 

1) The furthest sub away is 98 inches from the MLP. Audyssey is giving me 15.9 feet. The second sub is 59 inches away. It’s giving me 12.3 feet on that? Lol. 

2) It also won’t let me take a single position measurement. I have to take at least three positions of measurements to get to see details. 

Any ideas?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

ScottieBoysName said:


> 1) The furthest sub away is 98 inches from the MLP. Audyssey is giving me 15.9 feet. The second sub is 59 inches away. It’s giving me 12.3 feet on that? Lol.


The issue is the time and that consists of the time delay due to distance and the time delay due to processing. The measured distance is only one component.



> 2) It also won’t let me take a single position measurement. I have to take at least three positions of measurements to get to see details.


It is a new feature.


----------



## garygarrison

ScottieBoysName said:


> Gotcha. A quick thought that comes into my mind is that if both my subs are identical, then the circuitry in each already delays them both the same from zero, effectively canceling out that variable if all I’m focused on is the distance physically separating each one, correct?



I would think so.


----------



## Alan P

ScottieBoysName said:


> That’s what Jerry suggested to me as well, but he said I should start with Audyssey and check it with REW’s Impulse Response.
> 
> Two things I’m getting that are strange with Audyssey.
> 
> 1) The furthest sub away is 98 inches from the MLP. Audyssey is giving me 15.9 feet. The second sub is 59 inches away. It’s giving me 12.3 feet on that? Lol.
> 
> 2) It also won’t let me take a single position measurement. I have to take at least three positions of measurements to get to see details.
> 
> Any ideas?


Just go through Jerry's doc (starting on page 17; Checking Sub Polarity). It doesn't take long and you will then _know _ beyond a shadow of a doubt what the correct distance settings should be.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

garygarrison said:


> I would think so.


As fate would have it, this turned out to be pretty close to the truth.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Alan P said:


> Just go through Jerry's doc (starting on page 17; Checking Sub Polarity). It doesn't take long and you will then _know _ beyond a shadow of a doubt what the correct distance settings should be.


So, I used my hand measured value, and then ran the impulse graphs to see how close I was. It was DANG close. 

My math and measurements gave me 2.88, and I ended up with 2.66 which looked like dead on. 

I'm good to go.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Kal Rubinson said:


> The issue is the time and that consists of the time delay due to distance and the time delay due to processing. The measured distance is only one component.
> 
> It is a new feature.


Right, but if the "time delay due to processing" is the same on both subs, then the only variable is the measured distance. 

Turns out I was pretty close, closer than in the "ballpark". 2.88 is what I got with my manual measurements and math. 2.66 is what I settled on.


----------



## MrGuru

Hello there. I just hooked up a Marantz SR6012 and ran the Audyssey XT32 setup. Two exceptions to a normal setup - I set my sub at 82 dB to start with instead of the recommended 75 dB after reading a tip on how to set your sub slightly 'hot', and after the calibration, I slightly upped my sub level from the -9 it was at after to -5. I also set my crossover frequency to 80hz across the board, as it set everything to 40hz.

My main question is - with Sierra 2's across the front, and polk RTI3/RTI1's for surrounds/highs - why would the calibration set my 'small' speakers to a 40hz crossover, when the lower range of the lowest of my speakers is 45hz? I've read a few things that indicate it's fairly common and there's no harm in raising the crossover frequency to 80hz (or 60?) but I'd like to get your guys' opinion.


----------



## drh3b

MrGuru said:


> Hello there. I just hooked up a Marantz SR6012 and ran the Audyssey XT32 setup. Two exceptions to a normal setup - I set my sub at 82 dB to start with instead of the recommended 75 dB after reading a tip on how to set your sub slightly 'hot', and after the calibration, I slightly upped my sub level from the -9 it was at after to -5. I also set my crossover frequency to 80hz across the board, as it set everything to 40hz.
> 
> My main question is - with Sierra 2's across the front, and polk RTI3/RTI1's for surrounds/highs - why would the calibration set my 'small' speakers to a 40hz crossover, when the lower range of the lowest of my speakers is 45hz? I've read a few things that indicate it's fairly common and there's no harm in raising the crossover frequency to 80hz (or 60?) but I'd like to get your guys' opinion.


Basically, it is being set to what Audyssey thinks the speaker is capable of, not what is considered "best practice". It can differ from published specs due to room interactions. A lot of people set it to 80 Hz, THX standard. People have opinions, etc, but 80 Hz is a safe bet because most people can't localize a subwoofer below 80, and a good subwoofer will sound better than a good speaker(imo) below 80 Hz. You are of course able to experiment to see what you like best.


----------



## garygarrison

MrGuru said:


> Hello there. I just hooked up a Marantz SR6012 and ran the Audyssey XT32 setup. Two exceptions to a normal setup - I set my sub at 82 dB to start with instead of the recommended 75 dB after reading a tip on how to set your sub slightly 'hot', and after the calibration, I slightly upped my sub level from the -9 it was at after to -5. I also set my crossover frequency to 80hz across the board, as it set everything to 40hz.
> 
> My main question is - with Sierra 2's across the front, and polk RTI3/RTI1's for surrounds/highs - why would the calibration set my 'small' speakers to a 40hz crossover, when the lower range of the lowest of my speakers is 45hz? I've read a few things that indicate it's fairly common and there's no harm in raising the crossover frequency to 80hz (or 60?) but I'd like to get your guys' opinion.



"Small" and "Large" are misnomers in the Home Theater world. What they mean by "Large" is "capable of deep bass" even if the speaker is physically small.


Speaker company specs are sometimes not particularly applicable. In the bass, room gain and boundary gain are additional variables. Your Sierra 2's are good (within +/- 3 dB) down to 41 Hz "*in a room*" according to the manufacturer. In an anechoic chamber, they don't go as low (i.e., to 46 dB). But you listen in a room, and Audyssey took its measurements in that room. If a speaker is very near or against a wall, the bass is reinforced. If it is in a corner the bass is reinforced even more, but not necessarily evenly throughout a room. Since bass carries a great deal of the power of the Sound Pressure Level, moving a speaker from a position out in the room to against a wall provides almost a 3 dB increase in SPL, and moving it from along a wall into a corner will give you about 3 dB more. The 6 dB total increase is like replacing a 100 watt amplifier with a 400 watt amplifier, more or less.


Providing all your speakers are smooth to below 80 Hz, go ahead and set all your crossovers to 80 Hz.



When you set up Audyssey, one of the best things you could do is to read this all the way through.  "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
Sooner or later, you should read this, as well*:*
Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences



One of the questions in the Audyssey FAQ is, "What happened to my bass?" Both of these links give the answer, but the second link gives the most up to date advice on how to increase the bass without encouraging clipping. For this post, suffice it to say that it is desirable to turn up the bass on the subwoofer itself by somewhere between 3 and 7 dB AFTER running Audyssey. This should be done without the trim in the AVR being any higher than - 5 dB. The second link will tell you how (by tricking Audyssey just a bit).


----------



## MrGuru

Thank you both for the response - sounds like 80hz will be just fine. I've also started to read the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration topic in your sig!


----------



## ToBeFrank

If you have your sub connected with a wireless adapter, I don't think Audyssey will work for you. Does anyone's AVR allow them to set distances more than 6m greater than their shortest speaker distance?


----------



## TKNice

MrGuru said:


> Thank you both for the response - sounds like 80hz will be just fine. I've also started to read the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration topic in your sig!


Thought I'd weigh in too since I have 3 Sierra 2's across my front stage. When I asked Dave Fabrikant about this, he said the Sierra 2 is fine at 60hz and it really depends on what the in-room response looks like. In my case, I have two subs in opposing corners and measured using a umik-1 and REW with the crossover at 80hz and 60hz. Both settings looked good but the 60hz crossover was a little better and actually fixed a slight dip in that range and gave me the flattest frequency response. I think I'm +/- 8 or so across the whole graph. 

I'd say set it to 80hz if you're not sure but if you do have a way to measure, give that a try!


----------



## kgveteran

Hello all, my new denon x4300 arrives tomorrow, this will be my third Denon w/audyssey. Im familiar with most of its functions, im coming from a Denon 4311 with MultiEq......

.......anything earth shattering i should be aware of, i’ve never used SubEQ before. My subs are symmetrical, two upfront L, two upfront R, 4 total. Im ditching my MiniDSP, they are null free, peak free, not flat, but not worth EQing. I can use Sub#1 for the left pair, Sub#2 for the right pair, i’ll run the line out of the denon to one pro amp and parallel off that instead of a Y splitter.......


----------



## ToBeFrank

ToBeFrank said:


> If you have your sub connected with a wireless adapter, I don't think Audyssey will work for you. Does anyone's AVR allow them to set distances more than 6m greater than their shortest speaker distance?


FYI, below is the response from Audyssey. TLDR: if you are using a wireless adapter for your sub, Audyssey will not work for you.

_"This is a limitation in delays allowed by the reciever. The maximum allowed delay is not something Audyssey does or licenses.
To work around this, place the subwoofer closer and the closest satellite speaker further away.

An increase in available delay is likely not possible due to hardware limitations of the DSP and memory. A request to Denon & Marantz for new features in their next iteration may help the place the feature as a high priority. https://usa.denon.com/us/support/home"_


----------



## kgveteran

ToBeFrank said:


> ToBeFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have your sub connected with a wireless adapter, I don't think Audyssey will work for you. Does anyone's AVR allow them to set distances more than 6m greater than their shortest speaker distance?
> 
> 
> 
> FYI, below is the response from Audyssey. TLDR: if you are using a wireless adapter for your sub, Audyssey will not work for you.
> 
> _"This is a limitation in delays allowed by the reciever. The maximum allowed delay is not something Audyssey does or licenses.
> To work around this, place the subwoofer closer and the closest satellite speaker further away.
> 
> An increase in available delay is likely not possible due to hardware limitations of the DSP and memory. A request to Denon & Marantz for new features in their next iteration may help the place the feature as a high priority. https://usa.denon.com/us/support/home"_
Click to expand...

Just use a interconnect cable to calibrate, then hook up ur wireless after ???


----------



## mthomas47

kgveteran said:


> Hello all, my new denon x4300 arrives tomorrow, this will be my third Denon w/audyssey. Im familiar with most of its functions, im coming from a Denon 4311 with MultiEq......
> 
> .......anything earth shattering i should be aware of, i’ve never used SubEQ before. My subs are symmetrical, two upfront L, two upfront R, 4 total. Im ditching my MiniDSP, they are null free, peak free, not flat, but not worth EQing. I can use Sub#1 for the left pair, Sub#2 for the right pair, i’ll run the line out of the denon to one pro amp and parallel off that instead of a Y splitter.......



Hi,

The only thing that I might suggest is that, in addition to doing what you are planning, also try things with the four subs connected to a single sub out. Mark Seaton has observed that, where subs are equidistant and on the same wall, using a Y-connector into a single sub out often gives more reliable results than using the two sub outs. His explanation is that it simply removes one more variable for Audyssey to fool with.

Where you are already getting good results from using a single sub out, I would certainly be tempted to try both approaches. The dual outs are really most valuable, in my opinion, for setting distances of subs which are not symmetrical, and for facilitating level-matching for a pair of subs. In your situation, the dual sub outs may not help much, and may conceivably give you slightly worse results. I have seen this idea work before. It will be interesting to see which method works better for you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ToBeFrank

kgveteran said:


> Just use a interconnect cable to calibrate, then hook up ur wireless after ???


That would be worse than just using the wireless adapter to do the calibration.


----------



## CBdicX

*Speaker AB*

Hi, when i do a speaker A B setup and run XT32, will both sets Left and Right be set as "one" speaker, just like Audyssey is doing with 2 subwoofers and eqing them as one ?

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> *Speaker AB*
> 
> Hi, when i do a speaker A B setup and run XT32, will both sets Left and Right be set as "one" speaker, just like Audyssey is doing with 2 subwoofers and eqing them as one ?
> 
> Thanks



Hi,

If you piggy-back a pair of speakers into the Front Left channel, and another pair of speakers into the Front Right channel, Audyssey will still EQ the Front Right as one channel and the Front Left as one channel. It will never even know that the second pair of speakers was there--just as if you Y-connected two subwoofers into the same sub out in your AVR. 

Are you really sure that you want to do that? I think that you are almost certain to get some cancellation and/or some lobing by having two speakers side-by-side, trying to play exactly the same frequencies at the same time. That works with subwoofers because they mutually-couple below the Schroeder frequency in the room, which typically includes the entire operating range of the subs, even with high crossovers. But, speakers will not mutually-couple for their full bass range, and the higher frequencies may produce distortion.

If you have a second pair of identical speakers you can deploy, I believe that you would be much better served by deploying them as front wide's, or rear surrounds, or whatever, with their own specific locations, their own derived (but phase changed) content, and their own separate channels for the purpose of room EQ. Of course, you can always try it, but I would be surprised if it sounds as good as the single pair of speakers operating by themselves do.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you piggy-back a pair of speakers into the Front Left channel, and another pair of speakers into the Front Right channel, Audyssey will still EQ the Front Right as one channel and the Front Left as one channel. It will never even know that the second pair of speakers was there--just as if you Y-connected two subwoofers into the same sub out in your AVR.
> 
> Are you really sure that you want to do that? I think that you are almost certain to get some cancellation and/or some lobing by having two speakers side-by-side, trying to play exactly the same frequencies at the same time. That works with subwoofers because they mutually-couple below the Schroeder frequency in the room, which typically includes the entire operating range of the subs, even with high crossovers. But, speakers will not mutually-couple for their full bass range, and the higher frequencies may produce distortion.
> 
> If you have a second pair of identical speakers you can deploy, I believe that you would be much better served by deploying them as front wide's, or rear surrounds, or whatever, with their own specific locations, their own derived (but phase changed) content, and their own separate channels for the purpose of room EQ. Of course, you can always try it, but I would be surprised if it sounds as good as the single pair of speakers operating by themselves do.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 
Hi Mike,


but why is this offered as an option by D & M if this will end up like you state ?
I the pic the offered setup.......


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> but why is this offered as an option by D & M if this will end up like you state ?
> I the pic the offered setup.......



The owner's manuals and supporting graphics are often produced by marketing departments with relatively little input from engineers. The individuals in those departments may have no knowledge whatsoever of HT or of audio, and no understanding of the merits of what they are illustrating. We might also ask why Denon/Marantz, and other AVR's, show how you can bi-amp a speaker using two amplifiers within the AVR. The fact that passive bi-amping will accomplish exactly nothing isn't their concern. It looks cool from a marketing standpoint. 

Denon/Marantz manuals also make it sound as if XT-32 with SubEQ will separately EQ dual subs, rather than simply setting levels and distances separately. I could go on, but I think that you see what I am getting at.  Wiring a pair of speakers, side-by side into a single front channel would really not be a good idea.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> but why is this offered as an option by D & M if this will end up like you state ?


I think Mike is right about advertising departments. FWIW, my Marantz manual contains several mistakes. I once bought a reel to reel tape recorder that was advertised as having, "hiss virtually below the level of audibility." It hissed like a puff-adder in heat. The company tested it and said that it "meets specs." I happened to visit the town in which the American headquarters of the company was located, so I took it in. The person at the desk slapped a reel of tape on it and we made a brief recording. On playback, the recording had a lot of hiss. He took a pair of pencils and held the running tape away from the playback head. "Oh, it's tape hiss, not the recorder! When we hold the tape away the hiss stops." "So does the music," I said, "You could advertise, 'music virtually below the level of audibility.' " I finally saw a company technical guy. He said, "We sometimes have problems with our advertising department."

I have seen a few professional speaker systems that have two columns of woofers, but these are 1) Woofers only -- no midrange or tweeters 2) Three-way speakers, so the woofers may have been used minimally above Schroeder 3) Very close together and in the same cabinet.


----------



## Soulburner

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> but why is this offered as an option by D & M if this will end up like you state ?
> I the pic the offered setup.......


Speakers A and Speakers B means you can switch between them - they are not playing at the same time.


----------



## jj-34

Soulburner said:


> Speakers A and Speakers B means you can switch between them - *they are not playing at the same time*.


Obviously, you may have *two different sets of front speakers*, that you may use A for Hi-Fi and B for HC as an example. Usually there's an A/B choice switch at the AVR's front panel.


----------



## CBdicX

jj-34 said:


> Obviously, you may have *two different sets of front speakers*, that you may use A for Hi-Fi and B for HC as an example. Usually there's an A/B choice switch at the AVR's front panel.



No switch on the Denon X8500H 
But i understand now the reason for having this option.......


----------



## BluesDaddy56

jj-34 said:


> Obviously, you may have *two different sets of front speakers*, that you may use A for Hi-Fi and B for HC as an example. Usually there's an A/B choice switch at the AVR's front panel.


When I was first coming along in Hi-Fi this was considered a real no-no as, it was claimed, the speakers would interact with each other and muddy the sound. Demo rooms with multiple sets of speakers were considered unreliable means of demoing speakers because of this (though it was, even then, most typical). Whatever happened to this idea? Was it never really reflective of reality or is it just not thought about anymore? I confess everytime I see set ups with multiple Front speaker pairs it makes me cringe.


----------



## CBdicX

BluesDaddy56 said:


> When I was first coming along in Hi-Fi this was considered a real no-no as, it was claimed, the speakers would interact with each other and muddy the sound. Demo rooms with multiple sets of speakers were considered unreliable means of demoing speakers because of this (though it was, even then, most typical). Whatever happened to this idea? Was it never really reflective of reality or is it just not thought about anymore? I confess everytime I see set ups with multiple Front speaker pairs it makes me cringe.



Maybe Front Wide is the same, but having the 2 FW equed separate from the front speakers, this works, and speaker A+B at the same time will not work ?


----------



## mthomas47

BluesDaddy56 said:


> When I was first coming along in Hi-Fi this was considered a real no-no as, it was claimed, the speakers would interact with each other and muddy the sound. Demo rooms with multiple sets of speakers were considered unreliable means of demoing speakers because of this (though it was, even then, most typical). Whatever happened to this idea? Was it never really reflective of reality or is it just not thought about anymore? I confess everytime I see set ups with multiple Front speaker pairs it makes me cringe.



FWIW, I think that there may be two different concepts involved. Putting an inactive speaker near an active one is no different from having a wall or a piece of furniture in close proximity to an active speaker. If the object is slightly forward of a speaker that is playing, there can be early reflections due to the sound waves radiating outward from the speaker in a cone shape. And, some (especially mid-range) frequencies may radiate backward out of the speaker cabinet, and reflect off a wall to create early reflections at the listening position. (Most speaker cabinets have thinner backs.) 

But, if two speakers are side-by-side, I don't know that there would necessarily be any distortion, as long as only one were playing at a time. Again, it would be like having a speaker near a chair--no problem except for early reflections, and if one speaker weren't out in front of the other, or directly behind the other, it shouldn't affect the performance. There could be some boundary effect (reinforcement) to some bass frequencies, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I don't like the look of speakers which are crowded close together but I'm not sure that there is necessarily a negative affect on the audio quality.

What would be a bad thing is if both sets of side-by-side speakers were played at the same time. However they were wired to play together, I think that distortion from their interaction would be the inevitable consequence. I don't like the idea of side-by-side store demos either. There should be an ideal placement for each pair of speakers, with just the right physical separation of speakers, compared to the listening position, and just the right amount of toe-in, and just the right distance from walls, etc. But, I guess it's a lot of work for the store employees to know how those factors correspond to a particular pair of speakers, and a lot of effort to move things around each time for individual auditions, especially where showroom space is limited to begin with. 

Personally, I would take the time with an audition like that to experiment with speaker placement and to optimize the sound of each pair of speakers, anyway. And, if the store employees wouldn't assist me with that, I couldn't have a very effective audition experience. I'm not really big on quick A/B switching, anyway though. I like to take my time when I listen to speakers, and just let a general impression form. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I decided to add something else to my post. I'm sort of like you with respect to not liking to see speaker pairs side-by-side. And, I'm having some trouble seeing how switching back-and-forth between Speaker Pair A and Speaker Pair B is ever a good thing in an HT system. Why not just have one pair of good speakers that can handle both music and movies? The idea seems like a stretch to start with. 

It's not as if you can quickly and easily switch back-and-forth between Audyssey calibrations for each pair either (although it can be done--not rapidly--with calibrations loaded into a laptop). It also seems to me, that at least one pair of those speakers would have to be positioned sub-optimally. They might both end-up in slightly compromised positions, due to being crowded together. 

If someone has two good pairs of speakers that he wants to use on the front sound stage, it seems much better to me just to spread the speakers out, as Front Wides, for instance, and let them occupy their own space and be EQed as their own separate channels.


----------



## vicdvp

The link from Audyssey for the mic extension is broken or invalid. Anymore recommendations where I can get one? or an mono/stereo one from amazon etc will work fine. Seems like the resistance in some might play a factor on readings etc.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> Speakers A and Speakers B means you can switch between them - *they are not playing at the same time*.





jj-34 said:


> Obviously, you may have *two different sets of front speakers*, that you may use A for Hi-Fi and B for HC as an example. Usually there's an A/B choice switch at the AVR's front panel.





BluesDaddy56 said:


> When I was first coming along in Hi-Fi this was considered a real no-no as, it was claimed, *the speakers would interact with each other and muddy the sound. Demo rooms with multiple sets of speakers were considered unreliable means of demoing speakers because of this (though it was, even then, most typical). Whatever happened to this idea? *Was it never really reflective of reality or is it just not thought about anymore? I confess everytime I see set ups with multiple Front speaker pairs it makes me cringe.





mthomas47 said:


> FWIW, I think that there may be two different concepts involved. *Putting an inactive speaker near an active one is no different from having a wall or a piece of furniture in close proximity to an active speaker ... if two speakers are side-by-side, I don't know that there would necessarily be any distortion, as long as only one were playing at a time.* Again, it would be like having a speaker near a chair--no problem except for early reflections, and if one speaker weren't out in front of the other, or directly behind the other, it shouldn't affect the performance.
> 
> What would be a bad thing is if both sets of side-by-side speakers were played at the same time. However they were wired to play together, I think that distortion from their interaction would be the inevitable consequence ... I'm having some trouble seeing how switching back-and-forth between Speaker Pair A and Speaker Pair B is ever a good thing in an HT system. *Why not just have one pair of good speakers that can handle both music and movies?* ... If someone has two good pairs of speakers that he wants to use on the front sound stage, it seems much better to me just to spread the speakers out, as Front Wides, for instance, and let them occupy their own space and be EQed as their own separate channels.





One source of befuddlement here is that the illustration shows two identical speakers on each side, cheek by jowl. The artist may not have been informed of the purpose of an A set and a B set. IMO, no room would be laid out like that, except maybe temporarily to compare two sets of speakers, and probably not ideally, as Mike said.
I've had various power amps with an A set and a B set of speaker outputs over about 30 to 40 years. The manuals always suggest that the two sets of speakers would be in *entirely different rooms*, in order to have music in, say, the living room or the bedroom, but *not* at the same time, and there would be a switch. Without a switch, would the A left speaker be wired *in parallel* with B left speaker? And the A right speaker in parallel with the B right speaker? That would mean that an amp that would ordinarily "see" a nominal 8 ohms would now see a nominal 4 ohms, unless there is some resistive fudging around in the amp. But, without a switch, how do you switch it out, when using just one set of speakers? In the old, old days there would be the occasional party with 2 channel stereo sound coming out of speakers in each of 4 corners. The famous (infamous) loft parties in NYC used McIntosh amps feeding 4 Klipschorns out of the 4 ohm taps. JBL recommended a "parallel by series" network using the 8 ohm tap. But for that you need 4 speakers per channel. It would be interesting to know from D & M what their take is on all this is, but a response is unlikely.
As to a speaker that is turned off interfering with the reproduction of a speaker that is turned on in a demo room, I think this bizarre idea originated with one speaker manufacturer who argued that even a _*telephone*_ in the same room with a speaker would affect the sound. He claimed that if you covered both the mic and the earpiece on a telephone receiver the sound from the speakers would change. He wanted his speakers to be demoed in a room of their own, with no other diaphragm in said room. Conveniently, that made A/B demoing impossible. I hope he also banned anything with a thin wall, including equipment cabinets, Styrofoam cups as well as belly fat, to say nothing of human diaphragms. There are demos in which ticking wristwatches are banned, but that's competition, not sympathetic vibration, just as is Mike Todd wanting there to be no popcorn or drinks with ice to be served in theaters showing Todd-AO, because, and I quote, "It f***s up the stereo."


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> One source of befuddlement here is that the illustration shows two identical speakers on each side, cheek by jowl. The artist may not have been informed of the purpose of an A set and a B set. IMO, no room would be laid out like that, except maybe temporarily to compare two sets of speakers, and probably not ideally, as Mike said.
> I've had various power amps with an A set and a B set of speaker outputs over about 30 to 40 years. The manuals always suggest that the two sets of speakers would be in *entirely different rooms*, in order to have music in, say, the living room or the bedroom, but *not* at the same time, and there would be a switch. Without a switch, would the A left speaker be wired *in parallel* with B left speaker? And the A right speaker in parallel with the B right speaker? That would mean that an amp that would ordinarily "see" a nominal 8 ohms would now see a nominal 4 ohms, unless there is some resistive fudging around in the amp. But, without a switch, how do you switch it out, when using just one set of speakers? In the old, old days there would be the occasional party with 2 channel stereo sound coming out of speakers in each of 4 corners. The famous (infamous) loft parties in NYC used McIntosh amps feeding 4 Klipschorns out of the 4 ohm taps. JBL recommended a "parallel by series" network using the 8 ohm tap. But for that you need 4 speakers per channel. It would be interesting to know from D & M what their take is on all this is, but a response is unlikely.
> As to a speaker that is turned off interfering with the reproduction of a speaker that is turned on in a demo room, I think this bizarre idea originated with one speaker manufacturer who argued that even a _*telephone*_ in the same room with a speaker would affect the sound. He claimed that if you covered both the mic and the earpiece on a telephone receiver the sound from the speakers would change. He wanted his speakers to be demoed in a room of their own, with no other diaphragm in said room. Conveniently, that made A/B demoing impossible. I hope he also banned anything with a thin wall, including equipment cabinets, Styrofoam cups as well as belly fat, to say nothing of human diaphragms. There are demos in which ticking wristwatches are banned, but that's competition, not sympathetic vibration, just as is Mike Todd wanting there to be no popcorn or drinks with ice to be served in theaters showing Todd-AO, because, and I quote, "It f***s up the stereo."



Hi Gary,

I'm sure that your explanation is correct that the illustration was simply meant to convey Zone A and Zone B speakers operating in different rooms. Leave it to Denon to make it seem as clear as mud. 

I liked the Mike Todd quote! I wish someone had told me of the importance of not eating popcorn while listening to stereo, though. I'm afraid that I might have been guilty of that offense when watching Around the World in 80 Days. 

I'm a little surprised, though, that he would allow people in the theater while the movie was playing. Just think how all those bodies shifting in their chairs, and clothing rustling, would have f****d up the stereo. Perhaps if we had all stripped. Actually, that might have worked well in some parts of California. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> FWIW, I think that there may be two different concepts involved. Putting an inactive speaker near an active one is no different from having a wall or a piece of furniture in close proximity to an active speaker. If the object is slightly forward of a speaker that is playing, there can be early reflections due to the sound waves radiating outward from the speaker in a cone shape. And, some (especially mid-range) frequencies may radiate backward out of the speaker cabinet, and reflect off a wall to create early reflections at the listening position. (Most speaker cabinets have thinner backs.)
> 
> But, if two speakers are side-by-side, I don't know that there would necessarily be any distortion, as long as only one were playing at a time. Again, it would be like having a speaker near a chair--no problem except for early reflections, and if one speaker weren't out in front of the other, or directly behind the other, it shouldn't affect the performance. There could be some boundary effect (reinforcement) to some bass frequencies, but that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I don't like the look of speakers which are crowded close together but I'm not sure that there is necessarily a negative affect on the audio quality.
> 
> ….


Mike,

I don't know that this is quite true.

My understanding of why it was bad to have inactive speakers in the same room was because the drivers of the inactive speakers could respond to the pressure waves from the active speakers so the driver of the inactive speaker would recede into the cabinet as a pressure wave peaked, and then move forward as the pressure decreased, resulting in some degree of cancellation of the sound of the active speaker. If I remember correctly, and I'm trying to remember from some decades back now, the recommendation was to not have the inactive speakers connected to an amp but instead to connect their terminals together, shorting them, in order to "lock" the drivers and minimise the problem. Even that may not eliminate the problem because if the speaker is ported then the cabinet could act as a Helmholtz resonator and absorb bass unless the port was closed also.

I have no idea whether the claimed adverse effect was real, or whether the shorting "cure" solved the problem, but while the issues you discuss regarding early reflections do exist, I think the problem of coupled driver movement in the inactive speaker and the impact of that on the sound tended to be pushed as the main concern. Of course back in those long departed days one reason for being more concerned about coupled driver movement than the creation of early reflections could well have been the generally greater ignorance of basic room acoustics theory then than now.

I'd also add that these concerns first appeared way back in the days when all we had was stereo and surround sound, even quad, had yet to rear its head so you only needed a single pair of speakers in the room unless you were doing something like running stacked pairs of Large Advents or Quad Electrostatics as some people did. These days with surround systems we often end up with inactive speakers in the room because some of us choose to play music in pure stereo mode so the centre, surrounds, and even the sub or subs are inactive at times and I haven't heard complaints about the inactive speakers causing problems. That doesn't mean that there isn't a problem and that music wouldn't sound better if we disconnected the inactive speakers and removed them from the room, it may just mean that we prefer the sound of stereo from 2 speakers while inactive speakers are in the room to the sound of faux surround or stereo spread over more than 2 speakers.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> I'm sure that your explanation is correct that the illustration was simply meant to convey Zone A and Zone B speakers operating in different rooms. Leave it to Denon to make it seem as clear as mud.
> 
> I liked the Mike Todd quote! I wish someone had told me of the importance of not eating popcorn while listening to stereo, though. I'm afraid that I might have been guilty of that offense when watching Around the World in 80 Days.
> 
> I'm a little surprised, though, that he would allow people in the theater while the movie was playing. Just think how all those bodies shifting in their chairs, and clothing rustling, would have f****d up the stereo. Perhaps if we had all stripped. Actually, that might have worked well in some parts of California.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Well, it would and did. In the UC Theater in Berkeley, for a showing of Woodstock, some people were nearly naked ... or, perhaps, more than nearly ... it was pretty dark. There was a bit of dancing in the aisles. Outside was University Ave. where a naked triple (two women and one man) used to walk until the police intervened. There were nude Encounter groups announced from time to time. Nudity in Golden Gate Park (SF) and Provo Park (Berkeley) was fairly common ... and then there were certain beaches.

Interestingly, one could hear the proverbial pin drop at most 70 mm showings in SF. No rustling. The only exception I witnessed was in a showing of Lawrence of Arabia during the quietest desert scene. My party got a refund and came back for a showing that evening.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Well, it would and did. In the UC Theater in Berkeley, for a showing of Woodstock, some people were nearly naked ... or, perhaps, more than nearly ... it was pretty dark. There was a bit of dancing in the aisles. Outside was University Ave. where a naked triple (two women and one man) used to walk until the police intervened. There were nude Encounter groups announced from time to time. Nudity in Golden Gate Park (SF) and Provo Park (Berkeley) was fairly common ... and then there were certain beaches.
> 
> Interestingly, one could hear the proverbial pin drop at most 70 mm showings in SF. No rustling. The only exception I witnessed was in a showing of Lawrence of Arabia during the quietest desert scene. My party got a refund and came back for a showing that evening.



I was thinking of those beaches, among other things. I have told you this before, but I watched most of the blockbusters of the time at the Cinerama theater in Denver. When the loud overture from How The West Was Won suddenly started, a woman a few rows up screamed. Years later, in another theater in a different part of the Country, the same thing happened when Alan Arkin's character in Wait Until Dark leaped out of the darkness at Audrey Hepburn. Good times!


----------



## k140db

Good evening all!!

Just today, I turned on my system and I have no sound at all. This is happening when either watch cable TV or watching a movie on my PS3. A few days ago...no issues whatsoever. I have a Denon 2310ci for reference. So, I went to my settings and I couldn't find anything wrong or odd at least to my untrained eye. So I did a factory reset and still no sound. So I grabbed the Audyssey mic and wanted to re-calibrate my speaker settings since the reset wiped them out. I went to the menu, then Auto Set-up then Audyssey Start Set up, plugged the mic in, hit the enter button and...nothing!! The Audyssey Start Setup is highlighted but it won't go any further. Any clue on what I'm doing wrong and what my next step should be? I'm at a loss and with having no sound, it is just the icing on the cake. 

Thanks in advance,
Kevin


----------



## garygarrison

k140db said:


> Good evening all!!
> 
> Just today, I turned on my system and I have no sound at all. This is happening when either watch cable TV or watching a movie on my PS3. A few days ago...no issues whatsoever. I have a Denon 2310ci for reference. So, I went to my settings and I couldn't find anything wrong or odd at least to my untrained eye. So I did a factory reset and still no sound. So I grabbed the Audyssey mic and wanted to re-calibrate my speaker settings since the reset wiped them out. I went to the menu, then Auto Set-up then Audyssey Start Set up, plugged the mic in, hit the enter button and...nothing!! The Audyssey Start Setup is highlighted but it won't go any further. Any clue on what I'm doing wrong and what my next step should be? I'm at a loss and with having no sound, it is just the icing on the cake.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Kevin



It sounds like something pretty general is wrong. 

Are there any tubular fuses in the receiver that could have blown?

Does the receiver light up? [I guess it does if the Audyssey Start set-up lights up!]


Does any hiss come out of the speakers? Put you ear up against a tweeter --- you should hear something, slight hiss or maybe hum.

Is there a radio function (AM or FM or HD radio, etc.) in this receiver? Try that.

Here is their service troubleshooting manual: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/968601/Denon-Avr-2310.html?


----------



## k140db

garygarrison said:


> It sounds like something pretty general is wrong.
> 
> Are there any tubular fuses in the receiver that could have blown?
> 
> Does the receiver light up? [I guess it does if the Audyssey Start set-up lights up!]
> 
> 
> Does any hiss come out of the speakers? Put you ear up against a tweeter --- you should hear something, slight hiss or maybe hum.
> 
> Is there a radio function (AM or FM or HD radio, etc.) in this receiver? Try that.
> 
> Here is their service troubleshooting manual: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/968601/Denon-Avr-2310.html?


Thanks for the quick and informative reply. 
-Not sure how/where to check for blown fuses, sorry.
-I have the FM radio on and searched until a channel picked up. Then I turned the volume up 3/4 of the way(60 out of 99) and I hear nothing coming from the speakers.

I'm at a loss

Thanks again,
Kevin


----------



## mogorf

k140db said:


> Good evening all!!
> 
> Just today, I turned on my system and I have no sound at all. This is happening when either watch cable TV or watching a movie on my PS3. A few days ago...no issues whatsoever. I have a Denon 2310ci for reference. So, I went to my settings and I couldn't find anything wrong or odd at least to my untrained eye. So I did a factory reset and still no sound. So I grabbed the Audyssey mic and wanted to re-calibrate my speaker settings since the reset wiped them out. I went to the menu, then Auto Set-up then Audyssey Start Set up, plugged the mic in, hit the enter button and...nothing!! The Audyssey Start Setup is highlighted but it won't go any further. Any clue on what I'm doing wrong and what my next step should be? I'm at a loss and with having no sound, it is just the icing on the cake.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> Kevin



Hi Kevin,


Here's another thing you can try: blow some compressed air into the headphone socket on the front panel!! Or you may just try to plug in-and-out the h/p jack several times. Report back please.


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> I was thinking of those beaches, among other things. I have told you this before, but I watched most of the blockbusters of the time at the Cinerama theater in Denver. When the loud overture from How The West Was Won suddenly started, a woman a few rows up screamed. Years later, in another theater in a different part of the Country, the same thing happened when Alan Arkin's character in Wait Until Dark leaped out of the darkness at Audrey Hepburn. Good times!


I do remember people screaming during that moment in Wait Until Dark. 

I was attending a showing of Polanski's Repulsion at a college cinema. This is a creepy movie with some real shiver-inducing moments. At one of those moments, a dog in the theater started barking like crazy. Everyone laughed...


----------



## bigzee3

garygarrison said:


> I don't have it on my old AVP. It sounds rather unnecessary and possibly counter productive. I hope it doesn't encourage people to consider 0 to be normal or neutral, and if they want sub boost, punch up the trim to +4 or +5, when various writers on the forum, including guest experts, have recommended keeping the trim on the AVR below -3, or even -5, to avoid clipping the line driver on the AVR or AVP subwoofer output, achievable by turning up the gain control on the sub itself to get Audyssey to set the trim to -11 or so (not maxed out at -12), giving the user up to a possible 6 dB of boost available before reaching a clipping level. Maybe the manufacturers have provided a great deal of additional headroom, to avoid this problem. Anyone who doesn't know about these should see*: *
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> Audyssey FAQ Linked Here



Hi G,

My understanding is when my Denon Audyssey asks me to turn down the sub before calibration to get to 75db and I don't do it will it set itself by lowering the trim. So if lets say 75db is -4 after calibration on the AVR and you set it at 82db before calibration and it ends up at -10 after calibration on AVR both should really be 75db. So if this is correct and you want to take it to 78db it would have read -1 and -7. And do we really need to boost the db after calibration if we are not listening at reference leave as dynamic EQ adds extra bass under reference level. I think that all makes sense.


----------



## bigzee3

pbarach said:


> You get no results from Audyssey without running the whole calibration sequence. However, if all you want is the sub distance, you can run a calibration using either one position or only a few, look at the results to get the sub distance measurement (which includes delay), and then discard the Audyssey calibration.
> 
> However, there is no guarantee that the sub delay when using Audyssey will be the same when another device is used.


Can we run position 1 after full calibration to check sub levels without ruining previous full calibration.


----------



## mogorf

bigzee3 said:


> Can we run position 1 after full calibration to check sub levels without ruining previous full calibration.



No! That will be another (unfinished) calibration. Trust Audyssey!


----------



## pbarach

bigzee3 said:


> Can we run position 1 after full calibration to check sub levels without ruining previous full calibration.


I think you're asking if you can run another calibration for a single position and see the results without saving it and obliterating the prior calibration. I don't know the answer offhand, but if your AVR allows you to save and then reload your configuration, your current calibration can be saved and then reloaded after you run another one. Thus, no danger of data loss.


----------



## mthomas47

bigzee3 said:


> Hi G,
> 
> My understanding is when my Denon Audyssey asks me to turn down the sub before calibration to get to 75db and I don't do it will it set itself by lowering the trim. So if lets say 75db is -4 after calibration on the AVR and you set it at 82db before calibration and it ends up at -10 after calibration on AVR both should really be 75db. So if this is correct and you want to take it to 78db it would have read -1 and -7. And do we really need to boost the db after calibration if we are not listening at reference leave as dynamic EQ adds extra bass under reference level. I think that all makes sense.



Hi,

I don't think that Gary will mind if I answer this one. Yes, Audyssey is going to make your subwoofer(s) play the same volume as the other channels, using a 75db test tone. (The LFE channel will be automatically calibrated 10db louder than the regular channels which the subwoofers support.) Whether you have one subwoofer, or ten subwoofers, their combined sound will be the same as the SPL of any of the other channels.

And, during the calibration process there is an inverse relationship between subwoofer gain and AVR trim. Higher gain level = lower trim level, and vice-versa. There is no reason whatsoever for you to add subwoofer boost after a calibration, unless you specifically want to. If you hear the bass you want to hear with DEQ engaged, or without DEQ engaged for that matter, then just leave your subwoofer trim level where Audyssey set it. Ideally, that would be in negative numbers: -5 or lower is a good target.

Most of us do not hear bass frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, from about 500Hz to 5000Hz. And, most of us don't listen at Reference volumes where film mixers intended for bass frequencies to be in equilibrium with other frequencies. DEQ attempts to compensate for the fact that bass sounds decline a little faster (to our ears) compared to other sounds, as the volume is reduced. If you are satisfied that it is compensating effectively, then it is. If you want to add more bass than what DEQ is providing, at whatever listening level, then it is an entirely personal decision. 

It's sort of like deciding how much cream and sugar you prefer in your coffee (or some other analogy that works for you). The answer could range from none at all, to a lot, depending entirely on the individual. And, it could change, depending on the specific circumstances. Post-calibration bass boosts are exactly like that. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bigzee3

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't think that Gary will mind if I answer this one. Yes, Audyssey is going to make your subwoofer(s) play the same volume as the other channels, using a 75db test tone. (The LFE channel will be automatically calibrated 10db louder than the regular channels which the subwoofers support.) Whether you have one subwoofer, or ten subwoofers, their combined sound will be the same as the SPL of any of the other channels.
> 
> And, during the calibration process there is an inverse relationship between subwoofer gain and AVR trim. Higher gain level = lower trim level, and vice-versa. There is no reason whatsoever for you to add subwoofer boost after a calibration, unless you specifically want to. If you hear the bass you want to hear with DEQ engaged, or without DEQ engaged for that matter, then just leave your subwoofer trim level where Audyssey set it. Ideally, that would be in negative numbers: -5 or lower is a good target.
> 
> Most of us do not hear bass frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, from about 500Hz to 5000Hz. And, most of us don't listen at Reference volumes where film mixers intended for bass frequencies to be in equilibrium with other frequencies. DEQ attempts to compensate for the fact that bass sounds decline a little faster (to our ears) compared to other sounds, as the volume is reduced. If you are satisfied that it is compensating effectively, then it is. If you want to add more bass than what DEQ is providing, at whatever listening level, then it is an entirely personal decision.
> 
> It's sort of like deciding how much cream and sugar you prefer in your coffee (or some other analogy that works for you). The answer could range from none at all, to a lot, depending entirely on the individual. And, it could change, depending on the specific circumstances. Post-calibration bass boosts are exactly like that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike,

Found it all on the Guide to Calibration page. Anyway with my PB16 I ended up with -10.5 on Denon with PB volume set at -14. Will probably removed the 4db boost in AVR and I guess experiment and see how it goes.


----------



## garygarrison

bigzee3 said:


> Hi G,
> 
> My understanding is when my Denon Audyssey asks me to turn down the sub before calibration to get to 75db and I don't do it will it set itself by lowering the trim. So if lets say 75db is -4 after calibration on the AVR and you set it at 82db before calibration and it ends up at -10 after calibration on AVR both should really be 75db. So if this is correct and you want to take it to 78db it would have read -1 and -7. *And do we really need to boost the db after calibration if we are not listening at reference leave as dynamic EQ adds extra bass under reference level.* I think that all makes sense.



Adjust the subwoofer channel *to taste* after running Audyssey, keeping the trim control below about - 5 dB, and using the gain control on the sub itself for any greater boost. Audyssey will EQ the frequency so the frequency response is as flat as possible in Audyssey FLAT, or with the prescribed "home sized room" compensation (- 2 dB @ 10K Hz and - 6 dB @ 20 K Hz, as well as a small dip ~~ 2 dB at ~~ 2K Hz) for Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey). That's what Chris K. of Audyssey likes to call "Reference, not Preference." After that, it's up to you to set the subwoofer to whatever level you like, to "Preference, not Reference." Why use Audyssey first? To provide a nice, smooth curve, with your speakers, positions, and room, *to start with* instead of a kinky, zig-zagging one.



IMO, the right amount of bass (indeed, the right EQ) varies with the recording, unfortunately. I have one setting I use for, maybe, 80% to 90% of my listening.For the rest there is generally more boost. The worst case, so far, would be the settings for How The West Was Won, for which the Blue-ray is _*way*_ out of balance compared to the theatrical version. Mike wrote "When the loud overture from How The West Was Won suddenly started, a woman a few rows up screamed." So it was in the Cinerama theaters for this movie, and so it shall be done in our home theater whenever we show HTWWW. That opening music should part your hair. But, with the balance on the disc, it would be a screechy mess (unlike in the theater). Here are the results of our re-EQ by ear, agreed to by the whole family, for HTWWW _*only*_. We use Audyssey Reference to gain its treble roll-off and midrange dip. First we turn the treble down to - 5 dB (we never *touch* the treble control for other movies!), then we turn the bass control up to +6 dB (max), switch on a little bass boost box we had made for us that is set for another 3 dB boost (bringing total bass boost for the front channels to +9 dB), then we do something that is not recommended, but works in our set-up for this movie. We turn the trim on the pre/pro subwoofer channel up to +8. That is an outrageous setting. All I can say is that the line driver in our subwoofer output on our preamp/processor must have more headroom than most, because there is nary a sign of clipping. The only reason we use the trim in the pre/pro is that our subwoofer gain control is out of reach, buried in the wall, behind a acoustically transparent fabric. We never anticipated the problematic mix of HTWWW. Anyway, we set the main volume (by ear) to what seems to my wife and I to be original theater level. The opening comes in at 92 dB, and gets up to 97 at other parts of the overture. It sounds great, and the several folk songs, plus the magnificent end of the overture really puts people in the mood. But, what's past is prologue. The main titles hit 104 dB, yet when Spenser Tracy's narration begins it is about 80 dB. Cinerama, with its 7 magnetic tracks on a separate full-coat 35 mm film was noted for its dynamic range.


----------



## bigzee3

garygarrison said:


> Adjust the subwoofer channel *to taste* after running Audyssey, keeping the trim control below about - 5 dB, and using the gain control on the sub itself for any greater boost. Audyssey will EQ the frequency so the frequency response is as flat as possible in Audyssey FLAT, or with the prescribed "home sized room" compensation (- 2 dB @ 10K Hz and - 6 dB @ 20 K Hz, as well as a small dip ~~ 2 dB at ~~ 2K Hz) for Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey). That's what Chris K. of Audyssey likes to call "Reference, not Preference." After that, it's up to you to set the subwoofer to whatever level you like, to "Preference, not Reference." Why use Audyssey first? To provide a nice, smooth curve, with your speakers, positions, and room, *to start with* instead of a kinky, zig-zagging one.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the right amount of bass (indeed, the right EQ) varies with the recording, unfortunately. I have one setting I use for, maybe, 80% to 90% of my listening.For the rest there is generally more boost. The worst case, so far, would be the settings for How The West Was Won, for which the Blue-ray is _*way*_ out of balance compared to the theatrical version. Mike wrote "When the loud overture from How The West Was Won suddenly started, a woman a few rows up screamed." So it was in the Cinerama theaters for this movie, and so it shall be done in our home theater whenever we show HTWWW. That opening music should part your hair. But, with the balance on the disc, it would be a screechy mess (unlike in the theater). Here are the results of our re-EQ by ear, agreed to by the whole family, for HTWWW _*only*_. We use Audyssey Reference to gain its treble roll-off and midrange dip. First we turn the treble down to - 5 dB (we never *touch* the treble control for other movies!), then we turn the bass control up to +6 dB (max), switch on a little bass boost box we had made for us that is set for another 3 dB boost (bringing total bass boost for the front channels to +9 dB), then we do something that is not recommended, but works in our set-up for this movie. We turn the trim on the pre/pro subwoofer channel up to +8. That is an outrageous setting. All I can say is that the line driver in our subwoofer output on our preamp/processor must have more headroom than most, because there is nary a sign of clipping. The only reason we use the trim in the pre/pro is that our subwoofer gain control is out of reach, buried in the wall, behind a acoustically transparent fabric. We never anticipated the problematic mix of HTWWW. Anyway, we set the main volume (by ear) to what seems to my wife and I to be original theater level. The opening comes in at 92 dB, and gets up to 97 at other parts of the overture. It sounds great, and the several folk songs, plus the magnificent end of the overture really puts people in the mood. But, what's past is prologue. The main titles hit 104 dB, yet when Spenser Tracy's narration begins it is about 80 dB. Cinerama, with its 7 magnetic tracks on a separate full-coat 35 mm film was noted for its dynamic range.



Thanks Gary


----------



## kgveteran

Just ran audyssey on my denon x4300. I use a minidsp, when i ran my sweeps in audyssey it (the minidsp) was just a pass through no eq’s active, i have four subs and four amps so it provided an easy way to adj all their output to Audyssey’s 75db setting for calibration purposes.

I would like to see what was done using OmniMic in the sub bass only. What mode is best , stereo ,multi ch stereo ect. I would imagine i leave dyn eq engaged ? Im using Audyssey flat also leave that engaged too ?

Thanks for your input


----------



## mthomas47

kgveteran said:


> Just ran audyssey on my denon x4300. I use a minidsp, when i ran my sweeps in audyssey it (the minidsp) was just a pass through no eq’s active, i have four subs and four amps so it provided an easy way to adj all their output to Audyssey’s 75db setting for calibration purposes.
> 
> I would like to see what was done using OmniMic in the sub bass only. What mode is best , stereo ,multi ch stereo ect. I would imagine i leave dyn eq engaged ? Im using Audyssey flat also leave that engaged too ?
> 
> Thanks for your input



Hi,

If I were you, I would use some 5.1 movie content with good low-bass content. Any of the bass movie threads will give you options for some good movies and specific scenes to use. I would not measure with DEQ engaged, at least for a benchmark measurement, since DEQ is added after the filters are set. You can do a subsequent series of measurements to see what DEQ is doing at your preferred listening level if you want to. Using Audyssey Flat is fine. If you are only measuring low-frequencies, which curve you are using won't matter anyway.

I would also take a series of measurements, centered around your head, and let OmniMic average them if it can. That way, you will be more closely replicating the way we hear sounds with our binaural hearing. I think that most people who use REW employ 5 or 6 measurements, in about a 12" circle, centered on the head.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kgveteran

mthomas47 said:


> kgveteran said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just ran audyssey on my denon x4300. I use a minidsp, when i ran my sweeps in audyssey it (the minidsp) was just a pass through no eq’s active, i have four subs and four amps so it provided an easy way to adj all their output to Audyssey’s 75db setting for calibration purposes.
> 
> I would like to see what was done using OmniMic in the sub bass only. What mode is best , stereo ,multi ch stereo ect. I would imagine i leave dyn eq engaged ? Im using Audyssey flat also leave that engaged too ?
> 
> Thanks for your input
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If I were you, I would use some 5.1 movie content with good low-bass content. Any of the bass movie threads will give you options for some good movies and specific scenes to use. I would not measure with DEQ engaged, at least for a benchmark measurement, since DEQ is added after the filters are set. You can do a subsequent series of measurements to see what DEQ is doing at your preferred listening level if you want to. Using Audyssey Flat is fine. If you are only measuring low-frequencies, which curve you are using won't matter anyway.
> 
> I would also take a series of measurements, centered around your head, and let OmniMic average them if it can. That way, you will be more closely replicating the way we hear sounds with our binaural hearing. I think that most people who use REW employ 5 or 6 measurements, in about a 12" circle, centered on the head.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Very good ! The DEQ was my concern, u are right, its a process and can be added later, thanx again !


----------



## bigzee3

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't think that Gary will mind if I answer this one. Yes, Audyssey is going to make your subwoofer(s) play the same volume as the other channels, using a 75db test tone. (The LFE channel will be automatically calibrated 10db louder than the regular channels which the subwoofers support.) Whether you have one subwoofer, or ten subwoofers, their combined sound will be the same as the SPL of any of the other channels.
> 
> And, during the calibration process there is an inverse relationship between subwoofer gain and AVR trim. Higher gain level = lower trim level, and vice-versa. There is no reason whatsoever for you to add subwoofer boost after a calibration, unless you specifically want to. If you hear the bass you want to hear with DEQ engaged, or without DEQ engaged for that matter, then just leave your subwoofer trim level where Audyssey set it. Ideally, that would be in negative numbers: -5 or lower is a good target.
> 
> Most of us do not hear bass frequencies as well as those in our normal hearing range, from about 500Hz to 5000Hz. And, most of us don't listen at Reference volumes where film mixers intended for bass frequencies to be in equilibrium with other frequencies. DEQ attempts to compensate for the fact that bass sounds decline a little faster (to our ears) compared to other sounds, as the volume is reduced. If you are satisfied that it is compensating effectively, then it is. If you want to add more bass than what DEQ is providing, at whatever listening level, then it is an entirely personal decision.
> 
> It's sort of like deciding how much cream and sugar you prefer in your coffee (or some other analogy that works for you). The answer could range from none at all, to a lot, depending entirely on the individual. And, it could change, depending on the specific circumstances. Post-calibration bass boosts are exactly like that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

I took your advice and eliminated the extra 4db boost and did some movie and music testing. I found it a bit to much and was turning it down from -14 to about -20 for movies and music testing. I guess better to be able turn down than the other way. But my question is to dial it back a bit should I simply leave everything as is and use sub volume to get to desired levels or rerun Audyssey again and shoot for a trim of -5 to -6. Also thinking of going back to standard mode instead of extended.


----------



## mthomas47

bigzee3 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I took your advice and eliminated the extra 4db boost and did some movie and music testing. I found it a bit to much and was turning it down from -14 to about -20 for movies and music testing. I guess better to be able turn down than the other way. But my question is to dial it back a bit should I simply leave everything as is and use sub volume to get to desired levels or rerun Audyssey again and shoot for a trim of -5 to -6. Also thinking of going back to standard mode instead of extended.



Hi,

I went back to read your original post to see if I could get your numbers straight, but I couldn't. So, I will just make-up my own hypothetical numbers and you can apply this hypothetical example to your own situation. Let's say that you ran Audyssey and your trim levels are currently at -1. You could rerun Audyssey to get to the recommended -5 number, or you could just subtract 4db from your trim levels and turn-up your subwoofer gains to compensate. 

If you have digital controls on your subwoofers (with SVS Ultra's, for instance) then it will be easy to add subwoofer gain on a one-for-one basis. If you have analogue controls on your subs, it would probably be either 2 or 3 clicks. Most analogue gain dials seem to add about 1.5db per click. But, you don't have to be exact here, anyway. You are just trying to get your bass to sound appropriate to you.

My own approach is to run Audyssey with my gain level set very high, so that I can get trim levels of about -11. Then, I will raise my trim levels to about -6, and also raise my gain levels as high as I think that I will ever want them. I might watch something like Batman Versus Superman at a fairly loud volume level to determine that. Once I know that my highest bass level is going to be fine at about -5 or -6, I can just use the trim controls to remove bass, depending on the movie, and on my mood that day. That is an easy way for me to always have enough bass (and not to exceed -5 in trim level) without having to mess with my gain settings all the time. But, there are many different ways to skin this particular cat. 

Personally, I like having the very low-bass that the extended mode on my subs offer. But, as with everything audio-related, that is purely a matter of personal preference. Using the standard mode will give you a little more headroom, and probably slightly more bass above 20Hz. If you are going to move from extended mode to standard mode, I believe that I would make the change and then rerun Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bigzee3

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I went back to read your original post to see if I could get your numbers straight, but I couldn't. So, I will just make-up my own hypothetical numbers and you can apply this hypothetical example to your own situation. Let's say that you ran Audyssey and your trim levels are currently at -1. You could rerun Audyssey to get to the recommended -5 number, or you could just subtract 4db from your trim levels and turn-up your subwoofer gains to compensate.
> 
> If you have digital controls on your subwoofers (with SVS Ultra's, for instance) then it will be easy to add subwoofer gain on a one-for-one basis. If you have analogue controls on your subs, it would probably be either 2 or 3 clicks. Most analogue gain dials seem to add about 1.5db per click. But, you don't have to be exact here, anyway. You are just trying to get your bass to sound appropriate to you.
> 
> My own approach is to run Audyssey with my gain level set very high, so that I can get trim levels of about -11. Then, I will raise my trim levels to about -6, and also raise my gain levels as high as I think that I will ever want them. I might watch something like Batman Versus Superman at a fairly loud volume level to determine that. Once I know that my highest bass level is going to be fine at about -5 or -6, I can just use the trim controls to remove bass, depending on the movie, and on my mood that day. That is an easy way for me to always have enough bass (and not to exceed -5 in trim level) without having to mess with my gain settings all the time. But, there are many different ways to skin this particular cat.
> 
> Personally, I like having the very low-bass that the extended mode on my subs offer. But, as with everything audio-related, that is purely a matter of personal preference. Using the standard mode will give you a little more headroom, and probably slightly more bass above 20Hz. If you are going to move from extended mode to standard mode, I believe that I would make the change and then rerun Audyssey.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike,

My current trim is set at -10.5 so turning down the trim wont work at that level?. But if I rerun Audyssey and shoot for lets say -6 I should then be able to boost a bit unlikely ill need to but can also lower a few db to let say -8 or -9 without touching the sub volume?


----------



## flyinion

Ok guys hope someone can help me figure this out. I recently upgraded all my speakers to a combination of Chane with SVS Elevation and sub. This is all being run by a Marantz NR-1606 with the 6 position version of Audyssey. I did this after demoing a few centers. I ran Audysey multiple times during the demo period for each center. I did not have room in my old TV stand to put them in where the old center sat so I test them on a cinder block in front of the stand with a foam mouspad on top to protect the finishes. The block sat directly on tile floor on top of concrete slab. The Chane had a correction graph in the EQ that looked like the "pre_install" picture. Pretty flat with a few spikes.

Fast forward a couple months and I complete a new TV stand unit to house things. Two of the same model speakers on top in a vertical orientation and the center in a cutout with some shims (just like on the block) to angle it to the listening position head level. All 3 speakers are pulled forward so the faces (not the grills the faces) are about 1/2" past the front trim of the stand to try to alleviate any reflections while fitting in with WAF. So of course I run audyssey and while the graphs for the L/R mains looked similar to the one from the center channel demo, the center channel (same speaker I used for the demo) is getting the bass and treble frequencies boosted if I'm understanding the graph right. I'm trying to figure out if this is an install issue or a measurement issue or what. I'd have thought the stand would have boosted bass/etc. on its own and if anything audyssey would have had to cut it so I'm not understanding what it's doing. 

To be sure it wasn't a mic placement issue since I was using the cardboard stand and at once point a mini camera tripod (liked 4 inches tall) on top of some of the couch throw pillows I just got the "on stage" mic stand/head setup that's on the first page in this thread delivered today. The first run was very interesting. After getting the mic at exactly head height while reclined on the couch and with the mic about 25" from the back wall (couch is on the wall) and about 15" from the back of the couch (mic was above the back of the couch though) I had some weird issues with it deciding my right front height speaker was out of phase. That's never happened before so I took a time out and verified my connections just to be sure. Then told it to proceed. I got a very similar graph again. 

I thought the phase issue might have been the painting behind the couch that has a sheet of plexiglass over it so I dropped the mic height an inch and ran everything again. No more phase issues although strangely again for the first time it set the center crossover at 90. Past runs were all 60 or 80 (and it set the L/R at 60). I guess I'm trying to make sure I'm measuring things right and it seems like maybe I should consider moving that painting as well. Should I consider these post-installed results as normal vs the demo results? Sorry for the long post just trying to give as much info up front and go from there. I do want to do some room treatments eventually but this is also just a living room attached to a kitchen and options are limited since there's WAF involved to a degree.

attachments:

"post_install" the graph example I get when the center is now in the entertainment unit
"pre_install" the flatter graph I got during the demo time
"reflective" the problem child apparently and the back of the room
"post_install_speakers" shows the speaker setup. Center is shimmed to angle up
"living_side" an older pic but shows the overall layout as far as shape/size/etc. of the room itself.


----------



## David Aiken

I thought the graphs looked reasonably similar to me. The peaks and dips are pretty much in similar frequency ranges but they're larger in scale in the post install plot and the bandwidth of the corrections is wider, filling the ranges where the previous correction graph showed a flat line. If the location of the centre speaker changed between the 2 measurements, which it did, I'd put the changes in the graph down to the speaker position change. I don't know if there was a change in height but it sounds like there was a change in angle (you didn't mention angling the speaker up when it was on the cinderblock) and it's now further back since it's in the cabinet and its also in an enclosed cavity whereas before it was in front of the cabinet and more in the open. All of those things are going to change the speaker's in-room response to some degree. You also said the pre install graph for the speaker "looked like the "pre_install" picture. Pretty flat with a few spikes" which means that we don't have a pre-instal plot and no way of judging just how much change actually occurred.

That change in speaker placement is going to result in a change in the speaker's in-room response and that is going to result in a different correction graph. I would not be concerned because the correction graph has changed, especially given the change in speaker positioning. What matters is how the result sounds. You haven't mentioned that and you also haven't said that the system sounds worse in any way so I'm assuming that things sound much the same as they did before. That's a good sign because Audyssey is intended to correct things so the system should sound pretty much the same after your new cabinet instal as before since Audyssey is intended to produce a particular end result. A change in the correction graph means the measurements during setup changed and the correction is going to change because the correction is intended to produce a specific result. 

As for the phase error, forget it. I get one for one of my speakers nearly every time I run Audyssey. I have no idea what causes it but it is frequently reported. It's not a problem.

So, basically provided things are sounding good to you and there's been no major change in the character of the sound you can forget the differences in the correction graph. You changed the speaker position so there was always going to be a change in the correction graph because it's impossible to change the speaker position without changing the speaker's in room response. What counts isn't what the correction graph looks like, what counts is how the result sounds when you're listening to the system and if you're enjoying how it sounds then Audyssey is doing it's job.


----------



## flyinion

Thanks David. Yeah I might not have been clear but the pre_install pic is the graph I was talking about. I don't have REW or anything like that set up. The flatter graph picture is the post cal when it was on the cinder block a foot or so closer the the MLP. I did have it angled as well then too. So I guess it is just the different location and farther back position then. I was just expecting the cabinet to act like when you put a sub in a corner and boost at least the bass frequencies but that doesn't seem to be the case. 

It DOES sound good however so it seems to be a good Cal I was just confused since it didn't act how I expected after putting the speaker in the cabinet. Of course I'm more in that zone of "know enough to be dangerous" when it comes to stuff like audyssey and graphs. Until 3 years ago I had a 2001 era Yamaha and was using a DVE disc and RadioShack meter to set levels lol. Anyway in a couple months I may be upgrading to an SR6013 Marantz which also has a better audyssey version. It will be interesting to see if things change. 





David Aiken said:


> I thought the graphs looked reasonably similar to me. The peaks and dips are pretty much in similar frequency ranges but they're larger in scale in the post install plot and the bandwidth of the corrections is wider, filling the ranges where the previous correction graph showed a flat line. If the location of the centre speaker changed between the 2 measurements, which it did, I'd put the changes in the graph down to the speaker position change. I don't know if there was a change in height but it sounds like there was a change in angle (you didn't mention angling the speaker up when it was on the cinderblock) and it's now further back since it's in the cabinet and its also in an enclosed cavity whereas before it was in front of the cabinet and more in the open. All of those things are going to change the speaker's in-room response to some degree. You also said the pre install graph for the speaker "looked like the "pre_install" picture. Pretty flat with a few spikes" which means that we don't have a pre-instal plot and no way of judging just how much change actually occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> That change in speaker placement is going to result in a change in the speaker's in-room response and that is going to result in a different correction graph. I would not be concerned because the correction graph has changed, especially given the change in speaker positioning. What matters is how the result sounds. You haven't mentioned that and you also haven't said that the system sounds worse in any way so I'm assuming that things sound much the same as they did before. That's a good sign because Audyssey is intended to correct things so the system should sound pretty much the same after your new cabinet instal as before since Audyssey is intended to produce a particular end result. A change in the correction graph means the measurements during setup changed and the correction is going to change because the correction is intended to produce a specific result.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the phase error, forget it. I get one for one of my speakers nearly every time I run Audyssey. I have no idea what causes it but it is frequently reported. It's not a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> So, basically provided things are sounding good to you and there's been no major change in the character of the sound you can forget the differences in the correction graph. You changed the speaker position so there was always going to be a change in the correction graph because it's impossible to change the speaker position without changing the speaker's in room response. What counts isn't what the correction graph looks like, what counts is how the result sounds when you're listening to the system and if you're enjoying how it sounds then Audyssey is doing it's job.







Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## flyinion

Oh looks like I posted the wrong final cal graph from last night. This one is a little lighter corrections.











Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

flyinion said:


> Oh looks like I posted the wrong final cal graph from last night. This one is a little lighter corrections.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk



Hi,

I honestly don't think you can put much faith in those rough graphs. They try to approximate what Audyssey is attempting to correct, but they don't show what Audyssey is actually doing, and I don't think they correlate particularly well to what we hear. If your system still sounds pretty good, then I wouldn't worry about whether the graphs look different now than they did when the CC was on cinder blocks. Different calibrations, where the speakers are in slightly different locations, or where the mic is in slightly different positions, will give you slightly different results--sometimes including crossovers. 

With that said, however, I believe that there may be a couple of things you could try that might improve your sound quality. First, if I were you, I would take the CC out of the cabinet, and put it on top just below the TV. Right now, it's well below ear level, and the cabinet itself is exerting some influences on the upper bass and mid-range frequencies which will be escaping the back of the speaker enclosure. It is logical, in one sense, that putting a speaker inside a cabinet could reinforce bass frequencies a bit, but the reality is that you are usually increasing distortion when you do it. This would be an easy thing for you to test, and the WAF shouldn't be too bad. If your wife hears dialogue in TV shows and movies better, as a result of the move, she may applaud it.

The second thing I would consider is putting something more absorptive than that picture, on the wall behind the couch. I like the picture!  But, the problem is that it's surface is very reflective, and with the couch backed right up against the wall, you are getting a double whammy. First, the CC and the front speakers are reflecting mid and high-frequency sounds off that picture and into your ears. That's distortion. Second, the Audyssey microphone is hearing those higher frequencies even more than you are, and it is trying to over-correct for them. That can also cause distortion.

If you can move your center channel to the surface of the cabinet, under the TV, and extended out over the edge as you have it now, and put something absorbent (acoustic panels can be ordered to look like pictures, or anything you want them to) on the wall behind the sofa, I believe that your overall sound quality will improve. I would expect the difference to be especially noticeable with respect to dialogue clarity. I hope that you don't mind these suggestions. I believe that they will help. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## flyinion

Thanks for the info and suggestions. Sound treatment for sure is on my list including swapping that picture out. As far as putting the CC on top that's an issue. It's 7" tall and there's about 4" from the stand to the bottom of the screen. I have thought about wall mounting but I need a mount with a telescoping arm that can safely hold a 90lb plasma 25-28" out in space 24/7 to do it. 

However I'm hoping to upgrade it to a 4k OLED in the next 6 -8 months and would feel much better about mounting that. At that point yeah the CC could come out. I should clarify I did not put the CC in the stand hoping to boost anything. I just meant that I knew in advance it was likely to happen, I couldn't do anything about it, and audyssey wasn't responding to it the way I was expecting. 

I'm definitely learning a lot lol. At least now I have a proper mic stand and can be reasonably sure that I'm getting an accurate cal for my setup. I do wonder if the stand can introduce anything though? 




mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I honestly don't think you can put much faith in those rough graphs. They try to approximate what Audyssey is attempting to correct, but they don't show what Audyssey is actually doing, and I don't think they correlate particularly well to what we hear. If your system still sounds pretty good, then I wouldn't worry about whether the graphs look different now than they did when the CC was on cinder blocks. Different calibrations, where the speakers are in slightly different locations, or where the mic is in slightly different positions, will give you slightly different results--sometimes including crossovers.
> 
> With that said, however, I believe that there may be a couple of things you could try that might improve your sound quality. First, if I were you, I would take the CC out of the cabinet, and put it on top just below the TV. Right now, it's well below ear level, and the cabinet itself is exerting some influences on the upper bass and mid-range frequencies which will be escaping the back of the speaker enclosure. It is logical, in one sense, that putting a speaker inside a cabinet could reinforce bass frequencies a bit, but the reality is that you are usually increasing distortion when you do it. This would be an easy thing for you to test, and the WAF shouldn't be too bad. If your wife hears dialogue in TV shows and movies better, as a result of the move, she may applaud it.
> 
> The second thing I would consider is putting something more absorptive than that picture, on the wall behind the couch. I like the picture!  But, the problem is that it's surface is very reflective, and with the couch backed right up against the wall, you are getting a double whammy. First, the CC and the front speakers are reflecting mid and high-frequency sounds off that picture and into your ears. That's distortion. Second, the Audyssey microphone is hearing those higher frequencies even more than you are, and it is trying to over-correct for them. That can also cause distortion.
> 
> If you can move your center channel to the surface of the cabinet, under the TV, and extended out over the edge as you have it now, and put something absorbent (acoustic panels can be ordered to look like pictures, or anything you want them to) on the wall behind the sofa, I believe that your overall sound quality will improve. I would expect the difference to be especially noticeable with respect to dialogue clarity. I hope that you don't mind these suggestions. I believe that they will help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike







Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## k140db

mogorf said:


> Hi Kevin,
> 
> 
> Here's another thing you can try: blow some compressed air into the headphone socket on the front panel!! Or you may just try to plug in-and-out the h/p jack several times. Report back please.


Will give you an update tomorrow.


----------



## Paopawdecarabao

Hello, I have a question about my subwoofer trim when I had audysey XT32 calibrated it. Both my subwoofer trim is -12db.

Did I make something wrong? Or do I lower my gain volume more and rerun audyssey? When I had it calibrated, it was like fluctuating to between 75.5db to 76.5db.


I'm close to MLP probably 8-9ft away. My subs are two Monolith 12"


----------



## flyinion

Paopawdecarabao said:


> Hello, I have a question about my subwoofer trim when I had audysey XT32 calibrated it. Both my subwoofer trim is -12db.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I make something wrong? Or do I lower my gain volume more and rerun audyssey? When I had it calibrated, it was like fluctuating to between 75.5db to 76.5db.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm close to MLP probably 8-9ft away. My subs are two Monolith 12"




I'd lower your gain and run it again you might have run into the bottom end of how much trim can be applied and they might still be too loud because of that. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Paopawdecarabao said:


> Hello, I have a question about my subwoofer trim when I had audysey XT32 calibrated it. Both my subwoofer trim is -12db.
> 
> Did I make something wrong? Or do I lower my gain volume more and rerun audyssey? When I had it calibrated, it was like fluctuating to between 75.5db to 76.5db.
> 
> I'm close to MLP probably 8-9ft away. My subs are two Monolith 12"


 Hi,

You didn't do anything wrong, and odds are that your subs are actually pretty close to the -12 number which constitutes the minimum trim level. But, in an abundance of caution, I would decrease the gain just slightly (even one click may be enough) and rerun Audyssey. If you want to, you can calibrate after the first three mic positions, and that will let you check where your trim levels are. Once they are showing -11.5 or a little higher, you are good to go, and you can rerun XT-32 for all 8 mic positions. 

The good news is that you are clearly going to have plenty of headroom to add as much subwoofer boost post-calibration as you may wish. As you correctly assumed, the close proximity of your subwoofers to your listening position probably is helping your subwoofers to produce ample SPL at a relatively low gain level. 

From what you said in your post, you already know this. But, for the benefit of anyone reading along, Audyssey is trying to make your subwoofers play the same 75db as the other channels. But, during the calibration process, subwoofer gain and AVR trim are inversely proportional. A higher gain level = a lower trim level, and vice-versa. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Paopawdecarabao

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You didn't do anything wrong, and odds are that your subs are actually pretty close to the -12 number which constitutes the minimum trim level. But, in an abundance of caution, I would decrease the gain just slightly (even one click may be enough) and rerun Audyssey. If you want to, you can calibrate after the first three mic positions, and that will let you check where your trim levels are. Once they are showing -11.5 or a little higher, you are good to go, and you can rerun XT-32 for all 8 mic positions.
> 
> The good news is that you are clearly going to have plenty of headroom to add as much subwoofer boost post-calibration as you may wish. As you correctly assumed, the close proximity of your subwoofers to your listening position probably is helping your subwoofers to produce ample SPL at a relatively low gain level.
> 
> From what you said in your post, you already know this. But, for the benefit of anyone reading along, Audyssey is trying to make your subwoofers play the same 75db as the other channels. But, during the calibration process, subwoofer gain and AVR trim are inversely proportional. A higher gain level = a lower trim level, and vice-versa.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you! Would I damage my sub as I increase my Sub trim to -10db for both and the volume gain to 1'oclock position? How do I consider it "Hot" when people say they run their sub hot.


----------



## mthomas47

Paopawdecarabao said:


> Thank you! Would I damage my sub as I increase my Sub trim to -10db for both and the volume gain to 1'oclock position? How do I consider it "Hot" when people say they run their sub hot.



You are very welcome! Those Monolith subwoofers are pretty damage-proof from what I understand. At some point, they will just stop playing any louder. But, as long as you keep the trim levels well into negative numbers (say about -5 or lower), increasing the gain to 1:00 or 2:00, or even higher, should be perfectly fine. That will help to prevent clipping, and will insure that the subwoofers can achieve max volume levels.

As for what constitutes running our subwoofers "hot", the sky is the limit. There are some people who add a couple of decibels to their subwoofers, post-calibration, and think of that as hot. And, there are other people who add 15db or more, so that their subwoofers are playing Reference levels when their master volumes are at -15. Adding bass to your sound is a lot like seasoning your food--just season to taste, depending on the listening material, or on your particular mood. Some like it hot; others not so much. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Paopawdecarabao

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Those Monolith subwoofers are pretty damage-proof from what I understand. At some point, they will just stop playing any louder. But, as long as you keep the trim levels well into negative numbers (say about -5 or lower), increasing the gain to 1:00 or 2:00, or even higher, should be perfectly fine. That will help to prevent clipping, and will insure that the subwoofers can achieve max volume levels.
> 
> As for what constitutes running our subwoofers "hot", the sky is the limit. There are some people who add a couple of decibels to their subwoofers, post-calibration, and think of that as hot. And, there are other people who add 15db or more, so that their subwoofers are playing Reference levels when their master volumes are at -15. Adding bass to your sound is a lot like seasoning your food--just season to taste, depending on the listening material, or on your particular mood. Some like it hot; others not so much.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


After post calibration, how will I know or do if I want to have my sub 3db or 6db hot?


----------



## Candid

Paopawdecarabao said:


> After post calibration, how will I know or do if I want to have my sub 3db or 6db hot?



He told you already.



*Adding bass to your sound is a lot like seasoning your food--just season to taste, depending on the listening material, or on your particular mood. Some like it hot; others not so much. *


----------



## flyinion

So I just did one more cal run last night after using a level to verify my ear level height. I definitely need to swap that painting for some treatments. At 37" mic height I got the out of phase warning for the right height effects and the center got set to a ridiculous 100Hz crossover. Dropping it just one inch which also splits the difference between myself and my wife fixed the phase issue and the crossover came out at 60 (ports plugged). I will say the sound is noticeably better and clearer dialogue than my previous attempts without a real mic stand just the paper stand or that and a mini tripod on throw pillows for the couch positions. 




mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I honestly don't think you can put much faith in those rough graphs. They try to approximate what Audyssey is attempting to correct, but they don't show what Audyssey is actually doing, and I don't think they correlate particularly well to what we hear. If your system still sounds pretty good, then I wouldn't worry about whether the graphs look different now than they did when the CC was on cinder blocks. Different calibrations, where the speakers are in slightly different locations, or where the mic is in slightly different positions, will give you slightly different results--sometimes including crossovers.
> 
> With that said, however, I believe that there may be a couple of things you could try that might improve your sound quality. First, if I were you, I would take the CC out of the cabinet, and put it on top just below the TV. Right now, it's well below ear level, and the cabinet itself is exerting some influences on the upper bass and mid-range frequencies which will be escaping the back of the speaker enclosure. It is logical, in one sense, that putting a speaker inside a cabinet could reinforce bass frequencies a bit, but the reality is that you are usually increasing distortion when you do it. This would be an easy thing for you to test, and the WAF shouldn't be too bad. If your wife hears dialogue in TV shows and movies better, as a result of the move, she may applaud it.
> 
> The second thing I would consider is putting something more absorptive than that picture, on the wall behind the couch. I like the picture!  But, the problem is that it's surface is very reflective, and with the couch backed right up against the wall, you are getting a double whammy. First, the CC and the front speakers are reflecting mid and high-frequency sounds off that picture and into your ears. That's distortion. Second, the Audyssey microphone is hearing those higher frequencies even more than you are, and it is trying to over-correct for them. That can also cause distortion.
> 
> If you can move your center channel to the surface of the cabinet, under the TV, and extended out over the edge as you have it now, and put something absorbent (acoustic panels can be ordered to look like pictures, or anything you want them to) on the wall behind the sofa, I believe that your overall sound quality will improve. I would expect the difference to be especially noticeable with respect to dialogue clarity. I hope that you don't mind these suggestions. I believe that they will help.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## vicdvp

flyinion said:


> So I just did one more cal run last night after using a level to verify my ear level height. I definitely need to swap that painting for some treatments. At 37" mic height I got the out of phase warning for the right height effects and the center got set to a ridiculous 100Hz crossover. Dropping it just one inch which also splits the difference between myself and my wife fixed the phase issue and the crossover came out at 60 (ports plugged). I will say the sound is noticeably better and clearer dialogue than my previous attempts without a real mic stand just the paper stand or that and a mini tripod on throw pillows for the couch positions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk




So use a mic stand or don’t use one and instead use the paper/cardboard setup that came with me Denon? Just curious as I’m about to run it mine this week


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, i have a center high, a Kef T101 behinde the screen that bounces the center channel from the wall/ceiling to the MLP, this sounds great in combination with the center.
The center is a Magnat Quantum 1000.
The T101 gets the center signal from the center pre-out and is powered by a Denon 520 amp so i can set the volume the way i like for the CH.

Must i do a Audyssey run with both speakers running, or a run with just the Magnat and then after the run mix the T101 in ?


----------



## mthomas47

vicdvp said:


> So use a mic stand or don’t use one and instead use the paper/cardboard setup that came with me Denon? Just curious as I’m about to run it mine this week
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





CBdicX said:


> Hi, i have a center high, a Kef T101 behinde the screen that bounces the center channel from the wall/ceiling to the MLP, this sounds great in combination with the center.
> The center is a Magnat Quantum 1000.
> The T101 gets the center signal from the center pre-out and is powered by a Denon 520 amp so i can set the volume the way i like for the CH.
> 
> Must i do a Audyssey run with both speakers running, or a run with just the Magnat and then after the run mix the T101 in ?



Hi,

You would definitely be better off using a mic stand to prevent vibrations from the cardboard tripod from interfering with your calibration. You will get much more accurate and repeatable results with a mic stand.



I think that you should perform your Audyssey calibration with both center channels running. Introducing the T101, post-Audyssey, will change the sound you hear. And, in my opinion, Audyssey should have an opportunity to EQ that sound. You can try it both ways, if you would like to, and draw your own conclusions as to which sounds better. But, I think that the default recommendation should be to EQ the combined sound. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... I think that you should perform your Audyssey calibration with both center channels running. Introducing the T101, post-Audyssey, will change the sound you hear. And, in my opinion, Audyssey should have an opportunity to EQ that sound. You can try it both ways, if you would like to, and draw your own conclusions as to which sounds better. But, I think that the default recommendation should be to EQ the combined sound.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



I agree with Mike. In addition, I would use a high crossover for your center, to keep deep bass away from the 4.5 " driver in the K101, e.g., I'd set my AVR or AVP to SMALL and, maybe a 120 Hz crossover. Even though KEF claims response down to 80 Hz within +/- 3 dB, I have a hard time imagining that a 4.5" driver could do that (within +/- 3 dB), unless 80 Hz arrives with a great deal of modulation distortion. Perhaps tellingly, KEF mentions only two drivers, and describes the larger one as MF (mid frequency), rather than LF (low frequency)*:*


115mm (4.5in.) dual layer *MF*

25mm (1in.) aluminium *HF*​


----------



## CBdicX

garygarrison said:


> I agree with Mike. In addition, I would use a high crossover for your center, to keep deep bass away from the 4.5 " driver in the K101, e.g., I'd set my AVR or AVP to SMALL and, maybe a 120 Hz crossover. Even though KEF claims response down to 80 Hz within +/- 3 dB, I have a hard time imagining that a 4.5" driver could do that (within +/- 3 dB), unless 80 Hz arrives with a great deal of modulation distortion. Perhaps tellingly, KEF mentions only two drivers, and describes the larger one as MF (mid frequency), rather than LF (low frequency)*:*
> 
> 
> 115mm (4.5in.) dual layer *MF*​
> 
> 25mm (1in.) aluminium *HF*​


 
Hi, thanks for the advice 
Will making the x-over to a higher number, the big Magnat Center a bit useless ?
The Magnat is set by Audyssey at 40 Hz !
I did move up a bit, to 80 Hz, but as the Center is one of the most important HT speakers think trying to choke it seems to me a bad choice for this (expensive) nice center.


Think its better to wait for IMAX DTS with its Center Heigh option, and use this instade.
For now i will disconect the T101 and run with the Magnat alone, *or am i wrong thinking i will choke the center this way ?*


----------



## Bytehoven

vicdvp said:


> So use a mic stand or don’t use one and instead use the paper/cardboard setup that came with me Denon? Just curious as I’m about to run it mine this week
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I use a mic stand, one with a swing out arm. Works great and seems easier get all 8 test locations.


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,


 
Hi Mike,

i have a second subwoofer, now 2x Magnat Ultra Cinema Sub300.
(in a not to big room  )

As Audyssey sets some speakers with a 150 Hz x-over, think i must set the sub x-over at 150 Hz (the highest possible) and LPF of LFE also at 150 Hz, correct ?

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> i have a second subwoofer, now 2x Magnat Ultra Cinema Sub300.
> (in a not to big room  )
> 
> As Audyssey sets some speakers with a 150 Hz x-over, think i must set the sub x-over at 150 Hz (the highest possible) and LPF of LFE also at 150 Hz, correct ?
> 
> Thanks



Hi,

That's excellent news about the second subwoofer! The more the merrier.  As a general rule, you do want the low-pass filter (often labeled "crossover") on your subwoofers at the highest setting. So, I would set that at 150Hz if I were you. But, that's because the content in the regular channels goes up into the >10KHz range, so you will want your subwoofers to provide support for any bass frequencies not played by your speakers.

The LFE channel is different. The content in that low-frequency effects channel is deliberately limited to 120Hz. Anything above that frequency is likely to be random noise, rather than meaningful content. So, the highest setting you would want for the LPF of LFE in your AVR is 120Hz. 

You are very welcome! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> That's excellent news about the second subwoofer! The more the merrier.  As a general rule, you do want the low-pass filter (often labeled "crossover") on your subwoofers at the highest setting. So, I would set that at 150Hz if I were you. But, that's because the content in the regular channels goes up into the >10KHz range, so you will want your subwoofers to provide support for any bass frequencies not played by your speakers.
> 
> The LFE channel is different. The content in that low-frequency effects channel is deliberately limited to 120Hz. Anything above that frequency is likely to be random noise, rather than meaningful content. So, the highest setting you would want for the LPF of LFE in your AVR is 120Hz.
> 
> You are very welcome!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike,


i have now the next setup running with Audyssey x-over setting:


Font: Kef T301 (120 Hz)
Center: Magnat Quantum 1000S (40 Hz)
Surround/SB: Kef T101 (150 Hz)
FW: Kef T101 (150 Hz)
Front Height: Kef T101 (120 Hz)


Subwoofers: 2x Magnat Ultra Cinema Sub 300


T301 = 150 watt
T101 = 100 watt


The T serie is designed by Kef as a Home Theater set with a far less powerfull subwoofer.
Can this set, the way i have it, still be used at reference level, or must this be with "Big" floor standing speakers and bigger bookshelve speakers ?


Thanks, 
Dick


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> i have now the next setup running with Audyssey x-over setting:
> 
> 
> Font: Kef T301 (120 Hz)
> Center: Magnat Quantum 1000S (40 Hz)
> Surround/SB: Kef T101 (150 Hz)
> FW: Kef T101 (150 Hz)
> Front Height: Kef T101 (120 Hz)
> 
> 
> Subwoofers: 2x Magnat Ultra Cinema Sub 300
> 
> 
> T301 = 150 watt
> T101 = 100 watt
> 
> 
> The T serie is designed by Kef as a Home Theater set with a far less powerfull subwoofer.
> Can this set, the way i have it, still be used at reference level, or must this be with "Big" floor standing speakers and bigger bookshelve speakers ?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Dick



Hi Dick,

I don't know what your room size is, or your listening distance from your front speakers. But, even if you are sitting very close to your speakers, I don't think that they will sound very good if they try to play Reference levels. Looking at their specs, I would say that they simply weren't designed to play that loudly, and the crossovers that your AVR set for them probably bears that out.

Whenever we try to play speakers louder than they were really designed to be played, we end up listening to some distortion. How much distortion they produce, and how much of it we hear, is probably going to vary depending on the content and on the individual. But, it's sort of counterproductive to create distortion, from the speakers, after using Audyssey to try to remove it from the room/speaker interaction.

If I were you, I would try listening at a moderate volume to start with, and then go up gradually, listening for harshness. Harshness is probably about as good a sign of higher frequency distortion as I can think of. Boominess might be a good description of low-frequency distortion. Another thing to watch out for is listening fatigue. Audio that is distorted may not be immediately noticeable as such, but listening fatigue would be another indication.

Try to find a listening level that gives you some of the excitement you may be looking for, but which is short of any indications of distortion. Something like -10 MV might be a pretty safe listening level for those speakers. 

Something else that I started to comment on the other day is your 40Hz crossover on your Magnat Quantum. That is a bass reflex speaker with a pair of 6.7" mid/bass drivers and a 3000Hz crossover. I would set my crossover for that speaker at 80Hz. Your subwoofers are infinitely more powerful than the 6.7" drivers in that speaker, and your subs don't have to play, with clarity, all the way up to 3000Hz the way your CC does. The closer you get to the port tune on that speaker, the more audible distortion it may produce. Since you have good dual subwoofers, allow them to do all of the heavy lifting. 

It can take some time to be able to distinguish between real audio clarity and somewhat distorted sound. But, once you start to make that distinction, I don't think you are likely to want to go back to hearing anything but clear audio. At least not for your own entertainment purposes, anyway. We probably hear enough distorted sound from music played in other automobiles driving by, and in stores or gyms. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dick,
> 
> I don't know what your room size is, or your listening distance from your front speakers. But, even if you are sitting very close to your speakers, I don't think that they will sound very good if they try to play Reference levels. Looking at their specs, I would say that they simply weren't designed to play that loudly, and the crossovers that your AVR set for them probably bears that out.
> 
> Whenever we try to play speakers louder than they were really designed to be played, we end up listening to some distortion. How much distortion they produce, and how much of it we hear, is probably going to vary depending on the content and on the individual. But, it's sort of counterproductive to create distortion, from the speakers, after using Audyssey to try to remove it from the room/speaker interaction.
> 
> If I were you, I would try listening at a moderate volume to start with, and then go up gradually, listening for harshness. Harshness is probably about as good a sign of higher frequency distortion as I can think of. Boominess might be a good description of low-frequency distortion. Another thing to watch out for is listening fatigue. Audio that is distorted may not be immediately noticeable as such, but listening fatigue would be another indication.
> 
> Try to find a listening level that gives you some of the excitement you may be looking for, but which is short of any indications of distortion. Something like -10 MV might be a pretty safe listening level for those speakers.
> 
> Something else that I started to comment on the other day is your 40Hz crossover on your Magnat Quantum. That is a bass reflex speaker with a pair of 6.7" mid/bass drivers and a 3000Hz crossover. I would set my crossover for that speaker at 80Hz. Your subwoofers are infinitely more powerful than the 6.7" drivers in that speaker, and your subs don't have to play, with clarity, all the way up to 3000Hz the way your CC does. The closer you get to the port tune on that speaker, the more audible distortion it may produce. Since you have good dual subwoofers, allow them to do all of the heavy lifting.
> 
> It can take some time to be able to distinguish between real audio clarity and somewhat distorted sound. But, once you start to make that distinction, I don't think you are likely to want to go back to hearing anything but clear audio. At least not for your own entertainment purposes, anyway. We probably hear enough distorted sound from music played in other automobiles driving by, and in stores or gyms.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

i have a small room, 6 x 4 meter and sit at 3 meter from the front speakers.
*I never go above the 50 setting* on the 8500 for movie use, so think its half volume.
Even with music or TV its between 20 and 40, never higher.......
So i do not come near reference level, but i was wondering as Kef sells this as a HT set, will this be good enough.

I must say, just listening i can not tell the differents between this Kef setup now and my previous Magnat Cinema Ultra that have near the same specs, but can take far more Watts then the T serie.
(maybe with an A/B compare it would be more clear)
I had the LCR 100 Left Right and Center, and the RD 200 as surround, but my wife hated them, the T serie she likes......

But even they are near the same "on paper" think the Magnats are for big and very big rooms, and can take a lot of abuse.
I had one T301 on the left and the LCR100 on the right, could not tell the differents.

But its also the mind that needs to be in the right setting, i do think i could be missing out on "sound" with the T serie (as this is a 75% movie use set), or am i wrong for my small room ?

Thanks for your great advice and info !!


----------



## ScottieBoysName

So, I just ran Audyssey for the first time. This was done off of the AVR, NOT the app. I'll try out the app next. 

My system consists of:

Marantz 7704
D-Sonic M3a 2800
L/R - JTR 212RTs
C - JTR 212HTR
LS/RS/LRS/RRS - JTR Slant 8LPs

Using REW WITHOUT Audyssey, I got the following distances using the Impulse graphs in REW. I set these up manually:

Front Small
Center Small
Surrounds Small

Front L - 10.9
Front R - 12.5
Center - 11.8
Subwoofer 1 - 7.8
Subwoofer 2 - 5.0
Surround L - 6.5
Surround R - 9.3
Surr. Back L - 6.9
Surr. Back R - 8.6

I left all the speaker levels at their stock settings, which I can't remember what those were now...anyone know?


So, running Audyssey for the first time gave me:

Front L - 10.8
Front R - 12.7
Center - 11.8
Subwoofer 1 - 14.9
Subwoofer 2 - 12.6
Surround L - 6.1
Surround R - 9.3
Surr. Back L - 6.8
Surr. Back R - 8.8


Sooo, I didn't do so bad on my manual try with REW!  Why'd it set the subs so far away though?

What's different is Audyssey also set these:

Front L - -12.0dB
Front R - -12.0dB
Center - -12.0dB
Subwoofer 1 - -12.0dB
Subwoofer 2 - -12.0dB
Surround L - -12.0dB
Surround R - -12.0dB
Surr. Back L - -12.0dB
Surr. Back R - -11.5dB

and then it set:

Front - Full Band
Center 40hz
Surround 110hz
Surr. Back 90hz


....all that seems pretty opposite of what I've read here. So...where to go from here? The dialogue certainly sounds clearer, but there is ZERO bass or impact, or low end AT ALL. I might as well have turned the subs off. So...now what?


----------



## cfraser

As far as levels: either your speakers are extremely sensitive, or your amplifier inputs are very sensitive. IOW the 7704 output levels are "too high" (for you). You somehow need to effectively reduce the output levels of the 7704, either by using inline attenuators on the 7704 outputs (a nuisance but work fine, lots of people use them), or by decreasing the input sensitivity of your amps using their own controls (if you can).

Re the sub distances: this is normal. Audyssey sub distances should always be somewhat longer than the actual/physical distances, usually several feet longer. Audyssey measures the "audio distance" based on delay, and this counts any internal electronic delay caused by the subs' circuitry too. You should also reduce the input sensitivity of your subs.


----------



## chucky7

ScottieBoysName said:


> Sooo, I didn't do so bad on my manual try with REW!  Why'd it set the subs so far away though?
> 
> What's different is Audyssey also set these:
> 
> Front L - -12.0dB
> Front R - -12.0dB
> Center - -12.0dB
> Subwoofer 1 - -12.0dB
> Subwoofer 2 - -12.0dB
> Surround L - -12.0dB
> Surround R - -12.0dB
> Surr. Back L - -12.0dB
> Surr. Back R - -11.5dB
> 
> and then it set:
> 
> Front - Full Band
> Center 40hz
> Surround 110hz
> Surr. Back 90hz
> 
> 
> ....all that seems pretty opposite of what I've read here. So...where to go from here? The dialogue certainly sounds clearer, but there is ZERO bass or impact, or low end AT ALL. I might as well have turned the subs off. So...now what?


This means you have your power amp volume and the sub gains to high. Turn them down! For sub, aim for -8 to -10.

The speaker configuration is normal. The Audyssey also set my fronts similarly. Just change the fronts to small, crossover for fronts and Center to 80Hz. Leave the Surround and Surround Back as is.

The Audyssey's sub distance is not the actual distance, so it is fine.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

cfraser said:


> As far as levels: either your speakers are extremely sensitive, or your amplifier inputs are very sensitive. IOW the 7704 output levels are "too high" (for you). You somehow need to effectively reduce the output levels of the 7704, either by using inline attenuators on the 7704 outputs (a nuisance but work fine, lots of people use them), or by decreasing the input sensitivity of your amps using their own controls (if you can).
> 
> Re the sub distances: this is normal. Audyssey sub distances should always be somewhat longer than the actual/physical distances, usually several feet longer. Audyssey measures the "audio distance" based on delay, and this counts any internal electronic delay caused by the subs' circuitry too. You should also reduce the input sensitivity of your subs.



So, I have a D-Sonic amp, that has no user controls for adjustment. Does that mean I need to use attenuators? Honestly...that seems strange to me as I know plenty of folks that use Maranz AVRs/Dsonic amps and don't have these problems. But...is it even really a problem? The speakers are EXTREMELY sensitive. My mains measure 101dB, and surrounds measure 95dB.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

chucky7 said:


> This means you have your power amp volume and the sub gains to high. Turn them down! For sub, aim for -8 to -10.
> 
> The speaker configuration is normal. The Audyssey also set my fronts similarly. Just change the fronts to small, crossover for fronts and Center
> 
> to 80Hz. Leave the Surround and Surround Back as is.
> 
> The Audyssey's sub distance is not the actual distance, so it is fine.


Same question. I'm not sure how far you want me to turn down the gain on the JTRs, that calibration I just ran was 4 clicks out of 20!! If I turn them down any lower, they'll be off!


----------



## cfraser

ScottieBoysName said:


> The speakers are EXTREMELY sensitive. My mains measure 101dB, and surrounds measure 95dB.


This is a _common _issue with very sensitive speakers and these pre-pros. Check the 7702/7703/7704 threads. Kal mentioned some decent attenuators in this thread fairly recently. Lots of people can help you!


----------



## ScottieBoysName

cfraser said:


> This is a _common _issue with very sensitive speakers and these pre-pros. Check the 7702/7703/7704 threads. Kal mentioned some decent attenuators in this thread fairly recently. Lots of people can help you!


Well alrighty, I had no clue at all. Honestly what's probably not helping is the speakers are 4ohm as well, so they're getting a TON of power tossed at them.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

cfraser said:


> This is a _common _issue with very sensitive speakers and these pre-pros. Check the 7702/7703/7704 threads. Kal mentioned some decent attenuators in this thread fairly recently. Lots of people can help you!


Well, I'm searching but drawing a blank here. Any help directing me to some? I'll keep looking.


----------



## chucky7

ScottieBoysName said:


> Same question. I'm not sure how far you want me to turn down the gain on the JTRs, that calibration I just ran was 4 clicks out of 20!! If I turn them down any lower, they'll be off!


I would try with sub gain at 2 clicks, and the power amp at 1/3 of where you had it at.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

chucky7 said:


> I would try with sub gain at 2 clicks, and the power amp at 1/3 of where you had it at.




I can’t adjust the power amp. I’ll drop the sub down and see what happens. 

So...quick question here. 

What’s to stop me from running Audyssey just to smooth my speakers FR, and I go back and manually check the delays using REW, adjust where needed. Then since Audyssey can’t help me on the levels without attenuators right now, I run REW with SPL/tone and make adjustments as needed. 

Doesn’t that kinda accomplish the same thing now? I was pretty dang close to Audysseys delays with my manual impulse work in REW.


----------



## mthomas47

ScottieBoysName said:


> I can’t adjust the power amp. I’ll drop the sub down and see what happens.
> 
> So...quick question here.
> 
> What’s to stop me from running Audyssey just to smooth my speakers FR, and I go back and manually check the delays using REW, adjust where needed. Then since Audyssey can’t help me on the levels without attenuators right now, I run REW with SPL/tone and make adjustments as needed.
> 
> Doesn’t that kinda accomplish the same thing now? I was pretty dang close to Audysseys delays with my manual impulse work in REW.



Hi,

Since you have REW, I think that would be fine. All you really need to do, though, is to make sure that all of the speakers are playing at the same volume level. As long as they are correct with respect to each other, exactitude of SPL isn't really necessary. The main thing you want to determine, when all of your channels are maxed-out in trim level, is that some of them aren't playing several decibels louder than others. As long as the volume levels of the various channels match each other, you are good to go. The distances should be correct from the Audyssey calibration.

I can't remember whether you have read the Guide before or not, but Audyssey is doing exactly what it should be doing when it sets the volume of the subwoofers to the same level as the other channels. After running Audyssey, you can add as much bass as you want, exactly as if you were seasoning food to your taste. Some people make very modest adjustments to their subs. Others may add 15db or more. So many factors go into determining how much of a house curve people like, that it is hard to generalize. But, I would say that with DEQ engaged, most people probably add between about 3 and 6db of boost to their subs. Without DEQ, I believe that the average boost would be much higher. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ScottieBoysName

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Since you have REW, I think that would be fine. All you really need to do, though, is to make sure that all of the speakers are playing at the same volume level. As long as they are correct with respect to each other, exactitude of SPL isn't really necessary. The main thing you want to determine, when all of your channels are maxed-out in trim level, is that some of them aren't playing several decibels louder than others. As long as the volume levels of the various channels match each other, you are good to go. The distances should be correct from the Audyssey calibration.
> 
> I can't remember whether you have read the Guide before or not, but Audyssey is doing exactly what it should be doing when it sets the volume of the subwoofers to the same level as the other channels. After running Audyssey, you can add as much bass as you want, exactly as if you were seasoning food to your taste. Some people make very modest adjustments to their subs. Others may add 15db or more. So many factors go into determining how much of a house curve people like, that it is hard to generalize. But, I would say that with DEQ engaged, most people probably add between about 3 and 6db of boost to their subs. Without DEQ, I believe that the average boost would be much higher.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thanks Mike! I’ll drop the sub gain further, and then run the calibration again. 

I left Dynamic EQ off, along with Dynamic Volume. Should I have left them on? 

Why or why not? I need to go read the guide. 

Mainly if I don’t get the attenuators, I’ll be using Audyssey to smooth my FR, along with setting distances. I can then set trim levels using REW? This is acceptable?

Quick REW question while you’re here. 

When checking impulse levels, I’m using an acoustic timing reference. An ATR. I usually set that as one of the rear surrounds. I’ve done it two ways. 

1) I’ll use the rear surround as an ATR, and set L/R/C using that. 

Then I’ll using L as the ATR for all the surrounds. 

I think doing this is wrong. As it will make all the mains match, and all the surrounds match, but they won’t match each other. 

2) I’ll use the rear surround as the ATR for all the mains and surrounds, together. Then, since I can’t use that rear surround as an ATR for itself, I’ll choose another speaker. This gets me close, right? I think this is better than option one.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

Ran Audyssey in the app. 

What’s this dip I keep seeing? It’s there on EVERY speaker. Not just the ones pictured. 

I haven’t checked REW for it. 

I should probably verify it that way. 

Also...these aren’t ACTUAL measurements of Audyssey to produce these corrected charts, right? These are estimated or anticipated FRs based on its corrections?


----------



## mthomas47

ScottieBoysName said:


> Thanks Mike! I’ll drop the sub gain further, and then run the calibration again.
> 
> I left Dynamic EQ off, along with Dynamic Volume. Should I have left them on?
> 
> Why or why not? I need to go read the guide.
> 
> Mainly if I don’t get the attenuators, I’ll be using Audyssey to smooth my FR, along with setting distances. I can then set trim levels using REW? This is acceptable?
> 
> Quick REW question while you’re here.
> 
> When checking impulse levels, I’m using an acoustic timing reference. An ATR. I usually set that as one of the rear surrounds. I’ve done it two ways.
> 
> 1) I’ll use the rear surround as an ATR, and set L/R/C using that.
> 
> Then I’ll using L as the ATR for all the surrounds.
> 
> I think doing this is wrong. As it will make all the mains match, and all the surrounds match, but they won’t match each other.
> 
> 2) I’ll use the rear surround as the ATR for all the mains and surrounds, together. Then, since I can’t use that rear surround as an ATR for itself, I’ll choose another speaker. This gets me close, right? I think this is better than option one.





ScottieBoysName said:


> Ran Audyssey in the app.
> 
> What’s this dip I keep seeing? It’s there on EVERY speaker. Not just the ones pictured.
> 
> I haven’t checked REW for it.
> 
> I should probably verify it that way.
> 
> Also...these aren’t ACTUAL measurements of Audyssey to produce these corrected charts, right? These are estimated or anticipated FRs based on its corrections?



I can't help you with the use of the ATR. As you suggested, the Guide explains the use of DEQ and Dynamic Volume in detail. But, whether or not you like what they do or not is an entirely personal decision. I don't like to use either of them. Others prefer using one or both.

Yes, what you are seeing in those graphs are projections of the corrections that Audyssey is attempting to make. I believe that what you are seeing in each of those graphs is the MRC (mid-range compensation). Audyssey implements a dip between 2000 and 3000Hz, also called a BBC dip, in the Audyssey curve. That dip is not present with Audyssey Flat, and it can be removed with the APP, in any case.

Some people get good results using the App, and sometimes those results are virtually identical to the results that they get by using the on-board version of Audyssey in their AVR's. Where the App and the AVR Audyssey differ, most people seem to prefer the AVR version.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

mthomas47 said:


> I can't help you with the use of the ATR. As you suggested, the Guide explains the use of DEQ and Dynamic Volume in detail. But, whether or not you like what they do or not is an entirely personal decision. I don't like to use either of them. Others prefer using one or both.
> 
> Yes, what you are seeing in those graphs are projections of the corrections that Audyssey is attempting to make. I believe that what you are seeing in each of those graphs is the MRC (mid-range compensation). Audyssey implements a dip between 2000 and 3000Hz, also called a BBC dip, in the Audyssey curve. That dip is not present with Audyssey Flat, and it can be removed with the APP, in any case.
> 
> Some people get good results using the App, and sometimes those results are virtually identical to the results that they get by using the on-board version of Audyssey in their AVR's. Where the App and the AVR Audyssey differ, most people seem to prefer the AVR version.




Gotcha. Ok...so that dip - what is it there for? What’s the technical reason Audyssey does that? I can remove it in the app?


----------



## jabe00

Hello all,

Hope someone can explain what's happening.

I ran Audyssey around 15 times, but never i was able to finish the 8 positions, every time I ran at #4 or #5 position I got this message telling me that the ambient noise is to high or level is too low all the time around those positions.

Today I ran again after completed the insulating installation over the floor in this area, as I was thinking that maybe was part of the problem for the noise but I got the same message.

I got a Digital Sound Level to see how high is my noise level, I put close to the Audyssey Mic and the noise level there is around 41/42 db what I think is not bad, then when Audyssey is doing the measuring went up to 86db.

Attached is the last result I got from Audyssey last time I ran with only 3 positions and also the noise level and the level when Audyssey wss sending the signal. 

I really want to complete all the positions as its suppose to be, but that is making impossible.

Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate.
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## drh3b

ScottieBoysName said:


> Gotcha. Ok...so that dip - what is it there for? What’s the technical reason Audyssey does that? I can remove it in the app?


https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation

You can disable it in the app.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

drh3b said:


> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation
> 
> 
> 
> You can disable it in the app.`




Thank you. Will do!


----------



## pbz06

I have an SR7011 and a question regarding the way Audyssey XT32 and SubEQ HT works with 2 subwoofers. I've read through the FAQ and I understand that it takes 2 measurements initially (1 for each sub) to adjust timing/delays etc. but afterwards it sends the same signal to both pre-outs and treats and EQs it as one sub.

(1) If one of my subs is 10" and only goes to 30hz (-3dB) and the other sub goes easily to 18hz (15" HSU VTF15-MK2), does sub EQ still picks up and applies filters down to the big sub since it doesn't differentiate between the 2? 

(2) Due to my bass knob needing to be too low for level matching, I need an in line attenuation otherwise I hit the max -12dB trim. Does that impact the auto calibration? What about sound quality?


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> I have an SR7011 and a question regarding the way Audyssey XT32 and SubEQ HT works with 2 subwoofers. I've read through the FAQ and I understand that it takes 2 measurements initially (1 for each sub) to adjust timing/delays etc. but afterwards it sends the same signal to both pre-outs and treats and EQs it as one sub.
> 
> (1) If one of my subs is 10" and only goes to 30hz (-3dB) and the other sub goes easily to 18hz (15" HSU VTF15-MK2), does sub EQ still picks up and applies filters down to the big sub since it doesn't differentiate between the 2?
> 
> (2) Due to my bass knob needing to be too low for level matching, I need an in line attenuation otherwise I hit the max -12dB trim. Does that impact the auto calibration? What about sound quality?



I had this Q&A with Chris Kyriakakis on your first issue (1) on FB Audyssey Techtalk a while back:


Quote

Me: Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

Chris K.: Hi Feri,
If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.

Me: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again. 

Chris K.: Feri: yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement.


Unquote


Your second issue (2): an in-line attenuator will have no effect on auto calibration and no effect on soud quality. It will only attenuate the signal level, nothing else.


Hope this helps.


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> I have an SR7011 and a question regarding the way Audyssey XT32 and SubEQ HT works with 2 subwoofers. I've read through the FAQ and I understand that it takes 2 measurements initially (1 for each sub) to adjust timing/delays etc. but afterwards it sends the same signal to both pre-outs and treats and EQs it as one sub.
> 
> (1) If one of my subs is 10" and only goes to 30hz (-3dB) and the other sub goes easily to 18hz (15" HSU VTF15-MK2), does sub EQ still picks up and applies filters down to the big sub since it doesn't differentiate between the 2?
> 
> (2) Due to my bass knob needing to be too low for level matching, I need an in line attenuation otherwise I hit the max -12dB trim. Does that impact the auto calibration? What about sound quality?





mogorf said:


> I had this Q&A with Chris Kyriakakis on your first issue (1) on FB Audyssey Techtalk a while back:
> 
> 
> Quote
> 
> Me: Hi Chris and all, long time no Q, eh? OK, here's an interesting one: Does XT32, when pinging each sub individually for level and delay, also measure the F3 of each sub? If so, does it use that information when applying EQ to the combined response of the subs? IOW, does XT32 EQ to the capability of the lesser sub if the pair of subs are not identical? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri
> 
> Chris K.: Hi Feri,
> If the AVR allows individual pinging of the subs then the roll off of each one is calculated. However, when the subs are used as "one" acoustically the lesser one may suffer because the EQ filter is calculated based on the combined acoustical response. That's why we strongly recommend against using subs with very different roll off points. To this day I will never understand the silliness of doing that. More boxes is not better if one of them can't keep up with the other. In fact, this is true whether you use Audyssey or not. Why on earth would you add a small sub to a big one--there is no benefit.
> 
> Me: First of all thank you for your reply Chris. For better understanding: how does the lesser sub "suffer"? Does the EQ filter cause some boost for the lesser one around or even below the F3 point that was calculated for that sub at time of the first ping while MultEQ is trying to level out the combined frequency response curve? Or there is something else to the "suffering"? Thanks again.
> 
> Chris K.: Feri: yes the lesser sub may suffer if it's told to boost below its roll off point because the combined response saw the bigger sub during the measurement.
> 
> Unquote
> 
> Your second issue (2): an in-line attenuator will have no effect on auto calibration and no effect on soud quality. It will only attenuate the signal level, nothing else.
> 
> Hope this helps.



Hi Feri,

Nice to see you on the thread!  I remember that conversation with Chris, but he actually got a little confused about his own software that day. Unfortunately, it can happen to all of us. Ask me how I know!  It's well-documented that Audyssey is designed to stop setting filters for any of the channels at the point that the frequency response is down by 3db (what's often called the F3 point). Since Audyssey is measuring the combined SPL of two or more subwoofers, the combined SPL will decrease where one subwoofer permanently starts to lose volume, and Audyssey will stop EQing at that point. 

There may not always be perfect exactitude to that. There could be some scenarios where Audyssey might go a little below the combined F3 point of subwoofers. But, there shouldn't actually be any danger of over-driving the weaker subwoofer, because the system was specifically designed to prevent that. What I am saying about Audyssey not setting control points "approximately" below the F3 of the weaker sub in a system (or for any of the other channels either) has been well-documented. 

In fact, a number of people on the Nearfield Ported MBM thread deliberately ran a mid-bass module with about a 50 or 60Hz port tune, and a strong high-pass filter, in conjunction with their full-range subs to see what would happen. Sure enough, Audyssey stopped EQing the subwoofers a little below the MBM's port tune. 

Several of those people subsequently decided to add their MBM's with Y-connectors, post-calibration, so that they could enjoy increased mid-bass tactile sensations without losing the benefits of Audyssey for the full-range subs. In some cases, they also ran them deliberately out-of-phase, so that they would provide increased mid-bass TR (chest punch) without actually changing the measured frequency response. 

On the other hand, absent special circumstances, including the ability to measure the frequency response, I entirely agree with Chris that it makes little sense to put two subwoofers with entirely different capabilities into an HT system, and then to rely on Audyssey to sort-out the issues that result from that. The real problem is likely to involve a potential for cancellation, especially if one or more of the subwoofers is ported.

Even without potential cancellation, though, I think that having Audyssey EQ the 15" HSU down to its F3 point would be valuable. It won't be able to do that with the 10" subwoofer in the system. I honestly don't think that I would try to mix those two subwoofers together, although if someone is sure that it sounds better to him that way, then it's a YMMV question. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> Nice to see you on the thread!  I remember that conversation with Chris, but he actually got a little confused about his own software that day. Unfortunately, it can happen to all of us. Ask me how I know!  It's well-documented that Audyssey is designed to stop setting filters for any of the channels at the point that the frequency response is down by 3db (what's often called the F3 point). Since Audyssey is measuring the combined SPL of two or more subwoofers, the combined SPL will decrease where one subwoofer permanently starts to lose volume, and Audyssey will stop EQing at that point.
> 
> There may not always be perfect exactitude to that. There could be some scenarios where Audyssey might go a little below the combined F3 point of subwoofers. But, there shouldn't actually be any danger of over-driving the weaker subwoofer, because the system was specifically designed to prevent that. What I am saying about Audyssey not setting control points "approximately" below the F3 of the weaker sub in a system (or for any of the other channels either) has been well-documented.
> 
> In fact, a number of people on the Nearfield Ported MBM thread deliberately ran a mid-bass module with about a 50 or 60Hz port tune, and a strong high-pass filter, in conjunction with their full-range subs to see what would happen. Sure enough, Audyssey stopped EQing the subwoofers a little below the MBM's port tune.
> 
> Several of those people subsequently decided to add their MBM's with Y-connectors, post-calibration, so that they could enjoy increased mid-bass tactile sensations without losing the benefits of Audyssey for the full-range subs. In some cases, they also ran them deliberately out-of-phase, so that they would provide increased mid-bass TR (chest punch) without actually changing the measured frequency response.
> 
> On the other hand, absent special circumstances, including the ability to measure the frequency response, I entirely agree with Chris that it makes little sense to put two subwoofers with entirely different capabilities into an HT system, and then to rely on Audyssey to sort-out the issues that result from that. The real problem is likely to involve a potential for cancellation, especially if one or more of the subwoofers is ported.
> 
> Even without potential cancellation, though, I think that having Audyssey EQ the 15" HSU down to its F3 point would be valuable. It won't be able to do that with the 10" subwoofer in the system. I honestly don't think that I would try to mix those two subwoofers together, although if someone is sure that it sounds better to him that way, then it's a YMMV question.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Whatever the explanation Mike, I surely agree with your (and Chris's) conclusion not to mix different capability subwoofers, ever.


----------



## pbz06

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> Nice to see you on the thread!  I remember that conversation with Chris, but he actually got a little confused about his own software that day. Unfortunately, it can happen to all of us. Ask me how I know!  It's well-documented that Audyssey is designed to stop setting filters for any of the channels at the point that the frequency response is down by 3db (what's often called the F3 point). Since Audyssey is measuring the combined SPL of two or more subwoofers, the combined SPL will decrease where one subwoofer permanently starts to lose volume, and Audyssey will stop EQing at that point.
> 
> There may not always be perfect exactitude to that. There could be some scenarios where Audyssey might go a little below the combined F3 point of subwoofers. But, there shouldn't actually be any danger of over-driving the weaker subwoofer, because the system was specifically designed to prevent that. What I am saying about Audyssey not setting control points "approximately" below the F3 of the weaker sub in a system (or for any of the other channels either) has been well-documented.
> 
> In fact, a number of people on the Nearfield Ported MBM thread deliberately ran a mid-bass module with about a 50 or 60Hz port tune, and a strong high-pass filter, in conjunction with their full-range subs to see what would happen. Sure enough, Audyssey stopped EQing the subwoofers a little below the MBM's port tune.
> 
> Several of those people subsequently decided to add their MBM's with Y-connectors, post-calibration, so that they could enjoy increased mid-bass tactile sensations without losing the benefits of Audyssey for the full-range subs. In some cases, they also ran them deliberately out-of-phase, so that they would provide increased mid-bass TR (chest punch) without actually changing the measured frequency response.
> 
> On the other hand, absent special circumstances, including the ability to measure the frequency response, I entirely agree with Chris that it makes little sense to put two subwoofers with entirely different capabilities into an HT system, and then to rely on Audyssey to sort-out the issues that result from that. The real problem is likely to involve a potential for cancellation, especially if one or more of the subwoofers is ported.
> 
> Even without potential cancellation, though, I think that having Audyssey EQ the 15" HSU down to its F3 point would be valuable. It won't be able to do that with the 10" subwoofer in the system. I honestly don't think that I would try to mix those two subwoofers together, although if someone is sure that it sounds better to him that way, then it's a YMMV question.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike and Mogorf. That clears up my questions.

Also, the reason I was asking is that the 10" sub(s) is actually integrated in my front tower speakers. Not a true separate sub but they have LFE input and I was toying around using a y-splitter for them (1 pre-out to HSU, 1 pre-out with ysplitter to towers). My HSU equalized is great and feels tactile, just one of those "why not use towers too" since they have capability and maybe get smoother response around more seating positions.

Currently I have them with speaker wire only and set to "small/80hz" with all the bass + LFE going to HSU. I was interested in same setup but have towers play LFE also.

It sounds like I may be potentially introducing other problems so I'll shy away from that...


----------



## cfraser

ScottieBoysName said:


> Well, I'm searching but drawing a blank here. Any help directing me to some? I'll keep looking.


The recent post I was thinking of was this one, #5325 in this thread (for some reason I couldn't figure out how to link to it). Anyway, that sort of idea, -12dB to be "safe" since we don't know that e.g. -6dB ones would be enough. I'm sure any attenuators Kal would suggest are decent, don't know if he's around right now, but he might even have some exact experience with your issue (I don't).

I don't really follow the 770x threads right now since I stopped using my 7702 recently. But the requirement for attenuators is quite common. You could also check the equivalent 880x threads, I've seen it there too.

[It doesn't help your prob, but one of my "beefs" with some pre-pros is their output is so low. Theoretically speaking, higher output is more desirable, when it comes to noise etc., if all other things are "equal". I even have one preamp that can drive most speakers directly, not loud, but well enough, a very powerful/stable preamp. The problem is high-output doesn't match well with other typical consumer gear, more useful in a pro environment.]


----------



## ScottieBoysName

cfraser said:


> The recent post I was thinking of was this one, #5325 in this thread (for some reason I couldn't figure out how to link to it). Anyway, that sort of idea, -12dB to be "safe" since we don't know that e.g. -6dB ones would be enough. I'm sure any attenuators Kal would suggest are decent, don't know if he's around right now, but he might even have some exact experience with your issue (I don't).
> 
> I don't really follow the 770x threads right now since I stopped using my 7702 recently. But the requirement for attenuators is quite common. You could also check the equivalent 880x threads, I've seen it there too.
> 
> [It doesn't help your prob, but one of my "beefs" with some pre-pros is their output is so low. Theoretically speaking, higher output is more desirable, when it comes to noise etc., if all other things are "equal". I even have one preamp that can drive most speakers directly, not loud, but well enough, a very powerful/stable preamp. The problem is high-output doesn't match well with other typical consumer gear, more useful in a pro environment.]


Odd, that link doesn't take me anywhere. 

I totally agree with what you're saying though.


----------



## cfraser

^ It's not a link, it thinks it's a hashtag! (I tried it too.) You'll have to manually go back several pages I guess.

Edit: it would get kinda pricy getting a full set of these! I didn't really recall the price, just the original post... I don't know your budget, but you can certainly get cheaper similar devices elsewhere, maybe a "bulk" discount since you need a bunch.


----------



## jabe00

Please delete.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

cfraser said:


> ^ It's not a link, it thinks it's a hashtag! (I tried it too.) You'll have to manually go back several pages I guess.
> 
> Edit: it would get kinda pricy getting a full set of these! I didn't really recall the price, just the original post... I don't know your budget, but you can certainly get cheaper similar devices elsewhere, maybe a "bulk" discount since you need a bunch.


I found it. Ouch! That would be pricey! Those are RCA also, I'm running XLR. 

It's ok, I think I have a solution. I'm going to use REW.


----------



## cfraser

ScottieBoysName said:


> I found it. Ouch! That would be pricey! Those are RCA also, I'm running XLR.
> 
> It's ok, I think I have a solution. I'm going to use REW.


I missed the XLR thing, now I get your "-12dB issue", that'll do it. Even though my amps have RCA/XLR inputs, I chose to use the RCA inputs with the 7702, the amps are really close to the pre-pro. If this were my problem, I would build attenuators into the XLRs, plenty of room and easy to do, using decent quality resistors. Come to think of it, I've done it before for something stereo, forget why...

[And honestly, they're not the "greatest" balanced outputs on those pre-pros, I tend not to use them unless necessary by distance/noise. I only use balanced _here _when the pre and amps have differential-balanced circuitry, _then _you notice it.]


----------



## ScottieBoysName

cfraser said:


> I missed the XLR thing, now I get your "-12dB issue", that'll do it. Even though my amps have RCA/XLR inputs, I chose to use the RCA inputs with the 7702, the amps are really close to the pre-pro. If this were my problem, I would build attenuators into the XLRs, plenty of room and easy to do, using decent quality resistors. Come to think of it, I've done it before for something stereo, forget why...
> 
> [And honestly, they're not the "greatest" balanced outputs on those pre-pros, I tend not to use them unless necessary by distance/noise. I only use balanced _here _when the pre and amps have differential-balanced circuitry, _then _you notice it.]


Those are great points. If I moved from XLRs to RCAs, that would actually help, correct?


----------



## cfraser

^ I am guessing it would help, but would it help _enough_? Try it on just e.g. the front channels first and see what Audyssey says. It depends on the fixed input sensitivity of your amps for both single-ended and balanced, besides the two 770x output levels of course. But based on how things are _usually_, it _should _help quite a bit.

Typically when I'm using the amps here, and I switch between SE and XLR inputs, I halve the input sensitivity to get it in the ballpark. (I would prefer to be able to reduce the input sensitivity by a factor of 4, but this option was removed from my version of the amps and apparently only kept on the Pro versions.)


----------



## pbz06

Question for you guys. If I get the Audyssey app, would I be able to access the EQs and stuff o would I need to rerun it an pair it first? I currently only have the Marantz app.

I ran XT32 on my towers with LFE lines, changed to small/80hz, and everything sounds good. Bass is still tactile and clean. My other LFE goes to separate sub (HSU VTF15). I know from what you guys recommended not to mix different performing subs but I plan to test multiple setups to compare. 

The EQ from the avr doesn't show what it did to the subs, only the towers. Would the app show me?

This is what I have, anything needing my adjustment or did Audyssey nail it assumingly?


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> Question for you guys. If I get the Audyssey app, would I be able to access the EQs and stuff o would I need to rerun it an pair it first? I currently only have the Marantz app.
> 
> I ran XT32 on my towers with LFE lines, changed to small/80hz, and everything sounds good. Bass is still tactile and clean. My other LFE goes to separate sub (HSU VTF15). I know from what you guys recommended not to mix different performing subs but I plan to test multiple setups to compare.
> 
> The EQ from the avr doesn't show what it did to the subs, only the towers. Would the app show me?
> 
> This is what I have, anything needing my adjustment or did Audyssey nail it assumingly?


Yes, you can see the room correction results (before and after calibration) for the subs and every other speaker. You have other features only found in the app, such as the ability to turn off midrange compensation or to adjust the calibration results to your taste.


----------



## pbz06

pbarach said:


> Yes, you can see the room correction results (before and after calibration) for the subs and every other speaker. You have other features only found in the app, such as the ability to turn off midrange compensation or to adjust the calibration results to your taste.


Ok thanks. Can I load what I ran from the AVR or do I need to run it with my phone instead?


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> Ok thanks. Can I load what I ran from the AVR or do I need to run it with my phone instead?


You cannot load the Audyssey results from your AVR into your phone. When the app is done measuring, you use it to upload its calibration file to your AVR, and you can also download the file from the app to OneDrive, an email, or various other places.

I'm betting someone will eventually reverse-engineer the calibration file and write a freeware program so that people can do more "editing" of the calibration curve on a PC and then put the results into an AVR. It would be nice if Audyssey did that, but I'm guessing they have other marketing directions to follow nowadays,


----------



## Kal Rubinson

pbarach said:


> I'm betting someone will eventually reverse-engineer the calibration file and write a freeware program so that people can do more "editing" of the calibration curve on a PC and then put the results into an AVR. It would be nice if Audyssey did that, but I'm guessing they have other marketing directions to follow nowadays,


Look here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...g-audyssey-multeq-app-files.html#post56912816


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> This is what I have, anything needing my adjustment or did Audyssey nail it assumingly?



Even if we could see your room, we wouldn't know for sure if Audyssey nailed it.  The important thing is whether it sounds good to you from your primary seats. Most people turn up their subwoofer 3 to 6dB ("by ear") or more *after* Audyssey calibration. The reasons for this, and a safe way to do it, are explained in Mike's Guide*: *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences . After you have an ear-pleasing EQ, try switching back and forth between "No Audyssey," and "Audyssey" and see if Audyssey improves things. If you used 8 carefully placed mic positions, it probably will.


That being said, it looks like Audyssey decided you need a little boost at 20K Hz*;* this is typical, even with tweeters advertised to go up to 25K Hz, or 40K Hz, as yours are! Do you have a dog? If so, that highest octave might be appreciated. Cats can hear even higher, but they're not telling. The smaller boost just below 20K, perhaps at 16K is also typical. Down in the bass, Audyssey attenuated some bass in the Left channel over a broad area, probably due to the room, and a narrower cut in the Right channel. The speakers' positions in the room are probably responsible for the difference. This area of the bass will probably be largely provided by the subwoofer, which is not shown in the graphs. The App will provide that info.


----------



## jabe00

jabe00 said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Hope someone can explain what's happening.
> 
> I ran Audyssey around 15 times, but never i was able to finish the 8 positions, every time I ran at #4 or #5 position I got this message telling me that the ambient noise is to high or level is too low all the time around those positions.
> 
> Today I ran again after completed the insulating installation over the floor in this area, as I was thinking that maybe was part of the problem for the noise but I got the same message.
> 
> I got a Digital Sound Level to see how high is my noise level, I put close to the Audyssey Mic and the noise level there is around 41/42 db what I think is not bad, then when Audyssey is doing the measuring went up to 86db.
> 
> Attached is the last result I got from Audyssey last time I ran with only 3 positions and also the noise level and the level when Audyssey wss sending the signal.
> 
> I really want to complete all the positions as its suppose to be, but that is making impossible.
> 
> Thanks again for your comments. I appreciate.
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Hello everyone,

Anyone have a comment about my situation? 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> Even if we could see your room, we wouldn't know for sure if Audyssey nailed it.  The important thing is whether it sounds good to you from your primary seats. Most people turn up their subwoofer 3 to 6dB ("by ear") or more *after* Audyssey calibration. The reasons for this, and a safe way to do it, are explained in Mike's Guide*: *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences . After you have an ear-pleasing EQ, try switching back and forth between "No Audyssey," and "Audyssey" and see if Audyssey improves things. If you used 8 carefully placed mic positions, it probably will.
> 
> 
> That being said, it looks like Audyssey decided you need a little boost at 20K Hz*;* this is typical, even with tweeters advertised to go up to 25K Hz, or 40K Hz, as yours are! Do you have a dog? If so, that highest octave might be appreciated. Cats can hear even higher, but they're not telling. The smaller boost just below 20K, perhaps at 16K is also typical. Down in the bass, Audyssey attenuated some bass in the Left channel over a broad area, probably due to the room, and a narrower cut in the Right channel. The speakers' positions in the room probably makes the difference. This area of the bass will probably be largely provided by the subwoofer, which is not shown in the graphs. The App will provide that info.





garygarrison said:


> Even if we could see your room, we wouldn't know for sure if Audyssey nailed it.  The important thing is whether it sounds good to you from your primary seats. Most people turn up their subwoofer 3 to 6dB ("by ear") or more *after* Audyssey calibration. The reasons for this, and a safe way to do it, are explained in Mike's Guide*: *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences . After you have an ear-pleasing EQ, try switching back and forth between "No Audyssey," and "Audyssey" and see if Audyssey improves things. If you used 8 carefully placed mic positions, it probably will.
> 
> 
> That being said, it looks like Audyssey decided you need a little boost at 20K Hz*;* this is typical, even with tweeters advertised to go up to 25K Hz, or 40K Hz, as yours are! Do you have a dog? If so, that highest octave might be appreciated. Cats can hear even higher, but they're not telling. The smaller boost just below 20K, perhaps at 16K is also typical. Down in the bass, Audyssey attenuated some bass in the Left channel over a broad area, probably due to the room, and a narrower cut in the Right channel. The speakers' positions in the room probably makes the difference. This area of the bass will probably be largely provided by the subwoofer, which is not shown in the graphs. The App will provide that info.


Thanks! The sound is ear pleasing but I'm just obsessed with learning all the details and options at my disposal 

I didn't even gain match the 2 tower subs (within 4dB of each other) because I wanted to first try keeping the knobs in same position. 

I think I'll just get the App and try it out. I can also play various low frequencies and check my SPL meter.


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Hello everyone,
> 
> Anyone have a comment about my situation?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Your situation is pretty bizarre! I assume you are sure that there is not some machinery coincidentally going on when the meter reads in the '80s ... not a refrigerator going on, or a big truck going by outside. The Blue Angels? Nobody is walking toward your sound room to find out what those little pings are?


Could something outside of the range of human hearing be activated? Don't ask me what. Is there a sonically activated motion detector around and on (e.g., a burglar alarm).


I think the Audyssey microphone may be a condenser mic (is that true?). I've heard that a magnetic field can -- very rarely -- cause problems in the circuitry of a condenser mic. There may or may not be a magnetic field generated by the mic or other components in the SPL meter. What happens if you slowly move the SPL meter across the room? Does the SPL reading slowly go down to the 41 dB? 


85 dB is about medium level for _*music*_ -- I'm surprised you don't hear, and can't locate the cause, unless it is beyond the range of hearing.


Guys? There is a diverse group of people here on the forum, Audyssey experts and a few engineers. Someone will come up with an answer.


----------



## jabe00

Thanks for your answer, please see my answer in blue



garygarrison said:


> Your situation is pretty bizarre! I assume you are sure that there is not some machinery coincidentally going on when the meter reads in the '80s ... not a refrigerator going on, or a big truck going by outside. The Blue Angels? Nobody is walking toward your sound room to find out what those little pings are?


Yes, I'm sure there is nothing running inside or outside. But let me be clear about the 85db that meter read, the meter read that is when Audissey is sending the signal to the speaker after that the meter go back to 41db that look that is my noise floor. 



> Could something outside of the range of human hearing be activated? Don't ask me what. Is there a sonically activated motion detector around and on (e.g., a burglar alarm).


 Nothing is activate, but lets think for a moment that maybe is being activated, but what coincidence will be that in the same time and dont go away as i keep trying and trying, last time I continue for 15 minutes and nothing 



> I think the Audyssey microphone may be a condenser mic (is that true?). I've heard that a magnetic field can -- very rarely -- cause problems in the circuitry of a condenser mic. There may or may not be a magnetic field generated by the mic or other components in the SPL meter. What happens if you slowly move the SPL meter across the room? Does the SPL reading slowly go down to the 41 dB?


Ok, lets say that maybe the mic have problem, but how can you explain that the first 1 to 3 position runs fine and the problem start in the $4 or #5, I remember, only one time I was able to reach to #7.



> 85 dB is about medium level for _*music*_ -- I'm surprised you don't hear, and can't locate the cause, unless it is beyond the range of hearing.


Remember, that 85db is when Audissey is sending the signal to my speaker, after that the level go back to 41db 



> Guys? There is a diverse group of people here on the forum, Audyssey experts and a few engineers. Someone will come up with an answer.


I want to add that more or less I l know when that will happen during the Front speaker I can hear that Audissey increase the volume for that speaker but I dont know why, during the #1 to #3 Audissey only play a set the tones for speaker, but when it'll faill It try's a couple times like if was unable to heard and then try again with another set in the same speaker at higher volume, and then again around 3 time and then i got the message about the noise or lower volume.

I'll run tomorrow again and I'll record that section and I'll post here.

Till then, if someone have an idea about what can be or what I can do, I'll appreciate.

Thanks everyone for you help and special to you garygarrison 

Thanks,
Jose


----------



## mthomas47

jabe00 said:


> Thanks for your answer, please see my answer in blue
> 
> Yes, I'm sure there is nothing running inside or outside. But let me be clear about the 85db that meter read, the meter read that is when Audissey is sending the signal to the speaker after that the meter go back to 41db that look that is my noise floor.
> 
> Nothing is activate, but lets think for a moment that maybe is being activated, but what coincidence will be that in the same time and dont go away as i keep trying and trying, last time I continue for 15 minutes and nothing
> 
> Ok, lets say that maybe the mic have problem, but how can you explain that the first 1 to 3 position runs fine and the problem start in the $4 or #5, I remember, only one time I was able to reach to #7.
> 
> Remember, that 85db is when Audissey is sending the signal to my speaker, after that the level go back to 41db
> 
> I want to add that more or less I l know when that will happen during the Front speaker I can hear that Audissey increase the volume for that speaker but I dont know why, during the #1 to #3 Audissey only play a set the tones for speaker, but when it'll faill It try's a couple times like if was unable to heard and then try again with another set in the same speaker at higher volume, and then again around 3 time and then i got the message about the noise or lower volume.
> 
> I'll run tomorrow again and I'll record that section and I'll post here.
> 
> Till then, if someone have an idea about what can be or what I can do, I'll appreciate.
> 
> Thanks everyone for you help and special to you garygarrison
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose



Hi Jose,

In reading your posts, it appears to me as if your AVR is operating incorrectly. If I were you, I would do several microprocessor resets, making sure that I give the microprocessor time to reset itself correctly, each time. That should reset the Audyssey software to factory specifications, and hopefully that will fix the problem. (Your owner's manual will have instructions on how to do that.)

If that doesn't fix the problem, I think that you may have to send the AVR in for service or exchange, depending on where you bought it, and on what their policies are like. I hope that won't be necessary, but unfortunately it does sound as if the the software is at fault.  There is an off-chance that the microphone is malfunctioning, although I don't really think that is it. Before you send the AVR in for service or exchange, you could try a different, compatible Audyssey microphone. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jabe00

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jose,
> 
> In reading your posts, it appears to me as if your AVR is operating incorrectly. If I were you, I would do several microprocessor resets, making sure that I give the microprocessor time to reset itself correctly, each time. That should reset the Audyssey software to factory specifications, and hopefully that will fix the problem. (Your owner's manual will have instructions on how to do that.)
> 
> If that doesn't fix the problem, I think that you may have to send the AVR in for service or exchange, depending on where you bought it, and on what their policies are like. I hope that won't be necessary, but unfortunately it does sound as if the the software is at fault.  There is an off-chance that the microphone is malfunctioning, although I don't really think that is it. Before you send the AVR in for service or exchange, you could try a different, compatible Audyssey microphone.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, 

I did what you said and below the results. 

In position 4 I got again the message and after 20 minutes running and running I went to my Crown Amp for that speaker, and lowered 2 points, then ran again, meter said was 76 db, coming from 86db, go the same message, then I lowered 1 more, mean 3 in total and ran again for that speaker, then audissey passed to the next speaker and finished the position 4, then in the position 6 got the same but in the right front speaker, meter said 86db again. Then I lowered the amp felted to that speaker by 2 points, got the message again at 76db, then I lowered 1 more point to math the left speaker with 3 point being lowered for both side, then Audyssey passed again and finished that position and 6 and 8 as well.

What I can see or understand is that Audyssey think that those speaker were to higher on volume for those positions, means 4 to 8 because for positions 1 to 3 was fine and when I only ran those 1 to 3 Audyssey levels at the end are -8 and -9 for those speakers, but now the levels that Audyssey after run all 8 positions is +4.5 and +4.0 for those speakers, means to me that the volume was too low that Audyssey has to increase the level to compensate at the end.

Pictures attracted for Audyssey levels after 8 positions and how the Amp end up.

I think is not right the level in the amp. Looks like I'm getting only 2 points from there.

Thanks again.
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

jabe00 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I did what you said and below the results.
> 
> In position 4 I got again the message and after 20 minutes running and running I went to my Crown Amp for that speaker, and lowered 2 points, then ran again, meter said was 76 db, coming from 86db, go the same message, then I lowered 1 more, mean 3 in total and ran again for that speaker, then audissey passed to the next speaker and finished the position 4, then in the position 6 got the same but in the right front speaker, meter said 86db again. Then I lowered the amp felted to that speaker by 2 points, got the message again at 76db, then I lowered 1 more point to math the left speaker with 3 point being lowered for both side, then Audyssey passed again and finished that position and 6 and 8 as well.
> 
> What I can see or understand is that Audyssey think that those speaker were to higher on volume for those positions, means 4 to 8 because for positions 1 to 3 was fine and when I only ran those 1 to 3 Audyssey levels at the end are -8 and -9 for those speakers, but now the levels that Audyssey after run all 8 positions is +4.5 and +4.0 for those speakers, means to me that the volume was too low that Audyssey has to increase the level to compensate at the end.
> 
> Pictures attracted for Audyssey levels after 8 positions and how the Amp end up.
> 
> I think is not right the level in the amp. Looks like I'm getting only 2 points from there.
> …


Let me see if I've got this right. After changing your amp settings you started running the calibration process, everything went fine through the first several mic positions and then you started getting elevated results in some positions.

OK, if you haven't got some source of noise intruding to cause the elevated result and it's happening in some mic positions but not others, I wonder whether there's a source of vibration that is being transmitted through to the mic in those positions which are giving the elevated readings. How is the mic being supported, what is the support resting on, is that surface resonating for some reason? That's what comes to my mind reading your comments.


----------



## jabe00

David Aiken said:


> Let me see if I've got this right. After changing your amp settings you started running the calibration process, everything went fine through the first several mic positions and then you started getting elevated results in some positions.
> 
> OK, if you haven't got some source of noise intruding to cause the elevated result and it's happening in some mic positions but not others, I wonder whether there's a source of vibration that is being transmitted through to the mic in those positions which are giving the elevated readings. How is the mic being supported, what is the support resting on, is that surface resonating for some reason? That's what comes to my mind reading your comments.


It's good for positions 1 to 3, then in 4 to 8 I got that.

But know that you mention how I support the mic, maybe is because the change, as in the first positions are over the seat, then for position 4 and ahead is over the floor.

I'm supporting with a tripod, and maybe as you said maybe is getting some vibrations as the position 4 change the surface from seat to floor. 

I'll get a different tripo that be over the floor all the time, something like this

https://www.amazon.com/LyxPro-Micro...40_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=floor+mic+stand&psc=1

I'll try to get one today and I'll let you know the resukts

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

jabe00 said:


> It's good for positions 1 to 3, then in 4 to 8 I got that.
> 
> But know that you mention how I support the mic, maybe is because the change, as in the first positions are over the seat, then for position 4 and ahead is over the floor.
> 
> I'm supporting with a tripod, and maybe as you said maybe is getting some vibrations as the position 4 change the surface from seat to floor.
> 
> I'll get a different tripo that be over the floor all the time, something like this
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/LyxPro-Micro...40_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=floor+mic+stand&psc=1
> 
> I'll try to get one today and I'll let you know the resukts
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I don't think it matters so much where the mic itself is because the mic is offset from the base of the stand because it's at the end of the boom, but you're moving the stand for at least some of the measurement positions and if the cause of the problem is vibration transmission through the stand then it's the location of the stand base that's important.

Rather than racing out and buying a new stand, try something else first. Remember where the stand base was placed for the measurements that didn't have the problem. Can you have the base one of those places when you're measuring all of the positions by adjusting the boom extension or, alternatively, if you kept adjusted the boom extension for the positions which caused problems while keeping the base in the same place, keep the boom extension constant and move the base of the stand.

If the problem is vibration reaching the mic then it's either travelling from the base resting on the floor or it's as a result of increased movement of the boom at different extensions (probably more movement at longer extensions) because the boom isn't being held rigidly enough. If one of those is the culprit then changing the way you're using the stand for the problem measurements to a similar way to how it's being used for the measurements which go OK may solve the problem.

I'm reluctant to suggest buying a new mic stand without knowing for certain that the problem is the mic stand.


----------



## jabe00

David Aiken said:


> I don't think it matters so much where the mic itself is because the mic is offset from the base of the stand because it's at the end of the boom, but you're moving the stand for at least some of the measurement positions and if the cause of the problem is vibration transmission through the stand then it's the location of the stand base that's important.
> 
> Rather than racing out and buying a new stand, try something else first. Remember where the stand base was placed for the measurements that didn't have the problem. Can you have the base one of those places when you're measuring all of the positions by adjusting the boom extension or, alternatively, if you kept adjusted the boom extension for the positions which caused problems while keeping the base in the same place, keep the boom extension constant and move the base of the stand.
> 
> If the problem is vibration reaching the mic then it's either travelling from the base resting on the floor or it's as a result of increased movement of the boom at different extensions (probably more movement at longer extensions) because the boom isn't being held rigidly enough. If one of those is the culprit then changing the way you're using the stand for the problem measurements to a similar way to how it's being used for the measurements which go OK may solve the problem.
> 
> I'm reluctant to suggest buying a new mic stand without knowing for certain that the problem is the mic stand.


Thanks for your answers.

I'll try again before get anything, I also have antivibration pad that I can use after/if fail. 


Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> Even if we could see your room, we wouldn't know for sure if Audyssey nailed it.  The important thing is whether it sounds good to you from your primary seats. Most people turn up their subwoofer 3 to 6dB ("by ear") or more *after* Audyssey calibration. The reasons for this, and a safe way to do it, are explained in Mike's Guide*: *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences . After you have an ear-pleasing EQ, try switching back and forth between "No Audyssey," and "Audyssey" and see if Audyssey improves things. If you used 8 carefully placed mic positions, it probably will.
> 
> 
> That being said, it looks like Audyssey decided you need a little boost at 20K Hz*;* this is typical, even with tweeters advertised to go up to 25K Hz, or 40K Hz, as yours are! Do you have a dog? If so, that highest octave might be appreciated. Cats can hear even higher, but they're not telling. The smaller boost just below 20K, perhaps at 16K is also typical. Down in the bass, Audyssey attenuated some bass in the Left channel over a broad area, probably due to the room, and a narrower cut in the Right channel. The speakers' positions in the room are probably responsible for the difference. This area of the bass will probably be largely provided by the subwoofer, which is not shown in the graphs. The App will provide that info.


Ok I reran XT32 with the app. Any observations or comments would be appreciated, mostly for Fronts and Subwoofer. 

Anything in the "After" that looks worrisome? In the subwoofer?

This run I did with the towers also using LFE. Next time I will try and compare only with th HSU VTF15.

I also uploaded the file on Google Drive.


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> Ok I reran XT32 with the app. Any observations or comments would be appreciated, mostly for Fronts and Subwoofer.
> 
> Anything in the "After" that looks worrisome? In the subwoofer?
> 
> This run I did with the towers also using LFE. Next time I will try and compare only with th HSU VTF15.





Looks very good to me.
Modern movies can have LFE down to well below 20 Hz, yet your sub curves and and curve editor show the response rolling off below about 40 Hz. I think your HSU can function down to 16 Hz (?). Is it possible to get rid of that roll off? Perhaps using HSU alone?
Of the two choices of Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) and Audyssey FLAT, you selected Audyssey Reference to run your curves with, which is why there is a little dip at about 2K Hz and a roll off starting above about 8K Hz. Which to use is a matter of personal preference. For recordings with some harshness or distortion in the high frequencies, I find this useful. But for good recordings of music, or movies on Blu-ray of the last 15 years, or so, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. Since YMMV, try them both. You don't have to re-run Audyssey to do that.


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> Looks very good to me.
> Modern movies can have LFE down to well below 20 Hz, yet your sub curves and and curve editor show the response rolling off below about 40 Hz. I think your HSU can function down to 16 Hz (?). Is it possible to get rid of that roll off? Perhaps using HSU alone?
> Of the two choices of Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) and Audyssey FLAT, you selected Audyssey Reference to run your curves with, which is why there is a little dip at about 2K Hz and a roll off starting above about 8K Hz. Which to use is a matter of personal preference. For recordings with some harshness or distortion in the high frequencies, I find this useful. But for good recordings of music, or movies on Blu-ray of the last 15 years, or so, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. Since YMMV, try them both. You don't have to re-run Audyssey to do that.





garygarrison said:


> Looks very good to me.
> Modern movies can have LFE down to well below 20 Hz, yet your sub curves and and curve editor show the response rolling off below about 40 Hz. I think your HSU can function down to 16 Hz (?). Is it possible to get rid of that roll off? Perhaps using HSU alone?
> Of the two choices of Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) and Audyssey FLAT, you selected Audyssey Reference to run your curves with, which is why there is a little dip at about 2K Hz and a roll off starting above about 8K Hz. Which to use is a matter of personal preference. For recordings with some harshness or distortion in the high frequencies, I find this useful. But for good recordings of music, or movies on Blu-ray of the last 15 years, or so, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. Since YMMV, try them both. You don't have to re-run Audyssey to do that.


Yes the sub should go down to that, and I have it set with the settings supposed to provide the flattest and deepest extension (q at 0.7, 1 port open etc). 

I wonder if it's because of the front tower subs being used with a splitter for my second pre out. I'll try without them to confirm.

I've always set it to "reference" just because, but I'll definitely try Flat. The majority of my speakers usage is Blu-ray movies.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> …
> Of the two choices of Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) and Audyssey FLAT, you selected Audyssey Reference to run your curves with, which is why there is a little dip at about 2K Hz and a roll off starting above about 8K Hz. Which to use is a matter of personal preference. For recordings with some harshness or distortion in the high frequencies, I find this useful. But for good recordings of music, or movies on Blu-ray of the last 15 years, or so, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. Since YMMV, try them both. You don't have to re-run Audyssey to do that.


Since the OP has the MultEQ editor app, he actually has 3 options. As you suggest he can choose between Reference and Flat for the reasons you give but in the app there's another option available, the option to turn off the midrange compensation dip which just flattens the area between roughly 2 and 4 kHz or so. I've got a bit of hearing loss in that area and I find just eliminating that dip suits me fine. I only upgraded my AVR a couple of months ago and I can use the app with my new AVR (it didn't work with my old one) and that was one of the first things I tried. In the end it's proved to be the only change I make to my calibration, not quite what you could call a "half way" setting between Reference and Flat but maybe a quarter way or something.


----------



## jsgrise

*Dynamic EQ question*

I know the Dynamic EQ boost surround channels relatively to the mains and the playback volume. My question is does it also boost the top speakers? If not, I might be a wise choice to tone it down (-10dB offset) or to take it off completely?


----------



## aron7awol

jsgrise said:


> *Dynamic EQ question*
> 
> I know the Dynamic EQ boost surround channels relatively to the mains and the playback volume. My question is does it also boost the top speakers? If not, I might be a wise choice to tone it down (-10dB offset) or to take it off completely?


In my testing, it boosts the top rears but not the top fronts.


----------



## sbr100

*Audyssey Issues*

Hello All

Recently purchased the Denon X3400H with XT32. 

The issue I am having is when I go to run the program and all the positions have been measured Audyssey locks up or "freezes" at the 77% mark. 

Denon sent a mic but still the same issue. I have tried a factory reset of the unit and nothing seems to work.

I am running a 7.2 with an external 5 channel Outlaw amp driving the main front and rear speakers. I am just coming from an Anthem with its amazing ARC room correction so needless to say I am beyond frustration.

Thank you


----------



## mthomas47

sbr100 said:


> Hello All
> 
> Recently purchased the Denon X3400H with XT32.
> 
> The issue I am having is when I go to run the program and all the positions have been measured Audyssey locks up or "freezes" at the 77% mark.
> 
> Denon sent a mic but still the same issue. I have tried a factory reset of the unit and nothing seems to work.
> 
> I am running a 7.2 with an external 5 channel Outlaw amp driving the main front and rear speakers. I am just coming from an Anthem with its amazing ARC room correction so needless to say I am beyond frustration.
> 
> Thank you



Hi,

I am sorry to hear that you are having problems with your new AVR. I know how frustrating that sort of thing can be. You just want it to work the way it should. I am a little surprised that Denon sent you a new microphone, based on your description of the problem, as the issue seems to be with the AVR's ability to process the measurements, and not with the microphone's ability to measure the sounds from the speakers. Still, I guess it was worth a try. Who knows what might have been the cause of the AVR's inability to complete the calibration?

My advice would have been to try what you have already done--a microprocessor reset. It won't do any harm to try that procedure again before taking the next step. But, unfortunately, I think that the next step is to repair or replace your Denon AVR. Hopefully, there will be a fairly convenient way to do that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Matt2026

sbr100 said:


> Hello All
> 
> Recently purchased the Denon X3400H with XT32.
> 
> The issue I am having is when I go to run the program and all the positions have been measured Audyssey locks up or "freezes" at the 77% mark.
> 
> Denon sent a mic but still the same issue. I have tried a factory reset of the unit and nothing seems to work.
> 
> I am running a 7.2 with an external 5 channel Outlaw amp driving the main front and rear speakers. I am just coming from an Anthem with its amazing ARC room correction so needless to say I am beyond frustration.
> 
> Thank you


You might want to ask on the Denon 2017 forum: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2794073-official-2017-denon-s-series-x-series-avr-owner-s-thread-faq-posts-1-8-a-297.html


----------



## sbr100

*Audyessy issues*

Thanks guys. The only other thing I can think of is to try and just run it for 2 speakers and see if it works. If so move to 5 and so on.

The room is dead quiet but a bit reflective but I dont believe that should matter. This thing is only a few weeks old and I will refrain from bashing Denon but for a 1K receiver this is unacceptable. 

My return back to Best Buy is past the limit so it appears I'm stuck with it. This is either incredibly bad luck or....and i was very curious to see how Audyseey stacks up against Anthem ARC room correction.


----------



## mogorf

sbr100 said:


> Thanks guys. The only other thing I can think of is to try and just run it for 2 speakers and see if it works. If so move to 5 and so on.
> 
> The room is dead quiet but a bit reflective but I dont believe that should matter. This thing is only a few weeks old and I will refrain from bashing Denon but for a 1K receiver this is unacceptable.
> 
> My return back to Best Buy is past the limit so it appears I'm stuck with it. This is either incredibly bad luck or....and i was very curious to see how Audyseey stacks up against Anthem ARC room correction.



I feel for you sbr!!!


Your last resort maybe to do another factory reset, but this time not only one, but at least half a dozen in a series. Let's see how it works!


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> Looks very good to me.
> Modern movies can have LFE down to well below 20 Hz, yet your sub curves and and curve editor show the response rolling off below about 40 Hz. I think your HSU can function down to 16 Hz (?). Is it possible to get rid of that roll off? Perhaps using HSU alone?
> Of the two choices of Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) and Audyssey FLAT, you selected Audyssey Reference to run your curves with, which is why there is a little dip at about 2K Hz and a roll off starting above about 8K Hz. Which to use is a matter of personal preference. For recordings with some harshness or distortion in the high frequencies, I find this useful. But for good recordings of music, or movies on Blu-ray of the last 15 years, or so, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. Since YMMV, try them both. You don't have to re-run Audyssey to do that.


I tried some different settings with the towers. How does the sub curve look now? I don't know what to look for.

Also, any suggestions on my surrounds? The -3dB point was always 80hz but the last 3 times I ran it, it was set to 100hz. Same location and I didn't change anything. 

Is it a big deal if I drop it to 80 again? Can I EQ it manual adjustment?

Thanks


----------



## jsgrise

I ran Audyssey last night since I have made some minor change in speaker angles. I usually use a tight group for the 8 mic locations (total grouping of 18"), but this time around I have use a larger group (60"+) and really like the result so far. Looking at the equalization results, Audyssey applied less filter gain. It sounds a lot smoother, fuller, less harsh and a bass hits deeper than it used too. Big improvement in the bass department. Very enjoyable listen!

For those of you who have the Audyssey app, have you compared full bandwidth correction vs. a 200-250Hz limit as Dr. Floyd Toole recommends?


----------



## cfraser

jsgrise said:


> For those of you who have the Audyssey app, have you compared full bandwidth correction vs. a 200-250Hz limit as Dr. Floyd Toole recommends?


I have. And with a 500Hz limit too. I always preferred the full-range correction. I didn't think I would. My main purpose in getting the app was to *finally* be able to implement the band-limited Audyssey correction that theory/experts suggest would be more appropriate. Same with REW, these "new" tools enable us to do things to test what we believe vs reality vs theory vs what we like. Nice to be able to have the options. Band-limiting Audyssey may have a more desirable effect depending on your room size/arrangement. Mine's 12x18x9' and I liked the full-range correction, and it could just be because I'm really used to it, though I did stick with the 500Hz one for a couple months, I found it a bit "dull".

Edit: I left out a very important factor for my opinion: my room is fully treated.


----------



## garygarrison

cfraser said:


> *I have*. And with a 500Hz limit too.* I always preferred the full-range correction*. *I didn't think I would*. My main purpose in getting the app was to *finally* be able to implement the band-limited Audyssey correction that theory/experts suggest would be more appropriate. Same with REW, these "new" tools enable us to do things to* test *what we believe vs reality vs theory vs what we like. Nice to be able to have the options. Band-limiting Audyssey may have a more desirable effect depending on your room size/arrangement. Mine's 12x18x9' and I liked the full-range correction, and it could just be because I'm really used to it, though I did stick with the 500Hz one for a couple months, I found it a bit "dull".
> 
> Edit: I left out a very important factor for my opinion: my room is fully treated.



Very, very interesting. Nothing like an empirical test.


Audyssey does a lot of good things for me in the upper reaches. My room is moderately treated and 25' X 16.75' X an average of 10 feet high.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Very, very interesting. Nothing like an empirical test.
> 
> 
> Audyssey does a lot of good things for me in the upper reaches. My room is moderately treated and 25' X 16.75' X an average of 10 feet high.



I think I'd also vote for full-range correction. Here's a quote from Chris Kyriakakis over at FB on the issue:


Chris K: "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."


Fully agree, especially when it comes to emphasizing perfect stereo imaging! How hard it is to achive is another question, but a reasonable approach, isn't it?!


----------



## jsgrise

cfraser said:


> I have. And with a 500Hz limit too. I always preferred the full-range correction. I didn't think I would. My main purpose in getting the app was to *finally* be able to implement the band-limited Audyssey correction that theory/experts suggest would be more appropriate. Same with REW, these "new" tools enable us to do things to test what we believe vs reality vs theory vs what we like. Nice to be able to have the options. Band-limiting Audyssey may have a more desirable effect depending on your room size/arrangement. Mine's 12x18x9' and I liked the full-range correction, and it could just be because I'm really used to it, though I did stick with the 500Hz one for a couple months, I found it a bit "dull".
> 
> Edit: I left out a very important factor for my opinion: my room is fully treated.





garygarrison said:


> Very, very interesting. Nothing like an empirical test.
> 
> 
> Audyssey does a lot of good things for me in the upper reaches. My room is moderately treated and 25' X 16.75' X an average of 10 feet high.


Very good to know, I was thinking of upgrading my receiver for that feature only, but I guess I will take a pause 

As you can see in my signature, my room is also fairly treated. In my case, spreading the microphone placements further away made a substantial difference in the sound and has improved on all accounts.


----------



## kaydee6

jsgrise said:


> Very good to know, I was thinking of upgrading my receiver for that feature only, but I guess I will take a pause
> 
> As you can see in my signature, my room is also fairly treated. In my case, spreading the microphone placements further away made a substantial difference in the sound and has improved on all accounts.


How far away do you place the microphone positions from the 1st position? Is 2 feet good enough?


----------



## jsgrise

kaydee6 said:


> How far away do you place the microphone positions from the 1st position? Is 2 feet good enough?




I did position 2 and 3 about 2.5’ on each side of position 1 (MLP). 4-5-6 were about 18-24’’ in front of 1-2-3. Positions 8-9 were between 1-2 and 1-3 but a couple inch backward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cfraser

jsgrise said:


> Very good to know, I was thinking of upgrading my receiver for that feature only, but I guess I will take a pause


You mean upgrade your receiver so you could use the app? I would not do that _just _for the app. But if you could already use the app, I wouldn't discourage you from buying it, there are some other things you can do with it that you might like. Besides, you should hear for yourself. The app is quite stable these days, so don't necessarily go by the old comments/reviews you might see.

And you might possibly want to limit Audyssey correction to e.g. 5kHz for some speaker or personal preference reason...I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't tell the diff between that and full-range. But limiting it to 300Hz and 500Hz, I found it really dulled my perception of the sound (I think it was the lack of correction in the upper ranges made the lower [corrected] ranges sound more prominent). It was not "bad" or anything like that, but in comparison to full-range it just sounded lacking. This is a very easy experiment with the app, once you have a good set of Audyssey microphone readings saved. It only takes about a minute to upload new settings to your AVR.


----------



## mthomas47

jsgrise said:


> Very good to know, I was thinking of upgrading my receiver for that feature only, but I guess I will take a pause
> 
> As you can see in my signature, my room is also fairly treated. In my case, spreading the microphone placements further away made a substantial difference in the sound and has improved on all accounts.





kaydee6 said:


> How far away do you place the microphone positions from the 1st position? Is 2 feet good enough?





jsgrise said:


> I did position 2 and 3 about 2.5’ on each side of position 1 (MLP). 4-5-6 were about 18-24’’ in front of 1-2-3. Positions 8-9 were between 1-2 and 1-3 but a couple inch backward.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





cfraser said:


> You mean upgrade your receiver so you could use the app? I would not do that _just _for the app. But if you could already use the app, I wouldn't discourage you from buying it, there are some other things you can do with it that you might like. Besides, you should hear for yourself. The app is quite stable these days, so don't necessarily go by the old comments/reviews you might see.
> 
> And you might possibly want to limit Audyssey correction to e.g. 5kHz for some speaker or personal preference reason...I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't tell the diff between that and full-range. But limiting it to 300Hz and 500Hz, I found it really dulled my perception of the sound (I think it was the lack of correction in the upper ranges made the lower [corrected] ranges sound more prominent). It was not "bad" or anything like that, but in comparison to full-range it just sounded lacking. This is a very easy experiment with the app, once you have a good set of Audyssey microphone readings saved. It only takes about a minute to upload new settings to your AVR.





I think that it's tempting to believe that there is a silver bullet, that will work well in all cases, where good audio is concerned. The problem is that our rooms are different, our equipment (speakers and subwoofers) are different, our actual hearing may be different, and our listening preferences are certainly different. I like the advice to experiment with the app, if you have easy access to it. Who knows if you might like some feature that it gives you? But, I probably wouldn't upgrade AVR's just for that, and I would use my own judgment about whether or not I liked full-range EQ. 

The same thing is true with respect to microphone positions during calibration. The best advice is to experiment to discover what you like best. Speaking personally, I initially experimented with wider patterns before discovering that a smaller pattern gave me a more uniform response, over a larger area, than a wider patter did. Interestingly, Audyssey used to recommend a wider microphone pattern than they do now. The recommended pattern used to be 3' to 4' spacing. A couple of years ago, the recommended spacing changed to no more than 2'. But, that doesn't mean that smaller patterns will work well in all cases. If someone gets better results with a wider pattern, then he does. 

We are all tempted to search for the single technology, or technique, or setting that will be universal in its application. But, I'm not sure that it ever really existed. "Good sound" is too dependent on multiple variables for that, and too hard to define on even an individual basis--much less a universal one. We can define an accurate frequency response, but the Harman/Welti studies demonstrated that even that may not be what most of us actually like with respect to low and high-frequencies. And, even in that respect, there is probably a fair bit of individual variation in the house curves we would prefer. YMMV is still the most useful expression on the forum. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jsgrise

cfraser said:


> You mean upgrade your receiver so you could use the app? I would not do that _just _for the app. But if you could already use the app, I wouldn't discourage you from buying it, there are some other things you can do with it that you might like. Besides, you should hear for yourself. The app is quite stable these days, so don't necessarily go by the old comments/reviews you might see.
> 
> And you might possibly want to limit Audyssey correction to e.g. 5kHz for some speaker or personal preference reason...I wouldn't be surprised if I couldn't tell the diff between that and full-range. But limiting it to 300Hz and 500Hz, I found it really dulled my perception of the sound (I think it was the lack of correction in the upper ranges made the lower [corrected] ranges sound more prominent). It was not "bad" or anything like that, but in comparison to full-range it just sounded lacking. This is a very easy experiment with the app, once you have a good set of Audyssey microphone readings saved. It only takes about a minute to upload new settings to your AVR.




Yes I was considering upgrading my SR7010 to add that feature. Other than that, my 7010 is still pretty up to date.

I am happy that you gave me some feedback, I will wait a little bit until an upgrade makes more sens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

mthomas47 said:


> I think that it's tempting to believe that there is a silver bullet, that will work well in all cases, where good audio is concerned. The problem is that our rooms are different, our equipment (speakers and subwoofers) are different, our actual hearing may be different, and our listening preferences are certainly different. I like the advice to experiment with the app, if you have easy access to it. Who knows if you might like some feature that it gives you? But, I probably wouldn't upgrade AVR's just for that, and I would use my own judgment about whether or not I liked full-range EQ.
> 
> The same thing is true with respect to microphone positions during calibration. The best advice is to experiment to discover what you like best. Speaking personally, I initially experimented with wider patterns before discovering that a smaller pattern gave me a more uniform response, over a larger area, than a wider patter did. Interestingly, Audyssey used to recommend a wider microphone pattern than they do now. The recommended pattern used to be 3' to 4' spacing. A couple of years ago, the recommended spacing changed to no more than 2'. But, that doesn't mean that smaller patterns will work well in all cases. If someone gets better results with a wider pattern, then he does.
> 
> We are all tempted to search for the single technology, or technique, or setting that will be universal in its application. But, I'm not sure that it ever really existed. "Good sound" is too dependent on multiple variables for that, and too hard to define on even an individual basis--much less a universal one. We can define an accurate frequency response, but the Harman/Welti studies demonstrated that even that may not be what most of us actually like with respect to low and high-frequencies. YMMV is still the most useful expression on the forum.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Well said, amen to that! I still enjoy reading feedback from trial and errors of others 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kaydee6

jsgrise said:


> I did position 2 and 3 about 2.5’ on each side of position 1 (MLP). 4-5-6 were about 18-24’’ in front of 1-2-3. Positions 8-9 were between 1-2 and 1-3 but a couple inch backward.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, very similar to my calibration pattern.
Funny thing and on the contrary to the feedback here, I prefer to freq limit to 500hz with my 5.1 setup when it comes to 2.1 music. I am yet able to determine differences on 5.1 movie playback. I am using ATC speakers in a 3m x 3.6m x 2.6m room. A small room.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> I think that it's tempting to believe that there is a silver bullet, that will work well in all cases, where good audio is concerned. The problem is that our rooms are different, our equipment (speakers and subwoofers) are different, our actual hearing may be different, and our listening preferences are certainly different. I like the advice to experiment with the app, if you have easy access to it. Who knows if you might like some feature that it gives you? But, I probably wouldn't upgrade AVR's just for that, and I would use my own judgment about whether or not I liked full-range EQ.
> 
> The same thing is true with respect to microphone positions during calibration. The best advice is to experiment to discover what you like best. Speaking personally, I initially experimented with wider patterns before discovering that a smaller pattern gave me a more uniform response, over a larger area, than a wider patter did. Interestingly, Audyssey used to recommend a wider microphone pattern than they do now. The recommended pattern used to be 3' to 4' spacing. A couple of years ago, the recommended spacing changed to no more than 2'. But, that doesn't mean that smaller patterns will work well in all cases. If someone gets better results with a wider pattern, then he does.
> 
> We are all tempted to search for the single technology, or technique, or setting that will be universal in its application. But, I'm not sure that it ever really existed. "Good sound" is too dependent on multiple variables for that, and too hard to define on even an individual basis--much less a universal one. We can define an accurate frequency response, but the Harman/Welti studies demonstrated that even that may not be what most of us actually like with respect to low and high-frequencies. And, even in that respect, there is probably a fair bit of individual variation in the house curves we would prefer. YMMV is still the most useful expression on the forum.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


... and YMMV even if you and another individual are sitting cheek by jowl on a listening couch.

I find it comforting to START as flat as Audyssey can get it, getting rid of major dips and peaks, as well as unnecessary kinks, then to go beyond flat by creating a house curve with tone controls, subwoofer gain settings, choosing Audyssey Reference or Audyssey Flat, etc. If my AVP could accommodate the app, I might fine tune the house curve*; *if I had the training, I might further adjust the response with REW manipulations, but I've barely made it past the sweep running stage. 

The possible futility of trying for flat in the real world of music is complicated by unanswered questions, such as, if a system measures flat at one SPL, will it at another? I once saw a speaker famed for its flatness really lose it when turned up to orchestral levels. After hearing the music get thin at high volume, a sweep was put on. Naturally, the operator excluded high frequencies, because few tweeters can stand a high SPL sweep signal, nor are they asked to, since high frequencies (in a range almost always given to overtones -- above 3 or 4K) are usually 15 to 20 dB below midrange, except for some speaker killing Rock, Metal, electronic music, etc. After determining, using music, that very loud (classical) passages were in the 90 ~~ 100 dB range (I think), with brief peaks higher, he tried sweeps (we were sequestered behind double paned studio glass). A speaker that measured impressively flat at 80 dB was anything but at 100 dB. I've often thought there should be a measure called "Dynamic Frequency Response." 

I heartily recommend Down With Flat by J. Gordon Holt (founder of *Stereophile*), a response by Anthony Cordesman, a back-at-you by Holt, and a two sentence response by Archibald, which is tacked on the end. https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/index.html 

Except for innovations like Audyssey, and an explosion in the number of channels we can have, very little has changed since these articles were written in 1985. The same issues are with us still. Some things are worse, notably attenuation of bass in pop, Rock and Metal recordings, and the jacking up of the upper middle. While the three authors cited above enjoy disagreeing, they don't all that much*; *they all believe that maintaining measured flat response is not the way to go.

The "right" balance for *most* of the recordings I have, as close as I can get it, looks like this: Very flat response from about 700 Hz up to the top (the response droops a little between about 14K and 17K, but my old ears will not mind), a little bump between 300 and 800, just about where Holt says we need it for realistic reproduction of trombones, then a Harman-like bass boost, from 300 down to the bottom -- the lower it gets the louder it becomes, but gradually. For *bad* recordings, further steps must be taken. For high frequency distortion, or harshness, I move from my usual Audyssey Flat to Audyssey Reference. For thin bass, I crank it up. A few recordings are hopeless.

As Cordsman says, what matters is not whether the response is flat, but "whether it is musically convincing." And musically pleasurable, of course.


----------



## jsgrise

garygarrison said:


> ;
> 
> As Cordsman says, what matters is not whether the response is flat, but "whether it is musically convincing." And musically pleasurable, of course.



Absolutely. If you take for instance the response of my Venere 1.5 (surrounds), it is anything but flat and they are ear candy to me.

My worry is that Audyssey is taking the sound signature of the speaker away by trying to flatten out the response?













Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kal Rubinson

jsgrise said:


> Absolutely. If you take for instance the response of my Venere 1.5 (surrounds), it is anything but flat and they are ear candy to me.
> 
> My worry is that Audyssey is taking the sound signature of the speaker away by trying to flatten out the response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





> As Cordsman says, what matters is not whether the response is flat, but As Cordsman says, what matters is not whether the response is flat, but "whether it is musically convincing." And musically pleasurable, of course. And musically pleasurable, of course.


There is no arguing with personal satisfaction. However, that is a quasi-anechoic measurement and the FR in your listening room, depending on the setup, the acoustics of the room and the dispersion characteristics of the speaker, may be entirely different.

Another factor is how the determination of "whether it is musically convincing" is reached. How many people get the chance to A/B.....n speakers in their own room to their own satisfaction? I don't.


----------



## pbz06

Hi guys, I finally got a chance to run some settings with sub and placement. How can I see the graphs x and y axis? It's difficult to see what's going on.

Which looks better, option 1 or 2? The first two pics are Option 1 and the last two pics are Option 2.

Thanks


----------



## cfraser

^ Hard to say. I think I might choose Option 2, just because the drop in response for that "big dip" in Option 1 is over a wider range so is likely more noticeable. Compared to the narrow dip at the same freq. in Option 2, and its additional dip at lower freqs. If you just looked at the Curve Editor graph, then you'd naturally choose Option 1. Can you not find something "in between"? 

But really, these graphs are not reality. Results need to be checked with REW or similar. The graphs can be very misleading, and at the very least they're not true frequency response nor accurate.


----------



## garygarrison

jsgrise said:


> Absolutely. If you take for instance the response of my Venere 1.5 (surrounds), it is anything but flat and they are ear candy to me.
> 
> My worry is that Audyssey is taking the sound signature of the speaker away by trying to flatten out the response?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



IMO, the sound signature of a speaker is composed not only of frequency response, but also transient response, tightness, various kinds of distortion, including total modulation distortion with its sidebands, dynamic range capability, and types of distortion we haven't named or measured yet, etc. Of course, there are relationships between frequency response and these, probably some causal and some merely correlational, with the notorious third variable -- or in this field, the fourth, fifth, sixth ... ∞ -- lurking in the background, and in play.


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> Hi guys, I finally got a chance to run some settings with sub and placement. How can I see the graphs x and y axis? It's difficult to see what's going on.
> 
> Which looks better, option 1 or 2? The first two pics are Option 1 and the last two pics are Option 2.
> 
> Thanks



What do your ears tell you? Maybe try a third option and listen for a few weeks to each of the three. 

As they stand, you may find that one of them is better for movies (since deep reaching LFE can be so important in some movies) and the other might turn out to be better for music, since music demands clean bass, but there is very little music written with fundamentals below 40 Hz (except for organ, synthesizer, etc.).


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> What do your ears tell you? Maybe try a third option and listen for a few weeks to each of the three.
> 
> As they stand, you may find that one of them is better for movies (since deep reaching LFE can be so important in some movies) and the other might turn out to be better for music, since music demands clean bass, but there is very little music written with fundamentals below 40 Hz (except for organ, synthesizer, etc.).



Hi Garry, how about a little argument (say seasoned discussion!) on different correction for movies vs. music. As I learned Audyssey (or any other RC software) is made to compensate for anomalies of room/speaker interaction, basically full-range, yet knows nothing of what program material is going to be played. 

Any program material will have as many frequencies played back as has been recorded regardless of it being a movie or music. I usually get confused on the subject when it comes to playing music in a movie, not to mention a concert video puzzling me whether it is a movie or music. 

Of course, this is only the way I see it!


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Hi Garry, how about a little argument (say seasoned discussion!) on different correction for movies vs. music. As I learned Audyssey (or any other RC software) is made to compensate for anomalies of room/speaker interaction, basically full-range, yet knows nothing of what program material is *going to *be played.
> 
> Any program material will have as many frequencies played back as has been recorded regardless of it being a movie or music. I usually get confused on the subject when it comes to playing music in a movie, not to mention a concert video puzzling me whether it is a movie or music.
> 
> Of course, this is only the way I see it!



O.K., *Audyssey* doesn't know whether some music or a movie is playing. As good as Audyssey is, it is neither a sentient nor sapient being (sometimes I'm not so sure*;* at times like those I'm liable to say, "It has a mind of its own."). Wait a minute, maybe it's a little bit sentient, if "hears" test pings. I guess we should always ask "compared to what?" Compared to a stone, Audyssey perhaps could be considered quasi-sentient. In this political environment, perhaps we should ask "compared to whom?" I had better stop right there.


But, you are correct, no matter how we think about it, it is beyond Audyssey's capacity to predict whether a piece of music or a movie is "going to be played," and the room correction which was set up by Audyssey earlier will be identical for music and movies. We could probably build a detector into Audyssey to let people in a different room know whether a movie or music is playing. The verdict would be probabilistic. The more content below, say, 30 Hz, the more likely what is playing is a movie. In its spare time, our detector could contemplate whether it would run into Hobbes's Problem.



In the case of *pbz06's* question though, the *Option 1* shows a sizeable dip at 40 Hz, where there could be either music or movie content, but the response "recovers" and provides flat(ish) response between 20 and 30 Hz, where LFE is likely in movies and is unlikely in most music. The lower range of LFE would be useful in showing many movies, but few pieces of music except for organ or synthesizer music. *Option 2*, however, substitutes a narrow dip for the sizeable one in Option 1, but the bass rolls off more steeply. That might be better in music, where there is less bass to lose down around 20 Hz, but the narrow dip might be all but inaudible, because it is so narrow. So, Option 1 for movies, and Option 2 for music, unless it happens to be organ or synthesizer music, in which case revert to Option 1. I'm hoping the app will store different curves -- I don't have one, so I don't know. I realize that the difference between Option 1 and Option 2 might not be audible.


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> O.K., *Audyssey* doesn't know whether some music or a movie is playing. As good as Audyssey is, it is neither a sentient nor sapient being (sometimes I'm not so sure*;* at times like those I'm liable to say, "It has a mind of its own."). Wait a minute, maybe it's a little bit sentient, if "hears" test pings. I guess we should always ask "compared to what?" Compared to a stone, Audyssey perhaps could be considered quasi-sentient. In this political environment, perhaps we should ask "compared to whom?" I had better stop right there.
> 
> 
> But, you are correct, no matter how we think about it, it is beyond Audyssey's capacity to predict whether a piece of music or a movie is "going to be played," and the room correction which was set up by Audyssey earlier will be identical for music and movies. We could probably build a detector into Audyssey to let people in a different room know whether a movie or music is playing. The verdict would be probabilistic. The more content below, say, 30 Hz, the more likely what is playing is a movie. In its spare time, our detector could contemplate whether it would run into Hobbes's Problem.
> 
> 
> 
> In the case of *pbz06's* question though, the *Option 1* shows a sizeable dip at 40 Hz, where there could be either music or movie content, but the response "recovers" and provides flat(ish) response between 20 and 30 Hz, where LFE is likely in movies and most music is unlikely. That would be useful in showing many movies, but few pieces of music except for organ or synthesizer music. *Option 2*, however, substitutes a narrow dip for the sizeable one in Option 1, but the bass rolls off more steeply. That might be better in music, where there is less bass to lose down around 20 Hz, but the narrow dip might be all but inaudible, because it is so narrow. So, Option 1 for movies, and Option 2 for music, unless it happens to be organ or synthesizer music, in which case revert to Option 1. I'm hoping the app will store different curves -- I don't have one, so I don't know. I realize that the difference between Option 1 and Option 2 might not be audible.


My usage habits are 90% movies and 10% video games. I'm not a music guy, so I'm sticking to Option 1 for now while I test movies.

Everything sounds good so far, and I tried my go to bass demos. Not sure what would cause the big dip but sounds good.

World War Z has some nice low end scenes and they all passed the test with flying colors. 

I'm messing around comparing Flat and Reference, and honestly it's hard for me to notice a difference.


----------



## jsgrise

Is the frequency response graph on the Audyssey App for the MLP only, or an average of all mic positions?


----------



## mthomas47

jsgrise said:


> Is the frequency response graph on the Audyssey App for the MLP only, or an average of all mic positions?



Hi,

That's a very interesting question, and I'm not sure that I have ever heard anyone answer it. It makes some sense to me that the graph of projected FR that you are looking at on the app has to be for a single point in space--the MLP. The filters that Audyssey will be setting in an effort to achieve those results, however, are based on a fuzzy-weighted average of all of the mic positions. So, Audyssey will measure FR at multiple positions, determined by the listener, and it will average the results for the filters it sets.

But, the actual FR will vary slightly, if you even move a measurement microphone, such as a UMIK-1, by about 6". So, not only is the graph only a crude representation of what Audyssey is attempting to do, but I think that the graph can really only apply to a single point in space. If, on the other hand, it really is depicting an average of the entire listening area, as defined by the mic positions used in the calibration, then it has even less relevance for what someone might actually hear at the MLP. I would guess that the graphs depict whatever is easier for the software to illustrate, since it can't ever be a very accurate illustration, anyway. 

As you may know, that is one of the inherent limitations of a frequency response measurement process. FR changes slightly (or a lot) at different positions within a room. So, when using REW, for instance, people are encouraged to take a cluster of measurements at the MLP, around where the head would be, in an effort to replicate the binaural (hearing with both ears) nature of our hearing, and our tendency to move our heads somewhat during normal listening/viewing. If someone only took a single measurement, right between the eyes, it wouldn't accurately depict what he was hearing when sitting at that location.

FWIW, I don't consider the graphs to be terribly useful. I think that someone who is really curious about his FR needs to invest in some independent measurement capabilities. Otherwise, he is probably better off, in most cases, just trying to follow good speaker/subwoofer setup and calibration guidelines, and then making any post-calibration adjustments on the basis of what he actually hears, and personally likes. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> IMO, the sound signature of a speaker is composed not only of frequency response, but also transient response, tightness, various kinds of distortion, including total modulation distortion with its sidebands, dynamic range capability, and types of distortion we haven't named or measured yet, etc. Of course, there are relationships between frequency response and these, probably some causal and some merely correlational, with the notorious third variable -- or in this field, the fourth, fifth, sixth ... ∞ -- lurking in the background, and in play.


Agreed. I'd only add that "frequency response" is in itself a complex and compound variable consisting of direct response and reflected response which depends on the speaker's radiation pattern. The speaker frequency response plots usually shown are direct response measurements and ignore the effect of early arrival reflected sound which depends on how much the speaker radiates to the sides and above and below the listening/measurement axis. Of course the reflected sound response also depends on the reflectivity of the surfaces reflecting the sound which can vary greatly from room to room, eg glass windows vs dry wall at reflection points.

In the same room the frequency response we hear at the listening position for 2 speakers with the same direct path response measured under anechoic or quasi-anechoic conditions can actually be quite different because of differences in their radiation patterns.


----------



## garygarrison

jsgrise said:


> Is the frequency response graph on the Audyssey App for the MLP only, or an average of all mic positions?



Wow!


It would be interesting to see what the Audyssey company has to say about that! Is it mentioned in the manual? I have neither the manual nor Facebook, but can someone ask Audyssey on Facebook?


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Wow!
> 
> 
> It would be interesting to see what the Audyssey company has to say about that! Is it mentioned in the manual? I have neither the manual nor Facebook, but can someone ask Audyssey on Facebook?



Q sent to Chris: 

Hello Chris, many are interested in this quick Q: Is the frequency response graph on the Audyssey App for the MLP only, or an average of all mic positions? Thanks for your same quick answer. Cheers. 

Stay tuned, please.


----------



## mogorf

mogorf said:


> Q sent to Chris:
> 
> Hello Chris, many are interested in this quick Q: Is the frequency response graph on the Audyssey App for the MLP only, or an average of all mic positions? Thanks for your same quick answer. Cheers.
> 
> Stay tuned, please.



While we were desperately waiting (almost) in vain, finally the answer popped in. Don't know what took Chris waste 11 minutes. Slow typer, eh? 


So!


Quote


Chris Kyriakakis Hi Feri, as you may remember MultEQ combines the responses using a weighted average method. So it's not a simple average where each response has the same "importance". Keeping that in mind, the response shown is the weighted average of all the measurements. This is the reason it's a little difficult to "check" with 3rd party software. Even if you put their mic in the exam same positions as the Audyssey measurements, the curve will not be the same as what Audyssey found due to the proprietary way of weighting the measurements.


Unquote


Let's discuss!


----------



## jsgrise

mogorf said:


> ... MultEQ combines the responses using a weighted average method. So it's not a simple average where each response has the same "importance".
> 
> Let's discuss!


Thanks for contacting Audyssey and sharing with us! How does Audyssey knows which measurements is more important than to other?


----------



## mogorf

jsgrise said:


> Thanks for contacting Audyssey and sharing with us! How does Audyssey knows which measurements is more important than to other?


Ah, that's an interesting question, indeed. 

When 3rd party after-measurement is used (like REW, or the like) each measurement data is used with so-called equal "importance". This practically means a simple mathematical averaging. 

In the meantime, Audyssey uses a weighted method where the software calculates the final frequency response curve based on clustering (grouping) each mic input where it finds similarities, then within the cluster a so-called "centroid" is calculated and finally only these "centroids" are forwarded to create a master centriod that results in the final frequency curve created for each speaker (and sub, of course). 

Please keep in mind that Audyssey is correcting for a multi-seater environment in our rooms by way of optimizing seat-by-seat variances in space. Not promising "heavenly nirvana", but gives a much much much more better result than without it. 

And these results will surely become apparent to our ears when taken away. Not rocket science, but near to it! 

Hope this helps.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> ... When 3rd party after-measurement is used (like REW, or the like) each measurement data is used with so-called equal "importance". This practically means a simple mathematical averaging.
> 
> In the meantime, Audyssey uses a weighted method where the software calculates the final frequency response curve based on clustering (grouping) each mic input where it finds similarities, then within the cluster a so-called "centroid" is calculated and finally only these "centroids" are forwarded to create a master centriod that results in the final frequency curve created for each speaker (and sub, of course).
> 
> Please keep in mind that Audyssey is correcting for a multi-seater environment in our rooms by way of optimizing seat-by-seat variances in space. Not promising "heavenly nirvana", but gives a much much much more better result than without it.
> 
> And *these results will surely become apparent to our ears when taken away*. Not rocket science, but near to it!
> 
> Hope this helps.


 Thanks, Feri, for contacting Chris!


Centroid -- IMO that's a good way to put it. Is that your choice of words, or Audyssey's? I'm not sure I like the mathematical/physical definition (re: triangles, monolithic solids, etc.), but I love what it means in plain English, “resembling,” or “like” a center, but an imperfect resemblance. As you suggest, we *wouldn't want* a true center line, because it could over-represent extreme outliers, which is also what an unweighted average (mean) can do. A median can be a little better, but Audyssey's fuzzy creature is probably best of all.


I wouldn't say my Audyssey processed sound is "much much much" better, but when switching back and forth between "Audyssey" and "Audyssey off" with some Harman-like bass boost always engaged, with Audyssey it certainly is much better, clearer, airier, with better imaging, to use some audiophile words.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Thanks, Feri, for contacting Chris!
> 
> 
> Centroid -- IMO that's a good way to put it. Is that your choice of words, or Audyssey's? I'm not sure I like the mathematical/physical definition (re: triangles, monolithic solids, etc.), but I love what it means in plain English, “resembling,” or “like” a center, but an imperfect resemblance. As you suggest, we *wouldn't want* a true center line, because it could over-represent extreme outliers, which is also what an unweighted average (mean) can do. A median can be a little better, but Audyssey's fuzzy creature is probably best of all.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't say my Audyssey processed sound is "much much much" better, but when switching back and forth between "Audyssey" and "Audyssey off" with some Harman-like bass boost always engaged, with Audyssey it certainly is much better, clearer, airier, with better imaging, to use some audiophile words.



Hi Garry! I was really glad to have such a quick response from Chris. 


Centroid is a word used by Adyssey which I've read in several of their publication and papers. A good word, indeed.


----------



## rickardl

garygarrison said:


> Centroid -- IMO that's a good way to put it. Is that your choice of words, or Audyssey's? I'm not sure I like the mathematical/physical definition (re: triangles, monolithic solids, etc.), but I love what it means in plain English, “resembling,” or “like” a center, but an imperfect resemblance. As you suggest, we *wouldn't want* a true center line, because it could over-represent extreme outliers, which is also what an unweighted average (mean) can do. A median can be a little better, but Audyssey's fuzzy creature is probably best of all.


Read some more about it...


----------



## jabe00

Hello,

I was able to run Audyssey with the Android App for the first time and below are the result for the front, center and subwoofer after the 8 positions. Please let me know what do you think. 

Thanks,
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## ppiamp

Looks good!


----------



## garygarrison

rickardl said:


> Read some more about it...



Wow, thanks.


I'll read the article closely soon, when I can give it the attention it deserves, but, for now, I just want to say two things*:*


It's commendable that they published what may have been the basis for the proprietary and commercial venture later on. I don't know how many iterations followed, or when they got something patentable, but the article was published in 2001, when they may have still been vulnerable. I think I first heard of Audyssey (but not by that name) in 2005. It hit the NY Times in 2011. "Public and verifiable" is near the heart of science.
It's interesting that for position 2, a single point measurement was "better" (lower number) than both the average and the SAM, while for other positions the results got better with the average, and the best with fuzzy SAM. I don't know what I'm making of that, but maybe people who dislike Audyssey had bad luck in selecting their MLP.
I highly appreciate Audyssey. I can't afford Dirac. Audyssey has made more difference in my sound than any amplifier, player, or other device I've acquired in recent years. It's so nice that some methodology and results are available for our scrutiny. Contrast that with a Miraculous Sound Enhancer with no documentation to place in your music room, or magic elevators to hang your speaker cable from, or a brain vitalizer "first discovered in jellyfish."


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was able to run Audyssey with the Android App for the first time and below are the result for the front, center and subwoofer after the 8 positions. Please let me know what do you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



How does it sound? Looks generally good, but the Left and Right take a big dip above 3K Hz, but *not* your center! You could be losing some detail and shimmer in the highs. How do cymbal crashes, brass and violins sound?

I don't know why Audyssey didn't provide a little more correction above 3K -- it has 9 dB to work with. Did you have it set up, somehow, to only work below 3K?


----------



## jabe00

garygarrison said:


> How does it sound? Looks generally good, but the Left and Right take a big dip above 3K Hz, but *not* your center! You could be losing some detail and shimmer in the highs. How do cymbal crashes, brass and violins sound?
> 
> I don't know why Audyssey didn't provide a little more correction above 3K -- it has 9 dB to work with. Did you have it set up, somehow, to only work below 3K?


Thanks for your answers, I appreciate.

You know, last night after I ran I was listen some music different types just to test a little how sound and while listening I was thinking that something was not right, like something was missing and know that you mentioned I started thinking and yes, you right some sound were missing, not like a lot but simple was no there.

Do you think is something that can be worked out?

For the question about if I have set it up for the 3K, the answer is no, I didn't set anything.


I'm adding the results for my Surrounds Speakers as the levels.

Thanks,









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## rickardl

garygarrison said:


> It's commendable that they published what may have been the basis for the proprietary and commercial venture later on. I don't know how many iterations followed, or when they got something patentable, but the article was published in 2001, when they may have still been vulnerable. I think I first heard of Audyssey (but not by that name) in 2005. It hit the NY Times in 2011. "Public and verifiable" is near the heart of science.




Well, they also patented their inventions. Here is one of them https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/0a/b1/54/e2213d5507ab5f/US20030235318A1.pdf


----------



## jsgrise

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was able to run Audyssey with the Android App for the first time and below are the result for the front, center and subwoofer after the 8 positions. Please let me know what do you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Are your L/R speakers toed in or straight forward? I would try to have them toed in pointed at MLP or close too.


----------



## jabe00

jsgrise said:


> Are your L/R speakers toed in or straight forward? I would try to have them toed in pointed at MLP or close too.


Hello,

They are straight forward, I'll point to mlp and I'll run again.

Thanks
Jose

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> They are straight forward, I'll point to mlp and I'll run again.
> 
> Thanks
> Jose
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


That is probably why you have such a difference in HF response versus your center. Toe them in and rerun Audyssey.


----------



## tbaucom

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I was able to run Audyssey with the Android App for the first time and below are the result for the front, center and subwoofer after the 8 positions. Please let me know what do you think.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


If toeing in doesn't change the left/right speakers treble response, I would check the tweeters. It almost looks like they may not be functioning correctly.


----------



## cfraser

^ Agreed, something isn't right there, the front FR drops off and we've barely reached the MRC!


----------



## jsgrise

tbaucom said:


> If toeing in doesn't change the left/right speakers treble response, I would check the tweeters. It almost looks like they may not be functioning correctly.





cfraser said:


> ^ Agreed, something isn't right there, the front FR drops off and we've barely reached the MRC!


Looks like his tweeters are not working at all on speakers with a +- 3KHz x-over. Maybe the jumpers are disconnected on the binding posts?


----------



## mogorf

jsgrise said:


> Looks like his tweeters are not working at all on speakers with a +- 3KHz x-over. Maybe the jumpers are disconnected on the binding posts?



Hope its only the jumpers, which is an easy fix, and not a case of blown-out tweeters. BTW, what brand/model speakers are these jabe00?


----------



## jabe00

jsgrise said:


> Looks like his tweeters are not working at all on speakers with a +- 3KHz x-over. Maybe the jumpers are disconnected on the binding posts?


Thanks, i'll see if I can open and see if they are connected

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jabe00

mogorf said:


> Hope its only the jumpers, which is an easy fix, and not a case of blown-out tweeters. BTW, what brand/model speakers are these jabe00?


Hope it's, but I'm more inclined for the blown out.

Those are Energy RC-70

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

jabe00 said:


> Hope it's, but I'm more inclined for the blown out.
> 
> Those are Energy RC-70
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



To judge a blown-out speaker you may play some well known contents and put your ear up close to the tweeter, like 1 inch, and listen carefully.


----------



## garygarrison

I tend to doubt that it is the tweeters.

If the graphs in *green* are Audyssey's *actual* measurements (perhaps due to two blown tweeters), 

and

If the graphs in *red* represent the *predicted* response in the room *after* correction, *not* an actual measurement in the room after Audyssey did its thing,

wouldn't that mean that Audyssey detected a serious roll off above 2K (*green)* at maybe as much as 20 dB/octave (I'm going cross-eyed trying to read those tiny unlabeled graphs) and "decided" to do nothing whatsoever about it? Wouldn't that, besides being unlikely, mean Audyssey was suffering from serious cognitive and emotional problems, or that the high frequency crew is on strike?


----------



## tbaucom

garygarrison said:


> I tend to doubt that it is the tweeters.
> 
> If the graphs in *green* are Audyssey's *actual* measurements (perhaps due to two blown tweeters),
> 
> and
> 
> If the graphs in *red* represent the *predicted* response in the room *after* correction, *not* an actual measurement in the room after Audyssey did its thing,
> 
> wouldn't that mean that Audyssey detected a serious roll off above 2K (*green)* at maybe as much as 20 dB/octave (I'm going cross-eyed trying to read those tiny unlabeled graphs) and "decided" to do nothing whatsoever about it? Wouldn't that, besides being unlikely, mean Audyssey was suffering from serious cognitive and emotional problems, or that the high frequency crew is on strike?


Audyssey has a limit to amount of boost it will apply. i think it is 6db. The response was so bad there was nothing audyssey could do about it. The green is the actual measurements.


----------



## jsgrise

garygarrison said:


> wouldn't that mean that Audyssey detected a serious roll off above 2K (*green)* at maybe as much as 20 dB/octave (I'm going cross-eyed trying to read those tiny unlabeled graphs) and "decided" to do nothing whatsoever about it?


Yes, I believe Audyssey is designed to not apply any correction below LF rolloff and above HF rolloff.


----------



## garygarrison

tbaucom said:


> Audyssey has a limit to amount of boost it will apply. i think it is 6db. The response was so bad there was nothing audyssey could do about it. The green is the actual measurements.


I think Chris K. said it was 9 dB, as far as boost is concerned, with a bigger cut also available.

So are you saying Audyssey has a function that causes it to do nothing if response in a given part of the frequency spectrum is too far off, i.e., more than can be corrected for, rather than providing a partial correction, such as the 9 dB boost limit? 

I know it won't provide compensation below the F3 in the bass, but is that true at the high end too? But not in the middle?

It seems to be ear to the tweeter time. He should use an old paper towel tube if the signal is too faint. The test noise in an AVR is not suitable, because most of them are band limited to 500 to 2K. Music with a lot of treble, or unlimited pink or white noise would be O.K., but *keep the volume down* to avoid blowing out the tweeter, if it is working.


----------



## tbaucom

garygarrison said:


> I think Chris K. said it was 9 dB, as far as boost is concerned, with a bigger cut also available.
> 
> 
> So are you saying Audyssey has a function that causes it to do nothing if response in a given part of the frequency spectrum is too far off, i.e., more than can be corrected for, rather than providing a partial correction, such as the 9 dB boost limit?
> 
> 
> 
> I know it won't provide compensation below the F3 in the bass, but is that true at the high end too? But not in the middle?




I am saying there is some issue with his speaker. That is it. I don’t think the problem has anything to do with audyssey. All his other speaker measurements look normal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

*jabe00*, even at 30 degrees off axis, the low point of your speakers' frequency response is only - 7 dB at 15K Hz, according to the independent testing lab at Hone Audio Equipment Measurement at www.soundstage.com. That's better than they got for the YG Anat Reference (Main module) that originally cost $28,000 and, with the other module, was modestly advertised as "The World's Best Loudspeaker." 



If your speakers are not toed in, and your soundstage is wide enough, and you sit close, you could be as far as, say, 45 degrees off axis. But even there, you would get better tweeter response, I would think.


Let us know the results of putting your ear to the tweeter, and we'll go from there.



​


----------



## jabe00

garygarrison said:


> *jabe00*, even at 30 degrees off axis, the low point of your speakers' frequency response is only - 7 dB at 15K Hz, according to the independent testing lab at Hone Audio Equipment Measurement at www.soundstage.com. That's better than they got for the YG Anat Reference (Main module) that originally cost $28,000 and, with the other module, was modestly advertised as "The World's Best Loudspeaker."
> 
> 
> 
> If your speakers are not toed in, and your soundstage is wide enough, and you sit close, you could be as far as, say, 45 degrees off axis. But even there, you would get better tweeter response, I would think.
> 
> 
> Let us know the results of putting your ear to the tweeter, and we'll go from there.
> 
> 
> 
> ​


I'll test those tweeter in a couple minutes.









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jabe00

jabe00 said:


> I'll test those tweeter in a couple minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


All of you were right those tweeter were burned.

I exchange with my other older bookshelf speaker same line RC that use the same tweeter and the sound is coming now.

Both of them were wasted.

I'll run Audyssey again and I'll post the results.

Here is a picture with my old RC bookshelf speaker and my RC Tower

I also pointed my towers around 35 degrees to the mlp.










Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jabe00

Hello,

Bellow the results after the tweeter change in both front speakers.

8 positions completed

Thanks,
Jose









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> Bellow the results after the tweeter change in both front speakers.
> 
> 8 positions completed
> 
> Thanks,
> Jose
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Hallelujah!  



Now, do you remember any time when you really blasted the music, or pulled out a RCA plug, or turned up a test disk, or otherwise ran a very loud sound through the speakers that took out those tweeters? If you recall such a time, whatever it was, don't do that! 



The sensitivity of the RC 70 is on the low side at 87.5 dB and Energy recommends 250 watt maximum amplifier power. It would take all of that to reach the brief* peak* Reference level of 105 dB at *3* meters from the speaker in an average room, if my calculations are correct. I'd think it would be safest to keep the volume at a somewhat lower level, to protect your tweeters. Most people do run movies and music at a lower level*;* I get the impression that most on the forum keep their peaks to about 95 dB, 10 dB below reference, or somewhere around 25 watts, in your case.


----------



## kgveteran

Hey Audyssey guru’s....

I have a 5.1 disc from OmniMic, to check my subs audyssey response run the sweeps without dynamic eq ???

Is that it ?


----------



## primetimeguy

kgveteran said:


> Hey Audyssey guru’s....
> 
> I have a 5.1 disc from OmniMic, to check my subs audyssey response run the sweeps without dynamic eq ???
> 
> Is that it ?


Pretty much. You can run both with and without dynamic EQ so you can see the difference. You measure LFE channel separately, or measurement the main channels with sub included via bass management to see how well things integrate at the crossover.


----------



## drh3b

garygarrison said:


> I think Chris K. said it was 9 dB, as far as boost is concerned, with a bigger cut also available.
> 
> So are you saying Audyssey has a function that causes it to do nothing if response in a given part of the frequency spectrum is too far off, i.e., more than can be corrected for, rather than providing a partial correction, such as the 9 dB boost limit?
> 
> I know it won't provide compensation below the F3 in the bass, but is that true at the high end too? But not in the middle?
> 
> It seems to be ear to the tweeter time. He should use an old paper towel tube if the signal is too faint. The test noise in an AVR is not suitable, because most of them are band limited to 500 to 2K. Music with a lot of treble, or unlimited pink or white noise would be O.K., but *keep the volume down* to avoid blowing out the tweeter, if it is working.


It's been a couple years, but yeah, that's the way I remember it when I blew a tweeter. Audyssey did nothing above the crossover. It's an easy enough experiment, disconnect the tweeter, run Audyssey, and see what happens.


----------



## kgveteran

primetimeguy said:


> kgveteran said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Audyssey guru’s....
> 
> I have a 5.1 disc from OmniMic, to check my subs audyssey response run the sweeps without dynamic eq ???
> 
> Is that it ?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much. You can run both with and without dynamic EQ so you can see the difference. You measure LFE channel separately, or measurement the main channels with sub included via bass management to see how well things integrate at the crossover.
Click to expand...

Cool, i’ll check that out. Anything else i can check


----------



## pbz06

Anyone know what the audible threshold is when running Audyssey (XT32) is without disrupting the chirps? I've never gotten an warnings. 

I have an open floor plan and never realized how loud my fridge is. A constant humming/buzzing sound and it's about 35-40dB when I'm testing the MLP. There also seems to be a car driving by every time it gets to my subwoofer, argh. Loud swoosh sound as it drives by. The world is against me!


----------



## jabe00

garygarrison said:


> Hallelujah!
> 
> 
> 
> Now, do you remember any time when you really blasted the music, or pulled out a RCA plug, or turned up a test disk, or otherwise ran a very loud sound through the speakers that took out those tweeters? If you recall such a time, whatever it was, don't do that!
> 
> 
> 
> The sensitivity of the RC 70 is on the low side at 87.5 dB and Energy recommends 250 watt maximum amplifier power. It would take all of that to reach the brief* peak* Reference level of 105 dB at *3* meters from the speaker in an average room, if my calculations are correct. I'd think it would be safest to keep the volume at a somewhat lower level, to protect your tweeters. Most people do run movies and music at a lower level*;* I get the impression that most on the forum keep their peaks to about 95 dB, 10 dB below reference, or somewhere around 25 watts, in your case.


Thanks for the help.

I don't remember when they were blown on, but how sound now I can tell you that maybe we're long time ago, what difference my friend. 

Thanks everyone for the help, I really appreciate..



Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> Anyone know what the audible threshold is when running Audyssey (XT32) is without disrupting the chirps? I've never gotten an warnings.
> 
> I have an open floor plan and never realized how loud my fridge is. A constant humming/buzzing sound and it's about 35-40dB when I'm testing the MLP. There also seems to be a car driving by every time it gets to my subwoofer, argh. Loud swoosh sound as it drives by. The world is against me!



Hi,

I have never heard anyone cite a specific threshold, but noise floors in rooms probably range from about 35db to as high as 45 or 50db, so I suspect that the threshold is pretty high. There has always been some disagreement about whether it is better to turn everything in a room off, such as the HVAC system, or a refrigerator, or whatever, or to just calibrate with the room as it would normally be during playback. Personally, I have tried it both ways and felt that the audible differences were too insignificant to notice. So, I typically allow the noise floor in my room, which is already fairly low, to be whatever it is. YMMV, but I suspect that it is more a matter of personal degrees of OCD than it is a matter of tangible audible differences.

The issue of cars driving by at inopportune moments is a little different, because that represents a momentary (or longer) change in the normal noise floor. The loud "swoosh" sound as a car drives by may be at too high a frequency to affect your subwoofers. If a loud truck slowly rumbled by, I think that I would want to stop and repeat the process. My own OCD would probably require at least that much. In practical terms, though, the earlier discussion of clustering and centroids is applicable to this situation as well. 

It takes some time to move microphones between each of the calibration positions. So, it's unlikely that a random noise would persist for more than one mic position. And, some random sound during a single mic position, which isn't even loud enough to make Audyssey stop the test, is probably not going to make any difference in the final result. That is because the fuzzy-weighted averaging is going to treat that specific ping as an outlier anyway, if it even changes the overall frequency response to start with, and is not going to give it any weight. Instead, it's going to average based on more uniform clusters. That's not an ironclad guarantee, but I think its a reasonable conclusion.

I think that microphone positions can matter, and once we find a good calibration pattern, it's a good idea to stick with it. But, exactitude to the millimeter is probably a little over the top, as is an excessive focus on the noise floor, and on random short-term noises during calibration. It's certainly a YMMV question, which people can test for themselves either by listening, or by measuring. But, I suspect that the calibration process is actually a little more flexible, and more forgiving, than some of us who are implementing it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have never heard anyone cite a specific threshold, but noise floors in rooms probably range from about 35db to as high as 45 or 50db, so I suspect that the threshold is pretty high. There has always been some disagreement about whether it is better to turn everything in a room off, such as the HVAC system, or a refrigerator, or whatever, or to just calibrate with the room as it would normally be during playback. Personally, I have tried it both ways and felt that the audible differences were too insignificant to notice. So, I typically allow the noise floor in my room, which is already fairly low, to be whatever it is. YMMV, but I suspect that it is more a matter of personal degrees of OCD than it is a matter of tangible audible differences.
> 
> The issue of cars driving by at inopportune moments is a little different, because that represents a momentary (or longer) change in the normal noise floor. The loud "swoosh" sound as a car drives by may be at too high a frequency to affect your subwoofers. If a loud truck slowly rumbled by, I think that I would want to stop and repeat the process. My own OCD would probably require at least that much. In practical terms, though, the earlier discussion of clustering and centroids is applicable to this situation as well.
> 
> It takes some time to move microphones between each of the calibration positions. So, it's unlikely that a random noise would persist for more than one mic position. And, some random sound during a single mic position, which isn't even loud enough to make Audyssey stop the test, is probably not going to make any difference in the final result. That is because the fuzzy-weighted averaging is going to treat that specific ping as an outlier anyway, if it even changes the overall frequency response to start with, and is not going to give it any weight. Instead, it's going to average based on more uniform clusters. That's not an ironclad guarantee, but I think its a reasonable conclusion.
> 
> I think that microphone positions can matter, and once we find a good calibration pattern, it's a good idea to stick with it. But, exactitude to the millimeter is probably a little over the top, as is an excessive focus on the noise floor, and on random short-term noises during calibration. It's certainly a YMMV question, which people can test for themselves either by listening, or by measuring. But, I suspect that the calibration process is actually a little more flexible, and more forgiving, than some of us who are implementing it.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



I've heard that the noise floor of a concert hall or theater hovers around 30 dB. Quite fortunately, my SPL meter only reads down to 50 dB.


----------



## mtbdudex

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

my HT noise floor is about 30db, target for HT is around 24db in my memory .

If I’m in open first floor family room I’ve simple turned off items when running Audyssey... 
hvac, fridge, etc. just 15 minutes no issue.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## krabapple

I'm revisiting my (MultiXT32) Dynamic EQ settings vs speakers trims, as the surrounds sometimes sound too loud...can someone give me a rough guide to how much DEQ boosts the surrounds? CUrrently using a DEQ ORL of -10. I presume the DEQ surround (and subwoofer) boost changes with MV level (.i.e becoming zero at MV -10, but rising as master volume is lowered below that).? I'm interested in what the maximum surround channel level boost is, and if known, what its rate of change is.


----------



## Soulburner

Hard to answer without measuring the system, but you are correct about the way it works.


----------



## pbz06

Is it OK if I adjust my speaker distance after Audyssey?

I've been testing around a ton, and it got it correct every time, but now that I ran it for reals, it had my front Left speaker at 7' instead of 10.5'.


----------



## mthomas47

krabapple said:


> I'm revisiting my (MultiXT32) Dynamic EQ settings vs speakers trims, as the surrounds sometimes sound too loud...can someone give me a rough guide to how much DEQ boosts the surrounds? CUrrently using a DEQ ORL of -10. I presume the DEQ surround (and subwoofer) boost changes with MV level (.i.e becoming zero at MV -10, but rising as master volume is lowered below that).? I'm interested in what the maximum surround channel level boost is, and if known, what its rate of change is.





pbz06 said:


> Is it OK if I adjust my speaker distance after Audyssey?
> 
> I've been testing around a ton, and it got it correct every time, but now that I ran it for reals, it had my front Left speaker at 7' instead of 10.5'.



Hi,

* With respect to the questions about DEQ, there is an in-depth discussion of how DEQ works, linked below:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#VA


* With respect to the distance setting for the FL speaker, I'm surprised that Audyssey didn't get that right. It usually does. But, if you want to change the distance setting, either because the actual distance is different from the setting, or because things sound unbalanced to you, there is nothing wrong with doing that. Changing levels, distances, crossovers, or turning-off DEQ, using Flat, etc., won't affect the room EQ that Audyssey performed.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## kars85

I think I know the answer to this, but I want to make sure. Will MultEQ XT32 dynamically use dual subs? It's been a couple years since I was deep into the setup of my HT. I'm troubleshooting a potential issue with one of my SVS subs (in the back of my setup), and want to make sure that signals only get sent to the rear if the media source/Audyssey setup config would call for it. It seems like more times than not, especially lately, my rear sub is in standby.


I have a splitter on the RCA wall plate to feed a plate amp for my couch's bass shakers, and the other half of the splitter feeds the SVS. The SVS X-over is set wide open, but I can't get it to come out of standby despite the bass shakers rumbling.

*
*


----------



## pbarach

^^Audyssey crosses over the signal to your sub at whatever frequency you choose. If the sub is staying in standby, either the incoming sub signal is too low in level to trigger the sub into ON or there is something wrong with the sub. Try contacting SVS--their support was excellent when I owned their EQ device.


----------



## kars85

pbarach said:


> ^^Audyssey crosses over the signal to your sub at whatever frequency you choose. If the sub is staying in standby, either the incoming sub signal is too low in level to trigger the sub into ON or there is something wrong with the sub. Try contacting SVS--their support was excellent when I owned their EQ device.



I can't remember if my Audyssey setup had a separate test tone for the second sub preout, I was 99.9% sure it did. Sounds like I'll be giving SVS a call. 



I wish there were a way to run a test sweep/tone through a designated speaker through the Denon menu - unless I missed it?


----------



## pbz06

kars85 said:


> I can't remember if my Audyssey setup had a separate test tone for the second sub preout, I was 99.9% sure it did. Sounds like I'll be giving SVS a call.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish there were a way to run a test sweep/tone through a designated speaker through the Denon menu - unless I missed it?


If your AVR has 2 pre-outs, you should be able to navigate into the settings and find the internal test tones which should have a subwoofer 1 and 2 (and 1+2).

With XT32, the first position will set the delay and level match separately for each sub individually, but the next 7 positions will be run as 1 subwoofer.


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> If your AVR has 2 pre-outs, you should be able to navigate into the settings and find the internal test tones which should have a subwoofer 1 and 2 (and 1+2).
> 
> With XT32, the first position will set the delay and level match separately for each sub individually, but the next 7 positions will be run as 1 subwoofer.


Small addition to the above: The AVR's internal test tones bypass Audyssey, which does not prevent you from checking what you want to look for.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

I have a large mixture of DTS:X and Atmos discs. From everything I've read, you want to use F/R Heights on DTS:X and F/R Tops on Atmos. Same positions, just called different things. 

It seems Audyssey will only store one calibration with these settings at a time. My current calibration is setup with Tops. So, that works great for Atmos, but not so great for DTS:X. I've been told when I change my current Audyssey Calibration that has them as Tops - to Heights - this either turns off Audyssey or something else negative occurs. 

So..I'm using the app...why don't I just run one calibration with my ceiling speakers as Tops and call it Atmos Tops - and another with my ceiling speakers as Heights, and call it DTS:X Heights. I can save them both on my app, and then load the one I want to use depending on the content I'm watching. 

Anything wrong with that? Or do I have an assumption wrong or a step out of place?


----------



## ctsv510

ScottieBoysName said:


> I have a large mixture of DTS:X and Atmos discs. From everything I've read, you want to use F/R Heights on DTS:X and F/R Tops on Atmos. Same positions, just called different things.
> 
> It seems Audyssey will only store one calibration with these settings at a time. My current calibration is setup with Tops. So, that works great for Atmos, but not so great for DTS:X. I've been told when I change my current Audyssey Calibration that has them as Tops - to Heights - this either turns off Audyssey or something else negative occurs.
> 
> So..I'm using the app...why don't I just run one calibration with my ceiling speakers as Tops and call it Atmos Tops - and another with my ceiling speakers as Heights, and call it DTS:X Heights. I can save them both on my app, and then load the one I want to use depending on the content I'm watching.
> 
> Anything wrong with that? Or do I have an assumption wrong or a step out of place?


I thought I read that Atmos will work correctly setting them to Heights and that will also allow DTS:X to work properly. Using Tops works for Atmos but not ideal for DTS:X as you said. Have you tried the Height configuration with Atmos tracks to compare to how they sounded with Tops? I haven't finished my installation but my research notes were to set the in ceiling speakers as Heights for this purpose. I could be wrong.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

ctsv510 said:


> I thought I read that Atmos will work correctly setting them to Heights and that will also allow DTS:X to work properly. Using Tops works for Atmos but not ideal for DTS:X as you said. Have you tried the Height configuration with Atmos tracks to compare to how they sounded with Tops? I haven't finished my installation but my research notes were to set the in ceiling speakers as Heights for this purpose. I could be wrong.


No you're correct. My question surrounds the fact that once I have a loaded Audyssey calibration where I've set them at Tops....what does changing them to heights do since they weren't calibrated that way with Audyssey?


----------



## Alan P

kars85 said:


> I think I know the answer to this, but I want to make sure. Will MultEQ XT32 dynamically use dual subs? It's been a couple years since I was deep into the setup of my HT. I'm troubleshooting a potential issue with one of my SVS subs (in the back of my setup), and want to make sure that signals only get sent to the rear if the media source/Audyssey setup config would call for it. It seems like more times than not, especially lately, my rear sub is in standby.
> 
> 
> I have a splitter on the RCA wall plate to feed a plate amp for my couch's bass shakers, and the other half of the splitter feeds the SVS. The SVS X-over is set wide open, but I can't get it to come out of standby despite the bass shakers rumbling.
> 
> *
> *


If by "dynamically" you mean that the rear sub will only be used for sound from the rear surround speakers, the answer is no. The subwoofers receive their signal from the_ combined_ signal of the satellite speakers below their respective crossovers. Audyssey knows not _where_ you have placed your subwoofers, only that you _have_ subwoofers. 

As has been mentioned, the reason the auto-on function is not working correctly is because you have too low of voltage going to that subwoofer. You have two choices; increase the sub trim to that sub while decreasing the sub gain at the sub amp accordingly (also decreasing the gain on the amp for your shakers), or (what I do) just leave the sub on.


----------



## tbaucom

ScottieBoysName said:


> I have a large mixture of DTS:X and Atmos discs. From everything I've read, you want to use F/R Heights on DTS:X and F/R Tops on Atmos. Same positions, just called different things.
> 
> It seems Audyssey will only store one calibration with these settings at a time. My current calibration is setup with Tops. So, that works great for Atmos, but not so great for DTS:X. I've been told when I change my current Audyssey Calibration that has them as Tops - to Heights - this either turns off Audyssey or something else negative occurs.
> 
> So..I'm using the app...why don't I just run one calibration with my ceiling speakers as Tops and call it Atmos Tops - and another with my ceiling speakers as Heights, and call it DTS:X Heights. I can save them both on my app, and then load the one I want to use depending on the content I'm watching.
> 
> Anything wrong with that? Or do I have an assumption wrong or a step out of place?


This is exactly what I do. Alternatively, you can run audyssey from the avr and save the 2 different configurations to a usb drive and load the one you want depending on content.


----------



## ScottieBoysName

tbaucom said:


> This is exactly what I do. Alternatively, you can run audyssey from the avr and save the 2 different configurations to a usb drive and load the one you want depending on content.


Awesome. I'm going to do this. I'm assuming there in NO way around NOT running Audyssey again with them labeled as heights? LOL.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> ... or (what I do) just leave the sub on.


 ... or (what I do) with my sub, which is inaccessible behind an acoustically transparent fiber wall, use a 20 amp wall switch (leading to a single 20 amp outlet, connected by 10 gauge wire) to turn off and on the subwoofer(s), which itself/themselves remain(s) set to "on." The only downside I have run into is OCD, "Did you turn off the subwoofer?"


----------



## Alan P

^^^

There are also "smart" power strips.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> There are also "smart" power strips.



My sub is also hidden so the power switch is hard to access. I have a "wireless remote controlled power socket" which has a red LED showing on/off status. 


Something like this.


----------



## Overrid3

Do most of you run with DEQ on (with zero ref. offset) for movies? What about TV? Is a 10 dB offset recommended? This seems to work well, but even then, some content sounds a bit bass heavy. I tried turning off DEQ totally for movies and TV, but the sound kind of weak, especially in action movies with gunfire, explosions, etc.


----------



## pbz06

Overrid3 said:


> Do most of you run with DEQ on (with zero ref. offset) for movies? What about TV? Is a 10 dB offset recommended? This seems to work well, but even then, some content sounds a bit bass heavy. I tried turning off DEQ totally for movies and TV, but the sound kind of weak, especially in action movies with gunfire, explosions, etc.


I use DEQ with Reference. No offset and no dynamic volume. Sounds great.


----------



## mthomas47

Overrid3 said:


> Do most of you run with DEQ on (with zero ref. offset) for movies? What about TV? Is a 10 dB offset recommended? This seems to work well, but even then, some content sounds a bit bass heavy. I tried turning off DEQ totally for movies and TV, but the sound kind of weak, especially in action movies with gunfire, explosions, etc.



Hi,

I would suspect that "most" people probably prefer using DEQ, especially for movies. It's already on by default, and I think most people just leave it on. TV can be a little tougher for DEQ, because some network programs already boost the surround channels, and that can make DEQ less appealing. But, I know that some people prefer not to use DEQ at all. It's strictly a matter of personal preference. 

I would definitely say that most people who choose not to use DEQ need to adjust for that with some independent subwoofer boost. If you haven't done that, I'm not surprised that your bass sounds relatively weak without DEQ. DEQ was specifically designed to compensate for the fact that we don't hear bass frequencies as well as the frequencies in our normal hearing range. As volume levels drop, most people need to add more bass SPL to compensate. DEQ does that automatically, but not everyone likes the effect.

If you want to better understand how DEQ works, and at what volumes and frequencies it is adding SPL, the article linked below will explain DEQ's actions in detail. You can calculate how much DEQ is boosting the bass at a particular listening level, and that may help you to know how much subwoofer boost to add in order to compensate for turning DEQ off. But, ultimately, subwoofer boosts, either with or without DEQ engaged, are a YMMV issue. You will just need to experiment, and your preferences may change somewhat, based on the specific program, or on your mood that day. Here's the link:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Overrid3

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I would suspect that "most" people probably prefer using DEQ, especially for movies. It's already on by default, and I think most people just leave it on. TV can be a little tougher for DEQ, because some network programs already boost the surround channels, and that can make DEQ less appealing. But, I know that some people prefer not to use DEQ at all. It's strictly a matter of personal preference.
> 
> I would definitely say that most people who choose not to use DEQ need to adjust for that with some independent subwoofer boost. If you haven't done that, I'm not surprised that your bass sounds relatively weak without DEQ. DEQ was specifically designed to compensate for the fact that we don't hear bass frequencies as well as the frequencies in our normal hearing range. As volume levels drop, most people need to add more bass SPL to compensate. DEQ does that automatically, but not everyone likes the effect.
> 
> If you want to better understand how DEQ works, and at what volumes and frequencies it is adding SPL, the article linked below will explain DEQ's actions in detail. You can calculate how much DEQ is boosting the bass at a particular listening level, and that may help you to know how much subwoofer boost to add in order to compensate for turning DEQ off. But, ultimately, subwoofer boosts, either with or without DEQ engaged, are a YMMV issue. You will just need to experiment, and your preferences may change somewhat, based on the specific program, or on your mood that day. Here's the link:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thanks for the info! Yeah, I find TV is a bit difficult to get correct with DEQ, especially since it varies by channel. Music is the most difficult, IMO. I run that with DEQ off, a boosted sub and some tone control tweaks.


----------



## garygarrison

Overrid3 said:


> Do most of you run with DEQ on (with zero ref. offset) for movies? What about TV? Is a 10 dB offset recommended? This seems to work well, but even then, some content sounds a bit bass heavy. I tried turning off DEQ totally for movies and TV, but the sound kind of weak, especially in action movies with gunfire, explosions, etc.



We very rarely use DEQ, because, to us, it sounds a little less clear than without it.


Recently, however, we had a guest coming over who is allergic to loud sound, and we usually play movies at 5 dB below reference level. We knew we would have to turn it down, and didn't want to lose perceived bass. So, we tried DEQ, As usual, DEQ seemed to interfere with clarity just a little, but the extra bass seemed to be the right choice. We heard just a sliver of treble boost.


----------



## Overrid3

garygarrison said:


> We very rarely use DEQ, because, to us, it sounds a little less clear than without it.
> 
> 
> Recently, however, we had a guest coming over who is allergic to loud sound, and we usually play movies at 5 dB below reference level. We knew we would have to turn it down, and didn't want to lose perceived bass. So, we tried DEQ, As usual, DEQ seemed to interfere with clarity just a little, but the extra bass seemed to be the right choice. We heard just a sliver of treble boost.



Thanks. I know what you mean about clarity. I think it does take a slight hit with DEQ on in some situations. OTOH, I typically watch movies around -18 to -15 (unless I'm watching something on Amazon). For some reason, many of those have awful audio and I have to crank it up. Anyway, since I'm pretty far away from ref level, DEQ does seem to work as intended, and bring back some fullness that I'm missing out on.


----------



## garygarrison

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks. I know what you mean about clarity. I think it does take a slight hit with DEQ on in some situations. OTOH, I typically watch movies around -18 to -15 (unless I'm watching something on Amazon). For some reason, many of those have awful audio and I have to crank it up. Anyway, since I'm pretty far away from ref level, DEQ does seem to work as intended, and bring back some fullness that I'm missing out on.



Coincidentally, a Main Volume setting of -15 dB with DEQ provides about 6.6 dB of bass boost, perhaps at 30 Hz (Mike?). We have made A/B comparisons of this v.s. with the bass tone control turned all the way up (i.e., at +6dB max). The tone controls are not usable unless DEQ is off. Here is the difference we noticed (at least with our sound system, room and ears):


DEQ sounds slightly heavier and deeper in the bass.
The music with the bass tone control at +6 is slightly clearer than with DEQ.
The impact of the attack might be greater with the tone control option (especially timpani, bass drum, and piano), and the deepness of the instruments (especially timpani, bass drum, piano) is greater with DEQ.
I would think the job the bass control has to do is pretty simple, and the job DEQ has to do is somewhat more complex.

.


----------



## Overrid3

garygarrison said:


> Coincidentally, a Main Volume setting of -15 dB with DEQ provides about 6.6 dB of bass boost, perhaps at 30 Hz (Mike?). We have made A/B comparisons of this v.s. with the bass tone control turned all the way up (i.e., at +6dB max). The tone controls are not usable unless DEQ is off. Here is the difference we noticed (at least with our sound system, room and ears):
> 
> 
> DEQ sounds slightly heavier and deeper in the bass.
> The music with the bass tone control at +6 is slightly clearer than with DEQ.
> The impact of the attack might be greater with the tone control option (especially timpani, bass drum, and piano), and the deepness of the instruments (especially timpani, bass drum, piano) is greater with DEQ.
> I would think the job the bass control has to do is pretty simple, and the job DEQ has to do is somewhat more complex.
> 
> .



A while back I turned of DEQ for music listening, but the sound was thin to me. It took some tweaking to get it better. Mainly what I did was boost my sub from 3-5 dB, and also go into the tone controls and boost bass by +3 or +4. This combo seemed to bring back some of the fullness and life to the music. Tonight, I turned DEQ back on for some music listening, and set the RLO to 10. This sounded very similar to my tweaked settings without DEQ. 



I think DEQ on with the RLO at 10 still sounds a little better than trying to fuss with the tone controls. At this point, I just wonder if it's easier to leave DEQ on and let it do it's thing. If it's too bassy, I can just turn down my sub a little. Seems simpler.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Coincidentally, a Main Volume setting of -15 dB with DEQ provides about 6.6 dB of bass boost, perhaps at 30 Hz (Mike?). We have made A/B comparisons of this v.s. with the bass tone control turned all the way up (i.e., at +6dB max). The tone controls are not usable unless DEQ is off. Here is the difference we noticed (at least with our sound system, room and ears):
> 
> 
> DEQ sounds slightly heavier and deeper in the bass.
> The music with the bass tone control at +6 is slightly clearer than with DEQ.
> The impact of the attack might be greater with the tone control option (especially timpani, bass drum, and piano), and the deepness of the instruments (especially timpani, bass drum, piano) is greater with DEQ.
> I would think the job the bass control has to do is pretty simple, and the job DEQ has to do is somewhat more complex.
> 
> .


 Hi Gary,

As you say, what DEQ is doing is very complex. In fact, it is doing so many different things simultaneously, that it is hard to break-down DEQ's operation into individual impressions. To me, it's more of a gestalt impression that we either like or we don't. For instance, at -15 MV, DEQ would add ~3.3db to all of the speakers, including the subwoofer(s), from 120Hz down to 70Hz. Then, from 70Hz down to 30Hz, the bass boost would increase to 6.6db and would continue at that level below 30Hz.

At the same time, DEQ would be adding a little less than 3db to the frequencies above 10KHz. And, it would be boosting the volume of the surround channels by 3db. That's a lot of different things all happening at the same time. In addition to those volume adjustments to the bass and treble frequencies, and to the surround channels in general, DEQ is making "dynamic" adjustments on the fly, within the max adjustment limits defined above. That two-tiered action has never been fully described, but I take it to mean that DEQ turns up or down the bass/treble boosts in accordance with the program content at a particular moment.

I like the theory of some of what DEQ is trying to do. But, I rarely express my own opinion on DEQ unless specifically asked, as I don't particularly want to influence anyone else with my preferences. Personally, I have never liked DEQ for music. To me, it always accentuated the bass, in music, in a way that sounded unnatural. I think that in addition to personal preferences, the type of music someone was listening to could also be a factor. There may be music genres where that bass accent might be very desirable.

The fact that I prefer Audyssey Flat probably didn't help, with my music listening, as I like leaving my speakers in my treated room alone to play high-frequencies, without the roll-off of Audyssey Reference. But, the high-frequencies certainly didn't need to be boosted by DEQ, in that case. I think that DEQ was really designed to work best with the Reference setting. Those are the default settings after an Audyssey calibration. 

I also didn't like DEQ for TV viewing. I found that too many TV shows (especially those on CBS and NBC) seemed to have boosted surround volumes, which DEQ exacerbated. There used to be an AVS thread about that. I used DEQ off-and-on for movies for at least a year or more, experimenting with both content and RLO settings. Ultimately, I chose clarity over excitement/boominess, with no DEQ, large bass boosts, and eventually, cascading crossovers. 

As I switched back-and-forth between DEQ on and DEQ off, one of the things I started to notice was how abrupt DEQ sounded at times in action scenes. The bass volumes would suddenly get very loud in a way that seemed a little unnatural to me. It was exciting sounding, but not necessarily in a good way.

I finally attributed that to the two-tier operation that has never been fully defined. DEQ does not employ a listen-ahead feature. It adjusts bass volumes in real time. And, it seemed to me that the transitions were often a little too abrupt, as if DEQ were hurrying to catch-up with a bass boost, in a way that my own hearing found unnatural. If I listened to the same scenes with and without DEQ, I could tell a difference, and that was part of that gestalt impression that I formed. Eventually, I found that I just liked the overall sound quality much better without DEQ.

But, this is the reason that I seldom comment on DEQ anymore, beyond helping to explain its function, and to troubleshoot specific problems. With different rooms; different speakers; different content, at different listening levels; different settings; and different listener preferences; the use of DEQ is entirely a YMMV issue in my opinion. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Nathan Kofahl

Hello all, Just purchased an AVR-x2500h. During initial setup, i get a speaker detect error right after test tones are played through the left front speaker. I have followed all the troubleshooting, namely 



> Try a different speaker cable - you may have a connection problem.
> Check the speaker connectors on the back of the speaker. Do you have separate connectors for tweeter and woofer? If so, these can sometimes come loose, or the metal strip connecting the terminals together can become loose. If so, this will result in loss of sound from the tweeter or woofer and this will cause the speaker detect error.
> Make sure the speaker is working correctly. Sometimes a driver in your speaker may be damaged - play content with high frequencies and put your ear close to the tweeter. Can you hear it working properly? Do the same for the other drivers. If you cannot hear one of the drivers, or it sounds strange in some way (rough, intermittent etc) then one of the drivers is not working and may need to be repaired or replaced.
> Swap the speakers temporarily. For example, if the centre speaker is the problem, swap it with the left speaker. Does the problem now move to the left speaker? If so, then the centre speaker has a fault of some kind.


I did the following 

1. Swapped in a new cable as I thought my wiring through my wall or my banana plugs could have been the problem. The new cable was just straight from the speaker to the AVR on the left speaker (only speaker that ever plays tones) 
2. All 5.1 speakers in my system sound good playing any content I can throw at them 
3. I also swapped the L and R speakers.


I'm thinking the mic may be bad as I hear the tones just fine from the front left speaker, but the receiver doesn't recognize them. 

Thoughts? Help? 

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

Nathan Kofahl said:


> Hello all, Just purchased an AVR-x2500h. During initial setup, i get a speaker detect error right after test tones are played through the left front speaker. I have followed all the troubleshooting, namely
> 
> 
> 
> I did the following
> 
> 1. Swapped in a new cable as I thought my wiring through my wall or my banana plugs could have been the problem. The new cable was just straight from the speaker to the AVR on the left speaker (only speaker that ever plays tones)
> 2. All 5.1 speakers in my system sound good playing any content I can throw at them
> 3. I also swapped the L and R speakers.
> 
> 
> I'm thinking the mic may be bad as I hear the tones just fine from the front left speaker, but the receiver doesn't recognize them.
> 
> Thoughts? Help?
> 
> Thanks



Hi,

Sorry to hear that you are having problems! I don't think that the microphone could be at fault, in this case. It doesn't know the difference between your right front speaker and your left front speaker. It just measures whatever it hears. And, if it can hear and measure one front speaker, it should be able to hear and measure the other one. You can try a different microphone, but I am skeptical that it will make a difference.

If you have ruled-out problems with the speaker, via listening and by switching the speakers, and you have ruled-out problems with the speaker cable, then I think that the fault has to lie with the AVR itself. If all five channels are playing properly when you listen to them, it shouldn't be the channel input (that's a good thing) so I think that the problem must be within the Audyssey software program.

I would do several microprocessor resets of your AVR. Your owner's manual will tell you how to do that. Ideally, you will wait for the microprocessor to reset itself completely, each time, before testing Audyssey again. There is a chance that will work. If it doesn't, I'm afraid that you will have to send the AVR in, for service or exchange, if you want to have the full benefit of Audyssey.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Nathan Kofahl

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry to hear that you are having problems! I don't think that the microphone could be at fault, in this case. It doesn't know the difference between your right front speaker and your left front speaker. It just measures whatever it hears. And, if it can hear and measure one front speaker, it should be able to hear and measure the other one. You can try a different microphone, but I am skeptical that it will make a difference.
> 
> If you have ruled-out problems with the speaker, via listening and by switching the speakers, and you have ruled-out problems with the speaker cable, then I think that the fault has to lie with the AVR itself. If all five channels are playing properly when you listen to them, it shouldn't be the channel input (that's a good thing) so I think that the problem must be within the Audyssey software program.
> 
> I would do several microprocessor resets of your AVR. Your owner's manual will tell you how to do that. Ideally, you will wait for the microprocessor to reset itself completely, each time, before testing Audyssey again. There is a chance that will work. If it doesn't, I'm afraid that you will have to send the AVR in, for service or exchange, if you want to have the full benefit of Audyssey.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,
To be clear, I don't think it measures anything. The tones come out of only the left front and then the process shuts down with the no speakers found error.i hear the tones loudly. The system never progresses to the next speaker, I assume because it hasn't found the first.


----------



## Bachelor

I had this problem with failing at the first speaker. Replace the audysey mic was the only fix for me to get it to work. I think my mic got shocked by static.


----------



## Nathan Kofahl

Bachelor said:


> I had this problem with failing at the first speaker. Replace the audysey mic was the only fix for me to get it to work. I think my mic got shocked by static.


Same for me. I borrowed a mic and it works. I'll order a new one.


----------



## milesed1

Can't find my problem yet in a search or the FAQ, so here goes-
Using Denon AVR 3400 with mic on a tripod, front speakers are Definitive Tech all 3 with subs in speakers set to large. Rears are def tech BP2X set to small - 4 total.
As I run position 1, all goes well with tones from all speakers. 

Moving mic to position 2 (1-2 feet to left of position 1) and hit continue just like the onscreen guide shows and nothing. It says "measuring front speaker", but there is no test tone. The onscreen option is cancel and I can't go on to other speakers at all. The screen on reciever says "press enter/cancel". Doing so just takes me back a step.


----------



## peter-d-w

milesed1 said:


> Can't find my problem yet in a search or the FAQ, so here goes-
> Using Denon AVR 3400 with mic on a tripod, front speakers are Definitive Tech all 3 with subs in speakers set to large. Rears are def tech BP2X set to small - 4 total.
> As I run position 1, all goes well with tones from all speakers.
> 
> Moving mic to position 2 (1-2 feet to left of position 1) and hit continue just like the onscreen guide shows and nothing. It says "measuring front speaker", but there is no test tone. The onscreen option is cancel and I can't go on to other speakers at all. The screen on reciever says "press enter/cancel". Doing so just takes me back a step.


It's probably best to reset your receiver and run the calibration again. http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3400H/EU/EN/GFNFSYvyalrwrt.php


----------



## Overrid3

I posted the message below over in the REW section, but wanted to ask over here, too. My situation is described in more detail below, but basically I'm wondering if it's OK to change the phase of my sub _after_ the Audyssey calibration? It appears that the 180 setting is actually correct, but I've been running at zero all this time (including when I calibrated with Audy). 



**original message**


Question about subwoofer phase—


I'm running a 3.1 setup with Wharfdale towers and center, and an SVS sub. Ever since I've set it up, I've had the sub phase dial at zero. I've always had some issues with music not sounding full enough (I listen in 2.1). My AVR is a Marantz with Audyssey XT32, and with EQ enabled, the speakers lose some of their bass. I did some measurements, and sure enough, these speakers have a bass hump centered around 100 Hz (see first graph).


Now with the Audyssey reference curve enabled, that hump goes away, BUT worse yet, it appears there is a trough centered around 90 Hz. I think this explains the lack of bass I hear in that area in pure direct mode vs Audyssey EQ'd mode.


I played around with different crossovers for my sub, but nothing seemed to really help. Pushing it all the way up to 120 Hz actually fixed that trough, but I don't think I want to cross it that high. Finally, I remember the phase knob on my sub. I changed it from zero to 180, and it looks like the low bass is a lot flatter. Everything else appears to be unaffected. I guess this is the correct setting?


----------



## bigzee3

*No DEQ for music*

Hi Guys,

I've been experimenting with AVR and sub settings and thought music should be next. Anyway was going to give music a go with no DEQ. So at the moment for my Vinyl listening I use Multi EQ Flat, DEQ on and RLO -5. I know I need to add bass after turning off DEQ and probably will add about 3-4db as I have 2db already added in AVR but where I'm confused is do I turn off just DEQ or do I turn off Multi EQ as well. Also after going no DEQ the tone controls would be just for the mains?


----------



## 01svtL

Would it be possible that adding a 3rd sub to my setup has caused some bass ranges to cancel out? I've recently hooked up a 3rd sub on the only other wall in my living room that I had a spot for it (open floor plan) and have re-run Audyssey 4 times now, with slight adjustments to mic position from one to the other, but every one has yielded the same result, which is a significant decrease in bass at my listening position. When I stand up and move around the room, the bass is there in spades, but gone from my listening position. My setup:

NAD T757 with the AM200 card - Audyssey XT
2 subs have the cables run in the walls and summed in a Y splitter going into the back of the wall plate.
Sub cable comes out of the wall plate and goes into another splitter, which my 3rd sub is also plugged into - Y into NAD
All subs use the "LFE in" port. Two of them are set to "Crossover Out" - third doesn't have this option. All are set to 80hz crossover, just in case. 

Audyssey keeps saying the "sub may be out of phase" - this didn't happen before adding the 3rd sub, I don't think. I think I have all subs set to zero phase. 

2 of the 4 times I ran Audyssey after the 3rd sub, it came back with suggested trim level of -2, whereas it suggested -10 before the 3rd sub and bass was about equal between -10 with 2 subs and -2 with 3 subs, which makes ZERO sense to me. The other 2 times, I did get it to suggest trim at -10, but the bass was non-existent at the listening position until I turned it all the way up to 0.

My method has been the one I saw suggested here - MLP, MLP+3" Horiz, MLP+3" Vert, etc.

I attached a drawing of my setup. I circled sub 3, the new one.


----------



## David Aiken

Overrid3 said:


> I posted the message below over in the REW section, but wanted to ask over here, too. My situation is described in more detail below, but basically I'm wondering if it's OK to change the phase of my sub _after_ the Audyssey calibration? It appears that the 180 setting is actually correct, but I've been running at zero all this time (including when I calibrated with Audy).
> 
> 
> 
> **original message**
> 
> 
> Question about subwoofer phase—
> 
> 
> I'm running a 3.1 setup with Wharfdale towers and center, and an SVS sub. Ever since I've set it up, I've had the sub phase dial at zero. I've always had some issues with music not sounding full enough (I listen in 2.1). My AVR is a Marantz with Audyssey XT32, and with EQ enabled, the speakers lose some of their bass. I did some measurements, and sure enough, these speakers have a bass hump centered around 100 Hz (see first graph).
> 
> 
> Now with the Audyssey reference curve enabled, that hump goes away, BUT worse yet, it appears there is a trough centered around 90 Hz. I think this explains the lack of bass I hear in that area in pure direct mode vs Audyssey EQ'd mode.
> 
> 
> I played around with different crossovers for my sub, but nothing seemed to really help. Pushing it all the way up to 120 Hz actually fixed that trough, but I don't think I want to cross it that high. Finally, I remember the phase knob on my sub. I changed it from zero to 180, and it looks like the low bass is a lot flatter. Everything else appears to be unaffected. I guess this is the correct setting?


OK, I know nothing about REW but I can comment on the Audyssey side of things and make some other comments.

First, in theory you should not change the sub phase setting after Audyssey calibration. The reason for that is that Audyssey measures and corrects for phase as well as for frequency response. Changing the sub's phase setting after calibration changes the sub's in room response from what it has determined will be the correct setting and it will change what you hear at the listening position.

Now, I don't know what's going on with the REW measurements because, as I said, I know nothing about REW but I can make the following observations:

- You'll be making your REW measurements with a different mic and a different test signal. That means that what you're measuring with REW and what Audyssey measures with its test tones are completely different in some important ways. How that difference is going to affect things is impossible to predict but if you could get an accurate readout of Audyssey and REW measurements after correction you would expect to see some differences because of it. Unfortunately we can't get an Audyssey readout after correction because Audyssey doesn't take any measurements after it does its corrections so we have no way of doing such a comparison.

- Audyssey does a number of measurements in a spaced pattern. When it comes to bass frequencies the result of those measurements is extremely dependent on mic location. Bass response in a room can change considerably in the space of a few inches. I've been in a room auditioning speakers and been unable to hear a prominent bass note at the listening position but on standing up and taking one step forward the same note was clear and loud. That's the most extreme variation in bass levels in a room that I've heard and it goes to show the importance of the listening/measuring position when assessing bass performance. If you didn't have your mic in EXACTLY the same position for the REW measurement as the Audyssey mic was in for the first Audyssey measurement and if the mics don't have EXACTLY the same response, then Audyssey and REW are going to give you different measurements. With measurements involving separate measurements at different locations and their integration, as occurs during Audyssey calibration, you would need to repeat the measurements with REW with a mic with identical response and placed in absolutely identical positions and do exactly the same integration calculations or the results are going to be different. I don't t think there's any way of doing that so there's always going to be differences.

- Audyssey is intended to produce a result that most people like over an area larger than a single listening position. It cannot produce the same result over the whole of that listening area but it tries to optimise the result so that wherever you sit in that area the sound you hear will sound good. That almost certainly means that the sound at the primary listening position, the first measurement position, is not going to deliver the best result at all frequencies, it will be better at some frequencies than other positions are, and worse at some than other positions are, and every position is going to be slightly different. Whether you use Audyssey or some other room correction system, no system can deliver identical results everywhere within a seating area that accommodates several people. That's simply impossible.

- Just because a particular measurement shows a dip like your 90 Hz dip doesn't mean that you will hear that dip. Our brains are remarkably good at processing the signals they get from our ears to "correct" for the kind of differences in level that occur in rooms at low frequencies. You really can't judge how good or bad the sound will appear to be at a particular position by looking at a measurement chart from measurements taken at that position. You really have to sit in that position and listen if you want to know what things sound like because our ears and brain work very differently to the way a microphone and measuring equipment work.

All of that leads to to 3 things:

1- How does the Audyssey result actually sound to you when listening to music in the listening position? If it sounds good, then that's what it's supposed to do and you can just stop worrying about measurements, no matter how bad they look. Change things to make the measurements look better and the sound will change and there's no guarantee that you will find the change in sound to be an improvement, it could easily sound worse. 

2- If things don't sound good to you after Audyssey calibration then you can either change some of the things that Audyssey lets you change or repeat the calibration with slightly different mic positions in order to get a result that you do like. 

3- If what you want is a result that delivers the best that Audyssey is capable of at just one single position then you can do the calibration process of several measurements without moving the mic to different positions, That should produce a result that one would expect to sound and measure best for that single position but it will probably also produce a result that sounds worse for other listening positions. If you listen on your own most of the time then this is a reasonable option but if there are usually other people listening with you then it's not something I'd recommend.

The bottom line is that you really should not obsess over what measurements show, what counts is the actual listening experience you have. If you enjoy the listening experience then that's a good result, if you don't then that's a bad result. What the measurements look like is irrelevant if it sounds good to you and those listening with you.

And if things don't sound quite right to you at the moment and changing the subwoofer phase setting to 180 degrees makes things sound better to you than they do if you don't change the phase setting, then change the phase setting. Just don't change it just because the measurements look better because the measurements are not always a good predictor of how things are going to sound and what's important is how they sound to you, not how they measure.


----------



## Overrid3

David Aiken said:


> OK, I know nothing about REW but I can comment on the Audyssey side of things and make some other comments.
> 
> First, in theory you should not change the sub phase setting after Audyssey calibration. The reason for that is that Audyssey measures and corrects for phase as well as for frequency response. Changing the sub's phase setting after calibration changes the sub's in room response from what it has determined will be the correct setting and it will change what you hear at the listening position.
> 
> Now, I don't know what's going on with the REW measurements because, as I said, I know nothing about REW but I can make the following observations:
> 
> - You'll be making your REW measurements with a different mic and a different test signal. That means that what you're measuring with REW and what Audyssey measures with its test tones are completely different in some important ways. How that difference is going to affect things is impossible to predict but if you could get an accurate readout of Audyssey and REW measurements after correction you would expect to see some differences because of it. Unfortunately we can't get an Audyssey readout after correction because Audyssey doesn't take any measurements after it does its corrections so we have no way of doing such a comparison.
> 
> - Audyssey does a number of measurements in a spaced pattern. When it comes to bass frequencies the result of those measurements is extremely dependent on mic location. Bass response in a room can change considerably in the space of a few inches. I've been in a room auditioning speakers and been unable to hear a prominent bass note at the listening position but on standing up and taking one step forward the same note was clear and loud. That's the most extreme variation in bass levels in a room that I've heard and it goes to show the importance of the listening/measuring position when assessing bass performance. If you didn't have your mic in EXACTLY the same position for the REW measurement as the Audyssey mic was in for the first Audyssey measurement and if the mics don't have EXACTLY the same response, then Audyssey and REW are going to give you different measurements. With measurements involving separate measurements at different locations and their integration, as occurs during Audyssey calibration, you would need to repeat the measurements with REW with a mic with identical response and placed in absolutely identical positions and do exactly the same integration calculations or the results are going to be different. I don't t think there's any way of doing that so there's always going to be differences.
> 
> - Audyssey is intended to produce a result that most people like over an area larger than a single listening position. It cannot produce the same result over the whole of that listening area but it tries to optimise the result so that wherever you sit in that area the sound you hear will sound good. That almost certainly means that the sound at the primary listening position, the first measurement position, is not going to deliver the best result at all frequencies, it will be better at some frequencies than other positions are, and worse at some than other positions are, and every position is going to be slightly different. Whether you use Audyssey or some other room correction system, no system can deliver identical results everywhere within a seating area that accommodates several people. That's simply impossible.
> 
> - Just because a particular measurement shows a dip like your 90 Hz dip doesn't mean that you will hear that dip. Our brains are remarkably good at processing the signals they get from our ears to "correct" for the kind of differences in level that occur in rooms at low frequencies. You really can't judge how good or bad the sound will appear to be at a particular position by looking at a measurement chart from measurements taken at that position. You really have to sit in that position and listen if you want to know what things sound like because our ears and brain work very differently to the way a microphone and measuring equipment work.
> 
> All of that leads to to 3 things:
> 
> 1- How does the Audyssey result actually sound to you when listening to music in the listening position? If it sounds good, then that's what it's supposed to do and you can just stop worrying about measurements, no matter how bad they look. Change things to make the measurements look better and the sound will change and there's no guarantee that you will find the change in sound to be an improvement, it could easily sound worse.
> 
> 2- If things don't sound good to you after Audyssey calibration then you can either change some of the things that Audyssey lets you change or repeat the calibration with slightly different mic positions in order to get a result that you do like.
> 
> 3- If what you want is a result that delivers the best that Audyssey is capable of at just one single position then you can do the calibration process of several measurements without moving the mic to different positions, That should produce a result that one would expect to sound and measure best for that single position but it will probably also produce a result that sounds worse for other listening positions. If you listen on your own most of the time then this is a reasonable option but if there are usually other people listening with you then it's not something I'd recommend.
> 
> The bottom line is that you really should not obsess over what measurements show, what counts is the actual listening experience you have. If you enjoy the listening experience then that's a good result, if you don't then that's a bad result. What the measurements look like is irrelevant if it sounds good to you and those listening with you.
> 
> And if things don't sound quite right to you at the moment and changing the subwoofer phase setting to 180 degrees makes things sound better to you than they do if you don't change the phase setting, then change the phase setting. Just don't change it just because the measurements look better because the measurements are not always a good predictor of how things are going to sound and what's important is how they sound to you, not how they measure.



Thanks for the detailed answer! What you're saying makes sense. I didn't think about the fact that I measured 8 positions when running the Audy cal, and this was only at one. I should probably try moving the mini-DSP mic around with REW and see how the graph changes.


I listened a bit last night, and at 180 phase, the bass did seem a little smoother at my seating position. However, I think it didn't sound as powerful. I guess I need a second person to adjust the phase while I sit in my seat to really tell. It does sound like I should just trust Audy and stick with my original phase setting of zero, which is also what SVS recommends as a starting point. Even though that single REW graph shows a dip around 80 Hz, it's only around 5 dB, so not terrible.


----------



## Spidacat

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer! What you're saying makes sense. I didn't think about the fact that I measured 8 positions when running the Audy cal, and this was only at one. I should probably try moving the mini-DSP mic around with REW and see how the graph changes.
> 
> 
> I listened a bit last night, and at 180 phase, the bass did seem a little smoother at my seating position. However, I think it didn't sound as powerful. I guess I need a second person to adjust the phase while I sit in my seat to really tell. It does sound like I should just trust Audy and stick with my original phase setting of zero, which is also what SVS recommends as a starting point. Even though that single REW graph shows a dip around 80 Hz, it's only around 5 dB, so not terrible.


You might be a candidate for the "sub distance tweak". A few people have a link for the whole process in their signatures, but i _believe_ the short version is to measure the center channel and subs, then go into the Audyssey setup and add 1-2 feet to the sub distance and remeasure. Keep adding a foot or two and when you get the flattest response near the crossover point (80 Hz) you should be done. I feel like I might be missing something and left out some details, so do a quick search and you should find it. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2958528-guide-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences-18.html#post56669252

I probably screwed that up, but post 527 in the "Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences".


----------



## David Aiken

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks for the detailed answer! What you're saying makes sense. I didn't think about the fact that I measured 8 positions when running the Audy cal, and this was only at one. I should probably try moving the mini-DSP mic around with REW and see how the graph changes.
> 
> 
> I listened a bit last night, and at 180 phase, the bass did seem a little smoother at my seating position. However, I think it didn't sound as powerful. I guess I need a second person to adjust the phase while I sit in my seat to really tell. It does sound like I should just trust Audy and stick with my original phase setting of zero, which is also what SVS recommends as a starting point. Even though that single REW graph shows a dip around 80 Hz, it's only around 5 dB, so not terrible.


As you say, it's not a "terrible" dip. The other thing to consider when looking at a dip like this is time, the time window involved in the measurement. What we hear is the initial arrival and, following that, a series of reflections of the same sound. If some of those reflections arrive very close in time to the direct sound our brain "fuses" the direct sound and reflections together for some aspects of the sound including how loud it is so early reflections can act to "fill in" the dip so we don't hear it, but if the measurement technique measures the sound over a shorter interval than what our brain takes into account then the measurement shows something different to how we hear the sound.

I'm not surprised that setting the sub's phase to 180 degrees results in bass that doesn't sound quite as loud. As I said earlier, Audyssey does apply phase correction but it isn't limited to a choice between 0 degrees and 180 degrees so if Audyssey's correction is something other than the 180 degree change you can make at the sub, the Audyssey result should be a little louder than what you'll get shifting the phase to 180 degrees because that will shift the phase to some degrees out of phase. Some subs let you change phase continuously between 0 and 360 degrees but if your sub only lets you change it between 0 and 180 degrees then the odds are that neither setting will be actually correct but one of those settings is likely to be slightly louder than the other. The precisely correct setting should be louder than either but you can't set that at the sub if you only have 2 options.

One other thing: it's really hard to make judgements about better or worse when what you're hearing is that it sounds different. We expect to hear what we're used to and if the change isn't big enough to make us think "that's really good" what we hear is something we're not used to and we tend to interpret that as sounding worse. The only way to avoid that is to run with the way Audyssey sets things for a period of several days to a week or so until you get used to it and see what you think then. Often you find that your opinion changes once you get used to the new sound. Try living with the Audyssey result for a week or so and see what you're thinking then. There's more to good bass than just volume and other factors are involved but while you're listening for just one thing you often miss noticing the other things which will have changed.

There's a lot more going on with how we hear sound than we tend to think, and a lot more than a simple frequency response measurement can show. Measurements tell us a lot about what's measured but nothing at all about what isn't being measured and sometimes the things which aren't being measured are more important to how we hear things than what is being measured. Ultimately the only thing that really counts, if the reason we're listening is for enjoyment, is whether or not we're enjoying what we're hearing, not what any particular measurement shows.


----------



## Overrid3

David Aiken said:


> As you say, it's not a "terrible" dip. The other thing to consider when looking at a dip like this is time, the time window involved in the measurement. What we hear is the initial arrival and, following that, a series of reflections of the same sound. If some of those reflections arrive very close in time to the direct sound our brain "fuses" the direct sound and reflections together for some aspects of the sound including how loud it is so early reflections can act to "fill in" the dip so we don't hear it, but if the measurement technique measures the sound over a shorter interval than what our brain takes into account then the measurement shows something different to how we hear the sound.
> 
> I'm not surprised that setting the sub's phase to 180 degrees results in bass that doesn't sound quite as loud. As I said earlier, Audyssey does apply phase correction but it isn't limited to a choice between 0 degrees and 180 degrees so if Audyssey's correction is something other than the 180 degree change you can make at the sub, the Audyssey result should be a little louder than what you'll get shifting the phase to 180 degrees because that will shift the phase to some degrees out of phase. Some subs let you change phase continuously between 0 and 360 degrees but if your sub only lets you change it between 0 and 180 degrees then the odds are that neither setting will be actually correct but one of those settings is likely to be slightly louder than the other. The precisely correct setting should be louder than either but you can't set that at the sub if you only have 2 options.
> 
> One other thing: it's really hard to make judgements about better or worse when what you're hearing is that it sounds different. We expect to hear what we're used to and if the change isn't big enough to make us think "that's really good" what we hear is something we're not used to and we tend to interpret that as sounding worse. The only way to avoid that is to run with the way Audyssey sets things for a period of several days to a week or so until you get used to it and see what you think then. Often you find that your opinion changes once you get used to the new sound. Try living with the Audyssey result for a week or so and see what you're thinking then. There's more to good bass than just volume and other factors are involved but while you're listening for just one thing you often miss noticing the other things which will have changed.
> 
> There's a lot more going on with how we hear sound than we tend to think, and a lot more than a simple frequency response measurement can show. Measurements tell us a lot about what's measured but nothing at all about what isn't being measured and sometimes the things which aren't being measured are more important to how we hear things than what is being measured. Ultimately the only thing that really counts, if the reason we're listening is for enjoyment, is whether or not we're enjoying what we're hearing, not what any particular measurement shows.



Thanks. I listened a bit more tonight, and I'm not sure which setting is louder. In some songs, the 180 phase setting seems to have more bass, and others the 0 setting. It's hard to do alone, so I will have to try it next time I have company, and I can stay in my seat. BTW, my sub dial does go all the way from 0 to 180, but I didn't try many other settings.


One thing's for sure: I measured again tonight, at several spots on the couch, and they all have that dip around 80 Hz at phase zero. Going to 180 flattens out the low end much better, at least according to REW.


Since Audy only measure each speaker individually, it has no way to know if the sub and mains are interfering destructively, does it?


----------



## David Aiken

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks. I listened a bit more tonight, and I'm not sure which setting is louder. In some songs, the 180 phase setting seems to have more bass, and others the 0 setting. It's hard to do alone, so I will have to try it next time I have company, and I can stay in my seat. BTW, my sub dial does go all the way from 0 to 180, but I didn't try many other settings.
> 
> 
> One thing's for sure: I measured again tonight, at several spots on the couch, and they all have that dip around 80 Hz at phase zero. Going to 180 flattens out the low end much better, at least according to REW.
> 
> 
> Since Audy only measure each speaker individually, it has no way to know if the sub and mains are interfering destructively, does it?


To deal with the last thing first, yes it is possible for the sub and mains to interfere destructively but Audyssey should be able to tell whether that will occur. It has the data from the individual measurements and that includes phase data. If there's destructive interference going on then the sub and one or more of the mains are going to be out of phase with each other. That will be apparent from the individual measurements and Audyssey can control the phase of both sub and mains over the crossover region to avoid destructive interference. The problem with doing a measurement of the full frequency range with all speakers working is that you can't tell whether a dip is caused by destructive interference between speakers, whether it's room mode related, or whether it's a speaker problem. When you've got a full set of individual measurements you can make an educated guess as to what the cause is, for example you'll see 2 or more speakers being out of phase with each other over the crossover region if it's destructive interference, If it's a result of a room mode you'd expect to see a dip in one or more of the individual speaker responses (the dip need not be the same for each speaker since speaker location will affect how the room mode will be engaged) whereas with destructive interference there need not be a dip in each speaker's response, the responses simply need to be out of phase with each other. The Audyssey calibration should result in a minimisation of destructive interference behaviour while changing the phase setting on the subway increase the interference.

I know a bit about room acoustics, I've got some experience with Audyssey but no technical knowledge of how it works, and no knowledge of experience of REW at all so I really can't give you any advice on what REW measurements can tell you about what Audyssey is doing. All I can say is that in at least some ways you're trying to measure something with 2 different rulers which have been designed to be used in different ways, and you're trying to measure something which can change quite noticeably with changes in microphone, microphone location, and even how the microphone is pointed, when you make the measurements. I think it's going to be very unlikely that you would see similar measurement results from Audyssey and REW and getting a close to perfectly flat in room frequency response in the bass region is pretty difficult under any circumstances. What your measurements don't show, for example, is whether that dip is worse with Audyssey turned off than it is with Audyssey turned on. It's impossible to totally eradicate a modal dip but it can be reduced somewhat and it's possible that the dip you're seeing with REW is the best that Audyssey can do with that dip over the seating area covered by your measurement positions. I think I said in my original post that measurements can tell you a lot about what's measured but they tell you nothing about what isn't measured. Measuring everything is a lot harder than you may expect, especially if you're going to avoid differences in mic location and account for differences in mic responses when you're comparing 2 different measurement approaches, and the more things you measure the more complex the task of interpreting what the increased amount of data you have becomes.

In the end I keep coming back to the point that what counts most is how you feel about the result, whether or not it sounds good to you. I'm not trying to do a cop out when I say that. The fact is that different people have different preferences for how things should sound and what Audyssey does is based on studies of listener preferences. It isn't designed to produce a theoretically perfect result and there is no single result that will satisfy everyone equally. I think it's intended to satisfy more people than it doesn't but there's no way of telling whether you or I or any other individual listener is one of the people with a listening preference that it would be expected to satisfy. It's great to use if it gets you a result that you like more than the result you get if you don't use it but if it doesn't then you have to work with other options such as using your AVR's tone controls or an equaliser of some sort, some other room correction system, or physical acoustic treatments, or a combination of some of those things. I wish there was a method to do a setup process and get a result that was guaranteed to make the user perfectly happy but there is no such method and whatever method we use we're going to end up judging its success or failure by how it sounds to us when we're listening.


----------



## Overrid3

David Aiken said:


> To deal with the last thing first, yes it is possible for the sub and mains to interfere destructively but Audyssey should be able to tell whether that will occur. It has the data from the individual measurements and that includes phase data. If there's destructive interference going on then the sub and one or more of the mains are going to be out of phase with each other. That will be apparent from the individual measurements and Audyssey can control the phase of both sub and mains over the crossover region to avoid destructive interference. The problem with doing a measurement of the full frequency range with all speakers working is that you can't tell whether a dip is caused by destructive interference between speakers, whether it's room mode related, or whether it's a speaker problem. When you've got a full set of individual measurements you can make an educated guess as to what the cause is, for example you'll see 2 or more speakers being out of phase with each other over the crossover region if it's destructive interference, If it's a result of a room mode you'd expect to see a dip in one or more of the individual speaker responses (the dip need not be the same for each speaker since speaker location will affect how the room mode will be engaged) whereas with destructive interference there need not be a dip in each speaker's response, the responses simply need to be out of phase with each other. The Audyssey calibration should result in a minimisation of destructive interference behaviour while changing the phase setting on the subway increase the interference.
> 
> I know a bit about room acoustics, I've got some experience with Audyssey but no technical knowledge of how it works, and no knowledge of experience of REW at all so I really can't give you any advice on what REW measurements can tell you about what Audyssey is doing. All I can say is that in at least some ways you're trying to measure something with 2 different rulers which have been designed to be used in different ways, and you're trying to measure something which can change quite noticeably with changes in microphone, microphone location, and even how the microphone is pointed, when you make the measurements. I think it's going to be very unlikely that you would see similar measurement results from Audyssey and REW and getting a close to perfectly flat in room frequency response in the bass region is pretty difficult under any circumstances. What your measurements don't show, for example, is whether that dip is worse with Audyssey turned off than it is with Audyssey turned on. It's impossible to totally eradicate a modal dip but it can be reduced somewhat and it's possible that the dip you're seeing with REW is the best that Audyssey can do with that dip over the seating area covered by your measurement positions. I think I said in my original post that measurements can tell you a lot about what's measured but they tell you nothing about what isn't measured. Measuring everything is a lot harder than you may expect, especially if you're going to avoid differences in mic location and account for differences in mic responses when you're comparing 2 different measurement approaches, and the more things you measure the more complex the task of interpreting what the increased amount of data you have becomes.
> 
> In the end I keep coming back to the point that what counts most is how you feel about the result, whether or not it sounds good to you. I'm not trying to do a cop out when I say that. The fact is that different people have different preferences for how things should sound and what Audyssey does is based on studies of listener preferences. It isn't designed to produce a theoretically perfect result and there is no single result that will satisfy everyone equally. I think it's intended to satisfy more people than it doesn't but there's no way of telling whether you or I or any other individual listener is one of the people with a listening preference that it would be expected to satisfy. It's great to use if it gets you a result that you like more than the result you get if you don't use it but if it doesn't then you have to work with other options such as using your AVR's tone controls or an equaliser of some sort, some other room correction system, or physical acoustic treatments, or a combination of some of those things. I wish there was a method to do a setup process and get a result that was guaranteed to make the user perfectly happy but there is no such method and whatever method we use we're going to end up judging its success or failure by how it sounds to us when we're listening.



Thanks for the info. I will probably just leave the sub at the original setting of zero. Listening to music doesn't sound a whole heck of a lot different either way. Sometimes messing around with meters and measurements can be like going down the rabbit hole, haha. 



The biggest difference I hear with music is Audy on vs off (listening in pure direct). My speakers have a bass hump around 100 Hz, and there is a bit more thump there with Audy off. With Audy on, that hump goes away, and I think I can hear the midrange dip being applied, too. Both ways sound OK, depending on my mood and the song.


----------



## Overrid3

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks for the info. I will probably just leave the sub at the original setting of zero. Listening to music doesn't sound a whole heck of a lot different either way. Sometimes messing around with meters and measurements can be like going down the rabbit hole, haha.
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest difference I hear with music is Audy on vs off (listening in pure direct). My speakers have a bass hump around 100 Hz, and there is a bit more thump there with Audy off. With Audy on, that hump goes away, and I think I can hear the midrange dip being applied, too. Both ways sound OK, depending on my mood and the song.



Also, FWIW, here's what the Audyssey app thinks it measured for my sub:


----------



## mogorf

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks for the info. I will probably just leave the sub at the original setting of zero. Listening to music doesn't sound a whole heck of a lot different either way. Sometimes messing around with meters and measurements can be like going down the rabbit hole, haha.
> 
> 
> 
> *The biggest difference I hear with music is Audy on vs off (listening in pure direct). *My speakers have a bass hump around 100 Hz, and there is a bit more thump there with Audy off. With Audy on, that hump goes away, and I think I can hear the midrange dip being applied, too. Both ways sound OK, depending on my mood and the song.



Please note, in "Pure Direct" mode with the exception of the Volume Control every other digital signal processing is turned off automatically, including Audyssey. Please check your setting again. Hope this helps!


----------



## Alan P

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks. I listened a bit more tonight, and I'm not sure which setting is louder. In some songs, the 180 phase setting seems to have more bass, and others the 0 setting. It's hard to do alone, so I will have to try it next time I have company, and I can stay in my seat. BTW, my sub dial does go all the way from 0 to 180, but I didn't try many other settings.
> 
> 
> One thing's for sure: I measured again tonight, at several spots on the couch, and they all have that dip around 80 Hz at phase zero. Going to 180 flattens out the low end much better, at least according to REW.
> 
> 
> Since Audy only measure each speaker individually, it has no way to know if the sub and mains are interfering destructively, does it?


Did you miss this post, Overrid3? The Sub Distance Tweak will fix the issue you are trying to put a band-aid on with the phase dial.


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> Did you miss this post, Overrid3? The Sub Distance Tweak will fix the issue you are trying to put a band-aid on with the phase dial.



Thanks. I was thinking of trying that, but seems like an awful lot of work when the phase dial smooths out that region. Not sure how much more improvement I can really hope for without room treatments.


----------



## Overrid3

mogorf said:


> Please note, in "Pure Direct" mode with the exception of the Volume Control every other digital signal processing is turned off automatically, including Audyssey. Please check your setting again. Hope this helps!



Yep. I wanted a baseline with everything turned off, so I took a measurement in pure direct to see what was happening. It appears the bass dip at 80 Hz is not caused by my mains alone. Then, I measured with Audyssey on in 2.1 mode. The dip is there at 0 phase on the sub, but not at 180 phase.


I should probably measure just the sub with Audy on, and just the mains as well, to see if that shows the dip.


----------



## Alan P

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks. I was thinking of trying that, but seems like an awful lot of work when the phase dial smooths out that region. Not sure how much more improvement I can really hope for without room treatments.


Not any more difficult than what your are doing when measuring and adjusting the phase dial...and, you would then be absolutely certain which delay setting would be the correct one.




Overrid3 said:


> Yep. I wanted a baseline with everything turned off, so I took a measurement in pure direct to see what was happening. It appears the bass dip at 80 Hz is not caused by my mains alone. Then, I measured with Audyssey on in 2.1 mode. The dip is there at 0 phase on the sub, but not at 180 phase.
> 
> 
> *I should probably measure just the sub with Audy on, and just the mains as well, to see if that shows the dip.*


Yes, and if the dip is not there on the sub alone or the mains alone (or center alone), guess what? The Sub Distance Tweak will fix it in about 5 minutes.


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> Not any more difficult than what your are doing when measuring and adjusting the phase dial...and, you would then be absolutely certain which delay setting would be the correct one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and if the dip is not there on the sub alone or the mains alone (or center alone), guess what? The Sub Distance Tweak will fix it in about 5 minutes.



So if the dip shows up when Audy, the mains and the sub are all running, then it's most likely due to Audy setting the wrong distance for the sub. I can just go back to 0 phase, and play with the sub distance to see if that smooths things out?


----------



## Alan P

Overrid3 said:


> So if the dip shows up when Audy, the mains and the sub are all running, then it's most likely due to Audy setting the wrong distance for the sub. I can just go back to 0 phase, and play with the sub distance to see if that smooths things out?


If you are mostly HT, you want to measure CC+subs. Mostly music, L _or_ R+subs (not L+R+subs). Did you see my instructions that were linked to earlier?


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> If you are mostly HT, you want to measure CC+subs. Mostly music, L _or_ R+subs (not L+R+subs). Did you see my instructions that were linked to earlier?


Yeah, thanks. I'll give it a try. I use the system mostly for movies/TV, so CC + sub is probably most important.


----------



## Travisx2112

Is there any way to make XT32 not roll the high end off when set to Reference on my Denon AVR-X4400H? I love everything about it except that the speakers sound like they have a blanket over them. Should I just not use Audessy past distance and level setting, and set my own EQ's?


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Can't you use the ap with the 4400??


----------



## garygarrison

Travisx2112 said:


> Is there any way to make XT32 not roll the high end off when set to Reference on my Denon AVR-X4400H? I love everything about it except that the speakers sound like they have a blanket over them. Should I just not use Audyssey past distance and level setting, and set my own EQ's?



I assume you still want to use the "midrange compensation" (a 2 dB dip at about 2K) feature of Reference. Otherwise, if you don't like the high end roll off, there would be no reason to use Reference at all.


I find that most CDs and SACDs, and almost all movies, sound better with Audyssey Flat (rather than Reference). For the few that don't, I switch over to Reference. I don't experience the "blanket over the speaker" effect when using Reference with ~~ 90% of the over bright recordings that require me to use Reference. 



It is unlikely that setting your own EQ (other than the subwoofer boost, set AFTER running Audyssey, that almost everyone uses) would do as good a job as Audyssey because Audyssey uses many thousands of correction points, and you would be stuck with just your 30 or so equalizer points or your tone controls, etc.


See: "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" and 
[URL="https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2958528-guide-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html"]Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences [/URL]


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> If you are mostly HT, you want to measure CC+subs. Mostly music, L _or_ R+subs (not L+R+subs). Did you see my instructions that were linked to earlier?



I tweaked my sub distance setting in the AVR a bit. Audy set it to 11 ft, and I changed it to 16 to get the graph below. Actual physical distance is only about 9 ft. It seems to have improved the bass dip a little, and this is with the phase dial at zero (how I ran the Audy cal). I think I'm happy with this  Also, I decided to change my XO point for my mains to 60 Hz since they are fairly large towers.


----------



## drh3b

Travisx2112 said:


> Is there any way to make XT32 not roll the high end off when set to Reference on my Denon AVR-X4400H? I love everything about it except that the speakers sound like they have a blanket over them. Should I just not use Audessy past distance and level setting, and set my own EQ's?


Get the app, and cut off at 500 Hz, worth the $20 to experiment and see if that works for you. Also, you can use the app to bring the curve back up, although at least in my experience, that takes some patience sometimes.


----------



## torii

*why do people like audyssey Reference over Flat setting?*

after a bunch of tweaking setup and using Room EQ Wizard I was really surprised on the reduction of treble using audyssey (reference) vs. audyssey (flat). in my system at 6k the treble just drops drastically...why is this liked? below graph has what it looks like in my system with fronts crossed over at 80hz with subs...left and right.


I guess I just didnt realize the roll off....as I used audyssey for last year or so...


----------



## Ken Masters

Reference is better for most people, since without the roll-off the treble can sound aggravatingly tinny due to the reflective nature of the average listening room. If your room is well treated or you listen near-field, then Flat is a better option.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

yes, it depends on your room and the speakers (and your taste for sound of course).
if your living room has the acoustic similar to a natatorium and speakers with a very wide spread tweeter it sounds awful anyway, but some people try to fight the effect instead of the root cause by reducing treble.
in a room "suitable for music listening" the flat setting should be the better choice.


----------



## torii

I guess naming of system as reference is just confusing...https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347723-MultEQ-Target-Curves


even if just for movies and the people who spend tens of thousands+ on dedicated theater rooms would really want to use the reference mode still? just trying to wrap my head around the advantage of this target curve for movies. I guess its just an option for using less treble...maybe they should offer -3, -6, -9 db modes. and maybe they should state at what freq its suppose to start at...is around 6k the right freq it should start going down I wonder...


----------



## H Stevens

Because high frequencies are much more directional then low frequencies and the reference EQ helps to balance that out. Also, most rooms where these receivers are setup (average customer) have a lot of highly reflective surfaces which of course will encourage a very bright sound. Reference EQ will certainly help in those situations.

Flat EQ may work better in small highly treated rooms or dedicated home theater spaces that are properly treated and of course there is personal preference which will dictate the final decision


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Travisx2112 said:


> Is there any way to make XT32 not roll the high end off when set to Reference on my Denon AVR-X4400H? I love everything about it except that the speakers sound like they have a blanket over them. Should I just not use Audessy past distance and level setting, and set my own EQ's?


Why not use "Flat" instead of "Reference?"


----------



## Travisx2112

I actually had been calibrating my room wrong this whole time. Last night, I read a thread here about only using the amount of positions you'd need, instead of just all of them, and everyone in that thread basically said "No, use all of them."



I had been only calibrating from two positions (both beside eachother on the couch) instead of the 8 I should have been. I did 8 calibrations last night from various positions, and everything sounds much better! (And I feel like a dope, but that's another story  )


----------



## legierk

Travisx2112 said:


> I actually had been calibrating my room wrong this whole time. Last night, I read a thread here about only using the amount of positions you'd need, instead of just all of them, and everyone in that thread basically said "No, use all of them."
> 
> 
> 
> I had been only calibrating from two positions (both beside eachother on the couch) instead of the 8 I should have been. I did 8 calibrations last night from various positions, and everything sounds much better! (And I feel like a dope, but that's another story  )


Definitely use all the measuring points. You are just giving Audyssey more data to work with. WRT to the actual positions, I think the jury is a little divided. I personally go with the tight grouping concept, but rather, I swing my boom mic stand in an "arc" between mine and my wife's seat. Some folks just measure a very tight spot at the MLP. For some reason, I always feel like I'd be cheating my wife if I did that...LOL. (She would not know nor care if there was a difference however).

Measuring positions throughout the room, far apart, is, IMO, just having Audyssey compromise more. So I avoid that. While I want to give Audyssey as much data as I can to calculate corrections, I do not want to "drag down" the final result by introducing too many locations with very poor responses (at those questionable locations). Put another way, do you want 1-2 seats to sound "great", or do you want the entire room to sound "good"?


----------



## Alan P

Overrid3 said:


> I tweaked my sub distance setting in the AVR a bit. Audy set it to 11 ft, and I changed it to 16 to get the graph below. Actual physical distance is only about 9 ft. *It seems to have improved the bass dip a little*, and this is with the phase dial at zero (how I ran the Audy cal). I think I'm happy with this  Also, I decided to change my XO point for my mains to 60 Hz since they are fairly large towers.


A _little_? You gained from 1-4dB from 35-120hz...pretty significant in my book. 

Did you go beyond 16', and if so, did the response get worse after that?


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> A _little_? You gained from 1-4dB from 35-120hz...pretty significant in my book.
> 
> Did you go beyond 16', and if so, did the response get worse after that?



Maybe more than a little...a nice amount I believe I tried 18 ft, but didn't see much of change, so figured I'd just stay put. Not sure how much I should've changed the dist. without getting ridiculous. I don't know offhand what the wavelength is for those bass notes, but I wonder what a 5' change equates to in phase? 



Anyway, music is sounding good. Bass is smooth, and I don't have to boost the sub as much. I think part of the problem before was, I was boosting the sub a lot to try to fill in that 80 Hz area, but it didn't help. It would just increase the freqs. below that. I think maybe that's why DEQ sounded a little overblown, too.


Now, I raised the sub only 3 dB, and I raised the bass on the tone controls by a few dB, and the low end sounds nice.


----------



## garygarrison

torii said:


> after a bunch of tweaking setup and using Room EQ Wizard I was really surprised on the reduction of treble using audyssey (reference) vs. audyssey (flat). in my system at 6k the treble just drops drastically...why is this liked? below graph has what it looks like in my system with fronts crossed over at 80hz with subs...left and right.
> 
> 
> I guess I just didn't realize the roll off....as I used audyssey for last year or so...


The "official" line is that it depends on the listening room and seating position. For a "typical" room in a home, Audyssey Reference is supposed to be a small room (as opposed to a commercial theater) version of the roll-off used in commercial cinemas, plus some "midrange compensation," i.e., a dip of about 2 dB somewhere around 2K Hz. Audyssey Reference's high frequency rolloff starts at about 7 or 8 K, reaching -2dB at 10K Hz, and -6 dB at 20K Hz. Audyssey says that for very close seating in a heavily treated room, Audyssey Flat might be more appropriate. 

I much prefer Audyssey Flat with my speakers, with most music and movies, in my room (4,257 cu. ft., moderately treated with absorption and diffusion). Some music recordings (particularly from the early days of CDs) are less harsh with Audyssey Reference. A very few movies from the magnetic era (mostly 1953 to about 1992) have some distortion in the top octave (10K Hz to 20K Hz)*;* the Audyssey Reference roll-off can mask some this. The improvement is considerable in some cases. The horrible mono optical soundtracks of 1927 to the 1990s (overlapping with the superior magnetic tracks) are sometimes beyond help, but I try everything of which I can think (thanks, Winston).


----------



## mogorf

legierk said:


> *I swing my boom mic stand in an "arc" between mine and my wife's seat.*



Hi legierk, I think we need to get down to a bit of discussion on some theoretical stuff on concepts (or mis-concepts) on what Audyssey's MultEQ room correction software (or any other similar software) does and does not.

First and most important thing is that Audyssey does not do 3D rendering. No mic position is tagged with locational metadata. In this regard please think of MultEQ as a semi-automatic motor that needs a lot of user interaction. There are guidelines for MultEQ setup emphasizing mic placement patterns, yet, that doesn't mean you can place mic at MLP first, then with a long enough cable measure the second position in the kitchen, third in the bathroom, etc. Sounds quite silly, doesn't it? Well, same goes for placing most of mic positions for myself at MLP and one for the wife next to me on the left side! 

Basically MultEQ will work best (as intended by the authors) when the seating area is measured with 6-8 positions practically 2 feet apart from each other. This is the way MultEQ creates an optimum frequency response curve around the seating area usually referred to as an "acoustic bubble". You and your wife will enjoy the (nearly) same acoustic experience regardless of where you are sitting.

Hope this helps!


----------



## Juiced46

I am having some trouble with the App and my 4400 AVR. I have used the app many times before. It was a little glitchy at times but it atleast worked.

I added a new sub and moved some stuff around so I wanted to run Audessey. The app detects my AVR on the network. Connects to it. If I have it set to 2 subs. It always hangs the app at the 2nd sub then eventually I get a "no network connection" message. If I set it to 1 sub, I get through the sub section. Then it goes to detect the Left Front speaker, it sits there and I get the "no network connection" message. 

I have tried the AVR wireless and wired with no luck. I prioritized the AVR as the highest priority as well. This has worked before. Not sure if there was an update to the app that caused this or something I can try on my network?


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> A _little_? You gained from 1-4dB from 35-120hz...pretty significant in my book.
> 
> Did you go beyond 16', and if so, did the response get worse after that?



So I just wanted to report back on this. Any doubts I had about my UMIK1 not providing correct info are gone. According to my measurements, there was that bass dip around 90 Hz, so I loaded up a test tone at that freq. and did some listening. At the Audyssey's default placement for my sub (11 ft), I could hear the tone, but barely. I thought maybe I blew out my sub or something That's how quiet it was. Then, I switched to my tweaked distance of 16 ft, and BAM, there was the bass. It's hard to judge, but it was probably at least 3x louder.


I guess the moral of the story is, Audyssey isn't just set it and forget it. I've done plenty of tweaks after the cal, including raising the XO on the mains, boosting the sub a little, making sure all speakers were set to small, etc. I thought I was done, but then I gotta go and start taking measurements with REW, lol. Anyway, this sub-distance tweak really works.


Also, what do you all think of midrange comp? I tried turning it off on my system, and I have to say, it sounded pretty awful. There was a definite harshness to music that made it very unpleasurable (is that a word) to listen to. In my room and with my speakers, I really think the "BBC dip" is the way to go.


----------



## flyinion

Hi guys, looking for some advice for mic placement for a Marantz NR-1606 with the 6 position version of audyssey. I'm going to be giving it to my parents and I plan on dragging my boom stand over and helping them run it when we set it up. Their "primary position" is two recliners with a small end table between them. I "think" it would be around 2' between the center of the table and the seating position in each chair but I'm thinking putting the mic over a wood table for the first measurement is probably a bad idea. Also my Mom wears hearing aids and generally ends up just using captions so I figured I'd make my Dad's chair the PLP and just take the six measurements around that. Any thoughts though? Or should I just go ahead and put the primary over the table and spread the rest around in that 2' bubble around it expecting audyssey will throw out any strange readings from that first point vs the others due to any reflections off the table?

edit: In case it helps, I found a picture from Christmas a few years ago that shows what I'm talking about. Ignore the chairs on the right side of the photo those aren't usually there. The chair that would be the PLP would be the one in the back right of the photo.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

I would do the first mic position in Dad's chair and cluster the rest within 12"-18" of the first. With Mom wearing hearing aids, any benefit you would get with a wider pattern would most likely be wasted on her and end up compromising Dad's chair.

Also, I want to go the Christmas at your house. Holy Cow, look at all those presents!!


----------



## flyinion

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> 
> 
> I would do the first mic position in Dad's chair and cluster the rest within 12"-18" of the first. With Mom wearing hearing aids, any benefit you would get with a wider pattern would most likely be wasted on her and end up compromising Dad's chair.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I want to go the Christmas at your house. Holy Cow, look at all those presents!!




Thanks for the info I'll do that. 

Lol yeah some of that is my sister and brother in law bring their stuff for each other up with them. Otherwise it's parents still going overboard and six people buying stuff for each other. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

Overrid3 said:


> …
> Also, what do you all think of midrange comp? I tried turning it off on my system, and I have to say, it sounded pretty awful. There was a definite harshness to music that made it very unpleasurable (is that a word) to listen to. In my room and with my speakers, I really think the "BBC dip" is the way to go.


No simple answer. It probably works better with some speakers than others and how well it works may depend on whether the speaker has a crossover between drivers in the range covered by the dip or not.

It may also depend on the listener. The midrange compensation dip is in the area where noise related hearing loss first becomes apparent and one of the first signs that people get of noise related hearing loss is difficulty in understanding speech because the loss first starts to appear in a frequency region important to voices. If someone has mild noise related hearing loss it's possible that the mid-range compensation dip could make the difference between them being able to understand dialog easily (turning the dip off) and not understanding dialog easily (having the dip on).

Like pretty much everything with Audyssey, there's no single universal answer that will suit everyone to your question.


----------



## garygarrison

Overrid3 said:


> S
> 
> Also, what do you all think of midrange comp? I tried turning it off on my system, and I have to say, it sounded pretty awful. There was a definite harshness to music that made it very unpleasurable (is that a word) to listen to. In my room and with my speakers, I really think the "BBC dip" is the way to go.





David Aiken said:


> No simple answer. It probably works better with some speakers than others and how well it works may depend on whether the speaker has a crossover between drivers in the range covered by the dip or not.
> .



I think the original purpose of Audyssey's midrange compensation was to lessen the ill effects of a crossover near 2K, or so, where the ear is very sensitive, BUT Chris K. said that he never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with the dip engaged. 



My speakers are 3-way, and don't have a crossover anywhere near 2K. If a recording seems to be "good," as are most Blu-rays, SACDs, and a somewhat lower number of CDs, I neither need nor want the midrange dip. When a recording seems harsh, the dip, or the high frequency roll-off imposed by Audyssey Reference (just plain "Audyssey") *does* help. Because I don't have the app (my AVP won't interface with it) there is no way to separate the dip from the roll-off, so I can't tell which one is causing the improvement. Maybe it's both.


----------



## Overrid3

David Aiken said:


> No simple answer. It probably works better with some speakers than others and how well it works may depend on whether the speaker has a crossover between drivers in the range covered by the dip or not.
> 
> It may also depend on the listener. The midrange compensation dip is in the area where noise related hearing loss first becomes apparent and one of the first signs that people get of noise related hearing loss is difficulty in understanding speech because the loss first starts to appear in a frequency region important to voices. If someone has mild noise related hearing loss it's possible that the mid-range compensation dip could make the difference between them being able to understand dialog easily (turning the dip off) and not understanding dialog easily (having the dip on).
> 
> Like pretty much everything with Audyssey, there's no single universal answer that will suit everyone to your question.





garygarrison said:


> I think the original purpose of Audyssey's midrange compensation was to lessen the ill effects of a crossover near 2K, or so, where the ear is very sensitive, BUT Chris K. said that he never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with the dip engaged.
> 
> 
> 
> My speakers are 3-way, and don't have a crossover anywhere near 2K. If a recording seems to be "good," as are most Blu-rays, SACDs, and a somewhat lower number of CDs, I neither need nor want the midrange dip. When a recording seems harsh, the dip, or the high frequency roll-off imposed by Audyssey Reference (just plain "Audyssey") *does* help. Because I don't have the app (my AVP won't interface with it) there is no way to separate the dip from the roll-off, so I can't tell which one is causing the improvement. Maybe it's both.



Thanks!


Also, I'm wondering about my center channel speaker. For whatever reason, Audyssey is saying the crossover needs to be at 100 Hz, which it chooses 40 Hz for my towers. I know it measures in-room response, but I don't like crossing my towers so low. They are Wharfdale Diamond 10.7s. Going to 60 or 80 Hz sounds better to me. As for the center, 100 seems too high. I'd prefer to have all the speakers at the same XO, so 80 Hz seems fine. However, I read that it might not be a good idea to _lower_ the XO Audyssey chooses. Raising it is OK, but not lowering. That said, do you think lowering my center from 100 Hz to 80 Hz would be a big deal? It's a pretty dang big speaker, and should easily handle 80 Hz.
https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/wharfedale-diamond-10cm-center-channel-speaker-ea


----------



## fookoo_2010

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Also, I'm wondering about my center channel speaker. For whatever reason, Audyssey is saying the crossover needs to be at 100 Hz, which it chooses 40 Hz for my towers. I know it measures in-room response, but I don't like crossing my towers so low. They are Wharfdale Diamond 10.7s. Going to 60 or 80 Hz sounds better to me. As for the center, 100 seems too high. I'd prefer to have all the speakers at the same XO, so 80 Hz seems fine. However, I read that it might not be a good idea to _lower_ the XO Audyssey chooses. Raising it is OK, but not lowering. That said, do you think lowering my center from 100 Hz to 80 Hz would be a big deal? It's a pretty dang big speaker, and should easily handle 80 Hz.
> https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/wharfedale-diamond-10cm-center-channel-speaker-ea


This reads like you are not using a sub or two. Try out your crossover points and see how it sounds to your ears - and that is all that matters.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> I think the original purpose of Audyssey's midrange compensation was to lessen the ill effects of a crossover near 2K, or so, where the ear is very sensitive, BUT Chris K. said that he never heard a speaker that didn't sound better with the dip engaged.
> 
> 
> 
> My speakers are 3-way, and don't have a crossover anywhere near 2K. If a recording seems to be "good," as are most Blu-rays, SACDs, and a somewhat lower number of CDs, I neither need nor want the midrange dip. When a recording seems harsh, the dip, or the high frequency roll-off imposed by Audyssey Reference (just plain "Audyssey") *does* help. Because I don't have the app (my AVP won't interface with it) there is no way to separate the dip from the roll-off, so I can't tell which one is causing the improvement. Maybe it's both.


Gary,

I don't know why the BBC introduced the dip but they had their own speaker research and development area and they introduced it in some of the speakers they designed themselves for their own purposes so they were interested in getting better/more accurate response for monitoring purposes in their own studios which is what they were designing their speakers for. Then it spread to speakers designed by other people. There's no guarantee that the reason others started using it were the same as the reasons the BBC started using it.

Audyssey designed their Reference response curve based on studies of listener preferences. I've got no idea how those studies were conducted but they were looking at multichannel setups and the BBC was looking at stereo at the most, and perhaps only mono when they came up with the dip because mono remained the broadcast standard into the mid or late '60's. Room sizes for multichannel home setups are quite different to a lot of the BBC studio sizes and monitors are intended for different sorts of use to home setups which are used for listening for enjoyment. I have no idea how well the rooms and speaker choices used in Audyssey's preference tests relate to our own home choices but if there isn't a reasonable match between the setup choices in those studies and average home setup choices, then it's possible that the outcome of those preference studies might not be as relevant as one might wish to the general user situation.

I recently changed my AVR to a newer model which can use the Audyssey MultEQ app which allows you to remove the mid range compensation dip from the Reference curve and I've removed it from the Reference curve in my system. I don't think we can assume the dip will be appropriate with all speakers and it definitely isn't preferred by all users. I think we should always have had the option to defeat it but at least some of us now have the option thanks to the app. I didn't change my AVR just to get this ability but it's a nice extra that I got along with what I actually wanted.


----------



## David Aiken

Overrid3 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> Also, I'm wondering about my center channel speaker. For whatever reason, Audyssey is saying the crossover needs to be at 100 Hz, which it chooses 40 Hz for my towers. I know it measures in-room response, but I don't like crossing my towers so low. They are Wharfdale Diamond 10.7s. Going to 60 or 80 Hz sounds better to me. As for the center, 100 seems too high. I'd prefer to have all the speakers at the same XO, so 80 Hz seems fine. However, I read that it might not be a good idea to _lower_ the XO Audyssey chooses. Raising it is OK, but not lowering. That said, do you think lowering my center from 100 Hz to 80 Hz would be a big deal? It's a pretty dang big speaker, and should easily handle 80 Hz.
> https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/wharfedale-diamond-10cm-center-channel-speaker-ea


Audyssey actually doesn't set crossovers, that's done by the bass management firmware provided by the AVVR manufacturer. Audyssey just does the calibration process and creates the filters. There are 2 cooks stirring the pot in this area, Audyssey and the AVR manufacturer. 

My Marantz sets my 2 speakers (I only use a 2.2 setup) as Large. When I change that to Small, the AVR sets the crossover at 40 Hz and I change it to 80 Hz. If 60 or 80 Hz sounds better to you for the front speakers, go with what sounds better, after all you're listening for enjoyment and why would you want to shortchange yourself on that? 

The question about the centre channel and lowering the crossover frequency is more difficult. There's no problem about raising the crossover but lowering it is another question. I'd recommend not lowering it but given that you're talking about only lowering it from 100 Hz to 80 Hz, then I'd be inclined to try it and see what it sounds like. The problem isn't so much about whether or not the speaker can handle 80 Hz, from the specs it obviously can but that's under the conditions under which it was tested and those conditions aren't the same as those the speaker is working with in your room. We don't know how different your room is to the conditions in which the speaker was tested when its specifications were determined but if the reason the crossover was set at 100 Hz was because of a modal dip or a cancellation at that frequency then you're not going to be able to avoid the existence of that dip and things should be expected to sound worse with the lower crossover. I don't think there's any real problems with having the crossover for the centre speaker set 20 Hz higher than the front L and R speakers. That's not a big difference but what you will hear will depend on how fast the speaker is rolling off below 100 Hz in your room. Just be aware that the speaker won't be getting correction over the whole range down to 80 Hz. If it were me I'd leave it at 100 Hz.


----------



## Overrid3

David Aiken said:


> Audyssey actually doesn't set crossovers, that's done by the bass management firmware provided by the AVVR manufacturer. Audyssey just does the calibration process and creates the filters. There are 2 cooks stirring the pot in this area, Audyssey and the AVR manufacturer.
> 
> My Marantz sets my 2 speakers (I only use a 2.2 setup) as Large. When I change that to Small, the AVR sets the crossover at 40 Hz and I change it to 80 Hz. If 60 or 80 Hz sounds better to you for the front speakers, go with what sounds better, after all you're listening for enjoyment and why would you want to shortchange yourself on that?
> 
> The question about the centre channel and lowering the crossover frequency is more difficult. There's no problem about raising the crossover but lowering it is another question. I'd recommend not lowering it but given that you're talking about only lowering it from 100 Hz to 80 Hz, then I'd be inclined to try it and see what it sounds like. The problem isn't so much about whether or not the speaker can handle 80 Hz, from the specs it obviously can but that's under the conditions under which it was tested and those conditions aren't the same as those the speaker is working with in your room. We don't know how different your room is to the conditions in which the speaker was tested when its specifications were determined but if the reason the crossover was set at 100 Hz was because of a modal dip or a cancellation at that frequency then you're not going to be able to avoid the existence of that dip and things should be expected to sound worse with the lower crossover. I don't think there's any real problems with having the crossover for the centre speaker set 20 Hz higher than the front L and R speakers. That's not a big difference but what you will hear will depend on how fast the speaker is rolling off below 100 Hz in your room. Just be aware that the speaker won't be getting correction over the whole range down to 80 Hz. If it were me I'd leave it at 100 Hz.



Cool. I don't hear much change between the center at 100 Hz vs 80, so might as well just stick with the Audy setting. This is more of a question for the speaker setup section, but I'm wondering if maybe my center placement has something to do with this. It's inside the shelving of an entertainment center, but I have it pushed forward so it overhangs the front edge a little. Also, the shelf if below ear level, but I do have the speaker angled up towards. This isn't ideal, but not sure where else I can put it since the correct position for it is right where the TV screen is.


My entertainment center has a pole in back to enable mounting the screen up in the air. If I can raise it high enough, I might be able to move the center channel to the top shelf of the unit. Then, it'd be higher, and also not between two panes of glass. Not sure if this is a worthwhile experiment?


Here's a shot of my current setup:


----------



## David Aiken

Overrid3 said:


> Cool. I don't hear much change between the center at 100 Hz vs 80, so might as well just stick with the Audy setting. This is more of a question for the speaker setup section, but I'm wondering if maybe my center placement has something to do with this. It's inside the shelving of an entertainment center, but I have it pushed forward so it overhangs the front edge a little. Also, the shelf if below ear level, but I do have the speaker angled up towards. This isn't ideal, but not sure where else I can put it since the correct position for it is right where the TV screen is.
> 
> 
> My entertainment center has a pole in back to enable mounting the screen up in the air. If I can raise it high enough, I might be able to move the center channel to the top shelf of the unit. Then, it'd be higher, and also not between two panes of glass. Not sure if this is a worthwhile experiment?
> 
> 
> Here's a shot of my current setup:


Lots of things can affect the in room response of a speaker but position is most certainly one of them. Your centre speaker is almost certainly designed for use standing in relatively free space and sandwiched between 2 shelves is not in free space. I would bet on that having an effect, as well as the glass shelves having an effect, but I have no idea how much of an effect those things are going to have at the low end.

I'd try the experiment but there's no guarantee that it will affect the crossover setting.


----------



## Overrid3

David Aiken said:


> Lots of things can affect the in room response of a speaker but position is most certainly one of them. Your centre speaker is almost certainly designed for use standing in relatively free space and sandwiched between 2 shelves is not in free space. I would bet on that having an effect, as well as the glass shelves having an effect, but I have no idea how much of an effect those things are going to have at the low end.
> 
> I'd try the experiment but there's no guarantee that it will affect the crossover setting.


I might give it a shot. If I can raise the screen enough to fit the center on that top shelf, that would probably help. I'm not really too worried about an 80 vs 100 Hz XO, but sometimes I don't think the center sounds as clear as it should, and maybe better positioning would help.


----------



## Alan P

Overrid3 said:


> Cool. I don't hear much change between the center at 100 Hz vs 80, so might as well just stick with the Audy setting. This is more of a question for the speaker setup section, but I'm wondering if maybe my center placement has something to do with this. It's inside the shelving of an entertainment center, but I have it pushed forward so it overhangs the front edge a little. Also, the shelf if below ear level, but I do have the speaker angled up towards. This isn't ideal, but not sure where else I can put it since the correct position for it is right where the TV screen is.
> 
> 
> My entertainment center has a pole in back to enable mounting the screen up in the air. If I can raise it high enough, I might be able to move the center channel to the top shelf of the unit. Then, it'd be higher, and also not between two panes of glass. Not sure if this is a worthwhile experiment?
> 
> 
> Here's a shot of my current setup:


Whether or not it effects the frequency response of the CC (and it probably will), it is _always _a good idea to try and get the front three tweeters as close as possible in the horizontal plane. With them more in alignment, panning effects will sound more realistic.


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> Whether or not it effects the frequency response of the CC (and it probably will), it is _always _a good idea to try and get the front three tweeters as close as possible in the horizontal plane. With them more in alignment, panning effects will sound more realistic.



So here's where I ended up  I _think _the sound is better and clearer now, but of course can't really do an A/B comparison. I'm sure this is a better position for the center from a technical standpoint. I wish I could put the screen just a little lower, but the speaker is just too tall. The screen height is a little more than I'd prefer, but maybe I will adjust to it. In reality, it's only about 9" higher than it was before. I even geeked out and cald'd the vertical viewing angle, which comes out to about 17 degrees, so I guess that's fairly reasonable.


I re-ran Audy after all this, and things sound very nice so far


----------



## kaydee6

Overrid3 said:


> So I just wanted to report back on this. Any doubts I had about my UMIK1 not providing correct info are gone. According to my measurements, there was that bass dip around 90 Hz, so I loaded up a test tone at that freq. and did some listening. At the Audyssey's default placement for my sub (11 ft), I could hear the tone, but barely. I thought maybe I blew out my sub or something That's how quiet it was. Then, I switched to my tweaked distance of 16 ft, and BAM, there was the bass. It's hard to judge, but it was probably at least 3x louder.
> 
> 
> I guess the moral of the story is, Audyssey isn't just set it and forget it. I've done plenty of tweaks after the cal, including raising the XO on the mains, boosting the sub a little, making sure all speakers were set to small, etc. I thought I was done, but then I gotta go and start taking measurements with REW, lol. Anyway, this sub-distance tweak really works.
> 
> 
> Also, what do you all think of midrange comp? I tried turning it off on my system, and I have to say, it sounded pretty awful. There was a definite harshness to music that made it very unpleasurable (is that a word) to listen to. In my room and with my speakers, I really think the "BBC dip" is the way to go.


Now I just tried to increase my sub distance of Audyssey determined of 2.52m to 2.82m, an increase of 1 ft and I would say listening to some music, I feel a slight increase in the bass volume but the biggest difference is in the tightness and deepness. I perceive it to go lower and tighter and it's like I have a new sub! That is on music and will test out some movies soon. I have no UMIK mic or REW so I wouldn't know how much to increase and when to stop


----------



## Overrid3

kaydee6 said:


> Now I just tried to increase my sub distance of Audyssey determined of 2.52m to 2.82m, an increase of 1 ft and I would say listening to some music, I feel a slight increase in the bass volume but the biggest difference is in the tightness and deepness. I perceive it to go lower and tighter and it's like I have a new sub! That is on music and will test out some movies soon. I have no UMIK mic or REW so I wouldn't know how much to increase and when to stop


Cool. It's worth playing around with, but having REW and a mic really helps so you know what areas of the spectrum are being affected. Good luck :smile:


----------



## Alan P

kaydee6 said:


> Now I just tried to increase my sub distance of Audyssey determined of 2.52m to 2.82m, an increase of 1 ft and I would say listening to some music, I feel a slight increase in the bass volume but the biggest difference is in the tightness and deepness. I perceive it to go lower and tighter and it's like I have a new sub! That is on music and will test out some movies soon. I have no UMIK mic or REW so I wouldn't know how much to increase and when to stop



If you don't have measuring equipment, the distance tweak can be done with an SPL meter (or SPL app on a smartphone) and test tones downloadable from the internet, available on YouTube, from a test disc or with REW (free download).



For the Center Channel, set your AVR to the Dolby PLII surround mode (Dolby Surround on Atmost AVRs), you should be getting output from the CC + sub(s) only
For the FL/FR channels, set your AVR to the Stereo surround mode, you should be getting output from the FL/FR + sub(s) only
Invert phase on your subwoofer(s)
Play a sine wave that corresponds to your crossover frequency (i.e. 80hz) and measure the output with the SPL meter about a foot in front of your face at the MLP
Gradually increase the sub distance setting in the AVR in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
The sub distance setting that gives you the lowest SPL reading is the setting you want (you can tweak further in smaller increments if you want to, but I have found that 1' increments is usually sufficient)
Invert the phase on your sub again and you are done


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> If you don't have measuring equipment, the distance tweak can be done with an SPL meter (or SPL app on a smartphone) and test tones downloadable from the internet, available on YouTube, from a test disc or with REW (free download).
> 
> 
> 
> For the Center Channel, set your AVR to the Dolby PLII surround mode (Dolby Surround on Atmost AVRs), you should be getting output from the CC + sub(s) only
> For the FL/FR channels, set your AVR to the Stereo surround mode, you should be getting output from the FL/FR + sub(s) only
> Invert phase on your subwoofer(s)
> Play a sine wave that corresponds to your crossover frequency (i.e. 80hz) and measure the output with the SPL meter about a foot in front of your face at the MLP
> Gradually increase the sub distance setting in the AVR in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
> The sub distance setting that gives you the lowest SPL reading is the setting you want (you can tweak further in smaller increments if you want to, but I have found that 1' increments is usually sufficient)
> Invert the phase on your sub again and you are done



Could you do this without inverting the phase on the sub, and tweak the distance until you get the _highest_ reading? With REW, I left my sub at zero phase the whole time, and adjusted the distance in my AVR until the graphs looked better at the XO region.


----------



## Alan P

With an SPL meter (or ap) and a sine wave, it's easier to see the dip than it is the rise, hence the inverted sub phase. Using a frequency sweep in REW, you can easily see what the best distance setting is.


----------



## Overrid3

Alan P said:


> With an SPL meter (or ap) and a sine wave, it's easier to see the dip than it is the rise, hence the inverted sub phase. Using a frequency sweep in REW, you can easily see what the best distance setting is.



Ah, makes sense.


----------



## Juiced46

Alan P said:


> If you don't have measuring equipment, the distance tweak can be done with an SPL meter (or SPL app on a smartphone) and test tones downloadable from the internet, available on YouTube, from a test disc or with REW (free download).
> 
> 
> 
> For the Center Channel, set your AVR to the Dolby PLII surround mode (Dolby Surround on Atmost AVRs), you should be getting output from the CC + sub(s) only
> For the FL/FR channels, set your AVR to the Stereo surround mode, you should be getting output from the FL/FR + sub(s) only
> Invert phase on your subwoofer(s)
> Play a sine wave that corresponds to your crossover frequency (i.e. 80hz) and measure the output with the SPL meter about a foot in front of your face at the MLP
> Gradually increase the sub distance setting in the AVR in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
> The sub distance setting that gives you the lowest SPL reading is the setting you want (you can tweak further in smaller increments if you want to, but I have found that 1' increments is usually sufficient)
> Invert the phase on your sub again and you are done



I am confused. Why would you want to set the distance to the lowest SPL reading?


----------



## kaydee6

Juiced46 said:


> I am confused. Why would you want to set the distance to the lowest SPL reading?


Because it's measuring at phase invert. Once you put back to the orignal phase, it will be the loudest.


----------



## Nick V

Is it possible to get an extra long extension cable for the Audyssey calibration mics?

I'm planning on integrating the system in my main floor open concept living room into a Middle Atlantic rack in the basement. The system will then be controlled with a Harmony Elite remote and hub that will control the gear in the basement.

The rack will have:
Denon AVR-X3200 receiver
4K Blu-Ray Player (TBD)
4K Cable Box
Possibly a media player that supports 4K HDR/DV and Atmos with Netflix and Amazon Prime and on demand movie rentals (if someone figures out how to do that properly)

Rest of the 5.1.2 system:
Vizio M55 4K Display
Rythmik L-12 subwoofer 
GoldenEar 3D Array X Front L/C/R 
GoldenEar Invisa 525 will be installed as in-wall front height Atmos channels (installed 9' high on front wall)
GoldenEar Invisa 525 (or HTR 7000) will be installed in-ceiling behind MLP as surround L/R 

I'm currently just using the GE 3D Array X and the Rythmik L-12 in a 2.1 system using the noisy analog audio outputs from the TV into a Lepai amp hidden behind the wall-mounted TV. Also using an Outlaw OAW-4 wireless transmitter to the subwoofer.

I'm pulling the Denon X3200 out of my main system that's being upgraded and integrating it (and expanding) the living room system, and then I started thinking, if I install all these in-wall speakers with the rack of gear hidden in the basement, how the heck am I going to calibrate the system with Audyssey?

Is it possible to get an extra long extension cable for the Audyssey mics? Other people with custom integrated systems must run into this issue?


----------



## ctsv510

Nick V said:


> Is it possible to get an extra long extension cable for the Audyssey mics? Other people with custom integrated systems must run into this issue?


Yes, this is information included in post 1 of this thread. Search "Extension" on page 1.


----------



## IMWhizzle

Alan P said:


> kaydee6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now I just tried to increase my sub distance of Audyssey determined of 2.52m to 2.82m, an increase of 1 ft and I would say listening to some music, I feel a slight increase in the bass volume but the biggest difference is in the tightness and deepness. I perceive it to go lower and tighter and it's like I have a new sub! That is on music and will test out some movies soon. I have no UMIK mic or REW so I wouldn't know how much to increase and when to stop/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't have measuring equipment, the distance tweak can be done with an SPL meter (or SPL app on a smartphone) and test tones downloadable from the internet, available on YouTube, from a test disc or with REW (free download).
> 
> 
> 
> For the Center Channel, set your AVR to the Dolby PLII surround mode (Dolby Surround on Atmost AVRs), you should be getting output from the CC + sub(s) only
> For the FL/FR channels, set your AVR to the Stereo surround mode, you should be getting output from the FL/FR + sub(s) only
> Invert phase on your subwoofer(s)
> Play a sine wave that corresponds to your crossover frequency (i.e. 80hz) and measure the output with the SPL meter about a foot in front of your face at the MLP
> Gradually increase the sub distance setting in the AVR in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
> The sub distance setting that gives you the lowest SPL reading is the setting you want (you can tweak further in smaller increments if you want to, but I have found that 1' increments is usually sufficient)
> Invert the phase on your sub again and you are done
Click to expand...

How can I take these steps with two subwoofers? Should I do it for each one independently (1 sub at a time)? Or do I need two have them both powered on while doing this?


----------



## Juiced46

kaydee6 said:


> Because it's measuring at phase invert. Once you put back to the orignal phase, it will be the loudest.


That makes sense. Thank you.


----------



## sotwell

*checking speaker trim post-audyssey with audyssey turned off using umik-1*

and i am getting as much as 2db swings. I know that you are not supposed to check trim with audyssey turned on, but I assume you can let audyssey set trim, then turn it off to validate the speaker levels. any issues testing this with my umik-1?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Error rate of the Audyssey mic is +/-2dB.


----------



## Mickey Mouse

first of all: of course you have to turn Audyssey ON for the level adjustment! You may want to switch Dynamic-EQ and Dynamic-Volume off!

I would compare/align the levels with my ears!
the ears are poor instruments for the absolute level but not that bad for direct comparison.
the big advantage: you adjust the level with instruments that have the same direction characteristic as you use for music/movie listening: your ears!
to which direction do you want to point your Umik-1? To the ceiling with 90° calibration? That means sound from behind is measured the same as directly from the front. My ears sense sound from the front louder as from behind.
not to mention reflexions and all that stuff.

and from my experience Audyssey Dynamic Volume increases the (back)surround speaker level at low volume by far too much.
so it depends on at which volume you usually listen.


----------



## flyinion

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Just wondering how many run DEQ while watching Blu Ray and if so what offset do you use? I've been running it for cable etc on -10 with good results but trying out 0 on disc based movies since those theoretically would be reference level seems a little hot/boomy on bass. So I've just left it off. Just to note I don't manually bump my sub after running audyssey either. Also I have not tried it since going to a new receiver that does XT32 and my understanding better sub EQ. Went from a marantz 1606 to a Denon 4500h


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

I always used DEQ. If subs are still too hot even at -0 MV, time to turn down the sub trim/gain. Interesting that you didn't increase yours. What was your sub level(s) post-Audyssey?

I typically used an offset of 5.


----------



## flyinion

Soulburner said:


> I always used DEQ. If subs are still too hot even at -0 MV, time to turn down the sub trim/gain. Interesting that you didn't increase yours. What was your sub level(s) post-Audyssey?
> 
> 
> 
> I typically used an offset of 5.




Sorry for the confusion I meant 0 offset in DEQ. Post cal is -4 in audyssey. I typically watch movies about -10 to -15 MV. depending on how loud it was mastered


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## camd5pt0

I have a 2 questions. Is it regarded as inferior to use the editor app over the on board processing for xt32? Or is it equal, assuming the user will not be making adjustments. (I have the app BTW) I will be relocating the top fronts.

The other question is, if audyssey sets speakers as different DB than others, should I leave them? Or is the point of calibration is to be the same DB at the MLP?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## Kal Rubinson

camd5pt0 said:


> Is it regarded as inferior to use the editor app over the on board processing for xt32? Or is it equal, assuming the user will not be making adjustments. (I have the app BTW)


No. In fact, I prefer the app because of its flexibility and control.



> if audyssey sets speakers as different DB than others, should I leave them? Or is the point of calibration is to be the same DB at the MLP?


Yes. Setting those at different levels is to correctly adjust the sound to be at the same level (dB) at the MLP. It is doing just what you want.


----------



## mogorf

camd5pt0 said:


> The other question is, if audyssey sets speakers as different DB than others, should I leave them? Or is the point of calibration is to be the same DB at the MLP?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk



You need to differentiate between electrical dB and sound pressure level dB, although both are expressed in deciBels (dB).


So, in this regard different (electrial) dB levels (depending on each speaker's physical distance) set by MultEQ will render same SPL (sound pressure level) dB at MLP. That's the way it works. 



Hope this clarifies matters.


----------



## camd5pt0

Great thank so I won't mess with the results, reading the SPL db, under test tones? 
If I were to afterwards make everything in test tones match same DB, I would be undoing the magic of Audyssey, causing sounds to arrive at MLP at a different time.

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk


----------



## flyinion

camd5pt0 said:


> Great thank so I won't mess with the results, reading the SPL db, under test tones?
> If I were to afterwards make everything in test tones match same DB, I would be undoing the magic of Audyssey, causing sounds to arrive at MLP at a different time.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk




It's not delay but "volume" so if you make them all match on the screen different speakers will be louder or softer. Audyssey is doing automatically what we used to do with test tones and a meter to balance the sound. The distance measurements are what is used to set the delay. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

flyinion said:


> Just wondering how many run DEQ while watching Blu Ray and if so what offset do you use?



I never use DEQ on Blu-Ray, DVD, Streaming, CD, SACD, or DVD-A, *BUT* I play movies at within a few dB of 5 dB below Reference Level (which is near THX guidelines for my size room), and music at perceived "concert level," so there would be little or no need for low Sound Pressure Level compensation. As you say, the mastering level, even on movies, varies (perhaps due to manipulating the dynamic range), so I correct the volume -- by ear -- when the dialogue starts, or sometimes on the Main Title music. In case you are wondering, the audience can't see any volume indicator on screen, or on any of the equipment, and no glowing LEDs when I do that.

All of that being said, the main reason I don't use DEQ is that it seems to make the sound a little less clear, with a little less of what audiophiles call "air" than without it. Neither boosting the subwoofer a bit, nor using the bass tone control (usable only when DEQ is off) produces this ill effect.

I generally use Audyssey FLAT, which lets through the aforementioned "air," but there are a few movies of the multichannel magnetic era** *that I know had good sound, but seem to have a little mid or high frequency distortion and/or harshness in their BD or DVD incarnations*;* for these, I use plain Audyssey, and it mellows them out. There are only about 8 or 10 of these, but, unfortunately, they include some classics. Some can benefit from further EQ, using tone controls, sub level, etc. How did this happen? In regard to the high frequency distortion, the two major manufacturers of the very best theater and movie studio speakers (in those days), both of which had the very same "L word" in their company names, had frequency response that dropped like a rock above 10K Hz, even though one claimed not. During much of this time, their home speakers did not have this problem. The film mixers, and moviegoers, of the day might miss HF distortion because it was attenuated. As to possible harshness that might be hidden by using Audyssey's midrange compensation, the only thing I can think of that might have happened is that the people who do the engineering for transfer ("authoring") to Blu-ray might have never experienced these marvelous, warm, magnetic soundtracks due to the inconvenience of not having been born yet.

***approx. 1953 to about the mid '70s*;* 70mm projection continued to use 6 magnetic soundtracks for many years after.


I recommend these, for everyone:


Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences

Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## garygarrison

flyinion said:


> ... Audyssey is doing automatically what we used to do with test tones and a meter to balance the sound ...



And Audyssey is probably doing a better job than you could do with a meter.


----------



## pbz06

I've been using the Audyssey Flat setting and turned off midrange compensation based off recommendations made here. I watch 99% Blu-ray movies and PS4 vide games and haven't noticed any "harsh/bright" so just stuck with it. I figure speaker manufacturers take into account their internal crossovers and whatever the Audyssey compensation tried to emulate. 

I listen about -10 from reference and I do use DEQ since I like what it aims to accomplish.


----------



## iafzal

New to Denon coming off Pioneer with MCACC.

Ran the Audyssey and have a few questions. Have read some of the FAQ but still need help.

My setup is in a 20'x 12' dedicated media room with a 5.1 setup.
I have JBL590s for front with 550p JBL sub. with Denon x4400h.
Once I ran auto Audyssey XT32 it set my fronts to large with 40hz xover.
How can I change it to 80 hz and make the fronts small? Will doing it in the manual setting change the auto cals run by Audyssey? In the manual setting I made the changes but they do not show up on the auto Audyssey section and I do not see a way to change values in the auto section.

Also currently I have the sub setup as LFE+Main. The first post suggest not to do it? So should I just go with LFE only? Even though JBL590s are very capable speakers at low end, I want the sub to play below 80hz. In the manual setting I have the xover at 80hz and LPF set to 120Hz. Will this be effectively change the auto Audyssey settings?

Where can you see the Freq response graph of the Audyssey cals? Is it via laptop or the app? I do not have the paid app. Can it be done via the video monitor?

Thx!


----------



## flyinion

iafzal said:


> New to Denon coming off Pioneer with MCACC.
> 
> Ran the Audyssey and have a few questions. Have read some of the FAQ but still need help.
> 
> My setup is in a 20'x 12' dedicated media room with a 5.1 setup.
> I have JBL590s for front with 550p JBL sub. with Denon x4400h.
> Once I ran auto Audyssey XT32 it set my fronts to large with 40hz xover.
> How can I change it to 80 hz and make the fronts small? Will doing it in the manual setting change the auto cals run by Audyssey? In the manual setting I made the changes but they do not show up on the auto Audyssey section and I do not see a way to change values in the auto section.
> 
> Also currently I have the sub setup as LFE+Main. The first post suggest not to do it? So should I just go with LFE only? Even though JBL590s are very capable speakers at low end, I want the sub to play below 80hz. In the manual setting I have the xover at 80hz and LPF set to 120Hz. Will this be effectively change the auto Audyssey settings?
> 
> Where can you see the Freq response graph of the Audyssey cals? Is it via laptop or the app? I do not have the paid app. Can it be done via the video monitor?
> 
> Thx!


I can answer a few of these. Manual setup is the right place to change settings. Audyssey section is just showing you what it found when it ran. It's ok to set your speakers to small and raise the xover from 40 to 80. What you don't want to do is go the other way because my understanding is if for instance audyssey decides 100hz is the proper crossover point for a channel it stops making corrections below that point or something like that. So if you set it to say 40hz it's uncorrected between 40-100 in that example. Yes I'd set to LFE only. The only reason to use LFE+Main is if you have any of your speakers set to full range instead of a crossover point. 

Changing settings like this manually won't affect the audyssey corrections. What I've read is it "graphs out" and makes the corrections and crossover points etc. but the receiver then takes that info and actually uses it when outputting. Like, it doesn't actually know where audyssey stopped making corrections it just gets data that says what do do at each part of the spectrum and it has no idea and doesn't care that audyssey stopped correcting past a certain point, but if you change the crossover too low you'll be trying to play content that hasn't been corrected for room issues.


----------



## garygarrison

iafzal said:


> ... I have JBL590s for front with 550p JBL sub. with Denon x4400h.
> 
> 
> Once I ran auto Audyssey XT32 it set my fronts to large with 40hz xover.
> How can I change it to 80 hz and make the fronts small? Will doing it in the manual setting change the auto cals run by Audyssey? In the manual setting I made the changes but they do not show up on the auto Audyssey section and I do not see a way to change values in the auto section.
> 
> Also currently I have the sub setup as LFE+Main. The first post suggest not to do it? So should I just go with LFE only? Even though JBL590s are very capable speakers at low end, I want the sub to play below 80hz. In the manual setting I have the xover at 80hz and LPF set to 120Hz. Will this be effectively change the auto Audyssey settings?
> 
> Where can you see the Freq response graph of the Audyssey cals? Is it via laptop or the app? I do not have the paid app. *Can it be done via the video monitor? ...*





flyinion said:


> I can answer a few of these. Manual setup is the right place to change settings. Audyssey section is just showing you what it found when it ran. It's ok to set your speakers to small and raise the xover from 40 to 80. What you don't want to do is go the other way because my understanding is if for instance audyssey decides 100hz is the proper crossover point for a channel it stops making corrections below that point or something like that. So if you set it to say 40hz it's uncorrected between 40-100 in that example. Yes I'd set to LFE only. The only reason to use LFE+Main is if you have any of your speakers set to full range instead of a crossover point.
> 
> Changing settings like this manually won't affect the audyssey corrections. What I've read is it "graphs out" and makes the corrections and crossover points etc. but the receiver then takes that info and actually uses it when outputting. Like, it doesn't actually know where audyssey stopped making corrections it just gets data that says what do do at each part of the spectrum and it has no idea and doesn't care that audyssey stopped correcting past a certain point, but if you change the crossover too low you'll be trying to play content that hasn't been corrected for room issues.


Yes, you can get a very crude graph of the corrections on the video monitor. If your Denon is like my Marantz (they are owned by the same parent company) you do it by going to Auto Setup, which then gives you a choice of Audyssey Auto Set-up (DON'T touch that one!) or Parameter Check. You want Parameter Check (or something synonymous). Click on that and select EQ check. It should present you with yet another choice: Audyssey (reference) or Audyssey FLAT. Click on the one you are using it will give you a set of graphs. The graphs are a little better than they used to be, but, to be good they would need *many* more data points. XT32 has thousands of possible correction points.

I agree with what flyinion said. 

Other than that, you might need the Denon to English Handbook someone created -- but I don't think it has been updated very recently. 

The FAQ almost everything you need at the start.


----------



## gsantosoliver

Gentlemen,

What happens with the bass when Audyssey sets the crossovers for LCR and S as small at 60hz and I set the LPF for LFE at 120 hz? Would I have bass coming from LCR and S AND sub at the same time? Is it recommended or should I set all to 80-110hz?

Thank you!
Gilson


----------



## garygarrison

gsantosoliver said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> What happens with the bass when Audyssey sets the crossovers for LCR and S as small at 60hz and I set the LPF for LFE at 120 hz? Would I have bass coming from LCR and S AND sub at the same time? Is it recommended or should I set all to 80-110hz?
> 
> Thank you!
> Gilson





Audyssey doesn't really _*set*_ crossovers (at least in the Auto setup -- I don't know about the App). Instead it _*reports*_, to the AVR, each speaker's F3 point (the frequency at which the speaker is 3 dB below average for that speaker, in that room, as measured by Audyssey's "pings," which actually contain every frequency from 20 to 20,000 Hz, although you'd never know that by listening to the pings). Once the _*AVR*_ receives the "report" *it* sets the crossovers, according to the rules the AVR manufacturer sets up -- this may vary with the AVR manufacturer.
If your AVR has set an X-over below 80 Hz it's probably a good idea to move the crossover up to 80 Hz, to let your subwoofer do the heavy lifting. The sub is probably better than almost all main speakers below 80, and at this setting the burden is reduced on your main speakers, so both those main speakers and the power amplifier section of the AVR will have more available headroom. If your AVR has set an X-over above 80 Hz, it probably means the speaker, in that position in the room, is rolling off by 3 dB at a frequency higher than 80 Hz, so the X-over should be set at that higher frequency -- or higher.
Most people think "small" is the best setting for main speakers, no matter how big they are. I concur, but I resisted this for a couple of years. A series of tests over months convinced me that "small" provided the smoothest, cleanest response. AVR manufacturers are notorious for setting speakers to "large" because they think you want it that way.
Yes, bass will be coming out of your LCR, S, and the Sub at the same time, but it is mostly different bass content, except for the overlap at the crossover(s).
LFE is a completely separate bass source in the film mix where the filmmakers put bass effects, such as what I like to call "the infernal bass machine." The two sources, bass management bass and LFE bass get *mixed together* and sent out through the subwoofer output to your sub. Most people set the LPF for LFE at 120 Hz, while leaving their crossover for the rest of the bass (music, higher frequency effects, basso profundo dialogue, e.g. San Elliot's lowest octave) at 80 Hz, or whatever higher frequency the AVR recommends.
Almost every one turns up the subwoofer a little AFTER running Audyssey.
Mike Thomas wrote a much more nuanced set of instructions in his Subwoofer Guide, including how to turn up the sub without causing distortion*:* Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences

Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## bigzee3

flyinion said:


> Just wondering how many run DEQ while watching Blu Ray and if so what offset do you use? I've been running it for cable etc on -10 with good results but trying out 0 on disc based movies since those theoretically would be reference level seems a little hot/boomy on bass. So I've just left it off. Just to note I don't manually bump my sub after running audyssey either. Also I have not tried it since going to a new receiver that does XT32 and my understanding better sub EQ. Went from a marantz 1606 to a Denon 4500h
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I use 0 which at -15MV gives me a 6.6db boost. I then simply turn down the PB16 3db via remote leaving me with a 3.6bd boost which is good for my set up. I have been thinking of turning it of which would result in having to bump up the Sub by 5-6 db to compensate. Still trying to figure out if I would need to bump up the other speakers as well when turning it of and how much. If anyone has an idea would be good.


----------



## flyinion

bigzee3 said:


> I use 0 which at -15MV gives me a 6.6db boost. I then simply turn down the PB16 3db via remote leaving me with a 3.6bd boost which is good for my set up. I have been thinking of turning it of which would result in having to bump up the Sub by 5-6 db to compensate. Still trying to figure out if I would need to bump up the other speakers as well when turning it of and how much. If anyone has an idea would be good.




I played with it the other night and settled on still leaving it off for discs and bumped the sub 3-4dB instead. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## Bachelor

I also turn dynamic eq off and boost the sub instead. I don't like the way it boosts the surround channels which over power the center in my room when I'm not cranking the sound.


----------



## bigzee3

flyinion said:


> I played with it the other night and settled on still leaving it off for discs and bumped the sub 3-4dB instead.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


Currently I'm not using DEQ for stereo music with Sub boost 4db. How did you find the surrounds and center when turning DEQ off.


----------



## bigzee3

Bachelor said:


> I also turn dynamic eq off and boost the sub instead. I don't like the way it boosts the surround channels which over power the center in my room when I'm not cranking the sound.


Ill have to give it try and see how my surrounds react.


----------



## pbz06

gsantosoliver said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> 
> 
> What happens with the bass when Audyssey sets the crossovers for LCR and S as small at 60hz and I set the LPF for LFE at 120 hz? Would I have bass coming from LCR and S AND sub at the same time? Is it recommended or should I set all to 80-110hz?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> Gilson


The LPF for LFE is completely different than the crossover setting in your bass management.

The LFE channel is the .1 in the 5.1 setup, for example. It is only big bass authored specifically for that channel by the sound engineer. It can have frequencies up to 120hz, and is generally recommended to keep it at that. The sub itself will also have a LPF setting knob which is recommended to put at the max so it doesn't filter out any signal coming from either the .1 LFE channel or your bass management below crossover. 

So the subwoofer accepts signals from bass management (bass directed from the 5 channels to the sub, set by your crossovers) + LFE channel.


----------



## flyinion

bigzee3 said:


> Currently I'm not using DEQ for stereo music with Sub boost 4db. How did you find the surrounds and center when turning DEQ off.




I already didn't run it for discs so I was trying it turned on. I do still run it for my cable and streaming boxes at -10 offset. Also -10 with a 4-5dB sub boost for airplay and Spotify music. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## gsantosoliver

pbz06 said:


> The LPF for LFE is completely different than the crossover setting in your bass management.
> 
> The LFE channel is the .1 in the 5.1 setup, for example. It is only big bass authored specifically for that channel by the sound engineer. It can have frequencies up to 120hz, and is generally recommended to keep it at that. The sub itself will also have a LPF setting knob which is recommended to put at the max so it doesn't filter out any signal coming from either the .1 LFE channel or your bass management below crossover.
> 
> So the subwoofer accepts signals from bass management (bass directed from the 5 channels to the sub, set by your crossovers) + LFE channel.


Hi. Yes, I got that. So, in my case would I have bass coming out of the LCRS from 60Hz + bass from LCRS and the entire LFE coming out of the sub?


----------



## garygarrison

gsantosoliver said:


> Hi. Yes, I got that. So, in my case would I have bass coming out of the LCRS from 60Hz + bass from LCRS and the entire LFE coming out of the sub?



Yes. Just to err on the side of redundancy, bass assigned to your front and surround speakers will come out of them above 60 Hz, but no LFE will come out of anything but the sub, which is how it should be. You will have the entire LFE (up to the point at which you set the LPF for LFE, usually 120 Hz) coming out of the subwoofer. Also coming out of the subwoofer, _mixed_ _in_ with the LFE will be bass below 60 Hz that would have come out of your LCRS if you _*didn't*_ have a subwoofer. This will include bass from soundtrack music. Sound effects that don't qualify as LFE, because they are too high in pitch, may have been put on the LCRS such as *most* of the frequency range of breaking glass, wind chimes, non-political birds tweeting, and even a dog barking way off to the left.

The true, bass management, crossovers can, and probably should, be set individually for each class of speaker, in most AVRs. Select "Crossover Advanced," or some such. For instance, I'm looking at my screen right now, and I see that I have selected 80Hz for the L & R front (letting the sub do the heavy lifting below 80Hz). I picked 40 Hz for the center for an idiosyncratic reason, i.e., I have my sub turned pretty far up (done AFTER running Audyssey, which is necessary if it is to be boosted) and with an 80 Hz crossover, it pushes the bass end of voices through the highly boosted sub creating a high bass shelf in the dialogue that comes through the center, making throaty voiced women sound like men, and Sam Elliot sound like the Voice of Zeus. Audyssey told me that in my room and in its position my massive center (by itself) was good down to 40 Hz, so, to keep voices out of the sub, I set the center crossover at 40 Hz. It works fine. My surrounds have an F3 of about 50 Hz, so I set them for 80 Hz.

Many sources in our environment have a very wide frequency response, wider by far than I realized when I was as a fledgling audiophile. Their sound will come out of all your speakers (including subs) simultaneously, but with different parts of the frequency curve coming out of different speakers, with some overlap, at radically different SPLs. Here, for instance, is the kick drum:


[EDIT: Sorry, the graph won't print here. It is there in the draft copy, but disappears when I save. Suffice it to say that the kick drum, considered to be a "bass" instrument, produces frequencies up to 16K Hz, as loud as 110 dB, but _*very*_ briefly -- a few milliseconds long.]


----------



## gsantosoliver

garygarrison said:


> Yes. Just to err on the side of redundancy, bass assigned to your front and surround speakers will come out of them above 60 Hz, but no LFE will come out of anything but the sub, which is how it should be. You will have the entire LFE (up to the point at which you set the LPF for LFE, usually 120 Hz) coming out of the subwoofer. Also coming out of the subwoofer, _mixed_ _in_ with the LFE will be bass below 60 Hz that would have come out of your LCRS if you _*didn't*_ have a subwoofer. This will include bass from soundtrack music. Sound effects that don't qualify as LFE, because they are too high in pitch, may have been put on the LCRS such as *most* of the frequency range of breaking glass, wind chimes, non-political birds tweeting, and even a dog barking way off to the left.
> 
> The true, bass management, crossovers can, and probably should, be set individually for each class of speaker, in most AVRs. Select "Crossover Advanced," or some such. For instance, I'm looking at my screen right now, and I see that I have selected 80Hz for the L & R front (letting the sub do the heavy lifting below 80Hz). I picked 40 Hz for the center for an idiosyncratic reason, i.e., I have my sub turned pretty far up (done AFTER running Audyssey, which is necessary if it is to be boosted) and with an 80 Hz crossover, it pushes the bass end of voices through the highly boosted sub creating a high bass shelf in the dialogue that comes through the center, making throaty voiced women sound like men, and Sam Elliot sound like the Voice of Zeus. Audyssey told me that in my room and in its position my massive center (by itself) was good down to 40 Hz, so, to keep voices out of the sub, I set the center crossover at 40 Hz. It works fine. My surrounds have an F3 of about 50 Hz, so I set them for 80 Hz.
> 
> Many sources in our environment have a very wide frequency response, wider by far than I realized when I was as a fledgling audiophile. Their sound will come out of all your speakers (including subs) simultaneously, but with different parts of the frequency curve coming out of different speakers, with some overlap, at radically different SPLs. Here, for instance, is the kick drum:
> 
> 
> [EDIT: Sorry, the graph won't print here. It is there in the draft copy, but disappears when I save. Suffice it to say that the kick drum, considered to be a "bass" instrument, produces frequencies up to 16K Hz, as loud as 110 dB, but _*very*_ briefly -- a few milliseconds long.]


Thank you for the detailed response. 

Not sure if you noticed, but I said my speakers are all set as Small as 60hz. In your text above you said the sub, in addition to the LFE channel, will play the bass below 60Hz that would have come out from the LCRS. I read somewhere that, when the speakers are set to Small, the AVR (this case a Denon 6400) will send the bass from these speakers to the subwoofer. My question is: does it only send the bass below the crossover point (in my case, 60Hz) or the ENTIRE bass from the small speakers to the sub? If it is the entire bass, what is the actually crossover point that the AVR consideres as bass?

Thank you!


----------



## garygarrison

gsantosoliver said:


> Thank you for the detailed response.
> 
> Not sure if you noticed, but I said my speakers are all set as Small as 60hz. In your text above you said the sub, in addition to the LFE channel, will play the bass below 60Hz that would have come out from the LCRS. I read somewhere that, when the speakers are set to Small, the AVR (this case a Denon 6400) will send the bass from these speakers to the subwoofer. My question is: does it only send the bass below the crossover point (in my case, 60Hz) or the ENTIRE bass from the small speakers to the sub? If it is the entire bass, what is the actually crossover point that the AVR consideres as bass?
> 
> Thank you!





If I understand your question correctly, at a bass management crossover of *60 Hz*, *SMALL*, the AVR takes *only* the bass that would otherwise be sent to the main speakers and sends it to the subwoofer. At your 60 Hz crossover that certainly would *NOT* be the ENTIRE bass. O.K., it would be disappointing if it were that simple -- see below.
Actually, the crossovers are not brick walls; there is overlap. The sound sent to the *main speakers* rolls off gradually, typically at 12 dB per octave. So, with your 60 Hz crossover, the main speakers filtered by that crossover would still be playing *some* bass one octave lower at 30 Hz, but 12 dB lower in SPL (i.e., less loud). 12 dB is about 12 just noticeable differences (controversial) and -12 dB is what people perceive as slightly less than 1/2 as loud (also controversial). One octave lower yet, at 15 Hz the bass arriving at the main speakers would be at -24 dB. That is what your 60 Hz crossover for your main speakers does.


I'm just curious. Did you set your crossover at 60 Hz, rather than the more common 80 Hz for some particular reason? Some main speakers (like some with horn loaded bass) have cleaner bass attack, with fewer side bands, than most subs, but the difference between 60 Hz and 80 Hz is taken up by only a bit less than three white notes on the piano. I have to admit I tried 40 Hz, 60 Hz, 80 Hz, and landed on 80 Hz as sounding the best, for most movies & music. YMMV.
What is considered to be bass, subjectively, depends on what instrument is playing it, as well as a slew of different traditions. The lowest note on conventional pianos is 27.5 Hz, yet it contains many overtones that make it sound "higher" to some people than exactly the same 27.5 Hz note on, say, a tuba, or a pipe organ, or an audio oscillator (which, normally, is devoid of overtones). And, I'd bet a Baldwin has a different sounding 27.5 Hz than a Steinway. In my experience, people who start at the bottom of the keyboard and move up toward the top disagree on where bass "stops." And, there are different conventions. Bass may be thought of as below 200 Hz, below 500 Hz, etc. An equalizer review I saw, nominated 250 Hz and below as bass. The classic JBL theater speakers crossed over from bass to midrange/treble at 500 Hz. If you turn *off* the mid/treble horn lens on one of these monsters, what is left sounds a lot like bass, at least it did when I tried it when I was about 13. The Bozak Concert Grand crossed over from bass to midrange at about 400 Hz, and so did the older Klipschorns (they now x-over at 450 Hz). Bass impact is very important from about 50 to 200 Hz in classical music, and in many film scores.


----------



## gsantosoliver

garygarrison said:


> If I understand your question correctly, at a bass management crossover of *60 Hz*, *SMALL*, the AVR takes *only* the bass that would otherwise be sent to the main speakers and sends it to the subwoofer. At your 60 Hz crossover that certainly would *NOT* be the ENTIRE bass. O.K., it would be disappointing if it were that simple -- see below.
> Actually, the crossovers are not brick walls; there is overlap. The sound sent to the *main speakers* rolls off gradually, typically at 12 dB per octave. So, with your 60 Hz crossover, the main speakers filtered by that crossover would still be playing *some* bass one octave lower at 30 Hz, but 12 dB lower in SPL (i.e., less loud). 12 dB is about 12 just noticeable differences (controversial) and -12 dB is what people perceive as slightly less than 1/2 as loud (also controversial). One octave lower yet, at 15 Hz the bass arriving at the main speakers would be at -24 dB. That is what your 60 Hz crossover for your main speakers does.
> 
> 
> I'm just curious. Did you set your crossover at 60 Hz, rather than the more common 80 Hz for some particular reason? Some main speakers (like some with horn loaded bass) have cleaner bass attack, with fewer side bands, than most subs, but the difference between 60 Hz and 80 Hz is taken up by only a bit less than three white notes on the piano. I have to admit I tried 40 Hz, 60 Hz, 80 Hz, and landed on 80 Hz as sounding the best, for most movies & music. YMMV.
> What is considered to be bass, subjectively, depends on what instrument is playing it, as well as a slew of different traditions. The lowest note on conventional pianos is 27.5 Hz, yet it contains many overtones that make it sound "higher" to some people than exactly the same 27.5 Hz note on, say, a tuba, or a pipe organ, or an audio oscillator (which, normally, is devoid of overtones). And, I'd bet a Baldwin has a different sounding 27.5 Hz than a Steinway. In my experience, people who start at the bottom of the keyboard and move up toward the top disagree on where bass "stops." And, there are different conventions. Bass may be thought of as below 200 Hz, below 500 Hz, etc. An equalizer review I saw, nominated 250 Hz and below as bass. The classic JBL theater speakers crossed over from bass to midrange/treble at 500 Hz. If you turn *off* the mid/treble horn lens on one of these monsters, what is left sounds a lot like bass, at least it did when I tried it when I was about 13. The Bozak Concert Grand crossed over from bass to midrange at about 400 Hz, and so did the older Klipschorns (they now x-over at 450 Hz). Bass impact is very important from about 50 to 200 Hz in classical music, and in many film scores.


Wow, thanks again for more this lesson! Now I understand that AVR will respect whatever crossover to decide what bass to send to the sub. To answer your questions, that 60hz is what the Audyssey set (or suggested) to my speakers when I ran it. It did put the LR as large but I changed it to small and did not touch the crossover. I doubt my speakers (Klipsch R-28F, Klipsch RP-450C, Klipsch RP-240S, Klipsch R-14S, 4x Klipsch R-2650-C and dub Sunfire HRS10) can play 60hz better than the sub, so it makes sense to cut them higher. So I will test them at 90 hz and let the sub handle the heavy lifting to see what happens.

Thank you for the help!


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

After running Audessey, adjusting levels does not effect the Audessey EQ, correct? I forgot to set my sub gain higher than it was before I ran Audessey and ran Audessey. I have the sub at -3 in the AVR, but want to adjust the gain on the sub itself. This won't mess anything up will it?


----------



## iafzal

flyinion said:


> I can answer a few of these. Manual setup is the right place to change settings. Audyssey section is just showing you what it found when it ran. It's ok to set your speakers to small and raise the xover from 40 to 80. What you don't want to do is go the other way because my understanding is if for instance audyssey decides 100hz is the proper crossover point for a channel it stops making corrections below that point or something like that. So if you set it to say 40hz it's uncorrected between 40-100 in that example. Yes I'd set to LFE only. The only reason to use LFE+Main is if you have any of your speakers set to full range instead of a crossover point.
> 
> Changing settings like this manually won't affect the audyssey corrections. What I've read is it "graphs out" and makes the corrections and crossover points etc. but the receiver then takes that info and actually uses it when outputting. Like, it doesn't actually know where audyssey stopped making corrections it just gets data that says what do do at each part of the spectrum and it has no idea and doesn't care that audyssey stopped correcting past a certain point, but if you change the crossover too low you'll be trying to play content that hasn't been corrected for room issues.


So I have changed LFE+Main to LFE as you suggested and in FAQ of this thread. I think this is doing the intended that not playing the low freq below 80Hz from the main Speakers and only though the sub. My speakers are all set to small.

When doing music 2ch playback if I change LFE+Main to LFE only I see my sub goes away in speaker configuration and the sound is played through L and R speakers. For x4400h there is a section to set 2 ch playback. So I am now forced to keep the LFE+Main for 2ch playback to get the sub involved.

This is getting me thinking if even in 5.1 setup same happens. If there is no LFE content how are the below 80hz going to go to sub? Are they added to the LFE? Is that just because speakers are set to small and that triggers to sends all the below crossover content to the sub? or you need the LFE+Main selected to do it?


----------



## mthomas47

iafzal said:


> So I have changed LFE+Main to LFE as you suggested and in FAQ of this thread. I think this is doing the intended that not playing the low freq below 80Hz from the main Speakers and only though the sub. My speakers are all set to small.
> 
> When doing music 2ch playback if I change LFE+Main to LFE only I see my sub goes away in speaker configuration and the sound is played through L and R speakers. For x4400h there is a section to set 2 ch playback. So I am now forced to keep the LFE+Main for 2ch playback to get the sub involved.
> 
> This is getting me thinking if even in 5.1 setup same happens. If there is no LFE content how are the below 80hz going to go to sub? Are they added to the LFE? Is that just because speakers are set to small and that triggers to sends all the below crossover content to the sub? or you need the LFE+Main selected to do it?


Hi,

I think it would really help you to do a little reading. People can keep trying to explain crossovers, and the LPF of LFE relationship, in a piecemeal way. And, Gary has already done a very good and very thorough job of that, in my opinion. But, it might be helpful to read a detailed article that has examples, and repetitions for emphasis. Here is a direct link to the article:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#III

There is bass in everything we listen to, although not everything we may listen to has very much low-bass. But, there is only an LFE channel (low-frequency effects channel) in 5.1 material. The LFE channel was specifically created in order to add more low-bass sound effects to movies. It is the .1 in 5.1 or 7.1. The LPF (low-pass filter) in your AVR controls the content of that .1 LFE channel.

The crossovers that you set for your speakers are entirely different from that, and they only affect the bass content played by your speakers. That content is completely separate from the LFE channel. So, if you set your speakers to Small with an 80Hz crossover, for instance, your AVR will redirect all of the


----------



## iafzal

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think it would really help you to do a little reading. People can keep trying to explain crossovers, and the LPF of LFE relationship, in a piecemeal way. And, Gary has already done a very good and very thorough job of that, in my opinion. But, it might be helpful to read a detailed article that has examples, and repetitions for emphasis. Here is a direct link to the article:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#III
> 
> There is bass in everything we listen to, although not everything we may listen to has very much low-bass. But, there is only an LFE channel (low-frequency effects channel) in 5.1 material. The LFE channel was specifically created in order to add more low-bass sound effects to movies. It is the .1 in 5.1 or 7.1. The LPF (low-pass filter) in your AVR controls the content of that .1 LFE channel.
> 
> The crossovers that you set for your speakers are entirely different from that, and they only affect the bass content played by your speakers. That content is completely separate from the LFE channel. So, if you set your speakers to Small with an 80Hz crossover, for instance, your AVR will redirect all of the


----------



## mthomas47

iafzal said:


> Thanks for the clarification, the link is an excellent read. Build on what I knew and cleared some misconception. Also introduced the idea of cascading crossovers etc. Interesting may even try when time permits.
> 
> My only question remains is if LFE only is selected for bass management under 2CH playback the sub does not show up in speaker configuration. This is on x4400h for music in 2CH mode playing in Direct or Pure mode. If you play in auto mode then the sub come up with only LFE selected. To force the sub to show up in in 2CH Direct or Pure, LFE+Main has to be selected. The L/R speakers are selected as small with crossover of 80Hz, subwoofer is also selected Yes. Am I missing something here or this is normal?


You are very welcome! As far as I know, the use of Direct or Pure Direct turns off Audyssey's room correction and prevents the use of subwoofers. If you want to listen to two-channel music with a sub, just enable the Stereo setting.

Denon has always had some funky features.  Marantz may do the same thing for all I know. I have never actually tried what you are describing. It sounds as if the use of LFE+Main enables you to use a subwoofer from the Direct or Pure Direct setting, alright. But, the use of LFE+Main may turn Audyssey back-on, or it may otherwise bypass the Direct/Pure Direct settings. 

Personally, I would just use the Stereo setting if I were you. To reiterate something emphasized earlier, there is no LFE content in two-channel music. The only content containing an LFE channel has a .1 in the name (5.1 content, for instance). So, at best, using LFE+Main would be pointless for two-channel music. It may not do any harm, but I think it would be pointless compared to just using Stereo.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jsgrise

*Audyssey thread Part II - Microphone Calibration with Height Speakers*

When calibrating the height speakers through sweeps, do you now if Audyssey switch mic calibration from 90 degrees to 0 degree automatically?


----------



## mthomas47

jsgrise said:


> When calibrating the height speakers through sweeps, do you now if Audyssey switch mic calibration from 90 degrees to 0 degree automatically?


Hi,

I am certain that it does not. The microphone calibration is fixed, and the mic is designed to be operated in the upright position. As far as I know, though, that doesn't represent a problem with height or ceiling speakers, since the microphone is omnidirectional anyway. Based on what I have read on the Atmos thread, most people have no problem at all with Audyssey properly detecting, calibrating, and EQing their height or ceiling speakers.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jj-34

That's with YPAO and the Yamaha's


----------



## beebee5

Hello,

I have a 3.1 setup with a x3500h.

I ran audessey and audessey chose to make my Front Left and Right "large" while keeping the center Small.

My question is , If I go into the manual config to change the speakers to small, will Audessey now be turned off? Or is there a way to keep the audessey profile while changing the front LR to small.

Thanks!

-Bee


----------



## mogorf

beebee5 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a 3.1 setup with a x3500h.
> 
> I ran audessey and audessey chose to make my Front Left and Right "large" while keeping the center Small.
> 
> My question is , If I go into the manual config to change the speakers to small, will Audessey now be turned off? Or is there a way to keep the audessey profile while changing the front LR to small.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -Bee



Hi Bee, 



Feel free to change Front Left and Right from Large to Small. Audyssey in this case won't be turned off. What you will need to do is to set Front Left and Right crossover to 80 Hz and call it a day!


----------



## Skinfax1

mogorf said:


> What you will need to do is to set Front Left and Right crossover to 80 Hz and call it a day!


Why is everyone repeating the nonsense, that decent speakers should be run highpassed at 80 Hz? The very important pressure range is removed from the speakers and directed to the sub. Sounds completely different. For movie material that is not a big problem, because voice is the main element, but listening to music on highpassed at 80 Hz fronts with a sub should never be recommended, if the speakers have a solid bass response. And if someone is having a 3.1 setup, to recommend it is even worse.


----------



## drh3b

Skinfax1 said:


> Why is everyone repeating the nonsense, that decent speakers should be run highpassed at 80 Hz? The very important pressure range is removed from the speakers and directed to the sub. Sounds completely different. For movie material that is not a big problem, because voice is the main element, but listening to music on highpassed at 80 Hz fronts with a sub should never be recommended, if the speakers have a solid bass response. And if someone is having a 3.1 setup, to recommend it is even worse.


That's YOUR opinion, and I don't share it. I like the sound of my Rythmik subwoofers, and I cross my towers at 80 Hz because the subwoofers are both more capable and sound better than my towers below 80 Hz. My critical listening is almost entirely music.

Please don't present an opinion as fact.


----------



## mogorf

drh3b said:


> That's YOUR opinion, and I don't share it. I like the sound of my Rythmik subwoofers, and I cross my towers at 80 Hz because the subwoofers are both more capable and sound better than my towers below 80 Hz. My critical listening is almost entirely music.
> 
> Please don't present an opinion as fact.



I don't share that opinion either. 


Its time to reread Chris K's excellent blog on "Small vs. Large". Lot of facts are shared here! 


Qte


*Small vs. Large *

Do you have a subwoofer in your system? Great. Then your speakers are small. Before you get all upset, read on. This is one of those audio myths whose time has come to be busted. To understand why, we need to talk about Bass Management.


In the early days of home theater it was thought that in order to reproduce the full movie surround experience at home it was necessary to place 5 large loudspeakers in the room. The reason for the size was the woofers. To play at theatrical reference levels and reproduce the deepest bass available in the content requires each speaker to have 12” or larger woofers. Let’s just say that this theory didn’t get very far in the real world.


A better and more practical approach came after studying human perception. The mechanisms that we use to determine the direction of arrival of sound depend on the frequency. At high frequencies the wavelength of sound is small and so sound coming from the side is shadowed by our head. That creates a level difference between the sound reaching the ear closest to the source and the ear on the other side. Our brain analyzes these level differences and produces an estimate of where the sound is coming from. But at lower frequencies, the wavelength of sound gets longer and our head is not large enough to produce a level difference at the two ears. Instead, we analyze the difference in time of arrival of sound at the two ears. Sound arrives first at the closest ear and we use that to determine the direction. But even that ability fails us below about 80 Hz. The wavelengths get very large and it was found in listening tests that 80 Hz is the frequency below which most people can not localize the direction of sound.


Taking advantage of this apparent “deficiency” in our hearing was what made home theater practical for millions of homes. Five satellite speakers of reasonable size could now be used because they no longer required large woofers. A subwoofer (or two) can reproduce the lower octaves and it can be placed out of sight since its content is not directional.


But there is also a practical advantage: directing the bass to a dedicated subwoofer channel with its own amplifier greatly improves the headroom in the main channels. The idea behind this was proposed in a Society of Motion Picture Engineers (SMPTE) meeting in 1987. The participants could not agree on the minimum number of channels required for surround sound on film. Various numbers were being shouted out until a voice was heard from the back: “We need 5.1”. Everyone’s head turned around to look at Tom Holman. He proceeded to explain what he meant: Take the low frequency content from all 5 channels and redirect it away from the satellite speakers to the subwoofer. If we do the math, then the content below 80 Hz is 0.004 of the audible 20,000 Hz bandwidth. But 5.004 didn’t sound as catchy so Tom rounded up to 5.1. By the way, don’t make the amateur mistake of calling it 5 dot 1. It is a decimal: 5 point 1.


Fast forward to the early 90s when the first DSP powered home theater receivers started to appear. Along with progress came complexity. Some industry forces believed that Bass Management should be an option that could be turned on and off by the consumer. That’s not necessarily a bad idea, but to make an informed decision requires much more knowledge about the system than what was available to the typical consumer. So, the Large and Small rule of thumb was established. The idea was to look at the size of your speakers and decide whether their woofers were “large enough” to reproduce the lowest octaves at the required levels. It was a noble thought, but looking at it 15 years later I believe that it has led to nothing but massive confusion. The poor consumer was led to believe that Large is somehow a good thing and was then left wondering why there was nothing coming out of their subwoofer.


Redirecting the bass to the subwoofer relieves the receiver amplifiers from having to work on reproducing the low frequencies and this greatly improves the headroom. If you happen to be using Audyssey MultEQ for room correction, you will achieve much better low frequency performance because the MultEQ subwoofer filters have 8x higher resolution than the filters in the other channels.


Here is a better rule: All speakers are Small. In today’s complicated AVR lingo that just means: If you have a subwoofer you should always turn bass management on. Always. Even if your receiver clings to the past and automatically sets your speakers to Large.





Unqte


----------



## Skinfax1

Opinion? It's the reality in music and postpro production.


----------



## audiofan1

You can listen to it both ways ya know!

nice to have options


----------



## Skinfax1

Since the believe about highpassing @80 Hz for music has become so widespread, there is a simple test everyone can make on his own (no trained ears necessary):

Listen to the kick in Scooter's "Hyper Hyper" (or "Friends") VS the kick in Rammstein - "Du Hast".
The former lacks a crispy transient, while the latter has a very crisp attack.
Both kicks are centered: in both cases the kick must emanate equally defined from the phantom center.

Do you hear what happens to the localization of these two different kicks when the front speakers are highpassed?
With speakers highpassed @80 Hz the focus from the whole Hyper Hyper kick becomes lost, it becomes smeared between speakers and the sub. Contrary to it: the Rammstein bd seems to stay clearly focused in the center.
But there is no difference in the stereofield between both. Both are perfectly centered.

The reason for the difference is, that in one case the transient is loud enough to allow the brain to recombine the body with the transient - while in the other case a very loud transient is missing and our hearing loses the ability to anchor the kick in the stereo field - ALTHOUGH also the "Hyper Hyper" kick has enough overtones to be clearly localized center stage.

This example should give an impression what highpassing does to ALL sounds in the bass and upper bass range, that lack loud transients or are not dominantly loud. Everything becomes smeared.

You see highpassing can have tremendous negative consequences. It even can destroy the stereo location of the most important instrument. Ofcourse it can help to improve the sound if the speakers have a weak bass response. But if the speakers have a good bass response, the negative effects must be very carefully tested against the positive ones.


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> Since the believe about highpassing @80 Hz for music has become so widespread, there is a simple test everyone can make on his own (no trained ears necessary):
> 
> Listen to the kick in Scooter's "Hyper Hyper" (or "Friends") VS the kick in Rammstein - "Du Hast".
> The former lacks a crispy transient, while the latter has a very crisp attack.
> Both kicks are centered: in both cases the kick must emanate equally defined from the phantom center.
> 
> Do you hear what happens to the localization of these two different kicks when the front speakers are highpassed?
> With speakers highpassed @80 Hz the focus from the whole Hyper Hyper kick becomes lost, it becomes smeared between speakers and the sub. Contrary to it: the Rammstein bd seems to stay clearly focused in the center.
> But there is no difference in the stereofield between both. Both are perfectly centered.
> 
> The reason for the difference is, that in one case the transient is loud enough to allow the brain to recombine the body with the transient - while in the other case a very loud transient is missing and our hearing loses the ability to anchor the kick in the stereo field - ALTHOUGH also the "Hyper Hyper" kick has enough overtones to be clearly localized center stage.
> 
> This example should give an impression what highpassing does to ALL sounds in the bass and upper bass range, that lack loud transients or are not dominantly loud. Everything becomes smeared.
> 
> You see highpassing can have tremendous negative consequences. It even can destroy the stereo location of the most important instrument. Ofcourse it can help to improve the sound if the speakers have a weak bass response. But if the speakers have a good bass response, the negative effects must be very carefully tested against the positive ones.



Just to make matters clear, there is no difference between music and movie sound tracks that an AVR and speakers could differenciate. There are no tags (or metadata, whatsoever) recorded in the incoming signal that can cause a different setup. 



The lack of low frequency localization complies with the laws of physics, i.e. due to the case that wavelengths at lower frequencies become comparable to the distance of our two ears on our heads and as a result arrive at the same time, we are unable to pinpoint its directional source. 



This phenomenon was the base of bass management that was put into modern AVRs and it is something worthwhile to understand and comprehend in order to reach a deep, smooth and even bass in our systems. 



Of course YMMV.


----------



## RobZL1

Restorer question:

On my Denon AVR-X4400H, using Heos and streaming Tidal FLAC files they sound noticably "fuller" with Restorer turned on at Low setting, vs Restorer turned off or using Direct mode. 
If FLAC files are lossless, is Restorer actually adding sound that isn't there?


----------



## pbarach

RobZL1 said:


> Restorer question:
> 
> On my Denon AVR-X4400H, using Heos and streaming Tidal FLAC files they sound noticably "fuller" with Restorer turned on at Low setting, vs Restorer turned off or using Direct mode.
> If FLAC files are lossless, is Restorer actually adding sound that isn't there?


I would love to see someone measure the frequency response spectrum for some files with the various levels of Restorer on vs. off so we know _exactly_ what it's doing. 

When Restorer is ON, it's operating as a sort of tone control for increasing highs, lows, or both. The effects of Restorer have nothing to do with whether the file you're playing is lossless or lossy (and FLAC files are lossless).


----------



## RobZL1

pbarach said:


> I would love to see someone measure the frequency response spectrum for some files with the various levels of Restorer on vs. off so we know _exactly_ what it's doing.
> 
> When Restorer is ON, it's operating as a sort of tone control for increasing highs, lows, or both. The effects of Restorer have nothing to do with whether the file you're playing is lossless or lossy (and FLAC files are lossless).


+1

On further thought: Is Restorer an Audessey feature or a proprietary Denon feature?


----------



## sjm817

*Effect of Source level on Audyssey DEQ and reference level*

I have been tweaking some settings of late on my Denon X3400H (XT32). Ive been using Denon and Audyssey for a few years and am pretty familiar with the settings. I used to use dynamic volume and do not any longer. I find that the compression is not what I want and has a negative impact on listening. What I do notice much more as a side effect on this is the variation in source level a lot more. With the Denon I can see the input offset depending on what source Im using and content. As an example, I spot checked a few Netflix titles. I saw -1, -3, -4, -7, -15. This is a huge variation. I use OTA for locals. From what I can tell, these are at -7. The other side effect of turning off dynamic volume is I need to have master volume much higher. Even for just modest "evening news" listening I have volume at like -25 to -30. It seems the usable listening range is the top 30%. 

So how does this work? The audyssey calibration is supposed to be reference level at max master volume right? If I were to put the master volume all the way up, the actual volume would be considerably different with a source level of 0 vs -15dB. How does this affect DEQ and RLO? There is the RLO option of 0, 5, 10, 15. If the input is low like -15 what does that do to RLO?

Other question is on boosting the input source level. I experimented a little with this. I added 6dB to the source and it didnt seem to have any negative side effect. 

Thanks for any info on this!


----------



## GPBURNS

audiofan1 said:


> You can listen to it both ways ya know!
> 
> nice to have options


even better is to measure response at different x-over points - user likley has severe dip at 80hz setting -
very common and few tweaks to sub distance would alleviate the issue at listening positioin


----------



## mthomas47

sjm817 said:


> I have been tweaking some settings of late on my Denon X3400H (XT32). Ive been using Denon and Audyssey for a few years and am pretty familiar with the settings. I used to use dynamic volume and do not any longer. I find that the compression is not what I want and has a negative impact on listening. What I do notice much more as a side effect on this is the variation in source level a lot more. With the Denon I can see the input offset depending on what source Im using and content. As an example, I spot checked a few Netflix titles. I saw -1, -3, -4, -7, -15. This is a huge variation. I use OTA for locals. From what I can tell, these are at -7. The other side effect of turning off dynamic volume is I need to have master volume much higher. Even for just modest "evening news" listening I have volume at like -25 to -30. It seems the usable listening range is the top 30%.
> 
> So how does this work? The audyssey calibration is supposed to be reference level at max master volume right? If I were to put the master volume all the way up, the actual volume would be considerably different with a source level of 0 vs -15dB. How does this affect DEQ and RLO? There is the RLO option of 0, 5, 10, 15. If the input is low like -15 what does that do to RLO?
> 
> Other question is on boosting the input source level. I experimented a little with this. I added 6dB to the source and it didnt seem to have any negative side effect.
> 
> Thanks for any info on this!


Hi,

I think that it might help you to read the Guide, linked below, to understand how some of this works. The Audyssey calibration process is explained in detail in Section II and DEQ and Dynamic Volume are explained in detail in Section V. As noted on the Guide thread, there is a huge variation in volume levels from different sources. Most people deal with that variation by adding or subtracting volume with their master volume control, although some people prefer to normalize volume via some sort of compressor such as Dynamic Volume. 

DEQ is not tied to some measured volume level, which as you have noticed, varies by source. Once your AVR is calibrated to Dolby/THX Reference, a 5.1 movie, sourced from a BR, for instance, will (theoretically at least) by playing peak volumes of 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the LFE channel, assuming that the particular movie has peaks that high, and assuming that your audio system is capable of playing them that loudly. But, what happens when you play movies, or other source material, that is not broadcast at those same levels is a different matter.

DEQ will continue to be tied to your master volume setting. So, if you turn-up your MV to 0.0, DEQ will be in neutral, regardless of what the actual measured volume may be. If you turn your MV down to -10, or to -30, DEQ will react based on the MV setting, not on the actual measured SPL. RLO is explained in detail in the same Section V that I cited above. It is also based entirely on your master volume setting and not on actual measured SPL. 

The concept of Reference, how it is defined, and how it is implemented in our AVR systems, is quite complicated for most of us. It certainly was for me. HT has its own terms and definitions, and it takes some effort to learn how they all tie together. The Guide was specifically started in order to facilitate that effort. People can try to explain things in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, as I have in this post, and in the one on the Guide thread.

But, if you really want to understand how all of this works, in a more comprehensive way, I recommend that you do some reading. It took me many hundreds of hours to write the Guide, and I still add detail from time-to-time. It's hard to boil-down all of the complex concepts, and detailed information in it, to a few simple posts.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

RobZL1 said:


> +1
> 
> On further thought: Is Restorer an Audessey feature or a proprietary Denon feature?


Restorer is definitely not a part of Audyssey. It's a Denon feature. Maybe some of the Marantz AVRs have this feature, I'm not sure.


----------



## sjm817

Hey Mike, thanks! If you recall, I had this in your SW thread but since it morphed into more of an Audyssey question, I thought Id move it here. Thanks for replying AGAIN LOL. I have read through a lot of what you have linked. If fact, that info is really what prompted my question. It still seems to me that because DEQ is based on MV position, not actual volume level, it is somewhat flawed in real world application. If I may try an example scenario:

Two very similar action movies. Movie A source volume =0dB, Movie B source volume = -15dB as reported by the Denon input offset. Lets say now I want to listen to both at same SPL level. Because movie B is 15db lower input, I need 15 more on the MV to make up for it. For this example, DEQ RLO is -5
Movie A MV = -20 ~ DEQ would add 6.6dB of bass
Movie B MV = -5 ~ DEQ would not do anything 
Even though these 2 movies are being listened to at same ~SPL, the effect of DEQ is considerably different. *If I dont have the correct understanding, please let me know!*

The above is just an example to make sure I understand this right, not to question the info in the FAQ. This helps me decide if i want to continue using DEQ. For music, I have not in a long time. In my mind, since DEQ is relying on MV position rather than actual volume level (I understand this would be difficult) coupled with the wide variations on input levels, it doesnt seem like it is very accurate in many situations. 





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that it might help you to read the Guide, linked below, to understand how some of this works. The Audyssey calibration process is explained in detail in Section II and DEQ and Dynamic Volume are explained in detail in Section V. As noted on the Guide thread, there is a huge variation in volume levels from different sources. Most people deal with that variation by adding or subtracting volume with their master volume control, although some people prefer to normalize volume via some sort of compressor such as Dynamic Volume.
> 
> DEQ is not tied to some measured volume level, which as you have noticed, varies by source. Once your AVR is calibrated to Dolby/THX Reference, a 5.1 movie, sourced from a BR, for instance, will (theoretically at least) by playing peak volumes of 105db for the regular channels and 115db for the LFE channel, assuming that the particular movie has peaks that high, and assuming that your audio system is capable of playing them that loudly. But, what happens when you play movies, or other source material, that is not broadcast at those same levels is a different matter.
> 
> DEQ will continue to be tied to your master volume setting. So, if you turn-up your MV to 0.0, DEQ will be in neutral, regardless of what the actual measured volume may be. If you turn your MV down to -10, or to -30, DEQ will react based on the MV setting, not on the actual measured SPL. RLO is explained in detail in the same Section V that I cited above. It is also based entirely on your master volume setting and not on actual measured SPL.
> 
> The concept of Reference, how it is defined, and how it is implemented in our AVR systems, is quite complicated for most of us. It certainly was for me. HT has its own terms and definitions, and it takes some effort to learn how they all tie together. The Guide was specifically started in order to facilitate that effort. People can try to explain things in a somewhat piecemeal fashion, as I have in this post, and in the one on the Guide thread.
> 
> But, if you really want to understand how all of this works, in a more comprehensive way, I recommend that you do some reading. It took me many hundreds of hours to write the Guide, and I still add detail from time-to-time. It's hard to boil-down all of the complex concepts, and detailed information in it, to a few simple posts.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## mthomas47

sjm817 said:


> Hey Mike, thanks! If you recall, I had this in your SW thread but since it morphed into more of an Audyssey question, I thought Id move it here. Thanks for replying AGAIN LOL. I have read through a lot of what you have linked. If fact, that info is really what prompted my question. It still seems to me that because DEQ is based on MV position, not actual volume level, it is somewhat flawed in real world application. If I may try an example scenario:
> 
> Two very similar action movies. Movie A source volume =0dB, Movie B source volume = -15dB as reported by the Denon input offset. Lets say now I want to listen to both at same SPL level. Because movie B is 15db lower input, I need 15 more on the MV to make up for it. For this example, DEQ RLO is -5
> Movie A MV = -20 ~ DEQ would add 6.6dB of bass
> Movie B MV = -5 ~ DEQ would not do anything
> Even though these 2 movies are being listened to at same ~SPL, the effect of DEQ is considerably different. *If I dont have the correct understanding, please let me know!*
> 
> The above is just an example to make sure I understand this right, not to question the info in the FAQ. This helps me decide if i want to continue using DEQ. For music, I have not in a long time. In my mind, since DEQ is relying on MV position rather than actual volume level (I understand this would be difficult) coupled with the wide variations on input levels, it doesnt seem like it is very accurate in many situations.


Hi,

You are very welcome! I did recall your question from the other thread and replied accordingly. I am not familiar with the Denon feature that offsets volume levels. Frankly, that seems to me as if it might also employ a form of compression. I suspect that any mechanism that attempts to equalize volume levels within a source, or among sources, is probably having to compress some very high and/or very low frequencies in order to do it. Perhaps, that's not the case in all instances, and it may not be true in this instance.

In any event, if Denon is normalizing the volume, then I think that your understanding is correct. Personally, I would prefer that my AVR not do me any favors in that regard. I would rather just change my master volume level up, or down, depending on the program, and on my mood at that particular moment in time. 

Whether or not DEQ is accurate for anything besides 5.1 movies, recorded in accordance with Dolby/THX Reference standards, and sourced accordingly, is another question. In fact, whether someone likes the way that DEQ works, irrespective of source, is another question. According to what I have observed on various Audyssey threads, including this one, most people who use DEQ still find it necessary to augment the bass with some independent subwoofer boosts. If that's true, then I think that says something about whether DEQ appropriately correlates with the Equal Loudness Contours at most average listening levels.

From what I have observed, some people might find DEQ useful for some types of content, or for some listening sessions, and not for others. That could vary depending on source material, or overall volume levels, or bass levels, or surround levels. And, it could vary depending on a person's particular mood. Some people use DEQ all of the time, and some people never use it. I see that as an entirely YMMV sort of question. We can all rationalize our audio preferences by referring to the theory behind the methodology or technology that we are using, but they still remain our preferences.

I like to try to understand various aspects of audio, and of Audyssey, and I like to try to explain them for the benefit of others. But, for myself, I just like what I like, and I don't try to rationalize it too much. I like to think that my preferences are well-informed, but even if that's true, they are still just my personal preferences.  I generally consider YMMV to be the most useful expression in audio.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

I should have described this better. The Denon isnt normalizing the volume, its just reporting the input level. I am normalizing the volume by grabbing the remote and hitting the volume button. 
Example of the two movies from Netflix. If I play a movie that the Denon shows as an input offset of -15 Vs a movie that is shown as -1 and I have MV at the same setting, the -1 movie will be much louder. I would need to turn the MV of the -15 movie up 14 to match the sound level of the -1 movie. Thats my concern with this. DEQ will work differently depending on what the input level is since that affects where I have to set the MV to get same sound level. Im trying just turning DEQ off and adding some sub trim instead. I have a feeling that I will be happier with that.




mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You are very welcome! I did recall your question from the other thread and replied accordingly. I am not familiar with the Denon feature that offsets volume levels. Frankly, that seems to me as if it might also employ a form of compression. I suspect that any mechanism that attempts to equalize volume levels within a source, or among sources, is probably having to compress some very high and/or very low frequencies in order to do it. Perhaps, that's not the case in all instances, and it may not be true in this instance.
> 
> In any event, if Denon is normalizing the volume, then I think that your understanding is correct. Personally, I would prefer that my AVR not do me any favors in that regard. I would rather just change my master volume level up, or down, depending on the program, and on my mood at that particular moment in time.
> 
> Whether or not DEQ is accurate for anything besides 5.1 movies, recorded in accordance with Dolby/THX Reference standards, and sourced accordingly, is another question. In fact, whether someone likes the way that DEQ works, irrespective of source, is another question. According to what I have observed on various Audyssey threads, including this one, most people who use DEQ still find it necessary to augment the bass with some independent subwoofer boosts. If that's true, then I think that says something about whether DEQ appropriately correlates with the Equal Loudness Contours at most average listening levels.
> 
> From what I have observed, some people might find DEQ useful for some types of content, or for some listening sessions, and not for others. That could vary depending on source material, or overall volume levels, or bass levels, or surround levels. And, it could vary depending on a person's particular mood. Some people use DEQ all of the time, and some people never use it. I see that as an entirely YMMV sort of question. We can all rationalize our audio preferences by referring to the theory behind the methodology or technology that we are using, but they still remain our preferences.
> 
> I like to try to understand various aspects of audio, and of Audyssey, and I like to try to explain them for the benefit of others. But, for myself, I just like what I like, and I don't try to rationalize it too much. I like to think that my preferences are well-informed, but even if that's true, they are still just my personal preferences.  I generally consider YMMV to be the most useful expression in audio.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... I would prefer that my AVR not do me any favors in that regard. I would rather just change my master volume level up, or down, depending on the program, and on my mood at that particular moment in time ...
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Indeed! 

Mood is important. A given, single recording of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony could find itself being played over a range of, maybe, 10 or 12 dB on my Main Volume control, depending entirely (I think) on my mood.

When moving from one music recording to another, the potential variation is even greater. But it seems to be not exactly additive (it's like mixing water and ethanol, if you will). 


Because movie recordings are supposed to be standardized to Reference Level, they seem to be more similar to one another. But even though the control rooms are supposed to be standardized with the the band limited 500 Hz to 2K Hz pink noise test range, the frequency response and overall levels do vary from control room to control room.


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> Indeed!
> 
> Mood is important. A given, single recording of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony could find itself being played over a range of, maybe, 10 or 12 dB on my Main Volume control, depending entirely (I think) on my mood.
> 
> When moving from one music recording to another, the potential variation is even greater. But it seems to be not exactly additive (it's like mixing water and ethanol, if you will).
> 
> 
> Because movie recordings are supposed to be standardized to Reference Level, they seem to be more similar to one another. But even though the control rooms are supposed to be standardized with the the band limited 500 Hz to 2K Hz pink noise test range, the frequency response and overall levels do vary from control room to control room.


This was only in reference to DEQ. As I posted, my AVR is not doing any input level compensation. It is only reporting the source level.
From what I have seen, at least with streaming, movie levels are all over the map. Far from standardized. I've seen variations from -1dB to -15dB in Netflix titles. This is a big variation. My point was this causes issues with DEQ since DEQ is based on MV position, not actual volume. A movie with a low input will require higher MV position which affects what DEQ will do.

At this point I have disabled DEQ (did that long ago for music). I cant see how it would work well unless the source level among content didnt vary (much).


----------



## garygarrison

sjm817 said:


> ... From what I have seen, at least with streaming, movie levels are all over the map. Far from standardized. I've seen variations from -1dB to -15dB in Netflix titles. This is a big variation. My point was this causes issues with DEQ since DEQ is based on MV position, not actual volume. A movie with a low input will require higher MV position which affects what DEQ will do.
> 
> At this point I have disabled DEQ (did that long ago for music). I cant see how it would work well unless the source level among content didnt vary (much).


 The streaming volume variation seems to be greater than the disk volume variation (except for disks that are not Blu-ray).

I get along fine without DEQ. I have turned up my sub, and I also use the bass control when necessary (it affects only FL and FR, and becomes available only when DEQ is *off*).


----------



## velocci

HI all, I just ran Audyssey in my basement (see my signature for equipment) and it set my main speakers to large and the crossover of my center speaker to 40hz. crossover of everything else at 80hz. should I change my mains to small and crossover of my center to 80hz?


----------



## Candid

velocci said:


> HI all, I just ran Audyssey in my basement (see my signature for equipment) and it set my main speakers to large and the crossover of my center speaker to 40hz. crossover of everything else at 80hz. should I change my mains to small and crossover of my center to 80hz?



Yes, try it as you have a sub, that is normally recommended on the forum.


----------



## velocci

what settings does Audyssey change, just volumes and speaker distances?


----------



## garygarrison

velocci said:


> HI all, I just ran Audyssey in my basement (see my signature for equipment) and it set my main speakers to large and the crossover of my center speaker to 40hz. crossover of everything else at 80hz. should I change my mains to small and crossover of my center to 80hz?



Yes, probably. Try it and listen to it both ways, critically. You may get better clarity with an 80 Hz crossover. Also, you will get higher headroom through the mains at an 80 Hz X-over.


----------



## garygarrison

velocci said:


> what settings does Audyssey change, just volumes and speaker distances?



It smooths out frequency response over the whole frequency range, makes corrections in the time domain, gives you a choice between Audyssey Flat (flat!) and Audyssey Reference (a small dip at about 2,000 Hz, where harshness sometimes shows up in program material and equipment, and a high frequency roll-off, - 2 dB at 10 K Hz, -6 dB at 20K Hz), allows you to use DEQ to make bass and treble compensations when your volume level is turned down, and other features. 

See the FAQ for details. Reading it through will be worth it*:*

 Audyssey FAQ Linked Here

See Mike's Guide for everything you ever wanted to know about bass and subwoofers, plus updates to some info in the FAQ*:*

Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences

These two invaluable sources are better (and better reading) than any manual you are likely to have received with your AVR


----------



## velocci

I'll take a look at those tomorrow, its 12:30am here. So if i change the volume range of my denon avr to the one that goes from 
–79.5 dB – 18.0 instead of 0 - 98 and i put the volume at 0, does that mean it will be as loud as a commercial theater?


----------



## pbz06

velocci said:


> I'll take a look at those tomorrow, its 12:30am here. So if i change the volume range of my denon avr to the one that goes from
> 
> –79.5 dB – 18.0 instead of 0 - 98 and i put the volume at 0, does that mean it will be as loud as a commercial theater?


Expirement with 40 and 60hz crossovers too (for the fronts).


----------



## garygarrison

velocci said:


> I'll take a look at those tomorrow, its 12:30am here. So if i change the volume range of my denon avr to the one that goes from
> –79.5 dB – 18.0 instead of 0 - 98 and i put the volume at 0, does that mean it will be as loud as a commercial theater?



After you reset your volume control it should go from some very low number, like *-* 79, up to a point beyond 0 into the positive range, like *+* 5. After you run Audyssey, setting your main volume to *0*, playing a Blu-ray movie should produce the same Sound Pressure Level (SPL) in dB as the same movie being run in a commercial theater, at Reference Level (0), but it may _*sound*_ like it's louder, because many of the early reflections in a home sized room will sound like they are part of the sound coming from the speakers, instead of being delayed, as would be reverberation in a commercial theater. THX has looked into this, and found that for a typical Home Theater, *-*5, *-*6, or *-*7 dB below Reference (0) will sound like Reference Level (0) in a commercial theater.


Part of the problem here is that there are three somewhat correlated, but different, properties here: SPL, volume, and loudness. SPL is a scientific measurement, in dB, done with instruments, such as an SPL meter. Volume was originally just that, the volume of the listening room in, say, cubic feet. To fill a large room with sound, one would turn up the volume control. For a room of small volume, the volume control would be turned down. Loudness is a psychological/perceptual phenomenon, depending on the amount and type(s) of distortion in the sound, the nature of room reflections, the amount of bass in the sound, and other factors, as well as the SPL. Some preamps and receivers, including AVRs have a "Loudness Control" independent of the volume control. It usually can be switched in or out. If someone is playing music at a low volume control setting, producing a low SPL, it may sound "thin," "tinny," or lacking in bass, because the ear is much less sensitive to bass (and, to a lesser degree, treble) at low SPL. The loudness control puts back the bass, and some will replenish the treble. The DEQ in Audyssey could be considered to be a very evolved and sophisticated loudness control.


----------



## MeganElisabeth

With my back being less than 10” from the back wall, do I still place the mic 18 inches from the wall even though it won’t line up with my MLP center/ears? Thanks in advance.


----------



## velocci

garygarrison said:


> After you reset your volume control it should go from some very low number, like *-* 79, up to a point beyond 0 into the positive range, like *+* 5. After you run Audyssey, setting your main volume to *0*, playing a Blu-ray movie should produce the same Sound Pressure Level (SPL) in dB as the same movie being run in a commercial theater, at Reference Level (0), but it may _*sound*_ like it's louder, because many of the early reflections in a home sized room will sound like they are part of the sound coming from the speakers, instead of being delayed, as would be reverberation in a commercial theater. THX has looked into this, and found that for a typical Home Theater, *-*5, *-*6, or *-*7 dB below Reference (0) will sound like Reference Level (0) in a commercial theater.
> 
> 
> Part of the problem here is that there are three somewhat correlated, but different, properties here: SPL, volume, and loudness. SPL is a scientific measurement, in dB, done with instruments, such as an SPL meter. Volume was originally just that, the volume of the listening room in, say, cubic feet. To fill a large room with sound, one would turn up the volume control. For a room of small volume, the volume control would be turned down. Loudness is a psychological/perceptual phenomenon, depending on the amount and type(s) of distortion in the sound, the nature of room reflections, the amount of bass in the sound, and other factors, as well as the SPL. Some preamps and receivers, including AVRs have a "Loudness Control" independent of the volume control. It usually can be switched in or out. If someone is playing music at a low volume control setting, producing a low SPL, it may sound "thin," "tinny," or lacking in bass, because the ear is much less sensitive to bass (and, to a lesser degree, treble) at low SPL. The loudness control puts back the bass, and some will replenish the treble. The DEQ in Audyssey could be considered to be a very evolved and sophisticated loudness control.


I read about Reference Level Offset but don't get it. If i put it at 15, does it mean that it lowers the volume by 15db?


----------



## Skinfax1

velocci said:


> I read about Reference Level Offset but don't get it. If i put it at 15, does it mean that it lowers the volume by 15db?


Audyssey seems very keen on making this simple setting sound very complicated and therefore suggesting that it was something very sophisticated - but it's just a simple loudness-switch and you have three levels to choose from, when the EQ effect should reach zero and no longer influence the signal.

I was confused myself, by their nomenclature. "Dynamic EQ" is just marketing BLAH BLAH. It's a simple loudness EQ. 
What's even worse for people knowing what dynamic EQs are: in music production dynamic EQs exiust and are called so. But these are multiband level-dependent EQs! And Audyssey just calls a loudness EQ "Dynamic EQ".
Creating additional the confusion, is the term offset. 

I think it's totally idiotic to name a setting "reference level offset" in an AVR, a consumer product! - and even keep the numerical values technically correct to make the confusion for the user complete. Usually labels are chosen to make things clearer for customers, not to confuse them. 

Simple explanation of DynEQ and its settings:

Imagine the setting 15, 10, 5, 0 dB of DynEQ means -15, -10, -5, 0 dB of the volume knob. That's all.

The number only means, at which volume knob setting, the DynEQ is switched off.

So if you choose DynEQ "15", it means: volume knob set at -15 dB: DynEQ = loudness EQ = off.
And if you select DynEq "0", it means volume knob must be set at 0 dB to no longer have the signal impacted by the loudness EQ.


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> Audyssey seems very keen on making this simple setting sound very sophisticated - but in reality it's just a simple loudness-switch and you have three levels to choose from, when the EQ effect should stop.
> 
> What creates the confusion, is the term offset. Totally idiotic to do such a naming for consumer products and even keep the numerical values technically correct to make the confusion for the user complete. Usually labels are chosen to make things clearer for customers, not to confuse them.
> 
> Imagine the setting 15, 10, 5, 0 dB of DynEQ means -15, -10, -5, 0 dB of the volume knob. That's all.
> 
> The number only means, at which volume knob setting, the DynEQ is switched off.
> 
> So if you choose DynEQ "15", it means: volume knob set at -15 dB: DynEQ = off.
> And if you select DynEq "0", it means volume knob must be set at 0 dB to no longer have a loudness EQ.



Hi Skinfax1, I fully agree with you when it comes to using ambiguous language nobody on God's Green Planet will understand, yet I think its not Audyssey's fault that music industry recording levels are not standardized the same way as done in the film industry. 



The Reference Level Offset (RLO) is supposed to be an attempt for trying to restore the same spectral balance at our homes that the sound engineers heard and recorded in their studios.


Use it or dump it. Fortunately RLO can be turned off, yet some experimental listening may bring about the desired listening pleasure. 



YMMV.


----------



## Skinfax1

Audyssey does not even explain reference levels in the manual.
So what sense does it make to use terms, that explain nothing but confuse everything.

It's all just marketing bullsh.t for a very simple concept: a loudness EQ with a user-setting when the volume-knob brings the effect to zero.


----------



## Skinfax1

mogorf said:


> The Reference Level Offset (RLO) is supposed to be an attempt for trying to restore the same spectral balance at our homes that the sound engineers heard and recorded in their studios.


IMO it's marketing bull, too.

In many cases it is mixed at lower levels. Especially loud music. And I never heard that anybody puts a loudness EQ on the master bus to compensate when mixing at lower levels. You just turn up the volume for a short amount of time to check, if it sounds correct at loud levels or if there are problems.

The human hearing automatically adopts to the lower volume. You can perfectly mix bass @65 dB, if you a have a system with a decently flat response. With some experience you know, how the sound changes at lower levels. To a not so small degree loudness compensation takes place in the brain.

How is that possible? Just like it's possible for trained ears to transcript single instruments or hear sounds in the mix almost as if they were played solo. Experience and training. A trained "ear" (in fact it's the brain) can focus on aspects the untrained ear cannot hear.


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> IMO it's marketing bull, too.
> 
> In many cases it is mixed at lower levels. Especially loud music. And I never heard that anybody puts a loudness EQ on the master bus to compensate when mixing at lower levels. You just turn up the volume for a short amount of time to check, if it sounds correct at loud levels or if there are problems.
> 
> The human hearing automatically adopts to the lower volume. You can perfectly mix bass @65 dB, if you a have a system with a decently flat response. With some experience you know, how the sound changes at lower levels. Loudness compensation takes place in the brain.



Well, not exactly. Loudness compensation featured by Audyssey's DEQ is really meant for movie sound tracks recorded as per SMPTE standard (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers). Listening to music with Audyssey' DEQ ON will surely be over the map. 



How you find your own workaround is up to you in your home system. Many have been successful for setting up their systems for music, yet many are still bashing around. 



Each needs to do a lot of homework, yet not impossible! 



Hope this helps!


----------



## Skinfax1

mogorf said:


> Well, not exactly. Loudness compensation featured by Audyssey's DEQ is really meant for movie sound tracks recorded as per SMPTE standard (Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers). Listening to music with Audyssey' DEQ ON will surely be over the map.


You think the whole thing with dynEQ offset-settings is for what? Adverstisments? 



> How you find your own workaround is up to you in your home system. Many have been successful for setting up their systems for music, yet many are still bashing around.
> 
> Each needs to do a lot of homework, yet not impossible!
> 
> Hope this helps!


That you can throw in acronyms, where it makes no sense? Who do you think you can deceive with that?


----------



## garygarrison

Skinfax1 said:


> ... That you can throw in acronyms, where it makes no sense? Who do you think you can deceive with that?



I'm confused by your response to Feri's post (#5731) quoted in your post (#5732). The only acronym I can find in his post is SMPTE, which, I'm sure you know, is a legitimate acronym going back about 8 decades, denoting an organization over 100 years old. The acronym, in its position in his post, seemed to make sense to me.


Reference level produces 105 dBFS for the main channels, and 115 dBFS for subwoofer channels, at the main listening position. Since these are peaks, the SMPTE reference level is often specified as a nominal -20dBFS, providing 20 dB of headroom over that level.

You seem angry. Am I misreading you?


----------



## Skinfax1

garygarrison said:


> I'm confused


I know.



> The acronym, in its position in his post, seemed to make sense to me.


_"Audyssey's DEQ is really meant for movie sound tracks recorded as per SMPTE standard"._

Everything in that sentence is completely false.
It reflects how much you guys kow about audioproduction.
And it tells a lot about your analytical hearing abilities.

1. DynEQ is perfectly suited for being used with any kind of material - the 15 dB reference level range is there for only a single reason: to be able to use DynEQ for dynamic _and_ highly compressed content - and advertisments are not meant with that! 

2. There is no such thing as "SMPTE recording standard". There are not even mixing standards. There are only monitoring standards and dialogue levelling suggestions. And nobody needs to know any specs, just use his ears. Everyone should be able to hear that dialogues are mixed extremely different with exemely different dynmics and very different levels.

How can anyone pack so many false satements into a short sentence and receive applause for that nonsense?

You are not newbies, you are heavy posters with thousands of posts! Although you obviously have zero knowledge from the profession...


*Audyssey's DEQ is really meant for movie sound tracks recorded as per SMPTE standard. *

Maybe I will make that my signature to remind me what kind of "knowledgeable" people are the heavy posters in hifi forums and why professionals are well advised to avoid them. Because thats where the difference between lossless and compressed audio can be heard, but not the negative effects of highpassing speakers @80 Hz...


----------



## pbarach

I think we have a nasty troll on our hands. Ignoring seems the best response.


----------



## mthomas47

I'm not going to address this post to anyone, and I'm not directing my comments to anyone. But, I know that for everyone posting, there may be dozens, and over time hundreds, who are silently reading along, and who may be confused by the discussion taking place. 

Systems of automated room EQ, such as Audyssey in any of its versions, exist to improve the audio relationship between speakers and rooms. Transducers which are placed indoors are affected by the rooms themselves. Any automated system necessarily has limitations, but for many people, the use of automated EQ is a useful way to improve sound quality in audio systems and home theaters. As far as I am concerned, the use of Audyssey, in whatever version, with whatever settings, is strictly a YMMV issue. If it makes things sound better for a particular individual in a particular room, that's good, and if it doesn't, that's fine too. 

Over and above the room EQ, Audyssey contains several subordinate software programs which have nothing to do with creating a more even frequency response. Among those additional software programs is DEQ. DEQ is designed to restore bass/treble equilibrium, at below Dolby/THX Reference listening levels, for 5.1 movies, in calibrated HT systems. That is specifically what DEQ was created for, although it can obviously be used for any listening material. The operation of DEQ is predicated upon the Equal Loudness Contours (a successor to the earlier Fletcher-Munson Curves) which illustrate the way that human hearing works.

We hear frequencies between 500Hz and 5000Hz more strongly than those above, and especially those below those frequencies. As volume levels drop, they drop faster (to our hearing) for bass frequencies, and to a lesser extent for treble frequencies. 5.1 movies are designed to have all frequencies in equilibrium at Reference (0.0 MV on a calibrated HT system), but as volumes drop below that Reference level, bass frequencies, especially, fall-off much faster. 

Since the average HT listening level is probably somewhere between about -10 and -20 MV, that can be a problem for many people. It can particularly be a problem with respect to low-bass special effects in movies, which depend heavily on sufficient bass volumes in order to be convincing. Consequently, Audyssey developed its proprietary method for restoring acoustic equilibrium in 5.1 movies and called it Dynamic EQ (DEQ). Later, recognizing that people were inevitably using DEQ for purposes other than 5.1 movies, Audyssey introduced the Reference Level Offset (RLO) settings as a way to make DEQ more usable for more listening applications. The RLO settings attenuate the effect of DEQ, as explained in Section V of the Guide.

DEQ has always been the most controversial aspect of Audyssey's operation. Some people like using DEQ for everything. Some people use DEQ for some applications, such as 5.1 movies (which is what it was actually designed for), but not for others. And, some people don't use DEQ for anything. As with the use of automated room EQ, in general, the use of DEQ is strictly a YMMV question.

But, in deciding whether to experiment with DEQ, either with or without the RLO settings, I think it may be helpful to understand why they were developed, and how they operate. Anyone wishing to understand their operation better is invited to read Section V of the Guide, linked in my signature. A direct link to that section follows: 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V

I hope that others reading along on this thread will find this explanation helpful! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Skinfax1

Don't you read, before you post? RLO was explained by me a few posts earlier. And in a way that explains it, instead of posing how much I knew about audio...

And if you want to get rid of the forum misbelieve, you can also find an explanation in fully accordance with the reality of audio music and film production, why the general recommendation of highpassing speakers @80 Hz is a very bad and stupid advice.

Judging from the posts you three are so far away from a musical ear, which is necessary to talk about audio, that you probably don't even play an instrument.


----------



## Matt2026

pbarach said:


> I think we have a nasty troll on our hands. Ignoring seems the best response.


In upper left of page Click on [your user name] > on right hand side click [User CP] > on left side under [Control Panel] click on [Edit Ignore List] > *Add a Member to Your List...* Enter user name [name you want to ignore] then click on [Okay]


----------



## Titan319

Have a question i added to height speakers and ran Audyssey and now my sub is at max distance 22.1 feet. I am only about 9 feet away and normally i get a normal range from 13 to 16 feet. Could this just mean i am now having phasing issues with the subwoofer and i need to relocate it? I never had this happen in all the years i have used Audyssey Xt32.


----------



## kryptonite5

*Audyssey Multeq XT32 sets very low trim levels for sub, and higher trim levels to other speakers, compared to XT
*
My setup:
Polk TSI series speakers (TSI 300 fronts, CS10 center, TSI 100 surrounds)
2x PSW110 subs

I've had a Denon 2113 for about 5 years in a 7.1 setup, and after calibration using Audyssey Multeq XT, these were the final trims I've always obtained for the subs:
Sub1 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db ~ +/-0.5db
Sub2 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db ~ +/-0.5db
Both subs pinged at the same time with a Y cable during final Audyssey calibration = -2db ~ -3.0db
For reference, the fronts and centers calibrated to around -7db, and the surrounds at -5db
And the setup sounded great, with a good amount of tight bass

I recently moved to a Denon X2500H 2 months ago in a 5.2.2 setup, and after calibration using Audyssey Multeq XT, these were the final trims obtained for the subs:
Sub1 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db 
Sub2 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db 
Both sub pinged at the same time during final Audyssey calibration = -3.0db
For reference, the fronts and centers calibrated to around -7db, and the surrounds at -5db
And the setup sounded better than the Denon 2113 did. The bass was great.

So, both the Denons which shared the same Multieq XT scheme calibrated near identically, 5 years apart, and sounded perfect with great bass

During the new years' sale, I got a great deal on an X3500H, and I traded in my X2500H, and I was now looking forward to Multieq XT32 with Subeq-HT / separate calibration for 2 subs

The X3500H receiver arrived over the weekend, and Audyssey had me individually adjust my sub volumes to 75db before calibration started:
Sub1 at ~60~65% volume = 74~76db 
Sub2 at ~60~65% volume = 74~76db 

But after calibration, I was shocked to see an extremely low trim of -9db set to both subs.
The fronts & center calibrate to -4.5db, with the surrounds at -2.5db.
In essence, not only are the subs running much lower than before, but the other speakers are running much louder than before.
This has sort of resulted in a double whammy - and the cumulative result is that I have lost most of the bass in the room. 

Also note, my fronts and center always calibrate to large with crossovers of 40Hz, and the surrounds always calibrate to small with crossovers of 60Hz. I move all of the them to small, and set all crossovers to 80Hz.
That's the only change I do on top of the calibration results, and this part was consistent either the Denon 2113, X2500H or the X3500H

Updated the X3500H to the latest software, disabled Eco mode and calibrated all over again, but no change.

Does anyone know if this is a bug in Multieq XT32, or in the new receivers?
I've had 2 different Denons with Multieq XT calibrate near identically 5 years apart, but I cannot understand why the X3500H with Multeq XT32 calibrates so differently


----------



## garygarrison

MeganElisabeth said:


> With my back being less than 10” from the back wall, do I still place the mic 18 inches from the wall even though it won’t line up with my MLP center/ears? Thanks in advance.



Good question. I'm not sure I have a good answer.


Can you move your chair/couch away from the wall?
Can you put a permanent absorber on the wall behind you, such as a tapestry with a couple of layers of absorbent material between it and the wall? If so, I think putting the mics where your ears will be would be O.K.
Can you put a temporary absorber there while you are calibrating Audyssey -- something like 2 - 4 layers of fuzzy blanket would be O.K. [not as good as above]
You might arbitrarily place the mic where your ears are, and call it a day. Perhaps three mic positions where your 2 ears and a center line between them are, and the other 5 positions to the sides, with about 3 of them 18 or a few more inches out from the wall. The Audyssey "fuzzy logic" (a good thing) proprietary quasi-averaging method may combine the data from the 3 ear/head positions and the the other 5 positions, look at shared needs, and work its patented magic. _*Position #1 should be in the center of your head position.*_
Try the various ploys and pick the one that sounds best to you.
Others will respond.


----------



## galonzo

^^^^ @kryptonite5 , in my experience, getting a good mic has been hit or miss for my last few AVRs; turns out, the mic from 3 AVRs ago has been the most consistent (according to REW), and still the best one to use in my case (I try it with every new AVR, and it's always the best option). Replacement mics can be found on eBay if you no longer have a good one, FYI.

HTH


----------



## MeganElisabeth

garygarrison said:


> MeganElisabeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> With my back being less than 10” from the back wall, do I still place the mic 18 inches from the wall even though it won’t line up with my MLP center/ears? Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. I'm not sure I have a good answer.
> 
> 
> Can you move your chair/couch away from the wall?
> Can you put a permanent absorber on the wall behind you, such as a tapestry with a couple of layers of absorbent material between it and the wall? If so, I think putting the mics where your ears will be would be O.K.
> Can you put a temporary absorber there while you are calibrating Audyssey -- something like 2 - 4 layers of fuzzy blanket would be O.K. [not as good as above]
> You might arbitrarily place the mic where your ears are, and call it a day. Perhaps three mic positions where your 2 ears and a center line between them are, and the other 5 positions to the sides, with about 3 of them 18 or a few more inches out from the wall. The Audyssey "fuzzy logic" (a good thing) proprietary quasi-averaging method may combine the data from the 3 ear/head positions and the the other 5 positions, look at shared needs, and work its patented magic. _*Position #1 should be in the center of your head position.*_
> Try the various ploys and pick the one that sounds best to you.
> Others will respond.
Click to expand...

I so very much greatly appreciate your response! Unfortunately I am unable to move it away from the wall. So that option is out. However, it has quite a high backing and is up high. (I would say about halfway up the wall and is a few inches thick. So this might be acting as some sort of permenant tapestry in front of the wall I would think? 

Would pillows instead of blankets work okay? Then would placing the mic 6-12 inches in front of the pillows for the various positions be good? Unfortunately my AVR only allows the 6 positioned Audyssey. I think it works quite well though as I only have on MLP and a small area to cover so it would be difficult to find more spots than 6! 

Thank you again so very much! It sounds good to me but I’m super new to the speakers world.. so I doubt I’m anywhere near as perceptible as most on here. I just want to have the best to my knowledge that I can, including having that back wall blocked out enough.


----------



## mogorf

kryptonite5 said:


> Does anyone know if this is a bug in Multieq XT32, or in the new receivers?
> I've had 2 different Denons with Multieq XT calibrate near identically 5 years apart, but I cannot understand why the X3500H with Multeq XT32 calibrates so differently



Hi kryptonite5,


Fully understand your query, but I would say worry not.  As long as all your trims for satellites and subs are within +/- 11.5 dB you are good to go. A lower or higher trim won't mean your speakers (and subs) will play louder of softer, buts that's the test result of Audyssey needed to set the SPL (Sound Pressure Level) at the MLP (Main Listening Position) in your room in order to achieve a 75 dB SPL with the test tone at -30 dB. (Subs at 85 dB SPL).


Even within the same brand (Denon) there are differences among models with regards to their internal gain structure and the results you are seeing can be attributed to this phenomenon. 



As I said in the beginning: worry not, but enjoy! 


How does it sound?


----------



## mogorf

Titan319 said:


> Have a question i added to height speakers and ran Audyssey and now my sub is at max distance 22.1 feet. I am only about 9 feet away and normally i get a normal range from 13 to 16 feet. Could this just mean i am now having phasing issues with the subwoofer and i need to relocate it? I never had this happen in all the years i have used Audyssey Xt32.



Hi Titan319, 



Honestly it's a bit hard for me to interpret your query. Adding more speakers (satellites) to the system of course needs MultEQ to be ran again, but don't see a correlation with the repeated EQ'ing affecting your sub distance. I suppose you didn't physically move your subwoofer from its place, right?


Care to share some more info, if any?


----------



## Titan319

mogorf said:


> Hi Titan319,
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's a bit hard for me to interpret your query. Adding more speakers (satellites) to the system of course needs MultEQ to be ran again, but don't see a correlation with the repeated EQ'ing affecting your sub distance. I suppose you didn't physically move your subwoofer from its place, right?
> 
> 
> Care to share some more info, if any? [/QUOTE
> 
> Hi Mogorf,
> 
> 
> I did run XT32 after adding the height speakers. Before the height speakers where added i had results at 13.3 and 16.2 for the sub distance. I did not move the sub at all so everything is in the same place. I am using the lfe input on back of the sub so the dial for the crossover is defeated but i should mention i moved the dial from 40hz to 120hz (again should have no affect) but i though i could hear a very little difference. Would this affect the distance by adding additional delay? I would think not but if the dial was in the signal path the delay should already be accounted for what are your thoughts?


----------



## mogorf

Titan319 said:


> mogorf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Titan319,
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly it's a bit hard for me to interpret your query. Adding more speakers (satellites) to the system of course needs MultEQ to be ran again, but don't see a correlation with the repeated EQ'ing affecting your sub distance. I suppose you didn't physically move your subwoofer from its place, right?
> 
> 
> Care to share some more info, if any? [/QUOTE
> 
> Hi Mogorf,
> 
> 
> I did run XT32 after adding the height speakers. Before the height speakers where added i had results at 13.3 and 16.2 for the sub distance. I did not move the sub at all so everything is in the same place. I am using the lfe input on back of the sub so the dial for the crossover is defeated but i should mention i moved the dial from 40hz to 120hz (again should have no affect) but i though i could hear a very little difference. Would this affect the distance by adding additional delay? I would think not but if the dial was in the signal path the delay should already be accounted for what are your thoughts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your GoldenEar XXL is a very interesting subwoofer model with 2 active drivers and two passive radiators.
> 
> 
> I'm no expert of subs, but you may be better served at the subwoofer thread. Here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/
> 
> 
> Good luck and enjoy your system!
Click to expand...


----------



## mir3acles

*Audyssey calibration after adding amp*

I recently added a monolith 7 channel amp to my Denon avr. When recalibrating with the new amp do I need to re-run audyssey with the amp connected and powered on or do I turn the amp off while calibrating audyssey. Any suggestions or advice will be greatly helpful. Thanks.


----------



## afrogt

connect the amp, plug in your speakers and turn it on. Then run Audyssey. The monolith 7 doesn't have any gain controls so nothing to adjust there


----------



## mir3acles

afrogt said:


> connect the amp, plug in your speakers and turn it on. Then run Audyssey. The monolith 7 doesn't have any gain controls so nothing to adjust there


Thanks a lot


----------



## garygarrison

MeganElisabeth said:


> ... However, it has quite a high backing and is up high. (I would say about halfway up the wall and is a few inches thick. So this might be acting as some sort of permenant tapestry in front of the wall I would think?
> 
> Would pillows instead of blankets work okay? Then would placing the mic 6-12 inches in front of the pillows for the various positions be good? Unfortunately my AVR only allows the 6 positioned Audyssey. I think it works quite well though as I only have on MLP and a small area to cover so it would be difficult to find more spots than 6!
> 
> Thank you again so very much! It sounds good to me but I’m super new to the speakers world.. so I doubt I’m anywhere near as perceptible as most on here. I just want to have the best to my knowledge that I can, including having that back wall blocked out enough.



Yes, the high back is good, as long as it is soft and absorbent. It will absorb much of the treble, thus not confusing Audyssey at those frequencies. If the backing is tall enough, but not soft, putting a decorative, but thick and soft, or multilayer antimacassar covering the upper part of the chair/or couch back may do the trick. What you are trying to avoid is a slapback eco (from the chair back or the wall) that hits the microphone, making it think there is more treble at certain frequencies, and less at others (thanks to phase cancellation or attenuation). It will probably not help with the bass, but your bass may be fine. 

Pillows may be good, but I'm not visualizing how you would place them. Once the direct treble reflection is gone, run Audyssey again. If you listen alone, assign mic positions where your two ears and the center of your head would be, with the other positions scattered around nearby. If several people listen at once, skip the position at the center of your head, and assign another position. 

Since you say you are new to the world of speakers, I'll let you know that most (but not all) people prefer their speakers toed-in so they are aimed at the MLP, or a little wider. Make all changes before you run Audyssey. Some of us stop when the system sounds really good. Others try everything they can think of, and eventually join OCD anonymous.


----------



## kryptonite5

galonzo said:


> ^^^^ @kryptonite5 , in my experience, getting a good mic has been hit or miss for my last few AVRs; turns out, the mic from 3 AVRs ago has been the most consistent (according to REW), and still the best one to use in my case (I try it with every new AVR, and it's always the best option). Replacement mics can be found on eBay if you no longer have a good one, FYI.
> 
> HTH


Thanks mate, I went to a friend's house and brought his X2500's mic. Results were unfortunately identical.




mogorf said:


> Hi kryptonite5,
> 
> Fully understand your query, but I would say worry not.  As long as all your trims for satellites and subs are within +/- 11.5 dB you are good to go. A lower or higher trim won't mean your speakers (and subs) will play louder of softer, buts that's the test result of Audyssey needed to set the SPL (Sound Pressure Level) at the MLP (Main Listening Position) in your room in order to achieve a 75 dB SPL with the test tone at -30 dB. (Subs at 85 dB SPL).
> 
> Even within the same brand (Denon) there are differences among models with regards to their internal gain structure and the results you are seeing can be attributed to this phenomenon.
> As I said in the beginning: worry not, but enjoy!
> How does it sound?


Understood, and the my previous 2113 and even my X2500 receivers did the same, and sounded a lot more punchier unfortunately than the X3500H.
There is a severe lack of bass on the X3500H once it's done calibrating.

------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ok, I have more data in case you any of you have more ideas on what might be happening:

So, I read that it is okay to ignore Audyssey's warning about the subs not being equal before calibration begins, and so I reverted my subs back to 50%, so now everything I mention below should be comparable apples to apples.

Note that my fronts, center and surrounds are within +/-2 db of each other between receivers, so I'm just going to ignore those for now and just focus on the subs.

*With Denon 2113, Multeq XT, calibration done through the receiver
*Sub1 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db ~ +/-0.5db
Sub2 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db ~ +/-0.5db
Both subs pinged at the same time with a Y cable during final Audyssey calibration = -2db ~ -3.0db
-room fills with bass, sound is punchy

*With Denon X2500H, Multieq XT, calibration done through the receiver
*Sub1 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db 
Sub2 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db 
Both sub pinged at the same time during final Audyssey calibration = -3.0db
-room fills with bass, sound is punchy

*With Denon X3500H, Multeq XT32, calibration done through the Multeq Editor Android app
*Sub1 at ~50% volume, trim after calibration = -2~-2.5db 
Sub2 at ~50% volume, trim after calibration = -3~-3.5db
-this feels more like my 2112 and X2500H did. But the second sub feels louder than the first sub

*With Denon X3500H, Multeq XT32, calibration done through the receiver
*Sub1 at ~50% volume, before calibration reads 68db, trim after calibration = -2.5~-3db 
Sub2 at ~50% volume, before calibration reads 72db, trim after calibration = -7~-7.5db
-subs are equal, but bass feel is considerably lower to how the 2113 & X2500H sounds

Now, why is there such a big difference in calibrations with the same X3500H receiver, but when done using the receiver itself vs. the Android app?

I also would love to swap back and forth between these 2 calibrations on the X3500H to see which one I like more. But I only have the one done with the app stored on my phone, which when sent to the receiver would overwrite the other calibration that is currently there. 

For the calibration was done using the receiver, is there a way to back up the receiver settings (including the audyssey curves), or just export the audyssey curve out of the receiver? This would allow me to swap back and forth and decide.


----------



## drh3b

kryptonite5 said:


> I also would love to swap back and forth between these 2 calibrations on the X3500H to see which one I like more. But I only have the one done with the app stored on my phone, which when sent to the receiver would overwrite the other calibration that is currently there.
> 
> For the calibration was done using the receiver, is there a way to back up the receiver settings (including the audyssey curves), or just export the audyssey curve out of the receiver? This would allow me to swap back and forth and decide.


You can save/restore settings which include the Audyssey calibration:
http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3500H/eu/en/RQIFSYstlslsuk.php

One trick if the bass sounds weak is to simply up the subwoofers 2-3 db from the calibration which in my setup brings the subwoofers where they should be going by REW(not that I've used REW enough to have faith in my measurements, but it sounds good.)


----------



## mthomas47

kryptonite5 said:


> Thanks mate, I went to a friend's house and brought his X2500's mic. Results were unfortunately identical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understood, and the my previous 2113 and even my X2500 receivers did the same, and sounded a lot more punchier unfortunately than the X3500H.
> There is a severe lack of bass on the X3500H once it's done calibrating.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I have more data in case you any of you have more ideas on what might be happening:
> 
> So, I read that it is okay to ignore Audyssey's warning about the subs not being equal before calibration begins, and so I reverted my subs back to 50%, so now everything I mention below should be comparable apples to apples.
> 
> Note that my fronts, center and surrounds are within +/-2 db of each other between receivers, so I'm just going to ignore those for now and just focus on the subs.
> 
> *With Denon 2113, Multeq XT, calibration done through the receiver
> *Sub1 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db ~ +/-0.5db
> Sub2 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db ~ +/-0.5db
> Both subs pinged at the same time with a Y cable during final Audyssey calibration = -2db ~ -3.0db
> -room fills with bass, sound is punchy
> 
> *With Denon X2500H, Multieq XT, calibration done through the receiver
> *Sub1 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db
> Sub2 independently calibrated at ~50% volume = 0db
> Both sub pinged at the same time during final Audyssey calibration = -3.0db
> -room fills with bass, sound is punchy
> 
> *With Denon X3500H, Multeq XT32, calibration done through the Multeq Editor Android app
> *Sub1 at ~50% volume, trim after calibration = -2~-2.5db
> Sub2 at ~50% volume, trim after calibration = -3~-3.5db
> -this feels more like my 2112 and X2500H did. But the second sub feels louder than the first sub
> 
> *With Denon X3500H, Multeq XT32, calibration done through the receiver
> *Sub1 at ~50% volume, before calibration reads 68db, trim after calibration = -2.5~-3db
> Sub2 at ~50% volume, before calibration reads 72db, trim after calibration = -7~-7.5db
> -subs are equal, but bass feel is considerably lower to how the 2113 & X2500H sounds
> 
> Now, why is there such a big difference in calibrations with the same X3500H receiver, but when done using the receiver itself vs. the Android app?
> 
> I also would love to swap back and forth between these 2 calibrations on the X3500H to see which one I like more. But I only have the one done with the app stored on my phone, which when sent to the receiver would overwrite the other calibration that is currently there.
> 
> For the calibration was done using the receiver, is there a way to back up the receiver settings (including the audyssey curves), or just export the audyssey curve out of the receiver? This would allow me to swap back and forth and decide.


Hi,

I won't try to address the question of whether you should use Audyssey through the app or not, or how you can save the EQ's from them to swap back and forth. Perhaps someone else can chime-in on those questions. But, I will try to address some of the basic principles in all of this, and if you are interested, you can read about this in much more detail in Section II of the Guide, linked below.

First, in all of the examples you used, you gain-matched the subwoofers, whether that was appropriate to their placement in the room or not. Identical subwoofers placed in different locations will have more, or less boundary gain, and they will inherently produce more, or less SPL, within the test tone range used for trim setting purposes. Gain-matching your subs seemed to work well with your old AVR with XT, although your trim levels ended-up very high. But, for whatever reason, your new AVR with XT32 seems to be recording subwoofer SPL's with greater sensitivity (and I suspect with greater accuracy) and the trim levels are different now. 

The object of the level-matching process in mic position 1 is to level-match the two subwoofers, so that they each play the same volume at the MLP. Then, their combined SPL will be level-matched to the other speakers in your system, so that they are all playing the same 75db as measured at the MLP in mic position 1. So, in your last example, your 50% gain produced 68db for Subwoofer 1, and the same gain produced 72db for subwoofer 2. You should turn-up the gain on Sub 1, so that both subwoofers are producing the same SPL. Then, they can be properly level-matched to the other channels.

Once Audyssey has finished doing its job, all of the channels (including the subs) will be playing the same 75db with normal content. (The LFE channel is handled a little differently.) But, we don't hear all frequencies equally, especially at below Reference (0.0 MV) volumes. So, after running Audyssey, if you want to hear more bass, just turn-up your subwoofer volumes by the same amount. For instance, if your gain levels are at 1:00 now for Sub 1, and still at 12:00 for Sub 2, just turn each of them up by one click, or by two clicks if necessary.

Of course, you can also turn-up the subwoofer volume by using your AVR remote, but it is important to keep trim levels well in the negative range to prevent clipping at higher volume levels. About -5 is recommended. If you want to use your AVR remote to add and subtract bass more easily, you will need to start with lower trim levels after calibration. Section II of the Guide explains exactly how to do that in detail. It will be important to understand some of this.

In my opinion, you will be able to get much more out of your subwoofers, and out of XT32, if you are willing to invest some time in reading. I think you may be missing out on a lot of good bass by operating your subs as you have been doing. I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

@kryptonite5 after calibration, what is DV and DEQ set to on the AVRs? If you havent already, set them to off to not have that have an effect on the listening comparison.


----------



## pbz06

Whether you control XT32 through the App or through the AVR, they should work the same. The mic is still plugged into the AVR and uses the same processor. 

Only difference is with the app you can run multiple calibrations and tweak them differently before applying them to AVR.


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> Whether you control XT32 through the App or through the AVR, they should work the same. The mic is still plugged into the AVR and uses the same processor.
> 
> Only difference is with the app you can run multiple calibrations and tweak them differently before applying them to AVR.


Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the computation of Audyssey filters (corrections) occurs in your phone or tablet when you use the app and then gets uploaded to the receiver. In contrast, the processor in the AVR does the computations if you do not use the app.

Either way, 

There are a few more differences: Running XT32 through the app will not apply any correction below 20 Hz, but calibrating through the receiver will calibrate down to 10 Hz if your system can reproduce those low frequencies. Also, you can turn off midrange compensation through the app, but not if you calibrate using the receiver. You can limit the frequency range of corrections (for example, you can stop calibration over 1000 Hz) when you calibrate with the app, but you can't when you calibrate using the AVR--the filters are applied through the full range. 

Whether you use the app or the AVR, the upper limit for correction by Audyssey is 24 kHz. Manufacturers limit the sampling rate of Audyssey-processed files to 48 kHz, which means that when Audyssey is turned on, higher-resolution files (such as 24/96 downloads) are getting downsampled by Audyssey to 48 kHz.


----------



## pbarach

After running an Audyssey calibration, I find consistently that the front right speaker is playing audibly softer than the front right. This is measurable using pink noise tones from a calibration disk and an SPL meter -- the difference is a couple of dB. Given this state of affairs, mono CDs seem to be shifted a bit to the left on 2.1 channel playback. Why, o Why??


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> After running an Audyssey calibration, I find consistently that the front right speaker is playing audibly softer than the front right. This is measurable using pink noise tones from a calibration disk and an SPL meter -- the difference is a couple of dB. Given this state of affairs, mono CDs seem to be shifted a bit to the left on 2.1 channel playback. Why, o Why??



I think you have a typo, but after reading Hawking's book on quantum mechanics, and M theory, I can't be sure (of anything). You say, "I find consistently that the *front right* speaker is playing audibly *softer than the front right*."  Let's say you meant the front right was softer than the front left. Then all is well, and it makes sense that on mono the image would shift to the left. If it is the other way around, then we may have slipped into an alternative reality. 

Well, maybe not. Does one speaker benefit from a great deal of boundary gain and the other not? The standard band limited pink noise (500 to 2k) may not go low enough to demonstrate that as well as whatever mono music you are playing.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> I think you have a typo, but after reading Hawking's book on quantum mechanics, and M theory, I can't be sure (of anything). You say, "I find consistently that the *front right* speaker is playing audibly *softer than the front right*."  Let's say you meant the front right was softer than the front left. Then all is well, and it makes sense that on mono the image would shift to the left. If it is the other way around, then we may have slipped into an alternative reality.
> 
> Well, maybe not. Does one speaker benefit from a great deal of boundary gain and the other not? The standard band limited pink noise (500 to 2k) may not go low enough to demonstrate that as well as whatever mono music you are playing.


Late-night typing! I did mean that the front right was softer than the front left, and boundary gain may explain this. I should try something like a mono recording of a solo flute


----------



## pbz06

pbarach said:


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the computation of Audyssey filters (corrections) occurs in your phone or tablet when you use the app and then gets uploaded to the receiver. In contrast, the processor in the AVR does the computations if you do not use the app.
> 
> 
> 
> Either way,
> 
> 
> 
> There are a few more differences: Running XT32 through the app will not apply any correction below 20 Hz, but calibrating through the receiver will calibrate down to 10 Hz if your system can reproduce those low frequencies. Also, you can turn off midrange compensation through the app, but not if you calibrate using the receiver. You can limit the frequency range of corrections (for example, you can stop calibration over 1000 Hz) when you calibrate with the app, but you can't when you calibrate using the AVR--the filters are applied through the full range.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether you use the app or the AVR, the upper limit for correction by Audyssey is 24 kHz. Manufacturers limit the sampling rate of Audyssey-processed files to 48 kHz, which means that when Audyssey is turned on, higher-resolution files (such as 24/96 downloads) are getting downsampled by Audyssey to 48 kHz.


I don't think that is correct. It will utilize your receiver's capabilities (XT32) still. It still uses 8 positions, dual subs etc. Things that Standard multieq doesn't do. The AVR sends the data to the phone after each measurement. 

Why would the higher end AVRs be upgraded to be compatible with the app only to calibrate lesser quality? It's an advertised feature for XT32 and going under the hood with the app..


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> I don't think that is correct. It will utilize your receiver's capabilities (XT32) still. It still uses 8 positions, dual subs etc. Things that Standard multieq doesn't do. The AVR sends the data to the phone after each measurement.
> 
> Why would the higher end AVRs be upgraded to be compatible with the app only to calibrate lesser quality? It's an advertised feature for XT32 and going under the hood with the app..


I'm not sure what you're saying I'm wrong about. I know for sure that any signal with a sampling rate over 48 kHz is downsampled by Audyssey to 48 kHz. Read this interview with Chris Kyriadakis: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview
He explains that Audyssey by design is capable of sampling up to 96 kHz, but manufacturers have chosen to limit the sampling rate to 48 kHz. 

Concerning roll-off in the app below 20 Hz, this has been reported on AVS a number of times in the past. I believe I saw some measurements, but I can't locate them right now.


----------



## Dobromir Dimitrov

Guys, any idea why my Marantz 6012's Audyssey XT32, decreasing 63hz bass on my front JBL L80T speakers by 5 and 6 db, making them completely bassless? They are set on full range as large speakers and when I crunk up the volume, the bass drivers doesn't move at all, all my bass is coming from my sub SVS PB-1000 which is not a small amount of bass, but it seems crazy to me, not to use the bass on those 10 inch drivers ... When I try the manual equ settings I have to set up the 63hz bass to + 5.5 to make them move and have some bass. Was wondering if I buy the android app, could change something and fix things, any ideas ?


----------



## Skinfax1

Dobromir Dimitrov said:


> Guys, any idea why my Marantz 6012's Audyssey XT32, decreasing 63hz bass on my front JBL L80T speakers by 5 and 6 db, making them completely bassless? They are set on full range as large speakers and when I crunk up the volume, the bass drivers doesn't move at all, all my bass is coming from my sub SVS PB-1000 which is not a small amount of bass, but it seems crazy to me, not to use the bass on those 10 inch drivers ...


Do you have the possibility to measure the Audysseyed equalization with REW or any other program?

There are several possibilities, which could be the reason:
1. Untrained ears and being used to confuse room modes with bass. When the mode becomes reduced, then you coulhave the impression the bass was lost, because you don't hear, that so much more suddenly becomes hearable.
2. Audyssey software problem - a frequency response the automatic process can't handle well and the equalization and levelling (which is estimated and not measured post eq) is not got right.
3. The mic. Mics ar enot individually calibrated. There can be quite big differences among mics.
4. The measurement process. During measurement structure-borne noise could be transferred on the mic because of the included static mic holder. Resulting in way too much recorded bass and therefore resulting in bass reducing EQing.

You could make a test, if the result _could_ be ok, but if you maybe are used to confuse bass modes or a bad sound with "great bass":
Ace of Base - All that she wants. You should hear, that there are two kicks: one with a subbass on the 1 and one without on the 2. And not: one louder and one softer. You must clearly hear that the first has all the energy and the subbass, while the other does not.
Additionally the bassline's spectrum is playing higher than the kick's subbass and they do not overlap.

What do you hear?


----------



## pbz06

pbarach said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying I'm wrong about. I know for sure that any signal with a sampling rate over 48 kHz is downsampled by Audyssey to 48 kHz. Read this interview with Chris Kyriadakis: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview
> 
> He explains that Audyssey by design is capable of sampling up to 96 kHz, but manufacturers have chosen to limit the sampling rate to 48 kHz.
> 
> 
> 
> Concerning roll-off in the app below 20 Hz, this has been reported on AVS a number of times in the past. I believe I saw some measurements, but I can't locate them right now.


The part that the processing happens within the app and it would do "less" than XT32 capabilities simply because it's conrolled by the app. It still happens in the AVR and sent to the phone, then once you're done tweaking via phone you can send it all back to the AVR.


----------



## lknhomeaudio

pbarach said:


> Concerning roll-off in the app below 20 Hz, this has been reported on AVS a number of times in the past. *I believe I saw some measurements, but I can't locate them right now*.


Here are my latest comparisons of the app vs AVR.

Red, of course, is the AVR. App has me down 7.5dB @ 15... pretty significant!


----------



## Rob9874

I just bought a Denon 3400 and SVS PB1000 and was setting it up this weekend. I've read several posts about how after running Audyssey, some people raise the sub trim 3 to 6 dB if it sounds underwhelming, as mine does. Audyssey set mine at -3, so raising it 3-6 would put it between 0 & +3dB. I also read that you want to keep it below 0db. Do I want to bump the trip to -1, or should I raise the gain on the sub a bit, recalibrate so it sets the trim lower, leaving me more room to raise it and still stay in the negative?


----------



## kaydee6

Rob9874 said:


> I just bought a Denon 3400 and SVS PB1000 and was setting it up this weekend. I've read several posts about how after running Audyssey, some people raise the sub trim 3 to 6 dB if it sounds underwhelming, as mine does. Audyssey set mine at -3, so raising it 3-6 would put it between 0 & +3dB. I also read that you want to keep it below 0db. Do I want to bump the trip to -1, or should I raise the gain on the sub a bit, recalibrate so it sets the trim lower, leaving me more room to raise it and still stay in the negative?


Re-calibrate it with higher sub gain. My AVR sub trim is at -11db after Audyssey cal and I add another 5dB to it.


----------



## garygarrison

Rob9874 said:


> I just bought a Denon 3400 and SVS PB1000 and was setting it up this weekend. I've read several posts about how after running Audyssey, some people raise the sub trim 3 to 6 dB if it sounds underwhelming, as mine does. Audyssey set mine at -3, so raising it 3-6 would put it between 0 & +3dB. I also read that you want to keep it below 0db. Do I want to bump the trip to -1, or should I raise the gain on the sub a bit, recalibrate so it sets the trim lower, leaving me more room to raise it and still stay in the negative?





Recent information indicates that it is best to keep the sub trim in the AVR at - 5 dB or lower to keep the line driver in some AVRs from clipping.
If the sub gain control (volume) on the sub itself has sufficient range, it's best to turn up the sub there.
In your case, if you want 6 dB over the level Audyssey set, you would first turn down the AVR trim level by 2 dB, so that the new AVR sub trim is - 5 dB, then turn up the gain/volume knob on the sub itself by 8 dB, to arrive at an effective level of 6 dB above the level Audyssey set.
An added advantage to setting the AVR trim to -5 dB is that the sub input wouldn't be overloaded, either. Some are immune to overload and some not.
If your sub doesn't have dB markings or clicks on the gain/volume control to let you know how much you are turning it up, you could use an SPL meter, or, conceivably, your ears, regarding each just noticeable difference as about one dB.* If 8 dB (or 8 JNDs) above the level you get when the AVR is set at - 5 dB isn't enough, or is too much, adjust the control on the sub accordingly, by ear.
Just to be sure, listen for distortion at high volume. I don't know how good a subwoofer you have. My medium one only seemed to be overwhelmed once, and the automatic turn-off shut it down before damage was done. On the forum we have heard of a few subwoofer disasters, but they are rare.
* A useful general reference is that the *just noticeable difference* in sound intensity for the human ear is about 1 *decibel*. ... The jnd is about 1 *dB* for soft sounds around 30-40 *dB* at low and midrange freqencies. It may drop to 1/3 to 1/2 a *decibel* for loud sounds.

http://apps.usd.edu/coglab/WebersLaw.html

Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences

Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## kaydee6

garygarrison said:


> [*]In your case, if you want 6 dB over the level Audyssey set, you would first turn down the AVR trim level by 2 dB, so that the new AVR sub trim is - 5 dB, then turn up the gain/volume knob on the sub itself by 8 dB, to arrive at an effective level of 6 dB above the level Audyssey set.


 @garygarrison,

This only applies when DEQ is off. With DEQ we have to take into account the added boost.


----------



## Rob9874

Thanks for the replies. I will try recalibrating with Audyssey, after setting sub SPL to around 83dB beforehand. I have an SPL meter that I got off Amazon, but I don't think it reads low frequencies because I tried using it to set my levels with test tones from MLP, and it was reading 54dB. Surely that can't be right, although that's about how loud the test tones sounded to my ears. And Audyssey had me turn up my sub to reach 75dB before running calibration. I'm thinking about getting a miniDSP mic for REW and doing this right.

To answer Gary's question, I have an SVS PB1000, so I'm hoping that's decent enough not to distort at decent volumes. I'll try the suggestion above tonight and see if that helps. It doesn't necessarily sound bad, but after convincing my wife that we needed a new AVR and sub, her first impression was "that's it?". Mine too.


----------



## lknhomeaudio

Sounds like you bought one that reads dBA. You'd need one that displays C or Z weighting to get a more accurate SPL for bass frequencies. A-weighting simulates human hearing, and rolls off sharply.


----------



## Dobromir Dimitrov

Skinfax1 said:


> Do you have the possibility to measure the Audysseyed equalization with REW or any other program?
> 
> There are several possibilities, which could be the reason:
> 1. Untrained ears and being used to confuse room modes with bass. When the mode becomes reduced, then you coulhave the impression the bass was lost, because you don't hear, that so much more suddenly becomes hearable.
> 2. Audyssey software problem - a frequency response the automatic process can't handle well and the equalization and levelling (which is estimated and not measured post eq) is not got right.
> 3. The mic. Mics ar enot individually calibrated. There can be quite big differences among mics.
> 4. The measurement process. During measurement structure-borne noise could be transferred on the mic because of the included static mic holder. Resulting in way too much recorded bass and therefore resulting in bass reducing EQing.
> 
> You could make a test, if the result _could_ be ok, but if you maybe are used to confuse bass modes or a bad sound with "great bass":
> Ace of Base - All that she wants. You should hear, that there are two kicks: one with a subbass on the 1 and one without on the 2. And not: one louder and one softer. You must clearly hear that the first has all the energy and the subbass, while the other does not.
> Additionally the bassline's spectrum is playing higher than the kick's subbass and they do not overlap.
> 
> What do you hear?



1. My ear is not trained, but I believe that I can make the difference and hear when is some room base and actualy base. And after audyssey, there is just no bass, neither room or actual. Just some clap after 120 hz or something
2. No idea about that
3. Im wondering if I could use my Yamaha Ypao mic, gonna try it tomorrow
4. It's absolutely quite in the room, during calibration, doing also six spots.



Well, did many calibration, tried even without subwoofer, but still getting this result with main speakers, which is ridiculous. Ive listened very carefully to Ace of Base - All that she wants on flac file and without subwoofer, there is absolutely no bass at all. Neither the first or the second, when I turn on the subwoofer, it is exactly as you say, first is hiting deeper and second is way weaker. 

Im wondering if I could use my YPAO mic from the Yamaha, instead of the auddyssey one, Im gonna do it to see if there will be some difference. If I got the same result Im gonna try and put something in the bass reflext which is at the back of the speaker and see if there is any difference.


----------



## fmalczewski

Related to this current discussion... I'm now using Audyssey Pro with my x7200wa, but I also had the same thing occur out of the box when just using the standard mic and the built-in Audyssey calibration for its initial calibration. When I was calibrating, Audyssey insisted I turn the sub (way) down, which was kind of strange as I could barely hear it (as opposed to my old Denon receiver it replaced where the sub was quite loud during it Audyssey calibration). 

It sounds really good after I turned the sub back up and set the volume by ear, but now I wonder if I missed out setting the sub trim level, or just mis-set it. Would this have made my sub play at more normal levels during calibration? (I just have a regular 5.1 setup.) And if so since it was on the low side which particular setting(s) should I change in the x7200wa to make it work presumably more normally?


----------



## mthomas47

Rob9874 said:


> Thanks for the replies. I will try recalibrating with Audyssey, after setting sub SPL to around 83dB beforehand. I have an SPL meter that I got off Amazon, but I don't think it reads low frequencies because I tried using it to set my levels with test tones from MLP, and it was reading 54dB. Surely that can't be right, although that's about how loud the test tones sounded to my ears. And Audyssey had me turn up my sub to reach 75dB before running calibration. I'm thinking about getting a miniDSP mic for REW and doing this right.
> 
> To answer Gary's question, I have an SVS PB1000, so I'm hoping that's decent enough not to distort at decent volumes. I'll try the suggestion above tonight and see if that helps. It doesn't necessarily sound bad, but after convincing my wife that we needed a new AVR and sub, her first impression was "that's it?". Mine too.





fmalczewski said:


> Related to this current discussion... I'm now using Audyssey Pro with my x7200wa, but I also had the same thing occur out of the box when just using the standard mic and the built-in Audyssey calibration for its initial calibration. When I was calibrating, Audyssey insisted I turn the sub (way) down, which was kind of strange as I could barely hear it (as opposed to my old Denon receiver it replaced where the sub was quite loud during it Audyssey calibration).
> 
> It sounds really good after I turned the sub back up and set the volume by ear, but now I wonder if I missed out setting the sub trim level, or just mis-set it. Would this have made my sub play at more normal levels during calibration? (I just have a regular 5.1 setup.) And if so since it was on the low side which particular setting(s) should I change in the x7200wa to make it work presumably more normally?


Hi,

I strongly recommend that you look at the Guide, linked in my signature. The Cliff Notes at the very beginning of the Guide will answer some of your questions. For a more complete understanding of why we need to increase the subwoofer volume after an Audyssey calibration, and the best ways to do it, Section II goes into quite a bit of detail. Trying to give a really good explanation in a short post is very difficult. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Rob9874

That did the trick fellas, thanks. That's what makes this forums so great. I recalibrated and set my sub SLP to 83dB at the beginning. That proved to be too much, as it set sub trim to -12. So I redid it setting sub to between 79-80dB. After that calibration, it set the trim to -10, which I increased to -5. I decided to test it on the scene from the original Jurassic Park where the T-Rex attacks the kids in the car and you can hear his stomps. WOW! That's what I was looking for!

Maybe a bit too much. The volume knob on my sub is around 2:00. Should I leave that there and drop the trim down to -7, or should I dial the volume on the sub back a bit?


----------



## flyinion

Rob9874 said:


> That did the trick fellas, thanks. That's what makes this forums so great. I recalibrated and set my sub SLP to 83dB at the beginning. That proved to be too much, as it set sub trim to -12. So I redid it setting sub to between 79-80dB. After that calibration, it set the trim to -10, which I increased to -5. I decided to test it on the scene from the original Jurassic Park where the T-Rex attacks the kids in the car and you can hear his stomps. WOW! That's what I was looking for!
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a bit too much. The volume knob on my sub is around 2:00. Should I leave that there and drop the trim down to -7, or should I dial the volume on the sub back a bit?




If you're looking to tone it down a bit I'd go with the knob on the sub. My pb-2000 is at about 10 o'clock right now due to install location with the sub at around -5. I thought about boosting the knob in my case but ended up using DEQ for all but my Blu Ray input so I just increased the sub channel for that input instead. I might go the knob route next time around though. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> @*garygarrison* ,
> 
> This only applies when DEQ is off. With DEQ we have to take into account the added boost.



I thought DEQ was only affected by the position of the Main Volume Control and RLO. I agree that if a lot of bass is dumped into the system by DEQ, some would not want the sub set so high, but since the bass is progressively increased by DEQ, only as the MVC is turned down, I didn't see it as being a problem, especially because any deviations from what Audyssey set in sub levels are usually done by ear.


If you have a MVC setting of -15 dB, and you therefore need 6.6 dB boost at 40 Hz, then you need 6.6 dB boost at 40 Hz, because you turned the MVC down from 0 (Reference Level with Audyssey). At MVC = 0, you wouldn't need -- or get -- DEQ help. I think people should set their sub level to taste at the MVC setting (or zone) they most often use.


I could be wrong, because I haven't used DEQ for years. Part of the reason is I don't like the sound, and part is because I usually play movies at 5 to 7 dB below Reference, a level at which DEQ is not needed, IMO. I play music at whatever level seems right.


----------



## Rob9874

flyinion said:


> If you're looking to tone it down a bit I'd go with the knob on the sub. My pb-2000 is at about 10 o'clock right now due to install location with the sub at around -5.


Thanks, I did just that. So far so good. Thanks!


----------



## Skinfax1

Dobromir Dimitrov said:


> Well, did many calibration, tried even without subwoofer, but still getting this result with main speakers, which is ridiculous. Ive listened very carefully to Ace of Base - All that she wants on flac file and without subwoofer, there is absolutely no bass at all. Neither the first or the second, when I turn on the subwoofer, it is exactly as you say, first is hiting deeper and second is way weaker.


And in pure stereo (in receiver setup the 2-channel/stereo mode in the loudspeaker setup set to fullrange without SW and sound mode DIRECT, which means Audyssey calibration = off):
What do you hear now?


----------



## zeonstar

Hey all,


Good evening. Some of you may know me from a post I had about a PB-2000 I got a few months back and needed some setup and calibration tips. Now, a few months later, everything is great but there have been some questions that just keep nagging me and surprisingly, Google wasn't getting me anywhere. So I thought this thread would be the perfect place since my questions and concerns are all Audyssey related.

First: I have a Denon X4400H in a 5.1.2 configuration. My Atmos speakers are front heights. My Home theater is in our living room and we live in a condo. 

The reason for posting is to better understand Dynamic Volume and how specifically it works with Dynamic EQ. I have read what both do, but mostly in the case of Dynamic EQ, I don't fully understand it. Topics on it seem to vary a little from year to year. One aspect I don't fully understand and know if I am using it right is Reference Level offset. One explanation says that set to 0 is for movies and -5, -10, ,15 is for music. But then newer posts on the subject indicate the offsets are good for any content and are just there to control when Dynamic EQ's effect kicks in.


I have 2 main "listening situations:" 

1. General TV and movies at night where I want to hear all the sounds but not blast anyone. For this situation I use Dynamic Volume on medium, DEQ ON with the offset set to -5. My volume is usually around 35-40. (Forgive me, I use absolutely over relative volume.)


2. Daytime listening for movies with the fullest effect possible. Dynamic Volume off, DEQ ON and still set to -5. Volume for my typical movie in this situation is about 55-60. 


As much as possible, I want a "Pure" listening experience, albeit optimized for home use as much as possible. For day time listening, should I have DEQ off? Or have the offset set higher?

For night time listening, and this is wear my real questions come in: In order to hear everything as much as possible, I have always thought DEQ is a definite ON as the explanation for it says "For listening at below reference levels." However in looking at what DEQ actually does, (boost bass and surround as the volume goes below reference) that seems like it would contradict my intention of not being "too loud" for night time listening. 

Put in a more direct way: I don't understand how Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume work together. If I am using Dynamic Volume to control the dynamic range of late night movies, and meanwhile using another feature that boosts sound the lower my volume is, those two things seem like they contradict each other. When I am listening at night at vol 35, then I am obviously way below reference. So is DEQ boosting the heck out of things?

I guess I am trying to find out what I should have on and off for daytime listening, and what I should have on and off to maximize night time but not disturb anyone.

That's all I got. Good evening.


----------



## Rob9874

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I strongly recommend that you look at the Guide, linked in my signature. The Cliff Notes at the very beginning of the Guide will answer some of your questions. For a more complete understanding of why we need to increase the subwoofer volume after an Audyssey calibration, and the best ways to do it, Section II goes into quite a bit of detail. Trying to give a really good explanation in a short post is very difficult.


I read your writeup Mike. Very thorough and informative! Looks like I did pretty much what you recommend: setting the gain on the sub higher to get a -10 trim, then turning it up to -5. I did read something that I did wrong. Audyssey's recommended mic placement shows positions 7 & 8 behind MLP. Well this is behind my couch, in an open room, and the mic was blocked by the couch. I'll need to recalibrate this weekend and reposition the mics.

Am I right to set the gain on the amp around 1:00 to be able to set the trim at the max recommended -5, or am I OK to increase the gain to 2:00 to be able to lower the trim to -6/-7?

Another question: we have a 2-seat loveseat facing the TV. I sit on the right seat, offset from center. Should I set MLP to armrest in the middle of the loveseat, and then set positions 2 & 3 on the 2 seats? Or should MLP be my seat, and positions 2 & 3 be my wife's seat and the end table to my right?


----------



## fmalczewski

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I strongly recommend that you look at the Guide, linked in my signature. The Cliff Notes at the very beginning of the Guide will answer some of your questions. For a more complete understanding of why we need to increase the subwoofer volume after an Audyssey calibration, and the best ways to do it, Section II goes into quite a bit of detail. Trying to give a really good explanation in a short post is very difficult.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Procrastinating revisiting Audyssey, since it is sounding pretty sweet now, but will check out the Notes (again, it was a long while ago when last I visited them, so they've probably changed a bit since then); every so often there seems to be something or other I imagine a better calibration might iron out. Similarly been meaning to go thru the Pro thread (and this one too for that matter), probably can get to that soon maybe too. Want to get a better idea of what I'm doing before giving it another go, get rid of a wrinkle or two. Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

zeonstar said:


> Hey all,
> 
> 
> Good evening. Some of you may know me from a post I had about a PB-2000 I got a few months back and needed some setup and calibration tips. Now, a few months later, everything is great but there have been some questions that just keep nagging me and surprisingly, Google wasn't getting me anywhere. So I thought this thread would be the perfect place since my questions and concerns are all Audyssey related.
> 
> First: I have a Denon X4400H in a 5.1.2 configuration. My Atmos speakers are front heights. My Home theater is in our living room and we live in a condo.
> 
> The reason for posting is to better understand Dynamic Volume and how specifically it works with Dynamic EQ. I have read what both do, but mostly in the case of Dynamic EQ, I don't fully understand it. Topics on it seem to vary a little from year to year. One aspect I don't fully understand and know if I am using it right is Reference Level offset. One explanation says that set to 0 is for movies and -5, -10, ,15 is for music. But then newer posts on the subject indicate the offsets are good for any content and are just there to control when Dynamic EQ's effect kicks in.
> 
> 
> I have 2 main "listening situations:"
> 
> 1. General TV and movies at night where I want to hear all the sounds but not blast anyone. For this situation I use Dynamic Volume on medium, DEQ ON with the offset set to -5. My volume is usually around 35-40. (Forgive me, I use absolutely over relative volume.)
> 
> 
> 2. Daytime listening for movies with the fullest effect possible. Dynamic Volume off, DEQ ON and still set to -5. Volume for my typical movie in this situation is about 55-60.
> 
> 
> As much as possible, I want a "Pure" listening experience, albeit optimized for home use as much as possible. For day time listening, should I have DEQ off? Or have the offset set higher?
> 
> For night time listening, and this is wear my real questions come in: In order to hear everything as much as possible, I have always thought DEQ is a definite ON as the explanation for it says "For listening at below reference levels." However in looking at what DEQ actually does, (boost bass and surround as the volume goes below reference) that seems like it would contradict my intention of not being "too loud" for night time listening.
> 
> Put in a more direct way: I don't understand how Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume work together. If I am using Dynamic Volume to control the dynamic range of late night movies, and meanwhile using another feature that boosts sound the lower my volume is, those two things seem like they contradict each other. When I am listening at night at vol 35, then I am obviously way below reference. So is DEQ boosting the heck out of things?
> 
> I guess I am trying to find out what I should have on and off for daytime listening, and what I should have on and off to maximize night time but not disturb anyone.
> 
> That's all I got. Good evening.


Hi,

Both DEQ and Dynamic Volume are user-preference features, so there really isn't a way that you "should" use them. You just need to discover what sounds best to you personally, and I am absolutely certain that will vary from individual-to-individual. And, it may vary a little for you, even based on the particular program material, and perhaps also on your mood just then.

If you like using DEQ for serious daytime movie viewing, then you should use it. I am not sure how to define a pure listening experience, although I have heard many other people try to define it--always in very personal and individualistic ways. I understand that you want reassurance that you are listening "correctly", but I am serious when I tell you that I don't believe there is any such thing. There are good Audyssey calibrations which maximize the listening experience, and perhaps also the measured frequency response, and there are setting preferences which sound right to us, in our rooms. But, that's all.

With all of that said, here are my thoughts on nighttime viewing. First, it is mostly loud volumes that disturb other people, and low-bass frequencies which travel more than other frequencies. DEQ boosts the bass, so it may work against you a little bit, if low-bass sounds are disturbing someone else. As you noted, DEQ will boost more as the master volume decreases. But, at very low volume levels, it still might not boost the bass enough to disturb others. You will just have to experiment to discover what works best for you. Dynamic Volume compresses the range of the highest highs and the lowest lows a little, in an effort to normalize the sounds, and it also tries to prevent sudden dynamic changes in volume. If you read Section V-B of the Guide, you already understand how the different settings of Dynamic Volume work.

Personally, I would prefer not to use Dynamic Volume, if I could avoid it, and to just control the volume as necessary. But, that might not work if you end-up not being able to hear dialogue as clearly. Again, speaking only for myself, I would just boost the center channel in that case. Or based on what you discover, you might find it inadvisable to boost the bass as much with DEQ, during nighttime viewing, if you don't wish to disturb others. That's where the RLO settings might be helpful to you, or you might wish to try just turning DEQ off, and using an even more modest subwoofer boost of your own. 

But, I see this as strictly a trial-and-error situation, where you will have to experiment to find out what settings work best for you, without disturbing others. And, I repeat that different programs will be recorded or transmitted at different volume levels, or with different amounts of bass. Think of the differences among some TV programs, or the difference between a light romantic comedy and a blockbuster action movie, for instance. Or consider whether satellite/cable broadcasts sound the same as Blu-Ray movies? Ultimately each of us has to find his own preferred settings that are right for him, and right for the particular situation. Just give yourself some time to figure this out. You will discover what you actually prefer, and that will be what you should use. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

Rob9874 said:


> I read your writeup Mike. Very thorough and informative! Looks like I did pretty much what you recommend: setting the gain on the sub higher to get a -10 trim, then turning it up to -5. I did read something that I did wrong. Audyssey's recommended mic placement shows positions 7 & 8 behind MLP. Well this is behind my couch, in an open room, and the mic was blocked by the couch. I'll need to recalibrate this weekend and reposition the mics.
> 
> Am I right to set the gain on the amp around 1:00 to be able to set the trim at the max recommended -5, or am I OK to increase the gain to 2:00 to be able to lower the trim to -6/-7?
> 
> Another question: we have a 2-seat loveseat facing the TV. I sit on the right seat, offset from center. Should I set MLP to armrest in the middle of the loveseat, and then set positions 2 & 3 on the 2 seats? Or should MLP be my seat, and positions 2 & 3 be my wife's seat and the end table to my right?


Hi,

Thanks, I'm glad if the Guide helped! As you may have noted, Section I-B offers an alternative to the mic pattern shown by Audyssey. I don't recommend going behind your couch, with any mic positions, unless you have a second row of seating. And even then, it's just trial-and-error to discover what works best. 

You can use any combination of gain and trim that you like, although it's a good idea to stay at -5 or less with the AVR trim. As a general rule, lower trim levels and higher gain levels will probably allow your subwoofer to attain higher volume levels with less distortion.

Your question about where to place mic position 1 is a good one, and I don't know the answer. People used to debate that question all the time on the thread, until everyone seemed to realize that they could just experiment, and pick the position that ended-up actually sounding the best. You can certainly start by trying the calibration with the mic in between the two primary seats, and if you like the way things sound that way, then you are done. Or, if you notice subtle sounds more than your wife does, you could try to emphasize your seat more by making that mic position 1. That's strictly a YMMV question.

One thing I should reiterate is that you aren't measuring individual seats. You are measuring an area, so that Audyssey can EQ the area you select. You may get better overall sound by measuring the entire width of the loveseat, or you may get better sound quality by maintaining a more compact microphone pattern. Audyssey will work best if it doesn't have to deal with too many variables in the sound. So, finding a more uniform measurement area will typically result in a more uniform sound across the entire listening area. That's where some experimentation comes in. As with the other poster I responded to, you need to give yourself some time with this, just as you would with any new technology.

You mentioned setting the microphone on the armrest and on the seats. Perhaps that was just a figure of speech. But, remember that, for best results, you want a a mic stand that sits on the floor, and that isn't subject to the vibrations from the loveseat. Section I-B recommended a mic stand, with a couple of different types of adapters for your Audyssey mic, that will be far superior to the cardboard stand that Audyssey provides. It's a small expense for the additional accuracy it gives you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> Personally, I would prefer not to use Dynamic Volume, if I could avoid it, and to just control the volume as necessary. But, that might not work if you end-up not being able to hear dialogue as clearly. Again, speaking only for myself, I would just boost the center channel in that case. Or based on what you discover, you might find it inadvisable to boost the bass as much with DEQ, during nighttime viewing, if you don't wish to disturb others. That's where the RLO settings might be helpful to you, or you might wish to try just turning DEQ off, and using an even more modest subwoofer boost of your own.



I use it only when movies have more dynamic range than I like. My listening room is about 12x13 feet, so it doesn't take a big volume level to seem like too much. There are some movies where the explosions are deafening ifthe main volume is loud enough to hear dialogue clearly. That's not fun, it's just annoying (and not too healthy for one's hearing).


----------



## zeonstar

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Both DEQ and Dynamic Volume are user-preference features, so there really isn't a way that you "should" use them. You just need to discover what sounds best to you personally, and I am absolutely certain that will vary from individual-to-individual. And, it may vary a little for you, even based on the particular program material, and perhaps also on your mood just then.
> 
> If you like using DEQ for serious daytime movie viewing, then you should use it. I am not sure how to define a pure listening experience, although I have heard many other people try to define it--always in very personal and individualistic ways. I understand that you want reassurance that you are listening "correctly", but I am serious when I tell you that I don't believe there is any such thing. There are good Audyssey calibrations which maximize the listening experience, and perhaps also the measured frequency response, and there are setting preferences which sound right to us, in our rooms. But, that's all.
> 
> With all of that said, here are my thoughts on nighttime viewing. First, it is mostly loud volumes that disturb other people, and low-bass frequencies which travel more than other frequencies. DEQ boosts the bass, so it may work against you a little bit, if low-bass sounds are disturbing someone else. As you noted, DEQ will boost more as the master volume decreases. But, at very low volume levels, it still might not boost the bass enough to disturb others. You will just have to experiment to discover what works best for you. Dynamic Volume compresses the range of the highest highs and the lowest lows a little, in an effort to normalize the sounds, and it also tries to prevent sudden dynamic changes in volume. If you read Section V-B of the Guide, you already understand how the different settings of Dynamic Volume work.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer not to use Dynamic Volume, if I could avoid it, and to just control the volume as necessary. But, that might not work if you end-up not being able to hear dialogue as clearly. Again, speaking only for myself, I would just boost the center channel in that case. Or based on what you discover, you might find it inadvisable to boost the bass as much with DEQ, during nighttime viewing, if you don't wish to disturb others. That's where the RLO settings might be helpful to you, or you might wish to try just turning DEQ off, and using an even more modest subwoofer boost of your own.
> 
> But, I see this as strictly a trial-and-error situation, where you will have to experiment to find out what settings work best for you, without disturbing others. And, I repeat that different programs will be recorded or transmitted at different volume levels, or with different amounts of bass. Think of the differences among some TV programs, or the difference between a light romantic comedy and a blockbuster action movie, for instance. Or consider whether satellite/cable broadcasts sound the same as Blu-Ray movies? Ultimately each of us has to find his own preferred settings that are right for him, and right for the particular situation. Just give yourself some time to figure this out. You will discover what you actually prefer, and that will be what you should use.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hey Mike,


It's good to hear from you and thank you for the response. 

So I guess I will have to play around with things to see what I like. Yesterday I was watching a movie during the day and it just dawned on me how much I hear my surrounds and it got me thinking about DEQ and I was wondering how much it was boosting my surrounds abnormally. This was at Volume 60 and RLO of -5. This is what I meant by what sounds correct as I don't want my surrounds "artificially" louder than they should be.

Do you know how much surrounds are boosted as volume goes down?

You mentioned section V-B. Which part is that? I could not find a section V.

Does DEQ change when used in conjunction with Dynamic Volume? If I recall, DEQ boosts bass at something like 2.2 every 5 db you go down, correct? So if I am using Dynamic Volume and I am at volume 40, it's boosting my bass +17.6 db? (and however much it boosts surrounds). That seems way high! Meanwhile Dynamic Volume is trying to compress things depending on my setting of that?

I know Dynamic Volume isn't ideal, but it works great for my situation and using it lets me enjoy movies at night without being yelled at or waking our children. I'm wondering if I actually need to turn DEQ off at night, or up the RLO perhaps. 

I'll have to play around some more. Thanks again.


----------



## mthomas47

zeonstar said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> 
> It's good to hear from you and thank you for the response.
> 
> So I guess I will have to play around with things to see what I like. Yesterday I was watching a movie during the day and it just dawned on me how much I hear my surrounds and it got me thinking about DEQ and I was wondering how much it was boosting my surrounds abnormally. This was at Volume 60 and RLO of -5. This is what I meant by what sounds correct as I don't want my surrounds "artificially" louder than they should be.
> 
> Do you know how much surrounds are boosted as volume goes down?
> 
> You mentioned section V-B. Which part is that? I could not find a section V.
> 
> Does DEQ change when used in conjunction with Dynamic Volume? If I recall, DEQ boosts bass at something like 2.2 every 5 db you go down, correct? So if I am using Dynamic Volume and I am at volume 40, it's boosting my bass +17.6 db? (and however much it boosts surrounds). That seems way high! Meanwhile Dynamic Volume is trying to compress things depending on my setting of that?
> 
> I know Dynamic Volume isn't ideal, but it works great for my situation and using it lets me enjoy movies at night without being yelled at or waking our children. I'm wondering if I actually need to turn DEQ off at night, or up the RLO perhaps.
> 
> I'll have to play around some more. Thanks again.



You are very welcome!  As noted in Section V-A of the Guide, DEQ boosts the surrounds by about 1db per -5 MV. Since some network TV shows and the occasional movie already have boosted surrounds, DEQ can sometimes work against you if it adds even more to what is already being done. As for whether you like the "artificial" surround boost that DEQ provides, some people seem to like it and others don't. I don't like boosted surrounds at all, but there is no reason why my preference should be relevant to anyone else. 

I don't believe that you will hear much bass at all, regardless of what DEQ is doing at a MV setting of 40db. But, that's one of the YMMV aspects of the whole situation. (You can always add or subtract subwoofer volume, irrespective of DEQ.) It's just about what you hear and what you prefer. Understanding what is happening with DEQ and Dynamic Volume is helpful, and it may serve to confirm what you hear. But, the way the programs work shouldn't define your preferences, in my personal opinion. I think that your own hearing should do that.

All of the sections in the Guide are hyperlinked so that you can navigate directly from the Table of Contents to the section or subsection you want to read, or to review, if you have already read it. I use the Guide that way myself, since it represents a sort of encyclopedia of common HT terms, and principles, and it can sometimes be hard to remember all of the details. This is a direct link to the Section V that I referred to earlier:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V

Regards,
Mike


----------



## flyinion

zeonstar said:


> As much as possible, I want a "Pure" listening experience, albeit optimized for home use as much as possible. For day time listening, should I have DEQ off? Or have the offset set higher?



Just my input from my experiences with a Marantz 1606 and now a Denon 4500. I found DEQ to much for movies at 0 indicating some movies weren't mixed at what it thought was reference. Made the dialogue too boomy and surrounds too hot. What I have found works for me is -10 for inputs like cable and Spotify or airplay streaming. Then for my disc input I turned it off and instead added a 3-4dB boost to the sub and I think it's perfect like that. 



Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## thepiecesfit

*Results after custom run*

I ran Audyssey on my new speaker setup on the Denon X4400h and Polk 705 and 706c. But finding the speakers sound a little flat and lacking bass after. I was able to get some of the bass back after raising the custom curve around 20hz. Honestly I kind of prefer the sound characteristics with it off. Results are below. I switched the center back to large after. Since I'm not running a subwoofer I cant adjust it's levels much after unless I mess with the curve or raise tone setting on the receiver. I dont care for Dynamic EQ. No acoustic treatments have been applied to the room yet except for furniture and an area rug.

Any feedback is appreciated.


----------



## kaydee6

flyinion said:


> Just my input from my experiences with a Marantz 1606 and now a Denon 4500. I found DEQ to much for movies at 0 indicating some movies weren't mixed at what it thought was reference. Made the dialogue too boomy and surrounds too hot. What I have found works for me is -10 for inputs like cable and Spotify or airplay streaming. Then for my disc input I turned it off and instead added a 3-4dB boost to the sub and I think it's perfect like that.


I find that disableing DEQ would require more than 3-4dB boost if your typical volume is in the -20 to -15 range. In addtion, you also need to turn on tone control and add some bass to the L/R channel. The tone control does not apply to the center.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I use it only when movies have more dynamic range than I like. My listening room is about 12x13 feet, so it doesn't take a big volume level to seem like too much. There are some movies where the explosions are deafening ifthe main volume is loud enough to hear dialogue clearly. That's not fun, it's just annoying (and not too healthy for one's hearing).



If I lived in an apartment or a condo, I'd have to consider both DV and DEQ. Fortunately, I don't. I know of people who have noninvasively modified their apartment making door dampers to stuff under the door to block some sound (a mean of about 3 dB) and keep the door from rattling. It is also possible to put *closed cell* neoprene pressure strips around 3 sides of the door jamb, so that the door has to squish them a little to close. Some have adhesive backing that shouldn't leave a permanent mark, but these need to be pushed against the jamb periodically to make sure they are pretty air tight. With an extra wood frame that has a thick closed cell neoprene damper facing toward the door so the neoprene is compressed when the door is closed is better, but there will be some screw holes to fill up when you move to a new place. Of course, we are talking about solid core doors here, even if they are fully interior doors. There are some wall modules that can be made that can be designed to be temporary. The floor can be a big problem, unless one lives on the ground floor. Speakers, especially subwoofers, may need to be put on vibration isolation pads. 



I agree with Mike that preference is to be honored, and is a strictly YMMV phenomenon. Here are my preferences. I generally play movies at 5 to 7 dB below reference. I don't think I need DEQ at that level. That's about where the MVC lands when I adjust the level so that the dialog is at a natural level. Keith Barnes has had the same experience. We both have a great deal of headroom before appreciable distortion sets in. I used to play in an orchestra, and prefer about row 5 to 10 when affordable, and love the SPL levels in our HT to reach studio or commercial cinema levels, when appropriate. Among the movies we have run in our HT, there are exceptions. A few movies use compression &/or limiting to shove the SPL up against the upper limit, full scale (*fs*_). _The two I have had to turn the volume down on are Pacific Rim and Star Trek - Into Darkness. I don't think either of these exceeded _*fs*_, but the duration of the loud stuff was extreme, and duration counts. According to OSHA, we can only tolerate 115 dB continuously for 15 minutes. Neither of the above films gave us that duration at 115 dB, but it returns to the subwoofer channel again and again.


DV may be necessary if someone is sleeping nearby, but it double crosses composers and filmmakers. When Bernstein marks something _*presto barbaro fff*_, that's the way I want to hear it.


----------



## tbaucom

My Emotiva XPA5 gen 1 died. I’m running 7.1.4 with a Marantz 7012. I bought a smaller bass x A-150 to power the rear heights to get back to 7.1.4. The other 9 channels are all now powered by the Marantz. I reran audyssey and it set my fl and fr speakers to +5 and +6. Is it ok to have speakers set this high? The speakers are mirage omd 28 which I know aren’t very efficient. I am worried about pushing the Marantz too hard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Skinfax1

thepiecesfit said:


> I ran Audyssey on my new speaker setup on the Denon X4400h and Polk 705 and 706c. But finding the speakers sound a little flat and lacking bass after. I was able to get some of the bass back after raising the custom curve around 20hz. Honestly I kind of prefer the sound characteristics with it off. Results are below. I switched the center back to large after. Since I'm not running a subwoofer I cant adjust it's levels much after unless I mess with the curve or raise tone setting on the receiver. I dont care for Dynamic EQ. No acoustic treatments have been applied to the room yet except for furniture and an area rug.
> 
> Any feedback is appreciated.


* Low frequency extension with MultEQ app*
If you boost the lowest possible frequency at 20 Hz to overcome the subbass reduction, you will get a boost at the higher frequencies, too. Which sounds much worse.
But that problem can be reduced by placing an additional filter at a higher frequency, somewhere around 80 Hz at 0 dB. Strangely a new filter at 0 dB impacts the filter curve by bringing the boosted curve down to 0 dB.
Then move that additional filter at 0dB torwards lower frequencies until the displayed filter curve does no longer show a boost at the higher bass frequencies - and only shows the wanted boost at the low frequencies.
That way you can create a low frequency extension without impacting the higher frequencies too much.


*DynEQ and Audyssey reference level*
It could be dangerous for the hearing to believe in the claims surrounding the Audyssey reference level calibration.

Audyssey calibrates for the cinema reference level of 85dB [email protected] (= 75dB [email protected]) which is a problem:

Home cinemas usually are way, way smaller than real cinemas or the dimensions of mixing stages for movie soundtracks. So if one really uses the Audyssey calibration with cinema level, which means the AVR's master volume at 0dB for watching movies, it's too loud. Way too loud. Much louder than in the midst of a cinema and in mixing stages. 
85dB in a big, well treated room is not felt as loud in a big room compared to 85dB in a small room.

That's the reason why DVDs and BluRays cannot use the original movie soundtrack. It has to be remixed in smaller rooms for listening in smaller rooms.


*Last but not least I want to share a tip for a significantly better movie sound experience*
While Audyssey's "Reference" curve sounds much better than "Flat", it still is on the bright side for movies and therefore does not sound like in the cinema.
There is a certain frequency response recommendation with a quite early constant hf rolloff for sound systems in cinemas. Audyssey's "Reference" setting is better than the "Flat" setting, but it's not that great modelled after that curve - or it was chosen as a compromise between usual HIFI sound and cinema sound.

On the X4400 a "CinemaEQ" (under Surround Parameters) can be activated additionally to using Audyssey. And that CinemaEQ in conjunction with Audyssey's Flat setting models the hf rolloff much better here. Movies sound like they sound in cinemas.

Dialogue clarity, not a problem here, but with that setting even watching [email protected] is not a problem (dynamic compression and DynEQ off, ofcourse).
Nuances and low level sounds like breathes or scratches appear, which I don't hear with the "Reference" setting at the same level.

Even the surround field seems to come life because of the amazingly sounding higher mids which are no longer covered by too much treble.
The whole sound field in movies becomes more fluid, shows more movement. Low level sounds have a much higher impact - like in cinemas.

I am almost even more impressed how well that EQ works with older movies, like from the 70s and 80s, with analogue sound-on-film. I had expected too few treble and reduced dialogue clarity and too pronounced mids. But instead there is only that amazing warmth of the analogue sound-on-film and even better dialogue clarity turning even older mono movies into a sound experience.


----------



## pbz06

Skinfax1 said:


> * Low frequency extension with MultEQ app*
> If you boost the lowest possible frequency at 20 Hz to overcome the subbass reduction, you will get a boost at the higher frequencies, too. Which sounds much worse.
> But that problem can be reduced by placing an additional filter at a higher frequency, somewhere around 80 Hz at 0 dB. Strangely a new filter at 0 dB impacts the filter curve by bringing the boosted curve down to 0 dB.
> Then move that additional filter at 0dB torwards lower frequencies until the displayed filter curve does no longer show a boost at the higher bass frequencies - and only shows the wanted boost at the low frequencies.
> That way you can create a low frequency extension without impacting the higher frequencies too much.
> 
> 
> *DynEQ and Audyssey reference level*
> It could be dangerous for the hearing to believe in the claims surrounding the Audyssey reference level calibration.
> 
> Audyssey calibrates for the cinema reference level of 85dB [email protected] (= 75dB [email protected]) which is a problem:
> 
> Home cinemas usually are way, way smaller than real cinemas or the dimensions of mixing stages for movie soundtracks. So if one really uses the Audyssey calibration with cinema level, which means the AVR's master volume at 0dB for watching movies, it's too loud. Way too loud. Much louder than in the midst of a cinema and in mixing stages.
> 85dB in a big, well treated room is not felt as loud in a big room compared to 85dB in a small room.
> 
> That's the reason why DVDs and BluRays cannot use the original movie soundtrack. It has to be remixed in smaller rooms for listening in smaller rooms.
> 
> 
> *Last but not least I want to share a tip for a significantly better movie sound experience*
> While Audyssey's "Reference" curve sounds much better than "Flat", it still is on the bright side for movies and therefore does not sound like in the cinema.
> There is a certain frequency response recommendation with a quite early constant hf rolloff for sound systems in cinemas. Audyssey's "Reference" setting is better than the "Flat" setting, but it's not that great modelled after that curve - or it was chosen as a compromise between usual HIFI sound and cinema sound.
> 
> On the X4400 a "CinemaEQ" (under Surround Parameters) can be activated additionally to using Audyssey. And that CinemaEQ in conjunction with Audyssey's Flat setting models the hf rolloff much better here. Movies sound like they sound in cinemas.
> 
> Dialogue clarity, not a problem here, but with that setting even watching [email protected] is not a problem (dynamic compression and DynEQ off, ofcourse).
> Nuances and low level sounds like breathes or scratches appear, which I don't hear with the "Reference" setting at the same level.
> 
> Even the surround field seems to come life because of the amazingly sounding higher mids which are no longer covered by too much treble.
> The whole sound field in movies becomes more fluid, shows more movement. Low level sounds have a much higher impact - like in cinemas.
> 
> I am almost even more impressed how well that EQ works with older movies, like from the 70s and 80s, with analogue sound-on-film. I had expected too few treble and reduced dialogue clarity and too pronounced mids. But instead there is only that amazing warmth of the analogue sound-on-film and even better dialogue clarity turning even older mono movies into a sound experience.


I'll try Flat with CinemaEQ. I've been using Reference because Flat sounded too harsh for me on some movies.

Also after testing today, I'm going to turn off DEQ for a bit. Found some scenes to sound a little too boomy even without raising subwoofer after Audyssey. With DEQ off, I did bump it up 4dB but still sounded clean.

I listen usually -15 in my smallish living room....if that makes a difference.


----------



## flyinion

Thanks for the tip on flat + CinemaEQ. I had tried it with reference + CinemaEQ and it was too muffled. Didn't think to try it the other way. Ugh, so any word (didn't read that far back) on if that


----------



## lknhomeaudio

garygarrison said:


> [/I]The two I have had to turn the volume down on are Pacific Rim and Star Trek - Into Darkness. I don't think either of these exceeded _*fs*_



Interesting... I watched the new Pacific Rim a few nights ago and found I had to turn it up more than most movies. I even got the dB meter out because it just sounded weak. I was watching at -6 and never saw any 99dB (105-6) peaks for the mains.

I forget which movie I watched after that, but I do remember the dB readings were more aligned with what they should have been during the action scenes. Maybe you're referring to the first Pacific Rim? Or maybe I have a different audio file..?


----------



## Skinfax1

pbz06 said:


> I'll try Flat with CinemaEQ. I've been using Reference because Flat sounded too harsh for me on some movies.


I had to use Reference Rolloff 2 and it still it had too much treble. I additionally have placed two filterpoints at 8k (-0.5 dB) and 12k (-2 dB).
I don't know, what happens with these points, when Audyssey is switched to Flat, but I guess they are not disabled since they are part of the user defined target curve.

The method to achieve that amazingly authentic cinema sound here was to use Reference and adjust the treble until it sounded great with all kind of music and movies.

And it is impacted by the individual mic, because they ar enot individually calibrated. If one has a slightly duller sounding mic, the calibrated sound will be brighter amd vice versa.

And after everything sounds great with Reference for every material, then switching to Flat and activating CinemaEQ gives that incredibly authentic and amazing sound for movies.

So I would not recommend to use CinemaEQ to get rid of too much treble. I'd use MultEQ (and external measurement) to make it sound great. And if it sounds perfect, then Flat + CinemaEQ.



> Also after testing today, I'm going to turn off DEQ for a bit. Found some scenes to sound a little too boomy even without raising subwoofer after Audyssey. With DEQ off, I did bump it up 4dB but still sounded clean.


This is a result of the reference level being maybe 3-10 dB too high for smaller rooms (depends on size and how well the room is treated).
If you have a small, untreated room, with acoustically hard and empty walls, a reference level roughly 10 dB less is more suited. That means that you feel it's loud enough already when your receiver is set at -10 dB.
And if you follow Audyssey's recommendation, a DEQ reference level offset for movies = 0 dB, it means that DEQ is very active at your AVR -10 dB master volume setting, because it stops correcting the sound at 0 dB master volume setting.

So you need to set DEQ reference level offset as high as your maximum movie watching AVR master volume level (minus dB) otherwise DEQ boosts bass and treble way too much.




> I listen usually -15 in my smallish living room....if that makes a difference.


That's certainly too low for a reference cinema like experience, but I guess that's the volume where you still can understand dialogue well enough anyway.

Depending on room size and how good it's acoustics and the speakers are, per channel 99-102 dB [email protected] (= 79-82 [email protected] dBfs = 69-72 [email protected] dBfs) instead of the 105 dB cinema reference should be the range, where people should still feel comfortable (99-102 dB equals to -3dB to -6 dB on the Audyssey calibrated AVR master volume).


But keep in mind: this reference level is only valid, if the movie has a highly dynamic sound. For example the sound of older movies has much less dynamics and therefor the dialogue level is louder. Which ofcourse means, that you will have to reduce the volume to stay in the comfortable zone and avoid it to become too loud.

And there also can be the other extreme: too much dynamics. 
Probably everyone has experienced a movie, that was just too loud at the height of the action. That's because the 105 dB in the midst of the cinema (or Audyssey calibrated at listening position) is just what one channel can produce at 0 dBfs. It can easily be exceeded, by steering additional channels (which some directors demand, for creating an even bigger impact). And if that is not possible, also in movies things have been done like in music production: compressing and limiting to raise the RMS level which makes it perceptually even louder.

Long story short:
Having guidelines is good. But trust your body and listen what he tells you. Trust your ears. If it sounds too loud, it IS too loud.
There may be a problem in the frequency range somewhere, or it may be just the room and how it sounds, or the speakers. Even the calibration mic could be the problem.

But do not think that the closer you raise the master volume on your Audyssey calibrated AVR to 0 dB, the closer you are "how it sounded at the mixing stage". It doesn't.


----------



## thepiecesfit

Skinfax1 said:


> * Low frequency extension with MultEQ app*
> If you boost the lowest possible frequency at 20 Hz to overcome the subbass reduction, you will get a boost at the higher frequencies, too. Which sounds much worse.
> But that problem can be reduced by placing an additional filter at a higher frequency, somewhere around 80 Hz at 0 dB. Strangely a new filter at 0 dB impacts the filter curve by bringing the boosted curve down to 0 dB.
> Then move that additional filter at 0dB torwards lower frequencies until the displayed filter curve does no longer show a boost at the higher bass frequencies - and only shows the wanted boost at the low frequencies.
> That way you can create a low frequency extension without impacting the higher frequencies too much.
> 
> 
> *DynEQ and Audyssey reference level*
> It could be dangerous for the hearing to believe in the claims surrounding the Audyssey reference level calibration.
> 
> Audyssey calibrates for the cinema reference level of 85dB [email protected] (= 75dB [email protected]) which is a problem:
> 
> Home cinemas usually are way, way smaller than real cinemas or the dimensions of mixing stages for movie soundtracks. So if one really uses the Audyssey calibration with cinema level, which means the AVR's master volume at 0dB for watching movies, it's too loud. Way too loud. Much louder than in the midst of a cinema and in mixing stages.
> 85dB in a big, well treated room is not felt as loud in a big room compared to 85dB in a small room.
> 
> That's the reason why DVDs and BluRays cannot use the original movie soundtrack. It has to be remixed in smaller rooms for listening in smaller rooms.
> 
> 
> *Last but not least I want to share a tip for a significantly better movie sound experience*
> While Audyssey's "Reference" curve sounds much better than "Flat", it still is on the bright side for movies and therefore does not sound like in the cinema.
> There is a certain frequency response recommendation with a quite early constant hf rolloff for sound systems in cinemas. Audyssey's "Reference" setting is better than the "Flat" setting, but it's not that great modelled after that curve - or it was chosen as a compromise between usual HIFI sound and cinema sound.
> 
> On the X4400 a "CinemaEQ" (under Surround Parameters) can be activated additionally to using Audyssey. And that CinemaEQ in conjunction with Audyssey's Flat setting models the hf rolloff much better here. Movies sound like they sound in cinemas.
> 
> Dialogue clarity, not a problem here, but with that setting even watching [email protected] is not a problem (dynamic compression and DynEQ off, ofcourse).
> Nuances and low level sounds like breathes or scratches appear, which I don't hear with the "Reference" setting at the same level.
> 
> Even the surround field seems to come life because of the amazingly sounding higher mids which are no longer covered by too much treble.
> The whole sound field in movies becomes more fluid, shows more movement. Low level sounds have a much higher impact - like in cinemas.
> 
> I am almost even more impressed how well that EQ works with older movies, like from the 70s and 80s, with analogue sound-on-film. I had expected too few treble and reduced dialogue clarity and too pronounced mids. But instead there is only that amazing warmth of the analogue sound-on-film and even better dialogue clarity turning even older mono movies into a sound experience.


Thanks will try Flat + Cinema EQ. Can you comment on the BBC dip aka Midrange Compensation? I found this explanation but does it matter if you are not using a subwoofer?

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation


----------



## pbz06

Skinfax1 said:


> I had to use Reference Rolloff 2 and it still it had too much treble. I additionally have placed two filterpoints at 8k (-0.5 dB) and 12k (-2 dB).
> I don't know, what happens with these points, when Audyssey is switched to Flat, but I guess they are not disabled since they are part of the user defined target curve.
> 
> The method to achieve that amazingly authentic cinema sound here was to use Reference and adjust the treble until it sounded great with all kind of music and movies.
> 
> And it is impacted by the individual mic, because they ar enot individually calibrated. If one has a slightly duller sounding mic, the calibrated sound will be brighter amd vice versa.
> 
> *And after everything sounds great with Reference for every material, then switching to Flat and activating CinemaEQ gives that incredibly authentic and amazing sound for movies.
> 
> So I would not recommend to use CinemaEQ to get rid of too much treble. I'd use MultEQ (and external measurement) to make it sound great. And if it sounds perfect, then Flat + CinemaEQ.*
> 
> This is a result of the reference level being maybe 3-10 dB too high for smaller rooms (depends on size and how well the room is treated).
> If you have a small, untreated room, with acoustically hard and empty walls, a reference level roughly 10 dB less is more suited. That means that you feel it's loud enough already when your receiver is set at -10 dB.
> And if you follow Audyssey's recommendation, a DEQ reference level offset for movies = 0 dB, it means that DEQ is very active at your AVR -10 dB master volume setting, because it stops correcting the sound at 0 dB master volume setting.
> 
> So you need to set DEQ reference level offset as high as your maximum movie watching AVR master volume level (minus dB) otherwise DEQ boosts bass and treble way too much.
> 
> 
> That's certainly too low for a reference cinema like experience, but I guess that's the volume where you still can understand dialogue well enough anyway.
> 
> Depending on room size and how good it's acoustics and the speakers are, per channel 99-102 dB [email protected] (= 79-82 [email protected] dBfs = 69-72 [email protected] dBfs) instead of the 105 dB cinema reference should be the range, where people should still feel comfortable (99-102 dB equals to -3dB to -6 dB on the Audyssey calibrated AVR master volume).
> 
> 
> But keep in mind: this reference level is only valid, if the movie has a highly dynamic sound. For example the sound of older movies has much less dynamics and therefor the dialogue level is louder. Which ofcourse means, that you will have to reduce the volume to stay in the comfortable zone and avoid it to become too loud.
> 
> And there also can be the other extreme: too much dynamics.
> Probably everyone has experienced a movie, that was just too loud at the height of the action. That's because the 105 dB in the midst of the cinema (or Audyssey calibrated at listening position) is just what one channel can produce at 0 dBfs. It can easily be exceeded, by steering additional channels (which some directors demand, for creating an even bigger impact). And if that is not possible, also in movies things have been done like in music production: compressing and limiting to raise the RMS level which makes it perceptually even louder.
> 
> Long story short:
> Having guidelines is good. But trust your body and listen what he tells you. Trust your ears. If it sounds too loud, it IS too loud.
> There may be a problem in the frequency range somewhere, or it may be just the room and how it sounds, or the speakers. Even the calibration mic could be the problem.
> 
> But do not think that the closer you raise the master volume on your Audyssey calibrated AVR to 0 dB, the closer you are "how it sounded at the mixing stage". It doesn't.


OK, thanks again for the tips. Good info, learning a lot from the guides here and subwoofer thread...and your personal knowledge/experience (and everyone else that has contributed).

I did run XT32 Audyssey and am generally pleased with results at "reference". With that in mind, from what you're suggesting, then I should be OK to try "Flat + CinemaEQ". I did want to steer towards "flat" based off others' suggestions but it's been a touch too harsh for me, hence why I'm excited to try it this way.

Back to DEQ, what you're saying is that if I'm generally listening to -10 or -15 from 0 reference (marantz sr7011), then I should try the offset of -10 or -15...that way it will tame it down if i'm only a couple dB away from either -10 or -15 depending what I choose. I've been using no offset, and when listening to -15 it's been just too much bass (without adjusting it after XT32). It did sound nice and clean when listening at even lower levels when watching TV as background noise. With DEQ off, I will probably be able to use -10 listening level for movies, but from testing last night I needed to bump up the subwoofer +4dB after XT32 to get the tactile feel back.

My living room is untreated and just a standard size open concept with hard floors. I have an HSU VTF15 and deftech setup. I've been running the Fronts and Center at small/40hz and everything else at 80hz.


----------



## Skinfax1

thepiecesfit said:


> Thanks will try Flat + Cinema EQ. Can you comment on the BBC dip aka Midrange Compensation? I found this explanation but does it matter if you are not using a subwoofer?


Subwoofer? 2000 Hz is around the upper boundary of midrange.
Just try if you like it.
I tried it once and didn't like the dip. Which was before I tried CinemaEQ with Flat. And since then I can't imagine to let anything touch that perfect sounding midrange.

But I also don't really understand the theory behind it:
1. BBC is not Abbey Road Studios. Is not famous for sound. Never heard about that dip being great for sound.
2. While voices and the center speaker is the most important aspect for sound in cinemas, voices do not play that dominant role in movies like they have for news or documentaries.
3. I don't really get, why cutting @2k could be necessary, because Audyssey equalizes anyway torwards a flat response over all the midrange.
4. Right at 2 kHz my room + speakers show a dip to flat anyway.


----------



## thepiecesfit

Skinfax1 said:


> Subwoofer? 2000 Hz is around the upper boundary of midrange.
> Just try if you like it.
> I tried it once and didn't like the dip. Which was before I tried CinemaEQ with Flat. And since then I can't imagine to let anything touch that perfect sounding midrange.
> 
> But I also don't really understand the theory behind it:
> 1. BBC is not Abbey Road Studios. Is not famous for sound. Never heard about that dip being great for sound.
> 2. While voices and the center speaker is the most important aspect for sound in cinemas, voices do not play that dominant role in movies like they have for news or documentaries.
> 3. I don't really get, why cutting @2k could be necessary, because Audyssey equalizes anyway torwards a flat response over all the midrange.
> 4. Right at 2 kHz my room + speakers show a dip to flat anyway.


Roger that. I saw the reference to crossover so wasn't sure. Thanks for clarifying. After some additional listening I am finding Cinema + Flat still a little too neutral sounding with weak bass. But my methods might not be perfect mind you I just got these speakers and I am still learning. To my ears it seems to sound best when I run Audyssey calibration use the distances and levels and turn it off, I used an SPL meter and set the receiver volume to 0 and verify 75dB on every channel from the listening position. I enabled Cinema EQ with LFE -5 dB. I am using Polk 705 and 706c and they seem to be warm sounding out of the box which I kind of liked.


----------



## David Aiken

thepiecesfit said:


> I ran Audyssey on my new speaker setup on the Denon X4400h and Polk 705 and 706c. But finding the speakers sound a little flat and lacking bass after. I was able to get some of the bass back after raising the custom curve around 20hz. Honestly I kind of prefer the sound characteristics with it off. Results are below. I switched the center back to large after. Since I'm not running a subwoofer I cant adjust it's levels much after unless I mess with the curve or raise tone setting on the receiver. I dont care for Dynamic EQ. No acoustic treatments have been applied to the room yet except for furniture and an area rug.
> 
> Any feedback is appreciated.


I assume you're fairly new to Audyssey and haven't used room correction before.

Room acoustics have a big effect in the bass. Room modes (often called "standing waves") are resonances which occur in a room at frequencies related to the room's physical dimensions and they result in peaks and troughs in the frequency response of your speakers in a room. Our ears and the hearing centre in our brains are used to these effects and tend to filter them out so we aren't as consciously aware of them as you would expect us to be if you look at the before plots in your photos but we become used to the way things sound in our room. When you run Audyssey or any room correction software for the first time and hear the result, you are conscious of the difference because things don't sound the way you've come to expect. One of the things that we feel the first time we hear the much flatter response shown in your after curves is that there's less bass. The peaks have been smoothed out and we're more sensitive to noticing the peaks than we are to the troughs. We tend to perceive that as having less bass, and in a way there is less bass because the peaks have gone (there's also a bit more bass at other frequencies because the troughs have been filled in a bit too but we don't notice that as much). What we don't tend to notice at first is that we can also hear more detail and tonal variation in the bass but we really miss the things we're used to hearing that are no longer there because the bass response has changed to a much more even response. I think most people's initial response when hearing the effects of Audyssey for the first time is that something is missing, but that's an initial response and not necessarily their response after living with it for a while.

If you live with the new response for a few days to a week or so you will become used to it and it becomes what you expect to hear. When that happens you start to notice what you've got with the new response rather than noticing what's been lost from the previous response and when that happens you start to be able to appreciate the benefits of the new response. Once people become used to the corrected response they tend to prefer it but until they become used to it and while they are still focussing on what's missing from the old response, they tend to prefer the old response because it's what they're used to and they're not distracted to a degree by the change.

Live with the new response for a week or two and see what you think about it then. The odds are that you'll prefer it and start noticing things in the bass that you hadn't realised were there before. If you still don't like it you can turn Audyssey off and go back to listening to things without the correction but I think you'll find you'll end up preferring the new response. Most people do.


----------



## thepiecesfit

David Aiken said:


> I assume you're fairly new to Audyssey and haven't used room correction before.
> 
> Room acoustics have a big effect in the bass. Room modes (often called "standing waves") are resonances which occur in a room at frequencies related to the room's physical dimensions and they result in peaks and troughs in the frequency response of your speakers in a room. Our ears and the hearing centre in our brains are used to these effects and tend to filter them out so we aren't as consciously aware of them as you would expect us to be if you look at the before plots in your photos but we become used to the way things sound in our room. When you run Audyssey or any room correction software for the first time and hear the result, you are conscious of the difference because things don't sound the way you've come to expect. One of the things that we feel the first time we hear the much flatter response shown in your after curves is that there's less bass. The peaks have been smoothed out and we're more sensitive to noticing the peaks than we are to the troughs. We tend to perceive that as having less bass, and in a way there is less bass because the peaks have gone (there's also a bit more bass at other frequencies because the troughs have been filled in a bit too but we don't notice that as much). What we don't tend to notice at first is that we can also hear more detail and tonal variation in the bass but we really miss the things we're used to hearing that are no longer there because the bass response has changed to a much more even response. I think most people's initial response when hearing the effects of Audyssey for the first time is that something is missing, but that's an initial response and not necessarily their response after living with it for a while.
> 
> If you live with the new response for a few days to a week or so you will become used to it and it becomes what you expect to hear. When that happens you start to notice what you've got with the new response rather than noticing what's been lost from the previous response and when that happens you start to be able to appreciate the benefits of the new response. Once people become used to the corrected response they tend to prefer it but until they become used to it and while they are still focussing on what's missing from the old response, they tend to prefer the old response because it's what they're used to and they're not distracted to a degree by the change.
> 
> Live with the new response for a week or two and see what you think about it then. The odds are that you'll prefer it and start noticing things in the bass that you hadn't realised were there before. If you still don't like it you can turn Audyssey off and go back to listening to things without the correction but I think you'll find you'll end up preferring the new response. Most people do.


Thank you that makes sense. It is my first time running Audyssey. I do notice some details in other areas for sure. I suppose we are creatures of habit and I've noticed something similar when calibrating displays and monitors. We get so used to things that white balance errors are normalized unless we see one extreme next to the other.


----------



## David Aiken

thepiecesfit said:


> Thank you that makes sense. It is my first time running Audyssey. I do notice some details in other areas for sure. I suppose we are creatures of habit and I've noticed something similar when calibrating displays and monitors. We get so used to things that white balance errors are normalized unless we see one extreme next to the other.


That's it precisely. We have a tendency to initially prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar unless there's something about the unfamiliar which really presses our buttons in a good way.


----------



## bigzee3

pbz06 said:


> OK, thanks again for the tips. Good info, learning a lot from the guides here and subwoofer thread...and your personal knowledge/experience (and everyone else that has contributed).
> 
> I did run XT32 Audyssey and am generally pleased with results at "reference". With that in mind, from what you're suggesting, then I should be OK to try "Flat + CinemaEQ". I did want to steer towards "flat" based off others' suggestions but it's been a touch too harsh for me, hence why I'm excited to try it this way.
> 
> Back to DEQ, what you're saying is that if I'm generally listening to -10 or -15 from 0 reference (marantz sr7011), then I should try the offset of -10 or -15...that way it will tame it down if i'm only a couple dB away from either -10 or -15 depending what I choose. I've been using no offset, and when listening to -15 it's been just too much bass (without adjusting it after XT32). It did sound nice and clean when listening at even lower levels when watching TV as background noise. With DEQ off, I will probably be able to use -10 listening level for movies, but from testing last night I needed to bump up the subwoofer +4dB after XT32 to get the tactile feel back.
> 
> My living room is untreated and just a standard size open concept with hard floors. I have an HSU VTF15 and deftech setup. I've been running the Fronts and Center at small/40hz and everything else at 80hz.


Correct me if I wrong but I think basically -10 or -15 offset at -10 or -15MV will give you the same results as if you were listening at 0 just not as loud and no extra speaker boosts besides your sub boost if any had been done.


----------



## pbz06

bigzee3 said:


> Correct me if I wrong but I think basically -10 or -15 offset at -10 or -15MV will give you the same results as if you were listening at 0 just not as loud and no extra speaker boosts besides your sub boost if any had been done.


Yea, now that I re-read it, it was a stupid question by me


----------



## bigzee3

pbz06 said:


> Yea, now that I re-read it, it was a stupid question by me


No worries, Personally I use -5 offset for -10MV and -10 offset for -15MV. which gives me the same 2.2db bass boost plus the extra 2db from the AVR is enough for my room.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> The two I have had to turn the volume down on are Pacific Rim and Star Trek - Into Darkness.


I saw that Star Trek movie in the theater. There were deafening, high-pitched sound effects that went on for a long time. I spent a lot of that movie with my fingers in my ears. I didn't go to any "action" movies in a theater for a long time after that. 

The next action movie I saw in a theater was Baby Driver--fingers in my ears for most of the movie. Since then, I wear Bose noise-cancelling headphones in the theater--they block out the extreme pitches and reduce the overall volume, but dialogue is still quite audible. Now if only popcorn didn't cost $8, I'd go t the theater more often


----------



## jconjason

Hello. I noticed a few posts here a few days ago where a couple of you mentioned adjusting the gain on the sub after running Audyssey. I just wanted to get some clarification. For years I've been under the impression that after the calibration, you don't want to make any physical changes to the subs controls, and if you do, you need to rerun Audyssey. Has this changed?

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

lknhomeaudio said:


> Interesting... I watched the new Pacific Rim a few nights ago and found I had to turn it up more than most movies. I even got the dB meter out because it just sounded weak. I was watching at -6 and never saw any 99dB (105-6) peaks for the mains.
> 
> I forget which movie I watched after that, but I do remember the dB readings were more aligned with what they should have been during the action scenes. Maybe you're referring to the first Pacific Rim? Or maybe I have a different audio file..?



I'm referring to the *first* Pacific Rim.


I've run into a few movies lately that were below the average sound level _*and*_ of very limited dynamic range.


----------



## mthomas47

jconjason said:


> Hello. I noticed a few posts here a few days ago where a couple of you mentioned adjusting the gain on the sub after running Audyssey. I just wanted to get some clarification. For years I've been under the impression that after the calibration, you don't want to make any physical changes to the subs controls, and if you do, you need to rerun Audyssey. Has this changed?
> 
> Thanks!


Hi,

I suppose it depends on whom you ask as to whether or not the advice has changed. There is always misinformation floating around on the Internet, and that includes AVS at times. Some of the subwoofer makers have been recommending using the gain controls on subs to make volume adjustments for years, because they understand how their subs work. The only drawback to using the gain control is that, if the subwoofer has analogue controls (a gain dial), it can be more difficult to know exactly how much subwoofer boost you have added from the original calibration. It is easier to keep track of that with the digital numbers in the AVR remote.

But, going back a half-dozen years or more, people on this thread were using small pieces of tape or magic markers to define the post-calibration starting point, if they were really concerned about knowing how much subwoofer boost they were adding, or about being able to return to the original post-calibration setting. The AVR remote is the most convenient way to add (and subtract) subwoofer volume. And, for modest changes in volume, that don't exceed a final trim setting of about -5 or so, there is no reason not to use the remote. But, people wanting to make really significant post-calibration subwoofer boosts will almost inevitably need to make some of that boost with the subwoofer's gain control.

That's one reason the usual advice given is to aim for a post-calibration setting of about -11 (but not -12) on Denon/Marantz AVR's (or AVP's) in order to allow for the maximum amount of upward adjustment. And, that works well for people with plenty of headroom, who only want to add about 6db or so post calibration. However, if you have read the last few pages, you have noticed that not everyone prefers to use DEQ, and without DEQ engaged, some people like to boost their subwoofers even more than that. In that case, some use of the gain control, post-calibration, is inevitable. If you want to read more about why we want to keep our subs in negative trim numbers, and the appropriate use of gain/trim controls, Section II of the Guide, linked in my signature, explains it all in detail.

There is absolutely no need to rerun Audyssey, if you adjust the gain control on a subwoofer, anymore than there is a need to rerun Audyssey if you change the phase on the sub, or the low-pass filter, or the distance or trim setting on the AVR, or any other setting on the AVR. The room EQ filters that Audyssey sets are independent of the post-calibration adjustments that users may make to tailor the sound in their rooms to their own preferences. And, that includes adjustments to the gain control on the subwoofers. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lknhomeaudio

garygarrison said:


> I'm referring to the *first* Pacific Rim.
> 
> 
> I've run into a few movies lately that were below the average sound level _*and*_ of very limited dynamic range.


Gotcha. It's been so long, I can't remember the volume of that one lol


----------



## cfraser

pbarach said:


> I saw that Star Trek movie in the theater. There were deafening, high-pitched sound effects that went on for a long time. I spent a lot of that movie with my fingers in my ears. I didn't go to any "action" movies in a theater for a long time after that.
> 
> The next action movie I saw in a theater was Baby Driver--fingers in my ears for most of the movie. Since then, I wear Bose noise-cancelling headphones in the theater--they block out the extreme pitches and reduce the overall volume, but dialogue is still quite audible. Now if only popcorn didn't cost $8, I'd go t the theater more often


I'll suggest some Etymotic earplugs. I always carry a set with me. Don't have hearing probs, don't want any, though I suppose age will defeat me there... Anyway, Etymotic have plugs for "professional audio people", they're not ordinary earplugs, they're more like audio attenuators. You can hear everything just fine except at a lower volume.


----------



## Skinfax1

David Aiken said:


> That's it precisely. We have a tendency to initially prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar unless there's something about the unfamiliar which really presses our buttons in a good way.


One of the _very_ important exceptions when it comes to hearing: louder sounds better.
That's why the loudness war even exists.


----------



## thepiecesfit

What is everyone's opinion on utilizing DynamicEQ in conjunction with Flat + Cinema? I cannot listen for obvious reasons at reference levels. Audyssey Labs suggests to keep it on to maintain the reference response at lower volumes.

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347383-Dynamic-EQ-and-Reference-Level


----------



## Snorefingers

Audyssey set my front speakers to large after calibration despite me having a subwoofer, am I to understand that I should change it to small as per the FAQ in the OP? Audyssey just got it wrong?


----------



## David Aiken

Skinfax1 said:


> One of the _very_ important exceptions when it comes to hearing: louder sounds better.
> That's why the loudness war even exists.


Louder grabs our attention more than softer but I don't agree that louder sounds better, at least not always. It's not that simple.

Most of the music I listen to uses a lot of acoustic instruments so it's often not loud music. Because of the fact that our ears are less sensitive at high and low frequencies than they are in the mids (that's why DEQ was introduced), turning up the volume not only makes things louder but it also acts like a tone control, accentuating low and high frequencies as if you were turning up bass and treble tone controls. That can do a lot of damage to the tonal balance of the sorts of music I listen to. There is a volume at which the music sounds right, and it varies a bit from recording to recording. Play something at a lower volume and it sounds bass shy and dull in the highs. play something at a higher volume and it sounds bass and bright. Louder is better if I'm playing something too softly, softer is better if I'm playing it too loudly.

I don't think the loudness wars originated because louder sounds better. I think they originated because loudness grabs our attention and by making things louder and using dynamic compression to keep the sound loud throughout a song, artists and radio stations could grab the attention of listeners more easily and that ended up in attracting record sales and advertising revenue. I think there was also the fact that a lot of the music that was mastered/broadcast with an emphasis on loudness also tended to be listened to on lower quality gear with limited bass response. Making things louder improved the signal to noise ratio and also delivered better bass response on bass shy speakers and headphones/ear buds. I think the loudness wars originated because loudness was a successful marketing strategy for some artists and radio stations.

The big problem with "louder sounds better" is that if you listen to loud music or any other loud sound for long enough periods over a long enough time, you start to get hearing damage. People tend to think that what you lose with noise related hearing damage starts with the high and low frequencies so turning up the bass and treble should help mask that. What you actually lose first with noise related hearing damage is the mid range because that's where our ears are most sensitive, and the first symptom people start to notice is that the start having difficulty understanding what people are saying, and the effects of the damage slowly spread outwards from the mids towards the highs and lows. If you think "louder sounds better" and keep turning the volume up to 11 on a scale of 10. what you end up with is that it can never be loud enough for you to be able to hear what a singer is singing and if you keep turning it up to make the singer louder you just keep making it harder and harder for yourself to hear the singer over time. Not only that, you don't have as good a time hanging out with your friends when you're missing a lot of the conversation because you're having increasing difficulty hearing what they're saying.

Louder is better up to a certain volume which depends on the particular music but once you reach that point louder becomes worse for the music and potentially worse for your ability to enjoy both life and music.


----------



## David Aiken

Snorefingers said:


> Audyssey set my front speakers to large after calibration despite me having a subwoofer, am I to understand that I should change it to small as per the FAQ in the OP? Audyssey just got it wrong?


Audyssey didn't get it wrong, your AVR did. Audyssey does the measurements and creates the correction filters but the bass management part of things is controlled by software developed by the AVR manufacturer and it's the bass management software that decides whether your speakers get set to large or small.

Yes, change the speaker setting to small as it recommends in the FAQ. When you do that, check the crossover setting which gets applied. The default setting that will be applied is probably going to be 40 Hz but I would recommend changing that to either 60 or 80 Hz, preferably 80 Hz which is what I set my crossover frequency for my front speakers to.


----------



## Skinfax1

thepiecesfit said:


> What is everyone's opinion on utilizing DynamicEQ in conjunction with Flat + Cinema? I cannot listen for obvious reasons at reference levels. Audyssey Labs suggests to keep it on to maintain the reference response at lower volumes.


To find that out, you must know, what the adequate level in your personal listening environment is. How to do that?

You need a representative (for movies) dialogue recording.
Either form Youtube. In that case make sure the dialogue level will be in the range of -30 to -20 dBfs (peak not RMS).
Or you find a scene of normally (no screaming, whispering, music, foley) spoken and well mixed dialogue (close mic, low ambience noise) in a representatively well mixed movie.

Then you play that back (make sure DynEQ and any comperssion off) and adjust the volume knob until you not only understand the dialogue well, but until it sounds naturally loud.
Btw: it's allowed to compare as many different scenes from as many different mixes as wished.

Now you know your personal reference level.

At that level DynEQ should no longer change the signal because that's the level, where you hear everything.

Only below that level, if you like it, DynEQ should be active.

For example: if your reference level is reached with -6 dB on the calibrated AVR, that means 85 (the cinema reference Audyssey uses) - 6 dB = 79 dB SPL is it for you.
That's your personal reference level for that room.

Regarding DynEQ:
It means the Audyssey calibration (which assumes 85 dB) is assuming a listening level 6 dB too loud for movies and you want to choose a offset level of 5 or higher).

Which one works best, is determined by turning the volume down 5 dB. If you notice that bass becoming more dominant compared to the rest, then DynEQ is too aggressive and you try the next higher offset level (10 instead of 5, 15 instead of 10).
If the balance of dialogue, bass and treble stays the same, then you have found the correct setting.


In case you want to know the real SPL level at your personal reference level, create a bandwidth limited (500 - 2 kHz) pink noise, normalize it to -20 dBfs and play it back at your personal reference level and measure it with a C-weighted SPL meter.


----------



## Skinfax1

David Aiken said:


> Louder grabs our attention more than softer but I don't agree that louder sounds better, at least not always. It's not that simple.


If I make you listen to two identical mixes while one is slightly louder, you will judge the louder as the "better" one.
Everyone does.

Every research has proven that without any shade of doubt.

The loudness war is a result of the psychoacoustic phenomenon that we perceive louder as better. The bigger the bassdrum, the fatter the bass, the more punchy and powerful music sounds, the more people like it. Michael Jackson sounded not that good. But Bruce Swedien was louder than the rest...

The psychoacoustic phenomenon of louder is better, lead to the development of enhancers, limiters, maximizers, multiband limiters and multiband maximizers. They all create the impression of more loudness without raising the amplitude, because of the hard limit of the headroom at 0dBfs.

Adverstisements ofcourse also use these tools, stemming from the needs in music production, to grab the maximum attention. But it all has it's foundation in the psychoacoustic phenomenon that louder sounds better.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I saw that Star Trek movie in the theater. There were deafening, high-pitched sound effects that went on for a long time. I spent a lot of that movie with my fingers in my ears. I didn't go to any "action" movies in a theater for a long time after that.
> ...
> 
> Now if only popcorn didn't cost $8, I'd go t the theater more often



I haven't seen a movie in a theater since Avatar (which seemed about the right SPL). I think our HT is as good, or just about as good as commercial cinemas. We do have a 2.35:1 screen 130" wide, which helps. 

Even when my ears were very young, I have rarely heard commercial cinema sound that was too loud. Part of the explanation is that I almost never see "action" movies. 


Some studios, inconsistently, started visiting theaters and either setting up the sound, or checking sound levels (and projection quality). The first I heard of was for early Todd-AO road shows, and they may have shown up more often for 70 mm road shows in general. They soon were given the name "Sound Checkers." Later, there were several technological ways for the studios to control SPL, often specifying levels that are quite loud, but, IMO good. There is at least one fly in the ointment. The appropriate SPL depends on how many people are in the audience. If the level is properly set for a full theater, it needs to be turned progressively down for smaller crowds. This is usually done by the projectionist, *if there is one. *Our local multiplex, when the film is important (in the eyes of the distributer? Studio?) gets a set-up tech along with the film. He sets sound levels -- for a variety of audience sizes? If size matters to these folk, will the theater personnel remember to readjust the levels? With platters for real film, and whatever digital movies live on in the booth, there is sometimes not a highly trained projectionist. I ran into a situation in which there was only the candy counter manager to go from booth to booth in the multiplex, and he didn't even know how to adjust the SPL at all! It was easy to figure out, so I showed him.

The only two movies I've found to be "too loud," in the commercial theaters were Woodstock and the first, 1977, release of Star Wars. I strongly suspect that they both merely had way too much upper midrange, and Woodstock had a ton of IM, source unknown. The upper midrange over-boost of Star Wars was characterized in my circle of friends as "knife in the ear." The re-release of Star Wars had the opposite problem -- a soundtrack that was too dull. Both movies are O.K. at home.

Don't get me wrong, I heard a great deal of very loud sound in theaters, but it seemed to be appropriately so, IMO. YMMV. 

Back to *home* theaters, given the fudging of power ratings in inexpensive AVRs, or more channels than there are stars in the sky or grains of sand by the sea stressing inadequate power supplies, and the availability of very low cost subwoofers, and home theater speakers that actually have sensitivities as low as in the '80s, perhaps with small cones, a common problem *may* be distortion due to clipping, other types of overloading, and the gross distortion that these features can produce. Some kinds of distortion, perhaps especially IM, can be mistaken for "too loud." The terrible little hand held transistor radios of the '60s and '70s probably couldn't go louder than about 85 dB (a guess), but the distortion (including IM and clipping and probably voice coil overheating and cone over-excursion) made them sound very loud. 

*pbarach*, I hope you are kidding about the popcorn costing $8! I stopped eating popcorn in theaters when but a lad, following Mike Todd's dictum. But, I can't imagine it costing $8!


----------



## jconjason

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I suppose it depends on whom you ask as to whether or not the advice has changed. There is always misinformation floating around on the Internet, and that includes AVS at times. Some of the subwoofer makers have been recommending using the gain controls on subs to make volume adjustments for years, because they understand how their subs work. The only drawback to using the gain control is that, if the subwoofer has analogue controls (a gain dial), it can be more difficult to know exactly how much subwoofer boost you have added from the original calibration. It is easier to keep track of that with the digital numbers in the AVR remote.
> 
> But, going back a half-dozen years or more, people on this thread were using small pieces of tape or magic markers to define the post-calibration starting point, if they were really concerned about knowing how much subwoofer boost they were adding, or about being able to return to the original post-calibration setting. The AVR remote is the most convenient way to add (and subtract) subwoofer volume. And, for modest changes in volume, that don't exceed a final trim setting of about -5 or so, there is no reason not to use the remote. But, people wanting to make really significant post-calibration subwoofer boosts will almost inevitably need to make some of that boost with the subwoofer's gain control.
> 
> That's one reason the usual advice given is to aim for a post-calibration setting of about -11 (but not -12) on Denon/Marantz AVR's (or AVP's) in order to allow for the maximum amount of upward adjustment. And, that works well for people with plenty of headroom, who only want to add about 6db or so post calibration. However, if you have read the last few pages, you have noticed that not everyone prefers to use DEQ, and without DEQ engaged, some people like to boost their subwoofers even more than that. In that case, some use of the gain control, post-calibration, is inevitable. If you want to read more about why we want to keep our subs in negative trim numbers, and the appropriate use of gain/trim controls, Section II of the Guide, linked in my signature, explains it all in detail.
> 
> There is absolutely no need to rerun Audyssey, if you adjust the gain control on a subwoofer, anymore than there is a need to rerun Audyssey if you change the phase on the sub, or the low-pass filter, or the distance or trim setting on the AVR, or any other setting on the AVR. The room EQ filters that Audyssey sets are independent of the post-calibration adjustments that users may make to tailor the sound in their rooms to their own preferences. And, that includes adjustments to the gain control on the subwoofers.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the thoughtful and well explained reply. I appreciate it.


----------



## pbz06

David Aiken said:


> Audyssey didn't get it wrong, your AVR did. Audyssey does the measurements and creates the correction filters but the bass management part of things is controlled by software developed by the AVR manufacturer and it's the bass management software that decides whether your speakers get set to large or small.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, change the speaker setting to small as it recommends in the FAQ. When you do that, check the crossover setting which gets applied. The default setting that will be applied is probably going to be 40 Hz but I would recommend changing that to either 60 or 80 Hz, preferably 80 Hz which is what I set my crossover frequency for my front speakers to.


I alternate between putting everything on small/80hz (even LPF of LFE) or putting my Fronts and Center at small/40hz.

I like the concept of cascading crossovers, but also like giving my speakers little more range to play with while also using the Audyssey recommended Small.


----------



## David Aiken

Skinfax1 said:


> If I make you listen to two identical mixes while one is slightly louder, you will judge the louder as the "better" one.
> Everyone does.
> 
> Every research has proven that without any shade of doubt.
> 
> The loudness war is a result of the psychoacoustic phenomenon that we perceive louder as better. The bigger the bassdrum, the fatter the bass, the more punchy and powerful music sounds, the more people like it. Michael Jackson sounded not that good. But Bruce Swedien was louder than the rest...
> 
> The psychoacoustic phenomenon of louder is better, lead to the development of enhancers, limiters, maximizers, multiband limiters and multiband maximizers. They all create the impression of more loudness without raising the amplitude, because of the hard limit of the headroom at 0dBfs.
> 
> Adverstisements ofcourse also use these tools, stemming from the needs in music production, to grab the maximum attention. But it all has it's foundation in the psychoacoustic phenomenon that louder sounds better.


Yes, there are studies which show that if you play someone the same music, once at a slightly louder level than the other, they prefer the louder version. Those studies don't show that louder is always preferred.

Those studies don't show that if you play the same music twice, once at a very much louder level than the other, they always prefer the louder. If you're listening to music at a level you like and someone turns the level up greatly , you're most probably going to tell them to turn it back down. Louder isn't always perceived as better. A little bit louder usually is perceived as better, at least until you reach a level where you start to perceive any further increase as becoming too loud, and we have our personal comfort thresholds for what's good and what's too loud and we also react differently to a difference in level that's "a little bit louder" than we do to a difference in level that's "a lot louder". You can't generalise from a study which shows that a slightly higher listening level is preferred to a position which claims that a louder level will always be preferred, regardless of absolute level and regardless of the size of the increase in level. You need a lot more studies with comparisons at different control levels and with different increases in level to support that sort of claim. The studies conducted with slightly louder levels just demonstrate a preference for the louder when the increase in level is small and at the level those tests were conducted at, not at louder levels than were used for those tests.

As far as I know, no one has ever proved that we always regard louder as better, and the fact that it's rather easy to find people telling you to turn the volume down if you turn it up too much is pretty compelling evidence that louder isn't always better and that too loud is worse than a lower level.


----------



## pbarach

cfraser said:


> I'll suggest some Etymotic earplugs. I always carry a set with me. Don't have hearing probs, don't want any, though I suppose age will defeat me there... Anyway, Etymotic have plugs for "professional audio people", they're not ordinary earplugs, they're more like audio attenuators. You can hear everything just fine except at a lower volume.



That's a good suggestion. Wouldn't work for me--stuffing things in my ear canal has always been intolerable after a few minutes, including the Etymotic in-ear monitors I bought and quickly returned.


----------



## Snorefingers

David Aiken said:


> Yes, change the speaker setting to small as it recommends in the FAQ. When you do that, check the crossover setting which gets applied. The default setting that will be applied is probably going to be 40 Hz but I would recommend changing that to either 60 or 80 Hz, preferably 80 Hz which is what I set my crossover frequency for my front speakers to.


I have done as you told me. When raising the crossover levels, they were indeed set to 40 hz, do you mean the front speakers only or the rears as well? Those were set to 40 hz also for me.


----------



## Skinfax1

Snorefingers said:


> I have done as you told me. When raising the crossover levels, they were indeed set to 40 hz, do you mean the front speakers only or the rears as well? Those were set to 40 hz also for me.


A final warning:
*Use your own ears.*
Anyone who tells you, which settings to use without giving you musical descriptions (not that nonsensical language used in advertising ("test") magazines) what you have to listen for (and hifi forums are full of such anti-musical "experts"), simply _has no clue_.
Ask you this: Would you ask a blind person how to paint a picture? Or his opinion of a picture you painted? Ofcourse not. You would demand, that the one giving you advice, knows what you have painted - in the case of audio: what you are hearing...


----------



## David Aiken

Snorefingers said:


> I have done as you told me. When raising the crossover levels, they were indeed set to 40 hz, do you mean the front speakers only or the rears as well? Those were set to 40 hz also for me.


You only mentioned your front speakers so I only mentioned your front speakers 

If you've got any speakers that your AVR sets a crossover of 40 Hz or 60 Hz for, I would consider raising the crossover to 80 Hz. Bass frequencies demand more power from the amplifiers in your AVR than higher frequencies do so passing lower frequencies to powered subs gives the amps in the AVR an easier job to do. You can experiment with setting the crossovers at 40 hz, at 60 Hz, and at 80 Hz and see what you think. Depending on your speakers and your sub, you may find you prefer one of those settings over the others but all will work. I've found myself preferring 80 Hz over time.

It's OK to raise crossovers above the frequency they get set to in the calibration but it's not OK to lower the crossover frequency set in calibration because the correction filters Audyssey creates won't extend down to a lower crossover frequency. It's possible to start telling where a sound with a frequency above 80 Hz is coming from so it's not a good idea to set crossovers above 80 Hz by choice. If t he AVR sets a crossover to 80 Hz or above, that means that there are issues with the speaker's performance at lower frequencies and that Audyssey will not correct it at lower frequencies so leave any crossovers set to 80 Hz or above as they are but there can be benefits to raising crossovers set to 40 Hz or 60 Hz to 80 Hz.


----------



## garygarrison

Generally, there is an *inverted U* curve that describes the relationship between cortical arousal and pleasure, i.e. the higher the arousal, the higher the pleasure up to the optimum point, then, after that, the higher the arousal the lower the pleasure (I wish I could draw on this thing). 



The louder the music, the higher the arousal. So we might expect a similar inverted U curve to describe the relationship between loudness and pleasure. The louder the "better" up to an optimum point, then, above that, the louder the "worse."


This might be expected to vary with the type of music/sound, amount of various types of distortion in its reproduction, room size and characteristics, frequency anomalies, etc., etc,


Anyone interested in this kind of thing in the arts, etc., might want to take a look at the book Aesthetics and Psychobiology, by D.E. Berlyne, a Canadian experimental psychologist, as a starting point.


----------



## Skinfax1

You "experts" here don't even know what the loudness race is. You also don't understand what "louder sounds better" means.
It has nothing to do with turning up amplifiers and SPL levels! 
INCREDIBLE!

But it fits perfectly to "experts" giving "advice" to people without any knowledge about the specific acoustic conditions.

Hifi industry indeed is without doubt the most fad driven industry in the world.


----------



## Juiced46

David Aiken said:


> It's OK to raise crossovers above the frequency they get set to in the calibration but it's not OK to lower the crossover frequency set in calibration because the correction filters Audyssey creates won't extend down to a lower crossover frequency. It's possible to start telling where a sound with a frequency above 80 Hz is coming from so it's not a good idea to set crossovers above 80 Hz by choice. If t he AVR sets a crossover to 80 Hz or above, that means that there are issues with the speaker's performance at lower frequencies and that Audyssey will not correct it at lower frequencies so leave any crossovers set to 80 Hz or above as they are but there can be benefits to raising crossovers set to 40 Hz or 60 Hz to 80 Hz.


I run Energy RC70 mains, center and surrounds. Audyssey sets my crossovers at 40hz mains, 60hz center and 80hz surrounds. 

I run my LFE @ 100hz. For 2 channel music I like it at 100hz vs 80hz, it sounds better to me with a bit more kick. With that being said. I am assuming I should crossover the mains and center @ 100hz? Or should I leave the mains/center @ 80hz?


----------



## mthomas47

Juiced46 said:


> I run Energy RC70 mains, center and surrounds. Audyssey sets my crossovers at 40hz mains, 60hz center and 80hz surrounds.
> 
> I run my LFE @ 100hz. For 2 channel music I like it at 100hz vs 80hz, it sounds better to me with a bit more kick. With that being said. I am assuming I should crossover the mains and center @ 100hz? Or should I leave the mains/center @ 80hz?


Hi,

I'm not sure if I understood something in the second sentence of your last paragraph, if it relates to the first sentence. I assume you know that the LFE channel is only in operation with 5.1 or higher content. (LFE = .1) So, the LFE setting of 100Hz has no relationship to 2-channel content. If you think that the crossover to your front speakers sounds better at 100Hz, for 2-channel music, then that is what I would use. 

There is also nothing that says you can't switch back to using 80Hz when you are watching movies if you want to. Different types of content put different demands on the bass capabilities of your speakers, and different content may sound better to you with different crossovers. It's a balancing act to some extent, but I would always go with whatever sounds better.

The center channel can be a little harder to predict than the front channels. For instance, if you are using large subwoofer boosts for movies, some people find that a higher CC crossover makes dialogue a little harder to hear, as more boosted subwoofer volume can color voices a little, imparting a huskier quality to them, and making some dialogue harder to distinguish. YMMV as to whether 80Hz or 100Hz sounds better. 

There is no particular reason why your front channel crossover needs to match the crossover on your center channel. If I were you, I would test them both separately and go with whatever sounds better for each of them. As David noted earlier, there is seldom any harm in raising crossovers above the point where your AVR initially put them. Maintaining crossovers of at least 80Hz is common practice for movie viewing as it preserves headroom in your system and may result in clearer sound. But, for whatever listening material, in general, using crossovers that give you what you determine to be superior sound quality is the real objective.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rosstg

Well I think I’ve finally come to realize I do not like room correction or I should say I like it sparingly. I knew something was off when I upgraded my old Paradigms to Klipsch RP’s and they pretty much sounded the same. I’ve gone through 5 AVR’s in the last 10 years or so and have never truly been happy and now I realize it’s due to room correction software ranging from YPAO and all the Audyssey flavours especially DEQ. I started using the app to hear how my HT would sound with MultiEQ limited, ended up cutting it at 300hz and the difference is night and day. I mean wow what a massive difference. It’s like I have completely different speakers in my room. With XT32 full range it sounds like someone put sheets over my Klipsch RP’s. Putting my speakers through the paces with movies I’ve heard hundreds of times I’m now hearing little nuances I’ve never heard. It took some time getting used to the sound without DEQ but now that my ears have adjusted DEQ sounds dreadful.


----------



## Juiced46

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure if I understood something in the second sentence of your last paragraph, if it relates to the first sentence. I assume you know that the LFE channel is only in operation with 5.1 or higher content. (LFE = .1) So, the LFE setting of 100Hz has no relationship to 2-channel content. If you think that the crossover to your front speakers sounds better at 100Hz, for 2-channel music, then that is what I would use.
> 
> There is also nothing that says you can't switch back to using 80Hz when you are watching movies if you want to. Different types of content put different demands on the bass capabilities of your speakers, and different content may sound better to you with different crossovers. It's a balancing act to some extent, but I would always go with whatever sounds better.
> 
> The center channel can be a little harder to predict than the front channels. For instance, if you are using large subwoofer boosts for movies, some people find that a higher CC crossover makes dialogue a little harder to hear, as more boosted subwoofer volume can color voices a little, imparting a huskier quality to them, and making some dialogue harder to distinguish. YMMV as to whether 80Hz or 100Hz sounds better.
> 
> There is no particular reason why your front channel crossover needs to match the crossover on your center channel. If I were you, I would test them both separately and go with whatever sounds better for each of them. As David noted earlier, there is seldom any harm in raising crossovers above the point where your AVR initially put them. Maintaining crossovers of at least 80Hz is common practice for movie viewing as it preserves headroom in your system and may result in clearer sound. But, for whatever listening material, in general, using crossovers that give you what you determine to be superior sound quality is the real objective.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the info Mike. I will adjust the crossover for the center and see how it sounds. 

I was typing fast, sorry for the confusion. I have LFE set to 100hz for movies but I also run my 2 channel settings for music @ 100hz as well. For 2 channel, I feel the sub at 100hz sounds better than 80hz.


----------



## David Aiken

Juiced46 said:


> I run Energy RC70 mains, center and surrounds. Audyssey sets my crossovers at 40hz mains, 60hz center and 80hz surrounds.
> 
> I run my LFE @ 100hz. For 2 channel music I like it at 100hz vs 80hz, it sounds better to me with a bit more kick. With that being said. I am assuming I should crossover the mains and center @ 100hz? Or should I leave the mains/center @ 80hz?





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure if I understood something in the second sentence of your last paragraph, if it relates to the first sentence. I assume you know that the LFE channel is only in operation with 5.1 or higher content. (LFE = .1) So, the LFE setting of 100Hz has no relationship to 2-channel content. If you think that the crossover to your front speakers sounds better at 100Hz, for 2-channel music, then that is what I would use.
> 
> There is also nothing that says you can't switch back to using 80Hz when you are watching movies if you want to. Different types of content put different demands on the bass capabilities of your speakers, and different content may sound better to you with different crossovers. It's a balancing act to some extent, but I would always go with whatever sounds better.
> 
> The center channel can be a little harder to predict than the front channels. For instance, if you are using large subwoofer boosts for movies, some people find that a higher CC crossover makes dialogue a little harder to hear, as more boosted subwoofer volume can color voices a little, imparting a huskier quality to them, and making some dialogue harder to distinguish. YMMV as to whether 80Hz or 100Hz sounds better.
> 
> There is no particular reason why your front channel crossover needs to match the crossover on your center channel. If I were you, I would test them both separately and go with whatever sounds better for each of them. As David noted earlier, there is seldom any harm in raising crossovers above the point where your AVR initially put them. Maintaining crossovers of at least 80Hz is common practice for movie viewing as it preserves headroom in your system and may result in clearer sound. But, for whatever listening material, in general, using crossovers that give you what you determine to be superior sound quality is the real objective.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I'll second Mike. Everything he said is correct.

The only thing I would add to what Mike said concerns listening to stereo recordings using just the front L and R speakers together with the sub. People become increasing able to tell where a sound is coming from as the frequency rises above 80 Hz. Few people can tell where the sound is coming from at 80 Hz, somewhere above 80 Hz everyone with 2 working ears can tell where it's coming from. Crossovers don''t just send everything below the crossover frequency to the sub, they start rolling off the speakers gently and the sub starts getting more and more of the bass from the speaker to match the roll off the speaker gets so for an octave or more below the crossover frequency the sound is coming from both the speakers and the sub. Depending on where your sub is located and at what frequency you can start to tell where sound is coming from, you may be able to tell that a particular sound is coming from your sub if you set the speaker crossover to 100 Hz but it's unlikely that you will be able to if you set the crossover to 80 Hz. You're less likely to be able to tell that a sound is coming specifically from the sub if the sub is located between the 2 speakers and more likely to be able to tell that it's coming from the sub if the sub is located some distance to one side of the speakers or behind you. If you notice some bass sounds coming from the sub and not from where they should be located in the soundstage when you're listening to stereo music I'd consider lowering the crossover for the front L and R speakers to 80 Hz. If you don't notice any problems of that sort and you prefer it set to 100 Hz, or even if you do notice that kind of problem at times and just prefer the way things sound with the crossover set to 100 Hz, leave it set to 100 Hz. As Mike said, what counts is what you think gives the best sound quality.

You're less likely to notice the sub as a distinct sound source with multichannel content because sound is coming from more speakers and there's cues we use to judge direction of sound coming from a wider range of angles including the sound coming from the sub so I'd only worry about this issue if you notice a problem with 2 channel stereo listening.


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> Well I think I’ve finally come to realize I do not like room correction or I should say I like it sparingly. I knew something was off when I upgraded my old Paradigms to Klipsch RP’s and they pretty much sounded the same. I’ve gone through 5 AVR’s in the last 10 years or so and have never truly been happy and now I realize it’s due to room correction software ranging from YPAO and all the Audyssey flavours *especially DEQ*. I started using the app to hear how my HT would sound with MultiEQ limited, ended up cutting it at 300hz and the difference is night and day. I mean wow what a massive difference. It’s like I have completely different speakers in my room. With XT32 full range it sounds like someone put sheets over my Klipsch RP’s. Putting my speakers through the paces with movies I’ve heard hundreds of times I’m now hearing little nuances I’ve never heard. It took some time getting used to the sound without DEQ *but now that my ears have adjusted DEQ sounds dreadful*.



DEQ has almost always sounded dreadful to me. Klipsch RPs tend to be articulate. They may reveal some of the mush in DEQ. I'm surprised, though, that you are hearing more nuances when limiting Audyssey room correction to 300 Hz and below. I get nuances to the max with Audyssey FLAT, no frequency limitation, and *no* DEQ. My room may be slightly over damped, so Audyssey FLAT turned up the response between about 1K and 17K, by about 3 to 5 dB, and smoothed it out a bit. I'm guessing that's why I hear more nuances with Audyssey on. If, perhaps, your room is a little live, and your particular model of the RPs is a little bright, Audyssey may have turned down the treble, maybe too much. I can see why that might sound like someone put sheets over the speakers.


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> DEQ has almost always sounded dreadful to me. Klipsch RPs tend to be articulate. They may reveal some of the mush in DEQ. I'm surprised, though, that you are hearing more nuances when limiting Audyssey room correction to 300 Hz and below. I get nuances to the max with Audyssey FLAT, no frequency limitation, and *no* DEQ. My room may be slightly over damped, so Audyssey FLAT turned up the response between about 1K and 17K, by about 3 to 5 dB, and smoothed it out a bit. I'm guessing that's why I hear more nuances with Audyssey on. If, perhaps, your room is a little live, and your particular model of the RPs is a little bright, Audyssey may have turned down the treble, maybe too much. I can see why that might sound like someone put sheets over the speakers.


Yeah the RP’s are certainly articulate. I’ve tried the Flat curve with 3 AVR’s and 2 sets of speakers in my room and my issue with the Flat and Reference curves is they made both brands of speakers sound the same. Flat clearly had more detail but it still sounded artificial in my rooms. At the time I had a lot of Auralex panels up too. Both curves seem to remove the character from my speakers. I also notice my Atmos modules get lost with EQ. They are barely audible. When limited to 300hz the effect is much clearer the sound is more enveloping. Comparing Flat to limited frequency range Flat seems to have less detail in my room. Without I feel like I miss nothing, especially in dialogue, everything sounds more natural, less processed. It’s nice to have alternatives now.


----------



## Limp Fox

Hello everyone. 

First, let me say that if this posting is something I should direct toward the AMP section I'm sorry. 

I've ran Audyssey numerous times via my Marantz 8805 and each time, except the last, my speakers were set to -12db. This was with my XLR cables going to an Emotiva XPA 5 gen 1, and two Emotiva XPA 100 mono blocks. On the last run results were similar with RCA's, only the Front L and Surround L showed an improvement, although I wouldn't call it that. Both came in at -11.5db. 

It's obvious my amps have too much gain and I'm surprised I never had issues in the past with older Audyssey software (say 2011-2013ish). 

My question is, which xlr attenuators should I purchase? Looking online there are many options, -30db, -20db, -12db, selectable, etc. 

Processor: Marantz 8805
Amps: Emotiva XPA-5 gen1, and two XPA 100 gen2's. 
Speakers: Klipsch RF7ii, RC64ii, and RS62ii. 

Thank you!
Judd


----------



## mogorf

Limp Fox said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> First, let me say that if this posting is something I should direct toward the AMP section I'm sorry.
> 
> I've ran Audyssey numerous times via my Marantz 8805 and each time, except the last, my speakers were set to -12db. This was with my XLR cables going to an Emotiva XPA 5 gen 1, and two Emotiva XPA 100 mono blocks. On the last run results were similar with RCA's, only the Front L and Surround L showed an improvement, although I wouldn't call it that. Both came in at -11.5db.
> 
> It's obvious my amps have too much gain and I'm surprised I never had issues in the past with older Audyssey software (say 2011-2013ish).
> 
> My question is, which xlr attenuators should I purchase? Looking online there are many options, -30db, -20db, -12db, selectable, etc.
> 
> Processor: Marantz 8805
> Amps: Emotiva XPA-5 gen1, and two XPA 100 gen2's.
> Speakers: Klipsch RF7ii, RC64ii, and RS62ii.
> 
> Thank you!
> Judd



Hi Judd,


I think its not your amps that have high gain but your Klipsch have extra high sensitivity, like 101 dB.


Nonetheless, a 12 dB attenuator could be the right choice coz in that case you can get your speakers around the 0 dB trim range.


----------



## mdrums

Audyssey has always given me issues. Have had Integra processor, and Marantz processors plus Denon receivers and Marantz receivers. Currently just using a Marantz AV8801 with a McIntosh MC207 amp with new Revel Concerta2 F36 speakers as mains, revel Center and rears and 2 Revel subs.

Had a huge dedicated theater in my last home with Klipsch Ref 7's, 4-15" subs and all the acoustical treatment professionally done.

Currently in my is a new Marantz receiver and some Klipsch Ref speakers and subs.

I follow the set up...moving the mic on my mic boom stand foot to the left and right and finish up with small 6" side to side front and back movements.

I get zero low end and muted dull lifeless highs. Revel and Klipsch speakers doesn't matter. I can fix the low end easy...but the muted highs you can't fix with Audyssey running. 

So I know this isn't recommended...andy my kids to lows sound more life like with Audyssey running but I just copy the eq graphs and other info and go out of Audyssey and do everything manual and tweak the eq graphs to taste. I only seems to need to touch the highs and the LFE sub level a touch. Odyssey would sound nice if they didn't dull the highs so much but you CAN NOT change that with Audyssey ON....bummer!

For my next pre-pro I want to find something that uses anything else besides Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

Limp Fox said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> ...
> 
> I've ran Audyssey numerous times via my Marantz 8805 and each time, except the last, my speakers were set to -12db. This was with my XLR cables going to an Emotiva XPA 5 gen 1, and two Emotiva XPA 100 mono blocks. On the last run results were similar with RCA's, only the Front L and Surround L showed an improvement, although I wouldn't call it that. Both came in at -11.5db.
> 
> It's obvious my amps have too much gain and I'm surprised I never had issues in the past with older Audyssey software (say 2011-2013ish).
> 
> My question is, which xlr attenuators should I purchase? Looking online there are many options, -30db, -20db, -12db, selectable, etc.
> 
> Processor: Marantz 8805
> Amps: Emotiva XPA-5 gen1, and two XPA 100 gen2's.
> Speakers: Klipsch RF7ii, RC64ii, and RS62ii.
> 
> Thank you!
> Judd





mogorf said:


> Hi Judd,
> 
> 
> I think its not your amps that have high gain but your Klipsch have extra high sensitivity, like 101 dB.
> 
> 
> Nonetheless, a 12 dB attenuator could be the right choice coz in that case you can get your speakers around the 0 dB trim range.



I agree. It seems like -12 dB would be about right. I used -12 dB with my 

105 dB/2.83v/1m speakers, and they worked. My dealer (an engineer) recommend testing each attenuator in the circuit to make sure each actually reduced the level by 12 dB in my circuit, so I did. He also recommended using the attenuators on all my channels, even the surrounds that had speakers that were only 96 db/2.83/1m, so Audyssey could do its work in balance, in one swell foop. Once it became clear that I wasn't going to use DEQ (I play at 5 to 7 dB below reference with most movies, so I don't need it, and I don't particularly like the sound of DEQ in the circuit, YMMV) I discussed with Chris K., the CTO of Audyssey, removing the attenuators, to get extra circuitry (however modest) out of the line once I was satisfied with the sound, and was not going to run Audyssey again. Chris said that would be O.K., but to keep in mind that my new MV reference level would be -12 instead of 0. So, I removed them. Now everything has sounded good for the past 7 years. When I refer to "5 to 7 dB below reference" in this and other posts, in terms of *SPL in the room*, that is the truth, but I am referring to -17 to -19 MV. I don't usually talk about my MV setting to avoid confusing the readers, or needing to write an awkward explanation like this one.


----------



## mthomas47

mdrums said:


> Audyssey has always given me issues. Have had Integra processor, and Marantz processors plus Denon receivers and Marantz receivers. Currently just using a Marantz AV8801 with a McIntosh MC207 amp with new Revel Concerta2 F36 speakers as mains, revel Center and rears and 2 Revel subs.
> 
> Had a huge dedicated theater in my last home with Klipsch Ref 7's, 4-15" subs and all the acoustical treatment professionally done.
> 
> Currently in my is a new Marantz receiver and some Klipsch Ref speakers and subs.
> 
> I follow the set up...moving the mic on my mic boom stand foot to the left and right and finish up with small 6" side to side front and back movements.
> 
> I get zero low end and muted dull lifeless highs. Revel and Klipsch speakers doesn't matter. I can fix the low end easy...but the muted highs you can't fix with Audyssey running.
> 
> So I know this isn't recommended...andy my kids to lows sound more life like with Audyssey running but I just copy the eq graphs and other info and go out of Audyssey and do everything manual and tweak the eq graphs to taste. I only seems to need to touch the highs and the LFE sub level a touch. Odyssey would sound nice if they didn't dull the highs so much but you CAN NOT change that with Audyssey ON....bummer!
> 
> For my next pre-pro I want to find something that uses anything else besides Audyssey.


Hi,

There are some setup tips in Section I of the Guide, linked below, that might help. Speaker toe-in is important with Audyssey. So is whether the Audyssey microphone gets too close to a hard surface, such as a wall, or the back of a leather sofa. The Audyssey microphone has far more sensitive "hearing" than we do, and it makes corrections based on what it hears. Things that we can't hear may influence the quality of the EQ that Audyssey performs. High frequencies can be especially problematical in that regard. Here is a direct link to the section that has some setup and calibration tips: 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#I

After Audyssey has run, there are some things you can do to tailor the sound a little more to your personal tastes. And, of course, you can always continue to do everything manually, if you prefer. Whenever Audyssey performs a calibration, the Audyssey Reference curve is enabled by default, and DEQ is enabled by default. The Audyssey Reference curve does three things. First, it adds a mid-range compensation dip between 2,000Hz and 3,000Hz. Some people can hear a slight difference with that. Second, Audyssey rolls-off the high frequencies a little, starting at 4,000Hz. The roll-off is slight--only -2db. But, third, the roll-off increases to -6db at 10,000Hz. Depending on your speakers and listening preferences, you might not like those roll-offs.

If you go into your Audio menu, you can set Audyssey to Flat. The Flat setting has no treble roll-off or mid-range dip. You might like that better. If you turn-off DEQ, you will have access to the Tone Controls, which only affect your front speakers. (You would probably need to add more independent subwoofer boost, if you turn-off DEQ.) You could add a decibel or so of treble with the tone control, while still preserving the Audyssey EQ for bass and mid-range frequencies. I think that you would find Flat, with a little treble added, to be as bright as you might wish.

Audyssey has really never been a set-it and forget it technology, in my opinion. There are things that we can do to enhance the quality of our initial calibration, and there are things we can do to enhance the post-calibration quality of the sound. Unfortunately, it sometimes takes someone explaining what he doesn't like about his current calibration to identify appropriate trouble-shooting tips. And, of course, those tips won't always work in any case. But, if you are willing to read the Section I directed you to, and are willing to experiment a little, you may get a result that you like even better than the one you have now. 

Good luck! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbz06

Someone several pages ago posted the delta that DEQ adds per MV adjustment below reference. 

Does anyone remember what those were?


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Someone several pages ago posted the delta that DEQ adds per MV adjustment below reference.
> 
> Does anyone remember what those were?


I believe it’s 2.2db for every -5 MV. So at -15 MV there will be 6db boost to bass.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> I believe it’s 2.2db for every -5 MV. So at -15 MV there will be 6db boost to bass.


Ok thanks. Just wanted to experiment with DEQ Off and sub +4dB from what Audyssey sets it too (listening at -10 from MV).

I just Re-read the guide..about 1dB for surrounds


----------



## LRZNole

Quick question based on something I was reading earlier regarding Audyssey. When I run it, it sets the crossover for my KEF T301 L & R fronts at 120hz and my KEF surrounds also at 120hz. I have a Martin Logan Motion 8 center at it sets that to 60hz. I did some research on it and someone mentioned raising it to 100hz but from reading this would it be better to only raise it to 80hz?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> Ok thanks. Just wanted to experiment with DEQ Off and sub +4dB from what Audyssey sets it too (listening at -10 from MV).
> 
> Re-read the guide..about 1dB for surrounds



Guys, we all know by now that DEQ has a two-tier operation scheme where the second tier does another compensation based on soft or loud passages. Therefore I think it is not possible to describe the amount of compensation with one figure only based on a single MV setting, but it changes as the program material advances (even without changing MV). The figure given will correspond to an input signal of 0 dB (electric) and as it gets softer the compensation of DEQ will increase.



Hope my explanation is clear.


----------



## pbarach

New version of the MultiEQ iOS app is out today.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Ok thanks. Just wanted to experiment with DEQ Off and sub +4dB from what Audyssey sets it too (listening at -10 from MV).
> 
> I just Re-read the guide..about 1dB for surrounds


 Most people seem to prefer DEQ on, especially those that don’t listen near reference volumes. Most also prefer a bass boost. I had turned mine off for a week preferring the Flat bass but thanks to the app I was able to see why my bass was so boomy with DEQ on. I relocated my subs and have achieved much better results with DEQ on. I was speaking with someone at SVS and he said he and a few others prefer DEQ on for all content as well.


----------



## mogorf

rosstg said:


> Most people seem to prefer DEQ on, especially those that don’t listen near reference volumes. Most also prefer a bass boost. I had turned mine off for a week preferring the Flat bass but thanks to the app I was able to see why my bass was so boomy with DEQ on. I relocated my subs and have achieved much better results with DEQ on. I was speaking with someone at SVS and he said he and a few others prefer DEQ on for all content as well.



Actually the role of DEQ is to provide us a perceptually flat listening experience at any MV setting. Shortly speaking.


----------



## rosstg

mogorf said:


> Actually the role of DEQ is to provide us a perceptually flat listening experience at any MV setting. Shortly speaking.


Right, when I said Flat bass I meant no boost to sub gains.


----------



## timosilakka

rosstg said:


> Most people seem to prefer DEQ on, especially those that don’t listen near reference volumes. Most also prefer a bass boost. I had turned mine off for a week preferring the Flat bass but thanks to the app I was able to see why my bass was so boomy with DEQ on. I relocated my subs and have achieved much better results with DEQ on. I was speaking with someone at SVS and he said he and a few others prefer DEQ on for all content as well.



How did you use the app to see what DEQ does for the bass? I am learning to use the app still...


----------



## rosstg

timosilakka said:


> How did you use the app to see what DEQ does for the bass? I am learning to use the app still...


In the room correction results tab. It doesn’t show the DEQ result though. I just meant that my subs were not in the optimum positions and the results showed me that. It’s no wonder DEQ as sounding boomy.


----------



## Benz63amg

Guys i have a quick question, My home theatre system consists of 2 definitive technology BP8 Tower speakers (front left and right) and a definitive CLR2002 as the Center Channel and an SVS SB3000 Sealed Subwoofer. My receiver is the Onkyo NR818 which has Audyssey XT32 and has been a solid performed throughout the years. I ran a Full XT32 8 position calibration this past weekend (That's when i got my SB3000 so i needed to recalibrate the system). I used Dynamic EQ for all my sources and its set to "Movie" Mode for each one of my sources, I don't use Dynamic Volume at all on any source. i use a reference level offset at 0 for all my sources except for the HDTV Cable TV Source (I use reference level offset 10db for this Source)

The only changes i've made to the calibration settings on the receiver after the XT32 Calibration was the crossover settings, Audyssey set the crossover for my BP8 Towers to 40hz, i bumped that up to 60hz, Audyssey set the crossover for my CLR2002 center speaker to 50hz and i bumped that up to 60hz as well (Definitive Technology Customer Service Team suggested 60hz for both the BP8 towers and CLR20002 and so i followed their suggestion) , LPF of LFE is set to 120hz. 

Everything sounds excellent but the bass is a little on the strong side depending on the content so heres where my question comes in, i have Dynamic EQ enabled for all my sources as i mentioned above and i obviously know that part of what DynamicEQ does is that it boosts the sub channel under normal day to day listening volumes which are way below reference listening levels in order to improve the listening experience, I like what DynamicEQ does to the overall sound so i am going to keep it enabled for all my sources regardless however i'd prefer the bass from the subwoofer to be a bit quieter, 

Audyssey XT32 set the Volume for the subwoofer Channel to -6.0db after the calibration, Should i manually adjust the subwoofer channel volume level in the AVR's Volume settings menu for the subwoofer channel by 1db to "-7.0db" to decrease the bass a bit so its more to my liking? is changing the -6.0db value to -7.0db going to have any negative effects on how Dynamic EQ functions? In other words, would Dynamic EQ apply EVEN MORE bass boost if i change the subwoofer level to -7.0db? i just want my bass to be a little bit softer which is why i propose adjusting the "-6.0db" subwoofer volume that Audyssey set to -7.0db.


----------



## jsgrise

lamonsasa said:


> Guys i have a quick question, My home theatre system consists of 2 definitive technology BP8 Tower speakers (front left and right) and a definitive CLR2002 as the Center Channel and an SVS SB3000 Sealed Subwoofer. My receiver is the Onkyo NR818 which has Audyssey XT32 and has been a solid performed throughout the years. I ran a Full XT32 8 position calibration this past weekend (That's when i got my SB3000 so i needed to recalibrate the system). I used Dynamic EQ for all my sources and its set to "Movie" Mode for each one of my sources, I don't use Dynamic Volume at all on any source. i use a reference level offset at 0 for all my sources except for the HDTV Cable TV Source (I use reference level offset 10db for this Source)
> 
> The only changes i've made to the calibration settings on the receiver after the XT32 Calibration was the crossover settings, Audyssey set the crossover for my BP8 Towers to 40hz, i bumped that up to 60hz, Audyssey set the crossover for my CLR2002 center speaker to 50hz and i bumped that up to 60hz as well (Definitive Technology Customer Service Team suggested 60hz for both the BP8 towers and CLR20002 and so i followed their suggestion) , LPF of LFE is set to 120hz.
> 
> Everything sounds excellent but the bass is a little on the strong side depending on the content so heres where my question comes in, i have Dynamic EQ enabled for all my sources as i mentioned above and i obviously know that part of what DynamicEQ does is that it boosts the sub channel under normal day to day listening volumes which are way below reference listening levels in order to improve the listening experience, I like what DynamicEQ does to the overall sound so i am going to keep it enabled for all my sources regardless however i'd prefer the bass from the subwoofer to be a bit quieter,
> 
> Audyssey XT32 set the Volume for the subwoofer Channel to -6.0db after the calibration, Should i manually adjust the subwoofer channel volume level in the AVR's Volume settings menu for the subwoofer channel by 1db to "-7.0db" to decrease the bass a bit so its more to my liking? is changing the -6.0db value to -7.0db going to have any negative effects on how Dynamic EQ functions? In other words, would Dynamic EQ apply EVEN MORE bass boost if i change the subwoofer level to -7.0db? i just want my bass to be a little bit softer which is why i propose adjusting the "-6.0db" subwoofer volume that Audyssey set to -7.0db.


In the Audio Menu, make sure the Subwoofer Level Adjust is set to OFF so it does not affect what has been set by Audyssey.

Secondly, try a DEQ offset of 5dB or 10dB, this is what works best for me.


----------



## mthomas47

lamonsasa said:


> Guys i have a quick question, My home theatre system consists of 2 definitive technology BP8 Tower speakers (front left and right) and a definitive CLR2002 as the Center Channel and an SVS SB3000 Sealed Subwoofer. My receiver is the Onkyo NR818 which has Audyssey XT32 and has been a solid performed throughout the years. I ran a Full XT32 8 position calibration this past weekend (That's when i got my SB3000 so i needed to recalibrate the system). I used Dynamic EQ for all my sources and its set to "Movie" Mode for each one of my sources, I don't use Dynamic Volume at all on any source. i use a reference level offset at 0 for all my sources except for the HDTV Cable TV Source (I use reference level offset 10db for this Source)
> 
> The only changes i've made to the calibration settings on the receiver after the XT32 Calibration was the crossover settings, Audyssey set the crossover for my BP8 Towers to 40hz, i bumped that up to 60hz, Audyssey set the crossover for my CLR2002 center speaker to 50hz and i bumped that up to 60hz as well (Definitive Technology Customer Service Team suggested 60hz for both the BP8 towers and CLR20002 and so i followed their suggestion) , LPF of LFE is set to 120hz.
> 
> Everything sounds excellent but the bass is a little on the strong side depending on the content so heres where my question comes in, i have Dynamic EQ enabled for all my sources as i mentioned above and i obviously know that part of what DynamicEQ does is that it boosts the sub channel under normal day to day listening volumes which are way below reference listening levels in order to improve the listening experience, I like what DynamicEQ does to the overall sound so i am going to keep it enabled for all my sources regardless however i'd prefer the bass from the subwoofer to be a bit quieter,
> 
> Audyssey XT32 set the Volume for the subwoofer Channel to -6.0db after the calibration, Should i manually adjust the subwoofer channel volume level in the AVR's Volume settings menu for the subwoofer channel by 1db to "-7.0db" to decrease the bass a bit so its more to my liking? is changing the -6.0db value to -7.0db going to have any negative effects on how Dynamic EQ functions? In other words, would Dynamic EQ apply EVEN MORE bass boost if i change the subwoofer level to -7.0db? i just want my bass to be a little bit softer which is why i propose adjusting the "-6.0db" subwoofer volume that Audyssey set to -7.0db.


Hi,

DEQ's operation is independent of whatever you are doing with respect to your subwoofer settings, so DEQ will operate in exactly the same way whether you turn your subwoofer trim up or down, or whether you turn your subwoofer gain control up or down. That is an important point to understand. DEQ won't add any more bass just because you turn your subwoofer volume down. So, you can do just what you suggested. You can experiment with subtracting some volume from your subwoofer for some programs, or with adding some volume to your subwoofer, at your discretion. 

Nothing you do with your AVR settings will affect the EQ that Audyssey performed, or the filters it set, so you don't have to worry about that. That EQ process is independent of the AVR controls, unless you turn Audyssey off or use something like LFE+Main. And, the same filters will still be in operation when you turn Audyssey back on again. 

The other way you can modify the amount of bass that you hear is by modifying DEQ's action. You could modify the way that DEQ operates by experimenting with the RLO settings. That is also a quick and convenient way to have a little less bass when you want it. The RLO settings can be found in your audio menu, under Audyssey. The default setting is 0, which is what you are listening to now. An RLO setting of -5 will slightly reduce the effect of DEQ. -10 will reduce it even more, and -15 is the maximum reduction in DEQ's operation.

If you want to understand how DEQ actually works, and how the RLO settings operate to change the effect of DEQ, I am giving you a direct link to an article which explains the operations in detail. But, even when you understand how a software program like DEQ works, you will still have to experiment to discover what you like best. That might be subtracting (or adding) a decibel or two with your trim control, at times, or it might be using the RLO settings. Don't be afraid to experiment. You won't hurt anything, and you can always put things back the way they were when you want to. (Your AVR has a control to return to default settings, for instance.)

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Benz63amg

jsgrise said:


> In the Audio Menu, make sure the Subwoofer Level Adjust is set to OFF so it does not affect what has been set by Audyssey.
> 
> Secondly, try a DEQ offset of 5dB or 10dB, this is what works best for me.


I tried playing with the reference level offset but I don’t like making changes that might cause unexpected changes to the sound, the only source I adjusted the reference level offset from 0 to 10 is for the HDTV cable source because it’s a known fact tv material is mixed at 10 db below reference level. I left it at 0 for all other sources.

As far as what you’re referring to as “Subwoofer Level Adjust”, can you be more specific on where exactly that setting is located on my Onkyo Nr818 AVR? Is it a source specific setting?

When I go to the “Audio” Menu (which is essentially a quick access menu to quickly change Auddysey settings for each source, I’m also able to adjust the volume level for the center and subwoofer channel from there in a quick manner but I don’t like adjusting any setting from that quick access Audio Menu and I prefer to use the full setup if I want to make a change, I access the Audio menu by clicking the “Audio” button on the Onkyo remote.


----------



## jsgrise

lamonsasa said:


> I tried playing with the reference level offset but I don’t like making changes that might cause unexpected changes to the sound, the only source I adjusted the reference level offset from 0 to 10 is for the HDTV cable source because it’s a known fact tv material is mixed at 10 db below reference level. I left it at 0 for all other sources.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what you’re referring to as “Subwoofer Level Adjust”, can you be more specific on where I should look for that feature on my Onkyo Nr818 AVR?




My bad, I am used to D/M products. You may not have that option (SLA) with Onkyo. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Benz63amg

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> DEQ's operation is independent of whatever you are doing with respect to your subwoofer settings, so DEQ will operate in exactly the same way whether you turn your subwoofer trim up or down, or whether you turn your subwoofer gain control up or down. That is an important point to understand. DEQ won't add any more bass just because you turn your subwoofer volume down. So, you can do just what you suggested. You can experiment with subtracting some volume from your subwoofer for some programs, or with adding some volume to your subwoofer, at your discretion.
> 
> Nothing you do with your AVR settings will affect the EQ that Audyssey performed, or the filters it set, so you don't have to worry about that. That EQ process is independent of the AVR controls, unless you turn Audyssey off or use something like LFE+Main. And, the same filters will still be in operation when you turn Audyssey back on again.
> 
> The other way you can modify the amount of bass that you hear is by modifying DEQ's action. You could modify the way that DEQ operates by experimenting with the RLO settings. That is also a quick and convenient way to have a little less bass when you want it. The RLO settings can be found in your audio menu, under Audyssey. The default setting is 0, which is what you are listening to now. An RLO setting of -5 will slightly reduce the effect of DEQ. -10 will reduce it even more, and -15 is the maximum reduction in DEQ's operation.
> 
> If you want to understand how DEQ actually works, and how the RLO settings operate to change the effect of DEQ, I am giving you a direct link to an article which explains the operations in detail. But, even when you understand how a software program like DEQ works, you will still have to experiment to discover what you like best. That might be subtracting (or adding) a decibel or two with your trim control, at times, or it might be using the RLO settings. Don't be afraid to experiment. You won't hurt anything, and you can always put things back the way they were when you want to. (Your AVR has a control to return to default settings, for instance.)
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the reply, So manually ADJUSTING the subwoofer’s volume on the AvR from the volume level setup menu from -6.0db to -7.0db would be beneficial
for me and will give me less bass throughout (which is what I want), Correct?


----------



## rosstg

I would try it without DEQ for a few days.


----------



## Benz63amg

rosstg said:


> I would try it without DEQ for a few days.


The benefits of Dynamic EQ outweigh the negative of slight unwanted bass boost on certain content so I prefer to keep dynamic eq enabled.


----------



## rosstg

lamonsasa said:


> The benefits of Dynamic EQ outweigh the negative of slight unwanted bass boost on certain content so I prefer to keep dynamic eq enabled.


Sure, DEQ is very affective but it also doesn’t hurt trying it both ways. When I calibrate through the app I seem to get better results with my bass and a 3db boost to my subs compared to the AVR.


----------



## mogorf

rosstg said:


> Sure, DEQ is very affective but it also doesn’t hurt trying it both ways. When I calibrate through the app I seem to get better results with my bass and a 3db boost to my subs compared to the AVR.



This is always dependent on MV setting. If you listen not lower than -10 dB then the effect of DEQ might not even be noticable. At 0 dB MV setting DEQ automatically turns off.


From -20 dB and below turning DEQ on and off will immediately show the audible difference. Worth to try, agree.


----------



## Benz63amg

I still don’t understand though, by me manually adjusting the subwoofer volume level on the AvR’s speaker volume setup menu from -6.0db(Auddysey set it to -6.0db) to -7.0db, will I benefit from slightly softer bass across the board on all content or no? Is Dynamic EQ going to apply EVEN MORE boost to the sub channel because the subwoofer channel is now essentially even quieter (by me lowering the volume of the subwoofer channel from -6.0 db to -7.0db) and being that dynamic eq’s Job is to boost the sub channel..


----------



## mthomas47

lamonsasa said:


> I still don’t understand though, by me manually adjusting the subwoofer volume level on the AvR’s speaker volume setup menu from -6.0db(Auddysey set it to -6.0db) to -7.0db, will I benefit from slightly softer bass across the board on all content or no? Is Dynamic EQ going to apply EVEN MORE boost to the sub channel so the subwoofer channel is now essentially even quieter (by me lowering the volume of the subwoofer channel from -6.0 db to -7.0db) ?


I answered your question several times in my original post and gave you a "Like" when you asked if your understanding were correct. DEQ will not change its operation, based on what you do to your subwoofer. If you turn down the volume on your subwoofer, it will play softer, irrespective of DEQ. DEQ's operation is tied entirely to your master volume, and it boosts the bass in all of the channels, not just the subwoofer.

So, yes if you go from -6 to -7, you should notice a slight reduction in bass volume. And if you go to -8, you will notice even more difference. Just season to taste.


----------



## rosstg

mogorf said:


> This is always dependent on MV setting. If you listen not lower than -10 dB then the effect of DEQ might not even be noticable. At 0 dB MV setting DEQ automatically turns off.
> 
> 
> From -20 dB and below turning DEQ on and off will immediately show the audible difference. Worth to try, agree.


For sure. I’ve been using DEQ on for my last 4 AVR’s. I found it very useful when I was living in apartments. It’s just the wife and I in our house so I’m able to crank it as loud as I want. I found even at -10 MV the bass and surround boost was audible. When I calibrate through the AVR my subs are set low compared to when I calibrate through the app. The app sets my subs about 3db higher so I don’t feel like I need the extra bass boost. I love my bass but I also find DEQ can be distracting. With a DEQ engaged the subs and surrounds call a lot of attention to themselves. I get why some really like that but I’m enjoying all processing off, I’ve even limited MultiEQ to 300hz which has opened up my speakers significantly. Bass hits low when it should.


----------



## legierk

Well, I finally turned DEQ off about a year ago (never have used Dynamic Volume), based on the recommendation of the first post in this thread (I think that is where I saw it). Anyhow, turning DEQ OFF was the best thing I ever did. Just kick up the subs a few db to get back the lows. Dialog more intelligible, less high end sizzle (smoother highs) and generally an overall better experience. I really wish my Denon would default to Off instead assume you want it after running Audyssey. (Of course it asks you).


----------



## mogorf

legierk said:


> Well, I finally turned DEQ off about a year ago (never have used Dynamic Volume), based on the recommendation of the first post in this thread (I think that is where I saw it). Anyhow, turning DEQ OFF was the best thing I ever did. Just kick up the subs a few db to get back the lows. Dialog more intelligible, less high end sizzle (smoother highs) and generally an overall better experience. I really wish my Denon would default to Off instead assume you want it after running Audyssey. (Of course it asks you).



May I ask what is your typical listening leve (MV setting)? Thx.


----------



## legierk

mogorf said:


> May I ask what is your typical listening leve (MV setting)? Thx.


Its really source/title dependent. But generally, in the theater, its about -20 to -10. I do get up to close to 0db on some titles though. Keep it alot lower in living room. Still no DEQ in there though, but just "casual" TV viewing instead of an "event" like in the theater room. Either way, I get better dialog in movies and music sounds better also without DEQ. YMMV.

PS. To put any value in my volume settings, you should know my speakers in the theater are all Klipsch, left and rights are La Scalas with 105 db sensitivity. Academy center at 96db.

Edit #2 : I realized I am going to get yelled at because the speaker sensitivity is a non issue with the channel level trims. So I was wrong in suggesting that. My LR trims are at like -11 I think (been awhile since I looked).


----------



## rosstg

DEQ turned OFF and MultEQ limited to 300hz gives me the best performance in my dedicated room. Even at lower volumes I find it sounds better off. DEQ also drown out my Atmos speakers.


----------



## pbarach

lamonsasa said:


> it’s a known fact tv material is mixed at 10 db below reference level.


That isn't what others have written here. I don't know of any official reference for this fact you're citing--can you provide one? Generally what people have written in this forum is that volume levels on TV channels are not consistent in any way. That has also been my experience--I turn OFF DEQ for anything BBC-sourced because the surrounds are much too loud, but I leave the RLO at 10 dB for most other TV material. I don't know if that's "right" or "correct," but it's usually my preference.


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> That isn't what others have written here. I don't know of any official reference for this fact you're citing--can you provide one? Generally what people have written in this forum is that volume levels on TV channels are not consistent in any way. That has also been my experience--I turn OFF DEQ for anything BBC-sourced because the surrounds are much too loud, but I leave the RLO at 10 dB for most other TV material. I don't know if that's "right" or "correct," but it's usually my preference.



And to continue your thought Peter, volume levels of YouTube, Spotify, etc. are also not only not consistent, but freakingly unknown! Playing back from those sources for me is like listening to my "shower radio" in the bathroom. Gotta love music so much that it doesn't really matter. But once I sit down to "serious" listening on my HT system I have a demand to do it right! A pity that this ain't so easy to achive!


----------



## garygarrison

lamonsasa said:


> I still don’t understand though, by me manually adjusting the subwoofer volume level on the AvR’s speaker volume setup menu from -6.0db(Auddysey set it to -6.0db) to -7.0db, will I benefit from slightly softer bass across the board on all content or no? Is Dynamic EQ going to apply EVEN MORE boost to the sub channel because the subwoofer channel is now essentially even quieter (by me lowering the volume of the subwoofer channel from -6.0 db to -7.0db) and being that dynamic eq’s Job is to boost the sub channel..





*Yes*, you will benefit from slightly softer bass across the board on all content, but 1 dB is a Just Noticeable Difference for most people, so try reducing it 1 dB (one JND) at a time, followed by hours of listening with a variety of program material, until you get the bass level you want. Even so, different days and different moods and different recordings may make a difference.
DEQ will not "know" you have changed the subwoofer channel level.
Nor will`DEQ be "aware" that the Sound Pressure Level ("volume") in the room is a little lower due to you cutting back either the sub trim in the AVR, or turning down the gain control on the sub itself. DEQ does* not* measure the actual SPL in the room. Its two tiered function looks at the *position* of the *Main Volume Control* (e.g., -10, - 15, etc.) and also looks at what is happening in *the recording* itself (e.g., a soft passage, a loud passage, etc.).
DEQ's "job" is not restricted to boosting the sub channel. It will boost bass in the sub, and your *other speakers* due to your Main Volume Control having been turned down, or due to a soft passage in music, or, say, whispering in dialogue. If your crossover to the sub is set, for instance, at 80 Hz, and your Main Volume Control is set at -15 dB, DEQ might set 100 Hz at +3 dB, while setting a very deep bass pitch (e.g., 30 Hz) to +6 or +7. At the same time, it might set the high treble to as much as an average of + 3 dB, due to the ear's decreased sensitivity to very high frequencies at low volume.
EDIT*: * I hadn't read Mike's response (a few posts ago) when I wrote this. As a wise man once said, "Always err on the side of redundancy."


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> That isn't what others have written here. I don't know of any official reference for this fact you're citing--can you provide one? Generally what people have written in this forum is that volume levels on TV channels are not consistent in any way. That has also been my experience--I turn OFF DEQ for anything BBC-sourced because the surrounds are much too loud, but I leave the RLO at 10 dB for most other TV material. I don't know if that's "right" or "correct," but it's usually my preference.



Fortunately, we don't have TV in our HT. In other rooms, PBS is maddeningly lower than all others, so we have to turn it up for Brooks and Shields, Rick Steves, etc. On the regular broadcast channels, the volume is higher, and the IQ lower (usually).


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Fortunately, we don't have TV in our HT. In other rooms, PBS is maddeningly lower than all others, so we have to turn it up for Brooks and Shields, Rick Steves, etc. On the regular broadcast channels, the volume is higher, and the IQ lower (usually).


Now, Gary! Don't be unkind about the regular broadcast channels. Once upon a time, they were all we had.  Speaking of those earlier days, I also enjoyed watching Brooke Shields more then.


----------



## Benz63amg

garygarrison said:


> *Yes*, you will benefit from slightly softer bass across the board on all content, but 1 dB is a Just Noticeable Difference for most people, so try reducing it 1 dB (one JND) at a time, followed by hours of listening with a variety of program material, until you get the bass level you want. Even so, different days and different moods and different recordings may make a difference.
> DEQ will not "know" you have changed the subwoofer channel level.
> Nor will`DEQ be "aware" that the Sound Pressure Level ("volume") in the room is a little lower due to you cutting back either the sub trim in the AVR, or turning down the gain control on the sub itself. DEQ does* not* measure the actual SPL in the room. Its two tiered function looks at the *position* of the *Main Volume Control* (e.g., -10, - 15, etc.) and also looks at what is happening in *the recording* itself (e.g., a soft passage, a loud passage, etc.).
> DEQ's "job" is not restricted to boosting the sub channel. It will boost bass in the sub, and your *other speakers* due to your Main Volume Control having been turned down, or due to a soft passage in music, or, say, whispering in dialogue. If your crossover to the sub is set, for instance, at 80 Hz, and your Main Volume Control is set at -15 dB, DEQ might set 100 Hz at +3 dB, while setting a very deep bass pitch (e.g., 30 Hz) to +6 or +7. At the same time, it might set the high treble to as much as an average of + 3 dB, due to the ear's decreased sensitivity to very high frequencies at low volume.
> EDIT*: * I hadn't read Mike's response (a few posts ago) when I wrote this. As a wise man once said, "Always err on the side of redundancy."


Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, I just wanted to make sure I wasn’t screwing up my Auddysey calibration or the functioninality of dynamic eq in any way by manually adjusting the subwoofer channel volume in the AVR’s speaker setup menu from -6.0db to -7.0db. I’ll keep it at -7.0db for now and I’ll see if the bass is where I like it now.


----------



## Benz63amg

pbarach said:


> That isn't what others have written here. I don't know of any official reference for this fact you're citing--can you provide one? Generally what people have written in this forum is that volume levels on TV channels are not consistent in any way. That has also been my experience--I turn OFF DEQ for anything BBC-sourced because the surrounds are much too loud, but I leave the RLO at 10 dB for most other TV material. I don't know if that's "right" or "correct," but it's usually my preference.


You’re right, it’s not a “fact” per say but rather a recommended setting to select for the HDTV Source (RLO 10db)


----------



## Benz63amg

mthomas47 said:


> I answered your question several times in my original post and gave you a "Like" when you asked if your understanding were correct. DEQ will not change its operation, based on what you do to your subwoofer. If you turn down the volume on your subwoofer, it will play softer, irrespective of DEQ. DEQ's operation is tied entirely to your master volume, and it boosts the bass in all of the channels, not just the subwoofer.
> 
> So, yes if you go from -6 to -7, you should notice a slight reduction in bass volume. And if you go to -8, you will notice even more difference. Just season to taste.


Thank you, I greatly appreciate the advice. I’ll keep it at -7.0db for now and if I see that the bass is still too strong to my liking I might lower the subwoofer’s volume on the AVR’s setup menu further to perhaps -8.0db but I think -7.0db should be sufficient. I wanted to be certain that by me MANUALLY adjusting the volume level of the subwoofer channel that Auddysey XT32 set to “-6.0db” to anything else other than “-6.0db” wouldn’t mess up and throw off the entire calibration or ruin the way dynamic eq is functioning for my system. My goal by making this adjustment was to make the bass a bit softer and it sounds like I found the solution and that is to lower the volume of the subwoofer channel by 1db to “-7.0db” in the AVR’s Setup Menu which is exactly what I’ve done.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Now, Gary! Don't be unkind about the regular broadcast channels. Once upon a time, they were all we had.  Speaking of those earlier days, I also enjoyed watching Brooke Shields more then.



LOL, I'd hate to see Brooks & Shields do Pretty Baby.


----------



## rosstg

For me, the thing that bugs me the most about Room Correction and DEQ in particular is it makes everything sound the same. Not everything has a ton of low end. The bass almost drowns out everything else out. I feel like I miss a lot of nuances because I’m so focused on the bass because it’s always there. When I turn off DEQ I’m hearing everything, it’s more balanced. And when the low end does kick in it’s more impactful. Much like frequenting my local theatre, I’m sucked into the movie, not thinking how loud the bass is. And watching tv with DEQ even set to 10 is a no go for me. AMC sounds dreadful with it on, commercials are much louder than the show I’m watching, I’m constantly adjusting volume. The first movie I watched with the wife after turning off DEQ was Jurassic World. She never comments on our HT but she asked why it sounded so much better. She would never complain about the volume before but confessed she felt it had way too much bass and surround activity. Again, I think DEQ is great for people who listen at very low volumes and who may not have a great sub that doesn’t hit low or those who have a great sub and wants bass front and center above all else.


----------



## thepiecesfit

I've re-ran Auddysey keeping the microphone more forward on the couch. I believe the reflections were screwing with it being close to the furniture. And instead of placing it behind the couch for the 7 and 8 position I changed the location to be in between spot 2 and 3. Get plenty of bass now and not running any Dynamic volume or Dynamic EQ. Setting Flat + Cinema is great for movies per recommendation here. I do use MultiEQ and turn off any midrange compensation and use high frequency rolloff 2. I am also using Reference for music. The biggest improvement however came from adding a pair of Outlaw 2200 amps to my L and R channels. The range of the speakers really opened up. I did experiment with just doing the Center and that was a lot better as well. Might be the topic for another discussion but amps make a big difference!


----------



## j4894

rosstg said:


> For me, the thing that bugs me the most about Room Correction and DEQ in particular is it makes everything sound the same. Not everything has a ton of low end. The bass almost drowns out everything else out. I feel like I miss a lot of nuances because I’m so focused on the bass because it’s always there. When I turn off DEQ I’m hearing everything, it’s more balanced. And when the low end does kick in it’s more impactful. Much like frequenting my local theatre, I’m sucked into the movie, not thinking how loud the bass is. And watching tv with DEQ even set to 10 is a no go for me. AMC sounds dreadful with it on, commercials are much louder than the show I’m watching, I’m constantly adjusting volume. The first movie I watched with the wife after turning off DEQ was Jurassic World. She never comments on our HT but she asked why it sounded so much better. She would never complain about the volume before but confessed she felt it had way too much bass and surround activity. Again, I think DEQ is great for people who listen at very low volumes and who may not have a great sub that doesn’t hit low or those who have a great sub and wants bass front and center above all else.




Good write up, can I ask what your experience has been with dynamic volume? I go back and forth between off and light. Thanks


----------



## rosstg

j4894 said:


> Good write up, can I ask what your experience has been with dynamic volume? I go back and forth between off and light. Thanks


Thanks. I think it’s a handy feature like DEQ for people who need them but I never use it. I’ve moved away from any processing. I only use MultiEQ up to 300hz. Everything sounds more open natural with it all off.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> For me, the thing that bugs me the most about Room Correction and DEQ in particular is it makes everything sound the same. Not everything has a ton of low end. The bass almost drowns out everything else out. I feel like I miss a lot of nuances because I’m so focused on the bass because it’s always there. When I turn off DEQ I’m hearing everything, it’s more balanced. And when the low end does kick in it’s more impactful. Much like frequenting my local theatre, I’m sucked into the movie, not thinking how loud the bass is. And watching tv with DEQ even set to 10 is a no go for me. AMC sounds dreadful with it on, commercials are much louder than the show I’m watching, I’m constantly adjusting volume. The first movie I watched with the wife after turning off DEQ was Jurassic World. She never comments on our HT but she asked why it sounded so much better. She would never complain about the volume before but confessed she felt it had way too much bass and surround activity. Again, I think DEQ is great for people who listen at very low volumes and who may not have a great sub that doesn’t hit low or those who have a great sub and wants bass front and center above all else.


To be fair, the whole point of room correction is to make everything sound the same (as intended) by removing/correcting as many in-room problems as possible. Most people find that there is not enough bass after auto calibration, but it's usually because it's more balanced and aren't used to it. Hence, why it's usually recommended to increase the subwoofer by +3dB. The issue about the volume mismatching when watching AMC or commercials etc. is not an Audyssey issue.

The issue with DEQ, for me, was that in a certain range when you are trying to lower the volume it increases the bass. In theory, it would be balanced relative to the other channels, but I found it to be too boomy. When my wife and I are watching casually, we typically have it at -20 to -25 purposely at a "lower comfortable" volume. That's when I found it to be not so good for my tastes.

However, in the -10 to -15 ranges I find that DEQ works well and maintains the balance I want. My issue with dialogue clarity appears to have been solved by using Flat + CinemaEQ. In fact, I still find it a little more bright than I'm used to, but I'm giving it time because I've been so used to the more muffled sound of Reference.

I experimented by turning off DEQ, using -10 volume, and adding 4dB to sub and 2dB to surrounds (to account for what DEQ theoretically does as you stray away from MV). It sounded balanced and clear. I compared back with DEQ on and reverting the sub and surrounds to default after auto calibration, and it sounded the same. I then tried turning DEQ off again and not adding any manual boosts. 

All in all, DEQ on and off was very similar and comparable when watching movies "loud" at -10 or -15. I wouldn't necessarily blanket it as "turn it off". I like what it tries to do, so I'm still trying to appreciate it


----------



## Spidacat

Another thing to be aware of, especially with DEQ, is to make sure everything is balanced before applying. It wasn't until I added a 3rd sub that I delved into REW. It turns out that my previous settings (2 good subs and running Audyssey MultEQ XT32 either with the AVR or the app) had a substantial peak around 40 Hz due to my room. After getting a miniDSP HD 2x4 and learning a little about REW , I was able to get my bass response much flatter. After running Audyssey my bass is very flat to below 20 Hz. I still don't use DEQ for movies since I set up my own house curve. If your bass is already somewhat boomy, adding something like DEQ is only going to make it worse.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> To be fair, the whole point of room correction is to make everything sound the same (as intended) by removing/correcting as many in-room problems as possible. Most people find that there is not enough bass after auto calibration, but it's usually because it's more balanced and aren't used to it. Hence, why it's usually recommended to increase the subwoofer by +3dB. The issue about the volume mismatching when watching AMC or commercials etc. is not an Audyssey issue.
> 
> The issue with DEQ, for me, was that in a certain range when you are trying to lower the volume it increases the bass. In theory, it would be balanced relative to the other channels, but I found it to be too boomy. When my wife and I are watching casually, we typically have it at -20 to -25 purposely at a "lower comfortable" volume. That's when I found it to be not so good for my tastes.
> 
> However, in the -10 to -15 ranges I find that DEQ works well and maintains the balance I want. My issue with dialogue clarity appears to have been solved by using Flat + CinemaEQ. In fact, I still find it a little more bright than I'm used to, but I'm giving it time because I've been so used to the more muffled sound of Reference.
> 
> I experimented by turning off DEQ, using -10 volume, and adding 4dB to sub and 2dB to surrounds (to account for what DEQ theoretically does as you stray away from MV). It sounded balanced and clear. I compared back with DEQ on and reverting the sub and surrounds to default after auto calibration, and it sounded the same. I then tried turning DEQ off again and not adding any manual boosts.
> 
> All in all, DEQ on and off was very similar and comparable when watching movies "loud" at -10 or -15. I wouldn't necessarily blanket it as "turn it off". I like what it tries to do, so I'm still trying to appreciate it


I know that’s what room correction does. That’s why I’ve never been a fan. My favourite AVR to date was my first 6.1 Panasonic. No extra proceeding on that unit. That’s why I’m so happy with the app. Because now I can finally let my speakers sound like my speakers. Focus on eqing what needs to be eq’d. The bass. I understand why people like to increase the sub gain. They want more bass lol. Most do not prefer a Flat bass. I do.

My example about tv and DEQ is an issue with a DEQ, the fact is when I had DEQ on while watching tv it sounded awful and made the fluctuation worse. I do not have that issue now that DEQ is off.

I’m glad things worked out for you and you got everything dialed in. As I said I think most people will like DEQ and MultiEQ full range. I’m glad D&M are letting users customize.


----------



## pbarach

j4894 said:


> Good write up, can I ask what your experience has been with dynamic volume? I go back and forth between off and light. Thanks


I never use Dynamic Volume with music, but I will use it for TV or BluRay material where the special effects are deafening if the master volume is turned up enough to make the dialogue easily audible.


----------



## LRZNole

If you run Audyssey and select Refence at the end then later decide you want to switch to Flat does it screw up the corrections and require Audyssey to be ran again?


----------



## j4894

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



LRZNole said:


> If you run Audyssey and select Refence at the end then later decide you want to switch to Flat does it screw up the corrections and require Audyssey to be ran again?




No, it is ok to change that. You can also adjust crossover points higher if you want. You can also turn on/off dynamic volume and eq without messing up the calibration.

Rerun audyssey if move or change a speaker.


----------



## LRZNole

j4894 said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you run Audyssey and select Refence at the end then later decide you want to switch to Flat does it screw up the corrections and require Audyssey to be ran again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is ok to change that. You can also adjust crossover points higher if you want. You can also turn on/off dynamic volume and eq without messing up the calibration.
> 
> Rerun audyssey if move or change a speaker.
Click to expand...

I was aware about crossovers but wasn’t sure about flat and reference. I don’t think I really have an audiophile ear but is reference typically preferred over flat or vice versa? I mainly watch movies and TV if that matters.


----------



## j4894

LRZNole said:


> I was aware about crossovers but wasn’t sure about flat and reference. I don’t think I really have an audiophile ear but is reference typically preferred over flat or vice versa? I mainly watch movies and TV if that matters.




It’s just a preference thing, reference rolls off the highs a little and flat doesn’t.


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> I was aware about crossovers but wasn’t sure about flat and reference. I don’t think I really have an audiophile ear but is reference typically preferred over flat or vice versa? I mainly watch movies and TV if that matters.


I would say most people would prefer Reference which has a slight rolloff in the high frequencies. Many find Flat to sound bright. Unless you are in a very small room with a lot of absorption or sit close to your speakers I suggest the Reference curve. I do recommend turning off the Midrange Compensation if you use MultiEQ full range.


----------



## pbz06

j4894 said:


> It’s just a preference thing, reference rolls off the highs a little and flat doesn’t.


Also, Reference has the midrange dip which can only be eliminated if you use the app (or use Flat).


----------



## Rob9874

mthomas47 said:


> Your question about where to place mic position 1 is a good one, and I don't know the answer. People used to debate that question all the time on the thread, until everyone seemed to realize that they could just experiment, and pick the position that ended-up actually sounding the best. You can certainly start by trying the calibration with the mic in between the two primary seats, and if you like the way things sound that way, then you are done. Or, if you notice subtle sounds more than your wife does, you could try to emphasize your seat more by making that mic position 1. That's strictly a YMMV question.
> 
> One thing I should reiterate is that you aren't measuring individual seats. You are measuring an area, so that Audyssey can EQ the area you select. You may get better overall sound by measuring the entire width of the loveseat, or you may get better sound quality by maintaining a more compact microphone pattern. Audyssey will work best if it doesn't have to deal with too many variables in the sound. So, finding a more uniform measurement area will typically result in a more uniform sound across the entire listening area. That's where some experimentation comes in. As with the other poster I responded to, you need to give yourself some time with this, just as you would with any new technology.
> 
> You mentioned setting the microphone on the armrest and on the seats. Perhaps that was just a figure of speech. But, remember that, for best results, you want a a mic stand that sits on the floor, and that isn't subject to the vibrations from the loveseat. Section I-B recommended a mic stand, with a couple of different types of adapters for your Audyssey mic, that will be far superior to the cardboard stand that Audyssey provides. It's a small expense for the additional accuracy it gives you.


Mike, I took your advice and bought the boom mic stand and adapter for the Audyssey mic. I decided on mic position 1 as the armrest between the 2 seats. I like that decision, as it balanced the levels between R & L. When I had my seat (right seat of the love seat) as position 1, it measured the right surround as closer and made the volume low and boosted the volume of the left surround. Probably balanced the volume from my position, but would too loud when sitting in the left seat and not balanced in the room. In fact, it set my fronts at 0, center at +3, and surrounds at +0.5 (which I reduced to 0 since our seating positions are pretty close to them). So I'm 0 all around, and +3 for center. Dolby fronts are +1.5.

I had run the previous Audyssey through the AVR, where it set my sub to -10, which I increased to -5. This time, I used the app, and it set the sub to -6 (same gain setting on the sub). I turned it up to -5, but have since put it back to -6.

I want to recalibrate this weekend, as I have a question about mic position. We sit on a leather loveseat. On this last calibration, I folded a heavy comforter in half, and draped that over the back of the loveseat, and positioned the mic 4" from the back of the couch, as described in your guide, for positions 1-3. I've read others say they have success moving the mic further from the back of the couch, or even raising it above the back of the couch. I've measured my ear level to be 31" from the ground when I recline my seat. If I raise the mic above the headrest, it's 45". That seems drastic. Any advice?


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> Yeah the RP’s are certainly articulate. I’ve tried the Flat curve with 3 AVR’s and 2 sets of speakers in my room and my issue with the Flat and Reference curves is they made *both brands of speakers sound the same*. Flat clearly had more detail but it still sounded artificial in my rooms. At the time I had a lot of Auralex panels up too. *Both curves seem to remove the character from my speakers. I also notice my Atmos modules get lost with EQ*. They are barely audible. When limited to 300hz the effect is much clearer the sound is more enveloping.





rosstg said:


> For me, the thing that bugs me the most about Room Correction and *DEQ in particular* is it *makes everything sound the same*. Not everything has a ton of low end. The bass almost drowns out everything else out. I feel like I miss a lot of nuances because *I’m so focused on the bass because it’s always there.* *When I turn off DEQ I’m hearing everything, it’s more balanced. And when the low end does kick in it’s more impactful*. Much like frequenting my local theatre, I’m sucked into the movie, not thinking how loud the bass is.


"Making both brands of speakers sound the same." Wow, that's quite a feat, if I remember correctly, that you had Paradigms and went to Klipsch RP! Which models of each do you have? Just curious.



It's characteristic of some Klipsch speakers (I haven't heard the RPs) to sound very clear partly due to the low modulation distortion in horn loaded midrange and treble and partly due to seeming a bit bright. Don't get me wrong, I like that sound on the part of Klipsch and others that have horn midrange, such as JBL Everest, and the grand old JBL 375 theater midrange driver. I imagine if the bass is swamped, the characteristic Klipsch sound could be neutered. I assume you are running the RPs on SMALL as recommended, so deep bass boost from DEQ (or any source) is channeled to the sub? As you probably know, that takes a burden off your main speakers and your amps, and reduces modulation distortion within the range of a given speaker (e.g. 30 to 1,800, or so with your RPs, if not set for SMALL). 



Weirdly, too much bass in the room can mask detail in the midrange, even when reproduced by separate speakers. That could be happening with both your main speakers and Atmos.


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> "Making both brands of speakers sound the same." Wow, that's quite a feat, if I remember correctly, that you had Paradigms and went to Klipsch RP! Which models of each do you have? Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> It's characteristic of some Klipsch speakers (I haven't heard the RPs) to sound very clear partly due to the low modulation distortion in horn loaded midrange and treble and partly due to seeming a bit bright. Don't get me wrong, I like that sound on the part of Klipsch and others that have horn midrange, such as JBL Everest, and the grand old JBL 375 theater midrange driver. I imagine if the bass is swamped, the characteristic Klipsch sound could be neutered. I assume you are running the RPs on SMALL as recommended, so deep bass boost from DEQ (or any source) is channeled to the sub? As you probably know, that takes a burden off your main speakers and your amps, and reduces modulation distortion within the range of a given speaker (e.g. 30 to 1,800, or so with your RPs, if not set for SMALL).
> 
> 
> 
> Weirdly, too much bass in the room can mask detail in the midrange, even when reproduced by separate speakers. That could be happening with both your main speakers and Atmos.


Good memory

Yeah I had Paradigm Monitors v.6 prior to the RP’s. 
I currently have 440c, 250f, 240s x4, 140sa, dual SVS PB-1000 on Auralex risers. My AVR is the Denon X4300, will be buying a 5 channel amp soon, looking at options.

Same room, pretty much same configuration although I had s projector at the time. I remember being disappointed with the RP’s because they sounded very similar to the Paradigms and concluded it was room correction. I hear people say the RP line is bright but from my experience they are less bright than my old Paradigms. I find they are much more revealing and detailed but also less fatiguing. I find both curves sound neutered. Flat is dreadful in my room. It sounds sterile. Things improved once I turned off MRC but I still wasn’t satisfied until I limited MultiEQ. I always set my mains and Center at 80hz, surrounds and rears at 100hz, Atmos at 150hz. That’s what I had them set at while using DEQ. Didn’t matter what crossovers I chose, it didn’t sound right. Definitely agree too much bass can mask nuances. I love bass but I prefer my bass to blend and not call too much attention.


----------



## Alfredo_Vic

If I currently have the LFE crossover set to 80hz and want to raise it to 120hz, do I need to re-run Audyssey cal afterwards?
I understood that was a recommendation (and also Dolby standard?). EDIT: Recommendation to have it at 120hz, not re run calibration .


----------



## rosstg

Alfredo_Vic said:


> If I currently have the LFE crossover set to 80hz and want to raise it to 120hz, do I need to re-run Audyssey cal afterwards?
> I understood that was a recommendation (and also Dolby standard?). EDIT: Recommendation to have it at 120hz, not re run calibration .


No need to rerun Audyssey. 120hz is the default.


----------



## mthomas47

Rob9874 said:


> Mike, I took your advice and bought the boom mic stand and adapter for the Audyssey mic. I decided on mic position 1 as the armrest between the 2 seats. I like that decision, as it balanced the levels between R & L. When I had my seat (right seat of the love seat) as position 1, it measured the right surround as closer and made the volume low and boosted the volume of the left surround. Probably balanced the volume from my position, but would too loud when sitting in the left seat and not balanced in the room. In fact, it set my fronts at 0, center at +3, and surrounds at +0.5 (which I reduced to 0 since our seating positions are pretty close to them). So I'm 0 all around, and +3 for center. Dolby fronts are +1.5.
> 
> I had run the previous Audyssey through the AVR, where it set my sub to -10, which I increased to -5. This time, I used the app, and it set the sub to -6 (same gain setting on the sub). I turned it up to -5, but have since put it back to -6.
> 
> I want to recalibrate this weekend, as I have a question about mic position. We sit on a leather loveseat. On this last calibration, I folded a heavy comforter in half, and draped that over the back of the loveseat, and positioned the mic 4" from the back of the couch, as described in your guide, for positions 1-3. I've read others say they have success moving the mic further from the back of the couch, or even raising it above the back of the couch. I've measured my ear level to be 31" from the ground when I recline my seat. If I raise the mic above the headrest, it's 45". That seems drastic. Any advice?


Hi Rob,

I'm glad that the advice helped. It sounds as if you found the best solution for mic position 1 in your HT. I agree with you that going 14" above your ear level would be pretty drastic. Let's separate the issues here. First, if you put something absorbent over the back of the loveseat (and even a single thickness of a heavy comforter would probably be enough) you should be able to get within 4 or 5" of the comforter without experiencing any spurious high-frequency reflections into the Audyssey microphone. So, there shouldn't be a need to move further away from the back of the couch. That's what the comforter was for.

The second issue is mic height. As noted in the Guide, some people have experienced better results by raising the mic a couple of inches above ear level for two of the mic positions. Just as with the use of the comforter, this is a trial-and-error issue to determine whether it works well in your room, and your hearing has to be the final arbiter of that. But, the idea makes sense to me, because we don't keep our heads perfectly still when watching/listening, so going 2 or 3" higher for a couple of mic positions allows for the possibility of sometimes sitting a little higher than we do normally.

If you do most of your viewing/listening with your loveseat reclined, then that that's the way I would perform the Audyssey calibration. You want to EQ your listening area, and that means you would want to have your loveseat in a reclined position if that is the way you will be using it. So, I would perform my calibration with the mic height at about 31".

I think that going 14" above the loveseat, would make as little sense as going 14" behind the loveseat. As I see it, the whole idea is to assist Audyssey in EQing a fairly uniform listening area. Audyssey cannot possibly maintain equal volumes across the full frequency range for the entire room. And, that's what room EQ is really trying to do--maintain roughly equal volumes for each speaker for the full frequency range that it plays. So, trying to limit the measurement area to a smaller more uniform area, has a much better chance of resulting in a more uniform EQ, than going outside of that smaller listening area would. There may be exceptions to that idea, as there are exceptions to every generalization, but I think that the basic concept is valid.

With that in mind, EQing more than a foot above your ears wouldn't really make any sense at all. You can get a lot of different kinds of advice with respect to something like this, and it can be hard sometimes to know what advice is worth attempting. We all have limited amounts of time that we can devote to this sort of thing. I think the more that we understand how Audyssey works, and the more that we understand what we are actually trying to accomplish with our calibrations, the easier it is to separate the wheat from the chaff with respect to the suggestions we hear. I hope this additional explanation helps with that. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Rob9874

mthomas47 said:


> I'm glad that the advice helped. It sounds as if you found the best solution for mic position 1 in your HT. I agree with you that going 14" above your ear level would be pretty drastic. Let's separate the issues here. First, if you put something absorbent over the back of the loveseat (and even a single thickness of a heavy comforter would probably be enough) you should be able to get within 4 or 5" of the comforter without experiencing any spurious high-frequency reflections into the Audyssey microphone. So, there shouldn't be a need to move further away from the back of the couch. That's what the comforter was for.


Since that's how I measured it, I'll just keep it as is and not recalibrate. Like most of us, I'm a perfectionist and can tinker with this forever. At some point, you have to be happy with what it is, and start enjoying the sound. Thanks for your help!


----------



## aarons915

Hi gentlemen, I'm currently using an Emotiva UMC-200 and manually equalizing my dual subs with REW and it does a pretty good job but I've been curious about getting a receiver with XT32 for the ease of use. My question is, does anyone have REW graphs of a good result of how it performs? Overall is fine but I'd really like a separation of Mains, subs and both combined just to see what it does individually. So far, I've only found combined results.


----------



## Benz63amg

I ended up re running the audyssey XT32 calibration on my Onkyo nR818 again tonight, did the full 8 positions in my living room, this time around audyssey set the volume for my SVS SB3000 to -6.5db, i tested some music material after the calibration and bass was a bit too much to my liking so i manually adjusted the volume level for the subwoofer channel on the AVR to -10db, I spoke to SVS customer service today and thats what they recommended me to do. they said its most likely room gain that is causing the bass to feel a bit too much so adjusting the volume on the AVR is the way to go, the actual volume gain on the subwoofer itself is -10db and they recommend leaving that as is. Dynamic EQ is on for all my sources, Reference level offset is set to 0 / MOVIE for all my sources except for the HDTV Source which is set to 10db / Movie


----------



## sjm817

I finally got around to getting a umik and REW. I have it set up and took first set of measurements. Didnt get too fancy as there is a lot to learn. I did a measurement using L&R and both Subs. Audyssey XT32 calibration was in use and compared Ref Vs Flat on the full range graph. 

The full range graph I used 1/6 smoothing and the 15-200 bass, no smoothing. I read a few different things on this. Is there a standard setting I should be using?

The only thing that really catches my eye is the big dip ~ 120hz. What about the dip ~ 37hz? Is that something I should be looking to correct? At this point I'm not sure exactly what to take from this


----------



## mogorf

sjm817 said:


> I finally got around to getting a umik and REW. I have it set up and took first set of measurements. Didnt get too fancy as there is a lot to learn. I did a measurement using L&R and both Subs. Audyssey XT32 calibration was in use and compared Ref Vs Flat on the full range graph.
> 
> The full range graph I used 1/6 smoothing and the 15-200 bass, no smoothing. I read a few different things on this. Is there a standard setting I should be using?
> 
> The only thing that really catches my eye is the big dip ~ 120hz. What about the dip ~ 37hz? Is that something I should be looking to correct? At this point I'm not sure exactly what to take from this


I assume these are one point measurements somewhere in space in your room. Its always best to take several measurements around your seating area (a la Audyssey style) and average them in REW in order to avoid such mis-leading results like the dip at 120 Hz. That does not resemble how our ears hear.

One more point. I'm not sure I understand the idea of measuring L&R together. What does it show? Yet, you can always use REW separately for L & sub and then R & sub. Superimposing them in REW will show you much more when you compare them. Best when done full range.


----------



## mogorf

lamonsasa said:


> I ended up re running the audyssey XT32 calibration on my Onkyo nR818 again tonight, did the full 8 positions in my living room, this time around audyssey set the volume for my SVS SB3000 to -6.5db, i tested some music material after the calibration and bass was a bit too much to my liking so i manually adjusted the volume level for the subwoofer channel on the AVR to -10db, I spoke to SVS customer service today and thats what they recommended me to do. they said its most likely room gain that is causing the bass to feel a bit too much so adjusting the volume on the AVR is the way to go, the actual volume gain on the subwoofer itself is -10db and they recommend leaving that as is. Dynamic EQ is on for all my sources, Reference level offset is set to 0 / MOVIE for all my sources except for the HDTV Source which is set to 10db / Movie



Did you try Reference Level Offset for music? Say, 10 or even 15 dB offset. That might help tame bass, yet allow DEQ to do its work.


----------



## Benz63amg

mogorf said:


> Did you try Reference Level Offset for music? Say, 10 or even 15 dB offset. That might help tame bass, yet allow DEQ to do its work.


I have not tried reference level offset at 10db as the source where I play the music from is the Apple TV on my system and I mostly watch movies / shows on the Apple TV so setting the Apple TV source to reference level offset 10 wouldn’t be ideal, I’m really confused at this point,


----------



## sjm817

mogorf said:


> I assume these are one point measurements somewhere in space in your room. Its always best to take several measurements around your seating area (a la Audyssey style) and average them in REW in order to avoid such mis-leading results like the dip at 120 Hz. That does not resemble how our ears hear.
> 
> One more point. I'm not sure I understand the idea of measuring L&R together. What does it show? Yet, you can always use REW separately for L & sub and then R & sub. Superimposing them in REW will show you much more when you compare them. Best when done full range.


Yes, these were single point measurements. Just 1st crack to try it out. I just did a couple more. 3 positions like the 1st 3 you would use with Audyssey. One little hitch I ran into is yesterday the ASIO worked fine. Today I cannot get it to see the umik. I had to use the Java drivers, which for just L&R, I guess is fine.

L&R 3 pos average. Aud = Ref, 80z xover. Both SW 1/6 smoothing










L&R 3 pos average. Aud = Ref, No SW 1/6 smoothing


----------



## mogorf

sjm817 said:


> Yes, these were single point measurements. Just 1st crack to try it out. I just did a couple more. 3 positions like the 1st 3 you would use with Audyssey. One little hitch I ran into is yesterday the ASIO worked fine. Today I cannot get it to see the umik. I had to use the Java drivers, which for just L&R, I guess is fine.
> 
> L&R 3 pos average. Aud = Ref, 80z xover. Both SW 1/6 smoothing
> 
> 
> L&R 3 pos average. Aud = Ref, No SW 1/6 smoothing



Very well done, indeed. I think these graphs will get you much closer to see what you are going to hear.  The Audyssey ref. roll-off at the high end is there together with the BBC dip at around 2 kHz. In the meantime, that "hekuva" dip at 120 Hz disappeared from the graphs, as expected, with the clever use of averaging in REW. 



Nothing's left than to sit down at the MLP, grab a beer (a cold one) and enjoy!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mogorf

lamonsasa said:


> I have not tried reference level offset at 10db as the source where I play the music from is the Apple TV on my system and I mostly watch movies / shows on the Apple TV so setting the Apple TV source to reference level offset 10 wouldn’t be ideal, I’m really confused at this point,



Sorry, I have to experience with Apple TV, especially not for playing music. Someone may chime in for more help!


----------



## ekohn00

A quick question on positions during test.
Our room has my recliner and a couch for visitor. 

I there all the time, who cares for visitors. 

Anyway, was wondering if I should really test the whole room, or a few test near my chair. Call me selfish, but I want the best sound and not to be part of the average.

thanks.


----------



## Matt2026

ekohn00 said:


> A quick question on positions during test.
> Our room has my recliner and a couch for visitor.
> 
> I there all the time, who cares for visitors.
> 
> Anyway, was wondering if I should really test the whole room, or a few test near my chair. Call me selfish, but I want the best sound and not to be part of the average.
> 
> thanks.


What... give up the best sound at your MLP when the other seats are empty 99% of the time I say enjoy yourself. 

Or if your AVR is capable to calibrate it both ways and save the setups to a USB drive and load up the "group" file when needed


----------



## ekohn00

I ran setup and got a 120 on the crossover for my Thiel 3.7s. I have a sub. My Thiel scs3 had a crossover of 40. I would have thought the 3.7s would have been much much lower. Defiantly lower than my center. 

So why would this happen?


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> I assume these are one point measurements somewhere in space in your room. Its always best to take several measurements around your seating area (a la Audyssey style) and average them in REW in order to avoid such mis-leading results like the dip at 120 Hz. That does not resemble how our ears hear ...


*Feri*, 


I thought of posting the problem with one point measurement, but then thought, "Feri will take care of it." :laugh:


As you know, Chris K. suggested an 8 point measurement with the mic in exactly the same positions that the Audyssey mic was in. He thought that Audyssey's proprietary fuzzy logic method was better than an average, though. I believe he suggested an RMS something something average as a better shot at it, but still not as good as the Audyssey method. I know what RMS means in some contexts,*** but I don't know how we could get an RMS average in this case*; *do you know?

*sjm817:* 

1/6 smoothing is fine, but set your left  axis to 5 dB increments instead of 10.


Despite Chris K's advice to use 8 positions at exactly the same 8 positions as the Audyssey mike was placed, I've seen other knowledgeable people say 3 is often enough. I doubt if I would try the REW with all 8 positions (but, given the audiophile OCD, who can say? I did it once, and once seemed quite enough). With your 3 mic positions, you have now accounted for humans having 2 spaced ears, and you also have a center position (mathematically sensible*; *also for the third ear).

Isn't it interesting that, even after Audyssey, the L and R are still bit different just where they are "supposed to be" due to different locations in the room, i.e., below about 400 Hz and above 80, below which the sub takes over.


And isn't it cool that the two speakers are virtually identical (probably thanks to Audyssey) above about 4.5K Hz? Mine are too. 


Your curves look very good. How do they sound? 

If you have separate bass controls, you might want to punch up the left channel bass between about 80 Hz and 200 Hz. Or not. 

I would try Audyssey Ref v.s. Aud Flat, though. I use Aud Flat as my default position, and only go to Aud Ref for harsh recordings. I'd also try DEQ v.s. NO DEQ .... but this one is tricky. Because of the equal loudness curves, at anything but top volume a valid comparison might be DEQ v.s. NO DEQ, the latter with some bass boost from your tone controls (which are not available with DEQ on, with most AVRs) and the sub boosted a bit. Almost always, I use Aud Flat, with up to 6 dB bass tone control boost, the sub turned up, and DEQ off. Why bother when DEQ will do that sort of thing automatically? Some don't like the sound of DEQ. In my case, the bass and mids sound a little muddy, and the treble increase, although subtle, is not welcome. I don't have the app. YMMV

* FWIW, for those who don't know, please share my confusion*:* Root Mean Square*:* 0.707 of the height of a sine wave, at least verbally a standard deviation-ish kind of thing, but not really?? [A standard deviation is the square root of the variance, i.e., the square Root of the Mean Square, the mean square being what the variance is called in contexts like ANOVA --- but is this at all related to what we are talking about?]


----------



## gr8f8

*Audyssey &/or REW for subs*

Just got a Denon X4500H. i have 2 HSU ULS-15 Mk2 subs and MiniDSP/REW. Do I need to use that before running Audyssey on this receiver? Also can't seem to locate any info in the receiver's GUI about sub processing other than level matching...? Appreciate your help, thanks.


----------



## pbz06

gr8f8 said:


> Just got a Denon X4500H. i have 2 HSU ULS-15 Mk2 subs and MiniDSP/REW. Do I need to use that before running Audyssey on this receiver? Also can't seem to locate any info in the receiver's GUI about sub processing other than level matching...? Appreciate your help, thanks.


Yes, it is generally recommended to use miniDSP and manual adjustments prior to Auto EQ.

Someone else will be able to help with your receiver processing, but normally level matching is your only choice through the receiver.


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> *Feri*,
> 
> 
> I thought of posting the problem with one point measurement, but then thought, "Feri will take care of it." :laugh:
> 
> 
> As you know, Chris K. suggested an 8 point measurement with the mic in exactly the same positions that the Audyssey mic was in. He thought that Audyssey's proprietary fuzzy logic method was better than an average, though. I believe he suggested an RMS something something average as a better shot at it, but still not as good as the Audyssey method. I know what RMS means in some contexts,*** but I don't know how we could get an RMS average in this case*; *do you know?
> 
> *sjm817:*
> 
> 1/6 smoothing is fine, but set your left  axis to 5 dB increments instead of 10.
> 
> 
> Despite Chris K's advice to use 8 positions at exactly the same 8 positions as the Audyssey mike was placed, I've seen other knowledgeable people say 3 is often enough. I doubt if I would try the REW with all 8 positions (but, given the audiophile OCD, who can say? I did it once, and once seemed quite enough). With your 3 mic positions, you have now accounted for humans having 2 spaced ears, and you also have a center position (mathematically sensible*; *also for the third ear).
> 
> Isn't it interesting that, even after Audyssey, the L and R are still bit different just where they are "supposed to be" due to different locations in the room, i.e., below about 400 Hz and above 80, below which the sub takes over.
> 
> 
> And isn't it cool that the two speakers are virtually identical (probably thanks to Audyssey) above about 4.5K Hz? Mine are too.
> 
> 
> Your curves look very good. How do they sound?
> 
> If you have separate bass controls, you might want to punch up the left channel bass between about 80 Hz and 200 Hz. Or not.
> 
> I would try Audyssey Ref v.s. Aud Flat, though. I use Aud Flat as my default position, and only go to Aud Ref for harsh recordings. I'd also try DEQ v.s. NO DEQ .... but this one is tricky. Because of the equal loudness curves, at anything but top volume a valid comparison might be DEQ v.s. NO DEQ, the latter with some bass boost from your tone controls (which are not available with DEQ on, with most AVRs) and the sub boosted a bit. Almost always, I use Aud Flat, with up to 6 dB bass tone control boost, the sub turned up, and DEQ off. Why bother when DEQ will do that sort of thing automatically? Some don't like the sound of DEQ. In my case, the bass and mids sound a little muddy, and the treble increase, although subtle, is not welcome. I don't have the app. YMMV
> 
> * FWIW, for those who don't know, please share my confusion*:* Root Mean Square*:* 0.707 of the height of a sine wave, at least verbally a standard deviation-ish kind of thing, but not really?? [A standard deviation is the square root of the variance, i.e., the square Root of the Mean Square, the mean square being what the variance is called in contexts like ANOVA --- but is this at all related to what we are talking about?]


Thanks for the help! The amount of smoothing to use was (one of) the confusing points. It has a drastic effect on how the graphs look. Honestly 8 mic positions x 2 speakers = 16 measurements - not gonna happen  3 seems to work well enough. 

I would like to get the bass in the 60-200z range boosted on the L speaker but dont see a way to do that. I have bass/treble tone control available but not with separate L&R. There is a per speaker 9 band EQ that I can use and start with an import copy of the flat EQ. To use this I have to have Aud = off though. I would lose a lot such as the dual sub EQ (I assume). 

The fact that L&R are different didnt surprise me. The room is not a dedicated setup and there are furniture and layout issues. Im actually surprised it is as good as it is.

I have DV off for everything. DEQ is off for music. For TV/Movies, currently on, RLO=15. DEQ and flat/ref seems to be something I can never settle on. I do have the subs +5db for TV/Movies but not for music. System components are below

Mains = Klipsch RP280F
Center = Klipsch RC 62II
Surround = Klipsch RB 51II
SW = (2) HSU VTF-3 MK5 HP
AVR = Denon X3400H


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> *Feri*,
> 
> 
> I thought of posting the problem with one point measurement, but then thought, "Feri will take care of it." :laugh:
> 
> 
> As you know, Chris K. suggested an 8 point measurement with the mic in exactly the same positions that the Audyssey mic was in. He thought that Audyssey's proprietary fuzzy logic method was better than an average, though. I believe he suggested an RMS something something average as a better shot at it, but still not as good as the Audyssey method. I know what RMS means in some contexts,*** but I don't know how we could get an RMS average in this case*; *do you know?
> 
> *sjm817:*
> 
> 1/6 smoothing is fine, but set your left  axis to 5 dB increments instead of 10.
> 
> 
> Despite Chris K's advice to use 8 positions at exactly the same 8 positions as the Audyssey mike was placed, I've seen other knowledgeable people say 3 is often enough. I doubt if I would try the REW with all 8 positions (but, given the audiophile OCD, who can say? I did it once, and once seemed quite enough). With your 3 mic positions, you have now accounted for humans having 2 spaced ears, and you also have a center position (mathematically sensible*; *also for the third ear).
> 
> Isn't it interesting that, even after Audyssey, the L and R are still bit different just where they are "supposed to be" due to different locations in the room, i.e., below about 400 Hz and above 80, below which the sub takes over.
> 
> 
> And isn't it cool that the two speakers are virtually identical (probably thanks to Audyssey) above about 4.5K Hz? Mine are too.
> 
> 
> Your curves look very good. How do they sound?
> 
> If you have separate bass controls, you might want to punch up the left channel bass between about 80 Hz and 200 Hz. Or not.
> 
> I would try Audyssey Ref v.s. Aud Flat, though. I use Aud Flat as my default position, and only go to Aud Ref for harsh recordings. I'd also try DEQ v.s. NO DEQ .... but this one is tricky. Because of the equal loudness curves, at anything but top volume a valid comparison might be DEQ v.s. NO DEQ, the latter with some bass boost from your tone controls (which are not available with DEQ on, with most AVRs) and the sub boosted a bit. Almost always, I use Aud Flat, with up to 6 dB bass tone control boost, the sub turned up, and DEQ off. Why bother when DEQ will do that sort of thing automatically? Some don't like the sound of DEQ. In my case, the bass and mids sound a little muddy, and the treble increase, although subtle, is not welcome. I don't have the app. YMMV
> 
> * FWIW, for those who don't know, please share my confusion*:* Root Mean Square*:* 0.707 of the height of a sine wave, at least verbally a standard deviation-ish kind of thing, but not really?? [A standard deviation is the square root of the variance, i.e., the square Root of the Mean Square, the mean square being what the variance is called in contexts like ANOVA --- but is this at all related to what we are talking about?]



Thanks Gary for letting me take care of the "one point measurement" issue.  



Actually I looked back at some conversations with Chris on replicating what MultEQ is doing in you rooms and when he talks about RMS averaging it means each measurement result is given equal importance, while MultEQ comes up with methods to combine the measurements by giving greater weight to the most important (and most common) problems found in the room. A big difference!


----------



## Benz63amg

Ok guys, i just did some additional Friday evening experimenting for a good hour or so and i have finally found the culprit that was causing the overly exaggerated “boomy” bass that i did not like with my new SB3000, My system which consists of 2 Definitive BP8 towers (front left and right) and a clr2002 center is fully calibrated with Audyssey XT32 on my Onkyo NR818 Receiver. The issue appears to be Dynamic EQ, with Dynamic EQ set to OFF the bass is truly where it should be, Its precise, punchy where it needs to be and just sounds right, i did switch dynamic EQ on back and forth several times as i did my experimenting and the clarity/dimension/fidelity of the sound from the speakers is somewhat BETTER with Dynamic EQ on when it comes to the effect it adds to the sound but i just cant stand the Bass boost it applies to the subwoofer channel even with Reference level offset set to 15db. With Dynamic EQ set to OFF the sound from the system is more "flat" I guess but bass is tight and punchy and subtle without that increased harsh boost that Dynamic EQ applies to the subwoofer, i also re adjusted the subwoofer channel volume on the AVR back to -6.5db which is what Audyssey originally set the subwoofer volume level to after the XT32 8 position calibration. Keep in mind that Auddysey is still the EQ setting on my system and its set to "Movie", the only thing i turned OFF is Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume is set to OFF and has been OFF all along since the first day i bought my reciever 5 years ago, i never used dynamic volume.

I’m certainly going to keep Dynamic EQ off from this point on, I don’t see myself dealing with the exaggerated bass boss that dynamic eq introduces in my system any longer.


----------



## jconjason

lamonsasa said:


> Ok guys, i just did some additional Friday evening experimenting for a good hour or so and i have finally found the culprit that was causing the overly exaggerated “boomy” bass that i did not like with my new SB3000, My system which consists of 2 Definitive BP8 towers (front left and right) and a clr2002 center is fully calibrated with Audyssey XT32 on my Onkyo NR818 Receiver. The issue appears to be Dynamic EQ, with Dynamic EQ set to OFF the bass is truly where it should be, Its precise, punchy where it needs to be and just sounds right, i did switch dynamic EQ on back and forth several times as i did my experimenting and the clarity/dimension/fidelity of the sound from the speakers is somewhat BETTER with Dynamic EQ on when it comes to the effect it adds to the sound but i just cant stand the Bass boost it applies to the subwoofer channel even with Reference level offset set to 15db. With Dynamic EQ set to OFF the sound from the system is more "flat" I guess but bass is tight and punchy and subtle without that increased harsh boost that Dynamic EQ applies to the subwoofer, i also re adjusted the subwoofer channel volume on the AVR back to -6.5db which is what Audyssey originally set the subwoofer volume level to after the XT32 8 position calibration. Keep in mind that Auddysey is still the EQ setting on my system and its set to "Movie", the only thing i turned OFF is Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume is set to OFF and has been OFF all along since the first day i bought my reciever 5 years ago, i never used dynamic volume.
> 
> I’m certainly going to keep Dynamic EQ off from this point on, I don’t see myself dealing with the exaggerated bass boss that dynamic eq introduces in my system any longer.


But you were told several days ago that was the cause of the extra bass, and you said you were set on keeping it on....



lamonsasa said:


> The benefits of Dynamic EQ outweigh the negative of slight unwanted bass boost on certain content so I prefer to keep dynamic eq enabled.


----------



## Benz63amg

jconjason said:


> But you were told several days ago that was the cause of the extra bass, and you said you were set on keeping it on....


I had no clue it had such a drastic effect on the bass in my living room and after performing the additional tests last night with different types of music I just decided to turn it off altogether.


----------



## Skinfax1

sjm817 said:


> I finally got around to getting a umik and REW. I have it set up and took first set of measurements. Didnt get too fancy as there is a lot to learn. I did a measurement using L&R and both Subs. Audyssey XT32 calibration was in use and compared Ref Vs Flat on the full range graph.



And what was measured?
White noise? Pink noise?


----------



## lknhomeaudio

Matt2026 said:


> Or if your AVR is capable to calibrate it both ways and save the setups to a USB drive and load up the "group" file when needed


Is there a *wrong* way to do this? I save a calibration to a USB, then later uploaded it to set it back like it was. I ended up with settings that my AVR had NEVER had before! I don't know where it drew those settings from, but it surely wasn't the file that I saved to the USB lol


----------



## mogorf

lamonsasa said:


> I had no clue it had such a drastic effect on the bass in my living room and after performing the additional tests last night with different types of music I just decided to turn it off altogether.



Care to share at what Master Volume setting you are listening (typically)? Above -10 dB DEQ will do less and less and at 0 dB MV DEQ will automatically turn off.


----------



## Matt2026

lknhomeaudio said:


> Is there a *wrong* way to do this? I save a calibration to a USB, then later uploaded it to set it back like it was. I ended up with settings that my AVR had NEVER had before! I don't know where it drew those settings from, but it surely wasn't the file that I saved to the USB lol


I don't know if there is a wrong way. I've just recently read about doing it in one of the Denon threads, either the 2017 models or the 2018 thread or maybe the X8500H thread. I didn't think too much about it because I have a rather small room and I live alone so I don't need to cover a large seating area. In fact I'm an old guy from back in the day when all we did was connect wires and a cable, fire it up and enjoy  And that's basically still my MO 

Multiple calibrations can be done, just pop into one of those threads and ask. 

[Edit] Heck, where is my head ... we're in the Audyssey thread so I'm sure one of the experts here can help you!


----------



## Benz63amg

mogorf said:


> Care to share at what Master Volume setting you are listening (typically)? Above -10 dB DEQ will do less and less and at 0 dB MV DEQ will automatically turn off.


I listen between volume level 45-58 on average


----------



## mogorf

lamonsasa said:


> I listen between volume level 45-58 on average



My tip: you may change the volume reading to dB on your AVR. (Look up your manual for proceedings.) That will give you a clear picture on how close you are to 0 dB movie reference level.


----------



## pbz06

After running a careful full Audyssey XT32 setup, and made proper adjustments to speakers and subwoofer, I found enjoying DEQ again.

If it's too boomy, just turn down your bass.


----------



## Benz63amg

pbz06 said:


> After running a careful full Audyssey XT32 setup, and made proper adjustments to speakers and subwoofer, I found enjoying DEQ again.
> 
> If it's too boomy, just turn down your bass.


What do you mean by “Turn down bass” exactly? Lowering the Subwoofer Channel volume on the AVR in the settings menu or lowering the actual VOLUME GAIN level on the subwoofer itself?

Audyssey originally set the subwoofer volume on the avr after my XT32 calibration to -6.5db and with dynamic eq the bass was boomy, I tried lowering the subwoofer channel volume on the avr to -10db and it was still boomy


----------



## pbz06

lamonsasa said:


> What do you mean by “Turn down bass” exactly? Lowering the Subwoofer Channel volume on the AVR in the settings menu or lowering the actual VOLUME GAIN level on the subwoofer itself?
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey originally set the subwoofer volume on the avr after my XT32 calibration to -6.5db and with dynamic eq the bass was boomy, I tried lowering the subwoofer channel volume on the avr to -10db and it was still boomy


What kind of sub?

Long story short: I noticed my bass sounded boomy when listening at lower levels especially. I didn't know that DEQ adds bass (2.2dB per -10 from master volume 0). I always added about 4 or 5 dB after Audyssey calibration and when listening to -15 or -20, it was too much bass. I also sit near field with my sub.

I went back to what Audyssey set my sub at and didn't add any more. After testing around with DEQ on vs off and making the same relative adjustments to sub, it sounded exactly the same. Balanced and clean.


----------



## Benz63amg

pbz06 said:


> What kind of sub?
> 
> Long story short: I noticed my bass sounded boomy when listening at lower levels especially. I didn't know that DEQ adds bass (2.2dB per -10 from master volume 0). I always added about 4 or 5 dB after Audyssey calibration and when listening to -15 or -20, it was too much bass. I also sit near field with my sub.
> 
> I went back to what Audyssey set my sub at and didn't add any more. After testing around with DEQ on vs off and making the same relative adjustments to sub, it sounded exactly the same. Balanced and clean.


I have an SVS SB3000


----------



## garygarrison

sjm817 said:


> ... I would like to get the bass in the 60-200z range boosted on the L speaker but dont see a way to do that. I have bass/treble tone control available but not with separate L&R. There is a per speaker 9 band EQ that I can use and start with an import copy of the flat EQ. To use this I have to have Aud = off though. I would lose a lot such as the dual sub EQ (I assume).
> 
> 
> The fact that L&R are different didnt surprise me. The room is not a dedicated setup and there are furniture and layout issues. Im actually surprised it is as good as it is.
> 
> I have DV off for everything. DEQ is off for music. For TV/Movies, currently on, RLO=15. DEQ and flat/ref seems to be something I can never settle on. I do have the subs +5db for TV/Movies but not for music ...



With music, when DEQ is off, if the bass above crossover seems thin you could experiment with turning up the bass control a bit, even though the right channel will be slightly over boosted. As always trust your ears. 



The "import copy of the flat EQ" probably isn't. If it is anything like the base (not bass) copy on my Marantz, that claims to copy the Audyssey correction curve, it is pretty bad, providing a very crude average correction per octave, over the 9 octaves. The fine detail of the Audyssey correction is lost, so if you have both a sizeable peak and a sizeable dip within one octave it gives you an erroneous correction curve. Chris K. of Audyssey called this feature "useless." Needless to say, it was put in by the AV manufacturer, not Audyssey.

Although I agree with Chris K. (and many others) that the goal of Audyssey is "reference not preference," I can't imagine not twiddling with any function that will customize the bass-treble balance to a given CD, SACD, or Blu-ray. This is especially true with music disks, and movies of the '50s, '60s and '70s (the magnetic era of multichannel recording -- original elements recorded on optical tracks are pretty hopeless). So for me, for Blu-rays of modern movies, it is usually Audyssey Flat with moderate sub boost, moderate bass control boost, no DEQ, and MV 5 to 7 dB below reference (by ear). There is considerable disk to disk variation. For magnetic movies it is often Audyssey Reference, so that the midrange comp dip, and the high frequency roll-off can tame any harshness or HF distortion. I usually give those films extra sub boost and bass control boost, because people remastering for Blu-ray don't often put in the traditional mag movie EQ between the music elements and the final mix. Any mixer born after 1975 or so is unlikely to have heard these (basically pre-1980) movies the way they were presented in the theaters, especially with 70 mm films, with tons of clean bass (that rolled off below 40 Hz) and very high dynamic range. The original musical elements usually don't contain that, for fear of retakes due to over recording with an 80 to 114** *piece orchestra being paid. The extraordinary bass and dynamic range were added via careful bass boost and skillful volume riding during the mix, when there were only a few people being compensated. 



***Around the World in 80 Days (1956), the large orchestra champ AFAIK, captured in beautiful 6 channel magnetic stereo.


----------



## garygarrison

Skinfax1 said:


> And what was measured?
> White noise? Pink noise?


With REW it was probably the frequency sweep they provide. 

Some regard the use of a sine sweep as superior to a white or pink noise signal in testing loudspeakers and rooms. A very interesting article, IIRC, is_ Plain and Fancy Test Signals for Music Reproduction_, by Saponas and two others, in _J. Audio Eng. Soc._


----------



## Skinfax1

Probably? Without knowing that, the graphs are useless.

Using pink noise has some huge advantages.


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> With REW it was probably the frequency sweep they provide.
> 
> Some regard the use of a sine sweep as superior to a white or pink noise signal in testing loudspeakers and rooms. A very interesting article, IIRC, is_ Plain and Fancy Test Signals for Music Reproduction_, by Saponas and two others, in _J. Audio Eng. Soc._


Yes, the freq sweep that REW uses when you click the measure button.


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> With music, when DEQ is off, if the bass above crossover seems thin you could experiment with turning up the bass control a bit, even though the right channel will be slightly over boosted. As always trust your ears.
> 
> 
> 
> The "import copy of the flat EQ" probably isn't. If it is anything like the base (not bass) copy on my Marantz, that claims to copy the Audyssey correction curve, it is pretty bad, providing a very crude average correction per octave, over the 9 octaves. The fine detail of the Audyssey correction is lost, so if you have both a sizeable peak and a sizeable dip within one octave it gives you an erroneous correction curve. Chris K. of Audyssey called this feature "useless." Needless to say, it was put in by the AV manufacturer, not Audyssey.
> 
> Although I agree with Chris K. (and many others) that the goal of Audyssey is "reference not preference," I can't imagine not twiddling with any function that will customize the bass-treble balance to a given CD, SACD, or Blu-ray. This is especially true with music disks, and movies of the '50s, '60s and '70s (the magnetic era of multichannel recording -- original elements recorded on optical tracks are pretty hopeless). So for me, for Blu-rays of modern movies, it is usually Audyssey Flat with moderate sub boost, moderate bass control boost, no DEQ, and MV 5 to 7 dB below reference (by ear). There is considerable disk to disk variation. For magnetic movies it is often Audyssey Reference, so that the midrange comp dip, and the high frequency roll-off can tame any harshness or HF distortion. I usually give those films extra sub boost and bass control boost, because people remastering for Blu-ray don't often put in the traditional mag movie EQ between the music elements and the final mix. Any mixer born after 1975 or so is unlikely to have heard these (basically pre-1980) movies the way they were presented in the theaters, especially with 70 mm films, with tons of clean bass (that rolled off below 40 Hz) and very high dynamic range. The original musical elements usually don't contain that, for fear of retakes due to over recording with an 80 to 114** *piece orchestra being paid. The extraordinary bass and dynamic range were added via careful bass boost and skillful volume riding during the mix, when there were only a few people being compensated.
> 
> 
> 
> ***Around the World in 80 Days (1956), the large orchestra champ AFAIK, captured in beautiful 6 channel magnetic stereo.


Im someone that wants things set up and for the most part, leave it. I dont want to fiddle with settings for different content. It is nice that the Denon remembers settings per input which helps. I do have different settings for music Vs TV/Movies. I have seen significant differences in source levels on different content. Since that different source level affects where you need to put the MV, that males using DEQ a challenge since it is just MV position based and does not take the source level into account. Seems kind of crude honestly. 

Yesterday I got the multiEQ app to try out. I have not had the time to really do much with it yet. I did a quick run to try it out but need a good block of time to really set it up.


----------



## Benz63amg

Guys I have a question, after additional critical listening last night of multiple content types on multiple sources (Apple TV, Cable TV, Xbox One etc) I came to the conclusion that even though I said I want to keep dynamic EQ OFF in my previous post Since it introduces way too much bass boost for me which I simply don’t like and despise, Dynamic EQ also introduces a “Dimension” and clarity to the sound that is otherwise lacking with Dynamic EQ off and it truly affects the listening experience so I want to keep Dynamic EQ on, 

So with that being said, what I did after switching DynamicEQ back ON, I switched the reference level offset to 15db for all my sources on my Onkyo nr818 receiver, by setting it to 15db it applies the LEAST boost to the subwoofer channel, Correct? My question is this, does that 0,5,10 15 reference level offset setting affect the bass from the main speakers as well or just the Subwoofer? Another thing I did to reduce the overall bass output is lowering the subwoofer channel volume from “-6.5db” which is what the Auddysey defined for the subwoofer in my last XT32 8 Positions calibration to -15db, 
The bass is more subtle now with these settings but can be easily felt when it needs to be (such as an explosion during a movie or where bassy sound effects are present in general), 
The bass is present in music as expected, it is punchy and tight without that bloating bass effect I experienced before,
During Cable TV watching I’m still seeing somewhat of heavy bass boost during certain commercials which is puzzling and confusing me still because I did lower the subwoofer to the minimum volume level of -15db on the AVR to make the bass tight and subtle and I set dynamic eq’s reference level offset to the least aggressive setting which is 15db.


----------



## mthomas47

I would like to respond to several of the previous posts on the use of DEQ. First, to answer lamonsasa's question, DEQ boosts the bass in all of the channels. When you engage an RLO setting, it resets the MV where DEQ starts to operate. An RLO of 15 attenuates DEQ to the maximum extent. And yes, an RLO setting of 15 will change the amount of bass boost that DEQ is providing for all of the channels and not just for the subwoofer.

DEQ has always been the most controversial and debated aspect of Audyssey's operation, and this thread is sort of cyclical in that regard. Periodically, someone will say that he loves DEQ, and someone else will say that he doesn't, and a third person will say sometimes yes and sometimes no, and we're off to the races again. 

If I said that I like the color blue better than red, or I like cream in my coffee, would I have a reasonable expectation that everyone else would agree with me? But, we all seem to expect to arrive at some sort of consensus with respect to sound preferences. And, I just don't think that is a reasonable expectation. DEQ is an interesting software program. Anyone wanting to understand its operation a little better can read more about it in Section V of the Guide linked in my signature. 

But, there is never going to be consensus with respect to whether we should use it just for movies, or for everything, or for nothing at all. Human hearing and human preference is just too diverse for that, in my opinion. Just as it is with our other senses: of taste, vision, sense of smell, etc. Not only will we differ from each other in our listening preferences, we will also be influenced by the content and the source, as noted in other posts.

And, most of us may also find that we are influenced by our own moods too. For instance, sometimes I am in the mood to hear more bass, in an action movie perhaps, and sometimes I'm not. So, my preferences for dynamic bass may vary depending on my own mood that day. Some people like finding a single setting that works well for everything, and some people like tweaking their settings, depending on both content and on the mood of the moment. Neither approach is right, and neither approach is wrong. They are just aspects of our diversity.

I don't want my comments to inhibit the conversations about DEQ in any way. People should certainly describe what they are discovering as they try different settings. And, what they say may in-turn influence others to experiment. And, that's a good thing! 

But, if we are looking for reassurance that we are listening the "correct" way, or even in the way that most other people do, we may be disappointed. Our rooms, equipment, content, volume levels, hearing, and preferences are probably too different for that. And personally, I don't consider our individual diversity to be a bad thing. It's part of what makes us individuals to start with. There's about a cent-and-a-half worth. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Skinfax1

sjm817 said:


> Yes, the freq sweep that REW uses when you click the measure button.


If you want authentic movie sound, be aware, that consumer calibration systems like Audyssey do not calibrate correctly for movie sound!

Using pink noise like they do in dub stages and cinemas offers some of the necessary advantages.

The sweep is necessary too, but for other things (the most important one): calculating RT60 for analyzing the necessary room acoustics treatment.


----------



## Skinfax1

lamonsasa said:


> Guys I have a question, after additional critical listening last night of multiple content types on multiple sources (Apple TV, Cable TV, Xbox One etc) I came to the conclusion that even though I said I want to keep dynamic EQ OFF in my previous post Since it introduces way too much bass boost for me which I simply don’t like and despise, Dynamic EQ also introduces a “Dimension” and clarity to the sound that is otherwise lacking with Dynamic EQ off and it truly affects the listening experience so I want to keep Dynamic EQ on,


Do you have a RT60 measurement of the center speaker in your room?


----------



## Benz63amg

Skinfax1 said:


> Do you have a RT60 measurement of the center speaker in your room?


I don’t even know what that is


----------



## ekohn00

Hey folk, got a quick question. 
When doing my analysis the from speakers are maxed at -12. 
How is this normally handled? I assume I’d die to the size of the speaker and the seats being near the front???
Thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Skinfax1

lamonsasa said:


> I don’t even know what that is


Really? How comes? You have +4000 posts.


----------



## pbarach

lamonsasa said:


> I don’t even know what that is


I had to look it up:
https://www.nti-audio.com/en/applications/room-building-acoustics/reverberation-time-rt60


----------



## sjm817

Skinfax1 said:


> If you want authentic movie sound, be aware, that consumer calibration systems like Audyssey do not calibrate correctly for movie sound!
> 
> Using pink noise like they do in dub stages and cinemas offers some of the necessary advantages.
> 
> The sweep is necessary too, but for other things (the most important one): calculating RT60 for analyzing the necessary room acoustics treatment.


I just started with REW and read the FAQ below:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html
I saw this note so didnt look at RT60

_TIP: THE RT60 TAB/MEASUREMENT IS USELESS FOR SMALL ACOUSTICAL SPACES, WHICH IS EVERY “HOME” IN THE WORLD. THERE IS NO RT60 IN SMALL ROOMS, WHICH IS WHAT WE’RE DISCUSSING ON THIS THREAD. WE WILL NOT DISCUSS RT60 FURTHER AS IT IS MEANINGLESS, HOWEVER, DECAY TIMES IN MODAL FREQUENCIES ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND IS A BIG TOPIC ALONG WITH A HARD PROBLEM TO SOLVE._
I have no opinion on this either way. Just what the FAQ had.


----------



## Skinfax1

sjm817 said:


> I just started with REW and read the FAQ below:
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a...surement-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html
> I saw this note so didnt look at RT60
> 
> _TIP: THE RT60 TAB/MEASUREMENT IS USELESS FOR SMALL ACOUSTICAL SPACES, WHICH IS EVERY “HOME” IN THE WORLD. THERE IS NO RT60 IN SMALL ROOMS, WHICH IS WHAT WE’RE DISCUSSING ON THIS THREAD. WE WILL NOT DISCUSS RT60 FURTHER AS IT IS MEANINGLESS, HOWEVER, DECAY TIMES IN MODAL FREQUENCIES ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND IS A BIG TOPIC ALONG WITH A HARD PROBLEM TO SOLVE._
> I have no opinion on this either way. Just what the FAQ had.


I do not agree with that claim because ETC gives no indication about the frequencies, that are problematic. The RT60 measurement gives a good indication, if - for example - the 500 Hz range is problematic and needs more damping.

ETC analysis is important, too.

Each parameter gives an indication, what should be done.

In case you have a somewhat damped room (for example wooden profiles on walls, thick carpets). Then the RT60 measurement gives a good indication, if the 500 Hz are still above 400 ms, that you need more damping in the midrange. If you have an empty, flat wall, that could be a good starting point.

If, on the other hand, ETC shows big and loud early reflections, then that is an indication of acoustic mirrors. Is the speaker placed in front of a flat, untreated wall? Trying to damp the area behind the speaker could help.


There are so many discussions about which receiver to buy for a better sound. People are discussing hi res audio. But all that can alsmost be ignored, comapred to the impact the room has on sound.
And to understand where to begin, measurement is key. Every discussion about sound improvement should start with measurments and their analysis. That's how the profssionals do it and we can do it too.
It costs almost nothing but it helps tremendously.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> If I said that I like the color blue better than red, or I like cream in my coffee, would I have a reasonable expectation that everyone else would agree with me? But, we all seem to expect to arrive at some sort of consensus with respect to sound preferences. And, I just don't think that is a reasonable expectation.


 I agree.

If someone asked me if I liked blue better than red, I'd say, "It depends on the context."

I like soy milk in my coffee, but only if it doesn't contain carrageenan. 

In addition to having different tastes in general, some of us are more persnickety than others. 

And we make different compromises. Given that no speakers are truly neutral (IMO), some prefer silky speakers, some like rather brassy ones. etc. Audyssey may smooth out the frequency response differences _to a degree_, but our speakers of choice will also vary in modulation distortion, dynamic range capacity, transient response, tightness of bass, and, conceivably, other characteristics unmeasured and thus far unnamed. So we pay our money and make our choice.

IMO, on my system, in my room, at the rare times I play considerably below reference, DEQ improves some things (bass response) and degrades others (clarity and detail). On balance, I prefer it off, and some others prefer it on.

_Vive la différence!_


----------



## bigzee3

lamonsasa said:


> Ok guys, i just did some additional Friday evening experimenting for a good hour or so and i have finally found the culprit that was causing the overly exaggerated “boomy” bass that i did not like with my new SB3000, My system which consists of 2 Definitive BP8 towers (front left and right) and a clr2002 center is fully calibrated with Audyssey XT32 on my Onkyo NR818 Receiver. The issue appears to be Dynamic EQ, with Dynamic EQ set to OFF the bass is truly where it should be, Its precise, punchy where it needs to be and just sounds right, i did switch dynamic EQ on back and forth several times as i did my experimenting and the clarity/dimension/fidelity of the sound from the speakers is somewhat BETTER with Dynamic EQ on when it comes to the effect it adds to the sound but i just cant stand the Bass boost it applies to the subwoofer channel even with Reference level offset set to 15db. With Dynamic EQ set to OFF the sound from the system is more "flat" I guess but bass is tight and punchy and subtle without that increased harsh boost that Dynamic EQ applies to the subwoofer, i also re adjusted the subwoofer channel volume on the AVR back to -6.5db which is what Audyssey originally set the subwoofer volume level to after the XT32 8 position calibration. Keep in mind that Auddysey is still the EQ setting on my system and its set to "Movie", the only thing i turned OFF is Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume is set to OFF and has been OFF all along since the first day i bought my reciever 5 years ago, i never used dynamic volume.
> 
> I’m certainly going to keep Dynamic EQ off from this point on, I don’t see myself dealing with the exaggerated bass boss that dynamic eq introduces in my system any longer.


Regarding effects you could always add 1 or so db to the surrounds.


----------



## Benz63amg

bigzee3 said:


> Regarding effects you could always add 1 or so db to the surrounds.


I don’t have surrounds I only have a front left and right definitive bp8 towers and a clr2002 center and the SVs Sb3000


----------



## Skinfax1

lamonsasa said:


> I don’t have surrounds I only have a front left and right definitive bp8 towers and a clr2002 center and the SVs Sb3000


"and I am not interested in improving what really makes the sound: my room acoustics." 
You will definately find many "good recommendations" what to buy...


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> I agree.
> 
> If someone asked me if I liked blue better than red, I'd say, "It depends on the context."
> 
> I like soy milk in my coffee, but only if it doesn't contain carrageenan.
> 
> In addition to having different tastes in general, some of us are more persnickety than others.
> 
> And we make different compromises. Given that no speakers are truly neutral (IMO), some prefer silky speakers, some like rather brassy ones. etc. Audyssey may smooth out the frequency response differences _to a degree_, but our speakers of choice will also vary in modulation distortion, dynamic range capacity, transient response, tightness of bass, and, conceivably, other characteristics unmeasured and thus far unnamed. So we pay our money and make our choice.
> 
> IMO, on my system, in my room, at the rare times I play considerably below reference, DEQ improves some things (bass response) and degrades others (clarity and detail). On balance, I prefer it off, and some others prefer it on.
> 
> _Vive la différence!_



Fully agree with you Gary! The only thing I may add here it that the world is all about personal preference, and not reference. But I also agree with what Chris K. said: nothing wrong with preference as long as you start out to tweak from reference.


Another thing I need to mention why I like being here with you guys as a non-native English speaker is that I can learn new words. Today it was: "persnickety". Never came across this English word in my entire life so far, so had to look it up in Google translator: "placing too much emphasis on trivial or minor details; fussy." Gotcha!!!!


----------



## garygarrison

ekohn00 said:


> Hey folk, got a quick question.
> When doing my analysis the from speakers are maxed at -12.
> How is this normally handled? I assume I’d die to the size of the speaker and the seats being near the front???
> Thanks.


It's usually due to having very sensitive (sometimes called very efficient) speakers. 

What brand and model speakers do you have? Do you know the sensitivity/efficiency (usually on a specification sheet on the manufacturer's website).

How large is your room in cu. feet?

How close do you sit?


----------



## ekohn00

garygarrison said:


> ekohn00 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey folk, got a quick question.
> When doing my analysis the from speakers are maxed at -12.
> How is this normally handled? I assume I’d die to the size of the speaker and the seats being near the front???
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's usually due to having very sensitive (sometimes called very efficient) speakers.
> 
> 
> 
> What brand and model speakers do you have? Do you know the sensitivity/efficiency (usually on a specification sheet on the manufacturer's website).
> 
> 
> How large is your room in cu. feet?
> 
> 
> How close do you sit?
Click to expand...

Fronts are Thiel 3.7
Center Thiel SCS3
Rear Thiel 2.3
Room is about 19x15 x9H
Chair is about 8ft from front speaker


Front sensitivity 90db
Rear 87db

Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

ekohn00 said:


> Fronts are Thiel 3.7
> Center Thiel SCS3
> Rear Thiel 2.3
> Room is about 19x15 x9H
> 
> 
> Chair is about 8ft from front speaker
> 
> Front sensitivity 90db
> Rear 87db
> 
> Thanks



Given those figures, I *don't* think your speaker efficiency is the problem! Your speakers have just about typical efficiency.

It may well be that you are sitting too close! Is your room very live acoustically?


----------



## ekohn00

@garygarrison, quite honestly I don’t know how to answer. What are you meaning “live”?

Thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## garygarrison

ekohn00 said:


> @*garygarrison* , quite honestly I don’t know how to answer. What are you meaning “live”?
> 
> Thanks.


Sorry. By "live" I mean a room with many hard surfaces (plaster, glass, bricks, floors without rugs, etc.). Such surroundings make the sound louder and with more treble.


----------



## ekohn00

garygarrison said:


> Sorry. By "live" I mean a room with many hard surfaces (plaster, glass, bricks, floors without rugs, etc.). Such surroundings make the sound louder and with more treble.


Thanks. So with the exception of carpet, I would say the room is live.

So going back to the original problem/solution, it sounds like the attenuators should work to get a proper Audyssey reading? The other thought was to change the AMP connection from bridged to normal (500W to 300w). Since the room is somewhat small and there might be enough power for the volume we need (but I need to test). Any thoughts?

thanks again


----------



## primetimeguy

ekohn00 said:


> Thanks. So with the exception of carpet, I would say the room is live.
> 
> So going back to the original problem/solution, it sounds like the attenuators should work to get a proper Audyssey reading? The other thought was to change the AMP connection from bridged to normal (500W to 300w). Since the room is somewhat small and there might be enough power for the volume we need (but I need to test). Any thoughts?
> 
> thanks again


I would do a full reset on the receiver and see if that solves it. Otherwise it may be a faulty mic.


----------



## ekohn00

primetimeguy said:


> I would do a full reset on the receiver and see if that solves it. Otherwise it may be a faulty mic.




I just called Marantz. New mic is in the mail. Thanks. Good thought. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## iafzal

I reran Audyssey X32 on my x4400 as I added height speakers to my 5.1 system. Now I have 5.1.4 setup.
I also have a dedicated media room which is about 12' x 18' x 8'. 
When I reran the setup my front height speaker came with 120Hz xover and rear front height speaker with 150Hz. All the 4 speakers are same with spec stating they go as low as 110Hz. Just curious why would I see such a difference between front and rear height speakers? The rear speakers almost similar distance compared to front speakers. Should I rerun the Audyssey?

If I want to make manual change to the gains set by Audyssey how do I go about putting those value. In Amp assign all the values in manual section are 0s. So let's say I have gain for surround L speaker set to -3.0 by Audyssey and I want to change it -2.0 what value should I use in the manual section? Should I change the value which is 0.0 to +1.0 to get to -2.0 or should I be just listing the end value which I want to get to which is -2.0. Reason I ask there was a post talking about it but now I cannot find it. I think that post was stating that what you put in the manual section is actually the end value of the speaker gain and not the delta from the value set by Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

ekohn00 said:


> Thanks. So with the exception of carpet, I would say the room is live.
> 
> So going back to the original problem/solution, it sounds like the attenuators should work to get a proper Audyssey reading? The other thought was to change the AMP connection from bridged to normal (500W to 300w). Since the room is somewhat small and there might be enough power for the volume we need (but I need to test). Any thoughts?
> 
> thanks again



ekohn00,

Run Audysssey again with a new microphone, and if that doesn't work, try it after some full resets. Some people recommend about 3 or 4 resets in a row. 

Now that I see that your speakers are of average sensitivity, I really don't think yours is a problem that can be cured with attenuators, unless it is that your 8 foot distance makes the mics (and you) so close that the Audyssey pings are too loud at listening (micing) position.

If you are willing and able to move the listening chair(s) back a ways (like to 12 or 13 feet) and run Audyssey again, that may fix it. 

*If* you have a separate power amp or amps, so you can put attenuators between the preamp/processor (AVP) and the power amp(s), they may (or may not) work. I'd buy attenuators for each and every channel, even any that don't need them, so that all channels will be attenuated by exactly the same amount, and Audyssey will balance them with all attenuators *on*. That way, after Audyssey calibrates and corrects your room and speakers, you can then take all the attenuators *off*, and get the extra circuitry and connectors out of the system. This might appeal only to OCD audiophiles. When discussing this with Chris K. (chief technical person at Audyssey) back in 2011, he said that would be O.K., but anyone who takes 12 dB attenuators off should be aware that Reference Level would then be *-*12 dB on the Main Volume Control, instead of 0. 

Or, (I think) you could use the trims to set the levels manually with an SPL meter (set on "C" weight), but I presume you would have to put the meter on a tripod, exactly at the MLP (hopefully the center), then what do you do? Aim the meter's mic straight up at the ceiling for each reading, without moving it (as with the Audyssey mic in position #1 ). Or do you swivel the tripod so that it aims at each speaker in turn? Or leave it aimed straight ahead at the center channel, or the screen? That's one thing I don't understand about the whole Audyssey set up, but I haven't had much sleep, so please seek other people's input. Your *ears* are not omnidirectional like the Audyssey mic. The ear canals are aimed to the side, more or less, and the auricles/pinnae are aimed somewhere between toward the side and toward the front. In any case, there is some blockage of the area toward the rear of the head, so wouldn't any omnidirectional mic aimed straight up pick up too much sound from rear speakers? In the case of Audyssey, the pings go all the way up (even though they don't sound like they do). With a noise signal limited to 500 to 2KHz there would perhaps be less of a problem. Zzzzzzzzz.


----------



## ekohn00

garygarrison said:


> ekohn00,
> 
> Run Audysssey again with a new microphone, and if that doesn't work, try it after some full resets. Some people recommend about 3 or 4 resets in a row.


I ran Audyssey again with a different mic and got different results. Fronts are now at -10.5. I'm not liking the high crossover (110) on the Thiel 3.7s, but this is my first run. I also don't like the long distance on the sub, but this is another problem.....

I read that mics are "tuned" to the receiver/preamp. So knowing that the mic I am using came from a Denon x2000, are the numbers still correct? the Mic had the same model number???

thanks for the help...


----------



## Alan P

ekohn00 said:


> I ran Audyssey again with a different mic and got different results. Fronts are now at -10.5. I'm not liking the high crossover (110) on the Thiel 3.7s, but this is my first run. I also don't like the long distance on the sub, but this is another problem.....
> 
> I read that mics are "tuned" to the receiver/preamp. So knowing that the mic I am using came from a Denon x2000, are the numbers still correct? the Mic had the same model number???
> 
> thanks for the help...


The distance (delay) setting for the sub will very rarely be the actual, physical distance as measure with a tape measure. This is due in part to the DSP in the sub's amp as well as room interactions.

The Audyssey mics are not tuned to a specific AVR. If you have a mic with the same model number, it should work correctly.


----------



## Sergiomh

Hey folks, just a quick question. I have a 5.1 set up with a *Marantz 6012*, Dali Zensor 5 and a *REL T5i subwoofer.*
This sub has two inputs: .*1 LFE* (rca connector) to my Marantz and a '*High level*' (speakon connector) that its linked to my Center speaker, as a dedicated center channel sub. The question is: ¿how I run the Audyssey properly to the center channel?

*Option A: * leave the .1 LFE volumen at 75dB at suggets Audyssey (6 points in its volumen knob) and unplugged the speakon cable
*Option B:* leave the the .1 LFE volumen knob at 75dB; with the speakon cable connected, full opened its crossover (120hz) and its volumen knob at low/mid position
¿Option C?

Thank you in advance!


----------



## David Aiken

ekohn00 said:


> I ran Audyssey again with a different mic and got different results. Fronts are now at -10.5. I'm not liking the high crossover (110) on the Thiel 3.7s, but this is my first run. I also don't like the long distance on the sub, but this is another problem.....
> 
> I read that mics are "tuned" to the receiver/preamp. So knowing that the mic I am using came from a Denon x2000, are the numbers still correct? the Mic had the same model number???
> 
> thanks for the help...


The crossover depends on your speaker's measured in-room response, not on the speaker's specified response. All Audyssey and the AVR have to go on is the measurement results, they don't know what speaker model you have or what its frequency response is *supposed* to be.

A speaker's in-room response depends on placement and room acoustics and there can be significant dips and peaks in its in-room response that vary from one room to another and never appear in the response shown by the manufacturer which is usually done under anechoic or simulated anechoic conditions which don't show the effect of a room on the speaker. Audyssey corrects down to a frequency where the in-room response is down 3 dB for the first time and the AVR will set a crossover frequency just above that point. If the crossover is being set at 110 Hz then it would appear that something about your room or speaker setup is causing a dip of greater than 3 dB just below 110 HZ. You may be able to change that by moving the speaker closer to a wall or corner where it gets a bit more bass reinforcement from the room but there's also a chance that will accentuate the dip and possibly even end up causing the crossover to be raised. Another thing you could try is moving your listening position back or forwards a little bit because the strength of the bass you hear depends on where your listening position is in the room. Try experimenting with speaker placement and/or and see if that changes the result you get but there are no guarantees this will deliver a better result because the factors affecting your speaker's response in your room are specific to your room and you may have limited scope to change either the position of the speakers or your listening position.

As to the sub distance, Audyssey doesn't measure distance. It measures the time delay between when a signal is sent to the speaker and when it reaches the mic. As Alan P said, electronic circuitry in the sub can affect the measurement because that circuitry introduces a small time delay of its own. Audyssey calculates distance from the size of the time delay and the notional speed of sound so the distance it reports will be greater if the circuitry in the sub introduces a time delay and the difference between measured and reported distances will depend on how much delay the circuitry introduces.


----------



## David Aiken

Sergiomh said:


> Hey folks, just a quick question. I have a 5.1 set up with a *Marantz 6012*, Dali Zensor 5 and a *REL T5i subwoofer.*
> This sub has two inputs: .*1 LFE* (rca connector) to my Marantz and a '*High level*' (speakon connector) that its linked to my Center speaker, as a dedicated center channel sub. The question is: ¿how I run the Audyssey properly to the center channel?
> 
> *Option A: * leave the .1 LFE volumen at 75dB at suggets Audyssey (6 points in its volumen knob) and unplugged the speakon cable
> *Option B:* leave the the .1 LFE volumen knob at 75dB; with the speakon cable connected, full opened its crossover (120hz) and its volumen knob at low/mid position
> ¿Option C?
> 
> Thank you in advance!


OK, this may sound a bit confusing but hang in there. I use a pair of REL subs so I have experience with them.

REL developed their subs for music systems which tend not to have subwoofer outputs on the pre-amp/integrated amp and the high level input with the speaker connector is intended for use in those conditions. If you're using that connection, then you have to set a crossover setting on the sub along with a gain setting and manually balance the level of the sub to the speaker because both are running over a large, common frequency range. The idea is that you use the crossover and gain settings on the sub to blend the sub into the speaker by rolling off the sub over the range where the speakers are also rolling off.

The .1 input on the sub is intended for use with AVRs in home theatre setups. The sub has no crossover control for the .! input, that is controlled in the AVR's bass management settings.

Now here's where things get messy.

First, there's a phase control on the sub with 4 positions. That switch has 2 positions for 0 degree phase shift, one for each input, and 2 positions for a 180 degree phase shift, also one for each position. Because each position on the phase control only applies to one of the inputs, it is also a switch that turns the other input off. If you set the phase control to one of the positions for the hi level input then you are turning off the .1 input and you're going to lose the whole of the LFE channel content from a movie soundtrack, the sub will receive only redirected bass from the actual speaker channels. You don't want that so my simple recommendation is not to use the hi level connection to a REL sub in a home theatre setup. Remove the speaker level connection and just run the subwoofer cable connection from the AVR's sub output to the sub. Everything will be taken care of in the Audyssey setup procedure.

Now there is one reason you may want to actually have both the low level .! speaker connection and the hi level speaker connection both set up. That is if you play stereo music with the system and don't want to use Audyssey for room correction when playing music. If you want to use Audyssey for both music and movies then stop right here, don't read any further, and just disconnect the speaker level connection from the sub.

Still reading? OK. The first thing you have to do is to disconnect the speaker level connection from the AVR's centre speaker's speaker outputs and instead connect it to the AVR's speaker outputs for the front left and right speakers. The speaker level connection is intended for stereo setups only. With this connection the sub only receives bass from the speaker connections it is connected to (read my comments above on how the phase control works). If the AVR is delivering output to all 5 speaker channels, either because you're playing a multichannel music recording or using the AVRs sound processing to generate a 5 channel mix, the bass in any speaker channels to which the speaker connector cord is not connected will not get to the sub and the results are going to be unpredictable because they're going to depend on how the recording is mixed. Results may be reasonable for some records but they're going to be less than ideal and quite possibly less than satisfactory for other recordings. You can only get the best result with a stereo recording, the AVR playing in Pure stereo mode which disables the AVR's crossover settings and sends everything to the front L and R speakers, and you have the speaker connector connected to the speaker outputs on the AVR for those 2 speakers. You then have to ensure that you're running the AVR in stereo mode when playing music and you're going to have to switch the sub's phase control to one of the positions for the speaker level connection when playing music and back to the .1 input position you used during Audyssey setup when playing a movie. You're also going to have to do a separate setup procedure for the speaker level connection by following the instructions in the REL's manual.

The bottom line is that there is no way to use Audyssey properly with the speaker level connection because the bass you want the REL to handle is all going to be directed to the sub by the AVR's bass management function when Audyssey processing is in use. The hi level speaker connection is only of use in a stereo only setup.


----------



## sjm817

With my setup Audyssey off with music and on with TV/Movies is automatic. The Denon AVR remembers setting per input.
Music input = Audyssey off & Stereo 80Hz Xover sends low freq to sub. If I dont want that, set to pure and no sub is used.
Movie input = Audyssey Reference & Dolby. 

As long as you have a separate source for music and Movies, it is easy. This is with HSU sub using the .1 input.


----------



## mogorf

sjm817 said:


> With my setup Audyssey off with music and on with TV/Movies is automatic. The Denon AVR remembers setting per input.
> Music input = Audyssey off & Stereo 80Hz Xover sends low freq to sub. If I dont want that, set to pure and no sub is used.
> Movie input = Audyssey Reference & Dolby.
> 
> As long as you have a separate source for music and Movies, it is easy. This is with HSU sub using the .1 input.



My only question: why Audyssey off for music? Audyssey does not correct based on input material, but corrects for speaker/room interaction. Nothing to do with what contents we are listening to.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> My only question: why Audyssey off for music? Audyssey does not correct based on input material, but corrects for speaker/room interaction. Nothing to do with what contents we are listening to.


From my experience on this forum, most folks do this in order to hear the music in it's "purest form", which you and I know is not how this all works.


----------



## sjm817

mogorf said:


> My only question: why Audyssey off for music? Audyssey does not correct based on input material, but corrects for speaker/room interaction. Nothing to do with what contents we are listening to.


I dont actually have it off. It was to illustrate that different sources can have different settings and if your preference is off, you can do that. If you want stereo for music, and surround for movies, you can do that. If you want DEQ off for music, and on for movies, you can do that as well. My music and TV/Movie settings are different, but what I have isnt really that important for this point.


----------



## ekohn00

Got -12 again on The Audyssey setup. 
So basically the two new mic give a -12 and an older one (same mode) drops down to a -10. 

I’m stumped. Not really sure the course of action. 

Any thoughts on moving from bridged amp to straight connect (drops power from 500 to 300w)




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## garygarrison

sjm817 said:


> With my setup Audyssey off with music and on with TV/Movies is automatic. The Denon AVR remembers setting per input.
> Music input = Audyssey off & Stereo 80Hz Xover sends low freq to sub. If I dont want that, set to pure and no sub is used.
> Movie input = Audyssey Reference & Dolby.
> 
> As long as you have a separate source for music and Movies, it is easy. This is with HSU sub using the .1 input.



Is "Audyssey off for music" an option you select that then becomes automatic unless you change it? Or is the Denon just that way from the factory, whether you want it that way or not? If the latter, it's a new one on me!


If, in your room, with your speakers, Audyssey does a bad job, I can see wanting it off for critical listening to music. Of course, many here run Audyssey several times, perhaps changing mic pattern, speaker location, main listening position, furniture positioning, room treatment, etc. and end up with it sounding distinctly better -- *when playing music* -- than when off.



If Audyssey does a good job of room correction, you should be able to turn it on for music, if you want to.


----------



## garygarrison

ekohn00 said:


> Got -12 again on The Audyssey setup.
> So basically the two new mic give a -12 and an older one (same mode) drops down to a -10.
> 
> I’m stumped. Not really sure the course of action.
> 
> Any thoughts on moving from bridged amp to straight connect (drops power from 500 to 300w)


Frustrating! That is not normal with 90 dB/1m/2.83v (1w into 8 ohms) speakers, in a room the size of yours, unless you and the mics are just too close.

I see some phone calls in your future.

But first, look through this "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"

Then try to access "Ask Audyssey" on facebook.

Call the dealer you bought it from. Try to get a technical person in hopes that person knows what they're talking about.

By that time, someone here may have made some more suggestions.

Then call the manufacturer (last resort*;* they're not what they used to be). 

Assuming you have separates (since they are high power), do you have *input sensitivity* controls on your power amps (usually tiny controls, not big knobs, sometimes on the back). If so, turn them down, and see what that does. Fingers crossed! 

My understanding is that going from 500 watts to 300 watts won't make a difference in Audyssey levels, since Audyssey measures at about 75 dB -- somewhere below 1 watt with your system in your room. Of course in music or with movies you need much, much more. We're coming to that. 

To get the THX/Dolby/Audyssey "full scale," i.e. "Maximum Peak" level (for extremely sort durations, measured in milliseconds) -- 105 dB through every speaker (except the sub, which needs up to 115 dB peaks) -- with your speakers, in your room, at normal listening position (maybe 12 to 16 feet away, in listening/viewing rooms I'm familiar with) you would need about 120 watts per channel for your main (satellite) speakers. So with either the 300 watts or 500 watts (bridged) you have your are more than covered, with 2.5 to 4.2 times the power you need! 

I assume your amps are rated for real watts, i.e., "RMS" (a slight misnomer when refering to watts, but everybody does it), 20 to 20K, 8 ohms, at < 0.09% IM and Total Harmonic distortion, all channels operating to properly stress the power supply. You are so overpowered, though, you are probably O.K. even if the specs are a little fudged.

Just a note: I'm uncomfortable with bridging unless absolutely necessary. I can't tell you why, it just gives me the shivers. 


Good luck this time around!


----------



## sjm817

garygarrison said:


> Is "Audyssey off for music" an option you select that then becomes automatic unless you change it? Or is the Denon just that way from the factory, whether you want it that way or not? If the latter, it's a new one on me!
> 
> 
> If, in your room, with your speakers, Audyssey does a bad job, I can see wanting it off for critical listening to music. Of course, many here run Audyssey several times, perhaps changing mic pattern, speaker location, main listening position, furniture positioning, room treatment, etc. and end up with it sounding distinctly better -- *when playing music* -- than when off.
> 
> 
> 
> If Audyssey does a good job of room correction, you should be able to turn it on for music, if you want to.


Gary You are totally missing what my point was. My post had nothing to do with turning audyssey off. There a was a post before mine about how to set up a SW and things you had to do if you want different settings for music.

I was simply trying to make a point that with different inputs that settings can be unique. That is all. I only used Audyssey off as an example setting. Again, I dont have it turned off nor am I suggesting anyone does. Just an example.


----------



## ekohn00

garygarrison said:


> Frustrating! That is not normal with 90 dB/1m/2.83v (1w into 8 ohms) speakers, in a room the size of yours, unless you and the mics are just too close.
> 
> I see some phone calls in your future.




Would it make a difference being the speakers are 4 ohms not 8?

I’m thinking it’s being in a smaller room close to the large speakers. But I do plan on making a lot of calls over the next few days. 

Thanks for all the help. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## jconjason

ekohn00 said:


> Would it make a difference being the speakers are 4 ohms not 8?
> 
> I’m thinking it’s being in a smaller room close to the large speakers. But I do plan on making a lot of calls over the next few days.
> 
> Thanks for all the help.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I am in a small room with Klipsch speakers and I am able to calibrate with no issue. I don't think distance is your problem. I admit I haven't read your full string of posts so I'm not totally up to speed but it is your L/R speakers that are coming back at -12? If it just those two, have you checked to make sure the tweeters aren't damaged? Just a thought.


----------



## Sergiomh

David Aiken said:


> OK, this may sound a bit confusing but hang in there. I use a pair of REL subs so I have experience with them.
> 
> REL developed their subs for music systems which tend not to have subwoofer outputs on the pre-amp/integrated amp and the high level input with the speaker connector is intended for use in those conditions. If you're using that connection, then you have to set a crossover setting on the sub along with a gain setting and manually balance the level of the sub to the speaker because both are running over a large, common frequency range. The idea is that you use the crossover and gain settings on the sub to blend the sub into the speaker by rolling off the sub over the range where the speakers are also rolling off.
> 
> The .1 input on the sub is intended for use with AVRs in home theatre setups. The sub has no crossover control for the .! input, that is controlled in the AVR's bass management settings.
> 
> Now here's where things get messy.
> 
> First, there's a phase control on the sub with 4 positions. That switch has 2 positions for 0 degree phase shift, one for each input, and 2 positions for a 180 degree phase shift, also one for each position. Because each position on the phase control only applies to one of the inputs, it is also a switch that turns the other input off. If you set the phase control to one of the positions for the hi level input then you are turning off the .1 input and you're going to lose the whole of the LFE channel content from a movie soundtrack, the sub will receive only redirected bass from the actual speaker channels. You don't want that so my simple recommendation is not to use the hi level connection to a REL sub in a home theatre setup. Remove the speaker level connection and just run the subwoofer cable connection from the AVR's sub output to the sub. Everything will be taken care of in the Audyssey setup procedure.
> 
> Now there is one reason you may want to actually have both the low level .! speaker connection and the hi level speaker connection both set up. That is if you play stereo music with the system and don't want to use Audyssey for room correction when playing music. If you want to use Audyssey for both music and movies then stop right here, don't read any further, and just disconnect the speaker level connection from the sub.
> 
> Still reading? OK. The first thing you have to do is to disconnect the speaker level connection from the AVR's centre speaker's speaker outputs and instead connect it to the AVR's speaker outputs for the front left and right speakers. The speaker level connection is intended for stereo setups only. With this connection the sub only receives bass from the speaker connections it is connected to (read my comments above on how the phase control works). If the AVR is delivering output to all 5 speaker channels, either because you're playing a multichannel music recording or using the AVRs sound processing to generate a 5 channel mix, the bass in any speaker channels to which the speaker connector cord is not connected will not get to the sub and the results are going to be unpredictable because they're going to depend on how the recording is mixed. Results may be reasonable for some records but they're going to be less than ideal and quite possibly less than satisfactory for other recordings. You can only get the best result with a stereo recording, the AVR playing in Pure stereo mode which disables the AVR's crossover settings and sends everything to the front L and R speakers, and you have the speaker connector connected to the speaker outputs on the AVR for those 2 speakers. You then have to ensure that you're running the AVR in stereo mode when playing music and you're going to have to switch the sub's phase control to one of the positions for the speaker level connection when playing music and back to the .1 input position you used during Audyssey setup when playing a movie. You're also going to have to do a separate setup procedure for the speaker level connection by following the instructions in the REL's manual.
> 
> The bottom line is that there is no way to use Audyssey properly with the speaker level connection because the bass you want the REL to handle is all going to be directed to the sub by the AVR's bass management function when Audyssey processing is in use. The hi level speaker connection is only of use in a stereo only setup.



Thank you so much for your time and point of view! Its time to play a little bit more with my Marantz and REL


----------



## ekohn00

jconjason said:


> is your L/R speakers that are coming back at -12? If it just those two, have you checked to make sure the tweeters aren't damaged? Just a thought.


The speakers on their own sound beautiful. THere's no problems with them that can be detected.
I should also mention the AV8805 replaced a Denon AVP-A1HCI, which had no problem running Audyssey results.


----------



## pbz06

Alan P said:


> From my experience on this forum, most folks do this in order to hear the music in it's "purest form", which you and I know is not how this all works.


So pure means include room interactions, reflections etc ?


----------



## David Aiken

pbz06 said:


> So pure means include room interactions, reflections etc ?


"Pure" in this case means no processing of a digital signal apart from conversion to analog.

Yes, "pure" means you live with the room interactions. The "pure" setting simply gives you a simple way of turning all of the available digital processing off. You can argue about the suitability of the name given to that choice, like people argue about the use of the labels of large and small speakers which really give an option between having no bass management and having bass management but in the end it's a choice between 2 options. It's really only a problem if you want more flexibility in the processing options available to you. Providing more flexibility in those options increases the complexity of the settings available and that has consequences for the hardware which may not currently be able to provide those options, both of which add to costs. We also have people complaining because they already have problems understanding and using the options currently available and more options will increase the number of those people.

There are other AVRs and processors with other options that provide greater flexibility and more choices. If one product doesn't offer you the choices you want you can opt for another product but while every product offers some degree of choice about what processing options you have, no product offers every processing option anybody wants. There's always some people complaining that a product lacks a feature or option they want and there's always other people who will complain for different reasons if that feature or product is added.

In the end manufacturers offer what they think is the best set of features and options which will ensure they can get enough sales to make a profit. They're not trying to satisfy everyone, they're trying to satisfy enough people for their purposes and some people won't be satisfied with what ends up getting offered. Adding more features and options will satisfy some people and dissatisfy others, it will gain some customers and lose some customers. There's no way of satisfying everyone.


----------



## rosstg

Well I’ve reverted back to Audyssey Reference full spectrum with DEQ on. I was listening for about a month with MultiEQ limited to 300hz with DEQ off. It sounds excellent that way but Reference rolloff off 1 with DEQ with MRC off just sounds more cinematic. My RP’s sound more precise and natural. I really missed how enveloping DEQ is with movies, gaming and TV. Once they fix the 20hz rolloff on the next patch it will be perfect.


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> Well I’ve reverted back to Audyssey Reference full spectrum with DEQ on. I was listening for about a month with MultiEQ limited to 300hz with DEQ off. It sounds excellent that way but Reference rolloff off 1 with DEQ with MRC off just sounds more cinematic. My RP’s sound more precise and natural. I really missed how enveloping DEQ is with movies, gaming and TV. Once they fix the 20hz rolloff on the next patch it will be perfect.



I don't have the app. I may have missed something, but which setting has a 20Hz rolloff? Do you have information on the slope?


Regarding another matter, I remember that Chris K. said that the Audyssey company does not recommend Audyssey being limited to below 300 Hz, but prefers that Audyssey be applied to the full range. It has been about 8 years since he said that, so maybe they have changed their corporate mind. Back then, it was the AVR or AVP manufacturers who built in the limited range option, not Audyssey. Does the app have it as an option?


----------



## drh3b

garygarrison said:


> I don't have the app. I may have missed something, but which setting has a 20Hz rolloff? Do you have information on the slope?
> 
> 
> Regarding another matter, I remember that Chris K. said that the Audyssey company does not recommend Audyssey being limited to below 300 Hz, but prefers that Audyssey be applied to the full range. It has been about 8 years since he said that, so maybe they have changed their corporate mind. Back then, it was the AVR or AVP manufacturers who built in the limited range option, not Audyssey. Does the app have it as an option?


If you use the app, it rolls off the subwoofer below 20 Hz. It's to protect people from blowing up their subwoofer, from what I understand. Don't know the slope. Supposed to be fixed in the next update. Presumably the other channels as well, if you run them full range, although I've never seen anyone comment on that. 
And, with the app, you can set an upper limit by channel pair, center and I think subwoofer as well.


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> I don't have the app. I may have missed something, but which setting has a 20Hz rolloff? Do you have information on the slope?
> 
> 
> Regarding another matter, I remember that Chris K. said that the Audyssey company does not recommend Audyssey being limited to below 300 Hz, but prefers that Audyssey be applied to the full range. It has been about 8 years since he said that, so maybe they have changed their corporate mind. Back then, it was the AVR or AVP manufacturers who built in the limited range option, not Audyssey. Does the app have it as an option?


Yeah it has a 3db rolloff at 20hz but has been confirmed that will be fixed in the next update.

The app allows users to limit how much MultiEQ is applied. I was limiting frequency to 300hz across all channels. It sounds very good in my room but have gone back to using MultiEQ across full range. XT32 does a great job in my room, my speakers are relatively flat to begin with but XT32 seems to tighten things up, my room sounds more controlled and natural with it full range. Another thing that works better with the app is subwoofer levels. When I calibrate via the AVR it always sets subs at -8 in my room. Using the app they are set at -5. Big improvement in bass, once the 3db dip gets fixed I’m sure it will sound outstanding. I also like that I can turn off Midrange Compensation. My RP’s sound much better without.


----------



## pbz06

After getting confirmation about the 20hz rolloff of the subwoofer using the app, I just went back to straight from AVR.

Interestingly, my subwoofer sounds better too. With the app, it also set it to 2dB LOWER (-6) compared to without the app (-4). Probably has something to do with the rolloff point.

I did like the app because I can see the graphs...i don't mind MRC since I'm back to using Flat but with cinemaEQ enabled.


----------



## LRZNole

A few questions: I am about to run the MultEQ app for the first time as I just got new rear surrounds.

1) If I turn off MRC and later decide I want it back do I need to run Audyssey again?

2) Should I use Reference or Flat?

3) My Martin Logan Motion 8 Center almost always ends up with a 60Hz crossover. What would you raise it to? 80, 90 & 100?

I know some of this could be preference but wanted opinions since I don’t consider myself an audiophile.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> A few questions: I am about to run the MultEQ app for the first time as I just got new rear surrounds.
> 
> 1) If I turn off MRC and later decide I want it back do I need to run Audyssey again?
> 
> 2) Should I use Reference or Flat?
> 
> 3) My Martin Logan Motion 8 Center almost always ends up with a 60Hz crossover. What would you raise it to? 80, 90 & 100?
> 
> I know some of this could be preference but wanted opinions since I don’t consider myself an audiophile.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


1) you can turn it back on through app and resend to the AVR. No need to recalibrate.

2) I don’t like Flat. It has too much treble to my ears. Flat is for extremely well treated rooms and even then I would opt for Reference.

3) raising is good. My center is set at 40hz, I bump to 100hz.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> A few questions: I am about to run the MultEQ app for the first time as I just got new rear surrounds.
> 
> 1) If I turn off MRC and later decide I want it back do I need to run Audyssey again?
> 
> 2) Should I use Reference or Flat?
> 
> 3) My Martin Logan Motion 8 Center almost always ends up with a 60Hz crossover. What would you raise it to? 80, 90 & 100?
> 
> I know some of this could be preference but wanted opinions since I don’t consider myself an audiophile.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you can turn it back on through app and resend to the AVR. No need to recalibrate.
> 
> 2) I don’t like Flat. It has too much treble to my ears. Flat is for extremely well treated rooms and even then I would opt for Reference.
> 
> 3) raising is good. My center is set at 40hz, I bump to 100hz.
Click to expand...

Thanks the one thing I don’t get is after calibrating with the app if I hit setup from the remote on my Denon and check the settings all the old stuff from an earlier Audyssey run still shows. How do I know the app data is over-riding the old stuff?


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> Thanks the one thing I don’t get is after calibrating with the app if I hit setup from the remote on my Denon and check the settings all the old stuff from an earlier Audyssey run still shows. How do I know the app data is over-riding the old stuff?


That’s weird. When you finish with the app do you send to the AVR?


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks the one thing I don’t get is after calibrating with the app if I hit setup from the remote on my Denon and check the settings all the old stuff from an earlier Audyssey run still shows. How do I know the app data is over-riding the old stuff?
> 
> 
> 
> That’s weird. When you finish with the app do you send to the AVR?
Click to expand...

Figured that out after posting. Did you notice the app changed any of your crossovers different from when run through the AVR itself? All times prior my R, L and Surrounds came back at 120Hz but with the app they all came in at 150Hz. My Center was the same with both at 60Hz.


----------



## Giak

Hi, sorry if it has been already discussed. I have a Denon AVR-X3500H equipped with Audy XT32. Could you please tell me what is the mic position pattern which works best in your opinion? The listening position (a wide couch) is almost in the middle of the room, without any wall close to the main seating position.
I have seen there are many different patterns around the web and do not know which one to follow.

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

Giak said:


> Hi, sorry if it has been already discussed. I have a Denon AVR-X3500H equipped with Audy XT32. Could you please tell me what is the mic position pattern which works best in your opinion? The listening position (a wide couch) is almost in the middle of the room, without any wall close to the main seating position.
> I have seen there are many different patterns around the web and do not know which one to follow.
> 
> Thanks


Hi,

It is very difficult to know in advance what precise microphone pattern will work best in a particular room. Some degree of trial-and-error is required, and your ears have to be the ultimate judge of whether you are performing a successful calibration. I believe that our hearing is still the final arbiter even when we can measure our frequency response.

With that said, however, there are some microphone patterns that have proved successful to others, and you have probably seen some of them. The one that I would recommend, as a starting point, is a fairly tight mic pattern. I believe that trying to EQ a more uniform area is likely to produce a more uniform response. The section of the Guide I am linking for you has a diagram, and a narrative explanation of that recommended mic pattern, along with some calibration tips. I think that would be a good starting point.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB

You said that your listening position is almost at the mid-point of your room. Not being near a wall is a good thing, but being at or very close to the mid-point of a room can create bass cancellation. I would take care to listen to make sure that all of my bass frequencies, especially those low enough to be played by my subwoofer, are audible. If some of them are not, just moving your couch another foot or so away from the center of the room may help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

rosstg said:


> 2) I don’t like Flat. It has too much treble to my ears. Flat is for extremely well treated rooms and even then I would opt for Reference.


Flat is also useful for smaller listening rooms. Mine is 13x14, fully carpeted, and I am about 8 ft from the front speakers. I don't want the high frequency rolloff that is part of Reference, and I don't want the "midrange compensation" (dip) that is in the Reference curve (but can be turned off if you calibrate using the smartphone app). For me, Flat sounds better than Reference for nearly everything except some older movies that have very bright-sounding music recordings (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia).


----------



## LRZNole

pbarach said:


> rosstg said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) I don’t like Flat. It has too much treble to my ears. Flat is for extremely well treated rooms and even then I would opt for Reference.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat is also useful for smaller listening rooms. Mine is 13x14, fully carpeted, and I am about 8 ft from the front speakers. I don't want the high frequency rolloff that is part of Reference, and I don't want the "midrange compensation" (dip) that is in the Reference curve (but can be turned off if you calibrate using the smartphone app). For me, Flat sounds better than Reference for nearly everything except some older movies that have very bright-sounding music recordings (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia).
Click to expand...

How does the floor surface effect how you run Audyssey? You mentioned having carpet, my room is laminate flooring which I guess would reflect sound more so would I want Reference in that case vs Flat? Also would one Rolloff be preferred?


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> Flat is also useful for smaller listening rooms. Mine is 13x14, fully carpeted, and I am about 8 ft from the front speakers. I don't want the high frequency rolloff that is part of Reference, and I don't want the "midrange compensation" (dip) that is in the Reference curve (but can be turned off if you calibrate using the smartphone app). *For me, Flat sounds better than Reference for nearly everything except some older movies that have very bright-sounding music recordings (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia).*


 (_Bolding/underlining mine. GG_)


I agree completely. Of course, it depends on the room, the speakers, and that magic word Preference. 



Even in my partially treated, 16.75' x 25' room with a ceiling that averages 10 feet high (*> *4,000 cu ft), I prefer Audyssey Flat for almost all movies made in the last 20 years or so. Blu-rays with Dolby True and DTS HD Master are very high fidelity, when a new movie is the source. I like to hear the sparkle of the high frequencies and the "air." At 2 movies a week since about 2011, I have only found about 3 or 4 newer movies that required changing from Flat to Reference. YMMV.
Lawrence of Arabia is a great example of a movie that requires abandoning Flat and switching to Reference, IMO. It is very, very bright, and to get the drums to thunder the way they did in the road show theatrical presentations (70 mm), the volume needs to be too high to tolerate the brass. Reference fixes that. *[*In 1962, when Lawrence was made, the theatrical mid/treble speakers, even the incomparable JBL 375 driver, rolled off steeply at 10K Hz (advertising aside). This covered a number of sins, including some VHF distortion. Below 10K, Lawrence is clean as a whistle, and one can turn it up a bit more. Some bass boost helps.*]*


----------



## garygarrison

LRZNole said:


> How does the floor surface effect how you run Audyssey? You mentioned having carpet, my room is laminate flooring which I guess would reflect sound more so would I want Reference in that case vs Flat? Also would one Rolloff be preferred?



IMO, some very attractive, relatively unobtrusive, area rugs that still let your laminate flooring show might improve your sound, especially if the carpets are placed where the treble from the speakers would bounce off the floor and reach your ears. Then run Audyssey again.

Area carpets may also help with dialog intelligibility and detail.


Can you post some photographs of your room? That might help us to provide some better advice.


----------



## rosstg

I used Flat exclusively for many years. I started playing around with different options in January, Reference and limiting EQ and concluded that Flat sounds too sterile in my room. I do agree that Reference can dull the sound too much especially for newer releases where it’s not needed since they are mixed for the home. It still sounds great mind you but it can sound dry. For my room it’s either Reference or cutting MultiEQ to 300hz. 

I’m curious if everyone uses DEQ?


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> I’m curious if everyone uses DEQ?



Several of us do *not* use it, most of the time. I used it at first, then found that there was better clarity, detail, "air," etc., in my room, with my speakers, without it. One of the people I'm thinking of plays movies at moderate volume. I usually play at 5 to 7 dB below reference level. As always, YMMV.

If you play softly, a partial substitute for DEQ that doesn't impair clarity, is to use the bass control (only available without DEQ). Most bass controls on AVRs and AVPs provide up to 6 dB bass boost, which provides within 0.6 dB of the DEQ maximum bass boost at *-* 15 dB on the Main Volume Control (_I think_). That takes care of the mid bass, through the L and R speakers only. To get more deep bass, turn up the subwoofer a bit. If you are lucky, the upper reaches of the sub sound will also boost some upper bass, as it rolls off, without phase cancellation or attenuation.


If you haven't already, see these*:*
Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
Audyssey FAQ Linked Here


----------



## LRZNole

garygarrison said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does the floor surface effect how you run Audyssey? You mentioned having carpet, my room is laminate flooring which I guess would reflect sound more so would I want Reference in that case vs Flat? Also would one Rolloff be preferred?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, some very attractive, relatively unobtrusive, area rugs that still let your laminate flooring show might improve your sound, especially if the carpets are placed where the treble from the speakers would bounce off the floor and reach your ears. Then run Audyssey again.
> 
> Area carpets may also help with dialog intelligibility and detail.
> 
> 
> Can you post some photographs of your room? That might help us to provide some better advice.
Click to expand...

Hope this helps


----------



## LRZNole

Is there a way to switch from Reference to Flat in the App itself?


----------



## pbarach

LRZNole said:


> Hope this helps


You have an extremely reflective room with many hard surfaces creating many reflections of the sound coming from your speakers. The result will be VERY bright sound with little sense of imaging because there are so many reflections from those hard surfaces, including the table in front of your couch. I'm guessing that REFERENCE will sound better in your room than FLAT because of the high-frequency roll-off in REFERENCE. But the hard surfaces in your room are going to interfere with getting the best sound. Those window treatments are also reflective.

You have your speakers pushed against the wall behind them, and they are surrounded with hard porcelain sculptures that are creating a lot of reflections that will confuse the imaging. Also, your center channel is reflecting sound against the furniture underneath. How about pulling out all three of your front speakers so that the center channel is at the edge of that cabinet and your L and R have those porcelain sculpures behind them.

Of course, you will need to rerun Audyssey if you move things around or change the surfaces in your room.

Having your couch against the back wall also is an acoustic problem, but often there is little that can be done to change that situation.


----------



## LRZNole

pbarach said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> 
> 
> You have an extremely reflective room with many hard surfaces creating many reflections of the sound coming from your speakers. The result will be VERY bright sound with little sense of imaging because there are so many reflections from those hard surfaces, including the table in front of your couch. I'm guessing that REFERENCE will sound better in your room than FLAT because of the high-frequency roll-off in REFERENCE. But the hard surfaces in your room are going to interfere with getting the best sound. Those window treatments are also reflective.
> 
> You have your speakers pushed against the wall behind them, and they are surrounded with hard porcelain sculptures that are creating a lot of reflections that will confuse the imaging. Also, your center channel is reflecting sound against the furniture underneath. How about pulling out all three of your front speakers so that the center channel is at the edge of that cabinet and your L and R have those porcelain sculpures behind them.
> 
> Of course, you will need to rerun Audyssey if you move things around or change the surfaces in your room.
> 
> Having your couch against the back wall also is an acoustic problem, but often there is little that can be done to change that situation.
Click to expand...

Thanks I will play around with it and see want the wife let’s me get away with LOL. By the way if using Reference would you limit the MultEQ Filter Frequency Range or leave it full?

Another thing if you don’t mind me asking...when I previously ran Audyssey through the AVR it set my crossovers at 120 but the App sets them at 150. Since my room likely needs more “correction” which would I be better off using?


----------



## rosstg

If you limit MultiEQ it will sound brighter. Your room probably needs as much EQ as it can get. But in the end it comes down to what sounds best to you. A lot of people like treble which is why a lot opt for the Flat curve. I personally prefer a more natural sound which is why I like Reference or MultiEQ limited to 300hz. I also have very articulate speakers.

Here are some pics of my room. I’m 8.5 ft from my speakers and have a lot of absorption. I will be putting up 24x48x2 panels on each side wall in the next few weeks.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> If you limit MultiEQ it will sound brighter. Your room probably needs as much EQ as it can get. But in the end it comes down to what sounds best to you. A lot of people like treble which is why a lot opt for the Flat curve. I personally prefer a more natural sound which is why I like Reference. I also have very articulate speakers.
> 
> Here are some pics of my room. I’m 8.5 ft from my speakers and have a lot of absorption. I will be putting up 24x48x2 panels on each side wall in the next few weeks.


If I had a man cave I would have more options but as this part of our open concept living/dining area I am limited by the room. Would the MRC be recommended ON given my situation?


----------



## rosstg

All you need is some curtains, a nice shag rug and maybe some art on the wall and that will help tremendously. MCR in my opinion is useless with good speakers but a lot of people like it. It definitely will make the sound less bright.


----------



## David Aiken

LRZNole said:


> How does the floor surface effect how you run Audyssey? You mentioned having carpet, my room is laminate flooring which I guess would reflect sound more so would I want Reference in that case vs Flat? Also would one Rolloff be preferred?


Well, we've just seen a lot of responses about floors and carpets/rugs. Those responses really cover the main points. 

All room surfaces affect sound and there are 2 ways in which they can do it. First no surface reflects all frequencies perfectly and that means that tonal character of the sound can change depending on how well different frequencies are reflected. A surface like a laminate floor will reflect high frequencies which a carpet or rug would absorb to a much greater degree 

The other way room surfaces affect sound is that the reflection seems to come from a point somewhere away from the speaker. Look in a mirror and you can see how things reflected in the mirror appear to come from a location behind the mirror. Reflected sound appears to come from a point somewhere behind the reflecting surface so sound reflected from a floor seems to come from below the floor, sound reflected from a wall seems to come from behind the wall. Sound reflected from the floor tends to shift the apparent source of the sound down towards the floor so the voice of a person speaking on screen can start to appear as if it's coming from somewhere lower than the person on screen.

Audyssey can correct for the tonal shifts that reflections make but Audyssey only changes the sound being fed to the speaker. It can't correct for differences in the time at which the sound reaching your ears and the sound reflected from a surface reaches your ears, and it can't correct for the fact that reflections seem to arrive from a different point in space. Reducing reflections from the floor, especially those from the 3 front speakers, helps minimise some of the problems those reflections can cause which can't be compensated for by Audyssey.

The choice between reference and flat is different and it comes down to personal taste. Most people prefer sound with the high frequencies dropping in level slightly as frequency increases. Reference introduces that high frequency drop, along with a bit of a dip in the mid frequencies. A lot of people prefer those changes but some people like the sound without those changes. Pick the one you prefer. Some people will prefer sound which falls in the middle between the 2 options and some will prefer more dip in the highs, and some prefer to not have the dip in the mid frequencies which Audyssey adds. You can make some adjustments for those things using the MultEQ app but not in Audyssey if you're not using the app because there's limits to how much processing power in the AVR can be devoted to calculating changes to what Audyssey does and providing the interface that lets you make the kind of adjustments involved.

That's a very short explanation of why rugs or carpet on the floor is helpful. Longer explanations have been known to fill a book. If you really want to get a feel for why a rug can help, the best way to do it is to put a rug on the floor and try it. If you don't have a rug, just put a woollen blanket on the floor instead but put something on the floor, run Audyssey again, and see what you think. A bit of an actual listen is worth a lot more than a thousand words.


----------



## LRZNole

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

*LRZNole*,


Try all combinations of the options, with a wide variety of music and movies, and *trust your ears*. 

There are no hard and fast rules, AFAIK.

My preconceptions make me lean toward*:*


Area rugs, particularly between the speakers and the coffee table.
Put an absorbent table runner on the coffee table, perhaps with a thicker piece of absorbent material under the runner. By making the under pad a little smaller than the runner, you can use some double sided tape under both the runner and the pad to keep guests, cats, etc., from rumpling it up. Properly done, the tape won't show.
As others have said, move both the R & L and Center speakers forward. If you can't, put a table runner in front of the Center.
Put thick curtains behind the couch (or behind and slightly above) -- they can be open most of the time, and closed when listening to music or watching movies.
Re-run Audyssey with all of the above in place.
As to all of those small sculptures, they won't hurt anything if all speakers (except the sub) are a slight bit farther into the room than the statues on the front of the shelves. If you can't bring the speakers forward enough, disperse the statues so that one half of them are on each side. Otherwise, they might cause too much asymmetry, throwing off the soundstage.. That might cause audiophile iGNOMEiny. Seriously though, how is your imaging? The sculptures may actually provide some beneficial diffusion. 

The task for all of us when setting up a home theater reminds me of the one Orson Welles faced when making Citizen Kane*;* he said, "I had never made a movie before, so I tried everything I could think of."


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Well, we've just seen a lot of responses about floors and carpets/rugs. Those responses really cover the main points.
> 
> All room surfaces affect sound and there are 2 ways in which they can do it. First no surface reflects all frequencies perfectly and that means that tonal character of the sound can change depending on how well different frequencies are reflected. A surface like a laminate floor will reflect high frequencies which a carpet or rug would absorb to a much greater degree
> 
> The other way room surfaces affect sound is that the reflection seems to come from a point somewhere away from the speaker. Look in a mirror and you can see how things reflected in the mirror appear to come from a location behind the mirror. Reflected sound appears to come from a point somewhere behind the reflecting surface so sound reflected from a floor seems to come from below the floor, sound reflected from a wall seems to come from behind the wall. Sound reflected from the floor tends to shift the apparent source of the sound down towards the floor so the voice of a person speaking on screen can start to appear as if it's coming from somewhere lower than the person on screen.
> 
> *Audyssey can correct for the tonal shifts that reflections make but Audyssey only changes the sound being fed to the speaker. It can't correct for differences in the time at which the sound reaching your ears and the sound reflected from a surface reaches your ears, and it can't correct for the fact that reflections seem to arrive from a different point in space. Reducing reflections from the floor, especially those from the 3 front speakers, helps minimise some of the problems those reflections can cause which can't be compensated for by Audyssey.*
> 
> The choice between reference and flat is different and it comes down to personal taste. Most people prefer sound with the high frequencies dropping in level slightly as frequency increases. Reference introduces that high frequency drop, along with a bit of a dip in the mid frequencies. A lot of people prefer those changes but some people like the sound without those changes. Pick the one you prefer. Some people will prefer sound which falls in the middle between the 2 options and some will prefer more dip in the highs, and some prefer to not have the dip in the mid frequencies which Audyssey adds. You can make some adjustments for those things using the MultEQ app but not in Audyssey if you're not using the app because there's limits to how much processing power in the AVR can be devoted to calculating changes to what Audyssey does and providing the interface that lets you make the kind of adjustments involved.
> 
> That's a very short explanation of why rugs or carpet on the floor is helpful. Longer explanations have been known to fill a book. If you really want to get a feel for why a rug can help, the best way to do it is to put a rug on the floor and try it. If you don't have a rug, just put a woollen blanket on the floor instead but put something on the floor, run Audyssey again, and see what you think. A bit of an actual listen is worth a lot more than a thousand words.


Hi David, 

I have debated whether or not to add anything to your good post on room acoustics and on Audyssey. I decided to say something about a little glitch, for the benefit of people reading along, who may wonder about it without really questioning it. The paragraph I bolded is not quite correct.

Audyssey doesn't change the sound being fed to the speaker. It changes the sound which leaves the speaker. And, successfully or not, it tries to account for the way that the room influences the sound in the process. When Audyssey measures the sound in our listening areas, using either 6 or 8 microphone positions, Audyssey is measuring the direct sound of the speaker in combination with room reflections. The fact that neither Audyssey, nor most other forms of automated room EQ, can distinguish between the direct sound, and the reflected sound, is one of the reasons that some audio experts recommend against EQing above 500Hz. Everyone seems to agree that below 500Hz, room EQ can be effective in EQing the combined sound of transducers and rooms. 

My own viewpoint is slightly more empirical, and less theoretical. I believe that the proof is in the pudding. If Audyssey is, in fact, somewhat successful in performing its intended function of making transducers sound better inside a room, then we will prefer to use it, and if the sound is worse, we won't. In my room, it is quite effective in that respect. But, I worked hard to help it to do its job more effectively.

Using room treatments of various types helps Audyssey to be more effective, as does proper speaker alignment and toe-in, as does making sure that we don't get the Audyssey microphone too close to a reflective surface. And, so on. Because, once again, Audyssey is specifically attempting to EQ the sound that arrives at the listening position(s), which includes reflected sounds, and it is not simply EQing the direct sound of the speakers. It doesn't actually have a mechanism for doing that as all of the measurements are taken at the listening position(s) and not in the speakers' nearfields. 

I know that you understand all of this perfectly well. That's why I referred to that paragraph as a glitch. It was just a kind of momentary brain freeze, which we all experience sometimes.  

But, I thought it was important to point it out, so that other readers won't get confused. Audyssey isn't a system of source correction, or of speaker correction. It is a system of room correction. When it makes particular sources, or speakers, sound better too, that is just a byproduct of its primary function to make transducers (speakers and subwoofers) sound better in a room. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## flyinion

Why would you not EQ above 500hz? Are there room conditions that would suggest to EQ the whole band instead? For instance a room with a number of reflective surfaces vs a well treated theater room. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> I have debated whether or not to add anything to your good post on room acoustics and on Audyssey. I decided to say something about a little glitch, for the benefit of people reading along, who may wonder about it without really questioning it. The paragraph I bolded is not quite correct.
> 
> Audyssey doesn't change the sound being fed to the speaker. It changes the sound which leaves the speaker. And, successfully or not, it tries to account for the way that the room influences the sound in the process. When Audyssey measures the sound in our listening areas, using either 6 or 8 microphone positions, Audyssey is measuring the direct sound of the speaker in combination with room reflections. The fact that neither Audyssey, nor most other forms of automated room EQ, can distinguish between the direct sound, and the reflected sound, is one of the reasons that some audio experts recommend against EQing above 500Hz. Everyone seems to agree that below 500Hz, room EQ can be effective in EQing the combined sound of transducers and rooms.
> 
> My own viewpoint is slightly more empirical, and less theoretical. I believe that the proof is in the pudding. If Audyssey is, in fact, somewhat successful in performing its intended function of making transducers sound better inside a room, then we will prefer to use it, and if the sound is worse, we won't. In my room, it is quite effective in that respect. But, I worked hard to help it to do its job more effectively.
> 
> Using room treatments of various types helps Audyssey to be more effective, as does proper speaker alignment and toe-in, as does making sure that we don't get the Audyssey microphone too close to a reflective surface. And, so on. Because, once again, Audyssey is specifically attempting to EQ the sound that arrives at the listening position(s), which includes reflected sounds, and it is not simply EQing the direct sound of the speakers. It doesn't actually have a mechanism for doing that as all of the measurements are taken at the listening position(s) and not in the speakers' nearfields.
> 
> I know that you understand all of this perfectly well. That's why I referred to that paragraph as a glitch. It was just a kind of momentary brain freeze, which we all experience sometimes.
> 
> But, I thought it was important to point it out, so that other readers won't get confused. Audyssey isn't a system of source correction, or of speaker correction. It is a system of room correction. When it makes particular sources, or speakers, sound better too, that is just a byproduct of its primary function to make transducers (speakers and subwoofers) sound better in a room.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks for the comments and I really do mean that.

I'll disagree with you about the bolded paragraph.The sound that leaves the speaker is determined by the sound sent to the speaker and what Audyssey does is to change the sound being sent to the speaker from the signal recorded in the soundtrack/music to a signal modified by its correction filters. It does that for a purpose we call room correction. If I wanted to be pedantic (I frequently do) I'd argue about the term "room correction" because Audyssey does nothing to the room so why say it's correcting it but that's a pointless quibble. We're both stuck with the term. Once the signal leaves the DSP applying the correction filter, the sound has been changed. The speaker simply reproduces what is sent to it, whether that has been modified or not and if the speaker is doing its job perfectly there will be no difference in "content" between the analog signal reaching the speaker and the sound leaving it. the only change is from electrical signal to audible sound. I could say you're correct because there's no sound to hear until the speaker does its job and I could say I'm correct because I'm referring to the point in the signal path where Audyssey has finished doing what it does and passed the signal on to eventually emerge from the speaker as sound.

Re your more empirical/less theoretical viewpoint: from a practical point of view I agree with you completely. I was trying to give a potted theoretical account and you went for the practical.

Re room treatments vs Audyssey: room treatments do help Audyssey to be more effective as you say but while electronic room correction and physical room treatment overlap in some areas they each do some unique things of their own. They aren't completely interchangeable. For example Audyssey can correct for phase errors while physical room treatments can't. Audyssey can correct for some of the effects that reflections have but it can't correct for some of the things, such as the effect the different arrival directions of direct and reflected sound have. Audyssey's EQ certainly affects reflected sound but it doesn't modify the strength of the reflection relative to direct sound because both the primary factor in both of those is the level of the sound leaving the speaker. In addition Audyssey doesn't change any apparent shift in the perceived source of a sound resulting from the way our brain combines the direct and reflected sound from a given speaker. A large part of the virtual location of sounds is fixed by the fact that the sound comes from 2 speakers and the direct arrivals from those 2 speakers is the primary mechanism which determines where we hear the sound coming because the 2 strongest sound sources are the 2 different direct sounds. If you have a sound coming from a single speaker, say a speaking voice coming from the centre speaker, then the strongest 2 sound sources are the direct sound from that speaker and the first reflection which can be, and usually is in the case of the centre speaker, the floor reflection. If the same sound arrives at the ear from 2 or more sources we're going to perceive it as coming from somewhere between the 2 strongest sources. With multichannel sound the 2 strongest sources are usually direct sounds from 2 different speakers but sometimes it can prove to be the direct sound from one speaker, the only speaker reproducing the sound, and the first reflection from that speaker.

Finally, you're certainly right that Audyssey is a system of room correction, that is it's purpose. It is also a system of signal correction because it achieves its purpose by applying correction to the signal. You're focussing on the purpose, I focussed on the mechanism by which it achieves the purpose, and both statements are equally true in my view.

Nearly every one of the differences between what I said and you said are really nothing more than differences caused by describing things from different viewpoints. Both of our viewpoints are equally valid but sometimes we may feel that one viewpoint is better than the other in order to explain what's going on. We seem to have had different views about which viewpoint was best in this case but really we're both saying the same thing on most of this, just in different ways.

The only area where I think there is a substantive difference between us is in my statements which asserted that physical room corrections can correct for some things that Audyssey can't. I stand by that but I also say that Audyssey can correct for some things that physical room correction can't. They overlap in some but not in all areas. Where we are in agreement is in saying that physical corrections help Audyssey to do a better job but where we differ is on my view that neither can do a complete job and that because of the areas where they each have their own unique benefits, the combination of the two is always going to be slightly better than a perfect implementation of either. Luckily for both of us we don't need a perfect implementation of both to produce good results and a good implementation of either without the other can also produce good although slightly different results. I run 2 separate systems in different rooms, a 2.2 HT system which uses Audyssey in one room and a pure stereo 2.0 system in another which uses physical correction. I assure you that while the results are similar in many areas they are also quite different in others, especially when it comes to things like the sense of space and the imaging that each delivers. Both are very good in my view but they are definitely not identical in those areas and despite lots of experience with both I know there is no way that I can get them both to do the same things in those areas.

Bottom line: I think my original post and your comments make good complements to each other and there's no difference in what we're saying, apart from the empirical vs theoretical viewpoints contained in them, except in our views on whether Audyssey and physical room correction both achieve exactly the same sort of corrections. For probably 99.9% of those reading this thread that issue is completely irrelevant and totally arcane. It would probably make an enjoyable over dinner discussion where we would probably still end up amiably agreeing to differ. Hop on a plane to Australia to visit, I'll let you listen to both systems to your heart's content, and then we can have that after dinner discussion  The invitation is serious if you're ever in Australia, I'd love to meet you in person.

Best wishes,

David


----------



## David Aiken

flyinion said:


> Why would you not EQ above 500hz? Are there room conditions that would suggest to EQ the whole band instead? For instance a room with a number of reflective surfaces vs a well treated theater room.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Lots of reasons, all coming down to different personal tastes and theoretical standpoints. It's unarguable that the biggest benefits are obtained below 500 Hz and a lot of the things you can correct above there are relatively easily fixed quite well with simple room furnishing choices like curtains over windows and so on. If you hold the view that you should apply as little digital signal processing as possible and leave the original signal unmodified to the greatest extent possible, then you may want to avoid EQ above 500 Hz. Also there is a difference in what you hear with EQ to what you hear without it. Some people simply prefer the sound without EQ. Not everyone prefers the same sound. If we did we'd all be listening to the same speakers and the same amps and players and you'd never want to spend a night at a friend's place listening to their system because what you'd hear would be exactly the same as what you heard at your place and where's the fun in that. In my view it's a good thing we each have our own individual preferences.


----------



## flyinion

David Aiken said:


> Lots of reasons, all coming down to different personal tastes and theoretical standpoints. It's unarguable that the biggest benefits are obtained below 500 Hz and a lot of the things you can correct above there are relatively easily fixed quite well with simple room furnishing choices like curtains over windows and so on. If you hold the view that you should apply as little digital signal processing as possible and leave the original signal unmodified to the greatest extent possible, then you may want to avoid EQ above 500 Hz. Also there is a difference in what you hear with EQ to what you hear without it. Some people simply prefer the sound without EQ. Not everyone prefers the same sound. If we did we'd all be listening to the same speakers and the same amps and players and you'd never want to spend a night at a friend's place listening to their system because what you'd hear would be exactly the same as what you heard at your place and where's the fun in that. In my view it's a good thing we each have our own individual preferences.




Thanks for the info. I'll give it a try with the app and see what I think. Just curious does DEQ only apply to the correction range or will it still apply to everything even if I've limited the audyssey correction range?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

flyinion said:


> Why would you not EQ above 500hz? Are there room conditions that would suggest to EQ the whole band instead? For instance a room with a number of reflective surfaces vs a well treated theater room.



 FWIW, the Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey said that their research indicated that it is better to let Audyssey equalize the whole range, 20 to 20,000 Hz.



rosstg said:


> If you limit MultiEQ it will sound brighter.



I would think that whether the sound is brighter or duller when the range of Audyssey room correction is restricted to the lower end of the frequency spectrum depends on the brightness or dullness of the upper end of the spectrum without Audyssey, or with Audyssey correction limited to the lower range. If the upper end is outrageously bright without Audyssey, I would expect Audyssey (full range) to bring it down. If the upper end is outrageously dull without Audyssey I'd expect Audyssey (full range) to raise it up. With Audyssey limited range, it can do nothing about the upper frequencies. Sometimes it isn't simple. I have speakers that are often thought to be *very* bright. I think they are *slightly* bright in my room. Yet Audyssey (full range) pushes frequencies above 1K Hz *up* an average of 4 to 5 dB. And Audyssey smooths out that region. When Audyssey is through with the speakers within my room, the treble, although elevated, is in better, but not perfect, balance with the bass, which is also modified by Audyssey. My hypothesis is that the bright reputation of my speakers is due to one broad peak centered at about 8K Hz, which Audyssey handily removes. The final result is more natural sounding, IMO, than it was before Audyssey. I'm happy.
 It doesn't matter what we predict, try all options. Empiricism triumphs!


----------



## David Aiken

flyinion said:


> Thanks for the info. I'll give it a try with the app and see what I think. Just curious does DEQ only apply to the correction range or will it still apply to everything even if I've limited the audyssey correction range?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'm not quite certain what you're asking. I think you're asking whether, if you limit the range of Audyssey in the MultEQ app so it only applies to a limited frequency range, the frequency range over which DEQ is applied will be the same as the range to which Audyssey itself is applied.

If that's what you're asking then I think the answer would be yes. I haven't looked at what happens when you limit the range Audyssey is applied to.

I will add that if you have reasons to choose to limit the range of Audyssey's EQ, I cannot understand why you would not want the operation of DEQ to be limited to that range also.


----------



## flyinion

David Aiken said:


> I'm not quite certain what you're asking. I think you're asking whether, if you limit the range of Audyssey in the MultEQ app so it only applies to a limited frequency range, the frequency range over which DEQ is applied will be the same as the range to which Audyssey itself is applied.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you're asking then I think the answer would be yes. I haven't looked at what happens when you limit the range Audyssey is applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> I will add that if you have reasons to choose to limit the range of Audyssey's EQ, I cannot understand why you would not want the operation of DEQ to be limited to that range also.




Thanks. It's not that I would necessarily want it to apply DEQ to the full range if I limited the MultEQ range. I was just curious and wanted to see how it behaved. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey doesn't change the sound being fed to the speaker. It changes the sound which leaves the speaker.


I don't understand what this sentence means. Audyssey _does _change the sound being fed to the speaker, and as a result the sound leaving the speaker is different when Audyssey is on. Am I missing a subtle point here, Mike?


----------



## Matt2026

pbarach said:


> I don't understand what this sentence means. Audyssey _does _change the sound being fed to the speaker, and as a result the sound leaving the speaker is different when Audyssey is on. Am I missing a subtle point here, Mike?


I took it that he means the current sent to the speaker which powers the driver thus changing the sound produced by the speaker The current itself is not sound, that is produced by the speaker cone movement.

And, if I'm wrong, Mike will correct me


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> I don't understand what this sentence means. Audyssey _does _change the sound being fed to the speaker, and as a result the sound leaving the speaker is different when Audyssey is on. Am I missing a subtle point here, Mike?





Matt2026 said:


> I took it that he means the current sent to the speaker which powers the driver thus changing the sound produced by the speaker The current itself is not sound, that is produced by the speaker cone movement.
> 
> And, if I'm wrong, Mike will correct me


I think that David was right when he called this a semantic difference, more than a substantive one. The main thing that my post was trying to emphasize is that Audyssey's goal is not to change the native sound of the speaker, or of the source material, for that matter. Audyssey is attempting to change the sound of the speaker at a point (or a cluster of points) in space. It is the room/speaker interaction that Audyssey is attempting to modify. 

I thought that my post, and the way that I phrased that sentence, would help to clarify the point. But, apparently it didn't. Things don't always turn-out exactly the way we plan them.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mthomas47 said:


> I think that David was right when he called this a semantic difference, more than a substantive one. The main thing that my post was trying to emphasize is that Audyssey's goal is not to change the native sound of the speaker, or of the source material, for that matter. Audyssey is attempting to change the sound of the speaker at a point (or a cluster of points) in space. It is the room/speaker interaction that Audyssey is attempting to modify.


I do not think that is true. It measures the sound of the speaker in the room but let's say that the room environment is acoustically neutral or anechoic. OTOH, the speaker, itself, has a FR that does not match the chosen target curve (and that's pretty likely). In that case, Audyssey will "change the native sound of the speaker."


----------



## mthomas47

Kal Rubinson said:


> I do not think that is true. It measures the sound of the speaker in the room but let's say that the room environment is acoustically neutral or anechoic. OTOH, the speaker, itself, has a FR that does not match the chosen target curve (and that's pretty likely). In that case, Audyssey will "change the native sound of the speaker."


We are getting tripped-up by semantics again. I very carefully said that Audyssey's goal is not to change the native sound of a speaker. It is attempting to improve the room/speaker interaction at the listening position(s). It is certainly possible that Audyssey can change the native sound of a speaker slightly, although I believe that Klipsch speakers will still sound like Klipsch speakers, and Dali speakers will still sound like Dali's, and electrostats will still sound like electrostats.

But, Audyssey's intended purpose is to remove random peaks and dips in the frequency response, caused by room/transducer interaction (to make this more general and include the subwoofers). There is periodically some discussion/confusion about this issue on the thread, particularly involving new Audyssey users, so I thought it was worth re-emphasizing Audyssey's design intentions.

As with my original post, however, things don't always work out exactly as planned, with Audyssey or with anything else. So, we can certainly create both hypothetical and actual scenarios in which Audyssey can change the sound of speakers. Given a good setup and calibration process, though, I wouldn't expect the changes to be extremely significant, as noted in the first paragraph. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I should really add "in most cases" to my last sentence, because not everyone likes the sound of his speakers with Audyssey engaged, and that is always a YMMV question as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mthomas47 said:


> We are getting tripped-up by semantics again.


Agreed but now clear.


----------



## kaydee6

David Aiken said:


> I'm not quite certain what you're asking. I think you're asking whether, if you limit the range of Audyssey in the MultEQ app so it only applies to a limited frequency range, the frequency range over which DEQ is applied will be the same as the range to which Audyssey itself is applied.
> 
> If that's what you're asking then I think the answer would be yes. I haven't looked at what happens when you limit the range Audyssey is applied to.
> 
> I will add that if you have reasons to choose to limit the range of Audyssey's EQ, I cannot understand why you would not want the operation of DEQ to be limited to that range also.


Now this is confusing, I believe DEQ adjusts not correcting the whole freq spectrum even when correction applies to a limited frequency range. Wouldn't it be unproductive to adjust up to a certain frequency? If that is the case I would think the whole implementation of the limit freq thingy via the app is broken.


----------



## mthomas47

kaydee6 said:


> Now this is confusing, I believe DEQ adjusts not correcting the whole freq spectrum even when correction applies to a limited frequency range. Wouldn't it be unproductive to adjust up to a certain frequency? If that is the case I would think the whole implementation of the limit freq thingy via the app is broken.


Hi,

I agree that it is starting to get confusing.  DEQ is a separate software program which is implemented after Audyssey sets filters for all of the channels. Limiting the frequency response of Audyssey's control points, via the app, shouldn't have any impact at all on DEQ's operation. Someone with the app can certainly EQ only below 500Hz, and then measure his frequency response, with and without DEQ, to verify my conclusion. But, I believe that DEQ will continue to apply its boosts to the bass (and the lesser boosts to the treble) at below Reference listening levels, regardless of whether EQ is being applied above a certain frequency or not. 

Again, the EQ is a completely separate software program from DEQ. The same thing would be true with the use of Dynamic Volume, or the use of the Low-Frequency Containment feature. Those features don't have anything to do with the control points that Audyssey sets, or where it sets them. Unless there is a glitch in the app, DEQ should be completely independent of the EQ process, and its results, and should only be tied to the master volume level.

Note: Anyone wanting to understand just where and how DEQ applies its boosts can look at some graphs in the Technical Addendum of the Audyssey FAQ, or he can read the detailed description of its action in Section V of the Guide, linked in my signature. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

kaydee6 said:


> Now this is confusing, I believe DEQ adjusts not correcting the whole freq spectrum even when correction applies to a limited frequency range. Wouldn't it be unproductive to adjust up to a certain frequency? If that is the case I would think the whole implementation of the limit freq thingy via the app is broken.


I wrote a long reply and almost immediately deleted it after rereading Mike's response. I then went back and started checking just what options are available for DEQ in my AVR and also in the MultEQ app.

As Mike said, DEQ is a separate function to the room correction function and, at least with my Marantz 6012, I can switch it on and off independently. I can have DEQ on when I have Audyssey off. Neither my Marantz nor the MultEQ app provides any facility for changing the range of operation of DEQ. That suggests to me that the range for DEQ is fixed and that it operates over the full 20 Hz to 20 kHz range.

The problem DEQ is intended to solve occurs at both the bass and high frequency ends of that 20 Hz to 20 kHz range. Thinking about that, I think that having DEQ operate over the whole of that range is the right decision in theory and its also right that it can operate over that range if you are running Audyssey over a more limited frequency range. My earlier response indicated that I thought it would be wrong for it to operate over a different range to the full Audyssey range so I have changed my mind on that. I now think DEQ should operate over the whole 20 Hz to 20 kHz range and that there should be no option to limit that.

I now think they operate totally independently of each other. You can have either or both active if you wish. The room correction function will operate over a limited range if you use the MultEQ app and choose to limit the range of that function. You can't modify the DEQ range so it operates over the 20 Hz to 20 kHz range whether or not you limit the range of Audyssey, and also if you turn Audyssey off.

Since the MultEQ app contains no options for DEQ, the only options we have for DEQ are in the AVR menu. In my AVR there's only one option there, the Relative Offset option, which doesn't affect the frequency range over which DEQ operates. Different AVRs may have different options. I would expect Marantz and Denon AVRs of the same generation to provide the same options because they have the same parent company and I would expect this to be a feature both share but my Marantz is not the current generation so I don't know whether the latest generation offers different options. Other manufacturers may offer different options but I would doubt that since DEQ is an Audyssey feature and I think Audyssey would provide the same functionality to all manufacturers.


----------



## kaydee6

David Aiken said:


> Since the MultEQ app contains no options for DEQ, the only options we have for DEQ are in the AVR menu. In my AVR there's only one option there, the Relative Offset option, which doesn't affect the frequency range over which DEQ operates. Different AVRs may have different options. I would expect Marantz and Denon AVRs of the same generation to provide the same options because they have the same parent company and I would expect this to be a feature both share but my Marantz is not the current generation so I don't know whether the latest generation offers different options. Other manufacturers may offer different options but I would doubt that since DEQ is an Audyssey feature and I think Audyssey would provide the same functionality to all manufacturers.


I'm using the Denon AVC-X8500H and DEQ option is just "on" or "off" and “RLO”. No other adjustment available.


----------



## rosstg

flyinion said:


> Thanks for the info. I'll give it a try with the app and see what I think. Just curious does DEQ only apply to the correction range or will it still apply to everything even if I've limited the audyssey correction range?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I asked Audyssey this the other day and they confirmed DEQ still operates across full spectrum even when limiting MultiEQ. It sounded awful in my room. Extremely bright, worse than the Flat curve. I have since turned off DEQ and limited MultiEQ to 300hz. Sounds excellent.


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> FWIW, the Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey said that their research indicated that it is better to let Audyssey equalize the whole range, 20 to 20,000 Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that whether the sound is brighter or duller when the range of Audyssey room correction is restricted to the lower end of the frequency spectrum depends on the brightness or dullness of the upper end of the spectrum without Audyssey, or with Audyssey correction limited to the lower range. If the upper end is outrageously bright without Audyssey, I would expect Audyssey (full range) to bring it down. If the upper end is outrageously dull without Audyssey I'd expect Audyssey (full range) to raise it up. With Audyssey limited range, it can do nothing about the upper frequencies. Sometimes it isn't simple. I have speakers that are often thought to be *very* bright. I think they are *slightly* bright in my room. Yet Audyssey (full range) pushes frequencies above 1K Hz *up* an average of 4 to 5 dB. And Audyssey smooths out that region. When Audyssey is through with the speakers within my room, the treble, although elevated, is in better, but not perfect, balance with the bass, which is also modified by Audyssey. My hypothesis is that the bright reputation of my speakers is due to one broad peak centered at about 8K Hz, which Audyssey handily removes. The final result is more natural sounding, IMO, than it was before Audyssey. I'm happy.
> It doesn't matter what we predict, try all options. Empiricism triumphs!


For sure. I have Klipsch RP’s and many think they are very bright. I think they just sound detailed. XT32 does tame them and they do sound more “natural” with the Reference curve. They sound more life like, as if someone is in my room. Limiting MultiEQ to 300hz brings out more detail. I wouldn’t call them bright but they do call attention to them. When I use Reference full range with MRC off they disappear in my room. My issue is I like how they sound untouched and EQ’d which is why I have been going back and forth. What speakers do you have?


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> FWIW, the Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey said that their research indicated that it is better to let Audyssey equalize the whole range, 20 to 20,000 Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that whether the sound is brighter or duller when the range of Audyssey room correction is restricted to the lower end of the frequency spectrum depends on the brightness or dullness of the upper end of the spectrum without Audyssey, or with Audyssey correction limited to the lower range. If the upper end is outrageously bright without Audyssey, I would expect Audyssey (full range) to bring it down. If the upper end is outrageously dull without Audyssey I'd expect Audyssey (full range) to raise it up. With Audyssey limited range, it can do nothing about the upper frequencies. Sometimes it isn't simple. I have speakers that are often thought to be *very* bright. I think they are *slightly* bright in my room. Yet Audyssey (full range) pushes frequencies above 1K Hz *up* an average of 4 to 5 dB. And Audyssey smooths out that region. When Audyssey is through with the speakers within my room, the treble, although elevated, is in better, but not perfect, balance with the bass, which is also modified by Audyssey. My hypothesis is that the bright reputation of my speakers is due to one broad peak centered at about 8K Hz, which Audyssey handily removes. The final result is more natural sounding, IMO, than it was before Audyssey. I'm happy.
> It doesn't matter what we predict, try all options. Empiricism triumphs!



Hi Gary et al,


With ref. to the dilemma of eq'ing full band or not eq'ing full band this is what Chris K. said:

Chris: "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

To me this makes perfect sense. To the tweakers I'd say when you ask yourself to eq full band or not to eq full band you are also asking yourself: do I want perfect stereo imaging or I do not? In other words as you can see, with a not full band eq you are sacrificing something you might not have been aware of yet. Of course YMMV.


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> z ... What speakers do you have?


My *Right* and* Left* are the latest generation of Klipschorns (or were, until a few weeks ago, when they introduced a new tweeter). Before that, the last significant change was in 2002, mostly in the crossover and crossover EQ. I installed the upgrade kits that made mine into a 2002 configuration. My *Center* is a fully horn loaded, but modified, Belle Klipsch (same drivers as the Klipschorn)*;* since my center is flush mounted through the wall, with the rear of the Belle extending into a bump-out, there was room to install the longer midrange horn (fully compatible) that is in Klipschorns, so that the timbre is like that of the R & L. The *surrounds* are Klipsch Heresy IIs. The Klipsch RSW15 *sub* comes in at 80 Hz on both the main (bass management) crossover and the LFE high pass filter. It is very powerful (has to be to keep up with the Khorns) but, unlike some, rolls off below 20 Hz. The sound improved with the upgrade, and again when Audyssey was implemented in 2011.



mogorf said:


> Chris: "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that *perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz!* I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction.


Interesting. From 4K Hz on up, after Audyssey, my front tweeters measure identically in frequency response from the MLP. The three lines are superimposed on one another. I was shocked! The midrange is less smooth, but smoother than without Audyssey. The bass is deliberately boosted, but the channels track about like the midrange. This is all with a single mic position, *not* the best way to do it.

Imaging is very good with some music and movies, but not others. We ran The Greatest Showman last night. We didn't think we would like it much, but, because of the excellent imaging, incredible dynamics, awesome bass, and enormous energy, we thoroughly enjoyed it, despite some problems with the script. I recommend it as an audio demo film.


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> My *Right* and* Left* are the latest generation of Klipschorns (or were, until a few weeks ago, when they introduced a new tweeter). Before that, the last significant change was in 2002, mostly in the crossover and crossover EQ. I installed the upgrade kits that made mine into a 2002 configuration. My *Center* is a fully horn loaded, but modified, Belle Klipsch (same drivers as the Klipschorn)*;* since my center is flush mounted through the wall, with the rear of the Belle extending into a bump-out, there was room to install the longer midrange horn (fully compatible) that is in Klipschorns, so that the timbre is like that of the R & L. The *surrounds* are Klipsch Heresy IIs. The Klipsch RSW15 *sub* comes in at 80 Hz on both the main (bass management) crossover and the LFE high pass filter. It is very powerful (has to be to keep up with the Khorns) but, unlike some, rolls off below 20 Hz. The sound improved with the upgrade, and again when Audyssey was implemented in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. From 4K Hz on up, after Audyssey, my front tweeters measure identically in frequency response from the MLP. The three lines are superimposed on one another. I was shocked! The midrange is less smooth, but smoother than without Audyssey. The bass is deliberately boosted, but the channels track about like the midrange. This is all with a single mic position, *not* the best way to do it.
> 
> 
> Imaging is very good with some music and movies, but not others. We ran The Greatest Showman last night. We didn't think we would like it much, but, because of the excellent imaging, incredible dynamics, awesome bass, and enormous energy, we thoroughly enjoyed it, despite some problems with the script. I recommend it as an audio demo film.


You have quite the setup. Are you using Reference or Flat?


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> You have quite the setup. Are you using Reference or Flat?



Usually Flat, occasionally Reference (depends on the recording). My room is moderately treated, but sounds a little on the dead side. Perhaps this is because of the wall to wall carpet, and many bookshelves with many books.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Like many people, I am very interested in the theoretical aspects of why automated room correction should, or should not, make audio systems sound better for the full frequency range. If we read excerpts of Dr. Floyd Toole's book, he explains why we shouldn't EQ above 500Hz. And as a leading audio expert, he is certainly convincing. If we listen to Chris Kyriakakis' explanation for why we should do full range EQ, what he says is also plausible. At some point, the pragmatist in me becomes impatient with theory, and I want to let my own subjective impressions of sound quality decide. 

I have a Marantz 7008, so although I have XT-32 (which I definitely wanted) I don't have access to the Audyssey app, and Audyssey therefore EQ's the full frequency range. My initial experiences with Audyssey calibration suggested that Audyssey could hear things in the mid-range and high-frequencies that I couldn't, and might therefore "fix" things that didn't actually need fixing. 

As I continued to experiment, I found that I could improve the quality of my Audyssey calibrations through careful setup and calibration technique. In my case, doing that allowed Audyssey to only make helpful changes to the sound quality in my room. I think that Gary had a similar experience. (Tips along that line may be found in Section I of the Guide, linked below.)

The bottom line for me is that EQing the full frequency range, at a minimum, does no harm in my room and for my system, and may do some good. I have been extremely pleased with the audio quality in my room for some time now. I think that some care is often required to get the best from Audyssey. Once that care has been applied, individuals can decide for themselves who to believe about the theory of EQing full range. Personally, I prefer to believe my own hearing. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

Wow, nice! I would love to see some pics of your setup! 



garygarrison said:


> My *Right* and* Left* are the latest generation of Klipschorns (or were, until a few weeks ago, when they introduced a new tweeter). Before that, the last significant change was in 2002, mostly in the crossover and crossover EQ. I installed the upgrade kits that made mine into a 2002 configuration. My *Center* is a fully horn loaded, but modified, Belle Klipsch (same drivers as the Klipschorn)*;* since my center is flush mounted through the wall, with the rear of the Belle extending into a bump-out, there was room to install the longer midrange horn (fully compatible) that is in Klipschorns, so that the timbre is like that of the R & L. The *surrounds* are Klipsch Heresy IIs. The Klipsch RSW15 *sub* comes in at 80 Hz on both the main (bass management) crossover and the LFE high pass filter. It is very powerful (has to be to keep up with the Khorns) but, unlike some, rolls off below 20 Hz. The sound improved with the upgrade, and again when Audyssey was implemented in 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. From 4K Hz on up, after Audyssey, my front tweeters measure identically in frequency response from the MLP. The three lines are superimposed on one another. I was shocked! The midrange is less smooth, but smoother than without Audyssey. The bass is deliberately boosted, but the channels track about like the midrange. This is all with a single mic position, *not* the best way to do it.
> 
> Imaging is very good with some music and movies, but not others. We ran The Greatest Showman last night. We didn't think we would like it much, but, because of the excellent imaging, incredible dynamics, awesome bass, and enormous energy, we thoroughly enjoyed it, despite some problems with the script. I recommend it as an audio demo film.


----------



## rosstg

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Like many people, I am very interested in the theoretical aspects of why automated room correction should, or should not, make audio systems sound better for the full frequency range. If we read excerpts of Dr. Floyd Toole's book, he explains why we shouldn't EQ above 500Hz. And as a leading audio expert, he is certainly convincing. If we listen to Chris Kyriakakis' explanation for why we should do full range EQ, what he says is also plausible. At some point, the pragmatist in me becomes impatient with theory, and I want to let my own subjective impressions of sound quality decide.
> 
> I have a Marantz 7008, so although I have XT-32 (which I definitely wanted) I don't have access to the Audyssey app, and Audyssey therefore EQ's the full frequency range. My initial experiences with Audyssey calibration suggested that Audyssey could hear things in the mid-range and high-frequencies that I couldn't, and might therefore "fix" things that didn't actually need fixing.
> 
> As I continued to experiment, I found that I could improve the quality of my Audyssey calibrations through careful setup and calibration technique. In my case, doing that allowed Audyssey to only make helpful changes to the sound quality in my room. I think that Gary had a similar experience. (Tips along that line may be found in Section I of the Guide, linked below.)
> 
> The bottom line for me is that EQing the full frequency range, at a minimum, does no harm in my room and for my system, and may do some good. I have been extremely pleased with the audio quality in my room for some time now. I think that some care is often required to get the best from Audyssey. Once that care has been applied, individuals can decide for themselves who to believe about the theory of EQing full range. Personally, I prefer to believe my own hearing.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I think it really comes down to the room and speakers. I have been doing significant listening going back and forth (my wife is patient) and the difference between full range and limited EQ is subtle which makes me think XT32 is doing a good job. The before results in app show my RP’s need some correction in my room but I’m just going based on what my ears think at this point because that’s all that matters. I always preferred the Flat Curve with DEQ on and now that I can turn off MRC I prefer Reference since it sounds a bit more lifelike.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Like many people, I am very interested in the theoretical aspects of why automated room correction should, or should not, make audio systems sound better for the full frequency range. If we read excerpts of Dr. Floyd Toole's book, he explains why we shouldn't EQ above 500Hz. And as a leading audio expert, he is certainly convincing. If we listen to Chris Kyriakakis' explanation for why we should do full range EQ, what he says is also plausible. At some point, the pragmatist in me becomes impatient with theory, and I want to let my own subjective impressions of sound quality decide.
> 
> I have a Marantz 7008, so although I have XT-32 (which I definitely wanted) I don't have access to the Audyssey app, and Audyssey therefore EQ's the full frequency range. My initial experiences with Audyssey calibration suggested that Audyssey could hear things in the mid-range and high-frequencies that I couldn't, and might therefore "fix" things that didn't actually need fixing.
> 
> As I continued to experiment, I found that I could improve the quality of my Audyssey calibrations through careful setup and calibration technique. In my case, doing that allowed Audyssey to only make helpful changes to the sound quality in my room. I think that Gary had a similar experience. (Tips along that line may be found in Section I of the Guide, linked below.)
> 
> The bottom line for me is that EQing the full frequency range, at a minimum, does no harm in my room and for my system, and may do some good. I have been extremely pleased with the audio quality in my room for some time now. I think that some care is often required to get the best from Audyssey. Once that care has been applied, individuals can decide for themselves who to believe about the theory of EQing full range. Personally, I prefer to believe my own hearing.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I hate to go back to our recent discussion about how electronic room correction can't fix some things that physical treatments can but did you miss the fact that Toole goes into extensive detail in his book on how one should go about physical treatment of the room?  Essentially his book is a primer on how to physically treat a home listening room or home theatre room. I wouldn't call Toole "a leading audio expert", I'd call him a leading researcher in physical acoustics. That's where I think he actually started out before taking roles in things like Harmon's speaker design area.

I think Toole believes in keeping as much of the room sound as possible because he believes rooms aren't completely a problem and in fact that they actually are largely beneficial He's not interested in "correcting the room" so much as he is in delivering a sound experience which studies show is preferred by most people and a lot of the studies on preferences that he refers to aren't about preferences for frequency response, they're preferences related to obtaining a sense of space and envelopment, He acknowledges the problems in the bass frequencies, and also the difficulties in successfully treating them with physical treatments, but once you get above the Schroeder frequency the emphasis in his recommendations for treatment are all physical and they are not aimed specifically at frequency correction. His concerns and aims in room treatment in his book are very different to those of Audyssey. Toole and Audyssey have very different philosophies.

I said I had 2 different setups in different rooms, a stereo music setup with physical room treatment and a 2.2 HT setup using Audyssey and that they did very different things. The physical treatment in my music setup is strongly based on Toole's recommendations in his book with modifications due to the facts that it's an irregular shaped room (L shaped) and it's a stereo rather than a multichannel setup and the greatest part of his attention in the book is given to multichannel sound because it can deliver a sense of envelopment that 2 channel sound cannot. In the Audyssey setup I get accurate frequency and tonal response and reasonable stereo imaging but not a great sense of space in terms of things like the sensation that the room boundaries have disappeared. In the music setup I get very good tonal quality together with superb imaging and a great sense of space plus hints of envelopment at times. Given the different aims and philosophies that Toole and Audyssey have, i'd say that the differences in outcome I get from my 2 systems is actually pretty predictable.

BTW, I have a Marantz 6012 in the HT system, I do have and use the MultEQ app, I run Audyssey full range and I use the normal reference curve but I get rid of the mid frequency dip in the reference curve. I've got some large areas of glass, a ceramic tiled floor, some aluminium and steel furniture, and openings to other areas in the room and correcting the high frequencies definitely helps in that room.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Mike,
> 
> I hate to go back to our recent discussion about how electronic room correction can't fix some things that physical treatments can but did you miss the fact that Toole goes into extensive detail in his book on how one should go about physical treatment of the room?  Essentially his book is a primer on how to physically treat a home listening room or home theatre room. I wouldn't call Toole "a leading audio expert", I'd call him a leading researcher in physical acoustics. That's where I think he actually started out before taking roles in things like Harmon's speaker design area.
> 
> I think Toole believes in keeping as much of the room sound as possible because he believes rooms aren't completely a problem and in fact that they actually are largely beneficial He's not interested in "correcting the room" so much as he is in delivering a sound experience which studies show is preferred by most people and a lot of the studies on preferences that he refers to aren't about preferences for frequency response, they're preferences related to obtaining a sense of space and envelopment, He acknowledges the problems in the bass frequencies, and also the difficulties in successfully treating them with physical treatments, but once you get above the Schroeder frequency the emphasis in his recommendations for treatment are all physical and they are not aimed specifically at frequency correction. His concerns and aims in room treatment in his book are very different to those of Audyssey. Toole and Audyssey have very different philosophies.
> 
> I said I had 2 different setups in different rooms, a stereo music setup with physical room treatment and a 2.2 HT setup using Audyssey and that they did very different things. The physical treatment in my music setup is strongly based on Toole's recommendations in his book with modifications due to the facts that it's an irregular shaped room (L shaped) and it's a stereo rather than a multichannel setup and the greatest part of his attention in the book is given to multichannel sound because it can deliver a sense of envelopment that 2 channel sound cannot. In the Audyssey setup I get accurate frequency and tonal response and reasonable stereo imaging but not a great sense of space in terms of things like the sensation that the room boundaries have disappeared. In the music setup I get very good tonal quality together with superb imaging and a great sense of space plus hints of envelopment at times. Given the different aims and philosophies that Toole and Audyssey have, i'd say that the differences in outcome I get from my 2 systems is actually pretty predictable.
> 
> BTW, I have a Marantz 6012 in the HT system, I do have and use the MultEQ app, I run Audyssey full range and I use the normal reference curve but I get rid of the mid frequency dip in the reference curve. I've got some large areas of glass, a ceramic tiled floor, some aluminium and steel furniture, and openings to other areas in the room and correcting the high frequencies definitely helps in that room.


Hi David,

No, I didn't miss any of that!  I deliberately used Dr Toole as an example to show a dichotomy in philosophy with respect to the use of automated room correction. Whether you prefer to call Dr Toole a leading researcher in physical acoustics (or as he terms it himself, in psycho acoustics), as opposed to a leading audio expert, seems like an example of parsing language to me, but I am perfectly content with either characterization. 

I don't see where any of that changes the nature of the dichotomy, though. If we see this as something to be decided strictly on the basis of a theoretical proposition, rather than on the basis of informed individual experimentation, then we may miss-out on a great opportunity to learn something about our own rooms and our own audio preferences. I am simply saying that we are talking about entertainment preferences here. And, everyone must ultimately decide for himself whether he prefers his audio with automated room EQ (full range or not), or whether he doesn't. 

I am certainly not ignoring the importance of room treatments in the discussion of sound quality. In fact, the section of the Guide that I suggested people might wish to consult (Section I) is chock full of a discussion of room treatments. In my personal experience, presenting Audyssey with a reasonably desirable acoustical environment, to start with, is helpful in mitigating any potentially undesirable effects of full range EQ. As with anything else in audio, YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rosstg

Do you guys use DEQ?


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> Do you guys use DEQ?


Yes


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> No, I didn't miss any of that!  I deliberately used Dr Toole as an example to show a dichotomy in philosophy with respect to the use of automated room correction. Whether you prefer to call Dr Toole a leading researcher in physical acoustics (or as he terms it himself, in psycho acoustics), as opposed to a leading audio expert, seems like an example of parsing language to me, but I am perfectly content with either characterization.
> …
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

My initial rhetorical question to you was in response to the first couple of sentences in your earlier post where you asked about why there might be differences in EQ'ing to 500 Hz vs full range and comparing Toole's views to Chris Kyriakakis' views. You followed that question with "At some point, the pragmatist in me becomes impatient with theory, and I want to let my own subjective impressions of sound quality decide".

The pragmatist in you is right. Both Toole and Kyriakakis are trying to help you get a result that will get you at least into the general area of something you will like but they both know that some people will always prefer something other than what they're suggesting/offering. Neither tries to suggest that if you do x precisely you will get a result that makes you perfectly happy. All of us should have the pragmatist within us that you refer to and all of us need to give that pragmatist a free rein to make decisions and fine tune and tinker until we get the result we individually want. Toole and Kyriakakis have both done what their internal pragmatists suggested and they're both happy with their different results. We all need to learn to be comfortable with the fact that we each like something different to what others like and that it's OK to opt for what we like, even when an expert likes something else.

You're right that Toole's specialty is psychoacoustics. I got the first 5 letters right and took a wrong turn with my fingers when I got to "h" :-(


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> Do you guys use DEQ?



No.


[Which guys?]


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> No.
> 
> 
> [Which guys?]


People on the forum


----------



## flyinion

rosstg said:


> Do you guys use DEQ?




Depends. For streaming devices and Comcast I use it with a -10 offset which seems to match well with the compression etc that those things use. For discs because I never know what level they're mastered at and in the past it's sounded boomy to me at 0 offset I don't use it when playing discs. Instead I bumped the sub 3-4dB and that seems to work well. 


Sent from my iPhone X using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

rosstg said:


> Do you guys use DEQ?



I do, always. But please note this is not going to result in a far-reaching conclusion for you even when you count all the replies you get from the guys. Do some experiments, some tests on your system and try to settle with whatever pleases your ears best. Turn DEQ on and off, increase/ reduce Master Volume to your liking. Then you can start to enjoy! Important: don't forget about a good beer, a cold one!


----------



## rosstg

mogorf said:


> I do, always. But please note this is not going to result in a far-reaching conclusion for you even when you count all the replies you get from the guys. Do some experiments, some tests on your system and try to settle with whatever pleases your ears best. Turn DEQ on and off, increase/ reduce Master Volume to your liking. Then you can start to enjoy! Important: don't forget about a good beer, a cold one!


Yeah I’ve been using it for about 10 years now. I’m on my 4th AVR that features DEQ. It sounds better in my dedicated room than when I was living in condos. I turned it off for about a month and missed it quite a bit.


----------



## kaydee6

rosstg said:


> Do you guys use DEQ?


Movies really need DEQ turned on. 2.1 music with DEQ off and manually adjust tone control.


----------



## rosstg

kaydee6 said:


> Movies really need DEQ turned on. 2.1 music with DEQ off and manually adjust tone control.


Yeah I leave it on for all content, movies, tv and gaming. I don’t use my theatre room for music. I use DEQ offset 10 for cable and 15 for games. Movies 0 of course.


----------



## legierk

DEQ sounds best off to me. I used to leave it on all the time....after reading here (first post I think?) decided to try it off.....much cleaner, clearer, defined without DEQ in my system. No contest. It never gets turned on now.


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> *Movies* really need DEQ turned on. 2.1 music with DEQ off and manually adjust tone control.





rosstg said:


> Yeah I leave it *on for all content*, movies, tv and gaming. I don’t use my theatre room for music. I use DEQ offset 10 for cable and 15 for games. Movies 0 of course.





legierk said:


> DEQ sounds best *off *to me. I used to leave it on all the time....after reading here (first post I think?) decided to try it off.....*much cleaner, clearer, defined without DEQ in my system. No contest. It never gets turned on now*.



One reason some (most?) of us turn up the subwoofer AFTER running Audyssey, or feel the need for DEQ, or with DEQ *off *turn up the bass tone control is that many Blu-ray and DVD versions of movies have *the bass turned down*, compared to the theatrical versions. 


There is a treatment of this at Data Bass (dB): *The Bass EQ for Movies Thread*by Kvalsvoll, September 4, 2014 in Bass Content 


and, *Bass EQ for Filtered Movies* on our AVS*:* *https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113...bass.../2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html
*


With many of the great roadshows of the '50s, '60s and '70s this can be *accidental*, due to the disk mixers who go back to the original music, effects, and dialog elements *not restoring the bass* in the final mix (the separate magnetic film elements were sometimes recorded flat or with a bass attenuation to avoid accidental over-recording during expensive orchestra or effects recording).
It can be deliberate, to avoid damage to modest HTs, and ordinary TV speakers.
In some instances it might be a carry over from standard, but *inane*, modern pop, rock, metal, and -- sometimes classical and jazz -- recording practices. (See Chris A, "The Missing Octave" and various de-mastering posts, on the forum of the Klipsch Community).
It should be noted that the oft repeated 40 to 12K Hz frequency range for *magnetic film *recording in the '50s through the '70s is *untrue! * The recording medium (35 mm magnetic film moving at 22 ips or faster, with wider tracks than standard) had the same range as the recording industry standard at the time, "smooth" from 30 to 15K Hz, and "usable" much lower and somewhat higher. It was the speakers in some of the theaters that were more limited, rolling off just above 10K, and factory rated at 40 Hz, but "usable" much lower, without doubling. But, in the original 70mm Todd-A0 setup, made by Ampex, with speakers designed and, sometimes manufactured by JBL, with 5 channels behind the screen (in those days for 70mm), each with 4-15" woofers per channel, horn loaded, with a port added, those 20 big, well loaded woofers, with bass boost in the final mix, really sounded like they were reaching down to about 20 Hz -- or lower. Examples would be moments like the hint of an earthquake after the crucifixion in Ben-Hur (1959), or the 4 octave C rumble on double basses, contrabassoon and organ in 2001: A Space Odyssey, during Thus Spake Zarathustra, with the lowest fundamental being about 16 Hz.

So, Audyssey is an especially effective way to start, but extra bass boost is often needed, either a standard amount that seems to work, or an amount individualized for each movie or music disk.


----------



## legierk

Should point out that, like Gary, I have all Klipsch speakers. Fronts are La Scalas, Academy center, and 6 of the dipole things they had out for awhile. (My Fortes have been retired from Wide duty and now sit in a corner gaining value...LOL) I do have to alternate between Audyssey Flat and Reference, depending on source, however. Otherwise, DEQ off, and kick up the subs (2 x Peavey 18" ported, 2 x 18" Ultimax Johnny subs) about 2-3db and let'r rip!


----------



## Tweakophyte

I just got a MiniDSP HD and am getting ready to tweak my sub (and also make room for BassEQ in some movies). I watch my movies around -10 to -15 on the MV of my Denon 6300H. I use DEQ, and was reading about the offset.

I am wonder if anyone has used a strategy where you calibrate your sub with a house-curve in a way where it has overhead at your typical listening volume (in my case -10 to -15), and then use the DEQ offset to make sure you can turn up a movie a bit higher without distorting your bass. The thought is I could push up the very low end via the house curve and give myself some cushion if the kids crank it up too much.

Am I really just doing a round-trip of increasing and decreasing the sub level and netting to the same as a 0 offset?

Thoughts

Thanks,


----------



## mthomas47

Tweakophyte said:


> I just got a MiniDSP HD and am getting ready to tweak my sub (and also make room for BassEQ in some movies). I watch my movies around -10 to -15 on the MV of my Denon 6300H. I use DEQ, and was reading about the offset.
> 
> I am wonder if anyone has used a strategy where you calibrate your sub with a house-curve in a way where it has overhead at your typical listening volume (in my case -10 to -15), and then use the DEQ offset to make sure you can turn up a movie a bit higher without distorting your bass. The thought is I could push up the very low end via the house curve and give myself some cushion if the kids crank it up too much.
> 
> Am I really just doing a round-trip of increasing and decreasing the sub level and netting to the same as a 0 offset?
> 
> Thoughts
> 
> Thanks,


Hi,

I think that your user name and your question are a good match!  It seems to me that it depends, in part, on how much total subwoofer headroom you have available, because both your independent BEQ and DEQ will consume some low-bass headroom. 

One of the advantages of DEQ is that it can boost the lowest bass frequencies a little more than the frequencies in the 35 to 120Hz range. (Section V of the Guide, linked below, explains exactly how DEQ works by frequency.) But, that's sort of the same thing you will be doing with your miniDSP. The use of that may make DEQ superfluous. Rather than using an RLO setting, which will lessen the effect of DEQ, I would probably just turn DEQ off when I was operating with BEQ, and turn it back on again when I wasn't. 

Of course, you may like the fact that DEQ also boosts the bass in the other channels (and a little bit of treble) and that it boosts the surround channels relative to the front soundstage, but the use of an RLO setting at a master volume of -10 to -15, will minimize those effects anyway. I suspect that you may be overthinking this a little, but experimentation to determine what you think works best will be the key, in any event. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rosstg

DEQ is a must in my room. If I’m watching movies with my wife we typically listen between -17 - -12db. If I’m alone -15 - -8db. TV -30 -17. Gaming, all over the place. I appreciate how it pressurizes the room.


----------



## Bghead8che

*Need some help w/ my room and speakers*

Hi guys. I have a few questions regarding using Audyssey with my Denon 6500h. Hopefully someone can help me out as I really want to get the best measurements possible. I read the guide but I am not clear on how to deal with a high seatback. 

1. My speakers' tweeters are various heights from the floor. The guide recommends putting the mic at the tweeter level of your front left and right speakers. Further on in the guide it recommends putting the mic at ear level. Which height should I use as my tweeter level and ear level is slightly different, ear height or tweeter height?

2. My seatback is roughly 2-4 inches above ear level and tweeter level for all speakers but the back surrounds. What would you recommend I do in this case?

3. As my seatback is high should I measure all positions above the seatback height or should I measure positions 1-6 at ear height and raise the mic above the seatback for positions 7 and 8? Or do all mic positions need to be at the exact same height?

4. Two feet back from position 1 puts the mic directly on the seatback. Should I take the measurements there or move the mic back off the couch a foot or two? The diagram shows position 7 and 8 on the seatback. Is this really recommend to take the measurement on top of the seatback (with a stand of course)?

5. Would I be better off only measuring 6 positions or measuring all 8 positions in front to avoid the seatback issue?

6. Would I be better off keeping the mic at ear level even though positions 7 and 8 would be a few inches below the couch? Or would I be better off measuring all 8 positions 2-4 inches above ear and tweeter height to accommodate the seatback?

7. Is Audyssey Pro still used/recommend/available or has it been replaced by the new app? Is 8 the maximum number of positions that can be taken with the 6500h even if you by the app?


I would really appreciate someone helping me out on this!


----------



## jconjason

rosstg said:


> Do you guys use DEQ?


This question is purely a personal preference. It's in the same category of do you prefer Apple or Android. You will never get a consensus. It's always better to play around with it and see which you prefer. I do use DEQ for my DirecTV viewing but have it off for my UHD movie watching.

Oh and the correct answer is Android!


----------



## rosstg

jconjason said:


> This question is purely a personal preference. It's in the same category of do you prefer Apple or Android. You will never get a consensus. It's always better to play around with it and see which you prefer. I do use DEQ for my DirecTV viewing but have it off for my UHD movie watching.
> 
> Oh and the correct answer is Android!


Of course it is. I’m not asking because I’m looking for validation or anything, just curious what others like. Apple all the way.


----------



## mthomas47

Bghead8che said:


> Hi guys. I have a few questions regarding using Audyssey with my Denon 6500h. Hopefully someone can help me out as I really want to get the best measurements possible. I read the guide but I am not clear on how to deal with a high seatback.
> 
> 1. My speakers' tweeters are various heights from the floor. The guide recommends putting the mic at the tweeter level of your front left and right speakers. Further on in the guide it recommends putting the mic at ear level. Which height should I use as my tweeter level and ear level is slightly different, ear height or tweeter height?
> 
> 2. My seatback is roughly 2-4 inches above ear level and tweeter level for all speakers but the back surrounds. What would you recommend I do in this case?
> 
> 3. As my seatback is high should I measure all positions above the seatback height or should I measure positions 1-6 at ear height and raise the mic above the seatback for positions 7 and 8? Or do all mic positions need to be at the exact same height?
> 
> 4. Two feet back from position 1 puts the mic directly on the seatback. Should I take the measurements there or move the mic back off the couch a foot or two? The diagram shows position 7 and 8 on the seatback. Is this really recommend to take the measurement on top of the seatback (with a stand of course)?
> 
> 5. Would I be better off only measuring 6 positions or measuring all 8 positions in front to avoid the seatback issue?
> 
> 6. Would I be better off keeping the mic at ear level even though positions 7 and 8 would be a few inches below the couch? Or would I be better off measuring all 8 positions 2-4 inches above ear and tweeter height to accommodate the seatback?
> 
> 7. Is Audyssey Pro still used/recommend/available or has it been replaced by the new app? Is 8 the maximum number of positions that can be taken with the 6500h even if you by the app?
> 
> 
> I would really appreciate someone helping me out on this!


Hi,

I will be glad to try to help, and I'm sorry if some parts of the Guide seemed confusing. It can be a lot to take in. The Guide recommends having tweeters in the front speakers at ear height, if possible, but you can't always control that. What you can control is the mic position during calibration. And, that should be at ear height for most, or all, of your mic positions. The goal here is to EQ the area where you are, and where you hear sounds, not where your chair back is. 

High seatbacks are not uncommon. Don't forget to put something absorbent on it so that the mic can get within about 4" or 5" of the seatback without having reflections from the surface of the chair. As a starting point, I would recommend doing at least 6 mic positions at ear height, in a fairly tight cluster, as shown in the Guide. It should do no harm to try a couple of mic positions, 2 or 3" higher than your ear height, but you have to be the judge of that. 

If you don't experiment and then listen to the result, it may be hard to determine what works best in your specific circumstance. Guidelines help, but some degree of trial-and-error may still be required. You really need to go back and read the narrative that accompanies the diagram in Section I-B of the Guide. That will give you clear directions for recommended mic positions. Just looking at a 2-dimensional diagram can be confusing if you don't read the narrative. I would use all 8 mic positions if I were you, using that diagram as a starting point.

Mic position 1 is always the MLP (main listening position). In this case, it should be right between your eyes (and ears) at ear level, and about 4" or 5" in front of the seatback, which should have a blanket over it. No mic positions should go behind that position or behind the chair. The diagram shown is about 20-24" deep, starting from mic position 1, and going forward; and about 20-24" wide, starting from mic position 1, and going out to the sides. That should be clearly explained in the narrative that accompanies that diagram. 

The number of mic positions, with the app, is the same as it is without the app. Even with Pro, most people found that about 8 mic positions was the optimum number. The app offers you much more user adjustability than Pro did, at a fraction of the price. In fact, once XT-32 became available, most people stopped using Pro, anyway. I would recommend just working with what you have, at first, to learn how it works best in your room, for your specific preferences. Then, you can always add the app at any point. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I just added some additional detail to the narrative which accompanies the diagram in Section I-B, in an effort to make the explanation of the mic positions as clear as possible.


----------



## Bghead8che

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I will be glad to try to help, and I'm sorry if some parts of the Guide seemed confusing. It can be a lot to take in. The Guide recommends having tweeters in the front speakers at ear height, if possible, but you can't always control that. What you can control is the mic position during calibration. And, that should be at ear height for most, or all, of your mic positions. The goal here is to EQ the area where you are, and where you hear sounds, not where your chair back is.
> 
> High seatbacks are not uncommon. Don't forget to put something absorbent on it so that the mic can get within about 4" or 5" of the seatback without having reflections from the surface of the chair. As a starting point, I would recommend doing at least 6 mic positions at ear height, in a fairly tight cluster, as shown in the Guide. It should do no harm to try a couple of mic positions, 2 or 3" higher than your ear height, but you have to be the judge of that.
> 
> If you don't experiment and then listen to the result, it may be hard to determine what works best in your specific circumstance. Guidelines help, but some degree of trial-and-error may still be required. You really need to go back and read the narrative that accompanies the diagram in Section I-B of the Guide. That will give you clear directions for recommended mic positions. Just looking at a 2-dimensional diagram can be confusing if you don't read the narrative. I would use all 8 mic positions if I were you, using that diagram as a starting point.
> 
> Mic position 1 is always the MLP (main listening position). In this case, it should be right between your eyes (and ears) at ear level, and about 4" or 5" in front of the seatback, which should have a blanket over it. No mic positions should go behind that position or behind the chair. The diagram shown is about 20-24" deep, starting from mic position 1, and going forward; and about 20-24" wide, starting from mic position 1, and going out to the sides. That should be clearly explained in the narrative that accompanies that diagram.
> 
> The number of mic positions, with the app, is the same as it is without the app. Even with Pro, most people found that about 8 mic positions was the optimum number. The app offers you much more user adjustability than Pro did, at a fraction of the price. In fact, once XT-32 became available, most people stopped using Pro, anyway. I would recommend just working with what you have, at first, to learn how it works best in your room, for your specific preferences. Then, you can always add the app at any point.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Edit: I just added some additional detail to the narrative which accompanies the diagram in Section I-B, in an effort to make the explanation of the mic positions as clear as possible.



Thanks so much Mike for your help and advice!

A few questions come to mind after reading your post.

You recommend 4-5 inches from the back seat with a blanket over the couch. The guide recommends a minimum of "12-15" inches. Which is correct?

You state that no positions are behind the MLP or behind the chair. I am confused by this because if you look at the diagram measurements 7 and 8 (as well as 11 and 12) are clearly behind listening position 1. Perhaps I am reading the wrong setup guide? I am reading the "Click Here To Follow Our 'Audyssey 101' For First Time Audyssey Users" link at the beginning of this thread. 

Thanks again for all your help.


----------



## mthomas47

Bghead8che said:


> Thanks so much Mike for your help and advice!
> 
> A few questions come to mind after reading your post.
> 
> You recommend 4-5 inches from the back seat with a blanket over the couch. The guide recommends a minimum of "12-15" inches. Which is correct?
> 
> You state that no positions are behind the MLP or behind the chair. I am confused by this because if you look at the diagram measurements 7 and 8 (as well as 11 and 12) are clearly behind listening position 1. Perhaps I am reading the wrong setup guide? I am reading the "Click Here To Follow Our 'Audyssey 101' For First Time Audyssey Users" link at the beginning of this thread.
> 
> Thanks again for all your help.


You are very welcome, Brian!  Well, that explains it. When some of us refer to the Guide, we are referring to the Guide linked in my signature. It is a general guide to HT systems, setup, and calibration, as well as a specific how-to for Audyssey users.

Section I-B, which I will provide a direct link to below, offers specific setup and calibration advice that I think you will find much more helpful than the Audyssey 101, which was written many years ago. The Guide, I am linking builds on the early work, with years of additional thread experience, and much additional content. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB

With respect to your specific questions, I will repeat what I said earlier. You want to start EQing where your ears are, not a foot or a foot and a half out in front of them. Your ear canals are located about 3" or 4" forward of the back of your head, so making mic position 1 about 4" forward of the seatback is a superior method. Using a blanket over the back of the chair allows us to get the microphone close to the seatback without experiencing spurious reflections into the mic. The Guide (my guide) explains all of that.  

You also don't want to go behind your seatback with any mic positions, unless you are specifically trying to EQ for a second row, and sometimes not even then. Please read the Guide I am linking for you. I think it will help.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## duckymomo

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You really need to go back and read the narrative that accompanies the diagram in Section I-B of the Guide.


The guide linked in your sig seems to skip section "I"


----------



## mthomas47

duckymomo said:


> The guide linked in your sig seems to skip section "I"


Hi,

Thanks! It works fine for me, and for others as far as I know. The link in my signature takes you to Post 1 of a sticky thread in the Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers Forum. Post 1 starts with some brief comments, followed by the Cliff Notes, followed by the Table of Contents, followed by the Introduction to the Guide, followed by Section I. 

The Guide became so long that I had to divide it into two posts, so Post 1 contains the introductory material listed above, and Sections I, II, and III. Post 2 repeats the Table of Contents, followed by Sections IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII.

The sections and subsections in the Table of Contents are all hyperlinked, so that users can navigate from the Table of Contents directly to the section they want, and so that we can copy links to specific sections or subsections, for others, if we want to.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## duckymomo

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks! It works fine for me, and for others as far as I know. The link in my signature takes you to Post 1 of a sticky thread in the Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers Forum. Post 1 starts with some brief comments, followed by the Cliff Notes, followed by the Table of Contents, followed by the Introduction to the Guide, followed by Section I.
> 
> The Guide became so long that I had to divide it into two posts, so Post 1 contains the introductory material listed above, and Sections I, II, and III. Post 2 repeats the Table of Contents, followed by Sections IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII.
> 
> The sections and subsections in the Table of Contents are all hyperlinked, so that users can navigate from the Table of Contents directly to the section they want, and so that we can copy links to specific sections or subsections, for others, if we want to.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Ah, that explains it. Thanks.


----------



## pbarach

*Audyssey and downsampling*

It's known that AVR manufacturers limit Audyssey to a sample rate of 48 kHz, and that high-resolution digital filed (e.g., 24/96) are downsampled. Does anyone know if Denon and/or Marantz AVRs downsample these high-resolution files is Audyssey is turned OFF (and Direct/Pure Direct is not in use)?


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> *Audyssey and downsampling*
> 
> It's known that AVR manufacturers limit Audyssey to a sample rate of 48 kHz, and that high-resolution digital filed (e.g., 24/96) are downsampled. Does anyone know if Denon and/or Marantz AVRs downsample these high-resolution files is Audyssey is turned OFF (and Direct/Pure Direct is not in use)?



Do AVPs (pre-pros) limit the sample rate to 48K Hz when using Audyssey, also?
With what porpoise? [Go ask Alice]


----------



## Totemtimer

Hey guys I’m just joining the this thread but I am wondering if there’s an easier way to learn more about the MultEQ app ( site or guide perhaps) or if I have to scroll through 6000 pages to learn lol. I look forward to being a part of this thread, thanks ,
Logan


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Totemtimer

Have any of you tried this mic placement ? https://www.hometheatershack.com/fo...e-setup-mic-position-audyssey-dirac-live.html
It works pretty well but am wondering if anyone has great results with a different one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> Do AVPs (pre-pros) limit the sample rate to 48K Hz when using Audyssey, also?
> With what porpoise? [Go ask Alice]


Yes, they do. Why? see this:

https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview

(This is an older interview, but Chris K gave the same information on a recent post to the Audyssey Tech Talk group on Facebook.


----------



## drh3b

Totemtimer said:


> Hey guys I’m just joining the this thread but I am wondering if there’s an easier way to learn more about the MultEQ app ( site or guide perhaps) or if I have to scroll through 6000 pages to learn lol. I look forward to being a part of this thread, thanks ,
> Logan
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


There is a thread dedicated to the app, and here is the FAQ. There is a link to a manual near the end.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-92.html#post56565524


----------



## bigzee3

kaydee6 said:


> Movies really need DEQ turned on. 2.1 music with DEQ off and manually adjust tone control.


I know its a personal preference but how much tone control do you apply. I do +1 to the bass.


----------



## mogorf

kaydee6 said:


> Movies really need DEQ turned on. 2.1 music with DEQ off and manually adjust tone control.



What is your typical listening level? Please give us a hint so that we can evaluate your comment properly. As we all know by now DEQ is a tool to compensate for human ears' phenomenon where spectral balance varies with MV (Master Volume) setting.


----------



## kaydee6

mogorf said:


> What is your typical listening level? Please give us a hint so that we can evaluate your comment properly. As we all know by now DEQ is a tool to compensate for human ears' phenomenon where spectral balance varies with MV (Master Volume) setting.


I am using Denon x8500h receiver with SVS Ultra bookshelf, ultra center, SB4000 sub and SB-01 surrounds.
Typical listening level is -20dB for 2.1 music, and -17 to -15dB for movies. 

Room size is 2.8m wide, 3.6m long and 2.6m ceiling height, it is a small room.
I used my iphone SPL app and it measures about 80 to 85dB of loudness when listening to 2.1 music.

I have limited Audyssey correction to 500hz on the MultEQ app. DEQ on for movies. no additional boost to the sub.
With 2.1 music, DEQ off, tone control bass +1dB, treble -3dB, sub +3dB. This is set to simulate a rise in low freq and sloping down for the high freq.

But, I am going to try experimenting with full Audyssey calibrations next. In this case,
I will use Audyssey Flat for 2.1 music, DEQ off, tone control bass +1dB, treble -3dB, sub +3dB.
or
use Audyssey Refernce for 2.1 music, DEQ off, tone control bass +1dB, treble 0dB, sub +3dB.
I plan to stick with Audyssey Reference for movies, DEQ on, with no additional sub boost.


----------



## garygarrison

bigzee3 said:


> I know its a personal preference but how much tone control do you apply. I do +1 to the bass.


 One dB is usually considered to be one just noticeable difference. Does the one dB bass boost sound appreciably different on your set-up? I'm not doubting your choice, but I would encourage you to try a bit more boost. Of course, a lot depends on your speakers, your room, your mood and your headroom, for that matter.

The way we hear bass is connected to the Sound Pressure Level (SPL, or colloquially, "volume"). For *music*, for which there is no real reference level, thanks to the knavish behavior of the music recording industry, I usually use a bass tone control boost of* +*1 to *+*6, and play the music at what seems to my ears to be "concert level." At my "concert level" DEQ is expected not to be needed, but I can use the tone controls to season to taste. 

I paid an electrical engineer audiophile friend to make me a black box that pushes the bass up another 3 dB, if I want it, giving me a total of 9 dB of possible boost in the bass between 80 Hz and about 200 Hz. Of course the tone controls only work with DEQ turned off, and, unfortunately, only affect the Right Front and Left Front channels on most AVRs and AVPs, and do not affect the subwoofer. So, my subwoofer is turned up so that it will "meet" the RF and LF bass elevation at (arbitrarily) the *+* 9 dB level. That boost forms a practically straight line from about 175Hz down to about 39Hz. Below that, the response rolls off until it tails off at 20 Hz. The crossover to the sub is at 80 Hz. [See Mike's guide to see how to turn up a subwoofer properly. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences] I almost never use treble boost or cut.

On Monk's Dream, which I'm listening to right now, my "concert level" is about 86 dB with peaks of about 90dB, "C" weighted, "Fast," on my SPL meter (some classical pieces can be much louder, e.g., Fanfare for the Common Man, The Great Gate of Kiev, and Beethoven or Mahler symphonies can peak at 110 dB). 

For *movies*, we have a real reference level, thanks to the movie industry's foresight, and THX rattling their cage (actually, I think lobbying for standards may have gone back to Mike Todd and his sound guy Joseph Kane). I end up playing most movies at 5 to7 dB below reference. My use of the bass control, the black box, and the subwoofer are the same for movies and music.

Now, with music recordings there is a fly in the ointment. It is common practice for record company "suits" to require that he bass be attenuated by anywhere between 3 or 4 dB and, worst case, 25 dB. Some mixers have objected, but that threatens job security. I suppose if a band is "big" enough, they could threaten the "suits." In addition to that travesty, the area between 1K Hz and 5K Hz is sometimes boosted.  This is evidentially all part of "the loudness wars." The labels want their songs to be the loudest (without over-recording due to too much bass) when some one twirls the car radio dial, so they get noticed, remembered, and purchased. And, we wouldn't want to overload cheap earbuds with too much bass, would we? For more detail, see Chris A's threads on "The Missing Octave" on the Klipsch Community Forum. Chris has "de-mastered" zillions of bass shy, harsh sounding disks to cure this problem. He uses Audacity (not to be confused with Audyssey), and perhaps other tools. A few disks can't be helped much, e.g., those that were dynamically compressed rather that simply limited (although DBX has some tools one could try).

The problem is the worst with rock, metal, alternative, pop. It does happen with classical and jazz, but a little less often. For some reason, choral music often has the bass practically removed.  Anyone who has been fairly close to a large chorus knows how absurd that is.

I haven't the energy (yet) to try de-mastering. For me, using the bass controls, the box, and cranking up the sub are enough ... for now.

Sorry for responding to your straightforward question with a fairly curved answer.


----------



## bigzee3

garygarrison said:


> One dB is usually considered to be one just noticeable difference. Does the one dB bass boost sound appreciably different on your set-up? I'm not doubting your choice, but I would encourage you to try a bit more boost. Of course, a lot depends on your speakers, your room, your mood and your headroom, for that matter.
> 
> The way we hear bass is connected to the Sound Pressure Level (SPL, or colloquially, "volume"). For *music*, for which there is no real reference level, thanks to the knavish behavior of the music recording industry, I usually use a bass tone control boost of* +*1 to *+*6, and play the music at what seems to my ears to be "concert level." At my "concert level" DEQ is expected not to be needed, but I can use the tone controls to season to taste.
> 
> I paid an electrical engineer audiophile friend to make me a black box that pushes the bass up another 3 dB, if I want it, giving me a total of 9 dB of possible boost in the bass between 80 Hz and about 200 Hz. Of course the tone controls only work with DEQ turned off, and, unfortunately, only affect the Right Front and Left Front channels on most AVRs and AVPs, and do not affect the subwoofer. So, my subwoofer is turned up so that it will "meet" the RF and LF bass elevation at (arbitrarily) the *+* 9 dB level. That boost forms a practically straight line from about 175Hz down to about 39Hz. Below that, the response rolls off until it tails off at 20 Hz. The crossover to the sub is at 80 Hz. [See Mike's guide to see how to turn up a subwoofer properly. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences] I almost never use treble boost or cut.
> 
> On Monk's Dream, which I'm listening to right now, my "concert level" is about 86 dB with peaks of about 90dB, "C" weighted, "Fast," on my SPL meter (some classical pieces can be much louder, e.g., Fanfare for the Common Man, The Great Gate of Kiev, and Beethoven or Mahler symphonies can peak at 110 dB).
> 
> For *movies*, we have a real reference level, thanks to the movie industry's foresight, and THX rattling their cage (actually, I think lobbying for standards may have gone back to Mike Todd and his sound guy Joseph Kane). I end up playing most movies at 5 to7 dB below reference. My use of the bass control, the black box, and the subwoofer are the same for movies and music.
> 
> Now, with music recordings there is a fly in the ointment. It is common practice for record company "suits" to require that he bass be attenuated by anywhere between 3 or 4 dB and, worst case, 25 dB. Some mixers have objected, but that threatens job security. I suppose if a band is "big" enough, they could threaten the "suits." In addition to that travesty, the area between 1K Hz and 5K Hz is sometimes boosted.  This is evidentially all part of "the loudness wars." The labels want their songs to be the loudest (without over-recording due to too much bass) when some one twirls the car radio dial, so they get noticed, remembered, and purchased. And, we wouldn't want to overload cheap earbuds with too much bass, would we? For more detail, see Chris A's threads on "The Missing Octave" on the Klipsch Community Forum. Chris has "de-mastered" zillions of bass shy, harsh sounding disks to cure this problem. He uses Audacity (not to be confused with Audyssey), and perhaps other tools. A few disks can't be helped much, e.g., those that were dynamically compressed rather that simply limited (although DBX has some tools one could try).
> 
> The problem is the worst with rock, metal, alternative, pop. It does happen with classical and jazz, but a little less often. For some reason, choral music often has the bass practically removed.  Anyone who has been fairly close to a large chorus knows how absurd that is.
> 
> I haven't the energy (yet) to try de-mastering. For me, using the bass controls, the box, and cranking up the sub are enough ... for now.
> 
> Sorry for responding to your straightforward question with a fairly curved answer.


Well put G,

I've just started experimenting with it. I only use the DEQ off for two channel and do a total of 3-5db boost either via avr or PB or both. Remember Mike mentioning that we can use tone control with DEQ off so that's what I did. I've got the KEF Q950 fronts so I'm assuming I could go more but want to do it slowly to see if i need more. The real question is what is the benefit of boosting tone control bass for the fronts in 2.1 application.


----------



## bigzee3

kaydee6 said:


> I am using Denon x8500h receiver with SVS Ultra bookshelf, ultra center, SB4000 sub and SB-01 surrounds.
> Typical listening level is -20dB for 2.1 music, and -17 to -15dB for movies.
> 
> Room size is 2.8m wide, 3.6m long and 2.6m ceiling height, it is a small room.
> I used my iphone SPL app and it measures about 80 to 85dB of loudness when listening to 2.1 music.
> 
> I have limited Audyssey correction to 500hz on the MultEQ app. DEQ on for movies. no additional boost to the sub.
> With 2.1 music, DEQ off, tone control bass +1dB, treble -3dB, sub +3dB. This is set to simulate a rise in low freq and sloping down for the high freq.
> 
> But, I am going to try experimenting with full Audyssey calibrations next. In this case,
> I will use Audyssey Flat for 2.1 music, DEQ off, tone control bass +1dB, treble -3dB, sub +3dB.
> or
> use Audyssey Refernce for 2.1 music, DEQ off, tone control bass +1dB, treble 0dB, sub +3dB.
> I plan to stick with Audyssey Reference for movies, DEQ on, with no additional sub boost.


When you say no additional bass boost you mean in the avr or sub volume because you will get a 6-7db boost with your listening levels.


----------



## kaydee6

bigzee3 said:


> When you say no additional bass boost you mean in the avr or sub volume because you will get a 6-7db boost with your listening levels.


Yes, other than DEQ bass increase of 6-7 dB at my listening volume, I have no additional bass boost. Subwoofer volume is as per Audyssey calibration.


----------



## bigzee3

kaydee6 said:


> Yes, other than DEQ bass increase of 6-7 dB at my listening volume, I have no additional bass boost. Subwoofer volume is as per Audyssey calibration.


Still a nice boost. What I do I like about 5db extra at my listening levels of -10 or -15. So I've done a 3db boost in the avr and RLO offset at -5. When listening at -10 it would give me a 5db boost and at -15 I just lower a couple of db via PB remote and get the same results.


----------



## garygarrison

bigzee3 said:


> I've got the KEF Q950 fronts so I'm assuming I could go more but want to do it slowly to see if i need more. The real question is what is the benefit of boosting tone control bass for the fronts in 2.1 application.


I think the benefit is increasing the mid-bass and upper bass that is present above the crossover to the subwoofer. This is often the range between about 80Hz and 175Hz, or so. This is a range that contributes quite a bit of impact. 

It is the range in which some of the attack (but not the deepest resonance) of the orchestral large bass drum, the kick drum, timpani, large tam-tam/gong, tom-tom occurs, as well as some of the bass attack of the piano, tuba, bassoon, etc. 

The chart in this link is not perfect, but it is helpful: 
https://www.google.com/search?q=fre...ECAQQBg&biw=937&bih=472#imgrc=gABXgeGqNDgDEM:


----------



## mthomas47

bigzee3 said:


> Well put G,
> 
> I've just started experimenting with it. I only use the DEQ off for two channel and do a total of 3-5db boost either via avr or PB or both. Remember Mike mentioning that we can use tone control with DEQ off so that's what I did. I've got the KEF Q950 fronts so I'm assuming I could go more but want to do it slowly to see if i need more. The real question is what is the benefit of boosting tone control bass for the fronts in 2.1 application.


Hi,

I think that the whole discussion of DEQ versus independent sub boosts, either with or without tone control boosts, remains strictly a user preference issue. As Gary noted, the bass tone control adds boost above the crossover, and you may find that you like that for the reason he explained. I have also found that with heavy independent sub boosts, some bass tone control boost helps the bass to integrate better, so that the >80Hz sound of the front speakers, matches better with the


----------



## nitkan

*how to control bass/treble with Audyssey XT 32 on Marantz SR 7011*

Hi ,

After using Audyssey XT 32 on the Marantz SR 7011 for calibration, I find the treble a little bit high for my liking . The bass/treble tone controls on the receiver are disabled if audyssey dynamic eq is on. Apart from disabling EQ is there any work around for reducing treble. Thanks.


----------



## drh3b

nitkan said:


> Hi ,
> 
> After using Audyssey XT 32 on the Marantz SR 7011 for calibration, I find the treble a little bit high for my liking . The bass/treble tone controls on the receiver are disabled if audyssey dynamic eq is on. Apart from disabling EQ is there any work around for reducing treble. Thanks.


Buy the IOS/Android MultiEQ app, and adjust the curve. Unfortunately, you will need to re run Audyssey on the app to do this. $20. The app offers more control over Audyssey than is available on the receiver.

Here is a link to the FAQ about the app, which is a post on the thread dedicated to it:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-92.html#post56565524


----------



## nitkan

drh3b said:


> Buy the IOS/Android MultiEQ app, and adjust the curve. Unfortunately, you will need to re run Audyssey on the app to do this. $20. The app offers more control over Audyssey than is available on the receiver.
> 
> Here is a link to the FAQ about the app, which is a post on the thread dedicated to it:
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-92.html#post56565524


Thanks a lot DRH3b for your quick response. Only issue is that I am not a very technical & audiophile person like many of you on this forum. Just needed some simple straightforward controls since I don't want to mess up with the curves on the app.


----------



## drh3b

nitkan said:


> Thanks a lot DRH3b for your quick response. Only issue is that I am not a very technical & audiophile person like many of you on this forum. Just needed some simple straightforward controls since I don't want to mess up with the curves on the app.


Unfortunately, I'm out of ideas, you can try re asking your question in the Audyssey Forum.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html


----------



## nitkan

drh3b said:


> Unfortunately, I'm out of ideas, you can try re asking your question in the Audyssey Forum.
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html


Thanks drh3b, will ask at the audyssey forum.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that the whole discussion of DEQ versus independent sub boosts, either with or without tone control boosts, remains strictly a user preference issue. As Gary noted, the bass tone control adds boost above the crossover, and you may find that you like that for the reason he explained. I have also found that with heavy independent sub boosts, some bass tone control boost helps the bass to integrate better, so that the >80Hz sound of the front speakers, matches better with the


----------



## jdsmoothie

nitkan said:


> Hi ,
> 
> After using Audyssey XT 32 on the Marantz SR 7011 for calibration, I find the treble a little bit high for my liking . The bass/treble tone controls on the receiver are disabled if audyssey dynamic eq is on. *Apart from disabling EQ* is there any work around for reducing treble. Thanks.


What's the issue with simply disabling Dynamic EQ?


----------



## nitkan

jdsmoothie said:


> What's the issue with simply disabling Dynamic EQ?


I actually like the way it tunes the bass which sounds dynamic to my ears but I feel the midrange slightly low & treble a bit more for my comfort. With XT 32 off in stereo mode the sound sounds a bit dull. I went to the Audyssey site where it mentions that the treble could be high when when the speakers are not tilted towards the main listening position or when the mic is not facing the ceiling. I had checked that too & my satellites are tilted towards mlp & mic facing straight up towards ceiling.
I guess, I will have to disable Audyssey for 2 channel listening & activate it for movies.


----------



## pbz06

I would also recommend keeping DEQ on, at least for movies.

Try going into the "surround parameters" setting while watching content, and enable "CinemaEQ" also. This softens the treble.

Also, just to clarify, I'm assuming you are using the "Reference" Audyssey curve. 

Ps - if you have a subwoofer that extends below 20hz, be aware that the App rolls it off at 20hz starting at -3dB. This is to protect it from manual adjustments via the app in that region. My subwoofer sounds better without using the app.


----------



## jdsmoothie

nitkan said:


> I actually like the way it tunes the bass which sounds dynamic to my ears but I feel the midrange slightly low & treble a bit more for my comfort. With XT 32 off in stereo mode the sound sounds a bit dull. I went to the Audyssey site where it mentions that the treble could be high when when the speakers are not tilted towards the main listening position or when the mic is not facing the ceiling. I had checked that too & my satellites are tilted towards mlp & mic facing straight up towards ceiling.
> I guess, I will have to disable Audyssey for 2 channel listening & activate it for movies.


Who said anything about disabling Audyssey? To access the Tone Control (Bass/Treble) settings, you simply need to disable Dynamic EQ.


----------



## drh3b

nitkan said:


> I actually like the way it tunes the bass which sounds dynamic to my ears but I feel the midrange slightly low & treble a bit more for my comfort. With XT 32 off in stereo mode the sound sounds a bit dull. I went to the Audyssey site where it mentions that the treble could be high when when the speakers are not tilted towards the main listening position or when the mic is not facing the ceiling. I had checked that too & my satellites are tilted towards mlp & mic facing straight up towards ceiling.
> I guess, I will have to disable Audyssey for 2 channel listening & activate it for movies.





pbz06 said:


> I would also recommend keeping DEQ on, at least for movies.
> 
> Try going into the "surround parameters" setting while watching content, and enable "CinemaEQ" also. This softens the treble.
> 
> Also, just to clarify, I'm assuming you are using the "Reference" Audyssey curve.
> 
> Ps - if you have a subwoofer that extends below 20hz, be aware that the App rolls it off at 20hz starting at -3dB. This is to protect it from manual adjustments via the app in that region. My subwoofer sounds better without using the app.


That's a very good point. If you are using the "Flat" setting, try the "Reference" setting, it is less bright. It made my harsh Klipsch RF 82 II sound quite good, while fatiguing with the flat setting.


----------



## nitkan

pbz06 said:


> I would also recommend keeping DEQ on, at least for movies.
> 
> Try going into the "surround parameters" setting while watching content, and enable "CinemaEQ" also. This softens the treble.
> 
> Also, just to clarify, I'm assuming you are using the "Reference" Audyssey curve.
> 
> Ps - if you have a subwoofer that extends below 20hz, be aware that the App rolls it off at 20hz starting at -3dB. This is to protect it from manual adjustments via the app in that region. My subwoofer sounds better without using the app.


Hi pbz06, Audyssey is set at Reference EQ & yes I am using a SVS PC 2000 subwoofer. Thanks for the advice


----------



## nitkan

jdsmoothie said:


> Who said anything about disabling Audyssey? To access the Tone Control (Bass/Treble) settings, you simply need to disable Dynamic EQ.


But will disabling Dynamic EQ affect the adjustments in sound made by Audyssey.


----------



## nitkan

drh3b said:


> That's a very good point. If you are using the "Flat" setting, try the "Reference" setting, it is less bright. It made my harsh Klipsch RF 82 II sound quite good, while fatiguing with the flat setting.


Its at Reference level setting.


----------



## jdsmoothie

nitkan said:


> But will disabling Dynamic EQ affect the adjustments in sound made by Audyssey.


Nope. Dynamic EQ simply boosts the lower and upper frequency volume levels at lower master volume levels. When you use the Tone Controls, you're making manual adjustments to suit your preference rather than letting Dynamic EQ do it for you.


----------



## mthomas47

nitkan said:


> Thanks a lot DRH3b for your quick response. Only issue is that I am not a very technical & audiophile person like many of you on this forum. Just needed some simple straightforward controls since I don't want to mess up with the curves on the app.





nitkan said:


> I actually like the way it tunes the bass which sounds dynamic to my ears but I feel the midrange slightly low & treble a bit more for my comfort. With XT 32 off in stereo mode the sound sounds a bit dull. I went to the Audyssey site where it mentions that the treble could be high when when the speakers are not tilted towards the main listening position or when the mic is not facing the ceiling. I had checked that too & my satellites are tilted towards mlp & mic facing straight up towards ceiling.
> I guess, I will have to disable Audyssey for 2 channel listening & activate it for movies.


Hi,

The controls in our AVR's can be a little bit intimidating at first, even without the Audyssey app. But, the truth is that, if you are willing to experiment a little bit, you can somewhat tailor the sound to your preference. And, you can do it without the app. For instance, you may not realize it, but DEQ is actually boosting the treble frequencies, in addition to boosting the bass frequencies. The treble boost is more subtle than the bass boost, but that may be one reason that your treble sounds a little more brilliant with DEQ on.

Here are some things you could try, in order to find a better equilibrium point for music, without turning off the Audyssey filters, which are separate from DEQ. First, you could try using the various settings which will attenuate the effects of DEQ. An RLO (Reference Level Offset) setting of 5 will slightly reduce the effects of DEQ. 10 will reduce it more, and 15 will attenuate DEQ the most. You can refer to Section V of the Guide, linked in my signature, to better understand how DEQ and the RLO settings work.

Reducing the effect of DEQ, for some of your listening material (such as music) may mean that you will want to add back some more bass, by increasing the volume on your subwoofer. You can do that. You don't have to rely just on DEQ to determine how much bass your subwoofer produces. As you start to experiment with the RLO settings, and perhaps with adding some subwoofer boost manually, you may find that you want to experiment with turning DEQ off, just to hear what happens. If you do that, you will probably also want to increase the volume of your subwoofer to compensate for that. 

But, now you will also have access to the tone controls which only affect the front speakers. Without the treble boost that DEQ is adding at below Reference listening levels (0.0 MV) you may find that you don't need to use the tone controls. But, you will be able to use them to add bass (above the crossover to your sub) or to subtract treble in your front speakers, if you want to. Again, you actually have a lot of user control available to you, if you are willing to experiment.

I would encourage you to see this as a process, where you can experiment exactly as much as you are comfortable in trying things, and whenever you are comfortable in trying them. There is no rush, and there is no right answer with respect to your settings. There is only what you are comfortable trying, and what you are comfortable listening to. But, if you are willing to give some of this a try, whenever you are ready, I think that you can improve your listening experience and the satisfaction that you derive from it. 

It's pretty hard for many of us to use exactly the same settings, for all kinds of different listening material, from all sorts of different sources, at all sorts of different volume levels. Movies versus music is an obvious example, but even within those genres, there may be differences that you want to tweak things for. Being willing to experiment, to make things sound the way we want them to, for that particular listening session, is the key. And, once you start, at your own pace, you may find that it really isn't that difficult.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: In case anyone wonders, this latest series of posts started on another thread, which jdsmoothie has just appropriately moved to the Audyssey thread.


----------



## nitkan

jdsmoothie said:


> Nope. Dynamic EQ simply boosts the lower and upper frequency volume levels at lower master volume levels. When you use the Tone Controls, you're making manual adjustments to suit your preference rather than letting Dynamic EQ do it for you.


Thanks a lot jdsmoothie, I guess that resolves it.


----------



## nitkan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The controls in our AVR's can be a little bit intimidating at first, even without the Audyssey app. But, the truth is that, if you are willing to experiment a little bit, you can somewhat tailor the sound to your preference. And, you can do it without the app. For instance, you may not realize it, but DEQ is actually boosting the treble frequencies, in addition to boosting the bass frequencies. The treble boost is more subtle than the bass boost, but that may be one reason that your treble sounds a little more brilliant with DEQ on.
> 
> Here are some things you could try, in order to find a better equilibrium point for music, without turning off the Audyssey filters, which are separate from DEQ. First, you could try using the various settings which will attenuate the effects of DEQ. An RLO (Reference Level Offset) setting of 5 will slightly reduce the effects of DEQ. 10 will reduce it more, and 15 will attenuate DEQ the most. You can refer to Section V of the Guide, linked in my signature, to better understand how DEQ and the RLO settings work.
> 
> Reducing the effect of DEQ, for some of your listening material (such as music) may mean that you will want to add back some more bass, by increasing the volume on your subwoofer. You can do that. You don't have to rely just on DEQ to determine how much bass your subwoofer produces. As you start to experiment with the RLO settings, and perhaps with adding some subwoofer boost manually, you may find that you want to experiment with turning DEQ off, just to hear what happens. If you do that, you will probably also want to increase the volume of your subwoofer to compensate for that.
> 
> But, now you will also have access to the tone controls which only affect the front speakers. Without the treble boost that DEQ is adding at below Reference listening levels (0.0 MV) you may find that you don't need to use the tone controls. But, you will be able to use them to add bass (above the crossover to your sub) or to subtract treble in your front speakers, if you want to. Again, you actually have a lot of user control available to you, if you are willing to experiment.
> 
> I would encourage you to see this as a process, where you can experiment exactly as much as you are comfortable in trying things, and whenever you are comfortable in trying them. There is no rush, and there is no right answer with respect to your settings. There is only what you are comfortable trying, and what you are comfortable listening to. But, if you are willing to give some of this a try, whenever you are ready, I think that you can improve your listening experience and the satisfaction that you derive from it.
> 
> It's pretty hard for many of us to use exactly the same settings, for all kinds of different listening material, from all sorts of different sources, at all sorts of different volume levels. Movies versus music is an obvious example, but even within those genres, there may be differences that you want to tweak things for. Being willing to experiment, to make things sound the way we want them to, for that particular listening session, is the key. And, once you start, at your own pace, you may find that it really isn't that difficult.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike,

Thanks a lot for firstly removing the time to give an insightful explanation. I will definitely try out the options you have mentioned since fine tuning music to a particular taste is totally gratifying. This is really a great forum for a learner like me. Thanks once again to all of you'll.


----------



## drh3b

nitkan said:


> Thanks a lot jdsmoothie, I guess that resolves it.


As has already been suggested, if you turn off DEQ, you can use the tone controls to adjust both bass and treble. One thing I would suggest you try, and it is what I do myself, is turn up your subwoofers 4 db. Listen for a while, and adjust for your own taste. While I am not a basshead on the level of many others, turning up bass is one thing I've WANTED to do for almost 45 years, and now that I have quality subwoofers, I can do it!
You may find with DEQ off, that just turning your subwoofer up some is the only adjustment you need to make. It's the only one I make after enabling Audyssey(below 500 Hz, although, I'm sure I'd enjoy it with full range, it's just a choice I made in the last year).


----------



## nitkan

drh3b said:


> As has already been suggested, if you turn off DEQ, you can use the tone controls to adjust both bass and treble. One thing I would suggest you try, and it is what I do myself, is turn up your subwoofers 4 db. Listen for a while, and adjust for your own taste. While I am not a basshead on the level of many others, turning up bass is one thing I've WANTED to do for almost 45 years, and now that I have quality subwoofers, I can do it!
> You may find with DEQ off, that just turning your subwoofer up some is the only adjustment you need to make. It's the only one I make after enabling Audyssey(below 500 Hz, although, I'm sure I'd enjoy it with full range, it's just a choice I made in the last year).


Sure drh3b, thanks.


----------



## rosstg

The app made me appreciate and prefer the Reference Curve since I can disable MRC. Before the app I used Flat, which now sounds very processed to me now. DEQ is a must in my room.


----------



## Photokid1970

mthomas47 said:


> I would encourage you to see this as a process, where you can experiment exactly as much as you are comfortable in trying things, and whenever you are comfortable in trying them. There is no rush, and there is no right answer with respect to your settings. There is only what you are comfortable trying, and what you are comfortable listening to. But, if you are willing to give some of this a try, whenever you are ready, I think that you can improve your listening experience and the satisfaction that you derive from it.


Reading this conversation has been very helpful. I have run Audyssey before on my Onkyo 809, and I was very hesitant to change anything because I thought I had it 'right'. But after reading the guide and many of the recent posts, I have begun to experiment and tweak. I honestly have never turned on DEQ. Not sure why. I tried Dynamic volume, and it would shift the volume up and down noticeably, and it was not to my liking - so I abandoned the rest of the Audio Setup menu. As Ahnold says, "Big Mistake".

Now, when watching the local news, I can hear the bass in the "Whoosh!" graphic when they change to a new story. I didn't know I was missing that before! It's not overwhelming bass - but it's a nice touch. Moving my surround speakers to the proper location on the walls took some doing, but all of these changes and re-running Audyssey has made even local television more enjoyable. It has been my habit to see things in black and white, but I'm beginning to see this as a process as you have stated. I appreciate all of the knowledge and wisdom!


----------



## mogorf

Hi, ever wondered how and why Dynamic Volume works the way it does?


Here's some in-depth explanation of Chris K. on the subject:


"Dynamic Volume will definitely decrease the dynamic range. That is exactly what it is designed to do! You get to pick among two or three presets (depending on the product). It is intended for situations when you want to reduce the differences between the softest and loudest sounds so that you don't have to continuously reach for the volume control. This typically happens at night when most people turn up the volume to listen to the dialog and then rush to turn it down during the loud passages or commercials.

In the past this was done with various AGC or compressors that all suffered from a fatal artifact: pumping. The system would start turning the volume down, but then a soft passage would start and the system would immediately start pushing it up. This constant up and down is very annoying. It comes from the fact that these compressors only react at one time constant, when in fact the content changes with many different time constants.

We developed Dynamic Volume to specifically get around this problem. To do that we used a different approach than what others had done in the past. We brought in mixers to a calibrated setup and gave them control of the volume while listening to their own mix (and to other movies and TV content). We then recorded the continuous changes they were making on the volume, as well as re-recorded the original and adjusted content. This resulted in a multi-terrabyte database of content and control information.

A mathematical model was then created to correlate the content with the actions of the listener. We had to figure out when they were turning the volume down, how slowly or how fast, when they were turning it up, and when they did nothing. From this model, we developed an automatic algorithm that closely mimics human action. It makes adjustments by figuring out how fast the content is changing and continuously adjusts the reaction time when it makes the corrections.

A further addition to this was to always identify standard dialog level as the reference. That is where Dynamic Volume doesn't do anything. So, the user can turn up the volume until the dialog is at the desired level and not worry about things getting too loud above that.

Obviously, if you are listening in a dedicated room and don't have to worry about disturbing others then you should turn Dynamic Volume off. In fact, it defaults to Off and should only be used when you want to control the dynamic range.

Dynamic Volume works together with Dynamic EQ. Whether it is the system or the user turning the volume down, human perception of low frequencies and surround impression changes at lower volumes. Dynamic EQ adjusts these so they are perceived at the same balance as what you have at reference listening levels (where Dynamic EQ is automatically turned off)."


Hope this is useful info for those who use DynVol.


----------



## mogorf

By accident I happen to delete my own post on how Audyssey's MultEQ sets speaker channel trims, so here it is again:


Chris K.:


"Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500-2k range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL."


"For the subwoofer channel same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz."


Interesting, indeed!


----------



## Alan P

nitkan said:


> Hi ,
> 
> After using Audyssey XT 32 on the Marantz SR 7011 for calibration, I find the treble a little bit high for my liking . The bass/treble tone controls on the receiver are disabled if audyssey dynamic eq is on. Apart from disabling EQ is there any work around for reducing treble. Thanks.


One thing that I didn't see mentioned (in this thread at least) is that most overly "bright" Audyssey calibrations are caused by too many reflective surfaces in the room, and especially near the mic.

Do you have seating with a fairly reflective surface like leather or vinyl? If so, try covering it with a fluffy blanket or two during calibration.


----------



## nitkan

Alan P said:


> One thing that I didn't see mentioned (in this thread at least) is that most overly "bright" Audyssey calibrations are caused by too many reflective surfaces in the room, and especially near the mic.
> 
> Do you have seating with a fairly reflective surface like leather or vinyl? If so, try covering it with a fluffy blanket or two during calibration.


Hi Alan ,

There are sofas with cloth upholstery against 2 walls. Other than that the walls, floor & ceiling are concrete. Prior to the Marantz SR 7011 I had the Marantz SR 8200 receiver with no calibration which sounded warmer & fuller with more midrange with the same speakers & room unlike SR 7011. I had also kept the mic around 1 feet away from the wall but I guess I may be going wrong somewhere.


----------



## Skinfax1

Alan P said:


> One thing that I didn't see mentioned (in this thread at least) is that most overly "bright" Audyssey calibrations are caused by too many reflective surfaces in the room, and especially near the mic.


Potential microphone problems put aside, IMO it's the other way around: recording more treble leads to compensating for it and therefore in a duller, not a brighter result.


----------



## Alan P

nitkan said:


> Hi Alan ,
> 
> There are sofas with cloth upholstery against 2 walls. Other than that the walls, floor & ceiling are concrete. Prior to the Marantz SR 7011 I had the Marantz SR 8200 receiver with no calibration which sounded warmer & fuller with more midrange with the same speakers & room unlike SR 7011. I had also kept the mic around 1 feet away from the wall but I guess I may be going wrong somewhere.


If the wall is bare concrete, I would try to keep the mic even further from the wall. Try calibrating with the mic 18"-24" from the wall and see how it sounds. Are any of the walls covered in any way?




Skinfax1 said:


> Potential microphone problems put aside, IMO it's the other way around: recording more treble leads to compensating for it and therefore in a duller, not a brighter result.


You would think that's how it works, but with Audyssey it has been proven over many years that it is the opposite. Audyssey really, really does not like excessive reflections.


----------



## mthomas47

Alan P said:


> If the wall is bare concrete, I would try to keep the mic even further from the wall. Try calibrating with the mic 18"-24" from the wall and see how it sounds. Are any of the walls covered in any way?
> 
> You would think that's how it works, but with Audyssey it has been proven over many years that it is the opposite. Audyssey really, really does not like excessive reflections.


Hi Alan,

I know that you already know all this, but I thought it was worth expanding on your answer with some more detail. It's mainly a matter of comb filtering. If the omnidirectional Audyssey microphone "hears" an excessive number of high frequencies, from close-range reflections into the mic, it will set many closely-packed control points in the upper mid-range, and in the treble range, instead of just doing broad areas of correction for those frequencies. The net effect of those spurious corrections (spurious because they are based on close-range reflections into an omnidirectional microphone, which is not how our ears work at all) can be to create a harsher or screechy sound quality.

We don't actually want Audyssey to do excessive, closely-spaced corrections to higher frequencies. That's what we want it to do for the frequencies below 500Hz, and especially for the frequencies below about 200Hz. XT-32 represented an advancement in the Audyssey methodology in that it deliberately does less closely-spaced corrections for higher frequencies, and more closely-spaced corrections for lower frequencies. As you suggested, we can help Audyssey to do its job more effectively, if we keep the Audyssey measurement microphone away from reflective surfaces. That's also why using a blanket over the back of a couch, or a chair, works well. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## nitkan

Alan P said:


> If the wall is bare concrete, I would try to keep the mic even further from the wall. Try calibrating with the mic 18"-24" from the wall and see how it sounds. Are any of the walls covered in any way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that's how it works, but with Audyssey it has been proven over many years that it is the opposite. Audyssey really, really does not like excessive reflections.



Thanks for the advice Alan, will surely try that & yes the walls are bare concrete.


----------



## nitkan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> I know that you already know all this, but I thought it was worth expanding on your answer with some more detail. It's mainly a matter of comb filtering. If the omnidirectional Audyssey microphone "hears" an excessive number of high frequencies, from close-range reflections into the mic, it will set many closely-packed control points in the upper mid-range, and in the treble range, instead of just doing broad areas of correction for those frequencies. The net effect of those spurious corrections (spurious because they are based on close-range reflections into an omnidirectional microphone, which is not how our ears work at all) can be to create a harsher or screechy sound quality.
> 
> We don't actually want Audyssey to do excessive, closely-spaced corrections to higher frequencies. That's what we want it to do for the frequencies below 500Hz, and especially for the frequencies below about 200Hz. XT-32 represented an advancement in the Audyssey methodology in that it deliberately does less closely-spaced corrections for higher frequencies, and more closely-spaced corrections for lower frequencies. As you suggested, we can help Audyssey to do its job more effectively, if we keep the Audyssey measurement microphone away from reflective surfaces. That's also why using a blanket over the back of a couch, or a chair, works well.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike just a query, if Audyssey finds too many reflections which makes the sound harsh then why dosen't it tone down the treble to make it sound smoother rather than packing more control points in the upper midrange & treble.


----------



## mthomas47

nitkan said:


> Hi Mike just a query, if Audyssey finds too many reflections which makes the sound harsh then why dosen't it tone down the treble to make it sound smoother rather than packing more control points in the upper midrange & treble.


Hi,

The Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" sound the way we do. That's why I have been putting the word "hear" in quotation marks. Harsh sound is a subjective statement regarding human hearing. The Audyssey microphone doesn't hear harsh sound, when it measures the combined speaker/room response. It just objectively measures the SPL at every frequency.

If many high-frequency wavelengths are reflected into the Audyssey microphone, from close range, they join with the direct wavelengths coming from the speaker. And, there will be many little fluctuations in the SPL, because of those reflections, which Audyssey will try to correct. So, Audyssey can actually make the sound harsher than it ever really was, to human ears, by over-correcting. It is the over-corrected sound which is harsh.

Alan's original statement, that Audyssey can struggle with a room with too many bare surfaces, is correct. But, what it will actually do, in those cases, is pretty unpredictable. At best, it probably can't do much to improve the higher frequency sound, although it may not make it any worse. But, getting the Audyssey microphone too close to a reflective surface definitely can make the sound worse. That is a known issue, and one that well-informed Audyssey users can account for during the calibration. All of that is addressed in detail, in Section I of the Guide, linked in my signature.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## nitkan

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The Audyssey microphone doesn't "hear" sound the way we do. That's why I have been putting the word "hear" in quotation marks. Harsh sound is a subjective statement regarding human hearing. The Audyssey microphone doesn't hear harsh sound, when it measures the combined speaker/room response. It just objectively measures the SPL at every frequency.
> 
> If many high-frequency wavelengths are reflected into the Audyssey microphone, from close range, they join with the direct wavelengths coming from the speaker. And, there will be many little fluctuations in the SPL, because of those reflections, which Audyssey will try to correct. So, Audyssey can actually make the sound harsher than it ever really was, to human ears, by over-correcting. It is the over-corrected sound which is harsh.
> 
> Alan's original statement, that Audyssey can struggle with a room with too many bare surfaces, is correct. But, what it will actually do, in those cases, is pretty unpredictable. At best, it probably can't do much to improve the higher frequency sound, although it may not make it any worse. But, getting the Audyssey microphone too close to a reflective surface definitely can make the sound worse. That is a known issue, and one that well-informed Audyssey users can account for during the calibration. All of that is addressed in detail, in Section I of the Guide, linked in my signature.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thanks Mike


----------



## pbz06

Can it be that recordings are also just super bright? Occasionally I feel like I hear some harshness and switch back to Reference with MRC, and it sounds very similar still. Some shows on Amazon sound brighter than Netflix. 

I've just kept it Flat, with CinemaEQ engaged. Overall digging it.


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> Can it be that recordings are also just super bright?



Absolutely! Recordings, rooms, speakers, microphones, headphones/buds and even amplifiers can be too bright (or too dull). Many recordings are given a boost between 1K Hz and 5K Hz, with a bass cut, in order to produce a very loud sound without overload. [Or, _with_ or without overload!] 



See articles on the _loudness wars_.


----------



## Benz63amg

On my Onkyo NR818 there are 2 settings for Audyssey, Movie and Music, Movie is the "FLAT" setting that i should use right?


----------



## pbz06

lamonsasa said:


> On my Onkyo NR818 there are 2 settings for Audyssey, Movie and Music, Movie is the "FLAT" setting that i should use right?


It's the other way around I think. Movie is reference and music is flat.


----------



## nitkan

Hi pbz06,

The recordings are not bright. Since they were sounding fine on my previous Marantz receiver with the same speaker setup. Will try the flat option.


----------



## garygarrison

nitkan said:


> Hi pbz06,
> 
> The recordings are not bright. Since they were sounding fine on my previous Marantz receiver with the same speaker setup. Will try the flat option.


Was that in the same room with the same seating and speaker positions, and the same bare concrete walls?

The Flat position will make the sound brighter, unless you do something else to tame the treble, or boost the bass to balance it, etc.

Can you try some cloth wall hangings? If they are ordinary thin material, some thicker material could be put between them and the wall, where it won't show, to absorb even more. Can you put something in the room to diffuse the sound, like some bookcases? If you do any of these things, you will have to re-run Audyssey.


I once had a room with a concrete floor, plaster ceiling, wood walls, and unfavorable dimensions. Putting a (fake) Persian rug on the floor (covering only about 2/3 of it), and some thick curtains at one end transformed it! It became a good sounding room.


----------



## nitkan

garygarrison said:


> Was that in the same room with the same seating and speaker positions, and the same bare concrete walls?
> 
> The Flat position will make the sound brighter, unless you do something else to tame the treble, or boost the bass to balance it, etc.
> 
> Can you try some cloth wall hangings? If they are ordinary thin material, some thicker material could be put between them and the wall, where it won't show, to absorb even more. Can you put something in the room to diffuse the sound, like some bookcases? If you do any of these things, you will have to re-run Audyssey.
> 
> 
> I once had a room with a concrete floor, plaster ceiling, wood walls, and unfavorable dimensions. Putting a (fake) Persian rug on the floor (covering only about 2/3 of it), and some thick curtains at one end transformed it! It became a good sounding room.



Hi Gary,

The room & everything else is the same , only the receiver changed. The previous receiver didn't have room calibration option. I guess I'll have to place some rugs since cloth hanging is not an option for me. Thanks .


----------



## Benz63amg

Do most people use the “MOVIE” or “Music” mode for Auddysey? On my onkyo NR818 I have these 2 options to select in the Auddysey menu


----------



## SightSeeker1

Hi. I am currently thinking of picking up a Marantz 7012 on closeout and have a few questions. I currently have an old pioneer 1016 THX receiver, Golden ear triton 5s and XXL center, some Athena satellites and dual DIY subs for 5.2 setup. I have a BFD 1124 for sub EQ and run the all the 6 speakers without EQ. I have done some reading and hear about Audyssey rolling off the highs and since the app came out, people using the high pass cutoff feature in the app to limit the EQ to above a certain range like 300hz. My wife doesn't really like loud content so I find myself grabbing the remote for the louder scenes then having to turn it back up for dialog. I definitely don't want any dulling of my high range since the GE speakers really sparkle up top so it sounds like the dynamic volume would be perfect for watching with her. I'm seeing what options I would have available so I don't get a roll off of the highs but can still use the dynamic volume settings. 

Can I use the dynamic volume without audyssey EQ on?
If I use the app and use the high pass cutoff, can I use dynamic volume?
Any other ideas to keep Audyssey from rolling off the high end without the app? 


Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

lamonsasa said:


> Do most people use the “MOVIE” or “Music” mode for Auddysey? On my onkyo NR818 I have these 2 options to select in the Auddysey menu



Onkyo "thinks" you will want to use "Movie," also known as "Reference" for *movies.* No surprise there. This setting rolls off the high frequencies a bit (*-* 2 dB at 10K Hz and *-* 6 dB at 20 K Hz, and imposes Midrange Compensation, which is about a 2 dB dip around 2K Hz). Audyssey "thinks" this will make your room, with its early reflections and treble beaming, sound a little more like a movie theater, which has wide dispersion (partly because the speakers are far away) and has later reflections only.


Onkyo apparently "believes" that you want to hear *music *without this intervention, but with the frequency response "flat" as it would be in an audiophile sound system *not* set up for Home Theater. Thus the "Music" setting, also known as "Flat."


In the real world, recordings you buy, rent or stream are recorded many different ways, with the mixing EQ set by ear in control rooms with many different room frequency curves. So ... IMO, whether you select "Movie, or "Music" is entirely a matter of preference, and will depend heavily on the treble-bass balance of the recording itself.


FWIW, I almost always use Audyssey Flat ("Music") for movies! Movies are more consistently of similar treble to bass balance than music disks, IMO, and are only rarely harsh. If one turns out to be a little on the harsh side, I'll use Audyssey Reference ("Movies") instead. But that's very unusual in my moderately treated room -- probably about 5% of the movies. 



For music on CD, SCAD, etc., I use Audyssey Flat ("Music") as well. Once again, some need some high frequency roll-off, so, occasionally, I'll use Audyssey Reference ("Movies") for those odd ball music disks -- probably about 20 % of my music disks.


----------



## garygarrison

SightSeeker1 said:


> Hi. I am currently thinking of picking up a Marantz 7012 on closeout and have a few questions. I currently have an old pioneer 1016 THX receiver, Golden ear triton 5s and XXL center, some Athena satellites and dual DIY subs for 5.2 setup. I have a BFD 1124 for sub EQ and run the all the 6 speakers without EQ. I have done some reading and hear about Audyssey rolling off the highs and since the app came out, people using the high pass cutoff feature in the app to limit the EQ to above a certain range like 300hz. My wife doesn't really like loud content so I find myself grabbing the remote for the louder scenes then having to turn it back up for dialog. I definitely don't want any dulling of my high range since the GE speakers really sparkle up top so it sounds like the dynamic volume would be perfect for watching with her. I'm seeing what options I would have available so I don't get a roll off of the highs but can still use the dynamic volume settings.
> 
> Can I use the dynamic volume without audyssey EQ on?
> If I use the app and use the high pass cutoff, can I use dynamic volume?
> Any other ideas to keep Audyssey from rolling off the high end without the app?
> 
> Thanks





If you use Audyssey FLAT rather than Audyssey Reference, Audyssey won't decrease the treble.
Most Audyssey users turn up the subwoofer a bit AFTER running the Audyssey calibration. Having done that, you will probably set the volume to a lower level, yet have ample bass. A side effect of this is that the treble will be a little softer (but still sparkling) relative to the bass, and the bass will be equal to before, or slightly more intense (depending on how you set the volume control). Women tend to have better treble hearing than men and tend to be more sensitive to treble distortion. Apparently, on the average, this isn't quite as true as it used to be because men (and women) now wear ear protection if working around loud sounds, both genders are smoking less, but the differential between men and women in the likelihood of becoming a smoker is less than it was, etc.
I would avoid turning Audyssey off. It only rolls off the treble if you have it on Audyssey Reference (or just plain Audyssey). Try Audyssey Flat, and, if it sounds good to you, you're fine, and have full, smooth treble.
While some people like to truncate the range of correction in Audyssey, Chris K., the technical officer and co-founder of Audyssey says that their research indicates that it is usually better to run it full range.
If all of the above don't work for you and your wife, you may find that Dynamic Volume works, but I'd try it last, since it violates the composer's and filmmakers' intentions.


----------



## SightSeeker1

garygarrison said:


> If you use Audyssey FLAT rather than Audyssey Reference, Audyssey won't decrease the treble.
> Most Audyssey users turn up the subwoofer a bit AFTER running the Audyssey calibration. Having done that, you will probably set the volume to a lower level, yet have ample bass. A side effect of this is that the treble will be a little softer (but still sparkling) relative to the bass, and the bass will be equal to before, or slightly more intense (depending on how you set the volume control). Women tend to have better treble hearing than men and tend to be more sensitive to treble distortion. Apparently, on the average, this isn't quite as true as it used to be because men (and women) now wear ear protection if working around loud sounds, both genders are smoking less, but the differential between men and women in the likelihood of becoming a smoker is less than it was, etc.
> I would avoid turning Audyssey off. It only rolls off the treble if you have it on Audyssey Reference (or just plain Audyssey). Try Audyssey Flat, and, if it sounds good to you, you're fine, and have full, smooth treble.
> While some people like to truncate the range of correction in Audyssey, Chris K., the technical officer and co-founder of Audyssey says that their research indicates that it is usually better to run it full range.
> If all of the above don't work for you and your wife, you may find that Dynamic Volume works, but I'd try it last, since it violates the composer's and filmmakers' intentions.


Thanks for the explanations


----------



## tidwelr1

I have a Marantz 7010. What’s the latest consensus best way for boosting the subwoofer level after calibration? (I.e. channel level adjust or trim level). 

Also, I keep getting a phase error on my left speaker that never happened in the past. I added a new sub so I had to recalculate everything and now the phase error is popping up. Never happened in the past and I haven’t changed the speaker or the wire in a long time. Im using banana plugs and i checked them all for that speaker and at the AVR and they’re connected correctly. Thoughts? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rosstg

SightSeeker1 said:


> Hi. I am currently thinking of picking up a Marantz 7012 on closeout and have a few questions. I currently have an old pioneer 1016 THX receiver, Golden ear triton 5s and XXL center, some Athena satellites and dual DIY subs for 5.2 setup. I have a BFD 1124 for sub EQ and run the all the 6 speakers without EQ. I have done some reading and hear about Audyssey rolling off the highs and since the app came out, people using the high pass cutoff feature in the app to limit the EQ to above a certain range like 300hz. My wife doesn't really like loud content so I find myself grabbing the remote for the louder scenes then having to turn it back up for dialog. I definitely don't want any dulling of my high range since the GE speakers really sparkle up top so it sounds like the dynamic volume would be perfect for watching with her. I'm seeing what options I would have available so I don't get a roll off of the highs but can still use the dynamic volume settings.
> 
> Can I use the dynamic volume without audyssey EQ on?
> If I use the app and use the high pass cutoff, can I use dynamic volume?
> Any other ideas to keep Audyssey from rolling off the high end without the app?
> 
> 
> Thanks


Limiting MultiEQ can be a good option. It retains the natural character of your speakers. My speakers are very articulate and detailed and find both the Reference and Flat curves trims some of their sparkle. There is a reason Audyssey has started allowing users to limit MultiEQ. I say definitely try it!


----------



## LRZNole

Have a question...I have typically turned Dynamic EQ off since I found voice clarity a better. I was playing around with turning on today and did like the bass boost but found it a bit over the top. If I turn DEQ off again would you manually change the sub volume level (Denon) in the AVR? Audyssey set the sub at -9.5 so would I turn it down towards 0 or up? 

Sorry for the stupid question to most.


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> Have a question...I have typically turned Dynamic EQ off since I found voice clarity a better. I was playing around with turning on today and did like the bass boost but found it a bit over the top. If I turn DEQ off again would you manually change the sub volume level (Denon) in the AVR? Audyssey set the sub at -9.5 so would I turn it down towards 0 or up?
> 
> Sorry for the stupid question to most.


A lot of people seem to bump the subs. I prefer a Flat bass personally. I want my subs to blend perfectly and do not like when they call attention to themselves. When I used to go to the theatre bass isn’t exaggerated. I’ve always listen that way.

Going from -9 to 0 seems like a massive boost. Maybe pump 3 or 5db and see what you like.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a question...I have typically turned Dynamic EQ off since I found voice clarity a better. I was playing around with turning on today and did like the bass boost but found it a bit over the top. If I turn DEQ off again would you manually change the sub volume level (Denon) in the AVR? Audyssey set the sub at -9.5 so would I turn it down towards 0 or up?
> 
> Sorry for the stupid question to most.
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of people seem to bump the subs. I prefer a Flat bass personally. I want my subs to blend perfectly and do not like when they call attention to themselves. When I used to go to the theatre bass isn’t exaggerated. I’ve always listen that way.
> 
> Going from -9 to 0 seems like a massive boost. Maybe pump 3 or 5db and see what you like.
Click to expand...

Wasn’t planning to go as drastic maybe will try -6 or -5 and see how that sounds.


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> Wasn’t planning to go as drastic maybe will try -6 or -5 and see how that sounds.


Ah ok lol. That’s a good starting point. DEQ can work with some content but be really overwhelming for another. I had it on last night while watching Overlord and it was just way too much, especially the surrounds. It didn’t sound natural. I turned DEQ off and my wife asked what happened, she said it sounded much better and not as “annoying”.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn’t planning to go as drastic maybe will try -6 or -5 and see how that sounds.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah ok lol. That’s a good starting point. DEQ can work with some content but be really overwhelming for another. I had it on last night while watching Overlord and it was just way too much, especially the surrounds. It didn’t sound natural. I turned DEQ off and my wife asked what happened, she said it sounded much better and not as “annoying”.
Click to expand...

Agree the surrounds get pushed up too much with DEQ just wanted a bit more bass, which was why I was playing around with it.


----------



## mthomas47

LRZNole said:


> Have a question...I have typically turned Dynamic EQ off since I found voice clarity a better. I was playing around with turning on today and did like the bass boost but found it a bit over the top. If I turn DEQ off again would you manually change the sub volume level (Denon) in the AVR? Audyssey set the sub at -9.5 so would I turn it down towards 0 or up?
> 
> Sorry for the stupid question to most.


Hi,

It's actually not a stupid question, but working with negative numbers does require us to remember the math we learned so long ago in school. You are actually going up from -9 to -5, and from -5 to 0. Remember that -5 is a larger number than -9. Negative numbers are the exact opposite of positive numbers in that respect. 

The same thing applies to your master volume level, if it is set to Reference volume in your AVR. Reference is 0.0. As you go above Reference, the numbers get larger and the volume gets louder, and as you go below Reference, the numbers get smaller and the volume gets softer. So, -20, for instance, is 10db softer than -10. 

It's a little confusing at first (as many things in audio are) if someone hasn't thought in terms of negative numbers in a while, but you get the hang of it pretty fast. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## LRZNole

mthomas47 said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a question...I have typically turned Dynamic EQ off since I found voice clarity a better. I was playing around with turning on today and did like the bass boost but found it a bit over the top. If I turn DEQ off again would you manually change the sub volume level (Denon) in the AVR? Audyssey set the sub at -9.5 so would I turn it down towards 0 or up?
> 
> Sorry for the stupid question to most.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It's actually not a stupid question,/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif but working with negative numbers does require us to remember the math we learned so long ago in school. You are actually going up from -9 to -5, and from -5 to 0. Remember that -5 is a larger number than -9. Negative numbers are the exact opposite of positive numbers in that respect.
> 
> The same thing applies to your master volume level, if it is set to Reference volume in your AVR. Reference is 0.0. As you go above Reference, the numbers get larger and the volume gets louder, and as you go below Reference, the numbers get smaller and the volume gets softer. So, -20, for instance, is 10db softer than -10.
> 
> It's a little confusing at first (as many things in audio are) if someone hasn't thought in terms of negative numbers in a while, but you get the hang of it pretty fast.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks what confused me is if the volume is set too high on the sub itself and ran Audyssey it would set the sub > -10db so I would physically turn the knob down on the sub and rerun Audyssey to get it under -10db. Glad I asked.


----------



## Benz63amg

Question for everyone that has dynamic eq enabled, for local Hd Tv channel watching (nbc hd, abc hd, foxn hd, TNT HD etc), Do you keep reference level offset at 0 or 10db?(10db appears to be the widely recommend setting to use for TV by many users here on the forum)


----------



## pbz06

lamonsasa said:


> Question for everyone that has dynamic eq enabled, for local Hd Tv channel watching (nbc hd, abc hd, foxn hd, TNT HD etc), Do you keep reference level offset at 0 or 10db?(10db appears to be the widely recommend setting to use for TV by many users here on the forum)


I just keep it at 0 for all content


----------



## Benz63amg

pbz06 said:


> I just keep it at 0 for all content


And do you use “Movie” or “Music” mode for Auddysey? ( I have these 2 settings on my onkyo nr818 under the Auddysey setting menu, Movie is reference and Music is “Flat” from what I’ve been told) I currently have it set to Movie for all sources.

I have RLO set to 0 on all my sources except the HDTV Source as I mentioned above because I feel like Dynamic eq applies too much bass boost during local hdtv watching especially during commercials and that’s why I set RLO to 10db for the hdtv source.


----------



## pbz06

lamonsasa said:


> And do you use “Movie” or “Music” mode for Auddysey? ( I have these 2 settings on my onkyo nr818 under the Auddysey setting menu, Movie is reference and Music is “Flat” from what I’ve been told) I currently have it set to Movie for all sources.
> 
> I have RLO set to 0 on all my sources except the HDTV Source as I mentioned above because I feel like Dynamic eq applies too much bass boost during local hdtv watching especially during commercials and that’s why I set RLO to 10db for the hdtv source.


I'm not a music guy and pretty much watch movies only. I've had it on "Reference" ("movie" with Onkyo) for the longest time, but recently have been using "Flat" but with CinemaEQ enabled under the surround parameter settings. I'm not sure if this is specific to Marantz or if Onkyo has something similar. It's intended to soften the treble a little bit, very similar to what "Reference" does...but without the midrange compensation.

I can't tell much difference between the two, I don't have trained ears. Every time I feel like I'm hearing harshness/brightness in the movie mix, I switch to Reference and it sounds the same which makes me believe it's just recorded that way or my ears aren't good enough


----------



## rosstg

lamonsasa said:


> Question for everyone that has dynamic eq enabled, for local Hd Tv channel watching (nbc hd, abc hd, foxn hd, TNT HD etc), Do you keep reference level offset at 0 or 10db?(10db appears to be the widely recommend setting to use for TV by many users here on the forum)


0 is for film only, when I used DEQ I set it at 10 for cable.


----------



## Benz63amg

rosstg said:


> 0 is for film only, when I used DEQ I set it at 10 for cable.


Thanks. Do you have reference level offset set to anything other than 0 for any of your other sources? ( except for cable tv which you said you have set to 10db)

If I find the bass a bit too strong for cable tv Even after setting RLO to 10db do you recommend I adjust the gain level on the sub itself or should I adjust the subwoofer channel volume on the AVR? ( it’s currently set to -6.5db on the AVR)


----------



## rosstg

lamonsasa said:


> Thanks. Do you have eference level offset set to anything other than 0 for any of your other sources? ( except for cable tv which you said you have set to 10db)
> 
> If I find the bass a bit too strong for cable tv Even after setting RLO to 10db do you recommend I adjust the gain level on the sub itself or should I adjust the subwoofer channel volume on the AVR? ( it’s current set to -6.5db on the AVR)


When I used DEQ I had it set at 0 for movies. 10 tv and 15 for games.

If you find bass too much why not turn DEQ off and just turn up sub volume in your AVR by 3db? I’ve always adjusted through the AVR but I typically leave my subs where Audyssey sets them.


----------



## Benz63amg

rosstg said:


> When I used DEQ I had it set at 0 for movies. 10 tv and 15 for games.
> 
> If you find bass too much why not turn DEQ off and just turn up sub volume in your AVR by 3db? I’ve always adjusted through the AVR but I typically leave my subs where Audyssey sets them.


Dynamic EQ enhances the overall sound stage and clarity of my system that’s why I want to keep it enabled otherwise I would have disabled it. When I calibrated my system the gain on my svs sb3000 subwoofer was set to -10db, Auddysey set the Subwoofer volume level on the AVR after the full XT32 8 position calibration To -6.5db, bass is perfectly fine at that point but as soon as I enabled Dynamic EQ the bass was certainly excessive with certain content so that’s why I then went ahead and manually decreased the actual volume gain on the subwoofer itself from -10db to -20db and the bass balance is just right now and very pleasant. The system just doesn’t sound the same with Dynamic EQ disabled so I rather keep it enabled.


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> A lot of people seem to bump the subs. I prefer a Flat bass personally. I want my subs to blend perfectly and do not like when they call attention to themselves. .



If you boost a little with the bass control (providing you are not using DEQ), and a little with the sub control, the mid bass will seem to gradually rise to "meet" the bass from the sub, and the sub(s) won't seem to call attention to themselves.


While it is true that most newer movies on Blu-ray seem to have enough (or, sometimes, too much!) bass, music recordings on CD/SACD often have bass attenuated to allow a louder mixing level, apparently thought by executives to sell more disks in the "loudness wars," even though these disks are bass shy (I'll bet the opposite is true). So, to enjoy "Flat" bass with these recordings, we shouldn't play back these discs ""Flat," but instead, with bass boosted, using our best judgement. See "The Missing Octave(s)" and "de-mastering" threads by Chris A, on the Klipsch Community Forum.


----------



## aandpwoodley

Advice please.

I need to run a new Audyssey calibration but I’m really struggling to get the house quiet.

It’s either the birds, wind noise, car noise etc, I’m wondering how quiet does it need to be to get a good calibration ?

Thanks


----------



## Madmax67

aandpwoodley said:


> Advice please.
> 
> I need to run a new Audyssey calibration but I’m really struggling to get the house quiet.
> 
> It’s either the birds, wind noise, car noise etc, I’m wondering how quiet does it need to be to get a good calibration ?
> 
> Thanks


Not that quiet. Noise floor in my space is about 45dB or so when running Audyssey. The test tones will also get louder if the first run has level issues with the mic. You should be fine.


----------



## jbnpaul

aandpwoodley said:


> Advice please.
> 
> I need to run a new Audyssey calibration but I’m really struggling to get the house quiet.
> 
> It’s either the birds, wind noise, car noise etc, I’m wondering how quiet does it need to be to get a good calibration ?
> 
> Thanks




The avr would show an error/warning of it detects very loud noise floor. And will ask you to reduce ambient noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aandpwoodley

Madmax67 said:


> Not that quiet. Noise floor in my space is about 45dB or so when running Audyssey. The test tones will also get louder if the first run has level issues with the mic. You should be fine.




Thanks, I just wanted to check


----------



## aandpwoodley

jbnpaul said:


> The avr would show an error/warning of it detects very loud noise floor. And will ask you to reduce ambient noise.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Thank you


----------



## Madmax67

aandpwoodley said:


> Thanks, I just wanted to check


No problem buddy. You're welcome.


----------



## kaydee6

> On the X4400 a "CinemaEQ" (under Surround Parameters) can be activated additionally to using Audyssey. And that CinemaEQ in conjunction with Audyssey's Flat setting models the hf rolloff much better here. Movies sound like they sound in cinemas.
> 
> Dialogue clarity, not a problem here, but with that setting even watching [email protected] is not a problem (dynamic compression and DynEQ off, ofcourse).
> Nuances and low level sounds like breathes or scratches appear, which I don't hear with the "Reference" setting at the same level.
> 
> Even the surround field seems to come life because of the amazingly sounding higher mids which are no longer covered by too much treble.
> The whole sound field in movies becomes more fluid, shows more movement. Low level sounds have a much higher impact - like in cinemas.
> 
> I am almost even more impressed how well that EQ works with older movies, like from the 70s and 80s, with analogue sound-on-film. I had expected too few treble and reduced dialogue clarity and too pronounced mids. But instead there is only that amazing warmth of the analogue sound-on-film and even better dialogue clarity turning even older mono movies into a sound experience.


I've read somewhere that cinema eq applies only to the front LCR and not to the surround? Anyone can confirm this?


----------



## primetimeguy

kaydee6 said:


> I've read somewhere that cinema eq applies only to the front LCR and not to the surround? Anyone can confirm this?


Confirmed 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## kaydee6

primetimeguy said:


> Confirmed
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


Thanks for the confirmation. 
Now I have to ask but do you know why if only applies to LCR and not the surround? Do you have the link to Denon's or Marantz's response to this?
Reason I am asking is because I audyssey correct my speakers to 500hz. Now my LCR freq response are all pretty flat up to 20khz but not the surrounds, hence I would be happy cinema eq only happens on the LCR.


----------



## primetimeguy

kaydee6 said:


> Thanks for the confirmation. Now I have to ask but do you know why if only applies to LCR and not the surround?


Nope, but I agree it seems odd. I wasn't aware this is how it worked until someone mentioned it here in this thread and my measurements confirmed it. But if you turn on THX Cinema mode and leave THX Re-eq enabled then it applies to all channels.


----------



## Skinfax1

kaydee6 said:


> I've read somewhere that cinema eq applies only to the front LCR and not to the surround? Anyone can confirm this?


In this measurement the lower graph shows the effect with and without CinemaEQ on the LSurr speaker.
The upper graph shows the effect of the CinemaEQ on my Center channel.


----------



## kaydee6

Skinfax1 said:


> In this measurement the lower graph shows the effect with and without CinemaEQ on the LSurr speaker.
> The upper graph shows the effect of the CinemaEQ on my Center channel.


Lovely, thanks for the graph! Gonna keep the cinema eq turned on for now!


----------



## mystickid

Hi Guys,

When doing an Audessy calibration, I've read that we should NOT place the mic at any position outside the boundary of the LR main speakers. 

My question is, does the LR speaker boundary begin from the *inner most* edge of the speaker or does the boundary begin from the outer edge of the speaker?


----------



## mthomas47

mystickid said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> When doing an Audessy calibration, I've read that we should NOT place the mic at any position outside the boundary of the LR main speakers.
> 
> My question is, does the LR speaker boundary begin from the *inner most* edge of the speaker or does the boundary begin from the outer edge of the speaker?



Hi,

I'm not really sure where that rule comes from, since I think that there could be a lot of performance variation depending on the specific axial response of the speakers, their distances from a boundary wall, wall treatments, etc. So personally, I wouldn't worry about whether I were going to measure at the beginning of the cabinet, the center point of the cabinet, or the outer edge of the cabinet. 

Instead, I would determine the microphone locations which work best in my room, by a system of informed experimentation. You just have to try some different microphone patterns to discover what you like. In general, smaller mic patterns are likely to work better than very large ones. And the one you seem to be considering would be a very large one--practically the full width of the room.

I believe that Audyssey currently recommends going out no further than about 2' to each side of mic position 1, which is typically centered on your screen and on your center channel. Many people have even better success by going out only about a foot to each side of mic position 1. In your photograph, it looks as if the microphone pattern you are considering would be about 8' to 10' wide, rather than the 2' to 4' width that typically works best for most people. That's the informed part of the experimentation that I was suggesting. 

There are some calibration tips, including a microphone pattern that might give you a good starting point, linked below. I hope it is helpful to you. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jsgrise

mystickid said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> When doing an Audessy calibration, I've read that we should NOT place the mic at any position outside the boundary of the LR main speakers.
> 
> My question is, does the LR speaker boundary begin from the *inner most* edge of the speaker or does the boundary begin from the outer edge of the speaker?





mthomas47 said:


> I believe that Audyssey currently recommends going out no further than about 2' to each side of mic position 1, which is typically centered on your screen and on your center channel. Many people have even better success by going out only about a foot to each side of mic position 1. In your photograph, it looks as if the microphone pattern you are considering would be about 8' to 10' wide, rather than the 2' to 4' width that typically works best for most people. That's the informed part of the experimentation that I was suggesting.
> 
> Mike


I just redid my calibration Monday with a 34" distance between position 1 and 2-3. In my room it sounds more natural than a closer mic pattern where the bass is drasticly EQed and feel dry. 

mthomas is right, you need to expirement different mic patterns. It is trial and error so it will be time consuming but worth it in the end!


----------



## mystickid

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not really sure where that rule comes from, since I think that there could be a lot of performance variation depending on the specific axial response of the speakers, their distances from a boundary wall, wall treatments, etc. So personally, I wouldn't worry about whether I were going to measure at the beginning of the cabinet, the center point of the cabinet, or the outer edge of the cabinet.
> 
> Instead, I would determine the microphone locations which work best in my room, by a system of informed experimentation. You just have to try some different microphone patterns to discover what you like. In general, smaller mic patterns are likely to work better than very large ones. And the one you seem to be considering would be a very large one--practically the full width of the room.
> 
> I believe that Audyssey currently recommends going out no further than about 2' to each side of mic position 1, which is typically centered on your screen and on your center channel. Many people have even better success by going out only about a foot to each side of mic position 1. In your photograph, it looks as if the microphone pattern you are considering would be about 8' to 10' wide, rather than the 2' to 4' width that typically works best for most people. That's the informed part of the experimentation that I was suggesting.
> 
> There are some calibration tips, including a microphone pattern that might give you a good starting point, linked below. I hope it is helpful to you.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike, I recall reading your lengthy, informative, and detailed article on a flight a few months ago. Didn;t recall the mic placement tips.

I'll give those a ago. I've been doing mic placements of 2 ft apart from each numbered listening posiiton but I'm not having *great* sound. There was *one time* that I had the speakers auto EQ'd with Audessy and the sound was just MAGICAL! Like every time I turned on the TV, be it for Netflix, or youtube, or a 5.1 movie, the sound just had sooo much depth, presence, and clarity to it and I would smile when I heard it. Sadly, i never saved those settings. :frown: 

Now, I've tried calibrating 4 times since then but haven't hit the magical spot yet.

I'm going . to keep trying because I know the potential is there now - I've heard it!

I'm surprised about taking smaller measurements can actually enhance and create a wider listening field of sound. Couldn't hurt to try.



jsgrise said:


> I just redid my calibration Monday with a 34" distance between position 1 and 2-3. In my room it sounds more natural than a closer mic pattern where the bass is drasticly EQed and feel dry.
> 
> mthomas is right, you need to expirement different mic patterns. It is trial and error so it will be time consuming but worth it in the end!


jsgrise, Thaks for sharing your experience. So I'm going to interpret this as the greater the distance apart from each mic position, the larger the bass response, correct? Then again, this is probably specific to your room dimensions I presume.


----------



## tom325

*One speaker issue*

AVR-X4500H - Audyssey setup - for a 7.1 configuration. Running the standard calibration sequences. when I get to the third mic position, the Font Right Speaker suddenly starts climbing the chirp power levels - from then on and only for this speaker, I get level too low or noise errors.

I have tried moving the test point around, nothing seems to allow me to get past this and I end up with just three positions of the mic to do any sort of analysis. This speaker is sort of in a corner, but testing at positions 1 and 2 do not lead to any chirp volume increases (supposedly improving SNR.)

Any suggestions? I am using the latest firmware - is that possibly part of the issue?

Thanks.

Tom


----------



## jsgrise

mystickid said:


> jsgrise, Thaks for sharing your experience. So I'm going to interpret this as the greater the distance apart from each mic position, the larger the bass response, correct? Then again, this is probably specific to your room dimensions I presume.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "larger the best response", but Audyssey did apply more correction when the mic positions where closer together.


----------



## jsgrise

tom325 said:


> AVR-X4500H - Audyssey setup - for a 7.1 configuration. Running the standard calibration sequences. when I get to the third mic position, the Font Right Speaker suddenly starts climbing the chirp power levels - from then on and only for this speaker, I get level too low or noise errors.
> 
> I have tried moving the test point around, nothing seems to allow me to get past this and I end up with just three positions of the mic to do any sort of analysis. This speaker is sort of in a corner, but testing at positions 1 and 2 do not lead to any chirp volume increases (supposedly improving SNR.)
> 
> Any suggestions? I am using the latest firmware - is that possibly part of the issue?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Tom


Try a microprocessor reset, if that doesn't work you propably have a defective unit.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not really sure where that rule comes from, since I think that there could be a lot of performance variation depending on the specific axial response of the speakers, their distances from a boundary wall, wall treatments, etc. ...
> Instead, I would determine the microphone locations which work best in my room, by a system of informed experimentation. You just have to try some different microphone patterns to discover what you like. ...
> 
> 
> I believe that Audyssey currently recommends going out no further than about 2' to each side of mic position 1, which is typically centered on your screen and on your center channel. Many people have even better success by going out only about a foot to each side of mic position 1. In your photograph, it looks as if the microphone pattern you are considering would be about 8' to 10' wide, rather than the 2' to 4' width that typically works best for most people. That's the informed part of the experimentation that I was suggesting. ...
> Regards,
> Mike


*mystickid,*

I think that is very good advice. 

See the mic pattern in the link Mike gave you as a starting point, and write down all patterns you use, including the number of inches (maybe to the 1/2 inch, if gracefully possible) from some anchor point, in 3 dimensions (including height, of course). I should talk! I didn't do this at first, and paid for it later. My wife and I each looked carefully at the microphone from two directions, to make sure it pointed straight up at the ceiling. I'm guessing that the investment of time would add up to at least one full day (but worth it), with trying different patterns, testing the results with a variety of music, from a variety of seats, and, *perhaps*, running REW (free -- Google it, an see the thread on REW on AVS) with a calibrated mic ($80 to $100), from at least 3 positions (including no. 1), and, if you're a real glutton for punishment, from near exactly the same 8 positions in which you had the Audyssey mic, and then average the response (my version of REW has a way to do that), to see what kind of curve has been produced. This last is not necessary, and may promise more information that if delivers. Your ears are your most useful instrument.


When finished, can you expect "magic?" No, but, in our case, there was a distinct improvement over the sound without Audyssey. To get there, we had to boost the sub AFTER running Audyssey, and usually use Audyssey Flat. Unlike some of the people posting here, our midrange and treble response improved. To do this, Audyssey removed a broad peak centered at about 8K Hz, and boosted the overtones above about 10K Hz. Farther down, it removed a peak at 550 Hz, removed a > 5 dB dip from about 200 to 475 Hz rendering that zone flat +/- 0.5 dB, etc.


----------



## Alan P

tom325 said:


> AVR-X4500H - Audyssey setup - for a 7.1 configuration. Running the standard calibration sequences. when I get to the third mic position, the Font Right Speaker suddenly starts climbing the chirp power levels - from then on and only for this speaker, I get level too low or noise errors.
> 
> I have tried moving the test point around, nothing seems to allow me to get past this and I end up with just three positions of the mic to do any sort of analysis. This speaker is sort of in a corner, but testing at positions 1 and 2 do not lead to any chirp volume increases (supposedly improving SNR.)
> 
> Any suggestions? I am using the latest firmware - is that possibly part of the issue?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Tom


Try gently brushing off the tip of the microphone to get rid of any dust that may have accumulated. Also, try pulling the mic connection in and out of the AVR a few times to rid that of dust as well. Both of these things have helped me when I've had your issue.


----------



## tom325

Thnaks -

I tried one fairly obvious (when you think about it, anyway) - swap the two speakers - and bang the failure follows the change left to right. So it is the speaker that is the culprit in this case. Which also makes sense - with this in mind::

The introduction of a new amplifier the Denon was a result of a failure in the Pioneer Elite due to a known DSP field failure (Thanks Texas Instruments) - when this AVR failed it caused one screeching bout - before I could shut it down - probably blowing the tweeter - which is why the error of low level was being reported during Audyssey testing.

So to those who read this - one more to add to your sleuthing - swap the speakers LR and see if the fail follows - it may not me some quirk in the room acoustics.

Tom


----------



## SightSeeker1

I just got my first Audyssey receiver last night (x4400h), set everything up, and ran the calibration. I set the subs at 75dbs at the beginning (I read the faq and will probably do that again at 83dbs), let it run, turned DEQ on, DVOL off, flat setting. I didn't get much time to play with it but the one thing I noticed is when it went into setup/audio/subwoofer level adjust/ then clicked Subwoofer level adjust toggle from off to on, the bass shot up even though I didn't have any gain set for my 1 or 2 subwoofer. They were both at 0db. What exactly does that subwoofer level adjust toggle do? Does that turn on some kind of dynamic subwoofer level system? The bass was too much at the volume setting I had after I toggled that on. 

I think I am one of the only people to feel like Audyssey sets the bass correctly after calibration but I have been using REQ and BFD 1124 for 10 years prior and set my bass pretty even with the mains.


----------



## mthomas47

SightSeeker1 said:


> I just got my first Audyssey receiver last night (x4400h), set everything up, and ran the calibration. I set the subs at 75dbs at the beginning (I read the faq and will probably do that again at 83dbs), let it run, turned DEQ on, DVOL off, flat setting. I didn't get much time to play with it but the one thing I noticed is when it went into setup/audio/subwoofer level adjust/ then clicked Subwoofer level adjust toggle from off to on, the bass shot up even though I didn't have any gain set for my 1 or 2 subwoofer. They were both at 0db. What exactly does that subwoofer level adjust toggle do? Does that turn on some kind of dynamic subwoofer level system? The bass was too much at the volume setting I had after I toggled that on.
> 
> I think I am one of the only people to feel like Audyssey sets the bass correctly after calibration but I have been using REQ and BFD 1124 for 10 years prior and set my bass pretty even with the mains.



Hi,

How much bass someone prefers after an Audyssey calibration is a pretty individualistic thing. Unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, the Denon designers have taken bass adjustment in a strange direction with "Subwoofer Level Adjust". Here is a description, from the Guide linked below, of what that feature does. Without knowing what your starting AVR trim level after Audyssey was, I can't tell you how many decibels you actually added when you turned that feature on. But, it was obviously a lot more than you wanted.

[It should be noted that some Denon AVR's have a feature called "Subwoofer Level Adjust". When this feature is used, the subwoofer trim level is reset to 0.0, and the adjustment is made on top of that. So, starting at -11.5, post-calibration, and adding 5db of boost with that feature, will actually result in a net trim level of +5.0 in trim, instead of -6.5 in trim. That is a net increase of 16.5db instead of 5db. It is highly recommended to turn that feature off, and instead to make any necessary subwoofer volume adjustments either with the Channel Level Adjust in the Audio menu, or with the trim controls in the Speaker: Manual: Test Tone area of the Denon AVR.]

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SightSeeker1

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> How much bass someone prefers after an Audyssey calibration is a pretty individualistic thing. Unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, the Denon designers have taken bass adjustment in a strange direction with "Subwoofer Level Adjust". Here is a description, from the Guide linked below, of what that feature does. Without knowing what your starting AVR trim level after Audyssey was, I can't tell you how many decibels you actually added when you turned that feature on. But, it was obviously a lot more than you wanted.
> 
> [It should be noted that some Denon AVR's have a feature called "Subwoofer Level Adjust". When this feature is used, the subwoofer trim level is reset to 0.0, and the adjustment is made on top of that. So, starting at -11.5, post-calibration, and adding 5db of boost with that feature, will actually result in a net trim level of +5.0 in trim, instead of -6.5 in trim. That is a net increase of 16.5db instead of 5db. It is highly recommended to turn that feature off, and instead to make any necessary subwoofer volume adjustments either with the Channel Level Adjust in the Audio menu, or with the trim controls in the Speaker: Manual: Test Tone area of the Denon AVR.]
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Wow thanks a lot man. That setting should really have the subs actual db numbers in it when it is set to off. Like they are grayed out but you can see how far it is moving when you turn it on. I will stay away from that for sure and use the channel level in the options menu. I saw it had the channel level in the options and also this one so I didn't know what one to use but I know turning the SLA to on was outrageous.


----------



## Tweakophyte

SightSeeker1 said:


> I just got my first Audyssey receiver last night (x4400h), set everything up, and ran the calibration. I set the subs at 75dbs at the beginning (I read the faq and will probably do that again at 83dbs), let it run, turned DEQ on, DVOL off, flat setting. I didn't get much time to play with it but the one thing I noticed is when it went into setup/audio/subwoofer level adjust/ then clicked Subwoofer level adjust toggle from off to on, the bass shot up even though I didn't have any gain set for my 1 or 2 subwoofer. They were both at 0db. What exactly does that subwoofer level adjust toggle do? Does that turn on some kind of dynamic subwoofer level system? The bass was too much at the volume setting I had after I toggled that on.
> 
> I think I am one of the only people to feel like Audyssey sets the bass correctly after calibration but I have been using REQ and BFD 1124 for 10 years prior and set my bass pretty even with the mains.


I had a BFD in the loop for years. Now you need to read the BEQ thread



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> How much bass someone prefers after an Audyssey calibration is a pretty individualistic thing. Unfortunately, in their infinite wisdom, the Denon designers have taken bass adjustment in a strange direction with "Subwoofer Level Adjust". Here is a description, from the Guide linked below, of what that feature does. Without knowing what your starting AVR trim level after Audyssey was, I can't tell you how many decibels you actually added when you turned that feature on. But, it was obviously a lot more than you wanted.
> 
> [It should be noted that some Denon AVR's have a feature called "Subwoofer Level Adjust". When this feature is used, the subwoofer trim level is reset to 0.0, and the adjustment is made on top of that. So, starting at -11.5, post-calibration, and adding 5db of boost with that feature, will actually result in a net trim level of +5.0 in trim, instead of -6.5 in trim. That is a net increase of 16.5db instead of 5db. It is highly recommended to turn that feature off, and instead to make any necessary subwoofer volume adjustments either with the Channel Level Adjust in the Audio menu, or with the trim controls in the Speaker: Manual: Test Tone area of the Denon AVR.]
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Until I read about this a month ago I thought my sub was going bad because it was making bad noises in certain movies and songs... turns out I was running 14db hot and testing near reference level. HORRIBLE bug from Denon, which I understand they fixed in more-recent receivers.


----------



## Joeb1983

*Audysee and SVS's AS-EQ1 Sub EQ*

Guys and Gals, 


My name is Joe, new to the forum and this is my first post as you can tell. *(TLDR - Questions at the bottom in bold* *) *


I am retired Air Force with a avionics background, so I have some electronic principal knowledge as well as wire maintenance. With that said, I am somewhat an audiophile and have always enjoyed anything audio related; especially home theater. 


I have always had some sort of thought-out home theater (within my budget) over the years. One day, I will have a theater room! But, for now my living room will have to do... 


Anyway, I finally replaced my outdated Denon AVR with their AVR-x8500h and I am running a *7.2.4* setup. I am also _"bi-amping"_ my mains via the AVR. (I know, I know ; after much debate, its what I chose to do.)


My simple setup for those interested: 


Receiver - Denon AVR - x8500h w/ AIRCOM's T10 for added cooling. 
Power conditioner/surge protector - Panamax's MR5100.
Main media hub and player - Xbox One X (I have a Denon DVD-2500BTCi Blu-Ray player, but its dated.)
TV - Samsung NU8000 (I believe) 75"
Center - CSi A6
Mains - RTi A9's
Surrounds - 65 RT's (In wall)
Rears - RTi A3's
Ceilings - 80F/X RT's
Subs - SVS PB13-Ultra's w/ SVS's AS-EQ1 Sub EQ which is the reason for this post.

Now all that is out of the way, here are my questions:

*1.) Given the AVR-x8500h has two LFE/Sub output's and the setup plays Sub 1 as left and Sub 2 as right during the test tone via setup, should I just let Audyssey do its thing and leave it at that or: *

*2.) Should I run Audyssey then use SVS's AS-EQ1 to calibrate them further? (Which is what I did with the old 7.1 receiver, but used the EQ1 for a two sub setup, instead of simply splitting the LFE.)*

*3.) This may open a can of worms, but ditch Audyssey and use the EQ1 to manually setup the room?.. (I do like the easy Audyssey room calibration however..)*

*What say you? *




Regards,


Joe


----------



## SightSeeker1

Tweakophyte said:


> I had a BFD in the loop for years. Now you need to read the BEQ thread
> 
> 
> 
> Until I read about this a month ago I thought my sub was going bad because it was making bad noises in certain movies and songs... turns out I was running 14db hot and testing near reference level. HORRIBLE bug from Denon, which I understand they fixed in more-recent receivers.


Is that this one? What is it? 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html

Do you find Audyssey does as good a job or better as BFD and REQ? I haven't run a sweep since using Audyssey.


----------



## mthomas47

Joeb1983 said:


> Now all that is out of the way, here are my questions:
> 
> *1.) Given the AVR-x8500h has two LFE/Sub output's and the setup plays Sub 1 as left and Sub 2 as right during the test tone via setup, should I just let Audyssey do its thing and leave it at that or: *
> 
> *2.) Should I run Audyssey then use SVS's AS-EQ1 to calibrate them further? (Which is what I did with the old 7.1 receiver, but used the EQ1 for a two sub setup, instead of simply splitting the LFE.)*
> 
> *3.) This may open a can of worms, but ditch Audyssey and use the EQ1 to manually setup the room?.. (I do like the easy Audyssey room calibration however..)*
> 
> *What say you? *
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joe



Hi Joe,

Welcome to AVS and to the Audyssey thread!  

I don't think there is an easy answer to your question. Well, there is--the easy answer is to experiment to decide what works best in your room. In my opinion, the left/right designation is meaningless, because we typically don't hear bass frequencies below about 80Hz with strong directionality (or any directionality), and because bass at lower frequencies (below at least 80 or 100Hz) isn't really divided into separate left/right channels, anyway. 

The LFE channel is always a single channel, at every frequency. That's why our subwoofers work to start with, whether we have one, or two, or ten. And, systems of automated EQ, including As-EQ1, EQ all of the subwoofers together, regardless of how they are physically connected. Audyssey XT-32 for instance, with its dual sub outs, sets distances (timing) and levels separately, but the subs are still intentionally EQed together. 

As for whether AS-EQ1 can add anything to the calibration/EQ process that XT-32 performs, I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I believe that SVS typically recommends not bothering with that software, where Audyssey or some other competent automated program of EQ is available. The reasons for that are explained in the next to last paragraph. But, that's not to say that you couldn't still try it.

If I were you, I would run some good Audyssey calibrations, until I got one that I really liked, and I would listen to it for a while. You may already know how much user-adjustment is available to you, not even counting the new Audyssey app that you can add (for $20, I believe). With some tweaking to your settings, or with the app, you may find that you are able to get the bass sound quality just where you want it.

In any case, once you have established a good Audyssey baseline, you will be in a better position to decide whether you want to experiment with AS-EQ1. And, at that point, it will be just a matter of trial-and-error to decide whether it is actually able to help or not. Frankly, it is pretty old technology, at this point, that I think was pretty well superseded by MultEQ XT, and completely so by XT-32. I would expect it to do more harm than good, if you ran it after XT-32. But, you never know; you can always try it and see. 

With respect to general setup and calibration issues, as well as for some post-Audyssey adjustments, you may find the Guide linked in my signature to be helpful.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Joeb1983

Mike,


^ Appreciate the warm welcome and you taking the time to reply. 


I knew a little about low frequencies being much harder to pinpoint directionally. The subs are only a rack width apart, so I completely understand the lack of L/R noticeability.


In regards to LFE, correct me if I am wrong, everything formatted in "x"*.1*, will be a single LFE source. Just as you mentioned in regards to the dual sub outs on the back of the AVR (Reason for labelling it *Sub 1* and *Sub 2 *_rather_ than* L/R*) is simply split (but, more pre-amp voltage than splitting a single LFE output?) and exactly what the AS-EQ1 was doing with the single signal by assigning a "L" & "R" sub. The only way to have a L/R sub setup would be something that was recorded and formatted in "x"*.2 *_OR_ is that what was coined by running two subs? I could have sworn I read an article about a left and right channel LFE formatting... But back to the directional characteristics... (Either way, not the issue; sorry. Haha!)


I know the SVS Sub EQ is dated; one of the main reason I questioned not even using it; just letting the latest Audyssey handle it. The AS-EQ1 even uses an Audyssey cal mic as I am sure you are already aware. I'll mess around with it and see what is what. I am do agree it would most likely do more harm than good, but... you never know. 


Even though my subs are just as dated, they sure do work that's for sure. Hit low, hard and push and pull my doors in my house. Love it! 


Thanks again and I'll be sure to check out that guide. 




V/r,


Joe


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> As for whether AS-EQ1 can add anything to the calibration/EQ process that XT-32 performs, I'm not sure, but I don't think so.


The SVS unit (which I used to own) has the same number of filters on the subwoofer channels as XT32 does. The EQ-1 is redundant when you have XT-32, which is why I sold mine when I got an XT32 AVR. An XT32 AVR does exactly the same thing for the subwoofer(s) as the EQ-1 except that it room-corrects all of the speakers and not just the sub(s).


----------



## jonperk

*Very Low Audyssey Chirp*

I have a Denon 2808ci in 5.1 configuration. I've been very happy with Audyssey's results but because I moved the front speakers I re-ran the calibration. Before running Audyssey, I used a SPL meter and verified front and surround speaker levels. While running Audyssey, the chirp level to the left surround was very low. Consequently the end results put the left surround so high it severely drowns out the other speakers. I switched the left and right speaker cables and the low chirp went to the right speaker, as expected. I then did a factory reset on the receiver and adjusted levels with the SPL meter but the low chirp remains. I'd appreciate any advise on correcting this.

Thanks!
Jon


----------



## Tweakophyte

SightSeeker1 said:


> Is that this one? What is it?
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html
> 
> Do you find Audyssey does as good a job or better as BFD and REQ? I haven't run a sweep since using Audyssey.


That's the one.
I dropped the BFD a long time ago. I forget if I ran it with Audyssey or not, but definitely ran it for years. The Denon 6300H I have now is even better. The bass is buttery smooth and full, other than the HPF "bug" in the app. You'd have to test your room to see if you're happy. I remember being happy in all scenarios... it's been a long time.

The MiniDSP HD (must be HD) can replace a BFD and does not have the clipping issue (I ran into). When you read the BEQ thread you'll it's used on top of Audyssey to remove the early high-pass filters they've been sneaking into soundtracks. I am new to it and LOVE it.


----------



## Joeb1983

pbarach said:


> The SVS unit (which I used to own) has the same number of filters on the subwoofer channels as XT32 does. The EQ-1 is redundant when you have XT-32, which is why I sold mine when I got an XT32 AVR. An XT32 AVR does exactly the same thing for the subwoofer(s) as the EQ-1 except that it room-corrects all of the speakers and not just the sub(s).



Copy that and thank you for the info!




Cheers, 


Joe


----------



## confinoj

I like DEQ but have become a little annoyed with the surround boost. Too loud at times and I think it may be interfering with dialogue intelligibility. I’m going to reduce surround levels to my liking. Anyone know how much deq really boosts surrounds? The bass boost relative to reference volume is well established but haven’t seen anything written about the surrounds. Also does anyone know if deq also boosts rear height channels similar to surrounds? Thanks.


----------



## primetimeguy

confinoj said:


> I like DEQ but have become a little annoyed with the surround boost. Too loud at times and I think it may be interfering with dialogue intelligibility. I’m going to reduce surround levels to my liking. Anyone know how much deq really boosts surrounds? The bass boost relative to reference volume is well established but haven’t seen anything written about the surrounds. Also does anyone know if deq also boosts rear height channels similar to surrounds? Thanks.


About 1db boost for every 5db from reference level. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## Skinfax1

jonperk said:


> I have a Denon 2808ci in 5.1 configuration. I've been very happy with Audyssey's results but because I moved the front speakers I re-ran the calibration. Before running Audyssey, I used a SPL meter and verified front and surround speaker levels. While running Audyssey, the chirp level to the left surround was very low. Consequently the end results put the left surround so high it severely drowns out the other speakers. I switched the left and right speaker cables and the low chirp went to the right speaker, as expected. I then did a factory reset on the receiver and adjusted levels with the SPL meter but the low chirp remains. I'd appreciate any advise on correcting this.
> 
> Thanks!
> Jon


REW measurement?
What do you mean with "low chirp"? 
Length and diameter of the cables?


----------



## jonperk

Skinfax1 said:


> REW measurement? I don't know what REW is.
> What do you mean with "low chirp"? "Chirp" is the name that the Audyssey rep used for the sound that Audyssey uses to identify speakers, etc. And what I mean by "low chirp" is when Audyssey sends its signal to the speakers, the chirp to the left surround is nearly inaudible.
> Length and diameter of the cables?


 Fronts are Kimber 4VC, 12 feet. The rears are ceiling speakers and use basic 16 gauge in-wall cable, approx 25 feet.


----------



## mystickid

garygarrison said:


> *mystickid,*
> 
> I think that is very good advice.
> 
> See the mic pattern in the link Mike gave you as a starting point, and write down all patterns you use, including the number of inches (maybe to the 1/2 inch, if gracefully possible) from some anchor point, in 3 dimensions (including height, of course). I should talk! I didn't do this at first, and paid for it later. My wife and I each looked carefully at the microphone from two directions, to make sure it pointed straight up at the ceiling. I'm guessing that the investment of time would add up to at least one full day (but worth it), with trying different patterns, testing the results with a variety of music, from a variety of seats, and, *perhaps*, running REW (free -- Google it, an see the thread on REW on AVS) with a calibrated mic ($80 to $100), from at least 3 positions (including no. 1), and, if you're a real glutton for punishment, from near exactly the same 8 positions in which you had the Audyssey mic, and then average the response (my version of REW has a way to do that), to see what kind of curve has been produced. This last is not necessary, and may promise more information that if delivers. Your ears are your most useful instrument.
> 
> 
> When finished, can you expect "magic?" No, but, in our case, there was a distinct improvement over the sound without Audyssey. To get there, we had to boost the sub AFTER running Audyssey, and usually use Audyssey Flat. Unlike some of the people posting here, our midrange and treble response improved. To do this, Audyssey removed a broad peak centered at about 8K Hz, and boosted the overtones above about 10K Hz. Farther down, it removed a peak at 550 Hz, removed a > 5 dB dip from about 200 to 475 Hz rendering that zone flat +/- 0.5 dB, etc.



Thanks Gary. I'll give it a go.


----------



## steveknj

Sorry if someone asked this question already. I did a search in this thread and couldn't seem to find the answer:


I ran this last night when I got some new speakers and it would go through the setup and at some point during the setup, the receiver would just turn off. My first thought is that I have the wires reversed on one of the speakers but didn't check that yet. I can hear sound out of all the speakers and my sub, but Audyssey would just not finish and it would turn the AVR off (it's a Denon S920). I didn't have the problem when setting up the old speakers.


Any thoughts?


On the bright side, reading though this thread give me ideas about some of the settings and some of the things I was doing wrong running this in the past. Great thread.


----------



## Skinfax1

jonperk said:


> Fronts are Kimber 4VC, 12 feet. The rears are ceiling speakers and use basic 16 gauge in-wall cable, approx 25 feet.


REW is a free speaker and room measurement software - it's among the most important tools for efficient sound improvement.

If you set all speakers at the same level and use the test tone. Is the noise from both rear speakers equally loud, or is there a volume difference like it happens during the XT32 sweep measurement process?


----------



## jonperk

Skinfax1 said:


> REW is a free speaker and room measurement software - it's among the most important tools for efficient sound improvement.
> 
> If you set all speakers at the same level and use the test tone. Is the noise from both rear speakers equally loud, or is there a volume difference like it happens during the XT32 sweep measurement process?


The test tone is the same in all speakers except for the left rear. The test tone in the left rear is very low.


----------



## ggsantafe

Had a similar problem the other day when I repositioned my top rear speakers, ran Audyssey and had virtually no sound coming from my right top front speaker - retraced the cable path from the speaker to the receiver and discovered a loose cable splice. Check your cable connections.


----------



## Skinfax1

jonperk said:


> The test tone is the same in all speakers except for the left rear. The test tone in the left rear is very low.


Then it's very likely the physical connection somewhere. If the connectors are ok and the cable is not lose and contacts are good, a multimeter can narrow it further down by measuring the resistance of segments of the cable and the connectors.


----------



## jonperk

Please see my original post. It's not the connection. I swapped left and right speaker cables and the problem went to the right speaker. And checking channel levels showed all speakers with even outputs. The issue looks to be with Audyssey with a glitch in the software?


----------



## jj-34

jonperk said:


> Please see my original post. It's not the connection. I swapped left and right speaker cables and the problem went to the right speaker. And checking channel levels showed all speakers with even outputs. The issue looks to be with Audyssey with a glitch in the software?


Without any further knowledge of your case, but if by swaping the cables the problem followed the cable I would surely guess the problem is with the connection or the speaker ...


----------



## zeonstar

I've been experimenting with Dynamic EQ today and RLO. Something has been bothering me in that Audyssey themselves say that a RLO of 0 is for movies and to get a "Full dynamic range." So does that mean any RLO other than 0, you are losing out on Dynamic Range?

When I "Crank" a movie, about the highest I can go in my home is 65 absolute volume. I am trying to determine a good RLO. I don't know if 0 is good or maybe 5 or 10.

Do most of you use some kind of RLO setting?


----------



## rosstg

zeonstar said:


> I've been experimenting with Dynamic EQ today and RLO. Something has been bothering me in that Audyssey themselves say that a RLO of 0 is for movies and to get a "Full dynamic range." So does that mean any RLO other than 0, you are losing out on Dynamic Range?
> 
> When I "Crank" a movie, about the highest I can go in my home is 65 absolute volume. I am trying to determine a good RLO. I don't know if 0 is good or maybe 5 or 10.
> 
> Do most of you use some kind of RLO setting?


For movies you should leave at 0. I only adjust for cable and gaming. 10 cable, 15 gaming.


----------



## zeonstar

rosstg said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been experimenting with Dynamic EQ today and RLO. Something has been bothering me in that Audyssey themselves say that a RLO of 0 is for movies and to get a "Full dynamic range." So does that mean any RLO other than 0, you are losing out on Dynamic Range?
> 
> When I "Crank" a movie, about the highest I can go in my home is 65 absolute volume. I am trying to determine a good RLO. I don't know if 0 is good or maybe 5 or 10.
> 
> Do most of you use some kind of RLO setting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For movies you should leave at 0. I only adjust for cable and gaming. 10 cable, 15 gaming.
Click to expand...

What am I missing out on if I use a -5 or even a -10 for movies?


----------



## pbarach

zeonstar said:


> What am I missing out on if I use a -5 or even a -10 for movies?


In essence, Dynamic EQ adds bass to your subwoofer channels and turns up the volume on surround channels when you are watching a show (or listening to music) below "reference level." It's supposed to compensate for changes in hearing certain frequencies at lower volumes. When RLO is set below 0 (-5 or -10), the lower the number, the less DynEQ compensation is being applied at main volume settings below reference level.

So if you use -5 or -10 for movies, you are getting less of an increase in the subwoofer channel and surround channels than you would if you left RLO at zero.

The fly in the ointment is that movies are supposed to be mastered at reference level on BluRay discs, but some aren't. And some BluRays seem to have had some bass and sub increases during the matering process, so DynEQ adds even more on top of that. When you watch movies on a streaming service, local TV, or on a DVD, "reference level" is a meaningless term.

My preference is to add DynEQ at RLO = 0 to BluRays unless they seem like they don't need more bass/surround volume, but to run other movie material at RLO = -10.


----------



## rosstg

zeonstar said:


> What am I missing out on if I use a -5 or even a -10 for movies?


The whole point of DEQ is create the same feeling as listening at reference volume. Films are mastered at a specific volume, altering the offsets will change change the effect.


----------



## zeonstar

pbarach said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> What am I missing out on if I use a -5 or even a -10 for movies?
> 
> 
> 
> In essence, Dynamic EQ adds bass to your subwoofer channels and turns up the volume on surround channels when you are watching a show (or listening to music) below "reference level." It's supposed to compensate for changes in hearing certain frequencies at lower volumes. When RLO is set below 0 (-5 or -10), the lower the number, the less DynEQ compensation is being applied at main volume settings below reference level.
> 
> So if you use -5 or -10 for movies, you are getting less of an increase in the subwoofer channel and surround channels than you would if you left RLO at zero.
> 
> The fly in the ointment is that movies are supposed to be mastered at reference level on BluRay discs, but some aren't. And some BluRays seem to have had some bass and sub increases during the matering process, so DynEQ adds even more on top of that. When you watch movies on a streaming service, local TV, or on a DVD, "reference level" is a meaningless term.
> 
> My preference is to add DynEQ at RLO = 0 to BluRays unless they seem like they don't need more bass/surround volume, but to run other movie material at RLO = -10.
Click to expand...

Thank you For taking the time to write that it was very informative and helpful.

I had roughly heard that before but somehow you made it clearer to me so thank you.

The one thing I never really understood regarding the compensation that dynamic EQ does is why does it just affect the Bass and Surround Channels? Why those and not more...or less? 

So if I played a movie at Reference, no compensation would be needed. Everything would basically play as mastered right? But turning the volume down begins the compensation on those aforementioned Channels, and that is somehow needed to maintain the intention of reference level even when not at reference level?

Hopefully I got that all right.


----------



## bigzee3

zeonstar said:


> I've been experimenting with Dynamic EQ today and RLO. Something has been bothering me in that Audyssey themselves say that a RLO of 0 is for movies and to get a "Full dynamic range." So does that mean any RLO other than 0, you are losing out on Dynamic Range?
> 
> When I "Crank" a movie, about the highest I can go in my home is 65 absolute volume. I am trying to determine a good RLO. I don't know if 0 is good or maybe 5 or 10.
> 
> Do most of you use some kind of RLO setting?


I use RLO 5 when watching movies at -10MV which will give you a bit more than 2db boost on top of any other boost you may have done it the AVR which for me is an extra 3db totaling a bit above 5db which is good for my room. So if i left it at 0 RLO I could do a 1db boost to get the same result. I find it easier to leave the boost in the AVR and change the RLO settings for different material.


----------



## bigzee3

rosstg said:


> The whole point of DEQ is create the same feeling as listening at reference volume. Films are mastered at a specific volume, altering the offsets will change change the effect.


If you set the RLO to 5 and then watch with MV set at 5 or if you set the RLO to 10 and watch with MV set at 10 it will give you the same as if playing at reference level.


----------



## bigzee3

zeonstar said:


> Thank you For taking the time to write that it was very informative and helpful.
> 
> I had roughly heard that before but somehow you made it clearer to me so thank you.
> 
> The one thing I never really understood regarding the compensation that dynamic EQ does is why does it just affect the Bass and Surround Channels? Why those and not more...or less?
> 
> So if I played a movie at Reference, no compensation would be needed. Everything would basically play as mastered right? But turning the volume down begins the compensation on those aforementioned Channels, and that is somehow needed to maintain the intention of reference level even when not at reference level?
> 
> Hopefully I got that all right.


But if you set RLO to 10 and MV to 10 its your new reference level with no compensation.


----------



## Skinfax1

zeonstar said:


> The one thing I never really understood regarding the compensation that dynamic EQ does is why does it just affect the Bass and Surround Channels? Why those and not more...or less?


DynEq boosts treble, too. 

I have attached a measurement I did some time ago of my center channel. It shows the DynEQ curves at different Reference Level settings. The measurements were done @-20 dB Master Volume with one measurement done at -15dB MV with DynEQ set to 15 dB reference level to check how much the EQ is affecting the sound still. That curve #6 is almost identical to the curve with DynEQ off (but it still doesn't sound really the same compared to DynEQ deactivated to my ears). For better viewing I added the 5 dB to the graph.



> So if I played a movie at Reference, no compensation would be needed. Everything would basically play as mastered right?


Not at all. Movies are mixed with the X-Curve and that curve is changed for consumer releases torwards a more linear Hifi-sound. If you want a true movie sound, you need to mimic the x-curve for small rooms. The Denons have the huge advantage with MultEQ, which allows to mimic the x-curve.



> But turning the volume down begins the compensation on those aforementioned Channels, and that is somehow needed to maintain the intention of reference level even when not at reference level?


Yes, DynEQ is just a master volume dependent loudness compensation, to maintain the _perceived_ spectral balance at lower levels.


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> Yes, DynEQ is just a master volume dependent loudness compensation, to maintain the _perceived_ spectral balance at lower levels.





Actually DEQ has a two-tier operation scheme. First it looks at the MV setting, then it looks at the loud or soft parts of a passage and applies a second compensation on-the-fly. The softer the passage the more the boost. This is the "dynamic" part of DEQ.


Hope this helps.


----------



## Skinfax1

DynEQ is a simple 2-band shelving EQ, it is not changing the boost with signal volume. That would not work. The term "dynamic" probably refers to it's dependency on master volume.


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> DynEQ is a simple 2-band shelving EQ, it is not changing the boost with signal volume. That would not work. The term "dynamic" probably refers to it's dependency on master volume.



I'd suggest not to start a discussion or debate on how DEQ works. Please! 

You have zillions of sources to study the subject.

Thanks for your attention.


----------



## Skinfax1

mogorf said:


> I'd suggest not to start a discussion or debate on how DEQ works. Please!


Why not?



> You have zillions of sources to study the subject.


Like the one about DynEQ in your sig leading to a nonexisting page?


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> Why not?



Look up Audyssey quotes in my sig and use search words "passage" and "dynamic" to enhance your knowledge base on DynEQ. Good luck!


----------



## garygarrison

Skinfax1 said:


> Not at all. Movies are mixed with the X-Curve and that curve is changed for consumer releases torwards a more linear Hifi-sound. If you want a true movie sound, you need to mimic the x-curve for small rooms.


 The X curve is quite controversial among qualified members of AES and SMPTE and pretty old, now (1970s). The Audyssey reference curve (just plain Audyssey) is milder than the X curve because, as you say, Audyssey is meant for home sized rooms. I wouldn't want to hear a more steeply falling curve in our Home Theaters or living rooms. 

I wish every Blu-ray came with a paragraph on what the POV behind the mix-for-disk EQ and compression of dynamics (if any) was. Once in a while, someone does make a comment about the re-eq for Blu-ray. The worst was "EQ'd for the Daddy chair." Nothing more was said. 

Speaking of the worst, the BD that took me the longest to EQ (by ear) was a transfer ("authoring") from a film that was presented in the theaters in neither the X curve (predated it) nor the Academy Curve (postdated it), but a curve created for Cinerama. It was the 7 channel magnetic soundtrack for How the West Was Won. It was so bright that before my EQ, it peeled the paint. 

Food for thought:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17555
and
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/validity-of-x-curve-for-cinema-sound.204/
and
https://www.smpte.org/sites/default/files/files/X-Curve Is Not An EQ Curve.pdf
and
http://www.aes.org/technical/documentDownloads.cfm?docID=391


----------



## Skinfax1

The x-curve may be controversial among theorists, but what counts is the result! In practice everything is mixed on dub stages with the x-curve and the mixes are not compensated for it with boosted treble to achieve a flat response.

What is the intention of your post anyway?
Do you want to claim that cinema sound has flat treble and was hifi-like? 

Even without ever hearing about x-curve one must be almost deaf not to hear that movies in cinemas have dampened treble and are not sounding hifi-like. But it seems only few people in hifi-forums even hear that huge differences anyway. But that's where the people are, who can hear differences between AC3 and lossless...

"Oh, but the x-curve is controversial and old!"

Yeah. 

Any day I prefer to follow a "controversial and old" idea used every day by the most successful practitioneers in postpro before I give a sh.t about so called "experts" and theorists.


----------



## Skinfax1

mogorf said:


> Look up Audyssey quotes in my sig and use search words "passage" and "dynamic" to enhance your knowledge base on DynEQ. Good luck!


I notified you taht the link in your sig doesn't work and that's your response?

One doesn't need to have experience in audio production and mixing , just two brain cells would be sufficient to understand, that boosting bass and treble because of a low signal level, would DESTROY the sound - especially in movies, because the very important dynamic FX, like explosions or screams, would be equalized with the setting for the low volume moment before... 

The sound of louder and gentle dialogue would change in a totally unnatural way.

I am always amazed what ppl in hifi-forums believe how features work. Can be from another world of physics.


----------



## mogorf

Skinfax1 said:


> I notified you taht the link in your sig doesn't work and that's your response?
> 
> One doesn't need to have experience in audio production and mixing , just two brain cells would be sufficient to understand, that boosting bass and treble because of a low signal level, would DESTROY the sound - especially in movies, because the very important dynamic FX, like explosions or screams, would be equalized with the setting for the low volume moment before...
> 
> The sound of louder and gentle dialogue would change in a totally unnatural way.
> 
> I am always amazed what ppl in hifi-forums believe how features work. Can be from another world of physics.



Not understanding how DEQ works will always lead to such unnecessary posts. Sorry!


Bye.


----------



## Skinfax1

mogorf said:


> Not understanding how DEQ works will always lead to such unnecessary posts. Sorry!


It's always entertaining to be lectured about audio tools by customers. I am using EQs like the Waves F6 almost daily and it is so incredibly embarassing what you claim about the functionality of a loudness eq like the Audyssey DEQ in the Denon.


----------



## drh3b

Skinfax1 said:


> It's always entertaining to be lectured about audio tools by customers. I am using EQs like the Waves F6 almost daily and it is so incredibly embarassing what you claim about the functionality of a loudness eq like the Audyssey DEQ in the Denon.


You work for Audyssey?


----------



## mogorf

This for those who are interested in the two-tier operation scheme of Audyssey's DynEQ.


These graphs were provided by member "urwi" (03-19-2013 on the Audyssey thread Part I) measured at the pre-out of his AVR. 



1. 1st tier when loudness compensation is a function of MV setting:












2. 2nd tier with MV at -30 dB untouched showing the dynamic behavior of compensation for three different input levels:











Interesting, isn't it?


----------



## rosstg

I’ve always used Flat curves with all my AVR’s until recently. I find the Reference curve perfect for movies new and old, cable and gaming. But I think it depends on ones speakers and room of course. I have Klipsch RP’s which are articulate, the Reference curve sounds right with them. My previous speakers were warmer sounding and the Reference curve wasn’t a good match. I do disable MRC.


----------



## jsgrise

rosstg said:


> I’ve always used Flat curves with all my AVR’s until recently. I find the Reference curve perfect for movies new and old, cable and gaming. But I think it depends on ones speakers and room of course. I have Klipsch RP’s which are articulate, the Reference curve sounds right with them. My previous speakers were warmer sounding and the Reference curve wasn’t a good match. I do disable MRC.


I also use Reference, my ears are now sensitives to high frequencies


----------



## rosstg

jsgrise said:


> I also use Reference, my ears are now sensitives to high frequencies


Killer room, I’m also in Quebec.

I’ve actually gone back to limiting MultiEQ. I finally have everything setup perfectly. The issue I was having was limiting MultiEQ sounds better with much more clarity but DEQ made the high frequencies, bass and surround too loud. So I limited MultiEQ to 500hz, bumped up crossovers for my mains and center to 100hz, surrounds, surround back and Atmos to 150hz. I turned OFF DEQ and instead turned ON Subwoofer Level Adjust leaving at 0. My dual subs are set at -4 so this gives me a little 4db bump. Well now everything sounds truly excellent. The character of my Klipsch RP’s are intact with crystal clear highs that I love and the bass finally sounds excellent and balanced. Just the perfect amount of oomph now. And I don’t have to deal with the obnoxious surrounds and over powering low end.


----------



## jsgrise

rosstg said:


> Killer room, I’m also in Quebec.
> 
> I’ve actually gone back to limiting MultiEQ. I finally have everything setup perfectly. The issue I was having was limiting MultiEQ sounds better with much more clarity but DEQ made the high frequencies, bass and surround too loud. So I limited MultiEQ to 500hz, bumped up crossovers for my mains and center to 100hz, surrounds, surround back and Atmos to 150hz. I turned OFF DEQ and instead turned ON Subwoofer Level Adjust leaving at 0. My dual subs are set at -4 so this gives me a little 4db bump. Well now everything sounds truly excellent. The character of my Klipsch RP’s are intact with crystal clear highs that I love and the bass finally sounds excellent and balanced. Just the perfect amount of oomph now. And I don’t have to deal with the obnoxious surrounds and over powering low end.


Thanks! Are you in the Montreal area?

Luckily your version of Audyssey allows you to limit the correction, I wish my receiver had that feature too! I believe it is the way to go.


----------



## rosstg

jsgrise said:


> Thanks! Are you in the Montreal area?
> 
> Luckily your version of Audyssey allows you to limit the correction, I wish my receiver had that feature too! I believe it is the way to go.


I’m in Gatineau.

Yeah I had the Marantz SR7009 prior to my Denon. I loved it but the channels kept dying. I bought it B stock from Gibbys. I had to sell it once I went 4K. I really like Audyssey and the Reference curve but limiting MultiEQ sounds more clear. I really notice it with dialogue and music. There is more air in the high end. I can hear people saliva when they speak but it doesn’t sound bright. I was going to get a NAD with Dirac or Anthem for the room correction but now with the app I’m totally happy.


----------



## confinoj

I posted originally in subwoofer forum but realized this is probably more appropriate. Sorry for double post.

I know DEQ is polarizing and settings are all about personal preference but just interested in some starting points with it turned off. A little background. I have always used DEQ. I love how it fills in bass no matter how low volume is. Additionally I frequently use dynamic volume on light setting. We often watch at night with kiddos asleep and my wife can’t stand the dynamics and transient loud segments of content (I don’t share that opinion). Even with dyn vol off (when wife not around) I listen at only moderate volumes, about -30 to -20. With dyn vol light engaged MV is even lower as expected. With that I boost my sub channel about 8db and occasionally a little more. 

I think however that deq and especially deq + dyn vol negatively impacts dialogue. I’ve played with RLO a little bit but want to experiment with deq off and adding back sub boost plus playing with tone controls to fill out the sound at my listening levels. Looking for some starting points to keep some of the benefits of deq but not effecting dialogue. Calculating how much sub boost to add back at -25 I get +11db. That’s on top of my 8db boost with DEQ. That seems crazy to me. Are others adding anywhere near that when turning off deq if listening at lower volumes? Also any thoughts on tone control starting points? I’m assuming if I add too much bass back that way (vs just sub channel) it could negatively impact dialogue (I think) since it will add bass to all channels. Again I realize this is mostly about experimentation and personal preference but interested what others have done when transitioning to DEQ off. Thanks.


----------



## rosstg

confinoj said:


> I posted originally in subwoofer forum but realized this is probably more appropriate. Sorry for double post.
> 
> I know DEQ is polarizing and settings are all about personal preference but just interested in some starting points with it turned off. A little background. I have always used DEQ. I love how it fills in bass no matter how low volume is. Additionally I frequently use dynamic volume on light setting. We often watch at night with kiddos asleep and my wife can’t stand the dynamics and transient loud segments of content (I don’t share that opinion). Even with dyn vol off (when wife not around) I listen at only moderate volumes, about -30 to -20. With dyn vol light engaged MV is even lower as expected. With that I boost my sub channel about 8db and occasionally a little more.
> 
> I think however that deq and especially deq + dyn vol negatively impacts dialogue. I’ve played with RLO a little bit but want to experiment with deq off and adding back sub boost plus playing with tone controls to fill out the sound at my listening levels. Looking for some starting points to keep some of the benefits of deq but not effecting dialogue. Calculating how much sub boost to add back at -25 I get +11db. That’s on top of my 8db boost with DEQ. That seems crazy to me. Are others adding anywhere near that when turning off deq if listening at lower volumes? Also any thoughts on tone control starting points? I’m assuming if I add too much bass back that way (vs just sub channel) it could negatively impact dialogue (I think) since it will add bass to all channels. Again I realize this is mostly about experimentation and personal preference but interested what others have done when transitioning to DEQ off. Thanks.


We have almost identical gear. Have you tried using the app for calibration? The app sets my subs 3db louder than the AVR. I’ve been using DEQ for 10 years until recently. If you limit MULTIEQ to say 500hz you’re calibrating just the bass which XT32 does an excellent job. This will leave your RP’s character intact. The RP’s are very articulate with a lot of air in the highs. When I did this it was as if a blanket was lifted from my RP’s. Dialogue is much more clear and revealing. I also feel that limiting MultiEQ and turning off DEQ has improved my bass. It’s not as bloated. It’s not as heavy, it sounds much more balanced and blends perfectly with my speakers. Subs shouldn’t call attention to themselves. 8db boost to DEQ is a lot. I tried a 4db boost but decided I prefer a Flat bass. At first I felt all my bass was gone because I was used to the bloated DEQ. But now I’ve gotten used to the accuracy again and when I turn on DEQ it’s too much.


----------



## confinoj

rosstg said:


> We have almost identical gear. Have you tried using the app for calibration? The app sets my subs 3db louder than the AVR. I’ve been using DEQ for 10 years until recently. If you limit MULTIEQ to say 500hz you’re calibrating just the bass which XT32 does an excellent job. This will leave your RP’s character intact. The RP’s are very articulate with a lot of air in the highs. When I did this it was as if a blanket was lifted from my RP’s. Dialogue is much more clear and revealing. I also feel that limiting MultiEQ and turning off DEQ has improved my bass. It’s not as bloated. It’s not as heavy, it sounds much more balanced and blends perfectly with my speakers. Subs shouldn’t call attention to themselves. 8db boost to DEQ is a lot. I tried a 4db boost but decided I prefer a Flat bass. At first I felt all my bass was gone because I was used to the bloated DEQ. But now I’ve gotten used to the accuracy again and when I turn on DEQ it’s too much.


Thanks for you sharing your experience. I do feel that the app based calibration gave a little better results especially for dialogue. However I did have issues with the


----------



## rosstg

confinoj said:


> Thanks for you sharing your experience. I do feel that the app based calibration gave a little better results especially for dialogue. However I did have issues with the


----------



## confinoj

rosstg said:


> Yeah the 3db dip is unfortunate, thankfully it’s going to be resolved in the next update. You could limit MultiEQ to retain the clarity and use the Subwoofer Level Adjust to increase volume or just increase the gain.


Will just need to keep experimenting a bit and then when I switch over to app will have to play again. Overall I like what DEQ does and that it's volume dependent as my volume can be variable but agree at times (but not always) bass can be bloated and dialogue can be affected. The surround issue is easy to fix by dropping levels. That being said if I turn off either dyn vol OR DEQ dialogue is better. It seems in my room the combo is worse. I may try going back to DEQ on and just maxing RLO to 15 and adding sub boost back as needed.


----------



## pbz06

confinoj said:


> Will just need to keep experimenting a bit and then when I switch over to app will have to play again. Overall I like what DEQ does and that it's volume dependent as my volume can be variable but agree at times (but not always) bass can be bloated and dialogue can be affected. The surround issue is easy to fix by dropping levels. That being said if I turn off either dyn vol OR DEQ dialogue is better. It seems in my room the combo is worse. I may try going back to DEQ on and just maxing RLO to 15 and adding sub boost back as needed.


You will have to experiment too. For every person that has limited their EQ and dabbled with DEQ Off for improved sound, there's also a person who found that full band EQ and DEQ has increased clarity and sound.


----------



## garygarrison

confinoj said:


> ...
> I know DEQ is polarizing and settings are all about personal preference but just interested in some starting points with it turned off.
> 
> 
> ... I think however that deq and especially deq + dyn vol *negatively impacts dialogue* ... Looking for some* starting points *to keep some of the benefits of deq but not effecting dialogue. Calculating how much sub boost to add back at -25 I get +11db. That’s on top of my 8db boost with DEQ. That seems crazy to me. Are others adding anywhere near that when turning off deq if listening at lower volumes? Also any thoughts on tone control starting points? I’m assuming if I add too much bass back that way (vs just sub channel) it could negatively impact dialogue (I think) since it will add bass to all channels. ... .


 
Taking the last point first, 



Your tone controls will probably not affect the center channel where the dialogue usually is. I believe that on all AVRs the tone controls affect *only* the Left Front and Right Front channels. I assume they did this so the average center channel, with its small woofers, would not be overloaded with midbass, spreading modulation distortion up through whatever midrange that particular center's woofers handle. So, using your bass control liberally won't affect dialogue, except when it is off-screen dialogue.
As to a starting point on the bass control, if you have the typical tone control range for an AVR, it is limited to 6 dB boost or cut (historically, they went from about +/- 20 dB, to about +/- 12 dB, finally to +/- 6 dB, for reasons that passeth all understanding ... ). So, as far as the bass control is concerned, your starting point may be your ending point, i.e., +6 dB, but go ahead and try it 1 db at a time.
I've heard that at - 15 dB on the Main Volume control, if you have DEQ on, it provides about +6.6 dB at 40 Hz. That is allegedly below the male voice range, but I'm not absolutely sure, given Sam Elliot. What DEQ's MV linked tier may do at -20 or -30 MV may be known to someone -- Mike? or Feri? -- but not me...
FWIW, as starting points, I use tone control bass boost of +1 to +6, with DEQ off (I, too, hear it muddying some dialogue, as well as occasional blurring of subtle detail in the music) and a sub boost of, maybe 4 dB. I rarely run so called "action pictures" but, with them, anything more than a sub boost of 4 dB and bass control of +6 dB might threaten the structural integrity of our house. In the most extreme cases, with "non-action" but dramatic films. I have had the sub boosted as much as 11 dB, with the bass control at +6. It should be said that the line driver on the sub out on some AVRs may clip with that much boost, but my AVP ("pre-pro") doesn't seem to. In his Guide, Mike recommends no greater AVR sub channel trim level than -3.5. GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES


----------



## confinoj

^^^^

Thanks for your input. Anyone know if rear heights get boosted similar to surrounds?


----------



## rosstg

It’s funny, all the years prior to using Audyssey I strived to setup my HT as accurate as possible. I would have never used a loudness function like DEQ. I found it useful when I was living in apartments but not in my dedicated room. I’m more interested in accuracy these days. DEQ just muffles everything, especially my Atmos modules, they are drowned out by the boosted surrounds and bass to the point where I could barely hear them. DEQ draws way too much attention, I’m always focusing on the bass. When it’s off with MultiEQ limited to bass frequencies it sounds more open and dynamic. My subs are no longer the focal point. Each speakers blends perfectly.


----------



## jsgrise

rosstg said:


> It’s funny, all the years prior to using Audyssey I strived to setup my HT as accurate as possible. I would have never used a loudness function like DEQ. I found it useful when I was living in apartments but not in my dedicated room. I’m more interested in accuracy these days. DEQ just muffles everything, especially my Atmos modules, they are drowned out by the boosted surrounds and bass to the point where I could barely hear them. DEQ draws way too much attention, I’m always focusing on the bass. When it’s off with MultiEQ limited to bass frequencies it sounds more open and dynamic. My subs are no longer the focal point. Each speakers blends perfectly.


In my case, -5dB offset was the best blend possible at most volume. I usually do not listen that loud (-25 to -15), so DEQ is very useful for me. If you listen loud, than it is more or less usefull.


----------



## rosstg

jsgrise said:


> In my case, -5dB offset was the best blend possible at most volume. I usually do not listen that loud (-25 to -15), so DEQ is very useful for me. If you listen loud, than it is more or less usefull.


I definitely see why users prefer it. After all I used it for 8 years. But the thing is I’m noticing better sound quality at lower volumes. It just sounds cleaner and not as processed. I also notice DEQ really messes up certain mixes, mostly 80’s and 90’s action movies that have matrixed surrounds but also Atmos tracks. It boosts the surrounds too much for my liking, it’s all I can hear. Drowns out my modules. The frequencies sound like a roller coaster. My wife has commented on it too, she asked what I did, she can hear dialogue clearly and the surrounds aren’t blasting in ear and the bass isn’t nearly as aggressive. When I go to the movies it doesn’t sound like that, at all. The surrounds are more or less subtle and don’t call attention unless it’s called for. I watched Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan several times in the theatre and dozens of times on UHD and when I switch off DEQ it brought me back to what I heard in the theatre.

That’s just been my experience lately. I think DEQ is useful for many users but I personally prefer it off. I want as little processing as possible which is why I’ve also limited room correction to the bass.


----------



## confinoj

jsgrise said:


> In my case, -5dB offset was the best blend possible at most volume. I usually do not listen that loud (-25 to -15), so DEQ is very useful for me. If you listen loud, than it is more or less usefull.





rosstg said:


> I definitely see why users prefer it. After all I used it for 8 years. But the thing is I’m noticing better sound quality at lower volumes. It just sounds cleaner and not as processed. I also notice DEQ really messes up certain mixes, mostly 80’s and 90’s action movies that have matrixed surrounds but also Atmos tracks. It boosts the surrounds too much for my liking, it’s all I can hear. Drowns out my modules. The frequencies sound like a roller coaster. My wife has commented on it too, she asked what I did, she can hear dialogue clearly and the surrounds aren’t blasting in ear and the bass isn’t nearly as aggressive. When I go to the movies it doesn’t sound like that, at all. The surrounds are more or less subtle and don’t call attention unless it’s called for. I watched Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan several times in the theatre and dozens of times on UHD and when I switch off DEQ it brought me back to what I heard in the theatre.
> 
> That’s just been my experience lately. I think DEQ is useful for many users but I personally prefer it off. I want as little processing as possible which is why I’ve also limited room correction to the bass.


As you guys have demonstrated preferences are all over the map. In the end I don't think I'm going to get away from DEQ as it really makes a positive difference for movies/TV at low listening levels which is common for me. For many years I have had it on with RLO at 0 for movies and 10 for music and TV plus a decent sub boost. I have come to realize that bass is probably a little bloated for music but enjoy the extra ULF for movies and that dialogue suffers likely in part from overpowering surrounds. Will keep experimenting but going to try changing RLO to 10 for movies, 15 for music and TV, reducing sub boost for music, reducing surrounds by 3-4db and see how that does.


----------



## rosstg

That’s the problem I’ve run into with Audyssey its the constant fussing and why many have moved to Dirac. The one button fix all approach doesn’t work in the audio world. Every room is different and everyone has preferences. I never had issues when I manually calibrated. I set it up and that was it. I’ve gone back and fourth between DEQ on/off, Reference vs Flat so many times and the reason is because I wasn’t satisfied. I think that’s why the app is such a breakthrough. I was very close to ditching Audyssey and Denon for NAD and Dirac because you’re not paying for all the extra crap processing. Both Dirac, Anthem and even Onkyo’s room correction focuses more on the bass. As soon I limited frequency correction to 500hz it was as if I had new speakers. Because my speakers now retain the sparkle in their high frequencies it makes the bass sound cleaner as well. When I turn down my volume it’s because I want less sound not more bass and surround activity.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> I definitely see why users prefer it. After all I used it for 8 years. But the thing is I’m noticing better sound quality at lower volumes. It just sounds cleaner and not as processed. I also notice DEQ really messes up certain mixes, mostly 80’s and 90’s action movies that have matrixed surrounds but also Atmos tracks. It boosts the surrounds too much for my liking, it’s all I can hear. Drowns out my modules. The frequencies sound like a roller coaster. My wife has commented on it too, she asked what I did, she can hear dialogue clearly and the surrounds aren’t blasting in ear and the bass isn’t nearly as aggressive. When I go to the movies it doesn’t sound like that, at all. The surrounds are more or less subtle and don’t call attention unless it’s called for. I watched Gladiator and Saving Private Ryan several times in the theatre and dozens of times on UHD and when I switch off DEQ it brought me back to what I heard in the theatre.
> 
> 
> 
> That’s just been my experience lately. I think DEQ is useful for many users but I personally prefer it off. I want as little processing as possible which is why I’ve also limited room correction to the bass.


Ha, it is literally the exact opposite for me. DEQ sounds clearer and balanced. I started noticing some bloat but it turned out to be the app and how it handled my bass and the 20hz rolloff, and a null. Once I sorted that and reran via AVR its been great. I do use Flat though, but enable CinemaEQ.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Ha, it is literally the exact opposite for me. DEQ sounds clearer and balanced. I started noticing some bloat but it turned out to be the app and how it handled my bass and the 20hz rolloff, and a null. Once I sorted that and reran via AVR its been great. I do use Flat though, but enable CinemaEQ.


Nice. It all boils down to taste. I used Flat for years but can’t tolerate it anymore. It boosts my high frequencies too much causing a sterile sound. When I limit MultiEQ to 500hz I get more detail with more air but also has more depth space in the sound. I like my speakers and don’t want high frequencies to be touched. Cinema EQ kills my highs. I can live with the 20hz rolloff until it’s fixed if it means I limit MultiEQ.


----------



## cerveza89

Hi wanted to get your opinion on something. I've got a Marantz SR5011 receiver that's hooked up to a 3.1 system. I've run Audyssey setup on this basis.

I've got some extra speakers that I can use as surround speakers however due to the dynamics of my living room, I can't always have these speakers setup for use.

If I plugged the surround speakers into the receiver, and didnt run Audyssey again, would there be any issues given that the initial setup was done on a 3.1 system as opposed to 5.1?

Or is there an alternative that would allow me to easily switch between a 3.1 and 5.1 Audyssey profile?

Cheers.


----------



## mogorf

cerveza89 said:


> Hi wanted to get your opinion on something. I've got a Marantz SR5011 receiver that's hooked up to a 3.1 system. I've run Audyssey setup on this basis.
> 
> I've got some extra speakers that I can use as surround speakers however due to the dynamics of my living room, I can't always have these speakers setup for use.
> 
> If I plugged the surround speakers into the receiver, and didnt run Audyssey again, would there be any issues given that the initial setup was done on a 3.1 system as opposed to 5.1?
> 
> Or is there an alternative that would allow me to easily switch between a 3.1 and 5.1 Audyssey profile?
> 
> Cheers.



Well, the answer is nope. Anytime you add more speakers you will need to re-run Audyssey to take effect! Not a big deal as far as you have come and arrived to the Audyssey thread! Enjoy the hobby!


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> Nice. It all boils down to taste.



IMO, it all boils down to taste *+* many other factors. I stopped counting at 64 combinations of levels of variables*;* I'm sure there are many more (Example of one of 64 combinations: no DEQ */ *unlimited range of Audyssey correction */ *bass control used */ *audio frequency balance of the Blu-ray */* how difficult the room is to correct */* characteristics of speakers -- I haven't even mentioned Audyssey Flat v.s. Audyssey Reference, and that's just scratching the surface. Since several of the variables are non-dichotomous, and some are continuous, it gets even more complex. 



confinoj said:


> As you guys have demonstrated preferences are all over the map. ... Will keep experimenting.



Good. Experimenting is the way to go. A very big problem is that the BD disks vary*; *a minor adjustment is needed for most, and a major adjustment for a few. It's been 13 years of futzing around with the HT and settings for me. If you count dealing with music systems, about 50 years of listening, adjusting, equipment collecting, haunting recording studios, projection booths, and concerts. Tweaking (not that kind) never ends.



rosstg said:


> It’s funny, all the years prior to using Audyssey I strived to setup my HT as *accurate* as possible. I would have never used a loudness function like DEQ. I found it useful when I was living in apartments but not in my dedicated room. I’m more interested in accuracy these days. *DEQ just muffles everything*, especially my Atmos modules, they are drowned out by the boosted surrounds and bass to the point where I could barely hear them. DEQ draws way too much attention, I’m always focusing on the bass. When it’s off with MultiEQ limited to bass frequencies it sounds more open and dynamic. My subs are no longer the focal point. Each speakers blends perfectly.


I agree, DEQ just *muffles everything* for me, too. 

My treble seems more *accurate*, sparkling, airy, with full range Audyssey correction, and (usually) Audyssey Flat. My judgement may be colored by years of playing in an orchestra, close to the instruments, and having my lunch in front of one. I, too, have articulate Klipsch speakers. We adjust most *movies* a *bit*, some a *lot* (HTWWW). In the case of *music*, I listen mostly to classical and modern orchestral, so I may be lucky, recording quality-wise. Rock, metal, pop, and other recordings often have their bass attenuated (say, below about 90 Hz) and their upper midrange and lower treble (say, between about 1K and 4K) turned up to the screech level, then attenuated in the high treble (say, above about 8K), as part of the "loudness wars." Sometimes this happens even on classical disks. See Chris A's threads on "The Missing Octave(s)" and de-mastering (as a partial cure, usually involving measuring, then restoring bass and sometimes high treble) in the Klipsch Community forum. 

So, to get the most *accurate* reproduction, sometimes the tone controls, or other devices, have to be set somewhere other than what is marked "flat" on the equipment. It's been said that high fidelity is fidelity to the *imagined* original. It would be an incredible coincidence if the end result was truly very close to the original sound in the venue. We need to get the instruments and voices to sound *plausibly* real. If that can't be done with a given movie or music disk, we'll settle for a beautifully moving experience, even if it doesn't sound particularly real.


----------



## confinoj

cerveza89 said:


> Hi wanted to get your opinion on something. I've got a Marantz SR5011 receiver that's hooked up to a 3.1 system. I've run Audyssey setup on this basis.
> 
> I've got some extra speakers that I can use as surround speakers however due to the dynamics of my living room, I can't always have these speakers setup for use.
> 
> If I plugged the surround speakers into the receiver, and didnt run Audyssey again, would there be any issues given that the initial setup was done on a 3.1 system as opposed to 5.1?
> 
> Or is there an alternative that would allow me to easily switch between a 3.1 and 5.1 Audyssey profile?
> 
> Cheers.


As noted Audyssey is disabled if you alter speaker config. The fastest way to switch is to run a calibration each way via the Audyssey app and just upload the one you want to use. Alternatively you can save each config to a separate usb drive and load from the usb drive of choice as needed. This method is a little more cumbersome but also saves/restores all settings not just Audyssey.


----------



## bigzee3

pbz06 said:


> Ha, it is literally the exact opposite for me. DEQ sounds clearer and balanced. I started noticing some bloat but it turned out to be the app and how it handled my bass and the 20hz rolloff, and a null. Once I sorted that and reran via AVR its been great. I do use Flat though, but enable CinemaEQ.


Also the type of equipment you have might come into play as well.


----------



## rosstg

DEQ works much better with XT32. Prior to my current AVR I had the Marantz 7009 and felt the bass was a little lacking even with DEQ on. Installed my Denon and noticed a lot more bass. Same seating, distances etc. 

I just ordered some SVS subwoofer cables to replace my cheep cables and a Mic stand thanks to some members recommendations. I have been using a cheap tripod on my couch for years so I’m curious if I’ll notice a difference. This time I’m going to increase my sub gains a bit to get a lower level on my Denon. I find -7 the sweet spot.


----------



## cerveza89

confinoj said:


> As noted Audyssey is disabled if you alter speaker config. The fastest way to switch is to run a calibration each way via the Audyssey app and just upload the one you want to use. Alternatively you can save each config to a separate usb drive and load from the usb drive of choice as needed. This method is a little more cumbersome but also saves/restores all settings not just Audyssey.




Thanks for the feedback. I think I might try the save/load function first before buying the audyssey app.

On a second note - apart from the ability to load different profiles, is the app worth the investment?


----------



## rosstg

cerveza89 said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I think I might try the save/load function first before buying the audyssey app.
> 
> On a second note - apart from the ability to load different profiles, is the app worth the investment?


There is a lot more flexibility. You can disable Midrange Compensation as well as limit how much MultiEQ is applied to channels.


----------



## confinoj

cerveza89 said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I think I might try the save/load function first before buying the audyssey app.
> 
> On a second note - apart from the ability to load different profiles, is the app worth the investment?


Most people feel it is worth it. There is a lot of customization that can be done and very easy to save and upload different calibrations. However if you are happy with how your system sounds and are not a "tinkerer" then it may not be needed. The one caveat right now to the app is that it applies a roll off below 20hz of about 3db. If you have capable subs with good extension and output below 20hz this can be detrimental and not easy to boost just that range without something like a miniDSP. Because of this I am using the AVR Audyssey still as my subs have good output down to about 15hz. Next update of app reportedly will fix this or enable the option of disabling the roll off. When that happens I will switch.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> DEQ works much better with XT32. Prior to my current AVR I had the Marantz 7009 and felt the bass was a little lacking even with DEQ on. Installed my Denon and noticed a lot more bass. Same seating, distances etc.
> 
> I just ordered some SVS subwoofer cables to replace my cheep cables and a Mic stand thanks to some members recommendations. I have been using a cheap tripod on my couch for years so I’m curious if I’ll notice a difference. This time I’m going to increase my sub gains a bit to get a lower level on my Denon. I find -7 the sweet spot.


What are some good real world tests and what to listen for when comparing DEQ on vs off? I want to try it out more with content as opposed to testing specific movie scenes that may or may not make a tangible difference.

When I tested, I essentially did this:

- XT32
- DEQ on
- Flat + CinemaEQ vs Reference and no CinemaEQ (couldn't tell a difference, stuck with first option)
- Volume set to -10 dB
- Speakers small/80hz all around

When testing DEQ off, at -10 volume, I compensated by adding 4 to 4.5 dB to the subwoofer trim manually (based off the 2.2dB per -5 volume adjustment). I then ran test tones to make sure all my surrounds/heights matched my fronts when listening at -10.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> What are some good real world tests and what to listen for when comparing DEQ on vs off? I want to try it out more with content as opposed to testing specific movie scenes that may or may not make a tangible difference.
> 
> When I tested, I essentially did this:
> 
> - XT32
> - DEQ on
> - Flat + CinemaEQ vs Reference and no CinemaEQ (couldn't tell a difference, stuck with first option)
> - Volume set to -10 dB
> - Speakers small/80hz all around
> 
> When testing DEQ off, at -10 volume, I compensated by adding 4 to 4.5 dB to the subwoofer trim manually (based off the 2.2dB per -5 volume adjustment). I then ran test tones to make sure all my surrounds/heights matched my fronts when listening at -10.


When I use DEQ I don’t change settings. I use the Reference curve. I feel adding more subwoofer trim is way too much in my room. That’s just my room though. I only change the offsets for 10 - cable and 15 - gaming. 

Flat with Cinema EQ has s steeper rolloff. I much prefer the gradual rolloff on the Reference 1 Curve.

I listen for bass first of all and also the clarity in dialogue and the soundstage. I bump my mains and center to 80hz. Denon sets at 40hz. My surrounds are set at 90hz, I bump to 100hz, surround back are measured at 150hz, I leave them. Atmos modules bump up to 150hz. 

My new mic stand comes tomorrow but it looks like my new SVS cables won’t be here till Wednesday so I’ll hold off on calibration till I have them all. I’m curious if the mic stand will give better results.


----------



## bigzee3

pbz06 said:


> What are some good real world tests and what to listen for when comparing DEQ on vs off? I want to try it out more with content as opposed to testing specific movie scenes that may or may not make a tangible difference.
> 
> When I tested, I essentially did this:
> 
> - XT32
> - DEQ on
> - Flat + CinemaEQ vs Reference and no CinemaEQ (couldn't tell a difference, stuck with first option)
> - Volume set to -10 dB
> - Speakers small/80hz all around
> 
> When testing DEQ off, at -10 volume, I compensated by adding 4 to 4.5 dB to the subwoofer trim manually (based off the 2.2dB per -5 volume adjustment). I then ran test tones to make sure all my surrounds/heights matched my fronts when listening at -10.


With DEQ off i do the same add extra 4db. At -10 you cant really tell much but the bass is less aggressive. Even up to -15 no real difference. Above that defiantly a difference but if you watch at -10 no DEQ needed.


----------



## rosstg

I think the nice thing about DEQ and why it’s so popular is it works for both users. People who listen at lower volumes benefit the most and of course when you crank it it’s not as prominent.


----------



## ctsv510

After thinking DEQ was better for me, I finally re-experimented with it turned off and upped the subwoofer trim about 4 dB and I'm 100% happier with the sound quality. Bass is less bloaty and dialogue is clearer.


----------



## mogorf

ctsv510 said:


> After thinking DEQ was better for me, I finally re-experimented with it turned off and upped the subwoofer trim about 4 dB and I'm 100% happier with the sound quality. Bass is less bloaty and dialogue is clearer.



What is your MV setting?


----------



## ctsv510

mogorf said:


> What is your MV setting?


Typically around -18 dB for movies. Max probably -14 db.


----------



## mogorf

ctsv510 said:


> Typically around -18 dB for movies. Max probably -14 db.



At that setting DEQ does kick-in. Don't you mind loosing the two-tier operation of DEQ?


----------



## ctsv510

mogorf said:


> At that setting DEQ does kick-in. Don't you mind loosing the two-tier operation of DEQ?


So far, no. I need to spend another week or two without it and then turn it back on and see how I feel. I just know that bass is full and clear now (dual PB16s) and dialogue is clearer. My couch still rumbles, but overall sound quality seems improved.


----------



## mogorf

ctsv510 said:


> So far, no. I need to spend another week or two without it and then turn it back on and see how I feel. I just know that bass is full and clear now (dual PB16s) and dialogue is clearer. My couch still rumbles, but overall sound quality seems improved.



Enjoy!


----------



## bigzee3

ctsv510 said:


> Typically around -18 dB for movies. Max probably -14 db.


You could try RLO at -15.


----------



## ctsv510

bigzee3 said:


> You could try RLO at -15.


I was running that for CBL/SAT but prefer DEQ off now along with increasing the subwoofer trims. I'll spend some time with it and switch back to see what I think


----------



## kaydee6

ctsv510 said:


> I was running that for CBL/SAT but prefer DEQ off now along with increasing the subwoofer trims. I'll spend some time with it and switch back to see what I think


Yes, spend some time like a week or two. It is too often changes are perceived as improvements and it can only be confirmed to be good change if you can't switch back to DEQ on later.


----------



## rosstg

My experience with DEQ after all these years is increasing trims doesn’t bring out the bass like DEQ has. I ordered the SVS SoundPath isolation system and my new mic stand will be in tomorrow. I was going to wait for my new cables to recalibrate but I’ll do one tomorrow once they arrive then another next week when my cables arrive. My subs are currently on 2 Subdude risers but they are a little too big for them, I’ve also heard the SoundPath is better. Curious how it all turns out.


----------



## Duckbacker

rosstg said:


> My experience with DEQ after all these years is increasing trims doesn’t bring out the bass like DEQ has. I ordered the SVS SoundPath isolation system and my new mic stand will be in tomorrow. I was going to wait for my new cables to recalibrate but I’ll do one tomorrow once they arrive then another next week when my cables arrive. My subs are currently on 2 Subdude risers but they are a little too big for them, I’ve also heard the SoundPath is better. Curious how it all turns out.


I have had the Auralex Subdude II Isolation pads along with the SVS isolation feet and cables under my SVS SB16-Ultra subs for almost a year now. My room is upstairs with several pictures and sword memorabilia and I rarely hear any rattling even when played at near reference volume. And this is in an enclosed room with less than 1700 cubic feet of space. My sub volume is set at -14 and -16 with an AVR trim of -7 for both subs.

Let us know if you notice a difference.


----------



## rosstg

Duckbacker said:


> I have had the Auralex Subdude II Isolation pads along with the SVS isolation feet and cables under my SVS SB16-Ultra subs for almost a year now. My room is upstairs with several pictures and sword memorabilia and I rarely hear any rattling even when played at near reference volume. And this is in an enclosed room with less than 1700 cubic feet of space. My sub volume is set at -14 and -16 with an AVR trim of -7 for both subs.
> 
> Let us know if you notice a difference.


That’s good to hear, seems to be what everyone says. I have the Subdude II and they are too small for the 1000’s. My room is in my basement on concrete floors with thin wall to wall carpeting. I notice the Subdudes seem to take away some of the slam. I also notice some minor buzzing coming from my cheap amazon sub cables. Really looking forward to calibrating later.

Edit: My installed the SVS SoundPath Isolation System today. My mic stand came in and luckily the Auyssey mic is a perfect fit. I’m going to wait to recalibrate until my new cables come in. My first thoughts on the new risers is wow. I really wasn’t expecting any difference from the Subdude but there is a clear difference. I notice slightly more weight and impact and a more visceral feel. So far I’m really happy with them, they look much better as well. I also moved my sofa couch further back a few feet which really spreads out the back channels. It will also give me more flexibility when calibrating with the mic stand.


----------



## garygarrison

rosstg said:


> That’s good to hear, seems to be what everyone says. I have the Subdude II and they are too small for the 1000’s. My room is in my basement on *concrete* floors with thin wall to wall carpeting. I notice the Subdudes *seem to take away some of the slam*. I also notice some *minor buzzing coming from* my cheap amazon* sub cables*. Really looking forward to calibrating later.


I'd think that with a concrete floor extra sub isolation wouldn't be necessary. When you put your hand on the concrete, do you actually feel vibration? I can see why Duckbacker would need an isolation pad, being on the second floor ... bass vibration might move a wood floor, rolling like ocean waves, like water off a duck's back. I have that, even with a strong wood floor, and with some Stonehenge-like lintels pushing up against the oversized floor joists (going across them) as recommended by the old *Stereo Review *_(sic transit gloria) _at the dawn of the home theater epoch. I rather like it though, because it helps make my couch get airborne.

Two things that *might* reduce slam sometimes can be caused by the same thing (a pad that is too thick or one that is too soft, or both)*:*


A pad that the bass "sees" as a _*cavity*_, because it is not dense enough, and one that interferes with the bass using the floor reflection because it is too thick, moving the sub too far from the floor. The sub uses the bass reflection from the floor (it ignores the rug) to reinforce the deep bass. I strongly doubt that this would affect your slam, since I can hardly imagine the 1.75" thickness being enough to cause this deterioration. Yet, I once had a big JBL sitting on a wood floor in my teen hobby beleaguered parents' house. I put an ordinary foam pad under it, and much of the slam and the lowest bass went away (this speaker only reached to about 40 Hz, but the difference was clearly audible, even with that high a cutoff). When I took the foam out, the bass came back. [Even stand mounted speakers might suffer from this (because of the cavity), but most manufacturers increase the low bass response of their woofers to make up for this, perhaps sometimes at the cost of more modulation distortion. Or, they simply specify that the stand speaker needs to be used with a sub, and should crossover at about X Hz. This is one of the great things Audyssey does for us, by measuring the actual F3 of our speakers, in their location, on a stand or not.]
The *sub rocking back and forth* with the bass, because the pad is not firm enough. I've heard people debate whether too resilient a rug can cause this problem.
Does the buzzing come through the sub, or does it come from the cables themselves, detectable if you put your ear down to them? That would be a good one!


----------



## pbarach

I ran Audyssey on my 5.2 system using the app last night. The mic positions were reasonably close to the positionsI always use (i.e., all of them with a 2-foot radius of position 1). Center channel dialogue is much clearer than ever before. 

There is no change in room furniture, no change in speaker positions. The only actual change in the system for this calibration run was using the internal amps in my Denon 4400h for my front left and right speakers, instead of a Carver amp that can now RIP. Power to that center channel speaker has always come from the AVR.

It's a mystery to me why what was likely an unavoidable change of a couple of inches in this calibration would make such a noticeable difference in the outcome. I mean, how can Audyssey claim to correct for the entire listening area when small variations in mic position make a major difference in the results?

That being said, I'm very happy with the SQ in my system.


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> I'd think that with a concrete floor extra sub isolation wouldn't be necessary. When you put your hand on the concrete, do you actually feel vibration? I can see why Duckbacker would need an isolation pad, being on the second floor ... bass vibration might move a wood floor, rolling like ocean waves, like water off a duck's back. I have that, even with a strong wood floor, and with some Stonehenge-like lintels pushing up against the oversized floor joists (going across them) as recommended by the old *Stereo Review *_(sic transit gloria) _at the dawn of the home theater epoch. I rather like it though, because it helps make my couch get airborne.
> 
> 
> 
> Two things that *might* reduce slam sometimes can be caused by the same thing (a pad that is too thick or one that is too soft, or both)*:*
> 
> 
> A pad that the bass "sees" as a _*cavity*_, because it is not dense enough, and one that interferes with the bass using the floor reflection because it is too thick, moving the sub too far from the floor. The sub uses the bass reflection from the floor (it ignores the rug) to reinforce the deep bass. I strongly doubt that this would affect your slam, since I can hardly imagine the 1.75" thickness being enough to cause this deterioration. Yet, I once had a big JBL sitting on a wood floor in my teen hobby beleaguered parents' house. I put an ordinary foam pad under it, and much of the slam and the lowest bass went away (this speaker only reached to about 40 Hz, but the difference was clearly audible, even with that high a cutoff). When I took the foam out, the bass came back. [Even stand mounted speakers might suffer from this (because of the cavity), but most manufacturers increase the low bass response of their woofers to make up for this, perhaps sometimes at the cost of more modulation distortion. Or, they simply specify that the stand speaker needs to be used with a sub, and should crossover at about X Hz. This is one of the great things Audyssey does for us, by measuring the actual F3 of our speakers, in their location, on a stand or not.]
> The sub rocking back and forth with the bass, because the pad is not firm enough. I've heard people debate whether too resilient a rug can cause this problem.
> Does the buzzing come through the sub, or does it come from the cables themselves, detectable if you put your ear down to them? That would be a good one!


I was hesitant to buy the Subdudes years ago since I was in the basement but my ex hated the bass. Things would rattle upstairs. I didn’t think they would help but they actually did quite a bit. I don’t actually care about the rattling now since my wife is always with me in our theatre room watching together. I wasn’t thrilled with the Subdudes and not thrilled without so I thought why not try something else and the SoundPath seems to have done the trick. Bass is tighter and the shaking is back in my room which I missed. I can feel it more in my couch which I appreciate. It’s not a night and day change no but there is a noticeable difference. I’m pleased.

The buzzing is coming from one sub. My current cable is definitely looser than the other. They are also touching some of my other wires. It’s definitely a wire issue.


----------



## rosstg

I decided to make some other changes in my room and rerun Audyssey using the app. My sub cables will be in Monday but thought a test run before my final calibration would be a good idea. The changes I made was moving my sofa table behind my couch a few feet. Previously the table was right behind the sectional with my rear speakers on them, just a foot away. Not optimal so I’m glad I moved it back. This also allows me to follow Audyssey’s recommendation for mic placement. I also used my new mic stand for the first time and new SVS Isolation System. Mic positions 1,2 & 3 were done 2 ft exactly apart. 4,5,6 were the same as 123 but 1 ft towards the seat, so exact same positions just deeper in my couch. 7,8 were slighting behind the couch like what Audyssey recommends about 1.5 from position 1. I have 4 large throw pillows and 2 throw blankets on my sectional that I have always had to remove due to using the tripod. I decided to leave them on the couch. I also didn’t toe my mains in as much as I normally do because the wife and I often sit on each corner. I am really surprised how differently things turned out. Not just in trims but in the sound. Before using my subs on the Subsudes I had to turn my subs much lower than 12 o’clock. About 10 oclock. This would always give me -3 trims in my AVR. I think I had to turn each sub down just 2 clicks. Trim on sub 1 is -7.5, trim sub 2 is -4.5 (sub one is closer to a corner). My mains and Center were always set at -5. Always. Now they are -3.5 and -4.5. My Atmos modules usually around +1.5 now +2.5.

Now for the sound difference. I notice a massive difference in my subs after calibration. They sound fuller and more nuanced. I can’t wait for my new cables to come in. It’s amazing what the isolation system has done. Much better than the Auralex risers. I can feel the bass in my couch now. The subwoofer before and after results from the app is the biggest difference. I had a very big dip around 70hz and 90hz that is almost completely flat now. Bass really hits much harder now. I’m amazed. The sound I’m getting from my speakers is excellent. My Center channel sounds much better with clearer vocals and it’s also not being drowned out by the bass and surrounds. I left it full range using the Reference 1. MRC OFF, DEQ is back on. I’ll have to spend some time listening this weekend and of course another calibration after my cables arrive Monday but I think I’m back in love with Audyssey full range and DEQ. I think the mic stand and closer positions really helped. Also the cushions likely helped dampen the sound more.


----------



## audiofan1

rosstg said:


> I decided to make some other changes in my room and rerun Audyssey using the app. My sub cables will be in Monday but thought a test run before my final calibration would be a good idea. The changes I made was moving my sofa table behind my couch a few feet. Previously the table was right behind the sectional with my rear speakers on them, just a foot away. Not optimal so I’m glad I moved it back. This also allows me to follow Audyssey’s recommendation for mic placement. I also used my new mic stand for the first time and new SVS Isolation System. Mic positions 1,2 & 3 were done 2 ft exactly apart. 4,5,6 were the same as 123 but 1 ft towards the seat, so exact same positions just deeper in my couch. 7,8 were slighting behind the couch like what Audyssey recommends about 1.5 from position 1. I have 4 large throw pillows and 2 throw blankets on my sectional that I have always had to remove due to using the tripod. I decided to leave them on the couch. I also didn’t toe my mains in as much as I normally do because the wife and I often sit on each corner. I am really surprised how differently things turned out. Not just in trims but in the sound. Before using my subs on the Subsudes I had to turn my subs much lower than 12 o’clock. About 10 oclock. This would always give me -3 trims in my AVR. I think I had to turn each sub down just 2 clicks. Trim on sub 1 is -7.5, trim sub 2 is -4.5 (sub one is closer to a corner). My mains and Center were always set at -5. Always. Now they are -3.5 and -4.5. My Atmos modules usually around +1.5 now +2.5.
> 
> Now for the sound difference. I notice a massive difference in my subs after calibration. They sound fuller and more nuanced. I can’t wait for my new cables to come in. It’s amazing what the isolation system has done. Much better than the Auralex risers. I can feel the bass in my couch now. The subwoofer before and after results from the app is the biggest difference. I had a very big dip around 70hz and 90hz that is almost completely flat now. Bass really hits much harder now. I’m amazed. The sound I’m getting from my speakers is excellent. My Center channel sounds much better with clearer vocals and it’s also not being drowned out by the bass and surrounds. I left it full range using the Reference 1. MRC OFF, DEQ is back on. I’ll have to spend some time listening this weekend and of course another calibration after my cables arrive Monday but I think I’m back in love with Audyssey full range and DEQ. I think the mic stand and closer positions really helped. Also the cushions likely helped dampen the sound more.


After many runs of Audyssey over the years using just about every configuration recommended, I've always found what many consider the throw away position (7&8) behind the couch (just about 18" from your head on each side) to give results far better than without and for some of the reasons you noted


----------



## rosstg

audiofan1 said:


> After many runs of Audyssey over the years using just about every configuration recommended, I've always found what many consider the throw away position (7&8) behind the couch (just about 18" from your head on each side) to give results far better than without and for some of the reasons you noted


Yep. Dialogue sounds absolutely fantastic and natural now. Really glad I made some changes.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> I decided to make some other changes in my room and rerun Audyssey using the app. My sub cables will be in Monday but thought a test run before my final calibration would be a good idea. The changes I made was moving my sofa table behind my couch a few feet. Previously the table was right behind the sectional with my rear speakers on them, just a foot away. Not optimal so I’m glad I moved it back. This also allows me to follow Audyssey’s recommendation for mic placement. I also used my new mic stand for the first time and new SVS Isolation System. Mic positions 1,2 & 3 were done 2 ft exactly apart. 4,5,6 were the same as 123 but 1 ft towards the seat, so exact same positions just deeper in my couch. 7,8 were slighting behind the couch like what Audyssey recommends about 1.5 from position 1. I have 4 large throw pillows and 2 throw blankets on my sectional that I have always had to remove due to using the tripod. I decided to leave them on the couch. I also didn’t toe my mains in as much as I normally do because the wife and I often sit on each corner. I am really surprised how differently things turned out. Not just in trims but in the sound. Before using my subs on the Subsudes I had to turn my subs much lower than 12 o’clock. About 10 oclock. This would always give me -3 trims in my AVR. I think I had to turn each sub down just 2 clicks. Trim on sub 1 is -7.5, trim sub 2 is -4.5 (sub one is closer to a corner). My mains and Center were always set at -5. Always. Now they are -3.5 and -4.5. My Atmos modules usually around +1.5 now +2.5.
> 
> 
> 
> Now for the sound difference. I notice a massive difference in my subs after calibration. They sound fuller and more nuanced. I can’t wait for my new cables to come in. It’s amazing what the isolation system has done. Much better than the Auralex risers. I can feel the bass in my couch now. The subwoofer before and after results from the app is the biggest difference. I had a very big dip around 70hz and 90hz that is almost completely flat now. Bass really hits much harder now. I’m amazed. The sound I’m getting from my speakers is excellent. My Center channel sounds much better with clearer vocals and it’s also not being drowned out by the bass and surrounds. I left it full range using the Reference 1. MRC OFF, DEQ is back on. I’ll have to spend some time listening this weekend and of course another calibration after my cables arrive Monday but I think I’m back in love with Audyssey full range and DEQ. I think the mic stand and closer positions really helped. Also the cushions likely helped dampen the sound more.


The endless cycle continues 

I'm still testing various scenarios but sticking 1-2 weeks with each so I can cover various content (I'm only movies and gaming, almost no music).


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> The endless cycle continues
> 
> I'm still testing various scenarios but sticking 1-2 weeks with each so I can cover various content (I'm only movies and gaming, almost no music).


That’s what I try and do. No music in my room either.


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> The endless cycle continues
> 
> I'm still testing various scenarios but sticking 1-2 weeks with each ...





rosstg said:


> That’s what I try and do. No music in my room either.



My endless cycle for the *basic *set-up lasted about 3 or 4 years, with a tweak or two later. 

Now, when I am familiar with a *movie*, I may slightly adjust the EQ, especially if we are expecting guests who haven't seen it. The latest were the new A Star is Born, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Jersey Boys. All had better sound, IMO, when I finished EQing them. If you notice a pattern, yes, anything that features a lot of music probably gets individualized EQing after the initial viewing, before running them for company. Some require just a touch, like Amadeus and Shakespeare in Love. Others, that had marvelous scores, and great, exemplary sound in their road show, often 70 mm/6 channel or Cinerama theatrical presentations, sometimes benefit from painstaking EQ, to make them -- in my judgement -- sound like they did in the theater (of course, those listed below were before the X curve, had magnetic soundtracks, and were voiced in the theater). It is likely that few, if any, of the people mixing for the Blu-ray versions experienced these films in the theater, with the original studio adjusted sound, with fine tuning charted for audience size; many times the SPL was what one would expect from a very large full orchestra. Indeed, the soundtrack orchestra was usually much bigger than a Broadway orchestra -- and sounded like it -- reaching a maximum, AFAIK, of 114 pieces. These films include How the West Was Won, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur(1959), and Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version only!). The EQ often includes changing my usual Audyssey Flat to Audyssey Reference, in order to pull down the slightly distorted sound above 10K because the best mid/high frequency theater speakers of those days (e.g., the JBL 375 driver with appropriate horn) dropped like a rock just above10K, so the original mixers probably didn't know the distortion was there. Unfortunately, some later films are hopeless, like Maurice Jarre's magnificent The Man Who Would Be King (the Lp was fine, and it was fantastic in the theater). Last, but hardly least, Citizen Kane's mono optical track needs Audyssey Reference's roll-off to take a little of the stridency out of Bernard Herrmann's wonderful end music.


For *music *listening, many of my disks have a label on the jewel cases with the EQ formula written on it. It's great to find a disk I had dismissed before room treatment and Audyssey, that now sounds good!


So the road goes ever on!


----------



## rosstg

garygarrison said:


> My endless cycle for the *basic *set-up lasted about 3 or 4 years, with a tweak or two later.
> 
> Now, when I am familiar with a *movie*, I may slightly adjust the EQ, especially if we are expecting guests who haven't seen it. The latest were the new A Star is Born, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Jersey Boys. All had better sound, IMO, when I finished EQing them. If you notice a pattern, yes, anything that features a lot of music probably gets individualized EQing after the initial viewing, before running them for company. Some require just a touch, like Amadeus and Shakespeare in Love. Others, that had marvelous scores, and great, exemplary sound in their road show, often 70 mm/6 channel or Cinerama theatrical presentations, sometimes benefit from painstaking EQ, to make them -- in my judgement -- sound like they did in the theater (of course, those listed below were before the X curve, had magnetic soundtracks, and were voiced in the theater). It is likely that few, if any, of the people mixing for the Blu-ray versions experienced these films in the theater, with the original studio adjusted sound, with fine tuning charted for audience size; many times the SPL was what one would expect from a very large full orchestra. Indeed, the soundtrack orchestra was usually much bigger than a Broadway orchestra -- and sounded like it -- reaching a maximum, AFAIK, of 114 pieces. These films include How the West Was Won, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur(1959), and Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version only!). The EQ often includes changing my usual Audyssey Flat to Audyssey Reference, in order to pull down the slightly distorted sound above 10K because the best mid/high frequency theater speakers of those days (e.g., the JBL 375 driver with appropriate horn) dropped like a rock just above10K, so the original mixers probably didn't know the distortion was there. Unfortunately, some later films are hopeless, like Maurice Jarre's magnificent The Man Who Would Be King (the Lp was fine, and it was fantastic in the theater). Last, but hardly least, Citizen Kane's mono optical track needs Audyssey Reference's roll-off to take a little of the stridency out of Bernard Herrmann's wonderful end music.
> 
> 
> For *music *listening, many of my disks have a label on the jewel cases with the EQ formula written on it. It's great to find a disk I had dismissed before room treatment and Audyssey, that now sounds good!
> 
> 
> So the road goes ever on!


That is a lot of tweaking! I respect it. 

I’ve started to appreciate the more natural sound of Reference lately, even on both newer and older mixes. When I was younger (I’m 39 soon) I enjoyed a brighter sound. My room is primarily for tv, movies and gaming and everything seems to sound great. I used Flat EQ’s for the last 10 years and it just doesn’t sound natural to me anymore. Voices in particular stand out. I never liked the Reference curve because of the MRC. Now that I can disable it I prefer it. A Star is Born sounded fantastic in Reference with DEQ on in my room.


----------



## confinoj

I’ve been experimenting with DEQ on/off, RLO, and surround trims. I know DEQ boosts side/rear surrounds about 1db per 5db below reference. I can’t find any info if rear heights also get boosted. Anybody know? It seems like they are but not positive.


----------



## mthomas47

confinoj said:


> I’ve been experimenting with DEQ on/off, RLO, and surround trims. I know DEQ boosts side/rear surrounds about 1db per 5db below reference. I can’t find any info if rear heights also get boosted. Anybody know? It seems like they are but not positive.




Hi,

If I were you, I would either contact Audyssey directly for information on that, or conduct some independent measurements to determine it for yourself. It should be fairly straightforward to measure the SPL of one of the height speakers, with DEQ on, and with DEQ off, to see if the volume changes. In the past, I have heard that height and Atmos channels are not boosted by DEQ, but that is anecdotal, and I don't know if it is correct.


One of the things that strikes me about much of the recent discussion of DEQ (and this is not directed specifically to your post) is that people seem to be looking for some sort of universal settings which will make everything sound good to them. If we could somehow understand exactly how DEQ works, and exactly what the Reference curve does, we would know whether we *should* actually prefer them or not.

I absolutely want to understand how things work. The Guide is predicated upon the importance of that. But, I personally make a clear distinction between trying to understand the concept behind a software program, or a particular setting, and my application of that program or setting. I can understand and respect the principle of something without actually liking the way it sounds in my room, with my speakers/subwoofers, and for some specific listening material. 

I have been wanting to say something about this lately, and your post just provided the right opportunity. If we are all trying to find the universally perfect combination of settings, or to reach consensus on what sounds best, we are doomed to fail. Our rooms, systems, and above all, our preferences, are just too individualistic for that. The best we can do is to suggest alternatives to each other that we can explore. But ultimately, it will be our own hearing, and our own preferences, which determine what we actually like when we try various combinations of settings, and that most emphatically includes DEQ. (We can also like one aspect of DEQ and not another, and make choices in its use on a program-by-program and day-to-day basis.)

I think that the greatest favor we can do each other, other than to provide information on how things work, and on alternatives to try, is to encourage each other to simply like what we like. We would know to try to support each other's individual preferences with respect to movies, music, art, speakers, subwoofers, etc. And, we wouldn't expect to reach any kind of universal consensus on those preferences. I think that we should treat software programs and settings the same way. There!  I'm glad I found a good opportunity to say all of that. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I were you, I would either contact Audyssey directly for information on that, or conduct some independent measurements to determine it for yourself. It should be fairly straightforward to measure the SPL of one of the height speakers, with DEQ on, and with DEQ off, to see if the volume changes. In the past, I have heard that height and Atmos channels are not boosted by DEQ, but that is anecdotal, and I don't know if it is correct.
> 
> 
> One of the things that strikes me about much of the recent discussion of DEQ (and this is not directed specifically to your post) is that people seem to be looking for some sort of universal settings which will make everything sound good to them. If we could somehow understand exactly how DEQ works, and exactly what the Reference curve does, we would know whether we *should* actually prefer them or not.
> 
> I absolutely want to understand how things work. The Guide is predicated upon the importance of that. But, I personally make a clear distinction between trying to understand the concept behind a software program, or a particular setting, and my application of that program or setting. I can understand and respect the principle of something without actually liking the way it sounds in my room, with my speakers/subwoofers, and for some specific listening material.
> 
> I have been wanting to say something about this lately, and your post just provided the right opportunity. If we are all trying to find the universally perfect combination of settings, or to reach consensus on what sounds best, we are doomed to fail. Our rooms, systems, and above all, our preferences, are just too individualistic for that. The best we can do is to suggest alternatives to each other that we can explore. But ultimately, it will be our own hearing, and our own preferences, which determine what we actually like when we try various combinations of settings, and that most emphatically includes DEQ. (We can also like one aspect of DEQ and not another, and make choices in its use on a program-by-program and day-to-day basis.)
> 
> I think that the greatest favor we can do each other, other than to provide information on how things work, and on alternatives to try, is to encourage each other to simply like what we like. We would know to try to support each other's individual preferences with respect to movies, music, art, speakers, subwoofers, etc. And, we wouldn't expect to reach any kind of universal consensus on those preferences. I think that we should treat software programs and settings the same way. There!  I'm glad I found a good opportunity to say all of that.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



A really excellent post Mike! Thank you.


If I may, I'd like to put down a couple of more thoughts on DEQ as follows:


1. DEQ is not part of room correction, it has nothing to do with speaker-room interaction, speaker placement, speaker toe-in, center speaker tilting to face seated ear height, etc. I think this must be emphasized and made clear before we can move on in order to boil down the aspects of what DEQ is for.


2. DEQ is a tool made to compensate for the peculiar characteristics of our human ears as a function of Master Volume. Real world does not need DEQ! But then came man who invented the Volume Control and that was the start where things simply went wrong. The more we turn down the MV on our AVR the narrower the spectral balance will become. In other words our ears will gradually loose bass and highs the more we turn down MV. Put an amplifier outside and the phenomenon will work the same!


3. Before evaluating and making conclusions on DEQ (whether to use it or not) I would recommend to all those who show interest to study the way our human ears work. Fletcher and Munson (two engineers) at Bell Labs made the initial experiments back in the 1930's, but we have come a long way ever since on understanding what "loudness compensation" really means. 



Thanks for your attention.


----------



## Bghead8che

*Setting subwoofer phase correctly...*

I have a single sub and want to make sure I set the phase setting correctly on the subwoofer. Should I set the phase to zero and then run Audyssey? Or should I measure my mains and subwoofer together at different phase settings to find the best response and then run Audyssey? For example, say 180 phase results in the flattest response in my room. Should I leave it at 180 and run Audyssey or should I put it to zero and run Audyssey?

Also, I've found that the flattest response in my room is against the wall directly opposite my listening position. This puts the sub near the rear of the room and only 6 feet from my MLP. I've read that this can cause localization, phase, and timing issues. Am I better off putting the sub in the front by the main speakers even though the response is not near as flat?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## garygarrison

Bghead8che said:


> I have a single sub and want to make sure I set the phase setting correctly on the subwoofer. Should I set the phase to zero and then run Audyssey? Or should I measure my mains and subwoofer together at different phase settings to find the best response and then run Audyssey? For example, say 180 phase results in the flattest response in my room. Should I leave it at 180 and run Audyssey or should I put it to zero and run Audyssey?
> 
> Also, I've found that the flattest response in my room is against the wall directly opposite my listening position. This puts the sub near the rear of the room and only 6 feet from my MLP. I've read that this can cause localization, phase, and timing issues. Am I better off putting the sub in the front by the main speakers even though the response is not near as flat?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


Someone will answer the phase question more completely, but I think I remember Chris K. of Audyssey suggesting just setting the phase to 0, and letting Audyssey do the rest of the work. If your phase control is just a 2 position switch, I think that means it just sets polarity, rather than the more complex matter of phase over the full range of your sub. I vaguely remember Chris K. implying that Audyssey would take care of the whole sub range, unlike the switch. 

Setting all the main speakers to "small," as Audyssey suggests, may help avoid phase cancellation problems. 

Confusing Polarity and Phase*: *https://www.prosoundweb.com/channels/church/confusing-phase-and-polarity/

I'd go for the flat response and take advantage of placing the sub against the wall. You could try a sub crawl, but make sure nobody is watching.

If by "localization issues" you mean that the illusion of the deep bass coming from various different places in the sound field will be lost, I'd say that probably won't happen if your crossover to the sub is 80 Hz or lower (you should only set it there if Audyssey recommends a crossover of 80 or lower). The common wisdom is that bass is non-directional below 80 Hz. The placement of bass is usually governed by the main speakers. If the bass drum is off to the right, the higher frequencies in the drum beat will come through the main speakers, say at 1/3 of the way between the center and the far right, and that should determine where it seems to be coming from. The deep drum resonance is non-directional so, even though it is coming from the sub, it will seem to come from the same place as the upper end of the beat. Bass drums are often thought of as being about 60 Hz, but in point of fact, the leading edge of the "splat" attack of beater against drum head is much higher, extending up as far as 16K Hz (albeit at lower SPL than that of the major part of the drumbeat). In addition, there is plenty of drum sound between 80 and 200 Hz, or so, to localize the drum, without the help of the abundant frequencies below 80 Hz, which are non-directional. The same is true of explosions, etc.

There is a marvelous three dimensional graph of the frequencies, duration, and SPL of kick drum beats here: 
http://www.moultonlabs.com/gallery/image_full/113/

Once in a while people can pinpoint the position of the sub, even if set at 80, if the wall, or other objects near the sub, are resonating or rattling, saying "look over here." Seeing the sub doesn't help, so, if everything else is equal, it may be best to put the sub out of sight. Or not. 

See Mike's guide: GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES


----------



## mthomas47

Bghead8che said:


> I have a single sub and want to make sure I set the phase setting correctly on the subwoofer. Should I set the phase to zero and then run Audyssey? Or should I measure my mains and subwoofer together at different phase settings to find the best response and then run Audyssey? For example, say 180 phase results in the flattest response in my room. Should I leave it at 180 and run Audyssey or should I put it to zero and run Audyssey?
> 
> Also, I've found that the flattest response in my room is against the wall directly opposite my listening position. This puts the sub near the rear of the room and only 6 feet from my MLP. I've read that this can cause localization, phase, and timing issues. Am I better off putting the sub in the front by the main speakers even though the response is not near as flat?
> 
> Thanks in advance!




Gary gave you an outstanding explanation of localization! His music examples were spot-on, in my opinion. Depending on the specific individual, there may be some other factors in play, however, especially involving the low-bass special effects in movies. For instance, where people are able to localize a subwoofer, even with an 80Hz crossover, it could be the LFE channel (which has content up to 120Hz) that he notices, or it may be tactile sensations, produced by the subwoofer, which give cues to its location. But, whether these factors (or others) would be an issue in your situation, can only be determined by trying the subwoofer in the proposed location. 

I agree with Gary that you should give the best frequency response a try first. Only if subwoofer localization proves to be a significant problem would I want to compromise the inherent sound quality, with random peaks and dips in bass frequencies. One addition to the points made above involve the amount of subwoofer boost you are using, and whether or not the sub is ported. I believe that a low-tuned ported sub, with a lot of boost applied, is more likely to be noticeable, both with respect to LFE content in 5.1 movies, and with respect to tactile response. (Ported subs produce more low-bass TR than comparable sealed subs, and proximity is a factor in the intensity of the sensations we feel.)

So, I would start with the sub 6' behind you, if that's your best location, and see what you think. I would also set the phase at 0 before running Audyssey. After running Audyssey, if you determine that you are experiencing cancellation at the crossover to the mains (for music) or at the center channel (for movies) you can adjust either phase or distance in an effort to minimize the cancellation, or to move the area of cancellation further up into the range played by the speakers. 

Depending on the width of the cancellation, you might never be aware of it, anyway. Relatively narrow areas of cancellation are not really changing what we hear, due to the harmonics that Gary described earlier, and due to the octave-width of frequencies played by subwoofers. For instance, using the 8-note octave scale, each note between 80Hz and 40Hz is 5Hz wide. Wider areas of cancellation can result in audibly missing bass, but I think that narrow ones would be very difficult to notice, even if you did before-and-after listening tests.

The Guide, that Gary mentioned, may be helpful in answering other questions you have, related to your subwoofer, or to Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Bghead8che

mthomas47 said:


> Gary gave you an outstanding explanation of localization! His music examples were spot-on, in my opinion. Depending on the specific individual, there may be some other factors in play, however, especially involving the low-bass special effects in movies. For instance, where people are able to localize a subwoofer, even with an 80Hz crossover, it could be the LFE channel (which has content up to 120Hz) that he notices, or it may be tactile sensations, produced by the subwoofer, which give cues to its location. But, whether these factors (or others) would be an issue in your situation, can only be determined by trying the subwoofer in the proposed location.
> 
> I agree with Gary that you should give the best frequency response a try first. Only if subwoofer localization proves to be a significant problem would I want to compromise the inherent sound quality, with random peaks and dips in bass frequencies. One addition to the points made above involve the amount of subwoofer boost you are using, and whether or not the sub is ported. I believe that a low-tuned ported sub, with a lot of boost applied, is more likely to be noticeable, both with respect to LFE content in 5.1 movies, and with respect to tactile response. (Ported subs produce more low-bass TR than comparable sealed subs, and proximity is a factor in the intensity of the sensations we feel.)
> 
> So, I would start with the sub 6' behind you, if that's your best location, and see what you think. I would also set the phase at 0 before running Audyssey. After running Audyssey, if you determine that you are experiencing cancellation at the crossover to the mains (for music) or at the center channel (for movies) you can adjust either phase or distance in an effort to minimize the cancellation, or to move the area of cancellation further up into the range played by the speakers.
> 
> Depending on the width of the cancellation, you might never be aware of it, anyway. Relatively narrow areas of cancellation are not really changing what we hear, due to the harmonics that Gary described earlier, and due to the octave-width of frequencies played by subwoofers. For instance, using the 8-note octave scale, each note between 80Hz and 40Hz is 5Hz wide. Wider areas of cancellation can result in audibly missing bass, but I think that narrow ones would be very difficult to notice, even if you did before-and-after listening tests.
> 
> The Guide, that Gary mentioned, may be helpful in answering other questions you have, related to your subwoofer, or to Audyssey.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks so much Gary and Mike. Talk about informative answers!


----------



## Trell

Am I correct to assume that all development of Audyssey XT32 has been stopped, part from the app? To be honest, I can't recall any new development the last few years being advertised. The old audyssey.com site had useful information while the new one is just marketing fluff with no information of value.


----------



## FlavioWolff

just wanted to share with you guys the response I obtained from Audyssey's support team, regarding whether we should calibrate with windows/doors open or closed, when our listening is mostly done with windows open. I had this doubt because many manuals instruct us to close all windows.

_Q: Hello,
It's common recommendation to close windows and doors during calibration, to further reduce any background noise. However, my standard listening condition is with all windows and some doors open. In such situation, should I still close them while calibrating? Wouldnt't it calibrate my room to a different listening situation?
Thank you!

R: Hello,

The calibration is fairly noise resistant, there are a lot of chirps per position and many positions that cause anomalies that happened during a single chirp in a single position to have very little affect on the results.
Measure the way the room is used when watching movies.

The only exception to this would be if there is a constant louder than chirp noise intrusion that makes calibration not possible. Then you would need to make temporary changes (close door/window) to limit intruding noise.

Kind regards,
Audyssey Support_


This may seem obvious for some people, but it has always bugged me, mostly because "closing all windows" is recommended by the AVR manual.

I humbly suggest that this info is added to the Audyssey 101, in the furniture/background noise section.

Thanks


----------



## rosstg

Trell said:


> Am I correct to assume that all development of Audyssey XT32 has been stopped, part from the app? To be honest, I can't recall any new development the last few years being advertised. The old audyssey.com site had useful information while the new one is just marketing fluff with no information of value.


The app was introduced that allows customization. I’m not really sure what more Audyssey could add. It’s still considered to be one of the best room correction technologies. Dirac seems to be the industry’s darling now but it’s not cheap and you need a computer to run it. Most folks aren’t really interested in that much tweaking, they are really focusing on a different demographic. The default Dirac curve is very similar to the reference curve, most users edit to suit their room which Audyssey now allows. I was looking my at Dirac and NAD but the 758 runs $1,600 plus the cost to run another amp for my heights. It also lacks Dual sub EQ and no DTS X. Big deal breakers for me. For the general room corrections Audyssey is still the front runner especially now that users can limit how EQ is applied.


----------



## pbz06

Any word on when the app will be updated to not roll off the subs at 20hz? I really dig the customization options and the ability to run multiple instances and upload the one you want.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Any word on when the app will be updated to not roll off the subs at 20hz? I really dig the customization options and the ability to run multiple instances and upload the one you want.


The rep from Audyssey said very soon, made a point to say not this month but soon. I get the feeling it will come in April. That feature seems to be in high demand. I myself can’t wait for it. Using the AVR isn’t an option, it sets my subs too low. The app sets them perfectly.


----------



## Trell

rosstg said:


> The app was introduced that allows customization. I’m not really sure what more Audyssey could add. It’s still considered to be one of the best room correction technologies. Dirac seems to be the industry’s darling now but it’s not cheap and you need a computer to run it. Most folks aren’t really interested in that much tweaking, they are really focusing on a different demographic. The default Dirac curve is very similar to the reference curve, most users edit to suit their room which Audyssey now allows. I was looking my at Dirac and NAD but the 758 runs $1,600 plus the cost to run another amp for my heights. It also lacks Dual sub EQ and no DTS. I also don’t think I can live without DEQ which has been a saviour to me. Big deal breakers for me. For the general room corrections Audyssey is still the front runner IMO.


Sure, I really like DEQ and Dual sub EQ, but it's not like there are not room for improvements.


----------



## rosstg

Trell said:


> Sure, I really like DEQ and Dual sub EQ, but it's not like there are not room for improvements.


I doubt they will be making anymore improvements. As you said their website has shifted away from what it was. I think this is why D&M have made the app. They likely want to compete against the audiophile brands and EQ’s like NAD, Anthem etc. Room EQ isn’t that old and already many people want to avoid it limiting correction to lower frequencies. ARC only EQ’s up to 5khz and the entry level Dirac 500hz. Most of the newer reviews for D&M AVR’s prefer limiting EQ and are praising the app for it. Most people buying AVR’s plug in the mic, run EQ and call it a day. I know a few people that have spent a lot more on their gear than I have and they have no interest in using the app to customize.


----------



## LRZNole

This might be a silly question but I just added an area rug to my living room. The existing floor is a reflective laminate. Would I want to rerun Audyssey? If so what might change?


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> This might be a silly question but I just added an area rug to my living room. The existing floor is a reflective laminate. Would I want to rerun Audyssey? If so what might change?


Absolutely, yes.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might be a silly question but I just added an area rug to my living room. The existing floor is a reflective laminate. Would I want to rerun Audyssey? If so what might change?
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, yes.
Click to expand...

Thanks another quick question. My center speaker does not match my fronts and rears. Audyssey sets the crossover for the fronts and tears at 120Hz but only 60Hz for the center. In the past I have moved the center up to 100Hz but would moving it to 120Hz better match everything? Not even sure if this matters or not.


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> Thanks another quick question. My center speaker does not match my fronts and rears. Audyssey sets the crossover for the fronts and tears at 120Hz but only 60Hz for the center. In the past I have moved the center up to 100Hz but would moving it to 120Hz better match everything? Not even sure if this matters or not.


You can raise it. Audyssey reads my center ar 40hz. I find 100hz best in my room, 80hz is also okay but I have a tiny dip at 80hz on my subs so 100hz is better in my room. 120hz seems high.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks another quick question. My center speaker does not match my fronts and rears. Audyssey sets the crossover for the fronts and tears at 120Hz but only 60Hz for the center. In the past I have moved the center up to 100Hz but would moving it to 120Hz better match everything? Not even sure if this matters or not.
> 
> 
> 
> You can raise it. Audyssey reads my center ar 40hz. I find 100hz best in my room, 80hz is also okay but I have a tiny dip at 80hz on my subs so 100hz is better in my room. 120hz seems high.
Click to expand...

Moved it to 100 like I had been previously. Thanks!


----------



## David Aiken

LRZNole said:


> This might be a silly question but I just added an area rug to my living room. The existing floor is a reflective laminate. Would I want to rerun Audyssey? If so what might change?


Yes, no, maybe.

Have you listened to something after adding the rug but without doing a new calibration? If you have, did you like the change the rug made to the sound, provided you noticed a change, or did you prefer the sound you were used to without the rug? If you liked the sound with the rug or if you didn't notice a difference then I wouldn't recalibrate, If you preferred the sound you were previously getting then I would recalibrate


There are reasons for my recommendation.

For a start the difference the rug will make depends on 2 things. The first is what the rug is made of. If it's wool it's going to be more absorptive than if it's a polypropylene or other synthetic rug. Not all rugs are created equal when it comes to absorption/teflection and qn absorptive rug on a reflective laminate surface is going to change the acoustics of the room more than a less absorptive, more reflective rug on the same surface. Other factors like thickness and construction of the rug also come into play.

The second factor is where the rug is placed. If it is placed between you and the front speakers it's going to affect some first reflections from the floor and that will make a difference. If it's placed somewhere else where it's effect is going to be on later arriving reflections rather than first reflections, then the effect of the rug is going to be reduced.

In the end, the effect of the rug could range from quite noticeable to barely noticeable or unnoticeable depending on its nature and placement. If you don't notice a difference it could well be because the rug simply isn't making a significant difference in which case there's really no need to recalibrate.

There's another thing to consider if you hear a difference. Audyssey aims to deliver a specific result but not everyone likes that result and not everyone who likes it likes it to the same degree. If you hear a difference then the question is whether you like that difference or prefer the sound the way it was. If you like the difference then I wouldn't recalibrate because the result of the recalibration is going to be something very close to the way things sounded before you added the rug so you're going to lose something you like about the sound you get with the rug. If you prefer the way things sounded before adding the rug then recalibrating should get you back to that sound. In the end the aim is to get things sounding a way you like and not everyone likes exactly the same result. Audyssey aims to deliver a result it has found that a lot of people like but it doesn't come with a guarantee that it will be a result that you personally like. If the rug makes things sound better for you with the calibration you had previously then I'd keep that calibration simply because you like what the rug adds to the sound with that calibration.

In theory you should always recalibrate after making a change to the room but in practice you may not want to. Definitely recalibrate if you can hear a difference and don't like it. I wouldn't recalibrate if I can't hear a difference or if I could hear a difference and liked it. In the end it's up to you.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks another quick question. My center speaker does not match my fronts and rears. Audyssey sets the crossover for the fronts and tears at 120Hz but only 60Hz for the center. In the past I have moved the center up to 100Hz but would moving it to 120Hz better match everything? Not even sure if this matters or not.
> 
> 
> 
> You can raise it. Audyssey reads my center ar 40hz. I find 100hz best in my room, 80hz is also okay but I have a tiny dip at 80hz on my subs so 100hz is better in my room. 120hz seems high.
Click to expand...

Strange question pre-area rug my fronts and rears would get a 120Hz crossover from Audyssey. Post-area rug my rears stayed the same but my fronts are now 150Hz. I ran it like 4-5 times and it was the same. Any idea why that might happen?


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> Strange question pre-area rug my fronts and rears would get a 120Hz crossover from Audyssey. Post-area rug my rears stayed the same but my fronts are now 150Hz. I ran it like 4-5 times and it was the same. Any idea why that might happen?


My guess is the reflections were really colouring the sound. I would leave the crossover as Audyssey sets. I have the exact same speakers for surround and surround rears. My surrounds are on walls and my rears n a sofa table. My surrounds are set at 80hz, my rears 150hz. Different positions different readings.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange question pre-area rug my fronts and rears would get a 120Hz crossover from Audyssey. Post-area rug my rears stayed the same but my fronts are now 150Hz. I ran it like 4-5 times and it was the same. Any idea why that might happen?
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is the reflections were really colouring the sound. I would leave the crossover as Audyssey sets. I have the exact same speakers for surround and surround rears. My surrounds are on walls and my rears n a sofa table. My surrounds are set at 80hz, my rears 150hz. Different positions different readings.
Click to expand...

You have the KEF T301s and T101s? Have you added any front heights? I am thinking about adding a pair of KEF Q50a.


----------



## rosstg

LRZNole said:


> You have the KEF T301s and T101s? Have you added any front heights? I am thinking about adding a pair of KEF Q50a.


No I have Klipsch Reference Premieres. I was saying my surrounds and surround rears are the same models and I get very different results.


----------



## LRZNole

rosstg said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the KEF T301s and T101s? Have you added any front heights? I am thinking about adding a pair of KEF Q50a.
> 
> 
> 
> No I have Klipsch Reference Premieres. I was saying my surrounds and surround rears are the same models and I get very different results.
Click to expand...

Got ya, thanks!


----------



## mogorf

According to reliable sources Denon (and Marantz to follow soon) will launch a new series of AVRs in 2019 with the renewed Audyssey MultEQ editor software in order to introduce a new concept for room correction systems designed and developed jointly with Audyssey Labs.


The most interesting part will be the new measurement microphone combo (5 mics) that will not only use sophisticated algorithms for EQ’ing listening spaces (no leaks on details, yet), but will also be able to localize speaker positions when ideal placement is hard to achieve, furthermore it will introduce detection and compensation of in-room early reflections for a multi-seater arrangement for the first time in history making it possible to optimize spatial accuracy. This means from now on any seat can be called MLP and via the editor it can be easily changed on the fly.

Let’s stay tuned for the official announcement.


----------



## rosstg

mogorf said:


> According to reliable sources Denon (and Marantz to follow soon) will launch a new series of AVRs in 2019 with the renewed Audyssey MultEQ editor software in order to introduce a new concept for room correction systems designed and developed jointly with Audyssey Labs.
> 
> 
> The most interesting part will be the new measurement microphone combo (5 mics) that will not only use sophisticated algorithms for EQ’ing listening spaces (no leaks on details, yet), but will also be able to localize speaker positions when ideal placement is hard to achieve, furthermore it will introduce detection and compensation of in-room early reflections for a multi-seater arrangement for the first time in history making it possible to optimize spatial accuracy. This means from now on any seat can be called MLP and via the editor it can be easily changed on the fly.
> 
> Let’s stay tuned for the official announcement.


That’s interesting. I wonder how much the cost of their AVR’s would increase. I also wonder if their target curve will change. Possibly a house curve similar to Dirac.


----------



## David Aiken

LRZNole said:


> Strange question pre-area rug my fronts and rears would get a 120Hz crossover from Audyssey. Post-area rug my rears stayed the same but my fronts are now 150Hz. I ran it like 4-5 times and it was the same. Any idea why that might happen?


There's a first reflection from the floor, often called "floor bounce". If the new area rug is between you and the front speakers the rug will affect that reflection and that's going to change what the microphone picks up. Also if the rug is between you and the front speakers it is not going to affect the floor bounce from the rear speakers because it isn't between those speakers and you.

We, as in humans rather than microphones, notice some reflections more than others because we're used to listening to sounds in enclosed spaces like rooms and the hearing centre in our brain has learnt over time to "deal with" certain sorts of reflections in different ways. In effect our brain is a signal processor that does a lot of things with the sound that reaches our ears. There's quite a few things that reflections do to sound in rooms that we tend not to notice because of that adaption although microphones record them and if you look at a plot of the sound being recorded it can look quite bad. That's why I said in my earlier response to you that it's possible that you may actually like the old calibration, pre rug, with the rug in place better than you liked the same calibration without the rug and if that were the case that I wouldn't recalibrate.

Audyssey is factoring that floor bounce reflection from the front speakers into what it does and the rug changed the floor bounce so Audyssey's results changed and the crossover frequency went up because the frequency response it measured started dropping at a higher frequency than before. I'd guess that what you're getting from the rug is a dip that results in a drop of more than 3 dB somewhere between 150 and 120 Hz and crossovers are set based on the location of a dip of more than 3 dB. The thing is that some reflections cause very narrow dips in response and the sound recovers again lower down but Audyssey doesn't care about that, it's programmed to stop it's processing and filters where such a dip first occurs. At low frequencies humans also notice peaks a lot more than dips. If it's not a wide dip, just a narrow dip which recovers, and it it isn't too deep you may not notice it and the display of the pre-correction measurement should tell you something about the width and depth of the dip.

So that's the explanation for what's going on. The big question is do you like the sound you're getting with the new calibration or did you prefer the sound you were getting before you got the rug? If you prefer the sound you were getting before you got the rug then *what I would do* is this

1- remove the rug from the room

2- run Audyssey, then save the Audyssey profile (see the manual on how to do that or use the MultEQ app which also allows you to save measurements and profiles).
recali
3 - replace the rug and listen. Do you hear a difference with and without the rug in place. If it sounds worse with the rug in place, just restore the original profile which you saved and things will be back to the way they were. If you can't hear a difference with the rug in place or you prefer the sound with the rug then keep new calibration.

The reason I recommend doing that is because you get a lower crossover when you calibrate without the rug and a 150 Hz crossover is higher than I'd really like to see. I don't recommend just changing the crossover frequency for those speakers back to 120 Hz because with the calibration made with the rug in place Audyssey is not going to correct your frequency response down to 120 Hz, it stops correction where it sees that 3 dB drop I mentioned, so to get correction down to 120 Hz you're going to have to remove the rug and run a calibration.

Note that I said "What I would do". I'm not you and you may not want to try my suggestion which is fine because it involves running another calibration and there's no guarantee that it will deliver a better result. I can assure you that it won't break or damage anything because you're really just reverting to an earlier calibration which functioned without problems. The thing is that it takes time , it may not produce a better result, and you may not be prepared to spend the time on another calibration at the moment.


----------



## LRZNole

David Aiken said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange question pre-area rug my fronts and rears would get a 120Hz crossover from Audyssey. Post-area rug my rears stayed the same but my fronts are now 150Hz. I ran it like 4-5 times and it was the same. Any idea why that might happen?
> 
> 
> 
> There's a first reflection from the floor, often called "floor bounce". If the new area rug is between you and the front speakers the rug will affect that reflection and that's going to change what the microphone picks up. Also if the rug is between you and the front speakers it is not going to affect the floor bounce from the rear speakers because it isn't between those speakers and you.
> 
> We, as in humans rather than microphones, notice some reflections more than others because we're used to listening to sounds in enclosed spaces like rooms and the hearing centre in our brain has learnt over time to "deal with" certain sorts of reflections in different ways. In effect our brain is a signal processor that does a lot of things with the sound that reaches our ears. There's quite a few things that reflections do to sound in rooms that we tend not to notice because of that adaption although microphones record them and if you look at a plot of the sound being recorded it can look quite bad. That's why I said in my earlier response to you that it's possible that you may actually like the old calibration, pre rug, with the rug in place better than you liked the same calibration without the rug and if that were the case that I wouldn't recalibrate.
> 
> Audyssey is factoring that floor bounce reflection from the front speakers into what it does and the rug changed the floor bounce so Audyssey's results changed and the crossover frequency went up because the frequency response it measured started dropping at a higher frequency than before. I'd guess that what you're getting from the rug is a dip that results in a drop of more than 3 dB somewhere between 150 and 120 Hz and crossovers are set based on the location of a dip of more than 3 dB. The thing is that some reflections cause very narrow dips in response and the sound recovers again lower down but Audyssey doesn't care about that, it's programmed to stop it's processing and filters where such a dip first occurs. At low frequencies humans also notice peaks a lot more than dips. If it's not a wide dip, just a narrow dip which recovers, and it it isn't too deep you may not notice it and the display of the pre-correction measurement should tell you something about the width and depth of the dip.
> 
> So that's the explanation for what's going on. The big question is do you like the sound you're getting with the new calibration or did you prefer the sound you were getting before you got the rug? If you prefer the sound you were getting before you got the rug then *what I would do* is this
> 
> 1- remove the rug from the room
> 
> 2- run Audyssey, then save the Audyssey profile (see the manual on how to do that or use the MultEQ app which also allows you to save measurements and profiles).
> recali
> 3 - replace the rug and listen. Do you hear a difference with and without the rug in place. If it sounds worse with the rug in place, just restore the original profile which you saved and things will be back to the way they were. If you can't hear a difference with the rug in place or you prefer the sound with the rug then keep new calibration.
> 
> The reason I recommend doing that is because you get a lower crossover when you calibrate without the rug and a 150 Hz crossover is higher than I'd really like to see. I don't recommend just changing the crossover frequency for those speakers back to 120 Hz because with the calibration made with the rug in place Audyssey is not going to correct your frequency response down to 120 Hz, it stops correction where it sees that 3 dB drop I mentioned, so to get correction down to 120 Hz you're going to have to remove the rug and run a calibration.
> 
> Note that I said "What I would do". I'm not you and you may not want to try my suggestion which is fine because it involves running another calibration and there's no guarantee that it will deliver a better result. I can assure you that it won't break or damage anything because you're really just reverting to an earlier calibration which functioned without problems. The thing is that it takes time , it may not produce a better result, and you may not be prepared to spend the time on another calibration at the moment.
Click to expand...

Thanks for such a detailed explanation. My speakers are KEF T301s and T101s, and LEF indicates the crossover should be 120. Not sure exactly thought if that is for on-wall or on the stands. I did read the stands can change the crossover. I do like the new calibration sound but as to you not likely the 150 crossover I would tell you this. Pre-rug I tried the Mult-EQ Editor app and it was setting either the fronts or rears at 150 (can’t recall which) and the sub volume was always above -10db. With the app in the Denon AVR I was getting the fronts and rears at 120 and the sub at around -7 to -9. So I went with the AVR calibrations. 

You know the post-rug results as I mentioned but I also tried with the APP and got 150 for both fronts and rears and sub at -11


----------



## drh3b

mogorf said:


> According to reliable sources Denon (and Marantz to follow soon) will launch a new series of AVRs in 2019 with the renewed Audyssey MultEQ editor software in order to introduce a new concept for room correction systems designed and developed jointly with Audyssey Labs.
> 
> 
> The most interesting part will be the new measurement microphone combo (5 mics) that will not only use sophisticated algorithms for EQ’ing listening spaces (no leaks on details, yet), but will also be able to localize speaker positions when ideal placement is hard to achieve, furthermore it will introduce detection and compensation of in-room early reflections for a multi-seater arrangement for the first time in history making it possible to optimize spatial accuracy. This means from now on any seat can be called MLP and via the editor it can be easily changed on the fly.
> 
> Let’s stay tuned for the official announcement.


Other than the fact this will probably only be available on their best AVR ($4000) at first, sounds super interesting. I wasn't planning on replacing my current AVR until it died, but it will be interesting to see how this, and affordable(relatively speaking) Dirac equipment, with the new subwoofer algorithms shake out in the next few years. I'm certainly not going to be an early adopter, but definitely will be watching those that are.

ETA: Assuming this isn't another April Fool's joke, of course.


----------



## David Aiken

LRZNole said:


> Thanks for such a detailed explanation. My speakers are KEF T301s and T101s, and LEF indicates the crossover should be 120. Not sure exactly thought if that is for on-wall or on the stands. I did read the stands can change the crossover. I do like the new calibration sound but as to you not likely the 150 crossover I would tell you this. Pre-rug I tried the Mult-EQ Editor app and it was setting either the fronts or rears at 150 (can’t recall which) and the sub volume was always above -10db. With the app in the Denon AVR I was getting the fronts and rears at 120 and the sub at around -7 to -9. So I went with the AVR calibrations.
> 
> You know the post-rug results as I mentioned but I also tried with the APP and got 150 for both fronts and rears and sub at -11


A couple of things:

You say that KEF indicate the crossover should be at 120 Hz but KEF's response specs are based on anechoic chamber measurements and they can be very different from in room measurements. There are no reflections in an anechoic chamber and there are reflections in rooms. Your experience with the rug shows just how much difference can result from simply adding a rug in a particular location and changing one specific reflection.

I've got the MultEQ app also and I can't remember noticing the differences between it and the AVR that you're reporting but I've seen reports of other differences including a roll off in low bass. There's a more powerful processor in whatever device you're running the app on than there is in our AVRs, in fact our AVRs are pretty "computationally challenged" compared to anything we can run the app on so I think we need to be prepared for differences in result between app and AVR. I'd use whichever one gives you the result you like best.

As for the variations in the sub results between AVR and app, you're unlikely to have used exactly the same mic positions each time and when I say "exactly" I mean exactly that, the precise same positions. Bass response varies widely in different locations in a room and I've been in one room where a bass note was inaudible at one position and very noticeable a footstep away. You're reporting differences of 3 to 4 dB in the sub's trim setting and a lot of the variations in bass response in different locations within a room are a lot greater than that. Some of that difference may be due to a difference between Audyssey in the AVR vs in the app but I'd say that some of it is also due to variations in the mic positions from calibration to calibration. How much is due to the app and how much to mic positioning is impossible to say.

Finally, you say you like the new calibration but not the crossover. The crossover frequency is really only a problem if you start noticing the sub as a separate sound source. Studies show that people can start localising sounds from about 80 Hz on up but not everyone can localise a sound at 80 Hz and the cues that give us the information we use to localise a source of bass are in the harmonics which start at twice the frequency of the fundamental. The higher the crossover is set the more likely you are to be able to localise a sound as coming from the sub rather than from where it is supposed to appear to come from in the soundstage but depending on a number of things you may have very few problems with that even with a crossover at 150 Hz. It's not a clear cut matter of "You'll have problems if you set the crossover at this frequency or higher and none if you set it below that frequency". It's only worth worrying about if you start noticing the sub as a separate source. Even then there are other things you can try that don't require lowering the crossover like placing the sub close to one of the front speakers, preferably somewhere between the front L and R speakers if you can because most bass comes from the front and placing the sub there makes it less likely that you will notice it as a separate source. I don't know where your sub is currently located but you may lose some support from walls if you move the sub to between the front speakers so you may have to raise the sub's gain setting when doing your calibration in order to get a useful result.


----------



## LRZNole

David Aiken said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for such a detailed explanation. My speakers are KEF T301s and T101s, and LEF indicates the crossover should be 120. Not sure exactly thought if that is for on-wall or on the stands. I did read the stands can change the crossover. I do like the new calibration sound but as to you not likely the 150 crossover I would tell you this. Pre-rug I tried the Mult-EQ Editor app and it was setting either the fronts or rears at 150 (can’t recall which) and the sub volume was always above -10db. With the app in the Denon AVR I was getting the fronts and rears at 120 and the sub at around -7 to -9. So I went with the AVR calibrations.
> 
> You know the post-rug results as I mentioned but I also tried with the APP and got 150 for both fronts and rears and sub at -11
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of things:
> 
> You say that KEF indicate the crossover should be at 120 Hz but KEF's response specs are based on anechoic chamber measurements and they can be very different from in room measurements. There are no reflections in an anechoic chamber and there are reflections in rooms. Your experience with the rug shows just how much difference can result from simply adding a rug in a particular location and changing one specific reflection.
> 
> I've got the MultEQ app also and I can't remember noticing the differences between it and the AVR that you're reporting but I've seen reports of other differences including a roll off in low bass. There's a more powerful processor in whatever device you're running the app on than there is in our AVRs, in fact our AVRs are pretty "computationally challenged" compared to anything we can run the app on so I think we need to be prepared for differences in result between app and AVR. I'd use whichever one gives you the result you like best.
> 
> As for the variations in the sub results between AVR and app, you're unlikely to have used exactly the same mic positions each time and when I say "exactly" I mean exactly that, the precise same positions. Bass response varies widely in different locations in a room and I've been in one room where a bass note was inaudible at one position and very noticeable a footstep away. You're reporting differences of 3 to 4 dB in the sub's trim setting and a lot of the variations in bass response in different locations within a room are a lot greater than that. Some of that difference may be due to a difference between Audyssey in the AVR vs in the app but I'd say that some of it is also due to variations in the mic positions from calibration to calibration. How much is due to the app and how much to mic positioning is impossible to say.
> 
> Finally, you say you like the new calibration but not the crossover. The crossover frequency is really only a problem if you start noticing the sub as a separate sound source. Studies show that people can start localising sounds from about 80 Hz on up but not everyone can localise a sound at 80 Hz and the cues that give us the information we use to localise a source of bass are in the harmonics which start at twice the frequency of the fundamental. The higher the crossover is set the more likely you are to be able to localise a sound as coming from the sub rather than from where it is supposed to appear to come from in the soundstage but depending on a number of things you may have very few problems with that even with a crossover at 150 Hz. It's not a clear cut matter of "You'll have problems if you set the crossover at this frequency or higher and none if you set it below that frequency". It's only worth worrying about if you start noticing the sub as a separate source. Even then there are other things you can try that don't require lowering the crossover like placing the sub close to one of the front speakers, preferably somewhere between the front L and R speakers if you can because most bass comes from the front and placing the sub there makes it less likely that you will notice it as a separate source. I don't know where your sub is currently located but you may lose some support from walls if you move the sub to between the front speakers so you may have to raise the sub's gain setting when doing your calibration in order to get a useful result.
Click to expand...

I was not unhappy with the crossovers per say just thought because of what KEF suggested that was what they should be. They are better quality (not sure if you would call them high-end because I am sure there are ones more expensive) satellite type speakers not floorstanding so I believe higher crossovers are more typical. I don’t notice any separate sound from the sub so I think I am ok there. Now I am just wondering if I should try again with the APP, some have said turning off the MRC is better with that but honestly not sure if I would notice it or not. 

Again thanks for your help.


----------



## mthomas47

drh3b said:


> Other than the fact this will probably only be available on their best AVR ($4000) at first, sounds super interesting. I wasn't planning on replacing my current AVR until it died, but it will be interesting to see how this, and affordable(relatively speaking) Dirac equipment, with the new subwoofer algorithms shake out in the next few years. I'm certainly not going to be an early adopter, but definitely will be watching those that are.
> 
> ETA: Assuming this isn't another April Fool's joke, of course.



I believe that Feri did a similar one last year, but I think this one is even better.


----------



## drh3b

mthomas47 said:


> I believe that Feri did a similar one last year, but I think this one is even better.


The funny thing is I have been thinking how an array of microphones would make RC so much easier, but of course, it would involve a lot of new code, and an expensive microphone array. So, I wanted to believe.


----------



## mogorf

drh3b said:


> The funny thing is I have been thinking how an array of microphones would make RC so much easier, but of course, it would involve a lot of new code, and an expensive microphone array. So, I wanted to believe.



Its already past midnight in my neck of the woods so:


Happy April's Fool Day to all! 

Glad it sounded true, wish it did! 

Take care and be well for another year to come.


----------



## rosstg

mogorf said:


> Its already past midnight in my neck of the woods so:
> 
> 
> Happy April's Fool Day to all!
> 
> Glad it sounded true, wish it did!
> 
> Take care and be well for another year to come.


Well you got me. In a way I’m glad, I’m tired of upgrading


----------



## garygarrison

You got me, too. 

From Johnny Pye and the Fool Killer by Stephen Vincent Benét


"Uh-huh," said Johnny Pye. "For you asked me how a man could be a human being and yet not be a fool. And the answer is—when he's dead and gone and buried. Any fool would know that."


----------



## rosstg

David Aiken said:


> A couple of things:
> 
> You say that KEF indicate the crossover should be at 120 Hz but KEF's response specs are based on anechoic chamber measurements and they can be very different from in room measurements. There are no reflections in an anechoic chamber and there are reflections in rooms. Your experience with the rug shows just how much difference can result from simply adding a rug in a particular location and changing one specific reflection.
> 
> I've got the MultEQ app also and I can't remember noticing the differences between it and the AVR that you're reporting but I've seen reports of other differences including a roll off in low bass. There's a more powerful processor in whatever device you're running the app on than there is in our AVRs, in fact our AVRs are pretty "computationally challenged" compared to anything we can run the app on so I think we need to be prepared for differences in result between app and AVR. I'd use whichever one gives you the result you like best.
> 
> As for the variations in the sub results between AVR and app, you're unlikely to have used exactly the same mic positions each time and when I say "exactly" I mean exactly that, the precise same positions. Bass response varies widely in different locations in a room and I've been in one room where a bass note was inaudible at one position and very noticeable a footstep away. You're reporting differences of 3 to 4 dB in the sub's trim setting and a lot of the variations in bass response in different locations within a room are a lot greater than that. Some of that difference may be due to a difference between Audyssey in the AVR vs in the app but I'd say that some of it is also due to variations in the mic positions from calibration to calibration. How much is due to the app and how much to mic positioning is impossible to say.
> 
> Finally, you say you like the new calibration but not the crossover. The crossover frequency is really only a problem if you start noticing the sub as a separate sound source. Studies show that people can start localising sounds from about 80 Hz on up but not everyone can localise a sound at 80 Hz and the cues that give us the information we use to localise a source of bass are in the harmonics which start at twice the frequency of the fundamental. The higher the crossover is set the more likely you are to be able to localise a sound as coming from the sub rather than from where it is supposed to appear to come from in the soundstage but depending on a number of things you may have very few problems with that even with a crossover at 150 Hz. It's not a clear cut matter of "You'll have problems if you set the crossover at this frequency or higher and none if you set it below that frequency". It's only worth worrying about if you start noticing the sub as a separate source. Even then there are other things you can try that don't require lowering the crossover like placing the sub close to one of the front speakers, preferably somewhere between the front L and R speakers if you can because most bass comes from the front and placing the sub there makes it less likely that you will notice it as a separate source. I don't know where your sub is currently located but you may lose some support from walls if you move the sub to between the front speakers so you may have to raise the sub's gain setting when doing your calibration in order to get a useful result.


Yeah aside from the 3db dip at 20hz I get much better and significantly different results from the app. When I calibrate through the AVR my subs are way too low and I also have to turn them down on the sub to getvin the green. My levels are also off. And what’s interesting is I never liked the Reference curve but now I like it far more than flat. Of course this is because I turn off MRC and with DEQ it’s more of a house curve. I bought the app so I can limit MultiEQ but now I realize how a good a job XT32 does in my room. It’s a significant improvement. I’ve spent the last 3 months going back and forth between them and firmly believe full range is the way to go in my room and I have a dedicated room with a good amount of dampening. I do think a big part of my results is I take extra time and care placing my mic. I notice a big difference from switching from a tripod to a mic stand with a tighter formation. Even with the dip my bass is significantly clearer and robust and my midrange and treble sound far more natural than I got with the Flat curve using the AVR.


----------



## Bghead8che

I have a Denon 6500h and a pair of Ascend Acoustics towers with the RAAL tweeter. My MLP is 9 feet back and my speaker are 7.5 feet apart. I found I get the best center image with the speakers just slightly toed in. Audyssey appears to be compensating for the minor toe-in by boosting the treble across the board. The end result is a bright sound. 

I could obviously toe in the speakers more but then I would lose my center image. Any ideas on options I could try or general suggestions? I'd like to keep this particular speaker position if possible, while using Audyssey w/out the treble boost. 

Also, I am very sensitive to room and speaker brightness. My room is treated. However, I still find the speakers bright on some occasions. Is there a particular frequency or set of frequencies that typical are known for causing brightness? I'd like to try a custom curve to see if I can address the particular frequency that is bothering me. I'm just not sure where to start. I've read that everything from 1 - 12 khz could be causing the issue. 

Thanks guys!


----------



## Bghead8che

rosstg said:


> Yeah aside from the 3db dip at 20hz I get much better and significantly different results from the app. When I calibrate through the AVR my subs are way too low and I also have to turn them down on the sub to getvin the green. My levels are also off. And what’s interesting is I never liked the Reference curve but now I like it far more than flat. Of course this is because I turn off MRC and with DEQ it’s more of a house curve. I bought the app so I can limit MultiEQ but now I realize how a good a job XT32 does in my room. It’s a significant improvement. I’ve spent the last 3 months going back and forth between them and firmly believe full range is the way to go in my room and I have a dedicated room with a good amount of dampening. I do think a big part of my results is I take extra time and care placing my mic. I notice a big difference from switching from a tripod to a mic stand with a tighter formation. Even with the dip my bass is significantly clearer and robust and my midrange and treble sound far more natural than I got with the Flat curve using the AVR.


Any word from Denon on when the 20hz bug will be fixed?


----------



## B_Ballou

Good Afternoon,

Could Audyssey compensate for one of my side surrounds being 13 FEET further from the LP than the other? I have to wall mount my Definitive SR9040s but the right side of my setup is open until this far wall. I could mount both on a wall 7 ft behind the LP but that is not ideal either.

Thanks


----------



## rosstg

Bghead8che said:


> Any word from Denon on when the 20hz bug will be fixed?


The Audyssey rep last month said soon, not this month but soon. I have a feeling it will be this month. Once that dip is gone I’ll be thrilled. It’s a common complaint everyone has.


----------



## mthomas47

Bghead8che said:


> I have a Denon 6500h and a pair of Ascend Acoustics towers with the RAAL tweeter. My MLP is 9 feet back and my speaker are 7.5 feet apart. I found I get the best center image with the speakers just slightly toed in. Audyssey appears to be compensating for the minor toe-in by boosting the treble across the board. The end result is a bright sound.
> 
> I could obviously toe in the speakers more but then I would lose my center image. Any ideas on options I could try or general suggestions? I'd like to keep this particular speaker position if possible, while using Audyssey w/out the treble boost.
> 
> Also, I am very sensitive to room and speaker brightness. My room is treated. However, I still find the speakers bright on some occasions. Is there a particular frequency or set of frequencies that typical are known for causing brightness? I'd like to try a custom curve to see if I can address the particular frequency that is bothering me. I'm just not sure where to start. I've read that everything from 1 - 12 khz could be causing the issue.
> 
> Thanks guys!



Hi Brian,

Some of this is just trial-and-error, so some of my suggestions may seem a little random. Audyssey also used to add brightness to my speakers when they weren't toed-in quite enough. A lot depends on how much horizontal dispersion the speakers have. Are you able to get more of an equilateral triangle with your speakers? Could you spread the speakers apart a little more, if you wanted to? 

As for the toe-in, I would try moving them closer to the way you had them before, in one-inch (or less) increments with Audyssey off, until you start to hear some compromise in the center image. Perhaps you can move them back just a little closer to the way they were before. It is entirely possible that Audyssey could react to a change in position of an inch or so, that would be too small for you to even notice. Of course, you will have to rerun Audyssey when you find the most toe-in that you can live with, without compromising your center image. 

I assume that you are being very careful to cover your sofa or listening chair with a fluffy blanket before running Audyssey. If the Audyssey mic gets too close to a hard or smooth surface, the early reflections from that hard surface can cause a comb-filtering effect, which Audyssey will try to correct. That spurious correction can also have a somewhat bright or harsh sound, from about 1000Hz up.

It would be hard to tell what frequencies might sound over-bright or cause listening fatigue, in this specific case, but my guess is that it would be frequencies above about 3000 or 4000Hz. I think it would primarily be frequencies played by the tweeters, but probably not as high in the frequency range as most of us would imagine. Frequencies above 10KHz are certainly a possibility, but I would guess that the brightness you hear is much lower than that; perhaps even in the 4K to 8K range. That's just a guess though, for whatever it may be worth.

One final thought involves settings. I assume that you have experimented with the default Audyssey curve rather than with Flat. The default curve should be better in this case, unless you can fix the brightness issue. If you are using DEQ, you may not realize that it is boosting the treble above 10KHz. If you turn-off DEQ, you can access your tone controls for the front speakers. I routinely knock-off 1db of treble, from my front speakers, with the treble control. That might help you as well.

I hope that some of these suggestions help! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Bghead8che said:


> I have a Denon 6500h and a pair of Ascend Acoustics towers with the RAAL tweeter. My MLP is 9 feet back and my speaker are 7.5 feet apart. I found I get the best center image with the speakers just slightly toed in. Audyssey appears to be compensating for the minor toe-in by boosting the treble across the board. The end result is a bright sound.
> 
> I could obviously toe in the speakers more but then I would lose my center image. Any ideas on options I could try or general suggestions? I'd like to keep this particular speaker position if possible, while using Audyssey w/out the treble boost.
> 
> Also, I am very sensitive to room and speaker brightness. My room is treated. However, I still find the speakers bright on some occasions. Is there a particular frequency or set of frequencies that typical are known for causing brightness? I'd like to try a custom curve to see if I can address the particular frequency that is bothering me. I'm just not sure where to start. I've read that everything from 1 - 12 khz could be causing the issue.
> 
> Thanks guys!


Audyssey tries to produce a result based on studies of listening preferences and that means it can never deliver a result that satisfies everyone. We also have limited ways of adjusting the result.

First, are you using the Reference curve or the Flat curve option? If you're using Flat, change to Reference which has a roll off in the high frequencies and that may solve your problem. If you're using Reference then it gets more difficult.

The only real way we have to change the result in a substantial way is the MultEQ app for Android and iOS. It offers you the option of tweaking the final response curve in a number of ways. I don't know what frequencies are contributing to your sense of "brightness" but with the app you can modify the Reference target curve in a number of ways. While I don't know what you mean by "bright", it's usually accepted that the opposite of "bright" is "warm" and a warm sound is usually associated with a gradual decline in response from about 4 to 8 kHz on. With the app you can engineer more roll off than the Reference curve provides and start that roll off at a lower frequency than it starts with the Reference curve. You're going to have to experiment to get a result that you like but the app gives you a way to experiment and there's no way to do that with the options that your AVR provides though Mike's tip of using tone controls may help.

There is one option you have with the AVR and that is to try and trick Audyssey. There is no guarantee this will work but if you don't have the app then it is worth trying. You say you're using a slight toe in and from what you've said I assume that Audyssey is making things sound brighter than they do without Audyssey engaged. If that's the case I'd try toeing the speakers in so they're pointing directly at the main listening position and doing the calibration. Save the results and then adjust the toe in of the speakers back to your normal toe in and see if that gives you a better sounding result. If that result ends up sounding too dull after you've adjusted the toe in then you may need to run the process again after increasing the toe in from your normal amount but not all the way to pointing directly at the main listening position.

The app is your best option in my view. Both it and the process of calibration with a different degree of toe in to the toe in you are actually going to use are going to involve an element of trial and error but you only need to run one measurement process with the app and you can make multiple different response curves from that result, instal a curve quickly, listen and re-adjust just as quickly. Playing with toe in and new measurement processes each time is going to take a lot of time and effort.


----------



## garygarrison

Bghead8che said:


> I have a Denon 6500h and a pair of Ascend Acoustics towers with the RAAL tweeter. My MLP is 9 feet back and my speaker are 7.5 feet apart. I found I get the best center image with the speakers just slightly toed in. Audyssey appears to be compensating for the minor toe-in by boosting the treble across the board. The end result is a bright sound.
> 
> I could obviously toe in the speakers more but then I would lose my center image. Any ideas on options I could try or general suggestions? I'd like to keep this particular speaker position if possible, while using Audyssey w/out the treble boost.
> 
> Also, I am very sensitive to room and speaker brightness. My room is treated. However, I still find the speakers bright on some occasions. Is there a particular frequency or set of frequencies that typical are known for causing brightness? I'd like to try a custom curve to see if I can address the particular frequency that is bothering me. I'm just not sure where to start. I've read that everything from 1 - 12 khz could be causing the issue.
> 
> Thanks guys!



There's bright and then there's bright.


I would start by running Audyssey again with the speakers toed in to aim *right at you* at the MLP (it sounds like they aren't quite that toed in right now). The reason for this is that if the speakers aren't toed in enough, and you have some "treble beaming," and that beam doesn't hit a large enough number of your mic positions, Audyssey may "think" you don't have enough treble, and turn it *up*, causing over brightness. I would definitely try the equilateral triangle Mike recommended, with the center of the left and right tweeters at two of the points of the triangle. Then run Audyssey.


Put on an over-bright source, and switch the Midrange Compensation in and out, using the app, as you listen. At near to 2K Hz, the MRC dip is right where the harshest part of the spectrum is.


To *my* ears (and perhaps my ears only), with an over bright recording (good recordings are no problem), the zones can be characterized as follows: 



1K Hz to 3.5/4K Hz: bright, brittle, harsh. Used to be called "telephonic" because old telephones (how old?) had a frequency peak here.
4K Hz to 8 K Hz "presence," and usually sweet and lively. When exaggerated, still pleasant, even if unrealistic.
8K Hz -10K Hz rich detail, shimmer. A sharp cut-off here, one of my friends commented (upon hearing the cut-off), took the smile out of a singer's voice. Here, and on up to the top, is where old folks or those exposed to industrial noise, gunfire, close-up Rock, etc., tend to have a deficit. The advent of ear protection, and the decline of smoking seems to have lessened this, and made men and women a bit more equal in hearing decline.
10K Hz to 20K Hz more shimmer, detail, and "air."

Do you have a center channel?


Our center of the left tweeter to center of right tweeter is 13 feet, 5 inches, and the MLP is 12 feet away. With movies, with or without the center channel, the center image is good. Other loci, not as good. We now always use the center, in order to make the dialog sound more realistic. 



With music, and to a lesser degree with movies, imaging depends heavily on the microphone technique used to make the recording. The old 3 channel technique of Mercury worked well, as did the Decca Tree, and many other configurations. IMO, it may depend more on the recordist than the spacing. Paul Klipsch advocated a 3 channel set-up for playback, even with 2 channel recordings, starting in about 1959. The center channel was turned down quite a bit to make this work optimally. I always use a minimum of 3 channels for music, with my center at the same SPL as the sides (as with movies). If it doesn't work well for a given recording (too much center, or not enough depth), I can always turn the center down, or just live with it.


----------



## rosstg

Well I’ve finished with my tweaking and evaluation between full range and limited. Today I installed 2 acoustic panels and reran Audyssey, really taking my time carefully measuring each location etc. So far I’m very pleased with the results. I think I have just the right amount and dampening now. Dialogue seems clearer, I noticed my trims are higher as well. Overall it sounds more balanced and natural but also more detailed. I left MultiEQ full range, Reference 1, MRC OFF, DEQ ON. The only adjustment I made was my usual raising crossovers. 

Now it’s tme to turn on the popcorn machine....


----------



## Matt2026

rosstg said:


> Well I’ve finished with my tweaking and evaluation between full range and limited. Today I installed 2 acoustic panels and reran Audyssey, really taking my time carefully measuring each location etc. So far I’m very leased with the results. I think I have just the right amount and dampening now. Dialogue seems clearer, I noticed my trims are higher as well. Overall it sounds more balanced and natural but also more detailed. I left MultiEQ full range, Reference 1, MRC OFF, DEQ ON. The only adjustment I made was my usual raising crossovers.
> 
> Now it’s tme to turn on the popcorn machine....
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



Very nice, looks warm and inviting Enjoy your great setup


----------



## Bghead8che

Thanks so much for the detailed responses (Gary, David, Thomas)!

I am using the Reference setting with DEQ off (for now). I can try moving them out to form an equilateral triangle however I found the soundstage collapses when I do this. I am only running 2.1 for the meantime, no center.

I'm curious, how to you toggle mid compensation "on and off". I thought you made the changes in the app and then you had to upload the changes to the receiver? Is there a way to instantly try the app settings and toggle them on and off? 

I never thought about using the tone controls. I thought they were disabled while using Audyssey. Do they still introduce noise and distortion? Or is that more the tone controls of the past?

I am going to experiment with toe-in and see if I can find an acceptable solution, perhaps custom curves as well.

I've attached my room layout and an image of the Audyssey correction. As you can see there is a quite a treble boost from about 3 khz on.


----------



## garygarrison

Bghead8che said:


> ... I never thought about using the tone controls. I thought they were disabled while using Audyssey. Do they still introduce noise and distortion? Or is that more the tone controls of the past?
> 
> ... I've attached my room layout and an image of the Audyssey correction. As you can see there is a quite a treble boost from about 3 khz on.



Unfortunately, my 2011 pre/pro (AVP) won't work with an app. I just assumed they would engineer the app so that instant comparisons would be possible. Silly me. Although this is a kind of mistake I make often, I still have some hope that A/B comparisons might be possible with the app. Somebody chime in!


The tone controls are disabled only when DEQ is *on*. With DEQ off, the tone controls will work. If your manual says that your bass control provides up to about 6 dB boost, then turning up the bass all the way will provide ~~~ about ~~~
the same amount bass boost as DEQ will with your main volume control at about - 15 dB. It won't provide the moment by moment DEQ tier 2 compensation for the rise and fall of SPL in the music source, though. 

By using tone controls instead of DEQ, you will avoid the treble boost with declining volume that DEQ imposes. Even though DEQ provides just a small amount of treble comp compared to the more obvious bass comp, you can still hear it..


The tone controls should add neither noise nor distortion. The bad reputation of tone controls (totally unwarranted, IMO) arose from a variety of causes*:*



The misconception that playing back with the tone controls disengaged or "flat" would result in hearing the frequency response (balance) that was heard in the control room during the final mix. This is not true, since no speakers are flat, no rooms are flat, hardly any components are flat (although some electronics come close enough to render the deviations from flat inaudible), and, at least for pop, rock, metal, etc., the studios deliberately cut deep bass and high treble, in order to raise the volume of midrange and lower treble in their desire to win the "loudness wars," sometimes producing screechy recordings, with far less bass than the artists wanted.
Tone controls causing some phase anomalies that are often less serious than a tonal imbalance.
Amplifiers clipping or speakers distorting when high volume levels are attempted with a large amount of bass boost. The same thing might happen without tone controls with inadequate amplifiers and speakers and a high dynamic range recording played loudly.

In the "after" curve, I see no "treble boost from about 3K Hz on." Except for a tiny aberration at 375 Hz, that is probably too narrow to be heard, your response seems flat from 70 Hz up to 8K, and not bad above, where Audyssey Reference is rolling it off. .


----------



## drh3b

garygarrison said:


> Unfortunately, my 2011 pre/pro (AVP) won't work with an app.  I just assumed they would engineer the app so that instant comparisons would be possible. Silly me. Although this is a kind of mistake I make often, I still have some hope that A/B comparisons might be possible with the app. Somebody chime in!


Unfortunately, it takes about a minute to upload ANY change. Basically, the app is an editor, but it's not editing the configuration on the AVR, it's editing the configuration on the tablet or phone, which then has to be uploaded to the AVR, and any further change has to be uploaded as well. You can still edit things like crossovers, levels, and whatnot on the AVR after uploading the file, it's much faster obviously.


----------



## Alan P

FlavioWolff said:


> just wanted to share with you guys the response I obtained from Audyssey's support team, regarding whether we should calibrate with windows/doors open or closed, when *our listening is mostly done with windows open*. I had this doubt because many manuals instruct us to close all windows.


You must live _very_ far away from any neighbors. If I tried to listen with my windows open, I'd have the cops here in under a minute!


----------



## David Aiken

Bghead8che said:


> Thanks so much for the detailed responses (Gary, David, Thomas)!
> 
> I am using the Reference setting with DEQ off (for now). I can try moving them out to form an equilateral triangle however I found the soundstage collapses when I do this. I am only running 2.1 for the meantime, no center.
> 
> I'm curious, how to you toggle mid compensation "on and off". I thought you made the changes in the app and then you had to upload the changes to the receiver? Is there a way to instantly try the app settings and toggle them on and off?
> 
> I never thought about using the tone controls. I thought they were disabled while using Audyssey. Do they still introduce noise and distortion? Or is that more the tone controls of the past?
> 
> I am going to experiment with toe-in and see if I can find an acceptable solution, perhaps custom curves as well.
> 
> I've attached my room layout and an image of the Audyssey correction. As you can see there is a quite a treble boost from about 3 khz on.



If the soundstage collapses when you move the speakers out then I wouldn't move them out. As a matter of interest, do you notice the collapse when watching movies or only when playing music? Soundstage is a bit funny because our brain takes a lot of directional cues from what our eyes are seeing so soundstage can hold up better with movies because you associate the sound with what you're seeing on screen but you don't have that visual information with music and that can make a difference. If it only collapses with music and not with movies and you watch more movies than you listen to music it may not bother you as often but if it bothers you then I wouldn't move the speakers out.

There's no way to toggle the mid range compensation on and off. The AVR can only store one calibration result so you have to swap the calibration data to change between compensation on and off. You can have multiple calibration profiles/results stored in the app but the only way to swap between them is by going through the process of loading the one you want to the AVR and then you have to load the other one to the AVR to swap back. It's not a simple toggle switch. The only result the AVR is aware of at any time is the one that's loaded at the time. The bad news is that you can't switch things in the way you want. The good news is that the app does let you switch results, something you can't do without the app, but it takes a bit of time to do it.

Gary answered your tone control questions.

You can certainly experiment with toe in but it will change the sound. In theory you should recalibrate when you do it but as I said earlier you may be able to tweak your result more to your liking with one toe in setting and then changing the toe in. If you really want to experiment and play games and you're using the app you can run calibrations and store multiple calibrations on the app so you can try several toe in adjustments, run a calibration after each one, and store them. You can then experiment by using one toe in with the speakers and using a different toe in calibration but if you're going to do that you probably need to find a way of marking the different toe in positions on the floor so you can return to the same positions easily. Since your floor is carpeted, one trick I've found for marking positions is to stick a velcro cable tie to the floor (they stick well on short pile carpets), Cable ties aligned to the edge of the speaker make a good location marker. You can remove them when you've finally got a result you like. The only problem with tweaking this way is the time it takes to run however many calibrations you want to experiment with and then the time involved with listening to find out which combinations of calibration and subsequent speaker toe in adjustments you like.

I don't think your After result looks bad. You mention a boost around 3 kHz but all I see there is a small and gentle "bump" over a kHz or so which probably won't be noticeable. There is a bump between about 200 and 350 Hz which may be more noticeable but it's still a lot less messy there than it is in the Before plot so it should be less noticeable. You aren't ever going to see a nice smooth line with no dips or spikes of any size. What you're seeing there is a pretty good result with the only potential problem being the dip between 40 and 60 Hz. That's from a room mode and it's much less severe in the After plot than it is in the Before. You probably won't be able to do better there with Audyssey, it's pretty well impossible to fill in dips with EQ of any kind. You may be able to reduce that a bit more by adding bass traps but you may need a lot of bass trapping. The only real way to reduce or eliminate peaks and dips from room modes in the bass region is to push your walls further apart, a lot further apart, around large concert hall width and length apart. Bigger rooms deliver much smoother bass response but no one has yet come up with a way of simply and cheaply making a room as large as a good concert hall, even a good small concert hall. What you're getting in the After plot is considerably improved on the Before plot and that's the kind of result that Audyssey is intended to achieve.


----------



## Profoundsoup

Hey guys I have a Denon 4300H. For some reason, my receiver isn't giving me the option to use L/R Bypass with the Audyssey calibration. It only gives me the option for "Off" "Flat" or "Reference". I'm not sure why this is. Id love to have just my subs EQ'ed but not my towers for music but it's not showing me the option. Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## pbz06

Reading the guide section about DEQ again, and regarding the bass boost compensation of 2.2dB per -5 volume from 0 reference...

...I read that as volume 0 should result at 75dB. However, when running test tones at -10 volume, the SPL is about 72dB.

Is the 2.2dB per -5 in relation to Volume 0 or in relation to 75dB? If I'm listening at -10, would I add 4.4dB or about 1.5?


----------



## rosstg

It’s because you’re using a SPL. I get more accurate results using the Audyssey mic than a SPL meter, especially for subs. It’s a different meter so you’re going to get different results.


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> Reading the guide section about DEQ again, and regarding the bass boost compensation of 2.2dB per -5 volume from 0 reference...
> 
> ...I read that as volume 0 should result at 75dB. However, when running test tones at -10 volume, the SPL is about 72dB.
> 
> Is the 2.2dB per -5 in relation to Volume 0 or in relation to 75dB? If I'm listening at -10, would I add 4.4dB or about 1.5?



Hi,

Neither the Audyssey microphone, nor the calibrated or uncalibrated microphone that you use to double-check what it is doing, is likely to be exactly accurate. And, it is fairly unlikely that the two microphone readings will agree exactly. But, that honestly doesn't really matter. The most important thing is that all of your channels are playing the same volume at your main listening position (MLP) after a calibration. You will be adjusting the master volume and the subwoofer(s) to suit your individual preferences at a particular moment, in any event. So, whether you are starting at a volume level of exactly 75db won't really matter.

To answer your specific question, DEQ is based only on your master volume level. If your MV is at -5, DEQ will add 2.2db to some bass frequencies, as described in Section V of the Guide linked below. If you are at -10 MV, it will add 4.4db, and so on. Once your HT system is calibrated, the DEQ software is tied directly to your MV level, and not to an actual, post-calibration, measurement of the volume.

I may put a note about this in the Guide, as this is a question that also came-up on another thread recently, with someone saying that Audyssey "always" sets channels at 78db. Apparently, that's what he was measuring in his room, post-calibration. Both the Audyssey mic, and even something like a calibrated UMIK-1, have some built-in error factor. So, exactitude is elusive. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I just added a clarifying note on microphone accuracy early in Section II, where the 75db test tones are first discussed, and I added a similar note early in Section V, where DEQ's action is first described in relation to changes in master volume.


----------



## raynist

Due to a problem with my Onkyo pre-pro XLR outputs (hum/buzz) and am going to need to use the RCA pre outs to my amps. If I use the same length RCA cables as the current XLR’s, do I need to rerun Audyssey? I have 8 subs in my system and some MBM’s (midbass modules). I would like to not have to do that all over again as it took many hours to get right with 2 minidsps. 

Thanks!


----------



## drh3b

raynist said:


> Due to a problem with my Onkyo pre-pro XLR outputs (hum/buzz) and am going to need to use the RCA pre outs to my amps. If I use the same length RCA cables as the current XLR’s, do I need to rerun Audyssey? I have 8 subs in my system and some MBM’s (midbass modules). I would like to not have to do that all over again as it took many hours to get right with 2 minidsps.
> 
> Thanks!


Not an expert, but I would think you could probably go into speaker levels and adjust them to get back to proper reference level calibration. It's certainly worth trying.


----------



## raynist

drh3b said:


> Not an expert, but I would think you could probably go into speaker levels and adjust them to get back to proper reference level calibration. It's certainly worth trying.


Thanks. 

I was wondering if going from XLR to RCA would affect the levels. Not sure if they are the same voltage on this Onkyo 5509. 

I have an spl meter. I am going to use the XLR and test the levels and then switch to rca and see if there is any difference and then adjust accordingly.


----------



## raynist

^^^^^^^

Looks like about a 5-6db difference using RCA vs XLR.


----------



## Deejay Freddy

*Run audyssey again when replacing amps?*

When you upgrade and replace your amplifiers (separates), do you need to run audyssey set up again?


----------



## dfa973

Deejay Freddy said:


> When you upgrade and replace your amplifiers (separates), do you need to run audyssey set up again?


Yes, the new amp may have a different gain or frequency response, so a new calibration is mandatory for ANY change to the audio chain.


----------



## garygarrison

raynist said:


> ^^^^^^^
> 
> Looks like about a 5-6db difference using RCA vs XLR.



I'm guessing it is the levels for the RCA v.s. the XLR outputs that are different by that amount. I'd have a hard time believing the cable themselves or the connectors would make that difference.


----------



## raynist

garygarrison said:


> I'm guessing it is the levels for the RCA v.s. the XLR outputs that are different by that amount. I'd have a hard time believing the cable themselves or the connectors would make that difference.


That is what I am thinking also


----------



## Deejay Freddy

dfa973 said:


> Yes, the new amp may have a different gain or frequency response, so a new calibration is mandatory for ANY change to the audio chain.


Thank you sir! I will do that!


----------



## David Aiken

raynist said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I was wondering if going from XLR to RCA would affect the levels. Not sure if they are the same voltage on this Onkyo 5509.
> 
> I have an spl meter. I am going to use the XLR and test the levels and then switch to rca and see if there is any difference and then adjust accordingly.


RCA (single ended) and XLR (balanced) outputs on a source device output different levels and the matching inputs on an amp also have different sensitivities. Check the specs sheet for your source and your AVR and you'll see very different figures for those inputs/outputs. The figures translate to a 6 dB difference in level at the same master volume setting.

There are reasons for this but I can never remember them because I have no understanding of the technical side of electronics therefore I never remember what the reason is, just that there is a reason for the difference.


----------



## Bayouslim77

Hello everyone.i have a question that i think would involve audessey.i have the marantz sr8012 receiver running a 7.2.4 setup. I'm building two mini marty's this weekend that will be powered by a crown xli3500 amplifier. Can i use audessey to adjust frequency on subs or do i have to insert a mini dsp into the audio chain? Just wondering before i order one. Thanks in advance for your help!


----------



## mthomas47

Bayouslim77 said:


> Hello everyone.i have a question that i think would involve audessey.i have the marantz sr8012 receiver running a 7.2.4 setup. I'm building two mini marty's this weekend that will be powered by a crown xli3500 amplifier. Can i use audessey to adjust frequency on subs or do i have to insert a mini dsp into the audio chain? Just wondering before i order one. Thanks in advance for your help!



Hi,

I guess it depends on what you mean by adjusting the frequency on the subs. Audyssey will set distances and levels separately for two subs, but it will EQ all subwoofers in a system as one, based on their combined frequency response. It's goal will be to EQ the combined sound of the subs to a flat frequency response.

After running Audyssey, people sometimes have to make phase or distance adjustments to a subwoofer, where there is some cancellation occurring. But, in general, most people are content to let Audyssey EQ the frequency response of their subwoofers.

If I were you, I would wait to see how effective Audyssey is with your subs before investing in a miniDSP. The miniDSP can be very helpful for adding your own house curve, and for fine-tuning your frequency response. But, if you like the results that you get with Audyssey, you may not need it. Some people, who started with miniDSP's, retired them once they began using XT-32 with SubEQ.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Bayouslim77

mthomas47 said:


> Bayouslim77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello everyone.i have a question that i think would involve audessey.i have the marantz sr8012 receiver running a 7.2.4 setup. I'm building two mini marty's this weekend that will be powered by a crown xli3500 amplifier. Can i use audessey to adjust frequency on subs or do i have to insert a mini dsp into the audio chain? Just wondering before i order one. Thanks in advance for your help!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I guess it depends on what you mean by adjusting the frequency on the subs. Audyssey will set distances and levels separately for two subs, but it will EQ all subwoofers in a system as one, based on their combined frequency response. It's goal will be to EQ the combined sound of the subs to a flat frequency response.
> 
> After running Audyssey, people sometimes have to make phase or distance adjustments to a subwoofer, where there is some cancellation occurring. But, in general, most people are content to let Audyssey EQ the frequency response of their subwoofers.
> 
> If I were you, I would wait to see how effective Audyssey is with your subs before investing in a miniDSP. The miniDSP can be very helpful for adding your own house curve, and for fine-tuning your frequency response. But, if you like the results that you get with Audyssey, you may not need it. Some people, who started with miniDSP's, retired them once they began using XT-32 with SubEQ.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

 thank you for your response Mike. What i meant by adjusting frequency was using hpf and lpf to get down to the tuning frequency of the subs which is 18hz. They above mentioned amplifier states it can play down to 20hz, but at 8ohms it has a frequency response down to 10hz. I'll be using a 4ohm load so I'm not sure the amplifier will respond under 20hz, which is why I'm wondering if i need the mini dsp.


----------



## mthomas47

Bayouslim77 said:


> thank you for your response Mike. What i meant by adjusting frequency was using hpf and lpf to get down to the tuning frequency of the subs which is 18hz. They above mentioned amplifier states it can play down to 20hz, but at 8ohms it has a frequency response down to 10hz. I'll be using a 4ohm load so I'm not sure the amplifier will respond under 20hz, which is why I'm wondering if i need the mini dsp.



You are very welcome! I see what you mean now. If you want to set the basic DSP for the subs, then I would say that you will definitely need a miniDSP to do that. Once your subwoofers are capable of playing the quasi-anechoic frequency response you want them to play, you can then use Audyssey to resolve specific subwoofer/room interaction issues. But, Audyssey is strictly a system of automated room EQ. You still have to start with whatever inherent frequency response you want the subs to have.

I believe that you can get much better advice, on the DSP aspects of this issue, on the DIY Speakers and Subs Forum.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Bayouslim77

mthomas47 said:


> Bayouslim77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for your response Mike. What i meant by adjusting frequency was using hpf and lpf to get down to the tuning frequency of the subs which is 18hz. They above mentioned amplifier states it can play down to 20hz, but at 8ohms it has a frequency response down to 10hz. I'll be using a 4ohm load so I'm not sure the amplifier will respond under 20hz, which is why I'm wondering if i need the mini dsp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are very welcome! I see what you mean now. If you want to set the basic DSP for the subs, then I would say that you will definitely need a miniDSP to do that. Once your subwoofers are capable of playing the quasi-anechoic frequency response you want them to play, you can then use Audyssey to resolve specific subwoofer/room interaction issues. But, Audyssey is strictly a system of automated room EQ. You still have to start with whatever inherent frequency response you want the subs to have.
> 
> I believe that you can get much better advice, on the DSP aspects of this issue, on the DIY Speakers and Subs Forum.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

 thank you! I'll go look over in that section and see if i can find some answers. Thanks for you time and advice!


----------



## David Aiken

Bayouslim77 said:


> thank you for your response Mike. What i meant by adjusting frequency was using hpf and lpf to get down to the tuning frequency of the subs which is 18hz. They above mentioned amplifier states it can play down to 20hz, but at 8ohms it has a frequency response down to 10hz. I'll be using a 4ohm load so I'm not sure the amplifier will respond under 20hz, which is why I'm wondering if i need the mini dsp.


"The above amplifier states…" - Those statements usually refer to a specification that it can play x Hz to y Hz within +/- so many dB. They don't normally mean that the sub won't play anything below the low frequency mentioned, just that those frequencies won't be played at a level within the specified dB range. It's extremely unlikely that the sub won't produce output below 20 Hz. I think the real question is how loud it will be below 20 Hz.

When it comes to that, the question of how low the audio in whatever you're playing goes is also important. Most recordings/soundtracks have little content below 20 Hz anyway.

Before you start worrying about this issue and investigating DSP options, I'd get the system up and running and see just how it performs without DSP. I assume you're going to be measuring the frequency response with test tones and that's fine, it's worth seeing what the system can deliver without any extra DSP processing, but I'd check it out also with some audio (music or soundtrack) with the lowest content you've got and see what results you get in the lowest passages. The difference between 20 Hz and 10 Hz is small, your ears are not very sensitive at those frequencies and you're going to end up having to apply a large amount of boost to make an appreciable audible difference at those frequencies because of the sensitivity of our ears, and if nothing you're going to play has much content down there anyway, the added DSP isn't going to make much of a difference because there's going to be very little content for it to boost.

In other words, do you have a real problem here or are you creating one based on your reading of a particular specification? Before starting to think of ways to solve the problem, make certain you really have a problem. And remember you can always get a little more boost in the bass with careful sub placement and using a room corner to give you more boost in the bass. You should also take care to make sure that your listening position is located at a point in the room where bass response for those frequencies is good because the strength of the bass you hear is also determined by where in the room you sit. If your bass level at the listening position isn't as good as you can make it with sub and listening position placement, you're going to have to drive the subs even harder just to recover what you're losing with less than optimum setup in addition to whatever you feel you have to do to get response down to 18 HZ rather than 20 Hz and there's no practical benefit in going to all of that effort if the content you play doesn't extend down that far anyway because unless the content goes down that far there's nothing to hear. 

See what kind of results you can get with the subs first before you go trying to make a difference in the 18 to 20 Hz range because making a difference in that range is likely to require lots of power with good setup and even more power with a less than optimum setup. The quick and dirty maximum bass solution which doesn't work well with surround setups because the surrounds end up in less than ideal positions would be subs in the front corners and the listening position extremely close to the back wall. That will give you maximum bass. You'll probably want space behind you because of the surround channels in which case where you put the listening position is going to be important.


----------



## Bayouslim77

David Aiken said:


> Bayouslim77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for your response Mike. What i meant by adjusting frequency was using hpf and lpf to get down to the tuning frequency of the subs which is 18hz. They above mentioned amplifier states it can play down to 20hz, but at 8ohms it has a frequency response down to 10hz. I'll be using a 4ohm load so I'm not sure the amplifier will respond under 20hz, which is why I'm wondering if i need the mini dsp.
> 
> 
> 
> "The above amplifier states…" - Those statements usually refer to a specification that it can play x Hz to y Hz within +/- so many dB. They don't normally mean that the sub won't play anything below the low frequency mentioned, just that those frequencies won't be played at a level within the specified dB range. It's extremely unlikely that the sub won't produce output below 20 Hz. I think the real question is how loud it will be below 20 Hz.
> 
> When it comes to that, the question of how low the audio in whatever you're playing goes is also important. Most recordings/soundtracks have little content below 20 Hz anyway.
> 
> Before you start worrying about this issue and investigating DSP options, I'd get the system up and running and see just how it performs without DSP. I assume you're going to be measuring the frequency response with test tones and that's fine, it's worth seeing what the system can deliver without any extra DSP processing, but I'd check it out also with some audio (music or soundtrack) with the lowest content you've got and see what results you get in the lowest passages. The difference between 20 Hz and 10 Hz is small, your ears are not very sensitive at those frequencies and you're going to end up having to apply a large amount of boost to make an appreciable audible difference at those frequencies because of the sensitivity of our ears, and if nothing you're going to play has much content down there anyway, the added DSP isn't going to make much of a difference because there's going to be very little content for it to boost.
> 
> In other words, do you have a real problem here or are you creating one based on your reading of a particular specification? Before starting to think of ways to solve the problem, make certain you really have a problem. And remember you can always get a little more boost in the bass with careful sub placement and using a room corner to give you more boost in the bass. You should also take care to make sure that your listening position is located at a point in the room where bass response for those frequencies is good because the strength of the bass you hear is also determined by where in the room you sit. If your bass level at the listening position isn't as good as you can make it with sub and listening position placement, you're going to have to drive the subs even harder just to recover what you're losing with less than optimum setup in addition to whatever you feel you have to do to get response down to 18 HZ rather than 20 Hz and there's no practical benefit in going to all of that effort if the content you play doesn't extend down that far anyway because unless the content goes down that far there's nothing to hear.
> 
> See what kind of results you can get with the subs first before you go trying to make a difference in the 18 to 20 Hz range because making a difference in that range is likely to require lots of power with good setup and even more power with a less than optimum setup. The quick and dirty maximum bass solution which doesn't work well with surround setups because the surrounds end up in less than ideal positions would be subs in the front corners and the listening position extremely close to the back wall. That will give you maximum bass. You'll probably want space behind you because of the surround channels in which case where you put the listening position is going to be important.
Click to expand...

 thank you for your reply Mr aiken! This community is so helpful! My my seats sit in the center of my room which measures 20'x12'x8' and there's an 8' section that opens into my living room, foyer, and hallway.i had two Klipsch 12" subs sitting up front under my screen, but i moved one to the back of my room at the center point of the wall and they bass seemed more even. These subs have the ports in the rear, so i think the new subs will perform even better in those positions with the ports front firing. I'll order up a umik-1 Mic and run some tests with REW after i build the subs. Thanks so much for the replies and answering my NOOB questions! I'll report my results soon.


----------



## David Aiken

Bayouslim77 said:


> thank you for your reply Mr aiken! This community is so helpful! My my seats sit in the center of my room which measures 20'x12'x8' and there's an 8' section that opens into my living room, foyer, and hallway.i had two Klipsch 12" subs sitting up front under my screen, but i moved one to the back of my room at the center point of the wall and they bass seemed more even. These subs have the ports in the rear, so i think the new subs will perform even better in those positions with the ports front firing. I'll order up a umik-1 Mic and run some tests with REW after i build the subs. Thanks so much for the replies and answering my NOOB questions! I'll report my results soon.


I just did a Google search for you. Have a look at https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/multsubs_0.pdf. It's a long pdf on the use of more than one sub but easy to skim through. It's a long document to scroll through because it shows a slide presentation so the slides on the left side take up a lot of space but the comments on the right give brief explanations of the slides and make it a lot easier to follow than trying to figure out the slides. Skim the explanations, pick out those that refer to your concerns and situation, and then look at the slides for them rather than trying to read the whole thing unless you want to know more than you ever thought you wanted to know 

Welti has done a lot of research on placement of multiple subs. His conclusion is that 2 subs placed at the centre of opposing walls, which sounds like what you are doing, is very good and better than 2 subs in adjacent corners as I suggested so I'd stick with your current placement. He's also got some information in there about listening position placement.

I'd even hold off on the purchase of the umik-1 mic until after you've set things up and seen how happy you are with what you can get just running Audyssey. In my view there's no need to spend money on gear for measurement if y you're happy with the results you can get with the subs and Audyssey. As I said, you're probably not going to run into much in the way of content between 18 Hz and 20 Hz so if you're happy with the sound you get at the lowest frequencies you get after running Audyssey I think there's little advantage to be gained. The goal is to get bass that suits your tastes, not bass that satisfies some theoretical goal given that you are never going to get perfectly flat response all the way down anyway, no matter what you do. I'm not against spending money to solve problems, provided of course you can solve the problem, but I do think it's best to find out whether you have a problem you want to solve and what your ears tell you is more important in the end than what the measurements tell you. Use measurements to help you solve problems you can hear rather than to tell you you have a problem.

If you want more low bass than you get just using Audyssey, start by reading Mike's posts on low bass and tweaking sub settings in Audyssey first and see how you go with his suggestions. His guide to sub calibration and bass preferences is an essential source of information and assistance in my view.


----------



## pbarach

Don't use the Audyssey app if you want to do room correction below 20 Hz or so; the app rolls off below 20 Hz, the Audyssey software in the AVR does not.


----------



## Bayouslim77

David Aiken said:


> Bayouslim77 said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for your reply Mr aiken! This community is so helpful! My my seats sit in the center of my room which measures 20'x12'x8' and there's an 8' section that opens into my living room, foyer, and hallway.i had two Klipsch 12" subs sitting up front under my screen, but i moved one to the back of my room at the center point of the wall and they bass seemed more even. These subs have the ports in the rear, so i think the new subs will perform even better in those positions with the ports front firing. I'll order up a umik-1 Mic and run some tests with REW after i build the subs. Thanks so much for the replies and answering my NOOB questions! I'll report my results soon.
> 
> 
> 
> I just did a Google search for you. Have a look at https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/multsubs_0.pdf. It's a long pdf on the use of more than one sub but easy to skim through. It's a long document to scroll through because it shows a slide presentation so the slides on the left side take up a lot of space but the comments on the right give brief explanations of the slides and make it a lot easier to follow than trying to figure out the slides. Skim the explanations, pick out those that refer to your concerns and situation, and then look at the slides for them rather than trying to read the whole thing unless you want to know more than you ever thought you wanted to know 🙂
> 
> Welti has done a lot of research on placement of multiple subs. His conclusion is that 2 subs placed at the centre of opposing walls, which sounds like what you are doing, is very good and better than 2 subs in adjacent corners as I suggested so I'd stick with your current placement. He's also got some information in there about listening position placement.
> 
> I'd even hold off on the purchase of the umik-1 mic until after you've set things up and seen how happy you are with what you can get just running Audyssey. In my view there's no need to spend money on gear for measurement if y you're happy with the results you can get with the subs and Audyssey. As I said, you're probably not going to run into much in the way of content between 18 Hz and 20 Hz so if you're happy with the sound you get at the lowest frequencies you get after running Audyssey I think there's little advantage to be gained. The goal is to get bass that suits your tastes, not bass that satisfies some theoretical goal given that you are never going to get perfectly flat response all the way down anyway, no matter what you do. I'm not against spending money to solve problems, provided of course you can solve the problem, but I do think it's best to find out whether you have a problem you want to solve and what your ears tell you is more important in the end than what the measurements tell you. Use measurements to help you solve problems you can hear rather than to tell you you have a problem.
> 
> If you want more low bass than you get just using Audyssey, start by reading Mike's posts on low bass and tweaking sub settings in Audyssey first and see how you go with his suggestions. His guide to sub calibration and bass preferences is an essential source of information and assistance in my view.
Click to expand...

 thanks for the links.i have some down time right now and i love to read so I'll check it out. Thanks for your help and input!


----------



## Bayouslim77

pbarach said:


> Don't use the Audyssey app if you want to do room correction below 20 Hz or so; the app rolls off below 20 Hz, the Audyssey software in the AVR does not.


 thanks pbarach! That's good to know,i almost purchased the app earlier, butt decided to hold off. 👍


----------



## confinoj

pbarach said:


> Don't use the Audyssey app if you want to do room correction below 20 Hz or so; the app rolls off below 20 Hz, the Audyssey software in the AVR does not.


You probably already know this but for others that haven’t read the app thread Audyssey has said it will allow the 20hz roll off to be disabled in the next app update which should be coming soon.


----------



## FlavioWolff

Alan P said:


> You must live _very_ far away from any neighbors. If I tried to listen with my windows open, I'd have the cops here in under a minute!


My apartment has thick walls, and I hardly ever listen past -15db... anyways, I live in a very crowded and hype street, there are lots of parties and clubes around. No one would blame on me =P


----------



## m0j0

*Finding the right Audyssey Mic positions*

Just wanted to share my recent experience with finding the right Audyssey mic positions to get the best out of my 7.2.4 setup on a Denon x4400h with Audyssey XT32, in case it helps others who are going through a similar effort where they just don't feel they are getting the best sound out of their setup. I have a 4 row recliner setup, and most Audyssey advice out there says to start with position one at the MLP, which in a 3 seater setup would be the middle seating position, but for me, it would be seat 2 or 3, which is not in the center of the 4 seats, so would seem to skew things to one side or the other. So, for my situation, starting on the center arm rest directly to the center of the 4 row seating was the first decision I had to make. Next, the advice says to do all your measurements at around ear height, but I had trouble with the included Audyssey mic holder from Denon as the base was wobbly and it was too tall, so a lot of my measurements ended up above ear level. I decided to mod the mic holder by removing the base and putting the stand inside a boot. That got me to ear height and made it easy to keep the mic level all the way around. Next concern was distance of the mic to the back of the seats and/or the walls. I am at least 3 feet from the back wall, so that wasn't an issue, but in my ideal mic position 1, where I am right up against the back of the seats, I had some concerns about early reflections impacting the results of the calibration. So, I did two things. First thing was I threw a big comforter over the recliner seating, since the seating material on my HT seats are rather reflective, then secondly, I did a slight recline of the two middle seats, but not a full recline, as in previous testing I found that full recline negatively impacts the bass calibration, so I wanted to avoid that outcome. I found position 1 to be the most important of all the positions as Audyssey uses this position to set both distance and trim levels for all speakers in the system. Having it at ear height and aligned with exactly where I sit was key to getting the proper blend/surround sound from front to back and side to side. Everything just hits your ears when it's supposed to and really gives a great effect. Ok, now on to mic positions 2 and 3. I went from position 1 about 26 inches to the right, which was the distance to the next chair arm over, kept it exactly aligned with position 1, kept the slight recline, took the measurement, then repeated that 26 inches to the left of position 1 on the other chair arm, again aligned perfectly and the same height. Then I put the chairs back in the normal position (no recline), went 24 inches forward from position 1 and took another measurement. Then I moved 26 inches to the right for position 5, then 26 inches to the left of position 4 for measuring position 6. Having this front line about 2 feet forward was another key in getting the best clarity from my center and front speakers. Not sure why but dialog was just so much more clear when doing it this way. Positions 7 and 8 were done about 12 inches forward of position 1, and about 2 inches to the side (basically right up against the chair arm on each side of the center arm, again making sure to keep the height the same as positions 1-6. I then went in and save the file on my Audyssey app (which I am using to do this process), turn off dynamic eq, turn off midrange compensation, set crossovers to 80Hz, LFE to 120Hz, etc. I then pulled up a DTS 11 channel test track to play back all the different speakers and listen by leaning over the center arm, then make final adjustments (usually a half db trim here or there to just fine tune). I also run pink noise from the audsyssey speaker setup and check that with an spl meter, but usually it's pretty spot on already. The end result for me was a clear, dynamic and very accurate surround sound field with great bass. It took me more tries than I can count to find what worked best for me, so that is why I thought I would take the time to share with others. For many, this is all just known stuff or common knowledge, whereas for others there might be some new ideas you get from reading this and want to try. Hope it helps someone who has been struggling to find that perfect calibration for their system but never seems to quite get there. Good luck and may the Audyssey Gods be with you!


Note: My goal was to get the middle seats to both be in the "sweet spot", so I don't have the fronts perfectly towed in and pointing to one seating position, but more like left front is towed in to middle of seat 2 and right front is towed in to middle of seat 3, which gives a pretty good result for those two seats, but less ideal for the outer 2 seats.


----------



## Erod

Holy massive paragraph, Batman! LOL

I'd recommend you take measurements with blankets over your leather seating to eliminate a lot of reflection, and it's always best to get a camera stand to attach your mic to so you can place it in the chair where your head(s) will actually be. I also like to take measurements above the backs of the seating because I have two rows and I don't want the mic to be blocked by anything or get too much reflection off the top of the front-row seats.

Lastly, I never stick with the levels set. I readjust them with a sound meter afterword to a 75 dB for the speakers and 78 dB for the combined subs.


----------



## m0j0

Erod said:


> Holy massive paragraph, Batman! LOL
> 
> I'd recommend you take measurements with blankets over your leather seating to eliminate a lot of reflection, and it's always best to get a camera stand to attach your mic to so you can place it in the chair where your head(s) will actually be. I also like to take measurements above the backs of the seating because I have two rows and I don't want the mic to be blocked by anything or get too much reflection off the top of the front-row seats.
> 
> Lastly, I never stick with the levels set. I readjust them with a sound meter afterword to a 75 dB for the speakers and 78 dB for the combined subs.



Thanks for the tips!


----------



## Erod

m0j0 said:


> Thanks for the tips!


One more tip. Not sure what that room is in your house, but I'd put some absorption or diffusion panels behind your seating to get rid of the reflections coming off that back wall behind your head.

Go to GIK or somewhere to find them.


----------



## m0j0

Erod said:


> One more tip. Not sure what that room is in your house, but I'd put some absorption or diffusion panels behind your seating to get rid of the reflections coming off that back wall behind your head.
> 
> Go to GIK or somewhere to find them.



Thanks again! Yeah, I am waiting until I build a wall enclosing the room completely before doing sound treatments and bass traps, etc.


----------



## drh3b

For people waiting for the app update fixing the subwoofer rolloff, looks like it's out!

Via @kaydee6
An update of the App V1.4.0 was released today.
20hz and below is one straight line. No dip.
Going to resend the new curve to the amp tonight!

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-39.html#post57902870


----------



## pbarach

drh3b said:


> For people waiting for the app update fixing the subwoofer rolloff, looks like it's out!
> 
> Via @kaydee6
> An update of the App V1.4.0 was released today.
> 20hz and below is one straight line. No dip.
> Going to resend the new curve to the amp tonight!
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-39.html#post57902870


20 Hz and below? Don't the "after" graphs on the app go no lower than 20 Hz?


----------



## confinoj

pbarach said:


> 20 Hz and below? Don't the "after" graphs on the app go no lower than 20 Hz?


Yes but Audyssey can EQ as low as 10Hz. You can only manipulate the curves down to 20hz so that's all the app displays. For those with subs that natively roll off well below 20Hz (as many on AVS do) people were seeing significant roll off below 20Hz when measured using REW and subjectively as compared with the AVR based calibration. This was reported to be by design for somewhat unclear reasons but has now been seemingly fixed although it needs to be verified by someone with REW measurments. It's also not clear if there is any benefit to re-running a calibration or not. Audyssey has not really said much and the app note don't even mention the fix. Hopefully it becomes clearer over time.


----------



## Peder Hansen

Ive read quite a few people were unhappy with the xt32 performance a couple of years ago, seemed they preferred to turn audyssey off.. due to overall muffled/dull sound and `unexplainable` treble variations for example. is the xt32 performance in a better state these days


----------



## confinoj

Peder Hansen said:


> Ive read quite a few people were unhappy with the xt32 performance a couple of years ago, seemed they preferred to turn audyssey off.. due to overall muffled/dull sound and `unexplainable` treble variations for example. is the xt32 performance in a better state these days


I don't believe the AVR based xt32 calibration has changed much if at all. In general I think the majority of users are actually happy with the results. However with the Audyssey app it is now very customizable so you should be able to tailor it more to your liking. With the


----------



## garygarrison

Peder Hansen said:


> Ive read quite a few people were unhappy with the xt32 performance a couple of years ago, seemed they preferred to turn audyssey off.. due to overall muffled/dull sound and `unexplainable` treble variations for example. is the xt32 performance in a better state these days



That has happened with previous versions of Audyssey, and with certain other room EQ systems. The only one I have never heard complaints about is the highest version of Dirac Live Full Frequency configuration. In the case of Audyssey I strongly suspect that the people who felt that way, and turned off Audyssey, were *unrepresentative.*

The reasons for the complaints you mention could be*:*

Some (few) room/speaker combinations might not be helped by Audyssey, for a variety of reasons, including that the room is very correctly treated and the speakers are pretty flat (if you look at the Stereophile reviews of speakersI think you'll find that none are really flat, i.e., neutral on a frequency response basis, in John Atkinson's measurements in a quasi-anechoic environment and in the listening room of whoever wrote that particular main review. Audyssey is pretty good at flattening out the curve (at least with the Audyssey Flat mode), providing you with reference*;* it is then up to you to provide preference, which for many people on this forum consists of turning up the subwoofer a bit, AFTER running Audyssey.See Mike Thomas's guide (below) to see how to do this without adding distortion.


Many (all?) AVRs and AVPs put on Audyssey Reference and Dynamic EQ as a default setting. Audyssey Reference rolls off the treble, starting at about 8K Hz, reaching -2 dB at 10K, and -6 dB at 20 K. With just an AVR, it also imposes "midrange compensation" which provides a ~~ 2dB cut at about 2K, to make an area where the human ear/brain is most sensitive less noticeable. All of this could result in *"overall muffled/dull sound." *That is why I avoid Audyssey Reference and use Audyssey Flat with almost everything, including virtually all movies made in the 21st. century on Blu-ray, and most of my CDs, SACDs, and DVD-As. Other rooms could be different. YMMV. With the app (extra) you can turn off "midrange compensation," and make other changes in the overall curve.
Using Audyssey requires careful set-up, and in most cases some experimentation. Here are two valuable sources of information*:* 1) The Guide of Mike Thomas:  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
*** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement. And, 2) the original Audyssey "how to" thread, primarily by Keith Barnes "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" Both are better than any manual I've seen. Mike's is more up to date.

My room is moderately treated and well proportioned. It went from *+/- *6.5 dB (i.e., 13 dB peak-trough) without Audyssey, to *+/-* 2.5 dB (5 dB peak-trough) with Audyssey Flat, except for the bass I've turned up to produce a Harman-like preferred curve, all as measured by a calibrated mic in several positions, and averaged using REW. My sound system has never sounded better.


Someday my computer won't fight me.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Hey all, I was finally able to get the app working and ran a cycle...what should I look at turning on/ off, limiting, and basically what the heck am I looking at and looking for?

Is there an FAQ for the app?

Thanks for any help!

EDIT: One question I'm still confused on...setting a crossover based on Audyssey or my speaker specifications? For example, Audyssey set my R25C at 60Hz, but the specs say it's only good to 82Hz. Also have the common tower issue of Large (know to set to small) and 40Hz...I generally run it at 60Hz. Surrounds are fine at 120Hz. 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Hey all, I was finally able to get the app working and ran a cycle...*what should I look at turning on/ off, limiting, and basically what the heck am I looking at and looking for*? 

*You will find that there are a variety of opinions on this subject.*

*First, get more or less (probably less) flat frequency response. Audyssey should give you that, if your room was pretty good to start with. You could measure the results with free REW and a $75 - $100 measurement mic, but be sure to measure from several mic positions in the room (preferably the 8 positions you used when running Audyssey) and average the results. REW has a button for averaging curves. AVS has an entire thread on REW, with recommendations. AND/OR, listen for several sessions, and see if a variety of music sounds like the real thing. [IMO, one should use music for this; film dialog and effects will take care of themselves, except in the deep bass (see ahead)]. **Paul Klipsch recommended "recalibrating your ears" first by attending a variety of live concerts, featuring the kinds of music you like, before evaluating your sound system. *
* Second,set to preference, to produce a frequency response you like. On the average, so it is claimed, people like a Harmon-like curve, with the extreme bass end of the curve up to 9 - 12 dB higher than the extreme treble end:*

*







*
*But your ears are king. Use them. I, for instance, wouldn't roll off the high end.**
*
*To achieve preference, experiment, experiment experiment with Audyssey Flat v.s. Audyssey Reference (rolls off the treble), Midrange Compensation turned on and off, DEQ on and off, etc. You may find that one combination of settings is best for most films or recordings, and another best for a few. 
*

Is there an FAQ for the app? *I don't think so.*

Thanks for any help!

EDIT: One question I'm still confused on...setting a crossover based on Audyssey or my speaker specifications? For example, Audyssey set my R25C at 60Hz, but the specs say it's only good to 82Hz. Also have the common tower issue of Large (know to set to small) and 40Hz...I generally run it at 60Hz. Surrounds are fine at 120Hz. 
*If your R25C is getting plenty of boundary gain where it is, I can see where it might go down lower than spec. I'd probably crossover at 80 Hz anyway, to keep dialog as clear as possible. 
*


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

garygarrison said:


> Hey all, I was finally able to get the app working and ran a cycle...*what should I look at turning on/ off, limiting, and basically what the heck am I looking at and looking for*?
> 
> *You will find that there are a variety of opinions on this subject.*
> 
> *First, get more or less (probably less) flat frequency response. Audyssey should give you that, if your room was pretty good to start with. You could measure the results with free REW and a $75 - $100 measurement mic, but be sure to measure from several mic positions in the room (preferably the 8 positions you used when running Audyssey) and average the results. REW has a button for averaging curves. AVS has an entire thread on REW, with recommendations. AND/OR, listen for several sessions, and see if a variety of music sounds like the real thing. [IMO, one should use music for this; film dialog and effects will take care of themselves, except in the deep bass (see ahead)]. **Paul Klipsch recommended "recalibrating your ears" first by attending a variety of live concerts, featuring the kinds of music you like, before evaluating your sound system. *
> * Second,set to preference, to produce a frequency response you like. On the average, so it is claimed, people like a Harmon-like curve, with the extreme bass end of the curve up to 9 - 12 dB higher than the extreme treble end:*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *But your ears are king. Use them. I, for instance, wouldn't roll off the high end.**
> *
> *To achieve preference, experiment, experiment experiment with Audyssey Flat v.s. Audyssey Reference (rolls off the treble), Midrange Compensation turned on and off, DEQ on and off, etc. You may find that one combination of settings is best for most films or recordings, and another best for a few.
> *
> 
> Is there an FAQ for the app? *I don't think so.*
> 
> Thanks for any help!
> 
> EDIT: One question I'm still confused on...setting a crossover based on Audyssey or my speaker specifications? For example, Audyssey set my R25C at 60Hz, but the specs say it's only good to 82Hz. Also have the common tower issue of Large (know to set to small) and 40Hz...I generally run it at 60Hz. Surrounds are fine at 120Hz.
> *If your R25C is getting plenty of boundary gain where it is, I can see where it might go down lower than spec. I'd probably crossover at 80 Hz anyway, to keep dialog as clear as possible.
> *


Thanks, Gary! As it stands I don't mind the roll off of Audyssey Reference (use Flat for music) and I like the sound of DEQ. I have turned off MRC on all channels, and have the left the sub trims as they were set by Audyssey rather than bump them up as commonly done. I appreciate the answer on the center as it is in an open TV stand, under the TV and angled up towards our listening position. Didn't realize it being compartmentalized could affect the frequency response.


----------



## jabe00

drh3b said:


> For people waiting for the app update fixing the subwoofer rolloff, looks like it's out!
> 
> 
> 
> Via @kaydee6
> 
> An update of the App V1.4.0 was released today.
> 
> 20hz and below is one straight line. No dip.
> 
> Going to resend the new curve to the amp tonight!
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-39.html#post57902870


Hi,

Just need to resend last one or is better to run again? 

Thanks,

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## drh3b

jabe00 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just need to resend last one or is better to run again?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


In the Audyssey app thread, a guy from Audyssey verified the theory that you just need to upload it again.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-40.html#post57909908


----------



## David Aiken

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Hey all, I was finally able to get the app working and ran a cycle...what should I look at turning on/ off, limiting, and basically what the heck am I looking at and looking for?
> 
> Is there an FAQ for the app?
> 
> Thanks for any help!
> 
> EDIT: One question I'm still confused on...setting a crossover based on Audyssey or my speaker specifications? For example, Audyssey set my R25C at 60Hz, but the specs say it's only good to 82Hz. Also have the common tower issue of Large (know to set to small) and 40Hz...I generally run it at 60Hz. Surrounds are fine at 120Hz.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Is there an FAQ? Yes, I knew I'd seen one in the MultEQ App thread but didn't have a link for the post with the FAQ. The link has just been posted again so I can now copy it here for you:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-92.html#post56565524

At the bottom of the FAQ post is a link to a manual written by a member. 

As far as I know there's basically no official documentation available, just documents like these 2 documents.


----------



## pbz06

Regarding the App update and how it supposedly doesn't roll off the subs at 20hz...how can I confirm? I don't see any settings within the app, and the graph stops at 20hz.


----------



## David Aiken

pbz06 said:


> Regarding the App update and how it supposedly doesn't roll off the subs at 20hz...how can I confirm? I don't see any settings within the app, and the graph stops at 20hz.


What's your sub's actual in room response? Audyssey sets filters which only work to the point where the speaker's response is down 3 dB. They don't boost below that frequency because of the possibility of damage to the speaker so if your sub's response in room drops to -3 dB above 20 Hz, Audyssey will stop correcting the response at that point and the sub will start rolling off naturally.

The problem was that Audyssey in the AVR did not start rolling the sub off naturally at 20 Hz if it was still providing adequate response at that point but the app did start rolling those sub off at 20 Hz. The people who have been asking for the change are people whose subs were still providing good response that wasn't 3 dB down at 20 Hz and they were noticing a difference in bass response with the app as opposed to the response they were getting if they used their AVR for the calibration process. The change to the app means that now both AVR and app behave in the same way.

As you point out, the graph Audyssey provides only goes down to 20 Hz so if you want to see what's happening below 20 Hz you need to use a different mic and measurement software and if your sub starts rolling off in room above 20 Hz you won't see a difference. The only people who will notice a difference are those with subs which are still providing good in room response to below 20 Hz. If you compared your results with the app prior to the update to the results you got with your AVR doing the calibration and you didn't notice a difference, you won't notice a difference with the app after the update. It's only those people who could notice a difference using the app before the update who will notice a difference with it.


----------



## pbz06

David Aiken said:


> What's your sub's actual in room response? Audyssey sets filters which only work to the point where the speaker's response is down 3 dB. They don't boost below that frequency because of the possibility of damage to the speaker so if your sub's response in room drops to -3 dB above 20 Hz, Audyssey will stop correcting the response at that point and the sub will start rolling off naturally.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem was that Audyssey in the AVR did not start rolling the sub off naturally at 20 Hz if it was still providing adequate response at that point but the app did start rolling those sub off at 20 Hz. The people who have been asking for the change are people whose subs were still providing good response that wasn't 3 dB down at 20 Hz and they were noticing a difference in bass response with the app as opposed to the response they were getting if they used their AVR for the calibration process. The change to the app means that now both AVR and app behave in the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> As you point out, the graph Audyssey provides only goes down to 20 Hz so if you want to see what's happening below 20 Hz you need to use a different mic and measurement software and if your sub starts rolling off in room above 20 Hz you won't see a difference. The only people who will notice a difference are those with subs which are still providing good in room response to below 20 Hz. If you compared your results with the app prior to the update to the results you got with your AVR doing the calibration and you didn't notice a difference, you won't notice a difference with the app after the update. It's only those people who could notice a difference using the app before the update who will notice a difference with it.


I need to measure it with umik and REW to know exactly, but I've always been happier with my bass with running through AVR only, rather than with the app. The app seemed to result in a little less tactile feel and a little more boomy. I sort of assumed it had something to do with the 20hz roll off.

I re-ran XT32 last night and this is the result I get. I haven't tested my go-to scenes yet, but just curious if there is a setting to see the graph lower than 20hz or how to know if it stopped pegging the roll off at 20hz. 

But like you said, perhaps it doesn't matter if my actual ROOM response doesn't play it that deep anyway..

P.s.- I have an HSU VTF15-MK2


----------



## mdameron

Just ordered a denon x3400h. Coming from a denon avr1911. So that is multeq to multieq xt32. Should be a huge upgrade, no? I have dual subs. I'm pumped.


----------



## darthray

mdameron said:


> Just ordered a denon x3400h. Coming from a denon avr1911. *So that is multeq to multieq xt32. Should be a huge upgrade, no? I have dual subs.* I'm pumped.


It should, the XT32 have a lot more filters to play with, than the MultiEQ. Therefore a smoother overall response.
Another advantage, since you have two subs. It will adjust the sound level and distance for each sub.
Removing the need to it manually, before calibration. Since once the distance and the volume, are figure out. Audyssey will do the calibration, as one sub. 

The reason all movie are 5.1, 7.1 or Atmos/DTS:X a 7.1.4 sound track (many AVR will do a .2 instead of .4, and very few can do even more ceiling channels, .6 and even more).
I use to say, my system is 7.2.4, when in reality it is 7.1.4 (two subs).
Just info for thought


Ray


----------



## zeonstar

Question I have been meaning to ask.

If I am listening at night and using Dynamic Volume to try and keep the volume down (For people sleeping) do I actually want to have Dynamic EQ OFF since it boosts The sub and surrounds?


----------



## prsman

*Should I see Subwoofer Results?*

After running Audyssey from a Denon x4500H in a 7.1 system and viewing the "Check Results" for Equalizers........there is no Subwoofer graphical EQ. Does Audyssey perform a SW EQ or just adjust the level? The subwoofer was successfully setup in the system and shows under Speaker Config, Distances, Levels, but nothing under the equalizer. Do you know whats going on? thanks!


----------



## mogorf

zeonstar said:


> Question I have been meaning to ask.
> 
> If I am listening at night and using Dynamic Volume to try and keep the volume down (For people sleeping) do I actually want to have Dynamic EQ OFF since it boosts The sub and surrounds?



Hi, I think this is really up to you. Why not make your own testings and decide together with family members. Secondly, does your AVR have LFC? That could also help. Lastly you always have the option to use a headphone.


----------



## confinoj

zeonstar said:


> Question I have been meaning to ask.
> 
> If I am listening at night and using Dynamic Volume to try and keep the volume down (For people sleeping) do I actually want to have Dynamic EQ OFF since it boosts The sub and surrounds?


I have found DEQ and DV work well together for late night viewing. I usually stick to just the light setting on DV though as more than that and the sound gets a little too compressed but the higher settings could help if you find there is still too much swing in volume levels. Even at low listening levels DEQ and some sub boost keep some impact to the low end so you can still enjoy the action/scifi movies without too much spread to other rooms if volume is kept low enough. You can adjust the reference level offset of DEQ to tame its bass and surround boost if needed. The one issue I have found though is that because DEQ is volume dependent and with DV on the master volume needs to get turned way down so the surround boost becomes an issue for overpowering center channel dialogue so you may need to turn down surround trims. If I try DV alone without DEQ at low listening levels required for night time there is almost no bass I find.


----------



## zeonstar

confinoj said:


> I have found DEQ and DV work well together for late night viewing. I usually stick to just the light setting on DV though as more than that and the sound gets a little too compressed but the higher settings could help if you find there is still too much swing in volume levels. Even at low listening levels DEQ and some sub boost keep some impact to the low end so you can still enjoy the action/scifi movies without too much spread to other rooms if volume is kept low enough. You can adjust the reference level offset of DEQ to tame its bass and surround boost if needed. The one issue I have found though is that because DEQ is volume dependent and with DV on the master volume needs to get turned way down so the surround boost becomes an issue for overpowering center channel dialogue so you may need to turn down surround trims. If I try DV alone without DEQ at low listening levels required for night time there is almost no bass I find.


Appreciate your thoughts, thank you. The relationship between DEQ and DV has always kind of confused me. DEQ engaged as the volume goes down, yet when DV is engaged, the volume is naturally down. If you are trying to use DV to control volume for say late night viewing, then DEQ enhancing your bass and surrounds seems counter productive. 

I have messed with using both over the years and I will continue to experiment.  



mogorf said:


> Hi, I think this is really up to you. Why not make your own testings and decide together with family members. Secondly, does your AVR have LFC? That could also help. Lastly you always have the option to use a headphone.


My AVR (x4400h) does have LFC but honestly I have been hesitant to try it. Afraid it will neuter the bass too much. I use to use headphones more on my old AVR before I built a Dolby Atmos system. Now I just want to use it (and my speakers) as much as possible.


----------



## garygarrison

zeonstar said:


> The relationship between DEQ and DV has always kind of confused me. DEQ engaged as the volume goes down, yet when DV is engaged, the volume is naturally down. If you are trying to use DV to control volume for say late night viewing, then DEQ enhancing your bass and surrounds seems counter productive.



While I have used compressors (long ago) I have never used DV, so others probably have a better grasp than I do. I am confident they will chime in. I should also say that the reason I have never used DV is that nobody is trying to sleep nearby when I play movies or music, and I think DV subverts the intentions of composers and filmmakers.



ASFAIK, when DV is used, the Sound Pressure Level may be down, but, as I understand it, DV's job is to merely compresses the dynamic range of SPL, by reducing the volume of the loudest sounds (which can come without warning in today's movies), and, probably, turning up the softest sounds. So if you adjust your Main Volume so that the dialogue is fairly soft, but intelligible, the loudest sounds should be quieter than without DV, but the softest sounds should be still audible. *If* a Blu-ray uses the full dynamic range available this range can extend from nearly total silence to very brief peaks (milliseconds) of 105 dB through each main channel, and 115 dB through the subwoofer. If we think of near silence as 10 dB in a truly soundproof HT, with a quietly breathing audience, then the possible dynamic range from soft to loud would be 10 dB to 105 dB through the main channels, and 10 dB to 115 dB through the sub. The job of DV is to reduce those ranges. Some dynamic range compressors can cut the range in half*.** I have no idea how much compression DV does. DEQ will turn up the bass (and treble, to a lesser degree) to compensate for bass & treble attenuation the human ear/brain imposes at lower volumes. You then adjust the Main Volume to the level you want, and if it seems to be loud enough to disturb others, you can turn it down, and DEQ will compensate more as you turn the MV down, to preserve frequency response balance. 



***One dbx as part of a noise reducing processes.


----------



## confinoj

Linked below is a good description of Dynamic Volume and current understanding of it's different levels. As I noted above the light setting is very tolerable yet still beneficial at night but higher settings have fairly compressed dynamic range.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#VB


----------



## curtlots

*Continue to use electronic crossover for subwoofers?*

I just bought a Marantz SR6012 which I'll be receiving in a couple of days. This will be my first experience using Audyssey. 

A little background on my current setup. I'm running three subwoofers. One is a 15" homebrew ported sub which utilizes bass management in the H/K receiver. The sub-out goes to a separate subwoofer amp which powers the 15" sub. The sub is located in the front/right corner of my theater room. My receiver is a Harman Kardon AVR 3600. My other two subs are "classic" HSU Research 10" ported subs. Each one is placed beneath one of my main L/R speakers. For this setup, I'm using the main L/R pre-outs of the receiver, which are routed through a HSU Research electronic crossover. From there, the bass frequencies go to a pair of mono amps powering the HSU subs and the upper frequencies go to a Parasound 5 channel amp. This is the setup I've used for years, using several different receivers, and it generally has worked quite well. 

With the Marantz SR6012 and Audyssey, is now the time to finally take the electronic crossover out of my system, use the double sub-outs of the receiver and let Audyssey do all the work? For what it's worth, I'm all in favor of simplifying my system. 

HSU electronic crossover: http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/high-end-crossover.html


----------



## David Aiken

curtlots said:


> I just bought a Marantz SR6012 which I'll be receiving in a couple of days. This will be my first experience using Audyssey.
> 
> A little background on my current setup. I'm running three subwoofers. One is a 15" homebrew ported sub which utilizes bass management in the H/K receiver. The sub-out goes to a separate subwoofer amp which powers the 15" sub. The sub is located in the front/right corner of my theater room. My receiver is a Harman Kardon AVR 3600. My other two subs are "classic" HSU Research 10" ported subs. Each one is placed beneath one of my main L/R speakers. For this setup, I'm using the main L/R pre-outs of the receiver, which are routed through a HSU Research electronic crossover. From there, the bass frequencies go to a pair of mono amps powering the HSU subs and the upper frequencies go to a Parasound 5 channel amp. This is the setup I've used for years, using several different receivers, and it generally has worked quite well.
> 
> With the Marantz SR6012 and Audyssey, is now the time to finally take the electronic crossover out of my system, use the double sub-outs of the receiver and let Audyssey do all the work? For what it's worth, I'm all in favor of simplifying my system.
> 
> HSU electronic crossover: http://www.hsuresearch.com/products/high-end-crossover.html


Since you're using the front L and R pre outs to feed the HSU crossover which then passes signals to your front speakers and to the subs, you should remove it. As far as the 6012 will be concerned you are running a system without subs because nothing will be connected to the sub outputs if you keep using the HSU crossover the way you are currently using it. What Audyssey will measure when it sends test tones to each of the front speakers is a combination of the speaker and sub because it has no way of sending a test tone just to each speaker and just to each sub. 

If you remove the HSU crossover and connect each sub directly to the 6012 each speaker and sub gets it's own individual feed from the 6012 and can be measured individually. The 6012's bass management functions will take over the job the HSU crossover has been doing. You'll be connecting the amps that drive the subs to the sub outs on the 6012 and if you wish you can even continue to use the Parasound 5 channel amp to drive the other speakers by connecting it to the pre outs for those 5 channels or you could connect the speakers directly to the 6012's speaker outputs, your choice depending on whether the Parasound gives you more power or some other advantage and possibly on how much you want to simplify your system.

Be aware that in your current setup the subs are only handling the bass from the front L and R channels. When you connect the subs directly to the 6012, it's bass management function is going to pass bass from all 5 channels to the subs, taking a bit of the load off all speakers and probably giving an additional improvement in sound quality.


----------



## Dane K

I have denon AVR S740. After auddyssey is done can I tweak Center and Subwoofer level. Also when watching movies on lower volumen in nights what settings I need to change in my reciever. Do I need to turn on dynamic volumen or anything else.


----------



## curtlots

David Aiken said:


> Since you're using the front L and R pre outs to feed the HSU crossover which then passes signals to your front speakers and to the subs, you should remove it. As far as the 6012 will be concerned you are running a system without subs because nothing will be connected to the sub outputs if you keep using the HSU crossover the way you are currently using it. What Audyssey will measure when it sends test tones to each of the front speakers is a combination of the speaker and sub because it has no way of sending a test tone just to each speaker and just to each sub.
> 
> If you remove the HSU crossover and connect each sub directly to the 6012 each speaker and sub gets it's own individual feed from the 6012 and can be measured individually. The 6012's bass management functions will take over the job the HSU crossover has been doing. You'll be connecting the amps that drive the subs to the sub outs on the 6012 and if you wish you can even continue to use the Parasound 5 channel amp to drive the other speakers by connecting it to the pre outs for those 5 channels or you could connect the speakers directly to the 6012's speaker outputs, your choice depending on whether the Parasound gives you more power or some other advantage and possibly on how much you want to simplify your system.
> 
> Be aware that in your current setup the subs are only handling the bass from the front L and R channels. When you connect the subs directly to the 6012, it's bass management function is going to pass bass from all 5 channels to the subs, taking a bit of the load off all speakers and probably giving an additional improvement in sound quality.


Thanks so much David for the detailed explanation. Much appreciated and it really helps me moving forward. I'll remove the electronic crossover and hook up my subs per your recommendation. I plan on using the Parasound amp (it's the 2205A) for my main 5 channels and using the internal amps of the Marantz to complete a 7.2.4 Atmos layout. I'm sure I'll be visiting this forum a lot going forward.


----------



## garygarrison

Dane K said:


> I have denon AVR S740. After auddyssey is done can I tweak Center and Subwoofer level. *Yes, it's O.K.* for both. If you use a Main Volume setting above about *-*10, it's probably best to keep the subwoofer trim *in the AVR* at or below *-*5 to avoid clipping the line driver in the AVR sub output under the impact of so much bass. If you do that, you may need to turn up the control on the sub itself to compensate, or to boost the bass even more ... but listen for distortion. Most people prefer the deep bass somewhat boosted. Also when watching movies on lower volume in nights what settings I need to change in my reciever. Do I need to turn on dynamic volume or anything else. You may not need to, but you may want to if there is anyone sleeping nearby. Dynamic Volume has the reputation of reducing the impact of music and movies.


 Good luck!


----------



## Dane K

Thanks Garry.
I read some posts from you before but didn't find conclusions if existed.
What to do with atmos bouncing speakers I have Sony sscse sit on top of my polks t300. Is it better to make them louder 3db to get better response from them and when measuring distance on my denon says to measure from top of speakers to ceiling, but on forums most people say to measure from speakers to ceiling and than back to listening position.So that only making me more confused.
Thanks a lot.


----------



## agerson

I live in an apartment, have a wife who also enjoys good sound, and don't have the space for a proper home theatre space. Got to do the best I can with my small living room. Floorplan attached below. 

I just got a new Denon X3400 that supports Audyssey X32. I know I need to pick a "primary listening position" and configure in two-foot increments around it. The problem is that we have two, two seater couches in an L-shape. My wife and I watch movies on separate couches as by themselves they are really too small for both of us. We have an OLED tv so off-axis viewing is not an issue. We are not audiophiles, just looking for the best 5.1 sound experience we can get when watching movies. 

1. I have no idea where to place my eight sampling positions and still make it so some decent sound gets over to the left couch. I know I could just do it all only on the couch across from the tv, but that biases the room against 50% of the people in it. Is there any combination of testing locations that could include some of the leftmost couch as it is a major listening spot as well?

2. Is the direction my sub is facing ok? Otherwise, it would be pointed into a wall or the side of a couch. 

3. Is it ok to angle the left surround speaker the way I have? Again, the goal is to have the sound fill the area around both couches as much as possible.


----------



## David Aiken

agerson said:


> I live in an apartment, have a wife who also enjoys good sound, and don't have the space for a proper home theatre space. Got to do the best I can with my small living room. Floorplan attached below.
> 
> I just got a new Denon X3400 that supports Audyssey X32. I know I need to pick a "primary listening position" and configure in two-foot increments around it. The problem is that we have two, two seater couches in an L-shape. My wife and I watch movies on separate couches as by themselves they are really too small for both of us. We have an OLED tv so off-axis viewing is not an issue. We are not audiophiles, just looking for the best 5.1 sound experience we can get when watching movies.
> 
> 1. I have no idea where to place my eight sampling positions and still make it so some decent sound gets over to the left couch. I know I could just do it all only on the couch across from the tv, but that biases the room against 50% of the people in it. Is there any combination of testing locations that could include some of the leftmost couch as it is a major listening spot as well?
> 
> 2. Is the direction my sub is facing ok? Otherwise, it would be pointed into a wall or the side of a couch.
> 
> 3. Is it ok to angle the left surround speaker the way I have? Again, the goal is to have the sound fill the area around both couches as much as possible.


OK, flip your room left for right, keep the bookshelf in that left front corner but rotate it along the side wall, and replace couch 1 with a chair and you've got a rough idea of my setup in a lot of ways, the big difference being that there's a lot more open plan area behind the chair than you have behind couch 1.

To answer your questions:

1- If you want people on both couches to get "decent sound", that's possible. If you want them all to get a good soundstage with similar left/right and front/back imaging, that isn't possible. You have a choice between doing your calibration centred on couch 1 which means the people there will get the best sound and soundstage/imaging or trying to cover both couches in some way in which case everyone loses and no one will get the best sound and soundstage/imaging. Your choice. You can't make it great for everyone if people are split on 2 couches at right angles to each other with one couch to the outside of one of the front speakers. If it were me, I'd set up things based on a calibration for couch 1. I'd start by doing a calibration with position 1, the main listening position, on the couch at a point equidistant from the front L&R speakers and space the other positions symmetrically around position 1 as in the standard instructions. Then I'd try that and see how it went for people on couch 2. Results will be better for those at the end closest to couch 1 and anyone who is at the other end, the end closest to the screen, is going to be in trouble because the calibration is unlikely to give a good result for them and they're sitting so far off axis for the screen that the image they see is going to be badly compromised as well. With luck anyone sitting on couch 2 close to the couch 1 end is going to get clear dialogue and a good tonal balance but the soundstage is going to be off by quite a bit. Everyone is supposed to be sitting with the front and surround L speakers on their left and the front and surround R speakers on their right. The people on couch 2 are sitting with the front L speaker on their left and the surround left speaker on their right. You simply can't get an accurate soundstage sitting in that kind of position.

If the dialogue clarity and tonal quality isn't quite right, try doing a few more calibrations moving position 1 a bit to the left towards couch 2 each time and see if you can get better results for those on couch 2 without making things too bad for people on couch 1. It's going to be trial and error with no guarantee of a great result but it's not going to be possible to get anywhere near the best result for anyone sitting between a front speaker and the surround speaker on the same side of the room. Multichannel sound is mixed on the basis that the speakers are in particular positions relative to the listener and the position of people on couch 2 is not the position that multichannel mixes are made for.

Alternative options: I can only think of 2 which could deliver reasonable results for both couches. One is to move the TV and front speakers so they are placed diagonally across the corner where the front right speaker currently is so the screen faces a point between the 2 couches, move the front speakers to match screen position, put the surround R to the right of couch 1 and surround L to the left of couch 2, and the sub where it can fit. Position 1 for calibration would be where the 2 couches are closest to each other. The second alternative solution is more radical but it's what I've gone for in my room and it works well. Get rid of the surrounds and run a 2.1 system. Calibrate for a main listening position in front of the centre of the screen as I suggested for the first calibration above and get the best sound you can get for couch 1. You'll probably be surprised at how well that will hold up for someone at the couch 1 end of couch 2. The soundstage will actually seem reasonably good for movies and TV because your brain will take positioning cues from the location of people and sound sources on screen and that's the way people on couch 2 will tend to hear the soundstage. I live alone and I use a chair where your couch 1 is for serious viewing but if I'm just casually watching something I often tend to just lie on my couch in the kind of position your couch 2 is in but on the right side of my room and the sound holds up extremely well. You may well find that it's not to big an ask to get rid of surround speakers in a 5.1 system. I found it easy to do that but I'd hate to give up the subwoofer channel.


2- the sub direction is OK but you can experiment with that if you like. Mark the current location on the floor with masking tape or if the floor is carpeted you can use velcro cable ties which will stick to the carpet to mark the sub's initial position. Try rotating the sub in different directions (don't recalibrate while doing this) and see if facing it in another direction seems to offer an improvement. If it does then you may want to recalibrate for the new position if the change in bass is big and causes a notable tonal shift. Theoretically you should recalibrate if you move the sub but for a small difference I'd leave it a while, live with the change to see how I felt about it after a week or so, and recalibrate then if I was going to keep the changed position.

3- If it were me I'd face the L surround towards couch 1 rather than angled the way it is. That will make it stronger for couch 1 and improve things for people there. It's going to make the L surround weaker for people on couch 2 and that may actually help for them since they aren't supposed to be sitting between front L and surround L. Try it and see. There's no way I can predict the result for those on couch 2 so trying it yourself is the only way to find out.

That's the best advice I can offer. It's an awkward seating layout and the speaker placement has big inherent problems. There is no perfect solution for everyone, probably not even an optimum solution for everyone, while some people are sitting on a side wall between a front and surround speaker. Going to a 3.1 system without the surrounds may actually be the best for those on couch 2 and still very good for those on couch 1 but those on couch 1 lose any hope of reasonable surround sound that way. Those on couch 2 have no hope of a reasonable surround soundstage at all with the current setup. The only hope for everyone to get reasonable surround sound is to move the screen and front speakers to diagonally across the front right room corner as I suggested above.
.


----------



## agerson

Thank you, David, for your thorough and thoughtful response. I will give some of this a try over the weekend and see how it goes.


----------



## prsman

*Denon test input?*

For a Denon AVR-X4500H I'm trying to use Room Equalizer Wizard (REW) to characterize each channel with Audyssey correction applied and without.


Where or how would I input a test signal so that its output on all channels?


There is a stereo analog audio inputs on the back but how do I test 7 channels and subwoofer?
Even input as a .wav is only stereo.


Thanks for any ideas!


----------



## LRZNole

So I am adding 2 front height speakers and obviously I will be running Audyssey again. I am also changing out all my speaker wires going from 10+ year old 18-20 gauge to 16 gauge oxygen-free wire. Would the new wire have any effect on the Audyssey results?


----------



## garygarrison

LRZNole said:


> ... I am also changing out all my speaker wires going from 10+ year old 18-20 gauge to 16 gauge oxygen-free wire. Would the new wire have any effect on the Audyssey results?


I seriously doubt it. 

Since you are going to re-run Audyssey, Audyssey should be able to handle it -- I think.

I'm not a big believer in audible differences between different speaker cables. That being said, I, too, do not use lamp cord, but use a relatively inexpensive audiophile cable. 

In one of the few slightly scientific experiments comparing cables, when the participants _*knew*_ which brand and model was being used, they had distinct preferences. When they _*did not know*_ which brands and model was playing at a given time, their preferences were randomly distributed over the different cables. This was an early result (1983).



The best reading on speaker wire I know of is this exhaustive source*: http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm#differences
*
Once the article comes up, be sure you go back to the table of contents, if the link does not deliver you there.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> I'm not a big believer in audible differences between different speaker cables. That being said, I, too, do not use lamp cord, but use a relatively inexpensive audiophile cable.
> 
> In one of the few slightly scientific experiments comparing cables, when the participants _*knew*_ which brand and model was being used, they had distinct preferences. When they _*did not know*_ which brands and model was playing at a given time, their preferences were randomly distributed over the different cables. This was an early result (1983).


I've read the Roger Russell article. But like you, I use inexpensive cable (from Blue Jeans Cable) instead of lamp cord. If you (and I) believe that expensive cables do not produce audible differences, then why not use lamp cord? Our positions are logically inconsistent.

Concerning the blind testing of cable, certain variables that could affect the validity of the results. How good were the participants at detecting _measurable_ differences between audio equipment? How good was their hearing? Did they listen to musical material they were familiar with (as a classical music listener, don't ask me to evaluate an audio component using rock or hip-hop)? Did the length of the listening period improve the listeners' ability to detect differences between cables? Did differences between cheap vs. expensive cables become reliably detected when the cable lengths were long?


----------



## LRZNole

Thanks guys, several of my runs are shorter and less than 20’ so i didn’t think there would really be any change but I do have a couple at 30’ - 35’ so wasn’t sure about those. Like I said I am adding 2 new speakers so regardless I have to re-run Audyssey I just asked about the wires to learn more from people that understand this much better than me.


----------



## agerson

I just got a Denon X3400. I used Audyssey X32. For some scenes (The opening scene of Master and Commander with cannon balls and wood chips flying) it sounded great. However, the dialog was too low through most of the movie and when I boosted it with the dialogue adjust setting it sounded a little tinny. For other movies that contain musical crescendos, the music felt it lacked some "ommmf", while special effects sound where generally great. Where can I look to solve these two issues?


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I've read the Roger Russell article. But like you, I use inexpensive cable (from Blue Jeans Cable) instead of lamp cord. If you (and I) believe that expensive cables do not produce audible differences, then why not use lamp cord? Our positions are logically inconsistent.
> 
> Concerning the blind testing of cable, certain variables that could affect the validity of the results. How good were the participants at detecting _measurable_ differences between audio equipment? How good was their hearing? Did they listen to musical material they were familiar with (as a classical music listener, don't ask me to evaluate an audio component using rock or hip-hop)? Did the length of the listening period improve the listeners' ability to detect differences between cables? Did differences between cheap vs. expensive cables become reliably detected when the cable lengths were long?



I am in basic agreement with you ... but ... since this was a "within groups" design, rather than a "between groups" one (I hope I remember correctly) each participant heard all trials. Regardless of their hearing, ability to perceive _measurable_ differences between equipment, type of music, etc., they still did "hear" or imagine a difference, and some had preferences, when they were told what they would be listening to before each trial, but their preferences were randomly distributed when they did *not* know. The reason I labeled this an early result is that I hope better research, looking into all the variables you listed, plus order effect, carryover effect, looking at interactions, etc., has been done. 

I, too, am a classical music listener, but also listen to later orchestral and choral works, jazz, film scores, etc. Right now A German Requiem by Brahms (SACD; Levine) is on the player. Wow! What a great recording! If I were going to compare equipment, I would take at least one soft piece and one loud one. Minuet in G and Fanfare for the Common Man? 

On a lighter note, logical inconsistency isn't necessarily such a bad thing. It can be celebrated. You and I may just be allowing for the very slight chance that expensive cables do make a difference, even if it has not been shown by good tests. Or, we may be using a "channel" other than scientific empiricism, e.g., we may intuit that there is a difference, despite the lack of empirical evidence. In my case, I "just thought" I should buy low resistance, low capacitance, wire, "just in case," rather than stubbornly cling to what I strongly believe, but in which I have less than 100% confidence. Most of us have heard that "Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind" -- (probably) Emerson. A quote often attributed to Einstein, reflecting his views, but probably written by a biographer, is: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." We are to be congratulated.


----------



## prsman

*Mic Position for Angled seating*

How should the microphone be positioned when listening positions are not optimal?
Ive attached diagrams suggesting mic positions for 2 different seatings..
Position 1 is a normal seating position with notional mic positioning for room EQ.
Position 2 is a mic positions for seating shown.


Any insights? thanks!


----------



## David Aiken

prsman said:


> How should the microphone be positioned when listening positions are not optimal?
> Ive attached diagrams suggesting mic positions for 2 different seatings..
> Position 1 is a normal seating position with notional mic positioning for room EQ.
> Position 2 is a mic positions for seating shown.
> 
> 
> Any insights? thanks!


My suggestion would be to calibrate as in your position 2 but with modifications.

- Position 1 should always be where someone sits if possible. Decide which location on one of the 2 sofas gets used most, which is the one which always gets used even when only 1 person is watching something, and put position 1 there. In other words, position 1 should be where either position 2 or position 3 is shown because those are the 2 most likely spots for most use.

- you've got 3 positions, not 4, 7, and 8, which are in what I'm going to call "dead space", no one sits there and no one is likely to move their head anywhere near there. I don't know how it will work but I'm going to suggest you move those positions to somewhere near seating positions on the 2 sofas and I'd move positions 5 and 6 back a bit close to the sofas. What I'm suggesting is that you forget the mic pattern in the instructions and instead use a pattern that corresponds to actual seating positions in your setup. This may or may not work well but I think it.s worth a try. If it doesn't work for you I'd then try a pattern like the one shown in the diagram but I really would experiment with position 1 where someone actually sits and at least one position further towards the centre or outside ends of each sofa.


----------



## garygarrison

prsman said:


> How should the microphone be positioned when listening positions are not optimal?
> Ive attached diagrams suggesting mic positions for 2 different seatings..
> Position 1 is a normal seating position with notional mic positioning for room EQ.
> Position 2 is a mic positions for seating shown.
> 
> 
> Any insights? thanks!



I don't know. Either pattern shows some promise.



Experiment to see what sounds best. 



You can make a stab at measuring the results (if you must) if you have REW (Room EQ Wizard -- free on the internet -- and a calibrated USB measurement microphone [about $75 to $100] -- be sure to see the AVS forum thread on REW and USB mics). I say "take a stab at measuring" because it isn't as easy as it may seem. Moving a mic a few inches can change the graph quite a bit. I would take 8 measurements with the calibrated mic in the same position that the Audyssey mic was in during your earlier Audyssey calibration, then average the curves. REW has a button to average curves. This average is not as good as Audyssey's "fuzzy" proprietary combination of results, but it should approach it. Stay away from the Radio Shack meter. It is hopeless for measuring broadband frequency response, even with application of any of the several, but contradictory, "correction" tables for that meter. 



A better way is probably to just trust Audyssey, and try it with both of your configurations, plus any that others may recommend, and let your ears decide, while sitting in every audience position in turn. Hakuna Matata. 



We have a couch 5 seats wide, but not angled at all. I was surprised to discover that the two seats on either end of the couch received pretty good sound, and pretty good imaging. Those end seats have approximately the same orientation to our front left and front right speakers as your far left person has to your left front speaker in position 1. The Audyssey mic was not put in those seats, or in front or behind them when we calibrated.


----------



## prsman

David Aiken said:


> My suggestion would be to calibrate as in your position 2 but with modifications.
> 
> - Position 1 should always be where someone sits if possible. Decide which location on one of the 2 sofas gets used most, which is the one which always gets used even when only 1 person is watching something, and put position 1 there. In other words, position 1 should be where either position 2 or position 3 is shown because those are the 2 most likely spots for most use.
> 
> - you've got 3 positions, not 4, 7, and 8, which are in what I'm going to call "dead space", no one sits there and no one is likely to move their head anywhere near there. I don't know how it will work but I'm going to suggest you move those positions to somewhere near seating positions on the 2 sofas and I'd move positions 5 and 6 back a bit close to the sofas. What I'm suggesting is that you forget the mic pattern in the instructions and instead use a pattern that corresponds to actual seating positions in your setup. This may or may not work well but I think it.s worth a try. If it doesn't work for you I'd then try a pattern like the one shown in the diagram but I really would experiment with position 1 where someone actually sits and at least one position further towards the centre or outside ends of each sofa.


Thanks. Ill just trust my ears and not fret over it. I can just take a couple different Room EQs using MultiEQ Editor and save them and do an A/B comparison. Its just such a PIA taking 8 different locations each time. I appreciate the time you took to put together a nice response. Thanks again!


----------



## DLCPhoto

I hope you all don't mind 2 somewhat basic questions, which remains after reading the FAQ's, searching, etc.



> 7.1.4 Home Theater
> 
> My AVR is the Marantz SR7010, using Audyssey XT32.
> 
> Front L/R are Duntech Sovereign's - large tower speakers, rated at 27Hz to 20KHz +/- 2db.
> Each of these are powered by its own Adcom GFA-555 (original model), bridged, and rated at 600 watts into 8 ohms.
> 
> Center is Revel C208, powered by a bridged Cambridge Audio Azur 851W (500 watts into 8 ohms)
> 
> 4 Dolby bed speakers, Sony Core SS-CS5
> 4 Atmos speakers, Ascend Acoustics CBM-170SE
> All 8 of these are powered by the Marantz AVR
> 
> Subwoofer is a massive DIY by Marty and Nick Lemons, with 4 18" Stereo Integrity Drivers, powered by an iNuke 6000.


I recently installed the new Center Channel and Amp, moved the fronts and subwoofer, and so re-ran Audyssey. The improvement was quite nice.

Always wanting to get the best result possible within these constraints, I have 2 questions:

1. My Duntech's, which I changed to 'Small' ended up with a Crossover at 40 Hz. I understand that I can raise this upward (and not downward), but I want to know whether this would be a beneficial or harmful change to make. I have better eyes than I have ears, and don't necessarily trust my subjective perceptions to evaluate. They have the capability of going down that deep, and the Adcom's supply plenty of power to do so, but if the overall result would be better by raising the Crossover, then that's what I would do.

2. I am 68, with some almost inevitable high-frequency loss, and so Dialogue has become harder and harder to understand, especially if it's occurring in the midst of a lot of other action going on. Audyssey put the Crossover for my Center Channel at 40Hz as well, with the Speaker Level at -5.5 dB. Watching some content, it seems like the Center needs to be higher. What would be a reasonable increase in the Level, and would changing the Crossover to a higher value here be beneficial or harmful?

The improvement in imaging has been quite noticeable, and I would hate to make changes that would adversely impact this improvement.

Any other suggestions on improving intelligibility of Dialogue would be appreciated. I'll often use Subtitles, but these are so visually distracting that I would really prefer to leave them off.

Thanks.

Don


----------



## Spidacat

For quite a long time I had a front stage consisting of DefTech's with powered woofers. My AVR either set them to "large" or small with a 40 Hz crossover. I always used 80 Hz for the center and usually 80 Hz for the towers (sometimes 60 Hz for music). I'd imagine all but the most capable speakers are running out of gas below 50 Hz. I'm not familiar with the real world capabilities of your towers (but they look very nice!) but with the sub you have, I'd think you'd want it to handle the low stuff as much as possible. I'd guess 60/80 Hz for the towers and 80 Hz for the center would be a good place to start. Listen for a while with content where you normally struggle to understand dialog and see if it's an improvement over your current settings. Increasing the center channel's trim 2-3 dB isn't unreasonable. Increasing the crossover of the center channel should definitely make a difference. If it's not enough, increase the level a little also.


----------



## pbarach

DLCPhoto said:


> 2. I am 68, with some almost inevitable high-frequency loss, and so Dialogue has become harder and harder to understand, especially if it's occurring in the midst of a lot of other action going on. Audyssey put the Crossover for my Center Channel at 40Hz as well, with the Speaker Level at -5.5 dB. Watching some content, it seems like the Center needs to be higher. What would be a reasonable increase in the Level, and would changing the Crossover to a higher value here be beneficial or harmful?


Changing the crossover for your center channel would not improve the intelligibility of dialog because the frequency range of the male voice generally starts at 85 Hz, and the speech features that make dialogue clear (consonants, sibilance) are at much higher frequencies than any crossover point you'd choose. 

As far as the level of your center channel, go with "preference"; nobody else can tell you what works best for you. I would suggest that you have Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume off when you play with this setting. DynEQ sometimes pumps up the surrounds loud enough to muddy the dialogue coming from the center channel. 

One option for movies is to turn on Dynamic Volume to Heavy and adjust your main volume control so dialogue is audible. That will compress the dynamic range to keep dialogue in a good range for you. I'm 66! I use this for certain movies where the effects are so much louder than the dialogue that I fear for my hearing when the main volume is turned up enough to hear dialogue clearly.


----------



## DLCPhoto

pbarach said:


> Changing the crossover for your center channel would not improve the intelligibility of dialog because the frequency range of the male voice generally starts at 85 Hz, and the speech features that make dialogue clear (consonants, sibilance) are at much higher frequencies than any crossover point you'd choose.
> 
> As far as the level of your center channel, go with "preference"; nobody else can tell you what works best for you. I would suggest that you have Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume off when you play with this setting. DynEQ sometimes pumps up the surrounds loud enough to muddy the dialogue coming from the center channel.
> 
> One option for movies is to turn on Dynamic Volume to Heavy and adjust your main volume control so dialogue is audible. That will compress the dynamic range to keep dialogue in a good range for you. I'm 66! I use this for certain movies where the effects are so much louder than the dialogue that I fear for my hearing when the main volume is turned up enough to hear dialogue clearly.


I appreciate the reply and suggestions. I already have Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ turned off. Interesting suggestion on the Dynamic Volume strategy. I really hate to reduce the dynamics, but understand how it could be helpful. Will keep this in mind.

I do understand that I can just adjust the Center, as well as everything else, to personal preference. But I'm posting to at least better understand the theoretical benefits and disadvantages of adjusting it, especially on the much improved sound imaging I'm now getting.

The other question remains: *What are the overall implications, good and bad, of changing the Crossover for my front L/R as well as center, which are currently at 40Hz, to 60Hz or even 80Hz?*


----------



## pbarach

DLCPhoto said:


> I do understand that I can just adjust the Center, as well as everything else, to personal preference. But I'm posting to at least better understand the theoretical benefits and disadvantages of adjusting it, especially on the much improved sound imaging I'm now getting.
> 
> The other question remains: *What are the overall implications, good and bad, of changing the Crossover for my front L/R as well as center, which are currently at 40Hz, to 60Hz or even 80Hz?*


The advantage of increasing the volume on your center channel is that it will make dialogue easier to hear. The disadvantage would be if you were listening to multi-channel music where soundstage and imaging were important, such as classical music, the louder center channel will get you less than optimum results with such source material. Of course, you could always lower the center channel volume when you play that kind of material.

There are no bad implications of raising the crossover point. There is a considerable advantage because the "heavy lifting" required to produce solid, deep bass will be handled by your sub(s), and decent subs play deep bass with much lower distortion than nearly all tower speakers. The only problem would be if you start to localize the source of bass as your subwoofer, but few people will localize bass with crossover points at 80 Hz or less. 

Some amps and AVRs run in pure Class A at low wattage levels, which often gets you purer, cleaner sound. By letting the sub(s) handle the bass, which requires much more amplifier power, the other channels will get the best sound from your amp or AVR.


----------



## DLCPhoto

pbarach said:


> The advantage of increasing the volume on your center channel is that it will make dialogue easier to hear. The disadvantage would be if you were listening to multi-channel music where soundstage and imaging were important, such as classical music, the louder center channel will get you less than optimum results with such source material. Of course, you could always lower the center channel volume when you play that kind of material.
> 
> There are no bad implications of raising the crossover point. There is a considerable advantage because the "heavy lifting" required to produce solid, deep bass will be handled by your sub(s), and decent subs play deep bass with much lower distortion than nearly all tower speakers. The only problem would be if you start to localize the source of bass as your subwoofer, but few people will localize bass with crossover points at 80 Hz or less.
> 
> Some amps and AVRs run in pure Class A at low wattage levels, which often gets you purer, cleaner sound. By letting the sub(s) handle the bass, which requires much more amplifier power, the other channels will get the best sound from your amp or AVR.


Thanks again. I'll play around with this over the next few days, and see if these tweaks will further enhance the improvements I'm getting now.


----------



## garygarrison

DLCPhoto said:


> *... I am 68, with some almost inevitable high-frequency loss, and so Dialogue has become harder and harder to understand*, especially if it's occurring in the midst of a lot of other action going on. Audyssey put the Crossover for my Center Channel at 40Hz as well, with the Speaker Level at -5.5 dB. Watching some content,* it seems like the Center needs to be higher. What would be a reasonable increase in the Level, and would changing the Crossover to a higher value here be beneficial or harmful?*



Another thing that happens as we age is more ear wax is generated, sometimes so far inside that it cannot be easily seen, and that has a killer effect on high frequencies. I was unaware of my ear wax, I just thought I was experiencing the decline with aging, and then put in earplugs to use a saw. When I took out the earplugs I had no hearing in the right ear. The earplugs were the blue (cyan) fairly long type, and had pushed the wax up against the eardrum on one side. Off I went to the Ear, Nose and Throat doctor, who used instruments to clean out the wax in each ear. It took him a while. A miracle! Not only had I regained hearing in each ear, but my music now sounds fantastic, with much more treble, detail, richness, and imaging. A friend had a similar experience. So maybe you should have your doctor take a look. 

Try turning your *Center up 3 dB*, and the *Main Volume, also.*



DLCPhoto said:


> ... *What are the overall implications, good and bad, of changing the Crossover for my front L/R as well as center, which are currently at 40Hz, to 60Hz or even 80Hz?*


 It is *conceivable* that changing your Center crossover to 80 Hz might make the dialog crisper, by keeping more of the bass out of your Center. This might be especially true by reducing the modulation of mid frequencies by bass. Modulation distortion (sometimes called Doppler distortion) due to the mid frequencies having to ride back and forth on a widely excursioning cone which is in the act of reproducing bass. By channeling most of the bass below 80 Hz to the subwoofer, and lessening the amount going to the main speakers, excursion of the tower woofer will be reduced, making it less likely for mids going through that same speaker to be taken on a wild ride.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-3#omWdye7G676SYg0g.99


----------



## DLCPhoto

garygarrison said:


> Another thing that happens as we age is more ear wax is generated, sometimes so far inside that it cannot be easily seen, and that has a killer effect on high frequencies. I was unaware of my ear wax, I just thought I was experiencing the decline with aging, and then put in earplugs to use a saw. When I took out the earplugs I had no hearing in the right ear. The earplugs were the blue (cyan) fairly long type, and had pushed the wax up against the eardrum on one side. Off I went to the Ear, Nose and Throat doctor, who used instruments to clean out the wax in each ear. It took him a while. A miracle! Not only had I regained hearing in each ear, but my music now sounds fantastic, with much more treble, detail, richness, and imaging. A friend had a similar experience. So maybe you should have your doctor take a look.
> 
> Try turning your *Center up 3 dB*, and the *Main Volume, also.*


Very glad this worked out well for you, and it is a very good thing to consider. In my case, though, I've been to my ENT and unfortunately wax, nor any other easily fixable problem, is responsible. I have gone ahead with hearing aids, which do make a significant impact, although they are not a perfect solution. 



garygarrison said:


> It is *conceivable* that changing your Center crossover to 80 Hz might make the dialog crisper, by keeping more of the bass out of your Center. This might be especially true by reducing the modulation of mid frequencies by bass. Modulation distortion (sometimes called Doppler distortion) due to the mid frequencies having to ride back and forth on a widely excursioning cone which is in the act of reproducing bass. By channeling most of the bass below 80 Hz to the subwoofer, and lessening the amount going to the main speakers, excursion of the tower woofer will be reduced, making it less likely for mids going through that same speaker to be taken on a wild ride.
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-3#omWdye7G676SYg0g.99


Appreciate your comments here. My plan, after also doing some reading up on optimal Crossover frequency for subwoofers, is to change the Crossover for L/R/C to 80 Hz. I'll pick some appropriate movie section, and use this to evaluate the impact. My main concern was negatively affecting the better imaging I now have, but it seems that this should not be a problem.

I will similarly try out increasing the Center up 2-3 dB and evaluate that as well.

Thanks.


----------



## galonzo

*Audy-assigned 40Hz vs. 80Hz*

@DLCPhoto , for what it's worth, I'm sort of in the same boat (Center assigned 40Hz by Audyssey vs. switching to 80Hz), and I've found I get smoother response leaving the Audyssey recommendation. Here's what I get after taking some readings (attached, you'll see I'm also working out some room nulls currently); when viewed in a desktop browser, you can see the difference better when switching back and forth between the spectrograms.

YMMV, HTH


----------



## DLCPhoto

galonzo said:


> @DLCPhoto , for what it's worth, I'm sort of in the same boat (Center assigned 40Hz by Audyssey vs. switching to 80Hz), and I've found I get smoother response leaving the Audyssey recommendation. Here's what I get after taking some readings (attached, you'll see I'm also working out some room nulls currently); when viewed in a desktop browser, you can see the difference better when switching back and forth between the spectrograms.
> 
> YMMV, HTH


Thanks, and interesting.

In doing some more reading, it seems that the THX recommendation for 80 Hz crossover in general is a good starting point. That is especially appropriate for smaller speakers which can't handle the low frequencies anyway.

But with more substantial ones (my Duntech's handle down to 27 Hz, and the Revel C208 shows [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]), moving that down lower might yield better results.

When I do some hearing based testing (I don't have the mic or software at this point to do what you're doing), I think I'll try my L/R at 60 Hz first, compare with 80 Hz, as well as the original 40 Hz, and see what seems to sound better. I'll then do the same with the Center, using whatever come up optimal with L/R in place).


----------



## pbz06

I've had slightly smoother response with 80hz than I did with 60 and 40. Not noticeable with my ears, only SPL meter. It will vary per user per setup.

I run my towers and center as small with 80hz even though their F3 is Full range and 40hz, respectively. They still utilize their woofers if you consider the dB slope per octave.

My ceilings and surrounds both were found to be at 80hz, but I still bumped them up to 100hz, based on recommendation.


----------



## Spidacat

@galonzo With your first graph (not the spectrograms) are you sure you're backing out all the way of the Audyssey settings after selecting each crossover? The 80 Hz doesn't look like the response is dropping off any more than the 40 Hz. I know crossovers aren't brick walls, but I would have expected much more of a roll off after 80 Hz with that crossover setting.


----------



## galonzo

@Spidacat , this is just the effect of changing the crossover on the full response (Sub+Center combined), not just the Center channel or sub by themselves.


----------



## Spidacat

@galonzo D'oh! Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. I didn't look close at the graph frequencies - the title said center channel, so I assumed (bad Spidacat) that you were showing the center only.


----------



## garygarrison

galonzo said:


> @*DLCPhoto* , for what it's worth, I'm sort of in the same boat (Center assigned 40Hz by Audyssey vs. switching to 80Hz), and I've found I get smoother response leaving the Audyssey recommendation. Here's what I get after taking some readings (attached, you'll see I'm also working out some room nulls currently); when viewed in a desktop browser, you can see the difference better when switching back and forth between the spectrograms.
> 
> YMMV, HTH



Interesting. A little puzzling, but interesting. 

Where was the mic? At the MLP?

If you ever do this again, try running one test with the mic in the position you originally used, and another with the mic about 3 feet away (to the left or right). 

I suppose there could be a potential interaction between crossover frequency and mic position, that wouldn't show up with a different mic position (moving out of the null) causing you to get results different than what we expect at the one mic position you used. If there was phase interference causing the dips in the green trace (80 Hz), we might expect a lesser dip either if the Xover were lower (making the SPL contributed by the subwoofer less at the interference dip points of 78 and 100Hz) or if the mic happened to be in a near null re: the subwoofer for those two frequencies which would be still in the auditory picture (no brick wall), but at reduced SPL, which would be even further reduced when crossing over at 40 Hz. I need caffeine.

Chris K., of Audyssey does not recommend running curves to "check" Audyssey, but says if you must, to put the measurement mic in the same 8 positions in which you originally put the Audyssey mic, then average the 8 new curves. Since this is a simple mean, it would not be expected to be as good as the Audyssey "fuzzy logic" proprietary process. But at least it avoids the one microphone position pitfall. Some people use radically fewer mic positions (3, 5 etc.), and cross their fingers. Chris also answered one user's question by saying that with really good main speakers, people could experiment with 80, 60, 40 Hz Xovers, but not to expect a great difference.


----------



## galonzo

@garygarrison , yes, both measurements were taken at the MLP, one right after the other (i.e. zero movement), and it seems that every time I reconfigure the space and re-run Audyssey (move stuff around, upgrade carpet and pad, etc.), I get similar results. I'm beginning to think it could just be the space.


----------



## mariogonzalezzz

*will audyssey calibration work outside in backyard?*

bought 3.0 PA speakers
was thinking about setting up a screen setup for movies
im going to assume i will want to use dynamic volume to even out the sound a bit for movies
i imagine id have to keep turning volume up and down during action movies
i like denons


----------



## Falonious

I betting it won't help you. But that may not be a bad thing. Audyssey is room correction.....so with essentially no room, being outside....well, you may not need it anyway.


----------



## rocky1

*will audyssey calibration work outside in backyard?*

I have an outside setup. Actually just added add’l pair.of speakers next to pool..no calibration not even ratshack meter.. dont think it will do anything. Too open my .02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

We often complain about our frequency response curves *with Audyssey*. If you've ever run a curve *without Audyssey* you probably know it can be a shock! Even if your speakers are reasonably flat in an anechoic chamber, they won't be in most rooms. Obviously, that is part of what Audyssey and room treatment are for. I won't show you mine, but here are a couple of curves run by _*Stereophile *_in John Atkinson's listening room. The red one is the YG Sonja 1.3, costing about $106,000 a pair. The blue one is the Vandersteen Treo. 



By the way, the YG, according to _*Stereophile*, _according to YG, measures +/- 1 dB 20 to 20,000 Hz (probably in an anechoic chamber).


Both curves are spatially averaged (20 microphone positions, if I understand correctly, and centered on the MLP) over about 1 yard width, and 1/6 octave smoothed, with no electronic room correction.











https://www.stereophile.com/content/yg-acoustics-sonja-13-loudspeaker


----------



## kaydee6

garygarrison said:


> We often complain about our frequency response curves *with Audyssey*. If you've ever run a curve *without Audyssey* you probably know it can be a shock! Even if your speakers are reasonably flat in an anechoic chamber, they won't be in most rooms. Obviously, that is part of what Audyssey and room treatment are for. I won't show you mine, but here are a couple of curves run by _*Stereophile *_in John Atkinson's listening room. The red one is the YG Sonja 1.3, costing about $106,000 a pair. The blue one is the Vandersteen Treo.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, the YG, according to _*Stereophile*, _according to YG, measures +/- 1 dB 20 to 20,000 Hz (probably in an anechoic chamber).
> 
> 
> Both curves are spatially averaged (20 microphone positions, if I understand correctly, and centered on the MLP) over about 1 yard width, and 1/6 octave smoothed, with no electronic room correction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.stereophile.com/content/yg-acoustics-sonja-13-loudspeaker


The red trace from 500hz on looks like the Audyssey reference curve.


----------



## agerson

I ran Audyssey X32 and it reported that my right surround speaker (Verus Forte) was out of phase. I ran it two more times and it gave the same result. I checked the cables and confirmed they were correct on both ends. I then switched the pair attached to the speaker and the error went away. Ran it a second time to confirm. I have read there are several causes for this:

1. Speakers intentional wired inverted. This can not be the case because only one of my speakers reported the error and they are the same make and model. 

2. Audyssey made a mistake. Is that possible if switching the red and black on the speaker end fixes it?

3. In the facotry, they incorrectly wired that one speaker by mistake so I should manually switch the cable inputs to compensate.

4. Anything else?

I loaded up some phase test file from the internet. On my laptop, the in-phase out of phase sound difference was very clear to me. When I ran them through my home theatre system I could not make out a difference. I know I can do a test with a battery, but I don't think my surrounds have removable grills. 

Should I trust Audyssey? It said they were out of phase and then when I reversed the cable the warning went away. Maybe its that simple?


----------



## jbnpaul

agerson said:


> I ran Audyssey X32 and it reported that my right surround speaker (Verus Forte) was out of phase. I ran it two more times and it gave the same result. I checked the cables and confirmed they were correct on both ends. I then switched the pair attached to the speaker and the error went away. Ran it a second time to confirm. I have read there are several causes for this:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Speakers intentional wired inverted. This can not be the case because only one of my speakers reported the error and they are the same make and model.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Audyssey made a mistake. Is that possible if switching the red and black on the speaker end fixes it?
> 
> 
> 
> 3. In the facotry, they incorrectly wired that one speaker by mistake so I should manually switch the cable inputs to compensate.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Anything else?
> 
> 
> 
> I loaded up some phase test file from the internet. On my laptop, the in-phase out of phase sound difference was very clear to me. When I ran them through my home theatre system I could not make out a difference. I know I can do a test with a battery, but I don't think my surrounds have removable grills.
> 
> 
> 
> Should I trust Audyssey? It said they were out of phase and then when I reversed the cable the warning went away. Maybe its that simple?




Switch the out of phase speaker with another one of the speakers and then try running the calibration again?

If your avr reports just that Speaker as out of phase consistenly then, it has to be a fault with the speaker.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## agerson

jbnpaul said:


> Switch the out of phase speaker with another one of the speakers and then try running the calibration again?
> 
> If your avr reports just that Speaker as out of phase consistenly then, it has to be a fault with the speaker.


Then would just crossing the wires on one end be a good solution?


----------



## mariogonzalezzz

Falonious said:


> I betting it won't help you. But that may not be a bad thing. Audyssey is room correction.....so with essentially no room, being outside....well, you may not need it anyway.



dynamic volume cant be used unless you run audyssey?


----------



## pbarach

mariogonzalezzz said:


> dynamic volume cant be used unless you run audyssey?


Right. DynVol and DynEQ aren't available until you run Audyssey


----------



## garygarrison

kaydee6 said:


> The red trace from 500hz on looks like the Audyssey reference curve.


It is a similar shape, but Audyssey reference is less extreme. 

Audyssey reference, as designed: - 2 dB at 10KHz, - 6 dB at 20K Hz
Red trace (in Atkinson's room):~~- 3 dB at 10K Hz, ~~ - 13 dB at 20K Hz

For an approx. 6,000 cu ft room the *special* X curve (*not* the horrible, gross, loathsome X curve used in large commercial movie theaters, O.K. there, but usable nowhere else) is _*something like*_ - 4.5 dB at 10 K, and -6 dB at 20K Hz, IIRC.


----------



## garygarrison

Well, at least professional control rooms are flat and very similar to one another, right? Wrong! I think the following graph may be the one posted by Keith in the early (earlier) days of the Audyssey forum. In any case, look at the variations in the control rooms. At least the median looks not too terribly bad, but, IMO, a dip near 100 Hz, as is shown in several of these curves, can remove considerable "punch." Of course, if the engineers know their room has a dip there, they could crank it up at 100 Hz, providing too much "punch." Second guessing this kind of thing makes users of Ouija boards look good._ The Audio Engineering Society paper, A Survey Study Of In-Situ Stereo And Multi-Channel Monitoring Conditions, shows how far out of compliance production systems can be. The paper has measurements of 250 Genelec speakers used in professional control rooms. Their composite statistics are shown in Figure 3. *The poor X curve shown in solid black line is lost in a sea of wide variations no matter which statistical measure you use. * _Copyright © Audio Science Review LLC










It's even worse. Although mixers use their ears to optimize their recordings, to the degree that is possible given the disparity of control rooms, the "loudness wars" and corporate decisions often result in there being an upper middle boost (which can result in harshness) being given to the final mixdown, along with some attenuation in the bass and high treble. 

How can we deal with this? IMO*: *1) First get the big kinks out, using Audyssey or similar. 2) Then, if using Audyssey, choose between Audyssey Flat, Audyssey Reference, etc. 3) Convert the Audyssey result to a personal preference room curve for *typical* CDs and Blu-rays. This usually takes the form of bass boost, and in some cases, a bit of treble cut. 4) Several disks may need individualized EQ.


----------



## D Bone

I've been exclusively using XT for years now and have just purchased a Denon 3500 with XT32....... really excited to hear a difference. 

Updates will be on their way.


----------



## meak81

So I will be re running audyssey tomorrow, I want to move a few things around and see if I can dial it in a bit more. Now I have a question, how quiet do things have to be when running audyssey? Cause I've noticed when I'm doing it, sometimes ill hear birds chirping outside, or the sound of cars passing by in my neighborhood. Unfortunately I don't have a dedicated room for HT so my set up is in the livingroom. Will these faint sounds coming from outside affect the calibration negatively?


----------



## garygarrison

meak81 said:


> So I will be re running audyssey tomorrow, I want to move a few things around and see if I can dial it in a bit more. Now I have a question, how quiet do things have to be when running audyssey? Cause I've noticed when I'm doing it, sometimes ill hear birds chirping outside, or the sound of cars passing by in my neighborhood. Unfortunately I don't have a dedicated room for HT so my set up is in the livingroom. Will these faint sounds coming from outside affect the calibration negatively?



Probably no problem, but it may depend ...


Audyssey will readjust the volume of its "pings" to override the sound of a steady sound, like an air conditioner. I'm not sure about transient sounds or a briefly passing truck.


----------



## JediMindTricks

Hi all, first time posting on these forums. I've gotten a lot of good info from the threads here, hoping to get some advice on a problem I can't find reference on anywhere.

Basically, Audyssey seems to be maxing out all my settings (crossover and gain) for each speaker, which seems incorrect. The resulting sound is not great either.

After running Mult EQ on my Denon AVR-X2500H, the crossovers are being set to 250Hz for Center, Front, and Surround speakers, and gain is set to +12dB across the board. 

How I have run the setup, and things I have tried:

The setup was run using the provided microphone on a Microphone Boom Stand and a Digital Recorder Adapter, as suggested by the Denon owners thread.
It is a dedicated media room, and the calibrations have all been run at night, with minimal ambient noise (AC off, projector off).
The sub gain is set to 50% and crossover to 120Hz, using the knobs on the back. Phase is at 0 degrees, and power setting is "On"
I have tried resetting the receiver microprocessor, changing the toe-in of the front speakers, and taking different MLP measurements in case there was some strange anomaly in a certain position. 

No changes seemed to have any effect. I occasionally get a "Ambient noise is too high or level is too low" error on a pass of the speakers. Retrying the pass resolves the error with no other changes.

My speakers are as below:
Front: Polk Tsi200
Center: Polk CS10
Surround, Rear: Polk OWM3
Sub: Polk PSW505

Is this result of Audyssey typical, or is there something wrong with either microphone or receiver?

Thanks in advance for the help. If there is a better place to post this question, please let me know as well.


----------



## Spidacat

With both odd crossover settings and maxed out speaker levels I'd be willing to bet you have a bad mic. I'd call or email Denon explaining the situation and see if you can get a replacement.


----------



## JediMindTricks

Cheers, thanks for the advice. Will give that a shot


----------



## Juan308

People, Help:
I have my Audissey (A.) set to: L-R Bypass.
Which curves are applied to the Surrounds (SR/SL) when in this mode? Flat or Reference (I think none of these).
The issue is when A. is in LR Bypass, the FL/FR sound horrible but the surrounds (SR/SL) sound excelent.
Im trying without sucess to get the FL/FR to sound as good as the SR/SL when set to LR Bypass.
Is it possible?


----------



## garygarrison

asabrag said:


> People, Help:
> I have my Audissey (A.) set to: L-R Bypass.
> Which curves are applied to the Surrounds (SR/SL) when in this mode? Flat or Reference (I think none of these).
> The issue is when A. is in LR Bypass, the FL/FR sound horrible but the surrounds (SR/SL) sound excelent.
> Im trying without sucess to get the FL/FR to sound as good as the SR/SL when set to LR Bypass.
> Is it possible?





In LR Bypass, the surrounds will get whatever you set, either Flat or Reference. The FL and FR will get the unprocessed signal, with no Audyssey EQ.
Perhaps the reason FL & FR sound so bad in LR Bypass is that Audyssey is being bypassed, and can't help with speaker or room EQ or time domain correction of the sound coming out of the FL & FR. But, how do the FL & FR sound, heard alone, in a several way comparison*, *with the surrounds and center OFF (*turn the power off before *unplugging the surrounds and center, to avoid a potentially speaker destroying buzz/pop)*: 1) *FL & FR with *Audyssey* completely *OFF* (found in "Audyssey Settings") v.s. *2)* FL & FR with *Audyssey ON,* *FL & FR Bypass *(which should sound exactly the same unless something is wrong) v.s. *3) *FL & FR with Audyssey compensation *on for ALL channels* (standard setting), but the surrounds and center OFF.
A good way to set-up is to get your room sounding as good as you can, using positioning of the speakers and listeners, furniture, absorbers and diffussors (if any), *then* run Audyssey on all channels, with all 8 microphone positions. If you are in love with the sound of your front speakers without Audyssey, it's O.K. to bypass the FL & FR, but that is the opposite of my experience.


----------



## D Bone

JediMindTricks said:


> Cheers, thanks for the advice. Will give that a shot


Not a doubt in my mind it's the mic. I had the same exact issues and got in contact with Denon and I had a new mic in hand in about a week and my issues were gone.


----------



## Juan308

garygarrison said:


> In LR Bypass, the surrounds will get whatever you set, either Flat or Reference.





Thanks! Only that I can not select Flat or Reference for the other channels...


----------



## JediMindTricks

D Bone said:


> Not a doubt in my mind it's the mic. I had the same exact issues and got in contact with Denon and I had a new mic in hand in about a week and my issues were gone.


Appreciate the reassurance. I was worried there was something weird about my media room or receiver, hopefully the new mic will take car of it all.


----------



## mthomas47

asabrag said:


> People, Help:
> I have my Audissey (A.) set to: L-R Bypass.
> Which curves are applied to the Surrounds (SR/SL) when in this mode? Flat or Reference (I think none of these).
> The issue is when A. is in LR Bypass, the FL/FR sound horrible but the surrounds (SR/SL) sound excelent.
> Im trying without sucess to get the FL/FR to sound as good as the SR/SL when set to LR Bypass.
> Is it possible?





asabrag said:


> Thanks! Only that I can not select Flat or Reference for the other channels...



Hi,

I don't think that you quite understand what Gary was trying to tell you. Your AVR will not let you simultaneously select Flat/Reference and LR/Bypass. But, whatever setting of Flat or Reference you previously selected will still be in operation for the other speakers when you use LR/Bypass. 

Here is what I would recommend. First, go back to trying both the Flat and Reference settings, and ignore LR/Bypass for a while. Just concentrate on how those two settings sound with your front speakers. (You don't actually have to unplug your other speakers, if you want to listen to the front speakers without the center channel or the surrounds. You can just turn them off in the Speaker Configuration menu, if you want to hear the front speakers in isolation.) 

Decide whether Flat or Reference sounds better to you, and then just use that for a while with everything. I would also probably try turning DEQ off and on a few times, to see if I could hear any difference in the sound when I did that. You may find that you have to increase the volume of your subwoofers when you turn-off DEQ.

*** Your front speakers are far more important than your surround speakers, because they carry far more of the meaningful content in movies, and nearly all of the important content in music. If they sound "horrible" with Audyssey bypassed for those speakers, then that is not a good setting for you to use. Gary was telling you that your front speakers probably don't sound good with LR/Bypass because Audyssey is no longer in operation for those speakers. Find out by listening whether you like having Audyssey on for those speakers. For most people, LR/Bypass is not a helpful setting. 

You really have to experiment to get good Audyssey calibrations, and then you also have to experiment to discover what settings sound best to you. Only you can decide what you like best, but some systematic experimentation is the best way to find out. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Juan308

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I don't think that you quite understand what Gary was trying to tell you. Your AVR will not let you simultaneously select Flat/Reference and LR/Bypass. But, whatever setting of Flat or Reference you previously selected will still be in operation for the other speakers when you use LR/Bypass.
> 
> Here is what I would recommend. First, go back to trying both the Flat and Reference settings, and ignore LR/Bypass for a while. Just concentrate on how those two settings sound with your front speakers. (You don't actually have to unplug your other speakers, if you want to listen to the front speakers without the center channel or the surrounds. You can just turn them off in the Speaker Configuration menu, if you want to hear the front speakers in isolation.)
> 
> Decide whether Flat or Reference sounds better to you, and then just use that for a while with everything. I would also probably try turning DEQ off and on a few times, to see if I could hear any difference in the sound when I did that. You may find that you have to increase the volume of your subwoofers when you turn-off DEQ.
> 
> *** Your front speakers are far more important than your surround speakers, because they carry far more of the meaningful content in movies, and nearly all of the important content in music. If they sound "horrible" with Audyssey bypassed for those speakers, then that is not a good setting for you to use. Gary was telling you that your front speakers probably don't sound good with LR/Bypass because Audyssey is no longer in operation for those speakers. Find out by listening whether you like having Audyssey on for those speakers. For most people, LR/Bypass is not a helpful setting.
> 
> You really have to experiment to get good Audyssey calibrations, and then you also have to experiment to discover what settings sound best to you. Only you can decide what you like best, but some systematic experimentation is the best way to find out.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Wou, thanks a lot Thomas for the time you took explaining all that to me. 
I defenitelly had not thought of Turning the Speakers off in the Speakers menu and unplugging them was not a great option to me!!
Until now, I 'hate' Denon to rely on Software to sound good...I will start trying all these recommendations right away...


----------



## Mactavish

I made a diagram for a close Audyssey mic placement pattern, based on information in the FAQ.


----------



## mthomas47

Mactavish said:


> I made a diagram for a close Audyssey mic placement pattern, based on information in the FAQ.



I believe I recognize that mic pattern.  It's from Section I-B of the Guide.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Mactavish

mthomas47 said:


> I believe I recognize that mic pattern.  It's from Section I-B of the Guide.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Correct, I should have said “GUIDE”, not FAQ. I simply added the measurements to the pattern so I could quickly repeat it in the future. For more info, folks should go to this GUIDE page link:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB


----------



## pbz06

I think I posted in the wrong thread, but been messing around with limiting the EQ to 300hz. Honestly, can't really tell a difference in my movie demos since I can't do a straight A to B comparison. Maybe easier to tell with music.

I'll leave it at 300hz for a few days/weeks to see if I notice anything. The Audyssey app graphs make it seem like a terrible "pre calibration" result since the graph shows scribbles varying between +10 and -10 from the line.


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> I think I posted in the wrong thread, but been messing around with limiting the EQ to 300hz. Honestly, can't really tell a difference in my movie demos since I can't do a straight A to B comparison. Maybe easier to tell with music.
> 
> I'll leave it at 300hz for a few days/weeks to see if I notice anything. The Audyssey app graphs make it seem like a terrible "pre calibration" result since the graph shows scribbles varying between +10 and -10 from the line.



When listening to a good quality music recording I suggest/ recommend to try to concentrate on stereo imaging, i.e. how clearly you can pinpoint instruments and vocals.


For your ref. here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) said about limiting correction:


Qte


I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction.



Unqte


Report back your findings please!


----------



## agerson

Looking to get the audio calibrated in my living room. I ran Audyssey, but I still think it could be better. I live in New York City. Where could I look to find someone?


----------



## David Aiken

agerson said:


> Looking to get the audio calibrated in my living room. I ran Audyssey, but I still think it could be better. I live in New York City. Where could I look to find someone?


What do you mean by "calibrated"?

Audyssey provides room correction which means it creates DSP filters to correct some of the problems created by the way sound behaves in rooms. Those filters deliver equalisation and phase correction. The only way to get those benefits with your AVR is to use Audyssey unless you add on a separate, external processing device. Without Audyssey you're limited to adjustments to the speaker distance to correct for arrival time differences for speakers placed at different distances from the listening position, and trim adjustments to correct for differences in volume due to different speaker distances and sensitivities.

Basically this means that, whether you do the setup process yourself or get someone else in to do it for you, you are limited to 3 options:

1- use Audyssey

2- don't use Audyssey and do a manual setup which will correct for speaker distance and differences in level for the various speakers

3- add an external room correction processor of some sort and do the setup/calibration using that processor.

Those are really your only options with your current AVR.


Audyssey setup can be a problem. There are a number of things which can affect your results so I'd suggest trying a few different calibrations first and seeing if you can get a result that's more to your liking. Read the Audyssey Setup Guide (there's a link in Feri's post just above your post) and try a few of the suggestions in it to see if they help. You can also try using the MultEQ app available for iOS and Android devices which give you a couple of ways to tweak the Audyssey result which your AVR does not provide. It takes time to run different calibrations and you can't save them on your AVR but you can save different calibrations using the app and the app also makes it easier to switch between different saved calibration results so it may well be worth your while to buy the app.

If you don't like the Audyssey result you can simply turn Audyssey off. You will retain the settings for speaker distances and trims from your calibration but lose the room correction filters. You will have access to your AVR's tone controls and you can adjust the trim settings for each speaker if you want to tweak that a bit further. Some Marantz and Denon AVRs offer a feature called "Cinema EQ" which provides a different EQ result to Audyssey but no phase or room specific corrections and that may be more to your liking.

If you can't get a result you prefer by trying those options then you'll have to choose between getting someone to do a setup for you, with or without an add on processing device but still using your current AVR, or changing to an AVR which uses a different room correction and setup process than Audyssey. Anthem and Yamaha have their own proprietary correction systems and some other makes use Dirac so there are a range of options out there. Once again you're going to be stuck with the choice of using whatever system the AVR provides, using a setup which defeats the room correction process but keeps the speaker distance and trim settings, or using an external processor if you change AVRs and of course you have the option of doing the calibration yourself or getting someone in to do it for you.

I'm in Australia which is a long way from New York City so I can't help with the names of people who you could get to do a calibration for you.


----------



## jconjason

David Aiken said:


> What do you mean by "calibrated"?
> 
> 
> Basically this means that, whether you do the setup process yourself or get someone else in to do it for you, you are limited to 3 options:
> 
> 1- use Audyssey
> 
> 2- don't use Audyssey and do a manual setup which will correct for speaker distance and differences in level for the various speakers
> 
> 3- add an external room correction processor of some sort and do the setup/calibration using that processor.
> 
> Those are really your only options with your current AVR.
> 
> .


I'm not the OP, but I seem to recall a few years ago there was a "Pro" package that you could either purchase or was included on the flagships. I believe it was available to pro installers/ calibrators, and allowed them to access more "tools" for a better Audyssey calibration. I'm sure I'm misremembering some of this but perhaps that's what the OP is referring to?


----------



## David Aiken

jconjason said:


> I'm not the OP, but I seem to recall a few years ago there was a "Pro" package that you could either purchase or was included on the flagships. I believe it was available to pro installers/ calibrators, and allowed them to access more "tools" for a better Audyssey calibration. I'm sure I'm misremembering some of this but perhaps that's what the OP is referring to?



Now that you mention it, I remember the package but I haven't seen any mention of it in years. I don't know if it's still available or what it is capable le of doing.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> Now that you mention it, I remember the package but I haven't seen any mention of it in years. I don't know if it's still available or what it is capable le of doing.


*agerson,*



What I've heard is that with XT32 & the app, the "Pro" option is not needed.
I don't know if any studies of customer contentment with "professional calibration" have been done. Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of dissatisfaction with "professional calibration," possibly because what most people want is "Preference" which can be an add on to "Reference," but, for most people, "Preference" would perfectly coincide with "Reference" only by a lucky coincidence.
I'd suggest "re-calibrating your ears," something everyone should do, IMO, by attending several live concerts of the kind of music you like, then try Audyssey several (say, 2 or 3) more times. If you can get it to sound like live music, then try to get it to sound more to your taste by using tone controls, or turning the subwoofer up or down, etc., you may be closer to your goal than with Pro calibration. Before you do any of that, study the available literature as thoroughly as you would college course material. The two linked works here are better than any modern equipment manual I've seen. *The Guide* is more up-to date. *"Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"*... and *
**GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES*
*** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> *agerson,*
> 
> 
> 
> What I've heard is that with XT32 & the app, the "Pro" option is not needed.
> I don't know if any studies of customer contentment with "professional calibration" have been done. Anecdotally, I've heard a lot of dissatisfaction with "professional calibration," possibly because what most people want is "Preference" which can be an add on to "Reference," but, for most people, "Preference" would perfectly coincide with "Reference" only by a lucky coincidence.
> I'd suggest "re-calibrating your ears," something everyone should do, IMO, by attending several live concerts of the kind of music you like, then try Audyssey several (say, 2 or 3) more times. If you can get it to sound like live music, then try to get it to sound more to your taste by using tone controls, or turning the subwoofer up or down, etc., you may be closer to your goal than with Pro calibration. Before you do any of that, study the available literature as thoroughly as you would college course material. The two linked works here are better than any modern equipment manual I've seen. *The Guide* is more up-to date. *"Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"*... and *
> **GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES*
> *** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
> Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
> Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


Gary,

I'm in general agreement with your points but if I had to make a guess based on personal gut feel, something I'm all too willing to do, I'd guess that "preference" would tend to get ranked higher by those who use their systems primarily for music and "reference" more highly by those who use their systems primarily for movies. Behind my gut feeling there; the knowledge that there's a lot more variety in the recording and mastering of music recordings than there is in the recording and mastering of movie soundtracks (there's a standard governing soundtrack mixing/mastering which there isn't for music and the primary environment which movie soundtracks are intended to be heard in is the cinema environment and there is considerable standardisation of the audio qualities of cinema environments. There is no equivalent environment for public playback of music recordings to large audiences and there's no real standardisation of music performance environments. That means we're used to hearing fairly similar results when we visit a cinema to see a movie and there's a lot more variation to what we hear in music performance environments so we tend to have preferences when it comes to where we'd like to hear live music but we don't have anywhere near the same level of preference for sound quality when it comes to choosing a cinema to view a movie in.

That means that while I am in favour of people "calibrating their ears" as you put it, I'd probably recommend spending more time at the cinema listening to soundtracks in the environment which they're mixed and mastered to be heard in if you're primarily interested in optimising your system for movie playback than by going to live music performances. If music is going to be your primary listening material then live concerts are definitely the "standard" of choice but you have to bear in mind that there is no "standard" when it comes to live music performance and the sound characteristics that you're going to concerned about if music is your primary concern are going to vary quite a bit depending on the kind of music you like to listen to and the nature of the environments in which you listen to those live performances.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

jconjason said:


> I'm not the OP, but I seem to recall a few years ago there was a "Pro" package that you could either purchase or was included on the flagships. I believe it was available to pro installers/ calibrators, and allowed them to access more "tools" for a better Audyssey calibration. I'm sure I'm misremembering some of this but perhaps that's what the OP is referring to?





David Aiken said:


> Now that you mention it, I remember the package but I haven't seen any mention of it in years. I don't know if it's still available or what it is capable le of doing.


Well, if you really wanted to know, you could search this website or, even, try Google. It's all out there.

OTOH, no new processors will support AudysseyPro and the only game in town is XT32 (or less) and the Audyssey App. Old news.

After years of using AudysseyPro, I was "forced" to switch to the App with the latests Marantz prepro and I do prefer it in most ways even though I would love to have the option for using a better microphone.


----------



## mogorf

Kal Rubinson said:


> Well, if you really wanted to know, you could search this website or, even, try Google. It's all out there.
> 
> OTOH, no new processors will support AudysseyPro and the only game in town is XT32 (or less) and the Audyssey App. Old news.
> 
> After years of using AudysseyPro, I was "forced" to switch to the App with the latests Marantz prepro and I do prefer it in most ways even though *I would love to have the option for using a better microphone.*



Hi Kal, just out of curiosity what benefit would a better microphone give? What would you call a "better microphone"? Thx.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mogorf said:


> Hi Kal, just out of curiosity what benefit would a better microphone give? What would you call a "better microphone"? Thx.


Almost any with a traceable calibration file.


----------



## ratbuddy

Hmm, the impulse responses are stored in the Audyssey .ady files in a standard format, it wouldn't take too much work to replace them with ones generated in REW with a real mic...


----------



## mogorf

Kal Rubinson said:


> Almost any with a traceable calibration file.



You're pulling my leg Kal!  OK, you have a traceable calibration file. What's next?


----------



## mogorf

ratbuddy said:


> Hmm, the impulse responses are stored in the Audyssey .ady files in a standard format, it wouldn't take too much work to replace them with ones generated in REW with a real mic...



Hmm, actually Audyssey is a much more sophisticated "solution" than REW is coz it has a "multipoint clustering, weighing and fuzzy logic" scheme that is missing in REW. Not interchangeable even with a "real mic" (whatever you mean by a "real mic").


----------



## ratbuddy

mogorf said:


> Hmm, actually Audyssey is a much more sophisticated "solution" than REW is coz it has a "multipoint clustering, weighing and fuzzy logic" scheme that is missing in REW. Not interchangeable even with a "real mic" (whatever you mean by a "real mic").


Patronizing attitude aside, you've missed the point entirely. The .ady files store the raw impulse response as measured by the test tones. The impulse response data are used to generate the correction curves, which is where Audyssey does its thing. It would be trivial to recreate the same sweeps in REW and replace the measured impulse responses in the .ady files with the ones measured with a real (that means calibrated) microphone and not the cheap pack-in mic that comes with your receiver.


----------



## mogorf

ratbuddy said:


> Patronizing attitude aside, you've missed the point entirely. The .ady files store the raw impulse response as measured by the test tones. The impulse response data are used to generate the correction curves, which is where Audyssey does its thing. It would be trivial to recreate the same sweeps in REW and replace the measured impulse responses in the .ady files with the ones measured with a real (that means calibrated) microphone and not the cheap pack-in mic that comes with your receiver.



Actually this is "mission impossible". You can not recreate and replace the measured impulse response using REW even with a "real" (calibrated) mic, coz REW does not have the sophistication of Audyssey. BTW, the calibration of the cheap Audyssey mic in burnt into the AVRs that have Audyssey on-board. 



Finally, why would you wanna do that?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mogorf said:


> You're pulling my leg Kal!  OK, you have a traceable calibration file. What's next?


Nada, as you know: *Actually this is "mission impossible"..............................................BTW, the calibration of the cheap Audyssey mic in burnt into the AVRs that have Audyssey on-board.*


----------



## ratbuddy

The pack-in mics have a degree of variability, and the receiver does not know how your individual mic responds. Look at ARC, there is a calibration file for your individual microphone. Same for UMIK as used with REW. Again, you're missing the point. It's not that REW will be used to replace any of the Audyssey correction software, only to replace the inaccurate default microphone measurements. Sophistication has nothing to do with it. You are simply measuring the impulse response of your room to a higher degree of accuracy than the default microphone is capable of, then letting Audyssey continue as usual.

You ask why, but I would ask why not? Having seen many different calibration files for good microphones (better than the Audyssey mic for sure!) I can say that the variability can be significant, and I am quite sure the Audyssey mic suffers from a good amount of variability as well. The receiver cannot correct for these because every mic is different. Variations in the measurement mic mean the Audyssey calibration will based on inaccurate room impulse response measurements. If we can make those more accurate, by using a real calibrated mic, why not?


----------



## mogorf

ratbuddy said:


> The pack-in mics have a degree of variability, and the receiver does not know how your individual mic responds. Look at ARC, there is a calibration file for your individual microphone. Same for UMIK as used with REW. Again, you're missing the point. It's not that REW will be used to replace any of the Audyssey correction software, only to replace the inaccurate default microphone measurements. Sophistication has nothing to do with it. You are simply measuring the impulse response of your room to a higher degree of accuracy than the default microphone is capable of, then letting Audyssey continue as usual.
> 
> You ask why, but I would ask why not? Having seen many different calibration files for good microphones (better than the Audyssey mic for sure!) I can say that the variability can be significant, and I am quite sure the Audyssey mic suffers from a good amount of variability as well. The receiver cannot correct for these because every mic is different. Variations in the measurement mic mean the Audyssey calibration will based on inaccurate room impulse response measurements. If we can make those more accurate, by using a real calibrated mic, why not?



Hmm, a real calibrated mic is just one small point of the story. What you are missing here is the lack of replacement of the software Audyssey is based on when it comes to processing the input data and computing till the final curves are saved. REW is not a software to replace Audyssey by any means. 



I think this discussion was interesting and I'll put an end to it. Some others may chime in with some more aspects on this subject.


Nice to talk to you. Take care.


----------



## mogorf

Kal Rubinson said:


> Nada, as you know: *Actually this is "mission impossible"..............................................BTW, the calibration of the cheap Audyssey mic in burnt into the AVRs that have Audyssey on-board.*



So Kal, what's next?


----------



## ratbuddy

mogorf said:


> Hmm, a real calibrated mic is just one small point of the story. What you are missing here is the lack of replacement of the software Audyssey is based on when it comes to processing the input data and computing till the final curves are saved. REW is not a software to replace Audyssey by any means.


Yet again: not looking to replace Audyssey, only to provide it with more accurate measurements. Don't fixate on the REW part, that's just a means to more accurately measure the impulse response of your speakers in your room. The Audyssey app simply commands the receiver to run sweeps, and records the impulse response in a data array in a simple JSON file. The corrections are not calculated until you select 'upload to receiver.' By replacing the impulse response data with more accurate ones, Audyssey will have a better base to work from.


----------



## kgveteran

I never noticed that once i did my setup using audyssey the delay for my system was incorrect. The only delay correct was the mains.
Any problem adjusting manually measuring it out by hand....


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mogorf said:


> So Kal, what's next?


For what?


----------



## torii

is rew telling you delays are wrong? whats telling you audyssey wrong?


----------



## kgveteran

torii said:


> is rew telling you delays are wrong? whats telling you audyssey wrong?


The distances that are recorded in the settings.


----------



## D Bone

kgveteran said:


> The distances that are recorded in the settings.


With Audyssey, subs will almost always show further away then they actually are due to the delays inside of the sub itself..... The sub's amp and processing takes a bit to happen and Audyssey accounts for it.


----------



## mogorf

Kal Rubinson said:


> For what?


Actually I wanted to hear your expert opinion on the necessity of having better mics than the Audyssey mic (bundled with the AVRs) in view of creating better sound quality. The threshold of +/- 3 dB the average healthy human ear can handle before noticing any change throughout the audible frequency range should mean the Audyssey mic with a tolerance of +/-2 dB should basically suffice although the calibration file is unknown to the public, yet burnt into the AVR. Would a more accurate mic (like +/-1 dB or even less) with a known calibration file yield noticeably better sound? Thanks in advance.


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> Actually I wanted to hear your expert opinion on the necessity of having better mics than the Audyssey mic (bundled with the AVRs) in view of creating better sound quality. The threshold of +/- 3 dB the average healthy human ear can handle before noticing any change throughout the audible frequency range should mean the Audyssey mic with a tolerance of +/-2 dB should basically suffice although the calibration file is unknown to the public, yet burnt into the AVR. Would a more accurate mic (like +/-1 dB or even less) with a known calibration file yield noticeably better sound? Thanks in advance.



Hi Feri,

Long time, no talk to.  I don't want to get in the middle of the current discussion, but there is one point that has been discussed several times before on this thread that I think is worth reiterating. A 3db difference in volume equates to a 30% difference in perceived loudness, according to the original Fletcher Munson Curves and the later Equal Loudness Contours. 

That's actually a very significant difference in loudness for most people. Most people can easily discern volume increases on the order of .5db. There is a lot of audio/acoustic research to support this, including common audiology exams.

One of the reasons that level-matched, double-blind audio testing is so heavily supported by audio experts such as Toole, Welti, and others, is because people can so easily distinguish between fairly subtle changes in volume. And, we tend to be drawn psycho-acoustically to the louder sound, in the same way that we are drawn to the first arriving sound. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> Long time, no talk to.  I don't want to get in the middle of the current discussion, but there is one point that has been discussed several times before on this thread that I think is worth reiterating. A 3db difference in volume equates to a 30% difference in perceived loudness, according to the original Fletcher Munson Curves and the later Equal Loudness Contours.
> 
> That's actually a very significant difference in loudness for most people. Most people can easily discern volume increases on the order of .5db. There is a lot of audio/acoustic research to support this, including common audiology exams.
> 
> One of the reasons that level-matched, double-blind audio testing is so heavily supported by audio experts such as Toole, Welti, and others, is because people can so easily distinguish between fairly subtle changes in volume. And, we tend to be drawn psycho-acoustically to the louder sound, in the same way that we are drawn to the first arriving sound.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hiya Mike, thanks for your post and your reiterating the issue of volumes changing and the way we perceive it. We are in agreement! 

Yet, I think here we are discussing a bit different issue, namely the tolerance range of test mics, better said the acceptable fluctuation of the FR curve form 20 Hz to 20 kHz with regards to getting better and better sound quality out of our home theater systems. This is not a case related to perceived volume changes, yet can be an important factor to know in order to draw conclusions. So, to rephrase the question: would a tighter tolerance test mic give noticeably better sound quality delivered to our ears or not?


----------



## tbaucom

mogorf said:


> Hiya Mike, thanks for your post and your reiterating the issue of volumes changing and the way we perceive it. We are in agreement!
> 
> Yet, I think here we are discussion a bit different issue, namely the tolerance range of test mics, better said the acceptable fluctuation of the FR curve form 20 Hz to 20 kHz with regards to getting better and better sound quality out of our home theater systems. This is not a case related to perceived volume changes, yet can be an important factor to know in order to draw conclusions. So, to rephrase the question: would a tighter tolerance test mic give noticeably better sound quality delivered to our ears or not?


Audyssey themselves think it does or at least they did at one point. That was one of the advantages they mentioned for the kit. It was actually the first thing they listed.

https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347743-MultEQ-Pro-vs-MultEQ-XT-and-MultEQ-XT32


----------



## mogorf

tbaucom said:


> Audyssey themselves think it does or at least they did at one point. That was one of the advantages they mentioned for the kit. It was actually the first thing they listed.
> 
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347743-MultEQ-Pro-vs-MultEQ-XT-and-MultEQ-XT32



Yes, they said: "1. Professional mic that is individually calibrated."


Well, in view of my original question I'm tending to believe Marketing Department was deeply involved in the drafting of that "advantage"!!


----------



## tbaucom

mogorf said:


> Yes, they said: "1. Professional mic that is individually calibrated."
> 
> 
> Well, in view of my original question I'm tending to believe Marketing Department was deeply involved in the drafting of that "advantage"!!


ok. I tend to believe you have never used a pro kit, don't really know what you are talking about, and like to argue.


----------



## mogorf

tbaucom said:


> ok. I tend to believe you have never used a pro kit, don't really know what you are talking about, and like to argue.



Hey tbaucom, come and join this discussion, please. FYR, this topic is not about the Pro Kit, but about the theorem of diminishing returns in view of ever tightening mic specs with regards to overall improvements in sound quality. Should you have experience on this subject you are more than welcome to share it with us.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mogorf said:


> Actually I wanted to hear your expert opinion on the necessity of having better mics than the Audyssey mic (bundled with the AVRs) in view of creating better sound quality. The threshold of +/- 3 dB the average healthy human ear can handle before noticing any change throughout the audible frequency range should mean the Audyssey mic with a tolerance of +/-2 dB should basically suffice although the calibration file is unknown to the public, yet burnt into the AVR. Would a more accurate mic (like +/-1 dB or even less) with a known calibration file yield noticeably better sound? Thanks in advance.


Fundamentally, it is that I do not have any confidence in the tolerances and consistency of the Audyssey mics. I suppose I could test them out as I have quite a few but, with the appearance of the app, the motivation to do so has evaporated.


----------



## D Bone

If someone changed my surrounds by 3db, I would be stopping the movie within 3 min to see what was wrong......


----------



## jabe00

Hello,

I just upgraded my Projector and the new one have more fan noise, should run again as there is more noise in the room now?

I'm thinking in doing because I can't hear or watch TV in the same volume I used before I don't know if is related to the new Projector or is something else.

Any ideas?

Normally I watch TV at -25, but now need to be at -10 and sometimes it feels low.

Thanks 

Jose

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## PG55

*Center Channel*

Hello,


My current set up has 3 wall mounted Def Tech Mythos 9's as my front stage. I am replacing the Mythos 9 wall mounted center channel speaker with a Def Tech CLR 3000 center which will sit on a cabinet 2" below the TV. 


The new center channel is much deeper than the L&R wall mounted Mythos 9's and will be 12' closer to the MLP. I have always tried to set up my front stage so that all 3 speakers are the same distance off the wall. This will no longer be the case with the larger center. 


My concern is with the new center being closer to the MLP my front soundstage will be off. 


The question is will Audyssey calibrate the new distances so the sounds reach the MLP at the same time. 


Thanks
PG55


----------



## mogorf

PG55 said:


> The question is will Audyssey calibrate the new distances so the sounds reach the MLP at the same time.
> 
> Thanks
> PG55



Yes. That's how Audyssey works. Actually time delay is measured from each speaker to the test mic and recalculated to show feet/meters. You may reassure yourself by using a tape measure from speaker to MLP. This feature works so well nobody ever complained about it.


----------



## DigitalSelf

Hi everyone,

I've been struggling with something for a while. Even after searching through different sites and several posts from these forums, I haven't found anything that can give me a clear idea of what my next steps should be. At this point I'm a bit shooting in several directions, but don't I have a clear testing strategy. I hope that some of you gents, can provide some tips. My audio setup is as follow :


Marantz SR5012 AVR (100W)
Marantz MM7025 power amplifier (140W)
Monitor Audio Bronze 6 floor standing (150W nominal) - fronts
Paradigm Defiance V12 (120W RMS ; 250W peak) - subwoofer
Mission M70 - surrounds and top middles

The front towers are hooked up with the MM7025, while the others and the sub are of course, hooked to the SR5012, for a global Atmos 5.1.2 setup. It is for some of you I'm sure, a modest system, but so far I've been quite happy with it. 

The issue I'm facing is that I still enjoy a lot, listening to music, but even after experimenting a lot, I find the bass to be quite lacking, for stereo (2.0) music. I don't want to use my sub for that -- thus no "LFE + Main" in the receiver's configuration. I purchased the power amp recently, in order to drive the Monitor Audio to their best potential. The MM7025 seemed quite adequate for it, but in truth, I cannot perceive a significant difference from before -- when they were hooked in the AVR -- and I was wondering if it might have something to do with the way I set up Audyssey. I did of course, re-ran it after adding the MM7025.

I know that "a Jack-of-all-trades is a master of none", and that some of you would say that I'd be better off with a separate stereo amplifier, but this is what I have, and want to make the most of it. I also know that I should let the most bass be managed by the sub, but I want to have my front manage the bass as much as they can, for music. I don't really care if it's not all for the sub and not maximized for cinema, since I can always raise its volume and even add some deep bass compensation. My previous sub had a manual crossover knob, so I cheated a little and set it near the lower end, prior running Audyssey. I know that the receiver itself manages the crossovers, so logically, playing with the knob shouldn't have an impact on what the towers can manage. However I swear I could hear a difference. That's why I did several tests, in order to find the sweet spot. Now with the Defiance, I could do that, but I'm not convinced anymore, as I learned that playing with the sub's internal crossovers adds another filtering layer, which can contribute to some loss.

I'd like to keep as much bass and highs as possible at high volumes (~ -15db). Here is what I had found to be best to my tastes, for the Audyssey settings (CD input only): 


MultEq XT : L/R Bypass
Dynamic EQ : ON
Reference Level Offset : 10db (I listen mostly to rock)
Dynamic Volume : OFF

For the Blu-ray input :


MultEq XT : Reference
Dynamic EQ : ON
Reference Level Offset : 0db
Dynamic Volume : LIGHT (day)

Here you have it all. Any advice will be MUCH appreciated.


----------



## jabe00

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just upgraded my Projector and the new one have more fan noise, should run again as there is more noise in the room now?
> 
> I'm thinking in doing because I can't hear or watch TV in the same volume I used before I don't know if is related to the new Projector or is something else.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Normally I watch TV at -25, but now need to be at -10 and sometimes it feels low.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jose
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



Or maybe should get a projector with less noise?


----------



## Alan P

DigitalSelf said:


> The issue I'm facing is that* I still enjoy a lot, listening to music*, but even after experimenting a lot, I find the bass to be quite lacking, for stereo (2.0) music. *I don't want to use my sub for that*


Why not?


----------



## mthomas47

DigitalSelf said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> I've been struggling with something for a while. Even after searching through different sites and several posts from these forums, I haven't found anything that can give me a clear idea of what my next steps should be. At this point I'm a bit shooting in several directions, but don't I have a clear testing strategy. I hope that some of you gents, can provide some tips. My audio setup is as follow :
> 
> 
> Marantz SR5012 AVR (100W)
> Marantz MM7025 power amplifier (140W)
> Monitor Audio Bronze 6 floor standing (150W nominal) - fronts
> Paradigm Defiance V12 (120W RMS ; 250W peak) - subwoofer
> Mission M70 - surrounds and top middles
> 
> The front towers are hooked up with the MM7025, while the others and the sub are of course, hooked to the SR5012, for a global Atmos 5.1.2 setup. It is for some of you I'm sure, a modest system, but so far I've been quite happy with it.
> 
> The issue I'm facing is that I still enjoy a lot, listening to music, but even after experimenting a lot, I find the bass to be quite lacking, for stereo (2.0) music. I don't want to use my sub for that -- thus no "LFE + Main" in the receiver's configuration. I purchased the power amp recently, in order to drive the Monitor Audio to their best potential. The MM7025 seemed quite adequate for it, but in truth, I cannot perceive a significant difference from before -- when they were hooked in the AVR -- and I was wondering if it might have something to do with the way I set up Audyssey. I did of course, re-ran it after adding the MM7025.
> 
> I know that "a Jack-of-all-trades is a master of none", and that some of you would say that I'd be better off with a separate stereo amplifier, but this is what I have, and want to make the most of it. I also know that I should let the most bass be managed by the sub, but I want to have my front manage the bass as much as they can, for music. I don't really care if it's not all for the sub and not maximized for cinema, since I can always raise its volume and even add some deep bass compensation. My previous sub had a manual crossover knob, so I cheated a little and set it near the lower end, prior running Audyssey. I know that the receiver itself manages the crossovers, so logically, playing with the knob shouldn't have an impact on what the towers can manage. However I swear I could hear a difference. That's why I did several tests, in order to find the sweet spot. Now with the Defiance, I could do that, but I'm not convinced anymore, as I learned that playing with the sub's internal crossovers adds another filtering layer, which can contribute to some loss.
> 
> I'd like to keep as much bass and highs as possible at high volumes (~ -15db). Here is what I had found to be best to my tastes, for the Audyssey settings (CD input only):
> 
> 
> MultEq XT : L/R Bypass
> Dynamic EQ : ON
> Reference Level Offset : 10db (I listen mostly to rock)
> Dynamic Volume : OFF
> 
> For the Blu-ray input :
> 
> 
> MultEq XT : Reference
> Dynamic EQ : ON
> Reference Level Offset : 0db
> Dynamic Volume : LIGHT (day)
> 
> Here you have it all. Any advice will be MUCH appreciated.




Hi,

I'm not sure exactly what advice you are looking for, other than how to get more bass when you listen to music. In any event, I will make several observations, and you can choose to implement those that seem most helpful to you. 

First, it isn't clear from your post whether your subwoofers are doing anything at all during stereo music listening. This isn't an amplifier issue, this is a bass management issue. Unless your two front speakers are set to Small, with a crossover, or unless you are implementing LFE+Main (which is not recommended) then the subwoofers are not operating when you listen to stereo. To make them operational, you would set your speakers to Small, with about an 80Hz crossover. I wouldn't go below 60Hz if I were you. 

The subwoofers would still be in operation for the other channels in your system, if those speakers are set to Small, and the subwoofers would still be providing LFE (low frequency effects) support for movies with 5.1 content. But, you need to implement bass management properly to allow the subs to help at all with stereo (2.0 content). If you want to understand the whole concept of bass management better, and how your crossovers work, you can read Section III of the Guide, linked below.

Second, you may already know this, but when you bypass Audyssey, you are turning-off the filters it set for your front speakers. If that's what you prefer, then that's what you should continue to use. If I were you, though, I would continue to experiment to be sure that is what you prefer. Audyssey may or may not, be doing anything helpful for your front speakers. That is entirely your call, and it is entirely separate from the issue of setting your Speakers to Small, with a crossover. 

Third, I would leave your subs' internal crossover set to the maximum for now. That is just a low pass filter which controls the frequencies which the subwoofer is allowed to play--for music or for movies. You can control the amount of bass your subwoofer is playing, for any content, by controlling the volume of the subwoofers. That is a separate issue than what frequencies they are allowed to play. You aren't making the speakers play more bass, with a very low LPF setting. The crossovers control how much of the bass stays with the speakers. When you drop the LPF on the subwoofers themselves very low, you are simply strangling them, so that they can't add to your bass except at very low-frequencies.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure exactly what advice you are looking for, other than how to get more bass when you listen to music. In any event, I will make several observations, and you can choose to implement those that seem most helpful to you.
> 
> First, it isn't clear from your post whether your subwoofers are doing anything at all during stereo music listening. This isn't an amplifier issue, this is a bass management issue. Unless your two front speakers are set to Small, with a crossover, or unless you are implementing LFE+Main (which is not recommended) then the subwoofers are not operating when you listen to stereo. To make them operational, you would set your speakers to Small, with about an 80Hz crossover. I wouldn't go below 60Hz if I were you.
> 
> The subwoofers would still be in operation for the other channels in your system, if those speakers are set to Small, and the subwoofers would still be providing LFE (low frequency effects) support for movies with 5.1 content. But, you need to implement bass management properly to allow the subs to help at all with stereo (2.0 content). If you want to understand the whole concept of bass management better, and how your crossovers work, you can read Section III of the Guide, linked below.
> 
> Second, you may already know this, but when you bypass Audyssey, you are turning-off the filters it set for your front speakers. If that's what you prefer, then that's what you should continue to use. If I were you, though, I would continue to experiment to be sure that is what you prefer. Audyssey may or may not, be doing anything helpful for your front speakers. That is entirely your call, and it is entirely separate from the issue of setting your Speakers to Small, with a crossover.
> 
> Third, I would leave your subs' internal crossover set to the maximum for now. That is just a low pass filter which controls the frequencies which the subwoofer is allowed to play--for music or for movies. You can control the amount of bass your subwoofer is playing, for any content, by controlling the volume of the subwoofers. That is a separate issue than what frequencies they are allowed to play. You aren't making the speakers play more bass, with a very low LPF setting. The crossovers control how much of the bass stays with the speakers. When you drop the LPF on the subwoofers themselves very low, you are simply strangling them, so that they can't add to your bass except at very low-frequencies.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



My question to the OP is why the Marantz MM7025 stereo amp is used in the chain when the Marantz AVR has a power stage to feed the front L&Rs.


----------



## DLCPhoto

@mthomas47

This isn't directly an Audyssey question, but it is related. My AVR is the Marantz SR7010.

I run my subwoofer level, set in the Audyssey...Manual...Speaker Levels menu, a little hot, as I like it that way for movies, and as you've pointed out, there is valid reason for increasing the level over that which Audyssey sets.

There is also a 'Subwoofer Level' setting available when you go into the 'Audio' menu, which obviously is outside of Audyssey per se. It is my impression that if I changed the Subwoofer Level setting in the Audio menu, that that will *only* impact the Audio for the particular Input I had selected when making that change. But I don't find any documentation for this, one way or the other, in the manual.

If that is the case, then I can tone down the Subwoofer for 2-channel music via a different Input than the one used for Movies, and not impact my movie watching. That would give me the best of both worlds.

Can you confirm that this is the way it works?

Thanks!


----------



## DigitalSelf

mthomas47 said:


> First, it isn't clear from your post whether your subwoofers are doing anything at all during stereo music listening. This isn't an amplifier issue, this is a bass management issue. Unless your two front speakers are set to Small, with a crossover, or unless you are implementing LFE+Main (which is not recommended) then the subwoofers are not operating when you listen to stereo. To make them operational, you would set your speakers to Small, with about an 80Hz crossover. I wouldn't go below 60Hz if I were you.


Thanks! Sorry if my post wasn't clear enough. As I mentioned, I'm not using the subwoofer in stereo, since I'm always configured LFE only for bass management, in the receiver settings. I can clearly see the sub remaining OFF when listening in stereo.



mthomas47 said:


> If you want to understand the whole concept of bass management better, and how your crossovers work, you can read Section III of the Guide, linked below.


I'll definitely do that! 



mthomas47 said:


> You aren't making the speakers play more bass, with a very low LPF setting. The crossovers control how much of the bass stays with the speakers.


I probably put it the wrong way. Your second sentence here, is exactly who I had understood it. I DO want have as much bass as possible, to stay with the speakers.


----------



## mthomas47

DLCPhoto said:


> @*mthomas47*
> 
> This isn't directly an Audyssey question, but it is related. My AVR is the Marantz SR7010.
> 
> I run my subwoofer level, set in the Audyssey...Manual...Speaker Levels menu, a little hot, as I like it that way for movies, and as you've pointed out, there is valid reason for increasing the level over that which Audyssey sets.
> 
> There is also a 'Subwoofer Level' setting available when you go into the 'Audio' menu, which obviously is outside of Audyssey per se. It is my impression that if I changed the Subwoofer Level setting in the Audio menu, that that will *only* impact the Audio for the particular Input I had selected when making that change. But I don't find any documentation for this, one way or the other, in the manual.
> 
> If that is the case, then I can tone down the Subwoofer for 2-channel music via a different Input than the one used for Movies, and not impact my movie watching. That would give me the best of both worlds.
> 
> Can you confirm that this is the way it works?
> 
> Thanks!




Hi Don,

Unfortunately, I can't! I know that some Denon AVR's work that way. In fact, I believe that all of them do. But, I know that my Marantz SR7008 (a predecessor to your AVR) does not work that way. Changes I make to the subwoofer volume in the Audio menu don't alter as I change sources. It seems to me that some Marantz AVR's and AVP's work the way that you have described, but I'm not sure which models that would include.

This is something that you can verify fairly easily though, just by trying it. If you change the trim level in your Audio menu on one source, and then go to another source, you should immediately be able to tell whether the trim level remains the same, or whether it defaults to the original setting you made in the Speaker/Manual/Levels menu.

My subwoofer trim levels stay where I last put them, regardless of which location I use to make the change. If I change the trim level in the Audio menu, that change is also reflected in the Speaker menu. My center channel works the same way. That is actually fine in my particular case, because I make several other setting changes anyway, when I go from music to movies and vice-versa. So, it really isn't an issue for me. I hope your SR7010 works the way you have described. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## DigitalSelf

mogorf said:


> My question to the OP is why the Marantz MM7025 stereo amp is used in the chain when the Marantz AVR has a power stage to feed the front L&Rs.


Simple : because from what I've read (even in these forums) AVRs do not always push 100% of the advertised nominal power. Marantz are apparently not that powerful, although precise. Thus, I'm probably not getting a true 100W out of my receiver. Since I want more power to drive my front speakers when I listen to stereo music, I hooked them to the power amp, for a -- supposedly -- true 140W. In cinema mode, I most probably wouldn't mind it...


----------



## rocky1

The sr7012 has in the speaker settings 2 channel playback settings. Not sure if your marantz has this setting.. easy enough to check ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

jabe00 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I just upgraded my Projector and the new one have more fan noise, should run again as there is more noise in the room now?
> 
> I'm thinking in doing because I can't hear or watch TV in the same volume I used before I don't know if is related to the new Projector or is something else.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Normally I watch TV at -25, but now need to be at -10 and sometimes it feels low.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jose
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



I think something else is going on. I don't think a louder projector fan would make that much difference in your preferred loudness (SPL). I would expect a difference of a few dB, nothing like 15 dB!


Our projector (Panasonic) fan starts softly, then gets a little louder as the projector gets warmer, but it doesn't affect our needed volume control setting. It isn't noticeable except in silent passages, and even in so-called "silent" passages, movies, TV, and concerts almost always have some ambient noise present, so the projector shouldn't add much to that. 



TV volume levels vary more than they are supposed to, therefore are a rather unreliable source. At our house, PBS is the softest and some streaming tends to be the loudest, with CBS, Blu-ray movies, CDs SACDs, etc. somewhere in-between. 



Make sure the trim levels inside your AVR haven't been changed inadvertently. Are there any other volume controls (other than the Main Volume) anywhere?


----------



## ratbuddy

DigitalSelf said:


> Simple : because from what I've read (even in these forums) AVRs do not always push 100% of the advertised nominal power. Marantz are apparently not that powerful, although precise. Thus, I'm probably not getting a true 100W out of my receiver. Since I want more power to drive my front speakers when I listen to stereo music, I hooked them to the power amp, for a -- supposedly -- true 140W. In cinema mode, I most probably wouldn't mind it...


Not sure where you heard that, Marantz has very honest 2-channel power ratings on their AVRs. Witness:
https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr7010-av-receiver-review-test-bench
https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/marantz-sr8012-receiver/marantz-sr8012-bench-tests

They also guarantee to make 70% of their stereo rating with five channels driven.


----------



## drh3b

DigitalSelf said:


> Simple : because from what I've read (even in these forums) AVRs do not always push 100% of the advertised nominal power. Marantz are apparently not that powerful, although precise. Thus, I'm probably not getting a true 100W out of my receiver. Since I want more power to drive my front speakers when I listen to stereo music, I hooked them to the power amp, for a -- supposedly -- true 140W. In cinema mode, I most probably wouldn't mind it...


You're mixing up 2 channel power ratings for all channel. Receivers generally meet their 2 channel specifications, the problem is knowing how much they put out in multi channel use, which is usually not specified, and much less.


----------



## DLCPhoto

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Don,
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't! I know that some Denon AVR's work that way. In fact, I believe that all of them do. But, I know that my Marantz SR7008 (a predecessor to your AVR) does not work that way. Changes I make to the subwoofer volume in the Audio menu don't alter as I change sources. It seems to me that some Marantz AVR's and AVP's work the way that you have described, but I'm not sure which models that would include.
> 
> This is something that you can verify fairly easily though, just by trying it. If you change the trim level in your Audio menu on one source, and then go to another source, you should immediately be able to tell whether the trim level remains the same, or whether it defaults to the original setting you made in the Speaker/Manual/Levels menu.
> 
> My subwoofer trim levels stay where I last put them, regardless of which location I use to make the change. If I change the trim level in the Audio menu, that change is also reflected in the Speaker menu. My center channel works the same way. That is actually fine in my particular case, because I make several other setting changes anyway, when I go from music to movies and vice-versa. So, it really isn't an issue for me. I hope your SR7010 works the way you have described.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, Mike, and yeah, I realize I could/should just test it out. Just got lazy, and was hoping somebody already knew. But it really should only take a few minutes, so no big deal.

Don


----------



## DigitalSelf

ratbuddy said:


> Not sure where you heard that, Marantz has very honest 2-channel power ratings on their AVRs. Witness:
> https://www.soundandvision.com/content/marantz-sr7010-av-receiver-review-test-bench
> https://www.audioholics.com/av-receiver-reviews/marantz-sr8012-receiver/marantz-sr8012-bench-tests
> 
> They also guarantee to make 70% of their stereo rating with five channels driven.





drh3b said:


> You're mixing up 2 channel power ratings for all channel. Receivers generally meet their 2 channel specifications, the problem is knowing how much they put out in multi channel use, which is usually not specified, and much less.


Thanks to both of you. I did not indeed, remember that. This being said, you must surely agree that since the MM7025's 140W is 40W more powerful than the SR5012's power in 2-channels, it will be closer to the Monitor Audio's nomimal 150W, thus driving them more effectively? If not, I think at this point I will need numbers, to better understand :laugh:

Besides, won't it provide a "front wall" of sound abit more powerful in home theater mode? Please bare with me, as I'm a passionate, without actual electronics courses.


----------



## ratbuddy

They recommend 40-150 watts for those speakers. 90 dB sensitivity means they'll get plenty loud with 'just' a receiver. Anyway, you only gain 3 dB going from 100 watts to 200 watts, so going from 100 to 140 or 150 is barely anything at all. Definitely not worth the hassle.


----------



## pbz06

mogorf said:


> When listening to a good quality music recording I suggest/ recommend to try to concentrate on stereo imaging, i.e. how clearly you can pinpoint instruments and vocals.
> 
> 
> For your ref. here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) said about limiting correction:
> 
> 
> Qte
> 
> 
> I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction.
> 
> 
> 
> Unqte
> 
> 
> Report back your findings please!


So the last few days I've been running with limited EQ (300hz), pretty much only movies (Blu-ray and/or Netflix)...95% of the time I can't tell a difference but I actually did notice some less harshness or coloration with certain male voices. 

Going to keep testing.


----------



## SouthernCA

While the preceding discussion is very illuminating, could I ask your help on a different question?

In my set up I have no center speaker and I rely on phantom center speaker. Long story. But there is just now a space for it. 

What can I do in my Audyssey xt32 set up to make dialogs more clear, audible and understandable. In some movies, the background music just overwhelms the dialogs.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## sjm817

If your music source is different than what you use for movies, you can do this with channel level adjust. Have your SW level set for what you like for movies. While on the music input, hit the option button and go to channel level adjust and turn down the subs. You can also adjust tone (as long as DEQ is off). The settings are unique and are remembered per input. 




DLCPhoto said:


> @mthomas47
> 
> This isn't directly an Audyssey question, but it is related. My AVR is the Marantz SR7010.
> 
> I run my subwoofer level, set in the Audyssey...Manual...Speaker Levels menu, a little hot, as I like it that way for movies, and as you've pointed out, there is valid reason for increasing the level over that which Audyssey sets.
> 
> There is also a 'Subwoofer Level' setting available when you go into the 'Audio' menu, which obviously is outside of Audyssey per se. It is my impression that if I changed the Subwoofer Level setting in the Audio menu, that that will *only* impact the Audio for the particular Input I had selected when making that change. But I don't find any documentation for this, one way or the other, in the manual.
> 
> If that is the case, then I can tone down the Subwoofer for 2-channel music via a different Input than the one used for Movies, and not impact my movie watching. That would give me the best of both worlds.
> 
> Can you confirm that this is the way it works?
> 
> Thanks!


----------



## DLCPhoto

sjm817 said:


> If your music source is different than what you use for movies, you can do this with channel level adjust. Have your SW level set for what you like for movies. While on the music input, hit the option button and go to channel level adjust and turn down the subs. You can also adjust tone (as long as DEQ is off). The settings are unique and are remembered per input.


Thanks! That sounds exactly like what I'm looking for. Somehow I missed this when going through the Manual. Will play with this later today.

Much appreciated!


----------



## JediMindTricks

Spidacat said:


> With both odd crossover settings and maxed out speaker levels I'd be willing to bet you have a bad mic. I'd call or email Denon explaining the situation and see if you can get a replacement.





D Bone said:


> Not a doubt in my mind it's the mic. I had the same exact issues and got in contact with Denon and I had a new mic in hand in about a week and my issues were gone.


I had asked earlier about getting some weird results with Audyssey (max crossovers and speaker levels). Y'all were 100% correct, turned out to be a faulty mic. Contacted the retailer and they had me a new mic within a couple days. Ran Audyssey again and it sounds much, much better. 

Thanks again for the advice.


----------



## DigitalSelf

ratbuddy said:


> They recommend 40-150 watts for those speakers. 90 dB sensitivity means they'll get plenty loud with 'just' a receiver. Anyway, you only gain 3 dB going from 100 watts to 200 watts, so going from 100 to 140 or 150 is barely anything at all. Definitely not worth the hassle.


Thanks for bluntly putting that I've been had. Nice welcome for new fellow enthusiasts, by not addressing my real issue, which is bass management. I cannot exchange or refund the MM70205, so better live with it now. Thanks a bunch to @mthomas47 who did provide some very useful infom that I will devour.

My main concern is simply try to keep the most bass for the front towers. I know it's better to leave more to the sub, but that's for cinema. I want to prioritize MUSIC. Thanks to anyone who has more tips for me.


----------



## ratbuddy

DigitalSelf said:


> Thanks to both of you. I did not indeed, remember that. This being said, you must surely agree that since the MM7025's 140W is 40W more powerful than the SR5012's power in 2-channels, it will be closer to the Monitor Audio's nomimal 150W, thus driving them more effectively? If not, I think at this point I will need numbers, to better understand :laugh:
> 
> Besides, won't it provide a "front wall" of sound abit more powerful in home theater mode? Please bare with me, as I'm a passionate, without actual electronics courses.





DigitalSelf said:


> Thanks for bluntly putting that I've been had. Nice welcome for new fellow enthusiasts, by not addressing my real issue, which is bass management. I cannot exchange or refund the MM70205, so better live with it now. Thanks a bunch to @mthomas47 who did provide some very useful infom that I will devour.
> 
> My main concern is simply try to keep the most bass for the front towers. I know it's better to leave more to the sub, but that's for cinema. I want to prioritize MUSIC. Thanks to anyone who has more tips for me.


I guess don't ask a question if you don't want the answer?

Anyway, there's nothing movie-specific about subwoofers. They are great for music as well, assuming you have them set up properly and in phase with your mains.


----------



## DigitalSelf

ratbuddy said:


> I guess don't ask a question if you don't want the answer?
> 
> Anyway, there's nothing movie-specific about subwoofers. They are great for music as well, assuming you have them set up properly and in phase with your mains.


I get what you mean. But unless I'm mistaken, when we set that up -- initially through Audyssey in my case -- we do so only once. Thus, this applies to ALL input sources, whether cinema or music. I'd prefer not to use the sub for music. So the towers would retain all the bass they were configured for, with or without sub. Hence, the need for me to leave them bass as much as I can .

I'm guessing that floostandings should provide a good sound stage for music, by themselves. Unless that is, manufacturers think nowadays that adequate bass is always provided only with the pairing of a sub, and are designing consequently. That would mean a real bummer for me. I know the Bronze 6 are rather modest, but they seemed capable enough, after hearing them in the store's listening room.

If you can provide tips for this scenario, I would appreciate. Audyssey set them to "full band" in the crossovers section. Perhaps setting them to "small" and setting a rather low crossover would be better? Always in a music, subwoofer-less context, preferably. In the meantime, I will of course, search in the provided guide, what I could do to better " set up properly and in phase with my mains"...


----------



## ratbuddy

DigitalSelf said:


> I get what you mean. But unless I'm mistaken, when we set that up -- initially through Audyssey in my case -- we do so only once. Thus, this applies to ALL input sources, whether cinema or music. I'd prefer not to use the sub for music. So the towers would retain all the bass they were configured for, with or without sub. Hence, the need for me to leave them bass as much as I can .


What you can do, if you want, is put the receiver in pure direct mode when listening to music. I believe this disables all the bass management, room correction, video functions, etc. so you get the cleanest possible two channel experience.



DigitalSelf said:


> I'm guessing that floostandings should provide a good sound stage for music, by themselves. Unless that is, manufacturers think nowadays that adequate bass is always provided only with the pairing of a sub, and are designing consequently. That would mean a real bummer for me. I know the Bronze 6 are rather modest, but they seemed capable enough, after hearing them in the store's listening room.


The thing about floorstanders is, yes, they reach low, but they seldom do so with the authority and impact of a good subwoofer. I have very nice towers with good bass (Paradigm Prestige 85F, rated +/- 2 dB from 40 Hz on up), and I still cross them over at 80 Hz. There is just no comparison! Music sounds much better and the lower octaves sound more full, no matter the genre I'm listening to.



DigitalSelf said:


> If you can provide tips for this scenario, I would appreciate. Audyssey set them to "full band" in the crossovers section. Perhaps setting them to "small" and setting a rather low crossover would be better? Always in a music, subwoofer-less context, preferably. In the meantime, I will of course, search in the provided guide, what I could do to better " set up properly and in phase with my mains"...


Audyssey is very quick to set speakers to 'large' but they should almost never be set that way. Setting them to 'small' and setting the crossover to 80 Hz is _the_ way to start. You could try going down to 60 Hz, but that would mean your speakers don't even start rolling off until 60, and the slope might not be steep enough to have switched completely to the sub once you hit a frequency that your mains can't quite handle.

As far as set up properly and in phase, I just mean the sub is positioned optimally in the room, the crossover turned all the way up(usually to 'LFE'), phase control set to where it's apparently loudest, and then perform the 'subwoofer distance tweak' (google it, you should find instructions elsewhere on this forum) to get it in phase with the mains. Also with gain adjusted so Audyssey detects it and sets the level as close to -11 as you can manage, without hitting -12. Finally, in the Audyssey phone app (highly recommended!) you'll want to limit the frequency range of the corrections to something around 300-400 Hz and possibly disable MRC (midrange compensation) depending on your taste - try it both ways.

Again, you can use pure direct for music if you aren't happy with the way the sub sounds, but I think if you set it up properly, you'll find the sub sounds great with music as well as movies.


----------



## DigitalSelf

ratbuddy said:


> What you can do, if you want, is put the receiver in pure direct mode when listening to music. I believe this disables all the bass management, room correction, video functions, etc. so you get the cleanest possible two channel experience.


Yes, I tried that, but although I know it's the cleanest way to listen to music, I'm not THIS much a purist. :laugh: It sounds a bit too lifeless for my tastes.



ratbuddy said:


> Audyssey is very quick to set speakers to 'large' but they should almost never be set that way. Setting them to 'small' and setting the crossover to 80 Hz is _the_ way to start. You could try going down to 60 Hz, but that would mean your speakers don't even start rolling off until 60, and the slope might not be steep enough to have switched completely to the sub once you hit a frequency that your mains can't quite handle.


Great, I will definitely try this.



ratbuddy said:


> As far as set up properly and in phase, I just mean the sub is positioned optimally in the room, the crossover turned all the way up(usually to 'LFE'), phase control set to where it's apparently loudest, and then perform the 'subwoofer distance tweak' (google it, you should find instructions elsewhere on this forum) to get it in phase with the mains. Also with gain adjusted so Audyssey detects it and sets the level as close to -11 as you can manage, without hitting -12. Finally, in the Audyssey phone app (highly recommended!) you'll want to limit the frequency range of the corrections to something around 300-400 Hz and possibly disable MRC (midrange compensation) depending on your taste - try it both ways.


I do have the Audyssey MultEQ app, but I find the in-app documentation to be a bit lacking. I was curious as to what the compensation switches actually do, especially the mid-range one. I also haven't played with the curves, as I don't fully understand them. I do preferer a less aggressive roll-off for the highs, at high volumes. I also have the Paradigm Defiance V12's mobile app, which gives me much more control over the sub and allows me to remain seated and play with the phase value, volume, and deep bass compensation. Pretty well designed app!


----------



## rocky1

On a whim here but have you tried or played with the 2 channel playback within the speaker setup . Strictly for 2 channel but u can setup different ways to your liking. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jon AA

DigitalSelf said:


> If you can provide tips for this scenario, I would appreciate. Audyssey set them to "full band" in the crossovers section. Perhaps setting them to "small" and setting a rather low crossover would be better? Always in a music, subwoofer-less context, preferably. In the meantime, I will of course, search in the provided guide, what I could do to better " set up properly and in phase with my mains"...


Unfortunately, your 5012 doesn't have it, but the higher Denon/Marantz models have a separate 2 channel setting (under Speakers, Manual Setup) that lets you set your front speakers differently for 2 channel use--different crossover, Small or Large. It sounds like that's what you're really looking for. So it's either upgrade or get used to changing the settings manually.


----------



## DigitalSelf

Jon AA said:


> Unfortunately, your 5012 doesn't have it, but the higher Denon/Marantz models have a separate 2 channel setting (under Speakers, Manual Setup) that lets you set your front speakers differently for 2 channel use--different crossover, Small or Large. It sounds like that's what you're really looking for. So it's either upgrade or get used to changing the settings manually.


Indeed, I do not have this option, but thanks for pointing that out. I'll just have to find the sweet spot for all listening modes, then


----------



## David Aiken

DigitalSelf said:


> I get what you mean. But unless I'm mistaken, when we set that up -- initially through Audyssey in my case -- we do so only once. Thus, this applies to ALL input sources, whether cinema or music. I'd prefer not to use the sub for music. So the towers would retain all the bass they were configured for, with or without sub. Hence, the need for me to leave them bass as much as I can .
> 
> I'm guessing that floostandings should provide a good sound stage for music, by themselves. Unless that is, manufacturers think nowadays that adequate bass is always provided only with the pairing of a sub, and are designing consequently. That would mean a real bummer for me. I know the Bronze 6 are rather modest, but they seemed capable enough, after hearing them in the store's listening room.
> 
> If you can provide tips for this scenario, I would appreciate. Audyssey set them to "full band" in the crossovers section. Perhaps setting them to "small" and setting a rather low crossover would be better? Always in a music, subwoofer-less context, preferably. In the meantime, I will of course, search in the provided guide, what I could do to better " set up properly and in phase with my mains"...


You're right, we do only one Audyssey setup and it applies to all input sources whether they be music or cinema.

I can also understand you not wanting to use the sub with music. I manage that by having 2 separate systems, one for movies with subs, and one for music without subs. Not only are they separate but they're in different rooms and while the cinema setup uses Audyssey the music setup doesn't, it uses physical room treatments.

With only one setup in a situation such as yours, I'd use the sub with music. One of the big differences I see in getting best results for a music system and for a movie system is speaker placement. If you're running a multi-channel system for movies you have constraints on speaker placement that you don't have if you're setting a 2 channel system up for music. Bass response is affected both by speaker placement and by listening position placement. With a movie setup speaker placement, especially front L & R speaker placement is largely determined by screen location (is it half way between left and right walls or closer to one side than another) and screen width. The speakers are also likely to be close to the front wall for a number of reasons. Listening position is determined largely by the need to provide good viewing and also the need to leave a certain amount of space between the listening position and the various surround speakers and surround placement is determined to some degree by the placement angles that are defined by the standards governing multichannel mixes. A lot of those restrictions aren't relevant to the setup of a 2 channel setup for music and you have a lot more flexibility in where you place the 2 speakers and where you put the listening position.

Basically, for either music or movies, people end up with speaker positions that aren't ideal for bass response at the listening position but a sub can be placed in a position which is better for bass response and with good setup the system can be optimised for good results across the whole frequency range. If you turn the subs off you're relying on bass from the speakers and they're unlikely to be in the best position for delivering the best bass and the listening position may also not be the best position for bass from the speakers. There's no way to fix that. Audyssey will work with your speakers if you run them full range but it will only provide correction down to the point where the speakers' bass response is down 3 dB. If Audyssey is working down to 40 Hz for your speakers that may well not be an issue but if the setup process ends up with your speakers set to small and a crossover setting of 80 Hz or higher then that tells you right away that you're not going to be getting good solid bass down to the bottom of the double bass/electric bass range and things like kick drums aren't going to be as solid as they could be either.

You say floor standers should be good for music. Back in 2001 I went shopping for a pair of floor standers when I retired. I ended up with a pair of 2 way stand mounts with a -3 dB point of 37 Hz which delivered better bass than some of the much larger floor standers I auditioned. Just because a speaker is a floor stander doesn't mean it will deliver good bass and just because a speaker is a stand mount doesn't mean that it won't deliver good bass that's better than some floor standers. Physical speaker size isn't an accurate guide to how well a speaker is going to perform. Even good floor standers with good low bass range specs can fail to deliver good bass if they're placed in the wrong locations in a room and/or you put your listening position in the wrong spot. There's more to getting good bass response and good response for music than just having a certain sort of speaker and if you have restrictions on where the speakers are going to go and where you're going to sit, regardless of what those reasons are, using a sub with your speakers may very well work better for music than running the speakers without the sub.

If you want to get the best results you can get for music with speakers only without a sub, start by optimising speaker and your listening position placement for music. If you're using a setup that has been optimised for movies you're going to get better results with music if you keep using the subs rather than switching them off. The only problem you may have with the sub is if bass sounds like it's coming from a specific location unrelated to the soundstage created by the speakers. If that happens your best solution is to move the sub closer to the speakers, preferably somewhere between them if possible, and do a new Audyssey calibration.


----------



## DigitalSelf

David Aiken said:


> You're right, we do only one Audyssey setup and it applies to all input sources whether they be music or cinema.
> 
> I can also understand you not wanting to use the sub with music. I manage that by having 2 separate systems, one for movies with subs, and one for music without subs. Not only are they separate but they're in different rooms and while the cinema setup uses Audyssey the music setup doesn't, it uses physical room treatments.
> 
> With only one setup in a situation such as yours, I'd use the sub with music. One of the big differences I see in getting best results for a music system and for a movie system is speaker placement. If you're running a multi-channel system for movies you have constraints on speaker placement that you don't have if you're setting a 2 channel system up for music. Bass response is affected both by speaker placement and by listening position placement. With a movie setup speaker placement, especially front L & R speaker placement is largely determined by screen location (is it half way between left and right walls or closer to one side than another) and screen width. The speakers are also likely to be close to the front wall for a number of reasons. Listening position is determined largely by the need to provide good viewing and also the need to leave a certain amount of space between the listening position and the various surround speakers and surround placement is determined to some degree by the placement angles that are defined by the standards governing multichannel mixes. A lot of those restrictions aren't relevant to the setup of a 2 channel setup for music and you have a lot more flexibility in where you place the 2 speakers and where you put the listening position.
> 
> Basically, for either music or movies, people end up with speaker positions that aren't ideal for bass response at the listening position but a sub can be placed in a position which is better for bass response and with good setup the system can be optimised for good results across the whole frequency range. If you turn the subs off you're relying on bass from the speakers and they're unlikely to be in the best position for delivering the best bass and the listening position may also not be the best position for bass from the speakers. There's no way to fix that. Audyssey will work with your speakers if you run them full range but it will only provide correction down to the point where the speakers' bass response is down 3 dB. If Audyssey is working down to 40 Hz for your speakers that may well not be an issue but if the setup process ends up with your speakers set to small and a crossover setting of 80 Hz or higher then that tells you right away that you're not going to be getting good solid bass down to the bottom of the double bass/electric bass range and things like kick drums aren't going to be as solid as they could be either.
> 
> You say floor standers should be good for music. Back in 2001 I went shopping for a pair of floor standers when I retired. I ended up with a pair of 2 way stand mounts with a -3 dB point of 37 Hz which delivered better bass than some of the much larger floor standers I auditioned. Just because a speaker is a floor stander doesn't mean it will deliver good bass and just because a speaker is a stand mount doesn't mean that it won't deliver good bass that's better than some floor standers. Physical speaker size isn't an accurate guide to how well a speaker is going to perform. Even good floor standers with good low bass range specs can fail to deliver good bass if they're placed in the wrong locations in a room and/or you put your listening position in the wrong spot. There's more to getting good bass response and good response for music than just having a certain sort of speaker and if you have restrictions on where the speakers are going to go and where you're going to sit, regardless of what those reasons are, using a sub with your speakers may very well work better for music than running the speakers without the sub.
> 
> If you want to get the best results you can get for music with speakers only without a sub, start by optimising speaker and your listening position placement for music. If you're using a setup that has been optimised for movies you're going to get better results with music if you keep using the subs rather than switching them off. The only problem you may have with the sub is if bass sounds like it's coming from a specific location unrelated to the soundstage created by the speakers. If that happens your best solution is to move the sub closer to the speakers, preferably somewhere between them if possible, and do a new Audyssey calibration.


Thanks a bunch for this extensive insight.  The Monitor Audio Bronze 6 ( https://www.monitoraudio.com/en/product-ranges/bronze/bronze-6/ ) can manage 34Hz, but with a -6db @150 Hz.I did manage to get a very satisfying setup with them - in stereo - before I changed sub, and I'm pleased with them. Back then, I even preferred the "dry" and clean punch of the bass, without any sub includedé I'll experiment with what you and the others suggested.


----------



## ratbuddy

Being 2.5 way floorstanders I assume the -6 dB at 150 Hz refers to the low pass filter applied to the bottom two of the woofers. The upper woofer also plays the low frequencies, but also acts as a midrange which then crosses over to the tweeter at 2.5 KHz.


----------



## DigitalSelf

ratbuddy said:


> Being 2.5 way floorstanders I assume the -6 dB at 150 Hz refers to the low pass filter applied to the bottom two of the woofers. The upper woofer also plays the low frequencies, but also acts as a midrange which then crosses over to the tweeter at 2.5 KHz.


At this point, you most probably know more than I do, as I gave myself a crash course in speakers by reading a lot, when I bought these back in January. I'm a bit puzzled by their specs, since the Silver 200 -- another 2½ way -- are eplained in a different way, in terms of crossover frequencies. Anyway! I also noticed another thing that I find puzzling. In the Audyssey setup section of the AVR's settings, I usually preferred "L/R Bypass" to the other ones, because I enjoyed the high ends better. However, according to the doc :

* L/R Bypass: "Selects the reference setting, but bypasses MultEQ® XT on the front left and right speakers."
* Flat:"Selects the calibrated setting which is optimized for small rooms where your listening position is closer to the speakers."

But judging by the value of the setting ("Flat"), I would have expected it to be similar to L/R Bypass, in 2-channels mode...


----------



## ratbuddy

You should definitely use the app to limit the correction range if you preferred the highs with L/R bypass. Flat vs reference just changes the way it rolls off the highs, while L/R bypass actually disables the Audyssey correction for the L/R speakers. By leaving L/R bypass off and limiting the correction to ... say, 300 Hz to start, you'll get the same response over the highs as you would with L/R bypass on, but Audyssey will help correct for your room at the lower frequencies where it matters most.


----------



## garygarrison

ratbuddy said:


> Audyssey is very quick to set speakers to 'large' but they should almost never be set that way. Setting them to 'small' and setting the crossover to 80 Hz is _the_ way to start. You could try going down to 60 Hz, but that would mean your speakers don't even start rolling off until 60, and the slope might not be steep enough to have switched completely to the sub once you hit a frequency that your mains can't quite handle.





IIRC, it is not Audyssey that sets the speakers to "large." According to Audyssey (unless something has changed) Audyssey merely advises the AVR of where the F3 point of every speaker is, then the AVR sets the speakers to "large" or "small," depending on what the AVR manufacturer has programed the AVR to do, under those circumstances (the F3 for that particular speaker). I believe Audyssey themselves (Chris K.) believes that no speaker should ever be set on "large," so that the more capable subwoofer can do the "heavy lifting" with a side benefit of more headroom for the main channels. If I'm wrong, I know Feri, Mike, or others will correct me.
*DigitalSelf:*


Now for something completely different. When I had a *music only* system, my main speakers were very capable down to about 35 Hz (by test in my room, not by manufacturer's specs). So I arbitrarily set the crossover to the subwoofer as low as possible (40 Hz), and turned the sub way up, and set the front speakers to "small," even though they are truly gargantuan. Bass *attack* is mostly above 40 Hz, where my nice clean main speakers produced it with very low modulation distortion, and my subwoofer (as floppy and burpy as most) was restricted to very low frequencies, but was very impressive and powerful, especially the Telarc giant classical bass drum and with pipe organ. Unfortunately, when I started using the same system with movies and music, after much (weeks and weeks) experimentation, I threw in the towel and reset the crossover to 80 Hz, and the independent LPF for LFE also to 80 Hz, and lived with it. For the occasional especially demanding session, I can put the settings back to the best music setting.
RE: Bass attack, see this wonderful graph (figure 1, enlarge it) for kick drum behavior: http://www.moultonlabs.com/more/principles_of_multitrack_mixing_the_kick_drum_bass_relationship/P1/


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> IIRC, it is not Audyssey that sets the speakers to "large." According to Audyssey (unless something has changed) Audyssey merely advises the AVR of where the F3 point of every speaker is, then the AVR sets the speakers to "large" or "small," depending on what the AVR manufacturer has programed the AVR to do, under those circumstances (the F3 for that particular speaker). I believe Audyssey themselves (Chris K.) believes that no speaker should ever be set on "large," so that the more





I know you're right about this.


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> I know you're right about this.



+1. Garry is right!


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

There is something else about the way that crossovers are set in AVR's and AVP's, employing Audyssey or other automated calibration systems, that I think is worth pointing-out. The initial setting of Large or Small with a crossover (which as Gary said is dependent on the AVR's internal programming) does not constitute a recommendation by either Audyssey or by the AVR. It is is simply an observation, which informs users, of where the particular speakers in question are rolling-off, in that particular placement, in that particular room.

Unfortunately, that is never made clear in user manuals or in most Audyssey explanations. Once the calibration is complete, and the preliminary crossovers have been set, well-informed users can and should experiment with the crossovers to discover the preferred settings for that listener, or for that listening medium (movies versus music, for instance). That experimentation can be facilitated by measurements, or it can rely entirely on listening to different content with different settings.

David did a very good job of explaining some of the reasons why combination music/movie systems can often require a degree of compromise, especially where speaker placement is concerned. As a general rule, most listeners will be much better off setting speakers to Small with no less than a 60Hz crossover. Typically it is a good idea to set crossovers about one-half to one octave above the measured F3 point of a speaker, in order to allow for a seamless transition between speaker and subwoofer. (This whole issue of setting crossovers is explored in detail in Section III of the Guide, linked below.)

Although the way that crossovers are set, with Large/Small settings has always created a good deal of confusion, I am personally glad that users still have the Large option. There are music listening systems that actually do have highly bass-capable speakers, located where they should be for optimum listening performance. And, those systems may also be able to benefit from partial or full-range room correction. I have such a system, and my settings for music are entirely different from my settings for movies. 

In my opinion, once we understand how our audio systems operate, and we understand the mechanisms employed by systems such as Audyssey, our best path to our personal listening satisfaction lies in informed experimentation. We just need to try different settings and different combinations of settings to discover what we like. And, we shouldn't be too surprised if we find that changing sources, or changing entire listening venues (two-channel music versus 5.1 movies) necessitates minor, or substantial, changes in settings. 

Nearly all of what we do with our settings: Audyssey on or off; L/R Bypass; full-range correction versus bandwidth-limited correction; Reference versus Flat; Large versus Small with crossovers; LFE+Main; DEQ on, or off, or on with an RLO engaged; or other settings that I have left out, may be investigated and implemented entirely on a YMMV basis. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ratbuddy

Err, whether the receiver sets the speakers to large when you run Audyssey, or if Audyssey sets speakers to large, the end result is exactly the same, and any distinction is strictly academic.

Anyway, if your subwoofer could be called 'floppy and burpy' I think it's time for an upgrade


----------



## sjm817

This discussion of music Vs movie settings is an interesting one for me as it is something I have struggled with. Like many, my setup serves both purposes and I want it to work well for both. My LR are Klipsch RP280F which are capable towers that will go low enough for the types of music I listen to. For subs I have a pair of HSU VTF-3 Mk5s. When playing music in 2 ch mode with Aud ref or flat calibration, it sounds lacking in mid bass. Particularly, kick drums dont have the "kick" they should. When I use direct or L/R bypass, the kick is back. I ran a set of REW sweeps to see what that looks like.


Red = Direct. This is LR with no subs, no aud filtering
Green = Aud Flat LR and subs
Blue = Add 5 dB od SW boost
Gold = LR Bypass with the 5 dB Boost.








The direct sweep has significantly better bass than the Aud Flat sweep in the area that matters. The music I listen to doesnt benefit from the below 40Hz gain that the subs provide. 
The closest to the direct mode is L/R bypass, but even that is not as strong above the 80Hz Xover.

Here is a 20K sweep. Its interesting that the Aud trace boosts the high freq up from the direct trace









Side note/question: Could I squash that 2.5K bump with the multiEq Editor?


----------



## mthomas47

ratbuddy said:


> Err, whether the receiver sets the speakers to large when you run Audyssey, or if Audyssey sets speakers to large, the end result is exactly the same, and any distinction is strictly academic.
> 
> Anyway, if your subwoofer could be called 'floppy and burpy' I think it's time for an upgrade



To be fair, the distinction used to be a little less academic when Audyssey was being employed by more AVR makers. Denon/Marantz probably now employ very similar algorithms for setting crossovers. But, Onkyo used a slightly different one as I recall when it was licensing the Audyssey software, and I'm not sure about NAD. The Large/Small setting is pretty universally applied based on a


----------



## DigitalSelf

Well, I spent a few hours yesterday to experiment and tried it all : Large + Fullband (LFE only, in bass management), Small + 40Hz, Small + 60Hz, Midrange Compensation ON and OFF. First, I don't know about the higher end receivers, but the Marantz SR5012 has this behavior, that as soon as my front speakers are not set to "Large", the sub will *always *play, even in stereo mode. That brings me back to the old dilemma, regarding what used to annoy me in that case : imprecise bass, a bit too bloated for my taste. I want something a bit dryer ; punchier. The Defiance V12 has a "Music" mode for such purpose, but still. Perhaps I would have been better off with the V10, that is apparently more precise. However, once I played with all settings, I must admit that with a properly set up subwoofer, music was way more fun to listen too. I ended up -- might change it after a while, but I'll see -- like this :


Small, with a 40Hz crossover
Midrange Compensation : OFF
MultEQ XT : L/R Bypass
Dynamic EQ : ON
Reference Level Offset: 10db
Dynamic volume: OFF

I won't go over my Defiance's settings, but suffice it to say, that I kept the "Deep Bass" compensation to a minimum, while being also modest on the volume to avoid the fronts being overpowered by the sub. After all, it's them I want to enjoy, when playing music. 

The only thing I haven't re-tried since buying the new sub, is LFE + Main, in the bass management setting, combined with fullband fronts. I haven't been impressed by that combination, before... As for @ratbuddy 's suggestion for the high end roll-off, I would sure like to know how you guys manage to edit a curve with precision, on such a small screen as a mobile phone's.  It's surely a bit easier on an iPad...

BTW... excuse my ignorence, but what is the F3 point?


----------



## sjm817

DigitalSelf said:


> Well, I spent a few hours yesterday to experiment and tried it all : Large + Fullband (LFE only, in bass management), Small + 40Hz, Small + 60Hz, Midrange Compensation ON and OFF. First, I don't know about the higher end receivers, but the Marantz SR5012 has this behavior, that as soon as my front speakers are not set to "Large", the sub will *always *play, even in stereo mode. That brings me back to the old dilemma, regarding what used to annoy me in that case : imprecise bass, a bit too bloated for my taste. I want something a bit dryer ; punchier. The Defiance V12 has a "Music" mode for such purpose, but still. Perhaps I would have been better off with the V10, that is apparently more precise. However, once I played with all settings, I must admit that with a properly set up subwoofer, music was way more fun to listen too. I ended up -- might change it after a while, but I'll see -- like this :
> 
> 
> Small, with a 40Hz crossover
> Midrange Compensation : OFF
> MultEQ XT : L/R Bypass
> Dynamic EQ : ON
> Reference Level Offset: 10db
> Dynamic volume: OFF
> 
> I won't go over my Defiance's settings, but suffice it to say, that I kept the "Deep Bass" compensation to a minimum, while being also modest on the volume to avoid the fronts being overpowered by the sub. After all, it's them I want to enjoy, when playing music.
> 
> The only thing I haven't re-tried since buying the new sub, is LFE + Main, in the bass management setting, combined with fullband fronts. I haven't been impressed by that combination, before... As for @ratbuddy 's suggestion for the high end roll-off, I would sure like to know how you guys manage to edit a curve with precision, on such a small screen as a mobile phone's.  It's surely a bit easier on an iPad...
> 
> BTW... excuse my ignorence, but what is the F3 point?


If you dont want subs to be used try "Direct" mode. Subs are not used even when LR are small. Hit the pure button to get to it


----------



## DigitalSelf

sjm817 said:


> If you dont want subs to be used try "Direct" mode. Subs are not used even when LR are small. Hit the pure button to get to it


Thanks. I tried it but found it to be a bit too lifeless. I want to benefit from Audyssey, provided I can tame it.


----------



## sjm817

DigitalSelf said:


> Thanks. I tried it but found it to be a bit too lifeless. I want to benefit from Audyssey, provided I can tame it.


Interesting as I have the exact opposite. Audyssey sucks the life out of my speakers and direct puts it back. See my post a few back from yours. Obviously the model of speakers and environment will have a big impact on this.


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> Side note/question: Could I squash that 2.5K bump with the multiEq Editor?


I don't know, it's pretty sharp. It may be some room/speaker resonance/reflection that can't be EQ'd out, which is why Audyssey doesn't try to remove it or it could simply be too sharp.




What you CAN do with the App, is fix your bass problems. This is one of the areas where the App gives a real gain in the capability of Audyssey.


So, your mains have good bass and are getting a nice amount of room gain at the bottom end. They sound better than the subs in the lower-midbass region for music. The problem with just running Audyssey reference is that it will neuter the bass of the mains, removing all the room gain, making them "flat" which generally doesn't sound good. Most compensate for this by bumping up the Sub level a few db...but as you have noted, it's just not the same.


With the App, you can correct your mains to a curve that will maintain their bass at the bottom end (maybe smooth it out a little) so they'll sound much better when set to "Large" and they'll integrate with the sub at various crossover settings better when both are corrected to the same curve to begin with.


Try this (easiest to just type them into Ratbuddy):


Front L&R Control Points:


20hz 6db
55 6
150 0




Sub Control Points:


20 6
55 6
150 0


That'll give you a sub curve like this:













Now, Audyssey will correct your sub to that curve, but it won't just boost the low end 6db--it'll lower the entire curve. To put the curve where it should be to match the mains, you need to boost sub level from the level Audyssey sets 6db (as shown below):













With those settings, both will be corrected to the same curve. Your mains set to large should sound as good or better than they do in Direct mode in the bass region. And when you add the sub, you can try crossover settings anywhere from 40 to 100+ hz without changing the overall response curve, you'll simply be trading sub power for main speaker power at certain frequencies--but they'll integrate properly since they're set to the same level at whatever frequency you select (something that does NOT happen when both are corrected flat and the sub is boosted in level, as overlap will increase/decrease depending upon the frequency you choose).


Anyway, give that a try and I think you'll be pleased.


----------



## sjm817

This is awesome! Thanks for the time putting this info together. Yes, the main/sub integration has been a struggle. Its fine (great) for movies but cant get it just right for music. One thing is I dont want to set my mains to large. Any settings I use has to be remembered per input and not a manual cgange. Im not going to change mains large/small every time I watch a movie or listen to music. Im going to plug those settings in and see what it looks like. Will post back in a few. 


Jon AA said:


> I don't know, it's pretty sharp. It may be some room/speaker resonance/reflection that can't be EQ'd out, which is why Audyssey doesn't try to remove it or it could simply be too sharp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you CAN do with the App, is fix your bass problems. This is one of the areas where the App gives a real gain in the capability of Audyssey.
> 
> 
> So, your mains have good bass and are getting a nice amount of room gain at the bottom end. They sound better than the subs in the lower-midbass region for music. The problem with just running Audyssey reference is that it will neuter the bass of the mains, removing all the room gain, making them "flat" which generally doesn't sound good. Most compensate for this by bumping up the Sub level a few db...but as you have noted, it's just not the same.
> 
> 
> With the App, you can correct your mains to a curve that will maintain their bass at the bottom end (maybe smooth it out a little) so they'll sound much better when set to "Large" and they'll integrate with the sub at various crossover settings better when both are corrected to the same curve to begin with.
> 
> 
> Try this (easiest to just type them into Ratbuddy):
> 
> 
> Front L&R Control Points:
> 
> 
> 20hz 6db
> 55 6
> 150 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub Control Points:
> 
> 
> 20 6
> 55 6
> 150 0
> 
> 
> That'll give you a sub curve like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, Audyssey will correct your sub to that curve, but it won't just boost the low end 6db--it'll lower the entire curve. To put the curve where it should be to match the mains, you need to boost sub level from the level Audyssey sets 6db (as shown below):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With those settings, both will be corrected to the same curve. Your mains set to large should sound as good or better than they do in Direct mode in the bass region. And when you add the sub, you can try crossover settings anywhere from 40 to 100+ hz without changing the overall response curve, you'll simply be trading sub power for main speaker power at certain frequencies--but they'll integrate properly since they're set to the same level at whatever frequency you select (something that does NOT happen when both are corrected flat and the sub is boosted in level, as overlap will increase/decrease depending upon the frequency you choose).
> 
> 
> Anyway, give that a try and I think you'll be pleased.


----------



## sjm817

Jon AA said:


> Try this (easiest to just type them into Ratbuddy):
> 
> 
> Front L&R Control Points:
> 
> 
> 20hz 6db
> 55 6
> 150 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub Control Points:
> 
> 
> 20 6
> 55 6
> 150 0
> 
> 
> That'll give you a sub curve like this:


One more thing before I do this. Im new to the Ratbuddy editor but see what its doing. In Ratbuddy, I can edit the curve for L & R but the multieq app is just front. Same with the SW. I can edit both in the app but just one in multieq. I assume I just set them the same? Is there the possibility on individual speaker editing?


----------



## Mactavish

sjm817 said:


> If your music source is different than what you use for movies, you can do this with channel level adjust. Have your SW level set for what you like for movies. While on the music input, hit the option button and go to channel level adjust and turn down the subs. You can also adjust tone (as long as DEQ is off). The settings are unique and are remembered per input.


Thanks for getting me to look at the “channel level adjust” setting on my Denon X3500H AVR. Your chart seems to prove adding bass per audio source input is the same as the global trim adjustment, with the benefit of doing so only on the source you set it for, and respecting the original trim setting, by adding or subtracting to it. 

MORE INFO AND CHART IN THIS THREAD/POST:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bration-bass-preferences-43.html#post58069542


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> One more thing before I do this. Im new to the Ratbuddy editor but see what its doing. In Ratbuddy, I can edit the curve for L & R but the multieq app is just front. Same with the SW. I can edit both in the app but just one in multieq. I assume I just set them the same? Is there the possibility on individual speaker editing?


I think you could, but I've never tried it.  I just put them both the same. I actually do all speakers the same once I figure out what curve sounds good on the mains. I don't think there are many situations where you'd want to do it differently with your mains. There may be times you'd want to do something different with multiple subs, especially if they're not the same and have different rolloff points, but I haven't tried that either. Those might be interesting things to experiment with in the future after you get your main issue fixed to your liking (I wouldn't worry about them right now).


----------



## sjm817

Jon AA said:


> I think you could, but I've never tried it. I just put them both the same. I actually do all speakers the same once I figure out what curve sounds good on the mains. I don't think there are many situations where you'd want to do it differently with your mains. There may be times you'd want to do something different with multiple subs, especially if they're not the same and have different rolloff points, but I haven't tried that either. Those might be interesting things to experiment with in the future after you get your main issue fixed to your liking (I wouldn't worry about them right now).


Ok here are initial results with the new curves. Just 2 sweeps. Blue is direct, Red is modified ref curves. 80Hz Xover, no SW boost. Is this what you were expecting? I did a quick listen but not enough yet to say how the sound is.


----------



## D Bone

DigitalSelf said:


> Well, I spent a few hours yesterday to experiment and tried it all : Large + Fullband (LFE only, in bass management), Small + 40Hz, Small + 60Hz, Midrange Compensation ON and OFF. First, I don't know about the higher end receivers, but the Marantz SR5012 has this behavior, that as soon as my front speakers are not set to "Large", the sub will *always *play, even in stereo mode. That brings me back to the old dilemma, regarding what used to annoy me in that case : imprecise bass, a bit too bloated for my taste. I want something a bit dryer ; punchier. The Defiance V12 has a "Music" mode for such purpose, but still. Perhaps I would have been better off with the V10, that is apparently more precise. However, once I played with all settings, I must admit that with a properly set up subwoofer, music was way more fun to listen too. I ended up -- might change it after a while, but I'll see -- like this :
> 
> 
> Small, with a 40Hz crossover
> *Midrange Compensation : OFF*
> _*MultEQ XT : L/R Bypass*_
> Dynamic EQ : ON
> Reference Level Offset: 10db
> Dynamic volume: OFF
> 
> I won't go over my Defiance's settings, but suffice it to say, that I kept the "Deep Bass" compensation to a minimum, while being also modest on the volume to avoid the fronts being overpowered by the sub. After all, it's them I want to enjoy, when playing music.
> 
> The only thing I haven't re-tried since buying the new sub, is LFE + Main, in the bass management setting, combined with fullband fronts. I haven't been impressed by that combination, before... As for @ratbuddy 's suggestion for the high end roll-off, I would sure like to know how you guys manage to edit a curve with precision, on such a small screen as a mobile phone's.  It's surely a bit easier on an iPad...
> 
> BTW... excuse my ignorence, but what is the F3 point?


If you are using L/R Bypass, then there is no Audyssey correction being done to the front left and right at all.... Your MRC settings one way or the other don't matter on the left and right with that setting.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> To be fair, the distinction used to be a little less academic when Audyssey was being employed by more AVR makers. Denon/Marantz probably now employ very similar algorithms for setting crossovers. But, Onkyo used a slightly different one as I recall when it was licensing the Audyssey software, and I'm not sure about NAD. The Large/Small setting is pretty universally applied based on a


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> Ok here are initial results with the new curves. Just 2 sweeps. Blue is direct, Red is modified ref curves. 80Hz Xover, no SW boost. Is this what you were expecting?


No, but you're getting close.  The main thing is you need to boost the sub level 6 db when you use that target curve (even when crossing over at 80 hz) because Audyssey isn't quite smart enough to figure out what you're doing. If you do that the red curve and the blue curve should match more closely.


A couple other details: I think I misread your initial Direct curve (which you liked the sound of for music). To match it better, you might try changing the control point where you bring it back down to 0 from 150 to 180 or so in all curves. The nice thing about the App/Ratbuddy is you can make such changes, save it under a different file name and try numerous different curves pretty quickly and easily.


Also, if your main speakers sound good in the bass region, don't be afraid to try lower crossover points (at least for music) (40 might be marginal for those speakers, but 60 should work pretty well). Once you get the curves to match you can try different crossover points without changing the shape of the overall curve to see which you like best--it might actually be hard to tell the difference when everything is matched up.


----------



## sjm817

That makes sense and and have been trying some things. Yes, I like the sound of my mains for music. Bass is nice and tight and goes low enough. If I were only using them for music I would not have subwoofers at all. I was getting blurry eyed with all the REW testing and had to give that a break! At this point, your curve tweaks with a 40Hz Xover sound pretty darn good. 60Hz was still a bit light in the bass. Depending on content, "Direct" was actually a bit bass heavy. Down a notch or two is good. 
I will try 180 control point next. 



Jon AA said:


> No, but you're getting close.  The main thing is you need to boost the sub level 6 db when you use that target curve (even when crossing over at 80 hz) because Audyssey isn't quite smart enough to figure out what you're doing. If you do that the red curve and the blue curve should match more closely.
> 
> 
> A couple other details: I think I misread your initial Direct curve (which you liked the sound of for music). To match it better, you might try changing the control point where you bring it back down to 0 from 150 to 180 or so in all curves. The nice thing about the App/Ratbuddy is you can make such changes, save it under a different file name and try numerous different curves pretty quickly and easily.
> 
> 
> Also, if your main speakers sound good in the bass region, don't be afraid to try lower crossover points (at least for music) (40 might be marginal for those speakers, but 60 should work pretty well). Once you get the curves to match you can try different crossover points without changing the shape of the overall curve to see which you like best--it might actually be hard to tell the difference when everything is matched up.


----------



## garygarrison

sjm817 said:


> With the 40Hz Xover, am I really giving up anything for movies? Everything I watch has an LFE track so it doesnt seem like I would miss anything really.



Right you are. If you have the regular (bass management) crossover at 40 Hz, and the Low Pass Filter for LFE at 120 Hz, you should miss nothing, providing your front speakers are good to 40 Hz (it sounds like they are). Very little orchestral music has fundamentals below 40 Hz (the best theater systems, like Cinerama with Altec Lansing, and 70 mm Todd-AO with James B. Lansing, used to start their serious roll-off at 40 Hz) and if there is lower music on some soundtracks, it will go to the sub, anyway, so, no loss. As to the LPF for LFE, some people (myself included) think the special effects sound is clearer with the LPF set at 80 Hz, rather than the prescribed 120. Roger Dressler (formerly of Dolby Labs) and Mark Seaton (founder Seaton Sound) agree. The sound above 80 Hz from the LFE track will still come through (up to 120) but will be attenuated. This cuts down on the bloated boominess that sometimes obscures deeper sound effects, as well as deep bass in music.


So, IMO, it is likely that one can get the *tightest*, *clearest bass* for both the music and effects in movies by: 



Setting the crossover for either 40 Hz (if you want your main front speakers to strut their stuff, and they will go down that far, cleanly) or 80 Hz. Note that with many AVRs the crossover can be set individually for the center (often inferior to the LF & RF), the surrounds (often small compared to others), and the "mains" (LF & RF).
Setting the LPF for 80 Hz.
If you can, and have the room, using a good folded horn loaded, probably tapped, subwoofer. Caution, the smaller ones don't go down very far. Their forte is clarity and low distortion, not wide range -- but the big ones tend to do well.


----------



## DigitalSelf

D Bone said:


> If you are using L/R Bypass, then there is no Audyssey correction being done to the front left and right at all.... Your MRC settings one way or the other don't matter on the left and right with that setting.


I get it. However, it sounded different to me. Strange. Also, how is it that there's an audible difference between "L/R Bypass" and "Flat", when in both cases, I'm using only the fronts and in theory, nothing is applied to them in bypass mode? Shouldn't it sound the same?


----------



## DigitalSelf

sjm817 said:


> One more thing before I do this. Im new to the Ratbuddy editor but see what its doing. In Ratbuddy, I can edit the curve for L & R but the multieq app is just front. Same with the SW. I can edit both in the app but just one in multieq. I assume I just set them the same? Is there the possibility on individual speaker editing?


I just found the editor you were referring to. Really nice! I was wondering how you guys manage to do some precise editing on such small screens!  I'll give it a try for sure. Now, onto some curve editing crash course reading...


----------



## sjm817

Jon AA said:


> No, but you're getting close.  The main thing is you need to boost the sub level 6 db when you use that target curve (even when crossing over at 80 hz) because Audyssey isn't quite smart enough to figure out what you're doing. If you do that the red curve and the blue curve should match more closely.
> 
> 
> A couple other details: I think I misread your initial Direct curve (which you liked the sound of for music). To match it better, you might try changing the control point where you bring it back down to 0 from 150 to 180 or so in all curves. The nice thing about the App/Ratbuddy is you can make such changes, save it under a different file name and try numerous different curves pretty quickly and easily.
> 
> 
> Also, if your main speakers sound good in the bass region, don't be afraid to try lower crossover points (at least for music) (40 might be marginal for those speakers, but 60 should work pretty well). Once you get the curves to match you can try different crossover points without changing the shape of the overall curve to see which you like best--it might actually be hard to tell the difference when everything is matched up.


Jon, I am very close or there. With the 40Hz Xover, it really sounds great. Question for you on the custom curve. You have the +6 from 20 to 55Hz then taper to 150 or 180. Is there a "cookbook" for this? Is there a reason for the sharper rise with the more gradual rolloff?


----------



## sjm817

DigitalSelf said:


> I get it. However, it sounded different to me. Strange. Also, how is it that there's an audible difference between "L/R Bypass" and "Flat", when in both cases, I'm using only the fronts and in theory, nothing is applied to them in bypass mode? Shouldn't it sound the same?


L/R Bypass has no Audyssey curve applied to the LR speakers. Flat does. They will not sound the same.


----------



## DigitalSelf

sjm817 said:


> L/R Bypass has no Audyssey curve applied to the LR speakers. Flat does. They will not sound the same.


OK thanks. If I decide to try tweaking my curves -- phrasing! -- what setting should I use, then? "Reference" or "Flat"?


----------



## sjm817

Gary, your posts are always insightful and "real world" Basically, what you posted make 100% sense and is exactly what I have seen. For 2 ch music, with a capable set of Fronts, there isnt a need for a SW. Music (most types) doesnt go low enough to need them. Audyssey in its effort to make everything flat neutered the sound of my speakers and thats how they sounded. Flat. With the custom curver and lowering the xover to 40Hz, now my fronts can work as they were designed to. "Strut their stuff" as you put it.

For movies, to me there is an LFE channel for a reason. Low freq contend that is appropriate for the SW has a dedicated channel. I think with the 40Hz Xover and new curve, my mains will sound better for the scores and such that would be sent there. The thunderous low freq content will be in the LFE channel and will go to the subs. I will watch some movie content tonight.

What are your thoughts on center channel? It is also fairly capable. Klipsch RC-62II. Has 2x 6.5" drivers. I have the Xover @ 80 now. Should I go to 60? Since it is not used for music, just movies. what is appropriate frequency range that "belongs" in a center channel? 



garygarrison said:


> Right you are. If you have the regular (bass management) crossover at 40 Hz, and the Low Pass Filter for LFE at 120 Hz, you should miss nothing, providing your front speakers are good to 40 Hz (it sounds like they are). Very little orchestral music has fundamentals below 40 Hz (the best theater systems, like Cinerama with Altec Lansing, and 70 mm Todd-AO with James B. Lansing, used to start their serious roll-off at 40 Hz) and if there is lower music on some soundtracks, it will go to the sub, anyway, so, no loss. As to the LPF for LFE, some people (myself included) think the special effects sound is clearer with the LPF set at 80 Hz, rather than the prescribed 120. Roger Dressler (formerly of Dolby Labs) and Mark Seaton (founder Seaton Sound) agree. The sound above 80 Hz from the LFE track will still come through (up to 120) but will be attenuated. This cuts down on the bloated boominess that sometimes obscures deeper sound effects, as well as deep bass in music.
> 
> 
> So, IMO, it is likely that one can get the *tightest*, *clearest bass* for both the music and effects in movies by:
> 
> 
> 
> Setting the crossover for either 40 Hz (if you want your main front speakers to strut their stuff, and they will go down that far, cleanly) or 80 Hz. Note that with many AVRs the crossover can be set individually for the center (often inferior to the LF & RF), the surrounds (often small compared to others), and the "mains" (LF & RF).
> Setting the LPF for 80 Hz.
> If you can, and have the room, using a good folded horn loaded, probably tapped, subwoofer. Caution, the smaller ones don't go down very far. Their forte is clarity and low distortion, not wide range -- but the big ones tend to do well.


----------



## sjm817

DigitalSelf said:


> OK thanks. If I decide to try tweaking my curves -- phrasing! -- what setting should I use, then? "Reference" or "Flat"?


Im not 100%, but fairly certain that only the reference curve is tweakable.


----------



## D Bone

DigitalSelf said:


> OK thanks. If I decide to try tweaking my curves -- phrasing! -- what setting should I use, then? "Reference" or "Flat"?


Only the Reference curve can be tweaked via the app... not Flat or L/R BP.


----------



## mthomas47

sjm817 said:


> Gary, your posts are always insightful and "real world" Basically, what you posted make 100% sense and is exactly what I have seen. For 2 ch music, with a capable set of Fronts, there isnt a need for a SW. Music (most types) doesnt go low enough to need them. Audyssey in its effort to make everything flat neutered the sound of my speakers and thats how they sounded. Flat. With the custom curver and lowering the xover to 40Hz, now my fronts can work as they were designed to. "Strut their stuff" as you put it.
> 
> For movies, to me there is an LFE channel for a reason. Low freq contend that is appropriate for the SW has a dedicated channel. I think with the 40Hz Xover and new curve, my mains will sound better for the scores and such that would be sent there. The thunderous low freq content will be in the LFE channel and will go to the subs. I will watch some movie content tonight.
> 
> What are your thoughts on center channel? It is also fairly capable. Klipsch RC-62II. Has 2x 6.5" drivers. I have the Xover @ 80 now. Should I go to 60? Since it is not used for music, just movies. what is appropriate frequency range that "belongs" in a center channel?




Hi,

I think that you should use whatever crossovers sound best to you. If that is 40Hz or 60Hz, so be it. It is important, though, to distinguish between most music listening and 5.1 movies. Remember too, that your subwoofers will, in most cases, play frequencies below about 80Hz more strongly than most speakers will, and that the crossover isn't a brick wall. It is just a slope which attenuates the volume of a speaker by 12db per octave. If you set a 40Hz crossover for movies, and have a lot of low-bass content, your speakers may distort on some of the low-bass content.

You may or may not be consciously aware of the distortion, since the speakers are playing softer at 35Hz, or at 30Hz, than the subwoofers are. But, that potential distortion may still interfere with the overall clarity of the sound. In a calibrated system, which employs fairly linear subwoofers, and automated room correction, even subtle distortion may not be something you would wish for.

I think that there is some confusion about how bass works in 5.1 movies. The low-bass special effects in movies are not restricted to the .1 LFE channel. The LFE channel was simply created as a way to add more bass to the special effects in movies. Consequently, the Low-Frequency Effects channel is recorded 10db louder than the bass in the regular channels. But, the regular channels still play the same bass content that the LFE channel plays. That's an important point to understand.

What that means is that, if you are listening at -10MV, for instance, your regular channels will play whatever bass is encoded in the soundtrack at a peak volume of 95db, and your subwoofers will play the LFE content at peak volumes of 105db, and whatever bass is redirected to them, via crossovers, at peak volumes of 95db. (That obviously doesn't count whatever subwoofer boosts you are adding, or the action of DEQ, which boosts the bass in all of the channels and not just the subwoofers.)

So, using the example above, of a listening level of -10MV, you may really not want your speakers trying to play 50Hz at 95db (not counting DEQ) much less 40Hz at that same volume level. I think it is very important to distinguish between the use of Large, or Small with a 40/60Hz crossover, for relatively benign music, (non-bass enhanced music such as EDM) versus the use of low crossovers for 5.1 action movies.

Those are completely different things with completely different potential results in sound quality. There is a reason that Dolby/THX standards have consistently recommended 80Hz and higher crossovers for 5.1 movie watching. As with everything in audio, there can certainly be exceptions to best practice recommendations, and I always believe in the concept of YMMV. 

But, I do think it is important to point out why it is rarely advisable to set crossovers lower than 80Hz, and almost never advisable to set them lower than 60Hz, for 5.1 movie viewing at anything other than very low listening levels. And, even then, DEQ may not be your friend if your crossovers are too low, as it will boost the bass in your regular channels by quite a bit. And, that may cause the speakers to distort with some bass content. Good bass management for 5.1 movies is just a good idea.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## DigitalSelf

mthomas47 said:


> The low-bass special effects in movies are not restricted to the .1 LFE channel. The LFE channel was simply created as a way to add more bass to the special effects in movies. Consequently, the Low-Frequency Effects channel is recorded 10db louder than the bass in the regular channels. But, the regular channels still play the same bass content that the LFE channel plays. That's an important point to understand.


Wow. I knew that some bass is indeed explicitly sent to the LFE while some other is spread throughout the rest, but I did not know about the 10db louder. Great knowledge. I tip my hat to you.

However, it makes me wonder about what I've chosen as crossover for my fronts. I guess it must be even worse for distortion, when they are set at "Large" (Full Band)...


----------



## sjm817

*THE MAN* Speaks! Thanks for joining this discussion. This is a real struggle for me. 2 Ch music and movie watching are equally important for me. I dont want settings that are a detriment to either. The out of the box audyssey setup, ref or flat with 80Hz xover just sounds bad for music. The custom curve seen here with the lower xover has made a world of difference. Basically what Im trying to do is have the mains do their thing as much as possible without Audyssey flattening out the great bass response that they have. Your points about the movie tradeoff are appreciated. I didnt know that the LFE was shared between the .1 channel and others as much as it is. That is important info.

I can see why people run a dedicated 2 ch system for music! Im not going to do that so I have to make this work. What Im not willing to do is change settings when switching between music and movies. As example, changing xover setting or large/small speaker settings. Whatever has to happen automatically with what the input recalls. So to not affect movie performance, I need to find a setting with 80Hz xover that still sounds good with music. That means more SW involvement again. I guess I could poke around with SW levels and maybe tone in the channel adjust and see if I can get it close to where I am now with that.



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that you should use whatever crossovers sound best to you. If that is 40Hz or 60Hz, so be it. It is important, though, to distinguish between most music listening and 5.1 movies. Remember too, that your subwoofers will, in most cases, play frequencies below about 80Hz more strongly than most speakers will, and that the crossover isn't a brick wall. It is just a slope which attenuates the volume of a speaker by 12db per octave. If you set a 40Hz crossover for movies, and have a lot of low-bass content, your speakers may distort on some of the low-bass content.
> 
> You may or may not be consciously aware of the distortion, since the speakers are playing softer at 35Hz, or at 30Hz, than the subwoofers are. But, that potential distortion may still interfere with the overall clarity of the sound. In a calibrated system, which employs fairly linear subwoofers, and automated room correction, even subtle distortion may not be something you would wish for.
> 
> I think that there is some confusion about how bass works in 5.1 movies. The low-bass special effects in movies are not restricted to the .1 LFE channel. The LFE channel was simply created as a way to add more bass to the special effects in movies. Consequently, the Low-Frequency Effects channel is recorded 10db louder than the bass in the regular channels. But, the regular channels still play the same bass content that the LFE channel plays. That's an important point to understand.
> 
> What that means is that, if you are listening at -10MV, for instance, your regular channels will play whatever bass is encoded in the soundtrack at a peak volume of 95db, and your subwoofers will play the LFE content at peak volumes of 105db, and whatever bass is redirected to them, via crossovers, at peak volumes of 95db. (That obviously doesn't count whatever subwoofer boosts you are adding, or the action of DEQ, which boosts the bass in all of the channels and not just the subwoofers.)
> 
> So, using the example above, of a listening level of -10MV, you may really not want your speakers trying to play 50Hz at 95db (not counting DEQ) much less 40Hz at that same volume level. I think it is very important to distinguish between the use of Large, or Small with a 40/60Hz crossover, for relatively benign music, (non-bass enhanced music such as EDM) versus the use of low crossovers for 5.1 action movies.
> 
> Those are completely different things with completely different potential results in sound quality. There is a reason that Dolby/THX standards have consistently recommended 80Hz and higher crossovers for 5.1 movie watching. As with everything in audio, there can certainly be exceptions to best practice recommendations, and I always believe in the concept of YMMV.
> 
> But, I do think it is important to point out why it is rarely advisable to set crossovers lower than 80Hz, and almost never advisable to set them lower than 60Hz, for 5.1 movie viewing at anything other than very low listening levels. And, even then, DEQ may not be your friend if your crossovers are too low, as it will boost the bass in your regular channels by quite a bit. And, that may cause the speakers to distort with some bass content. Good bass management for 5.1 movies is just a good idea.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## sjm817

DigitalSelf said:


> Wow. I knew that some bass is indeed explicitly sent to the LFE while some other is spread throughout the rest, but I did not know about the 10db louder. Great knowledge. I tip my hat to you.
> 
> However, it makes me wonder about what I've chosen as crossover for my fronts. I guess it must be even worse for distortion, when they are set at "Large" (Full Band)...


That brings up another question. Not everyone has a SW at all. My daughter/son in law are in an apt so no SW. They run a 5.0 with the mains set to large. Other 3 speakers at 80Hz xover. The mains are doing all the LFE. What happens here? I guess just distortion when audio is too low freq for the mains to handle or sound just isnt there.


----------



## mogorf

DigitalSelf said:


> Wow. I knew that some bass is indeed explicitly sent to the LFE while some other is spread throughout the rest, but I did not know about the 10db louder. Great knowledge. I tip my hat to you.
> 
> However, it makes me wonder about what I've chosen as crossover for my fronts. I guess it must be even worse for distortion, when they are set at "Large" (Full Band)...



Hi DigitalSelf et al,

Let’s talk a bit about Bass Management, the idea behind and how it is implemented and why it works the way it is built into modern AVRs. Please note BM has nothing to do with the separate LFE (the 0.1 channel).

First off, our human ears work in a way that we are able to pinpoint the source direction of high and mid frequencies, yet, as we start to go down we will reach a point where we still hear the intensity of deep sounds but will be unable to detect its direction. 

While the wavelength of high and mid frequencies are much less than the distance of our two ears on our head the sound reaches one ear before it reaches the other one, giving a clue to the brain to process the directional information. Once the wavelength of a (deep) sound becomes comparable to the two ear’s distance, this ability fails coz due to the case that the sound reaches both ears at the same time leaving the brain fail to process any directional info. This phenomenon typically cuts in at or around 80 Hz and lower.

This was the base (and not bass!) of the principle of „inventing” Bass Management where the idea of filtering our frequencies below 80 Hz from all speakers (sometimes called satellites) in a surround system and redirecting them to a subwoofer really works. 

Let’s see another aspect which is bass interacting with our room boundaries causing unwanted effect called „standing waves” that will result in peaks (boosts) and „nulls” (suck outs) depending on the locations of subwoofer(s) vs. the location of the listener. 

Those lucky guys who are in a position to build their own dedicated HT rooms are free to plan and install any acoustic treatments (e.g. ugly looking bass traps) typically not being limited to WAF (Wife Acceptance Factor), while (we) normal mortals trying to set up a listening environment as perfect as it can (not) be must take into consideration the previously mentioned WAF! 

So, speakers (satellites) must always be set/placed for the best sound stage imaging, while subwoofers need special considerations for reaching deep, smooth and even bass. The two will never coincide, but that's not a problem when the whole concept of Bass Management is understood by the endusers.

Hope this helps. 

P.s.: 

1. In my above write up you may search the key words „movie” or „music”, but nothing will show up. This is because we are talking room-speaker/ room-subwoofer interaction which is totally independent of contents being played.

2. I hear you saying: „But I can pinpoint the direction of a bass guitar without problem." Well that’s just a paradox, an apparent contradiction coz what you are hearing is the harmonic(s) of the bass note coming from a speaker while the fundamental frequency is indeed played by the subwoofer. Thats the way it works.


----------



## mthomas47

sjm817 said:


> *THE MAN* Speaks! Thanks for joining this discussion. This is a real struggle for me. 2 Ch music and movie watching are equally important for me. I dont want settings that are a detriment to either. The out of the box audyssey setup, ref or flat with 80Hz xover just sounds bad for music. The custom curve seen here with the lower xover has made a world of difference. Basically what Im trying to do is have the mains do their thing as much as possible without Audyssey flattening out the great bass response that they have. Your points about the movie tradeoff are appreciated. I didnt know that the LFE was shared between the .1 channel and others as much as it is. That is important info.
> 
> I can see why people run a dedicated 2 ch system for music! Im not going to do that so I have to make this work. What Im not willing to do is change settings when switching between music and movies. As example, changing xover setting or large/small speaker settings. Whatever has to happen automatically with what the input recalls. So to not affect movie performance, I need to find a setting with 80Hz xover that still sounds good with music. That means more SW involvement again. I guess I could poke around with SW levels and maybe tone in the channel adjust and see if I can get it close to where I am now with that.



You are very welcome! Everything is a trade-off, and different people make compromises in different places. Some people use the same settings for everything, and some people alter some of their settings as they move from one venue to another (music versus movies), or depending on the specific program, or even depending on their mood of the moment. For instance my master volume and subwoofer boosts are somewhat program and mood dependent. There is no single right or wrong answer to the issue of what settings to use, and whether or not to change them at times, in my opinion.

It may be that you can find a single group of settings that will sound equally good to you for both music and for movies. I really can't! I change settings as I move from music to movies, and vice-versa. Among other things, my preferences for deep, tactile bass change. And, since I know my setting preferences for both listening venues, it's the work of seconds to make the changes I want to make. 

You may find that, as you discover what you really like for music that is different for movies, you will become more confident about making setting changes as you navigate back-and-forth between the two. Sometimes, that happens. Or as noted, you may find a single group of settings that sounds equally good for both venues. It's all about how and where we are willing to compromise, if we do happen to find differences between the two listening venues. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

Ive adjusted some more and think I have it pretty good. Im back to 80Hz and with the combo of the custom curve and some channel level SW boost, I have a very similar response. Listening to a few tracks sounds just fine. I dont see anything that is there being a negative for movies. I didnt do a REW sweep with the 40Hz Xover and there was a HUGE dip around the 35Hz level. Not good. That is gone now.

I have to say, the Denon with all the options, global and source/channel specific is pretty darn nice. Add in the MultiEQ app with Audyssey and we have an incredibly tunable system. Steep learning curve to understand it all but if you put the time in with all the expert help there is here, you can get it right. 



mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Everything is a trade-off, and different people make compromises in different places. Some people use the same settings for everything, and some people alter some of their settings as they move from one venue to another (music versus movies), or depending on the specific program, or even depending on their mood of the moment. For instance my master volume and subwoofer boosts are somewhat program and mood dependent. There is no single right or wrong answer to the issue of what settings to use, and whether or not to change them at times, in my opinion.
> 
> It may be that you can find a single group of settings that will sound equally good to you for both music and for movies. I really can't! I change settings as I move from music to movies, and vice-versa. Among other things, my preferences for deep, tactile bass change. And, since I know my setting preferences for both listening venues, it's the work of seconds to make the changes I want to make.
> 
> You may find that, as you discover what you really like for music that is different for movies, you will become more confident about making setting changes as you navigate back-and-forth between the two. Sometimes, that happens. Or as noted, you may find a single group of settings that sounds equally good for both venues. It's all about how and where we are willing to compromise, if we do happen to find differences between the two listening venues.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


----------



## DigitalSelf

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! Everything is a trade-off, and different people make compromises in different places. Some people use the same settings for everything, and some people alter some of their settings as they move from one venue to another (music versus movies), or depending on the specific program, or even depending on their mood of the moment. For instance my master volume and subwoofer boosts are somewhat program and mood dependent. There is no single right or wrong answer to the issue of what settings to use, and whether or not to change them at times, in my opinion.
> 
> It may be that you can find a single group of settings that will sound equally good to you for both music and for movies. I really can't! I change settings as I move from music to movies, and vice-versa. Among other things, my preferences for deep, tactile bass change. And, since I know my setting preferences for both listening venues, it's the work of seconds to make the changes I want to make.
> 
> You may find that, as you discover what you really like for music that is different for movies, you will become more confident about making setting changes as you navigate back-and-forth between the two. Sometimes, that happens. Or as noted, you may find a single group of settings that sounds equally good for both venues. It's all about how and where we are willing to compromise, if we do happen to find differences between the two listening venues.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


It is unfortunate that the speaker setup cannot be tweaked by input. What a great feature that would be! According to what you pointed out, leaving the fronts to "Large" really is not ideal. Could it even damage them, with too much distortion when there's deep bass?


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> Jon, I am very close or there. With the 40Hz Xover, it really sounds great. Question for you on the custom curve. You have the +6 from 20 to 55Hz then taper to 150 or 180. Is there a "cookbook" for this? Is there a reason for the sharper rise with the more gradual rolloff?


Sort of, but not really anything scientific I've done myself. I've been mainly looking at various in-room response curves from Harman, JBL Sythesis; some of the "preferred listening curve" studies done by Floyd Toole, Olive, etc, and experimented from there. Basically from the philosophy (as Floyd likes to say) people can "hear through the room." Put a set of big speakers in a room and you will get reinforcement in the base region. This is what your mind expects to hear. Cutting that out by EQing them "Flat" and they sound neutered to most people. That's probably my biggest gripe with Audyssey--that it does that by default...and why nearly everybody feels the need to boost the sub level to some extent after calibration.



There's certainly no magic curve that everybody will prefer in every room, so you need to experiment to find the level you like the best. For example I'm currently only running a 4 db boost on the lower end, but do use the DEQ to some extent. Use of the DEQ and your listening levels can make a big difference in how much boost you want on the bottom. If you use it with Ref 0, you may only want 2-3 db boost on the bottom or your house may be shaking on content it shouldn't be. If you run it at -10, -15 or completely off, you may want a larger boost on the bottom. Luckily with Ratbuddy it's easy to type in the values and simply try different files until you find what you like.


I also alter the upper end of the curve a bit and could post that if you like, giving a more gradual straight rolloff than the reference curve, though admittedly it's a pretty subtle difference.


The big concept made possible with the App, that I think few are taking advantage of is correcting the speakers and subs to the same curve with levels matched. Not only does it give you better integration between the two, allow you to test different crossover points without altering the tonal balance (overall curve should remain roughly the same) but it really helps for tonally matching all of your speakers. For example if you have your mains crossed over somewhere in the 40-80 hz range, but you have small surrounds that need to be crossed over at 110 or 120.... If everything is corrected flat but your sub is boosted 6 db in level, then your surrounds will have bloated bass and a different tonal balance than your mains because the sub is running hot and flat all the way out to high frequencies. 



On your crossover setting for the mains, I agree with what others have said that 40 is probably fine at lower volume levels for movies, but at some point as volume goes up your mains probably can't put out the volume as cleanly as your subs can in the 60-80 hz range. I'd suggest seeing of at least 60 hz sounds OK to you for music as even that might help out your mains a lot for loud bass-heavy movies.


This issue doesn't seem uncommon; it's too bad Dennon/Marantz don't put the 2-Channel mode on their lower level models. With Marantz I think it starts with the 7012. That's what I have, but it's moot for me at the moment as my current front speakers are small and need to be crossed over at 80 for music anyway.... But I will have much larger fronts when we get the new house built, I may make much use of it then.


----------



## mthomas47

DigitalSelf said:


> It is unfortunate that the speaker setup cannot be tweaked by input. What a great feature that would be! According to what you pointed out, leaving the fronts to "Large" really is not ideal. Could it even damage them, with too much distortion when there's deep bass?



I honestly don't know whether you could damage your speakers that way or not. I want to say no, that they would probably only distort if they tried to play frequencies that they couldn't play effectively. But, it would probably depend somewhat on the individual speakers and on your listening levels. If you had sudden deep bass from explosions or whatever, they could create a fair bit of distortion at higher volume levels. And, sine waves could potentially fry the voice coils in your speakers (just as they can in subs) if the sine waves were sustained. I wouldn't really sweat it at all at about -20MV or below, but I would probably be careful with my volume level if I watched really bass-intensive action movies with my speakers set to Large.





Jon AA said:


> Sort of, but not really anything scientific I've done myself. I've been mainly looking at various in-room response curves from Harman, JBL Sythesis; some of the "preferred listening curve" studies done by Floyd Toole, Olive, etc, and experimented from there. Basically from the philosophy (as Floyd likes to say) people can "hear through the room." Put a set of big speakers in a room and you will get reinforcement in the base region. This is what your mind expects to hear. Cutting that out by EQing them "Flat" and they sound neutered to most people. That's probably my biggest gripe with Audyssey--that it does that by default...and why nearly everybody feels the need to boost the sub level to some extent after calibration.



Something that I think is important to remember is that bass frequencies are harder to hear than those in our normal hearing range. So, at below Reference listening levels, most people will, in fact, need to add bass to restore acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movies. And, many people may want to add bass to music or to TV shows as well. 

Audyssey, however, does exactly what it needs to do when it sets all the transducers in a system (including the subwoofers) to produce the same measured SPL at the MLP. Among other things, how can it EQ all frequencies, from 10Hz to 22KHz, to the same volume level (+/- 3db) if all frequencies in that range aren't starting at the same volume level? It has to try to start with as flat a graph line as possible.

After Audyssey calibrates the channels, and performs its EQ, we can use DEQ and/or our own subwoofer boosts to restore acoustic equilibrium at below Reference listening levels, or simply to suit our own bass preferences. But, Audyssey needs to at least start with a level playing field in order to perform its EQ. It could add an arbitrary boost to the low-frequencies played by the subwoofers, after the calibration, as long as everyone had subwoofers. But, whatever arbitrary sub boost (such as +3db at X frequency and below) it added would only be valid for some listeners, at some listening levels. Change the listener, or change the listening level, and the preferred sub boost would inevitably change too.

DEQ is theoretically intended to be more dynamic, and more master volume-dependent, than an arbitrary bass boost would be. And, people can decide for themselves whether or not it is. Listeners can simply choose to use DEQ, either by itself or in conjunction with an independent bass boost, or they can create their own house curve, once Audyssey has presented them with the flattest result it can.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Sub distance tweak for Phase. I found an old post on here to help ensure phase between sub and mains, you could use an SPL meter (I used C weighted, slow) and tone generator. It said set to stereo mode, invert the phase on the sub, play the tone, I used 80hz because that's where my crossover is set, and increase sub distance until you get the lowest SPL reading, then invert phase again and good to go. However, as I increased distance on the sub, I never got a decrease in SPL, no matter how many feet I added to the sub. The AVR is an Denon X3500H. Did I need to exit the distance setting for the distance to take effect? I was doing this out of pure just testing and curiosity to see if it would make a change, not because I thought anything was wrong, but hey if I can make it sound better, why not. Only it didn't work as intended. Why would this be?


----------



## bigzee3

*Restorer*

Hi guys,

I came across the restorer option reading a couple of Vinyl articles. Just wondering if anyone using it and its benefits. On my Denon its default setting is low for internet radio. The vinyl guys like it and I did try it and it did give it more fullness. Wondering if its some king of loudness feature and will it mess up my use of tone controls during music. The manual isn't that helpful.


----------



## mogorf

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Sub distance tweak for Phase. I found an old post on here to help ensure phase between sub and mains, you could use an SPL meter (I used C weighted, slow) and tone generator. It said set to stereo mode, invert the phase on the sub, play the tone, I used 80hz because that's where my crossover is set, and increase sub distance until you get the lowest SPL reading, then invert phase again and good to go. However, as I increased distance on the sub, I never got a decrease in SPL, no matter how many feet I added to the sub. The AVR is an Denon X3500H. Did I need to exit the distance setting for the distance to take effect? I was doing this out of pure just testing and curiosity to see if it would make a change, not because I thought anything was wrong, but hey if I can make it sound better, why not. Only it didn't work as intended. Why would this be?



This would be because sub distance tweak usually works for one single point in space which is basically against the theory of Audyssey as being a room correction system for a multi-seated environment. You move your head a few inches apart and get a totally different experience. So, that's why it doesn't work as intended!


----------



## pbarach

sjm817 said:


> L/R Bypass has no Audyssey curve applied to the LR speakers. Flat does. They will not sound the same.


They might sound the same if the listener isn't a discerning listener, doesn't listen long enough to hear a difference, isn't listening to musical material that would allow the difference to be heard clearly, or actually has a system that Audyssey doesn't need to "fix" much.


----------



## Alan P

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Sub distance tweak for Phase. I found an old post on here to help ensure phase between sub and mains, you could use an SPL meter (I used C weighted, slow) and tone generator. It said set to stereo mode, invert the phase on the sub, play the tone, I used 80hz because that's where my crossover is set, and increase sub distance until you get the lowest SPL reading, then invert phase again and good to go. However, as I increased distance on the sub, I never got a decrease in SPL, no matter how many feet I added to the sub. The AVR is an Denon X3500H. Did I need to exit the distance setting for the distance to take effect? I was doing this out of pure just testing and curiosity to see if it would make a change, not because I thought anything was wrong, but hey if I can make it sound better, why not. Only it didn't work as intended. Why would this be?


Yup...it's because you didn't back out of the Speaker Distance settings. Once you do that, you _will _see a difference, I guarantee it.


----------



## Alan P

bigzee3 said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I came across the restorer option reading a couple of Vinyl articles. Just wondering if anyone using it and its benefits. On my Denon its default setting is low for internet radio. The vinyl guys like it and I did try it and it did give it more fullness. Wondering if its some king of loudness feature and will it mess up my use of tone controls during music. The manual isn't that helpful.


On my 4520 I have _always _used Restorer set to 'Low' for music, to my ears it just sounds flat without it.

FYI, my music sources are mostly high-bitrate (320kbs) MP3 and FLAC.


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> They might sound the same if the listener isn't a discerning listener, doesn't listen long enough to hear a difference, isn't listening to musical material that would allow the difference to be heard clearly, or actually has a system that Audyssey doesn't need to "fix" much.



Very well said Peter. We all need to train our ears in order to appreciate the difference.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Alan P said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sub distance tweak for Phase. I found an old post on here to help ensure phase between sub and mains, you could use an SPL meter (I used C weighted, slow) and tone generator. It said set to stereo mode, invert the phase on the sub, play the tone, I used 80hz because that's where my crossover is set, and increase sub distance until you get the lowest SPL reading, then invert phase again and good to go. However, as I increased distance on the sub, I never got a decrease in SPL, no matter how many feet I added to the sub. The AVR is an Denon X3500H. Did I need to exit the distance setting for the distance to take effect? I was doing this out of pure just testing and curiosity to see if it would make a change, not because I thought anything was wrong, but hey if I can make it sound better, why not. Only it didn't work as intended. Why would this be?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup...it's because you didn't back out of the Speaker Distance settings. Once you do that, you _will _see a difference, I guarantee it. /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
Click to expand...

How funny you replied, it was your old post, I was referring to, lol. I will try it again sometime and back out after I make the changes.


----------



## DigitalSelf

pbarach said:


> They might sound the same if the listener isn't a discerning listener, doesn't listen long enough to hear a difference, isn't listening to musical material that would allow the difference to be heard clearly, or actually has a system that Audyssey doesn't need to "fix" much.


As far as I'm concerned, I did hear a difference, hence my initial puzzlement.


----------



## bigzee3

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that you should use whatever crossovers sound best to you. If that is 40Hz or 60Hz, so be it. It is important, though, to distinguish between most music listening and 5.1 movies. Remember too, that your subwoofers will, in most cases, play frequencies below about 80Hz more strongly than most speakers will, and that the crossover isn't a brick wall. It is just a slope which attenuates the volume of a speaker by 12db per octave. If you set a 40Hz crossover for movies, and have a lot of low-bass content, your speakers may distort on some of the low-bass content.
> 
> You may or may not be consciously aware of the distortion, since the speakers are playing softer at 35Hz, or at 30Hz, than the subwoofers are. But, that potential distortion may still interfere with the overall clarity of the sound. In a calibrated system, which employs fairly linear subwoofers, and automated room correction, even subtle distortion may not be something you would wish for.
> 
> I think that there is some confusion about how bass works in 5.1 movies. The low-bass special effects in movies are not restricted to the .1 LFE channel. The LFE channel was simply created as a way to add more bass to the special effects in movies. Consequently, the Low-Frequency Effects channel is recorded 10db louder than the bass in the regular channels. But, the regular channels still play the same bass content that the LFE channel plays. That's an important point to understand.
> 
> What that means is that, if you are listening at -10MV, for instance, your regular channels will play whatever bass is encoded in the soundtrack at a peak volume of 95db, and your subwoofers will play the LFE content at peak volumes of 105db, and whatever bass is redirected to them, via crossovers, at peak volumes of 95db. (That obviously doesn't count whatever subwoofer boosts you are adding, or the action of DEQ, which boosts the bass in all of the channels and not just the subwoofers.)
> 
> So, using the example above, of a listening level of -10MV, you may really not want your speakers trying to play 50Hz at 95db (not counting DEQ) much less 40Hz at that same volume level. I think it is very important to distinguish between the use of Large, or Small with a 40/60Hz crossover, for relatively benign music, (non-bass enhanced music such as EDM) versus the use of low crossovers for 5.1 action movies.
> 
> Those are completely different things with completely different potential results in sound quality. There is a reason that Dolby/THX standards have consistently recommended 80Hz and higher crossovers for 5.1 movie watching. As with everything in audio, there can certainly be exceptions to best practice recommendations, and I always believe in the concept of YMMV.
> 
> But, I do think it is important to point out why it is rarely advisable to set crossovers lower than 80Hz, and almost never advisable to set them lower than 60Hz, for 5.1 movie viewing at anything other than very low listening levels. And, even then, DEQ may not be your friend if your crossovers are too low, as it will boost the bass in your regular channels by quite a bit. And, that may cause the speakers to distort with some bass content. Good bass management for 5.1 movies is just a good idea.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Why not set up things for 5.1 with about 80hz crossover and then in manual set up go to the 2ch playback option and set the crossover to what is best for music his music listening.


----------



## DigitalSelf

bigzee3 said:


> Why not set up things for 5.1 with about 80hz crossover and then in manual set up go to the 2ch playback option and set the crossover to what is best for music his music listening.


Because some people like me don't have that option, with their poor-man AVR (SR5012) :laugh:


----------



## mogorf

DigitalSelf said:


> Because some people like me don't have that option, with their poor-man AVR (SR5012) :laugh:



Nope, its not a poor-mans setup, but an awkward setup with the main L&Rs running through an integrated stereo amp (MM7025) causing your problem.


----------



## bigzee3

DigitalSelf said:


> Because some people like me don't have that option, with their poor-man AVR (SR5012) :laugh:


Honestly i would rather spend a few minutes changing setting between movie and music listening than having it all at 80hz and searching for a compromise.


----------



## mogorf

bigzee3 said:


> Honestly i would rather spend a few minutes changing setting between movie and music listening than having it all at 80hz and searching for a compromise.



Again and again, there is no difference between movie and music when it comes to setting an 80 Hz crossover. Please stop the misguidance once and for all. Please!! This will lead to nowhere. Just think about a concert BD! Is it a movie or music?


----------



## D Bone

DigitalSelf said:


> As far as I'm concerned, I did hear a difference, hence my initial puzzlement.


I think most people would as well..... I know I could detect each one 100/100 times in a blind test.


----------



## mogorf

D Bone said:


> I think most people would as well..... I know I could detect each one 100/100 times in a blind test.



This not a question of hearing differences, but a question of proper setup. A right and a wrong setup will surely bring about differences to be heard. I'd be surprised if that wouldn't happen.


----------



## D Bone

mogorf said:


> This not a question of hearing differences, but a question of proper setup. A right and a wrong setup will surely bring about differences to be heard. I'd be surprised if that wouldn't happen.


Actually this was about hearing, at least to the member I was conversing with regarding them hearing a difference with Audyssey turned on or off on their front speakers.


----------



## Jon AA

mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey, however, does exactly what it needs to do when it sets all the transducers in a system (including the subwoofers) to produce the same measured SPL at the MLP. Among other things, how can it EQ all frequencies, from 10Hz to 22KHz, to the same volume level (+/- 3db) if all frequencies in that range aren't starting at the same volume level? It has to try to start with as flat a graph line as possible.
> 
> After Audyssey calibrates the channels, and performs its EQ, we can use DEQ and/or our own subwoofer boosts to restore acoustic equilibrium at below Reference listening levels, or simply to suit our own bass preferences. But, Audyssey needs to at least start with a level playing field in order to perform its EQ. It could add an arbitrary boost to the low-frequencies played by the subwoofers, after the calibration, as long as everyone had subwoofers. But, whatever arbitrary sub boost (such as +3db at X frequency and below) it added would only be valid for some listeners, at some listening levels. Change the listener, or change the listening level, and the preferred sub boost would inevitably change too.


I agree that's what Audyssey _*is*_ doing (and why you need to boost the sub if it is EQ'd to a curve like I show above in order to put it at the proper level). I don't agree that it _*has*_ to do that. Many higher level (more expensive) room correction systems have curves like I show above as default or selectable options and they can get the levels correct. The whole "calibrate the system, THEN boost the sub 3-6 db" procedure used by so many is really an Audyssey specific one.


----------



## garygarrison

sjm817 said:


> Gary, your posts are always insightful and "real world" Basically, what you posted make 100% sense and is exactly what I have seen. For 2 ch music, with a capable set of Fronts, there isnt a need for a SW. Music (most types) doesnt go low enough to need them. Audyssey in its effort to make everything flat neutered the sound of my speakers and thats how they sounded. Flat. With the custom curver and lowering the xover to 40Hz, now my fronts can work as they were designed to. "Strut their stuff" as you put it.
> 
> For movies, to me there is an LFE channel for a reason. Low freq contend that is appropriate for the SW has a dedicated channel. I think with the 40Hz Xover and new curve, my mains will sound better for the scores and such that would be sent there. The thunderous low freq content will be in the LFE channel and will go to the subs. I will watch some movie content tonight.
> 
> What are your thoughts on center channel? It is also fairly capable. Klipsch RC-62II. Has 2x 6.5" drivers. I have the Xover @ 80 now. Should I go to 60? Since it is not used for music, just movies. what is appropriate frequency range that "belongs" in a center channel?



Thanks for the praise.


I don't know the Klipsch RC-62II. I love some of their larger speakers.
As with so many other things, you probably just have to try it. Be careful, though. Most movie re-mixers don't put much -- except dialog -- in the center (on Blu-rays meant, as they are, for the home, because most home centers are pretty small. In a moment of excess, I installed a three way center with a 15" woofer, horn loaded, and tests show quite lot of bass comes through, even though it is wired as a center). But the mixes for commercial theaters have as much in the center as anywhere else. I suspect that sometimes they don't bother to adapt those mixes for home viewing. In some cases, a pipe organ is among the forces marshaled. So, while being careful, you could try a lower crossover, but I probably wouldn't. A 6.5" woofer, even in a pair, may not go much below 60 Hz, and it is usually recommended that the X-over be something like an octave above, i.e., 120 Hz. Of course, this could be prejudice on my part. Does your AVR assign "small" or "large" to your center? Mike addresses the problem of setting the X-over somewhere in his Guide. Maybe he will chime in and tell you exactly where.


----------



## bigzee3

mogorf said:


> Again and again, there is no difference between movie and music when it comes to setting an 80 Hz crossover. Please stop the misguidance once and for all. Please!! This will lead to nowhere. Just think about a concert BD! Is it a movie or music?


100% true and I agree with everything you mentioned in your post. What I meant to say is that he was worried about having everything at 80hz I think with different sources.


----------



## mthomas47

Jon AA said:


> I agree that's what Audyssey _*is*_ doing (and why you need to boost the sub if it is EQ'd to a curve like I show above in order to put it at the proper level). I don't agree that it _*has*_ to do that. Many higher level (more expensive) room correction systems have curves like I show above as default or selectable options and they can get the levels correct. The whole "calibrate the system, THEN boost the sub 3-6 db" procedure used by so many is really an Audyssey specific one.



Hi Jon,

Actually, several other systems of automated calibration operate in the same way that Audyssey does, with people needing to boost their subs after running the calibration. And, of course, some of those systems do very little to EQ the bass frequencies. 

But, I think you may have missed the point in what I was saying. All systems of room EQ, with which I am familiar, attempt to start with a flat frequency response, and then add curves on top of that flat response. Audyssey is an older form of automated room EQ, and its means of adding a bass curve is DEQ. Newer and more expensive methods of room EQ, such as Dirac, add either the kind of arbitrary house curve to which I was referring earlier, or they offer user-programmable curves similar to what the app is capable of doing now with Audyssey. The arbitrary house curves can be problematical because they are necessarily content, volume, and user-preference specific. 

Systems such as Room Perfect and Dirac Live may very well be better suited to some users' preferences than XT-32, but they are also more expensive. Everyone has to pick his poison with respect to room correction, speakers, subs, etc. Sometimes you get more for your money, especially with ID subs. Sometimes you don't, especially with some over-priced name brand subs. 

I suspect that the same thing is true with room correction. Once most people get to a certain level of performance, additional gains are more incremental, but cost differences are not. Frankly, adding some sub boost, after running Audyssey, has never seemed like a very big deal to me. Everyone ends-up simply seasoning his bass to his own taste, and as noted over the last couple of pages, the seasoning can vary not only from individual-to-individual, but even with changes in content for the same individual. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

EDIT:

Kind of covered in summary post below


----------



## sjm817

For all that were involved in my recent discussion, I'm pretty done with it. Special thanks to @Jon AA @mthomas47 @garygarrison for all the input!

Here is the summary:
I prefer the full range sound of my front 2 Vs what I get when I have have Audyssey engaged and crossing over to the subwoofers for 2 ch music listening. For movie use, I am fine with it.

With advice, help from people on this thread, a few experiments/tuning to try and get that better

Custom curve to boost up the mains to put back some of what Audyssey lopped off and matching curve for SW

Tried 40Hz Xover experiment to shift bass load away from Subs to Mains. It did do that but left a gaping hole at the Xover freq. Back to 80Hz LOL
With the various tweaks and tuning, its good. If I started with this sound, I would not have done anything. Comparing the sound in "Direct" mode Vs Aud Ref with the tuning, 80Hz Xover, it sounds a bit "softer" Less of the "In your Face" Klipsch sound. I would imagine some would prefer it. I kind of like the more impactful sound. 

Now I need to listen more and see what I want to leave it at. My gut says I will use the Direct sound mode. This basically leaves the speakers alone. No audyssey curve, no crossover to SW. Just plays the sound to the speakers without messing with anything. If I look at a REW sweep with the Direct Vs Ref, I dont see any big problems that Aud corrected that I would be missing. The peaks and dips are pretty much the same either way. The other advantage is Direct is "easy". No custom curves, tuning. Its simple. It also has no effect at all when watching movies since I can apply Direct only to music input.

Scott


----------



## goke313

*****to read later....


----------



## SouthernCA

Deleted


----------



## DigitalSelf

Quickie one. After all these very insightful discussions, with the "Small" vs "Large" aspect of the Audyssey setup, what is the best approach when changing this setting? Since it is set that way after the first measurement, is it preferable to set it to "Small" prior making the other mesurements, or it does not matter if it's changed after the whole process? I honestly have no clue. Thanks again.


----------



## D Bone

DigitalSelf said:


> Quickie one. After all these very insightful discussions, with the "Small" vs "Large" aspect of the Audyssey setup, what is the best approach when changing this setting? Since it is set that way after the first measurement, is it preferable to set it to "Small" prior making the other mesurements, or it does not matter if it's changed after the whole process? I honestly have no clue. Thanks again.


You can not change any settings during the calibration process, and all settings before the calibration process are not remembered and are set according to the calibration results. 

..... Run the calibration process and after you save it change your speaker sizes, levels, distances and crossovers to your preference. (if needed)


----------



## LRZNole

Question for the group. I recently added front heights to a 5.1 setup. I had been using the AVRs Audyssey setup but switched to the App and liked the results. So here is the question...the crossovers for my FL, FR, FHR, FHL, SL & SR are all set at 150Hz (KEF T301s, KEF T101 and Orbs for Heights). My Center is a Martin Logan Motion 8 and it gets set at 60Hz. My Sub is a DT Supercube 2000. I obviously want to raise the Center and had been using 100Hz but would I be better off going to 150Hz and have everything match?

Sorry if this is a stupid question.


----------



## garygarrison

LRZNole said:


> Question for the group. I recently added front heights to a 5.1 setup. I had been using the AVRs Audyssey setup but switched to the App and liked the results. So here is the question...the crossovers for my FL, FR, FHR, FHL, SL & SR are all set at 150Hz (KEF T301s, KEF T101 and Orbs for Heights). My Center is a Martin Logan Motion 8 and it gets set at 60Hz. My Sub is a DT Supercube 2000. I obviously want to raise the Center and had been using 100Hz but would I be better off going to 150Hz and have everything match?
> 
> Sorry if this is a stupid question.



Try it both ways with a variety of movies and music, directly comparing the two configurations. Include some music that taxes the system a bit (but be careful). Your FL, FR and Center have very similar specs, but we all know we can't trust specs. I suspect your system may be a bit on the low size as far as equipment-safe Sound Pressure Level ("loudness" or "volume") is concerned, so I'd avoid the loudest playback.


How large is your room?


How far away from the speakers do you sit?


----------



## LRZNole

garygarrison said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question for the group. I recently added front heights to a 5.1 setup. I had been using the AVRs Audyssey setup but switched to the App and liked the results. So here is the question...the crossovers for my FL, FR, FHR, FHL, SL & SR are all set at 150Hz (KEF T301s, KEF T101 and Orbs for Heights). My Center is a Martin Logan Motion 8 and it gets set at 60Hz. My Sub is a DT Supercube 2000. I obviously want to raise the Center and had been using 100Hz but would I be better off going to 150Hz and have everything match?
> 
> Sorry if this is a stupid question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try it both ways with a variety of movies and music, directly comparing the two configurations. Include some music that taxes the system a bit (but be careful). Your FL, FR and Center have very similar specs, but we all know we can't trust specs. I suspect your system may be a bit on the low size as far as equipment-safe Sound Pressure Level ("loudness" or "volume") is concerned, so I'd avoid the loudest playback.
> 
> 
> How large is your room?
> 
> 
> How far away from the speakers do you sit?
Click to expand...

The room is roughly 12’ x 11’ and one end opens up into a larger space. The center listening position is just over 10’ from the C speaker. My AVR is a Denon X2300. I know you can always raise not lower crossovers so I wasn’t sure if it might be better to raise the Martin Logan C from 60Hz to 150 Hz to match the crossovers of the other 6 speakers or if raising it to 100Hz would be better. Wasn’t sure if matching crossovers made any difference. I will try it out both ways.


----------



## mthomas47

LRZNole said:


> The room is roughly 12’ x 11’ and one end opens up into a larger space. The center listening position is just over 10’ from the C speaker. My AVR is a Denon X2300. I know you can always raise not lower crossovers so I wasn’t sure if it might be better to raise the Martin Logan C from 60Hz to 150 Hz to match the crossovers of the other 6 speakers or if raising it to 100Hz would be better. Wasn’t sure if matching crossovers made any difference. I will try it out both ways.



Hi,

I honestly don't think that matching crossovers makes any difference, in general, unless someone can actually hear a difference. In theory, off-loading even more bass to a subwoofer is a good idea, if the subwoofer has plenty of headroom to begin with, and if it can handle the higher bass frequencies without distortion. All subwoofers are bandwidth-limited at both the bottom and the top of their frequency responses. So, they can start to strain at both their upper and lower limits. I think that 150Hz should be fine, and adding another speaker to what the subwoofer is already handling shouldn't make a difference, but I thought it was worth giving you a more complete answer.

The center channel is a little different from the other channels, because it carries nearly all of the dialogue in movies. When people are using a fairly heavy subwoofer boost, which may not be happening in your case, a higher crossover can make voices sound noticeably deeper and more chesty, because the boosted subwoofer is now playing those frequencies. In many cases, that can interfere with dialogue intelligibility. Intuitively, I would expect a 100Hz crossover to sound better for the center channel than a 150Hz crossover. But, you can try both, and the crossovers in between (110 and 120Hz) to determine which crossover actually sounds best to you.

Just as a reminder, a speaker's location in a room will be a primary factor in determining it's low-frequency response. If your Denon set the crossover for the CC much lower than that of your other speakers, it is because the room is boosting the low-frequencies a bit for that speaker--probably due to boundary gain. I would definitely raise the crossover to about 100Hz, in this case, but above that it would just depend on what sounds the best to you.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## LRZNole

mthomas47 said:


> LRZNole said:
> 
> 
> 
> The room is roughly 12’ x 11’ and one end opens up into a larger space. The center listening position is just over 10’ from the C speaker. My AVR is a Denon X2300. I know you can always raise not lower crossovers so I wasn’t sure if it might be better to raise the Martin Logan C from 60Hz to 150 Hz to match the crossovers of the other 6 speakers or if raising it to 100Hz would be better. Wasn’t sure if matching crossovers made any difference. I will try it out both ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I honestly don't think that matching crossovers makes any difference, in general, unless someone can actually hear a difference. In theory, off-loading even more bass to a subwoofer is a good idea, if the subwoofer has plenty of headroom to begin with, and if it can handle the higher bass frequencies without distortion. All subwoofers are bandwidth-limited at both the bottom and the top of their frequency responses. So, they can start to strain at both their upper and lower limits. I think that 150Hz should be fine, and adding another speaker to what the subwoofer is already handling shouldn't make a difference, but I thought it was worth giving you a more complete answer.
> 
> The center channel is a little different from the other channels, because it carries nearly all of the dialogue in movies. When people are using a fairly heavy subwoofer boost, which may not be happening in your case, a higher crossover can make voices sound noticeably deeper and more chesty, because the boosted subwoofer is now playing those frequencies. In many cases, that can interfere with dialogue intelligibility. Intuitively, I would expect a 100Hz crossover to sound better for the center channel than a 150Hz crossover. But, you can try both, and the crossovers in between (110 and 120Hz) to determine which crossover actually sounds best to you.
> 
> Just as a reminder, a speaker's location in a room will be a primary factor in determining it's low-frequency response. If your Denon set the crossover for the CC much lower than that of your other speakers, it is because the room is boosting the low-frequencies a bit for that speaker--probably due to boundary gain. I would definitely raise the crossover to about 100Hz, in this case, but above that it would just depend on what sounds the best to you.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks...I will try it out a bit more with the in between settings. I was testing Mad Max Fury Road and at the beginning with the CC at 100Hz it sounded a bit echoey if that makes sense and a little more clean at 150Hz but maybe it was my imagination.

Edit: Actually after more testing the 100Hz for the CC was better. Tried the opening of Fury Road, Fellowship of the Ring and some music and it (at least to me) sounded slightly better.


----------



## bigzee3

garygarrison said:


> One dB is usually considered to be one just noticeable difference. Does the one dB bass boost sound appreciably different on your set-up? I'm not doubting your choice, but I would encourage you to try a bit more boost. Of course, a lot depends on your speakers, your room, your mood and your headroom, for that matter.
> 
> The way we hear bass is connected to the Sound Pressure Level (SPL, or colloquially, "volume"). For *music*, for which there is no real reference level, thanks to the knavish behavior of the music recording industry, I usually use a bass tone control boost of* +*1 to *+*6, and play the music at what seems to my ears to be "concert level." At my "concert level" DEQ is expected not to be needed, but I can use the tone controls to season to taste.
> 
> I paid an electrical engineer audiophile friend to make me a black box that pushes the bass up another 3 dB, if I want it, giving me a total of 9 dB of possible boost in the bass between 80 Hz and about 200 Hz. Of course the tone controls only work with DEQ turned off, and, unfortunately, only affect the Right Front and Left Front channels on most AVRs and AVPs, and do not affect the subwoofer. So, my subwoofer is turned up so that it will "meet" the RF and LF bass elevation at (arbitrarily) the *+* 9 dB level. That boost forms a practically straight line from about 175Hz down to about 39Hz. Below that, the response rolls off until it tails off at 20 Hz. The crossover to the sub is at 80 Hz. [See Mike's guide to see how to turn up a subwoofer properly. Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences] I almost never use treble boost or cut.
> 
> On Monk's Dream, which I'm listening to right now, my "concert level" is about 86 dB with peaks of about 90dB, "C" weighted, "Fast," on my SPL meter (some classical pieces can be much louder, e.g., Fanfare for the Common Man, The Great Gate of Kiev, and Beethoven or Mahler symphonies can peak at 110 dB).
> 
> For *movies*, we have a real reference level, thanks to the movie industry's foresight, and THX rattling their cage (actually, I think lobbying for standards may have gone back to Mike Todd and his sound guy Joseph Kane). I end up playing most movies at 5 to7 dB below reference. My use of the bass control, the black box, and the subwoofer are the same for movies and music.
> 
> Now, with music recordings there is a fly in the ointment. It is common practice for record company "suits" to require that he bass be attenuated by anywhere between 3 or 4 dB and, worst case, 25 dB. Some mixers have objected, but that threatens job security. I suppose if a band is "big" enough, they could threaten the "suits." In addition to that travesty, the area between 1K Hz and 5K Hz is sometimes boosted.  This is evidentially all part of "the loudness wars." The labels want their songs to be the loudest (without over-recording due to too much bass) when some one twirls the car radio dial, so they get noticed, remembered, and purchased. And, we wouldn't want to overload cheap earbuds with too much bass, would we? For more detail, see Chris A's threads on "The Missing Octave" on the Klipsch Community Forum. Chris has "de-mastered" zillions of bass shy, harsh sounding disks to cure this problem. He uses Audacity (not to be confused with Audyssey), and perhaps other tools. A few disks can't be helped much, e.g., those that were dynamically compressed rather that simply limited (although DBX has some tools one could try).
> 
> The problem is the worst with rock, metal, alternative, pop. It does happen with classical and jazz, but a little less often. For some reason, choral music often has the bass practically removed.  Anyone who has been fairly close to a large chorus knows how absurd that is.
> 
> I haven't the energy (yet) to try de-mastering. For me, using the bass controls, the box, and cranking up the sub are enough ... for now.
> 
> Sorry for responding to your straightforward question with a fairly curved answer.


Hi G,

I was on the pages a few days back and I came across some advise you gave me earlier. So anyway I was wondering I use no DEQ plus new speakers which are capable according to the specs so lets give it a try. I boosted the tone control Bass +6 with no treble boost. All I have to say is that's what I have been looking for. It has made all the music come alive especially pre 2000's music. No need to play with or turn up the sub for extra low bass which wasn't recorded back then more than likely. Adding the extra 6db to the towers gives that nice fullness to the above 80hz stuff with the sub blending in nicely instead of the fronts having weak sounding mid bass and bloated bass from the sub when looking for that bit extra. It kind of reminds me of the old days when you only had stereo amp with bass and treble options only. As for movies I left it at +6 but it wasn't as noticeable as with music but didn't cause any harm either. Thanks for the great advice


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> For all that were involved in my recent discussion, I'm pretty done with it. Special thanks to @*Jon AA* @*mthomas47* @*garygarrison* for all the input!
> 
> Here is the summary:
> I prefer the full range sound of my front 2 Vs what I get when I have have Audyssey engaged and crossing over to the subwoofers for 2 ch music listening. For movie use, I am fine with it.
> 
> With advice, help from people on this thread, a few experiments/tuning to try and get that better
> 
> 
> Custom curve to boost up the mains to put back some of what Audyssey lopped off and matching curve for SW
> 
> 
> Tried 40Hz Xover experiment to shift bass load away from Subs to Mains. It did do that but left a gaping hole at the Xover freq. Back to 80Hz LOL
> With the various tweaks and tuning, its good. If I started with this sound, I would not have done anything. Comparing the sound in "Direct" mode Vs Aud Ref with the tuning, 80Hz Xover, it sounds a bit "softer" Less of the "In your Face" Klipsch sound. I would imagine some would prefer it. I kind of like the more impactful sound.


I'm glad you're getting closer to the sound you want and glad I could help. I do wonder why you haven't tried a 60 hz crossover though.  I'm thinking that might be a decent "set it and forget it" setup for you working for both movies and music well.


----------



## Jon AA

mthomas47 said:


> But, I think you may have missed the point in what I was saying. All systems of room EQ, with which I am familiar, attempt to start with a flat frequency response, and then add curves on top of that flat response.


Yes, I'm not seeing any distinction that makes a difference here. The software has to correct to a curve, whether that's a flat line or not seems rather meaningless. The Audyssey Reference curve is not flat on the top, there's no reason it needs to be on the bottom.


> The arbitrary house curves can be problematical because they are necessarily content, volume, and user-preference specific.


I agree completely and describe above some of the many variables that will cause different users with different rooms, speakers, use of DEQ to end up with different preferred curves. However, I do think aiming for the "middle of the bell curve" as a starting point may help users get the desired results more easily. And, especially after adding Atmos speakers, I and many others are finding the way the DEQ boosts the surrounds and rear height speakers less acceptable and are toning down the use of it (Ref level -10, -15, etc instead of 0) or not using it at all which calls for more bass boost in the base curve.



> Frankly, adding some sub boost, after running Audyssey, has never seemed like a very big deal to me.


Me neither, when that's all I *could* do. The point I've been trying to make is that now with the App, we have the ability to do something that may be better for many systems. 



The issue with simply adding some sub boost after the Reference calibration is the overlap you get in the crossover region. Your 80 hz crossover point becomes a ~100 hz crossover, depending upon how much the sub is boosted. This means the sub will be playing a large amount of the lower mid-bass. Some subs sound great doing that I'm sure, but many do not. In many systems, the mains playing that will sound better, especially with music as the subs at 100+ hz don't sound as "musical." I think this is one of the major reasons so many users still listen to music in "pure direct mode"--their main speakers simply sound better playing that lower mid-bass than their sub does, even if they're giving up some on the bottom end when they do it.


Using the method I describe above, you can have a base curve with some amount of base boost, but if the curves and levels match at the crossover region between the subs and mains, the actual crossover point will be closer to where you put it and the main speakers will be playing most of the content immediately above that. 



This was simply not possible with Audyssey before the App.


----------



## Mactavish

Jon AA said:


> The issue with simply adding some sub boost after the Reference calibration is the overlap you get in the crossover region. Your 80 hz crossover point becomes a ~100 hz crossover, depending upon how much the sub is boosted. This means the sub will be playing a large amount of the lower mid-bass. Some subs sound great doing that I'm sure, but many do not. In many systems, the mains playing that will sound better, especially with music as the subs at 100+ hz don't sound as "musical." I think this is one of the major reasons so many users still listen to music in "pure direct mode"--their main speakers simply sound better playing that lower mid-bass than their sub does, even if they're giving up some on the bottom end when they do it.


I’m confused. On my Denon 3500, if I only boost my subwoofer using ONLY the “Channel Level Adjust” feature accessible using the “Option” button. How would just increasing the gain/volume just for the subwoofer effect my crossovers on the other speaker channels?


----------



## Jon AA

Technically, it won't affect the response of the main speaker--it'll just drown it out to a higher frequency. When you select the crossover point in the receiver, it rolls off the sub and main speaker and theoretically they should "cross" (play the same volume) at that frequency. That only happens when the levels of both are the same. When you boost the sub, it and the main speaker still roll off at the same points, but the sub has a "head start" in SPL so it continues to play louder than the main speaker above the crossover point that was set.


Pics are worth 1000 words.... Here are a few measurements I took a while back as an example that can demonstrate this. This is my left front channel only, playing the same signal for all measurements. (Smoothed 1/3 octave to make them easier to read.)



Here is a calibration corrected to the standard Reference curve (flat) but with the sub boosted 6 db afterward:












The black curve is the main speaker set to Large. The brown curve is the sub only--main speaker set to small, crossover set to 250 and main speaker unplugged.


As you can see, at 80 hz the sub has a 6 db head start on the main speaker in level. So when you apply an 80 hz crossover, this is what you get:












At 80 hz, the sub is still playing significantly louder than the main speaker and they don't actually "cross over" until nearly 100 hz. So the sub is playing as loud or louder nearly all the way to 100 hz.


Contrast that with this:












Here I used the method described above to get a 6 db boost on the bottom, correcting both the main speaker and the sub to the same curve and matching the levels. As you can see, the levels are matched pretty well from about 60-140 hz. A crossover setting anywhere in there should work well and not change the shape of the overall curve--it's a matter of what sounds better at what frequencies--the sub or the speaker.


With an 80 hz cross over setting as an example:












The actual point at which they cross lands almost exactly on 80 hz. By 100 hz, the main speaker is playing 6 db louder than the sub.


Even though the two overall response curves are nearly identical and the overall tonal balance is nearly identical, they sound quite a bit different--mostly noticeable with music. Even though my current front speakers aren't very big and don't dig very deep, they are sensitive and capable of high output--by 100 hz they are rockin'. They simply sound more "impactful" in that range than my current sub which gives a softer, smoother sound in that range.


It won't be the same answer for every system--some people will have subs that sound better than mine at higher frequencies and/or have main speakers that can't play very loudly without distortion at 100 hz...in that case the method I describe above still works just fine--just set the crossover to a higher point--100, 110 hz or whatever sounds the best. 



But the biggest benefit is for those with speakers that can play well and sound good to lower frequencies (80 or lower crossover setting) at music listening volume. This allows them to set the crossover lower without removing the bottom end bass boost because it's built into the curve of the main speaker as well. If the main speaker is corrected flat with the Audyssey reference curve and the sub is boosted, lowering the crossover removes a lot of bass and probably won't sound as good. My speakers weren't the best example for this as 80 is about as low as I'd want to go with them. Mains that will maintain the target curve down to 30-40 hz (instead of falling away significantly at 60 hz) would have made for a better graphic example.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

*+1*

That's an excellent and helpful analysis!  It's also a good visual demonstration of why cascading crossovers can be so effective, especially with larger subwoofer boosts. By doubling the slope above the selected crossover, listeners can still enjoy a larger subwoofer boost and a smoother transition between subwoofers and speakers. As a general rule, cascading crossovers are probably most effective for people with speakers capable of going well below 100Hz with good volume and no distortion. I have personally found cascading crossovers to be most effective with 80Hz crossovers.

Anyone interested in pursuing the idea of limiting subwoofer boosts above the crossover point, with the increased clarity and punchier mid-bass that usually results from that, is encouraged to read the following section of the Guide:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...woofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IIIC

In fact, with Jon's permission, and with appropriate attribution, I may add his analysis to that section of the Guide. I think it might be very helpful for other readers to see the graphic examples he has shared in his post.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

Jon AA said:


> I'm glad you're getting closer to the sound you want and glad I could help. I do wonder why you haven't tried a 60 hz crossover though.  I'm thinking that might be a decent "set it and forget it" setup for you working for both movies and music well.


I was finishing up some room treatment so put this aside for a bit. I just got back to it and seem to be having a problem.

I did a new calibration and modified the L, R and SW as you suggested with Ratbuddy. It looks like the LR takes but not the SW. I see the modified curves for Front and SW in the app. They both look as expected with the 6dB boost but REW does not show the SW boost working.

You can see below that the red curve is the base curve. No SW boost or curve mod. Green is the new curve. The mains get the boost but I dont see anything in the SW range. The blue is adding 6dB of boost to the SW. All tests are small LR 80Hz xover.

Any ideas?


----------



## j_at_audyssey

sjm817 said:


> I was finishing up some room treatment so put this aside for a bit. I just got back to it and seem to be having a problem.
> 
> I did a new calibration and modified the L, R and SW as you suggested with Ratbuddy. It looks like the LR takes but not the SW. I see the modified curves for Front and SW in the app. They both look as expected with the 6dB boost but REW does not show the SW boost working.
> 
> You can see below that the red curve is the base curve. No SW boost or curve mod. Green is the new curve. The mains get the boost but I dont see anything in the SW range. The blue is adding 6dB of boost to the SW. All tests are small LR 80Hz xover.
> 
> Any ideas?


Look at the app after results in "Room Correction Results". All target curves are level aligned to reference *after* the target curve is applied. If you add a boost to the target curve, view the after results to verify if your boost has become a cut.. If you want your channel to not be level aligned, use the trims too increase the level not the curve editor.


----------



## sjm817

j_at_audyssey said:


> Look at the app after results in "Room Correction Results". All target curves are level aligned to reference *after* the target curve is applied. If you add a boost to the target curve, view the after results to verify if your boost has become a cut.. If you want your channel to not be level aligned, use the trims too increase the level not the curve editor.


Bingo! The sub boost is actually a cut.


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> Any ideas?


Yes. Just as j_at_audyssey said, I think all you need to do is raise your sub level 6 db. Remember for the sub, you basically need to put the "boost" in two places--the curve _*and*_ the level--in order for this to work.


When you put it in the curve like this:












Audyssey will shape to that curve, but lower the level back down to give you an overall volume from the sub that matches the overall volume of the mains like so:












So, when you put 6 db of boost in the bottom end of the curve, you need to also raise the trim level ~6db to put that curve where you want it.


It's a little extra effort but it's a good idea to verify things match by measuring the sub and main separately like I did in the 3rd pic above (The black curve is the main speaker set to Large. The brown curve is the sub only--main speaker set to small, crossover set to 250 and main speaker unplugged.). To get the lines to overlay perfectly you may need to fine-tune the level a bit, but 6 db should put you close as a starting point.


Edit: Looks like you got it before I could post!


----------



## Jon AA

mthomas47 said:


> That's an excellent and helpful analysis!


Thanks Mike!




> In fact, with Jon's permission, and with appropriate attribution, I may add his analysis to that section of the Guide. I think it might be very helpful for other readers to see the graphic examples he has shared in his post.


That would be no problem at all, feel free. It might be helpful for me to add the settings that went with those measurements for the modified setup:


Main Speaker:


Control point--Frequency, db:
20 +6
55 +6
160 0
400 0



























Main speaker level unchanged from where Audyssey sets it.


Subwoofer:


Control Points:
20 +6
55 +6
160 0






















Subwoofer Level increased 6 db from where Audyssey sets it.


----------



## sjm817

Thanks @j_at_audyssey and @Jon AA I plugged all that in and now I see the results I expected. Did a bit of initial listening and it sounds good. Like Jon AA posted, now it doesnt sound like my subs are drowning out my mains in the mid bass. The 6 dB boost may be a bit much so may bring that down some.


----------



## garygarrison

I'm getting app envy.


Our pre-pro (AVP) is incompatible, but does NOT need replacing.


Besides, OPPO is going to stop making players, so when ours conks, I'll have to do another mountain of research before replacing it. Plus the $$$.



Besides, Panasonic is going to stop making projectors, so when ours conks, I'll have to do another mountain of research before replacing it. Plus the $$$


Besides, our mic preamp conked, so if I ever want to run REW again, I'll have to do another mountain of research on using the USB method.


Wait! Everything sounds fine, especially now that my ears got cleaned out, and everything looks fine down to every glistening pore, so ... there .... I'm safe!


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> The 6 dB boost may be a bit much so may bring that down some.


Certainly, 6 db was just an example. Now that you have the process down, you should be able to experiment with 2, 4, etc, very quickly and easily just by uploading different files to see which sounds the best to you.


----------



## DigitalSelf

I have a quick question -- perhaps requiring a not-so-quick reply  -- about the midrange compensation settings, in the MultEQ app. Do they act a bit like bass compensation, by boosting midranges at lower volumes, while applying a roll-off at higher ones? The app unfortunately, does not seem to provide a lot of details about that, especially graphically. Thanks again!


----------



## Kal Rubinson

DigitalSelf said:


> I have a quick question -- perhaps requiring a not-so-quick reply  -- about the midrange compensation settings, in the MultEQ app. Do they act a bit like bass compensation, by boosting midranges at lower volumes, while applying a roll-off at higher ones? The app unfortunately, does not seem to provide a lot of details about that, especially graphically. Thanks again!


If you toggle the MRC off/on, you will see that it actually cuts the midrange at all levels.


----------



## SouthernCA

Thanks


----------



## marlbombs

I apologize in advance, as Im sure this has been asked many times, but I cant find an answer. I just got a Denon X3500 and ran audessey a few times, and no matter how low I set my subwoofers, It is maxing out the correction to -12. I have a 5.1 (kind of 5.2) system. My fronts are Def Tech BP9020s and have the LFE inputs connected on them (split on one of the SW channels), with a Def Tech center channel, and some small rears. I am also running a Klipsch standalone SW. I dont know if the Def Tech towers are confusing the audessey or what is going on. But I cant seem to get the SW to stop maxing out in the calibration. However, the audio seems very thin with these settings. Any ideas?


----------



## mogorf

marlbombs said:


> I apologize in advance, as Im sure this has been asked many times, but I cant find an answer. I just got a Denon X3500 and ran audessey a few times, and no matter how low I set my subwoofers, It is maxing out the correction to -12. I have a 5.1 (kind of 5.2) system. My fronts are Def Tech BP9020s and have the LFE inputs connected on them (split on one of the SW channels), with a Def Tech center channel, and some small rears. I am also running a Klipsch standalone SW. I dont know if the Def Tech towers are confusing the audessey or what is going on. But I cant seem to get the SW to stop maxing out in the calibration. However, the audio seems very thin with these settings. Any ideas?



Try not to use the Def Tech BP9020s in the subwoofer chain, but let them work as front L&Rs, only. Make sure you only hook-up the Klipsch to the subwoofer output of the Denon and nothing else. Rerun Audyssey. I'm 100% confident you won't get a maxout on the sub channel this time. Report back please.


----------



## pbz06

marlbombs said:


> I apologize in advance, as Im sure this has been asked many times, but I cant find an answer. I just got a Denon X3500 and ran audessey a few times, and no matter how low I set my subwoofers, It is maxing out the correction to -12. I have a 5.1 (kind of 5.2) system. My fronts are Def Tech BP9020s and have the LFE inputs connected on them (split on one of the SW channels), with a Def Tech center channel, and some small rears. I am also running a Klipsch standalone SW. I dont know if the Def Tech towers are confusing the audessey or what is going on. But I cant seem to get the SW to stop maxing out in the calibration. However, the audio seems very thin with these settings. Any ideas?


The 9020's have 8" woofers in them and probably roll off around 40+ hz...really no reason to use them as LFE if you have a standalone subwoofer. They will play and sound better if you free up the LFE and send only to the separate subwoofer. The "woofer" part of your towers will still play the mid bass frequencies, and if you have them set to small/80hz crossover in the AVR, they will still play down to 40hz (about -6dB at 60hz and about -12dB at 40hz).


----------



## kgveteran

Any one rerun audyssey one year after or even two years
I ask because my denon changed the layout of my speakers, and eliminated my rear ch on its own


----------



## galonzo

@kgveteran , I've had XT32 for about four years now, and the lowest version of Audy for a few years before that, and it just so happens that something changes in my setup enough that Audy gets re-ran at least every few months (be it new carpeting, center channel upgrade, new Atmos speakers added, Atmos speakers re-configured, new seating, SW new placement/optimization, etc.); maybe the longest it didn't get re-ran was about a 1/2 year stretch).


----------



## kgveteran

galonzo said:


> @kgveteran , I've had XT32 for about four years now, and the lowest version of Audy for a few years before that, and it just so happens that something changes in my setup enough that Audy gets re-ran at least every few months (be it new carpeting, center channel upgrade, new Atmos speakers added, Atmos speakers re-configured, new seating, SW new placement/optimization, etc.); maybe the longest it didn't get re-ran was about a 1/2 year stretch).


Sounds about right to all the above, thanx


----------



## garygarrison

galonzo said:


> @*kgveteran* , I've had XT32 for about four years now, and the lowest version of Audy for a few years before that, and it just so happens that something changes in my setup enough that Audy gets re-ran at least every few months (be it new carpeting, center channel upgrade, new Atmos speakers added, Atmos speakers re-configured, new seating, SW new placement/optimization, etc.); maybe the longest it didn't get re-ran was about a 1/2 year stretch).



I ran Audyssey over and over again for a few days, and when it sounded very good, and clearly better than without Audyssey, and measurement (REW and calibrated mic) confirmed that, I stopped. That was in 2011.


No changes since, whether done by me, or the ghost in the machine.


Change the first "n" in Denon to an "m."


----------



## ClemC

*Eq Question*

Trying to get rid of crazy sibilance I'm hearing in my system when watching TV with Verizon Fios One cable box. Using a Denon AVR X3400H, Audyssey , have Multi EQ app and Ratbudyssey. Tried creating dips at 5K and 8K, but they do no good. Tried using Slope#2 in Multi EQ, still no good. Nothing I try seems to help at all, only makes overall sound muddy. 7.1 Speaker setup with Mirage M3 fronts, Paradigm Center, NHT Sub. Can't tell if curve adjustments I'm making actually have any effect at the frequencies I make them. Also when viewing in Ratbudyssey if I view with very little smoothing, the upper end looks like a total hash of points. Any suggestions ?
*
*


----------



## David Aiken

ClemC said:


> Trying to get rid of crazy sibilance I'm hearing in my system when watching TV with Verizon Fios One cable box. Using a Denon AVR X3400H, Audyssey , have Multi EQ app and Ratbudyssey. Tried creating dips at 5K and 8K, but they do no good. Tried using Slope#2 in Multi EQ, still no good. Nothing I try seems to help at all, only makes overall sound muddy. 7.1 Speaker setup with Mirage M3 fronts, Paradigm Center, NHT Sub. Can't tell if curve adjustments I'm making actually have any effect at the frequencies I make them. Also when viewing in Ratbudyssey if I view with very little smoothing, the upper end looks like a total hash of points. Any suggestions ?
> *
> *


If you're only getting the problem with your Verizon cable box then it sounds like the problem is something in Verizon's content or in what its box is doing to the signal. Is this a new problem? By that I mean have you been using the box for a period and the problem is only starting to show up recently or has it been there since you got the box? If you've had the box for a while and the problem is only now starting to show up then I'd be checking whether either the box needs replacing or whether you've got a problem in the connection path between box and Denon.


----------



## denze

ClemC said:


> Trying to get rid of crazy sibilance I'm hearing in my system when watching TV with Verizon Fios One cable box. Using a Denon AVR X3400H, Audyssey , have Multi EQ app and Ratbudyssey. Tried creating dips at 5K and 8K, but they do no good. Tried using Slope#2 in Multi EQ, still no good. Nothing I try seems to help at all, only makes overall sound muddy. 7.1 Speaker setup with Mirage M3 fronts, Paradigm Center, NHT Sub. Can't tell if curve adjustments I'm making actually have any effect at the frequencies I make them. Also when viewing in Ratbudyssey if I view with very little smoothing, the upper end looks like a total hash of points. Any suggestions ?



It happens , initially I created notches at 250hz, 500hz., and 5k to 8k and left 16k roll off via Audyssey. Then I watched Killing Eve streaming ( horrible sound; excessive boost in the 4k range) I learned to accept that some shows are just mixed poorly audio wise. While my previous calibration was great for music, I had to make a compromise between music and movie watching. I just re calibrated , let Audyssey do its thing . Left my towers at full and let Audyssey ignore everything from 4k to 16k (relying on my front and center's natural frequency response in the top end. .If you want to tame muddiness try taming down 250hz.


----------



## ClemC

David Aiken said:


> If you're only getting the problem with your Verizon cable box then it sounds like the problem is something in Verizon's content or in what its box is doing to the signal. Is this a new problem? By that I mean have you been using the box for a period and the problem is only starting to show up recently or has it been there since you got the box? If you've had the box for a while and the problem is only now starting to show up then I'd be checking whether either the box needs replacing or whether you've got a problem in the connection path between box and Denon.



The problem really started about 6 months ago.Called Verizon, said try new box. Went from a 7100 to a 7200, to a 4100 Fios one box, new ONT, all new cabling, switched from Yamaha to Denon receiver, all with no joy. I've since found Verizon is using Dolby Volume processing on their signals and is converting all sources to Dolby 5.1 regardless of source. What I'm trying to do is apply a band-aid so I can at least enjoy what I am watching. That's why I tried the Multi Eq app and Ratbudyssey, to try to EQ the sound to get rid of some of the sibilance. Any ideas what I should do to achieve that?


----------



## ClemC

denze said:


> It happens , initially I created notches at 250hz, 500hz., and 5k to 8k and left 16k roll off via Audyssey. Then I watched Killing Eve streaming ( horrible sound; excessive boost in the 4k range) I learned to accept that some shows are just mixed poorly audio wise. While my previous was great for music, I had to make a compromise between music and movie watching. I just re calibrated let Audyssey do its thing . Left my towers at full and let Audyssey ignore everything from 4k to 16k (relying on my front and center's natural frequency response in the top end. .If you want to tame muddyness try taming down 250hz



Thanks, I'll give that a try. Totally agree with you about Killing Eve. Thought it was just me, but same bad sound from Verizon box and streaming thru Roku. Did the notches help, or the recal?


----------



## David Aiken

ClemC said:


> The problem really started about 6 months ago.Called Verizon, said try new box. Went from a 7100 to a 7200, to a 4100 Fios one box, new ONT, all new cabling, switched from Yamaha to Denon receiver, all with no joy. I've since found Verizon is using Dolby Volume processing on their signals and is converting all sources to Dolby 5.1 regardless of source. What I'm trying to do is apply a band-aid so I can at least enjoy what I am watching. That's why I tried the Multi Eq app and Ratbudyssey, to try to EQ the sound to get rid of some of the sibilance. Any ideas what I should do to achieve that?


Sibilance is a complicated problem. I've seen comments that it's related to issues in an area ranging from 4 kHz to 8 kHz or so, different frequencies depending on who was making the comment. They were all quite possibly correct, for their issue. Pinning down the frequency may not be easy but if you're only getting it with content from the Verizon box then fixing it with Audyssey is going to affect every other source you have and what makes it better for Verizon content may make it worse for other content. If Verizon is your most used source that may not be much of an issue for you but if you use other sources a lot more than you use Verizon and fixing the problem with Audyssey makes things worse for the other sources then you're just creating a different problem for yourself and it may annoy you a lot more. It's easy to make one Audyssey profile for Verizon and another for other sources if you're using the MultEQ app and you can swap between them depending on which source you're using but doing that is likely to get annoying very quickly.

Audyssey is intended to fix room problems, not problems with one specific source. If you're going to try using Audyssey to fix the problem then I think you're going to be doing a lot of experimenting because first you have to find an Audyssey adjustment that fixes the Verizon problem and then you're going to have to see how that works with other sources. If it makes things worse for other sources and creates a bigger problem then you're going to have to try and find an adjustment that minimises the issues for both Verizon and for the other sources. That may or may not be possible, and it may take a fair bit of trial and error. There's no guarantees that you'll find something that works or, if you can find something that works reasonably well with all sources including Verizon, that you can find it quickly and/or easily.

There are 3 things I'd try first, given the range of frequencies I've seen people say are associated with sibilance. Both use the MultEQ app. I can't help you with Ratbudyssey because I have no experience with it. Going from easiest to hardest, the things I'd try are:

1- This is the easy one. Turn Audyssey off and use the treble tone control, turning it down. See if you can solve the Verizon issue just doing that. If you can then you can use Audyssey with other sources and just do this with Verizon which is probably the simplest way of swapping between one thing for Verizon and something else for the other sources because you can do it without reloading Audyssey profiles. If your bass gets boomy or problematic with Audyssey off, try a small adjustment with the bass tone control.

2- A bit more work involved. Start with the standard Reference curve and eliminate the mid-range compensation dip. Don't touch anything else. The dip occurs between about 2 and 4 kHz and there's a rise in response around 4 kHz where the dip ends. It's possible that it's the rise in response there that's making things sound worse with Verizon. If removing that rise at 4 kHz after the dip makes the issue less noticeable it's possible that it won't make things too bad for the other sources. You can experiment with both variations of the Reference curve.

3 - More work again. Start with the Reference curve option with the steepest high frequency roll off and start tweaking it. You could try rolling it off faster but I'd probably commence with starting the roll off a little lower down in frequency before I started changing the rate of the roll off. I'd also eliminate the mid-range compensation dip in combination with this. If you start playing with this option you're probably looking at trial and error as you play with adjusting the start of the roll off and the slope of the roll off. Try small adjustments because the bigger the adjustment the more likely ii is that the result will be noticeably worse for other sources.

None of the above involve notches in the curve. If you're going to try notches then life will be a lot easier if you can pinpoint the frequency which is causing the problem because otherwise you're going to have to experiment to find the frequency and then experiment to find the appropriate notch parameters.

And like I said earlier, you may not be able to come up with a response curve that works well with all sources. Fixing the Verizon problem may make things worse for other sources because this is not the sort of problem Audyssey is intended to fix because it's a problem related to a specific source, not a room related problem affecting all sources.


----------



## David Aiken

^ One other suggestion, worth trying first. If you have DEQ turned on, try turning it off with Verizon and see if that helps.


----------



## bigzee3

*Center and Surrounds*

Hi Guys,

Was wondering if anyone adjusts center and surrounds with DEQ off? I adjust subwoofer and use tone control for the mid bass but have not look at the center or surrounds without DEQ.


----------



## ClemC

David Aiken said:


> ^ One other suggestion, worth trying first. If you have DEQ turned on, try turning it off with Verizon and see if that helps.


Wasn't using DEQ, didn't really like the results. Thanks for the replies. I am using MultiEQ, so I'll give your suggestions a shot. Have a feeling it's related to the compression and conversion Verizon is using, and I may not even be able to reduce it at all.


Thanks again.


----------



## pbz06

bigzee3 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> Was wondering if anyone adjusts center and surrounds with DEQ off? I adjust subwoofer and use tone control for the mid bass but have not look at the center or surrounds without DEQ.


Usually when I double check my results after running Audyssey, with test tones and an SPL meter and my listening volume to -10, they are pretty balanced already and I don't really find the need to adjust them. I know some people bump up the center channel to +1dB from the L/R mains though. I also like to keep my surrounds balanced too, so since I use DEQ because I like what it does with my bass, I have to bring down the surrounds and top rears by 1 to 2dB since DEQ boosts those (I aim for -10dB listening for movies).


----------



## rockluc

*Severe rolloff with XT32*

Hoping somebody can help here, I was running REW earlier today checking LFE response and decided to check the response of my mains as well, when I went back and summed the measurements from my left and right speakers they appear fairly flat, when I applied XT32 and measured I found a severe rolloff in the highs, I knew there was some but this seems excessive. I will say that I had to use the included stand with umik-1 so I was well below ear level but regardless, both measurements were taken the same way, these difference are staggering to me. Room is 24x14x8 and couch is against back wall/fireplace but made sure to not get closer than 2' to back wall per recommendations. I'm attaching both measurements both with and without audyssey applied and hoping someone can provide some insight here. 1/6 Smoothing was applied to measurements.


----------



## mariogonzalezzz

bought new speakers and will break them in for a couple weeks.
should i run audyssey after they are broken in or doest it matter
not sure if room measurements etc. would change if i ran audyssey now vs after the breakin


----------



## garygarrison

mariogonzalezzz said:


> bought new speakers and will break them in for a couple weeks.
> should i run audyssey after they are broken in or doest it matter
> not sure if room measurements etc. would change if i ran audyssey now vs after the breakin



I'd break them in first.


----------



## Jon AA

rockluc said:


> when I applied XT32 and measured I found a severe rolloff in the highs, I knew there was some but this seems excessive.


Pretty normal. Your graph looks much worse than it is because of the scale--linear instead of logarithmic. If you switch the horizontal axis it'll look much better. You can always try flat and see how that sounds or if you have the app you can reduce the rolloff manually.


----------



## garygarrison

rockluc said:


> Hoping somebody can help here, I was running REW earlier today checking LFE response and decided to check the response of my mains as well, when I went back and summed the measurements from my left and right speakers they appear fairly flat, when I applied XT32 and measured I found a severe rolloff in the highs, I knew there was some but this seems excessive. I will say that I had to use the included stand with umik-1 so I was well below ear level but regardless, both measurements were taken the same way, these difference are staggering to me. Room is 24x14x8 and couch is against back wall/fireplace but made sure to not get closer than 2' to back wall per recommendations. I'm attaching both measurements both with and without audyssey applied and hoping someone can provide some insight here. 1/6 Smoothing was applied to measurements.



I don't know, but something is weird.


When you compared the playback curves, did you use Audyssey Flat, or Audyssey Reference? Audyssey Reference knocks down the treble (but not _*that*_ much). To compare, I'd use Audyssey Flat.



This is not the cause, but we are used to seeing log graphs, which is default on my REW.


The rectangles that make up the graph are tall and thin on one graph and nearly square on the other. But that is not responsible for the difference, either.




I'd find a way to put the mics (both the Audyssey mic and, in turn, the REW mic) at ear level (pile up books, if you have to, for now).
Just for superstition's sake, warm up the equipment before starting.
Point the Audyssey mic directly at the ceiling (sight it from two directions), and re-run Audyssey. Use all 8 mic positions.
 Make sure you have entered your mic calibration number into REW, if your mic came with one, and that is what your instructions say (I know that's not it).
_*Try*_.to put the REW mic in the same 8 positions that the Audyssey mic was in, overlay the traces, and either* average* them (REW has a button for this), or just eyeball the traces (I'd average them). The curves will still be different, because the Audyssey software ("fuzzy logic") is "smarter" than a dumb bunny average. Paul Klipsch and Edgar Villchur disagreed about nearly everything _*except*_ that the use of a single microphone position doomed the usefulness of home equalizers, as usually employed, back then. A movement of a few inches can make a great difference.
1/6 smoothing is fine.
If *all* else fails, get a new Audyssey mic. A few people here have had their first one fail.


----------



## ClemC

David Aiken said:


> ^ One other suggestion, worth trying first. If you have DEQ turned on, try turning it off with Verizon and see if that helps.



Gave some of your suggestions a shot. Turned off MRC completely and used curve #2 in the MultiEQ app. That actualy helped quite a bit, at least there was an improvement to the point I'm not completely annoyed all the time. Ill live with this for a while, maybe try editing a bit more, but this was a good start. Hopefully Verizon will give in and do what I'm asking of them.


Thanks again.


----------



## rockluc

Jon AA said:


> Pretty normal. Your graph looks much worse than it is because of the scale--linear instead of logarithmic. If you switch the horizontal axis it'll look much better. You can always try flat and see how that sounds or if you have the app you can reduce the rolloff manually.


I think this did the trick, changed over to logarithmic and looks much better now.


----------



## Jon AA

Yup, that sure looks better.  However, I do think your original concern is still valid--that's a bigger rolloff than Audyssey Reference curve should typically give. Is your receiver new enough to use the app? If so you can take a look at what Audyssey measured--opening the file in Ratbuddy you can see each individual mic measurement. That would allow you to compare to REW measurements and quickly identify a bad mic. It could also identify if some specific mic locations are giving you wacky measurements due to some reflection or something of which you weren't aware so you can alter your mic placement during calibration.


Also, in getting this figured out it's probably easier to measure the left and right channel separately to help find the source of the problem.


----------



## garygarrison

Jon AA said:


> *--that's a bigger rolloff than Audyssey Reference curve should typically give*..


 

I agree. According to Chris K of Audyssey, the *electrical *curve Audyssey Reference imposes is -2 dB at 10K, and -6 dB at 20K. The resulting _*acoustical*_ curve would be expected to be a little closer to that than what you got, especially since your former "Audyssey Off" curve shows that your speakers in your room are capable.


----------



## rockluc

Jon AA said:


> Yup, that sure looks better.  However, I do think your original concern is still valid--that's a bigger rolloff than Audyssey Reference curve should typically give. Is your receiver new enough to use the app? If so you can take a look at what Audyssey measured--opening the file in Ratbuddy you can see each individual mic measurement. That would allow you to compare to REW measurements and quickly identify a bad mic. It could also identify if some specific mic locations are giving you wacky measurements due to some reflection or something of which you weren't aware so you can alter your mic placement during calibration.
> 
> 
> Also, in getting this figured out it's probably easier to measure the left and right channel separately to help find the source of the problem.


Unfortunately my AVR isn’t new enough for that. I’m going to rerun these once I am able to get an adapter for my tripod for the umik-1 and can set it at ear level. It was about 2’ below ear level due to the stand that’s provided. If that doesn’t help I may redo Audyssey with different positions. Since I can’t do behind the couch with it against the back wall I did the 3 seating positions on the couch 2 spots about a foot in front of them and 3 spots another foot in front of that. Almost shaped like a capital i.


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> I agree. According to Chris K of Audyssey, the *electrical *curve Audyssey Reference imposes is -2 dB at 10K, and -6 dB at 20K. The resulting _*acoustical*_ curve would be expected to be a little closer to that than what you got, especially since your former "Audyssey Off" curve shows that your speakers in your room are capable.


Good to know.

Has anyone measured to see how Flat + CinemaEQ compares? I've always been curious.


----------



## mariogonzalezzz

was trying to run audyssey with a jbl 550p but it isnt detected.
is it possible i might have the volume knob on the sub turned too low? wondering if that would cause audyssey to not get a signal?
thinking about returning the sub


----------



## mogorf

mariogonzalezzz said:


> was trying to run audyssey with a jbl 550p but it isnt detected.
> is it possible i might have the volume knob on the sub turned too low? wondering if that would cause audyssey to not get a signal?
> thinking about returning the sub



If the sub is not detected then you need to check the hook-up to the AVR. BTW, what AVR do you have?


----------



## mariogonzalezzz

mogorf said:


> If the sub is not detected then you need to check the hook-up to the AVR. BTW, what AVR do you have?


well i turned the sub on and during audyssey process i said yes to is sub connected.
tried 2 different cables, one from my other sub in use.
using a denon 1712

what i mean by not detect is when it starts calibrating with the sounds, it skips the subwoofer and even the subwoofer icon is not on the on screen image.


----------



## mogorf

mariogonzalezzz said:


> well i turned the sub on and during audyssey process i said yes to is sub connected.
> tried 2 different cables, one from my other sub in use.
> using a denon 1712
> 
> *what i mean by not detect is when it starts calibrating with the sounds, it skips the subwoofer and even the subwoofer icon is not on the on screen image*.



Well, in that case I would do a microprocessor reset on the Denon 1712. Look up the manual for the process.


----------



## Dave-T

ClemC said:


> Trying to get rid of crazy sibilance I'm hearing in my system when watching TV with Verizon Fios One cable box. Using a Denon AVR X3400H, Audyssey , have Multi EQ app and Ratbudyssey. Tried creating dips at 5K and 8K, but they do no good. Tried using Slope#2 in Multi EQ, still no good. Nothing I try seems to help at all, only makes overall sound muddy. 7.1 Speaker setup with Mirage M3 fronts, Paradigm Center, NHT Sub. Can't tell if curve adjustments I'm making actually have any effect at the frequencies I make them. Also when viewing in Ratbudyssey if I view with very little smoothing, the upper end looks like a total hash of points. Any suggestions ?
> *
> *


Have you tried switching the Audio on the Verizon box to audio-pass through. You have to get into the white setup menu. Access menu turn the tv one box off by pressing the big button on the setup box. turn the box back on and immediately press the ok button on the remote control twice. It is not easy to do it takes some patients. once the screen appears press the back arrow on the remote control which brings you to the main page of the white screen. Goto user settings and goto additional HDMI settings. highlight audio which is set auto and switch it to audio-passthrough. that should give you what you are looking for. The cable box will no longer do the audio processing your AVR will. when exiting the menu of the setup screen press the menu button o the remote or the changes will not save, that is important 

Dave-t


----------



## ClemC

Dave-T said:


> Have you tried switching the Audio on the Verizon box to audio-pass through. You have to get into the white setup menu. Access menu turn the tv one box off by pressing the big button on the setup box. turn the box back on and immediately press the ok button on the remote control twice. It is not easy to do it takes some patients. once the screen appears press the back arrow on the remote control which brings you to the main page of the white screen. Goto user settings and goto additional HDMI settings. highlight audio which is set auto and switch it to audio-passthrough. that should give you what you are looking for. The cable box will no longer do the audio processing your AVR will. when exiting the menu of the setup screen press the menu button o the remote or the changes will not save, that is important
> 
> Dave-t


Yep, know all about the Fios Service menu. Problem is with the newer boxes,(VMS4100) the pass-through doesnt work anymore. Further Verizon is using Dolby Volume compression on all sources, and is converting all sources to Dolby 5.1 in the boxes. I'm currently working with several Fios reps to get the pass-through re-enabled, and have Dolby Volume as an option, as I think that is the source of the over compressed sound I hear.


----------



## Dave-T

ClemC said:


> Yep, know all about the Fios Service menu. Problem is with the newer boxes,(VMS4100) the pass-through doesnt work anymore. Further Verizon is using Dolby Volume compression on all sources, and is converting all sources to Dolby 5.1 in the boxes. I'm currently working with several Fios reps to get the pass-through re-enabled, and have Dolby Volume as an option, as I think that is the source of the over compressed sound I hear.


I would love to know when you find out when Audio Passthrough has been reinstated because right now that is what I have set on my box on the VMS 4100 or thought I did. cid you get a time frame on the firmware update?

thanks

Dave-t


----------



## ClemC

Dave-T said:


> I would love to know when you find out when Audio Passthrough has been reinstated because right now that is what I have set on my box on the VMS 4100 or thought I did. cid you get a time frame on the firmware update?
> 
> thanks
> 
> Dave-t



I'll let you know if and when they get the issues fixed. As far as firmware goes, go to dslreports.com, Verizon TV forum. There is a guy there named Branch that seems to have an inside track on firmware. I know 6.6 is coming, not when or what has been changed.


----------



## jabe00

Hello everyone, 

Since a couple weeks back I had to increase the volume to watch TV or movie using the Marantz SR6012 were normally I watch TV or movie between -25 and -20, but since a couple weeks I had to increase to -10 and sometimes even lower of that. Then if I change to chromecast in the pass at -25 was ok was feeling the same volume, but know if I change to chromecast with -10 it's to higher, so I need to go back to -25 to feel comfortable, but if I go back to TV, then I need to go back to -10 or higher.

I took my sound meter to document the difference, I have attached some pictures so you can see the difference, I can said it's around 20db difference what I thing it's to much.

Anyone have any idea in maybe what is happening, I didn't change anything in the receiver recently.

Ohhh, wait, the only new it's a new 4k Projector, but not sure if that have anything to do with the lower sound.


Thanks in advance
jb









Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## jconjason

mariogonzalezzz said:


> well i turned the sub on and during audyssey process i said yes to is sub connected.
> tried 2 different cables, one from my other sub in use.
> using a denon 1712
> 
> what i mean by not detect is when it starts calibrating with the sounds, it skips the subwoofer and even the subwoofer icon is not on the on screen image.


Have you tested the sub to confirm it works properly?


----------



## mariogonzalezzz

jconjason said:


> Have you tested the sub to confirm it works properly?



no but i just plugged its power cord into a random spot in my bedroom. plugged in sub cable.
touched the other en of the sub cable and the sub makes sounds. so im thinking it may be a problem with the denon 1712. its pretty old. but i will try a reset on the avr


----------



## prsman

*How to emphasis voice*

Using MultiEQ can I adjust the Audyssey room EQ graphs to emphasis voice just for the center channel?
If so, what would be the parameters for changing the graph? for example push 3khz up at the center?
thanks for the input.


----------



## zeonstar

(Hope this is the right place to ask this)


Good morning. I've been wondering about something so I need some input.

Quick situation. My wife and I and our 2 kids live in a 2 bedroom townhouse. Space is limited and my "Home theater" is in the living room, which is an open room with the kitchen table on one end (with the kitchen past that) and the living room on the other end. It more or less looks like an apartment. In the evenings when I watch a movie, you'll often find my wife at the kitchen table area working on her crafts and to do this, she needs light so she has a light on which of course lights up the whole living room.

I recently had the idea of adding a divider to the room. I figured she would think i was crazy, but she actually liked the idea and helped me make it better. The end result is a wire strung up and 2 patio door size curtains being used as a divider. It works really well and it's one of my favorite things in recent memory. (It's the little things in life you end up loving the most!) It benefits us both as well. She can now have her light as bright as she wants and I have a much darker "room" to get more enjoyment out of my OLED.










So there you have it. 

(I should mention the curtain on the right is a more recent addition to block the light from the windows. I am still working to make that darken them a bit more.)

So getting to why I posted. It occurred to me the other day...shouldn't I run Audyssey again with the curtain up and closed? Because that curtain will affect the sound, will it not? When I ran Audyssey last, it was for the open room.

I have the MultiEQ app. (and I am using a Denon X4400H if it matters) but I find it's not very easy to switch between profiles quickly. Plus it seems it doesn't save all settings. Things like RLO don't seem to save, Unless I am setting it wrong. If there is a way to have it save ALL settings, please let me know. 

I don't always have the curtains on the right drawn. If its night, I don't need them. So if I can only have one Audyssey profile active, which is the "lesser of 2 evils" one I should default to?

Audyssey with the right curtain drawn (even when listening when it isn't) or run Audyssey with the right curtain open?

The left curtain is pretty much used at all times these days. 

Basically my room may have different configurations of the curtains depending on when I am watching a movie. I'd like to know in which config I should run Audyssey, even if the room isn't always in that configuration. 

Thanks!


----------



## pbz06

zeonstar said:


> (Hope this is the right place to ask this)
> 
> 
> Good morning. I've been wondering about something so I need some input.
> 
> Quick situation. My wife and I and our 2 kids live in a 2 bedroom townhouse. Space is limited and my "Home theater" is in the living room, which is an open room with the kitchen table on one end (with the kitchen past that) and the living room on the other end. It more or less looks like an apartment. In the evenings when I watch a movie, you'll often find my wife at the kitchen table area working on her crafts and to do this, she needs light so she has a light on which of course lights up the whole living room.
> 
> I recently had the idea of adding a divider to the room. I figured she would think i was crazy, but she actually liked the idea and helped me make it better. The end result is a wire strung up and 2 patio door size curtains being used as a divider. It works really well and it's one of my favorite things in recent memory. (It's the little things in life you end up loving the most!) It benefits us both as well. She can now have her light as bright as she wants and I have a much darker "room" to get more enjoyment out of my OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So there you have it.
> 
> (I should mention the curtain on the right is a more recent addition to block the light from the windows. I am still working to make that darken them a bit more.)
> 
> So getting to why I posted. It occurred to me the other day...shouldn't I run Audyssey again with the curtain up and closed? Because that curtain will affect the sound, will it not? When I ran Audyssey last, it was for the open room.
> 
> I have the MultiEQ app. (and I am using a Denon X4400H if it matters) but I find it's not very easy to switch between profiles quickly. Plus it seems it doesn't save all settings. Things like RLO don't seem to save, Unless I am setting it wrong. If there is a way to have it save ALL settings, please let me know.
> 
> I don't always have the curtains on the right drawn. If its night, I don't need them. So if I can only have one Audyssey profile active, which is the "lesser of 2 evils" one I should default to?
> 
> Audyssey with the right curtain drawn (even when listening when it isn't) or run Audyssey with the right curtain open?
> 
> The left curtain is pretty much used at all times these days.
> 
> Basically my room may have different configurations of the curtains depending on when I am watching a movie. I'd like to know in which config I should run Audyssey, even if the room isn't always in that configuration.
> 
> Thanks!


Yes, you should run Audyssey again...with the room set up the way it is when you usually watch movies and want them to be the most "critical". It doesn't really matter in other scenarios, it will be a compromise. For example, sometimes I use my recliner and watch a movie just to chill.


----------



## David Aiken

zeonstar said:


> (Hope this is the right place to ask this)
> 
> 
> Good morning. I've been wondering about something so I need some input.
> 
> Quick situation. My wife and I and our 2 kids live in a 2 bedroom townhouse. Space is limited and my "Home theater" is in the living room, which is an open room with the kitchen table on one end (with the kitchen past that) and the living room on the other end. It more or less looks like an apartment. In the evenings when I watch a movie, you'll often find my wife at the kitchen table area working on her crafts and to do this, she needs light so she has a light on which of course lights up the whole living room.
> 
> I recently had the idea of adding a divider to the room. I figured she would think i was crazy, but she actually liked the idea and helped me make it better. The end result is a wire strung up and 2 patio door size curtains being used as a divider. It works really well and it's one of my favorite things in recent memory. (It's the little things in life you end up loving the most!) It benefits us both as well. She can now have her light as bright as she wants and I have a much darker "room" to get more enjoyment out of my OLED.
> 
> 
> 
> So there you have it.
> 
> (I should mention the curtain on the right is a more recent addition to block the light from the windows. I am still working to make that darken them a bit more.)
> 
> So getting to why I posted. It occurred to me the other day...shouldn't I run Audyssey again with the curtain up and closed? Because that curtain will affect the sound, will it not? When I ran Audyssey last, it was for the open room.
> 
> I have the MultiEQ app. (and I am using a Denon X4400H if it matters) but I find it's not very easy to switch between profiles quickly. Plus it seems it doesn't save all settings. Things like RLO don't seem to save, Unless I am setting it wrong. If there is a way to have it save ALL settings, please let me know.
> 
> I don't always have the curtains on the right drawn. If its night, I don't need them. So if I can only have one Audyssey profile active, which is the "lesser of 2 evils" one I should default to?
> 
> Audyssey with the right curtain drawn (even when listening when it isn't) or run Audyssey with the right curtain open?
> 
> The left curtain is pretty much used at all times these days.
> 
> Basically my room may have different configurations of the curtains depending on when I am watching a movie. I'd like to know in which config I should run Audyssey, even if the room isn't always in that configuration.
> 
> Thanks!


I've got a slightly similar situation with a large window and glass sliding door to a patio on my right wall. The window has a roman blind covering it which is always down when viewing anything while the door is covered by a curtain which is sometimes drawn, sometimes closed, and the door to the patio is open or closed depending on the weather. My left wall is bare with pictures, low bookshelves, and a large open archway in it.

I always do my calibration with the door to the patio closed and the curtain drawn but I never change my Audyssey profile. I use the same profile whether the curtain is drawn or not and the door is open or not. Perhaps it's because my listening position is in front of where the curtain begins and we're less sensitive to sound coming from behind us but that one profile works fine for me whether or not I have the curtains drawn and /or the door open.

I'd experiment. Start with your original profile from before you installed the curtain and see how it works for you with the curtain covering the whole wall or just that part of the wall from level with your listening position, or even with the curtain pulled back as far as it will go. See just how much a difference it makes. If it makes a big enough difference to bother you, then do a new calibration with the curtain covering the windows entirely and see how it works when you adjust the curtains again as above. You may well be able to find that one profile works reasonably well for most situations but better for one and be prepared to live with it rather than having to change calibrations for different curtain positions.

If you do have to change calibrations for different curtain positions you may want to try the MultEQ app if your AVR is compatible with it. It allows you to store several calibration results and upload them relatively quickly to your AVR and you may find it a more efficient means to do that than relying on the USB stick method the AVR provides.

I'm not saying you will find one calibration that works for you in your room but I did with mine so it's worth a try.


----------



## galonzo

@Zenostar , I definitely agree with @pbz06 , and if it were me, I would run Audy with all drapes/window coverings closed, which should be fine for casual viewing when either or all are open. Do let us know how it goes


----------



## pbarach

The only entrance to my audio room is on the side wall just behind the right front speaker. Since I usually listen with the door open, the door is open when I calibrate. 

I tried in the past to calibrate with the door closed, but the volume level and response curve pf that right speaker were off when the door was open for listening. Maybe this would not have occurred in a larger room...


----------



## zeonstar

pbz06 said:


> Yes, you should run Audyssey again...with the room set up the way it is when you usually watch movies and want them to be the most "critical". It doesn't really matter in other scenarios, it will be a compromise. For example, sometimes I use my recliner and watch a movie just to chill.


Yeah that is basically what I figured I would do. Choose the setting for the most "Vital" viewing configuration. 



David Aiken said:


> I've got a slightly similar situation with a large window and glass sliding door to a patio on my right wall. The window has a roman blind covering it which is always down when viewing anything while the door is covered by a curtain which is sometimes drawn, sometimes closed, and the door to the patio is open or closed depending on the weather. My left wall is bare with pictures, low bookshelves, and a large open archway in it.
> 
> I always do my calibration with the door to the patio closed and the curtain drawn but I never change my Audyssey profile. I use the same profile whether the curtain is drawn or not and the door is open or not. Perhaps it's because my listening position is in front of where the curtain begins and we're less sensitive to sound coming from behind us but that one profile works fine for me whether or not I have the curtains drawn and /or the door open.
> 
> I'd experiment. Start with your original profile from before you installed the curtain and see how it works for you with the curtain covering the whole wall or just that part of the wall from level with your listening position, or even with the curtain pulled back as far as it will go. See just how much a difference it makes. If it makes a big enough difference to bother you, then do a new calibration with the curtain covering the windows entirely and see how it works when you adjust the curtains again as above. You may well be able to find that one profile works reasonably well for most situations but better for one and be prepared to live with it rather than having to change calibrations for different curtain positions.
> 
> If you do have to change calibrations for different curtain positions you may want to try the MultEQ app if your AVR is compatible with it. It allows you to store several calibration results and upload them relatively quickly to your AVR and you may find it a more efficient means to do that than relying on the USB stick method the AVR provides.
> 
> I'm not saying you will find one calibration that works for you in your room but I did with mine so it's worth a try.


Just a quick note that I actually do have the MultiEQ App.  I mentioned it during my post. 



galonzo said:


> @Zenostar , I definitely agree with @pbz06 , and if it were me, I would run Audy with all drapes/window coverings closed, which should be fine for casual viewing when either or all are open. Do let us know how it goes


To all of you - I appreciate the replies. I will let you know how it turns out. I probably wont have a chance to run Audyssey for a few days. I will probably do it Monday.


----------



## kaydee6

There really should be the option for multiple profiles with Audyssey. It's available for the Anthem and DIRAC. 
I wonder why this is still not implemented in the D&M AVRs in 2019.


----------



## drh3b

kaydee6 said:


> There really should be the option for multiple profiles with Audyssey. It's available for the Anthem and DIRAC.
> I wonder why this is still not implemented in the D&M AVRs in 2019.


You can do it, you need to buy the app for $20, and it takes about a minute to change profiles.


----------



## kaydee6

drh3b said:


> You can do it, you need to buy the app for $20, and it takes about a minute to change profiles.


I have the app but the 1 minute is a minute too long.


----------



## drh3b

kaydee6 said:


> I have the app but the 1 minute is a minute too long.


It doesn't change the fact that you actually can have multiple profiles, unlike what you said, even if you don't like the way it is implemented.


----------



## kaydee6

drh3b said:


> It doesn't change the fact that you actually can have multiple profiles, unlike what you said, even if you don't like the way it is implemented.


You are correct. It should be said "There really should be the option for multiple Audyssey profiles saved in the hardware. It's available for the Anthem and DIRAC. I wonder why this is still not implemented in the D&M AVRs in 2019".


----------



## Macroblocker

shoeboo said:


> Does anyone have feedback on why the default target curve in the new app rolls off the low end? Did a quick search and have only seen discussion on reference curve rolling off high end. Can edit the curve to remove roll-off but was wondering why it is there in first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote
> 
> problem solved, ran Audyssey again and the curve went back to flat


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

OK...another setup question for you guys. I recently moved to CT and while our stuff is in transit I am trying to plan my new setup. I will be in half of an open lower level. Large window with a full blind on the left (facing the TV) and a waist high ledge/half wall three feet behind the couch. I have a 7.2 system and am planning the subs next to the TV stand with my towers outside. Surrounds a foot or so above ear level (one will hang below part of the window). The rears however will be lower than the side surrounds and just clear the back of the couch. Is this going to be a problem? 

I'm open to suggestions to get them higher, and while in a couple years I'm going to build a full custom theater in an unfinished space upstairs, this is going to have to do for the near term. Any thing I should try and do before the movers arrive and I start setting up?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

kaydee6 said:


> There really should be the option for multiple profiles with Audyssey. It's available for the Anthem and DIRAC.
> I wonder why this is still not implemented in the D&M AVRs in 2019.


I wish there was, too... However, you can accomplish the same thing, either by saving multiple configurations on separate flash drives or on the MultiEQ phone app.


----------



## scrapdiggs

whats the cheapest AVR with Audessy that has a Zone 2?


----------



## Vader424242

Hi All,


Quick question: I just re-ran Audyssey calibration (XT32) due to a change in my environment (display upgrade), and it is identifying the main speakers differently than before. In other words, where the main channel was previously identified as "large," the current calibration IDs them as "small." The weird thing is that the crossover was set the same either way, at 40hz. I always set everybody to "small" and raise each crossover setting to 80hz (if they are lower) anyway, but I find this curious. I ran the setup twice with the same results. Levels and distances are spot-on. What does Audyssey use to ID the speaker as large or small (I would have thought it was the c/o, but it was set the same either way)? Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

Vader424242 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> Quick question: I just re-ran Audyssey calibration (XT32) due to a change in my environment (display upgrade), and it is identifying the main speakers differently than before. In other words, where the main channel was previously identified as "large," the current calibration IDs them as "small." The weird thing is that the crossover was set the same either way, at 40hz. I always set everybody to "small" and raise each crossover setting to 80hz (if they are lower) anyway, but I find this curious. I ran the setup twice with the same results. Levels and distances are spot-on. What does Audyssey use to ID the speaker as large or small (I would have thought it was the c/o, but it was set the same either way)? Thanks!



Did you move the speakers at all? Are they the same number of inches from the wall or other sources of boundary gain? Maybe the response was "on the cusp" so to speak, and the AVR decided one way one time, and the other way the other. Were the microphone positions near identical (I assume you used all 8). I am at a loss to explain the crossover staying the same, while the "size" assigned changes unless in one case the F3 (the point at which a given speaker's bass response is down 3 dB) is at the end of a gradual decline in bass response (LARGE) and in the other case, the bass falls by almost 3 dB at a higher point (say at - 2.75 dB at 55Hz, due to less boundary support -- SMALL) and then stays almost level until falling to - 3 dB at the same 40 Hz as before. Obviously just guessing.


----------



## Vader424242

garygarrison said:


> Did you move the speakers at all? Are they the same number of inches from the wall or other sources of boundary gain? Maybe the response was "on the cusp" so to speak, and the AVR decided one way one time, and the other way the other. Were the microphone positions near identical (I assume you used all 8). I am at a loss to explain the crossover staying the same, while the "size" assigned changes unless in one case the F3 (the point at which a given speaker's bass response is down 3 dB) is at the end of a gradual decline in bass response (LARGE) and in the other case, the bass falls by almost 3 dB at a higher point (say at - 2.75 dB at 55Hz, due to less boundary support -- SMALL) and then stays almost level until falling to - 3 dB at the same 40 Hz as before. Obviously just guessing.



Hi Gary,


The _only_ thing that changed was the display (Panny 65V10 --> LG C965AUA). All the speaker/sub locations remained the same, as did the mic positions (yes, I did use all 8). The only thing that really changed was the fact that the Panny had a bezel around the screen, and the LG does not, but I have no idea why that would make a difference (unless it has to do with reflections, or boundary support from the bezel? - the display is only a couple of inches away on either side). I really need to get the MultEQ app...


----------



## garygarrison

Vader424242 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing that changed was the display (Panny 65V10 --> LG C965AUA). All the speaker/sub locations remained the same, as did the mic positions (yes, I did use all 8). The only thing that really changed was the fact that the Panny had a bezel around the screen, and the LG does not, but I have no idea why that would make a difference (unless it has to do with reflections, or boundary support from the bezel? - the display is only a couple of inches away on either side). I really need to get the MultEQ app...



I would think that a bezel of likely size would be roundly ignored by bass frequencies. Even with a bezel this size ... but the scaffolding might make a good diffusor.


----------



## Vader424242

garygarrison said:


> I would think that a bezel of likely size would be roundly ignored by bass frequencies. Even with a bezel this size ... but the scaffolding might make a good diffusor.



LOL... Good point. Your explanation sounds good to me


----------



## David Aiken

Vader424242 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> 
> The _only_ thing that changed was the display (Panny 65V10 --> LG C965AUA). All the speaker/sub locations remained the same, as did the mic positions (yes, I did use all 8). The only thing that really changed was the fact that the Panny had a bezel around the screen, and the LG does not, but I have no idea why that would make a difference (unless it has to do with reflections, or boundary support from the bezel? - the display is only a couple of inches away on either side). I really need to get the MultEQ app...





garygarrison said:


> I would think that a bezel of likely size would be roundly ignored by bass frequencies. Even with a bezel this size ... but the scaffolding might make a good diffusor.


Photo removed.

I'm going to give a "maybe" to the display being responsible.

The crossover is set based on where the rolloff in the bass reaches 3 dB down from the level at some reference frequency. The change in display is unlikely to affect bass response but it may well change the level of the mids and higher frequencies due to greater reflection from the bezel. If it raises the level of the reference frequency slightly then that is going to affect the frequency identified as 3 dB down which will also rise slightly and that may be the reason for the change in your results.

Consistent with that is the idea that if you make a change which lowers the level of the mids and higher frequencies in the measurement then the frequency identified as being 3 dB down will also be identified as a lower frequency, even though the bass response of the speaker hasn't changed.

The obvious test, which you probably aren't going to make, is to swap the display back to the previous display and see if you now get your original result when you do a calibration. That would be a pretty good indicator that it is the display making the difference but short of doing that it's going to be pretty difficult to come up with a reliable indication of what produced the change. All I can say is that I think the display is a possibility, bizarre as that sounds. What's important to recognise here is that whether your speaker gets set to large/small may not depend only on the speaker's bass response in the room but also on its response at a higher frequency.


----------



## Vader424242

^^^ Thank you, David! Someday, I might understand this stuff sufficiently to be a little dangerous (and all of you are teaching me loads)... 


Unfortunately, my old display has moved on to greener pastures (I gifted it to a friend), so I can't switch stuff back. Whatever the cause, it still sounds great!


----------



## Eggtuary

Jon AA said:


> When you put it in the curve like this:


The Audyssey app won't give me a graph that looks like that. It still rolls off the bottom, no matter how much I try to drag the 20 Hz point up. It *says* +6 dB at 20 Hz, but the graph still looks like it's rolling off to -8 dB at 20Hz. Does that mean Audyssey found my sub unable to support higher volumes at that level? It's an Outlaw Ultra-X12. Not the most amazing sub, but certainly not a cheap piece of junk. And I have 2 of them.


----------



## Jon AA

It could be two things: 

First, make sure you're using an updated version of the App. The App originally put a rolloff on the sub no matter what but they removed that a couple of months ago. I had to uninstall then re-download/re-install the App once it was updated to get the newer version working.

If it's not that it's probably due to the frequency response of the sub Audyssey is measuring. That doesn't necessarily mean you have a bad sub--it could be a room mode/placement/null issue. If you look at the "Room Correction Results" the green line will show what Audyssey measured (you can see individual measurements in more detail in Ratbuddy). If the sub is rolling off much toward 20 Hz, Audyssey won't try and flatten that out as that will reduce headroom and they opt to not try and make the sub do something of which it's not capable. Mine looks flat because my sub actually measures flat to 15 Hz before Audyssey does anything.

It basically does the same thing with all speakers--if you have +4 or +6 db or whatever gain entered into the curve all the way to 20 Hz, even if you type the values into Ratbuddy, it will basically put that amount of gain in the curve only until it hits the natural rolloff of the speakers, it'll then make the curve maintain that rolloff. For example here's a target for my fronts that have boost entered all the way to 20 Hz:












As you can see, even though I have entered a boost at 20 Hz, the target is down -14 db at 20 Hz because my front speakers just can't play that low, adding a bunch of boost would only cause distortion.












When you look at the measurements you can see why--my speaker drops like a rock at about 60 Hz. So the target curve boosts it as far down as it can but doesn't try to make it do the impossible.


----------



## Eggtuary

Jon AA said:


> It could be two things:
> 
> First, make sure you're using an updated version of the App. The App originally put a rolloff on the sub no matter what but they removed that a couple of months ago. I had to uninstall then re-download/re-install the App once it was updated to get the newer version working.
> 
> If it's not that it's probably due to the frequency response of the sub Audyssey is measuring.


Thanks for taking the time to write up this incredibly detailed and helpful explanation! 

My phone had to be reset recently, so I lost all apps, which meant I had to install the latest version of the Audyssey app. So that wasn't it. But your post above reminded me that I had my Outlaw sub in Max Output mode, so I put in a port plug and switched to Max Extension. Reran Audyssey and - boom! - no rolloff at 20Hz anymore!

Unfortunately, I still can't lift the 20 Hz point in the app to +6 dB. I suspect that means that it still drops off too fast after 20. I was able to add a point at 30 Hz at +6 dB, and it takes it down to 0 at 20 Hz. Still, it definitely made a difference in my sound. So thanks!


----------



## kaydee6

Jon AA said:


> Thanks Mike!
> 
> 
> That would be no problem at all, feel free. It might be helpful for me to add the settings that went with those measurements for the modified setup:
> 
> 
> Main Speaker:
> 
> 
> Control point--Frequency, db:
> 20 +6
> 55 +6
> 160 0
> 400 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Main speaker level unchanged from where Audyssey sets it.
> 
> 
> Subwoofer:
> 
> 
> Control Points:
> 20 +6
> 55 +6
> 160 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subwoofer Level increased 6 db from where Audyssey sets it.



Jon AA, I would like to clarify the above the main speakers @ 20hz is boosted +6dB? The freq curve don't show the boost @ 20hz..


----------



## Jon AA

Yes, the boost is in the file but the speakers aren't capable of 20 Hz so Audyssey doesn't try. I explain it a couple posts above. If running a house curve with some amount of bass boost, I don't try to tailor each curve to the capabilities of each speaker--I just add the boost all the way to 20 Hz and let Audyssey figure out the appropriate rolloff for each speaker. Much easier that way and it seems to do it right.


----------



## Sockin

Hi, I just picked up an AVR-X3400H specifically for the XT32. I currently have a X1200H and am hoping for a big upgrade. I don't believe I did the Audyssey correcting and want to get it right with this new system. I picked up the stand and adapter for the mic. I have a few questions, I live in a small condo and my our couch is against the back wall and we can't afford it space wise to move it forward much. How would I go about doing listening positions 7 and 8 for this? Secondly, this is going to sound dumb, am I supposed to place the mic stand onto the couch cushions or am I to move the couch and place it on the floor for this? Thank you to whomever responds.


----------



## garygarrison

Sockin said:


> Hi, I just picked up an AVR-X3400H specifically for the XT32. I currently have a X1200H and am* hoping for a big upgrade*. I don't believe I did the Audyssey correcting and want to get it right with this new system. I picked up the stand and adapter for the mic. I have a few questions, I live in a small condo and my* our couch is against the back wall and we can't afford it space wise to move it forward much.* *How would I go about doing listening positions 7 and 8 for this?* Secondly, this is going to sound dumb, *am I supposed to place the mic stand onto the couch cushions or am I to move the couch and place it on the floor for this?* Thank you to whomever responds.



 Audyssey provides a big upgrade for some people, and not for others. I got a big upgrade even with the older Audyssey XT. A lot may depend on a) how much time and effort you put into it (including reading the link below), b) How big a problem your room is, c) how flat your speakers are, d) how well placed both the speakers and listeners are, e) as always, unknown variables potentially varying from making no audible difference to a great audible difference. Don't expect too much, but listen carefully to a variety of music and movies, and I don't think you'll be disappointed.
Try some absorbers on the back wall behind your head and couch. You may want to read up on absorbers and diffusors (your wall is too close to your head for most diffusors to work well.
As to positions 7 and 8, I don't think mic positions are set in stone (although I think I hear Elmer Bernstein in the background). Try mic 7 and 8 in a couple of other locations and see what you think. See what Mike says in the link below. You could try putting the proverbial fuzzy blanket (folded over several times) or a professional absorber behind those two mic positions. Consider leaving it there.
" ... am I supposed to place the mic stand onto the couch cushions or am I to move the couch and place it on the floor for this?" Depends on what you mean. The base of the stand can be on the floor (make sure it is not vibrating with the bass), but, IMO, _put the mic itself at *ear height*_. This is easy to do if your have a mic stand with a mic boom or yardarm. (A baby boomer is not recommended, although if one of us lives nearby .... actually, the human hand is no place for a mic in this kind of application). Leave the couch at listening position, because it could have a great effect on the sound. I've been accused of having OCD (I'm sure I do) for saying this, but I would wrap the highly reflective metal stand and boom (but not the mic!) with a towel before running Audyssey. Why add in imponderables?
 Here is a link to some information by Mike Thomas on Audyssey and a good deal more, including subs, Home Theater, etc. It is the War and Peace, or Wood's Natural History of Home Theater/room EQ & preference, although, fortunately, not the Finnigan's Wake -- it is quite clearly written, and worth the read.

 

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

*** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


----------



## Eggtuary

I didn’t catch before that Audyssey adjusts the absolute level of our target curves. So would I get the same result using the attached curve, as Jon was getting with his curve that starts at +6 dB at 20 Hz and goes to +0 at the same point in the curve where mine goes to -6 dB? I tried it and it sounds pretty great!

Below is Jon's graph that I'm trying to copy (but you'll have to open my attachment to see my attempt). Rather than driving myself nuts trying to lift the curve at 20 Hz by 6 dB as he's done here, I'm leaving that part of the curve at +0, and lowering the right-hand portion of the curve. 









[/quote]


----------



## Brucey

For those with the audyssey multeq app. Can you change your front speakers crossover frequency? I’m trying to edit mine to 80 but every time I do it reverts back to 40. Could really use some help. Is there a way to edit the crossover on my denon x3400 receiver instead? 

This must be a recent bug cause I could change it to 80 the other day


----------



## sjm817

Brucey said:


> For those with the audyssey multeq app. Can you change your front speakers crossover frequency? I’m trying to edit mine to 80 but every time I do it reverts back to 40. Could really use some help. Is there a way to edit the crossover on my denon x3400 receiver instead?
> 
> This must be a recent bug cause I could change it to 80 the other day


Ive always adjusted crossover in the AVR.


----------



## Brucey

sjm817 said:


> Ive always adjusted crossover in the AVR.


When I click manual set up I can change the crossover. But then when I go to audyssey set up the speaker crossover is different and can’t be changed. How do I change the audyssey speaker crossover? 

Thanks so much for helping!


----------



## sjm817

Brucey said:


> When I click manual set up I can change the crossover. But then when I go to audyssey set up the speaker crossover is different and can’t be changed. How do I change the audyssey speaker crossover?
> 
> Thanks so much for helping!


You do it in the manual setup. Speakers set to small, then crossover setting.


----------



## Brucey

sjm817 said:


> You do it in the manual setup. Speakers set to small, then crossover setting.


Sorry for being an idiot, so if I Make changes in manual setup they will affect audyssey setup? I thought any changes made in manual wouldn’t affect audyssey. Like they’re two separate things. 

So if I go into manual and set everything to 80. I can still have my audyssey calibrated speakers working and they’ll have the crossover of 80?

How come when I check the results in the audyssey setup menu they don’t change? They’re still stuck on the old crossover? (Sorry again for being dumb)


----------



## sjm817

Brucey said:


> Sorry for being an idiot, so if I Make changes in manual setup they will affect audyssey setup? I thought any changes made in manual wouldn’t affect audyssey. Like they’re two separate things.
> 
> So if I go into manual and set everything to 80. I can still have my audyssey calibrated speakers working and they’ll have the crossover of 80?
> 
> How come when I check the results in the audyssey setup menu they don’t change? They’re still stuck on the old crossover? (Sorry again for being dumb)


It can be confusing. Audyssey doesnt set the crossover. The Denon does. Audyssey sweeps provide info to the AVR and it sets the crossover. Check results is what was seen/set but does not reflect changes that you make after. 

Running audyssey and then manual setting to small/80Hz is a pretty standard workflow


----------



## Brucey

sjm817 said:


> It can be confusing. Audyssey doesnt set the crossover. The Denon does. Audyssey sweeps provide info to the AVR and it sets the crossover. Check results is what was seen/set but does not reflect changes that you make after.
> 
> Running audyssey and then manual setting to small/80Hz is a pretty standard workflow


Oh ok! So audyssey is just showing the initial settings. Not the current. Manual setup shows all the new settings. Got it. As long as manual setup shows 80hz and I can select audyssey audio like dynamic eq/ dynamic volume (so I know audyssey is enabled) then I’m all good to go?


----------



## SouthernCA

sjm817 said:


> It can be confusing. Audyssey doesnt set the crossover. The Denon does. Audyssey sweeps provide info to the AVR and it sets the crossover. Check results is what was seen/set but does not reflect changes that you make after.
> 
> 
> 
> Running audyssey and then manual setting to small/80Hz is a pretty standard workflow


Since Audyssey had selected the cross over at 40 Hz and corrected the sub till 40 Hz, what happens when you move the crossover to 80 Hz? Does Audyssey then applies additional filter to the sub to correct the response from 40 to 80 Hz?


----------



## sjm817

SouthernCA said:


> Since Audyssey had selected the cross over at 40 Hz and corrected the sub till 40 Hz, what happens when you move the crossover to 80 Hz? Does Audyssey then applies additional filter to the sub to correct the response from 40 to 80 Hz?


I dont think it corrects the sub only to the crossover of the LR but not sure how it works. Need someone much smarter than me like @mthomas47 to explain.


----------



## sjm817

Brucey said:


> Oh ok! So audyssey is just showing the initial settings. Not the current. Manual setup shows all the new settings. Got it. As long as manual setup shows 80hz and I can select audyssey audio like dynamic eq/ dynamic volume (so I know audyssey is enabled) then I’m all good to go?


Yes (dont use DV)


----------



## Brucey

sjm817 said:


> Yes (dont use DV)


Awesome! Thanks so much for your help!! Really appreciate it !


----------



## pbz06

XT32 + Marantz SR7011 finds and sets my speakers:
L/R: Large
C: 40hz
SR: 90hz
Top Front: 60hz
Top Rear: 80hz

I switch to:
L/R: Small/60hz
C: 60hz
SR: 90hz
Top Front: 100hz
Top Rear: 100z
LPF of LFE: 100hz

Dynamic EQ: On (I listen normally at -10dB so I drop the rear surrounds and rear tops by -2dB so it's balanced; I leave the subwoofer alone because I like what it does)


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> Since Audyssey had selected the cross over at 40 Hz and corrected the sub till 40 Hz, what happens when you move the crossover to 80 Hz? Does Audyssey then applies additional filter to the sub to correct the response from 40 to 80 Hz?





sjm817 said:


> I dont think it corrects the sub only to the crossover of the LR but not sure how it works. Need someone much smarter than me like @*mthomas47* to explain.



Thank you very much for the compliment, but all of your advice has been spot on! 

The crossovers, levels, distance settings, and ancillary software programs such as DEQ and the tone controls, have nothing whatsoever to do with the EQ filters that Audyssey sets. (I'm trying to be complete in my answer, but even so someone may ask about some other setting. ) As long as Audyssey is engaged, it's filters remain in place unless you manually change them with the app.

Audyssey EQ's the full frequency range of every speaker, and the combined sound of the subwoofers. At the frequency where a speaker or subwoofer rolls-off by 3db, Audyssey stops setting any control points to EQ the frequency response. Stopping at what some people call the F3 point prevents Audyssey from inadvertently over-boosting a speaker or subwoofer.

As noted in previous posts, the crossovers are set depending on the pre-programmed response of the AVR, based on information provided by the Audyssey measurements. That initial crossover setting (or the setting of Large) is not a recommendation. It's more like a notification of where the speaker (or speaker pair) is beginning to roll-off in a given position, in a given room. 

After the Audyssey calibration, it is a good idea to change most speakers to Small, with an 80Hz or higher crossover. There are exceptions to that, depending on the low-bass response of a speaker, but 60Hz is typically as low as most people would recommend going. Dropping crossovers below where the AVR set them is the only instance where there would be no EQ (below the original crossover) because Audyssey would have stopped EQing below the F3 point of that speaker. The original crossover informs you of approximately the frequency where Audyssey stopped setting control points.

I hope this additional explanation helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you very much for the compliment, but all of your advice has been spot on!
> 
> The crossovers, levels, distance settings, and ancillary software programs such as DEQ and the tone controls, have nothing whatsoever to do with the EQ filters that Audyssey sets. (I'm trying to be complete in my answer, but even so someone may ask about some other setting. ) As long as Audyssey is engaged, it's filters remain in place unless you manually change them with the app.
> 
> Audyssey EQ's the full frequency range of every speaker, and the combined sound of the subwoofers. At the frequency where a speaker or subwoofer rolls-off by 3db, Audyssey stops setting any control points to EQ the frequency response. Stopping at what some people call the F3 point prevents Audyssey from inadvertently over-boosting a speaker or subwoofer.
> 
> As noted in previous posts, the crossovers are set depending on the pre-programmed response of the AVR, based on information provided by the Audyssey measurements. That initial crossover setting (or the setting of Large) is not a recommendation. It's more like a notification of where the speaker (or speaker pair) is beginning to roll-off in a given position, in a given room.
> 
> After the Audyssey calibration, it is a good idea to change most speakers to Small, with an 80Hz or higher crossover. There are exceptions to that, depending on the low-bass response of a speaker, but 60Hz is typically as low as most people would recommend going. Dropping crossovers below where the AVR set them is the only instance where there would be no EQ (below the original crossover) because Audyssey would have stopped EQing below the F3 point of that speaker. The original crossover informs you of approximately the frequency where Audyssey stopped setting control points.
> 
> I hope this additional explanation helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the explanation. 

Do you know if Denon X3500 uses 2nd order or 4th order crossover for both high pass and low pass filters?


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> Do you know if Denon X3500 uses 2nd order or 4th order crossover for both high pass and low pass filters?



Denon/Marantz crossovers use 2nd order (12db/octave) high-pass filters for the speakers, and 4th order (24db/octave) low-pass filters for the subs.


----------



## wyld0

*Is XT32 the same?*

Is Audyssey XT32 in today's Denon and Marantz pretty much the same as XT32 from 4 years ago?

I have a Marantz SR7009 with XT32 + SubEQ HT I got in 2015 that I thought was future proofed since it supports 4k but alas no HDR. I'm hoping to find an additional benefit to buying a new receiver and was looking to see if I could improve sound quality as well from upgraded room correction.

I have read several posts comparing room correction software and seems that Dirac is generally thought to be better than XT32 and I already have a UMIK-1 but the receivers that support Dirac seem to get mixed reviews. I'm also curious how Anthem and the new ARC Genesis plays in since I haven't found much comparing it to XT32 and Dirac. Anthem seems to be well regarded as a brand otherwise. 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Denon/Marantz crossovers use 2nd order (12db/octave) high-pass filters for the speakers, and 4th order (24db/octave) low-pass filters for the subs.


Thanks. You are full of great info.

Shouldn't we have both 4th order in order to not have a bump at the cross over point when both speakers cross? Or am incorrect on my math?

What do you do to reduce this bump due to this mismatch?


----------



## jdsmoothie

Although XT32 is the same, unfortunately the SR7009 does not support 4k as originally advertised due to HDCP being upgraded to 2.2.


----------



## wyld0

Thanks for confirming. Sounds like if I want to get more benefit from an AVR upgrade other than just HDCP 2.2 support, I'll need to consider another brand that supports one of the better room correction technologies. Would be interested to hear any recommendations!

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

SouthernCA said:


> ... Shouldn't we have both 4th order in order to not have a bump at the cross over point when both speakers cross? Or am incorrect on my math?
> 
> What do you do to reduce this bump due to this mismatch?


IIRC, when I ran REW several times, there was *no* bump at my crossover at 80 Hz, with speakers set on "small." YMMV.

With many modern recordings, you may _*want*_ a gradual bump in the bass, but not necessarily at the crossover. See Chris A's threads, including "The Missing Octave," on the Klipsch forum. See also, "Down with Flat" by J. Gordon Holt, the founder of _*Stereophile, *_available in the _*Stereophile *_archive.

"Flat," IMO, is a good place to start. Audyssey will provide you with a smooth curve rather than a kinky one, and will dump the major anomalies that you didn't ask for. Then adjust to your personal preference. 

After Audyssey I adjusted my system to my preference, putting in a broad bass bump from about 20 Hz to 200 Hz, gentle on the 200 Hz end. This is in accord with many preference curves, like Harman's or B&K's, except I don't turn down the treble (except on a few problem recordings).

Mike Thomas discusses bass preference in his guide.


----------



## SouthernCA

garygarrison said:


> IIRC, when I ran REW several times, there was *no* bump at my crossover at 80 Hz, with speakers set on "small." YMMV.
> 
> With many modern recordings, you may _*want*_ a gradual bump in the bass, but not necessarily at the crossover. See Chris A's threads, including "The Missing Octave," on the Klipsch forum. See also, "Down with Flat" by J. Gordon Holt, the founder of _*Stereophile, *_available in the _*Stereophile *_archive.
> 
> "Flat," IMO, is a good place to start. Audyssey will provide you with a smooth curve rather than a kinky one, and will dump the major anomalies that you didn't ask for. Then adjust to your personal preference.
> 
> After Audyssey I adjusted my system to my preference, putting in a broad bass bump from about 20 Hz to 200 Hz, gentle on the 200 Hz end. This is in accord with many preference curves, like Harman's or B&K's, except I don't turn down the treble (except on a few problem recordings).
> 
> Mike Thomas discusses bass preference in his guide.


I searched for the reference you mentioned. Did not find it yet. Will Google it. 

Could you share the links if they are available? Thanks.


----------



## SouthernCA

garygarrison said:


> IIRC, when I ran REW several times, there was *no* bump at my crossover at 80 Hz, with speakers set on "small." YMMV.
> 
> With many modern recordings, you may _*want*_ a gradual bump in the bass, but not necessarily at the crossover. See Chris A's threads, including "The Missing Octave," on the Klipsch forum. See also, "Down with Flat" by J. Gordon Holt, the founder of _*Stereophile, *_available in the _*Stereophile *_archive.
> 
> "Flat," IMO, is a good place to start. Audyssey will provide you with a smooth curve rather than a kinky one, and will dump the major anomalies that you didn't ask for. Then adjust to your personal preference.
> 
> After Audyssey I adjusted my system to my preference, putting in a broad bass bump from about 20 Hz to 200 Hz, gentle on the 200 Hz end. This is in accord with many preference curves, like Harman's or B&K's, except I don't turn down the treble (except on a few problem recordings).
> 
> Mike Thomas discusses bass preference in his guide.


Thank you for info about no bump in crossover region after Audyssey. Not sure how they achieve that with one 2nd order and one 4th order filter. I will check in my set up using REW.

Regarding boosting bass, shouldn't the Dynamic Equalization in Denon take care of that? Not sure if you have DEQ in your AVR.

As you know, DEQ boosts bass volume according to Fletcher Munsen curve below reference volume level.


----------



## garygarrison

SouthernCA said:


> Regarding boosting bass, shouldn't the Dynamic Equalization in Denon take care of that? As you know, DEQ boosts bass volume according to Fletcher Munsen curve below reference ...





SouthernCA said:


> I searched for the reference you mentioned. Did not find it yet. Will Google it.
> 
> Could you share the links if they are available? Thanks.


 DEQ would work for me, if it weren't for two things*:* 1) After months of trying, I don't like the sound of DEQ. It seems to interfere with the highest level of clarity, and sounds less "open" and more "glumpy" than either using tone controls (for LF & RF speakers only ... available when DEQ is off), or subwoofer gain (to properly use the latter, without distortion, see Mike's Guide. 2) I usually playback at 5 to 7 dB below reference level, where very little, or no, F&M or other Loudness compensation is needed. Given all of this, I usually get balanced sound and amazing clarity.

I'll try to find some links and put them below.

One of the long standing fallacies held by some who are suffering from audiophilia is that setting one's sound system for "flat" will provide the most accurate reproduction of the original performance. Some people will set the tone controls for flat, and think they are getting unadulterated sound. I have the impression that the sound is pre-adulterated (by bass roll-off on the original music elements due to usual microphone technique, and the possible use of the bass reducing filter on most good microphones, often nominally at about 100 Hz or 140 Hz), and post-adulterated by the mixers, either EQing and compressing to their taste, with different monitor speakers and control room acoustics than we have at home, or, nowadays, especially with pop/rock/metal, cutting deep bass in order to make the CD as loud as possible by pushing the midrange way up in volume ("The Loudness Wars"). Whether playing vinyl, or CD, or 15 ips reel to reel tape, my friends and I, to get the music to sound like we were used to it sounding when playing in, or listening to, a live orchestra usually reset the bass control to about +2 on the old gear (which was about +8db on both my McIntosh C28 pre-amp and our ever popular Dynakit PAS3 pre-amps). Nowadays most tone controls have less compensation available than that (more like *+/- *6 dB). So, I can get 6 dB out of the tone controls (LF&RF only), boost the sub (see Mike's guide), and I can use a special little box an engineer built for me, that seems to not contribute distortion or phase problems, and gives me an extra 3 dB of bass. All that is on top of Audyssey's room/speaker correction. My current settings, for almost all disks, involve about 9 dB bass boost from around 80 Hz to 160 dB (less toward 160), and about 9 dB below 80 slowly ramping up to +12 dB at 40 Hz. Because of the nature of the subwoofer the response declines below 20 Hz, landing at - 2 dB at 16 Hz, then nothing. The bass boost may seem a lot, but it is similar to that of a few others here, and resembles de-mastering curves.

Many (most?) agree that making up for anomalies in response caused by the room, listening position, and speakers is a good thing (Audyssey attempts to give us that), and several of us agree that making up for departures from real sounding audio that occur in the recording studios is also a good idea, even if it is done -- horrors -- by ear. 

*Holt's* points (https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/index.html) focus on the problem with* high* frequencies as recorded, and as played back. Back when he was writing almost *every* CD sounded a bit harsh and had too much treble for comfort -- unless your loudspeaker was deficient in the highs. He advocated tweaking if the listener was using a loudspeaker with flat-ish high frequency response (a goal for most speaker designers) and turning the treble down. Much distortion lurked in those high frequencies. In my experience, new CDs are often O.K. in the treble, SACDs more likely to be O.K., and Blu-rays are almost always O.K.. I have heard high frequency distortion in the many great magnetic soundtracks of the '50s through the '70s. Using the Audyssey Reference option, by rolling off the treble a bit, returns them to their former glory. 

*Chris A*, on the Klipsch Forum (https://community.klipsch.com/index...taves-audacity-remastering-to-restore-tracks/ ) offers a way to gauge the amount of EQ needed, using another system. It's not a quick read, but worthwhile. Some of the time, you can see the amount of *bass boost* he has used. Here is one example from his thread.


----------



## garygarrison

The graphs in my former post didn't come through, so here is a second try. 



 Fingers crossed.  



No luck.



The deep *bass boost *and *treble attenuation* used in Chris A's de-mastering of one particular CD involved a deep bass boost, 20 to 100 Hz, and a slight decline above.


Although different CDs & films take different EQ, I have found that, EQing by hand and ear, rather than using Chris's superior method, many take a highly similar EQ, with my mostly classical CDs/SACDs and Blu-ray movies.  With new, clean recordings, though, I never attenuate the treble. "Never? Well, hardly ever!"


----------



## CBdicX

*Speakers out of phase.*

Hi, i have 2 *Kef T101* speakers (not Dolby Enabled) *behind the screen* and they bounce from the backwall to the ceiling to the MLP, and this works great.
I use them as *Front Height* and have this way a great WAF 

Only "problem" is that after a Audyssey run they are set out of phase.
Also when i use them as Dolby Enabled (even they are not) still Audyssey will "see" them as out of phase.
When i use them above the screen as "normal" height speakers, all is ok, in phase.

So should i leave them as Audyssey sets them, out of phase, or must i connect hem "wrong" so Audyssey will give a in phase setting ?

(and no, i do not want to use them as normal Height speakers, in sight, this behind the screen is the only way i can use them)


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> *Speakers out of phase.*
> 
> Hi, i have 2 *Kef T101* speakers (not Dolby Enabled) *behind the screen* and they bounce from the backwall to the ceiling to the MLP, and this works great.
> I use them as *Front Height* and have this way a great WAF
> 
> Only "problem" is that after a Audyssey run they are set out of phase.
> Also when i use them as Dolby Enabled (even they are not) still Audyssey will "see" them as out of phase.
> When i use them above the screen as "normal" height speakers, all is ok, in phase.
> 
> So should i leave them as Audyssey sets them, out of phase, or must i connect hem "wrong" so Audyssey will give a in phase setting ?
> 
> (and no, i do not want to use them as normal Height speakers, in sight, this behind the screen is the only way i can use them)



Hi,

If you like the way they sound the way you have them, then I would just ignore Audyssey's out-of-phase warning, and tell it to proceed with the calibration. 

Just to be clear, Audyssey is not setting those speakers out-of-phase. It has no mechanism for doing that. It is simply recognizing them as out-of-phase. Those out-of-phase warnings can erroneously occur occasionally, even with speakers which are absolutely wired and positioned correctly. Just ignore the notification, in this case, and proceed. If you like the final result, that's really all that matters. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SouthernCA

garygarrison said:


> The graphs in my former post didn't come through, so here is a second try.
> 
> 
> 
> Fingers crossed.
> 
> 
> 
> No luck.
> 
> 
> 
> The deep *bass boost *and *treble attenuation* used in Chris A's de-mastering of one particular CD involved a deep bass boost, 20 to 100 Hz, and a slight decline above.
> 
> 
> Although different CDs & films take different EQ, I have found that, EQing by hand and ear, rather than using Chris's superior method, many take a highly similar EQ, with my mostly classical CDs/SACDs and Blu-ray movies.  With new, clean recordings, though, I never attenuate the treble. "Never? Well, hardly ever!"


Thank you Gary for detailed responses.  "Loudness wars" has corrupted many source materials but I thought they were restricted to POP music.  For rest,  most control rooms have been set up with neutral speakers like KEF and Revel.  But I may be wrong.  Let me read and think about that some more.


----------



## prsman

*Speaker Level Test has Very Low Volume*

After Audyssey Room calibration, when I use the Speaker Level test,"Setup Menu/Speakers/Manual Setup/Levels/Test Tone Start/Test Tone", I cannot hear any audio (pink noise) from any speaker unless the volume is turned up to 50 on the reciever (Denon X4500h) and 60 for the subwoofers and then still its a very very low volume.  Its been like this as far as I can remember.  

Is this normal?
Thanks for any insight!


----------



## kaydee6

Jon AA said:


> Yes, the boost is in the file but the speakers aren't capable of 20 Hz so Audyssey doesn't try.  I explain it a couple posts above.  If running a house curve with some amount of bass boost, I don't try to tailor each curve to the capabilities of each speaker--I just add the boost all the way to 20 Hz and let Audyssey figure out the appropriate rolloff for each speaker.  Much easier that way and it seems to do it right.


 @Jon AA

How do you adjust precisely with your fingers with the app in a mobile device. It was a frustrating experience for me that I gave up.
Also, is your center, surround and height speakers set to match the fronts curve?


----------



## garygarrison

Something there is that doesn't love a quote ... not now, anyway.  The forum won't let me quote you,@*SouthernCA*.


It's my understanding that the Loudness Wars affect practices -- compression, limiting, frequency response (especially in regard to bass cuts) almost all of the time in Pop, some of the time in Rock/Metal, and more rarely in jazz and classical.  Some critics have suspected that even audiophile labels are involved.  Re-masters of some Leonard Bernstein recordings are bass-shy and more compressed than the earlier versions.  This would no doubt offend the man who labeled a passage in On the Waterfront, "Presto Barbaro" 



.  I hope I've misunderstood, and this practice is much rarer than I think.


The acoustical signature of control rooms vary widely.  Keith Barnes posted a composite graph on this thread (or its predecessor, Part I) that showed just how varied they are.  If you are into searching, it is amazing to behold. 



KEF and Revel may well be rather neutral in frequency response, but sometimes I wonder what that means in practice, when the Yg Sophia 1.3, advertised as "the world's best speaker" @$100,000 (in 2013) has, in John Atkinson's listening room, a -9, +3.5 dB (+/- 6.25, if you like) 20 to 15K Hz, and two of my very favorite loudspeakers in the world (which will remain nameless) are very uneven in frequency response.


----------



## Alan P

prsman said:


> After Audyssey Room calibration, when I use the Speaker Level test,"Setup Menu/Speakers/Manual Setup/Levels/Test Tone Start/Test Tone", I cannot hear any audio (pink noise) from any speaker unless the volume is turned up to 50 on the reciever (Denon X4500h) and 60 for the subwoofers and then still its a very very low volume.  Its been like this as far as I can remember.
> 
> Is this normal?
> Thanks for any insight!


I believe that on the Absolute volume scale "80" is Reference ("0" on the Relative scale). The test tones from the AVR are output at -30dB below Reference. With your MV setting of "50", the tones should be at just about 40dB. The noise floor of most rooms is usually around 45-50dB.

Taking all the above into account, I am not surprised at all that you have a hard time hearing the tones at those MV levels.


----------



## Jon AA

kaydee6 said:


> How do you adjust precisely with your fingers with the app in a mobile device. It was a frustrating experience for me that I gave up.


I don't blame you.  Luckily a member here was gracious enough to write a free program to help with changing the file:    https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-tool-tweaking-audyssey-multeq-app-files.html


I simply type the values in.  Makes it fast and easy to do and you can get it exactly the same every time.



> Also, is your center, surround and height speakers set to match the fronts curve?


Short answer, yes.  That's the most simple easy way to go if all your speakers are similar.  It only takes a couple of minutes typing them into Ratbuddy to get them all exactly the same.  The curves you get in the app will look different, particularly in the bass region, but the goal is to have the overall curves all look the same after crossing over with the sub.



 If you're using different types of speakers, especially if they have significantly different directivity, you may want to try some different things as they may sound notably different even when corrected to the same curve, but that's getting into the weeds a little bit and mostly affects higher frequencies--not the bass frequencies I was talking about in prior posts.


----------



## kaydee6

@Jon AA,

Thanks for the reply. I manage to dial them in with my finger. God bless my finger..wonder what the designers of the app is thinking!? 

My initial listening is very positive. I have dialed in according to your numbers and perhaps to the increased gain at 55hz of the LCR, the bass go much louder than when I had with DEQ turn on at ref=0dB (default reference curve). I hear much more low frequency action from the LCR now. Bass for music sounded just about right. I will assess for a longer period to be certain but for now it's certainly got me excited.


----------



## prsman

Alan P said:


> I believe that on the Absolute volume scale "80" is Reference ("0" on the Relative scale). The test tones from the AVR are output at -30dB below Reference. With your MV setting of "50", the tones should be at just about 40dB. The noise floor of most rooms is usually around 45-50dB.
> 
> Taking all the above into account, I am not surprised at all that you have a hard time hearing the tones at those MV levels.


 Thanks. The volume is started out so low I suppose for safety reasons and I just need to turn it up to clearly hear the tones. Thanks the explanation.


----------



## Eggtuary

garygarrison said:


> The acoustical signature of control rooms vary widely. Keith Barnes posted a composite graph on this thread (or its predecessor, Part I) that showed just how varied they are. If you are into searching, it is amazing to behold.


If anyone finds this, can you post a link? I'd love to see that.


----------



## prsman

*Shouldn't Audyssey Roll off Sub to blend with Mains?*

After a room EQ with Audyssey using MultiEQ, and inspecting the sub results, there does not seem to be a rolloff to blend with the rest of the system. If the mains are set to 80hz low end should not the subs blend in at 80hz with a rolloff? Is this something that needs to be done manually using the curve editor of MultiEQ? Ive attached the Audyssey results for the sub and it doesnt seem to have a roll off. It just stops where Audyssey quiets measuring. Can provide some insight for me here?
thank you


----------



## mogorf

prsman said:


> After a room EQ with Audyssey using MultiEQ, and inspecting the sub results, there does not seem to be a rolloff to blend with the rest of the system. If the mains are set to 80hz low end should not the subs blend in at 80hz with a rolloff? Is this something that needs to be done manually using the curve editor of MultiEQ? Ive attached the Audyssey results for the sub and it doesnt seem to have a roll off. It just stops where Audyssey quiets measuring. Can provide some insight for me here?
> thank you



Something definitely seems wrong here but dunno what. The red AFTER graph shows the sub rolling off at 300 Hz!! That should not be the case when selecting a crossover in the AVR at 80 Hz! Care to check your AVR's setup again?


----------



## Jon AA

The results show the basic response with no crossover applied. It's fine. For each speaker set to small, the sub will have the rolloff applied at the appropriate frequency. You just can't see that in the app, you need to measure it if curious.


----------



## prsman

Jon AA said:


> The results show the basic response with no crossover applied. It's fine. For each speaker set to small, the sub will have the rolloff applied at the appropriate frequency. You just can't see that in the app, you need to measure it if curious.


Im unclear on your message, "For each speaker set to small the sub will have the rolloff applied at the appropriate frequency". If I have the Front set to large, that wide open right?, they go down to 35hz. What should the sub curve look like to blend then, does it roll off at 35hz? If set to small and 80hz should the sub roll off at 80hz?.


----------



## Jon AA

If your speaker is set to large, the sub won't play at all so it's curve doesn't matter. If you set it to small and 80 hz, yes, the sub will rolloff centered at 80 hz--but there's no way to see that in the app.


----------



## Alan P

prsman said:


> Im unclear on your message, "For each speaker set to small the sub will have the rolloff applied at the appropriate frequency". If I have the Front set to large, that wide open right?, they go down to 35hz. What should the sub curve look like to blend then, does it roll off at 35hz? If set to small and 80hz should the sub roll off at 80hz?.


As Jon mentioned, if you would actually like to use your subwoofer, all speakers must be set to "Small" (read: Bass Management On). With your mains set to "Large" (read: Bass Management Off), the only thing that will be sent to your subs is the LFE channel in 5.1/7.1 content.

FYI, those graphs you see of your "result" in the Audyssey app (or under Audyssey on the AVR) are not actual measurements of the response...they are only a rough estimate of your post-calibration results. As someone else mentioned, if you want to see your actual response, start with the REW link in my sig.


----------



## prsman

Jon AA said:


> If your speaker is set to large, the sub won't play at all so it's curve doesn't matter. If you set it to small and 80 hz, yes, the sub will rolloff centered at 80 hz--but there's no way to see that in the app.


 Thanks, I understand. I try different settings, set the fronts to small and then listen my reference ATMOS demos to assess the goodness of stuff.


----------



## garygarrison

@SouthernCA,


Your reply appeared on my AOL notice, but not on the AVS forum itself, at least not on my screen. Here is the version of what you said that appeared on my email*:*


_"Yes. Agree that all control rooms are not set exactly the same and there are no standards. But that problem can not be fixed by any one frequency response set up at our end. Not flat and not reference or any other*. It needs to be adjusted for each song or album.* "Circle of confusion" in deed."_


I took a class at San Francisco State University called "Discover your Ears," in which we visited virtually every sound studio in the San Francisco Bay Area. All of the studios seemed to sound different, and not all "good," IMO. The engineers weren't under pressure to create a signature sound back then, as far as we knew, and we didn't hear about shoving the sound up against the full scale ceiling via compression &/or bass cuts. They just sat around with the talent and discussed the mix over wine, cheese, and other substances from nature's bounty. Well, that happened in some places, with some groups, anyway. 

_*
*_
I agree that the EQ needs to be set for each selection, or album -- by ear -- if we have the energy to do so. The funny thing is ... once I ended up finding that a sort of average EQ, involving post-Audyssey bass boost, was acceptable, if not right on, for virtually all Blu-rays, and most SACDs & CDs, and was virtually always better than _*no*_ post-Audyssey correction, I lulled into a warm and fuzzy complacency about the whole thing. Having the center line EQ in force as my default usually satisfies me. I'll change it if I get a CD that needs it. Two or three Blu-rays have required a change, including one -- How the West Was Won -- that required extraordinarily odd EQ. 



"Circle of Confusion" was the name of the photography club at my high school.


----------



## prsman

*Are Speaker Levels Operator or Audyssey Determined?*

I read the Denon 4500h manual and Im left with the impression that the operator needs to set the levels at each speaker using the Speaker Level Test or"Setup Menu/Speakers/Manual Setup/Levels/Test Tone Start/Test Tone".
Is the volume balance or levels a manual adjustment and not performed by Audyssey?


Ive always felt the back and side rears were always too loud and trimmed them lower using the Denon with Option/Channel Level Adjust.
So is this level or volume setting I need to do manually as part of the Audyssey setup?


Thanks for any insight!


----------



## mogorf

prsman said:


> I read the Denon 4500h manual and Im left with the impression that the operator needs to set the levels at each speaker using the Speaker Level Test or"Setup Menu/Speakers/Manual Setup/Levels/Test Tone Start/Test Tone".
> Is the volume balance or levels a manual adjustment and not performed by Audyssey?
> 
> 
> Ive always felt the back and side rears were always too loud and trimmed them lower using the Denon with Option/Channel Level Adjust.
> So is this level or volume setting I need to do manually as part of the Audyssey setup?
> 
> 
> Thanks for any insight!



Speaker channel levels (including subwoofer/s) are automatically set by Audyssey MultEQ during the setup session, namely from the first mic position at MLP (Main Listening Position). MultiEQ does a really good job for level matching all speakers in the system, so there is really no need to re-adjust them after the setup is finished. Some like to turn up the subwoofer level a bit to taste by a couple of dBs afterwards.


----------



## prsman

mogorf said:


> Speaker channel levels (including subwoofer/s) are automatically set by Audyssey .


Im a bit dissapointed to hear that really because the rear and back channels are too loud after Audyssey calibration. I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration. I need to back off the volume 6-9db from where Audyssey put them. Why do you think that is?


----------



## mogorf

prsman said:


> Im a bit dissapointed to hear that really because the rear and back channels are too loud after Audyssey calibration. I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration. I need to back off the volume 6-9db from where Audyssey put them. Why do you think that is?



Wow! 6-9 dBs seems like something out of the extraordinary. What program materials are you listening to? Movies? Music? Or game?


----------



## Mactavish

prsman said:


> Im a bit dissapointed to hear that really because the rear and back channels are too loud after Audyssey calibration. I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration. I need to back off the volume 6-9db from where Audyssey put them. Why do you think that is?


I might suggest reading up on the recommended Audyssey mic placements if you haven’t, as well as alternate “closer mic” placements. Based on you saying: “I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration.” That might be an issue.


----------



## primetimeguy

prsman said:


> Im a bit dissapointed to hear that really because the rear and back channels are too loud after Audyssey calibration. I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration. I need to back off the volume 6-9db from where Audyssey put them. Why do you think that is?


My guess is you have Dynamic Eq turned on. Turn that off. 

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk


----------



## prsman

Mactavish said:


> I might suggest reading up on the recommended Audyssey mic placements if you haven’t, as well as alternate “closer mic” placements. Based on you saying: “I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration.” That might be an issue.





primetimeguy said:


> My guess is you have Dynamic Eq turned on. Turn that off.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk



100% movies. I thought having the mic closer to the rear speakers will help Audyssey reduce the volume there. Why would that mic location be an issue as that position is the main listening position. 

What ive read on Audyssem mic position, other then the pattern of 2ft distance around the MLP had do do with distance from a wall and at the MLP its 8 ft from the wall. Ive attached a diagram of the mic positioning. Do you think since the MLP is near a corner thats a problems? Why the 2ft spacing for each EQ measurement? Is my case one where I should place the mics differently?


----------



## Eggtuary

prsman said:


> 100% movies. I thought having the mic closer to the rear speakers will help Audyssey reduce the volume there. Why would that mic location be an issue as that position is the main listening position.
> 
> What ive read on Audyssem mic position, other then the pattern of 2ft distance around the MLP had do do with distance from a wall and at the MLP its 8 ft from the wall. Ive attached a diagram of the mic positioning. Do you think since the MLP is near a corner thats a problems? Why the 2ft spacing for each EQ measurement? Is my case one where I should place the mics differently?


You may just be the kind of person who prefers the sound to be more in front of you. If you think the surrounds and rears are too loud, then they are too loud for you. Turn them down to your preference. 

I'm kind of the same way. I have my surrounds at a position somewhat forward of the main listening position. it's less immersive than having the surrounds to my sides or even slightly behind me, as many people use. But I like that. To me, it actually connects better to the sound on the screen. When too much of the sound is beside or behind me, it seems ... artificial somehow? I'm not sure how to say it.

Also, I have some hearing loss in my right ear. So I have to boost the volume on my surround right speaker to make the system sound balanced for me. It's a little weird for guests who visit, but I can always even it out for them when they're over.

Anyway, feel free to mess with the channel levels. But I wouldn't do it in the Audyssey setup. It's much faster to change (and follow up with additional adjustments later) through hitting the Option button on your remote, and then adjusting the channel volume on the next volume.


----------



## prsman

Eggtuary said:


> You may just be the kind of person who prefers the sound to be more in front of you. .


 Probably. I do have the auto EQ on so Ill try that too, otherwise Ill just make level adjustments like you suggested.


----------



## pbz06

prsman said:


> Im a bit dissapointed to hear that really because the rear and back channels are too loud after Audyssey calibration. I even have the microphone 3/4 the way in the back of the room or closest to the rear speakers during the calibration. I need to back off the volume 6-9db from where Audyssey put them. Why do you think that is?


DEQ adds about 1.1dB per -5dB of the master volume (relative to reference 0). Since I listen to most of my movies at -10dB, after Audyssey I adjust the Surrounds and Top Rear to -2dB..


----------



## zcraig

*Multi XT32 / SUQ EQ HT*

I have a pair of SVS PB-1000s with opposing corner placement. My AVR is the Denon AVR-X6200W, which has has dual sub-outs and Audyssey Multi-XT32 and SUBEQ-HT. Recently it had to go in for service and I was given a loaner Integra DTR-40.6, which only has one sub out and "lesser" Audyssey product. With the loaner I was kind of blown away with what I thought I was always lacking, some impactful bass. The dialogue of deep voices had that true cinematic sound and the action was chest pounding. Music had life.

I have done a lot of research and applied the 80hz frequency across all speakers, mic placement patterns...etc. The room is carpeted, closed, and acoustically treated with 7 2x4' panels and three large bas traps. 

The main differences, Audyssey aside, was the Integra only has one sub out and I used a y-splitter for the two subs. With the , Denon I always used the two sub outs to utilize SUQEQ and matched each sub to -75dB and Audyssey always applied a high negative trim, -10+-.05dB. So I thought I would experiment using the only one sub out on the Denon and using the Y-splitter for the two subs. Both subs still individually matched to -75dB (did not adjust the gain on the subs at all), Audyssey only applied a -3.0dB correction. I haven't watched any movies yet, but initially music sounds better, not sure as good as the Integra, but significantly.

Is there something inherently wrong with Denon's implementation of XT32 with dual subs, or am I doing something wrong. I'd love to have XT32 do individual corrections for each sub, but the y-splitter as of now will be my go to. Any advice for me to tinker with would be great.


----------



## garygarrison

garygarrison said:


> The acoustical signature of control rooms vary widely. Keith Barnes posted a composite graph on this thread (or its predecessor, Part I) that showed just how varied they are. If you are into searching, it is amazing to behold.



I still haven't been able to find that graph he posted. Actually I see where he posted it _*twice*_, but the graph is gone and the "forget looking at this" icon has replaced it. Did anybody transfer it to a personal Word file that you can acceess, or a picture file of some kind?

Here is a bit of possibly related information. For years, 1/3 octave smoothing was a standard measurement tool. It is not used as often now. People on this forum agreed to use 1/6th octave smoothing, at one time. Here, the bottom graph is close to 1/3 octave smoothing, while the top one is much higher resolution.
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachments/studio-building-acoustics/234659d1305280303-*best-mix-room-planet*-graph2.jpg Since the combination of control room and speakers is not flat, even without the monkeying around of the "suits" conducting the loudness wars, Reference with a capital R, and "hearing what the mixers heard" is illusory. 


It may be that all we can really do is*:*



Reduce room anomalies with Audyssey, room treatments, speaker and listener position.


Adjust 'preference' EQ for each selection, album, or movie, *by ear*, when we feel it is needed.


----------



## mthomas47

zcraig said:


> I have a pair of SVS PB-1000s with opposing corner placement. My AVR is the Denon AVR-X6200W, which has has dual sub-outs and Audyssey Multi-XT32 and SUBEQ-HT. Recently it had to go in for service and I was given a loaner Integra DTR-40.6, which only has one sub out and "lesser" Audyssey product. With the loaner I was kind of blown away with what I thought I was always lacking, some impactful bass. The dialogue of deep voices had that true cinematic sound and the action was chest pounding. Music had life.
> 
> I have done a lot of research and applied the 80hz frequency across all speakers, mic placement patterns...etc. The room is carpeted, closed, and acoustically treated with 7 2x4' panels and three large bas traps.
> 
> The main differences, Audyssey aside, was the Integra only has one sub out and I used a y-splitter for the two subs. With the , Denon I always used the two sub outs to utilize SUQEQ and matched each sub to -75dB and Audyssey always applied a high negative trim, -10+-.05dB. So I thought I would experiment using the only one sub out on the Denon and using the Y-splitter for the two subs. Both subs still individually matched to -75dB (did not adjust the gain on the subs at all), Audyssey only applied a -3.0dB correction. I haven't watched any movies yet, but initially music sounds better, not sure as good as the Integra, but significantly.
> 
> Is there something inherently wrong with Denon's implementation of XT32 with dual subs, or am I doing something wrong. I'd love to have XT32 do individual corrections for each sub, but the y-splitter as of now will be my go to. Any advice for me to tinker with would be great.



Hi,

There is nothing inherently wrong with Audyssey's implementation of XT-32 with SubEQ, and most people get great results with it, although there can sometimes be phase cancellation issues wherever two subs on opposing walls are concerned. You could do the sub distance tweak, explained in Section III-C of the Guide, linked below, if you want to test that idea. 

I'm not sure I am following exactly what the Integra did with your subwoofers, but it sounds as if you ended-up with your subs set to a higher volume level with the Integra. One of the things that is not quite as well understood as it might be, is that after XT-32 set your two subs to about -10.5 in trim level, you could have (and probably should have) turned them up.

Section II of the Guide, linked in my signature, goes into quite a bit of detail on this issue of why we need to add bass after a calibration, and how to do it. So I won't try to recap it all here. Simply put, though, just adjust your bass volume to taste, so that you get the chest pounding effect you are looking for.

As for the use of the Y-splitter, YMMV!  In theory, you should be better off with Audyssey setting distances (timing) and levels separately, for subs in opposing corners. So, I would default to that method first, perhaps with the distance tweak, and would just try turning-up the volume of the subs subsequent to the calibration.

On the other hand, if you honestly feel that you get better listening results from Y-connecting both subs into a single sub out, then who's to say that you are wrong? Absent measurements of the frequency response, using both methods, it's all Monday morning quarterbacking to second-guess what you hear. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Alan P said:


> As Jon mentioned, if you would actually like to use your subwoofer, all speakers must be set to "Small" (read: Bass Management On). With your mains set to "Large" (read: Bass Management Off), the only thing that will be sent to your subs is the LFE channel in 5.1/7.1 content.
> 
> FYI, those graphs you see of your "result" in the Audyssey app (or under Audyssey on the AVR) are not actual measurements of the response...they are only a rough estimate of your post-calibration results. As someone else mentioned, if you want to see your actual response, start with the REW link in my sig.


Is this correct?

My understanding is that *all* speakers don't have to be set to "Small" for bass management to function. My understanding is that bass management will be applied to those speakers which are set to "Small" and not applied to those set to "Large", and that bass management will work provided at least 1 speaker is set to "Small".

These days I only run a 2.2 setup and the speaker size setting applies to pairs of speakers so I can't test by setting one of my 2 speakers to "Large" and the other to "Small". I do seem to remember years ago when I was running a 5.1 system that I could run my front L and R as "Large" and the centre and the surround pair as "Small" with bass management being applied only to the centre and surrounds.


----------



## mthomas47

David Aiken said:


> Is this correct?
> 
> My understanding is that *all* speakers don't have to be set to "Small" for bass management to function. My understanding is that bass management will be applied to those speakers which are set to "Small" and not applied to those set to "Large", and that bass management will work provided at least 1 speaker is set to "Small".
> 
> These days I only run a 2.2 setup and the speaker size setting applies to pairs of speakers so I can't test by setting one of my 2 speakers to "Large" and the other to "Small". I do seem to remember years ago when I was running a 5.1 system that I could run my front L and R as "Large" and the centre and the surround pair as "Small" with bass management being applied only to the centre and surrounds.



Hi David,

My understanding has always been that, if the front speakers are set to Large, and other speakers are set to Small, the bass below the crossovers for those other speakers, and any LFE content, would simply be redirected to the front speakers. I just tested this by setting my front speakers to Large, with my other speakers set to Small, and played some bass content that would normally turn-on my subwoofers. (They were definitely engaged in my Speaker Configuration menu.) But, the subs never came on with that content, and it was obvious that they weren't playing.

I believe that Alan is right, and the test with my Marantz 7008 confirms that for at least a limited sample. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SouthernCA

Hi Mike,

I am looking for a guide to Audyssey XT32 that includes theory and explanation for its different features and capabilities .

Can you suggest one?

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> I am looking for a guide to Audyssey XT32 that includes theory and explanation for its different features and capabilities .
> 
> Can you suggest one?
> 
> Thanks



I think that you should read the relevant sections of the FAQ, at the beginning of this thread, and several sections of the Guide. Beyond that, I think you would have to go back to the Audyssey thread Part I, from the time that XT-32 was introduced. There was a lot of discussion of what XT-32 was intended to accomplish, which involved some AVS heavyweights. Some of that discussion, along with some comparison graphs with XT, are captured in the FAQ.

The short answer to your question is that there isn't an easy answer. XT-32 has been around for quite a while, and there have been a number of threads that have discussed it in detail. Like most audio subjects, it can take some independent research to dig out the specific information that you may be looking for. Reference sources such as the Audyssey FAQ and the Guide are intended to collate as much useful information as possible, but they may or may not answer all of your specific questions. That's the best answer I can give you. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi David,
> 
> My understanding has always been that, if the front speakers are set to Large, and other speakers are set to Small, the bass below the crossovers for those other speakers, and any LFE content, would simply be redirected to the front speakers. I just tested this by setting my front speakers to Large, with my other speakers set to Small, and played some bass content that would normally turn-on my subwoofers. (They were definitely engaged in my Speaker Configuration menu.) But, the subs never came on with that content, and it was obvious that they weren't playing.
> 
> I believe that Alan is right, and the test with my Marantz 7008 confirms that for at least a limited sample.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Now, for those who don't know, the following is* not recommended* and yards of text have been written condemning it, but if you want to engage the subwoofer for* all deep bass*, yet *still have the main front speakers set to LARGE, *you can turn on* LFE + Main*, which means bass that is going to your mains, and is being played by them,* also* is sent to the subwoofer, *along with* the *LFE* sound effects below the Low Pass Filter turnover. This is sometimes called "double bass."



What is wrong with that? Some people may get phase attenuation, multipath distortion, etc. Most good subwoofers are considerably more capable than the main speakers at reproducing high SPL bass down to a very low pitch. Cutting off main speakers below a certain frequency by setting them to SMALL gives you slightly more headroom through the main amplifiers and speakers, etc., etc.


But if someone has gargantuan main speakers (mine are 52" high, 32" wide, and 28 1/3 inches deep) that person may wonder, "Why did I buy these huge speakers, if I'm going to stigmatize them by calling them SMALL, cutting them off at 80 Hz?" That may be why many AVRs set the mains to LARGE if they have half-way decent bass. I think that's what Chris K, co-founder and CTO of Audyssey thinks (he thinks they should be set for SMALL, period). I've tried mine both ways, and decided on SMALL. My big mains still give me extraordinary dynamics, and rip roaring bass at about 100 to 200 Hz, without protesting the way some towers with small woofers might.


----------



## torii

its easier to dsp/eq system if speakers set to small. I think audyssey gets confused if people use large + subs


----------



## Jon AA

David Aiken said:


> Is this correct?


No, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. If you want the sub to play for a particular channel, _that channel_ must be set to Small (excluding double bass, LFE+Main settings). If the fronts are set to Large but the surrounds are set to Small, the surrounds will still cross over to the subs, but the fronts won't.


----------



## zcraig

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with Audyssey's implementation of XT-32 with SubEQ, and most people get great results with it, although there can sometimes be phase cancellation issues wherever two subs on opposing walls are concerned. You could do the sub distance tweak, explained in Section III-C of the Guide, linked below, if you want to test that idea.
> 
> I'm not sure I am following exactly what the Integra did with your subwoofers, but it sounds as if you ended-up with your subs set to a higher volume level with the Integra. One of the things that is not quite as well understood as it might be, is that after XT-32 set your two subs to about -10.5 in trim level, you could have (and probably should have) turned them up.
> 
> Section II of the Guide, linked in my signature, goes into quite a bit of detail on this issue of why we need to add bass after a calibration, and how to do it. So I won't try to recap it all here. Simply put, though, just adjust your bass volume to taste, so that you get the chest pounding effect you are looking for.
> 
> As for the use of the Y-splitter, YMMV!  In theory, you should be better off with Audyssey setting distances (timing) and levels separately, for subs in opposing corners. So, I would default to that method first, perhaps with the distance tweak, and would just try turning-up the volume of the subs subsequent to the calibration.
> 
> On the other hand, if you honestly feel that you get better listening results from Y-connecting both subs into a single sub out, then who's to say that you are wrong? Absent measurements of the frequency response, using both methods, it's all Monday morning quarterbacking to second-guess what you hear.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike.

Last night I re-ran as two separate subs, with maybe a bit better mic placement. Trim came in at -7/7.5dB for each sub. I watched Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and it was just lifeless. I even changed the trim to +12dB and yes you can hear more of the subs, but it just wasn't even close to what a movie should sound like.

Here's a response from Ed Mullen at SVS:
"The opposing corner placement could result in XT32 setting non-optimal distances for each subwoofer, which can create a cancellation null. Sometimes running both subs off a single sub-out and then adjusting the phase on the closer unit (hopefully with REW guiding the results) can provide better results.

Also, anecdotally there may be differences in actual calibration level between XT32 and XT in the Integra, even though both claim to be at 75 dB. The 7 dB delta between the two with the same gain level on the subs is possible evidence of that. And 7 dB is a major difference. The only way to confirm would be with an SPL meter (or REW acting as an SPL meter)."

I don't have a mic for REW, but sounds like the next step. 

Anyone on this forum in Denver that has some expertise and maybe has a REW setup...and doesn't mind getting paid in beer?


----------



## mogorf

zcraig said:


> Thanks Mike.
> 
> Last night I re-ran as two separate subs, with maybe a bit better mic placement. Trim came in at -7/7.5dB for each sub. I watched Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and it was just lifeless. I even changed the trim to +12dB and yes you can hear more of the subs, but it just wasn't even close to what a movie should sound like.
> 
> Here's a response from Ed Mullen at SVS:
> "The opposing corner placement could result in XT32 setting non-optimal distances for each subwoofer, which can create a cancellation null. Sometimes running both subs off a single sub-out and then adjusting the phase on the closer unit (hopefully with REW guiding the results) can provide better results.
> 
> Also, anecdotally there may be differences in actual calibration level between XT32 and XT in the Integra, even though both claim to be at 75 dB. The 7 dB delta between the two with the same gain level on the subs is possible evidence of that. And 7 dB is a major difference. The only way to confirm would be with an SPL meter (or REW acting as an SPL meter)."
> 
> I don't have a mic for REW, but sounds like the next step.
> 
> Anyone on this forum in Denver that has some expertise and maybe has a REW setup...and doesn't mind getting paid in beer?



If you download REW it has a Room Simulator feature that you can use to find the optimal placement of your subwoofers (up to 4 ) in your room. Its fun, try it, please! 

P.s.: I wouldn't mind getting paid in beer, but I'm afraid I'm a bit too far from Denver.


----------



## zcraig

mogorf said:


> If you download REW it has a Room Simulator feature that you can use to find the optimal placement of your subwoofers (up to 4 ) in your room. Its fun, try it, please!
> 
> P.s.: I wouldn't mind getting paid in beer, but I'm afraid I'm a bit too far from Denver.


Thanks again Mike. 

I'd also be willing to pay for someone to come out and get my system optimized. So if anyone knows of a good person in Denver I'd love to get their contact info.


----------



## mogorf

zcraig said:


> *Thanks again Mike.*
> 
> I'd also be willing to pay for someone to come out and get my system optimized. So if anyone knows of a good person in Denver I'd love to get their contact info.



Last week I was looking into the mirror and said: "You should not drink any more beer Mike!" Glad my name is not Mike!


----------



## fredxr2d2

zcraig said:


> Thanks again Mike.
> 
> I'd also be willing to pay for someone to come out and get my system optimized. So if anyone knows of a good person in Denver I'd love to get their contact info.



You might have to wait a bit, but Chad B is great at his job: hdtvbychadb.com


----------



## David Aiken

Jon AA said:


> No, I think there is a misunderstanding somewhere. If you want the sub to play for a particular channel, _that channel_ must be set to Small (excluding double bass, LFE+Main settings). If the fronts are set to Large but the surrounds are set to Small, the surrounds will still cross over to the subs, but the fronts won't.


That's the way I thought it worked but Alan P and mthomas47 say it doesn't. They both say you need to have the fronts set to "Small" or no channels cross over to the sub, at least that's the way I read their posts.

I wish Marantz/Denon and other manufacturers would simply get rid of the "Large" and "Small" labels, create a Bass Management item in the menu, and give you a control for each group of speakers where you simply select "On" or "Off" for bass management and set the crossover frequency, all in one sub menu. Of course that would mean they would have to explain to people what "bass management" means but that can't be any harder than explaining to people why large, as in physically large, speakers may need to be set to "small" and that the large/small distinction has nothing to do with physical speaker size. It would also mean that the setting lets people know what they're doing in a clear and accurate manner.


----------



## mogorf

*Friday night quiz*

OK guys, please take a look at this device and vote whether this Denon is:

a) fake
b) real

Give reason why you chose your answer, please!


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> That's the way I thought it worked but Alan P and mthomas47 say it doesn't. They both say you need to have the fronts set to "Small" or no channels cross over to the sub, at least that's the way I read their posts.
> .



As I type this, I realize it might not help, and that the manufacturers may have been inconsistent or may have changed horses midstream.


Chris K. said something like, "Setting speakers to LARGE means 'send nothing to the subwoofer.' "
I would add "unless you are using LFE+Main," something that Chris never recommends.


----------



## David Aiken

garygarrison said:


> As I type this, I realize it might not help, and that the manufacturers may have been inconsistent or may have changed horses midstream.
> 
> 
> Chris K. said something like, "Setting speakers to LARGE means 'send nothing to the subwoofer.' "
> I would add "unless you are using LFE+Main," something that Chris never recommends.


Yes, but what we're talking about here is surrounds and centre set to small and front L & R set to Large. I'm saying that my belief was that in that situation the bass from the surrounds and centre went to the sub. The OP and Mike are saying that you have to have the front L and R set to small for the bass from any speaker at all to go to the sub, that setting your front L and R to large actually prevents bass from other speakers set to "Small" from going to the sub (ignoring of course the LFE+Main option that neither Chris, you, or I would never do).


----------



## Russ_64

mogorf said:


> OK guys, please take a look at this device and vote whether this Denon is:
> 
> a) fake
> b) real
> 
> Give reason why you chose your answer, please!



b) real


It is the new Denon DRA-800H - Stereo AV Receiver. It is listed on the official Denon website.
Why do you think it is fake?


In any case it is not relevant to this thread as it does not have Audyssey*. *


----------



## mogorf

Russ_64 said:


> b) real
> 
> 
> It is the new Denon DRA-800H - Stereo AV Receiver. It is listed on the official Denon website.
> Why do you think it is fake?
> 
> 
> In any case it is not relevant to this thread as it does not have Audyssey*. *



Hi Russ, to me this is fake because an AV receiver with 2 ch stereo makes no sense. It shouldn't exist no matter who the "budget crowds" are to whom it is amid at!!!! This is not an innovative product at all! Its just a look alike! I'm really disappointed at Denon's attitude this time! Let's get serious Denon. Please! 


I never thought "fake" would penetrate into the electronics industry in such a way they are doing it right now. But it did and here we are where we can do nothing against it! Rant over!


----------



## SkyCyberguy

*Bug in MultEQ app v. 1.4.2 (iOS)?*

Hi there,

has anyone else noticed the following bug in version 1.4.2 of the MultEQ app (I can only speak for iOS), released on sunday, July 7th:

1) Perform a new calibration or open an existing one with the app
2) After that go to "Speaker measurement results" (translating from the German version of the app here, but it should be something like that in English - upper option in the main menu)
3) Set all speakers to "small" and their crossovers as you desire (I'm using a 7.1.4 layout and set all crossovers of the lower level speakers to 80Hz and that of the front heights to 100Hz, that of the rear heights to 110Hz)
4) Save those settings and go back to the main menu
5) If you go back into "Speaker measurement results" now, the front speakers (except the center speaker!) have been reset to 40Hz, no matter what you manually set before!
You can set them back to 80Hz, but as soon as you leave to the main menu (from where you can send the settings to the AV receiver), they fall back to 40Hz again - NO WAY to make them stay on another crossover frequency!

So if you send the file to the AV receiver, the fronts are stuck at 40Hz.
And since you cannot manually alter those settings in the AV receiver's Audyssey menu, you have to live with that.
Only way is to deactivate Audyssey and use the AV receiver's manual speaker settings to select the 80Hz crossover for the fronts.
But then you lose the benefits of Audyssey.

I own an AVC-X8500H (European equivalent to the AVR-X8500H in the U.S.), just for info.
With 40Hz crossover for the front speakers my system sounds dull (I own a THX Ultra speaker system), but I guess I have to live with that until the next (hopefully fixed) app update arrives.
With the previous app version everything was fine.
Already tried uninstalling an reinstalling the app, also tried on iPad and iPhone, all the same, no change.
Anyone else?

Warning: If you are currently happy with the sound and calibration of your system better DO NOT try this just for fun without saving your AV receivers config file to USB first (something I sadly forgot) - you may end up in the same situation as me, not being able to restore the 80Hz front crossover with Audyssey with the current app version!

Greets
SkyCyberguy


----------



## sjm817

SkyCyberguy said:


> Hi there,
> 
> has anyone else noticed the following bug in version 1.4.2 of the MultEQ app (I can only speak for iOS), released on sunday, July 7th:
> 
> 1) Perform a new calibration or open an existing one with the app
> 2) After that go to "Speaker measurement results" (translating from the German version of the app here, but it should be something like that in English - upper option in the main menu)
> 3) Set all speakers to "small" and their crossovers as you desire (I'm using a 7.1.4 layout and set all crossovers of the lower level speakers to 80Hz and that of the front heights to 100Hz, that of the rear heights to 110Hz)
> 4) Save those settings and go back to the main menu
> 5) If you go back into "Speaker measurement results" now, the front speakers (except the center speaker!) have been reset to 40Hz, no matter what you manually set before!
> You can set them back to 80Hz, but as soon as you leave to the main menu (from where you can send the settings to the AV receiver), they fall back to 40Hz again - NO WAY to make them stay on another crossover frequency!
> 
> *So if you send the file to the AV receiver, the fronts are stuck at 40Hz.
> And since you cannot manually alter those settings in the AV receiver's Audyssey menu, you have to live with that.
> Only way is to deactivate Audyssey and use the AV receiver's manual speaker settings to select the 80Hz crossover for the fronts.
> But then you lose the benefits of Audyssey.*
> 
> I own an AVC-X8500H (European equivalent to the AVR-X8500H in the U.S.), just for info.
> With 40Hz crossover for the front speakers my system sounds dull (I own a THX Ultra speaker system), but I guess I have to live with that until the next (hopefully fixed) app update arrives.
> With the previous app version everything was fine.
> Already tried uninstalling an reinstalling the app, also tried on iPad and iPhone, all the same, no change.
> Anyone else?
> 
> Warning: If you are currently happy with the sound and calibration of your system better DO NOT try this just for fun without saving your AV receivers config file to USB first (something I sadly forgot) - you may end up in the same situation as me, not being able to restore the 80Hz front crossover with Audyssey with the current app version!
> 
> Greets
> SkyCyberguy


The manual speaker settings do not deactivate audyssey. If you were not using the app, that is how you would set the speaker size and xovers.


----------



## SkyCyberguy

sjm817 said:


> The manual speaker settings do not deactivate audyssey. If you were not using the app, that is how you would set the speaker size and xovers.


There are two speaker settings in the AV receiver: One for Audyssey and one without.
The one for Audyssey can either be used in the AVR itself, so it performs a setup calibration etc - but on a lower level than the app does. That's the benefit of the app and the reason for its additional cost as I understand: it uses your smartphone's / tablet's processing power to perform the XT32 portion of the setup, something in former AVR generations you needed additional (expensive) measuring/processing equipment for.
Using the App the AVR's Audyssey speaker setting can then be used to check the results of the config you sent from the app - but not change those, at least not the crossovers.
The AVR itself only performs the "standard" Audyssey setup procedure which is inferior to that performed with the app.
If that's good enough for you and you're not using the app, of course afterwards you can manually alter those settings in the AVR, too.
For me it's not, which is why I'm using the app.
And then you have to do the settings in the app, too.
The AVR's Audyssey speaker setting menu is just for checking the results then, but locks out certain setting options, referring to the app instead.

You can, of course, change the crossovers in the AVR's "Not Audyssey"-setting menu.
But this will have no effect when the AVR is in one of the Audyssey modes (Reference, Flat, etc.).


----------



## sjm817

SkyCyberguy said:


> There are two speaker settings in the AV receiver: One for Audyssey and one without.
> The one for Audyssey can either be used in the AVR itself, so it performs a setup calibration etc - but on a lower level than the app does. That's the benefit of the app and the reason for its additional cost as I understand: it uses your smartphone's / tablet's processing power to perform the XT32 portion of the setup, something in former AVR generations you needed additional (expensive) measuring/processing equipment for.
> Or it can be used to check the results of the config you sent from the app - but not change those, at least not the crossovers.
> The AVR itself only performs the "standard" Audyssey setup procedure which is inferior to that performed with the app.
> If that's good enough for you and you're not using the app, of course you can manually alter those settings in the AVR, too.
> For me it's not, which is why I'm using the app.
> And then you have to do the settings in the app, too.
> The AVR's Audyssey speaker setting menu is just for checking the results then, but locks out certain setting options, referring to the app instead.
> 
> You can, of course, change the crossovers in the AVR's "Not Audyssey"-setting menu.
> But this will have no effect when the AVR is in one of the Audyssey modes (Reference, Flat, etc.).


I dont understand your point. I am quite familiar with Audyssey in the AVR and with the app as I have used both. Speaker crossover is not an Audyssey calibration function. Set in in manual settings. How you ran audyssey is irrelevant.


----------



## mthomas47

SkyCyberguy said:


> There are two speaker settings in the AV receiver: One for Audyssey and one without.
> The one for Audyssey can either be used in the AVR itself, so it performs a setup calibration etc - but on a lower level than the app does. That's the benefit of the app and the reason for its additional cost as I understand: it uses your smartphone's / tablet's processing power to perform the XT32 portion of the setup, something in former AVR generations you needed additional (expensive) measuring/processing equipment for.
> Or it can be used to check the results of the config you sent from the app - but not change those, at least not the crossovers.
> The AVR itself only performs the "standard" Audyssey setup procedure which is inferior to that performed with the app.
> If that's good enough for you and you're not using the app, of course you can manually alter those settings in the AVR, too.
> For me it's not, which is why I'm using the app.
> And then you have to do the settings in the app, too.
> The AVR's Audyssey speaker setting menu is just for checking the results then, but locks out certain setting options, referring to the app instead.
> 
> You can, of course, change the crossovers in the AVR's "Not Audyssey"-setting menu.
> But this will have no effect when the AVR is in one of the Audyssey modes (Reference, Flat, etc.).



Hi,

If you like using the app for the additional user control it gives you, then that's absolutely what you should use. For instance, you can choose not to EQ above a certain frequency, and you can create a house curve that way. But, there is no difference in the actual quality of the EQ filters that Audyssey sets, using either the AVR or the App. All the app does is to give you more control of the process. 

The reason I am posting this is because I think it's an important distinction to make for others who may be reading along and who may read your post as suggesting that the nature of the calibration process itself is different with the AVR, and inferior to that of the app; or that somehow the smartphone app sets filters with greater effectiveness than the AVR does. It doesn't do that. The way that Audyssey sets its filters hasn't changed with the app. The app just gives users more control regarding where Audyssey sets filters, and what happens after they are set. That's still a lot, but it's an important distinction to make, nevertheless.

What you described in your first post frankly sounds like a software glitch, which I hope gets resolved in a future update. Meanwhile, I might consider going back to using the AVR version of Audyssey if the glitch becomes too inconvenient. Some people did that when the app wouldn't allow subwoofers to play


----------



## sjm817

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you like using the app for the additional user control it gives you, then that's absolutely what you should use. For instance, you can choose not to EQ above a certain frequency, and you can create a house curve that way. But, there is no difference in the actual quality of the EQ filters that Audyssey sets, using either the AVR or the App. All the app does is to give you more control of the process.
> 
> The reason I am posting this is because I think it's an important distinction to make for others who may be reading along and who may read your post as suggesting that the nature of the calibration process itself is different with the AVR, and inferior to that of the app; or that somehow the smartphone app sets filters with greater effectiveness than the AVR does. It doesn't do that. The way that Audyssey sets its filters hasn't changed with the app. The app just gives users more control regarding where Audyssey sets filters, and what happens after they are set. That's still a lot, but it's an important distinction to make, nevertheless.
> 
> What you described in your first post frankly sounds like a software glitch, which I hope gets resolved in a future update. Meanwhile, I might consider going back to using the AVR version of Audyssey if the glitch becomes too inconvenient. Some people did that when the app wouldn't allow subwoofers to play


----------



## SkyCyberguy

sjm817 said:


> I dont understand your point. I am quite familiar with Audyssey in the AVR and with the app as I have used both. Speaker crossover is not an Audyssey calibration function. Set in in manual settings. How you ran audyssey is irrelevant.


My point is: There are two speaker settings in the AVR, one for use with Audyssey and one ("Manual") for use without it.
The "Manual" one does not affect the Audyssey modes.
The one for use with Audyssey can be manually adjusted afterwards when you used the AVR to perform the speaker calibration.
But it cannot when you used the app to do so - then the app is the only way to change things like speaker sizes and crossovers so they affect the Audyssey modes.
When I send the calibration file from the app to the AVR and I enter the AVR's Audyssey speaker menu it just offers "Amp Assign", "Channel Select", "Check Results" and "Restore".
When I select "Check Results" it shows the results set in the app (including my manually set crossovers, including the faulty 40Hz setting for the fronts) - but does not allow me to change those.
In the "Manual" menu I can change the crossover setting to 80Hz, but this pretty much surely does not affect the Audyssey modes. Proof, aside from sound, is that in the Audyssey menu the crossover for the fronts still shows 40Hz, even when I set it to 80Hz in the "Manual" menu.
I also hear a clear difference in bass reproduction when swtiching between "Audyssey Off" (where the 80Hz apply then) and "Audyssey Reference" (which is still 40Hz).
And this difference is not due to Audyssey bass correction, I'm not using that (switched it off in the app) since I have a DSPeaker AntiMode for that plus Bass Shakers installed.
The bass simply runs higher with "Audyssey Off". This was not the case with previous app versions without that unpleasant bug.


----------



## SkyCyberguy

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If you like using the app for the additional user control it gives you, then that's absolutely what you should use. For instance, you can choose not to EQ above a certain frequency, and you can create a house curve that way. But, there is no difference in the actual quality of the EQ filters that Audyssey sets, using either the AVR or the App. All the app does is to give you more control of the process.
> 
> The reason I am posting this is because I think it's an important distinction to make for others who may be reading along and who may read your post as suggesting that the nature of the calibration process itself is different with the AVR, and inferior to that of the app; or that somehow the smartphone app sets filters with greater effectiveness than the AVR does. It doesn't do that. The way that Audyssey sets its filters hasn't changed with the app. The app just gives users more control regarding where Audyssey sets filters, and what happens after they are set. That's still a lot, but it's an important distinction to make, nevertheless.
> 
> What you described in your first post frankly sounds like a software glitch, which I hope gets resolved in a future update. Meanwhile, I might consider going back to using the AVR version of Audyssey if the glitch becomes too inconvenient. Some people did that when the app wouldn't allow subwoofers to play


----------



## sjm817

SkyCyberguy said:


> My point is: There are two speaker settings in the AVR, one for use with Audyssey and one ("Manual") for use without it.
> The "Manual" one does not affect the Audyssey modes.
> The one for use with Audyssey can be manually adjusted afterwards when you used the AVR to perform the speaker calibration.
> But it cannot when you used the app to do so - then the app is the only way to change things like speaker sizes and crossovers so they affect the Audyssey modes.
> When I send the calibration file from the app to the AVR and I enter the AVR's Audyssey speaker menu it just offers "Amp Assign", "Channel Select", "Check Results" and "Restore".
> When I select "Check Results" it shows the results set in the app (including my manually set crossovers, including the faulty 40Hz setting for the fronts) - but does not allow me to change those.
> In the "Manual" menu I can change the crossover setting to 80Hz, but this pretty much surely does not affect the Audyssey modes. Proof, aside from sound, is that in the Audyssey menu the crossover for the fronts still shows 40Hz, even when I set it to 80Hz in the "Manual" menu.
> I also hear a clear difference in bass reproduction when swtiching between "Audyssey Off" (where the 80Hz apply then) and "Audyssey Reference" (which is still 40Hz).
> And this difference is not due to Audyssey bass correction, I'm not using that (switched it off in the app) since I have a DSPeaker AntiMode for that plus Bass Shakers installed.
> The bass simply runs higher with "Audyssey Off". This was not the case with previous app versions without that unpleasant bug.


The Manual speaker setting set the crossovers. Audyssey, AVR, app, not using audyssey. Again, speaker size and xover is NOT an Audyssey function. Its an AVR function. 

*"Check results" * is a read only field that shows what was initially set using the AVR or app calibration run. Notice "CHECK" results, not "modify" results. Its handy if you are messing with setting and want to get back to what was initially set. 

You are fine. Use manual to change the settings. Check results to review what was initially set.


----------



## Jon AA

sjm817 said:


> Honestly, I dont understand why xover settings are even part of the app. Ive never used the app to set them. The app should just be for running Audyssey with the enhancements that are not available in the AVR. Just my opinion.


It's handy if you want to have multiple setup/calibrations saved and switch between them. You can simply load the file and be ready to go without having to go in and manually change the crossover settings each time you load a file. Same for levels and distances (mostly used by people to adjust the sub).


----------



## CBdicX

Hello,

I have a new 7.1 speaker setup, now with the great Gallo Strada 2 and Adiva SE as Surround Back, and the Gallo Subwoofer.
In the manual Gallo states that when you use a receiver the x-over must be set between 80-120Hz.
Audyssey will set them at 150Hz - 200Hz for the Strada and 120Hz for the Adiva, so a on the high side.

Will it be wrong to set all to say 100Hz or maybe even 90 or 80Hz like Gallo sugests ?
Will Audyssey still "works" when i lower the x-over ?

Thanks....


----------



## Jon AA

Those speakers are just very small and Audyssey is measuring the fact they're severely lacking in bass. I would not lower the crossover the receiver sets after running Audyssey (they usually err on the low side, not the high side) or you're likely to have a hole in your response between the sub and the speakers. You can certainly try different settings to see what you feel sounds the best. But I think you'll find, if you want any mid-bass, it's going to have to come from the sub with those speakers.


----------



## mogorf

CBdicX said:


> Hello,
> 
> I have a new 7.1 speaker setup, now with the great Gallo Strada 2 and Adiva SE as Surround Back, and the Gallo Subwoofer.
> In the manual Gallo states that when you use a receiver the x-over must be set between 80-120Hz.
> Audyssey will set them at 150Hz - 200Hz for the Strada and 120Hz for the Adiva, so a on the high side.
> 
> Will it be wrong to set all to say 100Hz or maybe even 90 or 80Hz like Gallo sugests ?
> Will Audyssey still "works" when i lower the x-over ?
> 
> Thanks....



Hi, 

Can you place those speakers closer to the wall, like within 30 cms or less? That way the boundary reinforcement may help lower the crossover frequencies. You will need to re-run Audyssey to see the effect.


----------



## CBdicX

mogorf said:


> Hi,
> 
> Can you place those speakers closer to the wall, like within 30 cms or less? That way the boundary reinforcement may help lower the crossover frequencies. You will need to re-run Audyssey to see the effect.


Hello, no, can not get closer to the wall, they are on stands and the standfeet is against the wall.
The speakers them self are "just" 15 cm from the wall !

_The Gallo (paper) specs are:
68 Hz - 20kHz
90 dB

On the AV receiver you can select small speaker setting.
Manually adjust the frequency between 40-80Hz if they are on the wall, and between 80-120Hz if they are on floor stands._

A big differents with the Audyssey setting of 150 and 200 Hz...…….
*Can't i just set all speakers to 100Hz manual ? *


----------



## mogorf

CBdicX said:


> Hello, no, can not get closer to the wall, they are on stands and the standfeet is against the wall.
> The speakers them self are "just" 15 cm from the wall !
> 
> _The Gallo (paper) specs are:
> 68 Hz - 20kHz
> 90 dB
> 
> On the AV receiver you can select small speaker setting.
> Manually adjust the frequency between 40-80Hz if they are on the wall, and between 80-120Hz if they are on floor stands._
> 
> A big differents with the Audyssey setting of 150 and 200 Hz...…….
> *Can't i just set all speakers to 100Hz manual ? *



In that case you will have an un-EQ'd range from 100Hz to 150 Hz! You can either live with it or let's try some more troubleshooting! 

Can you confirm those speakers are angled to face the MLP? If you don't mind me asking, can you send a couple of photos of your setup? That would help a lot!


----------



## Matt2026

CBdicX said:


> Hello, no, can not get closer to the wall, they are on stands and the standfeet is against the wall.
> The speakers them self are "just" 15 cm from the wall !
> 
> _The Gallo (paper) specs are:
> 68 Hz - 20kHz
> 90 dB
> 
> On the AV receiver you can select small speaker setting.
> Manually adjust the frequency between 40-80Hz if they are on the wall, and between 80-120Hz if they are on floor stands._
> 
> A big differents with the Audyssey setting of 150 and 200 Hz...…….


To my understanding Audyssey just reports the frequency response level it measured to the AVR and the AVR does the setting... So the speaker output was down 3db at 150Hz not 68Hz. If you manually set it to 68Hz then you will likely, as a guess, have a dip in the frequency level output.

[Edit] PS: 68Hz to 150Hz is just over 1 octave so the output at 68Hz could be down another 3db or more(?) depending on the roll off slope of the speaker response


----------



## CBdicX

Thanks to all that helped, i also have contact with *mthomas47* and he had also some great advice.
He told me to use the settings as messured, or lower the x-over and see if the sound stayes without distortion.


----------



## garygarrison

Matt2026 said:


> ... So the speaker output was down 3db at 150Hz not 68Hz. If you manually set it to 68Hz then you will likely, as a guess, have a dip in the frequency level output.


 ... and distortion. Audyssey is actually measuring the 3dB down point. You want to keep anything below that out of your main speakers, i.e., you want the sound to roll off below the 3 db down point, and let the subwoofer do the heavy lifting.


----------



## CBdicX

garygarrison said:


> ... and distortion. Audyssey is actually measuring the 3dB down point. You want to keep anything below that out of your main speakers, i.e., you want the sound to roll off below the 3 db down point, and let the subwoofer do the heavy lifting.


As the Gallo Strada are set so high (150 and 200 Hz) will it matter to set LPF/LFE to a lower number ? (now standard 120 Hz)
Du to the high x-over i can "hear" the sub as this is playing well above 80 Hz.


----------



## mogorf

CBdicX said:


> As the Gallo Strada are set so high (150 and 200 Hz) will it matter to set LPF/LFE to a lower number ? (now standard 120 Hz)
> Du to the high x-over i can "hear" the sub as this is playing well above 80 Hz.



Please note, the LPF/LFE setting has nothing to do with Bass Management and crossover settings. The subwoofer channel of the AVR has two (internal) inputs, one is the LFE contents (so called 0.1 channel), the other one is the frequency contents filtered out and re-directed below the crossover frequency to the subwoofer channel. These two are summed up before being sent to the subwoofer. So, no matter how you adjust the LPF of LFE it will have no effect on speaker to subwoofer crossover. Hope my explanation is clear!


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> As the Gallo Strada are set so high (150 and 200 Hz) will it matter to set LPF/LFE to a lower number ? (now standard 120 Hz) ...


 What Feri said.


LPF/LFE is supposed to be for Low Frequency Effects (sound effects, e.g., explosions, thunder, etc.) ONLY, not music, dialog, or higher frequency sound effects. So, 120 Hz for LPF/LFE is fine, but if you sense any weakness in your subwoofer, which seems to have a pretty small chamber and driver, setting the LPF/LFE at 80 Hz will still maintain super low sound effects, with the range between 80 Hz to 120 Hz only slightly attenuated. My best guess is the cleanest, clearest results would be:


LPF/LFE set at 80 Hz
All other speakers set on SMALL
Crossovers for all speakers other than the subwoofer set wherever Audyssey/AVR suggests, or perhaps a bit higher.
IMO, distortion is public enemy #1. I have friends who play movies back at a lower volume than I would (Keith Barnes and I are the high volume kings, both of us averaging at 5 dB below reference). Some of my low volume friends run into what, to my ear, seems like too much distortion for a given SPL, rather than SPL which would be too high if played through a low distortion system. Protecting small woofers from more bass than they can handle, and re-channeling that bass to subwoofers is one way to avoid that distortion and a needless reduction of SPL. 

I don't mean to complicate things, but here are some points of view on where the LPF/LFE should be set. Eventually, you could experiment with these. No hurry! The following is excerpted from the Keith Barnes FAQ for Audyssey. Some of the FAQ is now out of date (so for newer info, see *Mike's* GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES), but _*this*_ part of Keith's FAQ (and several other parts) is still relevant! The two people cited/quoted are experts of the first water. 

_" *Roger Dressler* (formerly of Dolby Labs and the guy who helped them develop many of their technologies, including bass management) and *Mark Seaton* (founder and owner of Seaton Sound, makers of the legendary Submersive subwoofers) have both recently put forward an alternative view. Mark explains it like this in *this post*:_

 _'I personally tend to set the low pass on the LFE channel at 80Hz in most systems by preference. I think many forget that the difference between a 120Hz low pass and an 80Hz low pass is nothing more than a shelving filter. If the low pass is 4th order, the 80Hz filter is about 7dB lower at 100Hz and about 4dB at 80Hz. A 100Hz low pass setting would have about 1/2 that difference. The adjustment has more effect on shaping the LFE track's response than it does on cutting off content. If you're running the subs with a rising response on the low end which blends with the main speakers, experimenting with 80, 100 vs. 120Hz is basically a means to taper the top end of the LFE channel. Setting this lower than 120Hz is not hacking off content any more than setting your sub a few dB hot would destroy a soundtrack.'_

 _What this means in effect is that you do NOT lose the content between 80Hz and 120Hz if you set the LPF of LFE to 80Hz - you simply alter the way it is presented, because the filter is not a brickwall but a shelving filter. Setting it to 80Hz simply allows you to 'shape' the LFE track's response. 

Roger goes on to elaborate more in *a separate post* (my bolding below):

'Back when DTS was making their name with Jurassic Park and Apollo 13 on 35mm film, the LFE bandwidth was 80 Hz. The Dolby Digital codec has a bandlimited LFE channel, and it has a brickwall filter at 120 Hz as a means to protect the LFE channel from higher frequencies (which can still be present even with a 4th-order LPF at 80 Hz). It seems that when films moved from optical to digital delivery, the LFE bandwidth crept up to 120 Hz or maybe even higher (the PCM LFE channel has no inherent response limitation). I suppose it helps less than magnificent subwoofers in "regular" cinemas provide more whomp. *But I find that LFE in the 100-120 Hz region is just a lot of boominess that unfortunately too often clouds the deeper bass in the bottom 2 octaves. Setting the LFE filter to 80 Hz does a dandy job of dealing with that boominess IMHO.*

In addition, I have found that 5.1 music recordings are not well disciplined in their use of LFE, leading to muddiness that is even more annoying. Again, the 80 Hz LFE filter setting really helps the bass knit together more cohesively." Background information also in *this post* of Roger's.'

*Further comment from Roger Dressler explains the thinking behind a setting of 80Hz as opposed to the more usually recommended 120Hz:*

'I was recently noticing that my well tuned room sounded great on 2-ch programs but occasionally had excessive/plump bass on some 5.1 music discs. Turns out many music discs do not have well filtered LFE tracks--easily seen using REW's spectrum analyzer. It also turned out that my SSP did not filter the LFE at 120 Hz or the like.

I did some experiments comparing SACD/DVD-A music recordings with the LFE unfiltered, or filtered at 120 or 80 Hz, and compared the results with the 2-ch mixes on those discs. It was pretty obvious that the mixers were listening with a monitor system using an LFE sub filtered at 80 Hz. The match was obviously right, whereas at 120 Hz it was not even close, and not very pleasant. They filtered the LFE sound in the room rather than the signal feeding the recorder.

I did a similar survey of movie soundtracks, and REW showed all were well filtered near 120 Hz at max. Some DTS movies were rolled off lower, like 90 Hz. In listening to these movies with 80 and 120 Hz LFE filters, it was possible in direct A/B to sometimes hear a difference only with the 120 Hz LFE tracks, but using either the 80 or 120 Hz filters sounded great and sounded correct. The impression was that the 80 Hz setting yielded "deeper, tighter" bass than the 120 Hz, and this has been a major reported difference between Dolby and DTS soundtracks since the days of laser discs. Interestingly, DTS HDMA does not employ the 90 Hz filter, so that "advantage" is now gone, even for the core lossy DTS track.

I have my SSP's LFE set for 80 Hz all the time (F/W updated!). It makes a huge benefit for 5.1 music, and a small benefit for movies, so it all sounds great now."

I should emphasise that the generally accepted setting for the LPF of LFE is 120Hz. However, this is one of those 'preference' issues which members may want to experiment with and come to their own conclusions. I have tried it myself and found that I can definitely hear (or feel) a difference between 80Hz and 120Hz for the LPF. 120Hz gives more slam and I feel the gunshots etc more in my chest. But Roger is right - it also adds a touch of boom too. 80Hz gives a little less slam but overall it's tighter. We're talking small, but noticeable differences. It also seems to be movie-dependent - *I guess some mixers add more to the LFE channel than others, or more above 80Hz anyway*.' "
_


----------



## Mactavish

garygarrison said:


> What Feri said.
> 
> 
> LPF/LFE is supposed to be for Low Frequency Effects (sound effects, e.g., explosions, thunder, etc.) ONLY, not music, dialog, or higher frequency sound effects. So, 120 Hz for LPF/LFE is fine, but if you sense any weakness in your subwoofer, which seems to have a pretty small chamber and driver, setting the LPF/LFE at 80 Hz will still maintain super low sound effects, with the range between 80 Hz to 120 Hz only slightly attenuated. My best guess is the cleanest, clearest results would be:
> 
> 
> LPF/LFE set at 80 Hz
> All other speakers set on SMALL
> Crossovers for all speakers other than the subwoofer set wherever Audyssey/AVR suggests, or perhaps a bit higher.
> IMO, distortion is public enemy #1. I have friends who play movies back at a lower volume than I would (Keith Barnes and I are the high volume kings, both of us averaging at 5 dB below reference). Some of my low volume friends run into what, to my ear, seems like too much distortion for a given SPL, rather than SPL which would be too high if played through a low distortion system. Protecting small woofers from more bass than they can handle, and re-channeling that bass to subwoofers is one way to avoid that distortion and a needless reduction of SPL.
> 
> I don't mean to complicate things, but here are some points of view on where the LPF/LFE should be set. Eventually, you could experiment with these. No hurry! The following is excerpted from the Keith Barnes FAQ for Audyssey. Some of the FAQ is now out of date (so for newer info, see *Mike's* GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES), but _*this*_ part of Keith's FAQ (and several other parts) is still relevant! The two people cited/quoted are experts of the first water.
> 
> _" *Roger Dressler* (formerly of Dolby Labs and the guy who helped them develop many of their technologies, including bass management) and *Mark Seaton* (founder and owner of Seaton Sound, makers of the legendary Submersive subwoofers) have both recently put forward an alternative view. Mark explains it like this in *this post*:_
> 
> _'I personally tend to set the low pass on the LFE channel at 80Hz in most systems by preference. I think many forget that the difference between a 120Hz low pass and an 80Hz low pass is nothing more than a shelving filter. If the low pass is 4th order, the 80Hz filter is about 7dB lower at 100Hz and about 4dB at 80Hz. A 100Hz low pass setting would have about 1/2 that difference. The adjustment has more effect on shaping the LFE track's response than it does on cutting off content. If you're running the subs with a rising response on the low end which blends with the main speakers, experimenting with 80, 100 vs. 120Hz is basically a means to taper the top end of the LFE channel. Setting this lower than 120Hz is not hacking off content any more than setting your sub a few dB hot would destroy a soundtrack.'_
> 
> _What this means in effect is that you do NOT lose the content between 80Hz and 120Hz if you set the LPF of LFE to 80Hz - you simply alter the way it is presented, because the filter is not a brickwall but a shelving filter. Setting it to 80Hz simply allows you to 'shape' the LFE track's response.
> 
> Roger goes on to elaborate more in *a separate post* (my bolding below):
> 
> 'Back when DTS was making their name with Jurassic Park and Apollo 13 on 35mm film, the LFE bandwidth was 80 Hz. The Dolby Digital codec has a bandlimited LFE channel, and it has a brickwall filter at 120 Hz as a means to protect the LFE channel from higher frequencies (which can still be present even with a 4th-order LPF at 80 Hz). It seems that when films moved from optical to digital delivery, the LFE bandwidth crept up to 120 Hz or maybe even higher (the PCM LFE channel has no inherent response limitation). I suppose it helps less than magnificent subwoofers in "regular" cinemas provide more whomp. *But I find that LFE in the 100-120 Hz region is just a lot of boominess that unfortunately too often clouds the deeper bass in the bottom 2 octaves. Setting the LFE filter to 80 Hz does a dandy job of dealing with that boominess IMHO.*
> 
> In addition, I have found that 5.1 music recordings are not well disciplined in their use of LFE, leading to muddiness that is even more annoying. Again, the 80 Hz LFE filter setting really helps the bass knit together more cohesively." Background information also in *this post* of Roger's.'
> 
> *Further comment from Roger Dressler explains the thinking behind a setting of 80Hz as opposed to the more usually recommended 120Hz:*
> 
> 'I was recently noticing that my well tuned room sounded great on 2-ch programs but occasionally had excessive/plump bass on some 5.1 music discs. Turns out many music discs do not have well filtered LFE tracks--easily seen using REW's spectrum analyzer. It also turned out that my SSP did not filter the LFE at 120 Hz or the like.
> 
> I did some experiments comparing SACD/DVD-A music recordings with the LFE unfiltered, or filtered at 120 or 80 Hz, and compared the results with the 2-ch mixes on those discs. It was pretty obvious that the mixers were listening with a monitor system using an LFE sub filtered at 80 Hz. The match was obviously right, whereas at 120 Hz it was not even close, and not very pleasant. They filtered the LFE sound in the room rather than the signal feeding the recorder.
> 
> I did a similar survey of movie soundtracks, and REW showed all were well filtered near 120 Hz at max. Some DTS movies were rolled off lower, like 90 Hz. In listening to these movies with 80 and 120 Hz LFE filters, it was possible in direct A/B to sometimes hear a difference only with the 120 Hz LFE tracks, but using either the 80 or 120 Hz filters sounded great and sounded correct. The impression was that the 80 Hz setting yielded "deeper, tighter" bass than the 120 Hz, and this has been a major reported difference between Dolby and DTS soundtracks since the days of laser discs. Interestingly, DTS HDMA does not employ the 90 Hz filter, so that "advantage" is now gone, even for the core lossy DTS track.
> 
> I have my SSP's LFE set for 80 Hz all the time (F/W updated!). It makes a huge benefit for 5.1 music, and a small benefit for movies, so it all sounds great now."
> 
> I should emphasise that the generally accepted setting for the LPF of LFE is 120Hz. However, this is one of those 'preference' issues which members may want to experiment with and come to their own conclusions. I have tried it myself and found that I can definitely hear (or feel) a difference between 80Hz and 120Hz for the LPF. 120Hz gives more slam and I feel the gunshots etc more in my chest. But Roger is right - it also adds a touch of boom too. 80Hz gives a little less slam but overall it's tighter. We're talking small, but noticeable differences. It also seems to be movie-dependent - *I guess some mixers add more to the LFE channel than others, or more above 80Hz anyway*.' "
> _


Excellent post Gary, picked a few great quotes. I’ve read them before as I followed Mark’s guide to try cascading crossovers. I set the LPF on my Rythmik F12G subwoofer to 80hz, and on my Denon 3500, set the LPF of LFE to 80hz. My mains were already at 80hz. Unfortunately I can’t report just yet on any audible differences as my old, little Mirage center channel, is being replaced by a Chane A2.4 speaker, which I just ordered an hour ago. But the logic of the 80hz setting made sense to me, and having those big name audio experts findings, well it cost nothing to try it out. Since I only employ a single sub in a small space, I’m always looking for clean tight bass in music, and clear distinct dialog in movie playback. While a small setting change, it holds promise to both.


----------



## Bghead8che

*Mic Height Question...*

The guide at the beginning of the thread recommends mic positions 7 and 8 be 2-3 inches above ear height. I'm curious as to why a few inches above ear height and not below ear height as well? What is Audyssey's official position on microphone height? Do they recommend ear height for all mic positions or do they recommend varying the height slightly? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## mthomas47

Bghead8che said:


> The guide at the beginning of the thread recommends mic positions 7 and 8 be 2-3 inches above ear height. I'm curious as to why a few inches above ear height and not below ear height as well? What is Audyssey's official position on microphone height? Do they recommend ear height for all mic positions or do they recommend varying the height slightly?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



Hi,

Quite a few Audyssey owners have found that having a couple of mic positions 2" or 3" higher than ear level helps with respect to the overall frequency response and for the overall sound quality. Like yourself, I have wondered why that works. One possible explanation is the way that the pinnae in our ears (the flaps) are shaped. They are designed to funnel sound downward into our ear canals more than upward from below. Evolutionary adaptation to protect us from predators in trees, or attacks from above? Your guess as to why they are shaped that way is as good as mine. But, empirically speaking, having a couple of mic positions above ear level does seem to improve things in many cases.

I do know that if we put the mic much below ear height, a couple of things may happen. First, I believe that we would increase early reflections from a chair or sofa back (or too much absorption, if we use a blanket) if we dropped the mic by a few inches below ear level. Second, we might also have more trouble with rear surround speakers, if the mic were below the chair back for a couple of positions.

Of course, anything involving microphone patterns has a YMMV quality to it, as rooms, speakers, and listeners will all combine to give variable results, so you can certainly experiment to discover whatever works best in your room. I believe that Audyssey manuals recommend keeping all of the positions at ear height, although I think I remember Chris K. saying that he was personally fine with doing a couple of positions a little higher if people wanted to try it. 

Incidentally, as noted in the Guide and in the FAQ, the order of the mic positions doesn't matter. I have always just found that adjusting the mic stand upward a little for the last two positions is easier than starting at ear level for #1 , then adjusting upward at some point for a couple of positions, and then dropping the stand back to ear level again for the remainder. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

*Some (subwoofer) help please*……

I told i have some not to bass happy speakers, the Gallo Strada 2 and Adiva SE.
They are set after the Audyssey run:

Fronts 150 Hz
Center 150 Hz
Surround 110 Hz (after putting both in a corner)
SB 120 Hz (Adiva SE)
Front Hight 120 Hz (Kef T101)

So how will these numbers effect the subwoofer, will it try to play up the highest number 150 Hz ?
And will it matter to have a small sub (10 Inch) or big one (say 12-15 Inch) with these high x-over numbers ?

(i do not want to change the Gallo speakers, i like them very much, just to bad of the high x-over, seems "design" has its bad side)

Thanks again !!


----------



## Kal Rubinson

CBdicX said:


> [
> So how will these numbers effect the subwoofer, will it try to play up the highest number 150 Hz ?
> And will it matter to have a small sub (10 Inch) or big one (say 12-15 Inch) with these high x-over numbers ?


Yes. You want to look at the specs to confirm that the sub(s) are specified to perform above the nominal 120Hz top frequency for LFE. You might find that using a pair of smaller subs can give you a FR to 150Hz+ as well as bass power equal to a single larger sub.



> (i do not want to change the Gallo speakers, i like them very much, just to bad of the high x-over, seems "design" has its bad side)


"Style" has its downside.


----------



## CBdicX

Would it be possible to "fool" Audyssey in putting the fronts in the corner (te get a lower x-over) and do the first run, then put them back again to the wanted position and do the other 7 runs ?


----------



## pbz06

CBdicX said:


> Would it be possible to "fool" Audyssey in putting the fronts in the corner (te get a lower x-over) and do the first run, then put them back again to the wanted position and do the other 7 runs ?


Yes but that completely defeats the entire purpose of Audyssey.


----------



## CBdicX

pbz06 said:


> Yes but that completely defeats the entire purpose of Audyssey.


Why ?
The 7 runs will set the filters for room correction, and on these 7 runs the speakers are in the "correct" position.
Think its the same as running Audyssey various times and getting different results because the mic is not always in the same spot.


----------



## Henry Lambert

Why don't you just leave Audyssey turned off?
You can set your system up anyway you like.


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Would it be possible to "fool" Audyssey in putting the fronts in the corner (te get a lower x-over) and do the first run, then put them back again to the wanted position and do the other 7 runs ?





CBdicX said:


> Why ?
> The 7 runs will set the filters for room correction, and on these 7 runs the speakers are in the "correct" position.
> Think its the same as running Audyssey various times and getting different results because the mic is not always in the same spot.



Hi Dick, 

I gave you the best answers I could when you PMed me. Sometimes, we just don't like the answers we receive, and I understand that. 

Here's another one. You could certainly trick Audyssey into EQing your speakers to a lower frequency by putting your speakers closer to a wall or in a corner, and then moving them back to where you want them, post-calibration. In that case, you just wouldn't run Audyssey again.

What you suggested won't work. If you move them and start Audyssey again, it will ignore any previous settings, or findings, and begin again from scratch at that new position. If you pick-up the calibration with mic position 2, all of the filters and the crossovers will be set based on the new positions. Crossovers are set based on all 8 mic positions. Only timing and trim levels are set based on mic position 1. So, this method would simply give you a slightly more screwed-up result that would be similar to doing all 8 mic positions where the speakers are actually going to be. 

If, on the other hand, you try the different method I suggested, all of the EQ filters that Audyssey set for those speakers in the bogus position would be wrong when you moved them to their real position. That might, or might not, be a real problem when the speakers tried to play any frequencies at whatever crossovers you set.

There is no reason you can't try this, if you want to, and find out how it sounds. That's essentially the same advice I gave you with respect to lowering your crossovers. You can always try that too, and see how it sounds. If you are looking for someone to be able to tell you in advance how you will like a particular setting, though, I'm afraid it just can't be done.

We all have to try to find the settings, and compromises, that work best in our rooms and for our personal preferences. And, we all have to decide for ourselves to what extent we will follow general rules and best practice principles, with respect to both Audyssey, and for audio in general. 

As noted previously, the real problem here is that your speakers don't have very low-extension to start with, due to the 4" woofers and extremely small cabinets. Moving them further away from boundary walls, and having them at some distance from your listening position, exacerbates that fundamental problem. They are simply not very powerful at low-frequencies. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dick,
> 
> I gave you the best answers I could when you PMed me. Sometimes, we just don't like the answers we receive, and I understand that.
> 
> Here's another one. You could certainly trick Audyssey into EQing your speakers to a lower frequency by putting your speakers closer to a wall or in a corner, and then moving them back to where you want them, post-calibration. In that case, you just wouldn't run Audyssey again.
> 
> *What you suggested won't work. If you move them and start Audyssey again, it will ignore any previous settings, or findings, and begin again from scratch at that new position. If you pick-up the calibration with mic position 2, all of the filters and the crossovers will be set based on the new positions. Crossovers are set based on all 8 mic positions. Only timing and trim levels are set based on mic position 1. So, this method would simply give you a slightly more screwed-up result that would be similar to doing all 8 mic positions where the speakers are actually going to be. *
> 
> If, on the other hand, you try the different method I suggested, all of the EQ filters that Audyssey set for those speakers in the bogus position would be wrong when you moved them to their real position. That might, or might not, be a real problem when the speakers tried to play any frequencies at whatever crossovers you set.
> 
> There is no reason you can't try this, if you want to, and find out how it sounds. That's essentially the same advice I gave you with respect to lowering your crossovers. You can always try that too, and see how it sounds. If you are looking for someone to be able to tell you in advance how you will like a particular setting, though, I'm afraid it just can't be done.
> 
> We all have to try to find the settings, and compromises, that work best in our rooms and for our personal preferences. And, we all have to decide for ourselves to what extent we will follow general rules and best practice principles, with respect to both Audyssey, and for audio in general.
> 
> As noted previously, the real problem here is that your speakers don't have very low-extension to start with, due to the 4" woofers and extremely small cabinets. Moving them further away from boundary walls, and having them at some distance from your listening position, exacerbates that fundamental problem. They are simply not very powerful at low-frequencies.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

thanks again, and other repliers, i was hoping Audyssey did x-over in step 1 and not the other 7 steps.

Thanks !


----------



## CBdicX

Henry Lambert said:


> Why don't you just leave Audyssey turned off?
> You can set your system up anyway you like.


Could do this, but i do like what Audyssey is doing.
Sound makes a big fall when i turn Audyssey off (even my wife will hear it  ) so it has a function in my room


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, did a re-run and placed the fronts in the corner just to see if that wil make a change in getting the x-over to drop.

But no, still they are set at 150Hz.

Also had the center close to the wall, but also here 200Hz it is and stays.
Like told these mid/bass drivers are to small to get the x-over to drop.
But the same speakers are in the Surround position and they are set at 110Hz 
This wall is from a different material, softer, the front wall is hard wood, think thats changing the x-over.

So, when i change the x-overs (200-150-110Hz) manual to *100Hz* or even lower, i thought Audyssey would not sound different any more in the ON and OFF position.
But it still is, and the differents is just as big in the on/off with the high x-over and the manual x-over.
Thought filters would not work any more when i lowered manual the x-over this much.....

>> Should i still look for a "*200Hz*" subwoofer, or leave the x-over at 100Hz and just buy the one i like...….. 

Very happy to have this Audyssey forum !! 
Thanks for your thoughts


----------



## Kal Rubinson

CBdicX said:


> So, when i change the x-overs (200-150-110Hz) manual to *100Hz* or even lower, i thought Audyssey would not sound different any more in the ON and OFF position. But it still is, and the differents is just as big in the on/off with the high x-over and the manual x-over.
> Thought filters would not work any more when i lowered manual the x-over this much.....


Sure they work but, in the range between 200-150-110Hz and 100Hz, there will be no EQ. And that range is important. 



> >> Should i still look for a "*200Hz*" subwoofer, or leave the x-over at 100Hz and just buy the one i like...…..


I would get rid of the Gallo speakers but, since you are married to them, get a sub that will complement them.


----------



## CBdicX

Kal Rubinson said:


> Sure they work but, in the range between 200-150-110Hz and 100Hz, there will be no EQ. And that range is important.
> 
> I would get rid of the Gallo speakers but, since you are married to them, get a sub that will complement them.


I would like a Klipsch SPL 150, so that one is no good for me as it will do 18-125Hz with the Audyssey settings of 200-150-110Hz ?
Or will this sub just ignore all above 125Hz and i will loos some bass from 125 to 200Hz ?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

CBdicX said:


> I would like a Klipsch SPL 150, so that one is no good for me as it will do 18-125Hz with the Audyssey settings of 200-150-110Hz ?


Yes.


> Or will this sub just ignore all above 125Hz and i will loos some bass from 125 to 200Hz ?


No crossover filter is a brick wall; all roll off the response over the octaves depending on their slope. In this case, it will not "ignore all above 125Hz" but is likely to lose an undetermined amount of the bass from 125-299Hz.


----------



## CBdicX

Kal Rubinson said:


> Yes.
> No crossover filter is a brick wall; all roll off the response over the octaves depending on their slope. In this case, it will not "ignore all above 125Hz" but is likely to lose an undetermined amount of the bass from 125-299Hz.


If i buy a 200Hz sub and it will (try to) do the 200Hz x-over, think i will hear it play.
If i buy the SPL 150 it will be less placeable du to it will play max 125Hz and start to lose bass much sooner then a 200Hz sub, or am i wrong ?

And thank you for trying to get me on the right track


----------



## garygarrison

Part of what you are encountering is Hofmann's Iron Law of speaker design, which states that among the following three desirable properties of a speaker, you can only have two: 



Small speaker box (enclosure)



High sensitivity (sometimes called "efficiency")


Good, deep bass


Your *main* speakers have *extremely small enclosures (and the speaker diaphragms themselves are very small, as Mike pointed out).* At 90 dB/1w/1m, they have* slightly high efficiency* in the midrange (usually 500 to 2,000Hz) -- *so that's two *-- so, according to Hofmann, you can't have deep bass. Audyssey is telling you that in your room, with your speaker placement, and in your listening position, they don't reach down to the 68 dB Gallo specifies without more of a bass decline than 3 dB. 



The Klipsch subwoofer is probably pretty good (some others might be better for the $$), but I really don't know what would happen above 120 Hz ... some subwoofers roll off at 38 dB/octave above their upper limit.


----------



## drh3b

CBdicX said:


> If i buy a 200Hz sub and it will (try to) do the 200Hz x-over, think i will hear it play.
> If i buy the SPL 150 it will be less placeable du to it will play max 125Hz and start to lose bass much sooner then a 200Hz sub, or am i wrong ?
> 
> And thank you for trying to get me on the right track


The SVS PB1000 is 19-270 Hz +/- 3 dB, so should work well. It should be better than most Klipsch subwoofers,and is available in the EU.

https://www.hificorner.nl/search/PB1000/


----------



## CBdicX

garygarrison said:


> Part of what you are encountering is Hofmann's Iron Law of speaker design, which states that among the following three desirable properties of a speaker, you can only have two:
> 
> 
> 
> Small speaker box (enclosure)
> 
> 
> 
> High sensitivity (sometimes called "efficiency")
> 
> 
> Good, deep bass
> 
> 
> Your *main* speakers have *extremely small enclosures (and the speaker diaphragms themselves are very small, as Mike pointed out).* At 90 dB/1w/1m, they have* slightly high efficiency* in the midrange (usually 500 to 2,000Hz) -- *so that's two *-- so, according to Hofmann, you can't have deep bass. Audyssey is telling you that in your room, with your speaker placement, and in your listening position, they don't reach down to the 68 dB Gallo specifies without more of a bass decline than 3 dB.
> 
> 
> 
> The Klipsch subwoofer is probably pretty good (some others might be better for the $$), but I really don't know what would happen above 120 Hz ... some subwoofers roll off at 38 dB/octave above their upper limit.


Ok, clear about the very low bass speakers i have  but i do like them a lot 

The "worry" i have is that i can (could) hear the subwoofer, where its placed.
Should i buy a sub that can do the "needit" 150-200 Hz like SVS PB1000 is 19-270 Hz +/- 3 dB, or will it be better to get one that will do something like 19-125 Hz so it will roll off sooner and i will not hear the mid/upper bass ?


----------



## D Bone

CBdicX said:


> Ok, clear about the very low bass speakers i have  but i do like them a lot
> 
> The "worry" i have is that i can (could) hear the subwoofer, where its placed.
> Should i buy a sub that can do the "needit" 150-200 Hz like SVS PB1000 is 19-270 Hz +/- 3 dB, or will it be better to get one that will do something like 19-125 Hz so it will roll off sooner and i will not hear the mid/upper bass ?


Try placing your current sub in the front of the room between your L/R speakers. That will greatly reduce localization.


----------



## CBdicX

D Bone said:


> Try placing your current sub in the front of the room between your L/R speakers. That will greatly reduce localization.


Not possible, sub needs to be on the left of the left front speaker, no other options 
So i need some info on what sub to get, a higher playing sub or lower playing, 19-125 or 19-250


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> Ok, clear about the very low bass speakers i have  but i do like them a lot
> 
> The "worry" i have is that i can (could) hear the subwoofer, where its placed.
> Should i buy a sub that can do the "needit" 150-200 Hz like SVS PB1000 is 19-270 Hz +/- 3 dB, or will it be better to get one that will do something like 19-125 Hz so it will roll off sooner and i will not hear the mid/upper bass ?


Now I think I'm beginning to understand that you are worried that if you cross-over as high as 150 Hz or 200 Hz you will be able to clearly _*locate*_ where the subwoofer is, instead of all of the bass coming from wherever in the soundstage its point of origin is supposed to be, i.e., where it was placed by the filmmakers. 

It is true this _*can*_ be a problem. "Experts" can't seem to agree on exactly what frequency (and below) bass becomes non-directional, it could be as low as 80/90/100 Hz, or as high as 150/200 Hz. A great deal may depend on individual differences, including, but not limited to, how far apart your ears are, compared to the wavelength of the sound being played! Somewhere on AVS there is a thread on this.

I'd be inclined to get the SVS PB1000, set the crossovers to the Gallos where Audyssey recommends, and _*minimize*_ the problem by:


 Placing the SVS PB1000 _*midway*_ between your Right Front and Left Front speakers, right below your center channel. [*Edit*: written before I saw your response above. If the SVS MUST be off center, can you disguise it (see below)?] 

If there is a way to disguise the subwoofer with some acoustically transparent cloth (a grille cloth, if the SVS comes with it) so that listeners can't see it, or it is less obvious, that might help. Out of sight, out of mind. 

I think the SVS PB1000 has a port on the _*front*_ of the box. If this is true, aim it straight forward, and place its rear side against (or almost against) the wall. [*Or* if it must be off center, could you try it in a front corner?]
Make sure there is _*nothing that vibrates*_ near the subwoofer _*that could give away its location*_.
If and when you eventually replace the Gallo main speakers, get some that go down to about 40 Hz, and try crossing them over at about 80 Hz.
 With all of the above, experiment, experiment, experiment.

With music that is mostly midrange and treble, like solo violin or viola, speakers like your Gallos might be fine. I was fooled by some about their size, that were hidden in a store -- with no subwoofer -- playing ethereal Hildegard von Bingen music with great clarity (I bought the CD, "Voice of the Blood."). But full orchestra, pipe organ, drums, bass guitar or *modern movies* are maximally demanding.


----------



## CBdicX

garygarrison said:


> .


Thanks for the help 
As i am not able to put the sub midway between front L/R will it help to get a second sub on the right ?
Or will a second sub increase the location problem ?

Is a lower then 20Hz sub a must or will 30-35 Hz sub be also enough for HT stuff.

*I like this one*, small and easy to place, tiny footprint, but is it a help for the Gallo's and HT ?

https://www.teufelaudio.com/uk/accessories/subwoofer-s-4000-sw-p13341.html


----------



## drh3b

CBdicX said:


> Thanks for the help
> As i am not able to put the sub midway between front L/R will it help to get a second sub on the right ?
> Or will a second sub increase the location problem ?
> 
> Is a lower then 20Hz sub a must or will 30-35 Hz sub be also enough for HT stuff.
> 
> *I like this one*, small and easy to place, tiny footprint, but is it a help for the Gallo's and HT ?
> 
> https://www.teufelaudio.com/uk/accessories/subwoofer-s-4000-sw-p13341.html


Yes, if you are able to put a subwoofer on either side, it will decrease, and probably completely stop any localization.

The SVS can go almost an octave lower, and has much more power(not a guarantee of more output, other design choices affect that as well), so is going probably going to be able to play louder as well.
If you don't mind losing the bottom octave, these will definitely help your Gallos out. I know Teufel:devil: is a reasonably respected German brand, and it is THX certified, so I'm sure it sounds great within its limitations. (low power, small size negatively affects it's low end ability and it's output ability.)

If you can make 2 SVS work for you, that would be the way to go.

I noticed Teufel has similar policies to SVS, 8 week trial, free returns. You could try them, and if you don't think they're enough, try the PB1000.


----------



## CBdicX

*SVS SB 1000*

ok, pulled the trigger for 2x *SB* 1000, one on the Left and Right side 
I wanted the SB over the PB as i do not have to much space on the right side, the SB is only 33 x 33 x 33cm !
Hope the 2 SVS subs will give my Gallo Strada setup a 
*B O O S T* ………. 

Thanks for all the help !!


----------



## SouthernCA

Does anyone know what frequencies does the Audyssey dialog enhancer boost in Denon 6500x and 8500x?

What other settings does Audyssey or Denon change in when dialog enhancer is selected?

I am trying to implement many of those settings in Denon 3500 Audyssey to improve dialog clarity I'm a 4.1 setup.

Thanks


----------



## David Aiken

CBdicX said:


> Thanks for the help
> As i am not able to put the sub midway between front L/R will it help to get a second sub on the right ?
> Or will a second sub increase the location problem ?
> 
> Is a lower then 20Hz sub a must or will 30-35 Hz sub be also enough for HT stuff.
> 
> *I like this one*, small and easy to place, tiny footprint, but is it a help for the Gallo's and HT ?
> 
> https://www.teufelaudio.com/uk/accessories/subwoofer-s-4000-sw-p13341.html



Your AVR may have 2 sub outputs but Audyssey and the AVR don't treat them as left and right subs, they treat them as 2 mono subs so the same signal gets sent to each. That means that if you place them in mirror image positions relative to your L and R speakers, the sound will appear to come from dead centre between them, the same place a sound which appears in the centre speaker comes from so yes, it should eliminate the localisation problem. It may introduce another problem. Audyssey measures the 2 subs separately but it creates one correction filter for the combination of the 2 subs. If the subs aren't identical and one of them has better bass performance than the other, Audyssey has a problem. If it creates a filter based on the bass extension of the sub which goes lower, it can create problems for the sub which doesn't go as low. If it creates a filter based on the sub with weaker performance, the better sub won't go as low. I can't remember for certain which way Audyssey goes but I think it takes the safe option and bases it's filter on the weaker sub so the better sub will end up not delivering what it could deliver. My advice would be to to get a second Gallo sub or to replace the Gallo with either a single better sub or with 2 better identical subs rather than using 2 different subs.

You can certainly add a different sub along with your Gallo sub if you wish, it's your choice., but there's no guarantee that the combination will work as well as you hope. It's pointless asking if anyone has tried such and such a sub with your Gallo sub because the odds are that you won't find anyone who has done so. Even if by some fluke you found someone who had, they have a different room to you and they may have placed the subs in different locations where each worked differently to the way they work in your room. Their results are going to be different and the kind of result they were chasing may also be different to what you want so their opinion won't be valid for you. Sometimes the only way to find out if something will work well is just to try it for yourself and this is going to be one of those times. If you are going to try adding a different sub, either borrow one to try first or choose one you can return if you don't like the result.


----------



## pbarach

SouthernCA said:


> Does anyone know what frequencies does the Audyssey dialog enhancer boost in Denon 6500x and 8500x?
> 
> What other settings does Audyssey or Denon change in when dialog enhancer is selected?
> 
> I am trying to implement many of those settings in Denon 3500 Audyssey to improve dialog clarity I'm a 4.1 setup.
> 
> Thanks


Every sound from human vocal cords has a _fundamental _frequency and a harmonic series of overtones, just as other strings on a piano will resonate if you hold down the sustaining pedal and strike a single note. The fundamental note of male speech is generally between 85-180 Hz; for an adult female, it's between 165 and 255 Hz. However, the overtones of speech can go as high as 8 kHz, and it's the higher-pitched consonants and sibilants that require the higher frequencies to be audible. So there will be a wide range of frequencies higher than the fundamental that would have to be emphasized to make speech clearer.

Does your receiver let you do that with the center-channel audio that's getting distributed to both of your front speakers? If you can't do that without affecting rqualization on the front L and R channels, you're going to end up with a really shrill system.


----------



## pbz06

If I use the app to limit the correction frequency (300hz), it doesn't matter then what I do with MRC or Target Rolloff 1 or 2, right?

But I can then just engage CinemaEQ which will still work?


----------



## CBdicX

pbarach said:


> Every sound from human vocal cords has a _fundamental _frequency and a harmonic series of overtones, just as other strings on a piano will resonate if you hold down the sustaining pedal and strike a single note. The fundamental note of male speech is generally between 85-180 Hz; for an adult female, it's between 165 and 255 Hz. However, the overtones of speech can go as high as 8 kHz, and it's the higher-pitched consonants and sibilants that require the higher frequencies to be audible. So there will be a wide range of frequencies higher than the fundamental that would have to be emphasized to make speech clearer.
> 
> Does your receiver let you do that with the center-channel audio that's getting distributed to both of your front speakers? If you can't do that without affecting rqualization on the front L and R channels, you're going to end up with a really shrill system.


Think what SouthernCA and i want to know is, what is the receiver doing when Dialog Enhancer is used ?
Its a 3 step option so they are 3 fixed steps to "improve" the dialog of the Center speaker.
And it works only on the Center speaker, not the fronts.
Its a great option, to bad Denon has this option on only 2 AVR's, and Marantz has not


----------



## CBdicX

SouthernCA said:


> Does anyone know what frequencies does the Audyssey dialog enhancer boost in Denon 6500x and 8500x?
> 
> What other settings does Audyssey or Denon change in when dialog enhancer is selected?
> 
> I am trying to implement many of those settings in Denon 3500 Audyssey to improve dialog clarity I'm a 4.1 setup.
> 
> Thanks


Maybe a question for the Denon X...H forum.
In the past i asked the same question, then (something like 2 years ago) never got an answer.
As it is a 3 step fixed enhancer someone must know what these steps are doing.


----------



## CBdicX

David Aiken said:


> Your AVR may have 2 sub outputs but Audyssey and the AVR don't treat them as left and right subs, they treat them as 2 mono subs so the same signal gets sent to each. That means that if you place them in mirror image positions relative to your L and R speakers, the sound will appear to come from dead centre between them, the same place a sound which appears in the centre speaker comes from so yes, it should eliminate the localisation problem. It may introduce another problem. Audyssey measures the 2 subs separately but it creates one correction filter for the combination of the 2 subs. If the subs aren't identical and one of them has better bass performance than the other, Audyssey has a problem. If it creates a filter based on the bass extension of the sub which goes lower, it can create problems for the sub which doesn't go as low. If it creates a filter based on the sub with weaker performance, the better sub won't go as low. I can't remember for certain which way Audyssey goes but I think it takes the safe option and bases it's filter on the weaker sub so the better sub will end up not delivering what it could deliver. My advice would be to to get a second Gallo sub or to replace the Gallo with either a single better sub or with 2 better identical subs rather than using 2 different subs.
> 
> You can certainly add a different sub along with your Gallo sub if you wish, it's your choice., but there's no guarantee that the combination will work as well as you hope. It's pointless asking if anyone has tried such and such a sub with your Gallo sub because the odds are that you won't find anyone who has done so. Even if by some fluke you found someone who had, they have a different room to you and they may have placed the subs in different locations where each worked differently to the way they work in your room. Their results are going to be different and the kind of result they were chasing may also be different to what you want so their opinion won't be valid for you. Sometimes the only way to find out if something will work well is just to try it for yourself and this is going to be one of those times. If you are going to try adding a different sub, either borrow one to try first or choose one you can return if you don't like the result.


Thank you, 
yes i will get 2 same subs, the Gallo sub is returned, nice to look at but not very good, more a bigger woofer instade of a subwoofer.
I know Audyssey has a hard time with 2 different subs, i personal would never do 2 different subs, i do not even like the look of 2 different subs


----------



## SouthernCA

CBdicX said:


> Maybe a question for the Denon X...H forum.
> 
> In the past i asked the same question, then (something like 2 years ago) never got an answer.
> 
> As it is a 3 step fixed enhancer someone must know what these steps are doing.


Here is what I got from the Denon forum if you are curious.

The dialog enhancer has three positions: low, medium, and high with the following frequency enhancement curves.


----------



## CBdicX

SouthernCA said:


> Here is what I got from the Denon forum if you are curious.
> 
> The dialog enhancer has three positions: low, medium, and high with the following frequency enhancement curves.


Clear, now you know what to do with the Audyssey app...…….


----------



## pbarach

CBdicX said:


> Think what SouthernCA and i want to know is, what is the receiver doing when Dialog Enhancer is used ?
> Its a 3 step option so they are 3 fixed steps to "improve" the dialog of the Center speaker.
> And it works only on the Center speaker, not the fronts.
> Its a great option, to bad Denon has this option on only 2 AVR's, and Marantz has not


I understood the question, but I have no direct information to answer it, such as REW charts with/without the enhancer circuit in use. The point I was trying to make is that the OP has a 4.1 system, i.e., no center channel speaker. The AVR will send the center channel signal in that setup to both L and R fronts. 

If there is some way to improve dialogue clarity by altering the response curve ONLY on the center channel signal before it goes to the speakers, fine. But altering the L and R front channel response curves to improve dialogue clarity will obviously have big effects on the signals intended for those channels as well.


----------



## CBdicX

pbarach said:


> I understood the question, but I have no direct information to answer it, such as REW charts with/without the enhancer circuit in use. The point I was trying to make is that the OP has a 4.1 system, i.e., no center channel speaker. The AVR will send the center channel signal in that setup to both L and R fronts.
> 
> If there is some way to improve dialogue clarity by altering the response curve ONLY on the center channel signal before it goes to the speakers, fine. But altering the L and R front channel response curves to improve dialogue clarity will obviously have big effects on the signals intended for those channels as well.


Indeed, with a 4.1 setup this will effect the fronts, i missed the 4.1 and was thinking of a 3.1 setup


----------



## JoeyW

Question: Does anyone know why Audyssey cannot be used with Dolby Height Virtualizer or DTS Virtual:X*?
*


----------



## mogorf

JoeyW said:


> Question: Does anyone know why Audyssey cannot be used with Dolby Height Virtualizer or DTS Virtual:X*?
> *



What's your AVR's brand and model number? Does the Manual say Audyssey can not be used in the above listed cases?


----------



## codwapeace

Does Audessey have yearly (or any other frequency) revisions of each of its standards? E.g., Is the Audyssey MultEQ XT in SR 6007 (from 2013) same as MultEQ XT in NR 1609 (from 2019)? Or is it different where they have the same name but have gone through revisions of its algorithms?


----------



## pbarach

codwapeace said:


> Does Audessey have yearly (or any other frequency) revisions of each of its standards? E.g., Is the Audyssey MultEQ XT in SR 6007 (from 2013) same as MultEQ XT in NR 1609 (from 2019)? Or is it different where they have the same name but have gone through revisions of its algorithms?


Each named variety of Audyssey has remained the same. XT has always been the same.


----------



## cathodeRay

Is it normal that Audyssey wants my subwoofer's gain set to 1~1.5 before it begins mic readings? In the testing phase the subs are not audible to me at the MLP or very, very slight if I put my head right next to them.

AVR: Marantz sr6011 for subs, center, and surrounds/Atmos, Denon 3805 for the fronts
Subs: dual Klipsch R-115SW

I've had 2 totally different room setups and a few sub placements and it's always the same. Crossover in the 6011 is 80 Hz., crossover on the subs set to max. The room is 30' x 40' with 10' ceilings. Subs are 12' from the MLP. The LFE is very weak after just using Audyssey settings, only audible at the most extreme, peak moments. Bumping the gain to 3.5 or bumping output in the 6011 +7 makes it seem 'normal', which I know is subjective, but a car crash gives a couple of 'good' thuds, and "Bladerunner 2049" or "Madmax Fury Road" seems as intense as it should be without clipping or bottoming out.


----------



## Alan P

^^^

A 3-6dB bump in sub level post-Audyssey is the average...some of us prefer (way) more.


----------



## garygarrison

*[Bizarre bolding and freakish font inflation is mine - GG]*



cathodeRay said:


> Is it normal that Audyssey wants my subwoofer's gain set to 1~1.5 before it begins mic readings? In the testing phase the subs are not audible to me ...
> 
> I've had 2 totally different room setups and a few sub placements and it's always the same. ... The LFE is very weak after just using Audyssey settings, only audible at the most extreme, peak moments. *Bumping the gain to 3.5 or bumping output in the 6011 +7 makes it seem 'normal'*, which I know is subjective, but a car crash gives a couple of 'good' thuds, and "Bladerunner 2049" or "Madmax Fury Road" seems as intense as it should be without clipping or bottoming out.





Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> A 3-6dB bump in sub level post-Audyssey is the average...some of us prefer (way) more.



I'd try turning the gain on the back of subwoofers _*themselves *_up even higher than +3.5. This may allow you to keep the "sub out" trim setting in the 6011 at a lower level, where its internal line driver is less likely to clip (I know you aren't hearing clipping yet, but a receiver trim of +7 is awfully high, and may invite trouble; I'm assuming that, by referring to the "output of the 6011" you are indicating the internal trim level for the subwoofers only in the receiver, rather than a setting of + 7 on the Main Volume Control. The ideal receiver trim level is more like -5 or lower (but I don't get clipping at higher levels), with the dual subs turned up with the knob on each sub, to provide "normal" bass, or several dB up to provide the bass boost many of us like, as Alan says. I don't know if there is any circuitry in the sub before the gain knob, or not. If it is just a big variable resistor or "pot," I don't think it will overload in any position, high or low. The trim in the receiver will, possibly.

This is all covered in the Guide of Mike Thomas; I'll get you a link for it in a few minutes. Look at his "Cliff Notes" first and it will tell you where in the main body it is discussed.


Here it is. GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES


----------



## SpeedDemon

Is there a Receiver and/oor Pre/Pro in 2019 that doesn’t downsamples high-res playback when Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is enabled? 

My understanding is that most Audyssey processors will process the signal at 24/48 internally before the D/A conversion.


----------



## pbarach

SpeedDemon said:


> Is there a Receiver and/oor Pre/Pro in 2019 that doesn’t downsamples high-res playback when Audyssey MultEQ XT32 is enabled?
> 
> My understanding is that most Audyssey processors will process the signal at 24/48 internally before the D/A conversion.


NO Audyssey processors operate at sample rates higher than 48 kHz. Any source with higher res is downsampled. The limitation stems from the processing power in current AVRs, although a Audyssey could operate at a higher sample rate if the AVR manufacturers wanted to increase the processing power of their hardware:
https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview

In my system, the benefits of Audyssey outweigh the effects of downsampling hi-res files. It's easy enough to test this for yourself by listening to a 96 kHz or 192 kHz file with and then without Audyssey.


----------



## Mactavish

pbarach said:


> NO Audyssey processors operate at sample rates higher than 48 kHz. Any source with higher res is downsampled. The limitation stems from the processing power in current AVRs, although a Audyssey could operate at a higher sample rate if the AVR manufacturers wanted to increase the processing power of their hardware:
> https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/audyssey-room-eq-interview
> 
> In my system, the benefits of Audyssey outweigh the effects of downsampling hi-res files. It's easy enough to test this for yourself by listening to a 96 kHz or 192 kHz file with and then without Audyssey.


I pasted the appropriate text from you link below. I’m confused, as this is the first time I have heard of down sampling of high res music sources. I’m using a Denon 3500 AVR, Audyssey is always on, playing back via USB stick, a 192kHz FLAC music file. Info on AVR screen shows rate as 192kHz. Is that just showing the source rate, and in reality all higher rates are down sampled to 48kHz, and you just don’t see it reflected in any AVR info screens? 
Confused.....
Thanks.

PASTE:
“Audioholics: The top frequency for correction is 24kHz, implying that Audyssey is functioning at a 48kHz sample rate. Does this mean that high resolution content (for example 192kHz or 96kHz sample rate PCM) will be downmixed?

Chris Kyriakakis: There are two parts to this answer. A loudspeaker does not reproduce acoustic energy above about 24-30 kHz even if it was in the content (with the exception of super-super tweeters), and a microphone cannot capture acoustic energy above that range. So if there is no information captured then, there is nothing for the filter to do up there.

Now, there is content encoded at higher sampling rates of course. We offer MultEQ at 96 kHz and even higher if needed so that the content can be processed without downsampling, even though the MultEQ filters above 24-30 kHz (adjustable) would be doing absolutely nothing. The issue is that doubling the sampling rate also doubles (roughly) the processing requirements needed. This is true for any kind of digital processing not just MultEQ. The AVR makers would have to add significant cost for more DSP processing and they have chosen not to do that. So they decided to use Audyssey at a max of 48 kHz. From an acoustic point of view this makes perfect sense for the reason I explained above.”


----------



## Kal Rubinson

Mactavish said:


> I pasted the appropriate text from you link below. I’m confused, as this is the first time I have heard of down sampling of high res music sources. I’m using a Denon 3500 AVR, Audyssey is always on, playing back via USB stick, a 192kHz FLAC music file. Info on AVR screen shows rate as 192kHz. Is that just showing the source rate, and in reality all higher rates are down sampled to 48kHz, and you just don’t see it reflected in any AVR info screens?
> Confused.....


The AVR companies have hidden this for years but, when questioned directly, will respond with the same argument that Chris offers. They all down-sample but there would be no requirement to do so if marketing decided that the consumer was willing to pay more for it. I suspect they have good business reasons to do what they do, annoying as it is for many of us.


----------



## mogorf

Kal Rubinson said:


> The AVR companies have hidden this for years but, when questioned directly, will respond with the same argument that Chris offers. They all down-sample but there would be no requirement to do so if marketing decided that the consumer was willing to pay more for it. I suspect they have good business reasons to do what they do, annoying as it is for many of us.



Kal et al, is it really annoying? 

With 192 kHz is there any contents (movie or music) that requires such high sampling rate? As Chris K. said, there is no microphone and there is no speaker that could record and reproduce up to 96 kHz in real (analog) life. 

And finally the human ears need no such high frequency reproduction at all. IMHO, it all boils down to waste of resources suggested my marketing, doesn't it? Oh, yes, and to the human factor of being disappointed because something has been taken away from us by the "bad boys" at Audyssey and the AVR makers! LOL 

Let's try to think "out of the box" and comprehend all the above on well understood technical basis while we all might try to avoid and reject the marketing "stuff" being laid on us unnecessarily and without a well established industrial science background.


----------



## pbarach

mogorf said:


> Kal et al, is it really annoying?
> 
> With 192 kHz is there any contents (movie or music) that requires such high sampling rate? As Chris K. said, there is no microphone and there is no speaker that could record and reproduce up to 96 kHz in real (analog) life.
> 
> And finally the human ears need no such high frequency reproduction at all. IMHO, it all boils down to waste of resources suggested my marketing, doesn't it? Oh, yes, and to the human factor of being disappointed because something has been taken away from us by the "bad boys" at Audyssey and the AVR makers! LOL
> 
> Let's try to think "out of the box" and comprehend all the above on well understood technical basis while we all might try to avoid and reject the marketing "stuff" being laid on us unnecessarily and without a well established industrial science background.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but...at 192 kHz, doesn't a digital signal contain four samples per unit of time, compared to a 44.1 kHz signal over the same unit of time? In other words, aren't there 4x as many data points in a 192 kHz file from which a more accurate approximation of the initial analog signal may be reconstructed? 

Even if I'm right, these facts beg the question of whether trained ears can reliably discern the difference between a conversion from a hi-res file and a 44.1 kHz file.


----------



## Mactavish

mogorf said:


> Kal et al, is it really annoying?
> 
> With 192 kHz is there any contents (movie or music) that requires such high sampling rate? As Chris K. said, there is no microphone and there is no speaker that could record and reproduce up to 96 kHz in real (analog) life.
> 
> And finally the human ears need no such high frequency reproduction at all. IMHO, it all boils down to waste of resources suggested my marketing, doesn't it? Oh, yes, and to the human factor of being disappointed because something has been taken away from us by the "bad boys" at Audyssey and the AVR makers! LOL
> 
> Let's try to think "out of the box" and comprehend all the above on well understood technical basis while we all might try to avoid and reject the marketing "stuff" being laid on us unnecessarily and without a well established industrial science background.


I think it’s “annoying”, that my AVR Manual describes in detail, all the sampling rates the unit supports, but not a single *=asterisk or note explaining that there is 48kHz limit when Audyssey is engaged. Whether or not listeners can hear the difference between CD’s versus higher resolution disks, is another subject. Perhaps, all those that purchase such disks, or download from the few high res. music websites, use their AVR’s “direct” or “pure” modes, NO Audyssey engaged. I think Kal is spot on saying “dirty little secret”, I never knew this, don’t see it mentioned in the literature. Up till now, I assumed the file playback information I see reported by the AVR was the actual output, not just reporting the original files encoded input. Perhaps there is a menu somewhere that shows the accurate “output” information when playing back higher resolution files/disks, but I haven’t found it.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

mogorf said:


> Kal et al, is it really annoying?


It is to me, personally, as a reviewer and commentator because I want equipment that goes beyond accepted/necessary standards to reveal the compromises in other equipment. OTOH, as a music lover. I have already stated:
1. The audible advantages of Audyssey (at or downsampled to 48kHz) easily surpass any advantages of higher sample rates without Audyssey on the same equipment.
2. I could/will say, by analogy, that the audible advantages of DiracLive (at or downsampled to 192kHz) easily surpass any advantages of higher sample rates (e.g., DXD, DSD64, DSD128, DSD256) without DiracLive on the same equipment.



> With 192 kHz is there any contents (movie or music) that requires such high sampling rate?


Requires? Probably not but it is available.



> Let's try to think "out of the box" and comprehend all the above on well understood technical basis while we all might try to avoid and reject the marketing "stuff" being laid on us unnecessarily and without a well established industrial science background.


Here's the nub of our discontent: It is not that we must have higher sampling rates with Audyssey but that the downsampling was hidden from the user by front panel displays that implied otherwise and documentation that was complicit in ignoring the issue entirely.


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> In my system, the benefits of Audyssey outweigh the effects of downsampling hi-res files. It's easy enough to test this for yourself by listening to a 96 kHz or 192 kHz file with and then without Audyssey.



Same here.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Does the Audyssey app allow for adjustment of peaks and dips in any way in regard to a sub?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Does the Audyssey app allow for adjustment of peaks and dips in any way in regard to a sub?


That is the most important thing that it does. OTOH, if you mean a manual adjustment, the answer is not really.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Kal Rubinson said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the Audyssey app allow for adjustment of peaks and dips in any way in regard to a sub?
> 
> 
> 
> That is the most important thing that it does. OTOH, if you mean a manual adjustment, the answer is not really.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I meant manual adjustments. Bummer.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Yeah, I meant manual adjustments. Bummer.


Why? Audyssey actually does this quite well, all on its own. OTOH, if you want to tweak it, you can fiddle with the target curve editor for the relevant channels.
Is there some reason that you feel Audyssey is not sufficient for this job?


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Kal Rubinson said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I meant manual adjustments. Bummer.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Audyssey actually does this quite well, all on its own. OTOH, if you want to tweak it, you can fiddle with the target curve editor for the relevant channels.
> Is there some reason that you feel Audyssey is not sufficient for this job?
Click to expand...

I am just unsure as to how well Audyssey, smooths out the subs room response? If it's good, then no worries. I am using XT32. So I would assume it does a decent job?


----------



## Kal Rubinson

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> I am just unsure as to how well Audyssey, smooths out the subs room response? If it's good, then no worries. I am using XT32. So I would assume it does a decent job?


Generally, yes. The only way to know is to measure the before-EQ and after-EQ response with something like REW.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Kal Rubinson said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am just unsure as to how well Audyssey, smooths out the subs room response? If it's good, then no worries. I am using XT32. So I would assume it does a decent job?
> 
> 
> 
> Generally, yes. The only way to know is to measure the before-EQ and after-EQ response with something like REW.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Unfortunately I have no way to measure.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Thanks. Unfortunately I have no way to measure.


Well, then, why would you need a way to set anything manually? On what basis would you be making adjustments?


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Kal Rubinson said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks. Unfortunately I have no way to measure.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, then, why would you need a way to set anything manually? On what basis would you be making adjustments?
Click to expand...

That's why I was asking if the app allowed for manual adjustment. I was under the impression it showed the room response after running Audyssey? I am as noob as it gets with measurement stuff. Just trying to get educated.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> That's why I was asking if the app allowed for manual adjustment. I was under the impression it showed the room response after running Audyssey? I am as noob as it gets with measurement stuff. Just trying to get educated.


Audyssey shows the original measurements and their _predicted _results.


----------



## HYPURR DBL NKL

Kal Rubinson said:


> HYPURR DBL NKL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I was asking if the app allowed for manual adjustment. I was under the impression it showed the room response after running Audyssey? I am as noob as it gets with measurement stuff. Just trying to get educated.
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey shows the original measurements and their _predicted _results.
Click to expand...

Is this the app you're referring to, or Audyssey in the AVR without the app?


----------



## D Bone

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Is this the app you're referring to, or Audyssey in the AVR without the app?


Only the app shows the before and predicted after graphs. When you use the AVR to calibrate then it gives you a very crude EQ graph in the 'Check Results' page, but think of that as doing surgery with an electric carving knife.


----------



## Kal Rubinson

HYPURR DBL NKL said:


> Is this the app you're referring to, or Audyssey in the AVR without the app?


The app.


----------



## FlavioWolff

Thought this might be useful. I asked audyssey about closing windows or not.

Hello,
It's common recommendation to close windows and doors during calibration, to further reduce any background noise. However, my standard listening condition is with all windows and some doors open. In such situation, should I still close them while calibrating? Wouldnt't it calibrate my room to a different listening situation?
Thank you!

Response:

Hello,

The calibration is fairly noise resistant, there are a lot of chirps per position and many positions that cause anomalies that happened during a single chirp in a single position to have very little affect on the results.
Measure the way the room is used when watching movies.

The only exception to this would be if there is a constant louder than chirp noise intrusion that makes calibration not possible. Then you would need to make temporary changes (close door/window) to limit intruding noise.

Kind regards,
Audyssey Support


----------



## Soulburner

Leave them open. Opening/closing doors affects bass so you want them exactly how you will use the room.


----------



## prsman

*How compensate for large distance descrepancies?*

During 8 position room EQ with 2 subwoofers using a Denon X4500H and using the most recent MultiEQ software, I get a large distance discrepancy (see image). Are there additional manual adjustments I should consider? 



1) from MLP, SW 2 is actually 7ft but reports 21.8ft. SW1 is closer, actual is 18ft and report is 22.6 so close. 

Do I make any manual adjustments to compensate or just leave alone?


2) I heard Sub1 and 2 during the initial Audyssey volume test but during the EQ tests, I don't here the farther sub from MLP, Sub1, at all. I even put my hand on the unit during the test and I don't think it was operating. Is this how Audyssey works or just using the most dominant sub? Is there something wrong here?


3) After EQ both subs are -5.5 and -6 db which I understood is a good range suggesting the volume of the subs amp is high keeping the premap input below any clipping level. Is this correct?




Insights appreciated. Thank you


----------



## Alan P

prsman said:


> During 8 position room EQ with 2 subwoofers using a Denon X4500H and using the most recent MultiEQ software, I get a large distance discrepancy (see image). Are there additional manual adjustments I should consider?
> 
> 
> 
> 1) from MLP, SW 2 is actually 7ft but reports 21.8ft. SW1 is closer, actual is 18ft and report is 22.6 so close.
> 
> Do I make any manual adjustments to compensate or just leave alone?
> 
> 
> 2) I heard Sub1 and 2 during the initial Audyssey volume test but during the EQ tests, I don't here the farther sub from MLP, Sub1, at all. I even put my hand on the unit during the test and I don't think it was operating. Is this how Audyssey works or just using the most dominant sub? Is there something wrong here?
> 
> 
> 3) After EQ both subs are -5.5 and -6 db which I understood is a good range suggesting the volume of the subs amp is high keeping the premap input below any clipping level. Is this correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Insights appreciated. Thank you


Is subwoofer 2 connected using a wireless transmitter? If not, that is a much larger discrepancy than you should usually be seeing. It is normal for the sub distance calculated by the AVR to be a bit longer than actual, this is due to the delay caused by DSP processing in the sub amp, but an increase of 3x actual is a bit unusual. Can you share the make/model of subs and how they are connected to the AVR? Also, a pic of your setup might help diagnose.

If subwoofer 1 isn't making any sound during the Audyssey chirps, it seems unlikely that Audyssey would even finish the calibration let alone result in sub trim only .5dB different from sub 2. Are you certain it wasn't making any sound? The Audyssey chirps on the subs can be pretty low in volume.

-5.5dB and -6.0dB is a pretty good result IF you don't ever listen above -10MV (and you don't plan on running the subs "hot"). If you do listen louder, you may want to reduce sub gain and re-run Audyssey until you get closer to the -10dB to -11dB range.


----------



## prsman

Alan P said:


> Is subwoofer 2 connected using a wireless transmitter? If not, that is a much larger discrepancy than you should usually be seeing. It is normal for the sub distance calculated by the AVR to be a bit longer than actual, this is due to the delay caused by DSP processing in the sub amp, but an increase of 3x actual is a bit unusual. Can you share the make/model of subs and how they are connected to the AVR? Also, a pic of your setup might help diagnose.
> 
> If subwoofer 1 isn't making any sound during the Audyssey chirps, it seems unlikely that Audyssey would even finish the calibration let alone result in sub trim only .5dB different from sub 2. Are you certain it wasn't making any sound? The Audyssey chirps on the subs can be pretty low in volume.
> 
> -5.5dB and -6.0dB is a pretty good result IF you don't ever listen above -10MV (and you don't plan on running the subs "hot"). If you do listen louder, you may want to reduce sub gain and re-run Audyssey until you get closer to the -10dB to -11dB range.



Hi Alan: Additional info below:

Is subwoofer 2 connected using a wireless transmitter? *Both subs are wired or using RCA coax cable.*
Can you share the make/model of subs and how they are connected to the AVR? *Sub1 is a 22 year old Definitive Technology PF1500, 15", 250W. Sub 2 is a SVS PC-2000 (down firing) . sub 2 is the one 7ft from the MLP. Sub1 is connected to Sub1 output of the Denon Pre out and Sub2 is connected to Sub2 out of the Denon Pre out. 
*Are you certain it wasn't making any sound? The Audyssey chirps on the subs can be pretty low in volume. *Sub 1 could be very low. I just expected it to be as loud as Sub2. Ill have to be more thorough and try again*

-5.5dB and -6.0dB is a pretty good result IF you don't ever listen above -10MV (and you don't plan on running the subs "hot"). If you do listen louder, you may want to reduce sub gain and re-run Audyssey until you get closer to the -10dB to -11dB rang. *OK. Sounds good. Ill do that on the next EQ.*

*I should have also mentioned the following. After EQ I did the "Speaker/Levels" test. I could hear every speaker but both subs were inaudible. If I turned the volume way up I could indeed now hear each sub independently during this test. that is a strange behavior that has been with the receiver for a while although I dont remember this behavior when I first got the Denon 4500...weird. I wonder if I should do a factory reset and try again? 
*


----------



## Alan P

^^^

A factory reset couldn't hurt.

While Audyssey tends to set the subwoofer trim level on the low side for most on this forum, it should still be audible during the Speaker/Levels/Test Tones with the MV at 0 (default when you start the test tone).


----------



## prsman

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> A factory reset couldn't hurt.
> 
> While Audyssey tends to set the subwoofer trim level on the low side for most on this forum, it should still be audible during the Speaker/Levels/Test Tones with the MV at 0 (default when you start the test tone).


when I start the Speakers/Test Tone test the Master volume is at 38 as shown on the volume bar at the bottom of the test screen. At this level I can hear pink noise just barely on all the speakers. For the subs I have to turn it up to to 60 to just hear the sub noise in either sub. Somethings just not right in my settings, the unit or my understanding. Any hints to troubleshoot?


----------



## j_at_audyssey

prsman said:


> when I start the Speakers/Test Tone test the Master volume is at 38 as shown on the volume bar at the bottom of the test screen. At this level I can hear pink noise just barely on all the speakers. For the subs I have to turn it up to to 60 to just hear the sub noise in either sub. Somethings just not right in my settings, the unit or my understanding. Any hints to troubleshoot?


When you use the absolute volume setting subtract 80 from the value, that is how much you are lowering the signal. 38 volume == -42 dB master volume. 
The pink noise played is -30dBFS, with -42 volume that is -72dBFS signal. It is normal for low frequencies to be difficult to hear at -72dBFS.
60 Absolute volume is -20dB volume. When Alan P said to turn it to 0 MV, he is asking you to turn it to 80.

An alternative, you can turn the volume scale to relative: http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4500H/NA/EN/GFNFSYwrfimgdw.php


----------



## Alan P

Strange...I have a fairly old Denon (4520) and when I start the Test Tone it always sets the MV to 0 (using the relative scale). Do the newer AVRs _not _do that? I could see that causing all sorts of confusion....


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Alan P said:


> Strange...I have a fairly old Denon (4520) and when I start the Test Tone it always sets the MV to 0 (using the relative scale). Do the newer AVRs _not _do that? I could see that causing all sorts of confusion....


Hi Alan,

I have a Denon 7200wa (Old Work Horse). When I start the test tone it starts at whatever my MV is set to at the moment I begin. It does not automatically go to MV -0 or any other predetermined Volume/Gain setting. Can't speak for other AVRs. But this specific Denon Model does not go to MV of -0 for test tones.


----------



## fredxr2d2

Alan P said:


> Strange...I have a fairly old Denon (4520) and when I start the Test Tone it always sets the MV to 0 (using the relative scale). Do the newer AVRs _not _do that? I could see that causing all sorts of confusion....



My Marantz SR6011 does not go to MV 0 when you start the test tones. It starts at whatever volume you have it set to.


The same happens for my parents' Yamaha 1030. You must manually turn the volume up to 0 to get proper 75dB test tones.


----------



## mogorf

fredxr2d2 said:


> My Marantz SR6011 does not go to MV 0 when you start the test tones. It starts at whatever volume you have it set to.
> 
> 
> The same happens for my parents' Yamaha 1030. You must manually turn the volume up to 0 to get proper 75dB test tones.



That is quite strange, indeed. I wonder how the Audyssey process is performed when you have your MV set to -80 dB?


What does the Manual of the Marantz SR6011 say about MV setting by the enduser prior to running Audyssey?


----------



## fredxr2d2

mogorf said:


> That is quite strange, indeed. I wonder how the Audyssey process is performed when you have your MV set to -80 dB?
> 
> 
> What does the Manual of the Marantz SR6011 say about MV setting by the enduser prior to running Audyssey?



Audyssey plays its chirps at the correct volume. Just the Test Tones in the manual section react to the MV setting.


----------



## mogorf

fredxr2d2 said:


> Audyssey plays its chirps at the correct volume. Just the Test Tones in the manual section react to the MV setting.



I see. Sorry, seems I misunderstood. So its not the Audyssey chirps that are affected by MV during the calibration process, but the test tones you can use afterward. A-OK.


----------



## Alan P

fredxr2d2 said:


> Audyssey plays its chirps at the correct volume. Just the Test Tones in the manual section react to the MV setting.


On my 4520, the Test Tones will react to the MV setting, but it is _always _set to 0MV when you initialize the tones. This is how it has been for my last two Denons as well. I wonder when/why they decided to change this? Are they _trying _to make it even more confusing to the end user??


----------



## Mactavish

Many of you know this, but I’ll mention it as it seems appropriate here. The Denon “Test tones” are NOT effected by Audyssey filters. So if you use Audyssey and want to check your speaker levels with a separate audio SPL meter, the most accurate way is to run test tones from a disk like “Spears & Munsil HD Benchmark”, then the audio is routed through your Audyssey settings. But BEWARE, not all test tones on some other disks were recorded at -30db. The SM disk actually lists their tones as: Pink Noise -30db. While these test tones are playing, you adjust your MV to “0db”, and then each speaker trim to 75db. This is just if you want to manually set levels or just double check the Audyssey results.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> Are they _trying _to make it even more confusing to the end user??



Of course they are!


My Marantz tells me to set the MV at 0, then proceeds to do it itself!


I guy I know who has worked in IT, IP, Audio, etc., says that often different people are assigned to write different parts of the same manual, without consultation, and sometimes with no use testing.


----------



## OJ Taylor

So after not being happy with my sound, I reran Audyssey. Everything seemed to work okay but I have a question.
My setup picked up my rear left speaker being closer, it has to be this way due to a wall. Yet Audyssey set that speaker to 0.5 dB louder? It's only about 20 cm closer which is far from ideal I know, but am curious why it would then set it that way. Anything to worry about? Cheers


----------



## Alan P

OJ Taylor said:


> So after not being happy with my sound, I reran Audyssey. Everything seemed to work okay but I have a question.
> My setup picked up my rear left speaker being closer, it has to be this way due to a wall. Yet Audyssey set that speaker to 0.5 dB louder? It's only about 20 cm closer which is far from ideal I know, but am curious why it would then set it that way. Anything to worry about? Cheers


Is the other surround speaker (the one that is further from the MLP) nearer to a wall or the ceiling? If so, the boundary gain is higher for that speaker and it would be necessary to set that speaker's trim lower.


----------



## Edi-MC

Hi guys!

Been messing around with Audyssey on my Marantz SR7009 and there's something I just don't get... I have a 5.1 set and when I run Audyssey everything goes smoothly. The speakers are identified correctly.
BUT, when I go to the "Amp Assign", what I see is "7.1ch+Zone2/Zone3"... I wonder why (?) 
Shouldn't it be 5.1? Am I missing something?

This always happened when I ran the initial setup, it's not new to me. But this time I decided to ask for your help.
What I always did is set the amp assign to 5.1 and ran calibration all over again. Is this the correct procedure?
Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> Been messing around with Audyssey on my Marantz SR7009 and there's something I just don't get... I have a 5.1 set and when I run Audyssey everything goes smoothly. The speakers are identified correctly.
> BUT, when I go to the "Amp Assign", what I see is "7.1ch+Zone2/Zone3"... I wonder why (?)
> Shouldn't it be 5.1? Am I missing something?
> 
> This always happened when I ran the initial setup, it's not new to me. But this time I decided to ask for your help.
> What I always did is set the amp assign to 5.1 and ran calibration all over again. Is this the correct procedure?
> Thanks!


7.1 _or _5.1 +Zone2/Zone3 are both fine in your configuration. The AVR is just telling you how many amps you have available, although you are only using 5 of the 9 internal amps. The AVR knows that you only have 5 speakers connected and will downmix 7.1 content when necessary.

This begs the question; why get an AVR with so many amps when you aren't using them?


----------



## Edi-MC

Thanks! Got it!

Regarding your question: you have to ask that to the brand owners/developers.
In the world of AV receivers it seems to be impossible to get good quality amplification and technology without "having to have" a ton of channels/amps.
Even my first Pio (a humble VSX 923) had 7 of them.
So, it's not really a choice one can make is it?


----------



## Alan P

Edi-MC said:


> Thanks! Got it!
> 
> Regarding your question: you have to ask that to the brand owners/developers.
> In the world of AV receivers it seems to be impossible to get good quality amplification and technology without "having to have" a ton of channels/amps.
> Even my first Pio (a humble VSX 923) had 7 of them.
> So, it's not really a choice one can make is it?


Well, you could have saved a bit and gotten the Marantz 7.2 or 5.2 AVR instead.


----------



## jconjason

I had to replace the tweeter and both woofers in my Klipsch center channel. Used original parts sent directly from Klipsch. Would I need to rerun Audyssey?


----------



## Mactavish

jconjason said:


> I had to replace the tweeter and both woofers in my Klipsch center channel. Used original parts sent directly from Klipsch. Would I need to rerun Audyssey?


Most say absolutely, after some hours of break in.


----------



## anjunadeep

jconjason said:


> I had to replace the tweeter and both woofers in my Klipsch center channel


w-what happened?


----------



## jconjason

Mactavish said:


> Most say absolutely, after some hours of break in.


I figured I would have to but just wanted to check since it's basically the same speaker.


anjunadeep said:


> w-what happened?


Well, not entirely sure. The center channel volume would drastically lower to the point where I couldn't hear dialogue, and then it would raise to normal on its own. It was random and happened with all content and inputs. I figured it was the tweeter but Klipsch was nice enough to send a new tweeter as well as both woofers!


----------



## garygarrison

jconjason said:


> I had to replace the tweeter and both woofers in my Klipsch center channel. Used original parts sent directly from Klipsch. Would I need to rerun Audyssey?



I would. There are sometimes slight variations in drivers, even when the model numbers don't change. My midrange drivers are slightly different in response, and Audyssey fixes that. My front tweeters are nearly perfectly the same, with the traces superimposed. Coincidence?


----------



## teiresias

So I've had my Denon X3400h for a few months now and am really enjoying it. It's definitely a nice upgrade from my AVR-789. I find the Audyssey to be much better, which is to be expected given the upgrade to XT32, even in my small modest setup and before I add any Atmos speakers or upgrade my existing front speakers.

Surprisingly I find the DynamicEQ to not result in nearly the same amount of bass "boominess" as the old receiver did so it's pretty usable now, I only wish there were an option to tell DynamicEQ to only affect the bass response and not touch the surround levels, because I find that the surrounds are still pumped up way too much. I'm surprised this option has yet to be brought forward to selectively decide which parts of DynamicEQ to use, otherwise I'd leave it on all the time.


----------



## pbz06

teiresias said:


> So I've had my Denon X3400h for a few months now and am really enjoying it. It's definitely a nice upgrade from my AVR-789. I find the Audyssey to be much better, which is to be expected given the upgrade to XT32, even in my small modest setup and before I add any Atmos speakers or upgrade my existing front speakers.
> 
> Surprisingly I find the DynamicEQ to not result in nearly the same amount of bass "boominess" as the old receiver did so it's pretty usable now, I only wish there were an option to tell DynamicEQ to only affect the bass response and not touch the surround levels, because I find that the surrounds are still pumped up way too much. I'm surprised this option has yet to be brought forward to selectively decide which parts of DynamicEQ to use, otherwise I'd leave it on all the time.


Yea, I love the bass response. It's nice, clean, and smooth with DEQ. I don't need to add my own boost to the SW trim level afterwards, which seems like everyone else does. I also like how it's curved and not an overall boost.

For the surrounds (and top rears), I just re-balance them to the rest of the speakers. We know DEQ boosts about 1dB per -5 from reference level...so since I do majority of my watching at -10, I just decrease them by 2dB and double check with test tones from a disc. It's much nicer that way. If I listen at lower levels, like -15, oh well...it's not critical and I don't feel like I notice a 1dB difference the same way I start noticing it with 2dB.


----------



## teiresias

pbz06 said:


> Yea, I love the bass response. It's nice, clean, and smooth with DEQ. I don't need to add my own boost to the SW trim level afterwards, which seems like everyone else does. I also like how it's curved and not an overall boost.
> 
> For the surrounds (and top rears), I just re-balance them to the rest of the speakers. We know DEQ boosts about 1dB per -5 from reference level...so since I do majority of my watching at -10, I just decrease them by 2dB and double check with test tones from a disc. It's much nicer that way. If I listen at lower levels, like -15, oh well...it's not critical and I don't feel like I notice a 1dB difference the same way I start noticing it with 2dB.


This would work if I didn't have one source that requires much lower volume on the receiver than everything else. That is my HTPC I have to have the receiver turned down to -23db or so. All my other sources are about the same around -10db. I only game on my HTPC, it's not used for video playback, but I guess its output is louder natively since i leave the Windows volume slider at 100% because I'm afraid of the HTPC/Windows itself introducing unwanted attenuation.


----------



## Alan P

teiresias said:


> This would work if I didn't have one source that requires much lower volume on the receiver than everything else. That is my HTPC I have to have the receiver turned down to -23db or so. All my other sources are about the same around -10db. I only game on my HTPC, it's not used for video playback, but I guess its output is louder natively since i leave the Windows volume slider at 100% because I'm afraid of the HTPC/Windows itself introducing unwanted attenuation.


You can adjust the level for different sources in the AVR. 

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX3400H/NA/EN/GFNFSYyvbqibdw.php


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Yea, I love the bass response. It's nice, clean, and smooth with DEQ. I don't need to add my own boost to the SW trim level afterwards, which seems like everyone else does. I also like how it's curved and not an overall boost.
> 
> For the surrounds (and top rears), I just re-balance them to the rest of the speakers. We know DEQ boosts about 1dB per -5 from reference level...so since I do majority of my watching at -10, I just decrease them by 2dB and double check with test tones from a disc. It's much nicer that way. If I listen at lower levels, like -15, oh well...it's not critical and I don't feel like I notice a 1dB difference the same way I start noticing it with 2dB.


Yeah my biggest beef with DEQ is what it doesn’t to surrounds, especially now with Atmos, it drowns them out. But I also find the bass sometimes is too much.


----------



## garygarrison

For a given SPL, it's likely that surrounds produce more distortion than mains (or at least more distortion than the LF and RF speakers). Distortion can sound like "loud," to the brain. Sensitivity ("efficiency") of surrounds is liable to be lower, so they need more power in watts to produce a given SPL, and their power handling is often lower than that of the mains. Some manufacturers succumbed to this cost and size saving temptation in the early days of Home Theater, when it was hoped that the highest SPL would be reserved for the sub and the front channels (and it still _generally_ is). But mixers and filmmakers have their temptations, too, and very high SPL above subwoofer range gets in to surrounds. I'm thinking of The Grey, gun and cannon fire, rockets taking off, etc. in a number of films, and the leading edge -- above sub crossover -- of many special effects. Could there be a worse combination of variables? Yes. Add in user reluctance to use high crossovers, as high as 110 or 120 Hz, even when Audyssey recommends them (often when surrounds are deprived of boundary gain in the room, and had a high F3 even in an anechoic chamber), and when DEQ not only turns up the bass (above crossover to sub) but also turns up the overall SPL of the surrounds, as it does.


----------



## rosstg

I set my mains, center and surrounds at 100hz, surround rears and Atmos modules at 150hz. I just don’t like my surrounds and bass to overpower my mains and center which is exactly what DEQ. I think it’s a good tool if you listen at really low volumes but I have dedicated treated room so I just don’t see the need now.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> I set my mains, center and surrounds at 100hz, surround rears and Atmos modules at 150hz. I just don’t like my surrounds and bass to overpower my mains and center which is exactly what DEQ. I think it’s a good tool if you listen at really low volumes but I have dedicated treated room so I just don’t see the need now.


The higher the volume, the less impact DEQ has. Either way, I see the value in preferring balanced sound in the surrounds (I'm one of them)...hence why I re-balance them to my most common listening level (-10). I don't feel like I lose my perception of volume from my surrounds because they are closer to me and facing directly at me. I do notice the bass perception decrease from reference, which is why I do prefer DEQ for the bass. I think that's why everyone also recommends to increase sub trim after Audyssey because they feel like "omg it neutered my sub" when in reality it balanced it, but our perception of it is less when not listening to reference. To me, it "feels" balanced with DEQ and remains clean and smooth.

I don't think it's really a treated vs non-treated. It doesn't really "alter" the sound beyond make adjustments to dB. When I tested vigorously, using DEQ Off + subwoofer +4.5 (to make up for the 2.2dB per -5 volume), sounded identical to DEQ On + no subwoofer adjustment. Same with the surrounds and top rears. I didn't get any muddiness, or lack of clarity...worst case, it was "oh, my surrounds appear to be higher, let me decrease "

It's mostly a preference thing. I love my speakers and the clarity they have in the high end, and I don't hear it being altered with DEQ or full/limited.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> The higher the volume, the less impact DEQ has. Either way, I see the value in preferring balanced sound in the surrounds (I'm one of them)...hence why I re-balance them to my most common listening level (-10). I don't feel like I lose my perception of volume from my surrounds because they are closer to me and facing directly at me. I do notice the bass perception decrease from reference, which is why I do prefer DEQ for the bass. I think that's why everyone also recommends to increase sub trim after Audyssey because they feel like "omg it neutered my sub" when in reality it balanced it, but our perception of it is less when not listening to reference. To me, it "feels" balanced with DEQ and remains clean and smooth.
> 
> I don't think it's really a treated vs non-treated. It doesn't really "alter" the sound beyond make adjustments to dB. When I tested vigorously, using DEQ Off + subwoofer +4.5 (to make up for the 2.2dB per -5 volume), sounded identical to DEQ On + no subwoofer adjustment. Same with the surrounds and top rears. I didn't get any muddiness, or lack of clarity...worst case, it was "oh, my surrounds appear to be higher, let me decrease "
> 
> It's mostly a preference thing. I love my speakers and the clarity they have in the high end, and I don't hear it being altered with DEQ or full/limited.


Yeah when I said treated I was referring to full spectrum. My room has a lot of absorption so it doesn’t benefit from a high frequency rolloff. It sounds very clear in Reference but limiting EQ to bass really opens up the top end. I’ve always set my subs flat since it sounds more natural or balanced to my ears. I started using DEQ when I was living in apartments years ago and continued in my dedicated room. At first I felt it sounded thin but I just needed some time to get used to it, now it sounds excellent.


----------



## Mactavish

garygarrison said:


> For a given SPL, it's likely that surrounds produce more distortion than mains (or at least more distortion than the LF and RF speakers). Distortion can sound like "loud," to the brain. Sensitivity ("efficiency") of surrounds is liable to be lower, so they need more power in watts to produce a given SPL, and their power handling is often lower than that of the mains. Some manufacturers succumbed to this cost and size saving temptation in the early days of Home Theater, when it was hoped that the highest SPL would be reserved for the sub and the front channels (and it still _generally_ is). But mixers and filmmakers have their temptations, too, and very high SPL above subwoofer range gets in to surrounds. I'm thinking of The Grey, gun and cannon fire, rockets taking off, etc. in a number of films, and the leading edge -- above sub crossover -- of many special effects. Could there be a worse combination of variables? Yes. Add in user reluctance to use high crossovers, as high as 110 or 120 Hz, even when Audyssey recommends them (often when surrounds are deprived of boundary gain in the room, and had a high F3 even in an anechoic chamber), and when DEQ not only turns up the bass (above crossover to sub) but also turns up the overall SPL of the surrounds, as it does.


“and when DEQ not only turns up the bass (above crossover to sub) but also turns up the overall SPL of the surrounds, as it does”

Interesting, I didn’t realize that the added bass DEQ uses at lower volumes, is added but does not respect the crossovers one sets. Makes sense, just never made the connection.


----------



## garygarrison

Mactavish said:


> “and when DEQ not only turns up the bass (above crossover to sub) but also turns up the overall SPL of the surrounds, as it does”
> 
> Interesting, I didn’t realize that the added bass DEQ uses at lower volumes, is added but does not respect the crossovers one sets. Makes sense, just never made the connection.



I'm not sure I know what you mean. It does respect the crossovers you set in that it doesn't change them, ignore them, or bypass them. But the Audyssey people, in consultation with professional sound mixers, decided that the surrounds should be turned up whenever DEQ is used. That would be in addition to the bass (and subtle treble, but *not* midrange) boost that DEQ provides at lower volumes to the surrounds, mains and (bass only, naturally) to the sub.


----------



## Mactavish

garygarrison said:


> I'm not sure I know what you mean. It does respect the crossovers you set in that it doesn't change them, ignore them, or bypass them. But the Audyssey people, in consultation with professional sound mixers, decided that the surrounds should be turned up whenever DEQ is used. That would be in addition to the bass (and subtle treble, but *not* midrange) boost that DEQ provides at lower volumes to the surrounds, mains and (bass only, naturally) to the sub.


Sorry, I’m tired, read it again and see you meant the opposite. DEQ only adds bass ABOVE, the crossover, thus respecting you set crossovers for all channels. Thanks, time for bed........


----------



## Jon AA

To try and eliminate the confusion, here's an actual in-room measurement comparison:












That's with the volume set to -20 and DEQ off vs DEQ on set to Ref Level Offset of 0 (maximum setting) at the same volume. Crossover to sub was 80 hz.



As you can see, it's a smooth increase in bass starting from about 500 hz. It boosts both the speaker and the sub, keeping the same smooth blend through the crossover. Boosting the sub alone, or the speaker alone would not sound very good.


For those who find that "too much," please remember it is adjustable. Here's the same comparison with the reference level offset of 5, 10 and 15 added.












As you can see, at a volume setting of -20 and reference level offset of -15, it's doing very little.


----------



## mogorf

Jon AA said:


> To try and eliminate the confusion, here's an actual in-room measurement comparison:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's with the volume set to -20 and DEQ off vs DEQ on set to Ref Level Offset of 0 (maximum setting) at the same volume. Crossover to sub was 80 hz.
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, it's a smooth increase in bass starting from about 500 hz. It boosts both the speaker and the sub, keeping the same smooth blend through the crossover. Boosting the sub alone, or the speaker alone would not sound very good.
> 
> 
> For those who find that "too much," please remember it is adjustable. Here's the same comparison with the reference level offset of 5, 10 and 15 added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, at a volume setting of -20 and reference level offset of -15, it's doing very little.



Excellent presentation Jon AA, thanks for sharing. 


Now, if you'd like to see the 2 tier operation of DEQ you may need to do a bit more homework. But what is this 2 tier operation of DEQ? Many of us know already that at any given MV setting DEQ applies the 1st tier of boost, yet it does a second compensation at any given MV setting as the passage advances and shows loud and soft parts. This means the softer the material the more boost is applied by DEQ. 

You may consider the following measurement series:

1. Set MV to -20 dB and leave it there.
2. Take four measurements with the input signal at 0, -10, -20, -30 dB
3. The lower the input signal the more boost will be applied by DEQ.


----------



## Jon AA

I'm unaware of any changes the DEQ makes based upon input signal. As far as I know it's based upon your Reference Level Offset setting and you Main Volume setting only. Here are the same two comparisons with the master volume set to -30 db:






















With the lower volume setting, it does more compensation, which makes sense. Maybe next time I have the measuring gear out I'll see if changing the input signal level changes anything, but I'd be surprised if it did. That'd be pretty complex.


----------



## rosstg

Is there any users here who are using Dirac? I’m curious how they compare. I find it curious that NAD AVR’s don’t have any features like DEQ but users seem to really love the low end. DEQ pumps up bass and surrounds too much for me. Especially the surrounds.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> Is there any users here who are using Dirac? I’m curious how they compare. I find it curious that NAD AVR’s don’t have any features like DEQ but users seem to really love the low end. DEQ pumps up bass and surrounds too much for me. Especially the surrounds.


Everyone perceives bass differently, and also like different amounts in general. Some people boost the subwoofer by 2-3dB, others by 5-6db. Others like to enable DEQ, others don't. Some that do, like to also add more on top of DEQ. I like having the options; it's easy enough to disable DEQ. I also like being able to play with MRC, rolloff targets, personal house curves, limiting correction to any frequency I want. 

If i had a treated dedicated room, I'd probably stick with "flat". My room is on the more reflective side (I'm guessing), so I prefer Reference with MRC off and target roll-off 2. I like the little amount of bass DEQ adds at my -10 listening level (which is equivalent to what I would do anyway if I had it off with sub +4)...but with DEQ, I can listen at low volumes too.


----------



## mogorf

Jon AA said:


> I'm unaware of any changes the DEQ makes based upon input signal. As far as I know it's based upon your Reference Level Offset setting and you Main Volume setting only. Here are the same two comparisons with the master volume set to -30 db:
> 
> 
> With the lower volume setting, it does more compensation, which makes sense. Maybe next time I have the measuring gear out I'll see if changing the input signal level changes anything, but I'd be surprised if it did. That'd be pretty complex.



Chris Kyriakakis/ author of Audyssey says:

"One goal of DEQ is to maintain the same perceived spectral balance when listening at levels lower than those used during the mix. A violin, for example, is playing a wide range of notes and it is mixed so that every passage is at a given balance with the other instruments. When you turn the volume down the lower notes of the violin will start to be perceived softer in level than the higher notes for that same passage. 

The overall perception of the violin relative to other instruments playing along with it will also be perceived differently. So, with the static part of Dynamic EQ we are trying to make spectral adjustments that follow a set of static curves. 

The dynamic part of Dynamic EQ adds one more level of detail: it looks at the moment-by-moment variations in the content loudness and compares them to the perceptual model. Based on that information it determines how "loud" that passage will be perceived and then, by knowing how loud it was perceived during the mix, it makes a secondary adjustment. This secondary adjustment is, well... secondary and changes continuously as the signal is playing."

Is it complex? Yes it is, but that's how DEQ works. Please be surprised!


----------



## Jon AA

Interesting, I had not seen that before. Is that a recent quote? Anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Learn something new every day.


I'm not sure how I feel about it conceptually though. Sounds a little "too clever by half" to me. I'll definitely try messing around with it next time I'm in the measuring mood.


----------



## mogorf

Jon AA said:


> Interesting, I had not seen that before. Is that a recent quote? Anyway, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Learn something new every day.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how I feel about it conceptually though. Sounds a little "too clever by half" to me. I'll definitely try messing around with it next time I'm in the measuring mood.



Hi, glad to help you with some in-depths on DEQ. Actually DEQ works the way described from the beginning. 

Should you be interested, please click on the "Audyssey Quotes" in my sig, I've collected a huge info-base mostly from discussions with Chris Kyriakakis from the time he was a member here and some other quotes from Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook. Chris K. is there so you may feel free to get in touch with him. He's a very helpful person.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Everyone perceives bass differently, and also like different amounts in general. Some people boost the subwoofer by 2-3dB, others by 5-6db. Others like to enable DEQ, others don't. Some that do, like to also add more on top of DEQ. I like having the options; it's easy enough to disable DEQ. I also like being able to play with MRC, rolloff targets, personal house curves, limiting correction to any frequency I want.
> 
> If i had a treated dedicated room, I'd probably stick with "flat". My room is on the more reflective side (I'm guessing), so I prefer Reference with MRC off and target roll-off 2. I like the little amount of bass DEQ adds at my -10 listening level (which is equivalent to what I would do anyway if I had it off with sub +4)...but with DEQ, I can listen at low volumes too.


For sure. Bass is subjective. I don’t like when it calls attention to itself which is why I like it Flat. I just watched Endgame and Iron Man in UHD the bass was excellent in my room. Balanced, natural, detailed and impactful. With a MultiEQ limited to 300hz the detail in the highs was spectacular.


----------



## Mactavish

mogorf said:


> Chris Kyriakakis/ author of Audyssey says:
> 
> "One goal of DEQ is to maintain the same perceived spectral balance when listening at levels lower than those used during the mix. A violin, for example, is playing a wide range of notes and it is mixed so that every passage is at a given balance with the other instruments. When you turn the volume down the lower notes of the violin will start to be perceived softer in level than the higher notes for that same passage.
> 
> The overall perception of the violin relative to other instruments playing along with it will also be perceived differently. So, with the static part of Dynamic EQ we are trying to make spectral adjustments that follow a set of static curves.
> 
> The dynamic part of Dynamic EQ adds one more level of detail: it looks at the moment-by-moment variations in the content loudness and compares them to the perceptual model. Based on that information it determines how "loud" that passage will be perceived and then, by knowing how loud it was perceived during the mix, it makes a secondary adjustment. This secondary adjustment is, well... secondary and changes continuously as the signal is playing."
> 
> Is it complex? Yes it is, but that's how DEQ works. Please be surprised!


Since MV is a major factor on how much effect DEQ adds, as well as having some user control over it with the level offset, I’m wondering how that whole scheme is then effected by using the Denon setting of “input source level”?


----------



## Pip

mogorf said:


> Hi, glad to help you .....
> 
> Should you be interested, please click on the "Audyssey Quotes" in my sig, I've collected a huge info-base mostly from discussions with Chris Kyriakakis from the time he was a member here and some other quotes from Audyssey Tech Talk on Facebook. .....


This is a great collection! Thank you for compiling this.

Pip


----------



## mogorf

Pip said:


> This is a great collection! Thank you for compiling this.
> 
> Pip



Thank you for your compliments and glad you find it useful.


----------



## codwapeace

Is there subwoofer correction in MultEq (NR 1609 receiver)? Reading the FAQ, it appears that there is, but why does the receiver not include the Equalization graph? 



I can see the SUB graph in MultEQ editor app. I presume that it was transferred to the AVR, but I cannot see it on the AVR. Am I correct?


----------



## pbarach

Every version of Audyssey does subwoofer correction. The graphs just show you what response curve Audyssey hoped to produce, but the corrections are there regardless of the graph.


----------



## anjunadeep

Is there a way to get Audyssey XT32 on a Denon 6400H to not EQ my subs, so that I can do it myself with a MiniDSP? It does a great job with my mains, settings levels, time aligning the subs with the mains, but my subs it seems to over EQ. I have a bunch of room gain down low and it does a ~8dB cut with a pretty wide Q i'd rather leave in...


----------



## codwapeace

anjunadeep said:


> Is there a way to get Audyssey XT32 on a Denon 6400H to not EQ my subs, so that I can do it myself with a MiniDSP? It does a great job with my mains, settings levels, time aligning the subs with the mains, but my subs it seems to over EQ. I have a bunch of room gain down low and it does a ~8dB cut with a pretty wide Q i'd rather leave in...


You can do it with the Multeq Editor app. Let Audyssey run and collect the data. Then you can select the frequency range for correction from "MultEQ Filter Frequency Range" and put the lowest possible value for the cutoff for Subwoofer.


----------



## anjunadeep

codwapeace said:


> You can do it with the Multeq Editor app. Let Audyssey run and collect the data. Then you can select the frequency range for correction from "MultEQ Filter Frequency Range" and put the lowest possible value for the cutoff for Subwoofer.


Thanks. I move this slider to 20Hz (minimum it will go) and I should be golden?


----------



## Alan P

anjunadeep said:


> Is there a way to get Audyssey XT32 on a Denon 6400H to not EQ my subs, so that I can do it myself with a MiniDSP? It does a great job with my mains, settings levels, time aligning the subs with the mains, but my subs it seems to over EQ. I have a bunch of room gain down low and it does a ~8dB cut with a pretty wide Q i'd rather leave in...


Not without turning Audyssey off. AFAIK, you cannot set a lower limit for correction with the app, only an upper limit.




codwapeace said:


> You can do it with the Multeq Editor app. Let Audyssey run and collect the data. Then you can select the frequency range for correction from "MultEQ Filter Frequency Range" and put the lowest possible value for the cutoff for Subwoofer.


Wouldn't that essentially be the same as turning Audyssey off??


----------



## tbaucom

Alan P said:


> Not without turning Audyssey off. AFAIK, you cannot set a lower limit for correction with the app, only an upper limit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that essentially be the same as turning Audyssey off??


You can set the filter range per channel or channel pair. If you do it for just the sub channel, it would effectively be turning audyssey off for the subwoofer only.


----------



## codwapeace

anjunadeep said:


> Thanks. I move this slider to 20Hz (minimum it will go) and I should be golden?


Yes. You already have the app. Great!


----------



## codwapeace

Alan P said:


> Not without turning Audyssey off. AFAIK, you cannot set a lower limit for correction with the app, only an upper limit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't that essentially be the same as turning Audyssey off??


If you set the upper limit equal to the lower limit of correction (20 hz for sub), you get zero correction.


----------



## Edi-MC

Jeeeez...... I just wish the app was compatible with my SR7009!!


----------



## Alan P

tbaucom said:


> You can set the filter range per channel or channel pair. If you do it for just the sub channel, it would effectively be turning audyssey off for the subwoofer only.





codwapeace said:


> If you set the upper limit equal to the lower limit of correction (20 hz for sub), you get zero correction.


Thanks for the clarification guys! I stand corrected.


----------



## Spidacat

codwapeace said:


> If you set the upper limit equal to the lower limit of correction (20 hz for sub), you get zero correction.


Yes, but unless I'm reading it wrong he wants to EQ above a certain frequency for his mains.


----------



## anjunadeep

codwapeace said:


> Yes. You already have the app. Great!


Oh yeah that was day one haha. The app is a must in my opinion, it's a huge improvement ergonomically besides the extra functions. Thanks for the help!


----------



## anjunadeep

Spidacat said:


> Yes, but unless I'm reading it wrong he wants to EQ above a certain frequency for his mains.


I just want Audyssey to ignore my LFE channel so I can use the MiniDSP instead. Audyssey is getting tripped up with some of my bass and the MiniDSP + REW I'm able to correct it better. I still want Audyssey to time align my subs and mains, EQ my mains, set my distances (or delay), set the levels for my mains, etc.


----------



## mogorf

anjunadeep said:


> I just want Audyssey to ignore my LFE channel so I can use the MiniDSP instead. Audyssey is getting tripped up with some of my bass and the MiniDSP + REW I'm able to correct it better. I still want Audyssey to time align my subs and mains, EQ my mains, set my distances (or delay), set the levels for my mains, etc.



Hi, since I'm not familiar with MiniDSP, allow me to ask how many mic positions do you use during measurement of the subwoofer? Thx.


----------



## ColtOne

*3 Subwoofer Connection Best Practices*

I have a Denon AVR-X4400H driving a 5.3.2 Atmos configuration. My question is about the three subwoofer connections to the Denon AVR. Two of the subs are SVS PB-1000's and the third is a Klipsch R-100SW. I have the SVS's in the front of the room next to the F/L and F/R mains. They are connected to the AVR using a Y adapter into the first sub pre out. The Klipsch is behind the MLP and connected to the second sub pre out. Is there a better way to connect the subs to the AVR? Also I moved a few things around and need to run Audyssey again. I would also like to know if there are any special steps to take when running Audyssey this time to get the different branded subs to play well with each other and integrate with the mains?


----------



## Alan P

ColtOne said:


> I have a Denon AVR-X4400H driving a 5.3.2 Atmos configuration. My question is about the three subwoofer connections to the Denon AVR. Two of the subs are SVS PB-1000's and the third is a Klipsch R-100SW. I have the SVS's in the front of the room next to the F/L and F/R mains. They are connected to the AVR using a Y adapter into the first sub pre out. The Klipsch is behind the MLP and connected to the second sub pre out. Is there a better way to connect the subs to the AVR? Also I moved a few things around and need to run Audyssey again. I would also like to know if there are any special steps to take when running Audyssey this time to get the different branded subs to play well with each other and integrate with the mains?


I would just use the two PB1000s and sell the Klipsch.

Running the Klipsch with the SVSs you are only going to have trouble. The Klipsch is tuned much higher than the SVS subs and consequently you will be cancelling out some important low frequencies, essentially neutering the SVS subs response below 30hz or so. Not to mention that setting up such disparate subs without REW and a MiniDSP would be an exercise in futility, IMO.

I would leave one SVS up front and place the other where you now have the Klipsch and call it good.


----------



## garygarrison

*anjunadeep*,




mogorf said:


> Hi, since I'm not familiar with MiniDSP, allow me to ask how many mic positions do you use during measurement of the subwoofer? Thx.



That's my question, too.


As I understand it, one mic position won't do the job, or at least won't do the job very well, unless you have a room with modes of very low (inconsequential) amplitude, or multiple subwoofers optimally placed. Move your head a little, or change seats, and the frequency response will be different. Earlier on this forum we joked about an audiophile head clamp that would help a sole listener stay within the EQ zone correctable by data from one mic. An engineer I respect answered my question concerning "how many mic positions?" by saying "Good question -- probably at least 3." Audyssey obviously thinks 8 positions will be O.K., but then they add in their proprietary "fuzzy logic" substitute for an average, arguably an improvement. Some proud victims of OCD (like me) will more or less (anxiously) trust Audyssey, and its 8 mic positions, for the overall curve smoothing, then turn up the subwoofer to taste. Of course, to EQ for an audience of more than one listener, one must bounce from seat to seat to confirm that the bass is about right from each seat, and across a decent sample of bass frequencies. This can be amusing to onlookers, so it's best done alone.


----------



## anjunadeep

mogorf said:


> Hi, since I'm not familiar with MiniDSP, allow me to ask how many mic positions do you use during measurement of the subwoofer? Thx.





garygarrison said:


> *anjunadeep*,
> 
> That's my question, too.
> 
> As I understand it, one mic position won't do the job, or at least won't do the job very well, unless you have a room with modes of very low (inconsequential) amplitude, or multiple subwoofers optimally placed. Move your head a little, or change seats, and the frequency response will be different. Earlier on this forum we joked about an audiophile head clamp that would help a sole listener stay within the EQ zone correctable by data from one mic. An engineer I respect answered my question concerning "how many mic positions?" by saying "Good question -- probably at least 3." Audyssey obviously thinks 8 positions will be O.K., but then they add in their proprietary "fuzzy logic" substitute for an average, arguably an improvement. Some proud victims of OCD (like me) will more or less (anxiously) trust Audyssey, and its 8 mic positions, for the overall curve smoothing, then turn up the subwoofer to taste. Of course, to EQ for an audience of more than one listener, one must bounce from seat to seat to confirm that the bass is about right from each seat, and across a decent sample of bass frequencies. This can be amusing to onlookers, so it's best done alone.



REW (what I use to get the measurements to use with the MiniDSP) it depends on what I'm trying to do, and Audyssey I always take a grid. I'm mostly concerned about just my seating position, but Audyssey does better if it gets a bit of a scope of the room so after the first main listening position measurement (this is critical because that's when Audyssey grabs its distance and delay information) I move it around in a grid of about 1.5ft increments. I take all eight measurements. Some people go wider if they are concerned about more seats, but, you have to play with it a bit and it's a judgement call. If it's normally you and your girlfriend sitting in the sweet spot love seat, then I'd probably just concentrate in that area to optimize in a reasonable area but not compromise for seats that aren't often used. If you have a big group over, yeah some people will get a non-optimum seat but they won't care as long as it isn't really really bad (like being crammed up against the back wall or something where the bass is so loud they can't hear the dialog). 

For REW, I do a mix of single measurements to get started and then taking measurements in a grid like with Audyssey (MLP, left of MLP, right of MLP, those three spots about 1.5ft in front, then two spots on either side behind the MLP...so total of 8 positions), but I pay attention to how much things are moving around. When tweaking placements often one or two measurements is enough to see if you are making progress, you don't need to take a ton of measurements every time. Then when you think you have a great spot you can take a bit of a grid again and average it. I find that this is working well when keeping within a reasonably tight listening area for two people. If you are trying to EQ for a much wider area than yeah you probably need to use a combination of averaging and specific measurements to see if you are compromising one seat you care about too much to benefit the average. The wider the area, tougher the compromises, most of the time.

I recommend not trusting Audyssey if you don't have to though, at least get REW and a UMIK and see what it is doing to make sure it passes the sniff test. The reason I'm wanting to avoid Audyssey EQing my bass is because it just happens to be getting confused and making some bad decisions that cost a lot of headroom. It's doing fine elsewhere though, so, keep what we like and remove what we don't.


----------



## mogorf

anjunadeep said:


> REW (what I use to get the measurements to use with the MiniDSP) it depends on what I'm trying to do, and Audyssey I always take a grid. I'm mostly concerned about just my seating position, but Audyssey does better if it gets a bit of a scope of the room so after the first main listening position measurement (this is critical because that's when Audyssey grabs its distance and delay information) I move it around in a grid of about 1.5ft increments. I take all eight measurements. Some people go wider if they are concerned about more seats, but, you have to play with it a bit and it's a judgement call. If it's normally you and your girlfriend sitting in the sweet spot love seat, then I'd probably just concentrate in that area to optimize in a reasonable area but not compromise for seats that aren't often used. If you have a big group over, yeah some people will get a non-optimum seat but they won't care as long as it isn't really really bad (like being crammed up against the back wall or something where the bass is so loud they can't hear the dialog).
> 
> For REW, I do a mix of single measurements to get started and then taking measurements in a grid like with Audyssey (MLP, left of MLP, right of MLP, those three spots about 1.5ft in front, then two spots on either side behind the MLP...so total of 8 positions), but I pay attention to how much things are moving around. When tweaking placements often one or two measurements is enough to see if you are making progress, you don't need to take a ton of measurements every time. Then when you think you have a great spot you can take a bit of a grid again and average it. I find that this is working well when keeping within a reasonably tight listening area for two people. If you are trying to EQ for a much wider area than yeah you probably need to use a combination of averaging and specific measurements to see if you are compromising one seat you care about too much to benefit the average. The wider the area, tougher the compromises, most of the time.
> 
> I recommend not trusting Audyssey if you don't have to though, at least get REW and a UMIK and see what it is doing to make sure it passes the sniff test. The reason I'm wanting to avoid Audyssey EQing my bass is because it just happens to be getting confused and making some bad decisions that cost a lot of headroom. It's doing fine elsewhere though, so, keep what we like and remove what we don't.



Thanks. Care to expand a bit on this part:"...it just happens to be getting confused and making some bad decisions that cost a lot of headroom." What are those "bad decisions" you are experiencing with Audyssey in the subwoofer channel and what effect do they have on headroom? Thanks again.


----------



## anjunadeep

mogorf said:


> Thanks. Care to expand a bit on this part:"...it just happens to be getting confused and making some bad decisions that cost a lot of headroom." What are those "bad decisions" you are experiencing with Audyssey in the subwoofer channel and what effect do they have on headroom? Thanks again.


Sure. I have a lot of room gain down low, despite my room being pretty big. Audyssey will do a wide (low Q) ~10dB cut around 20Hz and EQ it flat applying some boost in the upper bass. The default flat curve there most people don't like because our ears are less sensitive to the deep stuff, so we either add a house curve (thereby increasing the deep bass) or raise the overall level. Well if Audyssey cuts -10dB very deep and then I raise the overall level back up to compensate because the bass sounds stripped, that headroom is getting eaten up fast! With a -10dB cut, even if you don't raise the level up it's a huge headroom hit because: Cuts are ultimately as bad as boosts, because they leave peaks inbetween the cuts. 
More info here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/91-a.../1387919-did-i-eq-correctly.html#post21516881

Audyssey is just too aggressive sometimes. It's just a tool, sometimes it works well for a room, doesn't it doesn't. In my case, it's not working in the bass but doing a good job elsewhere. I'm still glad I have it. It's just REW is critical to use with it so you know what is going on. The fix for my room is to leave more of the deep bass in and do a slight amount of boost in a few narrow spots in the 50-60Hz range. In this area my subwoofers have a whole bunch of headroom, where a little bit of boost isn't an issue because it's so far below the subwoofers capabilities. Now after the fact I'll have applied maybe -2dB of cut in the deep bass and +3 in some narrow bands in upper bass. 

That's what it looks like initially anyways, I'll be finishing up this weekend (if the hurricane doesn't get in my way...hopefully we just get some rain and I get an excuse to stay in and tune).


----------



## ColtOne

Alan P said:


> I would just use the two PB1000s and sell the Klipsch.
> 
> 
> 
> Running the Klipsch with the SVSs you are only going to have trouble. The Klipsch is tuned much higher than the SVS subs and consequently you will be cancelling out some important low frequencies, essentially neutering the SVS subs response below 30hz or so. Not to mention that setting up such disparate subs without REW and a MiniDSP would be an exercise in futility, IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> I would leave one SVS up front and place the other where you now have the Klipsch and call it good.




Thank you!


----------



## Jon AA

anjunadeep said:


> Audyssey will do a wide (low Q) ~10dB cut around 20Hz and EQ it flat applying some boost in the upper bass.


That's a good explanation and I can understand why you're doing it. As an alternative though, did you try drawing a target curve with the app that retained that gain at the low end? For those without a mini-dsp that would be what they'd have to do if they wanted to accomplish the same thing.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So I recently moved and finally have my room setup and have played with Audyssey and the app. I'm using HF Rolloff 2 because it's a large open basement and I read that's for large rooms, but I still waffle on MRC. Is there any content I can listen to that will let me know if I should or should not leave it on?

I have Klipsch reference and the mains crossover at 1800Hz and the surrounds at 2200Hz so it's near the dip. Any help?


Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

JohnnytheSkin said:


> ... I still waffle on MRC. Is there any content I can listen to that will let me know if I should or should not leave it on?
> 
> 
> I have Klipsch reference and the mains crossover at 1800Hz and the surrounds at 2200Hz so it's near the dip. Any help?


.

It is rumored that MRC was originally designed to deal with crossovers at about 2,000 Hz, so it may work.

Just try all configurations with a cross-section of films, and take notes. In our well treated 4,257cu.ft. room, we found that the program material makes a difference. In our room*:*




Modern films on Blu-ray sound best with Audyssey FLAT. That EQ also works well for decently recorded SACDs, DVD-As, and CDs.
Films from the '50s, '60s, and '70s -- *if* they were recorded on the great magnetic media of the time, often full-coat 35mm magnetic film, with 4 to 6 stereo channels -- seem to benefit from MRC and Audyssey Reference. We're guessing that's because those soundtracks tend to be a bit bright, and sometimes there is a bit of distortion the original mixers never knew was there because it is above the 10K or 11K Hz roll-off of both the theater and movie studio monitors of the day (regardless of the advertisements by Altec and JBL). With MRC/Audyssey Reference on, however, these soundtracks are, if anything, superior to many modern ones, but no LFE.
For optical soundtracks of any era, all bets are off. Do what you can. Dolby optical is passable, but dull. Conventional optical, even "silver" is often problematic. Some marvelous old scores, like Citizen Kane, may need an hour or two pre-showing EQ.


----------



## anjunadeep

Jon AA said:


> That's a good explanation and I can understand why you're doing it. As an alternative though, did you try drawing a target curve with the app that retained that gain at the low end? For those without a mini-dsp that would be what they'd have to do if they wanted to accomplish the same thing.


I have not tried that, but I think it is much more precise to just use the MiniDSP in this case so I can make judgement calls on how much EQ to apply. I'll certainly see what happens if I do change the target curve though, thanks!


----------



## blake

Is Audyssey dying ?

According to my dealer, most pre pro manufacturers are abandoning it in favor of Dirac Live. 

Is there a technical reason for this change, or is it simply marketing ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

blake said:


> Is Audyssey dying ?
> 
> According to my dealer, most pre pro manufacturers are abandoning it in favor of Dirac Live.
> 
> Is there a technical reason for this change, or is it simply marketing ?



I'm hoping it is not dying, because I love what it does. AFAIK, Marantz and Denon still provide Audyssey, while NAD provides some version of Dirac Live. Does your dealer stock Marantz &/or Denon?


----------



## audiomanz

Hi all,

I just bought the OnStage MMS 7701 mic stand with a boom arm and the OnStage stand mount that you purchase separately to place the Audyssey microphone on. My question is, can I leave the mic stand in the same spot and just swivel the boom arm to take measurements when I move to Position 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 or would you recommend to move the whole mic stand for each measurement? I understand that this stand has a minimum height of 36 inches and that hopefully it wont interfere with the calibration as it will be placed in front of my couch to take measurements and thereby my centre speaker will be behind it. I figure it should be fine and won't affect the measurements at all. Any tips or advice using this mic stand with the Audyssey mic is appreciated. Thanks.

audiomanz.


----------



## Edi-MC

Hi guys!

When calibrating do you keep the mic at the same height across the (8) suggested positions by Audyssey?

I've been getting good results with this placement:









Tried it because of the height of my couch... The top pillow sits above ear level so the mic would be blocked by it...

What say you?


----------



## haman

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> When calibrating do you keep the mic at the same height across the (8) suggested positions by Audyssey?
> 
> I've been getting good results with this placement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tried it because of the height of my couch... The top pillow sits above ear level so the mic would be blocked by it...
> 
> What say you?


In the Audyssey 101 thread, there were some guidelines. One of them was not to put mic behind couch if possible? Another one was to maintain same height for 1-6, then 2-3 inches higher for 7 n 8.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Michaeldef

Is it possible to just rerun Audyssey for the sub only in the app ? I had retuned my svs sub to 16hz setting after running audyssey months ago,when last ran, but now when just ran it forgetting to reset sub to 20hz setting results are boomy sub sounds ?


----------



## Mactavish

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> When calibrating do you keep the mic at the same height across the (8) suggested positions by Audyssey?
> 
> I've been getting good results with this placement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tried it because of the height of my couch... The top pillow sits above ear level so the mic would be blocked by it...
> 
> What say you?


I use this based on some recommendations in the subwoofer calibration thread here:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


----------



## jj-34

It has also been said that the sequence 2 to 8 placements are of no importance, as they are not position related.


----------



## Dustin Windsor

3 questions:


1. I bought a new Marantz 6013 yesterday and ran Audyssey for the first time. 

I'm a little confused i guess. I have an SVS sub and now it feels really lackluster - am i ok to turn up the bass? I was reading through the FAQ and it says not make any changes - if Audssey sets the sub at that level, that's the level it should it be. During the initial test it wanted me sub at 75 DB . I had to turn the volume from the 1 o'clock position all the way down slowly to between 9 and 10 o'clock - its weird seeing it so low but i was excited it showed that much details (YPAO never did that).
Test done and i can barely hear any bass. I watched the start of a bunch of movies (Last Knight, King Kong) and my system suddenly feels dead - no bass, nothing during explosions etc.
Any tips/advice? I turned it up 7DB from the -8 to -1 and yes it was loud again. I don't want to keep it at that volume though its loud but "off".



2. During the speaker set up it actually set my Center and my FL/FR towers to large with 40 Hz crossovers. It set my surrounds to small with 100 Hz crossover. Everything i have read says i should set speakers to small and 80 Hz. Should i change mine to what Audssey set them at or leave it?


I read to keep Dynamic EQ on which i did and i turned Dynamic volume off. I'm disappointed overall with the sound, i know it should be sounding better. I felt more alive with my Yamaha 1050. 

Also am i crazy to think the color looks better now with the 6013? I have an amazing TV (65A1E), and the movies i tested last night seem to be popping more. I told my wife 3 times "wow this movie looks amazing), i never said with my 1050. 



Thanks for any help and don't fee like you need to answer everything, but little parts would help. I need to figure this out as it really feels lackluster right now.


----------



## Edi-MC

How can you set the crossover if you set your speakers to large? It shouldn't be possible... 

Take in consideration that "small" and "large" have nothing to do with the actual size of the speakers. 
This has been explained many times. 
It has to do with frequency reproduction. 
If you have a dedicated sub (which you do), it will make a much better job reproducing the lower frequencies of the spectrum than your speaker ever will. 
AND your receiver will thank you because it will have more headroom to better power your speakers (because the lower frequencies will be managed by the sub amp). 

So, don't set your front speakers to Large.
Set them to Small and the crossovers to 80 (Audyssey suggests that setting crossovers to a lower value than suggested after calibration is a "no-go", but setting them up is OK.). 80 is just a reference value suggested by the THX techs. 
Feel free to experiment! It's your system! Tweak it to your liking! 
For instance, beginning on 40, progressively increase the value of the crossover and try to hear the differences between them and decide which one sounds the best to your ears. 

Regarding bass "presence" I kind of feel the same... If you read the Audyssey FAQ, it is said that a boost of 3-5 dB in the sub is OK...

Do you have an SPL meter? Or an SPL meter app?
Even better: purchase the multieq app and then post your results! Someone will help you based on measureable data! It's not cheap, but totally worth it!
I wish my SR7009 was compatible.....


----------



## Dustin Windsor

Edi-MC said:


> How can you set the crossover if you set your speakers to large? It shouldn't be possible...
> 
> Take in consideration that "small" and "large" have nothing to do with the actual size of the speakers.
> This has been explained many times.
> It has to do with frequency reproduction.
> If you have a dedicated sub (which you do), it will make a much better job reproducing the lower frequencies of the spectrum than your speaker ever will.
> AND your receiver will thank you because it will have more headroom to better power your speakers (because the lower frequencies will be managed by the sub amp).
> 
> So, don't set your front speakers to Large.
> Set them to Small and the crossovers to 80 (Audyssey suggests that setting crossovers to a lower value than suggested after calibration is a "no-go", but setting them up is OK.). 80 is just a reference value suggested by the THX techs.
> Feel free to experiment! It's your system! Tweak it to your liking!
> For instance, beginning on 40, progressively increase the value of the crossover and try to hear the differences between them and decide which one sounds the best to your ears.
> 
> Regarding bass "presence" I kind of feel the same... If you read the Audyssey FAQ, it is said that a boost of 3-5 dB in the sub is OK...
> 
> Do you have an SPL meter? Or an SPL meter app?



Sorry - Audessy set the speakers to large and changed them to small and 80 Hz. I appreciate the response! I will turn the bass up, i thought i read not too touch anything!


Another question for anyone:
I followed the positions on my 6013- two positions i'm confused about. It wanted the mic directly behind the couch for two of them at ear level. We have really high couch back. Should i set the mic/tripod on a box and go much, much higher than my ears for only those two "behind the couch" positions?
Thanks guys!


----------



## pbz06

Dustin Windsor said:


> 3 questions:
> 
> 
> 1. I bought a new Marantz 6013 yesterday and ran Audyssey for the first time.
> 
> I'm a little confused i guess. I have an SVS sub and now it feels really lackluster - am i ok to turn up the bass? I was reading through the FAQ and it says not make any changes - if Audssey sets the sub at that level, that's the level it should it be. During the initial test it wanted me sub at 75 DB . I had to turn the volume from the 1 o'clock position all the way down slowly to between 9 and 10 o'clock - its weird seeing it so low but i was excited it showed that much details (YPAO never did that).
> Test done and i can barely hear any bass. I watched the start of a bunch of movies (Last Knight, King Kong) and my system suddenly feels dead - no bass, nothing during explosions etc.
> Any tips/advice? I turned it up 7DB from the -8 to -1 and yes it was loud again. I don't want to keep it at that volume though its loud but "off".
> 
> 
> 
> 2. During the speaker set up it actually set my Center and my FL/FR towers to large with 40 Hz crossovers. It set my surrounds to small with 100 Hz crossover. Everything i have read says i should set speakers to small and 80 Hz. Should i change mine to what Audssey set them at or leave it?
> 
> 
> I read to keep Dynamic EQ on which i did and i turned Dynamic volume off. I'm disappointed overall with the sound, i know it should be sounding better. I felt more alive with my Yamaha 1050.
> 
> Also am i crazy to think the color looks better now with the 6013? I have an amazing TV (65A1E), and the movies i tested last night seem to be popping more. I told my wife 3 times "wow this movie looks amazing), i never said with my 1050.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for any help and don't fee like you need to answer everything, but little parts would help. I need to figure this out as it really feels lackluster right now.


The rule of thumb to set everything at 80hz is valid with a lot of reasons behind it, BUT it's also with the assumptions that your speakers can actually reproduce those frequencies well. Audyssey measures the point where your speakers start rolling off more than -3dB, and your AVR sets the crossover there. That's why you don't want to LOWER it since your speaker can't play it flat to that frequency. It's always OK to RAISE the crossover after Audyssey, to provide more headroom in your speaker's capability etc. Another reason is that older versions of Audyssey (before XT32) also utilized more filters in the subwoofer channel for smoother/flatter response, so it also made more sense to direct those frequencies there.

I have tower speakers with built-in 10" subs (and their own power connection), which roll off around 30-32hz...I still run them as Small/80hz knowing they can cleanly play down to 40hz if you account for the slope of the crossover (-12dB per octave).

If you feel your bass is lacking, try giving it a couple of days too. Lots of cases, people get used to a boominess of an un-EQ'd sub (likely at certain frequencies only), and then once it's flattened it feels "lacking". It also depends on your noise floor and your perception.

Also make sure you have dynamic volume OFF and all the other LFC Containment stuff Off too. You can use DEQ, it has a lot of positives to it. If you use DEQ, try manually upping the subwoofer trim by +3. If you have DEQ off, try more like 5-6dB increase.


----------



## evoll88

Like others have said set to small and try 60-80 hz for the crossovers but also make sure drc is off in the receiver as well as the blu ray player. I turn off all those feature such as drc, dynamic eq and dynamic volume. You may like them so def play around with them but it alters the sound to much for my liking. I just bought chane speakers for my room and with some help from others on here i found flat sounds better than the reference setting so you can try that as well. I reran audyssey the other night and for my setting i have found that with no dynamic eq i turn my subs (two pb-2000's) up from the 9 o clock position which audyssey sets it to up to around 10/11 o clock position. Every clock position on my subs is about 4 db. After doing some checking that puts me around 80 db for subs and they sound great. They are not boomy or overpowering but i can still hear/feel the bass which integrates nicely.


----------



## Alan P

Dustin Windsor said:


> 3 questions:
> 
> 
> 1. I bought a new Marantz 6013 yesterday and ran Audyssey for the first time.
> 
> I'm a little confused i guess. I have an SVS sub and now it feels really lackluster - am i ok to turn up the bass? I was reading through the FAQ and it says not make any changes - if Audssey sets the sub at that level, that's the level it should it be. During the initial test it wanted me sub at 75 DB . I had to turn the volume from the 1 o'clock position all the way down slowly to between 9 and 10 o'clock - its weird seeing it so low but i was excited it showed that much details (YPAO never did that).
> Test done and i can barely hear any bass. I watched the start of a bunch of movies (Last Knight, King Kong) and my system suddenly feels dead - no bass, nothing during explosions etc.
> Any tips/advice? I turned it up 7DB from the -8 to -1 and yes it was loud again. I don't want to keep it at that volume though its loud but "off".


This is normal behavior from Audyssey. Over the years in this thread and others, folks with Audyssey consistently report that it sets their subwoofer too low for their preference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with turning up the sub trim in the AVR, or the gain on the sub amp to get to where you prefer it to be. As has been said, a typical post-Audyssey sub boost is between 3dB-6dB...however, there are others who boost much more than that (myself included). Unless you start to hear your sub making strange noises, go ahead and run it as hot as you want!

That being said, if you like to listen near Reference (0 on the Master Volume), it is advised to keep the subwoofer trim well into the negative range. I have read on multiple occasions that you should try not to go over -5. In order to accomplish this, you will need to re-run Audyssey until it comes back with an initial sub trim in the -11.0 to -11.5 range, but NOT -12 as that is the lower limit of adjustment. You would then be able to add +6 to +6.5 and still be under -5dB. If that isn't enough for you, start bumping up the gain on the sub.

To read (much) more about this subject, see the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences linked in my sig. 





> 2. During the speaker set up it actually set my Center and my FL/FR towers to large with 40 Hz crossovers. It set my surrounds to small with 100 Hz crossover. Everything i have read says i should set speakers to small and 80 Hz. Should i change mine to what Audssey set them at or leave it?


Perfectly fine to raise the crossover on your mains, but you should leave the crossover on the surrounds where Audyssey set them as someone else already explained.




> I read to keep Dynamic EQ on which i did and i turned Dynamic volume off. I'm disappointed overall with the sound, i know it should be sounding better. I felt more alive with my Yamaha 1050.


Some like DEQ, some don't. Most hate DV though.




> Also am i crazy to think the color looks better now with the 6013? I have an amazing TV (65A1E), and the movies i tested last night seem to be popping more. I told my wife 3 times "wow this movie looks amazing), i never said with my 1050.


It's possible, but not likely that the 6013 is set to do some sort of video processing right out of the box. Check the video settings to make sure any "enhancements" are turned off.


----------



## Mactavish

jj-34 said:


> It has also been said that the sequence 2 to 8 placements are of no importance, as they are not position related.


Where?


----------



## jj-34

Mactavish said:


> Where?


Have you read this : Audissey FAQ and Audissey 101 

Especially this part : d)3. Where should I position the mic for best results?

Maybe you can also read this ==> "Audissey Setup Guide" by Giomania Page 6 chapter F.3


----------



## Mactavish

jj-34 said:


> Have you read this : Audissey FAQ and Audissey 101
> 
> Especially this part : d)3. Where should I position the mic for best results?
> 
> Maybe you can also read this ==> "Audissey Setup Guide" by Giomania Page 6 chapter F.3


Yes, read them more then once. Sequence after #1 MLP, is not important, but POSITION is.


----------



## jj-34

Mactavish said:


> Yes, read them more then once. Sequence after #1 MLP, is not important, but POSITION is.


OK I see what you mean, probably my english wording was misleading, I meant that the sequence by which you place the mic at positions 2 to 8 is not important, not necessarily 2 to 3 to 4 etc... , not the actual positions of course.


----------



## Jbhur212

Does Audyssey need to be re-run if new 5-channel amplifier (same power specs as old amp) is added to HT to run speakers? Thanks for the help.


----------



## mogorf

Jbhur212 said:


> Does Audyssey need to be re-run if new 5-channel amplifier (same power specs as old amp) is added to HT to run speakers? Thanks for the help.



Me thinks question is a bit too broad.  Care to share the brand and model no. of old and new amp? Even though - as you mentioned - the power specs are the same, the internal gain structure might be different affecting reference level setup. That would surely help to get the best answers.


----------



## Jbhur212

mogorf said:


> Me thinks question is a bit too broad.  Care to share the brand and model no. of old and new amp? Even though - as you mentioned - the power specs are the same, the internal gain structure might be different affecting reference level setup. That would surely help to get the best answers.


Well I am using:Marantz 7703 Preamplifier-200x3 Acurus amplifier-150x2 Acurus amplifier-Emotiva UPA-2 amplifier. Was thinking about replacing the very old but still working Acurus amps and the added on Emotiva (rears) with the Monoprice Monolith 7x200 amplifier. Had a pro sound tech re-calibrate my sound (had previously used Audyssey from my Onkyo and Marantz pre/pros) last September and the difference was huge. So wondering if it is best to just leave it as is or will one, new amp instead of three be better or would it be like starting as square one sound-wise. Thanks for your help.


----------



## mogorf

Jbhur212 said:


> Well I am using:Marantz 7703 Preamplifier-200x3 Acurus amplifier-150x2 Acurus amplifier-Emotiva UPA-2 amplifier. Was thinking about replacing the very old but still working Acurus amps and the added on Emotiva (rears) with the Monoprice Monolith 7x200 amplifier. Had a pro sound tech re-calibrate my sound (had previously used Audyssey from my Onkyo and Marantz pre/pros) last September and the difference was huge. So wondering if it is best to just leave it as is or will one, new amp instead of three be better or would it be like starting as square one sound-wise. Thanks for your help.



Yes, I would definitely re-run Audyssey when such significant changes are done. On another note I think many of us here will agree that the amplifier is the least responsible for sound quality (SQ), yet there are many other important factors that need to be taken into consideration. 

Main aspect is always the "speaker-room" interaction factor that needs a close scrutiny prior to running Audyssey, but I'm sure you are familiar with these aspects. 

Should you need more detailed assistance I think you have come to the right place here where many "grey beards" congregate on a daily basis and will chime in to give you a helping hand.


----------



## pbarach

mogorf said:


> Yes, I would definitely re-run Audyssey when such significant changes are done. On another note I think many of us here will agree that the amplifier is the least responsible for sound quality (SQ), yet there are many other important factors that need to be taken into consideration.


Although my speakers aren't too difficult to drive, I was getting more dynamic sound with an old Carver m1.0t amp for my front mains than I got with any of the Denon AVRs prior to my current model (x4400h). The Carver (which was ca. 1985 my first good equipment purchase) recently died, and now I find that the 4400 amps are noticeably better (more detailed) than the Carver.


----------



## Jbhur212

mogorf said:


> Yes, I would definitely re-run Audyssey when such significant changes are done. On another note I think many of us here will agree that the amplifier is the least responsible for sound quality (SQ), yet there are many other important factors that need to be taken into consideration.
> 
> Main aspect is always the "speaker-room" interaction factor that needs a close scrutiny prior to running Audyssey, but I'm sure you are familiar with these aspects.
> 
> Should you need more detailed assistance I think you have come to the right place here where many "grey beards" congregate on a daily basis and will chime in to give you a helping hand.


Yes, that's why I ask the “pros”. Get bit sometimes with the old upgrade bug but seems I'll just go watch a 4K disc and enjoy the great picture and sound quality I've got. Thanks for the replies.


----------



## MrKyle

Just got a new X4500H and ran Audyssey this afternoon - came back with saying my SW is too loud to start and then after running it set it to -12 dB (maxed)

Watching some different movies the sub is just over powering loud and not in a good way. Should I adjust the gain to negative on the sub itself? It is at 0 now but didn’t seem this loud running on my S920

I’ve got all speakers set to small with 80hz on Fronts/Center and 110 on surrounds 150 on Atmos - Sub set to LFE crossover at 80

System info is in my signature and any help would be appreciated!


----------



## jconjason

MrKyle said:


> Just got a new X4500H and ran Audyssey this afternoon - came back with saying my SW is too loud to start and then after running it set it to -12 dB (maxed)
> 
> Watching some different movies the sub is just over powering loud and not in a good way. Should I adjust the gain to negative on the sub itself? It is at 0 now but didn’t seem this loud running on my S920
> 
> I’ve got all speakers set to small with 80hz on Fronts/Center and 110 on surrounds 150 on Atmos - Sub set to LFE crossover at 80
> 
> System info is in my signature and any help would be appreciated!


Read this and be enlightened 😉


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2958528


----------



## MrKyle

jconjason said:


> Read this and be enlightened 😉
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2958528


Thanks for the link

Read thru most all of it and it was definitely interesting - however they don’t really speak to my issue (sub sounds far too loud and adjustment is already maxed at -12 which wasn’t recommended with Denon amps in that post). It was mainly talking about employing a boost to the sub via increasing the gain on the sub itself by starting at a more negative offset.
I could infer that I should turn the gain down on the sub and rerun Audyssey until the offset is in the recommended -5ish range but wasn’t sure if that was best course of action


----------



## jconjason

MrKyle said:


> Thanks for the link
> 
> Read thru most all of it and it was definitely interesting - however they don’t really speak to my issue (sub sounds far too loud and adjustment is already maxed at -12 which wasn’t recommended with Denon amps in that post). It was mainly talking about employing a boost to the sub via increasing the gain on the sub itself by starting at a more negative offset.
> I could infer that I should turn the gain down on the sub and rerun Audyssey until the offset is in the recommended -5ish range but wasn’t sure if that was best course of action


Lower the gain on the sub(typically the 9 o'clock position). Rerun Audyssey. Repeat until you get a trim above -11(I prefer around -6). After that if you wish to raise the gain on the back of the sub, you may do so. 

In the link I posted, it details at length how to set up a sub for Audyssey. It's extremely informative.


----------



## MrKyle

jconjason said:


> Lower the gain on the sub(typically the 9 o'clock position). Rerun Audyssey. Repeat until you get a trim above -11(I prefer around -6). After that if you wish to raise the gain on the back of the sub, you may do so.
> 
> In the link I posted, it details at length how to set up a sub for Audyssey. It's extremely informative.


I’ll give that a try it is at the 0 gain (12 o’clock) one currently 

The post was greatly informative about the whole process of setting up/calibrating no doubt, and gave me some ideas to look at in regards to cascading crossover as well for the future. It’s on my bookmark list now!


----------



## anjunadeep

Anyone else experiencing this issue in the Audyssey editor app?
https://vimeo.com/358537644

When I set my crossover settings for the left and right they don't hold in the app...


----------



## avtoronto

anjunadeep said:


> Anyone else experiencing this issue in the Audyssey editor app?
> https://vimeo.com/358537644
> 
> When I set my crossover settings for the left and right they don't hold in the app...


This was a bug. Update the app. Latest version fixed this, at least it did for me.


----------



## Alan P

MrKyle said:


> Just got a new X4500H and ran Audyssey this afternoon - came back with saying my SW is too loud to start and then after running it set it to -12 dB (maxed)
> 
> Watching some different movies the sub is just over powering loud and not in a good way. Should I adjust the gain to negative on the sub itself? It is at 0 now but didn’t seem this loud running on my S920
> 
> I’ve got all speakers set to small with 80hz on Fronts/Center and 110 on surrounds 150 on Atmos - Sub set to LFE crossover at 80
> 
> System info is in my signature and any help would be appreciated!


The reason your sub is overwhelming is because you did not turn the gain on your sub down far enough to get an acceptable initial subwoofer trim setting. Audyssey had to set it at -12dB, but for all you know it wanted to set it at -15dB, -22dB or -30dB (but could not due to the -12dB restriction built into the AVR). In essence, you could be running your sub +20dB hot and not even know it. 

This is why it is important to get the initial sub trim right. An initial setting of -11.5dB is ideal, but any setting above -12dB would be acceptable.


----------



## MrKyle

Alan P said:


> The reason your sub is overwhelming is because you did not turn the gain on your sub down far enough to get an acceptable initial subwoofer trim setting. Audyssey had to set it at -12dB, but for all you know it wanted to set it at -15dB, -22dB or -30dB (but could not due to the -12dB restriction built into the AVR). In essence, you could be running your sub +20dB hot and not even know it.
> 
> This is why it is important to get the initial sub trim right. An initial setting of -11.5dB is ideal, but any setting above -12dB would be acceptable.


Yep I figured it out, for some reason I'd read somewhere to leave gain at 0 to start, when I adjusted it to about 9 oclock it netted a -5 dB when I re-ran Audyssey


----------



## Cam Man

*Getting Nowhere Now with Editor App*

I have not been able to get the Editor App to work for three Marantz products recently (two 6014s and a 7704). I have successfully used the Editor App with the 7704 in the past, but no go now. Communication is fine, but the app will not progress at the mic plug in step. Firmware is up to date on all the Marantz units. OS of Galaxy S9+ is current. Have re-booted the phone and the Marantz units. Have uninstalled and re-installed the Editor App. No progress. Getting through to support is a joke. Anybody have any ideas?

*UPDATE*: I finally got through to support. Just as we were giving up, he remembered something...and it worked! Go to Settings>Apps>MEQ Editor...and dump the data/cache. Voila! Back in business. I hope that helps others.


----------



## Edi-MC

Is there anything remotely similar to the app that supports the previous models?


----------



## Alan P

Edi-MC said:


> Is there anything remotely similar to the app that supports the previous models?


MiniDSP?


----------



## jconjason

Cam Man said:


> *UPDATE*: I finally got through to support. Just as we were giving up, he remembered something...and it worked! Go to Settings>Apps>MEQ Editor...and dump the data/cache. Voila! Back in business. I hope that helps others.


Closing app, clearing cache and clearing data are the first thing you should always do when an app isn't responding properly. Glad you got it solved!


----------



## Cam Man

jconjason said:


> Closing app, clearing cache and clearing data are the first thing you should always do when an app isn't responding properly. Glad you got it solved!


Well...I'll point out the fact that if you search this monstrously huge thread for the word "cache," my post is the only one in which it comes up. So, I'd say it should have come up before now if it's so intuitively obvious.  It is not so obvious in this case since the phone is fairly new, therefore not much opportunity for data to pile up. I suspect it is the culprit in a lot of annoying similar issues with the app.

I hope others with problems stumble across this so that they can benefit.


----------



## jconjason

Cam Man said:


> Well...I'll point out the fact that if you search this monstrously huge thread for the word "cache," my post is the only one in which it comes up. So, I'd say it should have come up before now if it's so intuitively obvious.  It is not so obvious in this case since the phone is fairly new, therefore not much opportunity for data to pile up. I suspect it is the culprit in a lot of annoying similar issues with the app.
> 
> I hope others with problems stumble across this so that they can benefit.


It won't come up in searches for this thread because this isnt a phone app thread. Regardless, I'm sure your info will help others.


----------



## Cam Man

jconjason said:


> It won't come up in searches for this thread because this isnt a phone app thread.


A search for the word "Editor" in this non-phone app thread produces 78 posts with it in it. They're not discussing editor of the Daily Planet, Perry White. They're discussing the _Audyssey_ MultEQ Editor App...wherever it lives.


----------



## Edi-MC

Alan P said:


> MiniDSP?


Was thinking on a similar app...

Because MiniDSP is a relatively cheap way to know what's happening in the room, it has always been in my wishlist, but I have no experience interpreting all the data/graphs... But I'll eventually get it and use it with REW...


----------



## Alan P

Edi-MC said:


> Was thinking on a similar app...
> 
> Because MiniDSP is a relatively cheap way to know what's happening in the room, it has always been in my wishlist, but I have no experience interpreting all the data/graphs... But I'll eventually get it and use it with REW...


I know what you were thinking, I was just pointing out that no such app exists and the only way you will be able to have similar control is to add external processing. If your AVR has multi-channel pre-outs, a MiniDSP (along with REW+calibrated mic) would actually get you much, much more control than any app could. 

Even using a MiniDSP on the subs alone would be an improvement over the Audyssey app, IMO. Assuming, of course, you are willing to put in the time to learn how to properly use it.


----------



## Edi-MC

That I am! 
My only question is: what kind of EQ'ing will I be able to apply to eliminate/decrease the peaks/flatten out the curve after the measurements? Without spending some cash in external processing that is (for the time being, after buying the Triton's, I will have to let my bank account rest a little bit lol) 

I'm super limited regarding positioning... I'm only able to toe in/out the front speakers and move the sub to the sides (15-20cms to each side).
My concern is to find myself in a situation where I'm in possession of a bunch of info that I won't be able to use...


----------



## Dustin Windsor

Hey Guys,


Picked up a Marantz 6013 - i admit i'm loving Audyssy over YPAO.
Couple Questions:



1. Audyssey set my sub at - 9.5, is that a good number? I read above Audyssey should be setting the sub DB around a certain number (did it get it right for me?). YPAO would set it around 0 db, so seeing the - 9.5 is different  Can i turn it up a few db? I did read in the FAQ some people turn it up 1-3 db - i wanted to confirm.


2. I finally got Front Height speakers and really excited for Atmos - do i leave them on what Audyssey sets them to or should i turn them up 1 or 2 db? I thought i read months ago people turn of their Atmos/Height speakers but that could have been a YPAO thing and not Audssey.


3. Once i change all my speakers to small, and set the crossovers to 80 hz should i be running Audyssey yet again or i'm good to go from the first run?



4. It set my surrounds to -7 - is that ok from the picture attached? Again i think the settings throw me off compared to years with YPAO.



FL : -3.0
Center: -3.5
FR: -3.0
SR: -7.5
SL: -7
FHR: -2.5
FHL: -2.0


----------



## David Aiken

Edi-MC said:


> That I am!
> My only question is: what kind of EQ'ing will I be able to apply to eliminate/decrease the peaks/flatten out the curve after the measurements? Without spending some cash in external processing that is (for the time being, after buying the Triton's, I will have to let my bank account rest a little bit lol)
> 
> I'm super limited regarding positioning... I'm only able to toe in/out the front speakers and move the sub to the sides (15-20cms to each side).
> My concern is to find myself in a situation where I'm in possession of a bunch of info that I won't be able to use...



There's not much you can do. As far as your AVR goes, the answer is pretty much nothing, there's minimal provision for changing Audyssey results provided by the AVR. You can manually adjust the trims to adjust the level of different channels but that doesn't alter the correction filters in any way so whatever peaks and dips there are in the curve will remain, just a little louder or softer due to the trim level adjustment.

I think the first thing to consider is how you like the sound of the result. It sounds like you're concerned about the flatness of the curve in the bass region and the fact is that you can look at a bass response curve, see peaks and dips and think it looks bad—which it can—but what looks bad on a plot doesn't sound anywhere near as bad to our ears. We don't "hear" the curve. What we "hear" has been filtered by the auditory processes in our brain and a lot of the things that can look bad on curves just aren't noticed by us so there's no need to obsess about achieving a perfectly flat curve. The audible result of doing that is much smaller than the visible impression that the flat curve creates. Even great sound does not measure perfectly and good to great sound never looks as good on a curve as it sounds to our ears.

Provided you have an AVR that can work with the MultEQ app on an iOS/Android device, the MultEQ app gives you the ability to tailor the curve quite a bit which is something that your AVR lacks. If you want to try adjusting the curve a bit then the MultEQ app is the best and really the only way that Audyssey lets you play with adjusting the response curve in any way so it's worth looking at.

Apart from that your options default to:

1- rerunning Audyssey and experimenting with slightly different mic position placements for the measurements, closer or further apart mic positions. There's no way of predicting what kind of mic placements will produce a result you'll like the look—and sound—of so be prepared to try lots of different mic placements.

2- adjustments to speaker positioning and listening position placement and rerunning Audyssey. You may be able to get a smoother looking response but it may take a fair bit of experimenting

3- different room correction processors included in other makes of AVR or other processing systems such as Dirac

4- physical room acoustic treatments in conjunction with Audyssey or some other processor, and that brings with it the same warning that there's no way of predicting what will give you what you want and you're going to need to experiment.

If your ability to alter your speaker placements and listening position location are limited then the MultEQ app is the most flexible way to go. You can do a single measurement process and then play with different adjustments to the response curve at your leisure without needing to keep repeating the setup process and the app is way cheaper than a different processor and/or physical acoustic treatments.


----------



## garygarrison

Edi-MC said:


> That I am!
> My only question is: what kind of EQ'ing will I be able to apply to eliminate/decrease the peaks/flatten out the curve after the measurements? Without spending some cash in external processing that is (for the time being, after buying the Triton's, I will have to let my bank account rest a little bit lol)
> ...



 Audyssey itself provides EQ over _*hundreds*_ of points (as opposed to, maybe, 36 points/ranges with an equalizer). Be sure to use all mic positions. That will probably produce flatter sound than you could ever produce with a conventional equalizer (with Audyssey Flat*; *with Audyssey Reference, you get a little dip at about 2K, and about -2 dB at 10K, sloping down to -6 dB at 20K).
Either put in any absorbers or diffusors or bass traps you intend to use *before* running Audyssey, or run Audyssey again _*after*_ putting in the acoustical treatments.
Stay away from "Base copy" or the like, because it isn't really copy in that it loses a great deal of information (hundreds of points) that Audyssey collects.
Just because Audyssey gives you a pretty flat room, doesn't mean you will like it, for many reasons. Audyssey calls this the difference between Reference and Preference. No matter, we can fix! See J. Gordon Holt's article "Down with flat" -- Apr 29, 1985, https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/index.htmlon the _Stereophile_ website, and the rebuttal by Cordsman, indexed at the bottom of the article. Part of what Holt is getting at is many recordings in his day have high frequency distortion, so you may want to back off the treble, or otherwise change the EQ due to differences in taste between you and the recording engineers. There's good news and bad news. The good news is that high frequency distortion due to things like mis-tracking cartridges, or over-recorded digital are much rarer today. The bad news is that recording companies tend to pump up the upper midrange, and reduce the ultra highs, and, *especially the bass* for ridiculous reasons (see Chris A, "The Missing Octave," https://community.klipsch.com/index...dacity-remastering-to-restore-tracks/page/13/ and his other posts on de-mastering on the Klipsch Community Forum). IMO this is one reason why almost all Audyssey users turn up the bass _*after*_ calibrating, by 3 to 9 dB, using a bass tone control (if available) and/or turning the gain knob on the subwoofer up a bit. Caution, don't turn the subwoofer trim in the AVR up that much*;* for how to do it right, see forum member Mike Thomas's  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
*** "The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement." 

 For the (fewer) music recordings or movies with *treble* distortion, Audyssey Reference works well, in most cases, even though that's not exactly what it is meant for. The end result with good recordings may be fairly flat response (+/- 3 dB, or better) above 80 or 100, or 200 or 800Hz, and boosted bass below. In my case (with Audyssey Flat), I get +/- 2.5 dB from 800 to 15Khz, and bass boosted grandly below, up to an average of + 9 dB below 80Hz. I can't help it, I like the authority it gives timpani, bass drum, tom, tam-tam, and some of the rest of what we orchestra members used to call the kitchen. It's not flat, but it is smooth and graceful, not kinky, as it was before Audyssey.
Mike's guide, above, is the more up to date, but you might scan the FAQ, chiefly by another forum member, Keith Barnes*: * "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"


----------



## garygarrison

Dustin Windsor said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> 
> Picked up a Marantz 6013 - i admit i'm loving Audyssy over YPAO.
> Couple Questions:



See my reply to Edi-MC above, and the links in it, as well as David's reply. You don't have to rerun Audyssey when changing subwoofer crossovers, etc.



I like your room layout. Everything centered so your soundstage will resemble what the filmmakers had in mind. The cat is well placed, as well.


----------



## Jon AA

garygarrison said:


> For the (fewer) music recordings or movies with *treble* distortion, Audyssey Reference works well, in most cases, even though that's not exactly what it is meant for. The end result with good recordings may be fairly flat response (+/- 3 dB, or better) above 80 or 100, or 200 or 800Hz, and boosted bass below.


I agree with all that but would add, the curve that will sound the best in a particular room also depends upon your speakers. It's much discussed in the "Science Thread" and Floyd Toole's book how two different speakers that may measure exactly the same on-axis anechoically will give different in-room curves with differing early reflection and power response curves (due to different directivity curves). Paul Hales discusses this and his method of EQing his speakers for pro installs in this interview (mainly beginning at about 44:00):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3091&v=Pl4ZUiO3ByM


Good info to keep in mind when using Audyssey; you can somewhat follow that procedure with REW and the App.


----------



## Dustin Windsor

garygarrison said:


> See my reply to Edi-MC above, and the links in it, as well as David's reply. You don't have to rerun Audyssey when changing subwoofer crossovers, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I like your room layout. Everything centered so your soundstage will resemble what the filmmakers had in mind. The cat is well placed, as well.



Should i turn up my front heights at all, or just leave everything alone and how Audssey set it?


----------



## rhelliott2

Dustin Windsor said:


> Should i turn up my front heights at all, or just leave everything alone and how Audssey set it?


I like to use the race scene from ready player one to test out Atmos height channels. listen to it as is... then bump it up 2 to 3db if need be.


----------



## rosstg

Last night I mounted my Klipsch RP 140sa on my ceiling and my wow. What a difference. Sooooo much better than upfiring. All I need to do now is run XT32 again. Wondering if I should leave it full range or limit to 300hz and turn off DEQ.


----------



## Dustin Windsor

Hey guys!
I'm about to add 2 rear height speakers. I have ran Audyssey multiple times with my my new set up. All my speakers can see the mic....but when i add/mount the rear heights the couch blocks the microphone.


After i mount them and run Audssey -Should i leave the mic in the usual position i've been running Audssey (ear level for all 8 positions), or should i raise it a foot higher (could be a little more so its above my couch) for all the positions so the couch isn't blocking it for the rear heights?


I'm a little confused on what to do now that i'm adding the rear heights. I've learned so much here and have to say thank you!


----------



## hawkster27

*Very high crossover settings*

First, I use Audyssey all the time and am quite happy with it. But here's a quirk I can't figure out: Audyssey MultiEQ consistently sets my mains to crossover between 150 and 200 Hz. And here's the thing: over the years this has happened with an Onkyo and two Marantz pre-pros, with Klipsch Forte IIs and Martin Logan 60XTs (all set to small), using both the built in Audyssey and the phone app, and in two different living rooms! (The crossovers for the surrounds and Atmos get set to between 40 Hz and 60 Hz.) After I run Audyssey, I reset the crossovers for the mains to 90hz, but this just seems weird. FWIW, my sub is a Klipsch RSW-12, with the crossover dial set to 100Hz.


----------



## mogorf

hawkster27 said:


> First, I use Audyssey all the time and am quite happy with it. But here's a quirk I can't figure out: Audyssey MultiEQ consistently sets my mains to crossover between 150 and 200 Hz. And here's the thing: over the years this has happened with an Onkyo and two Marantz pre-pros, with Klipsch Forte IIs and Martin Logan 60XTs (all set to small), using both the built in Audyssey and the phone app, and in two different living rooms! (The crossovers for the surrounds and Atmos get set to between 40 Hz and 60 Hz.) After I run Audyssey, I reset the crossovers for the mains to 90hz, but this just seems weird. FWIW, my sub is a Klipsch RSW-12, with the crossover dial set to 100Hz.



Yeah, weird enough! Although you don't mention how your mains are placed in the room. Care to share some photos of the setup of your mains? Thx.


----------



## hawkster27

mogorf said:


> Yeah, weird enough! Although you don't mention how your mains are placed in the room. Care to share some photos of the setup of your mains? Thx.


Here's the current setup. It's been approximately the same through the equipment changes. Mains are about 10.5 ft from MLP. Martin Logan recommends the toe-in.


----------



## David Aiken

hawkster27 said:


> First, I use Audyssey all the time and am quite happy with it. But here's a quirk I can't figure out: Audyssey MultiEQ consistently sets my mains to crossover between 150 and 200 Hz. And here's the thing: over the years this has happened with an Onkyo and two Marantz pre-pros, with Klipsch Forte IIs and Martin Logan 60XTs (all set to small), using both the built in Audyssey and the phone app, and in two different living rooms! (The crossovers for the surrounds and Atmos get set to between 40 Hz and 60 Hz.) After I run Audyssey, I reset the crossovers for the mains to 90hz, but this just seems weird. FWIW, my sub is a Klipsch RSW-12, with the crossover dial set to 100Hz.


Audyssey does not set the crossover settings, it's the AVR doing that based on the results of the Audyssey measurement.

When you do the setup process Audyssey plays that chirp sound in each channel and measures things like the frequency response and delay time at the microphone location which is basically your listening position. That frequency response is often, even usually, nothing like the speaker manufacturer's claimed frequency response. There are 2 reasons for that. First the manufacturer's claimed response is usually based on measurements made in an anechoic chamber and Audyssey is measuring the speaker in a room which affects the frequency response, especially at low frequencies, quite strongly and secondly because manufacturers are often quite "optimistic" about what they claim as the frequency response. In a real room most speakers exhibit peaks and dips in the low frequencies and the crossover frequency is set at the highest bass frequency where the speaker's response has dropped 3 dB. Depending on the speaker and the room that can easily be between 150 and 200 Hz. If you are consistently getting the crossover set in that range with different speakers and with different pre-pros then the room is doing something happening to the speaker's response in that range which is causing a dip in the measured response.

You have 2 options you can try which MAY—no guarantees—change that in room behaviour and result in a lower crossover frequency. The first is to move the main speakers closer to the wall behind them or the wall beside them or both walls (into the corner) which will result in a boost to the bass response in the room. The second is to move your listening position because it may be in a part of the room which is in a bass null zone. Try moving the listening position forward or backward in small increments, say 3-6" at a time, and see if you can find a position where the bass sounds stronger. If so put the listening position there. Ideally you should try both of these things. You should be able to make a difference but how much of a difference can't be predicted because a lot depends on the room itself, factors like it's size, whether it opens into other areas, what the walls and floor and ceiling are made from, furnishings and curtains/carpets/rugs and so on.

Basically you're getting a high crossover frequency set because there's a serious dip in your speaker response up in that 150-200 Hz range and the only way to fix that is to change things in the speaker and room setup that are causing that dip. Audyssey is intended to fix those room problems and you can't fix dips by boosting the power at the frequency of the dip, the dip just keeps absorbing most of the power you put into that frequency range. That's why the crossover gets set higher and those frequencies are handed to the sub which is placed in a different location so has a different in room response and is also often better able to handle those frequencies than the main speakers.


----------



## mogorf

hawkster27 said:


> Here's the current setup. It's been approximately the same through the equipment changes. Mains are about 10.5 ft from MLP. Martin Logan recommends the toe-in.



Toe-in is OK, but I would first try to put the mains as close to the front wall as possible. By that way you can make use of boundary gain which is supposed to act as a phenomenon to lower the roll-off of a speaker. Please try it, run Audyssey again and report back your results. Cross my fingers for Ya.


----------



## Bachmere

*Help Audyssey setup fails after 1 or 2 speaker readings*

Using an Denon X4200W, with a 5.1.2 speaker setup and the front three speakers are connected to an external amp. The receiver works well, and Audyssey worked well before. 

I tried to rerun Audyssey setup yesterday to calibrate a new pair of speakers (initially had the old speakers connected to zone B via the external amp), and it keeps failing after the left or center channel speaker reading with the message Subwoofer levels are now matched press Continue to Begin Audyssey setup for Position 1. It will then play a sound from the Left speaker sometimes it may go through a few beeps for the center channel, and then goes back to the "Subwoofer levels are matched... " screen

I noticed that while playing manual test tones, the screen returns to the menu after about 10 -15 seconds of playing test tones.

I tried reverting to the old speakers, network reset, microprocessor reset (power + back + Info) etc. but the problem persists. Any suggestions on what might be going on?


----------



## Bachmere

Bump..


----------



## hawkster27

mogorf said:


> Toe-in is OK, but I would first try to put the mains as close to the front wall as possible. By that way you can make use of boundary gain which is supposed to act as a phenomenon to lower the roll-off of a speaker. Please try it, run Audyssey again and report back your results. Cross my fingers for Ya.


I reduced the toe-in somewhat, based on a FAQ on Martin Logan's web site. I also moved the speakers 6" closer to the wall, so now the backs are 13" from the wall instead of 19". Moving the listening position is impractical. Reran Audyssey, and still got a crossover of 200 Hz for the mains and 120 Hz for the center. I reset the crossovers to 90 Hz for all three. I guess that's just how my setup rolls.


----------



## mogorf

hawkster27 said:


> I reduced the toe-in somewhat, based on a FAQ on Martin Logan's web site. I also moved the speakers 6" closer to the wall, so now the backs are 13" from the wall instead of 19". Moving the listening position is impractical. Reran Audyssey, and still got a crossover of 200 Hz for the mains and 120 Hz for the center. I reset the crossovers to 90 Hz for all three. I guess that's just how my setup rolls.



OK. Let's see some more troubleshooting. 

Sorry to ask the obvious, but can you check that the jumper clips on the rear side are installed?


----------



## hawkster27

mogorf said:


> OK. Let's see some more troubleshooting.
> 
> Sorry to ask the obvious, but can you check that the jumper clips on the rear side are installed?


For sure. And the speaker cables are connected to the top pair of posts.


----------



## mogorf

hawkster27 said:


> For sure. And the speaker cables are connected to the top pair of posts.



Next thing you may check is the woofers. Try to play something with very deep bass and move close to the mains to see (hear) whether they play or not. This will rule out any dead woofers.


----------



## hawkster27

mogorf said:


> Next thing you may check is the woofers. Try to play something with very deep bass and move close to the mains to see (hear) whether they play or not. This will rule out any dead woofers.


Morphine's "Good" provides plenty of bottom end. No dead woofers.


----------



## Alan P

Bachmere said:


> Using an Denon X4200W, with a 5.1.2 speaker setup and the front three speakers are connected to an external amp. The receiver works well, and Audyssey worked well before.
> 
> I tried to rerun Audyssey setup yesterday to calibrate a new pair of speakers (initially had the old speakers connected to zone B via the external amp), and it keeps failing after the left or center channel speaker reading with the message Subwoofer levels are now matched press Continue to Begin Audyssey setup for Position 1. It will then play a sound from the Left speaker sometimes it may go through a few beeps for the center channel, and then goes back to the "Subwoofer levels are matched... " screen
> 
> I noticed that while playing manual test tones, the screen returns to the menu after about 10 -15 seconds of playing test tones.
> 
> I tried reverting to the old speakers, network reset, microprocessor reset (power + back + Info) etc. but the problem persists. Any suggestions on what might be going on?





Bachmere said:


> Bump..


Sounds like you've tried all of the trouble shooting steps...well, except for a "soft" reset (unplug from the wall for ~10min), but I don't expect that to work since a full reset did not.

If you are still under warranty, I would say it's time to contact Denon.


----------



## Hetfieldjames

Alan P said:


> Sounds like you've tried all of the trouble shooting steps...well, except for a "soft" reset (unplug from the wall for ~10min), but I don't expect that to work since a full reset did not.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are still under warranty, I would say it's time to contact Denon.


Could the mic be bad? Didn't that happen sometimes?


----------



## Alan P

Hetfieldjames said:


> Could the mic be bad? Didn't that happen sometimes?


Yup, bad mics do happen, but from his description it doesn't seem likely. Sounds more like a CPU issue to me.


----------



## Bachmere

Alan P said:


> Yup, bad mics do happen, but from his description it doesn't seem likely. Sounds more like a CPU issue to me.




Interesting thought. The unit is about 3 years old, so likely just out of credit card warranty I’m guessing I’ll have to buy a replacement mic to try that out.

Any thoughts on if I could use a different mic (I have a Umik-1)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Hetfieldjames

Alan P said:


> Yup, bad mics do happen, but from his description it doesn't seem likely. Sounds more like a CPU issue to me.


Huh interesting, learning a lot here.


----------



## Alan P

Bachmere said:


> Interesting thought. The unit is about 3 years old, so likely just out of credit card warranty I’m guessing I’ll have to buy a replacement mic to try that out.
> 
> Any thoughts on if I could use a different mic (I have a Umik-1)?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I would check to see if you still have warranty remaining with the CC company, for sure.

No, you cannot use a UMIK-1. You can contact Denon and they will sell you a replacement Audyssey mic, I think they are around $30. Or, you could check Ebay for the ACM1HB Audyssey Microphone.

One other thought, you could try cleaning the mic jack on the AVR with some electronics cleaner. Maybe it's not getting a really good connection......


----------



## Bachmere

Turns out, I did not do the microprocessor reset correctly. After the reset, Audyssey seems to be progressing as expected. Thanks JD and others on this forum. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Alan P

Bachmere said:


> Turns out, I did not do the microprocessor reset correctly. After the reset, Audyssey seems to be progressing as expected. Thanks JD and others on this forum.


Glad to hear you got it sorted!

Just an FYI if needed in the future; it is usually recommended to do 3-4 microprocessor resets in a row...sometimes the first couple don't "stick".


----------



## Bachmere

Alan P said:


> Glad to hear you got it sorted!
> 
> 
> 
> Just an FYI if needed in the future; it is usually recommended to do 3-4 microprocessor resets in a row...sometimes the first couple don't "stick".




Thanks, that’s good to know 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## garygarrison

Dustin Windsor said:


> Should i turn up my front heights at all, or just leave everything alone and how Audssey set it?



Try it both ways.


----------



## Da1las

Question. I am planning a dedicated theater using the Marantz SR-8012 receiver. I have an old Audyssey Pro Installation kid. Would it be beneficial or even possible to use that Mic instead of the one supplied with the receiver?


Thank you.


----------



## bigzee3

Hi guys do anyone know what actually happens when you turn off MultiEQ.


----------



## mogorf

bigzee3 said:


> Hi guys do anyone know what actually happens when you turn off MultiEQ.



Yes. The EQ curves (aka filters) calculated by Audyssey are turned off, thus you get back to how your speakers interact with the room. Channel level trims, distances remain intact as set by MultEQ from 1st mic position.


----------



## bigzee3

mogorf said:


> bigzee3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys do anyone know what actually happens when you turn off MultiEQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. The EQ curves (aka filters) calculated by Audyssey are turned off, thus you get back to how your speakers interact with the room. Channel level trims, distances remain intact as set by MultEQ from 1st mic position.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Was interested in giving it a try. I watch movies at the moment with DEQ off and a 5-6db bass increase to compensate but I stumbled upon the MultiEQ accidentally turning it off while I was checking some and it did take away a bit of extra boom. Might what Godzilla again and see what the difference is


----------



## pbz06

bigzee3 said:


> Thanks for that. Was interested in giving it a try. I watch movies at the moment with DEQ off and a 5-6db bass increase to compensate but I stumbled upon the MultiEQ accidentally turning it off while I was checking some and it did take away a bit of extra boom. Might what Godzilla again and see what the difference is


DEQ makes a nice and positive difference for me. I suggest you read the guide that mthomas has in the subwoofer section of the forum; there's a few paragraphs on DEQ and the differences between the bass and how it differs rather than compensating with just the SW trim.


----------



## Hetfieldjames

What do you guys think of the 20 dollar Audyssey app? I'm really against the idea of paying 20 bucks for an app. Is it hard to use and figure out? Will go way over my head and just make things more complicated?


----------



## pbz06

Hetfieldjames said:


> What do you guys think of the 20 dollar Audyssey app? I'm really against the idea of paying 20 bucks for an app. Is it hard to use and figure out? Will go way over my head and just make things more complicated?


ha, I saw your posts on audioholics too. Just get it 

It's the exact same process but you control it through your phone. Being able to run multiple tests and see how the results differ is nice. I also like being able to turn off MRC while keeping the Reference curve.

It also gives you the ability to try limiting correction up to a certain frequency.


----------



## Hetfieldjames

pbz06 said:


> ha, I saw your posts on audioholics too. Just get it
> 
> 
> 
> It's the exact same process but you control it through your phone. Being able to run multiple tests and see how the results differ is nice. I also like being able to turn off MRC while keeping the Reference curve.
> 
> 
> 
> It also gives you the ability to try limiting correction up to a certain frequency.


Ok, I'm probably going to get it. I hope I don't get annoyed and frustrated because it's too complicated.


----------



## pbz06

Hetfieldjames said:


> Ok, I'm probably going to get it. I hope I don't get annoyed and frustrated because it's too complicated.


Let us know how it goes, but please don't blame it on me  Just pretend your AVR was $20 more expensive


----------



## bigzee3

pbz06 said:


> bigzee3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. Was interested in giving it a try. I watch movies at the moment with DEQ off and a 5-6db bass increase to compensate but I stumbled upon the MultiEQ accidentally turning it off while I was checking some and it did take away a bit of extra boom. Might what Godzilla again and see what the difference is
> 
> 
> 
> DEQ makes a nice and positive difference for me. I suggest you read the guide that mthomas has in the subwoofer section of the forum; there's a few paragraphs on DEQ and the differences between the bass and how it differs rather than compensating with just the SW trim.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

Have read it lots of times. DEQ for me is to aggressive and artificial sounding even when uses RLOs. Although it could be my room as well.


----------



## Edi-MC

David Aiken said:


> There's not much you can do. As far as your AVR goes, the answer is pretty much nothing, there's minimal provision for changing Audyssey results provided by the AVR. You can manually adjust the trims to adjust the level of different channels but that doesn't alter the correction filters in any way so whatever peaks and dips there are in the curve will remain, just a little louder or softer due to the trim level adjustment.
> 
> I think the first thing to consider is how you like the sound of the result. It sounds like you're concerned about the flatness of the curve in the bass region and the fact is that you can look at a bass response curve, see peaks and dips and think it looks bad—which it can—but what looks bad on a plot doesn't sound anywhere near as bad to our ears. We don't "hear" the curve. What we "hear" has been filtered by the auditory processes in our brain and a lot of the things that can look bad on curves just aren't noticed by us so there's no need to obsess about achieving a perfectly flat curve. The audible result of doing that is much smaller than the visible impression that the flat curve creates. Even great sound does not measure perfectly and good to great sound never looks as good on a curve as it sounds to our ears.
> 
> Provided you have an AVR that can work with the MultEQ app on an iOS/Android device, the MultEQ app gives you the ability to tailor the curve quite a bit which is something that your AVR lacks. If you want to try adjusting the curve a bit then the MultEQ app is the best and really the only way that Audyssey lets you play with adjusting the response curve in any way so it's worth looking at.
> 
> Apart from that your options default to:
> 
> 1- rerunning Audyssey and experimenting with slightly different mic position placements for the measurements, closer or further apart mic positions. There's no way of predicting what kind of mic placements will produce a result you'll like the look—and sound—of so be prepared to try lots of different mic placements.
> 
> 2- adjustments to speaker positioning and listening position placement and rerunning Audyssey. You may be able to get a smoother looking response but it may take a fair bit of experimenting
> 
> 3- different room correction processors included in other makes of AVR or other processing systems such as Dirac
> 
> 4- physical room acoustic treatments in conjunction with Audyssey or some other processor, and that brings with it the same warning that there's no way of predicting what will give you what you want and you're going to need to experiment.
> 
> If your ability to alter your speaker placements and listening position location are limited then the MultEQ app is the most flexible way to go. You can do a single measurement process and then play with different adjustments to the response curve at your leisure without needing to keep repeating the setup process and the app is way cheaper than a different processor and/or physical acoustic treatments.





garygarrison said:


> Audyssey itself provides EQ over _*hundreds*_ of points (as opposed to, maybe, 36 points/ranges with an equalizer). Be sure to use all mic positions. That will probably produce flatter sound than you could ever produce with a conventional equalizer (with Audyssey Flat*; *with Audyssey Reference, you get a little dip at about 2K, and about -2 dB at 10K, sloping down to -6 dB at 20K).
> Either put in any absorbers or diffusors or bass traps you intend to use *before* running Audyssey, or run Audyssey again _*after*_ putting in the acoustical treatments.
> Stay away from "Base copy" or the like, because it isn't really copy in that it loses a great deal of information (hundreds of points) that Audyssey collects.
> Just because Audyssey gives you a pretty flat room, doesn't mean you will like it, for many reasons. Audyssey calls this the difference between Reference and Preference. No matter, we can fix! See J. Gordon Holt's article "Down with flat" -- Apr 29, 1985, https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/index.htmlon the _Stereophile_ website, and the rebuttal by Cordsman, indexed at the bottom of the article. Part of what Holt is getting at is many recordings in his day have high frequency distortion, so you may want to back off the treble, or otherwise change the EQ due to differences in taste between you and the recording engineers. There's good news and bad news. The good news is that high frequency distortion due to things like mis-tracking cartridges, or over-recorded digital are much rarer today. The bad news is that recording companies tend to pump up the upper midrange, and reduce the ultra highs, and, *especially the bass* for ridiculous reasons (see Chris A, "The Missing Octave," https://community.klipsch.com/index...dacity-remastering-to-restore-tracks/page/13/ and his other posts on de-mastering on the Klipsch Community Forum). IMO this is one reason why almost all Audyssey users turn up the bass _*after*_ calibrating, by 3 to 9 dB, using a bass tone control (if available) and/or turning the gain knob on the subwoofer up a bit. Caution, don't turn the subwoofer trim in the AVR up that much*;* for how to do it right, see forum member Mike Thomas's  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
> *** "The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
> Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement."
> 
> For the (fewer) music recordings or movies with *treble* distortion, Audyssey Reference works well, in most cases, even though that's not exactly what it is meant for. The end result with good recordings may be fairly flat response (+/- 3 dB, or better) above 80 or 100, or 200 or 800Hz, and boosted bass below. In my case (with Audyssey Flat), I get +/- 2.5 dB from 800 to 15Khz, and bass boosted grandly below, up to an average of + 9 dB below 80Hz. I can't help it, I like the authority it gives timpani, bass drum, tom, tam-tam, and some of the rest of what we orchestra members used to call the kitchen. It's not flat, but it is smooth and graceful, not kinky, as it was before Audyssey.
> Mike's guide, above, is the more up to date, but you might scan the FAQ, chiefly by another forum member, Keith Barnes*: * "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"



Sorry for taking so long to thank you!
Super value information you both gave me 

@David Aiken - I agree with you regarding the "data Vs ears" question. 
Still, I am curious to know what is happening in my room  and although I tend to agree with you, there are things one needs to adress in order to achieve a more... integrated sound. 
Peaks and dips are two of those things. No room is perfect, we all know that, but we have to do what we can with what we have to try to achieve that magical place we like to call "Earvana" (or at least, to get close to it eheh).
Sadly my SR7009 doesn't support the MultiEQ app, so I can't perform any kind equalisation/tailoring to the sound. 
Quite frankly, for now, that isn't my intention - I have scarse knowledge regarding the theme so I won't be spending my money on something that would probably (for now) do more harm than good... 
Of course, for 20 bucks, the app would be an acceptable (super cheap!) investment to make and would allow me to learn more about the process while giving me a bit more control over the sound, but as I said, my AVR isn't supported. Bummer...
You basically covered all my options there 

You brought up the question about how I like the results... well... I have to say that I haven't been very happy with them. I often feel that "something's missing"... but I can't identify where the problem lies... is it Audyssey? Is it my room? Both? Is it content related? Something else? aaaaargh 
I've been struggling throughout the years to get a consistent performance/behaviour from my system. Sometimes I watch a movie and think: "Oh! This is sounding good!"... then I watch another one and things seem way off... (D.Eq and D.Vol set to OFF - lately I've even been turning Audyssey EQ OFF!). Watching live concerts (even with DTS HD-MA/True Hd tracks) often results in... disapointment... it's weird! The sound sounds THIN!
Getting clear dialogs has been difficult. 
Many times I find myself raising the volume to compensate for that lack of clarity but then the bass becomes overwhelming... raising the center channel level doesn't cut it either (in a near future I'll upgrade the Monitor Audio Bronze center channel to a Golden Ear Supercenter XXL and hopefully it will improve!). The sound I get from the front speakers seems dull/softened... it lacks impact! 
It's hard to explain, sorry! 
Could it be related to the volume I listen my contents?
I live in an apartment so I usually don't go beyond (-)20dB (after calibration, I matched all the speaker levels to 80dB with an SPL meter - boosted the center channel by 1dB)... I feel that is very difficult to achieve a good balance between a present bass and clear dialogs. 


Now, I have to share this  (and it goes towards the "data Vs ears" question you raised) - I re-ran Audyssey today and level matched the speakers to 80dB (center channel boosted by 1dB). Turned OFF - D.EQ/D.Vol./MultEQ XT32 and every sound processing gimmicks... Played one of the movies I'm familiar with and........... WOW! What the heck??? Dialogs are fuller and louder! The Triton's are sounding good and delivering a snappy, powerfull, rich sound! 
The mic positions I used were the same, everything was set to OFF as it was before... so, what on earth changed?! 
I forgot to change the crossover settings! 
Until today, I always manually set the size and crossovers following the rules of thumb: SMALL/(around) 80Hz/4 to 5dB boost to subwoofer level.
But because I forgot to do this, I was listening to the front speakers set to LARGE, the center channel with a XO set to 40Hz and the surrounds to 120Hz...
I need to watch/listen my contents carefully again (still in the honeymoon period lol), but this seems to be a case where it all seems to sound right (or at least, better than it was) but with a set of non recommended settings (ok, exception made to the Tritons... Sandy's advice is to always set them as LARGE)... go figure LOL
I suspect that because the Triton's have built-in subs, this is helping to even out the bass response in the room (Gene from Audioholics refers to the importance of dual subs to bass management a ton of times in his videos!). 

@garygarrison - will definetely look into that article! Thanks!

Sorry for the wall of text and sorry for any writing mistake I probably made (English is not my native language)


----------



## David Aiken

Edi-MC said:


> Sorry for taking so long to thank you!
> Super value information you both gave me
> 
> @David Aiken - I agree with you regarding the "data Vs ears" question.
> Still, I am curious to know what is happening in my room  and although I tend to agree with you, there are things one needs to adress in order to achieve a more... integrated sound.
> Peaks and dips are two of those things. No room is perfect, we all know that, but we have to do what we can with what we have to try to achieve that magical place we like to call "Earvana" (or at least, to get close to it eheh).
> Sadly my SR7009 doesn't support the MultiEQ app, so I can't perform any kind equalisation/tailoring to the sound.
> Quite frankly, for now, that isn't my intention - I have scarse knowledge regarding the theme so I won't be spending my money on something that would probably (for now) do more harm than good...
> Of course, for 20 bucks, the app would be an acceptable (super cheap!) investment to make and would allow me to learn more about the process while giving me a bit more control over the sound, but as I said, my AVR isn't supported. Bummer...
> You basically covered all my options there
> 
> You brought up the question about how I like the results... well... I have to say that I haven't been very happy with them. I often feel that "something's missing"... but I can't identify where the problem lies... is it Audyssey? Is it my room? Both? Is it content related? Something else? aaaaargh
> I've been struggling throughout the years to get a consistent performance/behaviour from my system. Sometimes I watch a movie and think: "Oh! This is sounding good!"... then I watch another one and things seem way off... (D.Eq and D.Vol set to OFF - lately I've even been turning Audyssey EQ OFF!). Watching live concerts (even with DTS HD-MA/True Hd tracks) often results in... disapointment... it's weird! The sound sounds THIN!
> Getting clear dialogs has been difficult.
> Many times I find myself raising the volume to compensate for that lack of clarity but then the bass becomes overwhelming... raising the center channel level doesn't cut it either (in a near future I'll upgrade the Monitor Audio Bronze center channel to a Golden Ear Supercenter XXL and hopefully it will improve!). The sound I get from the front speakers seems dull/softened... it lacks impact!
> It's hard to explain, sorry!
> Could it be related to the volume I listen my contents?
> I live in an apartment so I usually don't go beyond (-)20dB (after calibration, I matched all the speaker levels to 80dB with an SPL meter - boosted the center channel by 1dB)... I feel that is very difficult to achieve a good balance between a present bass and clear dialogs.
> 
> 
> Now, I have to share this  (and it goes towards the "data Vs ears" question you raised) - I re-ran Audyssey today and level matched the speakers to 80dB (center channel boosted by 1dB). Turned OFF - D.EQ/D.Vol./MultEQ XT32 and every sound processing gimmicks... Played one of the movies I'm familiar with and........... WOW! What the heck??? Dialogs are fuller and louder! The Triton's are sounding good and delivering a snappy, powerfull, rich sound!
> The mic positions I used were the same, everything was set to OFF as it was before... so, what on earth changed?!
> I forgot to change the crossover settings!
> Until today, I always manually set the size and crossovers following the rules of thumb: SMALL/(around) 80Hz/4 to 5dB boost to subwoofer level.
> But because I forgot to do this, I was listening to the front speakers set to LARGE, the center channel with a XO set to 40Hz and the surrounds to 120Hz...
> I need to watch/listen my contents carefully again (still in the honeymoon period lol), but this seems to be a case where it all seems to sound right (or at least, better than it was) but with a set of non recommended settings (ok, exception made to the Tritons... Sandy's advice is to always set them as LARGE)... go figure LOL
> I suspect that because the Triton's have built-in subs, this is helping to even out the bass response in the room (Gene from Audioholics refers to the importance of dual subs to bass management a ton of times in his videos!).
> 
> @garygarrison - will definetely look into that article! Thanks!
> 
> Sorry for the wall of text and sorry for any writing mistake I probably made (English is not my native language)


You may find some of what I'm about to say somewhat "challenging" but that's OK  I'm not having a go at you and I'm not being anti-Audyssey but I am going to say some things about my experience over the last 20 years or so that you may not immediately accept.

I run 2 systems. One is an AV system with Audyssey in an open plan area. The other is an audio only system in a different room with no Audyssey or other EQ and some physical room treatment.I've been playing around with physical room treatment for all of that 20 years or so I mentioned and with Audyssey for a bit more than half of that. Both sound very good but they do sound different and working with both has led me to some conclusions.

The "elephant in the room" with EQ systems as I see them is that you have to have a target response. The problem is that there's no agreement about what that target should be and there's evidence, including from Audyssey because they based their target response on preferences from listening tests, that not everyone likes the same target. What's the target that's going to press all of your buttons and give you "earvana"? You don't know unless you're lucky enough to find yourself in an "earvana" situation and can measure it. Then you've got the information you need to replicate it. Unless you know what you're aiming for then you do what I do with Audyssey, try it, and decide whether or not you're happy enough with the result. I'm happy enough so I can say that Audyssey works for me. I'm also less critical about the results I get with Audyssey in the AV system because our brains prioritise vision over hearing so as long as I'm watching something that is visually engrossing me I tend not to pick holes in the audio presentation.

The "elephant in the room" with my audio system is that I don't have a target or any way of doing good measurements so I do the physical room treatment by ear and play with things like the placement of panels and the speaker and listening positions until I get a result that I like. Because there's no visual content in music and I tend to listen with my eyes closed I listen a lot more critically than I do with the other system and when I have to change things because of something like a change of speakers it can take me months of slow experimentation before I'm really happy with the result. It's not that things sound bad before I'm really happy, they usually sound quite good most of the time but if there's something that I start noticing that niggles at me then I start playing around again until I fix that. It can take quite a lot of experimenting to get to the point where I'm happy to stop experimenting. When I take crude measurements with an iPhone app there's still peaks and troughs, especially in the bass, but I'm not noticing them. There's no room that produces a totally smooth response curve, there's always peaks and troughs and they often look bigger than I expect but they simply aren't noticeable. Our brains respond differently to the way a microphone does and our brains developed long before we were able to measure anything. Our brains never learnt to get off on smooth response curves which is great because we never quite get a smooth response curve. If I compare the measurements I can make in that system with the Audyssey response curve there is a similarity in that there's a falling high frequency response but the slope of the fall is different, probably a bit steeper than the Audyssey slope, and the overall sound is a little warmer than the Audyssey sound. I like the extra bit of warmth for music but I like the extra bit of high frequency response I get with Audyssey for the extra bit of detail and clarity it can give with a movie soundtrack. I can happily listen to music without video on the Audyssey system but I prefer to listen on the other system, and I could happily listen to soundtracks on the music system but I think I'd prefer the Audyssey system for that though I don't know for certain since I've never had a screen in the room with the music system.

The next thing to consider is that whether you're listening to a CD or LP or you're listening to a soundtrack, what you're listening to isn't a test signal Some things, like the lead instrument taking a solo or the dialog in a soundtrack are going to be louder than the rest of the sounds in the recording because if that weren't the case then those sounds would be masked by the background sounds to some degree, they wouldn't be as clear or understandable, and you wouldn't be happy with the recording. Then there's things like the spatial presentation, how things are placed in a stereo sound field and the directions from which sounds come in a multichannel soundtrack. Differences in level between channels contribute to that. All of those differences are created in the mix by the mixing engineer and they do that by ear. They're listening on a different system to yours in a different room to yours and they're mixing to their preferences. They probably play the mix on one or more different systems including a system that's more basic than yours in a room without EQ or physical treatment because that's how most people listen and they want to deliver something that works for everyone so the end result is usually something that works reasonably well for most people and better, even much better, for those of us who have better systems and room setups. You don't need perfection to get good or even very good results.

Bottom line: there is no perfect target. Different people have different preferences. The same person can have one preference for music and another for soundtracks to movies and video. Our ear/brain system has evolved in ways that ensure that our preferences are based on what we hear rather than on how what we hear actually measures and what we like doesn't measure anywhere near as neatly as we would expect from the pleasure it gives us. Obsessing about how the measured result looks in order to achieve some particular target response for whatever reason we have for choosing that target is going about things the wrong way. 

I'm not saying that measurements aren't useful. They can be great for diagnosing problems and great for checking whether a fix for a problem has moved things in the right direction or not but they aren't useful for telling you that you've achieved something that will make you happy. The way you find out whether a result makes you happy is to listen and see if you end up with a grin on your face. 

The basic Audyssey result works well for most—i.e. more than 50%—people and you can tweak it a bit to get it closer to your preference in various ways but what counts in the end is not how the response curve looks, it's whether there's a grin on your face. The acid test isn't your measurement result, it's how the result sounds to you. Measurement results can help you get a grin on your face easier than trying to do things by ear, especially if you don't have practice at interpreting what you hear and knowing what to do to change that in the way you want to change it, but measurements aren't going to tell you that you've got a result that makes you happy. It's simply listening which is going to tell you whether the result makes you happy. Don't lose track of that.

And yes, the volume you listen to is a factor. Our ears are less sensitive in the lows and the highs than they are in the mids and the sensitivity of our ears at low and high frequencies reduces as voiume decreases. That's less of an issue with the highs because anything above 7-8 kHz is an overtone, not a fundamental, and lower in level than the fundamental plus there's always a natural fall off in the highs because of absorption when the sound strikes a surface in the room and because air itself becomes increasingly absorptive as frequency increases. That's why low frequencies carry for much longer distances than high frequencies. What this ear sensitivity thing means, however, is that the volume control is also to some degree a tone control and turning the volume down acts to a degree like a tone control which reduces the bass and treble. DEQ is intended to compensate for that to some degree but many of us find that we need to adjust the subwoofer trim to give us a bit more bass than DEQ provides.


----------



## Dustin Windsor

Hello,
I'm a little confused by the final 2 positions (7 and 8) that go behind the couch.
The first 6 positions are all ear height, the final 2 positions it tells me to set up the tripod behind the couch. If i do that, the mic won't see the front 3 speakers due to the high couch back.
Should i be raising the mic for position 7 and 8 behind the couch, which will make it much higher than ear level?
Any suggestions?


----------



## Edi-MC

@David Aiken Completely agree and thank you for sharing your experience and insight! 
Most of the times it really is a matter of preference instead of reference as you pointed out. 
People's tastes are, well, people's tastes and regarding sound it's no different. 
The main goal to all of us outhere that are into this world of speakers, subs, receivers, cables and God knows what lol Is to be happy with what we hear. 

A trained ear can get you very far (and then more!), no doubts there. The human brain is an extraordinary tool! 
But if I feel that something's off, my personal approach tends to be a little more focused on getting verifiable data instead of trial and error by ear. It's just the way I am. After collecting the data, I then try to make the necessary (or possible!) adjustments in order to get a kind of sound that matches my likings. 

You've summed it up very well when you said that measurements are useful for "diagnosing problems and great for checking whether a fix for a problem has moved things in the right direction or not". That's the reason why I want to perform them. 
And although I agree that, like you also said, "they aren't useful for telling you that you've achieved something that will make you happy", I feel that having them gets you closer than if you didn't. 

"If you don't have practice at interpreting what you hear and knowing what to do to change that in the way you want to change it" - right on the money! Bingo! Hopefully I'll develop those skills with time and experimentation... And I'm pretty sure that being able to measure the results of fhe changes one makes will greatly help to get there  

"It's simply by listening which is going to tell you whether the result makes you happy. Don't lose track of that."
I surely won't! Thanks 



@Dustin WindsorAre you using the diagram suggested in the guide?
If so, positions 7 and 8 are located in front of the 1, 2 and 3 positions and can be raised above ear level.
If you're setting things up according to the Audyssey calibration of your AVR, I think we might have the same problem... 
My couch's pillow ends above ear level. What I did was set the mic directly above its top (behind the couch as suggested by Audyssey), so it wouldn't be blocked by it.
It's not at ear level, but my line of thinking was: its best to capture the sound than to be blocked...
It's a compromise...


----------



## Dustin Windsor

Edi-MC said:


> @*Dustin Windsor* Are you using the diagram suggested in the guide?
> If so, positions 7 and 8 are located in front of the 1, 2 and 3 positions and can be raised above ear level.
> If you're setting things up according to the Audyssey calibration of your AVR, I think we might have the same problem...
> My couch's pillow ends above ear level. What I did was set the mic directly above its top (behind the couch as suggested by Audyssey), so it wouldn't be blocked by it.
> It's not at ear level, but my line of thinking was: its best to capture the sound than to be blocked...
> It's a compromise...



I was using the exact prompts that Audssey/my 7013 is giving me. 7 and 8 are behind the couch but i have a huge high back couch...


----------



## Edi-MC

Ok, so, searching in Audyssey.zendesk, I found this:


"DathonDecember 
06, 2009 00:56
Chris, I have read conflicting things about the mic placement and Audyssey set-up on several forums. Maybe you could please clarify?

If the couch back is slightly higher than ear level, should you raise the mic above the couch back so reflections from the back wall are captured?
Comment actions


Audyssey LabsDecember 07, 2009 05:01
Yes, I would recommend raising the mic above the couch back to avoid reflections from the couch back that could interfere with the measurements"


I guess my assumption was right 
Here's the link if you want to do further research: https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347423-Microphone-placement-


----------



## Alan P

Dustin Windsor said:


> Hello,
> I'm a little confused by the final 2 positions (7 and 8) that go behind the couch.
> The first 6 positions are all ear height, the final 2 positions it tells me to set up the tripod behind the couch. If i do that, the mic won't see the front 3 speakers due to the high couch back.
> Should i be raising the mic for position 7 and 8 behind the couch, which will make it much higher than ear level?
> Any suggestions?


Over the years, the folks in this thread have found that a smaller mic pattern usually produces better results and the "behind the seating" mic positions are typically not used. Here is a good quote from @mthomas47 's great Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences (linked in my sig):

_
"As a general rule, it is a good idea to measure smaller areas, as opposed to larger areas, for the reasons cited above. We want our measurement area to be large enough to accurately represent the binaural (hearing with both ears simultaneously) nature of our hearing. But we may not want to measure such a large area that we present Audyssey's fuzzy-logic weighting system with too much anomalous information. Patterns that vary in size from as small as about 6" to 12" out from the MLP (mic position 1), to as large as about 24" to the side and forward are typically used. I would not generally recommend going further to the sides, or forward more than about 24" from mic position 1.

It is interesting to note that, in the last couple of years, Audyssey has revised it's owner instruction manuals to recommend a smaller microphone pattern than they used to recommend. They used to recommend 3' to 4' out from the MLP. I believe that they now recommend about 2' or less. Their revised recommendations seem to parallel the experience of many Audyssey users, who discovered that smaller microphone patterns often resulted in better sound quality, over a wider area, than large mic patterns did. That is consistent with my own experience, and with that of a number of others on the Audyssey thread."_


From this section of his guide.


----------



## mthomas47

Dustin Windsor said:


> Hello,
> I'm a little confused by the final 2 positions (7 and 8) that go behind the couch.
> The first 6 positions are all ear height, the final 2 positions it tells me to set up the tripod behind the couch. If i do that, the mic won't see the front 3 speakers due to the high couch back.
> Should i be raising the mic for position 7 and 8 behind the couch, which will make it much higher than ear level?
> Any suggestions?



Hi,

Alan's answer should already have clarified things, but I would like to add something, just in case. First, I wouldn't go behind the couch with my Audyssey microphone, unless there is an additional row of seating back there, and perhaps not even then. As noted in Alan's post, the best results are usually obtained from a more uniform listening area, that won't skew the system of fuzzy logic weighting that Audyssey uses. Despite the Audyssey instructions, which are rarely written by design engineers, there really wouldn't be any reason to measure behind your couch if there is no one actually listening back there.

Second, it can sometimes be helpful to raise the measurement mic by a couple of inches, for approximately two mic positions, irrespective of rear surrounds and seat heights. My own explanation for why that may sometimes be helpful is that our ears are shaped in such a way as to funnel sound down from above, more than up from below the ear canal. If six of the mic positions are centered on the ear canal, and two of them are at about the top of the pinnae of the ear, it may help a little.

A model microphone pattern, that may help to get you started, is illustrated in the Guide section that Alan linked. That mic pattern has proved successful for a number of people. As with everything in audio though, some experimentation may be required to determine what actually works best in your specific circumstances. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Mactavish

A crude drawing of the diagram from Mikes guide. Other then the MLP, you can move the mic in any order you wish, I used the numbers you see to do the least amount of mic stand movements.


----------



## David Aiken

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> …
> Second, it can sometimes be helpful to raise the measurement mic by a couple of inches, for approximately two mic positions, irrespective of rear surrounds and seat heights. My own explanation for why that may sometimes be helpful is that our ears are shaped in such a way as to funnel sound down from above, more than up from below the ear canal. If six of the mic positions are centered on the ear canal, and two of them are at about the top of the pinnae of the ear, it may help a little.
> …
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike,

I won't dispute your comment that it can be helpful to have a couple of higher mic positions in the measurement pattern. The proof for that is whether people prefer the result when they do that. I will dispute your explanation.

Our ears are shaped to funnel sound from above into the ear canal as you said, and also to funnel sound from in front down the canal as well since the canals don't point to the front, but the mic measures sound at the point in space where it is located and that sound is moving in all directions because it includes reflections from every room surface. A lot of that sound is not going to strike our ear surfaces or reach the ear canal directly and if it doesn't do that then it doesn't get into the ear canal.

Theoretically I'd say that the best results would come from measuring at points where listeners may have their ears during listening and that would mean at a range of heights based on the ear height of different listeners in the locations where those listeners sit while listening. That would mean over a wider spacing if you usually have more listeners and a closer spaceing if you only have one or two listeners in a single chair or on a sofa. The larger the area in which measurements are taken then the greater the probability that the differences in result at each position will be larger and the greater the difference in the result the greater the challenge the "fuzzy logic" has to work with as you observed. A couple of inches difference in height in some positions would help Audyssey to compensate for the range in ear heights for different listeners which can be expected but I doubt that's going to be because of the way the ear funnels sound to the canal, it's going to be because of where ears are located when we're using our systems.

In the end, however, why placing the mic at a couple of higher positions can give a better result doesn't matter. What counts is that it can give a better result. My recommendation for a height range would be ear height at the main listening position for the person who sits there most often and for other positions at the ear height of the people who sit closest to that position. I wouldn't go higher than the ear height of the tallest listener and I would even do a lower measurement or two for the ear height of shorter listeners such as children if you have them. As you said, measurements behind the MLP aren't all that useful if no one ever sits behind the MLP. The different positions are really a sampling process and the best area to sample is the area where ears are going to be located. I've even measured as low as just above the armrest at the side of the sofa where my ears are located when I'm lying sprawled on the sofa rather than sitting.


----------



## garygarrison

[Boldface and underlines are mine -- GG.]




Edi-MC said:


> Ok, so, searching in Audyssey.zendesk, I found this:
> 
> Chris, I have read conflicting things about the mic placement and Audyssey set-up on several forums. Maybe you could please clarify?
> 
> If the couch back is slightly higher than ear level, should you raise the mic above the couch back *so reflections from the back wall are captured?*
> 
> Audyssey LabsDecember 07, 2009 05:01
> Yes, I would recommend raising the mic above the couch back* to avoid reflections from the couch back* that could interfere with the measurements"
> 
> I guess my assumption was right
> Here's the link if you want to do further research: https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347423-Microphone-placement-




Some of this may depend on how far you are from the back wall. Is it 20 feet back, or 5 feet or is your couch right up against it? Regardless of how far back it is, your ears are shielded from direct reflections from it by the couch back.


IMO, in 2009, the questioner was asking whether capturing reflections from the back wall is a *good* thing. But, since your *ears* are not going to get direct reflections from the back wall because your couch back is slightly higher than ear level, I would think the mic picking up *direct *reflections from the back wall would *not* be a good thing, since you won't hear them until they bounce off of other surfaces, causing an elevated mic to get misinformation.

 
What I think Chris of Audyssey was talking about in his answer was whether to avoid a mic position too near the couch back. Your ears are at least a little forward of that, and point to the side and forward (i.e. don't point backward, in most specimens), but the mic is omnidirectional. I've often wondered if Audyssey ever tried the "dummy" head method, with the microphones buried in the ears, like the ones used in making true binaural recordings. Anyway, we hear that Audyssey revised some of their recommendations since 2009.



Alan P said:


> Over the years, the folks in this thread have found that a smaller mic pattern usually produces better results and the "behind the seating" mic positions are typically not used. Here is a good quote from @*mthomas47* 's great Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences (linked in my sig):
> _ "As a general rule, it is a good idea to measure smaller areas, as opposed to larger areas, for the reasons cited above. We want our measurement area to be large enough to accurately represent the binaural (hearing with both ears simultaneously) nature of our hearing. But we may not want to measure such a large area that we present Audyssey's fuzzy-logic weighting system with too much anomalous information. Patterns that vary in size from as small as about 6" to 12" out from the MLP (mic position 1), to as large as about 24" to the side and forward are typically used. I would not generally recommend going further to the sides, or forward more than about 24" from mic position 1._
> 
> _ It is interesting to note that, in the last couple of years, Audyssey has revised it's owner instruction manuals to recommend a smaller microphone pattern than they used to recommend. They used to recommend 3' to 4' out from the MLP. I believe that they now recommend about 2' or less. Their revised recommendations seem to parallel the experience of many Audyssey users, who discovered that smaller microphone patterns often resulted in better sound quality, over a wider area, than large mic patterns did. That is consistent with my own experience, and with that of a number of others on the Audyssey thread."_
> 
> From this section of his guide.





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Alan's answer should already have clarified things, but I would like to add something, just in case. First, I wouldn't go behind the couch with my Audyssey microphone, unless there is an additional row of seating back there, and perhaps not even then. As noted in Alan's post, the best results are usually obtained from a more uniform listening area, that won't skew the system of fuzzy logic weighting that Audyssey uses. Despite the Audyssey instructions, which are rarely written by design engineers, there really wouldn't be any reason to measure behind your couch if there is no one actually listening back there.
> 
> Second, it can sometimes be helpful to raise the measurement mic by a couple of inches, for approximately two mic positions, irrespective of rear surrounds and seat heights. My own explanation for why that may sometimes be helpful is that our ears are shaped in such a way as to funnel sound down from above, more than up from below the ear canal. If six of the mic positions are centered on the ear canal, and two of them are at about the top of the pinnae of the ear, it may help a little.
> 
> A model microphone pattern, that may help to get you started, is illustrated in the Guide section that Alan linked. That mic pattern has proved successful for a number of people. As with everything in audio though, some experimentation may be required to determine what actually works best in your specific circumstances.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Agreed.


----------



## The_Nephilim1

I just wanted to put in a post a Thank you too all who made this sticky possible.. I read through it and found alot of really good info here that I was not aware of before.. I ran through another calibration this afternoon and was not aable to get a listen yet but I am sure it is going to sound better then ever..


----------



## Mactavish

Since the subject of “mic boom stands” comes up often for use in holding the Audyssey mic in its various positions when calibrating, thought I’d add my recent experience. 

While I don’t run Audyssey often, I read all the reviews of the cheaper Chinese mic stands, and the majority of the comments were how they worked at first, then not long later, broken cheap plastic parts, that eventually meant the entire stand becoming useless garbage. Personally, I’m tired of buying twice chasing a few bucks, and in the end buying twice. This stand cost me $78, one month ago, now it’s $58. I’m still glad I bought it, and can put it away knowing the next time I use it, it will function properly. K&M is evidently know for making professional stands. This model out of the many they sell has all the right features for doing our Audyssey calibrations, just add a spring clamp to hold the mic. Has a standard 5/8” male thread on the end of boom. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TZVCWG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


----------



## psuKinger

Probably a dumb question, but I just bought the MultEQ Editor app for my phone and went through the steps. Is it possible that running Audyssey from the Editor App didn't actually overwrite the settings on my Denon x4400h after I ran it? I often allow it to apply a trim (the last time I ran it before this is had calculated -8 dB; this time I moved the volume up and got it to calculate a trim of -6.5), and then bump it up manually 1-3 dB as I see fit, using the Speakers - Manual Setup - Levels - Start Test Tones settings...

I had moved the trim from -6.5 to -4.5 from within the Editor App.

When I opened up Audyssey to adjust that (reduce the boost to something like -5.5, I saw that the setting was at -6.0, which is where I'd had it from the last time Audyssey calculated the -8.

What am I missing? Did the app not overwrite/reset all my old audyssey settings?


----------



## rocky1

I may be missing something.. But when you made the change in the app did you resend to the receiver?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## psuKinger

rocky1 said:


> I may be missing something.. But when you made the change in the app did you resend to the receiver?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope!

I smelled that this was a "dumb user error" sort of thing... never used it before, was under time crunch to finish in time to get my Kindergarten daughter off the bus... missed that. Thanks!


----------



## smokarz

Got my Marantz SR5013.

Plugged it in, and Vol knob is at 40 by default. Play a few songs in 2.1 ch setup.

Run Audyssey , play same songs again and I have to turn the Vol knob to around 50-60 to get the same sound level. Check speaker settings and it looked like Audyssey sets my bookshelf speakers to Large with a -10db correction.

What gives?

I am very tempted to just down/reset Audyssey to get my sound level back, and since I am mostly running 2.1 for music and TV, I probably won't use much EQ.

Thoughts? What am I losing if I turn off Audyssey, if all I do is TV and 2.1 music?

Thanks


----------



## BTron

Quick question...is Audyssey able to correct two different rooms in receivers with multiple zones? Looking at getting a Denon X3500.


----------



## garygarrison

smokarz said:


> Got my Marantz SR5013.
> 
> Thoughts? What am I losing if I turn off Audyssey, if all I do is TV and 2.1 music?
> 
> Thanks


You might lose a great deal, especially with 2.1 music (and any TV program or movie with music)

You would lose Audyssey correcting your speakers + room frequency response over _*hundreds*_ of EQ points. Right now, your sound system knows nothing of the acoustical influence of your room, which often creates peaks and valleys of as much as 7 to 10 dB (in some cases, more). And _*all*_ speakers introduce non-linearities.

Spending a few hours working with Audyssey is well worth it for most people. 

When you are done, expect to need some bass boost, but it can be done smoothly, since your frequency response curve will no longer be kinky. Bass can be boosted AFTER you run Audyssey by turning up the subwoofer a bit, and/or (additionally) by using tone controls if you are not using DEQ, or by simply relying on DEQ + sub boost if you like DEQ.

But first, get a coffee, and read this -- it started as an Audyssey manual of sorts, and now brings in ancillary material as well (if you don't have an hour, use the Cliff notes at the beginning to help you)*: *
*Mike Thomas's GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
* "The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
** Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement." 
*
Here is an older one, in question and answer format, not up to date in some sections: Keith Barnes*: * "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"


----------



## garygarrison

Does anybody know of a reverb/ambience black box with pre-delay and adjustable reverb that I can patch into my two* rear* channels without going through a computer? The laptop is not always nearby. I'm thinking of one that would go between my pre-pro and the two freestanding power amps going to my two surround speakers. 

Context: 

I used to have my main speakers and surround Heresy IIs in a very small room, so I got a *Lexicon CP1* to add subtle, realistic reverb to the* two* *rear channels (Heresy IIs) ONLY*, which were in a loft above and behind the room. I emphasize just a touch of reverb from the rear did the job. I used a pre-delay (to put the first simulated wall encounter about 50 imaginary feet away) and used moderate concert hall style reverb (which a reviewer said should have been labeled "ambience"). After a few days of tweaking, I got it just right. It was quite musical, but unobtrusive. 

A few years later, we moved. 

For the last 8 years we have had a combination music room/home theater/library in a 4,264 cu.ft. room, with *Audyssey* making our sound better than ever, except the room is a little too dead. I never thought I'd need reverb in a room that large. The instruments sound real and beautiful, but the reverberation time is too short. I don't want to change the room treatments or content -- it has wall to wall carpeting and many bookshelves and books. Audyssey is working beautifully, and I'd like to preserve what it does for the front three channels. The Lexicon is long dead (developed noise in one channel that is very noticeable unless I have the reverb turned way too far up, or crank up the input up to the point at which it is in the red zone for peaks in orchestral recordings), and no one wants to repair it, for any amount of money, including Lexicon. It is no longer available new, and originally cost > $1,000. They are on the used market for suspiciously low amounts ($30-$60), and I'm not sure how to know if they've developed noise (the amount in my single channel might not bother a garage band, with constantly loud music, but it drives me nuts on soft classical passages). 

There are intriguing, much more modern, units around, some quite inexpensive (or even free!) but they all seem to need a computer. Is there any way around this? 

I'd just like to give it a shot. 

Here is one that is priced right, has pre-delay and everything I need, but it needs a computer. 
 
AD034 EOS2 $60

Any ideas?


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Does anybody know of a reverb/ambience black box with pre-delay and adjustable reverb that I can patch into my two* rear* channels without going through a computer? The laptop is not always nearby. I'm thinking of one that would go between my pre-pro and the two freestanding power amps going to my two surround speakers.
> 
> Context:
> 
> I used to have my main speakers and surround Heresy IIs in a very small room, so I got a *Lexicon CP1* to add subtle, realistic reverb to the* two* *rear channels (Heresy IIs) ONLY*, which were in a loft above and behind the room. I emphasize just a touch of reverb from the rear did the job. I used a pre-delay (to put the first simulated wall encounter about 50 imaginary feet away) and used moderate concert hall style reverb (which a reviewer said should have been labeled "ambience"). After a few days of tweaking, I got it just right. It was quite musical, but unobtrusive.
> 
> A few years later, we moved.
> 
> For the last 8 years we have had a combination music room/home theater/library in a 4,264 cu.ft. room, with *Audyssey* making our sound better than ever, except the room is a little too dead. I never thought I'd need reverb in a room that large. The instruments sound real and beautiful, but the reverberation time is too short. I don't want to change the room treatments or content -- it has wall to wall carpeting and many bookshelves and books. Audyssey is working beautifully, and I'd like to preserve what it does for the front three channels. The Lexicon is long dead (developed noise in one channel that is very noticeable unless I have the reverb turned way too far up, or crank up the input up to the point at which it is in the red zone for peaks in orchestral recordings), and no one wants to repair it, for any amount of money, including Lexicon. It is no longer available new, and originally cost > $1,000. They are on the used market for suspiciously low amounts ($30-$60), and I'm not sure how to know if they've developed noise (the amount in my single channel might not bother a garage band, with constantly loud music, but it drives me nuts on soft classical passages).
> 
> There are intriguing, much more modern, units around, some quite inexpensive (or even free!) but they all seem to need a computer. Is there any way around this?
> 
> I'd just like to give it a shot.
> 
> Here is one that is priced right, has pre-delay and everything I need, but it needs a computer.
> 
> AD034 EOS2 $60
> 
> Any ideas?



Hi Gary,

I have no experience with reverb units, but I wonder if you might not be able to achieve some of the same effect with your existing instrumentation. I'm just spitballing this as I go, so if it's a dumb idea, don't waste any time on it. But, you could change the distance setting on your rear speakers to introduce either more or less delay, depending on which gave you more of what you want, and you could experiment with the dimension and panorama settings in PLII. I know that you like to tinker with settings, and it may be that you could achieve some of the effect that you are looking for without buying a reverb unit.

Meanwhile, I hope that someone can suggest a unit that doesn't require a laptop.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> ... But, you could change the distance setting on your rear speakers to introduce either more or less delay, depending on which gave you more of what you want, and you could experiment with the dimension and panorama settings in PLII. I know that you like to tinker with settings, and it may be that you could achieve some of the effect that you are looking for without buying a reverb unit.
> 
> Meanwhile, I hope that someone can suggest a unit that doesn't require a laptop.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thanks, Mike!

Hmmm .... so if I want the surrounds to sound like they are farther away, i.e., more delayed, then I should change the distance setting to much closer, right? I assume if I set the distance to very close, the Marantz pre-pro (AVP) will delay them more to push them back to the same "distance" that all the other speakers are. Or is it Audyssey that sets the delay -- I really don't want to have to rerun Audyssey to get it to do that because, even with my old notes I'm not sure I could duplicate the mic positions that serendipitously helped make Audyssey sound so good to me (after several tries). So I hope the distance thing is separate from the EQ and time domain filters, and the Marantz can alter the delay in response to my demands without bothering Audyssey-- I should know this, and once did. 

I will read up on PL II again, and tinker away.


I still wouldn't mind making a bet of $100, + - , on a ambience/reverb unit that doesn't need a computer. 

Or maybe all three approaches.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Thanks, Mike!
> 
> Hmmm .... so if I want the surrounds to sound like they are farther away, i.e., more delayed, then I should change the distance setting to much closer, right? I assume if I set the distance to very close, the Marantz pre-pro (AVP) will delay them more to push them back to the same "distance" that all the other speakers are. Or is it Audyssey that sets the delay -- I really don't want to have to rerun Audyssey to get it to do that because, even with my old notes I'm not sure I could duplicate the mic positions that serendipitously helped make Audyssey sound so good to me (after several tries). So I hope the distance thing is separate from the EQ and time domain filters, and the Marantz can alter the delay in response to my demands without bothering Audyssey-- I should know this, and once did.
> 
> I will read up on PL II again, and tinker away.
> 
> I still wouldn't mind making a bet of $100, + - , on a ambience/reverb unit that doesn't need a computer.
> 
> Or maybe all three approaches.



You are very welcome, Gary! I actually think that it may take a combination of factors to achieve what you want, and I'm not absolutely sure that you can do it without a reverb unit. But, I think that you can get at least part way there with some tinkering.

The distance, trim, and crossover settings are independent of the filters that Audyssey set. Changing the distance settings on the rear surrounds in the way you suggested, to introduce some delay, may or may not help you in this case. But, you won't need to rerun Audyssey, and you can always return to the original post-Audyssey settings if you don't like the results.

Similarly, you can experiment with PLII to see if that, perhaps in conjunction with the timing of the rear speakers, will give you an enhanced sense of spaciousness or ambiance. The dimension feature controls how much content is being directed to the surround speakers. The panorama feature spreads-out the sound a little more. You are trading some pin-point sound for additional spaciousness.

My best guess is that you might want to push just a little more content to the rear speakers, and then experiment with the panorama control. I have never used the panorama feature since I feel that I have just the right amount of ambiance in my room anyway, so I'm not sure exactly what trade-offs you may find with that. As you know, nearly everything in audio involves some degree of compromise.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Thanks again Mike!

I'll try it all.


I am currently experimenting, listening and cogitating.


----------



## psuKinger

Here's one for you guys. I got some new speakers yesterday (yay!). Ascend Sierra Towers w/RAAL and a center-oriented 2EX RAAL, fwiw). After helping with dinner and bathing the kids, the most of the remainder of the night last night was spent unpacking/unboxing, redoing some wire management, etc etc. I spent 45 minutes or so just listening in Pure Direct mode last night with no Audyssey and no subwoofer.


So this morning, very briefly after my wife and kids had left, I ran through a *very* quick Audyssey calibration (only 3 points) using the Pro app on my phone. Quick and dirty, because I know everything isn't set up quite right yet (need to replace the Rears with ones from upstairs, for one thing). It seemed successful. I listened to a few songs. Most everything was working mostly as I wanted, and I was mostly happy. I'd selected the reference curve with the more gradual high end roll off, and disabled mid-range compensation... and I liked what I was hearing, at least for "this stage of steup," for 2.1 music.


Then I switched over from the Reference Curve to a FLAT curve, and... the music stopped playing. I started thinking it was my software; I confirmed Roon was still playing the song on my phone. I started thinking it was my Endpoint (Chromecast Audio), so I switched to another endpoint on the same AVR (OPPO UDP-203)... music played while the AVR was set to Reference. As soon as I switched over to the FLAT curve, the music stopped... Roon kept right on playing the song, but my speakers didn't make any sound...




Is it possible that the 3 point cal I did wasn't sufficient to configure the FLAT curve? This was all working properly before, on my last (8 point) calibration using my old speakers and the same AVR... I had the FLAT curve set as the default curve for the CCA and often used it when listening to music using the OPPO... never had any problems with it. Is this normal?


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Power cycle your receiver and reboot the app. Had the same issue though it "seems" fixed after a Denon firmware update.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## au-734

*Audyssey iPad app and OS X Catalina*

Apple released OS X Catalina yesterday. A new features is the ability to run iPad apps in OS X. Does anyone know if the Audyssey iPad app works in Catalina?



I'm still trying to find out how this works and assume the app would need to be re-compiled to support this.


----------



## ionblue

au-734 said:


> Apple released OS X Catalina yesterday. A new features is the ability to run iPad apps in OS X. Does anyone know if the Audyssey iPad app works in Catalina?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still trying to find out how this works and assume the app would need to be re-compiled to support this.




iPad apps have to be ported over using Mac Catalyst in order to be used in Catalina. It will be up to developers if they want to do this of course. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## au-734

Just submitted the question via Ask Audyssey. I will update when I receive a response.


----------



## hawkster27

hawkster27 said:


> First, I use Audyssey all the time and am quite happy with it. But here's a quirk I can't figure out: Audyssey MultiEQ consistently sets my mains to crossover between 150 and 200 Hz. And here's the thing: over the years this has happened with an Onkyo and two Marantz pre-pros, with Klipsch Forte IIs and Martin Logan 60XTs (all set to small), using both the built in Audyssey and the phone app, and in two different living rooms! (The crossovers for the surrounds and Atmos get set to between 40 Hz and 60 Hz.) After I run Audyssey, I reset the crossovers for the mains to 90hz, but this just seems weird. FWIW, my sub is a Klipsch RSW-12, with the crossover dial set to 100Hz.



Well, the mystery is solved. My 25-year-old Adcom amps are failing. Although they still produce sound, they are obviously not driving the bass response. I couldn't figure out why my mains were crossing over at 200 Hz, and the surrounds at 60. Today I connected the 60XTs to the Emotiva amp I use to drive the surrounds. I ran Audyssey with the iPhone app, and the 60XTs were flat down to 40 Hz, so much so that the app reset them from small to large and dispensed with the crossover entirely. With the old Adcoms, they sloped down at a 45 degree angle between 0 and 120 Hz. That's the good news. The bad news I now have to buy a new five channel amplifier!


----------



## mogorf

hawkster27 said:


> Well, the mystery is solved. My 25-year-old Adcom amps are failing. Although they still produce sound, they are obviously not driving the bass response. I couldn't figure out why my mains were crossing over at 200 Hz, and the surrounds at 60. Today I connected the 60XTs to the Emotiva amp I use to drive the surrounds. I ran Audyssey with the iPhone app, and the 60XTs were flat down to 40 Hz, so much so that the app reset them from small to large and dispensed with the crossover entirely. With the old Adcoms, they sloped down at a 45 degree angle between 0 and 120 Hz. That's the good news. The bad news I now have to buy a new five channel amplifier!



Glad to hear the good news, although not sure how a power amp like your 25-year-old Adcom can fail in such a way that it limits the frequency response of the input signal. Any way for you to get in touch with Adcom's Repair Center, ...well, ...only in case such Repair Center still exists for your model?


----------



## hawkster27

mogorf said:


> Glad to hear the good news, although not sure how a power amp like your 25-year-old Adcom can fail in such a way that it limits the frequency response of the input signal. Any way for you to get in touch with Adcom's Repair Center, ...well, ...only in case such Repair Center still exists for your model?


Yes, more weirdness. With a quick time on the interwebs, I found suggestions that the rolloff can be due to aging capacitors. Understandable, if true, for their age. They've been on almost constantly that whole time, although not necessarily driven.


----------



## au-734

au-734 said:


> Just submitted the question via Ask Audyssey. I will update when I receive a response.



Audyssey says it's up to Denon/Marantz. I didn't know it was Denon/Marantz's app so it makes sense.


----------



## moviefiend420

Anyone know how many dbs audyessy can raise and lower dips and peaks? I saw somewhere someone stated it could raise dips by say 6db and lower peaks by 12db but i forget what it was exactly. Reason id like to know is im trying to find the best spot for my subwoofers. If i spin my sub 180 degrees it removes a pretty big dip but creates a massive peak. Just curious what would be better to let audyssey handle.


----------



## garygarrison

moviefiend420 said:


> Anyone know how many dbs audyessy can raise and lower dips and peaks? I saw somewhere someone stated it could raise dips by say 6db and lower peaks by 12db but i forget what it was exactly. Reason id like to know is im trying to find the best spot for my subwoofers. If i spin my sub 180 degrees it removes a pretty big dip but creates a massive peak. Just curious what would be better to let audyssey handle.



I think I remember that Audyssey can boost up to 9 dB and cut up to 20 dB, for a total range of EQ of 29 dB. Is that right, guys?


I think it can make other adjustments. For instance, in my system, the elevation of 1K Hz is +3 dB, instead of the conventional 0 at 1K. One can only speculate ...


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Hi great thread btw, i have a question about Dynamic eq, do People like it/use it?
In like the impact that i give to the sound but i loose some clearity in the center channel. Can that be fixed? Or should i just stop using dyn eq or live with the center channel sound?

Have a nice day


----------



## ionblue

OrdinaryClown said:


> Hi great thread btw, i have a question about Dynamic eq, do People like it/use it?
> 
> In like the impact that i give to the sound but i loose some clearity in the center channel. Can that be fixed? Or should i just stop using dyn eq or live with the center channel sound?
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day



I’ve grown to like DE for movies shows via my ATV, but not for my cable source. It accentuates the low end quite a bit so I brought my subs down I think 1db from where I had it prior. It’s great when the volume has to be low and as I get closer to reference the effect lessons. Best of both worlds I would say. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## OrdinaryClown

ionblue said:


> I’ve grown to like DE for movies shows via my ATV, but not for my cable source. It accentuates the low end quite a bit so I brought my subs down I think 1db from where I had it prior. It’s great when the volume has to be low and as I get closer to reference the effect lessons. Best of both worlds I would say.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro



I totaly agree, just that My center channel sound so boxy/dark/boomy with dyn eq. Bit with dyn eq off i do get at clear center sound but the rest not as affect full


----------



## garygarrison

OrdinaryClown said:


> ... [_with dynamic EQ_] i loose some clearity in the center channel. Can that be fixed? Or should i just stop using dyn eq or live with the center channel sound?





OrdinaryClown said:


> I totaly agree, just that My center channel sound so boxy/dark/boomy with dyn eq. Bit with dyn eq off i do get at clear center sound but the rest not as affect full



I, too, experience some _*loss of clarity*_ and _*loss of "air" *_with Dynamic EQ (DEQ). DEQ has a couple of complex jobs to do, so maybe I'm expecting too much. Some people love it, though. 


As far as how to fix it is concerned*:* 



 If you had a way to reduce the bass & lower midrange in your _*center channel only*_, while allowing DEQ to jack up the bass in all other channels (at least the Left Front and Right Front), it might help, but most people don't have a way to do that.
A similar effect can be had by turning DEQ off, and turning up your sub, while turning up the bass tone control on your AVR or AVP, which magically becomes available when DEQ is off. The latter affects the Left Front and Right Front _*only*_, but that may be enough to restore the bass adequately during low volume listening sessions. If you try this, and you intend to listen at considerably below reference, I predict you will have to have the bass tone control at +6 dB (all the way up on most AVRs) and a sub setting about 6 to 9 dB higher than Audyssey set it. Always make the sub adjustments AFTER running the Audyssey calibration, or Audyssey will attempt to "fix" this by turning down what you turned up! Since it is preferable to keep the sub trim _*in the AVR *_at or _*below - 5*_, you would have to do some juggling to make this work. This sort of thing is well explained in Mike's Guide*:*  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
*** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement. 
 Just turning up the gain (level, volume) control _*on the subwoofer itself*_ is another way around this, one that is very popular. _* None of these manipulations will affect your center channel at all, whereas DEQ certainly will.*_
Another note on center channel speakers*:* Manufacturers often skimp on them, both for reasons of size, and reasons of bean counting. Anything that strains the center channel (high volume, too much bass) might _*interfere with clarity and produce distortion*_. And, anything that_* increases the excursion*_ of the (usually small) center channel speaker may _*increase modulation distortion*_ (which some people consider to be the worst kind). So it may be a good thing to keep most loud bass (or elephantine lower midrange) out of the center channel. This can be done by raising the crossover point on the center channel _*only*_, but only experimentation will determine whether this will work well in your sound system.


Another name for modulation distortion, or rather a source of modulation distortion, is Doppler distortion, arising from too wide diaphragm excursion in a speaker cone or other diaphragm that has to produce frequencies significantly different than the one causing the major excursion. So, if a speaker is pumping in and out to produce a loud 90 Hz tone, and must simultaneously produce a 900 Hz note, the 900 Hz note will "ride" back and forth on the diaphragm producing the 90 Hz, causing Doppler effect, like the proverbial train whistle. One partial solution is to raise the crossover and send the wide excursion frequencies to the subwoofer*; *the sub doesn't have to produce anything but bass, and thus will not give higher frequencies a "ride." Modulation of frequencies that the ear is relatively sensitive to will be spared, and all of those pesky side bands -- frequencies that are not in the original signal, and are harmonically unrelated, that are blurring and potentially discordant -- will never be born. An article in _Stereophile_ covered this fairly well*:*

_"Distortion of the flute was gross at 10mm peak diaphragm displacement and not in the least bit euphonic. On the contrary, Doppler made the sound as harsh as you might expect of a distortion mechanism that introduces intermodulation products. At 3.16mm peak displacement (below Fryer's suggested detectability threshold) the distortion level was obviously lower but still clearly audible; and even at 1mm it could still be heard affecting the flute's timbre and adding "edge_." 



_"Having done the listening, I side with Moir and Klipsch more than with Fryer, Allison, and Villchur on this issue."_ [Moir and Klipsch, and several other researchers regard modulation (Doppler) distortion as a big problem]


Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-3#Yy4YzBHE7zId62sD.99


----------



## pbz06

OrdinaryClown said:


> Hi great thread btw, i have a question about Dynamic eq, do People like it/use it?
> In like the impact that i give to the sound but i loose some clearity in the center channel. Can that be fixed? Or should i just stop using dyn eq or live with the center channel sound?
> 
> Have a nice day


Depends on your center channel. Mine is pretty beefy and has a -3dB point of a little below 40hz (it's got it's own woofer and power and amp) so when I crossover at 80hz, I'm at least a full octave above it's limit. It can also play really loud with no distortion. A loss in clarity may be a sign the center channel is over exerting at 80hz. Or just yea the bass might be too much.

Personally I love DEQ, it restores the bass perception we lose (and how many people complain bass is too weak when balanced) and I like its two tiered approach when I listen to low volumes. It's very clear to me. 

Ps I also am cascading the crossovers which likely helps too.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

garygarrison said:


> I, too, experience some _*loss of clarity*_ and _*loss of "air" *_with Dynamic EQ (DEQ). DEQ has a couple of complex jobs to do, so maybe I'm expecting too much. Some people love it, though.
> 
> 
> As far as how to fix it is concerned*:*
> 
> 
> 
> If you had a way to reduce the bass & lower midrange in your _*center channel only*_, while allowing DEQ to jack up the bass in all other channels (at least the Left Front and Right Front), it might help, but most people don't have a way to do that.
> A similar effect can be had by turning DEQ off, and turning up your sub, while turning up the bass tone control on your AVR or AVP, which magically becomes available when DEQ is off. The latter affects the Left Front and Right Front _*only*_, but that may be enough to restore the bass adequately during low volume listening sessions. If you try this, and you intend to listen at considerably below reference, I predict you will have to have the bass tone control at +6 dB (all the way up on most AVRs) and a sub setting about 6 to 9 dB higher than Audyssey set it. Always make the sub adjustments AFTER running the Audyssey calibration, or Audyssey will attempt to "fix" this by turning down what you turned up! Since it is preferable to keep the sub trim _*in the AVR *_at or _*below - 5*_, you would have to do some juggling to make this work. This sort of thing is well explained in Mike's Guide*:*  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
> *** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
> Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
> Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
> Just turning up the gain (level, volume) control _*on the subwoofer itself*_ is another way around this, one that is very popular. _* None of these manipulations will affect your center channel at all, whereas DEQ certainly will.*_
> Another note on center channel speakers*:* Manufacturers often skimp on them, both for reasons of size, and reasons of bean counting. Anything that strains the center channel (high volume, too much bass) might _*interfere with clarity and produce distortion*_. And, anything that_* increases the excursion*_ of the (usually small) center channel speaker may _*increase modulation distortion*_ (which some people consider to be the worst kind). So it may be a good thing to keep most loud bass (or elephantine lower midrange) out of the center channel. This can be done by raising the crossover point on the center channel _*only*_, but only experimentation will determine whether this will work well in your sound system.
> 
> 
> Another name for modulation distortion, or rather a source of modulation distortion, is Doppler distortion, arising from too wide diaphragm excursion in a speaker cone or other diaphragm that has to produce frequencies significantly different than the one causing the major excursion. So, if a speaker is pumping in and out to produce a loud 90 Hz tone, and must simultaneously produce a 900 Hz note, the 900 Hz note will "ride" back and forth on the diaphragm producing the 90 Hz, causing Doppler effect, like the proverbial train whistle. One partial solution is to raise the crossover and send the wide excursion frequencies to the subwoofer*; *the sub doesn't have to produce anything but bass, and thus will not give higher frequencies a "ride." Modulation of frequencies that the ear is relatively sensitive to will be spared, and all of those pesky side bands -- frequencies that are not in the original signal, and are harmonically unrelated, that are blurring and potentially discordant -- will never be born. An article in _Stereophile_ covered this fairly well*:*
> 
> _"Distortion of the flute was gross at 10mm peak diaphragm displacement and not in the least bit euphonic. On the contrary, Doppler made the sound as harsh as you might expect of a distortion mechanism that introduces intermodulation products. At 3.16mm peak displacement (below Fryer's suggested detectability threshold) the distortion level was obviously lower but still clearly audible; and even at 1mm it could still be heard affecting the flute's timbre and adding "edge_."
> 
> 
> 
> _"Having done the listening, I side with Moir and Klipsch more than with Fryer, Allison, and Villchur on this issue."_ [Moir and Klipsch, and several other researchers regard modulation (Doppler) distortion as a big problem]
> 
> 
> Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content/red-shift-doppler-distortion-loudspeakers-page-3#Yy4YzBHE7zId62sD.99



The things is that i really like dyn eq ON. Its not just the sub that sound better, i think the sound overall is more powerfull. I just wont to find away around the center problem 
I have the Crossover at 80now, should i test to set the centers Crossover to around 150-200. My center is monitor audio silver C150.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

pbz06 said:


> Depends on your center channel. Mine is pretty beefy and has a -3dB point of a little below 40hz (it's got it's own woofer and power and amp) so when I crossover at 80hz, I'm at least a full octave above it's limit. It can also play really loud with no distortion. A loss in clarity may be a sign the center channel is over exerting at 80hz. Or just yea the bass might be too much.
> 
> Personally I love DEQ, it restores the bass perception we lose (and how many people complain bass is too weak when balanced) and I like its two tiered approach when I listen to low volumes. It's very clear to me.
> 
> Ps I also am cascading the crossovers which likely helps too.



Hi
What do you mean by

"Ps I also am cascading the crossovers which likely helps too


----------



## mogorf

OrdinaryClown said:


> The things is that i really like dyn eq ON. Its not just the sub that sound better, i think the sound overall is more powerfull. I just wont to find away around the center problem
> I have the Crossover at 80now, should i test to set the centers Crossover to around 150-200. My center is monitor audio silver C150.



Usually the center speaker is responsible for dialog intelligibility. In order to make max. use of this speaker it is recommended to tilt the center speaker to make it face seated ear height. Like any speaker, this one will also deliver not only its highest SPL, but also its widest frequency range when on-axis with our ears. 

Can you confirm your setup is done accordingly?


----------



## OrdinaryClown

mogorf said:


> Usually the center speaker is responsible for dialog intelligibility. In order to make max. use of this speaker it is recommended to tilt the center speaker to make it face seated ear height. Like any speaker, this one will also deliver not only its highest SPL, but also its widest frequency range when on-axis with our ears.
> 
> Can you confirm your setup is done accordingly?



Yes my center is tilted, and setup done correct. Center sounds Good without dyn eq, i was just wondering if there was an fix when dyn eq is ON


----------



## mthomas47

OrdinaryClown said:


> Yes my center is tilted, and setup done correct. Center sounds Good without dyn eq, i was just wondering if there was an fix when dyn eq is ON



Hi,

Everything in audio potentially represents a compromise of some kind. And, the use of DEQ is a good example of that. DEQ makes the sound more dynamic, in part, because it boosts the bass in all of the channels and not just in the subwoofers. But, because it boosts the bass in the center channel, it can also make voices sound more chesty. And, that can interfere with dialogue clarity and intelligibility, in some cases. 

A higher crossover may help with that, so you could try 100Hz or 120Hz for just the center channel. That may help somewhat with the Intermodulation Distortion that Gary explained. But, it may not help with overall dialogue clarity caused by deeper toned voices. When DEQ is engaged, the bass frequencies being played by the CC will still be boosted for the sub, below the crossover, and for the CC itself, above the crossover. For some people, the best solution is to try to keep excess bass frequencies completely out of the center channel.

One way to do that is to experiment with the three RLO settings, in order to mitigate some of the effects of DEQ, and then compensate for any loss of total bass by turning-up the subwoofer volume. DEQ's operation, including the RLO settings, are explained in some detail in Section V-A of the Guide linked in my signature. You can also try experimenting with Cascading Crossovers, which were mentioned earlier. They are explained in Section III-C of the Guide.

Another technique which can be employed is to turn-off DEQ and to compensate for the loss of subwoofer boost by employing an even greater sub boost than you did with the RLO offset. A potential advantage of turning-off DEQ, rather than using the RLO settings, is that when DEQ is completely off, you will have access to your bass tone controls. They only affect your front speakers, which is a good thing because you may be deliberately trying to keep excess bass out of your center channel. That technique also works well for some people.

You actually have a fair bit of user control, post-calibration. Nothing suggested here will affect the control points that Audyssey set during your calibration, and there is no inherently right or wrong way to operate your audio system. You just need to understand the options available to you so that you can experiment as knowledgeably as possible. 

And, then you just need to find the particular combination of settings that sounds best to you. Don't be entirely surprised if some settings seem to sound better to you for music, and slightly different ones seem to sound better for movies/TV. Some listeners use the same settings for everything, and some listeners change settings depending on their listening material and their moods. Experimentation will help you to decide what you like best.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## OrdinaryClown

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Everything in audio potentially represents a compromise of some kind. And, the use of DEQ is a good example of that. DEQ makes the sound more dynamic, in part, because it boosts the bass in all of the channels and not just in the subwoofers. But, because it boosts the bass in the center channel, it can also make voices sound more chesty. And, that can interfere with dialogue clarity and intelligibility, in some cases.
> 
> A higher crossover may help with that, so you could try 100Hz or 120Hz for just the center channel. That may help somewhat with the Intermodulation Distortion that Gary explained. But, it may not help with overall dialogue clarity caused by deeper toned voices. When DEQ is engaged, the bass frequencies being played by the CC will still be boosted for the sub, below the crossover, and for the CC itself, above the crossover. For some people, the best solution is to try to keep excess bass frequencies completely out of the center channel.
> 
> One way to do that is to experiment with the three RLO settings, in order to mitigate some of the effects of DEQ, and then compensate for any loss of total bass by turning-up the subwoofer volume. DEQ's operation, including the RLO settings, are explained in some detail in Section V-A of the Guide linked in my signature. You can also try experimenting with Cascading Crossovers, which were mentioned earlier. They are explained in Section III-C of the Guide.
> 
> Another technique which can be employed is to turn-off DEQ and to compensate for the loss of subwoofer boost by employing an even greater sub boost than you did with the RLO offset. A potential advantage of turning-off DEQ, rather than using the RLO settings, is that when DEQ is completely off, you will have access to your bass tone controls. They only affect your front speakers, which is a good thing because you may be deliberately trying to keep excess bass out of your center channel. That technique also works well for some people.
> 
> You actually have a fair bit of user control, post-calibration. Nothing suggested here will affect the control points that Audyssey set during your calibration, and there is no inherently right or wrong way to operate your audio system. You just need to understand the options available to you so that you can experiment as knowledgeably as possible.
> 
> And, then you just need to find the particular combination of settings that sounds best to you. Don't be entirely surprised if some settings seem to sound better to you for music, and slightly different ones seem to sound better for movies/TV. Some listeners use the same settings for everything, and some listeners change settings depending on their listening material and their moods. Experimentation will help you to decide what you like best.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thnx Mike, really like People taking times to help here, amazing!

I Will test everything to Night that you guys have suggested.
Do you know how much db dyn eq is doing to My subs?

If i was to put dyn eq to OFF and raise to db in the reciver.


----------



## PG55

*Speaker Trim Levels*

Hello,

I noticed my center channel seemed to be a bit louder than my front floor standing Monitor Audio 300's so I dug out the calibrated SPL meter, my Axiom calibration disc with test tones and measured my 5.1 system speaker trim levels.

After Audyssey calibration my speaker trim levels were as follows. My Center, right and left rear surround channels were at 75db but it set the volume of my two front floor standing tower speakers at 69db? I thought they should all be the same volume after calibration? Is this intentional because they are larger speakers? 

In reading the fact sheet at the beginning of this forum it cautions against manually adjusting the trim levels? Am I measuring incorrectly or should I manually set the towers to 75db.

Thanks,
PG55


----------



## mogorf

OrdinaryClown said:


> Thnx Mike, really like People taking times to help here, amazing!
> 
> I Will test everything to Night that you guys have suggested.
> *Do you know how much db dyn eq is doing to My subs?*
> 
> If i was to put dyn eq to OFF and raise to db in the reciver.



Not Mike, but you need to know some more in-depths on how DEQ works. It has a two-tier operation scheme. Firstly, at any given Master Volume below 0 dB setting it follows the characteristics of our human ears and makes a compensation of bass & treble in accordance with Equal Loudness contour curves. Then, as a second-tier DEQ looks into the program material and does a second compensation based of loud and soft parts "on-the-fly", hence the name "Dynamic".


Based on the above its really hard to tell how much dB DEQ is doing to your subs, coz it depends not only on your Master Volume setting, but also on how loud or soft the program material is. This means there is no ways to replace DEQ with one fixed setting on your sub or any other speaker in your system. 


Hope this helps.


----------



## pbz06

OrdinaryClown said:


> Thnx Mike, really like People taking times to help here, amazing!
> 
> I Will test everything to Night that you guys have suggested.
> Do you know how much db dyn eq is doing to My subs?
> 
> If i was to put dyn eq to OFF and raise to db in the reciver.


The general value is that DEQ adds about 2.2dB per every -5 from the reference level (0). So if you watch a movie at -10, it will be boosted by about 4.4dB.

Of course, it's not exactly a straight boost either...from what I recall reading in the Guide, it's curved so the + values differ depending on the exact frequency.


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> The general value is that DEQ adds about 2.2dB per every -5 from the reference level (0). So if you watch a movie at -10, it will be boosted by about 4.4dB.
> 
> Of course, it's not exactly a straight boost either...from what I recall reading in the Guide, it's curved so *the + values differ depending on the exact frequency.*



And on the playback level at any given MV setting. Please see my post below for details on how DEQ really works.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> Another note on center channel speakers*:* Manufacturers often skimp on them, both for reasons of size, and reasons of bean counting. Anything that strains the center channel (high volume, too much bass) might _*interfere with clarity and produce distortion*_.


After calibration, Audyssey (or Denon) always wants my B&W center channel set as LARGE, although the manufacturer's specs show frequency response as 50Hz–25kHz, +/-3dB. I just set it to SMALL with an 80Hz crossover, which yields clear speech without any audible (to me) distortion on surround music with an active center channel.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Why cant they just make dyn eq 100 right instead of half good. 
Thnx again all of you , i do understand how it works now. Kinda... 

From now on dyn eq is off and to get some what the same subb effect i need to go from Audyssey -8.5 to +2 (in test Tone)


----------



## mogorf

OrdinaryClown said:


> Why cant they just make dyn eq 100 right instead of half good.
> Thnx again all of you , i do understand how it works now. Kinda...
> 
> From now on dyn eq is off and to get some what the same subb effect i need to go from Audyssey -8.5 to +2 (in test Tone)



Actually DEQ works best for movies recorded to known reference levels standardized throughout the movie industry. This means when your set your MV (Master Volume) to 0 dB on your AVR you will hear the sound tracks just as loud as you would hear them when you go out to your local movie theater.

The spectral balance will be the same as set by the sound engineers in the recording studio. But once you start to turn down MV the spectal balance will start to diminish, i.e. bass and treble will become less and less as perceived by our human ears. 

Any other program material that is not recorded to known standards will have severe deviations from this standard. Think of listening to an mp3 file that has been pushed up in the recording studio to the -3 dB level during recording will sound abnormally loud with bass and treble over emphasized, i.e way out of the range of what DEQ was designed for, so all you can do to tame this abnormality is to use Audyssey's RLO (Reference Level Offset).


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

I dont have a problem at all with the DEQ . I do use the RLO described above.. set and leave it alone so to speak. Maybe i should play with it more just to hear the differences 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

mogorf said:


> Actually DEQ works best for movies recorded to known reference levels standardized throughout the movie industry. This means when your set your MV (Master Volume) to 0 dB on your AVR you will hear the sound tracks just as loud as you would hear them when you go out to your local movie theater.


This has never seemed right to me. A master volume level set for a theater holding 300-1500 people would deafen me quickly in my 12'x13' room. I listen to most movies at -22 to -21, and that seems plenty loud. For movies where the special effects are deafening when the dialogue is audible, I'll turn on Dynamic Volume and leave DEQ off, then adjust the volume level to work with dialogue.

Also, are we sure that BluRay discs are mastered with the same spectral levels as the copy released for theater use?


----------



## Hetfieldjames

pbarach said:


> This has never seemed right to me. A master volume level set for a theater holding 300-1500 people would deafen me quickly in my 12'x13' room. I listen to most movies at -22 to -21, and that seems plenty loud. For movies where the special effects are deafening when the dialogue is audible, I'll turn on Dynamic Volume and leave DEQ off, then adjust the volume level to work with dialogue.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, are we sure that BluRay discs are mastered with the same spectral levels as the copy released for theater use?


I listen at -20 to -15 for movies and I don't know how someone could listen at 0 or higher. Blows my mind when I read prior watching movies at 0.


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> This has never seemed right to me. A master volume level set for a theater holding 300-1500 people would deafen me quickly in my 12'x13' room. I listen to most movies at -22 to -21, and that seems plenty loud. For movies where the special effects are deafening when the dialogue is audible, I'll turn on Dynamic Volume and leave DEQ off, then adjust the volume level to work with dialogue.
> 
> Also, are we sure that BluRay discs are mastered with the same spectral levels as the copy released for theater use?



Peter, I think I have no opinion on Reference Level coz it is what it is. 105 dB for speakers, 115 dB for subwoofer should measure the same regardless of room size, be it a Colosseum or my small room. Nonetheless I also watch a movie from beginning to end at not higher than -15 dB or -10 dB MV.


----------



## pbz06

Hetfieldjames said:


> I listen at -20 to -15 for movies and I don't know how someone could listen at 0 or higher. Blows my mind when I read prior watching movies at 0.


Same here. I always just start at -15 and usually that's plenty loud for most movies. Some really loud and aggressive mixes (like Overlord) I needed to reduce to about -18 or so. Only some Disney movies without a lot of loudness can I keep it at -10.

I just can't imagine listening at 0 Reference for any prolonged amount of time.


----------



## Hetfieldjames

pbz06 said:


> Same here. I always just start at -15 and usually that's plenty loud for most movies. Some really loud and aggressive mixes (like Overlord) I needed to reduce to about -18 or so. Only some Disney movies without a lot of loudness can I keep it at -10.
> 
> 
> 
> I just can't imagine listening at 0 Reference for any prolonged amount of time.


Me either, at least not at my house in my current set-up. Too loud for me, it's just overkill to me.


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> This has never seemed right to me. A master volume level set for a theater holding 300-1500 people would deafen me quickly in my 12'x13' room. I listen to most movies at -22 to -21, and that seems plenty loud. For movies where the special effects are deafening when the dialogue is audible, I'll turn on Dynamic Volume and leave DEQ off, then adjust the volume level to work with dialogue.
> 
> Also, are we sure that BluRay discs are mastered with the same spectral levels as the copy released for theater use?





mogorf said:


> Peter, I think I have no opinion on Reference Level coz it is what it is. 105 dB for speakers, 115 dB for subwoofer should measure the same regardless of room size, be it a Colosseum or my small room. Nonetheless I also watch a movie from beginning to end at not higher than -15 dB or -10 dB MV.



This question may actually be worth pursuing a little bit for its own sake. 105db peaks will always measure 105db, regardless of room size, and an 85db nominal average volume will always measure 85db. But, our relative perception of loudness definitely does vary by room size. 85db actually sounds much louder to us in a normal home theater size room than it does in a commercial cinema. 

For instance, according to SMPTE RP 200, in a room size of


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> For instance, according to SMPTE RP 200, in a room size of


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> Assuming it's cubic feet, then an Audyssey-calibrated system in my 12'x13' should have the master volume set at around -11 or so to play a movie at reference level. Goodbye, my remaining hearing...hello, hearing aids...



I hear you, or at least I would hear you if I hadn't tried to listen at Reference. 

Actually, the SMPTE standard isn't encouraging us to listen at Reference volumes. The standard was developed for film mixers, so that there could be uniform standards regarding perceived loudness. And, I was just offering it as an explanation for why most of us don't like to listen as loudly in small rooms as we might in larger rooms.

Speaking personally, I have no interest at all in listening at Reference, whether it is calculated at the original 85db nominal average, or at an adjusted volume level based on the size of the room. I listen at a volume level which is comfortable for me, depending on the content and on my mood at that moment. And, my listening level is never equivalent to Reference, even though I have a large room and pretty good acoustic treatments. (I actually don't listen even as loudly as I did a few years ago, because I started to get concerned about doing cumulative damage to my hearing.) 

As far as I am concerned, we should all just listen at whatever volume levels we choose. Some of us will like (and tolerate) much louder volume levels than others will, and that's okay too. Audyssey and SMPTE will just help all of us to understand our own listening levels, relative to Dolby/THX standards. And, as Feri noted, those numbers are really only relevant for 5.1 or higher movies anyway, because "Reference" has no relationship to music. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

*Small room size*, *liveness*, *early reflections*, and* distortion in the audio* can make the sound seem like it is higher in sound pressure level (SPL), than it really is.


_[Instead of printing the THX room size/SPL chart I intended, what I got was an alphanumeric character salad about a mile long. What causes that?]_ 



I'll just include two bits of info, instead.


For a big theater or hall (20,000 cu.ft. to *>>>*20,000 cu.ft.), Reference level (arbitrary) is 85 dB*;* for a room 1,500 cu.ft to 4,999 cu.ft. what _*sounds like*_ reference level is only 78 dB. 
So, nominal set-up level (mistakenly called "average" nearly everywhere) to produce Reference is 85 dB in a commercial cinema. In a room the size of mine (4,257cu.ft.) a level that would _*sound like*_ their Reference level would be approximately 78 dB. That's within 2 dB of the level Mike quoted from SMPTE, but he was citing a room the next size down from mine.

Setting the Main Volume Control *by ear* to a realistic dialogue level, I usually end up at 5 to 7 dB below Reference. As can be seen from the figures above, 7 dB down would put me at what _*sounds like*_ Reference level in my size room. It does sound like the SPL in a good commercial theater, and is "full bodied" and "robust," but not "too loud" for me.


----------



## garygarrison

I should add to the above that in my 4,257 cu.ft..room there are probably instantaneous peaks (leading edges) of 98 to 100 dB through some or all of the* main *speakers. The *subwoofer* gets up to 110 dB instantaneously. What is considered to be instantaneous? Nobody knows. I've been told a range of durations from 50 ms (0.05 seconds) to 1 second. With fairly rugged speakers, this can be handled. How about our ears? OSHA puts a limit of 30 minutes on an SPL of 110 dB, for a quasi-continuous level like the sound machines might make in industry. 










With a three-way speaker, the sound going through the tweeter is about 20 dB down with orchestral music. With amplified rock, metal, or electronic music, I'm not so sure.


----------



## bigzee3

Hi guys quick question. Just bought my new center and did my calibration. Most settings where the same as my last calibration even the sub. My question is with my old center the calibration setting was -5.5 and the new was calibrated at 0. I’m guessing this normal between different types of centers


----------



## Alan P

bigzee3 said:


> Hi guys quick question. Just bought my new center and did my calibration. Most settings where the same as my last calibration even the sub. My question is with my old center the calibration setting was -5.5 and the new was calibrated at 0. I’m guessing this normal between different types of centers


If your new center is about 5-6dB less sensitive than your old center, completely normal. What are the two speakers?


----------



## bigzee3

Alan P said:


> bigzee3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi guys quick question. Just bought my new center and did my calibration. Most settings where the same as my last calibration even the sub. My question is with my old center the calibration setting was -5.5 and the new was calibrated at 0. Iâ€™️m guessing this normal between different types of centers
> 
> 
> 
> If your new center is about 5-6dB less sensitive than your old center, completely normal. What are the two speakers?
Click to expand...

Thanks A,

The fronts are Kef Q950s and the center is Kef Q650


----------



## garygarrison

bigzee3 said:


> Thanks A,
> 
> The fronts are Kef Q950s and the center is Kef Q650



It turns out that KEF lists your main fronts as being 4 dB higher in sensitivity than your center. Audyssey measured the difference as more like 1.5 dB greater than that, @ 5.5 dB, but the positioning of your floor standing main fronts could account for that. If they are near a wall or corner they would gain SPL. The lowest woofers being closer to the floor, alone, could boost them by about a dB or so. In any case, all is well and normal.


----------



## bigzee3

garygarrison said:


> bigzee3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks A,
> 
> The fronts are Kef Q950s and the center is Kef Q650
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It turns out that KEF lists your main fronts as being 4 dB higher in sensitivity than your center. Audyssey measured the difference as more like 1.5 dB greater than that, @ 5.5 dB, but the positioning of your floor standing main fronts could account for that. If they are near a wall or corner they would gain SPL. The lowest woofers being closer to the floor, alone, could boost them by about a dB or so. In any case, all is well and normal.
Click to expand...

Thanks G


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Everyone here that runs audyssey, do you raise subwoofer after calibration or lower it? If raise, of so how much?


----------



## pbz06

OrdinaryClown said:


> Everyone here that runs audyssey, do you raise subwoofer after calibration or lower it? If raise, of so how much?


If I'm using DEQ, I leave the subwoofer trim as is. If I am not using DEQ, I usually raise it by about 5-6dB.


----------



## Mactavish

I usually just keep DEQ on all the time and tame it with the “reference level offset” feature. And if I desire a bit more bass, I then engage the “Channel Level Adjust”, in the options menu, also available on the remote, and setting is kept for each individual source, and increase to taste (usually +3db), just the subwoofer channel. For most music sources this works well for me. I Should mention this is for music playback, I don’t fuss much over the movie settings.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

As u all of can tell im having a tuff Times setting up My subbs. Im sure i dont whant dyn eq anymore becouse what it does to My center channel. But now im having a Hard time figure out what subwoofer gain/level i like. 
Audyssey sets Them to -8.5 and -7.0 and it Kinda nice to the ears, but somethimes i woud Love some more punch, but its Hard to find the balans between to much (Hard for the ears) and the right gain. 
How do you guys choose the right gain/level


----------



## mthomas47

OrdinaryClown said:


> As u all of can tell im having a tuff Times setting up My subbs. Im sure i dont whant dyn eq anymore becouse what it does to My center channel. But now im having a Hard time figure out what subwoofer gain/level i like.
> Audyssey sets Them to -8.5 and -7.0 and it Kinda nice to the ears, but somethimes i woud Love some more punch, but its Hard to find the balans between to much (Hard for the ears) and the right gain.
> How do you guys choose the right gain/level



It's really just trial-and-error. I think part of the problem is that different sources, and different movies or music, may have very different amounts of bass. So, a lot of people have trouble finding one single bass setting that they like for everything. 

Sometimes, I think that the people who can leave all of their settings alone, for all of their listening content, are the lucky ones. I very rarely change my bass levels for music, but I definitely do change them for TV shows and movies. The bass levels can vary quite a bit, especially where an LFE (low-frequency effects) channel is involved. And, my own moods can also influence how much bass I want for a particular program or movie. 

If you are having trouble finding exactly the right balance, it's probably because you are fairly sensitive to what some people would consider fairly minor variations in bass volume. If that is the case, you would just need to adjust your bass levels from-time-to-time. It's easier to do that with your AVR remote. Just try not to go above about -5 in subwoofer trim level when you do it. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

OrdinaryClown said:


> Everyone here that runs audyssey, do you raise subwoofer after calibration or lower it? If raise, of so how much?


Just summarizing many past posts, I'd estimate that those who use Audyssey _*and*_ want more bass generally increase the subwoofer trim by 3 dB. But others leave it alone, and there are some who increase it > 3 dB. 

Since changing the subwoofer trim is "preference" and not "reference," why not experiment and see what you like?

As others have noted, when you have Dynamic EQ turned on, that feature will increase the volume on the subwoofer at master volume settings below 0 dB--the lower the master volume, the greater the increase in subwoofer volume.


----------



## garygarrison

OrdinaryClown said:


> As u all of can tell im having a tuff Times setting up My subbs. Im sure i dont whant dyn eq anymore becouse what it does to My center channel. But now im having a Hard time figure out what subwoofer gain/level i like.
> Audyssey sets Them to -8.5 and -7.0 and it Kinda nice to the ears, but somethimes i woud Love some more punch, but its Hard to find the balans between to much (Hard for the ears) and the right gain.
> How do you guys choose the right gain/level



I set the sub (adding dB to Audyssey's setting) _*by ear*_ using a wide range music disk, then listen at that sub level for a week or two using several different music disks, and several movies (Blu-ray). If the deep bass sounds good after this trial period, I leave it there. If not, I turn it up or down slightly.


Most people would be well advised to avoid setting the AVR sub trim any higher than -5, and turning up the gain control on the sub itself, if necessary. In his guide, GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES, Mike Thomas gives comprehensive instructions on how to manipulate elements of the initial Audyssey set up to get Audyssey to set the trim in the AVR to - 11.5 as the perfect "reference' balance, after which you can turn up the AVR trim to as high as -5, getting up to 6.5 dB net boost for your "preference" setting without overloading the line driver in your AVR. If your need more boost, turn up the gain on the sub itself.


"Punch," IMO, often occurs above the usual subwoofer crossover of 80 Hz. Since you are not using DEQ, you might want to turn up the bass tone control, which becomes available if DEQ is off. It affects the left and right front only, so it won't stress your center. It has no effect on the sub.


During your trial set-ups, listen carefully for distortion. You really shouldn't hear any in music, and hardly any, if any, in movie effects, unless the filmmakers deliberately put some on the effects track (I haven't run into a movie like that, but you never can tell what they'll do). Music shouldn't be hard on your ears, and neither should movies, except for outlandish ones like *Pacific Rim*.


If you are getting distortion or ear fatigue, is it possible your subs aren't heavy duty enough? What make and model are they?


I'm reluctant to admit that I'm using about 9 dB boost in my sub channel. Don't try this at home. I don't use DEQ. My front left & right channels (set for "small") are bass boosted as well, getting up to about +8 dB at 150 Hz, and to +9 dB at 100 Hz, then the crossover to the sub is at 80 Hz, so REW measures pretty much +9 dB from 100 Hz on down.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Hi, yes i read this from Mike, and he has done an amazing job writing all this down. But its a very Long thread 😅
If i have as i said above -8.5 and -7.5 i test Tone in My marantz if i just go into audio and go to "adjust subwoofer level" translated from Swedish. It the trim u are talking about. If i just put that setting to ON , how many db rais is that?

My subbs are dual ZTX 1x12 cinema.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

They hardest thing is to find some middleground as Mike says, audyssey calibration sounds great when i watch blurays, but to Little bass when i watch movies on Netflix/iTunes on Apple tv


----------



## ionblue

Mactavish said:


> I usually just keep DEQ on all the time and tame it with the “reference level offset” feature. And if I desire a bit more bass, I then engage the “Channel Level Adjust”, in the options menu, also available on the remote, and setting is kept for each individual source, and increase to taste (usually +3db), just the subwoofer channel. For most music sources this works well for me. I Should mention this is for music playback, I don’t fuss much over the movie settings.



I got around to some music listening just the other day when I had DEQ on and immediately turned it off. It just didn’t sound good at all. However I like this method of yours to tame the bass a bit. I’ll have to give it a go. I certainly prefer movies with it on and since the bulk of my music and movie watching is on the same source I can’t set it per source. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So here's a new query...I have a faux leather couch eight feet from the TV as my main listening spot (no other furniture in the sectioned off spot of my basement). Normally run w/o the back covered as I recall seeing Chris K. mention the reflection issue may be overblown. This sets my subs at -8dB. Sounds good, like DEQ, etc.

However, on a whim and reading the guide here, I put a fleece blanket over the back, and subs measured -2dB. All other speakers, crossovers, etc. remained the same, or within tenths of the other run. Noticeably louder bass, which was amplified by DEQ (but not to an obnoxious level, just easier to hear). I did not take it with RLO, which I usually keep at 5 and listen around -20.

What is happening here, and which curve should I follow? Is this simply a preference issue?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## drober30

*Combination of Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Manual with SPL Meter. Is that even possible?*

Main question: Is it possible and/or advised to use manual settings along with Audyssey?


I have been using Denon receivers for years and back in the day, before auto calibration with mics, I purchased and used an SPL meter to calibrate my speakers _(of course I learned about doing that here!)_

I made the move to Atmos while redoing my Home Theater/ Shared Media Space in my basement, I purchased a Denon AVR-X3600H and have a 5.1.4 setup with ceiling speakers. I ran the calibration setup and I was not impressed with my Atmos sound, so last night I broke out my SPL meter and manually adjusted the sound levels to the MLP and WOW, what a difference that made, now I can clearly hear (equally) sound from all my speakers.

The Audyssey calibration did set distances and although I did not check for accuracy, I could clearly see that it recognized what speakers were farther way from the MLP than others. I know Audysseys main benefit is to adjust frequencies based on room characteristics but it did a poor job at at setting the listening levels per speaker. It set my speakers to large _(which they are)_ but I was always under the impression that setting them to small was better so the LFE was always handled by the subwoofer so I changed them to small? It set the crossovers to 60 Hz L/R/C and 40 Hz/ Surrounds. I changed the bass from 120 Hz to 80Hz. 

I know Denon released a $20app that allows for some more in depth customization but that will require me to do some further research/learning. One of the advantages of the AVR-X3600H is the addition of the upgraded Audyssey MultEQ X32, I would hate to not be taking advatage of that.

Does anybody use a combination of Audyssey and manual setup? Is that even possible?


----------



## Leeliemix

The distance/crossover/size settings isnt actually a part of Audyssey even if it seems like it with the auto setup.
Its very common to tweak levels and crossover frequencies afterwards for accuracy or preference. The auto setup is better at distances. Remember especially sub distance will be reported as longer than actual because of internal DSP in most modern subs.

Its also very easy to not get good measurements, there are some guides here on the forum and its worth taking the time to read up on it and do the measurements as recommended in those if you use Audyssey room correction.


----------



## m0j0

I have found that I need to break out my SPL meter and get all the speakers at the same level from the MLP as well after running Audyssey, as the Audyssey results are not really good/accurate as far as I can tell (I have a Denon x4400h with Audyssey XT32). In addition, I bump up my Atmos speakers another 3.5db to get a more robust experience since Atmos soundtracks are known for being a little on the weak side more often than not.


----------



## indebtbassfreak

Using an SPL meter is a great idea to confirm equal output from each channel to your MLP and often used so all good there imo. If i wasn't so happy with my results i would go buy one as well and likely still will at some point as well as a good mic for REW to measure my rooms frequency's. Audyssey almost always sets speakers to "large" unless you have something like Bose 2" cubes for mains lol so most of the time you will have to manually change to small. This will send more of the bass load to the sub.

Also adjusting X-overs is a must when trying to get the perfect front soundstage and sub(s) to perform as one so unless you are using large towers for mains, starting with 80Hz and speakers set to small will provide more of the grunt work go to your subs, while taking the load off your AVR (if not also using external amps).

I dont know what audyssey set your speaker X-overs to, but it is important to "not" lower the X-over setting from audyssey as filters have been set and there will be no EQ below what audyssey set. Now changing X-overs higher is OK because audyssey has set those filters.

Without knowing you speakers specs 60Hz may be on the low side (but maybe not) also changing your LFE from 120 to 80Hz may or may not be a good move for the same reasons. Mthomas47 has a sticky that explains cascading X-overs where a lower LFE and sub X-over can be beneficial.

40Hz on your Atmos speakers seems way to low and i would bump them to 80Hz (or higher "if" audyssey set them higher). Also adjusting your avr sub trim/and sub gains are often needed to achieve the right amount of bass for your taste but that is a different conversation.

So to answer your posts question,,,,, ABSOLUTELY imo making manual adjustments post audyssey is a must.


----------



## drober30

Thanks for the responses!

I learned that Audyssey MultEQ is separate from the “Auto Calibration” which is great, that means that I can tweak the sound levels and distances but still take advantage of the EQ settings configured for my room.

I broke out the sound meter late last night so I only listened to a quick trailer to test the settings and I could instantly tell the huge difference, the sound levels were way off. I’m excited to check it out after work today.

I could see me tweaking the bass and Atmos settings a little higher to suite my personal taste.

I also learned that when Audyssey sets the crossover filters, I can go higher but going lower may not work due to the filters settings.

I’m really going to enjoy the addition of Atmos (along with my new Epson 6050!)


----------



## Alan P

drober30,

I would take a good look at my Audyssey calibration method if I were you. Speaker trim levels being "way off" is not a normal result after running Audyssey. This begs the question; how far off were they?

Also, using the AVR's internal test tones to set speaker levels is not the proper way to do it if you are using Audyssey as those test tones are played without the EQ filters that Audyssey has set. Depending on how many and how aggressive these filters are, the difference could be quite minuscule or very drastic.


----------



## Skinfax1

garygarrison said:


> "Punch," IMO, often occurs above the usual subwoofer crossover of 80 Hz.



Gary, punch is coming from 45-80 Hz.

Look @2:40:







The chart below shows the frequency response of "Hive"-club in London, a system with a decent punch.


----------



## garygarrison

Skinfax1 said:


> Gary, punch is coming from 45-80 Hz.
> 
> Look @2:40:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9lGwglyg80&feature=youtu.be&t=162
> 
> 
> The chart below shows the frequency response of "Hive"-club in London, a system with a decent punch.



Thanks for sending the video.


I agree that there is punch between 45 and 80 Hz, but I also think I hear punch just above 100 Hz. There is a _*little*_ peak in the curve of the "Hive" club just in that area. Could that be part of its "decent punch?" To my ears that's about where the leading edge sometimes is.


----------



## macgallant

I have a weird one guy's. 

My friends has an avr-x2200w and after calibration audyssey set his front LCR to large. Afterwards we switch the LCR to small and doing this disabled audyssey(greyed out). If we go to Setup->Audio -> audyssey is greyed out. Switching the front LCR back to large re-enables audyssey.


any ideas why/how to fix this?



my 1400h/4500h don't behave this way at all.


----------



## mogorf

macgallant said:


> I have a weird one guy's.
> 
> My friends has an avr-x2200w and after calibration audyssey set his front LCR to large. Afterwards we switch the LCR to small and doing this disabled audyssey(greyed out). If we go to Setup->Audio -> audyssey is greyed out. Switching the front LCR back to large re-enables audyssey.
> 
> 
> any ideas why/how to fix this?
> 
> 
> 
> my 1400h/4500h don't behave this way at all.



Try to unplug the Denon for 10 minutes. If that doesn't work, next step is a microprocessor reset. Look up procedures in the Manual.


----------



## macgallant

mogorf said:


> Try to unplug the Denon for 10 minutes. If that doesn't work, next step is a microprocessor reset. Look up procedures in the Manual.


He just got the receiver back from repair since the mic input was faulty and replaced. The reset was done but i guess we'll give it another go.


----------



## Alan P

macgallant said:


> I have a weird one guy's.
> 
> My friends has an avr-x2200w and after calibration audyssey set his front LCR to large. Afterwards we switch the LCR to small and doing this disabled audyssey(greyed out). If we go to Setup->Audio -> audyssey is greyed out. Switching the front LCR back to large re-enables audyssey.
> 
> 
> any ideas why/how to fix this?
> 
> 
> 
> my 1400h/4500h don't behave this way at all.


Is there a subwoofer in the system? If not, the speakers must stay set to Large.


----------



## macgallant

Alan P said:


> Is there a subwoofer in the system? If not, the speakers must stay set to Large.


Yes, he has dual subs in his setup


----------



## BJBBJB

pbarach said:


> OrdinaryClown said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone here that runs audyssey, do you raise subwoofer after calibration or lower it? If raise, of so how much?
> 
> 
> 
> Just summarizing many past posts, I'd estimate that those who use Audyssey _*and*_ want more bass generally increase the subwoofer trim by 3 dB. But others leave it alone, and there are some who increase it > 3 dB.
> 
> Since changing the subwoofer trim is "preference" and not "reference," why not experiment and see what you like?
> 
> As others have noted, when you have Dynamic EQ turned on, that feature will increase the volume on the subwoofer at master volume settings below 0 dB--the lower the master volume, the greater the increase in subwoofer volume.
Click to expand...

I am currently running with my Audyssey AVR calibration hut am getting ready to recalibrate with the Audyssey app.

I am familiar with increasing the sub level post-calibration. But I thought the best practice was to increase the sub level in the manual speaker level sub level, not the subwoofer level adjust or some other setting?
BJBBJB


----------



## pbz06

BJBBJB said:


> I am currently running with my Audyssey AVR calibration hut am getting ready to recalibrate with the Audyssey app.
> 
> I am familiar with increasing the sub level post-calibration. But I thought the best practice was to increase the sub level in the manual speaker level sub level, not the subwoofer level adjust or some other setting?
> BJBBJB


It doesn't matter if you turn the knob on the back of the subwoofer, or via the AVR menu trim level. The reason it's suggested you do it through the menus is because it's easier to track how much you add or subtract and you can always go back to whatever setting you want.


----------



## BJBBJB

pbz06 said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am currently running with my Audyssey AVR calibration hut am getting ready to recalibrate with the Audyssey app.
> 
> I am familiar with increasing the sub level post-calibration. But I thought the best practice was to increase the sub level in the manual speaker level sub level, not the subwoofer level adjust or some other setting?
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if you turn the knob on the back of the subwoofer, or via the AVR menu trim level. The reason it's suggested you do it through the menus is because it's easier to track how much you add or subtract and you can always go back to whatever setting you want.
Click to expand...

Thanks, was not comparing using the menu db level for sub adjustment vs. the subwoofer manual gain knob on the unit.

I was comparing it to the Denon "Subwoofer level adjust", also a menu item. Perhaps that is unique to Denon....the advice I had read was not to use this level adjust. Was just curious why.

Thanks,
BJBBJB


----------



## pbz06

BJBBJB said:


> Thanks, was not comparing using the menu db level for sub adjustment vs. the subwoofer manual gain knob on the unit.
> 
> I was comparing it to the Denon "Subwoofer level adjust", also a menu item. Perhaps that is unique to Denon....the advice I had read was not to use this level adjust. Was just curious why.
> 
> Thanks,
> BJBBJB


Ah, yes. That's because if you use that one, then it overrides your SW trim level back to 0...so if that is set at like -6, and then you add +2 to your subwoofer level adjust, you are essentially increasing it by +8 total..


----------



## BJBBJB

pbz06 said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, was not comparing using the menu db level for sub adjustment vs. the subwoofer manual gain knob on the unit.
> 
> I was comparing it to the Denon "Subwoofer level adjust", also a menu item. Perhaps that is unique to Denon....the advice I had read was not to use this level adjust. Was just curious why.
> 
> Thanks,
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes. That's because if you use that one, then it overrides your SW trim level back to 0...so if that is set at like -6, and then you add +2 to your subwoofer level adjust, you are essentially increasing it by +8 total..
Click to expand...

Ahhh indeed! Thanks, got it.
Now just need to use what cutoff frequency to use for my first app run. More reading to do...

Also noticed my AVR Audessey run had set my AT rear THX in wall surrounds crossover to 240hz so perhaps my sub is getting too much upper bass?

Sorry for getting off mypost topic. Just knocking down one thing at a time. 😀

Thanks again,
BJBBJB


----------



## Mactavish

pbz06 said:


> Ah, yes. That's because if you use that one, then it overrides your SW trim level back to 0...so if that is set at like -6, and then you add +2 to your subwoofer level adjust, you are essentially increasing it by +8 total..


That behavior has changed in a previous firmware update. If you start at the post linked below, and read more of the subsequent posts you will see that feature now works as expected and is great. 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...rent-subwoofer-levels-menus.html#post58329620

Basic part:
(formerly Dialog Level Adjust) and no longer have an ON/OFF setting, but rather simply mirror the Manual Setup - Levels - Test Tones - Center/Subwoofer settings such that they can be adjusted on the fly now correctly as opposed to being in addition to the Manual Setup settings on previous year's models>​


----------



## pbarach

BJBBJB said:


> I am currently running with my Audyssey AVR calibration hut am getting ready to recalibrate with the Audyssey app.
> 
> I am familiar with increasing the sub level post-calibration. But I thought the best practice was to increase the sub level in the manual speaker level sub level, not the subwoofer level adjust or some other setting?
> BJBBJB


It's been suggested that you want the sub trim setting in your AVR to be -5 dB or below. If adding bass by changing the sub trim in the AVR will change that setting to -4 or higher, then you can add it instead by turning up the volume setting on the subwoofer's own amp.

Concerning "subwoofer level adjust," see this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2972392-denon-avr-what-difference-between-different-subwoofer-levels-menus.html#post56063872


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> It's been suggested that you want the sub trim setting in your AVR to be -5 dB or below. If adding bass by changing the sub trim in the AVR will change that setting to -4 or higher, then you can add it instead by turning up the volume setting on the subwoofer's own amp.
> 
> Concerning "subwoofer level adjust," see this post: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...rent-subwoofer-levels-menus.html#post56063872



I agree that it is a good idea to keep trim levels at about -5 or below, and I agree that the Subwoofer Level Adjust feature on Denon AVR's used to be a problem, as it was when Alan wrote his post. Section II-C of the Guide, linked below, explains what that feature used to do, and how it has changed in recent models and firmware updates. Here is the relevant excerpt:

[It should be noted that some Denon AVR's have a feature called "Subwoofer Level Adjust". When this feature is used, the subwoofer trim level is reset to 0.0, and the adjustment is made on top of that. So, starting at -11.5, post-calibration, and adding 5db of boost with that feature, will actually result in a net trim level of +5.0 in trim, instead of -6.5 in trim. That is a net increase of 16.5db instead of 5db. It is highly recommended to turn that feature off, and instead to make any necessary subwoofer volume adjustments either with the Channel Level Adjust in the Audio menu, or with the trim controls in the Speaker: Manual: Test Tone area of the Denon AVR. 

*Edit*: Apparently, this glitch has been fixed in newer Denon models, and with recent Denon firmware updates. If your AVR does not have an on/off switch for the Subwoofer Level Adjust, using that feature will add the correct amount of subwoofer volume, just as would be the case if you used the test tones. If your AVR does have the on/off switch, you can test the SLA feature to determine whether it is adding the appropriate amount of subwoofer boost.]

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> *Edit*: Apparently, this glitch has been fixed in newer Denon models, and with recent Denon firmware updates. If your AVR does not have an on/off switch for the Subwoofer Level Adjust, using that feature will add the correct amount of subwoofer volume, just as would be the case if you used the test tones. If your AVR does have the on/off switch, you can test the SLA feature to determine whether it is adding the appropriate amount of subwoofer boost.]
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


So the Subwoofer Level Adjust does the same thing as changing the subwoofer trim in the Levels screen where the test tones play, and the only difference is that the user doesn't have to listen to the test tones. So what was a bug is now a feature that duplicates a feature


----------



## rosstg

I’m really happy now with my setup. I was having issues with DEQ overpowering my upfiring modules but now that they are mounted in a top middle configuration they sound much better. I tried limiting MultiEQ off and on for months but in my treated room full range sounds best.


----------



## BJBBJB

BJBBJB said:


> pbz06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also noticed my AVR Audessey run had set my AT rear THX in wall surrounds crossover to 240hz so perhaps my sub is getting too much upper bass?
> 
> Sorry for getting off mypost topic. Just knocking down one thing at a time. 😀
> 
> Thanks again,
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> If my THX mains crossover at 80hz but my surrounds as I noted crossover much higher....,per measurement. And you shouldn't reduce the crossover from the measurement point per what I read or you get a hole. But does that mean my sub is getting a much higher frequency range then I would want?
> 
> Should I just lower the surrounds to their spec crossover? A sub can't help but sound boomy getting material that high?
> BJBBJB
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## garygarrison

BJBBJB said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my THX mains crossover at 80hz but my surrounds as I noted crossover much higher....,per measurement. And you shouldn't reduce the crossover from the measurement point per what I read or you get a hole. But does that mean my sub is getting a much higher frequency range then I would want?
> 
> Should I just lower the surrounds *to their spec crossover*? A sub can't help but sound boomy getting material that high?
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not trust a *spec*. The people who write the spec sheets for your surround speakers can't know how your particular speaker placement and boundary gain (or the lack of it) affect your speakers. Audyssey can.
> 
> 
> I think you said some of your surrounds are "in-wall." If that is the case, I would expect them to have substantial boundary gain. Maybe the manufacturer's advertising department was rather optimistic about the - 3 dB point of your surrounds, even under very good circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> Most good subs work O.K. up to a little higher than 120 Hz. Mine fade away at 36 dB per octave above 120 Hz.
> 
> 
> How far away from the listeners are the surrounds in question? If they are far enough away, it might be acceptable to put them in a trihedral corner, where the ceiling and two walls meet, to get a slightly lower -3 dB point. [Might or might not make an appreciable difference].
Click to expand...


----------



## BJBBJB

garygarrison said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my THX mains crossover at 80hz but my surrounds as I noted crossover much higher....,per measurement. And you shouldn't reduce the crossover from the measurement point per what I read or you get a hole. But does that mean my sub is getting a much higher frequency range then I would want?
> 
> Should I just lower the surrounds *to their spec crossover*? A sub can't help but sound boomy getting material that high?
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not trust a *spec*. The people who write the spec sheets for your surround speakers can't know how your particular speaker placement and boundary gain (or the lack of it) affect your speakers. Audyssey can.
> 
> 
> I think you said some of your surrounds are "in-wall." If that is the case, I would expect them to have substantial boundary gain. Maybe the manufacturer's advertising department was rather optimistic about the - 3 dB point of your surrounds, even under very good circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> Most good subs work O.K. up to a little higher than 120 Hz. Mine fade away at 36 dB per octave above 120 Hz.
> 
> 
> How far away from the listeners are the surrounds in question? If they are far enough away, it might be acceptable to put them in a trihedral corner, where the ceiling and two walls meet, to get a slightly lower -3 dB point. [Might or might not make an appreciable difference].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the good info. You are correct that spec sheets are optimistic. My 4 Atlantic Technology System 20 SR THX surrounds have been mounted for a long time so can't move. They are higher up on side and rear walls. The spec crossover is 80hz so a huge difference there vs. what Audessey found... specs 80Hz. To 20kHz +/- 3db. Crossover point at 3.5kHz.
> 
> A good point on sub response. To not have multiple crossovers I of course do not have the subs internal crossover on, so it will just stop responding when out of range.
> 
> I just am trying to get rid of some upper bass sub "boominess" and was thinking that might be the cause.
> 
> BJBBJB
Click to expand...


----------



## Mactavish

pbarach said:


> So the Subwoofer Level Adjust does the same thing as changing the subwoofer trim in the Levels screen where the test tones play, and the only difference is that the user doesn't have to listen to the test tones. So what was a bug is now a feature that duplicates a feature


With the improved version, the “Subwoofer Level Adjust”, menu option under “Audio”, now just shows you your chosen trim level. But, using the “Channel Level Adjust”, accessed via the remote’s “Option” button allows for custom levels per channel, with the added bonus of being SAVED, on a per source basis, which also allows one to save to a preset. I have one preset saved as a +3 bass boost for my Heos music, and another preset with a +6 for a center channel boost for TV source. That you can mix and match on a per source basis is very useful.


----------



## rocky1

Mactavish said:


> With the improved version, the “Subwoofer Level Adjust”, menu option under “Audio”, now just shows you your chosen trim level. But, using the “Channel Level Adjust”, accessed via the remote’s “Option” button allows for custom levels per channel, with the added bonus of being SAVED, on a per source basis, which also allows one to save to a preset. I have one preset saved as a +3 bass boost for my Heos music, and another preset with a +6 for a center channel boost for TV source. That you can mix and match on a per source basis is very useful.




I think this is probably imho the best route. Especially for those like me that dont really understand/get the other options right Under my testtone options my sub is at -3.5 per audessey. My channel level via the audio option is at 0db. Not sure if this is the way it should be in the channel level but i guess i could change but wouldnt know if correct to do so. Either way via the option route seems better to play with.. still trying to learn this stuff myself..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## BJBBJB

garygarrison said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> If my THX mains crossover at 80hz but my surrounds as I noted crossover much higher....,per measurement. And you shouldn't reduce the crossover from the measurement point per what I read or you get a hole. But does that mean my sub is getting a much higher frequency range then I would want?
> 
> Should I just lower the surrounds *to their spec crossover*? A sub can't help but sound boomy getting material that high?
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not trust a *spec*. The people who write the spec sheets for your surround speakers can't know how your particular speaker placement and boundary gain (or the lack of it) affect your speakers. Audyssey can.
> 
> 
> I think you said some of your surrounds are "in-wall." If that is the case, I would expect them to have substantial boundary gain. Maybe the manufacturer's advertising department was rather optimistic about the - 3 dB point of your surrounds, even under very good circumstances.
> 
> 
> 
> Most good subs work O.K. up to a little higher than 120 Hz. Mine fade away at 36 dB per octave above 120 Hz.
> 
> 
> How far away from the listeners are the surrounds in question? If they are far enough away, it might be acceptable to put them in a trihedral corner, where the ceiling and two walls meet, to get a slightly lower -3 dB point. [Might or might not make an appreciable difference].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just read through the FAQ posted earlier a few times that showed how instead of increasing just the sub level post calibration....which I did, you can increase the 20hz and 55hz control points say +6 on the sub and mains, THEN increase the sub level 6db to bring the level back to equal. That way in my situation I won't be boosting the sub in that upper bass range based on the surround crossover. Am I thinking correctly?
> 
> BJBBJB
Click to expand...


----------



## garygarrison

BJBBJB said:


> garygarrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read through the FAQ posted earlier a few times that showed how instead of increasing just the sub level post calibration....which I did, you can increase the 20hz and 55hz control points say +6 on the sub *and mains*, THEN increase the sub level 6db to bring the level back to equal. That way in my situation I won't be boosting the sub in that upper bass range based on the surround crossover. *Am I thinking correctly?*
> 
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. It looks like you are using the App now, and I know nothing about the app.
> 
> I'm assuming you have all speakers on SMALL, as recommended by most sources, but, if so, why would you boost *both* the sub* and mains *at 20Hz and 55Hz, when, at the usual crossover point (80Hz) the *mains* would be contributing only a little sound at 55Hz, and essentially nothing at 20Hz? Wouldn't you want to *just boost the sub* alone at 20 Hz and 55 Hz?
> 
> *If*, perhaps, you have been running your front speakers at LARGE, with
> LFE + Main (or something similar to allow your subwoofer to work even when the front speakers are on LARGE), that may account for the boomieness, with peaks and dips due to multipath phenomona (some have trouble with multipath, others don't, depending on speaker placement, room and X,Y,Z). It took a long time, and many trials, to convince me of that. Using LARGE is also an invitation to modulation distortion. *If *you happen to be running your speakers at LARGE, I'd recommend going back to SMALL.
> 
> You could try boosting the sub (only) at 20 Hz and 55 Hz, then turning up the gain on the sub box itself, and judge it *by ear*.
Click to expand...


----------



## garygarrison

Thanks, Mike, for suggesting I might get a little more reverb and spaciousness by playing with the distance adjustment for my surrounds. It worked! The room now sounds more spacious. This works with all music, movies, etc., that use the surround channels. 

For 2 channel music disks, I can get even more spaciousness by using PLII Music, Panorama On as you suggested trying. I can't use PLII Panorama with movies or music with more than 2 channels because my pre-pro defaults to one of the multichannel formats, but just the delay from the surrounds is a great improvement!


----------



## garygarrison

This is an old issue, but I finally got around to testing it carefully in my room. Why bother? OCD, or because empiricism trumps rational prediction.

Most of us believe:


The test noise in an AVR or pre-pro (AVP) does *NOT *go through the Audyssey filters, so it would be a mistake to use this noise and an SPL meter to "check" or reset the levels Audyssey set.
Using a good test disk with a 500HZ to 2KHz noise is *O.K*. for this task, since the sound on the disk does go through whatever correction filters Audyssey has put in place, just as the music or the film soundtrack does.
A few months ago someone who sounded sophisticated argued that the AVR/pre-pro manufacturers wouldn't do that. He gave reasons.

We responded the difference might vary from room to room, depending on how much correction Audyssey had to do, but believed that the built in noise did not go through the filters. Presumably, speakers facing a "difficult" acoustical environment, or very different environments, would need more attention from Audyssey than speakers facing an "easy" environment.

So, I anchored my SPL meter in place, and tried not to move my head or anything else, and in my moderately treated room, looked at the* difference in the noise SPL* from the Marantz AV 7005 preamp-processor (AVP) internal noise source through various speakers in my system, and the noise on the Spears & Munsil HD benchmark 2nd edition test disk through those same speakers. Yes, I have calibrated eyeballs.

Left Front Channel -- No readable difference at all.

Right Front Channel -- Spears up 0.7 dB (probably barely audible)

Center channel -- Spears down 2 dB (prob clearly audible)

Right Surround -- Spears down 1.4 dB (prob audible)

Left Surround -- Spears down 1.1 dB (prob audible)

Subwoofer -- No difference at all.


So ... Conclusions, anyone?


----------



## Soulburner

You need to compare:

1. AVR tones w/o Audyssey
2. AVR tones w/ Audyssey
3. Tones from another source

Should be easy enough to record with REW and overlay them.


----------



## BJBBJB

garygarrison said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> garygarrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just read through the FAQ posted earlier a few times that showed how instead of increasing just the sub level post calibration....which I did, you can increase the 20hz and 55hz control points say +6 on the sub *and mains*, THEN increase the sub level 6db to bring the level back to equal. That way in my situation I won't be boosting the sub in that upper bass range based on the surround crossover. *Am I thinking correctly?*
> 
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. It looks like you are using the App now, and I know nothing about the app.
> 
> I'm assuming you have all speakers on SMALL, as recommended by most sources, but, if so, why would you boost *both* the sub* and mains *at 20Hz and 55Hz, when, at the usual crossover point (80Hz) the *mains* would be contributing only a little sound at 55Hz, and essentially nothing at 20Hz? Wouldn't you want to *just boost the sub* alone at 20 Hz and 55 Hz?
> 
> *If*, perhaps, you have been running your front speakers at LARGE, with
> LFE + Main (or something similar to allow your subwoofer to work even when the front speakers are on LARGE), that may account for the boomieness, with peaks and dips due to multipath phenomona (some have trouble with multipath, others don't, depending on speaker placement, room and X,Y,Z). It took a long time, and many trials, to convince me of that. Using LARGE is also an invitation to modulation distortion. *If *you happen to be running your speakers at LARGE, I'd recommend going back to SMALL.
> 
> You could try boosting the sub (only) at 20 Hz and 55 Hz, then turning up the gain on the sub box itself, and judge it *by ear*.[/QUOTE
> 
> Gary,
> Thanks, yes I am now talking about the app and realized it should be posted there.
> 
> Yes I am trying to boost just the sub in the lower ranges and with the different crossovers there is a way to do it I guess. Sorry for the confusion, I have learned a lot from yours and others posts here.
> BJBBJB
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## jconjason

rocky1 said:


> I think this is probably imho the best route. Especially for those like me that dont really understand/get the other options right Under my testtone options my sub is at -3.5 per audessey. My channel level via the audio option is at 0db. Not sure if this is the way it should be in the channel level but i guess i could change but wouldnt know if correct to do so. Either way via the option route seems better to play with.. still trying to learn this stuff myself..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The CLA via the OPTION button is a per input setting. So each input will have its own adjustment. The other ways to adjust trims are global and applied to all inputs.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Thanks, Mike, for suggesting I might get a little more reverb and spaciousness by playing with the distance adjustment for my surrounds. It worked! The room now sounds more spacious. This works with all music, movies, etc., that use the surround channels.
> 
> For 2 channel music disks, I can get even more spaciousness by using PLII Music, Panorama On as you suggested trying. I can't use PLII Panorama with movies or music with more than 2 channels because my pre-pro defaults to one of the multichannel formats, but just the delay from the surrounds is a great improvement!



Hi Gary,

You are very welcome! I'm just glad that the suggestions helped. I thought that they would, but it's really just speculation until you actually try something like that in your room. I like PLII (or in my case, PLIIx, since I also have rear surrounds) a lot for two-channel music. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

Soulburner said:


> You need to compare:
> 
> 1. AVR tones w/o Audyssey
> 2. AVR tones w/ Audyssey
> 3. Tones from another source
> 
> Should be easy enough to record with REW and overlay them.


AVR tones w/ Audyssey is not possible. The internal tones bypass the Audyssey EQ filters.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> AVR tones w/ Audyssey is not possible. The internal tones bypass the Audyssey EQ filters.



Here's a Q&A I had with Chris K. on this subject a while back:

*Me*: Hi Chris, just a short Q. While playing test tones (-30 dBfs, 500 Hz-2kHz band limited pink noise) off a test CD and Audyssey is turned ON and OFF will the meter (C-weighted) show different SPL levels at the MLP? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Feri

*Chris K.:* Hi Feri, yes it's possible when using a CD. It will depend on how much work the MultEQ filter is doing in that region.

*Me:* How about when using the AVR's internal test tones? AFAIK, the AVR turns off Audyssey filters during test tone rendering, but leaves the channel trims and distances intact. Thanks again.

*Chris K.:* That's right. The internal test tones don't see the filters so you will get the same answer with Audyssey on and off.

*Me:* Ok, thanks. Lastly. So, for absolute SPL (75 dB) at the MLP which one is the valid test, an external CD with test tones and Audyssey ON, or the internal test tones without Audyssey filters?

*Chris K.:* If you are absolutely certain that the external CD was properly recorded (there are some that are not - particularly DVDs that have messed up the dialnorm setting), then that's the way to go. Because of this uncertainty, however, we always recommend to go with the internal test tone if you want to check.

*Me:* I see, and understand the worry about external "stuff", but in case of the internal test tones what is the rationale for turning off Audyssey if the MultEQ filters have a job there. Am I far from reality with my conclusion that in this narrow 500 Hz-2 kHz band a typical room will only show subtle differences with MultEQ filters ON or OFF? At least it will be somewhere within the +/- 2dB tolerance range of an average SPL meter due to a region free of room modes not like the bass department.

*Chris K.:* It's not that MultEQ is turned off. It's because the AVR has the test noise in a block that comes after MultEQ and so it doesn't see the filters. We have asked for this many times, but it's apparently too complicated for them to make the change in the architecture.

*Me:* Absolutely clear. Thank you Chris, as always.


I think all the above kinda corresponds with Gary's recent findings, or as Chris used to say: no need to sweat on the issue!


----------



## lvlup

hi im new to anything-avr

just happened to pay attention to my car's Bose setup, as well as my sony's MDR-100ABN experience, 
and then compare both to what i hear and experience with my avr setup in the living room.

Cant help but notice there's either too much boom/muddyness overall, or there's also other moments or tracks i feel is completely missing out on some lower or low-mid range tones, and even other times where i'd expect a boom or a bass guitar background tone, the sub or setup falls completely short.

i feel i somewhat enjoy the car's and headphone's experience more over my setup, which i think result from incorrect calibration on my part, since i'm totally clueless ):

setup currently is:

B&W M-05 left, right, center
Monolith THX subwoofer 10inch
emotiva rear left/right
Denon X3500H


Understandably, i think these B&W satellites are on the brighter side.

Currently Audessey setup:

Speakers - Small
Crossover - 80hz
Speakers -> Bass -> LFE mode
LPF for LFE - 110hz
Surround Parameter -> Cinema EQ On
Surround Parameter -> Low Frequency Effects 0db
MultEQ Xt32 - Reference
Dynamiq EQ - On
Reference Level Offset - 0db
Dyaminc Volume - Light
Audessey LFC - Off

I tried installing any and all the existing Denon branded Apps and can't find any EQ in the apps to tweak with either. One of the apps was a paid-app so i bought it as well but no luck with any visual equalizer to tweak.
Any suggestions to try out greatly appreciated thanks!


----------



## jhumur

Hey folks. I just started home-auditioning speakers for my 3.1 HT setup. The first two--and the the ones I'm listening to at the moment--are the NHT C3 bookshelves with the C-LCR center, and the RSL CG5 mains with the CG2 center. In both cases, I'm using the RSL Speedwoofer 10S sub. My receiver is the Denon AVR-X3500H. I've listened to the speakers without running Audyssey MultEQ X32 room correction and with, and one thing has jumped out at me: With both speaker sets, when listening with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 turned on, the speakers sound much harsher. In case of the NHTs, which tend to be a little harsh to being with, the high frequencies become almost unbearably bright. When I look at the Audyssey room calibration EQ, I do see an uptick in the upper frequencies (See attached...that's for the RSLs since that's what I've hooked up). But why? What causes this? Too many room reflections or something like that?


----------



## Leeliemix

lvlup said:


> hi im new to anything-avr
> 
> 
> 
> just happened to pay attention to my car's Bose setup, as well as my sony's MDR-100ABN experience,
> 
> and then compare both to what i hear and experience with my avr setup in the living room.
> 
> 
> 
> Cant help but notice there's either too much boom/muddyness overall, or there's also other moments or tracks i feel is completely missing out on some lower or low-mid range tones, and even other times where i'd expect a boom or a bass guitar background tone, the sub or setup falls completely short.
> 
> 
> 
> i feel i somewhat enjoy the car's and headphone's experience more over my setup, which i think result from incorrect calibration on my part, since i'm totally clueless ):
> 
> 
> 
> setup currently is:
> 
> 
> 
> B&W M-05 left, right, center
> 
> Monolith THX subwoofer 10inch
> 
> emotiva rear left/right
> 
> Denon X3500H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understandably, i think these B&W satellites are on the brighter side.
> 
> 
> 
> Currently Audessey setup:
> 
> 
> 
> Speakers - Small
> 
> Crossover - 80hz
> 
> Speakers -> Bass -> LFE mode
> 
> LPF for LFE - 110hz
> 
> Surround Parameter -> Cinema EQ On
> 
> Surround Parameter -> Low Frequency Effects 0db
> 
> MultEQ Xt32 - Reference
> 
> Dynamiq EQ - On
> 
> Reference Level Offset - 0db
> 
> Dyaminc Volume - Light
> 
> Audessey LFC - Off
> 
> 
> 
> I tried installing any and all the existing Denon branded Apps and can't find any EQ in the apps to tweak with either. One of the apps was a paid-app so i bought it as well but no luck with any visual equalizer to tweak.
> 
> Any suggestions to try out greatly appreciated thanks!




Dynamic volume will compress the signal, might be better to turn it off unless late night or keeping it quiet for others.
LPF for LFE is default 120 usually which is a good idea unless changing it for a reason. (Doesnt really matter much but in case)

The paid audyssey app only works if you run the auto setup through it (and modify it) then upload to the AVR, it doesnt recieve anything from the AVR other then the test tone readings.

I didnt find any b&w m-05 when i googled, only a very small m-01 model, is that similar?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

Have a question reference the dynamic volume. I have it set to light presently. I ‘ve read that some prefer to have it turned off.is this just personal preference ? Reason i ask is that i have tried turning it off and it lowers the volume considerably.. is this a normal function.just trying to learn here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> Have a question reference the dynamic volume. I have it set to light presently. I ‘ve read that some prefer to have it turned off.is this just personal preference ? Reason i ask is that i have tried turning it off and it lowers the volume considerably.. is this a normal function.just trying to learn here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a personal preference. I never use it with music. Basically, it compresses the dynamic range of your audio. The only time I turn it on is when I'm watching a movie where the effects are deafeningly loud when the master volume is turned up enough to hear the dialogue clearly. I turn dynamic volume to HEAVY and adjust the AVR's master volume control until the dialog is clearly audible. Then the sound effects (explosions, etc.) are tolerable but dialogue stays audible.

FYI, when you turn on Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ goes on with it, which makes the subwoofer and surrounds louder at most volume levels. If you don't want it, then turn off Dyn EQ, and Dynamic Volume will remain on until you turn it off.


----------



## Leeliemix

rocky1 said:


> Have a question reference the dynamic volume. I have it set to light presently. I ‘ve read that some prefer to have it turned off.is this just personal preference ? Reason i ask is that i have tried turning it off and it lowers the volume considerably.. is this a normal function.just trying to learn here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Dynamic volume tries to even out everything so some things it will increase and others it will decrease to keep within a certain dynamic range. For example its supposed to make explosions not loud compare to rest of soundtrack and keep commercials from blasting your ears if a lot louder then the program/movie you are watching.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

Thanks. Ill try the dynamic vol off for awhile to see how i like it. But it lowers the overall volume . I guess i can just raise the master volume


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> Thanks. Ill try the dynamic vol off for awhile to see how i like it. But it lowers the overall volume . I guess i can just raise the master volume
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Exactly. Raise the master volume so the dialogue is where you like it. Then the much louder sounds will be leveled off in dynamic range. This feature is IMO a really bad idea for music!


----------



## rocky1

pbarach said:


> Exactly. Raise the master volume so the dialogue is where you like it. Then the much louder sounds will be leveled off in dynamic range. This feature is IMO a really bad idea for music!




Thanks... bad idea for music ? Better on or off? Assuming personal preference aswell...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Leeliemix

rocky1 said:


> Thanks... bad idea for music ? Better on or off? Assuming personal preference aswell...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Off and generally not considered personal preference as such, but used mainly to not wake kids/neighbours when late. There are those who like it for music but very rare.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> Thanks... bad idea for music ? Better on or off? Assuming personal preference aswell...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Most modern rock and pop recordings, and reissues of older recordings, have already had their dynamic range compressed so they sound as consistently loud as possible. 

I listen to classical music and a little jazz. I want to hear the musicians' choice of volume levels. I don't want to have a single clarinet (for example) sound as loud as the whole orchestra, which is what Dynamic Volume will do. So I never use it with music. 

I also don't use it for most TV broadcasts because there isn't much of a dynamic range anyway.


----------



## fatherom

pbarach said:


> FYI, when you turn on Dynamic Volume, Dynamic EQ goes on with it, which makes the subwoofer and surrounds louder at most volume levels. If you don't want it, then turn off Dyn EQ, and Dynamic Volume will remain on until you turn it off.


On my Denon, turning on Dynamic Volume does not cause Dynamic EQ to turn on.


----------



## Alan P

jhumur said:


> Hey folks. I just started home-auditioning speakers for my 3.1 HT setup. The first two--and the the ones I'm listening to at the moment--are the NHT C3 bookshelves with the C-LCR center, and the RSL CG5 mains with the CG2 center. In both cases, I'm using the RSL Speedwoofer 10S sub. My receiver is the Denon AVR-X3500H. I've listened to the speakers without running Audyssey MultEQ X32 room correction and with, and one thing has jumped out at me: With both speaker sets, when listening with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 turned on, the speakers sound much harsher. In case of the NHTs, which tend to be a little harsh to being with, the high frequencies become almost unbearably bright. When I look at the Audyssey room calibration EQ, I do see an uptick in the upper frequencies (See attached...that's for the RSLs since that's what I've hooked up). But why? What causes this? Too many room reflections or something like that?


Excessive harshness in an Audyssey calibrated system is usually caused by just what you mentioned; reflections. Is your room highly reflective? Do you have a leather couch/chair?

If the Audyssey mic is close to the seat back, it is often advised to cover the seat back with some thick towels or a blanket. This will usually result in a less-bright calibration.


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> Thanks... bad idea for music ? Better on or off? Assuming personal preference aswell...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you want to experience the full dynamics of a soundtrack/music track and the full dynamics of your system, Dynamic Volume should never be turned on. Ever.

If you are watching late at night and trying not to disturb neighbors/housemates, feel free to use it, but understand you are compromising your audio experience.


----------



## jhumur

Alan P said:


> Excessive harshness in an Audyssey calibrated system is usually caused by just what you mentioned; reflections. Is your room highly reflective? Do you have a leather couch/chair?
> 
> If the Audyssey mic is close to the seat back, it is often advised to cover the seat back with some thick towels or a blanket. This will usually result in a less-bright calibration.


Yes, my room is pretty reflective. It's bare wood floor, although the area between the speakers and the sofa is mostly covered by a rug. The walls have framed artwork and photos on them but no tapestry or anything like that. The sofa is indeed leather. I did hang a thick comforter on the back wall when running the calibration, but didn't cover the sofa-back. However the calibration mic did clear the back of the sofa by about 6 inches. My 8 calibration locations were as follow: 

*Positions 1, 2, and 3*.....1 at the MLP (center of the sofa). 2 and 3 20" on either side of 1. All three points 12" away from the back wall (covered in a comforter).

*Positions 4, 5, and 6*.....Mirror positions 1,2, and 3 but 32" away from the back wall.

*Position 7*..........In-between 1 and 2, 22" from the back wall. (Basically in the center of the imaginary square space formed by 1,2,4 and 5)

*Position 8*..........In-between 1 and 3, 22" from the back wall. (Basically in the center of the imaginary square space formed by 1,3,4 and 6)

I am starting to realize that I need to "treat" the room somehow, but any recommendations for improvements would be appreciated.


----------



## Hetfieldjames

Alan P said:


> If you want to experience the full dynamics of a soundtrack/music track and the full dynamics of your system, Dynamic Volume should never be turned on. Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are watching late at night and trying not to disturb neighbors/housemates, feel free to use it, but understand you are compromising your audio experience.


I agree, turn that crap off. I never turn it on.


----------



## rocky1

I get the dynamic volume should ve off. How about dynamic EQ leave that on... 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hetfieldjames

rocky1 said:


> I get the dynamic volume should ve off. How about dynamic EQ leave that on...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I keep dynamic EQ on, nothing wrong with that. It's part of Audyssey if I'm not mistaken.


----------



## mogorf

rocky1 said:


> I get the dynamic volume should ve off. How about dynamic EQ leave that on...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I think you are the only one to judge DynEQ. Try this please. Start a BD film. Turn down MV to -15 or even to -20 dB. That's about where DynEQ noticeably kicks-in. Toggle between DynEQ on/off. Listen carefully, especially to dialog intelligibility and bass/LFE (low frequency effects). Decide what you like most.


----------



## rocky1

Thanks i wasnt judging the eq. I had been asking about the dynamic volume. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

jhumur said:


> Yes, my room is pretty reflective. It's bare wood floor, although the area between the speakers and the sofa is mostly covered by a rug. The walls have framed artwork and photos on them but no tapestry or anything like that. The sofa is indeed leather. I did hang a thick comforter on the back wall when running the calibration, but didn't cover the sofa-back. However the calibration mic did clear the back of the sofa by about 6 inches. My 8 calibration locations were as follow:
> 
> *Positions 1, 2, and 3*.....1 at the MLP (center of the sofa). 2 and 3 20" on either side of 1. All three points 12" away from the back wall (covered in a comforter).
> 
> *Positions 4, 5, and 6*.....Mirror positions 1,2, and 3 but 32" away from the back wall.
> 
> *Position 7*..........In-between 1 and 2, 22" from the back wall. (Basically in the center of the imaginary square space formed by 1,2,4 and 5)
> 
> *Position 8*..........In-between 1 and 3, 22" from the back wall. (Basically in the center of the imaginary square space formed by 1,3,4 and 6)
> 
> I am starting to realize that I need to "treat" the room somehow, but any recommendations for improvements would be appreciated.



Hi,

There are two separate issues involved here. One issue is the room's overall reflectivity, and what you hear as a result of that reflectivity. You can deal with the room by adding some acoustic panels (which can resemble artwork) or by adding any other softening influences to the room that you wish. 

The idea is to reduce the mid-range and treble reverberation time in the room. Clapping your hands sharply and listening for the slap echo will give you a good general idea of what you are trying to accomplish. You want a single sharp and distinct sound, if possible. Section I-A of the Guide, linked below, will give you more specific guidance on this aspect of the issue, along with some practical examples.

The second issue involves what the Audyssey microphone "hears" during a calibration process. If the omnidirectional Audyssey microphone gets close to a smooth or hard surface (such as a leather seat back) during the calibration process, some higher frequencies will reflect into the microphone from close range. As a result, Audyssey will try to correct high-frequencies that don't really need correcting. It doesn't really hear sounds in the same way that we do, and over-correction of mid and high-frequencies can often lead to a harsh sound. 

The remedy for that is to cover the smooth surface of the leather chair, just as you did with the wall behind it. That technique is also addressed, in Section I-B, of the Guide. Your overall microphone pattern looks good, but you might want to try raising the mic position by a couple of inches for just two of the positions. Some people use a couple of positions closer to the seat back for that. All other mic positions would be as close to ear height (center of ear canal) as possible.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So I have a conundrum and am wondering what people's thoughts are. Running Audyssey with my faux leather couch uncovered sets my sub trim at -8. Placing a fleece blanket over the back sets my sub at -2. Why is this happening? Nothing else changes in the room or mic positions, and all other speaker results are similar with some minor frequency response changes.

Which level do you think is more correct for my room acoustics? Also, how would this effect DEQ with listening levels of -20dB? I think with the -2 trim the DEQ sub boost would be way too heavy. Thanks!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> So I have a conundrum and am wondering what people's thoughts are. Running Audyssey with my faux leather couch uncovered sets my sub trim at -8. Placing a fleece blanket over the back sets my sub at -2. Why is this happening? Nothing else changes in the room or mic positions, and all other speaker results are similar with some minor frequency response changes.
> 
> Which level do you think is more correct for my room acoustics? Also, how would this effect DEQ with listening levels of -20dB? I think with the -2 trim the DEQ sub boost would be way too heavy. Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Where does Audyssey set your speaker levels with/without the blanket? Are they drastically different?


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Alan P said:


> Where does Audyssey set your speaker levels with/without the blanket? Are they drastically different?


Practically the same...plus or minus 0.5dB. Only the sub is different.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Practically the same...plus or minus 0.5dB. Only the sub is different.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Hmmm...are you using a the supplied "rocket" stand for the Audyssey mic? Is the stand on the blanket (when using the blanket)?


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...are you using a the supplied "rocket" stand for the Audyssey mic? Is the stand on the blanket (when using the blanket)?


I have a camera tripod I use, and I believe it was fully on it or at least partially (two of three legs). Nothing was on the couch when I ran it the first time.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> I have a camera tripod I use, and I believe it was fully on it or at least partially (two of three legs). Nothing was on the couch when I ran it the first time.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Ahhh...this may explain it then.

With the tripod sitting either partially or fully on the blanket, it probably reduced the vibrations transmitted through the couch to the mic resulting in the higher subwoofer trim level. I wouldn't expect that large of a difference, but when you have whatever is supporting the Audyssey mic in contact with the furniture, results can vary.

I highly recommend using a boom mic stand for the Audyssey mic, but for now I would try to replicate the "without blanket" conditions (i.e. tripod legs directly contacting couch). The results should be more similar to your first run.

The blanket really only needs to be covering the back/headrest of the couch to do it's job.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Alright, I'll give it another run with just the back covered and see what happens. Thanks!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

Alan P said:


> If you want to experience the full dynamics of a soundtrack/music track and the full dynamics of your system, Dynamic Volume should never be turned on. Ever.
> 
> If you are watching late at night and trying not to disturb neighbors/housemates, feel free to use it, but understand you are compromising your audio experience.


You also might be saving your hearing! There are some movies where the sound effects are deafening when spoken dialogue is audible. An hour or two of that, and you leave the room with your ears ringing and your inner ears calling a doctor.

I won't go to "action movies" in the theater anymore without protecting my hearing. The best solution I've found (for me, others do qhat you want!) is to wear Bose Quiet Comfort headphones in the theater--I can hear everything without getting deafened.


----------



## garygarrison

rocky1 said:


> I get the *dynamic volume should ve off*. How about *dynamic EQ* leave that on...



Yes, IMO, *dynamic volume* _*perverts*_ the intentions of the composer and the artists! To me, the opening of Beethoven's 5th is not the opening of Beethoven's 5th if it is not 1) fairly loud (like the man wrote it) and 2) much louder than the softest parts of the symphony. Played softly and with dynamic volume on, to me, it is no longer the same piece of music, even though the notes are the same. I completely understand using dynamic volume if you have a sleeping baby, spouse, etc. Neighbors, not so much. Actually, we built our music room/HT with extra layers of walling, a la Jeff Cooper,*** to decrease sound transmission, and we try to avoid loud sound after about 10 pm, but dynamic volume? Never!


Fondness for Dynamic EQ varies wildly among members of this forum. The only way to determine if you like it is to try it, on and off, repeatedly. Feri (mogorf) gave you a good method. I do *not* like it, but I play my music at 5 to 7 dB below reference, and boost the subwoofer, so I don't need it. I love Audyssey without it.



***Building a Recording Studio by Jeff Cooper, 5th edition​


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> You also might be saving your hearing! There are some movies where the sound effects are deafening when spoken dialogue is audible. An hour or two of that, and you leave the room with your ears ringing and your inner ears calling a doctor.
> 
> I won't go to "action movies" in the theater anymore without protecting my hearing. The best solution I've found (for me, others do qhat you want!) is to wear Bose Quiet Comfort headphones in the theater--I can hear everything without getting deafened.



Individual differences! I have never had my ears ring in a movie theater or at an orchestral performance, or after.

The only movie that made me plug my ears was 2001: A Space Odyssey in 70mm during the high pitched squeal when the astronauts are on the moon, which lasted all of about 2 minutes. Other members of the audience plugged theirs, too.


I rarely go to or rent "action movies." At home, bass can shake the couch, but does not cause ringing of the ears.


The opening titles of one movie were too loud, more accurately, too annoying, and, as I turned it down, I said, "Wow, the piccolos!" My daughter said, "With me, it's the brass!" Individual differences.


It might not be as loud as you or I think department*: *The chariot race in Ben-Hur (1959), while loud, is not nearly as loud as the thunder storm and simulated earthquake at the Crucifixion, nor is it as loud as some of the musical peaks.



If it bothers somebody's ears, turn it down.


If it bothers the emotions, not the ears themselves, maybe it's supposed to -- part of the composer or filmmaker's intent. When the car crashes through the fence in Mr. and Mrs. Smith. it felt like a blow to the shoulders. The ears were fine. Honest, I didn't know it was an action picture!


Here is what OSHA says. Note this is dBa, not dBc or dBz, both of which pick up more bass, therefore are more appropriate for SPL measurements of music and movies, because "a" ignores some of the bass. We, therefore, will get higher readings than OSHA, which, I believe, will be more conservative.


----------



## jhumur

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> There are two separate issues involved here. One issue is the room's overall reflectivity, and what you hear as a result of that reflectivity. You can deal with the room by adding some acoustic panels (which can resemble artwork) or by adding any other softening influences to the room that you wish.
> 
> The idea is to reduce the mid-range and treble reverberation time in the room. Clapping your hands sharply and listening for the slap echo will give you a good general idea of what you are trying to accomplish. You want a single sharp and distinct sound, if possible. Section I-A of the Guide, linked below, will give you more specific guidance on this aspect of the issue, along with some practical examples.
> 
> The second issue involves what the Audyssey microphone "hears" during a calibration process. If the omnidirectional Audyssey microphone gets close to a smooth or hard surface (such as a leather seat back) during the calibration process, some higher frequencies will reflect into the microphone from close range. As a result, Audyssey will try to correct high-frequencies that don't really need correcting. It doesn't really hear sounds in the same way that we do, and over-correction of mid and high-frequencies can often lead to a harsh sound.
> 
> The remedy for that is to cover the smooth surface of the leather chair, just as you did with the wall behind it. That technique is also addressed, in Section I-B, of the Guide. Your overall microphone pattern looks good, but you might want to try raising the mic position by a couple of inches for just two of the positions. Some people use a couple of positions closer to the seat back for that. All other mic positions would be as close to ear height (center of ear canal) as possible.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


 Hi Mike,


Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful answer. It helps immensely! Clearly, I have my work cut out for me. In time I'll find a permanent solution to room treatment, but in the short term I'll cover some more of the wall surfaces and the sofa back with blankets or towels and return to Audyssey. Regarding your comment about taking two data points higher than the rest (which should be at ear level), I had a similar recommendation from another AVS member some time ago. If I remember correctly, he recommended placing points 7 and 8 at the same physical locations as 2 and 3 but make them 12" higher. I will go back to that arrangement for my next calibration. But should I jump to 12" or make a less dramatic change in height, like 2 or 3 inches?


----------



## mthomas47

jhumur said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> 
> Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful answer. It helps immensely! Clearly, I have my work cut out for me. In time I'll find a permanent solution to room treatment, but in the short term I'll cover some more of the wall surfaces and the sofa back with blankets or towels and return to Audyssey. Regarding your comment about taking two data points higher than the rest (which should be at ear level), I had a similar recommendation from another AVS member some time ago. If I remember correctly, he recommended placing points 7 and 8 at the same physical locations as 2 and 3 but make them 12" higher. I will go back to that arrangement for my next calibration. But should I jump to 12" or make a less dramatic change in height, like 2 or 3 inches?



You are very welcome! I do not typically recommend taking measurements out of the general area where someone is sitting, and that would apply to taking measurements 12" above ear level. Taking a couple of measurements just 2" to 3" above ear height makes sense to me, and has been proved-out by a number of other people. 

That is still within the general listening area, especially when we sit up a little straighter sometimes. And, sound waves just slightly above ear level can pretty easily be funneled down into our ear canals by the pinnae (flaps) of our ears. I would try just going 2-3" higher.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## jhumur

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I do not typically recommend taking measurements out of the general area where someone is sitting, and that would apply to taking measurements 12" above ear level. Taking a couple of measurements just 2" to 3" above ear height makes sense to me, and has been proved-out by a number of other people.
> 
> That is still within the general listening area, especially when we sit up a little straighter sometimes. And, sound waves just slightly above ear level can pretty easily be funneled down into our ear canals by the pinnae (flaps) of our ears. I would try just going 2-3" higher.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Yes, that sounds intuitively right to me. Thank you. I'll report back in a couple of days, once I've completed a more carefully orchestrated calibration.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Alan P, thanks again for the advice and suggestions. Ran it again with the blanket covering the top of the couch and the sub stayed the same. Now to see if I can notice a difference with the high frequencies. 

Take care!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Alan P, thanks again for the advice and suggestions. Ran it again with the blanket covering the top of the couch and the sub stayed the same. Now to see if I can notice a difference with the high frequencies.
> 
> Take care!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


As you can see, this little experiment has just proven that having the tripod legs on top of the furniture is effecting your measurements. A boom mic stand should be in your cart RIGHT NOW! 

This is a good one for cheap:
https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B019NY2PKG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

And these clips will hold the Audyssey mic:
https://smile.amazon.com/Haiker-Uni...72994073&sprefix=butterfly+mic,aps,193&sr=8-2


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

To clarify, the sub stayed the same as my original run...NOT the blanket run which showed a drop in trim level. So it was -8dB as with the original run, not the -2dB. You were right in stating that I may have had the tripod on the blanket which caused the change in trim.

Will have to ponder the boom solution at some point, though. ;-) 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> *To clarify, the sub stayed the same as my original run...NOT the blanket run* which showed a drop in trim level. So it was -8dB as with the original run, not the -2dB. You were right in stating that I may have had the tripod on the blanket which caused the change in trim.
> 
> Will have to ponder the boom solution at some point, though. ;-)
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Yes, I realize that. My point is that the extra isolation the blanket provided to the tripod probably gave you a_ more accurate_ reading. With the tripod directly contacting the couch, too many vibrations are being transferred, resulting in a lower sub trim.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Hi

I need some help with My system or tips.
When i watch a movie i feel some discomfort in My ears and i cant get my head around what it is. Its not the sub och too harsh sound its more like resonans that makes My ears like tense, its like im lifting My ears when listening at home. But at the cinema or att Friends house i feel nothing.

I have done audyssey and dont have dyn eq becouse dyn eq just makes it worse, i Guess this is impossible to help with but One can Always ask.


Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## Spidacat

Is your avatar picture your room? If so, it looks like a very lively environment. Lots of harsh reflections. An area rug and maybe some heavier curtains would probably help quite a bit.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Spidacat said:


> Is your avatar picture your room? If so, it looks like a very lively environment. Lots of harsh reflections. An area rug and maybe some heavier curtains would probably help quite a bit.


Yes, it looks like this. 
I think i have great curtains and a heavy rug.
I dont know what more i can do to the living room without my wifes complaining. U think My problems comes from the livley enviroment?

I hade a diffrent setup before without any problems. I quess its diffrent from setup to setup.









Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## Spidacat

Oh, OK. From your avatar only it looked like bare floors and you couldn't see any curtains or anything. The table right in front of the couch isn't ideal especially since it's close to the same height as your tweeters, but I have a (lower) coffee table in front of my MLP as well and don't have any harshness. What are your speakers and sub?


----------



## OrdinaryClown

I have Marantz sr7012
Monitor audio silver 50 
REL sub.

I do have if i clap My hands in front of the tv a metallic kinda Echo but i dont have it on the rug

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## Leeliemix

That room looks really harsh, so much bare laminate or hardwood floor, small carpet and a few curtains but huge bare reflective surfaces.

How is it if you lower the volume?
You can try getting the front face of speakers a couple of cm out in front of cabinet top.
Just for testing purposes try a large thick rug or a duvet ("dyne") in front of all speakers on the floor.
Try turning audyssey off.

Is the sound when speaking to others in the room comfortable even if many there? 
(Do children and pets prefer to be in another room?)

Its also possible that the room is ok for most but that you are a bit extra sensitive to this. (Im very sensitive to it which can be a hassle)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Leeliemix

OrdinaryClown said:


> I have Marantz sr7012
> Monitor audio silver 50
> REL sub.
> 
> I do have if i clap My hands in front of the tv a metallic kinda Echo but i dont have it on the rug
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk




Where is the sub located?
What crossover settings do you use and i assume all speakers are set to small?


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Leeliemix said:


> That room looks really harsh, so much bare laminate or hardwood floor, small carpet and a few curtains but huge bare reflective surfaces.
> 
> How is it if you lower the volume?
> You can try getting the front face of speakers a couple of cm out in front of cabinet top.
> Just for testing purposes try a large thick rug or a duvet ("dyne") in front of all speakers on the floor.
> Try turning audyssey off.
> 
> Is the sound when speaking to others in the room comfortable even if many there?
> (Do children and pets prefer to be in another room?)
> 
> Its also possible that the room is ok for most but that you are a bit extra sensitive to this. (Im very sensitive to it which can be a hassle)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


The sound is fine at lower volumes.
Its not that i have pain in My ears its more like enoying feeling when watching movies i even got "lock" feeling, dont know whats its called in engliah (feeling you get when a Airplanes takes of) 

Should i do a new calibration with curtains all closed and put some rugs infront off the tv.

Dont think i notice any differens with audyssey on or off.

Subs almost in the corner, 
Crossover on the subs in the back of it in the bottom "LFE"
Front speakers and center 90


Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## Leeliemix

OrdinaryClown said:


> The sound is fine at lower volumes.
> Its not that i have pain in My ears its more like enoying feeling when watching movies i even got "lock" feeling, dont know whats its called in engliah (feeling you get when a Airplanes takes of)
> 
> Should i do a new calibration with curtains all closed and put some rugs infront off the tv.
> 
> Dont think i notice any differens with audyssey on or off.
> 
> Subs almost in the corner,
> Crossover on the subs in the back of it in the bottom "LFE"
> Front speakers and center 90
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk




Sounds like you might have a big peak or resonance. Try with the sub turned off, if thats much better try to move the sub somewhere else or if thats difficult move it 20-30cm and listen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## marco1975

OrdinaryClown said:


> I have Marantz sr7012
> Monitor audio silver 50
> REL sub.
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


that room looks too lively to begin with, add to that u have a lively sounding speakers , the monitor audio are known for this sound characteristic, put them in lively room like yours and most likely will endup with a sound that is too harsh....don't see too many option here apart of , either u keep listening at low level or dampen the room with plenty of carpet/rug, and heavy curtains.


----------



## OrdinaryClown

marco1975 said:


> that room looks too lively to begin with, add to that u have a lively sounding speakers , the monitor audio are known for this sound characteristic, put them in lively room like yours and most likely will endup with a sound that is too harsh....don't see too many option here apart of , either u keep listening at low level or dampen the room with plenty of carpet/rug, and heavy curtains.


Hmm, can it be the speakers , i hade audiovector before and had no problems. But the room was a Little diffrent then.

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## marco1975

OrdinaryClown said:


> Hmm, can it be the speakers , i hade audiovector before and had no problems. But the room was a Little diffrent then.
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


it actaully can. 
also forgot to mention, u realy want these speakers, at least your fronts L&R off that Tv-table and put them preferably on a proper speaker stands, for your center speaker u can put isolation pad under it.
something like this works great : 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Adam-Hall-...=1573761006&sprefix=auralex+mo,aps,183&sr=8-2


----------



## mogorf

OrdinaryClown said:


> Yes, it looks like this.
> I think i have great curtains and a heavy rug.
> I dont know what more i can do to the living room without my wifes complaining. U think My problems comes from the livley enviroment?
> 
> I hade a diffrent setup before without any problems. I quess its diffrent from setup to setup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk



Can you describe you Audyssey microphone placement pattern, please? (All 8 position, since your Marantz has XT32). Also can you tell us how the mic was placed during calibration? Was it on a camera tripod or on a mic stand with a boom arm? Was the mic facing the ceiling? Was it at seated ear height?


----------



## mthomas47

OrdinaryClown said:


> Hi
> 
> I need some help with My system or tips.
> *When i watch a movie i feel some discomfort in My ears* and i cant get my head around what it is. Its not the sub och too harsh sound *its more like resonans that makes My ears like tense*, its like im lifting My ears when listening at home. But at the cinema or att Friends house i feel nothing.
> 
> I have done audyssey and dont have dyn eq becouse dyn eq just makes it worse, i Guess this is impossible to help with but One can Always ask.
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk





OrdinaryClown said:


> The sound is fine at lower volumes.
> *Its not that i have pain in My ears its more like enoying feeling when watching movies i even got "lock" feeling*, dont know whats its called in engliah (feeling you get when a Airplanes takes of)
> 
> Should i do a new calibration with curtains all closed and put some rugs infront off the tv.
> 
> Dont think i notice any differens with audyssey on or off.
> 
> Subs almost in the corner,
> Crossover on the subs in the back of it in the bottom "LFE"
> Front speakers and center 90
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk



Hi,

I think that the questions that other people are asking you are good ones. It won't hurt to explore everything. I would also definitely recommend that you recalibrate with the curtains closed, and then keep them closed during listening sessions. That will help with the higher frequencies. 

But, I am going to go in an entirely different direction, based on the phrases in the two posts I bolded. What I believe you are describing is cabin pressurization. I can feel that sensation, even in my 6000^3 room, under the right circumstances. Tightly sealed rooms enhance cabin pressurization, and some people are much more sensitive to those early pressurization sensations than others. I found that to be a bit of a liability of mine when I experienced hyperbaric chamber testing, during scuba school, many years ago. 

In order to test whether cabin pressurization is what you are experiencing, I would open one or more doors to other parts of your house, or apartment. Doing that should decrease the cabin pressure inside your room, and it should also decrease that sort of tingling and pressure sensation that you feel in your ears when you are watching certain movies. Give that a try and let me know how it works. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

OrdinaryClown said:


> ... Its not that i have pain in My ears its more like enoying feeling when watching movies i even got "lock" feeling, dont know whats its called in engliah (feeling you get when a Airplanes takes of)  ...



Which of these is it?


a) A "pressure in the ears" feeling, like when an airplane takes off, or you drive into high altitude (e.g., driving up a mountain). 



b) High midrange or treble tones that don't bother you at lower volumes, but are unpleasant or harsh at higher volumes.


c) A tingling or numbness in the ears


d) A ringing in the ears after the music is over. 



e) None of the above


If "a," it could be a standing wave in the room. Try moving the listening position, or the speakers, _*especially *_the subwoofer. If you have a very, very good subwoofer, the standing wave could conceivably be "subsonic," i.e., below the range of actual hearing, so the pressure would be felt, but not heard.


If "b," it could be that the amplifier or the speakers are being strained by being forced to play louder than they can without distortion. IM distortion can sound really bad. 



If "c," it could be that you are playing your movies/music too loudly for your _*ears*_.


If "d," same as "c."


If "e," it's a mystery to me.


What are your room dimensions? [Length, Width & Height)



You probably should have your speakers set to "small" in your AV receiver or AV preamp.


I'm curious as to what the "lock" feeling is called in English. What is your native language? Maybe either we or you could use one of the automatic online translators, once we know what your language is.


EDIT: Mike (*mthomas*) and I were typing at the same time. Do try his suggestion to test for room pressurization*: *"_In order to test whether cabin pressurization is what you are experiencing, I would open one or more doors to other parts of your house, or apartment. Doing that should decrease the cabin pressure inside your room, and it should also decrease that sort of tingling and pressure sensation that you feel in your ears when you are watching certain movies. Give that a try and let me know how it works_."


----------



## OrdinaryClown

garygarrison said:


> Which of these is it?
> 
> 
> a) A "pressure in the ears" feeling, like when an airplane takes off, or you drive into high altitude (e.g., driving up a mountain).
> 
> 
> 
> b) High midrange or treble tones that don't bother you at lower volumes, but are unpleasant or harsh at higher volumes.
> 
> 
> c) A tingling or numbness in the ears
> 
> 
> d) A ringing in the ears after the music is over.
> 
> 
> 
> e) None of the above
> 
> 
> If "a," it could be a standing wave in the room. Try moving the listening position, or the speakers, _*especially *_the subwoofer. If you have a very, very good subwoofer, the standing wave could conceivably be "subsonic," i.e., below the range of actual hearing, so the pressure would be felt, but not heard.
> 
> 
> If "b," it could be that the amplifier or the speakers are being strained by being forced to play louder than they can without distortion. IM distortion can sound really bad.
> 
> 
> 
> If "c," it could be that you are playing your movies/music too loudly for your _*ears*_.
> 
> 
> If "d," same as "c."
> 
> 
> If "e," it's a mystery to me.
> 
> 
> What are your room dimensions? [Length, Width & Height)
> 
> 
> 
> You probably should have your speakers set to "small" in your AV receiver or AV preamp.
> 
> 
> I'm curious as to what the "lock" feeling is called in English. What is your native language? Maybe either we or you could use one of the automatic online translators, once we know what your language is.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Mike (*mthomas*) and I were typing at the same time. Do try his suggestion to test for room pressurization*: *"_In order to test whether cabin pressurization is what you are experiencing, I would open one or more doors to other parts of your house, or apartment. Doing that should decrease the cabin pressure inside your room, and it should also decrease that sort of tingling and pressure sensation that you feel in your ears when you are watching certain movies. Give that a try and let me know how it works_."


Hi,

I have found a selution but not an great One. If i sit at My sweetspot and move closer to the tv, like the egde of the sofa then everything feels awesome. If i sit back again it feel strange, even if only the center is playing. Its not just the sub, its all sound. Its like the it vibrating in the ears. And it goes away when i move forward 1meter.

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

OrdinaryClown said:


> Hi
> 
> I need some help with My system or tips.
> When i watch a movie i feel some discomfort in My ears and i cant get my head around what it is. Its not the sub och too harsh sound its more like resonans that makes My ears like tense, its like im lifting My ears when listening at home. But at the cinema or att Friends house i feel nothing.
> 
> I have done audyssey and dont have dyn eq becouse dyn eq just makes it worse, i Guess this is impossible to help with but One can Always ask.
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk





OrdinaryClown said:


> Yes, it looks like this.
> I think i have great curtains and a heavy rug.
> I dont know what more i can do to the living room without my wifes complaining. U think My problems comes from the livley enviroment?
> 
> I hade a diffrent setup before without any problems. I quess its diffrent from setup to setup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk





mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think that the questions that other people are asking you are good ones. It won't hurt to explore everything. I would also definitely recommend that you recalibrate with the curtains closed, and then keep them closed during listening sessions. That will help with the higher frequencies.
> 
> But, I am going to go in an entirely different direction, based on the phrases in the two posts I bolded. What I believe you are describing is cabin pressurization. I can feel that sensation, even in my 6000^3 room, under the right circumstances. Tightly sealed rooms enhance cabin pressurization, and some people are much more sensitive to those early pressurization sensations than others. I found that to be a bit of a liability of mine when I experienced hyperbaric chamber testing, during scuba school, many years ago.
> 
> In order to test whether cabin pressurization is what you are experiencing, I would open one or more doors to other parts of your house, or apartment. Doing that should decrease the cabin pressure inside your room, and it should also decrease that sort of tingling and pressure sensation that you feel in your ears when you are watching certain movies. Give that a try and let me know how it works.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


You haven't really said whether the issue bothering you is related more to low or high frequencies or to all frequencies. Mike has made a good point on cabin pressurisation and I would definitely try his suggestions and see what happens.

I think there are a couple of other possibilities.

First, the table in front of the sofa has 2 levels, an upper and lower level. I wonder whether you may be getting a bit of a resonance from reflections between the 2 table levels. Quick test: put a folded blanket on the lower table surface to deaden any reflections between the two table surfaces. I suggest trying this because I was once told of a trick used in some restaurants with hard floors in which customers found conversation difficult. What they did in the restaurants was to stick carpet tiles on the bottom of the table surfaces to kill reflections from the floor and make the room less live. If a folded blanket placed on the lower table surface helps you could try fixing carpet tiles underneath the top surface where they won't be visible and that could help. If you are getting a resonance problem between the 2 table surfaces, it's a resonance that's close to your listening position and may be noticeable because of that. I'm not going to suggest fixing carpet tiles under the top table without trying some sort of experiment to see whether that actually is causing a problem because it's going to be hard to remove them if it doesn't help and I don't like suggesting permanent changes if they're not going to be beneficial. It's only necessary to treat one of the 2 opposing hard surfaces so a blanket on top of the lower surface makes a good quick test without any permanent changes and if it works then either leaving it there or just using some sort of "table cloth" cover over the lower table surface would be an alternative to fixing carpet tiles to the underside of the top table surface if you don't want to make a permanent physical change to the table.

My second observation is about the setup within the room. You've got a wall immediately to your right at the listening position but you've got a big space between the listening position and the wall on the left side because of the dining area there. That means that the reflections from the left wall are going to arrive much later than those from the right wall. Audyssey corrects for the arrival time of direct sound from the speakers but it can't correct differences in arrival times for reflections from walls that are significantly different in their distances from the listening position. If the left hand wall, which we can't see in the photos, is quite reflective of at least some reflections, the fact that those reflections arrive later than the reflections from the right wall, and also from a different angle (they will come from a point closer to the plane of the sofa than the reflections from the right wall) it may be the difference in timing and angle of the arrival of the reflections that is causing your problems. Some people seem to be more sensitive to side wall reflections than others and/or have different preferences for the strength of those reflections. You may be more sensitive and/or have a preference for the sort of reflection you get from one of your walls than from the other and it may be the difference in reflections from the 2 walls which is causing you problems. Dealing with differences in the acoustic environments on the left and right sides of a room is difficult because, short of killing all side wall reflections, there is always going to be a difference but you may be able to do something by changing the angle of toe in of one of the speakers. Try pointing the right speaker more directly towards the main listening position or more parallel to the right wall and see if that helps. Find what toe in position gives you the best result for that speaker and then try experimenting with the toe in of the left speaker in the same way. It may be that having different degrees of toe in will help because speakers don't radiate all frequencies uniformly, they tend to radiate the higher frequencies over a narrower angle than the lower frequencies and it may be possible to get a better balance in the distribution of the frequencies in the reflections by having a different toe in angle for each speaker. If that helps you are going to have to do another calibration run once you settle on the best toe in arrangement. It is possible to try and fix the kind of left/right imbalance problem I'm describing by using acoustic treatments on one or both side walls but from experience I can tell you that I never really got good results from my experiments with that. My conclusion was that big differences between the reflections from the left and right sides can be reduced somewhat but never completely eliminated and I don't think that in a room like yours, which is a combined living/dining area, you'd like to live with the visual result from working with physical acoustic treatment products. I think it's better to try a more minimal approach and to adjust the toe in of the speakers to see if you can get a better balance that way.

If the problem is largely related to higher frequencies you may also benefit from having the curtains closed over the windows behind the sofa when using the system.

My final suggestion is that I see that you have your rug right up against the sofa and an area of bare floor between it and your speakers. You may benefit by reducing the size of the bare area close to the speakers by moving the rug a bit more towards the speakers and leaving a bit of bare floor between the rug and the sofa but I only say "may". It's something that may be worth trying but I'd leave that to last.

In the end it may well be that you need to use a couple of things such as what Mike has suggested and one or more of my suggestions or the other suggestions that have been made to get the best result in the least visually intrusive way.


----------



## Leeliemix

OrdinaryClown said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have found a selution but not an great One. If i sit at My sweetspot and move closer to the tv, like the egde of the sofa then everything feels awesome. If i sit back again it feel strange, even if only the center is playing. Its not just the sub, its all sound. Its like the it vibrating in the ears. And it goes away when i move forward 1meter.
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk




It looks like you sit very close to the back wall/windows where sound pressure can build from direct sound and strong reflections.
If you can pull the sofa a little closer to the tv that might be good as you mentioned moving forward a little helped a lot.
Thick curtains behind your head could also help some. Pull them closed if you have some there already and listen.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Thnx all for taking time.

I know i havent Said whats wrong but i think its all sound. Its so hard to explain, feel like waves to My ear and my ear protect Them self by making Them more tense in a way. Yes i Saw what Mike wrote but i cant really open Up any Dior, have none , i only have the Windows but its -8 out Side and snowing

I have order some speakers stand, i Will move the table and move the rug Close and se if that helps.


Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Subscribed


----------



## pbarach

It often seems like the complaints about poor audio quality (assuming good equipment) are related to decor or positioning that can't be changed. I'm sympathetic, really, because I am stuck with some of the same issues. The living room in my house has bare walls and windows, a brick fireplace, and only a small area rug. It's terrible for auidio reproduction. Rather than putting top quality equipment there, I am using a 12x13 (former) bedroom--it isn't ideal in size, but it's carpeted, there are window treatments, and I can put my equipment and MLP wherever I want. To me, that is a livable compromise with a spouse's preference. 

I am avoiding the sexist term "wife acceptance factor," because sometimes male spouses and partners disagree with the audiophile's wishes.


----------



## Leeliemix

OrdinaryClown said:


> Thnx all for taking time.
> 
> I know i havent Said whats wrong but i think its all sound. Its so hard to explain, feel like waves to My ear and my ear protect Them self by making Them more tense in a way. Yes i Saw what Mike wrote but i cant really open Up any Dior, have none , i only have the Windows but its -8 out Side and snowing
> 
> I have order some speakers stand, i Will move the table and move the rug Close and se if that helps.
> 
> 
> Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk




My sister can get an uncomfortable or even a painful pressure feeling in her ears at some frequencies and they dont have to be very low Hz, it can feel a bit like they are stuffed/clogged and happens much more easily if sitting close to a wall or corner. Try and move the couch so you sit where you said it worked well when sitting at edge of couch.
I am sensitive to this also but not nearly as much as my sister is.


----------



## garygarrison

David Aiken said:


> ... I see that you have your rug right up against the sofa and an area of bare floor between it and your speakers. You may benefit by reducing the size of the bare area close to the speakers by *moving the rug* a bit *more towards the speakers* and leaving a bit of bare floor between the rug and the sofa but I only say "may"...



I'd try moving the couch a little more than 1 meter forward, and moving the rug farther forward than that.




Leeliemix said:


> It looks like you sit very close to the back wall/windows where sound pressure can build from direct sound and strong reflections.
> If you can pull the sofa a little closer to the tv that might be good as you mentioned moving forward a little helped a lot. ...




See above.




pbarach said:


> I am avoiding the sexist term "wife acceptance factor," because sometimes male spouses and partners disagree with the audiophile's wishes.



Yes. I think it may have to do with a narrow view of appropriate decor on the part of some men and some women, but that's just me. I'm for mix and match, having spent much formative time in the recycled Victorian, '20s and '30s student apartments in Berkeley and San Francisco. As to the high SPL sound itself, some men get ear sensitivity, and some woman do not. A young woman I used to know loved my (old) JBLs at very high volumes, and liked to sit *on top of *my C34 speaker enclosures so she could better feel the vibrations. She had very good hearing and was quite devoted to both listening and composing. OTOH, my mother would get a troublesome resonance in her chest, so the teen-aged me had to move the sound system to the basement. OTOH, my daughter has occasionally asked me to turn a rambunctious piece of music *up*, but she is sensitive to loud brass. I like most brass, but am sensitive to piccolos. My wife likes it all, and thinks our big speakers (53" high, 31" wide, and 28" deep) look beautiful. 




Leeliemix said:


> My sister can get an uncomfortable or even a painful pressure feeling in her ears at some frequencies and they dont have to be very low Hz, it can feel a bit like they are stuffed/clogged and happens much more easily if sitting close to a wall or corner. *Try and move the couch so you sit where you said it worked well when sitting at edge of couch*. I am sensitive to this also but not nearly as much as my sister is.



If you decide to treat the room (as a last resort) some difussors and absorbers are attracive, IMO.


----------



## dvdwilly3

I ran across something that is worth sharing. I have used Audyssey ever since they started it. It has almost always come up with accurate settings for distance.

However, the crossover settings that it usually comes up with leave me mystified. I have run floor standers...Klipsch, Definitive Tech, Goldenear...so full range...for years. Audyssey has always set them as Small and set crossovers at 40 or 60 hZ. I got these results with my current fronts, GE Triton 5s (40) and GE center Xl (60). That never made any sense because I know that they will go well beyond that.

And, the level settings showed large variations...like as much as +/- 5 dB from speaker to speaker.

Where you enter into the Audyssey setup appears to make a difference, at least with Denon. There are at least 3 different entry points from the main menu...Audio; Setup Assistant; or Speakers. I have usually come into it from Audio and got results as above.

I was having difficulty getting it to run recently and had been looking in various forums. I remember running across one posting that said that you should always launch Audyssey from the Speakers section. So, I did that.

Lo, and behold, Audyssey set my fronts and center channel as Large. And, the other crossover points make more sense. Also, the levels do not vary so widely. The variation is more like +/- 2 dB...

I have not gone back to try to replicate this behavior. The current setup makes sense to me. And, it sounds correct. I am leaving well enough alone.

I did have to boost the bass, but then I always have to boost the bass.


----------



## Leeliemix

dvdwilly3 said:


> I ran across something that is worth sharing. I have used Audyssey ever since they started it. It has almost always come up with accurate settings for distance.
> 
> 
> 
> However, the crossover settings that it usually comes up with leave me mystified. I have run floor standers...Klipsch, Definitive Tech, Goldenear...so full range...for years. Audyssey has always set them as Small and set crossovers at 40 or 60 hZ. I got these results with my current fronts, GE Triton 5s (40) and GE center Xl (60). That never made any sense because I know that they will go well beyond that.
> 
> 
> 
> And, the level settings showed large variations...like as much as +/- 5 dB from speaker to speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> Where you enter into the Audyssey setup appears to make a difference, at least with Denon. There are at least 3 different entry points from the main menu...Audio; Setup Assistant; or Speakers. I have usually come into it from Audio and got results as above.
> 
> 
> 
> I was having difficulty getting it to run recently and had been looking in various forums. I remember running across one posting that said that you should always launch Audyssey from the Speakers section. So, I did that.
> 
> 
> 
> Lo, and behold, Audyssey set my fronts and center channel as Large. And, the other crossover points make more sense. Also, the levels do not vary so widely. The variation is more like +/- 2 dB...
> 
> 
> 
> I have not gone back to try to replicate this behavior. The current setup makes sense to me. And, it sounds correct. I am leaving well enough alone.
> 
> 
> 
> I did have to boost the bass, but then I always have to boost the bass.




Auto setup has a tendency to set speakers to large even though they arent. Its also good that crossover is usually set too low because its no problem at all to set it higher while setting it lower will give a ‘gap’ in the room calibration filters.
If it sounds great this way go for it, its not always easy to get the best results.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## dvdwilly3

Leeliemix said:


> Auto setup has a tendency to set speakers to large even though they arent. Its also good that crossover is usually set too low because its no problem at all to set it higher while setting it lower will give a ‘gap’ in the room calibration filters.
> If it sounds great this way go for it, its not always easy to get the best results.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


What you say may be true. For me, since I have been using Audyssey...since about 2008, Audyssey has always set my fronts and center speakers as Small with generally 40 or 60 hZ as the crossovers. And, that was with Klipsch, Def Tech, and GE Tech towers... And, in the same room...


----------



## Leeliemix

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



dvdwilly3 said:


> What you say may be true. For me, since I have been using Audyssey...since about 2008, Audyssey has always set my fronts and center speakers as Small with generally 40 or 60 hZ as the crossovers. And, that was with Klipsch, Def Tech, and GE Tech towers... And, in the same room...




For music large is often preferred but for movies they probably should be set to small with a 40 to 60hz crossover, depends on room and such but very few speakers are flat to 20. Still might be more even bass with them as large in your room.
At the other end i have had several auto setup runs where my bookshelf surround speakers have been set to large lol, they are large for bookshelves but still its just a 6 1/2 inch woofer 

Edit: added ‘surround’


----------



## mogorf

Leeliemix said:


> For music large is often preferred but for movies they probably should be set to small with a 40 to 60hz crossover, depends on room and such but very few speakers are flat to 20. Still might be more even bass with them as large in your room.
> At the other end i have had several auto setup runs where my bookshelf surround speakers have been set to large lol, they are large for bookshelves but still its just a 6 1/2 inch woofer
> 
> Edit: added ‘surround’



Hi Leeliemix, may I disagree here a bit? Thanks!! 

So, as to my knowledge there is no such a thing as treating music and movie sound tracks differently. Why? Coz for a speaker they are both electric signals that are converted to sound pressure by the drivers. A speaker is either good or bad. Music or movies has nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, there are no "tags" in the signal to differentiate them for music or film. 

How should music in a film be treated, music or film? How about a concert BD? Is it music or film? 

The same bass management rules should apply for each and every program material regardless of its kind.

Thanks for your attention.


----------



## Leeliemix

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



mogorf said:


> Hi Leeliemix, may I disagree here a bit? Thanks!!
> 
> So, as to my knowledge there is no such a thing as treating music and movie sound tracks differently. Why? Coz for a speaker they are both electric signals that are converted to sound pressure by the drivers. A speaker is either good or bad. Music or movies has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Furthermore, there are no "tags" in the signal to differentiate them for music or film.
> 
> How should music in a film be treated, music or film? How about a concert BD? Is it music or film?
> 
> The same bass management rules should apply for each and every program material regardless of its kind.
> 
> Thanks for your attention.




Because unless you have perfectly integrated subs, towers with -3 db at 27/28hz (and lower)will do bass well enough on their own for most music which is why many often dont use subs for the 2ch music they play. Also direct modes are popular and they usually bypass crossovers.

Im not saying not using subs is better, just what works best differs from system to system and room to room ++ and personal preferences. In a system perfectly set up in a dedicated well suited room subs will be superior but how many have that.

Edit: forgot to add that for tv/movies perfectly integrated bass is not as critical for most.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Leeliemix said:


> Because unless you have perfectly integrated subs, towers with -3 db at 27/28hz (and lower)will do bass well enough on their own for most music which is why many often dont use subs for the 2ch music they play. Also direct modes are popular and they usually bypass crossovers.
> 
> Im not saying not using subs is better, just what works best differs from system to system and room to room ++ and personal preferences. In a system perfectly set up in a dedicated well suited room subs will be superior but how many have that.
> 
> Edit: forgot to add that for tv/movies perfectly integrated bass is not as critical for most.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Agree with all the above, but I'm still trying to say that there is no difference in reproducing film or music on the same system, which was my original point provided we have a "perfectly" set up sound system or a bad system.


----------



## Leeliemix

mogorf said:


> Agree with all the above, but I'm still trying to say that there is no difference in reproducing film or music on the same system, which was my original point provided we have a "perfectly" set up sound system.




Thats true yes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Leeliemix said:


> Thats true yes.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Thanks, glad we are in agreement!


----------



## Leeliemix

mogorf said:


> Thanks, glad we are in agreement!




And i want a good room and no placement restrictions because of furniture, the need to get to the terrace and so on 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Leeliemix said:


> And i want a good room and no placement restrictions because of furniture, the need to get to the terrace and so on
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



+1.


----------



## dvdwilly3

dvdwilly3 said:


> What you say may be true. For me, since I have been using Audyssey...since about 2008, Audyssey has always set my fronts and center speakers as Small with generally 40 or 60 hZ as the crossovers. And, that was with Klipsch, Def Tech, and GE Tech towers... And, in the same room...


You know after all that I could not leave well enough alone.  Looking at the response curve for the Triton 5...60 hz is falling and 40 hZ falls off the cliff...I went into Manual and changed them from Full Range to Small and set the x-overs to 60 hZ. I do like that better. And, I may try 80 hZ to compare. 

I still like the response curves better...less extreme...though now, I am not sure how much difference it really makes...


----------



## mogorf

dvdwilly3 said:


> You know after all that I could not leave well enough alone.  Looking at the response curve for the Triton 5...60 hz is falling and 40 hZ falls off the cliff...I went into Manual and changed them from Full Range to Small and set the x-overs to 60 hZ. I do like that better. And, I may try 80 hZ to compare.
> 
> I still like the response curves better...less extreme...though now, I am not sure how much difference it really makes...



In my opinion and experience you will not hear a significant audible difference between 60 Hz and 80 Hz crossover. The point is that a higher crossover will surely result in less strain put on your channel amplifiers especially when Master Volume is turned up pretty high. This means you are letting your sub(s) do the heavy weight lifting coz deep bass reproduction really needs a lot of power. Best when leaving this job to the sub(s).


----------



## guacamoleparty

*Audyssey quick adjust settings?*

Hi Everyone, I havent fully read through every post yet - but is there a way to quickly adjust Audyssey without diving into the settings menus? Like, if I wanted to adjust the Dynamic Volume etc. When I push 'Options' I just get all stereo and ch level adjust. The bottom sound modes dont seem to change Audyssey. Thanks!


----------



## blb1215

guacamoleparty said:


> Hi Everyone, I havent fully read through every post yet - but is there a way to quickly adjust Audyssey without diving into the settings menus? Like, if I wanted to adjust the Dynamic Volume etc. When I push 'Options' I just get all stereo and ch level adjust. The bottom sound modes dont seem to change Audyssey. Thanks!



You can make this change using Denon AVR app available. I am not sure all the adjustments that are available within the app off the top of my head but Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ are available. Sub level is also possible within app. It is a pretty useful app that has a lot of info and adjustments you can make on the fly.



One thing I really like is being able to make the changes without bring up on screen menus to distract from viewing especially if I want to make a change when watching TV with the wife!


Barry


----------



## OrdinaryClown

First, thnx all for the help. Im now happy with My setup and slot of the tips help. My ears feel no pain anymore.

Just for some tips and tricks from you guys.
When u setup the subwoofer volume/gain for movies, do you tune it in to some music and set the sub were it just blends with the music and have it like that for movies to or do you crank the sub up for movies?

Skickat från min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk


----------



## guacamoleparty

blb1215 said:


> One thing I really like is being able to make the changes without bring up on screen menus to distract from viewing especially if I want to make a change when watching TV with the wife!
> 
> Barry


This exactly! My wife doesnt mind, but she doesnt need to see my tweaking and fussing about! Super appreciate it!


----------



## pbarach

guacamoleparty said:


> Hi Everyone, I havent fully read through every post yet - but is there a way to quickly adjust Audyssey without diving into the settings menus? Like, if I wanted to adjust the Dynamic Volume etc. When I push 'Options' I just get all stereo and ch level adjust. The bottom sound modes dont seem to change Audyssey. Thanks!


I programmed some "soft keys" on my Harmony One remote to turn DynEQ and DynVol off or on. Nice to know that these settings are in the free Denon app as well.


----------



## AV-Moderation

pbarach said:


> I programmed some "soft keys" on my Harmony One remote to turn DynEQ and DynVol off or on. Nice to know that these settings are in the free Denon app as well.




That would be helpful. Didn’t see this Commands available on MyHarmony Elite using a Denon X6500. That would be a nice toggle option when I want full range or enable Dynamic Volume.


----------



## pbz06

I have free time today to mess around with my subwoofer. I have previously posted about a -10dB null around 35hz (where 30hz and 40hz are fine). After Audyssey XT32, it's about -5dB...I don't really notice it during movies, have plenty of nice clean/smooth bass and tactile response.

Anyway, I can move it around a bit more now but it will stay in the general same corner....how many inches/feet would I need to play with to try and remove that null? Is it even worth fussing about?


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> I have free time today to mess around with my subwoofer. I have previously posted about a -10dB null around 35hz (where 30hz and 40hz are fine). After Audyssey XT32, it's about -5dB...I don't really notice it during movies, have plenty of nice clean/smooth bass and tactile response.
> Anyway, I can move it around a bit more now but it will stay in the general same corner....how many inches/feet would I need to play with to try and remove that null? Is it even worth fussing about?



First thing I'd like to ask: was your result of having a -10 dB null around 35 Hz based on in-room measurements?


----------



## pbz06

mogorf said:


> First thing I'd like to ask: was your result of having a -10 dB null around 35 Hz based on in-room measurements?


I used my SPL meter only (not REW), after Audyssey. My meter is rated to 31.5hz and I fed it 35hz signal from tone generator and it confirms the approximate/estimated multieq app graphs. It's flat from about 40hz to 120hz.

One thing I noticed while testing just now, moving the subwoofer up to 2' didn't show any differences, but moving the mic a couple inches results in a flat graph for the sub....strange.


----------



## Alan P

pbz06 said:


> I used my SPL meter only (not REW), after Audyssey. My meter is rated to 31.5hz and I fed it 35hz signal from tone generator and it confirms the approximate/estimated multieq app graphs. It's flat from about 40hz to 120hz.


"C" weighted SPL meter?


----------



## pbz06

Alan P said:


> "C" weighted SPL meter?


Yup


----------



## pbarach

AV-Moderation said:


> That would be helpful. Didn’t see this Commands available on MyHarmony Elite using a Denon X6500. That would be a nice toggle option when I want full range or enable Dynamic Volume.


I am using the Logitech Harmony Remote Software to program my Harmony One. There are commands available to turn on and off Dyn EQ and DynVol. I think the Logitech web-based software offers fewer options, but I could be wrong...


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> I used my SPL meter only (not REW), after Audyssey. My meter is rated to 31.5hz and I fed it 35hz signal from tone generator and it confirms the approximate/estimated multieq app graphs. It's flat from about 40hz to 120hz.
> 
> One thing I noticed while testing just now, moving the subwoofer up to 2' didn't show any differences, but moving the mic a couple inches results in a flat graph for the sub....strange.



Nothing strange here coz you are doing single-point measurement in space with your SPL meter. Audyssey takes 6-8 measurements and combines them with their algorithm. You could get closer to reality by using REW and averaging the multi-point measurements. 



Just a thought.


----------



## David Aiken

pbz06 said:


> I have free time today to mess around with my subwoofer. I have previously posted about a -10dB null around 35hz (where 30hz and 40hz are fine). After Audyssey XT32, it's about -5dB...I don't really notice it during movies, have plenty of nice clean/smooth bass and tactile response.
> 
> Anyway, I can move it around a bit more now but it will stay in the general same corner....how many inches/feet would I need to play with to try and remove that null? Is it even worth fussing about?


Peaks are usually more noticeable than nulls for a few reasons. One is simply that we seem to be more sensitive to peaks than to nulls but peaks are noticeable in 2 ways. First they can sound louder than sounds at other frequencies and second because the decay of the sound at a peak frequency takes longer than the decay of sound at other frequencies and that longer decay can audibly "muddy" the sound of the bass, making it appear to drag. On the other hand nulls are simply not noticeable unless there's actually a sound at that frequency which you expect to hear but don't hear. With music recordings you could have a deep null at a frequency which isn't a musical note and never notice the null because you never played anything at that frequency. Soundtracks to movies and TV shows are different because there's lots of sounds such as explosions, engines, etc which include frequencies which don't coincide with musical notes so if the null is at a frequency not associated with a musical note then there is a chance of noticing it when listening to non-musical sounds in a soundtrack. In the end, nulls are far less noticeable than peaks which is good because you can't fix a null by increasing the level of that frequency, the increase in power you throw at that frequency suffers the same cancellation problems that the frequency is getting from the room and your amp will run out of power before you manage to cancel the null.




pbz06 said:


> I used my SPL meter only (not REW), after Audyssey. My meter is rated to 31.5hz and I fed it 35hz signal from tone generator and it confirms the approximate/estimated multieq app graphs. It's flat from about 40hz to 120hz.
> 
> One thing I noticed while testing just now, moving the subwoofer up to 2' didn't show any differences, but moving the mic a couple inches results in a flat graph for the sub....strange.



Not strange. Walk around your room while your sub is playing a constant sound, say a 40 Hz tone, and watch your sound meter response, it will vary up and down. There are areas in a room which are high pressure zones and areas which are low pressure zones. The meter will show a higher level in a high pressure zone than it does in a low pressure zone. Room corners, for example, are high pressure zones so you will almost certainly see a difference in level between the level you measure at the listening position and the level you measure in a corner. If you move the sub you don't change the location of the high and low pressure zones in your room, they're determined by the room's shape and size, so depending on the distance you were from the sub when you were making measurements you may well not see a change in level when you move the sub 2' but don't move the mic. On the other hand, when you move the mic you're moving it in what is essentially a pressure gradient and if you move it from a low pressure zone where the null is occurring into a higher pressure area where the null is absent then you will get a flatter result even though you didn't move the sub. Sometimes small changes in mic position can make a big difference and what that also means is that small changes in your listening position can make a difference so if you're having a problem getting enough bass, one of the things you can always consider is moving the listening position backwards or forwards a little. That can sometimes solve the problem.

BTW, pressure in the room is distributed in 3 dimensions so moving the mic up and down can result in differences in reading just as moving it forwards/backwards and left/right results in differences. That's why calibration measurements are made at ear height in the listening area, the level can change at heights above and below your ear level.


----------



## Overrid3

Really basic question, but do you guys boost your center channel at all from where Audyssey sets it? I checked my speakers post-cal with an SPL meter, and they were pretty balanced. I added +1 dB to my center just to make sure dialogue has a slight edge.


----------



## bluesky636

Overrid3 said:


> Really basic question, but do you guys boost your center channel at all from where Audyssey sets it? I checked my speakers post-cal with an SPL meter, and they were pretty balanced. I added +1 dB to my center just to make sure dialogue has a slight edge.


I don't. 1 dB is a pretty small change.


----------



## pbz06

Overrid3 said:


> Really basic question, but do you guys boost your center channel at all from where Audyssey sets it? I checked my speakers post-cal with an SPL meter, and they were pretty balanced. I added +1 dB to my center just to make sure dialogue has a slight edge.


I just make sure they're balanced when I double check the Audyssey results with external test tones. I don't add anything extra, but I know some people do. I just doubt it really make an audible difference.


----------



## Overrid3

pbz06 said:


> I just make sure they're balanced when I double check the Audyssey results with external test tones. I don't add anything extra, but I know some people do. I just doubt it really make an audible difference.



Yeah, probably not much of a difference. The one main speaker was fluctuating between 2 readings, so I just bumped up the center a tad. They actually read 76 or 77 dB, but maybe that's just a discrepancy between my radio shack meter and the Audyssey mic? At any rate, things sound good  I've read in some other threads what people like to boost their centers a bit to make sure the dialogue is clear.


----------



## Leeliemix

I like to bump the center 1.5dB, it makes it easier to hear dialogue. Especially at my very low level TV/Netflix watching. (-40dB on the volume display isnt uncommon)
I also reduce surrounds around 1-2dB but thats for movie watching, i rarely turn on the surrounds amp for most TV/netflix watching.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

Overrid3 said:


> Yeah, probably not much of a difference. The one main speaker was fluctuating between 2 readings, so I just bumped up the center a tad. They actually read 76 or 77 dB, but maybe that's just a discrepancy between my radio shack meter and the Audyssey mic? At any rate, things sound good  I've read in some other threads what people like to boost their centers a bit to make sure the dialogue is clear.




Coincidently i used my RS meter also just to see. Read at 77db aswell. Not sure if anyone else does but i boost the source level input for all my sources . Everything including dialog is very clear..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

rocky1 said:


> Coincidently i used my RS meter also just to see. Read at 77db aswell. Not sure if anyone else does but i boost the source level input for all my sources . Everything including dialog is very clear..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I think it is more convenient to leave the source levels untouched and use the Master Volume knob. Boosting source levels will surely throw-off DEQ. Just a thought!


----------



## mogorf

Leeliemix said:


> I like to bump the center 1.5dB, it makes it easier to hear dialogue. Especially at my very low level TV/Netflix watching. (-40dB on the volume display isnt uncommon)
> I also reduce surrounds around 1-2dB but thats for movie watching, i rarely turn on the surrounds amp for most TV/netflix watching.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I think everything should start from proper center speaker placement. Basic guidelines are as follows:


1. Make sure center speaker is on-axis with seated ear height. Every speaker delivers not only its highest SPL, but also its widest frequency range on-axis. 

2. Make sure to nudge center speaker about and inch or so off the shelf/cabinet. This will help tame so-called early reflections helping to improve dialog intelligibility.
3. If you have a coffee table in front of you make sure to put some textile on it, especially if it has a glass top. This is another treatment to tame reflections of the table top in the mid to high frequency range.


When all above is done its time to run Audyssey MultEQ. Hope this helps!


----------



## Leeliemix

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



mogorf said:


> I think everything should start from proper center speaker placement. Basic guidelines are as follows:
> 
> 
> 1. Make sure center speaker is on-axis with seated ear height. Every speaker delivers not only its highest SPL, but also its widest frequency range on-axis.
> 
> 2. Make sure to nudge center speaker about and inch or so off the shelf/cabinet. This will help tame so-called early reflections helping to improve dialog intelligibility.
> 3. If you have a coffee table in front of you make sure to put some textile on it, especially if it has a glass top. This is another treatment to tame reflections of the table top in the mid to high frequency range.
> 
> 
> When all above is done its time to run Audyssey MultEQ. Hope this helps!




I have it quite well set up, good gear and room is not loud at all, the slight volume increase is for normal watching to focus slightly on voices instead of effects from the main speakers so i can keep the volume pretty low. At -40dB people drown out the speakers while speaking very softly but at times i need it very low and im not bothering to change for perfection all the time. Audyssey is turned off, it gives me almost a headache even when set up very well. Im just so used to the room and how things sound here that the changes audyssey make are demanding on the brain causing fatigue. 
The settings are all intentional, what i do need to get done is move two of the subs off the sub stack and place elsewhere to even out the bass a little more, hopefully ill get that done soon 

Edit: forgot to mention that the advice is good and a lot of people should tweak the placement and room but i have already done all these.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

mogorf said:


> I think it is more convenient to leave the source levels untouched and use the Master Volume knob. Boosting source levels will surely throw-off DEQ. Just a thought!




Wasnt aware of this. Out of town now but when i get back ill set all back to 0. Dont want to mess things up. Didnt notice it did though.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

This is for all my friends here at this forum. I cordially invite you to click on the "Audyssey quotes" in my sig that I have collected throughout the years containing a myriad of information on in-depths of Audyssey mainly discussed by members with Chris Kyriakakis/author of Audyssey while he was also a member here and again at FB Audyssey Tech Talk. 

Should you be interested to read through all the Q&As I'm sure it will keep you busy for quite a bit of time. Valuable time, indeed.


Best of luck to all.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> I think it is more convenient to leave the source levels untouched and use the Master Volume knob. Boosting source levels will surely throw-off DEQ. Just a thought!





rocky1 said:


> Wasnt aware of this. Out of town now but when i get back ill set all back to 0. Dont want to mess things up. Didnt notice it did though..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


IMO, adjusting the source level on "non-Reference" sources (i.e. _not _your blu ray player) is perfectly fine. Bringing the level of these sources up/down so that they are more in-line with the Reference sources should (in theory) actually make DEQ work better.

My 2 cents.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> IMO, adjusting the source level on "non-Reference" sources (i.e. _not _your blu ray player) is perfectly fine. Bringing the level of these sources up/down so that they are more in-line with the Reference sources should (in theory) actually make DEQ work better.
> 
> My 2 cents.



Alan, you may be right, but let's thing about it bit more. What are "non-Reference" sources? IMHO they are basically music recordings, aren't they? With playback levels all over the map! How tedious it would be to adjust source level each and every time one would listen to such recordings!!!


In my case I use Foobar for music and apply a "Replay gain" adjustment that puts a tag (metadata) into the bitstream where I can even out the level of the source itself without the need to continuously readjust source level on the AVR.


My 2 c.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Alan, you may be right, but let's thing about it bit more. What are "non-Reference" sources? IMHO they are basically music recordings, aren't they? With playback levels all over the map! How tedious it would be to adjust source level each and every time one would listen to such recordings!!!
> 
> 
> In my case I use Foobar for music and apply a "Replay gain" adjustment that puts a tag (metadata) into the bitstream where I can even out the level of the source itself without the need to continuously readjust source level on the AVR.
> 
> 
> My 2 c.


I agree Feri, using Replay Gain on music is the way to go...but most are unwilling to go through that process.

By "non-Reference" sources, I did not just mean music...there is cable TV, OTA TV and streaming services as well. If you have, say, a streaming box that you notice is much quieter than your blu ray player, I see no issue in bringing up the source level so that the _average_ SPL more mimics blu ray. Of course, the different streaming services and TV stations can vary in level, and individual content can vary as well....it's all kind of a crapshoot once you get away from blu ray.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> I agree Feri, using Replay Gain on music is the way to go...but most are unwilling to go through that process.
> 
> By "non-Reference" sources, I did not just mean music...there is cable TV, OTA TV and streaming services as well. If you have, say, a streaming box that you notice is much quieter than your blu ray player, I see no issue in bringing up the source level so that the _average_ SPL more mimics blu ray. Of course, the different streaming services and TV stations can vary in level, and individual content can vary as well....it's all kind of a crapshoot once you get away from blu ray.



You nailed it Alan. Fully agree! Like your description of "crapshoot"!


----------



## garygarrison

Overrid3 said:


> Really basic question, but do you guys boost your center channel at all from where Audyssey sets it? I checked my speakers post-cal with an SPL meter, and they were pretty balanced. I added +1 dB to my center just to make sure dialogue has a slight edge.





For most films, I have the center up 1 to 2 dB
For thick accents of any kind, especially Cockney and Irish, it's more like 2 to 3 dB.
For the British version of _*Trainspotting*_, forget the whole thing.
For films with dialog problems I make sure I'm using Audyssey Flat, *not* Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey, which has a roll off in the treble above about 7K, veiling enunciation). Audyssey Flat emphasizes clarity carrying phonemes. My very first Hi Fi book (in the 1960s) had a section on reproduction of speech, breaking the auditory spectrum down into sections. I was particularly interested in the range above about 1K ranging up to 10K labeled "fricative consonants").
 IMO, film people used to be a lot more careful in recording and mixing dialog. We run both old and new films, about 1 old one for every 10 new ones, and we see 3 or 4 films per week. Even though recording technology has improved magnificently in the last 3 or 4 decades, the older movies still have the clearest dialog. Yet the music in the newer films is of the highest fidelity in film history. My center channel has the same drivers as the LF & RF, and is very clear. For the following OLD films, the dialog is crystal clear, and my wife and I -- with our old ears -- could understand _*every*_ word*:* _*The Searchers, Citizen Kane, The Misfits, The African Queen, Vertigo, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, (1959), Around the World in 80 Days (1956),*__* How the West West Was Won*_and many more!


Now, someone might say that these were optical soundtracks, which rolled off at just about the same place that Audyssey Reference does (or even lower). But all of the above films except for *Citizen Kane* would have had their original elements (dialog, effects, music) recorded on synchronized 35mm full coat magnetic film (or 16mm mag film to save costs), then mixed and dubbed over to optical only for release prints. In most cases, where possible, the Blu-rays of these old films use the original magnetic elements, and *Lawrence*, *Ben-Hur*, *80 Days*, and *HTWWW* were magnetic all the way. Care was taken.


----------



## hawkster27

*Subwoofer boost*

I have an old but reliable self-powered Klipsch RSW-12 subwoofer and a Marantz 8805 pre/pro. After running Audyssey, I like some more oomph in the bass. I can achieve this by turning up the volume on the RSW (it's only at about 30% when the levels are matched) or bumping up the sub level on the 8805 (this gives me a maximum increase of +12 db according to the scale). Is one method more desirable than another?


----------



## Leeliemix

hawkster27 said:


> I have an old but reliable self-powered Klipsch RSW-12 subwoofer and a Marantz 8805 pre/pro. After running Audyssey, I like some more oomph in the bass. I can achieve this by turning up the volume on the RSW (it's only at about 30% when the levels are matched) or bumping up the sub level on the 8805 (this gives me a maximum increase of +12 db according to the scale). Is one method more desirable than another?




Doing it in the 8805 will make it easier to get back to the way it is now and not get lost, but other than that it doesnt matter.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

hawkster27 said:


> I have an old but reliable self-powered Klipsch RSW-12 subwoofer and a Marantz 8805 pre/pro. After running Audyssey, I like some more oomph in the bass. I can achieve this by turning up the volume on the RSW (it's only at about 30% when the levels are matched) or bumping up the sub level on the 8805 (this gives me a maximum increase of +12 db according to the scale). Is one method more desirable than another?





Leeliemix said:


> Doing it in the 8805 will make it easier to get back to the way it is now and not get lost, but other than that it doesnt matter.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Actually, it _does _matter. 

See this section of mthomas47's awesome Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences:
Where And How To Add Bass


----------



## Leeliemix

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



Alan P said:


> Actually, it _does _matter.
> 
> 
> 
> See this section of mthomas47's awesome Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences:
> 
> Where And How To Add Bass




I have read that one a while ago but the 8805 have very good outputs so unlikly to clip even if hes going nuts with +12 which i assume he probably wont do. That aside the linked guide is very good and should be read before setting up a system.

Edit: removed the edit

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## metec

Wondering if someone can assist with mic placement. I've read conflicting information regarding placement of mic where the headrest or top of the seat is higher than ear level. I have an open living room that is combined with the kitchen and the LCR speakers are in a corner (unfortunately, the only spot available due to doors, balcony, etc). My MLP is about 10' away from the center (toward the middle of the room with no walls behind it). The couch headrest is about 5" higher than my ear level. Would it be recommended to

A) raise the mic so that it clears the top (for all positions) or 
B) place it at ear level and then raise it > 5" for position 7 & 8 or 
C) keep mic at ear level and only raise 2-3" for position 7 & 8 (still keeping below top of headrest)?

It seems that in my room, only slight variation in mic position completely changes the way Audyssey sounds. The distance it measures is very accurate each time. However, it seems that I either get results that sound very dynamic (sound effects, crashes, explosions sound great) but dialogue is hard to understand or the dialogue is great but everything else sounds slightly muted. I don't use DynamicEQ because although bass sounds good, every thing else sounds very compressed (while turned off and Flat make the dialogue sound best).

On my last attempt, I forgot to turn off my bass shaker and it appears to have screwed up the subwoofer adjustment (which is a shame because dialogue other than the bass, everything else sounds great). Thanks!


----------



## senzaparole

Hi guys? if I write the calibration results, does anyone help me to understand if I did everything right?


----------



## mogorf

senzaparole said:


> Hi guys? if I write the calibration results, does anyone help me to understand if I did everything right?



Please feel free to share your calibration results. You'll be served here faster than you ever expected!


----------



## senzaparole

I own 3 XTZ Cinema M6, 2 XTZ Spirit 2 and a subwoofer 10.17 EDGE.
I did the calibration with the Audyssey XT32 del Denon X3500H.

Before starting the calibration I made the following settings:

1. subwoofer:
- low pass FREQ: 170 hz;
- PHASE: O °;
- GAIN: 12 noon;
- EQ PARAMETERS: OFF;
- LOW PASS: OFF;
- EQ: REF;
- POWER: always on;

2. denon x3500h:
- SUBWOOFER MODE: LFE + MAIN;
- LPF for LTE: 120 hz;
- front, central and surround speakers: SMALL.

3. I connected an RCA cable to the LINE IN "LEFT" input of the subwoofer and to the PRE OUT input (Subwoofer 1) of the Denon.

After setting the parameters mentioned above I started the automatic calibration of Audyssey XT32.
At the end of the automatic calibration I detected the following values:
- audyssey MultiEQXT32: on;
- audyssey Dynamic EQ: on;
- audyssey Dynamic Volume: off.


Speaker crossover:
- front: 40hz
- central: 40hz
- surround: 80hz

GAIN of the subwoofer: 9 am

levels:
- Front L: -1.5db
- Front R: -1.5db
- Central: -1.0db
- Surround R: 0.0db
- Surround L: -0.5db
- subwoofer: -0.5db

Speaker distances:
- Front L: 2.67 meters
- Front R: 2.58 meters
- Central: 2.46 meters
- subwoofer: 7.41 meters
- Surround L: 1.56 meters
- Surround R: 1.41 meters.

I accepted all the automatic calibration settings except for the crossover frequencies: I set all the speakers (excluding the subwoofer) to 80 hz.
Did I do everything correctly?


----------



## mogorf

senzaparole said:


> I own 3 XTZ Cinema M6, 2 XTZ Spirit 2 and a subwoofer 10.17 EDGE.
> I did the calibration with the Audyssey XT32 del Denon X3500H.
> 
> Before starting the calibration I made the following settings:
> 
> 1. subwoofer:
> - low pass FREQ: 170 hz;
> - PHASE: O °;
> - GAIN: 12 noon;
> - EQ PARAMETERS: OFF;
> - LOW PASS: OFF;
> - EQ: REF;
> - POWER: always on;
> 
> 2. denon x3500h:
> - SUBWOOFER MODE: LFE + MAIN;
> - LPF for LTE: 120 hz;
> - front, central and surround speakers: SMALL.
> 
> 3. I connected an RCA cable to the LINE IN "LEFT" input of the subwoofer and to the PRE OUT input (Subwoofer 1) of the Denon.
> 
> After setting the parameters mentioned above I started the automatic calibration of Audyssey XT32.
> At the end of the automatic calibration I detected the following values:
> - audyssey MultiEQXT32: on;
> - audyssey Dynamic EQ: on;
> - audyssey Dynamic Volume: off.
> 
> 
> Speaker crossover:
> - front: 40hz
> - central: 40hz
> - surround: 80hz
> 
> GAIN of the subwoofer: 9 am
> 
> levels:
> - Front L: -1.5db
> - Front R: -1.5db
> - Central: -1.0db
> - Surround R: 0.0db
> - Surround L: -0.5db
> - subwoofer: -0.5db
> 
> Speaker distances:
> - Front L: 2.67 meters
> - Front R: 2.58 meters
> - Central: 2.46 meters
> - subwoofer: 7.41 meters
> - Surround L: 1.56 meters
> - Surround R: 1.41 meters.
> 
> I accepted all the automatic calibration settings except for the crossover frequencies: I set all the speakers (excluding the subwoofer) to 80 hz.
> Did I do everything correctly?



To me it look absolutely OK for all speakers. 

As regard the sub, the -0.5 dB seems a tad bit too high. General consensus is to have the sub level somewhere in the mid negatives, but not lower than -11 dB.

For best results you may rerun Audyssey calibration with the sub GAIN set to "noon" (12 am). That will surely result in a lower level trim. The importance of this setting is that you will be able to boost a couple of dBs on the sub to taste once you feel the need to have a little more extra bass (we all have that particular feeling!) and won't need to worry about saturation in the subwoofer chain causing distortion.

Other members will surely chime-in with their expert advice, so please stay tuned for the next message.

Wish you good luck with your setup. 

P.s.: You've got a very nice system with the Denon X3500H and your speaker choice! XT32 rocks!


----------



## senzaparole

thanks.

I read that maybe it's better to set the subwoofer mode to LFE instead of LFE + MAIN because all the speakers are set to SMALL.


----------



## grassy

Just a quick question guys if I may. I have recently added sound absorption to my walls in my dedicated home theatre and was wondering if I need to re run audyssey pro or just keep my old settings. The sound absorption consists of the whole room except ceilings.Thankyou.


----------



## Leeliemix

grassy said:


> Just a quick question guys if I may. I have recently added sound absorption to my walls in my dedicated home theatre and was wondering if I need to re run audyssey pro or just keep my old settings. The sound absorption consists of the whole room except ceilings.Thankyou.




Re run, always re run when changing something significant and often when not so significant.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## senzaparole

mogorf said:


> To me it look absolutely OK for all speakers.
> 
> As regard the sub, the -0.5 dB seems a tad bit too high. General consensus is to have the sub level somewhere in the mid negatives, but not lower than -11 dB.
> 
> For best results you may rerun Audyssey calibration with the sub GAIN set to "noon" (12 am). That will surely result in a lower level trim. The importance of this setting is that you will be able to boost a couple of dBs on the sub to taste once you feel the need to have a little more extra bass (we all have that particular feeling!) and won't need to worry about saturation in the subwoofer chain causing distortion.
> 
> Other members will surely chime-in with their expert advice, so please stay tuned for the next message.
> 
> Wish you good luck with your setup.
> 
> P.s.: You've got a very nice system with the Denon X3500H and your speaker choice! XT32 rocks!


Hi thanks for the appreciation.

Are you sure the subwoofer level is too high? I had the subwoofer level at -3db but Xtz wrote to me that it is preferable that the subwoofer has a level between 0 and + 3db. Who's right?

I write to you the advice of Xtz:


_If it has set it to negative value, ie. -6 dB or similar, the signal to the subwoofer is probably too weak to trigger it. Then you can lower the gain on the bit subwoofer, run the calibration again. Repeat lowering the gain until the value for the subwoofer output level is 0 dB or even up to +3 dB. This way, the receiver will be able to react.

Coming to the subwoofer is just a multiplier for the signal coming in. I know if you have lower gain on the subwoofer, but stronger signal from the subwoofer. I know you don't lose any power by lowering the gain, as long as you adjust the low level signal coming from the receiver.
_


----------



## grassy

Leeliemix said:


> Re run, always re run when changing something significant and often when not so significant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


 Thanks mate, will rerun and see what comes of it.


----------



## mogorf

senzaparole said:


> Hi thanks for the appreciation.
> 
> Are you sure the subwoofer level is too high? I had the subwoofer level at -3db but Xtz wrote to me that it is preferable that the subwoofer has a level between 0 and + 3db. Who's right?
> 
> I write to you the advice of Xtz:
> 
> 
> _If it has set it to negative value, ie. -6 dB or similar, the signal to the subwoofer is probably too weak to trigger it. Then you can lower the gain on the bit subwoofer, run the calibration again. Repeat lowering the gain until the value for the subwoofer output level is 0 dB or even up to +3 dB. This way, the receiver will be able to react.
> 
> Coming to the subwoofer is just a multiplier for the signal coming in. I know if you have lower gain on the subwoofer, but stronger signal from the subwoofer. I know you don't lose any power by lowering the gain, as long as you adjust the low level signal coming from the receiver.
> _



OK, I get it from Xtz. Actually they are taking about subs that have an "auto wake up" feature. This means the sub will stay off below a certain level and kick-in (auto-turn-on) when the input level reaches that triggering point. My Dali sub has the same, but it can be disabled with an on/off switch on the rear side of the sub. 

I don't want my sub to turn off when Master Volume is set so low that the sub if defeated, so I keep that feature out of site, my sub always stays "awake" even at the lowest MV setting, like for example when I have guests and I play a little background music for my friends at say -50 dB and the bass still remains intact!

Hope this helps!


----------



## jamesyates

Hi All,

I have a question that have been wondering why this occurs and if it is correct.

When I run auto eq Audyssey sets 20hz 6db 30hz 5db 40hz 4dp plus. The room is not near dead and this occurs with or without treatments. In rew the room measures relatively flat from 300hz.

Any ideas why and is this correct? I am using Kef q900, marantz av7702mk2 and monolith 7x amp.


----------



## Alan P

senzaparole said:


> thanks.
> 
> I read that maybe it's better to set the subwoofer mode to LFE instead of LFE + MAIN because all the speakers are set to SMALL.


When speakers are set to Small, there is literally no difference between LFE and LFE+MAIN. LFE+MAIN only takes effect if the FL/FR speakers are set to Large.


----------



## Alan P

jamesyates said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have a question that have been wondering why this occurs and if it is correct.
> 
> When I run auto eq Audyssey sets 20hz 6db 30hz 5db 40hz 4dp plus. The room is not near dead and this occurs with or without treatments. In rew the room measures relatively flat from 300hz.
> 
> Any ideas why and is this correct? I am using Kef q900, marantz av7702mk2 and monolith 7x amp.


Can you show us your measurements with/without Audyssey?


----------



## senzaparole

mogorf said:


> OK, I get it from Xtz. Actually they are taking about subs that have an "auto wake up" feature. This means the sub will stay off below a certain level and kick-in (auto-turn-on) when the input level reaches that triggering point. My Dali sub has the same, but it can be disabled with an on/off switch on the rear side of the sub.
> 
> I don't want my sub to turn off when Master Volume is set so low that the sub if defeated, so I keep that feature out of site, my sub always stays "awake" even at the lowest MV setting, like for example when I have guests and I play a little background music for my friends at say -50 dB and the bass still remains intact!
> 
> Hope this helps!


1. So I set the gain of the subwoofer so as to get the level of about 0 dB at the end of the calibration?

2. Should I use the two sponges I found in the two holes of the subwoofer?

3. audyssey Dynamic EQ: is it better to set On or OFF?


----------



## mogorf

senzaparole said:


> 1. So I set the gain of the subwoofer so as to get the level of about 0 dB at the end of the calibration?
> 
> 2. Should I use the two sponges I found in the two holes of the subwoofer?
> 
> 3. audyssey Dynamic EQ: is it better to set On or OFF?



1. Nope. You should set the gain of the sub to get a level between -6 dB to -11 dB at the end of the calibration.


2. Actually you have four choices: no port plug, left port plug, right port plug and both port plug. Only you can decide which sounds best in your specific room. Try to experiment, then run Audyssey calibration program.


3. DynamicEQ is a tool to compensate the human ear's characteristics as the Master Volume is turned down. At 0 dB MV we hear the full frequency range, but as soon as we start to turn down the Master Volume our ears start to loose sensitivity to bass and treble. DynamicEQ keeps the percived frequency range constant. Turn down MV to say -20 dB and turn DynamicEQ on and off and listen carefully. Decision is again in your hands.


----------



## senzaparole

mogorf said:


> 1. Nope. You should set the gain of the sub to get a level between -6 dB to -11 dB at the end of the calibration.



Excuse me. I'm confused. 
The producer writes to me that the level of the subwoofer should be between 0db and + 3db.
Instead you write to me that the level of the subwoofer must be between -6db and -11db.
Are you absolutely certain of what you wrote to me?


----------



## Leeliemix

senzaparole said:


> Excuse me. I'm confused.
> 
> The producer writes to me that the level of the subwoofer should be between 0db and + 3db.
> 
> Instead you write to me that the level of the subwoofer must be between -6db and -11db.
> 
> Are you absolutely certain of what you wrote to me?




A low starting point gives less chance of pre outs clipping which can be a problem on some AVRs while many subs can have difficulties turning on with the same low sub out signal. Also a lot of people, if not most, turn the sub level up 3 to 6dB(some even more) which if sub out is at +3 already increases the chance of output clipping. Some subs cant achieve full power with a very low input signal.

As you can see there are many considerations and in the end it depends on your equipment and use whats best for you. 
If you want a middle ground -5dB can be good at calibration if you increase a little after. -unless sub auto wake is slow, then start a little higher.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Leeliemix said:


> A low starting point gives less chance of pre outs clipping which can be a problem on some AVRs while many subs can have difficulties turning on with the same low sub out signal. Also a lot of people, if not most, turn the sub level up 3 to 6dB(some even more) which if sub out is at +3 already increases the chance of output clipping. Some subs cant achieve full power with a very low input signal.
> 
> As you can see there are many considerations and in the end it depends on your equipment and use whats best for you.
> If you want a middle ground -5dB can be good at calibration if you increase a little after. -unless sub auto wake is slow, then start a little higher.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


For 11 years I set my sub trim at -3 dB on my Onkyo 706 with MultEq. I now set the sub the same way with my Denon 3500 with MultEq XT32. No problems at all with those settings.


----------



## senzaparole

bluesky636 said:


> For 11 years I set my sub trim at -3 dB on my Onkyo 706 with MultEq. I now set the sub the same way with my Denon 3500 with MultEq XT32. No problems at all with those settings.



During calibration did you turn the gain of the subwoofer to get a level of -3db at the end of the calibration?

XTZ wrote to me that a level too low does not activate the subwoofer:

_If it has set it to negative value, ie. -6 dB or similar, the signal to the subwoofer is probably too weak to trigger it. Then you can lower the gain on the bit subwoofer, run the calibration again. Repeat lowering the gain until the value for the subwoofer output level is 0 dB or even up to +3 dB. This way, the receiver will be able to react._


----------



## bluesky636

senzaparole said:


> During calibration did you turn the gain of the subwoofer to get a level of -3db at the end of the calibration?
> 
> XTZ wrote to me that a level too low does not activate the subwoofer:
> 
> _If it has set it to negative value, ie. -6 dB or similar, the signal to the subwoofer is probably too weak to trigger it. Then you can lower the gain on the bit subwoofer, run the calibration again. Repeat lowering the gain until the value for the subwoofer output level is 0 dB or even up to +3 dB. This way, the receiver will be able to react._


The sub volume control was set to 9:00 o'clock prior to calibration. The resulting Audyssey trim level is -3 dB. I have had the sub for a number of years and know pretty well what sub settings are required to obtain my desired Audyssey trim levels. I don't use the auto on function for the sub. It is on all the time unless we go away, then I turn it off.


----------



## Alan P

senzaparole said:


> Excuse me. I'm confused.
> The producer writes to me that the level of the subwoofer should be between 0db and + 3db.
> Instead you write to me that the level of the subwoofer must be between -6db and -11db.
> Are you absolutely certain of what you wrote to me?


Please see this section of mthomas47's Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences (linked in my sig) for an explanation of why you want to keep sub trims well below 0dB:

Master Volume Levels And Sub Boosts


If you want to learn even more about subwoofer calibration (and many other HT topics), click the link in my sig for the full guide.


----------



## mthomas47

senzaparole said:


> During calibration did you turn the gain of the subwoofer to get a level of -3db at the end of the calibration?
> 
> XTZ wrote to me that a level too low does not activate the subwoofer:
> 
> _If it has set it to negative value, ie. -6 dB or similar, the signal to the subwoofer is probably too weak to trigger it. Then you can lower the gain on the bit subwoofer, run the calibration again. Repeat lowering the gain until the value for the subwoofer output level is 0 dB or even up to +3 dB. This way, the receiver will be able to react._



Hi,

Several others, including both Feri and Alan, have already addressed this issue. But, let me add that I believe you are overthinking this. You do not need to follow XTZ's specific recommendation for the trim level unless you actually are having a problem with the subwoofer coming on from Auto mode, with a lower trim level. You will surely be able to tell whether the sub comes on or not, and you can adjust the trim up and down to test it as much as you like.

The best practice recommendations in the Guide are somewhat generic, without the advantage of knowing what specific subwoofer/AVR combination you have. And XTZ's recommendation is also generic. For instance, it would be much more applicable to older generations of Yamaha AVR's, which sent a lower-voltage signal to the subwoofer unless the trim level were high, rather than to Denon/Marantz AVR's.

As explained in the Guide section that Alan linked for you, there are actually two reasons why individuals may be better off using higher subwoofer gain settings, and correspondingly lower AVR trim settings. The first reason involves the possibility of the subwoofer clipping at higher trim levels when they are combined with louder overall master volume levels. 

The second reason involves the fact that not all subwoofers can achieve max volume levels unless the gain is set relatively high. That sometimes varies with subwoofer models, even within specific subwoofer brands. The best practice guidelines are merely intended to provide general guidance to avoid those two potential issues. But, individuals are always perfectly free to experiment for themselves, and to decide for themselves what specific advice is directly applicable to their situations.

I'm writing this for others who may be reading along, as much as I am for your specific situation. Rather than overthinking it, I recommend that you just discover for yourself at what AVR trim setting your subwoofer will reliably turn-on from Auto mode. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: Noticing your other question, I should add that the port plugs change the tuning point of your ported subwoofer. I assume from your statement about having two foam plugs that you have a 17 Series subwoofer. 

If you are plugging a port, the one you choose to plug will affect the frequency response of your subwoofer, as will plugging both ports. As Feri said, you will have to decide for yourself which mode you prefer. The one port plugged mode will give you the deepest extension, and the most SPL below 20Hz. XTZ explains what the different port tunes do on their website, and they include frequency response graphs for the different options which are available to you. 

It may be important that you change the setting on the subwoofer's plate amp to correspond to the new tuning point you are trying. You have the option of EQ1 and EQ2. The digital signal processing (DSP) in the subwoofer is intended to correspond to the various plug configurations, and you have quite a bit of user adjustability. You should rerun Audyssey if you change the tuning point on your sub.

In my opinion, this issue of port configuration is actually much more significant, with respect to your overall bass, than the issue of gain/trim setting. This is where I would spend some of my time reading the XTZ website, and then experimenting to discover what combination of port plug and DSP sounds best to you.


----------



## exm

Is there a thread to discuss/post Audyssey MultiEq Editor App results, and get some recommendations? I have a hard time figuring out what to tweak, including turning midrange compensation on or off. Thanks!


----------



## guacamoleparty

I apologize if this is in the wrong area, but before I run Audyssey again (and my wife kills me), regarding the center channel placement - I currently have it to the edge of my media cabinet but the L and R speakers are a bit further back - i would say the front of the L and R are about 7 inches further back. Would this cause a problem? Should they all be IN line if viewed from the side and thusly the LR closer to my seating position? Thank you in advanced!


----------



## drh3b

exm said:


> Is there a thread to discuss/post Audyssey MultiEq Editor App results, and get some recommendations? I have a hard time figuring out what to tweak, including turning midrange compensation on or off. Thanks!


There is a general Audyssey MultiEq Editor App thread, and they do discuss these type of things.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...tz-av-receivers-pre-pros-28.html#post56565524


----------



## drh3b

guacamoleparty said:


> I apologize if this is in the wrong area, but before I run Audyssey again (and my wife kills me), regarding the center channel placement - I currently have it to the edge of my media cabinet but the L and R speakers are a bit further back - i would say the front of the L and R are about 7 inches further back. Would this cause a problem? Should they all be IN line if viewed from the side and thusly the LR closer to my seating position? Thank you in advanced!


You'll be fine, the calibration will adjust for the different distances. As far as the center speaker placement, that should be good, as well, or even hang it over the edge, but having it at the edge should stop any potential reflection issues with the cabinet.


----------



## mthomas47

guacamoleparty said:


> I apologize if this is in the wrong area, but before I run Audyssey again (and my wife kills me), regarding the center channel placement - I currently have it to the edge of my media cabinet but the L and R speakers are a bit further back - i would say the front of the L and R are about 7 inches further back. Would this cause a problem? Should they all be IN line if viewed from the side and thusly the LR closer to my seating position? Thank you in advanced!



Hi,

Having the center channel at the front edge of the cabinet is helpful to avoid comb filtering (distortion) created by the bottom or sides of a shelf. If the left and right speakers are floor-standing, or on independent stands, there is no reason to have them exactly in-line with the CC. Audyssey will set different distances for the speakers to compensate for the difference in arrival time of the sound, and your ears could never pick-up the 7" difference in any case.

If, however, the L and R speaker are also sitting on that cabinet, and are 7" back from the edge, then it might be worthwhile to try moving them forward. Vertical speakers are not as susceptible to reflections from a shelf as a horizontal speaker, such as a center channel, would be. (It's mainly the mid-range and treble frequencies that will be reflecting from a shelf. And the drivers that play those frequencies are usually higher in the cabinet than they would be with a horizontal center channel.) But, you may still get slightly better sound quality/clarity if they are moved forward a bit, so that they aren't reflecting off the shelf as much. 

I sympathize with your wife. Listening to repetitive Audyssey calibrations isn't a lot of fun. But, if you do move the speakers, you will need to rerun Audyssey. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## guacamoleparty

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Having the center channel at the front edge of the cabinet is helpful to avoid comb filtering (distortion) created by the bottom or sides of a shelf. If the left and right speakers are floor-standing, or on independent stands, there is no reason to have them exactly in-line with the CC. Audyssey will set different distances for the speakers to compensate for the difference in arrival time of the sound, and your ears could never pick-up the 7" difference in any case.
> 
> If, however, the L and R speaker are also sitting on that cabinet, and are 7" back from the edge, then it might be worthwhile to try moving them forward. Vertical speakers are not as susceptible to reflections from a shelf as a horizontal speaker, such as a center channel, would be. (It's mainly the mid-range and treble frequencies that will be reflecting from a shelf. And the drivers that play those frequencies are usually higher in the cabinet than they would be with a horizontal center channel.) But, you may still get slightly better sound quality/clarity if they are moved forward a bit, so that they aren't reflecting off the shelf as much.
> 
> I sympathize with your wife. Listening to repetitive Audyssey calibrations isn't a lot of fun. But, if you do move the speakers, you will need to rerun Audyssey.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hah its not so much my wife who care, but our 3 dogs tend to freak out and hide, hah! Well the L and R are on separate smaller side tables and higher up by a slight amount (they're on foam/yoga blocks) for ear height. It all sounds great, Ill maybe run it again when no one is home with them closer and see if I like it better.

Thanks


----------



## senzaparole

thank you all for the answers.

the power of my subwoofer is not set to auto but *always on*.

So if I understand your answers correctly, I can also adjust the gain of the subwoofer to get -6db at the end of the calibration and be sure that the subwoofer will always activate.


----------



## garygarrison

If you don't need a great deal of boost for your sub on some program material, or you're not perversely interested in audionervosa, don't even read this.

I hear no clipping whatsoever from my sub, even with relatively high trim settings in my AVP, but my OCD nature makes me wonder whether I could have predicted "no clipping" from info from the component manufacturers. Do AVPs have higher clean outputs from the sub out than AVRs? [Note: I would certainly turn up the gain on the volume control on the sub itself (and turn down the trim setting on the AVP) if I could get to the sub volume control, but my sub is buried in the wall with grille cloth over the hole, and I don't want to open it up.]

In the old days, when antediluvian patriarchs were running the audio companies, just about everything that had an input had an input sensitivity specified in the manual and on the spec sheets. So, my old power amp, IIRC had an input sensitivity of *1volt* to produce the rated power in watts out. My old McIntosh preamp had a *12 volt* output (McIntosh didn't fool around), so I could be fairly sure (!) I wouldn't clip the preamp output in persuading the power amp to produce rated power. Most preamps only put out *2-3 volts* then; one I remember outputted *0.775 volts*. 

I looked at the spec sheet for my sub, and found *no* input sensitivity listed, but I accessed the service manual online (after inputting way too much ID), and found that the input sensitivity is *200mVrms @ 40Hz* to produce max SPL. My AVP says it puts out *2 volts at 0 dB*, but out of *what*? Is that the output rating of each of the various channels that have a trim control, including the AVP's subwoofer out? No service manual is available (to me) for the AVP. If the output rating for the AVP is for each of the outputs, with all channels operating, I would have a 10:1 ratio, but I'm pretty sure that would be with the inaccessible gain control on the sub itself all the way up, so I'll just have to be happy not hearing clipping. Time for a Zoloft.


----------



## senzaparole

mogorf said:


> To me it look absolutely OK for all speakers.
> 
> As regard the sub, the -0.5 dB seems a tad bit too high. General consensus is to have the sub level somewhere in the mid negatives, but not lower than -11 dB.
> 
> For best results you may rerun Audyssey calibration with the sub GAIN set to "noon" (12 am). That will surely result in a lower level trim. The importance of this setting is that you will be able to boost a couple of dBs on the sub to taste once you feel the need to have a little more extra bass (we all have that particular feeling!) and won't need to worry about saturation in the subwoofer chain causing distortion.


Hi!
I redid the calibration.
I set the gain of the diver at 12 o'clock before starting the calibration.
During the calibration Audyssey asks me to lower the gain of the subwoofer up to around 75 db. I turned the sub knob until I saw about 79/80 db on the TV screen.
I continued the calibration.
At the end of the calibration I noticed that the level of the sub is -6db.
All correct?

If in a specific situation I wanted to hear stronger bass, I manually change the level of the sub by setting -4db (without redoing the automatic calibration).
Did I get it right?


----------



## bluesky636

senzaparole said:


> Hi!
> I redid the calibration.
> I set the gain of the diver at 12 o'clock before starting the calibration.
> During the calibration Audyssey asks me to lower the gain of the subwoofer up to around 75 db. I turned the sub knob until I saw about 79/80 db on the TV screen.
> I continued the calibration.
> At the end of the calibration I noticed that the level of the sub is -6db.
> All correct?
> 
> If in a specific situation I wanted to hear stronger bass, I manually change the level of the sub by setting -4db (without redoing the automatic calibration).
> Did I get it right?


Yes and yes.


----------



## Leeliemix

senzaparole said:


> Hi!
> 
> I redid the calibration.
> 
> I set the gain of the diver at 12 o'clock before starting the calibration.
> 
> During the calibration Audyssey asks me to lower the gain of the subwoofer up to around 75 db. I turned the sub knob until I saw about 79/80 db on the TV screen.
> 
> I continued the calibration.
> 
> At the end of the calibration I noticed that the level of the sub is -6db.
> 
> All correct?
> 
> 
> 
> If in a specific situation I wanted to hear stronger bass, I manually change the level of the sub by setting -4db (without redoing the automatic calibration).
> 
> Did I get it right?




You can easily go up to 0 when you want more bass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> Yes and yes.



+1.


----------



## haman

Hi, I have been owning this Velodyne Cht-8q unit for last 10 years. Currently using with new receiver Denon 3500H, after Audy calibration etc, I playback with the Dolby Atmos Demo disc. In one of the demo, Horizon, there is a subwoofer bass issue which I do not know what is it. In the scene where the gush of water fell from the cliff before a rower appear, my sub would sound a small pop and silent for a quick second and then continue to put out the bass for the rest of the demo. In another demo, Amaze, at the scene when it say powerful bass, there is period of small static, clucky noise which follows when the word flash across the scene. My master volume on Denon was -15 during demo, subwoofer volume was 36, AVR trim level was -8. May I know what is this issue known as? Bottoming out or clipping or something else? I googled these 2 terms and it does not seem to be the same noise that I'm hearing from my own sub. Thanks. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

haman said:


> Hi, I have been owning this Velodyne Cht-8q unit for last 10 years. Currently using with new receiver Denon 3500H, after Audy calibration etc, I playback with the Dolby Atmos Demo disc. In one of the demo, Horizon, there is a subwoofer bass issue which I do not know what is it. In the scene where the gush of water fell from the cliff before a rower appear, my sub would sound a small pop and silent for a quick second and then continue to put out the bass for the rest of the demo. In another demo, Amaze, at the scene when it say powerful bass, there is period of small static, clucky noise which follows when the word flash across the scene. My master volume on Denon was -15 during demo, subwoofer volume was 36, AVR trim level was -8. May I know what is this issue known as? Bottoming out or clipping or something else? I googled these 2 terms and it does not seem to be the same noise that I'm hearing from my own sub. Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


What does "subwoofer volume was 36" mean? 36 what?

You have an 8" driver with a 180 watt amp. If the bass is strong enough you may be overdriving the sub causing either or both the amp to clip and the cone to reach its excursion limits. The sounds you describe are in fact the sounds you could hear under those conditions. 

You may want to consider replacing a small 10 year old sub with something new and bigger/more powerful.


----------



## ramon banaag

Im using Marantz now, how big is the difference of using Audyssey vs hiring someone to do caloibration with pro equipment?

My setup is fairly basic 16x12 8ft ceiling. Nothing fancy but want to get the best out of my room


----------



## bluesky636

ramon banaag said:


> Im using Marantz now, how big is the difference of using Audyssey vs hiring someone to do caloibration with pro equipment?
> 
> My setup is fairly basic 16x12 8ft ceiling. Nothing fancy but want to get the best out of my room


Run Audyssey first and see how you like it. What version do you have?

I wouldn't waste money on a "professional" unless you are building a dedicated home theater. Even then I would run Audyssey first.


----------



## ramon banaag

Not even sure on the version, I use a Marantz SR6013 on an Armos setup

My first theater so currently on nirvana state, but sounds awesome so far

I guess I need to stop reading or geeking out on other setup online first and enjoy mines first


----------



## haman

bluesky636 said:


> What does "subwoofer volume was 36" mean? 36 what?
> 
> 
> 
> You have an 8" driver with a 180 watt amp. If the bass is strong enough you may be overdriving the sub causing either or both the amp to clip and the cone to reach its excursion limits. The sounds you describe are in fact the sounds you could hear under those conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> You may want to consider replacing a small 10 year old sub with something new and bigger/more powerful.


The sub has a electronic volume control, max is 80, so 36 is slightly less than the 12 o'clock analogue dial. My previous AVR was a Onkyo Tx-SR507 for 8 years but I did not encounter the 2 issues until I got myself a 3500H and a Dolby demo, together with new Elac speakers to replace my Def tech 600. Same house n same spot for sub woofer. Is there any solution to mitigate this without buying a new sub? The 4k n Blu-ray movies disc I have, occasionally have the pop n silent treatment for some scenes, with the new setup. Thanks again. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

haman said:


> The sub has a electronic volume control, max is 80, so 36 is slightly less than the 12 o'clock analogue dial. My previous AVR was a Onkyo Tx-SR507 for 8 years but I did not encounter the 2 issues until I got myself a 3500H and a Dolby demo, together with new Elac speakers to replace my Def tech 600. Same house n same spot for sub woofer. Is there any solution to mitigate this without buying a new sub? The 4k n Blu-ray movies disc I have, occasionally have the pop n silent treatment for some scenes, with the new setup. Thanks again.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


Your 507 had less power and less sophisticated Audyssey (2EQ) than the 3500. You are playing a demo disc that apparently has a lot of bass. I have no idea what volume level you played the 507 at but it would appear that your sub is not up to the job with your new system.


----------



## haman

bluesky636 said:


> Your 507 had less power and less sophisticated Audyssey (2EQ) than the 3500. You are playing a demo disc that apparently has a lot of bass. I have no idea what volume level you played the 507 at but it would appear that your sub is not up to the job with your new system.


Thank you for your pointers. Appreciate it. I supposed a 12" with above 300W will be all right for my usage then. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

haman said:


> Thank you for your pointers. Appreciate it. I supposed a 12" with above 300W will be all right for my usage then.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


You're welcome. Good luck.


----------



## Alan P

ramon banaag said:


> Not even sure on the version, I use a Marantz SR6013 on an Armos setup
> 
> My first theater so currently on nirvana state, but sounds awesome so far
> 
> I guess I need to stop reading or geeking out on other setup online first and enjoy mines first


The 6013 has Audyssey XT32 which is the top tier for Audyssey room correction.

Pro calibrators can be expensive, and if you ever make a change to your system, they will need to return to re-calibrate (more $$$)...you would be better served by getting yourself a calibrated mic (UMIK-1), downloading REW and learning to tweak your system yourself.


----------



## genaccmiller

Hello - My audyssey mic wire does not reach my receiver in the AV Rack. I will need to connect an extension. Can anyone link me to what kind of extension I could use?


----------



## UofA fan

Quick question. Yesterday I ran Audyssey through my x3400 and it set my front speakers to about 0db and the surrounds to +6db. Is this an issue? Ascend Sierra towers and horizon in front and sierra 2ex in the back.

Most of the pats i have read through the avr set peoples levels in the negative db range.


----------



## Alan P

UofA fan said:


> Quick question. Yesterday I ran Audyssey through my x3400 and it set my front speakers to about 0db and the surrounds to +6db. Is this an issue? Ascend Sierra towers and horizon in front and sierra 2ex in the back.
> 
> Most of the pats i have read through the avr set peoples levels in the negative db range.


No issue at all. The trim levels are determined from a combination of the speaker's distance to the MLP and their sensitivity.


----------



## UofA fan

Alan P said:


> No issue at all. The trim levels are determined from a combination of the speaker's distance to the MLP and their sensitivity.


Thanks Alan! 

Wow I need to proofread before I hit post. My phones autocorrect butchered that last post.


----------



## bobby james

m0j0 said:


> I have found that I need to break out my SPL meter and get all the speakers at the same level from the MLP as well after running Audyssey, as the Audyssey results are not really good/accurate as far as I can tell (I have a Denon x4400h with Audyssey XT32). In addition, I bump up my Atmos speakers another 3.5db to get a more robust experience since Atmos soundtracks are known for being a little on the weak side more often than not.


When you’re increasing the atmos speakers, are you increasing them in the audyssey menu or adjusting them for every source?


----------



## m0j0

bobby james said:


> When you’re increasing the atmos speakers, are you increasing them in the audyssey menu or adjusting them for every source?



I'm going into the menu where test tones are played and adding 3.5db's of positive trim for each atmos speaker, so that if the front left height speaker was set to +1.0 by Audyssey, I set it to +4.5, as an example.


----------



## guacamoleparty

Random Question: When running Audyssey, 3 of my positions are on my couch - center, left right etc. Should the Mic be on a stand, floating above with a boom extender or is putting the MIC directly on the couch cushion/on a book advised? 

Thanks!


----------



## Leeliemix

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



guacamoleparty said:


> Random Question: When running Audyssey, 3 of my positions are on my couch - center, left right etc. Should the Mic be* on a stand, floating above with a boom extender* or is putting the MIC directly on the couch cushion/on a book advised?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!



This (stand with boom)

If center, left and right is seat cushions you may be measuring too far apart. I think there are some links at start of thread with a detailed how to measure right and the right/max distance between measuring points. (I dont remember right now but its far less than generally indicated in many diagrams)

Edit: looks like the guide at beginning of this thread favor both up to 3 feet and close range depending on what gives the best result in each case between measuring points.


----------



## savage8190

*Lost my Audyssey mic...replacement?*

Hi all. As the title says, I have lost my Audyssey microphone for my Denon x4100w. I am reading conflicting information online, some saying I have to replace it with one specifically for my receiver, some saying any will work after a certain date, some saying certain models....it's a crap shoot.

What do I actually need to look for? And I guess there is no substitution? I have tons of other mics but I assume this software is looking for something particular.

Thanks!


----------



## haman

haman said:


> Thank you for your pointers. Appreciate it. I supposed a 12" with above 300W will be all right for my usage then.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


Hi, is SVS PB-1000 an appropriate upgrade to my Velodyne CHT-8Q? If not, can you let me know within this price range of $500? Thanks. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

haman said:


> Hi, is SVS PB-1000 an appropriate upgrade to my Velodyne CHT-8Q? If not, can you let me know within this price range of $500? Thanks.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


I have a Hsu VTF-2 Mk2 with a Mk5 amp (the sub amp died after many years and Hsu sold me a Mk5 amp at a great price to pop into the sub). It will shake the floor of my family room. 😁

http://www.hsuresearch.com/index.html


----------



## Rolls-Royce

savage8190 said:


> Hi all. As the title says, I have lost my Audyssey microphone for my Denon x4100w. I am reading conflicting information online, some saying I have to replace it with one specifically for my receiver, some saying any will work after a certain date, some saying certain models....it's a crap shoot.
> 
> What do I actually need to look for? And I guess there is no substitution? I have tons of other mics but I assume this software is looking for something particular.
> 
> Thanks!


Substitutions are extremely iffy. The software and electronics in your Denon are trimmed/set for that particular model of mic. Try contacting Denon directly.


----------



## adam2434

What are folks thoughts and experiences with using SubEQ HT with 4 subs, say 2 subs in the front of the room on sub out 1, and 2 subs roughly mid-wall in line with the MLP on the sub 2 out?

My current setup is a Marantz 7704 with sub 1 (Outlaw X-12) and sub 2 (Outlaw LFM-1) both in the front of the room. The X-12 is about 12.5 ft from the MLP and the LFM-1 about 11.5 feet.

I am considering adding 2 more X-12's (on sale for $499). The 2 new subs would be roughly mid-wall in the room in line with the MLP couch. One would be about 7.5 feet from the MLP, and the other about 6.5 feet.

I know I would lose per-sub level and distance control, as the front subs would be grouped and the mid-wall subs would be grouped. However, I'm thinking that the increased headroom (lowered demand on each sub) and natural smoothing from adding 2 more subs could net some potential performance gains in bass frequency response smoothness and headroom/distortion.

Anyone doing this or have general thoughts/input?

Thanks.


-


----------



## Phillihp23

I use four subs...two in front and two in back of room. It is best to match the subs. Two rears same model, two fronts same model.


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> What are folks thoughts and experiences with using SubEQ HT with 4 subs, say 2 subs in the front of the room on sub out 1, and 2 subs roughly mid-wall in line with the MLP on the sub 2 out?
> 
> My current setup is a Marantz 7704 with sub 1 (Outlaw X-12) and sub 2 (Outlaw LFM-1) both in the front of the room. The X-12 is about 12.5 ft from the MLP and the LFM-1 about 11.5 feet.
> 
> I am considering adding 2 more X-12's (on sale for $499). The 2 new subs would be roughly mid-wall in the room in line with the MLP couch. One would be about 7.5 feet from the MLP, and the other about 6.5 feet.
> 
> I know I would lose per-sub level and distance control, as the front subs would be grouped and the mid-wall subs would be grouped. However, I'm thinking that the increased headroom (lowered demand on each sub) and natural smoothing from adding 2 more subs could net some potential performance gains in bass frequency response smoothness and headroom/distortion.
> 
> Anyone doing this or have general thoughts/input?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> -


The X-12 and LFM-1 seem to be very similar in specs, so you should be fine using them together. Since the front and rear pairs of subs only have a 1' discrepancy in distance to the MLP , I would say you _should _be fine using sub out 1 for the front and sub out 2 for the rear. I would also gain match all subs (NOT level match).

However, IMO once you get up to four subs, REW+UMIK+MiniDSP is pretty much required equipment. 

Check these videos for the proper way to integrate 4 subs:


----------



## adam2434

Phillihp23 and Alan P, thanks for your input.

Alan P, yes I also was thinking that the X-12 in max output (2 ports open) should be similar in output/response to the LFM-1 (similar/same tuning freq, driver, amp, cabinet).

Regarding your comment "However, IMO once you get up to four subs, REW+UMIK+MiniDSP is pretty much required equipment", does this mean my specific scenario above only using SubEQ HT could really complicate and mess up the bass response with 4 subs vs. my current set-up with 2 subs in the front of he room? I would only go this route if I felt confident that adding the 2 mid-wall subs and running 4 subs total with SubEQ HT would be an improvement (prior to getting into REW+UMIK+MiniDSP).

I will watch the video on gain matching later - thanks.


-


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> Phillihp23 and Alan P, thanks for your input.
> 
> Alan P, yes I also was thinking that the X-12 in max output (2 ports open) should be similar in output/response to the LFM-1 (similar/same tuning freq, driver, amp, cabinet).
> 
> Regarding your comment "However, IMO once you get up to four subs, REW+UMIK+MiniDSP is pretty much required equipment", does this mean my specific scenario above only using SubEQ HT could really complicate and mess up the bass response with 4 subs vs. my current set-up with 2 subs in the front of he room? I would only go this route if I felt confident that adding the 2 mid-wall subs and running 4 subs total with SubEQ HT would be an improvement (prior to getting into REW+UMIK+MiniDSP).
> 
> I will watch the video on gain matching later - thanks.
> 
> 
> -


Depending on how your proposed locations work together, it will most likely be an improvement. I'm just saying that integrating 4 subs can be done _better _with outboard DSP and the ability to measure your response.

You may want to fool around with the REW Room Simulator to see how your proposed sub locations will work out. If your room is a sealed rectangle, the room sim is pretty accurate...if the room is irregular or open to other spaces, not so much.


----------



## mogorf

adam2434 said:


> Phillihp23 and Alan P, thanks for your input.
> 
> Alan P, yes I also was thinking that the X-12 in max output (2 ports open) should be similar in output/response to the LFM-1 (similar/same tuning freq, driver, amp, cabinet).
> 
> Regarding your comment "However, IMO once you get up to four subs, REW+UMIK+MiniDSP is pretty much required equipment", does this mean my specific scenario above only using SubEQ HT could really complicate and mess up the bass response with 4 subs vs. my current set-up with 2 subs in the front of he room? I would only go this route if I felt confident that adding the 2 mid-wall subs and running 4 subs total with SubEQ HT would be an improvement (prior to getting into REW+UMIK+MiniDSP).
> 
> I will watch the video on gain matching later - thanks.
> 
> 
> -



Hi adam2434, I think Alan is giving you continuous excellent advice on integrating 4 subs in your room, yet, as and option - not meant to discourage you by any means - you may consider a "Plan B" which may be based on the saying: sometimes less is more! 

What I mean is to think of limiting subs to two only. You have two different but similar brands, choose the pair you like better and try to integrated only these two subs into your system.

Please remember my word, this is not against 4 subs, just a tip to be on the safe side where you can have multiple choices.

Good luck with your project!


----------



## adam2434

Alan P said:


> Depending on how your proposed locations work together, it will most likely be an improvement. I'm just saying that integrating 4 subs can be done _better _with outboard DSP and the ability to measure your response.
> 
> You may want to fool around with the REW Room Simulator to see how your proposed sub locations will work out. If your room is a sealed rectangle, the room sim is pretty accurate...if the room is irregular or open to other spaces, not so much.


OK, understand.

Regarding the REW Room Simulator, the room is in the basement, so I had to frame around a lot of utilities, HVAC, beams, etc. So, the room has several deviations from a pure rectangle (sections of ceiling that are lower, sections of walls that bump out, etc.) and it opens to stairs to the main floor, so I would imagine that it deviates too much from a pure rectangle. Thanks for the suggestion though.

-


----------



## adam2434

Alan P, I watched the gain matching video. Gain matching would only be relevant with non-identical subs, right? With identical subs, gain matching would be achieved by simply setting each sub's volume control to the same level (unless there was the possibility of significant variation between units of the same model), right?

Also, if the subs were different models (like my current Outlaw X-12 and LFM-1), seems like doing the gain matching at an arbitrary position on each sub's volume control at an arbitrary position in the room could be a problem when the subs are later moved into their actual positions and XT32/SubEQ HT is run. XT32/SubEQ HT could require each sub's volume level to be adjusted to get into the target range, defeating the gain matching that was just performed. Also, depending on where each sub is positioned, one sub could require more adjustment than the other to get into the target range (like if one is in a corner and one is not).

Guess I'm not fully grasping how gain matching works when the subs will subsequently be moved and then will need to be calibrated with XT32/SubEQ HT, potentially requiring adjustment of each sub's volume control.

Unrelated (or maybe related to the above and gain matching), I'm perplexed by the following with the current Outlaw X-12 and LFM-1 set-up. XT32/SubEQ HT set each sub level to within 1 dB of each other. The X-12's on-board volume is pretty low - there are no numbers, but let's call it somewhere between 20-30% of the knob range. The LFM-1's volume knob is at 6 of 10. The X-12 is on the front wall to the left of the left speaker, not near a corner. The LFM-1 is in a quasi-corner (the corner is a boxed out framing area that bumps out about 2 feet into the room) to the right of the right speaker . The perplexing thing is that the X-12 seems to be working a lot harder than the LFM-1 based on woofer excursion and cabinet vibration when I touch them when music is playing at moderate to high levels. Net, with a very low volume knob setting on the X-12, it seems to be working a lot harder than the LFM-1 at a much higher volume knob setting. This has bothered me since I added the X-12 as a second sub in the system. Any thoughts on why I'm observing this?


-


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> Alan P, I watched the gain matching video. Gain matching would only be relevant with non-identical subs, right? With identical subs, gain matching would be achieved by simply setting each sub's volume control to the same level (unless there was the possibility of significant variation between units of the same model), right?


Mostly yes, but if the subs have an analog dial for gain and not some sort of digital control, I would still verify that they are gain matched since a small amount of deviation on an analog dial can result in a few dB of variation.




> Also, if the subs were different models (like my current Outlaw X-12 and LFM-1), seems like doing the gain matching at an arbitrary position on each sub's volume control at an arbitrary position in the room could be a problem when the subs are later moved into their actual positions and XT32/SubEQ HT is run. XT32/SubEQ HT could require each sub's volume level to be adjusted to get into the target range, defeating the gain matching that was just performed. Also, depending on where each sub is positioned, one sub could require more adjustment than the other to get into the target range (like if one is in a corner and one is not).
> 
> Guess I'm not fully grasping how gain matching works when the subs will subsequently be moved and then will need to be calibrated with XT32/SubEQ HT, potentially requiring adjustment of each sub's volume control.


In order to keep the subs gain matched, you would just "skip" the Audyssey level matching screen. I believe that was covered in the Home Theater Gurus video, was it not?




> Unrelated (or maybe related to the above and gain matching), I'm perplexed by the following with the current Outlaw X-12 and LFM-1 set-up. XT32/SubEQ HT set each sub level to within 1 dB of each other. The X-12's on-board volume is pretty low - there are no numbers, but let's call it somewhere between 20-30% of the knob range. The LFM-1's volume knob is at 6 of 10. The X-12 is on the front wall to the left of the left speaker, not near a corner. The LFM-1 is in a quasi-corner (the corner is a boxed out framing area that bumps out about 2 feet into the room) to the right of the right speaker . The perplexing thing is that the X-12 seems to be working a lot harder than the LFM-1 based on woofer excursion and cabinet vibration when I touch them when music is playing at moderate to high levels. Net, with a very low volume knob setting on the X-12, it seems to be working a lot harder than the LFM-1 at a much higher volume knob setting. This has bothered me since I added the X-12 as a second sub in the system. Any thoughts on why I'm observing this?


Since gain structure/drivers/amps can vary between different subs in a manufacturers line, and as I alluded to above even between subs of the same model, this does not surprise me all that much. Let's see what the results are after you truly gain match the subs.


----------



## adam2434

Alan P said:


> In order to keep the subs gain matched, you would just "skip" the Audyssey level matching screen. I believe that was covered in the Home Theater Gurus video, was it not?


I don’t recall this being covered in the video, but I might have missed it or maybe did not watch the video to the end. I appreciate your replies and patience. 

I use the MultEQ Editor App for Audyssey. It has been many months since I have used it, so I don’t recall if the level calibration can be skipped, and whether levels and distances are done in the same step.

So, in keeping the subs gain matched, I guess one would have to do manual level matching for all channels with a SPL meter, once the subs are placed in their true positions. I also guess one would have to get lucky or do iterative gain matching on the subs to get their gain position to a level that puts them in a good AVR/AVP trim range once they are placed in their true positions. For example, say you place the subs into their true positions, calibrate all channels to 75 dB and find that you run out of AVR/AVP sub trim before hitting 75 dB. I guess in this case, one would need to pull the subs back out of their positions and re-do gain matching a different gain level on the subs, then put the subs back into their true positions and try calibrating all channels again. I know folks like to keep their AVR/AVP trim levels well into the negative range, so getting the gain matching level to a point that enables this could be iterative, requiring one to move the subs in and out of the gain matching position of the room. Sound right, or am I missing something?

Another thing I’m not clear on – say one gain matches 4 identical subs and then puts two subs in the front of the room using sub 1 out and two subs nearfield using sub out 2 (assume XT32/SubEQ HT). Would XT32/SubEQ HT typically calibrate the nearfield subs to a lower trim level because they are closer? If so, I guess there would be no way to make all 4 subs equal contributors from an output standpoint.


-


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> I don’t recall this being covered in the video, but I might have missed it or maybe did not watch the video to the end. I appreciate your replies and patience.
> 
> I use the MultEQ Editor App for Audyssey. It has been many months since I have used it, so I don’t recall if the level calibration can be skipped, and whether levels and distances are done in the same step.


I just skimmed through the video since I watched it some time ago and that particular info is not in it, sorry.




> So, in keeping the subs gain matched, I guess one would have to do manual level matching for all channels with a SPL meter, once the subs are placed in their true positions.


No, you can still let Audyssey set the speaker trim levels for you.




> I also guess one would have to get lucky or do iterative gain matching on the subs to get their gain position to a level that puts them in a good AVR/AVP trim range once they are placed in their true positions. For example, say you place the subs into their true positions, calibrate all channels to 75 dB and find that you run out of AVR/AVP sub trim before hitting 75 dB. I guess in this case, one would need to pull the subs back out of their positions and re-do gain matching a different gain level on the subs, then put the subs back into their true positions and try calibrating all channels again. I know folks like to keep their AVR/AVP trim levels well into the negative range, so getting the gain matching level to a point that enables this could be iterative, requiring one to move the subs in and out of the gain matching position of the room. Sound right, or am I missing something?


That is correct, it can be an iterative process, but you can get close using math (+6dB for every doubling of subs, +3dB for each boundary, -6dB for every doubling of distance). However, you do NOT have to move the subs back out into the room to make the adjustments...you can just take a close-mic measurement and you will remain very close to gain matched (depending a bit on how the individual subs will be placed). Place the SPL meter on the floor directly in front of the sub (


----------



## mthomas47

adam2434 said:


> I don’t recall this being covered in the video, but I might have missed it or maybe did not watch the video to the end. I appreciate your replies and patience.
> 
> I use the MultEQ Editor App for Audyssey. It has been many months since I have used it, so I don’t recall if the level calibration can be skipped, and whether levels and distances are done in the same step.
> 
> So, in keeping the subs gain matched, I guess one would have to do manual level matching for all channels with a SPL meter, once the subs are placed in their true positions. I also guess one would have to get lucky or do iterative gain matching on the subs to get their gain position to a level that puts them in a good AVR/AVP trim range once they are placed in their true positions. For example, say you place the subs into their true positions, calibrate all channels to 75 dB and find that you run out of AVR/AVP sub trim before hitting 75 dB. I guess in this case, one would need to pull the subs back out of their positions and re-do gain matching a different gain level on the subs, then put the subs back into their true positions and try calibrating all channels again. I know folks like to keep their AVR/AVP trim levels well into the negative range, so getting the gain matching level to a point that enables this could be iterative, requiring one to move the subs in and out of the gain matching position of the room. Sound right, or am I missing something?
> 
> Another thing I’m not clear on – say one gain matches 4 identical subs and then puts two subs in the front of the room using sub 1 out and two subs nearfield using sub out 2 (assume XT32/SubEQ HT). Would XT32/SubEQ HT typically calibrate the nearfield subs to a lower trim level because they are closer? *If so, I guess there would be no way to make all 4 subs equal contributors from an output standpoint.*



Hi,

You are already getting excellent advice from Alan, and I don't really have anything to add to that advice. The only thing I might add is that with sufficient subwoofage to start with, concerns about gain-matching the subs diminishes in importance. Room positioning and room modes will ultimately dictate whether some subs will have to work slightly harder than others. But, with four subs, none of them should be having to work hard enough for those small differences in effort to matter.

In other words, not only is there no way to guarantee that all four subs are exactly equal contributors, there is also no reason to be particularly concerned about that fact. I say that while understanding that we can all be a little bit OCD at times.  But, we are really never dealing with a perfect world. And, exactly equal contributions just won't matter in the greater scheme of things. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## adam2434

Alan P and mthomas47, thanks for the input. I appreciate it!

Here are my thoughts on next steps.

1) Do a gain matching sanity check with current 2 subs using my RS SPL meter within 1” of subs. I will try pink noise and a couple specific frequencies, like maybe 50 and 70 Hz, with both sub trims set to the same level and Audyssey off. I’ll do this in the front and back of the subs. If the X-12 is outputting a significantly higher SPL, this might confirm my observation of its working much harder than the LFM-1, suggesting that it is at a higher gain although its gain knob is set very low vs. the LFM-1. On both subs, the driver and ports are downfiring, BTW.

2) If I buy the 2 additional Outlaw X-12 subs (sale ends today, I believe, so I will decide in the next couple hours ), I believe I will need to reduce gain on both of the current subs because they are currently calibrated to -7.5 and -8.0 dB with the Editor app, and adding 2 more subs will probably take me out of the trim range.

3) I will do a gain match check on the 2 new subs to hopefully verify that each tracks SPL with gain setting the same way. I will set the gain to the same setting used on the current X-12. 

4) If the Editor app sets the 2 new midwall subs to a lower trim than the front subs, I can just leave it that way (knowing that the midwall subs are being taxed less), or I can adjust the midwall sub trim to match the front sub trim, knowing that I have just boosted the overall sub level some amount. Some iterations could be required to get all 4 sub gains matched to a level that allows adequate trim range for the front and midwall sub groups. BTW, with the current front subs, I typically boost both sub trims 4-7 dB, depending on content.

Seem like a decent path forward?

Hopefully, SubEQ HT will do a decent job of aligning the timing of the front group and midwall group together, since each sub in a group will be within a foot of each other vs. the MLP (the Editor app set the current front subs to 13.3 and 14.1 feet, BTW). I realize that I will have no way of knowing precisely without REW, miniDSP, etc.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> *-6dB for every doubling of distance*


 Hi Alan,


As usual, I could be wrong, but ... the smallest note: You do lose 6 dB with each doubling of distance *outdoors*, where there are no walls and no ceiling to provide either room gain or boundary gain. *Indoors*, it gets more complicated and controversial, with good reason. As usual in audio, "it all depends." According to several sources, it is likely that you will lose an average of about 3 dB for each doubling of distance indoors, more or less, subject to fudge factor. In the 1970s, Paul Klipsch demonstrated an *average* of about 8 or 9 dB loss by moving the microphone about 3 doublings of distance away. In other words about 3 dB per doubling.** 
*



mthomas47 said:


> But, we are really never dealing with a perfect world.


We're not? That's it, I quit!

** *That's about what I get in my room. The purpose of Klipsch's article was different, but he demonstrated the "~~~ -3 db indoors 'rule' " along the way. It was in "The Great Major Breakthrough No. 29" or "Reverberant Field Loudspeakers" by Klipsch, a probable reaction to JBL's reintroduction of 360 degree speakers with the Aquarius line in 1970, or the intro of the Bose 901 in 1968. He used a Klipschorn (in a corner, of course, just where many folk put their subs), in an approximately 3500 cu.ft. room.


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> Alan P and mthomas47, thanks for the input. I appreciate it!
> 
> Here are my thoughts on next steps.
> 
> 1) Do a gain matching sanity check with current 2 subs using my RS SPL meter within 1” of subs. I will try pink noise and a couple specific frequencies, like maybe 50 and 70 Hz, with both sub trims set to the same level and Audyssey off. I’ll do this in the front and back of the subs. If the X-12 is outputting a significantly higher SPL, this might confirm my observation of its working much harder than the LFM-1, suggesting that it is at a higher gain although its gain knob is set very low vs. the LFM-1. On both subs, the driver and ports are downfiring, BTW.


I would only use pink noise, not specific frequencies. No need to measure in front _and _in back of the subs.




> 2) If I buy the 2 additional Outlaw X-12 subs (sale ends today, I believe, so I will decide in the next couple hours ), I believe I will need to reduce gain on both of the current subs because they are currently calibrated to -7.5 and -8.0 dB with the Editor app, and adding 2 more subs will probably take me out of the trim range.


Correct. You will have to reduce the gain on the current subs ~6dB since you are doubling the number of subs. 




> 3) I will do a gain match check on the 2 new subs to hopefully verify that each tracks SPL with gain setting the same way. I will set the gain to the same setting used on the current X-12.


Should get you very close to gain matched on those three subs, but I would still verify with the SPL meter.




> 4) If the Editor app sets the 2 new midwall subs to a lower trim than the front subs, I can just leave it that way (knowing that the midwall subs are being taxed less), or I can adjust the midwall sub trim to match the front sub trim, knowing that I have just boosted the overall sub level some amount. Some iterations could be required to get all 4 sub gains matched to a level that allows adequate trim range for the front and midwall sub groups. BTW, with the current front subs, I typically boost both sub trims 4-7 dB, depending on content.


The point of gain matching is to have all subs providing the same amount of energy to the room. If you leave the midwall subs at a lower level, it will only drag down the entire system's headroom. 




> Hopefully, SubEQ HT will do a decent job of aligning the timing of the front group and midwall group together, since each sub in a group will be within a foot of each other vs. the MLP (the Editor app set the current front subs to 13.3 and 14.1 feet, BTW). I realize that I will have no way of knowing precisely without REW, miniDSP, etc.


Just an FYI; some pro calibrators will completely bypass SubEQ HT and connect all subs to a single sub out and report good results. Something to experiment with if you are so inclined. There are also some who believe that once you get to the point of 4 or more subs, time alignment is not as critical, and can even be detrimental to the frequency response...so there's that too.


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> Hi Alan,
> 
> 
> As usual, I could be wrong, but ... the smallest note: You do lose 6 dB with each doubling of distance *outdoors*, where there are no walls and no ceiling to provide either room gain or boundary gain. *Indoors*, it gets more complicated and controversial, with good reason. As usual in audio, "it all depends." According to several sources, it is likely that you will lose an average of about 3 dB for each doubling of distance indoors, more or less, subject to fudge factor. In the 1970s, Paul Klipsch demonstrated an *average* of about 8 or 9 dB loss by moving the microphone about 3 doublings of distance away. In other words about 3 dB per doubling.**
> *
> 
> 
> 
> We're not? That's it, I quit!
> 
> ** *That's about what I get in my room. The purpose of Klipsch's article was different, but he demonstrated the "~~~ -3 db indoors 'rule' " along the way. It was in "The Great Major Breakthrough No. 29" or "Reverberant Field Loudspeakers" by Klipsch, a probable reaction to JBL's reintroduction of 360 degree speakers with the Aquarius line in 1970, or the intro of the Bose 901 in 1968. He used a Klipschorn (in a corner, of course, just where many folk put their subs), in an approximately 3500 cu.ft. room.


To be completely honest Gary, I couldn't remember if it was 3dB or 6dB so I Googled it real quick, saw the -6dB in one of the first hits, and went with it. 

Thanks for the correction!


----------



## adam2434

Alan P said:


> The point of gain matching is to have all subs providing the same amount of energy to the room. If you leave the midwall subs at a lower level, it will only drag down the entire system's headroom.
> 
> Just an FYI; some pro calibrators will completely bypass SubEQ HT and connect all subs to a single sub out and report good results. Something to experiment with if you are so inclined. There are also some who believe that once you get to the point of 4 or more subs, time alignment is not as critical, and can even be detrimental to the frequency response...so there's that too.


So, if Audyssey calibrates the midwall subs to a lower trim than the front subs (and all were gain matched prior), increasing the midwall trim level to the front trim level will simply result in running the combined sub level hot vs. the Audyssey calibrated level. That's fine for me because I run my current subs 4-7 dB hot, and I might still boost both sub groups a bit more after adjusting the midwall trim. However, some may not like the idea of automatically boosting the bass above the Audyssey calibrated level just to have all subs outputting the same level.

Also, if one boosts the nearer sub group trim (midwall in my case) to match the front wall trim, could the midwall subs perhaps sound louder, possibly draw attention to themselves, and sound distracting with music.

I realize that I will have to experiment to get it to sound right with music.

Your statement about bypassing SubEQ HT and not time aligning because it can be detrimental threw me for a bit of a loop . I watched some of the video you linked on time aligning with REW and miniDSP. IIRC, that video showed some destructive effects when adding subs without time alignment. He had to adjust delay and phase to avoid destructive effects and to maximize output. 

-


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> So, if Audyssey calibrates the midwall subs to a lower trim than the front subs (and all were gain matched prior), increasing the midwall trim level to the front trim level will simply result in running the combined sub level hot vs. the Audyssey calibrated level. That's fine for me because I run my current subs 4-7 dB hot, and I might still boost both sub groups a bit more after adjusting the midwall trim. *However, some may not like the idea of automatically boosting the bass above the Audyssey calibrated level just to have all subs outputting the same level.*


In that case, all you would have to do is split the difference in trim levels and you would be very close to the Audyssey calibrated level. For example, if one pair of subs was set to -10dB and another to -5dB, all you would need to do is set both pairs to -7.5dB. 

Regardless, after calibration and after setting both sub pairs to the same trim level, all you would need to do is pull out your SPL meter and reduce the trim on both subs (equally) until the entire sub "system" was outputting 75dB.




> Also, if one boosts the nearer sub group trim (midwall in my case) to match the front wall trim, could the midwall subs perhaps sound louder, possibly draw attention to themselves, and sound distracting with music.
> 
> I realize that I will have to experiment to get it to sound right with music.


This is always a possibility, and as you said, experimentation is encouraged, but with 4 subs in the room the bass tends to just sound like it is coming from everywhere all at once.




> Your statement about bypassing SubEQ HT and not time aligning because it can be detrimental threw me for a bit of a loop . I watched some of the video you linked on time aligning with REW and miniDSP. IIRC, that video showed some destructive effects when adding subs without time alignment. He had to adjust delay and phase to avoid destructive effects and to maximize output.


Starting with this post from @sdurani in the REW thread, there was a recent discussion on the subject. You may find it very interesting.


----------



## adam2434

Alan P said:


> In that case, all you would have to do is split the difference in trim levels and you would be very close to the Audyssey calibrated level. For example, if one pair of subs was set to -10dB and another to -5dB, all you would need to do is set both pairs to -7.5dB.
> 
> Regardless, after calibration and after setting both sub pairs to the same trim level, all you would need to do is pull out your SPL meter and reduce the trim on both subs (equally) until the entire sub "system" was outputting 75dB.


Alan, thanks for the continued input. Every time I read a new reply from you I chuckle to myself in desperation, then my head hurts. LOL. 

Just kidding, I realize you are putting good info out there and trying to be helpful to "dense" people like myself . In general, the more I read/watch on sub integration, I realize the less I know.

Regarding adjusting each sub group's trim level to the same setting post Audyssey, could that mess with Audyssey's EQ filters' effectiveness a bit, since the trim level changes for both sub groups could result in a different room response vs. what Audyssey "thinks" it's correcting?

-


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> Alan, thanks for the continued input. Every time I read a new reply from you I chuckle to myself in desperation, then my head hurts. LOL.
> 
> Just kidding, I realize you are putting good info out there and trying to be helpful to "dense" people like myself . In general, the more I read/watch on sub integration, I realize the less I know.
> 
> *Regarding adjusting each sub group's trim level to the same setting post Audyssey, could that mess with Audyssey's EQ filters' effectiveness a bit, since the trim level changes for both sub groups could result in a different room response vs. what Audyssey "thinks" it's correcting?*
> 
> -


Nope. Raising (or lowering) the sub trim will not effect the Audyssey EQ filters. Frequency response does not change with level, at least until you reach the point of compression/distortion.

If you haven't already read it, the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences linked in my sig provides a TON of really good information, and not only on subs.


----------



## Alan P

OK, thinking about this a bit more...I suppose you are right and that changing the relative level of the subs could effect the frequency response since the combined response would most likely change.

All I can say is try both gain matching and level matching and go with what sounds best (or measures best).


----------



## adam2434

Alan P said:


> OK, thinking about this a bit more...I suppose you are right and that changing the relative level of the subs could effect the frequency response since the combined response would most likely change.
> 
> All I can say is try both gain matching and level matching and go with what sounds best (or measures best).


Yep, that's what I will do - experiment with both. The new subs won't arrive until Monday, so I have some time to get some baseline gain measurements of the current subs in-place. Guess I can also do some prep work by gain matching them if necessary, and taking the output of each down 3 dB in preparation for when the 2 subs arrive.

-


----------



## Alan P

adam2434 said:


> Yep, that's what I will do - experiment with both. The new subs won't arrive until Monday, so I have some time to get some baseline gain measurements of the current subs in-place. Guess I can also do some prep work by gain matching them if necessary, and taking the output of each down 3 dB in preparation for when the 2 subs arrive.
> 
> -


Sounds good! You will want to take the existing subs down by 6dB each though.


----------



## garygarrison

adam2434 said:


> "In general, the more I read ... the less I know."



Of such is life.

I remember two of my old professors (they weren't old at the time) independently telling us*: *

"Increases in knowledge result in increases in uncertainty."

When I was trying to bend my mind around quantum mechanics, string theory, i.e., "M theory," several years ago, I was gratified to find that Hawking and Mlodinow believed that renormalizationin in quantum electrodynamics is "mathematically dubious," but they agree that it is useful nonetheless in making "many precise predictions that agree extremely closely with observation." That increased my uncertainty. No sooner was I proud of our species in moving past Lord Kelvin's quaint 1884 statement that one thing we were sure of was the existence of the ether, than, what did we get? Dark matter and dark energy!

Empiricism is king. Your experiments, and how it sounds to you, and what makes you (and, perhaps, your significant others) happy is what counts.

Still ... risk reading Mike's Guide that Alan linked you to -- it's the best of the best.


----------



## adam2434

Alan P said:


> Sounds good! You will want to take the existing subs down by 6dB each though.


I did some SPL meter checks on the floor 1” from the X-12 and LFM-1 cabinets, and have a few interesting observations and subsequent thoughts.

1) The SPL reading varies significantly depending on where the measurement is taken along the cabinet perimeter: 9 dB min to max for the X-12 and 7 dB for the X-12. So the question becomes at what position on the cabinet would one attempt gain matching?

2) If I just focus on the cabinet fronts, which is close to the downfiring ports on both models, the X-12 is 5 dB higher than the LFM-1 in the center of the front and if I average the left, center and right of the front. I see the same 5 dB difference if I compare the middle of the cabinet side farthest away from a wall. This makes me believe the X-12 is running at higher gain, although it’s impossible to tell exactly how much given the variation mentioned above.

3) This probably explains why I always felt that the X-12 was working harder based on cabinet vibration and woofer excursion when I would touch them with music playing loud.

4) Audyssey calibrated the subs within 0.5 dB in the sub trims. So, obviously the X-12 SPL at the MLP mic position was not reading 5 dB high by Audyssey. The LFM-1 is in a corner (kind of, as it bumps out on one side). The X-12 is not near a corner and it is near an area that opens up into a stairwell. Perhaps the LFM-1 has some boundary reinforcement that is boosting it close to the level of the X-12, which is apparently at higher gain.

5) If I were to reduce the X-12 gain by 5 dB, I expect that Audyssey would simply bump the trim by a similar amount if I were to re-run Audyssey. So, seems like gain matching when there are potential placement effects does not really work, because Audyssey will adjust based on what it measures at the MLP. 

6) When I get the 2 new subs and group the existing front two, and group the two new midwall subs, I’ll be able to gain match the front two subs and run them at a common trim level. Same with the two midwall subs, but the trim will likely be set lower due to closer proximity to the MLP.

Anyway, just some observations and thoughts. I am glad that I believe I discovered that the X-12 is running hotter, as the higher woofer excursion and cabinet vibration always bothered and perplexed me a bit.

-


----------



## adam2434

garygarrison said:


> Of such is life.


A more pedestrian reference came to my mind:

A Don Henley lyric: "The more I know, the less I understand."


----------



## Hetfieldjames

adam2434 said:


> A more pedestrian reference came to my mind:
> 
> 
> 
> A Don Henley lyric: "The more I know, the less I understand."


Great lyric to a great song.


----------



## rocky1

Wondering if i add a second sub specifically another martin logan grotto(not the i) do i actually need to rerun audessey again even if i mirror the settings of the present sub.. as a side note the grotto has a connection for a second sub if i go that route as opposed to second sub out from reciever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> Wondering if i add a second sub specifically another martin logan grotto(not the i) *do i actually need to rerun audessey again* even if i mirror the settings of the present sub.. as a side note the grotto has a connection for a second sub if i go that route as opposed to second sub out from reciever.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup. Your frequency response at the MLP will change and subsequently, the Audyssey EQ filters for the sub(s).


----------



## blb1215

*Audyssey overhead speaker calibration*

I have seen many posts about questioning/increasing the overhead atmos speaker level after calibration. Also many feel the surrounds need to a little increase. Is there a reasoning behind this similar to sub boost after calibration? Most agree that sub level can/should be increased from Audyssey calibration with 3 to 6 dB increase or even higher being "normal". My understanding this is due to our inability to hear lower frequencies as well at lower than reference level.


Is there a similar issue with human hearing for sounds from above or from behind? Do we not hear sounds from above and behind as well as straight on? Is this also related to the volume level? 



I know much of the increase from calibration is for individual tastes but I am wondering if there is some logic to many feeling the need to increase the overhead/atmos levels to hear the effects.


Any opinions?


Thanks,
Barry


----------



## Leeliemix

blb1215 said:


> I have seen many posts about questioning/increasing the overhead atmos speaker level after calibration. Also many feel the surrounds need to a little increase. Is there a reasoning behind this similar to sub boost after calibration? Most agree that sub level can/should be increased from Audyssey calibration with 3 to 6 dB increase or even higher being "normal". My understanding this is due to our inability to hear lower frequencies as well at lower than reference level.
> 
> 
> Is there a similar issue with human hearing for sounds from above or from behind? Do we not hear sounds from above and behind as well as straight on? Is this also related to the volume level?
> 
> 
> 
> I know much of the increase from calibration is for individual tastes but I am wondering if there is some logic to many feeling the need to increase the overhead/atmos levels to hear the effects.
> 
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry




The atmos increase i would guess is so people can hear it more easily and enjoy their new “thing” or just enjoy more oomph from above and or behind/side. I actually reduce the surrounds a little bit to keep more focus up front while still getting the ambiance from the surrounds, no atmos for me yet, maybe in the future but possibly not.


----------



## pbz06

blb1215 said:


> I have seen many posts about questioning/increasing the overhead atmos speaker level after calibration. Also many feel the surrounds need to a little increase. Is there a reasoning behind this similar to sub boost after calibration? Most agree that sub level can/should be increased from Audyssey calibration with 3 to 6 dB increase or even higher being "normal". My understanding this is due to our inability to hear lower frequencies as well at lower than reference level.
> 
> 
> Is there a similar issue with human hearing for sounds from above or from behind? Do we not hear sounds from above and behind as well as straight on? Is this also related to the volume level?
> 
> 
> 
> I know much of the increase from calibration is for individual tastes but I am wondering if there is some logic to many feeling the need to increase the overhead/atmos levels to hear the effects.
> 
> 
> Any opinions?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Barry


There is a loss of ability to hear sounds from behind/top-rear...and that's why Audyssey DEQ automatically boosts them about 1dB per every -5dB from reference level 0 on the AVR. To me, that one is a little overblown because I don't notice a difference of 2dB when watching a movie. Most people increase the Atmos heights/ceilings so it can be more evident in general, fronts and rears, or to makeup for bouncy enabled speakers that don't work as well.

Ideally I would prefer no boosts to the surrounds and rears, and let the user adjust individually to their ears since everyone is different. I keep the Atmos ceiling speakers balanced too. It sounds natural and I hear what I need to hear when I hear it as intended 

I do much like what DEQ does with the bass though, so I keep it activated.


----------



## blb1215

pbz06 said:


> There is a loss of ability to hear sounds from behind/top-rear...and that's why Audyssey DEQ automatically boosts them about 1dB per every -5dB from reference level 0 on the AVR. To me, that one is a little overblown because I don't notice a difference of 2dB when watching a movie. Most people increase the Atmos heights/ceilings so it can be more evident in general, fronts and rears, or to makeup for bouncy enabled speakers that don't work as well.
> 
> Ideally I would prefer no boosts to the surrounds and rears, and let the user adjust individually to their ears since everyone is different. I keep the Atmos ceiling speakers balanced too. It sounds natural and I hear what I need to hear when I hear it as intended
> 
> I do much like what DEQ does with the bass though, so I keep it activated.



That makes sense and kinda was my thinking about not hearing as well from behind and above. I have always liked a balance and along the lines of "as the director" intended in setting up my system. I verify with sound meter on a calibration disk after to verify all speaker levels are equal and I do boost the sub around 6dB. I try DEQ and go back and forth on how I feel about it. I normally listen at about 15 dB below reference. It has me thinking since I installed ceiling speakers and reading up on Atmos about the height volume particularly as many are seeing the need to increase. If there is an issue with human hearing above and to the rear, it would make sense these channels need the increase to actually be perceived as being the correct level.


----------



## Alan P

blb1215 said:


> That makes sense and kinda was my thinking about not hearing as well from behind and above. I have always liked a balance and along the lines of "as the director" intended in setting up my system. I verify with sound meter on a calibration disk after to verify all speaker levels are equal and I do boost the sub around 6dB. I try DEQ and go back and forth on how I feel about it. I normally listen at about 15 dB below reference. It has me thinking since I installed ceiling speakers and reading up on Atmos about the height volume particularly as many are seeing the need to increase. If there is an issue with human hearing above and to the rear, it would make sense these channels need the increase to actually be perceived as being the correct level.


If you normally listen at a set MV level such as the -15MV you mentioned, you might want to try disabling DEQ and adding another +6.5dB to the sub trim (approximately what DEQ would add at -15MV) and see how you like it. I think that DEQ can muddy up the center and bass and personally I run without it.


----------



## blb1215

Alan P said:


> If you normally listen at a set MV level such as the -15MV you mentioned, you might want to try disabling DEQ and adding another +6.5dB to the sub trim (approximately what DEQ would add at -15MV) and see how you like it. I think that DEQ can muddy up the center and bass and personally I run without it.



Just to make sure I am understanding....I have sub increased by 6.0dB from calibrated results and am currently not using DEQ so you suggest increasing sub by another 6.5dB for a total of 12.5dB increase?


That seems like a lot!


----------



## Alan P

blb1215 said:


> Just to make sure I am understanding....I have sub increased by 6.0dB from calibrated results and am currently not using DEQ so you suggest increasing sub by another 6.5dB for a total of 12.5dB increase?
> 
> 
> That seems like a lot!


No. If you are currently running without DEQ and +6dB is working for you, leave it where you have it. You said in your earlier post that you were going back and forth on DEQ and weren't sure about it...are you reducing your sub trim when you turn on DEQ??


----------



## blb1215

Alan P said:


> No. If you are currently running without DEQ and +6dB is working for you, leave it where you have it. You said in your earlier post that you were going back and forth on DEQ and weren't sure about it...are you reducing your sub trim when you turn on DEQ??



Yes, when I try DEQ, I lower the trim to level set by calibration. I think I prefer with DEQ off for most situations. Every now and again I will go back and try it but I go back to off. I agree, it does muddy up the center channel.


----------



## the7mcs

Hey guys I finally wanna give audyssey a try... I've been one of those manually doing it myself kinda person doing my own distance measurements and trying to EQ and all that but it's time to give Audyssey a spin and see what it does

My question is what should I set the volume on my AVR be at when I run audyssey calibration? When watching movies I usually have it set at like around -40dB on my maarantz, so is that the volume I should set it at when I run the calibration or it doesn't matter?


----------



## bluesky636

the7mcs said:


> Hey guys I finally wanna give audyssey a try... I've been one of those manually doing it myself kinda person doing my own distance measurements and trying to EQ and all that but it's time to give Audyssey a spin and see what it does
> 
> My question is what should I set the volume on my AVR be at when I run audyssey calibration? When watching movies I usually have it set at like around -40dB on my maarantz, so is that the volume I should set it at when I run the calibration or it doesn't matter?


Audyssey calibration is completely independent of any AVR setting. All you do is plug the mic in, start the process, and follow the on screen instructions.


----------



## Alan P

bluesky636 said:


> Audyssey calibration is completely independent of any AVR setting. All you do is plug the mic in, start the process, and follow the on screen instructions.


Well, you do have to tell the AVR what speakers you have connected and how you want the amps assigned before running Audyssey, but besides that...


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> Well, you do have to tell the AVR what speakers you have connected and how you want the amps assigned before running Audyssey, but besides that...


Well, all that is included in the first page of the set up procedure.


----------



## mthomas47

adam2434 said:


> Alan, thanks for the continued input. Every time I read a new reply from you I chuckle to myself in desperation, then my head hurts. LOL.
> 
> Just kidding, I realize you are putting good info out there and trying to be helpful to "dense" people like myself . In general, the more I read/watch on sub integration, I realize the less I know.
> 
> *Regarding adjusting each sub group's trim level to the same setting post Audyssey, could that mess with Audyssey's EQ filters' effectiveness a bit, since the trim level changes for both sub groups could result in a different room response vs. what Audyssey "thinks" it's correcting?*



I think that Alan has been giving you great advice. I can tell you, from my own experience, that my head hurts with this stuff when I find myself overthinking it.  All kidding aside, I believe that you are doing that a little. Don't try to figure it all out this week, and don't try to achieve either perfect understanding or perfect acoustic bliss all at once. 

Let your understanding and your ability to improve your audio system come gradually and naturally over time. This is a process, and if you make it an obsessive ordeal, you will take a lot of the fun out of the process. I had suggested before that you might be obsessing a little too much over the whole gain-matching issue. Unless you have some reason to believe that you are running-out of bass headroom, there is really nothing to be concerned about. 

I think that the question I bolded is another example of that. Why would you want to change the relative trim levels of two sub pairs, from where they had been calibrated, except to achieve some specific audible or tactile purpose? Almost everyone symmetrically increases the volume levels of his subs, post-calibration, but changing their relative volume levels would normally be somewhat counterproductive.

To answer your specific question, as Alan said in his second post, you wouldn't change the filters that Audyssey set, but you would change the frequency response that the filters were intended to improve. FWIW, I don't think that the theoretical change in FR would be significant, unless the trim changes you made were also significant. But, I do think you could notice that the subwoofer sounds and tactile sensations were stronger from one part of the room, than from another, if you did unbalanced trim increases. 

So, I definitely wouldn't do it without a specific audible or tactile purpose in mind. For instance, people will sometimes increase the volume of a nearfield sub, in order to feel more low-bass TR (tactile response). But, I certainly wouldn't recommend messing with your bass equilibrium simply to satisfy some theoretical ideal of gain-matching. 

Personally, I would let the whole notion of gain-matching go for a while now, and just concentrate on getting good sounding bass. You can always return to the topic at a later date if you want to, armed with way more understanding of how your subs operate and sound in your own listening environment. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Agreed, Mike! Sometimes we can become a little to obsessed with the intricacies of the hobby...I know I am guilty of that myself from time to time. 

Concerning my discussion with adam2434 and gain matching; I was just trying to explain the theory and methodology of it since he asked. Personally, I use level matching as I have tried both and level matching sounds better to my ears, in my room, on my system...but as you always say, YMMV. 

I think at this point, adam2434 should just try the much easier level matching method and see how he likes it...and then, if he so desires, go down the gain matching rabbit hole.


----------



## adam2434

Alan and Mike:

LOL, this all started with Alan's suggestion that I gain match a page ago, which lead to the other questions, discussion, and observations! 

The question bolded above is actually why I thought that gain matching may not be the best way to go. I thought I was identifying a downside.

Anyway, when folks (who I believe know more on a subject) take the time to give me technical advice, I try to dive in and understand it, and highlight areas that don't make sense to me or could present other issues. Maybe that is being obsessive? I'm willing to admit that! 

Anyway, I'm armed with enough info to be dangerous when I go from 2 to 4 subs in the next week or so.

Thanks.

-


----------



## Alan P

^^^

Yeah...my bad. 

_In theory_, gain matching _should _work better when you have 4 subs..._how much_ better can not be quantified until you actually make your own comparison. 


EDIT: And, since I don't use Audyssey, I sometimes forget about the curve ball that can throw into things like gain matching...


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... Let your understanding and your ability to improve your audio system come gradually and naturally over time.
> 
> 
> Almost everyone symmetrically increases the volume levels of his subs, post-calibration, but changing their relative volume levels would normally be somewhat counterproductive.
> 
> 
> ... Personally, I would let the whole notion of gain-matching go for a while now, and just concentrate on getting good sounding bass. You can always return to the topic at a later date if you want to, armed with way more understanding of how your subs operate and sound in your own listening environment. ...





Alan P said:


> ... I think at this point, adam2434 should just try the much easier level matching method and see how he likes it...and then, if he so desires, go down the gain matching rabbit hole.





adam2434 said:


> ... Anyway, when folks (who I believe know more on a subject) take the time to give me technical advice, I try to dive in and understand it, and highlight areas that don't make sense to me or could present other issues. Maybe that is being obsessive? I'm willing to admit that!  ...



The only thing I would add is listening for protracted periods, with different source material, on different days, in different moods -- for (maybe) two weeks or more between changes --- may be a good idea. 

That, and a *little* overthinking and ruminating may be good for the soul.


----------



## Mark Tulbert

Question for everyone. How much revision can you do with the Iphone app on the results of the calibration software? Could you use REW to see results and modify the apps to simulate that curve?

Just curious.

Thanks

Mark T.


----------



## platoon2063

Audyssey only showing one sub-out being used however, I am actually using both Denon 3600H

I tried microprocessor reset but still only shows one. Any solutions/ideas?


----------



## Matt2026

The site tells me there are unread (for me) posts here which were made today but I don't see any posts after yesterday at 11:58AM 
[Edit] Okay, so I posted successfully and now I can see the earlier post...


----------



## bluesky636

platoon2063 said:


> Audyssey only showing one sub-out being used however, I am actually using both Denon 3600H
> 
> I tried microprocessor reset but still only shows one. Any solutions/ideas?


There is a Channel Select Option at the start of Audyssey calibration to set the number of subwoofers in use. Suggest you download the PDF owner's manual if you haven't already.


----------



## morasp

*Audyssey settings question*

I'm using the Audyssey calibration tool with my new Denon Receiver and noticed that after the program completed the bass completely disappeared. When I checked the levels the subwoofer was set to -12 dB. I also didn't understand what the dynamic EQ does so I enabled it. I was just wondering if anyone else has run into this problem and if so what worked best in your system?


----------



## mdildine

morasp said:


> I'm using the Audyssey calibration tool with my new Denon Receiver and noticed that after the program completed the bass completely disappeared. When I checked the levels the subwoofer was set to -12 dB. I also didn't understand what the dynamic EQ does so I enabled it. I was just wondering if anyone else has run into this problem and if so what worked best in your system?


I just set up my new JBL 590's and experienced the same issue. I turned the subs off initially with just the JBL's for music which I thought I might prefer and they sounded good. I then decided to run Audyssey with the subs in to see the difference and ended up with the no bass issue. After I ran Audyssey it set my mains to large, set the crossover to 90, the subs to -9db, the bass set to LFE, and the bass disappeared. While playing music the subs could not be heard at all and the 590's had little to no bass output. If I change the setting to LFE + main the bass returns. I will keep playing with the settings to see what sounds best but it is confusing for a novice.


----------



## threshold350

morasp said:


> I'm using the Audyssey calibration tool with my new Denon Receiver and noticed that after the program completed the bass completely disappeared. When I checked the levels the subwoofer was set to -12 dB. I also didn't understand what the dynamic EQ does so I enabled it. I was just wondering if anyone else has run into this problem and if so what worked best in your system?


I've run into this. I reran Audyssey and sometimes it will register and sometimes not. if it still doesn't pick up the sub, I would increase the volume on the sub a little.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Matt2026

morasp said:


> I'm using the Audyssey calibration tool with my new Denon Receiver and noticed that after the program completed the bass completely disappeared. When I checked the levels the subwoofer was set to -12 dB. I also didn't understand what the dynamic EQ does so I enabled it. I was just wondering if anyone else has run into this problem and if so what worked best in your system?



-12 is the lowest number Audyssey will report, it could be even lower. It couldn't set the AVR to a low enough number. turn down the sub volume a bit and run again. It may take several attempts. I believe -10 to -11.5 is a good number. That give room to adjust the bass upwards afterwards.


[Edit] You might want to study a bit... *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences*


----------



## mdildine

Matt2026 said:


> -12 is the lowest number Audyssey will report, it could be even lower. It couldn't set the AVR to a low enough number. turn down the sub volume a bit and run again. It may take several attempts. I believe -10 to -11.5 is a good number. That give room to adjust the bass upwards afterwards.
> 
> 
> [Edit] You might want to study a bit... *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences*


What confuses me is that the bass completely disappears after running audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

morasp said:


> ... after the program completed the bass completely disappeared *... * I was just wondering if anyone else has run into this problem and if so what worked best in your system?





mdildine said:


> I just set up my new JBL 590's and experienced the same issue * ... * After I ran Audyssey it set my mains to large, set the crossover to 90, the subs to -9db, the bass set to LFE, and the bass disappeared. *While playing music the subs could not be heard at all* and the 590's had little to no bass output. If I change the setting to LFE + main the bass returns.


 Although it seems like Audyssey set your mains to large, it really wasn't _*Audyssey*_ that set your mains to large -- it was your AVR or AVP that did that. The Audyssey engineers hate large -- you should hear their CTO and co-inventor rail against the practice of AVRs switching to large when the main speakers have pretty good bass! One reason, as you found out, is the "Large" setting means "although true Low Frequency Effects (generally on movies only) can be sent to the subwoofer, bass content of music (_a la_ "bass management") will *not* be (*when allowed*, they both cone out of the output marked "sub" on the AVR).. In other words, the large setting is commanding, "when playing music, or anything except LFE, send *nothing *to the subwoofer. As you say, "While playing music the subs could not be heard at all*.*" One work around is to engage LFE+Main, which sends the bass going to mains set for large to the subs as well. There is a potential problem with that option, too. You may get multipath distortion, lose some headroom (in the AVR power amplifier), and you may get increased modulation distortion. SEE AHEAD.




threshold350 said:


> I've run into this *...*





Matt2026 said:


> *... * I believe -10 to -11.5 is a good number. That gives room* to adjust the bass upwards afterwards.*
> 
> 
> [Edit] You might want to study a bit... *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences*


 *Please do! That Guide (by Mike Thomas -- mthomas47) is terrific. It does the job the manuals should have done. You may want to use the "Cliff Notes" section at first, then read the rest at your leisure. Or ... get a cup of coffee, and plunge ahead, knowing that, like War and Peace, it is a masterpiece.*



mdildine said:


> What confuses me is that the bass completely disappears after running audyssey.



What does Audyssey "want" you to do? Set your main speakers (all speakers except the subs) to "SMALL," letting your sub do the work it was designed to do, and *provide the lowest distortion of several kinds*. Wouldn't it have been nice if your AVR manual told you this? "LARGE" and "SMALL" have nothing to do with the physical size of the speakers, just the bass capability, and "SMALL" is the correct setting for all main speakers. My mains are 52" high, 33" wide and 28" deep, and after stubbornly trying "Large" v.s. the recommended "Small" for many months, I set them for "Small" permanently. With a crossover to the sub of 80 Hz, the mains still provide a signal at a bit below 50 Hz (their "native" response in my room goes to 24 Hz), but the clarity and power of the overall system is best at X-over 80, "Small."


Apparent bass loss can happen for a variety of reasons (SEE ABOVE & BELOW). 



Failure to use all 8 microphone positions
Audyssey attempts to set for Reference, not Preference, i.e., a smooth, flat room curve that neither boosts, nor cuts the bass, to allow us to hear the music more or less as it was heard in the control room. It does a pretty good job. *BUT*, several research studies have shown that most listeners not only prefer a bass boost of several dB (sometimes as much as 9 or 10 dB), but they also perceive such a boost as "natural," or "realistic." (SEE BELOW). Almost all Audyssey users boost their bass by a) turning up the subwoofer AFTER running Audyssey (if you do it before, Audyssey will just turn it down, and grumble) and b) Either turning up the bass tone control (which will turn up the mid & upper bass) or engaging Dynamic EQ if you play music and movies at significantly below concert/theater level, and happen to like DEQ. In turning up bass for preference, it is much better to start with the relatively smooth curve Audyssey gives you than with the kinky, craggy curve most rooms/speakers will provide.
Even for those who don't want to use post-Audyssey sub boost, and tone control boost, there is a fly in the ointment. To oversimplify, it is now a widespread practice to turn down the bass "in the mix," for music recording. The suits want this, and recording engineers have learned not to complain about it. IMO, it is not done as much with classical music or jazz, and Blu-ray movies are usually fine.

[Too much caffeine]


----------



## mdildine

garygarrison said:


> Although it seems like Audyssey set your mains to large, it really wasn't _*Audyssey*_ that set your mains to large -- it was your AVR or AVP that did that. The Audyssey engineers hate large -- you should hear their CTO and co-inventor rail against the practice of AVRs switching to large when the main speakers have pretty good bass! One reason, as you found out, is the "Large" setting means "although true Low Frequency Effects (generally on movies only) can be sent to the subwoofer, bass content of music (_a la_ "bass management") will *not* be (*when allowed*, they both cone out of the output marked "sub" on the AVR).. In other words, the large setting is commanding, "when playing music, or anything except LFE, send *nothing *to the subwoofer. As you say, "While playing music the subs could not be heard at all*.*" One work around is to engage LFE+Main, which sends the bass going to mains set for large to the subs as well. There is a potential problem with that option, too. You may get multipath distortion, lose some headroom (in the AVR power amplifier), and you may get increased modulation distortion. SEE AHEAD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Please do! That Guide (by Mike Thomas -- mthomas47) is terrific. It does the job the manuals should have done. You may want to use the "Cliff Notes" section at first, then read the rest at your leisure. Or ... get a cup of coffee, and plunge ahead, knowing that, like War and Peace, it is a masterpiece.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does Audyssey "want" you to do? Set your main speakers (all speakers except the subs) to "SMALL," letting your sub do the work it was designed to do, and *provide the lowest distortion of several kinds*. Wouldn't it have been nice if your AVR manual told you this? "LARGE" and "SMALL" have nothing to do with the physical size of the speakers, just the bass capability, and "SMALL" is the correct setting for all main speakers. My mains are 52" high, 33" wide and 28" deep, and after stubbornly trying "Large" v.s. the recommended "Small" for many months, I set them for "Small" permanently. With a crossover to the sub of 80 Hz, the mains still provide a signal at a bit below 50 Hz (their "native" response in my room goes to 24 Hz), but the clarity and power of the overall system is best at X-over 80, "Small."
> 
> 
> Apparent bass loss can happen for a variety of reasons (SEE ABOVE & BELOW).
> 
> 
> 
> Failure to use all 8 microphone positions
> Audyssey attempts to set for Reference, not Preference, i.e., a smooth, flat room curve that neither boosts, nor cuts the bass, to allow us to hear the music more or less as it was heard in the control room. It does a pretty good job. *BUT*, several research studies have shown that most listeners not only prefer a bass boost of several dB (sometimes as much as 9 or 10 dB), but they also perceive such a boost as "natural," or "realistic." (SEE BELOW). Almost all Audyssey users boost their bass by a) turning up the subwoofer AFTER running Audyssey (if you do it before, Audyssey will just turn it down, and grumble) and b) Either turning up the bass tone control (which will turn up the mid & upper bass) or engaging Dynamic EQ if you play music and movies at significantly below concert/theater level, and happen to like DEQ. In turning up bass for preference, it is much better to start with the relatively smooth curve Audyssey gives you than with the kinky, craggy curve most rooms/speakers will provide.
> Even for those who don't want to use post-Audyssey sub boost, and tone control boost, there is a fly in the ointment. To oversimplify, it is now a widespread practice to turn down the bass "in the mix," for music recording. The suits want this, and recording engineers have learned not to complain about it. IMO, it is not done as much with classical music or jazz, and Blu-ray movies are usually fine.
> 
> [Too much caffeine]


Thank you so much for the explanations. I have begun going through the thread provided above and still somehow missed the set the mains to small part and yes it would have been nice if my manual stated this  I have now set the mains to small and bass has returned. I may rerun Audyssey and see what happens with the mains set to small. Thanks again.


----------



## Matt2026

mdildine said:


> Thank you so much for the explanations. I have begun going through the thread provided above and still somehow missed the set the mains to small part and yes it would have been nice if my manual stated this  I have now set the mains to small and bass has returned. I may rerun Audyssey and see what happens with the mains set to small. Thanks again.



Your AVR may set the mains to large again so if you run Ausyssey check to see if they are again large. If so reset to small. Audyssey doesn't set them to large, it just reports the results to your AVR and the AVR makes the decision so you may have to correct it.


----------



## morasp

I just saw a youtube review of an upper end Marantz AVR. The Reviewer specifically mentions the bass problem. What worked best for him was to turn off DEQ and increase the subwoofer level by 4-6 dB. I tried it and so far it sounds pretty good.


----------



## mthomas47

*Guide Edits*

^^^

After reading several recent posts on this thread, I decided to go back to the Cliff Notes, which begin the Guide, and add both more detail and more emphasis to a number of the points. For those of us who are relatively new to HT (which has been all of us at one time) there is a lot of information to take-in all at once, even in the very abbreviated Cliff Notes format. 

Please read the Cliff Notes several times, and let the information sink-in gradually. Some of the concepts are more complicated than they appear to be, and understanding them is important. For instance, almost everyone is going to need to add some subwoofer boost for 5.1 movies, after running an Audyssey calibration. That is not a flaw in Audyssey's operation. It is an intentional design decision.

Audyssey is attempting to make all of the channels in an HT system play at exactly the same volume, at a fixed master volume level, which is called Dolby/THX Reference. After an Audyssey calibration, that volume level is 0.0 MV. But, very few of us actually listen at 0.0 MV. That is very loud for most people, even with room treatments. The average AVS volume level is probably somewhere around -15 or -20 MV. And, at that volume level, we don't hear bass frequencies nearly as well as those in our normal hearing range of about 500Hz to 5000Hz. 

So, as volume levels drop below 0.0 MV, bass frequencies drop away faster than other frequencies, and we need more bass volume to hear the bass in equilibrium with other frequencies. DynamicEQ (DEQ) is intended to compensate for that, to some extent, and many people find it very helpful. That's strictly a YMMV issue! But, even with DEQ engaged, the average subwoofer boost used on AVS seems to be about +3 to +6db. Without DEQ, the typical subwoofer boost would be much higher than that.

And then, there are the issues that Gary mentioned, such as the variances in recording levels, how much bass is embedded in the movie or music to start with, and the issues of personal preference, that we need to consider. How much bass we prefer to add, post-Audyssey, will inevitably vary by individual, and it may be both room-dependent and content-dependent. But, it is important to understand that it is absolutely normal (and typical) to add subwoofer boosts after an Audyssey calibration. 

I appreciate the nice comments about the Guide, from my friends Gary and Ken, and I wish everyone a Happy Holiday Season! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mdildine

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> After reading several recent posts on this thread, I decided to go back to the Cliff Notes, which begin the Guide, and add both more detail and more emphasis to a number of the points. For those of us who are relatively new to HT (which has been all of us at one time) there is a lot of information to take-in all at once, even in the very abbreviated Cliff Notes format.
> 
> Please read the Cliff Notes several times, and let the information sink-in gradually. Some of the concepts are more complicated than they appear to be, and understanding them is important. For instance, almost everyone is going to need to add some subwoofer boost for 5.1 movies, after running an Audyssey calibration. That is not a flaw in Audyssey's operation. It is an intentional design decision.
> 
> Audyssey is attempting to make all of the channels in an HT system play at exactly the same volume, at a fixed master volume level, which is called Dolby/THX Reference. After an Audyssey calibration, that volume level is 0.0 MV. But, very few of us actually listen at 0.0 MV. That is very loud for most people, even with room treatments. The average AVS volume level is probably somewhere around -15 or -20 MV. And, at that volume level, we don't hear bass frequencies nearly as well as those in our normal hearing range of about 500Hz to 5000Hz.
> 
> So, as volume levels drop below 0.0 MV, bass frequencies drop away faster than other frequencies, and we need more bass volume to hear the bass in equilibrium with other frequencies. DynamicEQ (DEQ) is intended to compensate for that, to some extent, and many people find it very helpful. That's strictly a YMMV issue! But, even with DEQ engaged, the average subwoofer boost used on AVS seems to be about +3 to +6db. Without DEQ, the typical subwoofer boost would be much higher than that.
> 
> And then, there are the issues that Gary mentioned, such as the variances in recording levels, how much bass is embedded in the movie or music to start with, and the issues of personal preference, that we need to consider. How much bass we prefer to add, post-Audyssey, will inevitably vary by individual, and it may be both room-dependent and content-dependent. But, it is important to understand that it is absolutely normal (and typical) to add subwoofer boosts after an Audyssey calibration.
> 
> I appreciate the nice comments about the Guide, from my friends Gary and Ken, and I wish everyone a Happy Holiday Season!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for taking the time to clarify and for the guide to begin with. I do feel guilty for posting so many questions concerning these subjects, both the set up and the equipment. I find the advice here invaluable and although very new to this forum it has already helped me decide speakers to purchase and how to set them up. I will keep reading through your original guide. The guide has information I had no idea was needed to enjoy the music and the HT that I do enjoy so much. Thank you again to you and everyone that has responded, even though I am sure they have seen these types of questions over and over.


----------



## pbz06

mdildine said:


> Thank you for taking the time to clarify and for the guide to begin with. I do feel guilty for posting so many questions concerning these subjects, both the set up and the equipment. I find the advice here invaluable and although very new to this forum it has already helped me decide speakers to purchase and how to set them up. I will keep reading through your original guide. The guide has information I had no idea was needed to enjoy the music and the HT that I do enjoy so much. Thank you again to you and everyone that has responded, even though I am sure they have seen these types of questions over and over.


I have found that it's helpful to revisit and read the guide every so often, because we sometimes either forget or hear/learn new things (additive or contradicting) over time and sometimes it also just makes more sense after a while. Things just click, whereas the very first time I had so many questions and wanted everything explicitly defined for my exact setup.  

Also, after changing settings, I like to set it and forget for a couple of days/weeks and not fall into the vicious cycle of striving for perfection.


----------



## Rick Lajeunesse

*Speaker Distance Issue*

Hey all,

Brand new home theatre with a speaker issue. Running a 7.2.4 setup with a Denon 4400 receiver. Using a cheap Dayton 60w stereo amp for the rear top speakers.

The problem is after running Audyssey, the rear top speakers are set to a distance about 8’ more than what they should be.

I’ve tried googling this and looking on the forums, but I can’t seem to find anything about this. Not sure if I should adjust this or not.

Any help would be appreciated!!


----------



## rfb6435

Rick Lajeunesse said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Brand new home theatre with a speaker issue. Running a 7.2.4 setup with a Denon 4400 receiver. Using a cheap Dayton 60w stereo amp for the rear top speakers.
> 
> The problem is after running Audyssey, the rear top speakers are set to a distance about 8’ more than what they should be.
> 
> I’ve tried googling this and looking on the forums, but I can’t seem to find anything about this. Not sure if I should adjust this or not.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated!!


What is the model of the dayton amplifier?

If it has any signal processing on it for balance/etc then it could be putting a delay on the signal which would result in audyssey thinking the speaker is farther away.

-Rich


----------



## Rick Lajeunesse

rfb6435 said:


> What is the model of the dayton amplifier?
> 
> If it has any signal processing on it for balance/etc then it could be putting a delay on the signal which would result in audyssey thinking the speaker is farther away.
> 
> -Rich


Hey Rich,

The model is APA102BT. I don’t see anything on it for delay. It does have a balance knob.

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Rick Lajeunesse

Rick Lajeunesse said:


> Hey Rich,
> 
> The model is APA102BT. I don’t see anything on it for delay. It does have a balance knob.
> 
> Thanks for the reply.


I do notice a slight volume change on the 1st chirp of the Audyssey test tone when it gets to the rear top (externally powered) speakers. The first chirp seems to transition from a lower volume to higher volume. The rest of the tones on those speakers are ok. If this sheds some light....


----------



## mthomas47

Rick Lajeunesse said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Brand new home theatre with a speaker issue. Running a 7.2.4 setup with a Denon 4400 receiver. Using a cheap Dayton 60w stereo amp for the rear top speakers.
> 
> The problem is after running Audyssey, the rear top speakers are set to a distance about 8’ more than what they should be.
> 
> I’ve tried googling this and looking on the forums, but I can’t seem to find anything about this. Not sure if I should adjust this or not.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated!!





Rick Lajeunesse said:


> I do notice a slight volume change on the 1st chirp of the Audyssey test tone when it gets to the rear top (externally powered) speakers. The first chirp seems to transition from a lower volume to higher volume. The rest of the tones on those speakers are ok. If this sheds some light....



Hi Rick,

I don't know if I can help you or not. I guess, to some extent, it depends on how we define being helpful. If help here consists of appropriately diagnosing the potential issue behind the increased distance setting, I don't think I can. But, Audyssey is just measuring the actual arrival time of the sounds from the various channels, and it normally gets the distance settings right. I may also be able to persuade you that delay is often a little over-rated in terms of audibility.

Several years ago, I experimented quite a bit with the delay on some of my speakers, in order to find out how much difference it made in the sound. I discovered that I could change the stereo balance point just slightly, between my very widely-spaced front speakers, by changing the distances that Audyssey had set for those speakers. But, I also discovered that even a 0.5db change in volume for one of the speakers had more audible impact than changing the delay by several feet did. (At sea level, sound travels 1' per millisecond.)

If your overhead speakers are set for distances that exceed their physical distance from your main listening position, all that means is that Audyssey is speeding-up the arrival time of those speakers to help you hear them at about the same time that the sound arrives from your other channels. Since the overhead speakers are mainly just providing ambient sound effects anyway, I think that it may be very hard for you to hear an audible problem.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't remain curious about why Audyssey is setting those distances the way it is. It may very well have something to do with latency in your external amplifier. And, we are all a little bit OCD about issues like these. But, if you can't hear a problem with the sound from the overhead speakers arriving a little sooner (not later, but sooner) then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Of course, if you are able to detect something, then you could either reduce the distance (to delay the signal), or you could try adjusting the volume of those speakers a little.

Just experiment if you want to! You can always return to the original settings, afterwards. I found that volume trumps the arrival time of sounds, for me, in my room. So, those are two variables you can experiment with if you want to. Or, if you really can't hear an audible difference in your channels, you can just let the issue go. I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Rick Lajeunesse said:


> Hey all,
> 
> Brand new home theatre with a speaker issue. Running a 7.2.4 setup with a Denon 4400 receiver. Using a cheap Dayton 60w stereo amp for the rear top speakers.
> 
> The problem is after running Audyssey, the rear top speakers are set to a distance about 8’ more than what they should be.
> 
> I’ve tried googling this and looking on the forums, but I can’t seem to find anything about this. Not sure if I should adjust this or not.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated!!


Stupid question:

Are your rear height speakers actually mounted in the ceiling or are they the sort of height speaker that sits on top of another speaker and bounces the sound off the ceiling? The delay time that Audyssey measures is the time it takes for the sound to travel from the AVR to the measuring position so it includes delays occurring in the speaker crossover and electronics. If your speaker is one of the up-firing height speakers that bounces sound off the ceiling, then the air travel path of the sound goes from speaker to ceiling to measuring position and that is going to add several feet to the distance Audyssey sets compared to the distance it would set for the same speaker/crossover arrangement actually physically mounted in the ceiling with an air travel path that only goes from ceiling to measuring position.

If you have an 8' ceiling the height from your ears to the ceiling directly above you will be a bit less than 5' away (average seated ear height somewhere around 40") and if the speakers are about 3' behind you then we would add about another 2' or so to that distance for an Audyssey measurement of roughly 7'. If the speakers are up firing speakers mounted on speakers behind you and reflecting from a point 3' behind you then we can roughly double the distance from speaker to you, adding another 7' or so. It's very easy to see how Audyssey could report an 8' greater distance if the rear height speakers are up firing speakers located somewhere around your head height and 5' to 6' or so behind you.


----------



## rfb6435

Rick Lajeunesse said:


> I do notice a slight volume change on the 1st chirp of the Audyssey test tone when it gets to the rear top (externally powered) speakers. The first chirp seems to transition from a lower volume to higher volume. The rest of the tones on those speakers are ok. If this sheds some light....


This might be better addressed Denon 4400 thread.

In my experience the soft then louder chirp occurs when the amplifier isn't turned up loud enough. What is the speaker level for those speakers? If they are at +12db then it is maxing out the adjustment and it may also increase the distance to compensate. 

If you haven't maxed out the volume on the amp or at least set it to 3/4 on the front vol knob then I would re-run it again at the higher volume setting. I have this same issue on my nr1403s that I use to expand form 9.2.4 to 9.2.6. I only have the volume set to 61 because above that I get some hiss. If I go lower then it has trouble adjusting for the gain on those channels. I also get a much larger distance setting because I am processing the each of the two channels with prologic which creates an extra delay.

-Rich


----------



## pbarach

rfb6435 said:


> This might be better addressed Denon 4400 thread.
> 
> In my experience the soft then louder chirp occurs when the amplifier isn't turned up loud enough.



The volume setting on the amplifier is irrelevant to what happens during an Audyssey calibration.


----------



## morasp

Matt2026 said:


> -12 is the lowest number Audyssey will report, it could be even lower. It couldn't set the AVR to a low enough number. turn down the sub volume a bit and run again. It may take several attempts. I believe -10 to -11.5 is a good number. That give room to adjust the bass upwards afterwards.
> 
> 
> [Edit] You might want to study a bit... *Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences*


Bingo! I just hooked up some height speakers and had to rerun the calibration so I tried your suggestion of turning down the level on the sub and the Audyssey tool set the Subwoofer to -3 dB this time and it sounds great. Thanks for the tip!


----------



## Matt2026

morasp said:


> Bingo! I just hooked up some height speakers and had to rerun the calibration so I tried your suggestion of turning down the level on the sub and the Audyssey tool set the Subwoofer to -3 dB this time and it sounds great. Thanks for the tip!



You're quite welcome. I was just passing on info from Mike @mthomas47 ! As well as others who have helped educate many folks.

You can certainly run with the -3 reading but it doesn't leave a lot of room for sub adjustments upward, should you desire to do so.

IF you care to run Audyssey again you could turn the sub back up a bit. The -10 to -11.5 range is liked by some here because you can then turn the sub volume up in Audyssey by 5 to 6 dB and not get into clipping the sub output of the AVR which can cause a lot of distortion. Even getting it down to -6 to -8 after the Audyssey run will give you more adjustment.


Of course if you're happy with what you have, then enjoy your setup


----------



## m0j0

Appreciate you posting your tips and tricks for Audyssey! I have been using the following mic pattern with good success (but am curious about yours so may give it a try next time I run Audyssey for comparison):


1. Main Listening position
2. 10 inches to the right of position 1 (at ear level)
3. 10 inches to the left of position 1 (at ear level)
4. 20 inches forward of position 3 (at ear level)
5. 20 inches right of position 4 (at ear level)
6. 14 inches forward of position 1 (at ear level)
7. 5 inches to the left of position 1 (3 inches above ear level)
8. 5 inches to the right of position 1 (3 inches above ear level)


Also, could you diagram out your Audyssey mic pattern. I want to be sure I understand your recommendations.


----------



## teachsac

*Threads merged.*


----------



## Rick Lajeunesse

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Rick,
> 
> I don't know if I can help you or not. I guess, to some extent, it depends on how we define being helpful. If help here consists of appropriately diagnosing the potential issue behind the increased distance setting, I don't think I can. But, Audyssey is just measuring the actual arrival time of the sounds from the various channels, and it normally gets the distance settings right. I may also be able to persuade you that delay is often a little over-rated in terms of audibility.
> 
> Several years ago, I experimented quite a bit with the delay on some of my speakers, in order to find out how much difference it made in the sound. I discovered that I could change the stereo balance point just slightly, between my very widely-spaced front speakers, by changing the distances that Audyssey had set for those speakers. But, I also discovered that even a 0.5db change in volume for one of the speakers had more audible impact than changing the delay by several feet did. (At sea level, sound travels 1' per millisecond.)
> 
> If your overhead speakers are set for distances that exceed their physical distance from your main listening position, all that means is that Audyssey is speeding-up the arrival time of those speakers to help you hear them at about the same time that the sound arrives from your other channels. Since the overhead speakers are mainly just providing ambient sound effects anyway, I think that it may be very hard for you to hear an audible problem.
> 
> I'm not saying that you shouldn't remain curious about why Audyssey is setting those distances the way it is. It may very well have something to do with latency in your external amplifier. And, we are all a little bit OCD about issues like these. But, if you can't hear a problem with the sound from the overhead speakers arriving a little sooner (not later, but sooner) then I wouldn't worry about it too much. Of course, if you are able to detect something, then you could either reduce the distance (to delay the signal), or you could try adjusting the volume of those speakers a little.
> 
> Just experiment if you want to! You can always return to the original settings, afterwards. I found that volume trumps the arrival time of sounds, for me, in my room. So, those are two variables you can experiment with if you want to. Or, if you really can't hear an audible difference in your channels, you can just let the issue go. I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Thanks very much for the response. Everybody here has been so helpful! As this is my first real theatre setup (previous was 5.1), I don’t really know what to expect sound wise from the Atmos speakers. I just found it odd that I couldn’t find any info when googling so I thought it may be an issue with my equipment. I will play around with it to see if I can notice any difference. Like you said, just a little OCD...

Rick


----------



## Rick Lajeunesse

David Aiken said:


> Stupid question:
> 
> Are your rear height speakers actually mounted in the ceiling or are they the sort of height speaker that sits on top of another speaker and bounces the sound off the ceiling? The delay time that Audyssey measures is the time it takes for the sound to travel from the AVR to the measuring position so it includes delays occurring in the speaker crossover and electronics. If your speaker is one of the up-firing height speakers that bounces sound off the ceiling, then the air travel path of the sound goes from speaker to ceiling to measuring position and that is going to add several feet to the distance Audyssey sets compared to the distance it would set for the same speaker/crossover arrangement actually physically mounted in the ceiling with an air travel path that only goes from ceiling to measuring position.
> 
> If you have an 8' ceiling the height from your ears to the ceiling directly above you will be a bit less than 5' away (average seated ear height somewhere around 40") and if the speakers are about 3' behind you then we would add about another 2' or so to that distance for an Audyssey measurement of roughly 7'. If the speakers are up firing speakers mounted on speakers behind you and reflecting from a point 3' behind you then we can roughly double the distance from speaker to you, adding another 7' or so. It's very easy to see how Audyssey could report an 8' greater distance if the rear height speakers are up firing speakers located somewhere around your head height and 5' to 6' or so behind you.


Hi David,

Thanks for the reply. The Atmos speakers are in the ceiling. The front tops are Denon powered and correctly set while the rear tops are externally powered and incorrect.

Rick


----------



## ArchonX

m0j0 said:


> Appreciate you posting your tips and tricks for Audyssey! I have been using the following mic pattern with good success (but am curious about yours so may give it a try next time I run Audyssey for comparison):
> 
> 
> 1. Main Listening position
> 2. 10 inches to the right of position 1 (at ear level)
> 3. 10 inches to the left of position 1 (at ear level)
> 4. 20 inches forward of position 3 (at ear level)
> 5. 20 inches right of position 4 (at ear level)
> 6. 14 inches forward of position 1 (at ear level)
> 7. 5 inches to the left of position 1 (3 inches above ear level)
> 8. 5 inches to the right of position 1 (3 inches above ear level)
> 
> 
> Also, could you diagram out your Audyssey mic pattern. I want to be sure I understand your recommendations.


Hi m0j0, I am glad you found it useful. I would highly suggest trying the Harman Curve, as it has been the greatest tweak I have ever heard applied to Audyssey, post calibration. All you do is set Audyssey from the default Reference to Flat, then turn on tone controls in your options menu and put treble to -5 and bass to +1. 

As for my suggested mic pattern, it is pretty similar to yours as far as the movement, just much tighter (again, you can move double the amount if you want a wider calibration zone, but I like to keep my pattern more focused on the MLP.)

As for the pattern, I will update my original post and also here is the diagram. 

1. Main Listening position (MLP) (I suggest marking MLP with a piece of tape (make an x) or object right under where the mic is)
2. 3 inches forward of MLP
3. 3 inches up from MLP (back in MLP, raise your mic 3 inches higher than ear level)
4. 3 inches up and 3 inches forward (3 inches forward from MLP, keep the mic 3 inches higher than ear level)
5. 3 inches left of MLP (put the mic back at ear level)
6. 3 inches right of MLP
7. 6 inches left of MLP 
8. 6 inches right of MLP

When I say "up", I mean put the mic 3 inches higher than ear level. So you are taking 2 measurements with the mic above ear level, the other 6 with it at ear level.

You can also alternate the mic height more often. I have tested that and found the results are not very different.

Edit: I will try your mic pattern but shorten the distances. Thank you for posting that as well! Appreciated.


----------



## Rick Lajeunesse

rfb6435 said:


> This might be better addressed Denon 4400 thread.
> 
> In my experience the soft then louder chirp occurs when the amplifier isn't turned up loud enough. What is the speaker level for those speakers? If they are at +12db then it is maxing out the adjustment and it may also increase the distance to compensate.
> 
> If you haven't maxed out the volume on the amp or at least set it to 3/4 on the front vol knob then I would re-run it again at the higher volume setting. I have this same issue on my nr1403s that I use to expand form 9.2.4 to 9.2.6. I only have the volume set to 61 because above that I get some hiss. If I go lower then it has trouble adjusting for the gain on those channels. I also get a much larger distance setting because I am processing the each of the two channels with prologic which creates an extra delay.
> 
> -Rich


Hi Rich,

Thanks for the reply. If I remember correctly, they are set similar to all the others varying from -3 to 0. Volume is turned up to max on the external amp. Should I try turning it down?


----------



## mogorf

ArchonX said:


> Hi m0j0, I am glad you found it useful. I would highly suggest trying the Harman Curve, as it has been the greatest tweak I have ever heard applied to Audyssey, post calibration. All you do is set Audyssey from the default Reference to Flat, then *turn on tone controls* in your options menu and put treble to -5 and bass to +1.



I'm afraid turning on tone controls will at the same time defeat Audyssey MultEQ filters (with the exception of some older Onkyo models). On a second note, the Harman Curve will work at only one given MV setting. Once you turn the Volume up or down the percieved listening "enjoyment" will surely change. Not sure these are the right things to do, but whatever sounds good to our ears is GOOD, isn't it?!


----------



## m0j0

ArchonX said:


> Hi m0j0, I am glad you found it useful. I would highly suggest trying the Harman Curve, as it has been the greatest tweak I have ever heard applied to Audyssey, post calibration. All you do is set Audyssey from the default Reference to Flat, then turn on tone controls in your options menu and put treble to -5 and bass to +1.
> 
> As for my suggested mic pattern, it is pretty similar to yours as far as the movement, just much tighter (again, you can move double the amount if you want a wider calibration zone, but I like to keep my pattern more focused on the MLP.)
> 
> As for the pattern, I will update my original post and also here is the diagram.
> 
> 1. Main Listening position (MLP) (I suggest marking MLP with a piece of tape (make an x) or object right under where the mic is)
> 2. 3 inches forward of MLP
> 3. 3 inches up from MLP (back in MLP, raise your mic 3 inches higher than ear level)
> 4. 3 inches up and 3 inches forward (3 inches forward from MLP, keep the mic 3 inches higher than ear level)
> 5. 3 inches left of MLP (put the mic back at ear level)
> 6. 3 inches right of MLP
> 7. 6 inches left of MLP
> 8. 6 inches right of MLP
> 
> When I say "up", I mean put the mic 3 inches higher than ear level. So you are taking 2 measurements with the mic above ear level, the other 6 with it at ear level.
> 
> You can also alternate the mic height more often. I have tested that and found the results are not very different.
> 
> Edit: I will try your mic pattern but shorten the distances. Thank you for posting that as well! Appreciated.



Ok, thanks for the clarification! That definitely helps me understand the mic pattern you are using.


----------



## ArchonX

mogorf said:


> I'm afraid turning on tone controls will at the same time defeat Audyssey MultEQ filters (with the exception of some older Onkyo models). Not sure this is the right thing to do, but whatever sounds good to our ears is GOOD, isn't it?!


Yes, the main importance is what we hear (not technicalities). The Harman Target curve (there are several, 3 I believe) are better than both Audyssey Reference and Flat. It is not only a flatter curve, but gradually gets there, unlike Audyssey reference (sharper fall in the high end) and Audyssey Flat (sharper rise in the high frequencies). The sound quality boost is on point and once you hear it, you will likely never want to go back to anything else. 

The right thing to do is to make your sound as good as you can make it, so when you listen to music (or movies, games, whatever), you do not feel your settings need tweaking because it does not sound as good as you feel your system is capable of. 

I can nearly guarantee that using my Audyssey setup pattern, using everything in my guide, and then applying the Harman Curve will make your system sound better. I have tested it in my front room, my bedroom, and in three of my friend's rooms. They all love the new sound and my one friend said "HOLY @%^^!" when he heard his Denon X6400 and Elac Debut 6.2 setup with my mic pattern and the Harman Curve. It is the two best tweaks I have found in MANY years, trying to improve my sound quality and I no longer feel I have to constantly mess with the controls and change for movies and music. I have both a Khadas Tone board DAC and Focusrite 18i20 third gen audio interface as my playback devices, so I knew it was not either piece of equipment holding back the sound. 

It was re-running Audyssey over and over and trying to stick to conventional methods and tweaks. The Harman Curve is what really makes it sound much better, to this day my favorite tweak.

I saw your edit, I usually listen at moderate to slightly above, but I listen loud at times (particularly with live music, Nier Automata Live Concert, Phil Collins "In the Air of the Night", etc.) and quiet at night when my wife and/or 8 month old and 3 year old are sleeping. I have tested Flat, Off, Reference, Bypass, and Harman. Harman is still by far the best sound quality of all. You are right, volume changes have an effect on the "curve" but that applies to all.


----------



## mogorf

ArchonX said:


> Yes, the main importance is what we hear (not technicalities). The Harman Target curve (there are several, 3 I believe) are better than both Audyssey Reference and Flat. It is not only a flatter curve, but gradually gets there, unlike Audyssey reference (sharper fall in the high end) and Audyssey Flat (sharper rise in the high frequencies). The sound quality boost is on point and once you hear it, you will likely never want to go back to anything else.
> 
> The right thing to do is to make your sound as good as you can make it, so when you listen to music (or movies, games, whatever), you do not feel your settings need tweaking because it does not sound as good as you feel your system is capable of.
> 
> I can nearly guarantee that using my Audyssey setup pattern, using everything in my guide, and then applying the Harman Curve will make your system sound better. I have tested it in my front room, my bedroom, and in three of my friend's rooms. They all love the new sound and my one friend said "HOLY @%^^!" when he heard his Denon X6400 and Elac Debut 6.2 setup with my mic pattern and the Harman Curve. It is the two best tweaks I have found in MANY years, trying to improve my sound quality and I no longer feel I have to constantly mess with the controls and change for movies and music. I have both a Khadas Tone board DAC and Focusrite 18i20 third gen audio interface as my playback devices, so I knew it was not either piece of equipment holding back the sound.
> 
> It was re-running Audyssey over and over and trying to stick to conventional methods and tweaks. The Harman Curve is what really makes it sound much better, to this day my favorite tweak.



Sorry, I made some edits to my original post while you were typing and posting. Care to read my post again? Let's discuss some more details.


----------



## ArchonX

mogorf said:


> Sorry, I made some edits to my original post while you were typing and posting. Care to read my post again? Let's discuss some more details.


Haha, I already updated my post with the new information you posted addressed


----------



## rfb6435

pbarach said:


> The volume setting on the amplifier is irrelevant to what happens during an Audyssey calibration.


The volume is not irrelevant if the volume is too low on the amplifier. 

It will have to turn the volume up and there is a range where it has to turn it just past 12db where it can't so the trim will max out at 12db and the speakers will not be as loud as they should be. If it is deemed too low at some point it will just fail the calibration but there is a range where it doesn't fail and gives non optimal results.

I was unsure if it would further correct by using distance but the volume on the amplifier is not "irrelevant" as you say.

-Rich


----------



## mogorf

ArchonX said:


> Haha, I already updated my post with the new information you posted addressed



OK, so we have two problems here:

1. Tone controls defeat Audyssey's MultEQ filters, and
2. Harman Curve will work at only one MV setting.


----------



## ArchonX

mogorf said:


> OK, so we have two problems here:
> 
> 1. Tone controls defeat Audyssey's MultEQ filters, and
> 2. Harman Curve will work at only one MV setting.


1. Audyssey filters are not what matters, sound quality does. If they get defeated, then so be it. Again, technicalities do not matter, sound quality maximization is the goal. 
2. Seems to work at all volumes for both my rooms and my friends.


----------



## mogorf

ArchonX said:


> 1. Audyssey filters are not what matters, sound quality does. If they get defeated, then so be it. Again, technicalities do not matter, sound quality maximization is the goal.
> 2. Seems to work at all volumes for both my rooms and my friends.



OK, let's hold it for a moment. Why would you suggest to someone who has bought an AVR with Audyssey room correction software to run the calibration then turn it off? 

Secondly, in order for the Harman Curve (or any curve) to have the same effect with changing MV you would have to use DynamicEQ. But by defeating MultEQ you also defeat DynamicEQ.

Please note.


----------



## ArchonX

mogorf said:


> OK, let's hold it for a moment. Why would you suggest to someone who has bought an AVR with Audyssey room correction software to run the calibration then turn it off?
> 
> Secondly, in order for the Harman Curve (or any curve) to have the same effect with changing MV you would have to use DynamicEQ. But by defeating MultEQ you also defeat DynamicEQ.
> 
> Please note.


First off, I am not telling anyone to do anything. You are not shutting off Audyssey Flat by turning on tone controls, so that is your misconception not verbatim! Try my method and turn off Audyssey Flat and it will sound and measure completely different (check yourself with REW if it is the same, bet you it will be different! I know because I tried). Why you think this is beyond me, but it's completely false! Tone controls do not turn off Audyssey, it is still engaged. If I was "telling people to run room correction and then turn it off", my suggestion would have been "Run Audyssey, next turn it off, then do the tone controls." Audyssey is engaged until you turn it off, so it is not possible to turn on tone controls and automatically shut it down. Does that even make sense that you thought that?

I never use or recommend using Dynamic EQ (except if you are using it engaged late at night, when trying to keep bass levels in check), but again you are wrong. There is no curve, be it Harman, Audyssey Flat/Reference/Bypass/even off, YPAO, MCACC, Dirac, whatever that does not change according to volume levels. Harman sounds better, tested multiple times, with different witnesses, rooms, receivers, speakers, and I am quite sure my measurements were not "spot on" the same from ones I performed in other rooms and houses. 

I do not mind people questioning what I post and asking for clarification, but I do mind when I already answered the question and you are still going on about it (plus adding assumptions and claiming I said to disable room correction). Hey, if you feel what I posted was nonsense, don't use it and enjoy your sound! I am not going to get into an argument, which is what you seem to be trying to cause. You are also taking everything I recommended and answered you about and blowing it out of proportion, not cool.

I am not going to answer things more than once and if people want to have a difference of opinion, that is expected and cool. But do not make assumptions and claim I am doing this and that when it is total nonsense. Thanks. 

Funny, high end theaters use the Harman Curve, I guess they all play at one MV only (as you claim) and why they pay all that money for one MV! 

Again, you are free to dismiss my post and call it nonsense, "defeating Audyssey", or whatever. Facts and evidence go against what you are saying. Conventional wisdom about Audyssey, which you are attempting to go by, does not always take the cows out to pasture for everyone. Sometimes not being satisfied with convention and trying things turns out well, this happened to do that for me and others I have tried it with. Not one of my friends were not impressed, not to mention their wives and such. Not one asked me to put it back to how it was before (which was conventional Audyssey runs and conventional tweaks.)

Have you tried my suggestion? Comment after you do (without a biased "I am right you are wrong" attitude and we can go to there). Until then, go by what I said, nothing more or less and certainly do not add your "opinion" of what I said and try and turn it into fact.

Here is a little test for naysayers or people who feel the same. Run Audyssey, make sure it is engaged, and listen to a familiar song. Then (without adjusting anything else), turn on Tone controls without messing with the bass and treble. After, listen to the song while enabling and disabling it, and see if there is a sound difference. Try it off, Reference, Bypass, and Flat and I bet it will change the sound where as enabling Tone controls will do nothing unless you adjust bass or treble.\

Lastly, I am trying to help people and not mess up their stuff! Read through this forum, look up "not happy with Audyssey" in your search engine, and you will find many hits! I am not trying to have people "disable" Audyssey (again, why you think tone controls do this is beyond me!). I am merely a person who found something that has good and repeatable results and I am trying to share and help others who are in the same boat. You sound like I am a person who has no idea what I am doing, that is attempting to mess people up and waste their time enabling and then disabling room correction. I mean, come on!


----------



## garygarrison

*PEACE be with us all ...
*

Here is my understanding (or misunderstanding)


At least on my Marantz preamp-processor, there are _*three*_ possibilities* for tone alteration *AFTERAudyssey has done its job*:* *a)* Using the manual *tone*-adjusting *sliders*, in the form of a pitiful 9 band octave equalizer. These cannot be used with the Audyssey filters in place, unless we use "base copy" (not bass copy) to make a very poor copy of the EQ Audyssey has provided that basically sacrifices the careful, analytical EQ Audyssey has made over *hundreds* of points, and uses the (weighted?) mean of adjustments Audyssey made over each of the measly 9 zones. *b) *Turn Audyssey off, sacrificing its benefits, and just use the sliders --- IMO, a sad approach. *c)* Use the bass and treble tone controls (*not* the sliders), after running Audyssey. These can be used only if Dynamic EQ is turned off, in fact appear only if DEQ is turned off. They won't turn the Audyssey EQ filters off. That's what I do, plus turning up the subwoofer. The careful combination of bass tone control boost for the bass above 80 Hz (my crossover point), and turning up the subwooger for frequencies below 80 Hz, provide me a way to approximate the Harman curve in the bass. I don't change the treble in my treated room because my ears and REW show it to be about right without alteration. Since I play music at modified concert level (usually ~~5 to 7 dB below that level) and play movies at ~~ 5 to 7 dB below Dolby/THX Reference Level, I don't think I have a great need for DEQ.


I change the EQ for problem program material.


----------



## ArchonX

garygarrison said:


> *PEACE be with us all ...
> *
> 
> Here is my understanding (or misunderstanding)
> 
> 
> At least on my Marantz preamp-processor, there are _*three*_ possibilities* for tone alteration *AFTERAudyssey has done its job*:* *a)* Using the manual *tone*-adjusting *sliders*, in the form of a pitiful 9 band octave equalizer. These cannot be used with the Audyssey filters in place, unless we use "base copy" (not bass copy) to make a very poor copy of the EQ Audyssey has provided that basically sacrifices the careful, analytical EQ Audyssey has made over *hundreds* of points, and uses the (weighted?) mean of adjustments Audyssey made over each of the measly 9 octaves. *b) *Turn Audyssey off, sacrificing its benefits, and just use the sliders --- IMO, a sad approach. *c)* Use the bass and treble tone controls (*not* the sliders), after running Audyssey. These can be used only if Dynamic EQ is turned off, in fact appear only if DEQ is turned off. They won't turn the Audyssey EQ filters off. That's what I do, plus turning up the subwoofer. The careful combination of bass tone control boost for the bass above 80 Hz (my crossover point), and turning up the subwooger for frequencies below 80 Hz, provide me a way to approximate the Harmon curve in the bass. I don't change the treble in my treated room because my ears and REW show it to be about right without alteration. Since I play music at modified concert level (usually ~~5 to 7 dB below that level) and play movies at ~~ 5 to 7 dB below Dolby/THX Reference Level, I don't think I have a great need for DEQ.
> 
> 
> I change the EQ for problem program material.


I hear you, I think it is ridiculous that you get artificially limited thanks to the engineers, turning on Dynamic EQ disables the ability to turn tone controls on or off on my Denon X3500 as well. 

I only recommend Dynamic EQ if you are trying to use it late at night and control the volume levels (and at that point, dialog clarity is the most important over sound quality.) Using REW is definitely going to get you superior results over DEQ, if done even half right! I never listen to music or watch movies with Dynamic EQ engaged, it just does artificial boosts and makes my tuned setup get boomy and too bassy.


----------



## pbz06

They aren't artificial boosts and if it sounds boomy my first question would be what kind of subwoofer and speakers do you have.

DEQ works great for me.


----------



## ArchonX

pbz06 said:


> They aren't artificial boosts and if it sounds boomy my first question would be what kind of subwoofer and speakers do you have.
> 
> DEQ works great for me.


I think it is more my bedroom. 11'7 x 11'3, carpet, plaster walls. Window in the middle, door on other side opposite the window. I have my sub corner-loaded (facing me), which gives me the best sound (and also measured better in the room with REW and my Umik-1).

My bedroom system:

Denon X3500
Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd gen audio interface
Khadas Tone Board DAC
NHT Superone Mains and side surrounds
NHT SuperCenter
Currently using the Sony Core Atmos modules for height speakers 
RSL Speedwoofer 10S

I have tried it with my Marantz SR-7012 and lots of other speaker and receiver combos. I was running Sony Core towers (Center, and bookshelf surrounds with the Atmos modules) before this, before that Boston Acoustics Classic II series. At one time, I was using Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 for mains, surrounds, and center. I also owned the whole Emptek Tower, center, and surround set. I sold the Ascends thanks to job loss due to downsizing about 5 years ago. I never really liked the Empteks, they were too laid back for me (sold them in February of this year). I still have the Boston acoustic speakers in my basement, unused. 

For subs, I have tried my VTF-Mk2 in here, but that is now used in my bigger system in my front room. I also tried BIC America PL200 x2, and various other subs in here (SVS, Kef, etc). It is a hard room to dial in, but I think it sounds amazing in here now. I plan on upgrading speakers soon, but I really like these NHT and feel they blow the Sony Core out of the water. I at the very least will be getting NHT Atmos modules, or maybe Superzero's for Atmos duty. 

Dynamic EQ does not always sound bad, I just prefer the sound of it off. Yet, it can get a bit boomy with certain songs and certain action movies.

To me, it is an artificial boost in low frequencies,which gradually drops off as you turn your receiver up to insane (0 Db) levels. Maybe artificial is not the right word, but I never use it. I used to use it, before I finally figured out how to optimize this room. Lots of trial and error, reading so many articles and forums, and I wish I knew what I was doing like now when I had my Ascend setup.


----------



## pbarach

rfb6435 said:


> The volume is not irrelevant if the volume is too low on the amplifier.
> 
> It will have to turn the volume up and there is a range where it has to turn it just past 12db where it can't so the trim will max out at 12db and the speakers will not be as loud as they should be. If it is deemed too low at some point it will just fail the calibration but there is a range where it doesn't fail and gives non optimal results.
> 
> I was unsure if it would further correct by using distance but the volume on the amplifier is not "irrelevant" as you say.
> 
> -Rich



You're saying that the setting of the master volume control _*during *_calibration makes a difference in the calibration results?? I don't think that's true. Where are you getting this information from?


----------



## tbaucom

mogorf said:


> OK, so we have two problems here:
> 
> 1. Tone controls defeat Audyssey's MultEQ filters, and
> 2. Harman Curve will work at only one MV setting.


Tone controls will not defeat the audyssey filters on recent models. It will disable dynamic eq.


----------



## m0j0

@ArchonX, I tested out turning on tone controls with a -5 setting for treble and +1 for bass on my Denon 4400. I also set from Reference to Flat. I don't use Dynamic EQ so no issues there. I watched a whole movie which I am very familiar with, as I use it often for testing my setup post calibration. I thought the tone controls did seem to tame the highs a bit better than just running reference alone. Sometimes on a few scenes in this movie things did get a tad bright or hot, but the tone controls seem to have done their job and brought those sounds under control. I will have to test a few more movies to see if I will keep this change in place or revert back to tone controls off and Reference setting, but a good first test I think.


----------



## mogorf

tbaucom said:


> Tone controls will not defeat the audyssey filters on recent models. It will disable dynamic eq.



Thanks for your clarification tbaucom. Appreciate it!


----------



## mogorf

m0j0 said:


> @*ArchonX* , I tested out turning on tone controls with a -5 setting for treble and +1 for bass on my Denon 4400. I also set from Reference to Flat. I don't use Dynamic EQ so no issues there. I watched a whole movie which I am very familiar with, as I use it often for testing my setup post calibration. I thought the tone controls did seem to tame the highs a bit better than just running reference alone. Sometimes on a few scenes in this movie things did get a tad bright or hot, but the tone controls seem to have done their job and brought those sounds under control. I will have to test a few more movies to see if I will keep this change in place or revert back to tone controls off and Reference setting, but a good first test I think.



Hi m0j0, may I ask what was your MV setting during your test?


----------



## m0j0

mogorf said:


> Hi m0j0, may I ask what was your MV setting during your test?



I was running at -14MV, which is my normal average listening volume, give or take + or - 2, depending on the source/content.


----------



## mogorf

m0j0 said:


> I was running at -14MV, which is my normal average listening volume, give or take + or - 2, depending on the source/content.



Thanks. Just in case (while you're in an experimenting mood  ) and as an option would like to hear your opinion on the same settings but this time with MV turned down, say by 15 dBs to -29 dB. Cross my fingers!


----------



## ArchonX

m0j0 said:


> @ArchonX, I tested out turning on tone controls with a -5 setting for treble and +1 for bass on my Denon 4400. I also set from Reference to Flat. I don't use Dynamic EQ so no issues there. I watched a whole movie which I am very familiar with, as I use it often for testing my setup post calibration. I thought the tone controls did seem to tame the highs a bit better than just running reference alone. Sometimes on a few scenes in this movie things did get a tad bright or hot, but the tone controls seem to have done their job and brought those sounds under control. I will have to test a few more movies to see if I will keep this change in place or revert back to tone controls off and Reference setting, but a good first test I think.


Hi m0jo, 

When I first learned of and switched to the Harman Curve, I was running the Sony Core towers, bookshelves, center, and Atmos modules sitting on top the towers. They are neutral speakers that lean towards being bright, paired with a Denon X3500 which is not the warmest receiver but has more warmth than older Denon models I owned in the past. I am running these with a now corner-loaded RSL Speedwoofer 10s (which audibly and checked by Rew, is the best place to place the sub in my 11.7 x 11.3 bedroom). 

I am using a Focusrite Scarlett 18i20 3rd gen audio interface and also I have a Khadas Tone Board USB DAC (if unfamiliar, it is a $99 barebones DAC that hangs in there with DACs that cost $2000), so my audio output is pristine. 

When I first switched to the Harman curve, it was a tough pill to swallow to be honest. Since I started messing with this stuff when I was in my low teens, up until now at 41, I NEVER have opted to turn down treble. We also get accustomed to how things sound, so when I first learned and tried the Harman Curve, I was underwhelmed and sort of experienced what you did...sounds great one some things, then not so great on others. I figured I would go to bed and fool with it in the morning.

I woke up the next morning, turned on my computer while getting coffee, then turned on YouTube. Using the Focusrite as my output device, I played the live version of Phil Collins "In The Air Tonight" and turned up my Denon. It sounded like I switched to better speakers, because ironically it was the last thing I listened to the night before (I use it as a sound quality test when I change things). I figured out I was so accustomed to how I heard this song, which I had listened to many times before through the same speakers and system, that it sounded underwhelming at first. Now I was hearing details and little nuisances I never heard before. 

I watched the show "The Witcher" on Netflix, and it also gave better movie performance that Reference, Flat with no EQ, and off. 

Now I switched to my NHT SuperOne mains and surrounds, the NHT SuperCenter, and currently using the Sony Core Atmos modules. I am also still using my RSL Speedwoofer 10s. I decided to try the Harman Curve on them and this absolutely destroys the Sony Core setup, it is not even close. Much richer than the Core, more dynamic, and better imaging. They are sealed, so maybe that helps with this room? Even my wife said, "This is the best you have ever made your speakers sound in this room. Now, leave it alone!"  (haha)

The nice thing is, it is so easy to apply and disable, simply turn off tone controls and go back to Reference or keep it Flat.


----------



## rfb6435

pbarach said:


> You're saying that the setting of the master volume control _*during *_calibration makes a difference in the calibration results?? I don't think that's true. Where are you getting this information from?


I think you may have missed that this was related to an external amplifier.

The AVR volume doesn't make a difference but the volume on an external amplifier does.

I run slimline AVRs as external amplifiers (for a different reason than most) so I have noticed that volumes less than 80/0db make a difference but if you don't run them in direct mode it also adds noise so I have to turn them down a bit and Audyssey can go wrong if you turn them down too much. The same would be true of any external amp.

-Rich


----------



## ArchonX

mogorf said:


> Thanks. Just in case (while you're in an experimenting mood  ) and as an option would like to hear your opinion on the same settings but this time with MV turned down, say by 15 dBs to -29 dB. Cross my fingers!


Hi Mogorf,

There is no such thing as a curve, EQ setting, amplifier performance, or anything else that does not change with volume. I am quite sure whoever implemented this designed it around either the standard 75 dB or 80 dB (for film). I am not sure what you are trying to prove, because you are the same person who insisted that turned on tone controls is "turning off Audyssey" (you said filters at first, then I was insisting that people "run room correction then disable it"). So in basic listening, you are going to be around those numbers and it still is a "global change", so it is still using Audyssey and still enabled no matter what. 

I have used this with multiple MV, volumes, seats, houses, etc. It sounds better at all times, hence why I recommended people try it. It also has stopped me from switching back and forth between Audyssey Flat and Reference, I felt Reference did not do the music justice and Flat was too extreme (yet sounded better with anything but live music, then it was a tossup). 

I know a lot of people believe "Hey, if there is an official guide that I endorse, I am getting the most out of my system by following that". Well, that official guide works and is factually correct, the guide on here and the official guides and on many other places. _But it never worked well for me (likely because it is in a nearly square bedroom, not ideal but I prefer to use my computer in here than the living room, which my 8 month old son usually sleeps in)_, just like I do not follow the "official" mic positions and enjoy vastly increased performance from my system, noticed not only by me. 

But what you seem to be missing, like you missed that Tone controls do not disable Audyssey, is that Audyssey is based around your MLP and is based around a 75 dB reference as well. Another thing you are missing is that *Audyssey is still engaged* the whole time, so you are not losing Audyssey benefits when engaging this. Lastly, you are missing that the exact same thing happens to Audyssey Flat and Reference when you change volumes. 

This is basically just an EQ adjustment, hence why you apply it to Audyssey Flat instead of Reference. If you apply it to Reference, you are going to make an even bigger dip in the high frequencies and it would sound bad. Audyssey also gets data from multiple points, but is still based around your MLP and will be most optimized in that location.

This is an always enabled EQ, so it is present at all volumes and all seating positions. All this does is take the Audyssey Flat EQ from a sharp increase in treble, to a smooth and gradual curve, which is more desirable than Audyssey Reference Curve (sharp dip in high frequencies) and Audyssey Flat (Sharp raise in high frequencies). And you are *still using Audyssey* which is still enabled and working, so you have your multi-point measurements still applied. _So all the benefits of Audyssey, with an improved curve is all this is.
_
I have no idea what you are thinking, I just cannot understand what you are trying to prove and I think you are just opposed to doing things different than the guide on here and other places. This is fine, but you are not fact checking your claims.

Edit: Here is an idea, instead of asking m0j0 to test it, test it yourself. It is very easy to undo! Maybe then you could get a better understanding of what is happening and check the performance yourself at any volume you please. If I disagreed with something, I would do that rather than insisting my "knowledge" makes it fail without even understanding the concept.


----------



## pbarach

rfb6435 said:


> I think you may have missed that this was related to an external amplifier.
> 
> The AVR volume doesn't make a difference but the volume on an external amplifier does.



I did miss that! I didn't think of it because the external amp (Carver) I used before it bit the dust had no volume control.


----------



## mogorf

ArchonX said:


> Hi Mogorf,
> 
> Edit: Here is an idea, instead of asking m0j0 to test it, test it yourself. It is very easy to undo! Maybe then you could get a better understanding of what is happening and check the performance yourself at any volume you please. If I disagreed with something, I would do that rather than insisting my "knowledge" makes it fail without even understanding the concept.



Listen to me for a moment, please! 

What you are trying to do here (as a newcomer to the Audyssey thread) is nothing else but "pushing" members to follow your own suggestions on changing from Reference to Preference. There are many "grey beards" on this Audyssey thread who already have their own well established preferences which they enjoy to the brim, therefore there is no real need from them "grey beards" to start tweaking their systems just because a "dark beard" chimed in! You get my point! 

We are friends here on this thread and when the going gets tough we still have a resort to ask Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) over at FB "Audyssey Tech Talk".

Wish I could invite you to sit at my MLP with a cold beer in hand!


----------



## ArchonX

mogorf said:


> Listen to me for a moment, please!
> 
> What you are trying to do here (as a newcomer to the Audyssey thread) is nothing else but "pushing" members to follow your own suggestions on changing from Reference to Preference. There are many "grey beards" on this Audyssey thread who already have their own well established preferences which they enjoy to the brim, therefore there is no real need from them "grey beards" to start tweaking their systems just because a "dark beard" chimed in! You get my point!
> 
> We are friends here on this thread and when the going gets tough we still have a resort to ask Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) over at FB "Audyssey Tech Talk".
> 
> Wish I could invite you to sit at my MLP with a cold beer in hand!


With all due respect, I get your misguided point but you are missing mine like you missed a lot of other things. 

First off, I am giving people things to try if Audyssey does not work well for them. I am not pushing anyone to do anything, you apparently missed reading my guide too. *I said to try things the "official" way, if you are happy then leave it be.* If you want to tweak further TRY these suggestions. Friends are not close minded and have a understanding that not everyone shares the same ideas. People who think like you hold back progress, rather than promoting it. 

Why would I write a guide on doing "reference" Audyssey when one exists already on this forum, very detailed and complete? Follow that, if happy enjoy that to your heart's content? Not happy? Try my suggestions and they may or may not work for you. 

You have no business telling me what to post, you do not own this thread, or forum. I thought this was a place to share ideas from people who have a common interest, and I bet I have done more Audyssey calibrations than many here. So no, I do not want to listen to you and it is ridiculous you even posted this. You think I have never read Chris Kyriakakis posts and questions/answers about Audyssey? 

So suddenly you have to be in a particular forum thread for a long time to have an opinion? I bet I am at least as versed in Audyssey than you, apparently more so (with your many misconceptions), and also have likely done more Audyssey calibrations. This is a hobby I have had since I was not even a teen, I was hooking up stereos when I was 10 years old in my room. Just because I was not in this forum thread for long does not say anything about my ability, knowledge, or character. 

People like you get their mind a certain way, then try getting people who suggest trying different things to overreact so they can be banned from the forum and handled by moderators. No "friend" of mine would do such a thing. So, basically according to you, I am new to the forum and I am trying to persuade people to change their stuff and that is a big no no. I found it funny how you told another member (must be a grey beard friend) told you the same thing I did, about Tone controls not turning off Audyssey, that he clarified it when I already did a couple times.

Funny, if Audyssey "reference" was so amazing, you would not see so many people having issues with it and preferring YPAO and such when YPAO is not superior but is apparently easier to dial in. 

This is the kind of treatment one can receive here just for not being here a long time? Just wow. Plus, you are clogging this thread up with useless posts and here I am doing another. I will continue doing what I am doing, I am not insulting you and I am not going against forum rules. I do not appreciate you in the least bit though. Very lame.

Audyssey Reference was the first implementation of Audyssey, Audyssey Flat was added as "damage control" because many complained that they did not like the Reference EQ for music, because of the high frequency roll off. Audyssey is a great tool, but there is NO tool that exists that cannot be made better or adjusted. Go to your favorite search engine and search for "Audyssey sucks", "Audyssey is worse than YPAO", "Audyssey sounds bad" and you will find literally thousands of hits. Reference does not work for everyone, and EVERYONE has preference. It has trouble in my bedroom unless you do my tweaks, now the sound quality is only limited by my equipment.

The other issue with Audyssey, that I also touched on in my guide, is if you do it the way Audyssey tells you to, it is hard to repeat the results and mimic the exact same placements as a previous run. Plus, you are sampling too big of an area and the Audyssey algorithm is going to try and "guess" what will sound best to you. A tighter area is easier to repeat (tested by myself) and optimizes more in your MLP, which is the goal anyhow.


----------



## BiggShooter

Do I have time to run and get more popcorn?


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

It's been several years since a moderator had to step-in on this thread, and we should all strive to keep it that way! 

I read some of the back-and-forth from the last couple of days, and wanted to try to be helpful, but each time I decided to leave things alone. Now though, I would like to make a couple of hopefully gentle comments, at the risk of potentially offending someone. First, Feri @mogorf is a good guy, with a good heart.

I think he knows that he is a little bit rigid in his beliefs about Audyssey. But, in the 10 years or so, that he has been knowledgeably posting on this thread, he has probably earned a little slack. He just wants other people to believe as he does! That's really not so unusual on AVS, or in the rest of the world, for that matter. 

Although I consider Feri a friend, my own approach is almost the polar opposite of his. I encourage everyone, who is interested, to understand the theory behind Audyssey, Dolby/THX Reference, DEQ, bass-management and all other things related to audio and HT. And then, I encourage people to experiment, and to make-up their own minds about what software programs, settings, volume levels, bass levels, or whatever else they may prefer. 

There has always been room for both points of view on this thread, although things sometimes got a little heated a few years ago. Feri understands very well that there is room for many different points of view on this thread, but he can't help trying to win converts to his own viewpoint.

The trick is to be able to engage in civil discourse (or to opt out of conversations, if civility is too difficult) without being too thin-skinned, and without resorting to personal insults. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, as several of the last few posts demonstrate. If someone says something that we don't agree with, we can choose to ignore it, or we can, if necessary, gently but distinctly clarify our own positions. 

But, we should be able to do that without becoming huffy, and without engaging in personal attacks. (For instance, there were just a few too many references to Feri's admitted mistake with respect to tone controls.)

I'm sorry for the brief sermon, and I'm a day late anyway, since yesterday was Sunday.  But, I remember the bad old days on this thread, when people couldn't engage in disagreements without becoming personal, and a reminder that it's possible to do better can't hurt. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ArchonX

Thank you for that Mike, I can debate without insults or referencing mistakes, but I just have experienced in here before what happens when people try to think outside of the box. 

Threads get closed, the old members attack the new member, then the mods side with the old members (which is not always fair and usually they are being very snarky and rude to the new member, which would not be accepted if it was the other way around) and ban people or completely shut down the threads of the new member who simply was trying to help or try something different. 

When I was first questioned by him, I was very polite and started what I thought was clarification, then he went from polite and friendly to accusing me of things, which is not acceptable and a greater offense than referencing mistakes. I have been around these forums a long time, so it is not like I just made an account and started posting a few days ago. My post to like ratio is decent as well. 

I am here to enjoy the forums and share ideas, not battle people set in their ways. If anyone feels my guide is wrong, rubbish, or not "reference", I even said in there to follow the Audyssey guide and be done with it. Want clarification? I will be more than happy to answer or help. Just do not throw accusations at me or act like I have no knowledge because I am "new". I have used Audyssey since 2004, and consistently buy Denon and Marantz (formerly Onkyo when they used to use Audyssey instead of AccuEQ for room correction). I also have lived in this house since 1984 and I am 41, so I am familiar with this room, which has seen so many receiver and speaker combos over the years. 

In any case, yes I admit my mistakes and referenced his too many times. I apologize for mine, but I do not expect to be told what is acceptable or not by a mere member of the forums, and I will not be. 

That being said, I want to move on and enjoy myself here, help if able, and share ideas.


----------



## BiggShooter

ArchonX said:


> I updated my Audyssey Tips and tricks guide just now. I added a FAQ on the next post and re-wrote a lot of it. There will be much more to come.
> 
> * My Audyssey Tips and tricks Guide*


Thank You 

I have the Denon AVR-X4300H, and noticed that Dynamic EQ does not get disabled when I change the settings [Reference to FLAT / Treble to -5 / Bass to +1) to implement the Harmon Curve. The only menu I could find / change the settings was --> GENERAL --> ZONE2 Setup. Is this the correct menu setting to adjust Treble and Bass?

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## BiggShooter

BiggShooter said:


> Thank You
> 
> I have the Denon AVR-X4300H, and noticed that Dynamic EQ does not get disabled when I change the settings [Reference to FLAT / Treble to -5 / Bass to +1) to implement the Harmon Curve. The only menu I could find / change the settings was --> GENERAL --> ZONE2 Setup. Is this the correct menu setting to adjust Treble and Bass?
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.


I got it figured out. I missed that I had to *DISABLE* Dynamic EQ. When I did, I was able to adjust the settings (Treble / Bass) using TONE.


----------



## DrDon

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> It's been several years since a moderator had to step-in on this thread, and we should all strive to keep it that way!


agreed


----------



## jconjason

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> ***SNIPPED***
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Someone get this man a beer! Very well said, Mike.


----------



## bluesky636

jconjason said:


> Someone get this man a beer! Very well said, Mike.


It's back and forth like this why I quit this forum a number of years ago and only recently came back after retirement and replacement of my entire system.


----------



## pbz06

ArchonX said:


> I updated my Audyssey Tips and tricks guide just now. I added a FAQ on the next post and re-wrote a lot of it. There will be much more to come.
> 
> * My Audyssey Tips and tricks Guide*


I have a dumb question, but is there a significance to the exact setting of Treble -5 and Bass +1 exact, or is the general delta more important to stay with the harman curve? For example, if I find I need more bass, would Bass +3 and Treble -3 give the same effect? Or just up the Bass to say +2 or +3 but keep Treble at -5?


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> I have a dumb question, but is there a significance to the exact setting of Treble -5 and Bass +1 exact, or is the general delta more important to stay with the harman curve? For example, if I find I need more bass, would Bass +3 and Treble -3 give the same effect? Or just up the Bass to say +2 or +3 but keep Treble at -5?



Hi,

If I may, I will jump-in on this one. I think that the application of a house curve is system, room, and listener specific. (It can also be influenced somewhat by the listening material.) In general, brighter sounding speakers, in a livelier sounding room, might benefit from more treble roll-off than speakers which aren't quite so bright sounding, in a room with better room treatments. 

All that the Harman tests demonstrated was that most people prefer a rising bass response (which is consistent with the Equal Loudness Contours) and a slightly falling treble response. The falling treble response has more to do with high-frequency reflections inside a room than it does with the Equal Loudness Contours. But, how much of a rising response for bass, or a falling response for treble we prefer, is something that individuals have to decide for themselves. And, there will always be some individual variance involved. 

Systems of automated room EQ, such as Room Perfect and Dirac Live, offer several different house curves and also allow individuals to generate their own. But, we can do the same thing, to some extent, with our tone controls. And, some of us have been doing that, even with Audyssey, for a number of years.

You just need to experiment and to trust your own preferences for what you hear. And, don't be too surprised if different listening material sounds a little different to you on different days. Our hearing is not a fixed variable, and neither are our moods, even if there were no variation in the way that some recordings emphasize bass or treble frequencies. For me, acoustic music and 5.1 movies represent the greatest difference, and my house curve varies accordingly. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbz06

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I may, I will jump-in on this one. I think that the application of a house curve is system, room, and listener specific. (It can also be influenced somewhat by the listening material.) In general, brighter sounding speakers, in a livelier sounding room, might benefit from more treble roll-off than speakers which aren't quite so bright sounding, in a room with better room treatments.
> 
> All that the Harman tests demonstrated was that most people prefer a rising bass response (which is consistent with the Equal Loudness Contours) and a slightly falling treble response. The falling treble response has more to do with high-frequency reflections inside a room than it does with the Equal Loudness Contours. But, how much of a rising response for bass, or a falling response for treble we prefer, is something that individuals have to decide for themselves. And, there will always be some individual variance involved.
> 
> Systems of automated room EQ, such as Room Perfect and Dirac Live, offer several different house curves and also allow individuals to generate their own. But, we can do the same thing, to some extent, with our tone controls. And, some of us have been doing that, even with Audyssey, for a number of years.
> 
> You just need to experiment and to trust your own preferences for what you hear. And, don't be too surprised if different listening material sounds a little different to you on different days. Our hearing is not a fixed variable, and neither are our moods, even if there were no variation in the way that some recordings emphasize bass or treble frequencies. For me, acoustic music and 5.1 movies represent the greatest difference, and my house curve varies accordingly.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks as usual. I'll take your advice and just try it out for a while. My first impression was "where did the bass go?", hence my question. I can always add more bass via tone control but was hesitant since I don't know what I'm really trying to achieve. My problem is I'm a little OCD, so when someone says try +1, I can't help but think why not +2? What's wrong with 0? Etc. Haha, know what I'm saying?

My other problem is I don't really know what my preference is so I get stuck in endless tweaking  I also like to try and find a set it and forget it place...99% of my listening is movies. I do know my living room is a little on the brighter side (hard floors, glass tables, open concept with marble kitchen, min. decor etc). I set up my speakers and subwoofer following your guide and the Audyssey guide. So I'm happy with that and confident it's 99% there in terms of correctness, now I'm stuck in the preferential nuances!

Combinations of Reference, Flat, Cinema EQ, DEQ, adding sub trim +, tone controls etc. Eventually sound slightly different but I have no preference or goal I'm trying to hit. Lol. Maybe it's the engineer in me!


----------



## m0j0

Not trying to get into the middle of this debate, but I did want to report back on further subjective testing I have done. I have changed my tone controls to -4 treble and 0 for bass and watched another two movies at about -13mv to -13.5mv. I have to say, this setting change is really growing on me. I have been very happy with the overall sound. There are a few times where something sounds a little less lively (like the coins in Ready Player One) but for the most part, I like the sound and it does seem to bring out more nuances in the audio track that I haven't been picking up as well previously, and really just keeping everything even and clean. I am going to stick with it a bit longer and see if it holds up over time.


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> Thanks as usual. I'll take your advice and just try it out for a while. My first impression was "where did the bass go?", hence my question. I can always add more bass via tone control but was hesitant since I don't know what I'm really trying to achieve. My problem is I'm a little OCD, so when someone says try +1, I can't help but think why not +2? What's wrong with 0? Etc. Haha, know what I'm saying?
> 
> My other problem is I don't really know what my preference is so I get stuck in endless tweaking  I also like to try and find a set it and forget it place...99% of my listening is movies. I do know my living room is a little on the brighter side (hard floors, glass tables, open concept with marble kitchen, min. decor etc). I set up my speakers and subwoofer following your guide and the Audyssey guide. So I'm happy with that and confident it's 99% there in terms of correctness, now I'm stuck in the preferential nuances!
> 
> Combinations of Reference, Flat, Cinema EQ, DEQ, adding sub trim +, tone controls etc. Eventually sound slightly different but I have no preference or goal I'm trying to hit. Lol. Maybe it's the engineer in me!




You are very welcome! 

I understand what you are saying about not knowing exactly what goal or preference you are trying to hit. Perhaps I can help a little with that. The first thing I am going to say may sound a little counterintuitive, but I would play some stereo music, involving acoustic instruments, if I wanted to detect nuances in the sound. Remember that the tone controls for Denon/Marantz only affect the front speakers, so listening in stereo makes sense.

Using acoustic music, rather than a movie, will also help. We concentrate differently when we listen to music, since our brains aren't trying to do quite so many things at once, as they are when listening to sounds while watching a movie. I recommend using music produced by acoustic instruments, since most of us have a pretty good idea of what those instruments are supposed to sound like. With electronically-reproduced music, the sounds can be like anything the composer and mixing engineer want them to be. 

For high frequencies, I would listen to string instruments, such as piano, violin, and guitar. If those sounds seem a little piercing, you might want to remove a little more treble. You can make the adjustments on-the-fly while you are listening for the effect. And, you should be able to find a good balance point. That treble balance point should be applicable to movies too. Piercing sounds are piercing, in music or in movies.

For the bass, remember that the bass tone control will affect frequencies above the crossover to your front speakers. The max effect will go up to about 150Hz, and then gradually taper off. So, for this, I would be listening to kick drums, upright bass or bass guitars. You can also listen to snare drums. Some of those sudden percussive sounds will correspond to gunshots in movies. 

When I do this, I am listening for very distinct, but somewhat mellow tones. Those two things are a little different, which is why I use more bass for movies than I do for music. I think that the bass is a little trickier when you move to movies, so you may need to retest your bass tone controls with some of your favorite movies. A gunfight scene from a John Wick movie might be a good test subject for the mid-bass. 

One of the things that I am trying to balance, with my bass tone control, is my mid-bass relative to my low-bass. I use a lot of subwoofer boost for 5.1 action movies, and I find that adding a lot of mid-bass, via my bass tone control, helps to balance my strong subwoofer boosts. 

All of this is strictly a YMMV issue, but this process may help to give you a starting point for your experimentation. Let us know how things work out for you. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

^^^^Mike you have really been taxing my “like” finger lately!


----------



## ArchonX

First off, Mike is absolutely correct and well put. 

I did not come up with this "adding the Harman Curve to Audyssey", and while I would love to give full credit to the author, I cannot locate him or her! I got the idea from a YouTube post about running Audyssey MultiEQ XT32. Someone commented on the video and explained to switch to EQ Flat and -5 Treble, +1 Bass to use the Harman Curve, which is used in even very high end theater calibrations. But he did not explain the theory or what this exactly does (this is where I came in, so to speak ). I contacted that member of YouTube but am waiting for a reply and I have been checking. I would like more details or where he got this from. 

I understand the concept of what it does, as I explained in my guide. I am sure the calibrator who did this used a dB reference, either 75 dB or 80 dB. At that level, it takes the Audyssey Flat curve and instead of a sharp rise in the high frequency sounds, the -5 Treble brings the Audyssey Flat curve to a gradual slope down, likely just dipped at around 15-20 khZ. The +1 Bass was I am sure to smooth out the low end to make it a flatter curve. This is not just a blind assumption, this is exactly what it does because I am familiar with the Flat Audyssey curve.

I see lots are running their preference for Bass and Treble, instead of my suggestions. If you change these settings, you are essentially setting your receiver to either preference or perceived preference. Yet if you use other settings, you are not using a gradual slope curve, you are using what sounds good to you this day. What do I mean?

As a guy who has spent his life boosting or at least making treble NEVER dip below "0", I hated the concept before I even tried it (of this Harman Curve) I almost did not even bother trying it because of the -5 treble, which in my head was "taking away the treble". Then when I applied it, it sounded rich but "muffled" that first night. I liked it half the time, hated it the rest. 

I went to bed, listened to it the next day, and it totally sounded different to me...yet I had not fooled with anything or changed settings. It was as though I changed everything and tweaked it somehow without doing anything! You know what it was? Getting more sleep and instead of going against my mental bias "I never dip treble, ever!" I heard it for what it was. It was a huge improvement in sound, richer but better than both Flat and Reference. An improvement I would have never enjoyed if I let my bias or first impressions decide for me if it was an improvement or hindrance. 

It was my Denon X3500, the Sony Core towers, bookshelf surrounds, center, and Atmos modules with a RSL Speedwoofer 10s. I also was using my Focusrite 18i20 third gen audio interface as my output device. The same exact setup I was unimpressed with the very night before. Now my system sounded like I did something drastic to boost the sound quality....I did, I calibrated using an Audyssey pattern I found works better for me, and I applied this "disliked" Harman Curve, -5 Treble and +1 bass with the Audyssey Flat curve. The thing is, I did this and tested it, disliked it mostly. 

Now I switched back to my NHT SuperOnes for the mains and surrounds, the NHT SuperCenter, and still using the Sony Atmos modules on top the main NHT speakers. It sounds even better than the Sony Core setup, I also redid Audyssey with my favorite mic pattern, which is explained in my guide.

As Mike also stated, *I would never test sound changes with movies*, which are mastered all over the place and also can also be affected by your playback device (Joe is using a cheap DVD player, Tina is using a OPPO 4K Blu-ray, etc,). Movies are all over the place with sound. Use your favorite songs, and do not just listen for a time or two and confirm or deny you like it. Give your ears, expectation, and everything some time to get used to it before you dismiss or keep it. 

Even if movies are your main focus, optimize for music and chances are your system will sound great with the Harman Curve implemented for all things. 

I never fool with mine anymore and even my wife confirms the sound quality difference compared to before. (Before was a standard Audyssey mic pattern, Audyssey Reference for movies, Flat for music.) It is like a whole new level of awesome and with these NHT this room sounds unbelievable...I cannot even imagine what better speakers would sound like.


----------



## haman

ArchonX said:


> First off, Mike is absolutely correct and well put.
> 
> 
> 
> I did not come up with this "adding the Harman Curve to Audyssey", and while I would love to give full credit to the author, I cannot locate him or her! I got the idea from a YouTube post about running Audyssey MultiEQ XT32. Someone commented on the video and explained to switch to EQ Flat and -5 Treble, +1 Bass to use the Harman Curve, which is used in even very high end theater calibrations. But he did not explain the theory or what this exactly does (this is where I came in, so to speak ). I contacted that member of YouTube but am waiting for a reply and I have been checking. I would like more details or where he got this from.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the concept of what it does, as I explained in my guide. I am sure the calibrator who did this used a dB reference, either 75 dB or 80 dB. At that level, it takes the Audyssey Flat curve and instead of a sharp rise in the high frequency sounds, the -5 Treble brings the Audyssey Flat curve to a gradual slope down, likely just dipped at around 15-20 khZ. The +1 Bass was I am sure to smooth out the low end to make it a flatter curve. This is not just a blind assumption, this is exactly what it does because I am familiar with the Flat Audyssey curve.
> 
> 
> 
> I see lots are running their preference for Bass and Treble, instead of my suggestions. If you change these settings, you are essentially setting your receiver to either preference or perceived preference. Yet if you use other settings, you are not using a gradual slope curve, you are using what sounds good to you this day. What do I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> As a guy who has spent his life boosting or at least making treble NEVER dip below "0", I hated the concept before I even tried it (of this Harman Curve) I almost did not even bother trying it because of the -5 treble, which in my head was "taking away the treble". Then when I applied it, it sounded rich but "muffled" that first night. I liked it half the time, hated it the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to bed, listened to it the next day, and it totally sounded different to me...yet I had not fooled with anything or changed settings. It was as though I changed everything and tweaked it somehow without doing anything! You know what it was? Getting more sleep and instead of going against my mental bias "I never dip treble, ever!" I heard it for what it was.
> 
> 
> 
> It was my Denon X3500, the Sony Core towers, bookshelf surrounds, center, and Atmos modules with a RSL Speedwoofer 10s. I also was using my Focusrite 18i20 third gen audio interface as my output device. The same exact setup I was unimpressed with the very night before.
> 
> 
> 
> Now I switched back to my NHT SuperOnes for the mains and surrounds, the NHT SuperCenter, and still using the Sony Atmos modules on top the main NHT speakers. It sounds even better than the Sony Core setup, I also redid Audyssey with my favorite mic pattern, which is explained in my guide.
> 
> 
> 
> As Mike also stated, *I would never test sound changes with movies*, which are mastered all over the place and also can also be affected by your playback device (Joe is using a cheap DVD player, Tina is using a OPPO 4K Blu-ray, etc,). Movies are all over the place with sound. Use your favorite songs, and do not just listen for a time or two and confirm or deny you like it. Give your ears, expectation, and everything some time to get used to it before you dismiss or keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if movies are your main focus, optimize for music and chances are your system will sound great with the Harman Curve implemented for all things.
> 
> 
> 
> I never fool with mine anymore and even my wife confirms the sound quality difference compared to before. (Before was a standard Audyssey mic pattern, Audyssey Reference for movies, Flat for music.) It is like a whole new level of awesome and with these NHT this room sounds unbelievable...I cannot even imagine what better speakers would sound like.


Hi, does distance from MLP to LCR or C speakers play a part in choosing Reference or Flat for your own setting? I read in Audyssey 101, flat is if you are located nearfield to front speakers, or acoustic treated room, or a small room. Exactly how much distance is considered as a nearfield? 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## ArchonX

pbz06 said:


> I have a dumb question, but is there a significance to the exact setting of Treble -5 and Bass +1 exact, or is the general delta more important to stay with the harman curve? For example, if I find I need more bass, would Bass +3 and Treble -3 give the same effect? Or just up the Bass to say +2 or +3 but keep Treble at -5?


Hi pbz06,

If you do anything to the Treble or Bass besides my suggestion, you are taking the Audyssey Flat EQ and doing things to the curves and slopes. In short, not only are you not using the Harman Curve, you are messing with your global EQ. This will likely sound good to you that session, but when you listen in a few days, you may find something you do not like about it and feel the need to tweak further, then tweak more later, and so on, you get the picture I am sure. Like I used to do every few days! I am exhibit A, because do the life of me I could not find settings I liked and even if I did, a few days later they would not sound as good. 

There are rooms that are easy to get sounding great, and harder than heck to sound even decent. 

There are great speakers, good speakers, mediocre speakers, poor, horrible speakers. 

There are good Audyssey calibrations, mediocre, or poor. 

And even with those things, we are not even going to discuss bias, preference, and human hearing, which changes daily. 

So in short, no, no other EQ setting is going to be using a Harman Curve. It does not matter your system or speakers. Give yourself a few days to listen to more content and make sure it is not your expectation bias or hearing that particular day which is not making it sound ideal.


----------



## ArchonX

haman said:


> Hi, does distance from MLP to LCR or C speakers play a part in choosing Reference or Flat for your own setting? I read in Audyssey 101, flat is if you are located nearfield to front speakers, or acoustic treated room, or a small room. Exactly how much distance is considered as a nearfield?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


Hi Haman,

Audyssey Reference is the original Audyssey curve, but it was designed for movies not music. When Audyssey was first implemented in 2004, there was only two settings, Reference (available after running Audyssey) or Off (which completely disables Audyssey EQ and room correction). As explained in my guide and in Audyssey 101, Reference is a roll off in the high frequencies. 

Audyssey Flat was "damage control" added in later years because after a while so many people loved Audyssey for movies but hated it for music. So the Flat Curve was Audyssey multi-point room correction, but was designed for nearfield listening in small rooms (to be technical) but is still widely considered superior to Reference for music. Or some people turn off Audyssey completely for music and only use it for movies. It is a slope up in the high frequency range. 

So commonly, Reference for movies, Flat for music and especially near-fiend music. Or off if you do not like Audyssey Flat or Reference for music. 

Nearfield, for example, would be your speakers on a music production or gaming desk.


----------



## rocky1

Please correct me if im wrong. Trying to understand this Harmon curve. But basically it better implemented for music as opposed to Ht. Since it it involves the tones bass or treble when dyn eq is off... in a nut shell


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ArchonX

rocky1 said:


> Please correct me if im wrong. Trying to understand this Harmon curve. But basically it better implemented for music as opposed to Ht. Since it it involves the tones bass or treble when dyn eq is off... in a nut shell
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi rocky1,

Not exactly. Because you are taking the Audyssey Flat curve and turning it into a flatter curve with a gradual slope, instead of a sharp slope up. You can use it with movies, music, and games without worry. Though Flat was implemented for music, specifically for small rooms where you sit closer to the speakers, this is changing it to basically a curve not available as an option normally. 

It can be used with music, movies, and music and if your Audyssey calibration was done well and your speakers are setup well. Like anything else, it is not going to be a bandaid to a bad setup or magically make $50.00 speakers sound like $500 speakers. But if room correction was performed well and you have a below average to great system, you should hear better sound after getting accustomed to it. I have used it for about 2 weeks now, and I feel the sound quality is better than anything else I ever tried, and I have tried literally thousands of things! 

The only downside is you cannot use Dynamic EQ with tone controls, you must use one or the other.


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Ill give it a shot once im able. Out of town right now. But in all honesty my system sounds pretty good right now as is. I may try this for music only just to check it out. 

Just so you know never heard of
Harmon Curve till recently. Not sure what it entails
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ArchonX

rocky1 said:


> Ill give it a shot once im able. Out of town right now. But in all honesty my system sounds pretty good right now as is. I may try this for music only just to check it out.
> 
> Just so you know never heard of
> Harmon Curve till recently. Not sure what it entails
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Please let me know what you think then you do.


----------



## rocky1

ArchonX said:


> Please let me know what you think then you do.




I will. But will be out of town due to one of my daughters about to give me a grandson . Unfortunately she lives out of town .



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## primetimeguy

ArchonX said:


> The only downside is you cannot use Dynamic EQ with tone controls, you must use one or the other.


The biggest downside I see is that the tone controls only impact the L and R channels. The center channel and surround channels now have much more high frequency than the L and R. My onkyo has Cinema Re-eq setting which is similar and essentially provides a - 4b drop in treble to all 3 front channels and is better but still not ideal. 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Edi-MC

primetimeguy said:


> The biggest downside I see is that the tone controls only impact the L and R channels. The center channel and surround channels now have much more high frequency than the L and R. My onkyo has Cinema Re-eq setting which is similar and essentially provides a - 4b drop in treble to all 3 front channels and is better but still not ideal.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


Are you sure of this? Doesn't make much sense to me... I assumed this affected the overall tonality of the sound. 
What was explained before is that this affects the L/R speaker even if you are in stereo mode...

I tried the settings and, at very low volume (40-45 db) it sounded VERY good! I was surprised, I have to say! 
Now I have to test everything further and at higher volumes to (hopefully) get some conclusions


----------



## primetimeguy

Edi-MC said:


> Are you sure of this? Doesn't make much sense to me... I assumed this affected the overall tonality of the sound.
> What was explained before is that this affects the L/R speaker even if you are in stereo mode...
> 
> I tried the settings and, at very low volume (40-45 db) it sounded VERY good! I was surprised, I have to say!
> Now I have to test everything further and at higher volumes to (hopefully) get some conclusions


Check the manual for your specific receiver, but very few AVRs have tone controls that impact all channels and none with Audyssey that I am aware of. I have seen some Yamahas that do.


----------



## mthomas47

^^^

Warning! Long post ahead. 

There are several slight inaccuracies and misconceptions floating around on the thread right now, and it may be helpful to try to address some of them. I am concerned not only for AVS members who may be posting clarification questions or answers, but also for all the guests who may be silently reading along and getting confused. Remember that, for every member reading this thread, at a particular point in time, there may be 8-10 guests reading who can't ask any clarification questions. For instance, as I start to write this post, there are 87 members and 886 guests visiting this part of the forum. This post is partly for them.

Let's start with the Audyssey Flat curve and the Audyssey Reference curve. Audyssey Flat is just what the name suggests. It really isn't a curve at all. It is an attempt to EQ every frequency from 10Hz to 22,000Hz to a +/- 3db deviation from a baseline volume of 75db. That is the volume of the Audyssey test tones. (Our AVR's are programmed to automatically add an additional 10db to that baseline, after calibration, to achieve 85db which is considered the nominal average Dolby/THX Reference volume.)

In a perfect world, a frequency response graph of Audyssey Flat would be a completely flat line, with no deviations above or below the line. It wouldn't be a sloping or curving line at all. All frequencies from 10Hz to 22,000Hz would be playing at exactly the same volume. In practice, room interactions, and inherent speaker deviations from a perfectly flat response, combine to create a much more jagged frequency response, with many small peaks and valleys.

But, Audyssey Flat is intended to be flat, and I believe it has always been the starting point of the Audyssey room EQ software program. It wasn't added later just for music, although that is implied in Audyssey marketing materials. It is simply the easiest way to EQ a room: +/- 3db from a perfectly straight line. (As a side note, DEQ was added to Audyssey later.)

Audyssey Reference represents a deliberate deviation from Flat. And, it simply modifies the Flat line in some specific ways. First, Audyssey Reference adds a -3db dip at 2,500Hz, called mid-range compensation. The theory was that, since that is the crossover range from most mid-range drivers to tweeters, a dip at that frequency would enable a smoother crossover. That theory does not seem correct in actual practice, and it actually contradicts the tests done under the heading of the Harman tests, which include a peak at 3,000Hz. 

Audyssey Reference leaves the bass unchanged from Audyssey Flat, but does begin a treble roll-off of -2db, starting at 4,000Hz. The roll-off increases to -6db above 10,000Hz. Audyssey's research into treble frequencies seems to parallel Dr. Floyd Toole's earlier research, and Dr. Sean Olive's research (published in 2013) which formed the basis for the Harman curve. (More on that later.)

Next, let's talk about tone controls for a moment. The tone controls are a carryover from stereo receivers and amplifiers which only had two-channels to influence. AVR makers wanted to preserve those tone controls, partly for ongoing two-channel listening, so most of them continued to implement the tone controls for just the two front (or Main) speakers. I believe that Yamaha AVR's have tone controls which also affect the center channel. But, on Denon/Marantz AVR's the tone controls definitely affect only the two front speakers. (There are detailed explanations of DEQ, Flat/Reference, and the tone controls, in Section V-A of the Guide linked in my signature.)

I said I would come back to the Harman Curve, and this is an appropriate time to do it. You can Google "Harman Curve" and you will see a lot of different images and interpretations of it. In fact, it isn't one single graph line. It is just a general approach to the problem of how to design speakers and headphones which will appeal to the hearing preferences of as many people as possible. Headphone/speaker design was the real purpose of the studies conducted by Sean Olive, Todd Welti, and others. I am linking a couple of brief articles that help to explain the Harman Curve, and the studies that led to it. 

https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve

https://www.soundstagesolo.com/index.php/features/217-where-are-we-at-with-the-harman-curve

In general, the Harman studies concluded that most people like a frequency response which starts at it's highest point at 20Hz, and which then drops about 1db per octave for the 10 octaves between 20Hz and 20,000Hz. The curves typically show a rising bass response of anywhere from +6db to +8db at about 20Hz, a strong spike at about 3,000Hz, and then a downward sloping response which becomes strongest above 10,000Hz. Audyssey Reference only corresponds to the last part of that approach. (The MRC dip that occurs at 2,500Hz doesn't correspond at all, and neither does the lack of a rising bass response.) Audyssey Flat has no correspondence whatsoever to the Harman Curve.

What should we actually use then? Well, according to Dr. Sean Olive, Dr. Todd Welti, and Dr. Floyd Toole (all of whom collaborated in similar research at one point or another) we should use whatever sounds best to us in our own rooms. Again, the research was simply intended to develop general preferences which could be used as the basis for improved speaker and headphone design. The research was never intended to dictate preferences on some sort of absolute scale. 

Approximately 65% of people preferred the general Harman Curve described in a previous paragraph. But, even within the constraints of the test environments, 35% didn't. And, our rooms as well as our speakers, and individual variances in our hearing would continue to add uncertainty outside of a test environment. Brighter sounding speakers, in a brighter sounding room (more hard surfaces; less absorption and diffusion), could make about a 3db difference to the treble sounds, even without considering variations in hearing or in listener preferences. 

The bottom line here is that there is no single simple formula, such as +1db of bass and -5db of treble, applied to the front speakers through the tone controls, which will work best for everyone. Life would be simpler if that were the case, but it just isn't. Individuals have to decide for themselves what sounds best to them, in their specific rooms with their specific speakers, at their specific listening distances, and at their specific listening volumes. 

If it's +1db of bass and -5db of treble, so be it. If it is some entirely different combination, or the use of DEQ, so be it as well. This is essentially the same problem that Audyssey ran into when it developed Audyssey Flat, Audyssey Reference, and DEQ. No single algorithm is going to work equally well for everyone. There are just too many variables, including the program material we listen to, in what Floyd Toole describes as the "circle of confusion". 

But, that would be the case if we were talking about any subject, including the specific way we prefer to drink our coffee, or whether we like to drink coffee at all. I hope that this post helps to clarify things a little, and encourages people to experiment for themselves and to ultimately trust their own preferences.

Happy New Year, for anyone still reading this long post! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Hi @mthomas47,

Your posts are easy to read and equally easy to comprehend. So, in the actual reading part, they seem shorter than they actually are. Your knack of explaining complicated science in easily understood terms and examples is Highly valued here. 

Thank you Sir for taking the time to help clarify and refute recent posted conjecture and speculations. Sometimes getting back to basics is paramount.

Happy New Year my Fellow AVS Members. May all your "Audio and Video" dreams come true. And some day for all of this "science" in Sound make sense to us!!!!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

rocky1 said:


> I will. But will be out of town due to one of my daughters about to give me a grandson . Unfortunately she lives out of town .
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi rocky1,

Congratulations on the Grandson! What a wonderful New Years present you are getting. I wish you and your family all the best this New Year and I hope you get to Spoil the hell out of this new Family Member. The Payback years can be oh so delightful......


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi rocky1,
> 
> 
> 
> Congratulations on the Grandson! What a wonderful New Years present you are getting. I wish you and your family all the best this New Year and I hope you get to Spoil the hell out of this new Family Member. The Payback years can be oh so delightful......




Wow thank you.. actually already have 2 grandkids from 1 daughter ,this daughter is due any minute (in chicago) and my 3rd daighter is due in march.. im getting overloaded so to speak..this hobby helps alot.. But freezing here as im from miami..thanks again..



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Edi-MC

"What should we actually use then? (...) we should use whatever sounds best to us in our own rooms."
That sums it all!
Happy new year!


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> "What should we actually use then? (...) we should use whatever sounds best to us in our own rooms."
> That sums it all!
> Happy new year!


In my room, Audyssey Reference, DEQ on, and MV setting of -18 to -15 sounds perfect for both movies and music. 😁

Happy New Year.


----------



## ArchonX

rocky1 said:


> Wow thank you.. actually already have 2 grandkids from 1 daughter ,this daughter is due any minute (in chicago) and my 3rd daighter is due in march.. im getting overloaded so to speak..this hobby helps alot.. But freezing here as im from miami..thanks again..
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Congrats by the way, you have two more grandkids coming soon! I live in the suburbs of Chicago and yes, it is very cold here now. It is supposed to be in the 40's today, but it is windy so not helping much. 

My wife had my son last year in April, he is 9 months old now. My daughter is 3 years old now, born in November so she will be 4 before year end. It is such an exciting time, enjoy it and I wish you and your family the best!

Happy New Year to you.


----------



## rocky1

ArchonX said:


> Congrats by the way, you have two more grandkids coming soon! I live in the suburbs of Chicago and yes, it is very cold here now. It is supposed to be in the 40's today, but it is windy so not helping much.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife had my son last year in April, he is 9 months old now. My daughter is 3 years old now, born in November so she will be 4 before year end. It is such an exciting time, enjoy it and I wish you and your family the best!
> 
> 
> 
> Happy New Year to you.




Thanks and congrats to you and yours. Chicago nice and we are here for her but really id rather be in sunny miami... its just too cold for my tastes...lol.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ArchonX

rocky1 said:


> Thanks and congrats to you and yours. Chicago nice and we are here for her but really id rather be in sunny miami... its just too cold for my tastes...lol..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I wish I was in Miami as well, haha! 

Thank you, my kids are anti-Audyssey...my son talks to himself while I try and run it (lol) and my daughter "accidentally" bangs the floor and such. They are great helpers


----------



## bluesky636

ArchonX said:


> As I said in my guide, and have repeated a few times in this thread, use whatever sounds best to you and I am not telling anyone to do anything. It is your stuff, set it how you like. I merely gave members here something to try, and as many members here are already posting they are constantly flipping settings (just like I used to).
> 
> I do not like Reference or Flat curves, neither has ever been a "set and forget option", hence why before I was switching back and forth constantly and some stuff would sound good with Reference, some with Flat, and some with Off.
> 
> My whole point of what I was doing was to make me, instead of fooling and switching Audyssey curves, enjoying my properly setup sound. I have done it all....
> 
> Careful placement of speakers
> Re-running Audyssey 100 times over (and my house is hard to keep quiet!)
> Trying speaker treatment
> Messing with Audyssey, messing with REW
> Setting my own EQ
> and so on, and so on....
> 
> None of these things made it a set and forget system, yet other brands I tried did allow me to do that. I had a Yamaha RX-V779 for a while and I have been a Denon and Marantz fan forever. I actually liked the YPAO and after some tweaks, I realized I was messing with the receiver far less than my Denon and Marantz units I own and owned in the past. I experienced this before, when I had the Pioneer SC-1222k and found I was not even touching the settings after setting MCACC and tweaking a bit. But I love Denon and Marantz, sometimes I cannot even figure out why.
> 
> With the Harman Curve, the only thing I would like to do is upgrade speakers sometime this year and get an external amplifier. I had to re-do my Audyssey after learning of it twice, once because I switched from Sony Core to NHT SuperZeros, and last night because I rearranged my room and moved my speakers. I think my new room placement sounds even better.
> 
> But using instructions in my own guide, this is the closest to set and forget I have managed to get my Denon and I have done similar to my Marantz in my front room. It also has seen major sound quality improvements and has become a set and forget system, finally. At one time I was fooling with it, daily!
> 
> This is why I decided to share this here, hoping some other struggling with Audyssey can enjoy better sound quality and/or mess with it less. But I know a lot of people believe Audyssey is the end all, be all for room correction and swear by it. I do smile when I read about those same people messing with it constantly, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> Happy New Year, everyone!


I think you have made your point, many times over. Time to move on. Maybe you should make your tweaks a separate thread of it's own instead of mucking up the dedicated Audyssey thread. You might get less push back that way.


----------



## rboster

Alright everyone, lets move on. 


ArchonX you've provided the information (and made your point) and if anyone has any questions they can contact you directly via PM.


----------



## Mactavish

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Warning! Long post ahead.
> 
> There are several slight inaccuracies and misconceptions floating around on the thread right now, and it may be helpful to try to address some of them. I am concerned not only for AVS members who may be posting clarification questions or answers, but also for all the guests who may be silently reading along and getting confused. Remember that, for every member reading this thread, at a particular point in time, there may be 8-10 guests reading who can't ask any clarification questions. For instance, as I start to write this post, there are 87 members and 886 guests visiting this part of the forum. This post is partly for them.
> 
> Let's start with the Audyssey Flat curve and the Audyssey Reference curve. Audyssey Flat is just what the name suggests. It really isn't a curve at all. It is an attempt to EQ every frequency from 10Hz to 22,000Hz to a +/- 3db deviation from a baseline volume of 75db. That is the volume of the Audyssey test tones. (Our AVR's are programmed to automatically add an additional 10db to that baseline, after calibration, to achieve 85db which is considered the nominal average Dolby/THX Reference volume.)
> 
> In a perfect world, a frequency response graph of Audyssey Flat would be a completely flat line, with no deviations above or below the line. It wouldn't be a sloping or curving line at all. All frequencies from 10Hz to 22,000Hz would be playing at exactly the same volume. In practice, room interactions, and inherent speaker deviations from a perfectly flat response, combine to create a much more jagged frequency response, with many small peaks and valleys.
> 
> But, Audyssey Flat is intended to be flat, and I believe it has always been the starting point of the Audyssey room EQ software program. It wasn't added later just for music, although that is implied in Audyssey marketing materials. It is simply the easiest way to EQ a room: +/- 3db from a perfectly straight line. (As a side note, DEQ was added to Audyssey later.)
> 
> Audyssey Reference represents a deliberate deviation from Flat. And, it simply modifies the Flat line in some specific ways. First, Audyssey Reference adds a -3db dip at 2,500Hz, called mid-range compensation. The theory was that, since that is the crossover range from most mid-range drivers to tweeters, a dip at that frequency would enable a smoother crossover. That theory does not seem correct in actual practice, and it actually contradicts the tests done under the heading of the Harman tests, which include a peak at 3,000Hz.
> 
> Audyssey Reference leaves the bass unchanged from Audyssey Flat, but does begin a treble roll-off of -2db, starting at 4,000Hz. The roll-off increases to -6db above 10,000Hz. Audyssey's research into treble frequencies seems to parallel Dr. Floyd Toole's earlier research, and Dr. Sean Olive's research (published in 2013) which formed the basis for the Harman curve. (More on that later.)
> 
> Next, let's talk about tone controls for a moment. The tone controls are a carryover from stereo receivers and amplifiers which only had two-channels to influence. AVR makers wanted to preserve those tone controls, partly for ongoing two-channel listening, so most of them continued to implement the tone controls for just the two front (or Main) speakers. I believe that Yamaha AVR's have tone controls which also affect the center channel. But, on Denon/Marantz AVR's the tone controls definitely affect only the two front speakers. (There are detailed explanations of DEQ, Flat/Reference, and the tone controls, in Section V-A of the Guide linked in my signature.)
> 
> I said I would come back to the Harman Curve, and this is an appropriate time to do it. You can Google "Harman Curve" and you will see a lot of different images and interpretations of it. In fact, it isn't one single graph line. It is just a general approach to the problem of how to design speakers and headphones which will appeal to the hearing preferences of as many people as possible. Headphone/speaker design was the real purpose of the studies conducted by Sean Olive, Todd Welti, and others. I am linking a couple of brief articles that help to explain the Harman Curve, and the studies that led to it.
> 
> https://www.innerfidelity.com/content/acoustic-basis-harman-listener-target-curve
> 
> https://www.soundstagesolo.com/index.php/features/217-where-are-we-at-with-the-harman-curve
> 
> In general, the Harman studies concluded that most people like a frequency response which starts at it's highest point at 20Hz, and which then drops about 1db per octave for the 10 octaves between 20Hz and 20,000Hz. The curves typically show a rising bass response of anywhere from +6db to +8db at about 20Hz, a strong spike at about 3,000Hz, and then a downward sloping response which becomes strongest above 10,000Hz. Audyssey Reference only corresponds to the last part of that approach. (The MRC dip that occurs at 2,500Hz doesn't correspond at all, and neither does the lack of a rising bass response.) Audyssey Flat has no correspondence whatsoever to the Harman Curve.
> 
> What should we actually use then? Well, according to Dr. Sean Olive, Dr. Todd Welti, and Dr. Floyd Toole (all of whom collaborated in similar research at one point or another) we should use whatever sounds best to us in our own rooms. Again, the research was simply intended to develop general preferences which could be used as the basis for improved speaker and headphone design. The research was never intended to dictate preferences on some sort of absolute scale.
> 
> Approximately 65% of people preferred the general Harman Curve described in a previous paragraph. But, even within the constraints of the test environments, 35% didn't. And, our rooms as well as our speakers, and individual variances in our hearing would continue to add uncertainty outside of a test environment. Brighter sounding speakers, in a brighter sounding room (more hard surfaces; less absorption and diffusion), could make about a 3db difference to the treble sounds, even without considering variations in hearing or in listener preferences.
> 
> The bottom line here is that there is no single simple formula, such as +1db of bass and -5db of treble, applied to the front speakers through the tone controls, which will work best for everyone. Life would be simpler if that were the case, but it just isn't. Individuals have to decide for themselves what sounds best to them, in their specific rooms with their specific speakers, at their specific listening distances, and at their specific listening volumes.
> 
> If it's +1db of bass and -5db of treble, so be it. If it is some entirely different combination, or the use of DEQ, so be it as well. This is essentially the same problem that Audyssey ran into when it developed Audyssey Flat, Audyssey Reference, and DEQ. No single algorithm is going to work equally well for everyone. There are just too many variables, including the program material we listen to, in what Floyd Toole describes as the "circle of confusion".
> 
> But, that would be the case if we were talking about any subject, including the specific way we prefer to drink our coffee, or whether we like to drink coffee at all. I hope that this post helps to clarify things a little, and encourages people to experiment for themselves and to ultimately trust their own preferences.
> 
> Happy New Year, for anyone still reading this long post!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Great post, I believe you summed it up best:

“The bottom line here is that there is no single simple formula, such as +1db of bass and -5db of treble, applied to the front speakers through the tone controls, which will work best for everyone. Life would be simpler if that were the case, but it just isn't. Individuals have to decide for themselves what sounds best to them, in their specific rooms with their specific speakers, at their specific listening distances, and at their specific listening volumes.”


----------



## pbz06

Mactavish said:


> Great post, I believe you summed it up best:
> 
> “The bottom line here is that there is no single simple formula, such as +1db of bass and -5db of treble, applied to the front speakers through the tone controls, which will work best for everyone. Life would be simpler if that were the case, but it just isn't. Individuals have to decide for themselves what sounds best to them, in their specific rooms with their specific speakers, at their specific listening distances, and at their specific listening volumes.”


Mike and Gary are like my saviors. Every time I start straying, they set me back on the path. 

Happy new year!


----------



## mthomas47

Mactavish said:


> Great post, I believe you summed it up best:
> 
> “The bottom line here is that there is no single simple formula, such as +1db of bass and -5db of treble, applied to the front speakers through the tone controls, which will work best for everyone. Life would be simpler if that were the case, but it just isn't. Individuals have to decide for themselves what sounds best to them, in their specific rooms with their specific speakers, at their specific listening distances, and at their specific listening volumes.”





pbz06 said:


> Mike and Gary are like my saviors. Every time I start straying, they set me back on the path.
> 
> Happy new year!



Thank you very much, guys! You and Adam are very kind with your comments!


----------



## Mactavish

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you very much, guys! You and Adam are very kind with your comments!


I welcome ArchomX to the thread, he seems quite knowledgeable and can add to our NEVER ending goal of personal audio perfection. As most know there is no magic pill to satisfy all our unique PREFERENCES.


----------



## wxchaser

Quick question - just received my 2nd SnapAV ported 12" subwoofer & will be running Audyssey XT32 tomorrow. I am connecting subs via subwoofer cable, set to LFE. In manual settings for Speakers/Bass I have subwoofer mode set to LFE + Main. The low pass filter for LFE is manually set to 120 Hz, what do you guys suggest that should be set at?


----------



## bluesky636

wxchaser said:


> Quick question - just received my 2nd SnapAV ported 12" subwoofer & will be running Audyssey XT32 tomorrow. I am connecting subs via subwoofer cable, set to LFE. In manual settings for Speakers/Bass I have subwoofer mode set to LFE + Main. The low pass filter for LFE is manually set to 120 Hz, what do you guys suggest that should be set at?


Set the speakers to Small with a crossover of 80 hz, LFE set to 120 hz. Read the Audyssey setup thread if you haven't.


----------



## wxchaser

bluesky636 said:


> Set the speakers to Small with a crossover of 80 hz, LFE set to 120 hz. Read the Audyssey setup thread if you haven't.


I have read through the very lengthy thread along with the 343 page PDF manual.

Thanks for your suggestions all my crossovers are set to 80 Hz, and the LFE is on 120 Hz. Also I have my front speakers set to small after running Audyssey.


----------



## bluesky636

wxchaser said:


> I have read through the very lengthy thread along with the 343 page PDF manual.
> 
> Thanks for your suggestions all my crossovers are set to 80 Hz, and the LFE is on 120 Hz. Also I have my front speakers set to small after running Audyssey.


Excellent.


----------



## CBdicX

*Lower the cross-over*

Hi, i need to *lower* the Audyssey cross-over settings.
I get 150 Hz for my fronts and center speaker (Gallo Strada 2), and for my Surrounds and Height speakers (Gallo Adiva SE) i get 110 and 120 Hz.
When i leave it like this the subwoofer is also "talking", i can hear it special in talk programs like news ect.
Its not nice to hear so i lower the x-overs to 100 Hz and all sounds much better, no more talking of the sub.

I also read that lowering the x-over will make Audyssey do no corrections.
But when i switch between Audyssey ON and Off (on the manual 100 Hz setting) i do hear a big differents in sound, with On its more clear.
If Audyssey stops doing correction, why do i hear a big differents in On and Off ?

Thanks……..


----------



## pbz06

CBdicX said:


> *Lower the cross-over*
> 
> Hi, i need to *lower* the Audyssey cross-over settings.
> I get 150 Hz for my fronts and center speaker (Gallo Strada 2), and for my Surrounds and Height speakers (Gallo Adiva SE) i get 110 and 120 Hz.
> When i leave it like this the subwoofer is also "talking", i can hear it special in talk programs like news ect.
> Its not nice to hear so i lower the x-overs to 100 Hz and all sounds much better, no more talking of the sub.
> 
> I also read that lowering the x-over will make Audyssey do no corrections.
> But when i switch between Audyssey ON and Off (on the manual 100 Hz setting) i do hear a big differents in sound, with On its more clear.
> If Audyssey stops doing correction, why do i hear a big differents in On and Off ?
> 
> Thanks……..


Lowering the crossover doesn't disable Audyssey, it's just that it doesn't apply filters below the original point. 

With a crossover that high, it's not surprising you hear the subwoofer...that's likely a combination of localization and distortion etc.

I'm not familiar with your speakers, but 150hz is high. A compromise would be to do what you did, lower it until the issue with the sub is fixed...but you risk either overextending your speakers past their comfort zone or creating a gap. But ultimately do what sounds better.


----------



## jconjason

wxchaser said:


> Quick question - just received my 2nd SnapAV ported 12" subwoofer & will be running Audyssey XT32 tomorrow. I am connecting subs via subwoofer cable, set to LFE. In manual settings for Speakers/Bass I have subwoofer mode set to LFE + Main. The low pass filter for LFE is manually set to 120 Hz, what do you guys suggest that should be set at?


It's widely recommended you don't use LFE+Mains. You're basically getting "double bass" this way. If you're happy with it that way, that's all that matters though!


----------



## CBdicX

pbz06 said:


> Lowering the crossover doesn't disable Audyssey, it's just that it doesn't apply filters below the original point.
> 
> With a crossover that high, it's not surprising you hear the subwoofer...that's likely a combination of localization and distortion etc.
> 
> I'm not familiar with your speakers, but 150hz is high. A compromise would be to do what you did, lower it until the issue with the sub is fixed...but you risk either overextending your speakers past their comfort zone or creating a gap. But ultimately do what sounds better.


Gallo tells the Strada can do 68 Hz but we all know most Hz numbers will not be actual in house used.
So it save to say setting the x-over to 100Hz (or even 80Hz) will be save.

Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


----------



## Biggydeen

Just ran my first Audyssey. DB levels and distances seem all on par. But Audyssey has set all my 7 channels to 40hz. Except for my ceiling speakers 150hz. (running 7.1.4.).

Now 40hz seems quite low and 150hz quite high. I got the Elac Debut 6.2 complete set (f6.2 c6.2 4xb6.2) and harman kardon hkts16 surround speakers in the ceiling. Now the harman kardon speakers are quite budget so 150hz does make sense. Can maybe lower it to 120hz. But what should I do with the elac's? Was thinking about 60 or 80hz what would you recommend?


----------



## sjm817

CBdicX said:


> Gallo tells the Strada can do 68 Hz but we all know most Hz numbers will not be actual in house used.
> So it save to say setting the x-over to 100Hz (or even 80Hz) will be save.
> 
> Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


You are kind of stuck with using those speakers. They dont go low enough for a smooth sub xover
Option A: Use higher xover and hear dialog from the sub
Option B: Lower Xover and have a gap in the frequency

Try 120, 100 for Xover and use what sounds best. Long term, get different speakers with a better frequency range.


----------



## haman

Biggydeen said:


> Just ran my first Audyssey. DB levels and distances seem all on par. But Audyssey has set all my 7 channels to 40hz. Except for my ceiling speakers 150hz. (running 7.1.4.).
> 
> 
> 
> Now 40hz seems quite low and 150hz quite high. I got the Elac Debut 6.2 complete set (f6.2 c6.2 4xb6.2) and harman kardon hkts16 surround speakers in the ceiling. Now the harman kardon speakers are quite budget so 150hz does make sense. Can maybe lower it to 120hz. But what should I do with the elac's? Was thinking about 60 or 80hz what would you recommend?


Hi, correct me if I'm wrong. Per Audyssey guideline, it does not set the crossover, it only tells AVR what it hear and it is up to AVR to set the crossover. You can increase the crossover above what AVR had set for you, general THX recommendation is 80hz. You are also not suppose to decrease the crossover lower than what AVR had set for you. Atmos enabled speakers have a supposedly higher crossover frequency, 150hz and above. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

CBdicX said:


> Gallo tells the Strada can do 68 Hz but we all know most Hz numbers will not be actual in house used.
> So it save to say setting the x-over to 100Hz (or even 80Hz) will be save.
> 
> Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


Hi CBdicX,

I am going to try and help here. I am no expert on Audyssey, far from it. But I am pretty sure how this works and perhaps I can clarify for you.

When Audyssey does its test tone runs it determines the lowest Frequency a specific speaker can hit in your specific room. Audyssey is really measuring how low the speaker can go in your room and speaker placement arrangement. In your case Audyssey set the speakers to 150 Hz crossover. All that means is your speaker begins to drop off/lose volume at this frequency. Audyssey is really measuring the room and not the speakers. When Audyssey determines this crossover point (150 Hz in this case) Audyssey will only develop EQ filters for that Speaker Starting at 150 Hz up to 20K Hz. So for the majority of the remaining Frequency Band you will have EQ filters in place to flatten out the Speakers FR range. 

Why does Audyssey do this? Audyssey does this to save memory space. Creating EQ Filers for every step in the FR Band uses up compute cycles and Memory. So when Audyssey determines a particular speakers in room low end response f3 point (also known as crossover point) it saves compute cycles and memory buy not creating EQ Filters below this f3 or crossover setting.

Here is the problem you create when changing the crossover lower than Audyssey reports it to be. It is a small problem and one you can just ignore. If you decide to lower the Audyssey set crossover from 150 Hz to say 80 Hz. You will be creating a very small gap in Audyssey EQ filters for a very small range from 150 Hz down to 80Hz. Since Audyssey Set the Speaker at 150 Hz, it did not create any EQ filers lower than that EQ point. As I explained above. Audyssey is still employing EQ filters for the rest of the FR Band (150 Hz to 20,000 Hz). Just not this small gap that you will create by lowering the crossover. 

Because your are hearing a "Bass localization" problem (this occurs when a Sub begins to play at too high a frequency where sound becomes localizable) you really have no choice but to make this manual crossover tweak here. You are creating a very minor EQ gap from 80Hz to 150Hz on the two front speakers only. All the remaining speakers are unaffected and the full range above the initial audyssey set point of 150 Hz also remains unaffected by this Crossover change.

This is why with Audyssey we never recommend a person reduce the Crossover from the initial set point that Audyssey discovered for that Speaker in your room. While it is always "ok" to raise the crossover point since Audyssey has created filters above the initial Cross point, just not below it.

What this might tell us. I suspect you have a Large open space that is not providing much room gain. If you could post a few pictures of just the positioning of your front Left and Right speakers, we may be able to make some suggestions on how to possibly improve the in room performance of these speakers. Sometimes minor placement changes can make huge differences in the in room response curve.

I hope this helps to clarify your particular situation with regards to making "Post Audyssey" calibration crossover changes.

As usual, if anyone notices any inaccuracies or errors in what I said above, please by all means tell me so. This is a constant learning environment here and if I am incorrect in the above I wish to know that.


----------



## Matt2026

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> As usual, if anyone notices any inaccuracies or errors in what I said above, please by all means tell me so. This is a constant learning environment here and if I am incorrect in the above I wish to know that.



I have 2 things to say. First is, as I understand it, Audyssey does not set the crossover frequencies. It reports its measurements to the AVR and the AVR sets the crossovers.

2nd, HAPPY NEW YEAR!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

*How does Audyssey determine Speaker and Sub Distances?*

I have been reading in another thread some incorrect assumptions and procedures about this specific subject. I want to open a discussion to clarify and ensure what I believe to be correct is indeed correct. Please comment and provide any corrections to the thinking outlined below.

How Audyssey Sets/Determines Speaker and Subwoofer Distances ?

Audyssey does not really set Speaker/Sub distances. Not in actual dimensional terms anyway. Audyssey has no way to know actual driver distances in the first place and in terms of EQing a Room, which is what Audyssey does, this data of feet or inches is irrelevant. The only reason we see a data field where Audyssey reports speaker/sub distances is to report what Audyssey detected in easier to understand terms for the average Audyssey User. More on this later!

Audyssey in simple terms, is in actuality, measuring the time it takes an audio signal sent to a particular speaker/sub to be reproduced by said speaker/sub, travel through the room, and finally detected by the Audyssey Microphone. Audyssey is setting "sound arrival time" delay filters/settings individually for each speaker. With the end goal of creating, a set of combined in room speaker audio delays, so that the combined produced sound all arrives at the MLP at the correct moment. This is about how the room (think reflections/diffusions of the sound wave) and associated equipment (think wireless transmitters and preamps signal processing delays) all add to the delay or advancement of Sound reproduced in your specific room for each specific Speaker.Sub. 

This "Sound Arrival Time" measurement process has nothing to do with the Actual "physical" Speaker or Subwoofer placement or location. Audyssey is measuring how long it takes the electrical audio signal (Think Speaker wire length) to reach the speaker and then bounce around the room (Room modes and reflections) and finally arrive at the Microphone to be measured. 

Much like a "Conductor of an Orchestra" does. His or Her job is to provide physical movement cues to various sections of the Orchestra to play specific notes or passages of a piece of composed Music at a specific point in time. He or Her does this to keep the Entire Orchestra in time with each other. He or She uses their Ears (Audyssey Microphone) to hear what the Room is doing to the combined music output and attempting to align the timing of each section of the Orchestra, so that the sum of the whole Musical Score reaches the Audience at the proper time. 

In the above example, think of each individual Musician as a "Speaker" in terms of how Audyssey measures Speaker Distance and why it does so. Audyssey is doing the exact same "Conductor" thing with all your speakers/sub in regards to the Sound arriving at the MLP as intended and in-time with the rest of the Score. 

As a result of this completely "Blind" sound arrival time assessment, Audyssey shows us a set of "Distance" measurements it came up with. Going back to the part where I said Audyssey is trying to make things simple and understandable for the Average user. Audyssey reports this "Sound Arrival Time" information in Distance measured in Feet or Inches or Meters. But this information, to a "Tweaker" like many here. Can be very misleading. Why you ask? Well the average person will see this reported distance, break out their tape measures and conclude the actual physical distance to be different and come to the incorrect conclusion that Audyssey got the Distance Measurements wrong!

The end user now starts inputting his tape measure distances to make things right! However, what the end user has just done is to destroy the very accurate and precisely measured Actual IN-ROOM "Sound Arrival Time" Delay filter set. Thusly undoing a portion of room acoustics data, that Audyssey captured to be used to produce the final EQ filter set.

Conclusion: Leave the reported Speaker/Sub distances alone and as Audyssey measure them to be. Unless you have REW and are willing to take even more "Sound Arrival Time" measurements to override what Audyssey measured.

Open for discussion. I will edit as necessary and then I intend to repost this in the other Thread I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Thank you for taking the time to read and comment.

On Edit: Removed the term "Time Domain" reference and replaced with "Sound Arrival Time" data. As per recommendations by @mthomas47. Thanks for the feedback Mike!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Matt2026 said:


> I have 2 things to say. First is, as I understand it, Audyssey does not set the crossover frequencies. It reports its measurements to the AVR and the AVR sets the crossovers.
> 
> 2nd, HAPPY NEW YEAR!


Hi Matt,

Yes you are correct. I intentionally left out this detail as it may only serve to confuse an already confusing subject. What happens between what Audyssey detects and reports and the AVR is complicated and varies to a great deal from AVR manufacture(s). Additionally, this conversion process of data set results to AVR functional settings is mostly automated and provides no User interface. Therefore there is no intended user input or interaction. 

Thank you for pointing that out Matt! Good catch.


----------



## CBdicX

sjm817 said:


> You are kind of stuck with using those speakers. They dont go low enough for a smooth sub xover
> Option A: Use higher xover and hear dialog from the sub
> Option B: Lower Xover and have a gap in the frequency
> 
> Try 120, 100 for Xover and use what sounds best. Long term, get different speakers with a better frequency range.


Strange is that Gallo say they can do 68Hz, could it be possible Audyssey is getting this wrong for these speakers ?
150Hz is crazy high for any sat. speaker, even with 2 mid/bass drivers. 

Looked at the manuals and these are the (paper) numbers and Audyssey x-over settings:

Strada: 90 dB - 8 Ohm - *68 to 20kHz* - Audyssey 150Hz
Adiva SE: 88 dB - 4 Ohm - *80 to 22kHz* - Audyssey 110Hz

And this i find strange, i have 4x Strada all set to 150Hz and 4 Adiva's 2 set to 110Hz and 2 set to 120Hz.
The specs of the Strada are far better so i think Audyssey gets this wrong.

Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


----------



## pbz06

CBdicX said:


> Strange is that Gallo say they can do 68Hz, could it be possible Audyssey is getting this wrong for these speakers ?
> 150Hz is crazy high for any sat. speaker, even with 2 mid/bass drivers.
> 
> Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


Is the 68hz the -3dB point? Some manufacturers list how low the speaker can play, but what they don't tell you is that it's at a reduced volume. For example, mayb it does play 68hz but it's at -12dB compared to 150hz for same volume setting.

Edit - looked up the speakers, they look like tweeters only and have 4" driver. I doubt you'll get anything resembling real bass out of that.


----------



## CBdicX

pbz06 said:


> Is the 68hz the -3dB point? Some manufacturers list how low the speaker can play, but what they don't tell you is that it's at a reduced volume. For example, mayb it does play 68hz but it's at -12dB compared to 150hz for same volume setting.
> 
> Edit - looked up the speakers, they look like tweeters only and have 4" driver. I doubt you'll get anything resembling real bass out of that.


The tweeter is in beween the 4" drivers.
Manual dus not say at what point this is messured.
What i do not get is why Strada gets 150Hz and Adiva 110-120Hz ?


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Strange is that Gallo say they can do 68Hz, could it be possible Audyssey is getting this wrong for these speakers ?
> 150Hz is crazy high for any sat. speaker, even with 2 mid/bass drivers.
> 
> Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?



Hi,

As I recall, you have posted about this before, and I think that you probably got similar advice last time, as well. If I were you, I probably would not lower the crossovers from where your AVR put them. I especially wouldn't do it if I couldn't hear any difference in the sound with lower crossovers.

Let me try to address several issues. First, Audyssey stops EQing where a speaker is down by 3db in order to prevent potentially over-driving that speaker. It does the same thing with our subwoofers. Audyssey can boost dips in the frequency response of a speaker, and it can pull-down peaks. But, we really don't want Audyssey trying to add boosts once a speaker or subwoofer begins to roll-off inside a room. That's the real reason why Audyssey doesn't EQ below the F3 point of a speaker or a subwoofer.

Second, those are very small drivers, in very compact cabinets. Lower-frequencies are highly dependent on total cabinet volume, and driver diameter also plays an important role. Many manufacturers routinely inflate their speaker and subwoofer specs. Unfortunately, that is just a commercial reality. I have read that engineers and marketing departments are often at odds over this, but marketing departments usually win. Frankly, I would be very surprised if those speakers could hit meaningful volumes at much below 80 or 100Hz.

And, as Adam noted, room location matters. It actually matters in two ways. For instance, it matters with respect to where Audyssey measures a speaker's roll-off. Closer proximity to a wall (or other boundary) can reinforce bass frequencies, resulting in lower crossovers. It's possible that you could enhance the low-frequency capabilities of your front three speakers slightly, if they were a little closer to a wall. (Your other speakers probably are closer to room boundaries than your front three are.)

Location also matters with respect to your distance from your speakers. The further away you are from small speakers, the less volume they will be able to produce at your listening position. The less overall volume they can produce at your listening position, the quicker the low-frequencies will roll-off. (We lose approximately 3db of SPL for each doubling of distance inside a room. So, at 12' your speakers will lose 3db compared to what they can produce at 6'.) 

That can also make a difference in how your crossovers are set, since at a distance of 12' Audyssey will be reporting a different F3 point than it would be at 6'. Incidentally, that is one of the ways that manufacturers fudge their specs. They measure at 1m, which has little relation to anyone's actual listening distance. At 4m (a little more than 12'), your speakers will have lost -9db of SPL, compared to the -3db at 68Hz that your specs mention. 

I have written all of that to try to help explain what may be happening with your speakers, and why the specs may have very little relationship to their actual in-room capabilities. But, if I were you, I would stop worrying too much about that aspect of it. If you didn't like what you were hearing it might be different. But, you said that you like having Audyssey on, and that you can't hear a difference when you lower the crossovers. 

Under the circumstances, I would just leave the crossovers to those speakers where your AVR set them. If you lower the crossovers, you will be putting more demand on the low-frequency capabilities of your speakers, and that isn't really good for them. You could actually damage them at higher volume levels, and you might be introducing some distortion even if it's not jumping out at you audibly. If things sound good to you with the 150Hz crossovers, I would just leave them alone. 

Seeing the post just following this one, we can't necessarily hear every filter that Audyssey sets. Sometimes, Audyssey is doing a lot within a given frequency range, and sometimes it's not. And not every subtle adjustment to the frequency response is ever going to be audible anyway. 

Again, I wouldn't obsess about this too much. If you can't hear an audible difference between crossovers of 100Hz and 150Hz, then just leave them where your AVR set them. Ultimately, it's the sound quality, and protecting our speakers, that we need to be most concerned about.

I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Strange is that Gallo say they can do 68Hz, could it be possible Audyssey is getting this wrong for these speakers ?
> 150Hz is crazy high for any sat. speaker, even with 2 mid/bass drivers.
> 
> Looked at the manuals and these are the (paper) numbers and Audyssey x-over settings:
> 
> Strada: 90 dB - 8 Ohm - *68 to 20kHz* - Audyssey 150Hz
> Adiva SE: 88 dB - 4 Ohm - *80 to 22kHz* - Audyssey 110Hz
> 
> And this i find strange, i have 4x Strada all set to 150Hz and 4 Adiva's 2 set to 110Hz and 2 set to 120Hz.
> The specs of the Strada are far better so i think Audyssey gets this wrong.
> 
> Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


You are leaving out/ignoring a very important part of the Gallo Strada frequency response measurement. From the Strada website:


68Hz to 20hz +/- 3db (in room with boundary reinforcement, speakers within 1 foot of wall)

Are your speakers installed to this spec? If not, you cannot expect to meet the stated frequency response and Audyssey is correct.


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> As I recall, you have posted about this before, and I think that you probably got similar advice last time, as well. If I were you, I probably would not lower the crossovers from where your AVR put them. I especially wouldn't do it if I couldn't hear any difference in the sound with lower crossovers.
> 
> Let me try to address several issues. First, Audyssey stops EQing where a speaker is down by 3db in order to prevent potentially over-driving that speaker. It does the same thing with our subwoofers. Audyssey can boost dips in the frequency response of a speaker, and it can pull-down peaks. But, we really don't want Audyssey trying to add boosts once a speaker or subwoofer begins to roll-off inside a room. That's the real reason why Audyssey doesn't EQ below the F3 point of a speaker or a subwoofer.
> 
> Second, those are very small drivers, in very compact cabinets. Lower-frequencies are highly dependent on total cabinet volume, and driver diameter also plays an important role. Many manufacturers routinely inflate their speaker and subwoofer specs. Unfortunately, that is just a commercial reality. I have read that engineers and marketing departments are often at odds over this, but marketing departments usually win. Frankly, I would be very surprised if those speakers could hit meaningful volumes at much below 80 or 100Hz.
> 
> And, as Adam noted, room location matters. It actually matters in two ways. For instance, it matters with respect to where Audyssey measures a speaker's roll-off. Closer proximity to a wall (or other boundary) can reinforce bass frequencies, resulting in lower crossovers. It's possible that you could enhance the low-frequency capabilities of your front three speakers slightly, if they were a little closer to a wall. (Your other speakers probably are closer to room boundaries than your front three are.)
> 
> Location also matters with respect to your distance from your speakers. The further away you are from small speakers, the less volume they will be able to produce at your listening position. The less overall volume they can produce at your listening position, the quicker the low-frequencies will roll-off. (We lose approximately 3db of SPL for each doubling of distance inside a room. So, at 12' your speakers will lose 3db compared to what they can produce at 6'.)
> 
> That can also make a difference in how your crossovers are set, since at a distance of 12' Audyssey will be reporting a different F3 point than it would be at 6'. Incidentally, that is one of the ways that manufacturers fudge their specs. They measure at 1m, which has little relation to anyone's actual listening distance. At 4m (a little more than 12') , your speakers will have lost -9db of SPL, compared to the -3db at 68Hz that your specs mention.
> 
> I have written all of that to try to help explain what may be happening with your speakers, and why the specs may have very little relationship to their actual in-room capabilities. But, if I were you, I would stop worrying too much about that aspect of it. If you didn't like what you were hearing it might be different. But, you said that you like having Audyssey on, and that you can't hear a difference when you lower the crossovers.
> 
> Under the circumstances, I would just leave the crossovers to those speakers where your AVR set them. If you lower the crossovers, you will be putting more demand on the low-frequency capabilities of your speakers, and that isn't really good for them. You could actually damage them at higher volume levels, and you might be introducing some distortion even if it's not jumping out at you audibly. If things sound good to you with the 150Hz crossovers, I would just leave them alone.
> 
> I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, good to hear from you (and other members  ) last time it was a bit different.

Now, when i leave the cross-over at 150Hz, the subs start to join the conversation.
When i hear someone speak i can hear the subs.
Tried to lower the LPF of LFE but makes no differents.

When i lower the x-over to around 100-110Hz the subs are silent.
According to Gallo, the Strada can be driven at Full Range for Stereo and in Multi Channel select between 40-80Hz wall mounted, or 80-120Hz on the floor Stand.
For Adiva they say in Multi Channel and Stereo 100Hz.

When switching between 150Hz and 100Hz for Audyssey i can not hear any differents in sound.

So what to believe, Gallo or Audyssey ?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

CBdicX said:


> Not applying filters, how will this effect the sound as i can not hear any differents at 150Hz (with filters) or the lower 100Hz (without filters) ?


You have answered your own question! If you can't hear a difference with the crossover set @ 150 Hz versus 100Hz or even 80 Hz then there is no Audible difference in your room and situation. So by all means set the crossover to what sounds the best to you. After all, that is the "End Goal" of this entire discussion. Sounds like (pun intended) you have squeezed the best sound you can from your system.


----------



## CBdicX

bluesky636 said:


> You are leaving out/ignoring a very important part of the Gallo Strada frequency response measurement. From the Strada website:
> 
> 
> 68Hz to 20hz +/- 3db (in room with boundary reinforcement, speakers within 1 foot of wall)
> 
> Are your speakers installed to this spec? If not, you cannot expect to meet the stated frequency response and Audyssey is correct.



Yes Sir, they are.
Strada on floorstand back almost to the wall, Adiva's are used as Height speakers, up against the wall and ceiling.
Still the high x-over ………..


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> So what to believe, Gallo or Audyssey ?


Obviously, Audyssey. It is measuring YOUR speakers in YOUR room, where YOU sit.


----------



## CBdicX

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi CBdicX,
> 
> I am going to try and help here. I am no expert on Audyssey, far from it. But I am pretty sure how this works and perhaps I can clarify for you.
> 
> When Audyssey does its test tone runs it determines the lowest Frequency a specific speaker can hit in your specific room. Audyssey is really measuring how low the speaker can go in your room and speaker placement arrangement. In your case Audyssey set the speakers to 150 Hz crossover. All that means is your speaker begins to drop off/lose volume at this frequency. Audyssey is really measuring the room and not the speakers. When Audyssey determines this crossover point (150 Hz in this case) Audyssey will only develop EQ filters for that Speaker Starting at 150 Hz up to 20K Hz. So for the majority of the remaining Frequency Band you will have EQ filters in place to flatten out the Speakers FR range.
> 
> *Why does Audyssey do this? Audyssey does this to save memory space. Creating EQ Filers for every step in the FR Band uses up compute cycles and Memory. So when Audyssey determines a particular speakers in room low end response f3 point (also known as crossover point) it saves compute cycles and memory buy not creating EQ Filters below this f3 or crossover setting.
> 
> Here is the problem you create when changing the crossover lower than Audyssey reports it to be. It is a small problem and one you can just ignore. If you decide to lower the Audyssey set crossover from 150 Hz to say 80 Hz. You will be creating a very small gap in Audyssey EQ filters for a very small range from 150 Hz down to 80Hz. Since Audyssey Set the Speaker at 150 Hz, it did not create any EQ filers lower than that EQ point. As I explained above. Audyssey is still employing EQ filters for the rest of the FR Band (150 Hz to 20,000 Hz). Just not this small gap that you will create by lowering the crossover.
> 
> Because your are hearing a "Bass localization" problem (this occurs when a Sub begins to play at too high a frequency where sound becomes localizable) you really have no choice but to make this manual crossover tweak here. You are creating a very minor EQ gap from 80Hz to 150Hz on the two front speakers only. All the remaining speakers are unaffected and the full range above the initial audyssey set point of 150 Hz also remains unaffected by this Crossover change.
> 
> This is why with Audyssey we never recommend a person reduce the Crossover from the initial set point that Audyssey discovered for that Speaker in your room. While it is always "ok" to raise the crossover point since Audyssey has created filters above the initial Cross point, just not below it.*
> 
> What this might tell us. I suspect you have a Large open space that is not providing much room gain. If you could post a few pictures of just the positioning of your front Left and Right speakers, we may be able to make some suggestions on how to possibly improve the in room performance of these speakers. Sometimes minor placement changes can make huge differences in the in room response curve.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify your particular situation with regards to making "Post Audyssey" calibration crossover changes.
> 
> As usual, if anyone notices any inaccuracies or errors in what I said above, please by all means tell me so. This is a constant learning environment here and if I am incorrect in the above I wish to know that.


Thank you, this is making it for me very clear what is happing, and why !
And makes sens why i could not hear any differents in the 150 versus 100Hz x-over setting, i was listening to the Center speaker, its only effecting the Front speakers


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike, good to hear from you (and other members  ) last time it was a bit different.
> 
> *Now, when i leave the cross-over at 150Hz, the subs start to join the conversation.
> When i hear someone speak i can hear the subs.*
> Tried to lower the LPF of LFE but makes no differents.
> 
> *When i lower the x-over to around 100-110Hz the subs are silent.*
> According to Gallo, the Strada can be driven at Full Range for Stereo and in Multi Channel select between 40-80Hz wall mounted, or 80-120Hz on the floor Stand.
> For Adiva they say in Multi Channel and Stereo 100Hz.
> 
> When switching between 150Hz and 100Hz for Audyssey i can not hear any differents in sound.
> 
> So what to believe, Gallo or Audyssey ?



Okay, I understand the problem better now! 

Don't worry about who to believe. Just believe your own ears! If you can hear your subwoofer playing voices, when your center channel crossover is set to 150Hz, and you can't hear that when you drop the crossover to 110Hz, then I would drop the crossover to 110Hz. (Try 120Hz, too. The higher the better.)

Just be a little bit careful with your total volume level when you drop the crossover. Audyssey is actually measuring the sound at your listening position, and it's telling you that your center channel (and your front speakers) can't play the frequencies below about 150Hz with very much total volume. You can believe Audyssey on that part. 

But, we all have to make compromises. And, if your compromise needs to be that you push your center channel a little harder than you would prefer, then you may still have to do it. I wouldn't want to hear voices coming from my subwoofer either. Long-term, you may want to look into getting larger and more powerful speakers, but that's another question.

For right now, just do what sounds better to you, and be a little careful with your total volume levels, to protect your speakers, when you drop the crossovers. I might not drop the crossovers on the front speakers unless I heard bass localization from my subwoofer with those speakers, too. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## sjm817

@CBdicX if you can, put those speakers in the room corners to try and get a bit more bass out of them.


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Okay, I understand the problem better now!
> 
> Don't worry about who to believe. Just believe your own ears! If you can hear your subwoofer playing voices, when your center channel crossover is set to 150Hz, and you can't hear that when you drop the crossover to 110Hz, then I would drop the crossover to 110Hz. (Try 120Hz, too. The higher the better.)
> 
> Just be a little bit careful with your total volume level when you drop the crossover. Audyssey is actually measuring the sound at your listening position, and it's telling you that your center channel (and your front speakers) can't play the frequencies below about 150Hz with very much total volume. You can believe Audyssey on that part.
> 
> But, we all have to make compromises. And, if your compromise needs to be that you push your center channel a little harder than you would prefer, then you may still have to do it. I wouldn't want to hear voices coming from my subwoofer either. Long-term, you may want to look into getting larger and more powerful speakers, but that's another question.
> 
> For right now, just do what sounds better to you, and be a little careful with your total volume levels, to protect your speakers, when you drop the crossovers. I might not drop the crossovers on the front speakers unless I heard bass localization from my subwoofer with those speakers, too.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, thanks !
Is bass localization caused by the High crossover from:

1) fronts
2) center
3) fronts and center

or all speakers also the surrounds and Height speakers ?


----------



## CBdicX

sjm817 said:


> @CBdicX if you can, put those speakers in the room corners to try and get a bit more bass out of them.


Hi, tried it but makes no differents...…….


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi Mike, thanks !
> Is bass localization caused by the High crossover from:
> 
> 1) fronts
> 2) center
> 3) fronts and center
> 
> or all speakers also the surrounds and Height speakers ?



You are very welcome! You really need to start thinking some of this through for yourself.  If you don't, you will always be dependent on advice from other people.

For example, you said that you heard voices coming from the subwoofer when your front crossovers were set to 150Hz, and you didn't when you dropped them to 110Hz. What speaker was playing the voices? Was it all of the speakers? Or, was your center channel playing at least 95% of the voices, with your two front speakers playing perhaps 5% or less, and the other speakers playing none at all? Normally, the center channel plays close to 100% of the voices in movies.

Bass localization is only a problem if you can hear it. So, experiment! Try just changing the crossover on your center channel to 110Hz (or 120Hz if that works) while leaving the front speakers at 150Hz. Watch a movie. What do you hear? How does it sound? If you also hear sounds coming from your subwoofer that should be coming from your front speakers, you will know that you need to drop the crossovers on your front speakers too.

You are asking some questions now, that only you can answer. And, you can figure out the answer to those questions if you experiment a little bit. Just approach this systematically, starting with your center channel, and then with your front speakers. I seriously doubt that you will need to worry about the crossovers on your surrounds and your height speakers, but only you can be sure about that. Just experiment and listen! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! You really need to start thinking some of this through for yourself.  If you don't, you will always be dependent on advice from other people.
> 
> For example, you said that you heard voices coming from the subwoofer when your front crossovers were set to 150Hz, and you didn't when you dropped them to 110Hz. What speaker was playing the voices? Was it all of the speakers? Or, was your center channel playing at least 95% of the voices, with your two front speakers playing perhaps 5% or less, and the other speakers playing none at all? Normally, the center channel plays close to 100% of the voices in movies.
> 
> Bass localization is only a problem if you can hear it. So, experiment! Try just changing the crossover on your center channel to 110Hz (or 120Hz if that works) while leaving the front speakers at 150Hz. Watch a movie. What do you hear? How does it sound? If you also hear sounds coming from your subwoofer that should be coming from your front speakers, you will know that you need to drop the crossovers on your front speakers too.
> 
> You are asking some questions now, that only you can answer. And, you can figure out the answer to those questions if you experiment a little bit. Just approach this systematically, starting with your center channel, and then with your front speakers. I seriously doubt that you will need to worry about the crossovers on your surrounds and your height speakers, but only you can be sure about that. Just experiment and listen!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Very clear and you are correct, i need to think for myself 
Think i am thinking to difficult for this "problem", its not rocket science.

I will start with the center and see what will happen when i lower the crossover and leave all the other speakers as they are.
If its not what i want (need) i will try the fronts also.

Thanks for your clear advice


----------



## BJBBJB

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi CBdicX,
> 
> I am going to try and help here. I am no expert on Audyssey, far from it. But I am pretty sure how this works and perhaps I can clarify for you.
> 
> When Audyssey does its test tone runs it determines the lowest Frequency a specific speaker can hit in your specific room. Audyssey is really measuring how low the speaker can go in your room and speaker placement arrangement. In your case Audyssey set the speakers to 150 Hz crossover. All that means is your speaker begins to drop off/lose volume at this frequency. Audyssey is really measuring the room and not the speakers. When Audyssey determines this crossover point (150 Hz in this case) Audyssey will only develop EQ filters for that Speaker Starting at 150 Hz up to 20K Hz. So for the majority of the remaining Frequency Band you will have EQ filters in place to flatten out the Speakers FR range.
> 
> Why does Audyssey do this? Audyssey does this to save memory space. Creating EQ Filers for every step in the FR Band uses up compute cycles and Memory. So when Audyssey determines a particular speakers in room low end response f3 point (also known as crossover point) it saves compute cycles and memory buy not creating EQ Filters below this f3 or crossover setting.
> 
> Here is the problem you create when changing the crossover lower than Audyssey reports it to be. It is a small problem and one you can just ignore. If you decide to lower the Audyssey set crossover from 150 Hz to say 80 Hz. You will be creating a very small gap in Audyssey EQ filters for a very small range from 150 Hz down to 80Hz. Since Audyssey Set the Speaker at 150 Hz, it did not create any EQ filers lower than that EQ point. As I explained above. Audyssey is still employing EQ filters for the rest of the FR Band (150 Hz to 20,000 Hz). Just not this small gap that you will create by lowering the crossover.
> 
> Because your are hearing a "Bass localization" problem (this occurs when a Sub begins to play at too high a frequency where sound becomes localizable) you really have no choice but to make this manual crossover tweak here. You are creating a very minor EQ gap from 80Hz to 150Hz on the two front speakers only. All the remaining speakers are unaffected and the full range above the initial audyssey set point of 150 Hz also remains unaffected by this Crossover change.
> 
> This is why with Audyssey we never recommend a person reduce the Crossover from the initial set point that Audyssey discovered for that Speaker in your room. While it is always "ok" to raise the crossover point since Audyssey has created filters above the initial Cross point, just not below it.
> 
> What this might tell us. I suspect you have a Large open space that is not providing much room gain. If you could post a few pictures of just the positioning of your front Left and Right speakers, we may be able to make some suggestions on how to possibly improve the in room performance of these speakers. Sometimes minor placement changes can make huge differences in the in room response curve.
> 
> I hope this helps to clarify your particular situation with regards to making "Post Audyssey" calibration crossover changes.
> 
> As usual, if anyone notices any inaccuracies or errors in what I said above, please by all means tell me so. This is a constant learning environment here and if I am incorrect in the above I wish to know that.


I really enjoyed this analysis as it relates to a problem I had..... Thanks.

Have a crossover issue with my THX AT LCF's and in-wall THX AT rear and back surrounds. Audyssey crossed over my mains too low (40hz....no way they go that low....they are around 80hz so really needed to raise which is okay....) 
But my surrounds came back very high, like 300hz and like the poster should be more like 150hz and seems like no matter what I did it was boomy (and as you noted I understand this surround crossover does not impact my mains). So although I know this is what the mic saw in my room with those speakers, it is pushing the sub to play way too much high to mid bass. So not okay to lower but need to. A no win scenario? With the LFE channel I am not missing low bass from the surrounds I don't think?

Going to play more after the holidays...

BJBBJB


----------



## pbarach

Mactavish said:


> I welcome ArchomX to the thread, he seems quite knowledgeable and can add to our NEVER ending goal of personal audio perfection. As most know there is no magic pill to satisfy all our unique PREFERENCES.



As long as we identify our ways of fussing with Audyssey via tone controls or the MultiEQ app as our preferences, I welcome everybody's input. There are lots of things to try. When someone insists that that their preference is the Holy Grail and that other's ideas are wrong, that's when I scroll past...


----------



## panman40

I’ve been reading this excellent thread for a long time now but I have a basic question please. My seating is leather recliners with MLP one side of a 2 seater, when I have the mic at ear level it’s about 3” above the back, is that enough so that reflections won’t be causing an issue ?. 
I can remove the backrest from the MLP side of the 2 seater, would this be better or not a good idea as obviously it would be back in situ after calibration ?.
Just for info my MLP seating is about mid room, Marantz SR7012 running 7.1.2. 

Thank you.


----------



## mthomas47

panman40 said:


> I’ve been reading this excellent thread for a long time now but I have a basic question please. My seating is leather recliners with MLP one side of a 2 seater, when I have the mic at ear level it’s about 3” above the back, is that enough so that reflections won’t be causing an issue ?.
> I can remove the backrest from the MLP side of the 2 seater, would this be better or not a good idea as obviously it would be back in situ after calibration ?.
> Just for info my MLP seating is about mid room, Marantz SR7012 running 7.1.2.
> 
> Thank you.



Hi,

With the Audyssey mic so close to the smooth surface of the leather chair, you will be getting spurious reflections bouncing into the microphone. Rather than removing the seat back, I would just put an absorbent blanket or towel over the back of the chair. That will prevent high-frequency reflections from messing-up your Audyssey calibration. After the calibration is complete, just remove the blanket and sit as you normally would.

Regards,
Mike


Edit: The mid-room seating may cause some bass cancellation to occur. If you can easily do it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to move your seating area another foot or two (either forward or backward) to get a little further off-center.


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> So what to believe, Gallo or Audyssey ?



Audyssey.



I'd keep the volume moderate, as Mike says, to protect your speakers, and I'd save up to buy some with more bass reach. They might be O.K. as soft bedroom speakers. 



Asking small -- 4" -- direct radiator speakers to move through large enough cone excursions to produce bass at about 150 Hz or below, at high volume, is bound to produce modulation distortion of *higher* frequencies, if played back loudly. In your front speakers, the same two 4" speaker cones produce all frequencies from the crossover to the subwoofer (80? 100? 150?) all the way up to 6,000 Hz, so some distortion will be produced. You may not be able to hear it at low or medium volume, but during the loud parts of movies, or music, it's bound to happen, IMO. Wide excursion may also damage your speakers. 

*Hoffman’s Iron Law of Speaker Building*

1) Small speakers in a small enclosure
2) Fairly High Efficiency
3) Bass Extension


Pick two -- you can't have all three!


You have fairly high efficiency (about 2-3dB above average) and extremely small speakers -- so there goes Bass Extension!


Hoffman was the H in KLH.


----------



## panman40

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> With the Audyssey mic so close to the smooth surface of the leather chair, you will be getting spurious reflections bouncing into the microphone. Rather than removing the seat back, I would just put an absorbent blanket or towel over the back of the chair. That will prevent high-frequency reflections from messing-up your Audyssey calibration. After the calibration is complete, just remove the blanket and sit as you normally would.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Edit: The mid-room seating may cause some bass cancellation to occur. If you can easily do it, it wouldn't be a bad idea to try to move your seating area another foot or two (either forward or backward) to get a little further off-center.


Hi Mike,

Thanks very much for the info, sadly I can’t move my seating due to side arrangements for surrounds and a fireplace on my right side, my rooms not great for bass anyhow as I’m restricted to sub placement.
I will try the tip of a thick towel on the seat back. One thing I sometimes find is dialogue/ centre ch audio can seem a bit lower than my tv screen, would keeping the mic higher than my ear height help with that ?, I think I remember trying it once before and thought it made it worse but can’t remember fully.
This last calibration I ran all 8 positions but only about 5” Distances around the first MLP position. 

Thanks 
Martin.


----------



## CBdicX

Ok, after great advice (thanks Mike, thanks Adamg, thanks Garay, and others) i lowered just the Center crossover (to 100Hz) and this works great to stop the subwoofer playing focals 
And i do understand that small speakers can not play bass, but they look great 
So its one or the other, nice looks and no bass (and so high crossover) or big black or white boxes and having bass.
I know what my wife would say...……….  (and me to……….  )

Thanks guys


----------



## mthomas47

panman40 said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks very much for the info, sadly I can’t move my seating due to side arrangements for surrounds and a fireplace on my right side, my rooms not great for bass anyhow as I’m restricted to sub placement.
> I will try the tip of a thick towel on the seat back. One thing I sometimes find is dialogue/ centre ch audio can seem a bit lower than my tv screen, would keeping the mic higher than my ear height help with that ?, I think I remember trying it once before and thought it made it worse but can’t remember fully.
> This last calibration I ran all 8 positions but only about 5” Distances around the first MLP position.
> 
> Thanks
> Martin.



You are very welcome, Martin!

I like keeping my microphone placements fairly tight too, although I use a little wider pattern than you do. But, I think it is important to keep the microphone as close as possible to ear height for the majority of your mic positions. Some people find that going a couple of inches higher for just two of the mic positions can be helpful. I might try that if I were you: 6 positions at about the center of the ear canal, and 2 positions just a couple of inches higher than that.

I'm not sure that I understood exactly what you were saying about your center channel. If the center channel is well below ear height, that can interfere with dialogue intelligibility. It's a good idea to put a shim under the front of the center channel, so that the speaker (and especially the tweeter) points right at your ear height. You should also make sure that the speaker is pulled forward, so that it just overlaps the front of the stand or shelf, if it is sitting on one. That will help to prevent early reflections from the shelf, which can also result in some high-frequency distortion.

Doing both of things, and then rerunning Audyssey as described earlier, should help a bit with dialogue. And, of course, it can also be helpful to raise the volume of the center channel a little. Something else that you can explore, if you don't mind doing a little reading and experimenting, is called cascading crossovers. It's a pretty easy process to implement, and it can definitely help with dialogue clarity. The process is described in detail in Section III-C of the Guide linked in my signature. This is a direct link to that section:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...woofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IIIC

Regards,
Mike


----------



## senzaparole

Hello guys.
During calibration with audyssey xt 32 can i stop after having positioned the microphone in three listening positions?
I have a small sofa for up to 4 people


----------



## avtoronto

*Microphone Patterns*

With various microphone pattern recommendations, my question is what is it that people are noticing about the results from different patterns? When people say a given pattern works best for them, what is it that leads to this opinion? Running the calibration takes, let’s say 20 minutes, so upon completion and listening to material, is the difference in sound after using a new pattern so dramatic that it overcomes the short-term nature of our auditory memory?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

senzaparole said:


> Hello guys.
> During calibration with audyssey xt 32 can i stop after having positioned the microphone in three listening positions?
> I have a small sofa for up to 4 people


Hi senzaparole,

Yes. I think 3 positions is the Minimum number. So if 3 is all you want to do, that should work.


----------



## mthomas47

senzaparole said:


> Hello guys.
> During calibration with audyssey xt 32 can i stop after having positioned the microphone in three listening positions?
> I have a small sofa for up to 4 people





avtoronto said:


> With various microphone pattern recommendations, my question is what is it that people are noticing about the results from different patterns? When people say a given pattern works best for them, what is it that leads to this opinion? Running the calibration takes, let’s say 20 minutes, so upon completion and listening to material, is the difference in sound after using a new pattern so dramatic that it overcomes the short-term nature of our auditory memory?



Since both of these questions touch on similar issues, I will answer them together if I may. 

1. With respect to the first question, you can try it both ways. As Adam said, you can try using just three mic positions, and then listen to determine how well that works. Audyssey recommends using all of your mic positions (8 with XT-32) in order to give the fuzzy logic weighting program as much similar information as possible.

But, the real key seems to be presenting Audyssey with similar information. Most people seem to find that tighter mic patterns, of no more than 12" to 18" out to each side of mic position 1, no further forward than about 18", and nothing behind the main listening position, work best. But, it may take some experimentation to discover what you personally like best in your room.


2. With respect to the second question, there are probably as many answers to that question as there are people to answer it. I can only speak for myself on this one. My early experiments with Audyssey were all over the place. I didn't know what to listen for to begin with, and I had no idea what types of mic patterns I should use. Over a period of time, I learned what different forms of distortion sound like, and once we start to hear distortion it is hard to unhear it. At that point, I started to know what I was looking for in a calibration, and it became easier to identify the approximate microphone pattern that would give it to me.

Now, using techniques such as covering a leather chair back with a blanket, and keeping my mic pattern fairly small, I could probably run three non-identical Audyssey calibrations, with audible results so similar that I wouldn't be able to tell a meaningful difference among them. For that reason, I am not excessively anal (just anal enough ) about my mic pattern. 

But, that wasn't the case with my early Audyssey calibrations. Some of those early calibrations produced much more audible differences. For instance, I found that a tighter mic pattern gave me a better, clearer sounding bass response, as I was tightening-up the low-frequency response. I also found that getting the Audyssey microphone too close to a hard or smooth surface, such as a leather chair back, caused Audyssey to create a comb-filtering effect for higher frequencies, imparting a harsh or screechy sound to those frequencies. 

Those differences were not subtle. And, as I tried to live with the results, which I always did for at least a day or two, I found myself aware of the harsh treble sounds over-and-over again. Incidentally, that is how I would recommend experimenting with Audyssey. I wouldn't do several calibrations right in a row. Like you, I am a little concerned about short-term audio memory.

So, I always performed a calibration and then lived with the results for a while, relying on my ability to either grow to like the results, or to continually find the results objectionable. After a while, I got to the point where audible differences among calibrations were too subtle to be meaningful to me. And, I memorialized that approximate mic pattern in writing, so that I could repeat it whenever necessary. Others may have used different approaches which worked better for them, but that is what worked best for me. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## panman40

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, Martin!
> 
> I like keeping my microphone placements fairly tight too, although I use a little wider pattern than you do. But, I think it is important to keep the microphone as close as possible to ear height for the majority of your mic positions. Some people find that going a couple of inches higher for just two of the mic positions can be helpful. I might try that if I were you: 6 positions at about the center of the ear canal, and 2 positions just a couple of inches higher than that.
> 
> I'm not sure that I understood exactly what you were saying about your center channel. If the center channel is well below ear height, that can interfere with dialogue intelligibility. It's a good idea to put a shim under the front of the center channel, so that the speaker (and especially the tweeter) points right at your ear height. You should also make sure that the speaker is pulled forward, so that it just overlaps the front of the stand or shelf, if it is sitting on one. That will help to prevent early reflections from the shelf, which can also result in some high-frequency distortion.
> 
> Doing both of things, and then rerunning Audyssey as described earlier, should help a bit with dialogue. And, of course, it can also be helpful to raise the volume of the center channel a little. Something else that you can explore, if you don't mind doing a little reading and experimenting, is called cascading crossovers. It's a pretty easy process to implement, and it can definitely help with dialogue clarity. The process is described in detail in Section III-C of the Guide linked in my signature. This is a direct link to that section:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...woofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IIIC
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks again Mike

With previous runs I have kept the mic around 12” to 18” from MLP first position, I’ve had pretty good results but wanted to try another method, Ed Mullen From svs recommended I try A 3 point calibration but leaving the mic in MLP. This worked ok but again using DEQ seemed to muddy dialogue. My centre is angled up pretty much towards my ear level. 
I will try 2 positions with the mic a bit higher next time, getting quiet is quite a task!!. 

For 4 weeks or so now I’ve run with DEQ off, I notice despite raising the sub level via the AVR up to +6db I’m still lacking any feel for bass with movies. Today I re watched the movie Passengers and with DEQ off I could just hear bass, a bit monotone so I put the avr sub gain back to where Audessy set it at -11db and turned DEQ on... with the offset at 0db and MV unchanged I re watched several scenes and I could really feel the low frequency going through my sofa , this is what I miss!, so for my player sources I have enabled DEQ again, I know most people say not to use it but I cannot get my sub to work it’s magic with DEQ off and just raising the sub gain.

Oh yes, I do run the centre ch a couple of dB hot. I will definitely have a look at the link for the cascading crossovers,.

Cheers
Martin.


----------



## hawkster27

CBdicX said:


> *Lower the cross-over*
> 
> Hi, i need to *lower* the Audyssey cross-over settings.
> I get 150 Hz for my fronts and center speaker (Gallo Strada 2), and for my Surrounds and Height speakers (Gallo Adiva SE) i get 110 and 120 Hz.
> When i leave it like this the subwoofer is also "talking", i can hear it special in talk programs like news ect.
> Its not nice to hear so i lower the x-overs to 100 Hz and all sounds much better, no more talking of the sub.
> 
> I also read that lowering the x-over will make Audyssey do no corrections.
> But when i switch between Audyssey ON and Off (on the manual 100 Hz setting) i do hear a big differents in sound, with On its more clear.
> If Audyssey stops doing correction, why do i hear a big differents in On and Off ?
> 
> Thanks……..


Like you, I was getting high crossovers, in the 120 to 150 Hz range. This occurred over a few years, with two different listening rooms, two different pairs of main speakers, and two different pre/pros. At the same time, the crossovers for the surrounds and heights were in the 40-60 Hz range. I had read all about "don't lower the crossovers" so I lived with it. But, it kept nagging at me. In thinking about the situation, I realized that with all the other changes, the mains were always being driven by a 25-year-old Adcom 5500 (which seemed to be working correctly) while the rest by a five-year-old Emotiva UPA. On a whim, I connected the mains to the Emotiva and reran Audyssey. The crossover was reset to 60 Hz. Aha! I sold the Adcom, bought an Emotiva XPA, and reran Audyssey, It pushed the crossovers down so much that it reset the mains to Large! I know that's not the way to go with a subwoofer, so I reset the mains to Small and the crossover to 60 Hz, which is the recommended setting for my Martin Logans. It's a long shot, but you might try a different amp.


----------



## wxchaser

I've added the 2nd sub and configured it, then ran Audyssey XT32 yesterday evening. 

Really happy with the results - next upgrade probably a short throw projector and screen.

Equipment list:

LG 65" OLED65C7P

Denon X6500H AVR

Oppo UDP-203

Apple TV 4K

Klipsch RF-82 II (Left Front-Right Front)
Klipsch RC-62 II (Center)
RSL C34E (4 ATMOS)
4 Custom SI (Sound Investments) on wall angled surround and surround back speakers (5" woofer with 3/4" silk dome tweeter)
ND140-8 5 1/4" Aluminum Cone Midbass Driver 8 Ohm
Snap AV Episode Element Series 12" powered subwoofer (2 subwoofers - front left & right)
(300W RMS @ 0.2% THD – Power Peak 720W)


----------



## CBdicX

hawkster27 said:


> Like you, I was getting high crossovers, in the 120 to 150 Hz range. This occurred over a few years, with two different listening rooms, two different pairs of main speakers, and two different pre/pros. At the same time, the crossovers for the surrounds and heights were in the 40-60 Hz range. I had read all about "don't lower the crossovers" so I lived with it. But, it kept nagging at me. In thinking about the situation, I realized that with all the other changes, the mains were always being driven by a 25-year-old Adcom 5500 (which seemed to be working correctly) while the rest by a five-year-old Emotiva UPA. On a whim, I connected the mains to the Emotiva and reran Audyssey. The crossover was reset to 60 Hz. Aha! I sold the Adcom, bought an Emotiva XPA, and reran Audyssey, It pushed the crossovers down so much that it reset the mains to Large! I know that's not the way to go with a subwoofer, so I reset the mains to Small and the crossover to 60 Hz, which is the recommended setting for my Martin Logans. It's a long shot, but you might try a different amp.


Hi, a different amp is not an option for me...….

I am thinking of buying a REL subwoofer with High and Low input at the same time !
This way connected small satellite speakers to the REL High Level will be "seen" as big speakers.
LFE works at the same time on a REL sub, so its (maybe) the best of both worlds.


----------



## avtoronto

hawkster27 said:


> Like you, I was getting high crossovers, in the 120 to 150 Hz range. This occurred over a few years, with two different listening rooms, two different pairs of main speakers, and two different pre/pros. At the same time, the crossovers for the surrounds and heights were in the 40-60 Hz range. I had read all about "don't lower the crossovers" so I lived with it. But, it kept nagging at me. In thinking about the situation, I realized that with all the other changes, the mains were always being driven by a 25-year-old Adcom 5500 (which seemed to be working correctly) while the rest by a five-year-old Emotiva UPA. On a whim, I connected the mains to the Emotiva and reran Audyssey. The crossover was reset to 60 Hz. Aha! I sold the Adcom, bought an Emotiva XPA, and reran Audyssey, It pushed the crossovers down so much that it reset the mains to Large! I know that's not the way to go with a subwoofer, so I reset the mains to Small and the crossover to 60 Hz, which is the recommended setting for my Martin Logans. It's a long shot, but you might try a different amp.


This is interesting to me. I have an XPA-5 and Audyssey set my LCR speakers’ crossovers to 40 Hz; always wondered why as the speakers’ specs list their lower bound as 70 Hz. I always reset to 90 or 100 post-calibration.


----------



## Spidacat

I think getting lower crossovers than expected/manufacturers specs is pretty normal due to typical room gain. Except for a defect I wouldn't think any properly designed amp would have any effect on Audyssey crossovers.


----------



## pbz06

panman40 said:


> Thanks again Mike
> 
> With previous runs I have kept the mic around 12” to 18” from MLP first position, I’ve had pretty good results but wanted to try another method, Ed Mullen From svs recommended I try A 3 point calibration but leaving the mic in MLP. This worked ok but again using DEQ seemed to muddy dialogue. My centre is angled up pretty much towards my ear level.
> I will try 2 positions with the mic a bit higher next time, getting quiet is quite a task!!.
> 
> For 4 weeks or so now I’ve run with DEQ off, I notice despite raising the sub level via the AVR up to +6db I’m still lacking any feel for bass with movies. Today I re watched the movie Passengers and with DEQ off I could just hear bass, a bit monotone so I put the avr sub gain back to where Audessy set it at -11db and turned DEQ on... with the offset at 0db and MV unchanged I re watched several scenes and I could really feel the low frequency going through my sofa , this is what I miss!, so for my player sources I have enabled DEQ again, I know most people say not to use it but I cannot get my sub to work it’s magic with DEQ off and just raising the sub gain.
> 
> Oh yes, I do run the centre ch a couple of dB hot. I will definitely have a look at the link for the cascading crossovers,.
> 
> Cheers
> Martin.


To me, DEQ is a must for movie watching. Unless you have great nuanced hearing and can manipulate the Audyssey curves with the app and/or using tone controls and/or REW to find the perfect balance and blend, you're better off using DEQ for the bass region. You can guess which side I fall into  I've never had the same results when just upping the subwoofer trim levels. 

It's important to do as much of the proper setup correctly though to give it a good starting point. I also do my own post-calibration tweaks too. For example, I like to use the roll-off target 2 from the app in my room (livlier than most) and turn off MRC. I make sure Audyssey Flat and everything Off is level matched properly (and my crossovers are set etc), before engaging Reference and DEQ. It never sounds boomy/muddy to me or the surrounds being too enveloping. 

I'm still experimenting right now with Tone Controls that was triggered by previous discussions and Gary and Mike's suggestions. We'll see what I come up with. 

I'm also trying things like using Flat, but engaging CinemaEQ (denon and marantz feature). It's a more linear and aggressive roll-off in the treble range. Honestly, I prefer this so far but wish it engaged all speakers instead of just the LCR. Tone controls affect only L R and Audyssey Reference affects all...so that's that, haha. Finding the right combo is fun


----------



## bytor

With a Marantz SR6013 does having Eco mode on or on Auto affect the Audyssey calibration?


----------



## joy192k

BiggShooter said:


> Thank You
> 
> 
> 
> I have the Denon AVR-X4300H, and noticed that Dynamic EQ does not get disabled when I change the settings [Reference to FLAT / Treble to -5 / Bass to +1) to implement the Harmon Curve. The only menu I could find / change the settings was --> GENERAL --> ZONE2 Setup. Is this the correct menu setting to adjust Treble and Bass?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the clarification.




I have never seen tone control on my 4300H where do I find it ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joy192k

ArchonX said:


> Hi rocky1,
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly. Because you are taking the Audyssey Flat curve and turning it into a flatter curve with a gradual slope, instead of a sharp slope up. You can use it with movies, music, and games without worry. Though Flat was implemented for music, specifically for small rooms where you sit closer to the speakers, this is changing it to basically a curve not available as an option normally.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be used with music, movies, and music and if your Audyssey calibration was done well and your speakers are setup well. Like anything else, it is not going to be a bandaid to a bad setup or magically make $50.00 speakers sound like $500 speakers. But if room correction was performed well and you have a below average to great system, you should hear better sound after getting accustomed to it. I have used it for about 2 weeks now, and I feel the sound quality is better than anything else I ever tried, and I have tried literally thousands of things!
> 
> 
> 
> The only downside is you cannot use Dynamic EQ with tone controls, you must use one or the other.




Sorry I somehow landed on this page and this was too interesting read, if this was already answered somewhere then my apologies, what is this Harman curve? How do I apply it ? I have never seen the tone controls on my 4300H I swear and I hate DEQ and it’s always set to off, did my miss any update on my receiver?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drh3b

joy192k said:


> I have never seen tone control on my 4300H where do I find it ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hit the option button on the remote while playing something.


----------



## joy192k

drh3b said:


> Hit the option button on the remote while playing something.




Lol it’s like unlocking some hidden level in a video game, thx will try that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

joy192k said:


> I have never seen tone control on my 4300H where do I find it ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





joy192k said:


> Sorry I somehow landed on this page and this was too interesting read, if this was already answered somewhere then my apologies, what is this Harman curve? How do I apply it ? I have never seen the tone controls on my 4300H I swear and I hate DEQ and it’s always set to off, did my miss any update on my receiver?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi,

The Tone Controls are in your Audio menu. Just look for them there. They are grayed-out when DEQ is on. When DEQ is off, you can turn the Tone Control to "On" and then you will be able to adjust the bass and treble for the front speakers only. 

The Harman Curve is a preference curve that creates a rising bass response, and a smoothly falling treble response. You can implement your own house curve with either Audyssey or Audyssey Flat. 

The Audyssey Reference curve is engaged by default whenever you run an Audyssey calibration, and it already includes -2db of treble from 4,000Hz to 10,000Hz, and -6db above 10,000Hz. That slope affects all of the speakers. Audyssey Flat has no slope at all, so if you start with Flat, there won't be any initial treble roll-off. Some people prefer Flat for that very reason.

If you want to start with Flat and just roll-off the treble in your front speakers, you can use the tone controls to do that. Or, you can augment what is already happening to your treble, if you want to start with the Audyssey curve. The rising bass response can involve both your subwoofer and your front speakers. 

You can add as much of your own subwoofer boost as you want to, after an Audyssey calibration, and you can add up to +6d of bass to your front speakers with the tone control. (The bass you add to your front speakers will be above the crossover you, or your AVR, set for them.)

The Harman Curve is more of a general concept than a single graphic formula, but in theory, it involves a max volume at 20Hz, with a -10db decrease in volume at 20,000Hz. In actual practice, many subwoofers can play loud volumes well below 20Hz, and many people like very significant subwoofer boosts. 

Some people might end-up with less than 10db of slope between the lowest and the highest frequencies, and some people might end-up with much more than 10db of difference. This is strictly a YMMV issue.

I hope this brief explanation helps! Just experiment to discover what sounds best to you, in your room. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## joy192k

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The Tone Controls are in your Audio menu. Just look for them there. They are grayed-out when DEQ is on. When DEQ is off, you can turn the Tone Control to "On" and then you will be able to adjust the bass and treble for the front speakers only.
> 
> The Harman Curve is a preference curve that creates a rising bass response, and a smoothly falling treble response. You can implement your own house curve with either Audyssey or Audyssey Flat.
> 
> The Audyssey Reference curve is engaged by default whenever you run an Audyssey calibration, and it already includes -2db of treble from 4,000Hz to 10,000Hz, and -6db above 10,000Hz. That slope affects all of the speakers. Audyssey Flat has no slope at all, so if you start with Flat, there won't be any initial treble roll-off. Some people prefer Flat for that very reason.
> 
> If you want to start with Flat and just roll-off the treble in your front speakers, you can use the tone controls to do that. Or, you can augment what is already happening to your treble, if you want to start with the Audyssey curve. The rising bass response can involve both your subwoofer and your front speakers. You can add as much of your own subwoofer boost as you want to, after an Audyssey calibration, and you can add up to +6d of bass to your front speakers with the tone control.
> 
> The Harman Curve is more of a general concept than a single graphic formula, but in theory, it involves a max volume at 20Hz, with a -10db decrease in volume at 20,000Hz. In actual practice, many subwoofers can play loud volumes well below 20Hz, and many people like very significant subwoofer boosts. Some people might end-up with less than 10db of slope between the lowest and the highest frequencies, and some people might end-up with much more than 10db of difference. This is strictly a YMMV issue.
> 
> I hope this brief explanation helps! Just experiment to discover what sounds best to you, in your room.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thanks Mike, honestly I have never seen tone control under Audio menu but @drh3b gave me a hint earlier to try use remote -> options

Now let me try if I understood those paras, neither reference not flat are Harman curves, Harman curve is a concept where dB gradually dips as the frequency goes up, as lower frequency need a boost.

So it’s up to us how to implement Harman curve concept using reference or flat curves using tone control what not?

Do you recommend the Audyssey app for this, I think that’s the best way to do it? Also any generic recommendation, I have seen posts like disabling midrange compensation?

Also I have read about Schroeder frequency, it’s a good idea not to EQ above that schroeder frequency.How does it fit together with the harman curve concept?





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The Tone Controls are in your Audio menu. Just look for them there. They are grayed-out when DEQ is on. When DEQ is off, you can turn the Tone Control to "On" and then you will be able to adjust the bass and treble for the front speakers only.
> 
> The Harman Curve is a preference curve that creates a rising bass response, and a smoothly falling treble response. You can implement your own house curve with either Audyssey or Audyssey Flat.
> 
> The Audyssey Reference curve is engaged by default whenever you run an Audyssey calibration, and it already includes -2db of treble from 4,000Hz to 10,000Hz, and -6db above 10,000Hz. That slope affects all of the speakers. Audyssey Flat has no slope at all, so if you start with Flat, there won't be any initial treble roll-off. Some people prefer Flat for that very reason.
> 
> If you want to start with Flat and just roll-off the treble in your front speakers, you can use the tone controls to do that. Or, you can augment what is already happening to your treble, if you want to start with the Audyssey curve. The rising bass response can involve both your subwoofer and your front speakers.
> 
> You can add as much of your own subwoofer boost as you want to, after an Audyssey calibration, and you can add up to +6d of bass to your front speakers with the tone control. (The bass you add to your front speakers will be above the crossover you, or your AVR, set for them.)
> 
> The Harman Curve is more of a general concept than a single graphic formula, but in theory, it involves a max volume at 20Hz, with a -10db decrease in volume at 20,000Hz. In actual practice, many subwoofers can play loud volumes well below 20Hz, and many people like very significant subwoofer boosts.
> 
> Some people might end-up with less than 10db of slope between the lowest and the highest frequencies, and some people might end-up with much more than 10db of difference. This is strictly a YMMV issue.
> 
> I hope this brief explanation helps! Just experiment to discover what sounds best to you, in your room.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Another option, if people find the Audyssey Reference curve to be too late/sharp is to try out CinemaEQ (with Audyssey Flat) which is an option with Denon and Marantz AVRs. It applies to all 3 fronts (L C R) instead of just the L and R (like with Tone Control), and it's a longer more gradual slope starting at around 1khz and ending up aound -4dB by 20khz. 

Batpig confirmed it with graphs and our friend Skinfax did as well (he actually originally suggested it to me). Same concept as Tone Control just also applicable with center channel. 

Ultimately, it's about trying out and figuring out what you like


----------



## joy192k

pbz06 said:


> Another option, if people find the Audyssey Reference curve to be too late/sharp is to try out CinemaEQ (with Audyssey Flat) which is an option with Denon and Marantz AVRs. It applies to all 3 fronts (L C R) instead of just the L and R (like with Tone Control), and it's a longer more gradual slope starting at around 1khz and ending up aound -6dB by 20khz.
> 
> 
> 
> Batpig confirmed it with graphs and our friend Skinfax did as well (he actually originally suggested it to me). Same concept as Tone Control just also applicable with center channel.
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, it's about trying out and figuring out what you like



Got it Thx, is Cinema EQ only available if I set curve to Auyssey Flat, I don’t think I have seen it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

joy192k said:


> Got it Thx, is Cinema EQ only available if I set curve to Auyssey Flat, I don’t think I have seen it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's completely independent of Audyssey, but the purpose of combining it with Flat is to give it a baseline that is EQd with a known response.

It's also buried, similar to Tone Control, lol. You have to be watching content, and hit the setup menu button on your AVR remote. Find the "surround parameters" option and it's in there. It's also a good idea to double check that with all your devices. Some stick and some are input dependent like I think Audyssey and DEQ are.


----------



## joy192k

pbz06 said:


> It's completely independent of Audyssey, but the purpose of combining it with Flat is to give it a baseline that is EQd with a known response.
> 
> 
> 
> It's also buried, similar to Tone Control, lol. You have to be watching content, and hit the setup menu button on your AVR remote. Find the "surround parameters" option and it's in there. It's also a good idea to double check that with all your devices. Some stick and some are input dependent like I think Audyssey and DEQ are.



Thanks, will try that , what reference material do you use to test ? I think using movies may not be good idea since it’s so dynamic


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

joy192k said:


> Thanks, will try that , what reference material do you use to test ? I think using movies may not be good idea since it’s so dynamic
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yea, it's tough. It's something you have to experiment with varied content over time. I use Logan and John Wick for a lot of my testing, because both movies have lots of varied content which allows me to test bass, treble, voices, atmos, surrounds, quiet scenes too.

I can PM you specific scenes, so we don't clutter the thread.


----------



## mthomas47

joy192k said:


> Thanks Mike, honestly I have never seen tone control under Audio menu but @*drh3b* gave me a hint earlier to try use remote -> options
> 
> Now let me try if I understood those paras, neither reference not flat are Harman curves, Harman curve is a concept where dB gradually dips as the frequency goes up, as lower frequency need a boost.
> 
> So it’s up to us how to implement Harman curve concept using reference or flat curves using tone control what not?
> 
> Do you recommend the Audyssey app for this, I think that’s the best way to do it? Also any generic recommendation, I have seen posts like disabling midrange compensation?
> 
> Also I have read about Schroeder frequency, it’s a good idea not to EQ above that schroeder frequency.How does it fit together with the harman curve concept?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



You are very welcome, and you have all of the first few questions and answers correct! The app can be an easy way to implement some changes to your frequency response, including using Audyssey Reference while disabling the MRC. 

But, even with the app, you will still need to increase the volume of your subwoofer(s) if you want an increased low-bass response; and you may still want to experiment with your tone control if you want an increased mid-bass response, or a decreased (or increased) treble response for your front speakers. 

Sometimes, we don't realize quite how much control we actually have over the sound in our rooms, although the variables can seem a little overwhelming if we don't approach them systematically.

The Schroeder Frequency is the frequency at which standing (bass) waves are formed in a room. Bass below a certain frequency tends to pool, wherever two room surfaces meet, creating room modes. Room modes, in turn, create bass distortion. The Schroeder Frequency (also called the transition frequency) is dependent on room volume. In very small rooms, that transition frequency may occur at about 300Hz. In very large rooms (perhaps ~10,000^3) the transition frequency can start at about 100Hz.

Some people believe that it is not helpful to use automated room EQ to try to achieve a better frequency response below about 500Hz, or even 300Hz. Like everything else associated with audio, there are conflicting opinions on this. Many people believe that they achieve better overall sound quality in their rooms by allowing a software program, such as Audyssey, to EQ the entire frequency range of their speakers. As with other audio questions, this is one that you can test for yourself if you are interested. The app allows you to stop EQing at a particular frequency.

My personal opinion, with respect to my own room (which has good inherent acoustics and some strategic room treatments), is that if I use Audyssey XT-32 carefully, as described in previous posts just above, it does more good than harm for my entire frequency response. In other words, XT-32 works well for me, both above and below Schroeder.

But, that is strictly a YMMV question! In any event, the Schroeder Frequency really doesn't have anything to do with creating a Harman Curve. The Harman Curve is something that may be generated, after an Audyssey calibration, whether we EQ above Schroeder or not. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

bytor said:


> With a Marantz SR6013 does having Eco mode on or on Auto affect the Audyssey calibration?


Hi bytor,

No, having any level of ECO (On, Auto, Off) activated does "Not" affect Audyssey.

However, the general rule is to keep it either "Off" or on "Auto". Eco On reduces rail voltage and may starve channels of power. Auto is what I use.

Auto will engage ECO mode when you are at low volume and no making large power demands on the Amps. Auto will automatically (Thus the name "Auto") disengage when you turn up the volume. The exact point of when this happens depends on how many, and what type of speakers you have connected. In my case when I hit right around >-30bd it Eco On kicks Off. The only way to find where it will automatically switch from on to off is to play some Music. Then slowly adjust the volume from -50bs up until you see the Eco Power meter jump up. That will be when your unit will automatically switch from Eco ON to Eco Off.

Hope this helps clarify.


----------



## mthomas47

*Guide Edit*

^^^

Since interest continues to be high right now about the Harman Curve, and about house curves in general, I decided to add a new subsection to the Guide linked in my signature. I have added it to Section V-A, which explains DEQ, and Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat, in some detail. The new subsection follows the discussion of tone controls.

What I have written is merely informative in nature. It is not prescriptive, and individuals will still need to experiment for themselves to discover what they like. But, I thought it might be helpful to have much of what has been discussed, over several pages of this thread, concisely synopsized in one place.

I hope that people find the new subsection helpful! Here is a direct link to Section V:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> ^^^
> 
> Since interest continues to be high right now about the Harman Curve, and about house curves in general, I decided to add a new subsection to the Guide linked in my signature. I have added it to Section V-A, which explains DEQ, and Audyssey Reference and Audyssey Flat, in some detail. The new subsection follows the discussion of tone controls.
> 
> What I have written is merely informative in nature. It is not prescriptive, and individuals will still need to experiment for themselves to discover what they like. But, I thought it might be helpful to have much of what has been discussed, over several pages of this thread, concisely synopsized in one place.
> 
> I hope that people find the new subsection helpful! Here is a direct link to Section V:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#V
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Excellent additions. I will go out on a limb here and say flat out. I do not believe a more comprehensive or approachable "All things Audyssey & Bass" Guide like this exists anywhere! What you have created is a work of Art, scientific art. Your ability (not to repeat myself) to convey incredibly complicated Theory & Science in words, terms and real life examples is astonishing. This is a Technical Guide! Make no mistake, but it reads like a riveting Novel. 

You Sir have created a Work to be immeasurably Proud. You have my heartfelt gratitude and acknowledgement of the "Thousands upon thousands" of hours you have dedicated to the AVS Community and to our continued Voyage of Learning.

A "Grey Beard" or "Professor" is the definition of One who Spends their Life in the Pursuit of Teaching, Instructing and Imparting knowledge and Wisdom upon Others. You Sir are our treasured "*Jedi Master*".

Thank you Master.


----------



## mthomas47

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> A "Grey Beard" or "Professor" is the definition of One who Spends their Life in the Pursuit of Teaching, Instructing and Imparting knowledge and Wisdom upon Others. You Sir are our treasured "*Jedi Master*".
> 
> Thank you Master.




Wow, just wow! I don't know what to say, except thanks! 

If you keep this up, I will change my user name to AVS Jedi Master. 

Thanks, Adam!


----------



## jconjason

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Excellent additions. I will go out on a limb here and say flat out. I do not believe a more comprehensive or approachable "All things Audyssey & Bass" Guide like this exists anywhere! What you have created is a work of Art, scientific art. Your ability (not to repeat myself) to convey incredibly complicated Theory & Science in words, terms and real life examples is astonishing. This is a Technical Guide! Make no mistake, but it reads like a riveting Novel.
> 
> You Sir have created a Work to be immeasurably Proud. You have my heartfelt gratitude and acknowledgement of the "Thousands upon thousands" of hours you have dedicated to the AVS Community and to our continued Voyage of Learning.
> 
> A "Grey Beard" or "Professor" is the definition of One who Spends their Life in the Pursuit of Teaching, Instructing and Imparting knowledge and Wisdom upon Others. You Sir are our treasured "*Jedi Master*".
> 
> Thank you Master.


I agree, Mike had been a huge help on this forum(not just this thread). I think it's great how he offers information that explains things in detail and he also give you options and doesn't TELL you how to set things in your specific room, but offers multiple approaches to achieve what sounds good to you. It's refreshing to have someone that doesn't try to force feed their own agenda, but just genuinely wants to help everyone.

Thank you Mike.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, i know i had some great info about lowering the crossover from Adamg and Mike, but.....

Had this discussion also on the Gallo forum and one member had the same high crossover on his Strada speakers, also 150Hz.
(that seems a bit strange on its own, that he gets exact the same results, different room, different room setting ect.)
He lowered the Audyssey crossover and used REW to measure if he could see any differents in the 150Hz REW results or the lower setting, he did not.

Adamg told me about saving memory space.
It seems (today) a bit strange to try and "save" memory space on just the Front speakers, out of say 11 or even 13 speakers.
So when i run my Denon X4500H in a 5.1 mode, the memory of 5 speakers need to be saved, and still this gap will be there if i lower the crossover.
But when i use my X4500H for 7.2.2 there is enough space for the additional 6 speakers that need to be calculated and stored 

*Maybe* it could be something out of the past that needs to be done on older receivers, say 5-10 years ago, but now ?
As REW is not showing any changes (not my words, but his), maybe it is indeed something from the past and is not "active" any more, and lowering will not effect the filters in today receivers 

Thanks for your thoughts


----------



## CBdicX

*Question about the Audyssey App.*

Would it be possible to adjust the Center speaker with the app to create what Denon calls the "*Dialog Enhancer*" ?

_This function adjusts the center channel frequency band to enhance the dialog in the movies and vocals in music for easier listening._

I have the Denon X4500H but this model has no Enhancer, the next model the X6500H has but will cost me around additional 1800-1900 euro to do a swop. 
De app will cost 20.00 euro, but is it any good en could it do this job, I read al lot of problems.....


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Hi, i know i had some great info about lowering the crossover from Adamg and Mike, but.....
> 
> Had this discussion also on the Gallo forum and one member had the same high crossover on his Strada speakers, also 150Hz.
> (that seems a bit strange on its own, that he gets exact the same results, different room, different room setting ect.)
> He lowered the Audyssey crossover and used REW to measure if he could see any differents in the 150Hz REW results or the lower setting, he did not.
> 
> Adamg told me about saving memory space.
> It seems (today) a bit strange to try and "save" memory space on just the Front speakers, out of say 11 or even 13 speakers.
> So when i run my Denon X4500H in a 5.1 mode, the memory of 5 speakers need to be saved, and still this gap will be there if i lower the crossover.
> But when i use my X4500H for 7.2.2 there is enough space for the additional 6 speakers that need to be calculated and stored
> 
> *Maybe* it could be something out of the past that needs to be done on older receivers, say 5-10 years ago, but now ?
> As REW is not showing any changes (not my words, but his), maybe it is indeed something from the past and is not "active" any more, and lowering will not effect the filters in today receivers
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts



Hi,

Adam speculated that Audyssey stops EQing below the measured F3 point of a speaker in order to save memory space for its EQ filters. While filter bandwidth could perhaps have been an issue on early versions of Audyssey, XT-32 has more than 4,000 control points (or taps) per channel. Each channel has its own filter, and each filter has more than 4,000 taps. So, there is always plenty of memory, or taps, to provide adequate EQ for any channel, or for any number of channels covered by the AVR.

But, that is not the real reason why Audyssey, in all versions, stops setting those control points once a speaker or subwoofer is down by -3db. *The real reason it stops EQing at that frequency is to protect the speaker/subwoofer from being over-boosted by the EQ process.* I mentioned this to you this in an earlier post. Remember that EQ consists of boosting dips and cutting peaks, so that the frequency response in a room can be smoother. The goal is +/- 3db at every frequency.

In order to achieve that goal, Audyssey is programmed to be able to boost dips by up to +9db and to pull-down peaks by up to -20db. The difference in those two numbers is deliberate. Again, it's to protect speakers or subwoofers from being damaged by too much boost, and it's also to keep from wasting too much amplifier power on nulls--areas of cancellation. Any time a boost is applied, some of your available amplifier power is utilized; just as if you had turned-up your volume level. 

So, Audyssey is programmed to stop applying any cuts or boosts, once a speaker or subwoofer is consistently down by -3db, as measured at its position within a room. And, remember also that the speaker has to be playing those lower-frequencies at the MLP, so the distance from the speaker to the main listening position (where Audyssey is actually measuring the response) also matters. That is because we lose SPL with distance, and that especially applies to the lowest frequencies, which fall-away first. This was also in my earlier post.

The bottom line is still that if you want to lower one or more of your crossovers, in order to prevent bass localization from your subwoofer, then you should do it. I would do it, too!

Audyssey will not be EQing much below the crossover that your AVR set, but that part's fine. You don't actually want Audyssey trying to boost your speakers below their natural capabilities, at their specific positions inside the room. And, you don't want to do that, either! 

That's why both Gary and I have advised you to be a little careful about your total volume level, with speakers where you have dropped the crossover from wherever your AVR set them. I think you will be fine here! Just be a little bit conservative with your master volume until you are sure that your speakers aren't distorting. 

The concepts in my post may seem a little complicated at first, and I know that English is not your first language. Just read this information several times, if necessary, because what I am telling you is correct. 

Regards,
Mike


Edit: Seeing your post inquiring about Denon's Dialogue Enhancer, save your money for better/larger speakers.  All that feature is actually going to do is to boost the volume of some frequencies in the center channel. You can do most of that yourself with your AVR trim level for that speaker. Just remember what we told you about trying to push a speaker below its actual capabilities. Be a little bit careful with the volume of a speaker, when you drop the crossover.


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Adam speculated that Audyssey stops EQing below the measured F3 point of a speaker in order to save memory space for its EQ filters. While filter bandwidth could perhaps have been an issue on early versions of Audyssey, XT-32 has more than 4,000 control points (or taps) per channel. Each channel has its own filter, and each filter has more than 4,000 taps. So, there is always plenty of memory, or taps, to provide adequate EQ for any channel, or for any number of channels covered by the AVR.
> 
> But, that is not the real reason why Audyssey, in all versions, stops setting those control points once a speaker or subwoofer is down by -3db. *The real reason it stops EQing at that frequency is to protect the speaker/subwoofer from being over-boosted by the EQ process.* I mentioned this to you this in an earlier post. Remember that EQ consists of boosting dips and cutting peaks, so that the frequency response in a room can be smoother. The goal is +/- 3db at every frequency.
> 
> In order to achieve that goal, Audyssey is programmed to be able to boost dips by up to +9db and to pull-down peaks by up to -20db. The difference in those two numbers is deliberate. Again, it's to protect speakers or subwoofers from being damaged by too much boost, and it's also to keep from wasting too much amplifier power on nulls--areas of cancellation. Any time a boost is applied, some of your available amplifier power is utilized; just as if you had turned-up your volume level.
> 
> So, Audyssey is programmed to stop applying any cuts or boosts, once a speaker or subwoofer is consistently down by -3db, as measured at its position within a room. And, remember also that the speaker has to be playing those lower-frequencies at the MLP, so the distance from the speaker to the main listening position (where Audyssey is actually measuring the response) also matters. That is because we lose SPL with distance, and that especially applies to the lowest frequencies, which fall-away first. This was also in my earlier post.
> 
> The bottom line is still that if you want to lower one or more of your crossovers, in order to prevent bass localization from your subwoofer, then you should do it. I would do it, too!
> 
> Audyssey will not be EQing much below the crossover that your AVR set, but that part's fine. You don't actually want Audyssey trying to boost your speakers below their natural capabilities, at their specific positions inside the room. And, you don't want to do that, either!
> 
> That's why both Gary and I have advised you to be a little careful about your total volume level, with speakers where you have dropped the crossover from wherever your AVR set them. I think you will be fine here! Just be a little bit conservative with your master volume until you are sure that your speakers aren't distorting.
> 
> The concepts in my post may seem a little complicated at first, and I know that English is not your first language. Just read this information several times, if necessary, because what I am telling you is correct.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike (again...……!!)
But what about the guy in the Gallo forum that did a REW on the 150Hz setting and on the lower 100Hz setting, and he could not see any differents ?

And what are your thoughts on using subwoofer support on the Strada speakers, Front , Center and Surround, with a High Level sub input like REL and BK ?

Thanks, Dirk 

(do not use on English forums the name Dick any more, even sometimes I am.....   )


----------



## mthomas47

CBdicX said:


> Thanks Mike (again...……!!)
> But what about the guy in the Gallo forum that did a REW on the 150Hz setting and on the lower 100Hz setting, and he could not see any differents ?
> 
> And what are your thoughts on using subwoofer support on the Strada speakers, Front , Center and Surround ?
> 
> Thanks, Dirk
> 
> (do not use on English forums the name Dick any more, even sometimes I am.....   )



Hi Dirk,

Well, we all have a little bit of Dick in us. 

I answered this question too, in an earlier post. You have to read these posts carefully. They take time to write, and they take time to fully understand. 

Audyssey's actions aren't always visible. It is not necessarily trying to EQ every individual frequency. So, the fact that someone couldn't see an EQ difference between two crossover settings is completely meaningless, with respect to what we are discussing. Again, if you need to drop a crossover in order to prevent bass localization, just do it. You are way over-thinking this! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Dirk,
> 
> Well, we all have a little bit of Dick in us.
> 
> I answered this question too, in an earlier post. You have to read these posts carefully. They take time to write, and they take time to fully understand.
> 
> Audyssey's actions aren't always visible. It is not necessarily trying to EQ every individual frequency. So, the fact that someone couldn't see an EQ difference between two crossover settings is completely meaningless, with respect to what we are discussing. Again, if you need to drop a crossover in order to prevent bass localization, just do it. You are way over-thinking this!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Ok, I will drop the crossover stuff and give myself some "rest" 

But did you answer this before ?

_What are your thoughts on using subwoofer support on the Strada speakers, Front , Center and Surround, with a *High Level sub* input like REL and BK ?_


----------



## Justins123

Quick question on calibration of two subs with XT32. I'm trying to troubleshoot intermittent problems with one of my sub's amps.

What is the proper sequence of tones I should hear when calibrating two subs? It appears for the first listening position, tones are sent to each sub separately and then both together at the same time. For each subsequent listening position, tones are sent to both subs at the same time and the are not sent tones individually. Is this correct?


----------



## pbarach

Justins123 said:


> Quick question on calibration of two subs with XT32. I'm trying to troubleshoot intermittent problems with one of my sub's amps.
> 
> What is the proper sequence of tones I should hear when calibrating two subs? It appears for the first listening position, tones are sent to each sub separately and then both together at the same time. For each subsequent listening position, tones are sent to both subs at the same time and the are not sent tones individually. Is this correct?



It's correct. Audyssey measures the distance (delay) and trim level for each sub separately when you do the first listening position, then does the frequency response calibration from each mic position using both subs at the same time (i.e., a single calibration sweep tone is used for both).


----------



## joy192k

jconjason said:


> I agree, Mike had been a huge help on this forum(not just this thread). I think it's great how he offers information that explains things in detail and he also give you options and doesn't TELL you how to set things in your specific room, but offers multiple approaches to achieve what sounds good to you. It's refreshing to have someone that doesn't try to force feed their own agenda, but just genuinely wants to help everyone.
> 
> Thank you Mike.




I completely agree, honestly I have been following the forum quite actively only in the recent past, actually to his inputs which he even may not know , haha, helped me decide on SVS subs, there is a lot of bias in these forums but Mike always gives his 2 cents which is honest and it doesn’t matter if you are a noOb or pro audiophile, he will explain in detail and share his knowledge( I’m sure, decades of it ) and you always learn a thing or two from his posts. 

Thanks Mike, ppl like you are the reason I come here and to enjoy my hobby but downside is end spending more $$$, lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joy192k

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome, and you have all of the first few questions and answers correct! The app can be an easy way to implement some changes to your frequency response, including using Audyssey Reference while disabling the MRC.
> 
> But, even with the app, you will still need to increase the volume of your subwoofer(s) if you want an increased low-bass response; and you may still want to experiment with your tone control if you want an increased mid-bass response, or a decreased (or increased) treble response for your front speakers.
> 
> Sometimes, we don't realize quite how much control we actually have over the sound in our rooms, although the variables can seem a little overwhelming if we don't approach them systematically.
> 
> The Schroeder Frequency is the frequency at which standing (bass) waves are formed in a room. Bass below a certain frequency tends to pool, wherever two room surfaces meet, creating room modes. Room modes, in turn, create bass distortion. The Schroeder Frequency (also called the transition frequency) is dependent on room volume. In very small rooms, that transition frequency may occur at about 300Hz. In very large rooms (perhaps ~10,000^3) the transition frequency can start at about 100Hz.
> 
> Some people believe that it is not helpful to use automated room EQ to try to achieve a better frequency response below about 500Hz, or even 300Hz. Like everything else associated with audio, there are conflicting opinions on this. Many people believe that they achieve better overall sound quality in their rooms by allowing a software program, such as Audyssey, to EQ the entire frequency range of their speakers. As with other audio questions, this is one that you can test for yourself if you are interested. The app allows you to stop EQing at a particular frequency.
> 
> My personal opinion, with respect to my own room (which has good inherent acoustics and some strategic room treatments), is that if I use Audyssey XT-32 carefully, as described in previous posts just above, it does more good than harm for my entire frequency response. In other words, XT-32 works well for me, both above and below Schroeder.
> 
> But, that is strictly a YMMV question! In any event, the Schroeder Frequency really doesn't have anything to do with creating a Harman Curve. The Harman Curve is something that may be generated, after an Audyssey calibration, whether we EQ above Schroeder or not.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Honestly not sure if I understood the last para, it’s the noOb feeling again, so let me clear my basics, is EQing and reference/house curves two different things? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

joy192k said:


> I completely agree, honestly I have been following the forum quite actively only in the recent past, actually to his inputs which he even may not know , haha, helped me decide on SVS subs, there is a lot of bias in these forums but Mike always gives his 2 cents which is honest and it doesn’t matter if you are a noOb or pro audiophile, he will explain in detail and share his knowledge( I’m sure, decades of it ) and you always learn a thing or two from his posts.
> 
> Thanks Mike, ppl like you are the reason I come here and to enjoy my hobby but downside is end spending more $$$, lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





joy192k said:


> Honestly not sure if I understood the last para, it’s the noOb feeling again, so let me clear my basics, is EQing and reference/house curves two different things?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



First, thank you very much for the compliment, and you are very welcome for any help I have ever given you. Knowingly, or not! 

Yes, EQing the frequency response (FR), with something such as Audyssey, and afterwards, changing the EQed FR by implementing a house curve, are entirely different things. As noted in some recent posts, Audyssey's program of automated room EQ is trying to make every frequency play at the same volume level. 

The actual goal is to be +/- 3db, from a baseline volume of 75db, at every frequency from 10Hz to 22,000Hz. (Or, as low and high as our subwoofers and speakers can play within that total frequency range.)

In a perfect world, every frequency within the range of our audio system, would be playing at exactly the same volume level, after an Audyssey calibration, if we were using Audyssey Flat. It helps me to imagine a flat frequency response as a straight horizontal line. Try that, or draw it, if it helps.

In reality, no automated system of room EQ can accomplish that, although sometimes systems such as XT-32 can come reasonably close. But, would we actually want to hear every frequency playing at exactly the same volume? Well, some of us might, but according to many listening tests, most of us probably wouldn't. 

(What we would all prefer to avoid is random peaks and valleys in the frequency response, with some frequencies randomly playing louder than they should, and some frequencies randomly playing softer than they should. EQ helps us to minimize that situation, at least at our main listening position, or within a relatively condensed listening area.)

But, once we have gotten rid of the random peaks and valleys, most of us would want to take that nice flat frequency response and start it curving downward a little from the lowest frequencies, with the lowest frequencies playing a little (or a lot) louder, and the highest frequencies playing a little (or a lot) softer. That's a concise definition of a typical house curve.

(And, now the straight horizontal line would curve downward a little from left to right. Low-frequencies are always shown on the left on a FR graph.)

A house curve is specific to a room, to an audio system, and to the preferences of an individual listener. And, it can be anything we choose: more bass and less treble, or the complete reverse of that, or anything in between.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## joy192k

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



mthomas47 said:


> First, thank you very much for the compliment, and you are very welcome for any help I have ever given you. Knowingly, or not!
> 
> Yes, EQing the frequency response (FR), with something such as Audyssey, and afterwards, changing the EQed FR by implementing a house curve, are entirely different things. As noted in some recent posts, Audyssey's program of automated room EQ is trying to make every frequency play at the same volume level.
> 
> The actual goal is to be +/- 3db, from a baseline volume of 75db, at every frequency from 10Hz to 22,000Hz. (Or, as low and high as our subwoofers and speakers can play within that total frequency range.)
> 
> In a perfect world, every frequency within the range of our audio system, would be playing at exactly the same volume level, after an Audyssey calibration, if we were using Audyssey Flat. It helps me to imagine a flat frequency response as a straight horizontal line. Try that, or draw it, if it helps.
> 
> In reality, no automated system of room EQ can accomplish that, although sometimes systems such as XT-32 can come reasonably close. But, would we actually want to hear every frequency playing at exactly the same volume? Well, some of us might, but according to many listening tests, most of us probably wouldn't.
> 
> (What we would all prefer to avoid is random peaks and valleys in the frequency response, with some frequencies randomly playing louder than they should, and some frequencies randomly playing softer than they should. EQ helps us to minimize that situation, at least at our main listening position, or within a relatively condensed listening area.)
> 
> But, once we have gotten rid of the random peaks and valleys, most of us would want to take that nice flat frequency response and start it curving downward a little from the lowest frequencies, with the lowest frequencies playing a little (or a lot) louder, and the highest frequencies playing a little (or a lot) softer. That's a concise definition of a typical house curve.
> 
> (And, now the straight horizontal line would curve downward a little from left to right. Low-frequencies are always shown on the left on a FR graph.)
> 
> A house curve is specific to a room, to an audio system, and to the preferences of an individual listener. And, it can be anything we choose: more bass and less treble, or the complete reverse of that, or anything in between.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike




Thanks, Mike, you should open a school,I am sure you will get enough enrollments, lol, may be start your tube channel  

This actually was very helpful, luckily I was on the same page, just want to make sure my understanding was correct.

The house curve?, Is it across all speakers ? My best guess is LCR and subs will be best bang for the buck. Also is there a guidance for the treble as well? Do ppl roll off the tops ( reference curve is already rolled off I believe) , do we go further or the tone control is a simpler way for doing that? ( I am aware it applies to LR only )

I have used subwoofer level adjustments to boost bass, what does that do and how does that differ from setting new house curve with low freq boost? What frequency do you normally boost, I believe below XO point say 80 hz ?

Do you have any before & after curves as example ?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

joy192k said:


> Thanks, Mike, you should open a school,I am sure you will get enough enrollments, lol, may be start your tube channel
> 
> This actually was very helpful, luckily I was on the same page, just want to make sure my understanding was correct.
> 
> The house curve?, Is it across all speakers ? My best guess is LCR and subs will be best bang for the buck. Also is there a guidance for the treble as well? Do ppl roll off the tops ( reference curve is already rolled off I believe) , do we go further or the tone control is a simpler way for doing that? ( I am aware it applies to LR only )
> 
> I have used subwoofer level adjustments to boost bass, what does that do and how does that differ from setting new house curve with low freq boost? What frequency do you normally boost, I believe below XO point say 80 hz ?
> 
> Do you have any before & after curves as example ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It depends 

As Mike explains in the guide, Audyssey Reference + DEQ is in a way its own house curve whether intentional or not, based from the MV at reference level though. With gradual increase in the bass regions and decrease in the treble regions, and flat in between. To most people, that is sufficient. Whether that is enough etc. is all preference. The Harman findings show that most people actually prefer a more linear/gradual decrease the entire 20hz-20khz range (essentially a delta of 10dB, like bass +7 and treble -3 from a "baseline". Either way, YMMV.

You can try to achieve something to that effect using Tone Controls (only for L and R), as Mike explains it in detail, and those have slightly longer slopes (or tilts) to them than say Audyssey Reference. Finding the right combo and blend is tough especially with bass management in the mix etc.

Increasing the subwoofer trim is more like a shelf, where all the bass region gets raised equally (I don't know which exact frequencies). The bass control (for L and R) in tone setting, tilts it as the guide explains and can be used to blend in the two. Similarly with the Treble, YMMV on finding the right combo.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> It depends
> 
> As Mike explains in the guide, Audyssey Reference + DEQ is in a way its own house curve whether intentional or not, based from the MV at reference level though. With gradual increase in the bass regions and decrease in the treble regions, and flat in between. To most people, that is sufficient. Whether that is enough etc. is all preference. The Harman findings show that most people actually prefer a more linear/gradual decrease the entire 20hz-20khz range (essentially a delta of 10dB, like bass +7 and treble -3 from a "baseline". Either way, YMMV.


Depends on the overall volume level. At high levels, yes. And Audyssey Reference does roll off the top end, but it does so less with DEQ on at low volume levels. Depends on the directivity of the speakers, too.



pbz06 said:


> You can try to achieve something to that effect using Tone Controls (only for L and R), as Mike explains it in detail, and those have slightly longer slopes (or tilts) to them than say Audyssey Reference. Finding the right combo and blend is tough especially with bass management in the mix etc.


I have tried tone controls for treble and I am not a fan. They change the curve of the response and that changes the character of the speaker. Ideally, one would "shelve" the treble range rather than change the curve, as you can do on many active speakers designed for studio monitor use, via a switch. I am not holding my breath for AVR manufacturers to implement features that customers aren't asking for, though.



pbz06 said:


> Increasing the subwoofer trim is more like a shelf, where all the bass region gets raised equally (I don't know which exact frequencies). The bass control (for L and R) in tone setting, tilts it as the guide explains and can be used to blend in the two. Similarly with the Treble, YMMV on finding the right combo.


Experimentation is definitely needed.


----------



## joy192k

pbz06 said:


> It depends
> 
> 
> 
> As Mike explains in the guide, Audyssey Reference + DEQ is in a way its own house curve whether intentional or not, based from the MV at reference level though. With gradual increase in the bass regions and decrease in the treble regions, and flat in between. To most people, that is sufficient. Whether that is enough etc. is all preference. The Harman findings show that most people actually prefer a more linear/gradual decrease the entire 20hz-20khz range (essentially a delta of 10dB, like bass +7 and treble -3 from a "baseline". Either way, YMMV.
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to achieve something to that effect using Tone Controls (only for L and R), as Mike explains it in detail, and those have slightly longer slopes (or tilts) to them than say Audyssey Reference. Finding the right combo and blend is tough especially with bass management in the mix etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the subwoofer trim is more like a shelf, where all the bass region gets raised equally (I don't know which exact frequencies). The bass control (for L and R) in tone setting, tilts it as the guide explains and can be used to blend in the two. Similarly with the Treble, YMMV on finding the right combo.




Thank you, not sure why but I was never a fan of DEQ, the bass is just too much for me to handle and surround gets too pronounced for my taste, my surrounds are very closely (3.5 ft) mounted to the seating 

I prefer the reference over the flat today, I have started playing with the tone controls, and I always boost bass using subwoofer level adjust (+2 dB) I would like to play around with the house curves, would be interested to see if anyone is using the app and if they can post some curves they have tried.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

^^^^Go to the app thread. Lots of example plots there.


----------



## pbz06

joy192k said:


> Thank you, not sure why but I was never a fan of DEQ, the bass is just too much for me to handle and surround gets too pronounced for my taste, my surrounds are very closely (3.5 ft) mounted to the seating
> 
> I prefer the reference over the flat today, I have started playing with the tone controls, and I always boost bass using subwoofer level adjust (+2 dB) I would like to play around with the house curves, would be interested to see if anyone is using the app and if they can post some curves they have tried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you go into the audyssey app thread, you will likely get better answers. The member "batpig" is an expert at assessing results and making suggestions...hopefully he doesn't get overwhelmed 

As for DEQ, it's definitely one of the more polarizing features. I personally love it overall and to me it provides what it intends. Since it applies the bass boosts on ALL channels and up to 120hz, it's likely what causes boomy/muddy bass to most people, especially if they are close to you or if your surrounds aren't thrilled playing bass frequencies etc. Same goes for the treble boost if they are already close to you...combined with the LFE boosts, it can be overwhelming in certain conditions. Ideally we would have the option to apply DEQ on specific channels and/or only in bass, but it is what it is.

You can also try the Target Curve 2 within the app, which has a slightly more aggressive and linear roll-off compared to the default one. The guide for Audyssey app recommends that one if you are in a larger room and/or brighter environment. I actually use that one whenever I use the Reference curve.


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> The actual goal is to be +/- 3db, from a baseline volume of 75db, at every frequency from 10Hz to 22,000Hz. (Or, as low and high as our subwoofers and speakers can play within that total frequency range.)



But, but... Neither the reference nor the flat Audyssey curve shows a flat frequency response. There is some rolloff on the high end, and (if not using the app, the MRC "nibble" in the mids). So it seems like these Audyssey curves are actually "house curves" as much as the Harman curve is.


And I want to second the motion about how helpful you have been on this forum to me and many others, Mike!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

pbarach said:


> But, but... Neither the reference nor the flat Audyssey curve shows a flat frequency response. There is some rolloff on the high end, and (if not using the app, the MRC "nibble" in the mids). So it seems like these Audyssey curves are actually "house curves" as much as the Harman curve is.
> 
> 
> And I want to second the motion about how helpful you have been on this forum to me and many others, Mike!


Hi pbarach,

But, but.....As you mentioned Audyssey creates two calibration sets (Flat and Reference). The Flat curve is what Mike was referring to as the "Goal" in the above post. The Reference curve has some User adjustable drops/roll offs. The MRC can be turned on or off in the App and the High end drop/slant/roll off can also be adjusted by the user. However, to be able to make these changes, you need access the the MultiEQ App or Audyssey Pro. Otherwise your stuck between "Flat" and "Ref".

The Harman Curve differs from Audyssey Flat in one major way. The Harman Curve requires a small boost in the Low FR region. If you go to the App thread you can see some good examples of that. Audyssey tries to go flat as far out as the Room/speaker combination permits. No boosted Bass just flat. Harman curve is boosted low end with a slowly reducing drop off as you move towards the top end FR.


----------



## joy192k

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> ^^^^Go to the app thread. Lots of example plots there.




Adam, even following one thread is overwhelming 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

joy192k said:


> Adam, even following one thread is overwhelming
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you think reading a thread is overwhelming? Just think how Overwhelming it is creating and typing all the answers. I bet @mthomas47 is worn out from yesterday's endless barrage, both physically and mentally. Major Kudos to him. It must seem daunting some days. How he does it, I have no clue? But I for one am "damn glad" he does.

You only have to read the last several pages of that App Thread. As the plots and conversation you are interested have been the focus of recent discussion. Go to the last page, then go back maybe 4 pages and you will get the information you seek. Pretty easy right?


----------



## joy192k

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> If you think reading a thread is overwhelming? Just think how Overwhelming it is creating and typing all the answers. I bet @mthomas47 is worn out from yesterday's endless barrage, both physically and mentally. Major Kudos to him. It must seem daunting some days. How he does it, I have no clue? But I for one am "damn glad" he does.
> 
> 
> 
> You only have to read the last several pages of that App Thread. As the plots and conversation you are interested have been the focus of recent discussion. Go to the last page, then go back maybe 4 pages and you will get the information you seek. Pretty easy right?




True that @mthomas47 many kudos to him

I will try my best to absorb the information as much I can, glad it’s the current topic, it becomes difficult if things are scattered and honestly more information means more confusion, thank you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## joy192k

pbz06 said:


> If you go into the audyssey app thread, you will likely get better answers. The member "batpig" is an expert at assessing results and making suggestions...hopefully he doesn't get overwhelmed
> 
> 
> 
> As for DEQ, it's definitely one of the more polarizing features. I personally love it overall and to me it provides what it intends. Since it applies the bass boosts on ALL channels and up to 120hz, it's likely what causes boomy/muddy bass to most people, especially if they are close to you or if your surrounds aren't thrilled playing bass frequencies etc. Same goes for the treble boost if they are already close to you...combined with the LFE boosts, it can be overwhelming in certain conditions. Ideally we would have the option to apply DEQ on specific channels and/or only in bass, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> You can also try the Target Curve 2 within the app, which has a slightly more aggressive and linear roll-off compared to the default one. The guide for Audyssey app recommends that one if you are in a larger room and/or brighter environment. I actually use that one whenever I use the Reference curve.



Thanks I will download the app and try that target curve 2, bad part is all the calibration has to be repeated again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

pbarach said:


> But, but... Neither the reference nor the flat Audyssey curve shows a flat frequency response. There is some rolloff on the high end, and (if not using the app, the MRC "nibble" in the mids). So it seems like these Audyssey curves are actually "house curves" as much as the Harman curve is.
> 
> And I want to second the motion about how helpful you have been on this forum to me and many others, Mike!



Thank you very much for saying that! I appreciate it. 

Adam already has addressed this, in his response to you, but I would like to pursue this issue of Audyssey Flat a little further. I have seen some frequency responses where Audyssey Flat really was flat out to 20KHz (which is as high as most measurements typically go). But, Audyssey Flat can only work with the room, the transducers, and the listening distances that it is given. 

Most speakers are going to roll-off well before 20 or 22KHz, just as most subwoofers are going to roll-off well before 10Hz. And, even if they don't roll-off that fast, when measured close-miked, or at 1m distance, which is where most subwoofer makers will measure, they roll-off much sooner at our actual listening position, where Audyssey is measuring their frequency response. 

I can go into some more detail on this aspect of it, but measurements can be max burst, which is 3dB higher than the RMS (continuous) response. That is a potential 3dB difference by itself. Where the measurement is taken also matters. If we assume a -3dB decline in volume for a doubling in distance indoors (and I think that very high-frequencies may drop-off even faster than that, since they aren't augmented by room gain the way that low-frequencies are) then high-frequencies can lose a lot of volume in a room, compared to a manufacturer's spec. 

Let's take the example of a tweeter which is specified to be -3dB at 20KHz. That tweeter was probably measured at 1m, unless otherwise stated (and it may not be an RMS measurement). At 2m, that tweeter will be down to -6dB at 20KHz. At 4m, which is probably about a typical listening distance of ~13', the tweeter will be down by -9dB (-12dB if the original measurement weren't RMS) at 20KHz. On a frequency response graph of Audyssey Flat, you might see a good bit of natural roll-off occurring above about 10 or 12KHz for that 20KHz tweeter. 

But, wait, isn't Audyssey boosting those high frequencies in order to keep the overall response as flat as possible? Won't it just add some high-frequency boost to compensate for the natural roll-off of our tweeters, at their actual position in the room? Even if they aren't pointed directly toward our listening position, or even if they just don't have enough juice to play 20KHz frequencies as loudly as they can play 5KHz and 10KHz frequencies? I don't believe that Audyssey will boost the very highest frequencies in that case.

I don't recall ever seeing this in writing, but I am certain that Audyssey is programmed to handle high-frequency roll-offs in exactly the same way that it handles low-frequency roll-offs. In other words, it quits EQing wherever a speaker or subwoofer rolls-off by -3dB, whether that is a low-frequency roll-off, or a high-frequency roll-off. 

In some respects, a tweeter would be much easier to damage, by boosting it above it's natural roll-off point, than it would be to damage a subwoofer by boosting it below it's natural roll-off point. Most subwoofers have some built-in limiters, and they are sturdier to start with. Tweeters can be pretty fragile. Damage can follow distortion pretty quickly, if the tweeter overheats. 

The fact that Audyssey isn't damaging our tweeters or subwoofers is pretty good empirical evidence that Audyssey is not boosting (or EQing) above F3 points for high-frequencies, any more than it is boosting (or EQing) below F3 points for low-frequencies. For most of us, especially those of us who are older than 30, or perhaps 35, it really won't matter anyway. We might not be able to hear 20KHz frequencies, even if our speakers could produce them. I know that mine can't, and I know that I can't, so all is well with my audio system. 

This has turned into a fairly long post, but I thought it might be interesting to explore the subject of what Audyssey Flat is intended to do, versus what it actually can do in specific rooms, with specific speakers (and subwoofers), which might not be able to be flat at the theoretical limits of the Audyssey software.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> But, but... *Neither the reference nor the flat Audyssey curve shows a flat frequency response. There is some rolloff on the high end*, and (if not using the app, the MRC "nibble" in the mids). So it seems like these Audyssey curves are actually "house curves" as much as the Harman curve is.
> 
> 
> And I want to second the motion about how helpful you have been on this forum to me and many others, Mike!


 (Bolding mine, GG)


In an answer to a question from me, Chris K (of Audyssey) claimed that Audyssey FLAT is flat from 20 to 20,000Hz. That was in about 2011, so since then they may have extended that flatness to 10 to 22,000Hz, +/- 3 dB, as Mike says. I would think that the +/- 3 dB, in addition to being a CYA statement, may be there to accommodate any variation of the Audyssey mics from their central tendency. Acoustically, in my room, there is a little roll-off above 13,000 Hz, I suspect because at the MLP the microphone would be slightly off-axis. It is still within +/- 2.5 dB, up to 16.5 Hz, though (I'm not counting the bass because I cranked it up by ear and taste and left it there before I ever ran a REW curve).


Mike's idea that Audyssey would limit its _*very *_high frequency boosts to 3 dB even if the tweeter needed more to be flat, is quite interesting. In my case, although Audyssey* lowered* an 8K peak by 4 dB, the largest *boost *it imposed in the tweeter range (>4.5K in my case) was, indeed, exactly 3 dB. 



FWIW, in about 1971, Paul Klipsch ran full range sweeps at 2 feet and 16 feet (3 doublings). While _*average*_ reduction in SPL was about 9 or 10 dB (as predicted), the largest difference was in the _*bass*_, at 70Hz. I suspect there was a null at that frequency at 16 feet, but not at 2 feet. At 20K, the difference was 6 dB, at 10K. 9 dB, at 5K, 7dB.


----------



## primetimeguy

mthomas47 said:


> Thank you very much for saying that! I appreciate it.
> 
> Adam already has addressed this, in his response to you, but I would like to pursue this issue of Audyssey Flat a little further. I have seen some frequency responses where Audyssey Flat really was flat out to 20KHz (which is as high as most measurements typically go). But, Audyssey Flat can only work with the room, the transducers, and the listening distances that it is given.
> 
> Most speakers are going to roll-off well before 20 or 22KHz, just as most subwoofers are going to roll-off well before 10Hz. And, even if they don't roll-off that fast, when measured close-miked, or at 1m distance, which is where most subwoofer makers will measure, they roll-off much sooner at our actual listening position, where Audyssey is measuring their frequency response.
> 
> I can go into some more detail on this aspect of it, but measurements can be max burst, which is 3dB higher than the RMS (continuous) response. That is a potential 3dB difference by itself. Where the measurement is taken also matters. If we assume a -3dB decline in volume for a doubling in distance indoors (and I think that very high-frequencies may drop-off even faster than that, since they aren't augmented by room gain the way that low-frequencies are) then high-frequencies can lose a lot of volume in a room, compared to a manufacturer's spec.
> 
> Let's take the example of a tweeter which is specified to be -3dB at 20KHz. That tweeter was probably measured at 1m, unless otherwise stated (and it may not be an RMS measurement). At 2m, that tweeter will be down to -6dB at 20KHz. At 4m, which is probably about a typical listening distance of ~13', the tweeter will be down by -9dB (-12dB if the original measurement weren't RMS) at 20KHz. On a frequency response graph of Audyssey Flat, you might see a good bit of natural roll-off occurring above about 10 or 12KHz for that 20KHz tweeter.
> 
> But, wait, isn't Audyssey boosting those high frequencies in order to keep the overall response as flat as possible? Won't it just add some high-frequency boost to compensate for the natural roll-off of our tweeters, at their actual position in the room? Even if they aren't pointed directly toward our listening position, or even if they just don't have enough juice to play 20KHz frequencies as loudly as they can play 5KHz and 10KHz frequencies? I don't believe that Audyssey will boost the very highest frequencies in that case.
> 
> I don't recall ever seeing this in writing, but I am certain that Audyssey is programmed to handle high-frequency roll-offs in exactly the same way that it handles low-frequency roll-offs. In other words, it quits EQing wherever a speaker or subwoofer rolls-off by -3dB, whether that is a low-frequency roll-off, or a high-frequency roll-off.
> 
> In some respects, a tweeter would be much easier to damage, by boosting it above it's natural roll-off point, than it would be to damage a subwoofer by boosting it below it's natural roll-off point. Most subwoofers have some built-in limiters, and they are sturdier to start with. Tweeters can be pretty fragile. Damage can follow distortion pretty quickly, if the tweeter overheats.
> 
> The fact that Audyssey isn't damaging our tweeters or subwoofers is pretty good empirical evidence that Audyssey is not boosting (or EQing) above F3 points for high-frequencies, any more than it is boosting (or EQing) below F3 points for low-frequencies. For most of us, especially those of us who are older than 30, or perhaps 35, it really won't matter anyway. We might not be able to hear 20KHz frequencies, even if our speakers could produce them. I know that mine can't, and I know that I can't, so all is well with my audio system.
> 
> This has turned into a fairly long post, but I thought it might be interesting to explore the subject of what Audyssey Flat is intended to do, versus what it actually can do in specific rooms, with specific speakers (and subwoofers), which might not be able to be flat at the theoretical limits of the Audyssey software.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Here is evidence that suggests Audyssey will indeed boost high frequencies more than 3db.

Purple = no audyssey
Green = reference/movie
Blue = flat/music

At 10k it boosts 3db for the reference curve but 5db to get to flat. The boost increases to 6db or so at 20k.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> (Bolding mine, GG)
> 
> 
> In an answer to a question from me, Chris K (of Audyssey) claimed that Audyssey FLAT is flat from 20 to 20,000Hz. That was in about 2011, so since then they may have extended that flatness to 10 to 22,000Hz, +/- 3 dB, as Mike says. I would think that the +/- 3 dB, in addition to being a CYA statement, may be there to accommodate any variation of the Audyssey mics from their central tendency. Acoustically, in my room, there is a little roll-off above 13,000 Hz, I suspect because at the MLP the microphone would be slightly off-axis. It is still within +/- 2.5 dB, up to 16.5 Hz, though (I'm not counting the bass because I cranked it up by ear and taste and left it there before I ever ran a REW curve).
> 
> Mike's idea that Audyssey would limit its _*very *_high frequency boosts to 3 dB even if the tweeter needed more to be flat, is quite interesting. In my case, although Audyssey* lowered* an 8K peak by 4 dB, the largest *boost *it imposed in the tweeter range (>4.5K in my case) was, indeed, exactly 3 dB.
> 
> FWIW, in about 1971, Paul Klipsch ran full range sweeps at 2 feet and 16 feet (3 doublings). While _*average*_ reduction in SPL was about 9 or 10 dB (as predicted), the largest difference was in the _*bass*_, at 70Hz. I suspect there was a null at that frequency at 16 feet, but not at 2 feet, At 20K, the difference was 6 dB, at 10K. 9 dB, at 5K, 7dB.



Hi Gary,

As usual, that's all good stuff! I probably should clarify something, though. I'm actually not saying that Audyssey may be limiting any high-frequency boosts to 3dB. I believe that Audyssey can pull down bass peaks by up to -20dB and boost dips by up to +9dB. I'm not sure if it's capabilities change, as frequencies get higher, or not. If anyone else has any firm information on that, I would be interested to hear it.

All I was saying is that I believe that Audyssey stops EQing wherever a transducer's high-frequency response has declined by 3dB (in a more or less permanent way). Audyssey is measuring the entire frequency response, so I believe it can generally tell the difference between a momentary 3dB dip, and the beginning of a permanent roll-off. 

There are probably some exceptions to this, as there are to almost everything, but I would expect Audyssey to be pretty good at identifying a high-frequency F3 point, just as it is with a low-frequency F3 point. And, once it identifies that frequency, for both high-frequencies and for low-frequencies, I believe that Audyssey simply stops EQing. So, no more boosting dips, or pulling down peaks, at that point. 

I suspect that the +3dB boost you observed at about 4.5KHz, and above, is just a coincidence. As I write this, I see that primetimeguy is saying the same thing. Audyssey can boost high-frequencies by more than +3dB. I'm not sure what I wrote in my long post that conveyed the impression that Audyssey can only boost high-frequencies by +3dB, but I certainly didn't mean to do that.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BJBBJB

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> joy192k said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adam, even following one thread is overwhelming /forum/images/smilies/wink.gif
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> If you think reading a thread is overwhelming? Just think how Overwhelming it is creating and typing all the answers. I bet @mthomas47 is worn out from yesterday's endless barrage, both physically and mentally. Major Kudos to him. It must seem daunting some days. How he does it, I have no clue?/forum/images/smilies/eek.gif But I for one am "damn glad" he does.
> 
> You only have to read the last several pages of that App Thread. As the plots and conversation you are interested have been the focus of recent discussion. Go to the last page, then go back maybe 4 pages and you will get the information you seek. Pretty easy right?
Click to expand...

That is so true. I have learned much reading @mthomas47 posts on this thread and @batpig on the app thread over the past few months. Both give a lot of time and effort. Still trying to apply that knowledge to my system. 😀

BJBBJB


----------



## bytor

I've read the faq but still have some questions regarding mic placement with a couch/recliner. I've tried a few different heights and get different distance measurements by about 4-5 inches depending on how high the mic is. It seems like having it higher is the more accurate measurement, but then the mic would be a little above where my head is while listening. 

An option I have would be to fully recline it while doing the listening test and then the back of the couch wouldn't be behind the mic at the proper height for listening level. Is this what I should do even though I would never be listening while fully reclined back? I was thinking the couch (it's cloth) should be in the position I would normally be listening at but maybe it's better to just recline it out of the way altogether. And if that is what I should do, should I have it reclined out of the way for all measurements or just the first one?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

bytor said:


> I've read the faq but still have some questions regarding mic placement with a couch/recliner. I've tried a few different heights and get different distance measurements by about 4-5 inches depending on how high the mic is. It seems like having it higher is the more accurate measurement, but then the mic would be a little above where my head is while listening.
> 
> An option I have would be to fully recline it while doing the listening test and then the back of the couch wouldn't be behind the mic at the proper height for listening level. Is this what I should do even though I would never be listening while fully reclined back? I was thinking the couch (it's cloth) should be in the position I would normally be listening at but maybe it's better to just recline it out of the way altogether. And if that is what I should do, should I have it reclined out of the way for all measurements or just the first one?


Hi bytor,

Taking measurements is a tricky process. I have two recliners in my MLP area. Just the two. I take the majority 5 of 8 measurements as close to ear height as I can in my Recliner and the remaining 3 measurements in my Wifes recliner. I strive to get as close to ear height as possible and make sure to take two ear height measurements on both sides of where Our head(s) will be in normal listening positions.

I do recline both recliners. Just enough to clear out of the line of sight for the rear surround and rear height channels. So not a full recline, but enough that the Audyssey Mic is above and clear of the seat back. Say 2-3 inches is what I look for in height clearance. I also drape blankets over the recliners. As they are both Leather and slightly reflective. I keep them both in a partially/slightly reclined position for all 8 microphone placements.

But in the end, we must embrace experimentation to find the calibration we determine the best. I will do a full 8 position cal and live with it for weeks. This gives me time to identify weakness or strengths in the calibrated sound field results. At some point you will know when the results are good. Trying for perfection is another path to OCD behavior. I try to avoid that path. But am not always successful in that regard.

I hope this helps a little. Good luck Sir!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

BJBBJB said:


> That is so true. I have learned much reading @mthomas47 posts on this thread and @batpig on the app thread over the past few months. Both give a lot of time and effort. Still trying to apply that knowledge to my system. 😀
> 
> BJBBJB


Hi BJBBJB,

At times it seems insurmountable. I can relate to the feeling. Just when we think we are getting it, we read a new Post that creates more questions than answers. I try to step back and focus on one aspect of Audio reproduction at a time. Drill down until I have satisfied my curiosity. There is no end goal with this stuff. It justs keep getting deeper and wider. This hobby can be all consuming if you allow it. While the rewards can be plentiful and significant, pacing oneself is paramount to not falling completely into the Rabbit Hole.

I try to think of this learning curve as more of a "Journey" rather than some abstract "destination". Sit back and enjoy the improvements in incremental chunks. Experiment with your gear, and give yourself plenty of exposure time to the new settings. Enjoying the Journey as we learn and tweak "this and that" one small step at a time. Then start reading the next topic that catches your attention. Some will be dead ends. Others will open new possibilities of improvement or just knowledge attainment. That in itself can be rewarding!

We are *all* still trying to apply the knowledge we get out of this Forum. So you are not in a unusual position and have lots of good company. Including myself


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... I'm actually not saying that Audyssey may be limiting any high-frequency boosts to 3dB. I believe that Audyssey can pull down bass peaks by up to -20dB and boost dips by up to +9dB. I'm not sure if it's capabilities change, as frequencies get higher, or not. If anyone else has any firm information on that, I would be interested to hear it ...
> 
> All I was saying is that I believe that Audyssey stops EQing wherever a transducer's high-frequency response has declined by 3dB ... *in a more or less permanent way* ... I believe it can generally tell the difference between a momentary 3dB dip, and the beginning of a permanent roll-off.
> 
> There are probably some exceptions to this, as there are to almost everything, but I would expect Audyssey to be pretty good at identifying a high-frequency F3 point, just as it is with a low-frequency F3 point. And, once it identifies that frequency, for both high-frequencies and for low-frequencies, I believe that Audyssey simply stops EQing. So, no more boosting dips, or pulling down peaks, at that point ...


I get it now (I think). Thanks. Sure enough, Audyssey looks at an about 5.5 dB _narrow_ dip middle of my range, and corrects it handily, without treating it as my speakers F3. So it does react differently to a temporary dip than a permanent end point roll off. 

As I know you know, Mike, I agree with all of the praise forum members are heaping on you. If you ever do a YouTube on Audyssey, EQ, Bass Preferences, etc. I'll bet it will be leagues above what's out there now.

I agree with those who point out that he Harman Curve, B&K curve, etc. are approximations that reflect a central tendency of preference. I do wonder if the treble attenuation in both of the above curves is a byproduct of the use of typically bad source recordings, which are harsh or distorted at the top. Does anybody know what recordings Harman, B & K, and others were using? In the not too distant past (but before CDs came out), a *"smile" *curve was popular, with both bass and treble *boosted*. This change wouldn't be because of tweeters improving, because many in my house are the same as they were back then. As Chris A points out in The Missing Octave over on the Klipsch forum, not only is the bass turned down on many modern recordings (which any of the house curves above might fix), but the upper midrange (and some of the treble) is often turned up, which the Harman and B&K treble decline would help hide. But what if the recording is superb? Perhaps the treble would not have to be turned down. If Harman, and others, used analog original recordings that are relatively undistorted in the treble, their house curves may reflect real preferences. But if the treble is subtlety strained, perhaps their treble downturn is an artifact. I find that most Blu-rays of modern movies can be played with flat treble, as can the SACDs I happen to have (I know AES can't hear the difference!). A good number of CDs are helped by a very slight treble roll-off. Blu-rays of _*old*_ movies can also be helped by a little treble cut --- sometimes.

As to my house curve, I use about +9 dB at the bottom. I used to use Audyssey Reference to take care of the top. More recently, I've changed over to Audyssey Flat*;* consequently, nowadays there is no treble decline, unless I'm playing a harsh CD or old movie. IMO, with most recordings, it sounds great!


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I get it now (I think). Thanks. Sure enough, Audyssey looks at an about 5.5 dB _narrow_ dip middle of my range, and corrects it handily, without treating it as my speakers F3. So it does react differently to a temporary dip than a permanent end point roll off.
> 
> As I know you know, Mike, I agree with all of the praise forum members are heaping on you. If you ever do a YouTube on Audyssey, EQ, Bass Preferences, etc. I'll bet it will be leagues above what's out there now.
> 
> I agree with those who point out that he Harman Curve, B&K curve, etc. are approximations that reflect a central tendency of preference. I do wonder if the treble attenuation in both of the above curves is a byproduct of the use of typically bad source recordings, which are harsh or distorted at the top. Does anybody know what recordings Harman, B & K, and others were using? In the not too distant past (but before CDs came out), a *"smile" *curve was popular, with both bass and treble *boosted*. This change wouldn't be because of tweeters improving, because many in my house are the same as they were back then. As Chris A points out in The Missing Octave over on the Klipsch forum, not only is the bass turned down on many modern recordings (which any of the house curves above might fix), but the upper midrange (and some of the treble) is often turned up, which the Harman and B&K treble decline would help hide. But what if the recording is superb? Perhaps the treble would not have to be turned down. If Harman, and others, used analog original recordings that are relatively undistorted in the treble, their house curves may reflect real preferences. But if the treble is subtlety strained, perhaps their treble downturn is an artifact. I find that most Blu-rays of modern movies can be played with flat treble, as can the SACDs I happen to have (I know AES can't hear the difference!). A good number of CDs are helped by a very slight treble roll-off. Blu-rays of _*old*_ movies can also be helped by a little treble cut --- sometimes.
> 
> As to my house curve, I use about +9 dB at the bottom. I used to use Audyssey Reference to take care of the top. More recently, I've changed over to Audyssey Flat*;* consequently, nowadays there is no treble decline, unless I'm playing a harsh CD or old movie. IMO, with most recordings, it sounds great!




Hi Gary,

First, thank you very much for the nice compliment! I really appreciate it!  

As Adam pointed-out in a recent post, all of us are in the same boat--still learning, and still trying to figure things out as we go. That definitely applies to both of us. And, it also definitely applies to some of the questions you raise in your post. I suspect I am going to get into deep water if I try to tackle this, but it would at least be interesting to put some thoughts down on paper, so I'm going to wade-in anyway. 

As I understand it, the research that led to the development of the Harman Curve was primarily related to the design of loudspeakers and headphones. There was a particular interest in studying speaker directivity. To what extent can a speaker maintain its accuracy, by frequency, if the speaker is off-axis to the listener, rather than pointed right at him? 

As a product of the early research done by Dr Floyd Toole and others, it was discovered that most people preferred a rising bass response, and a declining treble response, across a wide variety of listening rooms and music sources. So, the notion of a Harman curve began to be applied to rooms as well as to speaker/headphone design. At least, I believe that all of that is correct.

The problem with taking that psycho-acoustic generalization and trying to apply it to a specific room or individual is that there can be so many variables involved. And, any of those variables can potentially influence the preferences of a particular individual. I will try to list some of the variables that I think could potentially influence our personal preferences for either more or less treble. 

First, there are the speakers themselves. As noted in an earlier post, most of our speakers probably aren't quite as capable with very high frequencies as we think they are. And, if they begin to distort, even a little bit, as we push them with more volume, we may find that high-frequency distortion to be very unpleasant. 

Then, there is the placement of the speakers in the room. Are they pointed in a way that optimizes their on and off-axis accuracy and fidelity? Are the tweeters approximately at ear level? That's important because speakers lose vertical directivity very quickly. Finally, are they at an appropriate distance from our main listening position? Speakers may run out of gas as distances increase, and high-frequencies are increasingly subject to room influences as listening distances increase. 

Next, there is the room itself. A room with a lot of hard surfaces can exhibit a lot of ringing, which will make high-frequencies sound even louder and more piercing than they would otherwise sound. I think that there can be about a 3dB difference in perceived loudness just from that. And, high-frequency distortion from a speaker or from a music source, in a room in which sound lingers, can be especially obnoxious. On the other hand, a very heavily-treated room (with very short reverberation times) can deaden sounds, and very high-frequencies are especially susceptible to that. So, the room itself can also influence our desire for either more or less treble. 

Next, we should consider the potential influence of room correction. The jury is out on the extent to which room correction actually helps with high-frequencies. As noted in an earlier post (by someone else) a number of audio experts believe that it is actually counterproductive to EQ very much above Schroeder (about 500Hz is the typical number expressed). My own viewpoint, as expressed in an earlier post, is that someone who knows what he is doing, may be able to use something like Audyssey XT-32 very effectively for higher frequencies. But, care has to be taken during the Audyssey calibration, and it is still probably somewhat room-dependent, and it is still probably subject to individual interpretation and individual preference. 

Then there is the source material you mentioned. What if the high-frequencies on an older recording are already rolled-off, or compressed by the playback source? What if there is high-frequency distortion from the recording? Toole's "Circle of Confusion" emphasizes the variation that exists with recording quality. And, I definitely think that most of us would find a difference between a really good recording, with excellent high-frequency extension, and a poor recording with high-frequency distortion or compression. More treble volume is not our friend where there is already distortion in a recording. 

Finally there are the dual variables of individual hearing and individual preference. Let's take our hearing first. According to everything I have read, women tend to hear very high-frequencies better than men, and they tend to be more sensitive to those frequencies, as a result. So, our gender could be an issue. Men also tend to lose high-frequency hearing at a faster rate than women. So gender, age, and potential hearing damage, due to various forms of noise exposure, could all be factors. And then, there are variations in our individual hearing capabilities which are not related to gender, or to age, or to hearing loss. We are all born with slightly different physical attributes and our hearing is one of them. 

I saved individual preference for last, because I think that it can potentially be influenced by all of the other variables mentioned, and yet it is still an independent variable as well. For instance, I think that there can be a difference between what we can hear and what we like. Most of the variables I listed so far just influence what we hear. 

But, our personal psycho-acoustic response to what we hear is still somewhat individualistic. For example, do we like timpani better, or horns, or wind instruments, or strings? I suspect that the sounds we most prefer have more to do with the way our brains process the sounds that we hear, than it does with how we hear. And, who knows what environmental factors may influence our preferences? So, even if we understand how we hear, and why, that may not tell us everything about what we actually prefer.

This post has been interesting to write, as these are issues that I enjoy thinking about and exploring. And, I hope that it will be interesting for others to read. But, unfortunately, the only conclusion I can reach from all of this is that different individuals will inevitably make different selections, with respect to speakers; with respect to room arrangements and treatments; with respect to settings: such as Audyssey on or off, Audyssey Reference or Audyssey Flat, DEQ on or off, tone controls, subwoofer boosts, and house curves; and with respect to preferred listening material and sources. 

See what you started, Gary? I blame you for this post! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> See what you started, Gary? I blame you for this post!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



And then I'd still like to see some reference to the Harman Curve in relation to different MV settings, especially to those lower settings where "equal loudness" takes its turn on our ears and makes a twist on the perception of this downfalling curve. (Note: DEQ in this case is OFF)

I'll take the blame on me Mike if your are going to write another page on this subject!


----------



## mthomas47

mogorf said:


> And then I'd still like to see some reference to the Harman Curve in relation to different MV settings, especially to those lower settings where "equal loudness" takes its turn on our ears and makes a twist on the perception of this downfalling curve. (Note: DEQ in this case is OFF)
> 
> I'll take the blame on me Mike if your are going to write another page on this subject!



I certainly don't want to write another page on this subject, but I think it would be rude to ignore your post, especially since we are friends.  I honestly don't understand why you keep asking this same question, though. It has already been discussed many times on this thread, and you have participated in those discussions. And, a few days ago you asked me the same question on the Guide thread. Here was the relevant part of my response: 


"Frankly, I don't think it's particularly complicated to change some settings if we make significant changes to our master volume level, but that's just me. And, if the changes we make allow things to sound better to us, then that is the ultimate objective of our sound system in the first place, in my opinion. 

I do recall you saying that you use more subwoofer boost when you listen to music, than you do when watching movies/TV, so I think you are already creating your own house curve when you do that. And, its really not hard to do, whether it involves changing the subwoofer volume, or making a change to the tone controls."


Addressing the bass aspect of this as the easiest one to visualize, DEQ adds a net average of about 1.5dB for the frequencies between about 20Hz and 120Hz, for a -5dB decrease in master volume. A -5dB decrease in master volume is very substantial, for such a modest change in bass frequencies. If we make a -3dB or -6dB reduction in our master volume level, why can't we manually adjust our bass levels to compensate for that? Perhaps we will decide to add 1dB, or 2dB, or 3dB, based on our own hearing, and on our own bass preferences.

(Treble frequencies would work the same way, although most of us don't seem to be quite as sensitive to volume changes there. And, that is consistent with the Equal Loudness Curves. We notice bass changes more. But where we do notice treble changes, the answer is pretty easy, as we have two different Audyssey curves available to us. And, beyond Audyssey versus Flat, if we want more treble we can just add some. Want less, take some away.) 

I can't speak for anyone else, but it takes me just a few seconds to change a couple of settings with my AVR remote. And, I may do that sometimes, even if I don't change my master volume level. Some movies may have much more, or much less bass, than is typical. Personally, I never discourage anyone from using any settings he may like, with the possible exception of LFE+Main. And, even then, I just try to point-out the implications with respect to potential bass distortion.

So, I don't ever lobby either for or against DEQ! And, I feel the same way about Harman, or house curves. I have my own preferences, and I expect other people to have theirs. I actually like the fact that we aren't all exactly alike, and that we don't like exactly the same things. I believe that diversity is a good thing, rather than a bad thing. So, if people want to use DEQ straight out of the box, or if they want to augment DEQ's action with their own independent subwoofer boosts (as you do for music) or if they want to dispense with DEQ entirely, I really don't see the problem.

Most of us develop our other settings in conjunction with a fairly small range of master volume levels, and if we make a significant deviation to that master volume level, it can really be pretty easy to season the bass to taste, in a matter of seconds. We can do that either with or without DEQ. 

And, if for some reason, we are having trouble making purely independent subwoofer and bass tone control boosts work, then we can always just stay with DEQ. This has simply never been a black-and-white question for me, where there can only be one right answer. It's always been an individual one, where YMMV rules! After all, audio is an entertainment hobby. We can't expect everyone to be entertained in exactly the same way. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## C J

I can't find if there has ever been confirmation on Audyssey and its ability to correctly calibrate a Marantz receiver set to bi-amp the L/R front channels?


SIAP


----------



## Alan P

C J said:


> I can't find if there has ever been confirmation on Audyssey and its ability to correctly calibrate a Marantz receiver set to bi-amp the L/R front channels?
> 
> 
> SIAP


Of course it can. The question is; why bother with passive bi-amping at all?


----------



## savrin

Can anyone help me

Why are the levels of the FHL and FHR channels different?


----------



## garygarrison

Wow!


Thanks everyone!


First, I love Feri's phrase, "a twist on the perception of this downfalling curve." So many aspects of the human mechanism provide a twist on our perception, inter and intrapersonally! There is a book called Fifty Seminal Papers on Human Hearing that is full of those twists. I deal with the equal loudness curves primarily by playing most music at concert level (or, for the occasional Rock, as Herb Caen put it to his fellow San Franciscans, Fillmore Level). I play movies within 5 to 7 dB of reference.


As I posted a few eons ago, members of our orchestra tended to select different types, brands, and models of speakers depending on where they sat in the orchestra, and in front of what. What it boiled down to was that people near and in front of the brass tended to like brighter speakers (JBL, EV, Klipsch), and people embedded in the massed strings tended to like "sweeter, richer" speakers (Bozak, etc). But sometimes there can be too much "bite." to the brass. Many orchestras have the brass and percussion up on tiers at the back of the orchestra, partly to spare the other members. I recently read that in a rehearsal hall without tiers, a cello player stood up, pointed at a brass player behind her, and said, "either he goes, or I do!" 



Our individual differences make it hard to tailor our sound to an audience of -- well -- individuals. In our home theater, we sometimes have audiences of 5 or 6, and I usually play the opening music and opening dialog for myself, before the audience gets here, and tailor it bit to my notion of the audience members (including myself, of course). _ Vive la difference_. Mike, I love the story you told about seeing How The West Was Won in the theater and, when the first note of the music sounded, a woman screamed!


Women, on the average, still do have better high frequency hearing, but the gap is narrowing slightly with ear protectors being worn in male dominated industry, the military draft for men being a thing of the past, less smoking, etc. -- but, given that our skin is still less smooth, perhaps our eardrums are too, and I think I read that there are differences in the cilia in the inner ear. I recently heard from a woman I went to High School with who said that when in my demonstration of Hi Fi in speech class I mentioned that women had better high frequency hearing than men, it stuck with her over all these years (never mind how many) because it was one of the few times she heard anyone say that women were better at anything.


I could go on and on, but I'll leave the "Circle of Confusion" and the rest for another time.


----------



## garygarrison

savrin said:


> Can anyone help me
> 
> Why are the levels of the FHL and FHR channels different?



What counts is if the _*acoustical*_ levels in the room, _*from your Main Listening Position*_ are the same. Do they *sound* like they are at the same level? If you have an SPL meter, or one on your phone, you can check them from the MLP.


If you need to know what is making the difference, consider the following:


Is the room symmetrical? Is it less so at the top, where the height speakers are?


Try switching the height speakers Left to the Right position and Right to Left, and see if the difference follows the speaker. 



My side surrounds take a different trim level by a few dB, but they sound like they are equal in volume, since Audyssey made them the same volume by sending them a different strength of electrical signal. That's what you want.


Nice set-up!


----------



## savrin

Hi,garygarrison

the others left and right channels,
difference is all in +-0.5dB,
Why is the difference between FHL and FHR +-2.5dB,
It's confused me


Is the room symmetrical?
could say so










Is it less so at the top, where the height speakers are?
above 2M


Try switching the height speakers Left to the Right position and Right to Left, and see if the difference follows the speaker. 

I have tryed switching the height speakers Left to the Right position and Right to Left, No difference!
Switching power amplifier PORT for FHL&FHR speakers,No difference!

Thank you garygarrison


----------



## Alan P

savrin said:


> Can anyone help me
> 
> Why are the levels of the FHL and FHR channels different?


My guess is that it has something to do with the fact that the left speaker has a solid wall to the left (actually a door, which I assume is closed during calibration) and the right speaker has almost no wall to the right of it. However, due to the lack of boundary gain on the right, I would actually expect the right speaker to be set higher than the left, not the other way around.


----------



## bluesky636

savrin said:


> Can anyone help me
> 
> Why are the levels of the FHL and FHR channels different?


Have you tried measuring the acoustic output at the MLP of both speakers using an SPL meter? That's the only way to really tell what is going on. What do the speakers sound like if you set the trim levels to equal values? You could have a bad speaker or amp channel.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, when Audyssey is doing its run (all 8 runs), will it be sending full range signals to the speakers to determine its size (large or small) and set crossover ?


----------



## bluesky636

I have been reading about all the tweaks people do when calibrating with Audyssey (blankets over chair backs, reclining seat backs, different heights/spacing of measurement mic positions, etc.). I really have to wonder how audible the results of these tweaks are. I'm not talking about measurements with REW or similar programs. I mean what do people actually HEAR after tweaking things. Human auditory memory is very poor. So how do you compare two or more different calibrations and determine that this one is better than the last one or it sucks? I am almost 66 years old with a fair amount of HF hearing loss. I normally wear hearing aids in both ears except when playing my electric guitars or watching tv. I have a simple 7.1 home theater in our family room with a Denon AVR-X3500H as the hub. I can honestly say the system sounds great (to me) after following the basic instructions of the guide with a few tweaks (mic location and height, that's it) but have no idea if it would sound better or worse if I did something different. Frankly. I feel no need to change anything with my current configuration. So do people really hear differences (how do you tell) or do you just "feel" that things are different?


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Hi, when Audyssey is doing its run, will it be sending full range signals to the speakers to determine its size (large or small) and set crossover ?


It is explained elsewhere in this thread that the chirps generated by Audyssey encompasse the range of 20Hz to 20kHz or there about.


----------



## CBdicX

bluesky636 said:


> It is explained elsewhere in this thread that the chirps generated by Audyssey encompasse the range of 20Hz to 20kHz or there about.


Found this:

_It is the Audyssey chirp that is designed to go out from *10 Hz* all the way *up to 24 kHz*_

But is this on all 8 runs, or just on the first ?


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Found this:
> 
> _It is the Audyssey chirp that is designed to go out from *10 Hz* all the way *up to 24 kHz*_
> 
> But is this on all 8 runs, or just on the first ?


All 8.


----------



## SaskCanesFan

Is it possible to just run the subwoofer channel for 8 mic positions? I just got my setup done last night and ran Audyssey quickly with my PB3000 set to -22db, and the Denon set my sub at -12 which is max. So today at lunch I thought I should try again, moved the sub down to -25db and Audyssey set the sub at -3.5 this time. Which seems odd to me as I thought it would be more linear between sub setting and Audyssey setting. Regardless I want to end up in that -9 range on the AVR but was hoping to not have to run the full speaker calibration again as my fiance is getting sick of the chirping.


----------



## David Aiken

bluesky636 said:


> I have been reading about all the tweaks people do when calibrating with Audyssey (blankets over chair backs, reclining seat backs, different heights/spacing of measurement mic positions, etc.). I really have to wonder how audible the results of these tweaks are. I'm not talking about measurements with REW or similar programs. I mean what do people actually HEAR after tweaking things. Human auditory memory is very poor. So how do you compare two or more different calibrations and determine that this one is better than the last one or it sucks? I am almost 66 years old with a fair amount of HF hearing loss. I normally wear hearing aids in both ears except when playing my electric guitars or watching tv. I have a simple 7.1 home theater in our family room with a Denon AVR-X3500H as the hub. I can honestly say the system sounds great (to me) after following the basic instructions of the guide with a few tweaks (mic location and height, that's it) but have no idea if it would sound better or worse if I did something different. Frankly. I feel no need to change anything with my current configuration. So do people really hear differences (how do you tell) or do you just "feel" that things are different?


You're right, auditory memory is pretty short and it takes a while to swap calibrations, even if you have them stored so you can load an alternative without having to go through the whole calibration process again. Whichever way you swap calibrations you're likely to be outside the period you'll see quoted for auditory memory.

But let me ask you a question. If auditory memory is so short, how can you tell that it's a particular friend calling you on the phone if you haven't heard their voice for several days? I'm not saying that auditory memory isn't short, I'm saying that our memory for certain aspects of sound is short but that we still seem to have long term auditory memory for some things. In addition, we make judgements on how we feel about the sound, does something about it put us on edge and another result doesn't, or does one result just "sound right" when another doesn't produce that response? You asked "do you just "feel" that things are different?" and that's probably a good way of describing our response to some changes.

There's a recent article on Stereophile's website about some studies suggesting that there are some aspects of sound which are better distinguished after long periods of listening rather than the standard A/B type tests which rely on short term memory.

All I can say is that I think our ability to distinguish differences in sound is a lot better in some ways that some people tend to think, and probably not quite as good in some ways as some think as well. Comparisons of some things do have to be made within a short term but comparisons of other things may not. For example, I have a disc with a song where the background singer is singing different words to those the singer is singing and both are singing at the same time. At various stages when I've been "tweaking" my system I haven't been able to make out most of what the background singer is singing but at other stages, after making a change, I've been able to make out more of the words the background singer is singing. Being able to recognise that words are clearer and that you can or can't hear what words a singer is singing does not rely on auditory memory but it is very definitely an aspect of what we hear.

Finally, different systems and different rooms are better at revealing some aspects of sound and concealing other aspects of sound. Everyone has their own preferences and you may well not like the same kind of sound I like or vice versa. I don't have hearing aids but I am 72 and I do have some HF hearing loss. I may be able to hear some things you can't but you may be able to hear some things I can't. Hearing isn't only about what our ears can detect, it's also about what we tend to notice and that aspect of hearing comes down to experience and what we pay attention to. I haven't played guitar in years but if you're still playing I bet you can pick out some differences in guitar sound that I'm not noticing. If you can't hear a difference in results if you place a blanket over the headrest of a chair, then it doesn't matter which way you do the calibration as far as you're concerned but if you live with someone else who sits in that place and they say they hear a difference and they prefer the result if you do the calibration one way, then do that aspect of the calibration the way they prefer because it won't make a difference to you. If you can both hear it and you each prefer it done a different way, then try and come to some amicable agreement about what you're going to do. Basically it's worth worrying about differences you or someone else who listens to the system on a regular basis hear but it's not worth worrying about differences that no one who normally listens to the system can notice. Deal with the things that make a difference to you and yours and don't worry about what others think, especially since a lot of what everyone thinks about how good something sounds comes down to personal preferences and we all have different personal preferences. As long as the result you're getting is giving you enjoyment you're doing it right.


----------



## pbz06

I struggle to hear whatever frequency my wife speaks in 

JK!!


----------



## bluesky636

SaskCanesFan said:


> Is it possible to just run the subwoofer channel for 8 mic positions? I just got my setup done last night and ran Audyssey quickly with my PB3000 set to -22db, and the Denon set my sub at -12 which is max. So today at lunch I thought I should try again, moved the sub down to -25db and Audyssey set the sub at -3.5 this time. Which seems odd to me as I thought it would be more linear between sub setting and Audyssey setting. Regardless I want to end up in that -9 range on the AVR but was hoping to not have to run the full speaker calibration again as my fiance is getting sick of the chirping.


There is nothing wrong with a sub trim level of -3.5. I have always aimed for -3.0 since MultEq days (now up to XT32) and then I up the trim to 0. I listen to movies typically between MV of -20 to -15 and have no problem with clipping the AVR sub output.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

SaskCanesFan said:


> Is it possible to just run the subwoofer channel for 8 mic positions? I just got my setup done last night and ran Audyssey quickly with my PB3000 set to -22db, and the Denon set my sub at -12 which is max. So today at lunch I thought I should try again, moved the sub down to -25db and Audyssey set the sub at -3.5 this time. Which seems odd to me as I thought it would be more linear between sub setting and Audyssey setting. Regardless I want to end up in that -9 range on the AVR but was hoping to not have to run the full speaker calibration again as my fiance is getting sick of the chirping.


Hi SaskCanesFan,

To answer your first question. No. You can’t just run the sub only. Won’t work.

However, you can run just 3 sweeps then finish, let the program complete. Review sub levels and trim. Adjust if necessary and run 3 more sweeps until you get the results you desire. Once you have the subs dialed in, then run a full set of 8 sweeps.

Hope that helps. Good luck Sir


----------



## bluesky636

David Aiken said:


> You're right, auditory memory is pretty short and it takes a while to swap calibrations, even if you have them stored so you can load an alternative without having to go through the whole calibration process again. Whichever way you swap calibrations you're likely to be outside the period you'll see quoted for auditory memory.
> 
> But let me ask you a question. If auditory memory is so short, how can you tell that it's a particular friend calling you on the phone if you haven't heard their voice for several days? I'm not saying that auditory memory isn't short, I'm saying that our memory for certain aspects of sound is short but that we still seem to have long term auditory memory for some things. In addition, we make judgements on how we feel about the sound, does something about it put us on edge and another result doesn't, or does one result just "sound right" when another doesn't produce that response? You asked "do you just "feel" that things are different?" and that's probably a good way of describing our response to some changes.
> 
> There's a recent article on Stereophile's website about some studies suggesting that there are some aspects of sound which are better distinguished after long periods of listening rather than the standard A/B type tests which rely on short term memory.
> 
> All I can say is that I think our ability to distinguish differences in sound is a lot better in some ways that some people tend to think, and probably not quite as good in some ways as some think as well. Comparisons of some things do have to be made within a short term but comparisons of other things may not. For example, I have a disc with a song where the background singer is singing different words to those the singer is singing and both are singing at the same time. At various stages when I've been "tweaking" my system I haven't been able to make out most of what the background singer is singing but at other stages, after making a change, I've been able to make out more of the words the background singer is singing. Being able to recognise that words are clearer and that you can or can't hear what words a singer is singing does not rely on auditory memory but it is very definitely an aspect of what we hear.
> 
> Finally, different systems and different rooms are better at revealing some aspects of sound and concealing other aspects of sound. Everyone has their own preferences and you may well not like the same kind of sound I like or vice versa. I don't have hearing aids but I am 72 and I do have some HF hearing loss. I may be able to hear some things you can't but you may be able to hear some things I can't. Hearing isn't only about what our ears can detect, it's also about what we tend to notice and that aspect of hearing comes down to experience and what we pay attention to. I haven't played guitar in years but if you're still playing I bet you can pick out some differences in guitar sound that I'm not noticing. If you can't hear a difference in results if you place a blanket over the headrest of a chair, then it doesn't matter which way you do the calibration as far as you're concerned but if you live with someone else who sits in that place and they say they hear a difference and they prefer the result if you do the calibration one way, then do that aspect of the calibration the way they prefer because it won't make a difference to you. If you can both hear it and you each prefer it done a different way, then try and come to some amicable agreement about what you're going to do. Basically it's worth worrying about differences you or someone else who listens to the system on a regular basis hear but it's not worth worrying about differences that no one who normally listens to the system can notice. Deal with the things that make a difference to you and yours and don't worry about what others think, especially since a lot of what everyone thinks about how good something sounds comes down to personal preferences and we all have different personal preferences. As long as the result you're getting is giving you enjoyment you're doing it right.


Interesting response. Thank you.

Regarding recognizing people's voices, I do a better job at that opposed to recognizing faces. I think accents, inflection, and speech patterns are easier to remember and recognize than frequency response variations.

I guess what I am getting at is how does one recognize in room frequency response variations as created by Audyssey? You mentioned that after running Audyssey the voice of the background singer was clearer compared to the main singer. I could see that happening if one singer was a tenor and the other a soprano because they are singing in different frequency bands. But if both were tenors, how could you tell the difference between the two? If you were listening to say, on organ recital, can you really tell that Audyssey is fixing a suck out in the bass range? Is it easier to determine the impact of Audyssey on Pink noise verses a symphony orchestra?

Regarding different people in a household hearing things differently or having different preferences, I guess I am lucky in that all my wife cares about is if the sound is too loud.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

pbz06 said:


> I struggle to hear whatever frequency my wife speaks in
> 
> JK!!


Pbz06,

All kidding aside. It is scientifically and medically proven that as Men age they lose some amount of hearing. And they tend to lose their hearing in the range mostly associated with the frequency range of the female voice! Coincidence?

Conclusion: In time you may grow to not hear her at all. Struggle or not.


----------



## David Aiken

pbz06 said:


> I struggle to hear whatever frequency my wife speaks in
> 
> JK!!


My wife used to be a psychologist. The said that males suffered from "selective hearing loss" and her proof of this was to assert that if you asked a male to take the garbage out and that dinner was ready, he sat down at the table and did nothing about the garbage.


----------



## joy192k

David Aiken said:


> My wife used to be a psychologist. The said that males suffered from "selective hearing loss" and her proof of this was to assert that if you asked a male to take the garbage out and that dinner was ready, he sat down at the table and did nothing about the garbage.




The selective hearing gets worse when I am reading this forum.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

bluesky636 said:


> Interesting response. Thank you.
> 
> Regarding recognizing people's voices, I do a better job at that opposed to recognizing faces. I think accents, inflection, and speech patterns are easier to remember and recognize than frequency response variations.
> 
> I guess what I am getting at is how does one recognize in room frequency response variations as created by Audyssey? You mentioned that after running Audyssey the voice of the background singer was clearer compared to the main singer. I could see that happening if one singer was a tenor and the other a soprano because they are singing in different frequency bands. But if both were tenors, how could you tell the difference between the two? If you were listening to say, on organ recital, can you really tell that Audyssey is fixing a suck out in the bass range? Is it easier to determine the impact of Audyssey on Pink noise verses a symphony orchestra?
> 
> Regarding different people in a household hearing things differently or having different preferences, I guess I am lucky in that all my wife cares about is if the sound is too loud.


So, what goes into creating a different accent or inflection, or even some speech patterns? Frequency shifts are often associated with those aspects of speech. 

Most people aren't good at judging frequency. Musicians with perfect pitch can identify which frequency range is up or down in level. More people can tell you the same thing if you play something at different frequencies and ask them to tell you whether the sound is louder/softer/the same level. There's considerable variation in how accurately people can recognise in what frequency range a difference is occurring even though they can tell something is different.

My example with the singers wasn't with a system corrected by Audyssey, it was with a system in a room with physical room treatments. You're right that if both voices are in the same range one can easily mask the other and that it's easier to distinguish voices in different ranges but don't forget that with stereo or multichannel audio we also have placement of sounds at different locations which makes it easier for the brain to focus on one of the sounds while not focussing on the other as much.

Can you tell whether Audyssey is fixing a suck out in the bass range? Maybe. I say that because the only time you're going to notice a suck out is if there's sound at that frequency. If you're playing music, the suck out is at a frequency that does not coincide with the pitch of a musical note and is very narrow in bandwidth you may never notice the correction. If you're playing a movie soundtrack and there's a noise like water rushing or a bomb blast or an engine noise or something that includes sound at that frequency then you may notice it but a lot is going to depend on how significant that frequency is in the relevant sound. It also seems we tend to notice suck outs less than we notice peaks. I think one of the most noticeable things about correction in the bass range is not the fact that peaks and suck outs have been fixed but the fact that when you do something about those things, bass sounds have more definition because the sustain on sounds in the peaks is reduced as the level of the peaks is reduced so sounds decay more naturally and you don't have the sustain caused by room problems causing some sounds to sustain long enough to blur the transition to the next bass note. Noticing the changes depends to a degree on listening to things where the change is audible and shifts in level in the bass, while audible, are often not noticed unless they're larger than you would expect they needed to be because our brain "processes out" some of the changes in the bass area because it's used to the variations that occur in different spaces and adapts to them. On the other hand, eliminating overlong sustain makes bass sounds sound clearer and more defined and that's more easily noticed in my experience.

On the suck out issue, my copy of Everest's "Master Handbook of Acoustics" is on loan at the moment but in it he describes a laboratory measurement of the absorption provided by a Coke bottle which acts as a Helmholtz resonator. In this test they created an area of several square feet of Coke bottles on the floor of the test room and did the standard absorption test. They found that each bottle contributed several Sabins of absorption at a frequency somewhere around 168 Hz if I remember correctly and the total array of bottles would produce a very large amount of absorption in a room but he said you wouldn't notice it if you were listening to music. The reason you wouldn't notice it was because the resonant frequency involved was not at the frequency of any musical note and the suck out was extremely narrow, basically occurring within +/- 0.3 Hz of the resonant frequency so it would have no audible effect on music but if you played a sound at the resonant frequency it would have been significantly reduced in level. Improving bass response in your room can make a big difference but the odds are that for a lot of the time while you're listening there is likely to be no difference to hear because there are no sounds occurring at the frequency where the problems are.

In my experience room correction makes a difference, whether you use electronic correction such as Audyssey provides or physical acoustic treatments, but the area in which I tend to notice differences most are in things like the clarity of distinct sounds, an improved sense of tonal colour, and things related to soundstage and imaging. I may notice that bass seems to go deeper but I don't tend to notice that some bass notes sound louder or softer than they used to do. Overall, the big thing I notice is that I enjoy what I'm listening to more.


----------



## bluesky636

This is a fascinating subject that I am trying to learn more about. My background is SATCOM systems engineering for a particular government agency until I retired last May. I have a copy of that book on my Amazon wish list. Thanks very much for commenting. I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts.

I agree 1000% with your ending statement. 



David Aiken said:


> Overall, the big thing I notice is that I enjoy what I'm listening to more.


I wonder what the results of the experiment would have been if they used YooHoo bottles instead. 😄


----------



## David Aiken

bluesky636 said:


> This is a fascinating subject that I am trying to learn more about. My background is SATCOM systems engineering for a particular government agency until I retired last May. I have a copy of that book on my Amazon wish list. Thanks very much for commenting. I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts.
> 
> I agree 1000% with your ending statement.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what the results of the experiment would have been if they used YooHoo bottles instead. 😄


I've got 2 books, Everest's which was the first one I bought, and Floyd Toole's book which I bought years later when it was first published. They cover some common ground but there are significant differences as well.

Everest's book is big on the theory of how sound behaves physically and goes into a lot of detail on how physical treatments work and on how to make your own physical treatments. Toole's book is very light on how sound behaves physically, doesn't go into how physical treatments work or how to build them, but focusses very heavily on psychoacoustics and how we perceive the sound reaching our ears. Both have recommendations on how to treat a room but they differ in some ways. I initially treated my room according to Everest since that was the info I had at the time, and that meant I treated first reflection points. Toole's recommendations are different in some areas, including a recommendation not to treat first reflection points. I eventually tried that and came to believe that Toole's advice is better, at least for me.

Another difference is that Everest is oriented towards home recording studios and stereo, Toole is more focussed towards multi-channel setups than to stereo.

Of the 2 I have to say that Everest is the easier book to read and understand. There's a lot more info in Toole's book in some ways but I found Toole's book harder to read and I also find it hard to get a clear grip on the useful info a lot of the time. It took me several re-readings and a lot of thought to notice some things. For info and advice on actual physical treatment of a room I'd rather have Toole's book but I wish it had been written in a way I'd find more accessible. Everest is much easier to read and more accessible but his recommendations are more relevant to someone setting up a home recording studio and mixing/mastering space for stereo than to someone wanting to treat a room for a surround sound home theatre system. Neither is quite the book I really want which would probably be a book with the kind of content Toole has and the writing style and accessibility of Everest.

That's my 2c worth on Everest and Toole's books. I think Toole definitely gives better info and advice for listening room treatment but I really had to work hard to extract that advice from the text.


----------



## bluesky636

David Aiken said:


> I've got 2 books, Everest's which was the first one I bought, and Floyd Toole's book which I bought years later when it was first published. They cover some common ground but there are significant differences as well.
> 
> Everest's book is big on the theory of how sound behaves physically and goes into a lot of detail on how physical treatments work and on how to make your own physical treatments. Toole's book is very light on how sound behaves physically, doesn't go into how physical treatments work or how to build them, but focusses very heavily on psychoacoustics and how we perceive the sound reaching our ears. Both have recommendations on how to treat a room but they differ in some ways. I initially treated my room according to Everest since that was the info I had at the time, and that meant I treated first reflection points. Toole's recommendations are different in some areas, including a recommendation not to treat first reflection points. I eventually tried that and came to believe that Toole's advice is better, at least for me.
> 
> Another difference is that Everest is oriented towards home recording studios and stereo, Toole is more focussed towards multi-channel setups than to stereo.
> 
> Of the 2 I have to say that Everest is the easier book to read and understand. There's a lot more info in Toole's book in some ways but I found Toole's book harder to read and I also find it hard to get a clear grip on the useful info a lot of the time. It took me several re-readings and a lot of thought to notice some things. For info and advice on actual physical treatment of a room I'd rather have Toole's book but I wish it had been written in a way I'd find more accessible. Everest is much easier to read and more accessible but his recommendations are more relevant to someone setting up a home recording studio and mixing/mastering space for stereo than to someone wanting to treat a room for a surround sound home theatre system. Neither is quite the book I really want which would probably be a book with the kind of content Toole has and the writing style and accessibility of Everest.
> 
> That's my 2c worth on Everest and Toole's books. I think Toole definitely gives better info and advice for listening room treatment but I really had to work hard to extract that advice from the text.


Thanks. I will check them both out. Most of my books are on vacuum tube guitar amplifier design. 😁


----------



## C J

Is there is a corresponding threat for the Audyssey Multi EQ App for iOS and Android?


TIA


----------



## residentsystems

C J said:


> Is there is a corresponding threat for the Audyssey Multi EQ App for iOS and Android?
> 
> 
> TIA




MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV Receivers & Pre/Pros
https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/to...ad.php?t=2806249&share_type=t&link_source=app


----------



## bluesky636

C J said:


> Is there is a corresponding threat for the Audyssey Multi EQ App for iOS and Android?
> 
> 
> TIA


There are all kinds of threats to iOS and Android apps. 😆


----------



## garygarrison

Since we are talking books ... 



*Building a Recording Studio* by Jeff Cooper. Really intended primarily for someone building a *studio or listening room* in the *home*. Not much of anything on diffusers (which is odd, because he designed some for THX, and others), but great in all other ways. Cooper is an MIT educated architect who built rooms for Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Warner Bros., Capitol, Polygram, EMI studios, and on and on. 



There are many papers online. I remember one on "Acoustical Myths," but no title is coming to mind. I do remember wondering if in this field, as in so many others, some of the myth busters have busted myths that aren't.


----------



## thepiecesfit

I was wondering if someone can lend me some advice as I'm struggling with Audyssey lately. The results are always bright and the dialogue has an edgy metallic sound. I've recently purchased a boom stand and tripod thinking things would improve. I've also had it on a regular camera tripod. Today I am using MultEQ to turn off all the filters down to 20hz and use Dynamic EQ with my speakers natural response and it sounds the best without the harshness the calibration brings. 

I have a 5.1 setup in a non treated room on the short side of 17' x 29. There is an area rug between the listening position. Main listening position is 12.5' I have a long fabric sofa with a chaise on the right. I make all my measurements on the center of the sofa ignoring the chaise. Center where the cushions meet for first reading then each left right cushion after, followed by the three positions in front of the sofa between the coffee table, then two final two measurements a bit bewteen the first two. The couch is 1 foot away from the back wall. The rear speakers are bipoles on speaker stands behind the sofa.

I've ensured the mic at least 2 feet or more away from the back wall for all the readings and even raised the mic above ear level and the sofa. The results seem similar every time. Is my mic a dud? I've compared the levels using a different SPL meter and they seem to match when sending tones with REW. The only thing I can think of is the speaker toe in or center angle up is somehow throwing off the filters. I've just purchased a UMIK-1 and it's on it's way but looking to hear some feedback on how to try to tackle this problem. At this point the frustration has lead me to skip using this feature only keep it for DynamicEQ.


----------



## garygarrison

thepiecesfit said:


> I was wondering if someone can lend me some advice as I'm struggling with Audyssey lately. The results are always *bright* and the *dialogue has an edgy metallic sound*. I've recently purchased a boom stand and tripod thinking things would improve. I've also had it on a regular camera tripod. Today I am using MultEQ to turn off all the filters down to 20hz and use Dynamic EQ with my speakers natural response and it sounds the best without the harshness the calibration brings.
> 
> I have a 5.1 setup in a non treated room on the short side of 17' x 29. There is an area rug between the listening position. Main listening position is 12.5' I have a long fabric sofa with a chaise on the right. I make all my measurements on the center of the sofa ignoring the chaise. Center where the cushions meet for first reading then each left right cushion after, followed by the three positions in front of the sofa between the coffee table, then two final two measurements a bit bewteen the first two. The couch is 1 foot away from the back wall. The rear speakers are bipoles on speaker stands behind the sofa.
> 
> I've ensured the mic at least 2 feet or more away from the back wall for *all the readings and even raised the mic above ear level and the sofa*. The results seem similar every time. Is my mic a dud? I've compared the levels using a different SPL meter and they seem to match when sending tones with REW. The only thing I can think of is the speaker toe in or center angle up is somehow throwing off the filters. I've just purchased a UMIK-1 and it's on it's way but looking to hear some feedback on how to try to tackle this problem. At this point the frustration has lead me to skip using this feature only keep it for DynamicEQ.


(Bolding mine - GG)


Have you tried both Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Reference?
Have you tried it with several movies? Once in a great while (maybe 1 out of 20 movies), dialogue can sound a bit steely, with an edgy metallic sound. I've speculated as to why this is, and all I came up with is that they want the dialogue to cut through over dense sound effects. Most dialogue with our set-up is very natural, as is music.
If the mic is raised* above ear level* for *more than a few* of the positions, the mic might not "hear" enough treble, and, consequently Audyssey would turn the treble *up*. How would you describe the height of your tweeters and the mic compared to your ear level? I would think that if the tweeters, too, are above ear level and the same height as the mic, Audyssey would turn the tweeters (and maybe upper midrnge) *down*, and if the tweeters are _*not*_ at mic level Audyssey might turn the tweeters *up*.
Almost everyone turns their subwoofer up AFTER running Audyssey to balance out a somewhat bass-shy sound Audyssey provides. There are many possible reasons for this, discussed in Mike's Guide. Bass-shy can sometimes sound like over-bright.  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement. 
Don't give up. Many of us have found Audyssey to be a considerable improvement in our rooms, with our speakers.
Look for a calibration code number that comes with your UMIK, then pump it into REW. When you measure with your UMIK-1, if you use just 1 mic position there is a very low probability that it will tell you much about response in the room or what Audyssey is "hearing." Duplicating all of Audyssey's mic positions and pushing the "average" button on REW should come much closer, but an average is not the same as Audyssey's proprietary system of dealing with 8 positions. Short of doing all of that, some people have said that putting the UMIK in at least 3 to 5 of the positions (including position number 1) is better than just 1*;* others disagree.
Let us know how it's going as you experiment.


----------



## savrin

I use a sound pressure meter to manually adjust 75DB


----------



## bluesky636

savrin said:


> I use a sound pressure meter to manually adjust 75DB


And your point is what?

Are you running Audyssey or just setting levels? The Audyssey test tones are generated at 75 dB SPL. Audyssey does a lot more than just set speaker levels.


----------



## Balbolito

bluesky636 said:


> And your point is what?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you running Audyssey or just setting levels? The Audyssey test tones are generated at 75 dB SPL. Audyssey does a lot more than just set speaker levels.


True. but if i may add, i always check SPL levels in my sound level meter and most of the time each speaker is different. this has nearly always been the case, i know its a different mic than the small audyssey mic supplied with my avr so levels could be different because of that. but the thing is sometimes for example when i check the levels post audyssey they are like this as an example:

L 72db
C 74db
R 72.5db
SL 73db
SR 73.5db


my point being is that each one measures differently. i understand if they all are the same say 73 or 72db post audyssey when i check them with my sound level meter but they are not. Also fot subs its usualy hard for the sound level meter to capture the correct reading as i know.

Maybe someone with more experience can chime in on this this and why aren't they identical.

Thanks

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Balbolito said:


> Maybe someone with more experience can chime in on this this and why aren't they identical.


The answer is very simple. 

1. The Audyssey mic is calibrated to the Audyssey system on your AVR. The SPL meter is not.

2. Each mic has a tolerance in its measurement. I believe Audyssey calibrates the frequency response to +/-3dB through the combination of filters and level adjustments (over simplified). The SPL meter also has a tolerance. Assuming +/-3dB, your measurements of 75 dB could actually be anywhere from 72 dB to 78 dB.


----------



## thepiecesfit

savrin said:


> I use a sound pressure meter to manually adjust 75DB


When using the internal test tones Audyssey is defeated. You have to use another tone generator like REW (free) or some AV disc. You can hook up a laptop with HDMI and generate the tones with REW and then use your SPL meter.


----------



## Balbolito

thepiecesfit said:


> When using the internal test tones Audyssey is defeated. You have to use another tone generator like REW (free) or some AV disc. You can hook up a laptop with HDMI and generate the tones with REW and then use your SPL meter.


I know that changing the speaker levels in the avr won't defeat Audyssey. are you saying for example if someone increases a speaker a db or two after Audyssey it's going to ruin the applied filters?


----------



## thepiecesfit

Balbolito said:


> thepiecesfit said:
> 
> 
> 
> When using the internal test tones Audyssey is defeated. You have to use another tone generator like REW (free) or some AV disc. You can hook up a laptop with HDMI and generate the tones with REW and then use your SPL meter.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that changing the speaker levels in the avr won't defeat Audyssey. are you saying for example if someone increases a speaker a db or two after Audyssey it's going to ruin the applied filters?
Click to expand...

No the filters are not affected by speaker levels according to Chris from Audyssey Labs. When you run the internal test tones however, the Audyssey calibration is temporarily deactivated. So the levels will often be a bit off. This is why it is recommended that the test tones are played through another source.


----------



## Balbolito

thepiecesfit said:


> No the filters are not affected by speaker levels according to Chris from Audyssey Labs. When you run the internal test tones however, the Audyssey calibration is temporarily deactivated. So the levels will often be a bit off. This is why it is recommended that the test tones are played through another source.


Got you now, thanks


----------



## thepiecesfit

garygarrison said:


> (Bolding mine - GG)
> 
> 
> Have you tried both Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Reference?
> Have you tried it with several movies? Once in a great while (maybe 1 out of 20 movies), dialogue can sound a bit steely, with an edgy metallic sound. I've speculated as to why this is, and all I came up with is that they want the dialogue to cut through over dense sound effects. Most dialogue with our set-up is very natural, as is music.
> If the mic is raised* above ear level* for *more than a few* of the positions, the mic might not "hear" enough treble, and, consequently Audyssey would turn the treble *up*. How would you describe the height of your tweeters and the mic compared to your ear level? I would think that if the tweeters, too, are above ear level and the same height as the mic, Audyssey would turn the tweeters (and maybe upper midrnge) *down*, and if the tweeters are _*not*_ at mic level Audyssey might turn the tweeters *up*.
> Almost everyone turns their subwoofer up AFTER running Audyssey to balance out a somewhat bass-shy sound Audyssey provides. There are many possible reasons for this, discussed in Mike's Guide. Bass-shy can sometimes sound like over-bright.  GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
> The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
> Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
> Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.
> Don't give up. Many of us have found Audyssey to be a considerable improvement in our rooms, with our speakers.
> Look for a calibration code number that comes with your UMIK, then pump it into REW. When you measure with your UMIK-1, if you use just 1 mic position there is a very low probability that it will tell you much about response in the room or what Audyssey is "hearing." Duplicating all of Audyssey's mic positions and pushing the "average" button on REW should come much closer, but an average is not the same as Audyssey's proprietary system of dealing with 8 positions. Short of doing all of that, some people have said that putting the UMIK in at least 3 to 5 of the positions (including position number 1) is better than just 1*;* others disagree.
> Let us know how it's going as you experiment.



Have you tried both Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Reference?
Yes flat seems to make it even worse.

Have you tried it with several movies? Once in a great while (maybe 1 out of 20 movies), dialogue can sound a bit steely, with an edgy metallic sound. I've speculated as to why this is, and all I came up with is that they want the dialogue to cut through over dense sound effects. Most dialogue with our set-up is very natural, as is music.
Now that you mention it yes some movies sound worse than others. But is not exclusive to dialogue, including loud explosions, or anything on the high end.

If the mic is raised* above ear level* for *more than a few* of the positions, the mic might not "hear" enough treble, and, consequently Audyssey would turn the treble *up*. How would you describe the height of your tweeters and the mic compared to your ear level? I would think that if the tweeters, too, are above ear level and the same height as the mic, Audyssey would turn the tweeters (and maybe upper midrnge) *down*, and if the tweeters are _*not*_ at mic level Audyssey might turn the tweeters *up*.

So I have Polk 705's which have the tweeter at 40 inches off the ground. The center is a bit trickier as the base is angled on the speaker itself and is on a shelf. I also have a 4 degree Auralex Mopad XL wedge. I measured the angle on the vertical side of the speaker in relation to the base of the cabinet it sits on which is total 8 degrees and 21 inches from the floor to tweeter. At 12.4 feet to mlp using a angle calculator puts the center tweeter at about 42 inches. I'm going to try to put the mic at the same height as the tweeters and see if that makes any difference.

Here is a visual of the space. I realize it's not acoustically optimal. There is also a bit of a difference in space between the rears versus the fronts due to the lenght of the couch. But it is what it is and still sounds good all things considered.

https://imgur.com/a/rQL84GJ

Thank you looking forward to getting started with REW and trying all the suggestions this week.


----------



## mthomas47

thepiecesfit said:


> So I have Polk 705's which have the tweeter at 40 inches off the ground. The center is a bit trickier as the base is angled on the speaker itself and is on a shelf. I also have a 4 degree Auralex Mopad XL wedge. I measured the angle on the vertical side of the speaker in relation to the base of the cabinet it sits on which is total 8 degrees and 21 inches from the floor to tweeter. At 12.4 feet to mlp using a angle calculator puts the center tweeter at about 42 inches. I'm going to try to put the mic at the same height as the tweeters and see if that makes any difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a visual of the space. I realize it's not acoustically optimal. There is also a bit of a difference in space between the rears versus the fronts due to the lenght of the couch. But it is what it is and still sounds good all things considered.
> 
> https://imgur.com/a/rQL84GJ
> 
> Thank you looking forward to getting started with REW and trying all the suggestions this week.


Hi,

The photo helps a lot! That is a very challenging space acoustically, with all of the hard surfaces and angled walls and ceiling. You are going to have far more mid, and especially high-frequency, reflections to deal with in that space than would ordinarily be the case. I can understand why Audyssey Flat makes things worse, and DEQ, with its slight high-frequency boost, may also exacerbate the issue. 

There are several things that I would do if I were you. First, I would put an area rug (preferably with a foam rubber pad under it) between your speakers and your listening position. Second, I would put some sort of tablecloth over the table directly in front of the sofa. Third, I would try to pull the sofa a foot or more further forward of the wall. (You can also try putting a decorative acoustic panel, or something like that, on the wall directly behind the sofa.)

There isn't much you can do about all of the hard surfaces and oblique angles in the room, but just implementing the simple measures described above will help a lot with your high and mid-range frequencies. You really need to take some of the excess energy out of the room, but you especially need to concentrate on the area in the direct path of the speakers. 

I don't believe that you will be getting a lot of early reflections from adjacent walls. And, other than overall ringing in a room, it is the early reflections that typically cause us the most trouble. It is also the early reflections that Audyssey will react most strongly to. The floor in front of the speakers, the table in front of the sofa, and the wall behind the sofa, are all early reflection points. 

One thing that I would probably not do is to measure above ear level. Your seated ear height (to the center of the ear canal) is probably anywhere from about 32" to 36" from the floor. If you measure at 42" you will be well above the area where you are actually listening, and Audyssey will be correcting at a position where you are not listening. You want Audyssey to make corrections for the area where you actually are listening. (If the tweeter on your center channel is angled-up a little too much, you may want to adjust that.)

If I were you, I would keep my microphone at about ear height and use a very close microphone pattern. I might not go out more than 6" to 8" to each side, and no more than 12" to 18" forward. There would be no measurements very close to the wall behind the sofa. The more spurious reflections a room is providing, the more important it may be to allow Audyssey to measure and EQ a smaller listening area. Moving the sofa away from the wall, and putting some kind of absorption/diffusion on that wall will especially help with the Audyssey calibration. But, it will also help even if you never had Audyssey. 

By all means, experiment and measure as you like. But, the real test is how things sound, and your overall FR, and what you actually hear with respect to mid and high-frequencies, will almost certainly not be identical. I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zeonstar

Hey all

I have a 5.1.4 configuration powered by a Denon X4400H. I have a full SVS Prime Setup: 1 PB_2000, Prime Center, 4 Elevation speakers, 2 Prime Sats for surrounds and up till today, 2 Sats for my Mains.

I just replaced my Sats with Prime Towers and that is what lead me to rerun Audyssey.

A few questions regarding my results:

1. Even though I had the subwoofer "In the green" during the initial setup, my final results have the sub trim maxed at -12. Admittedly, I was on the right edge of the green zone, but still surprised it maxed it out. I obviously want to get that trim cut in half. Can I just tweak it down and then turn my sub down a good deal to compensate manually or is it best to rerun everything with the sub level lower? I had the knob right at 12 o'clock when I ran Audyssey.

2. With my new speakers, audyssey set all my trim levels to negative ranging from -1.0 to -5.0. (None are in the positive.) I like to redo all my levels with my actual SPL meter after Audyssey is ran. Should I try to get them all as close to zero as possible? I assume so, but I thought I would ask. Or should all my levels be based on say...the fronts?

Thank you for any input!


----------



## mogorf

zeonstar said:


> Hey all
> 
> I have a 5.1.4 configuration powered by a Denon X4400H. I have a full SVS Prime Setup: 1 PB_2000, Prime Center, 4 Elevation speakers, 2 Prime Sats for surrounds and up till today, 2 Sats for my Mains.
> 
> I just replaced my Sats with Prime Towers and that is what lead me to rerun Audyssey.
> 
> A few questions regarding my results:
> 
> 1. Even though I had the subwoofer "In the green" during the initial setup, my final results have the sub trim maxed at -12. Admittedly, I was on the right edge of the green zone, but still surprised it maxed it out. I obviously want to get that trim cut in half. Can I just tweak it down and then turn my sub down a good deal to compensate manually or is it best to rerun everything with the sub level lower? I had the knob right at 12 o'clock when I ran Audyssey.
> 
> 2. With my new speakers, audyssey set all my trim levels to negative ranging from -1.0 to -5.0. (None are in the positive.) I like to redo all my levels with my actual SPL meter after Audyssey is ran. Should I try to get them all as close to zero as possible? I assume so, but I thought I would ask. Or should all my levels be based on say...the fronts?
> 
> Thank you for any input!



1. Turn down your sub a bit more till you get the trim above -12 dB.


2. There is no such a rule that speaker trims need to be at 0 dB. Best is to leave it where Audyssey set it! 

Hope this helps.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> 1. Turn down your sub a bit more till you get the trim above -12 dB.
> 
> 
> 2. There is no such a rule that speaker trims need to be at 0 dB. Best is to leave it where Audyssey set it!
> 
> Hope this helps.


1. I normally get my sub trim level to about -3 dB then up it by 3 dB to a trim level of 0 dB. I normally listen with the MV between -20 and -15 dB and have no problem with clipping.

2. To expand on what mogorf said, if one speaker's trim level is set at -1 dB and another's is set at -5 dB, that is the trim level required to achieve 75 dB SPL at the MLP. If you then set both trims to 0 dB, one speaker will now be 5 dB louder than the other.


----------



## zeonstar

mogorf said:


> 1. Turn down your sub a bit more till you get the trim above -12 dB.
> 
> 
> 2. There is no such a rule that speaker trims need to be at 0 dB. Best is to leave it where Audyssey set it!
> 
> Hope this helps.





bluesky636 said:


> 1. I normally get my sub trim level to about -3 dB then up it by 3 dB to a trim level of 0 dB. I normally listen with the MV between -20 and -15 dB and have no problem with clipping.
> 
> 2. To expand on what mogorf said, if one speaker's trim level is set at -1 dB and another's is set at -5 dB, that is the trim level required to achieve 75 dB SPL at the MLP. If you then set both trims to 0 dB, one speaker will now be 5 dB louder than the other.



Thanks for the help, I appreciate it. 

1. How can I know the trim can be bumped up from -12 after I adjust the gain knob on the sub short of re-running audyssey? Am I missing something?
@bluesky636 Are you referring to when you run audyssey you eventually get it to 0? Do you have to keep redoing Audyssey to check it?

2. Sorry I should clarify that I only use the SPL meter to tweak what audyssey gives me to make sure it's balanced. I don't actually adjust them that much. i just like to fine tune it to get all my speakers really balanced. It's something I learned from my audio calibrator. I realize now my question was kind of pointless. Sorry about that.

You did make me think to ask something though. When Audyssey is being ran, does send out test tones at 75 dB regardless of what my volume may of been set to? (My movie watching volume is typically 65 absolute. Not sure what the equates to if I have the volume sent to - reference.

Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

zeonstar said:


> Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.
> 
> 1. How can I know the trim can be bumped up from -12 after I adjust the gain knob on the sub short of re-running audyssey? Am I missing something?
> 
> @bluesky636 Are you referring to when you run audyssey you eventually get it to 0? Do you have to keep redoing Audyssey to check it?
> 
> 2. Sorry I should clarify that I only use the SPL meter to tweak what audyssey gives me to make sure it's balanced. I don't actually adjust them that much. i just like to fine tune it to get all my speakers really balanced. It's something I learned from my audio calibrator. I realize now my question was kind of pointless. Sorry about that.
> 
> You did make me think to ask something though. When Audyssey is being ran, does send out test tones at 75 dB regardless of what my volume may of been set to? (My movie watching volume is typically 65 absolute. Not sure what the equates to if I have the volume sent to - reference.
> 
> Thanks!


1. You must re-run Audyssey. You can do just the first 3 mic positions and "Calculate". Once you get the sub trim within the acceptable range, you can then run the full Audyssey calibration.

2. If you are using the AVRs internal test tones with your SPL meter to "balance" the speakers, this is flawed because the internal test tones bypass the Audyssey EQ filters. You must use external test tones for this (or, just trust Audyssey).

The Master Volume (MV) will indeed effect the level of the test tones. At 0MV (Relative) the test tones should measure 75dB at the MLP. I think Absolute is 80 or 82, not absolutely sure on that. You should switch the MV to Relative.


----------



## bluesky636

zeonstar said:


> Thanks for the help, I appreciate it.
> 
> 1. How can I know the trim can be bumped up from -12 after I adjust the gain knob on the sub short of re-running audyssey? Am I missing something?
> 
> @bluesky636 Are you referring to when you run audyssey you eventually get it to 0? Do you have to keep redoing Audyssey to check it?
> 
> 2. Sorry I should clarify that I only use the SPL meter to tweak what audyssey gives me to make sure it's balanced. I don't actually adjust them that much. i just like to fine tune it to get all my speakers really balanced. It's something I learned from my audio calibrator. I realize now my question was kind of pointless. Sorry about that.
> 
> You did make me think to ask something though. When Audyssey is being ran, does send out test tones at 75 dB regardless of what my volume may of been set to? (My movie watching volume is typically 65 absolute. Not sure what the equates to if I have the volume sent to - reference.
> 
> Thanks!


1. If you want to do it exactly, decrease the gain control on the sub and rerun Audyssey. 

I have had my sub for a few years as and h ac ve run Audyssey enough times to know where the sub gain control should be set to get the trim level where I want it.

2. Waste of time in my opinion. Audyssey does an excellent job of setting speaker levels as part of the calibration. An SPL meter will almost never give you the same readings for a number of reasons. You will just spend time tweaking instead of enjoying a movie.

3. Audyssey doesn't care where the master volume is set. All receiver settings are ignored during calibration. Detailed answers to all your questions can be found in the Audyssey setup guide threads and the subwoofer calibration thread.


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> The Master Volume (MV) will indeed effect the level of the test tones. At 0MV (Relative) the test tones should measure 75dB at the MLP. I think Absolute is 80 or 82, not absolutely sure on that. You should switch the MV to Relative.


That's not what the OP asked. The question was whether the master volume setting affected the Audyssey calibration process. It does not.


----------



## Alan P

bluesky636 said:


> That's not what the OP asked. The question was whether the master volume setting affected the Audyssey calibration process. It does not.


You are correct! I misread the question....


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> You are correct! I misread the question....


No worries. Easy to do. 🙂


----------



## Jeepndoogs

I a pretty new to this and just went from a Denon AVR X3000 to a AVR X3500. All the speakers stayed the same and I never actually moved them. I have Home Theater Direct tower speakers, center speaker, and their amp and sub. With the old receiver I ran the Audyssey program and it sounded pretty good. I was happy with it at least, it was nothing fancy but sounded halfway decent. So after replacing the receiver over the weekend (The 3300 started randomly buzzing through the speakers after we had a storm come through) I set up the 3500 and ran the Audyssey program. It sounds decent but the voices on the center channel sound absolutely terrible, like they are talking in the bathroom or something. Also they sound like they are coming from the speaker and not the tv if that makes any sense. Changing he center Chanel Level doesn’t really help it much. 

I actually bought the app thinking I could adjust the mids manually. When I ran the set up through the app I loaded it into the receiver and it actually sounded worse without doing any changes to the file. I decided I would try to just re run the set up through the receiver but it kept telling my sub was too low and I needed to turn it up. Making the sub it would only register 42db. I reset the receiver and tried it again and had the same results. I re ran it again using the old mic I had and was able to get the sub to the 75db. It sounds slightly “better” but the voices are still off. 

The distances all look to be about spot on, the fronts were set to large but I changed them to small, the crossovers are set to 80hz for the fronts and the center. MultiEQ is set to reference, dynamic eq is on, Reference Level is at 0db, Dynamic volume is light.

I attached a couple Picts of the space. It’s a acoustical nightmare so I’m not exactly expecting perfection. If I was able to get it back to what I had I would be happy.


----------



## rocky1

Hey is that an Akita ? Sorry couldnt help it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeepndoogs

rocky1 said:


> Hey is that an Akita ? Sorry couldnt help it
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes, two as a matter of fact. Male and a female


----------



## zeonstar

Alan P said:


> 1. You must re-run Audyssey. You can do just the first 3 mic positions and "Calculate". Once you get the sub trim within the acceptable range, you can then run the full Audyssey calibration.
> 
> 2. If you are using the AVRs internal test tones with your SPL meter to "balance" the speakers, this is flawed because the internal test tones bypass the Audyssey EQ filters. You must use external test tones for this (or, just trust Audyssey).
> 
> The Master Volume (MV) will indeed effect the level of the test tones. At 0MV (Relative) the test tones should measure 75dB at the MLP. I think Absolute is 80 or 82, not absolutely sure on that. You should switch the MV to Relative.


1. I will give that a try in the morning. I do have the Audyssey app so I could I alternatively do the first 3 positions on a new cal to get the trim right, then just cancel out and apply it to my existing calibration I did with all positions measured, could I not?

2. I use the internal ones because it's easier to instantly adjust them. (Not that I am trying to be lazy or anything.) I actually didn't know the test tones mattered that much. I actually do have a disc with actual Test tones, its a Dolby Atmos disc. So I would be better off using that?

I honestly didn't know the levels Audyssey read are that good. What it gave me and what I found by using the AVR's test tone and my RS SPL Meter were exact is some cases and way off in others. 

If you don't mind me sharing: (Numbers are Audyssey then my adjustment)

Front L -1.0 to same
Front R -1.0 to 0.0
Center -5.0 to -3.0
Surround L -1.5 to same
Surround R - 5.0 to same
Front Height L -0.5 to -2.5
Front Height R -0.5 to -3.0
Rear Height L -4.0 to same
Rear Height R -4.0 to -4.5

Typing those out I guess the difference isnt that drastic. Felt like more when I was adjusting them. My front heights are a good ways away. Actually surprised I would of turned them down so much. What causes these descrepencies? If I was to do mine adjustments again with proper test tones would I discover all the numbers are closer to Audyssey's findings?



bluesky636 said:


> 2. Waste of time in my opinion. Audyssey does an excellent job of setting speaker levels as part of the calibration. An SPL meter will almost never give you the same readings for a number of reasons. You will just spend time tweaking instead of enjoying a movie.
> 
> 3. Audyssey doesn't care where the master volume is set. All receiver settings are ignored during calibration. Detailed answers to all your questions can be found in the Audyssey setup guide threads and the subwoofer calibration thread.


Thanks for your input as well. I enjoy learning this stuff. Could you point me to where it mentions in the Audyssey thread about adjust (Or rather not adjusting) the levels? Likewise in the subwoofer thread?

Thank you both!


EDIT. I found the information about level adjusting in the Audyssey FAQ so nevermind that one.  Very informative!


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Great one family dogs used to have one.. as to your center channel problem wondering if it was effected when your other receiver went bad ? You said was making the buzzing noises? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeepndoogs

rocky1 said:


> Great one family dogs used to have one.. as to your center channel problem wondering if it was effected when your other receiver went bad ? You said was making the buzzing noises?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes they are. My wife and I actually have an Akita rescue, these two are our personal dogs and we have 7 others we have rescued and trying to fine new homes for. When the old receiver wasn’t buzzing it still sounded fine. It’s definitely something with the Audyssey program and how it is setting it up. I have ran it several times and it sounds different each time. I just really don’t know that much about it to get it where it needs to be. I would be fine with everything if I could just dial the voices in so they sounded more natural. I thought the app would help me with that but not so much, again maybe if I knew more about it. I have been reading through this thread for two days straight trying to gain some knowledge.


----------



## rocky1

Jeepndoogs said:


> Yes they are. My wife and I actually have an Akita rescue, these two are our personal dogs and we have 7 others we have rescued and trying to fine new homes for. When the old receiver wasn’t buzzing it still sounded fine. It’s definitely something with the Audyssey program and how it is setting it up. I have ran it several times and it sounds different each time. I just really don’t know that much about it to get it where it needs to be. I would be fine with everything if I could just dial the voices in so they sounded more natural. I thought the app would help me with that but not so much, again maybe if I knew more about it. I have been reading through this thread for two days straight trying to gain some knowledge.




Was actually thinking maybe speaker went bad due to the buzzing. My mistake... thats alot to handle in regards to the akitas.. very aggressive toward other dogs..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jeepndoogs

rocky1 said:


> Was actually thinking maybe speaker went bad due to the buzzing. My mistake... thats alot to handle in regards to the akitas.. very aggressive toward other dogs..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Handful is an understatement! Lol! My female is party girl and gets along with anyone and anything, the male not so much, he just gets along with the female. The others are all separated in different enclosures and we had to be aware of what dog is out and where. But it saved them from the pounds. Most places will only release Akita’s to a rescue and if a rescue can’t take them they unfortunately usually get put down.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeepndoogs said:


> I a pretty new to this and just went from a Denon AVR X3000 to a AVR X3500. All the speakers stayed the same and I never actually moved them. I have Home Theater Direct tower speakers, center speaker, and their amp and sub. With the old receiver I ran the Audyssey program and it sounded pretty good. I was happy with it at least, it was nothing fancy but sounded halfway decent. So after replacing the receiver over the weekend (The 3300 started randomly buzzing through the speakers after we had a storm come through) I set up the 3500 and ran the Audyssey program. It sounds decent but the voices on the center channel sound absolutely terrible, like they are talking in the bathroom or something. Also they sound like they are coming from the speaker and not the tv if that makes any sense. Changing he center Chanel Level doesn’t really help it much.
> 
> I actually bought the app thinking I could adjust the mids manually. When I ran the set up through the app I loaded it into the receiver and it actually sounded worse without doing any changes to the file. I decided I would try to just re run the set up through the receiver but it kept telling my sub was too low and I needed to turn it up. Making the sub it would only register 42db. I reset the receiver and tried it again and had the same results. I re ran it again using the old mic I had and was able to get the sub to the 75db. It sounds slightly “better” but the voices are still off.
> 
> The distances all look to be about spot on, the fronts were set to large but I changed them to small, the crossovers are set to 80hz for the fronts and the center. MultiEQ is set to reference, dynamic eq is on, Reference Level is at 0db, Dynamic volume is light.
> 
> I attached a couple Picts of the space. It’s a acoustical nightmare so I’m not exactly expecting perfection. If I was able to get it back to what I had I would be happy.


I can see several problems right off the bat.

1. You LCR speakers are recessed into the spaces to the side and on top of the cabinet. This can cause serious diffraction problems for the speakers. 

2. The center speaker could probably be aimed more down toward the MLP.

3. The left and right speakers should be toed in toward the MLP.

4. The sub appears to be sitting out into the room as an end table. You are getting no boundary reinforcement from any wall. You need to find a better location.

5. Can't see your surrounds.


----------



## bluesky636

zeonstar said:


> 1. I will give that a try in the morning. I do have the Audyssey app so I could I alternatively do the first 3 positions on a new cal to get the trim right, then just cancel out and apply it to my existing calibration I did with all positions measured, could I not?
> 
> 2. I use the internal ones because it's easier to instantly adjust them. (Not that I am trying to be lazy or anything.) I actually didn't know the test tones mattered that much. I actually do have a disc with actual Test tones, its a Dolby Atmos disc. So I would be better off using that?
> 
> I honestly didn't know the levels Audyssey read are that good. What it gave me and what I found by using the AVR's test tone and my RS SPL Meter were exact is some cases and way off in others.
> 
> If you don't mind me sharing: (Numbers are Audyssey then my adjustment)
> 
> Front L -1.0 to same
> Front R -1.0 to 0.0
> Center -5.0 to -3.0
> Surround L -1.5 to same
> Surround R - 5.0 to same
> Front Height L -0.5 to -2.5
> Front Height R -0.5 to -3.0
> Rear Height L -4.0 to same
> Rear Height R -4.0 to -4.5
> 
> Typing those out I guess the difference isnt that drastic. Felt like more when I was adjusting them. My front heights are a good ways away. Actually surprised I would of turned them down so much. What causes these descrepencies? If I was to do mine adjustments again with proper test tones would I discover all the numbers are closer to Audyssey's findings?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input as well. I enjoy learning this stuff. Could you point me to where it mentions in the Audyssey thread about adjust (Or rather not adjusting) the levels? Likewise in the subwoofer thread?
> 
> Thank you both!
> 
> 
> EDIT. I found the information about level adjusting in the Audyssey FAQ so nevermind that one.  Very informative!


I would suggest just listening to a few sound tracks with the Audyssey settings and see how it sounds. I too used to adjust the trim levels with my old system, but I just did it by ear, no SPL meter (my hearing is not great). I gave up doing that when we retired and moved into a new home where I completely replaced my system. Sounds great now.


----------



## Jeepndoogs

bluesky636 said:


> I can see several problems right off the bat.
> 
> 1. You LCR speakers are recessed into the spaces to the side and on top of the cabinet. This can cause serious diffraction problems for the speakers.
> 
> 2. The center speaker could probably be aimed more down toward the MLP.
> 
> 3. The left and right speakers should be toed in toward the MLP.
> 
> 4. The sub appears to be sitting out into the room as an end table. You are getting no boundary reinforcement from any wall. You need to find a better location.
> 
> 5. Can't see your surrounds.


The center is raised up in the rear an 1 1/4. The fronts are actually slightly outside of the recess for the entertainment center and are both toed in slightly. I actually did a sub crawl When we first moved in here and that was the spot it seemed to get the best sound from. I did just raise the back of the center about 1/4 in and that helped slightly. I am actually not using any surrounds. 

I can pull the fronts out some more and I am open to moving the sub. To be sure I did it right when I placed it the first time I set the sub in the MLP and “crawled” around the room until I found the best sounding place in the room. That was where I placed the sub.


----------



## rocky1

Unless i read wrong your center speaker is where youre actually having a problem? Sounds terrible ? You dont think it may be the actual speaker . What happens if you put in multichannel mode while listening to music does the center sound ok then? Just saying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## zeonstar

bluesky636 said:


> I would suggest just listening to a few sound tracks with the Audyssey settings and see how it sounds. I too used to adjust the trim levels with my old system, but I just did it by ear, no SPL meter (my hearing is not great). I gave up doing that when we retired and moved into a new home where I completely replaced my system. Sounds great now.


I can certainly do that.

My system is in our living room. Less than ideal but it is what it is. One issue I have is my right surround is a lot closer than my left. The left is probably double the distance away. It's the only speaker in my setup that isn't symmetrical. I've noticed no matter what I do, I just hear the right more than the left, even if all things say they sound is "Balanced."


----------



## Jeepndoogs

rocky1 said:


> Unless i read wrong your center speaker is where youre actually having a problem? Sounds terrible ? You dont think it may be the actual speaker . What happens if you put in multichannel mode while listening to music does the center sound ok then? Just saying
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I actually hooked the old x3300 receiver up last night and it sounds just like it always did, but when the receiver is on for about an hour or so it starts to randomly buzz through all the speakers. It definitely seems to be something with the calibration. The only other this that is different from when I originally did the system is the ceiling beams were added after the original receiver was set up with the audyssey program. I’m wondering if the beams are now reflecting the sounds differently and the changes the way the system is compensating for the room. And the voices sound OK when I turn the audyssey off, everything else sounds like crap.


----------



## garygarrison

Jeepndoogs said:


> I actually hooked the old x3300 receiver up last night and it sounds just like it always did, but when the receiver is on for about an hour or so it starts to randomly buzz through all the speakers. *It definitely seems to be something with the calibration.* The only other this that is different from when I originally did the system is the *ceiling beams were added after the original receiver was set up with the audyssey program. I’m wondering if the beams are now reflecting the sounds differently and the changes the way the system is compensating for the room.* And the voices sound OK when I turn the audyssey off, everything else sounds like crap.


 I don't think it is the ceiling beams. The total area of wood surface they provide is small, so their effect -- mostly a little extra beneficial diffusion -- wouldn't provide a big change, IMO.

Why do you think it has to do with the calibration?


If you like the sound of the old AVR better, maybe you should just get the buzzing fixed, and return the new one. If Denon is using a different design now, it is conceivable that it might make a difference in the sound. Who knows? Maybe the new AVR and the speakers/room have an inferior synergy. People have been fighting over whether different design types actually _*sound*_ different since at least the 1960s.



On the buzzing: Is the buzzing present only when you use the old AVR? When the buzzing starts, if you immediately turn off Audyssey, but leave everything else on, does the buzz go away? I predict it will not. Are you saying that the buzz comes when either of two different receivers are used, the old and thee new? That's weird. Is the buzz a steady buzz once it starts? Or is it something that varies with the loudness of the music, or varies in its nature as it goes on? Could it be distortion when very loud passages are played? If your sound system lacked high frequencies before Audyssey, and Audyssey turned up your treble, it might make buzz show up more, but I doubt that is the problem. Since you say it comes out of _*all*_ the speakers, it sounds like it may be coming from something all channels share, such as the receiver's power supply, including the power transformer, rectifier, reservoir capacitors, whatever. I'm not a tech, so I'm not sure whether there is total sharing, or what, but somebody here can probably shed more light. Did lightning strike nearby? The other thing all of your channels share is your house! But anything coming from your house's electrical system would be subtle, I'd think. But I've seen the following things blamed for buzzes in a system: noise coming over the power lines, fluorescent lights, refrigerators, sewing machines or other motors, improper grounding, including the main house grounding (A metal rod driven into the ground, or water pipes, etc., or corroded noncontinuous wires leading from the main to ground), or RF signals, or National Guard Radar ... you name it, and it's been blamed!


In any case, you ought to call or email either a good service tech (attached to a reputable stereo dealer, preferably not a chain) or the manufacturer of the receiver.


----------



## Balbolito

So adjusting levels after Audyssey is just increasing them for preference basically, it won't ruin the applied filters, it's will just change the Dynamic EQ level (so if you are using DEQ, do not change/raise levels with an SPL meter after Audyssey).As i came to know the Audyssey sweeps with the supplied Audyssey mic will always be different than the internal test tones and using an SPL meter. An SPL meter won't be calibrated for your AVR like the Audyssey Mic that came with it, also the Audyssey sweeps(tones) are different than the internal test tones. 



Below are the Audyssey results in my Marantz

FL -6
FR -6
C -7.5
SL -4
SR -4
SBL - 8.5
SBR -11.5
Top FL -1.5
Top FR -0.5
Top ML -4.5
Top MR -3
Top RL -0.5
Top RR -1.5
Sub 1 -4
Sub 2 -4

Distances are all correct that were set by Audyssey.


My LCRs are behind my AT screen and my center is directly pointing towards the MLP and it's like a couple of foot or so closer than the fronts is that why the level is a bit lower (-7.5db compared to -6db for fronts)? another thing my surround backs are both the same distance using the same power amp what could be the reason for the variance of the levels in my processor? same for the two top middle speakers. any reason for concern? i am sure they are all playing at film reference when the volume is at 0. 

Please chime in and feel free to correct me.


----------



## Jeepndoogs

garygarrison said:


> I don't think it is the ceiling beams. The total area of wood surface they provide is small, so their effect -- mostly a little extra beneficial diffusion -- wouldn't provide a big change, IMO.
> 
> Why do you think it has to do with the calibration?
> 
> 
> If you like the sound of the old AVR better, maybe you should just get the buzzing fixed, and return the new one. If Denon is using a different design now, it is conceivable that it might make a difference in the sound. Who knows? Maybe the new AVR and the speakers/room have an inferior synergy. People have been fighting over whether different design types actually _*sound*_ different since at least the 1960s.
> 
> 
> 
> On the buzzing: Is the buzzing present only when you use the old AVR? When the buzzing starts, if you immediately turn off Audyssey, but leave everything else on, does the buzz go away? I predict it will not. Are you saying that the buzz comes when either of two different receivers are used, the old and thee new? That's weird. Is the buzz a steady buzz once it starts? Or is it something that varies with the loudness of the music, or varies in its nature as it goes on? Could it be distortion when very loud passages are played? If your sound system lacked high frequencies before Audyssey, and Audyssey turned up your treble, it might make buzz show up more, but I doubt that is the problem. Since you say it comes out of _*all*_ the speakers, it sounds like it may be coming from something all channels share, such as the receiver's power supply, including the power transformer, rectifier, reservoir capacitors, whatever. I'm not a tech, so I'm not sure whether there is total sharing, or what, but somebody here can probably shed more light. Did lightning strike nearby? The other thing all of your channels share is your house! But anything coming from your house's electrical system would be subtle, I'd think. But I've seen the following things blamed for buzzes in a system: noise coming over the power lines, fluorescent lights, refrigerators, sewing machines or other motors, improper grounding, including the main house grounding (A metal rod driven into the ground, or water pipes, etc., or corroded noncontinuous wires leading from the main to ground), or RF signals, or National Guard Radar ... you name it, and it's been blamed!
> 
> 
> In any case, you ought to call or email either a good service tech (attached to a reputable stereo dealer, preferably not a chain) or the manufacturer of the receiver.



The buzzing only happens with the old receiver, I do believe the cause was a lightning strike. The new receiver has no buzz and everything sounds fine except voices on the tv. The center Chanel sounds very sharp and voices have a lot of echo to them. 

When I hook the old receiver up the voices sound normal, but that is the receiver that starts buzzing once it starts getting warm.


----------



## bluesky636

Jeepndoogs said:


> The buzzing only happens with the old receiver, I do believe the cause was a lightning strike. The new receiver has no buzz and everything sounds fine except voices on the tv. The center Chanel sounds very sharp and voices have a lot of echo to them.
> 
> When I hook the old receiver up the voices sound normal, but that is the receiver that starts buzzing once it starts getting warm.


Ya know, I just noticed that the color scheme of your room is very similar to mine: kind of a brick red and greenish gray walls with bright white baseboards. Based just on that, it ought to sound perfect. 😄


----------



## Jeepndoogs

So I moved the speakers a bit and ran another set up through the receiver and I was able to get the center Chanel sound a little better. I would like to play around a little more with mic placement and trying to also re position the sub. Is there a way to save the current set up file to go back to if I the new set up makes it worse?


----------



## bluesky636

Jeepndoogs said:


> So I moved the speakers a bit and ran another set up through the receiver and I was able to get the center Chanel sound a little better. I would like to play around a little more with mic placement and trying to also re position the sub. Is there a way to save the current set up file to go back to if I the new set up makes it worse?



I think you can save it to a thumb drive but you may need the app to do it. I saw it mentioned here so someone else should know for sure. Good luck.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Jeepndoogs said:


> So I moved the speakers a bit and ran another set up through the receiver and I was able to get the center Chanel sound a little better. I would like to play around a little more with mic placement and trying to also re position the sub. Is there a way to save the current set up file to go back to if I the new set up makes it worse?


Hi Jeepndoogs,

Yes you should be able to do a back up to a USB Drive/Thumb drive. Look in the "Setup menu", then "General" then "Save and Load".

If you want the speakers to sound natural they need to come out of that insert area. The Main Left and Right speakers probably have bass vents on the back. If so they are venting into an echo chamber. Just for experiment sake. Pull both speakers out of the cut out space and install then just outside on the front wall. Next pull the center out of the shelf hole and place on floor in front of the entertainment furniture. Angle the Center up to point at your head when seated. Use magazines or Blu Rays as wedges for now. Give each speaker a few inches from any wall surface behind them. Then run some demo Movies to see if there is any improvement. If there is as I expect there will be. You might want to run Audyssey again with the speakers pulled out of that cubby space. 

I can't really make out where the Center is in the Pics you posted. So I am assuming it is tucked in the Entertainment furniture above the TV. That is why I am recommending you pull it out of there and place on the floor aiming up at the MLP.

Experimentation is the process of how we tune our rooms. It is not the speakers we hear, it is the room that derives the end result sound. Keep that in mind as you experiment. 

Best of Luck Sir. And have fun, as that is the goal is it not?


----------



## blb1215

bluesky636 said:


> I think you can save it to a thumb drive but you may need the app to do it. I saw it mentioned here so someone else should know for sure. Good luck.



You can save calibration to usb/thumb drive without the app.


----------



## Jeepndoogs

The front speakers actually have oval ports on the bottom facing forward. Do you think that will still cause issues? I have the, pulled out about 1-2 inches past the wall and entertainment center. I just noticed the pictures are upside down!


----------



## Alan P

Jeepndoogs said:


> The buzzing only happens with the old receiver, I do believe the cause was a lightning strike. The new receiver has no buzz and everything sounds fine except voices on the tv. The center Chanel sounds very sharp and voices have a lot of echo to them.
> 
> When I hook the old receiver up the voices sound normal, but that is the receiver that starts buzzing once it starts getting warm.


Voices on "the TV"? Is it only one source (cable box) that sounds bad, or is it all sources?

You could try using the Audyssey mic from your old receiver...worth a shot.


----------



## Alan P

zeonstar said:


> 1. I will give that a try in the morning. I do have the Audyssey app so I could I alternatively do the first 3 positions on a new cal to get the trim right, then just cancel out and apply it to my existing calibration I did with all positions measured, could I not?
> 
> 2. I use the internal ones because it's easier to instantly adjust them. (Not that I am trying to be lazy or anything.) I actually didn't know the test tones mattered that much. I actually do have a disc with actual Test tones, its a Dolby Atmos disc. So I would be better off using that?
> 
> I honestly didn't know the levels Audyssey read are that good. What it gave me and what I found by using the AVR's test tone and my RS SPL Meter were exact is some cases and way off in others.
> 
> If you don't mind me sharing: (Numbers are Audyssey then my adjustment)
> 
> Front L -1.0 to same
> Front R -1.0 to 0.0
> Center -5.0 to -3.0
> Surround L -1.5 to same
> Surround R - 5.0 to same
> Front Height L -0.5 to -2.5
> Front Height R -0.5 to -3.0
> Rear Height L -4.0 to same
> Rear Height R -4.0 to -4.5
> 
> Typing those out I guess the difference isnt that drastic. Felt like more when I was adjusting them. My front heights are a good ways away. Actually surprised I would of turned them down so much. What causes these descrepencies? If I was to do mine adjustments again with proper test tones would I discover all the numbers are closer to Audyssey's findings?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your input as well. I enjoy learning this stuff. Could you point me to where it mentions in the Audyssey thread about adjust (Or rather not adjusting) the levels? Likewise in the subwoofer thread?
> 
> Thank you both!
> 
> 
> EDIT. I found the information about level adjusting in the Audyssey FAQ so nevermind that one.  Very informative!


Are you using a "C" weighted SPL meter?

Yes, the SPL with/without the Audyssey EQ filters in place can vary that much. You can verify with the external tones, but Audyssey usually gets the trims pretty much spot-on. When using external test tones, make sure you turn off DEQ, DynVol and any "DSP" surround modes.


----------



## Jeepndoogs

Alan P said:


> Voices on "the TV"? Is it only one source (cable box) that sounds bad, or is it all sources?
> 
> You could try using the Audyssey mic from your old receiver...worth a shot.


All sources, dvd or sat box. I did try the old mike last night and it was an improvement. I think I still need to play with speaker placement and mic placement some more. Also the camera tripod I was using isn’t the greatest so I am going to give it a shot using a mic stand.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Jeepndoogs said:


> The front speakers actually have oval ports on the bottom facing forward. Do you think that will still cause issues? I have the, pulled out about 1-2 inches past the wall and entertainment center. I just noticed the pictures are upside down!


Only one way to find out. Pull them outside of the Cutout. It's just temporary and to determine how much of an impact that cubby is having on the sound. If it does not sound way better, then you put them right back. Nothing lost but a few mins of time and effort. But pulling the Center out and placing on floor aiming up at MLC will most likely improve vocal imaging and clarity.

You are getting a lot of advice all at the same time. So, I will pull back and just follow your progress. I don't want to muddy up the information your getting from others. Good luck. But my best guess is placing the speakers inside that cut out is causing all sorts of boundary and echo issues!


----------



## mthomas47

Jeepndoogs said:


> The front speakers actually have oval ports on the bottom facing forward. Do you think that will still cause issues? I have the, pulled out about 1-2 inches past the wall and entertainment center. I just noticed the pictures are upside down!



Hi,

I think that Adam's right about pulling your speakers out of the alcove. I have seen that cause problems before. There are really two problems. First, mid and high frequencies radiate outward from the drivers in a cone shape. So, some of those sound waves are hitting the side walls of the alcove creating distortion. 

Second, mid-range and lower frequencies, especially below about 500Hz, radiate somewhat omnidirectionally, and most speaker cabinets are thinner in the back. So, frequencies radiate backward hitting back and side walls, of an alcove, and creating first reflection issues. Audyssey will try to EQ early reflections, but the results can be erratic sometimes. 

I also like Adam's suggestion to try to find a way to get your center channel under the TV and pointing-up slightly. It isn't that you don't have it pointed toward your ears. It's also that sound from that speaker is reflecting off the table, and the floor, in front of your listening position. The table is another first reflection point. (You could try covering the table with something, and that would be a good idea anyway, but I don't think it will completely solve the problem.) 

You would really like to have the speaker lower, in relation to your seated position if possible, and not angled quite as much. When you said that you could sometimes hear voices that sounded as if they were coming from the CC, rather than from the TV, that was another clue to that speaker location. Our brains are pretty good about creating audio illusions for us, but when a speaker is up high and pointed down, the illusion that voices are coming from the characters on the screen doesn't seem to work as well.

In addition to the other calibration recommendations you have gotten, I would suggest trying a relatively small microphone pattern. Audyssey usually achieves its best results when we give it a pretty uniform listening area to work with. The further away you get from the MLP (defined as mic position 1) the less uniform the listening area becomes. I think that is especially the case for higher frequencies. 

You are really trying to control first reflection points, that are more or less on a line with your main listening position. The better job of that you do, the easier it will be for Audyssey to give you a good mid and high-frequency EQ response. Once you have gotten a calibration you like, it's a good idea to write down (or draw) your mic positions, so that you can repeat that calibration later. An example of a mic pattern that works well for some people can be found in Section I-B of the Guide linked in my signature.

Incidentally, I think you said you were listening with Dynamic volume on. That can help sometimes, when you are trying not to disturb sleeping children, or something along those lines, because it normalizes the volume within a specific loudness range. But, it does that via a form of compression. I believe that you are likely to get better sound quality if you turn that feature off, except when you really need to use it.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zeonstar

Alan P said:


> Are you using a "C" weighted SPL meter?
> 
> Yes, the SPL with/without the Audyssey EQ filters in place can vary that much. You can verify with the external tones, but Audyssey usually gets the trims pretty much spot-on. When using external test tones, make sure you turn off DEQ, DynVol and any "DSP" surround modes.


Yeah, it's C weighted. It's a Radio Shack One.

I made a copy of my Audyssey Calibration with the MultiEQ app and reverted back to Audyssey's levels. Going to give them a try for awhile. In looking at the FAQ, I had no idea how accurate it's level matching is. I'm happy to trust it now.


----------



## panman40

After a little more fiddling around I’ve discovered that the inbuilt AVR Audyssey is giving me more legible dialogue from the centre ch. I’m not sure why but even my wife said the same tonight.


----------



## zeonstar

Alan P said:


> 1. You must re-run Audyssey. You can do just the first 3 mic positions and "Calculate". Once you get the sub trim within the acceptable range, you can then run the full Audyssey calibration.


I re-ran it a short time ago using 3 calibrations just enough to get the sub trim better. I got it down to a -5.0 trim but boy did I have to turn my sub waaaay down. I had it at 12 o'clock, but now it's a hair below 9 o'clock. I know Audyssey is just trying to level match but the sub is close to off at this point. But at least I got the trim do a better number.


I noticed my 3 position results were quite different than my full 8 position results. For example, it read my surrounds as crossed over much lower than usual. Is that simply a result of only using 3 positions?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

zeonstar said:


> I re-ran it a short time ago using 3 calibrations just enough to get the sub trim better. I got it down to a -5.0 trim but boy did I have to turn my sub waaaay down. I had it at 12 o'clock, but now it's a hair below 9 o'clock. I know Audyssey is just trying to level match but the sub is close to off at this point. But at least I got the trim do a better number.
> 
> 
> I noticed my 3 position results were quite different than my full 8 position results. For example, it read my surrounds as crossed over much lower than usual. Is that simply a result of only using 3 positions?


Hi zeonstar,

The really low sub gain for level matching is consistent for all of us. I almost have to turn my subs off. Weird right? But once the cal is complete just crank the sub gains back up to your preference. I go from 2of20 to achieve level matching to 10 or 11 of20 post cal adjustment. Inherent insanity of what we call attaining negative AVR sub trim numbers.


----------



## Alan P

zeonstar said:


> I re-ran it a short time ago using 3 calibrations just enough to get the sub trim better. I got it down to a -5.0 trim but boy did I have to turn my sub waaaay down. I had it at 12 o'clock, but now it's a hair below 9 o'clock. I know Audyssey is just trying to level match but the sub is close to off at this point. But at least I got the trim do a better number.
> 
> 
> I noticed my 3 position results were quite different than my full 8 position results. For example, it read my surrounds as crossed over much lower than usual. Is that simply a result of only using 3 positions?


I have seen Audyssey set different crossovers depending on sub trim and/or amount of subs.


----------



## Edi-MC

Hi guys! 
How do you proceed when doing match leveling using external sources (like a PC for instance)?

Do you run a 75/80db's signal and disconnect/connect the speakers? One by one? 
Thanks


----------



## pbz06

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> How do you proceed when doing match leveling using external sources (like a PC for instance)?
> 
> Do you run a 75/80db's signal and disconnect/connect the speakers? One by one?
> Thanks


You can download test tones from Dolby's website that cycles through all channels. They are recorded at 85dB so volume on the AVR at 0 would correlate. Your meter is likely not calibrated so it might read like 83 or 87 for example..I wouldn't worry about that, just as long as they are balanced.

Depending on your meter rating, the LFE/subwoofer is the most iffy. Most meters are rated for only like 40hz but the readings jump around more.


----------



## zeonstar

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I re-ran it a short time ago using 3 calibrations just enough to get the sub trim better. I got it down to a -5.0 trim but boy did I have to turn my sub waaaay down. I had it at 12 o'clock, but now it's a hair below 9 o'clock. I know Audyssey is just trying to level match but the sub is close to off at this point. But at least I got the trim do a better number.
> 
> 
> I noticed my 3 position results were quite different than my full 8 position results. For example, it read my surrounds as crossed over much lower than usual. Is that simply a result of only using 3 positions?
> 
> 
> 
> Hi zeonstar,
> 
> The really low sub gain for level matching is consistent for all of us. I almost have to turn my subs off. Weird right? But once the cal is complete just crank the sub gains back up to your preference. I go from 2of20 to achieve level matching to 10 or 11 of20 post cal adjustment. Inherent insanity of what we call attaining negative AVR sub trim numbers./forum/images/smilies/eek.gif
Click to expand...

Good to know my sub having to be so low is normal. What is your technique to get your sub back how you like it? I know a lot of people use music but does that work even when 99% of ones usage is movies?


----------



## mthomas47

zeonstar said:


> Good to know my sub having to be so low is normal. What is your technique to get your sub back how you like it? I know a lot of people use music but does that work even when 99% of ones usage is movies?



Hi,

It might work, depending on the listener and on the type of music, but personally I would use a movie with a lot of low-bass content. One of the questions that people talk about a lot is whether one bass setting works best for all listening content. For some people, it does, for others, not so much. Unless you are certain that your low-bass preferences will be the same for both music and for movies, I would use movies to set my subwoofer gain and trim levels, post-calibration. And, where your use is 99% movies, I would definitely do that. 

My personal method is to use a movie which sort of makes me want to push the envelope. Then, I will use a combination of sub gain and AVR trim to get to about -5 or -6, after the calibration. In theory, that should be about the highest I will ever want to go. Being at about -6 works well for me, because it still leaves me a decibel or two that I can go up, with my AVR remote, even on a movie with a lot of bass. And, it also leaves me plenty of room to go down, by several decibels, when I'm just not in the mood for that much bass. So, that's one approach.

The idea of using music to determine AVR settings works better for me, for everything except low-bass. We hear (and concentrate on what we hear) a little better, I think, when we are listening to music. So, I use some familiar music to determine whether I have a good calibration, and to experiment with Audyssey Flat versus Audyssey. The combination of DEQ and subwoofer boost, on the other hand, is probably easier to test with movies, due to its low-bass boost. But, there is some YMMV with all of this.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## zeonstar

mthomas47 said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know my sub having to be so low is normal. What is your technique to get your sub back how you like it? I know a lot of people use music but does that work even when 99% of ones usage is movies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> It might work, depending on the listener and on the type of music, but personally I would use a movie with a lot of low-bass content. One of the questions that people talk about a lot is whether one bass setting works best for all listening content. For some people, it does, for others, not so much. Unless you are certain that your low-bass preferences will be the same for both music and for movies, I would use movies to set my subwoofer gain and trim levels, post-calibration. And, where your use is 99% movies, I would definitely do that.
> 
> My personal method is to use a movie which sort of makes me want to push the envelope. Then, I will use a combination of sub gain and AVR trim to get to about -5 or -6, after the calibration. In theory, that should be about the highest I will ever want to go. Being at about -6 works well for me, because it still leaves me a decibel or two that I can go up, with my AVR remote, even on a movie with a lot of bass. And, it also leaves me plenty of room to go down, by several decibels, when I'm just not in the mood for that much bass. So, that's one approach.
> 
> The idea of using music to determine AVR settings works better for me, for everything except low-bass. We hear (and concentrate on what we hear) a little better, I think, when we are listening to music. So, I use some familiar music to determine whether I have a good calibration, and to experiment with Audyssey Flat versus Audyssey. The combination of DEQ and subwoofer boost, on the other hand, is probably easier to test with movies, due to its low-bass boost. But, there is some YMMV with all of this.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

Hi Mike

Thank you for that. Very informative. 

So I take it each full number up or down on an AVR trim is not equal to a dB. That is good to know. 

I was debating having my trim at -5
Or -6 and just having the sub gain up a bit more. Currently my pb-2000 is exactly at 50%. I don’t know if that is typical or low or high. It had a good amp, I suppose I might as well use it. 

Could you recommend some movies with good bass like you mentioned? Anything I can think of only has moments of bass, where I feel it would be hard to make adjustments. 

Thanks.


----------



## pbz06

zeonstar said:


> Hi Mike
> 
> Thank you for that. Very informative.
> 
> So I take it each full number up or down on an AVR trim is not equal to a dB. That is good to know.
> 
> I was debating having my trim at -5
> Or -6 and just having the sub gain up a bit more. Currently my pb-2000 is exactly at 50%. I don’t know if that is typical or low or high. It had a good amp, I suppose I might as well use it.
> 
> Could you recommend some movies with good bass like you mentioned? Anything I can think of only has moments of bass, where I feel it would be hard to make adjustments.
> 
> Thanks.


Aquaman, basically the entire movie...haha. But more specifically towards the end when he gets the trident and faces the huge monster, it's literally nothing but chest pounding bass (almost too much). Shortly after he is victorious and emerges from the waterfall to nicole kidman's character and the music is pumping, there's some reaaaaaallly low frequencies where the first time I watched it I didn't even know what it was but my body felt a little funny (beyond the typical subtle tactile feel I usually feel through the sofa) but I couldn't really hear anything.

The John Wick club scene has nice various types of bass too from the different guns, room environments (basement locker room with the bass digging deep at some points) and punches thrown etc. When he pulls out the big gun, and fires in slow-mo, there's nice impactful bass.

World War Z, during the Israel camp overrun. It starts slowly, but as the intensity and action pick up, there's various money shot styles of bass. From the swarm bundling up against the doors, the heavy machine gun fire from the helos, a grenade by suicide blasting the cage barrier, the bus overturning, the music thumping bass when the z's are pressed against the jail bars, assault rifles on the balcony, and the ultimate grenade in the stairwell (the second one) that shakes my windows and feels like an earthquake. This last one will strain your sub as it's like a full frequency sweep at volume!

Logan, when Pearce shows up to get Laura at the compound...after she tosses the decapitated head there's some gunfire returned with nice subtle low end thumps. The rest of the scene has various bass or LFE as they shoot or get thrown against the ground. There's a nice low end scene as the limo is racing away and crashes through the fence


----------



## bluesky636

zeonstar said:


> So I take it each full number up or down on an AVR trim is not equal to a dB. That is good to know. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Ummm, yes it is.


----------



## zeonstar

bluesky636 said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I take it each full number up or down on an AVR trim is not equal to a dB. That is good to know. /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Ummm, yes it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry my mistake then. By Mike’s wording I understood that each level up or down was not an actual decibel. If it is, then that is simpler.
Click to expand...


----------



## zeonstar

pbz06 said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mike
> 
> Thank you for that. Very informative.
> 
> So I take it each full number up or down on an AVR trim is not equal to a dB. That is good to know.
> 
> I was debating having my trim at -5
> Or -6 and just having the sub gain up a bit more. Currently my pb-2000 is exactly at 50%. I donâ€™️t know if that is typical or low or high. It had a good amp, I suppose I might as well use it.
> 
> Could you recommend some movies with good bass like you mentioned? Anything I can think of only has moments of bass, where I feel it would be hard to make adjustments.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Aquaman, basically the entire movie...haha. But more specifically towards the end when he gets the trident and faces the huge monster, it's literally nothing but chest pounding bass (almost too much). Shortly after he is victorious and emerges from the waterfall to nicole kidman's character and the music is pumping, there's some reaaaaaallly low frequencies where the first time I watched it I didn't even know what it was but my body felt a little funny (beyond the typical subtle tactile feel I usually feel through the sofa) but I couldn't really hear anything.
> 
> The John Wick club scene has nice various types of bass too from the different guns, room environments (basement locker room with the bass digging deep at some points) and punches thrown etc. When he pulls out the big gun, and fires in slow-mo, there's nice impactful bass.
> 
> World War Z, during the Israel camp overrun. It starts slowly, but as the intensity and action pick up, there's various money shot styles of bass. From the swarm bundling up against the doors, the heavy machine gun fire from the helos, a grenade by suicide blasting the cage barrier, the bus overturning, the music thumping bass when the z's are pressed against the jail bars, assault rifles on the balcony, and the ultimate grenade in the stairwell (the second one) that shakes my windows and feels like an earthquake. This last one will strain your sub as it's like a full frequency sweep at volume!
> 
> Logan, when Pearce shows up to get Laura at the compound...after she tosses the decapitated head there's some gunfire returned with nice subtle low end thumps. The rest of the scene has various bass or LFE as they shoot or get thrown against the ground. There's a nice low end scene as the limo is racing away and crashes through the fence /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
Click to expand...

Awesome thank you. I have all those movies except World War Z. I’ll have to play around with Them. I only have Logan on Blu-Ray but I don't imagine that would matter for the sake of bass. 

Do you have a favorite among those? (For bass testing that is.)


----------



## pbz06

zeonstar said:


> Awesome thank you. I have all those movies except World War Z. I’ll have to play around with Them. I only have Logan on Blu-Ray but I don't imagine that would matter for the sake of bass.
> 
> Do you have a favorite among those? (For bass testing that is.)


As long as it's the disc, should be the same quality (between UHD and regular Blu-ray). Both are lossless.

Well I like those equally for bass testing, haha. They cover different types of bass and even bass that's part of music. Other movies like Overlord are fun too, but there's so much going on that it's almost overload. The demo scenes I usually test have enough room to breathe and listen for things. I actually use World War Z the most since it's longer scene. I also use the above to listen to vocals, music, general dynamics too. Logan is good to test the treble also, since the blades make a harsh sound and Laura screams a lot while fighting. It can get fatiguing (the movie is a little harsher in general as well). 

I usually test in order: World War Z, John Wick, Logan, and Aquaman. Forgot to mention Fury too..the scene where the tanks are marching across the field to rescue pinned soldiers, you literally feel the couch vibrating with each machine gun bullet and tank shell firing.


----------



## zeonstar

pbz06 said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome thank you. I have all those movies except World War Z. Iâ€™️ll have to play around with Them. I only have Logan on Blu-Ray but I don't imagine that would matter for the sake of bass.
> 
> Do you have a favorite among those? (For bass testing that is.)
> 
> 
> 
> As long as it's the disc, should be the same quality (between UHD and regular Blu-ray). Both are lossless.
> 
> Well I like those equally for bass testing, haha. They cover different types of bass and even bass that's part of music. Other movies like Overlord are fun too, but there's so much going on that it's almost overload. The demo scenes I usually test have enough room to breathe and listen for things. I actually use World War Z the most since it's longer scene. I also use the above to listen to vocals, music, general dynamics too. Logan is good to test the treble also, since the blades make a harsh sound and Laura screams a lot while fighting. It can get fatiguing (the movie is a little harsher in general as well).
> 
> I usually test in order: World War Z, John Wick, Logan, and Aquaman. Forgot to mention Fury too..the scene where the tanks are marching across the field to rescue pinned soldiers, you literally feel the couch vibrating with each machine gun bullet and tank shell firing.
Click to expand...

I forgot to ask are these scenes long enough where you can just play them and adjust or do you rewatch a bunch of times?


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

zeonstar said:


> Could you recommend some movies with good bass like you mentioned? Anything I can think of only has moments of bass, where I feel it would be hard to make adjustments.
> 
> Thanks.





zeonstar said:


> Do you have a favorite among those? (For bass testing that is.)





zeonstar said:


> I forgot to ask are these scenes long enough where you can just play them and adjust or do you rewatch a bunch of times?


Hi zeonstar,

For more than you may ever what to know about Movies with Bass and how they actually Measure. Go here and start reading this thread. All the information you could want or need. It's a great resource.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2763785-ultimate-list-bass-movies-w-frequency-charts.html#post51057089


----------



## zeonstar

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you recommend some movies with good bass like you mentioned? Anything I can think of only has moments of bass, where I feel it would be hard to make adjustments.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a favorite among those? (For bass testing that is.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeonstar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to ask are these scenes long enough where you can just play them and adjust or do you rewatch a bunch of times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hi zeonstar,
> 
> For more than you may ever what to know about Movies with Bass and how they actually Measure. Go here and start reading this thread. All the information you could want or need. It's a great resource.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...s-movies-w-frequency-charts.html#post51057089
Click to expand...

Thanks. I actually have seen that thread. Never occurred to me to use it for this though. Haha.


----------



## Alan P

zeonstar said:


> I forgot to ask are these scenes long enough where you can just play them and adjust or do you rewatch a bunch of times?


I recommend the Ultimate Bass Demo Discs (1-5) available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B75wwH2WwWlrODdnSTJ2YVR4REU


----------



## zeonstar

Alan P said:


> I recommend the Ultimate Bass Demo Discs (1-5) available here:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B75wwH2WwWlrODdnSTJ2YVR4REU


Thank you. I had no idea there were whole "Bass demo discs." Yikes.


----------



## Smeagle

I’m wanting to calibrate my new Denon x3600h which is in a closet on the 2nd floor. The listening area is almost exactly 50’ away from the receiver (I used a string to measure). I’ve read through the FAQ and understand that I can add a 25’ cable extension, but my Audessey mike has only a 20’ cable which leaves me 5’ short if I do that. Thoughts on what I could/should do?


----------



## mogorf

Smeagle said:


> I’m wanting to calibrate my new Denon x3600h which is in a closet on the 2nd floor. The listening area is almost exactly 50’ away from the receiver (I used a string to measure). I’ve read through the FAQ and understand that I can add a 25’ cable extension, but my Audessey mike has only a 20’ cable which leaves me 5’ short if I do that. Thoughts on what I could/should do?



I wouldn't think the 25' cable extension is a "brickwall" that would not allow a 5' addition to the length. Just go ahead and do your calibration!


----------



## Smeagle

mogorf said:


> I wouldn't think the 25' cable extension is a "brickwall" that would not allow a 5' addition to the length. Just go ahead and do your calibration!


That’s what I was thinking. There are some pretty dogmatic statements in the FAQ re: not going beyond the 25’... but I’m going to be a little crazy/throw caution to the wind and add 31’.


----------



## Jeepndoogs

Well after re doing the calibration using the mic stand today instead of the tripod, I have the sound back to about 90% of where it was with the old receiver. The center went from being very sharp and metallic sounding to very slightly muffled. I think the biggest improvement was pitting a blanket over the coffee table during the calibration. I am going to leave it where it is for a week or so and see how it goes. Thanks for all the suggestions!


----------



## zeonstar

Alan P said:


> I recommend the Ultimate Bass Demo Discs (1-5) available here:
> 
> https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B75wwH2WwWlrODdnSTJ2YVR4REU


How does one play those files if they just have a Panasonic UB820?


----------



## OrdinaryClown

Do you guys setup the sub to music ”so you just can hear it” like every one says. If you do, do you really think it sounds great when watching a movie. ?

I have tried this and i think the sub is to Low in movies, some explosion dont even come to live. 

But for music this sounds just right.

If i leave it like audyssey set the sub -3.5 its way to boomy. 

Whats your tips and tricks for setting up a sub, are u tuning it in With music if so what music. And what are u listening for or are u doing it with movies and the same, what are u listening for?





Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

OrdinaryClown said:


> Do you guys setup the sub to music ”so you just can hear it” like every one says. If you do, do you really think it sounds great when watching a movie. ?
> 
> I have tried this and i think the sub is to Low in movies, some explosion dont even come to live.
> 
> But for music this sounds just right.
> 
> If i leave it like audyssey set the sub -3.5 its way to boomy.
> 
> Whats your tips and tricks for setting up a sub, are u tuning it in With music if so what music. And what are u listening for or are u doing it with movies and the same, what are u listening for?
> 
> Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk


Guess I am just lucky.

My system is installed in our great room which has a very tall cathedral ceiling and opens up on one side to the kitchen and living room. No problems with standing waves. The house sits on a large crawlspace so you feel the bass through the floor as well as hear it. I calibrate the bass to -3 dB then increase the bass trim to 0 dB. 

I have a large collection of organ music as well as blues and rock music. System sounds great (to me) with both movies and music.


----------



## garygarrison

OrdinaryClown said:


> Do you guys setup the sub to music ”*so you just can hear it*” like every one says. If you do, do you really think it sounds great when watching a movie. ?



I have never heard of this method of setting a sub. Do you mean "so soft -- so low in volume -- that you can barely realize it's on," or do you mean "set it by ear" or something else?


I use the same sub settings for music and movies, and it seems just right.


"Too boomy" may mean that the sub is not placed in the location producing the smoothest sound. See Mike's Guide for subwoofer advice. Scan the "Cliff Notes" section of the guide first*:*


 GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

*** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


----------



## abba1

I'm new at this so...I'd like to know if there is a consensus of how far away the mic should be placed from the seat-back. We have a two-person sofa, cloth-lined and it's next to the back wall. (can't be moved) Thanks in advance.


----------



## bluesky636

abba1 said:


> I'm new at this so...I'd like to know if there is a consensus of how far away the mic should be placed from the seat-back. We have a two-person sofa, cloth-lined and it's next to the back wall. (can't be moved) Thanks in advance.


The first mike position should be at the same position where your head is at the MLP.

Suggest you read the Audyssey setup guide and FAQ then come back with questions.


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> The first mike position should be at the same position where your head is at the MLP.
> 
> Suggest you read the Audyssey setup guide and FAQ then come back with questions.


Welcome! I agree with the suggestions about reading the setup guide, because there are lots of other questions you'll have, and some pitfalls you can avoid, by reading it before you start. I think there is a general consensus that the first mic position (MLP = Main Listening Position) should be where you sit, with the mic being the same distance and height from the back of the couch as your ears. In most chairs and couches, that's 4-5" or so. If the couch has a high back, you should raisee the mic above the back of the seat so the mic isn't picking up reflections from the couch back. Also, don't try to put any mic positions against the back wall, despite the Audyssey drawing showing positions 7 and 8 as behind the MLP.


----------



## Alan P

zeonstar said:


> How does one play those files if they just have a Panasonic UB820?


They may play from a flash/external drive connected to the blu ray player, but I am not sure. I stream them from my NAS through my Shield.

You may find some answers in this thread: #### The ULTIMATE Bass Demo Disc ####


----------



## Edi-MC

So... There's something buggin' me since, well, since I can remember... 
I just can't seem to reach that "punch in the chest" bass sound. 
I have bass, sometimes even too much (not boomy but more like a smooth/relaxed sound that fills the space, know what I mean?), but it's never that dry, snappy thump... My usual listening volume is around -30/-20db's...
Do you think it might have to do with calibration? Or is it just the Marantz sound signature?
I have an SVS Sb2000, at the front a pair of GE Triton Three"s, a GE Supercenter XXL and a pair of MA BX1 at the back.


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> So... There's something buggin' me since, well, since I can remember...
> I just can't seem to reach that "punch in the chest" bass sound.
> I have bass, sometimes even too much (not boomy but more like a smooth/relaxed sound that fills the space, know what I mean?), but it's never that dry, snappy thump... My usual listening volume is around -30/-20db's...
> Do you think it might have to do with calibration? Or is it just the Marantz sound signature?
> I have an SVS Sb2000, at the front a pair of GE Triton Three"s, a GE Supercenter XXL and a pair of MA BX1 at the back.


Have you followed the guidance in the subwoofer setup thread? 


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2958528-guide-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


----------



## Edi-MC

I have.
And already tried a ton of things (calibration-wise), with no avail


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> I have.
> And already tried a ton of things (calibration-wise), with no avail


What is the bass trim level after calibration?

Have you tried upping the subwoofer gain or trim level after calibration?

Are you using Dynamic EQ or Dynamic Volume?

Post a picture of your room.


----------



## mart541

MultiEQ through my SR5011 is doing strange things. Have a look at the attached screenshot. It's like the before and after is swapped. If I alter the target curve the final corrected curve will sometimes be smooth, but if I close the curve and reopen it, without touching anything else, the curve will look crazy again. I have tried this with my Dynaudio x34s in multiple locations including way away from any boundary in my 15'x23' living room. Is this a graphical bug?


----------



## abba1

pbarach said:


> Welcome! I agree with the suggestions about reading the setup guide, because there are lots of other questions you'll have, and some pitfalls you can avoid, by reading it before you start. I think there is a general consensus that the first mic position (MLP = Main Listening Position) should be where you sit, with the mic being the same distance and height from the back of the couch as your ears. In most chairs and couches, that's 4-5" or so. If the couch has a high back, you should raisee the mic above the back of the seat so the mic isn't picking up reflections from the couch back. Also, don't try to put any mic positions against the back wall, despite the Audyssey drawing showing positions 7 and 8 as behind the MLP.



Thank you. That is just what I was looking for!


----------



## Edi-MC

bluesky636 said:


> What is the bass trim level after calibration?


0db. Right now I've dialed it down to -3db
Although, in previous calibrations, I already got it to be -11db (and then boosted it up do -5db as suggested in the guide). Same feeling though... Bass isn't punchy... 




bluesky636 said:


> Have you tried upping the subwoofer gain or trim level after calibration?


As most of Audyssey users, I always do...



bluesky636 said:


> Are you using Dynamic EQ or Dynamic Volume?


Always turned OFF (both)




bluesky636 said:


> Post a picture of your room.


You can see it (and more!) here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...rooms/1949761-my-home-cinema-living-room.html
Scroll down to the latest posts and you can find the pic with the Tritons and Supercenter


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> 0db. Right now I've dialed it down to -3db
> Although I already got it to be -11db (and then boosted it up do -5db as suggested in the guide) in previous calibrations. Same feeling though
> 
> 
> 
> As most of Audyssey users, I always do...
> 
> 
> Always turned OFF (both)
> 
> 
> 
> You can see it (and more!) here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/15-g...rooms/1949761-my-home-cinema-living-room.html
> Scroll down to the latest posts and you can find the pic with the Tritons and Supercenter


In your earlier post you said: "My usual listening volume is around -30/-20db's...".

There's your problem right there.

After calibration your sub trim was 0dB. You then LOWERED the trim to -3dB.

With those settings and Dynamic EQ turned off, listening at the level you do is totally emasculating your bass.

You need to either turn the bass trim or sub gain up at least 3 dB (after recalibrating) and turn Dynamic EQ on or leave it off and turn the bass up even more. Experiment to hear what works best.

My sub is a HSU VTF-2 Mark 3 with a Mark 5 amp. I calibrate to -3 db then turn the Audyssey trim up to 0 dB. I listen at -20 dB to -15 dB with Dynamic EQ turned on and the bass is terrific.


----------



## garygarrison

bluesky636 said:


> In your earlier post you said: "My usual listening volume is around -30/-20db's...".
> 
> There's your problem right there ...
> 
> 
> ... *listening at the level you do is totally emasculating your bass.*
> 
> You need to either turn the bass trim or sub gain up at least 3 dB (after recalibrating) and turn Dynamic EQ on or leave it off and turn the bass up even more. Experiment to hear what works best.



I agree with bluesky's points, above.


The terms "punch" "chest thump/punch" and the like do not have universally accepted definitions. They can occur as low as 25Hz or so, and as high as about 180 Hz, depending on exactly what we're talking about. IMO, there is a big push at about 100 Hz. Unfortunately, with the common crossover of 80 Hz, part of the possible punch is in the sub range and part in the main speaker range. To cover all of the possible ranges for punch, try turning up the sub about 6 dB, *or more*, but arrange to have the Marantz sub trim at -5 or lower (see Mike's Guide for how) and if you are not using DEQ, find the bass control on your Marantz (it becomes visible when DEQ is OFF), and turn *it* up 6 dB. Also, turn up your Main Volume (MV) control. If Audyssey has calibrated your system correctly, 0 MV will produce maximum peaks of 105 dB (and 115 dB through the subwoofer). The typical medium loud sound will be about 20 dB less, or 85 db. To qualify as "chest punch," IMO, you would need about 90 - 95 dB. That's hard to get at -20 or -30 MV, because that puts you at 85 dB or 75 dB for the loudest peaks. Try -10 dB MV, to get 95 dB for the loudest peaks, which may or may not be punch.


What instruments or sources would produce the punch you are looking for? Big symphonic bass drum? Timpani? Kick drum? Piano? Piano punch could be at any frequency. Kick drum, on a duration*/*volume basis might center on about 60 Hz, but would put out frequencies all the way up to 1K, believe it or not. A big orchestral bass drum would center lower than that.


----------



## Edi-MC

Thank you for your inputs.
My initial thought was the same as yours: "This has to do with sound volume".
But as I said, one of the times I did a calibration where I got the sub trim to be - 11db. Then I put it to -5db in the AVR (as suggested in the guide) and set it to taste in the sub dial.

I felt the same I reported, wether I listened at -20 or -10... 
The bass lacks......... punch. 

I know that it's not a "scientific" way to call it, but I think you guys understand what I'm trying to describe.

@garygarrison - mainly in movies. When I listen to music, the Tritons do a SPECTACULAR job (both in bass and imaging - I use pure direct mode, so, no sub is engaged)


----------



## pbarach

abba1 said:


> Thank you. That is just what I was looking for!


I did run across some guidance that the mic should be at least 15-20" from the back wall, which changes what I wrote yesterday when summarizing the recommendations of others.


----------



## Velimir Saban

I bought a new sub, Klipsch R120SW. Is it normal that (in Audyssey calibration, to avoid max trim of -12), I must set sub to 9 o clock o even a bit lower! It is almost at minimum level?


----------



## bluesky636

Velimir Saban said:


> I bought a new sub, Klipsch R120SW. Is it normal that (in Audyssey calibration, to avoid max trim of -12), I must set sub to 9 o clock o even a bit lower! It is almost at minimum level?


It all depends on the gain structure of the sub amp. My HSU sub is set at 9 o'clock which gives me an Audyssey trim level of -3 dB after calibration. I then set the trim to 0 dB and the bass is terrific.


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> Thank you for your inputs.
> My initial thought was the same as yours: "This has to do with sound volume".
> But as I said, one of the times I did a calibration where I got the sub trim to be - 11db. Then I put it to -5db in the AVR (as suggested in the guide) and set it to taste in the sub dial.
> 
> I felt the same I reported, wether I listened at -20 or -10...
> The bass lacks......... punch.
> 
> I know that it's not a "scientific" way to call it, but I think you guys understand what I'm trying to describe.
> 
> @garygarrison - mainly in movies. When I listen to music, the Tritons do a SPECTACULAR job (both in bass and imaging - I use pure direct mode, so, no sub is engaged)


No, I have no idea what you consider "punch" to be. Based on your original post, your setup runs counter to the guidance that has been provided in this and the sub calibration thread. I don't know what else to tell you to do. Good luck.

By the way, using pure direct mode not only turns the sub off, it also turns Audyssey off. There is no bass management at all.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Velimir Saban said:


> I bought a new sub, Klipsch R120SW. Is it normal that (in Audyssey calibration, to avoid max trim of -12), I must set sub to 9 o clock o even a bit lower! It is almost at minimum level?


I was in the same situation before with a Dali Sub. The only way I could get a higher gain was to stuffing the port, not that I am recommending that you do this. Whatever it was about ported subs in my room, I suppose it created more pressure in the room compared to sealed ports. I sold it and got a SVS Sb2000 instead and can put the gain half-way or more with EQ.
It's worth trying different sub locations, perhaps the the sub is in a corner which would create more bass output. Try the sub crawl, or better yet if you have a measurement mic like a umik 1, you can use REW to find the best location for your sub.


----------



## grinch247

Here is my current setup:


Denon 4500 AVR


I know this is all beginner stuff and there is TONS better.


My budget could not afford more at the moment....


After running Audyssey this is what it set it to, was wondering what your thoughts were?


Monoprice 12" Sub
T15's Front left and right
T30 Center
6 X Pyles for surround and atmos.


----------



## bluesky636

grinch247 said:


> Here is my current setup:
> 
> 
> Denon 4500 AVR
> 
> 
> I know this is all beginner stuff and there is TONS better.
> 
> 
> My budget could not afford more at the moment....
> 
> 
> After running Audyssey this is what it set it to, was wondering what your thoughts were?
> 
> 
> Monoprice 12" Sub
> T15's Front left and right
> T30 Center
> 6 X Pyles for surround and atmos.


Here is my answer I posted in the 2018 Denon thread:

I would suggest pulling the center speaker out of the cabinet and place it just below the tv on the top shelf. Installed the way you have it can give speakers a hollow sound. Move the left and right speakers forward on the shelf to get them away from the front of the tv to avoid diffraction effects. Can't do much about the ceiling speakers. Rerun Audyssey.


----------



## mthomas47

Edi-MC said:


> Thank you for your inputs.
> My initial thought was the same as yours: "This has to do with sound volume".
> But as I said, one of the times I did a calibration where I got the sub trim to be - 11db. Then I put it to -5db in the AVR (as suggested in the guide) and set it to taste in the sub dial.
> 
> I felt the same I reported, wether I listened at -20 or -10...
> The bass lacks......... punch.
> 
> I know that it's not a "scientific" way to call it, but I think you guys understand what I'm trying to describe.
> 
> @*garygarrison* - mainly in movies. When I listen to music, the Tritons do a SPECTACULAR job (both in bass and imaging - I use pure direct mode, so, no sub is engaged)



Hi,

The chest punch phenomenon is an interesting subject, which some people have studied extensively. As Gary said, the range of human experience with chest punch can be pretty broad, but most people feel chest punch most strongly in the frequency range from 50Hz to 100Hz. One highly-regarded study found that the maximum effect was felt most strongly at an average of 63Hz. At least two subwoofer makers (SVS and Rythmik) offer pre-programmed PEQ, centered on that frequency, in some of their higher-end subs. 

The actual mechanism of chest punch is sympathetic resonance in the air-filled chest cavity, from a sudden percussive sound at the right frequency and volume. Gunshot scenes in any of the John Wick movies are often used to test chest punch. For most people, it takes at least 75 or 80dB, at the right frequencies to generate really noticeable chest punch sensations. I can feel light chest punch sensations at slightly lower volume levels than that, but our susceptibility to chest punch varies widely. That is probably due to a variety of reasons, including both physiological and neurological differences among listeners. 

It's possible that you may not be very susceptible to chest punch sensations to begin with. But, if you have felt strong chest punch sensations at rock concerts and in IMAX theaters, then you should be able to duplicate those sensations, at least to some extent, at home. There are several potential explanations for why you aren't feeling much, if you have fairly normal sensitivity. 

First, you may not be using high enough volume levels to experience the kind of sensations that you are expecting to feel. And, your current subwoofer may not be quite powerful enough to get you what you want. As you raise your subwoofer volume, it also has to play lower-frequencies louder, and those put more strain on the sub. 

You can try doing what Gary suggested, with the bass tone controls on your Tritons (for movies), and you can try turning-up the gain control on your subwoofer, post-calibration. You are trying to hold your AVR trim level at about -5, but you can still increase the subwoofer gain. You might also try implementing cascading crossovers. That will concentrate a little more subwoofer SPL below 80Hz. You can read about that technique in Section III-C of the Guide, linked in my signature. 

It is also possible that you are experiencing a null, somewhere in the mid-bass range, that coincides with the frequencies where you would normally be feeling chest punch. If so, you can try moving your sub around a bit in an effort to find a location that works better for those frequencies. Again, you might use a John Wick gunfight scene to test this. Proximity helps with tactile sensations, so getting your sub closer to your listening position could also be helpful. 

If you are experiencing a dip in your FR, at the wrong frequencies for chest punch, you might need REW to detect the problem. But, trying a sub crawl, as suggested above, is probably the next best thing. If you can't fix the problem with anything I have mentioned, and you decide that this is really important to you, there is one other thing you can try. 

Some people, who can't get the chest punch they want in any other way, use a ported mid-bass module (MBM) with a tuning point around 55 or 60Hz to obtain strong chest punch. The following thread will tell you everything you need to know about that, as well as recommending relatively inexpensive MBM's to use.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html

God luck! I hope that some of this helps. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bluesky636

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The chest punch phenomenon is an interesting subject, which some people have studied extensively. As Gary said, the range of human experience with chest punch can be pretty broad, but most people feel chest punch most strongly in the frequency range from 50Hz to 100Hz. One highly-regarded study found that the maximum effect was felt most strongly at an average of 63Hz. At least two subwoofer makers (SVS and Rythmik) offer pre-programmed PEQ, centered on that frequency, in some of their higher-end subs.
> 
> The actual mechanism of chest punch is sympathetic resonance in the air-filled chest cavity, from a sudden percussive sound at the right frequency and volume. Gunshot scenes in any of the John Wick movies are often used to test chest punch. For most people, it takes at least 75 or 80dB, at the right frequencies to generate really noticeable chest punch. I can feel light chest punch sensations at slightly lower volume levels than that, but out susceptibility to chest punch varies widely. That is probably due to a variety of reasons, including both physiological and neurological differences among listeners.
> 
> It's possible that you may not be very susceptible to chest punch sensations to begin with. But, if you have felt strong chest punch sensations at rock concerts and in IMAX theaters, then you should be able to duplicate those sensations, at least to some extent, at home. There are several potential explanations if you have fairly normal sensitivity.
> 
> First, you may not be using high enough volume levels to experience the kind of sensations that you are expecting to feel. And, your current subwoofer may not be quite powerful enough to get you what you want. As you raise your subwoofer volume, it also has to play lower-frequencies louder, and those put more strain on the sub.
> 
> You can try doing what Gary suggested, with the bass tone controls on your Tritons (for movies), and you can try turning-up the gain control on your subwoofer, post-calibration. You are trying to hold your AVR trim level at about -5, but you can still increase the subwoofer gain. You might also try implementing cascading crossovers. That will concentrate a little more subwoofer SPL below 80Hz. You can read about that technique in Section III-C of the Guide, linked in my signature.
> 
> It is possible that you are experiencing a null, somewhere in the mid-bass range, that coincides with the frequencies where you would normally be feeling chest punch. If so, you can try moving your sub around a bit in an effort to find a location that works better for those frequencies. Again, you might use a John Wick gunfight scene to test this. Proximity helps with tactile sensations, so getting your sub closer to your listening position could also be helpful.
> 
> If you are experiencing a dip in your FR, at the wrong frequencies for chest punch, you might need REW to detect the problem. But, trying a sub crawl, as suggested above, is probably the next best thing. If you can't fix the problem with anything I have mentioned, and you decide that this is really important to you, there is one other thing you can try. Some people, who can't get chest punch any other way, use a ported mid-bass module (MBM) with a tuning point around 55 or 60Hz to obtain strong chest punch. The following thread will tell you everything you need to know about that, as well as recommending relatively inexpensive MBM's to use.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html
> 
> God luck! I hope that some of this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Can't swear that I have ever experienced this phenomenon myself. Perhaps due to the fact I suffered permanent damage to both lungs due to a severe case of DVT several years ago after flying extensively. My cardiologist described my lungs as having a "***** load of clots" in both of them.

The closest example I can give is the scene in the terrorist camp where Iron Man comes out of the cave and one terrorist opens fire with a large caliber (50?) machine gun. The sound is devastating. My current system reproduces it quite well. Plus our house sits on a crawlspace and you can feel the bass through the floor up into the couch. Really cool.


----------



## grinch247

bluesky636 said:


> Here is my answer I posted in the 2018 Denon thread:
> 
> I would suggest pulling the center speaker out of the cabinet and place it just below the tv on the top shelf. Installed the way you have it can give speakers a hollow sound. Move the left and right speakers forward on the shelf to get them away from the front of the tv to avoid diffraction effects. Can't do much about the ceiling speakers. Rerun Audyssey.





10-4, thank for the advice.


Just pulling the front 2 forward made a big difference!


Still 40hz on Center though.....Cranked it up to 100hz and it sounds pretty good 


Mainly concerned now about surrounds and atmos crossover frequency...I am educating myself as fast as possible to better understand this sweet science 


I really appreciate the great wisdom you have given and what this forum offers


----------



## geodon005

*Surround/upfiring Atmos speaker placement*

I have 4 Klipsch R-625FA tower/built-in uprising Atmos speakers and have a question about placing the two speakers serving as surrounds in a 5.1.4 setup. I have seen Dolby's speaker placement guide, and they recommend that the surrounds be placed behind and toed in toward the main listening position. However, my listening room does not allow for behind-the-main listening position placement (not a wall behind, but too much exposed speaker cabling behind the sectional for WAF). If I place the surrounds paralleling the main listening position and aiming toward it and calibrate with the Audyssey app (I have XT32 in my Denon 4500), can I expect to get pretty good results with surround and Atmos effects? Also, any suggestions as to midrange compensation or setting a cutoff for the Audyssey curve with this arrangement?

Thanks for your help (not-quite-newbie but nowhere near audiophile here).


----------



## bluesky636

grinch247 said:


> 10-4, thank for the advice.
> 
> 
> Just pulling the front 2 forward made a big difference!
> 
> 
> Still 40hz on Center though.....Cranked it up to 100hz and it sounds pretty good
> 
> 
> Mainly concerned now about surrounds and atmos crossover frequency...I am educating myself as fast as possible to better understand this sweet science
> 
> 
> I really appreciate the great wisdom you have given and what this forum offers


Glad to hear things have improved a bit.


----------



## bluesky636

geodon005 said:


> I have 4 Klipsch R-625FA tower/built-in uprising Atmos speakers and have a question about placing the two speakers serving as surrounds in a 5.1.4 setup. I have seen Dolby's speaker placement guide, and they recommend that the surrounds be placed behind and toed in toward the main listening position. However, my listening room does not allow for behind-the-main listening position placement (not a wall behind, but too much exposed speaker cabling behind the sectional for WAF). If I place the surrounds paralleling the main listening position and aiming toward it and calibrate with the Audyssey app (I have XT32 in my Denon 4500), can I expect to get pretty good results with surround and Atmos effects? Also, any suggestions as to midrange compensation or setting a cutoff for the Audyssey curve with this arrangement?
> 
> Thanks for your help (not-quite-newbie but nowhere near audiophile here).


You make do with what you have. If it's all you can do, try it and find out. Should be ok.

With the problems I have read about using the app, I use Audyssey "the old fashioned way" and run it from the AVR itself.


----------



## C J

can someone point to the page numbers that cover Subwoofer/Bass tips for Audy? Changing distance, add Decibels before or after the tune etc. 



TIA


----------



## bluesky636

C J said:


> can someone point to the page numbers that cover Subwoofer/Bass tips for Audy? Changing distance, add Decibels before or after the tune etc.
> 
> 
> 
> TIA


Read post 1 and post 2.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2958528-guide-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html


----------



## Velimir Saban

bluesky636 said:


> It all depends on the gain structure of the sub amp. My HSU sub is set at 9 o'clock which gives me an Audyssey trim level of -3 dB after calibration. I then set the trim to 0 dB and the bass is terrific.



After a few tries I managed to get -5.5 after Audyssey setup. I moved sub from the wall a bit, and I think it s at about 9 o'clock now. I'll leave it this way for some time to feel the sound with some music and movies. The most important is that it is no longer -12. I guess I bought too powerful sub for my space


----------



## Edi-MC

bluesky636 said:


> No, I have no idea what you consider "punch" to be. Based on your original post, your setup runs counter to the guidance that has been provided in this and the sub calibration thread.
> I don't know what else to tell you to do. Good luck.


Right now, it does indeed. But only because when I calibrated it previously and got the sub trim to be at -11, the feeling was the same... like it is right now, it's "enjoyable" and impresses a little bit. But I have that tweaking OCD workin' against me! lol When I have the time I'll try to do a re-calibration and get the sub trim to -11 again and go from there. Thanks!



bluesky636 said:


> By the way, using pure direct mode not only turns the sub off, it also turns Audyssey off. There is no bass management at all.


Yes, I know. 
In fact, I may say that TO MY EARS, movie wise, I get better sound turning off Audyssey... it just sounds more natural and with more impact...
Many times I've wondered if it was worth the investment because it was the main cause why I bought the Marantz! And now I like the sound better without Audyssey?! It feels wrong to me, and I can't help to get the feeling that maybe I'm doing something wrong... again... OCD is killing me! lol


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> Right now, it does indeed. But only because when I calibrated it previously and got the sub trim to be at -11, the feeling was the same... like it is right now, it's "enjoyable" and impresses a little bit. But I have that tweaking OCD workin' against me! lol When I have the time I'll try to do a re-calibration and get the sub trim to -11 again and go from there. Thanks!
> 
> 
> Yes, I know.
> In fact, I may say that TO MY EARS, movie wise, I get better sound turning off Audyssey... it just sounds more natural and with more impact...
> Many times I've wondered if it was worth the investment because it was the main cause why I bought the Marantz! And now I like the sound better without Audyssey?! It feels wrong to me, and I can't help to get the feeling that maybe I'm doing something wrong... again... OCD is killing me! lol


I know what you mean. I am a bit OCD myself. Over 40 years as a systems engineer working on classified US govt programs, always trying to make things better. I have used Audyssey for a number of years and have a pretty good idea of how to make it sound good to me. I have lost a lot of HF hearing response and the way I have Audyssey set up would probably be too bright to most people but sounds perfect to me. I hate wearing my hearing aids while watching a movie.


----------



## bluesky636

Velimir Saban said:


> After a few tries I managed to get -5.5 after Audyssey setup. I moved sub from the wall a bit, and I think it s at about 9 o'clock now. I'll leave it this way for some time to feel the sound with some music and movies. The most important is that it is no longer -12. I guess I bought too powerful sub for my space


A sub can never be too powerful. 😁

Good luck.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

bluesky636 said:


> A sub can never be too powerful. 😁
> 
> Good luck.


Yes it Can!


----------



## bluesky636

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Yes it Can!


Geez. It was a joke. Lighten up man. 🙄


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

bluesky636 said:


> Geez. It was a joke. Lighten up man. 🙄


Did you consider that I was playing along? As I was. Sorry you took my comment as serious. It was a return joke.


----------



## pbarach

Edi-MC said:


> In fact, I may say that TO MY EARS, movie wise, I get better sound turning off Audyssey... it just sounds more natural and with more impact...



I have never found things sounding better with Audyssey off than with it on, and I'm using the app without limiting the correction range or editing the curver (I do turn MRC off). So to each his/her own taste...


----------



## bluesky636

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Did you consider that I was playing along? As I was. Sorry you took my comment as serious. It was a return joke.


Ok. Sorry too. Been a long past few days finishing building my new guitar studio.


----------



## Balbolito

Edi-MC said:


> Right now, it does indeed. But only because when I calibrated it previously and got the sub trim to be at -11, the feeling was the same... like it is right now, it's "enjoyable" and impresses a little bit. But I have that tweaking OCD workin' against me! lol When I have the time I'll try to do a re-calibration and get the sub trim to -11 again and go from there. Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know.
> 
> In fact, I may say that TO MY EARS, movie wise, I get better sound turning off Audyssey... it just sounds more natural and with more impact...
> 
> Many times I've wondered if it was worth the investment because it was the main cause why I bought the Marantz! And now I like the sound better without Audyssey?! It feels wrong to me, and I can't help to get the feeling that maybe I'm doing something wrong... again... OCD is killing me! lol


With my new setup i am only correcting my LCRs,side surrounds and back surrounds till 300hz. It does sound way better than full range audyssey. 

Even if i turn audyssey all the way off it still sounds better than running audyssey full range.

This is in my case and to my ears. 


Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

bluesky636 said:


> Ok. Sorry too. Been a long past few days finishing building my new guitar studio.


Happens to all of us. Don’t give it a second thought.


----------



## bluesky636

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Happens to all of us. Don’t give it a second thought.


Roger that. 👍


----------



## jsgrise

Balbolito said:


> With my new setup i am only correcting my LCRs,side surrounds and back surrounds till 300hz. It does sound way better than full range audyssey.
> 
> Even if i turn audyssey all the way off it still sounds better than running audyssey full range.
> 
> This is in my case and to my ears.
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk




Would love to be able to play with the app, bummer my SR7010 does not support it. 

These tweaks would come in handy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balbolito

jsgrise said:


> Would love to be able to play with the app, bummer my SR7010 does not support it.
> 
> These tweaks would come in handy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I had a Marantz 7703 that was more than enough for my needs, had to sell it then upgraded to the 8805 mainly for the multeq app. 

And it is totaly worth it. happy that i did.

Going to keep it for at least another couple of years. most likely 3. 

A good thing there is going to be an upgrade board for the 8805 around summer so that should future-proof it a bit more too.





Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrRobotoPlus

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The chest punch phenomenon is an interesting subject, which some people have studied extensively. As Gary said, the range of human experience with chest punch can be pretty broad, but most people feel chest punch most strongly in the frequency range from 50Hz to 100Hz. One highly-regarded study found that the maximum effect was felt most strongly at an average of 63Hz. *At least two subwoofer makers (SVS and Rythmik) offer pre-programmed PEQ, centered on that frequency*, in some of their higher-end subs.


Where can I see, if any, a graph about their implementation via PEQ?


----------



## jsgrise

Balbolito said:


> I had a Marantz 7703 that was more than enough for my needs, had to sell it then upgraded to the 8805 mainly for the multeq app.
> 
> And it is totaly worth it. happy that i did.
> 
> Going to keep it for at least another couple of years. most likely 3.
> 
> A good thing there is going to be an upgrade board for the 8805 around summer so that should future-proof it a bit more too.
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


What do you like the most about the app vs non-app Audyssey?

The AV8805 is on my shopping list, did you notice a sound improvement over the 7703 other that Audyssey app? The 8805 has better components across the board (power supply, DACs, etc.) so I am very curious.


----------



## Balbolito

jsgrise said:


> What do you like the most about the app vs non-app Audyssey?
> 
> 
> 
> The AV8805 is on my shopping list, did you notice a sound improvement over the 7703 other that Audyssey app? The 8805 has better components across the board (power supply, DACs, etc.) so I am very curious.


The app has a lot of features that are super useful. a few from the top of my head

1. turning off MRC which can improve sound in most setups.
2. creating a house curve that closely matches most speakers natural respone which is most likely better than the basic audyssey ref and flat curves. 
3. creating unlimited profiles that only need a minute to send to the avr so you could compare each one and see which you prefer.
4. limiting correctinon to a certain frequency usually at or a little above your room's schroeder frequency. 

And several more.

And if i compare the 7703 vs 8805

the 8805 definitely has better sound. more features and better build quality. add to that the release of the upgrade board for the 8805 around summer which will also let it live a few years more. so it is more future-proof.

Also i used to have the Audyssey pro kit a couple of years back and i just like the app way more as it is much more convenient and easier. no need for a pc and lots of connections and so on.

Hope that helps



Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

Balbolito said:


> The app has a lot of features that are super useful. a few from the top of my head
> 
> 1. turning off MRC which can improve sound in most setups.
> 2. creating a house curve that closely matches most speakers natural respone which is most likely better than the basic audyssey ref and flat curves.
> 3. creating unlimited profiles that only need a minute to send to the avr so you could compare each one and see which you prefer.
> 4. limiting correctinon to a certain frequency usually at or a little above your room's schroeder frequency.
> 
> And several more.
> 
> And if i compare the 7703 vs 8805
> 
> the 8805 definitely has better sound. more features and better build quality. add to that the release of the upgrade board for the 8805 around summer which will also let it live a few years more. so it is more future-proof.
> 
> Also i used to have the Audyssey pro kit a couple of years back and i just like the app way more as it is much more convenient and easier. no need for a pc and lots of connections and so on.
> 
> Hope that helps
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk




I am thinking about getting an Audyssey pro kit. Is it still a superior solution in terms of performance over the App?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Balbolito

jsgrise said:


> I am thinking about getting an Audyssey pro kit. Is it still a superior solution in terms of performance over the App?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


honestly i didn't compare both. as i went from the kit to the audyssey in the avr for a while then jumped to the app. i don't think i am going back to the kit as it was a hassle to connect and use. i even sold it a while back and i never liked too much cables and the fact that i have to use a laptop for it. i just like how easy it is to connect with the app in seconds and do everything from my phone. 

One thing i dont think the 8805 would support the pro kit as Audyssey stopped the support for units released early 2017 till now. someone correct me if i am wrong.








Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Using the Audyssey App or the Pro kit, would it be possible to use Dynamic EQ with applying correction to speakers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

jsgrise said:


> Using the Audyssey App or the Pro kit, would it be possible to use Dynamic EQ with applying correction to speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Your question is unclear. 

To use Dynamic EQ or Dynamic Volume you have to run the Audyssey calibration and turn Audyssey on.


----------



## jsgrise

bluesky636 said:


> Your question is unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> To use Dynamic EQ or Dynamic Volume you have to run the Audyssey calibration and turn Audyssey on.




I believed that maybe you could turn off correction for all channels but still be able to use DEQ.

Can you disable correction for specific channels? Ie: Subwoofer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

jsgrise said:


> I believed that maybe you could turn off correction for all channels but still be able to use DEQ.
> 
> Can you disable correction for specific channels? Ie: Subwoofer
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Then try it and find out.

I don't use the app and I know that is how it works in the receiver. I don't know why it would work differently with the app since those two settings depend on the Audyssey calibration settings.


----------



## jsgrise

bluesky636 said:


> Then try it and find out.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't use the app and I know that is how it works in the receiver. I don't know why it would work differently with the app since those two settings depend on the Audyssey calibration settings.




I don’t have the app, my receiver do not support it and why I ask here. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

jsgrise said:


> I don’t have the app, my receiver do not support it and why I ask here.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again, your question is unclear. 

Does your receiver not support Audyssey or it has Audyssey but is not a model that supports the app?


----------



## mthomas47

jsgrise said:


> Would love to be able to play with the app, bummer my SR7010 does not support it.
> 
> These tweaks would come in handy.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





jsgrise said:


> I am thinking about getting an Audyssey pro kit. Is it still a superior solution in terms of performance over the App?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





jsgrise said:


> Using the Audyssey App or the Pro kit, would it be possible to use Dynamic EQ with applying correction to speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Hi,

The short answer to your last question is yes! DEQ is implemented automatically any time an Audyssey calibration is run. It is a separate software program, which is independent of the EQ that Audyssey performs. *As long as Audyssey is turned on, DEQ can be on.*

If I were you, I would forget about Audyssey Pro. A number of people used Audyssey Pro with Audyssey XT. Once XT-32 was introduced, the majority of people who had been using Pro found that it was no longer particularly helpful, compared to what XT-32 was doing on its own. As I recall, most, or all of them, sold their Pro kits to people who didn't have XT-32. It is old technology now! And, since you already have XT-32, I think that you would find it to be a waste of time and money.

Besides that, there are better alternatives available. One alternative would be what you have already discussed--buying an AVP or AVR which will allow you to use the Audyssey app. Personally, I wouldn't upgrade my AVR just for the app, unless you also have other reasons for upgrading, but that is certainly a personal decision that you will need to make.

Another alternative to either the Pro kit or to the app, would be to add a miniDSP HD to your system. That will give you quite a bit of ability to independently EQ your system. The miniDSP would typically be used after XT-32, in order to fine tune a calibration, but it can be used in other ways as well.

Absent some serious problems that I were trying to fix, that XT-32 alone doesn't seem able to handle, I would probably just wait until I was ready to upgrade to another AVR or AVP, anyway. And, I would give the $20 app a try, at that time. Depending on how well the app worked, you could still explore the use of a miniDSP. 

But, I would not bother to mess with the Pro kit, in any case. It seemed to be helpful back in about 2011 or 2012, for some older versions of Audyssey. But, once XT-32 was introduced (I believe in 2013) its usefulness declined sharply.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bluesky636

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The short answer to your last question is yes! DEQ is implemented automatically any time an Audyssey calibration is run. It is a separate software program, which is independent of the EQ that Audyssey performs. As long as Audyssey is turned on, DEQ can be on.


I believe the OP wants to know if DEQ can be used with Audyssey turned off. I believe the answer is no.


----------



## jsgrise

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The short answer to your last question is yes! DEQ is implemented automatically any time an Audyssey calibration is run. It is a separate software program, which is independent of the EQ that Audyssey performs. *As long as Audyssey is turned on, DEQ can be on.*
> 
> If I were you, I would forget about Audyssey Pro. A number of people used Audyssey Pro with Audyssey XT. Once XT-32 was introduced, the majority of people who had been using Pro found that it was no longer particularly helpful, compared to what XT-32 was doing on its own. As I recall, most, or all of them, sold their Pro kits to people who didn't have XT-32. It is old technology now! And, since you already have XT-32, I think that you would find it to be a waste of time and money.
> 
> Besides that, there are better alternatives available. One alternative would be what you have already discussed--buying an AVP or AVR which will allow you to use the Audyssey app. Personally, I wouldn't upgrade my AVR just for the app, unless you also have other reasons for upgrading, but that is certainly a personal decision that you will need to make.
> 
> Another alternative to either the Pro kit or to the app, would be to add a miniDSP HD to your system. That will give you quite a bit of ability to independently EQ your system. The miniDSP would typically be used after XT-32, in order to fine tune a calibration, but it can be used in other ways as well.
> 
> Absent some serious problems that I were trying to fix, that XT-32 alone doesn't seem able to handle, I would probably just wait until I was ready to upgrade to another AVR or AVP, anyway. And, I would give the $20 app a try, at that time. Depending on how well the app worked, you could still explore the use of a miniDSP.
> 
> But, I would not bother to mess with the Pro kit, in any case. It seemed to be helpful back in about 2011 or 2012, for some older versions of Audyssey. But, once XT-32 was introduced (I believe in 2013) its usefulness declined sharply.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike





bluesky636 said:


> I believe the OP wants to know if DEQ can be used with Audyssey turned off. I believe the answer is no.


 @bluesky636 you were right, my question wasn't clear since I mean't if DEQ could be turned on while disabling correction on all speakers (sorry for the typo)? If it's not possible, is there a workaround like leaving correction on only for 1 or 2 speakers, or limiting correction to a very low frequency?

Mike, thank you so much for your help. Since I am running Front Wides, the only other pre amp compatible would be the AV8805 but it ain't cheap. At $6000CAD, I rather give a shot to the pro kit at around $500. 

Aside from the user friendly interface, is there anything that to MultEQ app can do that the Pro kit cannot, or vice versa?


----------



## bluesky636

jsgrise said:


> @bluesky636 you were right, my question wasn't clear since I mean't if DEQ could be turned on while disabling correction on all speakers (sorry for the typo)? If it's not possible, is there a workaround like leaving correction on only for 1 or 2 speakers, or limiting correction to a very low frequency?
> 
> Mike, thank you so much for your help. Since I am running Front Wides, the only other pre amp compatible would be the AV8805 but it ain't cheap. At $6000CAD, I rather give a shot to the pro kit at around $500.
> 
> Aside from the user friendly interface, is there anything that to MultEQ app can do that the Pro kit cannot, or vice versa?


If the AVR is not compatible with the app, I don't believe there is anything you can do.


----------



## jsgrise

bluesky636 said:


> If the AVR is not compatible with the app, I don't believe there is anything you can do.


I know but let's say I had a compatible processor.


----------



## bluesky636

jsgrise said:


> I know but let's say I had a compatible processor.


Suggest you review the Audyssey app thread: 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2806249-multeq-editor-new-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## mcody

Hi forum
I am getting a Marantz 6013 tomorrow and only want to apply the room correction to 500hz and below.

How would I do that?

Thanks for any help.


----------



## j_at_audyssey

jsgrise said:


> is there anything that to MultEQ app can do that the Pro kit cannot, or vice versa?


The app allows +/- 12dB target curve editing, pro kit only allowed +/- 3dB. 
Pro kit allowed target curve editing individual channels, app does channel pairs.
App allows setting a max room correction frequency, kit did not. (You could use this to disable correction on channels)
Pro kit had subwoofer blending that adjusted with a dropdown menu of crossover options with most recommended crossovers at the top of the dropdown. 
And the pro kit used an individually calibrated microphone.

Further edit: The app works on modern hardware, where as the kit software was made to work on OS's that have now been discontinued by Microsoft.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

jsgrise said:


> Using the Audyssey App or the Pro kit, would it be possible to use Dynamic EQ with applying correction to speakers?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


In a way, yes you could. The App allows you to limit the frequency range that Audyssey corrects. So you could set the the app to stop correcting at say 200hz or 150hz. Still have Audyssey engaged for the subs but not really touching the other speakers. In this configuration DEQ will be available and work.

The best feature of the App over the built in Audyssey in my opinion. Is the ability to create personal curves that load into the AVR wirelessly in under 2 mins. I use a full range cal for movies and tv. Then load a 150hz limited curve for Music. It’s what I always wanted Audyssey to be able to do. Damn near on the fly EQ control guided by the Audyssey algorithm.

Hope that helps answer your questions.

Edit: Forgot to mention I am assuming you intended to say “Would it be possible to use DEQ without applying correction to speakers”. I hope my assumption was correct.


----------



## bluesky636

mcody said:


> Hi forum
> I am getting a Marantz 6013 tomorrow and only want to apply the room correction to 500hz and below.
> 
> How would I do that?
> 
> Thanks for any help.



Use the MultEQ App discussed in this thread: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## jsgrise

j_at_audyssey said:


> The app allows +/- 12dB target curve editing, pro kit only allowed +/- 3dB.
> Pro kit allowed target curve editing individual channels, app does channel pairs.
> App allows setting a max room correction frequency, kit did not. (You could use this to disable correction on channels)
> Pro kit had subwoofer blending that adjusted with a dropdown menu of crossover options with most recommended crossovers at the top of the dropdown.
> And the pro kit used an individually calibrated microphone.
> 
> Further edit: The app works on modern hardware, where as the kit software was made to work on OS's that have now been discontinued by Microsoft.


 @j_at_audyssey thanks a lot for all that information, that's exactly what I needed to know. I guess I'll forget about the Pro kit in that case!



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> In a way, yes you could. The App allows you to limit the frequency range that Audyssey corrects. So you could set the the app to stop correcting at say 200hz or 150hz. Still have Audyssey engaged for the subs but not really touching the other speakers. In this configuration DEQ will be available and work.
> 
> The best feature of the App over the built in Audyssey in my opinion. Is the ability to create personal curves that load into the AVR wirelessly in under 2 mins. I use a full range cal for movies and tv. Then load a 150hz limited curve for Music. It’s what I always wanted Audyssey to be able to do. Damn near on the fly EQ control guided by the Audyssey algorithm.
> 
> Hope that helps answer your questions.
> 
> Edit: Forgot to mention I am assuming you intended to say “Would it be possible to use DEQ without applying correction to speakers”. I hope my assumption was correct.


 @Adamg (Ret-Navy) Thank you so much! Do you know what is the lowest frequency correction limit that the App will allow you to set?


----------



## bluesky636

jsgrise said:


> @j_at_audyssey thanks a lot for all that information, that's exactly what I needed to know. I guess I'll forget about the Pro kit in that case!
> 
> 
> 
> @Adamg (Ret-Navy) Thank you so much! Do you know what is the lowest frequency correction limit that the App will allow you to set?


The "Schroeder Point" is around 150 Hz or so which is about where I have read most people set the cutoff. I don't use the app (I've read too many people having problems with it) and am happy using Audyssey setup in the AVR over the full range.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

jsgrise said:


> @Adamg (Ret-Navy) Thank you so much! Do you know what is the lowest frequency correction limit that the App will allow you to set?


Hi jsgrise,

You are very welcome. 

Good question. I never thought to look at this lower limit. So I opened the App and took a look. To the best of my knowledge it looks like 20Hz is the lowest EQ limit using the MultEQ App. Of course that is applied individually to each Speaker Channel. So you could decide what you want specifically for each Speaker individually.

BTW, there is an AVS Forum User created program called "ratbuddyssey" that allows you to more finer tune the App parameters using a Laptop or Computer. This program may allow you to go even lower than the 20hz limit in the MultiEQ App. I have not used it, so I am making an educated guess on what I have read about it. Here is a link to the Thread for more information about this AVR User Created Program:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/3006886-announcing-ratbuddyssey-tool-tweaking-audyssey-multeq-app-files.html#post56912816


----------



## jsgrise

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi jsgrise,
> 
> You are very welcome.
> 
> Good question. I never thought to look at this lower limit. So I opened the App and took a look. To the best of my knowledge it looks like 20Hz is the lowest EQ limit using the MultEQ App. Of course that is applied individually to each Speaker Channel. So you could decide what you want specifically for each Speaker individually.
> 
> BTW, the is an AVS Forum User created program called "ratbuddyssey" that allows you to more finer tune the App parameters using a Laptop or Computer. This program may allow you to go even lower than the 20hz limit in the MultiEQ App. I have not used it, so I am making an educated guess on what I have read about it. Here is a link to the Thread for more information about this AVR User Created Program:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/3006886-announcing-ratbuddyssey-tool-tweaking-audyssey-multeq-app-files.html#post56912816


Great tips!! Big THANKS Adam for your help! 20Hz should be low enough to "disable" (sort off) Audyssey while keeping DEQ on.

I might need an AV8805 now


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

jsgrise said:


> Great tips!! Big THANKS Adam for your help! 20Hz should be low enough to "disable" (sort off) Audyssey while keeping DEQ on.
> 
> I might need an AV8805 now


Hi jsgrise,

Happy I was able to help. Again using the Ratbuddyssey Program may allow you to go even lower if so inclined. Good luck on your adventure and please let us know how this all works out for you. I will be interested in hearing back from you about how limiting Audyssey to 20Hz or lower permits you to use Audyssey to access DEQ while cutting/limiting any EQ done to the rest of the Channels. This is a very interesting idea.

Have fun jsgrise!


----------



## jsgrise

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi jsgrise,
> 
> Happy I was able to help. Again using the Ratbuddyssey Program may allow you to go even lower if so inclined. Good luck on your adventure and please let us know how this all works out for you. I will be interested in hearing back from you about how limiting Audyssey to 20Hz or lower permits you to use Audyssey to access DEQ while cutting/limiting any EQ done to the rest of the Channels. This is a very interesting idea.
> 
> Have fun jsgrise!


Thanks mate! That is something I am looking forward too as I have mixed feeling to what Audyssey is doing to my subwoofers. Being able to play with the target curve and limiting the frequency range would be a big improvement I am sure.


----------



## residentsystems

jsgrise said:


> I know but let's say I had a compatible processor.




Yes you could do it.


----------



## Balbolito

bluesky636 said:


> The "Schroeder Point" is around 150 Hz or so which is about where I have read most people set the cutoff. I don't use the app (I've read too many people having problems with it) and am happy using Audyssey setup in the AVR over the full range.


It depends on room size. its different everytime for the Schroeder frequency. Also i think most people set the cutoff a bit above the schroeder frequency say like 300-500hz. 

Also you should give the app a try it is superior to the Audyssey in the avr. many more features. 

No issues on my phone. they released several firmware updates last couple of months. think most bugs/issues were sorted out. Talking about the android version. don't know ios.









Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Balbolito said:


> It depends on room size. its different everytime for the Schroeder frequency. Also i think most people set the cutoff a bit above the schroeder frequency say like 300-500hz.
> 
> Also you should give the app a try it is superior to the Audyssey in the avr. many more features.
> 
> No issues on my phone. they released several firmware updates last couple of months. think most bugs/issues were sorted out. Talking about the android version. don't know ios.
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk





Thanks for the info.


I've got both movies and music sounding really good (to my ears anyway) so I think I will just keep things as is for right now.


----------



## Balbolito

bluesky636 said:


> I've got both movies and music sounding really good .


That is what i thought till i limited correction to 300hz and listened for a few mins. difference was night and day. 

Don't get me wrong i like Audyssey and have used it for at least the last ten years or so. and i am planning to keep my Marantz at least for another couple of years. I also think it does an amazing job for a lot of people. But once most of it was off except for the trouble frequencies at Schroder and below (where the room changes the sound) it sounded simply much better, most people who are using the app are limiting correction because they want to hear more of the natural in-room response of their speakers without any Audyssey filters/corrections.

When i go back to full range Audyssey now just to compare it sounds thin and speech is harder to understand. the majority of sound is too bright and just doesn't sound natural.i don't know how to describe it other than it is a mess. i don't like honestly to describe sound but this is just to give you an idea how it sounds in my room to my ears.i think a few people would agree too.






Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## libertyguy20

just posted questions about this stuff elsewhere.....what good is it to be able to set a target curve if you can only do that for each speaker? What is the overall frequency response curve MultEQ app or Audyssey is targeting with all speakers playing. Remembering, errantly mind you, my car audio days and understanding then it was all about balancing for stereo....I know it is more about multichannel for moviews today. 


I just don't know 1) what home audio target curve I should strive for or start with, 2) what MultEQ or Audyssey is attempting to achieve apart from individual target curves, nor do I know how to go about getting a specific curve I want using the editing feature of the target curve function in MultiEQ app.


----------



## pbz06

Balbolito said:


> That is what i thought till i limited correction to 300hz and listened for a few mins. difference was night and day.
> 
> Don't get me wrong i like Audyssey and have used it for at least the last ten years or so. and i am planning to keep my Marantz at least for another couple of years. I also think it does an amazing job for a lot of people. But once most of it was off except for the trouble frequencies at Schroder and below (where the room changes the sound) it sounded simply much better, most people who are using the app are limiting correction because they want to hear more of the natural in-room response of their speakers without any Audyssey filters/corrections.
> 
> When i go back to full range Audyssey now just to compare it sounds thin and speech is harder to understand. the majority of sound is too bright and just doesn't sound natural.i don't know how to describe it other than it is a mess. i don't like honestly to describe sound but this is just to give you an idea how it sounds in my room to my ears.i think a few people would agree too.
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


It would depend on a lot of factors and variables, but in my system there's very little difference between the two and I've gone back and forth so many times, but ultimately found full range to be a tad better (right now I'm using Flat + CinemaEQ). It just sounded a hair more precise. I've taken careful steps to follow every guide and "rule of thumb" in my room setup, speaker layout etc. so maybe that's why.

Believe it or not, XT32 does very little in the high end anyway. Several members have posted before/after graphs on various forums, and I sometimes get the sense that confirmation bias plays in effect when people jump straight to the "Audyssey sucks, terrible" conclusion (not saying you are but I see a lot of that online). Without knowing their setup, room, knowledge, patience and acceptance to tweak/learn, it's all just a grain of salt. 

Ultimately, everyone should just try it for themselves and come to their conclusion with a clean slate and understand what each method does. There's a lot of science behind limiting, but there's also a lot of science behind full range. As Mike would say, YMMV


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> Ultimately, everyone should just try it for themselves and come to their conclusion with a clean slate and understand what each method does. There's a lot of science behind limiting, but there's also a lot of science behind full range. As Mike would say, YMMV



To whom it may concern!

This is what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) says on full range or no full range:

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

I tend to agree with this. For me stereo imaging is utmost important, but YMMV!


----------



## bluesky636

I am very happy with the sound that Audyssey provides in my home and see no reason to change how I set it up or use the app. 👍 😊


----------



## garygarrison

Balbolito said:


> That is what i thought till i limited correction to 300hz and listened for a few mins. difference was night and day.
> 
> Don't get me wrong i like Audyssey and have used it for at least the last ten years or so. and i am planning to keep my Marantz at least for another couple of years. I also think it does an amazing job for a lot of people. But once most of it was off except for the trouble frequencies at Schroder and below (where the room changes the sound) it sounded simply much better, most people who are using the app are limiting correction because they want to hear more of the natural in-room response of their speakers without any Audyssey filters/corrections.
> 
> When i go back to full range Audyssey now just to compare it sounds thin and speech is harder to understand. the majority of sound is too bright and just doesn't sound natural.i don't know how to describe it other than it is a mess. i don't like honestly to describe sound but this is just to give you an idea how it sounds in my room to my ears.i think a few people would agree too.



Every once in a while, we hear of a case in which Audyssey -- or full range Audyssey -- makes the sound worse. I'm always curious about the circumstances, because full range Audyssey makes the sound better for me, in my room. I understand it might be a matter of personal taste (e.g., I like slightly bright sound, sometimes a tad over-bright, if it is not strident). 



Because your JBLs are incredibly flat above Schroder (contenders for the smoothest ever), I suppose that if, for the sake of argument, your room is essentially *neutral*, you might not need Audyssey for middle and high frequencies. So, I'm just curious -- what is your room like? About what percent of the surfaces have absorbent material on them (including carpet)? Any diffusers? Natural diffusion (bookshelves, pottery, etc.)? Do you have absorbers or diffusers at the first reflection points? Room dimensions, including height? Thanks.


Addendum: I wonder what Audyssey is doing to screw up the sound above Schroder. It occurs to me that your description of what full range Audyssey does -- "the majority of sound is too bright and just doesn't sound natural" -- fits the state of many rock, pop, and metal recordings, and at least a few classical and jazz recordings today, due to deliberately bright mixes in the "loudness wars." IMO, their practices often bring distortion forward. That's why some people are de-mastering their CDs. It's a stretch, but it's conceivable (to me) that your room, particularly if it is on the highly absorbent side, is beneficently "de-mastering" your recordings, and full range Audyssey, by returning your room to reference, is undoing that.


----------



## Balbolito

garygarrison said:


> Every once in a while, we hear of a case in which Audyssey -- or full range Audyssey -- makes the sound worse. I'm always curious about the circumstances, because full range Audyssey makes the sound better for me, in my room. I understand it might be a matter of personal taste (e.g., I like slightly bright sound, sometimes a tad over-bright, if it is not strident).
> 
> 
> 
> Because your JBLs are incredibly flat above Schroder (contenders for the smoothest ever), I suppose that if, for the sake of argument, your room is essentially *neutral*, you might not need Audyssey for middle and high frequencies. So, I'm just curious -- what is your room like? About what percent of the surfaces have absorbent material on them (including carpet)? Any diffusers? Natural diffusion (bookshelves, pottery, etc.)? Do you have absorbers or diffusers at the first reflection points? Room dimensions, including height? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Addendum: I wonder what Audyssey is doing to screw up the sound above Schroder. It occurs to me that your description of what full range Audyssey does -- "the majority of sound is too bright and just doesn't sound natural" -- fits the state of many rock, pop, and metal recordings, and at least a few classical and jazz recordings today, due to deliberately bright mixes in the "loudness wars." IMO, their practices often bring distortion forward. That's why some people are de-mastering their CDs. It's a stretch, but it's conceivable (to me) that your room, particularly if it is on the highly absorbent side, is beneficently "de-mastering" your recordings, and full range Audyssey, by returning your room to reference, is undoing that.


Room is 15x21x10 so to begin with i think this is a good HT size. its not a family or media room. i dont have many highly reflective surfaces maybe one small window that is about 5x5 ft , the door and if you want to consider three big black leather HT chairs.

All first reflection points have absorbtion panels and i have four big bass traps in corners. ceiling is covered with absorbtion panels too. 

floor has a thick carpet on it.

you are also right about my speakers being flat above schroeder as you mentioned that is why i like their natural in-room response. even most people behind them like Dr Toole for one recommends not to EQ them above schroeder in many of his books and even on AVS.

My three M2's are behind my AT screen. so are my two subs. my four surrounds are on little custom wooden shelves on-wall. the rest which are six ceiling speakers are installed with their backboxes and grilles in my ceiling. For all my equipment i have a custom wooden rack with four wheels on the right of my FR speaker (about 1-1.5ft away). it is behind a door that has black acosutic fabric. barely shows the light of my amps and marantz. 

Btw i had Audyssey XT then XT32 running full range on my old setup for at least 7 years and i liked the sound for those speakers (Atlantic 8200e main five speaker then the rest were 4400e) . the room also had the ceiling untreated at the time so less absorption overall. 





Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Balbolito said:


> Room is 15x21x10 so to begin with i think this is a good HT size. its not a family or media room. i dont have many highly reflective surfaces maybe one small window that is about 5x5 ft , the door and if you want to consider three big black leather HT chairs.
> 
> All first reflection points have absorbtion panels and i have four big bass traps in corners. ceiling is covered with absorbtion panels too.
> 
> floor has a thick carpet on it.
> 
> you are also right about my speakers being flat above schroeder as you mentioned that is why i like their natural in-room response. even most people behind them like Dr Toole for one recommends not to EQ them above schroeder in many of his books and even on AVS.
> 
> My three M2's are behind my AT screen. so are my two subs. my four surrounds are on little custom wooden shelves on-wall. the rest which are six ceiling speakers are installed with their backboxes and grilles in my ceiling. For all my equipment i have a custom wooden rack with four wheels on the right of my FR speaker (about 1-1.5ft away). it is behind a door that has black acosutic fabric. barely shows the light of my amps and marantz.
> 
> Btw i had Audyssey XT then XT32 running full range on my old setup for at least 7 years and i liked the sound for those speakers (Atlantic 8200e main five speaker then the rest were 4400e) . the room also had the ceiling untreated at the time so less absorption overall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


With your room setup, treatment, and flat speakers...I doubt XT32 is even making any changes in the high frequencies. Have you measured? It just seems odd that it would make it sound "worse", because that's not my experience at all and neither is it from a lot of people who have measured. Most people that hate the idea of full range weren't going to get convinced going in, or had bad experiences with older versions.


----------



## Balbolito

pbz06 said:


> With your room setup, treatment, and flat speakers...I doubt XT32 is even making any changes in the high frequencies. Have you measured? It just seems odd that it would make it sound "worse", because that's not my experience at all and neither is it from a lot of people who have measured. Most people that hate the idea of full range weren't going to get convinced going in, or had bad experiences with older versions.


Didn't do any measurements except if you count the ones that Audyssey shows in the app. which to start with are only assumptions? 

But when i look at my before audyssey pic the response of my LCRs has a slight downward tilt starting from the low frequencies and goes to about 7-8db below 0 at the far right end, as this is how they should be in a room and it's nearly identical to the response other ppl post of their M2s. This is also close to the Harman curve that is preferred by many. or other similar "house" curves. so i guess i don't need any curves. the only thing/curve i added was a slight boost to the lows so i could use some of the room gain that i have and that is about it.

If XT32 in my case (considering the after pic that we have in the app) is trying to create that nice flat line with a small HF roll-off(reference curve) then it is boosting my mids and some of my highs starting from around 1k. As they were below 0 and its trying make that line straight and look pretty and remove all those dips and peaks. So i think that is why i am not enjoying what i am hearing with full range EQ. tried Ref and Flat, same thing in my case but if i had to compare i would prefer the reference curve. i think a very important aspect at the end is how it all sounds to our ears in our room. 



Another thing i noticed is that speech/dialogue (most of the vocal range)which is like from the high lows to the low mids when XT32 is engaged sounds too thin and sometimes boxy. it even in some movies has a honky sound if i could say that. It's just not natural when you hear it then compare to XT32 off or limited. I think someone with similar speakers can also agree on this. Most M2 owners have limited correction whether they were using Audyssey or another form of correction, same for the smaller 7-Series JBL pro speakers (705/707). Same goes to sound of bullets,glass and explotions are things i can think of they sound metallic,thin and harsh. 

In my opinion for mid-range speakers and lower XT32 does an amazing job overall. Full range EQ is good in those cases. Especially that it's an auto EQ system that removes most of the guessing work. Even without the app it does a decent job. mostly for smaller bookshelf, satellite, not very capable in-wall/in-ceiling and on-wall speakers are a few scenarios that i could think of. 

Again this is from my experience in my room using my speakers. 

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## sjm817

This may be of interest to the group. Using Ratbuddy with the multiEQ app you can see what the 8 position measurements look like. This is measurement, not after any filters are applied. Top is LF, bottom is RF. Its interesting how 200Hz and below the measurements are pretty consistent and above that, more variations. Im getting more room gain on the L speaker which with how they are positioned in my room makes sense.


----------



## adam2434

sjm817 said:


> This may be of interest to the group. Using Ratbuddy with the multiEQ app you can see what the 8 position measurements look like. This is measurement, not after any filters are applied. Top is LF, bottom is RF. Its interesting how 200Hz and below the measurements are pretty consistent and above that, more variations. Im getting more room gain on the L speaker which with how they are positioned in my room makes sense.


Interesting, your curves are a lot more consistent below 200 Hz vs. mine.

Do you use a very tight mic spacing?

-


----------



## sjm817

1-6 normal pattern. 7-8 in between and raised a couple inches

1 2 3
.7 8
4 5 6



adam2434 said:


> Interesting, your curves are a lot more consistent below 200 Hz vs. mine.
> 
> Do you use a very tight mic spacing?
> 
> -


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Hoping no one minds as ive never posted results before especially since still learning.. could anyone advise me how these look.. maybe even interpret correctly for me.. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sjm817

I moved about 4 months ago. The graphs I posted earlier are from current home. Below are graphs from the same speakers in the old house. Very different. I used a similar mic pattern.


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> With your room setup, treatment, and flat speakers...I doubt XT32 is even making any changes in the high frequencies. Have you measured? It just seems odd that it would make it sound "worse", because that's not my experience at all and neither is it from a lot of people who have measured. Most people that hate the idea of full range weren't going to get convinced going in, or had bad experiences with older versions.



One way that Audyssey might sound worse for some people is when playing hi-rez signals. Audyssey downsamples hi-res signals to 48kHz. In my system, music always sounds better with Audyssey on (FLAT), regardless of the file resolution.


----------



## mhweb

*Help understanding Audyssey automatic configuration against recommended settings*

If usually the recommended setting is to use "Small" for all speakers, why on a 5.1 configuration, running Audyssey sets the left and right, and center to "Large" and surround (back) speakers to 40Hz?
Shouldn't an automated system configure the safest settings?

PS: I'm using Polk S15 and S30 for left, right, center. Surround are also S15.


----------



## pbarach

mhweb said:


> If usually the recommended setting is to use "Small" for all speakers, why on a 5.1 configuration, running Audyssey sets the left and right, and center to "Large" and surround (back) speakers to 40Hz?
> Shouldn't an automated system configure the safest settings?
> 
> PS: I'm using Polk S15 and S30 for left, right, center. Surround are also S15.



Audyssey has explained that the AVR manufacturer, not the Audyssey software, makes this decision. I think pretty much all of us change the LARGE settings to SMALL and set the crossovers at 80 Hz (or higher, depending on the speaker capabilities).


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> Audyssey has explained that the AVR manufacturer, not the Audyssey software, makes this decision. I think pretty much all of us change the LARGE settings to SMALL and set the crossovers at 80 Hz (or higher, depending on the speaker capabilities).


As noted, Audyssey does not "set" a speaker "size". Audyssey measures and reports the lower -3 dB point of a speaker, where the bottom end of the speaker starts to roll off. That point could be 20 Hz, 60 Hz, 100Hz or anything. Depending on the location, my speaker's -3 dB points as reported by Audyssey are 40 Hz and 60 Hz. I then set the crossover to 80 Hz. 

Personally, I see no value in designating a speaker as "large" or "small" if Audyssey is reporting the -3 dB point of the speaker. I have seen posts here from people complaining that Audyssey has "set" their speakers to 120 Hz or higher. Does the AVR call that "large" or "small"? I have no idea. 

Introducing the terms "large" and "small" does nothing but cause confusion among users. Just report the -3 dB point of the speaker (Audyssey does already) and let me change the crossover point to what I choose (the AVR let's me do that already). DONE.


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> Hoping no one minds as ive never posted results before especially since still learning.. could anyone advise me how these look.. maybe even interpret correctly for me..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The subwoofer response pre-Audyssey leaves a lot to be desired. You have a roughly -14dB null between 30Hz - 60Hz. I would try as hard as possible to work on subwoofer placement to achieve a much flatter response pre-Audyssey. Audyssey is good, but there is no way it can fix a null that large.


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> The subwoofer response pre-Audyssey leaves a lot to be desired. You have a roughly -25dB to -28dB null between 30Hz - 60Hz. I would try as hard as possible to work on subwoofer placement to achieve a much flatter response pre-Audyssey. Audyssey is good, but there is no way it can fix a null that large.



What am I missing here? Referenced to 0 dB, before Audyssey I see a -10 dB null at 45 Hz along with some + peaks. After Audyssey, the peaks and nulls are gone.


----------



## mthomas47

bluesky636 said:


> What am I missing here? Referenced to 0 dB, before Audyssey I see a -10 dB null at 45 Hz along with some + peaks. After Audyssey, the peaks and nulls are gone.



Hi Bill, 

Alan may have been glancing a little too quickly at the magnitude of the deep null, but his essential point is still valid. It is very difficult for room correction to pull-up a null. The deeper or wider the area of cancellation, the more "difficult" becomes impossible. 

As the word "null" implies, it is an area where sound waves are cancelling. As you add boost to the area of cancellation, the boost is just absorbed by the inherent cancellation. It's sort of like an isometric exercise, where two simultaneous pushes create stasis. The harder one hand pushes, the harder the other hand pushes back, and the physical position never changes.

The other thing it is important to note is that the 'after' graph simply reflects what Audyssey is trying to accomplish. It does not reflect what Audyssey has actually done, because Audyssey has no way to self-measure its own actions. Audyssey measures the FR of each channel, and sets filters for that channel in an attempt to improve the FR. But, that's it--no after measurements.

In point of fact, the after graphs are typically optimistic at best, and useless at worst. The before graphs may be helpful in showing us problems that we may wish to be aware of. For instance, if we know that we have a large null, we might want to try moving our subwoofer, or playing with the distance setting, before running Audyssey again. But, the after graphs have very little value. In them, Audyssey is always creating a nice flat response. Not! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Alan may have been glancing a little too quickly at the magnitude of the deep null, but his essential point is still valid. It is very difficult for room correction to pull-up a null. The deeper or wider the area of cancellation, the more "difficult" becomes impossible.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



A while back I had a conversation with Chris Kyriakakis on the subject as follows:

Me: 
Recently I did some thinking to myself and came up with something like a brave idea. Well, ...brave to me, although this might have been brought up by others, so here goes.
Usually when we place the Audyssey mic (apart from MLP), we always have a guessing game whether its in the right position or not, and this dilemma is regardless of a multi-seater layout or a narrower one-man position.
So, to resolve the dilemma, how about doing/trying the following method in order to have first hand info (read: curves) of our room acoustics and its visible anomalies spot-by-spot:


1. Turn off Audyssey completely.
2. Set up the measuring rig for REW (or similar).
3. Take as many measurements as you can (20-30 maybe) around where you or your buddies will sit (optional), then average the results in REW. (Don't forget to take note of all the measurement spots, this info will be needed later on.)
4. Take a close scrutiny at all these measurement curves, overlap them in REW, note the similarities with regards to peaks and dips. Disregard where they are not similar.
5. Make a shortlist of 8 areas (1 MLP + 7 more) that are similar that you want to eq with Audyssey MultEQ.
6. Place the Audyssey mic to those selected areas and run MultEQ.

I know this procedure might be a bit tedious and time consuming, ...but hey,...are we in a hurry?









Chris: Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".

Just something to think about!


----------



## bluesky636

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> Alan may have been glancing a little too quickly at the magnitude of the deep null, but his essential point is still valid. It is very difficult for room correction to pull-up a null. The deeper or wider the area of cancellation, the more "difficult" becomes impossible.
> 
> As the word "null" implies, it is an area where sound waves are cancelling. As you add boost to the area of cancellation, the boost is just absorbed by the inherent cancellation. It's sort of like an isometric exercise, where two simultaneous pushes create stasis. The harder one hand pushes, the harder the other hand pushes back, and the physical position never changes.
> 
> The other thing it is important to note is that the 'after' graph simply reflects what Audyssey is trying to accomplish. It does not reflect what Audyssey has actually done, because Audyssey has no way to self-measure its own actions. Audyssey measures the FR of each channel, and sets filters for that channel in an attempt to improve the FR. But, that's it--no after measurements.
> 
> In point of fact, the after graphs are typically optimistic at best, and useless at worst. The before graphs may be helpful in showing us problems that we may wish to be aware of. For instance, if we know that we have a large null, we might want to try moving our subwoofer, or playing with the distance setting, before running Audyssey again. But, the after graphs have very little value. In them, Audyssey is always creating a nice flat response. Not!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thanks Mike.


I understand all about peaks and nulls, and standing waves, etc. If what you say about the after graph is true, then it would seem to be of no value yet people continuously post them and ask how they they look and people respond with "great", "sucks", "ok", etc.


----------



## Edi-MC

Balbolito said:


> With my new setup i am only correcting my LCRs,side surrounds and back surrounds till 300hz. It does sound way better than full range audyssey.
> 
> Even if i turn audyssey all the way off it still sounds better than running audyssey full range.
> 
> This is in my case and to my ears.


You do that by using the app? 
I wish I could but my 7009 isn't supported...






mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The chest punch phenomenon is an interesting subject, which some people have studied extensively. As Gary said, the range of human experience with chest punch can be pretty broad, but most people feel chest punch most strongly in the frequency range from 50Hz to 100Hz. One highly-regarded study found that the maximum effect was felt most strongly at an average of 63Hz. At least two subwoofer makers (SVS and Rythmik) offer pre-programmed PEQ, centered on that frequency, in some of their higher-end subs.
> 
> The actual mechanism of chest punch is sympathetic resonance in the air-filled chest cavity, from a sudden percussive sound at the right frequency and volume. Gunshot scenes in any of the John Wick movies are often used to test chest punch. For most people, it takes at least 75 or 80dB, at the right frequencies to generate really noticeable chest punch sensations. I can feel light chest punch sensations at slightly lower volume levels than that, but our susceptibility to chest punch varies widely. That is probably due to a variety of reasons, including both physiological and neurological differences among listeners.
> 
> It's possible that you may not be very susceptible to chest punch sensations to begin with. But, if you have felt strong chest punch sensations at rock concerts and in IMAX theaters, then you should be able to duplicate those sensations, at least to some extent, at home. There are several potential explanations for why you aren't feeling much, if you have fairly normal sensitivity.
> 
> First, you may not be using high enough volume levels to experience the kind of sensations that you are expecting to feel. And, your current subwoofer may not be quite powerful enough to get you what you want. As you raise your subwoofer volume, it also has to play lower-frequencies louder, and those put more strain on the sub.
> 
> You can try doing what Gary suggested, with the bass tone controls on your Tritons (for movies), and you can try turning-up the gain control on your subwoofer, post-calibration. You are trying to hold your AVR trim level at about -5, but you can still increase the subwoofer gain. You might also try implementing cascading crossovers. That will concentrate a little more subwoofer SPL below 80Hz. You can read about that technique in Section III-C of the Guide, linked in my signature.
> 
> It is also possible that you are experiencing a null, somewhere in the mid-bass range, that coincides with the frequencies where you would normally be feeling chest punch. If so, you can try moving your sub around a bit in an effort to find a location that works better for those frequencies. Again, you might use a John Wick gunfight scene to test this. Proximity helps with tactile sensations, so getting your sub closer to your listening position could also be helpful.
> 
> If you are experiencing a dip in your FR, at the wrong frequencies for chest punch, you might need REW to detect the problem. But, trying a sub crawl, as suggested above, is probably the next best thing. If you can't fix the problem with anything I have mentioned, and you decide that this is really important to you, there is one other thing you can try.
> 
> Some people, who can't get the chest punch they want in any other way, use a ported mid-bass module (MBM) with a tuning point around 55 or 60Hz to obtain strong chest punch. The following thread will tell you everything you need to know about that, as well as recommending relatively inexpensive MBM's to use.
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-mbm-increased-mid-bass-tactile-response.html
> 
> God luck! I hope that some of this helps.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you for the detailed answer and the time it took you to write it down!
Very informative and helpful indeed! I've been wanting to buy an Umik-1 to do proper measurements with REW... maybe I'll take the plunge shortly because I need to know what's happening (I also have the feeling that I might be experiencing a null...) ... and I'm the kind of guy who needs DATA! lol I mean, I trust my ears very much, but there are things one cannot fine tune just by listening... Regarding sub positioning, I am very limited... it can only be where it is right now (a little bit to the sides, but that's it):











I would like to ask you about how should I proceed in order to do a proper calibration as I think it might help if I do things a bit differently regarding mic positioning.
As you can see in the pictures below, my couch has a tall back cushion:



















When I sit down, my ears are below the top of the cushion... 
So, at what height should I place the mic when doing the last two measurements? 
If I place it behind the couch at ear level, it will be blocked by the cushion... is it ok to place it behind the couch, above ear level? And how far behind should I place it? 
If I place it right after the cushion, won't it pick up reflections? In that case, maybe I should use the "over the cushion blanket technique" to prevent it? 
The couch material is fabric, not leather...
Thank you in advance!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Hi Edi-MC,

Beautiful room. Very modern.

Two quick observations of the room pictures. Early reflections (this is when the sound coming out of a speaker hits a "reflective surface" before the sounds travels to the Listener) can and will interfere with what the Audyssey Mic hears during calibration. These early reflections can suboptimize the sound and resulting Audyssey Calibration filtr set(s).

So here are four recommendations about speaker placement in your room.

1. If you can pull the Center Channel Speaker to the very front edge of that shelf. You want the front edge to be right at the very edge or slightly overhanging the shelf. 

2. Same thing for the Front Left and Right Speakers. If you can pull them as far forward as you are able, to clear the shelf that the Center Speaker is sitting on. possibly move them a few inches to the outside, farther away as possible while remaining on that mantle piece.

3. Move that Yellow Chair so it is not blocking the sound form a direct path to the Couch. That chair is definitely blocking/interfering with sound transmission to your MLP.

4. Move the Table out of the way during Calibration. You can put it back afterwards. But that Table will also cause some early reflections issues as well as the shelves mentioned in 1. & 2.

Rerun Audyssey. These very minor changes may translate to some improvement in the Calibration results and the Sound of your System.

Good luck Sir!


----------



## Balbolito

Edi-MC said:


> You do that by using the app?
> 
> I wish I could but my 7009 isn't supported...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the detailed answer and the time it took you to write it down!
> 
> Very informative and helpful indeed! I've been wanting to buy an Umik-1 to do proper measurements with REW... maybe I'll take the plunge shortly because I need to know what's happening (I also have the feeling that I might be experiencing a null...) ... and I'm the kind of guy who needs DATA! lol I mean, I trust my ears very much, but there are things one cannot fine tune just by listening... Regarding sub positioning, I am very limited... it can only be where it is right now (a little bit to the sides, but that's it):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to ask you about how should I proceed in order to do a proper calibration as I think it might help if I do things a bit differently regarding mic positioning.
> 
> As you can see in the pictures below, my couch has a tall back cushion:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I sit down, my ears are below the top of the cushion...
> 
> So, at what height should I place the mic when doing the last two measurements?
> 
> If I place it behind the couch at ear level, it will be blocked by the cushion... is it ok to place it behind the couch, above ear level? And how far behind should I place it?
> 
> If I place it right after the cushion, won't it pick up reflections? In that case, maybe I should use the "over the cushion blanket technique" to prevent it?
> 
> The couch material is fabric, not leather...
> 
> Thank you in advance!


Yup with the app. main reason i sold my 7703 which was like a year old and got the 8805 was for the app. 

Btw very nice room love it! 

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Edi-MC said:


> You do that by using the app?
> I wish I could but my 7009 isn't supported...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the detailed answer and the time it took you to write it down!
> Very informative and helpful indeed! I've been wanting to buy an Umik-1 to do proper measurements with REW... maybe I'll take the plunge shortly because I need to know what's happening (I also have the feeling that I might be experiencing a null...) ... and I'm the kind of guy who needs DATA! lol I mean, I trust my ears very much, but there are things one cannot fine tune just by listening... Regarding sub positioning, I am very limited... it can only be where it is right now (a little bit to the sides, but that's it):
> 
> I would like to ask you about how should I proceed in order to do a proper calibration as I think it might help if I do things a bit differently regarding mic positioning.
> As you can see in the pictures below, my couch has a tall back cushion:
> 
> When I sit down, my ears are below the top of the cushion...
> So, at what height should I place the mic when doing the last two measurements?
> If I place it behind the couch at ear level, it will be blocked by the cushion... is it ok to place it behind the couch, above ear level? And how far behind should I place it?
> If I place it right after the cushion, won't it pick up reflections? In that case, maybe I should use the "over the cushion blanket technique" to prevent it?
> The couch material is fabric, not leather...
> Thank you in advance!


You would make the perfect roomate for me, haha.


----------



## Balbolito

#1 i only have three leather HT chairs in my room. The headrests are a bit higher than my head like most. my main goal is to get the best sound for the MLP so i usualy do 8 close measurements in the MLP. for position one should the mic be higher than the headrest? i usualy do that and then some positions are at my ears level, some higher. also is it better to put a soft blanket on the MLP chair? never tried this but noticed some people do. 


#2 i noticed if the mic positions are like the image that Audyssey displays(more far apart) the bass looks smoother in the after pic. is this normal? i know the after pic is kind of an Audyssey guess rather than an accurate result.


#3 any techniques i should do or position recommendations(pic) that would get me the best sound overall for one position which is the MLP? 


Thanks in advance

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

Yes, it's best to cover leather furniture with soft blankets when doing the calibration. I think it's also generally recommended not to put any mic positions behind the MLP and to elevate the mic above headrests.


----------



## Edi-MC

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi Edi-MC,
> 
> Beautiful room.  Very modern.
> 
> Two quick observations of the room pictures.  Early reflections (this is when the sound coming out of a speaker hits a "reflective surface" before the sounds travels to the Listener) can and will interfere with what the Audyssey Mic hears during calibration.  These early reflections can suboptimize the sound and resulting Audyssey Calibration filtr set(s).
> 
> So here are four recommendations about speaker placement in your room.
> 
> 1.  If you can pull the Center Channel Speaker to the very front edge of that shelf.  You want the front edge to be right at the very edge or slightly overhanging the shelf.
> 
> 2.  Same thing for the Front Left and Right Speakers.  If you can pull them as far forward as you are able, to clear the shelf that the Center Speaker is sitting on.  possibly move them a few inches to the outside, farther away as possible while remaining on that mantle piece.
> 
> 3.  Move that Yellow Chair so it is not blocking the sound form a direct path to the Couch.  That chair is definitely blocking/interfering with sound transmission to your MLP.
> 
> 4.  Move the Table out of the way during Calibration.  You can put it back afterwards.  But that Table will also cause some early reflections issues as well as the shelves mentioned in 1. & 2.
> 
> Rerun Audyssey.  These very minor changes may translate to some improvement in the Calibration results and the Sound of your System.
> 
> Good luck Sir!


Thanks 

All of your observations are in line with what I know SHOULD be done  ... but as this is our family room, I'm very limited so I have to settle with some compromises...

1. Because the furniture is suspended and the speaker weighs 14kg, I'm really scared of having it on the edge. Even now as it is, I regurlaly check if something has moved!
I know it's not the perfect positioning because of the early reflections (as you also pointed out), but it's the best I can do. It is angled up though.

2. They're right down to the limits... can't push them forward or sideways... all I can do is toe them in or out (see picture below)

3. The yellow chair......... major headache  one of the few things that my wife said: NOT NEGOTIABLE! lol it is "only" in front of the sub, but there's some space between them. 
It's not in front of the speakers though... 

4. The table hasn't been there in a while... it's dangerous for our kid so we removed it. It will come back later, but for now, only carpet eheh

Here's an above pic of the room layout:










Cheers!


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Edi-MC said:


> Thanks
> 
> All of your observations are in line with what I know SHOULD be done  ... but as this is our family room, I'm very limited so I have to settle with some compromises...
> 
> 1. Because the furniture is suspended and the speaker weighs 14kg, I'm really scared of having it on the edge. Even now as it is, I regurlaly check if something has moved!
> I know it's not the perfect positioning because of the early reflections (as you also pointed out), but it's the best I can do. It is angled up though.
> 
> 2. They're right down to the limits... can't push them forward or sideways... all I can do is toe them in or out (see picture below)
> 
> 3. The yellow chair......... major headache  one of the few things that my wife said: NOT NEGOTIABLE! lol it is "only" in front of the sub, but there's some space between them.
> It's not in front of the speakers though...
> 
> 4. The table hasn't been there in a while... it's dangerous for our kid so we removed it. It will come back later, but for now, only carpet eheh
> 
> Here's an above pic of the room layout:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers!


Hi again Edi-MC,

As long as you are aware of these possible issues and have done all that is permitted. Your as good as its going to get then. We all have to make sacrifices when it comes to living in harmony with one's significant other.

One more suggestion. The overview layout shows a very close wall near the Left Front Speaker that you can not see in the previous pictures. That wall is also creating large early reflections. If at all possible, find a wall hanging art, a decorative wall rug, something, anything that is made of soft absorbent material. Hang it on that wall as level to the Left Speaker as possible. That will help reduce these early reflections. Early reflections can cause mayhem with the sound field. 

The Couch and how to measure Audyssey positions. Move the Surround Speakers to the Back Sides of the Couch. Facing toward the couch. Not behind it. You will hear the "Surround Sound" much better from this position. Since you seem to be running a 5.1 arrangement. Surrounds to the side is the proper placement. Rear Surrounds (in a 7.1 set up) would go back behind the MLP and face forward towards the MLP much like how you have them currently arranged. But with a 5.1 they are recommended to be at the sides of the MLP.

Use a little piece of tape to mark the exact position of the Couch now. Then move the couch (temporarily) back 2 feet. Using a Tape measure you can then place the Audyssey Microphone two feet forward on the relocated couch to take the Calibration Measurements. Leave the Side Surrounds at the original spot (to the sides of the Couch) where it currently resides before moving it back.. Take all your Audyssey measurements (accounting for the 2 feet forward position) then when done. Slide the Couch back forward to its original location. This will minimize MLP reflections from the back of the Couch head rests.

I hope that makes sense. I did when I typed it 

Again, good luck Sir!


----------



## Alan P

bluesky636 said:


> What am I missing here? Referenced to 0 dB, before Audyssey I see a -10 dB null at 45 Hz along with some + peaks. After Audyssey, the peaks and nulls are gone.


I was not referencing to 0dB, I was looking at the peaks before/after the dip. However, I did indeed glance a little too quickly...the null is "only" ~14dB. 

I like to take the peaks surrounding a null into account since Audyssey will have to "use up" EQ to bring them down. IME, the less EQ Audyssey has to do (+ or -) will result in better sound and I would still advise the OP to experiment with placement if at all possible.





bluesky636 said:


> I understand all about peaks and nulls, and standing waves, etc. If what you say about the after graph is true, then it would seem to be of no value yet people continuously post them and ask how they they look and people respond with "great", "sucks", "ok", etc.


The folks who are replying are hopefully only looking at the "Before" graphs.


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> I was not referencing to 0dB, I was looking at the peaks before/after the dip. However, I did indeed glance a little too quickly...the null is "only" ~14dB.
> 
> I like to take the peaks surrounding a null into account since Audyssey will have to "use up" EQ to bring them down. IME, the less EQ Audyssey has to do (+ or -) will result in better sound and I would still advise the OP to experiment with placement if at all possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The folks who are replying are hopefully only looking at the "Before" graphs.



I see. As an engineer, I always measure from a fixed reference point, in this case, 0dB.

One would hope. I don't think the presenters of the graphs are, though.


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

I have no problem saying im somewhat lost.. anyhow relocation may not be an option(unfortunatly). My sub is a martin logan grotto which has the 25hz level . Right now its set to 0. As i dont know how it actually functions well enough. But could raising it or lowering help with what you guys are saying.. im assuming when i do raise or lower it i have to rerun audessey.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

Edi-MC said:


> Thank you for the detailed answer and the time it took you to write it down!
> Very informative and helpful indeed! I've been wanting to buy an Umik-1 to do proper measurements with REW... maybe I'll take the plunge shortly because I need to know what's happening (I also have the feeling that I might be experiencing a null...) ... and I'm the kind of guy who needs DATA! lol I mean, I trust my ears very much, but there are things one cannot fine tune just by listening... Regarding sub positioning, I am very limited... it can only be where it is right now (a little bit to the sides, but that's it):
> 
> I would like to ask you about how should I proceed in order to do a proper calibration as I think it might help if I do things a bit differently regarding mic positioning.
> As you can see in the pictures below, my couch has a tall back cushion:
> 
> When I sit down, my ears are below the top of the cushion...
> So, at what height should I place the mic when doing the last two measurements?
> If I place it behind the couch at ear level, it will be blocked by the cushion... is it ok to place it behind the couch, above ear level? And how far behind should I place it?
> If I place it right after the cushion, won't it pick up reflections? In that case, maybe I should use the "over the cushion blanket technique" to prevent it?
> The couch material is fabric, not leather...
> Thank you in advance!





Balbolito said:


> #1 i only have three leather HT chairs in my room. The headrests are a bit higher than my head like most. my main goal is to get the best sound for the MLP so i usualy do 8 close measurements in the MLP. for position one should the mic be higher than the headrest? i usualy do that and then some positions are at my ears level, some higher. also is it better to put a soft blanket on the MLP chair? never tried this but noticed some people do.
> 
> #2 i noticed if the mic positions are like the image that Audyssey displays(more far apart) the bass looks smoother in the after pic. is this normal? i know the after pic is kind of an Audyssey guess rather than an accurate result.
> 
> #3 any techniques i should do or position recommendations(pic) that would get me the best sound overall for one position which is the MLP?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk



First, you are very welcome! I am combining these two posts, because the questions being asked are essentially the same.

Wherever a smooth or hard fabric couch or chair is involved, I would recommend laying an absorbent blanket across the top of it. We use leather as an example, but any smooth surface can reflect high-frequency sound waves into the Audyssey microphone. 

Since the next point doesn't seem to ever receive quite enough emphasis, and comes up frequently, I am going to be a little bit more emphatic in my post. 

*There is rarely a good reason to use any mic positions behind or above wherever someone is actually listening, and the fact that your headrest is above your ear level is not a good reason. Nearly all headrests will always be above ear level. Headrests are designed to go above our ears.

*Audyssey is just a tool. And, like any tool, it won't necessarily be helpful for every task. It's a more sophisticated tool than a screwdriver, but it's still just a tool. As such, it depends somewhat on the understanding and skill of the operator. That starts with the calibration process and continues with post-calibration settings. The Guide, linked in my signature, was written in part, to help enhance our collective understanding and skill level with respect to audio/HT, and with respect to Audyssey.

One of the most important things to understand (which Audyssey's instructions, like many owner's manuals, don't always get right) is that we want to EQ where we are actually listening. We also typically want to keep the measurement area pretty compact.

We want the Audyssey microphone to hear what, and where, we hear. That means that we want the microphone at ear height (center of the ear canal). That also means that we generally don't want to EQ above or behind where we are listening. Doing so will typically cause Audyssey to EQ our system in ways which will degrade, rather than improve, our sound quality. 

(It has been demonstrated that just doing two positions 2-3" above the center of the ear canal can sometimes be helpful, but we still wouldn't go above the headrest. And, we always want to start with mic position 1 at ear level, because that defines our main listening position for Audyssey. The MLP is the basis for the distance settings and trim levels.)

There is a model microphone pattern illustrated in Section I-B of the Guide. That particular pattern has seemed to prove effective for a number of people. It is based on the proposition that it is better to allow Audyssey to measure and EQ a fairly small, and relatively uniform, listening area. As with all such model patterns, some degree of trial-and-error may be required to determine what works best in a particular room. But, it's a good fundamental starting point.

Anyone wanting to learn more about the potentially negative effects of measuring behind the actual listening position is invited to refer to the following discussion in the Guide thread:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bration-bass-preferences-58.html#post59151594

I hope this slightly more detailed explanation helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rocky1

rocky1 said:


> I have no problem saying im somewhat lost.. anyhow relocation may not be an option(unfortunatly). My sub is a martin logan grotto which has the 25hz level . Right now its set to 0. As i dont know how it actually functions well enough. But could raising it or lowering help with what you guys are saying.. im assuming when i do raise or lower it i have to rerun audessey..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




Wondering if anyone could respond to this when able...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> I have no problem saying im somewhat lost.. anyhow relocation may not be an option(unfortunatly). My sub is a martin logan grotto which has the 25hz level . Right now its set to 0. As i dont know how it actually functions well enough. But could raising it or lowering help with what you guys are saying.. im assuming when i do raise or lower it i have to rerun audessey..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you mean raising or lowering the gain (volume) on the sub, no that will not help with dips in your frequency response. Also, no you do not have to re-run Audyssey if you adjust gain on the sub amp, however it is recommended to raise/lower the subwoofer level in the AVR since it is a more exact control.


----------



## rocky1

Alan P said:


> If you mean raising or lowering the gain (volume) on the sub, no that will not help with dips in your frequency response. Also, no you do not have to re-run Audyssey if you adjust gain on the sub amp, however it is recommended to raise/lower the subwoofer level in the AVR since it is a more exact control.




No its not the sub gain. Its a seperate control knob for 25hz level.. i cant remember exactly what its suppose to do at this moment.. looked up —-if you have weak or boomy bass it helps with these anomolies supposedly.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

rocky1 said:


> No its not the sub gain. Its a seperate control knob for 25hz level.. i cant remember exactly what its suppose to do at this moment.. looked up —-if you have weak or boomy bass it helps with these anomolies supposedly..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can you take a picture of the adjustment or pull out the manual and tell us what it says about it please?


----------



## garygarrison

Edi-MC said:


> Because the furniture is suspended and the speaker weighs 14kg, I'm really scared of having it on the edge. Even now as it is,* I regurlaly check if something has moved!*


Would you consider putting some museum putty underneath the center speaker? We use Quake-Hold brand under various objets d'art, and it comes off cleanly if you want to remove it, and, used according to the instructions, it _*really*_ holds! Because of the house shaking power of the sound system, we ran some tests using large peanut butter jars stuck with Quake-Hold to a scrap of finished wood, and we could shake the wood while holding it upside down, and the jars neither fell off nor loosened.


----------



## rocky1

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Can you take a picture of the adjustment or pull out the manual and tell us what it says about it please?




I can do that. Ill look it up as im out of town ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Can you take a picture of the adjustment or pull out the manual and tell us what it says about it please?















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

rocky1 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Hi rocky,

I am going out on a limb here as I am unfamiliar with ML sub design or operations. But that looks to be what is know as a LF Adjust on JTR subs. Also called a LF Cut or Boost adjustment. If I am correct, and again I am no certain I am. The adjustment is to reduce or boost how the sub is interacting with the room. Also referred to as room gain. If the sub sounds too boomy and muddy, you would want to turn the knob toward the cut range (-zone). If the sub seems less present or not hitting like you want, you turn the adjustment towards the Boost (+zone). Set to zero and play some music with good bass you are familiar with. Then start experimenting by turning it up a 1/4 at a time. Listen some more and try to decide if it sound better or worse. It will take you some time, but it’s fun time learning how to tune a sub by ear. 

I think what this does is changes the power curve with regards to lower Hz output at the sacrifice of higher hz output in the Boost (+) zone or higher mid bass output at the cost of low bass when in the Cut (-) zone. Set at zero is the default balanced setting.

I hope I am correct here and someone who has more ML Product knowledge can chime in and correct me if incorrect.

I also advise you to go seek out a ML specific Forum and ask these questions there as you may get much better answers and explanations.

Good luck Sir!


----------



## rocky1

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi rocky,
> 
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb here as I am unfamiliar with ML sub design or operations. But that looks to be what is know as a LF Adjust on JTR subs. Also called a LF Cut or Boost adjustment. If I am correct, and again I am no certain I am. The adjustment is to reduce or boost how the sub is interacting with the room. Also referred to as room gain. If the sub sounds too boomy and muddy, you would want to turn the knob toward the cut range (-zone). If the sub seems less present or not hitting like you want, you turn the adjustment towards the Boost (+zone). Set to zero and play some music with good bass you are familiar with. Then start experimenting by turning it up a 1/4 at a time. Listen some more and try to decide if it sound better or worse. It will take you some time, but it’s fun time learning how to tune a sub by ear.
> 
> 
> 
> I think what this does is changes the power curve with regards to lower Hz output at the sacrifice of higher hz output in the Boost (+) zone or higher mid bass output at the cost of low bass when in the Cut (-) zone. Set at zero is the default balanced setting.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I am correct here and someone who has more ML Product knowledge can chime in and correct me if incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> I also advise you to go seek out a ML specific Forum and ask these questions there as you may get much better answers and explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck Sir!




Thats pretty much how im interpreting that. If i finally set to my likeing + or - . Do i need to rerun all the audessey calib.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

rocky1 said:


> Thats pretty much how im interpreting that. If i finally set to my likeing + or - . Do i need to rerun all the audessey calib..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If you set it to zero for calibration then your good. I have a similar adjustment on JTR Subs and I asked Mike @mthomas47the same questions. His advice which far exceeds my pay grade was to set at zero run Audyssey then adjust to taste. 

Does that answer your question?


----------



## Edi-MC

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Hi again Edi-MC,
> 
> As long as you are aware of these possible issues and have done all that is permitted. Your as good as its going to get then. We all have to make sacrifices when it comes to living in harmony with one's significant other.


 Indeed we have! 




Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> One more suggestion. The overview layout shows a very close wall near the Left Front Speaker that you can not see in the previous pictures. That wall is also creating large early reflections. If at all possible, find a wall hanging art, a decorative wall rug, something, anything that is made of soft absorbent material. Hang it on that wall as level to the Left Speaker as possible. That will help reduce these early reflections. Early reflections can cause mayhem with the sound field.


That's in the "to do list"



Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> The Couch and how to measure Audyssey positions. Move the Surround Speakers to the Back Sides of the Couch. Facing toward the couch. Not behind it. You will hear the "Surround Sound" much better from this position. Since you seem to be running a 5.1 arrangement. Surrounds to the side is the proper placement. Rear Surrounds (in a 7.1 set up) would go back behind the MLP and face forward towards the MLP much like how you have them currently arranged. But with a 5.1 they are recommended to be at the sides of the MLP.


This one is a little bit tricky. Doing what you suggested (and that makes perfect sense to me), would make the layout a little bit strange and unpractical. I thought about it in the past and even considered to put the left surround on a wall mount... but then the right surrround would be on the stand and being on the side, it would block the passage way between the couch and the dinner table. As it is it's not ideal, but it's a good compromise I think...




Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> Use a little piece of tape to mark the exact position of the Couch now. Then move the couch (temporarily) back 2 feet. Using a Tape measure you can then place the Audyssey Microphone two feet forward on the relocated couch to take the Calibration Measurements. Leave the Side Surrounds at the original spot (to the sides of the Couch) where it currently resides before moving it back.. Take all your Audyssey measurements (accounting for the 2 feet forward position) then when done. Slide the Couch back forward to its original location. This will minimize MLP reflections from the back of the Couch head rests.


This one I tend to disagree. Mainly because if Audyssey measures the behaviour of your speakers in your room and sets the filters accordingly, in theory you should make all the measurements without making changes to your layout... right?





mthomas47 said:


> First, you are very welcome! I am combining these two posts, because the questions being asked are essentially the same.
> 
> Wherever a smooth or hard fabric couch or chair is involved, I would recommend laying an absorbent blanket across the top of it. We use leather as an example, but any smooth surface can reflect high-frequency sound waves into the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> Since the next point doesn't seem to ever receive quite enough emphasis, and comes up frequently, I am going to be a little bit more emphatic in my post.
> 
> *There is rarely a good reason to use any mic positions behind or above wherever someone is actually listening, and the fact that your headrest is above your ear level is not a good reason. Nearly all headrests will always be above ear level. Headrests are designed to go above our ears.
> 
> *Audyssey is just a tool. And, like any tool, it won't necessarily be helpful for every task. It's a more sophisticated tool than a screwdriver, but it's still just a tool. As such, it depends somewhat on the understanding and skill of the operator. That starts with the calibration process and continues with post-calibration settings. The Guide, linked in my signature, was written in part, to help enhance our collective understanding and skill level with respect to audio/HT, and with respect to Audyssey.
> 
> One of the most important things to understand (which Audyssey's instructions, like many owner's manuals, don't always get right) is that we want to EQ where we are actually listening. We also typically want to keep the measurement area pretty compact.
> 
> We want the Audyssey microphone to hear what, and where, we hear. That means that we want the microphone at ear height (center of the ear canal). That also means that we generally don't want to EQ above or behind where we are listening. Doing so will typically cause Audyssey to EQ our system in ways which will degrade, rather than improve, our sound quality.
> 
> (It has been demonstrated that just doing two positions 2-3" above the center of the ear canal can sometimes be helpful, but we still wouldn't go above the headrest. And, we always want to start with mic position 1 at ear level, because that defines our main listening position for Audyssey. The MLP is the basis for the distance settings and trim levels.)
> 
> There is a model microphone pattern illustrated in Section I-B of the Guide. That particular pattern has seemed to prove effective for a number of people. It is based on the proposition that it is better to allow Audyssey to measure and EQ a fairly small, and relatively uniform, listening area. As with all such model patterns, some degree of trial-and-error may be required to determine what works best in a particular room. But, it's a good fundamental starting point.
> 
> Anyone wanting to learn more about the potentially negative effects of measuring behind the actual listening position is invited to refer to the following discussion in the Guide thread:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...bration-bass-preferences-58.html#post59151594
> 
> I hope this slightly more detailed explanation helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


"Thank you" always seems short to praise the effort you put in to enlighten us!

Got it! No "behind MLP" measurements! "Above ear level" measurements... avoidable, but doable if used only in 2 positions (max). 
I'll take a look at the pattern you suggested (already did when I first read the thread, but will do again and try to implement it).
Thank you once again!





garygarrison said:


> Would you consider putting some museum putty underneath the center speaker? We use Quake-Hold brand under various objets d'art, and it comes off cleanly if you want to remove it, and, used according to the instructions, it _*really*_ holds! Because of the house shaking power of the sound system, we ran some tests using large peanut butter jars stuck with Quake-Hold to a scrap of finished wood, and we could shake the wood while holding it upside down, and the jars neither fell off nor loosened.


Oh, I'm not afraid the sepaker itself will fall if put on the edge!  I'm afraid that if I put it there the whole cabinet will detach from the wall! ahah 14kg (30ish pounds )is a lot... the cabinet itself is bolted into the wall and the panel TV and TV are resting on top of it, but still.........


----------



## rocky1

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> If you set it to zero for calibration then your good. I have a similar adjustment on JTR Subs and I asked Mike @mthomas47the same questions. His advice which far exceeds my pay grade was to set at zero run Audyssey then adjust to taste.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that answer your question?




That will work. When i originally ran audessey it was to zero. I have never touched it. I will once i get back . Thx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Edi-MC said:


> Oh, I'm not afraid the sepaker itself will fall if put on the edge!  I'm afraid that if I put it there the whole cabinet will detach from the wall! ahah 14kg (30ish pounds )is a lot... the cabinet itself is bolted into the wall and the panel TV and TV are resting on top of it, but still.........



Bolted into studs or plywood underlayment? 



Maybe a helium balloon attached to the center speaker? Somewhat smaller than La Coquette would do.


----------



## Edi-MC

It's bolted directly to the wall on both sides like this:










But I can't remember how much weight it can hold... when it was installed I remember asking but didn't write it down 
For peace of mind I already considered adding some support beneath the cabinet (but it will completely ruin the aesthetics of it so I'm somewhat reluctant...)... a mini Coquette might do it though!  eheh


----------



## grassy

Hey Guys, this is my Audyssey results after calibration but i am wondering if my trims should of been set all the same level by Audyssey or do i need to set each speaker trims myself to the same level as one another after calibration. Should dynamic eq be on or off in regards to my question. My room is dedicated and i have a fair amount of sound absorption in it so when i use the sound meter i am flat out trying to reach 75db without turning my speaker trims too high.I am a little confused.


----------



## garygarrison

pepar said:


> How much of ANY of the deep in the weeds stuff that we do makes any "meaningful" difference?



In some moods, I rather like it in the weeds.


----------



## garygarrison

grassy said:


> Hey Guys, this is my Audyssey results after calibration but i am wondering if my trims should of been set all the same level by Audyssey or do i need to set each speaker trims myself to the same level as one another after calibration. Should dynamic eq be on or off in regards to my question. My room is dedicated and i have a fair amount of sound absorption in it so when i use the sound meter i am flat out trying to reach 75db without turning my speaker trims too high.I am a little confused.


Even if your speakers were identical in sensitivity (~~"efficiency") they would _probably _require different trim settings, because they are in different parts of the room, with different amounts of boundary gain. Audyssey is good at assessing that. So, I'd leave the trims where Audyssey sets them. The exception would be the sub, if you want to turn it up a bit AFTER calibration, but use the gain control on the sub itself to do that, so you won't over-stress, and possibly clip, the line driver for sub out in your Marantz. 

Since your left front and right front _are_ fairly different (unless there is supposed to be a minus in front of the dB figure in the table for left front), I'm curious -- is one speaker near a large boundary, like a wall, and the other not?


----------



## grassy

garygarrison said:


> Even if your speakers were identical in sensitivity (~~"efficiency") they would _probably _require different trim settings, because they are in different parts of the room, with different amounts of boundary gain. Audyssey is good at assessing that. So, I'd leave the trims where Audyssey sets them. The exception would be the sub, if you want to turn it up a bit AFTER calibration, but use the gain control on the sub itself to do that, so you won't over-stress, and possibly clip, the line driver for sub out in your Marantz.
> 
> Since your left front and right front _are_ fairly different (unless there is supposed to be a minus in front of the dB figure in the table for left front), I'm curious -- is one speaker near a large boundary, like a wall, and the other not?


Hi Gary.I dont know why Ausyssey set my left main at +3.5 and my right at -4 as the only item i have near the left main speaker is my subwoofer but that has never been an issue in the past. Maybe i need to rerun Audyssey. My room is rectangular and even all round with only the 4 walls being 8x5 meters. Anyway you answered the question about weather i should leave the trims where aydyssey left them. I think the setting of the left front and right front is a different issue and needs to be looked at separately. Maybe something went wrong in the callibration. I will try another and see. Thankyou Gary.


----------



## Alan P

grassy said:


> Hey Guys, this is my Audyssey results after calibration but i am wondering if my trims should of been set all the same level by Audyssey or do i need to set each speaker trims myself to the same level as one another after calibration. Should dynamic eq be on or off in regards to my question. My room is dedicated and i have a fair amount of sound absorption in it so when i use the sound meter i am flat out trying to reach 75db without turning my speaker trims too high.I am a little confused.


Gary gave you great answers. I would add that you should change all crossovers to 80Hz as well. Feel free to experiment with higher/lower crossovers after giving that a listen for a week or so, though.


----------



## grassy

Alan P said:


> Gary gave you great answers. I would add that you should change all crossovers to 80Hz as well. Feel free to experiment with higher/lower crossovers after giving that a listen for a week or so, though.


Will do today Alan,I did another run of Audyssey but not with the pro kit.I just used the standard mic and did the 8 measurements and the results were different,as the 2 mains were both set to -2 and all crossovers were set to 60hz by Audyssey.On this latest run, Audyssey set my sub distance 2 metres too far away from main listening position and at -5db for the trim.I won’t change the distance. Should I change the sub trim to -11 which I think is a sweet spot.


----------



## Alan P

grassy said:


> Will do today Alan,I did another run of Audyssey but not with the pro kit.I just used the standard mic and did the 8 measurements and the results were different,as the 2 mains were both set to -2 and all crossovers were set to 60hz by Audyssey.On this latest run, Audyssey set my sub distance 2 metres too far away from main listening position and at -5db for the trim.I won’t change the distance. Should I change the sub trim to -11 which I think is a sweet spot.


Which AVR do you have? If it has XT32 you will probably not experience any benefits using the Pro kit.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel you may be a little confused; it is often recommended that you try to set the subwoofer gain so that Audyssey comes back with an initial sub trim well into the negative range in order to reduce the chance of clipping. You may have seen someone recommend -11 as a "sweet spot" for this. This is because Audyssey typically sets the subwoofer trim much lower than most folks prefer and you need "headroom" to be able to turn it up. Turning your subwoofer down post-calibration is not the same thing.


----------



## C J

rocky1 said:


> No its not the sub gain. Its a seperate control knob for 25hz level.. i cant remember exactly what its suppose to do at this moment.. looked up —-if you have weak or boomy bass it helps with these anomolies supposedly..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If you use the Audyssey app for calibration, before sending to the receiver...go into the set-up mode for Audyssey receiver itself (onscreen) and re-run the sub matching to match analog dial sub gains. (will need to slightly raise one to trigger the matching option.) Once you have the gain matched and set to where you want onscreen, then send Audyssey calibration to receiver.


Little work around for gain increases on the sub as opposed to the AVR for better accuracy when using non-digital gains


----------



## b0rnarian

2 Speaker questions pls: 

I have two Polk Towers being used as Rear Surrounds in a 11.2 setup at the moment and 2 DefTech Bipolar BP9040s as side surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the rear towers might not disperse in the room enough or sound thin only because they are at ear level and If I did the bipolar 9040s as rear surround, it would be a much fuller sound - question one: would that really be the case? 

Question 2, the reason why i haven't tried that is because then I will have to use the Polk Towers as side surrounds and my question is will the towers work as side surrounds b/c they dont come up to ear level and surrounds need to be at ear level or above by 2-3 ft. usually. 

I have no way of raising the towers, and got kids around them so dont want them falling over - I either plan on using the towers as side surrounds if that's doable or just sell them and use 4 bipolar surrounds for sides and rear. any help is appreciated, thanks!


----------



## Matt2026

b0rnarian said:


> 2 Speaker questions pls:
> 
> I have two Polk Towers being used as Rear Surrounds in a 11.2 setup at the moment and 2 DefTech Bipolar BP9040s as side surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the rear towers might not disperse in the room enough or sound thin only because they are at ear level and If I did the bipolar 9040s as rear surround, it would be a much fuller sound - question one: would that really be the case?
> 
> Question 2, the reason why i haven't tried that is because then I will have to use the Polk Towers as side surrounds and my question is will the towers work as side surrounds b/c they dont come up to ear level and surrounds need to be at ear level or above by 2-3 ft. usually.
> 
> I have no way of raising the towers, and got kids around them so dont want them falling over - I either plan on using the towers as side surrounds if that's doable or just sell them and use 4 bipolar surrounds for sides and rear. any help is appreciated, thanks!



The 2' to 3' above ear level for surrounds is outdated for today's receivers. Side surround tweeter level should be at ear level. My 6 bookshelf speakers are all at ear level, center would be also but I can't raise it up that far so I angle it with foam wedges so the tweeter, et al point towards my ears.


----------



## grassy

Alan P said:


> Which AVR do you have? If it has XT32 you will probably not experience any benefits using the Pro kit.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel you may be a little confused; it is often recommended that you try to set the subwoofer gain so that Audyssey comes back with an initial sub trim well into the negative range in order to reduce the chance of clipping. You may have seen someone recommend -11 as a "sweet spot" for this. This is because Audyssey typically sets the subwoofer trim much lower than most folks prefer and you need "headroom" to be able to turn it up. Turning your subwoofer down post-calibration is not the same thing.


Hi Alan, i am beginning to understand now. I have the Marantz 8802 pre paired with the denon poaa1hd amp. It does have XT32. You guessed it Alan, i was confused All sorted thanks for the help.


----------



## Matt2026

b0rnarian said:


> 2 Speaker questions pls:
> 
> I have two Polk Towers being used as Rear Surrounds in a 11.2 setup at the moment and 2 DefTech Bipolar BP9040s as side surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the rear towers might not disperse in the room enough or sound thin only because they are at ear level and If I did the bipolar 9040s as rear surround, it would be a much fuller sound - question one: would that really be the case?
> 
> Question 2, the reason why i haven't tried that is because then I will have to use the Polk Towers as side surrounds and my question is will the towers work as side surrounds b/c they dont come up to ear level and surrounds need to be at ear level or above by 2-3 ft. usually.
> 
> I have no way of raising the towers, and got kids around them so dont want them falling over - I either plan on using the towers as side surrounds if that's doable or just sell them and use 4 bipolar surrounds for sides and rear. any help is appreciated, thanks!





Matt2026 said:


> The 2' to 3' above ear level for surrounds is outdated for today's receivers. Side surround tweeter level should be at ear level. My 6 bookshelf speakers are all at ear level, center would be also but I can't raise it up that far so I angle it with foam wedges so the tweeter, et al point towards my ears.


Hey b0rnarian,

You might want to check out the video in this article Audioholics just put on line, Video is at the bottom of the page.  They might not like my view of things. In part I think it works for me is because it's usually just me watching the movie so I'm equidistant from the speaker pairs.


----------



## b0rnarian

Matt2026 said:


> b0rnarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 Speaker questions pls:
> 
> I have two Polk Towers being used as Rear Surrounds in a 11.2 setup at the moment and 2 DefTech Bipolar BP9040s as side surrounds. Sometimes I feel that the rear towers might not disperse in the room enough or sound thin only because they are at ear level and If I did the bipolar 9040s as rear surround, it would be a much fuller sound - question one: would that really be the case?
> 
> Question 2, the reason why i haven't tried that is because then I will have to use the Polk Towers as side surrounds and my question is will the towers work as side surrounds b/c they dont come up to ear level and surrounds need to be at ear level or above by 2-3 ft. usually.
> 
> I have no way of raising the towers, and got kids around them so dont want them falling over - I either plan on using the towers as side surrounds if that's doable or just sell them and use 4 bipolar surrounds for sides and rear. any help is appreciated, thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt2026 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2' to 3' above ear level for surrounds is outdated for today's receivers. Side surround tweeter level should be at ear level. My 6 bookshelf speakers are all at ear level, center would be also but I can't raise it up that far so I angle it with foam wedges so the tweeter, et al point towards my ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey b0rnarian,
> 
> You might want to check out the video in this article Audioholics just put on line, Video is at the bottom of the page. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif They might not like my view of things. In part I think it works for me is because it's usually just me watching the movie so I'm equidistant from the speaker pairs.
Click to expand...

Thank you Matt, my initial issue is the towers dont even come to ear level, especially for sides, though they might be okay for rear surrounds. And if i send the bipolars to the rear, theyd go pretty high which is also an issue as I want to keep distinctive space between them and the rear atmos speakers up on the corners of the ceiling. Maybe im already at optimal setup and overthinking this.


----------



## Matt2026

b0rnarian said:


> Thank you Matt, my initial issue is the towers dont even come to ear level, especially for sides, though they might be okay for rear surrounds. And if i send the bipolars to the rear, theyd go pretty high which is also an issue as I want to keep distinctive space between them and the rear atmos speakers up on the corners of the ceiling. Maybe im already at optimal setup and overthinking this.


Well, I'm somewhat limited as to what I can do in my small room. Mostly I figure if I like how it sounds that's all that matters to me 

I know when I dropped the side surrounds down from the old elevated position what I heard was much improved

I'll say, experiment as much as you want to ans find what works for you  To go along with my previous photo I'll add my sub photo 

Enjoy!


----------



## desray2k

mogorf said:


> A while back I had a conversation with Chris Kyriakakis on the subject as follows:
> 
> Me:
> Recently I did some thinking to myself and came up with something like a brave idea. Well, ...brave to me, although this might have been brought up by others, so here goes.
> Usually when we place the Audyssey mic (apart from MLP), we always have a guessing game whether its in the right position or not, and this dilemma is regardless of a multi-seater layout or a narrower one-man position.
> So, to resolve the dilemma, how about doing/trying the following method in order to have first hand info (read: curves) of our room acoustics and its visible anomalies spot-by-spot:
> 
> 
> 1. Turn off Audyssey completely.
> 2. Set up the measuring rig for REW (or similar).
> 3. Take as many measurements as you can (20-30 maybe) around where you or your buddies will sit (optional), then average the results in REW. (Don't forget to take note of all the measurement spots, this info will be needed later on.)
> 4. Take a close scrutiny at all these measurement curves, overlap them in REW, note the similarities with regards to peaks and dips. Disregard where they are not similar.
> 5. Make a shortlist of 8 areas (1 MLP + 7 more) that are similar that you want to eq with Audyssey MultEQ.
> 6. Place the Audyssey mic to those selected areas and run MultEQ.
> 
> I know this procedure might be a bit tedious and time consuming, ...but hey,...are we in a hurry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chris: Pretty cool idea Feri. I would perhaps paraphrase step 5 to say: "look for any measurements that are dramatically different from the rest (e.g., major bass peak or dip, or diminished high frequencies) and avoid measuring there as it may end up skewing the filters".
> 
> Just something to think about!


This is not new...I have been using REW to determine the subwoofer placement even BEFORE the commencement of Audyssey calibration. I have found Audyssey to be rather accurate in its frequency response for the subwoofers but in terms if acoustical delay (distance), Audyssey may sometimes miss the mark. When something is off, you will know it. The only way is to re-do the whole calibration again but pay attention to the placement of the mic this time, usually is how high or low you place the mic. It will to a certain extent, affect the delay responses.


----------



## Edi-MC

Hi guys!
2 quick questions:
- If I want to get a lower trim level for the sub after doing the calibration, how many measurement points do I need to run (minimum)? Just to know if I'm on the right track and then run a full calibration...
- How to properly set the phase of the sub?

Thanks!


----------



## pbz06

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 2 quick questions:
> - If I want to get a lower trim level for the sub after doing the calibration, how many measurement points do I need to run (minimum)? Just to know if I'm on the right track and then run a full calibration...
> - How to properly set the phase of the sub?
> 
> Thanks!


3 is the minimum


----------



## Cla55clown

I ran Audyssey last night and it gave me really weird results on my almost full range speakers and large sub. First, it gave me crossover settings of 250Hz all around and said my sub output is too low! First of all, my tower speakers are spec'd to go down to 30 hz at -3 DB and my subwoofer was set at the 12:00 volume position and it is a outlaw audio ultra X12. So, these Odyssey readings are clearly way off. I perform the test in a dead silent room and measuring in six different positions.

Does Audyssey make these kind of errors? I also had the grills on the speakers do you think that makes a difference?

My AVR is a marantz SR6013.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Cla55clown said:


> I ran Audyssey last night and it gave me really weird results on my almost full range speakers and large sub. First, it gave me crossover settings of 250Hz all around and said my sub output is too low! First of all, my tower speakers are spec'd to go down to 30 hz at -3 DB and my subwoofer was set at the 12:00 volume position and it is a outlaw audio ultra X12. So, these Odyssey readings are clearly way off. I perform the test in a dead silent room and measuring in six different positions.
> 
> Does Audyssey make these kind of errors? I also had the grills on the speakers do you think that makes a difference?


----------



## audiofan1

Matt2026 said:


> *The 2' to 3' above ear level for surrounds is outdated for today's receivers. *Side surround tweeter level should be at ear level. My 6 bookshelf speakers are all at ear level, center would be also but I can't raise it up that far so I angle it with foam wedges so the tweeter, et al point towards my ears.



Not sure I agree with that 100% ! In my 7.1.4 setup with bipole side surrounds I have them just under 2ft above lowered from 7ft pre- atmos and direct radiating in the rear just above at 1ft to clear the backs of my recliners and 360 degree pans regardless of there dimensional axis are breath taking. Whats best for the room are best practices for sound reproduction and that remains true today


----------



## bluesky636

audiofan1 said:


> Not sure I agree with that 100% ! In my 7.1.4 setup with bipole side surrounds I have them just under 2ft above lowered from 7ft pre- atmos and direct radiating in the rear just above at 1ft to clear the backs of my recliners and 360 degree pans regardless of there dimensional axis are breath taking. Whats best for the room are best practices for sound reproduction and that remains true today


I agree. I have a traditional 7.1 setup with bipole side and back surrounds mounted near the ceiling. Helicopters, bullets whizzing by, sounds to the sides and rear are extremely realistic. Never been in a real theater where speakers are mounted at ear level.


----------



## Matt2026

audiofan1 said:


> Not sure I agree with that 100% ! In my 7.1.4 setup with bipole side surrounds I have them just under 2ft above lowered from 7ft pre- atmos and direct radiating in the rear just above at 1ft to clear the backs of my recliners and 360 degree pans regardless of there dimensional axis are breath taking. Whats best for the room are best practices for sound reproduction and that remains true today



That's okay to not agree. If you read my follow up posts I had more to say such as, "You might want to check out the video in this article Audioholics just put on line, Video is at the bottom of the page.  They might not like my view of things. In part I think it works for me is because it's usually just me watching the movie so I'm equidistant from the speaker pairs."


----------



## b0rnarian

If I can also focus the convo to side surrounds, it seems bipolar speakers are made for side surrounds but comparatively what are ppls opinions on SVS prime elevations for side surrounding? Reason I am asking is my current SR9040 deftechs are fairly weak in my setup and are the only ones that shoot up to 150 crossover where the rest of the system sets at 80 or 90hz. And I am familiar with the svs elevations sound, price, quality as i already use 4 of them for atmos but wonder how they'll fair as side surrounds compared to maybe better biploars such as 9080s.


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> That's okay to not agree. If you read my follow up posts I had more to say such as, "You might want to check out the video in this article Audioholics just put on line, Video is at the bottom of the page.  They might not like my view of things. In part I think it works for me is because it's usually just me watching the movie so I'm equidistant from the speaker pairs."


I don't see any video. There are multiple links in the article. Which link is the video?


----------



## Matt2026

bluesky636 said:


> I don't see any video. There are multiple links in the article. Which link is the video?



I went to the page and the video is now at the top on the right side. It was at the bottom of the page Its in a red box with *You Tube* at the top and *Subscribe to Our Channel* at the bottom and a start ► button in the center.


----------



## mthomas47

Cla55clown said:


> I ran Audyssey last night and it gave me really weird results on my almost full range speakers and large sub. First, it gave me crossover settings of 250Hz all around and said my sub output is too low! First of all, my tower speakers are spec'd to go down to 30 hz at -3 DB and my subwoofer was set at the 12:00 volume position and it is a outlaw audio ultra X12. So, these Odyssey readings are clearly way off. I perform the test in a dead silent room and measuring in six different positions.
> 
> Does Audyssey make these kind of errors? I also had the grills on the speakers do you think that makes a difference?
> 
> My AVR is a marantz SR6013.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk



Hi,

No, Audyssey does not normally make those kinds of errors, but with electronic equipment, and especially with microprocessors, malfunctions do occasionally occur. (The speaker grilles would have made no difference at all with respect to what you are reporting.) Since there does seem to be something wrong here, at least with the speaker crossovers, the first thing I would try is a couple of microprocessor resets. Just consult your owner's manual on how to do that, and be sure to let the appropriate interval pass before restarting.

If that doesn't work, the next most likely culprit (actually, it's probably at least as likely) is your microphone. The Audyssey microphones do go bad sometimes. If so, you can buy a replacement microphone on Amazon. Although you will see different AVR model numbers associated with the mics, all of the tower-shaped mics are interchangeable. 

If you don't mind posting what the ultimate fix is, it may help others who experience similar issues. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> I went to the page and the video is now at the top on the right side. It was at the bottom of the page Its in a red box with *You Tube* at the top and *Subscribe to Our Channel* at the bottom and a start ► button in the center.


Not helpful. That box takes you to multiple videos on their channel. If there is a specific one you are referring to, please post a direct link.


----------



## Matt2026

bluesky636 said:


> Not helpful. That box takes you to multiple videos on their channel. If there is a specific one you are referring to, please post a direct link.


 That's weird because it works for me... I'll try putting the link in the following text You Tube 



[Edit] I clicked on the You Tube above and it worked, again, for me...


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> That's weird because it works for me... I'll try putting the link in the following text You Tube
> 
> 
> 
> [Edit] I clicked on the You Tube above and it worked, again, for me...


That works now. Will look at it when I get home.


----------



## aarons915

I've been wanting to grab a newer receiver with XT32 but does anyone know if there is a way to prevent it from applying boost or at least be able to choose certain areas where you don't want boost applied? I found this measurement a few pages back to show what I mean, many speakers have a null due to SBIR that can't be EQ'd but it appears Audyssey still tries to boost it, this pic shows it around 120Hz. It wouldn't be a big deal except many smaller speakers, mine included, have high distortion down that low so I don't want to be making it even worse through boost. Does anyone know if you can prevent boost through the MultEQ app or another way? I looked but I couldn't find anything that mentions it.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> No, Audyssey does not normally make those kinds of errors, but with electronic equipment, and especially with microprocessors, malfunctions do occasionally occur. (The speaker grilles would have made no difference at all with respect to what you are reporting.) Since there does seem to be something wrong here, at least with the speaker crossovers, the first thing I would try is a couple of microprocessor resets. Just consult your owner's manual on how to do that, and be sure to let the appropriate interval pass before restarting.
> 
> If that doesn't work, the next most likely culprit (actually, it's probably at least as likely) is your microphone. The Audyssey microphones do go bad sometimes. If so, you can buy a replacement microphone on Amazon. Although you will see different AVR model numbers associated with the mics, all of the tower-shaped mics are interchangeable.
> 
> If you don't mind posting what the ultimate fix is, it may help others who experience similar issues.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike makes a good point. I had a bad Audyssey mic out of the box on brand new 8500H. I contacted Denon and they sent a replacement no questions asked. At a minimum unplug the mic jack and wipe it clean and inspect for any debris or damage to the connectors. Make sure mic is completely inserted. Do a couple plug-ins and unplugs. They can be finicky about not fully seating.


----------



## Cla55clown

bluesky636 said:


> You can try resetting the Marantz and rerunning Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> But it would be helpful if you provided all the Audyssey results and not just trim levels. Also, photos and a description of your room speaker layout are essential.


I re-ran the calibration and got the same errors. 250Hz for all speakers. Distances seem to be correct. It is still saying that my subwoofer level is too low even though I have it set at the 12:00 position.

This is in a basement and my setup is a 5.1.4 Atmos configuration using top front and top rear height speakers.

Mike, my father-in-law has a 10-year-old Denon receiver with Audyssey. Would the pyramid mic from that unit work with my AVR just to rule out a microphone issue?









Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## drh3b

Cla55clown said:


> I re-ran the calibration and got the same errors. 250Hz for all speakers. Distances seem to be correct. It is still saying that my subwoofer level is too low even though I have it set at the 12:00 position.
> 
> This is in a basement and my setup is a 5.1.4 Atmos configuration using top front and top rear height speakers.
> 
> Mike, my father-in-law has a 10-year-old Denon receiver with Audyssey. Would the pyramid mic from that unit work with my AVR just to rule out a microphone issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


If the mike looks the same(maybe a different color) it should work fine. All the pyramid mikes are the same.


----------



## Adamg (Ret-Navy)

Cla55clown said:


> I re-ran the calibration and got the same errors. 250Hz for all speakers. Distances seem to be correct. It is still saying that my subwoofer level is too low even though I have it set at the 12:00 position.


I just researched the mic substitute question. As long as the other AVR is either a Marantz or Denon from 2009 to present the mics are the same and should work as an appropriate substitute.


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> That's weird because it works for me... I'll try putting the link in the following text You Tube
> 
> 
> 
> [Edit] I clicked on the You Tube above and it worked, again, for me...



Turns out, the problem was caused by looking at the Audioholics site on my phone. When I went to the computer, everything was as you stated.


Anyway, I looked at the video as well as read the article on the page along with the other articles. Suffice to say, I am happy with my 7.1 speaker system with four Polk FXiA4 speakers in bipole mode mounted at the top of my walls near the ceiling. Sounds great with a very immersive sound and no localization issues. And to stay on topic, Audyssey (Denon AVR-X3500H) does a great job in my room with no special tweaks.


----------



## bluesky636

Cla55clown said:


> I re-ran the calibration and got the same errors. 250Hz for all speakers. Distances seem to be correct. It is still saying that my subwoofer level is too low even though I have it set at the 12:00 position.
> 
> This is in a basement and my setup is a 5.1.4 Atmos configuration using top front and top rear height speakers.


You may have a mic problem, I don't know. But I see a number of speaker placement problems that can wreck havoc on Audyssey.

1. Left front speaker is in a corner and apparently right up against the side wall. That wall will cause a lot of early reflections.

2. Center speaker is sitting on the floor. Although it appears to be aimed up toward the listener, you will also be getting early reflections from the floor.

3. Right speaker is against a wall but there appears to be nothing to the right of it. Very unbalanced acoustically with the left speaker.

4. Right surround appears to have a wall on one side with nothing to the rear or other side of it.

5. Left surround appears to be against a back wall and side windows. Again, early reflections and a different acoustical environment is from the right surround.

6. Can't really see the height speakers to say what their environment is like.

7. Sub appears to be in the middle of the side wall and is probably in or very near a bull point.

Given your room configuration, these issues could difficult to resolve.


----------



## Cla55clown

Adamg (Ret-Navy) said:


> I just researched the mic substitute question. As long as the other AVR is either a Marantz or Denon from 2009 to present the mics are the same and should work as an appropriate substitute.


Okay, thanks for the info guys. This is the microphone that came with my father-in-law's circa 2009 Denon AVR. I'll give it a shot and see if it's the microphone issue. Next step would be to do a reset of the Marantz.









Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Cla55clown

bluesky636 said:


> You may have a mic problem, I don't know. But I see a number of speaker placement problems that can wreck havoc on Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Left front speaker is in a corner and apparently right up against the side wall. That wall will cause a lot of early reflections.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Center speaker is sitting on the floor. Although it appears to be aimed up toward the listener, you will also be getting early reflections from the floor.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Right speaker is against a wall but there appears to be nothing to the right of it. Very unbalanced acoustically with the left speaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Right surround appears to have a wall on one side with nothing to the rear or other side of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Left surround appears to be against a back wall and side windows. Again, early reflections and a different acoustical environment is from the right surround.
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Can't really see the height speakers to say what their environment is like.
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Sub appears to be in the middle of the side wall and is probably in or very near a bull point.
> 
> 
> 
> Given your room configuration, these issues could difficult to resolve.


Yes, I understand that my room and speaker positions are not ideal as they would be in a dedicated room theatre. The screen is just a temporary outdoor screen that is laying against the wall and once I get a fixed frame screen hung on the wall then the center channel speaker will be raised up on a center stand. 

I have one of those rooms where it is closed on one side and open on the other so I know I will probably have some reflection issues. I plan to mitigate those with some acoustical panels hung on the wall. I wired for a second subwoofer diagonally opposed on the other side of the basement as well. I understand that it will not measure exactly perfect but sitting in my theater chairs it is very immersive and enveloping sound with Dolby Atmos and Blu rays. 

Lol, I'm sure I will be spending the next few months tooling around the audio theory and setup forum!

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Cla55clown said:


> Yes, I understand that my room and speaker positions are not ideal as they would be in a dedicated room theatre. The screen is just a temporary outdoor screen that is laying against the wall and once I get a fixed frame screen hung on the wall then the center channel speaker will be raised up on a center stand.
> 
> I have one of those rooms where it is closed on one side and open on the other so I know I will probably have some reflection issues. I plan to mitigate those with some acoustical panels hung on the wall. I wired for a second subwoofer diagonally opposed on the other side of the basement as well. I understand that it will not measure exactly perfect but sitting in my theater chairs it is very immersive and enveloping sound with Dolby Atmos and Blu rays.
> 
> Lol, I'm sure I will be spending the next few months tooling around the audio theory and setup forum!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


Good luck. Sounds like you have a reasonable plan worked out.


----------



## garygarrison

Cla55clown said:


> Yes, I understand that my room and speaker positions are not ideal as they would be in a dedicated room theatre.





Toeing-in your towers more *may* help prevent some early reflections.


_*Everyone: *_why do I now need to sign in? I haven't needed to for the past several years.


----------



## drh3b

garygarrison said:


> Toeing-in your towers more *may* help prevent some early reflections.
> 
> 
> _*Everyone: *_why do I now need to sign in? I haven't needed to for the past several years.


I generally have to sign in every few months, have no idea why.


----------



## Matt2026

garygarrison said:


> Toeing-in your towers more *may* help prevent some early reflections.
> 
> 
> _*Everyone: *_why do I now need to sign in? I haven't needed to for the past several years.



In the past couple of weeks I've had to sign in at least 6 times, maybe more... Last couple of days seems okay. But then I also use several computers and browsers so maybe I'm causing the problem


----------



## Edi-MC

Hi guys!

Tell me if this is something that happens to you too:
- I usually watch movies in the MLP, but if I move 15" to the front, I feel/hear more bass and the sound is more immersive... 

This has always happened in my room (before with the Monitor Audio's and the Pioneer, after with the Monitor Audio's and the Marantz and now, with the GE's and the Marantz).

What can explain this? 
Thank you!


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> Tell me if this is something that happens to you too:
> - I usually watch movies in the MLP, but if I move 15" to the front, I feel/hear more bass and the sound is more immersive...
> 
> This has always happened in my room (before with the Monitor Audio's and the Pioneer, after with the Monitor Audio's and the Marantz and now, with the GE's and the Marantz).
> 
> What can explain this?
> Thank you!


Audyssey only applies room correction within the confines of the area of the space defined by mic placement during the calibration process. Move outside of that area and you may find yourself in an uncorrected peak or null.


----------



## Edi-MC

I know!! 
That's precisely why this has always intrigued me! I find myself thinking "This is the sound I would like to hear while seating in MLP!!!". (I use the diagram in the Guide for the mic positioning, so seating 15'' in front of the MLP is still inside the EQ area)
Could I be experiencing a null in MLP?!
This is awkward  

Anyway, bit the bullet and an UMIK-1 is on it's way... hopefully I'll be able to get a more precise idea of what's going on...


----------



## bluesky636

Edi-MC said:


> I know!!
> That's precisely why this has always intrigued me! I find myself thinking "This is the sound I would like to hear while seating in MLP!!!". (I use the diagram in the Guide for the mic positioning, so seating 15'' in front of the MLP is still inside the EQ area)
> Could I be experiencing a null in MLP?!
> This is awkward
> 
> Anyway, bit the bullet and an UMIK-1 is on it's way... hopefully I'll be able to get a more precise idea of what's going on...


Audyssey is correcting for peaks and nulls at the MLP. Although if the MLP is in a deep null without correction, Audyssey can only do so much.


----------



## Edi-MC

Will know when I run REW  Cheers


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

aarons915 said:


> I've been wanting to grab a newer receiver with XT32 but does anyone know if there is a way to prevent it from applying boost or at least be able to choose certain areas where you don't want boost applied? I found this measurement a few pages back to show what I mean, many speakers have a null due to SBIR that can't be EQ'd but it appears Audyssey still tries to boost it, this pic shows it around 120Hz. It wouldn't be a big deal except many smaller speakers, mine included, have high distortion down that low so I don't want to be making it even worse through boost. Does anyone know if you can prevent boost through the MultEQ app or another way? I looked but I couldn't find anything that mentions it.


You can use the App to limit the correction to 100hz, this will mean that from 100hz up there will be no correction made on Audysseys part. 
You could use the curve editor to introduce that dip in the 120hz again or use Ratbuddy for finer control.

If the speakers have high distortion at 120hz, then that would mean you should have a higher XO ( 120hz -150hz)for that speaker, in which case that dip would not matter as the graphs are showing the speaker measurement at full range and not with the sub crossover. With the sub + speaker together the graph will look different. Audyssey will not be able to provide this graph.
To have a smooth transition you will need good sub placement and dual or more would be better as crossovers this high will become more localized and easier to locate


----------



## Alan P

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> Tell me if this is something that happens to you too:
> - I usually watch movies in the MLP, but if I move 15" to the front, I feel/hear more bass and the sound is more immersive...
> 
> This has always happened in my room (before with the Monitor Audio's and the Pioneer, after with the Monitor Audio's and the Marantz and now, with the GE's and the Marantz).
> 
> *What can explain this? *
> Thank you!


Acoustics. 

The room dictates a good percentage of what you hear, and where you listen in the room can be critical. If it's possible, moving your MLP forward 15" and re-running Audyssey will probably give you exactly what you are looking for. If moving the MLP is not an option, moving the speakers and/or subs may help.


----------



## mthomas47

Edi-MC said:


> Hi guys!
> 
> Tell me if this is something that happens to you too:
> - I usually watch movies in the MLP, but if I move 15" to the front, I feel/hear more bass and the sound is more immersive...
> 
> This has always happened in my room (before with the Monitor Audio's and the Pioneer, after with the Monitor Audio's and the Marantz and now, with the GE's and the Marantz).
> 
> What can explain this?
> Thank you!





Alan P said:


> Acoustics.
> 
> The room dictates a good percentage of what you hear, and where you listen in the room can be critical. If it's possible, moving your MLP forward 15" and re-running Audyssey will probably give you exactly what you are looking for. If moving the MLP is not an option, moving the speakers and/or subs may help.



Hi,

I agree with Alan! I didn't want to pile-on when bluesky was advising you on your room setup, but in looking at your photos and reading your question above, the single most important thing you might do is to move your couch about a foot further away from the wall that is behind it.

I would expect that to help you in a number of different ways, including with higher frequencies. And, I think you would notice the difference both before and after running Audyssey. That moves you a foot closer to your screen, but if you can live with that, I think you will like the sound better. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> Acoustics.
> 
> The room dictates a good percentage of what you hear, and where you listen in the room can be critical. If it's possible, moving your MLP forward 15" and re-running Audyssey will probably give you exactly what you are looking for. If moving the MLP is not an option, moving the speakers and/or subs may help.


In our symmetrical room, when I move (lean) forward along the dead center line from the MLP to the center speaker, the sound is slightly "better," somehow (not "more bass"). *BUT* then both the soundstage and imaging are a little worse from the *other* 4 seats, so we are not moving anything. 

Several years ago, one of the predominately 2 channel audio magazines claimed that almost everyone could improve their sound by sitting closer, but those guys often listen alone at exactly the (central) MLP, or take the best seat for themselves. You might say they are self centered.


----------



## garygarrison

*Cla55clown,*

Is that a projector I see? If so, you might consider an acoustically transparent screen. Seymour makes good ones. If you run Audyssey with the screen down (or fixed) it will make the 1 or 2 dB correction needed for movies. For music only, with the screen up the sound would be just a tad brighter, but above 10K. If you were to opt for a fixed screen, no problem. What's the point? You can put the center speaker _*behind *_the screen, at exactly ear height. We opted for a 2.35:1 shaped screen, so
"`scope" movies will have a *larger area* on the screen than standard aspect ratios (1.85:1, 1.78:1 and 1.37:1 for oldies), just as the filmmakers intended (except for a few weirdos). If your projector zooms enough, you won't have to buy a special lens. Our images have "common height," with all 10 aspect ratios having the same height, but Panavision, CinemaScope, Technirama, Todd-AO, etc., being dramatically wider. The only exception I'm aware of are Ultra (not Super) Panavision 70, and true Cinerama, with all other 70 mm and 35 mm fine. The guy at Seymour is _*very*_ helpful on the phone or online. We don't see the weave at 12 feet away, or somewhat closer.


----------



## bluesky636

Balbolito said:


> Posting one of my surround backs. the other looks identical so didn't post it. what could be the reason of those dips? 2k and 5k?
> 
> Is this something i have to worry about? is it audible?
> 
> Both are on wooden shelves toed-in to my MLP and most of the back wall is treated. is it some sort of boundry effect?
> 
> My fronts and surrounds don't have this issue.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


A photo of your speaker setup would be helpful.


----------



## Triple-X

*Audyssey over the years...*

My apologies if this has been asked. I’ve checked the FAQs and don’t see it.

Is Audyssey MultEQ or MultEQ XT going into recent and current AVRs exactly the same as in units from say a decade ago? Or have their been any improvements to each version? 

For example, my current AVR a 2008 Denon 2809ci has MultiEQ XT whereas the new 750H I’m looking to maybe replace it with has just MultEQ. 

But that led me to wonder if there have been overall improvements in MultEQ in the 12 years that have passed since I originally purchased it. I’ve been happy with MultEQ XT in the 2809ci. But, if 2018-2019 AVRs equipped with MultEQ alone can yield me similar performance to MultEQ XT in my old 2809, then I think I’d continue on being perfectly happy without having to spend as much as I did on the 2809ci. Then I’d be even happier! 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Alan P

Triple-X said:


> My apologies if this has been asked. I’ve checked the FAQs and don’t see it.
> 
> Is Audyssey MultEQ or MultEQ XT going into recent and current AVRs exactly the same as in units from say a decade ago? Or have their been any improvements to each version?
> 
> For example, my current AVR a 2008 Denon 2809ci has MultiEQ XT whereas the new 750H I’m looking to maybe replace it with has just MultEQ.
> 
> But that led me to wonder if there have been overall improvements in MultEQ in the 12 years that have passed since I originally purchased it. I’ve been happy with MultEQ XT in the 2809ci. But, if 2018-2019 AVRs equipped with MultEQ alone can yield me similar performance to MultEQ XT in my old 2809, then I think I’d continue on being perfectly happy without having to spend as much as I did on the 2809ci. Then I’d be even happier!
> 
> Thanks in advance.


Yes, I believe the software is the same as it was.

If you are considering the 750H at or around "new" price (~$499), I would suggest you go for this refurb X3400H with XT32 instead. It would be a significant upgrade from the XT you are used to.

https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...7.2-ch-x-105-watts-a/v-receiver-w/heos/1.html


----------



## Triple-X

Alan P said:


> Yes, I believe the software is the same as it was.
> 
> If you are considering the 750H at or around "new" price (~$499), I would suggest you go for this refurb X3400H with XT32 instead. It would be a significant upgrade from the XT you are used to.
> 
> https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...7.2-ch-x-105-watts-a/v-receiver-w/heos/1.html


Okay thanks for answering. 

I was actually looking at the X3500H as well. Is there any reason not to consider that over the X3400H?


----------



## Cla55clown

Now that's more like it! It was the microphone after all. Thanks for the help guys.









Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Cla55clown said:


> Now that's more like it! It was the microphone after all. Thanks for the help guys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk



Congrats!


----------



## drh3b

Triple-X said:


> Okay thanks for answering.
> 
> I was actually looking at the X3500H as well. Is there any reason not to consider that over the X3400H?


Not at all. I'd personally prefer it as it's still available new with a full warranty. If you get one(x3500h) make sure it's an authorized dealer, otherwise Denon won't honor the warranty, and modern AVRS are too complex to buy without a warranty. The refurbs that accessories4less sell also have factory warranties, but I believe they are shorter.

https://usa.denon.com/us/wheretobuy/dealersearch

If the price isn't $549, it's probably not an authorized dealer.


----------



## residentsystems

Triple-X said:


> Okay thanks for answering.
> 
> 
> 
> I was actually looking at the X3500H as well. Is there any reason not to consider that over the X3400H?




I was going to suggest the 3500 as well. I picked one up recently and it’s great.


----------



## Triple-X

residentsystems said:


> I was going to suggest the 3500 as well. I picked one up recently and it’s great.


I may end up having to go with the X1600H or S750H. Can’t get the 3500 or 2500. A guy I know works at an authorized Denon dealer and I have a 0% apr credit line there which was making this possible. But they can’t get the older 2018 models, and I have a budget that stops around that X3500 price point. I don’t need upscaling, my main contentions have been 4K pass, hdmi 2.0 ins, power, 7.1, and audyssey. 

So waiting on if he can get a X1600 as that has MultEQ XT at least. Everything else about the 750 looks great minus it being only MultEQ. Having XT in my current 2809 I really don’t want to step down. 

Fingers crossed, waiting to hear back.


----------



## smdelaney

Triple-X said:


> I may end up having to go with the X1600H or S750H. Can’t get the 3500 or 2500. A guy I know works at an authorized Denon dealer and I have a 0% apr credit line there which was making this possible. But they can’t get the older 2018 models, and I have a budget that stops around that X3500 price point. I don’t need upscaling, my main contentions have been 4K pass, hdmi 2.0 ins, power, 7.1, and audyssey.
> 
> So waiting on if he can get a X1600 as that has MultEQ XT at least. Everything else about the 750 looks great minus it being only MultEQ. Having XT in my current 2809 I really don’t want to step down.
> 
> Fingers crossed, waiting to hear back.


Are you setting up a Zone 2 or using HEOS/Denon Home speakers?
If so be advised that only Analog sources will work for models below the X3xxx series. HDMI or Digital PCM...no go to zone 2. I have a 2017 mode X2400 and missed that detail when I bought and its the one feature that I miss. Per the 2018 and 2019 Denon threads the same limit applies below the X3500H and the X3600H


----------



## Triple-X

smdelaney said:


> Are you setting up a Zone 2 or using HEOS/Denon Home speakers?
> If so be advised that only Analog sources will work for models below the X3xxx series. HDMI or Digital PCM...no go to zone 2. I have a 2017 mode X2400 and missed that detail when I bought and its the one feature that I miss. Per the 2018 and 2019 Denon threads the same limit applies below the X3500H and the X3600H


Nah just the one zone, one room. I did notice that actually, but thanks for pointing it out. Thankfully Im just using the AVR to power my Definitive Surrounds.


----------



## SaskCanesFan

So in the Reference vs Flat section on the first page, it says that you should use flat for movies if you are in the "near field" or in a small room. But, what exactly is the near field? I'm about 6-7' away from my front speakers, don't know what that is. Been using Reference to this point.


----------



## bluesky636

SaskCanesFan said:


> So in the Reference vs Flat section on the first page, it says that you should use flat for movies if you are in the "near field" or in a small room. But, what exactly is the near field? I'm about 6-7' away from my front speakers, don't know what that is. Been using Reference to this point.



Google is your friend: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=near+filed+vs+far+field+listening


The only people I know of that truly listen in the near field are recording engineers.


That said, use what sounds best to you.


----------



## mthomas47

SaskCanesFan said:


> So in the Reference vs Flat section on the first page, it says that you should use flat for movies if you are in the "near field" or in a small room. But, what exactly is the near field? I'm about 6-7' away from my front speakers, don't know what that is. Been using Reference to this point.



Hi,

I think I can explain what the person who wrote the Audyssey Owner's Manual meant by that recommendation, and also why it's really not very helpful. I believe that "nearfield" in this context means a listening distance of about 2 meters, or less. That would be an upper limit of approximately 6' or 7'. So, I think that you are sitting just about where they had in mind.

The idea there is that, very close to your speakers, there won't be as much opportunity for early reflections from side walls, the floor, the ceiling, or from the wall behind you, to affect the sound reaching you. With fewer early reflections, you might not hear as much high-frequency distortion, and therefore, you might not need to roll-off the high-frequencies as much. That's the main difference between Reference and Flat--the high-frequency roll-off. (Mid-range compensation, explained in Section V-A of the Guide, is the other difference.)

In my opinion, the advice to use Flat in a smaller room completely invalidates the advice, though, because a smaller room is far more likely to have more high-frequency energy, in the form of longer reverberation times, than a larger room would. There are actually studies showing that very small rooms sound perceptually louder, at the same volume levels, than larger rooms do. (Room treatments may somewhat, but perhaps not entirely, resolve that perceptual loudness difference.)

So, I believe that the Owner's Manual got that part completely backwards. I think that Reference is much more likely to sound good in a very small room than Flat would. 

Even there, though, it's hard to generalize. A lot depends on how bright (sharp/shrill) we perceive our speakers to be, and how many hard surfaces we have in our rooms. The longer the high-frequency reverberation time we have, in a particular room, the more likely we are to want to roll-off the higher frequencies a little in order to compensate for that. 

So, the speakers, the room, the quality of the Audyssey calibration, and the hearing range and personal preferences of the listener, are all potentially equally important variables. It's also possible that different content (especially compressed or distorted content) could affect a setting preference. And, the listening distance is only one additional factor that might influence our choice of Reference versus Flat. 

As I see it, the whole movie/music, small room/large room dichotomy is pretty meaningless. For instance, a well-treated small room might actually sound better, with Flat, than a large untreated room would. Or, with different speakers, or with a different listener, an entirely different conclusion might be reached. This is one of those questions that you can only answer for yourself, by experimenting and listening to determine what you prefer. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bluesky636

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think I can explain what the person who wrote the Audyssey Owner's Manual meant by that recommendation, and also why it's really not very helpful. I believe that "nearfield" in this context means a listening distance of about 2 meters, or less. That would be an upper limit of approximately 6' or 7'. So, I think that you are sitting just about where they had in mind.
> 
> The idea there is that, very close to your speakers, there won't be as much opportunity for early reflections from side walls, the floor, the ceiling, or from the wall behind you, to affect the sound reaching you. With fewer early reflections, you might not hear as much high-frequency distortion, and therefore, you might not need to roll-off the high-frequencies as much. That's the main difference between Reference and Flat--the high-frequency roll-off. (Mid-range compensation, explained in Section V-A of the Guide, is the other difference.)
> 
> In my opinion, the advice to use Flat in a smaller room completely invalidates the advice, though, because a smaller room is far more likely to have more high-frequency energy, in the form of longer reverberation times, than a larger room would. There are actually studies showing that very small rooms sound perceptually louder, at the same volume levels, than larger rooms do. (Room treatments may somewhat, but perhaps not entirely, resolve that perceptual loudness difference.)
> 
> So, I believe that the Owner's Manual got that part completely backwards. I think that Reference is much more likely to sound good in a very small room than Flat would.
> 
> Even there, though, it's hard to generalize. A lot depends on how bright (sharp/shrill) we perceive our speakers to be, and how many hard surfaces we have in our rooms. The longer the high-frequency reverberation time we have, in a particular room, the more likely we are to want to roll-off the higher frequencies a little in order to compensate for that.
> 
> So, the speakers, the room, the quality of the Audyssey calibration, and the hearing range and personal preferences of the listener, are all potentially equally important variables. It's also possible that different content (especially compressed or distorted content) could affect a setting preference. And, the listening distance is only one additional factor that might influence our choice of Reference versus Flat.
> 
> As I see it, the whole movie/music, small room/large room dichotomy is pretty meaningless. For instance, a well-treated small room might actually sound better, with Flat, than a large untreated room would. Or, with different speakers, or with a different listener, an entirely different conclusion might be reached. This is one of those questions that you can only answer for yourself, by experimenting and listening to determine what you prefer.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



In other words, "Use whichever setting sounds best".


----------



## mart541

If I connect a sub in parallel with my speakers (like a REL) will the difference in distance from the listening position to the sub and speakers do anything strange to Audyssey's calculations?


----------



## Jameshtx

On #24 from "First time Audyssey User" says if using a subwoofer, set speakers to small "or" to a crossover setting. My question is its either or right? My Audyssey test results had my Front towers at *large* and crossover at *Full Band*. So I could change the towers to *small* and leave crossover at *Full Band*? What I've been reading is most ppl recommended if using dedicated subwoofer to set towers to *small* and crossover to *80hz*


----------



## Balbolito

Jameshtx said:


> On #24 from "First time Audyssey User" says if using a subwoofer, set speakers to small "or" to a crossover setting. My question is its either or right? My Audyssey test results had my Front towers at *large* and crossover at *Full Band*. So I could change the towers to *small* and leave crossover at *Full Band*? What I've been reading is most ppl recommended if using dedicated subwoofer to set towers to *small* and crossover to *80hz*


All speakers to small and most of the time all at 80hz. Even if you are using towers.


----------



## Edi-MC

Jameshtx said:


> On #24 from "First time Audyssey User" says if using a subwoofer, set speakers to small "or" to a crossover setting. My question is its either or right? My Audyssey test results had my Front towers at *large* and crossover at *Full Band*. So I could change the towers to *small* and leave crossover at *Full Band*? What I've been reading is most ppl recommended if using dedicated subwoofer to set towers to *small* and crossover to *80hz*


Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you cannot set the X-over to Full Band when the speaker size is set to Small.
Setting the speaker to Small excludes the possibility of it reproducing the full spectrum (which can only happen if you set the size to Large).


----------



## mthomas47

Edi-MC said:


> Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but you cannot set the X-over to Full Band when the speaker size is set to Small.
> Setting the speaker to Small excludes the possibility of it reproducing the full spectrum (which can only happen if you set the size to Large).



Hi,

You are right about that! But, under ordinary circumstances, you really wouldn't want the front speakers playing the full frequency band, while you are also attempting to use a subwoofer. There are really three options that people can use.

First, you can simply play your speakers full-band without a subwoofer. That is partly what the "Large" setting is for. Some people either don't have subwoofers in their systems, or prefer not to use them for music. There are some very powerful speakers out there, so that can be a viable alternative in some circumstances.

Second, you can do what the vast majority of HT owners do, and set your speakers to Small with a crossover. That allows the typically much more powerful subwoofers to do the heavy lifting under about 80Hz.

Third, you can keep your front speakers set to Large (and you can still set a crossover to establish a low-pass filter for the subwoofer) and allow your speakers to play full-band, while the subwoofer duplicates the bass under the crossover. This option is often called "Double-Bass" and it is not usually recommended. As a general rule, you will exchange more bass at certain frequencies, for an overall increase in distortion. "One-note bass" is often associated with the LFE+Main setting that I am describing. 

If you want to better understand how the crossovers work, and why the LFE+Main setting is usually not a good idea, I would recommend that you read Section III of the Guide linked below. It explains the various options in detail. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## smith10210

I just ran Audyssey on my x3600H. It had me set the reference level at 75 db on my HSU VTF-3 MK5 HP. The volume is barley on like maybe 9 oclock if that anything higher it wont run the test. Final results are -6.5db @ 120 HZ. I have to increase it to -0.5 almost 0 to my liking. Is this normal?. I did set my mains to all 80hz which helped . Im running 3 chane A2.4s up front and 4 polk OWM3's for height and 2 more for surrounds.


----------



## Edi-MC

smith10210 said:


> I just ran Audyssey on my x3600H. It had me set the reference level at 75 db on my HSU VTF-3 MK5 HP. The volume is barley on like maybe 9 oclock if that anything higher it wont run the test. Final results are -6.5db @ 120 HZ. I have to increase it to -0.5 almost 0 to my liking. Is this normal?. I did set my mains to all 80hz which helped . Im running 3 chane A2.4s up front and 4 polk OWM3's for height and 2 more for surrounds.


You should run Audyssey again and raise the volume on your sub in order to get the trim level set to -11/-11.5 db (No more than that though). 
When Audyssey asks you to perform the SW level matching, just ignore the on screen information (it will show you that the sub volume is higher than recommended) and proceed with the calibration. If you want to check before running a full calibration, run 3 mic position measurements and see the results. If it's still not around -11, repeat. 
In my case, I can achieve this when Audyssey is showing a reading of about 81db.
After calibration, if you need to boost the bass (and you will!  ), you can do it by raising the trim level in the AVR, but not going past -5db.
If more bass is required, then use the volume on your sub to do it.
This way you AVR will have enough headroom to feed your speakers and you'll put the sub amp to good use!
It's ALWAYS preferable to have the amp of the sub powering the drive instead of the AVR.
Good luck!


----------



## smith10210

Edi-MC said:


> You should run Audyssey again and raise the volume on your sub in order to get the trim level set to -11/-11.5 db (No more than that though).
> When Audyssey asks you to perform the SW level matching, just ignore the on screen information (it will show you that the sub volume is higher than recommended) and proceed with the calibration. If you want to check before running a full calibration, run 3 mic position measurements and see the results. If it's still not around -11, repeat.
> In my case, I can achieve this when Audyssey is showing a reading of about 81db.
> After calibration, if you need to boost the bass (and you will!  ), you can do it by using the AVR trim level, but not going past -5db.
> If more bass is required, then use the volume on your sub to do it.
> This way you AVR will have enough headroom to feed your speakers and you'll put the sub amp to good use!
> It's ALWAYS preferable to have the amp of the sub powering the drive instead of the AVR.
> Good luck!


Didn't know you could the skip the SW level matching thank you !. other than running Audyseey again will suck lol. So keeping sub crossed at 120 is fine? And all speakers at 80?

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## Edi-MC

That's usually a good solid starting point  (assuming your speakers have the ability to play at that crossover). 
Take a look at the first post of this thread and study the guide to subwoofer calibration and bass preferences, you'll find precious information there!


----------



## smith10210

Edi-MC said:


> That's usually a good solid starting point  (assuming your speakers have the ability to play at that crossover).
> Take a look at the first post of this thread and study the guide to subwoofer calibration and bass preferences, you'll find precious information there!


Thanks for the info . One more question I turned sub level up on the the sub itself to about 11:30 ish and ran Odyssey and results where -12. If I turn the gain on the sub down a notch do i have to run a through a full calibration again? I usually do all 8 points and it takes awhile . 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## Edi-MC

Beware that at -12 the AVR "ran out" of negative trim. There's no way to know if it's set to -12,5, -15, -30... The goal is -11/-11.5.

Yes, running full calibration is a pain in the butt, that's why I suggested running only 3 points (the minimum measurement points) and check the results. Do it like that until you get the desired trim level for the sub and when you do, THEN run a full calibration. This will save you time


----------



## Jameshtx

Do I have to rerun Audyssey if I decide to buy the Audyssey Editor app? Do I need any additional mics or tools to use the app? Just need to know what else is involved before spending money on it. I’m sure it’s worth every penny but useless if it’s not being used correctly. Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Jameshtx said:


> Do I have to rerun Audyssey if I decide to buy the Audyssey Editor app? Do I need any additional mics or tools to use the app? Just need to know what else is involved before spending money on it. I’m sure it’s worth every penny but useless if it’s not being used correctly. Thanks!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yes. You rerun Audyssey using the app. Here is the thread with all the details about the app:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-receivers-amps-processors/2806249-multeq-editor-new-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html


----------



## pbarach

Jameshtx said:


> Do I have to rerun Audyssey if I decide to buy the Audyssey Editor app?


The app can't edit calibrations made using the AVR. You don't need any tools except the mic that came with your AVR (and hopefully a mic boom to hold it, for best results).


----------



## dkushner

Triple-X said:


> Okay thanks for answering.
> 
> I was actually looking at the X3500H as well. Is there any reason not to consider that over the X3400H?


I went from a 2312 with Audyssey XT to an X3500H with XT 32. The 3500 was about half price since it’s a year old model. I wouldn’t go back to a lesser version of Audyssey, especially since I have two subs.

Very happy with the upgrade. Also added outboard amps for the first time since I now have pre-outs.


----------



## Just Faisal

*Are Audyssey settings always right?*

Hello, 
I have denon 1500x and i used Audyssey to calibrate my speakers. I think some of them are low. My room is 4*5 
My speakers are: 
SVS prime Tower speakers 
SVS prime center
SVS prime surrounds
SVS elevation on ceiling 
2 polk subwoofers
Please see the pic and let me know. 
Thanks


----------



## dwander

Just Faisal said:


> Hello,
> I have denon 1500x and i used Audyssey to calibrate my speakers. I think some of them are low. My room is 4*5
> My speakers are:
> SVS prime Tower speakers
> SVS prime center
> SVS prime surrounds
> SVS elevation on ceiling
> 2 polk subwoofers
> Please see the pic and let me know.
> Thanks


I find the distances for the speakers are
Usually pretty on point but the levels can be off by .5 dB - 1.5 dB. With an SPL meter you can get it on point but it doesn’t change things that much. If something sounds a little low then just play with it and bump it up.

The subwoofer distances is whole other thing. There are threads dedicated to getting that right. The process can be annoying and frustrating to learn but I can vouch that once it’s learned it makes a huge difference on the low end and cohesiveness of the whole system. The “simplified REW....” thread is where I got most of my info. I’ll look for a link.


----------



## dwander

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.av...nt-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html?amp=1


Lot of good info in that thread. Also some links to guides to setup and dial it in. I think you need a calibrated mic to really get it done. Not sure if there’s another way. But I found it worth the investment in time and money. That being said audyssey can usually get you close enough to where it’s not a necessity to go deeper


----------



## Jameshtx

bluesky636 said:


> Yes. You rerun Audyssey using the app. Here is the thread with all the details about the app:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...-app-denon-marantz-av-receivers-pre-pros.html




So if I have questions about the results from using the app, do I continue to ask it here or to the app thread?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Jameshtx said:


> So if I have questions about the results from using the app, do I continue to ask it here or to the app thread?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Looks like you are already asking questions in the app thread and getting answers.


----------



## Jameshtx

bluesky636 said:


> Looks like you are already asking questions in the app thread and getting answers.




Yes. Thanks for clarifying 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

Jameshtx said:


> Yes. Thanks for clarifying
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're welcome.


----------



## Ed Mullen

Just Faisal said:


> Hello,
> I have denon 1500x and i used Audyssey to calibrate my speakers. I think some of them are low. My room is 4*5
> My speakers are:
> SVS prime Tower speakers
> SVS prime center
> SVS prime surrounds
> SVS elevation on ceiling
> 2 polk subwoofers
> Please see the pic and let me know.
> Thanks


Those trim settings are simply what is required to achieve the target level match for each channel. Unless you have a specific reason to adjust one channel to achieve a stated goal (louder or quieter) - leave them 'as is'. A negative trim value will not reduce the overall power level of the amplifier or the overall loudness the system can achieve. 

Of more concern is the speaker size and crossover for each channel - can you provide those? Then we can adjust as needed. Thanks.


----------



## Just Faisal

dwander said:


> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.av...nt-techniques-how-interpret-graphs.html?amp=1
> 
> 
> Lot of good info in that thread. Also some links to guides to setup and dial it in. I think you need a calibrated mic to really get it done. Not sure if there’s another way. But I found it worth the investment in time and money. That being said audyssey can usually get you close enough to where it’s not a necessity to go deeper


Thank you very much, i will check it


----------



## Just Faisal

Ed Mullen said:


> Just Faisal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> I have denon 1500x and i used Audyssey to calibrate my speakers. I think some of them are low. My room is 4*5
> My speakers are:
> SVS prime Tower speakers
> SVS prime center
> SVS prime surrounds
> SVS elevation on ceiling
> 2 polk subwoofers
> Please see the pic and let me know.
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Those trim settings are simply what is required to achieve the target level match for each channel. Unless you have a specific reason to adjust one channel to achieve a stated goal (louder or quieter) - leave them 'as is'. A negative trim value will not reduce the overall power level of the amplifier or the overall loudness the system can achieve.
> 
> Of more concern is the speaker size and crossover for each channel - can you provide those? Then we can adjust as needed. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Sure, all my speakers are set to small. 
Crossover of all speakers is 80 hz except tower speakers 60 hz and LFE 120 hz
What do you think?


----------



## Ed Mullen

Just Faisal said:


> Sure, all my speakers are set to small.
> Crossover of all speakers is 80 hz except tower speakers 60 hz and LFE 120 hz
> What do you think?


This is fine - good settings for your speakers.


----------



## 3pinballs

Hello, no Audiophile here (disclosure)

I have a Onkyo HT - S5600 AVR, finally did a Calibration 5 years later (didn't know about this ) Has Audyssey 2EQ and ran the 2nd option for room Correction. Just read the Audyssey 101 Section (great BTW). I need to rerun tonight as my 2nd and 3rd placements were 4 feet, instead of 2 feet from measurement/position #1 .

Problem - I'm getting a humming noise coming from my Definitive Technology BP-8060 towers from the tweeters during movies. Now If I turn off Dynamic EQ, then it goes away. Is this normal or am I doing something Wrong?

Thx, Tony


----------



## 3pinballs

*Any Audyssey Experts Figure this Out?*

Hello, no Audiophile here (disclosure)

I have a Onkyo HT - S5600 AVR, finally did a Calibration 5 years later (didn't know about this ) Has Audyssey 2EQ and ran the 2nd option for room Correction. Just read the Audyssey 101 Section (great BTW). I need to rerun tonight as my 2nd and 3rd placements were 4 feet, instead of 2 feet from measurement/position #1 .

Problem - I'm getting a humming noise coming from my Definitive Technology BP-8060 towers from the tweeters during movies. Now If I turn off Dynamic EQ, then it goes away. Is this normal or am I doing something Wrong?

Thx, Tony


----------



## smith10210

I can't get any sound with Atmos playback with my rear height speakers with the Xbox when playing Atmos demos the front heights work . Audyseey ran fine if I test the rear height speakers I get sound. Not sure what's going ?. It's a Denon 3600h and I didn't update the firmware yet not sure if that's the issue. It's showing all speakers active. I just played madmax with Kodi and rear heights are working but not with the Xbox ?









Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## smith10210

Edit it's working now I switched it to 1080 back to 4k on the Xbox x and its working not sure but saw a video in doing that and it works .

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## Jameshtx

Should I set my rear atmos speakers in the avr-layout as top rear or rear heights? I wished I installed it on the top ceiling instead on the slope part. Don’t know what I was thinking lol










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jch2

Jameshtx said:


> Should I set my rear atmos speakers in the avr-layout as top rear or rear heights? I wished I installed it on the top ceiling instead on the slope part. Donâ€™️t know what I was thinking lol


Top vs height has more to do with the vertical angle from the MLP to the speakers than where they are physical located (ceiling or wall). If they are 45 degrees or higher, set them as tops. If they are 30 degrees or lower, set them as height. Anything between, you'll have to experiment, but probably use the angle they are closest to.

-J.C.


----------



## garygarrison

Jameshtx said:


> Should I set my rear atmos speakers in the avr-layout as top rear or rear heights? I wished I installed it on the top ceiling instead on the slope part. Don’t know what I was thinking lol



JC gave you good advice. 

As my favorite engineer at Swanson Sound Service used to say, "Close enough for Rock 'n Roll." Also close enough for movies, I would guess. 

BUT, what are the room dimensions, including overall ceiling height, and the height of the speakers on the slanted part of the ceiling? Where is the MLP (main listening position)? Is the floor flat, or with risers? Is the main part of the ceiling flat, or rising? More photos?

Some commercial theaters, now, and in the early days of surround sound (1952 and after, except for Fantasia, 1940), had stadium seating in which the floor and the seats really reached skyward, with no balcony. With this kind of layout I would expect that ceiling speakers would be better than high wall speakers. My favorite 70 mm theater had this arrangement. There were (BIG!) surround speakers [JBL C55 (4520), 51" x 36, "with 2 - 15" woofers and a big mid driver and horn, each] *in the ceiling. * There were at least 8 such ceiling speakers, which, 22 years after the system was installed for Oklahoma! (1955) really helped the big ship fly over in the first Star Wars (1977). 

Other theaters, with balconies, had smaller wall mounted surround speakers that extended under the balcony and, consequently, were only about 8 feet off the floor. As far as I could tell peering through the grille cloth, they seemed to house 15" speakers crammed into small boxes, either with a paper dust cap (Altec) or a bright aluminum one (JBL D130?). I never heard an overhead effect in those theaters.


----------



## Jameshtx

garygarrison said:


> JC gave you good advice.
> 
> As my favorite engineer at Swanson Sound Service used to say, "Close enough for Rock 'n Roll." Also close enough for movies, I would guess.
> 
> BUT, what are the room dimensions, including overall ceiling height, and the height of the speakers on the slanted part of the ceiling? Where is the MLP (main listening position)? Is the floor flat, or with risers? Is the main part of the ceiling flat, or rising? More photos



Great information. My overall ceiling height is 11ft, slanted area is 9.5ft, floor is flat (no risers). If I change the Atmos speaker layout in the avr, do I need to rerun Audyssey? Thanks everyone for taking the time to help me












Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Jameshtx said:


> Great information. My overall ceiling height is 11ft, slanted area is 9.5ft, floor is flat (no risers). If I change the Atmos speaker layout in the avr, do I need to rerun Audyssey? Thanks everyone for taking the time to help me



I like that your ceiling and slanted section are so high.


IMO you might want to take an empirical approach*; *run some movies with front to back flyovers, and see which of the two AVR settings is most convincing. Rerun Audyssey? I honestly don't know. I would think all the other channels would come out the same if the mics were in exactly the same place. Because you won't be moving the speakers themselves I doubt that the two choices would change the job description Audyssey is facing*; *I think Audyssey will just try to make the sound flat from each and every speaker, wherever each speaker is, and however it is angled (naturally you can later select Audyssey Flat, or the rolled off Audyssey Reference at any time-- it doesn't matter how those are set at the time you run Audyssey).


----------



## smith10210

This might be a stupid question but what volume do you set the AVR at when performing Audyseey? I'm getting different results with different volumes. My sub prior was at 11.5 trim which I like around 81db before the next test it was at 68db? In the red telling me to turn sub level down? 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

smith10210 said:


> This might be a stupid question but what volume do you set the AVR at when performing Audyseey? I'm getting different results with different volumes. My sub prior was at 11.5 trim which I like around 81db before the next test it was at 68db? In the red telling me to turn sub level down?
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


Audyssey calibration ignores the volume setting of the AVR.

Sub level should be set on the sub to obtain the desired trim level.


----------



## smith10210

bluesky636 said:


> Audyssey calibration ignores the volume setting of the AVR.
> 
> 
> 
> Sub level should be set on the sub to obtain the desired trim level.


I figured thanks not sure what's going on I didn't move my sub from last completed audyseey a few weeks ago and I had it around 11:30 on the dial , 80db according to audyseey with a final trim of 11.5. I moved my height channels around and started audyseey again and I have to have my HSU gain at like 2 O'Clock? To hit 75db . Something cant be right .

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

smith10210 said:


> I figured thanks not sure what's going on I didn't move my sub from last completed audyseey a few weeks ago and I had it around 11:30 on the dial , 80db according to audyseey with a final trim of 11.5. I moved my height channels around and started audyseey again and I have to have my HSU gain at like 2 O'Clock? To hit 75db . Something cant be right .
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


Your sub trim is PLUS 11.5?????

More information is needed regarding how you are running the calibration.


----------



## smith10210

bluesky636 said:


> Your sub trim is PLUS 11.5?????
> 
> 
> 
> More information is needed regarding how you are running the calibration.


It has to be the mic it's stuck reading 35db and won't change no matter what my sub volume is set at . Even if i tap on the mic it doesn't change stays at 33 to 35db. This is all happening when I start Audyseey calibration. I meant -11.5 lol sorry that's what I had my past completed calibration at for weeks . 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

smith10210 said:


> It has to be the mic it's stuck reading 35db and won't change no matter what my sub volume is set at . Even if i tap on the mic it doesn't change stays at 33 to 35db. This is all happening when I start Audyseey calibration. I meant -11.5 lol sorry that's what I had my past completed calibration at for weeks .
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


What mic are you talking about? What AVR do you have? I have a Denon 3500 and don't recall seeing any readout of SPL during Audyssey calibration.


----------



## smith10210

bluesky636 said:


> What mic are you talking about? What AVR do you have? I have a Denon 3500 and don't recall seeing any readout of SPL during Audyssey calibration.


Denon 3600. I'm using the Audyseey mic and talking about the SW Level Matching. Even if i put the mic directly up to the sub it still says 33 to 34 db the same as it does at MLP. .









Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

smith10210 said:


> Denon 3600. I'm using the Audyseey mic and talking about the SW Level Matching. Even if i put the mic directly up to the sub it still says 33 to 34 db the same as it does at MLP. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 cruise using Tapatalk


Ok. I've never had that error so I've never seen that display pop up.

Yes, it sounds like it could be a mic problem. You might try a reset of the AVR as a first step.


----------



## BiggShooter

I have a question regarding speaker placement for side surrounds and rear surrounds in a 7.1 set up. 

We recently changed to a leather sectional, and I’m no longer able to place the side surround speakers directly to the side of the MLP (main listening position), since part of the sectional is now where I use to have the left side surround speaker. I had to move both side surround speakers slightly back from the MLP, however it’s less than 16” back and well within 110 degree maximum (I believe).

I didn’t move the rear surrounds from the original position, however the side surrounds are almost as far back (parallel) to the rear surrounds. Will this be a problem in my 7.1 set up? Should I eliminate the rear surrounds, OR the side surrounds due to them being almost parallel?

I haven’t been able to re-run Audyssey, but I know I need to and will as soon as I have a chance to do so (later this week). When I re-run Audyssey, will that take in to account my speaker placement and provide accurate surround sound just as it did prior to to having to move the side surrounds slightly back from the MLP?

Thanks for the replies 😁


----------



## Alan P

BiggShooter said:


> I have a question regarding speaker placement for side surrounds and rear surrounds in a 7.1 set up.
> 
> We recently changed to a leather sectional, and I’m no longer able to place the side surround speakers directly to the side of the MLP (main listening position), since part of the sectional is now where I use to have the left side surround speaker. I had to move both side surround speakers slightly back from the MLP, however it’s less than 16” back and well within 110 degree maximum (I believe).
> 
> I didn’t move the rear surrounds from the original position, however the side surrounds are almost as far back (parallel) to the rear surrounds. Will this be a problem in my 7.1 set up? Should I eliminate the rear surrounds, OR the side surrounds due to them being almost parallel?
> 
> I haven’t been able to re-run Audyssey, but I know I need to and will as soon as I have a chance to do so (later this week). When I re-run Audyssey, will that take in to account my speaker placement and provide accurate surround sound just as it did prior to to having to move the side surrounds slightly back from the MLP?
> 
> Thanks for the replies 😁


In a traditional 7.1 setup, it is often recommended that rear surrounds be at least 3' behind the MLP to be effective. That being said, my rear surrounds are only about 1.5' back (but very close to the ceiling, about 4' above ear level) and I feel I get enough effects from them to keep 'em there. They certainly don't _hurt _the overall sound.

You can't "eliminate" the side surrounds...your AVR will not let you have rear surrounds without connecting side surrounds first.


----------



## BiggShooter

Alan P said:


> In a traditional 7.1 setup, it is often recommended that rear surrounds be at least 3' behind the MLP to be effective. That being said, my rear surrounds are only about 1.5' back (but very close to the ceiling, about 4' above ear level) and I feel I get enough effects from them to keep 'em there. They certainly don't _hurt _the overall sound.
> 
> You can't "eliminate" the side surrounds...your AVR will not let you have rear surrounds without connecting side surrounds first.


My rear surrounds are almost 4ft from the MLP (behind) and directed at the MLP. My concern is mostly having to move the side surrounds slightly back (from MLP), and as a result they are no longer 90 degrees, but closer to probably 100 degrees (and within the 90-110 degree recommended for side surrounds) in relation to the MLP. 

Thanks for the continued replies 😁


----------



## mthomas47

BiggShooter said:


> I have a question regarding speaker placement for side surrounds and rear surrounds in a 7.1 set up.
> 
> We recently changed to a leather sectional, and I’m no longer able to place the side surround speakers directly to the side of the MLP (main listening position), since part of the sectional is now where I use to have the left side surround speaker. I had to move both side surround speakers slightly back from the MLP, however it’s less than 16” back and well within 110 degree maximum (I believe).
> 
> I didn’t move the rear surrounds from the original position, however the side surrounds are almost as far back (parallel) to the rear surrounds. Will this be a problem in my 7.1 set up? Should I eliminate the rear surrounds, OR the side surrounds due to them being almost parallel?
> 
> I haven’t been able to re-run Audyssey, but I know I need to and will as soon as I have a chance to do so (later this week). When I re-run Audyssey, will that take in to account my speaker placement and provide accurate surround sound just as it did prior to to having to move the side surrounds slightly back from the MLP?
> 
> Thanks for the replies 😁



Hi,

I think that Alan's response demonstrates how much variation we can have in our speaker positioning, and still have successful surround sound. Dolby, or other surround placement recommendations, are just that--generic recommendations. In most mixed-use rooms, and in many dedicated HT's, the reality of speaker placement will probably differ from whatever optimum diagram we may see.

Audyssey will get the new distances right, so that the arrival time of the speakers will be correct, and, it will get the trim levels correct. It will also EQ the speakers at their new location. But, that's all it will do. It isn't adaptive with respect to creating a different surround field, nor are any of the surround processes that you might employ. The various surround modes simply distribute the sound to the various speakers, in accordance with a fixed program, regardless of the physical location of the speakers. And, different people may like different surround modes.

What is extremely adaptive, however, is the human brain, which helps to create the illusions that surround (or even stereo) sound relies on. As long as surround and rear surround speakers are in the general area of where we would want them to be, we will still enjoy the full surround effects that we should. 

After a few days, and possibly even the first time you try the new surround locations, I would be surprised if you could hear any difference from what you are used to. If there were a slightly noticeable difference in the surround sounds, I believe that you would quickly adapt to the new sense of sound envelopment. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

BiggShooter said:


> My rear surrounds are almost 4ft from the MLP (behind) and directed at the MLP. My concern is mostly having to move the side surrounds slightly back (from MLP), and as a result they are no longer 90 degrees, but closer to probably 100 degrees (and within the 90-110 degree recommended for side surrounds) in relation to the MLP.
> 
> Thanks for the continued replies 😁


You mentioned that the side surrounds were now almost parallel with the rear surrounds, this made me think that the rear surrounds were closer. Your side walls must be quite far from your MLP if almost 4' back is still within 110 degrees.....or am I totally confused?


----------



## LordGandalf

For anyone that has a decent system and mostly plays movies around -20, I highly recommend turning off Dynamic EQ--especially if you are having trouble with dialogue intelligibility, combined with overbearing surround and sub response. After a few years, I went from this on the Denon X7200WA with Sunfire speakers:

Reference
Dynamic EQ: On
Dynamic Vol: Off
Ref Level Offset: 0db
Lowering surrounds significantly to taste and raising subs to taste

*To this:*

Reference
Dynamic EQ: Off
Dynamic Vol: Off
Ref Level Offset: 0db
Raising surrounds to original Audyssey calibration levels and raising subs slightly

I watched Hellboy UHD in Atmos for the second time, but at -11 instead of the usual -20. Everything was big with robust highs, mids, and lows with a solid surround effect, but more distinct, with much clearer dialogue. -11 with DEQ on would have been punishing in terms of surround, sub, and overall rawness.

Initially, I tried Dynamic Vol: On and DEQ: On, which solved dialogue intelligibility, but Google searches led to numerous discussions of compression happening in the Denon to make this happen. Having both off and tweaking speaker volume resulted in a much cleaner and more potent soundfield. Mad Max and Tron Legacy also sounded better.


----------



## garygarrison

BiggShooter said:


> My rear surrounds are almost 4ft from the MLP (behind) and directed at the MLP. My concern is mostly having to move the side surrounds slightly back (from MLP), and as a result they are no longer 90 degrees, but closer to probably 100 degrees (and* within the 90-110 degree recommended for side surrounds*) in relation to the MLP.
> Thanks for the continued replies 😁


 
My side surrounds are probably a little more than the 110 degree max to the side but they still work well, thanks to the marvelous human brain to which Mike referred. In the center seat, on films with the best soundscapes, there is a continuous detailed image down both sides of the room. From any of the seats other than the center, the sidewall image is stronger, with more loci, on the side the listener is on, but that's O.K. with me -- usually different things are happening on different sides, anyway. 



The quirky thing about the sidewall images is that there is a minor sense of up and down to them as well, with no height channels, and no Atmos. I would normally assume that this is due to a lifetime of conditioning as to what kinds of sounds are usually above, even with, or below one's ears .... but ... Chesky has a _*2 channel*_test disc that uses sandpaper blocks rubbed together to demonstrate up and down with a simple stereo recording. It starts with the blocks being scraped together even with one's ears on the left front channel, then, as the scraping moves toward the center it moves up toward the ceiling, then gradually down to the right front channel. The power of suggestion? Not totally, because it works on people who haven't been told what to expect. I don't remember if they had their mics in simulated human ears or not -- I think not -- but if they did, the change of the frequency signature of rubbing sandpaper heard at different angles as raised and lowered relative to the ears may have been recorded on the disk.


If anyone wants to hear the ultimate in sound localization on the sides, including up and down without the benefit of height channels or Atmos, try listening to the horrible thing that happens a little while into The Grey (2011).


----------



## pbz06

A_D_A_M said:


> For anyone that has a decent system and mostly plays movies around -20, I highly recommend turning off Dynamic EQ--especially if you are having trouble with dialogue intelligibility, combined with overbearing surround and sub response. After a few years, I went from this on the Denon X7200WA with Sunfire speakers:
> 
> Reference
> Dynamic EQ: On
> Dynamic Vol: Off
> Ref Level Offset: 0db
> Lowering surrounds significantly to taste and raising subs to taste
> 
> *To this:*
> 
> Reference
> Dynamic EQ: Off
> Dynamic Vol: Off
> Ref Level Offset: 0db
> Raising surrounds to original Audyssey calibration levels and raising subs slightly
> 
> I watched Hellboy UHD in Atmos for the second time, but at -11 instead of the usual -20. Everything was big with robust highs, mids, and lows with a solid surround effect, but more distinct, with much clearer dialogue. -11 with DEQ on would have been punishing in terms of surround, sub, and overall rawness.
> 
> Initially, I tried Dynamic Vol: On and DEQ: On, which solved dialogue intelligibility, but Google searches led to numerous discussions of compression happening in the Denon to make this happen. Having both off and tweaking speaker volume resulted in a much cleaner and more potent soundfield. Mad Max and Tron Legacy also sounded better.


I prefer DEQ. I love what it does with the bass (in all channels), and since my speakers and sub can handle it, it just sounds more authoritative. I don't have issues with intelligibility.


----------



## BiggShooter

Alan P said:


> You mentioned that the side surrounds were now almost parallel with the rear surrounds, this made me think that the rear surrounds were closer. Your side walls must be quite far from your MLP if almost 4' back is still within 110 degrees.....or am I totally confused?


I'm sorry for the confusion. I will try to get some pics of my family room and 7.1 set up tomorrow during the day. Stay tuned


----------



## Alan P

A_D_A_M said:


> For anyone that has a decent system and mostly plays movies around -20, I highly recommend turning off Dynamic EQ--especially if you are having trouble with dialogue intelligibility, combined with overbearing surround and sub response. After a few years, I went from this on the Denon X7200WA with Sunfire speakers:
> 
> Reference
> Dynamic EQ: On
> Dynamic Vol: Off
> Ref Level Offset: 0db
> Lowering surrounds significantly to taste and raising subs to taste
> 
> *To this:*
> 
> Reference
> Dynamic EQ: Off
> Dynamic Vol: Off
> Ref Level Offset: 0db
> *Raising surrounds to original Audyssey calibration levels and raising subs slightly*
> 
> I watched Hellboy UHD in Atmos for the second time, but at -11 instead of the usual -20. Everything was big with robust highs, mids, and lows with a solid surround effect, but more distinct, with much clearer dialogue. -11 with DEQ on would have been punishing in terms of surround, sub, and overall rawness.
> 
> Initially, I tried Dynamic Vol: On and DEQ: On, which solved dialogue intelligibility, but Google searches led to numerous discussions of compression happening in the Denon to make this happen. Having both off and tweaking speaker volume resulted in a much cleaner and more potent soundfield. Mad Max and Tron Legacy also sounded better.


How much is "slightly"?

If you normally listened at -20MV with an RLO of "0", with DEQ off you would need to raise your subs approximately 8.8dB to mimic what DEQ was doing. Since you are now listening at -11MV, you would only need to raise the subs by about 4.5dB or so.

However, I agree that DEQ muddies up the dialogue (on my system at least), as well as making the subs sound a bit bloated...I turned it off years ago.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I prefer DEQ. I love what it does with the bass (in all channels), and since my speakers and sub can handle it, it just sounds more authoritative. I don't have issues with intelligibility.


Ditto


----------



## garygarrison

*EDIT* (3 PM PST)*:* I misread the post of_ *pbz06 *_that _*bluesky* _ was dittoing, so I deleted my ditto, and rewrote. I *don't *generally like DEQ, but I try it about once a year for dinner music. Sorry to wreck your "triple ditto," _*rocky1*_, but you may have my "double," I won't be needing it. 



Alan P said:


> However, I agree that DEQ muddies up the dialogue (on my system at least), as well as making the subs sound a bit bloated...I turned it off years ago.


We all agree that rooms differ, tastes differ, etc. I know some people love DEQ in their situation, but I, too, turned it off years ago. Intuitively, DEQ has a complex job to do, over top of the already complex job Audyssey EQ has to do. Maybe that's just too much, at least with my system and room. Perhaps just having DEQ in the circuit is too much in my situation. With DEQ OFF I can turn up my sub a full 9 dB and it remains clean and clear at any plausible volume, and, indeed, the bass is "worthy of applause" (L._ plausibilis)_. I rarely have the Main Volume lower than 7 dB below reference (for movies), but even with "just a touch" of bass and treble DEQ, there seems to be some garble and blur. Last holiday season I tried using DEQ, once again, for soft dinner/party music, and lost a little clarity.


----------



## rocky1

Dont have any issues with Deq. Dialog is very good. So
Triple Ditto.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> However, I agree that DEQ muddies up the dialogue (on my system at least), as well as making the subs sound a bit bloated...I turned it off years ago.



Hi Alan, I'm at loss here. Care to shed some light on how DEQ "muddies up" the dialogue? What exactly are you experiencing? What does "muddy" mean? How does a "bit bloated" sub sound? Care to expand on these issues a bit? Thx


----------



## pbarach

mogorf said:


> Hi Alan, I'm at loss here. Care to shed some light on how DEQ "muddies up" the dialogue? What exactly are you experiencing? What does "muddy" mean? How does a "bit bloated" sub sound? Care to expand on these issues a bit? Thx


I've noticed that DEQ can muddy up the dialog on certain video or TV material by making the surrounds too loud. Anything that originated with BBC TV has this issue more than anything else. I have DEQ turned on with BluRays with ref level offset of zero, and turned on for TV with offset of 10--but in both of these cases, I turn off DEQ when BBC was the source.


----------



## jch2

pbarach said:


> mogorf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Alan, I'm at loss here. Care to shed some light on how DEQ "muddies up" the dialogue? What exactly are you experiencing? What does "muddy" mean? How does a "bit bloated" sub sound? Care to expand on these issues a bit? Thx
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that DEQ can muddy up the dialog on certain video or TV material by making the surrounds too loud. Anything that originated with BBC TV has this issue more than anything else. I have DEQ turned on with BluRays with ref level offset of zero, and turned on for TV with offset of 10--but in both of these cases, I turn off DEQ when BBC was the source.
Click to expand...

BBC is really bad with audio in general. For years I've had the same issue, sometimes having to turn on subtitles. And that was across three different AVRs/prepros from two different manufacturers (Yamaha and Marantz). But, a few months ago I discovered the real problem. BBC quite often broadcasts in Dolby Digital 5.1, but only uses two channels (front left and right), so it is stereo through an DD container. This messes up the Auto surround mode. AVRs don't kick into Dolby Pro Logic mode of DSU and extract a center channel. So you get dialog out of your mains and not the center. If you don't have perfect imaging and aren't in the sweet spot, the dialog is harder to understand. The trick is to force your source into stereo mode and then DSU PLII mode will kick in and everything sounds better. BBC is still pretty bad at dialog even with that workaround, especially shows like Doctor Who, but it is better when you defeat the stereo-in-DD nonsense. See if that happens to be your issue as well.


----------



## pbarach

I just run the BBC programs in stereo, and I've been careful enough with speaker placement that the voices are clearly centered and not spread left to right.


----------



## Jameshtx

pbz06 said:


> I prefer DEQ. I love what it does with the bass (in all channels), and since my speakers and sub can handle it, it just sounds more authoritative. I don't have issues with intelligibility.


Just curious are your speakers powered by a separate amplifier or your AVR?


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Hi Alan, I'm at loss here. Care to shed some light on how DEQ "muddies up" the dialogue? What exactly are you experiencing? What does "muddy" mean? How does a "bit bloated" sub sound? Care to expand on these issues a bit? Thx


Feri,

Although it's been quite a while since I've listened with DEQ, I will try to describe it as best I can. I fully realize that these quirks could very well be exclusive to _my _room and _my _system. Keep in mind that I watch movies at pretty much the same MV every time (-15MV).

When I say "it muddies up the dialogue" I mean the center channel is not as clear or distinct...maybe I should have said that it muddies up the center channel. "Bloated" bass to me means that the individual notes are not as distinct, the frequencies seem to smear together. To me, this sounds "bloated", i.e. the bass is more "one-note". Also, my subwoofers seem to be "held back". i.e. they can't get quite as loud or dynamic as without DEQ + my own house curve.

I also prefer the sound of my system without Audyssey (the HORROR!  ), so DEQ isn't even an option right now. I EQ my subs with a MiniDSP and find that is really all my speakers/room needs. I am looking forward to trying out the Audyssey app whenever I do finally upgrade my AVR...I will be able to limit correction _and _use DEQ, which just might be the holy grail I am looking for, maybe not.


Now, all that being said, I am just about to make the switch to ported, low tuned subs (am running sealed now). I do plan on re-running Audyssey and giving Audyssey _and _DEQ another chance. We shall see.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Feri,
> 
> Although it's been quite a while since I've listened with DEQ, I will try to describe it as best I can. I fully realize that these quirks could very well be exclusive to _my _room and _my _system. Keep in mind that I watch movies at pretty much the same MV every time (-15MV).
> 
> When I say "it muddies up the dialogue" I mean the center channel is not as clear or distinct...maybe I should have said that it muddies up the center channel. "Bloated" bass to me means that the individual notes are not as distinct, the frequencies seem to smear together. To me, this sounds "bloated", i.e. the bass is more "one-note". Also, my subwoofers seem to be "held back". i.e. they can't get quite as loud or dynamic as without DEQ + my own house curve.
> 
> I also prefer the sound of my system without Audyssey (the HORROR!  ), so DEQ isn't even an option right now. I EQ my subs with a MiniDSP and find that is really all my speakers/room needs. I am looking forward to trying out the Audyssey app whenever I do finally upgrade my AVR...I will be able to limit correction _and _use DEQ, which just might be the holy grail I am looking for, maybe not.
> 
> 
> Now, all that being said, I am just about to make the switch to ported, low tuned subs (am running sealed now). I do plan on re-running Audyssey and giving Audyssey _and _DEQ another chance. We shall see.



Thanks Alan for your nice write up. I think it will help many of us to be able to know what to listen for when tuning and fine tuning our systems and finally how to describe what we hear in written form.


Thanks again.


----------



## BiggShooter

BiggShooter said:


> I have a question regarding speaker placement for side surrounds and rear surrounds in a 7.1 set up.
> 
> We recently changed to a leather sectional, and I’m no longer able to place the side surround speakers directly to the side of the MLP (main listening position), since part of the sectional is now where I use to have the left side surround speaker. I had to move both side surround speakers slightly back from the MLP, however it’s less than 16” back and well within 110 degree maximum (I believe).
> 
> I didn’t move the rear surrounds from the original position, however the side surrounds are almost as far back (parallel) to the rear surrounds. Will this be a problem in my 7.1 set up? Should I eliminate the rear surrounds, OR the side surrounds due to them being almost parallel?
> 
> I haven’t been able to re-run Audyssey, but I know I need to and will as soon as I have a chance to do so (later this week). When I re-run Audyssey, will that take in to account my speaker placement and provide accurate surround sound just as it did prior to to having to move the side surrounds slightly back from the MLP?
> 
> Thanks for the replies 😁





BiggShooter said:


> I'm sorry for the confusion. I will try to get some pics of my family room and 7.1 set up tomorrow during the day. Stay tuned


Here are some pictures of my 7.1 set up. My concern is how close the side surround speakers are in relation to the rear surround speakers. Do I need to eliminate my rear surround speakers since they are almost parallel to the side surround speakers? Thoughts? Suggestions?? Thanks for the replies


----------



## bluesky636

BiggShooter said:


> Here are some pictures of my 7.1 set up. My concern is how close the side surround speakers are in relation to the rear surround speakers. Do I need to eliminate my rear surround speakers since they are almost parallel to the side surround speakers? Thoughts? Suggestions?? Thanks for the replies


The question you should be asking yourself is, how does this setup sound to you compared to how it sounded before you got the new couch? I'm sure you will get comments saying you need to do this or do that. But if it still sounds good, who cares what others think?

My side surrounds are on the side walls near the ceiling and about 2 feet in front of the MLP. My back surrounds are on the back wall also near the ceiling. I have had people tell me that can't possibly sound good and it doesn't. It sounds terrific! I have bullets whizzing by me, helicopters flying overhead, and sounds all around me. So I just ignore what others have to say.

Bottom line, if your setup still sounds good to you, you don't need to do anything except enjoy it.


----------



## BiggShooter

bluesky636 said:


> The question you should be asking yourself is, how does this setup sound to you compared to how it sounded before you got the new couch? I'm sure you will get comments saying you need to do this or do that. But if it still sounds good, who cares what others think?
> 
> My side surrounds are on the side walls near the ceiling and about 2 feet in front of the MLP. My back surrounds are on the back wall also near the ceiling. I have had people tell me that can't possibly sound good and it doesn't. It sounds terrific! I have bullets whizzing by me, helicopters flying overhead, and sounds all around me. So I just ignore what others have to say.
> 
> Bottom line, if your setup still sounds good to you, you don't need to do anything except enjoy it.


Thanks bluesky636


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

My experience with DEQ is a love/hate relationship. I like it when playing normal content that's not Dolby or the likes that contain lfe channel info. It provides a nice boost in bass for the speakers. With content like movies its too much for my liking. With DEQ off I find the speakers a little flat with no bass boost and needing to raise the trim on the subs a lot to get the DEQ effect. 
With Audyssey off you get the natural bass boost from the speakers, don't need to raise the sub as much and the sound doesn't is flat, this one depends entirely on the speaker position and other factors. ( well they all do I suppose)
DEQ off with the speaker correction limited to 500hz below is a good compromise
Off for me is my favorite for movies as it is the most dynamic of them all, can get loud though 

Does any-one think that DEQ boost the low end in the speakers as well as the subs (house curve for both) because that's how i feel they do it. I have not measured with REW to confirm this but a gut feeling is all. This would make sense to me but I might be wrong.


----------



## mthomas47

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> My experience with DEQ is a love/hate relationship. I like it when playing normal content that's not Dolby or the likes that contain lfe channel info. It provides a nice boost in bass for the speakers. With content like movies its too much for my liking. With DEQ off I find the speakers a little flat with no bass boost and needing to raise the trim on the subs a lot to get the DEQ effect.
> With Audyssey off you get the natural bass boost from the speakers, don't need to raise the sub as much and the sound doesn't is flat, this one depends entirely on the speaker position and other factors. ( well they all do I suppose)
> DEQ off with the speaker correction limited to 500hz below is a good compromise
> Off for me is my favorite for movies as it is the most dynamic of them all, can get loud though
> 
> Does any-one think that DEQ boost the low end in the speakers as well as the subs (house curve for both) because that's how i feel they do it. I have not measured with REW to confirm this but a gut feeling is all. This would make sense to me but I might be wrong.



Hi,

You aren't wrong, DEQ does add the same shape bass boost to all of the channels. It's just that, depending on the crossover, we may not notice the boost of the deeper frequencies in the regular channels quite as much. For instance, with an 80Hz crossover, the stronger boosts would be occurring from about 70Hz down, and there would be a slightly less noticeable effect on the regular channels, due to the speaker's roll-off below the crossover. With a 100Hz crossover, on the other hand, I believe that DEQ's effect on the regular channels might be more noticeable.

If you want to understand DEQ's operation a little better, Section V-A of the Guide, linked below, has a pretty thorough explanation of its actions and the theory behind them. The Audyssey FAQ, which is linked in that section, also has some supporting frequency response graphs that show DEQ's action.

When Alan spoke of not liking DEQ as much for his center channel, I think that he was hearing some of what you have described. To me, voices are a good way to judge bass clarity. I seem to be very susceptible to noticing low-frequency boosts, which lower the timbre of male voices. I am very attuned to speech, and lower than normal timbre, in male voices, has a somewhat unnatural sound quality to me.

Sometimes, that lower than normal timbre is intentionally a part of the film score. We see that now with a lot of fantasy and sci-fi movies. But, I rarely want to create that effect, with my own sound system, or enhance it if the movie does so. The lower than normal timbre can also make dialogue a little harder to understand, unless the speaker articulates in the way that James Earl Jones did. 

So, for me at least, either DEQ, or large independent subwoofer boosts, have the potential to somewhat interfere with male dialogue. They may do other things as well, but dialogue is a pretty easy litmus test for me. Maintaining an 80Hz crossover for my center channel (and for my front speakers), and using cascading crossovers, has proved to be a good solution in my system. Both the principle and the technique of using cascading crossovers are explained in Section III-C of the Guide. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Alan P

BiggShooter said:


> Here are some pictures of my 7.1 set up. My concern is how close the side surround speakers are in relation to the rear surround speakers. Do I need to eliminate my rear surround speakers since they are almost parallel to the side surround speakers? Thoughts? Suggestions?? Thanks for the replies


Thanks for the pics, I see what you mean now about being almost parallel.

You can find out for yourself if the back surrounds are adding to or hindering the overall presentation. Just put on some scenes you are familiar with and turn the back surrounds on/off in your AVR. Then you can decide for yourself if they are worth keeping.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> I also prefer the sound of my system without Audyssey (the HORROR! )



Yes, a picture of Marlon Brando did pop into my head when I read "the HORROR." 



So, "mission accomplished," to quote someone else.


----------



## pbz06

Jameshtx said:


> Just curious are your speakers powered by a separate amplifier or your AVR?


I used my AVR (Marantz SR7011) and no separate amp, although they are powered towers with their own built-in 10" woofers and amp plate. I doubt it makes a difference in sound, but it's not like I have high end speakers anyway.

To add some context to my point, I don't have a "critical" ear like Mike, Gary, and some others here. I'm just an enthusiast and like to tweak and get the most out of my system, but I can't differentiate what a tuned piano or proper violin should sound like. It takes a lot of treble boosts for me to hear "shrill" and a lot of bass boost for me to hear "bloat". The majority of my impressions are based off movies and multi-channel content from blu-ray discs (i.e. Atmos, Dolby True HD etc).

In my years of testing, almost everything I try falls within subtle differences as opposed to "bad/wrong/ouch/awesome/best". I also don't think DEQ is perfect, and wish I could use it only for the bass curves at my varying volumes.


----------



## bluesky636

I leave DEQ on all the time for all sources and have no problems with it.

First of all, I only increase my sub level by 3 dB over the Audyssey calibration point. Secondly, my four surrounds are wall mounted and up above the MLP by about 5 or 6 feet. They are Polk FXIA4s operating in bipole mode and do an excellent job of spreading the sound around without localization. My sub is a HSU VTF-2 Mk2 with a Mk5 power amp.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You aren't wrong, DEQ does add the same shape bass boost to all of the channels. It's just that, depending on the crossover, we may not notice the boost of the deeper frequencies in the regular channels quite as much. For instance, with an 80Hz crossover, the stronger boosts would be occurring from about 70Hz down, and there would be a slightly less noticeable effect on the regular channels, due to the speaker's roll-off below the crossover. With a 100Hz crossover, on the other hand, I believe that DEQ's effect on the regular channels might be more noticeable.
> 
> If you want to understand DEQ's operation a little better, Section V-A of the Guide, linked below, has a pretty thorough explanation of its actions and the theory behind them. The Audyssey FAQ, which is linked in that section, also has some supporting frequency response graphs that show DEQ's action.
> 
> When Alan spoke of not liking DEQ as much for his center channel, I think that he was hearing some of what you have described. To me, voices are a good way to judge bass clarity. I seem to be very susceptible to noticing low-frequency boosts, which lower the timbre of male voices. I am very attuned to speech, and lower than normal timbre, in male voices, has a somewhat unnatural sound quality to me.
> 
> Sometimes, that lower than normal timbre is intentionally a part of the film score. We see that now with a lot of fantasy and sci-fi movies. But, I rarely want to create that effect, with my own sound system, or enhance it if the movie does so. The lower than normal timbre can also make dialogue a little harder to understand, unless the speaker articulates in the way that James Earl Jones did.
> 
> So, for me at least, either DEQ, or large independent subwoofer boosts, have the potential to somewhat interfere with male dialogue. They may do other things as well, but dialogue is a pretty easy litmus test for me. Maintaining an 80Hz crossover for my center channel (and for my front speakers), and using cascading crossovers, has proved to be a good solution in my system. Both the principle and the technique of using cascading crossovers are explained in Section III-C of the Guide.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the reply Mike and confirming something I felt Audyssey was doing, I had measured the subs only through REW to see what DEQ was doing and how aggressive each RLO was doing but always had a feeling it was doing more than just raising the trims on the other channels.
I have read your awesome guide quite some time ago, it would be nice to go back for a reread now that I understand Audyssey and home theater a lot more.

Cascading crossovers is something I use and swear by, which I learnt from your guide, I feel it brings balance to the force, I'm still flip flopping between 100,90 and 80hz
I worked so hard to get my subs flat to 100hz beyond that I feel I should take advantage of it. But in honesty 80hz is the sweet spot for me and leaves plenty of headroom
Do you use DEQ with the Cascading crossover?
As far as voices go, its a fine line that between sounding too flat(harsh) and too boomey, I suppose warm is the sound I like depending on what the content is supposed to be 
I watched Raiders of the last Arc last night and I noticed DEQ added more depth to the voice (not too much just right) as opposed to been off. When DEQ Off even with the sub trims up it doesn't go near the voices and sounds a little flat to my ears and lacks depth. With CC and DEQ the room isn't blasted with above 80hz subwoofer bass and everything just seems to blend well together.
Thanks for you Guide Mike and your input to this wonderful hobby
Edit: When I have Audyssey off I still use the Cascading Crossover since the speakers are creating that natural boost for the front stage


----------



## zeonstar

With the recent mention of DEQ, it reminded me of something. 

I once read somewhere, I forget where, that DEQ does absolutely nothing with Height/Atmos speakers as it was designed way before Height speakers existed. Does anyone know if there is any truth to that?


----------



## blb1215

zeonstar said:


> With the recent mention of DEQ, it reminded me of something.
> 
> I once read somewhere, I forget where, that DEQ does absolutely nothing with Height/Atmos speakers as it was designed way before Height speakers existed. Does anyone know if there is any truth to that?



I believe it treats the top layer same as base layer and only boosts the rear top/height but not front. I hope others can verify.


----------



## Jameshtx

I know its a must to rerun Audyssey anytime when changing/replacing speakers or its positioning, however, does Audyssey need to be rerun if the only thing I'm changing is added a separate dedicated amp (for towers n center)?


----------



## mthomas47

Jameshtx said:


> I know its a must to rerun Audyssey anytime when changing/replacing speakers or its positioning, however, does Audyssey need to be rerun if the only thing I'm changing is added a separate dedicated amp (for towers n center)?



Unfortunately, yes! I know that running Audyssey can be a pain, but your new external amp will have its own gain structure, and that may affect the trim levels of the three front speakers. It's conceivable that it will also slightly affect their frequency responses, and with that the subsequent filters set by Audyssey, and the crossovers set by your AVR. (For instance, the speakers may have a little more headroom now.)

If the new dedicated amplifier didn't have any effect on anything at all, I think you would be disappointed. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## BiggShooter

BiggShooter said:


> I have a question regarding speaker placement for side surrounds and rear surrounds in a 7.1 set up.
> 
> We recently changed to a leather sectional, and I’m no longer able to place the side surround speakers directly to the side of the MLP (main listening position), since part of the sectional is now where I use to have the left side surround speaker. I had to move both side surround speakers slightly back from the MLP, however it’s less than 16” back and well within 110 degree maximum (I believe).
> 
> I didn’t move the rear surrounds from the original position, however the side surrounds are almost as far back (parallel) to the rear surrounds. Will this be a problem in my 7.1 set up? Should I eliminate the rear surrounds, OR the side surrounds due to them being almost parallel?
> 
> I haven’t been able to re-run Audyssey, but I know I need to and will as soon as I have a chance to do so (later this week). When I re-run Audyssey, will that take in to account my speaker placement and provide accurate surround sound just as it did prior to to having to move the side surrounds slightly back from the MLP?
> 
> Thanks for the replies 😁





BiggShooter said:


> Here are some pictures of my 7.1 set up. My concern is how close the side surround speakers are in relation to the rear surround speakers. Do I need to eliminate my rear surround speakers since they are almost parallel to the side surround speakers? Thoughts? Suggestions?? Thanks for the replies


All is good after having to move my side surround speakers with the new furniture. I ran Audyssey, and the sound is just as good as it was before! Sounds no different! Thanks for all the replies.


----------



## bluesky636

BiggShooter said:


> All is good after having to move my side surround speakers with the new furniture. I ran Audyssey, and the sound is just as good as it was before! Sounds no different! Thanks for all the replies.


Any speaker setup in a regular living space (as opposed to a dedicated home theater) is bound to be a compromise. Sometimes the compromise works, sometimes it doesn't. Glad yours worked.


----------



## thepiecesfit

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The photo helps a lot! That is a very challenging space acoustically, with all of the hard surfaces and angled walls and ceiling. You are going to have far more mid, and especially high-frequency, reflections to deal with in that space than would ordinarily be the case. I can understand why Audyssey Flat makes things worse, and DEQ, with its slight high-frequency boost, may also exacerbate the issue.
> 
> There are several things that I would do if I were you. First, I would put an area rug (preferably with a foam rubber pad under it) between your speakers and your listening position. Second, I would put some sort of tablecloth over the table directly in front of the sofa. Third, I would try to pull the sofa a foot or more further forward of the wall. (You can also try putting a decorative acoustic panel, or something like that, on the wall directly behind the sofa.)
> 
> There isn't much you can do about all of the hard surfaces and oblique angles in the room, but just implementing the simple measures described above will help a lot with your high and mid-range frequencies. You really need to take some of the excess energy out of the room, but you especially need to concentrate on the area in the direct path of the speakers.
> 
> I don't believe that you will be getting a lot of early reflections from adjacent walls. And, other than overall ringing in a room, it is the early reflections that typically cause us the most trouble. It is also the early reflections that Audyssey will react most strongly to. The floor in front of the speakers, the table in front of the sofa, and the wall behind the sofa, are all early reflection points.
> 
> One thing that I would probably not do is to measure above ear level. Your seated ear height (to the center of the ear canal) is probably anywhere from about 32" to 36" from the floor. If you measure at 42" you will be well above the area where you are actually listening, and Audyssey will be correcting at a position where you are not listening. You want Audyssey to make corrections for the area where you actually are listening. (If the tweeter on your center channel is angled-up a little too much, you may want to adjust that.)
> 
> If I were you, I would keep my microphone at about ear height and use a very close microphone pattern. I might not go out more than 6" to 8" to each side, and no more than 12" to 18" forward. There would be no measurements very close to the wall behind the sofa. The more spurious reflections a room is providing, the more important it may be to allow Audyssey to measure and EQ a smaller listening area. Moving the sofa away from the wall, and putting some kind of absorption/diffusion on that wall will especially help with the Audyssey calibration. But, it will also help even if you never had Audyssey.
> 
> By all means, experiment and measure as you like. But, the real test is how things sound, and your overall FR, and what you actually hear with respect to mid and high-frequencies, will almost certainly not be identical. I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you I have since added an area rug and a jute rug pad which combined are a little over half an inch thick. The results are much better. However, I am still experiencing harsh upper mids. I am coming to the conclusion that it's my speakers and the default curve Audyssey applies and that I would need to apply some custom house curve. Both my Polk LsiM 705 and LsiM 706c have the tweeter/midrange crossover at 2800 Hz. Therefore I feel like mid range compensation is applied in the wrong area 2000 Hz. Turning off midrange compensation attemps to maintain a flatter curve but doesn't address the crossover point. I did use Ratbuddyssey to try to move the midrange compensation to that area with better results. I am finding however if I cut the filters off to 500 Hz everything sounds just about perfect.


----------



## hawkster27

What Mike said....


----------



## avtoronto

*Cascading Crossovers*

The LFE channel runs up to 120Hz. If one implements cascading crossovers at say 80Hz., surely 40Hz. of the LFE is lost as it will never be sent to the subs. Just curious to know.


----------



## mogorf

avtoronto said:


> The LFE channel runs up to 120Hz. If one implements cascading crossovers at say 80Hz., surely 40Hz. of the LFE is lost as it will never be sent to the subs. Just curious to know.



Nope. LFE channel and crossover channels are two different things that get combined in the end.


The subwoofer channel of an AVR will always have two signal inputs:


1. Signal from the 0.1 (LFE) channel (up to 120 Hz),
2. Signal from satellites redirected via crossover (e.g. 80 Hz and below)


Rest assured, nothing gets lost, especially not 40 Hz of the LFE. Hope this helps.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Nope. LFE channel and crossover channels are two different things that get combined in the end.
> 
> 
> The subwoofer channel of an AVR will always have two signal inputs:
> 
> 
> 1. Signal from the 0.1 (LFE) channel (up to 120 Hz),
> 2. Signal from satellites redirected via crossover (e.g. 80 Hz and below)
> 
> 
> Rest assured, nothing gets lost, especially not 40 Hz of the LFE. Hope this helps.



That's not what it says in the cascading crossover section of post one in the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration thread (unless that section is being updated):


"*III-C: Cascading Crossovers:*

The concept of using cascading crossovers to increase mid-bass clarity, and to increase dialogue intelligibility, is one that has been around for a while. It may be especially helpful where someone is using significant subwoofer boosts in order to emphasize low-bass frequencies, or to emphasize mid-bass chest punch. 

The process is typically defined as setting two crossovers in different places, such as in your AVR and in your subwoofer, to combine at the same frequency. In this case, we won't actually be setting a "crossover" in the subwoofer, although it is often labelled as that on the subwoofer amplifier. We will just be setting a low-pass filter in the subwoofer which corresponds to the crossovers in our AVR. (As explained earlier in Section III, a low-pass filter "passes" frequencies below the set point. By doing that, it regulates the frequencies which a subwoofer is allowed to play.)

There are three components to cascading crossovers. First, there are the crossovers from the speakers to the subwoofers, which are typically set at about 80Hz. Surround and height channels may have higher crossovers than that, and that is usually fine. It is mainly the front soundstage, which carries most of the meaningful content and all of the dialogue, that we are trying to affect.

*Second, there is the LPF of LFE, which controls a separate bass channel (the .1 low-frequency effects channel) as explained in the previous subsection. Only the subwoofers play the LFE content, and that additional bass content is only present with 5.1 movies and 5.1 music. To implement cascading crossovers, both bass sources in the AVR would be set to the same ~80Hz frequency. So, the LPF of LFE in the AVR would also be changed to 80Hz.* 

(Some AVR's, such as Yamaha AVR's, don't allow the LPF of LFE to be changed. It always remains at the default setting of 120Hz. If so, it is no problem. Setting the LPF in the subwoofer itself to 80Hz will still have full effect on the crossovers from the speakers to the subwoofer, and the low-frequency effects channel will still roll-off a little faster, too. So, the concept of cascading crossovers will still work.)

The third component is the low-pass filter (LPF) in the subwoofers themselves. As noted above, that filter may be labelled as a "crossover" on the subwoofer's plate amp. It controls how high in frequency the subwoofer is allowed to play before starting to roll-off. To make the two bass sources in the AVR cascade, it would also be necessary to set the subwoofer(s) low-pass filter to the same ~80Hz frequency."


----------



## avtoronto

bluesky636 said:


> That's not what it says in the cascading crossover section of post one in the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration thread (unless that section is being updated):
> 
> 
> "*III-C: Cascading Crossovers:*
> 
> The concept of using cascading crossovers to increase mid-bass clarity, and to increase dialogue intelligibility, is one that has been around for a while. It may be especially helpful where someone is using significant subwoofer boosts in order to emphasize low-bass frequencies, or to emphasize mid-bass chest punch.
> 
> The process is typically defined as setting two crossovers in different places, such as in your AVR and in your subwoofer, to combine at the same frequency. In this case, we won't actually be setting a "crossover" in the subwoofer, although it is often labelled as that on the subwoofer amplifier. We will just be setting a low-pass filter in the subwoofer which corresponds to the crossovers in our AVR. (As explained earlier in Section III, a low-pass filter "passes" frequencies below the set point. By doing that, it regulates the frequencies which a subwoofer is allowed to play.)
> 
> There are three components to cascading crossovers. First, there are the crossovers from the speakers to the subwoofers, which are typically set at about 80Hz. Surround and height channels may have higher crossovers than that, and that is usually fine. It is mainly the front soundstage, which carries most of the meaningful content and all of the dialogue, that we are trying to affect.
> 
> *Second, there is the LPF of LFE, which controls a separate bass channel (the .1 low-frequency effects channel) as explained in the previous subsection. Only the subwoofers play the LFE content, and that additional bass content is only present with 5.1 movies and 5.1 music. To implement cascading crossovers, both bass sources in the AVR would be set to the same ~80Hz frequency. So, the LPF of LFE in the AVR would also be changed to 80Hz.*
> 
> (Some AVR's, such as Yamaha AVR's, don't allow the LPF of LFE to be changed. It always remains at the default setting of 120Hz. If so, it is no problem. Setting the LPF in the subwoofer itself to 80Hz will still have full effect on the crossovers from the speakers to the subwoofer, and the low-frequency effects channel will still roll-off a little faster, too. So, the concept of cascading crossovers will still work.)
> 
> The third component is the low-pass filter (LPF) in the subwoofers themselves. As noted above, that filter may be labelled as a "crossover" on the subwoofer's plate amp. It controls how high in frequency the subwoofer is allowed to play before starting to roll-off. To make the two bass sources in the AVR cascade, it would also be necessary to set the subwoofer(s) low-pass filter to the same ~80Hz frequency."


Yes, exactly, so my question still stands.


----------



## bluesky636

avtoronto said:


> Yes, exactly, so my question still stands.


It might be better to post your question in that thread.


----------



## avtoronto

bluesky636 said:


> It might be better to post your question in that thread.


True, will do.


----------



## BJBBJB

bluesky636 said:


> I leave DEQ on all the time for all sources and have no problems with it.
> 
> First of all, I only increase my sub level by 3 dB over the Audyssey calibration point. Secondly, my four surrounds are wall mounted and up above the MLP by about 5 or 6 feet. They are Polk FXIA4s operating in bipole mode and do an excellent job of spreading the sound around without localization. My sub is a HSU VTF-2 Mk2 with a Mk5 power amp.


My 4 surrounds are also wall mounted in bipole mode and I think that is why DEQ does not seem to boost the srrounds too high for me. I like the DEQ sub effect at lower non-movie network TV material. I do think at higher volume it limits my bass a bit and would prefer a second house curve but don't want to reload 2 different ones.

Am considering playing with higher sub trim boost with a 5db or so DEQ offset.

BJBBJB


----------



## bluesky636

BJBBJB said:


> My 4 surrounds are also wall mounted in bipole mode and I think that is why DEQ does not seem to boost the srrounds too high for me. I like the DEQ sub effect at lower non-movie network TV material. I do think at higher volume it limits my bass a bit and would prefer a second house curve but don't want to reload 2 different ones.
> 
> Am considering playing with higher sub trim boost with a 5db or so DEQ offset.
> 
> BJBBJB


You do realize that at higher volume levels DEQ reduces the bass boost until at 0 dB MV there is no boost and above 0 dB bass is cut? The values are in the thread somewhere, I just forget what they are.


----------



## BJBBJB

bluesky636 said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> My 4 surrounds are also wall mounted in bipole mode and I think that is why DEQ does not seem to boost the srrounds too high for me. I like the DEQ sub effect at lower non-movie network TV material. I do think at higher volume it limits my bass a bit and would prefer a second house curve but don't want to reload 2 different ones.
> 
> Am considering playing with higher sub trim boost with a 5db or so DEQ offset.
> 
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that at higher volume levels DEQ reduces the bass boost until at 0 dB MV there is no boost and above 0 dB bass is cut? The values are in the thread somewhere, I just forget what they are.
Click to expand...

Thanks, yes I do. I am speaking of higher volumes, just not all the way to 0db. I get nice low volume bass, just at higher but not quite 0db, too much bass drops out. And I know the subs can pump more...

BJBBJB


----------



## bluesky636

BJBBJB said:


> Thanks, yes I do. I am speaking of higher volumes, just not all the way to 0db. I get nice low volume bass, just at higher but not quite 0db, too much bass drops out. And I know the subs can pump more...
> 
> BJBBJB


Ok. Just wanted to be sure.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> That's not what it says in the cascading crossover section of post one in the Guide to Subwoofer Calibration thread (unless that section is being updated):
> 
> 
> "*III-C: Cascading Crossovers:*



Sorry for my ignorance on the topic of cascading crossovers. I'm not familiar with this issue, so I won't comment here.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Sorry for my ignorance on the topic of cascading crossovers. I'm not familiar with this issue, so I won't comment here.


No worries. Mike explained it in his subwoofer calibration thread. I tried it and did not like it.


----------



## Balbolito

Just wondering if i want to try out the sub distance tweak after Audyssey XT32 and i have four subs, two front wall connected to sub 1 and two back wall connected to sub 2.

Front wall subs are exactly 15.7 ft each from MLP and rear subs are each 6ft away from MLP.

In general should it be applied to the closer pair(back wall behind MLP) , the front pair or both?

Distances that are showing in my Marantz are correct by Audyssey (not shorter or longer) 

Don't have REW at the moment to measure, just a SPL meter if it helps. 

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

Balbolito said:


> Just wondering if i want to try out the sub distance tweak after Audyssey XT32 and i have four subs, two front wall connected to sub 1 and two back wall connected to sub 2.
> 
> Front wall subs are exactly 15.7 ft each from MLP and rear subs are each 6ft away from MLP.
> 
> In general should it be applied to the closer pair(back wall behind MLP) , the front pair or both?
> 
> Distances that are showing in my Marantz are correct by Audyssey (not shorter or longer)
> 
> Don't have REW at the moment to measure, just a SPL meter if it helps.
> 
> Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


Answered here: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...-owners-support-thread-1088.html#post59304772


----------



## bluesky636

Have there ever been any studies published regarding the tolerance for movement around the main listening position? 

Due to the configuration of my room, the MLP is the left end of the couch and not quite centered on the middle of the center channel speaker. Left and right speakers are toed in to aim at the MLP. Surround speakers are mounted on the walls (7.1 system) and can't be moved. 

Movies/TV sounds fine but music (stereo with Dolby Surround Upmixer) sounded slightly off center. I moved the couch sideways about 3 to 4 inches but did not change the distance from the tv screen. I don't really hear a difference in the overall sound but music seems to lock in better in the center. 

I really don't want to have to rerun Audyssey (XT32) if I can avoid it. I remember the "good old days" of Bob Carver and Sonic Holography (I bought the original preamp shown at the old Washington DC Hi-Fi show from Myer-Emco many years ago and met Bob in Woodinville WA years later) where you had a very minimal range of movement within the sweet spot. Audyssey seems much more forgiving.


----------



## bluesky636

Anybody?



bluesky636 said:


> Have there ever been any studies published regarding the tolerance for movement around the main listening position?
> 
> Due to the configuration of my room, the MLP is the left end of the couch and not quite centered on the middle of the center channel speaker. Left and right speakers are toed in to aim at the MLP. Surround speakers are mounted on the walls (7.1 system) and can't be moved.
> 
> Movies/TV sounds fine but music (stereo with Dolby Surround Upmixer) sounded slightly off center. I moved the couch sideways about 3 to 4 inches but did not change the distance from the tv screen. I don't really hear a difference in the overall sound but music seems to lock in better in the center.
> 
> I really don't want to have to rerun Audyssey (XT32) if I can avoid it. I remember the "good old days" of Bob Carver and Sonic Holography (I bought the original preamp shown at the old Washington DC Hi-Fi show from Myer-Emco many years ago and met Bob in Woodinville WA years later) where you had a very minimal range of movement within the sweet spot. Audyssey seems much more forgiving.


----------



## mthomas47

bluesky636 said:


> Have there ever been any studies published regarding the tolerance for movement around the main listening position?
> 
> Due to the configuration of my room, the MLP is the left end of the couch and not quite centered on the middle of the center channel speaker. Left and right speakers are toed in to aim at the MLP. Surround speakers are mounted on the walls (7.1 system) and can't be moved.
> 
> Movies/TV sounds fine but music (stereo with Dolby Surround Upmixer) sounded slightly off center. I moved the couch sideways about 3 to 4 inches but did not change the distance from the tv screen. I don't really hear a difference in the overall sound but music seems to lock in better in the center.
> 
> I really don't want to have to rerun Audyssey (XT32) if I can avoid it. I remember the "good old days" of Bob Carver and Sonic Holography (I bought the original preamp shown at the old Washington DC Hi-Fi show from Myer-Emco many years ago and met Bob in Woodinville WA years later) where you had a very minimal range of movement within the sweet spot. Audyssey seems much more forgiving.





bluesky636 said:


> Anybody?



Hi Bill,

I haven't seen any controlled studies along the lines that you are describing. There may be some, but I haven't heard of any. I think that you may be right--that Audyssey helps to widen the sweet spot a little bit. Other than that, I'm not absolutely sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether or not you need to rerun Audyssey, now that you have moved the couch a few inches, I would say no. Audyssey is EQing an area, rather than just a single point in space, so if things sound better now that you have shifted over a few inches, I would just enjoy the improvement.

If I were not quite at the center point of the space I wanted to occupy, I would probably just increase the trim of one of the front speakers by a half decibel in an effort to shift the convergence point a little, and to enhance the stereo effect. In the past, I also experimented with changing the distance of one of the speakers a bit, and that gave an even more subtle effect for me than a slight volume increase. 

The acid test for stereo, for me, is whether a slight sideways movement of my head causes the sound to shift toward one side. If it doesn't, then I am sitting in a wide enough sweet spot to maintain the stereo effect. In my system, with my front speakers widely spaced, I found that pointing the speakers a little in front of my listening position, instead of directly at me, slightly widened the space where the stereo image converges. So, that might be worth a try, if you ever want to experiment. But, I suspect that with different speakers, in different rooms, the results might also be different. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## bluesky636

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I haven't seen any controlled studies along the lines that you are describing. There may be some, but I haven't heard of any. I think that you may be right--that Audyssey helps to widen the sweet spot a little bit. Other than that, I'm not absolutely sure what you are asking. If you are asking whether or not you need to rerun Audyssey, now that you have moved the couch a few inches, I would say no. Audyssey is EQing an area, rather than just a single point in space, so if things sound better now that you have shifted over a few inches, I would just enjoy the improvement.
> 
> If I were not quite at the center point of the space I wanted to occupy, I would probably just increase the trim of one of the front speakers by a half decibel in an effort to shift the convergence point a little, and to enhance the stereo effect. In the past, I also experimented with changing the distance of one of the speakers a bit, and that gave an even more subtle effect for me than a slight volume increase.
> 
> The acid test for stereo, for me, is whether a slight sideways movement of my head causes the sound to shift toward one side. If it doesn't, then I am sitting in a wide enough sweet spot to maintain the stereo effect. In my system, with my front speakers widely spaced, I found that pointing the speakers a little in front of my listening position, instead of directly at me, slightly widened the space where the stereo image converges. So, that might be worth a try, if you ever want to experiment. But, I suspect that with different speakers, in different rooms, the results might also be different.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike.

The CD I was listening to this morning was by guitarist Justin Johnson called "Smoke and Mirrors". Its a double disc set of roots music played on new and vintage cigar box guitars. Phenomenal sounding album.

Anyway, I noticed with Dolby Surround on and the center spread turned on, the center image was slightly offset to the left. I thought about changing the trim levels to compensate but since I was also slightly off center of the tv screen I decided to move the couch slightly. That worked great. Still wasn't perfectly centered but since I normally sit leaning a little to the right, it was just right. The Stereo image was much better. Also seemed that while watching the Blu-Ray version of "Le Mans" with Steve McQueen (DTS HDMA 7.1) the center voices were locked better with the screen. My L and R speakers are pretty much aimed at my ears so I may try turning them in a little more tomorrow. 

No, I'm not going to rerun Audyssey. I really don't hear any difference from moving the couch a few inches. My question really wasn't MUST I rerun Audyssey but would it be RECOMMENDED I rerun it.

Thanks again.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Like What Mike was saying and from my experience on Audyssey and different speakers, I find different different speakers require different toe-ins, the speakers I have at the moment the rp600m have no toe-in at all and sit either side of a 65inch C9. The imagery is excellent and the phantom center is very good to a point where I would be in stereo and think the Center speaker is on.
My previous speakers were Tannoy Floor-standing speakers which benefited with toe-in and more distance from each-other but had a more narrow soundstage or sweetspot, Audyssey IMO does a good job in getting the trims dialled in correctly and very rarely do I have to adjust it,
So for me it all depends on the speaker and some experimenting on placement to get that "perfect" image. I have used center spread before and wasn't really a fan of it, I found it to ruin the sound-stage rather than enhance it but that't just my take on it on my system.
Re-running Audyssey always feels like a gamble if you get the sound right after adjusting the speakers placement, hence why I got the App and can always revert back to the last calibration, You can always take a picture on your phone of the speaker distances and trims as a sort of a save as well.


----------



## bluesky636

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Like What Mike was saying and from my experience on Audyssey and different speakers, I find different different speakers require different toe-ins, the speakers I have at the moment the rp600m have no toe-in at all and sit either side of a 65inch C9. The imagery is excellent and the phantom center is very good to a point where I would be in stereo and think the Center speaker is on.
> My previous speakers were Tannoy Floor-standing speakers which benefited with toe-in and more distance from each-other but had a more narrow soundstage or sweetspot, Audyssey IMO does a good job in getting the trims dialled in correctly and very rarely do I have to adjust it,
> So for me it all depends on the speaker and some experimenting on placement to get that "perfect" image. I have used center spread before and wasn't really a fan of it, I found it to ruin the sound-stage rather than enhance it but that't just my take on it on my system.
> Re-running Audyssey always feels like a gamble if you get the sound right after adjusting the speakers placement, hence why I got the App and can always revert back to the last calibration, You can always take a picture on your phone of the speaker distances and trims as a sort of a save as well.


Thanks.

My speakers are Polk all around. L/Rs are RTiA1s on either side of a 55 inch LG 4K flat screen tv, center is a CSiA4 just below the tv screen, side and rear surrounds are 4 FXiA4s mounted on the walls near the ceiling and running in bipole mode. Nothing fancy but the system sounds great. I keep track of all my Audyssey settings in a spreadsheet. I can also save the AVR settings (Denon AVR-X3500H) to a thumb drive, just need to get a couple more.

I may try Center Spread off with music and Dolby Surround to hear the difference and experiment with L/R toe in when I get a chance. Never realized how busy retirement can be. 😁


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> I remember the "good old days" of Bob Carver and Sonic Holography (I bought the original preamp shown at the old Washington DC Hi-Fi show from Myer-Emco many years ago and met Bob in Woodinville WA years later) where you had a very minimal range of movement within the sweet spot. Audyssey seems much more forgiving.


I have the Carver C-1 preamp and a later Carver tuner/preamp that also has sonic holography. And I used to own the original Carver "Amazing" speakers. Sonic holography only worked if you were sitting at one point of an equilateral triangle with the speakers at the other points. It was also erratic, with the "surround/you-are-there" effect depending on how the original recording was miked: Minimally miked recordings worked best, while the effect was unpredictable otherwise. For example, there was one classical recording in which a french horn solo was behind the listener and the rest of the players sounded up front. I thought it was a gimmick and didn't use it for very long. The c-1 preamp, though, is a nice piece of equipment.


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> I have the Carver C-1 preamp and a later Carver tuner/preamp that also has sonic holography. And I used to own the original Carver "Amazing" speakers. Sonic holography only worked if you were sitting at one point of an equilateral triangle with the speakers at the other points. It was also erratic, with the "surround/you-are-there" effect depending on how the original recording was miked: Minimally miked recordings worked best, while the effect was unpredictable otherwise. For example, there was one classical recording in which a french horn solo was behind the listener and the rest of the players sounded up front. I thought it was a gimmick and didn't use it for very long. The c-1 preamp, though, is a nice piece of equipment.


I had the original "Big Boy" C-4000 preamp. Also had several of Carver's power amps post-Phase Linear. A few years after buying the C-4000, my wife and I visited my brother and his wife in Port Orchard, Washington. I convinced my brother to drive us out to the Carver facility in Woodinville. We walked in and I asked the receptionist if it was possible to get a tour. She said "Let me check with Mr Carver". His office was right behind us with the door open and he was talking to another guy who turned out to be his chief engineer. After a few minutes my brother and I were ushered into his office where we met "Bob" as he told us to call him. I thought I had died and gone to heaven. We talked for almost an hour during which I commented on a few anomalies I had noticed with my C-4000. He then said to ship it back to them and he would update it to the latest specs for free and send it back. After about half a second I said "Sure!". The mods would make the preamp noticeably quieter and significantly expand the sweet spot. We shook hands, then he turned us over to his chief engineer who gave us a tour of the facility. He showed us everything except Bob's private lab. In all we were there for about 3 hours before heading back to my brother's house and our wives. 

I miss my C-4000.


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ,
> 
> I haven't seen any controlled studies along the lines that you are describing.


I'm glad that somebody looks for controlled studies in audio! As nearly everyone except the golden eared members of the audiophile press -- with their infinitely long auditory memories -- knows, just because the judgement is subjective doesn't mean that the conditions can't be controlled. 




mthomas47 said:


> ,
> I found that pointing the speakers a little in front of my listening position, instead of directly at me, slightly widened the space where the stereo image converges



Me too, sort of. 



Regarding the tolerance for movement around the main listening position, Klipsch's long standing (since 1959), three channel "Wide Stage Stereo" allowed the listener to be off axis by quite a bit. In the John Eargle research, if I remember correctly, this worked best with the center channel 9 dB below the LF and RF. That's with wide spread microphones. With one piece "stereo mics" at the center of the field, the center channel had to be attenuated another few dB. So, microphone layout counts. But with our movies, dialogue has to be clearly understood, so the center channel needs to be as loud as the LF and RF. Ay, there's the rub! In our set-up, the imaging _*is*_ slightly better and deeper with the center channel turned down some (all three speakers have the same components above 450 Hz), but we need to hear and understand that cockney. With our three front channels going full tilt, we hear a nice wide, well differentiated image from the extreme side seats, but there is some migration -- the actual positions of the instruments are not identical with their positions from the MLP -- and neither were Eargle's. Does this matter? Probably not. 



Audyssey may well help to widen the sweet spot a little bit. In fact, I think they used to advertise that. Feri? At the Klipsch Pilgrimage a few years ago, they demonstrated PWK's 3 channel stereo with a new wrinkle -- with and without a delay circuit that made the signal arrive from all three front speakers at the same time, just like we do with Audyssey! Those present said it helped a lot. 





bluesky636 said:


> Never realized how busy retirement can be. 😁


----------



## Spyle311

After running Audyssey (used a mic stand and all 8 positions) on a new Denon AVR-X3600H, the first movie I watched while sitting in the MLP under the same circumstances as when calibrated, it seemed like pretty much all left side sounds (front, rear, side, heights) were louder than the rest. So I pulled out my old radio shack sound level meter and sure enough the test tones showed they were all louder than the right.

I don't know what I could have done wrong, it was dead silent the entire time while running it. I might try running it again or should I just manually correct the levels?


----------



## bluesky636

Spyle311 said:


> After running Audyssey (used a mic stand and all 8 positions) on a new Denon AVR-X3600H, the first movie I watched while sitting in the MLP under the same circumstances as when calibrated, it seemed like pretty much all left side sounds (front, rear, side, heights) were louder than the rest. So I pulled out my old radio shack sound level meter and sure enough the test tones showed they were all louder than the right.
> 
> I don't know what I could have done wrong, it was dead silent the entire time while running it. I might try running it again or should I just manually correct the levels?



1. Please post a photo of your Audyssey calibration results.


2. The test tones played back from the AVR do not take into account the corrections applied by Audyssey and are therefore invalid. You have to use an external source played through the AVR with Audyssey turned on to get accurate results with an SPL meter.


3. Unless your SPL meter is calibrated, your results may not be accurate.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So I'm getting a new receiver (Denon 3600H) and two upfiring Atmos speakers this week. This will be my first experience with XT32 and Atmos. Any tips or tricks?

1. I don't have a boom mic, so I'm still team tripod. I know the blanket over the back of my leather couch is advised, but what about on the seat to minimize vibrations?
2. Is it still advised to have the mic above the seat back even though this isn't ear height or should I go ear height, knowing the back is a couple inches above?
3. Anything I should know about the dual sub calibration? I assume it'll walk me through it and the main thing is setting the volume to 1/2 on the sub itself (along with the LFE knob, and other simple tweaks). As it stands my trim is -8 with the volume at 25% so maybe half is too much?
4. Saw Audyssey LFC...what is it and why would I want to use it? My gear is in the corner of a large open basement and I do get vibration/rattle occasionally with deep bass, but not often. What do the 1-7 values on this setting do? Does anyone here use it?
5. I have the app. Should I do anything on the receiver or just dive right in to an app calibration after setup?

I guess that's about it. I know in-ceiling is better than upfiring, that I should have four vs. two, and the boom mic. I have to pick my battles. 

Thanks for any and all help! I greatly appreciate it!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> So I'm getting a new receiver (Denon 3600H) and two upfiring Atmos speakers this week. This will be my first experience with XT32 and Atmos. Any tips or tricks?
> 
> 1. I don't have a boom mic, so I'm still team tripod. I know the blanket over the back of my leather couch is advised, but what about on the seat to minimize vibrations?
> 2. Is it still advised to have the mic above the seat back even though this isn't ear height or should I go ear height, knowing the back is a couple inches above?
> 3. Anything I should know about the dual sub calibration? I assume it'll walk me through it and the main thing is setting the volume to 1/2 on the sub itself (along with the LFE knob, and other simple tweaks). As it stands my trim is -8 with the volume at 25% so maybe half is too much?
> 4. Saw Audyssey LFC...what is it and why would I want to use it? My gear is in the corner of a large open basement and I do get vibration/rattle occasionally with deep bass, but not often. What do the 1-7 values on this setting do? Does anyone here use it?
> 5. I have the app. Should I do anything on the receiver or just dive right in to an app calibration after setup?
> 
> I guess that's about it. I know in-ceiling is better than upfiring, that I should have four vs. two, and the boom mic. I have to pick my battles.
> 
> Thanks for any and all help! I greatly appreciate it!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


1) A blanket on the seat won't hurt, but it also won't help with vibrations. A mic boom can be had for around 20 bucks. 

2) Go ear height on all mic positions unless there isn't a clear line of sight to the surround speakers. Also, keeping all mic positions in a fairly small circle around the MLP, within 6"-12"" of the first mic positions is usually recommended.

3) An initial trim of -8 is good, but it depends on how much boost you plan to add post-Audyssey. A lot of us like to shoot for the "Golden Trim" of -11.5 in order to allow the maximum amount of flexibility post-Audyssey. 

4) LFC = Low Frequency Containment. All it does is roll-off the low frequencies. It should only be needed if you wish to not disturb neighbors or sleeping spouses. 

5) Yes, if you plan on using the app, you must perform the Audyssey calibration through the app. A lot of guys in the Audyssey App thread are limiting correction to under 300Hz or under 500Hz with good results. Experimentation is encouraged for best results!


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Regarding "clear line of sight to the surrounds", my sides are mounted above ear level but the rears, on a horizontal plane, barely clear the couch back (have them on stands). Still keep the mic at ear height and not clear the couch back in this scenario?

Thanks!

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mthomas47

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Regarding "clear line of sight to the surrounds", my sides are mounted above ear level but the rears, on a horizontal plane, barely clear the couch back (have them on stands). Still keep the mic at ear height and not clear the couch back in this scenario?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk



Hi,

My personal advice is to ignore the fact that your Audyssey microphone doesn't have a clear line of sight to your surrounds. If your microphone doesn't have a clear line of sight, when it is at ear level, then neither do your ears. Ideally, you would like Audyssey to hear exactly what you hear, and make corrections accordingly. In practice, it actually hears things we can't hear. But, I would always default to allowing Audyssey to EQ my actual listening position. Not behind it or above it.

You can always try calibrating both ways, and comparing the results, but remember that when you raise the microphone above the level of the couch, the microphone won't distinguish between the surrounds and your other speakers. It will simply EQ all of your speakers, including the ones on your front soundstage, and your subs, based on measurement information from above your actual listening position.

I think it is usually okay to go just a couple of inches higher, for just a couple of the mic positions, if you want to. Audyssey's fuzzy logic weighting seems to accept that much anomalous information pretty well. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... If your microphone doesn't have a clear line of sight, when it is at ear level, then neither do your ears. Ideally, you would like Audyssey to hear exactly what you hear, and make corrections accordingly. In practice, it actually hears things we can't hear. But, I would always default to allowing Audyssey to EQ my actual listening position. Not behind it or above it.



IMO, if the microphone is at ear level, and it happens to pick up the rear channels only in the form of reflections, so be it, your ears will, also. 



I like diffusers in the back, or "natural" diffusing surfaces, providing your back wall is far enough away. Diffusion high on the rear wall is interesting sounding, IMO. Of course, any room changes may require re-running Audyssey, whether the Audyssey mic "hears" them directly or in reflections.

Mike, I'm glad Audyssey can tolerate anomalous information -- there is usually a lot of it floating around me. Fuzzy logic, too.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> Mike, I'm glad Audyssey can tolerate anomalous information -- there is usually a lot of it floating around me. Fuzzy logic, too.



Me too, Gary! Me too!


----------



## Jameshtx

garygarrison said:


> I like that your ceiling and slanted section are so high.
> 
> 
> IMO you might want to take an empirical approach*; *run some movies with front to back flyovers, and see which of the two AVR settings is most convincing. Rerun Audyssey? I honestly don't know. I would think all the other channels would come out the same if the mics were in exactly the same place. Because you won't be moving the speakers themselves I doubt that the two choices would change the job description Audyssey is facing*; *I think Audyssey will just try to make the sound flat from each and every speaker, wherever each speaker is, and however it is angled (naturally you can later select Audyssey Flat, or the rolled off Audyssey Reference at any time-- it doesn't matter how those are set at the time you run Audyssey).


Since the tweeters are adjustable, should I point it down towards the floor or leave it aiming the MLP?


----------



## garygarrison

Jameshtx said:


> Since the tweeters are adjustable, should I point it down towards the floor or leave it aiming the MLP?



My guess is that they should be aimed at the MLP.


You could try them both ways.


----------



## Steve Huss

Good afternoon everybody. What are your thoughts on running Audyssey with door open versus sealed room? I didn't know if there is any consensus on which is better method or if it just a matter of what sounds better to you. Also wondered if the same would apply to listening music/movies with door open versus sealed room. Thanks much, Steve


----------



## garygarrison

Steve Huss said:


> Good afternoon everybody. What are your thoughts on running Audyssey with door open versus sealed room? I didn't know if there is any consensus on which is better method or if it just a matter of what sounds better to you. Also wondered if the same would apply to listening music/movies with door open versus sealed room. Thanks much, Steve



Perhaps:


Listen first (for a few days) to the effect opening and closing the door has.


Hopefully there will be a clear winner.


My guess is that the room will be easier to pressurize with the doors closed.


Our room sounds better with the door closed. Our room has solid core (rather than hollow) doors.


Once you determine which way your room sounds best, run the Audyssey calibration with the doors that way.


----------



## Steve Huss

garygarrison said:


> Perhaps:
> 
> 
> Listen first (for a few days) to the effect opening and closing the door has.
> 
> 
> Hopefully there will be a clear winner.
> 
> 
> My guess is that the room will be easier to pressurize with the doors closed.
> 
> 
> Our room sounds better with the door closed. Our room has solid core (rather than hollow) doors.
> 
> 
> Once you determine which way your room sounds best, run the Audyssey calibration with the doors that way.


 
Thanks @garygarrison. I know from my past system in this 10x11x9 room that the subs sounded much better after Audyssey XT32 so I'd prefer to calibrate first and then decide closed versus open. I am leaning towards sealed room but could just try all the ways but I'd prefer less work if there is any solid data pointing me in a more concrete direction. Steve


----------



## Alan P

Steve Huss said:


> Thanks @garygarrison. I know from my past system in this 10x11x9 room that the subs sounded much better after Audyssey XT32 so I'd prefer to calibrate first and then decide closed versus open. I am leaning towards sealed room but could just try all the ways but I'd prefer less work if there is any solid data pointing me in a more concrete direction. Steve


Steve,

Having a single door open in an otherwise sealed room has been known to cause a spike in the lower bass frequencies. The theory being that the open door is acting as a sort of "port". Keep this in mind if you run Audyssey with the door open, the low bass may seem a bit muted when the door is closed.

If you want to know for certain how your room/subs will react from the open/closed door, there's always REW.


----------



## Steve Huss

Alan P said:


> Steve,
> 
> Having a single door open in an otherwise sealed room has been known to cause a spike in the lower bass frequencies. The theory being that the open door is acting as a sort of "port". Keep this in mind if you run Audyssey with the door open, the low bass may seem a bit muted when the door is closed.
> 
> If you want to know for certain how your room/subs will react from the open/closed door, there's always REW.




Thanks @Alan P for the info. REW is in the cards in the future for sure. Before I ran Audyssey with door open and listened with door open and sounded nice. I actually just removed the door. I have also heard that theory re door open port and that is why I ran that way. Of course REW would be proof in the pudding. Also I did notice bass was a little lighter with door closed after running Audyssey with door open. I do wonder about running Audyssey with door closed and then running sealed but am liking the port theory especially since I liked that before. Decisions decisions.... @mthomas47 might I hear your wisdom good sir?


----------



## mthomas47

Steve Huss said:


> Thanks @*garygarrison* . I know from my past system in this 10x11x9 room that the subs sounded much better after Audyssey XT32 so I'd prefer to calibrate first and then decide closed versus open. I am leaning towards sealed room but could just try all the ways but I'd prefer less work if there is any solid data pointing me in a more concrete direction. Steve



Hi Steve,

I understand the ''less work'' issue. I used to get a little tired of running Audyssey calibrations when I was experimenting a lot with my room and room treatments. But, I think both Gary and Alan have made good points.

First, the room will definitely be easier to pressurize with the door closed, but not everyone considers that a good thing. Bass pressurization in a smaller sealed room is quite similar to the cabin pressurization that you feel in an airplane at altitude. It starts out as a tingling sensation in your ear canal, and then becomes direct pressure against your ear drums. The volume level where that happens, and how much we notice that sensation, will vary with individuals, but not everyone likes that sensation. I don't particularly like it! 

Second, you may be able to hit slightly lower bass frequencies with the door closed. I wouldn't expect it to make a substantial difference, but in theory, maximum room gain would occur with no openings to the room at all. That might be worth a decibel or two below 15 Hz or so. 

Third, Alan's point is also a valid one. Leaving a door open can actually help to tune the low-bass. And, you may be able to change the frequencies where that tuning occurs, by adjusting the amount of opening that you leave. I once played with that in my room, and it made an audible difference, with the door open a certain width. The issue there is that it won't make all very low-frequencies sound louder, it will make some specific very low-frequencies sound louder, just like the tuning point on a subwoofer. As Alan said, the door behaves like a port. 

Some people deliberately leave the door open, in order to be able to experience more low-bass SPL and ULF TR (rumbling thudding sensations


----------



## Steve Huss

@mthomas47 thanks kindly and I will start tonite. Very excited! Steve


----------



## shazza6887

Hi All,


I have recently completed my theatre room and just finished up calibrating the pj and now am wanting to calibrate my sound! I have been playing around but TBH am a little all over the place and was after some guidance. i am running 7.2.4 setup, Should i be running dynamic volume/eq etc? I am only running it through the app on the phone now, I have read that it is better to turn mid bass comp off?



I think my power output is overkill for these speakers but any tips to make them sound better/push them harder appreciated, My gear is as follows,


Pre Amp - Marrants 7705
Power Amp - Emotiva XPA - 11 Gen3 

Fronts - Klipsch RP8000F
Centre - Klipsch 504c
Surrounds Klipsch Klipsch PRO-160RPW Reference Premiere 6.5
Heights Some generic 8 inch local branded speakers (Alluminium tweaters to match the Klipsch)
Subs (Klipsch R-Series R-112SW 12 Inch Subwoofer) x 2 (Front)

When i first ran audyssey it seemed it got a lot of it wrong, crossovers were pretty low like 40 and 60, levels did not appear correct etc, speakers set to large. I also used a camera tripod to mount the microphone and i beleive this is wrong? I should be using a microphone boom? Can someone also clarfy which positions whith regards to my seating layout i should put the mic in for the 8 positions? It is a bit confusing as i have two rows, back row being agaisnt the wall on a platform. I have uploaded piks for ref, 



Should i be setting the crossovers all at 80 regardless of what audyssey says? I know i have to play around with frq cut off etc and i will up load the room correction results when i re run auydessy. can anyone me if i need a boom that the microphone will screw into like the camera tripod or will the clip do?


Here are the photos for ref,


https://ibb.co/L14vZMv


https://ibb.co/6mkWLHX


Help appreciated!​


----------



## TenjiT

Anyone experience issue with low muffle volume when setting audyssey to L/R bypass. It seem to turn the level down at least 10db when switching between reference and L/R bypass. All the other such as off,flat, reference sound good and at the correct volume. I used the mobile app to set it up as 5.2.4 setup on a X4500H. When I try just 3.1 from the app. The L/R bypass sound like it should, loud and clear just like the other audyssey setting. What could be the problem? I use L/R bypass to listen to music.


----------



## mthomas47

shazza6887 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I have recently completed my theatre room and just finished up calibrating the pj and now am wanting to calibrate my sound! I have been playing around but TBH am a little all over the place and was after some guidance. i am running 7.2.4 setup, Should i be running dynamic volume/eq etc? I am only running it through the app on the phone now, I have read that it is better to turn mid bass comp off?
> 
> I think my power output is overkill for these speakers but any tips to make them sound better/push them harder appreciated, My gear is as follows,
> 
> Pre Amp - Marrants 7705
> Power Amp - Emotiva XPA - 11 Gen3
> 
> Fronts - Klipsch RP8000F
> Centre - Klipsch 504c
> Surrounds Klipsch Klipsch PRO-160RPW Reference Premiere 6.5
> Heights Some generic 8 inch local branded speakers (Alluminium tweaters to match the Klipsch)
> Subs (Klipsch R-Series R-112SW 12 Inch Subwoofer) x 2 (Front)
> 
> When i first ran audyssey it seemed it got a lot of it wrong, crossovers were pretty low like 40 and 60, levels did not appear correct etc, speakers set to large. I also used a camera tripod to mount the microphone and i beleive this is wrong? I should be using a microphone boom? Can someone also clarfy which positions whith regards to my seating layout i should put the mic in for the 8 positions? It is a bit confusing as i have two rows, back row being agaisnt the wall on a platform. I have uploaded piks for ref,
> 
> Should i be setting the crossovers all at 80 regardless of what audyssey says? I know i have to play around with frq cut off etc and i will up load the room correction results when i re run auydessy. can anyone me if i need a boom that the microphone will screw into like the camera tripod or will the clip do?
> 
> Here are the photos for ref,
> 
> https://ibb.co/L14vZMv
> 
> https://ibb.co/6mkWLHX
> 
> Help appreciated!​



Hi,

I think that the best help I can give you is to direct you to the Guide, linked in my signature. If you click on it, you will see some Cliff Notes right at the beginning of the Guide. Those Cliff Notes will answer most of your questions. 

Then, for more detailed information on boom mic stands, and adapters, microphone positions, and some general calibration tips, I recommend that you read Section I-B of that same Guide. This is a direct link to Section I-B:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB

You are just scratching the surface of the questions you are likely to want to ask, but if you will take some time and scroll through the Introduction and the Table of Contents, you will find the answers to other questions that are also going to occur to you. The Guide is intended to be a general reference source for audio and HT.

A few of your questions that I will help with now involve the use of DEQ and Dynamic Volume. DEQ attempts to restore bass equilibrium (primarily) at below Reference (0.0 master volume) levels. You may like it; you may not. Try it both on and off to find out. The same thing goes for the mid-range compensation. Some people hear a difference with it enabled and some don't. Some people seem to like it okay, and some don't. 

I would not typically recommend using Dynamic Volume, unless you have a specific reason to do so, such as controlling volume levels for sleeping kids. Dynamic Volume compresses the frequency range, in order to maintain more equivalence between loud and soft passages. Use of that feature is also a YMMV issue, but that one's an easier call for most people. Both DEQ and Dynamic volume are explained in detail in Section V. 

If you are willing to do a little bit of reading, I think you will benefit more than from having somebody just go: "Yes" to that question, "No" to the next one, and so on. The Cliff Notes are written to help get you started. To go beyond that starting point, will take some reading, perhaps some experimentation, and definitely some listening to find out what you prefer. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## David Aiken

Steve Huss said:


> Thanks @garygarrison. I know from my past system in this 10x11x9 room that the subs sounded much better after Audyssey XT32 so I'd prefer to calibrate first and then decide closed versus open. I am leaning towards sealed room but could just try all the ways but I'd prefer less work if there is any solid data pointing me in a more concrete direction. Steve


My room is a bit of an open plan area in some ways with one room opening directly off it, so one door there, and a large sliding door to an outdoor patio area. There's also an open archway to a hall to 6 rooms. 

My experience over the years with calibrating with doors open vs closed is a bit confused, largely because I get forgetful at times and don't always do the same thing but the normal thing for me is to close the doors to the room opening off my open plan area and to the patio, and to close 3 of the doors off the hall but leave 3 open because those doors tend to be always open. If I do the calibration that way, then it seems to make very little difference if I have one or more of the doors that are shut during calibration open when I'm watching a movie. On the other hand having some of the doors in a different state while calibrating can deliver a result where having a particular door open or closed can make a bit of a difference and I end up recalibrating.

Every room is different and we all have our own tastes in the sound we like, especially when it comes to bass. Although we'd all prefer less work, unfortunately sometimes we have no choice but to do more work. The good news, however, is that I think having some doors or windows open or closed doesn't seem to be a big issue in practice provided the initial calibration delivers a good result. If I had to make a recommendation based on my gut feel, I'd say that the best option for the calibration is with doors and windows closed and I make that suggestion for 2 reasons. One is that it reduces the level of external ambient sound entering the room which is beneficial during calibration. The other is that it ensures that pressurisation of the room at bass frequencies is at its highest during calibration and I find that I, at least, seem to be less concerned by having lower pressurisation during listening because a few doors and/or windows are open than I am by having increased pressurisation because the calibration was done with doors/windows open and I'm listening with them closed.

I don't know if that response of mine to increases/decreases in pressurisation is the norm for most people or not but I think there is one thing you can take away from my experience. That is that once you've done a few calibrations, and I think most of us tend to do a few when we first start using Audyssey while we "try to get a handle on it", you'll develop a feel for whether you get the best result with doors and windows open or closed, or which combination of open or closed seems to work best, plus some other things like the spacing of your mic positions and whether or not to put a rug over a chair back, and so on. Once you've developed a feel for the process and what room setup arrangements work best there's a lot less work involved when you need to recalibrate at later times because of changes, and you also find that the result of your calibration is relatively forgiving of a lot of the changes that can happen over time. For instance I often have the patio door and window open while using the system in summer and closed during winter and things sound very nice both ways, and it also doesn't seem to matter if I have the doors on the hallway off the room that are normally closed during calibration open.

Basically I think you'll find that once you get the hang of doing your calibration in a way that delivers consistent results that you're happy with, the result you get will be quite forgiving of things like having some doors/windows open at some times and closed at other times. You do need to do a bit more work at the start to get to that point but it does save work in the longer term. Doing less work at the start rarely results in less work in the longer term, it just puts off the time at which you have to do a bit more work.


----------



## JMak00

I've seen references to it in this thread and the Denon's owners threads, but, I don't really get it. The consensus is that the move from MultiEQ XT to XT32 provides a dramatic improvement in sound quality. What does this really mean, though, on a practical level?

Is the sound louder? Fuller? More accurate (what ever that might mean)?

How would those of you who have experienced the shift to the XT32 describe the improvement?

Thanks.

This will help me understand whether I want to upgrade from my current Denon X1100W to the Denon 1500H/1600H or to the 3500H.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve Huss

@David Aiken thank you for your thoughts. I ran Audyssey with the door closed this morning and like the numbers that came back, especially re the subs. I will listen this eve with door closed and open and go from there. Will post thoughts and pictures later tomorrow as able. Best, Steve


----------



## Alan P

JMak00 said:


> I've seen references to it in this thread and the Denon's owners threads, but, I don't really get it. The consensus is that the move from MultiEQ XT to XT32 provides a dramatic improvement in sound quality. What does this really mean, though, on a practical level?
> 
> Is the sound louder? Fuller? More accurate (what ever that might mean)?
> 
> How would those of you who have experienced the shift to the XT32 describe the improvement?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> This will help me understand whether I want to upgrade from my current Denon X1100W to the Denon 1500H/1600H or to the 3500H.
> 
> Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


The difference between XT and XT32 is indeed dramatic. XT uses too many filters for the satellite speakers and not enough for the subwoofers...XT32 is the opposite; less correction for the satellite speakers and much more for the subs. To most folks, this results in a much more pleasing sound.

Not to mention, with the 3500 you will be able to use the Audyssey app which is a whole 'nother ball game all together.


----------



## JMak00

Alan P said:


> The difference between XT and XT32 is indeed dramatic. XT uses too many filters for the satellite speakers and not enough for the subwoofers...XT32 is the opposite; less correction for the satellite speakers and much more for the subs. To most folks, this results in a much more pleasing sound.
> 
> Not to mention, with the 3500 you will be able to use the Audyssey app which is a whole 'nother ball game all together.



Thanks, but is the actual sound improvement? I want to understand and am not trying to be argumentative, but what is the practical difference in what I would hear? Can we audibly detect the difference or do we just know the difference exists because of math?


----------



## scubasteve2365

I have a Denon x4400h. After running Audyssey, if you attempt to manually set a speaker/channel distance, you can get an error if the distance you are setting is more than 20ft from the lowest distance of any channel. In other words, let's say you have an Atmos overhead speaker set to 8.1ft. You cannot set any other channel greater than 28.1ft.

Why would anyone want to edit the distance settings established via Audyssey? Well, the reason I want to is that I have bass shakers that are not and cannot be part of the calibration chain. I have them on the sub 2 output. When running Audyssey, I send the signal of both subwoofer outputs to my sub array, that way 2nd sub output becomes active and you can set level and distance (delay) from the AVR. I then take that output and run it through a mini-DSP in an attempt to flatten the EQ response but also with the goal of time-aligning them. Time alignment is where the 20ft delta distance limitation becomes a problem. With the shaker LFE channel set to the highest distance I can set it, they are still a little behind. This is with 0 delay added in the miniDSP.

Obviously there is no solution within the Denon AVR itself for this. My question is understanding what the AVR does if left untouched after running Audyssey and if it measures a differences of more than 20ft. Let's say I had a really delayed subwoofer due to it's processing, and let's say Audyssey measures it at 38 ft with the nearest channel being measured at 12 ft. Will Audyssey/Denon have the correct time delays or will it effectively limit the subwoofer at 32ft (20ft more than 12ft) and call it good enough? 

I ask this because I think I can get around the Denon's limitation by adding delay in the MiniDSP to my subwoofer to give me enough delay separation between the LFE channels and non-LFE channels in order to fine tune the time alignment of my bass shakers, it'll be moot and a lot of wasted time if the AVR/Audyssey just defaults to max delay of 17.7ms based on no more than 20ft distance limitation.


----------



## Jameshtx

Audyssey resulted 120hz crossover for my top and rear heights. Should I leave it like that or better at 80hz?


----------



## Alan P

JMak00 said:


> Thanks, but is the actual sound improvement? I want to understand and am not trying to be argumentative, but what is the practical difference in what I would hear? Can we audibly detect the difference or do we just know the difference exists because of math?


I personally noticed a big audible improvement when I went from XT to XT32. Many others in this thread (and all across this forum) have reported the same experience. If XT32 is a "10", I would rate XT at a "5" and basic MultEQ at a "3".


----------



## Alan P

scubasteve2365 said:


> I have a Denon x4400h. After running Audyssey, if you attempt to manually set a speaker/channel distance, you can get an error if the distance you are setting is more than 20ft from the lowest distance of any channel. In other words, let's say you have an Atmos overhead speaker set to 8.1ft. You cannot set any other channel greater than 28.1ft.
> 
> Why would anyone want to edit the distance settings established via Audyssey? Well, the reason I want to is that I have bass shakers that are not and cannot be part of the calibration chain. I have them on the sub 2 output. When running Audyssey, I send the signal of both subwoofer outputs to my sub array, that way 2nd sub output becomes active and you can set level and distance (delay) from the AVR. I then take that output and run it through a mini-DSP in an attempt to flatten the EQ response but also with the goal of time-aligning them. Time alignment is where the 20ft delta distance limitation becomes a problem. With the shaker LFE channel set to the highest distance I can set it, they are still a little behind. This is with 0 delay added in the miniDSP.
> 
> Obviously there is no solution within the Denon AVR itself for this. My question is understanding what the AVR does if left untouched after running Audyssey and if it measures a differences of more than 20ft. Let's say I had a really delayed subwoofer due to it's processing, and let's say Audyssey measures it at 38 ft with the nearest channel being measured at 12 ft. Will Audyssey/Denon have the correct time delays or will it effectively limit the subwoofer at 32ft (20ft more than 12ft) and call it good enough?
> 
> I ask this because I think I can get around the Denon's limitation by adding delay in the MiniDSP to my subwoofer to give me enough delay separation between the LFE channels and non-LFE channels in order to fine tune the time alignment of my bass shakers, it'll be moot and a lot of wasted time if the AVR/Audyssey just defaults to max delay of 17.7ms based on no more than 20ft distance limitation.


Yup, the 20' delta limitation is a thorn in the side of many Denon/Marantz owners who are also TR enthusiasts. If you post your question in the thread below, you will get suggestions on how to best account for it with "negative" delay.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ers/3081780-tactile-response-thread-bass.html


----------



## jch2

Jameshtx said:


> Audyssey resulted 120hz crossover for my top and rear heights. Should I leave it like that or better at 80hz?


Audyssey detected the F3 point (the point at which your speakers are down 3dB from their average level) of your top and rear heights at 120Hz or higher, so it set the crossover at 120Hz. If you lower the crossover point, you will have a dip in your frequency response between your new crossover point and the F3 point of your speakers, so that is not advised. It is okay to raise the crossover point from what Audyssey detected, but you usually do not want to lower the crossover.


----------



## Jameshtx

Yes thank you. I remember reading about that now


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## D Bone

Hey guys, it's been a bit since I've posted here. Quick question regarding what you would do with the LCR crossovers. We recently moved into our forever home (unless Cali drives us out - lord knows they're trying their best!) and I decided to scale down the living room based HT with an Atlantic Technology FS 5 passive front stage speaker, 2 SVS SB-1000 subs hidden behind the AVR furniture in the bottom nook and 2 in-ceiling surround speakers all powered by a Denon X2600 Audyssey XT AVR.

XT found the L/R 110hz, the Center 100hz and the Surr 40hz. I bumped the surrounds up to 80 and the LCR to 120 thinking that since the subs are located where they are it would be a slam dunk to offload a little more to them.

..... but after going back to the default 110/100 (surr still 80) setting I *think* it actually sounds better, but have that gnawing in the back of my large head that 120 still makes the most sense.

AT rates the sealed FS 5 to 80hz F3. I have turned it up louder than I would normally listen at while all set to full range and playing 5-150hz sweeps and they don't distort in any way, rather they just politely roll off without any drama.... I'm actually surprised XT didn't set them lower based on what my old, ringing ears hear. 

So long story short (too late!!), would you trust Audyssey and call it a day, or bump them up a bit and call it a day? I know in the end it probably makes very little difference, but I am just looking for a few opinions. 

Obligatory awful picture attached:


----------



## Alan P

^^^

I would set the crossovers to whichever sounded best to me. I would also pull that sound bar out of that cubby so that the baffle is overhanging the edge by just a bit.


----------



## D Bone

Alan P said:


> ^^^
> 
> I would set the crossovers to whichever sounded best to me. I would also pull that sound bar out of that cubby so that the baffle is overhanging the edge by just a bit.


Thanks Alan! No can do as the front stage speaker (I refuse to use the SB word) is 1/4" wider than the inside edge of the trim around the cubby. 

My minor level OCD freaks out on the different crossover settings if I'm being 100% honest.  I keep going back and forth with real material and sweeps and I do think Audyssey's default settings sound.... fuller??


----------



## pbz06

D Bone said:


> Thanks Alan! No can do as the front stage speaker (I refuse to use the SB word) is 1/4" wider than the inside edge of the trim around the cubby.
> 
> My minor level OCD freaks out on the different crossover settings if I'm being 100% honest.  I keep going back and forth with real material and sweeps and I do think Audyssey's default settings sound.... fuller??


Ha, the struggle is real 

I generally trust Audyssey if you follow the instructions/guides carefully (including speaker and room setup best practices). When I check it afterwards, usually everything appears to have behaved as expected and I do my usual post cal tweaks.


The fact that you like the sound better only reinforces the idea to use it as it set it 

I freak out about different crossovers too. I use +10hz from the weakest link for my surrounds and ceiling speakers. My surrounds were 90hz and the ceilings were 60hz, so I bumped it all to 100hz. For my towers and center, I like at least a full octave above. My towers roll off at 32hz and my center at 40hz, so I bump to 80hz which is recommended anyway.


----------



## D Bone

pbz06 said:


> Ha, the struggle is real
> 
> I generally trust Audyssey if you follow the instructions/guides carefully (including speaker and room setup best practices). When I check it afterwards, usually everything appears to have behaved as expected and I do my usual post cal tweaks.
> 
> 
> The fact that you like the sound better only reinforces the idea to use it as it set it
> 
> I freak out about different crossovers too. I use +10hz from the weakest link for my surrounds and ceiling speakers. My surrounds were 90hz and the ceilings were 60hz, so I bumped it all to 100hz. For my towers and center, I like at least a full octave above. My towers roll off at 32hz and my center at 40hz, so I bump to 80hz which is recommended anyway.


Cool, it's not just me! I've always bumped up the crossovers from what Audyssey found, but I always had either towers or large bookshelf speakers that were set to either large or 40hz and like you, I bumped them to 80hz.

I had the same thought process with my FS 5 but maybe there is something more noticeable - to me anyway, with the higher frequencies I'm dealing with? IDK

Both settings sound good and I'm not 100% sure I could consistently identify either setting in a blind test, and as soon as I typed _"I *think* it actually sounds better"_ in my OP, I kind of already new the answer..... unless I don't.


----------



## Paulo72

Hello,
I currently own a Sony STR-ZA 1000ES AV Receiver (Non Atmos) . I'm running 4 JBL 530, 1 520C, 1 SVS SB 12 NSD sub. Also have 2 Sony SSCSE Front height speakers. Was thinking about stepping up to an Atmos AV Receiver, either Denon AVR x2600 or 3500. Would Audyssey Muti EQ xT32 make a noticeable differance over Muti EQ xT? Receiver is set up in living room, not a dedicated HT Room.


----------



## JMak00

Paulo72 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I currently own a Sony STR-ZA 1000ES AV Receiver (Non Atmos) . I'm running 4 JBL 530, 1 520C, 1 SVS SB 12 NSD sub. Also have 2 Sony SSCSE Front height speakers. Was thinking about stepping up to an Atmos AV Receiver, either Denon AVR x2600 or 3500. Would Audyssey Muti EQ xT32 make a noticeable differance over Muti EQ xT? Receiver is set up in living room, not a dedicated HT Room.


I don't have that answer for you, but am also really interested in the answer. A few posts above you'll see I've asked a comparable question and one response I received indicated there was a dramatic difference.

I've only had a Denon AVR and no other so it's hard for me to imagine what an uncorrected room would sound like, therefore, it's even harder to imagine what the actual sound difference would be between MultiEQ XT and XT32.

In other places I have that the difference is dramatic in what I'd actually hear but no further description of what that really means. On the other hand, I've read that it is a dramatic difference, but that difference is in numbers only, in other words, discernible in measurements, but not discernible in actual listening.

So I'd also like to know what I could expect to hear that would be different between these two correction processes. 

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## D Bone

Paulo72 said:


> Hello,
> I currently own a Sony STR-ZA 1000ES AV Receiver (Non Atmos) . I'm running 4 JBL 530, 1 520C, 1 SVS SB 12 NSD sub. Also have 2 Sony SSCSE Front height speakers. Was thinking about stepping up to an Atmos AV Receiver, either Denon AVR x2600 or 3500. Would Audyssey Muti EQ xT32 make a noticeable differance over Muti EQ xT? Receiver is set up in living room, not a dedicated HT Room.


I have had both XT and XT32 (X3500) and 32 did make a difference, but it wasn't the earth shattering experience that I was expecting based on what other users have said.

My X3500 was too deep to fit into the custom AVR furniture in our new home, and I had no reservations about "downgrading" and went with my current X2600 with plain old XT...... That probably says it all.


----------



## Paulo72

D Bone said:


> I have had both XT and XT32 (X3500) and 32 did make a difference, but it wasn't the earth shattering experience that I was expecting based on what other users have said.
> 
> My X3500 was too deep to fit into the custom AVR furniture in our new home, and I had no reservations about "downgrading" and went with my current X2600 with plain old XT...... That probably says it all.


Thanks for the quick answer. I figured XT32 would be better if I used different mutiple sub's, but I use 1 sealed 12". Eventually I'll get the Denon 2600. The sony has worked good for me, and doen't get hot which I like. Will eventually jump and buy the Denon.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Paulo72 said:


> Thanks for the quick answer. I figured XT32 would be better if I used different mutiple sub's, but I use 1 sealed 12". Eventually I'll get the Denon 2600. The sony has worked good for me, and doen't get hot which I like. Will eventually jump and buy the Denon.


I recommend going for the 3500 if your budget permits it, the x32 is far better IMO and is not only good for subs but for all speakers, the x32 EQ's the bass region of the subs( doesn't matter if its single or more) and speakers a lot more, this is the most important area to correct 0-500hz. The standard xt doesn't concentrate enough in this region, I had the denon 2400 than upgraded to the 3300 and the difference was very noticeable, I now have the 3600 and the difference is very much the same as the 3300 just with more channels.
So if it were me i would go with the 3500 for sure, it will be a better purchase all round


----------



## JMak00

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> I recommend going for the 3500 if your budget permits it, the x32 is far better IMO and is not only good for subs but for all speakers, the x32 EQ's the bass region of the subs( doesn't matter if its single or more) and speakers a lot more, this is the most important area to correct 0-500hz. The standard xt doesn't concentrate enough in this region, I had the denon 2400 than upgraded to the 3300 and the difference was very noticeable, I now have the 3600 and the difference is very much the same as the 3300 just with more channels.
> 
> So if it were me i would go with the 3500 for sure, it will be a better purchase all round


I'm wondering what the difference was, though. In other words, what happened to the sound that made it different? 

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

D Bone said:


> Obligatory awful picture attached:



Doesn't your bass freak out the fish?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

JMak00 said:


> I'm wondering what the difference was, though. In other words, what happened to the sound that made it different?
> 
> Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk


I suppose the question is xt vs xt32, well the difference does depend a lot on the the room and what needs to be corrected, If you have a setup with good speaker and sub position and a decent treated room, you would probably find it harder to tell the difference, if on the other hand your room that has little treatment and not ideal speaker position xt32 will have more benefits. As I said before the best calibration is done in the lower frequency's 0-500hz, this is where you will benefit most with correcting nulls and peaks that the sub or speakers create, xt32 is more advanced for this as it focus more on these regions. Xt focus's more on the higher frequency's and not so much on the lower so YMMV depending on the room and speakers.
Think of it this way xt32 has more filters (correction points) to correct speakers and subs compared to the xt version as illustrated down below, most of us don't live in the a perfect treated room so I think it benefits a lot of people, than with the Multi EQ App you can limit the correction to the lower frequency's like 0-300hz which is recommend by many people and myself.
If you need more info
Google Audyssey xt vs xt32, there is lots if info on this subject


----------



## D Bone

garygarrison said:


> Doesn't your bass freak out the fish?


No, they love heavy metal, after all they're steelheads...... Ba Da Bum


----------



## JD23

I have a very basic question regarding volume levels with Audyssey. Is the AVR master volume supposed to represent the volume at the MLP following level setting, or is it at some other arbitrary distance; e.g., 1m?


----------



## garygarrison

JD23 said:


> I have a very basic question regarding volume levels with Audyssey. Is the AVR master volume supposed to represent the volume at the MLP following level setting, or is it at some other arbitrary distance; e.g., 1m?



*If* your master volume control is set up so 0 = very loud, and very soft is in the -70s or -80s, *and* Audyssey calibration was done with the 8 microphone positions surrounding or near the MLP, *and* the trims have not been touched after Audyssey calibration, *then: 
*
A Master Volume setting of *0*, when playing *peaks *recorded at _*fs*_ (full scale*;* the loudest that can be on the disk) the *peak *SPL will be about 105 dB from each speaker except the sub, and the subwoofer maximum *peaks* will be about 115 dB, *all at the MLP *(approximately).


----------



## shazza6887

Hi All,


So i re ran Audyssey as per the guide linked to me by mthomas, it does sound a little tighter all around!


It seems my XPA 11 is way to powerful for my klipsch speakers and most of them were set to -12 so it is hard to know if they are even level,



There is no volume control on the XPA 11 that i am aware off, i have a SPL but i dont know how accurate it is, used in conjunction with the app on my phone or failing that purchase another spl should i calibrate all speakers to 80db to make sure I know where they are at to keep them level? 



If i did this would it just mean that reference for me would be at -5db instead of 0?


----------



## JD23

garygarrison said:


> *If* your master volume control is set up so 0 = very loud, and very soft is in the -70s or -80s, *and* Audyssey calibration was done with the 8 microphone positions surrounding or near the MLP, *and* the trims have not been touched after Audyssey calibration, *then:
> *
> A Master Volume setting of *0*, when playing *peaks *recorded at _*fs*_ (full scale*;* the loudest that can be on the disk) the *peak *SPL will be about 105 dB from each speaker except the sub, and the subwoofer maximum *peaks* will be about 115 dB, *all at the MLP *(approximately).



I meet all of those criteria, except I performed only six calibration positions, not eight.


----------



## D Bone

JD23 said:


> I meet all of those criteria, except I performed only six calibration positions, not eight.


3,4,5,6,7,8... doesn't matter. Audyssey sets all of the speaker trims and distances on the 1st MLP position pass.


----------



## mthomas47

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> I suppose the question is xt vs xt32, well the difference does depend a lot on the the room and what needs to be corrected, If you have a setup with good speaker and sub position and a decent treated room, you would probably find it harder to tell the difference, if on the other hand your room that has little treatment and not ideal speaker position xt32 will have more benefits. As I said before the best calibration is done in the lower frequency's 0-500hz, this is where you will benefit most with correcting nulls and peaks that the sub or speakers create, xt32 is more advanced for this as it focus more on these regions. Xt focus's more on the higher frequency's and not so much on the lower so YMMV depending on the room and speakers.
> Think of it this way xt32 has more filters (correction points) to correct speakers and subs compared to the xt version as illustrated down below, most of us don't live in the a perfect treated room so I think it benefits a lot of people, than with the Multi EQ App you can limit the correction to the lower frequency's like 0-300hz which is recommend by many people and myself.
> If you need more info
> Google Audyssey xt vs xt32, there is lots if info on this subject



I had thought I would stay out of this discussion, but I might try to help a little, instead. Audyssey increased the filters for both the subwoofers and the satellites when it developed XT-32. XT-32 was their next generation in terms of room correction. (Incidentally, in this context "satellite" refers to all of the speakers in an HT system except the subwoofers.)

The total number of control points or taps in the filter created for each satellite, or for the subwoofers as a whole, is 4096. (Someone checked the chip patent that Audyssey uses.) The table that Audyssey published was always a little cryptic in that regard, since they never identified the "X" in the original 2EQ version.

I had previously speculated that the first version was just a fairly simple graphic equalizer, with about 6 to 12 control points. I think that most graphic equalizers may have had 8 control points. And, that earlier speculation proved correct when the patent was checked. 4096 divided by 512 is 8. So, there were 8 control points in 2EQ, and people can calculate the control points in the other versions based on that.

I am a little bit fuzzy on this next part, but I have speculated that each control point can either add, or subtract, 1dB. Audyssey can pull down peaks by up to -20dB, and it can try to pull-up dips by +9dB. The disparity is deliberate, as Audyssey consumes amp power pretty fast when it adds boosts to individual frequencies, and especially to lower frequencies. 

Understanding the +/-1dB per control point concept (if it is correct) helps us to understand why the subwoofers need to have a filter which is capable of creating 4096 control points, when there are only 110 frequencies from 120Hz down to 10Hz. That would be sort of a nominal range for subwoofer correction. 

Audyssey also changed their philosophy of how control points should be distributed, when they developed XT-32. Previous versions had tried to apply more control points to specific higher frequencies. They were usually fairly subtle corrections of only a few decibels per frequency, but they were still correcting a lot of individual frequencies. And, in a way that made sense. There are a lot more high-frequencies than there are bass frequencies, below 120Hz or so, which is mostly what the subs are playing. So, it made some sense to try to control individual high-frequencies.

But, in practice, they found that by trying to do so much correction of individual frequencies in the higher frequency range, they were interfering too much with the sound. XT-32 changes that by trying to correct clusters of high-frequencies, rather than making as many corrections of individual frequencies. 

At the same time, the designers decided to allow the subwoofer control to be as frequency-specific as possible, so that adjustments of subwoofer frequencies could still be very specific, but so that the magnitude of the corrections could also be greater. +9dB and -20dB corrections can take a lot of control points, where the room is causing big peaks and dips in the bass frequencies. So, even though both the speakers and the subs have the same number of control points, those control points are implemented differently.

Will everyone definitely hear a sound quality difference between XT and XT-32? Who knows? Is there is a potential for XT-32 to do a better (lesser) job of EQing higher-frequencies, and a more thorough job of EQing lower frequencies? I would say definitely yes! But, it is just a potential. My friend Gary gets excellent (measured and audible) results with XT, and Feri gets good results, in his room, with an even earlier version of Audyssey. So, it is hard to say anything completely definitive.

I would say this, though. If someone were considering upgrading anyway, I would definitely recommend XT-32. The ability to set distance and level separately for two subs, or for pairs of subs, is an asset. And, as Alan mentioned earlier, the Audyssey App which can be used with newer Audyssey AVR's, can be very worthwhile in itself. But, will everyone hear better quality sound with XT-32, and if so what will it sound like?

Those are unanswerable questions, because sound quality is inherently subjective. All room correction can try to do is to improve the interaction between the room and our subwoofers (because the room interaction is so important for the bass we hear), and to a somewhat lesser extent, to improve the interaction between the room and our speakers.

In theory, where room correction is successful, we will hear a smoother frequency response, which will let the room get out of the way of the recording. In practice, YMMV! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## smdelaney

^ ^ ^ ^ 


mthomas47 said:


> I had thought I would stay out of this discussion, but I might try to help a little, instead.


Thank you, Mike...your insight is much appreciated.


----------



## mogorf

mthomas47 said:


> I had thought I would stay out of this discussion, but I might try to help a little, instead.


Excellent write-up, as always, Mike! 

One point I'd like to add is the dilemma of EQ'ing full range or not? Of course to each his own, but my take on this issue is to do the full range EQ. Why? Coz we are dealing with full range which means each and every frequency in the audible range does need some kind of treatment. 

Limiting EQ'ing to below Schroeder will do fine, but above there is still a lot of things to do. Namely, paring EQ for stereo imaging comes to mind first. It's been told that no two L&R speakers placed in a room will show exact same behavior. A target of their frequency response to be within a +/- 1 dB limit can only be reached by correction. And that adds a lot to this discussion, doesn't it?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mthomas47 said:


> In theory, where room correction is successful, we will hear a smoother frequency response, which will let the room get out of the way of the recording. In practice, YMMV!


Thanks, Mike for the input, you broke it down in a way I could have never done and I totally agree that YMMV in the xt vs xt32, for me even when I had one sub I notice a substantial difference going from the 2400 to the 3300, also imaging on the stereo speakers seemed a lot better too, but this would most certainly down to mic and speaker positions, just to point out the 2400 series up to the 2600 have the Multi Eq App too if that is factor in the buying decision
Thanks
Jim


----------



## BRAC

So...what is the consensus among the Audyssey veterans here on the forum. Are most of you guys eq’ing full range, or just up to that 300-500hz range, or other value?

I‘ve always done the full range eq in the past without much thought about it, but now I’m starting to wonder. Recent reviews and forum comments seem to point toward more and more people implementing an early cutoff. Thoughts?


----------



## D Bone

BRAC said:


> So...what is the consensus among the Audyssey veterans here on the forum. Are most of you guys eq’ing full range, or just up to that 300-500hz range, or other value?
> 
> I‘ve always done the full range eq in the past without much thought about it, but now I’m starting to wonder. Recent reviews and forum comments seem to point toward more and more people implementing an early cutoff. Thoughts?


I bought the app because I thought I would love a 300hz EQ cutoff, but was really surprised to find out that I liked full tilt boogie full range EQ better....... which is great, because I can not get the stupid app to consistently work, but that's a whole other rant I'm about to embark on.


----------



## BRAC

D Bone said:


> I bought the app because I thought I would love a 300hz EQ cutoff, but was really surprised to find out that I liked full tilt boogie full range EQ better....... which is great, because I can not get the stupid app to consistently work, but that's a whole other rant I'm about to embark on.


Appreciate the feedback. 

Which curve do you prefer, reference or flat? Reference shallow or steep rolloff? Just curious.

I’m currently rocking the reference curve and shallow rolloff, which I believe is the default setting after running eq. Sounds good for the most part, but I do wonder if I may be missing out on something better. Probably time to start experimenting and get a bit more adventurous with the app.


----------



## pbz06

BRAC said:


> So...what is the consensus among the Audyssey veterans here on the forum. Are most of you guys eq’ing full range, or just up to that 300-500hz range, or other value?
> 
> I‘ve always done the full range eq in the past without much thought about it, but now I’m starting to wonder. Recent reviews and forum comments seem to point toward more and more people implementing an early cutoff. Thoughts?


There is no consensus. You have the tools to try it out, and what you prefer depends on your tastes, treatment, speakers etc. And the type of EQ used. Some are better than others. 

There's no correct answer. There's a lot of science behind limiting, and also behind full range.


----------



## D Bone

BRAC said:


> Appreciate the feedback.
> 
> Which curve do you prefer, reference or flat? Reference shallow or steep rolloff? Just curious.
> 
> I’m currently rocking the reference curve and shallow rolloff, which I believe is the default setting after running eq. Sounds good for the most part, but I do wonder if I may be missing out on something better. Probably time to start experimenting and get a bit more adventurous with the app.


The 1 time I was able to get a full 8pt calibration with the app on my now sold XT32 Denon x3500 and in my former house, I liked the reference curve, without MRC and the #2 roll off.

I can not get the damn app to work past the 3rd or 4th mic position on my XT x2600 and have totally given up on it as I wouldn't trust it further than I could throw it...... which turns out is pretty far.

So I'm currently using the default reference curve via the AVR and am really happy.


----------



## BRAC

pbz06 said:


> There is no consensus. You have the tools to try it out, and what you prefer depends on your tastes, treatment, speakers etc. And the type of EQ used. Some are better than others.
> 
> There's no correct answer. There's a lot of science behind limiting, and also behind full range.


There is usually a trend of some sort, which does tell me a lot.

I personally value others feedback and there are many more knowledgeable and experienced Audyssey users than myself.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

pbz06 said:


> There is no consensus. You have the tools to try it out, and what you prefer depends on your tastes, treatment, speakers etc. And the type of EQ used. Some are better than others.
> 
> There's no correct answer. There's a lot of science behind limiting, and also behind full range.


I totally agree, I know we use this term a lot YMMV but this is especially the case in this scenario, trial and error is the only way as everyone's system, room, and all the other factors come in to play here. And if full range wasn't completely needed why would Dirac charge extra for the privilege.

In my case limiting to 300hz works for me as I find the correction to be a little too aggressive for my liking, but that's just for my setup from leapfrogging from one setting to another. I would recommend anyone starting off to do full range first for at least a month before deciding on whether or not to change it, Audyssey does it's best to be a good plug and play system hence it's popularity


----------



## pbz06

BRAC said:


> There is usually a trend of some sort, which does tell me a lot.
> 
> 
> 
> I personally value others feedback and there are many more knowledgeable and experienced Audyssey users than myself.


Oh I agree and am same way too. But this is one where there's a lot of people on both sides, and with strong opinions.

I alternate a lot with settings and ride them out. I'm convinced I can't tell what's better/worse, just differences. The funny thing is those differences vary with material on what I think I prefer too.

When I do full range, I prefer MRC off and Reference with the rolloff target #2 .

Right now I am running Flat, but engaged CinemaEQ which has a linear rolloff (for L C R only) starting at 1k and ending at -4dB by 20k. I have also set Bass +3 using the tone controls which affects only the L and R.


----------



## SouthernCA

D Bone said:


> Hey guys, it's been a bit since I've posted here. Quick question regarding what you would do with the LCR crossovers. We recently moved into our forever home (unless Cali drives us out - lord knows they're trying their best!) and I decided to scale down the living room based HT with an Atlantic Technology FS 5 passive front stage speaker, 2 SVS SB-1000 subs hidden behind the AVR furniture in the bottom nook and 2 in-ceiling surround speakers all powered by a Denon X2600 Audyssey XT AVR.
> 
> 
> 
> XT found the L/R 110hz, the Center 100hz and the Surr 40hz. I bumped the surrounds up to 80 and the LCR to 120 thinking that since the subs are located where they are it would be a slam dunk to offload a little more to them.
> 
> 
> 
> ..... but after going back to the default 110/100 (surr still 80) setting I *think* it actually sounds better, but have that gnawing in the back of my large head that 120 still makes the most sense.
> 
> 
> 
> AT rates the sealed FS 5 to 80hz F3. I have turned it up louder than I would normally listen at while all set to full range and playing 5-150hz sweeps and they don't distort in any way, rather they just politely roll off without any drama.... I'm actually surprised XT didn't set them lower based on what my old, ringing ears hear.
> 
> 
> 
> So long story short (too late!!), would you trust Audyssey and call it a day, or bump them up a bit and call it a day? I know in the end it probably makes very little difference, but I am just looking for a few opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> Obligatory awful picture attached:


Beautiful TV. Congratulations on your forever home. We are looking for one now. Any advice?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## BRAC

D Bone said:


> The 1 time I was able to get a full 8pt calibration with the app on my now sold XT32 Denon x3500 and in my former house, I liked the reference curve, without MRC and the #2 roll off.
> 
> I can not get the damn app to work past the 3rd or 4th mic position on my XT x2600 and have totally given up on it as I wouldn't trust it further than I could throw it...... which turns out is pretty far.
> 
> So I'm currently using the default reference curve via the AVR and am really happy.





Jimmy2Shoes said:


> I totally agree, I know we use this term a lot YMMV but this is especially the case in this scenario, trial and error is the only way as everyone's system, room, and all the other factors come in to play here. And if full range wasn't completely needed why would Dirac charge extra for the privilege.
> 
> In my case limiting to 300hz works for me as I find the correction to be a little too aggressive for my liking, but that's just for my setup from leapfrogging from one setting to another. I would recommend anyone starting off to do full range first for at least a month before deciding on whether or not to change it, Audyssey does it's best to be a good plug and play system hence it's popularity





pbz06 said:


> Oh I agree and am same way too. But this is one where there's a lot of people on both sides, and with strong opinions.
> 
> I alternate a lot with settings and ride them out. I'm convinced I can't tell what's better/worse, just differences. The funny thing is those differences vary with material on what I think I prefer too.
> 
> When I do full range, I prefer MRC off and Reference with the rolloff target #2 .
> 
> Right now I am running Flat, but engaged CinemaEQ which has a linear rolloff (for L C R only) starting at 1k and ending at -4dB by 20k. I have also set Bass +3 using the tone controls which affects only the L and R.


This is exactly the type of feedback I was hoping for. Thank you!

I realize that everyone’s setup is different, but knowing what methods and settings others are having success with gives me a good starting point.


----------



## D Bone

SouthernCA said:


> Beautiful TV. Congratulations on your forever home. We are looking for one now. Any advice?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


Thanks!! On the very top of my advice list, is patience. We looked for just under 18 months and did over 30 open houses and well over 100 drive by, go-look-ats before this one seemingly fell into our laps.

It was a for sale by owner in a gated community and we were on our way to what would've been just another swing and a miss, when I saw the small 4 sale sign by the gate that was just opening. So I swung an illegal u-turn and made it into the gate and as we drove up the owner was just walking back into the front door, so I pulled over real quick before he got in and introduced ourselves and he showed us around.

My wife and I both immediately knew it was our house..... not a doubt in our minds. We went to lunch at Chili's... yes, Chili's! and called our agent. We asked to come back later that night with her which we did, and then made an offer the next morning, which they accepted the same day and 45 days later, we were in. 

Make sure you don't settle on location....... you can't budge on that. I'm sure you have your top neighborhoods lined out with a clear 1 and 2, so just keep pounding those target areas and sooner or later you'll find it....... and when you do, there won't be a doubt in your minds. You'll just know. 

Where we spend most of our time in our new home:


----------



## bluesky636

BRAC said:


> So...what is the consensus among the Audyssey veterans here on the forum. Are most of you guys eq’ing full range, or just up to that 300-500hz range, or other value?
> 
> I‘ve always done the full range eq in the past without much thought about it, but now I’m starting to wonder. Recent reviews and forum comments seem to point toward more and more people implementing an early cutoff. Thoughts?


Full range.

I have heard of too many problems still with the app to want to bother futzing around with it. AVR calibration process does a great job for my room.


----------



## BRAC

bluesky636 said:


> Full range.
> 
> I have heard of too many problems still with the app to want to bother futzing around with it. AVR calibration process does a great job for my room.


Strange. I’ve never had a problem with the app, although I have yet to mess with the Curve Editor and Frequency Range settings.


----------



## garygarrison

BRAC said:


> So...what is the consensus among the Audyssey veterans here on the forum. Are most of you guys eq’ing full range, or just up to that 300-500hz range, or other value?
> 
> I‘ve always done the full range eq in the past without much thought about it, but now I’m starting to wonder. Recent reviews and forum comments seem to point toward more and more people implementing an early cutoff. Thoughts?


I like full range*;* IMO, some of the most important corrections Audyssey made in my system are above Schroeder, some _*way*_ above. For instance, the midrange is attenuated a bit (a good thing in my system) a peak is removed at 8K Hz, and a boost provided above 10 K Hz. 

Chris K (the co-founder and Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey) said he was inclined toward full range correction.

It certainly *is* true that YMMV. Which way sounds better with your room and equipment? I would listen to many pieces of music and movies both ways. Take your time making a decision.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

BRAC said:


> Strange. I’ve never had a problem with the app, although I have yet to mess with the Curve Editor and Frequency Range settings.


The App, unfortunately does have some issues, although I think it is a step in the right direction it needs a bit more work and updates, 1 flaw been that it gets sub distances wrong for some people with multiple subs, this is not a minor bug but a huge one and when fixed needs to be in update notes.
Another bug is that any changes I make in regards to the curve or Frequency Range are made to the flat curve, not the Reference(Audyssey) curve, this was not an issue on my 3300 but is on my 3600. I have tried everything in terms of factory reset on the AVR and App reinstall to fix this problem. I have not found anyone else with this issue, but a bug nonetheless

While the stock AVR calibration is rock solid

I would love (in a dream world probably) a windows based Multi Eq program released by Audyssey where the curve editor works better closer to Dirac as it is really just a teaser at the moment in IMO and maybe allowing different custom and preset target curves easier to implement in a global manner.

This is my only gripe Audyssey is that they haven't really done much lately since xt32 2012, which I don't mind on the stock AVR, but the App or a windows App has so much more potential and would get a lot more attention than the app does now.

Thanks
Jim


----------



## pbarach

BRAC said:


> Appreciate the feedback.
> 
> Which curve do you prefer, reference or flat? Reference shallow or steep rolloff? Just curious.
> 
> I’m currently rocking the reference curve and shallow rolloff, which I believe is the default setting after running eq. Sounds good for the most part, but I do wonder if I may be missing out on something better. Probably time to start experimenting and get a bit more adventurous with the app.


The curve you choose may depend on your room size, room treatment, and what you play on the system. I have a relatively small room with carpet, heavy curtains over back of the room windows, and diffusing bookshelves on the sides. This is essentially a near-field setup (I'm just over 7 ft from the front mains). I listen mostly to classical music. The FLAT curve sounds best, but I use REFERENCE for a few older movies that have shrill sound (such as Lawrence of Arabia).


----------



## BRAC

Is the high frequency rolloff the only difference between Reference and Flat?


----------



## SouthernCA

D Bone said:


> Thanks!! On the very top of my advice list, is patience. We looked for just under 18 months and did over 30 open houses and well over 100 drive by, go-look-ats before this one seemingly fell into our laps.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a for sale by owner in a gated community and we were on our way to what would've been just another swing and a miss, when I saw the small 4 sale sign by the gate that was just opening. So I swung an illegal u-turn and made it into the gate and as we drove up the owner was just walking back into the front door, so I pulled over real quick before he got in and introduced ourselves and he showed us around.
> 
> 
> 
> My wife and I both immediately knew it was our house..... not a doubt in our minds. We went to lunch at Chili's... yes, Chili's! and called our agent. We asked to come back later that night with her which we did, and then made an offer the next morning, which they accepted the same day and 45 days later, we were in.
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure you don't settle on location....... you can't budge on that. I'm sure you have your top neighborhoods lined out with a clear 1 and 2, so just keep pounding those target areas and sooner or later you'll find it....... and when you do, there won't be a doubt in your minds. You'll just know.
> 
> 
> 
> Where we spend most of our time in our new home:


Beautiful home. Good advice. I want to move closer to water. And am looking for a neighborhood that is we really like (and can afford).

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## SouthernCA

My right speaker (ls50) is close to a book shelf. Wither because of that or otherwise, Audyssey is boosting the signal around 200 hz by about 5 dB only on that speaker. 

In some songs, when I am hearing around 78 dB, that speaker starts bottoming out. Anyway to stop that? All suggestion welcome.

Raising the crossover to 20 stops that.

I have the app but it does it work in my system.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## D Bone

BRAC said:


> Is the high frequency rolloff the only difference between Reference and Flat?


Reference has the high frequency roll off and the MRC (Mid Range Compensation) dip at 2K. https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation

Flat has neither.


----------



## audiofan1

BRAC said:


> So...what is the consensus among the Audyssey veterans here on the forum. Are most of you guys eq’ing full range, or just up to that 300-500hz range, or other value?
> 
> I‘ve always done the full range eq in the past without much thought about it, but now I’m starting to wonder. Recent reviews and forum comments seem to point toward more and more people implementing an early cutoff. Thoughts?


 I cut off my mains at 400hz and the other 9 speakers at 4000hz. Lots of playing around down in the rabbit hole with the app but this has delivered incredible sound


----------



## BRAC

D Bone said:


> Reference has the high frequency roll off and the MRC (Mid Range Compensation) dip at 2K. https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347863-Midrange-Compensation
> 
> Flat has neither.


Oh right...I forgot about MRC. That is always the first setting I turn off, along with the Dynamic EQ, Dynamic Volume and LFC settings.


----------



## D Bone

I have a question regarding MRC and top end roll off of the reference curve for those of you who are advanced members. I might need to word it a bit lengthy so I can get it across correctly, and the numbers I'm using in the examples are strictly to help you understand my question and me your answer....

Lets say for example that a speaker has a natural 5db dip at 2K either from design or from where it's placed in the room, or both, and Audyssey confirms this 5db dip during the measurement process.

1) Does Audyssey then raise that 5db measured natural dip to first match its programmed target to say 0db, and then lower it again by 2db to meet the MRC's spec, which would then end up with a +3db EQ setting after all is said and done? 

2) Or Does Audyssey simply cut 2db more from that 5db measured natural dip to then end up with a 7db dip as the end result?

The same question goes for the entire top end too since the reference curve rolls the speaker off.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Alan P

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> The App, unfortunately does have some issues, although I think it is a step in the right direction it needs a bit more work and updates, 1 flaw been that it gets sub distances wrong for some people with multiple subs, this is not a minor bug but a huge one and when fixed needs to be in update notes.
> Another bug is that any changes I make in regards to the curve or Frequency Range are made to the flat curve, not the Reference(Audyssey) curve, this was not an issue on my 3300 but is on my 3600. I have tried everything in terms of factory reset on the AVR and App reinstall to fix this problem. I have not found anyone else with this issue, but a bug nonetheless
> 
> While the stock AVR calibration is rock solid
> 
> *I would love (in a dream world probably) a windows based Multi Eq program released by Audyssey where the curve editor works better closer to Dirac as it is really just a teaser at the moment in IMO and maybe allowing different custom and preset target curves easier to implement in a global manner.*
> 
> This is my only gripe Audyssey is that they haven't really done much lately since xt32 2012, which I don't mind on the stock AVR, but the App or a windows App has so much more potential and would get a lot more attention than the app does now.
> 
> Thanks
> Jim


While not _exactly _what you are asking for, and I don't have the ability yet to use it myself...but I think ratbuddyssey will get you close to what you are looking for.

Announcing ratbuddyssey - a tool for tweaking Audyssey MultEQ app files


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Alan P said:


> While not _exactly _what you are asking for, and I don't have the ability yet to use it myself...but I think ratbuddyssey will get you close to what you are looking for.
> 
> Announcing ratbuddyssey - a tool for tweaking Audyssey MultEQ app files


Hi Alan P
Ya, I'm familiar with the Ratbuddy App and used it a lot in the past, it just goes to show how far Audyssey could take it if they wanted to, Rabuddy has done a fantastic job and with his recent posts there seems to be more to come like adding a PEQ structure and applying globally to all speakers like a cut a paste.
While I am happy with my setup now and use DEQ rather than set a custom house curve, I feel there is room for more improvement on the Curve editor giving that it is a paid app, the other functions work well I must say bar a few bugs here and there. But I suppose if you really want this kind of custom curve editing capabilities Dirac or Anthem is probably the better way to go.
I'm not complaining though for a while Dirac was on my short-list, but when I started using Cascading Crossover's with DEQ I found the sound I was looking for which was strong mid-bass being my top preference, so this is more constructive criticism rather than knocking Audyssey.
Thanks
Jim


----------



## j_at_audyssey

D Bone said:


> I have a question regarding MRC and top end roll off of the reference curve for those of you who are advanced members. I might need to word it a bit lengthy so I can get it across correctly, and the numbers I'm using in the examples are strictly to help you understand my question and me your answer....
> 
> Lets say for example that a speaker has a natural 5db dip at 2K either from design or from where it's placed in the room, or both, and Audyssey confirms this 5db dip during the measurement process.
> 
> 1) Does Audyssey then raise that 5db measured natural dip to first match its programmed target to say 0db, and then lower it again by 2db to meet the MRC's spec, which would then end up with a +3db EQ setting after all is said and done?
> 
> 2) Or Does Audyssey simply cut 2db more from that 5db measured natural dip to then end up with a 7db dip as the end result?
> 
> The same question goes for the entire top end too since the reference curve rolls the speaker off.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


1-If the before measurement matches the the target curve, no adjustment is done.

The target curve is always level aligned so that -30dBFS band-limited pink noise measures 75dB(C, Slow) at reference volume. This means a slight dip at 2 kHz does make other frequencies slightly louder to adhere to this standard. You can see this in the app by looking at the red line in "Room Correction Results". 
The filter applied is nearly identical to the inverse of the green graph across the red line of the after results (If they match nothing happens).


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, why is Audyssey setting my Center at -9 and the other speakers around -5 ?
And all speakers are the same, Kef T301 !
Also tried it with other speakers, and exact the same, Center far lower then the other speakers.
Is this "normal" ?

Thanks


----------



## drh3b

CBdicX said:


> Hi, why is Audyssey setting my Center at -9 and the other speakers around -5 ?
> And all speakers are the same, Kef T301 !
> Also tried it with other speakers, and exact the same, Center far lower then the other speakers.
> Is this "normal" ?
> 
> Thanks


Is the center a lot closer?


----------



## CBdicX

drh3b said:


> Is the center a lot closer?


Not much, Front is 2.25 meter, Center is 1.74 meter.
In the pic the speakers...…….


----------



## David Aiken

CBdicX said:


> Not much, Front is 2.25 meter, Center is 1.74 meter.
> In the pic the speakers...…….


That's a fair bit closer, roughly 22% closer than the front speakers. That makes a difference. The centre speaker also rests on a surface that extends in front of it with a wall behind whereas the fronts have a wall behind but don't have a surface extending forward immediately below them so they're not getting as much reinforcement from their surroundings.

And the centre speaker may also be slightly more sensitive than the others so it may play a bit louder for the same level input.


----------



## drh3b

David Aiken said:


> That's a fair bit closer, roughly 22% closer than the front speakers. That makes a difference. The centre speaker also rests on a surface that extends in front of it with a wall behind whereas the fronts have a wall behind but don't have a surface extending forward immediately below them so they're not getting as much reinforcement from their surroundings.
> 
> And the centre speaker may also be slightly more sensitive than the others so it may play a bit louder for the same level input.


I think the speakers are all the same model, but I was also thinking exactly what you said in the first paragraph.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So I'm not sure where to post this as it touches on all the sub/app/Audyssey issues but since the experts check all three I'm hoping I'll be safe.  

Did my first run with my new Denon 3600H and XT32 via the app. Not going to lie, but the sub EQ thing was pretty fun to see and adjust. I have a Klipsch Reference setup with two subs, and I added two upfiring Atmos modules hence the need to upgrade my receiver from regular MultEQ (system is now 7.2.2). Subs are symmetrical in the room on the front wall, inside the toed-in towers. 

The sound is much improved and smoother after my first couple tests and listens. Richer may be the term but I know it's meaningless. Have DynEQ per usual, and RLO at 5dB (10dB for music). Some questions:

1. My upfiring Atmos speakers were set to 90Hz for the crossover, which seems really low. I have a panel dropped flat ceiling, 8' high, and I thought I understood that Atmos speakers should be crossed much higher. There's no specs on the Klipsch website save for "conforms to Dolby Atmos standards" so should I raise the crossover? Most sources seem to say that 150Hz seems appropriate. My surrounds were set to 120Hz.
2. I know it's a reference vs. preference question but is it really important to have the L/R towers set to 80Hz? I like the sound with music better at 60Hz and can't notice much, if any, difference with movies and TV. It doesn't sound as boomy at 80Hz, but never really sounds bad. Thoughts?
3. The before curve on the sub shows a -10dB null at 100Hz. The after has Audyssey bringing it to -5dB. I assume this is a room null and wonder what my options are. Is this something I should adjust the LPF of LFE to mitigate? Live with it? I don't have a lot of options for treatments or decor (couch is eight feet away, concrete basement floor, front stage fills the side of the room).
4. My center is now crossed over at 80Hz, MultEQ and my old 930H had it at 90Hz, and the specs say 82Hz. Should I raise to 90 or 100Hz or leave it as Audyssey set it?

Thanks for all the help and resources. Just a wonderful resource and knowledge depository here!


----------



## Alan P

JohnnytheSkin said:


> So I'm not sure where to post this as it touches on all the sub/app/Audyssey issues but since the experts check all three I'm hoping I'll be safe.
> 
> Did my first run with my new Denon 3600H and XT32 via the app. Not going to lie, but the sub EQ thing was pretty fun to see and adjust. I have a Klipsch Reference setup with two subs, and I added two upfiring Atmos modules hence the need to upgrade my receiver from regular MultEQ (system is now 7.2.2). Subs are symmetrical in the room on the front wall, inside the toed-in towers.
> 
> The sound is much improved and smoother after my first couple tests and listens. Richer may be the term but I know it's meaningless. Have DynEQ per usual, and RLO at 5dB (10dB for music). Some questions:
> 
> 1. My upfiring Atmos speakers were set to 90Hz for the crossover, which seems really low. I have a panel dropped flat ceiling, 8' high, and I thought I understood that Atmos speakers should be crossed much higher. There's no specs on the Klipsch website save for "conforms to Dolby Atmos standards" so should I raise the crossover? Most sources seem to say that 150Hz seems appropriate. My surrounds were set to 120Hz.
> 2. I know it's a reference vs. preference question but is it really important to have the L/R towers set to 80Hz? I like the sound with music better at 60Hz and can't notice much, if any, difference with movies and TV. It doesn't sound as boomy at 80Hz, but never really sounds bad. Thoughts?
> 3. The before curve on the sub shows a -10dB null at 100Hz. The after has Audyssey bringing it to -5dB. I assume this is a room null and wonder what my options are. Is this something I should adjust the LPF of LFE to mitigate? Live with it? I don't have a lot of options for treatments or decor (couch is eight feet away, concrete basement floor, front stage fills the side of the room).
> 4. My center is now crossed over at 80Hz, MultEQ and my old 930H had it at 90Hz, and the specs say 82Hz. Should I raise to 90 or 100Hz or leave it as Audyssey set it?
> 
> Thanks for all the help and resources. Just a wonderful resource and knowledge depository here!


1) There is no inherent reason that "Atmos" speakers need a higher crossover than other speakers. It is probably more common since most folks use relatively small speakers for Atmos duty, but that doesn't mean all do. You can certainly feel free to raise the crossover, but you are also safe to keep the Audyssey set crossovers. Go with whatever sounds best to your ears.

2) The front speakers absolutely do not have to be set to 80Hz. If Audyssey set them to Large, 40Hz or 60Hz, you are safe to experiment with 40-60Hz and go with, again, whatever sounds best to you. One caveat; you can raise a crossover from where Audyssey set it, but you should not lower it.

3) Sub placement/more subs/MLP placement are your only options for battling nulls in your response.

4) See 1 & 2.


----------



## pbz06

Quick random question...I'm trying to verify Audyssey level matching results, and I know the built in tones defeat Audyssey, but just doing a sanity ballpark check. Are the built in tones band limited? I have Marantz SR7011.

My SPL meter is rated only for 31.5hz to 8khz so that's why I'm curious.


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> Quick random question...I'm trying to verify Audyssey level matching results, and I know the built in tones defeat Audyssey, but just doing a sanity ballpark check. Are the built in tones band limited? I have Marantz SR7011.
> 
> My SPL meter is rated only for 31.5hz to 8khz so that's why I'm curious.



I think the Marantz pink noise is band limited from 500 to 2K Hz, at least it was in 2011 when I bought mine.


Some people notice a fairly big difference between the built in pink noise and what they get when they use a test disk that goes through the player and the whole Marantz, including Audyssey, using the Audyssey correction (which is the _right_ way). Other people notice a small difference. I guess that if Audyssey only finds it necessary to make very minor corrections, because the speakers are pretty flat, and the room is pretty neutral, not much of a difference shows up. When a lot of correction is applied, it is necessary for the test noise to enter the chain earlier, i.e., before the Audyssey filters, so the changes in response Audyssey will impose will be utilized. [For anybody who doesn't know, the test noise in most -- all ?-- AVRs and Pre-pros does not pass through Audyssey, but enters the chain _after _the Audyssey filters, therefore is at least a bit invalid.] It sure would be nice if they told us all that in the Marantz manual ... maybe they have cleaned up their act since 2011.



I use the Spears and Munsil disk, which gets good reviews and seems to work well for me. I get some difference in trim level in the room (SPL) between the disk and the Marantz noise generator that is measurable. What is more interesting (to me) is the Marantz noise _*sounds*_ different from different speakers, but the Spears and Munsil sounds pretty much identical through each speaker. Audyssey is doing its job!*
*


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> I think the Marantz pink noise is band limited from 500 to 2K Hz, at least it was in 2011 when I bought mine.
> 
> 
> Some people notice a fairly big difference between the built in pink noise and what they get when they use a test disk that goes through the player and the whole Marantz, including Audyssey, using the Audyssey correction (which is the _right_ way). Other people notice a small difference. I guess that if Audyssey only finds it necessary to make very minor corrections, because the speakers are pretty flat, and the room is pretty neutral, not much of a difference shows up. When a lot of correction is applied, it is necessary for the test noise to enter the chain earlier, i.e., before the Audyssey filters, so the changes in response Audyssey will impose will be utilized. [For anybody who doesn't know, the test noise in most -- all ?-- AVRs and Pre-pros does not pass through Audyssey, but enters the chain _after _the Audyssey filters, therefore is at least a bit invalid.] It sure would be nice if they told us all that in the Marantz manual ... maybe they have cleaned up their act since 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> I use the Spears and Munsil disk, which gets good reviews and seems to work well for me. I get some difference in trim level in the room (SPL) between the disk and the Marantz noise generator that is measurable. What is more interesting (to me) is the Marantz noise _*sounds*_ different from different speakers, but the Spears and Munsil sounds pretty much identical through each speaker. Audyssey is doing its job!*
> *


Ok thanks. I normally use Dolby test tones downloaded on my PC. I also have the S&M disc, Disney WoW, Avia, HD Video Essentials haha. When I do my final calibrations, I use multiple sources.

They're never off by much more than 1dB from each other and about 2dB compared to the internal test tones...i just like to use the internals for quick sanity checks when I'm using the Audyssey app and trying different things.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So when I ran Audyssey with my upfiring Atmos modules via the app I wasn't prompted for the ceiling height. Only noticed that setting in the AVR after messing around with crossovers. Do I need to re-run after changing from the default 6' to my 4' or did Audyssey measure the response and the ceiling height setting is for AVR processing (with the upmixers, for example)?

Not a big deal to do, but will mean kicking out the family for a spell.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## cathodeRay

JohnnytheSkin said:


> So when I ran Audyssey with my upfiring Atmos modules via the app I wasn't prompted for the ceiling height. Only noticed that setting in the AVR after messing around with crossovers. Do I need to re-run after changing from the default 6' to my 4' or did Audyssey measure the response and the ceiling height setting is for AVR processing (with the upmixers, for example)?
> 
> Not a big deal to do, but will mean kicking out the family for a spell.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


There's an early step where you select your speakers' layout. After you select your Atmos configuration, it will later ask the 'distance from the ceiling'.


----------



## mthomas47

JohnnytheSkin said:


> So I'm not sure where to post this as it touches on all the sub/app/Audyssey issues but since the experts check all three I'm hoping I'll be safe.
> 
> Did my first run with my new Denon 3600H and XT32 via the app. Not going to lie, but the sub EQ thing was pretty fun to see and adjust. I have a Klipsch Reference setup with two subs, and I added two upfiring Atmos modules hence the need to upgrade my receiver from regular MultEQ (system is now 7.2.2). Subs are symmetrical in the room on the front wall, inside the toed-in towers.
> 
> The sound is much improved and smoother after my first couple tests and listens. Richer may be the term but I know it's meaningless. Have DynEQ per usual, and RLO at 5dB (10dB for music). Some questions:
> 
> 1. My upfiring Atmos speakers were set to 90Hz for the crossover, which seems really low. I have a panel dropped flat ceiling, 8' high, and I thought I understood that Atmos speakers should be crossed much higher. There's no specs on the Klipsch website save for "conforms to Dolby Atmos standards" so should I raise the crossover? Most sources seem to say that 150Hz seems appropriate. My surrounds were set to 120Hz.
> 2. I know it's a reference vs. preference question but is it really important to have the L/R towers set to 80Hz? I like the sound with music better at 60Hz and can't notice much, if any, difference with movies and TV. It doesn't sound as boomy at 80Hz, but never really sounds bad. Thoughts?
> 3. The before curve on the sub shows a -10dB null at 100Hz. The after has Audyssey bringing it to -5dB. I assume this is a room null and wonder what my options are. Is this something I should adjust the LPF of LFE to mitigate? Live with it? I don't have a lot of options for treatments or decor (couch is eight feet away, concrete basement floor, front stage fills the side of the room).
> 4. My center is now crossed over at 80Hz, MultEQ and my old 930H had it at 90Hz, and the specs say 82Hz. Should I raise to 90 or 100Hz or leave it as Audyssey set it?
> 
> Thanks for all the help and resources. Just a wonderful resource and knowledge depository here!





JohnnytheSkin said:


> So when I ran Audyssey with my upfiring Atmos modules via the app I wasn't prompted for the ceiling height. Only noticed that setting in the AVR after messing around with crossovers. Do I need to re-run after changing from the default 6' to my 4' or did Audyssey measure the response and the ceiling height setting is for AVR processing (with the upmixers, for example)?
> 
> Not a big deal to do, but will mean kicking out the family for a spell.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk



Hi,

I'm going to answer the question in your second post first. If things sound good to you now, I wouldn't bother running Audyssey again for a 2' distance difference in your up-firing Atmos modules. I am doubtful that most people could tell an audible difference between those two distance settings.

I agree with Alan that, as long as you are going upward with your crossovers, it's fine to set them wherever they sound the best. (The same thing "could" apply to changing them downward from where your AVR set them, in some cases, but I would prefer to give conservative advice.) With respect to your front channels, it's not that big a deal to change the crossovers when you go from music to movies/TV. So, you could use 60Hz for music, and 80Hz for movies/TV. 

The reason I'm suggesting that is because movies can have a lot more bass in them than most music does. And, if the speakers sound boomy at times, when the crossover is set to 60Hz, that may be distortion you are hearing. If so, that's pretty well defeating what you are trying to accomplish with Audyssey.

With respect to the center channel, I would just experiment a little. Personally, I am looking for maximum clarity from the center channel, since it carries so much (virtually all) of the dialogue in movies and TV. If 80Hz gives you the most clarity, then that is what I would personally use. If 90Hz or 100Hz, gives you something you like better, then go with that. 

If you can't hear any difference at all, then I would go with the higher crossover. As with your front speakers, your subs are much more powerful than your center channel, and much better able to play bass frequencies without distortion. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

mthomas47 said:


> With respect to your front channels, it's not that big a deal to change the crossovers when you go from music to movies/TV. So, you could use 60Hz for music, and 80Hz for movies/TV.


Some Denon receivers allow you to set a different crossover for 2-channel playback; if your 3600 has this feature (it's under SPEAKERS on the setup screen), then the receiver will automatically make the crossover different when you listen to stereo music.


----------



## sjm817

pbarach said:


> Some Denon receivers allow you to set a different crossover for 2-channel playback; if your 3600 has this feature (it's under SPEAKERS on the setup screen), then the receiver will automatically make the crossover different when you listen to stereo music.


I think you need 4xxx or higher for that feature in Denon. It is a really nice feature. You can also change small/large, sub/no sub, even distance and levels.

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX4500H/EU/EN/GFNFSYiyuaasuo.php


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*



pbarach said:


> Some Denon receivers allow you to set a different crossover for 2-channel playback; if your 3600 has this feature (it's under SPEAKERS on the setup screen), then the receiver will automatically make the crossover different when you listen to stereo music.




I have this feature on my sr7012. But i believe the crossover change is for the sub not the actual speaker. You cant change crossover just for the mains for 2 ch. this is how i understand it. Its highlighted when u try to change crossover.in the 2 ch playback setting. In the speaker/manual setup under crossover you can set crossover to individual speakers or all . But its not for 2ch only . Hope i got this correct.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> I have this feature on my sr7012. But i believe the crossover change is for the sub not the actual speaker. You cant change crossover just for the mains for 2 ch. this is how i understand it. Its highlighted when u try to change crossover.in the 2 ch playback setting. In the speaker/manual setup under crossover you can set crossover to individual speakers or all . But its not for 2ch only . Hope i got this correct..


I don't understand what your point is; in 2-channel playback, there is no audio going to speakers other than front mains and the sub(s). Some AVRs _do_allow selection of a different crossover point when the audio source is only two channels. The explanation below is verbose, but I want to be as clear as possible.

The AVR's crossover frequency regulates the point at which low frequencies are cut off (gradually; it's not a brick wall) from going to the other speakers. Frequencies below the crossover are sent to the sub and not the other speakers. 

On the Denon x4xxx and higher, there is a separate submenu of SPEAKERS called "2-channel playback," which allows one to set the crossover separately for 2-channel playback. As an example, I chose 80 Hz as my crossover in the SPEAKERS menu, but 60 Hz for 2-channel playback. Why I made those choices isn't relevant to my point here. In multichannel playback, everything below 80 Hz in all channels goes to the sub(s); in 2-channel playback, incoming audio for the front left and right channels, which are the only audio channels coming in, frequencies below 60 Hz are redirected to the sub,


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

I agree. can you go back to
Where you set the crossover to 60hz in the 2 ch payback and look if its for the speakers or sub. It should be highlighted what it does when you go to change crossover.. on my marantz it highlights its for the sub. I had changed mine to 60hz too thinking it was just for the speakers..i’ll try to post pic so you can see on my marantz










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

But again maybe on your denon its different where you can do it for the speakers only within the 2 ch playback. I stand corrected if necessary.. np


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> I agree. can you go back to
> Where you set the crossover to 60hz in the 2 ch payback and look if its for the speakers or sub. It should be highlighted what it does when you go to change crossover.. on my marantz it highlights its for the sub. I had changed mine to 60hz too thinking it was just for the speakers..i’ll try to post pic so you can see on my marantz
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This makes no sense! Perhaps you misunderstand "crossover frequency." The sub never gets a full-range audio signal. There is no crossover setting "for the sub" in an AVR. Speakers that are set in the AVR to SMALL will roll off frequencies below the chosen crossover, and that portion of the audio signal goes to your sub. AVRs that have a 2-channel playback feature will allow you to choose a difference crossover point for stereo signals than for multichannel signals.

I can't explain this any more clearly, maybe someone else can. Meanwhile, here is a page from your AVR's manual that is quite clear:

2-channel playback in SR7012


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> I agree. can you go back to
> Where you set the crossover to 60hz in the 2 ch payback and look if its for the speakers or sub. It should be highlighted what it does when you go to change crossover.. on my marantz it highlights its for the sub. I had changed mine to 60hz too thinking it was just for the speakers..i’ll try to post pic so you can see on my marantz


----------



## rocky1

I got it the first time.. no big deal. I was implying that the crossover change in the 2 ch playback is not for the speakers(mains). Its not going to be set at 60hz for music only in 2 ch. as was previously suggested. Just my take. No worries.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sjm817

rocky1 said:


> I got it the first time.. no big deal. I was implying that the crossover change in the 2 ch playback is not for the speakers(mains). Its not going to be set at 60hz for music only in 2 ch. as was previously suggested. Just my take. No worries.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Exactly the reverse of that.


----------



## pbz06

rocky1 said:


> I got it the first time.. no big deal. I was implying that the crossover change in the 2 ch playback is not for the speakers(mains). Its not going to be set at 60hz for music only in 2 ch. as was previously suggested. Just my take. No worries.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Huh? I'm trying to understand what you are trying to say vs what you might not be understanding.

With Marantz/Denon (some models), you can pick a DIFFERENT crossover setting (for your speakers) when playing 2channel stereo music. For example, I can select Large or 40hz crossover when it detects 2ch signal. 

Or I can select "Auto" and it uses what your settings are in the main area where you can individually set crossovers for each speaker.


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Yessir what i was i guess trying to imply that in the 2 ch playback setting when i go change the crossover (which i thought was for the speaker) underneath on screen a highlighted description for that says its for changing sub crossover.atleast on my marantz


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> Yessir what i was i guess trying to imply that in the 2 ch playback setting when i go change the crossover (which i thought was for the speaker) underneath on screen a highlighted description for that says its for changing sub crossover.atleast on my marantz
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You are reading that description incorrectly. 

The crossover sets the point at which the main speakers roll off to the sub. The crossover is applied to the main speakers, not the sub.


----------



## rocky1

*&quot;Official&quot; Audyssey thread Part II*

Your probably right which i like better since i can reset them to 60hz for 2ch...i probably misinterpreted “ sets the subwoofer frequency” i reread the stuff in the manual prior to your recent post and saw that about “to the sub”.. . Hope we didnt get too carried away.. lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> Your probably right which i like better since i can reset them to 60hz for 2ch...i probably misinterpreted “ sets the subwoofer frequency” i reread the stuff in the manual prior to your recent post and saw that about “to the sub”.. . Hope we didnt get too carried away.. lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No "probably" about it. That's what it means as I and several others have tried to explain to you.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

So I ended up re-running Audyssey after changing the upfiring Atmos ceiling distance, and now both the towers and upfiring have identical distances set by Audyssey (honestly impressed they set the same). So in that regard it was worth it. Still up the crossover for the upfiring to 150Hz, and like the towers at 60Hz. The "before" curves show positive (+dB) response at 40Hz and slightly lower so I'm planning to leave them there for now.

One more question, what are the forum's thoughts on adjusting the LPF of LFE to lower than 120Hz when I DON'T add more sub boost beyond DEQ? Audyssey set the subs to -9.5 and I use DEQ and -15MV with discs, -20 w/ 5 RLO for most streaming content (save Disney+ at -10).

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## zeonstar

Does Dynamic EQ affect Height channel speakers?


----------



## garygarrison

zeonstar said:


> Does Dynamic EQ affect Height channel speakers?



I would think so -- why not?


Check your manual, and the Guide by mthomas47, linked in his signature.


What follows is mostly surmise on my part, because I don't use Height channels, and my c. 2011 CE Marantz manual is well-nigh unreadable, and contains several errors. It looks like it was written by someone with the convoluted style of Immanuel Kant, from an original by Anselm. 



The Height channels (and all other channels) should be set for SMALL, to keep the deepest bass boosted by Dynamic EQ out of speakers that may distort because of inadequate bass tolerance (in some systems, Heights, to say nothing of Atmos, etc.). DEQ should also boost bass in the sub(s), including deep bass that would otherwise go to Height channels, if they weren't (correctly) set on small.


----------



## zeonstar

garygarrison said:


> I would think so -- why not?
> 
> 
> Check your manual, and the Guide by mthomas47, linked in his signature.
> 
> 
> What follows is mostly surmise on my part, because I don't use Height channels, and my c. 2011 CE Marantz manual is well-nigh unreadable, and contains several errors. It looks like it was written by someone with the convoluted style of Immanuel Kant, from an original by Anselm.
> 
> 
> 
> The Height channels (and all other channels) should be set for SMALL, to keep the deepest bass boosted by Dynamic EQ out of speakers that may distort because of inadequate bass tolerance (in some systems, Heights, to say nothing of Atmos, etc.). DEQ should also boost bass in the sub(s), including deep bass that would otherwise go to Height channels, if they weren't (correctly) set on small.


Well I am not 100% sure why not but my question was based on a few things. 

1. I read somewhere awhile back, though I am not sure when it was or if it was a forum post, an article or what, that DEQ does not actually do anything to height speakers. The reasoning, if I recall, was simply because DEQ was invented before height speakers.

2. Furthermore, I have never read anything that expressly says that A: It does actually affect Height channels, and B: what DEQ actually does to them. There is plenty of info on how DEQ affects bass and surrounds, but to my knowledge, not information on it's effect on heights.

I have read mthomas47's sub guide and I don't recall it mentioning DEQ with regards to heights.

On a strictly personal note, not longer after I read that post or whatever it was that said DEQ did not affect (or take into account) heights, I tried my system with DEQ off and have been happy with the results. If nothing else, it was one less factor to worry about and it simplified things. I also found it easier to have all my speakers level matched with it off as DEQ throws my surrounds in particular out of whack where they dominated everything.


The guide for my AVR, the X4400H doesn't say anything of note about DEQ and Heights


----------



## Capfan11

*Looking for guidance*

Denon x3600h
5.1.4 setup

Recently watched BR Master and Commander and Titanic. Both sounded fairly awesome it's just that to get dialog to point I can easily hear it when action starts things get way too loud. Sooner or later my neighbour is gonna call!

4K BR seem to not give me the same issues in Atmos. Gemini Man and Ready Player One were stellar. Loud when action occurs but not excessive like the BR neural X.

I don't want to limit the sub IE night mode.

I've raised the centre from what audessy set, -5, to -2, -1, 0 and didn't seem to make a huge difference.

I have read over quite a bit of the thread as well.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zeonstar said:


> Does Dynamic EQ affect Height channel speakers?




Iirc it boosts the rear top/height the same as it boosts surrounds.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Capfan11 said:


> Denon x3600h
> 
> 5.1.4 setup
> 
> 
> 
> Recently watched BR Master and Commander and Titanic. Both sounded fairly awesome it's just that to get dialog to point I can easily hear it when action starts things get way too loud. Sooner or later my neighbour is gonna call!
> 
> 
> 
> 4K BR seem to not give me the same issues in Atmos. Gemini Man and Ready Player One were stellar. Loud when action occurs but not excessive like the BR neural X.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to limit the sub IE night mode.
> 
> 
> 
> I've raised the centre from what audessy set, -5, to -2, -1, 0 and didn't seem to make a huge difference.
> 
> 
> 
> I have read over quite a bit of the thread as well.
> 
> 
> 
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.




Gotta watch M&C on dvd. The BR is filturd at 30hz. The DTS track is clean and crisp.


----------



## pbarach

Capfan11 said:


> Denon x3600h
> 5.1.4 setup
> 
> Recently watched BR Master and Commander and Titanic. Both sounded fairly awesome it's just that to get dialog to point I can easily hear it when action starts things get way too loud. Sooner or later my neighbour is gonna call!



Sometimes this happens with Dynamic EQ, so I will turn it off when this happens. If that doesn't solve the problem, then I will turn off Dynamic EQ and THEN make sure Dynamic Volume is still on (or I'll turn it on). DynVol compresses the dynamic range, so you can adjust it for dialog level and not get your neighbor coming over when the cannons fire.-


----------



## zeonstar

Polyrythm1k said:


> Iirc it boosts the rear top/height the same as it boosts surrounds.


That would make sense. Just surprised I never heard it mentioned before. Most guides I've seen go into detail on how it affects subs and surrounds.


----------



## pbz06

zeonstar said:


> That would make sense. Just surprised I never heard it mentioned before. Most guides I've seen go into detail on how it affects subs and surrounds.


Likely because most of the guides were written before the prevalence of Atmos, but it does appear to be true. When I was experimenting (or validating) what Audyssey does, I took SPL readings with DEQ enabled and volume level at -10 and -15 and sure enough, the Top Rear speakers were also about +2dB louder (equal with surrounds) than the other channels. To "normalize" it, i first double checked that everything was equal with DEQ Off + Flat and volume at 0.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zeonstar said:


> That would make sense. Just surprised I never heard it mentioned before. Most guides I've seen go into detail on how it affects subs and surrounds.




I think it got covered a few times in the Atmos thread. 
I don’t even think it’s in any AVR owners manuals either. Ive never really like DEQ myself as it makes my surrounds too hot and I run a house curve with my minidsp so...


----------



## zeonstar

pbz06 said:


> Likely because most of the guides were written before the prevalence of Atmos, but it does appear to be true. When I was experimenting (or validating) what Audyssey does, I took SPL readings with DEQ enabled and volume level at -10 and -15 and sure enough, the Top Rear speakers were also about +2dB louder (equal with surrounds) than the other channels. To "normalize" it, i first double checked that everything was equal with DEQ Off + Flat and volume at 0.


That is really great to know. It's great to have actual confirmation that it does do something to the heights. I still find my life simpler with it off and all my speakers level matched, but I may experiment with DEQ again someday knowing what I know now. Thank you!




Polyrythm1k said:


> I think it got covered a few times in the Atmos thread.
> I don’t even think it’s in any AVR owners manuals either. Ive never really like DEQ myself as it makes my surrounds too hot and I run a house curve with my minidsp so...


Yeah the manuals are really bad. I stopped using DEQ for pretty much the exact same reason as you. My surrounds happen to be really close to my ear on one side so that didn't help when I used DEQ. All I heard was surrounds.


----------



## pbz06

zeonstar said:


> That is really great to know. It's great to have actual confirmation that it does do something to the heights. I still find my life simpler with it off and all my speakers level matched, but I may experiment with DEQ again someday knowing what I know now. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the manuals are really bad. I stopped using DEQ for pretty much the exact same reason as you. My surrounds happen to be really close to my ear on one side so that didn't help when I used DEQ. All I heard was surrounds.


Every manual for everything is terrible, ha! I wish manufacturers took time to write detailed manuals, but obviously I can understand that it's likely not worth the cost especially since nobody RTFM 

Sony is terrible too with their TV's. We get vague descriptions like "suitable for movies" when trying to figure out what a picture setting does :smh:


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zeonstar said:


> That is really great to know. It's great to have actual confirmation that it does do something to the heights. I still find my life simpler with it off and all my speakers level matched, but I may experiment with DEQ again someday knowing what I know now. Thank you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah the manuals are really bad. I stopped using DEQ for pretty much the exact same reason as you. My surrounds happen to be really close to my ear on one side so that didn't help when I used DEQ. All I heard was surrounds.




Yeah, it’s definitely annoying, and the little time I spent with the reference level offsets didn’t make me feel super awesome. You could drop the surround levels to compensate, but to me i just prefer to not have a moving target. I do kinda like what it does with bass however, but there too, I’ve already set up a good system.


----------



## wxchaser

Noticed a few days ago when I looked on my Denon X6500H - that my Audyssey calibration was gone. I used the Restore function & the settings from my recent cal were the same (I took numerous pics on my iPhone and saved for reference). My other question is why Tone is greyed out. 

The only thing i did was manually change the 2 subs from -4.5 db to -3.5 db.

With the virus - I have time to do another calibration - but would like advice from members on why this happened. So when I go to Manual, it wants me to do test tones and when I go to Audyssey nothing shows up - but my settings are in there under Check Results. Dynamic EQ is on.

Thanks for any help or suggestions.


----------



## garygarrison

wxchaser said:


> My other question is why Tone is greyed out.
> 
> Dynamic EQ is on.



Tone will always be unavailable when Dynamic EQ is on. They don't want you to boost with both at the same time. Ah, I remember when my McIntosh preamp allowed 20 dB bass boost, plus 3 dB more with bass trim controls. Luxman too. 



I prefer leaving Dynamic EQ off and using all of the 6 dB bass boost the Tone controls so generously allow, primarily because it is clearer. But part of the reason this works for me is that I playback within 5 to 7dB of reference level,


I don't know the answer to your other questions.


----------



## mthomas47

wxchaser said:


> Noticed a few days ago when I looked on my Denon X6500H - that my Audyssey calibration was gone. I used the Restore function & the settings from my recent cal were the same (I took numerous pics on my iPhone and saved for reference). My other question is why Tone is greyed out.
> 
> The only thing i did was manually change the 2 subs from -4.5 db to -3.5 db.
> 
> With the virus - I have time to do another calibration - but would like advice from members on why this happened. So when I go to Manual, it wants me to do test tones and when I go to Audyssey nothing shows up - but my settings are in there under Check Results. Dynamic EQ is on.
> 
> Thanks for any help or suggestions.



Hi,

Like Gary, I can't really explain what happened. If Audyssey somehow got turned off, it didn't have anything to do with your subwoofer trim adjustments. Maybe your Denon did a firmware update, or maybe your AVR has a glitch, or maybe almost anything where microprocessors are concerned. 

Whenever an Audyssey calibration is performed, Audyssey sets the Reference curve and DEQ on by default. And, as Gary noted, engaging DEQ disables (gray's out) the tone controls. To use the tone controls, you have to turn DEQ off.

Before doing another Audyssey calibration, I would probably do a microprocessor reset first, and then try another calibration to see if this one sticks. If the same thing happens again, you may just have a defective AVR.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: Your Denon owner's manual will tell you how to do a microprocessor reset.


----------



## wxchaser

How do I turn off dynamic eq?

Microprocessor reset? How please?

DEQ off help please! My settings are all still there after restore from my last calibration - I know because I took pics and saved to computer storage (also on my phone). Too busy today to do much. Thanks for your help.


----------



## Balbolito

wxchaser said:


> How do I turn off dynamic eq?
> 
> Microprocessor reset? How please?
> 
> DEQ off help please! My settings are all still there after restore from my last calibration - I know because I took pics and saved to computer storage (also on my phone). Too busy today to do much. Thanks for your help.


You just go to the menu in your AVR

Audio settings, Audyssey then set dynamic EQ to off

No need to reset anything.


----------



## wxchaser

Is this the microprocessor reset?

http://manuals.denon.com/AVRX6500H/NA/EN/GFNFSYvyalrwrt.php


----------



## wxchaser

Balbolito said:


> You just go to the menu in your AVR
> 
> Audio settings, Audyssey then set dynamic EQ to off
> 
> No need to reset anything.


Thanks - turned DEQ off. Initial impressions are it sounds much clearer and better with it turned off.


----------



## jsgrise

I just switch from Reference to L/R Bypass and my mains came alive, like I removed a blanket over them. 

Now my center channel seems muffled, is this normal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

jsgrise said:


> I just switch from Reference to L/R Bypass and my mains came alive, like I removed a blanket over them.
> 
> Now my center channel seems muffled, is this normal?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Was this for music only ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jsgrise

rocky1 said:


> Was this for music only ?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Movies too, wider soundstage, bigger imaging, better on all accounts 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

jsgrise said:


> I just switch from Reference to L/R Bypass and my mains came alive, like I removed a blanket over them.
> 
> 
> Now my center channel seems muffled, is this normal.


A fairer test would be to switch from Audyssey *Flat* to* L/R Bypass*. When you use Reference as the starting condition, you are getting a roll off of 2 dB at 10K and 6 dB at 20K through Reference. Then you switch to L/R Bypass and your AVR is all of a sudden sending a flat signal with *no* roll off to your mains, so they would be expected to "come alive," but you don't really know if it is because your L & R speakers are more "alive" with no Audyssey "correction" at all or if it is merely that you have removed the audible roll off that Reference provides. If you start with Audyssey Flat, instead, you will be comparing Flat to Bypass, and Bypass is as flat as your speakers, room, and listening position are, without the aid of correction.

BTW, when I switch from Reference to Flat on my system, it does indeed sound like someone removed a blanket from the speakers, so I prefer Audyssey Flat -- on all but a few music and movie disks that are screechy enough so that they sound better with the electric "blanket" that is Reference. Also, my room is a bit too dead, perhaps.

I _*think*_ that if you switch from Reference to L/R Bypass, your *Center *will still be on Reference, thus still muffled compared to your newly liberated L & R.

Does your center have the same midrange and tweeter as your L & R? If not, you may be better off letting everything go through Audyssey Flat (or Audyssey Reference, whatever you prefer) because then Audyssey will try to make all your speakers have the same timbre, and timbre matters, especially with music disks or streaming. Even with a lot of Audyssey compensation, your speakers will probably still sound like themselves. As Mike has pointed out, cones, domes, horns, and electrostatic panels will still sound like cones, domes, horns, and electrostatic panels. My take on this is that the different design types tend to require different types of compromises, and have different types of virtues, even if Audyssey Flat makes them flat as the proverbial board (it won't).

Try everything.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

jsgrise said:


> Movies too, wider soundstage, bigger imaging, better on all accounts
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just to add to what Gary has said, L/R Bypass is pretty much as it states no correction at all on the left and right, but doesn't affect the center hence why you are getting sound.
If you like what the L/R Bypass has done perhaps try using the Multi Eq App and limit the speaker correction to 500hz or 300hz
Gene and Mike at Audioholics recently did an interesting video on Room Eq and why it is difficult to correct speakers over a certain frequency worth checking out.
As Gary has said try different things


----------



## jsgrise

garygarrison said:


> A fairer test would be to switch from Audyssey *Flat* to* L/R Bypass*. When you use Reference as the starting condition, you are getting a roll off of 2 dB at 10K and 6 dB at 20K through Reference. Then you switch to L/R Bypass and your AVR is all of a sudden sending a flat signal with *no* roll off to your mains, so they would be expected to "come alive," but you don't really know if it is because your L & R speakers are more "alive" with no Audyssey "correction" at all or if it is merely that you have removed the audible roll off that Reference provides. If you start with Audyssey Flat, instead, you will be comparing Flat to Bypass, and Bypass is as flat as your speakers, room, and listening position are, without the aid of correction.
> 
> BTW, when I switch from Reference to Flat on my system, it does indeed sound like someone removed a blanket from the speakers, so I prefer Audyssey Flat -- on all but a few music and movie disks that are screechy enough so that they sound better with the electric "blanket" that is Reference. Also, my room is a bit too dead, perhaps.
> 
> I _*think*_ that if you switch from Reference to L/R Bypass, your *Center *will still be on Reference, thus still muffled compared to your newly liberated L & R.
> 
> Does your center have the same midrange and tweeter as your L & R? If not, you may be better off letting everything go through Audyssey Flat (or Audyssey Reference, whatever you prefer) because then Audyssey will try to make all your speakers have the same timbre, and timbre matters, especially with music disks or streaming. Even with a lot of Audyssey compensation, your speakers will probably still sound like themselves. As Mike has pointed out, cones, domes, horns, and electrostatic panels will still sound like cones, domes, horns, and electrostatic panels. My take on this is that the different design types tend to require different types of compromises, and have different types of virtues, even if Audyssey Flat makes them flat as the proverbial board (it won't).
> 
> Try everything.





Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Just to add to what Gary has said, L/R Bypass is pretty much as it states no correction at all on the left and right, but doesn't affect the center hence why you are getting sound.
> If you like what the L/R Bypass has done perhaps try using the Multi Eq App and limit the speaker correction to 500hz or 300hz
> Gene and Mike at Audioholics recently did an interesting video on Room Eq and why it is difficult to correct speakers over a certain frequency worth checking out.
> As Gary has said try different things


Thanks for your input guys!

I don't use Flat on my setup as it sounds too harsh or forced (if I can put it in words), it adds sibillance to voices and is unatural. All my speakers are in the same Sonus Faber line, so they have the same components. 

With the L/R Bypass, the mains are a lot more airy while staying elegant and natural. Yo-Yo Ma "Ave Maria" video streamed from TIDAL made me believe he was playing in my theather.

The only reason I am still using Audyssey is for the DynamicEQ as I listen often at lower level. I am now considering a prepro like the Emotiva XMC-2 that will let me activate the "loudness" function without any EQ applied.

I wish I had the MultEq App available on my receiver, I would definitly try to limit the correction to a certain frequencies.


----------



## aarons915

Well I finally got to play with XT32 and I agree with many posters who say the flat curve sounds unnatural, Audyssey seems to be able to make a curve match a target very well, too bad they don't seem to know much about room acoustics and what the proper curve should be. Unfortunately my network card seems to be bad on the Refurb Denon X3500 I got from A4L so I can't tweak the curve in the app yet but I was very happy with the smooth crossover XT32 created. 










The smooth rolloff of the mains and Sub is very nice so I don't doubt I'll be able to make this sound amazing once I can tweak the target curve and possibly limit the correction range. I've been using PEQ in my Emotiva UMC200 and achieved pretty good results but it's a pain measuring then applying EQ, then fine tuning, rinse and repeat. I was able to achieve this in the 10 minutes it took to measure so I'm excited about the possibilities.


----------



## Matt2026

aarons915 said:


> Well I finally got to play with XT32 and I agree with many posters who say the flat curve sounds unnatural, Audyssey seems to be able to make a curve match a target very well, too bad they don't seem to know much about room acoustics and what the proper curve should be. Unfortunately my network card seems to be bad on the Refurb Denon X3500 I got from A4L so I can't tweak the curve in the app yet but I was very happy with the smooth crossover XT32 created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The smooth rolloff of the mains and Sub is very nice so I don't doubt I'll be able to make this sound amazing once I can tweak the target curve and possibly limit the correction range. I've been using PEQ in my Emotiva UMC200 and achieved pretty good results but it's a pain measuring then applying EQ, then fine tuning, rinse and repeat. I was able to achieve this in the 10 minutes it took to measure so I'm excited about the possibilities.


I watched segment one last night and the second half this morning. Interesting and possibly relevant to what you are seeing/hearing...

Video from Audioholics, focused mainly on Dirac and Audyssey; https:/ /www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcGFpYJNE7A&feature=youtu.be (remove the space after "https:/" if you want to watch it...)

*Does Room Correction (EQ) Improve Home Theater Sound Quality?*


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

aarons915 said:


> Well I finally got to play with XT32 and I agree with many posters who say the flat curve sounds unnatural, Audyssey seems to be able to make a curve match a target very well, too bad they don't seem to know much about room acoustics and what the proper curve should be. Unfortunately my network card seems to be bad on the Refurb Denon X3500 I got from A4L so I can't tweak the curve in the app yet but I was very happy with the smooth crossover XT32 created.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The smooth rolloff of the mains and Sub is very nice so I don't doubt I'll be able to make this sound amazing once I can tweak the target curve and possibly limit the correction range. I've been using PEQ in my Emotiva UMC200 and achieved pretty good results but it's a pain measuring then applying EQ, then fine tuning, rinse and repeat. I was able to achieve this in the 10 minutes it took to measure so I'm excited about the possibilities.


Ya, the crossover is excellent, very smooth.
When you say the network card is bad, is this related to both ethernet and wi-fi cause either one will do, limiting the curve correction would be an ideal move next if possible. What does the diagnostic say on the setup menu for network?


----------



## aarons915

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Ya, the crossover is excellent, very smooth.
> When you say the network card is bad, is this related to both ethernet and wi-fi cause either one will do, limiting the curve correction would be an ideal move next if possible. What does the diagnostic say on the setup menu for network?


Yeah it won't connect to either, on the initial setup it just says "Please Wait" and never does anything. Limiting the correction would be fine for many speakers but the KEF LS50 need a bit of EQ in the 2-5k range to not be bright in my opinion but I should be able to control that in the app.


----------



## pbarach

aarons915 said:


> Well I finally got to play with XT32 and I agree with many posters who say the flat curve sounds unnatural.


How it sounds may depend on your room acoustics, room size, and your hearing. I have a relatively small room (12x13 ft) that is well damped with carpeting, and with some room-diffusing shelves on the side walls. The flat curve sounds better to me because I don't need or want the high-frequency rolloff that comes with the Reference curve.


----------



## rosstg

I sold my house so I lost my treated dedicated theatre room. In that setup I limited MultEQ to 300hz. Full spectrum did sound very good in that room but preferred the clarity of my speakers top end not messed with. 

I’m now in a typical living room setup. I was expecting to use the Reference curve full spectrum since I have a lot of reflective surfaces, I did put down a massive area rug with thick blackout curtains. To my surprise the Reference curve sounds worse in my new space. I’ve done 2 calibrations. The first with my mic stand - this had awful results. The 2nd with my tripod - better results but still not good. It doesn’t sound nearly as precise. Everything sounds masked and blended together. What’s odd is my new setup sounds better than my previous setup in a dedicated space.

Today I’m receiving a Emotiva 5175. I think I’ll experiment with the curves for a week or so then do another calibration but as it is today I really don’t like what full spectrum does to my Klipsch’s. Neither the Flat or Reference curve sounds right to my ears anymore. Flat sounds sterile, Reference sounds muddy. I love what XT32 / DEQ does to my bass though. If it wasn’t for DEQ I probably would have bought a NAD with Dirac.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

rosstg said:


> I sold my house so I lost my treated dedicated theatre room. In that setup I limited MultEQ to 300hz. Full spectrum did sound very good in that room but preferred the clarity of my speakers top end not messed with.
> 
> I’m now in a typical living room setup. I was expecting to use the Reference curve full spectrum since I have a lot of reflective surfaces, I did put down a massive area rug with thick blackout curtains. To my surprise the Reference curve sounds worse in my new space. I’ve done 2 calibrations. The first with my mic stand - this had awful results. The 2nd with my tripod - better results but still not good. It doesn’t sound nearly as precise. Everything sounds masked and blended together. What’s odd is my new setup sounds better than my previous setup in a dedicated space.
> 
> Today I’m receiving a Emotiva 5175. I think I’ll experiment with the curves for a week or so then do another calibration but as it is today I really don’t like what full spectrum does to my Klipsch’s. Neither the Flat or Reference curve sounds right to my ears anymore. Flat sounds sterile, Reference sounds muddy. I love what XT32 / DEQ does to my bass though. If it wasn’t for DEQ I probably would have bought a NAD with Dirac.


Hi

Great Comment and goes to prove the many variables that go into the science of this hobby. I have a room adjacent to my main setup, that I used for a brief period with small budget speakers and a mid-budget sub with a Onkyo AVR xt only. But the sound was incredible, really had that I'm at the movies kind of sound. And it was all down to the room and speaker placement and size. Nothing fancy EQ wise. Reason I don't use it is because it is on a busy street with a big window and little privacy. I'd close the curtains completely 24 hour, but the neighbours on my street street like to talk 

In in the room I use now has much more high-end equipment but required so much more work to get the sound I'm looking for. I agree with using full range correction on Klipsch speakers, xt32 tends to make them brighter than they already are, I don't know if this is a xt32 issue or the poor vertical off-axis when taking measurements for calibration due to speaker placement. For me limiting the correction to 300hz solves the issue.


----------



## rosstg

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hi
> 
> Great Comment and goes to prove the many variables that go into the science of this hobby. I have a room adjacent to my main setup, that I used for a brief period with small budget speakers and a mid-budget sub with a Onkyo AVR xt only. But the sound was incredible, really had that I'm at the movies kind of sound. And it was all down to the room and speaker placement and size. Nothing fancy EQ wise. Reason I don't use it is because it is on a busy street with a big window and little privacy. I'd close the curtains completely 24 hour, but the neighbours on my street street like to talk
> 
> In in the room I use now has much more high-end equipment but required so much more work to get the sound I'm looking for. I agree with using full range correction on Klipsch speakers, xt32 tends to make them brighter than they already are, I don't know if this is a xt32 issue or the poor vertical off-axis when taking measurements for calibration due to speaker placement. For me limiting the correction to 300hz solves the issue.


Yeah for sure. The Flat Curve with my Klipsch is far too bright. When I limit to 300hz they sound far more detailed but also less bright. The first time I listened with it limited was quite a difference. Sometimes I’ll shut off DEQ when I listen at lower volumes say around -25/-20db and dialogue clarity almost disappears. 

I would like to see D&M add another curve - perhaps a traditional house curve with a downward slope.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

rosstg said:


> Yeah for sure. The Flat Curve with my Klipsch is far too bright. When I limit to 300hz they sound far more detailed but also less bright. The first time I listened with it limited was quite a difference. Sometimes I’ll shut off DEQ when I listen at lower volumes say around -25/-20db and dialogue clarity almost disappears.
> 
> I would like to see D&M add another curve - perhaps a traditional house curve with a downward slope.


Ya I feel the App has so much potential, but the Curve editor could have been a lot better IMO, There are so many user's creating there own using Ratbuddy, but I don't understand why they don't introduce more curve options, the groundwork is done and would be relatively easy for Audyssey to do this. But I can't see it happen, the system was designed for DEQ hence why all speakers are corrected to flat.
As good as Xt32 is, Audyssey hasn't put any innovation or planned innovation for quite some time now, the Multi Eq App being there latest and even then can be a bit buggy but a improvement I wouldn't live without. 

I have a Arcam with Dirac on the way, for this reason, I got tired of waiting and wanted more control over the system.


----------



## pbz06

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Ya I feel the App has so much potential, but the Curve editor could have been a lot better IMO, There are so many user's creating there own using Ratbuddy, but I don't understand why they don't introduce more curve options, the groundwork is done and would be relatively easy for Audyssey to do this. But I can't see it happen, the system was designed for DEQ hence why all speakers are corrected to flat.
> As good as Xt32 is, Audyssey hasn't put any innovation or planned innovation for quite some time now, the Multi Eq App being there latest and even then can be a bit buggy but a improvement I wouldn't live without.
> 
> I have a Arcam with Dirac on the way, for this reason, I got tired of waiting and wanted more control over the system.


If we could more easily manipulate the curves (i.e. exact point adjustments with manual entry as opposed to pinching with your fingers guessing), and overlay the existing speaker response under the curve editor...that would go a long way to user satisfaction.


----------



## aarons915

pbarach said:


> How it sounds may depend on your room acoustics, room size, and your hearing. I have a relatively small room (12x13 ft) that is well damped with carpeting, and with some room-diffusing shelves on the side walls. The flat curve sounds better to me because I don't need or want the high-frequency rolloff that comes with the Reference curve.


Sometimes the default curves could get lucky and to be fair the flat and reference don't sound that bad in my room, I have a smaller room too so my curve is a bit flatter than many rooms. Even so, there is enough research that shows what people generally prefer is a flat anechoic response with closely matching early reflections. A room curve will be different in different rooms as you noted so really these automated room correction programs shouldn't try to fit every system to any specific curve, what would work a lot better is just to give us our measured curve with control points on it, similar to the app, and let us adjust certain regions. I know my LS50s are a bit hot in the 2-5k range, for example, so I would give that range a slight cut but after 5k it doesn't need to be EQ'd. When Audyssey boosts the highs to keep a flat room curve, it's boosting the on-axis sound, which causes them to sound bright to most people. 

The good news is since XT32 is great at matching a target curve, it can work great we just have to create that target curve through trial and error until we get one that sounds the best for our rooms. Once I get my replacement X3500 I plan on experimenting with this but I think the app along with Ratbuddyssey will allow me to do everything I need for good sound in my room. I also wonder if pointing the mic forward instead of vertically would work better with the flat curve since it will be get more direct sound which you want to be flat, this should boost the highs less.


----------



## rosstg

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Ya I feel the App has so much potential, but the Curve editor could have been a lot better IMO, There are so many user's creating there own using Ratbuddy, but I don't understand why they don't introduce more curve options, the groundwork is done and would be relatively easy for Audyssey to do this. But I can't see it happen, the system was designed for DEQ hence why all speakers are corrected to flat.
> As good as Xt32 is, Audyssey hasn't put any innovation or planned innovation for quite some time now, the Multi Eq App being there latest and even then can be a bit buggy but a improvement I wouldn't live without.
> 
> I have a Arcam with Dirac on the way, for this reason, I got tired of waiting and wanted more control over the system.


Yeah for sure. I do like the D&M are allowing more customizations especially limiting room correction. Their curves are way outdated. Years ago when soundtracks where bright I can see the benefit but now with all home releases being mastered for the home with near field mixes the rolloff of the Reference curve isn’t needed. And of course Flat boosts high frequencies so there goes that. 

I had a friend over last year when I was experimenting with the app. I played familiar scenes from movies switching between Reference - Flat - and limited. He agreed Flat sounded bad, it sounded metallic and unnatural. Reference was 2nd choice depending on the content. Limited to 300-500hz always was first choice no matter the content.

Let us know how you like the Acram and especially the results for Dirac. I may decide to move forward with one this Black Friday after I install my new amp and add more height speakers this summer.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

rosstg said:


> Yeah for sure. I do like the D&M are allowing more customizations especially limiting room correction. Their curves are way outdated. Years ago when soundtracks where bright I can see the benefit but now with all home releases being mastered for the home with near field mixes the rolloff of the Reference curve isn’t needed. And of course Flat boosts high frequencies so there goes that.
> 
> I had a friend over last year when I was experimenting with the app. I played familiar scenes from movies switching between Reference - Flat - and limited. He agreed Flat sounded bad, it sounded metallic and unnatural. Reference was 2nd choice depending on the content. Limited to 300-500hz always was first choice no matter the content.
> 
> Let us know how you like the Acram and especially the results for Dirac. I may decide to move forward with one this Black Friday after I install my new amp and add more height speakers this summer.


Ya and once you limit to 300 to 500hz at32 does a pretty good job correcting down below

I was hoping the AVR was coming today but looking like tomorrow instead, tbh I'm not expecting miracles and am ready for that, but I am looking forward to is to measure once correctly, and play around with the target curve with full control save to different profiles and easily switch during content to find what works for me, So I think it will take time to get right, but I'm a tweaker by nature so this is perfect for me, I'll keep you posted.


----------



## rosstg

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Ya and once you limit to 300 to 500hz at32 does a pretty good job correcting down below
> 
> I was hoping the AVR was coming today but looking like tomorrow instead, tbh I'm not expecting miracles and am ready for that, but I am looking forward to is to measure once correctly, and play around with the target curve with full control save to different profiles and easily switch during content to find what works for me, So I think it will take time to get right, but I'm a tweaker by nature so this is perfect for me, I'll keep you posted.


Nice. We both are waiting for new toys today!

Everything I’ve read comparing Dirac to XT32 proves Dirac is far superior. I expect you’re going to be very satisfied 

Does it come with full Dirac or the version that’s limited?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

rosstg said:


> Nice. We both are waiting for new toys today!
> 
> Everything I’ve read comparing Dirac to XT32 proves Dirac is far superior. I expect you’re going to be very satisfied
> 
> Does it come with full Dirac or the version that’s limited?


I'm trying to keep my expectations low  but ya Dirac has been on my radar for a long time, I got the AVR20 which was a store used half price with a 6-year guarantee, I couldn't pass it up

I know was hoping I was getting a call today from the delivery guy, but alas another day, I've been spending my time getting my subs in better order with the MinDsp, turns out I had not gain matched them very well, getting better results now, but I can't be bothered re-running Audyssey, I probably will later on maybe a quick 4 measurement will do for all time sake.
Will love to hear on any improvements on your side too, I haven't used a pre-amp for a good while since moving house
All the Arcam AVR's come with the full version of Dirac, then later on they are adding Dirac bass management modules to the AVR's too, which comes in three tiers priced accordingly, one of them will time-align the subs first and then to mains, sounds very promising but will stick with the MiniDsp for now


----------



## rosstg

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> I'm trying to keep my expectations low  but ya Dirac has been on my radar for a long time, I got the AVR20 which was a store used half price with a 6-year guarantee, I couldn't pass it up
> 
> I know was hoping I was getting a call today from the delivery guy, but alas another day, I've been spending my time getting my subs in better order with the MinDsp, turns out I had not gain matched them very well, getting better results now, but I can't be bothered re-running Audyssey, I probably will later on maybe a quick 4 measurement will do for all time sake.
> Will love to hear on any improvements on your side too, I haven't used a pre-amp for a good while since moving house
> All the Arcam AVR's come with the full version of Dirac, then later on they are adding Dirac bass management modules to the AVR's too, which comes in three tiers priced accordingly, one of them will time-align the subs first and then to mains, sounds very promising but will stick with the MiniDsp for now


Yeah I’m excited to install it. It’s out for delivery so I should have anytime. It’s my first time using a power amp. I’m not expecting a major difference or anything since my speakers are very efficient not requiring much power but I do notice a bit of strain with all channels powered. Any improvement will be a big win for me, it will also allow me to add another pair of height channels.

I would be curious to hear your impressions on full range vs limited.


----------



## pbz06

aarons915 said:


> Sometimes the default curves could get lucky and to be fair the flat and reference don't sound that bad in my room, I have a smaller room too so my curve is a bit flatter than many rooms. Even so, there is enough research that shows what people generally prefer is a flat anechoic response with closely matching early reflections. A room curve will be different in different rooms as you noted so really these automated room correction programs shouldn't try to fit every system to any specific curve, what would work a lot better is just to give us our measured curve with control points on it, similar to the app, and let us adjust certain regions. I know my LS50s are a bit hot in the 2-5k range, for example, so I would give that range a slight cut but after 5k it doesn't need to be EQ'd. When Audyssey boosts the highs to keep a flat room curve, it's boosting the on-axis sound, which causes them to sound bright to most people.
> 
> The good news is since XT32 is great at matching a target curve, it can work great we just have to create that target curve through trial and error until we get one that sounds the best for our rooms. Once I get my replacement X3500 I plan on experimenting with this but I think the app along with Ratbuddyssey will allow me to do everything I need for good sound in my room. I also wonder if pointing the mic forward instead of vertically would work better with the flat curve since it will be get more direct sound which you want to be flat, this should boost the highs less.


My two front speakers have a flat response on axis that I'm used to and that's likely why I don't hear any "negative" impact when I run full EQ Flat (or even when limiting to 300hz). Either way since I don't have a treated room and a lot of hard surfaces, I do prefer some kind of taming in the treble range, whether that's Reference or Flat+CinemaEQ and/or Tone Controls. 

Funny thing is, the response of the center channel and surrounds and Ceilings look very close to Reference with roll off (including the MRC!)...so, even that I don't hear any "blanket over my speaker" effect. I experiment and am generally happy with XT32 and Audyssey only notice slight differences when I experiment and don't have anything negative to say in the way it alters the sound. 

I'm convinced movies are recorded differently, so even if I find settings that I like during certain testing, then that goes out the window for other movies. When I hear something I like better for one scene, I like it with different settings in another scene of the same movie


----------



## rosstg

Installed the Emotiva 5175 yesterday. Im calibrating today after my new speaker stands arrive fro my surrounds but so far I do notice a difference. Everything sounds more open and fuller with more authority. Voices are more distinct and low end is heftier. What I find interesting is my speakers aren’t as forward but have better detail as when I was just powering with the AVR.


----------



## jconjason

aarons915 said:


> Yeah it won't connect to either, on the initial setup it just says "Please Wait" and never does anything. Limiting the correction would be fine for many speakers but the KEF LS50 need a bit of EQ in the 2-5k range to not be bright in my opinion but I should be able to control that in the app.


When you received the Denon refurb, did you do a few network resets and full resets? Typically with refurbs you'll want to do each one a few times just to refresh everything to scratch.

I've seen many times in the Denon threads that refurbs had network issues that were fixed by doing the network reset.

Refer to the manual or owners thread on how to do the network and microprocessor resets.


----------



## audiofan1

rosstg said:


> Installed the Emotiva 5175 yesterday. Im calibrating today after my new speaker stands arrive fro my surrounds but so far I do notice a difference. Everything sounds more open and fuller with more authority. Voices are more distinct and low end is heftier. What I find interesting is my speakers aren’t as forward but have better detail as when I was just powering with the AVR.


This how you end up with separates


----------



## rosstg

audiofan1 said:


> This how you end up with separates


Yeah I think I’ve learned that. I did experiment leaving Audyssey full range but pulled it back to 300hz after about an hour. The amp has made the difference between curves and limited more apparent to my ears.


----------



## aarons915

jconjason said:


> When you received the Denon refurb, did you do a few network resets and full resets? Typically with refurbs you'll want to do each one a few times just to refresh everything to scratch.
> 
> I've seen many times in the Denon threads that refurbs had network issues that were fixed by doing the network reset.
> 
> Refer to the manual or owners thread on how to do the network and microprocessor resets.


Yes I did, I think everything was factory reset though since it immediately went to the initial setup menus. I got the new one today and the network set up so I should be good to go. I'll get to mess around with Audyssey and the app over the next few days.


----------



## Balbolito

rosstg said:


> Yeah I think I’ve learned that. I did experiment leaving Audyssey full range but pulled it back to 300hz after about an hour. The amp has made the difference between curves and limited more apparent to my ears.


Sorry to jump in, i did more sound tests in my room than i can remember, even in my case limiting my fronts to 300hz (LCR) has produced the best sound in my room, even people who come once in a while have noticed that without me saying anything!

Even kept it at 500/700/1k for a few days but i always go back to 300hz.

I still use full-range EQ for everything else. and with a curve similar to the natural curve of my LCR.


----------



## audiofan1

Balbolito said:


> Sorry to jump in, i did more sound tests in my room than i can remember, even in my case limiting my fronts to 300hz (LCR) has produced the best sound in my room, even people who come once in a while have noticed that without me saying anything!
> 
> Even kept it at 500/700/1k for a few days but i always go back to 300hz.
> 
> I still use full-range EQ for everything else. and with a curve similar to the natural curve of my LCR.


 I'm still at* 400hz *on my mains *7000hz* on my center and the other 8/chs at* 4000hz*, the sound is full detailed and natural!

Lovin what the app has brought to the table


----------



## aarons915

All right, I got my exhanged Denon and everything is working now, ran XT32 with the App, turned off MRC and limited correction to 300Hz, it sounds really good but the bass coming out of my mains is a lot more than I'm used to so I measured a few things. I wanted to check the pre outs to see exactly what Audyssey is doing and sure enough it's boosting a big dip at 120Hz that I've had for years. I'll mess with the target curve to dial in a steeper crossover than 2nd order to take care of that a bit but I was wondering if anyone has ever noticed the signal seems to be jagged with Audyssey engaged. If you check the graph, I made a pure direct measurement which is completely flat and smooth as expected but you can see the Audyssey corrected line above 300Hz (my cutoff) is flat but quite jagged. I'm not sure if it's audible, it didn't seem to be. You can also see how Audyssey flat is boosting the signal after 1k or so in the Flat setting, this is definitely why many people complain about it making their speakers sound bright. These speakers are KEF LS50, which are already a bit bright so they definitely don't need a boost there. Using this graph you can almost make an inverse target curve relative to the Pure direct flat line to get a neutral response though.


----------



## garygarrison

aarons915 said:


> All right, I got my exhanged Denon and everything is working now, ran XT32 with the App, turned off MRC and limited correction to 300Hz, it sounds really good but the bass coming out of my mains is a lot more than I'm used to so I measured a few things. I wanted to check the pre outs to see exactly what Audyssey is doing and sure enough it's boosting a big dip at 120Hz that I've had for years. I'll mess with the target curve to dial in a steeper crossover than 2nd order to take care of that a bit but I was wondering if anyone has ever noticed the signal seems to be jagged with Audyssey engaged. If you check the graph, I made a pure direct measurement which is completely flat and smooth as expected but you can see the Audyssey corrected line above 300Hz (my cutoff) is flat but quite jagged. I'm not sure if it's audible, it didn't seem to be. You can also see how Audyssey flat is boosting the signal after 1k or so in the Flat setting, this is definitely why many people complain about it making their speakers sound bright. These speakers are KEF LS50, which are already a bit bright so they definitely don't need a boost there. Using this graph you can almost make an inverse target curve relative to the Pure direct flat line to get a neutral response though.





I would expect a correction curve to be rather jagged through the pre-outs, but smoother, acoustically, out in the room at the MLP because the actual untreated sound in the room is also jagged in the mirror image of the correction curve. I'd worry about a full range correction curve that wasn't a bit jagged, unless it is over smoothed. At least the Audyssey "fuzzy logic" goes by substantially *shared *EQ needs in its assessment of central tendency (as I understand it, if I do).
To me, live acoustical music is "bright," but still has strong bass, when the composer writes it to have that strength. Of course, it is pure sounding (undistorted), which is more than I can say about many CDs. When you put on the best recordings you have, does Audyssey Flat still sound too bright?
Chris A, over on the Klipsch forum, has improved ("demastered") hundreds of recordings in which the record*/*CD companies, cleaving to current peculiar paradigms encouraging the reduction of bass, and elevating moderately high frequencies (maybe 1K to 6K, or so) in commercially available recordings of Rock, Alternative, Metal, and Pop recordings. While it is also done on some Classical, Jazz, and Movie recordings, it seems to happen less often and is less extreme. These idiotically monkeyed with recordings -- which tend to sound a bit harsh -- might sound better with Audyssey Reference. IMO, a nearly flat recording should sound good with Audyssey Flat in a well treated room.
In my room, I prefer Audyssey Flat for most recordings, even though my speakers have the reputation of being rather bright. It is possible that my room is a little too dead, but not extremely so. I start with Audyssey Flat, then bump up the low bass.
Of course, the Audyssey people, like CTO, co-founder, engineer and professor Chris Kyriakakis think that Audyssey Reference, with its roll-off of 2 dB at 10K and 6 dB at 20 K, is the better choice for most people in most rooms. I believe it is a less extreme version of many curves used in large auditoria. It is also a little less extreme than the SMTE curve for a 5,000 cu.ft. room of average liveness. My main problem with Audyssey Reference is that, on my set-up, it sounds congested. DEQ makes this worse. Turning up the bass control and pumping up the sub tend to work better, for me, achieving a better, more Harman Curve like balance, with plenty of clarity. YMMV.


----------



## aarons915

garygarrison said:


> I would expect a correction curve to be rather jagged through the pre-outs, but smoother, acoustically, out in the room at the MLP because the actual untreated sound in the room is also jagged in the mirror image of the correction curve. I'd worry about a full range correction curve that wasn't a bit jagged, unless it is over smoothed. At least the Audyssey "fuzzy logic" goes by substantially *shared *EQ needs in its assessment of central tendency (as I understand it, if I do).





I know the graph isn't the clearest with 4 items on it but I'm talking about the Blue line labeled "Flat" which is Pure direct, you can see under 100Hz it's perfectly flat and it does that up to 20Khz. When you look at the lines labeled Left and right Preout you see after 300Hz they are also flat but jagged, I've limited my correction to 300hz so there isn't any correction above that point. It's possible that it's not Audyssey at all, it could just be Denon's processing, I can try without Audyssey and with a crossover or something to check. Either way it seems kind of odd that it wouldn't be smoother but maybe this is normal or not even audible.


----------



## rosstg

I’m absolutely in love with my RP’s now since adding a power amp. One thing I had to change was turning off Dynamic EQ since was doing something odd in my 440c when I limit eq to 300hz. I think it’s due to boosting low and high frequencies causing a deficiency in the midrange. It sounded harsh with little detail. I’ll be running the App calibration Sunday since I raised my surrounds on speaker stands that are the same height as my surround backs and also adding the Emotiva.

As soon as I switched DEQ off - WOW, the clarity is ridiculously good with silky highs. I can hear spit when there is dialogue.

I just pulled the trigger on a Emotiva A-300 to drive my mains. The Denon will only power my heights.

I’m currently running my subs flat.


----------



## borderdad70

*Audyssey issues*

Hi. Had a few issues setting up Audyssey with Atmos speakers. Ran it a few months ago, no problems that I remember. Hooked up the height speakers, ran it again and had weird results. It set the mains and center to small but with a crossover point of 40 htz. It got the Surrounds and height speakers right. 

The most concerning thing was the tone it sent to the subs. It was the same tone that goes to the main speakers. I’m pretty sure that was not the case the last time I ran it. Then when I tried it out the subs sounded terrible, like they were bottoming out. Not the horrible clicking, so bottoming is probably not the right word, but the sound bass speakers make when they’re getting more bass than they like. Hope that makes sense. 

Gear: Denon 4400, DIY Soundgroup 5.2.4 with 18” minimarty subs. 

Thanks for letting me know whatever dumb thing I’m likely overlooking.


----------



## mthomas47

borderdad70 said:


> Hi. Had a few issues setting up Audyssey with Atmos speakers. Ran it a few months ago, no problems that I remember. Hooked up the height speakers, ran it again and had weird results. It set the mains and center to small but with a crossover point of 40 htz. It got the Surrounds and height speakers right.
> 
> The most concerning thing was the tone it sent to the subs. It was the same tone that goes to the main speakers. I’m pretty sure that was not the case the last time I ran it. Then when I tried it out the subs sounded terrible, like they were bottoming out. Not the horrible clicking, so bottoming is probably not the right word, but the sound bass speakers make when they’re getting more bass than they like. Hope that makes sense.
> 
> Gear: Denon 4400, DIY Soundgroup 5.2.4 with 18” minimarty subs.
> 
> Thanks for letting me know whatever dumb thing I’m likely overlooking.



Hi,

Let's try to separate a couple of things. First, I have never heard of Audyssey sending the same test tone to the speakers that it does to the subs. Double-check to make sure that both subs are showing in the Speaker Configuration menu. If everything is wired and configured correctly, I would probably do a microprocessor reset (owner's manual) before running Audyssey again.

Second, the 40Hz crossover for your front speakers and the CC was not a mistake. That preliminary setting simply informs you of the low-frequency response of those speakers, at those positions in the room. Just reset them to 80Hz. If you ran your system with your front three speakers set to 40Hz, that might also account for some of the bad sounds you heard. That could have been your speakers trying to play lower than they should. 

If you already reset your crossovers before listening, then nevermind!  But, I'm still stumped about the Audyssey sweeps sounding the same for both your subs and your speakers. They should definitely sound different, and if your setup is correct, a microprocessor reset is the only thing I can think of right now. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## borderdad70

Thanks. I’ll try a reset. Luckily, I checked the crossover settings before testing it out. Wanted to make sure the small height speakers were set high enough to not be destroyed. Have the 5 set at 80 and 4 heights at 120. The subs show LFE and 80 lpf. 

I remember the last time I ran audyssey the sub test tones were a rumble. This time it was the same sonar pings. I thought it was weird but the on screen showed the subs lit up so I went with it. 

Hopefully the reset will work.


----------



## borderdad70

Thanks. I’ll try a reset. Luckily, I checked the crossover settings before testing it out. Wanted to make sure the small height speakers were set high enough to not be destroyed. Have the 5 set at 80 and 4 heights at 120. The subs show LFE and 80 lpf. 

I remember the last time I ran audyssey the sub test tones were a rumble. This time it was the same sonar pings. I thought it was weird but the on screen showed the subs lit up so I went with it. 

Hopefully the reset will work.


----------



## aarons915

I did a bit more in depth measuring of my pre outs to see if it was Audyssey, other processing in the Denon or something else. It seems to me it's definitely Audyssey, here's some better graphs of more testing today. You can see even using the Denons processing for the crossover doesn't have the choppiness that is there when Audyssey is engaged, correction is limited to 300Hz FYI. 










Does anyone know why this would be? I still had my Emotiva UMC 200 plugged in so I measured it in direct and with my PEQ engaged and you can see it's still completely smooth with the PEQ. 

The only real question now is whether this is audible or not, it could explain why some people feel Audyssey has a "processed" sound, I did zoom in on the jaggies and it's actually about .75 decibels from peak to peak, which is quite a bit. I think I'm biasing myself trying to tell if there is a difference so I'll test the differences blind later.


----------



## borderdad70

Well, no luck. The only time it will rumble is during the sub matching. Since I had to start over, The setup assistant ran the test to ensure that the speakers are hooked up correctly. They use a snippet of violin. The violin sound played through the subs. Dunno. Basically I use the data audyssey gathers then turn it off.


----------



## mthomas47

aarons915 said:


> I did a bit more in depth measuring of my pre outs to see if it was Audyssey, other processing in the Denon or something else. It seems to me it's definitely Audyssey, here's some better graphs of more testing today. You can see even using the Denons processing for the crossover doesn't have the choppiness that is there when Audyssey is engaged, correction is limited to 300Hz FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know why this would be? I still had my Emotiva UMC 200 plugged in so I measured it in direct and with my PEQ engaged and you can see it's still completely smooth with the PEQ.
> 
> The only real question now is whether this is audible or not, it could explain why some people feel Audyssey has a "processed" sound, I did zoom in on the jaggies and it's actually about .75 decibels from peak to peak, which is quite a bit. I think I'm biasing myself trying to tell if there is a difference so I'll test the differences blind later.



Hi,

FWIW, I don't think that measuring at the pre-outs tells you anything at all about what your speakers or subs are actually doing inside your room. Both speakers and subwoofers can be pretty linear, until they are placed inside a room and listened to (and measured) at some specific position inside that room. That's why we use room correction programs in the first place; because the interaction between our transducers, room boundaries, and other objects in the room, can so greatly affect the sound we hear at a given listening position.

Measuring Audyssey at the pre-outs gives you a pretty good idea of what Audyssey is doing. But, to understand why it is doing what it's doing, and to compare that to the unaltered sound, you would have to measure the same frequency response that Audyssey did. In other words, you would have to place your UMIK at approximately the same locations that you used for the Audyssey calibration. That would give you a meaningful before-and-after. 

It is generally advisable to keep your Audyssey microphone pattern fairly compact, during calibration, in order to give the fuzzy-logic weighting algorithm as little anomalous data as possible. That will usually result in a better calibration. Similarly, when measuring with REW, it is almost always a good idea to measure about 6 positions around the head (and let REW average the results) in order to more closely replicate the nature of our binaural hearing. 

Room correction wasn't really designed to make transducers play in a more linear fashion, in a quasi-anechoic condition, which is what a pre-out measurement is. Systems such as Audyssey were designed to help transducers play better inside actual rooms. And, that's why it measures the sound at and around our main listening position.

The extent to which we wish to limit Audyssey's effects to certain frequencies will be dependent on a combination of speakers, rooms, locations, and personal listening preferences. But, it's important to do apples-to-apples comparisons when we want to understand how our pre-Audyssey frequency response, and our sound quality, compare to our post-Audyssey results. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## aarons915

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> FWIW, I don't think that measuring at the pre-outs tells you anything at all about what your speakers or subs are actually doing inside your room. Both speakers and subwoofers can be pretty linear, until they are placed inside a room and listened to (and measured) at some specific position inside that room. That's why we use room correction programs in the first place; because the interaction between our transducers, room boundaries, and other objects in the room, can so greatly affect the sound we hear at a given listening position.


Of course it doesn't tell you about what Audyssey is doing in your room but many people limit their correction to the transition frequency in their room and I would think they would hope that above that cutoff Audyssey isn't adding unwanted noise to their signal right? If you're applying full range correction it might not matter much but for people limiting their correction, I don't think they want their signal being +/- .375 db.



mthomas47 said:


> Measuring Audyssey at the pre-outs gives you a pretty good idea of what Audyssey is doing. But, to understand why it is doing what it's doing, and to compare that to the unaltered sound, you would have to measure the same frequency response that Audyssey did. In other words, you would have to place your UMIK at approximately the same locations that you used for the Audyssey calibration. That would give you a meaningful before-and-after.


Yes but all I was doing at this point was measuring the pre-outs and noticing that in the areas that it should be flat the signal was jagged, that has nothing to do with the room and what the mic measured, it should be ruler flat where no correction is present.


----------



## rosstg

aarons915 said:


> All right, I got my exhanged Denon and everything is working now, ran XT32 with the App, turned off MRC and limited correction to 300Hz, it sounds really good but the bass coming out of my mains is a lot more than I'm used to so I measured a few things. I wanted to check the pre outs to see exactly what Audyssey is doing and sure enough it's boosting a big dip at 120Hz that I've had for years. I'll mess with the target curve to dial in a steeper crossover than 2nd order to take care of that a bit but I was wondering if anyone has ever noticed the signal seems to be jagged with Audyssey engaged. If you check the graph, I made a pure direct measurement which is completely flat and smooth as expected but you can see the Audyssey corrected line above 300Hz (my cutoff) is flat but quite jagged. I'm not sure if it's audible, it didn't seem to be. You can also see how Audyssey flat is boosting the signal after 1k or so in the Flat setting, this is definitely why many people complain about it making their speakers sound bright. These speakers are KEF LS50, which are already a bit bright so they definitely don't need a boost there. Using this graph you can almost make an inverse target curve relative to the Pure direct flat line to get a neutral response though.


Exactly why I don’t like the Flat curve. It sounds artificial especially when DEQ is engaged. On the other hand the Reference curve sounds dull on most content. Sounds ok on older movies but I limit room correction.


----------



## aarons915

rosstg said:


> Exactly why I don’t like the Flat curve. It sounds artificial especially when DEQ is engaged. On the other hand the Reference curve sounds dull on most content. Sounds ok on older movies but I limit room correction.


I dialed in a room curve that is roughly the shape my speakers take in room, which is about flat out to 1k then smoothly declining to 20k. It sounds a lot better like that but it still sounds best to me limiting the correction to 300Hz and then just using a windows PEQ to make slight adjustments above that point based on the Soundstage listening window measurement.


----------



## rosstg

aarons915 said:


> I dialed in a room curve that is roughly the shape my speakers take in room, which is about flat out to 1k then smoothly declining to 20k. It sounds a lot better like that but it still sounds best to me limiting the correction to 300Hz and then just using a windows PEQ to make slight adjustments above that point based on the Soundstage listening window measurement.


Yeah I’ve tried a few combinations with the curve editor and always revert back to limited to 300hz. My RP’s have good extension and don’t really drop off that much if at all. 

For me the biggest thing to get used to is turning off DEQ since I’ve been using it for many years. I tried it on with limited EQ but it made the Center channel sound odd, more artificial since it boosts low and high frequencies. It made the Center sound harsh. I just leave it all off now.


----------



## pbarach

borderdad70 said:


> I remember the last time I ran audyssey the sub test tones were a rumble. This time it was the same sonar pings. I thought it was weird but the on screen showed the subs lit up so I went with it.



I've only gotten a rumble during calibration when Audyssey wanted me to adjust the level control on my sub so it was within the range for calibration. During calibration, it's the same "whoop-whoop" upward sweep as the other speakers get, but at a lower pitch.


----------



## borderdad70

That’s actually good news. I’d rather be remembering incorrectly than the denon be going wonky on me. 

On another note...I always assumed that the receivers which had more processing than amps would allow for the external amp to run the F/L main speakers. I wouldn’t mind investing in a nice amp for those speakers. I’ve never had enough speakers to care before but am thinking of getting two more to make 11 because...why not? Anyway, is this correct? I’d have to buy an amp to run atmos or rear speakers? Seems like a waste. Course I guess there’s nothing really common senseicle about this hobby.


----------



## pbz06

The important thing to remember about Audyssey and its features is what it does and why. From there, it's a judgement call if it's applicable to your user case and preferences and speaker characteristics etc. For as much as people get turned off by blanket statements that Audyessey "fixes" rooms/speakers, the same is true that Audyssey "ruins" sound. It's just a tool, and has its benefits and shortcomings, there is no right or wrong. I like reading and watching Audioholics and reasons to be against full range EQ too, but if you read between the lines it doesn't mean what they're against is what XT32 actually does in every scenario etc. Interestingly enough, a lot of their objections are well before XT32.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, this is a question from an other AVS user and he did not get an "answer".

*I often wonder with the SVS subs that have different modes like port and sealed, Is it probably better to calibrate with the sealed, then switch it to ported. As Audyssey will try EQ out 20hz below boost toy get with the ported?*

Thanks…..


----------



## rosstg

I calibrated yesterday morning again since I installed my amp and placed my surrounds on stands. They were too low before behind my couch. I limited correction to 300hz and turned off DEQ. 

My living room is open concept with my dinning room on the right. I noticed a rather large gap or hole on my right sound stage. Since the left side is close to my wall with thick curtains the left side was more pronounced, everything was clearer and more defined on the left. It was becoming distracting. 

So... I decided to push room correction full range with DEQ on and bump my crossovers up to 100hz across all channels. The gap on my right side is almost completely vanished. It actually did a fantastic job eliminating the sound of my room. My speakers disappeared into the room.

One thing I found odd is my Denon set my surrounds to 90hz this time. I might try and calibrate again today to see if crossovers are set back to 80hz.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

CBdicX said:


> Hi, this is a question from an other AVS user and he did not get an "answer".
> 
> *I often wonder with the SVS subs that have different modes like port and sealed, Is it probably better to calibrate with the sealed, then switch it to ported. As Audyssey will try EQ out 20hz below boost toy get with the ported?*
> 
> Thanks…..


Hey buddy,
@mthomas47 gave a good comprehensive answer to this question on the 

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences-71.html

Thanks for asking elsewhere though and might be helpful for any users thinking of the same question

Jim


----------



## mogorf

rosstg said:


> I calibrated yesterday morning again since I installed my amp and placed my surrounds on stands. They were too low before behind my couch. I limited correction to 300hz and turned off DEQ.
> 
> My living room is open concept with my dinning room on the right. I noticed a rather large gap or hole on my right sound stage. Since the left side is close to my wall with thick curtains the left side was more pronounced, everything was clearer and more defined on the left. It was becoming distracting.
> 
> So... I decided to push room correction full range with DEQ on and bump my crossovers up to 100hz across all channels. The gap on my right side is almost completely vanished. It actually did a fantastic job eliminating the sound of my room. My speakers disappeared into the room.
> 
> One thing I found odd is my Denon set my surrounds to 90hz this time. I might try and calibrate again today to see if crossovers are set back to 80hz.



Hi rosstg, 

I think you not only have nailed it, but you have also given proof on how Audyssey room correction really works.  Having a living room with an open concept is good and nice from an architectural point of view (including WAF!), but surely not the ultimate dream of audio geeks like the ones we are here! 

I wouldn't sweat too much on 100 Hz crossovers, just gotta get used to it and let it go! 

DEQ will be useful when listening lower than 0 dB MV, it will typically kick-in from say below -10 -15 dB MV where it will do its compensation scheme against the characteristics of our human ears. 

As for pushing for full range compensation here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say: 

Qte

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

Unqte

Enjoy your sound!


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mogorf said:


> Hi rosstg,
> 
> I think you not only have nailed it, but you have also given proof on how Audyssey room correction really works.  Having a living room with an open concept is good and nice from an architectural point of view (including WAF!), but surely not the ultimate dream of audio geeks like the ones we are here!
> 
> I wouldn't sweat too much on 100 Hz crossovers, just gotta get used to it and let it go!
> 
> DEQ will be useful when listening lower than 0 dB MV, it will typically kick-in from say below -10 -15 dB MV where it will do its compensation scheme against the characteristics of our human ears.
> 
> As for pushing for full range compensation here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> Enjoy your sound!


Hi

I totally agree on what you just said there regarding @rosstg setup, it does show how good Audyssey can be once setup correctly.

I also agree about going full-range too, but only to a certain degree. The positive of going full is that all speakers will have the same sound per say particularly in the high's. My only gripe with this is that every speaker has it's own unique sound, the target curve that Audyssey follows might benefit from this or make them too bright or the opposite.

This is where I think Audyssey has to improve, to give more options to target curves to suit different speakers. At the moment we got a few options, High Roll Off 1 or 2, limit the correction or use the curve editor

I think the curve editor could really have a bigger role to play if it wasn't fiddly to use, have the ability to easily import target curves perhaps made by Audyssey perhaps, some following the Harman curve or something similar.

I think the groundwork is done and would be an easy feature to implement in the system, giving user's a lot more options to try out rather than one curve.

This is my opinion on Audyssey at the moment, I feel it has not really tried anything new in a while, which is fine for the AVR stock calibration, but the App and the Curve Editor could really open new doors and is only a little tease at the moment on what could be done with it.

I think the reason they don't do this is that Audyssey expects the user to use DEQ, but some people find it too much and too aggressive in what it does. So when a user turns it off, you're left with a corrected flat curve, leaving the user to boost the subs which IMO isn't the correct way to introduce more impact to the sound.

Sorry, this isn't a rant on Audyssey, but constructive criticism on what more could be done with the system which is very user friendly.

Thanks

Jim


----------



## CBdicX

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey buddy,
> 
> @mthomas47 gave a good comprehensive answer to this question on the
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences-71.html
> 
> Thanks for asking elsewhere though and might be helpful for any users thinking of the same question
> 
> Jim


Oops, missed that one, indeed he did, like all other questions….. !!


----------



## rosstg

I reran Audyssey with great success. It set my crossovers too high last time and my mains to small. I don’t like the 100hz setting, so now all are at 80hz which sounds better, more balanced. It also boosted the right surround speaker Level which was set too low due to wall there. 

All sounds good now.

I watched the Rogue One UHD with no DEQ and EQ limited to 300hz. Sounds great but sounds much better now with DEQ on and XT32 full range. The scene in the rain sounded amazing.


----------



## mogorf

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hi
> 
> I totally agree on what you just said there regarding @*rosstg* setup, it does show how good Audyssey can be once setup correctly.
> 
> I also agree about going full-range too, but only to a certain degree. The positive of going full is that all speakers will have the same sound per say particularly in the high's. My only gripe with this is that every speaker has it's own unique sound, the target curve that Audyssey follows might benefit from this or make them too bright or the opposite.
> 
> This is where I think Audyssey has to improve, to give more options to target curves to suit different speakers. At the moment we got a few options, High Roll Off 1 or 2, limit the correction or use the curve editor
> 
> I think the curve editor could really have a bigger role to play if it wasn't fiddly to use, have the ability to easily import target curves perhaps made by Audyssey perhaps, some following the Harman curve or something similar.
> 
> I think the groundwork is done and would be an easy feature to implement in the system, giving user's a lot more options to try out rather than one curve.
> 
> This is my opinion on Audyssey at the moment, I feel it has not really tried anything new in a while, which is fine for the AVR stock calibration, but the App and the Curve Editor could really open new doors and is only a little tease at the moment on what could be done with it.
> 
> I think the reason they don't do this is that Audyssey expects the user to use DEQ, but some people find it too much and too aggressive in what it does. So when a user turns it off, you're left with a corrected flat curve, leaving the user to boost the subs which IMO isn't the correct way to introduce more impact to the sound.
> 
> Sorry, this isn't a rant on Audyssey, but constructive criticism on what more could be done with the system which is very user friendly.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Jim



Hi Jim,

First off thanks for your comments, nice to talk to you, indeed. 

Some more thoughts! As regards the case that every speaker has it's own unique sound IMHO needs a bit more consideration and thought, coz we already know that its not the speaker that needs correction but its behavior when its put in a room, or in other words speaker-room interaction! Audyssey strives to make than interaction as flat as possible throughout the full frequency range! Audyssey doesn't have a role in making a speaker sound too bright or the opposite. Flat is flat! Should that be the case in the end, in my opinion, needs another careful approach I usually call a "cold setup" prior to running Audyssey. What does this mean? We need to place the full set of our speakers, including sub(s) very carefully, namely making them face MLP (maybe with the exception of the sub) in order to get the best results, thus letting Audyssey do what it has to do at its best together with our best! 

Why was the curve editor ever introduced? Why does it allow the end user to limit the range? Believe it or not because most people love to tweak their systems! Because now their systems sound much better than before! Sounds strange, doesn't it? Marketing people heard the voice of the crowds and told their company Presidents, hey Boss, we have no way out, we need to make profit, unless otherwise competition is going to kill us if they introduce this before we do it! 

Please allow me a silly analogy with our cars. Let's say we have a car with a four cylinder engine! Let's assume due to massive pushing by the car drivers on the makers, they finally decide to give the car owners an app that will allow to turn off one cylinder! Guess what will happen?! Car owners forums will be full of happy campers who will report my car is performing much better with three cylinders now that I could have limited them, engine is performing much better, less fuel consumption, less noise from the engine and what they will not report is less torque, more body shaking, etc., coz they don't even know the meaning of these words! Did I tell you this gonna be a silly comparison?! 

Take care!


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mogorf said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> First off thanks for your comments, nice to talk to you, indeed.
> 
> Some more thoughts! As regards the case that every speaker has it's own unique sound IMHO needs a bit more consideration and thought, coz we already know that its not the speaker that needs correction but its behavior when its put in a room, or in other words speaker-room interaction! Audyssey strives to make than interaction as flat as possible throughout the full frequency range! Audyssey doesn't have a role in making a speaker sound too bright or the opposite. Flat is flat! Should that be the case in the end, in my opinion, needs another careful approach I usually call a "cold setup" prior to running Audyssey. What does this mean? We need to place the full set of our speakers, including sub(s) very carefully, namely making them face MLP (maybe with the exception of the sub) in order to get the best results, thus letting Audyssey do what it has to do at its best together with our best!
> 
> Why was the curve editor ever introduced? Why does it allow the end user to limit the range? Believe it or not because most people love to tweak their systems! Because now their systems sound much better than before! Sounds strange, doesn't it? Marketing people heard the voice of the crowds and told their company Presidents, hey Boss, we have no way out, we need to make profit, unless otherwise competition is going to kill us if they introduce this before we do it!
> 
> Please allow me a silly analogy with our cars. Let's say we have a car with a four cylinder engine! Let's assume due to massive pushing by the car drivers on the makers, they finally decide to give the car owners an app that will allow to turn off one cylinder! Guess what will happen?! Car owners forums will be full of happy campers who will report my car is performing much better with three cylinders now that I could have limited them, engine is performing much better, less fuel consumption, less noise from the engine and what they will not report is less torque, more body shaking, etc., coz they don't even know the meaning of these words! Did I tell you this gonna be a silly comparison!
> 
> Take care!


Hey buddy,

I must say that was a good reply and it is a pleasure to talk to you too.

Putting the App aside, and simply talking about full-range correction, I agree that correcting the FR is more to do with the room than the speaker itself. This especially applies IMO in the lower region 0-500hz. After this like you have noted the measurements would have to be spot on to get an "accurate" response. But due to the room and the higher frequencies, even the most expensive calibrated mic has a hard job getting an accurate reading, never mind the Audyssey mic. Bearing in mind that the mics are at a 90-degree angle.

This leads me to the question, should speakers be corrected to flat? Are speakers in an Anechoic chamber measured flat and how does that compare to a well-treated room. This part I will research a little about, I have read before that in fact, the speakers are flat to a degree of the quality of the speaker, but is the goal speaker manufacture nonetheless.

But does this flat sound translate to a treated living room or home theater and more importantly does it translate to a desirable listening experience?

The important part I think your conveying is to get the speaker measurements on axis with the mic as best one can get the thus getting the best out of Audyssey. Which makes a lot of sense since if the measurements let's say the L/R is on-axis and the center is off-axis perhaps lower, this could have Audyysey correcting the center and compensating for the off-axis response resulting in an off sound for the center. 

These are words in my head right now, without doing a bit more research into this subject and the Harman studies(survey) come to mind when writing this too.
Also, I watched Matt and Gene talk about this recently on Audioholics which I found very interesting

Anyway great to talk about it all the same

All the best
Jim

BTW I loved the silly analogy


----------



## rosstg

There are so many variables at play for setting up a home theatre. What sounds good in one room may not sound good in another as I’ve learned moving from a treated dedicated to a typical living room. A Flat curve was the goal years ago but IMO it doesn’t sound right. As long as room correction doesn’t change the natural sound of speakers room correction can be ok. I think the goal is to remove the room as much as possible. I realized this when I placed my gear my girlfriends living room. I did a lot of blind testing with her and she always chose full range with DEQ ON. No surprise since most prefer more bass and less treble.


----------



## garygarrison

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> .
> 
> This leads me to the question, should speakers be corrected to flat? *Are speakers in an Anechoic chamber measured flat and how does that compare to a well-treated room.* This part I will research a little about, I have read before that in fact, the *speakers are flat to a degree of the quality of the speaker*, but is the goal speaker manufacture nonetheless.
> 
> But *does this flat sound translate to a treated living room or home theater* and *more importantly does it translate to a desirable listening experience?*



Well, here is what is advertised as, and sometimes thought of as, the best of the best, costing well over $100,000.

In an *anechoic chamber: *








Ignoring the crossover dip, I read this as peak/trough response of +2.5dB, -2dB, or, colloquially, *+/- 2.25 dB, 30 Hz*(which allows for most, but not all church organ notes)* to 15K Hz*, the upper limit of hearing for most people who might be able to afford these speakers.

*The same speaker in a room:*
*Red curve (Blue *curve is a competing speaker*)*









I read this Red curve, in a room, as 30 to 15K Hz as +4, -10dB, or +/- 7 dB. Note that both speakers are down about 6 dB at 100 Hz in this room, and both are down about 2.5 dB at 10K Hz (across a 30 degree field), and our red curve is down 10 dB at 15K Hz. Despite the $100,000 +++ spent, if frequency response were all that counts, this speaker/room combination really needs Audyssey or Dirac Live Full. Fortunately for the very rich, other things do count (IMO, count more), such as distortion, especially modulation distortion, dynamics with clean instantaneous peaks (measured in milliseconds) of between 105 dB and 115 dB at the MLP, micro-dynamics, detail, clarity, texture, depth, imaging, snap. body etc. -- you name it. I don't know if these speakers have all those qualities -- I've never heard them -- where would I?

I find that Audyssey Flat, even with the treble control up at +4 (although I usually have the treble control flat [0]), is* just fine* with *very good* music *recordings*, or good Blu-rays. The sparkle, sheen, violin texture, cymbal shimmer, etc. can be incredible. The moment a bit of high frequency distortion is let in, though, on a less than laudable CD or a Blu-ray of a movie from the magnetic era, when most of the spectrum was warm and wonderful, but a bit of distortion was lurking above the usable range of movie industry monitors in those days (dropped like a rock at 10k), I need to bring in Audyssey Reference to get the -2 dB at 10K and -6 dB at 20K. Sometimes the treble control has to be turned down just a bit, although I hate doing that.

I used to recommend J. Gordon Holt's *Down with Flat* https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/index.html, even though* I believe in starting with flat* and moving toward a Harman Curve. I rush to point out that he was writing in 1985, when some vinyl, and most CDs contained high frequency distortion. Nowadays, most Blu-rays and fully half  of CDs don't have much high frequency distortion. O.K., maybe 3/4 of CDs, and almost all SACDs, etc. are good. 

So, for me, in my room, starting with Audyssey Flat, and boosting the bass (to balance any excessive exuberance in the treble) usually suffices.
The result (with Audyssey Flat) is about *+/-* 1.8 dB above about 130 Hz, and boosted below, sort of like the JBL Synthesis 1 target curve, but NO attenuation in the treble.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

garygarrison said:


> Well, here is what is advertised as, and sometimes thought of as, the best of the best, costing well over $100,000.
> 
> 
> 
> In an *anechoic chamber: *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoring the crossover dip, I read this as peak/trough response of +2.5dB, -2dB, or, colloquially, *+/- 2.25 dB, 30 Hz*(which allows for most, but not all church organ notes)* to 15K Hz*, the upper limit of hearing for most people who might be able to afford these speaakers.
> 
> *The same speaker in a room:*
> *Red curve (Blue *curve is a competing speaker*)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read this Red curve, in a room, as 30 to 15K Hz as +4, -10dB, or +/- 7 dB. Note that both speakers are down about 6 dB at 100 Hz in this room, and both are down about 2.5 dB at 10K Hz (across a 30 degree field), and our red curve is down 10 dB at 15K Hz. Despite the $100,000 +++ spent, if frequency response were all that counts, this speaker/room combination really needs Audyssey or Dirac Live Full. Fortunately for the very rich, other things do count (IMO, count more), such as distortion, especially modulation distortion, dynamics with clean instantaneous peaks (measured in milliseconds) of between 105 dB and 115 dB at the MLP, micro-dynamics, detail, clarity, texture, depth, imaging, snap. body etc. -- you name it. I don't know if these speakers have all those qualities -- I've never heard them -- where would I?
> 
> 
> I find that Audyssey Flat, with up to treble control +4 (although I often have the treble control flat (0), is* just fine* with *very good* music *recordings*, or good Blu-rays. The sparkle, sheen, violin texture, cymbal shimmer, etc. can be incredible. The moment a bit of high frequency distortion is let in, though, on a less than laudable CD or a Blu-ray of a movie from the magnetic era, when most of the spectrum was warm and wonderful, but a bit of distortion was lurking above the usable range of movie industry monitors in those days (dropped like a rock at 10k), I need to bring in Audyssey Reference to get the -2 dB at 10K and -6 dB at 20K. Sometimes the treble control has to be turned down just a bit, although I hate doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> I used to recommend J. Gordon Holt's *Down with Flat* https://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/138/index.html, even though* I believe in starting with flat* and moving toward a Harman Curve. I rush to point out that he was writing in 1985, when some vinyl, and most CDs contained high frequency distortion. Nowadays, most Blu-rays and fully half  of CDs don't have much high frequency distortion. O.K., maybe 3/4 of CDs, and almost all SACDs, etc. are good.
> 
> 
> 
> So, to me, in my room, starting with Audyssey Flat, and boosting the bass (to balance any excessive exuberance in the treble) usually suffices.
> The result (with Audyssey Flat) is about *+/-* about 1.8 dB above about 130 Hz, and boosted below, sort of like the JBL Synthesis 1 target curve, but NO attenuation in the treble.



Very interesting read, well put together +1

I have just read the "Down With Flat" including part2 all the rest with great interest and gives me a much better understanding of the subject. It gives light to the graphs I would see of these ultra expensive speakers vs real work listening.

Which does lead me to the notion that as it always has, that speaker listening is subjective to the listener. So whether we Eq our speakers flat, or with a house curve, or something crazy (control points everywhere). 

I was reading a forum on RadioShack where they used Dirac on a MiniDsp to EQ the headphones to different responses of high-end speakers. And had the exact speaker's playing in the background, the results while not totally accurate did have some of the characteristics of the speakers.

So we live in a world now, with this DSP tech at our fingertips to change characteristics of the speaker, for good or bad depending on the listener.

I agree that would be my starting point too, Flat first( as a baseline) and then introduce a boost in the bass (House Curve). And for sure this takes away the harshness of the highs and sounds more warm and appealing sound, allowing for longer listening sessions. Of course, the type of speaker plays a role too as well as the room

Thanks for a great reply
Jim


----------



## mlmiller

*Denon Audyssey settings*

I have Dolby Atmos upfiring enabled speakers. Audyssey set up my amp assignment to Front Height speakers which support Atmos/Dts:X. When I set the amp to Front Dolby rather than Front Height the sound is less than acceptable. Why are my speakers not giving the output they should on the setting it should be on, but produce great sound on the wrong setting? 

I have files that are listed according to Media Info as TrueHD Atmos. However the movie setting on the Denon when playing these files lists either Atmos/surround or DolbyTHD + Neural+X. The Atmos/surround setting does not produce nearly as much sound as the DolbyThd +Neural+x be setting.This again not adding up to what it should be set at.


----------



## Gyroscopics

mlmiller said:


> I have files that are listed according to Media Info as TrueHD Atmos. However the movie setting on the Denon when playing these files lists either Atmos/surround or DolbyTHD + Neural+X. The Atmos/surround setting does not produce nearly as much sound as the DolbyThd +Neural+x be setting.This again not adding up to what it should be set at.


Are you sending the audio signal to your Denon receiver via HDMI rated 18Gbps or higher and version 2.0a or higher? Atmos signal won't run through optical or coaxial digital cables. If using sufficient HDMI specs, are you passing PCM or bitstream signal from source via HDMI?


----------



## mlmiller

Gyroscopics said:


> Are you sending the audio signal to your Denon receiver via HDMI rated 18Gbps or higher and version 2.0a or higher? Atmos signal won't run through optical or coaxial digital cables. If using sufficient HDMI specs, are you passing PCM or bitstream signal from source via HDMI?


The Atmos is passing through it displays it as Atmos/surround, in the movie settings. It also says it on the receiver. The HDMI cables are 2.0 and are connected to pcm.


----------



## Gyroscopics

mlmiller said:


> The Atmos is passing through it displays it as Atmos/surround, in the movie settings. It also says it on the receiver. The HDMI cables are 2.0 and are connected to pcm.


PCM will decode the 7.1 or 5.1 core only and bypass the Atmos encoding. Set your source to pass audio signal as bitstream (not PCM).


----------



## mlmiller

Gyroscopics said:


> PCM will decode the 7.1 or 5.1 core only and bypass the Atmos encoding. Set your source to pass audio signal as bitstream (not PCM).


Do I do this in the MPC-HC. Why would it show it at all if it were not decoding? All bitstream formats are checked in audio filters from MPC-hc


----------



## mlmiller

mlmiller said:


> Do I do this in the MPC-HC. Why would it show it at all if it were not decoding? All bitstream formats are checked in audio filters from MPC-hc


The pcm properly decodes dts:x files though as Dts:x Master and sound perfect on correct setting.


----------



## Gyroscopics

I don't use MPC-HC. Apparently you are internet savvy as you were able to download MPC-HC and use it. Try googling the issue or refer to the MPC-HC manual.


----------



## x-evil-x

Has anybody ever thought to use the windscreen(foam cover) from a umik mic with the audyssey mic? Not sure if it would make much a difference. Anybody ever test it? I might give it a shot since I use room eq with this mic and the cover would work fine with it.


----------



## pbarach

x-evil-x said:


> Has anybody ever thought to use the windscreen(foam cover) from a umik mic with the audyssey mic? Not sure if it would make much a difference. Anybody ever test it? I might give it a shot since I use room eq with this mic and the cover would work fine with it.


Why would you want to use it? Is there a breeze blowing in your listening room?


----------



## x-evil-x

pbarach said:


> Why would you want to use it? Is there a breeze blowing in your listening room?


Yup it’s hurricane season inside my room. Not sure why they come in more expensive mics but not these. The only benefit is in a windy measuring area?


----------



## slip023

Is the Audyssey Dynamic EQ and Volume the same across all flavors of Audyssey?


----------



## garygarrison

x-evil-x said:


> Has anybody ever thought to use the windscreen(foam cover) from a umik mic with the audyssey mic? Not sure if it would make much a difference. Anybody ever test it? I might give it a shot since I use room eq with this mic and the cover would work fine with it.


If it made any difference at all (might not) it would probably be in the direction of less accuracy. The AVRs and pre/pros that use Audyssey have some EQ built in to compensate for the characteristics of the _*average*_ Audyssey mic. Let's hope the variability is low. Use of a windscreen might change those characteristics, slightly.

*Indoors*, a windscreen is used to prevent the high velocity breath of a singer who is near a mike (e.g., "eating" it) from inducing spurious sounds into the recording (or live performance). A windscreen may reduce "P popping." Also, several instruments of the orchestra can create a "puff" breeze. One solution is to keep the mic at a sufficient distance from the instrument or the performer. Another is to use a windscreen. When using the Audyssey mic for calibrating, it would always be relatively far away from any speaker (I hope), so no problem. 

*Outdoors*, there is real wind. If it is dead calm, without a trace of a breeze, as soon as you take out a mic, there will be a gale. Thus, the huge windscreens film crews use.



pbarach said:


> Is there a breeze blowing in your listening room?




*I don't know about x-evil-x's room, but in my case*, there *is* occasionally a breeze in my listening room, but not when calibrating Audyssey. All of the percussion in Copland's* Fanfare for the Common Man *makes our pants legs flap at 16 feet away, even without the subwoofer connected. LFE when running movies can do this, as I'm sure you know. The thunderstorm and simulated earthquake during the crucifixion in *Ben-Hur* (1959) caused a breeze in the commercial cinemas*;* after some tinkering, I got it to do that here, at home.


----------



## Balbolito

Anyone uses a house curve on their miniDSP *after* Audyssey? 

Just wondering if this is gonna mess up the Audyssey filters or not. 

I know i could use DEQ but i don't like personally how it makes the surrounds louder. Thanks


----------



## pbarach

slip023 said:


> Is the Audyssey Dynamic EQ and Volume the same across all flavors of Audyssey?


Yes, it's the same.


----------



## mthomas47

Balbolito said:


> Anyone uses a house curve on their miniDSP *after* Audyssey?
> 
> Just wondering if this is gonna mess up the Audyssey filters or not.
> 
> I know i could use DEQ but i don't like personally how it makes the surrounds louder. Thanks



Hi,

Yes, lots of people do! As you probably already know, DEQ is a separate software program that is added, by default, after Audyssey performs a calibration, and after Audyssey creates filters for all of the channels. The EQ which Audyssey performs tries to make all of the frequencies, from as low as 10Hz, to as high as 22KHz, play about +/- 3dB from the target volume of 75dB. 

When Audyssey is successful, we have what is considered a reasonably "flat" frequency response. After calibration, Audyssey automatically implements Audyssey Reference, which rolls-off the high-frequencies slightly, and which introduces a -3dB dip centered on 2500Hz. That is called mid-range compensation, or MRC. And, it automatically engages DEQ which does several things including selectively boosting all of the low-frequencies to some extent, and selectively boosting some high-frequencies. As you noted, it also boosts the surround channels.

We can vary from any of the Audyssey default settings by adding some more subwoofer boost in addition to what DEQ provides; by setting our system to Flat instead of Reference; by turning off DEQ; by implementing the bass/treble tone controls for our front speakers; or by implementing an independent house curve with a miniDSP or through some other means. All of those measures will affect our frequency response in various ways, and the use of any of them is strictly a matter of personal preference.

But, none of those measures will defeat the general intent of the Audyssey filters that were set. The general intent of Audyssey room EQ is to reduce random peaks and dips in the frequency response, caused by interactions between our various transducers and the room itself. Using DEQ, or Audyssey Reference, or tone controls, or an independent subwoofer boost, or a house curve, simply tilts the overall shape of the frequency response in some user-preference direction. That could be a tilt in the direction of more bass or less, more treble or less, or some combination of the two.

All of those things listed above tilt the frequency response, in accordance with user preference, but none of them interfere with the original intent of automated room EQ to reduce random peaks and dips in the frequency response. I wanted to give you a little more complete answer to your question, and I hope that I was successful in doing so. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Balbolito

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Yes, lots of people do! As you probably already know, DEQ is a separate software program that is added, by default, after Audyssey performs a calibration, and after Audyssey creates filters for all of the channels. The EQ which Audyssey performs tries to make all of the frequencies, from as low as 10Hz, to as high as 22KHz, play about +/- 3dB from the target volume of 75dB.
> 
> When Audyssey is successful, we have what is considered a reasonably "flat" frequency response. After calibration, Audyssey automatically implements Audyssey Reference, which rolls-off the high-frequencies slightly, and which introduces a -3dB dip centered on 2500Hz. That is called mid-range compensation, or MRC. And, it automatically engages DEQ which does several things including selectively boosting all of the low-frequencies to some extent, and selectively boosting some high-frequencies. As you noted, it also boosts the surround channels.
> 
> We can vary from any of the Audyssey default settings by adding some more subwoofer boost in addition to what DEQ provides; by setting our system to Flat instead of Reference; by turning off DEQ; by implementing the bass/treble tone controls for our front speakers; or by implementing an independent house curve with a miniDSP or through some other means. All of those measures will affect our frequency response in various ways, and the use of any of them is strictly a matter of personal preference.
> 
> But, none of those measures will defeat the general intent of the Audyssey filters that were set. The general intent of Audyssey room EQ is to reduce random peaks and dips in the frequency response, caused by interactions between our various transducers and the room itself. Using DEQ, or Audyssey Reference, or tone controls, or an independent subwoofer boost, or a house curve, simply tilts the overall shape of the frequency response in some user-preference direction. That could be a tilt in the direction of more bass or less, more treble or less, or some combination of the two.
> 
> All of those things listed above tilt the frequency response, in accordance with user preference, but none of them interfere with the original intent of automated room EQ to reduce random peaks and dips in the frequency response. I wanted to give you a little more complete answer to your question, and I hope that I was successful in doing so.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike

Although i knew all of the above with the exception if a (manual) house curve would ruin the Audyssey filters or not but it was honestly a great read, i always appreciate your replies.

Thank you


----------



## BJBBJB

mthomas47 said:


> Balbolito said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone uses a house curve on their miniDSP *after* Audyssey?
> 
> Just wondering if this is gonna mess up the Audyssey filters or not.
> 
> I know i could use DEQ but i don't like personally how it makes the surrounds louder. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, lots of people do! As you probably already know, DEQ is a separate software program that is added, by default, after Audyssey performs a calibration, and after Audyssey creates filters for all of the channels. The EQ which Audyssey performs tries to make all of the frequencies, from as low as 10Hz, to as high as 22KHz, play about +/- 3dB from the target volume of 75dB.
> 
> When Audyssey is successful, we have what is considered a reasonably "flat" frequency response. After calibration, Audyssey automatically implements Audyssey Reference, which rolls-off the high-frequencies slightly, and which introduces a -3dB dip centered on 2500Hz. That is called mid-range compensation, or MRC. And, it automatically engages DEQ which does several things including selectively boosting all of the low-frequencies to some extent, and selectively boosting some high-frequencies. As you noted, it also boosts the surround channels.
> 
> We can vary from any of the Audyssey default settings by adding some more subwoofer boost in addition to what DEQ provides; by setting our system to Flat instead of Reference; by turning off DEQ; by implementing the bass/treble tone controls for our front speakers; or by implementing an independent house curve with a miniDSP or through some other means. All of those measures will affect our frequency response in various ways, and the use of any of them is strictly a matter of personal preference.
> 
> But, none of those measures will defeat the general intent of the Audyssey filters that were set. The general intent of Audyssey room EQ is to reduce random peaks and dips in the frequency response, caused by interactions between our various transducers and the room itself. Using DEQ, or Audyssey Reference, or tone controls, or an independent subwoofer boost, or a house curve, simply tilts the overall shape of the frequency response in some user-preference direction. That could be a tilt in the direction of more bass or less, more treble or less, or some combination of the two.
> 
> All of those things listed above tilt the frequency response, in accordance with user preference, but none of them interfere with the original intent of automated room EQ to reduce random peaks and dips in the frequency response. I wanted to give you a little more complete answer to your question, and I hope that I was successful in doing so. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

 @MThomas,
An awesome post. This is my exact plan when things settle down.

Generate a flat miniDSP curve with REW, run Audyssey so I can use DEQ, then do a minor house curve tweak (fully understanding that DEQ is one also) in the miniDSP. I have been adding just a little selective curve adjustment in low end via MultiEQ while using DEQ but seems miniDSP would be a better place to do it now that I have one. Got some great advice in these forums that I will use when I do it.

But your post brought up a nagging question I had. Can I just add my miniDSP house curve tweak "on top of" my miniDSP flat curve adjustment? So I can tweak it without redoing a flat curve? Guess I technically load 2 curves?

Been also thinking of getting rid of some of that HF rolloff but would need to do that in multiEQ... 

Thanks,

BJBBJB


----------



## wxchaser

Noticed a few days ago when I looked on my Denon X6500H - that my Audyssey calibration was gone. I used the Restore function & the settings from my recent cal were the same (I took numerous pics on my iPhone and saved for reference). My other question is why Tone is greyed out.

The only thing i did was manually change the 2 subs from -4.5 db to -3.5 db.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...audyssey-thread-part-ii-269.html#post59430592

I did a complete 8 point re-calibration two days ago and afterwards noticed that some settings were again greyed out (have not yet reset processor) - don't see Referemce, Flat, L-R. I can go in and adjust manual settings, add 2nd sub.

The most recent calibration was done with setting Dynamic EQ to off. I applied the room settings corrections from the Audyssey setup, and checked distances and levels which looked ok. It sounded really good afterwards.

*If I do the microprocessor reset - am I able to restore my current settings? Or will I need a complete re-calibration after processor reset?*

Thanks for any help - doing Audyssey setup is not a problem to redo - just concerned I am not seeing all the information. I am on the latest FW for mu AVR.


----------



## Balbolito

BJBBJB said:


> @MThomas,
> An awesome post. This is my exact plan when things settle down.
> 
> Generate a flat miniDSP curve with REW, run Audyssey so I can use DEQ, then do a minor house curve tweak (fully understanding that DEQ is one also) in the miniDSP. I have been adding just a little selective curve adjustment in low end via MultiEQ while using DEQ but seems miniDSP would be a better place to do it now that I have one. Got some great advice in these forums that I will use when I do it.
> 
> But your post brought up a nagging question I had. Can I just add my miniDSP house curve tweak "on top of" my miniDSP flat curve adjustment? So I can tweak it without redoing a flat curve? Guess I technically load 2 curves?
> 
> Been also thinking of getting rid of some of that HF rolloff but would need to do that in multiEQ...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BJBBJB


I was just done today with my REW measurements for my four subs, which took several days of moving the subs around, moving the MLP a little and time aligning my subs in REW. Sent everything to the miniDSP and ran a few measurements which made me happy, then ran Audyssey using the app to calibrate them even further and the rest of speakers. all looks good. was just thinking now of adding a house curve and maybe aligning my subs to my mains as the last two final steps(maybe also a sub distance tweak in audy) i will compare tomorrow doing one in my miniDSP and with the curve editor in MultiEQ and see what's the difference if any in measurements. i just feel doing a curve in the miniDSP would be more accurate, not only that but for me it's easier to use(than moving my thumb for several mins to enter one curve) also with a miniDSP i could enter the Q.

What i think you could do since you have a miniDSP, make sure you save the flat curve first, then create another one with a house curve, then you could just import each in your miniDSP to confirm which is best with REW measurements.


----------



## mthomas47

Balbolito said:


> Hi Mike
> 
> Although i knew all of the above with the exception if a (manual) house curve would ruin the Audyssey filters or not but it was honestly a great read, i always appreciate your replies.
> 
> Thank you





BJBBJB said:


> @*MThomas* ,
> An awesome post. This is my exact plan when things settle down.
> 
> Generate a flat miniDSP curve with REW, run Audyssey so I can use DEQ, then do a minor house curve tweak (fully understanding that DEQ is one also) in the miniDSP. I have been adding just a little selective curve adjustment in low end via MultiEQ while using DEQ but seems miniDSP would be a better place to do it now that I have one. Got some great advice in these forums that I will use when I do it.
> 
> But your post brought up a nagging question I had. Can I just add my miniDSP house curve tweak "on top of" my miniDSP flat curve adjustment? So I can tweak it without redoing a flat curve? Guess I technically load 2 curves?
> 
> Been also thinking of getting rid of some of that HF rolloff but would need to do that in multiEQ...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BJBBJB



Thank you both for the compliments! I wrote that post in some detail, because I thought that others might have similar interests or questions. 

There are several different ways that you can use a miniDSP, in conjunction with Audyssey, and I'm not sure that there is one best way that fits every circumstance. If you are trying to fix some major issues that you think Audyssey can't fix, you might want to use the miniDSP first, as you said, and then run Audyssey. 

Or, if Audyssey can do a pretty good job of creating a flatter frequency response in your room, you might just want to use the miniDSP to give the FR a final polish, including a house curve, after Audyssey does its job. I think the biggest thing to be concerned about is that you don't use too much headroom in trying to boost dips (and especially nulls). You can run before-and-after compression tests to check the effects of your tweaks.

Either way, I would generate a flatter frequency response first, and then experiment with a house curve afterwards. (For instance, if you added a house curve before running Audyssey, Audyssey would probably try to EQ it back to flat.) With respect to the house curve, if you know that you or Audyssey were pulling down some larger room gain-induced low-frequency peaks, then generating a house curve should be pretty easy. You would just be undoing some of the EQ that Audyssey and/or your miniDSP had already done. If you have already had to pull-up some low-frequency dips, just to get the FR reasonably flat, you may not have as much subwoofer headroom left with which to create a house curve. 

Again, compression testing should give you a pretty good picture of what happens when you add a house curve. And unless you have a lot of excess subwoofer headroom, I would expect there could be some experimentation involved in deciding what sort of compromises you were willing to make. For example, you might want more total volume, with a more modest low-end boost; or you might want the maximum low-end boost, with more moderate master volume levels. Having large low-end boosts, and high master volume levels, can take a lot of subwoofage.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Toto84

Hi Guys, could you please help on my quest for great sound .
I have 5.1.2 with kef r500 and kef r200z, kef r100 and atmos kef r8a and a rotel sub 1508 .

I have rew with an umik1 mik and i have a denon x8500h with audyssey app and a rotel pa 1585 to power my front speakers.

The first pic is my sub response with audyssey on and the second is with the sub and the front speakers.

My goal is to achieve the best sound possible, help me with your comment and suggestions?














Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## BJBBJB

mthomas47 said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*MThomas* ,
> An awesome post. This is my exact plan when things settle down.
> 
> Generate a flat miniDSP curve with REW, run Audyssey so I can use DEQ, then do a minor house curve tweak (fully understanding that DEQ is one also) in the miniDSP. I have been adding just a little selective curve adjustment in low end via MultiEQ while using DEQ but seems miniDSP would be a better place to do it now that I have one. Got some great advice in these forums that I will use when I do it.
> 
> But your post brought up a nagging question I had. Can I just add my miniDSP house curve tweak "on top of" my miniDSP flat curve adjustment? So I can tweak it without redoing a flat curve? Guess I technically load 2 curves?
> 
> Been also thinking of getting rid of some of that HF rolloff but would need to do that in multiEQ...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you both for the compliments! I wrote that post in some detail, because I thought that others might have similar interests or questions.
> 
> There are several different ways that you can use a miniDSP, in conjunction with Audyssey, and I'm not sure that there is one best way that fits every circumstance. If you are trying to fix some major issues that you think Audyssey can't fix, you might want to use the miniDSP first, as you said, and then run Audyssey.
> 
> Or, if Audyssey can do a pretty good job of creating a flatter frequency response in your room, you might just want to use the miniDSP to give the FR a final polish, including a house curve, after Audyssey does its job. I think the biggest thing to be concerned about is that you don't use too much headroom in trying to boost dips (and especially nulls). You can run before-and-after compression tests to check the effects of your tweaks.
> 
> Either way, I would generate a flatter frequency response first, and then experiment with a house curve afterwards. (For instance, if you added a house curve before running Audyssey, Audyssey would probably try to EQ it back to flat.) With respect to the house curve, if you know that you or Audyssey were pulling down some larger room gain-induced low-frequency peaks, then generating a house curve should be pretty easy. You would just be undoing some of the EQ that Audyssey and/or your miniDSP had already done. If you have already had to pull-up some low-frequency dips, just to get the FR reasonably flat, you may not have as much subwoofer headroom left with which to create a house curve.
> 
> Again, compression testing should give you a pretty good picture of what happens when you add a house curve. And unless you have a lot of excess subwoofer headroom, I would expect there could be some experimentation involved in deciding what sort of compromises you were willing to make. For example, you might want more total volume, with a more modest low-end boost; or you might want the maximum low-end boost, with more moderate master volume levels. Having large low-end boosts, and high master volume levels, can take a lot of subwoofage.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

 @MThomas,
Thanks! Will look into compression analysis too. 

One last question....if I run REW to get miniDSP flat (Audyssey off but use Audyssey delays in MiniDSP) , then run Ausyssey with no MultiEQ curve adjustment but with flat miniDSP curve.

And then want to generate a house curve in the miniDSP with REW, it seems to make sense to run THIS REW run for miniDSP house curve with Audyssey ON at Reference, but no DEQ? Does that make sense?

Because when running for real use, I will be running with Aidyssey on with DEQ. Of course would not run another Audyssey calibration run after that. 

BJBBJB


----------



## mthomas47

BJBBJB said:


> @*MThomas* ,
> Thanks! Will look into compression analysis too.
> 
> One last question....if I run REW to get miniDSP flat (Audyssey off but use Audyssey delays in MiniDSP) , then run Ausyssey with no MultiEQ curve adjustment but with flat miniDSP curve.
> 
> And then want to generate a house curve in the miniDSP with REW, it seems to make sense to run THIS REW run for miniDSP house curve with Audyssey ON at Reference, but no DEQ? Does that make sense?
> 
> Because when running for real use, I will be running with Aidyssey on with DEQ. Of course would not run another Audyssey calibration run after that.
> 
> BJBBJB



Hi,

I was hoping not to bog down too much on miniDSP issues here. The REW thread might be a better place for you to discuss any further questions you may have about this.

I have read your post several times now, and I'm still not sure that I understand exactly what you are asking. But, let me take a stab at it, anyway. Audyssey Reference and DEQ are both implemented automatically after you run an Audyssey calibration. If you prefer the Reference curve and want to do your final miniDSP adjustments to the Audyssey Reference curve, rather than to Audyssey Flat, then you can certainly do that.

And, you can do it with DEQ off too, and then turn DEQ back on when you are finished creating your own house curve. But, you need to understand that DEQ will introduce is own bass boosts on top of what you have already done, and it will slightly change the shape of the house curve that you are creating. Remember also that DEQ's action is dynamic, changing as you change your master volume. 

Personally, I might start with DEQ, at my typical master volume, and then tweak the bass response with my own house curve from there. Or, I might just abandon DEQ entirely, if I really wanted to do more than just have DEQ, combined with a normal subwoofer boost. knowing myself, I would probably end-up trying all of those options.

I think that having a general plan of approach to something like this can be very helpful. If nothing else it makes you more systematic in thinking: I will try 'X' first, and then I will try 'Y'. But, I also think that there will inevitably have to be some trial-and-error to find out what actually works best for you, once you start experimenting.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Balbolito

@mthomas47 correct me if i am wrong , with DEQ as the name implies it's a dynamic equalizer, so when the AVR's volume goes up/down it's going to adjust the Low and high frequencies to compensate. as humans we are more sensitive in that region of hearing than the mid-range. the closer someone is to reference volume the less it's going to get used/applied and when the vol is at reference (0) it's going to be totally off. While running subs hot for example 8db it only adds to LFE that amount and is active all the time regardless of the volume level was at 0 or -50 for example. I have seen people run both or one of them. not sure if they like the extra surround activity or the added bass boost of both DEQ+increasing sub level trim.

If some has a nautral tilting LFE response (lets say 90db at 20hz down to 80db at 100hz) would it be right to say that by only running our subs hot we can get a better house curve? as it is already there in measurements. or is there a benefit here in DEQ that just raising the sub level doesn't do it. hope my point is clear.

Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

Balbolito said:


> @*mthomas47* correct me if i am wrong , with DEQ as the name implies it's a dynamic equalizer, so when the AVR's volume goes up/down it's going to adjust the Low and high frequencies to compensate. as humans we are more sensitive in that region of hearing than the mid-range. the closer someone is to reference volume the less it's going to get used/applied and when the vol is at reference (0) it's going to be totally off. While running subs hot for example 8db it only adds to LFE that amount and is active all the time regardless of the volume level was at 0 or -50 for example. I have seen people run both or one of them. not sure if they like the extra surround activity or the added bass boost of both DEQ+increasing sub level trim.
> 
> If some has a nautral tilting LFE response (lets say 90db at 20hz down to 80db at 100hz) would it be right to say that by only running our subs hot we can get a better house curve? as it is already there in measurements. or is there a benefit here in DEQ that just raising the sub level doesn't do it. hope my point is clear.
> 
> Thanks



Hi,

Your point is clear, but I don't think I can answer your question in a generic way. Section V of the Guide explains DEQ's actions in considerable detail. I don't think I could explain DEQ nearly that well in any single post. Whether someone likes some of what DEQ does, everything that DEQ does, or nothing that DEQ does, is an entirely personal decision. And, it is a personal decision that I don't like to try to influence in one direction or another. I believe that our preferences are, and should be, very individualistic. 

You are correct in saying that DEQ boosts low and high-frequencies, as volume levels drop below Reference (0.0 MV). It doesn't boost mid-range frequencies, because our hearing is already strongest between 500Hz and 5,000Hz. One thing in your first paragraph didn't sound quite right, if I were reading it correctly. DEQ doesn't just add boosts to the LFE (low-frequency effects) channel. It simply boosts the bass, in all of the channels, in accordance with its own programming. So, the net effect is to have more bass coming from all of the channels in an HT system. 

It may be that, as you said in the second paragraph, it's possible to get an even better house curve just by making your own selective bass boosts, rather than using DEQ. I have had good success with that. It seems to me that would be more effective though, if your master volume increases and decreases were occurring within a relatively narrow range. Or, it could still work fairly well if you were willing to add or subtract some bass, depending on your master volume level. Some people, such as Gary and myself, don't mind tweaking their settings, depending on the program. And, some people prefer not to ever touch their settings, once they have them where they want them. YMMV! 

DEQ boosts the treble too, but for many people, the treble boost may be somewhat less perceptible. Some people like high-frequency sounds better with the Audyssey Reference curve, and with DEQ's somewhat counter-acting treble boost. And, some people prefer Audyssey Flat with DEQ off. There are also people who like other mixtures of those settings. 

This is something that I mentioned in an earlier post, and I really believe it. There is no single group of settings that I could consider "correct" in any kind of universal way. Almost every decision we make in audio/HT, from our selection and placement of speakers and subwoofers; to our room arrangements and acoustic treatments; to our AVR's, either with or without automated room correction; and to our settings within those AVR's; are reflections of our individual circumstances, and our individual preferences. 

I think we can really see that, on this thread, as soon as we start talking about the use of DEQ, and/or the use of independent subwoofer boosts.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

Balbolito said:


> @*mthomas47* correct me if i am wrong , with DEQ as the name implies it's a dynamic equalizer, so when the AVR's volume goes up/down it's going to adjust the Low and high frequencies to compensate. as humans we are more sensitive in that region of hearing than the mid-range. the closer someone is to reference volume the less it's going to get used/applied and when the vol is at reference (0) it's going to be totally off. While running subs hot for example 8db it only adds to LFE that amount and is active all the time regardless of the volume level was at 0 or -50 for example. I have seen people run both or one of them. not sure if they like the extra surround activity or the added bass boost of both DEQ+increasing sub level trim.
> 
> If some has a nautral tilting LFE response (lets say 90db at 20hz down to 80db at 100hz) would it be right to say that by only running our subs hot we can get a better house curve? as it is already there in measurements. or is there a benefit here in DEQ that just raising the sub level doesn't do it. hope my point is clear.
> 
> Thanks



In order to help you understand DEQ more clearly, you are right the "D" in DEQ stands for dynamic, but its not because when the AVR's volume goes up/down it's going to adjust the low and high frequencies. That's just the static part. That part works like any other loudness compensation solution (even good-old analog amps had that function in the 20th century!) DEQ actually has a two-tier operation scheme. We can call this one the first-tier.

The second-tier kicks-in when at any given MV setting lower that 0 dB ref. the passage will vary from loud to soft parts and these parts need another, yet different compensation in the bass and treble region. The softer the passage the more compensation is added. This is done by DEQ automatically in real-time, on the fly! 

On a second note, when you boost your sub(s) you not only boost the LFE (the 0.1 channel), but you also boost all the redirected bass that is passed to the subwoofer channel below the crossover frequency (mostly below 80 Hz). Well, provided you are using Bass Management on your AVR.

Hope this helps.


----------



## BJBBJB

BJBBJB said:


> mthomas47 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*MThomas* ,
> An awesome post. This is my exact plan when things settle down.
> 
> Generate a flat miniDSP curve with REW, run Audyssey so I can use DEQ, then do a minor house curve tweak (fully understanding that DEQ is one also) in the miniDSP. I have been adding just a little selective curve adjustment in low end via MultiEQ while using DEQ but seems miniDSP would be a better place to do it now that I have one. Got some great advice in these forums that I will use when I do it.
> 
> But your post brought up a nagging question I had. Can I just add my miniDSP house curve tweak "on top of" my miniDSP flat curve adjustment? So I can tweak it without redoing a flat curve? Guess I technically load 2 curves?
> 
> Been also thinking of getting rid of some of that HF rolloff but would need to do that in multiEQ...
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you both for the compliments! I wrote that post in some detail, because I thought that others might have similar interests or questions.
> 
> There are several different ways that you can use a miniDSP, in conjunction with Audyssey, and I'm not sure that there is one best way that fits every circumstance. If you are trying to fix some major issues that you think Audyssey can't fix, you might want to use the miniDSP first, as you said, and then run Audyssey.
> 
> Or, if Audyssey can do a pretty good job of creating a flatter frequency response in your room, you might just want to use the miniDSP to give the FR a final polish, including a house curve, after Audyssey does its job. I think the biggest thing to be concerned about is that you don't use too much headroom in trying to boost dips (and especially nulls). You can run before-and-after compression tests to check the effects of your tweaks.
> 
> Either way, I would generate a flatter frequency response first, and then experiment with a house curve afterwards. (For instance, if you added a house curve before running Audyssey, Audyssey would probably try to EQ it back to flat.) With respect to the house curve, if you know that you or Audyssey were pulling down some larger room gain-induced low-frequency peaks, then generating a house curve should be pretty easy. You would just be undoing some of the EQ that Audyssey and/or your miniDSP had already done. If you have already had to pull-up some low-frequency dips, just to get the FR reasonably flat, you may not have as much subwoofer headroom left with which to create a house curve.
> 
> Again, compression testing should give you a pretty good picture of what happens when you add a house curve. And unless you have a lot of excess subwoofer headroom, I would expect there could be some experimentation involved in deciding what sort of compromises you were willing to make. For example, you might want more total volume, with a more modest low-end boost; or you might want the maximum low-end boost, with more moderate master volume levels. Having large low-end boosts, and high master volume levels, can take a lot of subwoofage.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> @MThomas,
> Thanks! Will look into compression analysis too.
> 
> One last question....if I run REW to get miniDSP flat (Audyssey off but use Audyssey delays in MiniDSP) , then run Ausyssey with no MultiEQ curve adjustment but with flat miniDSP curve.
> 
> And then want to generate a house curve in the miniDSP with REW, it seems to make sense to run THIS REW run for miniDSP house curve with Audyssey ON at Reference, but no DEQ? Does that make sense?
> 
> Because when running for real use, I will be running with Aidyssey on with DEQ. Of course would not run another Audyssey calibration run after that.
> 
> BJBBJB
Click to expand...




mthomas47 said:


> BJBBJB said:
> 
> 
> 
> @*MThomas* ,
> Thanks! Will look into compression analysis too.
> 
> One last question....if I run REW to get miniDSP flat (Audyssey off but use Audyssey delays in MiniDSP) , then run Ausyssey with no MultiEQ curve adjustment but with flat miniDSP curve.
> 
> And then want to generate a house curve in the miniDSP with REW, it seems to make sense to run THIS REW run for miniDSP house curve with Audyssey ON at Reference, but no DEQ? Does that make sense?
> 
> Because when running for real use, I will be running with Aidyssey on with DEQ. Of course would not run another Audyssey calibration run after that.
> 
> BJBBJB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I was hoping not to bog down too much on miniDSP issues here. The REW thread might be a better place for you to discuss any further questions you may have about this.
> 
> I have read your post several times now, and I'm still not sure that I understand exactly what you are asking. But, let me take a stab at it, anyway. Audyssey Reference and DEQ are both implemented automatically after you run an Audyssey calibration. If you prefer the Reference curve and want to do your final miniDSP adjustments to the Audyssey Reference curve, rather than to Audyssey Flat, then you can certainly do that.
> 
> And, you can do it with DEQ off too, and then turn DEQ back on when you are finished creating your own house curve. But, you need to understand that DEQ will introduce is own bass boosts on top of what you have already done, and it will slightly change the shape of the house curve that you are creating. Remember also that DEQ's action is dynamic, changing as you change your master volume.
> 
> Personally, I might start with DEQ, at my typical master volume, and then tweak the bass response with my own house curve from there. Or, I might just abandon DEQ entirely, if I really wanted to do more than just have DEQ, combined with a normal subwoofer boost. knowing myself, I would probably end-up trying all of those options.
> 
> I think that having a general plan of approach to something like this can be very helpful. If nothing else it makes you more systematic in thinking: I will try 'X' first, and then I will try 'Y'. But, I also think that there will inevitably have to be some trial-and-error to find out what actually works best for you, once you start experimenting.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

 @MThomas,

You understood my question exactly as intended. 😀 

I always try to be respectful of thread topic scope creep and certainly will post detailed miniDSP or REW questions on those threads. Hope I didn't stray too far.

I, like you will probably try all options. Top of mind? House curve via miniDSP with Audyssey Reference and DEQ on at typical volume I listen at. Then House curve via miniDSP with Audyssey Reference on and DEQ off at the appropriate measurement volume. 

Thanks again. Things are becoming clearer... 
BJBBJB


----------



## wxchaser

After resetting Denon X6500H to factory settings (microprocessor reset) and loading my saved configuration - noticed some menu items are still greyed out or inaccessable.










In Audyssey menu all below options are not even visible!

*MultEQ® XT32 Selection is done from three types of compensation curves. We recommend the “Reference” setting.
Reference
(Default):
Selects the default calibrated setting with
a slight roll off at high frequencies, which
is optimized for movies.
L/R Bypass:
Selects the reference setting, but
bypasses MultEQ® XT32 on the front left
and right speakers.
Flat:
Selects the calibrated setting which is
optimized for small rooms where your
listening position is closer to the
speakers.
Off: Do not use “MultEQ® XT32”.*

What am I missing? 

General setup mode doesn't even recognize my 2nd sub which works great and is wired correctly.

How should I proceed?


----------



## rocky1

Your speakers set to large? What does it when you highlight “bass”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wxchaser

rocky1 said:


> Your speakers set to large? What does it when you highlight “bass”
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No set to small. Cam't tell since option greyed out


----------



## Balbolito

@wxchaser happened to me last week when i switched my XLR sub cables to RCA cables, not sure why though.

Had to run Audyssey all over again to get it working (and not being grayed out!)

And i never did a reset for my processor.


----------



## rocky1

wxchaser said:


> No set to small. Cam't tell since option greyed out



Meant to say just run cursir over it. Either way itll say cant be set when no lfe 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wxchaser

My Denon X6500H is acting possessed. Did microprocessor reset, then in Setup Assistant - Denon X6500H Audyssey didn't like one sub, saying it was wired incorrectly, do SW Level matching etc. I knew that was bogus because I checked both subs afterwards, and they were fine & wired correctly. I played off Oppo 203 BladeRunner 2049 and Thor Ragnorak, plus listened to Orion by Metallica and YYZ by Rush. Both subs were wired correctly & sounded fine.

Wondering if a recent firmware update borked things -on version 1461-1384-2242-4045. Needless to say, running new Audyssey 8 point calibration did not help much. After I ran it, under Audio Subwoofer Level Adjust, Bass Sync and Graphic EQ were all greyed out but Audyssey appeared, and I could see the Reference L/R Bypass, etc. Soon after though my AVR was showing that menu option greyed out. I think Denon wants to replace it awaiting call back.

I am absolutely clueless how to proceed further, any suggestions welcomed!

My equipment:

LG 65" OLED65C7P
Denon X6500H AVR
Oppo UDP-203
Apple TV 4K

Klipsch RF-82 II (Left Front-Right Front)
Klipsch RC-62 II (Center)
RSL C34E (4 ATMOS)
4 Custom SI (Sound Investments) on wall angled surround and surround back speakers
ND140*8 5*1/4" Aluminum Cone Midbass Driver 8 Ohm
5" woofer with 3/4" silk dome tweeter
("Dayton Audio's ND140-8 midbass driver features an efficient, low-distortion Neo-Balanced motor that is combined with a rigid yet lightweight aluminum diaphragm, yielding impressive high-impact audio reproduction. Perfect for single point-source applications, or combined in multiples and line arrays.") 
Snap AV Episode Element Series 12" powered subwoofer (2 subwoofers front left & right)
(300W RMS @ 0.2% THD – Power Peak 720W)


----------



## wxchaser

OK - I have some answers.

First - I am an idiot, lol. If you run Audyssey with DEQ selected to off - the menus for Subwoofer Level Adjust, Bass Sync and Graphic DQ will be greyed out.

Audyssey setup allows for one subwoofer, otherwise the 2nd SW mimics the settings used for SW 1. I was using Subwoofer Level Adjust, when it wasn't really necessary (my 2nd SW is same distance as my first sub and levels are relatively the same. The reason Setup Assistant borked on me was because I had selected 2 SW's instead of one in Setup Assistant.

Lastly still not quite sure that if you make adjustments to Audyssey calibrated settings, like distance or levels, if that affects Audyssey. A Denon supervisor told me it would not.


----------



## rocky1

Correct me if im wrong as i dont know. Unless i misunderstood if add a second sub to my setup i would not need to rerun
Audessey? Since it only recognizes one anyways and mimics..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## avtoronto

rocky1 said:


> Correct me if im wrong as i dont know. Unless i misunderstood if add a second sub to my setup i would not need to rerun
> Audessey? Since it only recognizes one anyways and mimics..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


When you make any change in your equipment, speakers or room, you have to re-run. Audyssey measures the subs individually at the beginning of the measurement for levels and timing. The two subs processing the unified signal in the next set of test tones will behave differently than one sub alone.


----------



## rocky1

avtoronto said:


> When you make any change in your equipment, speakers or room, you have to re-run. Audyssey measures the subs individually at the beginning of the measurement for levels and timing. The two subs processing the unified signal in the next set of test tones will behave differently than one sub alone.



Thanks that what i originally thought. Maybe i misread/misunderstood what was posted


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

avtoronto said:


> When you make any change in your equipment, speakers or room, you have to re-run. Audyssey measures the subs individually at the beginning of the measurement for levels and timing. The two subs processing the unified signal in the next set of test tones will behave differently than one sub alone.



Thanks. I originally thought that way. Maybe i misread / misunderstood previous post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

wxchaser said:


> OK - I have some answers.
> 
> First - I am an idiot, lol.* If you run Audyssey with DEQ selected to off *- the menus for *Subwoofer Level Adjust*, Bass Sync and Graphic DQ will be* greyed out*.
> 
> Audyssey setup allows for one subwoofer, otherwise the 2nd SW mimics the settings used for SW 1. I was using Subwoofer Level Adjust, when it wasn't really necessary (my 2nd SW is same distance as my first sub and levels are relatively the same. The reason Setup Assistant borked on me was because I had selected 2 SW's instead of one in Setup Assistant.
> 
> Lastly still not quite sure that if you make adjustments to Audyssey calibrated settings, like *distance or levels*, if that affects Audyssey. A Denon supervisor told me it would not.



Audyssey calibration is *independent of the DEQ setting*, and *all other post Audyssey settings like the AVR's Subwoofer trim level* (you may want to turn it up a bit, as most of us do; see Mike's guide -- linked at the bottom of this post -- for how to do this without overload). *The subwoofer level adjust should NOT be greyed out.* I don't have Bass Sync so I don't know what it is. *Graphic EQ will not work with Audyssey engaged*; they are mutually exclusive. Some AVRs have a "Base (not Bass) Copy" that allows you to *very crudely *copy the *general shape* of the Audyssey room/speaker compensation curve, and then manipulate it on graphic EQ. It uses only a few (e.g. 10) data points, and an equal number of virtual sliders with which to EQ, instead of the *greater than one thousand EQ points* used by Audyssey. I'd say *don't use it*. Chris K, the CTO of Audyssey hates it.

Feel free to adjust *distance or levels or any other post Audyssey adjustment *after running Audyssey -- they won't affect the Audyssey filters (that do the EQ).

Here is Mike's (mthomas47) Guide

GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

*** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


----------



## rosstg

Since moving from my dedicated theatre room to a typical living room open concept I’ve been doing a lot of testing. I’ve tried full range flat and Reference, limited EQ, implemented a house curve - a few actually. DEQ on/Off.

One thing I notice when limiting correction to 300-500hz is I can pinpoint everything in a mix. It’s as if everything is highlighted if that makes sense. It’s like I can hear my room. Especially in the height and main channels.

When I switch to the Reference curve full range it’s like my speakers disappear and I’m in a bubble. This is with DEQ. If you I switch off DEQ and create a house curve the bubble vanishes. It’s not as noticeable when I listen at louder volumes obviously but when I watch movies late at night I miss DEQ.


----------



## Balbolito

@rosstg one thing i noticed when switching my LCR speakers from full range correction to limited @ 300hz, is that the dialogue becomes so much more natural and a lot clearer. other than everything else honestly(from mids to highs). i don't have to increase my center speaker level like many people because they can't hear the vocals clearly. Although i still keep full range correction on everything else(side &back surrounds/ceiling atmos and subs).


----------



## rosstg

Balbolito said:


> @rosstg one thing i noticed when switching my LCR speakers from full range correction to limited @ 300hz, is that the dialogue becomes so much more natural and a lot clearer. other than everything else honestly(from mids to highs). i don't have to increase my center speaker level like many people because they can't hear the vocals clearly. Although i still keep full range correction on everything else(side &back surrounds/ceiling atmos and subs).


Yeah it varies depending on what I’m watching but I agree when I limit to 300hz dialogue sounds cleaner or brighter but it’s presence is more localized. I can tell my center is below my screen. If I run FR the Center sounds like it’s coming from my tv. It sounds clearer full range in my room.

This wasn’t an issue in my highly treated dedicated room but my current setup isn’t as forgiving.


----------



## rhelliott2

Audyssey Room EQ Review by Audio science review. 

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audyssey-room-eq-review.12746/


----------



## rosstg

I’m going to rerun Audyssey but this time tighten up my mic placement to 1ft. I’ve been using 2ft.


----------



## rosstg

rhelliott2 said:


> Audyssey Room EQ Review by Audio science review.
> 
> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audyssey-room-eq-review.12746/


I thought this was a great read. I’ve been eyeing a NAD with Dirac but the price for a 9 ch in Canada is too high. I ended up investing in amps instead. That and I know I’ll miss DEQ. I know a lot of Dirac users miss that feature.


----------



## wxchaser

garygarrison said:


> Audyssey calibration is *independent of the DEQ setting*, and *all other post Audyssey settings like the AVR's Subwoofer trim level* (you may want to turn it up a bit, as most of us do; see Mike's guide -- linked at the bottom of this post -- for how to do this without overload). *The subwoofer level adjust should NOT be greyed out.* I don't have Bass Sync so I don't know what it is. *Graphic EQ will not work with Audyssey engaged*; they are mutually exclusive. Some AVRs have a "Base (not Bass) Copy" that allows you to *very crudely *copy the *general shape* of the Audyssey room/speaker compensation curve, and then manipulate it on graphic EQ. It uses only a few (e.g. 10) data points, and an equal number of virtual sliders with which to EQ, instead of the *greater than one thousand EQ points* used by Audyssey. I'd say *don't use it*. Chris K, the CTO of Audyssey hates it.
> 
> Feel free to adjust *distance or levels or any other post Audyssey adjustment *after running Audyssey -- they won't affect the Audyssey filters (that do the EQ).
> 
> Here is Mike's (mthomas47) Guide
> 
> GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES
> 
> *** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
> Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
> Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


Gary,

Thank you for the timely and informed response. I read through the material (did Mike write War & Peace too?)

I did an 8 point calibration this morning. I had the Audyssey compensation curves, Audyssey was not greyed out under Audio menu.

What I noticed was if I went into Audyssey or Manual Speaker Config., and changed Subwoofer from 1 to 2 speakers - or went into Audio\Subwoofer Level Adjust and configured more than 1 subwoofer - my menu items, i.e. Audio / Audyssey were greyed out. It was something I found repeatable if I changed those specific settings.

Under Subwoofer Level Adjust (when I ran calibration I set speaker config to 2 sub's) i still show Subwoofer 2 but it is greyed out and no adjustments can be made unless I go into speaker config manually or through Audyssey.

In your opinion Gary - should I run another calibration with Subwoofer set to 1 speaker instead of 2. Denon keeps telling me if you have more than one sub it mimics subwoofer 1.

Thanks for all your help.


----------



## wxchaser

A few images if it helps.


----------



## jim8128

WOW,

There's a lot of information in this forum. I have audyssey set up on my home theater. Just followed the directions that the Marantz manual furnished. Not the depth you've gone in to. I'm impressed ! ! ! !

jim8128


----------



## garygarrison

rhelliott2 said:


> Audyssey Room EQ Review by Audio science review.
> https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audyssey-room-eq-review.12746/



The review is interesting, but one comment, apparently by an engineer, is partially wrong, I believe.

_"BTW this is the XT32 version. The XT version only corrects room modes for subwoofer and over corrects high frequencies with narrow filters. I think the subwoofer filter resolution is lower too." 
_
XT attempts to correct room modes as high as they go, *not* just in the subwoofer. And, while it does use narrow filters, and therefore provides a high frequency correction curve (as read from pre-outs) that is "hairy," the acoustical response in the room is not, and looks a lot like the response they got in this review, although flatter (at least in my room). 

Speaking of the REW measured effect of Audyssey XT32, I don't see a mention of whether a single mic position was used during the REW post measurement, or multiple positions, imitating the 8 Audyssey positions, or, at least, for solo listening, imitating a single persons right ear, left ear, and nose position. REW provides a convenient button to average the curves.


----------



## mthomas47

wxchaser said:


> Gary,
> 
> Thank you for the timely and informed response. I read through the material (did Mike write War & Peace too?)
> 
> I did an 8 point calibration this morning. I had the Audyssey compensation curves, Audyssey was not greyed out under Audio menu.
> 
> What I noticed was if I went into Audyssey or Manual Speaker Config., and changed Subwoofer from 1 to 2 speakers - or went into Audio\Subwoofer Level Adjust and configured more than 1 subwoofer - my menu items, i.e. Audio / Audyssey were greyed out. It was something I found repeatable if I changed those specific settings.
> 
> Under Subwoofer Level Adjust (when I ran calibration I set speaker config to 2 sub's) i still show Subwoofer 2 but it is greyed out and no adjustments can be made unless I go into speaker config manually or through Audyssey.
> 
> In your opinion Gary - should I run another calibration with Subwoofer set to 1 speaker instead of 2. Denon keeps telling me if you have more than one sub it mimics subwoofer 1.
> 
> Thanks for all your help.



Hi,

I think considering the many issues with audio/HT, it might have been Crime and Punishment. 

It has been a few years, but it seems to me that I had problems one time with getting my Marantz AVR to recognize more than one subwoofer during my Audyssey calibration. I had to go back into both the Amp Assign Menu and the Speaker Configuration Menu a couple of times to get it to work.

If that doesn't work, I would post on the appropriate Denon AVR thread. An AVS member, who also works in the AVS store, named @*jdsmoothie* will be able to help you with anything Denon-related. I hope this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rhelliott2

garygarrison said:


> The review is interesting, but one comment, apparently by an engineer, is partially wrong, I believe.
> 
> _"BTW this is the XT32 version. The XT version only corrects room modes for subwoofer and over corrects high frequencies with narrow filters. I think the subwoofer filter resolution is lower too."
> _
> XT attempts to correct room modes as high as they go, *not* just in the subwoofer. And, while it does use narrow filters, and therefore provides a high frequency correction curve (as read from pre-outs) that is "hairy," the acoustical response in the room is not, and looks a lot like the response they got in this review, although flatter (at least in my room).
> 
> Speaking of the REW measured effect of Audyssey XT32, I don't see a mention of whether a single mic position was used during the REW post measurement, or multiple positions, imitating the 8 Audyssey positions, or, at least, for solo listening, imitating a single persons right ear, left ear, and nose position. REW provides a convenient button to average the curves.


All great points.


----------



## wxchaser

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think considering the many issues with audio/HT, it might have been Crime and Punishment.
> 
> It has been a few years, but it seems to me that I had problems one time with getting my Marantz AVR to recognize more than one subwoofer during my Audyssey calibration. I had to go back into both the Amp Assign Menu and the Speaker Configuration Menu a couple of times to get it to work.
> 
> If that doesn't work, I would post on the appropriate Denon AVR thread. An AVS member, who also works in the AVS store, named @*jdsmoothie* will be able to help you with anything Denon-related. I hope this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks again for the tips Mike, will check them out.


----------



## tonybradley

I have two questions I was hoping someone could answer:

1- I've ran Audyssey a few times on my Denon X3400H and afterwards, my Subwoofer levels were always set to -12dB, the lowest it can go. I was re-running Audyssey last night after I moved one of my Subs to a new location. After the first position measurement, the remaining 7 were very faint during the Sub test tones. When starting Audyssey, it checks Subwoofer Volume, and I turned the Master Volume of the Subs down to where they were in the Green....fluctuated from 73 and 77dB. However, after everything was ran, my Subwoofers were both set to -12dB. They were very faint. Is there a trick to this, or does it sound like I may have a problem with my Receiver or possibly the mic? I've never ran Audyssey and received anything different than -12dB on both Subwoofer Levels.

2- I placed my old Analog Radio Shack SPL meter on my Mic stand and placed it at the MLP. I checked all the levels that Audyssey set. Based on my Meter, C Weighting and Slow Response, all levels were exact, and around 74dB when I had my Master Volume set to 0dB on receiver. However, both Subs were extremely low. I had to turn up the levels to -2.5 and -3dB. Question is......Can I go by the SPL Meter when setting my Subwoofer Level..is it as accurate for the Sub on a Test Tone as it is the other speakers?


----------



## mthomas47

tonybradley said:


> I have two questions I was hoping someone could answer:
> 
> 1- I've ran Audyssey a few times on my Denon X3400H and afterwards, my Subwoofer levels were always set to -12dB, the lowest it can go. I was re-running Audyssey last night after I moved one of my Subs to a new location. After the first position measurement, the remaining 7 were very faint during the Sub test tones. When starting Audyssey, it checks Subwoofer Volume, and I turned the Master Volume of the Subs down to where they were in the Green....fluctuated from 73 and 77dB. However, after everything was ran, my Subwoofers were both set to -12dB. They were very faint. Is there a trick to this, or does it sound like I may have a problem with my Receiver or possibly the mic? I've never ran Audyssey and received anything different than -12dB on both Subwoofer Levels.
> 
> 2- I placed my old Analog Radio Shack SPL meter on my Mic stand and placed it at the MLP. I checked all the levels that Audyssey set. Based on my Meter, C Weighting and Slow Response, all levels were exact, and around 74dB when I had my Master Volume set to 0dB on receiver. However, both Subs were extremely low. I had to turn up the levels to -2.5 and -3dB. Question is......Can I go by the SPL Meter when setting my Subwoofer Level..is it as accurate for the Sub on a Test Tone as it is the other speakers?



Hi Tony,

I'll take the second question first. Uncalibrated SPL meters are not accurate for low-frequencies. There could be a variance of 8-10dB between the readings for higher frequencies and for those in the 30Hz to 80Hz range of the Denon's internal subwoofer test tones. When functioning properly, Audyssey is very accurate in setting volume levels for all of the speakers, including the subwoofers.

As for your first question, it sounds to me as if Audyssey is functioning properly. You moved one of your subwoofers and got what sounded like somewhat different results, when Audyssey played its test tones through both subwoofers simultaneously, and when it measured the results. But, you would expect slightly different results when you move a subwoofer, because it will interact with the room differently (and perhaps with the other sub as well) at its new location. They may be better interactions, or they may be worse, but they will almost certainly be different than they were before. 

It is somewhat important that you not have sub trim levels of -12 after a calibration. That's as low as the trim levels can go, so your real numbers might be -14, or -16, or even lower, if your Denon could show those numbers. You don't want to go below about -11, and -11.5 is the lowest trim number you should try to hit.

Just turn-up the sub gains a little to allow the subwoofers to go slightly into the red, during the level-matching process. That is a well-established procedure and won't hurt anything at all. The green target range is just an observation, not a recommendation. If you want to, you can check your results after three mic positions, and you don't even have to move your mic. Once you hit your target trim levels of about -10 or -11, you can do a full 8-point calibration.

After calibration, start by turning-up your AVR trim levels to about -5, if you want more bass. Adjustments beyond about -5, should be made with the subwoofer gains themselves. Turn them up a little, if you need more bass, just as you did during level-matching to get the lower trim levels you were shooting for. During calibration, you are using the subwoofer gain to get most of your voltage, and after calibration, you also want to be using subwoofer gain once you go above about -5. 

If you want to understand why it is advisable to follow this process, you will find detailed explanations for this in the Guide, linked below. You will also find much other information that you may find useful. It's a long read, but you can pick the parts you are interested in at a particular time. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tonybradley

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> I'll take the second question first. Uncalibrated SPL meters are not accurate for low-frequencies. There could be a variance of 8-10dB between the readings for higher frequencies and for those in the 30Hz to 80Hz range of the Denon's internal subwoofer test tones. When functioning properly, Audyssey is very accurate in setting volume levels for all of the speakers, including the subwoofers.
> 
> As for your first question, it sounds to me as if Audyssey is functioning properly. You moved one of your subwoofers and got what sounded like somewhat different results, when Audyssey played its test tones through both subwoofers simultaneously, and when it measured the results. But, you would expect slightly different results when you move a subwoofer, because it will interact with the room differently (and perhaps with the other sub as well) at its new location. They may be better interactions, or they may be worse, but they will almost certainly be different than they were before.
> 
> It is somewhat important that you not have sub trim levels of -12 after a calibration. That's as low as the trim levels can go, so your real numbers might be -14, or -16, or even lower, if your Denon could show those numbers. You don't want to go below about -11, and -11.5 is the lowest trim number you should try to hit.
> 
> Just turn-up the sub gains a little to allow the subwoofers to go slightly into the red, during the level-matching process. That is a well-established procedure and won't hurt anything at all. The green target range is just an observation, not a recommendation. If you want to, you can check your results after three mic positions, and you don't even have to move your mic. Once you hit your target trim levels of about -10 or -11, you can do a full 8-point calibration.
> 
> After calibration, start by turning-up your AVR trim levels to about -5, if you want more bass. Adjustments beyond about -5, should be made with the subwoofer gains themselves. Turn them up a little, if you need more bass, just as you did during level-matching to get the lower trim levels you were shooting for. During calibration, you are using the subwoofer gain to get most of your voltage, and after calibration, you also want to be using subwoofer gain once you go above about -5.
> 
> If you want to understand why it is advisable to follow this process, you will find detailed explanations for this in the Guide, linked below. You will also find much other information that you may find useful. It's a long read, but you can pick the parts you are interested in at a particular time.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Thanks Mike. The complete issue here is that the Subwoofer Levels have always shown -12dB after running Audyssey regardless of Sub placement. In the past, I followed Subwoofer101's (from Youtube) recommendation to set the Master Volume of the Subs to about 83dB (in the Red) prior to running the calibration to have the levels far from 0 as you can introduce clipping in the positives. I've done that, I've set it in the Green, multiple sub placements.....and my Sub Levels never change from -12dB for both Subs. What you said above is my concern........given they are -12dB, you really don't know what they are.....are they -13, -16, etc. Then it is unclear how much you are boosting your Sub Level if you increase it, to say -5db.

Because no matter what I've done, the Subwoofer Levels have always been -12dB, I'm wondering if there is an issue with the mic or my receiver.


----------



## mthomas47

tonybradley said:


> Thanks Mike. The complete issue here is that the Subwoofer Levels have always shown -12dB after running Audyssey regardless of Sub placement. In the past, I followed Subwoofer101's (from Youtube) recommendation to set the Master Volume of the Subs to about 83dB (in the Red) prior to running the calibration to have the levels far from 0 as you can introduce clipping in the positives. I've done that, I've set it in the Green, multiple sub placements.....and my Sub Levels never change from -12dB for both Subs. What you said above is my concern........given they are -12dB, you really don't know what they are.....are they -13, -16, etc. Then it is unclear how much you are boosting your Sub Level if you increase it, to say -5db.
> 
> Because no matter what I've done, the Subwoofer Levels have always been -12dB, I'm wondering if there is an issue with the mic or my receiver.



You are very welcome! If that is the case, then yes, I would say that there is an issue with either your mic or your AVR. If I were guessing, I would guess that it's your mic. But, the first thing I would try is a microprocessor reset (owner's manual), just because that would be easy to try. If that doesn't work, then I would obtain a replacement mic from Denon, or from Amazon. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbz06

tonybradley said:


> I have two questions I was hoping someone could answer:
> 
> 1- I've ran Audyssey a few times on my Denon X3400H and afterwards, my Subwoofer levels were always set to -12dB, the lowest it can go. I was re-running Audyssey last night after I moved one of my Subs to a new location. After the first position measurement, the remaining 7 were very faint during the Sub test tones. When starting Audyssey, it checks Subwoofer Volume, and I turned the Master Volume of the Subs down to where they were in the Green....fluctuated from 73 and 77dB. However, after everything was ran, my Subwoofers were both set to -12dB. They were very faint. Is there a trick to this, or does it sound like I may have a problem with my Receiver or possibly the mic? I've never ran Audyssey and received anything different than -12dB on both Subwoofer Levels.
> 
> 2- I placed my old Analog Radio Shack SPL meter on my Mic stand and placed it at the MLP. I checked all the levels that Audyssey set. Based on my Meter, C Weighting and Slow Response, all levels were exact, and around 74dB when I had my Master Volume set to 0dB on receiver. However, both Subs were extremely low. I had to turn up the levels to -2.5 and -3dB. Question is......Can I go by the SPL Meter when setting my Subwoofer Level..is it as accurate for the Sub on a Test Tone as it is the other speakers?


Just for troubleshooting purposes, have you tried lowering the knob of your subwoofer(s) even lower? So when the Audyssey screen shows the fluctuating numbers, have it straddle more like 70-73 instead of 73-77. Just to see if it makes a difference still. It shouldn't be pushing -12 since you are doing it correctly, but at least you can eliminate more things and narrow in an issue with the mic or whatnot.

One more...when I had a faulty cable and when I was at that screen in Audyssey to level match SW trim, when I tapped on the cable or jiggled it a little bit it would have changes in the sound volume.I don't know if it really was the cable or some kind of interference, but I ended up buying SVS subwoofer cables and was more careful in placing them not entangled...and it solved that issue.

Just thing(s) to try.


----------



## dcrandon

*Should I use SubEQ HT for very large floor standing speakers that are truly biamped?*

First, awesome thread. As are most of the FAQ's about the latest TV's and AVR's.

When Audyssey first came out, I tried to get all the background info about it, but it was very difficult...until this thread. I spent years trying to EQ my listening position with my SPL meter and test records, and I could get things to sound pretty good, as long as I didn't move my head more than 2 inches.

My Question is about using SubEQ HT if I decided to Bi-amp my front speakers.

Background: I don't have a subwoofer. I do however, have floor-standing speakers (VMPS Super Towers) which have a -3Db point at 20Hz, at 106dB SPL with 1% THD. The have a sensitivity of 98dB/1m/1watt. Bass complement is a 15" passive radiator, 15" dynamic cone driver, 12" dynamic cone driver.

So, they can play pretty low and pretty loud.

I am considering doing a true bi-amp configuration since the speakers allow this. They have a separate input for the woofers and another for the midrange and tweeters with a toggle to either run the crossovers normally or split the woofers from the midrange and tweeters.

The purpose would be to increase the available power output. I have a Denon 4311ci with I will upgrade soon to an AVR-4500 or 6500, both of which are in the same power range as the 4311ci. I am thinking of a used Carver M1.0t or something similar with at least 200 watts/ch RMS. The Carver would be used for the bass section of my front speakers, and the Denon to power the mids/tweeters of the front speakers and all the other speakers.

If I decide to do this should I use the usual Audyssey calibration where my front speakers are always registered as Large, or should I treat the bass section of the VMPS Super Tower as subs and use the SubEQ HT part of the calibration.

Comments and suggestions, please?

Thank you.

PS. If there is a better place for this question, please tell me.


----------



## NamesLucky

I have been reading this thread for hours and hours, lots of GREAT information in here. One thing I can't wrap my head around has to do with amp headroom and audyssey's EQ. 

I did some testing with just my Denon x3200w (which only has Audyssey XT) powering my mains during 2 channel listening with music at very highest end of what I would want (95-100db measured with REW and UMIK microphone) and I would get some audible distortion from my left main without a dedicated amp. My mains are Martin Logan 40s, with sensitivities of 92db/1w but are rated at 4ohm and thus are truly only 89db/1w. At my seating position of 10-12ft it should only take ~42w to reach 100db (per myhometheater calculator). If the recently tested x3600h amp rated at 105w by denon is similar to the older x3200w I should have 170+W available at 4ohm. Bypassing Audyssey EQ produces no distortion at similar levels. This lead me to look into the boost audyssey was applying, which for large swaths of the frequency curve is +10db (more on this later). Does this mean that the speaker, to try to reach an EQed frequency response at my listening position, is being asked to produce 105-110db? This, plus the +1.5db (R) and +3db (L) level matches would likely put me in the 108-113db range for the L speaker (the only one I heard distortion on). This would easily require power of 300+ watts if I'm understanding this correctly. Is this a correct train of thought?

This got me started down the rabbit hole of room correction, audyssey XT vs XT32, dual sub EQ (and thus the eventual purchase of a newer Denon x3500h) and seating/speaker positioning. In the process of trying to reduce the large swaths of +10db corrections my audyssey microphone died during my 5th or 6th re-position so testing anything currently isn't doable until the new Denon comes next weekend. 

I am asking this question because I am trying to determine if my Denon internal amp can handle my center channel solely for movie purposes, I have a dedicated 2 channel amp for my L and R. My center is a 50XT rated at 94db/w or 91db/w at 4ohm. The extra 2 db of sensitivity will help but I could still see getting into a situation where IF I cannot reduce the Audyssey EQ peaks below +10db I would still need something like 95db (Reference-10db for my listening level) + 10db EQ + 1-3db trim adjustment (dialog boost and leveling) to be 106-108db from the center channel. This is on the edge of the capabilities of the receiver. If the center channel for blurays rarely reaches max dynamic range I may be fine, but this isn't something I know much about. I guess I could test multiple movies, but that isn't a quick process, and thought I would ask here if I'm even on the right thought process.


----------



## pbarach

tonybradley said:


> 2- I placed my old Analog Radio Shack SPL meter on my Mic stand and placed it at the MLP. I checked all the levels that Audyssey set. Based on my Meter, C Weighting and Slow Response, all levels were exact, and around 74dB when I had my Master Volume set to 0dB on receiver. However, both Subs were extremely low. I had to turn up the levels to -2.5 and -3dB. Question is......Can I go by the SPL Meter when setting my Subwoofer Level..is it as accurate for the Sub on a Test Tone as it is the other speakers?


Just to add to Mike's response, I have the same Radio Shack meter. Years ago, I won a system setup CD from Rives Audio in an online giveaway. There were tones at various frequencies to measure the speakers and also to determine where to set the crossover for a sub. Because the Radio Shack meters were ubiquitous and know to be inaccurate at low frequencies, there is a separate set of low frequencies designed for measurement by the RS meter. An interesting idea, but it assumes that all of those meters have mics calibrated the same way.


----------



## mthomas47

NamesLucky said:


> I have been reading this thread for hours and hours, lots of GREAT information in here. One thing I can't wrap my head around has to do with amp headroom and audyssey's EQ.
> 
> I did some testing with just my Denon x3200w (which only has Audyssey XT) powering my mains during 2 channel listening with music at very highest end of what I would want (95-100db measured with REW and UMIK microphone) and I would get some audible distortion from my left main without a dedicated amp. My mains are Martin Logan 40s, with sensitivities of 92db/1w but are rated at 4ohm and thus are truly only 89db/1w. At my seating position of 10-12ft it should only take ~42w to reach 100db (per myhometheater calculator). If the recently tested x3600h amp rated at 105w by denon is similar to the older x3200w I should have 170+W available at 4ohm. Bypassing Audyssey EQ produces no distortion at similar levels. This lead me to look into the boost audyssey was applying, which for large swaths of the frequency curve is +10db (more on this later). Does this mean that the speaker, to try to reach an EQed frequency response at my listening position, is being asked to produce 105-110db? This, plus the +1.5db (R) and +3db (L) level matches would likely put me in the 108-113db range for the L speaker (the only one I heard distortion on). This would easily require power of 300+ watts if I'm understanding this correctly. Is this a correct train of thought?
> 
> This got me started down the rabbit hole of room correction, audyssey XT vs XT32, dual sub EQ (and thus the eventual purchase of a newer Denon x3500h) and seating/speaker positioning. In the process of trying to reduce the large swaths of +10db corrections my audyssey microphone died during my 5th or 6th re-position so testing anything currently isn't doable until the new Denon comes next weekend.
> 
> I am asking this question because I am trying to determine if my Denon internal amp can handle my center channel solely for movie purposes, I have a dedicated 2 channel amp for my L and R. My center is a 50XT rated at 94db/w or 91db/w at 4ohm. The extra 2 db of sensitivity will help but I could still see getting into a situation where IF I cannot reduce the Audyssey EQ peaks below +10db I would still need something like 95db (Reference-10db for my listening level) + 10db EQ + 1-3db trim adjustment (dialog boost and leveling) to be 106-108db from the center channel. This is on the edge of the capabilities of the receiver. If the center channel for blurays rarely reaches max dynamic range I may be fine, but this isn't something I know much about. I guess I could test multiple movies, but that isn't a quick process, and thought I would ask here if I'm even on the right thought process.



Hi,

I'm not sure how helpful I can be here, but I will give it a try. There is nothing wrong with your thought process, in my opinion. But, you just can't turn this into a purely mathematical exercise. To start with, you really can't rely on manufacturer's specifications to tell you what will actually happen in your room. You haven't mentioned whether or not you have a subwoofer. If you don't, then you are trying to run your speakers as "Large" and they are having to play whatever low-frequencies your music requires them to play. Even if they are truly 89dB efficient at 1,000Hz, are they still 89dB efficient at 100Hz, or at 50Hz? I think we both know the answer to that question.

Without seeing your pre and post-Audyssey frequency responses, it is hard to know what Audyssey is actually doing. But, my guess is that it is having to boost some bass frequencies in order to maintain a somewhat even frequency response. It certainly shouldn't be making some frequencies play +10dB louder than other frequencies, if it is operating properly. If that is happening, then Audyssey isn't operating properly. 

I think that ultimately, there just has to be some trial-and-error involved in determining whether your amp will properly power your 50XT center channel. You are at least in a position to measure your frequency response, so that's a plus. I suspect that you may have even more problems with the center channel, at higher volume levels, because of the small cabinet size. The smaller cabinet won't allow that speaker to play quite as low as the larger towers can. That speaker really needs about an 80Hz or higher crossover.

If you have a subwoofer, I would use it with the front speakers to offload some bass, for 2-channel music listening. Again, an 80Hz or so crossover would be desirable. If you don't have a subwoofer, 5.1 movies are going to be even more challenging for your speakers, because the front speakers are also going to have to play the LFE channel which is recorded +10dB louder than the regular channels. 

Martin Logan speakers are not known for being terribly efficient, and those dual 6.5" woofers, in your front speakers, may not be able to handle the bass frequencies you want them to play, at the volumes you want them to play. I could be wrong, but I imagine that the lower frequencies may be what are causing the audible distortion from your left speaker. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## tonybradley

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! If that is the case, then yes, I would say that there is an issue with either your mic or your AVR. If I were guessing, I would guess that it's your mic. But, the first thing I would try is a microprocessor reset (owner's manual), just because that would be easy to try. If that doesn't work, then I would obtain a replacement mic from Denon, or from Amazon.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


What about the Dayton Audio UMM-6 Microphone used with REW with a Calibration File.... If using the SPL Meter in REW for the Sub, would that be accurate enough to set the proper Sub Level after Audyssey has run.....or do you still suggest re-running Audyssey and possible Mircroprocessor reset if nothing else equates to a higher than -12dB from Audyssey?



pbz06 said:


> Just for troubleshooting purposes, have you tried lowering the knob of your subwoofer(s) even lower? So when the Audyssey screen shows the fluctuating numbers, have it straddle more like 70-73 instead of 73-77. Just to see if it makes a difference still. It shouldn't be pushing -12 since you are doing it correctly, but at least you can eliminate more things and narrow in an issue with the mic or whatnot.
> 
> One more...when I had a faulty cable and when I was at that screen in Audyssey to level match SW trim, when I tapped on the cable or jiggled it a little bit it would have changes in the sound volume.I don't know if it really was the cable or some kind of interference, but I ended up buying SVS subwoofer cables and was more careful in placing them not entangled...and it solved that issue.
> 
> Just thing(s) to try.


I have not tried going Lower on the master volume, but will give that a try. 75dB is the lowest I've set it at with Audyssey. Since I can just take measurement 1 and calculate, then I can determine quickly if it will work. Regarding the Cables, good idea, but thinking that is not the issue as I've used multiple cables as I've moved Subs around and re-ran Audyssey......and it's never not set my Sub Levels higher than -12dB. 



pbarach said:


> Just to add to Mike's response, I have the same Radio Shack meter. Years ago, I won a system setup CD from Rives Audio in an online giveaway. There were tones at various frequencies to measure the speakers and also to determine where to set the crossover for a sub. Because the Radio Shack meters were ubiquitous and know to be inaccurate at low frequencies, there is a separate set of low frequencies designed for measurement by the RS meter. An interesting idea, but it assumes that all of those meters have mics calibrated the same way.


I received my SPL meter with my first SVS Sub MANY years ago. I found an Excel File with adjustments for the RS SPL meter for the low frequencies. No idea if it was accurate. I had a CD with different frequencies from like 10Hz up to 100Hz. I would play each one and enter the SPL reading into the SS. I used that years ago to determine the best spot to place the Sub. I use REW now. Much easier and more accurate.


----------



## mthomas47

tonybradley said:


> What about the Dayton Audio UMM-6 Microphone used with REW with a Calibration File.... If using the SPL Meter in REW for the Sub, would that be accurate enough to set the proper Sub Level after Audyssey has run.....or do you still suggest re-running Audyssey and possible Mircroprocessor reset if nothing else equates to a higher than -12dB from Audyssey?



I think that the workaround you are suggesting would be fine! The suggestions I made were to fix the ongoing issue. But, I don't see anything at all wrong with measuring your post-calibration subwoofer SPL's to determine what the levels really are. 

You are probably going to just be adding subwoofer boost until the bass sounds right anyway, so knowing exactly what your trim levels should have been, if they hadn't maxed-out at -12, is not critically important in my opinion. 

The main reason I would want to know what my actual trim levels are is to have a better idea if I have them correctly level-matched. The second reason would be to know how much actual trim room I had if I were going up to about -5. And, you will be able to tell both of those things when you measure your actual volume with your UMM-6.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## NamesLucky

mthomas47 said:


> [
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not sure how helpful I can be here, but I will give it a try. There is nothing wrong with your thought process, in my opinion. But, you just can't turn this into a purely mathematical exercise. To start with, you really can't rely on manufacturer's specifications to tell you what will actually happen in your room. You haven't mentioned whether or not you have a subwoofer. If you don't, then you are trying to run your speakers as "Large" and they are having to play whatever low-frequencies your music requires them to play. Even if they are truly 89dB efficient at 1,000Hz, are they still 89dB efficient at 100Hz, or at 50Hz? I think we both know the answer to that question.
> 
> Without seeing your pre and post-Audyssey frequency responses, it is hard to know what Audyssey is actually doing. But, my guess is that it is having to boost some bass frequencies in order to maintain a somewhat even frequency response. It certainly shouldn't be making some frequencies play +10dB louder than other frequencies, if it is operating properly. If that is happening, then Audyssey isn't operating properly.
> 
> I think that ultimately, there just has to be some trial-and-error involved in determining whether your amp will properly power your 50XT center channel. You are at least in a position to measure your frequency response, so that's a plus. I suspect that you may have even more problems with the center channel, at higher volume levels, because of the small cabinet size. The smaller cabinet won't allow that speaker to play quite as low as the larger towers can. That speaker really needs about an 80Hz or higher crossover.
> 
> If you have a subwoofer, I would use it with the front speakers to offload some bass, for 2-channel music listening. Again, an 80Hz or so crossover would be desirable. If you don't have a subwoofer, 5.1 movies are going to be even more challenging for your speakers, because the front speakers are also going to have to play the LFE channel which is recorded +10dB louder than the regular channels.
> 
> Martin Logan speakers are not known for being terribly efficient, and those dual 6.5" woofers, in your front speakers, may not be able to handle the bass frequencies you want them to play, at the volumes you want them to play. I could be wrong, but I imagine that the lower frequencies may be what are causing the audible distortion from your left speaker.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Mike, thanks for the response! I do have dual 18in subwoofers and had my crossover set at 80hz. So fortunately none of my speakers have to handle low frequency and all are set to small. The calibration attempt that happened either as or right before the microphone died resulted in a 250hz crossover point for all speakers, (where they usually are 60 to 80 for lcr and 100 for rears) so I knew something was wrong with that one. My tests with the internal amp on the denon and the fronts were run at 80hz crossover. I'll have to get some before and after graphs when my new receiver arrives. I've moved the speakers too many times after my last audyssey calibration to get an apples to apples comparison (since my microphone is now dead and reports no speaker heard or something like that). I appreciate your feedback!


----------



## rosstg

Last night the wife was watching a Star is Born on UHD. I started watching a bit with her and it sounded off. She kept having to turn up the volume so she could hear dialogue. She was listening low at -25 MV. The musical bits sounds ok but dialogue but the rest sounded off. I had it setup full range with DEQ ON, MRC off.

We both decided to do some tests and stop fussing lol. She sat in the sweet spot. We chose 5 or 7 scenes that we listen to with different settings. We chose dialogue scenes then switched to scenes with music.

1st test I limited FR to 300hz, DEQ on. 

2nd test FR limited to 300hz DEQ off with a house curve. 80hz at 5dB. Subs 5dB at 20hz/50hz/80hz. Subs 5dB hot.

3rd test Pure Direct.

4th test Full range DEQ on - Flat curve.

Volume was set at -25dB. 

When I switched from full range (which was what we have been listening to for about a week) to the 1st setting with FR limited to 300hz DEQ on she immediately said it sounded better. We both agreed dialogue sounded more realistic with far more detail especially in Sam Elliots voice. It sounded muddy Full Range. It sounded dry. Music sounded ok but a little reserved. Limited to 300hz everything sounded better. You could hear background noises more clearly. Bass notes blended better. We felt like we were in the crowd. Height channels had more clarity. Instruments sounded realistic. Less processed. The crowds sounded far more realistic. We never felt like we had to fuss with the volume. 

Switching to #2 limited with a house curve and DEQ off, we both liked more than FR Reference 1. But the bass lacked that realism. It sounded like music took the sidelines. It just didn’t have the impact as option 1. Everything sounded smaller including dialogue. It sounded great but little impact. Not surprising since DEQ and we were listening at a low volume.

Option 3 lasted about 1 minute. It sounded bland and lifeless.

Option 4 with the flat curve sounded odd. Voices sounded processed, it sounded harsh and lacked character. 

Switched back to frequencies limited to 300hz, DEQ on. She felt everything was brought back to life. Musical scenes sounded so much better. Dialogue had this realistic presence that the other options didn’t have.

At the end of the night it was abundantly clear what settings sounded best in our room. There really was no contest. I’m still going to rerun XT32 this weekend with a much tighter mic placement. No more than 1ft apart.


----------



## bigzee3

rosstg said:


> Last night the wife was watching a Star is Born on UHD. I started watching a bit with her and it sounded off. She kept having to turn up the volume so she could hear dialogue. She was listening low at -25 MV. The musical bits sounds ok but dialogue but the rest sounded off. I had it setup full range with DEQ ON, MRC off.
> 
> We both decided to do some tests and stop fussing lol. She sat in the sweet spot. We chose 5 or 7 scenes that we listen to with different settings. We chose dialogue scenes then switched to scenes with music.
> 
> 1st test I limited FR to 300hz, DEQ on.
> 
> 2nd test FR limited to 300hz DEQ off with a house curve. 80hz at 5dB. Subs 5dB at 20hz/50hz/80hz. Subs 5dB hot.
> 
> 3rd test Pure Direct.
> 
> 4th test Full range DEQ on - Flat curve.
> 
> Volume was set at -25dB.
> 
> When I switched from full range (which was what we have been listening to for about a week) to the 1st setting with FR limited to 300hz DEQ on she immediately said it sounded better. We both agreed dialogue sounded more realistic with far more detail especially in Sam Elliots voice. It sounded muddy Full Range. It sounded dry. Music sounded ok but a little reserved. Limited to 300hz everything sounded better. You could hear background noises more clearly. Bass notes blended better. We felt like we were in the crowd. Height channels had more clarity. Instruments sounded realistic. Less processed. The crowds sounded far more realistic. We never felt like we had to fuss with the volume.
> 
> Switching to #2 limited with a house curve and DEQ off, we both liked more than FR Reference 1. But the bass lacked that realism. It sounded like music took the sidelines. It just didnâ€™️t have the impact as option 1. Everything sounded smaller including dialogue. It sounded great but little impact. Not surprising since DEQ and we were listening at a low volume.
> 
> Option 3 lasted about 1 minute. It sounded bland and lifeless.
> 
> Option 4 with the flat curve sounded odd. Voices sounded processed, it sounded harsh and lacked character.
> 
> Switched back to frequencies limited to 300hz, DEQ on. She felt everything was brought back to life. Musical scenes sounded so much better. Dialogue had this realistic presence that the other options didnâ€™️t have.
> 
> At the end of the night it was abundantly clear what settings sounded best in our room. There really was no contest. Iâ€™️m still going to rerun XT32 this weekend with a much tighter mic placement. No more than 1ft apart.


Hi,

You would probably need at least a +10 dB boost with DEQ off to mimic what it was doing with DEQ on. I usually do a +6-8 dB boost and listen at -15 usually.


----------



## rosstg

bigzee3 said:


> Hi,
> 
> You would probably need at least a +10 dB boost with DEQ off to mimic what it was doing with DEQ on. I usually do a +6-8 dB boost and listen at -15 usually.


Yeah I’ve tried increasing 3-10dB. I’ve tried a house curve etc. It doesn’t sound as balanced. DEQ just works in my room.


----------



## tonybradley

mthomas47 said:


> I think that the workaround you are suggesting would be fine! The suggestions I made were to fix the ongoing issue. But, I don't see anything at all wrong with measuring your post-calibration subwoofer SPL's to determine what the levels really are.
> 
> You are probably going to just be adding subwoofer boost until the bass sounds right anyway, so knowing exactly what your trim levels should have been, if they hadn't maxed-out at -12, is not critically important in my opinion.
> 
> The main reason I would want to know what my actual trim levels are is to have a better idea if I have them correctly level-matched. The second reason would be to know how much actual trim room I had if I were going up to about -5. And, you will be able to tell both of those things when you measure your actual volume with your UMM-6.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I was reading over the FAQ on this thread (actually, I read over it a couple of years ago, but it appears I didn't remember much) and one thing was to set your Sub to Auto On to make sure it was "Awake" for the Calibration. Not sure if that is an issue with my trims always being set to -12, but something I'll try. Interestingly, I talked to a friend who just purchased a Marantz and he said his Sub Trim was also set to -12dB.

Question...on the FAQ, there is a recommendation to NOT use the Dual Sub output when the receiver has two independent Sub outputs, but to use a Y Adapter to only ONE output so the EQ treats the two subs as ONE Sub in your room. AVRant on Youtube also suggests this. I had thought about trying this, but thought what I heard on AVRant was not the norm, until I read the FAQ.

Is this really the thought.....not to use the two independent Sub Outputs on the Receiver, but use a Y Adapter so both Subs are EQ'd as one?


----------



## pbz06

tonybradley said:


> I was reading over the FAQ on this thread (actually, I read over it a couple of years ago, but it appears I didn't remember much) and one thing was to set your Sub to Auto On to make sure it was "Awake" for the Calibration. Not sure if that is an issue with my trims always being set to -12, but something I'll try.  Interestingly, I talked to a friend who just purchased a Marantz and he said his Sub Trim was also set to -12dB.
> 
> Question...on the FAQ, there is a recommendation to NOT use the Dual Sub output when the receiver has two independent Sub outputs, but to use a Y Adapter to only ONE output so the EQ treats the two subs as ONE Sub in your room. AVRant on Youtube also suggests this. I had thought about trying this, but thought what I heard on AVRant was not the norm, until I read the FAQ.
> 
> Is this really the thought.....not to use the two independent Sub Outputs on the Receiver, but use a Y Adapter so both Subs are EQ'd as one?


I've been using the 2 outputs separately, and no issues. I don't really understand that recommendation and the benefits.


----------



## tonybradley

pbz06 said:


> I've been using the 2 outputs separately, and no issues. I don't really understand that recommendation and the benefits.


Rob on AVRant talks about it quite a bit. He's not in favor of two independent subwoofer outputs. The belief is that you want your receiver to see your Multiple Subs as "One Large Sub" and EQ according to that. So no separate time alignments, etc. 

Here is their article: http://www.avrant.com/a-12-step-guide-to-setting-up-dual-subwoofers/

AVRant is the only place I've heard it mentioned, and I believe Rob stated that it's a recommendation by the Harmon Kardon Labs. 

And it appears I misread the FAQ as the information to use the Y Adapter is for non Multi EQ XT32 Receivers. 

But still curious if anyone sees a benefit of the method from AVRant, which is ultimately from HK Labs.


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> I've been using the 2 outputs separately, and no issues. I don't really understand that recommendation and the benefits.



Hi,

It's something that Mark Seaton and some others often recommend trying, when two identical subs are on the same wall, and equidistant from the MLP. In some cases, there is less potential phase cancellation when the two subs are Y-connected into a single sub out. I don't think I could quantify how often it works better than separate sub outs: maybe 50/50 or 60/40 in favor of the Y-connector? But, the right conditions have to be met to start with, and even then, it's still a matter of trial-and-error.

If the subs are on opposing walls, or not equidistant from the MLP, I think it would almost always be better to use the separate sub outs. Like almost everything involving subwoofer/room/EQ interactions, there is a YMMV component to recommendations like that one. People with REW can certainly try it both ways to determine what works better in their specific circumstances.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbz06

tonybradley said:


> Rob on AVRant talks about it quite a bit. He's not in favor of two independent subwoofer outputs. The belief is that you want your receiver to see your Multiple Subs as "One Large Sub" and EQ according to that. So no separate time alignments, etc.
> 
> Here is their article: http://www.avrant.com/a-12-step-guide-to-setting-up-dual-subwoofers/
> 
> AVRant is the only place I've heard it mentioned, and I believe Rob stated that it's a recommendation by the Harmon Kardon Labs.
> 
> And it appears I misread the FAQ as the information to use the Y Adapter is for non Multi EQ XT32 Receivers.
> 
> But still curious if anyone sees a benefit of the method from AVRant, which is ultimately from HK Labs.


Interesting, I'll check out the article. I do have XT32 FWIW, and I always thought the subEQ was for this purpose and treats it as "one sub".

Ah well, I'll be getting REW and Umik-1 at some point next so I'll know for sure


----------



## Polyrythm1k

pbz06 said:


> Interesting, I'll check out the article. I do have XT32 FWIW, and I always thought the subEQ was for this purpose and treats it as "one sub".
> 
> Ah well, I'll be getting REW and Umik-1 at some point next so I'll know for sure



AFAIK, xt32 sets the level/distance for each sub independently, but eq’s globally. As one big sub.


----------



## JD23

Here is a re-post of a post originally from the Multi-Eq thread:



Audyssey can be rather dim-witted at times. Two weeks ago, I measured the frequency response of the sub as essentially flat down to 20 Hz. With the sub in the same location, I had to recalibrate on Thursday because I purchased new surround speakers. This time, Audyssey seems to have misidentified the -3dB point of the sub, causing it to dramatically roll-off the response below 40 Hz and completely neuter the bass. Previously, I have noticed that minuscule adjustments in mic position and sub position result in Audyssey using radically different target curves for the sub. 

Thankfully, I was able to use the curve editor to mostly undo Audyssey's hack job below 40 Hz and result in a curve closer to the pre-Audyssey result. In the plot below, blue is without Audyssey, red is the original curve generated by Audyssey, and green is the Audyssey curve post-curve editor. Alternatively, I could tweak the microphone position until Audyssey decides to stop rolling off the sub, but that is rather time consuming.


----------



## Balbolito

A little thing i did today i would like to share with you guys, since i got a boom mic stand a couple of weeks ago for my UMIK-1 i decided to use it today instead of my trusty heavy duty tripod to run a new Audyssey calibration. In most guides it is already clearly mentioned that a boom mic stand is better but i thought isn't it just to hold the mic? both are doing the same thing, maybe different designs and such but the same thing!* i was wrong. *

I always do the usual. take a tight measurement all around/at the MLP only for all 8 positions , heavy blanket on my main leather HT sofa, all noise sources off..etc

This time a boom mic stand was introduced and it's honestly funny but i can see (in measurements after Audyssey using REW and also in the Audyssey app) and *HEAR* the difference! it's way better. if you are still deciding to buy a tripod (or maybe even have one) and don't have a boom mic stand do yourself a favor and get one, there are loads for brands and they inexpensive, well worth the money and you are going to end up using it for maybe not only Audyssey but also measurements for REW (with your UMIK-1/Dayton EMM-6) .



Stay safe


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, when i set my sub (SVS PB3000) to the SVS recommended *-10* dB level in the app, the sub will play to loud for the setup run.
(sub settings are all standard movie setting, no tweaks)

I need to dial back to *-27* to get Audyssey in the "Green".
But then during the run, the sub "beeps" are not very loud, I had much smaller subs beep much louder, I can just hear them.

Find this a bit strange, first playing to loud, then after changing the level to green and the run is done, the sub level is dialed up to *-1.0* dB in the speaker settings.

Is this a normal way from Audyssey to do this ?

Tried several times but all end up the same.

Is it a bad thing to keep the level at -10 and do a run in the "red" for the sub ?

Any "better" mics to buy instead of the Audyssey mic ?
I have a tripod camera stand I use for the mic.


----------



## tonybradley

CBdicX said:


> Hi, when i set my sub (SVS PB3000) to the SVS recommended *-10* dB level in the app, the sub will play to loud for the setup run.
> (sub settings are all standard movie setting, no tweaks)
> 
> I need to dial back to *-27* to get Audyssey in the "Green".
> But then during the run, the sub "beeps" are not very loud, I had much smaller subs beep much louder, I can just hear them.
> 
> Find this a bit strange, first playing to loud, then after changing the level to green and the run is done, the sub level is dialed up to *-1.0* dB in the speaker settings.
> 
> Is this a normal way from Audyssey to do this ?
> 
> Tried several times but all end up the same.
> 
> Is it a bad thing to keep the level at -10 and do a run in the "red" for the sub ?
> 
> Any "better" mics to buy instead of the Audyssey mic ?
> I have a tripod camera stand I use for the mic.


Regarding the Beeps not being very loud with the sub, that is normal. I also noticed that with mine. Reading over the FAQ last night. It mentioned that since lower frequencies aren't heard well by the ear (more felt), that is why you are hearing it sound so low.


----------



## tonybradley

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> It's something that Mark Seaton and some others often recommend trying, when two identical subs are on the same wall, and equidistant from the MLP. In some cases, there is less potential phase cancellation when the two subs are Y-connected into a single sub out. I don't think I could quantify how often it works better than separate sub outs: maybe 50/50 or 60/40 in favor of the Y-connector? But, the right conditions have to be met to start with, and even then, it's still a matter of trial-and-error.
> 
> If the subs are on opposing walls, or not equidistant from the MLP, I think it would almost always be better to use the separate sub outs. Like almost everything involving subwoofer/room/EQ interactions, there is a YMMV component to recommendations like that one. People with REW can certainly try it both ways to determine what works better in their specific circumstances.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I have two SVS Subs, but they are both different. Ed Mullens told me they would work well together when I opted to use Multi Subs in my HT. Previously, I had one up front (between the Left Speaker and Center) and the Cylinder on the right side wall. It sounded horrible. I recently learned that you can lay the Cylinder sub on its side and it doesn't change anything. So I moved the Cylinder Sub to the back wall, behind the second row of seating. 

One bad thing about the Quarantine is that everyone is always home. So I have to wait for everything to be in bed before I can go run Audyssey to be sure there isn't any stomps or popping in the Kitchen/Dining room above the HT


----------



## pbz06

Balbolito said:


> A little thing i did today i would like to share with you guys, since i got a boom mic stand a couple of weeks ago for my UMIK-1 i decided to use it today instead of my trusty heavy duty tripod to run a new Audyssey calibration. In most guides it is already clearly mentioned that a boom mic stand is better but i thought isn't it just to hold the mic? both are doing the same thing, maybe different designs and such but the same thing!* i was wrong. *
> 
> I always do the usual. take a tight measurement all around/at the MLP only for all 8 positions , heavy blanket on my main leather HT sofa, all noise sources off..etc
> 
> This time a boom mic stand was introduced and it's honestly funny but i can see (in measurements after Audyssey using REW and also in the Audyssey app) and *HEAR* the difference! it's way better. if you are still deciding to buy a tripod (or maybe even have one) and don't have a boom mic stand do yourself a favor and get one, there are loads for brands and they inexpensive, well worth the money and you are going to end up using it for maybe not only Audyssey but also measurements for REW (with your UMIK-1/Dayton EMM-6) .
> 
> 
> 
> Stay safe


Would this work?

https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Tripod-Boom-Microphone-Stand/dp/B019NY2PKG/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?dchild=1&keywords=boom+mic+stand&qid=1587771887&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUExRE40WjVFUDdVRDNGJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMzc1MTQ0MlRXTDAyTktZN0JNNSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNzM1MTUxUTRQNTRTQThFTUJaJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==


----------



## Balbolito

@pbz06 yes that would work. many have recommended it in the past. just double check the included adapter/s and make sure u can mount your Audyssey mic on it. if not you could buy that for a couple of $ additionaly. 

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## tonybradley

pbz06 said:


> Just for troubleshooting purposes, have you tried lowering the knob of your subwoofer(s) even lower? So when the Audyssey screen shows the fluctuating numbers, have it straddle more like 70-73 instead of 73-77. Just to see if it makes a difference still. It shouldn't be pushing -12 since you are doing it correctly, but at least you can eliminate more things and narrow in an issue with the mic or whatnot.
> 
> One more...when I had a faulty cable and when I was at that screen in Audyssey to level match SW trim, when I tapped on the cable or jiggled it a little bit it would have changes in the sound volume.I don't know if it really was the cable or some kind of interference, but I ended up buying SVS subwoofer cables and was more careful in placing them not entangled...and it solved that issue.
> 
> Just thing(s) to try.


I've tried several more things, and my Subs are always -12. So last night, I tried turning my Master Volumes down on my subs until Audyssey read around 70-73dB on both as you suggested. What's interesting is it says to start with your Subs at the Midway position. To get down to 70-73dB, my Subs are a quarter of the way up. After Calibration, Audyssey set the Trim Level of one Sub to be -9 and the other to be -8.5. Still nowhere near the -3.5dB suggested on the FAQ. This is the first time I've not seen -12 for both Subwoofers after Calibration though.

I left it as/is and watched some scenes from some movies. I was quite underwhelmed. I kept turning up the Trim, and still underwhelmed. I'm now at -3dB on my Trim (started around -9) and I'm still underwhelmed. My entire system sounds brighter than it ever has with Audyssey, which is not my preference. 

Knowing that it finally set my Trims to above -12dB, but everything is underwhelming, does this sound more like a bad mic compared to needing to reset the microprocessor?


----------



## tonybradley

Another Question regarding multi Subs.

Before I ran Audyssey, I moved my Subs around and ran REW to find the best placement. I did find that the Sub on my Back wall needed to have the Phase set to 180 degrees while the one on the front wall was 0 for the best curve.

Should I leave my second sub set on 180 for the Audyssey Calibration, or should I set both Phases to 0 and allow Audyssey to perform any Phase corrections internally with the calibration?


----------



## Balbolito

@tonybradley if i were you i would lower the sub vol/gain even more and once Audyssey starts running i would make sure that the level indicator would be a little bit above the green recommended area (lets say 1/4 of the red area above the green area) in this case you should get a sub trim level about -3 to -6 after Audssey is completed. which is the ideal range as it has been discussed numerous times and mentioned in all the guides. Then you can always increase the vol of your subs in the AVR after that as per your preference. 


Do you have the Audyssey Multeq app? or a miniDSP? if you do then i would recommend applying a house curve after Audyssey for your sub/s. then with a little higher sub level trim think you will like it.


----------



## rosstg

Reran Audyssey this morning while everyone was still in bed. This time I tightened up the mic location. 1ft apart or shorter for all 8 measurements.

I pulled out and toed in my mains significantly so the tweeters are pointed directly at the sweet spot. I pulled out my center that sits on a Mopad riser significantly so the front has a 4 inch clearance from the shelf.

What a difference in the bass and top end. I had a 6dB dip at 80-100hz I could never flatten on my subs. This time I bumped up all crossovers to 100hz.

I limited correction to 300hz.


----------



## mthomas47

Balbolito said:


> @*tonybradley* if i were you i would lower the sub vol/gain even more and once Audyssey starts running i would make sure that the level indicator would be a little bit above the green recommended area (lets say 1/4 of the red area above the green area) in this case you should get a sub trim level about -3 to -6 after Audssey is completed. which is the ideal range as it has been discussed numerous times and mentioned in all the guides. Then you can always increase the vol of your subs in the AVR after that as per your preference.
> 
> Do you have the Audyssey Multeq app? or a miniDSP? if you do then i would recommend applying a house curve after Audyssey for your sub/s. then with a little higher sub level trim think you will like it.



Hi,

I try not to get too involved in some of these conversations, because I don't want to get sucked-into prolonged discussions about this subject.  I have already said it all in the Guide. 

But, the advice in the FAQ is wrong! That advice is outdated, and has been superseded by advice from several sub makers and by much individual testing. The Guide, linked below, describes the current best practice advice on this issue, and contains an entire section on how the advice on this thread has evolved since the FAQ was started in 2012. That is Section VI, and it should be read as an addendum to Section II.

There is really no ideal range for subwoofer trim. That is a matter of trial-and-error, and it varies depending on subwoofers and listening levels. Some people find that -10 works well for them, and some people can go all the way up to about -3 or a little higher. Here are the things that we do want to watch out for, though. 

First, when we get close to 0.0 in our sub trim, we increase the risk of clipping the subwoofer signal. For most listening levels, a trim setting of about -5 is considered safe, in that respect. (We can start at about -11.5 in post-calibration trim level, and increase the trim to about -5. But, if we want our subs to be even louder than that, we should typically make any further increases with the subwoofer gain itself.) 

The higher our master volume is (that also uses the amplifier in the AVR) the lower our trim level may need to be in order to compensate. We want most of the voltage to come from our subwoofer amplifier at higher master volume levels. That's why, for most subwoofers and situations, setting trim levels no higher than about -5 is prudent. As we go above about -10 MV, we may want to drop the trim, and raise the sub gain, even more. 

Second, we know from sub makers, and from experimentation, that some subwoofers can only reach their maximum RMS output levels when subwoofer gain levels are set fairly high. Independent measurements, with both low and high sub gain settings, have shown at least a 3dB difference in max output with some subwoofers. In those cases, continuing to raise trim levels, or master volume levels, does not actually increase the subwoofer volume. So, if we are trying for high subwoofer volume levels, we may want to use our subwoofer gain control (often labelled Volume) on the subwoofer itself, to help us get there. 

Most of us are not likely to know whether what I said above applies to our subs, or not, without running our own compression tests with different gain/trim settings. (For SVS owners, SVS can tell you pretty specifically where this is an issue for a specific sub model. Their newest models, with phone apps, allow full output to be achieved at subwoofer gain levels of about -15.) 

In addition to not knowing whether our individual subs will be able to hit maximum output levels, unless sub gains are fairly high, many of us will not necessarily be able to recognize clipping, without some prior experience in hearing it. But, clipping is a form of distortion that we would prefer not to have, whether we can clearly recognize it or not. 

This is why we need to have some best practice principles, that we can share among ourselves, and for the hundreds of people silently reading along on threads like this one. And, that's why the Guide was originally written. It evolved into much more than that, but it was started in order to help establish some current best practice principles, in a way that the Audyssey FAQ never quite did. The FAQ still contains a lot of useful information, but not about subwoofer trim settings.

I hope that this post helps to clarify things a little! Section II of the Guide goes into a great deal of detail on this subject, but the most salient information is contained in this post. Hint, for those reading along: please read the Guide for more information rather than asking me follow-up questions. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Toto84

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I try not to get too involved in some of these conversations, because I don't want to get sucked-into prolonged discussions about this subject.  I have already said it all in the Guide.
> 
> But, the advice in the FAQ is wrong! That advice is outdated, and has been superseded by advice from several sub makers and by much individual testing. The Guide, linked below, describes the current best practice advice on this issue, and contains an entire section on how the advice on this thread has evolved since the FAQ was started in 2012. That is Section VI, and it should be read as an addendum to Section II.
> 
> There is really no ideal range for subwoofer trim. That is a matter of trial-and-error, and it varies depending on subwoofers and listening levels. Some people find that -10 works well for them, and some people can go all the way up to about -3 or a little higher. Here are the things that we do want to watch out for, though.
> 
> First, when we get close to 0.0 in our sub trim, we increase the risk of clipping the subwoofer signal. For most listening levels, a trim setting of about -5 is considered safe, in that respect. (We can start at about -11.5 in post-calibration trim level, and increase the trim to about -5. But, if we want our subs to be even louder than that, we should typically make any further increases with the subwoofer gain itself.)
> 
> The higher our master volume is (that also uses the amplifier in the AVR) the lower our trim level may need to be in order to compensate. We want most of the voltage to come from our subwoofer amplifier at higher master volume levels. That's why, for most subwoofers and situations, setting trim levels no higher than about -5 is prudent. As we go above about -10 MV, we may want to drop the trim, and raise the sub gain, even more.
> 
> Second, we know from sub makers, and from experimentation, that some subwoofers can only reach their maximum RMS output levels when subwoofer gain levels are set fairly high. Independent measurements, with both low and high sub gain settings, have shown at least a 3dB difference in max output with some subwoofers. In those cases, continuing to raise trim levels, or master volume levels, does not actually increase the subwoofer volume. So, if we are trying for high subwoofer volume levels, we may want to use our subwoofer gain (often labelled Volume) controls to help us get there.
> 
> Most of us are not likely to know whether what I said above applies to our subs, or not, without running our own compression tests with different gain/trim settings. (For SVS owners, SVS can tell you pretty specifically where this is an issue for a specific sub model. Their newest models, with phone apps, allow full output to be achieved at subwoofer gain levels of about -15.)
> 
> In addition to not knowing whether our individual subs will be able to hit maximum output levels, unless sub gains are fairly high, many of us will not necessarily be able to recognize clipping, without some prior experience in hearing it. But, clipping is a form of distortion that we would prefer not to have, whether we can clearly recognize it or not.
> 
> This is why we need to have some best practice principles, that we can share among ourselves, and for the hundreds of people silently reading along on threads like this one. And, that's why the Guide was originally written. It evolved into much more than that, but it was started in order to help establish some current best practice principles, in a way that the Audyssey FAQ never quite did. The FAQ still contains a lot of useful information, but not about subwoofer trim settings.
> 
> I hope that this post helps to clarify things a little! Section II of the Guide goes into a great deal of detail on this subject, but the most salient information is contained in this post. Hint, for those reading along: please read the Guide for more information rather than asking me follow-up questions.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


You guys are amazing !

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> Reran Audyssey this morning while everyone was still in bed. This time I tightened up the mic location. 1ft apart or shorter for all 8 measurements.
> 
> I pulled out and toed in my mains significantly so the tweeters are pointed directly at the sweet spot. I pulled out my center that sits on a Mopad riser significantly so the front has a 4 inch clearance from the shelf.
> 
> What a difference in the bass and top end. I had a 6dB dip at 80-100hz I could never flatten on my subs. This time I bumped up all crossovers to 100hz.
> 
> I limited correction to 300hz.


Couple weeks ago, when I was getting help with my dual sub setup, I also received advice to bring my towers forward a little bit more and adjust the toe in. Additionally, I received advice on pulling my center speaker forward past the cabinet edge and tilt it up (I ordered the auralex pad). Those tweaks, plus adding placemats on my glass table and blanket on my rear partition made a nice big difference. 

Too bad I will need to rerun again anyway when I get my mic boom Haha. Just ordered it. I've been using a mini tripod...

P.s- did you use DEQ or not during your test?


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> Couple weeks ago, when I was getting help with my dual sub setup, I also received advice to bring my towers forward a little bit more and adjust the toe in. Additionally, I received advice on pulling my center speaker forward past the cabinet edge and tilt it up (I ordered the auralex pad). Those tweaks, plus adding placemats on my glass table and blanket on my rear partition made a nice big difference.
> 
> Too bad I will need to rerun again anyway when I get my mic boom Haha. Just ordered it. I've been using a mini tripod...
> 
> P.s- did you use DEQ or not during your test?


The Auralex pad is great. I’ve had mine for 10 years. I don’t have the room for my mic stand unfortunately in my new place so I use my tripod.

DEQ was left on for all tests but the house curve. I’m set on MultEQ limited to 300hz and DEQ ON


----------



## fatherom

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I have a Denon 6500 and would like to use the app to store two configs (one using Tops and one using Heights) and easily load one or the other when I’m watching Atmos vs dts:x. 

Is this relatively easy to do and could someone describe how the app does this?

Thanks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

CBdicX said:


> Any "better" mics to buy instead of the Audyssey mic ?
> I have a tripod camera stand I use for the mic.



The audyssey system is calibrated to use the Audyssey mic--using a different mic not calibrated for the system will give you different results. Whether they will be better or not is a "crap shoot."


----------



## Matt2026

CBdicX said:


> Any "better" mics to buy instead of the Audyssey mic ?
> I have a tripod camera stand I use for the mic.


Did you read this post?

This is just one case but I've read other posts along the same line but this is the most recent so easy to find.

Others have tried various ways other that using a microphone stand but are often not successful.. Good luck with your tripod.


----------



## CBdicX

Matt2026 said:


> Did you read this post?
> 
> This is just one case but I've read other posts along the same line but this is the most recent so easy to find.
> 
> Others have tried various ways other that using a microphone stand but are often not successful.. Good luck with your tripod.


Say I would buy a mic stand, do you mean a mic stand as in the pic ?
They sell them with various threads, what do I need to connect the Audyssey mic ?

What I do find "strange" is that Denon sells with the receivers a tripod cardboard stand, and has a tripod also as example.
*Denon: connect the microphone to a tripod...…*

They could also use a mic stand as example, so why do they show and mention a tripod ?

Why would a mic stand make a differents compared to a tripod where the mic is mounted on top ?

Thanks....


----------



## Matt2026

CBdicX said:


> Say I would buy a mic stand, do you mean a mic stand as in the pic ?
> They sell them with various threads, what do I need to connect the Audyssey mic ?
> 
> What I do find "strange" is that Denon sells with the receivers a tripod cardboard stand, and has a tripod also as example.
> *Denon: connect the microphone to a tripod...…*
> 
> They could also use a mic stand as example, so why do they show and mention a tripod ?
> 
> Why would a mic stand make a differents compared to a tripod where the mic is mounted on top ?
> 
> Thanks....


That looks like the type I've seen recommended. 

I can't answer your questions. I know the boom mike is recommended such as was demonstrated by the post I quoted. I believe Mike Thomas has recommended this type in this thread. 

Why did it work so well as opposed to his attempts with a camera tripod, I don't know.


----------



## Balbolito

@CBdicX

I tried both a tripod that i have for years and a recently bought boom mic stand and the boom mic gave me better Audyssey results (i confirmed both measurements in REW) so it's not a placebo effect.

One reason i would say is that most measurements were done with the stand behind my MLP so just the extended arm holding the mic was in the measuring position. think this would result in less reflections from a tripod sitting on the MLP chair/sofa. 

Another benefit is that in most measurement positions you can just move the extended arm around (left,right..etc) without moving the actual stand(base) itself so most measurements are done at exactly the same height. To add, moving the stand up/down is much easier to do than a tripod since you don't have to deal with typically three legs.


----------



## CBdicX

Matt2026 said:


> That looks like the type I've seen recommended.
> 
> I can't answer your questions. I know the boom mike is recommended such as was demonstrated by the post I quoted. I believe Mike Thomas has recommended this type in this thread.
> 
> Why did it work so well as opposed to his attempts with a camera tripod, I don't know.


Thank you for your replies, will ask Mike in a PM


----------



## CBdicX

Balbolito said:


> @CBdicX
> 
> I tried both a tripod that i have for years and a recently bought boom mic stand and the boom mic gave me better Audyssey results (i confirmed both measurements in REW) so it's not a placebo effect.
> 
> One reason i would say is that most measurements were done with the stand behind my MLP so just the extended arm holding the mic was in the measuring position. think this would result in less reflections from a tripod sitting on the MLP chair/sofa.
> 
> Another benefit is that in most measurement positions you can just move the extended arm around (left,right..etc) without moving the actual stand(base) itself so most measurements are done at exactly the same height. To add, moving the stand up/down is much easier to do than a tripod since you don't have to deal with typically three legs.


Seems logical 

What I do not get is when I will use a boom stand, and connect the mic at the end of the arm, it will almost be horizontal, and not straight vertical...….
Or am I seeing this wrong ?


----------



## Balbolito

@CBdicX

It will be vertical, you could get an inexpensive mic clip. sometimes some models of boom mic stands have that included. 

something like this


----------



## CBdicX

Balbolito said:


> @CBdicX
> 
> It will be vertical, you could get an inexpensive mic clip. sometimes some models of boom mic stands have that included.
> 
> something like this


Oh, ok, never seen this before, thanks and clears the mind


----------



## CBdicX

Balbolito said:


> @CBdicX
> 
> It will be vertical, you could get an inexpensive mic clip. sometimes some models of boom mic stands have that included.
> 
> something like this


Is this the correct one ?


----------



## Balbolito

@CBdicX That could work. 

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## Toto84

Hi guys, audyssey set the distance of 1 of my front speaker off by 10 cm, is it ok to change the distance or should that i redo the calibration?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

CBdicX said:


> What I do not get is when I will use a boom stand, and connect the mic at the end of the arm, it will almost be horizontal, and not straight vertical...….
> Or am I seeing this wrong ?



I believe:


The microphone has to be pointed straight up at the ceiling regardless of what it's mounted on. The grazing response of a mic is different that the on axis response, and the Audyssey procedure is standardized with grazing response.
Only an Audyssey mic should be used. A better mic will produce a different response curve, and lead to incorrect adjustment of Audyssey. My understanding, right or wrong, is that the Audyssey circuitry is set up to compensate for the non-linearity of the average Audyssey mic. Of course, there is variation among Audyssey mics, but evidently they think it is relatively minor, +/- X dB. A common manufacturing technique (for relatively inexpensive mics) is to make a certain number of mics, pick the best by test, and recycle the rest.
Although it was discounted when I brought it up on the forum about 9 years ago, I think people should consider wrapping the mic stand boom with thick, soft, absorbent material, to avoid reflections. That is sometimes done when testing tweeters to avoid short wavelength reflections. I'd wrap the vertical member of the stand itself, as well. OCD.
One thing I don't understand is how or why so many Audyssey mics seem to be bad or become bad. They are not hard to make uniformly. The shape of the mic notwithstanding, it's not rocket science. Mics (except ribbons) tend to be tough. You can drive nails with an RE15. Perhaps somewhere in the manufacturing/distribution pathway they were stored in a high humidity environment, or banged around, or something.


----------



## Balbolito

Toto84 said:


> Hi guys, audyssey set the distance of 1 of my front speaker off by 10 cm, is it ok to change the distance or should that i redo the calibration?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


no that is a delay setting and how your room affects your speaker/s. best to keep it where it is set at. 

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Matt2026 said:


> Did you read this post?
> 
> This is just one case but I've read other posts along the same line but this is the most recent so easy to find.
> 
> Others have tried various ways other that using a microphone stand but are often not successful.. Good luck with your tripod.



I’ll admit. I’m one of the oddballs. I actually use a stack of gel pillows with a variety of small camera tripods on top. My thoughts are that the pillows replicate my body in the MLP so my measurements/adjustments are made accordingly. I even remember a guy who tried attaching an Audyssey mic to his head... thought my way was nuts!


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Toto84 said:


> Hi guys, audyssey set the distance of 1 of my front speaker off by 10 cm, is it ok to change the distance or should that i redo the calibration?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk



As mentioned, I would leave it too. Subwoofers routinely show much greater distances after calibration. The reason is that the mic sees the room acoustically, not visually so that’s why it’s often different.


----------



## jj-34

garygarrison said:


> I believe:
> 
> 
> The microphone has to be pointed straight up at the ceiling regardless of what it's mounted on. The grazing response of a mic is different that the on axis response, and the Audyssey procedure is standardized with grazing response.
> Only an Audyssey mic should be used. A better mic will produce a different response curve, and lead to incorrect adjustment of Audyssey. My understanding, right or wrong, is that the Audyssey circuitry is set up to compensate for the non-linearity of the average Audyssey mic. Of course, there is variation among Audyssey mics, but evidently they think it is relatively minor, +/- X dB. A common manufacturing technique (for relatively inexpensive mics) is to make a certain number of mics, pick the best by test, and recycle the rest.
> Although it was discounted when I brought it up on the forum about 9 years ago, I think people should consider wrapping the mic stand boom with thick, soft, absorbent material, to avoid reflections. That is sometimes done when testing tweeters to avoid short wavelength reflections. I'd wrap the vertical member of the stand itself, as well. OCD.
> One thing I don't understand is how or why so many Audyssey mics seem to be bad or become bad. They are not hard to make uniformly. The shape of the mic notwithstanding, it's not rocket science. Mics (except ribbons) tend to be tough. You can drive nails with an RE15. Perhaps somewhere in the manufacturing/distribution pathway they were stored in a high humidity environment, or banged around, or something.


I use this as a mic boom, I hope it's as good as a real one, but should I wrap the tripod with a blanket or similar ?


----------



## avman09

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> First, when we get close to 0.0 in our sub trim, we increase the risk of clipping the subwoofer signal. For most listening levels, a trim setting of about -5 is considered safe, in that respect. (We can start at about -11.5 in post-calibration trim level, and increase the trim to about -5. But, if we want our subs to be even louder than that, we should typically make any further increases with the subwoofer gain itself.)


Thank you Mike for this interesting point. Following the same logic then how about the speaker trims that are often set to the +/- 3 range and in my case it has always been about +/- 1 to 1.5, so if you are concerned about the subwoofer signal clipping, shouldn't we be concerned about the other channels pre-outs clipping too? It seems to me that since at mv=0, after calibration I would get about 85 dB average at mlp so if the trim is set to 0, as long as the AVR is sized (output rating) for the room and seating distance adequately there should be no risk of clipping even with the 20 dB peak factored in. Obviously I have to agree -5 will provide another 5 dB of headroom over 0, just that I think 0 is still quite adequate.


----------



## Toto84

Polyrythm1k said:


> As mentioned, I would leave it too. Subwoofers routinely show much greater distances after calibration. The reason is that the mic sees the room acoustically, not visually so that’s why it’s often different.


Its only my front right speaker which is off by 10cm

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## shazza6887

Hi Guys,


Kind of scratching our heads here... Thanks to Jimmy2shoes i have been able to set up my mini dsp and get a nice smooth response in my room! He was a great help and could not have been done without him!


We are nearly there however hit a couple of hurdles on the way. When running Audyssey using the mobile app we found that if sub levels are not set within Audyssey torelance pre using the app and the addional screen came up with the adjustments, the app was behaving funny and did not give me an output on the left speaker. This was the only speaker effected as it is the first one after the subwoofer level is checked. We got over this by dropping the master input volume on the mini dsp and achieved a sub trim of -1.5 on the receiver. Post calibration i just raised it back on the mini dsp. This part fairly easy to deal with. The Part that got us stumped was what is happening with auydesey...


For some reason on the opening scene in 'The Fifth Element' when the title comes on screen there is a few seconds of some nice low extention in the lower frequencies, My right Klipsch 8000f speakers bottom driver was rattling? This was happening with and without DEQ on and started to be heard at around -5db and gradually got worse as i got closer to reference level. This rattle was not coming out of the left speaker. Thinking it may be an issue with the speaker i switched them and the problem was still there on the right side.... Tried playing with the bannana plugs, tired without them same thing. Re ran Audyssey a few times, same thing. The only way i am able to get rid of the rattle in the scene is by turning Multieq32 off or using L/R Bypass..


Also tried using Cascading Crossovers at 80 and 90hz and results were the same.



I am thinking Audyssey is doing something to lthe lower frequencies?
It is a really wierd problem..


Anyone have any insight to this problem?


Thanks


----------



## mthomas47

jj-34 said:


> I use this as a mic boom, I hope it's as good as a real one, but should I wrap the tripod with a blanket or similar ?



That should work fine! You can wrap it in a blanket if you want to, but I honestly believe that is probably unnecessary. The mic is far enough away from the shaft and base of the tripod to prevent spurious reflections into the Audyssey microphone.

There are several reasons why camera tripods are not usually recommended. Potential reflections from the shaft and base of the camera tripod, into the Audyssey mic, is one of them. A boom mic stand keeps the microphone well away from the tripod, helping to prevent those spurious reflections. It's the same reason we don't want to get the measurement mic too close to a wall. 

Sound consists of vibrations, which our brains translate into something we can hear and understand. Measurement microphones simply measure the vibrations as different sound pressure levels (SPL) at different frequencies. They can't distinguish between one source of vibration and another, in the way that our brains may be able to, and they can't mentally translate those vibrations into meaningful sounds. I hope that makes sense. 

Putting gel pillows under a tripod, placed on a sofa may help, but any vibration in the tripod stand itself, from being on a relatively unstable surface, can potentially affect an Audyssey calibration. I think that would mainly be for high-frequencies. Boom mic stands have the advantage of allowing us to place the mic wherever we want, while keeping the tripod supporting the mic well away from the mic itself, and on a more stable surface--the floor. As with everything in audio/HT though, there is a YMMV component to all of this. 




avman09 said:


> Thank you Mike for this interesting point. Following the same logic then how about the speaker trims that are often set to the +/- 3 range and in my case it has always been about +/- 1 to 1.5, so if you are concerned about the subwoofer signal clipping, shouldn't we be concerned about the other channels pre-outs clipping too? It seems to me that since at mv=0, after calibration I would get about 85 dB average at mlp so if the trim is set to 0, as long as the AVR is sized (output rating) for the room and seating distance adequately there should be no risk of clipping even with the 20 dB peak factored in. Obviously I have to agree -5 will provide another 5 dB of headroom over 0, just that I think 0 is still quite adequate.



You are very welcome! Both speakers and subs can clip at high volume levels. If Audyssey measures your speakers, at the MLP, as requiring high trim levels in order to play 75dB SPL's, then you are certainly likely to run out of overall volume faster for those speakers. They will clip, or compress, or distort, at lower master volume levels than more capable speakers would. Unfortunately, in most cases, we won't know just how capable our speakers are unless we measure them ourselves, and do compression testing; or through trial-and-error, by turning-up the master volume. 

Audyssey calibrates our HT system to hit Dolby/THX Reference at a master volume of 0.0. But, whether we will ever want to do that, or whether our speakers and our subs will actually be able to play in an undistorted way at that volume level, are entirely different questions. Our overall system capabilities are not Audyssey's concern. It is just trying to get us all on the same page with respect to Reference, so that we will all have a common starting point. Being calibrated to Reference is not the same thing as being able to hit Reference. That depends on our speaker/sub capabilities and placement, our amplification, and our listening distance.

Trying to compare speaker trim settings with sub trim settings, however, is an apples-to-oranges comparison. That is because with subwoofers there are two separate amplifiers involved--the sub out in the AVR, and the sub's own internal amplifier. (Or, external amp for DIY subs.)

Whether you increase the trim level on a speaker, or increase the master volume level, the voltage that makes the speaker louder is still coming from the same amplifier in the AVR. Subwoofers have their own internal amplifiers, and they are much more robust than the amplifiers contained in the AVR's sub outs.

The AVR sends an initial voltage signal to the subwoofer, and the subwoofer's own internal amp amplifies that voltage in accordance with its gain setting. If the gain setting on the sub is too low, the sub doesn't get louder. If we keep increasing the voltage coming from the AVR (either through trim levels or from the master volume) the subwoofer can clip prematurely. Keeping AVR trim levels fairly low (-5 or lower) and making most of our subwoofer volume increases with the sub gain, can help to prevent that premature clipping. 

This is especially important to understand, for our subs, since nearly everyone adds independent subwoofer boosts after a calibration to level-match all of the speakers/subs in an HT system. We need to start with level-matched transducers in order to do room EQ. But afterwards, we may need to add more bass to suit our own hearing and our own preferences. With the exception of the center channel, we wouldn't normally be raising trim levels on our speakers, post-calibration. 

I hope this explanation helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## JD23

mthomas47 said:


> That should work fine! You can wrap it in a blanket if you want to, but I honestly believe that is probably unnecessary. The mic is far enough away from the shaft and base of the tripod to prevent spurious reflections into the Audyssey microphone.
> 
> There are several reasons why camera tripods are not usually recommended. Potential reflections from the shaft and base of the camera tripod, into the Audyssey mic, is one of them. A boom mic stand keeps the microphone well away from the tripod, helping to prevent those spurious reflections. It's the same reason we don't want to get the measurement mic too close to a wall.
> 
> Sound consists of vibrations, which our brains translate into something we can hear and understand. Measurement microphones simply measure the vibrations as different sound pressure levels (SPL) at different frequencies. They can't distinguish between one source of vibration and another, in the way that our brains may be able to, and they can't mentally translate those vibrations into meaningful sounds. I hope that makes sense.
> 
> Putting gel pillows under a tripod, placed on a sofa may help, but any vibration in the tripod stand itself, from being on a relatively unstable surface, can potentially affect an Audyssey calibration. I think that would mainly be for high-frequencies. Boom mic stands have the advantage of allowing us to place the mic wherever we want, while keeping the tripod supporting the mic well away from the mic itself, and on a more stable surface--the floor. As with everything in audio/HT though, there is a YMMV component to all of this.



Has anyone here ever measured the difference between a tripod and boom mic stand with the mic placed at the same location? I wonder at what frequency the difference may become significant, as I only correct up to 500 Hz.


----------



## pbz06

shazza6887 said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> Kind of scratching our heads here... Thanks to Jimmy2shoes i have been able to set up my mini dsp and get a nice smooth response in my room! He was a great help and could not have been done without him!
> 
> 
> We are nearly there however hit a couple of hurdles on the way. When running Audyssey using the mobile app we found that if sub levels are not set within Audyssey torelance pre using the app and the addional screen came up with the adjustments, the app was behaving funny and did not give me an output on the left speaker. This was the only speaker effected as it is the first one after the subwoofer level is checked. We got over this by dropping the master input volume on the mini dsp and achieved a sub trim of -1.5 on the receiver. Post calibration i just raised it back on the mini dsp. This part fairly easy to deal with. The Part that got us stumped was what is happening with auydesey...
> 
> 
> For some reason on the opening scene in 'The Fifth Element' when the title comes on screen there is a few seconds of some nice low extention in the lower frequencies, My right Klipsch 8000f speakers bottom driver was rattling? This was happening with and without DEQ on and started to be heard at around -5db and gradually got worse as i got closer to reference level. This rattle was not coming out of the left speaker. Thinking it may be an issue with the speaker i switched them and the problem was still there on the right side.... Tried playing with the bannana plugs, tired without them same thing. Re ran Audyssey a few times, same thing. The only way i am able to get rid of the rattle in the scene is by turning Multieq32 off or using L/R Bypass..
> 
> 
> Also tried using Cascading Crossovers at 80 and 90hz and results were the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I am thinking Audyssey is doing something to lthe lower frequencies?
> It is a really wierd problem..
> 
> 
> Anyone have any insight to this problem?
> 
> 
> Thanks


Just spitballing some thoughts and ideas, but to me -5dB is LOUD. It could just be Audyssey's filters requiring a boost/correction at a certain frequency to EQ it, that your speaker isn't able to cleanly play at that volume. The fact that it happens with both speakers when you move it there, makes it seem like a plausible culprit. 

I'm not too familiar with your speakers, but it looks like they have 8-inch woofers. Even if you have your crossover at 80hz, it is likely reproducing content down to 40hz (-12dB per octave)...but with a volume at -5dB (close to reference), it could still be a tall order for that woofer to reproduce distortion free at a high volume.

edit - I know Audyssey EQ's for 75dB, but also note that most AVR's 0 volume (max) is for 85dB average with 105dB peaks. Let's say that in your example, that peak would be 100dB at some low ish frequency. If it was a 50hz frequency, let's assume it might be playing about 90dB ish with the crossover slope. That can be a tall order for an 8-inch woofer(s).


----------



## rosstg

I recalibrated yesterday morning this time using a tighter mic formation. First 3 positions were 1ft apart, the rest a few inches from the sweet spot. I didn’t turn my subs gains down as much which resulted in -9 and -8 gain setting in the AVR. I always had a 6-8dB dip between between 80hz-100hz. That’s all but gone now. I also set crossovers to 100hz for all channels and 150hz for heights. 

I’m trying full range reference 1 curve for a bit. Bass is definitely improved with more authoritative low and mid bass, I’m assuming from the tighter mic placement since I got the same results after 2 calibrations. Dialogue clarity before on the ref 1 curve had a bit too much sizzle on the top end when I followed 2ft distance. Dialogue sounds cleaner and more natural now.


----------



## Balbolito

@rosstg sounds good! so the tighter mic placement works! this is what i have been using for the last year or so, way better than to do all my measurements around/at the other seats.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Has there ever been a firm explanation/discussion on the two rolloff curves for reference in the app? The only thing I've seen is an Audyssey Pro manual that says use Curve 2 for 2500+ cubic ft rooms...but is that still valid? Is it entire room volume regardless of where the speakers are? 

I'm in a big open open basement with my gear in an enclosed corner. I also sit near field (7-8' away from my mains) so maybe Curve 1 is better?

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## rosstg

Balbolito said:


> @rosstg sounds good! so the tighter mic placement works! this is what i have been using for the last year or so, way better than to do all my measurements around/at the other seats.


Yeah I’m a bit surprised how even the bass is just from that. I’m getting closure to being happy with my setup. I’m having issues with my mains though. I had them toed in too much. It sounded great for music but no so much for movies. 

I straightened them with no toe in and they sound much better. The soundstage is wider and my surrounds are more discrete. It also makes dialogue more intelligible. I’m going to calibrate again tomorrow morning and I think I’ll turn my sub gains down less so I can get to -10/-11dB in my AVR.


----------



## rosstg

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Has there ever been a firm explanation/discussion on the two rolloff curves for reference in the app? The only thing I've seen is an Audyssey Pro manual that says use Curve 2 for 2500+ cubic ft rooms...but is that still valid? Is it entire room volume regardless of where the speakers are?
> 
> I'm in a big open open basement with my gear in an enclosed corner. I also sit near field (7-8' away from my mains) so maybe Curve 1 is better?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


When I choose full range I prefer curve 1. This matches my speakers natural rolloff in my room.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> Yeah I’m a bit surprised how even the bass is just from that. *I’m getting closure to being happy with my setup*. I’m having issues with my mains though. I had them toed in too much. It sounded great for music but no so much for movies.
> 
> I straightened them with no toe in and they sound much better. The soundstage is wider and my surrounds are more discrete. It also makes dialogue more intelligible. I’m going to calibrate again tomorrow morning and I think I’ll turn my sub gains down less so I can get to -10/-11dB in my AVR.


----------



## pbz06

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Has there ever been a firm explanation/discussion on the two rolloff curves for reference in the app? The only thing I've seen is an Audyssey Pro manual that says use Curve 2 for 2500+ cubic ft rooms...but is that still valid? Is it entire room volume regardless of where the speakers are?
> 
> I'm in a big open open basement with my gear in an enclosed corner. I also sit near field (7-8' away from my mains) so maybe Curve 1 is better?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk


Ultimately, I think it's a preference thing and which rolloff matches your speakers' natural curve more closely.

I doubt most people can really tell easily between the two targets.


----------



## tonybradley

Hey folks. I posted several days ago about Trims for Subwoofers to find out the FAQ on that subject was outdated. Mike linked to another Thread to read in tandem with the FAQ. I wanted to provide an update. Here is what I did, and my system now actually sounds good. When Audyssey asked me to perform my SW Level Matching, the only way to get my Trims above -12 was to set my Master Volumes on the Subs at about a Quarter of the way. I performed a new Calibration the other night. With my Sub MV at around a quarter, it was reading about 71-72dB. After calibration, it set my Trims to -9.5 for both Subs.

However, the Sub during any movies was almost non existent even with DEQ on. I turned my Trims to -5dB for both Subs. Still really low. I started Audyssey again and performed the SW Level Match just to see what Audyssey set the dB. It was measuring about 72dB for each after I cranked the trim from -9.5dB to -5dB. So Audyssey calibrated my Subs to below 70dB for some reason. I ended up turning my Master Volumes of each sub up until Audyssey SW Level Matching Meter read about 83dB after the calibration. My system really opened up. However, on some movies, it was a little too much for me. Didn't sound distorted, just too much. I moved the trims back down to -7dB, but still just a hair too much. At least now I can feel the Sub. I watched several movie scenes, that before, I was underwhelmed with, that now I'm smiling.

Question- When moving my Subs around and running REW to find the best locations, my second sub at 180 on the Phase produced a much better curve. I meant to move it back to 0 prior to Audyssey the other night, and forgot. Is leaving it at 180 (since it produced a better curve on REW) prior to running Audyssey a problem.....or should I set it to 0 like my other sub and rerun Audyssey? I'm assuming the time alignment will compensate anywhere needed if one sub was 180 out of phase from the other sub, but not sure.


----------



## shazza6887

pbz06 said:


> Just spitballing some thoughts and ideas, but to me -5dB is LOUD. It could just be Audyssey's filters requiring a boost/correction at a certain frequency to EQ it, that your speaker isn't able to cleanly play at that volume. The fact that it happens with both speakers when you move it there, makes it seem like a plausible culprit.
> 
> I'm not too familiar with your speakers, but it looks like they have 8-inch woofers. Even if you have your crossover at 80hz, it is likely reproducing content down to 40hz (-12dB per octave)...but with a volume at -5dB (close to reference), it could still be a tall order for that woofer to reproduce distortion free at a high volume.
> 
> edit - I know Audyssey EQ's for 75dB, but also note that most AVR's 0 volume (max) is for 85dB average with 105dB peaks. Let's say that in your example, that peak would be 100dB at some low ish frequency. If it was a 50hz frequency, let's assume it might be playing about 90dB ish with the crossover slope. That can be a tall order for an 8-inch woofer(s).


The thing is though that it does not distort with Audyssey off? So i am guessing the speaker can handle it fine? I know -5 may seem loud but in my treated room it doesnt seem that way haha! So it seems Audyssey on the right speaker is doing it for whatever reason?


----------



## mthomas47

shazza6887 said:


> The thing is though that it does not distort with Audyssey off? So i am guessing the speaker can handle it fine? I know -5 may seem loud but in my treated room it doesnt seem that way haha! So it seems Audyssey on the right speaker is doing it for whatever reason?



Hi,

There are so many variables involved in something like this, it is hard sometimes to pick the right one. But, if a speaker is distorting more with Audyssey on than it is with Audyssey off, at high master volume levels, then I think you are right that Audyssey is doing something to the lower frequencies. It is probably happening because Audyssey is trying to fix a dip in the frequency response for that speaker.

It may be that the Right Front speaker is near an opening to another space, or further from a boundary wall, than the Left Front speaker. But, for whatever reason, my guess is that the RF speaker isn't able to go quite as low as the LF, and Audyssey is trying to fix that. We sometimes can't hear a dip in frequency response, the way that Audyssey can "hear" (measure) it, so you might not even be aware of that.

There are two things you could try, if you don't want to turn down your master volume a little for that particular scene. As a side note, many movies use loud initial bass volumes to turn-on the subs from Auto mode. It can be a good idea, in general, to start with your master volume level a little lower, and then to raise it to the level you want once you are past those first few seconds. The opening to Edge of Tomorrow, with sustained sine waves which go from 30Hz down to 10Hz, has damaged some subs when people started with very high volume levels.

Other than starting movies with slightly lower master volumes, which I think is a good idea anyway, here are the two things I might try. First, you could try moving the front speakers (especially the RF) a little closer to a boundary wall. Even a few inches might help, and of course, you would need to run Audyssey again to see if that fixes the problem. Second, you could increase the crossover to the front speakers (perhaps to 100Hz) to allow your sub(s) to handle a little more of the low-frequency load. 

Audyssey can sometimes correct peaks and dips in the frequency response which may or may not be audible to all of us. But, I would say that your speakers must be fairly close to the edge of their capabilities anyway, at near Reference volumes, if fixing a dip on the RF speaker causes it to audibly rattle with some content. Perhaps some slight repositioning may help! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rosstg

Calibrated again this morning. Excellent results. Likely the best I’ll have in this room. 

This time I placed the mic even closer, roughly 6 inches apart. I also turned down my subs volume less this time, only 2 clicks from 12 o’clock. I pulled out my center speaker further as well as my mains with no toe in. I want a wide soundstage.

The tighter mic placement worked even better this time. My subs are flatter now and the gains in my AVR are -9 & -9.5. I raised my LCR crossovers to 80hz. 100hz for surrounds and surround backs. 150hz for my heights. 

Ive also created a few curves that I can upload. Limited to 300hz with DEQ ON which is best in my room. Full range DEQ ON and limited to 300hz with a house curve - 5dB rise at crossover cut off.


----------



## Toto84

Hi Boys, with the help of a fellow member we put the pb 12 nsd and rel 1508 to work together.
There is dip from 20 to 25hz, could you help me to fix it?
I have rew, denon x8500h and soon a minidsp 4x12hd.
My buddy told me its hard fix as its seal and ported mix together and that the cancellation is happening in the port of the sub.
I have attached some rew measurement with audyssey on but deq off with voth sub working together no smoothing.
I took measurement at the mlp and 1st and second ear.










Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## rosstg

Curious, has anyone performed any measurements on what DEQ does to high frequencies when correction is limited to 300 or 500hz? I assume it boosts the frequencies the same way it does full range?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

rosstg said:


> Curious, has anyone performed any measurements on what DEQ does to high frequencies when correction is limited to 300 or 500hz? I assume it boosts the frequencies the same way it does full range?


I would imagine it would have an effect since DEQ is independent of any correction done by Audyssey


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> Curious, has anyone performed any measurements on what DEQ does to high frequencies when correction is limited to 300 or 500hz? I assume it boosts the frequencies the same way it does full range?


Exactly the same. It boosts the treble about 1dB per every -5 from Reference volume...treble being the upper range.

See section 5 of the bass/subwoofer guide in the other thread.


----------



## rosstg

Thanks guys. I did ask Audyssey last year but their answer wasn’t very clear. Makes sense why some content like tv shows sound shrill sometimes. I typically listen around -15dB. +3dB Increase to HF on my speakers is not pretty.


----------



## pbz06

rosstg said:


> Thanks guys. I did ask Audyssey last year but their answer wasn’t very clear. Makes sense why some content like tv shows sound shrill sometimes. I typically listen around -15dB. +3dB Increase to HF is not pretty.


In general, I find TV shows sounding more on the shrill side too. I have a feeling it's either they pump treble up because most people listen on TV speakers, or something to do with the range/compression. Although movies and originals (whether Netflix or Amazon) seem to sound a lot better.


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> In general, I find TV shows sounding more on the shrill side too. I have a feeling it's either they pump treble up because most people listen on TV speakers, or something to do with the range/compression. Although movies and originals (whether Netflix or Amazon) seem to sound a lot better.


For sure. I bring it up because I’m watching Entourage on BD and the voices sound shrill. Upload my Reference 1 curve and it sounds better. Think I need to spend more time listening to full range. It’s clearer now since I placed my mic only a few inches apart.


----------



## mogorf

rosstg said:


> Curious, has anyone performed any measurements on what DEQ does to high frequencies when correction is limited to 300 or 500hz? I assume it boosts the frequencies the same way it does full range?



Yeap, DEQ will do what is was intended to do, but on an uncorrected frequency range that was not flattened out! Please think about this: going out to a concert hall and at the end telling the hall manager that you didn't like the acoustics above 300 or 500 Hz and asking him to take more care would surely result in his eyebrow raising, right!


----------



## rosstg

mogorf said:


> Yeap, DEQ will do what is was intended to do, but on an uncorrected frequency range that was not flattened out! Please think about this: going out to a concert hall and at the end telling the hall manager that you didn't like the acoustics above 300 or 500 Hz and asking him to take more care would surely result in his eyebrow raising, right!


Lol touché.

Back to full range with me 🤣


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> The thing is though that it does not distort with Audyssey off? So i am guessing the speaker can handle it fine? I know -5 may seem loud but in my treated room it doesnt seem that way haha! So it seems Audyssey on the right speaker is doing it for whatever reason?



I may have missed this, but you do have your main speakers set for "small," don't you?


----------



## shazza6887

garygarrison said:


> I may have missed this, but you do have your main speakers set for "small," don't you?


Of course  the speaker in question (FR) is the side of the room with the door if that makes a difference, and the speaker is actuaclly pretty close to the corners of the room as it is although both speakers are at the exact same distance and location at oppisite sides (measured) however as stated only the right side is causing this issue.


----------



## Truls

Hello


I hate to come begging for help but things don't seem right.

Here are the screen shots from the app. Every speaker that is of size is set to -12db and the subwoofer's seems to have low pass filters @*120* hz ish even tho they are set to bypass setting.

Room: Small room that is acoustically treated with broadband absorbers and basstraps.
System: Marantz AV8805 pre/pro, Emotiva Amplifiers, Klipsch RF series speakers on ground plane and some weird small speakers on top plane, subwoofers are dual opposed 13.8" in sealed box(like mini submersives).



















EDIT: Im playing around with different crossover settings to see what suites the front speakers instead of the Large setting Audyssey calculated. So far what makes music the most enjoyable is Large and LFE + Main with 60Hz crossover. Could it be since my room is so small that the placement of the front speakers allows them to do a better job than the subs?

EDIT2: My el-cheapo SPL tool indicates that the fronts are around 8db louder than the top middle speakers, all of them are pegged at -12db in the menu. Since i cant send a external test tone to the atmos speakers should i just try to level match the speakers with the AVP test tone?


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> Of course  the speaker in question (FR) is the side of the room with the door if that makes a difference, and the speaker is actuaclly pretty close to the corners of the room as it is although both speakers are at the exact same distance and location at oppisite sides (measured) however as stated only the right side is causing this issue.


I suppose that if the door is open it might reduce boundary gain a little, causing Audyssey to strain either itself, or the signal path somewhere in the AVR/pre-pro in order to build up a dip or null in the bass.

Try turning Audyssey off completely, raise your main volume, and with DEQ OFF (to allow the bass control to be usable), turn the bass control up (nowadays most are limited to 6 dB) and see if you can produce that unwelcome sound without Audyssey in the circuit.


Is that passage at the beginning of The Fifth Element  sound effects, or music? If it is composed of effects, only, why isn't it going directly to your sub, through the LFE function? Should it even be in your front speakers?



How big a room are you trying to fill with SPL 5 dB below reference? I think you said it was treated.



What is the continuous wattage out, of your AVR, 2 channels operating (only because they generally don't include specs for all channels operating), at low distortion?


Your FR and FL have 94 dB sensitivity in an anechoic chamber, and 98 dB in a typical room (that's the way Klipsch does it). By my (conservative) calculations, using the more conservative sensitivity rating of 94 dB, you should get reference peaks (105 dB) through each of your front speakers at 13 feet away in a big-ish room (about 4,000 cu. ft.), at an expenditure of just about 64 watts. That is well below the continuous power handling of your speakers (i.e., 150 watts). If Audyssey is punching up a dip or null by 3 dB, that would require 128 watts (2x64). That's getting up there. 


I would be interesting to see what happens if you tucked both FL and FR speakers into the corners, with the rear of the enclosures actually touching the two walls. That should increase the SPL below ~~ 175 Hz by about 6 dB or so, "for free" -- no additional amp power needed.


----------



## shazza6887

garygarrison said:


> I suppose that if the door is open it might reduce boundary gain a little, causing Audyssey to strain either itself, or the signal path somewhere in the AVR/pre-pro in order to build up a dip or null in the bass.
> 
> Try turning Audyssey off completely, raise your main volume, and with DEQ OFF (to allow the bass control to be usable), turn the bass control up (nowadays most are limited to 6 dB) and see if you can produce that unwelcome sound without Audyssey in the circuit.
> 
> 
> Is that passage at the beginning of The Fifth Element  sound effects, or music? If it is composed of effects, only, why isn't it going directly to your sub, through the LFE function? Should it even be in your front speakers?
> 
> 
> 
> How big a room are you trying to fill with SPL 5 dB below reference? I think you said it was treated.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the continuous wattage out, of your AVR, 2 channels operating (only because they generally don't include specs for all channels operating), at low distortion?
> 
> 
> Your FR and FL have 94 dB sensitivity in an anechoic chamber, and 98 dB in a typical room (that's the way Klipsch does it). By my (conservative) calculations, using the more conservative sensitivity rating of 94 dB, you should get reference peaks (105 dB) through each of your front speakers at 13 feet away in a big-ish room (about 4,000 cu. ft.), at an expenditure of just about 64 watts. That is well below the continuous power handling of your speakers (i.e., 150 watts). If Audyssey is punching up a dip or null by 3 dB, that would require 128 watts (2x64). That's getting up there.
> 
> 
> I would be interesting to see what happens if you tucked both FL and FR speakers into the corners, with the rear of the enclosures actually touching the two walls. That should increase the SPL below ~~ 175 Hz by about 6 dB or so, "for free" -- no additional amp power needed.


I never calibrate with the door open and always have it closed when watching movies etc, 



The problem is non existant with Aud turned off, i get what you mean though try to raise the bass to see if i still get that sound, i will try that at some stage,


It is just the effects at the start, there is output from all my subwoofers as well as the fronts, and they are crossed over at 80 and i feel as though those effects would be well below that, not withstanding that they go on for a couple of seceonds, but yes youa re right its wierd that at a 80crossover they would be getting that signal, maybe the effect isnt that low..?


Room is 4x5 metres with broadband absorbers, combo panels, and a platform filled with insulation. Double plaster all round, solid timber door. 



My fronts are run by a emotiva XPA 11 gen 3, I beleive they are rated at 300W for the fronts so i should not have a problem there, 



If i tucked the speakrss in the corners, would i not get a lot of boundry interference? 



Cheers


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> I suppose that if the door is open it might reduce boundary gain a little, causing Audyssey to strain either itself, or the signal path somewhere in the AVR/pre-pro in order to build up a dip or null in the bass.
> 
> Try turning Audyssey off completely, raise your main volume, and with DEQ OFF (to allow the bass control to be usable), turn the bass control up (nowadays most are limited to 6 dB) and see if you can produce that unwelcome sound without Audyssey in the circuit.
> 
> Is that passage at the beginning of The Fifth Element  sound effects, or music? If it is composed of effects, only, why isn't it going directly to your sub, through the LFE function? Should it even be in your front speakers?
> 
> How big a room are you trying to fill with SPL 5 dB below reference? I think you said it was treated.
> 
> What is the continuous wattage out, of your AVR, 2 channels operating (only because they generally don't include specs for all channels operating), at low distortion?
> 
> Your FR and FL have 94 dB sensitivity in an anechoic chamber, and 98 dB in a typical room (that's the way Klipsch does it). By my (conservative) calculations, using the more conservative sensitivity rating of 94 dB, you should get reference peaks (105 dB) through each of your front speakers at 13 feet away in a big-ish room (about 4,000 cu. ft.), at an expenditure of just about 64 watts. That is well below the continuous power handling of your speakers (i.e., 150 watts). If Audyssey is punching up a dip or null by 3 dB, that would require 128 watts (2x64). That's getting up there.
> 
> I would be interesting to see what happens if you tucked both FL and FR speakers into the corners, with the rear of the enclosures actually touching the two walls. That should increase the SPL below ~~ 175 Hz by about 6 dB or so, "for free" -- no additional amp power needed.




Hi Gary,

I liked your mathematical analysis, and I agree with you that moving the speakers closer to the room boundaries might help, and raising the crossover to 100Hz or so, might help as well, if one of the speakers is having trouble with low-frequencies. (There might be trade-offs, but every placement or setting decision we make can potentially involve some degree of compromise. It's worth a try.) I would also watch my master volume at the very start of any modern action movie, or blockbuster, for reasons explained earlier.

Something that might be worth pointing out again though, is something that I noted in a previous post a week or two ago. Published speaker (and subwoofer) specs don't always mean what we think they mean. And, if they don't, then it becomes very difficult to extrapolate a speaker's ability to hit Reference volumes (at every frequency we want the speaker to play) without distortion, compression, port chuffing, or other audible sounds of distress. 

Let's say that a speaker is rated as being 94dB efficient at 1 watt. And, let's assume that everyone is measuring that 94dB at exactly the same 1m distance. Is the speaker 94dB efficient for every frequency it plays, or is it 94dB at some selected frequency, or at some selected range of frequencies? 

If it's a selected frequency, it might be 1,000Hz. If it's a selected range of frequencies, that range might correspond to typical pink noise. I believe that the most commonly used pink noise for speakers is the one that Audyssey uses, which is 500Hz to 2,000Hz. What we can't be sure of from the specs, is that the speaker can play every frequency it is supposed to play, at that same 94dB. 

A speaker which produces 94dB, at 1watt power, measured at 1m, at 500-2,000Hz may not be equally efficient at the much more demanding frequency of 125Hz, and even less so at 63Hz. There is a newer subsection of the Guide, which addresses the reason that subwoofer specifications of +/-3dB don't mean what we think that they mean, and I think that the same thing is true for speaker specs, as well.

Whether a manufacture shows it's speakers as being 94dB efficient, or shows those speakers as +/-3dB at a particular frequency, doesn't really tell us much, unless the manufacturer also tells us the frequencies at which the speaker is 94dB efficient, or tells us the actual volume level at which the speaker loses -3dB, at the specified frequency. And, that rarely (or never) happens.

Here is a link to the relevant subwoofer subsection, which I think is directly analogous to the current discussion:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...oofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#VIIIB

In that subsection, I try to avoid any implication that subwoofer manufacturers are being deliberately deceptive with their published specifications, and I will avoid the implication for speaker makers as well. But, I would suggest that modern audio marketing consists of showing products in the most favorable light. And, I don't believe that most modern specs mean exactly what we think that they mean. 

As a result, I think it can be very difficult to do mathematical calculations, of probable speaker/subwoofer capabilities, solely on the basis of published specifications. I believe that we need to see measured frequency responses, for either speakers or for subwoofers, in order to more accurately predict their actual capabilities in our rooms.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> If i tucked the speakrss in the corners, would i not get a lot of boundry interference?
> 
> 
> Cheers



Some say yes, some say no. The argument has been going on for about 50 years. Worth a try, perhaps. One partial solution is to place absorbing pads on both side walls, starting even with the front of the speaker, and extending along the walls for about 3 feet out into the room. The walls don't have to be covered top to bottom, just at the height of the speakers, and a little above and below. Very low frequencies will ignore the pads, and the bass will be reinforced. Mid and high bass, as well as midrange and treble will have any boundary interference reduced by the pads. Paul W. Klipsch felt that *any* speaker would have bass increased, and would sound better overall when pressed into a trihedral corner, providing that there were 4 unobstructed feet in both directions.


----------



## JD23

mogorf said:


> Yeap, DEQ will do what is was intended to do, but on an uncorrected frequency range that was not flattened out! Please think about this: going out to a concert hall and at the end telling the hall manager that you didn't like the acoustics above 300 or 500 Hz and asking him to take more care would surely result in his eyebrow raising, right!



You're giving Audyssey too much credit. At high frequencies, Audyssey is attempting to correct the speakers more than the room. I have also measured and seen it create as many artifacts as it corrects.


----------



## mthomas47

JD23 said:


> You're giving Audyssey too much credit. At high frequencies, Audyssey is attempting to correct the speakers more than the room. I have also measured and seen it create as many artifacts as it corrects.



Hi,

I understand what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing with any conclusions you have personally reached regarding the use of room correction for higher frequencies. As far as I am concerned, that is strictly a YMMV issue.

FWIW though, I don't believe that Audyssey is attempting to correct the speakers more than the room. Audyssey is always simply trying to improve the speaker/room interaction, in order to achieve a more uniform frequency response. And, in trying to do that, it certainly can create artifacts of its own. For that reason, I think that extra care often has to be taken, with speaker setup and calibration technique, in order to get serviceable full-band room correction.

(It is also true that speakers which have inherent problems in trying to uniformly hit frequencies above about 3,000 or 4,000Hz may be boosted in an effort to achieve a more uniform frequency response. But, that inability to reach uniform volume levels, at certain frequencies, can be due to inherent speaker limitations, insufficient tweeter directionality due to speaker positioning, or to distance from the listening position. Automated room correction really can't distinguish between inherent speaker limitations, and directionality or distance-related limitations.) 

Audyssey's real dilemma though, which is common to most forms of room correction, is that it can't separate direct and/or early arriving sounds from later arriving reflections, in the same way that our brains can. It doesn't have the ability to ignore some later arriving sounds, due to the precedence effect, in the way that human hearing can. Correcting in the time domain is something that Dirac Live claims to be able to do better, but I also read some complaints regarding its high-frequency correction.

In my opinion, the problem is that the reflections at a particular point in space may be a little different for a slightly different point in space. In other words, move your head over a foot, and you will be getting slightly different reflections--especially for frequencies above about 1,000Hz. And, very high-frequencies can be deflected into our ears, or into a room correction mic, from almost any surface. Our brains may be able to ignore some of those spurious reflections, but room correction can't.

That's one reason that I think people get better calibrations when they strictly limit their measurement area, and keep their measurement microphone well away from any reflective surfaces. That way, there is less opportunity for major fluctuations, in the time domain, to affect the high-frequency filters that Audyssey sets.

Even so, a lot will depend on the room, on room treatments, and on the personal preference of the individual listener. I'm not actually advocating either for or against full-band room correction in this post. I really do think its potential benefits will vary from room-to-room, and from listener-to-listener. But, I did want to clarify what I think some of the real issues are. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

JD23 said:


> You're giving Audyssey too much credit. At high frequencies, Audyssey is attempting to correct the speakers more than the room. I have also measured and seen it create as many artifacts as it corrects.



Thanks for your feedback!  Actually I don't know of any room correction system that can correct speakers only without taking the room into consideration. Room and speakers go hand-in-hand and produce "things" that need correction. I think this is a much more complex issue than just saying Audyssey creates artifacts. Care to name a few? Let's discuss! Thanks.


----------



## Matt2026

mogorf said:


> Thanks for your feedback!  Actually I don't know of any room correction system that can correct speakers only without taking the room into consideration. Room and speakers go hand-in-hand and produce "things" that need correction. I think this is a much more complex issue than just saying Audyssey creates artifacts. Care to name a few? Let's discuss! Thanks.


Gene and Matt on Audioholics *



*. Room correction... what you see is not necessarily what you hear. It seems microphones do not "hear" sounds the same way a human does, which may explain why Audysssey messes up the sound for some folks. So, a seemingly flat response curve from Audyssey does not sound flat to a human.

If you get a "Video Unavailable" warning just try clicking on the top header


----------



## pbz06

mogorf said:


> Thanks for your feedback!  Actually I don't know of any room correction system that can correct speakers only without taking the room into consideration. Room and speakers go hand-in-hand and produce "things" that need correction. I think this is a much more complex issue than just saying Audyssey creates artifacts. Care to name a few? Let's discuss! Thanks.


From every test I've seen from people measuring XT32 and setting it up properly and giving it a fair shot, none came out with a conclusion worse than "oh, it actually works as intended".

I read A LOT about the potential pitfalls of full range EQ and why you shouldn't this or shouldn't that, but nobody has ever proved or shown me that XT32 does those bad things. The worse is when a speaker has natural characteristics/slopes that Audyssey "corrects" to flat, but again, you can't knock Audyssey because they clearly state what they do and why they do. It's the user's responsibility to decide if they want that or like that, without bashing it. 

Even Audioholics (whom I love and follow them), are strong opponents to "full range EQ", but have never measured or analysed XT32 in their videos or articles. They're advocates for room treatment, and getting good speakers (can't fix bad speakers and bad rooms with EQ), and multi subs...but their opinion seems fixed on older versions (includign MRC) and basic philosophy as opposed to actually measuring good speakers with basic treatment, and properly setup XT32. I'd love to see all the "problems" it creates when used correctly.


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> I'd love to see all the "problems" it creates when used correctly.


Me, too!! 

Here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say about full range EQ: 

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

Interesting!


----------



## JD23

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I understand what you are saying, and I'm not disagreeing with any conclusions you have personally reached regarding the use of room correction for higher frequencies. As far as I am concerned, that is strictly a YMMV issue.
> 
> FWIW though, I don't believe that Audyssey is attempting to correct the speakers more than the room. Audyssey is always simply trying to improve the speaker/room interaction, in order to achieve a more uniform frequency response. And, in trying to do that, it certainly can create artifacts of its own. For that reason, I think that extra care often has to be taken, with speaker setup and calibration technique, in order to get serviceable full-band room correction.



At bass frequencies, it certainly can compensate for room modes and effectively correct for the room. At high frequencies, it will also be attempting to correct the speakers if it is run full range.


----------



## JD23

pbz06 said:


> From every test I've seen from people measuring XT32 and setting it up properly and giving it a fair shot, none came out with a conclusion worse than "oh, it actually works as intended".
> 
> I read A LOT about the potential pitfalls of full range EQ and why you shouldn't this or shouldn't that, but nobody has ever proved or shown me that XT32 does those bad things. The worse is when a speaker has natural characteristics/slopes that Audyssey "corrects" to flat, but again, you can't knock Audyssey because they clearly state what they do and why they do. It's the user's responsibility to decide if they want that or like that, without bashing it.
> 
> Even Audioholics (whom I love and follow them), are strong opponents to "full range EQ", but have never measured or analysed XT32 in their videos or articles. They're advocates for room treatment, and getting good speakers (can't fix bad speakers and bad rooms with EQ), and multi subs...but their opinion seems fixed on older versions (includign MRC) and basic philosophy as opposed to actually measuring good speakers with basic treatment, and properly setup XT32. I'd love to see all the "problems" it creates when used correctly.



Take a look at the plot I attached in post 8186 of this thread. With manual intervention using the curve editor, I agree that the response produced by Audyssey (green curve) is superior to the original frequency response. However, IMO, the original response produced by Audyssey (red curve) measured worse and clearly sounded worse than the uncorrected response, as Audyssey effectively neutered bass below 40 Hz.


----------



## JD23

mogorf said:


> Thanks for your feedback!  Actually I don't know of any room correction system that can correct speakers only without taking the room into consideration. Room and speakers go hand-in-hand and produce "things" that need correction. I think this is a much more complex issue than just saying Audyssey creates artifacts. Care to name a few? Let's discuss! Thanks.



I consider eliminating bass below 40 Hz an artifact, as I posted previously. With manual intervention, I agree that the result is superior to the original uncorrected response.

There is widespread disagreement regarding the efficacy of full-range room correction. Unsurprisignly, the creator of Audyssey is in favor. However, other notable experts, such as Floyd Toole, discourage it. The creators of ARC only recommend EQing up to 5 kHz, though ARC now allows full-range EQ (https://www.soundstageaccess.com/in...-on-subwoofer-integration-and-room-correction).


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> From every test I've seen from people measuring XT32 and setting it up properly and giving it a fair shot, none came out with a conclusion worse than "oh, it actually works as intended".
> 
> I read A LOT about the potential pitfalls of full range EQ and why you shouldn't this or shouldn't that, but nobody has ever proved or shown me that XT32 does those bad things. The worse is when a speaker has natural characteristics/slopes that Audyssey "corrects" to flat, but again, you can't knock Audyssey because they clearly state what they do and why they do. It's the user's responsibility to decide if they want that or like that, without bashing it.
> 
> Even Audioholics (whom I love and follow them), are strong opponents to "full range EQ", but have never measured or analysed XT32 in their videos or articles. They're advocates for room treatment, and getting good speakers (can't fix bad speakers and bad rooms with EQ), and multi subs...but their opinion seems fixed on older versions (includign MRC) and basic philosophy as opposed to actually measuring good speakers with basic treatment, and properly setup XT32. I'd love to see all the "problems" it creates when used correctly.


Agree. XT32 works very well. I actually have better results in my living room than I did in my old dedicated room. Audioholics review of the Marantz 8012 said they prefer full range to no EQ. 

For me when I use XT32 full range my speakers disappear into my room. It sounds like I have more speakers than I actually do. When I limit correction my speakers are more localized. XT32 doesn’t really change their sound so much. And of course DEQ is a feature I can’t live without.


----------



## mogorf

JD23 said:


> I consider eliminating bass below 40 Hz an artifact. Maybe you prefer it.



Actually Audyssey MultEQ starts off from 10 Hz. Your result - not denied by any means - should need a closer scrutiny to find out what happened on your system and why.


----------



## pbz06

JD23 said:


> Take a look at the plot I attached in post 8186 of this thread. With manual intervention using the curve editor, I agree that the response produced by Audyssey (green curve) is superior to the original frequency response. However, IMO, the original response produced by Audyssey (red curve) measured worse and clearly sounded worse than the uncorrected response, as Audyssey effectively neutered bass below 40 Hz.


I don't know enough about your system and setup to comment on what it did at 40hz (and why). That seems like an anomaly as opposed to a conscious hackjob of Audyssey neutering bass. Even the people that "knock" on Audyssey, usually admit that its work in the bass region is usually really good.


----------



## rocky1

Question from a laymen. Audessey was run on my sr7012 when i first
Got it. 2 years more or less . Havent run audessey since. Cant remember exactly if audessey set fronts to large but it did set 60 crossover . I as i was told set speakers to small and 80. I do change to 60 once in a great while. I see some of you were also talking full range isnt that the large speaker settings? Shouldnt that come into play depending on speaker specs to determine if they are full range speakers? I dont know personally
Just asking. Also should i rerun audessey or does it really matter.. also if i change my fronts to large even though may not be full range speakers — any harm or a no no.my understanding changing speaker and crossover settings doesnt alter audessey? Or am i wrong.. sorry long post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JD23

pbz06 said:


> I don't know enough about your system and setup to comment on what it did at 40hz (and why). That seems like an anomaly as opposed to a conscious hackjob of Audyssey neutering bass. Even the people that "knock" on Audyssey, usually admit that it's work in the bass region is usually really good.



I agree that this is not the intended behavior of Audyssey. However, it is a valid example of an artifact that leads to an inferior result, as I mentioned earlier. In my system, I have found that minor changes in subwoofer and/or mic position can lead to a dramatic change in the Audyssey's target curve in the bass region, while only resulting in minute variation to the uncorrected frequency response. This is a concrete example of a "problem" caused by Audyssey, as you dismissively referred to it earlier.

I am not arguing that Audyssey is "junk" and should not be used (I am currently using it), only that it is fallible and there are legitimate reasons some may want to limit the correction range.


----------



## pbz06

rocky1 said:


> Question from a laymen. Audessey was run on my sr7012 when i first
> Got it. 2 years more or less . Havent run audessey since. Cant remember exactly if audessey set fronts to large but it did set 60 crossover . I as i was told set speakers to small and 80. I do change to 60 once in a great while. I see some of you were also talking full range isnt that the large speaker settings? Shouldnt that come into play depending on speaker specs to determine if they are full range speakers? I dont know personally
> Just asking. Also should i rerun audessey or does it really matter.. also if i change my fronts to large even though may not be full range speakers — any harm or a no no.my understanding changing speaker and crossover settings doesnt alter audessey? Or am i wrong.. sorry long post
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, we are actually talking about something different. You are referring to bass management (speakers set to either Large or Small)...you did it correctly setting it to small.

We are talking about full range vs limited range for EQ


----------



## Toto84

Hi Guys, i have 2 subs, do i have to put the phase at 0 before using audyssey as i know that 1 of the sub should be at 180 ?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

Toto84 said:


> Hi Guys, i have 2 subs, do i have to put the phase at 0 before using audyssey as i know that 1 of the sub should be at 180 ?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk



Best is to take everything out of the way on the subs so Audyssey MultEQ can do its job. In your particular case I would set phase to 0 on both subs!


----------



## rosstg

pbz06 said:


> I don't know enough about your system and setup to comment on what it did at 40hz (and why). That seems like an anomaly as opposed to a conscious hackjob of Audyssey neutering bass. Even the people that "knock" on Audyssey, usually admit that its work in the bass region is usually really good.


Well if it’s good enough for the guys at SVS I’m assuming it’s pretty great


----------



## rosstg

JD23 said:


> I agree that this is not the intended behavior of Audyssey. However, it is a valid example of an artifact that leads to an inferior result, as I mentioned earlier. In my system, I have found that minor changes in subwoofer and/or mic position can lead to a dramatic change in the Audyssey's target curve in the bass region, while only resulting in minute variation to the uncorrected frequency response. This is a concrete example of a "problem" caused by Audyssey, as you dismissively referred to it earlier.
> 
> I am not arguing that Audyssey is "junk" and should not be used (I am currently using it), only that it is fallible and there are legitimate reasons some may want to limit the correction range.


Any poor speaker or placement will sound bad regardless of any room correction whether it’s Audyssey or Dirac.


----------



## Toto84

mogorf said:


> Best is to take everything out of the way on the subs so Audyssey MultEQ can do its job. In your particular case I would set phase to 0 on both subs!


It will be interesting to compare i have done with both at 0 and 1 at 180.
I will check with rew and let you know 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## JD23

rosstg said:


> Any poor speaker or placement will sound bad regardless of any room correction whether it’s Audyssey or Dirac.



That's true, but not relevant in this situation.


----------



## Toto84

mogorf said:


> Best is to take everything out of the way on the subs so Audyssey MultEQ can do its job. In your particular case I would set phase to 0 on both subs!


If you mixing ported and seal sub best to set the phase of your sub before letting audyssey doing the cal.

I double checked with rew. 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> ... Published speaker (and subwoofer) specs don't always mean what we think they mean. And, if they don't, then it becomes very difficult to extrapolate a speaker's ability to hit Reference volumes (at every frequency we want the speaker to play) without distortion, compression, port chuffing, or other audible sounds of distress.
> 
> Let's say that a speaker is rated as being 94dB efficient at 1 watt. And, let's assume that everyone is measuring that 94dB at exactly the same 1m distance. Is the speaker 94dB efficient for every frequency it plays, or is it 94dB at some selected frequency, or at some selected range of frequencies?
> 
> If it's a selected frequency, it might be 1,000Hz. If it's a selected range of frequencies, that range might correspond to typical pink noise. I believe that the most commonly used pink noise for speakers is the one that Audyssey uses, which is 500Hz to 2,000Hz. What we can't be sure of from the specs, is that the speaker can play every frequency it is supposed to play, at that same 94dB.
> 
> A speaker which produces 94dB, at 1watt power, measured at 1m, at 500-2,000Hz may not be equally efficient at the much more demanding frequency of 125Hz, and even less so at 63Hz. There is a newer subsection of the Guide, which addresses the reason that subwoofer specifications of +/-3dB don't mean what we think that they mean, and I think that the same thing is true for speaker specs, as well.



Thanks, Mike. I will read the new subsection when I get rid of this headache!


I agree with the above (more later). That's why we should do our own measurements, if possible, and at least get some impressions with our ears, in our rooms, with our speakers, and with our favorite music and movies.

*shazza688*, Keith, and I all push the SPL envelope, and by just about the same amount (5 dB below reference, some of the time). We all have plenty of amplifier power, and Keith and I have adequate speaker power handling (no matter how it's -- plausibly -- measured ???). *shazza688 *hears something untoward -- only with Audyssey -- in one front channel, so that means something, but what? My favorite hypothesis is that Audyssey is pushing hard on that channel to correct a dip. In the unlikely circumstance that Audyssey would impose its full 9 dB of boost there, it would (might) take 512 watts at a rate of 3 dB per doubling, which is higher than the rating for either *shazza688*'s amplifier (300 w.p.c.) or speaker (150 w power handling). It's probably O.K. because we are told that Audyssey and other devices accomplish frequency amplitude correction by lowering the overall level, until the needed correction can be accomplished with less true boost. If we just go by a main (calibrated) volume control setting of -5, all should be well. But if we feel it needs to be louder (because Audyssey has lowered the overall curve) and turn it up more by ear, we could be in trouble.

I have heard two quasi-honest ways to measure *continuous power handling* of a speaker, by very well thought of companies. (I wish I could cite the standard of AES, but they want me to pay $50. That doesn't strike me as _public_ and verifiable, guys). One speaker maker said they used pink noise band limited to the advertised bandwidth of the woofer, for 2 hours. When they determined how much the speaker would take, they backed off by 1 dB for the rating. The other said something similar, but ran the test speakers until 1/2 of them failed, and called that the power handling. With just about everything except electronic music, the signal reaching the tweeter is 10 to 20 dB lower than what hits the woofer. It is certainly possible to blow a tweeter, though, especially with test signals, or clipping.

For *sensitivity* at 2.83V (1 watt into 8 Ohms) at 1 meter, I would hope they would rate it over the advertised bandwidth of the speaker. If they are misleading enough to use a selected frequency of 1,000 Hz, they may be shooting themselves in the foot (with some speakers). One of my favorite speakers is 5 dB more sensitive at 100 to 200 Hz, and 2 dB more sensitive at 40 Hz than it is at 1,000 Hz. One you like, Mike, seems to be up to 8 dB more sensitive at 35 to 70 Hz than it is at 1,000 Hz. Of course neither of these results should matter, because Audyssey should straighten out their frequency response curves, and response below about 80 Hz would go to the subwoofer. It is a different world now that "everybody" has a sub. George Augspurger of JBL used to say that, "... most people like the sound of a little bump in the bass as long as the advertising assures them that the speaker is 'really' flat." Now it might be, "most people like the sound of a little boost in the subwoofer."


----------



## tonybradley

tonybradley said:


> Another Question regarding multi Subs.
> 
> Before I ran Audyssey, I moved my Subs around and ran REW to find the best placement. I did find that the Sub on my Back wall needed to have the Phase set to 180 degrees while the one on the front wall was 0 for the best curve.
> 
> Should I leave my second sub set on 180 for the Audyssey Calibration, or should I set both Phases to 0 and allow Audyssey to perform any Phase corrections internally with the calibration?


Thought I'd Quote myself to get this question back in rotation if anyone can answer. When I re-ran Audyssey, I left the second sub set at 180 degrees from where REW showed was the better option. Just not sure if it was wise to keep that way when running Audyssey.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@garygarrison @mthomas47

Here are Shazza Audyssey graphs for the mains, what concerned me a little is that the levels are on the positive side so I included all the levels too, I don't use pre-amps so I'm not 100 percent sure if this is normal

Maybe this helps

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> @*garygarrison* @*mthomas47*
> 
> Here are Shazza Audyssey graphs for the mains, what concerned me a little is that the levels are on the positive side so I included all the levels too, I don't use pre-amps so I'm not 100 percent sure if this is normal
> 
> Maybe this helps
> 
> Jim



Hi Jim,

It definitely helps! I have no idea what is going on with his front soundstage, but those are very high trim levels for the FR and the FL. If @shazza6887 is using a separate amplifier for those speakers, or for the front three, he probably needs to turn-up the amp volume a little prior to calibration. In any event, trim levels consume amplifier headroom, just as master volume does. From the 75dB test tone level, there really isn't going to be a lot of headroom left, as he increases his master volume. 

Part of the problem with the FR is a deep null at 60Hz. The FL has a similar, but shallower, area of cancellation. There is no question that Audyssey would be trying to boost that FR null, and would be consuming additional amplifier headroom in the process.

My guess is that he is listening to distortion from those front speakers, at a -5 or higher MV, either with or without Audyssey engaged. As noted in an earlier post, we may not always recognize clipped or distorted sound until we hear undistorted sound, in the same room, to compare it with. With Audyssey engaged and trying to boost that null at 60Hz, I'm not surprised that he is hearing the woofer on the RF rattling. It would take the right bass volume at the right frequency to do it, but it sounds as if he found it. That may not be the only bass content that will cause a problem.

I think that we have a better understanding of the problem now, but I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. To start with, I would look at the location of the listening position and see if it is close to the center point of the room length. If so, he may be experiencing generalized cancellation from the two speakers on the front wall. If he can move his MLP to about 3/8's or 5/8's of the room length, it may help.

The second thing I would try is to move the front speakers away from the corners and closer to 1/8th or 1/4 of the front wall width. Each speaker would move inward by the same amount. It is very possible that the two speakers are cancelling each other, in the roughly 60Hz region. For both the potential moving the MLP test, and the moving the front speakers inward test, he could run just three mic positions, and then calibrate to see what his new front speaker trim and EQ graph results are.

(A note on corner loading. Corner loading a transducer--whether it's a speaker, or a subwoofer, should increase boundary gain. But, room modes trump boundary gain, and cancellation from two transducers located along the front wall, can sometimes be a real problem. When that occurs, 1/8th or 1/4 wall locations for the two transducers will usually fix it.)

If he absolutely, positively had to leave the front speakers in the corners, and/or he couldn't move a center of room length MLP, then I would recommend setting a crossover to those front speakers of about 100Hz, or higher, to take away some of the lower-frequency strain. I don't believe they are doing him any favors at all below about 80Hz, anyway. 

As you noted in an earlier post, an 80Hz crossover still allows speakers to play 60 and 70Hz content at a slightly reduced volume. Cascading crossovers won't be helpful right now, either. He needs his front speakers to be more capable before he tries to roll-off his sub faster, above the crossover from the speakers. 

One final thought. His subwoofer trim level is too close to 0.0, especially for a -5 MV level. That sub is also probably clipping the bass signal with the right content. He needs to drop his trim level on that sub to about -6, and raise the gain on the sub itself by a roughly commensurate amount. I hope that some of this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## filmguy123

*Denon MultEQ32XT -- if set "off", does that mean audyssey if off?*

I ran audyseey on my 5.1.2 setup a while back to get it all configured. It made a huge difference. I went into settings and manually adjusted some of my levels to boost the atmos overheads and side surrounds a little to taste, and I also adjusted my crossover levels to a match klipsch recommended specs.

I also can tell a big difference when switching from "direct" (bypassing audyssey) to DD surround, atmos, or multichannel in depending on content source.

Today however I noticed under the "audio" settings that MultEQ32XT is set to "OFF"...????

1. What does this setting do exactly?

2. How could it have gotten switched to off? By making manual adjustments? Switching zones back and forth?

3. Does this turn off audyssey altogether, or just "part" of its correction? What part/what is it?

4. If it turns it off, why do I still notice such a difference between pre-calibration and now?

Thanks for the help!


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> ... those are very high trim levels for the FR and the FL. If @*shazza6887* is using a separate amplifier for those speakers, or for the front three, he probably needs to *turn-up the amp volume* a little prior to calibration. In any event, trim levels consume amplifier headroom, just as master volume does. From the 75dB test tone level, there really isn't going to be a lot of headroom left, as he increases his master volume.
> 
> Part of the problem with the FR is a deep null at 60Hz. The FL has a similar, but shallower, area of cancellation. There is no question that Audyssey would be trying to boost that FR null, and would be consuming additional amplifier headroom in the process.
> 
> My guess is that he is listening to distortion from those front speakers, at a -5 or higher MV, either with or without Audyssey engaged. As noted in an earlier post, we may not always recognize clipped or distorted sound until we hear undistorted sound, in the same room, to compare it with. With Audyssey engaged and trying to boost that null at 60Hz, I'm not surprised that he is hearing the woofer on the RF rattling. It would take the right bass volume at the right frequency to do it, but it sounds as if he found it. That may not be the only bass content that will cause a problem.
> 
> I think that we have a better understanding of the problem now, but I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. To start with, I would look at the location of the listening position and see if it is close to the center point of the room length. If so, he may be experiencing generalized cancellation from the two speakers on the front wall. If he can move his MLP to about 3/8's or 5/8's of the room length, it may help.
> 
> The second thing I would try is to move the front speakers away from the corners and closer to 1/8th or 1/4 of the front wall width. Each speaker would move inward by the same amount. It is very possible that the two speakers are cancelling each other, in the roughly 60Hz region. For both the potential moving the MLP test, and the moving the front speakers inward test, he could run just three mic positions, and then calibrate to see what his new front speaker trim and EQ graph results are.
> 
> (A note on corner loading. Corner loading a transducer--whether it's a speaker, or a subwoofer, should increase boundary gain. But, room modes trump boundary gain, and cancellation from two transducers located along the front wall, can sometimes be a real problem. When that occurs, 1/8th or 1/4 wall locations for the two transducers will usually fix it.)
> 
> If he absolutely, positively had to leave the front speakers in the corners, and/or he couldn't move a center of room length MLP, then I would recommend setting a crossover to those front speakers of about 100Hz, or higher, to take away some of the lower-frequency strain. I don't believe they are doing him any favors at all below about 80Hz, anyway.
> 
> As you noted in an earlier post, an 80Hz crossover still allows speakers to play 60 and 70Hz content at a slightly reduced volume. Cascading crossovers won't be helpful right now, either. He needs his front speakers to be more capable before he tries to roll-off his sub faster, above the crossover from the speakers.
> 
> One final thought. His subwoofer trim level is too close to 0.0, especially for a -5 MV level. That sub is also probably clipping the bass signal with the right content. He needs to drop his trim level on that sub to about -6, and raise the gain on the sub itself by a roughly commensurate amount. I hope that some of this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



As usual, Mike has given good advice!


----------



## warnerwh1

Making adjustments should not have turned it off. Just turn it back on and you should notice the difference. Btw the app is well worth the 20 bucks as you can shape the curve and also limit the frequency.


----------



## shazza6887

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> It definitely helps! I have no idea what is going on with his front soundstage, but those are very high trim levels for the FR and the FL. If @shazza6887 is using a separate amplifier for those speakers, or for the front three, he probably needs to turn-up the amp volume a little prior to calibration. In any event, trim levels consume amplifier headroom, just as master volume does. From the 75dB test tone level, there really isn't going to be a lot of headroom left, as he increases his master volume.
> 
> Part of the problem with the FR is a deep null at 60Hz. The FL has a similar, but shallower, area of cancellation. There is no question that Audyssey would be trying to boost that FR null, and would be consuming additional amplifier headroom in the process.
> 
> My guess is that he is listening to distortion from those front speakers, at a -5 or higher MV, either with or without Audyssey engaged. As noted in an earlier post, we may not always recognize clipped or distorted sound until we hear undistorted sound, in the same room, to compare it with. With Audyssey engaged and trying to boost that null at 60Hz, I'm not surprised that he is hearing the woofer on the RF rattling. It would take the right bass volume at the right frequency to do it, but it sounds as if he found it. That may not be the only bass content that will cause a problem.
> 
> I think that we have a better understanding of the problem now, but I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. To start with, I would look at the location of the listening position and see if it is close to the center point of the room length. If so, he may be experiencing generalized cancellation from the two speakers on the front wall. If he can move his MLP to about 3/8's or 5/8's of the room length, it may help.
> 
> The second thing I would try is to move the front speakers away from the corners and closer to 1/8th or 1/4 of the front wall width. Each speaker would move inward by the same amount. It is very possible that the two speakers are cancelling each other, in the roughly 60Hz region. For both the potential moving the MLP test, and the moving the front speakers inward test, he could run just three mic positions, and then calibrate to see what his new front speaker trim and EQ graph results are.
> 
> (A note on corner loading. Corner loading a transducer--whether it's a speaker, or a subwoofer, should increase boundary gain. But, room modes trump boundary gain, and cancellation from two transducers located along the front wall, can sometimes be a real problem. When that occurs, 1/8th or 1/4 wall locations for the two transducers will usually fix it.)
> 
> If he absolutely, positively had to leave the front speakers in the corners, and/or he couldn't move a center of room length MLP, then I would recommend setting a crossover to those front speakers of about 100Hz, or higher, to take away some of the lower-frequency strain. I don't believe they are doing him any favors at all below about 80Hz, anyway.
> 
> As you noted in an earlier post, an 80Hz crossover still allows speakers to play 60 and 70Hz content at a slightly reduced volume. Cascading crossovers won't be helpful right now, either. He needs his front speakers to be more capable before he tries to roll-off his sub faster, above the crossover from the speakers.
> 
> One final thought. His subwoofer trim level is too close to 0.0, especially for a -5 MV level. That sub is also probably clipping the bass signal with the right content. He needs to drop his trim level on that sub to about -6, and raise the gain on the sub itself by a roughly commensurate amount. I hope that some of this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you all for helping with this,


If it helps out with a possible solution, i am using XLR attenuation pads for my 7 speakrs on the ground. I need to use these as the amps input is way to high for these speakers and when i run audyssey it would set them all to -12 and i would not truly know where i am 


With the speakers due to the projector screen i can't actually move them more to the centre of the wall, i can however try to move them back towards the corners more and more against the wall while maintaining a decent toe in, i actually have a combo panel as first reflection points for the fronts, 



I also can't ,move my mlp due to a platform behind and obviously the room is already contructed 



With the sub all my subs's gains are all set to 12'oclock, we got to -1.5 through lowering the master input volume on the mini dsp by -5.5, i have to get it at thright level where audyssey is happy or we get the left speaker bug for some reason. 



Does this change anything moving forward?


----------



## Truls

shazza6887 said:


> Thank you all for helping with this,
> 
> 
> If it helps out with a possible solution, i am using XLR attenuation pads for my 7 speakrs on the ground. I need to use these as the amps input is way to high for these speakers and when i run audyssey it would set them all to -12 and i would not truly know where i am


I have the same problem with my setup, everything is -12db. What Attenuators would you recommend? Would it be possible to use a single Attenuator on the setup mic instead and just remember its offset?


----------



## jdsmoothie

filmguy123 said:


> I ran audyseey on my 5.1.2 setup a while back to get it all configured. It made a huge difference. I went into settings and manually adjusted some of my levels to boost the atmos overheads and side surrounds a little to taste, and I also adjusted my crossover levels to a match klipsch recommended specs.
> 
> I also can tell a big difference when switching from "direct" (bypassing audyssey) to DD surround, atmos, or multichannel in depending on content source.
> 
> Today however I noticed under the "audio" settings that MultEQ32XT is set to "OFF"...????
> 
> 1. What does this setting do exactly?
> 
> 2. How could it have gotten switched to off? By making manual adjustments? Switching zones back and forth?
> 
> 3. Does this turn off audyssey altogether, or just "part" of its correction? What part/what is it?
> 
> 4. If it turns it off, why do I still notice such a difference between pre-calibration and now?
> 
> Thanks for the help!


1. It means Audyssey is disabled.
2. Not by making manual speaker adjustments, but rather by switching the AMP ASSIGN setting regarding zones; however, if you set it back to the setting when Audyssey was run, Audyssey should be enabled again.
3. Yes, all Audyssey features are off.
4. Because speaker distance/level settings still apply.

For more information, refer to the Audyssey FAQ thread --> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...2376770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html


----------



## Leeliemix

Did you change the crossover settings higher or lower than what auto setup did?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> It definitely helps! I have no idea what is going on with his front soundstage, but those are very high trim levels for the FR and the FL. If @shazza6887 is using a separate amplifier for those speakers, or for the front three, he probably needs to turn-up the amp volume a little prior to calibration. In any event, trim levels consume amplifier headroom, just as master volume does. From the 75dB test tone level, there really isn't going to be a lot of headroom left, as he increases his master volume.
> 
> Part of the problem with the FR is a deep null at 60Hz. The FL has a similar, but shallower, area of cancellation. There is no question that Audyssey would be trying to boost that FR null, and would be consuming additional amplifier headroom in the process.
> 
> My guess is that he is listening to distortion from those front speakers, at a -5 or higher MV, either with or without Audyssey engaged. As noted in an earlier post, we may not always recognize clipped or distorted sound until we hear undistorted sound, in the same room, to compare it with. With Audyssey engaged and trying to boost that null at 60Hz, I'm not surprised that he is hearing the woofer on the RF rattling. It would take the right bass volume at the right frequency to do it, but it sounds as if he found it. That may not be the only bass content that will cause a problem.
> 
> I think that we have a better understanding of the problem now, but I'm honestly not sure what the solution is. To start with, I would look at the location of the listening position and see if it is close to the center point of the room length. If so, he may be experiencing generalized cancellation from the two speakers on the front wall. If he can move his MLP to about 3/8's or 5/8's of the room length, it may help.
> 
> The second thing I would try is to move the front speakers away from the corners and closer to 1/8th or 1/4 of the front wall width. Each speaker would move inward by the same amount. It is very possible that the two speakers are cancelling each other, in the roughly 60Hz region. For both the potential moving the MLP test, and the moving the front speakers inward test, he could run just three mic positions, and then calibrate to see what his new front speaker trim and EQ graph results are.
> 
> (A note on corner loading. Corner loading a transducer--whether it's a speaker, or a subwoofer, should increase boundary gain. But, room modes trump boundary gain, and cancellation from two transducers located along the front wall, can sometimes be a real problem. When that occurs, 1/8th or 1/4 wall locations for the two transducers will usually fix it.)
> 
> If he absolutely, positively had to leave the front speakers in the corners, and/or he couldn't move a center of room length MLP, then I would recommend setting a crossover to those front speakers of about 100Hz, or higher, to take away some of the lower-frequency strain. I don't believe they are doing him any favors at all below about 80Hz, anyway.
> 
> As you noted in an earlier post, an 80Hz crossover still allows speakers to play 60 and 70Hz content at a slightly reduced volume. Cascading crossovers won't be helpful right now, either. He needs his front speakers to be more capable before he tries to roll-off his sub faster, above the crossover from the speakers.
> 
> One final thought. His subwoofer trim level is too close to 0.0, especially for a -5 MV level. That sub is also probably clipping the bass signal with the right content. He needs to drop his trim level on that sub to about -6, and raise the gain on the sub itself by a roughly commensurate amount. I hope that some of this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike



Hi Mike,

Thanks for the detailed reply buddy. Ya, I feel you are right that this is a problem regardless of Audyssey or not. There are two issues with the curve that stand out to me, the 60hz null as mentioned, and the even bigger null between 120hz and 200hz. Since the two speakers, L/R is showing similar responses in these regions it would lead to so some sort of phase cancelation. Since Shane has REW I agree his best move first is to try out different positions for the speakers and the MLP. Also, I have asked for pictures since he has done a lot with acoustic panels, perhaps some of these are doing more harm than good.

As Shane has just noted he is using XLR attenuation which has brought his speakers from -12 to +6, seems counterproductive to me to get a pre-amp in the first place but again my experience with Pe-Amps are very limited.

The Sub Trim was a difficult one to get right and settled for -1.5 for that session, We left some headroom on the Mini-Dsp so we could use this as our Global sub gain for both subs. But the Multi EQ App didn't like this and started bugging out when trying for a lower trim on Audyssey. This can be looked at in the future as I'm not sure what is at fault here, I have done this method before with no problems

All the Best

Jim


----------



## jdsmoothie

Leeliemix said:


> Did you change the crossover settings higher or lower than what auto setup did?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Doing so would not have disabled Audyssey.


----------



## Toto84

tonybradley said:


> Thought I'd Quote myself to get this question back in rotation if anyone can answer. When I re-ran Audyssey, I left the second sub set at 180 degrees from where REW showed was the better option. Just not sure if it was wise to keep that way when running Audyssey.


Hi there, i had exactly the same concerns.
I have 2 sub 1 sealed, 1 ported so not ideal but i came to the same conclusion as you using rew, 1 sub need to at 180, the other one at 0 and this gave me the best results.
When i run audyssey the first time i left the phase at 180 and while the predicted response on audyssey wasn't great, rew told another story.
When i rerun audyssey with both phase at the 0 the predicted response of audyssey look great but the rew graph did not came to the same conclusion with dip, peak etc.
Most importantly when comparing and listening to movie,music i could definitely ear how much better and how well the speakers blend with leaving the phase at 180 on the sub.
My conclusion is do not trust audyssey correction graph and if you you buying 2 sub make sure to buy the same or similar , at very low frequency i cant fix the dip perhaps due to the phase cancellation beetween the 2 different sub.

Hopefully someone from the forum can help me to fix this one day.











Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Leeliemix

jdsmoothie said:


> Doing so would not have disabled Audyssey.



It wouldnt no, what could turn off audyssey has been said in posts above. I was just asking to find out how he had it set up and speaker manufacturer numbers arent always the best to use for crossovers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Toto84

tonybradley said:


> Thought I'd Quote myself to get this question back in rotation if anyone can answer. When I re-ran Audyssey, I left the second sub set at 180 degrees from where REW showed was the better option. Just not sure if it was wise to keep that way when running Audyssey.


Both sub where at 0 phase position, you can clearly see that audyssey prediction is not correct and that putting the phase of the sub in the best position is better in my case with a sealed and a ported.









Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## ipca204

I will just chime i here and say I am 55 years old, well 56 next month and been in this hobby heavy for 40 of them! I was streaming something the other day and something did not sound right, so I hit "Info" on my Elite and it pulled up the Marantz 7012 info screen, and sure enough, audyssey was "off". WTF? This has happened to me more than once, but not often enough i REALLY care to trouble shoot, maybe 2-3 times a YEAR? In the last month alone I have had plenty of time to tweak my system (mostly settings on my harmony elite) to insure everything fires up properly and turns off properly. I use the "Quick set" buttons to store sound modes, volume level, input, etc. in each of my activities too. 99.9% of the time everything works exactly as it should. I guess my point here is that there are sometimes "gremlins" that pop up, because I guarantee I never tuned audyssey off! At one point, I did try flipping through the "sound modes" to see if something would turn aud off, but nothing came to it, and like i said it did not happen often enough that i felt i needed to investigate further. I used to be a big fan on Onkyo, but once they dropped audyssey, I switched over to Denon and Marantz. And yes, the smart phone app (while still sometimes problematic) is EASILY worth TWICE what they are asking for it if you like to tinker!


----------



## shazza6887

Truls said:


> I have the same problem with my setup, everything is -12db. What Attenuators would you recommend? Would it be possible to use a single Attenuator on the setup mic instead and just remember its offset?


That i dont know, i used -10 db ones from parts express,


https://www.parts-express.com/in-li...ef8c&cjevent=cbe6faa2000d11ea810200670a1c0e10




Make sure to have enough room behind your gear unless you are going to use them in line which means spending more on XLR cables. I plugged them straight to the avr.


Cheers


----------



## JD23

shazza6887 said:


> That i dont know, i used -10 db ones from parts express,
> 
> 
> https://www.parts-express.com/in-li...ef8c&cjevent=cbe6faa2000d11ea810200670a1c0e10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure to have enough room behind your gear unless you are going to use them in line which means spending more on XLR cables. I plugged them straight to the avr.
> 
> 
> Cheers



Do you know the gain of your amplifier? It seems to take a combination of sensitive speakers, a fairly short listening distance, and an external amp with a gain that is substantially higher than the internal AVR amps to lead to this situation.


----------



## mthomas47

shazza6887 said:


> Thank you all for helping with this,
> 
> If it helps out with a possible solution, i am using XLR attenuation pads for my 7 speakrs on the ground. I need to use these as the amps input is way to high for these speakers and when i run audyssey it would set them all to -12 and i would not truly know where i am
> 
> With the speakers due to the projector screen i can't actually move them more to the centre of the wall, i can however try to move them back towards the corners more and more against the wall while maintaining a decent toe in, i actually have a combo panel as first reflection points for the fronts,
> 
> I also can't ,move my mlp due to a platform behind and obviously the room is already contructed
> 
> With the sub all my subs's gains are all set to 12'oclock, we got to -1.5 through lowering the master input volume on the mini dsp by -5.5, i have to get it at thright level where audyssey is happy or we get the left speaker bug for some reason.
> 
> Does this change anything moving forward?





Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> Thanks for the detailed reply buddy. Ya, I feel you are right that this is a problem regardless of Audyssey or not. There are two issues with the curve that stand out to me, the 60hz null as mentioned, and the even bigger null between 120hz and 200hz. Since the two speakers, L/R is showing similar responses in these regions it would lead to so some sort of phase cancelation. Since Shane has REW I agree his best move first is to try out different positions for the speakers and the MLP. Also, I have asked for pictures since he has done a lot with acoustic panels, perhaps some of these are doing more harm than good.
> 
> As Shane has just noted he is using XLR attenuation which has brought his speakers from -12 to +6, seems counterproductive to me to get a pre-amp in the first place but again my experience with Pe-Amps are very limited.
> 
> The Sub Trim was a difficult one to get right and settled for -1.5 for that session, We left some headroom on the Mini-Dsp so we could use this as our Global sub gain for both subs. But the Multi EQ App didn't like this and started bugging out when trying for a lower trim on Audyssey. This can be looked at in the future as I'm not sure what is at fault here, I have done this method before with no problems
> 
> All the Best
> 
> Jim



You are very welcome! I quoted both posts, because there are things in each post that I think help to explain the situation. First, I think that both room photos and REW graphs of the post-Audyssey FR would help. It is very difficult to deal with front speaker cancellation, if you can move neither the speakers nor the MLP. Maybe room photos (and dimensions) will give us a little better insight into the situation.

Second, I think you just went too far with the line level attenuators. I would back-off to -6dB attenuators, especially for the front soundstage. You have attenuated away some of the available amplifier headroom, and if those front speakers aren't distorting or clipping, with near Reference volumes, I don't know why they aren't. 

Given the very high trim levels that resulted from the -10dB attenuators, I suspect that your trim levels were only a little below -12 in your earlier Audyssey calibrations. You probably could have used -3dB attenuators, and been fine, but you definitely didn't need -10dB of attenuation. 

https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab...&sprefix=line+level+attenuator,aps,155&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab...&sprefix=line+level+attenuator,aps,155&sr=8-4

Third, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying about the sub gain/trim relationship. Can't you just make post-Audyssey increases in the gains of the subs themselves? If you can, then you would just increase the sub gains by about a measured +6dB, and reduce the trims in the AVR (or AVP) to about -7.5. That would allow a little up or down maneuverability with the trim controls, while staying well in the negative range. 

If, for some reason, you can't make post-Audyssey adjustments to your subwoofer gains, in order to get lower sub trim levels, then I might abandon the Audyssey app, for a while, and just do a straight Audyssey AVR run. Subs have a tendency to clip, with near positive AVR trim levels, and high master volume levels. And, as I believe I noted in earlier posts, not all subwoofers can produce max RMS output levels unless the sub gains are fairly high. In fact, many subs can't. (I know that is covered in the Guide, and I believe I have addressed it on this thread as well. Too many threads! )

Sometimes, we find ourselves concentrating too much on the details of our HT systems, before we have the basics fully addressed. Getting the front speakers (which carry so much movie and music content) to favorable locations within the room, and with reasonable trim levels, is one of those basics. And, you can use REW to help you do that, before ever running Audyssey, if you want to. Being able to have an appropriate gain/trim relationship for the sub(s) is another basic. Then, some of the nuances of frequency response and sound quality adjustment can follow, once those basic HT requirements are achieved. 

I hope that some of this helps! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbz06

shazza6887 said:


> That i dont know, i used -10 db ones from parts express,
> 
> 
> https://www.parts-express.com/in-li...ef8c&cjevent=cbe6faa2000d11ea810200670a1c0e10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure to have enough room behind your gear unless you are going to use them in line which means spending more on XLR cables. I plugged them straight to the avr.
> 
> 
> Cheers


Those are similar to what I used when I needed them (although I think I had -6dB). On a previous setup a while back, to balance my LFE line with my speakers, I needed to turn the gain so low that it wouldn't turn on. The fix was to get attenuators like that so it would allow me to increase the gain knob more.


----------



## rosstg

I was experiencing harsh dialogue when I limited frequencies to 300hz with DEQ ON. My LRC were crossed at 80hz and surrounds/SB crossed at 100hz, 150hz for heights. It caused dialogue to sound chesty or boxy. I thought maybe DEQ was boosting frequencies too much.

I increased correction to 500hz and crossed over all at 100hz and the problem went away. Dialogue sounds really nice now. I’m also hearing more activity on my heights. Everything sounds more balanced now.


----------



## filmguy123

jdsmoothie said:


> 2. Not by making manual speaker adjustments, but rather by switching the AMP ASSIGN setting regarding zones; however, if you set it back to the setting when Audyssey was run, Audyssey should be enabled again.


AHA. But, to what extent? I am mainly trying to figure out WHEN it got switched off.

My fiance needed help the other day, "no sound" she said. On the remote when she went to power on, I think she hit the Z2 button and then on. Because the receiver said "Zone 2 On". All I did was turn off zone 2 and switch back to main.

Could this have turned off Audyssey off? Or did you only mean that it would be off if I *stayed* in zone 2? If not, it means its been off longer and I don't know how/why...


PS - to the other user, yes I changed crossover settings. I think it put me at 40hz for my Klipsch RP280FA which I think they will do ok, but I set those back to 80hz. I also set my center to 80hz instead of 120hz where it originally put it. My side speakers I set upwards to 150hz instead of the much lower crossover it assigned per klipsch manual. Maybe this isn't best, or maybe it detected room reflections and I should set my center back up to 120hz? My specs are in sig.


----------



## rosstg

filmguy123 said:


> AHA. But, to what extent? I am mainly trying to figure out WHEN it got switched off.
> 
> My fiance needed help the other day, "no sound" she said. On the remote when she went to power on, I think she hit the Z2 button and then on. Because the receiver said "Zone 2 On". All I did was turn off zone 2 and switch back to main.
> 
> Could this have turned off Audyssey off? Or did you only mean that it would be off if I *stayed* in zone 2? If not, it means its been off longer and I don't know how/why...
> 
> 
> PS - to the other user, yes I changed crossover settings. I think it put me at 40hz for my Klipsch RP280FA which I think they will do ok, but I set those back to 80hz. I also set my center to 80hz instead of 120hz where it originally put it. My side speakers I set upwards to 150hz instead of the much lower crossover it assigned per klipsch manual. Maybe this isn't best, or maybe it detected room reflections and I should set my center back up to 120hz? My specs are in sig.


If your AVR set a crossover of 120hz for you center you should leave it. Never move them down because they won’t be corrected. I have the 440c, Denon sets it at 40hz. I bump up to 80-100hz. 100hz seems to be the sweet spot.

I usually up them all, I like headroom. But never lower them.


----------



## tonybradley

Toto84 said:


> Both sub where at 0 phase position, you can clearly see that audyssey prediction is not correct and that putting the phase of the sub in the best position is better in my case with a sealed and a ported.
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Thanks for your feedback. I haven't had a chance yet to run REW since i re-ran Audyssey. I'm curious to see what the Curve looks like compared to Audyssey off (once I moved my second sub to the back wall and set to 180 degrees).

I'm assuming this is a question that others aren't familiar with or not comfortable answering as I've asked multiple times and you mentioned and I'm not seeing any feedback.


----------



## Toto84

tonybradley said:


> Thanks for your feedback. I haven't had a chance yet to run REW since i re-ran Audyssey. I'm curious to see what the Curve looks like compared to Audyssey off (once I moved my second sub to the back wall and set to 180 degrees).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming this is a question that others aren't familiar with or not comfortable answering as I've asked multiple times and you mentioned and I'm not seeing any feedback.


Let me know how it goes  

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@tonybradley @Toto84

I think if REW is giving better results with one sub at 0 and the other at 180, then I would run Audyssey calibration in this config.

This would be a usual scenario if one sub is at the front and the other been behind. The subs would be out of polarity with each other. Since you have REW this would be easy to find out in the Impulse charts.

If they are both at 0, Audyssey will attempt to bring them in polarity through distance

So the question is which will have better results?

Well you've got the tools to find out, I use the MiniDsp so Audyssey only sees one sub leaving me to get the phase relationship right myself which works well for me

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

tonybradley said:


> Thought I'd Quote myself to get this question back in rotation if anyone can answer. When I re-ran Audyssey, I left the second sub set at 180 degrees from where REW showed was the better option. Just not sure if it was wise to keep that way when running Audyssey.





tonybradley said:


> Thanks for your feedback. I haven't had a chance yet to run REW since i re-ran Audyssey. I'm curious to see what the Curve looks like compared to Audyssey off (once I moved my second sub to the back wall and set to 180 degrees).
> 
> I'm assuming this is a question that others aren't familiar with or not comfortable answering as I've asked multiple times and you mentioned and I'm not seeing any feedback.



Hi Tony,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that there are a lot of things in our specific rooms and HT systems that can only be resolved through experimentation. I didn't respond to your question because my response would simply have been that you should measure your new results and compare them to your old ones. 

Since you are able to measure your frequency response, you can find out for yourself whether it works better, in your case, to reverse the phase on one sub, prior to running Audyssey, or better to reverse phase afterwards. I have seen people do it both ways and achieve good results. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Toto84

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> @tonybradley @Toto84
> 
> 
> 
> I think if REW is giving better results with one sub at 0 and the other at 180, then I would run Audyssey calibration in this config.
> 
> 
> 
> This would be a usual scenario if one sub is at the front and the other been behind. The subs would be out of polarity with each other. Since you have REW this would be easy to find out in the Impulse charts.
> 
> 
> 
> If they are both at 0, Audyssey will attempt to bring them in polarity through distance
> 
> 
> 
> So the question is which will have better results?
> 
> 
> 
> Well you've got the tools to find out, I use the MiniDsp so Audyssey only sees one sub leaving me to get the phase relationship right myself which works well for me
> 
> 
> 
> Jim


Best to set it before audyssey run. 
Jimmy take a look at the pic below, i put one sub at 180 ported and one sub sealed at 0 and then run audyssey.









Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Toto84 said:


> Best to set it before audyssey run.
> Jimmy take a look at the pic below, i put one sub at 180 ported and one sub sealed at 0 and then run audyssey.
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Looks good to me, You have got a nice smooth crossover at 80hz for the center, more important is how does it sound???


----------



## Toto84

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Looks good to me, You have got a nice smooth crossover at 80hz for the center, more important is how does it sound???


Amazing Jimmy, big difference, took me days to get there but my gf is really annoyed with me 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## shazza6887

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I quoted both posts, because there are things in each post that I think help to explain the situation. First, I think that both room photos and REW graphs of the post-Audyssey FR would help. It is very difficult to deal with front speaker cancellation, if you can move neither the speakers nor the MLP. Maybe room photos (and dimensions) will give us a little better insight into the situation.
> 
> Second, I think you just went too far with the line level attenuators. I would back-off to -6dB attenuators, especially for the front soundstage. You have attenuated away some of the available amplifier headroom, and if those front speakers aren't distorting or clipping, with near Reference volumes, I don't know why they aren't.
> 
> Given the very high trim levels that resulted from the -10dB attenuators, I suspect that your trim levels were only a little below -12 in your earlier Audyssey calibrations. You probably could have used -3dB attenuators, and been fine, but you definitely didn't need -10dB of attenuation.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab...&sprefix=line+level+attenuator,aps,155&sr=8-2
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab...&sprefix=line+level+attenuator,aps,155&sr=8-4
> 
> Third, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying about the sub gain/trim relationship. Can't you just make post-Audyssey increases in the gains of the subs themselves? If you can, then you would just increase the sub gains by about a measured +6dB, and reduce the trims in the AVR (or AVP) to about -7.5. That would allow a little up or down maneuverability with the trim controls, while staying well in the negative range.
> 
> If, for some reason, you can't make post-Audyssey adjustments to your subwoofer gains, in order to get lower sub trim levels, then I might abandon the Audyssey app, for a while, and just do a straight Audyssey AVR run. Subs have a tendency to clip, with near positive AVR trim levels, and high master volume levels. And, as I believe I noted in earlier posts, not all subwoofers can produce max RMS output levels unless the sub gains are fairly high. In fact, many subs can't. (I know that is covered in the Guide, and I believe I have addressed it on this thread as well. Too many threads! )
> 
> Sometimes, we find ourselves concentrating too much on the details of our HT systems, before we have the basics fully addressed. Getting the front speakers (which carry so much movie and music content) to favorable locations within the room, and with reasonable trim levels, is one of those basics. And, you can use REW to help you do that, before ever running Audyssey, if you want to. Being able to have an appropriate gain/trim relationship for the sub(s) is another basic. Then, some of the nuances of frequency response and sound quality adjustment can follow, once those basic HT requirements are achieved.
> 
> I hope that some of this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I actually removed the attenuators completly when i was trouble shooting and it resulted in the same problem,


I couldnt find lower than -10db ones for XLR connections when i was searching for them 


The main reason for using the app i suppose was doing adjustments on the fly and limiting the correction range?


----------



## tonybradley

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> @tonybradley @Toto84
> 
> I think if REW is giving better results with one sub at 0 and the other at 180, then I would run Audyssey calibration in this config.
> 
> This would be a usual scenario if one sub is at the front and the other been behind. The subs would be out of polarity with each other. Since you have REW this would be easy to find out in the Impulse charts.
> 
> If they are both at 0, Audyssey will attempt to bring them in polarity through distance
> 
> So the question is which will have better results?
> 
> Well you've got the tools to find out, I use the MiniDsp so Audyssey only sees one sub leaving me to get the phase relationship right myself which works well for me
> 
> Jim





mthomas47 said:


> Hi Tony,
> 
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I believe that there are a lot of things in our specific rooms and HT systems that can only be resolved through experimentation. I didn't respond to your question because my response would simply have been that you should measure your new results and compare them to your old ones.
> 
> Since you are able to measure your frequency response, you can find out for yourself whether it works better, in your case, to reverse the phase on one sub, prior to running Audyssey, or better to reverse phase afterwards. I have seen people do it both ways and achieve good results.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you guys. I really appreciate it. I wanted to make sure I didn't run Audyssey with a big No-No by leaving my back sub at 180 degrees that would drastically effect my calibration in a negative way. I actually meant to put both subs at 0 before running Audyssey, even though REW produced a better graph with the back sub at 180. I think I'll leave it here while I tweak my Sub Trims for a while. If not happy with the REW Curve after calibration nor the sound to my ears, I'll rerun with both at 0 in the future. Running Audyssey takes so long, it's a little daunting to do it multiple times. Wouldn't be so bad if I had a day with the house to myself where it was quiet. During the Quarantine, I do it around 11:30 at night after everyone is in bed, and one complete 8 position Calibration takes a bit of time.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

tonybradley said:


> Thank you guys. I really appreciate it. I wanted to make sure I didn't run Audyssey with a big No-No by leaving my back sub at 180 degrees that would drastically effect my calibration in a negative way. I actually meant to put both subs at 0 before running Audyssey, even though REW produced a better graph with the back sub at 180. I think I'll leave it here while I tweak my Sub Trims for a while. If not happy with the REW Curve after calibration nor the sound to my ears, I'll rerun with both at 0 in the future. Running Audyssey takes so long, it's a little daunting to do it multiple times. Wouldn't be so bad if I had a day with the house to myself where it was quiet. During the Quarantine, I do it around 11:30 at night after everyone is in bed, and one complete 8 position Calibration takes a bit of time.


No problem buddy, little tip if you just want to see how Audyssey reacts to your setup of subs, you can run just 3 measurements, and use stereo and sub only. This will save a lot of time. Once you are happy with your subs results and Trims, You can go for the full calibration

All the best 
Jim


----------



## iStorm

Hey guys,

Hopefully this is a simple question. I have read mixed reviews on it. 

I have 2 home theater chairs side by side so 2 MLPs. Do I need to calibrate Audyssey #1 mic position in between them (there is a center armrest in the middle that correlates to the center of the center speaker/tv) OR do I just need to pick 1 of the 2 chairs and use it as my MLP for #1 ? 

If we choose one chair for the MLP could we choose the middle armrest for #2 mic position or should we always choose the actual seat for these listening positions and not in between them? 

Thanks for any help.


----------



## the7mcs

Hey guys I have a question regarding Audyssey


So when one does the automatic audyssey calibration it sets the levels of each speaker based on its measurements and this can be seen when one presses the setup button on remote and goes to goes to Audio -> Speaker -> Manual Adjust-> Levels-> Test Tone

Now there's another way to also adjust speaker levels by pressing on the option button on remote control and then looking at speakerlevels

should these mirror what audyssey set or should these be left at 0db


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> I couldnt find lower than -10db ones for XLR connections when i was searching for them



If you would be willing and able to use *RCA* instead of *XLR*, Amazon has 6 dB ones*:*







Harrison Labs 6 dB RCA Line Level Audio Attenuator Pair


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

the7mcs said:


> Hey guys I have a question regarding Audyssey
> 
> 
> So when one does the automatic audyssey calibration it sets the levels of each speaker based on its measurements and this can be seen when one presses the setup button on remote and goes to goes to Audio -> Speaker -> Manual Adjust-> Levels-> Test Tone
> 
> Now there's another way to also adjust speaker levels by pressing on the option button on remote control and then looking at speakerlevels
> 
> should these mirror what audyssey set or should these be left at 0db


Hey Buddy,

The speaker levels on the option button on remote control are for adjusting levels on the input you are on and *does not* change the levels in Audio -> Speaker -> Manual Adjust-> Levels-> Test Tone. Nor should either one match each other.

So you could use this for instance if the "Cable box" has a low volume on the center channel you can add a few db's without affecting the global settings, this will be saved every time you use this input

It's pretty handy, I have used it to turn down all the way my surrounds and heights leaving me with a 3.2 setup. I use this for Pc work where the surrounds can be distracting at times when watching you-tube

All the Best

Jim


----------



## Toto84

Hi Guys, audyssey most of the time get the distance from my FR wrong by around 10 cm, does it matter when i take the first measurement to have the mic not as close as my head would be resting on the back of the sofa? 
My sofa has a high back.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Toto84 said:


> Hi Guys, audyssey most of the time get the distance from my FR wrong by around 10 cm, does it matter when i take the first measurement to have the mic not as close as my head would be resting on the back of the sofa?
> My sofa has a high back.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


Hey Buddy,

Just have a quick read on Mike's guide for Mic Placement, lots of useful information here.
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#IB
I-B: Room EQ and Calibration Techniques

Remember distance is time delay, this is how Audyssey and all other room EQ calculates the speaker distances, So if Audyssey is given a different distance for a speaker it can be caused by reflective surfaces, obstructions to the speaker, placement of the mic and so on. If your sofa has a high back make sure to put a not reflective material like a blanket over it.

All the best

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Hopefully this is a simple question. I have read mixed reviews on it.
> 
> I have 2 home theater chairs side by side so 2 MLPs. Do I need to calibrate Audyssey #1 mic position in between them (there is a center armrest in the middle that correlates to the center of the center speaker/tv) OR do I just need to pick 1 of the 2 chairs and use it as my MLP for #1 ?
> 
> If we choose one chair for the MLP could we choose the middle armrest for #2 mic position or should we always choose the actual seat for these listening positions and not in between them?
> 
> Thanks for any help.



Hi,

I think that the reason you have read mixed reviews on this question is because there really isn't a single right answer to it. In general, Audyssey seems to do a better job of correcting the frequency response if we measure a smaller listening area. So, most people seem to get better results when they take measurements for a small area around a single listening position. That method actually works best in my room. I get good EQ at more than one listening position that way. Other people may also get good results when they measure larger listening areas. I have also seen that. 

How much of that is differences in the room, and how much of it is differences in what we hear, or in listener preference, are questions that don't seem to have an answer. We all just have to experiment to find the mic pattern, and the resulting calibration, that sounds best to us. If you want to try measuring for just a single listening position, and listen to find out how you like it, there is a recommended mic pattern in Section I-B of the Guide linked below.

Afterwards, if you want to try putting your first mic position directly between the two seats, you could use a similar pattern, or a bit wider one, from a starting point in that center location. The area between the two seats would now become the MLP. Remember though, it's not just the EQ filters that are going to be set, based on mic position 1, and based on the overall size of the mic pattern. The speaker trims and distances are also going to be set based on mic position 1. 

What that means is that if you choose the left seat as the MLP (mic 1) the speakers will be in the best acoustic balance (all speakers equally loud, with all sounds arriving at the same time) at that specific point in space. If you select the right seat as the MLP, the same thing will happen at that specific point in space.

But, if you pick the area between the two chairs for the first mic position, that will be the MLP, and neither the left chair nor the right chair will have perfect acoustic balance with respect to sounds arriving at either seat at exactly the same sound level. If you are occupying the left seat, you may notice that the left speakers sound louder, and vice versa for the right seat.

That is one reason why this has to be a YMMV question, that can only be resolved through experimentation. Not everyone will notice the sort of thing that I have described equally, and not everyone will care equally if he or she does notice. The final decision as to where to begin the calibration may be a compromise based on precise equality, or it may be decided on the basis of who notices the most, and/or who cares the most about sound quality. 

This is a question that you will have to experiment with for yourself, and decide for yourself. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## iStorm

mthomas47 said:


> iStorm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey guys,
> 
> Hopefully this is a simple question. I have read mixed reviews on it.
> 
> I have 2 home theater chairs side by side so 2 MLPs. Do I need to calibrate Audyssey #1 mic position in between them (there is a center armrest in the middle that correlates to the center of the center speaker/tv) OR do I just need to pick 1 of the 2 chairs and use it as my MLP for #1 ?
> 
> If we choose one chair for the MLP could we choose the middle armrest for #2 mic position or should we always choose the actual seat for these listening positions and not in between them?
> 
> Thanks for any help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think that the reason you have read mixed reviews on this question is because there really isn't a single right answer to it. In general, Audyssey seems to do a better job of correcting the frequency response if we measure a smaller listening area. So, most people seem to get better results when they take measurements for a small area around a single listening position. That method actually works best in my room. I get good EQ at more than one listening position that way. Other people may also get good results when they measure larger listening areas. I have also seen that.
> 
> How much of that is differences in the room, and how much of it is differences in what we hear, or in listener preference, are questions that don't seem to have an answer. We all just have to experiment to find the mic pattern, and the resulting calibration, that sounds best to us. If you want to try measuring for just a single listening position, and listen to find out how you like it, there is a recommended mic pattern in Section I-B of the Guide linked below.
> 
> Afterwards, if you want to try putting your first mic position directly between the two seats, you could use a similar pattern, or a bit wider one, from a starting point in that center location. The area between the two seats would now become the MLP. Remember though, it's not just the EQ filters that are going to be set, based on mic position 1, and based on the overall size of the mic pattern. The speaker trims and distances are also going to be set based on mic position 1.
> 
> What that means is that if you choose the left seat as the MLP (mic 1) the speakers will be in the best acoustic balance (all speakers equally loud, with all sounds arriving at the same time) at that specific point in space. If you select the right seat as the MLP, the same thing will happen at that specific point in space.
> 
> But, if you pick the area between the two chairs for the first mic position, that will be the MLP, and neither the left chair nor the right chair will have perfect acoustic balance with respect to sounds arriving at either seat at exactly the same sound level. If you are occupying the left seat, you may notice that the left speakers sound louder, and vice versa for the right seat.
> 
> That is one reason why this has to be a YMMV question, that can only be resolved through experimentation. Not everyone will notice the sort of thing that I have described equally, and not everyone will care equally if he or she does notice. The final decision as to where to begin the calibration may be a compromise based on precise equality, or it may be decided on the basis of who notices the most, and/or who cares the most about sound quality.
> 
> This is a question that you will have to experiment with for yourself, and decide for yourself. /forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

 Hey again Mike! Good to see you still here providing informative help! You helped us tremendously in the past and we use your calibration technique/diagram! 

We tried calibrating it to one of the two chairs and the right chair MLP sounds great, but there is a bigggggg difference in the left chair where my fiance sits. I think the best setup for us is going to be recalibrate to the center area directly in between both chairs. We may not have a sweet spot like right now but the equal distribution of the sound is better between both chairs this way. We can also take specific mic measurements in both chairs this way and still keep everything in a neat circle. We almost always watch movies together so it makes more sense to calibrate mic position 1 in between our 2 seats which isn't too far off from our chairs since it is where the arm rest/arm rest storage is. We did something similar in the basement where we have a row of 4 chairs and made the MLP in the center at the arm rest in between. 

At the end of the day, it is all about what our ears hear. I just didnt want to do something completely wrong since everything we see is around the MLP and that's almost always a chair/couch seat. There is pretty much no information online about what to do for 2 home theater chairs or 4 home theater chairs in a row like we have in the basement. With 2 and 4 chairs, no chair is directly in the center and they are all off axis in relation to the center channel. I think doing the mic calibration 1 from the center rest which is in line with the center is a good way to go. Hope this makes sense.


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> Hey again Mike! Good to see you still here providing informative help! You helped us tremendously in the past and we use your calibration technique/diagram!
> 
> We tried calibrating it to one of the two chairs and the right chair MLP sounds great, but there is a bigggggg difference in the left chair where my fiance sits. I think the best setup for us is going to be recalibrate to the center area directly in between both chairs. We may not have a sweet spot like right now but the equal distribution of the sound is better between both chairs this way. We can also take specific mic measurements in both chairs this way and still keep everything in a neat circle. We almost always watch movies together so it makes more sense to calibrate mic position 1 in between our 2 seats which isn't too far off from our chairs since it is where the arm rest/arm rest storage is. We did something similar in the basement where we have a row of 4 chairs and made the MLP in the center at the arm rest in between.
> 
> At the end of the day, it is all about what our ears hear. I just didnt want to do something completely wrong since everything we see is around the MLP and that's almost always a chair/couch seat. There is pretty much no information online about what to do for 2 home theater chairs or 4 home theater chairs in a row like we have in the basement. With 2 and 4 chairs, no chair is directly in the center and they are all off axis in relation to the center channel. I think doing the mic calibration 1 from the center rest which is in line with the center is a good way to go. Hope this makes sense.



I remember, and I'm glad that I was able to help! What you are saying makes perfect sense to me, especially since you have already tried it both ways. I think that most people would probably do it the same way that you intend to, if there were that much difference between the two seats.

I might still experiment a little bit with the width of the mic pattern, though. Even using the armrest as the MLP, you might not want to extend out too far to the sides. I think you will just have to try a couple of different mic patterns and see what happens. More experimentation! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## iStorm

mthomas47 said:


> iStorm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey again Mike! Good to see you still here providing informative help! You helped us tremendously in the past and we use your calibration technique/diagram!
> 
> We tried calibrating it to one of the two chairs and the right chair MLP sounds great, but there is a bigggggg difference in the left chair where my fiance sits. I think the best setup for us is going to be recalibrate to the center area directly in between both chairs. We may not have a sweet spot like right now but the equal distribution of the sound is better between both chairs this way. We can also take specific mic measurements in both chairs this way and still keep everything in a neat circle. We almost always watch movies together so it makes more sense to calibrate mic position 1 in between our 2 seats which isn't too far off from our chairs since it is where the arm rest/arm rest storage is. We did something similar in the basement where we have a row of 4 chairs and made the MLP in the center at the arm rest in between.
> 
> At the end of the day, it is all about what our ears hear. I just didnt want to do something completely wrong since everything we see is around the MLP and that's almost always a chair/couch seat. There is pretty much no information online about what to do for 2 home theater chairs or 4 home theater chairs in a row like we have in the basement. With 2 and 4 chairs, no chair is directly in the center and they are all off axis in relation to the center channel. I think doing the mic calibration 1 from the center rest which is in line with the center is a good way to go. Hope this makes sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember, and I'm glad that I was able to help! What you are saying makes perfect sense to me, especially since you have already tried it both ways. I think that most people would probably do it the same way that you intend to, if there were that much difference between the two seats.
> 
> I might still experiment a little bit with the width of the mic pattern, though. Even using the armrest as the MLP, you might not want to extend out too far to the sides. I think you will just have to try a couple of different mic patterns and see what happens. More experimentation! /forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
Click to expand...

We are definitely going to experiment more since this is a fairly new room for us. I am going back and reading your full write up on the other thread. Is it advisable to still make the center channel speaker hang over the entertainment center? Our center channel is sitting on the very top shelf and isn't enclosed so I figured just having it sit flush against the edge would be fine? I know if it were enclosed inside a cabinet or shelf then it would be better to let it hang off a bit (1 inch or so) but I'm not sure if we need it to hang off on top of the entertainment center where a TV stand would normally sit (we have our TV wall mounted). Thanks again


----------



## CBdicX

Hello, do you "bump" the surround setting (Surround - Surround Back - Height) to say +2 / 3dB, or do you let it like Audyssey sets it ?


----------



## mthomas47

iStorm said:


> We are definitely going to experiment more since this is a fairly new room for us. I am going back and reading your full write up on the other thread. Is it advisable to still make the center channel speaker hang over the entertainment center? Our center channel is sitting on the very top shelf and isn't enclosed so I figured just having it sit flush against the edge would be fine? I know if it were enclosed inside a cabinet or shelf then it would be better to let it hang off a bit (1 inch or so) but I'm not sure if we need it to hang off on top of the entertainment center where a TV stand would normally sit (we have our TV wall mounted). Thanks again



You are very welcome! I don't think that we have to be too OCD about this sort of thing. But, if there isn't any special reason not to do it, I would still let the leading edge of the center channel extend slightly beyond the surface it sits on. The objective is to get the cones of the tweeter and mid-range drivers to extend a little beyond whatever surface they sit on, in order to avoid early reflections from that surface. The speaker grille normally extends a little beyond the driver cones, so overlapping the speaker stand/shelf, by about an inch, is still a good idea.

If the center channel is tilted-up a little (with a shim) in order to point right at ear level, it isn't very easy to tell whether the speaker extends out beyond the stand or cabinet by a little bit. I doubt that you would even notice the fact that it doesn't line-up exactly with the edge of the cabinet. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## lax01

Can anyone suggest a microphone stand for Audyssey mic from Parts Express? https://www.amazon.com/s?k=microphone+stand&me=A385A0XNQBW8HY&ref=nb_sb_noss

I need the stand and the mount right?


----------



## Matt2026

lax01 said:


> Can anyone suggest a microphone stand for Audyssey mic from Parts Express? https://www.amazon.com/s?k=microphone+stand&me=A385A0XNQBW8HY&ref=nb_sb_noss
> 
> I need the stand and the mount right?


Something like these...

https://www.amazon.com/Stage-MS7701B-Tripod-Microphone-Stand/dp/B000978D58/ref=sr_1_2

https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-Digital-Recorder-Adapter/dp/B001GWCC4I/ref=sr_1_1


----------



## lax01

Matt2026 said:


> Something like these...
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Stage-MS7701B-Tripod-Microphone-Stand/dp/B000978D58/ref=sr_1_2
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/CM01-Camera-Digital-Recorder-Adapter/dp/B001GWCC4I/ref=sr_1_1


Awesome - thanks


----------



## Lyndon11

*Audyssey cable extension.*

Hi Folks


I'm very much a novice, so please bare with me. I am looking at purchasing either a Denon or Marantz unit. Yet to decide on model. How long is the standard calibration cable that comes with the mic? I have read in the thread that it can be extended by up to 7.5M. The links for the extension cable are old and no longer work. Is anyone able to provide a working link for where I could purchase one? 

My main seating position is about 13M from my current old AVR. I guess I may need a few extra metres on top of that to move the mic around to the spots I'm meant to. I have never calibrated the existing unit as it hasn't been used for surround. I see there is a Pro unit with longer cables but it is expensive and would be way out of my knowledge depth.



Thanks for your help.


Regards


Lyndon


----------



## drh3b

Lyndon11 said:


> Hi Folks
> 
> 
> I'm very much a novice, so please bare with me. I am looking at purchasing either a Denon or Marantz unit. Yet to decide on model. How long is the standard calibration cable that comes with the mic? I have read in the thread that it can be extended by up to 7.5M. The links for the extension cable are old and no longer work. Is anyone able to provide a working link for where I could purchase one?
> 
> My main seating position is about 13M from my current old AVR. I guess I may need a few extra metres on top of that to move the mic around to the spots I'm meant to. I have never calibrated the existing unit as it hasn't been used for surround. I see there is a Pro unit with longer cables but it is expensive and would be way out of my knowledge depth.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 
> Lyndon


This should work. It comes in various lengths, and the first review I read for it was for exactly your situation.

TNP 3.5mm Mono Extension

https://smile.amazon.com/TNP-3-5mm-...no+extension+cable&qid=1588498860&sr=8-3&th=1


----------



## rosstg

One thing I don’t understand is why it’s best to put a blanket down to avoid reflections. I have a Teak coffee table between my large sectional with ottomans and tv stand. I’ve been putting a blanket over it when I calibrate as others suggested but doesn’t it make more sense not to cover? Shouldn’t the room be EQ’d as is to compensate?


----------



## mthomas47

rosstg said:


> One thing I don’t understand is why it’s best to put a blanket down to avoid reflections. I have a Teak coffee table between my large sectional with ottomans and tv stand. I’ve been putting a blanket over it when I calibrate as others suggested but doesn’t it make more sense not to cover? Shouldn’t the room be EQ’d as is to compensate?



Hi,

I think this is another one of those pesky YMMV questions. It has always made sense to me to put a temporary blanket over a chair back, due to proximity to the Audyssey microphone, which doesn't "hear" sounds in the same way that we do. But, that is based entirely on close proximity to the measurement microphone. High-frequency sound waves, bouncing into the omnidirectional Audyssey mic, from close range, can cause Audyssey to try to overcorrect those frequencies. And, that can potentially create a harsher or more shrill sound. 

Treating first reflection points, between the speakers and the listening position can also make sense to me, as the smooth surface of a coffee table can reflect higher frequency sounds toward our ears, causing distortion. Putting some kind of throw, or scattering some magazines, on the table can help to absorb or disperse those early reflections. But, those are more-or-less permanent solutions, intended to improve our overall sound quality, whether we are using Audyssey or not. 

Putting a blanket on a coffee table, only during calibration, and then removing it afterward, could potentially help to prevent Audyssey from overreacting to the early reflections. (We don't want Audyssey trying to correct too much for reflected sounds, if we can help it.) But, it won't do anything to prevent us from hearing those early reflections ourselves, once we take the blanket away. So, it could make theoretical sense, strictly from the standpoint of the Audyssey calibration, but it may or may not make an audible improvement in the actual post-Audyssey sound that we hear.

I don't, at the moment, see where the temporary blanket would do any real harm. I'm not sure of that, but I can't immediately see where it would. But, I think that this issue is one that probably has to be settled on a case-by-case basis. If I were really curious about this question, I would try calibrating with the blanket, and listen for a while, and then try calibrating without the blanket, and listen for a while. (Try hard to keep the mic positions as close to exactly the same as you can.) I'm not convinced that you would be able to hear any real difference between the two calibrations, but if you did, you would just pick the one you like better. 

My personal recommendation would be to put something on the table to absorb or diffuse higher frequencies, anyway, and keep it there all the time. I believe that may make a positive difference in your overall sound quality. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## rosstg

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think this is another one of those pesky YMMV questions. It has always made sense to me to put a temporary blanket over a chair back, due to proximity to the Audyssey microphone, which doesn't "hear" sounds in the same way that we do. But, that is based entirely on close proximity to the measurement microphone. High-frequency sound waves, bouncing into the omnidirectional Audyssey mic, from close range, can cause Audyssey to try to overcorrect those frequencies. And, that can potentially create a harsher or more shrill sound.
> 
> Treating first reflection points, between the speakers and the listening position can also make sense to me, as the smooth surface of a coffee table can reflect higher frequency sounds toward our ears, causing distortion. Putting some kind of throw, or scattering some magazines, on the table can help to absorb or disperse those early reflections. But, those are more-or-less permanent solutions, intended to improve our overall sound quality, whether we are using Audyssey or not.
> 
> Putting a blanket on a coffee table, only during calibration, and then removing it afterward, could potentially help to prevent Audyssey from overreacting to the early reflections. (We don't want Audyssey trying to correct too much for reflected sounds, if we can help it.) But, it won't do anything to prevent us from hearing those early reflections ourselves, once we take the blanket away. So, it could make theoretical sense, strictly from the standpoint of the Audyssey calibration, but it may or may not make an audible improvement in the actual post-Audyssey sound that we hear.
> 
> I don't, at the moment, see where the temporary blanket would do any real harm. I'm not sure of that, but I can't immediately see where it would. But, I think that this issue is one that probably has to be settled on a case-by-case basis. If I were really curious about this question, I would try calibrating with the blanket, and listen for a while, and then try calibrating without the blanket, and listen for a while. (Try hard to keep the mic positions as close to exactly the same as you can.) I'm not convinced that you would be able to hear any real difference between the two calibrations, but if you did, you would just pick the one you like better.
> 
> My personal recommendation would be to put something on the table to absorb or diffuse higher frequencies, anyway, and keep it there all the time. I believe that may make a positive difference in your overall sound quality.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike.

I realized I didn’t cover the table last time I calibrated. I’m receiving new subwoofers Tuesday which means I will be calibrating again, I’ll make sure to cover the table. 

I know when I limit FR correction it’s definitely brighter. As I get older (39) I realize I prefer less treble and more bass these days.


----------



## Lyndon11

drh3b said:


> This should work. It comes in various lengths, and the first review I read for it was for exactly your situation.
> 
> TNP 3.5mm Mono Extension
> 
> https://smile.amazon.com/TNP-3-5mm-...no+extension+cable&qid=1588498860&sr=8-3&th=1



Thanks for the link. Can anyone advise of the standard length correction cable I'd be connecting this one to so as I can calculate the whole length.
Thanks
Lyndon


----------



## Dentifrice

*Audyssey and ARC - in which order ?*

Hi,


I have a Denon X3600H which has Audyssey multeq xt32. I also have a Paradigm subwoofer which supports ARC (anthem room correction). Note that the rest of my speakers don't support ARC.



Now I wondering, how I must set this up. 



Someone told me I should do this :




Enable and run ARC calibration for the subwoofer
Disable ARC on the sub
Run Audyssey on the Denon
Re-enable ARC on the sub
I'm still a noob and I have no idea if that makes sense. T



Any advice ?


----------



## iH8usrnames

* I am not a home theater person, never had it and never wanted, never educated myself on it. When it came time to create an outdoor movie situation I decided it would be 7.1 or bust.

I have a tendency to use the right tools the wrong way for the right reasons; my use of Audyssey.

Last year my wife and I setup a budget outdoor theater.
All the speakers were purchased used off Facebook: Jamo 8A2 for Left/Right/Center, KLH C180B for Side & Rear surround, and a Dayton Audio 10" driver I had laying around for a sub.
The surround was provided by a Marantz SR8400 receiver I bought for $70 at an estate sale and the sub was powered by a cheap plate amp.
Benq MEH530 as the projector with a 10' 16:9 $30 amazon screen supported by a photographers background stands I have.
Blu-Ray is some Sony something that is unimportant.

I know most will say the sub is not sufficient; if placed incorrectly you are correct. In our case I placed it within 2' of the listening position, taking advantage of the inverse square law.
We get a lot of bass but the neighbors get none.

Long story short - WE LOVED IT!

*Now for the Audyssey Part.*
Last year was great but it involved setting up the receiver, projector, screen, sub, blu-ray player each night we wanted to use it. Not horrible but 20 minutes to setup and 20 to take down. This year its going to be different; all equipment minus blu-ray and projector and screen are permanent install.

Bought Denon AVR-x1600H to run everything.
The Marantz is now powering the subwoofer with crossover handled via AVR-X1600.

The primary reason I bought the AVR-X1600 was for "Dynamic EQ" and "Dynamic Volume" so our movies will not disturb the neighbors due to massive dynamics; last year I was endlessly reaching for the volume control from scene to scene. What I did not know is those are part of Audyssey.

I tried to calibrate the system the normal way - microphone pointing toward the ceiling except, no ceiling. I would get errors like no speaker found, etc. I am sure these errors are due to birds and lawnmowers in the area, and no CEILING!
I then mounted the microphone horizontally on a swivel and pointed it toward each speaker under test. This worked much better. I stopped after measurement 5 or 6, when it gave me the option to complete.

I know Audyssey was not designed for this, nor did I know I would have to use it for these desired features, but the results were enlightening.
- Crossover points were higher than I would have set.
- Speaker distances were much different than I would have anticipated.
- Speaker levels were much better than I could have done by ear.
- subwoofer blended perfectly.

I have yet to watch a movie with these settings but listened to a few songs from Tidal; imaging is much better than I could have imagined, bass integration is perfect, I am able to hear/feel the 28hz bassline in Emerald Hooves by Tipper without any boom. The upright bass in Tord Gustavsen Trio - The Other Side was perfect. Yello's Planet Dada (Flamboyant Mix) was flipping fantastic!

Ultimately, Audyssey is not designed for use outdoor but, if you can get it to work by breaking a couple rules (changing mic orientation, in my case) it is well worth the effort.


----------



## afrogt

Its not really the other speakers that support Anthem Room Correction, its the AVR. 

Does your subwoofer come with an ARC microphone and kit? How do you calibrate w/o an Anthem AVR? Maybe you just need a laptop and the Genesis software?

I bought a used Anthem MRX-710 a couple months back but had to order the Anthem Room Correction Kit separately. It all works great together.

Lastly does ARC do a better job with subs than the SubEQ HT on the x3600?


----------



## Dentifrice

afrogt said:


> Its not really the other speakers that support Anthem Room Correction, its the AVR.
> 
> Does your subwoofer come with an ARC microphone and kit? How do you calibrate w/o an Anthem AVR? Maybe you just need a laptop and the Genesis software?
> 
> I bought a used Anthem MRX-710 a couple months back but had to order the Anthem Room Correction Kit separately. It all works great together.
> 
> Lastly does ARC do a better job with subs than the SubEQ HT on the x3600?





ARC with the sub is done with a microphone and a mobile app :
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/anthem-arc-mobile/id1109437485




For you last question, I have no idea.... It's my first HT setup and I installed it two days ago so I'm still learning.


----------



## eljaycanuck

AFAIK: Find the best spot in the room for the sub. Put the sub there, then run ARC to optimize it. Then run Audyssey to calibrate your entire set-up.


----------



## pwiss

CBdicX said:


> Hello, do you "bump" the surround setting (Surround - Surround Back - Height) to say +2 / 3dB, or do you let it like Audyssey sets it ?


The only recommendation I have heard to bump up settings is for the Dolby Atmos front module speakers. I have dedicated top middle speakers now but had modules previously. I am currently using DEQ which boosts the surrounds so I have lowered my surrounds by 2 dB. I checked the levels with a Spears and Munsil audio Calibration disc to balance the levels with my DEQ offset setting applied. 

If you don’t have modules or use DEQ I would keep them the same or at least verify with a test disc not the test tones in your receiver. Most of the time Audyssey is with a half decibel in my experience.


----------



## bbecker4

*Audyssey Phase correction clarification*

Hi,

Both before and after running Audyssey for a 2.1 setup (phase set to zero as instructed, subwoofer pointing in the same direction as the mains), I noticed the bass to be significantly lacking around the crossover frequency of 80hz. When I altered the crossover to 100hz, the 80hz region that was previously missing seemed to reappear. I'm assuming this might be because the mains/sub were out of phase at the crossover. 

I plan on running REW in the near future, but for now was hoping to see if I could get some improvement by either: 
A) adjusting the phase of the subwoofer while running an 80hz sine wave so that it provides the highest SPL or 
B) doing the subwoofer distance tweak and seeing which distance runs the highest SPL, again with an 80hz sine wave

My questions are: 
1) Which of these two methods should I use, or both?
2) would I use these method(s) before or after I run audyssey? If I do it before will audyssey potentially undo my adjustments? If i do it after will I be messing up audyssey's configuration?

Denon 2500h if it matters 

Thanks so much


----------



## mthomas47

bbecker4 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Both before and after running Audyssey for a 2.1 setup (phase set to zero as instructed, subwoofer pointing in the same direction as the mains), I noticed the bass to be significantly lacking around the crossover frequency of 80hz. When I altered the crossover to 100hz, the 80hz region that was previously missing seemed to reappear. I'm assuming this might be because the mains/sub were out of phase at the crossover.
> 
> I plan on running REW in the near future, but for now was hoping to see if I could get some improvement by either:
> A) adjusting the phase of the subwoofer while running an 80hz sine wave so that it provides the highest SPL or
> B) doing the subwoofer distance tweak and seeing which distance runs the highest SPL, again with an 80hz sine wave
> 
> My questions are:
> 1) Which of these two methods should I use, or both?
> 2) would I use these method(s) before or after I run audyssey? If I do it before will audyssey potentially undo my adjustments? If i do it after will I be messing up audyssey's configuration?
> 
> Denon 2500h if it matters
> 
> Thanks so much



Hi,

I think you already have a good handle on the nature of the problem: phase-cancellation between your front speakers and your subwoofer. As you noted, there are two potential ways to address the issue. Whichever of the two methods you choose should be used after you run your Audyssey calibration. It won't affect the calibration in a negative way.

It would probably be easier to adjust the distance setting on the subwoofer, with your AVR remote, while listening to or measuring the volume of the 80Hz sine wave at your MLP. I would adjust the distance in 1' increments, and the distance adjustment should probably not exceed 7'. (That would represent roughly one-half wavelength at 80Hz, or a phase change of 180 degrees.)

You could always try both methods, and see which one seems to work better, but it will be much easier to determine that once you have REW.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbarach

We know that Audyssey takes high-resolution files (say, 96k or higher) and downsamples them to 48k before applying corrections.


So what is Audyssey doing with analog signals, e.g., from an external DAC? Are they getting converted to digital at some resolution before Audyssey correction is applied, or does the correction take place in the analog domain?


OK, this is probably a beginner's question, but I don't recall seeing this addressed before.


----------



## tbaucom

pbarach said:


> We know that Audyssey takes high-resolution files (say, 96k or higher) and downsamples them to 48k before applying corrections.
> 
> 
> So what is Audyssey doing with analog signals, e.g., from an external DAC? Are they getting converted to digital at some resolution before Audyssey correction is applied, or does the correction take place in the analog domain?
> 
> 
> OK, this is probably a beginner's question, but I don't recall seeing this addressed before.


Audyssey correction tales place in the digital domain just like other room corrections(YPAO, Dirac, ARC , etc). There is no point in using an external DAC if you are using digital room correction. All it does is add an unnecessary ADA conversion cycle. If you want to the benefit from the external DAC, you would have to use pure direct and hope your avr has a pure analog path. The marantz units do. I wouldn't recommend it. IME room correction far out weighs the differences between DACs.


----------



## bbecker4

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think you already have a good handle on the nature of the problem: phase-cancellation between your front speakers and your subwoofer. As you noted, there are two potential ways to address the issue. Whichever of the two methods you choose should be used after you run your Audyssey calibration. It won't affect the calibration in a negative way.
> 
> It would probably be easier to adjust the distance setting on the subwoofer, with your AVR remote, while listening to or measuring the volume of the 80Hz sine wave at your MLP. I would adjust the distance in 1' increments, and the distance adjustment should probably not exceed 7'. (That would represent roughly one-half wavelength at 80Hz, or a phase change of 180 degrees.)
> 
> You could always try both methods, and see which one seems to work better, but it will be much easier to determine that once you have REW.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks so much! If you don't mind, one last thing while we are on the topic.

Once REW is set up, I plan on using it to help find the optimal subwoofer/main speaker placement. I'm under the impression that I will turn off Odyssey when running these initial position tests so that I can find the optimal placement prior to any room correction, is that correct? Is it also correct that I will be running these tests on the individual components of the system, i.e., the mains will be shut down when running test tones to determine optimal subwoofer placement? If so, I'm assuming the phase of the sub at this stage can be left at zero since we are evaluating it in isolation?

Once the optimal locations have been determined, I would then run audyssey with both the mains and sub connected. Next step would be adjusting the phase of the subwoofer (after running audyssey as you recommended) with 1 of the 2 methods discussed earlier, but now using the graph generated in REW to direct any changes. Once the optimal phase is found (crossover region on the graph looks most flat), the last step would be applying any parametric curves (i'll be doing this directly via the subwoofer) to further flatten any peaks or valleys in the low frequency response. So suppose there was still a bit of a null around the crossover even after finding optimal placement, running audyssey, and altering the phase... the very last step would be adding a parametric curve to further reduce this? 

Is this in general the correct order? Sorry for the long post, did my best to browse through all the info on here but sometimes it's nice run things by someone. Genuinely appreciate the help!!


----------



## mthomas47

bbecker4 said:


> Thanks so much! If you don't mind, one last thing while we are on the topic.
> 
> Once REW is set up, I plan on using it to help find the optimal subwoofer/main speaker placement. I'm under the impression that I will turn off Odyssey when running these initial position tests so that I can find the optimal placement prior to any room correction, is that correct? Is it also correct that I will be running these tests on the individual components of the system, i.e., the mains will be shut down when running test tones to determine optimal subwoofer placement? If so, I'm assuming the phase of the sub at this stage can be left at zero since we are evaluating it in isolation?
> 
> Once the optimal locations have been determined, I would then run audyssey with both the mains and sub connected. Next step would be adjusting the phase of the subwoofer (after running audyssey as you recommended) with 1 of the 2 methods discussed earlier, but now using the graph generated in REW to direct any changes. Once the optimal phase is found (crossover region on the graph looks most flat), the last step would be applying any parametric curves (i'll be doing this directly via the subwoofer) to further flatten any peaks or valleys in the low frequency response. So suppose there was still a bit of a null around the crossover even after finding optimal placement, running audyssey, and altering the phase... the very last step would be adding a parametric curve to further reduce this?
> 
> Is this in general the correct order? Sorry for the long post, did my best to browse through all the info on here but sometimes it's nice run things by someone. Genuinely appreciate the help!!



You are very welcome! That sounds like an excellent approach! 

With respect to the last step, involving applying additional PEQ post-Audyssey, I think you will just have to wait and see. Assuming that your phase correction reduces the area of cancellation, or moves it higher in frequency, you might not have to do anything further with it. 

If the cancellation moves higher in frequency, the subwoofer (crossed at 80Hz) would already be playing at a reduced volume at that frequency. So, phase cancellation between the front speakers and the sub may be less important at that point.

In addition to that, very narrow nulls typically have little impact on what we actually hear. That is partly because individual notes can span 5Hz or more at mid-bass frequencies. Our brains are also very good at hearing frequencies just below and above an area of cancellation, (and at hearing harmonics of fundamental frequencies), and convincing us that we are hearing everything. That is an important difference between listening to complex sounds and listening to sine waves. 

The only caveat involved in using PEQ, to boost an area of cancellation, is the fact that it may consume subwoofer headroom that you might prefer to save for other uses. So, a lot will depend on what you actually measure, after you have completed your earlier steps, and what you actually hear with complex sounds. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## mthomas47

SouthernCA said:


> I am confused. Audyssey mic that comes with Denon looks like it is designed to be used in a camera tripod. It even has a a nut at the bottom to connect to the Camera tripod.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk





SouthernCA said:


> Boom mic is often recommended to be used by REW. That mic is not suitable for Audyssey calibration.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk



Hi,

Boom mics are recommended for both Audyssey microphones, and for REW, for essentially the same reasons. In both cases, the thinner stand causes fewer reflections than a thicker/heavier camera stand would, and the boom mic arm positions the microphone exactly where you want it, while keeping the omnidirectional mic well away from the stand. Otherwise, high-frequencies would reflect directly into the measurement microphone, in a way that they would not under real-world listening conditions. 

If a boom mic stand is used, an adapter would also be required to attach the Audyssey mic to the stand. A recommended boom mic stand and two different adapters, which are all available on Amazon, are linked in Section I-B of the Guide in my signature. Boom mic stands have been recommended on this thread, for Audyssey use, since at least 2012. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## SouthernCA

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> Boom mics are recommended for both Audyssey microphones, and for REW, for essentially the same reasons. In both cases, the thinner stand causes fewer reflections than a thicker/heavier camera stand would, and the boom mic arm positions the microphone exactly where you want it, while keeping the omnidirectional mic well away from the stand. Otherwise, high-frequencies would reflect directly into the measurement microphone, in a way that they would not under real-world listening conditions.
> 
> If a boom mic stand is used, an adapter would also be required to attach the Audyssey mic to the stand. A recommended boom mic stand and two different adapters, which are all available on Amazon, are linked in Section I-B of the Guide in my signature. Boom mic stands have been recommended on this thread, for Audyssey use, since at least 2012.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks, Mike. Soon after I posted my comments, I realized my error by reading your answer to other questions. But could not delete my posts fast enough. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk


----------



## shazza6887

mthomas47 said:


> You are very welcome! I quoted both posts, because there are things in each post that I think help to explain the situation. First, I think that both room photos and REW graphs of the post-Audyssey FR would help. It is very difficult to deal with front speaker cancellation, if you can move neither the speakers nor the MLP. Maybe room photos (and dimensions) will give us a little better insight into the situation.
> 
> Second, I think you just went too far with the line level attenuators. I would back-off to -6dB attenuators, especially for the front soundstage. You have attenuated away some of the available amplifier headroom, and if those front speakers aren't distorting or clipping, with near Reference volumes, I don't know why they aren't.
> 
> Given the very high trim levels that resulted from the -10dB attenuators, I suspect that your trim levels were only a little below -12 in your earlier Audyssey calibrations. You probably could have used -3dB attenuators, and been fine, but you definitely didn't need -10dB of attenuation.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab...&sprefix=line+level+attenuator,aps,155&sr=8-2
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Harrison-Lab...&sprefix=line+level+attenuator,aps,155&sr=8-4
> 
> Third, I may be misunderstanding what you are saying about the sub gain/trim relationship. Can't you just make post-Audyssey increases in the gains of the subs themselves? If you can, then you would just increase the sub gains by about a measured +6dB, and reduce the trims in the AVR (or AVP) to about -7.5. That would allow a little up or down maneuverability with the trim controls, while staying well in the negative range.
> 
> If, for some reason, you can't make post-Audyssey adjustments to your subwoofer gains, in order to get lower sub trim levels, then I might abandon the Audyssey app, for a while, and just do a straight Audyssey AVR run. Subs have a tendency to clip, with near positive AVR trim levels, and high master volume levels. And, as I believe I noted in earlier posts, not all subwoofers can produce max RMS output levels unless the sub gains are fairly high. In fact, many subs can't. (I know that is covered in the Guide, and I believe I have addressed it on this thread as well. Too many threads! )
> 
> Sometimes, we find ourselves concentrating too much on the details of our HT systems, before we have the basics fully addressed. Getting the front speakers (which carry so much movie and music content) to favorable locations within the room, and with reasonable trim levels, is one of those basics. And, you can use REW to help you do that, before ever running Audyssey, if you want to. Being able to have an appropriate gain/trim relationship for the sub(s) is another basic. Then, some of the nuances of frequency response and sound quality adjustment can follow, once those basic HT requirements are achieved.
> 
> I hope that some of this helps!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi All,


So i moved the fronts speakers a little and it did not make much of a difference and still got that noise on that same scene after re running Aud, Thinking the app may have something to do with it i ran Aud straight through the AVR and it still had the sound at that scene. 



I raised the speaker crossover to 90 and 100 and have not heard the sound so raising the crossover may have done the trick! 



I am going to try another run at AUD remvoing the attenuators to see what happens, Another thing to try would be using RCA cables instead of the XLR however i would have to re purchase all cables and i already have XLRS with attenuatiun pads and it was a costly endevour in the first place!



Moving Forward am i best to remove the attenuation pads all together and just use the spl meter in REW to set my speaker levels? if say i am at 76db at -12 whould i just set them all to 80dbs and set the RLO to -5 and use DEQ?


Seeing that my fronts like 90 and 100hz XOVER is Cascading crossovers not a good option for me? Bearing in mind my tops are set to around 110 crossover (surrounds at 90) and i dont want to miss out on to much information.


With setting the appropraite sub level trim, as discussed earlier we are having issues with the app when the spl of the subs are to high and it triggers the sub adjustment screen on the app. Using REW and Mini DSP we adjusted for a nice flat response in bass at 0db master input volume on the minidsp. To get to - 1.5 on the AVR we had to set it to -5.5 on the minidsp. Is it in my best interests to lowwer it further so i get a lower sub trim? Will setting it back to 0 on the mini dsp effect anything leaving the avr trim on whatever it set itself to when it was at - 5.5 on the mini dsp?


EDIT* I have since tried also switching both the cables and different outputs on the power amp and that did not work. What is wierd now is that using REW to try to isolate the frequency it seems that the distortion is between 200-230HZ. I can now replicate this on both speakers at left and right position?


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> What is wierd now is that using REW to try to isolate the frequency it seems that the distortion is between 200-230HZ. I can now replicate this on* both* *speakers* at left and right position?


Both amplifier channels, too?

200 to 230 Hz is an awfully narrow range. At that frequency (sort of middle A?), the fundamental frequency only, not including overtones, it's only a bit wider than one white key on the piano.

A resonance? Are all of the sides, top & bottom of both speakers firm (put your hand on each wood surface to detect vibration during that part of the movie, only)?

I forget; does it happen only on that one movie, at that place?


----------



## shazza6887

garygarrison said:


> Both amplifier channels, too?
> 
> 200 to 230 Hz is an awfully narrow range. At that frequency (sort of middle A?), the fundamental frequency only, not including overtones, it's only a bit wider than one white key on the piano.
> 
> A resonance? Are all of the sides, top & bottom of both speakers firm (put your hand on each wood surface to detect vibration during that part of the movie, only)?
> 
> I forget; does it happen only on that one movie, at that place?


This was using sweeps on REW,


its on both channels on the amp, although the right still has it a little more than the left.


Its a rattle/distortion


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> This was using sweeps on REW,
> 
> 
> its on both channels on the amp, although the right still has it a little more than the left.
> 
> 
> Its a rattle/distortion



"Rattle/distortion" sure sounds like something in or near the speaker box vibrating.


You didn't say (at least in the last post) whether it happened only on that one movie, in that one part of the movie. Sometimes when someone moves to a speaker with better high frequency response, you can hear more detail. 



I once had a "rattle" in one part of a movie, and it turned out to be a singer's necklace rattling. It didn't happen with a lesser speaker.


----------



## Frensh Prince

Hi there,

I think I have an issue with my fresh and new Marantz SR7013.

When I set the audissey mode to LR bypass, my front speaker are almost 10db lower than in « reference », « flat », or « none ».

I know it’s not a usual behavior since I already owned a couple of receivers with AudisseyXT32.
And bypass usually disable EQ on front speaker without changing the levels.

So, What do you think the issue is ?

Thanks


----------



## shazza6887

garygarrison said:


> "Rattle/distortion" sure sounds like something in or near the speaker box vibrating.
> 
> 
> You didn't say (at least in the last post) whether it happened only on that one movie, in that one part of the movie. Sometimes when someone moves to a speaker with better high frequency response, you can hear more detail.
> 
> 
> 
> I once had a "rattle" in one part of a movie, and it turned out to be a singer's necklace rattling. It didn't happen with a lesser speaker.


Sorry Gary,


Yes its really at the beginning of Fifth Element when volume is at or above -5db, It is when the title screen comes up. it did it at the start of passengers as well. 

As Matt said it seems the start of most movies use heavy bass to possibly wake the subs up? 



I used REW to locate the problem frequency and using the sweeps located it at 200-230HZ, i did this in both auto and Pure Direct modes with the same result.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

I know sub boosts are common (on top of DEQ), but are people boosting Atmos channels as well? Maybe for a little more oomph or height activity?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

*@shazza6887*




mthomas47 said:


> ... Second, I think you just went too far with the line level attenuators. I would back-off to -6dB attenuators, especially for the front soundstage. You have attenuated away some of the available amplifier headroom, and *if those front speakers aren't distorting or clipping, with near Reference volumes, I don't know why they aren't.*



Did you ever resolve the part of the problem Mike mentioned above? By hook or crook you need to take care of this. 



Do you have a separate power amp? Does it have level controls? Some people use them instead of attenuators, to set approximate levels, then let Audyssey sort out the exact levels.



How loudly do you play the REW sweep? Keep it down, especially in the tweeter range.



There is one procedure some people use to determine if speaker cones are* rubbing/scraping, or if damage has already been done*, _*but I'm very reluctant to recommend it, because there is a chance of damage. *_


Talk to your dealer (if any) and the speaker manufacturer *FIRST*. Then:



_*Turn all electric power OFF.*_
_*Starting with your subwoofer (because it would generally have a looser suspension) place both of your hands gently on the speaker cone and very gently push it in, JUST A LITTLE BIT -- do you hear scraping? 
*_


----------



## pbz06

JohnnytheSkin said:


> I know sub boosts are common (on top of DEQ), but are people boosting Atmos channels as well? Maybe for a little more oomph or height activity?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


I prefer to keep my "baseline" balanced. I do double check Audyssey results with my SPL meter, using the Dolby 5.1.4 tones I've obtained. It's pretty consistent and accurate with each run and never differs by more than 1.0dB from previous runs and with my SPL meter. When I do check, I set it to Flat and DEQ Off (actually turn off my subs, ocd habit). Once I'm happy, I simply engage my preferences from there (DEQ, Reference etc).


----------



## shazza6887

@garygarrison



I tried taking out the attenuators and re set the trims at -12 as a starting point and even re ran AUD with them off, i still got that rattle/distortion at that specific scene / log sweep.


I am not to keen on going back to RCA, XLR is supposed to be a step up isnt it? i couldnt find -6db attenuators in XLR's so i got the -10db ones. and being that i tried it without them anyway resulting in the same issue makes me less inclined to go down this route. 



Unfortuanatley my power amp has no gain adjustments so i am stuck with thier output which is a lot for the speakers thus resulting in me using the attenuation pads. I asked earlier but if i am better off not using them and using REW to set the speakers to something like 77.5 spl or whatever i can get. (Some speakers were 76db at -12) so thats why i am saying i may need to go to say 78 to get them all level. 



I was doing my REW sweeps at near ref levels. I am thinking i may have pushed the speakers to far and might have damaged them, although it is just at that freq 200-230 hear anything. 



I may have to try pushing them in to hear anything like you said?


----------



## Balbolito

JohnnytheSkin said:


> I know sub boosts are common (on top of DEQ), but are people boosting Atmos channels as well? Maybe for a little more oomph or height activity?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


I add about 1db to the level trim of each of my ceiling Atmos speakers just to increase the immersiveness a bit. to my ears it sounds better this way.


----------



## pwiss

pbz06 said:


> I prefer to keep my "baseline" balanced. I do double check Audyssey results with my SPL meter, using the Dolby 5.1.4 tones I've obtained. It's pretty consistent and accurate with each run and never differs by more than 1.0dB from previous runs and with my SPL meter. When I do check, I set it to Flat and DEQ Off (actually turn off my subs, ocd habit). Once I'm happy, I simply engage my preferences from there (DEQ, Reference etc).


I double check mine using the Spears and Munsil test disc with DEQ on. DEQ on raises my surrounds by a couple of decibels. I then match all levels which means lowering the surrounds down to match the other speakers. I get the benefits of DEQ without what seems to be the biggest complaint which is elevated surrounds.


----------



## logan456

*audessey*

Denon 8500, I am using the multi eq app on my smart phone and after the calibration the left front speaker read 0 level and distance, seems like it is not eqing it.


----------



## shazza6887

logan456 said:


> Denon 8500, I am using the multi eq app on my smart phone and after the calibration the left front speaker read 0 level and distance, seems like it is not eqing it.


Hmmm seems to me like the problem i was having, are you adjusting the sub level trhough the app before the calibration?


----------



## logan456

shazza6887 said:


> Hmmm seems to me like the problem i was having, are you adjusting the sub level trhough the app before the calibration?


Thanks for the reply, yes I did, the speaker symbol was in the green.Maybe it should be more inn the red? I know these programs you have too run the sun a little louder than suggested.


----------



## shazza6887

logan456 said:


> Thanks for the reply, yes I did, the speaker symbol was in the green.Maybe it should be more inn the red? I know these programs you have too run the sun a little louder than suggested.


For us to fix this issue you have to set it so that screen never comes up at all, so get it in the green, scrap that cal and start again from where it had it at the correct level.


----------



## logan456

shazza6887 said:


> For us to fix this issue you have to set it so that screen never comes up at all, so get it in the green, scrap that cal and start again from where it had it at the correct level.


Thanks I will give that a try.


----------



## logan456

logan456 said:


> Thanks I will give that a try.


 now igot the cal on the left speaker but it marked the volume on the sub -1, and then I tried it again it marked the sub +1. Man this app is frustrating.


----------



## garygarrison

shazza6887 said:


> I may have to try pushing them in to hear anything like you said?


 I'd call Klipsch and talk to them first. Their customer support number is online.


It could conceivably be a design problem in the speakers, since it is in both channels


OR 


Too much bass power could have been applied -- but unlikely since you have had the speakers set on "small"


OR


The trims set too high, so what you heard was clipping of amps OR speakers


OR


Something in your electronics


OR 



an anomaly in that soundtrack, and the REW ~~ 1/8 octave distortion being just a coincidence.


If there have been many complaints about those particular speakers, Klipsch might tell you. Or not.


Klipsch's customer service department doesn't seem to be quite what it used to be, but if you get just the right person, you could get an answer. In the early 1970s, when I owned *no* Klipsch (had JBL) and I had a technical question, I ran it past my dealer, Joe Minor of Berkeley Custom Electronics. He asked around on my behalf, and I got a letter answering the question from Paul W. Klipsch, himself. Those were the days.


----------



## logan456

*audessey*

I am having issues with the audessey app. Seems if I turn up the sub level to high the left channel will not calibrate. If I lower the sub volume to about 9 oclock on the the sub everything calibrates fine. however it sets the trim level -1.5 which I rather have it calibrate around -6.0 gives a little more headroom. If I calibrate through the receiver I can get my sub to calibrate to -6.0 no issues. Unfortunately though the app gives you more options to fine tune the sound. I heard that you are not suppose to raise the sub volume to a + number because it can cause clipping, is this true? 

Plus are the Audessey pink noise a true 75 DB because after the system is calibrated the readings from the listening position with the radio shack analog meter is around 72 db.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Balbolito

@logan456 best to ask in the Audyssey app thread HERE


----------



## hd54321

Hi - I have a Denon X3400H. I’ve had the receiver for about 1-2 years now and I have a 5.1 speaker setup. The receiver is located in a closet with my other AV gear about 30 ft away from my den where the TV and speakers are setup. I have an extension cable for the Audyssey mic and use a boom setup to get it situated precisely. 

When I first got the unit and attempted to do the Audyssey setup, it would start the sequence and I would hear the audio clicks/sounds, but the receiver was not registering the sounds. I checked cables, checked the mic and repeated the calibration several times to no avail. Eventually gave up and life got in the way. It’s really a shame that I never got it done, but now, a long time later, I’d like to retry.

Anyone have any idea what could be happening or any troubleshooting steps I should attempt? Thank you!!


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

hd54321 said:


> Hi - I have a Denon X3400H. I’ve had the receiver for about 1-2 years now and I have a 5.1 speaker setup. The receiver is located in a closet with my other AV gear about 30 ft away from my den where the TV and speakers are setup. I have an extension cable for the Audyssey mic and use a boom setup to get it situated precisely.
> 
> When I first got the unit and attempted to do the Audyssey setup, it would start the sequence and I would hear the audio clicks/sounds, but the receiver was not registering the sounds. I checked cables, checked the mic and repeated the calibration several times to no avail. Eventually gave up and life got in the way. It’s really a shame that I never got it done, but now, a long time later, I’d like to retry.
> 
> Anyone have any idea what could be happening or any troubleshooting steps I should attempt? Thank you!!


Hi

What I would do is troubleshoot the mic first, one way is to maybe (have never tried this) is to connect the Audyssey mic into a laptop as a mic and see does it function properly and record sound, you can do this at the receiver end with the laptop use voice recorder and make some noise or play music in the Den. Then playback the recording and see did it work properly, it won't be the best recording but the test is to find out if the extension cable and the mic are functioning properly. This may not be too scientific but will give you a quick result. Although it hasn't happened me, users have got faulty mic's before so it's not uncommon to happen

I wouldn't bother trying to troubleshoot any other area until we know the mic working okay, so that is where I would start, you can do a hard reset on the AVR as well, be sure to take pictures of any settings that you wish to save like HDMI and so on, but ya zone in on the mic first than the AVR

All the best
Jim


----------



## RickD1225

hd54321, did you try the mic with out the extension cord to see if it works?


----------



## psuKinger

I just installed a new external amp (Marantz MM7055) via pre-outs for my front 3 channels from my reciever (Denon x4400h). I reran Audyssey XT32. Some of my settings/preferences, like using "FLAT" rather than "REFERENCE" curves, has been reset. Which is fine. But, unlike my last calibration (no amp), whenever I switch to "FLAT" all of my sound stops until I flip it back to "REFERENCE". 

I've never had this happen before. Anybody have any idea(s) why this is happening?


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, will FLAT also have the MRC active ?


----------



## psuKinger

psuKinger said:


> I just installed a new external amp (Marantz MM7055) via pre-outs for my front 3 channels from my reciever (Denon x4400h). I reran Audyssey XT32. Some of my settings/preferences, like using "FLAT" rather than "REFERENCE" curves, has been reset. Which is fine. But, unlike my last calibration (no amp), whenever I switch to "FLAT" all of my sound stops until I flip it back to "REFERENCE".
> 
> I've never had this happen before. Anybody have any idea(s) why this is happening?





CBdicX said:


> Hi, will FLAT also have the MRC active ?


It does not. I have the app editor, so I'm able to disable that without the "FLAT" curve, but if you haven't paid $20 for the editor, I believe the only way to disable it may be to use the "FLAT" curve.

Just to follow up on my initial question, I ultimately did a "microprocessor reset" (one step below full factory reset), and then re-ran Audyssey, and resent the results to the AVR, and everything is working fine now. In hindsight I think what might have happened was an incomplete "send" fromt he app to the receiver, and I didn't necessarily need to do that reset and rerun... but what's done is done and I'm back up and running.


----------



## CBdicX

psuKinger said:


> It does not. I have the app editor, so I'm able to disable that without the "FLAT" curve, but if you haven't paid $20 for the editor, I believe the only way to disable it may be to use the "FLAT" curve.
> 
> Just to follow up on my initial question, I ultimately did a "microprocessor reset" (one step below full factory reset), and then re-ran Audyssey, and resent the results to the AVR, and everything is working fine now. In hindsight I think what might have happened was an incomplete "send" fromt he app to the receiver, and I didn't necessarily need to do that reset and rerun... but what's done is done and I'm back up and running.


So, if I understand you correct, with a "normal" Audyssey run on the receiver, not the app, on Reference we get the MRC, and with Flat MRC is deactivated, correct ?


----------



## psuKinger

CBdicX said:


> So, if I understand you correct, with a "normal" Audyssey run on the receiver, not the app, on Reference we get the MRC, and with Flat MRC is deactivated, correct ?


Correct, at least as I understand it. The "FLAT" curve gets rid of both the "crossover dip" (around 2k or 3k or whatever), as well as the high end roll-off.

The app editor doesn't actually let me pick "FLAT" (unless I'm missing it). It lets you pick from two different high end roll-offs (slower/ligher, maybe -2dB, and a second more significant looking -6dBish rolloff), and regardless of which high-end-rolloff you want, you can pick to enable or disable MCR. But if you want o switch over to the "FLAT" curve, you send those results over to your AVR from the app editor and then manually change your receiver from "Reference" to "Flat" for that input.

I generally prefer "Reference curve with lighter (-2dB-ish) rolloff and no MCR for "good metal dome tweeters and horns", and "FLAT" for my RAAL ribbon tweeters.


----------



## CBdicX

Maybe this has nothing to do with Audyssey, but why can I not alter the manual EQ on my Denon X4500H when I have Audyssey active ?


----------



## pbz06

CBdicX said:


> So, if I understand you correct, with a "normal" Audyssey run on the receiver, not the app, on Reference we get the MRC, and with Flat MRC is deactivated, correct ?


Edit - see mthomas response below.


----------



## Balbolito

@CBdicX you can't, it's either manual EQ or Audyssey.

You could use the tone controls for treble and bass after running Audyssey though.


----------



## mthomas47

pbz06 said:


> No
> 
> When running through the AVR, both Reference and Flat have MRC enabled and non-defeatable. The only difference is the rolloff of high frequencies. The Reference is equivalent to Target 1 the app while Flat is flat.
> 
> If you want MRC disabled for Flat and or Reference (both 1 and 2), the app is the only way.
> 
> That's how it has been explained many times before.



Hi,

There is always a lot of misinformation floating around on AVS, so sometimes it is difficult to know what is really factual and what is not. 

I'm sorry, but what you have read elsewhere about Flat and MRC is not correct! Audyssey Flat, either through your AVR or otherwise, means exactly what the name suggests. It is as flat a frequency response as Audyssey is able to get it, with nothing added or subtracted. So, the mid-range compensation (MRC) feature is not engaged when you set your AVR to Flat.

Both the Audyssey FAQ, which was started in 2012, and the Guide, which was started in 2016, and which is linked in my signature, contain the correct information on this subject. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## pbz06

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> There is always a lot of misinformation floating around on AVS, so sometimes it is difficult to know what is really factual and what is not.
> 
> I'm sorry, but what you have read elsewhere about Flat and MRC is not correct! Audyssey Flat, either through your AVR or otherwise, means exactly what the name suggests. It is as flat a frequency response as Audyssey is able to get it, with nothing added or subtracted. So, the mid-range compensation (MRC) feature is not engaged when you set your AVR to Flat.
> 
> Both the Audyssey FAQ, which was started in 2012, and the Guide, which was started in 2016, and which is linked in my signature, contain the correct information on this subject.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Ugh, well that's annoying and embarrassing. I edited my post. And I'll update my notes


----------



## CBdicX

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> There is always a lot of misinformation floating around on AVS, so sometimes it is difficult to know what is really factual and what is not.
> 
> I'm sorry, but what you have read elsewhere about Flat and MRC is not correct! Audyssey Flat, either through your AVR or otherwise, means exactly what the name suggests. It is as flat a frequency response as Audyssey is able to get it, with nothing added or subtracted. So, the mid-range compensation (MRC) feature is not engaged when you set your AVR to Flat.
> 
> Both the Audyssey FAQ, which was started in 2012, and the Guide, which was started in 2016, and which is linked in my signature, contain the correct information on this subject.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike, thanks for explaining 

Dick


----------



## qguy

*Loudness after Audyssey calibration*

Transformers- The Fallen intro 
75dB Average, Max SPL at 114dB using Android SOUND METER app via Huawei Nova 2i. Does that sound about right ?

EDIT: Volume at 0dB


----------



## GIEGAR

qguy said:


> ... Does that sound about right ?


Yep, but it does depend on the master volume position. Sit back, relax and enjoy the movie.


----------



## qguy

GIEGAR said:


> Yep, but it does depend on the master volume position. Sit back, relax and enjoy the movie.


0dB


----------



## mthomas47

qguy said:


> Transformers- The Fallen intro
> 75dB Average, Max SPL at 114dB using Android SOUND METER app via Huawei Nova 2i. Does that sound about right ?
> 
> EDIT: Volume at 0dB



Hi,

There really isn't a right volume to listen at. There is only what you like. But, it's very difficult to say whether those numbers are "right" or not, even at a theoretical level. At a master volume level of 0.0, the nominal average volume of a 5.1 movie might be about 85dB, with potential peaks of 105dB for the regular channels, and 115dB for the LFE channel. Those numbers constitute the Dolby/THX Reference standard for 5.1 movies.

The problem is that film makers may not use an average volume level of 85dB. The actual average could be either higher or lower than that. Think of the overall volume difference (not just the bass difference) between a light romantic comedy and a heavy action thriller. But, even for action movies and blockbusters the overall average volume level can vary widely. 

And, the dynamic peaks can also vary widely in both volume and in frequency. Some movies may have a lot of dramatic peaks in volume, and some may have only a few. Think of the difference between A Quiet Place as an example of one extreme, and contrast that with something like Overlord, or Batman Versus Superman, which had many loud peaks in volume.

The overall volume level, and the magnitude of bass peaks, are not just an issue with respect to different movies, but they are also an issue with respect to different theatrical releases of the same movie. The DVD version may differ from the Blu-Ray version, and both of them may differ from the Atmos version, and all of them can differ from a streaming version.

As long as your HT system is properly calibrated by Audyssey, we have to rely on our volume levels to be in appropriate balance with each other, and that the system is approximately calibrated to Reference. Then, we just pick the master volume level, and the amount of bass that sounds right to us for the particular movie or program that we are watching at the time. And, most of us won't use the same master volume level for something like Dunkirk that we will for some other movies.

@*GIEGAR* gave you a very concise answer to your question, when he suggested that you just relax and enjoy the movie. It will probably be pretty hard to find a movie that exactly conforms to the Dolby/THX Reference numbers cited in the first paragraph. And, it would be very difficult to measure an overall average volume level for an entire movie, even if you really wanted to. Most people just pick the dialogue level that sounds right to them, and work from there. 

Film mixers and directors don't typically try to measure the overall average volume level of a movie either. They just use the overall volume levels which sound right to them, at particular points in the movie. They do try to not exceed peak volumes of 105dB/115dB, but that's about it. I hope this explanation helps!

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

qguy said:


> Transformers- The Fallen intro
> 75dB Average, Max SPL at 114dB using Android SOUND METER app via Huawei Nova 2i. Does that sound about right ?
> 
> EDIT: Volume at 0dB



Adjusting the *dialogue *to a level you think sounds like natural conversation, using the Main Volume Control, is a good approach, IMO. If the soundtrack needs to have a great deal of dynamic range (more than usual), the mixers may record the dialogue a little low, so if you adjust the dialogue to your normal level *by ear*, the peak levels will be higher.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> Adjusting the *dialogue *to a level you think sounds like natural conversation, using the Main Volume Control, is a good approach, IMO. If the soundtrack needs to have a great deal of dynamic range (more than usual), the mixers may record the dialogue a little low, so if you adjust the dialogue to your normal level *by ear*, the peak levels will be higher.


Movies with too great a dynamic range for the comfort of listeners (or the neighbors) are tailor-made for Dynamic Volume (which is the only situation in which I use it). After turning on Dynamic Voluyme (and sometimes turning off Dynamic EQ after that if the bass or surrounds are too prominent), I adjust the master volume control on the AVR when dialogue is playing.


----------



## garygarrison

*qguy*, just out of curiosity, did you measure your SPL at "C"
or "A" weighting, and at "Fast" or "Slow?" For music, "C" weight and "Fast" is preferred. 



Careful about these high levels in your speakers. Some will take it just fine; others will not. It depends on duration as well as SPL. Just like your ears (for which, see the chart at the end of this post).


As everyone is saying, the *listener's preference trumps everything* *...*

That said, I will type IMO *once *below, because that's all this is.

The most important questions, *IMO*, are*:*


Does the sound at this volume and Bass/Treble balance *please me*?
Does it sound plausibly *realistic* in loudness and dynamics? That is, is it high fidelity to the *imagined* original (which is about all we can do)? I think filmmakers tend to mix at a volume that will resemble a live orchestra, and at least suggest live sound, even if thunder or explosions are a bit soft.. Movies are meant to be a notable experience, unlike channel surfing when bored. Some composers (Bernard Herrmann) opposed the filmmakers turning the music down or up, but said something like, "Where you want it loud, I'll *write it* loud*;* where you want it soft, I'll *write it* soft!" That way, he avoided the perils of what Leonard Bernstein called "Upper Dubbing, California."
Closely related, does the sound have a good chance of resembling a composer's or the filmmakers' intentions, as to emotional content, dynamics, etc.?
Dynamic Volume *fails* at numbers 2 and 3. Yes, I'd use it if I had a sleeping baby (or adult) or thin apartment walls. 

THX recommends an SPL about 5 to 7 dB below Reference for a room the size of mine (big-ish). For a 12' x 15' room with an 8' ceiling, they recommend 9 dB below Reference. One reason for this is that early reflections, particularly specular, rather than diffuse, ones can be interpreted by the brain as loudness. So can distortion. The *peaks* THX/Dolby specifies for a large theater (105 dB, 115 dB for subwoofers) are very short, particularly the ones that are above about 80 Hz. A midrange peak at these lofty levels might be super short -- maybe 20ms to 300ms, about 1/3 of a second -- and would never be fully registered by an SPL meter set for "slow." Longer peaks tend to sound louder, but are usually softer (one of the delightful surprises one gets using an SPL meter). 

But your preference rules.


----------



## logan456

Using the app if I boost the subwoofer curve +6db would that be close to dynamic eq as far as bass response, or should I go up to +10?


----------



## Remy.Alexander

I installed my new DIY sub build yesterday, so i ran audyssey and now Audyssey FLAT no longer outputs audio. I did microprocessor reset and still no audio. L/R bypass, Reference and off output audio but not Flat, Anyone ever experience this?


----------



## mogorf

Remy.Alexander said:


> I installed my new DIY sub build yesterday, so i ran audyssey and now Audyssey FLAT no longer outputs audio. I did microprocessor reset and still no audio. L/R bypass, Reference and off output audio but not Flat, Anyone ever experience this?



No, have not experienced this. How does this correlate with your new DIY sub?


----------



## Remy.Alexander

mogorf said:


> No, have not experienced this. How does this correlate with your new DIY sub?



It dosent, I had to rerun audyssey because of it and that's when I noticed is all im saying,


----------



## mogorf

Remy.Alexander said:


> It dosent, I had to rerun audyssey because of it and that's when I noticed is all im saying,



Very strange phenomenon you are experiencing! Try to do a microprocessor reset 4-5 times in a row. Sometimes it helps to resolve a glitch in the software. Report back please.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Remy.Alexander said:


> I installed my new DIY sub build yesterday, so i ran audyssey and now Audyssey FLAT no longer outputs audio. I did microprocessor reset and still no audio. L/R bypass, Reference and off output audio but not Flat, Anyone ever experience this?


Did you run it through the AVR or via the app? I've had it with the app before, and to fix it I set the curve to reference in the AVR, and then reuploaded the curve from the app. You should then be able to select Flag in the Audyssey menu.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Remy.Alexander

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Did you run it through the AVR or via the app? I've had it with the app before, and to fix it I set the curve to reference in the AVR, and then reuploaded the curve from the app. You should then be able to select Flag in the Audyssey menu.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk



I used the app- as it was the only way i knew how to shut off midrange compensation lol ill give it another shot. I re-uploaded my file already not sure whats up but ill try re uploading and resetting a few times


----------



## VBB

It's a bug in the app causing "Flat" data to not get uploaded. I've encountered this a few times, and every time repeating the upload brought the curve back.


----------



## pbz06

logan456 said:


> Using the app if I boost the subwoofer curve +6db would that be close to dynamic eq as far as bass response, or should I go up to +10?


There's a very in-depth section regarding DEQ in the link below. Read through that so you understand how it works and what it does, because the short answer is "no it's not that simple".

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...ubwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html#VA


----------



## garygarrison

logan456 said:


> Using the app if I boost the subwoofer curve +6db would that be close to dynamic eq as far as bass response, or should I go up to +10?[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of Dynamic EQ (DEQ) is to compensate for the human hearing loss in the bass (and slighty, in the treble) at low volumes, therefore it depends on the position of the volume control. At - 20 dB on the main volume control, I *think* DEQ gives you about *+* 9 dB at the bottom (20 Hz, 30 Hz), *BUT *you will get a _*different*_ amount of boost at _*other*_ settings of the main volume control. And it is even more complicated than that -- do see the reference pbz06 gave you at
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-s...rences.html#VA written by Mike Thomas.
> 
> 
> And now for something completely different. Regardless of how DEQ works, there are a variety of preferred room curves researchers have put out. They often involve a substantial boost in the bass (maybe 7 or 8 dB), and some of them involve a slight roll-off in the treble. The bass boost may be partly due to honest human preference, or be because boosted bass sounds "flat" to the majority of people in test audiences, or partly due to current recording practices (especially with Rock/Pop/Metal) which too often impose a cut in the bass, to protect cheap speakers, or to avoid generating modulation distortion in the selfsame cheap speakers, or as part of "the loudness wars" -- less bass means that the recording level can be higher, making one's company's CDs seem more robust, exciting and "dynamic," even though they have less dynamic range. The current state of the popular recording industry (excepting movies, which are usually fine) is best described as "polymorphous perverse."
> 
> 
> 
> I start with Audyssey FLAT, and impose about *+*9 dB at the bottom, and leave it FLAT at the top.
> 
> 
> Here are some preferred room "house" curves*:*


----------



## darthwhit

*Please help me with an Audyssey problem?*

I have a Denon AVR-X4400H and am trying to use the app version of Audyssey MultEQ XT32. It worked a month ago before I did some major upgrades with my seating. When I try to run the app now the app loses communication with the receiver. I can get it started. It will play a signal to set the volume of the subwoofer but the sound icon doesn't move toward the center. 








I can still click next and it will say it's, "Checking the Front Left Speaker. Please wait..." It never moves from that screen while still continuously playing the subwoofer volume test signal until it times out. 









I've reset the cache on the app, I've reinstalled, I've power cycled the receiver, every modem, switch, and router in my home to no avail. The receiver is wired with ethernet and my phone has a solid 5Ghz signal using an Orbi mesh system.


I've tried to search for answers but have come up with nothing that helps.


----------



## bobknavs

I've had major problems running the app from an actual Android device. I tended to lose communication in the middle of an 8 position measurement.

I have had better luck running the app under an Android emulator on a Windows PC. I used to use BlueStacks, but more recently went with Memu.

One issue: sometimes the Play Store didn't recognize that I had already purchased the app, even though I was logged in using my Google account. I was able to cause it to be downloaded to the emulator from a Windows login, though. (Strange.)


----------



## darthwhit

I was able to get it to work by uninstalling and sideloading an older version of the app. Now lets hope it will let me upload it. Working on figuring out ratbuddy now.


----------



## Rich 63

Balbolito said:


> JohnnytheSkin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know sub boosts are common (on top of DEQ), but are people boosting Atmos channels as well? Maybe for a little more oomph or height activity?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> I add about 1db to the level trim of each of my ceiling Atmos speakers just to increase the immersiveness a bit. to my ears it sounds better this way.
Click to expand...

.
Just a comment here. Many people are using direct firing speakers for atmos and not ceiling mount. For me I have to decrease dB or they are too dominate.


----------



## rosstg

I’ve had my dual SVS PC-2000 pro’s setup for a few weeks and deciding to try another calibration. Before I had a 7dB narrow dip at 90hz. This time I moved my throw pillows and placed the mic exactly where my head sits, keeping a 6inch placement. I was able to get AVR trims at -11 and -10.5.

The dip is all but gone. Just a tiny 3dB dip that’s narrow. I created 2 curves. 1 full range, Reference 1 curve, MRC off and DEQ on. Second is limited to 500hz with DEQ ON. 

Both options sound amazing but now that I finally have great subs I decided to try a 4dB boost using the SVS app. When I had my dual 1K’s I couldn’t imagine running my subs hot but the 2K’s never sound bloated or boomy. I still prefer my subs flat with DEQ.


----------



## Dentifrice

Hi,


I have a Denon X3600H (Audyssey MulEQ XT32). My subwoofer (Paradigm V10) supports ARC.


How do I configure all this ? I can configure ARC but disable it. Should I run Audyssey with ARC enable or disable ?


I just don't know how to make this work together.



Thanks


----------



## iStorm

Maybe someone can help me out.. tomorrow has been a really rough day for me and tomorrow is my birthday so I'm hoping it will be a better day. 

Anyways, I have been doing xt32 for awhile now on my previous denon receivers. I recently decided to upgrade and go the "separates" route by getting a 7 channel monolith amp and the anthem AVM60. I had great results with their ARC calibration software. The problem was that I went through 2 of the processors (both had bad LCD screens) so now I'm back to xt32. I purchased the nicest xt32 processor I could afford, the Marantz AV7705 processor (I was also looking at the Marantz 8805 but it looked like there wasn't a huge difference to warrant the over $2k price difference and I only needed a 11 channel processor ). 

Now that I have the new Marantz AV7705 processor I am very disappointed in my first calibration using the app (it was my first time using the app). It put all of my speaker trims in the extreme negatives (like -9 on most of my 5.2.2 setup). When I used my denon receiver with xt32 in the past my trims were in the positives or slight negatives. Is this just because I added an amplifier to all 7 channels? I now have to crank up new processor volume to compensate (around -12 master volume versus around -16 prior to the amplifier and processor upgrade (same speakers). 

With this same setup I was using the Anthem processor at around -24 master volume and everything sounded amazing. 

Also, with the anthem setup I had my dual pb16ultras both set to -18 on their volume knobs and now with audyssey they are both -30. I feel like pushing these subs at -30 isn't giving me much of a bang and maybe that's one of the reasons I'm so disappointed. I know I can just turn the volume knob up but then I'll be running them crazy hot compared to where I calibrated at. Are these two systems this far apart (ARC and Audyssey xt32) or is the app messed up somehow or my mic I got?

I really didn't think it would be this big of a difference going from ARC back to xt32 with the same speakers. Is the best way to check levels still to go into the audyssey manual test tones and set master volume to 0 with an SPL meter? 

I really hope something is just bugged with the app because I feel like everything is just calibrated way off and shouldn't be in the negatives this much. I'm not sure the amp would make that big of a difference but who knows? With ARC my trims were in the slight positives and slight negatives for all speakers. 

I have the phase on both of my subwoofers set to 0. Is this the correct way for Audyysey calibration for dual subs? 

Hopefully this post makes sense. Sorry guys, I've had a really bad day and just don't understand why I have to crank the system up so much and why everything including all speakers and subs are in the deep negatives. I put blankets on the theater chairs like normal when calibrating, did all 8 positions as shown on the Audyssey diagrams, used a professional tripod with mic holder, etc. The only difference was I used the app. I figured the app was the way to go because I kept reading that we want to turn OFF midrange compensation and this was the only way to do that. I kept the curves default, have all compression settings turned off including dynamic volume and tried dynamic EQ with reference level to 0, reference curve because I only watch bluray movies. 

If anyone has any thoughts or comments, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you so much!!


----------



## Balbolito

@iStorm

First of all everything seems normal.

1-Since you have XT32 and the app i would try limiting correction of your LCR to 300hz and 500hz in the app, try to compare and see what you like best, this usually is better than letting it calibrate the whole frequency range for many reasons.
2-Most of us actually have the speaker trim levels below 0 which is totally normal. negative range is normal do not worry. if it makes you feel better all speakers are like an average trim of -4 to -6 . if you have a speaker at the max negative vol of -12 then it means something is wrong.
3-Audyssey calibrates bass to reference, which to our ears is low, that is why it's a normal practice to raise the sub trim level (in your avr) for your subs. most would for an average of +3 to +5, again this is preference so try a few different ones and compare
4-In the app i would recommend you create a house curve for your sub channel (Like put one point +5db at 20hz then goes down to 0db around 120hz or so) that with step 3 should make things sound interesting
5-don't worry about Audysey setting your PB16 to -30, hey it set my SB16 which is a very similar sub to the same level! 
6-Sub phase is normal at 0.
6-Try to put DEQ off in the AVR as most don't like how it sounds, but if you like it then its totally up to you. 
7-I would try to put the mid-range compensation (MRC) off in the app for all speakers and see how this sounds
8-as a final step i would try (again this is preference) to put a house curve in the app using the curve editor feature for all your speakers (like one point or +4 or +5db around 60hz) that tilts to -4 or -5 at 20k. 

All the above should take 10 mins max to do, try them out and let us know how everything sounds to you!

BTW happy birthday!


----------



## iStorm

Balbolito said:


> @iStorm
> 
> First of all everything seems normal.
> 
> 1-Since you have XT32 and the app i would try limiting correction of your LCR to 300hz and 500hz in the app, try to compare and see what you like best, this usually is better than letting it calibrate the whole frequency range for many reasons.
> 2-Most of us actually have the speaker trim levels below 0 which is totally normal. negative range is normal do not worry. if it makes you feel better all speakers are like an average trim of -4 to -6 . if you have a speaker at the max negative vol of -12 then it means something is wrong.
> 3-Audyssey calibrates bass to reference, which to our ears is low, that is why it's a normal practice to raise the sub trim level (in your avr) for your subs. most would for an average of +3 to +5, again this is preference so try a few different ones and compare
> 4-In the app i would recommend you create a house curve for your sub channel (Like put one point +5db at 20hz then goes down to 0db around 120hz or so) that with step 3 should make things sound interesting
> 5-don't worry about Audysey setting your PB16 to -30, hey it set my SB16 which is a very similar sub to the same level!
> 6-Sub phase is normal at 0.
> 6-Try to put DEQ off in the AVR as most don't like how it sounds, but if you like it then its totally up to you.
> 7-I would try to put the mid-range compensation (MRC) off in the app for all speakers and see how this sounds
> 8-as a final step i would try (again this is preference) to put a house curve in the app using the curve editor feature for all your speakers (like one point or +4 or +5db around 60hz) that tilts to -4 or -5 at 20k.
> 
> All the above should take 10 mins max to do, try them out and let us know how everything sounds to you!
> 
> BTW happy birthday!


Hi there! Thanks for taking the time to reply to me. 

Most of my trims are around -9. For the subs I always shoot for around -10 so I can add back boosts on the AVR (up to -5) then add some more boost on the subs themselves. 
I just dont get why 2 calibration software are this much different especially for the subs. They were banging nice with the Anthem ARC calibration and I had them set to -18 on the subs themselves. -30 on the subs just feels like I'm barely getting anything out of these subs now. 
I'm not too familiar at all with making manual changes because i have no idea what any of these changes do (this is in regard to setting frequency cut offs and house curves, etc). I feel like i might mess it all up more than what Audyssey did. 
What's your master volume usually at for Blurays and how far do you sit from your screen? I'm about 12 feet away (I think my center is 11 feet away) and I am having to listen loud at around -13 master volume. This is even higher before I put this high end 7 channel amplifier into the mix. 
The only other thing I changed that might be causing me to be unimpressed with the audyssey system is I moved one pb16ultra to the front corner and put the other one in the rear corner which is close to the theater chairs. This caused me to put the tower speakers next to the entertainment center versus further out closer to the walls. I originally had my 2 subs at the front stage right next to the entertainment center but I kept reading that typically dual subs provide better sound when in opposing corners. 
I mainly watch movies so that's what I'm concerned with. Is reference EQ still the way to go for movies or is Flat a good option? I've always heard that Flat is more for music. 
I should probably turn DEQ off for now because my Anthem setup did not have this option so I can compare apple's to apple's.

If you have any other thoughts or easy ways for me to setup the curves, I would appreciate it. I just don't want to cause more harm than good. Thanks again!
*Also thank you for the Birthday wishes*


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hi there! Thanks for taking the time to reply to me.
> 
> Most of my trims are around -9. For the subs I always shoot for around -10 so I can add back boosts on the AVR (up to -5) then add some more boost on the subs themselves.
> I just dont get why 2 calibration software are this much different especially for the subs. They were banging nice with the Anthem ARC calibration and I had them set to -18 on the subs themselves. -30 on the subs just feels like I'm barely getting anything out of these subs now.
> I'm not too familiar at all with making manual changes because i have no idea what any of these changes do (this is in regard to setting frequency cut offs and house curves, etc). I feel like i might mess it all up more than what Audyssey did.
> What's your master volume usually at for Blurays and how far do you sit from your screen? I'm about 12 feet away (I think my center is 11 feet away) and I am having to listen loud at around -13 master volume. This is even higher before I put this high end 7 channel amplifier into the mix.
> The only other thing I changed that might be causing me to be unimpressed with the audyssey system is I moved one pb16ultra to the front corner and put the other one in the rear corner which is close to the theater chairs. This caused me to put the tower speakers next to the entertainment center versus further out closer to the walls. I originally had my 2 subs at the front stage right next to the entertainment center but I kept reading that typically dual subs provide better sound when in opposing corners.
> I mainly watch movies so that's what I'm concerned with. Is reference EQ still the way to go for movies or is Flat a good option? I've always heard that Flat is more for music.
> I should probably turn DEQ off for now because my Anthem setup did not have this option so I can compare apple's to apple's.
> 
> If you have any other thoughts or easy ways for me to setup the curves, I would appreciate it. I just don't want to cause more harm than good. Thanks again!
> *Also thank you for the Birthday wishes*


It's hard to say (and I'm not famliar with ARC) but maybe the subwoofer differences are because ARC may be implementing its own house curve and therefore set a different trim. Default Audyssey is "flat" curve so like balbolito explained, it can sound more muted in the bass region (initially) than what we normally like due to our hearing capabilities and own preferences. It's even more difficult because of the variables you described, moving speakers and subwoofers etc. so you will get varying results. But -13 volume would be loud in my room, but I don't have treatment, have hard floors and all that so I'm usually in the -16 for loud but usually at -20 for normal watching.

My advice: don't worry too much about the apples to oranges comparisons. Since you are now with Audyssey, do the best to optimize the setup, calibration, and post cal settings and tweaks.

Your trims and all that seem fine to me. For example, my speakers are about 9.5 feet away and are set at -3 fronts and -5 center. I think in most cases you would want negative trims anyway. If you feel they are too much in the negative, you can always double check them with an SPL meter to see ballpark. Ideally with an external source so the audyssey filters don't get bypassed.

For the Flat vs Reference (and DEQ), it's all preference. Don't worry about music vs movies, you'll just have to experiment. There's reasons and descriptions for each in the guide here, and DEQ in the subwoofer/bass guide from mthomas. DEQ can be used as a bass compensation, or you can manually raise it after calibration etc.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> It's hard to say (and I'm not famliar with ARC) but maybe the subwoofer differences are because ARC may be implementing its own house curve and therefore set a different trim. Default Audyssey is "flat" curve so like balbolito explained, it can sound more muted in the bass region (initially) than what we normally like due to our hearing capabilities and own preferences. It's even more difficult because of the variables you described, moving speakers and subwoofers etc. so you will get varying results. But -13 volume would be loud in my room, but I don't have treatment, have hard floors and all that so I'm usually in the -16 for loud but usually at -20 for normal watching.
> 
> My advice: don't worry too much about the apples to oranges comparisons. Since you are now with Audyssey, do the best to optimize the setup, calibration, and post cal settings and tweaks.
> 
> Your trims and all that seem fine to me. For example, my speakers are about 9.5 feet away and are set at -3 fronts and -5 center. I think in most cases you would want negative trims anyway. If you feel they are too much in the negative, you can always double check them with an SPL meter to see ballpark. Ideally with an external source so the audyssey filters don't get bypassed.
> 
> For the Flat vs Reference (and DEQ), it's all preference. Don't worry about music vs movies, you'll just have to experiment. There's reasons and descriptions for each in the guide here, and DEQ in the subwoofer/bass guide from mthomas. DEQ can be used as a bass compensation, or you can manually raise it after calibration etc.


Hey I'm completely with you on the fact that I now have Audyseey and not ARC so I need to just try to make due with the best that I can with Audyseey. 

I definitely also understand that I would rather have negative trims compared to positive ones, but I just didn't expect all of the speakers to come out at around -6 to -9 and now I have to crank the system up in order to hear the movie. What was "loud" on the ARC system was like -22 master volume and loud on this system would be like a master volume of -8 without DEQ. 

I know that subwoofer placement is all personal preference, same with towers, etc but can someone tell me at least what hypothetically the best placement would be for the subs? I have attached pictures of the setup with the subs at the front of the room and then some with them where they are currently in opposite corners. I have tried the subwoofer crawl and I cannot tell any difference in sound with it. Both of the ways whether they are both at the front or on opposing walls yield the same dip in 40-60hz frequency on the dual subs on the graph. 

I really hope I can get this setup dialed in. I just hope ARC wasn't THAT MUCH BETTER than what Audyseey provides. Anthem doesn't currently have any processors other than the AVM60 which I have had 2 and both were defective. I am really not trying to go back to Anthem and it seems this Marantaz 7705 is the best it gets for Audyssey processors (other than the 8805 which is almost the same exact minus a little bit better DAC and future HDMI 2.1 upgrade capable.) 

Please let me know your thoughts on the placement of my fronts/subs based on my pictures of the room. I do not have a lot of options since it is already pretty tight in there. 

Thanks for any advice.


----------



## Soulburner

Balbolito said:


> @iStorm
> 
> First of all everything seems normal.
> 
> 1-Since you have XT32 and the app i would try limiting correction of your LCR to 300hz and 500hz in the app, try to compare and see what you like best, this usually is better than letting it calibrate the whole frequency range for many reasons.
> 2-Most of us actually have the speaker trim levels below 0 which is totally normal. negative range is normal do not worry. if it makes you feel better all speakers are like an average trim of -4 to -6 . if you have a speaker at the max negative vol of -12 then it means something is wrong.
> 3-Audyssey calibrates bass to reference, which to our ears is low, that is why it's a normal practice to raise the sub trim level (in your avr) for your subs. most would for an average of +3 to +5, again this is preference so try a few different ones and compare
> 4-In the app i would recommend you create a house curve for your sub channel (Like put one point +5db at 20hz then goes down to 0db around 120hz or so) that with step 3 should make things sound interesting
> 5-don't worry about Audysey setting your PB16 to -30, hey it set my SB16 which is a very similar sub to the same level!
> 6-Sub phase is normal at 0.
> *6-Try to put DEQ off in the AVR as most don't like how it sounds, but if you like it then its totally up to you. *
> 7-I would try to put the mid-range compensation (MRC) off in the app for all speakers and see how this sounds
> 8-as a final step i would try (again this is preference) to put a house curve in the app using the curve editor feature for all your speakers (like one point or +4 or +5db around 60hz) that tilts to -4 or -5 at 20k.


Good advice in general, but I wouldn't go that far with the bolded statement. I don't agree that "most" don't like the way DEQ sounds. In fact, there is no other way to get bass levels to be correct, relatively, with varying volume levels after calibration, than to use DEQ. The system was designed with that in mind.

It certainly doesn't hurt to try turning it off to see what you think. Just be prepared to experience the following: bass levels will be very weak at low volumes, so you'll boost the bass. Then, as you crank it up, the bass will get overwhelming, so you'll try to find some middle ground, which is never ideal for low or high volumes. In addition, it will be very difficult to dial in the right _curve_ in this paradigm, because not just the level, but the amount of bass added at each frequency (the "curve") changes with output level as well. Again, you must resort to some kind of happy (or not so) medium point. If you have a dedicated theater that always run at or near reference, it will be easy. But if your system is going to vary considerably in usage, consider these points.


----------



## Soulburner

iStorm said:


> I know that subwoofer placement is all personal preference, same with towers, etc but can someone tell me at least what hypothetically the best placement would be for the subs? I have attached pictures of the setup with the subs at the front of the room and then some with them where they are currently in opposite corners. I have tried the subwoofer crawl and I cannot tell any difference in sound with it. Both of the ways whether they are both at the front or on opposing walls yield the same dip in 40-60hz frequency on the dual subs on the graph.
> 
> I really hope I can get this setup dialed in. I just hope ARC wasn't THAT MUCH BETTER than what Audyseey provides. Anthem doesn't currently have any processors other than the AVM60 which I have had 2 and both were defective. I am really not trying to go back to Anthem and it seems this Marantaz 7705 is the best it gets for Audyssey processors (other than the 8805 which is almost the same exact minus a little bit better DAC and future HDMI 2.1 upgrade capable.)
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts on the placement of my fronts/subs based on my pictures of the room. I do not have a lot of options since it is already pretty tight in there.
> 
> Thanks for any advice.


Hypothetically, the subs moved to the corners should be better. Only way to know is to measure and listen.


----------



## Balbolito

@Soulburner That's is why i said it's totally up to him to decide, each person has a different room, different setup and more importantly different preferences 

In my opinion DEQ artificially boosts surrounds too loud for my ears. Even though it does a decent job in the low frequencies.


----------



## Soulburner

Yeah, and I think I read that the surround boost was a mistake. I would just go in and lower the surround speaker levels. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water


----------



## iStorm

Is mthomas's mic positioning for Audyseey xt32 still optimal to use compared to where audyssey says to do the mic positions? My major concern with it is that it doesnt go behind the chairs so it is not an average of the MLP since it doesnt circle it. Thanks for any input. 

To all those who commented on my dual sub placement, I am currently trying them out roughly center wall in the room drivers facing each other. If this doesnt work then I will move them both back to the front by the entertainment center.


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> Is mthomas's mic positioning for Audyseey xt32 still optimal to use compared to where audyssey says to do the mic positions? My major concern with it is that it doesnt go behind the chairs so it is not an average of the MLP since it doesnt circle it. Thanks for any input. .



How many people watch movies or listen to movies at one time at your place?


For one, two, or three viewers, sitting close together, I'd think Mike's (mthomas's) mic positioning would be fine. If you have 5 to 8 viewers, or have those gargantuan theater recliners that separate viewers by a wide distance (good for social distancing though), you may have to do quite a bit of experimenting.


I always wondered if the positions behind the viewers just sounded like a good idea, of if they had empirical evidence that they helped.


----------



## imodude

RamHemiTX said:


> Anybody else have this problem? I added a new CC and went through the calibration again. I've been staring at this for 20 minutes. Anyone else have this issue yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




I'm in the same position. I get to 85% and it stops. Have updated firmware and done the reset.

I've been through this a few times... Sometimes it tells me my front-left speaker is wired the wrong way around. Sometimes it says both front left and front right are.
But I've checked and they're all setup correctly, so am ignoring this. I'm not sure if this is contributing to the 85% freeze.


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> How many people watch movies or listen to movies at one time at your place?
> 
> 
> For one, two, or three viewers, sitting close together, I'd think Mike's (mthomas's) mic positioning would be fine. If you have 5 to 8 viewers, or have those gargantuan theater recliners that separate viewers by a wide distance (good for social distancing though), you may have to do quite a bit of experimenting.
> 
> 
> I always wondered if the positions behind the viewers just sounded like a good idea, of if they had empirical evidence that they helped.


Hi there,

We only have 2 theater chairs in this room and they are right next together so it sounds like mthomas's approach may be best for this setup. We were going to experiment with the audyssey app by saving one file with audysseys shown method and then another with mthomas's smaller confined method with no back of chair mic positions. Thanks for your input!


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> Hypothetically, the subs moved to the corners should be better. Only way to know is to measure and listen.


If you check the pictures of my room that I posted on post #8405 a little further up, I have tried the opposing corner option. The only problem here is that since I have a relatively small room with a cut out in the center for the jack and jill bathroom, putting the big pb16ultra in the rear corner is very close to the listening area so I can localize it very well. This almost causes anxiety during the movie and makes me lose focus on the movie because I know exactly where the bass is coming from. I got dual subwoofers so that way the bass is not localized and is even and smooth throughout the room. I have been doing some tests and right now it seems like for this room either having the subs on the front stage right next to the entertainment center (not in the corners) is a good spot where I do not localize the bass at all and it feels smooth and then the other spot that we are trying now is on the midwall on opposing sides of the middle of the room. Technically the middle of the room is where the bathroom cut is but I obviously can't put a sub there so I have it on the closest wall in relation to the front stage of the room. I think it is like only a few inches off from the middle of the room this way. Does that sound fine? Also I have read a few articles from like Audioholics and Aperion (I think this is right) where they both have different ways the sub drivers are facing. On the Audioholics one the sub drivers face each other across the room. The other article shows a diagram and it appears they have the drivers facing the MLP which wouldn't make sense to me. The drivers should be facing each other right? 
Thanks for any further help. I am really trying to get this system dialed in today. My birthday was yesterday but we were busy and then it ended up being late and didn't want to bother our family so I have to calibrate today. 



Soulburner said:


> Good advice in general, but I wouldn't go that far with the bolded statement. I don't agree that "most" don't like the way DEQ sounds. In fact, there is no other way to get bass levels to be correct, relatively, with varying volume levels after calibration, than to use DEQ. The system was designed with that in mind.
> 
> It certainly doesn't hurt to try turning it off to see what you think. Just be prepared to experience the following: bass levels will be very weak at low volumes, so you'll boost the bass. Then, as you crank it up, the bass will get overwhelming, so you'll try to find some middle ground, which is never ideal for low or high volumes. In addition, it will be very difficult to dial in the right _curve_ in this paradigm, because not just the level, but the amount of bass added at each frequency (the "curve") changes with output level as well. Again, you must resort to some kind of happy (or not so) medium point. If you have a dedicated theater that always run at or near reference, it will be easy. But if your system is going to vary considerably in usage, consider these points.


I definitely think that I prefer DEQ ON. The only issue that I have which is similar to Balbolito's issue is that I feel the surrounds are too boosted as well. I'm not sure what the proper way would be to make sure that I can turn them down to be in line with the other speakers (75db at reference). I was also told that Audyssey calibrates to 75db but then changes it 85db at reference (master volume 0) so I do not know which is correct here.
I typically listen to blu-rays and 4K discs at around -10db to -15db depending on the movie so I definitely see the benefits of DEQ ON, especially since Audyssey calibrates my dual subs so low. I always have to go in and change the AVR trims to -5 and then up the subs on the actual sub AND add DEQ boost. I do not even feel like I'm a bass head, but I definitely love feeling the subs on movies like "Pacific Rim." 



Soulburner said:


> Yeah, and I think I read that the surround boost was a mistake. I would just go in and lower the surround speaker levels. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water


It was a mistake by Audyssey's part? They would have fixed this by now if this was the case I would think. I'm trying to figure out how to lower the surround speakers so that way they are the same as the other speakers in the system with DEQ ON. I also do not know if DEQ only affects the sub and surrounds or other speakers as well (I don't think it affects the center).


----------



## Madmax67

iStorm said:


> I definitely think that I prefer DEQ ON. The only issue that I have which is similar to Balbolito's issue is that I feel the surrounds are too boosted as well. I'm not sure what the proper way would be to make sure that I can turn them down to be in line with the other speakers (75db at reference). I was also told that Audyssey calibrates to 75db but then changes it 85db at reference (master volume 0) so I do not know which is correct here.


If I'm not mistaken they use a -30dBFS test tone in the home and a -20dBFS one in theater's. Both produce peaks of 105dB but in the home Reference is set to 75dB(30dB down from the 105dB peak) over a theaters 85dB but with the same peaks due to the size of rooms in a home and the lack of an actual in home standard for movies. 













> It was a mistake by Audyssey's part? They would have fixed this by now if this was the case I would think. I'm trying to figure out how to lower the surround speakers so that way they are the same as the other speakers in the system with DEQ ON. I also do not know if DEQ only affects the sub and surrounds or other speakers as well (I don't think it affects the center).


Not a mistake. Chris Kyriakakis designed it that way to make up for our lower hearing sensitivity behind us but many mount their surrounds directly to the side and many times they are fairly close and now mounted at ear level so DEQ's bass boost to them can sometimes be distracting. The answer is to either disable DEQ and add a house curve or turn down the surround levels a few dB when using it. DEQ effects all speakers including the center.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> If you check the pictures of my room that I posted on post #8405 a little further up, I have tried the opposing corner option. The only problem here is that since I have a relatively small room with a cut out in the center for the jack and jill bathroom, putting the big pb16ultra in the rear corner is very close to the listening area so I can localize it very well. This almost causes anxiety during the movie and makes me lose focus on the movie because I know exactly where the bass is coming from. I got dual subwoofers so that way the bass is not localized and is even and smooth throughout the room. *I have been doing some tests and right now it seems like for this room either having the subs on the front stage right next to the entertainment center (not in the corners) is a good spot where I do not localize the bass at all and it feels smooth and then the other spot that we are trying now is on the midwall on opposing sides of the middle of the room*. Technically the middle of the room is where the bathroom cut is but I obviously can't put a sub there so I have it on the closest wall in relation to the front stage of the room. I think it is like only a few inches off from the middle of the room this way. Does that sound fine? Also I have read a few articles from like Audioholics and Aperion (I think this is right) where they both have different ways the sub drivers are facing. On the Audioholics one the sub drivers face each other across the room. The other article shows a diagram and it appears they have the drivers facing the MLP which wouldn't make sense to me. The drivers should be facing each other right?
> Thanks for any further help. I am really trying to get this system dialed in today. My birthday was yesterday but we were busy and then it ended up being late and didn't want to bother our family so I have to calibrate today.
> 
> 
> 
> *I definitely think that I prefer DEQ ON*. The only issue that I have which is similar to Balbolito's issue is that I feel the surrounds are too boosted as well. I'm not sure what the proper way would be to make sure that I can turn them down to be in line with the other speakers (75db at reference). *I was also told that Audyssey calibrates to 75db but then changes it 85db at reference (master volume 0) so I do not know which is correct here.*
> I typically listen to blu-rays and 4K discs at around -10db to -15db depending on the movie so I definitely see the benefits of DEQ ON, especially since Audyssey calibrates my dual subs so low. I always have to go in and change the AVR trims to -5 and then up the subs on the actual sub AND add DEQ boost. I do not even feel like I'm a bass head, but I definitely love feeling the subs on movies like "Pacific Rim."
> 
> 
> 
> It was a mistake by Audyssey's part? They would have fixed this by now if this was the case I would think. I'm trying to figure out how to lower the surround speakers so that way they are the same as the other speakers in the system with DEQ ON. I also do not know if DEQ only affects the sub and surrounds or other speakers as well (I don't think it affects the center).


iStorm, it sounds like you are on the right track regarding the subwoofer placement. You yourself stated you found two options that sound best to you (and they are in commonly recommended locations)...for now, stick with those. Boom, you're done. It's important to not overthink and get lost, and it feels weird saying that because I do the same thing.

You also mentioned you like or prefer DEQ On. Boom, done with that for now too. You also say you like to increase bass, nothing wrong with that. You have a whirlwind of questions and subjects you are trying to tackle at the same time, but you are on the right track and it sounds like you know what you like or want. 

My suggestion is to do one thing at a time. I know you want to set it and forget it today or so, but self imposed deadlines will only add to anxiety of "getting everything right/perfect and getting us to confirm".

Focus on subwoofer placement that sounds best to you and get that dialed in. Once you do, you can then start thinking about Audyssey and what it's doing to your room. First couple runs I would even say don't worry about super exact mic placement. I would focus first on the bass and if you have the app, it can at least give you glimpses if it looks OK or correct.


----------



## iStorm

Madmax67 said:


> If I'm not mistaken they use a -30dBFS test tone in the home and a -20dBFS one in theater's. Both produce peaks of 105dB but in the home Reference is set to 75dB(30dB down from the 105dB peak) over a theaters 85dB but with the same peaks due to the size of rooms in a home and the lack of an actual in home standard for movies.
> 
> Not a mistake. Chris Kyriakakis designed it that way to make up for our lower hearing sensitivity behind us but many mount their surrounds directly to the side and many times they are fairly close and now mounted at ear level so DEQ's bass boost to them can sometimes be distracting. The answer is to either disable DEQ and add a house curve or turn down the surround levels a few dB when using it. DEQ effects all speakers including the center.


Thank you for all of this excellent information! I don't think the surrounds are terribly loud (I have them mounted on the side walls about 1 ft above ear level), but certain movies can definitely seem much louder in the surround area so I may have to move them down a bit. I just fear that if I lower them then my system will no longer be level matched like Audyssey intended. 



pbz06 said:


> iStorm, it sounds like you are on the right track regarding the subwoofer placement. You yourself stated you found two options that sound best to you (and they are in commonly recommended locations)...for now, stick with those. Boom, you're done. It's important to not overthink and get lost, and it feels weird saying that because I do the same thing.
> 
> You also mentioned you like or prefer DEQ On. Boom, done with that for now too. You also say you like to increase bass, nothing wrong with that. You have a whirlwind of questions and subjects you are trying to tackle at the same time, but you are on the right track and it sounds like you know what you like or want.
> 
> My suggestion is to do one thing at a time. I know you want to set it and forget it today or so, but self imposed deadlines will only add to anxiety of "getting everything right/perfect and getting us to confirm".
> 
> Focus on subwoofer placement that sounds best to you and get that dialed in. Once you do, you can then start thinking about Audyssey and what it's doing to your room. First couple runs I would even say don't worry about super exact mic placement. I would focus first on the bass and if you have the app, it can at least give you glimpses if it looks OK or correct.


Thanks for pointing this out! I definitely get caught up in trying to get the best possible sounding system (I'm sure we all do) and I am constantly tweaking and never even able to enjoy movies because of it. We tried watching a movie today and I turned it off after like 10 minutes because I want to tweak something. I definitely feel like I have a good home for the dual subs now. The bass feels and sounds amazing from where the subs are at (they are facing each other on the side walls close to the mid wall point . Since I have a bathroom in the middle as shown in the pictures, I can't get them exactly middle wall, but they are a few inches off only. Everything sounds very smooth and just hits hard and I didn't even have to crank them up or anything. I upped them both on the AVR +2db each and they are set to -25 volume on the pb16 ultras and it lights up our whole room/house lol. I am used to upping subs a ton more than that. They were at -18 with like +4db when I was running the ARC system but they were at the front of the room. Since they are closer to our seating now, we get all kinds of nearfield effects as well but without being to localize where it is coming from. We are getting bass that it hitting us from behind, in front, etc. The midwall placement really seems like the best for our room and then that way we can have a walk way by the main door and have the towers spread out a bit compared to the entertainment center. I am finally happy with the outcome. I'm not sure how much tweaking I want to do like cascade crossovers, limiting the spectrum EQ hz on the app, plugging the center ports on the subs to see how extended mode sounds compared to standard full 3 port open mode, etc.. I'm really not sure how much I want to do because the system sounds amazing right now. Maybe the surrounds are a bit high from DEQ, but that seems like about it right now . I'm very happy overall.


----------



## Madmax67

iStorm said:


> Thank you for all of this excellent information! I don't think the surrounds are terribly loud (I have them mounted on the side walls about 1 ft above ear level), but certain movies can definitely seem much louder in the surround area so I may have to move them down a bit. I just fear that if I lower them then my system will no longer be level matched like Audyssey intended.


No problem. That placement is pretty standard. If you move them down don't move the tweeter any lower than seated ear level and then your technically supposed to rerun Audyssey again but it's up to whether you think its that big of a deal or not. I probably wouldn't but many here might. Up to you.


----------



## Soulburner

Madmax67 said:


> Not a mistake. Chris Kyriakakis designed it that way to make up for our lower hearing sensitivity behind us but many mount their surrounds directly to the side and many times they are fairly close and now mounted at ear level so DEQ's bass boost to them can sometimes be distracting.


In the first (master) post of the subwoofer calibration and bass preferences thread, there is a reference to the assumption that was made about us not hearing as well from the sides not being a correct assumption. It would be nice if we could disable the boost to surrounds just like the midrange compensation.


----------



## iStorm

Madmax67 said:


> No problem. That placement is pretty standard. If you move them down don't move the tweeter any lower than seated ear level and then your technically supposed to rerun Audyssey again but it's up to whether you think its that big of a deal or not. I probably wouldn't but many here might. Up to you.


Hey I meant move the levels on the surrounds down. I love the surrounds about 4 feet from the ground which is about 1 ft higher than seated ear level.


----------



## Madmax67

Soulburner said:


> In the first (master) post of the subwoofer calibration and bass preferences thread, there is a reference to the assumption that was made about us not hearing as well from the sides not being a correct assumption. It would be nice if we could disable the boost to surrounds just like the midrange compensation.


I didn't say we don't hear well to the sides. I said we don't hear well behind us. In a 5.1 setup the side surrounds are recommended by Dolby to be placed between 90 and 110 degrees behind the MLP and in a 7.1 you have the back surrounds between 135 to 150 degrees of the MLP with the side surrounds mostly at 90 degrees. The problem with DEQ comes in with side surrounds now recommended being placed more at ear level based on Dolby Atmos and people sitting closer to them in less than ideal small rooms in the home. I use DEQ in a smaller bedroom but don't really notice any issue with my side surrounds being overwhelming with bass watching movies or listening to music but I know many have said they do and I believe them. My -42 to -32dB Relative scale listening makes DEQ work well for me and I bump my sub levels up an additional 6dB. I sit about 3.5 feet away from each side surround so they are also physically close. I like your last idea though using the app. That would be nice. Especially for the gamers.


----------



## Madmax67

iStorm said:


> Hey I meant move the levels on the surrounds down. I love the surrounds about 4 feet from the ground which is about 1 ft higher than seated ear level.


Got it. Channel level changes post Audyssey are strictly preference over Reference and don't require rerunning room correction.


----------



## Soulburner

Madmax67 said:


> I didn't say we don't hear well to the sides. I said we don't hear well behind us. In a 5.1 setup the side surrounds are recommended by Dolby to be placed between 90 and 110 degrees behind the MLP and in a 7.1 you have the back surrounds between 135 to 150 degrees of the MLP with the side surrounds mostly at 90 degrees. The problem with DEQ comes in with side surrounds now recommended being placed more at ear level based on Dolby Atmos and people sitting closer to them in less than ideal small rooms in the home. I use DEQ in a smaller bedroom but don't really notice any issue with my side surrounds being overwhelming with bass watching movies or listening to music but I know many have said they do and I believe them. My -42 to -32dB Relative scale listening makes DEQ work well for me and I bump my sub levels up an additional 6dB. I sit about 3.5 feet away from each side surround so they are also physically close. I like your last idea though using the app. That would be nice. Especially for the gamers.


Our rooms sound really similar. I have 3 seats and if you're in seat 1 or 3, the surrounds are just 2-3 feet away.

I'm referring to this: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2958528-guide-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html



> * In addition to restoring acoustic equilibrium to 5.1 movie soundtracks, at below Reference levels, the designers of DEQ also decided to add another feature to the DEQ software program. Reasoning that sounds from behind were harder to hear than sounds from in front, or from out to the side (due to our pinnae--ear flaps--which funnel sounds into our ear canals) DEQ was also designed to slightly boost the volume in all of the surround channels.
> 
> (That second assumption, regarding difficulty hearing sounds out to the sides, is not actually correct. We hear sounds directly from the side even better than sounds from in front. And, our ears are designed to funnel sounds into our ear canals from that direction too. Examples of actually hearing better from the sides are all around us. For instance, we turn our heads, so that one ear faces a sound that we are having trouble hearing. It's true for normal conversation, for sirens in the distance, and for sounds in our HT systems. Listeners whose surround speakers are directly out to the sides, at 90 degrees, may have more problems with DEQ's surround boosts, than listeners whose surround speakers are slightly behind them at about 110 degrees.)


----------



## Madmax67

Soulburner said:


> Our rooms sound really similar. I have 3 seats and if you're in seat 1 or 3, the surrounds are just 2-3 feet away.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm referring to this: https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-...e-subwoofer-calibration-bass-preferences.html



Yeah it's the one thing I wish I had more of. Space to my sides. I've read that guide so I'm familiar with it. I've never read where Chris has stated that we hear less off to our side and that jibes with the points made in section V. In my mind Reference level effects all speakers so DEQ should as well. Chris teaches acoustics and psychoacoustics at USC so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt he made the right call. The other option is to simply listen at or closer to Reference level but for me that probably ain't ever happening.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Madmax67 said:


> Yeah it's the one thing I wish I had more of. Space to my sides. I've read that guide so I'm familiar with it. I've never read where Chris has stated that we hear less off to our side and that jibes with the points made in section V. In my mind Reference level effects all speakers so DEQ should as well. Chris teaches acoustics and psychoacoustics at USC so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt he made the right call. The other option is to simply listen at or closer to Reference level but for me that probably ain't ever happening.







The Reference level Offset was put there primarily with DEQ in mind, Since DEQ is based on volume, the lower the volume the more aggressive DEQ is. RLO is there to make Audyssey think it is closer to reference so DEQ isn't as aggressive at a given lower volume. So the two are interlinked. 

But since I like the house curve DEQ gives at lower volumes with RLO at 0, the best solution is to just lower the trims of the surrounds that match what your typical master volume would be for movies.


----------



## Madmax67

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> The Reference level Offset was put there primarily with DEQ in mind, Since DEQ is based on volume, the lower the volume the more aggressive DEQ is. RLO is there to make Audyssey think it is closer to reference so DEQ isn't as aggressive at a given lower volume. So the two are interlinked.


Here's Chris's explanation of how RLO works:


Audyssey LabsDecember 23, 2009 12:51

_The Dynamic EQ reference offset is not reducing the level of the content.  It is simply telling Dynamic EQ that the reference level is higher than that of film (by 5, 10, or 15 dB depending on the choice you make) and so Dynamic EQ applies less compensation than it would for film content._

Actually seems like it is telling Audyssey it is farther away from Reference on the high side which makes sense since the curves shown for how DEQ acts above Reference level invert and attenuate it's affect.




> But since I like the house curve DEQ gives at lower volumes with RLO at 0, the best solution is to just lower the trims of the surrounds that match what your typical master volume would be for movies.


I agree.


----------



## iStorm

Can anyone please explain why you want to adjust the Mult Eq filter frequency range from the default of 20,000hz to 300hz or 500hz? I have tried to limit it for the Fronts and Center only as described in this thread but I don't know what kind of a difference I'm supposed to be hearing. It looks like on my MultEq filter the frequency drops off around 5,000hz. Is this because I chose the option 2 for the high frequency roll off? Ic I limit it all to 300 or 500hz on the MultEq filter then won't it take away this roll off? Any help would be appreciated. I'm just trying to do minor tweaks on the app to hopefully better my experience for movies in particular. i have also read that some people make this limit to like 700hz. I just dont understand it. 

Thank you so much for any input!!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Can anyone please explain why you want to adjust the Mult Eq filter frequency range from the default of 20,000hz to 300hz or 500hz? I have tried to limit it for the Fronts and Center only as described in this thread but I don't know what kind of a difference I'm supposed to be hearing. It looks like on my MultEq filter the frequency drops off around 5,000hz. Is this because I chose the option 2 for the high frequency roll off? Ic I limit it all to 300 or 500hz on the MultEq filter then won't it take away this roll off? Any help would be appreciated. I'm just trying to do minor tweaks on the app to hopefully better my experience for movies in particular. i have also read that some people make this limit to like 700hz. I just dont understand it.
> 
> Thank you so much for any input!!


That's a whole other topic. People use all sorts of numbers like 300/500/700hz to limit correction; the exact number doesn't matter because we are all just guessing. It's based off the Schroeder Frequency, which is based on your room dimensions and sound interactions. The overall principle is that people want to only EQ the modal region where the room has the most effect with the bass. Once you go above that range, you start affecting the speakers more.

Anyway, whether it's good or bad depends on too many factors and I think people are strong believers on either side. in my case, my speakers are relatively ok +/-3dB and EQin'g full range and comparing to Limited sounds almost identical. It's not altering it's characteristics in any way that I can tell. I switch once in a while and don't have a strong opinion one way or another.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> That's a whole other topic. People use all sorts of numbers like 300/500/700hz to limit correction; the exact number doesn't matter because we are all just guessing. It's based off the Schroeder Frequency, which is based on your room dimensions and sound interactions. The overall principle is that people want to only EQ the modal region where the room has the most effect with the bass. Once you go above that range, you start affecting the speakers more.
> 
> Anyway, whether it's good or bad depends on too many factors and I think people are strong believers on either side. in my case, my speakers are relatively ok +/-3dB and EQin'g full range and comparing to Limited sounds almost identical. It's not altering it's characteristics in any way that I can tell. I switch once in a while and don't have a strong opinion one way or another.


Thanks for explaining this. I do not notice any difference from the standard setting, 300hz and 500hz settings so I should probably just leave it set to the default. I did turn midrange compensation off on all speakers and that seems better. I also tried turning 80hz for the LPF TO LFE setting on receiver and setting both subs to LPF ON with 80hz crossover and 24db Slope. I noticed that the subs rolled off a bit earlier but then I missed out on extra bass on the bluray movie scene. So again, I'm leaving the LPF on the subs to OFF and the default LPF to LFE set to 120hz in the receiver. It sounds like a lot of the default settings are perfect for bluray watching at least from my experience. The only major thing I did was up the center channel from 75db to 77db for better dialogue. The only problem I'm having now is that the subs are rattling a lot of stuff in the house LOL. I can't really control that lol.


----------



## iStorm

One interesting thing I noticed today is the FLAT EQ setting. I have always read that FLAT MultEQ XT32 should be used for MUSIC and REFERENCE should be used for MOVIES. When I read the description for each, FLAT states that it may be better for smaller rooms. How small of a room? I ONLY watch bluray movies in this room. Do people actually use FLAT for watching movies or only reference and does this affect what setting to choose for the high frequency roll off (1 or 2 are the options and I have it set to 2 right now using REFERENCE MultEq XT32).

Thanks for any thoughts/advice here. 

edit: I didnt mean to double post sorry!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Thanks for explaining this. I do not notice any difference from the standard setting, 300hz and 500hz settings so I should probably just leave it set to the default. I did turn midrange compensation off on all speakers and that seems better. I also tried turning 80hz for the LPF TO LFE setting on receiver and setting both subs to LPF ON with 80hz crossover and 24db Slope. I noticed that the subs rolled off a bit earlier but then I missed out on extra bass on the bluray movie scene. So again, I'm leaving the LPF on the subs to OFF and the default LPF to LFE set to 120hz in the receiver. It sounds like a lot of the default settings are perfect for bluray watching at least from my experience. The only major thing I did was up the center channel from 75db to 77db for better dialogue. The only problem I'm having now is that the subs are rattling a lot of stuff in the house LOL. I can't really control that lol.


Agree, I think only a very select few under select circumstances can distinguish the difference between limiting EQ to 300hz vs 500hz. I barely notice any difference with full range...but like I said, I only watch movies which have a lot of sonic content at the same time from all channels, and I don't have a critical or trained ear for that stuff. Now that I have REW, I took sample measurements with EQ off and EQ on full range, and it's such a similar response that maybe explains why I can't notice.

With the cascading crossovers. It's purely preference. There's a reason why the common/default settings are recommended, and there's also specific reasons why people benefit or prfer cascading. It's up to you where you fall in, and also depends on your setup and stuff.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Agree, I think only a very select few under select circumstances can distinguish the difference between limiting EQ to 300hz vs 500hz. I barely notice any difference with full range...but like I said, I only watch movies which have a lot of sonic content at the same time from all channels, and I don't have a critical or trained ear for that stuff. Now that I have REW, I took sample measurements with EQ off and EQ on full range, and it's such a similar response that maybe explains why I can't notice.
> 
> With the cascading crossovers. It's purely preference. There's a reason why the common/default settings are recommended, and there's also specific reasons why people benefit or prfer cascading. It's up to you where you fall in, and also depends on your setup and stuff.


Thank you for this post! I am definitely happy with what I'm hearing now. Did you see my last post about FLAT vs REFERENCE EQ? I can't tell much of a difference between them and since FLAT says for small rooms, maybe I need that? It is just confusing since reference says roll off optimized for movies. I chose roll off 2 in the app so I'm not sure how this affects things either.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Thank you for this post! I am definitely happy with what I'm hearing now. Did you see my last post about FLAT vs REFERENCE EQ? I can't tell much of a difference between them and since FLAT says for small rooms, maybe I need that? It is just confusing since reference says roll off optimized for movies. I chose roll off 2 in the app so I'm not sure how this affects things either.


https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...6770-official-audyssey-thread-part-ii.html#a7


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> Can anyone please explain why you want to adjust the Mult Eq filter frequency range from the default of 20,000hz to 300hz or 500hz?...
> 
> 
> ... I just dont understand it.



_*Some *_people prefer to limit the EQ provided by Audyssey to bass/lower midrange, restricting its compensation to below their room's Schroeder frequency (where the room modes are the biggest problem). In my room, Schroeder is about 144 Hz (in most rooms it is somewhere below 300 Hz). They are less impressed with what Audyssey does above about 300 Hz, and prefer the sound of their room/speakers, above ~~~ 300 Hz, without Audyssey. They may prefer the distinctive sound of their front speakers, in their particular room. The only way I know of to make the choice is to try it both ways, over and over again, with many kinds of movies and music. A rule of the thumb would be inadequate. But ... the distinctive sound of a certain type of speakers, with a given room, at a given distance, with given electronics, and a given front end, depends on a great deal more than smoothness of frequency response. Transient response, the amount of modulation distortion and the nature of the harmonically unrelated sidebands, garden variety harmonic distortion and whether that harmonic distortion is unpleasant or lends a pleasant richness to music, etc. As Mike says, cones will still sound like cones, horns will still sound like horns, panel speakers will still like panel speakers, ribbons will still sound like ribbons, etc.
_*I'm not one of the people *_who likes to limit the range of Audyssey's compensation. In my room, with my speakers, etc., etc. full compensation from about 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz sounds best. This takes the form of greater subjective clarity and detail, and the absence of a very slight ringing at one particular place. 

FWIW, _*Chris K. of Audyssey *_feels that in most (or virtually all?) applications, full range compensation is better., "our research has shown that the EQ is needed over the entire range ... the Front Bypass mode does not apply Audyssey to the front speakers at all. It is not a mode that we recommend or support."
One conceivable reason for the differences in preference is that some research indicates (IMO, there needs to be more) most people 1) don't like flat sound 2) perceive sound with slight bass boost and mild high frequency roll-off _*as being flat*_ or _*"natural.*__*" *_I'd like to see this kind of research done with the program material always specified, and available to us at home. I suspect that some source material contains high frequency distortion that would be ruthlessly exposed by Audyssey Flat or even Audyssey Reference.


----------



## Soulburner

A lot of the decision has to do with your gear and your room. If your room is regular, meaning your walls and everything are symmetrical on each side of your speakers, and you have good-measuring speakers, you are less likely to benefit from full-range correction and can possibly suffer from it (you'll need to test to find out). If your setup is irregular, meaning non-symmetrical walls or furniture, windows, etc, and/or have not-so-good measuring speakers, then you are very likely to benefit from full-range correction. At least, that is my experience.


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> Thank you for this post! I am definitely happy with what I'm hearing now. Did you see my last post about FLAT vs REFERENCE EQ? I can't tell much of a difference between them and since FLAT says for small rooms, maybe I need that? It is just confusing since reference says roll off optimized for movies. I chose roll off 2 in the app so I'm not sure how this affects things either.



We have a medium sized room, partially treated.


For *new movies* we have not seen, on *Blu-ray*, we gamble on *Audyssey FLAT*, *full range*. This lets through the sparkle, shimmer, and richness that I'm fairly sure the filmmakers wanted. They almost always sound great.


Some* older movies*, even some *from the great magnetic era* (1953 -- 1980, approx.), contain some high frequency distortion. Neither filmmakers nor audiences knew that during the first run of those movies, because the best JBL and Altec theater speakers had frequency response that dropped like a rock above 10,000 Hz (despite advertising that had them reaching 22,000). I think these particular movies tend to sound better with Audyssey Reference, even though my old ears also drop like a rock at 10,000 Hz, on a good day.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Hi,

I personally prefer full range calibration, but only if I can adjust the target myself. I have been experimenting with Dirac for a while now which has gave me more insight to corrections from 500hz above. Before with Audyssey i would have limited the correction to 500hz as I did not like how bright it made my Klipsch speakers sound. Now I know these are horn speakers but I also know how they sound in direct mode too. I found it important to let the correction follow the curve of the speaker, but then there is the fact that this curve is also created by the room. So I think it's best if one had REW to measure the speakers and where they start rolling off limit the correction there. This will be pretty much full-range correction but allowing them to roll off naturally. This is what I will be doing when I set up Audyssey again. Of coarse the Multi App will be needed for this.



The plus side of full range correction is that all the speakers blend it nicely together and fixes any room issues along the way, this I feel gives a little bit more of a feeling of the speakers disappearing in the room so to speak as they are following the same curve. 

The question of correcting with full vs limited will always be there, but I am starting to see a lot more merit to full range rather than limited.
Jim


----------



## iStorm

A ton of great info pbz06, garygarrison, Soulburner, and Jim! 

We watched the newer Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom tonight and parts of Avatar and I have to say that I think I'm finally done fiddling with the system (for the most part). I have settled on the default for the Mult Eq range up to 20k because I tried the 300hz and 500hz limit and honestly just dont hear the difference. I think Flat and Reference EQ both sound good for movies but since Reference is more geared toward movies I'm going to just stick with that with a 0db offset DEQ ON. We listened to both movies on -15 master volume and only had one occurence where the surrounds were too bright so I think this is a great setup for us. I dont want to make anything sound worse so the main thing we did was keep this simple and also disabled all of the midrange compensation so that works even better with the reference EQ. That makes the app great to be able to turn that off with the reference mode that normally has midrange compensation on. 

The biggest thing that we need to figure out is how to prevent rattle coming from the bathroom with the subs on the middle sidewalls. I wonder if pulling the sub put from the wall would cause less rattle in the bathroom? Right now the sub has 3.5" of breathing room from the back of the sub to the wall. Has anyone experienced this? 

At first I was disappointed coming back to XT32 from Anthems ARC, but boy was I wrong. I am more than impressed than ever now that i have it dialed in good. Having the dual subs on the sidewalls really made a big difference and we could feel all of the dinosaurs thumping around, lol. Sub placement is HUGE! The surrounds are the perfect height and everything is just blending together so nicely. Usually I crank up the subs after xt32, but I didn't have to this time with dual pb16ultras. I calibrated them hot at about 77db combined and then upped the trims evenly by +3db in the processor. I used to do so much more but these subs provide more than I could ever want lol. I even have them both set to -25 so they are barely breathing! It just sounds AMAZING! We can't wait to watch more movies! So I want to thank everyone for the help! If anyone has any suggestions on dealing with the rattle coming from that side bathroom, it would be appreciated. Hopefully we can just move the sub forward. We tried to take out stuff off of that bathroom sink and walls but it didnt help it so it must be rattling the bathroom vanity/mirror, etc that is built in. The rattle is pretty annoying but we love our system!


----------



## Soulburner

It's doubtful that moving the subwoofer out into the room will help with your vibrations, and in fact could cause your bass to be less smooth (SBIR). Can't hurt to test, though.


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> ...
> 
> The biggest thing that we need to figure out is how to prevent rattle coming from the bathroom with the subs on the middle sidewalls.


Determine WHAT is rattling in the bathroom, and damp it (don't dampen it!) or remove it. 

We had to treat several doors and all the double hung windows in our old house, as well as several doors at work. Newer construction is less of a problem, unless they went cheap.



Most interior doors are so poorly fitted that they will rattle if the door is closed while you play movies with normal bass. Buy some small pieces of neoprene and make a little pad (very small) and install it on the _*stop*_ part of the door frame. It just needs to be one (or two) small pieces, not a continuous seal like weather stripping. The one or two little pieces should be installed (glue) where weatherstripping is in the diagram -- but on the_* side*__* stop*_, on the side where the door opens, _*not*_ the _*head jamb stop*_ (couldn't find a proper drawing). You will have to apply a little pressure on the door to squish the neoprene and get the door closed. The idea is to make the door have some tension on it so that the doorknob bolt presses against the strike plate so it can't move, therefore can't rattle.







.
[*]Same for double hung windows -- with them, it depends on what is rattling. Top or bottom, just put in a thin piece of neoprene to squish. If it is where the top and bottom of the windows meet, you may have to slip in a little wedge or wood shim before running a movie, and take it out after.
[*]Some heater outlets are a problem. Tighten screws, if any, then experiment.
[/LIST]


----------



## pbarach

iStorm said:


> One interesting thing I noticed today is the FLAT EQ setting. I have always read that FLAT MultEQ XT32 should be used for MUSIC and REFERENCE should be used for MOVIES. When I read the description for each, FLAT states that it may be better for smaller rooms. How small of a room? I ONLY watch bluray movies in this room. Do people actually use FLAT for watching movies or only reference and does this affect what setting to choose for the high frequency roll off (1 or 2 are the options and I have it set to 2 right now using REFERENCE MultEq XT32).


I haven't seen any specific room size for which FLAT is recommended. My listening room is definitely small (13x14 feet), carpeted, curtains on the windows, bookcases that diffuse reflected sound waves, and I use FLAT for everything except a few older movies that have shrill soundtracks (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia). 

I may be wrong, but I think the high frequency rolloff only applies to REFERENCE.

All of these decisions are a matter of your preference. So play with the settings and see what you like!


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> It's doubtful that moving the subwoofer out into the room will help with your vibrations, and in fact could cause your bass to be less smooth (SBIR). Can't hurt to test, though.


I haven't tried this because I found the culprit of the rattle. It's the cabinet doors on the "island/vanity" in the bathroom which is on the wall inside where the sub is. I'm attaching pictures here. 



garygarrison said:


> Determine WHAT is rattling in the bathroom, and damp it (don't dampen it!) or remove it.
> 
> We had to treat several doors and all the double hung windows in our old house, as well as several doors at work. Newer construction is less of a problem, unless they went cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> Most interior doors are so poorly fitted that they will rattle if the door is closed while you play movies with normal bass. Buy some small pieces of neoprene and make a little pad (very small) and install it on the _*stop*_ part of the door frame. It just needs to be one (or two) small pieces, not a continuous seal like weather stripping. The one or two little pieces should be installed (glue) where weatherstripping is in the diagram -- but on the_* side*__* stop*_, on the side where the door opens, _*not*_ the _*head jamb stop*_ (couldn't find a proper drawing). You will have to apply a little pressure on the door to squish the neoprene and get the door closed. The idea is to make the door have some tension on it so that the doorknob bolt presses against the strike plate so it can't move, therefore can't rattle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> [*]Same for double hung windows -- with them, it depends on what is rattling. Top or bottom, just put in a thin piece of neoprene to squish. If it is where the top and bottom of the windows meet, you may have to slip in a little wedge or wood shim before running a movie, and take it out after.
> [*]Some heater outlets are a problem. Tighten screws, if any, then experiment.
> [/LIST][/quote]
> 
> I have found the culprit. It is actually the doors to our bathroom vanity which is on the other side of the wall where the sub is. They seem like flimsy wood and have no insulation inside them. It seems like the middle section is just a thin piece of wood causing them to shake. The little grommet on the door doesnt seem sufficient either. Any ideas on a remedy for these doors? I have attached pictures here. If I leave these doors open then there is no rattle at all. It only rattles when they are all closed. thanks!
> 
> [QUOTE="pbarach, post: 59760356, member: 7508618"]I haven't seen any specific room size for which FLAT is recommended. My listening room is definitely small (13x14 feet), carpeted, curtains on the windows, bookcases that diffuse reflected sound waves, and I use FLAT for everything except a few older movies that have shrill soundtracks (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia).
> 
> I may be wrong, but I think the high frequency rolloff only applies to REFERENCE.
> 
> All of these decisions are a matter of your preference. So play with the settings and see what you like![/quote]
> 
> This is getting confusing to me lol. I really like reference but also like flat. They both sound good to me and I don't tell much of a difference. I really dont want to have to constantly change settings so perhaps I'll just leave it at reference since I watch 100% movies. What do you notice in the flat setting that you prefer over reference for movie watching ? Just out of curiosity. :) thanks


----------



## iStorm

This post may make more sense in this discussion:

I'm not sure if this has been addressed but do you guys calibrate with the theater chairs reclined? We always watch movies with our theater seats reclined so this will definitely change the position of the mic for calibration if that is the case, especially ear height since we are laying down while watching movies. The only problem I see here is that our seat reclined angle may change depending on how we are feeling (laying all the way back or partially reclined). Please let me know your thoughts on this. We currently calibrated with the chairs not reclined but wondering if since we always recline the chairs if it would be better to calibrate this way. I use mthomas's calibration technique as seen in the subwoofer calibration thread FYI. Thanks for any insight!


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> If I leave these doors *open* then there is *no rattle at all*. It only rattles when they are all closed. thanks!


 
If you don't have a young child, cat or dog (or iguana, turtle, etc.) that will get into the vanity when open ... leave the the doors open when running a movie. You can hang a dry wash cloth (or, if you are into J.D. Salinger, "wash rag") over each door while watching movies. If not in your repertoire, put neoprene tabs near each grommet.


----------



## pbz06

I re-ran Audyssey today with my new boom stand.

It fits better with my listening position and the cluster if I keep it in the front of the couch. However, I can't help but worry that it's "blocking" or interfering with a clean path for the signal, especially the center channel. If I try behind the couch, the extended arm isn't quite long enough to get me in the MLP, and when I move the cluster I have no choice but to retract it even furter back.

Is this a valid concern?


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> ... I use FLAT for everything except a few older movies that have shrill soundtracks (e.g., Lawrence of Arabia).


Exactly! I use Reference on *Lawrence*, too, and Flat on most new films.



> What do you notice in the flat setting that you prefer over reference for movie watching ? Just out of curiosity.  thanks


FLAT provides shimmer and richness. Triangles float in auditory space and are brighter, likewise orchestra bells. Strings are more detailed and friction-ish and rosiny, just like real strings, especially violins and violas, but a close-up bass viol has more presence, too. Brass has more golden bite, sax more reed and more spit. For any recording that is not shrill, I prefer FLAT. The difference shows up even to my old ears. With Reference, I guess I hear the 2 dB cut at 10K, even though I'd be oblivious to the 6 dB cut at 20K.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Exactly! I use Reference on *Lawrence*, too, and Flat on most new films.
> 
> FLAT provides shimmer and richness. Triangles float in auditory space and are brighter, likewise orchestra bells. Strings are more detailed and friction-ish and rosiny, just like real strings, especially violins and violas, but a close-up bass viol has more presence, too. Brass has more golden bite, sax more reed and more spit. For any recording that is not shrill, I prefer FLAT. The difference shows up even to my old ears. With Reference, I guess I hear the 2 dB cut at 10K, even though I'd be oblivious to the 6 dB cut at 20K.


Really nice words to describe what is really just louder treble above 10-15 kHz


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> I re-ran Audyssey today with my new boom stand.
> 
> It fits better with my listening position and the cluster if I keep it in the front of the couch. However, I can't help but worry that it's "blocking" or interfering with a clean path for the signal, especially the center channel. If I try behind the couch, the extended arm isn't quite long enough to get me in the MLP, and when I move the cluster I have no choice but to retract it even furter back.
> 
> Is this a valid concern?


From my understanding this should not matter. I always calibrate with the boom mic stand in front. I only move it to the back of the couch if I do audysseys 7 and 8 mic positions behind the chairs. I use mthomas's 8 mic positions and it doesn't require going behind the chair so my tripod/boom stand is always in front or on the other chair while calibrating.


----------



## mthomas47

It's been a while since I checked the thread, but I thought that I might try to address a couple of recent questions. We all have a tendency to be obsessive about our calibrations sometimes, but I really wouldn't worry at all about having the boom mic stand between your listening position and a speaker. It's almost impossible to avoid that in many rooms, and it is difficult to conceive of a situation where it would matter.

There are two elements involved, as I see it. First, is the boom mic stand physically substantial enough to block sound waves from reaching the microphone? Second, are sound waves likely to reflect from the stand itself into the microphone, and will that happen more if the stand is between the speaker and the MLP? I believe that the answer to all of those questions is no.

Sound waves above about 300-500Hz leave the speaker in a cone shape. (Bass frequencies radiate in all directions.) And the thin shaft (or tube) of the boom mic stand, or its boom arm, could not possibly obscure more than a tiny fraction of the many sound waves traveling in a cone shape, toward a listening position, at a particular moment in time. 

That is especially true since the top of the microphone, where the measurements are taken, is well above both the shaft of the stand and the boom arm. Remember also that Audyssey is EQing based on multiple mic positions, so it would be even more difficult to imagine any sound waves being blocked in a way that could interfere with Audyssey's fuzzy-logic weighting. This is a complete non-issue, in my opinion.

Second, the stand itself, and the tube that supports the boom arm, are too slim, and too far away from the microphone, to act as a reflection point for the microphone. That's why a mic stand with a boom arm is recommended to begin with. And, any sound waves which happened to hit such a slim shaft would be deflected away from, rather than toward the microphone. It is important to note that the same type of stand is also recommended for taking REW measurements. 


The other question involves the position of the microphone when we use our chairs in a reclined position. I would always recommend measuring the frequency response, either for Audyssey EQ purposes, or for independent REW purposes, where we are actually listening. So, if we listen primarily or exclusively with our chairs reclined, then that is our actual ear level, and that's where we should measure. 

It may be worth considering that the full frequency range application of Audyssey EQ may be more valuable in that case, because when we are significantly reclined our ears may be well below the tweeter height of our speakers. Most tweeters are intended to have somewhat limited vertical dispersion, in order to avoid early reflections from the floor. And, high-frequencies are very directional compared to lower frequencies. If the high-frequencies are not quite as strong at our listening position, when we are fully reclined, Audyssey may boost those frequencies a bit in a way that helps us to hear them a little better. 

Experimentation in our own rooms can be very helpful. But, I would always start with a calibration technique that corresponds to good audio theory. And, keeping the mic position at approximately ear level, during a calibration, does correspond to good audio theory. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## flmiami

Hello AVS forum,
Reading ASR review about Audyssey Room EQ moments ago, I saw something that I had suspected after using Audyssey's iOS Multi EQ app, but now I got confirmation. 
The AFTER results presented by the APP are theoretical, based on the filters, not measured, because Audyssey does not run the sweeps again after applying the room correction. 
ASR refers to such AFTER curve as "wishful thinking". 
So, this would be good feedback for Sound United (Denon/Marantz) and Audyssey's teams to improve their current Audyssey iOS and Android app, and their built-in AVR Audyssey room correction process, so as to repeat the measurements AFTER applying the filters, and show the real "AFTER" (measured) results.
If one of the insiders could comment on this and/or get Denon/Marantz/Audyssey to comment on this, that'd be great. Thanks.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/audyssey-room-eq-review.12746/


----------



## Soulburner

Dirac works the same way. The predicted curve is wishful thinking there as well.


----------



## Soulburner

mthomas47 said:


> Second, the stand itself is too slim, and too far from the microphone, to act as a reflection point for the microphone. That's why a mic stand with a boom arm is recommended to begin with. And, any sound waves which happened to hit such a slim shaft would be deflected away from, rather than toward the microphone. It is important to note that the same type of stand is also recommended for taking REW measurements.


And to add to that, it's as round as pi, so it's effectively stealth technology that could only present the tiniest sliver of reflection less than 1 degree wide at the microphone. The rest gets scattered into the room. It's how stealth jets show up as small as birds on radar.

However, the girth of the tube would provide a blockage of direct sound from the speaker to mic. Watch your lines of sight.


----------



## EeK9X

Just got a new sub (KEF Kube 10b) and ran Audyssey again on my Denon X4400H. I have a couple of questions that aren't addressed in the FAQ (and please forgive me if they've been answered in any of the previous 280+ pages of this thread):


1. Midway through calibration, I remembered that I had my PS4 Pro running, since I configured the receiver using the input dedicated to that console. The only devices powered on were the TV, receiver, sub and PS4. I know it's recommended to have a perfectly silent ambient, so, could the PS4 fan noise interfere with the calibration, or is that negligible?


2. As I mentioned, I ran Audyssey with the AVR set to the PS4 input. Does the calibration apply to all inputs by default, or do I have to change settings individually, per input? I'm asking because I turned off Dynamic EQ and Volume for the PS4 input, but noticed that on the input that I use for my PC, those settings were enabled (with Dynamic Volume set to "Medium", which is the default).


Thanks in advance!


----------



## DONUSA

I just bought a Denon AVC-X6500H to replace an old Marantz AVR. My AVR is in a different room from the speakers, so I had been using a 35 ft extension cable. Worked fine with the Marantz, though from reading this forum I just learned that it was too long to get accurate results. 

I am setting up my new Denon, and when I plug in the mic with the extension cable, it does not recognize that the plug is in. If I plug the mic in directly, it does. 

Could this be because the extension cable is too long? The plug is a TS two-pole plug, just like on the mic. I can't find one like that in a shorter cable. Will a 3 or 4 pole plug work instead, assuming the cable is 15 ft. That is enough to reach where I need to place the mic.

Update: I bought a shorter cable and it worked. Something about my old cable that is OK for the Marantz, but not OK for the Denon.


----------



## coxjamb

*Dual sub setup*

I have been reading through this thread and looked at the guide for dual subwoofer setup but still had some questions. Currently, I have a yamaha rx-v receiver but I am looking at getting one of the new Denons. My home theater is part of my living room so sub placement and room acoustics are not optimal due to WAF and the fact that the room is open concept. I have one psa s3000i (15” dual opposed) on the right wall almost even with my row of seats. I have a psa s1512 (single 15”) on the left of the mains on the front wall. So, subs are on different walls and are have different output due to one being dual opposed. They are both from the same company, have 15” sealed drivers and extend to at or below 20 hz. The subs having different outputs and being different distances from the seats have made it difficult for me to get them working together and sounding their best using YPAO with only one sub out available on my receiver So far, I have used a spl meter to manually time align the two subs together by using the delay on one sub to find the highest combined spl for both. I then level matched them at the mlp and ran an antimode 8033 that both subs are plugged into via a splitter. Then I ran YPAO. The subs sound ok but I feel like I probably dont have the delay just right. One reason I am looking at a Denon with xt32 is the praise Audessy gets for sub eq. I am looking to simplify my sub setup and get them eq’ed as best I can as I am not not experienced with rew and don’t have the mic. Could I just hook up each sub to one of the independent sub outs on the Denon and let xt32 take care of time aligning the subs together and to the mains, as well as, level match them? Basically, will Audessy take care of the everything I did manually and allow me to get rid of the antimode?


----------



## garygarrison

coxjamb said:


> I have been reading through this thread and looked at the guide for dual subwoofer setup but still had some questions. Currently, I have a yamaha rx-v receiver but I am looking at getting one of the new Denons. My home theater is part of my living room so sub placement and room acoustics are not optimal due to WAF and the fact that the room is open concept. I have one psa s3000i (15” dual opposed) on the right wall almost even with my row of seats. I have a psa s1512 (single 15”) on the left of the mains on the front wall. So, subs are on different walls and are have different output due to one being dual opposed. They are both from the same company, have 15” sealed drivers and extend to at or below 20 hz. The subs having different outputs and being different distances from the seats have made it difficult for me to get them working together and sounding their best using YPAO with only one sub out available on my receiver So far, I have used a spl meter to manually time align the two subs together by using the delay on one sub to find the highest combined spl for both. I then level matched them at the mlp and ran an antimode 8033 that both subs are plugged into via a splitter. Then I ran YPAO. The subs sound ok but I feel like I probably dont have the delay just right. One reason I am looking at a Denon with xt32 is the praise Audessy gets for sub eq. I am looking to simplify my sub setup and get them eq’ed as best I can as I am not not experienced with rew and don’t have the mic. Could I just hook up each sub to one of the independent sub outs on the Denon and let xt32 take care of time aligning the subs together and to the mains, as well as, level match them? Basically, will Audessy take care of the everything I did manually and allow me to get rid of the antimode?



I'm over my head here. Someone else will be able to answer your questions. I'm curious 1) How many control points does the Antimode 8033 have? 2) How does it work? 3) How many microphone positions does it use? 



Audyssey XT32 uses thousands of potential adjustment points, and 8 mic positions. Audyssey uses a proprietary way to look at common needs from the various positions and uses "fuzzy" (good) logic to come up with frequency and time domain corrections. 



When equalizers first became popular in home audio, both Paul Klipsch and Edgar Villchur said that if you EQd with one mic position, moving the mic a few inches would call for a significantly different EQ curve. I think that's the only thing they ever agreed on.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

coxjamb said:


> I have been reading through this thread and looked at the guide for dual subwoofer setup but still had some questions. Currently, I have a yamaha rx-v receiver but I am looking at getting one of the new Denons. My home theater is part of my living room so sub placement and room acoustics are not optimal due to WAF and the fact that the room is open concept. I have one psa s3000i (15” dual opposed) on the right wall almost even with my row of seats. I have a psa s1512 (single 15”) on the left of the mains on the front wall. So, subs are on different walls and are have different output due to one being dual opposed. They are both from the same company, have 15” sealed drivers and extend to at or below 20 hz. The subs having different outputs and being different distances from the seats have made it difficult for me to get them working together and sounding their best using YPAO with only one sub out available on my receiver So far, I have used a spl meter to manually time align the two subs together by using the delay on one sub to find the highest combined spl for both. I then level matched them at the mlp and ran an antimode 8033 that both subs are plugged into via a splitter. Then I ran YPAO. The subs sound ok but I feel like I probably dont have the delay just right. One reason I am looking at a Denon with xt32 is the praise Audessy gets for sub eq. I am looking to simplify my sub setup and get them eq’ed as best I can as I am not not experienced with rew and don’t have the mic. Could I just hook up each sub to one of the independent sub outs on the Denon and let xt32 take care of time aligning the subs together and to the mains, as well as, level match them? Basically, will Audessy take care of the everything I did manually and allow me to get rid of the antimode?


There is no doubt that XT32 will do a better job than any AVR with 1 sub out. Plus it does the level-matching, time-align and EQ's to the best it can. Is is perfect not completely, a lot of users do use a MiniDsp to have total control over there subs with excellent results. But if the subs are in good locations XT32 will do it's job 

YPAO wouldn't be known for there corrections in the bass region, so XT32 would be a big leap forward here IMHO.

As for Antimode I would take this out of the chain, and see how XT32 does on its own. 
If you are using Antimode be sure that the subs are gain matched before calibrating the Antimode as you don't want one sub working harder than the other and having Antimode EQ for this. This will have to be done pre-audyssey calibration


----------



## coxjamb

garygarrison said:


> I'm over my head here. Someone else will be able to answer your questions. I'm curious 1) How many control points does the Antimode 8033 have? 2) How does it work? 3) How many microphone positions does it use?
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey XT32 uses thousands of potential adjustment points, and 8 mic positions. Audyssey uses a proprietary way to look at common needs from the various positions and uses "fuzzy" (good) logic to come up with frequency and time domain corrections.
> 
> 
> 
> When equalizers first became popular in home audio, both Paul Klipsch and Edgar Villchur said that if you EQd with one mic position, moving the mic a few inches would call for a significantly different EQ curve. I think that's the only thing they ever agreed on.


Antimode uses several rounds of sweeps to eq bass. I use only one position to measure but I think one more is available for wider correction.


----------



## coxjamb

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> There is no doubt that XT32 will do a better job than any AVR with 1 sub out. Plus it does the level-matching, time-align and EQ's to the best it can. Is is perfect not completely, a lot of users do use a MiniDsp to have total control over there subs with excellent results. But if the subs are in good locations XT32 will do it's job
> 
> YPAO wouldn't be known for there corrections in the bass region, so XT32 would be a big leap forward here IMHO.
> 
> As for Antimode I would take this out of the chain, and see how XT32 does on its own.
> If you are using Antimode be sure that the subs are gain matched before calibrating the Antimode as you don't want one sub working harder than the other and having Antimode EQ for this. This will have to be done pre-audyssey calibration


Great, if XT32 can simplify things for me then I want to give it a try. Would the setup before Audessy 
be the same? Set delay at "0" for both subs and let xt32 time align everything? Set gain knobs at 12'oclock and let xt32 level match them? I saw your comment on gain matching. Is that possible since the subs are not identical? I get plenty of thump from the s3000i (right side of room) but I have found that bass on the opposite side of the room (far left) is uneven so I added the smaller s1512(biggest I could fit) on that side of the room to even things out. The smaller sub definitely works harder(more excursion) due to it being half of a s3000i. My approach was just to even out the bass in the room by adding the smaller sub and it does that but I can tell something is just not quite right.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

coxjamb said:


> Great, if XT32 can simplify things for me then I want to give it a try. Would the setup before Audessy
> be the same? Set delay at "0" for both subs and let xt32 time align everything? Set gain knobs at 12'oclock and let xt32 level match them? I saw your comment on gain matching. Is that possible since the subs are not identical? I get plenty of thump from the s3000i (right side of room) but I have found that bass on the opposite side of the room (far left) is uneven so I added the smaller s1512(biggest I could fit) on that side of the room to even things out. The smaller sub definitely works harder(more excursion) due to it being half of a s3000i. My approach was just to even out the bass in the room by adding the smaller sub and it does that but I can tell something is just not quite right.


Well there both sealed and have the same driver size so that's good. The S3000I is much more power hungry and has a larger cabinet size. I have little experience with mixing subs as I generally follow the advice of matching them. I tried it once and it was disastrous but they much more mis-matched the yours, more of a experiment tbh

So since I don't have experience on mixing subs I don't want to guess on what on your best move here, but I'm sure some-one does

XT32 is still a good move either way and yes what happens with dual independent sub outs is first it level matches them, then it pings them (this is for phase alignment or Time Delay), then from then on in the calibration it treats them as one sub and EQed as one sub.


----------



## pbz06

coxjamb said:


> Great, if XT32 can simplify things for me then I want to give it a try. Would the setup before Audessy
> be the same? Set delay at "0" for both subs and let xt32 time align everything? Set gain knobs at 12'oclock and let xt32 level match them? I saw your comment on gain matching. Is that possible since the subs are not identical? I get plenty of thump from the s3000i (right side of room) but I have found that bass on the opposite side of the room (far left) is uneven so I added the smaller s1512(biggest I could fit) on that side of the room to even things out. The smaller sub definitely works harder(more excursion) due to it being half of a s3000i. My approach was just to even out the bass in the room by adding the smaller sub and it does that but I can tell something is just not quite right.


I've always been happy (by ear) with what XT32 has done for my calibrations, especially in the subwoofers. When I went with dual subs, I used the 2 AVR pre-outs and ran 1 cable to each subwoofer. It sounded good to my ears and if I wanted to keep it simply, I was happy and felt confident.

One thing that I haven't quite learned the answer yet though, but I find interesting: so we know XT32 pings each sub separately first, to align and levels match them to the MLP...and then pings them as one virtual sub for the actual EQ. This is the correct and recommended way.

However, *I think*, or it doesn't appear at least, to align the subs optimally with each other (just each to the listening position and mains). Whereas in minidsp we tweak with that alignment in a vacum for the 2 subs first...and then Audyssey just sees it as 1 sub from the beginning. When I use only XT32, my subs are set to 11.8 and 11.9 distance/delay. When I go the minidsp route and do it myself, my second sub is 8ms delay compared to my first sub...to get the best overall summation with the least cancellations. And then Audyssey sets the "one" subwoofer at 15.1 distance/delay.

Anyway, that is what the biggest difference appears to be for me. But bottom line XT32 does a good job and audibly it's always sounded good to me overall. As long as you follow the best practices for both Audyssey and subwoofers from the respective guides, you'll be happy with the simple approach.


----------



## mthomas47

coxjamb said:


> Great, if XT32 can simplify things for me then I want to give it a try. Would the setup before Audessy
> be the same? Set delay at "0" for both subs and let xt32 time align everything? Set gain knobs at 12'oclock and let xt32 level match them? I saw your comment on gain matching. Is that possible since the subs are not identical? I get plenty of thump from the s3000i (right side of room) but I have found that bass on the opposite side of the room (far left) is uneven so I added the smaller s1512(biggest I could fit) on that side of the room to even things out. The smaller sub definitely works harder(more excursion) due to it being half of a s3000i. My approach was just to even out the bass in the room by adding the smaller sub and it does that but I can tell something is just not quite right.





Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Well there both sealed and have the same driver size so that's good. The S3000I is much more power hungry and has a larger cabinet size. I have little experience with mixing subs as I generally follow the advice of matching them. I tried it once and it was disastrous but they much more mis-matched the yours, more of a experiment tbh
> 
> So since I don't have experience on mixing subs I don't want to guess on what on your best move here, but I'm sure some-one does
> 
> XT32 is still a good move either way and yes what happens with dual independent sub outs is first it level matches them, then it pings them (this is for phase alignment or Time Delay), then from then on in the calibration it treats them as one sub and EQed as one sub.



I think that Jim is giving you good advice here. Whether you are getting some cancellation due to phase mismatch issues on the two subs is an open question. Without REW to assist you, I would recommend letting XT-32 perform its calibration and room EQ, and then manually tweak the distance setting on one sub, if you believe there is phase-cancellation occurring.

I don't want to help you spend money,  but you could solve your capability mismatch issues, although not a potential phase-related issue, if you stacked a second S1512 on top of your existing one. That is a good solution where footprint size is an issue, and that would give you the 'rough' equivalent of dual S3000i's, or quad S1512's. 

The two S1512's, stacked, would effectively operate as a single sub, and you would Y-connect them into one of the sub-outs on a Denon/Marantz AVR with XT-32. Then, you could still tackle any phase issues by manually adjusting Audyssey's distance setting on either the Y-connected pair, or on the single S3000i.

Regards,
Mike


Edit: I just saw the post just ahead of this one from @pbz06. Unfortunately, Audyssey in any form, is unable to solve phase-related issues between a pair of subs, or between a single sub and any other speaker. The first loud ping is where Audyssey is measuring the arrival time of the sound and setting distances (and levels) for all of the individual speakers, and for two subs (or pairs of Y-connected subs). After that first ping, Audyssey measures all of the subs together, and EQ's them as one. 

But, neither Audyssey, nor Dirac, nor ARC, nor any other system of room EQ (as far as I know) can resolve phase-related issues among multiple subs, or between subs and speakers, during either the distance-setting process or during the EQ process. Phase-cancellation occurs when the driver on one transducer moves out, at the same moment that the driver of another transducer, playing the same content, moves in. 

That's why phase-cancellation can occur between subwoofers with different frequency responses, or in different parts of the room--because they are playing the same content. It's also why phase-cancellation can occur between subwoofer and mains, or between subwoofer and center channel--because the speaker and the subwoofer(s) are playing the same content at or near the crossover from speaker to sub.


----------



## coxjamb

mthomas47 said:


> I think that Jim is giving you good advice here. Whether you are getting some cancellation due to phase mismatch issues on the two subs is an open question. Without REW to assist you, I would recommend letting XT-32 perform its calibration and room EQ, and then manually tweak the distance setting on one sub, if you believe there is phase-cancellation occurring.
> 
> I don't want to help you spend money,  but you could solve your capability mismatch issues, although not a potential phase-related issue, if you stacked a second S1512 on top of your existing one. That is a good solution where footprint size is an issue, and that would give you the 'rough' equivalent of dual S3000i's, or quad S1512's.
> 
> The two S1512's, stacked, would effectively operate as a single sub, and you would Y-connect them into one of the sub-outs on a Denon/Marantz AVR with XT-32. Then, you could still tackle any phase issues by manually adjusting Audyssey's distance setting on either the Y-connected pair, or on the single S3000i.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike
> 
> 
> Edit: I just saw the post just ahead of this one from @pbz06. Unfortunately, Audyssey in any form, is unable to solve phase-related issues between a pair of subs, or between a single sub and any other speaker. The first loud ping is where Audyssey is measuring the arrival time of the sound and setting distances (and levels) for all of the individual speakers, and for two subs (or pairs of Y-connected subs). After that first ping, Audyssey measures all of the subs together, and EQ's them as one.
> 
> But, neither Audyssey, nor Dirac, nor ARC, nor any other system of room EQ (as far as I know) can resolve phase-related issues among multiple subs, or between subs and speakers, during either the distance-setting process or during the EQ process. Phase-cancellation occurs when the driver on one transducer moves out, at the same moment that the driver of another transducer, playing the same content, moves in.
> 
> That's why phase-cancellation can occur between subwoofers with different frequency responses, or in different parts of the room--because they are playing the same content. It's also why phase-cancellation can occur between subwoofer and mains, or between subwoofer and center channel--because the speaker and the subwoofer(s) are playing the same content at or near the crossover from speaker to sub.


Thanks! I like the idea of adding a second s1512. Haven’t thought of that. I am going to play around with the delay settings some more tomorrow. I guess the question that remains is what settings to keep on the subs themselves before running Audessy. Should I keep what I come up with for delay on the second sub and let Audessy adjust it or set both at 0 and go from there?


----------



## pwiss

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hi,
> 
> I personally prefer full range calibration, but only if I can adjust the target myself. I have been experimenting with Dirac for a while now which has gave me more insight to corrections from 500hz above. Before with Audyssey i would have limited the correction to 500hz as I did not like how bright it made my Klipsch speakers sound. Now I know these are horn speakers but I also know how they sound in direct mode too. I found it important to let the correction follow the curve of the speaker, but then there is the fact that this curve is also created by the room. So I think it's best if one had REW to measure the speakers and where they start rolling off limit the correction there. This will be pretty much full-range correction but allowing them to roll off naturally. This is what I will be doing when I set up Audyssey again. Of coarse the Multi App will be needed for this.
> 
> 
> 
> The plus side of full range correction is that all the speakers blend it nicely together and fixes any room issues along the way, this I feel gives a little bit more of a feeling of the speakers disappearing in the room so to speak as they are following the same curve.
> 
> The question of correcting with full vs limited will always be there, but I am starting to see a lot more merit to full range rather than limited.
> Jim


I haven’t used REW to measure my speakers but agree with your approach. Using the App I noticed my front and center speakers rolled off very similar to the reference curve. My surround and Atmos speakers extended farther out in the upper range. I set my fronts and center to limit them at 5000hz which provided need correction to that point and set the surrounds and Atmos speakers to full range reference. All 7 speakers follow the same predicted curve and the 3 main speakers aren’t touched by EQ above 5000hz. Sounds great to me as I haven’t felt the need to tweak anymore in the past couple of months.


----------



## Csmab9117

*Distance Setting post Audyssey*

Quick question. Just bought a Marantz AV7705 and ran Audyssey in my home theater. I’ve heard Audyssey can get the speaker distances completely wrong. My room is 17 ft wide and 22 ft long. Room was dead silence during calibration. Mic was on a tripod. Audyssey speaker distances in my 7.1 system came out anywhere from 45 ft to 49 ft from Main listening position after calibration. The speakers are actually 12 ft to 10 ft from the mail listening position. Is this normal to get such a ridiculous reading from Audyssey? I went back in after calibration and changed the distances. Everything sounds good. With such a weird reading should I assume the whole calibration process might be off. Speaker levels all matched fine using my decibel meter. 

Thanks


----------



## pbz06

Csmab9117 said:


> Quick question. Just bought a Marantz AV7705 and ran Audyssey in my home theater. I’ve heard Audyssey can get the speaker distances completely wrong. My room is 17 ft wide and 22 ft long. Room was dead silence during calibration. Mic was on a tripod. Audyssey speaker distances in my 7.1 system came out anywhere from 45 ft to 49 ft from Main listening position after calibration. The speakers are actually 12 ft to 10 ft from the mail listening position. Is this normal to get such a ridiculous reading from Audyssey? I went back in after calibration and changed the distances. Everything sounds good. With such a weird reading should I assume the whole calibration process might be off. Speaker levels all matched fine using my decibel meter.
> 
> Thanks


Personally I would run it again, just do a quick 3 runs with only front speakers just to test results are different. If they look more accurate, then do the full calibration for all speakers and mic positions. 

For me 99.9% the times, Audyssey sets the distance/delay very exact for the speakers.

Only the subwoofer should look farther than actual distance.


----------



## nezff

Csmab9117 said:


> Quick question. Just bought a Marantz AV7705 and ran Audyssey in my home theater. I’ve heard Audyssey can get the speaker distances completely wrong. My room is 17 ft wide and 22 ft long. Room was dead silence during calibration. Mic was on a tripod. Audyssey speaker distances in my 7.1 system came out anywhere from 45 ft to 49 ft from Main listening position after calibration. The speakers are actually 12 ft to 10 ft from the mail listening position. Is this normal to get such a ridiculous reading from Audyssey? I went back in after calibration and changed the distances. Everything sounds good. With such a weird reading should I assume the whole calibration process might be off. Speaker levels all matched fine using my decibel meter.
> 
> Thanks


Ive never had Audyssey get distances completely wrong with multiple processors Ive owned over the years. I would run it again.


----------



## mthomas47

Csmab9117 said:


> Quick question. Just bought a Marantz AV7705 and ran Audyssey in my home theater. *I’ve heard Audyssey can get the speaker distances completely wrong.* My room is 17 ft wide and 22 ft long. Room was dead silence during calibration. Mic was on a tripod. Audyssey speaker distances in my 7.1 system came out anywhere from 45 ft to 49 ft from Main listening position after calibration. The speakers are actually 12 ft to 10 ft from the mail listening position. Is this normal to get such a ridiculous reading from Audyssey? I went back in after calibration and changed the distances. Everything sounds good. With such a weird reading should I assume the whole calibration process might be off. Speaker levels all matched fine using my decibel meter.
> 
> Thanks



Hi,

Audyssey simply measures the arrival time of the sound from the various channels. Subwoofer timing never corresponds exactly to the physical distance from the MLP, because the subwoofer amplifier and its internal processing add some delay to the signal coming from the AVR. Speakers which are entirely powered by the AVR don't introduce any internal delay. So, if Audyssey is operating properly, the speaker distances will be correct. 

In this case, I would conclude that Audyssey is not operating properly, especially since the distances are off by so much. And, even if things sound okay, I would not have confidence in the calibration. The first thing I would do is to consult my owner's manual on how to do a microprocessor reset. Doing one, or even two resets, will insure that the AVR is operating according to factory default settings. Sometimes, microprocessors in computers, phones, etc just glitch. Afterwards, I would run another Audyssey calibration.

If that doesn't fix the problem, then I would replace the Audyssey microphone. I believe it is more likely to be the AVR that is glitching than it is a defective microphone. But, the last time I thought that, it turned out to be the microphone after all.  

Just try those trouble-shooting tips, in that order. There is also nothing wrong with doing another calibration to confirm the problem, before doing a microprocessor reset, if you want to try that. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Csmab9117

Csmab9117 said:


> Quick question. Just bought a Marantz AV7705 and ran Audyssey in my home theater. I’ve heard Audyssey can get the speaker distances completely wrong. My room is 17 ft wide and 22 ft long. Room was dead silence during calibration. Mic was on a tripod. Audyssey speaker distances in my 7.1 system came out anywhere from 45 ft to 49 ft from Main listening position after calibration. The speakers are actually 12 ft to 10 ft from the mail listening position. Is this normal to get such a ridiculous reading from Audyssey? I went back in after calibration and changed the distances. Everything sounds good. With such a weird reading should I assume the whole calibration process might be off. Speaker levels all matched fine using my decibel meter.
> 
> Thanks


Appreciate all the recommendations. I ran Audyssey again and it recorded the speakers distances correctly. All is good. It sounds much better than the original calibration. Center channel sounds better and my 4 subs sound tighter. I am happy with the results. 

Regards,


----------



## eric.exe

Hopefully a simple issue: starting with a 5.1.2 setup I have the sub enabled in the Speaker settings of my Denon X1300W, but after I run and apply an Audyssey calibrate the sub's setting gets set to disabled (Subwoofer = no). If I turn the sub back on, Audyssey gets disabled I lose the options like Dynamic EQ.


----------



## Soulburner

eric.exe said:


> Hopefully a simple issue: starting with a 5.1.2 setup I have the sub enabled in the Speaker settings of my Denon X1300W, but after I run and apply an Audyssey calibrate the sub's setting gets set to disabled (Subwoofer = no). If I turn the sub back on, Audyssey gets disabled I lose the options like Dynamic EQ.


Does the subwoofer make sound during the measurement stage?


----------



## grassy

Changed from rca and now using xlr interconnects and updated speaker cable from amp to wall sockets. Do i need to re calibrate.


----------



## Balbolito

grassy said:


> Changed from rca and now using xlr interconnects and updated speaker cable from amp to wall sockets. Do i need to re calibrate.


I would


----------



## grassy

Balbolito said:


> I would


 For some reason you convinced me to recalibrate. Nothing like anticipation.


----------



## garygarrison

grassy said:


> Changed from rca and now using xlr interconnects and updated speaker cable from amp to wall sockets. Do i need to re calibrate.



I doubt if these changes would make a difference. If they do, I would think it is a little like adding (or subtracting, etc.) a constant. Your speaker cable has been changed for all channels, as have your interconnects (I assume). 



The differences that different cable resistance, capacitance, etc., would make would be pretty minor unless the runs are extremely long. 



I _might _re-calibrate, but chiefly to humor my OCD. Taking a Zoloft might be equally effective.


----------



## grassy

Interconnects yes all channels, all my speaker cable is in wall up to a wall plate near the rear of the amp. Different speaker cable only from Denon Poaa1hd amp to wall plate.I am sleeving/ making 11x1metre speaker cables for amp to wall plate. The XLR’s are the major change from RCA to Mogami studio gold XLR.I was told could be a few decibels louder. Will try it out when all cables arrive.Was just debating weather to rerun calibration if that was the case.


----------



## b0rnarian

Guys, I am going from 7.1.4 to a 7.1.6 system soon. So I am planning on using two more SVS prime elevations on my left and right side wall as my Top Middles (Atmos) / Surround Heights (DTSX). My room is a long rectangle and so my front and rear prime elevations are placed all the way to the top near the 9ft ceiling so by that angle they can drop the sound right above the middle of my room (the MLP). 

My question is for the Top Middles/Surround Heights, should the prime elevations be placed all the way to the top near the ceiling as well and sort of throw the sound over and beyond the MLP (remember this a rectangle room so the side walls are much closer to the MLP than say front or back) OR should they be placed a little lower so the angle is right on top of me? I also have to be mindful of actual Side Surround Speakers on these walls and need to make sure there's enough gap between the two. Any advice on the height is appreciated, thanks.


----------



## garygarrison

b0rnarian said:


> Guys, I am going from 7.1.4 to a 7.1.6 system soon. So I am planning on using two more SVS prime elevations on my left and right side wall as my Top Middles (Atmos) / Surround Heights (DTSX). My room is a long rectangle and so my front and rear prime elevations are placed all the way to the top near the 9ft ceiling so by that angle they can drop the sound right above the middle of my room (the MLP).
> 
> My question is for the Top Middles/Surround Heights, should the prime elevations be placed all the way to the top near the ceiling as well and sort of throw the sound over and beyond the MLP (remember this a rectangle room so the side walls are much closer to the MLP than say front or back) OR should they be placed a little lower so the angle is right on top of me? I also have to be mindful of actual Side Surround Speakers on these walls and need to make sure there's enough gap between the two. Any advice on the height is appreciated, thanks.



Can you post


Drawings of the alternatives, with distances.
Room dimensions, L,W, H.


----------



## Marabba

Hello, all the sudden the L/R Bypass option on Audyssey setup menu disappeared on me. I had to re-run audyssey after 4 years and by my dismay I can’t now get this option back and I was wondering whether it’s just me or whether this is a company decision to eliminate it from the software by choice or is this a bug I have. I would I appreciate any info you might have. Thanks.


----------



## pbz06

Marabba said:


> Hello, all the sudden the L/R Bypass option on Audyssey setup menu disappeared on me. I had to re-run audyssey after 4 years and by my dismay I can’t now get this option back and I was wondering whether it’s just me or whether this is a company decision to eliminate it from the software by choice or is this a bug I have. I would I appreciate any info you might have. Thanks.


The option is still there for me, so I think it may be a bug on your end. Did you use the app and do you have the latest version?

Either way, just it again in case it's just a time thing.


----------



## Marabba

pbz06 said:


> Marabba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello, all the sudden the L/R Bypass option on Audyssey setup menu disappeared on me. I had to re-run audyssey after 4 years and by my dismay I canâ€™️t now get this option back and I was wondering whether itâ€™️s just me or whether this is a company decision to eliminate it from the software by choice or is this a bug I have. I would I appreciate any info you might have. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> The option is still there for me, so I think it may be a bug on your end. Did you use the app and do you have the latest version?
> 
> Either way, just it again in case it's just a time thing.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your reply. Good to know the option still there, but not for me. I tried via Marantz’ web and app, and it just doesn't stick. When I try directly via remote control the option is not there. 
I updated my audio processor about a month ago And until my last calibration (yesterday) the option was active. 
So, I suppose it’s my audio processor’ update that messed it up...


----------



## Alan P

Marabba said:


> Thank you for your reply. Good to know the option still there, but not for me. I tried via Marantz’ web and app, and it just doesn't stick. When I try directly via remote control the option is not there.
> I updated my audio processor about a month ago And until my last calibration (yesterday) the option was active.
> So, I suppose it’s my audio processor’ update that messed it up...


I assume you still have the other three options, Audyssey, Audyssey FLAT, and Audyssey OFF...?

You may want to try a "soft" reset (unplug your processor for at least 10 minutes), if no joy, try a microprocessor reset.


----------



## pbz06

Marabba said:


> Thank you for your reply. Good to know the option still there, but not for me. I tried via Marantz’ web and app, and it just doesn't stick. When I try directly via remote control the option is not there.
> I updated my audio processor about a month ago And until my last calibration (yesterday) the option was active.
> So, I suppose it’s my audio processor’ update that messed it up...


i would try a factory reset and/or microprocessor reset. I've never done the latter, so I don't know exactly how to do it but search your receiver type or look in owner's manual.

Hopefully that works!


----------



## b0rnarian

garygarrison said:


> Can you post
> 
> 
> Drawings of the alternatives, with distances.
> Room dimensions, L,W, H.


 Sorry I didnt see this reply. My room is 23 long and 11.9 feet wide. Have 9ft ceilings. I sit dead center of the room from all 4 walls. My current four prime elevations are all the way to the top near the ceiling and wondering if I should put the Top Middles all the way to the top or a bit lower. My Side Surrounds are actually two Polk towers but will eventually move to Bipolars and keep em 2 ft above ear level.


----------



## garygarrison

b0rnarian said:


> *I sit dead center of the room from all 4 walls*



That may not be the best place to sit. I understand that you may want to sit dead center left to right to put the center image dead center. But if you can avoid sitting dead center back to front, it might be better. Here is a YouTube that might help you decide where to put the seats*: 
*








Others can give you better advice on your elevations than I. I suspect that putting the speakers nearer the intersection of two planes (e.g., ceiling and wall) would provide more bass, but there may be a downside). In the last analysis, trying the different locations, even though labor intensive, maybe best. Google everything.


----------



## Jim Otto

I am running the MultEQ Editor App, and got the following room correction curve for my center speaker. All speakers except the sub look really similar to this: the lower f are pretty well corrected, and then starting at 500-600 Hz, it all gets really messy. Everyone else's curves that I see on YouTube videos etc. look clean throughout the f range. 

Any ideas?


----------



## Soulburner

Open up the options for the curve and select "MultEQ Filter Frequency Range". You probably limited the range.


----------



## garygarrison

Jim Otto said:


> I am running the MultEQ Editor App, and got the following room correction curve for my center speaker. All speakers except the sub look really similar to this: the lower f are pretty well corrected, and then *starting at 500-600 Hz*, it all gets really messy. Everyone else's curves that I see on YouTube videos etc. look clean throughout the f range.
> 
> Any ideas?





Soulburner said:


> Open up the options for the curve and select "MultEQ Filter Frequency Range". *You probably limited the range.*



Yes, it looks like *no correction at all was applied above 500Hz. *While some people like to limit the range this way, some do *not*, including Chris K., the co-founder and chief technical officer of Audyssey, and me.
In my treated room several important corrections were made above 500 Hz, as high as 8K Hz, and a bit from 12K Hz to 16K Hz. I'd try it both ways, repeatedly, and see what you think.


----------



## Soulburner

I think a big factor is whether or not you edit the curve. The default curve is not good for my speakers and makes them much brighter than they should be, so a limit of 300 Hz is best. However if manually adjusting the curve to follow your speaker's natural response, you _should_ achieve much better results by comparison. That is real "room correction" rather than speaker correction.


----------



## Jim Otto

garygarrison said:


> Yes, it looks like *no correction at all was applied above 500Hz. *While some people like to limit the range this way, some do *not*, including Chris K., the co-founder and chief technical officer of Audyssey, and me.
> In my treated room several important corrections were made above 500 Hz, as high as 8K Hz, and a bit from 12K Hz to 16K Hz. I'd try it both ways, repeatedly, and see what you think.


Yes, you're correct. I had the limiter on. I slid the bar all the way to 20000 and it cleaned up the "after" graph. And I have to say, it cleaned up the sound of my music. So I think I like the full range correction. Will keep listening to verify.


----------



## adams2k

Is Audyssey disabled for some reason with AirPlay? On my receiver (Denon AVR-X1000) I can see and turn Audyssey settings on and off for various sources _except_ when listening to music via AirPlay. The settings page for Audyssey just reads:




> MultEQ XT Not available
> Dynamic EQ Not available
> Dynamic Volume Not available


Is it saved as the last setting or is it truly turned off? Is this a receiver limitation or an Audyssey limitation? 

Apologies if this is the wrong spot to ask. I've searched google and avsforum high and low for an answer for this and somehow can't find the magical words--surely someone has asked this before.


----------



## rocky1

Not sure how you denon works but with my marantz it is not disabled. While using airplay are you able to go into the settings to see if maybe you had turned it off( marantz allows this) ? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## adams2k

When listening to a CD, or radio, etc., on the audyssey settings page (via web browser), I can turn Audyssey, Dynamic EQ, and Dynamic Volume on and off as much as I want. 

As soon as I select the receiver as the AirPlay source for my iPhone, all Audyssey settings in the web browser are all "Not available" and don't show if they are on or off. But the settings are disabled. Once I change source again, I refresh the page, and they are enabled. I wasn't sure if that was an AirPlay limitation, but since you don't have that issue with your Marantz it sounds like my question is better asked in the Denon thread.


----------



## lax01

I finally bought a boom mic stand to do a proper Audyssey calibration (vs. tripod on the cushions method) - unfortunately, the only real place to put it (as my couch is against the back wall) is in front of the couch - it's also a pretty low couch and the room is not huge

Will that cause any problems having the boom mic stand in front? Assuming I should lower the boom mic stand as low it can go and angle it up (while keeping the microphone flat / fully upright)? 

Thanks


----------



## pbz06

lax01 said:


> I finally bought a boom mic stand to do a proper Audyssey calibration (vs. tripod on the cushions method) - unfortunately, the only real place to put it (as my couch is against the back wall) is in front of the couch - it's also a pretty low couch and the room is not huge
> 
> Will that cause any problems having the boom mic stand in front? Assuming I should lower the boom mic stand as low it can go and angle it up (while keeping the microphone flat / fully upright)?
> 
> Thanks


Short answer is no problem. I asked the same thing not that long ago, and Mthomas had a detailed explanation on why not to worry.


----------



## lax01

pbz06 said:


> Short answer is no problem. I asked the same thing not that long ago, and Mthomas had a detailed explanation on why not to worry.


Thanks - was that in this thread? Do you have the comment handy so I could read the detailed explanation?


----------



## pbz06

lax01 said:


> Thanks - was that in this thread? Do you have the comment handy so I could read the detailed explanation?


 @lax01

Found it:

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...audyssey-thread-part-ii-282.html#post59768148

Post 8449 in case the link doesn't take you directly there.


----------



## lax01

pbz06 said:


> @lax01
> 
> Found it:
> 
> https://www.avsforum.com/forum/90-r...audyssey-thread-part-ii-282.html#post59768148
> 
> Post 8449 in case the link doesn't take you directly there.


Thanks! That worked!


----------



## qguy

My Marantz Nr1710, requires a minimum of 3 mic position for calibration, If I only have one seat in my HT, do I even need to move the mic from left of center (mic position 2) and Right of center (mic position 3) ? Should I just calibrate using the MLP position at center ?


----------



## pbz06

qguy said:


> My Marantz Nr1710, requires a minimum of 3 mic position for calibration, If I only have one seat in my HT, do I even need to move the mic from left of center (mic position 2) and Right of center (mic position 3) ? Should I just calibrate using the MLP position at center ?


You don't NEED to move it, but it's still recommended. Just keep it a nice and tight mic pattern (no more than 1' in any direction); and I would still suggest doing all 8 positions. The idea is that your head isn't dead set perfectly every single time, and you still want to give your room EQ program a general idea of your room acoustics so it applies its fuzzy logic with more data points. A tight mic pattern will yield consistent results anyway.


----------



## Soulburner

Audyssey needs information about your listening space, so yes use the minimum of 3 positions.


----------



## garygarrison

qguy said:


> My Marantz Nr1710, requires a minimum of 3 mic position for calibration, If I only have one seat in my HT, do I even need to move the mic from left of center (mic position 2) and Right of center (mic position 3) ? Should I just calibrate using the MLP position at center ?



I would use a very tight pattern with all 8 positions. They could be where your left ear, right ear, center of your head would be plus 5 more positions that cover the area of head movement.


It has been shown repeatedly that:


Moving your head just a few inches causes an appreciable difference in frequency response in some (many?) rooms.
A single mic position is a very bad way to EQ a room. That was the Achilles' heel of many of the manuals that came with graphic or parametric equalizers for the home. Several of the early ones had the consumer use a single mic position. This was criticized by industry leaders. So, some people used several mic positions, and *averaged* the results. But, due to the nature of averages, the result could be wrong for *all* listening positions [it's like the old, old story of the battle commander saying to the cannonier, "You're missing the target entirely; about half of the time the balls fall short, and about half of the time they go too far." "Yes," said the cannonier, "but on the *average*, we are right on target!"] Audyssey uses a partial, proprietary, solution. Instead of using an average, it uses "Fuzzy Logic" (a good thing) that looks at the EQ "needs" at each mic position and addresses the EQ "needs" they share. Exactly how it does that is proprietary. For all I know, they weight position 1 more heavily (I have *not *heard that -- just speculating!).
For some users, I guess that the the first mic pattern they try is fine. That didn't happen with me. I think the third time was the charm. Audyssey FLAT much improves my sound, with Audyssey REFERENCE helping with recordings that are a bit harsh. I don't have the App.
I'd think that a) a very accurate map of mic positions should be made, so they are repeatable (or store several Audyssey EQ curves, if your AVR or pre-pro will do that) b) any Audyssey run's results should be subjectively evaluated with many recordings and movies, and rated for *realism* (fidelity to the *imagined* original -- it's all we've got) and *pleasantness/preference. *Then pick the one that pleases you the most, tempered by recent experience with live *acoustical* music (no sound reinforcement/not electronically modified)*. *I sat in about row 10 for many orchestra rehearsals at SFSU when I was selecting audio equipment or fine tuning Audyssey*, *to re-calibrate my ears.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Audyssey FLAT much improves my sound, with Audyssey REFERENCE helping with recordings that are a bit harsh. I don't have the App.


The app is a godsend.

This is my Buchardt S400's corrected to 300 Hz (though the predicted graph looks like 200 Hz):








This is full-range correction (no limit to the range) with the Audyssey Reference curve:








See how much the system brings up the treble on these speakers? It makes my tonally neutral speakers sound really bright and harsh. The natural downward sloping *in-room response* (_not_ speaker response) is very natural sounding in the typical home room. Without the app I would have no way of taking advantage of Audyssey's great bass EQ capabilities and still prevent it from ruining the rest of the range. "Flat" has even less HF roll-off.

Dirac has the same problem but to a slightly lesser degree. I have to tame its default target curve a bit, too.

Now, I do have experience with a pair of speakers that benefited from the "Flat" profile. Those are the RBH R5Bi's which are known for having a very rolled-off tweeter. They need the boost that Flat gives them. Note, the predicted graph does not show that Audyssey makes all speakers measure the same. It is just wishful thinking. In reality, the Flat profile on the R5Bi's help those tweeters just reach an acceptable level, while it utterly destroys your ears if you try it on the Buchardts. YMMV


----------



## Darvis

I haven't read the entire thread, but do you guys feel as Ausyssey Room eq has been abandoned? As far as I know, XT32 has been introduced in 2010. Ten years is a very long time for not upgrading a software... The only novelty that improved on it was the app, but (if I'm not wrong) it's Denon which has created it. 

If you go on their website, it's almost completely absent (there's a vague mention about it somewhere, without explanation or proper pages). 

Sooooo, anyone knows if they're still working on that? Or can we consider it's legacy now and that, in time, it will be too obsolete to use?


----------



## dcrandon

Darvis said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, but do you guys feel as Ausyssey Room eq has been abandoned? As far as I know, XT32 has been introduced in 2010. Ten years is a very long time for not upgrading a software... The only novelty that improved on it was the app, but (if I'm not wrong) it's Denon which has created it.
> 
> If you go on their website, it's almost completely absent (there's a vague mention about it somewhere, without explanation or proper pages).
> 
> Sooooo, anyone knows if they're still working on that? Or can we consider it's legacy now and that, in time, it will be too obsolete to use?


My question is similar also. If it is still considered the best built-in room correction, why no updates in 10yrs? To be fair though, the website was never much. It's not arranged very well and seems to be geared towards OEM manufacturers.


----------



## Matt2026

Darvis said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, but do you guys feel as Ausyssey Room eq has been abandoned? As far as I know, XT32 has been introduced in 2010. Ten years is a very long time for not upgrading a software... The only novelty that improved on it was the app, but (if I'm not wrong) it's Denon which has created it.
> 
> If you go on their website, it's almost completely absent (there's a vague mention about it somewhere, without explanation or proper pages).
> 
> Sooooo, anyone knows if they're still working on that? Or can we consider it's legacy now and that, in time, it will be too obsolete to use?





dcrandon said:


> My question is similar also. If it is still considered the best built-in room correction, why no updates in 10yrs? To be fair though, the website was never much. It's not arranged very well and seems to be geared towards OEM manufacturers.


I may be wrong BUT I believe Denon bought the software from it's creator, they must have long term plans for it.

IF I'm wrong, no doubt an expert will correct me


----------



## Soulburner

Darvis said:


> I haven't read the entire thread, but do you guys feel as Ausyssey Room eq has been abandoned? As far as I know, XT32 has been introduced in 2010. Ten years is a very long time for not upgrading a software... The only novelty that improved on it was the app, but (if I'm not wrong) it's Denon which has created it.
> 
> If you go on their website, it's almost completely absent (there's a vague mention about it somewhere, without explanation or proper pages).
> 
> Sooooo, anyone knows if they're still working on that? Or can we consider it's legacy now and that, in time, it will be too obsolete to use?





dcrandon said:


> My question is similar also. If it is still considered the best built-in room correction, why no updates in 10yrs? To be fair though, the website was never much. It's not arranged very well and seems to be geared towards OEM manufacturers.


I disagree that there have been no updates in 10 years. Audyssey made huge strides with the smartphone app.


----------



## Darvis

Matt2026 said:


> I may be wrong BUT I believe Denon bought the software from it's creator, they must have long term plans for it.
> 
> IF I'm wrong, no doubt an expert will correct me


That would explain it! Although they mention room correction in their website somewhere.

This is the only place where it's mentioned, without even "XT32" appearing, at the very end of the page, after all the other "solutions"
_Room acoustics greatly degrade the home theater listening experience.
This reflects poorly on AV Receiver makers whose devices are responsible for the quality of the experience.
In many homes, smaller speakers are used resulting in weak bass performance.
Based on a decade of university research, Audyssey developed the world’s most advanced room correction technology that automatically calibrates any home theater to deliver optimum performance.
In addition, our bass extension technologies provide deeper bass from sound bars and subwoofers to deliver performance that defies their small footprint._​
And then:
_"We were looking for a long term partner to provide solutions and constantly improve customer satisfaction. That’s why we decided to partner with Audyssey a decade ago, and continue to enjoy a great partnership today."

Hirofumi Ichikawa President, Denon Japan_​
So, yes, maybe Denon bought that part. Which would explain why Onkyo doesn't use it anymore.


----------



## Darvis

Soulburner said:


> I disagree that there have been no updates in 10 years. Audyssey made huge strides with the smartphone app.


I don't think they created the app.


----------



## Soulburner

Darvis said:


> I don't think they created the app.


Right. I meant Audyssey the program made huge strides. I know you acknowledged that, but I think it amounts to substantial improvements.


----------



## Darvis

Soulburner said:


> Right. I meant Audyssey the program made huge strides. I know you acknowledged that, but I think it amounts to substantial improvements.


I don't think it changed at all since XT32 was released, 10 years ago. Did it?


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> The app is a godsend.
> 
> 
> 
> This is my Buchardt S400's corrected to 300 Hz (though the predicted graph looks like 200 Hz):
> 
> View attachment 2749700
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is full-range correction (no limit to the range) with the Audyssey Reference curve:
> 
> View attachment 2749698
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See how much the system brings up the treble on these speakers? It makes my tonally neutral speakers sound really bright and harsh. The natural downward sloping *in-room response* (_not_ speaker response) is very natural sounding in the typical home room. Without the app I would have no way of taking advantage of Audyssey's great bass EQ capabilities and still prevent it from ruining the rest of the range. "Flat" has even less HF roll-off.
> 
> 
> 
> Dirac has the same problem but to a slightly lesser degree. I have to tame its default target curve a bit, too.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I do have experience with a pair of speakers that benefited from the "Flat" profile. Those are the RBH R5Bi's which are known for having a very rolled-off tweeter. They need the boost that Flat gives them. Note, the predicted graph does not show that Audyssey makes all speakers measure the same. It is just wishful thinking. In reality, the Flat profile on the R5Bi's help those tweeters just reach an acceptable level, while it utterly destroys your ears if you try it on the Buchardts. YMMV


That's a good point, that is one big reason why some people don't like what room correction does. It can drastically alter how they sound in your room and what you're used to. I've always had trouble hearing any real differences between limited and full, and I think it's because their room response isn't altered too much. In fact, there's a little bit of rise at the far end so hence I dig Reference and full range. Measuring in REW and checking On vs Off there's very little differences anywhere except in the bass and the 10k-20k range. I haven't figured out how to use ASIO yet and haven't measured my center and surrounds yet, but may actually test with MRC with those since the precal graph shows a little dip there anyway 









Edit- haha, didn't realize the youtube window was open when I took the screenshot


----------



## dcrandon

Soulburner said:


> I disagree that there have been no updates in 10 years. Audyssey made huge strides with the smartphone app.


Agreed. And that's the main reason I'm thinking of upgrading. But the basic calibration process itself has not changed, correct? I mean MultiXT32 is the same as years ago, correct?


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> That's a good point, that is one big reason why some people don't like what room correction does. It can drastically alter how they sound in your room and what you're used to. I've always had trouble hearing any real differences between limited and full, and I think it's because their room response isn't altered too much. In fact, there's a little bit of rise at the far end so hence I dig Reference and full range. Measuring in REW and checking On vs Off there's very little differences anywhere except in the bass and the 10k-20k range. I haven't figured out how to use ASIO yet and haven't measured my center and surrounds yet, but may actually test with MRC with those since the precal graph shows a little dip there anyway
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit- haha, didn't realize the youtube window was open when I took the screenshot


That is a good example of a system that won't see a big tonality change with Audyssey. Your speakers are either rather bright or you are pretty close to them. Generally, rooms will cause a downward sloping response. And nice selfie 

My room is very small, with the room not even 11 feet wide.


----------



## Soulburner

Darvis said:


> I don't think it changed at all since XT32 was released, 10 years ago. Did it?





dcrandon said:


> Agreed. And that's the main reason I'm thinking of upgrading. But the basic calibration process itself has not changed, correct? I mean MultiXT32 is the same as years ago, correct?


I guess it depends what you guys are referring to.

The core processing likely hasn't changed. I don't know about that.

But before the app, Audyssey did not have the ability to adjust or limit the filter frequency range, disable their midrange compensation, make your own target curve, save multiple filter profiles, or even show you a visual of what it is measuring and correcting. I think those are pretty big upgrades.


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> That is a good example of a system that won't see a big tonality change with Audyssey. Your speakers are either rather bright or you are pretty close to them. Generally, rooms will cause a downward sloping response. And nice selfie
> 
> 
> 
> My room is very small, with the room not even 11 feet wide.


Probably all the above. I sit 9.5' away and my room is also reflective. That video was actually regarding acoustic panels, haha. I actually sometimes even enable CinemaEQ on top of Reference...


----------



## Darvis

Soulburner said:


> I guess it depends what you guys are referring to.
> 
> The core processing likely hasn't changed. I don't know about that.
> 
> But before the app, Audyssey did not have the ability to adjust or limit the filter frequency range, disable their midrange compensation, make your own target curve, save multiple filter profiles, or even show you a visual of what it is measuring and correcting. I think those are pretty big upgrades.


Yes, it's much more configurable, but the guts are the same (number of filters and so on). I hope it's just a delay because of the transfer of the whole operation from Audyssey to Denon.


----------



## pbz06

Darvis said:


> Yes, it's much more configurable, but the guts are the same (number of filters and so on). I hope it's just a delay because of the transfer of the whole operation from Audyssey to Denon.


Or maybe there's nothing to change beyond the user interface and customization. Their proprietary tech is probably at its peak and the science is the same as 10 years ago so not sure what they would change at this point to stay within same price point of receivers which likely are the limiting factor.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> Or maybe there's nothing to change beyond the user interface and customization. Their proprietary tech is probably at its peak and the science is the same as 10 years ago so not sure what they would change at this point to stay within same price point of receivers which likely are the limiting factor.


I'm sure that improvements could be made. They could probably further increase filter resolution with our smartphones now at its disposal. I am sure there are diminishing returns there. They could continue to work on its interface, adding advanced functionality for curve editing.

Price is definitely a factor in sticking with it. When you get an XT32 capable AVR from Denon/Marantz, you are getting a lot more AVR for your money than for example an AVR running Dirac, because the Dirac license fee is considerable. Just look at the cost of Arcams.


----------



## Anteranz

am an audyseey user for 6 years I have had marantz sr7010,7013, av7705 and I ended up trying an arcam avr390 since everyone talked about its benefits of dirac and the brand itself, it lasted a week and I did not expect anything else and threw of less the comforts, flexibility of the Japanese av ...

for me it was not night and day neither in stereo nor in cinema of what I had already been hearing in my room and returned it.

at that time I had stages for everything and I got the opportunity to sell my 7013 plus stages and opt for the denon ship the avc x8500h and I am delighted but I still lack a little plus in stereo.


Speaking of audyseey I still think that it is far from competing with dirac or arc and that saddens me because a regular user pulls out a rapstudy app and that it is better than the entire technical body of audyseey only demonstrate that they are conformists and just want a correction room comfortable and easy to use!

Another thing that I do not see fair is the users who pay more for the top of the range that incorporate the same room correction as their older brothers ... although it is paid but the one who pays an extra is not because he wants to say that he has The best avr is because it looks for an extra in the audio and that makes it a good room correction.

or denon / marantz are planning to hit the table at once or many demanding users will change brands.


----------



## Anteranz

Soulburner said:


> pbz06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or maybe there's nothing to change beyond the user interface and customization. Their proprietary tech is probably at its peak and the science is the same as 10 years ago so not sure what they would change at this point to stay within same price point of receivers which likely are the limiting factor.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure that improvements could be made. They could probably further increase filter resolution with our smartphones now at its disposal. I am sure there are diminishing returns there. They could continue to work on its interface, adding advanced functionality for curve editing.
> 
> Price is definitely a factor in sticking with it. When you get an XT32 capable AVR from Denon/Marantz, you are getting a lot more AVR for your money than for example an AVR running Dirac, because the Dirac license fee is considerable. Just look at the cost of Arcams.
Click to expand...



what there is no right is that the mid-range and flagship have the same correction!

and the app is very improvable since what you modify you cannot see in real time if you have improved those peaks or valleys.

Is it so hard to make a PC program that competes with Dirac for the most demanding?

Even a regular user has created a PC program that improves the app since editing the curve in the app becomes insufferable ...


----------



## Soulburner

Anteranz said:


> Another thing that I do not see fair is the users who pay more for the top of the range that incorporate the same room correction as their older brothers ...





Anteranz said:


> what there is no right is that the mid-range and flagship have the same correction!


Pushing down the tech to the mid-tier models so that the masses can get good sound does not in any way diminish your experience.


----------



## CommanderROR

I have to agree that Denon has been pretty complacent with Audyssey, but so have others. Yamaha still doesn't touch the base in any meaningful way and is a bit hit and miss with many aspects of the RoomEQ in General. Onkyo and Pioneer cannot seem to get their act together either, so why should Denon really try.
And to be fair...Audyssey does do a good job, although it tends.to sound a bit thin and harsh right after measuring, and the Dynamic EQ Feature sadly still destroys the Surround Balance which you still can't turn off, even with the app. So...ses, there is plenty of room for improvement, but I fear Denon just doesn't see the need to invest right jow since the competition isn't really doing much either. Yamaha managed a surprise with their Surround:AI which is actually great, but they haven't updated it in any meaningful way since it was introduced in 2018...


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Hi

I think Denon/Marantz should stick with Audyssey since there is such a huge support community, plenty of users are very happy with Audyssey as it is, App or no App.
But there is some changes that I think would or could improve the system to another level.
As @Soulburner has pointed out, the App is in itself a upgrade over XT32 since it's opens up some much more possibilities to what can be done.
There are three changes I would like to see going forward.

1) The Tone control can only be used globally for left and right speaker, the center could be added to this. This would be a easy one to add.

2) The Curve editor on the App has huge potential that hasn't been taken fully utilized by the App or implemented badly, We have seen what can be done with this with the program Ratbuddy and hoe close one can get to Dirac with this tool.
A)So they could develop a Pc program to give users more control over this function.
B)Or In the the App have other preset target curves that the user can choose from rather than flat (Harman Curves or something similar). This could be a simpler approach and keeping it simple which is one of the goals I think of Audyssey.

3) Dynamic EQ. I think they could have more options on what DEQ does, for example turn off the boost in surrounds.

In the new 2020 Denon's I noticed that you can have two different calibrations saved on the AVR and can switch on the fly, like Daytime or Nighttime mode. So it looks like they are moving forward.

I think the core of XT32 is solid as a rock and appeals both to power users and new users alike. So the App for me is where it's at in terms of moving forward for Audyssey

So this my 2cents on what could be done to improve upon Audysseys system 

Jim


----------



## Anteranz

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hi
> 
> I think Denon/Marantz should stick with Audyssey since there is such a huge support community, plenty of users are very happy with Audyssey as it is, App or no App.
> But there is some changes that I think would or could improve the system to another level.
> As @Soulburner has pointed out, the App is in itself a upgrade over XT32 since it's opens up some much more possibilities to what can be done.
> There are three changes I would like to see going forward.
> 
> 1) The Tone control can only be used globally for left and right speaker, the center could be added to this. This would be a easy one to add.
> 
> 2) The Curve editor on the App has huge potential that hasn't been taken fully utilized by the App or implemented badly, We have seen what can be done with this with the program Ratbuddy and hoe close one can get to Dirac with this tool.
> A)So they could develop a Pc program to give users more control over this function.
> B)Or In the the App have other preset target curves that the user can choose from rather than flat (Harman Curves or something similar). This could be a simpler approach and keeping it simple which is one of the goals I think of Audyssey.
> 
> 3) Dynamic EQ. I think they could have more options on what DEQ does, for example turn off the boost in surrounds.
> 
> In the new 2020 Denon's I noticed that you can have two different calibrations saved on the AVR and can switch on the fly, like Daytime or Nighttime mode. So it looks like they are moving forward.
> 
> I think the core of XT32 is solid as a rock and appeals both to power users and new users alike. So the App for me is where it's at in terms of moving forward for Audyssey
> 
> So this my 2cents on what could be done to improve upon Audysseys system
> 
> Jim




totally agree with you in all those little arrangements audyseey could compete even more in what I do not agree is that the others have not done anything !!

Why look at yamaha, onkyo that I never valued for his eq and do not look at what arcam or nad are doing?

My usual question and that nobody solves me is when they talk about nad or arcam sound incredible in stereo and cinema with a clarity and cleanliness that they had never heard, that is caused thanks to dirac or the technology of both brands?

because internally in electronics I do not see better an arcam avr850 of a denon avc x8500h !!


that's why if the app were more like dirac, denon / marantz would gain even more fans since its users almost don't care about placing the mic and measuring since they have many whistles, options in a box ...

but we who seek perfection see that audyseey is limited and on the phone it costs god to edit something!


by the way I don't know why if I limit the eq to 500hz it sounds better to me than if I leave it at 20,000hz and I've done all kinds of tests as soon as I upload it to the reference level, the highs start to sound pretty bad and bright ..


----------



## Soulburner

Same here. It really depends on your speakers and your room.


----------



## pbz06

CommanderROR said:


> I have to agree that Denon has been pretty complacent with Audyssey, but so have others. Yamaha still doesn't touch the base in any meaningful way and is a bit hit and miss with many aspects of the RoomEQ in General. Onkyo and Pioneer cannot seem to get their act together either, so why should Denon really try.
> And to be fair...Audyssey does do a good job, although it tends.to sound a bit thin and harsh right after measuring, and the Dynamic EQ Feature sadly still destroys the Surround Balance which you still can't turn off, even with the app. So...ses, there is plenty of room for improvement, but I fear Denon just doesn't see the need to invest right jow since the competition isn't really doing much either. Yamaha managed a surprise with their Surround:AI which is actually great, but they haven't updated it in any meaningful way since it was introduced in 2018...


I disagree with the thin and harsh, and destroying surround balance parts  it's strictly a YMMV scenario that depends on your preferences, tastes, equipment, and room.


----------



## CommanderROR

Well, of course every room and every pair of ears is different. My room is a dedicated HT, with plenty of room treatment in place. I originally had the X4300 down there, and it was fine, but the sound was a bit "straining" to my ears. Also, I always had to adjust the Side Surrounds, Rears and Top Rears because they were too loud. I usually listen at around -20 to -25db, and that means DynEQ boosts the mentioned Speakers quite a bit. If some Speakers are suddenly 4-5db louder than the rest you will notice. This might be beneficial in Movies with very sparse effects coming from those Speakers, but with an active Surround Stage and even more so with Games, it just meant the rear portion of the Sound overpowered the Fronts.
I move to the Yamaha RX-A3080 then, and after I got an AntiMode to take care of Subwoofer EQ it was fine. I still miss the stronger Bass Boost Denon offers, and would love to go back to XT32, but the fact that it interferes far too strongly with Surround balance is keeping me away for now.
Of course I can manually lower the Volume on the boosted Speakers, hut applying a static offset to a dynamic system is never ideal...


----------



## Soulburner

That sucks. I just reduce the surrounds by about -2 to -3. It's not perfect, but it's close, and I do not think it's an issue worth changing to a completely different brand.


----------



## Spidacat

Soulburner said:


> See how much the system brings up the treble on these speakers? It makes my tonally neutral speakers sound really bright and harsh. The natural downward sloping *in-room response* (_not_ speaker response) is very natural sounding in the typical home room. Without the app I would have no way of taking advantage of Audyssey's great bass EQ capabilities and still prevent it from ruining the rest of the range. "Flat" has even less HF roll-off.
> 
> Dirac has the same problem but to a slightly lesser degree. I have to tame its default target curve a bit, too.
> 
> Now, I do have experience with a pair of speakers that benefited from the "Flat" profile. Those are the RBH R5Bi's which are known for having a very rolled-off tweeter. They need the boost that Flat gives them. Note, the predicted graph does not show that Audyssey makes all speakers measure the same. It is just wishful thinking. In reality, the Flat profile on the R5Bi's help those tweeters just reach an acceptable level, while it utterly destroys your ears if you try it on the Buchardts. YMMV


You can like what you like, but I can't say I agree with some of your wording. Your Buchardt's look more rolled off than follow a Harman curve, at least in your room. They are down roughly 8 dB by 20 KHz. A Harman curve usually slopes gently down from bass to treble, not flat at the bass region then sloping down after that. Audyssey Reference still has some roll off, but maybe not as much as you prefer. That straight line is an approximation of expected results - don't take it as gospel. You'd have to measure with REW to how much Audyssey "boosted" your higher frequencies. Audyssey is doing exactly as it's intended to - give a relatively flat response across the spectrum. Of course your room, your speakers, your preference... but Audyssey isn't doing anything wrong. Fortunately the app exists so you can tailor the sound to your liking, but you have a number of posts making it sound like Audyssey makes every speaker harsh.


----------



## Soulburner

I never said it makes every speaker harsh. In fact it's just the opposite if you've seen some recent posts either in this thread or the MultEQ app thread, I can't remember which. An example was shown of a system which wasn't affected nearly as much as mine.

Room size, especially the width and the speakers proximity to side walls plays a role in the high frequency roll-off. Why? Because imagine that in a very large room, all you're getting is direct sound. Direct, on-axis sound from most speakers tends to be the "brightest" in terms of frequency response.

In contrast, in a small room, if early reflections are a large component of what you're hearing, the in-room response will show that. Off-axis sound is lower in level. This is why Audyssey provides a "Flat" target for those who want it.

Another thing to consider is my above average hearing sensitivity. I can't handle a lot of treble, so many speakers sound bright to me.

All that said, I'm far from done tweaking. I plan to try different toe angles, including direct-facing, hoping I don't lose too much soundstage. I also plan to use Ratbuddsey to customize the target. It may end up in failure or I may end up liking it.


----------



## johnnyboy632

Just did a new calibration due to recently adding some acoustic panels and closing the door to my theatre. Everything went ok but my sub 1 level was set to -12 from approximately -2 on previous eq’s. Is it possible that the panels and closing the door affect the levels that much or should I run another eq? Maybe a dumb question but could I just set it higher later to my liking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

johnnyboy632 said:


> Just did a new calibration due to recently adding some acoustic panels and closing the door to my theatre. Everything went ok but my sub 1 level was set to -12 from approximately -2 on previous eq’s. Is it possible that the panels and closing the door affect the levels that much or should I run another eq? Maybe a dumb question but could I just set it higher later to my liking
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


How close is the subwoofer to the door opening? A gain of over +10dB would be unusual from just closing a door, but I suppose it is possible. Are you sure you did not adjust the gain on the sub between the two calibrations?

The panels will cause the dB level to drop, not rise.

Yes, you need to reduce the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey. -12dB is the lower limit of the adjustment range so you do not know if it wanted to set it at exactly -12, or -15, or -20, etc.

Ideally, you want it to return a level of -11.5dB to allow for maximum headroom in case you like running your sub "hot", but anything in the -11.5 to -9.0 range should be acceptable.


----------



## johnnyboy632

Alan P said:


> How close is the subwoofer to the door opening? A gain of over +10dB would be unusual from just closing a door, but I suppose it is possible. Are you sure you did not adjust the gain on the sub between the two calibrations?
> 
> The panels will cause the dB level to drop, not rise.
> 
> Yes, you need to reduce the gain on your sub and re-run Audyssey. -12dB is the lower limit of the adjustment range so you do not know if it wanted to set it at exactly -12, or -15, or -20, etc.
> 
> Ideally, you want it to return a level of -11.5dB to allow for maximum headroom in case you like running your sub "hot", but anything in the -11.5 to -9.0 range should be acceptable.



Yes it is as you walk in the doorway in right rear corner of room. Weird thing is I used the app and it asks to adjust the volume which it is in the green area and i did use a meter which read 73db. I will re run again and see what happens. Thanks for the tips


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## David Aiken

johnnyboy632 said:


> Just did a new calibration due to recently adding some acoustic panels and closing the door to my theatre. Everything went ok but my sub 1 level was set to -12 from approximately -2 on previous eq’s. Is it possible that the panels and closing the door affect the levels that much or should I run another eq? Maybe a dumb question but could I just set it higher later to my liking
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The fact that the sub is near the door means that you were losing a lot of pressure very close to the sub. That would have a significant effect on the level of measurements taken at the listening position.

Alan P said that he thought the panels would cause the levels at the listening position to drop, not rise. Since we're talking bass levels, I'm not so certain. You didn't say where the panels were placed but If they were placed in locations where they act to minimise room modes they might actually increase the level of measurements of the sub taken at the listening position. When panels reduce the level of bass modes they certainly do reduce the severity of the pressurisation peak of the sound wave so if you measure in a high pressure area the measurement will be lower, but they also increase the level of pressure at the low point of the sound wave by the same amount as they reduce the pressure at the maximum point of the wave. When you damp resonances, which is what acoustic treatments do with room modes, you reduce the pressure at the top of the pressurisation half of the wave cycle and increase the pressure at the peak of the rarefaction half of the pressure cycle equally. That means that if you're sitting in a low pressure area in the room the sound pressure level/meter reading will actually increase with the installation of the acoustic treatment. How much it will increase will depend on just where you're sitting because there is a pressure gradient involved. If you play a test tone at a modal frequency and move around your room while the tone is playing you should see the meter showing an increase and decrease in level as you move around different parts of the room.

So, being able to close the door will definitely produce an increase in the sub's level compared to it's level with the door open. If your acoustic panels are having an effect at bass frequencies they could also have an effect on measurements taken at the listening position with the measurements reducing if the listening position is in a high pressure zone within the room and increasing if it is in a low pressure part of the room where you are effectively sitting in a partial null zone.


----------



## sleepingatsea

I just had the family leave the house for a bit so decided to run a new calibration! I've been having issues with hearing my centre channel properly, even after increasing volume so just wedged it up to further to point towards my ears. Thought a new calibration was in order.

Dual Subs (SVS PB2000) - When I plugged in the mic (Denon X3500H) and Audyssey kicked off, I didn't get the 2 individual subwoofer level matching screen that I recall the first time. It just did the speaker level test for all speakers. Is there a way to get this subwoofer level screen to launch again? It was really handy to get each sub gain-matched before the setup. I had actually had my 2nd sub (rear) set to 180 phase as I recall doing some SPL tests and it was much higher volume on 180. This seemed to throw the Audy level tests off and kept asking me to check phase of other speakers. Once I put this back to 0 phase it all passed fine. 

Final calibration set the subs to -10 & -9.5. I've boosted them 5db and turned on DEQ to -5. Will give this a run for a while but so far sounds good and the centre channel seems much more prominent and easier to hear now. I'll leave the rear sub phase at 0 for now. I really need a proper mic to test SPL individually and play with the phase again. 

From memory, I was playing the intro scene to Ghost in Shell when she shoots through the windows and when I moved the phase from 0, I started to 'feel' the bass in my chest - but SPL dropped slightly. I'll try this scene again with the new settings as a comparison.


----------



## Soulburner

As you found, Audyssey XT32 needs your subs to be set to 0 phase/delay before proceeding to get the best result.

It probably didn't do the level matching because they were already good to go.

I don't recommend changing independent sub phase/delay after the subs are aligned, though. You can adjust both delays ("distances") in the AVR *together* by the same amount to get a better alignment to the speakers, though.


----------



## sleepingatsea

Soulburner said:


> As you found, Audyssey XT32 needs your subs to be set to 0 phase/delay before proceeding to get the best result.
> 
> It probably didn't do the level matching because they were already good to go.
> 
> I don't recommend changing independent sub phase/delay after the subs are aligned, though. You can adjust both delays ("distances") in the AVR *together* by the same amount to get a better alignment to the speakers, though.


Awesome, thanks for confirming! Yep, I'll tweak the distance from 1-4 feet and see what works best. Then should be all good!


----------



## Nordo

Just run MultEQ Editor on my Denon X1500H (7.1 system).
Results look very good using REW.
Listened to some music, and the sound was great (default sound mode was Multi Ch Stereo).
However when I changed to other modes such as DTS Neural:X or any of the Dolby Digial modes, it sounded like I had thrown a heavy blanket over my whole system.

Tried some movies with the same result. 
Over the years I've heard of other people with this problem, but it's the first time I have experienced such a dramatic difference in the various sound modes. 

Any ideas why this is happening?

I mostly watch movies and, as many don't have enhanced sound (DTS, etc.), I usually use Neural:X.
But now that's not an option.


----------



## Soulburner

You should use the default mode for the format. So that's usually Stereo for 2.0 music and whatever format the movie used: Dolby Digital, True HD, DTS-HD, etc. Do you watch a lot of older movies? If so, try the Dolby Surround mode if you have it.


----------



## garygarrison

Nordo said:


> Just run MultEQ Editor on my Denon X1500H (7.1 system).
> Results look very good using REW.
> Listened to some music, and the sound was great (*default sound mode was Multi Ch Stereo*).
> However when I changed to other modes such as DTS Neural:X or any of the Dolby Digial modes, it sounded like I had thrown a heavy blanket over my whole system.
> 
> Tried some movies with the same result.
> 
> Over the years I've heard of other people with this problem, but it's the first time I have experienced such a dramatic difference in the various sound modes.
> 
> 
> Any ideas why this is happening?
> 
> I mostly watch movies and, as many don't have enhanced sound (DTS, etc.), I usually use Neural:X.
> But now that's not an option.





Soulburner said:


> You should use the default mode for the format. So that's usually Stereo for 2.0 music and whatever format the movie used: Dolby Digital, True HD, DTS-HD, etc. Do you watch a lot of *older movies*? If so, try the Dolby Surround mode if you have it.



Mike (mthomas47) convinced me to try PL II *Music* (on Marantz; I don't know what sister company Denon calls it) on some 2 channel *music*. It works really well on some 2 channel (making it into a simulated 5.1 on my 5.1 system), much better than I would have thought, and on other 2 channel music, Stereo seems to work best. So I try both with a music disk.

... I think Dolby Surround for *older movies* has been updated into (Dolby) PL II *Movie* (Pro Logic II *Movie*), at least on Marantz; I'm not sure what Denon calls it. For two channel stereo sources on movies and TV it works well on my setup. It puts the dialog in the center channel where it belongs, but feeds a variable amount of the music and sound effects to the other channels, with some films and not others. It worked well on Downton Abby, which wouldn't have had the dialogue in the center channel otherwise (our soundstage is 14 feet wide, tweeter center to tweeter center, so a phantom center for dialogue is too broad). Some* older movies* made 1953 and later have 4 or 6 channel sound, so when we run them we let our equipment pick the mode, which is often DTS Master HD, or Dolby _True _HD, since they have been remastered to Blu-ray. 

*Mono* older movies are, well, mono. *Criterion* and others put the dialog in the center (sometimes). I think Denon has a special mode for this, so check manual.

Multi Channel *Stereo*, page 118 of your manual, (as opposed to Multi Channel *In*) tends to be  exciting, complex and a few dB louder than the other choices (is that what you are hearing?) because it puts a nearly equal amount of the 2 channels of sound in all 5 or 7 channels -- left into all left speakers, right into all right speakers, and the center an equal mix + sub -- good for a party ... a sonic high.

If your player will do SCAD or DVD-A, try multichannel music from these formats. Your AVR or pre-pro will select Multi Channel *In *(or whatever Denon calls it) for these, with 5 to 7 discrete channels + sub(s). It can be *fantastic!*


----------



## Soulburner

Dolby Surround is the name of the latest (current) Dolby upmixer. It replaced Pro-Logic (those are gone from my X4500H and NAD T758).


----------



## jamesyates

Hi All,

I have two sets of Front speakers in my 7.4.4 system that consists of Kef Q900, Q600, Q150 with 4x monoprice 10inch subs and Magnepan LRS for 2.4 that I also use the subs for. AVR is a Marantz AV7702MK2 and I am considering upgrading so I can use the Audyssey app. Currently only the 7.4.4 system is calibrated As I can only have one calibration saved. The Magnepan LRS and subs are slightly equalized but timing issues with the subs exist.

1. Can the Audyssey App allow Storing of two different calibration? One for the KEFs in Atmos and another for the Magnepan in Stereo. Currently I switch the speakers manually by switching the speaker wires via banana plugs.
2. How well can Audyssey calibrate 4 Subs compared to other products? I only have two sub outputs to work with. Currently running 2x backs 2x front subs.
3. In the newer Marantz is everything still downsampled for Audyssey?

I have a very flat response with Audyssey in the atmos side of my system. Would like to kill Audyssey above the transition Frequency For both sets of speakers.

Thanks for any recommendations.


----------



## Soulburner

1. Yes, the app can store many calibrations.
2. Audyssey calibrates two sub channels. If you have more than 2, you may need a MiniDSP to combine them into 2 channels of 2 subs each.
3. The core of Audyssey hasn't changed as far as we know, so yes.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> Dolby Surround is the name of the latest (current) Dolby upmixer. It replaced Pro-Logic (those are gone from my X4500H and NAD T758).



Sorry, I'm out of date!


----------



## Nordo

garygarrison said:


> Mike (mthomas47) convinced me to try PL II *Music* (on Marantz; I don't know what sister company Denon calls it) on some 2 channel *music*. It works really well on some 2 channel (making it into a simulated 5.1 on my 5.1 system), much better than I would have thought, and on other 2 channel music, Stereo seems to work best. So I try both with a music disk.
> 
> ... I think Dolby Surround for *older movies* has been updated into (Dolby) PL II *Movie* (Pro Logic II *Movie*), at least on Marantz; I'm not sure what Denon calls it. For two channel stereo sources on movies and TV it works well on my setup. It puts the dialog in the center channel where it belongs, but feeds a variable amount of the music and sound effects to the other channels, with some films and not others. It worked well on Downton Abby, which wouldn't have had the dialogue in the center channel otherwise (our soundstage is 14 feet wide, tweeter center to tweeter center, so a phantom center for dialogue is too broad). Some* older movies* made 1953 and later have 4 or 6 channel sound, so when we run them we let our equipment pick the mode, which is often DTS Master HD, or Dolby _True _HD, since they have been remastered to Blu-ray.
> 
> *Mono* older movies are, well, mono. *Criterion* and others put the dialog in the center (sometimes). I think Denon has a special mode for this, so check manual.
> 
> Multi Channel *Stereo*, page 118 of your manual, (as opposed to Multi Channel *In*) tends to be  exciting, complex and a few dB louder than the other choices (is that what you are hearing?) because it puts a nearly equal amount of the 2 channels of sound in all 5 or 7 channels -- left into all left speakers, right into all right speakers, and the center an equal mix + sub -- good for a party ... a sonic high.
> 
> If your player will do SCAD or DVD-A, try multichannel music from these formats. Your AVR or pre-pro will select Multi Channel *In *(or whatever Denon calls it) for these, with 5 to 7 discrete channels + sub(s). It can be *fantastic!*


Hi Gary, thanks for all the useful info. I'll have to try some of the modes you have suggested.
However, my Denon is the 2019 model, and as Soulburner said, it doesn't have any of the Pro Logic or other older sound modes (my old Onkyo used to have the Pro Logic modes, which I used a lot).
The music I was listening to was a Steve Wilson remix of Chicago II. I inadvertently thought it was multi-track (5.1 or 7.1) and was trying to hear all the channels. I now realise I was wrong - it is *stereo*.
Looking at my Denon manual (p241), I think my best Sound Modes are:-
"Stereo" for stereo (It will include my sub)
and "Dolby Surround" for my older or downloaded movies. Although, as you said, "Mono" is also an upmixer which can utilise all available speakers.
Obviously my Blu-Ray discs can use their correct sound mode (Dolby, DTS, etc.)
Most of my movies, music, home videos, etc. I have on my HT computer and using Kodi.
Anything I play through my old Blu-Ray player, I just pass straight through and let the AVR do all the processing.
Cheers


----------



## Nordo

Another question:
After using MultEQ Editor, I have my Centre's trim level set at +6dB. Everything else is 0 or less.
Does this setting effect the power usage in the AVR?
Why I am asking is that I know is not a good thing to try to boost dips, but try to eq your SPL by reducing peaks. 
At normal listening I have plenty in reserve in the volume setting, so I am thinking it might be better to reduce all the speaker trims by 6dB. That would get rid of the +6dB trim, but I would have to increase gain with the AVR's volume control. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Soulburner

It will not because the speakers are calibrated to produce the same SPL (Sound Pressure Level) at any given volume. So that is your indication of power usage.

What you are thinking of doing will result in a net 0. And, your Master Volume will be off from its calibrated level to reference: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314thx-reference-level/


----------



## Nordo

Soulburner said:


> It will not because the speakers are calibrated to produce the same SPL (Sound Pressure Level) at any given volume. So that is your indication of power usage.
> 
> What you are thinking of doing will result in a net 0. And, your Master Volume will be off from its calibrated level to reference: http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/2013314thx-reference-level/


Great article. Explains a lot. 
I know you can set each channel at 75dB manually, but does Audyssey EQ to reference?


----------



## Soulburner

By calibrating to 75 dB at -30 MV with test tones that are -30 dB from reference (105 db).


----------



## platinum00

Quick validation. got my subs where i wanted them and now playing with main xover. Using REW, it looks like 40HZ is the best xover point for my setup but want to confirm I am not looking at this incorrectly. Mains are RP260F.

Below the graphs for 40,80,90,100,250.

250 is pretty good but 40 has a much smoother response across the range.

thoughts?


----------



## senzaparole

Soulburner said:


> Dolby Surround is the name of the latest (current) Dolby upmixer. It replaced Pro-Logic (those are gone from my X4500H and NAD T758).


Hello!
I would like to ask you a question about the Denon upmixer (x3600h or x4500h). To activate the upmixer while watching a movie with 5.1 DTS HD Master audio, what should I select in "SOUND MODE"?
Dolby Surround or Dolby Neural: X to activate my 5.1.4 setup?


----------



## pbz06

senzaparole said:


> Hello!
> I would like to ask you a question about the Denon upmixer (x3600h or x4500h). To activate the upmixer while watching a movie with 5.1 DTS HD Master audio, what should I select in "SOUND MODE"?
> Dolby Surround or Dolby Neural: X to activate my 5.1.4 setup?


You can use either, since they are both upmixers. I personally use Dolby Surround for Dolby content, and Neural X for DTS content. My AVR (Marantz) remembers the setting for each audio signal.


----------



## Nordo

platinum00 said:


> Quick validation. got my subs where i wanted them and now playing with main xover. Using REW, it looks like 40HZ is the best xover point for my setup but want to confirm I am not looking at this incorrectly. Mains are RP260F.
> 
> Below the graphs for 40,80,90,100,250.
> 
> 250 is pretty good but 40 has a much smoother response across the range.
> 
> thoughts?


I think your subs might be interacting with your mains at those higher Xover points.
The THX spec is 80Hz Xover, assuming your mains have their F3 at around 60Hz or lower.
Why not try 80Hz, then alter the sub's distances (6" or 1' max) in the AVR, testing each distance with REW.
Assuming you are happy the the subs integrating with each other, then you would alter the distance of both subs by the same amount.
Also run REW on your subs and make sure the subs have a steep drop-off curve above 120Hz, maybe even starting around 110Hz.
If your mains are set on large, there shouldn't be any information going to the subs beyond 120Hz.


----------



## platinum00

Thanks.. that helped. I keep forgetting to treat the subs as one virtual sub after I have them dialed in. I was adjusting individual distances when tuning xover. Doing them both the same made a difference. I tried removing/adding increments of 1 foot. Adding 4 gave the best results. 

With that said, I still feel 40hz "looks" better. They sound about the same to me at 40 and 80

Red=Original 80
Green=time adjusted 80
Blue=40hz

Any other benefits of 80 over 40. maybe additional headroom. Maybe the sweeps don't show real world and the subs will handle better, etc..

edit: yes subs alone start to drop sharply around ~110hz. Also F3 of the RP260F is ~90-100hz as well although they go to 34hz.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

platinum00 said:


> Thanks.. that helped. I keep forgetting to treat the subs as one virtual sub after I have them dialed in. I was adjusting individual distances when tuning xover. Doing them both the same made a difference. I tried removing/adding increments of 1 foot. Adding 4 gave the best results.
> 
> With that said, I still feel 40hz "looks" better. They sound about the same to me at 40 and 80
> 
> Red=Original 80
> Green=time adjusted 80
> Blue=40hz
> 
> Any other benefits of 80 over 40. maybe additional headroom. Maybe the sweeps don't show real world and the subs will handle better, etc..
> 
> edit: yes subs alone start to drop sharply around ~110hz. Also F3 of the RP260F is ~90-100hz as well although they go to 34hz.


Hi,

40hz is a no go for me IMHO. It's just too low of a crossover not matter how good the FR may look
As @Nordo said 80hz or even 60hz is more ideal, takes the load off the AVR, let's the subs do the heavy lifting and was designed for them frequencies.
The Sub distance tweak can take a while to really fine tune to get the best splice between Mains+Subs

There should be a difference between 40hz and 80hz. 
The 80hz crossover should allow the RP260F to breath a lot more giving better dynamics
Are you using DEQ? as this would make a more audible difference between the two. If not with 80hz or 60hz run the subs a bit hotter and you should hear the difference

Jim


----------



## platinum00

OK.. got it. That makes sense. I will leave at 80 and keep playing with the distance maybe in .1 increments to fine tune.

As a side effect of 80hz on the mains, my center is now a near perfect match to the mains. Should I increase the center by ~+3db so its dead on? When running a test tone, I have them both at 75db so would think they would already be on.

Green=Mains
Brown=Center


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

platinum00 said:


> OK.. got it. That makes sense. I will leave at 80 and keep playing with the distance maybe in .1 increments to fine tune.
> 
> As a side effect of 80hz on the mains, my center is now a near perfect match to the mains. Should I increase the center by ~+3db so its dead on? When running a test tone, I have them both at 75db so would think they would already be on.
> 
> Green=Mains
> Brown=Center


You could do this, won't do any harm. It's crazy how similar the Main and Center with both at 80hz. Take note of those distances you have there now as it looks real good for both. Sometimes we have to sacrifice one to get a better other. In your case the 80hz splice(transition) is very smooth on the Mains and Center, to the point of requiring no tweaking in the sub distance IMO


----------



## platinum00

agree.. I was shocked. I need to run that out to 20khz to see if they stay inline but either way, good for me. Really appreciate the guidance. 

Now the last step (for now) is the dreaded house curve. I already have DEQ on but would like closer to the harman curve if I can get there with only multEQ/RAT/REW.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

platinum00 said:


> agree.. I was shocked. I need to run that out to 20khz to see if they stay inline but either way, good for me. Really appreciate the guidance.
> 
> Now the last step (for now) is the dreaded house curve. I already have DEQ on but would like closer to the harman curve if I can get there with only multEQ/RAT/REW.


No bother buddy, I did say it would be a glitch in the matrix if they both looked the same to 20k


----------



## Soulburner

platinum00 said:


> agree.. I was shocked. I need to run that out to 20khz to see if they stay inline but either way, good for me. Really appreciate the guidance.
> 
> Now the last step (for now) is the dreaded house curve. I already have DEQ on but would like closer to the harman curve if I can get there with only multEQ/RAT/REW.


That last measurement you posted was with DEQ on? Usually I see the slope tilting the other way.


----------



## platinum00

Yes. DEQ on, +4 hot on the sub side after calibration. -9 to -5, and all measurements at -10mv


----------



## platinum00

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> No bother buddy, I did say it would be a glitch in the matrix if they both looked the same to 20k


I ran it just for fun and it quickly scattered after 200hz. :crying:


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

platinum00 said:


> Yes. DEQ on, +4 hot on the sub side after calibration. -9 to -5, and all measurements at -10mv


Yes I thought that DEQ was off in thees measurements and with a +4Db boost in the sub, the graph should be tilting the other way like a house curve or Harman Curve


----------



## mthomas47

Soulburner said:


> That last measurement you posted was with DEQ on? Usually I see the slope tilting the other way.





Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Yes I thought that DEQ was off in thees measurements and with a +4Db boost in the sub, the graph should be tilting the other way like a house curve or Harman Curve





platinum00 said:


> Yes. DEQ on, +4 hot on the sub side after calibration. -9 to -5, and all measurements at -10mv



I think it's a little bit hard to predict this sort of thing, because so much depends on the natural roll-off of the subwoofer, at its specific position in the room. Most ported subs lose a few decibels between about 40Hz and their port tune, and room gain may not kick-in until much lower than that early roll-off. 

At -10 MV, the difference between what DEQ adds at 70Hz, and what it adds at 30Hz and below, is only 2.2dB. So, DEQ wouldn't be adding a lot more to the low-frequencies in this case. And, the +4dB independent sub boost would be symmetrical to all of the frequencies played by the sub(s), so that wouldn't do anything at all with respect to creating a house curve. 

This is one reason that many people like to add their own house curve, either in addition to DEQ, or in place of DEQ. DEQ does help to compensate for the fact that we lose lower bass frequencies, more than other frequencies, as volume levels drop. But, it isn't exactly a house curve in the sense of something directly personalized to a specific individual's hearing or low-bass preferences. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

I guess it depends on your equipment and room size, mostly - so it is a house curve for me. No subs in this measurement.









In a larger room and/or with other equipment you may see different results.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mthomas47 said:


> I think it's a little bit hard to predict this sort of thing, because so much depends on the natural roll-off of the subwoofer, at its specific position in the room. Most ported subs lose a few decibels between about 40Hz and their port tune, and room gain may not kick-in until much lower than that early roll-off.
> 
> At -10 MV, the difference between what DEQ adds at 70Hz, and what it adds at 30Hz and below, is only 2.2dB. So, DEQ wouldn't be adding a lot more to the low-frequencies in this case. And, the +4dB independent sub boost would be symmetrical to all of the frequencies played by the sub(s), so that wouldn't do anything at all with respect to creating a house curve.
> 
> This is one reason that many people like to add their own house curve, either in addition to DEQ, or in place of DEQ. DEQ does help to compensate for the fact that we lose lower bass frequencies, more than other frequencies, as volume levels drop. But, it isn't exactly a house curve in the sense of something directly personalized to a specific individual's hearing or low-bass preferences.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hi Mike,

Yes -10 wouldn't be far off reference for DEQ to give a larger boost in bass, I lack your attention to the details . Good news for the OP so 

Jim


----------



## ThePrisoner

The back of my headrest to my loveseat is about 13" from my back wall. Should I even take the last 2 measurements back there? I did in my first two calibrations but am thinking maybe I should keep measuring in front of the seats instead.


----------



## garygarrison

ThePrisoner said:


> The back of my headrest to my loveseat is about 13" from my back wall. Should I even take the last 2 measurements back there? I did in my first two calibrations but am thinking maybe I should keep measuring in front of the seats instead.



I'd say (just a quasi-educated guess -- try it and see)*:*



Put an absorber behind your heads on the back wall.
Then run Audyssey with no measurements behind you.
Do use 8 positions, just don't take any behind you
Also, before doing anything, look this up in Mike's guide*: 
*


* GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement. *


----------



## bbecker4

*Center channel room correction help*

I'm having a really difficult time getting decent dialog from my center channel. I have a denon x2500h and wharfdale diamond 11 series speakers. Center and mains crossed over at 60hz to an sb2000. I do not think placement is an issue, I'm following just about every rule I can find online and the fellas over in the speaker forum for the most part think my placement is okay. 

The loss of intelligibility is definitely in the lower frequencies. I get a very muffled/resonant sound in the low end of male and female voices. It was recommended that I try a different center with a better reputation for clear dialog so i tried the polk lsim 703c. Unfortunately my results were almost the exact same. 

I wanted to get an idea of what the room correction software was doing so i went ahead and copied the flat room correction curve into the manual EQ. I noticed that it lowered the 68 and 120hz regions about 3 decibels. With some experimentation I found that I was able to significantly improve the dialog by reducing those frequencies further anywhere between -7 to -12db. My impression from this is that audyssey is failing to reduce those frequencies enough to get clear dialog. There is a huge sort of mid bass boom muddying things up real bad. 



My problem now is that I'm having trouble relying on my ears for the manual EQ. Lower these two frequencies too much and i lose depth in the lower ends of the voice which sort of removes an important dramatic effect. Don't lower it enough and the muffled/resonant sound comes back. Settings that seem decent for one show might not be adequate for another and vice versa. 

I guess I'm wondering what options I have? Audyssey isn't helping. Manual EQ to taste certainly does help...i'd say it solves about 80% of the problem, but I'm left wondering if I'm hearing things the way they are supposed to sound. Did i take out too much deep end, did i not take out enough, etc?

Options? Would it be worth using REW to EQ the center channel? If audyssey gets it this wrong would REW be any better? Even if i used REW, I would be limited to the 9 adjustments on the denon manual EQ. And really only 2-3 of those adjustments are in my problem region. I'm worried that the fine tuning necessary wouldn't be there?

Any advice would be much appreciated.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@bbecker4

Hey Buddy

To help you out we would need more info.
1) Crossover for all speakers
2) DEQ On or Off
3) Reference or Flat or Multi EQ Off (To use the manaual EQ you must have Multi EQ off) But do Flat and Reference give the same issue
4) If you are using the Multi EQ App, a graph of the center and the sub would be useful
5) Image of your setup can help

There can be many variable to not having clear dialogue, such as Mic measurement points for calibration, high crossover's on the surround can drown out the front stage, bad mixing on the movie itself, speaker positions. List can go on
So the more information of the setup and the settings been used the better help we can give you.

Jim


----------



## CommanderROR

DynamicEQ would have been my first suspicion. Either through over enthusiastic bass boost, or from the boost to Surround channels that can drown out the front stage.
The second suspect would be a Center Channel with Bass reflex ports at the back placed in a cabinet or too close to the wall.
If it's the second, simply blocking the Reflex Ports with some socks wrapped in cling foil and then remeasuring would be my idea. Making sure the Center isn't too close to the floor and is (if possible) angled slightly towards the Main Listening Spot would also be sound advice.

Edit: Just looked up your Center, and it is only rated down to 85Hz, so running the Crossover at 60 is likely a problem. Try setting it to 80 or even 100 for the Center and try again.


----------



## Soulburner

I've also experienced a loss of clarity in vocals when there is a 60 Hz bloom. It's a tough balancing act, but in my setup, I have never had Dynamic EQ affect speech clarity, or at least not in any amount that I have noticed. I don't have a center speaker and rely on a phantom image. Not sure if that makes a difference.


----------



## bbecker4

CommanderROR said:


> DynamicEQ would have been my first suspicion. Either through over enthusiastic bass boost, or from the boost to Surround channels that can drown out the front stage.
> The second suspect would be a Center Channel with Bass reflex ports at the back placed in a cabinet or too close to the wall.
> If it's the second, simply blocking the Reflex Ports with some socks wrapped in cling foil and then remeasuring would be my idea. Making sure the Center isn't too close to the floor and is (if possible) angled slightly towards the Main Listening Spot would also be sound advice.
> 
> Edit: Just looked up your Center, and it is only rated down to 85Hz, so running the Crossover at 60 is likely a problem. Try setting it to 80 or even 100 for the Center and try again.


Appreciate the quick response!

Sorry I should have specified by center is the 11.cs which if i'm not mistaken is rated down to 65. With that being said I've tried every crossover and I only see improvement when i go up to about 120hz and above. The problem when I do this though is that the lower frequency goes to the subwoofer, and i have a few db of boost at the sub. It results in a similar muffled sound, now just from the sub as opposed to the center. 

I don't think the problem is dynamic EQ, as i have pretty much the exact same results with audyssey eq fully turned on or off. Any combination of the eq like flat/reference with and without the dynamic EQ all cause the same problem. The only thing that helps is going into the manual EQ and dropping the 68 and 120hz area down by 7-12db

As fas as ports go the, the diamond 11.cs is down-ported. It comes pre-plugged from wharfdale. The polk LSIM 703c that I also tried has 2 rear ports, however, they have the cone shaped structure behind them I believe to help with the bass boost form the behind wall. Neither of these speakers were any different with EQ on/off and with all of the possible combinations. Again only saw improvement when i dropped the 68 and 120hz area down by 7-12db.

As far as distance to the wall goes I'm about 10-12 inches away. I even pulled the stand out another 4 inches to see if 16 would help and there was no noticeable improvement unfortunately. 




Jimmy2Shoes said:


> @bbecker4
> 
> Hey Buddy
> 
> To help you out we would need more info.
> 1) Crossover for all speakers
> 2) DEQ On or Off
> 3) Reference or Flat or Multi EQ Off (To use the manaual EQ you must have Multi EQ off) But do Flat and Reference give the same issue
> 4) If you are using the Multi EQ App, a graph of the center and the sub would be useful
> 5) Image of your setup can help
> 
> There can be many variable to not having clear dialogue, such as Mic measurement points for calibration, high crossover's on the surround can drown out the front stage, bad mixing on the movie itself, speaker positions. List can go on
> So the more information of the setup and the settings been used the better help we can give you.
> 
> Jim


Also appreciate the fast response!

LCR are all crossed over at 60hz. No other surround setup. I've tried both center speakers (the polk lsim and the wharfdale) with every combo of flat/reference, DEQ on/off, and no EQ at all. While the sound signature does change some, I am not able to tell any significant difference with respect to the muffled/resonant low pitch voices. 

Pictures of the setup and EQ from the denon should be attached. The EQ you are seeing is for the center. It is the EQ after i "copied" over the audyssey "flat" curve AND then further reduced the the 63 and 125hz frequencies. The flat curve only had them reduced around 2-3db. I have seen the most improvement by reducing them by 8-12ish. With that being said still feels like theres significant room for improvement. 

Not sure about the multiEQ app. I have the denon app but i cant find any EQ graphs on that. Ill do a google search see what i'm missing!


----------



## pbz06

@bbecker4

For the sake of troubleshooting, can you elaborate if issue arises only after using Audyssey? or it's there and Audyssey makes it worse? Or is it perfectly fine when Audyssey is disabled?

Also, what sources? All movies? Specific movies or shows? Streaming or disc? etc.

the more info the better. I must say that to me Amazon movies/shows sound a little more harsher than Netflix (especially when comparing to Netflix Originals which seem to have much better quality than competing services).


----------



## Soulburner

Is it possible that the output of your sub(s) at 60 and 120 Hz is interacting with your center speaker at those frequencies resulting in boosts and/or cancellations?

This could happen if the sub and center are 5 feet apart = you'd have interactions at (1130/5)/2=*113 Hz* and /4=*56 Hz*

A measurement of Subs + Center would reveal the issue


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@bbecker4

Okay first thing I noticed is the center speaker is on a wooden cabinet that is pretty bare underneath so I would imagine by knocking on the counter it would sound pretty hollow. So it's best to try isolate the center speaker from the cabinet either through isolation pads or something similar. I have a a RP504c which is a pretty big speaker so I used stacked yoga mats cut to size to isolate mine.(not suggesting you do the same just a idea) It really makes a big difference IMHO

60hz is maybe a bit low for the center, might be okay for the fronts but you could try a little higher.
The idea is not only to feed more information to the sub, but also to free up the speakers from the heavy lifting and allow them to sound more dynamic, which may help in the dialogue area

Using the Graphics EQ is doable, I don't use it much myself but you would want to know what you are correcting

Personally I would ditch the idea, perhaps trying to re calibrate audyssey making sure the mic is on axis with the speakers with looks to be close to the sitting position of the MLP, Getting a good calibration can make all the difference

If you can get the Multi EQ App on the x2500h, I recommend getting it, this might help in future decisions on speaker placement and sub placement which BTW could also be culprit as well.

Jim


----------



## bbecker4

pbz06 said:


> @bbecker4
> 
> For the sake of troubleshooting, can you elaborate if issue arises only after using Audyssey? or it's there and Audyssey makes it worse? Or is it perfectly fine when Audyssey is disabled?
> 
> Also, what sources? All movies? Specific movies or shows? Streaming or disc? etc.
> 
> the more info the better. I must say that to me Amazon movies/shows sound a little more harsher than Netflix (especially when comparing to Netflix Originals which seem to have much better quality than competing services).


The problem is always there unless I reduce the 60 and 120hz frequencies in the manual EQ by 7-12db. Audyssey does not audibly seem to help (in any combination dynamic EQ, flat, reference etc), nor does it seem to hurt. Based off the "flat" curve I copied over it would appear as though audyssey does reduce the 60 and 120hz regions by 2-3db. I would expect that to help, however, I do not think it was enough to make an audible difference. 

I've noticed the problems on netfilx and amazon streaming through the TV via the ARC attached to the denon. It't not every program, just programs with deeper male and female voices. Ozark and better call saul are two pretty bad ones off the top of my head. 



Soulburner said:


> Is it possible that the output of your sub(s) at 60 and 120 Hz is interacting with your center speaker at those frequencies resulting in boosts and/or cancellations?
> 
> This could happen if the sub and center are 5 feet apart = you'd have interactions at (1130/5)/2=*113 Hz* and /4=*56 Hz*
> 
> A measurement of Subs + Center would reveal the issue


That's super interesting. The only thing i feel like I should add is that the problem is there even when the subwoofer is fully turned off. I'll definitely look into it but to me this indicates there's still a problem prior to any interaction between the two? 



Jimmy2Shoes said:


> @bbecker4
> 
> Okay first thing I noticed is the center speaker is on a wooden cabinet that is pretty bare underneath so I would imagine by knocking on the counter it would sound pretty hollow. So it's best to try isolate the center speaker from the cabinet either through isolation pads or something similar. I have a a RP504c which is a pretty big so I used stacked yoga mats cut to size to isolate mine.(not suggesting you do the same just a idea) It really makes a big difference IMHO
> 
> 60hz is maybe a bit low for the center, might be okay for the fronts but you could try a little higher.
> The idea is not only to feed more information to the sub, but also to free up the speakers from the heavy lifting and allow them to sound more dynamic, which may help in the dialogue area
> 
> Using the Graphics EQ is doable, I don't use it much myself but you would want to know what you are correcting
> 
> Personally I would ditch the idea, perhaps trying to re calibrate audyssey making sure the mic is on axis with the speakers with looks to be close to the sitting position of the MLP, Getting a good calibration can make all the difference
> 
> If you can get the Multi EQ App on the x2500h, I recommend getting it, this might help in future decisions on speaker placement and sub placement which BTW could also be culprit as well.
> 
> Jim


I had similar thought on the cabinet. I did a crude test where I actually just held the center channel in my hands to see if there was any obvious resonance that could be attributed to the stand. Unfortunately lifting it made no difference. I'm certainly not saying that this "test" proves anything or that the cabinet still isn't worth addressing. Just thought it might indicate that maybe the stand isn't the primary problem. With that being said I'll definitely try out some isolation pads. 

also glad to try 80hz crossover. I tried various crossovers earlier and the improvement was relatively small until I got up to the 110-120 range (but then too much voice was coming from the sub when i had the sub turned on). With that being said I'll still give 80 a go even if its just to help with overall sound. 

Agreed, really would like to avoid graphics EQ, although it is BY FAR the best result i have had thus far even after nearly a few dozen attempts with audyssey. I'll do some research on the multieq app hopefully it might help!


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@bbecker4

Also if this is movie related, go to the speaker settings and turn the LPF for LFE to 80hz, Also go to your sub and change the Crossover Knob to 80hz instead of LFE. And set the speakers to 80hz for all. This is called cascading crossover and may help.

And maybe describe again in detail what areas in the dialogue that you have problems with?

Have you tried turning up the gain on the center?


----------



## bbecker4

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> @bbecker4
> 
> Also if this is movie related, go to the speaker settings and turn the LPF for LFE to 80hz, Also go to your sub and change the Crossover Knob to 80hz instead of LFE. And set the speakers to 80hz for all. This is called cascading crossover and may help.
> 
> And maybe describe again in detail what areas in the dialogue that you have problems with?
> 
> Have you tried turning up the gain on the center?


I'll definitely give that a go. MultEQ works with my receiver, I think I'll give that a go as well. Hopefully it turns something up. 

It just sounds like the lower frequency aspects of both male and female voices resonate throughout the entire room, creating a sort of muffled sound. It's bad enough that some actor/actresses are unable to be understood (especially if there's an accent present). Again when I turn down the 60 and 120hz region it seems to make the resonance/muffled sound go away. Turn it down too far though and certain voices become much less deep. 

I guess the easiest way to describe it is excess bass in deeper voices. Goona take a look at the curves on the app tonight, hopefully it shows some sort of peak in that region. Suppose a fairly large peak does exist... Will the app help manage it better than the receiver did on its own? Or will it just apply the same curve with the same final result?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

bbecker4 said:


> I'll definitely give that a go. MultEQ works with my receiver, I think I'll give that a go as well. Hopefully it turns something up.
> 
> It just sounds like the lower frequency aspects of both male and female voices resonate throughout the entire room, creating a sort of muffled sound. It's bad enough that some actor/actresses are unable to be understood (especially if there's an accent present). Again when I turn down the 60 and 120hz region it seems to make the resonance/muffled sound go away. Turn it down too far though and certain voices become much less deep.
> 
> I guess the easiest way to describe it is excess bass in deeper voices. Goona take a look at the curves on the app tonight, hopefully it shows some sort of peak in that region. Suppose a fairly large peak does exist... Will the app help manage it better than the receiver did on its own? Or will it just apply the same curve with the same final result?


Hi,

With the app, it won't change the calibration any way, put will give you more options to do post-calibration, plus the graphs are very handy. It's well worth the purchase
You can also try to isolate whether the sub or the speakers are at fault here. I know you said before that you turned off the sub but did you run the speakers as full-range(large), as turning off the sub with crossovers(small) on the speakers is not the same
Anyway wait till you get the App and have deeper look. 
With the App you have to run a new calibration, you can't use the one on the AVR

All the best
Jim


----------



## garygarrison

*bbecker4:*

Is your Center (and Mains, too) set on SMALL? IMO, they SHOULD be, especially the center, to avoid interactions, phase problems, and to reduce modulation distortion, especially in your smallish center. Modulation distortion causes both *lack of clarity (e.g., blurriness)* and some *unpleasant (often discordant)* sounds. To avoid it, the speaker should move in and out as shallowly as possible (subwoofers are considered an exception by most people). This is partly due to Doppler effect, with the midrange riding back and forth on a moving speaker cone that does so to make bass (and bass distortion). What happens is that mostly harmonically unrelated sidebands are formed by 2 or more tones that are *meant* to be there in the music within the used range of that speaker. In testing, people use two tones*;* in music or movies, of course, there are zillions of tones occurring simultaneously. 


Turn up center channel volume a few dB. Ours is up 2 dB for most dialog and up about 3-4 dB for Cockney, and some other British dialects. _Forget_ Train Spotting.
 Speakers 5" in diameter should probably be crossed over higher than 60 Hz, i.e., 80Hz, 100 Hz, or even higher. This should increase dialog clarity. What is the crossover Audyssey recommends in your case? If you are lucky, most voices in your movies will taper off below 100. The *fundamental* (generally the lowest) frequencies of male dialog range from about 85 to 180 Hz, with overtones all the way up to the top (sibilance and overtones to 20K Hz) and that of female dialog from 165 to 255 Hz, with overtones and sibilance to the top.
 Your center is rated down to 65 Hz, but manufacturers -- even good ones -- are prone to exaggeration. I love the comment an in-house company engineer once made to me, "I sometimes have trouble with our PR Department."
Unless Denon/Marantz have changed their "Copy" function, it really doesn't copy very well. It uses_ just a few center points, (8 or 9?)_ and "dry labs" the rest of the spectrum. If you leave it on Audyssey itself,_* hundreds*_ of points can be used in XT, and, I think, someone will know, _*a few thousand*_ areas in XT32. If I were you, I'd hold out for a good result with Audyssey after tweaking, and ditch the "Copy" and the Manual EQ.
I'd think Audyssey Flat would produce clearer sound from the center, but with this, and everything, experiment!


----------



## Soulburner

bbecker4 said:


> I'll definitely give that a go. MultEQ works with my receiver, I think I'll give that a go as well. Hopefully it turns something up.
> 
> It just sounds like the lower frequency aspects of both male and female voices resonate throughout the entire room, creating a sort of muffled sound. It's bad enough that some actor/actresses are unable to be understood (especially if there's an accent present). Again when I turn down the 60 and 120hz region it seems to make the resonance/muffled sound go away. Turn it down too far though and certain voices become much less deep.
> 
> I guess the easiest way to describe it is excess bass in deeper voices. Goona take a look at the curves on the app tonight, hopefully it shows some sort of peak in that region. Suppose a fairly large peak does exist... Will the app help manage it better than the receiver did on its own? Or will it just apply the same curve with the same final result?


Do you have the ability to adjust the filter slope of your subwoofer? For example, some subwoofers have the ability to choose a 12 dB or 24 dB per octave upper roll off. It's possible that rolling off the sub faster would prevent voices from being played by it. Remember, 12 dB per octave with an 80 Hz crossover means the level of your sub is only down 12 dB by 160 Hz, and 24 dB by 320 Hz. It's still playing that content, just quieter. So if you're listening at 85 dB, your sub is playing content at 320 Hz at 61 dB.

Just something to try...


----------



## OldSenileGuy

Hoping to get some guidance here since while I know a ton about video, I know very little about audio. 

tl;dr version - After getting my new Denon S750H and running Audyssey, I'm still finding a lot of the content I'm watching to sound kind of muffled. it's mostly dialogue that sounds muffled, what are some things I can try to alleviate this?

Longer version - I had an old Pioneer Receiver for a decade and everything was fine. Then it died and I upgraded to this Denon S750H. It sounds great when I'm listening to stereo audio, but any movies or TV I watch with surround sound sound a bit muffled. It's not so bad as to be obviously wrong to a casual viewer/listener, but I've had these speakers for a long time and I know what doesn't sound right. 

I mostly hear it in the center channel, and I was able to alleviate the issue a bit by boosting the center channel volume, but really I think it just sounded louder and muffled. 

When I first got the receiver I ran The Audyssey setup and that was it - I didn't change any settings after that. The only setting I eventually changed was bumping up the center channel to +10dB using the "Ch Level Adjust" menu. That seemed a bit high to me but it helped. Then today when I was poking around in the deeper menus, I found a menu for "Center Level" in the Audio settings. That had already been set to -6.0dB. I never set that - was that set automatically by Audyssey? 

I tried resetting that to 0dB and then changing the "Ch Level Adjust" center channel adjustment to +4.0dB, but I haven't watched enough material to tell if it made a difference yet. Was that a good thing to try, or did I just screw up the Audyssey calibration by zeroing out that Center Level in the settings?


----------



## platinum00

Audyssey tries to get the levels of your speakers all level matched so the -6db is probally right. Although it does get it wrong sometimes.

Check a few things.

1. Set that level back to -6.
2. Change your speakers sizes to small and your crossovers to 80hz.

Does it sound any better?

If not, turn off audyssey and see how it sounds. Typically under audio/audyssey. set x32 to off.

Sound any better?

If not, download a SPL meter app on your phone. Go into the speaker levels (where you saw the -6 on the center). Play a test tone, and make sure your left, right and center are all playing at a similar db. +/- 1 is fine.. doesn't need to be perfect. You don't want your left at 75db and your center at 65db. Adjust the levels to get them to match.

Any difference?

Assuming since you said it sounded ok with the pioneer that the center is in the same spot and angled toward the main listening position?





Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bbecker4

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hi,
> 
> With the app, it won't change the calibration any way, put will give you more options to do post-calibration, plus the graphs are very handy. It's well worth the purchase
> You can also try to isolate whether the sub or the speakers are at fault here. I know you said before that you turned off the sub but did you run the speakers as full-range(large), as turning off the sub with crossovers(small) on the speakers is not the same
> Anyway wait till you get the App and have deeper look.
> With the App you have to run a new calibration, you can't use the one on the AVR
> 
> All the best
> Jim


I tried running them full range with the sub off and the center was definitely a problem. I also tried running it small at various crossovers with the sub off. Once I increased the crossover to around 110hz the resonance/muffled sound seemed to improve. The higher I raised it the better it got, but of-course at some point I began to lose too much bass from the voices. 

Went ahead and downloaded the app. The curve of the center is attached below. The "after" is only after audyssey correction, I hadn't yet made any further adjustments with the curve editor. It looks to me that even after room correction there might be some 5-7db peaks in the 60-500hz range? Possibly contributing to the problems i'm having?

Is it correct that the "after" curves are only predictions made by audyssey? If so are these usually pretty accurate? It doesn't look like you can take another measurement of the room post calibration with the app or am I missing something? 




garygarrison said:


> *bbecker4:*
> 
> Is your Center (and Mains, too) set on SMALL? IMO, they SHOULD be, especially the center, to avoid interactions, phase problems, and to reduce modulation distortion, especially in your smallish center. Modulation distortion causes both *lack of clarity (e.g., blurriness)* and some *unpleasant (often discordant)* sounds. To avoid it, the speaker should move in and out as shallowly as possible (subwoofers are considered an exception by most people). This is partly due to Doppler effect, with the midrange riding back and forth on a moving speaker cone that does so to make bass (and bass distortion). What happens is that mostly harmonically unrelated sidebands are formed by 2 or more tones that are *meant* to be there in the music within the used range of that speaker. In testing, people use two tones*;* in music or movies, of course, there are zillions of tones occurring simultaneously.
> 
> 
> Turn up center channel volume a few dB. Ours is up 2 dB for most dialog and up about 3-4 dB for Cockney, and some other British dialects. _Forget_ Train Spotting.
> Speakers 5" in diameter should probably be crossed over higher than 60 Hz, i.e., 80Hz, 100 Hz, or even higher. This should increase dialog clarity. What is the crossover Audyssey recommends in your case? If you are lucky, most voices in your movies will taper off below 100. The *fundamental* (generally the lowest) frequencies of male dialog range from about 85 to 180 Hz, with overtones all the way up to the top (sibilance and overtones to 20K Hz) and that of female dialog from 165 to 255 Hz, with overtones and sibilance to the top.
> Your center is rated down to 65 Hz, but manufacturers -- even good ones -- are prone to exaggeration. I love the comment an in-house company engineer once made to me, "I sometimes have trouble with our PR Department."
> Unless Denon/Marantz have changed their "Copy" function, it really doesn't copy very well. It uses_ just a few center points, (8 or 9?)_ and "dry labs" the rest of the spectrum. If you leave it on Audyssey itself,_* hundreds*_ of points can be used in XT, and, I think, someone will know, _*a few thousand*_ areas in XT32. If I were you, I'd hold out for a good result with Audyssey after tweaking, and ditch the "Copy" and the Manual EQ.
> I'd think Audyssey Flat would produce clearer sound from the center, but with this, and everything, experiment!


Appreciate the info, all very interesting. All of the speakers are set to small. Audyssey recommended a 60hz crossover for the center but i've recently been using 80. I do notice improvement in clarity form the center when increasing the crossover to around 110 and up. BUT when I do this I get a similar sort of muffled sound from the low voices now coming from the sub. I'd be happy to raise the crossover if it might help but anyway to resolve voices bleeding through to the sub?

Would certainly like to avoid the manualEQ as well but so far its produced the best results


----------



## garygarrison

*bbecker4:*


In the graph of predicted response after Audyssey calibration, I see no correction above 700 Hz or so. Is that intentional?


----------



## sjm817

Audioholics did a segment on speech intelligibility. There is a section where they discuss Audyssey/room correction/bass boost/center boost and the MRC dip starting at 43:00 or so


----------



## Pandaman617

I’ve had an x3300w for a couple years now with my mains being Mirage Omni 260’s (I alternate between those and either OM10’s or OM-7’s), a Mirage OM-C2 for Center, Omnisat V2’s for surrounds and Mirage MX sats for top middle. My mains and center are crossed over at 80hz with the surrounds at 120hz and the top middles at 250hz. I usually run with DEQ off and Dynamic Volume off along with Reference Multi EQ limited to 500hz in the Audyssey app. My subs are a mess with a Wharfedale SW250 10” sealed sub, a Cambridge Soundworks Basscube 12 sealed sub, a Def Tech ProSub 800 and a silly little Mirage MM6 “sub”. After a ton of placement experimentation and level matching I actually got all 4 of them sounding great to my ear. I know it’s subjective and there’s way better subs out there but I’m saving up for a pair of SVS’s and while I’m about half way to my goal I tried to make due with what I have here’s a screenshot. I’ve got REW graphs and I’ll post them later


----------



## monstosity12

I asked this in the denon x6500h but was told might get better luck here. 

Have denon x6500h with multieq xt32. 
Before running audyssey it has an option to select into option “Dolby speaker setup” where you setup how high Dolby enabled speaker is to the ceiling

Question - is this directly above the speaker to ceiling or at the angle the speaker is going to ceiling? I’m sure it directly vertical height 

Question #2 - I have a slanted ceiling; I know not perfect for Dolby enabled speakers but best I can do. I only have an option to change the fronts Dolby and back Dolby. Not each one independently. My front left is 4 ft from ceiling and Front right is 5ft from ceiling. Should I set the front Dolby to the 4 or 5 foot. Or should I meet in the middle. Back Dolby is the same btw. 

Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

monstosity12 said:


> Question #2 - I have a slanted ceiling; I know not perfect for Dolby enabled speakers but best I can do. I only have an option to change the fronts Dolby and back Dolby. Not each one independently. My front left is 4 ft from ceiling and Front right is 5ft from ceiling. Should I set the front Dolby to the 4 or 5 foot. Or should I meet in the middle. Back Dolby is the same btw.
> 
> Thanks



First, *try* setting it to "meet in the middle," and see if it works well enough for you. Try it for every seat in your theater.

If that does not work well enough for you, _*perhaps*_ continuously variable _*T-pads *_or _*L-pads *_could be installed to act as volume controls for your Atmos speakers in the ceiling (they are in the ceiling, aren't they ... or are they the kind that are down below, aimed to bounce sound off the ceiling?). These controls would be of the "set it and forget it" type, but it might take quite a while to adjust them with test noises and a) your ears, and b) REW.


_*Someone with more knowledge of electronics than I have*_ could tell you whether it would be best to use _*T*_, _*L*_, or _*other*_, and how heavy duty they would need to be, given the airplanes that fly over in our movies, let alone "bombs bursting in air." Is this arrangement safe for the amplifier? I think so, but don't know for sure. I've usually seen these pads on tweeters or mids, not full range.


----------



## monstosity12

garygarrison said:


> First, *try* setting it to "meet in the middle," and see if it works well enough for you. Try it for every seat in your theater.
> 
> If that does not work well enough for you, _*perhaps*_ continuously variable _*T-pads *_or _*L-pads *_could be installed to act as volume controls for your Atmos speakers in the ceiling (they are in the ceiling, aren't they ... or are they the kind that are down below, aimed to bounce sound off the ceiling?). These controls would be of the "set it and forget it" type, but it might take quite a while to adjust them with test noises and a) your ears, and b) REW.
> 
> 
> _*Someone with more knowledge of electronics than I have*_ could tell you whether it would be best to use _*T*_, _*L*_, or _*other*_, and how heavy duty they would need to be, given the airplanes that fly over in our movies, let alone "bombs bursting in air." Is this arrangement safe for the amplifier? I think so, but don't know for sure. I've usually seen these pads on tweeters or mids, not full range.



Thanks for your reply. 

Yes they are the ones that bounce off the ceiling. Klipsch 8060fa speakers fronts and rear surrounds. 

Should I still try to meet in middle.


----------



## garygarrison

monstosity12 said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> Yes they are the ones that bounce off the ceiling. Klipsch 8060fa speakers fronts and rear surrounds.
> 
> Should I still try to meet in middle.



It's worth a try.


----------



## Alan P

Yikes. None of the links in the first post are working. Seems to be the norm across the forum after the upgrade. Here's hoping they all get fixed in short order!


----------



## monstosity12

monstosity12 said:


> I asked this in the denon x6500h but was told might get better luck here.
> 
> Have denon x6500h with multieq xt32.
> Before running audyssey it has an option to select into option “Dolby speaker setup” where you setup how high Dolby enabled speaker is to the ceiling
> 
> *Question #1 - is this directly above the speaker to ceiling or at the angle the speaker is going to ceiling? I’m sure it directly vertical height*
> 
> *Question #2 - I have a slanted ceiling; I know not perfect for Dolby enabled speakers but best I can do. I only have an option to change the fronts Dolby and back Dolby. Not each one independently. My front left is 4 ft from ceiling and Front right is 5ft from ceiling. Should I set the front Dolby to the 4 or 5 foot. Or should I meet in the middle. Back Dolby is the same btw.*
> 
> Thanks


just got a message back from Denon. I thought I would share what their input is with the questions I had asked. Questions I asked are marked in bold with my previous question above. 

Question #1.) Measure directly upwards to the ceiling, since that's where the audio is going to be directed to from the speaker - unless your speakers are at an angle, in which case, follow that angle.

Question #2.) If we're talking about a matter of inches and not feet, it shouldn't matter or have an impact during the calibration.


----------



## RafaelSmith

Have odd problem that I have not encountered before with my latest Audyssey cal.

I did a new cal using MultiEQ app......as usual...sent it to the AVR (Denon x4400h)....all seemed ok....but as usual I forgot that it defaulted to Reference so I went and switched it to FLAT.

Then all the sudden...no sound...at first I thought my current input device had a problem so I switch to another input....sure enough I had sound....back to original...no sound....then I said..hmm..forgot that FLAT/Reference setting is per input....switch the 2nd input to FLAT....and bam no sound.

So basically...if I select FLAT everything is muted?


----------



## jake51

I get my Marantz with Audyssey tomorrow
I only have one recliner in my home cinema
Do I need to do more than three mic positions?


----------



## Soulburner

Not sure


RafaelSmith said:


> Have odd problem that I have not encountered before with my latest Audyssey cal.
> 
> I did a new cal using MultiEQ app......as usual...sent it to the AVR (Denon x4400h)....all seemed ok....but as usual I forgot that it defaulted to Reference so I went and switched it to FLAT.
> 
> Then all the sudden...no sound...at first I thought my current input device had a problem so I switch to another input....sure enough I had sound....back to original...no sound....then I said..hmm..forgot that FLAT/Reference setting is per input....switch the 2nd input to FLAT....and bam no sound.
> 
> So basically...if I select FLAT everything is muted?


Not sure why, but flat will ignore your MultEQ app settings, so Reference is recommended.


----------



## RafaelSmith

Soulburner said:


> Not sure
> 
> Not sure why, but flat will ignore your MultEQ app settings, so Reference is recommended.


I understand that...but in this "FLAT" case it completely mutes everything. First time its happened and I have done many Audyssey calibrations. I might just need to redo ...maybe file got corrupted or something when sent to AVR.


----------



## Alan P

jake51 said:


> I get my Marantz with Audyssey tomorrow
> I only have one recliner in my home cinema
> Do I need to do more than three mic positions?


In order for Audyssey to have all the information it needs, it is recommended to always do all 8 mic positions.

That being said, I have been using only 3 mic positions for years. In my experience in my room I have found little to no difference to my ears between 3 positions and the "Full Monty".


----------



## Alan P

RafaelSmith said:


> I understand that...but in this "FLAT" case it completely mutes everything. First time its happened and I have done many Audyssey calibrations. I might just need to redo ...maybe file got corrupted or something when sent to AVR.


That is odd and I have no suggestions for you. I just wanted to make sure that you know that any changes you make in the Audyssey app as far as limiting the range of correction or custom curves are _only_ applied to the Reference curve.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

RafaelSmith said:


> Have odd problem that I have not encountered before with my latest Audyssey cal.
> 
> I did a new cal using MultiEQ app......as usual...sent it to the AVR (Denon x4400h)....all seemed ok....but as usual I forgot that it defaulted to Reference so I went and switched it to FLAT.
> 
> Then all the sudden...no sound...at first I thought my current input device had a problem so I switch to another input....sure enough I had sound....back to original...no sound....then I said..hmm..forgot that FLAT/Reference setting is per input....switch the 2nd input to FLAT....and bam no sound.
> 
> So basically...if I select FLAT everything is muted?


I've had this once or twice...just resend the file to the AVR. If you are even more paranoid, make sure Audyssey is set to reference in the menu, resend the curve, and then change to flat. Good luck!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## VBB

RafaelSmith said:


> I understand that...but in this "FLAT" case it completely mutes everything. First time its happened and I have done many Audyssey calibrations. I might just need to redo ...maybe file got corrupted or something when sent to AVR.


This is a bug in the app, that can happen randomly. When it does happen, and you get no sound with FLAT, you need to re-do the upload of the curves. No way around it.


----------



## RafaelSmith

VBB said:


> This is a bug in the app, that can happen randomly. When it does happen, and you get no sound with FLAT, you need to re-do the upload of the curves. No way around it.


Thanks.


----------



## IMWhizzle

Noob question alert:

Does Audyssey downsamples to 48khz on my Marantz 7011 when playing a Multichannel, high resolution audio files or Stereo SACD? If so, doesn't it defeat the purpose of high resolution audio? Can't find more information about this.

Also, the Blu-ray concert of Celine Dion is with 96khz audio. Will I lose information when enabling Audyssey?


----------



## mogorf

IMWhizzle said:


> Noob question alert:
> 
> Does Audyssey downsamples to 48khz on my Marantz 7011 when playing a Multichannel, high resolution audio files or Stereo SACD? If so, doesn't it defeat the purpose of high resolution audio? Can't find more information about this.
> 
> Also, the Blu-ray concert of Celine Dion is with 96khz audio. Will I lose information when enabling Audyssey?


This is what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) says on FB Audyssey Tech Talk forum: "Well it's not an Audyssey rule... it takes 2x to 4x more processing to run any digital algorithm at these high sampling rates. The AVR makers have to decide whether to add this processing as it comes at a cost. Audyssey will process any sampling rate it is given, but so far it is only given 48 kHz."


----------



## drh3b

IMWhizzle said:


> Noob question alert:
> 
> Does Audyssey downsamples to 48khz on my Marantz 7011 when playing a Multichannel, high resolution audio files or Stereo SACD? If so, doesn't it defeat the purpose of high resolution audio? Can't find more information about this.
> 
> Also, the Blu-ray concert of Celine Dion is with 96khz audio. Will I lose information when enabling Audyssey?


Not Audyssey per se, but that is what Denon/Marantz does with it. Whether super duper hi rez files are worth the money, is a whole nother debate.  I don't think Dirac is used by anybody above 96 khz, but I could be wrong.
I don't think the the downsampling audibly affects the sound, so I wouldn't worry about it. It is still well above CD resolution, so doesn't entirely defeat the purpose of hi rez files. But, obviously, buying those super, duper 384 kHz files is a waste of money if you want to use room correction. Probably a waste of money, period.


----------



## pbarach

Do Denon or Marantz AVRs do any downsampling as part of digital bass management?


----------



## OldSenileGuy

platinum00 said:


> Audyssey tries to get the levels of your speakers all level matched so the -6db is probally right. Although it does get it wrong sometimes.
> 
> Check a few things.
> 
> 1. Set that level back to -6.
> 2. Change your speakers sizes to small and your crossovers to 80hz.
> 
> Does it sound any better?
> 
> If not, turn off audyssey and see how it sounds. Typically under audio/audyssey. set x32 to off.
> 
> Sound any better?
> 
> If not, download a SPL meter app on your phone. Go into the speaker levels (where you saw the -6 on the center). Play a test tone, and make sure your left, right and center are all playing at a similar db. +/- 1 is fine.. doesn't need to be perfect. You don't want your left at 75db and your center at 65db. Adjust the levels to get them to match.
> 
> Any difference?
> 
> Assuming since you said it sounded ok with the pioneer that the center is in the same spot and angled toward the main listening position?


Thanks for all this info! I did all the stuff you suggested first to do, and it didn't really change anything. I changed the level back to -6.0dB, and I changed the crossovers to 80Hz, but I'm still not really happy with how things sound.

One thing I forgot to mention - I don't have a subwoofer in my setup (apartment living.) Because of no subwoofer, I can't set my front speakers to small, because doing so automatically switches the subwoofer setting from "No" to "Yes". Would it be worth trying to switch the front speakers to small and setting the subwoofer to Yes, even though I have no sub?

Could that be causing my issue? Is the receiver trying to make up for my lack of a subwoofer by pumping more bass through the speakers - which would be bad either because my speakers can't handle it (Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf and center speakers), or just because I don't like how that sounds?

In any case, I've now tried turning Audyssey to "off" to see how different it sounds. I typically need a few days to really evaluate it, since the placebo effect is a helluva thing at first. If I don't notice any change here, I'll try re-running the Audyssey calibration, and then maybe try to download an SPL meter app.

One other question about the Audyssey setup. From what I understand, you need to start with the mic in your main listening position, and then move it to secondary listening positions for subsequent readings, but never more than 2ft from the main listening position. Is that correct? What if I don't have 6 (or 8) listening positions in my setup? Do I just put the mic back to the primary position for the last 3 or 4 readings?


----------



## Soulburner

pbarach said:


> Do Denon or Marantz AVRs do any downsampling as part of digital bass management?


Other than Audyssey?


----------



## pbarach

Soulburner said:


> Other than Audyssey?


Right, that's what I'm asking: If Audyssey is turned off, does the AVR downsample a high-resolution signal when it's doing bass management (which happens in the digital domain)?


----------



## platinum00

OldSenileGuy said:


> Thanks for all this info! I did all the stuff you suggested first to do, and it didn't really change anything. I changed the level back to -6.0dB, and I changed the crossovers to 80Hz, but I'm still not really happy with how things sound.
> 
> One thing I forgot to mention - I don't have a subwoofer in my setup (apartment living.) Because of no subwoofer, I can't set my front speakers to small, because doing so automatically switches the subwoofer setting from "No" to "Yes". Would it be worth trying to switch the front speakers to small and setting the subwoofer to Yes, even though I have no sub?
> 
> Could that be causing my issue? Is the receiver trying to make up for my lack of a subwoofer by pumping more bass through the speakers - which would be bad either because my speakers can't handle it (Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf and center speakers), or just because I don't like how that sounds?
> 
> In any case, I've now tried turning Audyssey to "off" to see how different it sounds. I typically need a few days to really evaluate it, since the placebo effect is a helluva thing at first. If I don't notice any change here, I'll try re-running the Audyssey calibration, and then maybe try to download an SPL meter app.
> 
> One other question about the Audyssey setup. From what I understand, you need to start with the mic in your main listening position, and then move it to secondary listening positions for subsequent readings, but never more than 2ft from the main listening position. Is that correct? What if I don't have 6 (or 8) listening positions in my setup? Do I just put the mic back to the primary position for the last 3 or 4 readings?


What speakers do you have and how are they positioned. Are they in a cabinet or entertainment center by chance?

The 80hz recommendation was assuming you have a sub. If not, you will more than likely want that lower depending on the speakers you have. That will also determine if you want to set them to large or small.

Really need more info on setup.. sorry.

For Audusey, bunch of different approaches like the rest of this stuff. No one answer is correct. For now just follow the on screen mic placement suggestions.










Edit.. I see your have Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf. I think those only have a 4 inch woofer so 80hz is about right for them. They may on paper be rated for lower but there won't be effective much lower than 60-80.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

OldSenileGuy said:


> Thanks for all this info! I did all the stuff you suggested first to do, and it didn't really change anything. I changed the level back to -6.0dB, and I changed the crossovers to 80Hz, but I'm still not really happy with how things sound.
> 
> One thing I forgot to mention - I don't have a subwoofer in my setup (apartment living.) Because of no subwoofer, I can't set my front speakers to small, because doing so automatically switches the subwoofer setting from "No" to "Yes". Would it be worth trying to switch the front speakers to small and setting the subwoofer to Yes, even though I have no sub?
> 
> Could that be causing my issue? Is the receiver trying to make up for my lack of a subwoofer by pumping more bass through the speakers - which would be bad either because my speakers can't handle it (Pioneer Andrew Jones bookshelf and center speakers), or just because I don't like how that sounds?
> 
> In any case, I've now tried turning Audyssey to "off" to see how different it sounds. I typically need a few days to really evaluate it, since the placebo effect is a helluva thing at first. If I don't notice any change here, I'll try re-running the Audyssey calibration, and then maybe try to download an SPL meter app.
> 
> One other question about the Audyssey setup. From what I understand, you need to start with the mic in your main listening position, and then move it to secondary listening positions for subsequent readings, but never more than 2ft from the main listening position. Is that correct? What if I don't have 6 (or 8) listening positions in my setup? Do I just put the mic back to the primary position for the last 3 or 4 readings?


When there is no subwoofer connected, if you set a crossover on the center speaker frequencies below that will be sent to the mains. Conversely, if you set a crossover on the mains, all frequencies below that will be sent to the center. AFAIK, if you have no sub, you cannot set all speakers to small.

If you were to run Audyssey with subwoofer set to No and then change that to Yes, your Audyssey calibration will be disabled until you run Audyssey again (with a subwoofer actually connected). You cannot change the speaker configuration post-Audyssey.

If the problem is too much bass, have you tried setting a lower RLO for DEQ? Or turning on Audyssey LFC and turning up the Containment Amount? Both of these will reduce the bass your speakers receive.


----------



## jazee

Couple questions for you Audyssey Experts... I'd guess I'd call my self a pseudo-audiophile... meaning I want good sound at good value with limited budget. If I'm using a mid-range 5.1 speaker kit (like one of those $250-$400 kits with 2.5" drivers on the front/rears and an 8" subwoofer) and my listening environment isn't going to allow me to listen at very loud volumes (townhouse neighbors), nor do I watch Blu-Rays to get the best video/audio quality (all streaming) do you think it's worth forking out the extra money to get a receiver with XT32 instead of just XT? There seems to be a considerable bump in price on models between XT and XT32.

Second question is, on my old Denon (7 years) with MultEQ XT, when using the dynamic volume, sometimes the receiver briefly drops the volume (for a second), way down, due to a perceived spike in volume in the source material when there was no change in volume. This mainly seems to happen while watching cable TV. I'm wondering if the newer receivers with Audyssey also do this or if they made software adjustments to better handle 'false positives' so to speak in volume spikes in the source stream?


----------



## Alan P

jazee said:


> Couple questions for you Audyssey Experts... I'd guess I'd call my self a pseudo-audiophile... meaning I want good sound at good value with limited budget. If I'm using a mid-range 5.1 speaker kit (like one of those $250-$400 kits with 2.5" drivers on the front/rears and an 8" subwoofer) and my listening environment isn't going to allow me to listen at very loud volumes (townhouse neighbors), nor do I watch Blu-Rays to get the best video/audio quality (all streaming) do you think it's worth forking out the extra money to get a receiver with XT32 instead of just XT? There seems to be a considerable bump in price on models between XT and XT32.
> 
> Second question is, on my old Denon (7 years) with MultEQ XT, when using the dynamic volume, sometimes the receiver briefly drops the volume (for a second), way down, due to a perceived spike in volume in the source material when there was no change in volume. This mainly seems to happen while watching cable TV. I'm wondering if the newer receivers with Audyssey also do this or if they made software adjustments to better handle 'false positives' so to speak in volume spikes in the source stream?


IMO, I would have to say that no, XT32 would probably not be worth the price jump in your particular situation. The most significant improvements between XT and XT32 concerns the subwoofer anyway, so.....

I have read of the audio drop-outs with DV but can't really comment as I have never used it myself.


----------



## bartonnen

This is a bit of a newbie question:

Originally I was under the impression that you ran Audyssey to simply set delays and EQ for each speaker, and that was it. But, reading the thread people talk about turning Audyssey off and on. Now I realise that Audyssey needs to be "on" to perform dynamic EQ and dynamic volume - but if I'm not using those two features what exactly is it doing when it's "on"?


----------



## Soulburner

bartonnen said:


> This is a bit of a newbie question:
> 
> Originally I was under the impression that you ran Audyssey to simply set delays and EQ for each speaker, and that was it. But, reading the thread people talk about turning Audyssey off and on. Now I realise that Audyssey needs to be "on" to perform dynamic EQ and dynamic volume - but if I'm not using those two features what exactly is it doing when it's "on"?


Audyssey is an advanced equalization system. It creates filters to fix the frequency response of your subwoofers and speakers to improve your sound. When it is OFF, it is unfiltered, with all of its flaws, just like using Pure Direct. It is in fact the AVR that sets the levels and delays based on the measurements it receives.


----------



## bartonnen

Soulburner said:


> It is in fact the AVR that sets the levels and delays based on the measurements it receives.


So, Audyssey has done it's thing and stored it's results for use by the AVR. So, it's not actually doing anything the rest of the time then? (Unless you have dynamic EQ or dynamic volume enabled).


----------



## Soulburner

You have to have Audyssey ON to use the room correction EQ. When it's OFF, it will sound like it did when you first turned it on, with no EQ applied.


----------



## garygarrison

Audyssey needs to be *"ON"* to *apply* the potentially *hundreds* of corrective filters it sets, after assessing your system and listening environment, to provide optimum results for your room, speakers, and listener and speaker positions. It's something like having a graphic or parametric equalizer with hundreds of sliders instead of a mere 8 or 16 or 36. The Altec Acousto-voicette, or the Cello whatchamacallit were never like this! When Audyssey is *"OFF" *it does nothing*; *it is out of the system. When* "ON,"* it gives you two options, in addition to the ones you've mentioned: "Audyssey Reference" (just called "Audyssey" on some AVRs) and "Audyssey Flat." "Audyssey Flat" tries to give you flat response, 20 to 20,000 Hz. "Audyssey Reference" dips the response just slightly (~~2 dB) at 2K, where some speakers are harsh, and rolls off the high treble, starting at about 7K, reaching -2 dB at 10K, and sinking to -6K at 20K. In various rooms, either of these options could sound "better." With my best CDs, SACDs and virtually all Blu-rays, "Audyssey Flat" sounds better to me. With some CDs, or some old soundtracks, "Audyssey Reference" sounds less harsh. This is not the original purpose of those two settings, but that's how it worked out at our house. 

Now that we are discussing preference, most people will prefer sneaking up the bass response a few dB *AFTER*, Audyssey is run, either using the control knob on the subwoofer itself (*not* in the AVR, to avoid clipping the line driver in some AVRs), or by using the bass control on the AVR (usable only with Dynamic EQ OFF). DON'T turn up the sub before running Audyssey, or it will turn it right down again! The reasons advanced for this bass preference are*: *

We _like _bass!
We may be used to some unnatural bass peaks in our rooms, due to its modal anomalies. So, we boost the deep bass overall to make up for that.
Popular modern recording techniques often cut the deep bass, and turn up the potentially harsh upper midrange, perhaps using limiters, in order make their recordings seem louder. See _The Loudness Wars. _Many musicians and mixers hate this, and blame the "suits." This most often happens in Pop, Rock, Metal, etc., rather than in Classical and Jazz, but it can crop up anywhere.
We like bass, again! Harman research and other sources report that listeners prefer the deep bass to be as much as much as 9 or 10 dB louder than the highest treble. _Some_ of this research indicates that some listeners believe that music with the bass jacked up sounds more "natural" or "real."


----------



## bartonnen

garygarrison said:


> Audyssey needs to be *"ON"* to *apply* the potentially *hundreds* of corrective filters it sets, after assessing your system and listening environment, to provide optimum results for your room, speakers, and listener and speaker positions.


I think I know what you mean. So, it's actively applying these filters whilst audio is playing rather than presetting some EQ levels.


----------



## jj-34

Best is to try it both ways, turn Audissey on / off while listening and note the difference if any.


----------



## Alan P

bartonnen said:


> I think I know what you mean. So, it's actively applying these filters whilst audio is playing rather than presetting some EQ levels.


No. The "active EQ" part of Audyssey is Dynamic EQ. The Audyssey filters are set during calibration and remain static until you re-run Audyssey.


----------



## bartonnen

Alan P said:


> The Audyssey filters are set during calibration and remain static until you re-run Audyssey.


That's what I originally thought. So, even though you leave it "On" it's not actually doing anything. And turning it "Off" just disables all the filters.

I'm just trying to get my head around what it does.


----------



## Alan P

bartonnen said:


> That's what I originally thought. So, even though you leave it "On" it's not actually doing anything. And turning it "Off" just disables all the filters.
> 
> I'm just trying to get my head around what it does.


Well, all those filters are definitely doing _something_. But, yes, turning Audyssey off disables them...along with DEQ, DV and LFC (if your AVR has LFC).


----------



## mogorf

Just to add a bit to Alan's explanation, ...yes,...the Audyssey MultEQ filters work continuously as long as the AVR is turned on adjusting and equalizing the frequency range of each speaker channel (+ sub/s). For your ref., in a 5.1 system the AVR has 5+1 filters. This equalization of the frequency range per channel is determined by the calibration done during initial setup. The different frequency characteristics of our rooms are stored in memory and every time we turn on our AVRs, Audyssey will remember it and apply it. Hope this helps understanding what is going on inside the AVR.


----------



## garygarrison

bartonnen said:


> I think I know what you mean. So, it's actively applying these filters whilst audio is playing rather than presetting some EQ levels.


Not really. *After* the calibration, with the 8 mic positions, etc., Audyssey must remain *ON*, i.e., in the circuit, and all of its many, many EQ levels, at different frequencies, are *preset *and *unvarying *unless you "run Audyssey" (i.e. recalibrate, do the 8 mic position thing) all over again*. *They are preset -- by Audyssey -- as a result of your 8 mic position calibration run. They form a detailed compensation curve customised for your room/speakers/positions, which is claimed to be better than any you could achieve with an equalizer, and takes the time domain into account as well. The only exception I know of is that Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume make some changes as the music plays; that's why they are called "Dynamic."


----------



## Lesmor

Hi
I am really struggling to understand this so I am looking for thoughts and opinions
I used to have a Denon 7200WA and the Audyssey XT32 calibrations were excellent in fact I didn't appreciate how good they were
2 years ago I upgraded to a Denon 8500 and have not been able to replicate those calibration results
same speakers, same room
I have moved my speakers and MLP to every conceivable position without avail
any suggestions appreciated


----------



## pbarach

bartonnen said:


> So, Audyssey has done it's thing and stored it's results for use by the AVR. So, it's not actually doing anything the rest of the time then? (Unless you have dynamic EQ or dynamic volume enabled).


No, that's not right. The room correction curve (equalization) determined during calibration is operative on all channels whenever Audyssey is set to FLAT or REFERENCE (and it's operative for everything but the front mains when set to L + R BYPASS). 

When Audyssey is operative, you can optionally add the Dynamic Volume and/or Dynamic EQ features. DV compresses the volume range. DEQ turns off the bass and surround channels at lower volumes. But when those features are shut off, the room correction curve is still operating unless you turn Audyssey off.


----------



## bartonnen

pbarach said:


> the room correction curve is still operating unless you turn Audyssey off


I can see that the correction is still "operating" - but isn't it basically an extremely detailed and automated graphic equaliser, once all those settings are "dialed-in" (by running the Audyssey microphone process) they don't change and the AVR just applies those settings to the signals.

I'm probably just overthinking this - it just needs to be "on" to have the desired effect.

I'm coming from a 10 year old Yamaha that had a basic version of YPAO - and that was just something you ran once and the forgot about and it set speaker levels and distances. There is no turning it on or off.


----------



## pbarach

bartonnen said:


> That's what I originally thought. *So, even though you leave it "On" it's not actually doing anything*. And turning it "Off" just disables all the filters.
> 
> I'm just trying to get my head around what* it* does.


I think your use of "it" is confusing. When Audyssey is turned ON (to REFERENCE or FLAT), the frequency response of the signals going to your speakers is altered (i.e., filtered) to match the calibration results. So saying "it's not actually doing anything" is not true. When Audyssey is ON, you can use or not use Dynamic EQ or Dynamic Volume as additional features--that's up to you.


----------



## Alan P

bartonnen said:


> isn't it basically an extremely detailed and automated graphic equaliser


That is a pretty good analogy.


----------



## bartonnen

pbarach said:


> So saying "it's not actually doing anything" is not true.


What I meant was Audyssey itself wasn't doing anything - but the AVR is using all the curves/delays/filters/whatever that Audyssey previously calculated.

It seems like turning Audyssey off just stops those settings from being used by the AVR and it goes back to its baseline.


----------



## pbarach

bartonnen said:


> What I meant was Audyssey itself wasn't doing anything - but the AVR is using all the curves/delays/filters/whatever that Audyssey previously calculated.
> 
> It seems like turning Audyssey off just stops those settings from being used by the AVR and it goes back to its baseline.


Well, yes. If you turn Audyssey off, then it's off. There is no room calibration affecting what comes from the speaker outputs.


----------



## Tomislav K

Hello to everyone. Please provide me with some advice regarding my setup.

I recently bought Denon X2600H. I was playing with tuning it with AVR Audyssey setup and few days ago I tried Android Audyssey MultEQ application v.1.4.6.

When calibrating with app I notice reduced bass response in comparison with AVR calibration. Also overall sound is little bit worse with the app. X-overs and speaker size is detected the same in both ways but obviously EQ curve is different from the APP vs. AVR.

Speaker detection:
I wonder why my speakers crossovers are set lower than speaker specification.
My fronts goes from 37Hz (according to spec.) but calibration recognizes it as full range.
Center goes from 56Hz (according to spec.) but calibration sets it with 40Hz x-over.
Rear goes from 74Hz (according to spec.) but calibration sets it with 60HZ x-over.
I also have a sub that goes from 27Hz (according to spec.).

I think it would be better if I set all speakers to small with fronts on 40Hz x-over; Center 60Hz and Rear 80Hz or 90Hz x-over.
Please provide me with some advices.

Midrange Compensation
With the app I tried Midrange compensation off but to me it sounded better with it on but I barely noticed difference.
Regarding Midrange compensation I see it is on 2kHz and my speakers x-overs are, Front 2500Hz and others 2800Hz so I'm not sure is this 2KHz default compensation from Audyssey ok in my case?

With the app and Ratbuddyssey I could create my own Midrange compensation for fronts on 2.5KHz and the rest on 2.8KHz but do you think this is something worth doing?

Also if this Midrange compensation is important maybe speakers should be already designed to do this on it's real x-over frequency which would be then better than this Audyssey setting where they think 2KHz will work for all speakers.

My setup:
Fronts: MA Bronze 6
Center: Mission M3C2i
Rear: MA FX
Sub: MA MRW-10


----------



## jj-34

pbarach said:


> DEQ turns off the bass and surround channels at lower volumes.


You say that Audissey ON and DEQ ON really turns OFF the surround channels at lower volumes ? or does it only reduce their volume accordingly ?


----------



## pbarach

jj-34 said:


> You say that Audissey ON and DEQ ON really turns OFF the surround channels at lower volumes ? or does it only reduce their volume accordingly ?


D'ohhhh -- My typo. I meant to say it reduces their volume...


----------



## Spidacat

Tomislav K said:


> Hello to everyone. Please provide me with some advice regarding my setup.
> 
> I recently bought Denon X2600H. I was playing with tuning it with AVR Audyssey setup and few days ago I tried Android Audyssey MultEQ application v.1.4.6.
> 
> When calibrating with app I notice reduced bass response in comparison with AVR calibration. Also overall sound is little bit worse with the app. X-overs and speaker size is detected the same in both ways but obviously EQ curve is different from the APP vs. AVR.
> 
> Speaker detection:
> I wonder why my speakers crossovers are set lower than speaker specification.
> My fronts goes from 37Hz (according to spec.) but calibration recognizes it as full range.
> Center goes from 56Hz (according to spec.) but calibration sets it with 40Hz x-over.
> Rear goes from 74Hz (according to spec.) but calibration sets it with 60HZ x-over.
> I also have a sub that goes from 27Hz (according to spec.).
> 
> I think it would be better if I set all speakers to small with fronts on 40Hz x-over; Center 60Hz and Rear 80Hz or 90Hz x-over.
> Please provide me with some advices.
> 
> Midrange Compensation
> With the app I tried Midrange compensation off but to me it sounded better with it on but I barely noticed difference.
> Regarding Midrange compensation I see it is on 2kHz and my speakers x-overs are, Front 2500Hz and others 2800Hz so I'm not sure is this 2KHz default compensation from Audyssey ok in my case?
> 
> With the app and Ratbuddyssey I could create my own Midrange compensation for fronts on 2.5KHz and the rest on 2.8KHz but do you think this is something worth doing?
> 
> Also if this Midrange compensation is important maybe speakers should be already designed to do this on it's real x-over frequency which would be then better than this Audyssey setting where they think 2KHz will work for all speakers.
> 
> My setup:
> Fronts: MA Bronze 6
> Center: Mission M3C2i
> Rear: MA FX
> Sub: MA MRW-10


For me, Audyssey always sets the suggested crossover lower that what the speaker should call for. Maybe from placement/room gain? In cases like your where the suggested crossovers are lower than 80 Hz, the "standard" recommendation is to place all crossovers at 80 Hz (maybe 90 for your rears). Listen for a while, then tweak if you like. Even with fairly capable center and mains it's better to let the sub do the heavy lifting for low frequencies. That's why we buy them!  Also the crossovers aren't brick walls, so even at 80 Hz you're still getting output below that, just rolled off in intensity.

The mid range compensation is a relic from the past that most people think should be removed, but it is a personal preference. Try it both ways and set it how you prefer. Since most modern speakers have no need of the mid range compensation, I wouldn't go to any effort to create one with Ratbuddyssey near your speakers actual crossover frequency.

Often the AVR and app will give different results, no idea why. A long time ago the app was very buggy for me - never wanted to completely send the data to the receiver and even when it did I got odd crossover frequencies. I ignored it for a long time and used the AVR for calibration. Recently I made a change to the system and needed to run Audyssey again. I updated the app and pleasantly had no issues. The configuration seemed normal and the bass in particular seemed better. Wish I would have measured before/after with REW. Anyway, the app still seems to be hit or miss for some people. If you don't have REW to measure the difference, just use the one that sounds better or gives you less problems.


----------



## khcoach

pbarach said:


> D'ohhhh -- My typo. I meant to say it reduces their volume...


um DEQ increases the the subs and surrounds the further you are from reference. That's what it's designed for, to allow you to get "better/fuller" sound at lower volumes. Dynamic Volume is used to "lower" the sound in a way, it decreases the spread between the highs and the lows so you you don't get super loud explosions late at night.


----------



## pbz06

Tomislav K said:


> Hello to everyone. Please provide me with some advice regarding my setup.
> 
> I recently bought Denon X2600H. I was playing with tuning it with AVR Audyssey setup and few days ago I tried Android Audyssey MultEQ application v.1.4.6.
> 
> When calibrating with app I notice reduced bass response in comparison with AVR calibration. Also overall sound is little bit worse with the app. X-overs and speaker size is detected the same in both ways but obviously EQ curve is different from the APP vs. AVR.
> 
> Speaker detection:
> I wonder why my speakers crossovers are set lower than speaker specification.
> My fronts goes from 37Hz (according to spec.) but calibration recognizes it as full range.
> Center goes from 56Hz (according to spec.) but calibration sets it with 40Hz x-over.
> Rear goes from 74Hz (according to spec.) but calibration sets it with 60HZ x-over.
> I also have a sub that goes from 27Hz (according to spec.).
> 
> I think it would be better if I set all speakers to small with fronts on 40Hz x-over; Center 60Hz and Rear 80Hz or 90Hz x-over.
> Please provide me with some advices.
> 
> Midrange Compensation
> With the app I tried Midrange compensation off but to me it sounded better with it on but I barely noticed difference.
> Regarding Midrange compensation I see it is on 2kHz and my speakers x-overs are, Front 2500Hz and others 2800Hz so I'm not sure is this 2KHz default compensation from Audyssey ok in my case?
> 
> With the app and Ratbuddyssey I could create my own Midrange compensation for fronts on 2.5KHz and the rest on 2.8KHz but do you think this is something worth doing?
> 
> Also if this Midrange compensation is important maybe speakers should be already designed to do this on it's real x-over frequency which would be then better than this Audyssey setting where they think 2KHz will work for all speakers.
> 
> My setup:
> Fronts: MA Bronze 6
> Center: Mission M3C2i
> Rear: MA FX
> Sub: MA MRW-10


The app and AVR should provide the same results. I can't say why it sounds different to you, can you be more specific how you came to that conclusion? Exact same scenes before and after to test? Exact same procedure when running Audyssey and same mic positions? Exact same settings (level matches, DEQ/DV, SW trims etc.)? Lots of variables plus our mood can change over time or different days so it's hard to really quantify subjective adjectives like "better/worse".

Speakers in a room can sometimes benefit from gains (room and boundary etc.) so their -3dB point might get detected lower than it is. That's usually fine, and it's good practice to increase the fronts by either 1/2 octave or full octave. The fronts play the majority of the soundstage and volume, so it's good to give them headroom. My fronts roll off at 32hz and center at 40hz, but I increase the crossovers to 80hz. 

Like Spidacat said, it's OK to increase because crossovers aren't brick walls either so you're not losing capabilities of your speaker, all you're doing is integrating your subwoofer with an overlap where both can produce good. What you don't want to do is lower the crossover from where it's detected.

The MRC, I think you answered your own question(s). I'm always against hard rules where everyone dismisses something based on their own preference or principal. Regardless of how your speaker handles that region, it's usually a good idea to test it yourself and listen for any differences you may perceive as better or worse. It's not a good idea to boost/flatten there if your speaker does have a natural dip there anyway. In some cases, the MRC works out regardless of its initial purpose or archaic reasoning  It's there as a toggle so you might as well expirement.

If you can use Ratbuddy to tailor the response (and MRC region) to your speaker's natural response in your room...all the better.

For example, my Surrounds and Center speaker have a little dip there in the exact same 2k region. Shows up in REW as well. I don't see any harm to keep MRC enabled and to avoid adding boost there to "flatten it". Honestly, I can't tell a difference anyway so I just left it enabled for that reason. My fronts on the other hand, are more linear/flat through that region so I disabled it.


----------



## Tomislav K

Guys, thanks for answering to my post. 
With Android app calibration I'm getting reduced bass response and also voices sounds less natural. Another issue with the app is that I loose FLAT curve. When I change to flat curve in AVR I'm getting only silence. 

I don' have a problem raising x-overs even to 80Hz for movies and TV content but I also listen music alot and I prefer music without sub so in that case I need to listen in direct mode to get music from my fronts only with full range without sub. 
Direct mode sounds quite good to me with quality music sources but sometimes if I listen radio or music TV programs I prefer Stereo mode.
In Stereo mode I have to listen with sub if fronts are set with x-over. Specially if it is 80Hz x-over then sub is involved quite a lot and that is something I wanted to avoid.

What's your opinion with music listening setup?


----------



## Soulburner

@Tomislav K which AVR is this?

You have a couple of options, depending on your model, that may be better than Direct mode:

L/R Bypass in the Audio -> Audyssey menu (not recommended or you'll lose your bass corrections)
2-channel Stereo settings in the Speakers menu (preserves Audyssey)


----------



## Tomislav K

It's Denon x2600h. 
I'm familiar with all options I just want to set good balance point on x-over for my fronts that would be good for movies but also for music where I want my front R/L speakers to do most of the bass frequencies. I thought 40Hz x-over is good balance for music and movies but here many recommends more like 80Hz and for music I don't want to go that high. I will experiment with 40Hz and 60Hz for fronts.


----------



## garygarrison

Lesmor said:


> Hi
> I am really struggling to understand this so I am looking for thoughts and opinions
> I used to have a Denon 7200WA and the Audyssey XT32 calibrations were excellent in fact I didn't appreciate how good they were
> 2 years ago I upgraded to a Denon 8500 and have not been able to replicate those calibration results
> same speakers, same room
> I have moved my speakers and MLP to every conceivable position without avail
> any suggestions appreciated
> View attachment 3027802
> View attachment 3027803



Is it possible that the old curve (2018; 7200WA) was done with more smoothing than the more recent curve? The old curve looks, to my miracle eyeballs, like about 1/3 octave smoothing, the new one more like 1/6.
Even with the same degree of smoothing, most people would have a hard time getting the mics in exactly the same position, unless they had strings hanging from the ceiling, or some other guide. In all cases, were the mics pointing straight up? My technically minded (chemist and med-tech), ultra-cooperative and just plain nice wife and I spent large amount of time squinting at those mics from several (2 or >2) angles to make sure they were straight up, to the degree she emitted some of those Marge Simpson sounds.
How does the system *sound* in the new configurations?
Do you have absorption and diffusion in the same position relative to the speakers and you as you used to?
If you are using the app, try it without, if you have the energy. I'm not an app person, but some have cast aspersions on it.


----------



## Soulburner

Tomislav K said:


> It's Denon x2600h.
> I'm familiar with all options I just want to set good balance point on x-over for my fronts that would be good for movies but also for music where I want my front R/L speakers to do most of the bass frequencies. I thought 40Hz x-over is good balance for music and movies but here many recommends more like 80Hz and for music I don't want to go that high. I will experiment with 40Hz and 60Hz for fronts.


Any reason you don't want to try 60 Hz? Sometimes that's the sweet spot.


----------



## Tomislav K

No reason. I will try. Just wanted to hear what others think about it.


----------



## Alan P

Tomislav K said:


> It's Denon x2600h.
> I'm familiar with all options I just want to set good balance point on x-over for my fronts that would be good for movies but also for music where I want my front R/L speakers to do most of the bass frequencies. I thought 40Hz x-over is good balance for music and movies but here many recommends more like 80Hz and for music I don't want to go that high. I will experiment with 40Hz and 60Hz for fronts.


Why is it you don't want to "go that high" for music? If it is because of some audiofool nonsense, please disregard what you have heard.


----------



## Tomislav K

Alan P said:


> Why is it you don't want to "go that high" for music? If it is because of some audiofool nonsense, please disregard what you have heard.


It just sound better to me without sub and I think my sub is not that good for music.


----------



## Lesmor

garygarrison said:


> Is it possible that the old curve (2018; 7200WA) was done with more smoothing than the more recent curve? The old curve looks, to my miracle eyeballs, like about 1/3 octave smoothing, the new one more like 1/6.
> Even with the same degree of smoothing, most people would have a hard time getting the mics in exactly the same position, unless they had strings hanging from the ceiling, or some other guide. In all cases, were the mics pointing straight up? My technically minded (chemist and med-tech), ultra-cooperative and just plain nice wife and I spent large amount of time squinting at those mics from several (2 or >2) angles to make sure they were straight up, to the degree she emitted some of those Marge Simpson sounds.
> How does the system *sound* in the new configurations?
> Do you have absorption and diffusion in the same position relative to the speakers and you as you used to?
> If you are using the app, try it without, if you have the energy. I'm not an app person, but some have cast aspersions on it.


Thanks for the reply 
1. Both graphs are 1/6
2. No strings attached but I get your point and of course other than being positioned with a laser measure I have no way to prove that the mic was in the same position 
the mic is always pointing straight up the sound only needs to graze the tip of the microphone 
3. Well we could argue about how good our Audio memory is but IMO it doesn't sound near as good as the Denon 7200WA did
4.Room treatment has not changed 
5.I have tried internal Audyssey and the app other than the reported crossovers the measured results are roughly the same


----------



## Lesmor

Lesmor said:


> Hi
> I am really struggling to understand this so I am looking for thoughts and opinions
> I used to have a Denon 7200WA and the Audyssey XT32 calibrations were excellent in fact I didn't appreciate how good they were
> 2 years ago I upgraded to a Denon 8500 and have not been able to replicate those calibration results
> same speakers, same room
> I have moved my speakers and MLP to every conceivable position without avail
> any suggestions appreciated
> View attachment 3027802
> View attachment 3027803


Just bumping this up to say that I managed to borrow another Audyssey mic and ran 2 full 8 position calibrations using the internal Audyssey on my 8500
one with the borrowed mic and a second with my original mic
both the results from the mics are near as dammit identical so it is not a issue with the microphones

So the question still remains why such a difference between the two AVR's?
I doubt I will ever find out


----------



## gurkey

Lesmor said:


> Thanks for the reply
> 1. Both graphs are 1/6
> 2. No strings attached but I get your point and of course other than being positioned with a laser measure I have no way to prove that the mic was in the same position
> the mic is always pointing straight up the sound only needs to graze the tip of the microphone
> 3. Well we could argue about how good our Audio memory is but IMO it doesn't sound near as good as the Denon 7200WA did
> 4.Room treatment has not changed
> 5.I have tried internal Audyssey and the app other than the reported crossovers the measured results are roughly the same


The subjective interpretation about resulting "sound quality" is been influenced by a lot of individual factors. Some are been dictated i.e. by expectation some by other notions as our ears are not "calibrated microphones" and their behavior changes even by our daily physical situation and (naturally) age. I have read discussions too, being a 7200WA owner myself, whereabouts the sound quality has actually improved, when moving from a 7200 to a Denon 8500H AVR. 
Both are - consequentially - subjective interpretations of the personal "hearing+" of the individual listeners. Did you consider different decoration, furniture and arrangements of your hearing room ? Maybe you changed the arrangement of Your speakers or Your listening position ? Human audio memory is about (statistically) 35 ms (milli seconds) by the way as measured scientifically several times already . Longer time periods change the validity crossly...

I really can't comment on Your findings, as this is quite individual as stated, but measurement positions can make a lot of difference especially at mid an higher frequencies...


----------



## Soulburner

Lesmor said:


> Just bumping this up to say that I managed to borrow another Audyssey mic and ran 2 full 8 position calibrations using the internal Audyssey on my 8500
> one with the borrowed mic and a second with my original mic
> both the results from the mics are near as dammit identical so it is not a issue with the microphones
> 
> So the question still remains why such a difference between the two AVR's?
> I doubt I will ever find out


Use the MultEQ app instead of the AVR Audyssey setup and limit the correction range to 300 Hz. Turn off midrange compensation. Then see if the results are better.


----------



## Tomislav K

pbz06 said:


> The app and AVR should provide the same results. I can't say why it sounds different to you, can you be more specific how you came to that conclusion? Exact same scenes before and after to test? Exact same procedure when running Audyssey and same mic positions? Exact same settings (level matches, DEQ/DV, SW trims etc.)? Lots of variables plus our mood can change over time or different days so it's hard to really quantify subjective adjectives like "better/worse".
> 
> Speakers in a room can sometimes benefit from gains (room and boundary etc.) so their -3dB point might get detected lower than it is. That's usually fine, and it's good practice to increase the fronts by either 1/2 octave or full octave. The fronts play the majority of the soundstage and volume, so it's good to give them headroom. My fronts roll off at 32hz and center at 40hz, but I increase the crossovers to 80hz.
> 
> Like Spidacat said, it's OK to increase because crossovers aren't brick walls either so you're not losing capabilities of your speaker, all you're doing is integrating your subwoofer with an overlap where both can produce good. What you don't want to do is lower the crossover from where it's detected.
> 
> The MRC, I think you answered your own question(s). I'm always against hard rules where everyone dismisses something based on their own preference or principal. Regardless of how your speaker handles that region, it's usually a good idea to test it yourself and listen for any differences you may perceive as better or worse. It's not a good idea to boost/flatten there if your speaker does have a natural dip there anyway. In some cases, the MRC works out regardless of its initial purpose or archaic reasoning  It's there as a toggle so you might as well expirement.
> 
> If you can use Ratbuddy to tailor the response (and MRC region) to your speaker's natural response in your room...all the better.
> 
> For example, my Surrounds and Center speaker have a little dip there in the exact same 2k region. Shows up in REW as well. I don't see any harm to keep MRC enabled and to avoid adding boost there to "flatten it". Honestly, I can't tell a difference anyway so I just left it enabled for that reason. My fronts on the other hand, are more linear/flat through that region so I disabled it.
> View attachment 3028168
> 
> View attachment 3028170
> View attachment 3028169


Hi.
After calibration with app bass was weaker and highs were a bit excessive. I did it only once so when I catch time I'll give it another try.
Actually I'm quite happy with sound after AVR calibration so if I find no need for extra options I get with the app I'll stay with AVR calibration.

I changed center and rear x-overs to 80 and Fronts to 60. Didn't properly test it but even with TV content it seems better.

Regarding MRC I see on your graphs your natural dip is like mine on 2.5kHz and MRC moves it to 2kHz. Don't know is this MRC move good or bad but without trying custom dip you cannot know.

I see yours and many others AFTER curves looks quite smooth in comparison to mine. Is this due to XT32 vs XT MultiEq?

You can check my curves below.


----------



## tomnan24

Looking to determine whether I have a Denon, mic or room issue when it comes to calibration. Thanks in advance.
I have about a 10 year old Denon(1610) that has worked flawlessly until I recently moved. Old room was a supposed nightmare, 3200 cf open to another 3200 ct open to upstairs and open to bedroom wing. I never had an issue running Audyssey. It only required one tone at each speaker. My new room is a 99% sealed 2800 cf room. With everything shut off in the house the noise level is only 41 db(slow C). Every tone requires at least 2 pings and sometimes 3. I am lucky to get through the first calibration to save it. I have never gotten through two without Audyssey telling me noise levels are too high. Sound isn't bad after running the one calibration but I can't help feeling there's something missing Also, when I run test tones after the calibration they are all about 70 db and sub is 67. I'm not sure if this is an issue or not.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.


----------



## Lesmor

@gurkey 
all valid points but it is a dedicated room speakers are in the original position confirmed by historical Audyssey distance data 
what I will say is when I first got my 8500 I didn't feel the need to run Audyssey at all but of course it eventually became necessary to EQ bass
@Soulburner 
to add to the above that is now my intention although with limiting the correction to 300 Hz there should be no need to turn off MRC


----------



## Soulburner

Lesmor said:


> to add to the above that is now my intention although with limiting the correction to 300 Hz there should be no need to turn off MRC


You are probably right about that.


----------



## Alan P

tomnan24 said:


> Looking to determine whether I have a Denon, mic or room issue when it comes to calibration. Thanks in advance.
> I have about a 10 year old Denon(1610) that has worked flawlessly until I recently moved. Old room was a supposed nightmare, 3200 cf open to another 3200 ct open to upstairs and open to bedroom wing. I never had an issue running Audyssey. It only required one tone at each speaker. My new room is a 99% sealed 2800 cf room. With everything shut off in the house the noise level is only 41 db(slow C). Every tone requires at least 2 pings and sometimes 3. I am lucky to get through the first calibration to save it. I have never gotten through two without Audyssey telling me noise levels are too high. Sound isn't bad after running the one calibration but I can't help feeling there's something missing Also, when I run test tones after the calibration they are all about 70 db and sub is 67. I'm not sure if this is an issue or not.
> 
> Any thoughts would be appreciated.


Most likely an issue with the mic. Try gently cleaning the tip of the mic with a damp cloth, if no joy, order a replacement.

Could also be a flaky connection with the mic. Try plugging/unplugging the mic several times and/or some Deoxit or similar electronics cleaner on the mic jack.


----------



## bigzee3

Soulburner said:


> Any reason you don't want to try 60 Hz? Sometimes that's the sweet spot.


I think that 60hz is good for older music from 70s and 80s.


----------



## pbarach

bigzee3 said:


> I think that 60hz is good for older music from 70s and 80s.


The choice of best crossover point depends on the speakers and sub(s), their placement, and size/acoustical treatment of the listening room--not on the source material.


----------



## HondaF17

Hi all.

The friends in the subwoofer subforum have been very helpful in getting me up and running in REW and dialing in my new toys. I have 5 brand new psa speakers and a PSA TV1812 sub (see signature). I'm in a 5300 cubic foot basement with open stairway to main level. Here is a picture of my REW sweeps with Audyssey OFF and ON. As you can see, ON is greatly neutring my bass, especially on the lower end. I do not have the MultiEQ app, but think it may be a good purchase as I've heard it can be ON for my speakers and OFF for my sub. ON for my speakers is likely important as due to room layout they cannot be in ideal locations. Thought I'd check in on the dedicated Audyssey spread to get all of your thoughts on these charts and see if this is something that can be solved via the app.

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

>



*Below 80Hz: *Audyssey removes the one extreme peak at 20Hz, which might be a room mode and might be why your bass sounds "neutered" with Audyssey. BUT, to get the bass back, since the THX reccommended crossover point for systems that can handle it happens to be 80 Hz, you might try turning the sub *up* AFTER running Audyssey, by 5 to 7 dB (or more) with the control on the sub *itself *(*NOT* the subwoofer trim control *in the AVR*, because the line driver in some AVRs are easy to clip ... and less so in others*;* in general you want the in AVR sub control to be at - 5 dB or farther down). A 7 dB boost of the sub overall, leaving Audyssey on to remove that one peak at 20 Hz, might give you almost as much bass at 20Hz as you have now without Audyssey's neutering, but all the bass from* 70/80hz down to 8 Hz (!!) would be louder than it is now, except for that one blip at 20 Hz.*
*Above 80Hz: *The two traces are very close to one another down to just below 80Hz. The only place they deviate markedly above 80Hz is between 89Hz and 120 Hz, where the *Audyssey corrected curve* is actually *higher** (louder)*. That is a region in which bass attack occurs, so if you like "punch," I'd leave it alone.
I'm a little surprised that Audyssey didn't provide more correction above 80 Hz. 
Did you use all 8 mic positions, with position 1 being the Main Listening Position?
Here is an invaluable aid, authored by Mike Thomas who is on this forum. It covers many aspects of Home Theater (and music) audio. Start with his Cliff Notes section.


----------



## garygarrison

Evidentially, I don't know how to *edit* with this new format. Here is what I wanted to add to my last post, under # 5 :

* GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES

* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement. *


----------



## jj-34

garygarrison said:


> Evidentially, I don't know how to *edit* with this new format. Here is what I wanted to add to my last post, under # 5 :


Click on the 3 vertical dots in the upper right corner of your post, and select edit ....


----------



## Lesmor

HondaF17 said:


> Hi all.
> 
> The friends in the subwoofer subforum have been very helpful in getting me up and running in REW and dialing in my new toys. I have 5 brand new psa speakers and a PSA TV1812 sub (see signature). I'm in a 5300 cubic foot basement with open stairway to main level. Here is a picture of my REW sweeps with Audyssey OFF and ON. As you can see, ON is greatly neutring my bass, especially on the lower end. I do not have the MultiEQ app, but think it may be a good purchase as I've heard it can be ON for my speakers and OFF for my sub. ON for my speakers is likely important as due to room layout they cannot be in ideal locations. Thought I'd check in on the dedicated Audyssey spread to get all of your thoughts on these charts and see if this is something that can be solved via the app.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> View attachment 3029102


I think it has been mentioned to you before but there is no need to be running sweeps so high you only need to be running at 75db 
in REW use "check levels" with the sub woofer and adjust the AVR volume control to suit
secondly use the REW default horizontal scale of 10-200 Hz it will make things easier for people to read


----------



## HondaF17

Lesmor said:


> I think it has been mentioned to you before but there is no need to be running sweeps so high you only need to be running at 75db
> in REW use "check levels" with the sub woofer and adjust the AVR volume control to suit
> secondly use the REW default horizontal scale of 10-200 Hz it will make things easier for people to read


Hi, thanks. I am up that high because the guide said to be 40db over my ambient room noise. But you and others have said to tone it down, which I will do in my next sweeps. Also, I'll do a better job making sure my graphs are correct. Thanks!


----------



## HondaF17

@garygarrison 

Thanks. yes, I used all 8 mic positions with #1 being the MLP.

I watched a few scenes last night with Audyssey off and my bass definitely felt more impactful. I liked it.

Do you think the MultiEQ app would be a good buy for me? I think you can do target curves to try and bring my low end up, and/or just leave Audyssey ON for speakers and OFF for sub...? I need to read more about the app.


----------



## HondaF17

Welp. Nevermind. I don't think I can use the app. I have a Denon AVR-X4200W. Doesn't look like that's compatible with the MultiEQ app. Damn.


----------



## HondaF17

So....to go back a couple posts. Audyssey OFF provides better bass for me, especially on the low end (see previous REW sweeps). My Denon AVR-x4200W is NOT compatible with the MultiEq app...which I planned to use to run Audyssey for speakers and OFF for the sub. When I was researching my AVR I discovered that with Audyssey OFF the Graphic EQ option is then available to edit. So I went to Graphic EQ and there is then a "curve copy" feature where I copied the Flat correction curve that was created in Audyssey's setup (flat is only option, not reference). All of the individual speakers then had the flat curve applied to graphic EQ. Sub cannot be edited with Graphic EQ. So, now I think I have my speakers at essentially Audyssey FLAT, while Audyssey remains disabled, which doesn't neuter my bass. Make sense?!?!

I'd rather have REFERENCE, since I'm 90% movies/TV, 10% music, but FLAT is probably better than nothing??


----------



## Alan P

HondaF17 said:


> So....to go back a couple posts. Audyssey OFF provides better bass for me, especially on the low end (see previous REW sweeps). My Denon AVR-x4200W is NOT compatible with the MultiEq app...which I planned to use to run Audyssey for speakers and OFF for the sub. When I was researching my AVR I discovered that with Audyssey OFF the Graphic EQ option is then available to edit. So I went to Graphic EQ and there is then a "curve copy" feature where I copied the Flat correction curve that was created in Audyssey's setup (flat is only option, not reference). All of the individual speakers then had the flat curve applied to graphic EQ. Sub cannot be edited with Graphic EQ. So, now I think I have my speakers at essentially Audyssey FLAT, while Audyssey remains disabled, which doesn't neuter my bass. Make sense?!?!
> 
> I'd rather have REFERENCE, since I'm 90% movies/TV, 10% music, but FLAT is probably better than nothing??


Answered here: Official Power Sound Audio Subwoofer Thread


----------



## tomnan24

Alan P said:


> Most likely an issue with the mic. Try gently cleaning the tip of the mic with a damp cloth, if no joy, order a replacement.
> 
> Could also be a flaky connection with the mic. Try plugging/unplugging the mic several times and/or some Deoxit or similar electronics cleaner on the mic jack.


I just did both of the items you suggested, thanks. I will rerun Audyssey in the next day or so and post back. Thanks again.


----------



## Sitron_NO

Just to make sure: If I buy a new Denon AVC-X4700H (2020-model) to replace my old Denon AVR-X4100W (2014-model), do I get a new and improved Audyssey or is the same tech inside? Both models use "Audyssey MultEQ XT32". I know I am able to buy and use the "Audyssey MultEQ Editor app" with the new reciever, but are the measurments and calculations (i.e.: room corrections) improved?


----------



## Soulburner

The Audyssey software in the AVR is the same; however as you say, you get to use the Audyssey MultEQ Editor app which I would consider a big upgrade in functionality AND end results if you utilize it.


----------



## Lesmor

looking for some guidance
I cant seem to avoid getting a huge cancellation on my front left speaker set at 80 Hz
the front baffle is positioned 4 feet from the side wall and 2 foot 4 inch from the front wall going my my calculations I shouldn't be getting any SBIR cancellation
using the REW alignment tool doesn't seem to help
any suggestions appreciated


----------



## Lesmor

no advice on SBIR or Phase cancellation ?


----------



## audiofan1

Lesmor said:


> no advice on SBIR or Phase cancellation ?


Hey there Lesmor
Have you tried repositioning the mains and or main listening position? I recently shifted my mains /seating position 3 inch to the left and got rid of a 10 to 15db 90hz dip on my front left speaker. Forward or back may also help.


----------



## Lesmor

audiofan1 said:


> Hey there Lesmor
> Have you tried repositioning the mains and or main listening position? I recently shifted my mains /seating position 3 inch to the left and got rid of a 10 to 15db 90hz dip on my front left speaker. Forward or back may also help.


Hi long time no hear how you doing ?
changing listening position backwards didn't help although if I moved L/R from the MLP I am sure it would change
I am sure it is down to SBIR I have tried moving the Left main without much success but I was hoping someone had a magic ratio for speaker positioning
by increasing the subwoofer distance I have now manged to improve things a little but there is still a dip so I am sure it could be better


----------



## audiofan1

Lesmor said:


> Hi long time no hear how you doing ?
> changing listening position backwards didn't help although if I moved L/R from the MLP I am sure it would change
> I am sure it is down to SBIR I have tried moving the Left main without much success but I was hoping someone had a magic ratio for speaker positioning
> by increasing the subwoofer distance I have now manged to improve things a little but there is still a dip so I am sure it could be better
> View attachment 3030099





Lesmor said:


> Hi long time no hear how you doing ?
> changing listening position backwards didn't help although if I moved L/R from the MLP I am sure it would change
> I am sure it is down to SBIR I have tried moving the Left main without much success but I was hoping someone had a magic ratio for speaker positioning
> by increasing the subwoofer distance I have now manged to improve things a little but there is still a dip so I am sure it could be better
> Ive
> View attachment 3030099


 Been well my friend ! It could very well be from ceiling bounce causing a cancellation at that frequency, I plan on trying some panels there myself for further improvement as I've treat my side ,front and rear walls.


----------



## Lesmor

audiofan1 said:


> Been well my friend ! It could very well be from ceiling bounce causing a cancellation at that frequency, I plan on trying some panels there myself for further improvement as I've treat my side ,front and rear walls.


good to hear
I have 4 ceiling panels but that's not to say that sound wave is not missing them


----------



## garygarrison

Lesmor said:


> good to hear
> I have 4 ceiling panels but that's not to say that sound wave is not missing them


Are your ceiling panels at the first reflection points as seen from the Main Listening Position?

Are the panels absorbing or diffusing?


----------



## Lesmor

garygarrison said:


> Are your ceiling panels at the first reflection points as seen from the Main Listening Position?
> 
> Are the panels absorbing or diffusing?


Edited my last post 
I have *6 *absorption panels hanging from the ceiling as a cloud 
positioned as best I can to catch the first reflection but also to avoid ceiling down lighters


----------



## audiofan1

Lesmor said:


> Edited my last post
> I have *6 *absorption panels hanging from the ceiling as a cloud
> positioned as best I can to catch the first reflection but also to avoid ceiling down lighters


How noticeable is it during playback? Good to see the room is treated , now the question is ,is it over treated, how thick are the panels at the first reflection point and is there a bass trap or panel behind the left speaker? if so have you tried removing panels?


----------



## Lesmor

audiofan1 said:


> How noticeable is it during playback? Good to see the room is treated , now the question is ,is it over treated, how thick are the panels at the first reflection point and is there a bass trap or panel behind the left speaker? if so have you tried removing panels?


It isn't noticeable 
if the room is over treated then it has been like that for years
at some time I must have changed speaker positions and now I can't find that position and replicate the results I had on 22-1-2018
it has got worse since changing my 2x subs with dual opposed 13.5 " drivers to a 2x subs with single 16" drivers
the new subs are in the same position
the cause is either SBIR or Phase cancellation


----------



## audiofan1

Lesmor said:


> It isn't noticeable
> if the room is over treated then it has been like that for years
> at some time I must have changed speaker positions and now I can't find that position and replicate the results I had on 22-1-2018
> it has got worse since changing my 2x subs with dual opposed 13.5 " drivers to a 2x subs with single 16" drivers
> the new subs are in the same position
> the cause is either SBIR or Phase cancellation
> View attachment 3030857
> View attachment 3030858


I see ! It may be time to get back to the fundamentals and move the subs around to find there best positions. What do they do better than your previous subs.


----------



## Lesmor

audiofan1 said:


> I see ! It may be time to get back to the fundamentals and move the subs around to find there best positions. What do they do better than your previous subs.


I have moved subs to every possible position in my room many times and they always end up back in the same place
I have been using the same dedicated room for the part 20 Years and know where subs measure best

my problem lies with my L/R positioning

I have come quite a way since having 2 X Ken Kreisel Quattro stacks even with 8 x 8" drivers I couldn't get down below 28Hz
I changed my whole speaker system to the Arendal Sound range (the best speakers I have ever owned) with 2 x Arendal Sub 3's they got me to 17Hz
I had them for 4 years but wanted to see if I could get more depth and recently changed to 2 x SVS 16 Ultras unfortunately only marginally better down to 15Hz and the jury is still out on them
when watching films some subs were better than others depending on the movie
i.e. the KK Quattros sounded fantastic with say U571 the best I have heard that movie with either the Arendals or the SVS
the Arendals sounded far better with the bass guitar on the first song of "A Star is Born" compared to the SVS 16 so with changing subs you gain and you lose

you could argue a sub that plays flat to say 20 Hz should sound no different to another but they do


----------



## audiofan1

Lesmor said:


> I have moved subs to every possible position in my room many times and they always end up back in the same place
> I have been using the same dedicated room for the part 20 Years and know where subs measure best
> 
> my problem lies with my L/R positioning
> 
> I have come quite a way since having 2 X Ken Kreisel Quattro stacks even with 8 x 8" drivers I couldn't get down below 28Hz
> I changed my whole speaker system to the Arendal Sound range (the best speakers I have ever owned) with 2 x Arendal Sub 3's they got me to 17Hz
> I had them for 4 years but wanted to see if I could get more depth and recently changed to 2 x SVS 16 Ultras unfortunately only marginally better down to 15Hz and the jury is still out on them
> when watching films some subs were better than others depending on the movie
> i.e. the KK Quattros sounded fantastic with say U571 the best I have heard that movie than with either the Arendals or the SVS
> the Arendals sounded far better with the bass guitar on the first song of "A Star is Born" compared to the SVS 16 so with changing subs you gain and you lose
> 
> you could argue a sub that plays flat to say 20 Hz should sound no different to another but they do


I'm still running my dual DXd12012's up front but added a Rythmik F18 se to the rear to balance the room. The F18 due to its flexibility (amp plate loaded with options) allowed me to blend the overall sound very well, nice attack and depth below 15hz. It does take awhile to set up any new sub, I do agree 100% they are all different in sound. Good thing you know that room very well as I 've been in mine some 20yrs as well, more time and effort and I'm sure you'll get it sorted out.


----------



## Tomislav K

Hi.
What you people think about my green curve.
On my front left speaker I have peak on 50Hz, dip on 55 and again peak after 60Hz.

On front right I have only peak at 50Hz.

I would say since 50Hz peak is on both speakers it is room mode and additional dip and peak on left one is because its positioned in the corner.

What do you suggest? I know left sepaker positioned in the corner is bad but I really don't have space to move it.























Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Do you have a sub? Where is it? At what frequency does it crossover?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Tomislav K said:


> Hi.
> What you people think about my green curve.
> On my front left speaker I have peak on 50Hz, dip on 55 and again peak after 60Hz.
> 
> On front right I have only peak at 50Hz.
> 
> I would say since 50Hz peak is on both speakers it is room mode and additional dip and peak on left one is because its positioned in the corner.
> 
> What do you suggest? I know left sepaker positioned in the corner is bad but I really don't have space to move it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk


It looks like the AVR you have is using Audyssey XT not XT32. The XT version does not have as much filters as the XT32 and also XT32 puts more corrections in the bass region. XT kind of does the opposite. For some people this can be of no issue that have ideal speaker placement but for others like yourself XT32 would be very helpful in correcting those peaks in the bass region.

In saying this the higher part of the FR looks pretty good, to a point that you could limit the correction in the App to 1k.

For speaker placement you could pull the speakers forward a little bit from the wall, this will help the left speaker a lot as the port hole is in the back and is creating excessive bass, the right speaker is not as bad as it's interacting with the open room.


----------



## Tomislav K

garygarrison said:


> Do you have a sub? Where is it? At what frequency does it crossover?


Yes I have it. It on oposite wall from FR speaker. Sub curve is quite ok.
X-over is at 80Hz except for fronts it is 60Hz.



Jimmy2Shoes said:


> It looks like the AVR you have is using Audyssey XT not XT32. The XT version does not have as much filters as the XT32 and also XT32 puts more corrections in the bass region. XT kind of does the opposite. For some people this can be of no issue that have ideal speaker placement but for others like yourself XT32 would be very helpful in correcting those peaks in the bass region.
> 
> In saying this the higher part of the FR looks pretty good, to a point that you could limit the correction in the App to 1k.
> 
> For speaker placement you could pull the speakers forward a little bit from the wall, this will help the left speaker a lot as the port hole is in the back and is creating excessive bass, the right speaker is not as bad as it's interacting with the open room.


Yes my AVR has Audyssey XT. 
Picture is old with old fronts and old receiver but position of new sepakers/receiver is the same but little bit pulled out already. Also right one is against the wall, it is not standing in open space as it seems on the picture (it's due to angle I was photographing).
Now I have Denon x2600h and Montior Audio Bronze 6 which has dual bass reflex ports. Back port I closed with bungs and front one is open.

Actually for HT I'm quite satisfied with how it sounds but stereo music I like to listen in direct mode without sub so Audyssey in that case doesn't matter.
I wonder could I do something (room treatment) to reduce this peak/dip in bass region.


----------



## Soulburner

Tomislav K said:


> I wonder could I do something (room treatment) to reduce this peak/dip in bass region.


You can use the app for the bass region.









Audyssey MultEQ Editor app - Apps on Google Play


Audyssey MultEQ Editor app for Denon Marantz AV Receiver products




play.google.com


----------



## murlidher

Experts please help.
This is the first time I am facing this issue in last 10 years. While running the audyssey, the sub is detected in first position. However in 2nd position, it says no sub detected. I ran multiple times in different positions and changing power supply, but in 2nd position it is always struck.

Please advise what is causing this strange issue?


----------



## Soulburner

murlidher said:


> Experts please help.
> This is the first time I am facing this issue in last 10 years. While running the audyssey, the sub is detected in first position. However in 2nd position, it says no sub detected. I ran multiple times in different positions and changing power supply, but in 2nd position it is always struck.
> 
> Please advise what is causing this strange issue?


What happens if you switch the subwoofer cables only at one end? Just swap sub 1 and sub 2 on the AVR. Does the detected sub change?


----------



## murlidher

I use only 1 sub. I tried using sub2 in my avr. Even then the results are same. It's very strange.

I tried using new mic, issue is same. I tried plugging sub in new power supply. First mic position runs fine, second position it runs fine until it reaches the sub position.


----------



## bartonnen

murlidher said:


> I use only 1 sub. I tried using sub2 in my avr.


If you only have one sub then it goes in the sub1 socket.
The sub2 socket is for a second sub (if, and only if, you have one).


----------



## Soulburner

murlidher said:


> I use only 1 sub. I tried using sub2 in my avr. Even then the results are same. It's very strange.
> 
> I tried using new mic, issue is same. I tried plugging sub in new power supply. First mic position runs fine, second position it runs fine until it reaches the sub position.


Sorry, I misunderstood you.

That is very odd. What you have tried? Increasing sub gain?


----------



## murlidher

I use only one sub and used it in sub1 port only in avr.
I moved the sub to different room where I have Denon receiver and the sub got detected in multiple positions. So the issue does not seem to be in sub

May be I need to reset my marantz receiver?


----------



## Keenan

murlidher said:


> I use only one sub and used it in sub1 port only in avr.
> I moved the sub to different room where I have Denon receiver and the sub got detected in multiple positions. So the issue does not seem to be in sub
> 
> May be I need to reset my marantz receiver?


You have only one sub, correct?
Is the Audyssey speaker configuration showing just a single sub and not two?
Is the signal cable from the AVR(Denon?/Marantz? model ?????) to the sub connected to the SW1 output on the AVR?


----------



## Keenan

x


----------



## murlidher

One internet search


Keenan said:


> You have only one sub, correct?
> Is the Audyssey speaker configuration showing just a single sub and not two?
> Is the signal cable from the AVR(Denon?/Marantz? model ?????) to the sub connected to the SW1 output on the AVR?


Yes, single sub connected to sub port 1. Audyssey is also showing single sub only. This issue is with marantz receiver. To test I moved the sub to Denon in different room to test, sub was detected in all mic positions. Hope I am clear.

Thanks


----------



## Keenan

murlidher said:


> One internet search
> 
> Yes, single sub connected to sub port 1. Audyssey is also showing single sub only. This issue is with marantz receiver. To test I moved the sub to Denon in different room to test, sub was detected in all mic positions. Hope I am clear.
> 
> Thanks


So when connected to the Marantz it's showing as being in the SW2 position while being connected to the SW1 output on the Marantz?


----------



## murlidher

Keenan said:


> So when connected to the Marantz it's showing as being in the SW2 position while being connected to the SW1 output on the Marantz?


No, it is showing sub position correctly.

What I meant is, when running audyssey setup, on the first mic position, it detects all speakers and sub 1 correctly. Then I move on to mic 2 position and when the mic starts detecting all speakers, this time it returns with the error stating, no sub found.

Just to update, the sub is not on auto mode.


----------



## Keenan

murlidher said:


> No, it is showing sub position correctly.
> 
> What I meant is, when running audyssey setup, on the first mic position, it detects all speakers and sub 1 correctly. Then I move on to mic 2 position and when the mic starts detecting all speakers, this time it returns with the error stating, no sub found.
> 
> Just to update, the sub is not on auto mode.


So the sub is on all the time so it timing out turning off between runs is not an issue then?

I would do a microprocessor reset, maybe a few times and then try again. Maybe just try just removing the power cable for about 15-20 secs and then connecting again and see if that helps.

All cables are secure? Have you disconnected and then reconnected the SW cable on both ends(AVR and SW) just to make sure they are seated securely? What about the mic plug, is it securely inserted? 

It's an odd problem that I haven't seen mentioned here before. I would try the microprocessor resets.


----------



## pbarach

This is a bit off-topic, but if a microprocessor reset is an actual reset, why would doing it several times produce a different outcome than a single reset?


----------



## Keenan

pbarach said:


> This is a bit off-topic, but if a microprocessor reset is an actual reset, why would doing it several times produce a different outcome than a single reset?


I agree 100% but check in any Denon thread and it's a refrain you hear from the knowledgable folks there like *jdsmoothie*.


----------



## jj-34

Actually there are several resets available as programmed in the microcode, what is generally recommended is to repeat the "soft" reset if the 1st one is not satisfactory, but the complete "microprocessor" reset does indeed that : it re-initialises the microprocessor and the settings that are stored there.
As we are dealing with a Marantz here, the OP should have a look here ==> Jdsmoothie FAQ page 1 where it is very well explained.
By the way 2 hints : 1- To do a soft reset it is mandatory to effectively un-plug the device for a long duration (about 10 minutes maybe ) to give time to the internal large power capacitors to drain completely (usually a soft reset fails because the un-plug duration was too short), 2- Jdsmoothie did not recommend to do a microprocessor reset several times, once is enough ..... 😎


----------



## murlidher

Microprocessor reset helped to bring back things as it should be. Thanks


----------



## monstosity12

EDIT: found it on first page. Thinking about how to search on the thread with new design caught me off gaurd. 
Can someone link me to a boom mic for the audyssey mic? With new website Design I don’t know where to search threads now 

hoping to get one that has a flat head where the mic can lay flat on and has a screw to hold it on.


----------



## Soulburner

The new forum design hides the functionality. Type in the search bar then choose from the options that appear.


----------



## jake51

Tonight I watched the Rogue One UHD
I noticed right from the start that the Dolby Atmos soundtrack was unusually subdued
I hate checking settings once the movie has started and just watched the whole thing
Then I found out that somehow Audyssey and Dynamic Volume had been turned off automatically on my Marantz SR7013
How can this happen and how do I prevent it from happening again?


----------



## Soulburner

jake51 said:


> Tonight I watched the Rogue One UHD
> I noticed right from the start that the Dolby Atmos soundtrack was unusually subdued
> I hate checking settings once the movie has started and just watched the whole thing
> Then I found out that somehow Audyssey and Dynamic Volume had been turned off automatically on my Marantz SR7013
> How can this happen and how do I prevent it from happening again?


Did you mean Dynamic Volume was turned *on*?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

jake51 said:


> Tonight I watched the Rogue One UHD
> I noticed right from the start that the Dolby Atmos soundtrack was unusually subdued
> I hate checking settings once the movie has started and just watched the whole thing
> Then I found out that somehow Audyssey and Dynamic Volume had been turned off automatically on my Marantz SR7013
> How can this happen and how do I prevent it from happening again?


There is a App called DeRemote




__





DeRemote - Control your Denon or Marantz






www.deremote.com




It's only on IOS as far as I know
It's excellent for adjusting settings on the fly without interrupting the movie, I couldn't live without it, it's that good IMHO
Check it out 👍👍


----------



## jake51

I'll check out DeRemote, thanks


----------



## Edi-MC

Is there anything similar to DeRemote but for Android?
Thanks!


----------



## filmgeek47

Hey guys,
Are there any positioning related tips to “encourage“ audyssey to correctly set my front left right and center speakers to the same input level? I’ve been having to rerun my calibration a few times as I setup a second subwoofer, and now I can’t seem to get the front levels to match. My surrounds are also now consistently coming in at 90hz crossover even though I was previously getting 80hz, which I prefer for localization reasons.

Any suggestions?


----------



## Soulburner

Most of the time they aren't going to match unless your room, speaker placement, and the furniture in it are perfectly symmetrical. It's matching the actual SPL at your seat. Room correction 

80 vs 90 on the surrounds: I'm not sure how to encourage the system to choose one over the other, but the difference is also very subtle.


----------



## pbz06

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey guys,
> Are there any positioning related tips to “encourage“ audyssey to correctly set my front left right and center speakers to the same input level? I’ve been having to rerun my calibration a few times as I setup a second subwoofer, and now I can’t seem to get the front levels to match. My surrounds are also now consistently coming in at 90hz crossover even though I was previously getting 80hz, which I prefer for localization reasons.
> 
> Any suggestions?


I wouldn't worry about the 80 vs 90. I had a similar issue, my surrounds used to consistently come in at 80hz but lately at 90hz. After measuring with REW, it looks like one my surrounds rolls off at around 78hz and the other at about 82 hz, lol. Hence why it sets it at 90....I doubt you would notice a difference either way (I bump them up to 100 anyway).


----------



## bartonnen

I've been considering purchasing the Audyssey MultiEQ Editor App - but the reviews (at least on Android) are terrible, with many users complaining about communications & network errors as well as freezes. Is it really that bad? Is it worth the money? It's the ridiculous price of AU$30.99 (Australian), which is a hell of a lot for an app that might not even work.


----------



## pbz06

bartonnen said:


> I've been considering purchasing the Audyssey MultiEQ Editor App - but the reviews (at least on Android) are terrible, with many users complaining about communications & network errors as well as freezes. Is it really that bad? Is it worth the money? It's the ridiculous price of AU$30.99 (Australian), which is a hell of a lot for an app that might not even work.


99.9% of those reviews are from the early days. It's gone through several updates and lots (most) of us use it regularly with almost no issues. Out of my 700 runs (lol, I'm a tester) I've lost connection maybe two or three times while uploading, and only once while in the middle of a calibration where I had to start over.


----------



## Soulburner

Yep. I have also had some connection issues but it was usually related to me forgetting to lock my screen rotation and I moved the phone around too much.

Most of the time there are no issues and when there are, it's usually someone has a spotty network configuration and/or signal.


----------



## Spidacat

I had issues with it when it first came out. I stopped using it for quite a while because it was so frustrating. I used it recently (Android) and it worked just fine for me, so hopefully most of the bugs got worked out.


----------



## Edi-MC

Hi guys, I posted this on another thread, but maybe here is better. Here goes:

One thing that intrigues me is the fact that, although I only have a 5.1 setup and set everything like that (and Audyssey acknowledges the 5.1), I always end up getting a 7.1+zone 2 amp assignment. 

Shouldn't it be 5.1+zone 2?

Is it wrong to go to the amp assignment settings and change it from 7.1 to 5.1? If I do that, should I run a full calibration?
Just can't understand why this happens...

P. S. Although 7.1 is shown, the surround backs are set to Off...

Thank you


----------



## platinum00

I have some pretty bad dips at 250 and 500. Wanted to see if you guys had any suggestions. I think the 250 one is a height room mode as the calculator says 242hz for the 1/6th spot. I am also limiting to 500hz so was thinking of changing to 400 or 600 to see what happens at the 500 spot. 

graph has zero smoothing.

any ideas.


----------



## Soulburner

500 is a multiple of 250 so they are likely related. Do you have a rectangular room?


----------



## platinum00

yes.. 14x17.

room treatments, toe in or distance from front wall placement an option? Distance from side, not much room with the screen 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

Most likely. The trick is determining where they should go. There are some things you can do to test this out. For example, just for kicks I put my body in between my speaker and the front wall, and then the side wall, to alter the space the waves occupy there while running a measurement. I was able to determine it was the side proximity causing a certain frequency cancellation as that one showed a difference when standing there. Crude, but it worked. Not sure how you're going to test out the ceiling theory though


----------



## platinum00

I moved the audyssey cutoff to 700 and added .5ms delay to the front speakers. Made a good difference. I tried all kinds of toe in, wall panels and nothing helped as much as this.

no smoothing.


----------



## Pip

platinum00 said:


> I moved the audyssey cutoff to 700 and added .5ms delay to the front speakers. Made a good difference. I tried all kinds of toe in, wall panels and nothing helped as much as this.


This is very interesting result. Which made the difference - the delay, or the correction limit? Were your previous runs full correction, or was the change to 700 an increase in correction? (your prior runs set to a lower cutoff)

Thank you. Very helpful results.

Pip


----------



## Soulburner

platinum00 said:


> I moved the audyssey cutoff to 700 and added .5ms delay to the front speakers. Made a good difference. I tried all kinds of toe in, wall panels and nothing helped as much as this.
> 
> no smoothing.


Is this a single point or an average like Audyssey uses?


----------



## platinum00

It used to be cut off at 500. The distance (delay) made the biggest change but letting audyssey correct past 500 worked best. I have another similar dip at 1500. I cant tweak the distance anymore or will mess up the 250/500 but am going to try letting audyseey correct to 2000. actually i dont like the roll off so might let it correct all the way and see what happens. 

this is an average across 3 seats.

this graph is 1/12 smoothed since into the higher range now. but you can see the dip. Let me play a little more this week.

NOTE: this has my sub house curve unlike the other graphs.


----------



## Soulburner

Whoa, is your sub really +30 dB over your midrange?

High frequencies will be a bit bright, too. Probably somewhat masked by your subs which combined may mask midrange details in the middle.


----------



## platinum00

haha.. sorry... yes for this test it was. I was measuring some compression during the same measuring as the midrange tweaks.

it won't be like that for the final tune.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## platinum00

full audyssey on LR, disabled on the subs. DEQ- ON. Seems much better.. Averaged across 4 seats 1/12th smoothing. Need to add a bid more low end (not 30DB )


----------



## Spidacat

Your last graph still has 10-15 dB of bass boost. I understand preference, but that's already a lot.


----------



## Grayson73

Hi all! Just got the Denon AVR-X1600H. I ran the Audyssey set up, and then changed all speakers to small with 80hz crossover since I have a subwoofer. I used the test tones and SPL meter and had to adjust manually to make my 5.1 set up the same dB for the main seating position.

1. Does this mean that I didn't choose the 8 positions correctly?
2. Did Audyssey still do anything for me since I changed the crossover frequency and dB for each speaker? Should I re-run and leave the dB and crossover frequencies as is?


----------



## Soulburner

Are you sure the test tones are the best way to set levels? I would bet Audyssey's sweeps are more representative since they use a range of frequencies.


----------



## pbz06

Grayson73 said:


> Hi all! Just got the Denon AVR-X1600H. I ran the Audyssey set up, and then changed all speakers to small with 80hz crossover since I have a subwoofer. I used the test tones and SPL meter and had to adjust manually to make my 5.1 set up the same dB for the main seating position.
> 
> 1. Does this mean that I didn't choose the 8 positions correctly?
> 2. Did Audyssey still do anything for me since I changed the crossover frequency and dB for each speaker? Should I re-run and leave the dB and crossover frequencies as is?


The internal test tones bypass any Audyssey filters, so they won't be as accurate. Also, if you made similar adjustments to each channel, it's likely down to meter variance. My guess is the Audyssey mic is more accurate. Keep in mind that most meters aren't very good especially with bass frequencies below 50hz.

Changing crossovers has no effect on the Audyssey filters, as long as you RAISE instead of lower.


----------



## mogorf

Grayson73 said:


> Hi all! Just got the Denon AVR-X1600H. I ran the Audyssey set up, and then changed all speakers to small with 80hz crossover since I have a subwoofer. I used the test tones and SPL meter and had to adjust manually to make my 5.1 set up the same dB for the main seating position.
> 
> 1. Does this mean that I didn't choose the 8 positions correctly?
> 2. Did Audyssey still do anything for me since I changed the crossover frequency and dB for each speaker? Should I re-run and leave the dB and crossover frequencies as is?


Hi,

Actually Audyssey uses the 1st mic position (MLP) only to set levels (and distances).
Here's a quote from Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) on how it sets levels:

Qte

"Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500-2k range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL. Subwoofer channel same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz."

Unqte

I think it would be better to reset the values (dB trims) originally set by Audyssey, you may not need to rerun MultEQ. Crossover at 80 Hz is OK.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Hi,
> 
> Actually Audyssey uses the 1st mic position (MLP) only to set levels (and distances).
> Here's a quote from Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) on how it sets levels:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500-2k range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL. Subwoofer channel same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> I think it would be better to reset the values (dB trims) originally set by Audyssey, you may not need to rerun MultEQ. Crossover at 80 Hz is OK.


Hi Feri,

I agree with all of the above.

I clicked on your "my setup" to take a look at your living room/library/music room once again. As before, I love the woodwork, shelves, etc. What is your *view* like? Can you provide a picture?

I tried inserting pictures of my setup a few years ago, and got so much garble in Martian cuneiform that took about 1/2 hour to remove that it discouraged me. I may try again. How did you get your text and pictures into your link "my setup?"


----------



## Soulburner

@garygarrison Here: https://www.avsforum.com/account/signature


----------



## Grayson73

Soulburner said:


> Are you sure the test tones are the best way to set levels? I would bet Audyssey's sweeps are more representative since they use a range of frequencies.


I don't think the Denon has Audyssey sweeps.


----------



## Grayson73

Thanks for the responses. From what you've all said, it sounds like it's best to re-run Audyssey and leave the dB as is, but change the speakers to small and crossover frequency to 80hz.


----------



## pbarach

Grayson73 said:


> I don't think the Denon has Audyssey sweeps.


 The "sweeps" are the whoop-whoop noises that Audyssey makes during calibration. 

As others have pointed out, using the Denon test tones to check Audyssey's speaker levels is a bad idea because the test tones bypass the Audyssey calibration filters. If you want to know if the Audyssey-determined levels are accurate, you'll need to measure the speaker levels while Audyssey is operating. You should use test tones from an audio setup CD or setup DVD, with Audyssey turned on, to check speaker levels using a sound pressure meter. Also, be aware that many sound pressure meters are inaccurate when measuring SPL's from subwoofers.

I have one of the old analog Radio Shack SPL meters. When the meter is on a tripod at the main listening position, with its mic pointed to the ceiling, speaker test tones from Avia or Speers and Munsil test DVDs are always equal within 1-2 dB of each other, which is within the measurement error of the Audyssey mic.


----------



## Grayson73

pbarach said:


> The "sweeps" are the whoop-whoop noises that Audyssey makes during calibration.
> 
> As others have pointed out, using the Denon test tones to check Audyssey's speaker levels is a bad idea because the test tones bypass the Audyssey calibration filters. If you want to know if the Audyssey-determined levels are accurate, you'll need to measure the speaker levels while Audyssey is operating. You should use test tones from an audio setup CD or setup DVD, with Audyssey turned on, to check speaker levels using a sound pressure meter. Also, be aware that many sound pressure meters are inaccurate when measuring SPL's from subwoofers.
> 
> I have one of the old analog Radio Shack SPL meters. When the meter is on a tripod at the main listening position, with its mic pointed to the ceiling, speaker test tones from Avia or Speers and Munsil test DVDs are always equal within 1-2 dB of each other, which is within the measurement error of the Audyssey mic.


Thanks! I also used the old analog Radio Shack SPL meter. I guess I chose the 8 positions incorrectly, as my back surrounds were way too loud. I'll try the Audyssey again


----------



## pbz06

Grayson73 said:


> Thanks! I also used the old analog Radio Shack SPL meter. I guess I chose the 8 positions incorrectly, as my back surrounds were way too loud. I'll try the Audyssey again


Did you have DEQ enabled when checking (from an external source like a disk) and a reduced volume from 0? 

But to reiterate what others have said, I've done so many Audyssey calibrations/testing/tweaking I'm very confident in its ability to set distances correctly along with SPL levels. Very rarely does a speaker level vary for me more than 0.5dB-1dB per each run on the same speaker. And when I check it with my own SPL meter, they are relatively balanced with each other as well (other than whatever delta variance is between the audyssey mic and my SPL).


----------



## rocky1

Have a question in regards to using the rs meter after everything was already set via audessey. When using the test tones i thought the rs meter does not measure correctly or is way off per se.. master volume 0 the levels wont get to 70 or 75db without changing the speaker levels what audessey had set for the levels.. or am i way off. Just asking


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> Have a question in regards to using the rs meter after everything was already set via audessey. When using the test tones i thought the rs meter does not measure correctly or is way off per se..


As I and others have said, the receiver's built-in test tones will bypass the levels that Audyssey has set. If you want to double-check the speaker levels, you need another source of test tones that you can play through the AVR while Audyssey is turned on and Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume are turned off. Such sources can include an audio test CD or SACD, or a video setup BluRay or DVD that has audio test tones: CNET review of BluRay setup discs


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Hi Feri,
> 
> I agree with all of the above.
> 
> I clicked on your "my setup" to take a look at your living room/library/music room once again. As before, I love the woodwork, shelves, etc. What is your *view* like? Can you provide a picture?
> 
> I tried inserting pictures of my setup a few years ago, and got so much garble in Martian cuneiform that took about 1/2 hour to remove that it discouraged me. I may try again. How did you get your text and pictures into your link "my setup?"


Hi Gary, thanks for your compliments on my setup. If you mean view through the window, then this is what I see:










Inserting pictures to a post is very easy, just select "insert image" from the toolbar below the message window and all you need to do is "drag and drop" the image. Some resizing may be required, though.


----------



## Soulburner

pbarach said:


> The "sweeps" are the whoop-whoop noises that Audyssey makes during calibration.
> 
> As others have pointed out, using the Denon test tones to check Audyssey's speaker levels is a bad idea because the test tones bypass the Audyssey calibration filters. If you want to know if the Audyssey-determined levels are accurate, you'll need to measure the speaker levels while Audyssey is operating. You should use test tones from an audio setup CD or setup DVD, with Audyssey turned on, to check speaker levels using a sound pressure meter. Also, be aware that many sound pressure meters are inaccurate when measuring SPL's from subwoofers.
> 
> I have one of the old analog Radio Shack SPL meters. When the meter is on a tripod at the main listening position, with its mic pointed to the ceiling, speaker test tones from Avia or Speers and Munsil test DVDs are always equal within 1-2 dB of each other, which is within the measurement error of the Audyssey mic.


And keep in mind Audyssey is averaging over a band. I think it was 500-2000 Hz or so. I wouldn't rely on any test tones at all.


----------



## TheRiek

Want to try to incorporate Audy XT32 into a DynaQuad hookup with the Marantz SR6013.. The Dynaco QD-1 Quadaptor uses the Hafler connection scheme to route left and right ambience (difference) signals derived from a 2-channel stereo amplifier to the two surround speakers. The effect is quite realistic for classical music, adding a perceived depth without the odd spacial effects of synthesized surround, such as hearing french horns in the upper balcony or the like. You can also control the volume of the surrounds to the particular music playing.

The reason for wanting Audy correction is that without it the DEQ and dynamic volume functions are not available. These are quite useful for playing music in the great room at lower levels which the wife will tolerate. The DynaQuad config files would be stored on a 2nd thumb drive, with the 5.1 Home Theater configs on the first thumb drive. DynaQuad for music, 5.1 Dolby for encoded surround sources. The idea is to load the config of choice from the thumb drive using the AVR Restore function.

To equip this scheme without having to buy an additional two-channel amp, two stereo amp switches were added, one for the fronts and the second for the rears. In the SR6013, you can assign the rear height amps to the B front speakers with a 7.1 system. I connected the rear height outputs to the Quadaptor stereo inputs through the switches, needed so that the A and B front amps never see each other, which could lead to fireworks. Due to troubles with the Audy phone app, haven't yet run the correction process with the Front speaker selection set to the B speakers. Of course, when selecting the B speakers as fronts the Audyssey function is disabled, requiring a recal with that setting. Haven't yet confirmed that Audy will forward the front test signals out the rear height terminals and on to the Quadaptor inputs. The speaker configuration would be set to 2.1 stereo, as test chirps don't seem to make it to the surrounds through the Quadaptor. Unclear why not just yet. But that's not a deal breaker for this purpose. The Quadaptor was designed to be used with 70's era stereos which had a balance control or individual gain controls so that you could null out the ambience channels with equal amplitude in-phase stereo signals (preferably sine waves).

The wife is out tomorrow for 6 hours so I'll give it a try and report back. If it works in the AVR, it should work with the app as well, if I ever get that working reliably.


----------



## Bimbleton

Hello there. This is my first time with Audyssey XT32 calibration (through Denon 3700H). It works fine calibrated through the receiver, but when I try to use the app... it tests my subwoofer (no problem), then test tones the Front L speaker, which produces no sound! It seems to hang at this step in the calibration.
When I cancel setup and rerun through the receiver, it works just fine. Any thoughts?


----------



## TheRiek

TheRiek said:


> Want to try to incorporate Audy XT32 into a DynaQuad hookup with the Marantz SR6013.. The Dynaco QD-1 Quadaptor uses the Hafler connection scheme to route left and right ambience (difference) signals derived from a 2-channel stereo amplifier to the two surround speakers. The effect is quite realistic for classical music, adding a perceived depth without the odd spacial effects of synthesized surround, such as hearing french horns in the upper balcony or the like. You can also control the volume of the surrounds to the particular music playing.
> 
> The reason for wanting Audy correction is that without it the DEQ and dynamic volume functions are not available. These are quite useful for playing music in the great room at lower levels which the wife will tolerate. The DynaQuad config files would be stored on a 2nd thumb drive, with the 5.1 Home Theater configs on the first thumb drive. DynaQuad for music, 5.1 Dolby for encoded surround sources. The idea is to load the config of choice from the thumb drive using the AVR Restore function.
> 
> To equip this scheme without having to buy an additional two-channel amp, two stereo amp switches were added, one for the fronts and the second for the rears. In the SR6013, you can assign the rear height amps to the B front speakers with a 7.1 system. I connected the rear height outputs to the Quadaptor stereo inputs through the switches, needed so that the A and B front amps never see each other, which could lead to fireworks. Due to troubles with the Audy phone app, haven't yet run the correction process with the Front speaker selection set to the B speakers. Of course, when selecting the B speakers as fronts the Audyssey function is disabled, requiring a recal with that setting. Haven't yet confirmed that Audy will forward the front test signals out the rear height terminals and on to the Quadaptor inputs. The speaker configuration would be set to 2.1 stereo, as test chirps don't seem to make it to the surrounds through the Quadaptor. Unclear why not just yet. But that's not a deal breaker for this purpose. The Quadaptor was designed to be used with 70's era stereos which had a balance control or individual gain controls so that you could null out the ambience channels with equal amplitude in-phase stereo signals (preferably sine waves).
> 
> The wife is out tomorrow for 6 hours so I'll give it a try and report back. If it works in the AVR, it should work with the app as well, if I ever get that working reliably.


(10-17-20) Scheme worked well today, in that switching configs with thumb drives is easy, takes about a minute. Will continue to troubleshoot the app through the app thread.


----------



## TheRiek

Bimbleton said:


> Hello there. This is my first time with Audyssey XT32 calibration (through Denon 3700H). It works fine calibrated through the receiver, but when I try to use the app... it tests my subwoofer (no problem), then test tones the Front L speaker, which produces no sound! It seems to hang at this step in the calibration.
> When I cancel setup and rerun through the receiver, it works just fine. Any thoughts?


 I've had about the same issue as you. You'll want to jump over to the Audyssey app thread on this forum. While there are over three years of posts (thousands) to wade through, members have left good tips and fixes there. My take after reading them and 2 weeks of frustration is that the app is a crap shoot with Android. I tried running the app in the Memu Android emulator under Windows 10, couldn't even get the app to find my AVR. So the issues go beyond just my Android 10 phone. One post says try Memu in Windows 7, but who wants to go back to that world. I don't think the price of an iPhone or iPad is justified on the basis of the Audy app alone. I'm content to wait for the update process to roll on and try again next year. Or better yet, ask Santa for a miniDSP with Dirac Live.


----------



## Soulburner

I wouldn't put too much stock into the earlier posts, though. Many of the bugs have been fixed and so a lot of the initial information in the thread is no longer relevant.


----------



## TheRiek

Soulburner said:


> I wouldn't put too much stock into the earlier posts, though. Many of the bugs have been fixed and so a lot of the initial information in the thread is no longer relevant.


Acknowledge what you are saying, SoulBurner. But some of us just starting still have the issues, which is relevant. Perhaps we're a small minority. I hope so.


----------



## garygarrison

Hi all,

Well I finally got my set up under "discussions," under "garygarrison's set-up," not surprisingly. I'm still not sure how to get a link into my signature, but I'll try. So people who want to take a look could either try going straight to "discussions, garygarrison's set-up," or click on the link, if I've managed to get one on. Please let me know if both text and pictures came through. Thanks.

*_*

*  Gary Garrison's set-up  *
Here is our Music Room/Library/Home Theater, photographed with a pretty bad flash unit. Captions are below each picture. The room is 25 ft. long by 16 ft 9 in. wide, with a sloped ceiling, highest in the rear, that averages 10 ft. 2 in, high, running from 8 ft.6 in. to 11ft. 10in. Full...







www.avsforum.com


----------



## Soulburner

^
Here:








Gary Garrison's set-up


Here is our Music Room/Library/Home Theater, photographed with a pretty bad flash unit. Captions are below each picture. The room is 25 ft. long by 16 ft 9 in. wide, with a sloped ceiling, highest in the rear, that averages 10 ft. 2 in, high, running from 8 ft.6 in. to 11ft. 10in. Full range...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Well I finally got my set up under "discussions," under "garygarrison's set-up," not surprisingly. I'm still not sure how to get a link into my signature, but I'll try. So people who want to take a look could either try going straight to "discussions, garygarrison's set-up," or click on the link, if I've managed to get one on. Please let me know if both text and pictures came through. Thanks.


Beautiful room Gary. Surely incomparable to anything else! Congrats and thanks for sharing these pictures!


----------



## garygarrison

Thanks, Feri!


----------



## deezwho

Audyssey and extension cable question...

I have my Denon AVR x3700h in another room, so I needed an extension cable for the Audyssey mic.
When I went to do the SW level matching before the actual calibration it was reporting >75dB even when the sub was turned all the way to 0.
To investigate I brought the mc into the room with the avr and plugged the Audyssey cable directly into the receiver and was getting readings in the low 50s. If I then plugged the extension cable into the receiver with or without even connecting the Audyssy mic I was getting 70s again.
I tried another cable today and it still reads in the low 60s with or without being connected to the mic or any actual audio being present while the Audyssey cable reads in the low 50s.

_I just checked the sound level in the same location I have the receiver in using an app on my iphone and that reads 38dB! Now Im really confused as to what is going on_


Questions
1. Should I still go through the whole Audyssey thing knowing that the sub level will be off by about 10dB? Or will everything be off by the same 10dB so it wont matter?

2. Where can I get a cable that wont have this effect? I tried 2 different cables that claimed they had been used for Audyssey configuration before but clearly they are not producing the same exact data as the Audyssy mic/cable would alone.

3. Assuming Audyssey is correct, why would my phone be off by over 10dB? And how does an extension cable not hooked up to a microphone read 60+dB?
Is there a problem with my Audyssey mic or my receiver?


Thanks


----------



## garygarrison

Others, with more knowledge of electronics, will give you better answers. 

Shooting in the dark, _*reflecting what I have heard from others*_.

Is your extension cable picking up Hum? (and a lot of it?) It used to be that a unbalanced mic (2 wires instead of 3) was unsuitable for long, two wire, cable runs. Maybe the tech has improved since dinosaurs roamed the earth.

BUT, I know that others have used extension cables with no problem. How _*long*_ is your extension cable? 

If your refrigerator is within 7 leagues of your receiver, unplug it (temporarily).

Is your house wiring main attached to a good ground (like a stake driven into the ground, either through a vampire's heart, or not)?

iphone SPL meters may be off* in the bass.* Even some good SPL meters are.

Audyssey may be able to deal with all this. It may be able to compensate for initial missadjustment. 

As a last resort, disconnect your receiver and move it close to the listening area, so you can run Audyssey calibration using the short mic cable that came with the microphone.
*__*


----------



## deezwho

I decided to give it a shot after turning off the 3 fridges and freezer in the house. 
Sub was set to 10 o clock position to pass the 75db level. Gave me a -4 sub Trim on the final measurements.
Also, it recommended lower crossover settings for my front speakers (60hz) than the recommended crossover for them (Klipsch THX series - 80hz). Should I go into manual mode and reset the crossover for all of the speakers to 80hz?

I will have to do the movie test tomorrow to see how it sounds I guess.


----------



## garygarrison

"Should I go into manual mode and reset the crossover for all of the speakers to 80hz?"

If you have a good subwoofer, set the mains for 80 Hz, since Audyssey considers the F3 of 60Hz to be realistic. By setting them at 80 Hz the mains may be a little clearer and less burdened, and a good sub is probably better for the bass. Your two choices are not very different, though, so expect the difference to be very subtle.


----------



## StephenMSmith

How important is it to move the microphone to different positions if all I care about is where I sit? Hey, I paid for all this stuff so screw you guests, lol. For that matter, if I made a couple guests sit in their spots and then did AUD measurements at my seating position, would the results be improved for my seat by any significant margin?


----------



## pbz06

StephenMSmith said:


> How important is it to move the microphone to different positions if all I care about is where I sit? Hey, I paid for all this stuff so screw you guests, lol. For that matter, if I made a couple guests sit in their spots and then did AUD measurements at my seating position, would the results be improved for my seat by any significant margin?


Most of us calibrate for 1 seat only (which is most realistic for good results anyway), but you would still want to use all positions available...just use a tighter cluster no more than 8" to 12" in any direction. That will give Audyssey a good amount of data to work with. It will also give it a better representation of the listening space. We have 2 ears, one on each side...the mic is one single point facing up etc.


----------



## garygarrison

@StephenMSmith

... And, your head moves around a bit, unless you use an audiophile head clamp.

I'd use all 8 positions, clustered around your head, with number 1 where the center of your head would be, so the setting of levels will be correct, then 1 EACH by the opening of each ear canal at your hypothetical usual head position, and the rest close around. Try to avoid a bright bounce back from your couch/chair back or head rest. If your headrest area is leather or plastic, rather than soft cloth, you might want to temporarily put a doubled (tripled/quadrupled) soft towell or blanket over the headrest, just behind where your head would be. You don' want early, bright, reflections from leather, leatherette, or plastic. 

*OR,*

Give your guests a break, and spread out the mic positions a bit. Experiment. We used 8 positions covering a 5 seat listening area, and I'm _amazed _at how good it is in the extreme seats (and the center). Even from the desk behind the low back couch (about 5 feet back), it's real sounding, like a live orchestra if the recording is good, with imaging pretty nice (between 5 and 7 sources across the front, with several sources stretching back to the surrounds [5.1].


----------



## StephenMSmith

OK, I'll compromise and take 8 readings from around my spot but also require all guests to the wear one of these audiophile head clamps you mention so that their mouths can't move and interrupt me during the movie.


----------



## iStorm

Hi guys,

I'm back to Audyssey from Dirac and currently own a 8805 Marantz (also gave my parents my 7705 and own other Denon AVRs). 

I must say that I never knew too much about target curves, roll offs, etc until I had to learn Dirac. Now I can pinpoint pretty much exactly where I need to EQ, etc. 

It seems like my speakers are very good measuring on their own so I've implemented a 300hz EQ cutoff which is to flatten the response prior to 300 since that has a lot of dips and peaks there. 

I must say it seems like a world of difference and I would even say I'm getting similar results with the 8805 that I had with Dirac!

I also cut the subwoofer EQ off at 120hz and that seems to work really well but I did around 250hz with Dirac, which is the default for Audyssey. Does this matter as much?

Also, I'm assuming the "High Frequency Roll Off" no longer applies since I'm using my natural speakers response past 300hz? I just wonder why this isn't grayed out when you EQ less than full range then. 

I have thought about implementing my own target curve like I did with Dirac by using a +6 or +8db Harman curve, especially since Audyssey does such a flat curve for the subs. Would I need to do the subs only for the target curve or do you have to manually do the speakers as well to follow it? With Dirac you could just apply the same Harman boosted target curve used to all of the speakers including the subs. 

For now I am just boosting the subs up evenly until -5 in the AVR and then adjusting my pb16s on the subs themselves with more gain and it seems to be working well but I really liked the Harman bell curves more than a flat response at the low end like Audyssey does. 

Adjusting the phase on my back sub closest to me also seems to be making a world of difference so far. 

Very happy with the 8805 and hoping for some suggestions/help on these areas of concern. 

Thanks guys!!


----------



## Soulburner

iStorm said:


> It seems like my speakers are very good measuring on their own so I've implemented a 300hz EQ cutoff which is to flatten the response prior to 300 since that has a lot of dips and peaks there.
> 
> I must say it seems like a world of difference and I would even say I'm getting similar results with the 8805 that I had with Dirac!


We have a similar experience.


iStorm said:


> Also, I'm assuming the "High Frequency Roll Off" no longer applies since I'm using my natural speakers response past 300hz?


That is my understanding.


iStorm said:


> I have thought about implementing my own target curve like I did with Dirac by using a +6 or +8db Harman curve, especially since Audyssey does such a flat curve for the subs. Would I need to do the subs only for the target curve or do you have to manually do the speakers as well to follow it? With Dirac you could just apply the same Harman boosted target curve used to all of the speakers including the subs.


I find this unnecessary with Dynamic EQ. Audyssey was designed to use DEQ so that perceptual bass levels remain consistent regardless of volume. I find that + an increase to sub levels is plenty to give me the bass I want. I think a target curve could help blend the subs and speakers better if your situation calls for it. So far that hasn't been necessary for my speakers and my room.


iStorm said:


> Adjusting the phase on my back sub closest to me also seems to be making a world of difference so far.


This should not be done...do you have the ability to measure the system to see what is going on?

Subs should be at 0 phase/delay before Audyssey. You'll get the best results letting it do the work. I've tried precisely optimizing before but it always ended up worse. Maybe it confuses the system, I don't know.
Afterward, it would normally just screw up the EQ.


----------



## x-evil-x

Anybody know why when I change freq range on the app for the subwoofer to 20hz it works fine In my bedroom marantz 6013. I retest with a umik1 and it does turn off eq on the sub. 
my other marantz 6013 in the living room I do the same thing and eq does NOT change. The eq won’t stop doing the same thing turning it to 20hz and sending it to the receiver. It loads and everything seems fine. Then I retest the sub with the mic and it’s exactly the same.
nothing else I can do. but why does 1 receiver work fine and the other does not? I don’t understand this. I have a minidsp id like to eq my own subs with no audyssey eq going to it.


----------



## Soulburner

x-evil-x said:


> Anybody know why when I change freq range on the app for the subwoofer to 20hz it works fine In my bedroom marantz 6013. I retest with a umik1 and it does turn off eq on the sub.
> my other marantz 6013 in the living room I do the same thing and eq does NOT change. The eq won’t stop doing the same thing turning it to 20hz and sending it to the receiver. It loads and everything seems fine. Then I retest the sub with the mic and it’s exactly the same.
> nothing else I can do. but why does 1 receiver work fine and the other does not? I don’t understand this. I have a minidsp id like to eq my own subs with no audyssey eq going to it.


I'm having trouble understanding why you would do this. You want to only apply EQ to 20 Hz and lower?


----------



## x-evil-x

Soulburner said:


> I'm having trouble understanding why you would do this. You want to only apply EQ to 20 Hz and lower?


No I want no eq done with audyssey. You can cut the freq it eq’s in the app down to 20hz so basically It turns off the eq audyssey is doing. 
then I can eq with my minidsp. 
this is my bedroom setup with turning audyssey off on the sub(down to 20hz on the app) then me Eqing the subs on my own. Pink is middle of the bed. Other two are left side and right side of the bed.


----------



## Soulburner

I think you are misunderstanding the controls.

The filter frequency range is not a sound cut-off but a filter cut-off. Setting the sub to 20 Hz with that screen means you don't want any EQ performed above 20 Hz. The sub will still play as normal, but without EQ.


----------



## pbz06

x-evil-x said:


> No I want no eq done with audyssey. You can cut the freq it eq’s in the app down to 20hz so basically It turns off the eq audyssey is doing.
> then I can eq with my minidsp.
> this is my bedroom setup with turning audyssey off on the sub(down to 20hz on the app) then me Eqing the subs on my own. Pink is middle of the bed. Other two are left side and right side of the bed.
> View attachment 3053286


Then don't use Audyssey or do manual first. Seems like overcomplicating things.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> We have a similar experience.
> 
> That is my understanding.
> 
> I find this unnecessary with Dynamic EQ. Audyssey was designed to use DEQ so that perceptual bass levels remain consistent regardless of volume. I find that + an increase to sub levels is plenty to give me the bass I want. I think a target curve could help blend the subs and speakers better if your situation calls for it. So far that hasn't been necessary for my speakers and my room.
> 
> This should not be done...do you have the ability to measure the system to see what is going on?
> 
> Subs should be at 0 phase/delay before Audyssey. You'll get the best results letting it do the work. I've tried precisely optimizing before but it always ended up worse. Maybe it confuses the system, I don't know.
> Afterward, it would normally just screw up the EQ.


Hey there and thank you for your reply!

So you prefer DEQ ON and then adding some additional boost? If that's the case, I used to do the same thing and still do that on my parent's 7705 in their home theater. For this time around with Audyssey I really wanted to give DEQ OFF a try and just up the subs more to compensate since DEQ also boosts the surrounds and center channel which I do not like as much.

Since you've had good results also with implementing a cut off in EQ for the speakers (300hz for me based off of where I feel is a good point in my specific case), have you also tried to cut the EQ for your subs off at 120hz? If so did you notice a difference between 120hz and the standard 250hz cut off?

As far as phase I am talking about adjusting the phase of the back sub closest to me AFTER calibrating with Audyssey. All of the changes I do are after Audyssey calibrates. For instance, I will calibrate my subs with all ports open (SVS pb16s) in standard mode and then change them to 1 port plugged extended mode to dig to a deeper hz after calibration.

The same applies to the phase control on the back sub since i have subs on opposing corners in the room. SVS, among others advise that if you're running multiple subs especially in an opposing corner configuration then to adjust phase on the sub that's closest to you until it sounds right. I adjusted the phase with the same bass intensive scene after calibration on the back sub in 45 degree increments until i got more bass for the MLP. Then I went up to the next phase point and backed it back off to where it sounded best (135 phase in my case). You're saying this is wrong? If so, can you please explain?

I will definitely try DEQ again. I was more so seeing if DEQ OFF and implementing a target curve might be better similar to how I did a Harman boosted curve with Dirac. I just didn't know if I was to add the same curve to all speakers and subs like Dirac or just add a harman curve to the subs only on the app?

Thanks for any insight! I greatly appreciate it!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> I also cut the subwoofer EQ off at 120hz and that seems to work really well but I did around 250hz with Dirac, which is the default for Audyssey. Does this matter as much?
> 
> Also, I'm assuming the "High Frequency Roll Off" no longer applies since I'm using my natural speakers response past 300hz? I just wonder why this isn't grayed out when you EQ less than full range then.
> 
> I have thought about implementing my own target curve like I did with Dirac by using a +6 or +8db Harman curve, especially since Audyssey does such a flat curve for the subs. Would I need to do the subs only for the target curve or do you have to manually do the speakers as well to follow it? With Dirac you could just apply the same Harman boosted target curve used to all of the speakers including the subs.
> 
> For now I am just boosting the subs up evenly until -5 in the AVR and then adjusting my pb16s on the subs themselves with more gain and it seems to be working well but I really liked the Harman bell curves more than a flat response at the low end like Audyssey does.
> 
> Adjusting the phase on my back sub closest to me also seems to be making a world of difference so far.
> 
> Very happy with the 8805 and hoping for some suggestions/help on these areas of concern.
> 
> Thanks guys!!


I don't really see the benefit of limiting the subwoofer EQ at all. You want the entire bass frequencies EQ'd at minimum...say in your case up to 300hz whether that comes from the speakers or subwoofers or both. If you have a crossover at 80hz, the sub will roll off in the upper range at 24dB per octave (-24dB at 160hz) so in theory it wouldn't be impacting it much at 120hz, but still I don't think you should limit it.

Correct, the high frequency roll off target has no effect if you limit your EQ below the 10khz mark, which you are. Same with MRC if it was left enabled.

The harman curve idea is generally the entire range, from 20hz to 20khz with a 1dB per octave slope (slight variances to that). So in the app you would apply it to all your channels. I usually leave the subwoofer curve alone (flat) and let it roll off on it's own....I would personally recommend doing the slope to 30hz, and keeping it benched the rest of the way until its port tune.

But either way, glad to see you experimenting


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hey there and thank you for your reply!
> 
> So you prefer DEQ ON and then adding some additional boost? If that's the case, I used to do the same thing and still do that on my parent's 7705 in their home theater. For this time around with Audyssey I really wanted to give DEQ OFF a try and just up the subs more to compensate since DEQ also boosts the surrounds and center channel which I do not like as much.
> 
> Since you've had good results also with implementing a cut off in EQ for the speakers (300hz for me based off of where I feel is a good point in my specific case), have you also tried to cut the EQ for your subs off at 120hz? If so did you notice a difference between 120hz and the standard 250hz cut off?
> 
> As far as phase I am talking about adjusting the phase of the back sub closest to me AFTER calibrating with Audyssey. All of the changes I do are after Audyssey calibrates. For instance, I will calibrate my subs with all ports open (SVS pb16s) in standard mode and then change them to 1 port plugged extended mode to dig to a deeper hz after calibration.
> 
> The same applies to the phase control on the back sub since i have subs on opposing corners in the room. SVS, among others advise that if you're running multiple subs especially in an opposing corner configuration then to adjust phase on the sub that's closest to you until it sounds right. I adjusted the phase with the same bass intensive scene after calibration on the back sub in 45 degree increments until i got more bass for the MLP. Then I went up to the next phase point and backed it back off to where it sounded best (135 phase in my case). You're saying this is wrong? If so, can you please explain?
> 
> I will definitely try DEQ again. I was more so seeing if DEQ OFF and implementing a target curve might be better similar to how I did a Harman boosted curve with Dirac. I just didn't know if I was to add the same curve to all speakers and subs like Dirac or just add a harman curve to the subs only on the app?
> 
> Thanks for any insight! I greatly appreciate it!


I tend to switch DEQ on and off for periods of time. I mostly love it and end up reverting back...at the moment it's OFF.

With it enabled, the most I ever add on top is +3dB...some movies that's too much so I usually just leave my SW trims as they were per audyssey. If I ever disable it, I usually need at least a +8dB boost in my SW trim though.

Also, because I never go louder than -15 on my MV, when I use DEQ I also usually bring down my surrounds and top rears by another -3dB in the trims so they are balanced at that level and I get most of the bass benefits only.


----------



## Soulburner

I think most people wouldn't like DEQ on top of a house curve, I believe it's mostly designed to get you there with the default target and does a remarkable job. That said, there still is merit in doing your own house curve in some situations, for example to blend better with the main speakers as adding to the sub levels only raises the subs. Maybe you want to smooth the slope to 150 Hz, for example. I find the sub ramping down at 100 Hz to meet with the mains is fine in my system and gives better clarity. In my system, adding to the sub levels gives an even boost over the whole range, which is what I want since I achieved a flattened response already. If doing a full-range correction, of course you have to do the full range including the sub.



iStorm said:


> Since you've had good results also with implementing a cut off in EQ for the speakers (300hz for me based off of where I feel is a good point in my specific case), have you also tried to cut the EQ for your subs off at 120hz? If so did you notice a difference between 120hz and the standard 250hz cut off?


I don't see how it would help. Remember this is a filter cut off, not a sound cut off (crossover). It is telling the system not to create any equalization filters above that frequency. No real reason to change it for the sub.


iStorm said:


> As far as phase I am talking about adjusting the phase of the back sub closest to me AFTER calibrating with Audyssey. All of the changes I do are after Audyssey calibrates. For instance, I will calibrate my subs with all ports open (SVS pb16s) in standard mode and then change them to 1 port plugged extended mode to dig to a deeper hz after calibration.
> 
> The same applies to the phase control on the back sub since i have subs on opposing corners in the room. SVS, among others advise that if you're running multiple subs especially in an opposing corner configuration then to adjust phase on the sub that's closest to you until it sounds right. I adjusted the phase with the same bass intensive scene after calibration on the back sub in 45 degree increments until i got more bass for the MLP. Then I went up to the next phase point and backed it back off to where it sounded best (135 phase in my case). You're saying this is wrong? If so, can you please explain?


Unless you can measure what's happening I wouldn't do this. Audyssey is doing the phase/delay adjustment as part of Sub EQ HT. If you change the phase or delay afterwards, you will probably wreck that alignment.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> I don't really see the benefit of limiting the subwoofer EQ at all. You want the entire bass frequencies EQ'd at minimum...say in your case up to 300hz whether that comes from the speakers or subwoofers or both. If you have a crossover at 80hz, the sub will roll off in the upper range at 24dB per octave (-24dB at 160hz) so in theory it wouldn't be impacting it much at 120hz, but still I don't think you should limit it.
> 
> Correct, the high frequency roll off target has no effect if you limit your EQ below the 10khz mark, which you are. Same with MRC if it was left enabled.
> 
> The harman curve idea is generally the entire range, from 20hz to 20khz with a 1dB per octave slope (slight variances to that). So in the app you would apply it to all your channels. I usually leave the subwoofer curve alone (flat) and let it roll off on it's own....I would personally recommend doing the slope to 30hz, and keeping it benched the rest of the way until its port tune.
> 
> But either way, glad to see you experimenting


Hi again and thanks 
Thanks for your input as always buddy!

So it sounds like you recommend leaving my preferred EQ


pbz06 said:


> I tend to switch DEQ on and off for periods of time. I mostly love it and end up reverting back...at the moment it's OFF.
> 
> With it enabled, the most I ever add on top is +3dB...some movies that's too much so I usually just leave my SW trims as they were per audyssey. If I ever disable it, I usually need at least a +8dB boost in my SW trim though.
> 
> Also, because I never go louder than -15 on my MV, when I use DEQ I also usually bring down my surrounds and top rears by another -3dB in the trims so they are balanced at that level and I get most of the bass benefits only.





pbz06 said:


> I don't really see the benefit of limiting the subwoofer EQ at all. You want the entire bass frequencies EQ'd at minimum...say in your case up to 300hz whether that comes from the speakers or subwoofers or both. If you have a crossover at 80hz, the sub will roll off in the upper range at 24dB per octave (-24dB at 160hz) so in theory it wouldn't be impacting it much at 120hz, but still I don't think you should limit it.
> 
> Correct, the high frequency roll off target has no effect if you limit your EQ below the 10khz mark, which you are. Same with MRC if it was left enabled.
> 
> The harman curve idea is generally the entire range, from 20hz to 20khz with a 1dB per octave slope (slight variances to that). So in the app you would apply it to all your channels. I usually leave the subwoofer curve alone (flat) and let it roll off on it's own....I would personally recommend doing the slope to 30hz, and keeping it benched the rest of the way until its port tune.
> 
> But either way, glad to see you experimenting


Hi again! Thanks so much for your input as always!
It sounds like I should just keep the speakers EQed to 300hz then keep the subwoofer at full range which is 250hz on the app. 

I still can't decide between 80hz on my towers or 60hz. According to Audioholics measured review they stated if you have good towers to use them since my subs, pb16s, do not have great midrange at 60hz but wouldn't having dual pb16s be better than SVS ultra towers at 60hz?

I always disable MRC and think it sounds much cleaner than with it on so that's a non issue. 

I may end up trying the harman curve. So when you implement it, you do not limit the EQ like I'm doing to 300hz? You do full range so it's a bell curve throughout? What have been your results comparing this harman curve tweak full range to doing something like DEQ ON or off and limiting the correction of the EQ? 

Can you also simplify what you mean by doing the slope to 30hz, etc? My subs in extended mode can dig to like 13hz, which i use. 

thanks!


pbz06 said:


> I tend to switch DEQ on and off for periods of time. I mostly love it and end up reverting back...at the moment it's OFF.
> 
> With it enabled, the most I ever add on top is +3dB...some movies that's too much so I usually just leave my SW trims as they were per audyssey. If I ever disable it, I usually need at least a +8dB boost in my SW trim though.
> 
> Also, because I never go louder than -15 on my MV, when I use DEQ I also usually bring down my surrounds and top rears by another -3dB in the trims so they are balanced at that level and I get most of the bass benefits only.


It seems like in this new room, maybe because it is bigger than my previous home theater, I listen at -10MV or 10 below reference. Sometimes on movies like the Dark Knight Rises where there is such a wide dynamic range (tons of mid range bass, banes voice being amplified. Etc) i do -12 MV or 12 below reference level. 

I have also noticed in this new room my AVR trims for my speakers are all pretty negative. I'm assuming due to room acoustics and my amp is a 200w per channel. I'm not sure if this is why i have to listen at higher levels than before at old house (-15 or -16).

Doesn't DEQ also boost the center channel? So you leave the center channel alone when turning DEQ on? Do you actually use an SPL meter to bring the surrounds and rears down as well or just do AVR trim by -3 on each? I didn't think -3 on the trims truly equate to- 3db or every 1.0 is 1db equivalent but could be wrong. 

I am definitely doing a lot of experimenting right now with DEQ ON and OFF. I may do the same for my surrounds as well. Do you know if DEQ also boosts atmos height speakers or is it just center, surrounds and subs as i remember? I think I may prefer DEQ ON since I do not see myself going beyond maybe -10. I may have to go higher on streaming versus discs though. Haven't tested streaming services since i use discs most of the time in this theater. 

Thanks and sorry for all of the questions!


Soulburner said:


> I think most people wouldn't like DEQ on top of a house curve, I believe it's mostly designed to get you there with the default target and does a remarkable job. That said, there still is merit in doing your own house curve in some situations, for example to blend better with the main speakers as adding to the sub levels only raises the subs. Maybe you want to smooth the slope to 150 Hz, for example. I find the sub ramping down at 100 Hz to meet with the mains is fine in my system and gives better clarity. In my system, adding to the sub levels gives an even boost over the whole range, which is what I want since I achieved a flattened response already. If doing a full-range correction, of course you have to do the full range including the sub.
> 
> 
> I don't see how it would help. Remember this is a filter cut off, not a sound cut off (crossover). It is telling the system not to create any equalization filters above that frequency. No real reason to change it for the sub.
> 
> Unless you can measure what's happening I wouldn't do this. Audyssey is doing the phase/delay adjustment as part of Sub EQ HT. If you change the phase or delay afterwards, you will probably wreck that alignment.


Hi again,

Thanks so much for your replies, I really appreciate it! 

I may have mistyped it but I didn't mean doing a house curve and DEQ set to ON. I was referring to doing one or the other. 

The sub correcting full range at 250hz makes sense and that's where I would EQ for Dirac as well (I think it was 240hz but very similar). 

When you're referring to adding to the sub levels are you talking about what DEQ does or are you saying you add more of a boost after DEQ? I typically add more boost but I wish there was a way I knew exactly how much I added. I think using an SPL meter with the internal test tones works, but not sure how accurate that would be on the subs. My pb16s equate to like .4 or .5db I believe per every volume increase on the sub but I do not know exactly how much. That's just a guess. 

When you're talking about the sub ramping down at 100hz are you referring to the way Audyssey EQs it or are you referring to the flat curve that audyssey applies? Also, I use reference when watching movies since I have an untreated room and when DEQ is on I have the offset at 0. Not sure if this would affect what you're referring to. 

I know that SVS just makes subs and speakers and aren't Audyssey experts so that's why i wanted to mention the phase adjustment after Audyssey calibration here for my dual pb16s. 

What I was advised by SVS to do is run audyssey at 0 phase on both subs that are at opposing corners in the room. Then after calibration to go in and find a good bass scene. Then adjust phase on the sub that's closest to my MLP (rear sub in my case) and then adjust phase in 45 degree increments until it sounds good (more chair shake, more bass overall etc). Then when it sounds not as good, back it back down to the previous 45 degree increment. 

So I tested Dark Knight Rises at the beginning where the airplane creates a lot of bass. Then I started at 0 phase and did 45, 90, etc on the app back to back. I felt much more bass at 135 and 90 phase than 0 and 180 so I stuck with 135 phase on rear sub. So you're saying that this is completely messing up my sub distance on the rear sub now that audyssey already time /distance aligned ? I have heard of others doing it too and I'm just confused why if it gives my seat more bass, it would be wrong. Please let me know your thoughts. I really appreciate it. 

Also, I'm not sure if you use ported subs but it seems like since I use extended mode with 1 port plugged, it is better to calibrate fully open on the ports in standard mode then switch the tune after. Is that the general consensus since audyssey calibrates the 20hz frequencies better this way? With Dirac i calibrated in extended mode so that it correctly calibrates it but I know audyssey is much different. 

I have also found that using Audyssey mic calibration positions has worked pretty well especially if i do the 2nd and 3rd positions 12 inches away from position 1. Then 4,5,6 are 24 inches from 1,2,3 and then 7,8 are right behind the chair but not touching the chair. Have you found similar results?

Thanks again for all of the help. I am very impressed so far with the 8805 and even think it is very close to the Dirac processors I've had. It is just hard to tell since my bass is very flat and doesn't have a harman boosted curve like with Dirac.


----------



## Soulburner

iStorm said:


> I still can't decide between 80hz on my towers or 60hz. According to Audioholics measured review they stated if you have good towers to use them since my subs, pb16s, do not have great midrange at 60hz but wouldn't having dual pb16s be better than SVS ultra towers at 60hz?


It all depends on how it plays out in your room with the peaks and dips. Most of us would recommend a UMIK-1 and Room EQ Wizard as a great tool for really getting this right. In short, I don't base it on the equipment I have, but on the actual results, which will vary.


iStorm said:


> I may end up trying the harman curve. So when you implement it, you do not limit the EQ like I'm doing to 300hz? You do full range so it's a bell curve throughout?


I believe you can implement just the bass part of the Harman curve if you wish, by limiting the frequency range as you are currently doing.


iStorm said:


> When you're referring to adding to the sub levels are you talking about what DEQ does or are you saying you add more of a boost after DEQ? I typically add more boost but I wish there was a way I knew exactly how much I added.


I do tend to boost the sub levels a bit in the AVR after Audyssey as they can be low for many people. We used to just take a picture of the screen, but now the app will tell us what it set all the speaker levels to so you can refer back to that.


iStorm said:


> When you're talking about the sub ramping down at 100hz are you referring to the way Audyssey EQs it or are you referring to the flat curve that audyssey applies? Also, I use reference when watching movies since I have an untreated room and when DEQ is on I have the offset at 0. Not sure if this would affect what you're referring to.


I'm referring to the overall frequency response, at the point where the subs cross to the speakers. If you look at the Harman curve, it doesn't ramp down the bass right at 100 Hz, but it extends to maybe 150 or 200 Hz. I prefer a little lower because I find too much midbass reduces vocal clarity, so I'm fine with the curve flattening out around 100 or 120 Hz at the most. This is something you will need to experiment with.

FYI, for the settings in the app to be in effect, we have to use the Audyssey Reference curve - they do not apply to any other.


iStorm said:


> What I was advised by SVS to do is run audyssey at 0 phase on both subs that are at opposing corners in the room. Then after calibration to go in and find a good bass scene. Then adjust phase on the sub that's closest to my MLP (rear sub in my case) and then adjust phase in 45 degree increments until it sounds good (more chair shake, more bass overall etc). Then when it sounds not as good, back it back down to the previous 45 degree increment.
> 
> So I tested Dark Knight Rises at the beginning where the airplane creates a lot of bass. Then I started at 0 phase and did 45, 90, etc on the app back to back. I felt much more bass at 135 and 90 phase than 0 and 180 so I stuck with 135 phase on rear sub. So you're saying that this is completely messing up my sub distance on the rear sub now that audyssey already time /distance aligned ? I have heard of others doing it too and I'm just confused why if it gives my seat more bass, it would be wrong. Please let me know your thoughts. I really appreciate it.


In my opinion, and others may chime in here, I do not think this is good advice. This may increase bass within a certain frequency range, but it will likely cause severe dips or cancellations at other frequencies. I will only recommend trying this if you have the ability to measure what is happening.

Audyssey's SubEQ HT already aligns the subs for the smoothest response and only fails a small percentage of the time in some setups, which we've seen here on the forums. Generally, you would only adjust the distances (post-Audyssey) of all subwoofers by the same amount to align them best with the main speakers and smooth out the crossover.


iStorm said:


> Also, I'm not sure if you use ported subs but it seems like since I use extended mode with 1 port plugged, it is better to calibrate fully open on the ports in standard mode then switch the tune after. Is that the general consensus since audyssey calibrates the 20hz frequencies better this way? With Dirac i calibrated in extended mode so that it correctly calibrates it but I know audyssey is much different.


It is recommended to run your subs in their maximum extension mode for Audyssey measurements, then change afterward as desired.


iStorm said:


> I have also found that using Audyssey mic calibration positions has worked pretty well especially if i do the 2nd and 3rd positions 12 inches away from position 1. Then 4,5,6 are 24 inches from 1,2,3 and then 7,8 are right behind the chair but not touching the chair. Have you found similar results?


I have not compared more vs less, but I do believe more is better and keep them all within about a foot of each other at my seat since I prioritize that location.

And of course, after all of this tweaking, I always listen to music to confirm and make any fine adjustments.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> It all depends on how it plays out in your room with the peaks and dips. Most of us would recommend a UMIK-1 and Room EQ Wizard as a great tool for really getting this right. In short, I don't base it on the equipment I have, but on the actual results, which will vary.
> 
> I believe you can implement just the bass part of the Harman curve if you wish, by limiting the frequency range as you are currently doing.
> 
> I do tend to boost the sub levels a bit in the AVR after Audyssey as they can be low for many people. We used to just take a picture of the screen, but now the app will tell us what it set all the speaker levels to so you can refer back to that.
> 
> I'm referring to the overall frequency response, at the point where the subs cross to the speakers. If you look at the Harman curve, it doesn't ramp down the bass right at 100 Hz, but it extends to maybe 150 or 200 Hz. I prefer a little lower because I find too much midbass reduces vocal clarity, so I'm fine with the curve flattening out around 100 or 120 Hz at the most. This is something you will need to experiment with.
> 
> FYI, for the settings in the app to be in effect, we have to use the Audyssey Reference curve - they do not apply to any other.
> 
> In my opinion, and others may chime in here, I do not think this is good advice. This may increase bass within a certain frequency range, but it will likely cause severe dips or cancellations at other frequencies. I will only recommend trying this if you have the ability to measure what is happening.
> 
> Audyssey's SubEQ HT already aligns the subs for the smoothest response and only fails a small percentage of the time in some setups, which we've seen here on the forums. Generally, you would only adjust the distances (post-Audyssey) of all subwoofers by the same amount to align them best with the main speakers and smooth out the crossover.
> 
> It is recommended to run your subs in their maximum extension mode for Audyssey measurements, then change afterward as desired.
> 
> I have not compared more vs less, but I do believe more is better and keep them all within about a foot of each other at my seat since I prioritize that location.
> 
> And of course, after all of this tweaking, I always listen to music to confirm and make any fine adjustments.


Thanks so much for your detailed reply here!

After some more listening tests I can confirm that the phase 0 does make the most sense. The phase of 135 seemed to make some frequencies better overall but then mess up other frequencies as you mentioned. 

So you're basically saying the opposite about port tuning in regards to Audyssey calibration? All ports open on my subs is like around 20hz and then 1 port sealed is extended which goes down to around 13hz. So i should try calibrating in extended 13hz mode instead of 20hz mode? I listen with them set to 13hz mode since I watch movies only in here. 

I think for now I am going to keep things pretty simple and just use DEQ ON and lower my surrounds by around the same as what DEQ boosts them by. This does sound very similar to Dirac that I am used to, especially since I listen at -12 or -10 most of the time. 

As far as how much extra db I'm giving to the subs, I was more so talking about adjusting on the subs themselves. I usually try to get my sub trims super negative then do them evenly up to -5 for the one. So for instance, If one sub calibrates at -10 and -7.5. The one that is -7.5 would become -5 and the other would be -7.5 now. I try not to go above -5 to avoid clipping. 

Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## pbz06

i


iStorm said:


> Thanks so much for your detailed reply here!
> 
> After some more listening tests I can confirm that the phase 0 does make the most sense. The phase of 135 seemed to make some frequencies better overall but then mess up other frequencies as you mentioned.
> 
> *So you're basically saying the opposite about port tuning in regards to Audyssey calibration? All ports open on my subs is like around 20hz and then 1 port sealed is extended which goes down to around 13hz. So i should try calibrating in extended 13hz mode instead of 20hz mode? I listen with them set to 13hz mode since I watch movies only in here.*
> 
> I think for now I am going to keep things pretty simple and just use DEQ ON and lower my surrounds by around the same as what DEQ boosts them by. This does sound very similar to Dirac that I am used to, especially since I listen at -12 or -10 most of the time.
> 
> As far as how much extra db I'm giving to the subs, I was more so talking about adjusting on the subs themselves. I usually try to get my sub trims super negative then do them evenly up to -5 for the one. So for instance, If one sub calibrates at -10 and -7.5. The one that is -7.5 would become -5 and the other would be -7.5 now. I try not to go above -5 to avoid clipping.
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts!


There's no correct approach. Both ways can work. With my current calibration, I did it in Extended mode (16hz port tune) and left it as such. I'm expecting new surrounds this weekend, so I'll re-run Audyssy and I was planning to do it the other way (as suggested in the Subwoofer Guide as an option)...that is to run it in Standard mode (20hz port tune) and then switch it to Extended. The reasoning is because at those frequencies you usually get no cancellations but a lot of natural additive gains which can increase tactile response etc.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> i
> 
> 
> There's no correct approach. Both ways can work. With my current calibration, I did it in Extended mode (16hz port tune) and left it as such. I'm expecting new surrounds this weekend, so I'll re-run Audyssy and I was planning to do it the other way (as suggested in the Subwoofer Guide as an option)...that is to run it in Standard mode (20hz port tune) and then switch it to Extended. The reasoning is because at those frequencies you usually get no cancellations but a lot of natural additive gains which can increase tactile response etc.


I'll try both ways and report back my findings.  Hope your new surrounds sound great!!! Thanks


----------



## Soulburner

Rythmik recommends max extension so that is why I mentioned that.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> Rythmik recommends max extension so that is why I mentioned that.


Sounds good! I'll try both and report back. Thanks for informing me where you read about doing it this way. I did it in extended mode with Dirac and it worked well. Audyssey is different and I know the Sub Guide on here recommends to calibrate fully open then port plug after. I'll test and see which i prefer overall.


----------



## jeep05

Edit


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> I may end up trying the harman curve. So when you implement it, you do not limit the EQ like I'm doing to 300hz? You do full range so it's a* bell curve* throughout?


The Harman curve is *not* a bell curve. A bell curve looks like a bell*:







*

It's true that the Harman curve can be _*sort of*_ bell-like _below 100Hz_, but is pretty straight (but downward sloping) above 100 Hz.

Here is a Harman-like curve*:







*
A variation from JBL (owned by Harman)*:*








I'm not sure why the deepest bass is brought back to the 0 line in curves like this, unless it is to minimize gross bass distortion, or cut down on any modulation distortion (spurious side bands) at higher frequencies that are still within a given sub's range, like up to 120 Hz or even higher if the sub is adjusted that way.

Which brings us to the next point. As you know, the true *low pass filter* in your AVR or pre/pro (not a crossover) is for true LFE only, i.e., sound effects. It can be found at *"LPF for LFE*." The most common advice is to set this at 120 Hz, but some experts, including some sub manufacturers, advocate for a lower setting (e.g., 80 Hz) to clean up the bass. They cite several reasons *1)* Some movie mixers go crazy with the bass, which tends to blur it, *2) *Lowering the crossover (see, there I go!)* low pass frequency* allows the* deeper* bass to seem more prominent and also lowers distortion, *3)* The sub can be turned up to a louder SPL, if you like. I switched back and forth between 120 and 80 until I was blue in the face, and found I preferred 80 Hz. The *separate, true, crossover *is to manipulate your bass management system, allowing the low bass in the soundtrack *music*, and sometimes *voices* (the lowest tones of Sam Elliot, or the Commendatore who walks through the brick wall, and the falling bricks, in *Amadeus*) to go to the sub, and prevents that bass from going into the regular main and surround speakers, as well as preventing the sound going to the regular speakers from going into the sub. It is to be found at "*Crossover*." With fully capable main speakers, the THX recommended crossover is also 80 Hz, but Audyssey should report your main speakers' 3 dB down point, and you should cross over above that.


----------



## iStorm

Edited


----------



## Soulburner

The reason for measuring with more extension is so that Audyssey creates filters for the lowest frequencies. It will not perform EQ below a speaker's measured -3 dB falloff. So now you have a portion of your subwoofer running without EQ  Whether or not you have issues that _need _EQ can only be determined by measuring...


----------



## iStorm

Edited


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> The Harman curve is *not* a bell curve. A bell curve looks like a bell*:
> View attachment 3053502
> *
> 
> It's true that the Harman curve can be _*sort of*_ bell-like _below 100Hz_, but is pretty straight (but downward sloping) above 100 Hz.
> 
> Here is a Harman-like curve*:
> View attachment 3053514
> *
> A variation from JBL (owned by Harman)*:*
> View attachment 3053515
> 
> I'm not sure why the deepest bass is brought back to the 0 line in curves like this, unless it is to minimize gross bass distortion, or cut down on any modulation distortion (spurious side bands) at higher frequencies that are still within a given sub's range, like up to 120 Hz or even higher if the sub is adjusted that way.
> 
> Which brings us to the next point. As you know, the true *low pass filter* in your AVR or pre/pro (not a crossover) is for true LFE only, i.e., sound effects. It can be found at *"LPF for LFE*." The most common advice is to set this at 120 Hz, but some experts, including some sub manufacturers, advocate for a lower setting (e.g., 80 Hz) to clean up the bass. They cite several reasons *1)* Some movie mixers go crazy with the bass, which tends to blur it, *2) *Lowering the crossover (see, there I go!)* low pass frequency* allows the* deeper* bass to seem more prominent and also lowers distortion, *3)* The sub can be turned up to a louder SPL, if you like. I switched back and forth between 120 and 80 until I was blue in the face, and found I preferred 80 Hz. The *separate, true, crossover *is to manipulate your bass management system, allowing the low bass in the soundtrack *music*, and sometimes *voices* (the lowest tones of Sam Elliot, or the Commendatore who walks through the brick wall, and the falling bricks, in *Amadeus*) to go to the sub, and prevents that bass from going into the regular main and surround speakers, as well as preventing the sound going to the regular speakers from going into the sub. It is to be found at "*Crossover*." With fully capable main speakers, the THX recommended crossover is also 80 Hz, but Audyssey should report your main speakers' 3 dB down point, and you should cross over above that.


Thanks for this detailed explanation! 

So from what I gathered you only changed the LPF to LFE setting on your AVR/processor? Or did you also change your LPF on your actual subs to 80hz to match the one now changed in the receiver? 

I have tried cascading crossovers at 80hz LPF to LFE in my processor and while also putting my dual pb16s LPF set to crossover at 80hz as well and while it did seem to clear up the voices a bit during the most intensive bass scenes, i think it also took away bass so I felt robbed of something I heard and felt in my chair before. 

A good example of this was in the Dark Knight Rises where Bane and his gang are on motorcycles and Batman is chasing them around the city. With an LPF to LFE set to 120hz in my 8805 processor with LPF set to OFF (full range) on my subs, I felt tight, controlled bass throughout this entire scene. When I switch to cascading crossovers at 80hz on subs and processor, most of this good bass went away. 

I have yet to try the 80hz LPF to LFE setting alone in my receiver recently because of this experience (I tried it in the past I know) but a scene like this where I felt like I lost a good part of bass information that the director was trying to put into the movie to create more of a dynamic experience, kind of ruined it for me. 

That's my personal experience with it, but I may need to change just the processor LPF to LFE to 80hz which is where i have my mains and surrounds set to as well.


----------



## Soulburner

The LPF for LFE is for the LFE channel only. It doesn't affect your crossover at all - it just cuts off the channel. I usually don't change it but some people play with it.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

garygarrison said:


> The Harman curve is *not* a bell curve. A bell curve looks like a bell*:
> View attachment 3053502
> *
> 
> It's true that the Harman curve can be _*sort of*_ bell-like _below 100Hz_, but is pretty straight (but downward sloping) above 100 Hz.
> 
> Here is a Harman-like curve*:
> View attachment 3053514
> *
> A variation from JBL (owned by Harman)*:*
> View attachment 3053515
> 
> I'm not sure why the deepest bass is brought back to the 0 line in curves like this, unless it is to minimize gross bass distortion, or cut down on any modulation distortion (spurious side bands) at higher frequencies that are still within a given sub's range, like up to 120 Hz or even higher if the sub is adjusted that way.
> 
> Which brings us to the next point. As you know, the true *low pass filter* in your AVR or pre/pro (not a crossover) is for true LFE only, i.e., sound effects. It can be found at *"LPF for LFE*." The most common advice is to set this at 120 Hz, but some experts, including some sub manufacturers, advocate for a lower setting (e.g., 80 Hz) to clean up the bass. They cite several reasons *1)* Some movie mixers go crazy with the bass, which tends to blur it, *2) *Lowering the crossover (see, there I go!)* low pass frequency* allows the* deeper* bass to seem more prominent and also lowers distortion, *3)* The sub can be turned up to a louder SPL, if you like. I switched back and forth between 120 and 80 until I was blue in the face, and found I preferred 80 Hz. The *separate, true, crossover *is to manipulate your bass management system, allowing the low bass in the soundtrack *music*, and sometimes *voices* (the lowest tones of Sam Elliot, or the Commendatore who walks through the brick wall, and the falling bricks, in *Amadeus*) to go to the sub, and prevents that bass from going into the regular main and surround speakers, as well as preventing the sound going to the regular speakers from going into the sub. It is to be found at "*Crossover*." With fully capable main speakers, the THX recommended crossover is also 80 Hz, but Audyssey should report your main speakers' 3 dB down point, and you should cross over above that.


Nice Gary 👍

I agree with all the points you have made here partically the last paragraph in regards to setting the LPF to 80hz in Audyssey. And this is how I would have set up my system for the last few years using a 80hz cascading crossover. I learned this from @mthomas47 guide and immediately noticed improvement in clear bass in my setup. For me it was a game-changer in Audyssey. 

In response to @iStorm and the Harman curve or any target curve for that matter, while it is tricky to implement this into Audyssey it's far from being impossible. In the Multi Eq App Audyssey allowed us to adjust the target curve, but this was a fiddly implantation. But it did leave the door open for a user called @ratbuddy to create a program(Called Ratbuddy) to input exactly the target curve you want using control points. So up to this point many user's have been making house curves with this program with great success.








Audyssey MultEQ App & Ratbuddyssey FAQ & Tips 2020-03.docx







docs.google.com





I had been using Dirac for a while and got to like the idea of adjusting the target full-range and upon returning back to Audyssey I was keen to see if the same kind of target curves can be used for Audyssey. So I wrote a message on the Ratbuddy thread and day's later a user called @DeLub replied back and had already started this process and had created a target curve based on B+K. Long story short Delub has created many target curves now, one of them being a Harman Curve.

















So this is the curve I have been using for the last month or more now and while there is other curves to try, I simply can't get off this this one.
What's interesting is that because all the speaker and sub are following the target same curve I no longer need to use a cascading crossover. In fact my crossover for all speakers are now at 120hz and the LFE LPF is set to 120hz. And the bass is strong and tight and I don't notice the fact that the speakers are at a 120hz Xo. 

I think the reason for this is that Audyssey follows a flat curve, to add a bass boost we could use DEQ, or increase the sub trim. 

DEQ can work better as the target curve will starting rolling off like a house curve but DEQ can bring other undesirable like increase a increase SPL in the surrounds. Cascading crossover can combat this in regards to having to much LFE coming from the surrounds.

Increasing the trim on the sub with no DEQ is another popular approach, but the speakers are still following a flat curve getting a boost from the subs, rather than speaker+sub working in unison together. This is how I feel about it anyway as Mike say's YMMV

So Istorm or anyone interested if you want a Harman target curve head over to the Ratbuddy thread and read the last 15 pages or so, it's slightly complicated at first to do, but easy once done a few times.








Announcing ratbuddyssey - a tool for tweaking Audyssey...


Cornball name, I know, but it was that, or fraudyssey, and being a bit vain, I went with my name :P Anyway: I like the idea of the MultEQ app, but the execution left me wanting a bit more. I wanted to be able to precisely input my custom target curve points, rather than fiddling with a small...




www.avsforum.com





All the best

Jim

BTW Sorry Gary I forget this was in reply to you and went off course slightly


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> The LPF for LFE is for the LFE channel only. It doesn't affect your crossover at all - it just cuts off the channel. I usually don't change it but some people play with it.


I agree with not changing it as stated because I feel like I'm missing critical bass information from the soundtrack that the director intended. Sure, this may in turn give better clarity to vocals BUT at the expense of losing some awesome bass IMO. I like the default of 120hz for LPF to LFE and leaving LPF OFF on my dual pb16s. 

I am also going to update my post a few posts back about calibration with my 8805 in extended vs calibrating in standard then changing to extended after the fact (1 port plugged). 

I think I learned a lot of good things tonight about EQ and my system!


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> The reason for measuring with more extension is so that Audyssey creates filters for the lowest frequencies. It will not perform EQ below a speaker's measured -3 dB falloff. So now you have a portion of your subwoofer running without EQ  Whether or not you have issues that _need _EQ can only be determined by measuring...


After trying to calibrate my dual pb16s in extended mode vs in standard mode (all ports open) then switching after calibration to extended, i definitely think i know what you're saying. 

I don't know if it's the extra EQ on the lower frequencies or what, but i feel like my system sounds better with it being calibrated exactly how I will listen to it in extended mode. Instead of calibrating in all ports open mode then switching it. 

I am just going off of my ears of course but I did both back to back at the same levels and scene in a movie and preferred the calibration that was calibrated in extended mode. 

Thanks!


----------



## rockluc

Question for those of you using dynamic eq. Is there a consensus for what people do for bass boost with dynamic eq engaged? Are most people leaving sub levels at what Audyssey sets and letting dyn eq provide the boost or in general is additional manual boost required?


----------



## Soulburner

I still increase the sub levels. Anywhere from +3 to +6 depending on the subs I had.


----------



## pbz06

rockluc said:


> Question for those of you using dynamic eq. Is there a consensus for what people do for bass boost with dynamic eq engaged? Are most people leaving sub levels at what Audyssey sets and letting dyn eq provide the boost or in general is additional manual boost required?


It's preference. I usually don't add any bass bosts with DEQ, but at most I'll add 3dB.


----------



## iStorm

rockluc said:


> Question for those of you using dynamic eq. Is there a consensus for what people do for bass boost with dynamic eq engaged? Are most people leaving sub levels at what Audyssey sets and letting dyn eq provide the boost or in general is additional manual boost required?


I still add lots of bass boosts even with DEQ. It is really just personal preference. My theater is on a concrete slab so it takes more to generate chair shaking bass, even for my dual pb16s.


----------



## iStorm

I recently had issues understanding/hearing Hobbs and Shaw 4K disc dialogue, even at a-10 MV on my Marantz 8805. 

I may know why Hobbs and Shaw on 4K disc doesn't seem as good dialogue wise but not quite 100% sure... I was limiting EQ on all of my speakers to 300hz which sounds great. I changed them to EQ full range now and the dialogue is back and seems clearer now but may be just in my head since I can't A to B compare right away. It may be a placebo effect.

I'm not sure if the system sounds as good fully EQed compared to limiting correction to 300hz, but I'm pretty sure the Dialogue is improved but the overall sound may be brighter now and louder which is why it is clearer. Perhaps the flatter curve on the center is better than my natural speakers cut off at 300hz for dialogue?

I really don't want to use dialogue enhancer since it is extra processing option. I like to keep things as close to how the director intended.

Cascading crossovers doesn't work for me (tried at 80hz). I like LPF to LFE set to 120hz on the sub. I also thought about upping the center channel db under test tones but then that's going to make my system unbalanced. Plus I use DEQ which already boosts the mains, center and surrounds at around +2db where i currently listen (around -10).

Any thoughts on this is appreciated or maybe other ways I can improve dialogue in movies like this. My center channel is a great height in line with my mains and is at the top shelf of my stand flush with the edge.


----------



## garygarrison

Many people have reported turning up their center to clarify dialogue. We tried it at first only when thick dialects were involved, as in *Trainspotting*, then, later, for milder dialects, as in *Far from the Madding Crowd* (newer version). Finally, we decided to just leave it on all the time. **** it! We found that 3 dB was plenty. We also noticed something weird. Soundtracks from several decades ago had clearer dialogue, even though sound recording has improved. Maybe recordists and mixers aren't trying their best with dialogue, because they think they don't have to? Orchestral music seems to sound better than ever.
Most center speakers are inferior to the LF and RF. The woofer cones might produce more frequency modulation (Doppler) distortion (spurious sidebands) between the crossovers to the sub and the tweeter, that might blur things up if the soundtrack already has blurred dialogue. At least it won't go beyond the upper crossover into the tweeter. 








Red Shift: Doppler distortion in loudspeakers Page 3







www.stereophile.com





I don't know what your dialogue enhancer is like, but the ones I've seen just provide a boost to the center, the same as you turning up the MV control.
Some people might advise pulling your center forward a slight bit, to avoid or lessen diffraction off the shelf. OCD people like me would need to run Audyssey all over again after this, because of the distance/time of arrival thing, so you might want to try this last
Audyssey Full Range works best for me, and one of the greatest benefits is perceived *clarity* ... as always, YMMV.


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> Many people have reported turning up their center to clarify dialogue. We tried it at first only when thick dialects were involved, as in *Trainspotting*, then, later, for milder dialects, as in *Far from the Madding Crowd* (newer version). Finally, we decided to just leave it on all the time. **** it! We found that 3 dB was plenty. We also noticed something weird. Soundtracks from several decades ago had clearer dialogue, even though sound recording has improved. Maybe recordists and mixers aren't trying their best with dialogue, because they think they don't have to? Orchestral music seems to sound better than ever.
> Most center speakers are inferior to the LF and RF. The woofer cones might produce more frequency modulation (Doppler) distortion (spurious sidebands) between the crossovers to the sub and the tweeter, that might blur things up if the soundtrack already has blurred dialogue. At least it won't go beyond the upper crossover into the tweeter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Red Shift: Doppler distortion in loudspeakers Page 3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.stereophile.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what your dialogue enhancer is like, but the ones I've seen just provide a boost to the center, the same as you turning up the MV control.
> Some people might advise pulling your center forward a slight bit, to avoid or lessen diffraction off the shelf. OCD people like me would need to run Audyssey all over again after this, because of the distance/time of arrival thing, so you might want to try this last
> Audyssey Full Range works best for me, and one of the greatest benefits is perceived *clarity* ... as always, YMMV.


Hi Gary,

Thanks so much for weighing in on this. It seems like a lot of action movies especially are mixed where the dialog is low especially during the intensive action scenes. Movies like Hobbs and Shaw, Dark Knight, etc all have really loud action but pretty low dialogue. In the past I also just increased the center channel by +2 to +3db and it helped so i wasn't watching at such a high level on the AVR. 

My Marantz 8805 actually has a dialog enhancer feature that basically boosts the frequencies from like 1khz to 3khz instead of upping the center channel volume like most other AVRs/processors. 

I currently have my center channel completely flush with the end of my wood stand so there should not be any reflections. 

We also calibrate with blankets over our leather home theater chairs which IMO provides a more accurate calibration overall. 

So it sounds like in your case boosting the center by +3db is suitable for you and has been for me in the past. I really just didn't want any imbalance in the system by doing this. But I may need to resort to it. I can understand most of the dialogue but just prefer it to be louder/clearer. 

Do you use MRC with full range calibration? Which frequency roll off do you use if you're using the Audyssey app? 

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

"Do you use MRC with full range calibration? Which frequency roll off do you use if you're using the Audyssey app?"

Unfortunately, I don't have the app, because my Marantz pre-pro is just a bit too old to be compatible with it.

MRC is not often an issue for me, because with modern movies on lossless Blu-ray, I find Audyssey *Flat* to be the most neutral and best setting for me, and Audyssey *Flat *has* no* MRC. For a* few* movies from the 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, I use Audyssey* Reference* because there is a bit of distortion that sometimes sneaks in above about 10K on films that originally had warm and wonderful magnetic soundtracks (mono optical soundtracks roll off so severely up there, that there is usually no problem other than the myriad problems that come with optical). Audyssey *Reference* on my old Marantz includes MRC, and there is no way to get rid of it. But we run almost all films w/ Audyssey Flat, which has no MRC, so no problem. With these newer films, we like our sound better than that in commercial cinemas.


----------



## pbarach

iStorm said:


> I recently had issues understanding/hearing Hobbs and Shaw 4K disc dialogue, even at a-10 MV on my Marantz 8805.
> 
> I may know why Hobbs and Shaw on 4K disc doesn't seem as good dialogue wise but not quite 100% sure... *Plus I use DEQ which already boosts the mains, center *and surrounds at around +2db where i currently listen (around -10).


I've found that DEQ wrecks the sound quality of certain shows and movies by boosting the surrounds and subwoofer so much that the dialogue coming from the center is buried by other sounds.


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> "Do you use MRC with full range calibration? Which frequency roll off do you use if you're using the Audyssey app?"
> 
> Unfortunately, I don't have the app, because my Marantz pre-pro is just a bit too old to be compatible with it.
> 
> MRC is not often an issue for me, because with modern movies on lossless Blu-ray, I find Audyssey *Flat* to be the most neutral and best setting for me, and Audyssey *Flat *has* no* MRC. For a* few* movies from the 1970s, 1960s, 1950s, I use Audyssey* Reference* because there is a bit of distortion that sometimes sneaks in above about 10K on films that originally had warm and wonderful magnetic soundtracks (mono optical soundtracks roll off so severely up there, that there is usually no problem other than the myriad problems that come with optical). Audyssey *Reference* on my old Marantz includes MRC, and there is no way to get rid of it. But we run almost all films w/ Audyssey Flat, which has no MRC, so no problem. With these newer films, we like our sound better than that in commercial cinemas.


It sounds like you have a killer setup, Gary! I'm surprised you prefer flat unless you have a treated room. Flat has always been too bright for my setup in a non treated room, but it's the only way you can get MRC OFF, which makes sense. I do not like MRC but I can use the app with Reference and MRC OFF so it works for my room the best. 


pbarach said:


> I've found that DEQ wrecks the sound quality of certain shows and movies by boosting the surrounds and subwoofer so much that the dialogue coming from the center is buried by other sounds.


Hi,

I am beginning to think DEQ may be the culprit as well judging by my tests last night, but certain dialogue in Hobbs and Shaw was still difficult to understand, especially during the most intensive action like when they are driving around town in the McClaren. 

So for you personally, do you just leave DEQ OFF and boost your subs or do you create a target curve in the app? When i typically have DEQ ON, i usually lower the surrounds by a couple dbs to account for the boost they are providing at around -10 Master volume i typically listen at. 

Thanks


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> Thanks so much for weighing in on this. It seems like a lot of action movies especially are mixed where the dialog is low especially during the intensive action scenes. Movies like Hobbs and Shaw, Dark Knight, etc all have really loud action but pretty low dialogue. In the past I also just increased the center channel by +2 to +3db and it helped so i wasn't watching at such a high level on the AVR.
> 
> My Marantz 8805 actually has a dialog enhancer feature that basically boosts the frequencies from like 1khz to 3khz instead of upping the center channel volume like most other AVRs/processors.
> 
> I currently have my center channel completely flush with the end of my wood stand so there should not be any reflections.
> 
> We also calibrate with blankets over our leather home theater chairs which IMO provides a more accurate calibration overall.
> 
> So it sounds like in your case boosting the center by +3db is suitable for you and has been for me in the past. I really just didn't want any imbalance in the system by doing this. But I may need to resort to it. I can understand most of the dialogue but just prefer it to be louder/clearer.
> 
> Do you use MRC with full range calibration? Which frequency roll off do you use if you're using the Audyssey app?
> 
> Thanks!


The multieq guide recommends Target 2 for bigger rooms. See image below.

For MRC, I know people quickly dismiss it or complain about it based on principle, but I'm betting most can't tell a difference and wouldn't have known about it without the app. Just try it out.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> The multieq guide recommends Target 2 for bigger rooms. See image below.
> 
> For MRC, I know people quickly dismiss it or complain about it based on principle, but I'm betting most can't tell a difference and wouldn't have known about it without the app. Just try it out.


I use Reference 2 currently as well but as mentioned I typically EQ only to 300hz so MRC and the Reference curve wouldn't even apply to me. Are you correcting the full EQ band for your speakers? 

If you get time, you should test your system with Hobbs and Shaw chapter 6 where they chase through the city on the motorcycle and McClaren. See if you can understand all of the dialogue, especially by the actress.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> I use Reference 2 currently as well but as mentioned I typically EQ only to 300hz so MRC and the Reference curve wouldn't even apply to me. Are you correcting the full EQ band for your speakers?
> 
> If you get time, you should test your system with Hobbs and Shaw chapter 6 where they chase through the city on the motorcycle and McClaren. See if you can understand all of the dialogue, especially by the actress.


You're right it wouldn't matter which target you use if you limit EQ.

I personally use full range. One thing I've learned is to not fixate on one movie. I've realized that trying to make one movie sound perfect, others will sound worse. You're trading fixes in one scene or movie, for compromises in others. Movies are just mixed differently and vary. In most cases, it's just the recording.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> You're right it wouldn't matter which target you use if you limit EQ.
> 
> I personally use full range. One thing I've learned is to not fixate on one movie. I've realized that trying to make one movie sound perfect, others will sound worse. You're trading fixes in one scene or movie, for compromises in others. Movies are just mixed differently and vary. In most cases, it's just the recording.


Thanks for pointing this out! It's just so difficult not to worry about it when this movie has some dialogue where neither my wife nor I can understand. This is even after adjusting things that I know should improve it. 

Are you using curves with Rat Audyssey or just using DEQ still?

Thanks!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Thanks for pointing this out! It's just so difficult not to worry about it when this movie has some dialogue where neither my wife nor I can understand. This is even after adjusting things that I know should improve it.
> 
> Are you using curves with Rat Audyssey or just using DEQ still?
> 
> Thanks!


Yea it can be annoying sometimes with dialogue but it's just source variance. Because if you think about it, even when Limited or Full Range it varies...so it's clearly not a setting issue. 

I prefer full range because all my speakers follow the same curve. That's why it's recommended to use similarly capable speakers. The Audyssey target and full range works well but only if it doesn't alter your speakers natural curve too much, or if it's mostly applying trims as opposed to boosts. Mine are pretty flat ish and linear so I don't hear any negative side effects going full range. 

With DEQ, I leave the target 2 full range, usually don't add SW boosts, and reduce my surrounds and top rears by 3dB.

When I disable DEQ due to mood, I do use a custom curve (B&K) similar to Harmon curve...and put my surrounds back to balanced and increase my SW trims by 8-9dB


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Yea it can be annoying sometimes with dialogue but it's just source variance. Because if you think about it, even when Limited or Full Range it varies...so it's clearly not a setting issue.
> 
> I prefer full range because all my speakers follow the same curve. That's why it's recommended to use similarly capable speakers. The Audyssey target and full range works well but only if it doesn't alter your speakers natural curve too much, or if it's mostly applying trims as opposed to boosts. Mine are pretty flat ish and linear so I don't hear any negative side effects going full range.
> 
> With DEQ, I leave the target 2 full range, usually don't add SW boosts, and reduce my surrounds and top rears by 3dB.
> 
> When I disable DEQ due to mood, I do use a custom curve (B&K) similar to Harmon curve...and put my surrounds back to balanced and increase my SW trims by 8-9dB
> View attachment 3054242


Hi,

Thanks for responding. Your speakers are very similar to my SVS ultra tower 5.2.2 setup. Can you help me figure out how to apply this similar harman curve? That's what I'm looking for. The B&K you showed. 

Here is my front left for reference


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for responding. Your speakers are very similar to my SVS ultra tower 5.2.2 setup. Can you help me figure out how to apply this similar harman curve? That's what I'm looking for. The B&K you showed.
> 
> Here is my front left for reference
> View attachment 3054246


Yup I can. I just leaving home and I'll be back late afternoon.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Yup I can. I just leaving home and I'll be back late afternoon.


Thanks buddy! Safe travels!


----------



## Soulburner

pbarach said:


> I've found that DEQ wrecks the sound quality of certain shows and movies by boosting the surrounds and subwoofer so much that the dialogue coming from the center is buried by other sounds.


This could be if you have a center that is much less capable than the main speakers, your crossover is too high, your subwoofer response is not smooth, you're trying to add DEQ on top of your final adjustments rather than incorporating it in the setup process, or you didn't lower the level of your surrounds to compensate for the boost (yes, we shouldn't have to, but we do).


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> This could be if you have a center that is much less capable than the main speakers, your crossover is too high, your subwoofer response is not smooth, you're trying to add DEQ on top of your final adjustments rather than incorporating it in the setup process, or you didn't lower the level of your surrounds to compensate for the boost (yes, we shouldn't have to, but we do).


How much do you typically lower your surrounds by? I lower mine by 1db per every -5MV. So I typically listen at -10 MV and I do -2db per surround speaker. My center channel is very capable and matches my other speakers and I still have trouble with certain dialogue, especially British accents, at 80hz crossovers. 


pbz06 said:


> Yup I can. I just leaving home and I'll be back late afternoon.


Hey, I read through the rat thread and figured out how to get the similar harman file onto my 8805. I'll give it a try. What other settings did you change? MRC On or off? I'll probably need to do a +10db boost on top I'm assuming for my room. I don't use DEQ with this target curve right? 

Thanks again!


----------



## Soulburner

I find -3 on the surrounds to be good for -20 and lower. This is probably different for every speaker, as is MRC.


----------



## Soulburner

Midrange Compensation: MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> Midrange Compensation: MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...


Thank you! I read it and liked it. It definitely sounds complex, lol. I'm just not sure why Dirac didn't use MRC when I had those processors so I figured OFF was the way to go.


----------



## Soulburner

It's hard to explain and I'm not sure I'm the best at it, but basically, boosting that region on some speakers can result in harshness, so MRC is there to prevent the system from doing so.

However, every speaker has a different crossover point and drivers with different directivity, so experimentation is needed to really get it right. I'm thankful that I can just skip all that guesswork because I limit my system currently to 350 Hz.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> It's hard to explain and I'm not sure I'm the best at it, but basically, boosting that region on some speakers can result in harshness, so MRC is there to prevent the system from doing so.
> 
> However, every speaker has a different crossover point and drivers with different directivity, so experimentation is needed to really get it right. I'm thankful that I can just skip all that guesswork because I limit my system currently to 350 Hz.


Thank you. I'm not sure but on the Ratbuddy guide to Audyssey app it says that MRC still applies even when we limit EQ. That doesn't sound right though since it's supposed to be our speakers natural response past the EQ where we limit... maybe i read it wrong but Jimmy2Shoes posted the article a couple of pages back.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Thank you. I'm not sure but on the Ratbuddy guide to Audyssey app it says that MRC still applies even when we limit EQ. That doesn't sound right though since it's supposed to be our speakers natural response past the EQ where we limit... maybe i read it wrong but Jimmy2Shoes posted the article a couple of pages back.


MRC does not apply if you limit EQ below that point.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> MRC does not apply if you limit EQ below that point.


That's what I thought since it doesn't even show on the corrected graph. The rat article sounded like otherwise though. Thank you


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> How much do you typically lower your surrounds by? I lower mine by 1db per every -5MV. So I typically listen at -10 MV and I do -2db per surround speaker. My center channel is very capable and matches my other speakers and I still have trouble with certain dialogue, especially British accents, at 80hz crossovers.
> 
> Hey, I read through the rat thread and figured out how to get the similar harman file onto my 8805. I'll give it a try. What other settings did you change? MRC On or off? I'll probably need to do a +10db boost on top I'm assuming for my room. I don't use DEQ with this target curve right?
> 
> Thanks again!


No, I don't use DEQ with the custom curves, although you can if you want...same with MRC.

Only thing is, the offsets Delub set up are based on the Target 1 so keep that in mind.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> No, I don't use DEQ with the custom curves, although you can if you want...same with MRC.
> 
> Only thing is, the offsets Delub set up are based on the Target 1 so keep that in mind.


My room size is better for Target 1 anyways so thats good based off of the rat guide. I'm not going to use DEQ with a custom target curve either. 

I just really can't tell whether to correct full range or not. I don't hear much of a difference between 300, 350, 700, 1000, and full range when testing.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> My room size is better for Target 1 anyways so thats good based off of the rat guide. I'm not going to use DEQ with a custom target curve either.
> 
> I just really can't tell whether to correct full range or not. I don't hear much of a difference between 300, 350, 700, 1000, and full range when testing.


Just leave it on full range for awhile (which you'll need if you do custom targets). Audyssey XT32 is very good in the upper end and doesn't do much to alter sound.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Just leave it on full range for awhile (which you'll need if you do custom targets). Audyssey XT32 is very good in the upper end and doesn't do much to alter sound.


That makes complete sense if I'm using custom curve. I need to do full EQ duh!!! Thanks


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> That makes complete sense if I'm using custom curve. I need to do full EQ duh!!! Thanks


Let me know what curve you test or decide. I've been meaning to try all of them, but I've been happy with B+K and haven't found the need to try others. I think Jimmy tried several and now uses a version with more bass in the curves.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Let me know what curve you test or decide. I've been meaning to try all of them, but I've been happy with B+K and haven't found the need to try others. I think Jimmy tried several and now uses a version with more bass in the curves.


Will do! I'm currently using the B+K since it emulates the harman curve which is what i liked when using Dirac. Since it looks to be only a +4db boost on the low end, I just add more bass boosts with it. I like a lot of bass compared to you though from your posts. With Dirac i corrected full range In this room, did a +6 or +8db harman boosted curve then still upped my subs some. I am on concrete slab so in order to get more chair shake, I need more bass. 

Now I just cannot decide on MRC. It seems a tad brighter with it disabled but they are very close so ill most likely just leave it off. It doesn't make much sense to me to dip the curve in those frequencies because on the 8805 the "Dialogue Enhancer" provides a boost at 1k to 2khz to help with Dialogue. So why would I want MRC that will make these ranges even more dipped. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm no expert.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

iStorm said:


> Will do! I'm currently using the B+K since it emulates the harman curve which is what i liked when using Dirac. Since it looks to be only a +4db boost on the low end, I just add more bass boosts with it. I like a lot of bass compared to you though from your posts. With Dirac i corrected full range In this room, did a +6 or +8db harman boosted curve then still upped my subs some. I am on concrete slab so in order to get more chair shake, I need more bass.
> 
> Now I just cannot decide on MRC. It seems a tad brighter with it disabled but they are very close so ill most likely just leave it off. It doesn't make much sense to me to dip the curve in those frequencies because on the 8805 the "Dialogue Enhancer" provides a boost at 1k to 2khz to help with Dialogue. So why would I want MRC that will make these ranges even more dipped. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm no expert.


Hey Istorm,

Glad to hear your liking the custom curves, these were developed with the intention of disabling MRC as it's based on a algorithm with MRC disabled. But try it out nonetheless. Same would apply to Dialogue enhancer as any of these settings alter the target curve. The idea now is to find the target curve that suits you best.

Full range is for sure recommended with these curves, it was really the whole point in creating them in the first place. The B+K curve is a prime example of this, as the bass boost is not too hot but it's more on how it rolls off sooner on the higher frequencies that gives a more perceived amount of bass, so if you don't go full range you won't get the full effect IMO from testing this curve.

The curve I'm using has a +6db boost Harman curve, that I am enjoying a lot😁😁. 

Any more info on custom target curves I'll be glad to answer on the Ratbuddy thread.

All the best

Jim


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> It sounds like you have a killer setup, Gary! I'm surprised you prefer flat unless you have a treated room. Flat has always been too bright for my setup in a non treated room, but it's the only way you can get MRC OFF, which makes sense. ...
> 
> I am beginning to think DEQ may be the culprit as well judging by my tests last night, but certain dialogue in Hobbs and Shaw was still difficult to understand, especially during the most intensive action like when they are driving around town in the McClaren.
> 
> So for you personally, do you just leave DEQ OFF and boost your subs or do you create a target curve in the app? When i typically have DEQ ON, i usually lower the surrounds by a couple dbs to account for the boost they are providing at around -10 Master volume i typically listen at.
> 
> Thanks


My room is treated, and may be very slightly too dead. There is carpeting, as well as several absorbers and diffusers, and diffusing bookshelves. 

I find that DEQ *subtlely* blurs the sound, so I leave it OFF and boost the sub (for frequencies below 60 Hz) and boost the bass control (for frequencies between about 60 Hz and 180 Hz*;* the tone controls become available only with DEQ OFF). The bass control doesn't seem to blur the bass the way DEQ does. For a Christmas party in 2019 BC (Before Covid) I used DEQ for soft background music, and it helped with the balance. So, there are uses for it, even with me. *We play back at realistic levels, so DEQ is not necessary.* When listening for pleasure, we allow loud passages to peak (very very *briefly; *classical full orchestra/jazz) at up to 105 dB, and with Blu-ray movies we usually play back at about 5 to 7 dB below reference, which lands us at about 100 dB peak through main speakers, and occasionally at about 110 dB for subwoofer bass, as is THX film standard for our 4,257 cu. ft. room (THX adjusts for room size, presuming some early reflections). No, it doesn't seem too loud, just clean and beautiful. We adjust the Main Volume for realistic dialogue levels, and the music and effects fall into place at the intensities shown above. Classical music ranges from emerging from dead silence, to a medium level norm (80 to 85 dB), with those very brief peaks (not average) at 105 dB, with a bit more for the end of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony, or The Great Gate of Kiev or Fanfare for the Common Man. During such passages, a live, full size symphony orchestra, on "Fast," "C weight," can peak at up to 115 dB, very briefly (probably at a duration measured at less than 1/2 second). See the chart on *page two* of this PDF, for a grounding in subjective descriptions of *average* dB levels for a loud-ish passage*: http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Dope_770100_v16n1.pdf. *Your ears' tolerance is always in terms of *duration *for anything short of close gunfire, cannon, or explosion. Any chart without duration specified is claptrap.

The only soundtracks I've had to turn down are Star Trek Into Darkness and Pacific Rim.

*Some more conservative estimates have safe dBA about 5 dB lower than here.







*


----------



## iStorm

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Istorm,
> 
> Glad to hear your liking the custom curves, these were developed with the intention of disabling MRC as it's based on a algorithm with MRC disabled. But try it out nonetheless. Same would apply to Dialogue enhancer as any of these settings alter the target curve. The idea now is to find the target curve that suits you best.
> 
> Full range is for sure recommended with these curves, it was really the whole point in creating them in the first place. The B+K curve is a prime example of this, as the bass boost is not too hot but it's more on how it rolls off sooner on the higher frequencies that gives a more perceived amount of bass, so if you don't go full range you won't get the full effect IMO from testing this curve.
> 
> The curve I'm using has a +6db boost Harman curve, that I am enjoying a lot😁😁.
> 
> Any more info on custom target curves I'll be glad to answer on the Ratbuddy thread.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim


Thanks, Jim! I'm going to try that one out next (Toole + Bass I believe). Really appreciate the knowledge!


garygarrison said:


> My room is treated, and may be very slightly too dead. There is carpeting, as well as several absorbers and diffusers, and diffusing bookshelves.
> 
> I find that DEQ *subtlely* blurs the sound, so I leave it OFF and boost the sub (for frequencies below 60 Hz) and boost the bass control (for frequencies between about 60 Hz and 180 Hz*;* the tone controls become available only with DEQ OFF). The bass control doesn't seem to blur the bass the way DEQ does. For a Christmas party in 2019 BC (Before Covid) I used DEQ for soft background music, and it helped with the balance. So, there are uses for it, even with me. *We play back at realistic levels, so DEQ is not necessary.* When listening for pleasure, we allow loud passages to peak (very very *briefly; *classical full orchestra/jazz) at up to 105 dB, and with Blu-ray movies we usually play back at about 5 to 7 dB below reference, which lands us at about 100 dB peak through main speakers, and occasionally at about 110 dB for subwoofer bass, as is THX film standard for our 4,257 cu. ft. room (THX adjusts for room size, presuming some early reflections). No, it doesn't seem too loud, just clean and beautiful. We adjust the Main Volume for realistic dialogue levels, and the music and effects fall into place at the intensities shown above. Classical music ranges from emerging from dead silence, to a medium level norm (80 to 85 dB), with those very brief peaks (not average) at 105 dB, with a bit more for the end of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony, or The Great Gate of Kiev or Fanfare for the Common Man. During such passages, a live, full size symphony orchestra, on "Fast," "C weight," can peak at up to 115 dB, very briefly (probably at a duration measured at less than 1/2 second). See the chart on *page two* of this PDF, for a grounding in subjective descriptions of *average* dB levels for a loud-ish passage*: http://assets.klipsch.com/files/Dope_770100_v16n1.pdf. *Your ears' tolerance is always in terms of *duration *for anything short of close gunfire, cannon, or explosion. Any chart without duration specified is claptrap.
> 
> The only soundtracks I've had to turn down are Star Trek Into Darkness and Pacific Rim.
> 
> *Some more conservative estimates have safe dBA about 5 dB lower than here.
> View attachment 3054344
> *


Gary,

This is all very interesting to learn about. Thank you for the knowledge and I cannot wait to get a treated theater in the future when we get a basement and bigger house! Cheers!


----------



## Soulburner

iStorm said:


> Now I just cannot decide on MRC. It seems a tad brighter with it disabled but they are very close so ill most likely just leave it off. It doesn't make much sense to me to dip the curve in those frequencies because on the 8805 the "Dialogue Enhancer" provides a boost at 1k to 2khz to help with Dialogue. So why would I want MRC that will make these ranges even more dipped. Doesn't make sense to me but I'm no expert.


Can you share what speakers you have? We should look at their measurements to decide.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> Can you share what speakers you have? We should look at their measurements to decide.


Hey again!

I'm using SVS Ultra Towers (80hz crossover), SVS Ultra Center (80hz), SVS Surrounds (80hz), SVS Prime Elevations (120hz), and 2x SVS PB16 Ultras in Extended Mode. Any thoughts appreciated!

Here is what my "measured graph" looks like and why i thought a 300hz EQ cutoff would be good, but im no expert. I just know when I correct full range it is a bit bright on my ears compared to cutting off at 300hz. I also noticed something a bit weird at 300hz in Avatar while testing. I can usually hear a character talking off in the distance clearly (with full range) but that conversation was lower in volume with the 300hz correction. 










Shouldn't I go off the above chart to decide where to cut the EQ off? 

Thanks!


----------



## Soulburner

I meant their anechoic measurements. Actual performance without the room's effects.

Now, I don't know how the towers measure, but we have measurements on the bookshelf speakers:









SVS Ultra Bookshelf Speaker Review


This is a review and detailed measurements of the SVS Ultra 2-way Bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a local member and costs US $999 for a pair on Amazon including Prime shipping. The sample I received has wood grain but what is on sale is glossy finish: There are dual binding...




www.audiosciencereview.com





And there indeed is a dip at the crossover with a corresponding directivity change at 3 kHz. I would probably not raise that with EQ as it will likely add brightness/harshness. The predicted in-room graph corroborates that (boost that dip and the result will be above the line and bright).

Now, MRC is programmed at around 2 kHz. This means that if I were to do a full-range correction, I would turn MRC *off *but match the contour of the speaker, recreating the small dip at 3 kHz that you see in that graph from the Klippel measurement. Of course, feel free to experiment.

It goes further, though. If correcting full range, you would want to match the Audyssey target curve closely to *your* in-room measurement above about 500 Hz so that you are only smoothing out the perturbations and not changing the sound of the speaker.

I just cut it off at 350 Hz as it's much easier and sounds better than the default. I have not tried creating a custom curve yet.

Your in-room measurement looks quite a bit brighter than mine and mostly hugs the 0 line so there may not be a large difference in sound between full-range and limited. For mine, though, the difference is huge.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> I meant their anechoic measurements. Actual performance without the room's effects.
> 
> Now, I don't know how the towers measure, but we have measurements on the bookshelf speakers:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SVS Ultra Bookshelf Speaker Review
> 
> 
> This is a review and detailed measurements of the SVS Ultra 2-way Bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a local member and costs US $999 for a pair on Amazon including Prime shipping. The sample I received has wood grain but what is on sale is glossy finish: There are dual binding...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audiosciencereview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there indeed is a dip at the crossover with a corresponding directivity change at 3 kHz. I would probably not raise that with EQ as it will likely add brightness/harshness. The predicted in-room graph corroborates that (boost that dip and the result will be above the line and bright).
> 
> Now, MRC is programmed at around 2 kHz. This means that if I were to do a full-range correction, I would turn MRC *off *but match the contour of the speaker, recreating the small dip at 3 kHz that you see in that graph from the Klippel measurement. Of course, feel free to experiment with that vs flat.


Thank you for the knowledge! I have been using MRC off when full range but as noted, I still think they are too bright compared to EQing at 300hz. I do not have the proper equipment for measurements. Can I not go off of the measured response on Audyssey app as shown to see where to limit the EQ? Based off of my measured graph, it looks like 300, 500, or 700hz would work but I'm not sure if that's right to look at the Audyssey graph. 

I know when I used Dirac with a UMIK-1 to calibrate, I corrected full range but my speakers had a pretty flat overall response. 

Thanks for any additional info on how to tell if they need EQed fully and if what I am doing is correct to see where to limit EQ on them (following Audyssey measured graph). I do not have any acoustic panels in my room so that's why I prefer Reference for the Audyssey option.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

iStorm said:


> Thank you for the knowledge! I have been using MRC off when full range but as noted, I still think they are too bright compared to EQing at 300hz. I do not have the proper equipment for measurements. Can I not go off of the measured response on Audyssey app as shown to see where to limit the EQ? Based off of my measured graph, it looks like 300, 500, or 700hz would work but I'm not sure if that's right to look at the Audyssey graph.
> 
> I know when I used Dirac with a UMIK-1 to calibrate, I corrected full range but my speakers had a pretty flat overall response.
> 
> Thanks for any additional info on how to tell if they need EQed fully and if what I am doing is correct to see where to limit EQ on them (following Audyssey measured graph). I do not have any acoustic panels in my room so that's why I prefer Reference for the Audyssey option.


Hey Istorm,

Can you post the Front R and the Center speaker as well. The Left is showing a excellent FR in the pre-graph, so good that I would limit the correction as well. The center is what I most interested in to give anymore of a assessment. 

Using the pre-graphs or REW is the measurements to go by now, anechoic measurements can be helpful to give a baseline but they are now in your room and the room must be considered part of the equation now.

Jim


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Fantastic news 









Denon & Marantz Firmware Update Adds DTS:X Pro & Key Audio Feature Back!


On Nov 11th, 2020, select 2019 and newer Denon & Marantz AV receivers will be receiving a BIG firmware update that brings DTS:X Pro, Front Wides, and also restores a key audio feature we've been asking for.




www.audioholics.com


----------



## Soulburner

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Using the pre-graphs or REW is the measurements to go by now, anechoic measurements can be helpful to give a baseline but they are now in your room and the room must be considered part of the equation now.


Yes, for transition frequency and below...but caution is urged for anything above that.


----------



## iStorm

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Istorm,
> 
> Can you post the Front R and the Center speaker as well. The Left is showing a excellent FR in the pre-graph, so good that I would limit the correction as well. The center is what I most interested in to give anymore of a assessment.
> 
> Using the pre-graphs or REW is the measurements to go by now, anechoic measurements can be helpful to give a baseline but they are now in your room and the room must be considered part of the equation now.
> 
> Jim





Soulburner said:


> Yes, for transition frequency and below...but caution is urged for anything above that.


Thanks so much for getting back to me!

Here are all 3 measured responses of my front 3 speakers:























Please let me know your thoughts! I just know to my ears limiting has sounded less bright and natural. Thanks!


----------



## Jameshtx

I just upgraded my in ceiling speakers for Atmos. Audyssey levels are positive numbers however my previous speakers always resulted in the negative number. My question is that usually normal depending on what type of speakers do you have?










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

Yes, it is level matching. Run some movies and see what you think of the levels.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Thanks so much for getting back to me!
> 
> Here are all 3 measured responses of my front 3 speakers:
> 
> View attachment 3054495
> View attachment 3054496
> View attachment 3054497
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts! I just know to my ears limiting has sounded less bright and natural. Thanks!


Your Center looks like a nice candidate to Jimmy's suggested "Harman 6dB" curve


----------



## Jameshtx

Soulburner said:


> Yes, it is level matching. Run some movies and see what you think of the levels.


Sorry but were you replying to me or the other person?


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Your Center looks like a nice candidate to Jimmy's suggested "Harman 6dB" curve


Can you explain why please? Using full range makes my speakers sound really bright compared to limiting the EQ. Thanks


Jameshtx said:


> Sorry but were you replying to me or the other person?


He was posting back to you. I have had various setups and rooms and it really depends on the speaker, amount of reflections, amp/AVR used, and room. My trims are heavily negative now with my powerful 200x7 channel amp for instance.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Can you explain why please? Using full range makes my speakers sound really bright compared to limiting the EQ. Thanks
> 
> He was posting back to you. I have had various setups and rooms and it really depends on the speaker, amount of reflections, amp/AVR used, and room. My trims are heavily negative now with my powerful 200x7 channel amp for instance.


To me, brightness is usually in the upper ranges. Audyssey default maintains flat until about 10khz before rolling off. Most Center speakers have a more gradual slope or rolloff much sooner, which usually means Audyssey is boosting in areas to flatten it.

To remedy, you can try a custom curve (see below, where it slopes down sooner), or try enabling CinemaEQ. What that does is start sloping from 1khz linearly until 20khz where it's -4dB or so.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> To me, brightness is usually in the upper ranges. Audyssey default maintains flat until about 10khz before rolling off. Most Center speakers have a more gradual slope or rolloff much sooner, which usually means Audyssey is boosting in areas to flatten it.
> 
> To remedy, you can try a custom curve (see below, where it slopes down sooner), or try enabling CinemaEQ. What that does is start sloping from 1khz linearly until 20khz where it's -4dB or so.
> View attachment 3054584


Hi,

It definitely is the highs that are brighter with full range correction. I was more so interested in why you would do full range instead of limiting the EQ on my specific speakers. As you mentioned, I'm a good candidate for full range custom based off of my center channel. Can you further explain please? 

If I had to choose between Cinema EQ and custom, i would do a custom curve because i do not like using the extra processing features on the processor. They usually provide a more artifical enhancement from my experience. 

Thank you pb!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hi,
> 
> It definitely is the highs that are brighter with full range correction. I was more so interested in why you would do full range instead of limiting the EQ on my specific speakers. As you mentioned, I'm a good candidate for full range custom based off of my center channel. Can you further explain please?
> 
> If I had to choose between Cinema EQ and custom, i would do a custom curve because i do not like using the extra processing features on the processor. They usually provide a more artifical enhancement from my experience.
> 
> Thank you pb!


All I meant was that any brightness could potentially be because of the boosting...see my quick overlay. With the caveat that the audyssey graphs are rough and average over the 8 positions. There could be about 5dB boosts in the treble areas.

p.s. - I don't think CinemaEQ is really processing. All it does is trim/cut the treble ranges...no different than anything Audyssey does to the levels.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> All I meant was that any brightness could potentially be because of the boosting...see my quick overlay. With the caveat that the audyssey graphs are rough and average over the 8 positions. There could be about 5dB boosts in the treble areas.
> 
> p.s. - I don't think CinemaEQ is really processing. All it does is trim/cut the treble ranges...no different than anything Audyssey does to the levels.
> View attachment 3054591


Understood, my friend! Thank you for the knowledge and recommendation. I have tried the +6 Harman Curve and since it fully corrects Audyssey still, I notice the brightness in the highs.


----------



## golden phoenix

I'm very very late to this thread so its going to take time to read it all, and fish out info. This is likely a question often asked...using the 500 htz curtain and turning midrange compensation off...do people feel this improves the sound overall? And what are the pros and cons? And does this work with reference and flat modes?

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk


----------



## pbarach

MRC deals with frequencies higher than a 500 Hz cutoff (and it is only applied to the reference curve). Whether MRC and/or a 500 Hz cutoff improves your sound depends on your speakers and your room. In my case (B&W 704's), full-range correction and the FLAT setting sound better than messing with the Audyssey full-range calibration (I do add 3 dB to the subwoofer trim).


----------



## pbz06

golden phoenix said:


> I'm very very late to this thread so its going to take time to read it all, and fish out info. This is likely a question often asked...using the 500 htz curtain and turning midrange compensation off...do people feel this improves the sound overall? And what are the pros and cons? And does this work with reference and flat modes?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk


Like pbarch said, if you limit correction to 500hz, then it doesn't matter if you have MRC enabled or not. It's a dip around the 2khz range. There is no "should" or "shouldn't" use though, it really depends on your speaker type although it's also usually safe to just disable it.

The limit vs full range is a little more hotly debated. Again though, the _real_ answer is that it depends on your speakers, room, treatments, and how you use Audyssey etc. Limiting it is usually the safer bet without thinking too much about it. There's a lot of science from both sides, so it's pointless to be embedded on one side or the other and use it as blanket statements. I say just try it out and listen carefully. My guess is also not as important for movies compared to critical music listening.

People use Toole's essay as a point of reference, but he never really says to not EQ either (at least from what I recall when I read it)...sort of more explains things and the theory behind acoustics. And as much as I love Audioholics and Mathew Pose and watch their videos, they have yet to actually show an example of XT32 "messing" up or negatively altering a speaker. Their videos always seem to be based on "it could go wrong" or "you can't fix a bad speaker" (even though that's not what Audyssey claims to do etc.) Their one video was a small mediocre bookshelf and they used the lesser XT version...and I feel their advice is anchored from these older versions and they have since never took a more recent honest look (also, Gene's room and speakers are as good as it gets and all custom designed, so it's also unfair since he likely never even needs it nor taken the time to test the nuances of it). I asked in a youtube video if they can do comparison with XT32, and he said it would be similar results to XT...even though I know that's not true since XT32 is far superior in the way it handles the upper range and the bass regions.

Anyway, to me it ultimately comes down to the shape of the curve(s) you want your EQ to take and how drastic or similar they all are to Audyssey's target. That is a bigger variable to any positive or negative effects, rather than full range vs limited.


----------



## Soulburner

I thought XT32 improved filter resolution for the bass region but is the same as XT above that?


----------



## mthomas47

Soulburner said:


> I thought XT32 improved filter resolution for the bass region but is the same as XT above that?


Hi,

The filters employed for both subwoofers and satellites (all speakers) increased from version XT to XT-32. But, what also changed is the way the filters are implemented. XT attempts to make more individual corrections for higher-frequencies, where XT-32 attempts to correct larger clusters of high-frequencies. Graphs of the difference between XT and XT-32 correction showed a more jagged, comb-filtering effect, for high frequencies with XT.

The table I am inserting shows the increase in filters with the successive versions of Audyssey. The increases from the earliest 2EQ version are relative to "X" where X = 8 filters. There is actually one filter per channel, with "X" number of control points. The total control points available with XT-32 are 4,096 (8 x 512) per channel.










Regards,
Mike


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> Anyway, to me it ultimately comes down to the shape of the curve(s) you want your EQ to take and how drastic or similar they all are to Audyssey's target. That is a bigger variable to any positive or negative effects, rather than full range vs limited.


I think it might be worth to think over what Chris Kyriakakis has to say about limited or full range EQ'ing especially with regards to stereo imaging:

Qte

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

Unqte

Sound source localization of our human ears works especially in the mid- and high-frequency range, actually much better than for low frequencies. Full range EQ'ing is there, we paid for it, so why not use it? Still YMMV.


----------



## iStorm

I would also like to see Gene at Audioholics do a comparison with XT32 because i know he states that you should never correct above around 500hz. I've had good results with limiting correction but also doing full range so as everyone else says "let your ears hear the difference and decide for yourself."


----------



## Soulburner

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> The filters employed for both subwoofers and satellites (all speakers) increased from version XT to XT-32. But, what also changed is the way the filters are implemented. XT attempts to make more individual corrections for higher-frequencies, where XT-32 attempts to correct larger clusters of high-frequencies. Graphs of the difference between XT and XT-32 correction showed a more jagged, comb-filtering effect, for high frequencies with XT.
> 
> The table I am inserting shows the increase in filters with the successive versions of Audyssey. The increases from the earliest 2EQ version are relative to "X" where X = 8 filters. There is actually one filter per channel, with "X" number of control points. The total control points available with XT-32 are 4,096 (8 x 512) per channel.
> 
> View attachment 3054940
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thank you Mike, that is great information.


----------



## Soulburner

mogorf said:


> I think it might be worth to think over what Chris Kyriakakis has to say about limited or full range EQ'ing especially with regards to stereo imaging:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> Sound source localization of our human ears works especially in the mid- and high-frequency range, actually much better than for low frequencies. Full range EQ'ing is there, we paid for it, so why not use it? Still YMMV.


I'm aware of the position Audyssey takes, but for many of our speakers, full-range sounds worse. I believe the cause of this to mostly be boosting in-room response to flat up to around 7 kHz, which is wrong. In-room response naturally declines as frequency increases due to the microphone measuring a reduced amount of the tweeter due to its narrowing directivity and reduced reflections. Boosting this to flat boosts the response of the speaker above neutral if measured anechoically and makes a good speaker bright and harsh.

There are some combinations of speakers and rooms that benefit from it, however keep in mind that the vast majority of the perceived benefit comes from the correction of the 0-300 Hz region. The rest is "try it and see".


----------



## mogorf

Soulburner said:


> I'm aware of the position Audyssey takes, but for many of our speakers, full-range sounds worse. I believe the cause of this to mostly be boosting in-room response to flat up to around 7 kHz, which is wrong. In-room response naturally declines as frequency increases due to the microphone measuring a reduced amount of the tweeter due to its narrowing directivity and reduced reflections. Boosting this to flat boosts the response of the speaker above neutral if measured anechoically and makes a good speaker bright and harsh.
> 
> There are some combinations of speakers and rooms that benefit from it, however keep in mind that the vast majority of the perceived benefit comes from the correction of the 0-300 Hz region. The rest is "try it and see".


Did you take into consideration the case of stereo imaging as a benefit of full range EQ? I think this is a key point!


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> I'm aware of the position Audyssey takes, but for many of our speakers, full-range sounds worse. I believe the cause of this to mostly be boosting in-room response to flat up to around 7 kHz, which is wrong. In-room response naturally declines as frequency increases due to the microphone measuring a reduced amount of the tweeter due to its narrowing directivity and reduced reflections. Boosting this to flat boosts the response of the speaker above neutral if measured anechoically and makes a good speaker bright and harsh.
> 
> There are some combinations of speakers and rooms that benefit from it, however keep in mind that the vast majority of the perceived benefit comes from the correction of the 0-300 Hz region. The rest is "try it and see".


Hey. I know you said that you correct to 350hz and it works well for your speakers. What do your personal speakers look like for the "measured response" in Audyssey and how did you make the choice to limit correction there? 

I feel like 300hz works well for my speakers but I do feel like compared to full range comparison I am missing a bit of detail (tested in an Avatar scene where I could hear more detail in a characters voice in the background with full range). I also feel as mentioned that my ears are more bothered by how bright it sounds when correcting full range as compared to limiting at 300hz. 

This is my experience from watching movies only though. I do not listen to music on this system much.


----------



## Soulburner

mogorf said:


> Did you take into consideration the case of stereo imaging as a benefit of full range EQ? I think this is a key point!


Yes. In my case my setup is symmetrical so my imaging with the S400's is excellent.

I should add a caveat: I'm referring to the default Audyssey Reference target as the problem. If you were to perfectly match the in-room response of your system from the transition frequency upward with a tool like Ratbuddysey, then you might have something. I would go so far as to say that Audyssey should self-adjust its default curve to this! Just make a heavily smoothed version of what it measures, then correct to that target. I bet many more people would use full range correction.

Even still, this only works for speakers that are well designed. If you have major changes in directivity throughout the speaker's output, EQ works less well. Can't fix a bad speaker.


----------



## Soulburner

iStorm said:


> Hey. I know you said that you correct to 350hz and it works well for your speakers. What do your personal speakers look like for the "measured response" in Audyssey and how did you make the choice to limit correction there?
> 
> I feel like 300hz works well for my speakers but I do feel like compared to full range comparison I am missing a bit of detail (tested in an Avatar scene where I could hear more detail in a characters voice in the background with full range). I also feel as mentioned that my ears are more bothered by how bright it sounds when correcting full range as compared to limiting at 300hz.
> 
> This is my experience from watching movies only though. I do not listen to music on this system much.


It's interesting that you pick up on the brightness with movies. Music is the real test, where tonality problems and brightness will jump out at you in very short order.


----------



## Soulburner

I will see if I can post some measurements later.


----------



## iStorm

Soulburner said:


> I will see if I can post some measurements later.


Thanks buddy! I wish I had good source music to test but I unfortunately do not so my only way of testing this system is movies.


----------



## mogorf

Soulburner said:


> Yes. In my case my setup is symmetrical so my imaging with the S400's is excellent.
> 
> I should add a caveat: I'm referring to the default Audyssey Reference target as the problem. If you were to perfectly match the in-room response of your system from the transition frequency upward with a tool like Ratbuddysey, then you might have something. I would go so far as to say that Audyssey should self-adjust its default curve to this! Just make a heavily smoothed version of what it measures, then correct to that target. I bet many more people would use full range correction.
> 
> Even still, this only works for speakers that are well designed. If you have major changes in directivity throughout the speaker's output, EQ works less well. Can't fix a bad speaker.


Symmetrical setup is OK, but is your room also symmetrical to the brim? If so, do your L&Rs perform within +/- 1 dB full range? 

Audyssey self-adjusting sounds a bit "magical" since the target curve implemented IMHO is a kinda "one size fits all" approach. Let's think of the case that an EQ system like Audyssey (and all the others) can't take into consideration all our rooms on God's Green Planet where they are installed. 

As regards well designed speakers, can you name a few on the market today that are badly designed so as to avoid them in our future purchase plans? 

Nice to talk to you and nice to exchange views. Appreciate the friendly attitude!


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> I think it might be worth to think over what Chris Kyriakakis has to say about limited or full range EQ'ing especially with regards to stereo imaging:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! *I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."*
> 
> Unqte
> 
> Sound source localization of our human ears works especially in the mid- and high-frequency range, actually much better than for low frequencies. Full range EQ'ing is there, we paid for it, so why not use it? Still YMMV.


Thanks for posting that, Feri! I was going to look for it, but now I don't have to.


----------



## mogorf

iStorm said:


> Thanks buddy! I wish I had good source music to test but I unfortunately do not so my only way of testing this system is movies.


Hi iStorm,

For testing your system with good quality music I would heartfully recommend a group from Denmark named Bliss. With this number titled "Song for Olabi" you can do a listening test for deep bass, superb highs, stereo imaging, dynamic range, etc.

Here it is on YouTube: 




Enjoy!


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Thanks for posting that, Feri! I was going to look for it, but now I don't have to.





garygarrison said:


> Thanks for posting that, Feri! I was going to look for it, but now I don't have to.


Glad to save you some effort Gary! LOL Take care!


----------



## ncabw

Probably a dumb question. I but I only see the Audyssey multEQ app in App Store on iPhone. Is the xt32 a different app??? Also where do you get all these curves everyone mentions?? 

Thank you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

ncabw said:


> Probably a dumb question. I but I only see the Audyssey multEQ app in App Store on iPhone. Is the xt32 a different app??? Also where do you get all these curves everyone mentions??
> 
> Thank you
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's a little confusing, but there is only one app...and what you see is correct, the Audyssey MultiEQ app. The "version" of Audyssey you have is internal and based on the AVR you have, whether that's original multieq, XT, or XT32 etc. But you would use the same app.


----------



## ncabw

Thank you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ncabw

pbz06 said:


> It's a little confusing, but there is only one app...and what you see is correct, the Audyssey MultiEQ app. The "version" of Audyssey you have is internal and based on the AVR you have, whether that's original multieq, XT, or XT32 etc. But you would use the same app.


I Have the marantz 6011 which is the XT32. 
I still don’t see the curves people mention like the Harmon curve. I see the 2 on the app on phone. 

Roll off 1 and roll off 2. Now I’m guessing this are not even curves. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

ncabw said:


> I Have the marantz 6011 which is the XT32.
> I still don’t see the curves people mention like the Harmon curve. I see the 2 on the app on phone.
> 
> Roll off 1 and roll off 2. Now I’m guessing this are not even curves.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, Audyssey only has those 2 target curves which are mostly the same except for some subtle differences in the way they roll off around 10khz to 20khz.

The curves we are talking about need to be loaded manually using Ratbuddy or a process that a member DeLub set up using a spreadsheet. If you peak in the Ratbuddy thread, you might need to read/search the last couple of pages.


----------



## ncabw

pbz06 said:


> Yup, Audyssey only has those 2 target curves which are mostly the same except for some subtle differences in the way they roll off around 10khz to 20khz.
> 
> The curves we are talking about need to be loaded manually using Ratbuddy or a process that a member DeLub set up using a spreadsheet. If you peak in the Ratbuddy thread, you might need to read/search the last couple of pages.


Perfect. Thank you 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## aarons915

I'm kind of looking for others to maybe test something out that I've been noticing. Earlier this year I got a Denon X3500H to replace my Emotiva UMC 200, basically because I got a 4k TV and needed a newer HDMI standard. Of course it's hard to compare different EQ setups since the Emotiva was manual PEQ and the Denon has XT32 but I always felt like the sound from the Denon wasn't quite as clear as what I was used to hearing. While I still had both, I did measure the Pre outs with some various settings and posted this earlier this year.









I did this to see exactly how much Audyssey was boosting the bass but I noticed the entire signal had squigly lines and my correction was limited to 300Hz. I never really thought much about it until the past few days I was comparing Audyssey Reference (correction limited to 100Hz, subs off) to Off in the Denon menu and can swear No Audyssey sounds clearer, I hate to use this metaphor lol, but it really was as if a veil was removed from the speaker. Female vocals are the easiest way to test but Audyssey makes the sound just slightly foggy or cloudy is the best way I can describe it. 

I'm curious if anyone can do a proper test to see if I'm just crazy. You can't compare full range correction to off because the frequency response will be much different but if someone has their correction limited to 100 to 200 and can turn the subs off to compare Reference to off I'm curious what you think. Female vocals seem to be the easiest way to tell a difference.


----------



## Soulburner

I don't think turning the subs off would be the proper test unless I'm not understanding something.

I have compared 400 Hz (and +/- 200), to Off and Audyssey always sounds clearer because it's flattening and cleaning up the bass region. In fact that's where most of the benefit of Audyssey comes from.


----------



## aarons915

Soulburner said:


> I don't think turning the subs off would be the proper test unless I'm not understanding something.
> 
> I have compared 400 Hz (and +/- 200), to Off and Audyssey always sounds clearer because it's flattening and cleaning up the bass region. In fact that's where most of the benefit of Audyssey comes from.


Totally agree that Audyssey is best in the bass frequencies and that's how I was using it but that's not what I meant.

The reason I said to do it that way is because it shouldn't sound different in areas that it isn't supposed to be doing anything to the sound, the graphs show what I'm talking about. I guess what I was trying to say is I think Audyssey is affecting the sound above your cutoff just by being processed and you can tell by turning it on and off. Like if you artificially set the cutoff to 50Hz but turn your subs off and cross over at 100Hz, Audyssey on vs off should sound identical and if off sounds better it means the processing is harming the sound, that's what I've been noticing.


----------



## Soulburner

Interesting. I'll have to test that.


----------



## Jameshtx

I just ran Audyssey bc I upgraded some ceiling speakers for Atmos. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to leave these settings alone or not? Should I turn these on/auto or off?










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Jameshtx said:


> I just ran Audyssey bc I upgraded some ceiling speakers for Atmos. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to leave these settings alone or not? Should I turn these on/auto or off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would disable them to begin with. The only one I sometimes use from those is CinemaEQ. What that does is reduce the treble starting from 1khz thru 20khz as a straight line, where if you imagine 1khz being no adjustment and at 20khz being about -5dB (if your response was flat post calibration). It helps with harsh soudntracks and bright speakers.


----------



## Transfix

So I just picked up a new Marantz receiver and the Audyssey App. Any tips on running the calibration? I have Paradigm Studio 7.1 setup with the Studio 100's as my mains. It set them as small during calibration?


----------



## Jameshtx

pbz06 said:


> I would disable them to begin with. The only one I sometimes use from those is CinemaEQ. What that does is reduce the treble starting from 1khz thru 20khz as a straight line, where if you imagine 1khz being no adjustment and at 20khz being about -5dB (if your response was flat post calibration). It helps with harsh soudntracks and bright speakers.


If I disable them, do I rerun Audyssey? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Jameshtx said:


> If I disable them, do I rerun Audyssey?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Nope, those are post cal tweaks. And when you run Audyssey, it also ignores or bypasses everything. So you're good.


----------



## garygarrison

Jameshtx said:


> I just ran Audyssey bc I upgraded some ceiling speakers for Atmos. I can’t remember if I’m supposed to leave these settings alone or not? Should I turn these on/auto or off?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I would turn them all OFF.

*If* you have a moderately treated room, *and* you set up Audyssey properly, they *all *(with the possible exception of LFE effects, depending on what the manual says they mean by "0 dB") interfere with the artistic intentions of the director, composer, etc. If by "0 dB" they mean all the way up to reference level, just as a volume control set for a "relative" scale (rather than "absolute") would be, I imagine leaving it alone (at 0 dB) would be a position that allows the LFE to be at the correct level to match (track) whatever main volume control setting you use, and the music and dialog.

You may already know what follows. It was put in just in case you don't, and also because I just had some coffee. With a "relative" scale, Audyssey will set your system so 0 dB equals standard Audyssey/Dolby/THX Reference level, which is quite loud, and means that *very brief peaks* (less than 1 second, probably less than 1/2 second) will be at 105 dB when sent through the regular ("sattelite") speakers, including the fronts, and 115 dB peaks will be sent through the subwoofer(s), through which the LFE (and the lowest pitched music) will come. This reference level is for professional cinemas and halls of 20,000 cu. ft., or greater*;* it is *not *meant to be the level at which most movies are run in most homes. In a home sized room, there are early reflections that make us think that the SPL is louder than it is (a given SPL = the same SPL no matter what size room it is measured in, so because Audyssey is set up to set itself so 0 dB = Reference Level, that's what it will do). Most people will consider that level too loud in a home (due to early reflections and pressure zones). THX has determined that for a 1,500 to 4,999 cu.ft. treated Home Theater, audio with peaks* 7 dB lower*, will *sound *(more or less) *like* Reference level would sound in a treated auditorium or commercial cinema. Many people on this thread play movies back at a level of -10 to -15, or even lower. Two of us generally play back at - 7 to -5 dB in my case, and almost always at -5 dB in the case of the other person. It should be noted that we both have sound systems that will *not* clip at these levels (and that we are *not* deaf!).


----------



## StephenMSmith

I recently upgraded from a 2007 Onkyo TX-NR905 to a Denon 750H, added a couple speakers for a Atmos setup, and am using the MultEQ app for Audyssey. I've read the FAQ here a couple times and also found a couple informative YouTube videos b/t Sound United and the Audyssey engineer all about using Audyssey via the MultEQ app. But some questions:


1) The Sound United guy made a point several times that the CPU in your phone or tablet is way faster than what's in your receiver, implying that you'll get better results via MultEQ app than running Audyssey via receiver. Really? Seems unlikely. Maybe it calculates quicker but are the correction results from using MultEQ app any more precise or even different at all than if run via the receiver?


2) It was interesting to see how well Audyssey works in a dedicated home theater room -- near perfect flat response in Results. I have a very suboptimal setup at one end of condo living room w/a floor to ceiling glass windows on one side with no side at all opposite. Plus all 5 speakers on walls, 2 in ceiling, all in line with couch up against back wall. Based on the app results, Audyssey definitely helps but can't come anywhere close to flat response for this setup.











This question was asked but not really answered. These Results shown in the MultEQ app are just estimates, right? Audyssey doesn't actually run any test w/it's rooom corrections applied at any point, right? It just runs 6 (for my Audyssey version) raw measurements at different seating positions. Why not add a Test function to the app that shows actual results w/Audyssey's room corrections applied? Or is that only possible w/pro equipment?


3) When my relatively tiny surround speakers were temporarily just sitting on either end of my couch, my Denon consistently picked 120hz x-over. But after mounting them 8 inches up on the back wall, it consistently picks 150hz x-over. However, my sub is only rated up to 120hz. Is this a situation where I should lower the x-over for these satellites even though that goes against all recommendations here?


4) My 750H is a bit underpowered for my 7 Definitive Tech speakers. I find the 0db level on the receiver just right for movies, and far from the expected too loud (like it was on old high-powered TX-NR905). Logically, Dynamic EQ should be based on the room SPL. Is it? Or is it or based solely on volume level set on receiver? If it's just the volume setting on receiver, then that means it's doing nothing for me since 0db is my normal movie volume, right?

Thanks for any insights.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

StephenMSmith said:


> I recently upgraded from a 2007 Onkyo TX-NR905 to a Denon 750H, added a couple speakers for a Atmos setup, and am using the MultEQ app for Audyssey. I've read the FAQ here a couple times and also found a couple informative YouTube videos b/t Sound United and the Audyssey engineer all about using Audyssey via the MultEQ app. But some questions:
> 
> 
> 1) The Sound United guy made a point several times that the CPU in your phone or tablet is way faster than what's in your receiver, implying that you'll get better results via MultEQ app than running Audyssey via receiver. Really? Seems unlikely. Maybe it calculates quicker but are the correction results from using MultEQ app any more precise or even different at all than if run via the receiver?
> 
> 
> 2) It was interesting to see how well Audyssey works in a dedicated home theater room -- near perfect flat response in Results. I have a very suboptimal setup at one end of condo living room w/a floor to ceiling glass windows on one side with no side at all opposite. Plus all 5 speakers on walls, 2 in ceiling, all in line with couch up against back wall. Based on the app results, Audyssey definitely helps but can't come anywhere close to flat response for this setup.
> 
> View attachment 3056973
> 
> 
> 
> This question was asked but not really answered. These Results shown in the MultEQ app are just estimates, right? Audyssey doesn't actually run any test w/it's rooom corrections applied at any point, right? It just runs 6 (for my Audyssey version) raw measurements at different seating positions. Why not add a Test function to the app that shows actual results w/Audyssey's room corrections applied? Or is that only possible w/pro equipment?
> 
> 
> 3) When my relatively tiny surround speakers were temporarily just sitting on either end of my couch, my Denon consistently picked 120hz x-over. But after mounting them 8 inches up on the back wall, it consistently picks 150hz x-over. However, my sub is only rated up to 120hz. Is this a situation where I should lower the x-over for these satellites even though that goes against all recommendations here?
> 
> 
> 4) My 750H is a bit underpowered for my 7 Definitive Tech speakers. I find the 0db level on the receiver just right for movies, and far from the expected too loud (like it was on old high-powered TX-NR905). Logically, Dynamic EQ should be based on the room SPL. Is it? Or is it or based solely on volume level set on receiver? If it's just the volume setting on receiver, then that means it's doing nothing for me since 0db is my normal movie volume, right?
> 
> Thanks for any insights.


Hi Stephen,



StephenMSmith said:


> 1) The Sound United guy made a point several times that the CPU in your phone or tablet is way faster than what's in your receiver, implying that you'll get better results via MultEQ app than running Audyssey via receiver. Really? Seems unlikely. Maybe it calculates quicker but are the correction results from using MultEQ app any more precise or even different at all than if run via the receiver?


Yes the end result is usually the same, I have seen some instances of the AVR vs the App reporting different crossovers. There were other bugs in the App that have been pretty much ironed out at this stage and is fully reliable. 



StephenMSmith said:


> 2) It was interesting to see how well Audyssey works in a dedicated home theater room -- near perfect flat response in Results. I have a very suboptimal setup at one end of condo living room w/a floor to ceiling glass windows on one side with no side at all opposite. Plus all 5 speakers on walls, 2 in ceiling, all in line with couch up against back wall. Based on the app results, Audyssey definitely helps but can't come anywhere close to flat response for this setup.


There is different variations of Audyssey. Mike posted this recently










Besides having more filters the higher you go up, the highest tier XT32 concentrates more in the bass region. Your version is the MultiEQ which looks to do very little correction in the bass and puts more correction from 1k upwards. So IMHO XT32 is well worth getting if you want a flatter FR.



StephenMSmith said:


> This question was asked but not really answered. These Results shown in the MultEQ app are just estimates, right? Audyssey doesn't actually run any test w/it's rooom corrections applied at any point, right? It just runs 6 (for my Audyssey version) raw measurements at different seating positions. Why not add a Test function to the app that shows actual results w/Audyssey's room corrections applied? Or is that only possible w/pro equipment?


Correct the post graphs are just estimates and no Audyssey doesn't verify these graphs with post measurements. In the RoomEQ systems that I know Anthem, Dirac, Audyssey or YPAO, none of them ask for post measurements to verify there corrections. Most user's who really want to find out how there system is measuring use a Umik-1 and REW.



StephenMSmith said:


> 3) When my relatively tiny surround speakers were temporarily just sitting on either end of my couch, my Denon consistently picked 120hz x-over. But after mounting them 8 inches up on the back wall, it consistently picks 150hz x-over. However, my sub is only rated up to 120hz. Is this a situation where I should lower the x-over for these satellites even though that goes against all recommendations here?


This can be caused by room gain. I would check out the speaker specs and see what there limits are and add at least 20hz to this. Also see how a normal AVR calibration goes as like I said in the first question, this is where I find the App can get it wrong from time to time.



StephenMSmith said:


> 4) My 750H is a bit underpowered for my 7 Definitive Tech speakers. I find the 0db level on the receiver just right for movies, and far from the expected too loud (like it was on old high-powered TX-NR905). Logically, Dynamic EQ should be based on the room SPL. Is it? Or is it or based solely on volume level set on receiver? If it's just the volume setting on receiver, then that means it's doing nothing for me since 0db is my normal movie volume, right?


Yes DEQ is totally dependent on the volume of the AVR and yes by having the AVR at 0db it is in effect turned off.

There is a fantastic guide wrote by @mthomas47 that I highly recommend reading that will give much greater detail and insight to the above subjects and a lot more 😀








Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com





Hope this helps

Jim


----------



## StephenMSmith

Very helpful Jimmy, thanks. A lot is just in my head as I knew my room was bad, but now the MultEQ app actually shows me just how bad. Still sounds great to my ears.



Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Besides having more filters the higher you go up, the highest tier XT32 concentrates more in the bass region. Your version is the MultiEQ which looks to do very little correction in the bass and puts more correction from 1k upwards. So IMHO XT32 is well worth getting if you want a flatter FR.


Well, it be a huge price jump from my lower level 750H (bought on sale for $329) to an upper end model that includes XT32. Wish I could borrow one to run Audyssey and then see how different my low end Results are w/XT32 vs. my simpler MultEQ. And based on the chart, MultEQ32 won't improve my low end, only the top end XT32 has the improved sub filters.



> There is a fantastic guide wrote by @mthomas47 that I highly recommend reading that will give much greater detail and insight to the above subjects and a lot more 😀


Yeah, I already read through that great post. But I'm stuck w/my sub in a corner w/a glass wall on one side and pushed back so it's rear port is only 4" from back wall. Far from ideal but no other locations possible.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

StephenMSmith said:


> Still sounds great to my ears


That's all that matters buddy


----------



## anjunadeep

If I buy a new amp, should I re-run audyssey or can I just level match? I eventually will be re-running audyssey anyways when my new couch arrives two months later, but, I was hoping not to have to do it twice lol.


----------



## pbz06

anjunadeep said:


> If I buy a new amp, should I re-run audyssey or can I just level match? I eventually will be re-running audyssey anyways when my new couch arrives two months later, but, I was hoping not to have to do it twice lol.


You can probably hold off until then, if you level match it perfectly manually in the meantime (and haven't moved any speakers/subs/furniture).

Although I would suggest you re-run it


----------



## iStorm

I hate to sound like a broken record but after a lot of trial and error, it is really difficult to discern a difference between my natural speakers at 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, and 700hz EQ limited compared to full range. 300hz seems like a good point to limit based off of my measured response in Audyssey app of my speakers but how do I know if I should limit there. Do you guys play the same test scene over and over like me and see if you can tell a difference or something else? My test scenes are pretty long so my memory can get a bit muddy. 

I should also note that my room is not treated other than some thick black out curtains and bookshelves on the back wall. This new room is pretty much a perfect rectangle 12.5x12.5 with 8ft ceilings. It took me forever to find a good placement for my dual subs since I kept getting a huge null at 60hz but finally found a good spot after moving the subs to various locations and measuring. 

Thanks for any insight. I know most people are finding that limiting EQ to 300hz to 500hz is superior but a lot of these people seem to have a treated room, unlike me.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> I hate to sound like a broken record but after a lot of trial and error, it is really difficult to discern a difference between my natural speakers at 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, and 700hz EQ limited compared to full range. 300hz seems like a good point to limit based off of my measured response in Audyssey app of my speakers but how do I know if I should limit there. Do you guys play the same test scene over and over like me and see if you can tell a difference or something else? My test scenes are pretty long so my memory can get a bit muddy.
> 
> I should also note that my room is not treated other than some thick black out curtains and bookshelves on the back wall. This new room is pretty much a perfect rectangle 12.5x12.5 with 8ft ceilings. It took me forever to find a good placement for my dual subs since I kept getting a huge null at 60hz but finally found a good spot after moving the subs to various locations and measuring.
> 
> Thanks for any insight. I know most people are finding that limiting EQ to 300hz to 500hz is superior but a lot of these people seem to have a treated room, unlike me.


You're not the only one, I can't tell a difference either after running many tests (movies). I pick a few scenes and watch them over and over with the different settings...they sort of have to be long or long enough to have different types of scenarios to listen for (i.e. bass, vocals, surrounds, action etc.).

But yes, I can't really tell between limited/300/500/Full so that tells me either I'm not critical enough or don't have good enough ears (or XT32 doesn't do much to my speakers). So I try to just not stress about that aspect anymore, and just keep full range. Like I always say, there's no "correct" answer and no "should".

I'm more of a tweaker when it comes to the bass....I'm obsessed with bass and always looking to find the happy settings.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> You're not the only one, I can't tell a difference either after running many tests (movies). I pick a few scenes and watch them over and over with the different settings...they sort of have to be long or long enough to have different types of scenarios to listen for (i.e. bass, vocals, surrounds, action etc.).
> 
> But yes, I can't really tell between limited/300/500/Full so that tells me either I'm not critical enough or don't have good enough ears (or XT32 doesn't do much to my speakers). So I try to just not stress about that aspect anymore, and just keep full range. Like I always say, there's no "correct" answer and no "should".
> 
> I'm more of a tweaker when it comes to the bass....I'm obsessed with bass and always looking to find the happy settings.


It sounds like we are very similar then indeed. I use a scene in Bloodshot towards the end (chapter 15 I believe) and I try to ensure I can hear all of the fine details like glass pieces flying everywhere, pipes rattling, etc and I hear them all in my various tests between the two. 

I know Audioholics and Youthman on YouTube now swear by it limiting to 300 to 500hz but they also have high end speakers and acoustically treated rooms. 

I guess I'll just keep it full range and keep focusing on getting the bass dialed in since this is a new space for my home theater. 

Thanks man!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> It sounds like we are very similar then indeed. I use a scene in Bloodshot towards the end (chapter 15 I believe) and I try to ensure I can hear all of the fine details like glass pieces flying everywhere, pipes rattling, etc and I hear them all in my various tests between the two.
> 
> I know Audioholics and Youthman on YouTube now swear by it limiting to 300 to 500hz but they also have high end speakers and acoustically treated rooms.
> 
> I guess I'll just keep it full range and keep focusing on getting the bass dialed in since this is a new space for my home theater.
> 
> Thanks man!


Yup they do, and that's fine.

When testing longer scenes, I keep using Logan (the scene where Holbrook's character tries to get Laura at the warehouse). I like it because there's a lot of varying types things going on separately before the action picks up...the music beat, the dust bristling in the air, footsteps, handcuff clanking, voice types, and some nice types of bass once it gets going (chests thumps, subtle deep extension etc.) 

For just bass, I have like 20 movies I cycle through, haha.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Yup they do, and that's fine.
> 
> When testing longer scenes, I keep using Logan (the scene where Holbrook's character tries to get Laura at the warehouse). I like it because there's a lot of varying types things going on separately before the action picks up...the music beat, the dust bristling in the air, footsteps, handcuff clanking, voice types, and some nice types of bass once it gets going (chests thumps, subtle deep extension etc.)
> 
> For just bass, I have like 20 movies I cycle through, haha.


That sounds like an awesome scene to test! Good to know that with your speakers you don't notice a difference really either. As I mentioned earlier, it may be a bit brighter with full range but that's the only difference I can tell over limiting EQ. I don't think that's a bad thing since it is flattening it (making my speakers brighter than natural).


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> I know *most* people are finding that limiting EQ to 300hz to 500hz is superior


 [bolding mine]

I'm not sure this statement is true in regard to "most people." I have not made a count. As was discussed on the forum recently, Chris K., co-founder and CTO of Audyssey feels that Full Range correction produces a better result in most cases. YMMV

With absorbers in just the right places, I can see how limited range correction might be good, since troublesome early *treble* reflections would be reduced. But the most efficient absorbers I have had experience with [4" wedged Sonex] don't absorb mush below 400 Hz. 

Yet, in my partly treated room, Audyssey full range does an audibly better job, with clear improvement in the higher frequencies, producing greater clarity and detail. The peak-trough smoothness is improved by 4 dB, but it sounds like a greater improvement than that.


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> [bolding mine]
> 
> I'm not sure this statement is true in regard to "most people." I have not made a count. As was discussed on the forum recently, Chris K., co-founder and CTO of Audyssey feels that Full Range correction produces a better result in most cases. YMMV
> 
> With absorbers in just the right places, I can see how limited range correction might be good, since troublesome early *treble* reflections would be reduced. But the most efficient absorbers I have had experience with [4" wedged Sonex] don't absorb mush below 400 Hz.
> 
> Yet, in my partly treated room, Audyssey full range does an audibly better job, with clear improvement in the higher frequencies, producing greater clarity and detail. The peak-trough smoothness is improved by 4 dB, but it sounds like a greater improvement than that.


Thanks for your thorough response as always, Gary! It sounds to my ears since I do not discern a major difference with full range versus limiting to 300hz, 350hz, 400hz, 450hz, 500hz, and 700hz I should just let it do full range with midrange compensation OFF and roll off "1" selected. I will also probably benefit from the full range EQ since I'm in an untreated room (my hope at least).


----------



## Pip

iStorm said:


> I hate to sound like a broken record but after a lot of trial and error, it is really difficult to discern a difference between my natural speakers at 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, and 700hz EQ limited compared to full range. 300hz seems like a good point to limit based off of my measured response in Audyssey app of my speakers but how do I know if I should limit there. Do you guys play the same test scene over and over like me and see if you can tell a difference or something else?...
> ...
> Thanks for any insight. I know most people are finding that limiting EQ to 300hz to 500hz is superior but a lot of these people seem to have a treated room, unlike me.





iStorm said:


> ...I know Audioholics ... now swear by it limiting to 300 to 500hz but they also have high end speakers and acoustically treated rooms.
> ...
> I guess I'll just keep it full range and keep focusing on getting the bass dialed in since this is a new space for my home theater.





iStorm said:


> ...It sounds to my ears since I do not discern a major difference with full range versus limiting to 300hz, 350hz, 400hz, 450hz, 500hz, and 700hz I should just let it do full range with midrange compensation OFF and roll off "1" selected. ...


There may be measurable differences, but it's possible that in your room, any and all of those differences are inaudible to any human ear. The science behind this debate, presented by Audioholics, is interesting and valuable to know. Depending on the room and speakers, full range vs. limited correction may make a substantial difference. For that reason, it's a great feature of the app. 

Knowledge based tweaking can help solve problems (when they exist), and it is just plain fun, but at the end of the day, don't be afraid to trust your ears.

If you can't hear a difference, then there is no difference. So now that you're done with the fun of tweaking, sit back and enjoy.

Pip


----------



## platinum00

Ears > Measurement


----------



## iStorm

Pip said:


> There may be measurable differences, but it's possible that in your room, any and all of those differences are inaudible to any human ear. The science behind this debate, presented by Audioholics, is interesting and valuable to know. Depending on the room and speakers, full range vs. limited correction may make a substantial difference. For that reason, it's a great feature of the app.
> 
> Knowledge based tweaking can help solve problems (when they exist), and it is just plain fun, but at the end of the day, don't be afraid to trust your ears.
> 
> If you can't hear a difference, then there is no difference. So now that you're done with the fun of tweaking, sit back and enjoy.
> 
> Pip


Thank you for your good input here! I am sticking to full range EQ for my particular untreated room and I think that it picks up small details that I miss when only EQing up to the small frequencies.  I am definitely going to sit back and enjoy some long awaited movies!!


----------



## iStorm

anjunadeep said:


> If I buy a new amp, should I re-run audyssey or can I just level match? I eventually will be re-running audyssey anyways when my new couch arrives two months later, but, I was hoping not to have to do it twice lol.


I would rerun it personally. I went to a more powerful amp and it made a lot of difference in my calibration. It doesn't take too much time but I can understand it may be hard to do without noise in the house, outside noises, etc.


----------



## iStorm

Has anyone else tried to disable DEQ for movies and then just feel that it doesn't create the same bubble as before?

When I transitioned to Anthem's ARC and Dirac, I was able to tweak the system much more than Audyssey and maybe that's why I didn't need DEQ with those systems. That has changed a bit of course with Audyssey App and being able to create my own target curves. 

Anyways, even when I implement a good target curve , I feel like something is missing. I used to think DEQ added too much to the surrounds, center, etc but maybe DEQ is just fine how it is with my particular system. I will say have pretty unique surrounds where they operate in bipole mode and the tweeters are angled (SVS Ultra surrounds). 

I just wanted to know if others find they miss DEQ as well when switching to OFF, other custom curves etc. I feel like DEQ just makes the movies sound more theater like (bass aside because i still add boosts on top of DEQ) compared to having it OFF. 

I used to enable DEQ and turn down the surrounds but I really feel like then it makes it unbalanced compared to the other boosted channels as well. 

Just my thoughts. Thanks.


----------



## iStorm

platinum00 said:


> Ears > Measurement


I'm not sure if this is necessarily true especially when it comes to the subwoofer. I have tried about every spot you can think of in this new small room that's really hard to find a good spot even for dual subs. 

For instance, having the subs on the front wall period creates a nasty -10db per sub dip at 60hz. So for my duals it is a combined -20db dip at 60hz if I have them at the typical 1/4 and 3/4 front placement that has worked well in the past. 

Through measurements I have found much better placement for the subs where there isn't a huge null at 60hz. The measured responses sound better than the ones not measuring as well. This has been my experience. So ultimately I think measurements do matter and your ears should notice the difference between a "good graph" and a "bad graph."


----------



## platinum00

Totally agree. I wasnt Indicating don't measure. Just don't soley rely on it. We all tend to obsess over reference curves when what sounds better in our room might not be whatever your referencing.

We spend hours analyzing graphs (myself Included), when getting close and doing it by ear is much easier and more effective in my opinion. It doesn't matter what it looks like if it doesn't sound good.

For subs.. don't just look at width modes, length are just as important.. Placing 2 subs at the 1/4 width and length modes works extremely well. Length might be more aesthetically pleasing to handle with listen position rather than sub placement. Most don't want subs a 1/4 in and a 1/4 up in the room.

I was lucky and had nulls at 1/6 length too. so 1/4 in, 1/6 up and then listening at 2/3rds was able to effectively eliminate all low end nulls. The rest (above 200) was handled by LCR placement and toe in. 

Audyssey after 250 and I have very consistent sound across all 4 seats.




Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## iStorm

platinum00 said:


> Totally agree. I wasnt Indicating don't measure. Just don't soley rely on it. We all tend to obsess over reference curves when what sounds better in our room might not be whatever your referencing.
> 
> We spend hours analyzing graphs (myself Included), when getting close and doing it by ear is much easier and more effective in my opinion. It doesn't matter what it looks like if it doesn't sound good.
> 
> For subs.. don't just look at width modes, length are just as important.. Placing 2 subs at the 1/4 width and length modes works extremely well. Length might be more aesthetically pleasing to handle with listen position rather than sub placement. Most don't want subs a 1/4 in and a 1/4 up in the room.
> 
> I was lucky and had nulls at 1/6 length too. so 1/4 in, 1/6 up and then listening at 2/3rds was able to effectively eliminate all low end nulls. The rest (above 200) was handled by LCR placement and toe in.
> 
> Auddssey after 250 and I have very consistent sound across all 4 seats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


That looks excellent! I am still experimenting but the front wall is horrible for my new room period. Opposing corners measures well in this new 12.5x12.5 pretty square enclosed room but the rear sub is way too easy to localize. It seems like 1/3 up the side walls may end up where I put them. 1/3 up sidewalls facing listening area is working well. Also 1/2 up sidewalls facing listening area works well but is too close to MLP since it's such a small room. I have tried them facing each other and that measures and sounds worse. So essentially I am doing them in the front corners but just 1/3 up on the sidewalls (a little less).


----------



## platinum00

Look into the harman room mode calculator and the on/off axis response of your mains. 

You can get most of the way there with that. Fix the nulls with placement and let audyssey tame the rest.

Room modes are a thing and once I understood them it was a game changer. 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## iStorm

platinum00 said:


> Look into the harmon room mode calculator and the on/off axis response of your mains.
> 
> You can get most of the way there with that. Fix the nulls with placement and let auddssey tame the rest.
> 
> Room modes are a thing and once I understood them it was a game changer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


Will do! Thank you!!


----------



## iStorm

platinum00 said:


> Look into the harman room mode calculator and the on/off axis response of your mains.
> 
> You can get most of the way there with that. Fix the nulls with placement and let audyssey tame the rest.
> 
> Room modes are a thing and once I understood them it was a game changer.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


Edit: this is actually the diagram we used and it works well to get an idea of where chair placement should be. We always base our chair measurement point off of the reclined position since this is where are ears are. The 1/2 seems really close in our room to the MLP but it's because it's only 12.5x12.5 and we go off of the home theater recliners as mentioned. Cheers!


----------



## TheDigitalJockey

Hello all,

This is my first post here and I would like to apologize if I did something wrong. 

I just calibrated my Home Theater using Audyssey and I noticed the audio was way off center. 

After checking the speaker distances and levels, I realized the same sound from the receiver was leaning from the TV, so I turned down the volume and everything sounds as it should be. 

But then, I realized, that if the sound was leaking during playback, couldn't be also be leaking during Audyssey calibration?

If something hooked up to the receiver can play both on the receiver and the TV at the same time, can't the Audyssey calibration noise also leak to the TV?

Just the fact the volume is up, by itself, even without any noise, can interfere with calibration on a small room?

Should I do everything over again just to be safe?

Thanks!

Enviado de meu POCOPHONE F1 usando o Tapatalk


----------



## StephenMSmith

Here's a question possibly so dumb it's not the FAQ, lol. When running AUD calibration through the seating positions, does it really matter whether you match the seat position indicator in the app or on screen? Regardless, are all positions (6 for my MultEQ version) equally weighted? I think both are the same question, just curious.


----------



## platinum00

for seat position no... there is many schools of thought on mic placement. small bubble, big bubble.. etc..

just get the 1st mic position centered in your listening areas so the levels and distances are right. audyssey uses mic position 1 for that.

2-8 do as you prefer.

again... subjective but I have a 4 seat couch. I do 1 in the middle, then seat 1/2/3 get 2 runs and seat 4 gets 1, for a total of 8 positions. 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## platinum00

TheDigitalJockey said:


> Hello all,
> 
> This is my first post here and I would like to apologize if I did something wrong.
> 
> I just calibrated my Home Theater using Audyssey and I noticed the audio was way off center.
> 
> After checking the speaker distances and levels, I realized the same sound from the receiver was leaning from the TV, so I turned down the volume and everything sounds as it should be.
> 
> But then, I realized, that if the sound was leaking during playback, couldn't be also be leaking during Audyssey calibration?
> 
> If something hooked up to the receiver can play both on the receiver and the TV at the same time, can't the Audyssey calibration noise also leak to the TV?
> 
> Just the fact the volume is up, by itself, even without any noise, can interfere with calibration on a small room?
> 
> Should I do everything over again just to be safe?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Enviado de meu POCOPHONE F1 usando o Tapatalk


yes.. in would redo it. the mic is super sensitive and sound coming out of the TV will surely have an impact.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## bartonnen

StephenMSmith said:


> When running AUD calibration through the seating positions, does it really matter whether you match the seat position indicator in the app or on screen?


I've read many times that the preferred way is to just have the 2nd and subsequent positions only 1-2 feet away from position 1.


----------



## iStorm

Hi, can anyone tell me what's considered a dip where Audyssey can actually correct? I have noticed on the subs if the dip is around -5db then Audyssey corrected graph shows it flattening it out.

Ultimately I know that peaks are much easier to deal with and dips usually aren't able to be really corrected, but what db of a dip would you say is okay to have? It seems like with my new smaller room that it is unavoidable to have a dip at 60hz no matter where the seats and subs are placed. Also, 40hz and 100hz are usually troublesome as well. 

With 100hz in mind, it doesn't really matter if the subs dip at 100hz because I'm crossing them over at 80hz right? Or will that not hold true since my LPF to LFE is set to 120hz? I know the sub will play a lot more than 80hz but will just be a lower volume as the hzs get higher. 

Thanks for any insight on this.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hi, can anyone tell me what's considered a dip where Audyssey can actually correct? I have noticed on the subs if the dip is around -5db then Audyssey corrected graph shows it flattening it out.
> 
> Ultimately I know that peaks are much easier to deal with and dips usually aren't able to be really corrected, but what db of a dip would you say is okay to have? It seems like with my new smaller room that it is unavoidable to have a dip at 60hz no matter where the seats and subs are placed. Also, 40hz and 100hz are usually troublesome as well.
> 
> With 100hz in mind, it doesn't really matter if the subs dip at 100hz because I'm crossing them over at 80hz right? Or will that not hold true since my LPF to LFE is set to 120hz? I know the sub will play a lot more than 80hz but will just be a lower volume as the hzs get higher.
> 
> Thanks for any insight on this.


Dips or troughs are different than actual nulls. So yes, Audyssey can correct and/or raise dips, especially in the bass regions.

Sometimes it also raises the entire volume so the bottom of the dips can be the baseline and it then brings down the peaks. Just depends on the room etc.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> Dips or troughs are different than actual nulls. So yes, Audyssey can correct and/or raise dips, especially in the bass regions.
> 
> Sometimes it also raises the entire volume so the bottom of the dips can be the baseline and it then brings down the peaks. Just depends on the room etc.


Hey thanks for the reply. How do I know if they are just a dip and not a null? I know for instance in this small room with the dual subs up front like I had them before they measure TERRIBLY. They have a -25db dip at 60hz which is probably a null. Now with my current placement I only have a -5db dip at 60hz and 40hz. These should be able to be corrected right?

Also, how about the narrow long dip at 100hz. Is that anything to worry about if I cross the mains over at 80hz?

Thanks!


----------



## garygarrison

I don't know how Audyssey decides what to correct and what to leave alone.

It's conceivable that it would not correct a *narrow* dip. Long ago I heard that a dip of less than 1/3 of an octave wide was not audible, or barely so, in music.

Peaks maybe more audible and more annoying than dips, and correcting them entails no risk of overload, so Audyssey may concentrate on them.

Audyssey definitely fixes 4 and 5 dB dips in my room*;* one of them, if I remember, was less than 1/3 octave wide.


----------



## vlad335

This is probably a stupid question for you guys but i can't find anything with searches.

I ran Audyssey with my new Klipsch RP front stage. center and two towers. The rest of my 11.2 system is a hodgepodge of JBL stuff. I am using a Denon x3600. 

The levels are really negative. -11.0 for the center, -9.0 average for the towers. all the surrounds are way down in level. the subs -12. Did I do something wrong? Why are the levels cut so much?

I am using a Parasound A51 amp for LCR and surrounds and the other 4 speakers are powered by the receiver.


----------



## garygarrison

vlad335 said:


> This is probably a stupid question for you guys but i can't find anything with searches.
> 
> I ran Audyssey with my new Klipsch RP front stage. center and two towers. The rest of my 11.2 system is a hodgepodge of JBL stuff. I am using a Denon x3600.
> 
> The levels are really negative. -11.0 for the center, -9.0 average for the towers. all the surrounds are way down in level. the subs -12. Did I do something wrong? Why are the levels cut so much?
> 
> I am using a Parasound A51 amp for LCR and surrounds and the other 4 speakers are powered by the receiver.


Well I don't know, but a good bet would be because Klipsch and JBL both have a reputation of being very sensitive (i.e., very efficient), which would cause the levels to be turned way down. -11 and -9 are O.K., but the trouble with -12 [if max cut in your control center containing Audyssey (the Denon?) is -12] is that you don't know if Audyssey would turn it down more if it could. On the other hand, if everything sounds good, and the sub is the only one that is -12 (if max), and you like your bass, you might just leave it. I assume you have a powered sub. If you turn the gain knob on the sub itself down (counterclockwise) a bit, the -12 should become -11, which is O.K., because you know Audyssey's correction to -11 is intentional, since it could go to -12 if it "wanted" to (and here we are only at the dawn of AI).

Your center is probably extraordinarily efficient. Your towers aren't far behind, if you have the 8000F, with 98 dB (in a room, 94 dB in an anechoic chamber), at 1 watt (2.83 volts into 8 Ohms) at 1 Meter. How far away do you sit, and how big is your room? At 250 w.p.c., all channels driven(!), you have enough umph to produce about 111 dB peaks from each tower at 13 feet away, in a 4,000 cu ft room. _*Don't try it, though, because your speakers might not be able to take it!*_

My Klipsches are 105 dB, 1W, 1M (in a room;101 dB in an anechoic chamber) and I had to take extraordinary steps to avoid -12 dB. It was a pain in the woofer.

I vaguely knew "the legendary John Curl," designer of the Parasound A51, back in the '70s. He's the real deal, and even was then. You have a fine amp for your front array.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

vlad335 said:


> This is probably a stupid question for you guys but i can't find anything with searches.
> 
> I ran Audyssey with my new Klipsch RP front stage. center and two towers. The rest of my 11.2 system is a hodgepodge of JBL stuff. I am using a Denon x3600.
> 
> The levels are really negative. -11.0 for the center, -9.0 average for the towers. all the surrounds are way down in level. the subs -12. Did I do something wrong? Why are the levels cut so much?
> 
> I am using a Parasound A51 amp for LCR and surrounds and the other 4 speakers are powered by the receiver.


HI,

I totally agree with Gary here, everything is fine bar the sub level being at -12.

The problem I found with the sub at -12 is that I found in the MultiEq App (not verified by REW) that Audyssey doesn't do such a good job in the sub correction when it is out of range. Now perhaps the calibration through the AVR is different but this is something I have seen happen on the App many times in my system.

If it were me I would aim to get the sub just above -12 just for peace at mind that you are getting the best correction. Between -11 and -9.5 is a good target to aim for.

All the best

Jim


----------



## pbz06

Got a chance to run some measurements. Here is Audyssey with and without DEQ, and my subwoofer. Could improve on some things, but good enough for now....I also ran measurements on the custom curves; I have peace of mind that Audyssey does what it says it does (I'll post those later too).


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

pbz06 said:


> Got a chance to run some measurements. Here is Audyssey with and without DEQ, and my subwoofer. Could improve on some things, but good enough for now....I also ran measurements on the custom curves; I have peace of mind that Audyssey does what it says it does (I'll post those later too).
> View attachment 3061551
> View attachment 3061552
> View attachment 3061553
> View attachment 3061554
> View attachment 3061555


Hey Buddy,

Looking real good😁 , what settings or curve are you favoring at the moment?

I finally got my surrounds set up the way I want them, got a new Audyssey calibration done last night and I think I hot the jackpot in my sub FR. I'll confirm with REW tomorrow, think I need to get a new mic stand, my current has gone though the wars with me in the last few years 😂😂

All the Best

Jim


----------



## pbz06

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> Looking real good😁 , what settings or curve are you favoring at the moment?
> 
> I finally got my surrounds set up the way I want them, got a new Audyssey calibration done last night and I think I hot the jackpot in my sub FR. I'll confirm with REW tomorrow, think I need to get a new mic stand, my current has gone though the wars with me in the last few years 😂😂
> 
> All the Best
> 
> Jim


Here they are. But I just realized I didn't save the "speaker only" measurements  (with subwoofers off) so they all include the full range combined. I'll shelve it until next weekend to get those too. It's hard to tell the exact shape of the curve due to the squiggly nature of the measurements...but you can see it easier when 1:1 smoothing.

My biggest "annoyance" is that I show a little boost at 1khz for my center...which wasn't there with previous measurements. It could just be a mic placement variance, but I tried MRC on and it just missed it so it stayed there too.

I'm enjoying all the curves to be honest  I just change them up but they sound similar enough that I'm not worried too much. Right now I'm back at Reference and DEQ "on" because I feel comfortable with what it does, it follows the shapes of my speakers and my surrounds and center are capable to 40hz (powered woofers) so I don't notice any "muddiness" or "boominess" with DEQ since I also don't listen very loud anyway.


----------



## marantz545

Question- if I limit audyssey to 200hz and below, is there any change from switching from flat and reference?


----------



## anjunadeep

_edit_ answered my own question via searching, sorry!


----------



## marantz545

If your speakers have a dip at a given frequency, can you use the multieq app to add a few DBs in the curve editor?
For example, my center channel has a dip between 2khz-3khz. So can I edit the curve to have a 3db hump at 2-3khz to bring up the natural dip in my speakers? Is this the correct procedure?


----------



## garygarrison

marantz545 said:


> If your speakers have a dip at a given frequency, can you use the multieq app to add a few DBs in the curve editor?
> For example, my center channel has a dip between 2khz-3khz. So can I edit the curve to have a 3db hump at 2-3khz to bring up the natural dip in my speakers? Is this the correct procedure?


Is it your speakers that have the dip, or is it Audyssey's *Midrange Compensation *that is dipping, if you have it on? That is just about the same frequency range (2 to 3K) and amount of dip (~~~ 3 dB) that *MC* imposes.

Some members of the forum feel that limiting the range of Audyssey correction to below a certain frequency (200 Hz, in your proposal) is helpful and others don't think so in their set-ups. FYI, Audyssey advises against it. I suspect it depends heavily on your speaker-room-listener combination. I would *think *switching from Aud Flat to Aud Ref would make no difference with a 200 Hz cut off, unless Mid Compensation is totally independent of AF and AR in your set-up.


----------



## marantz545

garygarrison said:


> Is it your speakers that have the dip, or is it Audyssey's *Midrange Compensation *that is dipping, if you have it on? That is just about the same frequency range (2 to 3K) and amount of dip (~~~ 3 dB) that *MC* imposes.
> 
> Some members of the forum feel that limiting the range of Audyssey correction to below a certain frequency (200 Hz, in your proposal) is helpful and others don't think so in their set-ups. FYI, Audyssey advises against it. I suspect it depends heavily on your speaker-room-listener combination. I would *think *switching from Aud Flat to Aud Ref would make no difference with a 200 Hz cut off, unless Mid Compensation is totally independent of AF and AR in your set-up.


Midrange compensation is off. The speakers do have a dip at that point. Could be a room reflection issue but adding a little hump at that point improves the sound. It’s not perfect but it’s better than not having it. I just wasn’t sure what the correct procedure was/is. A similar speaker is the RP600M and I’ve read reviews that it displays the same dip. Might be related to the crossover on Klipsch speakers.


----------



## iStorm

Hey guys,

Does after the speaker crossover (80hz) really matter as much for the sub dips? I was finally able to find a spot for my dual pb16s that doesn't dip as much at 40, 50, and 60hz but now the dips are narrow big dips after 80hz where I cross over the speakers. Is this fine to have since the towers will pick up that slack?

Graph of dual pb16s down below. Thanks for any input !


----------



## anjunadeep

iStorm said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> Does after the speaker crossover (80hz) really matter as much for the sub dips? I was finally able to find a spot for my dual pb16s that doesn't dip as much at 40, 50, and 60hz but now the dips are narrow big dips after 80hz where I cross over the speakers. Is this fine to have since the towers will pick up that slack?
> 
> Graph of dual pb16s down below. Thanks for any input !
> View attachment 3064706


I'm just a dummy but you might be able to smooth those out with better sub-sat crossover integration. I've had issues like that before and by playing with the delays was able to smooth them out. You can also try setting the crossover a bit lower to see what that does. But to more directly answer your question, it's less audible in my experience than some giant null at 50Hz or something.


----------



## iStorm

anjunadeep said:


> I'm just a dummy but you might be able to smooth those out with better sub-sat crossover integration. I've had issues like that before and by playing with the delays was able to smooth them out. You can also try setting the crossover a bit lower to see what that does. But to more directly answer your question, it's less audible in my experience than some giant null at 50Hz or something.


Hey, I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of your post unless you mean setting the LPF to LFE to something like 80hz on the receiver for the sub. I figured that anything past 80hz would be less audible but I just don't want to transfer the dips to the higher frequencies like 80hz and beyond if it isn't a good idea. There are other placements where I have lower dips in the upper regions but then the lower regions are slightly bigger dips. I just don't know which one is recommended.


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hey, I'm not sure what you mean by the first part of your post unless you mean setting the LPF to LFE to something like 80hz on the receiver for the sub. I figured that anything past 80hz would be less audible but I just don't want to transfer the dips to the higher frequencies like 80hz and beyond if it isn't a good idea. There are other placements where I have lower dips in the upper regions but then the lower regions are slightly bigger dips. I just don't know which one is recommended.


The short answer is that I don't think they will be audible, when they are so narrow. For the bass managed content, it will be rolling off anyway (24dB/octave), and it will be overlapping with your mains. The fact that during movies you are also hearing all kinds of frequencies and notes at the same time will make it even less likely you notice anything. For the LFE content, same thing.

I have a couple dips like that similar to yours too. When I run a sweep, it sounds smooth and powerful still and no way I can hear any dips that narrow. If you use the psychoacoustic smoothing on REW, it will also give you a reasonable idea of you will hear.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> The short answer is that I don't think they will be audible, when they are so narrow. For the bass managed content, it will be rolling off anyway (24dB/octave), and it will be overlapping with your mains. The fact that during movies you are also hearing all kinds of frequencies and notes at the same time will make it even less likely you notice anything. For the LFE content, same thing.
> 
> I have a couple dips like that similar to yours too. When I run a sweep, it sounds smooth and powerful still and no way I can hear any dips that narrow. If you use the psychoacoustic smoothing on REW, it will also give you a reasonable idea of you will hear.


Thanks so much for your reply! I sold my laptop that was compatible with REW so I can only use Audyssey and Dirac as a general guide. So even though these are narrow dips that go way down to like -15db i shouldn't worry about them? I have a couple of other placements that I could use that are much smoother from 80hz and up but then the dips are more pronounced in the under 80hz region. Which would you choose? I know my ears is ultimately the deciding factor but I don't want to use a location if the big -15db dips are too extensive. Thanks man!


----------



## anjunadeep

Audyssey Question relating to the Curve Editor in the MultEQ app:

I'm offered in the Audyssey editor app two options, High Frequency Roll Off 1 and High Frequency Roll Off 2. I don't see a selection to just leave it flat, how is that done? I seemed to remember there used to be like "Flat" and "Reference" but I no longer see that.

Do these roll offs stay active if you limit EQ to only below 500Hz? 

What about midrange compensation, does that also get removed if you limit below 500Hz?

What about if the Curve Editor is used, does that override High Frequency Roll Off 1/2?


----------



## pbz06

anjunadeep said:


> Audyssey Question relating to the Curve Editor in the MultEQ app:
> 
> I'm offered in the Audyssey editor app two options, High Frequency Roll Off 1 and High Frequency Roll Off 2. I don't see a selection to just leave it flat, how is that done? I seemed to remember there used to be like "Flat" and "Reference" but I no longer see that.
> 
> Do these roll offs stay active if you limit EQ to only below 500Hz?
> 
> What about midrange compensation, does that also get removed if you limit below 500Hz?
> 
> What about if the Curve Editor is used, does that override High Frequency Roll Off 1/2?


1. The manual for the pro kit explains the roll off recommendations. Basically 5,000cf (I need to verify the exact number) or greater, use Target 2. For smaller rooms, use Target 1. You can see on the predicted after curve the slight differences in the upper end. In practice, you're unlikely to tell a difference depending on your speaker characteristics. Any changes you do with the app (i.e. limiting EQ range, MRC, targets, curve editor) are only applicable to the Reference setting in the AVR. You can still select Flat within the AVR but it will keep full range EQ and change the rolloff to flat.

2. No, the rolloffs aren't applicable if you limite EQ range...neither is MRC. 

3. Yes, the curve editor overrides your target. It just starts with whichever you select (1 or 2).


----------



## anjunadeep

pbz06 said:


> 1. The manual for the pro kit explains the roll off recommendations. Basically 5,000cf (I need to verify the exact number) or greater, use Target 2. For smaller rooms, use Target 1. You can see on the predicted after curve the slight differences in the upper end. In practice, you're unlikely to tell a difference depending on your speaker characteristics. Any changes you do with the app (i.e. limiting EQ range, MRC, targets, curve editor) are only applicable to the Reference setting in the AVR. You can still select Flat within the AVR but it will keep full range EQ and change the rolloff to flat.
> 
> 2. No, the rolloffs aren't applicable if you limite EQ range...neither is MRC.
> 
> 3. Yes, the curve editor overrides your target. It just starts with whichever you select (1 or 2).


Thanks!

So why doesn't the editor app offer the option of choosing flat? It wants Reference to be what you selected (1 or 2 rolloff) and then you need to use your receivers menus to choose flat? 

Also I've been googling around at what speaker manufacturers recommend, and almost all of them seem to think above the rooms transition frequency (400-500Hz or so) to disable Audyssey all together? Even Floyd Toole seems to think that? Is this a speaker designer vs. algorithm programmer debate?


----------



## monstosity12

Question about the audyssey app... if I limit audyssey from doing frequencies above 500hz; will this give me more filters to utilize for the frequencies under 500hz?

trying to see if it’s worthwhile to purchase the app as the results without are pretty good. But if it can get better down low, I will get the app.


----------



## pbz06

monstosity12 said:


> Question about the audyssey app... if I limit audyssey from doing frequencies above 500hz; will this give me more filters to utilize for the frequencies under 500hz?
> 
> trying to see if it’s worthwhile to purchase the app as the results without are pretty good. But if it can get better down low, I will get the app.


No, it doesn't give you more filters. It applies them as it would as it determines for full range. When you limit it, all it does is not apply them past your limit range...it doesn't "re-calibrate" with more filters.


----------



## pbz06

anjunadeep said:


> Thanks!
> 
> So why doesn't the editor app offer the option of choosing flat? It wants Reference to be what you selected (1 or 2 rolloff) and then you need to use your receivers menus to choose flat?
> 
> Also I've been googling around at what speaker manufacturers recommend, and almost all of them seem to think above the rooms transition frequency (400-500Hz or so) to disable Audyssey all together? Even Floyd Toole seems to think that? Is this a speaker designer vs. algorithm programmer debate?


I don't know why. My guess is the app is only for tweaking and customizing the curves. If you're going to use Flat, it's fixed so no reason to have it in the app. You can just toggle to flat in the AVR just like any other setting.

The EQ full range vs limited has always been a hot topic and there's strong sides (and opinionated people) on both sides. I just think of it as a tool or option to try both ways. Nobody can convince me one way is correct or better.


----------



## garygarrison

anjunadeep said:


> Also I've been googling around at what *speaker manufacturers* recommend, and almost all of them seem to think above the rooms transition frequency (400-500Hz or so) to disable Audyssey all together? Even Floyd Toole seems to think that? Is this a speaker designer vs. algorithm programmer debate?


Speaker manufacturers have not looked at, or listened to, your (their) speakers in *your room*, in the speakers' positions in your room, and at your listening position ...

FYI, Audyssey recommends full range, not restricted range of EQ, at least as a starting point.

It seems to me that whether someone should limit the range of correction depends on: 

Whether the* interaction* of your speakers with your room and your ears/brain *need**s * EQ all the way up, or only needs it below Schroeder, or whatever frequency you select. This would be determined by both your *ears* and REW *measurments* with a calibrated mic in the same 8 positions used to calibrate Audyssey (if you are a solo listener, both sets of mic positions can be clustered around your head/chair) using REW's averaging button (unless you have a fancier way you prefer). It is true that the range below Schroeder is most often in need, but there may be surprises. In my moderately treated room, Audyssey full range improves clarity, and pulls down a noticeable peak in the high treble (8K Hz), boosts 10K to 17K a bit, and down in the midrange corrects both a relatively narrow peak and a broader dip. Except for the bass (which I have turned up) Audyssey changed my upper bass, midrange, and treble from +/- 4.5 dB to +/- 2.5 dB, when set on Audyssey Flat.
Your *preference* on whatever piece of music you are playing. I fully understand that Audyssey was _intended_ as a speaker + room correction, not a source correction, but I ignore that, cheerfully. I use Audyssey Flat for, maybe 85% of my music, and virtually all new movies on Blu-ray. Some old CDs are harsh, as are a few magnetic, multichannel stereo movies from the '50s and '60s that sounded *great *in the theater, probably because both the Altec and JBL theater speakers hid some very high frequency distortion by dropping like a rock above about 10K Hz. Audyssey Reference roll-off above 7K and the midrange comp dip fixes all that nicely. It improves Lawrence of Arabia by keeping the brass from peeling the paint, and allows a volume increase to bring out the drums. For How the West Was Won, Smilebox version, though, I had to turn the treble down by quite a bit, something I hardly ever do. My favorite set of Beethoven symphonies (Leibowitz) has a similar problem (and was recorded at about the same time (1961). I leave the treble "flat" but switch over to Audyssey Reference. I'm sure glad I *can* use Aud. Reference at such times, and thus glad for EQ above Schroeder.


----------



## anjunadeep

pbz06 said:


> I don't know why. My guess is the app is only for tweaking and customizing the curves. If you're going to use Flat, it's fixed so no reason to have it in the app. You can just toggle to flat in the AVR just like any other setting.
> 
> The EQ full range vs limited has always been a hot topic and there's strong sides (and opinionated people) on both sides. I just think of it as a tool or option to try both ways. Nobody can convince me one way is correct or better.


Haha, okay - it did seem like a hot button in a few of the posts I read. Well I think what I'll do is try it both ways, take some REW measurements, and use the measurements + my ears to determine my personal favorite for my room then. Thanks!



garygarrison said:


> Speaker manufacturers have not looked at, or listened to, your (their) speakers in *your room*, in the speakers' positions in your room, and at your listening position ...
> 
> FYI, Audyssey recommends full range, not restricted range of EQ, at least as a starting point.
> 
> It seems to me that whether someone should limit the range of correction depends on:
> 
> Whether the* interaction* of your speakers with your room and your ears/brain *need**s * EQ all the way up, or only needs it below Schroeder, or whatever frequency you select. This would be determined by both your *ears* and REW *measurments* with a calibrated mic in the same 8 positions used to calibrate Audyssey (if you are a solo listener, both sets of mic positions can be clustered around your head/chair) using REW's averaging button (unless you have a fancier way you prefer). It is true that the range below Schroeder is most often in need, but there may be surprises. In my moderately treated room, Audyssey full range improves clarity, and pulls down a noticeable peak in the high treble (8K Hz), boosts 10K to 17K a bit, and down in the midrange corrects both a relatively narrow peak and a broader dip. Except for the bass (which I have turned up) Audyssey changed my upper bass, midrange, and treble from +/- 4.5 dB to +/- 2.5 dB, when set on Audyssey Flat.
> Your *preference* on whatever piece of music you are playing. I fully understand that Audyssey was _intended_ as a speaker + room correction, not a source correction, but I ignore that, cheerfully. I use Audyssey Flat for, maybe 85% of my music, and virtually all new movies on Blu-ray. Some old CDs are harsh, as are a few magnetic, multichannel stereo movies from the '50s and '60s that sounded *great *in the theater, probably because both the Altec and JBL theater speakers hid some very high frequency distortion by dropping like a rock above about 10K Hz. Audyssey Reference roll-off above 7K and the midrange comp dip fixes all that nicely. It improves Lawrence of Arabia by keeping the brass from peeling the paint, and allows a volume increase to bring out the drums. For How the West Was Won, Smilebox version, though, I had to turn the treble down by quite a bit, something I hardly ever do. My favorite set of Beethoven symphonies (Leibowitz) has a similar problem (and was recorded at about the same time (1961). I leave the treble "flat" but switch over to Audyssey Reference. I'm sure glad I *can* use Aud. Reference at such times, and thus glad for EQ above Schroeder.
> 
> View attachment 3065028


Thank you for such a thorough answer, that was very educational and makes a lot of sense. I also love your attitude of making it sound what you like. I know what you mean about old movies. I actually at one point pondered running my LCRs through a miniDSP to be able to change curves quickly from the laptop. I realize Audyssey can do this also, but it's a bit more cumbersome than when I make a change via MiniDSP to my subwoofers where it is instant and real-time. 20% for practical reasons, 80% because I can't help but tinker sometimes.


----------



## snash22

I have run Audyssey on my Denon 3313CI. After running, I made sure all my speakers were set to Small and I set the crossover for all to 80hz.

Afterwards, I was running a 40hz test tone from YouTube. I saw that my mains and the center channel were vibrating loud enough to hear. I would have expected everything under 80hz to be sent to the subwoofer. (I didn’t check my surrounds or rears)

So either:
A. The youtube test tone is inaccurate.
B. I am misunderstanding what is supposed to happen.
C. There is a setting I am missing.

Any thoughts?


----------



## anjunadeep

snash22 said:


> I have run Audyssey on my Denon 3313CI. After running, I made sure all my speakers were set to Small and I set the crossover for all to 80hz.
> 
> Afterwards, I was running a 40hz test tone from YouTube. I saw that my mains and the center channel were vibrating loud enough to hear. I would have expected everything under 80hz to be sent to the subwoofer. (I didn’t check my surrounds or rears)
> 
> So either:
> A. The youtube test tone is inaccurate.
> B. I am misunderstanding what is supposed to happen.
> C. There is a setting I am missing.
> 
> Any thoughts?


I mean at 40Hz with an 80Hz @ 12dB/octave your mains would be down like -36dB but if you turned off your subwoofers but left the crossover engaged I imagine you'd hear that just fine.


----------



## pbz06

snash22 said:


> I have run Audyssey on my Denon 3313CI. After running, I made sure all my speakers were set to Small and I set the crossover for all to 80hz.
> 
> Afterwards, I was running a 40hz test tone from YouTube. I saw that my mains and the center channel were vibrating loud enough to hear. I would have expected everything under 80hz to be sent to the subwoofer. (I didn’t check my surrounds or rears)
> 
> So either:
> A. The youtube test tone is inaccurate.
> B. I am misunderstanding what is supposed to happen.
> C. There is a setting I am missing.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Couple things.

First, Youtube is 2ch stereo. Confirm your Denon does or doesn't have separate settings for stereo/2ch (my Marantz does). My guess is you have it on the defaul Large.

Secondly, even if set correctly, a crossover isn't a direct handoff point. It's an overlap where the speaker rolls off. The speakers roll off at -12dB per octave, while the subwoofer's highpass rolls off at -24dB per octave. If the 40hz signal and your volume is loud enough, you would still be getting activity in your speaker down to 40hz (albeit light).


----------



## snash22

anjunadeep said:


> I mean at 40Hz with an 80Hz @ 12dB/octave your mains would be down like -36dB but if you turned off your subwoofers but left the crossover engaged I imagine you'd hear that just fine.


Are you saying that Audyssey reduces, but does not eliminate the <80Hz signal?

Edit - I see the answer is yes.


----------



## StephenMSmith

That's how all x-over's work, it's a roll off not a cutoff.


----------



## pbz06

snash22 said:


> Are you saying that Audyssey reduces, but does not eliminate the <80Hz signal?
> 
> Edit - I see the answer is yes.


Yup, like Stephen said as well. That's why I always recommend getting a speaker more than capable well below 80hz still. You don't want a speaker straining to play when watching a movie where you play louder and it has lots of lower effects pushing 80hz and below. Even with the crossover, and even if a speaker is designed to roll off properly, you want that little bit of headroom so it's not right at its limits


----------



## snash22

pbz06 said:


> Couple things.
> 
> First, Youtube is 2ch stereo. Confirm your Denon does or doesn't have separate settings for stereo/2ch (my Marantz does). My guess is you have it on the defaul Large.
> 
> Secondly, even if set correctly, a crossover isn't a direct handoff point. It's an overlap where the speaker rolls off. The speakers roll off at -12dB per octave, while the subwoofer's highpass rolls off at -24dB per octave. If the 40hz signal and your volume is loud enough, you would still be getting activity in your speaker down to 40hz (albeit light).


It does have separate setting for 2CH but they were defaulted to using the Audyssey settings. I checked it out using a few sound modes and it is indeed acting as everyone described, rolling off rather than cutting off.


----------



## snash22

pbz06 said:


> Yup, like Stephen said as well. That's why I always recommend getting a speaker more than capable well below 80hz still. You don't want a speaker straining to play when watching a movie where you play louder and it has lots of lower effects pushing 80hz and below. Even with the crossover, and even if a speaker is designed to roll off properly, you want that little bit of headroom so it's not right at its limits
> 
> View attachment 3065379


I have the center speaker that matches with Klipsch RB-61 bookshelf speakers, it "flutters" a bit at 40Hz, though that may just be because I have the volume turned up high and I also set the dialog enhancer up too, so I really shouldn't do that any more.


----------



## jerkoffsky

Possibly stupid question.
I own the 4400, which I expanded to 7.2.4 by using an old external Technics 2 x 100 W amp to power my Klipsch RP 280F fronts.
Since Audyssey recommends setting the external amp volume at 80 percent, I did so. The Audyssey chirps in the fronts were wery loud, of course, comparing to the rest of the speakers (poor neighbours!)
Now the external amp died on me, so I ordered an Emotiva XPA-2 gen 3 for my fronts. So I guess I will need to run Audyssey again.
My concern is: since the Emotiva is rated at 300 W per channel and has no preamp (so no volume control to set at 80 percent), will it run the chirps at full power? If so, can those chirps damage my Klipsch fronts, which are 150 W (I know they will kill my neighbours for sure)?
Thank you very much.


----------



## anjunadeep

jerkoffsky said:


> Possibly stupid question.
> I own the 4400, which I expanded to 7.2.4 by using an old external Technics 2 x 100 W amp to power my Klipsch RP 280F fronts.
> Since Audyssey recommends setting the external amp volume at 80 percent, I did so. The Audyssey chirps in the fronts were wery loud, of course, comparing to the rest of the speakers (poor neighbours!)
> Now the external amp died on me, so I ordered an Emotiva XPA-2 gen 3 for my fronts. So I guess I will need to run Audyssey again.
> My concern is: since the Emotiva is rated at 300 W per channel and has no preamp (so no volume control to set at 80 percent), will it run the chirps at full power? If so, can those chirps damage my Klipsch fronts, which are 150 W (I know they will kill my neighbours for sure)?
> Thank you very much.


No. You'll be fine.


----------



## marantz545

Question- If you are using the app to adjust the curve and add about 6db boost to the curve in the subwoofer region, do you still have to adjust the AVR trim level by 6db's? So if Audyssey set my sub at -8db and I add 6db to the curve editor, would I then set the trim level to -2db? Either or, or both? Thanks!


----------



## Masis

I've measured over 6 times now and its getting very frustrating. Audyssey has calculated and then stored and I still don't have dynamic volume. Is there a way to see if the measurement's are stored in the system? Perhaps there is something I need to switch on for everything to work...?

I have done this over 200 times and I encounter this problem about every second time.


----------



## citsur86

Posted this over in the REW thread, but figured I would here as well since it is directly related to Audyssey. A couple of years ago I ran and posted results in my old home's "Living Room Home Theater" where the Marantz SR6011 AVR I use with Audyssey MultEQ XT32 did a far better job at flattening various Frequency response issues I had than the App version of the same. I just got my home theater mostly setup at my new home, and ran the same test again. I was dismayed to find that the issues I had in my Bass response (Huge dup from 30hz to 70hz) were not corrected well by the AVR based Audyssey calibration. However, when I used the app and drew a slight house curve, VIOLA! I have a nice flat curved Bass response. Perfect to my ears.










You can see here that the App based Audyssey calibration provided a far better response than with no calibration or with AVR based. Has the app improved drastically over the last couple of years or is this possibly just a case of having a bad outcome in my previous space vs a better one in my new space?

Here is the Bass response by itself:


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@citsur86 

Interesting 

In the graphs, is the App FR with or without the correction you did on the curve editor. If it is with the the curve editor I would turn it off to have a more direct comparison with the AVR correction. They should have the same results.
I assume all these measurements are done in the new space as well ?
It's a fantastic looking Sub FR BTW, I would be interested to see the curve you used on the App if possible

Jim


----------



## StephenMSmith

That's what I wondering -- you are comparing receiver vs. app in the new house, right? Not comparing old house to new house, right?

If so, then perhaps this solve the biggest mystery in my head -- does the Audyssey app produce better (or even just different) results than a receiver? What if it's the oldest receiver that still supports the app?


----------



## pbz06

StephenMSmith said:


> That's what I wondering -- you are comparing receiver vs. app in the new house, right? Not comparing old house to new house, right?
> 
> If so, then perhaps this solve the biggest mystery in my head -- does the Audyssey app produce better (or even just different) results than a receiver? What if it's the oldest receiver that still supports the app?


There is no difference in the results if you use the App or the AVR. Other than the customization settings the app unlocks and provides (and the step by step process being on the phone or tablet), it will use the exact same under the hood correction filters for EQ. The "processing power" comment was just a factual statement that phones have more processing power these days, but it wasn't intended to imply the results are "better" or "different". If you have a low end AVR with the basic XT, you're not going to magically have XT32 filters etc. if you use the app.


----------



## citsur86

All of these measurements are taken in the new house with AVR then App based Audyssey. I did use a custom curve for the bass FR but I would that even if I hadn’t they would be different. I did this comparison often a couple of years ago each time a new app update came out. They were always different without any customization. Even if they aren’t supposed to be different, at least they used to be. And the AVR used to always be better. So this was a very pleasant surprise for me. 

Here is the curve that I used. 










The response currently in use.


----------



## pbarach

The only fair comparison of Audyssey in the app vs. in an AVR would be if you were certain to use EXACTLY the same mic positions for both, which is essentially impossible if you're measuring eight positions. Without that procedure, differences in mic position cannot be ruled out as a cause of differing results.


----------



## citsur86

pbarach said:


> The only fair comparison of Audyssey in the app vs. in an AVR would be if you were certain to use EXACTLY the same mic positions for both, which is essentially impossible if you're measuring eight positions. Without that procedure, differences in mic position cannot be ruled out as a cause of differing results.


I measured 4 and left my mic boom in the exact position for all 4 measurements based on relative positions on the floor in front of each chair. Could they have been a mm or 2 off in either direction? sure...but I seriously think its a stretch to claim that a mm difference left, right, forward, or backwards could result in a significantly different response between 2 runs. For example, if I ran Audyssey using the App twice and measured between each set of runs (and/or did the same for AVR based), I would bet my end FRs would be almost exact between runs. I think the big unknown here is more likely what the App based Audyssey FR actually looks like without any curve adjustments made. If I remove my custom Bass Curve and then rerun REW after sending that from the app to the AVR, I should see the same results with the AVR FR and App FR.


----------



## edzyy

Is there some sort of trick to using Audyssey with Pro amplifiers? 

I recently hooked up a Crown xls 2502 to my Marantz NR1604 and re-ran the calibration. 

It set the level to -12 on both. Is that normal?


----------



## anjunadeep

edzyy said:


> Is there some sort of trick to using Audyssey with Pro amplifiers?
> 
> I recently hooked up a Crown xls 2502 to my Marantz NR1604 and re-ran the calibration.
> 
> It set the level to -12 on both. Is that normal?


What are the gain knobs on the crown set to?


----------



## edzyy

anjunadeep said:


> What are the gain knobs on the crown set to?


All the way to the right


----------



## anjunadeep

edzyy said:


> All the way to the right


Turn them down. Amplifier gain is actually fixed, so really what those knobs are is input attenuators. All you are trying to do with them is set them to where it makes sense. Try setting them at 12 o'clock and see what happens.


----------



## Titan319

I just ordered some Valencia Tuscany leather home theater seating. I am having second thoughts because leather is reflective from a sound perspective but at the same time there is so many benefits and it would complete my home theater look. It seems like people who review audio equipment all have leather home theater seating so am i over thinking this what are your thoughts?


----------



## anjunadeep

Titan319 said:


> I just ordered some Valencia Tuscany leather home theater seating. I am having second thoughts because leather is reflective from a sound perspective but at the same time there is so many benefits and it would complete my home theater look. It seems like people who review audio equipment all have leather home theater seating so am i over thinking this what are your thoughts?


I ordered a couch and went for fabric, but I find good quality fabric more comfortable than leather (especially the overly treated leather used home theater seats). If I had kids or a dog, I'd get leather. Leather is certainly not ideal from an acoustics standpoint, but to me it's far less problematic than when I see the people that have really tall backed chairs where the line of sight (line of ears?) to the surrounds and rear surrounds are obstructed. The couch I ordered is fabric and has the ability for the back to be tall or short by using an insert. So if I want reference sound I can have the short back be used, and if I want a tall back I can put the inserts in. The short back isn't ultra short, it's just short enough for my ears to be above it though.

If you really like leather, I'd say it's an okay tradeoff. It's a person thing. It's important your room is the way you want to spend time in it.


----------



## garygarrison

Titan319 said:


> I just ordered some Valencia Tuscany leather home theater seating. I am having second thoughts because leather is reflective from a sound perspective but at the same time there is so many benefits and it would complete my home theater look. It seems like people who review audio equipment all have leather home theater seating so am i over thinking this what are your thoughts?


If you keep the leather, temporarily put several layers of towel over the back/head rest area, only when running Audyssey calibration, to avoid early leather reflection of the highs and midrange. That way, you should get compensation for the room + speakers, without confusing Audyssey by having to deal with the reflections. True, when you run movies or listen to music you will get the reflections, but it should be like putting your seats in a very good room with very good speakers, but you sitting in leather seats. "Everybody" seems to say this, because it's reasonable, but I don't know of a _controlled_ empirical study to evaluate it. We dry-labed it. 

After considerable anguish and audio-neuroticism, we decided on a nonreflective fabric couch with a low back, so our ears and the Audyssey mic would be unobstructed from the rear. We also avoided recliners, so people wouldn't have the option of leaning way back and looking through the bottom of their bifocals/trifocals for a blurry view of the screen while being so comfortable that they would be falling asleep. We also eschewed anything that would space the people farther apart, to avoid messing with the audio imaging. We thought our guests would have to be _very _good friends because they would truly be cheek by jowl (pre-Covid), but it turned out that there is _almost_ always adequate spacing between them. Now, my wife and I watch alone, for the duration.


----------



## Titan319

garygarrison said:


> If you keep the leather, temporarily put several layers of towel over the back/head rest area, only when running Audyssey calibration, to avoid early leather reflection of the highs and midrange. That way, you should get compensation for the room + speakers, without confusing Audyssey by having to deal with the reflections. True, when you run movies or listen to music you will get the reflections, but it should be like putting your seats in a very good room with very good speakers, but you sitting in leather seats. "Everybody" seems to say this, because it's reasonable, but I don't know of a _controlled_ empirical study to evaluate it. We dry-labed it.
> 
> After considerable anguish and audio-neuroticism, we decided on a nonreflective fabric couch with a low back, so our ears and the Audyssey mic would be unobstructed from the rear. We also avoided recliners, so people wouldn't have the option of leaning way back and looking through the bottom of their bifocals/trifocals for a blurry view of the screen while being so comfortable that they would be falling asleep. We also eschewed anything that would space the people farther apart, to avoid messing with the audio imaging. We thought our guests would have to be _very _good friends because they would truly be cheek by jowl (pre-Covid), but it turned out that there is _almost_ always adequate spacing between them. Now, my wife and I watch alone, for the duration.



Thank you Gary for your feedback.


----------



## cholmes1

I recently upgraded my system to a Marentz AV7705 and Monolith 9 ch. After running Audyssey XT32 it chose all of my speakers as ‘large’, even for my ATMOS ceiling speakers, with most having no crossover set or listed as full range.


Fronts: Bowers & Wilkins 604 S2
Center: Bowers & Wilkins CC6 S2
Surrounds x 2: Bowers & Wilkins DS3
ATMOS x 4: Bowers & Wilkins CCM664
Subwoofer: Hsu Research VTF 1 MK II

From my old Yamaha YPAO I know previous sound calibration systems used to need to be listed as ‘small’ with a manual crossover set at 80Hz.

Is Audyssey 32 any different in terms of required manual adjustments post-calibration for appropriate range and bass? I read the bass thread but no mention of speakers, just sub adjustments.

I realize opinions vary and have seen many reply with ‘do what sounds good to your ear’ but am hoping for a consensus on how to achieve the best sound and protect my setup. I have not seen it in a search yet.

Thanks to all who help


----------



## anjunadeep

cholmes1 said:


> I recently upgraded my system to a Marentz AV7705 and Monolith 9 ch. After running Audyssey XT32 it chose all of my speakers as ‘large’, even for my ATMOS ceiling speakers, with most having no crossover set or listed as full range.
> 
> 
> Fronts: Bowers & Wilkins 604 S2
> Center: Bowers & Wilkins CC6 S2
> Surrounds x 2: Bowers & Wilkins DS3
> ATMOS x 4: Bowers & Wilkins CCM664
> Subwoofer: Hsu Research VTF 1 MK II
> 
> From my old Yamaha YPAO I know previous sound calibration systems used to need to be listed as ‘small’ with a manual crossover set at 80Hrz.
> 
> Is Audyssey 32 any different in terms of required manual adjustments post-calibration for appropriate range and bass? I read the bass thread but no mention of speakers, just sub adjustments.
> 
> I realize opinions vary and have seen many reply with ‘do what sounds good to your ear’ but am hoping for a consensus on how to achieve the best sound and protect my setup. I have not seen it in a search yet.
> 
> Thanks to all who help


The only answer I've ever gotten about why the receivers, often incorrectly, set the speakers to large is because people with physically big speakers will otherwise call them and say "but i have big speakers!!". 80Hz is a good starting place, but it really depends on the room and specific speakers. Correct is typically somewhere between 50-90Hz.


----------



## cholmes1

anjunadeep said:


> The only answer I've ever gotten about why the receivers, often incorrectly, set the speakers to large is because people with physically big speakers will otherwise call them and say "but i have big speakers!!". 80Hz is a good starting place, but it really depends on the room and specific speakers. Correct is typically somewhere between 50-90Hz.


For the corrections, I assume the Hz values are set by room acoustics alone and not the manufacturers specifications, yes?


----------



## pbz06

cholmes1 said:


> For the corrections, I assume the Hz values are set by room acoustics alone and not the manufacturers specifications, yes?


Yes that is correct.


----------



## garygarrison

cholmes1 said:


> For the corrections, I assume the Hz values are set by room acoustics alone and not the manufacturers specifications, yes?


Yes.

As you see, 'Large" and "Small" are misnomers. 

For many months, I stubbornly used "Large," but finally went over to "Small" for added clarity. I started with an 80 Hz crossover, but went to 60 Hz after many listening tests. Audyssey indicated I could go to 40 Hz. 

Manufacturer's specs, even from good manufacturers, should be salted. Occasionally speaker/room combinations (often with the speakers that are free standing, away from walls) that Audyssey measures as having an F3 of about 110 Hz have manufacturer's specs indicating an F3 of 50 Hz, more than an octave lower! JBL, for their huge, excellent, theatrical monitors, used to say things like, "smooth to 40 Hz, usable to 30 Hz," where "usable" meant -12.5 dB. Technically "usable," I suppose, as long as the movie mixers back in Hollywood knew to boost the bass around 30 Hz. A JBL engineer also said that a little bump up at about 60 Hz is liked by consumers, as long as they are assured that the speaker is "Flat!" Not to pick on JBL*; *most of my favorite companies mislead somewhere. When I complained to a company engineer he said something like, "sometimes we have problems with our PR department."


----------



## Tonton75

Upgraded from b&w 683s2 fronts to 702s2
Weirdly audyssey makes my preferred music setting ‘Flat’ very harsh in the highs
Only reference and L/R bypass sound good

also i tried in the app to cut audyssey from 500 hz above,but still same harsh effect on flat
That doesnt even makes sense to me or i misunderstand what it does

have to note also i listen music in auro 2d, so think have to use some audyssey for bass management ... or is that also overridden by l/r bypass ( and not with reference) ... confusing system ...


----------



## pbz06

Tonton75 said:


> Upgraded from b&w 683s2 fronts to 702s2
> Weirdly audyssey makes my preferred music setting ‘Flat’ very harsh in the highs
> Only reference and L/R bypass sound good
> 
> also i tried in the app to cut audyssey from 500 hz above,but still same harsh effect on flat
> That doesnt even makes sense to me or i misunderstand what it does
> 
> have to note also i listen music in auro 2d, so think have to use some audyssey for bass management ... or is that also overridden by l/r bypass ( and not with reference) ... confusing system ...


If you cut/limit, you need to use the Reference curve. The flat remains full range.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

Tonton75 said:


> Upgraded from b&w 683s2 fronts to 702s2
> Weirdly audyssey makes my preferred music setting ‘Flat’ very harsh in the highs
> Only reference and L/R bypass sound good
> 
> also i tried in the app to cut audyssey from 500 hz above,but still same harsh effect on flat
> That doesnt even makes sense to me or i misunderstand what it does
> 
> have to note also i listen music in auro 2d, so think have to use some audyssey for bass management ... or is that also overridden by l/r bypass ( and not with reference) ... confusing system ...


DEQ ON or OFF ??

Edit: @pbz06 post is important ^^


----------



## mogorf

Tonton75 said:


> Upgraded from b&w 683s2 fronts to 702s2
> Weirdly audyssey makes my preferred music setting ‘Flat’ very harsh in the highs
> Only reference and L/R bypass sound good
> 
> also i tried in the app to cut audyssey from 500 hz above,but still same harsh effect on flat
> That doesnt even makes sense to me or i misunderstand what it does
> 
> have to note also i listen music in auro 2d, so think have to use some audyssey for bass management ... or is that also overridden by l/r bypass ( and not with reference) ... confusing system ...


Sorry to ask the obvious, but did you re-run Audyssey after changing front speakers?


----------



## Tonton75

Ignore used multiquote instead


----------



## Tonton75

mogorf said:


> Sorry to ask the obvious, but did you re-run Audyssey after changing front speakers?


Yes did, 8 point 1 feet apart, anyway will do some more when i recieve backorder center and sub



pbz06 said:


> If you cut/limit, you need to use the Reference curve. The flat remains full range.


ah didnt know so sliding that line left in the app to 500hz only affects reference?
what happens to r/l bypass? It still manages nice bass curve with the fronts and sub or is there a lfe overlap? Because it leaves the fronts alone?



Jimmy2Shoes said:


> DEQ ON or OFF ??
> 
> Edit: @pbz06 post is important ^^


Tried all but no harshness difference
Normally use movie 0db music 10 db


----------



## pbz06

Tonton75 said:


> Yes did, 8 point 1 feet apart, anyway will do some more when i recieve backorder center and sub
> 
> 
> *ah didnt know so sliding that line left in the app to 500hz only affects reference?
> what happens to r/l bypass? It still manages nice bass curve with the fronts and sub or is there a lfe overlap? Because it leaves the fronts alone?*
> 
> 
> Tried all but no harshness difference
> Normally use movie 0db music 10 db


Yup, only for Reference. The L/R bypass would work exact same way as before, it bypasses Audyssey completely for the main speakers. The LFE/sub would still be EQ'd though, if you are using your speakers with bass management.


----------



## Tonton75

pbz06 said:


> Yup, only for Reference. The L/R bypass would work exact same way as before, it bypasses Audyssey completely for the main speakers. The LFE/sub would still be EQ'd though, if you are using your speakers with bass management.


Hmm so i have cutoff at 60Hz, so even at L/R bypass the bass goes to sub?


----------



## mogorf

Tonton75 said:


> Hmm so i have cutoff at 60Hz, so even at L/R bypass the bass goes to sub?


Ok, so you say with the old 683s2 fronts everything was okay in the high frequency range, but with the new 702s2 fronts you are experencing harsh highs after carefully re-running Audyssey. Here's a tip. Try to put back one of the 683s2's while leaving one of the 702s2's in place. Re-run Audyssey and listen carefully. Should both have harsh highs you might have a bad Audyssey mic. Should only the new 702s2 produce harsh highs you might have a broken tweeter (probably on both). I know troubleshooting might be tedious, but let's not give up. We may all learn something form your case. Whaddaya think?


----------



## garygarrison

I agree, it doesn't make sense. 

Be sure to try it with several CDs, SACDs, Blu-ray disks -- some CDs, especially, *are * harsh, so a *neutral speaker* *should* sound harsh with them. On Rock or Metal, especially, the deep bass is often turned down or compressed to give them more room to blast during the protracted "loudness wars," making the CDs *out of balance*, meanwhile, sometimes turning up a part of the highs. Google "The Missing Octave" and his other stuff to see Chris A's studies of this. Most, but not all, classical or jazz disks don't have this problem. 

I am only truly familiar with the older B&W speakers, but harshness is the last thing I would expect from them. The Stereophile anechoic graph [their figure 4] doesn't show a problem with yours. Bowers & Wilkins 702 S2 loudspeaker. Besides, Audyssey "FLAT" is supposed to flatten out the curve, which, customized for your room, should make a speaker without big dips, but a few peaks, *less* harsh.

How close are you sitting?

Maybe, if your room is very live, Audyssey can't handle the reflections, but I doubt it.

Try what Feri suggested. A bad mic is a possibility, but I don't get why so many Audyssey mics (which you must use) fail -- I have been around many mics, including some cheap ones, and none has ever failed.


----------



## Tonton75

appreciate all the replies!

i’m 4.5m from fronts
quite a reflection appartment, no curtains, wooden floor, plaster walls ceiling

so changed speaker cable.
15y old ixos 613 to rocket 11 hmm very flimsy, is it not cool anymore to have copper railtracks to your speakers? 😀
anyway so also redid an audyssey measurement

i always cut down frequency area to up to 500hz, disable the mid dump

still Flat boosts a lot highs compared to audyssey off. reference and L/R bypass sound both amazing 😀
i have dyn eq on 10db for music
and for movie on 0db / reference

i dont think mic is broken or tweeters are.
so i will just enjoy my set on L/R bypass which has slight preference to the reference, and bypass sounds even like the 702’s are telling me: we know what to do, cut that compensation ****

so am i missing out on LR bypass?


----------



## Hetfieldjames

Tonton75 said:


> appreciate all the replies!
> 
> so changed speaker cable.
> 15y old ixos 613 to rocket 11 hmm very flimsy, not cool anymore to have copper railtracks to your speakers?
> anyway so also redid an audyssey measurement
> 
> i cut down frequency area to up to 500hz, disable the mid dump
> 
> still Flat boosts a lot highs compared to audyssey off. reference and L/R bypass sound amazing
> i have dyn eq on 10db
> and for movie on 0db / reference
> 
> i dont think mic is broken or tweeters are.
> so i will just enjoy my set on L/R bypass which has slight preference to the reference, and bypass sounds even like the 702’s are telling me: we know what to do.
> 
> so am i missing out on LR bypass?


You use flat instead of reference? I never tried that but kinda wanted to. On my Yamaha YPAO receivers I always used flat. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Tonton75

Hetfieldjames said:


> You use flat instead of reference? I never tried that but kinda wanted to. On my Yamaha YPAO receivers I always used flat.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


well my whole story is i used flat for music on 683s2 but now switched to 702s2 and it is unpleasant, audyssey weirdly boost way too much highs so prefer reference and LRbypass

haha now see your name 😀
dont cut too much on those mids


----------



## Hetfieldjames

Tonton75 said:


> well my whole story is i used flat for music on 683s2 but now switched to 702s2 and it is unpleasant, audyssey weirdly boost way too much highs so prefer reference and LRbypass
> 
> haha now see your name
> dont cut too much on those mids


Thanks for the info. I should do a test or two to get flat and Reference. I have always had it on reference but hey worth a shot to try flat. 

Oh I have RSL speakers which are pretty flat. 
Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Tonton75 said:


> *" ... so am i missing out on LR bypass?"*



Compared to what? If you like a certain setting best, use it. I don't like LR bypass on my setup, because Audyssey Flat, Full Range, LR _*NOT*_ bypassed does a great job with my LR front speakers (center too, for that matter), my room, my ears, and my taste. But your speakers, room, ears, and, perhaps, taste are different, so you have to go with that. I would put a thick carpet on the floor, especially at the floor's first reflection point. All of a sudden, putting absorption at first reflection points on the walls is controversial. Some are saying it kills too much of the room ambience and reverb. A conceivable solution is to* instead *put absorption where a yardstick slapped flat on the front of your speakers midrange/treble units would touch the side wall, and for 2 feet farther into the room. Like this*:







*
The Harman people found that most people like a little treble cut. I am not one of them, except with execrable CDs, and one movie (How the West Was Won -- in order to play it at "theater volume," of about 100 dB instantaneous peaks -- my Rock friends have "Fillmore Auditorium volume" which is even louder, and since, rather than being dynamic, it is all loud, it risks their hearing. They do turn down the treble a bit).
I still think something is "wrong" though. Did you run REW (free) with a calibrated microphone (a $90 to $100 "measurement mic") to see what the frequency response is really like? Maybe for some bizarre reason, there is a peak in the "Harsh" region of about 900 Hz to about 3.5K Hz. Audyssey's midrange compensation will pull some of that down, centered a bit above 2K Hz. It's not available in Audyssey Flat, though. Audyssey might say that for a live room like yours, you shouldn't use Flat, and that Reference is meant for such rooms.


----------



## WPWoodJr

My new Denon AVR-X3700H has the option when running Audyssey using the remote/receiver to calibrate either Front A or Front B speakers. I don't see an option like this on the MultEQ app. Am I missing something or is the app missing something?


----------



## Tonton75

garygarrison said:


> Compared to what? If you like a certain setting best, use it. I don't like LR bypass on my setup, because Audyssey Flat, Full Range, LR _*NOT*_ bypassed does a great job with my LR front speakers (center too, for that matter), my room, my ears, and my taste. But your speakers, room, ears, and, perhaps, taste are different, so you have to go with that. I would put a thick carpet on the floor, especially at the floor's first reflection point. All of a sudden, putting absorption at first reflection points on the walls is controversial. Some are saying it kills too much of the room ambience and reverb. A conceivable solution is to* instead *put absorption where a yardstick slapped flat on the front of your speakers midrange/treble units would touch the side wall, and for 2 feet farther into the room. Like this*:
> View attachment 3072911
> *
> The Harman people found that most people like a little treble cut. I am not one of them, except with execrable CDs, and one movie (How the West Was Won -- in order to play it at "theater volume," of about 100 dB instantaneous peaks -- my Rock friends have "Fillmore Auditorium volume" which is even louder, and since, rather than being dynamic, it is all loud, it risks their hearing. They do turn down the treble a bit).
> I still think something is "wrong" though. Did you run REW (free) with a calibrated microphone (a $90 to $100 "measurement mic") to see what the frequency response is really like? Maybe for some bizarre reason, there is a peak in the "Harsh" region of about 900 Hz to about 3.5K Hz. Audyssey's midrange compensation will pull some of that down, centered a bit above 2K Hz. It's not available in Audyssey Flat, though. Audyssey might say that for a live room like yours, you shouldn't use Flat, and that Reference is meant for such rooms.


true use whats best sounding for me

agree that anyway still strange there is this treble boost on only flat... same amp same mic same room. and also compared to audyssey off, so it is really adding it. 
in the audyssey app i always turn mid comp off. feels weird to me to force a drop regardless speaker, i heard disabling could sound boxy but havent noticed.


----------



## iStorm

I'm anxiously anticipating going back to Audyssey with my new x8500 Denon AVR on order! I look forward to posting more here (again) and I can't wait to have the reliability back in my home theater. Happy New Year everyone!


----------



## dj7675

Tonton75 said:


> Upgraded from b&w 683s2 fronts to 702s2
> Weirdly audyssey makes my preferred music setting ‘Flat’ very harsh in the highs
> Only reference and L/R bypass sound good
> 
> also i tried in the app to cut audyssey from 500 hz above,but still same harsh effect on flat
> That doesnt even makes sense to me or i misunderstand what it does
> 
> have to note also i listen music in auro 2d, so think have to use some audyssey for bass management ... or is that also overridden by l/r bypass ( and not with reference) ... confusing system ...


A well designed speaker will have a sloping frequency response at the listening position. It will be flat in an anechoic chamber. Using the Audyssey app to be flat will for sure result in a bright/harsh result. This could be what some people prefer, but most will find it bright/harsh and lacking bass. A couple of ideas (hopefully you have the Audyssey app..)
-Try limiting the corrected frequency response to something like 300-500hz. Audyssey won’t then boost the highs and it may sound just fine
-Use the Audyssey app to boost the bass by 3-5db from 200hz-20hz.
-Listen with Audyssey off to get a good idea of how the speakers sound without correction. Does the Harshness go away?
-With the audyssey app create a downware sloping curve that drops 6-10 dB from 20hz-20khz
-You can try the stock reference curve but it is pretty flat as well but should be a little better
Good luck.


----------



## garygarrison

Tonton75 said:


> agree that anyway still strange there is this treble boost on only flat... same amp same mic same room. and also compared to audyssey off, so it is really adding it.


This response will be very different than the last one from *dj7675. *At least you will have a variety of views as you experiment!* 
*
Could it be that Audyssey is adding just the right amount of treble in Audyssey FLAT, *BUT* the many reflections in your *very live room* that make up as much as 90% of the sound (it doesn't *sound *like it does because of the precedence effect, because the sound directly from the speakers to you is the shortest path, so most of the sound is perceived to come from the speakers) are *noxious*, and Audyssey FLAT *counts* these reflections (they're not going away, unless you absorb them) and also turns *them* *up* to achieve flat response***. [Wow, what a sentence!] Perhaps if you put at least some super gripper throw rugs on the floor, maybe add some curtains (preferably thick velour), and a few artistic absorbers in there, and re-ran Audyssey, it would turn up the direct sound more, and the reflections less (fewer available, and less intense). I'm betting that Audyssey Flat would sound good, not harsh, if you treated your room.


Now it's possible that I'm wrong and the "ping" nature of the Audyssey tones and proprietary, mysterious time domain stuff in Audyssey gets around this.

*** *Outdoors *(i.e., in a free-field), on top of a flagpole, square-law variation of SPL indicates a 6 dB loss in level for every doubling of distance, *but*, inside, in a room, less live than yours, the reduction is approximately 3 dB for every doubling of distance. In a room your size, of more average liveness, at about 16 feet, about 9/10 of the sound is composed of reflections. In the early '70s, Paul Klipsch did an experiment confirming this. I approximately replicated it at one stage of outfitting my room.


----------



## pbarach

Hetfieldjames said:


> Thanks for the info. I should do a test or two to get flat and Reference. I have always had it on reference but hey worth a shot to try flat.


How well FLAT works for you can depend not only on your speakers and their placement, but also on whether you have high frequency hearing loss, and also on the size of your room and what acoustic treatments are present. I have a relatively small (12x13) room with wall-to-wall carpet and cd/bookshelves on the side walls. I don't need a roll-off on high frequencies, so FLAT sounds better than REFERENCE except on overly bright source material (e.g., the BluRay issue of Lawrence of Arabia).


----------



## WPWoodJr

WPWoodJr said:


> My new Denon AVR-X3700H has the option when running Audyssey using the remote/receiver to calibrate either Front A or Front B speakers. I don't see an option like this on the MultEQ app. Am I missing something or is the app missing something?


For comparing speakers, it's great having separate calibrations for Front A and Front B speaker sets. I can put one calibration in Preset 1 and the other in Preset 2 and switch between them. 

However not having the ability to create a Front B calibration in the MultEQ app is disappointing. Does anyone know the best way to report this as an issue/feature request/bug to Audyssey?


----------



## rajdori

Hi, I'm using Audyssey for many years, current one is xt32 with x3500h. My center speaker is energy rc-lcr, which I recently upgraded to veritas v2.0ci. Veritas is a big improvement, in terms of overall quality, impact, power.. The highs and the lows are surely better. Almost everything.. Except the vocals. This seems to be because, rc-lcr had a separate midrange speaker, whereas the veritas doesn't. I really want to keep the Veritas, but only if I can fix the vocals to a certain degree.

To clarify, I did my a-b tests with separate audyssey settings, specific to each setup.

How do I boost vocals, without boosting overall db levels of the center channel. I'm assuming I need to change curve for center in my multeq app. Any suggestions on which freqs, and how much of boost?

Let me know what data do I need to share, for you to guide me.
















Sent from my SM-T720 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

dj7675 said:


> A well designed speaker will have a sloping frequency response at the listening position. It will be flat in an anechoic chamber.


If a speaker is " flat in an anechoic chamber," which, as you say, is a goal of most manufacturers, and rolled off with a "sloping frequency response at the listening position" in a room, it would be the room that makes it roll off, i.e., the room's contents, such as carpets, soft, absorbent furniture, etc. Naturally the speaker manufacturers know this, and are betting that flat in an anechoic chamber would produce slightly rolled off highs in a listening room. Tonton75 has a *very* live, bright, room. He describes it as, "*quite a reflection apartment, no curtains, wooden floor, plaster walls ceiling.*" He says it is still too bright when he cuts Audyssey off at 500Hz. The difference between Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Reference disappears below about 6K (at least as measured by REW in my room), about 3.5 octaves away from 500Hz, so Audyssey Flat can't take the entire blame for harshness, particularly between 500Hz and 6KHz.

Some rooms pull down the high overtones by as much as 4 or 5 dB, as in John Atkinson's measurements of the YG Acoustics Anat Reference in Wes Phillips' rather absorbent listening room. In an anechoic environment, the YG is pretty flat at 13KHz (@ $107,000 a pair, it should be!), but is nicely down, but not too far down for WP, in WP's room (_*Stereophile*_, March 2009).

I think Tonton75 should deaden his room some, then try both Audyssey Flat and Audyssey Reference, and any other tweaks at his disposal. My bias is without the harsh room reflections, the flat *direct* sound, as provided by Audyssey Flat "listening" to more direct and less reflected sound than presently, will sound good, as it did for pbarah and me. I'd hate to lose the sparkle and brilliance of the highs in a web of reflections.



pbarach said:


> ... wall-to-wall carpet and cd/bookshelves on the side walls. I don't need a roll-off on high frequencies, so FLAT sounds better than REFERENCE except on overly bright source material (e.g., the BluRay issue of Lawrence of Arabia).


By the way, pbarach, I completely agree about the Blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia*; *it is one of the few that causes me to switch over to Audyssey Reference, to get away from the brightness, and I also turn up the bass to beef up the drums.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> By the way, pbarach, I completely agree about the Blu-ray of Lawrence of Arabia*; *it is one of the few that causes me to switch over to Audyssey Reference, to get away from the brightness, and I also turn up the bass to beef up the drums.


Leonard Bernstein's classic NY Phil Rite of Spring is another overly bright recording that I play with REFERENCE instead of my usual FLAT setting. The drums on this recording need no extra help!


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> Leonard Bernstein's classic NY Phil Rite of Spring is another overly bright recording that I play with REFERENCE instead of my usual FLAT setting. The drums on this recording need no extra help!


Although I can play, literally, dozens of Blui-rays, and not find one that is overly bright with Audyssey FLAT, Lawrence sure is! I saw it in 70 mm, and it was overly bright in that configuration, too! What I want to know is* how could super experienced folk like Leonard Bernstein, or film director David Lean let such a recording pass?* Even though the monitors used in those days (c. 1958 Bernstein, 1962 Lean) tended to roll off above 10 - 12K Hz, they could certainly reveal over-brightness in the region between about 2K and 10K, and may have a peak of their own at that point *...*


----------



## Tonton75

Thanks for the great insights @garygarrison and @pbarach !

I think indeed my room is very reflective and maybe with the 683s2 i sort of got away with it, or didn’t pay attention that much over the years of audyssey settings. but the new 702s2’s makes it clear not to use flat.

cutting audyssey at 500 hz and use reference i have the bass managed (cutoff 60hz fronts and 80hz center / surrounds) and from 500 hz let the speakers do their thing as they were designed. Auro2D sounds great in this way for music and yes very clear nice highs also.
Is the high roll off still there this way? Regardless the 500Hz stop?
By using audyssey this limited way i think it makes sense it is quite same sound as L/R bypass

living room treatment for less reflection is not an option  so will go with this and it does sound amazing.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> *How could super experienced folk like Leonard Bernstein, or film director David Lean let such a recording pass?*


Many of George Szell's recordings sounded very bright when issued on LP or prior CDs. The story is that he had good speakers but had placed them behind a couch. He then wanted MORE TREBLE when he heard the test pressings. Some versions of the story blame Mrs. Szell.. In any case, the latest remastering of these recordings for Sony (there is a 100-CD box as well as some hi-res downloads) has greatly improved most of the recordings.


----------



## Bookworm370

Sorry, if it's been pointed to before. But is there a 4K Calibration Blu-Ray that has the required test tones to check each individual level of my speakers. I was corrected to not use the test tones in the Denon X4500 amp as they bypass the Audyssey settings.

I also re-ran Audyssey setup (was surprised that they updated it, at least the screens and walk-through probably in one of the firmware updates) and my 9.1 Atmos setup now sounds totally different. I agree, I will wait a week to let my ears settle in but I think it does sound a bit more like the theatre even though it may be a bit muffled from what I'm experienced to. But I probably mucked up the settings before anyway.

I do have the Disney WOW DVD and wondering if it was any good. I've looked on Amazon for any others, but the other seems to be rated for pros with really no documentation. I guess what I'm looking for (because my Sony OLED was professionally calibrated already) is just something that will put out standard reference tones. 

Maybe there is a link to an .iso that I can create a DVD that outputs the tones? 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Alan P

Bookworm370 said:


> Sorry, if it's been pointed to before. But is there a 4K Calibration Blu-Ray that has the required test tones to check each individual level of my speakers. I was corrected to not use the test tones in the Denon X4500 amp as they bypass the Audyssey settings.
> 
> I also re-ran Audyssey setup (was surprised that they updated it, at least the screens and walk-through probably in one of the firmware updates) and my 9.1 Atmos setup now sounds totally different. I agree, I will wait a week to let my ears settle in but I think it does sound a bit more like the theatre even though it may be a bit muffled from what I'm experienced to. But I probably mucked up the settings before anyway.
> 
> I do have the Disney WOW DVD and wondering if it was any good. I've looked on Amazon for any others, but the other seems to be rated for pros with really no documentation. I guess what I'm looking for (because my Sony OLED was professionally calibrated already) is just something that will put out standard reference tones.
> 
> Maybe there is a link to an .iso that I can create a DVD that outputs the tones?
> 
> Thanks in advance.


What are you using to measure the SPL?

Do you have a laptop with HDMI handy? If so, download REW and use it's tone generator (specifically, Pink Noise @ -30dBfs).

Otherwise, you can find some good test tones here.


EDIT: AFAIK, the WOW disc should work just fine for you. Just remember that the LFE (subwoofer) test tone on the WOW disc will be +10dB higher than the others. Also, AFAIK, there are no Atmos test discs yet that will send tones to the Atmos speakers, but that may have changed recently.


----------



## Bookworm370

Alan P said:


> What are you using to measure the SPL?
> 
> Do you have a laptop with HDMI handy? If so, download REW and use it's tone generator (specifically, Pink Noise @ -30dBfs).
> 
> Otherwise, you can find some good test tones here.
> 
> 
> EDIT: AFAIK, the WOW disc should work just fine for you. Just remember that the LFE (subwoofer) test tone on the WOW disc will be +10dB higher than the others. Also, AFAIK, there are no Atmos test discs yet that will send tones to the Atmos speakers, but that may have changed recently.


Thanks, I'm lucky to have worked at Radio Shack when I put myself through college and have one of the original official Radio Shack SPL meter with C weighting. Very accurate. Thanks for the link.


----------



## Alan P

Bookworm370 said:


> Thanks, I'm lucky to have worked at Radio Shack when I put myself through college and have one of the original official Radio Shack SPL meter with C weighting. Very accurate. Thanks for the link.


I have one of the old Rat Shack meters myself, have had it for probably going on 30 years now. It never leaves my side table. 

While it's not much of an issue when using full band pink noise, keep in mind that the RS meter is not _that _accurate when it comes to sub frequencies. Luckily, someone came up with a correction table long, long ago.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@Bookworm370

Here you go





__





iCloud


Sign in to iCloud to access your photos, videos, documents, notes, contacts, and more. Use your Apple ID or create a new account to start using Apple services.




www.icloud.com




This is a test tone for atmos 9.1.6

@Alan P

That link you provided is fantastic. I used to use it years ago but forgot about it, thanks for the reminder. Great way for training the ears and learning how to listen 👍

Jim


----------



## Bookworm370

Alan P said:


> I have one of the old Rat Shack meters myself, have had it for probably going on 30 years now. It never leaves my side table.
> 
> While it's not much of an issue when using full band pink noise, keep in mind that the RS meter is not _that _accurate when it comes to sub frequencies. Luckily, someone came up with a correction table long, long ago.


Will do, The one I have is about 10 years older I'm afraid to say. But they made them good in those days!

BTW, I don't have a USB microphone for my MAC. Any suggestions for one on Amazon that doesn't cost a C note? 
I didn't look but can I plug in the 3.5MM to 3.5MM audio in on the MAC from the Radio Shack meter. I forgot if that jack is an output or input. 

If not, I don't have a continuing need for a USB mic, but I don't want to buy one that doesn't have the frequency response required by REW.

Thanks


----------



## Alan P

Bookworm370 said:


> Will do, The one I have is about 10 years older I'm afraid to say. But they made them good in those days!
> 
> BTW, I don't have a USB microphone for my MAC. Any suggestions for one on Amazon that doesn't cost a C note?
> I didn't look but can I plug in the 3.5MM to 3.5MM audio in on the MAC from the Radio Shack meter. I forgot if that jack is an output or input.
> 
> If not, I don't have a continuing need for a USB mic, but I don't want to buy one that doesn't have the frequency response required by REW.
> 
> Thanks


UMIK-1 is what you want if you're contemplating REW.


----------



## Bookworm370

Alan P said:


> UMIK-1


Ouch, 100 bucks or a 'C' note! Anything other that would give me good not perfect results. I'm not a pro tech.


----------



## Alan P

Bookworm370 said:


> Ouch, 100 bucks or a 'C' note! Anything other that would give me good not perfect results. I'm not a pro tech.


Well, the UMM-6 is slightly cheaper (~$75)...but IME it shows in it's build quality. I dropped mine once from about 3' onto carpet and the barrel separated from the base.

You can use the EMM-6 (~$60), but you will need phantom power and a mic preamp.

Besides that, I don't know of any other mics that will work with REW.


----------



## Bookworm370

Alan P said:


> Well, the UMM-6 is slightly cheaper (~$75)...but IME it shows in it's build quality. I dropped mine once from about 3' onto carpet and the barrel separated from the base.
> 
> You can use the EMM-6 (~$60), but you will need phantom power and a mic preamp.
> 
> Besides that, I don't know of any other mics that will work with REW.


Thanks for the recommendations. For $25 bucks I'd rather have one that I know will work. But, I'm not a pod-caster so it will sit in a drawer for months on end.


----------



## Alan P

Bookworm370 said:


> Thanks for the recommendations. For $25 bucks I'd rather have one that I know will work. But, I'm not a pod-caster so it will sit in a drawer for months on end.


The UMM-6 will work exactly like the UMIK-1 in all respects....you just have to treat it with kid gloves.


----------



## mogorf

Bookworm370 said:


> Ouch, 100 bucks or a 'C' note! Anything other that would give me good not perfect results. I'm not a pro tech.


Hi Bookworm370, 

I know the Gurus are going to kill me for this, but you can freely try and use your Audyssey mic which you already have. The results might be "quick and dirty", but at least its free of charge and in this way you can at least get acquainted with the use of REW (which also has its own leaning curve). Later on when you have enough practice with REW you may have the feeling 100 bucks isn't that much when you want to step up from being a "no-pro-tech" to "pro-tech". Go step by step into this wonderful world of audio. It'll pay off and you won't want to come back to the beginning again.

Hope this help you out in the initial stage of entering audio nirvana!


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Bookworm370 said:


> But, I'm not a pod-caster so it will sit in a drawer for months on end.


No it won't. Once you have the ability to measure, you won't be able to resist the "How about if I try...." temptation.
Yup, been there, done that.
Michael


----------



## Hetfieldjames

pbarach said:


> How well FLAT works for you can depend not only on your speakers and their placement, but also on whether you have high frequency hearing loss, and also on the size of your room and what acoustic treatments are present. I have a relatively small (12x13) room with wall-to-wall carpet and cd/bookshelves on the side walls. I don't need a roll-off on high frequencies, so FLAT sounds better than REFERENCE except on overly bright source material (e.g., the BluRay issue of Lawrence of Arabia).


I have been using Flat now for 4-5 days and I quite like it. I'm gonna keep using it for now. I have relatively flat natural sounding speakers. Room is small to medium I guess. No room treatments which I should look into. 

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## LastButNotLeast

Alan P said:


> Well, the UMM-6 is slightly cheaper (~$75)...but IME it shows in it's build quality. I dropped mine once from about 3' onto carpet and the barrel separated from the base.


Might still be in the classifieds:








Dayton UMM-6 measurement microphone SOLD


I have a Dayton measurement microphone I was using to calibrate my theater. I'm done now and don't plan on reconfiguring anything so I don't need this anymore. The mic is serialized and you can download a calibration file from the dayton website for this mic. Works great with REW or with other...




www.avsforum.com




Michael


----------



## Anton Tkachenko

Hello everyone. 
I've brought a Denon AVC-X3700 and Audyssey multiEq Editor.
App shows that "Connection lost" after checking "Position 1".
Phone and receiver are in the one wi-fi network and no disconnects.
Buid-in Audyssey works just fine.
Any solutions?


----------



## pbarach

Anton Tkachenko said:


> Hello everyone.
> I've brought a Denon AVC-X3700 and Audyssey multiEq Editor.
> App shows that "Connection lost" after checking "Position 1".
> Phone and receiver are in the one wi-fi network and no disconnects.
> Buid-in Audyssey works just fine.
> Any solutions?


 If it's an Android phone, then the likely explanation is that the Android version of the app is buggy. Most of the negative comments in this forum about such issues seem to be about the Android app.


----------



## Bookworm370

Alan P said:


> Well, the UMM-6 is slightly cheaper (~$75)...but IME it shows in it's build quality. I dropped mine once from about 3' onto carpet and the barrel separated from the base.
> 
> You can use the EMM-6 (~$60), but you will need phantom power and a mic preamp.
> 
> Besides that, I don't know of any other mics that will work with REW.


Bite the bullet today and ordered the UMIK-1 new in box. Now to spend endless days and nagging wife playing with everything. Even though I'm not sure how to do the little tweaking without messing up the Audyssey equalization's.


----------



## garygarrison

@*Bookworm370 ,*

Don't use "Copy" or "Base" (not bass) "Curve Copy," or whatever your receiver or pre-pro (AVP) calls it. It makes a very crude copy that does not preserve Audyssey's EQ at _*hundreds of points.* _Chris K., the Chief Technical Officer at Audyssey, and one of the designers, had some very negative things to say about it. I think he said that it lowered the quality of the EQ quite a lot, and was "... worse than useless."
One tweak you can use is* after* Audyssey calibration you can readjust the subwoofer. Don't do it before, or Audyssey will just return it to flat. Most people need to turn it *up* several dB to taste. There are too many reasons that this is true to discuss them here, but suffice it to say that part of it is the fault of the CD and SACD companies, and part of it is because while you want to get the kinks out of your frequency response curve, as well as major peaks and dips, most people don't like nearly perfectly flat sound. Several researchers have found that not only do most people prefer the Bass end of the curve to be elevated by up to 9 dB, and the high treble dipped down a little, these same people think that kind of curve sounds FLAT! Use the level setting or gain knob *on the subwoofer itself which will adjust the bass below crossover and also below the LPF for LFE. *If you need more than the sub gain will provide, you can use the AVR, but some clip easily. Mike outlines how to do this without clipping the line driver in the AVR or the AVP in his *Guide: Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences *Check his Cliff Notes section first. His whole Guide, as long as it is, is good reading. It has been called "the War and Peace of audio optimization."
If you listen significantly below reference levels, say between -10 and -20, you may want to use DEQ as a tweak when playing at low volume. I don't like it, but many do. Another alternative comes on when you turn DEQ *OFF: *the tone controls. The bass control provides up to 6 dB boost, as does the treble. Preamp controls used to boost to +20 dB for the bass and, usually, to +18 for the treble!. Those were the days. I surveyed my old audiophile friends, and discovered most of them (virtually all) in the 1960s/1970s vinyl days used bass + 2 (8 dB on my McIntosh) and treble +1 (+4 dB on the Mac). We were unafraid. There were a very few so-called golden eared audiophiles, admirers of the emperor's new clothes, around to chide us. Our speakers ranged from OK to excellent.
I put labels on my CDs, SACDs, and Blu-rays with my EQ preferences on them. Sometimes I change my mind later, but not usually. I always have Audyssey ON, usually with Audyssey Flat in my treated room (see below).


----------



## StephenMSmith

Anton Tkachenko said:


> Hello everyone.
> I've brought a Denon AVC-X3700 and Audyssey multiEq Editor.
> App shows that "Connection lost" after checking "Position 1".
> Phone and receiver are in the one wi-fi network and no disconnects.
> Buid-in Audyssey works just fine.
> Any solutions?


THis happens to me all the time w/Android app and my 750H. But just back out and then re-select receiver, then it works as expected. Sometimes, I open the network interface for 750H from computer just to make sure 750H ethernet working.


----------



## Bookworm370

garygarrison said:


> @*Bookworm370 ,*
> 
> Don't use "Copy" or "Base" (not bass) "Curve Copy," or whatever your receiver or pre-pro (AVP) calls it. It makes a very crude copy that does not preserve Audyssey's EQ at _*hundreds of points.* _Chris K., the Chief Technical Officer at Audyssey, and one of the designers, had some very negative things to say about it. I think he said that it lowered the quality of the EQ quite a lot, and was "... worse than useless."
> One tweak you can use is* after* Audyssey calibration you can readjust the subwoofer. Don't do it before, or Audyssey will just return it to flat. Most people need to turn it *up* several dB to taste. There are too many reasons that this is true to discuss them here, but suffice it to say that part of it is the fault of the CD and SACD companies, and part of it is because while you want to get the kinks out of your frequency response curve, as well as major peaks and dips, most people don't like nearly perfectly flat sound. Several researchers have found that not only do most people prefer the Bass end of the curve to be elevated by up to 9 dB, and the high treble dipped down a little, these same people think that kind of curve sounds FLAT! Use the level setting or gain knob *on the subwoofer itself which will adjust the bass below crossover and also below the LPF for LFE. *If you need more than the sub gain will provide, you can use the AVR, but some clip easily. Mike outlines how to do this without clipping the line driver in the AVR or the AVP in his *Guide: Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences *Check his Cliff Notes section first. His whole Guide, as long as it is, is good reading. It has been called "the War and Peace of audio optimization."
> If you listen significantly below reference levels, say between -10 and -20, you may want to use DEQ as a tweak when playing at low volume. I don't like it, but many do. Another alternative comes on when you turn DEQ *OFF: *the tone controls. The bass control provides up to 6 dB boost, as does the treble. Preamp controls used to boost to +20 dB for the bass and, usually, to +18 for the treble!. Those were the days. I surveyed my old audiophile friends, and discovered most of them (virtually all) in the 1960s/1970s vinyl days used bass + 2 (8 dB on my McIntosh) and treble +1 (+4 dB on the Mac). We were unafraid. There were a very few so-called golden eared audiophiles, admirers of the emperor's new clothes, around to chide us. Our speakers ranged from OK to excellent.
> I put labels on my CDs, SACDs, and Blu-rays with my EQ preferences on them. Sometimes I change my mind later, but not usually. I always have Audyssey ON, usually with Audyssey Flat in my treated room (see below).


Thanks, I will go though everything before even daring to make any change. And read the the great references you posted. !


----------



## genaccmiller

I have the audyssey mobile app. The following pertain to that.

My set up is as follows: 

LCR: JBL Studio 590

Surrounds: JBL Studio 580

Rear surrounds: Martin Logan MLT2

Subwoofer: Klipsch R112SW

Receiver: Denon x4400h

I ran audyssey using only the first three measurements as I feel that is enough clustering in my space. I have given below the room correction results. 



http://imgur.com/a/HPjzhj7


The DB levels are as follows. For the sub I bumped it from -9.0 db to -5.0 db.



http://imgur.com/a/ZlFGFhV



I have the midrange compensation turned off. I will be making a few adjustments later like limiting the frequency range to 300hz for all channels and putting in a room curve. I have not done it in the illustration below so that I don't see the jaggedness in the curve. So for this illustration all channels have a frequency range upto 20000hz. 

I have a couple of questions.

1. Why does the subwoofer target corrected curve show two dips at 50hz and 70hz? I set the crossover at 80hz. So I am less concerned about any nulls beyond that. However the two nulls under 80hz is concerning me. I know that the target curve is more of a prediction rather than actual measurements but does this mean audyssey is telling me that there is something wrong in my set up due to which it is unable to do a flat response at 50hz and 70hz? Due to some constraints I am unable to either change the sub location or seating. Is there going to be any negative impact due to this and can I live with this or are there any easy corrections?

2. Why are the rear surrounds starting so much deep in the negative db territory and coming up? I realize the rear surrounds are bookshelf Martin Logan MLT2 speakers that don't match the JBLs in LCR and surrounds. But they seem to have a steep rolloff at the lower end. Do I need to be concerned about these or are there other adjustments I need to make like changing the crossover for those specific rear surrounds to say 140hz or so?

3. Do the other channels look ok?


----------



## pbz06

genaccmiller said:


> I have the audyssey mobile app. The following pertain to that.
> 
> My set up is as follows:
> 
> LCR: JBL Studio 590
> 
> Surrounds: JBL Studio 580
> 
> Rear surrounds: Martin Logan MLT2
> 
> Subwoofer: Klipsch R112SW
> 
> Receiver: Denon x4400h
> 
> I ran audyssey using only the first three measurements as I feel that is enough clustering in my space. I have given below the room correction results.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/HPjzhj7
> 
> 
> I have the midrange compensation turned off. I will be making a few adjustments later like limiting the frequency range to 300hz for all channels and putting in a room curve. I have not done it in the illustration below so that I don't see the jaggedness in the curve. So for this illustration all channels have a frequency range upto 20000hz.
> 
> I have a couple of questions.
> 
> 1. Why does the subwoofer target corrected curve show two dips at 50hz and 70hz? I set the crossover at 80hz. So I am less concerned about any nulls beyond that. However the two nulls under 80hz is concerning me. I know that the target curve is more of a prediction rather than actual measurements but does this mean audyssey is telling me that there is something wrong in my set up due to which it is unable to do a flat response at 50hz and 70hz? Due to some constraints I am unable to either change the sub location or seating. Is there going to be any negative impact due to this and can I live with this or are there any easy corrections?
> 
> 2. Why are the rear surrounds starting so much deep in the negative db territory and coming up?
> 
> 3. Do the other channels look ok?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


1. Those dips are nulls/cancellations, or just troughs, which depend on your room interactions with your subs. No amount of EQ can fix them completely (troughs can sometimes be mitigated if you have enough headroom); only playing around with placement and measurements to find the best locations for your sub combos. If you look at the pre- graph, there's a big dip. I'm betting Audyssey tried boosted part of or the entire response to a certain amount (bringing the bottom of the graph up as much as possible), and then trimmed the peaks. Either way, really need to measure to know what's happening truly.

2. I don't see your dB levels and I'm not positive what you are asking, but my guess is your surrounds are closer to listening position and need additional trims to balance them out with your mains.

3. Yes, you have good solid response on all your channels. Your subwoofer can use some tweaking with locations (or what I did, use minidsp to play with alignments between the subs first).

If you have REW and umik-1, it would be good to measure the graph as a full range sweep. Those troughs or mini nulls might not even show up or be noticeable, since your speakers have good extension. You would be able to assess with 60hz crossovers and see if the overlap of frequencies at the crossover give you a smooth response anyway.


----------



## genaccmiller

pbz06 said:


> 1. Those dips are nulls/cancellations, or just troughs, which depend on your room interactions with your subs. No amount of EQ can fix them completely (troughs can be mitigated if you have enough headroom); only playing around with placement and measurements to find the best locations for your sub combos. If you look at the pre- graph, there's a big dip. I'm betting Audyssey boosted the entire response to a certain amount (bringing the bottom of the graph up as much as possible), and then trimmed the peaks.
> 
> 2. I don't see your dB levels and I'm not positive what you are asking, but my guess is your surrounds are closer to listening position and need additional trims to balance them out with your mains.
> 
> 3. Yes, you have good solid response on all your channels. Your subwoofer can use some tweaking with locations (or what I did, use minidsp to play with alignments between the subs first).
> 
> If you have REW and umik-1, it would be good to measure the graph as a full range sweep. Those troughs or mini nulls might not even show up or be noticeable, since your speakers have good extension. You would be able to assess with 60hz crossovers and see if the overlap of frequencies at the crossover give you a smooth response anyway.


I added the db levels in the main post. This is the link.



http://imgur.com/a/ZlFGFhV


I have only one sub and no placement flexibility other than where it is currently behind the AT screen. My question is whether those nulls affect listening materially or do I need to do anything else to correct?

The question with the rear surrounds is I realize the rear surrounds are bookshelf Martin Logan MLT2 speakers that don't match the JBLs in LCR and surrounds. But they seem to have a steep rolloff at the lower end. Do I need to be concerned about these or are there other adjustments I need to make like reducing the crossover for those specific rear surrounds to say 140hz or so?


----------



## WPWoodJr

WPWoodJr said:


> For comparing speakers, it's great having separate calibrations for Front A and Front B speaker sets. I can put one calibration in Preset 1 and the other in Preset 2 and switch between them.
> 
> However not having the ability to create a Front B calibration in the MultEQ app is disappointing. Does anyone know the best way to report this as an issue/feature request/bug to Audyssey?


I figured out that the MultiEQ app will calibrate whichever speakers are currently selected by the receiver (FRONT A or FRONT B).
See this post: "Official" Audyssey thread Part II


----------



## pbz06

genaccmiller said:


> I added the db levels in the main post. This is the link.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/ZlFGFhV
> 
> 
> I have only one sub and no placement flexibility other than where it is currently behind the AT screen. My question is whether those nulls affect listening materially or do I need to do anything else to correct?
> 
> The question with the rear surrounds is that they are smaller bookshelf Martin Logan speakers and do not match the JBLs. Do I need to be concerned about the steep roll offs at the lower end and if I need to do anything about them.
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


Ah, I see. Your surrounds (and mains) are in the positives. It isn't necessarily an issue...are you using separate amplification? If so, you may need to adjust those higher to perhaps get in the negatives. But since I've had smaller rooms I've always been in the negatives, so someone else would be better suited to answer that part of your question. Wherever the crossovers were set by Audyssey, I like raising them usually from where AVR sets them after Audyssey: full octave for front LCR and at least 10hz for surrounds, but never lowering them.

For the subwoofers, if you are fixed at the locations, then that's just a compromise you have to make. It's not necessarily an issue, and only you can say if it's audible or they affect your experience. You can mess with the crossovers, and sometimes the overlap of frequencies still get you a nice smooth integration.


----------



## genaccmiller

pbz06 said:


> Ah, I see. Your surrounds (and mains) are in the positives. It isn't necessarily an issue...are you using separate amplification? If so, you may need to adjust those higher to perhaps get in the negatives. But since I've had smaller rooms I've always been in the negatives, so someone else would be better suited to answer that part of your question. Wherever the crossovers were set by Audyssey, I like raising them usually from where AVR sets them after Audyssey: full octave for front LCR and at least 10hz for surrounds, but never lowering them.
> 
> For the subwoofers, if you are fixed at the locations, then that's just a compromise you have to make. It's not necessarily an issue, and only you can say if it's audible or they affect your experience. You can mess with the crossovers, and sometimes the overlap of frequencies still get you a nice smooth integration.


I don't have a separate amplification. This is just what audyssey came back with. Are you saying change crossovers from 80?

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## Velimir Saban

Question. I re-run Audyssey yesterday on my Denon 2400h, and run into a problem where Audyssey measured one speaker two or three times in a row for some reason? Why is that? Calibration finished OK, but why the system had to re-run test sound more times on one speaker. I also think that the sound was louder every time it reruns on the same speaker. Problems with the mic?

Vel.


----------



## garygarrison

Was there room noise during the time you ran Audyssey? For instance, a washing machine or dryer, a noisy refrigerator, traffic noises outside? Audyssey is set up to make sure any ambient noise is soft enough not to interfere with the calibration. If not (if the signal to noise ratio is not large enough) Audyssey will repeat the pings at a higher volume, and will keep doing that until it can get a good reading, or the pings get loud enough to be dangerous or damaging.


----------



## WPWoodJr

WPWoodJr said:


> I figured out that the MultiEQ app will calibrate whichever speakers are currently selected by the receiver (FRONT A or FRONT B).


Actually this isn't quite right. The MultiEQ app will calibrate whichever speakers were last calibrated using the receiver, using the current preset. Default is Front A. So if you want to calibrate Front B with the MultiEQ app, first you have to select the preset you want to calibrate, then do a quick run of Audyssey using the receiver (just the one time). In the Audyssey menu, before you press Start you must set Front B in the Channel Select menu. This sets the configuration that MultiEQ will use with that preset. You must do a full run-through with Audyssey using the receiver, otherwise Front B won't "stick". You can just do 3 measurements though, you don't need to do 8.


----------



## Zagoxy

Hi guys, 

I did the Audyssey calibration on my Marantz SR7008, which doesn't support the mobile app I think, and the calibration curves reduced the frequencies bellow 100Hz to almost -10dB from my Front R / L. Is that normal?

I feel the sound to be very flat, and I am really trying to improve the bass from my system.

Front: 2x Bowers Wilkins DM604 S3
Center 1x Bowers Wilkins HTM61 S2
Rear: 2x Bowers Wilkins CWM 664
Subwoofer: 1x Boston Acoustics ASW 650

Receiver: Marantz SR 7008
Bluray: Oppo 103 Darbee Edition

Crossover: 60Hz Front (Set as Small) // 80Hz Center (Set as Small) and Surround 
Subwoofer: LFE at 120Hz









Thanks!


----------



## ggsantafe

Zagoxy said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I did the Audyssey calibration on my Marantz SR7008, which doesn't support the mobile app I think, and the calibration curves reduced the frequencies bellow 100Hz to almost -10dB from my Front R / L. Is that normal?
> 
> I feel the sound to be very flat, and I am really trying to improve the bass from my system.
> 
> Front: 2x Bowers Wilkins DM604 S3
> Center 1x Bowers Wilkins HTM61 S2
> Rear: 2x Bowers Wilkins CWM 664
> Subwoofer: 1x Boston Acoustics ASW 650
> 
> Receiver: Marantz SR 7008
> Bluray: Oppo 103 Darbee Edition
> 
> Crossover: 60Hz Front (Set as Small) // 80Hz Center (Set as Small) and Surround
> Subwoofer: LFE at 120Hz
> View attachment 3077632
> 
> 
> Thanks!


If you have Dynamic Volume engaged - I suggest turning that off & turn on Dynamic EQ and see how that combination sounds.


----------



## Alan P

Zagoxy said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I did the Audyssey calibration on my Marantz SR7008, which doesn't support the mobile app I think, and the calibration curves reduced the frequencies bellow 100Hz to almost -10dB from my Front R / L. Is that normal?
> 
> I feel the sound to be very flat, and I am really trying to improve the bass from my system.
> 
> Front: 2x Bowers Wilkins DM604 S3
> Center 1x Bowers Wilkins HTM61 S2
> Rear: 2x Bowers Wilkins CWM 664
> Subwoofer: 1x Boston Acoustics ASW 650
> 
> Receiver: Marantz SR 7008
> Bluray: Oppo 103 Darbee Edition
> 
> Crossover: 60Hz Front (Set as Small) // 80Hz Center (Set as Small) and Surround
> Subwoofer: LFE at 120Hz
> View attachment 3077632
> 
> 
> Thanks!


Those MultEQ "results" screens are only a very rough approximating of what Audyssey did in your room. It could very well be correct that your mains need the bass reduced by that much if you consider room/boundary gain. Are you mains in a corner or very near walls?

It is normal for most folks to add anywhere from 3-6dB to the subwoofer level post-Audyssey. The reason for this is Audyssey corrects for a completely flat response, but human ears are less sensitive to the lower frequencies (Google Harmon Curve or Equal Loudness Contour). DEQ tries to overcome this by boosting the lower (and upper) frequencies as the master volume is turned down, but most folks find that DEQ alone is not enough.


----------



## Zagoxy

They are at this position on my home, I already added 4dB from sub level post-Audyssey. After Audyssey the speakers where set to Large, but I changed to Small, should I maintain as Audyssey recommended?

Thanks


----------



## Alan P

Zagoxy said:


> They are at this position on my home, I already added 4dB from sub level post-Audyssey. After Audyssey the speakers where set to Large, but I changed to Small, should I maintain as Audyssey recommended?
> 
> Thanks
> View attachment 3077674


Small/80Hz is a good starting point.

I would pull all speakers (center included) forward until the baffles are slightly in front of the entertainment center. This will eliminate the very early reflections from the cabinet itself.

It also looks like you have a hard tile floor with no rug. Placing a thick rug between the speakers and the listening positions will improve the overall audio experience (by reducing more reflections).

If at all possible, I would pull the FR/FL out as far as needed to manage some "toe-in" (angling the speakers towards the listening position). Typical toe-in will have the speakers angle crossing just in front of, or just behind the listening position. You will have to experiment with both to find which works best for your room and your speakers.


----------



## mogorf

Zagoxy said:


> They are at this position on my home, I already added 4dB from sub level post-Audyssey. After Audyssey the speakers where set to Large, but I changed to Small, should I maintain as Audyssey recommended?
> 
> Thanks
> View attachment 3077674


A very nice setup, indeed! I always like to see people's photos of their home theater systems. They tell more than a 1000 words!  

Yet, if you allow me, I'd surely do some modifications here in order to improve sound quality. L&Rs I'd pull up front, beyond the "cabinet" and would do some angling (toe-in) to make the speakers face the MLP (Main Listening Position). 

Also I'd pull the center speaker up to the edge and tilt it upwards to make it face seated ear height. Also would put an area rug on top of the ceramic tiles in order to tame early reflection in the mid to high frequency range resulting especially in improved dialog intelligibility when watching films. 

These measures might seem small, but in the end they all add up and are going to result in a much more improved SQ (Sound Quality) never though of in the same room. 

For your info, speakers always show not only their highest SPL (Sound Pressure Level), but also their widest frequency range when on-axis with the MLP. And of course an Audyssey re-run will be necessary after all these changes in physical setup. 

Hope this helps!


----------



## ctsv510

Is there any way to find the actual eq filters that Audyssey is applying for the subwoofer channel?


----------



## Alan P

ctsv510 said:


> Is there any way to find the actual eq filters that Audyssey is applying for the subwoofer channel?


Unfortunately, no.


----------



## marantz545

ctsv510 said:


> Is there any way to find the actual eq filters that Audyssey is applying for the subwoofer channel?


You could take measurements with REW and UMIK-1. Just run a sweep with Audyssey on and another with it off and you can see what it is doing.


----------



## ctsv510

marantz545 said:


> You could take measurements with REW and UMIK-1. Just run a sweep with Audyssey on and another with it off and you can see what it is doing.


That shows me the result of what it’s doing, but not what specifically it is doing to get there. Though I guess they wouldn’t want anyone seeing behind the scenes because it’s part of their intellectual property...


----------



## iStorm

Hey guys, I know lately a lot of people are really pushing for Audyssey to not correct above 300-500hz and that's why the app is so good BUT I can definitely say in my semi open room with no treatments,there is a BIG difference from going from limited to full range 20khz XT32 calibration. 

All I am saying is to not take anyone's word on this especially if you have an untreated, not home theater friendly room like our current living room. Audyssey full range provides much more detail, clarity, and pop over limited correction. YMMV. We have pretty good budget speakers (SVS ultra towers and matching setup).


----------



## garygarrison

iStorm said:


> ... All I am saying is to not take anyone's word on this especially if you have an untreated, not home theater friendly room like our current living room. Audyssey full range provides much more detail, clarity, and pop over limited correction.


I love Audyssey full-range. To be fair, my system won't let me try restricted range, so I can't compare (no app). But the advantage of "Audyssey Flat" over "No Audyssey" is spectacular, and the highs seem smoother, purer, yet a bit more ample. Of course, I can't be in any of your rooms, or listen with your ears, so, for you, Audyssey limited range may be best. YMMV is ever true. But @iStorm perfectly described the results of full range in my room (as well), "... detail, clarity, and pop ..."


----------



## iStorm

garygarrison said:


> I love Audyssey full-range. To be fair, my system won't let me try restricted range, so I can't compare (no app). But the advantage of "Audyssey Flat" over "No Audyssey" is spectacular, and the highs seem smoother, purer, yet a bit more ample. Of course, I can't be in any of your rooms, or listen with your ears, so, for you, Audyssey limited range may be best. YMMV is ever true. But @iStorm perfectly described the results of full range in my room (as well), "... detail, clarity, and pop ..."


My 8805 just sounds wonderful going full range with a house curve. Since you have a treated room, you may want to eventually upgrade to a processor/AVR with the app. If you have a really good room and speakers, then limiting your correction could possibly yield better results than you have currently. I know for me in my living room, I NEED full range EQ and it sounds awesome, especially with a house curve. Now that I can get away from DEQ, I'm much happier.


----------



## imp8ct

Hello ,
I recently upgraded my living room to an Marantz SR5015 DAB, AntiMode SII, Quadral A5 Atmos speakers and SVS SB2000 Sub. I also downloaded the Audyssey App. spent hours on figureing out where to place the speakers properly (see pictures) and subwoofer. The AntiMode made the deal on the sub.

i noticed with full frequenzy EQ the Soundstage and separation in Stereo music was much better, but the "quality", fullness and "fun" in the sound was worse then limited the room correction at 700/1000 Hz. 

Was already thinking on buying new speakers to get the separation, stage AND fun, fullness and so on. Currently owning PSB Alpha T1 tower, C1 center and LR surrounds. Everything powered throught the Marantz. Using Tidal hifi for music and Netflix UHD, Disney + for content over fire tv 4k stick. 

So why in audyssey thread? i uploaded the room curves from the app ( Audyssey - Google Drive ) . I have so many jumpes in there....and almost no correction around 80-1000hz. So how can I improve this maybe without new speakers like monitor audio silver lines? 
Is frequency limiting only good for the towers/center and should i correct the curve completely for the surrounds and atmos speakers? i chose the cross over on 100hz for every speaker...

english is not my native language. hopefully you understand my point. Thank you all!















Green = speakers, red= subwoofer, Blue 65 inch C9 OLED TV, purple is the couch. The wall to the kitchen is open! Room 20 m²


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

imp8ct said:


> Hello ,
> I recently upgraded my living room to an Marantz SR5015 DAB, AntiMode SII, Quadral A5 Atmos speakers and SVS SB2000 Sub. I also downloaded the Audyssey App. spent hours on figureing out where to place the speakers properly (see pictures) and subwoofer. The AntiMode made the deal on the sub.
> 
> i noticed with full frequenzy EQ the Soundstage and separation in Stereo music was much better, but the "quality", fullness and "fun" in the sound was worse then limited the room correction at 700/1000 Hz.
> 
> Was already thinking on buying new speakers to get the separation, stage AND fun, fullness and so on. Currently owning PSB Alpha T1 tower, C1 center and LR surrounds. Everything powered throught the Marantz. Using Tidal hifi for music and Netflix UHD, Disney + for content over fire tv 4k stick.
> 
> So why in audyssey thread? i uploaded the room curves from the app ( Audyssey - Google Drive ) . I have so many jumpes in there....and almost no correction around 80-1000hz. So how can I improve this maybe without new speakers like monitor audio silver lines?
> Is frequency limiting only good for the towers/center and should i correct the curve completely for the surrounds and atmos speakers? i chose the cross over on 100hz for every speaker...
> 
> english is not my native language. hopefully you understand my point. Thank you all!
> View attachment 3080999
> View attachment 3081000
> 
> Green = speakers, red= subwoofer, Blue 65 inch C9 OLED TV, purple is the couch. The wall to the kitchen is open! Room 20 m²
> View attachment 3081001
> View attachment 3080999
> View attachment 3081000
> View attachment 3081001


Guten Tag 😁

It boggles me that in 2020 that Marantz and Denon still use Audyssey Multi EQ and not XT32 in the AVR's. This AVR you have has all the bell and whistles in terms of features like HDMI 2.1 and so on. But for me XT32 is big upgrade over Multi EQ.
In saying this, I have looked at your graphs and your pre-graphs are looking really good for most of your speakers. The surrounds are a little uneven but I wouldn't worry too much about this. The FR for the front stage is very good and the sub position is providing a good response too.
If it were me I would prefer to have the right speaker next to the Tv and be more equal distance to the MLP. You can also use a little toe-in as well (not too much). I think this will look better to the eyes and may provide better stereo listening as well. If anything I think it is worth experimenting with.


imp8ct said:


> Was already thinking on buying new speakers to get the separation


Try get the best from what you got for now before buying more gear. Or even spending more on room acoustics first. You can have the best speakers in the world, but if they are badly positioned or the room is poorly treated acoustic wise, they will sound cheap. Do the old clap test in your room and listen to how it sounds. Does it have a echo, does it sound thin. Use your ears as best you can to be your measurement device.

As regards Full vs limited. I think if you read the last few pages of this thread that most will say that YMMV😁. Go with your instinct on this one, what do you prefer more.

The up-firing Atmos + surround speakers could do with a higher Xo, 110hz-120hz I think. Front stage could do 80hz easily if you wanted to and is worth trying out. I wouldn't be surprised if Audyssey gave the Front+ Center a Xo of 40hz or Full judging by the graphs.

I hope this helps

Jim


----------



## iafzal

When listening to music in Pure mode, is Audyssey calibration used? I think it is not but I wanted to see if there is different opinion. I recently calibrated my Denon 4400 and had bumped the sub low freq. response. In pure mode sub does not even on just 2.0 but the bass was quite overwhelming than what I recall for the same song I had played before. 
So trying to figure out why.


----------



## imp8ct

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Guten Tag 😁
> 
> It boggles me that in 2020 that Marantz and Denon still use Audyssey Multi EQ and not XT32 in the AVR's. This AVR you have has all the bell and whistles in terms of features like HDMI 2.1 and so on. But for me XT32 is big upgrade over Multi EQ.
> In saying this, I have looked at your graphs and your pre-graphs are looking really good for most of your speakers. The surrounds are a little uneven but I wouldn't worry too much about this. The FR for the front stage is very good and the sub position is providing a good response too.
> If it were me I would prefer to have the right speaker next to the Tv and be more equal distance to the MLP. You can also use a little toe-in as well (not too much). I think this will look better to the eyes and may provide better stereo listening as well. If anything I think it is worth experimenting with.
> 
> Try get the best from what you got for now before buying more gear. Or even spending more on room acoustics first. You can have the best speakers in the world, but if they are badly positioned or the room is poorly treated acoustic wise, they will sound cheap. Do the old clap test in your room and listen to how it sounds. Does it have a echo, does it sound thin. Use your ears as best you can to be your measurement device.
> 
> As regards Full vs limited. I think if you read the last few pages of this thread that most will say that YMMV😁. Go with your instinct on this one, what do you prefer more.
> 
> The up-firing Atmos + surround speakers could do with a higher Xo, 110hz-120hz I think. Front stage could do 80hz easily if you wanted to and is worth trying out. I wouldn't be surprised if Audyssey gave the Front+ Center a Xo of 40hz or Full judging by the graphs.
> 
> I hope this helps
> 
> Jim


Guten TAG! 
Thank you!
No echoes in Clap test. Room treatment is very hard due to wife...
I notice the difference of Xt and Xt 32 after i purchased the receiver... that's why I added antimode. 
Yes audyssey said large/ 40hz. I tried it in pure mode and bass just felt very weak.
I can place the left in the corner, but the right will be directly in front of the window. 

Are these really good curves ???


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

imp8ct said:


> Guten TAG!
> Thank you!
> No echoes in Clap test. Room treatment is very hard due to wife...
> I notice the difference of Xt and Xt 32 after i purchased the receiver... that's why I added antimode.
> Yes audyssey said large/ 40hz. I tried it in pure mode and bass just felt very weak.
> I can place the left in the corner, but the right will be directly in front of the window.
> 
> Are these really good curves ???


Your Welcome,

This is what I meant for speaker position, excuse the poor drawing. I would use the carpet for the early speaker reflection points as shown in the image.









The antimode is doing it's job pretty well with the sub and the response is looking good. You can try other positions but I would think it might be hard to get as good one as this. There is no big nulls and are in the range of correction with Audyssey. Going dual would be the next step if you want anything better.
Ya so I think a 80hz crossover would be a good starting point for the front stage. But nothing wrong with a 100hz Xo either. Best to try 80hz, 90hz and 100hz with some familiar bass music/movies to hear what you like best.
As far as the pre-graphs go the curves look good. The problem with Multi EQ is that it concentrates more on the higher frequencies than the lower ones. XT32 does the opposite and has more filters for correction. This applies to the speakers and subs. 








For example this is the Front Left. Ideally you would want the correction to happen in the lower frequencies which Multi Eq kind of does but not very well. It's strange rather than cut the peaks it lowered the curve. But from a 100hz onwards the curve looks really good. God knows what is happening from 1k upwards and you would need REW to find this out.
So my advice continue to change from a full to limited correction and find what you like best. Don't change too often as the ears need time to adjust to each setting. 

After this it's all about preference. Trying DEQ on or off. Reference or Flat curve. Running the sub hotter(increase the gain on the AVR). There are many choices that can be made and each can have a subtle to dramatic change in the sound. So take your time to find out what you like best.

All the best

Jim


----------



## pbarach

iafzal said:


> When listening to music in Pure mode, is Audyssey calibration used? I think it is not but I wanted to see if there is different opinion. I recently calibrated my Denon 4400 and had bumped the sub low freq. response. In pure mode sub does not even on just 2.0 but the bass was quite overwhelming than what I recall for the same song I had played before.
> So trying to figure out why.


 When you're listening in PURE, all digital processing is turned off, so no Audyssey. But also, no bass management--full-range audio is sent both to your speakers and to the sub, so you are getting the dreaded "double bass."


----------



## eiger

Hey guys,

I have a Marantz 8802A processor with XT32. I can't find my original mic that came with the unit for calibration. But I did find an older Denon Audyssey mic from an older receiver.
Would this work just fine on the marantz for the sake of taking measurements, and are they all essentially created equally?


----------



## iStorm

Hi guys,

In the FAQ it mentions to not go back in after running Audyssey XT32 and adjust the trim levels with an external pink noise disc because it doesn't take into consideration the Audyssey filters, is this true? 

I am curious because Audyssey is supposed to adjust your trim levels, distances, etc from mic position 1 and I have calibrated this new system 20+ times using different mic positions and even if position 1 is the exact same every time, Audyssey will set my trims and distances different. It almost seems like Audyssey xt32 takes into account if you do various mic positions when setting trims and distances but it should not. 

Also, what is everyone doing for the 8 mic positions these days? I have read so many different variations and tried so many different ones, it is really difficult to pick a clear winner. It is especially hard to pick a clear winner since the sub and speaker levels and distances change through each calibration. 

I have 2 theater chairs and since we are both audiophiles, I calibrate the first mic position in between our chairs, then never exceed 24 inches out on way or another. 

I see some users recommending to do just the first 3 positions and never go behind the chairs or in front for the average. I believe the more positions, the better average though so I always do 7 or 8 mic positions. 

Please let me know your thoughts. 

Thanks!


----------



## mag914

pbarach said:


> When you're listening in PURE, all digital processing is turned off, so no Audyssey. But also, no bass management--full-range audio is sent both to your speakers and to the sub, so you are getting the dreaded "double bass."


What about the Pure - Auto mode? I have a x1600h and was told to use Pure(Direct) - Auto (Instead of Direct and Pure Direct). Is auto not the best sound mode?


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> In the FAQ it mentions to not go back in after running Audyssey XT32 and adjust the trim levels with an external pink noise disc because it doesn't take into consideration the Audyssey filters, is this true?
> 
> I am curious because Audyssey is supposed to adjust your trim levels, distances, etc from mic position 1 and I have calibrated this new system 20+ times using different mic positions and even if position 1 is the exact same every time, Audyssey will set my trims and distances different. It almost seems like Audyssey xt32 takes into account if you do various mic positions when setting trims and distances but it should not.
> 
> Also, what is everyone doing for the 8 mic positions these days? I have read so many different variations and tried so many different ones, it is really difficult to pick a clear winner. It is especially hard to pick a clear winner since the sub and speaker levels and distances change through each calibration.
> 
> I have 2 theater chairs and since we are both audiophiles, I calibrate the first mic position in between our chairs, then never exceed 24 inches out on way or another.
> 
> I see some users recommending to do just the first 3 positions and never go behind the chairs or in front for the average. I believe the more positions, the better average though so I always do 7 or 8 mic positions.
> 
> Please let me know your thoughts.
> 
> Thanks!


The recommendation is to not use the _internal_ test tones to verify Audyssey with an SPL meter, because those bypass the filters. Using _external_ test tones is OK, as those would be using the Audyssey filters. My understanding is that the first position is what Audyssey uses for the trims and distances, while the rest are used for the fuzzy logic and averages for the correction filters (1 thru 8). Mine are consistently within 0.5dB of each run, and the distances within 0.1-0.2 feet...with the variance of course because I don't have the mic in the exact position 1 every single time.

I use 8 positions, tightly clustered within 12" each direction from my first position. To me, the more data you give it, the better the results. I advise not to try and get too clever sometimes, hehe.


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> The recommendation is to not use the _internal_ test tones to verify Audyssey with an SPL meter, because those bypass the filters. Using _external_ test tones is OK, and as those would be using the AUdyssey filters. My understanding is that the first position is what Audyssey uses for the trims and distances, while the rest are used for the fuzzy logic and averages for the correction filters. Mine are consistently within 0.5dB of each run, and the distances within 0.1-0.2 feet...with the variance of course because I don't have the mic in the exact position 1 every single time.
> 
> I use 8 positions, tightly clustered within 12" each direction from my first position. To me, the more data you give it, the better the results. I advise not to try and get too clever sometimes, hehe.


Thanks for your input buddy!

I'll give you a weird example of what Audyssey does sometimes even though I always use the same mic position 1. I will calibrate the first 3 positions and it will give my dual subs let's say (-6 and -7.5). Then i will run all 8 positions and it will change that -6 sub trim to -12. That in turn causes me to have to rerun the entire calibration. It shouldn't be off by that much. 

Since I have 2 chairs I typically get better results when going in small clusters as well. Do you go behind your chairs? I cannot decide if going behind them is good or not for my setup. When I go behind I have to go up 2 to 3 inches above ear level to clear my seats. So instead I usually just do additional 7 and 8 mic positions in line with 1. 

I will also need to do the verification of the trims with pink noise external tones because my values are typically quite different from one run to the next even using the same mic position 1. Do you go in and adjust your distances as well since they may be off by at least .1 lol. 

Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


----------



## pbz06

iStorm said:


> Thanks for your input buddy!
> 
> I'll give you a weird example of what Audyssey does sometimes even though I always use the same mic position 1. I will calibrate the first 3 positions and it will give my dual subs let's say (-6 and -7.5). Then i will run all 8 positions and it will change that -6 sub trim to -12. That in turn causes me to have to rerun the entire calibration. It shouldn't be off by that much.
> 
> Since I have 2 chairs I typically get better results when going in small clusters as well. Do you go behind your chairs? I cannot decide if going behind them is good or not for my setup. When I go behind I have to go up 2 to 3 inches above ear level to clear my seats. So instead I usually just do additional 7 and 8 mic positions in line with 1.
> 
> I will also need to do the verification of the trims with pink noise external tones because my values are typically quite different from one run to the next even using the same mic position 1. Do you go in and adjust your distances as well since they may be off by at least .1 lol.
> 
> Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks!


I don't know why your subwoofer would vary that much, and you're right it does seem odd and would make me think twice. Is this repeatable?

I don't move my mic behind my seat, but my couch back is low so my boom mic is adjustable where it can go above and past the head rest (it folds down when unreclined).

Since I'm OCD, and I have my speaker locations marked on the floor after measuring my room and laying it out in AutoCAD...why yes I do adjust them  They come out how I want them most of the time, haha. But seeing my L be 9.7 and my R be 9.9, I adjust both to 9.8


----------



## iStorm

pbz06 said:


> I don't know why your subwoofer would vary that much, and you're right it does seem odd and would make me think twice. Is this repeatable?
> 
> I don't move my mic behind my seat, but my couch back is low so my boom mic is adjustable where it can go above and past the head rest (it folds down when unreclined).
> 
> Since I'm OCD, and I have my speaker locations marked on the floor after measuring my room and laying it out in AutoCAD...why yes I do adjust them  They come out how I want them most of the time, haha. But seeing my L be 9.7 and my R be 9.9, I adjust both to 9.8


It is definitely a weird issue affecting one of my dual subs because I cannot get the trim any more negative on it than -7.5. If I up the volume by 1 click on my pb16, then it will go from -7.5 to -12. It may be some type of weird reflection from that particular sub. 

My other speakers are all usually within .5db to 1db and the distances are usually within .1ft. So the mic should be accurate enough with slight variation but it is mainly just the one pb16 that acts "weird."

I'm OCD as well so I'll probably end up changing the distances on the speakers only if they are not equidistant (like 9.1 feet a piece apart etc). 

Do you go behind mic position one then at all then? It would seem easier for you to keep your mic at ear level and go behind mic #1. For me, I have to move the mic up above ear level to clear the chair. I don't think this deviates too much from the other positions but I would prefer to keep every position at ear level.


----------



## Alfred Chin

I posted this in the Denon 2109 owner thread as well - just in case.

I bought a Denon X3600H in November and had it set up front, center, left and two surround speakers. The initial Audyssey calibration worked fine. Then I just bought two Rythmik subwoofers and am trying to rerun the calibration and am running into a few issues.

1) I was able to get test tones out of each of the speakers including the subwoofers prior to running Audyssey.
2) However, when I am doing the Audyssey setup i am having the following problems:
a) Seeing message that the subwoofer level was too low and is asking if I want to do Subwoofer Level Matching. I click on that and change the volume dial of the subwoofer but regardless of whether I change the volume from lowest to highest level, the screen persistently just shows 14.2 to 14.3 db which is not near 75 and doesn't seem to make sense as the volume is clearly becoming much louder. Does this seem correct?
b) After the subwoofer, it starts the calibration process for the remaining speakers. The first speaker (front left) comes on and the test tone comes and goes. It then moves to the "next speaker". I a brief (sound like thumping noise) and see the following error message on the TV screen. "Caution! No speakers found. Please make sure the speaker and microphone are connected." This happens regardless of whether I manually say that there is "no Center" channel or swap input locations the center channel speaker cables with the cables for the front right or front left second cable. The first speaker always works regardless of which one I am plugging into "Front Right" - I get the error message for the next speaker in the calibration sequence. Does this seem like something is broken with the receiver? Anything else I should try before returning it? 

I have a few more days to return the speaker because of Amazon's holiday refund policy.


----------



## Spidacat

You might have a bad mic, but unless you know someone locally to borrow one from it might be hard to check with your short window. I would definitely try to reset your receiver. There should be instructions in the 2019 Denon owners thread.


----------



## WPWoodJr

eiger said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I have a Marantz 8802A processor with XT32. I can't find my original mic that came with the unit for calibration. But I did find an older Denon Audyssey mic from an older receiver.
> Would this work just fine on the marantz for the sake of taking measurements, and are they all essentially created equally?


If the mic model number is ACM1HB you should be ok.


----------



## WPWoodJr

Alfred Chin said:


> I posted this in the Denon 2109 owner thread as well - just in case.
> 
> I bought a Denon X3600H in November and had it set up front, center, left and two surround speakers. The initial Audyssey calibration worked fine. Then I just bought two Rythmik subwoofers and am trying to rerun the calibration and am running into a few issues.
> 
> 1) I was able to get test tones out of each of the speakers including the subwoofers prior to running Audyssey.
> 2) However, when I am doing the Audyssey setup i am having the following problems:
> a) Seeing message that the subwoofer level was too low and is asking if I want to do Subwoofer Level Matching. I click on that and change the volume dial of the subwoofer but regardless of whether I change the volume from lowest to highest level, the screen persistently just shows 14.2 to 14.3 db which is not near 75 and doesn't seem to make sense as the volume is clearly becoming much louder. Does this seem correct?
> b) After the subwoofer, it starts the calibration process for the remaining speakers. The first speaker (front left) comes on and the test tone comes and goes. It then moves to the "next speaker". I a brief (sound like thumping noise) and see the following error message on the TV screen. "Caution! No speakers found. Please make sure the speaker and microphone are connected." This happens regardless of whether I manually say that there is "no Center" channel or swap input locations the center channel speaker cables with the cables for the front right or front left second cable. The first speaker always works regardless of which one I am plugging into "Front Right" - I get the error message for the next speaker in the calibration sequence. Does this seem like something is broken with the receiver? Anything else I should try before returning it?
> 
> I have a few more days to return the speaker because of Amazon's holiday refund policy.


I burned through 3 mics on a new X3700H before replacing it. The new receiver is fine.


----------



## WPWoodJr

Has anyone else noticed that Audyssey's conversion between feet and meters is way off? They convert meters to feet by multiplying meters*3.33 instead of meters*3.28

For instance a speaker that is 12 feet away would be reported by Audyssey as 12.2 feet away. (12/3.28*3.33)


----------



## Rich 63

Alfred Chin said:


> I posted this in the Denon 2109 owner thread as well - just in case.
> 
> I bought a Denon X3600H in November and had it set up front, center, left and two surround speakers. The initial Audyssey calibration worked fine. Then I just bought two Rythmik subwoofers and am trying to rerun the calibration and am running into a few issues.
> 
> 1) I was able to get test tones out of each of the speakers including the subwoofers prior to running Audyssey.
> 2) However, when I am doing the Audyssey setup i am having the following problems:
> a) Seeing message that the subwoofer level was too low and is asking if I want to do Subwoofer Level Matching. I click on that and change the volume dial of the subwoofer but regardless of whether I change the volume from lowest to highest level, the screen persistently just shows 14.2 to 14.3 db which is not near 75 and doesn't seem to make sense as the volume is clearly becoming much louder. Does this seem correct?
> b) After the subwoofer, it starts the calibration process for the remaining speakers. The first speaker (front left) comes on and the test tone comes and goes. It then moves to the "next speaker". I a brief (sound like thumping noise) and see the following error message on the TV screen. "Caution! No speakers found. Please make sure the speaker and microphone are connected." This happens regardless of whether I manually say that there is "no Center" channel or swap input locations the center channel speaker cables with the cables for the front right or front left second cable. The first speaker always works regardless of which one I am plugging into "Front Right" - I get the error message for the next speaker in the calibration sequence. Does this seem like something is broken with the receiver? Anything else I should try before returning it?
> 
> I have a few more days to return the speaker because of Amazon's holiday refund policy.


I had this exact same thing happen to me over the weekend. The mic always worked but I do remember tripping over it on the last run so I swapped it for my spare and bingo. The reason it starts the test is because the reciever is sending a signal to the first speaker but mics is not picking it up because its defective. I knew I had my subs running at the correct volume because I'd run rew for my mini the day before. Nickel dropped when I remembered what rew would flash after a sweep when the umik wasn't configured.


----------



## Sittler27

Alfred Chin said:


> I posted this in the Denon 2109 owner thread as well - just in case.
> 
> I bought a Denon X3600H in November and had it set up front, center, left and two surround speakers. The initial Audyssey calibration worked fine. Then I just bought two Rythmik subwoofers and am trying to rerun the calibration and am running into a few issues.
> 
> 1) I was able to get test tones out of each of the speakers including the subwoofers prior to running Audyssey.
> 2) However, when I am doing the Audyssey setup i am having the following problems:
> a) Seeing message that the subwoofer level was too low and is asking if I want to do Subwoofer Level Matching. I click on that and change the volume dial of the subwoofer but regardless of whether I change the volume from lowest to highest level, the screen persistently just shows 14.2 to 14.3 db which is not near 75 and doesn't seem to make sense as the volume is clearly becoming much louder. Does this seem correct?
> b) After the subwoofer, it starts the calibration process for the remaining speakers. The first speaker (front left) comes on and the test tone comes and goes. It then moves to the "next speaker". I a brief (sound like thumping noise) and see the following error message on the TV screen. "Caution! No speakers found. Please make sure the speaker and microphone are connected." This happens regardless of whether I manually say that there is "no Center" channel or swap input locations the center channel speaker cables with the cables for the front right or front left second cable. The first speaker always works regardless of which one I am plugging into "Front Right" - I get the error message for the next speaker in the calibration sequence. Does this seem like something is broken with the receiver? Anything else I should try before returning it?
> 
> I have a few more days to return the speaker because of Amazon's holiday refund policy.





Rich 63 said:


> I had this exact same thing happen to me over the weekend. The mic always worked but I do remember tripping over it on the last run so I swapped it for my spare and bingo. The reason it starts the test is because the reciever is sending a signal to the first speaker but mics is not picking it up because its defective. I knew I had my subs running at the correct volume because I'd run rew for my mini the day before. Nickel dropped when I remembered what rew would flash after a sweep when the umik wasn't configured.


Wow, I've been doing a lot of calibrating lately with off and on Audy calibrations as I tweak with REW and mini-DSP and new subs.
Suddenly, this afternoon, same thing as what is described above happens - mic reports sub too low at 41dB when (as per Umik mic) subs are at 85dB.
Then, tried doing Audy again after shutting down AVR (Marantz SR7010) and same thing but now sub is at 31 as per Audy (even though i never touched the volumes on anything).

Should I reset the AVR? Or is it that I just have a bad mic? (it's my 4th mic since I bought the AVR 5 years ago).

I'm frustrated and ready to trash this whole AVR and move to DIRAC or ARC.


----------



## Alan P

Alfred Chin said:


> I posted this in the Denon 2109 owner thread as well - just in case.
> 
> I bought a Denon X3600H in November and had it set up front, center, left and two surround speakers. The initial Audyssey calibration worked fine. Then I just bought two Rythmik subwoofers and am trying to rerun the calibration and am running into a few issues.
> 
> 1) I was able to get test tones out of each of the speakers including the subwoofers prior to running Audyssey.
> 2) However, when I am doing the Audyssey setup i am having the following problems:
> a) Seeing message that the subwoofer level was too low and is asking if I want to do Subwoofer Level Matching. I click on that and change the volume dial of the subwoofer but regardless of whether I change the volume from lowest to highest level, the screen persistently just shows 14.2 to 14.3 db which is not near 75 and doesn't seem to make sense as the volume is clearly becoming much louder. Does this seem correct?
> b) After the subwoofer, it starts the calibration process for the remaining speakers. The first speaker (front left) comes on and the test tone comes and goes. It then moves to the "next speaker". I a brief (sound like thumping noise) and see the following error message on the TV screen. "Caution! No speakers found. Please make sure the speaker and microphone are connected." This happens regardless of whether I manually say that there is "no Center" channel or swap input locations the center channel speaker cables with the cables for the front right or front left second cable. The first speaker always works regardless of which one I am plugging into "Front Right" - I get the error message for the next speaker in the calibration sequence. Does this seem like something is broken with the receiver? Anything else I should try before returning it?
> 
> I have a few more days to return the speaker because of Amazon's holiday refund policy.


First, try a "soft" reset (unplug the AVR for at least 10 minutes). Also try plugging/unplugging the mic multiple times in a row (to clean out any gunk that may be in the mic jack).

If not joy, do a microprocessor reset as mentioned above. If still no joy, return the AVR for a replacement.


----------



## Sittler27

Alan P said:


> First, try a "soft" reset (unplug the AVR for at least 10 minutes). Also try plugging/unplugging the mic multiple times in a row (to clean out any gunk that may be in the mic jack).
> 
> If not joy, do a microprocessor reset as mentioned above. If still no joy, return the AVR for a replacement.


Tried the soft reset, did a full reset (held down buttons and reset everything), still does the same thing.

Again, for me, it was functioning normally 2 days ago.
I'm thinking the mic has gone bad (yet again), and trust me, I'm ready to let this AVR go (SR7010 - so no longer under warranty).


----------



## Alan P

Sittler27 said:


> Tried the soft reset, did a full reset (held down buttons and reset everything), still does the same thing.
> 
> Again, for me, it was functioning normally 2 days ago.
> I'm thinking the mic has gone bad (yet again), and trust me, I'm ready to let this AVR go (SR7010 - so no longer under warranty).


Wow, I've never heard of anyone getting that many bad mics in a row. How are you storing the mic? Not near any heat or source of moisture?? Cats??? 

Did you try contact cleaner on the AVR jack?


----------



## Sittler27

Alan P said:


> Wow, I've never heard of anyone getting that many bad mics in a row. How are you storing the mic? Not near any heat or source of moisture?? Cats???
> 
> Did you try contact cleaner on the AVR jack?


In it's box on a rack in the furnace room.

In a row is subjective, as that's 4th mic in 5 years.

I don't know what to say - hard reset, tried everything, worked fine 2 days ago, now just plain off/wrong.


----------



## Sittler27

So for my SR7010, do I need a ACM1HB or DM-A409 microphone for Audyssey?


----------



## Rich 63

The mic cords are very thin wire with poor bracing at the jack and mic connection points. When I did light/sound for local bands back in the day every and I mean every cord was furled and unfurled without twisting. It's the same with any wire. Twist the wire within the sleeve and you wiil have problems down the road. I sold my older avrs720 to my good friend. After we did the first multi configuration he grabbed the mic in the palm of his hand and with his other hand wrapped the cord repeatedly around his fingers. Wrong wrong, wrong. Gave him crap and explained why. These things are made cheap and should be treated right. Like I said earlier I tripped over my mic cord so I'm sure that when it got fudged.


----------



## Rich 63

Sittler27 said:


> So for my SR7010, do I need a ACM1HB or DM-A409 microphone for Audyssey?


Post in appropriate Marantz thread. Jd will tell you.
Think either. Some were made by audessey some by Denon. Just none of the puck versions though


----------



## Sittler27

Rich 63 said:


> Post in appropriate Marantz thread. Jd will tell you.
> Think either. Some were made by audessey some by Denon. Just none of the puck versions though


To be honest, I'm ready to give up on Audyssey altogether. Before this happened, already was planning on upgrading AVR as my SR7010 Audyssey doesn't allow for limited equalization, not that I'm sure I'd ever want to limit it anyways.
I think this was the last straw...


----------



## hwoarang

Hi all I just bought new Martin Logan ESL's and ESLC in a home theater setup, or in stereo listening for music. My wife and I are experiencing severe ear pain even at low volume. I'm being told it could be the brightness of the speakers and may need to adjust the Audyseey settings.

My equipment is a new Marantz 6015, Outlaw 7000x amp, and monoprice CL2 14AWG wires and monolith RCA cables for preouts.
Im connected with the cable going straight into the terminals on the back of the speakers, and banana plugs on the amp side.
Everything is in phase and I never had any issues with these cables with my old speakers.
The amp and receiver are new however.
L/R are set to -2.5, and center channel is set to -1.5 with dialogue boost up to 5 on the Marantz.
Audyessy is set to Flat as the other settings just don't sound great. L/R bypass would be my next choice, but then the center channel does not sound balanced.

My misses and I's ears both hurt and feel inflamed and swollen from watching a movie on relatively low volume yesterday. I'm having to wear ear plugs throughout the day to give me ears a chance to rest. Would appreciate any guidance, especially from anyone whose had these issues. I have to believe theres a way to enjoy these speakers!


----------



## mogorf

hwoarang said:


> Hi all I just bought new Martin Logan ESL's and ESLC in a home theater setup, or in stereo listening for music. My wife and I are experiencing severe ear pain even at low volume. I'm being told it could be the brightness of the speakers and may need to adjust the Audyseey settings.
> 
> My equipment is a new Marantz 6015, Outlaw 7000x amp, and monoprice CL2 14AWG wires and monolith RCA cables for preouts.
> Im connected with the cable going straight into the terminals on the back of the speakers, and banana plugs on the amp side.
> Everything is in phase and I never had any issues with these cables with my old speakers.
> The amp and receiver are new however.
> L/R are set to -2.5, and center channel is set to -1.5 with dialogue boost up to 5 on the Marantz.
> Audyessy is set to Flat as the other settings just don't sound great. L/R bypass would be my next choice, but then the center channel does not sound balanced.
> 
> My misses and I's ears both hurt and feel inflamed and swollen from watching a movie on relatively low volume yesterday. I'm having to wear ear plugs throughout the day to give me ears a chance to rest. Would appreciate any guidance, especially from anyone whose had these issues. I have to believe theres a way to enjoy these speakers!


This issue with the Martin Logans came up at Audyssey Tech Talk over at FB a while ago where Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) commented. He said the problem with these kinds of electrostatic speakers are the huge variations in response in the vertical direction. Just play some pink noise and then slowly stand up from your seat. You will go through a number of peaks and dips in level. One thing to try is to vary the mic height for each measurement.


----------



## hwoarang

mogorf said:


> This issue with the Martin Logans came up at Audyssey Tech Talk over at FB a while ago where Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) commented. He said the problem with these kinds of electrostatic speakers are the huge variations in response in the vertical direction. Just play some pink noise and then slowly stand up from your seat. You will go through a number of peaks and dips in level. One thing to try is to vary the mic height for each measurement.


Thank you. Is Marantz not a good fit for Martin Logans ESL's then? The window is closing, but I can still return it.


----------



## mogorf

hwoarang said:


> Thank you. Is Marantz not a good fit for Martin Logans ESL's then? The window is closing, but I can still return it.


I would say its not a Marantz issue. I'd go with traditional/classic/normal speakers instead of electrostatics. Glad to hear you can still return them. But this is just my opinion. Others might chime in with further suggestions. Take care!


----------



## Alan P

hwoarang said:


> Hi all I just bought new Martin Logan ESL's and ESLC in a home theater setup, or in stereo listening for music. My wife and I are experiencing severe ear pain even at low volume. I'm being told it could be the brightness of the speakers and may need to adjust the Audyseey settings.
> 
> My equipment is a new Marantz 6015, Outlaw 7000x amp, and monoprice CL2 14AWG wires and monolith RCA cables for preouts.
> Im connected with the cable going straight into the terminals on the back of the speakers, and banana plugs on the amp side.
> Everything is in phase and I never had any issues with these cables with my old speakers.
> The amp and receiver are new however.
> L/R are set to -2.5, and center channel is set to -1.5 with dialogue boost up to 5 on the Marantz.
> Audyessy is set to Flat as the other settings just don't sound great. L/R bypass would be my next choice, but then the center channel does not sound balanced.
> 
> My misses and I's ears both hurt and feel inflamed and swollen from watching a movie on relatively low volume yesterday. I'm having to wear ear plugs throughout the day to give me ears a chance to rest. Would appreciate any guidance, especially from anyone whose had these issues. I have to believe theres a way to enjoy these speakers!


Feri gave you some excellent advice regarding the electrostats and their issues with Audyssey.

How is the room? Is it highly reflective (relatively bare with lots of hard surfaces), or relatively soft (full of rugs, soft furniture, wall hangings, etc.)? If it is a highly reflective space, Audyssey will have a hard time taming the high-end frequencies.

You mentioned that Audyssey Flat sounds better to you than Audyssey. This is counter to what I would expect since Flat removes the high-end roll off that is present in the Audyssey curve. Typically it is the high frequencies that would cause the ear irritation you are describing.


----------



## hwoarang

Alan P said:


> Feri gave you some excellent advice regarding the electrostats and their issues with Audyssey.
> 
> How is the room? Is it highly reflective (relatively bare with lots of hard surfaces), or relatively soft (full of rugs, soft furniture, wall hangings, etc.)? If it is a highly reflective space, Audyssey will have a hard time taming the high-end frequencies.
> 
> You mentioned that Audyssey Flat sounds better to you than Audyssey. This is counter to what I would expect since Flat removes the high-end roll off that is present in the Audyssey curve. Typically it is the high frequencies that would cause the ear irritation you are describing.


Thank you. Not sure who Feri is. Question, have you or do you own ESL's? I don't think you finished the sentence on Flat vs...
I agree. The flat shouldn't sound better, but I've also tried L/R Bypass but then the center channel feels processed, lower, and unbalanced. Many said to turn Audyssey off entirely which sounds boxy and flat from the center channel.

I spoke to Marantz, and their only advice was the lower the decibel level (?!).


----------



## mogorf

hwoarang said:


> Thank you. Not sure who Feri is. Question, have you or do you own ESL's? I don't think you finished the sentence on Flat vs...
> I agree. The flat shouldn't sound better, but I've also tried L/R Bypass but then the center channel feels processed, lower, and unbalanced. Many said to turn Audyssey off entirely which sounds boxy and flat from the center channel.
> 
> I spoke to Marantz, and their only advice was the lower the decibel level (?!).


Feri is mogorf, take a look at my sig, please!


----------



## hwoarang

mogorf said:


> Feri is mogorf, take a look at my sig, please!



Specific to my question does anyone have any suggestions on Audyseey settings for the ESL's given my issues?


----------



## mogorf

hwoarang said:


> Specific to my question does anyone have any suggestions on Audyseey settings for the ESL's given my issues?


Try here: MartinLogan Motion Owners Thread

And here: Room correction setup guide for ML’s


----------



## Alan P

hwoarang said:


> Thank you. Not sure who Feri is. Question, have you or do you own ESL's? I don't think you finished the sentence on Flat vs...
> I agree. The flat shouldn't sound better, but I've also tried L/R Bypass but then the center channel feels processed, lower, and unbalanced. Many said to turn Audyssey off entirely which sounds boxy and flat from the center channel.
> 
> I spoke to Marantz, and their only advice was the lower the decibel level (?!).


I meant I was surprised that you preferred the "Audyssey Flat" setting over the "Audyssey" setting. The "Audyssey" setting is the Audyssey Reference curve, which includes a roll-off of the high frequencies. The high frequencies are what most often causes listening fatigue. The Audyssey Flat setting removes this roll-off and accentuates the high frequencies more.

L/R Bypass is mostly there for the Stereo "purists" who want to listen to music un-EQ'ed (not my cup of tea either).

You didn't answer the questions about your room......once we know more about your room, we may be able to offer up more advice about your calibration procedure to net you better results. Pics of the room would be very helpful.


----------



## hwoarang

Alan P said:


> I meant I was surprised that you preferred the "Audyssey Flat" setting over the "Audyssey" setting. The "Audyssey" setting is the Audyssey Reference curve, which includes a roll-off of the high frequencies. The high frequencies are what most often causes listening fatigue. The Audyssey Flat setting removes this roll-off and accentuates the high frequencies more.
> 
> L/R Bypass is mostly there for the Stereo "purists" who want to listen to music un-EQ'ed (not my cup of tea either).
> 
> You didn't answer the questions about your room......once we know more about your room, we may be able to offer up more advice about your calibration procedure to net you better results. Pics of the room would be very helpful.



Ok got it. The reference setting. It definitely sounds less detailed, but if its the highs causing the issue, I may have to use it. Here's a photo of the room:
When using the speakers, I move the two chairs on the left, and the small arm chair on the right out of the way, then pull the speakers forward a little. The center channel is now an ESLC. it hadn't been delivered at the time of this photo. Feel free to give notes on what might be causing the ear pain:


----------



## garygarrison

hwoarang said:


> Ok got it. The reference setting. It definitely sounds less detailed, but if its the highs causing the issue, I may have to use it. Here's a photo of the room:
> When using the speakers, I move the two chairs on the left, and the small arm chair on the right out of the way, then pull the speakers forward a little. The center channel is now an ESLC. it hadn't been delivered at the time of this photo. Feel free to give notes on what might be causing the ear pain:
> 
> View attachment 3083829



IMO, real ear *pain* should never happen with anything other than very, very high volume -- so, maybe your high frequencies are high in SPL, while your midrange and lows are not.  
Turning up the subwoofer some might help, because with more bass the volume control is often not set as high, and the high frequencies won't be as penetratingly harsh.
Almost everyone with Audyssey (which I love*;* don't get me wrong!) ends up turning up the bass above the level at which Audyssey sets it. This boost ranges from +2 dB to +10 dB! If you boost at the subwoofer, do so at the level control on the subwoofer itself, rather than at the AVR or pre-pro, to avoid clipping the line driver in the AVR/pre-pro. All of this is a matter of *reference vs. preference. * Audyssey attempts to provide you with *reference*, which is a good thing in that it gets the kinks out of your frequency response curve, as well as eliminating the gradual rises or declines. But, there are a couple of reasons why more bass is needed to provide most people with their *preference.* *1)* Most rock, metal, and pop recordings are recorded with attenuated bass, and midrange and treble higher, to allow the recording levels to be higher. This is part of the Loudness Wars. Many recording engineers don't like it, but the suits seem to want it, so it is still around (Google The Missing Octave by Chris A, as well as his other remastering -- or "de-mastering"-- threads). Most classical and jazz disks are less often screwed up that way. Relatively few soundtracks on Blu-ray or DVD have that problem, but there are some, e.g., Lawrence of Arabia (brass too bright -- bass boost to bring up the drums works well), How the West Was Won (the smile box version is too bright -- forget the other one), The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (strings too bright), The Man Who Would Be King (harsh -- it was perfect in the theater and good on vinyl, but really screechy on DVD). *2) *Research by Harman and others has indicated that most people not only favor a house curve like the one below, but, in some cases, will think that such a curve sounds "natural" or "flat."








You might want to cover that beautiful glass topped coffee table with an attractive cloth pad.
Window curtains?
Try sitting on a pillow (temporarily!) to see if the balance changes a la Chris K's point in Feri's (mogorf's) post.
Put absorbers at first reflection points?


----------



## Lindros88

Is it normal for XT32 to sound brighter than MultEQ? I've been experiencing some extremely annoying harshness on my Denon x3300w. It only happens with voices, particularly vowel sounds. 

I tried messing with settings on the receiver, including turning audyssey off, turning dynamic EQ off, using tone control to reduce treble, experimenting with different speaker placements and different audyssey mic placements and I even tried hooking up different speakers, but the problem persisted. It wasn't until I decided to hook up my old Denon 1612, with MultEQ, that the problem completely went away.

Could it be a faulty audyssey mic with the 3300? Or is XT32 intended to sound like this? I follow a lot of the recommendations for calibrations, like tight grouping mic placements, use of tripod, mic at ear level, mic several feet away from boundaries, etc. I am also in a fully treated room, so I'm surprised I'd be having any issues like this at all.


----------



## hwoarang

garygarrison said:


> IMO, real ear *pain* should never happen with anything other than very, very high volume -- so, maybe your high frequencies are high in SPL, while your midrange and lows are not.
> Turning up the subwoofer some might help, because with more bass the volume control is often not set as high, and the high frequencies won't be as penetratingly harsh.
> Almost everyone with Audyssey (which I love*;* don't get me wrong!) ends up turning up the bass above the level at which Audyssey sets it. This boost ranges from +2 dB to +10 dB! If you boost at the subwoofer, do so at the level control on the subwoofer itself, rather than at the AVR or pre-pro, to avoid clipping the line driver in the AVR/pre-pro. All of this is a matter of *reference vs. preference. * Audyssey attempts to provide you with *reference*, which is a good thing in that it gets the kinks out of your frequency response curve, as well as eliminating the gradual rises or declines. But, there are a couple of reasons why more bass is needed to provide most people with their *preference.* *1)* Most rock, metal, and pop recordings are recorded with attenuated bass, and midrange and treble higher, to allow the recording levels to be higher. This is part of the Loudness Wars. Many recording engineers don't like it, but the suits seem to want it, so it is still around (Google The Missing Octave by Chris A, as well as his other remastering -- or "de-mastering"-- threads). Most classical and jazz disks are less often screwed up that way. Relatively few soundtracks on Blu-ray or DVD have that problem, but there are some, e.g., Lawrence of Arabia (brass too bright -- bass boost to bring up the drums works well), How the West Was Won (the smile box version is too bright -- forget the other one), The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (strings too bright), The Man Who Would Be King (harsh -- it was perfect in the theater and good on vinyl, but really screechy on DVD). *2) *Research by Harman and others has indicated that most people not only favor a house curve like the one below, but, in some cases, will think that such a curve sounds "natural" or "flat."
> View attachment 3083918
> 
> You might want to cover that beautiful glass topped coffee table with an attractive cloth pad.
> Window curtains?
> Try sitting on a pillow (temporarily!) to see if the balance changes a la Chris K's point in Feri's (mogorf's) post.
> Put absorbers at first reflection points?


Some awesome pointers here. Thanks very much. I will try all off these. I posed this same question in the ML forum and there is a lot of crossover with recommendations and advice. Thank you! My ears are still sensitive and I have a hearing test tomorrow, and a follow up with a specialist on Friday. Hopefully my ears are recovered by then and I can begin treatment and testing! Thank you everyone. I'll report back!


----------



## raul7

Hi Guys, I have a question re Audyssey, I was talking to a friend of mine, he said 
"You have to run Audyssey everytime you make a change to the room, not only furniture adjustment but like if you hang a new poster or picture frame on the wall, run it again." Is this true? seems like way too much work, and also like where do you stop? what If I add a bunch of plate on my coffee table?
It makes sense to me to re-run it if I move furniture that would move the MLP to a new location , but seriously running everytime when a new poster goes on wall? or picture frame is moved? 

Thanks for your time.


----------



## pbz06

raul7 said:


> Hi Guys, I have a question re Audyssey, I was talking to a friend of mine, he said
> "You have to run Audyssey everytime you make a change to the room, not only furniture adjustment but like if you hang a new poster or picture frame on the wall, run it again." Is this true? seems like way too much work, and also like where do you stop? what If I add a bunch of plate on my coffee table?
> It makes sense to me to re-run it if I move furniture that would move the MLP to a new location , but seriously running everytime when a new poster goes on wall? or picture frame is moved?
> 
> Thanks for your time.


ha, no that's a little overboard. It's a judgement call, especially how "critical" the listening room is and if the changes will affect anything. I wouldn't worry about posters and magazines etc. Only furniture like tables and couches, or if the speakers are movied.

I


----------



## Bookworm370

raul7 said:


> Hi Guys, I have a question re Audyssey, I was talking to a friend of mine, he said
> "You have to run Audyssey everytime you make a change to the room, not only furniture adjustment but like if you hang a new poster or picture frame on the wall, run it again." Is this true? seems like way too much work, and also like where do you stop? what If I add a bunch of plate on my coffee table?
> It makes sense to me to re-run it if I move furniture that would move the MLP to a new location , but seriously running everytime when a new poster goes on wall? or picture frame is moved?
> 
> Thanks for your time.


If you did that, then you'd have to rerun Audyssey every time a friend came over and sat on your couch or your 4 dogs came into the living room. Rooms change, it's up to you determine if major components, new reflective pictures, furniture movements, new curtains, etc.


----------



## Andy922

Audyssey is about as good as ypao. Total garbage.


----------



## mag914

Andy922 said:


> Audyssey is about as good as ypao. Total garbage.


Is it really? I thought XT32 was good. What's best?


----------



## pbz06

mag914 said:


> Is it really? I thought XT32 was good. What's best?


XT32 is fantastic; don't listen to the trolls.


----------



## raul7

Hi Guys, I have a 5.1.2 system
Front L/R & Center : ProMonitor 1000 (Definitive Technology) 
Surround L/R : ProMonitor 800 (Definitive Technology)
ATMOS/L/R: Polk Audio ATRIUM5
I do have a Sub.
Receiver: Denon AVR-X2700H 

When I run the Audyssey, my Speaker distances is almost perfect based on me measuring them myself, however, Here is what it sets as my crossovers: 
Front L/R : 110
Center: 150
Surround: 120
ATMOS 40

Curious, is this normal? considering all 3 front speakers are identical, why Center is at 150? 

Thank you!


----------



## pbz06

raul7 said:


> Hi Guys, I have a 5.1.2 system
> Front L/R & Center : ProMonitor 1000 (Definitive Technology)
> Surround L/R : ProMonitor 800 (Definitive Technology)
> ATMOS/L/R: Polk Audio ATRIUM5
> I do have a Sub.
> Receiver: Denon AVR-X2700H
> 
> When I run the Audyssey, my Speaker distances is almost perfect based on me measuring them myself, however, Here is what it sets as my crossovers:
> Front L/R : 110
> Center: 150
> Surround: 120
> ATMOS 40
> 
> Curious, is this normal? considering all 3 front speakers are identical, why Center is at 150?
> 
> Thank you!


It's not abnormal. If for example your L and R speakers are a little closer to the back wall, they might have some gains. Also, perhaps your C speaker might be slightly lower than ear level, where the response might be measured as lower from the Audyssey mic.

Those prominitors have like 5.25" woofers, so generally around 110-150hz isn't that eye raising either.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Yep, I have 3 identical Definitive Mythos Eights up front on the wall surrounding TV, L and R are above ear level while center is below. Audyssey nails the distances as nearly equal but the levels vary by 1 or 2 db. It's right. For my room, the end section of my condo living room, it (or as I understand it, my Denon receiver) chooses crossovers that are way too low, 40hz. I change them to reasonable 80hz.


----------



## circumstances

Hi.

I bought a Denon x3700h a few months ago.

I'm using it in preamp only mode with an Anthem MCA 50 amp, in a 5.1 system.

My sub is an old Revel B15.

It has no gain control or volume control (that I can see).

It has three sets of EQ on the back panel (for 3 separate frequency ranges).

I set all three to flat before running my Audyssey.

I have no idea if that was the right move or not.

Furthermore, everything sounds good, but I can't help feeling that if I had any clue how to fine tune the EQ on the sub, the low end could sound even better.

I'm also not positive I have the low pass filter and high pass filter switches set how they ideally should be set.

Any thoughts?


----------



## pbz06

circumstances said:


> Hi.
> 
> I bought a Denon x3700h a few months ago.
> 
> I'm using it in preamp only mode with an Anthem MCA 50 amp, in a 5.1 system.
> 
> My sub is an old Revel B15.
> 
> It has no gain control or volume control (that I can see).
> 
> It has three sets of EQ on the back panel (for 3 separate frequency ranges).
> 
> I set all three to flat before running my Audyssey.
> 
> I have no idea if that was the right move or not.
> 
> Furthermore, everything sounds good, but I can't help feeling that if I had any clue how to fine tune the EQ on the sub, the low end could sound even better.
> 
> I'm also not positive I have the low pass filter and high pass filter switches set how they ideally should be set.
> 
> Any thoughts?


There's a "Level" knob on your sub.

How are you connecting your sub?

Also this review seems to have good info


SoundStage! Equipment Review - Revel Performa B15 Subwoofer (12/2002)


----------



## circumstances

pbz06 said:


> There's a "Level" knob on your sub.
> 
> How are you connecting your sub?
> 
> Also this review seems to have good info
> 
> 
> SoundStage! Equipment Review - Revel Performa B15 Subwoofer (12/2002)


Hi.

There are 3 "level" knobs.

One for each of the three EQs.

Since I left all 3 EQs flat, I left those levels flat as well.

Unless there is another "level" knob I'm missing.

I actually have that review on paper. I printed it out in 2003 when I was buying the sub 

I have the two sockets where it says "input" on the back of the sub connected to the "pre-out" subwoofer 1 socket on the back of the x3700h via an rca cable (one plug on the AVR side, two plugs on the sub side).


----------



## edzyy

*Seems like audyssey doesn't like playing with Pro amps. No matter where my channel attenuators are on the amp, audyssey always gives me -12 level. 

Is that normal? My bookshelves are incredibly inefficient hence the need for the amp. *


----------



## garygarrison

edzyy said:


> *Seems like audyssey doesn't like playing with Pro amps. No matter where my channel attenuators are on the amp, audyssey always gives me -12 level.
> 
> Is that normal? My bookshelves are incredibly inefficient hence the need for the amp. *


This happens with certain other configurations, as well. In my case, with normal (separate) power amps (NAD C272, 150 w.p.c.) and very, very efficient speakers [conservatively, 101 dB, 1w (2.83v into 8 Ohms) @ 1 Meter]*; *without intervention, I got -12 every time. The solution was to *temporairly* use 12 dB attenuators, while I ran Audyssey. According to Chris K. (CTO and co-designer of Audyssey), I then had two choices*: *1) leave the attenuators in, or 2) take them out and consider reference level (usually 0) to now be -12. The second option alters how Dynamic EQ works, but I don't like DEQ, and don't use it, and usually run movies about 5 to 7 dB below reference, so I don't need it. I used option 2.


----------



## edgeh2o

Audyssey icon on the front of receiver is no longer lit up... Denon X3500.

Better explanation: I run 5 speakers and no sub currently. Audyssey set my front bookshelfs and center to Large. After Audyssey, I set them to Small (which automatically set sub as "1"). After that, the Audyssey icon on the front of my receiver went away, and I can no longer access Audyssey settings like Level Offset. It seems I'm forced to accept having my front speakers as Large/Full-Range if I want Audyssey engaged, which IMO is dangerous at the output I like to play my speakers at.


----------



## mag914

edgeh2o said:


> Audyssey icon on the front of receiver is no longer lit up... Denon X3500.
> 
> Better explanation: I run 5 speakers and no sub currently. Audyssey set my front bookshelfs and center to Large. After Audyssey, I set them to Small (which automatically set sub as "1"). After that, the Audyssey icon on the front of my receiver went away, and I can no longer access Audyssey settings like Level Offset. It seems I'm forced to accept having my front speakers as Large/Full-Range if I want Audyssey engaged, which IMO is dangerous at the output I like to play my speakers at.


Are you perhaps in a specific sound mode? Some disable Audyysey. Also if you don't have a sub then you would want your speakers set to large because there is no sub to send the low frequencies to, if it's set to small then you'll just completely lose any bass. (as far as I know... I'm not a pro)


----------



## pbarach

mag914 said:


> Also if you don't have a sub then you would want your speakers set to large....


His/her signature shows an SVS PB12-NSD, which is a capable sub, so that's not the issue.


----------



## drh3b

edgeh2o said:


> Audyssey icon on the front of receiver is no longer lit up... Denon X3500.
> 
> Better explanation: I run 5 speakers and no sub currently. Audyssey set my front bookshelfs and center to Large. After Audyssey, I set them to Small (which automatically set sub as "1"). After that, the Audyssey icon on the front of my receiver went away, and I can no longer access Audyssey settings like Level Offset. It seems I'm forced to accept having my front speakers as Large/Full-Range if I want Audyssey engaged, which IMO is dangerous at the output I like to play my speakers at.


Get the app, $20, use it to run Audyssey, use the app to reduce bass output at the point you are worried about. That way, you can keep the speakers at large, while protecting them. Either that, or run Audyssey with a subwoofer if you have one, and then just don't use the subwoofer. Audyssey won't know you turned it off or took it away.


----------



## edgeh2o

mag914 said:


> Are you perhaps in a specific sound mode? Some disable Audyysey. Also if you don't have a sub then you would want your speakers set to large because there is no sub to send the low frequencies to, if it's set to small then you'll just completely lose any bass. (as far as I know... I'm not a pro)


No specific sound mode. I'd just prefer to have a HPF on my front left and front right for safety reasons. Don't want to overdrive the drivers at high output. But when I select small, Audyssey gets disabled.


----------



## edgeh2o

pbarach said:


> His/her signature shows an SVS PB12-NSD, which is a capable sub, so that's not the issue.


Currently not running a sub. Just haven't updated my signature.


----------



## drh3b

edgeh2o said:


> No specific sound mode. I'd just prefer to have a HPF on my front left and front right for safety reasons. Don't want to overdrive the drivers at high output. But when I select small, Audyssey gets disabled.


That's the way it's designed. You'll have to do one of the two options I posted about. It simply won't allow you to run the mains as small without a subwoofer. As soon as you make those mains small, it will add a subwoofer. And, since your calibration was run without a subwoofer, the calibration is not correct anymore, as far as Audyssey is concerned, that's why it's off. The same thing would happen if you added Atmos or rear surround speakers in speaker configuration, it would shut off access to Audyssey, since the calibration wouldn't be correct for that configuration.


----------



## filmgeek47

Hey guys,
Looking for some general guidance on how to improve frequency response in my setup. My current REW measurement of my front L speaker plus subwoofer is attached (smoothed to 1/6).









I'm looking at people's smooth graphs of their frequency response and wondering what I'm doing wrong. I've got two subwoofers in the best positions I could manage in the room (centered on the right side wall, and in the rear left corner). Speakers are Martin Logan Motion series (Motion 40, 30, 4i surrounds and motion FX rears). Running dual Dynamo 700ws.

It seems like my biggest problem is the bass response, which balloons & peaks quite a bit in my small space. Any suggestions? Should I be thinking about buying a mini-dsp to better integrate the subs? I've tried messing with distance settings a bit, but just blindly throwing different distance settings in for the subs didn't seem to produce anything better than what Audyssey spat out.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey guys,
> Looking for some general guidance on how to improve frequency response in my setup. My current REW measurement of my front L speaker plus subwoofer is attached (smoothed to 1/6).
> View attachment 3087051
> 
> 
> I'm looking at people's smooth graphs of their frequency response and wondering what I'm doing wrong. I've got two subwoofers in the best positions I could manage in the room (centered on the right side wall, and in the rear left corner). Speakers are Martin Logan Motion series (Motion 40, 30, 4i surrounds and motion FX rears). Running dual Dynamo 700ws.
> 
> It seems like my biggest problem is the bass response, which balloons & peaks quite a bit in my small space. Any suggestions? Should I be thinking about buying a mini-dsp to better integrate the subs? I've tried messing with distance settings a bit, but just blindly throwing different distance settings in for the subs didn't seem to produce anything better than what Audyssey spat out.


Is this with or without Audyssey? Is your room highly reflective (lots of hard surfaces)?

You should definitely do some more work on sub placement and/or alignment. What you have currently is not going to sound very good...you have a huge suck-out between 25-80Hz.

This video will walk you through the process of setting up multiple subs using REW (using a MiniDSP, but if you have SubEQ HT you can adjust delays between subs in the AVR):


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Is this with or without Audyssey? Is your room highly reflective (lots of hard surfaces)?
> 
> You should definitely do some more work on sub placement and/or alignment. What you have currently is not going to sound very good...you have a huge suck-out between 25-80Hz.
> 
> This video will walk you through the process of setting up multiple subs using REW (using a MiniDSP, but if you have SubEQ HT you can adjust delays between subs in the AVR):


Sadly, that's with Audyssey. It's a dedicated 12x16x8 room. No windows. I build 5 acoustic panels with the 2" Owens corning material, which I placed on the early reflection points on the side walls, and one centered on the back wall to try and reduce the nasty echo I had initially. I've also got a thin carpet and a big fabric wall to wall sofa bed that takes up a third of the room, so my surfaces should (?) be okay. No real diffusion though.

I did a sub crawl, and measured each sub independently. The first sub is in the best position in the room (centered on the right side wall). I don't have an ideal spot for the second sub, due to the size of our sofa and the limited space in the room. The back corner was really the only place it could go that wasn't completely horrible (The front of the room was abysmal, and it's taken up entirely by my front speakers and media center). I'm open to suggestions, but not sure what I could do to improve placement.

Thanks for the video, I'll give that a watch.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Sadly, that's with Audyssey. It's a dedicated 12x16x8 room. No windows. I build 5 acoustic panels with the 2" Owens corning material, which I placed on the early reflection points on the side walls, and one centered on the back wall to try and reduce the nasty echo I had initially. I've also got a thin carpet and a big fabric wall to wall sofa bed that takes up a third of the room, so my surfaces should (?) be okay. No real diffusion though.
> 
> I did a sub crawl, and measured each sub independently. The first sub is in the best position in the room (centered on the right side wall). I don't have an ideal spot for the second sub, due to the size of our sofa and the limited space in the room. The back corner was really the only place it could go that wasn't completely horrible (The front of the room was abysmal, and it's taken up entirely by my front speakers and media center). I'm open to suggestions, but not sure what I could do to improve placement.
> 
> Thanks for the video, I'll give that a watch.


What does your response look like if you flip the phase on one of the subs?

Can you share the individual sub measurements (15-300Hz, no smoothing)?


----------



## Alan P

Also, if this is a dedicated theater and the majority of the time you are watching movies (as opposed to listening to music), you should be most concerned with the center+subs measurement....not the FL or FR+subs.


----------



## Alan P

And...two more questions; where are your crossovers set, and are you using the Audyssey app?


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> What does your response look like if you flip the phase on one of the subs?
> 
> Can you share the individual sub measurements (15-300Hz, no smoothing)?


Here you go:

Sub 1 (back wall)









sub 2 (right side wall):










Here's the full response measured via center channel:









and with sub 2 flipped 90:










and with sub 2 flipped 180:


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> And...two more questions; where are your crossovers set, and are you using the Audyssey app?


All crossovers at 100hz (that's as low as my side and top height surrounds go so I crossed over everything there).
and yes, using the app.


----------



## LastButNotLeast

filmgeek47 said:


> The first sub is in the best position in the room (centered on the right side wall). I don't have an ideal spot for the second sub, due to the size of our sofa and the limited space in the room. The back corner was really the only place it could go that wasn't completely horrible (The front of the room was abysmal, and it's taken up entirely by my front speakers and media center). I'm open to suggestions, but not sure what I could do to improve placement.


Stack the subs, smaller one on top of the larger, centered on the right side wall.
Michael


----------



## ctsv510

@filmgeek47 Care to share your REW .mdat files? And what kind of subs do you have? Do they have variable phase/time delay or just 0/180?


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Sub 1 (back wall)
> View attachment 3087071
> 
> 
> sub 2 (right side wall):
> 
> View attachment 3087072
> 
> 
> Here's the full response measured via center channel:
> View attachment 3087073
> 
> 
> and with sub 2 flipped 90:
> View attachment 3087074
> 
> 
> 
> and with sub 2 flipped 180:
> View attachment 3087075


Why are your center+sub graphs dropping off a cliff at 100Hz??

Please scale the sub graphs to only show 15-300hz.....or,share your MDAT. 😊


----------



## pbz06

filmgeek47 said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Sub 1 (back wall)
> View attachment 3087071
> 
> 
> sub 2 (right side wall):
> 
> View attachment 3087072
> 
> 
> Here's the full response measured via center channel:
> View attachment 3087073
> 
> 
> and with sub 2 flipped 90:
> View attachment 3087074
> 
> 
> 
> and with sub 2 flipped 180:
> View attachment 3087075


Your combined response and post-Audyssey looks similar to what mine was when I ran them as dual subs with Audyssey, and before I manually aligned them with each other (with minidsp 2x4 hd) and then running them in Audyssey as a single virtual subwoofer.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Why are your center+sub graphs dropping off a cliff at 100Hz??
> 
> Please scale the sub graphs to only show 15-300hz.....or,share your MDAT. 😊


Honestly I'm not sure. I took these kind of quickly so I could have messed something up somewhere. It's not letting me attach mdat... forgive my ignorance but how do I go about that?


----------



## filmgeek47

LastButNotLeast said:


> Stack the subs, smaller one on top of the larger, centered on the right side wall.
> Michael


Will stacking them give me any advantage in leveling out room response? That's my main goal, single sub was plenty loud, just not even at all.


----------



## filmgeek47

Nevermind, renamed it.


----------



## ctsv510

filmgeek47 said:


> Nevermind, renamed it.


Location is an issue here. 

What kind of subs are these?
If you can't move them, do you have a way to delay the right side sub by 16.5 ms via the dials on the back? 
What AVR do you have?
Are you using 2 sub outs on your AVR or 1 out going to a splitter?


----------



## filmgeek47

ctsv510 said:


> Location is an issue here.
> 
> What kind of subs are these?
> If you can't move them, do you have a way to delay the right side sub by 16.5 ms via the dials on the back?
> What AVR do you have?
> Are you using 2 sub outs on your AVR or 1 out going to a splitter?


I know, I'm just pretty limited in location options. I can use the AVR distance settings to adjust, I believe. Avr is a Marantz Sr7012, subs are dynamo 700s. Two sub outs, corrected via Audyssey.


----------



## garygarrison

filmgeek47 said:


> Nevermind, renamed it.


When I open your attachment, I get Martian, with no translation. Your earlier attachments work fine for me.



Alan P said:


> Why are your center+sub graphs dropping off a cliff at 100Hz?


To filmgeek47 Is your center set for small or large? Could the bass from the center, _*only*_, be phase cancelling the bass from the subs below 100 Hz in regard to augmenting the center's bass only? If the center happens to be set for LARGE, try running it with the sub when the center is set for small. 

If you run REW the way most folk do, it's with your calibrated mic in *one* position only. Depending on many factors, including the room reflectivity, positions of furniture, etc., Audyssey may be doing quite a bit of compromising with its "fuzzy logic" [a _good _thing] algorithm to make your curve a good fit for *all 8 positions*, while possibly being less ideal for the *one* position in which you put your REW mic. Someone once asked Chris K. how to "check" the curve, given all the above. He said that putting the REW mic in all 8 positions the Audyssey mic was once in (difficult!), and averaging them (REW has an averaging button*; *first overlay, then average) *might* produce a curve that resembles the broad reality of the room response, but that an average was not as good as their proprietary fuzzy logic approach. People on this forum suggested that for a single listener, one could array the Audyssey mic positions in a circle around where the listener's head would be, except for mic position #1, which should be in the center of a straight line through the potential, single listener's head, from ear to ear. For a group of listeners, the mics should be put wherever Audyssey suggests in their latest set of instructions.

You've got some mild high frequency anomalies. In *my* room, full range Audyssey FLAT deals with these better than plain Audyssey (Reference), but your room might be very different. YMMV! I don't know if some acoustic diffusers would help, or not. I've got a few, as well as many bookcases with books and pottery, and other stuff that diffuses. Most people use DIY diffusers, rather than pay the exorbitant prices, but here are some that are interesting looking*:





















*

















Or, to go to extremes*: *


----------



## filmgeek47

garygarrison said:


> When I open your attachment, I get Martian, with no translation. Your earlier attachments work fine for me.
> 
> You've got some mild high frequency anomalies. In *my* room, full range Audyssey FLAT deals with these better than plain Audyssey (Reference), but your room might be very different. YMMV! I don't know if some acoustic diffusers would help, or not. I've got a few, as well as many bookcases with books and pottery, and other stuff that diffuses. Most people use DIY diffusers, rather than pay the exorbitant prices, but here are some that are interesting looking*: *


If you rename the file extension on the attachment, you should be able to open it in rew. It won't let you attach .mdat files. Thanks for the flat suggestion, I'll try it and see what it does.

In terms of the bumpiness of my curve, I'm less worried by the higher frequencies, as to my ears they sound pretty great. The bass has never sounded right though. Your explanation makes a lot of sense though.


----------



## filmgeek47

ctsv510 said:


> Location is an issue here.
> 
> What kind of subs are these?
> If you can't move them, do you have a way to delay the right side sub by 16.5 ms via the dials on the back?
> What AVR do you have?
> Are you using 2 sub outs on your AVR or 1 out going to a splitter?


I'm all for trying that, but I'm not sure how to convert that delay into a distance change. I know it's doable, but I'm having trouble finding the math.


----------



## ctsv510

filmgeek47 said:


> I'm all for trying that, but I'm not sure how to convert that delay into a distance change. I know it's doable, but I'm having trouble finding the math.


Looks like you only have 0, 90 or 180° options. The last file you posted, was that audyssey on or off? If you run again with audyssey off and each sub independently, at each of their 3 phase settings (6 total measurements) we can find the best option for those locations (for this mic location).

Then you'll be able to run audyssey again and see how it works out. Then move on to making sure your center integration is good.


----------



## filmgeek47

ctsv510 said:


> Looks like you only have 0, 90 or 180° options. The last file you posted, was that audyssey on or off? If you run again with audyssey off and each sub independently, at each of their 3 phase settings (6 total measurements) we can find the best option for those locations (for this mic location).
> 
> Then you'll be able to run audyssey again and see how it works out. Then move on to making sure your center integration is good.


that was with audyssey on. I’ll take those measurements and report back. Thanks!


----------



## filmgeek47

ctsv510 said:


> Looks like you only have 0, 90 or 180° options. The last file you posted, was that audyssey on or off? If you run again with audyssey off and each sub independently, at each of their 3 phase settings (6 total measurements) we can find the best option for those locations (for this mic location).
> 
> Then you'll be able to run audyssey again and see how it works out. Then move on to making sure your center integration is good.


Okay. mdat file attached. Here's what I did:
-turned off Audyssey,
-confirmed all speakers are set to small
-ran measurements from REW selecting the LFE speaker channel
-Turned off one sub, ran measurements for 0, 180, and 90 degree phase switch settings
-repeated for the other sub.
-Crossover on the AVR was set to 100hz, hence why the measurements drop off at that point.

Seems like all of these measurements are pretty bad (huge boost in the 20-50 region from both positions). Not sure where to go from here.


----------



## filmgeek47

Also, I solved the mystery on my center channel. My AVR defaults to having Audyssey sub containment set to 4. I included a measurement with Audyssey on with that setting disabled.


----------



## Lesmor

filmgeek47 said:


> Also, I solved the mystery on my center channel. My AVR defaults to having Audyssey sub containment set to 4. I included a measurement with Audyssey on with that setting disabled.


You don't seem to be using a timing reference when running REW sweeps?
the timing of your subs is off I suggest you start to use a timing reference

what distance settings did Audyssey come back with?

you only seem to be posting individual subwoofer sweeps I cant see one with both subs together ?


----------



## ctsv510

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay. mdat file attached. Here's what I did:
> -turned off Audyssey,
> -confirmed all speakers are set to small
> -ran measurements from REW selecting the LFE speaker channel
> -Turned off one sub, ran measurements for 0, 180, and 90 degree phase switch settings
> -repeated for the other sub.
> -Crossover on the AVR was set to 100hz, hence why the measurements drop off at that point.
> 
> Seems like all of these measurements are pretty bad (huge boost in the 20-50 region from both positions). Not sure where to go from here.


You're probably exciting a room mode around 34 Hz in the positions they're in. You're going to be compromising here. Your last option to try to combat that is to physically turn the subs 90° and 180°. Sometimes small position differences can make just enough difference.

If you can't move them at all, try running Audyssey with the Right Wall sub set to 90° and Back Wall sub at 0° and then show us how that looks.

Ideally, I'd run Audyssey with bot set to 90° as well and compare that.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay. mdat file attached. Here's what I did:
> -turned off Audyssey,
> -confirmed all speakers are set to small
> -ran measurements from REW selecting the LFE speaker channel
> -Turned off one sub, ran measurements for 0, 180, and 90 degree phase switch settings
> -repeated for the other sub.
> -Crossover on the AVR was set to 100hz, hence why the measurements drop off at that point.
> 
> Seems like all of these measurements are pretty bad (huge boost in the 20-50 region from both positions). Not sure where to go from here.


When you were measuring the subs with different phase settings, were you measuring just a single sub? If so, there should be literally no difference in the measurements. Phase will only affect the interaction between speakers.

However, a couple of your measurements do show differences..._"bk wall sub phase 0 Feb 3"_ is especially strange as the output below 45Hz is virtually non-existent. 

Are you confident that your measurement technique isn't flawed in some way? Are you moving the mic at all between measurements (you are using a mic boom, correct)? Do you have either of the subs set to "Auto-On"?

Here are the measurements I would like to see, all with Audyssey off:

Each sub separately (using REW CH4)
Both subs combined, phase set to "0" on both
Both subs combined, phase set to "180" on one of the subs

Make sure that DEQ, DVol and LFC are off as well for these measurements.

EDIT: Also, make sure to take you measurements at least +40dB above the noise floor of your room. The CC+Subs measurements in your MDAT are only around 70dB which isn't high enough to generate useful waterfall graphs.


----------



## filmgeek47

Lesmor said:


> You don't seem to be using a timing reference when running REW sweeps?
> the timing of your subs is off I suggest you start to use a timing reference
> 
> what distance settings did Audyssey come back with?
> 
> you only seem to be posting individual subwoofer sweeps I cant see one with both subs together ?


Hey there,
I'm getting help from multiple people at once, so maybe I lost something in translation, but it seemed like someone was asking me to measure each sub "individually" with the different phase settings.
I'd never used the timing reference in rew. Do I want loopback, or acoustic? 
With both subs set to 0 phase, it set the distances at 11.2 and 10.1, the trims at -12 each (the volume dials on each sub are just below 50%).

The center channel speaker measurement was with both subs together.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey there,
> I'm getting help from multiple people at once, so maybe I lost something in translation, but it seemed like someone was asking me to measure each sub "individually" with the different phase settings.
> I'd never used the timing reference in rew. Do I want loopback, or acoustic?
> With both subs set to 0 phase, it set the distances at 11.2 and 10.1, the trims at -12 each (the volume dials on each sub are just below 50%).
> 
> The center channel speaker measurement was with both subs together.


If Audyssey set your subs at -12dB, you will need to lower the gain on the subs and re-run. -12 is the lower limit, so you don't know if Audyssey wanted to set them at -12, -15, or -20.

When you get to the Audyssey sub level matching screen, shoot for around 80dB and that should give you an initial trim level well into the negative numbers. You want to stay in the negative (-11 is ideal) as to reduce the chance of clipping the subwoofer amp at spirited listening levels.

You can just run the first 3 mic positions and hit "calculate" until you have an acceptable trim level on both subs. Then run the full calibration.


----------



## filmgeek47

ctsv510 said:


> You're probably exciting a room mode around 34 Hz in the positions they're in. You're going to be compromising here. Your last option to try to combat that is to physically turn the subs 90° and 180°. Sometimes small position differences can make just enough difference.
> 
> If you can't move them at all, try running Audyssey with the Right Wall sub set to 90° and Back Wall sub at 0° and then show us how that looks.
> 
> Ideally, I'd run Audyssey with bot set to 90° as well and compare that.


Are the individual sub measurements I'm providing what you were suggesting I measure? I did notice that the phase settings didn't really seem to change anything in the graphs, with one exception.

I did try turning them when I setup both subs initially, and this seemed to result in the smoothest response of my options (I'm not sure that I played with the phase much, so that may be worth investigating).
I've got two other positions available in the room. Currently, the right wall sub is more like a third of the way up the wall from my front speakers (i.e. 2/3 of the way from my MLP). I've got a position I can free up on the opposite wall, that's about 1/3 down the wall from the MLP, so I can try measuring from there. 
The rear sub can also technically be moved to the other back corner, but when I measured that didn't seem to be of much benefit, and my wife tends to sit about a foot away from there, and she's not a bass head, so I'd rather avoid that corner if possible 

When I'm looking for new locations, should I always be measuring both subs together (i.e. comparing the locations against each other) or should I just take individual sub measurements in different spots and look for the smoothest response?


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> When I'm looking for new locations, should I always be measuring both subs together (i.e. comparing the locations against each other) or should I just take individual sub measurements in different spots and look for the smoothest response?


You want two locations that compliment each other. This doesn't necessarily mean that each position will provide a smooth response. For instance, if one location has a peak at 30Hz, but the other has a dip at 30Hz they will combine to produce a flat response.

You want the combined response to have the least amount of dips as possible. Peaks are fine because they can be easily EQ'ed out by Audyssey.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> When you were measuring the subs with different phase settings, were you measuring just a single sub? If so, there should be literally no difference in the measurements. Phase will only affect the interaction between speakers.
> 
> However, a couple of your measurements do show differences..._"bk wall sub phase 0 Feb 3"_ is especially strange as the output below 45Hz is virtually non-existent.
> 
> Are you confident that your measurement technique isn't flawed in some way? Are you moving the mic at all between measurements (you are using a mic boom, correct)? Do you have either of the subs set to "Auto-On"?
> 
> Here are the measurements I would like to see, all with Audyssey off:
> 
> Each sub separately (using REW CH4)
> Both subs combined, phase set to "0" on both
> Both subs combined, phase set to "180" on one of the subs
> 
> Make sure that DEQ, DVol and LFC are off as well for these measurements.
> 
> EDIT: Also, make sure to take you measurements at least +40dB above the noise floor of your room. The CC+Subs measurements in your MDAT are only around 70dB which isn't high enough to generate useful waterfall graphs.


So I took these measurements somewhat quickly. I normally have the mic on a stand, but I was using a tiny tripod on top of the center cushion. I'm 90% sure it didn't move, but I'll switch back to the stand for future measurements. The subs are set to auto-on but I played a level check beforehand to be sure they were active. DEQ DVOL and LFC have been disabled, but I'll take those three measurements with the volume turned up.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> You want two locations that compliment each other. This doesn't necessarily mean that each position will provide a smooth response. For instance, if one location has a peak at 30Hz, but the other has a dip at 30Hz they will combine to produce a flat response.
> 
> You want the combined response to have the least amount of dips as possible. Peaks are fine because they can be easily EQ'ed out by Audyssey.


You're quick! Thanks for your help. When I get back to running Audyssey I'll be sure to tweak the sub volume as you suggested. So I can take an individual measurement at each location, and then compare the graphs afterwards to see which locations might complement each other? In any case, I'll send you the measurements you asked for at the existing locations, and if I find other spots later today that seem promising I'll send measurements for those too.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> You're quick! Thanks for your help. When I get back to running Audyssey I'll be sure to tweak the sub volume as you suggested. *So I can take an individual measurement at each location, and then compare the graphs afterwards to see which locations might complement each other?* In any case, I'll send you the measurements you asked for at the existing locations, and if I find other spots later today that seem promising I'll send measurements for those too.


Yes. You can even combine two measurements mathematically in REW with the Trace Arithmetic function and get a very accurate representation of their final combined response.

While viewing the All SPL tab, hit Controls in the upper right, then Trace Arithmetic. Choose your A and B measurements and A+B, then hit Generate.


----------



## Lesmor

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey there,
> I'm getting help from multiple people at once, so maybe I lost something in translation, but it seemed like someone was asking me to measure each sub "individually" with the different phase settings.
> I'd never used the timing reference in rew. Do I want loopback, or acoustic?
> With both subs set to 0 phase, it set the distances at 11.2 and 10.1, the trims at -12 each (the volume dials on each sub are just below 50%).
> 
> The center channel speaker measurement was with both subs together.


Although in good faith you are probably getting too many suggestions
for my part you should try using a acoustic timing reference with every measurement
it is clear from what you posted that your subs are not time aligned

I suggest measuring
front sub on its own
rear sub on its own
then both subs together
with phase at 0 on both subs
I would also measure the center speaker on its own, and then center + both subs


----------



## Alan P

Lesmor said:


> .......you should try using a acoustic timing reference with every measurement............


I concur.


----------



## ctsv510

I'll back off and let you guys figure it out. Good luck!


----------



## acosmichippo

Hi all,

I'm having a hell of a time finding a replacement audessey mic for my Denon AVR-S720W. The mic part number is 32401000800AD. Nothing on eBay, and all the online vendors I have found, including Denon, seem to just order from "encompass". My order with them has been backordered for 2 months now.

Someone just suggested that the DM-A409 is equivalent to the 32401000800AD that I'm looking for - can anyone here confirm? Are all the "Eiffel Tower" mics the same?

Thank you!

edit: never mind, I see the PN 32401000800AD is the model ACM1HB which the original post says is interchangeable with the DM-A409.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> When you were measuring the subs with different phase settings, were you measuring just a single sub? If so, there should be literally no difference in the measurements. Phase will only affect the interaction between speakers.
> 
> However, a couple of your measurements do show differences..._"bk wall sub phase 0 Feb 3"_ is especially strange as the output below 45Hz is virtually non-existent.
> 
> Are you confident that your measurement technique isn't flawed in some way? Are you moving the mic at all between measurements (you are using a mic boom, correct)? Do you have either of the subs set to "Auto-On"?
> 
> Here are the measurements I would like to see, all with Audyssey off:
> 
> Each sub separately (using REW CH4)
> Both subs combined, phase set to "0" on both
> Both subs combined, phase set to "180" on one of the subs
> 
> Make sure that DEQ, DVol and LFC are off as well for these measurements.
> 
> EDIT: Also, make sure to take you measurements at least +40dB above the noise floor of your room. The CC+Subs measurements in your MDAT are only around 70dB which isn't high enough to generate useful waterfall graphs.


Okay! Here's another batch of measurements. As suggested:

-raised volume on AVR from -25 to -11.

-Both subs separately 
-Both subs together each at phase =0
-Both subs together, right wall sub phase =180

Also included Both subs at 0-0 plus Center, and Center with no subs.


----------



## filmgeek47

Lesmor said:


> Although in good faith you are probably getting too many suggestions
> for my part you should try using a acoustic timing reference with every measurement
> it is clear from what you posted that your subs are not time aligned
> 
> I suggest measuring
> front sub on its own
> rear sub on its own
> then both subs together
> with phase at 0 on both subs
> I would also measure the center speaker on its own, and then center + both subs


Just posted new measurements.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay! Here's another batch of measurements. As suggested:
> 
> -raised volume on AVR from -25 to -11.
> 
> -Both subs separately
> -Both subs together each at phase =0
> -Both subs together, right wall sub phase =180
> 
> Also included Both subs at 0-0 plus Center, and Center with no subs.


I would definitely go with one sub at 180, provides a more EQ friendly response and has positive summation across most of the passband. Should look pretty flat after running Audyssey.

The response for your center channel leaves a bit to be desired....how do you have it placed? A pic or two would be helpful here.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> I would definitely go with one sub at 180, provides a more EQ friendly response and has positive summation across most of the passband. Should look pretty flat after running Audyssey.
> 
> The response for your center channel leaves a bit to be desired....how do you have it placed? A pic or two would be helpful here.


I've got some tinkering time right now, so I'll try a 3 pos Audyssey round and see what I come out with. I just took some measurements at my "alternate" positions, attached. The BK RT is sort of a last resort...

Center channel is on my media center, placed right on the edge, directly below the screen, angled up with some stacked furniture feet so the tweeter hits ear level.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> I've got some tinkering time right now, so I'll try a 3 pos Audyssey round and see what I come out with. I just took some measurements at my "alternate" positions, attached. The BK RT is sort of a last resort...
> 
> Center channel is on my media center, placed right on the edge, directly below the screen, angled up with some stacked furniture feet so the tweeter hits ear level.
> View attachment 3087508
> View attachment 3087509


Are these measurements with both subs running? If so, either of the "LT" graphs are clear winners! If I had to choose, "LT side FF Feb 4" FTW!

I see nothing wrong with your speaker placement. Could be SBIR causing that dip in your CC response around 160-180Hz. Placing a bass trap behind (if possible) could bring that area closer to flat.






SBIR calculator


SBIR calculator




tripp.com.au


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Are these measurements with both subs running? If so, either of the "LT" graphs are clear winners! If I had to choose, "LT side FF Feb 4" FTW!
> 
> I see nothing wrong with your speaker placement. Could be SBIR causing that dip in your CC response around 160-180Hz. Placing a bass trap behind (if possible) could bring that area closer to flat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SBIR calculator
> 
> 
> SBIR calculator
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tripp.com.au


Those are all individual measurements (I just powered off one sub and moved the other one around). Sadly, I don't think I've got the space for a trap behind the speaker (and it probably wouldn't pass the aesthetics test :-( Given the alternate speaker placement measurements, is there a different combo you'd recommend? I'm running the existing positions with the RT sub at 180 through Audyssey right now.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Those are all individual measurements (I just powered off one sub and moved the other one around). Sadly, I don't think I've got the space for a trap behind the speaker (and it probably wouldn't pass the aesthetics test :-( Given the alternate speaker placement measurements, is there a different combo you'd recommend? I'm running the existing positions with the RT sub at 180 through Audyssey right now.


The two measurements labeled "LT" are by far the best you've shown me. Those two combined would be a thing of beauty. 

The red trace below is what that would look like, and that's _before _any EQ!


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> The two measurements labeled "LT" are by far the best you've shown me. Those two combined would be a thing of beauty.
> 
> The red trace below is what that would look like, and that's _before _any EQ!
> 
> 
> View attachment 3087512


So I should have explained my labeling system. The last part of the file names is the facing direction so, those two measurements are actually the same position, just one facing front, and one facing to the side. I don't think I have space to fit both subs in the area. Is there another spot that would pair well with one of those LT measurements?


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> So I should have explained my labeling system. The last part of the file names is the facing direction so, those two measurements are actually the same position, just one facing front, and one facing to the side. I don't think I have space to fit both subs in the area. Is there another spot that would pair well with one of those LT measurements?


Can you stack them there??

These two would work well too, just one big peak to bring down (red trace). You can play around with the combos yourself with the Trace Arithmetic as I outlined earlier.


----------



## Alan P

However, with that combo above, you will be losing a lot of output below 30Hz as compared to stacking in that LT spot.....

Maybe time to think about a single, larger sub...?


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> However, with that combo above, you will be losing a lot of output below 30Hz as compared to stacking in that LT spot.....
> 
> Maybe time to think about a single, larger sub...?


I can feel the upgrade-itis already... Funnily enough, I just got the second sub like six months ago because I was trying to even out my base response, lol. Never tried that particular spot.

Here's what Audyssey did with the old existing placements with the right sub at 180. Thoughts?

EDIT: To be clear, that's the 2 subs plus center with Audyssey on.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> I can feel the upgrade-itis already... Funnily enough, I just got the second sub like six months ago because I was trying to even out my base response, lol. Never tried that particular spot.
> 
> Here's what Audyssey did with the old existing placements with the right sub at 180. Thoughts?
> 
> EDIT: To be clear, that's the 2 subs plus center with Audyssey on.


Doesn't look horrible, but you've got a fairly large dip between 25-90Hz (-10dB at 43Hz)....I would prefer to see that area much flatter.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Doesn't look horrible, but you've got a fairly large dip between 25-90Hz (-10dB at 43Hz)....I would prefer to see that area much flatter.


Me too. I'm running Audyssey with the existing back sub as is, and the RT sub moved to the LT position.


----------



## filmgeek47

I've been debating selling the two subs and upgrading to something from Rythmik in the ~$800 range. With this new found single sub position, I'm wondering if that might be a decent idea. Then again, I usually leave LFC on (at the lowest setting) as my wife's often watching TV in the next room. Not sure if I'd hear a big difference.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> I've been debating selling the two subs and upgrading to something from Rythmik in the ~$800 range. With this new found single sub position, I'm wondering if that might be a decent idea. Then again, I usually leave LFC on (at the lowest setting) as my wife's often watching TV in the next room. Not sure if I'd hear a big difference.


I'd try stacking your existing subs there first. Could be issues with localization with a single sub position.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Doesn't look horrible, but you've got a fairly large dip between 25-90Hz (-10dB at 43Hz)....I would prefer to see that area much flatter.


Okay, I think I'm in business. Here's the latest measurement. Audyssey on, center channel both subs, with the RT sub moved to the LT position and right facing (RF)


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay, I think I'm in business. Here's the latest measurement. Audyssey on, center channel both subs, with the RT sub moved to the LT position and right facing (RF)


That is a thing of beauty!!! And the waterfall looks fantastic!











Decay is well under control over about 35Hz.











Now, the million dollar question; how does it _sound_??

Personally, I would bump up the sub trim +6dB or so, but that's down to personal preference.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay, I think I'm in business. Here's the latest measurement. Audyssey on, center channel both subs, with the RT sub moved to the LT position and right facing (RF)


👍👍👍👍👍










We got a flatliner 😎


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Now, the million dollar question; how does it _sound_??


I'll tell you as soon as I finish the full Audyssey calibration  Thank you Alan (and all other participant audio gurus) for your wizardry.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Now, the million dollar question; how does it _sound_??


SO much better. I think I can actually get away with turning off LFC entirely. The boominess is gone. Gonna play with my settings a bit more tomorrow, I think I could do with raising the sub levels even a bit higher than I have. Thanks again.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> SO much better. I think I can actually get away with turning off LFC entirely. The boominess is gone. Gonna play with my settings a bit more tomorrow, I think I could do with raising the sub levels even a bit higher than I have. Thanks again.


So happy to hear that! How much have you raised the sub level so far?


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> So happy to hear that! How much have you raised the sub level so far?


I’ve barely gotten to listen to it yet, but I bumped it up +2.5.


----------



## filmgeek47

So guys, I hate to do this, but now that my bass sounds so much better, it's got me wondering if and what I could do to improve the FR in the upper registers... Do most rooms look like the rodent's heart monitor that is my upper frequency range? I've got five 2" 2'x4' DIY acoustic panels, but I'm wondering if they're misplaced, or if I've got too few of them?

The room is a windowless rectangle (12x15x8) with two panels on either side wall, and one centered on the back wall, with two full range acoustic traps about four feet high in the back corners.


----------



## garygarrison

To deal with the higher frequencies it is best, IMO, to aim for "Smooth," but *preference*, *not reference*, and a lot of that depends on substantial bass.

A fair amount of research has indicated that what sounds* "smooth," "flat"* or *"natural"* to most listeners, is a room target curve that has no major kinks -- unless you like kinky --* BUT *is about 10 dB louder at the bass end than at the treble end, perhaps with a slight bump from 30 to 125 Hz. This is known as the Harman curve. So you might start by using Audyssey, then imposing something close to the Harman curve (below) to use as the starting point, then slowly, with a great variety of music and movies, adjust to your taste. It only took me about 3 months.

What I did was to run Audyssey, then played back using Audyssey Flat, running it full range 20 to 20K HZ, then imposed the Harman curve. I found I liked a bit more high treble, "air" around instruments, "shimmering highs," especially on cymbals, orchestra bells, violins, etc., so I ended up with a curve that was like Harman from the bottom to about 2.5K, then curving back up to flat, with no further decline, up to the very top.

The Harman Curve -- try it with, and without turning down the top.








Here is another company's version*:*


----------



## Lesmor

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay! Here's another batch of measurements. As suggested:
> 
> -raised volume on AVR from -25 to -11.
> 
> -Both subs separately
> -Both subs together each at phase =0
> -Both subs together, right wall sub phase =180
> 
> Also included Both subs at 0-0 plus Center, and Center with no subs.


I see that working with @Alan P you have finally got a good result enjoy


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> So guys, I hate to do this, but now that my bass sounds so much better, it's got me wondering if and what I could do to improve the FR in the upper registers... Do most rooms look like the rodent's heart monitor that is my upper frequency range? I've got five 2" 2'x4' DIY acoustic panels, but I'm wondering if they're misplaced, or if I've got too few of them?
> 
> The room is a windowless rectangle (12x15x8) with two panels on either side wall, and one centered on the back wall, with two full range acoustic traps about four feet high in the back corners.


The first thing I would do is to take some close-mic measurements of the speakers. Position the mic about a foot in front of each speaker to reduce the effects of the room as much as possible and do a full-range sweep. This will tell you if the speakers are performing as designed....which I believe that they are (see below).

Here is the quasi-anechoic response of your speakers (from Sound & Vision):










Motion 40 L/R (purple trace), Motion 30 center channel (green trace), Motion 15 surround (red trace), and Dynamo 1000 subwoofer (blue trace).

Doesn't really look that far off from your in-room measurement:











What I want to know is, what happened to your "almost perfect" bass response from yesterday?? Is this new MDAT you posted _old _measurements?

This is yesterday vs. today:


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> What I want to know is, what happened to your "almost perfect" bass response from yesterday?? Is this new MDAT you posted _old _measurements?
> 
> This is yesterday vs. today:
> 
> View attachment 3087780


‘Thanks, I’ll give those a measure.
RE the bass Response, I had to move both subwoofers a bit to rerun my cables (everything was strewn across the room). I think they got shifted a few inches. I’ll have to nudge them a bit.


----------



## ctsv510

filmgeek47 said:


> ‘Thanks, I’ll give those a measure.
> RE the bass Response, I had to move both subwoofers a bit to rerun my cables (everything was strewn across the room). I think they got shifted a few inches. I’ll have to nudge them a bit.


I don't think most realize that it can be a game of inches, especially when you're talking interaction between multiple subs. I actually use a small piece of painters tape to mark corners of the subs so if and when I need to slide them around that I can find the exact original location.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> ‘Thanks, I’ll give those a measure.
> RE the bass Response, I had to move both subwoofers a bit to rerun my cables (everything was strewn across the room). I think they got shifted a few inches. I’ll have to nudge them a bit.


Ahh, that could be it.

Have you done, or are you familiar with the Sub Distance Tweak? If your crossover is at 90Hz, the SDT could probably bring that area back to flat.

Sub Distance Tweak:

Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
Add to the sub distance setting (both subs equally if using an AVR with dual sub calibration) in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
Re-measure
Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
You can repeat the process with the L or R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Ahh, that could be it.
> 
> Have you done, or are you familiar with the Sub Distance Tweak? If your crossover is at 90Hz, the SDT could probably bring that area back to flat.
> 
> Sub Distance Tweak:
> 
> Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
> Add to the sub distance setting (both subs equally if using an AVR with dual sub calibration) in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
> Re-measure
> Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover
> You can repeat the process with the L or R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


Will do. If it can save me re-running the full calibration I may try that first.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Will do. If it can save me re-running the full calibration I may try that first.


Also, don't forget that if you are only measuring a single point in space and your mic is not in the exact same spot, your measured frequency response may deviate.

For this reason, it is recommended to take a cluster of measurements around the MLP (similar to the Audyssey mic positions) and then average the results. This will give you a more realistic picture of what you will be hearing. After all, our heads aren't locked in a vise when we are listening. 

That being said, I don't really think a few inches either way would make the difference I saw from last night's measurements to this morning's. That is a pretty large deviation, but anything is possible.

EDIT: You could also try just turning Audyssey off and measuring, then compare that to yesterday's pre-Audyssey measurement. Maybe the full run of Audyssey made the difference.....


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Also, don't forget that if you are only measuring a single point in space and your mic is not in the exact same spot, your measured frequency response may deviate.
> 
> For this reason, it is recommended to take a cluster of measurements around the MLP (similar to the Audyssey mic positions) and then average the results. This will give you a more realistic picture of what you will be hearing. After all, our heads aren't locked in a vise when we are listening.
> 
> That being said, I don't really think a few inches either way would make the difference I saw from last night's measurements to this morning's. That is a pretty large deviation, but anything is possible.
> 
> EDIT: You could also try just turning Audyssey off and measuring, then compare that to yesterday's pre-Audyssey measurement. Maybe the full run of Audyssey made the difference.....


Okay. Took a ton of measurements with different distance settings. Not sure any of them are better. Also tried turning off Audyssey. It's definitely not quite the same flat curve I had earlier yesterday, but it's not WAY off, so I'm thinking it's some combo of:
-Moved both subs a little out of ideal placement
- Audyssey did something a little bit unique
-the crossover being set at 90 is perhaps just a worse crossover point?

I'm gonna compare the individual measurements of each sub to the spots they were in "before" and see which one (or both) is off and by how much.

EDIT: Oops, forgot to attach:


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> That being said, I don't really think a few inches either way would make the difference I saw from last night's measurements to this morning's. That is a pretty large deviation, but anything is possible.


I think you're right. Here's the individual subs, compared against the individual measurements prior to them being moved. All Audyssey off.

Not a big change.

Maybe I need to rerun Audyssey?


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Okay. Took a ton of measurements with different distance settings. Not sure any of them are better. Also tried turning off Audyssey. It's definitely not quite the same flat curve I had earlier yesterday, but it's not WAY off, so I'm thinking it's some combo of:
> -Moved both subs a little out of ideal placement
> - Audyssey did something a little bit unique
> -the crossover being set at 90 is perhaps just a worse crossover point?
> 
> I'm gonna compare the individual measurements of each sub to the spots they were in "before" and see which one (or both) is off and by how much.
> 
> EDIT: Oops, forgot to attach:


It's not obvious to you that 16.3' is much better than 9.3'??  You gained about 12-13dB around the crossover point!


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> It's not obvious to you that 16.3' is much better than 9.3'??  You gained about 12-13dB around the crossover point!
> 
> View attachment 3087872


Right, but now it's elevated by +5 instead of lowered by -7ish. Still doesn't seem nearly as good as what I had yesterday, no? Do you think it's worth re-running the full calibration?


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> I think you're right. Here's the individual subs, compared against the individual measurements prior to them being moved. All Audyssey off.
> 
> Not a big change.
> 
> Maybe I need to rerun Audyssey?


Yeah, your "lt" sub barely changed (probably slight deviation in mic position), but your "bk" sub dropped about -5dB in level over the entire range....maybe you bumped the gain while moving it...?

Yes, any time you move a speaker/sub you need to re-run Audyssey.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Yeah, your "lt" sub barely changed (probably slight deviation in mic position), but your "bk" sub dropped about -5dB in level over the entire range....maybe you bumped the gain while moving it...?
> 
> Yes, any time you move a speaker/sub you need to re-run Audyssey.
> 
> View attachment 3087873
> 
> 
> View attachment 3087874


To be clear, I did run Audyssey after moving both subs. The really flat line yesterday was only a 3-position run. Then I nudged both subs a bit to clean up the cable runs before running the full 8 position sweep. I'm wondering if I was positioning the mic too far away from the 1st position, causing it to shift the frequency corrections in a negative way.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Right, but now it's elevated by +5 instead of lowered by -7ish. Still doesn't seem nearly as good as what I had yesterday, no? Do you think it's worth re-running the full calibration?


I would rather have a +5dB hump than a -10dB suckout. 

You could always try the SDT with a range of crossovers...you're currently at 90Hz, right? Try 80, 100 and 110Hz. In the end, go with the one that sounds the best to you!


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> To be clear, I did run Audyssey after moving both subs. The really flat line yesterday was only a 3-position run. Then I nudged both subs a bit to clean up the cable runs before running the full 8 position sweep. I'm wondering if I was positioning the mic too far away from the 1st position, causing it to shift the frequency corrections in a negative way.


Yeah, best practices dictate a tight cluster around the 1st mic position. No more than 12" away is recommended.

Just an FYI, I have been doing only 3 mic positions for years as I have found no advantage over the full 8 in my room and to my ears.


----------



## Alan P

Alan P said:


> It's not obvious to you that 16.3' is much better than 9.3'??  You gained about 12-13dB around the crossover point!
> 
> View attachment 3087872


Also, forgot to mention that with the 16.3' response above, if you were to add 6dB to the sub trim, the response below crossover would be quite flat.


----------



## Alan P

Look at it this way...if you take 85dB as your baseline, you are basically +/-3dB from 20-150Hz. That is quite acceptable....outstanding even.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Also, forgot to mention that with the 16.3' response above, if you were to add 6dB to the sub trim, the response below crossover would be quite flat.


I'm remembering now, when I first started to run the full pass last night, I'd forgotten to turn on the back sub, and mucked with the volume knob before realizing what was wrong. I'm going to tweak the knob to get that sub back to the right volume, then try rerunning the whole sweep again.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> I'm remembering now, when I first started to run the full pass last night, I'd forgotten to turn on the back sub, and mucked with the volume knob before realizing what was wrong. I'm going to tweak the knob to get that sub back to the right volume, then try rerunning the whole sweep again.


Ahh-ha! That would explain it. Don't forget to do the SDT again as well.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Ahh-ha! That would explain it. Don't forget to do the SDT again as well.


Here's what I came out with. Still a hair less flat than before (I'm guessing 3-position might be better for my room, but I'm running out of willpower to recalibrate again). I think 18.2 is the best result?


----------



## exm

Here's my room, another couch against the wall situation. Marantz AV8802 5.2.6 setup. Do you agree with the calibration position as shown below? As you can see, 2/4, 1/5, 3/6 are nearly identical. Thanks.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Here's what I came out with. Still a hair less flat than before (I'm guessing 3-position might be better for my room, but I'm running out of willpower to recalibrate again). I think 18.2 is the best result?


For me, it would be between 16.2, 17.2 and 18.2. Go with the one that sounds the best to your ears.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> For me, it would be between 16.2, 17.2 and 18.2. Go with the one that sounds the best to your ears.


Alan and his fellow wizards, one last thing, if you guys don’t mind. I listen at a low-ish volume (-25). Do you use Dynamic EQ and/or volume compression? I’m pretty settled on light volume compression, but I’m trying to find a way to keep some low bass rumble without the full dose I get with dynamic EQ on (trying to keep the family happy). Most movies sound great with Dynamic volume at light/DEQ on, but I throw on a deep action movie, and it feels like I’m shaking the house down. Then I turn on LFC, and even at 1 I’ve lost the low bass entirely.

Would I be better off turning off DEQ and using the audyssey app to manually tweak up the curve at the low and high end?


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Alan and his fellow wizards, one last thing, if you guys don’t mind. I listen at a low-ish volume (-25). Do you use Dynamic EQ and/or volume compression? I’m pretty settled on light volume compression, but I’m trying to find a way to keep some low bass rumble without the full dose I get with dynamic EQ on (trying to keep the family happy). Most movies sound great with Dynamic volume at light/DEQ on, but I throw on a deep action movie, and it feels like I’m shaking the house down. Then I turn on LFC, and even at 1 I’ve lost the low bass entirely.
> 
> Would I be better off turning off DEQ and using the audyssey app to manually tweak up the curve at the low and high end?


I would never use DynVol. Can't stand any kind of compression. Have you tried adjusting the DynEQ RLO?


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> I would never use DynVol. Can't stand any kind of compression. Have you tried adjusting the DynEQ RLO?


Its not ideal, but our theater room shares a wall with our family room, so I’m often watching something big and actiony while my wife is watching TV next door.

I will say, when I measured what dynamic Eq actually does at my preferred volume, I was shocked by how much it boosts the bass!

I messed with RLO briefly, but it just didn’t sound ”good”, rather thin and lifeless. I suppose I could try again at -5 RLO, and perhaps add some of the bass back in? Might also trying disabling volume compression and turning the LFC back on low. 

I guess the TLDR of what I’m after is; should I avoid turning off dynamic EQ entirely, and switch to directly editing the audyssey curve? It’s tempting to be able to just dial in exactly what bass level I want, but with a near infinite canvass to mess with I’m not sure where to start.


----------



## pbz06

filmgeek47 said:


> Its not ideal, but our theater room shares a wall with our family room, so I’m often watching something big and actiony while my wife is watching TV next door.
> 
> I will say, when I measured what dynamic Eq actually does at my preferred volume, I was shocked by how much it boosts the bass!
> 
> I messed with RLO briefly, but it just didn’t sound ”good”, rather thin and lifeless. I suppose I could try again at -5 RLO, and perhaps add some of the bass back in? Might also trying disabling volume compression and turning the LFC back on low.
> 
> I guess the TLDR of what I’m after is; should I avoid turning off dynamic EQ entirely, and switch to directly editing the audyssey curve? It’s tempting to be able to just dial in exactly what bass level I want, but with a near infinite canvass to mess with I’m not sure where to start.


It's completely preference, so if you like it then keep it. I personally use it with my own tweaks. It just works great for me, mainly because it applies the same curve/compensation in all the speakers so they blend in evenly. When I have it off, I need like a 8-10dB boost but it doesn't sound smooth with my towers. The closest I can get is with manual curve using ratbuddy, but i listen to so many volumes that i like the dynamic aspect of it.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Its not ideal, but our theater room shares a wall with our family room, so I’m often watching something big and actiony while my wife is watching TV next door.
> 
> I will say, when I measured what dynamic Eq actually does at my preferred volume, I was shocked by how much it boosts the bass!
> 
> I messed with RLO briefly, but it just didn’t sound ”good”, rather thin and lifeless. I suppose I could try again at -5 RLO, and perhaps add some of the bass back in? Might also trying disabling volume compression and turning the LFC back on low.
> 
> I guess the TLDR of what I’m after is; should I avoid turning off dynamic EQ entirely, and switch to directly editing the audyssey curve? It’s tempting to be able to just dial in exactly what bass level I want, but with a near infinite canvass to mess with I’m not sure where to start.


It will take a while to get to where you want to be....it did for all of us. Just keep experimenting and you'll get there eventually. 

DEQ boosts the bass +2.2dB for every - 5MV under reference (0MV).


----------



## jackbuzz

Question? New to audyssey with app. I just ran the setup, made my corrections and choices, then sent to avr. When viewing audyssey in avr all previous calibration numbers are still there not the new ones. When I tried to send again the app said it had all ready been sent, did I want to change settings or cancel?????


----------



## jackbuzz

jackbuzz said:


> Question? New to audyssey with app. I just ran the setup, made my corrections and choices, then sent to avr. When viewing audyssey in avr all previous calibration numbers are still there not the new ones. When I tried to send again the app said it had all ready been sent, did I want to change settings or cancel?????


Never mind tablet wasn't connecting with avr, had to do a soft reset.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Is anyone with the app and full correction using Rolloff 2? I've looked at the Pro guide and it says it's for larger rooms, which I have (basically an L shape basement). But my gear is in one half of the long part of the L, so my actual listening area is smaller.

Curious as to what people think.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Is anyone with the app and full correction using Rolloff 2? I've looked at the Pro guide and it says it's for larger rooms, which I have (basically an L shape basement). But my gear is in one half of the long part of the L, so my actual listening area is smaller.
> 
> Curious as to what people think.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


That's what I've been using, but hard to tell a difference to be honest. Not much content in the 10khz-20khz range, and the difference is subtle.


----------



## JohnWB5678

exm said:


> Here's my room, another couch against the wall situation. Marantz AV8802 5.2.6 setup. Do you agree with the calibration position as shown below? As you can see, 2/4, 1/5, 3/6 are nearly identical. Thanks.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3087898


Could someone answer please as I have a similar question.

Is it ok to have all the measurement points on the couch when up against the wall and when only the couch is used 99% of the time.


----------



## pbz06

JohnWB5678 said:


> Could someone answer please as I have a similar question.
> 
> Is it ok to have all the measurement points on the couch when up against the wall and when only the couch is used 99% of the time.


Yes. The purpose of the 8 points is to get an average reading of the seating position. After the first position, the other 7 locations on the diagram are just recommendations and don't have to be at any exact location or in a particular order. I usually cluster them about 1' apart around the general area where my head will be.


----------



## mabrandt

Just replaced my Onkyo with a Denon S960H. My main speakers are the Klipsch reference premier line, and the sub and surrounds the reference line. I'm trying to determine if my Audyssey mic is bad. The first time I ran it, it said my center was out of phase. I checked everything and reran it, it said the same, so I chose ignore. It got to my right front and then said "*Ambient noise* is *too* high " This is in a quiet, dedicated Home Theater room upstairs in the loft. I unplugged all my inputs and turned off all the lights. I reran it and it got to the right rear and said the same. It also runs the tones 3 times in each speaker, getting louder on each set. After doing this numerous times over 3 days, I got the mic from my old Onkyo and ran the whole test without any trouble. I know the results aren't right, but that indicates to me the mic is bad. Before I call Denon warranty, does this sound right? The receiver itself is wonderful. I have it manually calibrated so I could use it until the Audyssey issue is solved.


----------



## garygarrison

[Nearly] Everyone:

Newer members of this forum, or newer users of Audyssey, may not be aware of two handy pieces of literature that can help considerably, more than any manual I've seen. I'd not hesitate to call them both masterworks.

1) *GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES*
* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems
*(Written by Mike Thomas -- mthomas47 -- and includes much information on Audyssey*). See his "Cliff Notes" section first.

2) "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
Written in convenient question and answer form *by Keith Barnes and a few guest experts*. Some material may be slightly out of date (e.g., the safest level to avoid clipping the subwoofer line driver in the AVR, or, in some cases, the sub input itself, may now be - 5 or less for people who have their Main Volume control high), but the Thomas Tome provides updates.

As they both readily affirm, YMMV.


----------



## fmalczewski

mabrandt said:


> Just replaced my Onkyo with a Denon S960H. My main speakers are the Klipsch reference premier line, and the sub and surrounds the reference line. I'm trying to determine if my Audyssey mic is bad. The first time I ran it, it said my center was out of phase. I checked everything and reran it, it said the same, so I chose ignore. It got to my right front and then said "*Ambient noise* is *too* high " This is in a quiet, dedicated Home Theater room upstairs in the loft. I unplugged all my inputs and turned off all the lights. I reran it and it got to the right rear and said the same. It also runs the tones 3 times in each speaker, getting louder on each set. After doing this numerous times over 3 days, I got the mic from my old Onkyo and ran the whole test without any trouble. I know the results aren't right, but that indicates to me the mic is bad. Before I call Denon warranty, does this sound right? The receiver itself is wonderful. I have it manually calibrated so I could use it until the Audyssey issue is solved.


I had a similar experience with a Denon AVR-X8500H. Running Audyssey with mic that came with it gave me similar sorts of errors, would not work, although perhaps I did get it to work once all the way through, but I would not bet on it. So... I grabbed the mic from my AVR-X7200H and it worked like a charm. For sure the mic from the AVR-X8500H was bad. So yup, your mic is bad. (And wtf anyway with these bad mics. Really Denon?)


----------



## mabrandt

Thanks for the reply. It's kind of what I thought. Unfortunately, I only have the Onkyo mic which is not Audyssey anymore and gives me bad readings. I never got thru the sequence once with the Audyssey mic. I'll call Denon today and hopefully they'll send me a new one.


----------



## fmalczewski

mabrandt said:


> Thanks for the reply. It's kind of what I thought. Unfortunately, I only have the Onkyo mic which is not Audyssey anymore and gives me bad readings. I never got thru the sequence once with the Audyssey mic. I'll call Denon today and hopefully they'll send me a new one.


I'm not sure I did either, it was about a year ago when I briefly had the x8500h. Still using my x7200h (set up with Audyssey Pro).


----------



## StephenMSmith

Is there a recommended app (or actually any app I guess) that I could use to look at an Audyssey export from the app? I want to be able to compare 2 readings side by side, eg. look at the predicted center channel response curve both before and then after some change in my room (which is going to be acoustic panels). Does something like this exist?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

StephenMSmith said:


> Is there a recommended app (or actually any app I guess) that I could use to look at an Audyssey export from the app? I want to be able to compare 2 readings side by side, eg. look at the predicted center channel response curve both before and then after some change in my room (which is going to be acoustic panels). Does something like this exist?











Announcing ratbuddyssey - a tool for tweaking Audyssey...


Cornball name, I know, but it was that, or fraudyssey, and being a bit vain, I went with my name :P Anyway: I like the idea of the MultEQ app, but the execution left me wanting a bit more. I wanted to be able to precisely input my custom target curve points, rather than fiddling with a small...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Alan P

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Announcing ratbuddyssey - a tool for tweaking Audyssey...
> 
> 
> Cornball name, I know, but it was that, or fraudyssey, and being a bit vain, I went with my name :P Anyway: I like the idea of the MultEQ app, but the execution left me wanting a bit more. I wanted to be able to precisely input my custom target curve points, rather than fiddling with a small...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Or, REW. 😊


----------



## StephenMSmith

Got Ratbuddyssy. Is REW also free and usable just to see curve from exported Audyssey files? Wait minute, can I actually use either of these to edit the curves (so much easier on PC than phone) and then send them to receiver??


----------



## genaccmiller

StephenMSmith said:


> Got Ratbuddyssy. Is REW also free and usable just to see curve from exported Audyssey files? Wait minute, can I actually use either of these to edit the curves (so much easier on PC than phone) and then send them to receiver??


REW is used measurements. As in after you have made the setups and changes to levels, crossover etc it can be used to check the setup. This is free.

Audyssey mobile app let's you tweak more settings than what is available on your receiver but is painful to interpolate curve points. This is $20

Ratbuddyssey allows you to make changes to the audyssey settings and easily tweak curves which you can send back to your mobile app and then upload to receiver. This is free.

Minidsp can also be used for PEQ if you intend going the DIY subwoofer route. Minidsp 2x4 hd is $205

The common thread along all of the above is REW to help measure the results of all settings you put in.

And you will need a calibrated microphone. Umik-1 is $89.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## Technology3456

If you want to use two subwoofers, how important is it for your receiver to have EQ function for two subwoofers, not just one and use the same setting for both or whatever?

I have a Yamaha TSR-700 which can do 7.1 max, and I don't know if that is sufficient for two subs or not? Also I may want to upgrade to an atmos receiver, and I don't know if I would need to find one with EQ for two subs, or just one.


----------



## Alan P

Technology3456 said:


> If you want to use two subwoofers, how important is it for your receiver to have EQ function for two subwoofers, not just one and use the same setting for both or whatever?
> 
> I have a Yamaha TSR-700 which can do 7.1 max, and I don't know if that is sufficient for two subs or not? Also I may want to upgrade to an atmos receiver, and I don't know if I would need to find one with EQ for two subs, or just one.


If the subs are going to be placed equidistant to the MLP, you may not see much of an improvement with the ability to calibrate them separately. If the subs will _not _be equidistant to the MLP, then you would most likely benefit from it.

There is also the option of using a MiniDSP with your current AVR to gain the ability to calibrate them separately.


----------



## ctsv510

Technology3456 said:


> If you want to use two subwoofers, how important is it for your receiver to have EQ function for two subwoofers, not just one and use the same setting for both or whatever?
> 
> I have a Yamaha TSR-700 which can do 7.1 max, and I don't know if that is sufficient for two subs or not? Also I may want to upgrade to an atmos receiver, and I don't know if I would need to find one with EQ for two subs, or just one.


Your AVR appears to have two sub pre-outs so you'd be covered there.

Most AVRs with two sub pre-outs will only use them for setting distance/delay and then EQ them as one sub. As AlanP mentioned above, if the subs are equidistant from your main listening position you won't see an advantage of using two sub outs over a Y splitter from a single sub out. So if you found an Atmos receiver with one sub out and your subs are equidistant then there would not really be any concerns.

However, if your subs are NOT equidistant from MLP then you would at least want (1) an AVR with 2 sub outs OR (2) if your subs have delay dials, use a umik-1 microphone and REW to determine the delay to use on one to get them aligned OR (3) if you have delay dials you could use some speed of sound math to measure distance and set the delay dial OR (4) get a miniDSP 2x4 HD to set delay and additional EQ.


----------



## Technology3456

ctsv510 said:


> Your AVR appears to have two sub pre-outs so you'd be covered there.
> 
> Most AVRs with two sub pre-outs will only use them for setting distance/delay and then EQ them as one sub. As AlanP mentioned above, if the subs are equidistant from your main listening position you won't see an advantage of using two sub outs over a Y splitter from a single sub out. So if you found an Atmos receiver with one sub out and your subs are equidistant then there would not really be any concerns.
> 
> However, if your subs are NOT equidistant from MLP then you would at least want (1) an AVR with 2 sub outs OR (2) if your subs have delay dials, use a umik-1 microphone and REW to determine the delay to use on one to get them aligned OR (3) if you have delay dials you could use some speed of sound math to measure distance and set the delay dial OR (4) get a miniDSP 2x4 HD to set delay and additional EQ.


Full disclosure, I only understood about half of this. 

I'm not worried about equal distance so much as, if the best place for one sub in my room is the front, and the best place for the other is the back, and the furniture or the ceilings or the walls create a different environment in the back than the front, do I need the receiver to create different EQ settings for each of my subs?

Like maybe the front one has a slight frequency spike, so the EQ needs to lower that to neutral, but the back sub has a slight frequency dip, so the EQ needs to raise that. With the ability to only EQ one, how do I lower the back and raise the front? If it EQs just the front sub, and decides it needs to lower the spike of the front, then if it applies the same EQ to the back one, it will also lower the dip into an even worse dip, rather than raise it. Or if it simply applies no EQ at all to the back one, then the dip will still be unfixed. 

Or is that not how it works? I didnt understand all your terminology.


----------



## Alan P

Technology3456 said:


> Full disclosure, I only understood about half of this.
> 
> I'm not worried about equal distance so much as, if the best place for one sub in my room is the front, and the best place for the other is the back, and the furniture or the ceilings or the walls create a different environment in the back than the front, do I need the receiver to create different EQ settings for each of my subs?
> 
> Like maybe the front one has a slight frequency spike, so the EQ needs to lower that to neutral, but the back sub has a slight frequency dip, so the EQ needs to raise that. With the ability to only EQ one, how do I lower the back and raise the front? If it EQs just the front sub, and decides it needs to lower the spike of the front, then if it applies the same EQ to the back one, it will also lower the dip into an even worse dip, rather than raise it. Or if it simply applies no EQ at all to the back one, then the dip will still be unfixed.
> 
> Or is that not how it works? I didnt understand all your terminology.


Automated room correction systems never EQ the subs separately, they only set separate distance (delay) and trim (volume) settings for each sub.

In fact, EQ'ing the subs separately is not desirable, all subs in a subwoofer "system" should be EQ'ed as one.


----------



## rocky1

Sorry for the interruption but may I ask since the topic is 2 subs. I have an original ML grotto which allows for a second sub connection. My reciever also has for 2 subs. So if I get a second ML grotto which would be the optimal connection. If it matters. I realize audessey would need to be re done either way.. again sorry for the hijack./interruption 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Technology3456

Alan P said:


> Automated room correction systems never EQ the subs separately, they only set separate distance (delay) and trim (volume) settings for each sub.
> 
> In fact, EQ'ing the subs separately is not desirable, all subs in a subwoofer "system" should be EQ'ed as one.


Alright that makes sense. However I recall a comment saying that with the Yamaha sub, it doesnt EQ both as one, it only EQs one and leaves the other unEQ'd. And the one sub that it did EQ, it wont even show you the settings it made for it so you can copy them manually and apply them manually to the other. It just has some hidden figures EQ'd for the first and there is no way to see them or apply them, either automatically or manually, to the other sub.

Do you know if that's the case? If it is, is it a problem? Do I need a two sub receiver in that case or no?


----------



## ctsv510

rocky1 said:


> Sorry for the interruption but may I ask since the topic is 2 subs. I have an original ML grotto which allows for a second sub connection. My reciever also has for 2 subs. So if I get a second ML grotto which would be the optimal connection. If it matters. I realize audessey would need to be re done either way.. again sorry for the hijack./interruption
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Assuming you're not going to stack the second sub on top of the first, it would be ideal to use the second sub out from your receiver so it can set the proper distance alignment.


----------



## ctsv510

Technology3456 said:


> Alright that makes sense. However I recall a comment saying that with the Yamaha sub, it doesnt EQ both as one, it only EQs one and leaves the other unEQ'd. And the one sub that it did EQ, it wont even show you the settings it made for it so you can copy them manually and apply them manually to the other. It just has some hidden figures EQ'd for the first and there is no way to see them or apply them, either automatically or manually, to the other sub.
> 
> Do you know if that's the case? If it is, is it a problem? Do I need a two sub receiver in that case or no?


I don't know anything about yamaha other than I heard it's not good at sub EQ. I would however find it very hard to believe it gives you 2 sub outs but ignores any EQ on the second. Like AlanP said, it should be using the 2 sub outs to determine distance alignment and probably separate trim values, but they would be EQd as one.


----------



## Alan P

Technology3456 said:


> Alright that makes sense. However I recall a comment saying that with the Yamaha sub, it doesnt EQ both as one, it only EQs one and leaves the other unEQ'd. And the one sub that it did EQ, it wont even show you the settings it made for it so you can copy them manually and apply them manually to the other. It just has some hidden figures EQ'd for the first and there is no way to see them or apply them, either automatically or manually, to the other sub.
> 
> Do you know if that's the case? If it is, is it a problem? Do I need a two sub receiver in that case or no?


The TSR-700 _does no_t support separate calibration of dual subs. The dual sub output on that AVR is just an internal y-splitter and sends the exact same signal (including distance, trim_ and_ EQ) to both outputs.

As ctsv510 said, I am unaware of any Yamaha AVR (or any AVR for that matter) that behaves in the manner you described. Where did you read that? Can you provide a link?


----------



## Alan P

ctsv510 said:


> Assuming you're not going to stack the second sub on top of the first, it would be ideal to use the second sub out from your receiver so it can set the proper distance alignment.


I would add "stack the second sub _or place both subs equidistant to the MLP_". 

This also depends on whether or not the OP's AVR has true dual-sub outputs or just an internal y-splitter.


----------



## Rich 63

What Allen said.


----------



## Technology3456

Alan P said:


> The TSR-700 _does no_t support separate calibration of dual subs. The dual sub output on that AVR is just an internal y-splitter and sends the exact same signal (including distance, trim_ and_ EQ) to both outputs.
> 
> As ctsv510 said, I am unaware of any Yamaha AVR (or any AVR for that matter) that behaves in the manner you described. Where did you read that? Can you provide a link?


I dont know the link, I read it in either one of my topics, or one of the topics on the sub or speaker or receiver forum, around black friday weekend when I was deciding what receiver to get, and I learned that the Yamaha sub only EQs one sub, not two. So I asked well can you write down the values and copy them to the other, or make manual adjustments yourself on the other, and I was told you couldn't. The other behaviors I was just asking "is this how it works? Or is it like this?" to try to understand potential problems. I still don't understand what a receiver that EQs two subs separately has that a receiver that EQs only one does, or why you would only want a receiver that EQs one sub if you plan to use two subs that are placed at different parts of the room. It's just a superfluous feature without benefit for most setups, or what? A big reason to get two subs is to even out the bass response in the room, but if one sub is EQ'd and one isn't, how can you control that they are evening each other out rather than clashing with each other? 

So if you've never heard of subs acting in the way I described in one possible scenario of "is this how it works?" then that probably answers that question that it isn't how they work. I was just trying to pin down how exactly _does _it work because someone kindly already tried to explain it to me, but I didn't get it, so I was trying to communicate in more specific questions and hypotheticals what parts I still didn't understand so they or others could more easily answer in a way that I could understand the aspects I need to understand to make a decision.


----------



## Alan P

Technology3456 said:


> I dont know the link, I read it in either one of my topics, or one of the topics on the sub or speaker or receiver forum, around black friday weekend when I was deciding what receiver to get, and I learned that the Yamaha sub only EQs one sub, not two. So I asked well can you write down the values and copy them to the other, or make manual adjustments yourself on the other, and I was told you couldn't. The other behaviors I was just asking "is this how it works? Or is it like this?" to try to understand potential problems. I still don't understand what a receiver that EQs two subs separately has that a receiver that EQs only one does, or why you would only want a receiver that EQs one sub if you plan to use two subs that are placed at different parts of the room. It's just a superfluous feature without benefit for most setups, or what? A big reason to get two subs is to even out the bass response in the room, but if one sub is EQ'd and one isn't, how can you control that they are evening each other out rather than clashing with each other?
> 
> So if you've never heard of subs acting in the way I described in one possible scenario of "is this how it works?" then that probably answers that question that it isn't how they work. I was just trying to pin down how exactly _does _it work because someone kindly already tried to explain it to me, but I didn't get it, so I was trying to communicate in more specific questions and hypotheticals what parts I still didn't understand so they or others could more easily answer in a way that I could understand the aspects I need to understand to make a decision.


It's fairly simple really. Concerning AVRs with dual subwoofer outputs, there are two types;

1) Two sub outs, but they are an internal y-splitter (both outputs receive the same distance/trim/EQ)
2) Two sub outs that are independent of each other (in terms of distance/trim, still EQ'ed as one)

When you read that "it only EQs one sub"....maybe they meant to say "it only EQs _the one subwoofer output_". Since it is an internal y-splitter on your AVR, it is technically a correct statement.  It must not have been on AVSForum because I looked through your old posts and none of them were in a receiver thread.

The reason AVR manufacturers will include dual sub outs on an AVR that is in reality just an internal y-spliter comes down to marketing...they can then advertise their AVR as "5.2" or "7.2" or" 9.2" etc.


----------



## mogorf

+1 to Alen. Actually ther is no way to EQ subs separatly since any number of subs all belong to one single sub channel.


Alan P said:


> The TSR-700 _does no_t support separate calibration of dual subs. The dual sub output on that AVR is just an internal y-splitter and sends the exact same signal (including distance, trim_ and_ EQ) to both outputs.
> 
> As ctsv510 said, I am unaware of any Yamaha AVR (or any AVR for that matter) that behaves in the manner you described. Where did you read that? Can you provide a link?


Since any number of subs are connected to the same - and only one - sub channel, it makes no sense to EQ any sub individually. Please note!


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> +1 to Alen. Actually *ther is no way to EQ subs separatly* since any number of subs all belong to one single sub channel.


Oh, there _are _ways....still doesn't make it a good idea.


----------



## fatherom

I think his name is spelled "Alan". 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

fatherom said:


> I think his name is spelled "Alan".
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Thanks for havin' my back buddy!


----------



## Technology3456

Alan P said:


> It's fairly simple really. Concerning AVRs with dual subwoofer outputs, there are two types;
> 
> 1) Two sub outs, but they are an internal y-splitter (both outputs receive the same distance/trim/EQ)
> 2) Two sub outs that are independent of each other (in terms of distance/trim, still EQ'ed as one)
> 
> When you read that "it only EQs one sub"....maybe they meant to say "it only EQs _the one subwoofer output_". Since it is an internal y-splitter on your AVR, it is technically a correct statement.  It must not have been on AVSForum because I looked through your old posts and none of them were in a receiver thread.
> 
> The reason AVR manufacturers will include dual sub outs on an AVR that is in reality just an internal y-spliter comes down to marketing...they can then advertise their AVR as "5.2" or "7.2" or" 9.2" etc.


I was talking about the audyssey EQ software, or Yamaha's equivalent or whatever its called. Maybe I misunderstood but my interpretation of what people were telling me was that some receivers will do audyssey EQ, or the Yamaha equivalent, for both your subwoofers, while some will only do it for one subwoofer, and then either apply that same EQ filter to your second subwoofer even if it's in a different part of the room and needs a different EQ filter, or apply none at all. 

Is this not the case?


----------



## Alan P

Technology3456 said:


> I was talking about the audyssey EQ software, or Yamaha's equivalent or whatever its called. Maybe I misunderstood but my interpretation of what people were telling me was that some receivers will do audyssey EQ, or the Yamaha equivalent, for both your subwoofers, while some will only do it for one subwoofer, and then either apply that same EQ filter to your second subwoofer even if it's in a different part of the room and needs a different EQ filter, or apply none at all.
> 
> Is this not the case?


No, that is definitely not the case.


----------



## pbz06

Technology3456 said:


> I was talking about the audyssey EQ software, or Yamaha's equivalent or whatever its called. Maybe I misunderstood but my interpretation of what people were telling me was that some receivers will do audyssey EQ, or the Yamaha equivalent, for both your subwoofers, while some will only do it for one subwoofer, and then either apply that same EQ filter to your second subwoofer even if it's in a different part of the room and needs a different EQ filter, or apply none at all.
> 
> Is this not the case?


No

To put it in other words, it doesn't matter how many subwoofer pre-outs the AVR has. An auto EQ like XT32 Audyssey will EQ the COMBINED LFE mono signal as one (meaning all subwoofers at the same time). What he was trying to explain to you, is if it's a true dual sub out, all that means is the auto EQ can individually adjust each level trim for each subwoofer before it EQ's them...but the EQ process will still be as a combined.

Some AVR's, even if they have dual pre-outs for subwoofers, still treat it as one in the sense that there's only one level adjustment...that's what he was trying to say.


----------



## iafzal

Denon 4400 has dual sub out. It is no just a Y internally. During Audyssey setup it plays each subs separately to get the distance and perhaps the gain set. Once that is done like many have said it calibrates the 2 subs together for each mice position.


----------



## Lesmor

Interesting discussion as I have been puzzled by the marketing literature for the new Anthem MRX 1140 which says
*The MRX1140 has 2 independent sub outputs. When you run ARC, each sub will be calibrated individually plus you can adjust level and phase separately for each subwoofer. *


----------



## iafzal

Lesmor said:


> Interesting discussion as I have been puzzled by the marketing literature for the new Anthem MRX 1140 which says
> *The MRX1140 has 2 independent sub outputs. When you run ARC, each sub will be calibrated individually plus you can adjust level and phase separately for each subwoofer. *


Interesting, different than Audyssey XT32:

_Audyssey Sub EQ HT™ makes the integration of dual subwoofers seamless by first compensating for any level and delay differences between the two subwoofers and then applying Audyssey MultEQ® XT32 to both subwoofers together.
To run Audyssey Sub EQ HT™ you must select “Measure (2 spkrs)” in “Channel Select”._


----------



## Lesmor

iafzal said:


> Interesting, different than Audyssey XT32:
> 
> _Audyssey Sub EQ HT™ makes the integration of dual subwoofers seamless by first compensating for any level and delay differences between the two subwoofers and then applying Audyssey MultEQ® XT32 to both subwoofers together.
> To run Audyssey Sub EQ HT™ you must select “Measure (2 spkrs)” in “Channel Select”._


IMO Audyssey have got it right I cant see Anthems approach working in my room


----------



## mabrandt

mabrandt said:


> Just replaced my Onkyo with a Denon S960H. My main speakers are the Klipsch reference premier line, and the sub and surrounds the reference line. I'm trying to determine if my Audyssey mic is bad. The first time I ran it, it said my center was out of phase. I checked everything and reran it, it said the same, so I chose ignore. It got to my right front and then said "*Ambient noise* is *too* high " This is in a quiet, dedicated Home Theater room upstairs in the loft. I unplugged all my inputs and turned off all the lights. I reran it and it got to the right rear and said the same. It also runs the tones 3 times in each speaker, getting louder on each set. After doing this numerous times over 3 days, I got the mic from my old Onkyo and ran the whole test without any trouble. I know the results aren't right, but that indicates to me the mic is bad. Before I call Denon warranty, does this sound right? The receiver itself is wonderful. I have it manually calibrated so I could use it until the Audyssey issue is solved.


I called Denon support and they agreed the mic was probably bad and sent me a new one. I got the mic from Audyssey yesterday and ran the setup. Went right thru it without a hitch. After using the settings I decided to try moving the sub and did that this morning. I reran Audyssey and now the new mic is now doing the same the original was. This is going back to where I bought it. It sounds great, but if the features I'm paying for don't work, It's got to go back.


----------



## mogorf

mabrandt said:


> I called Denon support and they agreed the mic was probably bad and sent me a new one. I got the mic from Audyssey yesterday and ran the setup. Went right thru it without a hitch. After using the settings I decided to try moving the sub and did that this morning. I reran Audyssey and *now the new mic is now doing the same the original was.* This is going back to where I bought it. It sounds great, but if the features I'm paying for don't work, It's got to go back.


Not sure its the mic. Care to share a couple of photos of your room setup and sub placement? Let's work it out!


----------



## mabrandt

mogorf said:


> Not sure its the mic. Care to share a couple of photos of your room setup and sub placement? Let's work it out!


Thanks, but it is the mic, but I think the avr is damaging the mic somehow. Like I said, first time thru it gave me all readings and everything. All on the first try. Now it is hitting the speakers with 3 sets of tones, each set louder. It doesn't hear my sub at all. I had moved nothing since it ran fine yesterday. I had the same problem with the original mic. I have returned the unit and purchased an x3700h. We'll see how this goes.


----------



## psraj

Have a question with "Loudness management" with Marantz/denon. What is the general consensus ? Is it good or bad to have LM enabled? I tried with a couple of titles, It seems like Loudness Management is mixed bag. Given it only works with Dolby, is it really worth enabling it? Watching Thor in 4k, with Atmos, with LM enabled, the sound track was very laid back and kinda flat. But with John Wick, Atmos, it did seem to have some good depth.


----------



## mag914

mabrandt said:


> Thanks, but it is the mic, but I think the avr is damaging the mic somehow. Like I said, first time thru it gave me all readings and everything. All on the first try. Now it is hitting the speakers with 3 sets of tones, each set louder. It doesn't hear my sub at all. I had moved nothing since it ran fine yesterday. I had the same problem with the original mic. I have returned the unit and purchased an x3700h. We'll see how this goes.


x3700 is an amazing receiver, I'm looking to upgrade my x1600 to it just for XT32. You'll have the best version of Audyssey there is


----------



## Zedekias

I discovered that my loudness management was turned on last night. So I disabled it and it immediately turned quiet and sounded very flat. The exact opposite of what you would expect to happen. Could this have been because I ran audyssey initially with that and another couple off "nanny" options enabled?


Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Zedekias said:


> I discovered that my loudness management was turned on last night. So I disabled it and it immediately turned quiet and sounded very flat. The exact opposite of what you would expect to happen. Could this have been because I ran audyssey initially with that and another couple off "nanny" options enabled?
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


Audyssey disables/overwrites any setting you have when running it (so it wouldn't be that). My guess is you got used to the "compressed" range which can be perceived as louder (and people initially perceive louder as better). When it's disabled, the differences between the quiet and loud parts is more pronounced and can sound quieter during most parts of the movie, especially if you have a high noise floor. Just crank up the volume a little higher and you should be good.


----------



## Zedekias

pbz06 said:


> Audyssey disables/overwrites any setting you have when running it (so it wouldn't be that). My guess is you got used to the "compressed" range which can be perceived as louder. When it's disabled, the differences between the quiet and loud parts is more pronounced and can sound quieter during most parts of the movie, especially if you have a high noise floor. Just crank up the volume a little higher and you should be good.


Thank you for the quick info!

I will play with it more tonight. I only heard it for a few seconds so you very well may be right. One thing I did notice, is that I had the volume with LM on around 72. (normally my max). And when I turned it off it seemed like it was quiet at that level of volume. Is that normal? 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

psraj said:


> Have a question with "Loudness management" with Marantz/denon. What is the general consensus ? Is it good or bad to have LM enabled? I tried with a couple of titles, It seems like Loudness Management is mixed bag. Given it only works with Dolby, is it really worth enabling it? Watching Thor in 4k, with Atmos, with LM enabled, the sound track was very laid back and kinda flat. But with John Wick, Atmos, it did seem to have some good depth.


Loudness management should always be disabled. It's been a thorn in the side of HT enthusiasts for decades now. Why it is still there....and turned ON by default....is beyond me.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Loudness management should always be disabled. It's been a thorn in the side of HT enthusiasts for decades now. Why it is still there....and turned ON by default....is beyond me.


Is Loudness Managment a synonim of DEQ? Well, in that case it has its own role. Not sure it only works with Dolby (what ever that means?), but should also work equally with DTS.


----------



## Alan P

mogorf said:


> Is Loudness Managment a synonim of DEQ? Well, in that case it has its own role. Not sure it only works with Dolby (what ever that means?), but should also work equally with DTS.


Feri,

Loudness Management is separate from DEQ. You'll find it under AUDIO>SURROUND PARAMETER on Denon/Marantz AVRs (not sure where it is located on other AVRs brands, but it is still hiding somewhere!).

It is turned ON by default and only affects Dolby sources (e.g. DD, DD+, TrueHD, Atmos) and you must be playing one of those sources before the setting will show up. When turned on, you get another setting for Dynamic Compression which can be set to Low, Med, High or Auto (Auto is the default). This "feature" limits the dynamic range of the soundtrack (to supposedly more closely mimic a "real" theater) and is an affront to all HT enthusiasts. Like I said before, I don't know why it still exists.

What is even more annoying....you have to turn it OFF for each and every Dolby soundtrack version, and if you use mutiple inputs, for each and every version on each and every input!

I still see new forum members posting "where's my bass on Dolby soundtracks?" and it's almost always that stupid Loudness Management setting.....


----------



## garygarrison

I wondered if Loudness Management was a synonym for Dynamic *Volume*, and found this from Batpig (I presume) who used to be around on the Audyssey forum quite often*:*
batpigworld
1 year ago
*"*Loudness Management is an option *specific to Dolby Digital* audio. It’s a *crude* form of compression that will flatten the sound so there is little change from loud to soft sounds.
You will find it (only when a Dolby signal is input) in Audio > Surround Parameter along with the sub-setting Dynamic Compression.
I would recommend instead using Audyssey Dynamic Volume for this purpose, which is *much more sophisticated and will maintain better sound quality*, plus it has the huge benefit of working on ALL signal inputs not just Dolby encoded.*"*

Given that I hate all volume compression, regard it as being disloyal to the composer, yea verily, double crossing the composer, and that we have neither babies nor guests trying to sleep, I would never use either of them. "To reproduce the blood stirring peaks of a symphony orchestra, you need 115 dB at your ears" -- Paul W Klipsch. It turns out that is true in an ideal room with minimum *early* reflections*;* in a home size room with with the usual range of early reflections the brain tends to interpret the reflections, and the consequent room distortion, as exaggerated extra SPL. THX now says that in my 4,257 cu. ft. room, a "real" (metered) level of about 109 or 110 dB sounds like 115 dB. But in a concert hall or commercial cinema, where the walls and ceiling are far away (or damped), 🔉_*p *_70 dB, _*🔊 fff *_115 dB_*.*_


----------



## psraj

So I disabled Loudness management from Marantz - Sound Parameters. Then re-ran Audyssey again. Now the sound stage is very bright and has definitely has a lot of energy. The bass is very deep, and dialogues are crisp. I had to rewatch Thor 4K to confirm. Before Thor 4K sounded very flat with LM enabled, and marginally OK with LM turned off. I guess Audyssey must be run with LM turned off for good results.


----------



## pbz06

psraj said:


> So I disabled Loudness management from Marantz - Sound Parameters. Then re-ran Audyssey again. Now the sound stage is very bright and has definitely has a lot of energy. The bass is very deep, and dialogues are crisp. I had to rewatch Thor 4K to confirm. Before Thor 4K sounded very flat with LM enabled, and marginally OK with LM turned off. I guess Audyssey must be run with LM turned off for good results.


No, see my post above. Audyssey overrides/defeats all settings when it runs...doesn't matter what you have disabled or enabled.

Thor is known to be underwhelming in the soundtrack, specifically in LFE. In fact, most Marvel movies don't have that great of bass. I wouldn't judge those movies.

You need to test with something like Underground 6 (Netflix), or if movies via disk check out Aquaman.


----------



## Alan P

psraj said:


> So I disabled Loudness management from Marantz - Sound Parameters. Then re-ran Audyssey again. Now the sound stage is very bright and has definitely has a lot of energy. The bass is very deep, and dialogues are crisp. I had to rewatch Thor 4K to confirm. Before Thor 4K sounded very flat with LM enabled, and marginally OK with LM turned off. I guess Audyssey must be run with LM turned off for good results.


As @pbz06 said, settings you change pre-audyssey make no difference. In fact, since you re-ran Audyssey, you may have to go in and disable Loudness Management again.


----------



## psraj

Alan P said:


> As @pbz06 said, settings you change pre-audyssey make no difference. In fact, since you re-ran Audyssey, you may have to go in and disable Loudness Management again.


I did verify that. The Loudness Management was still disabled after running Audyssey. I have Audyssey App in my iPad. There is no option to set Loudness management in the Audyssey app. Only option was the midrange compensation, which I always disable after calibration. But loudness management does show up in Marantz controller app under Sound Parameters. Thats where I disable it from.


----------



## psraj

pbz06 said:


> No, see my post above. Audyssey overrides/defeats all settings when it runs...doesn't matter what you have disabled or enabled.
> 
> Thor is known to be underwhelming in the soundtrack, specifically in LFE. In fact, most Marvel movies don't have that great of bass. I wouldn't judge those movies.
> 
> You need to test with something like Underground 6 (Netflix), or if movies via disk check out Aquaman.


You are 100% right on Disney Marvel atmos quality. And yes, I always use Aquaman, I should have mentioned that. I use the opening scene with windows fluttering in storm and most of the under water scenes as my bench mark.


----------



## mogorf

Alan P said:


> Feri,
> 
> Loudness Management is separate from DEQ. You'll find it under AUDIO>SURROUND PARAMETER on Denon/Marantz AVRs (not sure where it is located on other AVRs brands, but it is still hiding somewhere!).
> 
> It is turned ON by default and only affects Dolby sources (e.g. DD, DD+, TrueHD, Atmos) and you must be playing one of those sources before the setting will show up. When turned on, you get another setting for Dynamic Compression which can be set to Low, Med, High or Auto (Auto is the default). This "feature" limits the dynamic range of the soundtrack (to supposedly more closely mimic a "real" theater) and is an affront to all HT enthusiasts. Like I said before, I don't know why it still exists.
> 
> What is even more annoying....you have to turn it OFF for each and every Dolby soundtrack version, and if you use mutiple inputs, for each and every version on each and every input!
> 
> I still see new forum members posting "where's my bass on Dolby soundtracks?" and it's almost always that stupid Loudness Management setting.....


Thanks Alan for the clarification.


----------



## rocky1

I may have asked this before but cant find the thread. I would like to try and manually calibrate using RS meter and test tones.Just want to compare and see how it sounds compared to audessey settings. In order to do this do i just turn off audessy in the reciever and then go thru the steps? And to go back after i made my comparisons do i just turn audessy back on and my settings will be reenabled or would i need to rerun audessy ? or maybe just resend via the app?


----------



## smitty

Alan P said:


> Feri,
> 
> Loudness Management is separate from DEQ. You'll find it under AUDIO>SURROUND PARAMETER on Denon/Marantz AVRs (not sure where it is located on other AVRs brands, but it is still hiding somewhere!).
> 
> It is turned ON by default and only affects Dolby sources (e.g. DD, DD+, TrueHD, Atmos) and you must be playing one of those sources before the setting will show up. When turned on, you get another setting for Dynamic Compression which can be set to Low, Med, High or Auto (Auto is the default). This "feature" limits the dynamic range of the soundtrack (to supposedly more closely mimic a "real" theater) and is an affront to all HT enthusiasts. Like I said before, I don't know why it still exists.
> 
> What is even more annoying....you have to turn it OFF for each and every Dolby soundtrack version, and if you use mutiple inputs, for each and every version on each and every input!
> 
> I still see new forum members posting "where's my bass on Dolby soundtracks?" and it's almost always that stupid Loudness Management setting.....


I am absolutely flabbergasted that the default setting on my Denon x3700H receiver is to have Loudness Management set to ON. After reviewing about 50 different posts on this on this forum on this issue, I decided to try setting it to OFF tonight and checking a few movies with the Dolby sources that I am familiar with and that I often use to check the sound. Then my wife and I continued watching the first season of The Mandalorian. I was stunned at the difference that turning Loudness Management OFF made in the overall sound, and particularly the bass. As you said, Alan, the bass reappeared. I just can't imagine why the default setting is compressed sound with reduced bass.

A couple of observations. First, I only to to set it OFF for one Dolby source and for one input. Once I turned it off for by Blu-ray input and for Dolby Atmos, it also appeared OFF for Dolby 5.1 and my Media player input. Perhaps this is a feature on 2020 Denon models?

Second, I thought I read somewhere that the Loudness Management feature was just a selection for the sub-menu, which enables you to Dynamic Compression to OFF or to leave it on Auto, or Low, Medium or High. But even after I turned Dynamic Compression to OFF, the Loudness Management feature still needed to be turned OFF as well. I'm not sure why this is, but turning the Loudness Management feature ON and OFF (even with Dynamic Compression set to OFF) operated like a light switch, and made bass appear and disappear depending on the setting.


----------



## pbarach

rocky1 said:


> I may have asked this before but cant find the thread. I would like to try and manually calibrate using RS meter and test tones.Just want to compare and see how it sounds compared to audessey settings. In order to do this do i just turn off audessy in the reciever and then go thru the steps? And to go back after i made my comparisons do i just turn audessy back on and my settings will be reenabled or would i need to rerun audessy ? or maybe just resend via the app?


The only things you can calibrate meaningfully with an RS meter are the trim levels (and it's not accurate when measuring subwoofer output). If you do want to double-check the trim levels, you cannot use the test tones built into your receiver to double-check Audyssey results because Audyssey bypasses them during its calibration. So you'll need test tones from another source such as an Avia, Spears & Munsil, Disney World of Wonder disc, or perhaps a movie that includes test tracks. Put the RS meter on a trip at the main listening position, which the RS mic pointed straight up to the ceiling. Very rarely will you find that the result is more than a dB or two different than the trim levels that Audyssey measured.


----------



## Alan P

pbarach said:


> The only things you can calibrate meaningfully with an RS meter are the trim levels (and it's not accurate when measuring subwoofer output). If you do want to double-check the trim levels, you cannot use the test tones built into your receiver to double-check Audyssey results because Audyssey bypasses them during its calibration. So you'll need test tones from another source such as an Avia, Spears & Munsil, Disney World of Wonder disc, or perhaps a movie that includes test tracks. Put the RS meter on a trip at the main listening position, which the RS mic pointed straight up to the ceiling. Very rarely will you find that the result is more than a dB or two different than the trim levels that Audyssey measured.


Great reply as usual pbarach, I just wanted to clarify that if the OP is intending to listen to his manual calibration with Audyssey turned off, then he can use the internal test tones. If not, you are spot on!


----------



## Alan P

smitty said:


> I am absolutely flabbergasted that the default setting on my Denon x3700H receiver is to have Loudness Management set to ON. After reviewing about 50 different posts on this on this forum on this issue, I decided to try setting it to OFF tonight and checking a few movies with the Dolby sources that I am familiar with and that I often use to check the sound. Then my wife and I continued watching the first season of The Mandalorian. I was stunned at the difference that turning Loudness Management OFF made in the overall sound, and particularly the bass. As you said, Alan, the bass reappeared. I just can't imagine why the default setting is compressed sound with reduced bass.
> 
> A couple of observations. First, I only to to set it OFF for one Dolby source and for one input. Once I turned it off for by Blu-ray input and for Dolby Atmos, it also appeared OFF for Dolby 5.1 and my Media player input. Perhaps this is a feature on 2020 Denon models?
> 
> Second, I thought I read somewhere that the Loudness Management feature was just a selection for the sub-menu, which enables you to Dynamic Compression to OFF or to leave it on Auto, or Low, Medium or High. But even after I turned Dynamic Compression to OFF, the Loudness Management feature still needed to be turned OFF as well. I'm not sure why this is, but turning the Loudness Management feature ON and OFF (even with Dynamic Compression set to OFF) operated like a light switch, and made bass appear and disappear depending on the setting.


It is beyond me why it defaults to ON, but it has as long as I've been into HT (30+ years).

You are correct! It seems that on more modern AVRs once you turn it off, it is off globally...that's helpful. Maybe I mis-remembered, but I know for sure you had to change it for each input on my older Denons.

Yes, I'm not sure what the Dynamic Compression sub-menu does, but switching from Auto>Low>Med>High>Off doesn't really make much difference to my ears....but turning Loudness Management on/off (esp. during loud bass scenes) makes an immediate, drastic difference.


----------



## rocky1

Alan P said:


> Great reply as usual pbarach, I just wanted to clarify that if the OP is intending to listen to his manual calibration with Audyssey turned off, then he can use the internal test tones. If not, you are spot on!


This is what I wanted to try. Just like it was done in the past with the rs meter.. just want to make sure that after doing so that I can just turn audessey back on and everything will be as it was.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> This is what I wanted to try. Just like it was done in the past with the rs meter.. just want to make sure that after doing so that I can just turn audessey back on and everything will be as it was..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Well, you will have to put the speaker trims back to their original settings, but besides that everything will be as it was.

Have you tried just flipping back and forth between Audyssey ON/OFF? This should give you a good idea if you would prefer it off before you go through the trouble of changing the speaker trims. The trim changes won't make a substantial difference in the overall sound.

Keep in mind that the subwoofer level will not be accurate with the SPL meter, the meter isn't accurate down low. The sub will probably read a few dB lower than actual.


----------



## rocky1

Ok so the way I used to do it with the rs meter and test tones was to set the master volume to 0 then apply the test tones and level and get the reading on the meter 75db


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> Well, you will have to put the speaker trims back to their original settings, but besides that everything will be as it was.
> 
> Have you tried just flipping back and forth between Audyssey ON/OFF? This should give you a good idea if you would prefer it off before you go through the trouble of changing the speaker trims. The trim changes won't make a substantial difference in the overall sound.
> 
> Keep in mind that the subwoofer level will not be accurate with the SPL meter, the meter isn't accurate down low. The sub will probably read a few dB lower than actual.


How do you flip audyssey on and off on your receiver?

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> How do you flip audyssey on and off on your receiver?
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


AUDIO>AUDYSSEY>MULT EQ and choose "Off". To turn it back on, choose either "Flat" or "Reference" (whichever is your preference).


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> Ok so the way I used to do it with the rs meter and test tones was to set the master volume to 0 then apply the test tones and level and get the reading on the meter 75db
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, that's how you do it, but it probably won't differ much from Audyssey's results.


----------



## Keenan

Alan P said:


> Loudness management should always be disabled. It's been a thorn in the side of HT enthusiasts for decades now. Why it is still there....and turned ON by default....is beyond me.


This Loudness management setting is not on all Denon AVRs is it? I don't see it on my X6500H.


----------



## fatherom

Keenan said:


> This Loudness management setting is not on all Denon AVRs is it? I don't see it on my X6500H.


Sure is, and it's even mentioned in the manual. 

You only see it when a Dolby signal is currently being processed by the 6500.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> AUDIO>AUDYSSEY>MULT EQ and choose "Off". To turn it back on, choose either "Flat" or "Reference" (whichever is your preference).


Thanks. When you switch it off what does the system take then to run?

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## ctsv510

Keenan said:


> This Loudness management setting is not on all Denon AVRs is it? I don't see it on my X6500H.


It is available but turned off for all my sound modes and inputs that I checked in my X6400H. I don’t recall ever going through and turning it off so it may not be a default on for 2017 AVRs.

OR I turned it off for all the modes and inputs and completely forgot.

EDIT: The manual says it defaults to On, so I must have turned this off at some point.


----------



## Keenan

fatherom said:


> Sure is, and it's even mentioned in the manual.
> 
> You only see it when a Dolby signal is currently being processed by the 6500.


Found it, thanks! Like others, I had no idea that the setting was set to "On', I just turned it off.


----------



## pbarach

Alan P said:


> Well, you will have to put the speaker trims back to their original settings, but besides that everything will be as it was.
> 
> Have you tried just flipping back and forth between Audyssey ON/OFF? This should give you a good idea if you would prefer it off before you go through the trouble of changing the speaker trims. The trim changes won't make a substantial difference in the overall sound.


 I had a x4000 and now I have an x4400. I tried both of these with Audyssey on versus off. Audyssey downsamples high-res files to 48K max, and I wanted to see if the benefits of Audyssey outweighed any sound quality benefits from hi-res files. I have always found that my system sounds better with Audyssey on, regardless of the source's resolution. But your experience may be different.


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> Thanks. When you switch it off what does the system take then to run?
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


When you turn Audyssey off you gain access to the GEQ (Graphic Equalizer). You don't _have _to adjust the GEQ, but with Audyssey off you have the option.

BTW, turning Audyssey off does not affect the trim/distance settings that Audyssey set, it only turns off the EQ filters.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> When you turn Audyssey off you gain access to the GEQ (Graphic Equalizer). You don't _have _to adjust the GEQ, but with Audyssey off you have the option.
> 
> BTW, turning Audyssey off does not affect the trim/distance settings that Audyssey set, it only turns off the EQ filters.


I don't have GEQ on my denon 4400h.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> I don't have GEQ on my denon 4400h.
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


That would be strange....are you sure? Should be right below *Audyssey *in the *Audio *menu. Will be grayed-out until you turn Audyssey off.

EDIT: Right here in your manual:






Graphic EQ AVR-X4400H







manuals.denon.com






EDIT AGAIN: You also have Tone (Bass/Treble) controls:





__





Adjusting the tone (Tone) AVR-X4400H







manuals.denon.com


----------



## Keenan

fatherom said:


> Sure is, and it's even mentioned in the manual.
> 
> You only see it when a Dolby signal is currently being processed by the 6500.


Does changing that setting mean I have to run Audyssey again or does it only apply its "magic" on top of the Audyssey results?


----------



## Alan P

Keenan said:


> Does changing that setting mean I have to run Audyssey again or does it only apply its "magic" on top of the Audyssey results?


It's not "magic", more like "evil sorcery!", but no, you do not have to run Audyssey again. The only setting change that will make you run Audyssey again is the Speaker Config. setting.


----------



## Keenan

Alan P said:


> It's not "magic", more like "evil sorcery!", but no, you do not have to run Audyssey again. The only setting change that will make you run Audyssey again is the Speaker Config. setting.


Yeah, I was being factitious with the "magic" comment!

Thanks!


----------



## pbarach

fatherom said:


> Sure is, and it's even mentioned in the manual.
> 
> You only see it when a Dolby signal is currently being processed by the 6500.


I didn't know I had this setting (I have an x4400h), but when I checked during several different types of Dolby programming, it was always OFF. So either that was the default, or else I turned it off at some point, forgot it, and the setting stayed off through a bunch of updates and microprocessor updates over the years.


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> It's not "magic", more like "evil sorcery!", but no, you do not have to run Audyssey again. The only setting change that will make you run Audyssey again is the Speaker Config. setting.


Alan, I presume it's O.K. to go into Speaker Configuration and switch speakers from LARGE to SMALL to compare the effect, without having to re-run Audyssey, right? Or did I mis-remember? It's been years (about 9) since I've gone into Speaker Configuration. At that time, I changed the speakers from LARGE to SMALL, and left them on SMALL. 

_Also, "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke_


----------



## iafzal

garygarrison said:


> Alan, I presume it's O.K. to go into Speaker Configuration and switch speakers from LARGE to SMALL to compare the effect, without having to re-run Audyssey, right? Or did I mis-remember? It's been years (about 9) since I've gone into Speaker Configuration. At that time, I changed the speakers from LARGE to SMALL, and left them on SMALL.
> 
> _Also, "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke_


Speakers should be set to small when you have a sub and crossover to your liking, typical starting point is 80Hz. You do not re-run Audyssey after this change as it will again set your speakers to Large if they are capable of playing below 80Hz. First thing I do after running Audyssey to set mains to small and cross over to 80Hz.


----------



## SundayAudiophile

I've just used the Adyssey Multi EQ app for the first time, and I don't understand why the target curve contains a roll-off in the base and in the upper high range. I'm sure this has been asked many times, but I couldn't find an answer.

So I guess my question is two-fold:
1) What is the reason they made the curve roll off on both ends way before sub-sonic base and ultra-sonic HF range? If they EQed from 15 Hz down and from 20 kHz up I wouldn't mind, I think that would have made perfect sense.
2) Should I use the curve editor to try to flatten it out on either end? That's very hard to do in the mobile app, btw, thank goodness for the Ratbuddyssey PC software.

An additional observation: I've experimented with setting the filter cut-off frequency (the highest frequency up to which Audyssey will apply EQ) to 20 kHz, to 500 Hz, and finally to 20 Hz. I gave all 3 options a quick listen on a decently detail-rich and bass-rich piece of music, and couldn't hear any difference. Isn't that odd?
I'll try it with a tone generator and an SPL meter tomorrow to see if it really does EQ the base and the treble as expected.


----------



## genaccmiller

Hello - I need some help on an issue I am facing. I implemented PEQ in the 2X4 minidsp. I have two martycube subwoofers. After than I ran Audyssey. Audyssey came back with sub volume too high. So, I reduced it in the input tab of the mini dsp. However, Audyssey results came back for the sub as +1.0dB Trim. In the past I have tried to get between -5 and -9dB. So, in this case, I bumped up the minidsp input volume after this. Is this the right way to do this?

Also, I ran one measurement for all speakers connected and the output I get above 80 hz is concerning. Isn't Audyssey supposed to equalize?


----------



## pbz06

genaccmiller said:


> Hello - I need some help on an issue I am facing. I implemented PEQ in the 2X4 minidsp. I have two martycube subwoofers. After than I ran Audyssey. Audyssey came back with sub volume too high. So, I reduced it in the input tab of the mini dsp. However, Audyssey results came back for the sub as +1.0dB Trim. In the past I have tried to get between -5 and -9dB. So, in this case, I bumped up the minidsp input volume after this. Is this the right way to do this?
> 
> Also, I ran one measurement for all speakers connected and the output I get above 80 hz is concerning. Isn't Audyssey supposed to equalize?
> 
> View attachment 3094768
> 
> 
> View attachment 3094769


Regarding the volume, you may have applied too many filters and ate away lots of headroom. I always advise to do light touches on filters...don't chase a flat line for a pretty graph. Personally I only use minidsp for alignment, and prefer the XT32 app for manual house curves and also use DEQ most of the time. I don't like adding gains thru minidsp either (more noise), i use the amp plate of the sub.

The other dips look like cancellations/dips, nothing Audyssey can do, as these are likely post cal anyway. The good news is they are above your crossover so they would be sloping down -24dB per octave after you apply bass management.


----------



## genaccmiller

pbz06 said:


> Regarding the volume, you may have applied too many filters and are away lots of headroom. I always advise to do light touches on filters...don't chase a flat line for a pretty graph. Personally I only use minidsp for alignment, and prefer the XT32 app for manual house curves and also use DEQ most of the time. I don't like adding gains thru minidsp either (more noise), i use the amp plate of the sub.
> 
> The other dips look like cancellations/dips, nothing Audyssey can do, as these are likely post cal anyway. The good news is they are above your crossover so they would be sloping down -24dB per octave after you apply bass management.


I have a DIY sub. I watched a video on youtube where the person has walked through step by step and his recommendation was to use the minidsp to do the gain adjustment when running Audyssey. This is what i did. So, after the run, I bumped up the same.


----------



## Alan P

garygarrison said:


> Alan, I presume it's O.K. to go into Speaker Configuration and switch speakers from LARGE to SMALL to compare the effect, without having to re-run Audyssey, right? Or did I mis-remember? It's been years (about 9) since I've gone into Speaker Configuration. At that time, I changed the speakers from LARGE to SMALL, and left them on SMALL.
> 
> _Also, "A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke_


As iafzal said, Audyssey will of course let you switch from Large to Small and back again as many times as you wish, no need to re-run Audyssey. 

Like I mentioned before, the _only _setting that will require a new Audyssey run is a change in the Speaker Config. (and sometimes the Amp Assign, if the new assignment includes new speakers).


----------



## Alan P

SundayAudiophile said:


> I've just used the Adyssey Multi EQ app for the first time, and I don't understand why the target curve contains a roll-off in the base and in the upper high range. I'm sure this has been asked many times, but I couldn't find an answer.
> 
> So I guess my question is two-fold:
> 1) What is the reason they made the curve roll off on both ends way before sub-sonic base and ultra-sonic HF range? If they EQed from 15 Hz down and from 20 kHz up I wouldn't mind, I think that would have made perfect sense.
> 2) Should I use the curve editor to try to flatten it out on either end? That's very hard to do in the mobile app, btw, thank goodness for the Ratbuddyssey PC software.
> 
> An additional observation: I've experimented with setting the filter cut-off frequency (the highest frequency up to which Audyssey will apply EQ) to 20 kHz, to 500 Hz, and finally to 20 Hz. I gave all 3 options a quick listen on a decently detail-rich and bass-rich piece of music, and couldn't hear any difference. Isn't that odd?
> I'll try it with a tone generator and an SPL meter tomorrow to see if it really does EQ the base and the treble as expected.


For the reasoning behind the HF roll-off, see the link below. If you prefer not to have the HF roll-off, you can use the Audyssey Flat setting...however, any changes you make to the curve editor are only applied to the Reference setting.

There should not be any LF roll-off introduced by Audyssey. Audyssey will not apply any correction below the -3dB point of your subwoofer. If your sub rolls off in-room at 30Hz (or 25Hz, or 20Hz, etc) Audyssey will not attempt to lift the response below that.

Keep in mind that the "After" graphs in the Audyssey app are only a best guess at what your actual in-room response will look like post-Audyssey as Audyssey does not actually measure the response after applying it's correction.

When you were experimenting with the filter cut-off, did you upload those different configs to the AVR? It could be that your speakers don't need much correction in your room. Hard to tell without doing actual in-room measurements before/after.




https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347723-MultEQ-Target-Curves


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> Hello - I need some help on an issue I am facing. I implemented PEQ in the 2X4 minidsp. I have two martycube subwoofers. After than I ran Audyssey. Audyssey came back with sub volume too high. So, I reduced it in the input tab of the mini dsp. However, Audyssey results came back for the sub as +1.0dB Trim. In the past I have tried to get between -5 and -9dB. So, in this case, I bumped up the minidsp input volume after this. Is this the right way to do this?


You want to keep the sub trim in the AVR under -5dB _after _any boosts have been added. Your setting of +1dB could cause issues with clipping at higher MV levels. You have two choices:


Re-run Audyssey (first 3 mic positions only) while adjusting the gain on the subwoofer amps up until you get the desired post-Audyssey sub trim (ideally, -11.5dB). Ignore Audyssey warnings of "Subwoofer is too loud" and just hit Continue.
Adjust the sub trim in the AVR down to -5dB and add back the exact same SPL to the subwoofer amp gains. Easy to do with REW's SPL tool in "Logger" mode. Then, if you need more bass, adjust the gains on the subwoofer amps up keeping the subwoofer trim at -5dB.

I would not adjust the Input Gain on the MiniDSP higher than "0".




genaccmiller said:


> Also, I ran one measurement for all speakers connected and the output I get above 80 hz is concerning. Isn't Audyssey supposed to equalize?


How did you measure "all speakers connected" at once? Regardless, this is not what you want to measure....you want either center+subs (REW output CH3) or FL+subs (CH1) or FR+subs (CH2). You do not want to measure more than one speaker plus subs at a time.

Yes, Audyssey's job is to equalize the in-room response flat _as best it can_....sometimes there is only so much Audyssey can do.


----------



## genaccmiller

Deleted


----------



## SundayAudiophile

Alan P said:


> For the reasoning behind the HF roll-off, see the link below.


Thanks for the informative response!


Alan P said:


> There should not be any LF roll-off introduced by Audyssey.


Well, I don't understand what it means or why it's here, but there is for me:









Note that this is for my front speakers which are set to "Large" and I have double-checked that no crossover is applied to them. I also don't have a sub, of which the AVR and Audyssey are aware.


Alan P said:


> When you were experimenting with the filter cut-off, did you upload those different configs to the AVR?


A great point! But no, I did upload them  It could be that the changes did take effect and I just couldn't hear the difference, but then I'm surprised that the difference is so negligible.


----------



## Alan P

SundayAudiophile said:


> Thanks for the informative response!
> 
> Well, I don't understand what it means or why it's here, but there is for me:
> View attachment 3094928
> 
> 
> Note that this is for my front speakers which are set to "Large" and I have double-checked that no crossover is applied to them. I also don't have a sub, of which the AVR and Audyssey are aware.
> 
> A great point! But no, I did upload them  It could be that the changes did take effect and I just couldn't hear the difference, but then I'm surprised that the difference is so negligible.



What are your speakers? Do they roll-off around 40Hz? If so, then that graph looks correct to me.


----------



## fatherom

Alan P said:


> You want to keep the sub trim in the AVR under -5dB _after _any boosts have been added.


Can you elaborate on this? Were you speaking to the original poster's situation specifically, or in general?

Months ago, I ran audyssey and ended up with a trim around -5.5, which I boosted to about -1. I'm curious if that's a no-no.


----------



## genaccmiller

I just processed your message in detail and have the following comments. Can you please help?


Alan P said:


> You want to keep the sub trim in the AVR under -5dB _after _any boosts have been added. Your setting of +1dB could cause issues with clipping at higher MV levels. You have two choices:
> 
> Re-run Audyssey (first 3 mic positions only) while adjusting the gain on the subwoofer amps up until you get the desired post-Audyssey sub trim (ideally, -11.5dB). Ignore Audyssey warnings of "Subwoofer is too loud" and just hit Continue.




There is a REW tutorial on-line that I have been following by home theater gurus. In that, he asks to change the level on the minidsp to match the Audyssey range. So, your recommendation is to run it multiple times while changing the amp dial to get a -11.5dB, is that correct?



Alan P said:


> Adjust the sub trim in the AVR down to -5dB and add back the exact same SPL to the subwoofer amp gains. Easy to do with REW's SPL tool in "Logger" mode. Then, if you need more bass, adjust the gains on the subwoofer amps up keeping the subwoofer trim at -5dB.




I don't understand this option.



Alan P said:


> How did you measure "all speakers connected" at once? Regardless, this is not what you want to measure....you want either center+subs (REW output CH3) or FL+subs (CH1) or FR+subs (CH2). You do not want to measure more than one speaker plus subs at a time.


What I meant is all speakers are connected and I ran the sweep. Where should I change this and what combination of speakers would I run it for? The measure function in REW does not show me the option. Wouldn't I take a sweep of the full system and not specific speakers?


----------



## Alan P

fatherom said:


> Can you elaborate on this? Were you speaking to the original poster's situation specifically, or in general?
> 
> Months ago, I ran audyssey and ended up with a trim around -5.5, which I boosted to about -1. I'm curious if that's a no-no.


It is general advice for all. Please see Section II-C of @mthomas47's Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences for an in-depth explanation of why.


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> There is a REW tutorial on-line that I have been following by home theater gurus. In that, he asks to change the level on the minidsp to match the Audyssey range. So, your recommendation is to run it multiple times while changing the amp dial to get a -11.5dB, is that correct?




I suppose it doesn't really matter if you adjust the level in the AVR or in the MiniDSP. I am old-school and prefer to keep the gain on the MiniDSP at or below "0"....going any higher used to cause me issues, maybe that is no longer applicable with the MiniDSP HD.



genaccmiller said:


> I don't understand this option.



Place your mic at the MLP
Start the subwoofer test tone in your AVR and take note of the SPL reading in REW (e.g. 80dB)
Adjust the subwoofer trim in the AVR to -5dB and note the SPL reading (e.g. 75dB)
Adjust gain on the subwoofer amplifier(s) until you are back to your original SPL reading (e.g. 80dB). In our example, with dual subs you want to measure the SPL of each sub _individually _and adjust the SPL for each sub +5dB.



genaccmiller said:


> What I meant is all speakers are connected and I ran the sweep. Where should I change this and what combination of speakers would I run it for? The measure function in REW does not show me the option. Wouldn't I take a sweep of the full system and not specific speakers?


Are you using ASIO and outputting from your computer to your AVR via HDMI? If so, you select which speaker to output to in the "Output" dropdown in the "Make a measurement" dialogue box. The different output channels equate to your speakers like this:
*
CH1 = FL
CH2 = FR
CH3 = CC
CH4 = LFE (will output 10dB higher)
CH5 = SL
CH6 = SR
CH7 = SBL
CH8 = SBR*

If you have bass management enabled in your AVR (all speakers set to "small"), all of the speaker channels will output to both speaker + sub via bass management. In other words, there is no need to select both CH3 and CH4 to measure CC+subs, CH3 will measure both at the same time.

If you are mostly movies, you will be most concerned with the combined response from the CC+subs. Alternately, if you are mostly music you would want to measure one of the mains+subs (FL _or _FR, not both at the same time).

It is important to know which speaker(s) you are measuring and to note that in the description of the measurement. That way, when you post the graph people will be more easily able to offer help.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> If you are mostly movies, you will be most concerned with the combined response from the CC+subs. Alternately, if you are mostly music you would want to measure one of the mains+subs (FL _or _FR, not both at the same time).
> 
> It is important to know which speaker(s) you are measuring and to note that in the description of the measurement. That way, when you post the graph people will be more easily able to offer help.


On this, I think we have a slight disconnect. What you say would make sense if i was measuring each speaker. I am trying to measure the sweep for the entire system in my room. That's why I don't select specific speakers when running the combined sweep. I can't do this with just one speaker. I am not using ASIO, I am using Java.


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> On this, I think we have a slight disconnect. What you say would make sense if i was measuring each speaker. I am trying to measure the sweep for the entire system in my room. That's why I don't select specific speakers when running the combined sweep. I can't do this with just one speaker. I am not using ASIO, I am using Java.


Is there a reason you are not using ASIO?

You do not want to measure multiple speakers at once, they will interfere with each other causing cancellations and skew your measurements. You want to measure a single speaker (+ subs if appropriate) at a time.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> Is there a reason you are not using ASIO?
> 
> You do not want to measure multiple speakers at once, they will interfere with each other causing cancellations and skew your measurements. You want to measure a single speaker (+ subs if appropriate) at a time.


The tutorial I saw linked below uses Java. So I am following that. I have measured each sub and time aligned then already. I have one output from the sub going to the minidsp and from there two outputs going into channel a and channel b of the amplified. The way it was explained in the video is that I am creating a virtual sub. I then proceed to equalize the subs in REW, load the results into minidsp and then run audyssey with audyssey considering the virtual sub as only one sub. I then do a whole system sweep to get an overall performance. The region under 80hz seems reasonably flat. Above 80hz seems to be the problem. The only other question I had was the subwoofer level returning at +1.0 db. I can try the option you said about the three readings one and see.






Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

genaccmiller said:


> The tutorial I saw linked below uses Java. So I am following that. I have measured each sub and time aligned then already. I have one output from the sub going to the minidsp and from there two outputs going into channel a and channel b of the amplified. The way it was explained in the video is that I am creating a virtual sub. I then proceed to equalize the subs in REW, load the results into minidsp and then run audyssey with audyssey considering the virtual sub as only one sub. I then do a whole system sweep to get an overall performance. The region under 80hz seems reasonably flat. Above 80hz seems to be the problem. The only other question I had was the subwoofer level returning at +1.0 db. I can try the option you said about the three readings one and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


That's all correct except your process for the "whole system sweep" part, which is what Alan is clarifying for you (correctly).


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> The tutorial I saw linked below uses Java. So I am following that. I have measured each sub and time aligned then already. I have one output from the sub going to the minidsp and from there two outputs going into channel a and channel b of the amplified. The way it was explained in the video is that I am creating a virtual sub. I then proceed to equalize the subs in REW, load the results into minidsp and then run audyssey with audyssey considering the virtual sub as only one sub. I then do a whole system sweep to get an overall performance. The region under 80hz seems reasonably flat. Above 80hz seems to be the problem. The only other question I had was the subwoofer level returning at +1.0 db. I can try the option you said about the three readings one and see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


I am _very _familiar with that video, I recommend it to folks all the time. The guy at HT Gurus only uses Java for that tutorial because with his microphone to record the tutorial connected ASIO was giving him issues. ASIO is the preferred connection if at all possible.

He does mention that he is "sweeping the mains" using Java, and I assume he is only doing both FL and FR (+subs) because he didn't want to go through the hassle of unplugging speaker wires during a tutorial. Regardless, _the most accurate representation of what you will hear is done by measuring a single speaker at a time_ (+subs). Think about it, how many times when you are listening to the system does more than one speaker output _the exact same sound_? The answer is _very rarely_.

You keep saying you are doing a "whole system sweep". Please, don't tell me you are using "All Channel Stereo" for sweeps (which outputs the same signal to all speakers at once). When using Java, you should be using Stereo or Dolby Surround surround modes only. Stereo for the FL/FR+subs and Dolby Surround for the CC+subs.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> You keep saying you are doing a "whole system sweep". Please, don't tell me you are using "All Channel Stereo" for sweeps (which outputs the same signal to all speakers at once). When using Java, you should be using Stereo or Dolby Surround surround modes only. Stereo for the FL/FR+subs and Dolby Surround for the CC+subs.


Quick question. When I ran the sweep I did not change any modes. Am I supposed to change the modes? Also, just so I understand why would you do only one speaker and subs? Wouldn't you be interested in the full output?


----------



## Alan P

genaccmiller said:


> Quick question. When I ran the sweep I did not change any modes. Am I supposed to change the modes? Also, just so I understand why would you do only one speaker and subs? Wouldn't you be interested in the full output?


Like I said previously...... 



Alan P said:


> You do not want to measure multiple speakers at once, they will interfere with each other causing cancellations and skew your measurements. You want to measure a single speaker (+ subs if appropriate) at a time.





Alan P said:


> Regardless, _the most accurate representation of what you will hear is done by measuring a single speaker at a time_ (+subs). Think about it, how many times when you are listening to the system does more than one speaker output _the exact same sound_? The answer is _very rarely_.



EDIT: You should at least check what surround mode you are in. If it is not one of the two I listed above, change it.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> Like I said previously......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: You should at least check what surround mode you are in. If it is not one of the two I listed above, change it.


Thank you. Appreciate it. Still kind of new to me 

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> As iafzal said, Audyssey will of course *let you switch from Large to Small and back again *as many times as you wish, no need to re-run Audyssey.
> 
> Like I mentioned before, the _*only* _setting that will require a new Audyssey run *is a change in the Speaker Config. *(and sometimes the Amp Assign, if the new assignment includes new speakers). (Bolding mine - gg)


In my pre/pro [AVP] *Large and Small are subsumed under Speaker Config. * So, when I read your earlier post the urgent pathway through one or both amygdalae lit up. So, I now take it that even though Large and Small are options in Speaker Config., changing the size setting does not require rerunning Audyssey, but *other* changes under Speaker Config., like adding channels and speakers would require a rerun of Audyssey.


----------



## johnnyboy632

Need advice... what’s the real distance between 8 mic positions for calibration. Do I need to go through 8 also? Tips needed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## genaccmiller

johnnyboy632 said:


> Need advice... what’s the real distance between 8 mic positions for calibration. Do I need to go through 8 also? Tips needed
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I kept them very close like the below. 7 and 8 were a bit higher than 2 and 3 to the left and right respectively.

5---4---6
2---1---3

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## Zedekias

Does anyone know of any good tutorials on running the audyssey app? Learning about curves? I'm not looking to dive too deep at the moment but I'd like to learn some surface knowledge.

Or what are some very basic things I can do in the app to make improvements? Apologize if these are very basic questions, but I wouldn't mind at least a point in the right direction. 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Zedekias said:


> Does anyone know of any good tutorials on running the audyssey app? Learning about curves? I'm not looking to dive too deep at the moment but I'd like to learn some surface knowledge.
> 
> Or what are some very basic things I can do in the app to make improvements? Apologize if these are very basic questions, but I wouldn't mind at least a point in the right direction.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


The app has most of these functions/settings so this is a good guide:


https://installer.audyssey.com/files/Audyssey%20MultEQ%20Pro%20User%20Guide%204.0.pdf


----------



## pbz06

johnnyboy632 said:


> Need advice... what’s the real distance between 8 mic positions for calibration. Do I need to go through 8 also? Tips needed
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I do it similar to genaccmiller. I do all 8 clustered around my seating position no more than 8" to 12" max in any direction from MLP (stays within my seat cushion).


----------



## Zedekias

pbz06 said:


> The app has most of these functions/settings so this is a good guide:
> 
> 
> https://installer.audyssey.com/files/Audyssey%20MultEQ%20Pro%20User%20Guide%204.0.pdf


Thank you 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## SundayAudiophile

Speaking of mic positions. You may recall that positions 7 and 8 are behind the actual MLP. My MLP is on a couch, and that couch is pretty close to the back wall (50 cm). Do you think it's better not to take measurements 7 and 8 at all? Or place the mic right on top the back rest of the couch and take 7 and 8 that way? Because anything further behind will be effectively on the wall and that is more likely to worsen the calibration than improve it, me thinks.


----------



## Rich 63

Raise mic a couple of inches from first six then measure left and right from mlp. So in line with the left and right but up.


----------



## pbz06

SundayAudiophile said:


> Speaking of mic positions. You may recall that positions 7 and 8 are behind the actual MLP. My MLP is on a couch, and that couch is pretty close to the back wall (50 cm). Do you think it's better not to take measurements 7 and 8 at all? Or place the mic right on top the back rest of the couch and take 7 and 8 that way? Because anything further behind will be effectively on the wall and that is more likely to worsen the calibration than improve it, me thinks.


The diagrams are just examples. Other than the first position, which should be at the MLP as close as possible to your actual head/ears, the rest are just suggestions. It doesn't have to literally be behind the couch or anywhere in particular. You basically have 7 more positions to take measurements in a cluster in and around your MLP...you can do them in any location or order you want.


----------



## SundayAudiophile

pbz06 said:


> The diagrams are just examples. Other than the first position, which should be at the MLP as close as possible to your actual head/ears, the rest are just suggestions. It doesn't have to literally be behind the couch or anywhere in particular. You basically have 7 more positions to take measurements in a cluster in and around your MLP...you can do them in any location or order you want.


Hm! If that is true, then Adyssey is far less sophisticated and capable than I assumed it is. Because if it doesn't know the relation between the positions, if it doesn't know that #2 is necessarily to the left of MLP and #3 is to the right and so on, there are way fewer assumptions that Adyssey can plausibly make about how the room affects the sound and, hence, how to correct these unwanted effects.

Or maybe I'm wrong and it can actually reconstruct the "map" of the mic positions based on the sound delay from each of the speakers, since it does certainly know where each speaker is? It's like triangulation, but you have at least 4 speakers (and typically 5/7, Atmos notwithstanding).


----------



## mogorf

Hi SundayAudiophile,

Hold it for a moment, please! Audyssey (just as any other commercially available room correction s/w) doesn't do 3d rendering. It does not know where the test mic is positioned. Once the 1st measurement is made at the MLP (for levels and delays) the remaining 6-8 mic positions are supposed to be determined by the enduser. Best suggestion is always to do a mic placement 2-3 feet from MLP, then Audyssey will collect all the info necessary, will create so called "clusters", weigh them, and will finally create one single frequency response optimalized for an "acoustic bubble" around the seating area for multiple listeners. For best result it is always advisable not to go out of on-axis angle of front L&R speakers, e.g. too much to the right/left and near to a side wall in either direction as seen from MPL. Hope this helps!


----------



## pbz06

SundayAudiophile said:


> Hm! If that is true, then Adyssey is far less sophisticated and capable than I assumed it is. Because if it doesn't know the relation between the positions, if it doesn't know that #2 is necessarily to the left of MLP and #3 is to the right and so on, there are way fewer assumptions that Adyssey can plausibly make about how the room affects the sound and, hence, how to correct these unwanted effects.
> 
> Or maybe I'm wrong and it can actually reconstruct the "map" of the mic positions based on the sound delay from each of the speakers, since it does certainly know where each speaker is? It's like triangulation, but you have at least 4 speakers (and typically 5/7, Atmos notwithstanding).


I don't think any software does.The whole point is it takes a cluster of measurements to get an understanding of how that speaker responds in that general area...it doesn't matter if it's 2" or 18", that's for the user to decide. If you measure 8 positions for the Left speaker, it will still come from the left speaker...it _shouldn't_ vary too much anyway. If you walk around the room while listening to an orhestra, it will sound similar to you in the general area of your seat.


----------



## SundayAudiophile

Fair enough, thank you very much for the explanation! In that case it is always best to take as many measurements as the correction software allows, even if they're all in the same or near the same position, for averaging the noise and measurement errors if nothing else?


----------



## pbz06

SundayAudiophile said:


> Fair enough, thank you very much for the explanation! In that case it is always best to take as many measurements as the correction software allows, even if they're all in the same or near the same position, for averaging the noise and measurements errors if nothing else?


There's two trains of thought for this. Some people (like myself) feel that the more data, the better, even if it's similar data. Others feel that it's more data to potentially be misinterpreted, and the minimum 3 measurements would suffice especially if you have a tight cluster.

No right or wrong, you would need to test yourself to see what you prefer


----------



## mogorf

Nope, room correction systems are not made to average "noise" and not meant for "correction" of measurement errors. They do something more sophisticated. Google is your friend!


----------



## genaccmiller

Rich 63 said:


> Raise mic a couple of inches from first six then measure left and right from mlp. So in line with the left and right but up.


This is exactly what I do.

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Zedekias said:


> Does anyone know of any good tutorials



Here are two good sources for the Audyssey basics -- better by far than most manuals -- but you will have to hunt around to find the latest info on the app. 
As far as basic info on curves are concerned, try the Harman curve, or the Harman curve without high frequency roll-off, and see what you think. The Harman Curve










1) *GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES*
* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems
*(Written by Mike Thomas -- mthomas47 -- and includes much information on Audyssey*). See his "Cliff Notes" section first.

2) "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
Written in convenient question and answer form *by Keith Barnes and a few guest experts*. Some material may be slightly out of date (e.g., the safest level to avoid clipping the subwoofer line driver in the AVR, or, in some cases, the sub input itself, may now be - 5 or less for people who have their Main Volume control high), but the Thomas Tome provides some updates.


----------



## Zedekias

garygarrison said:


> Here are two good sources for the Audyssey basics -- better by far than most manuals -- but you will have to hunt around to find the latest info on the app.
> As far as basic info on curves are concerned, try the Harman curve, or the Harman curve without high frequency roll-off, and see what you think. The Harman Curve
> 
> View attachment 3096364
> 
> 
> 1) *GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES*
> * The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems
> *(Written by Mike Thomas -- mthomas47 -- and includes much information on Audyssey*). See his "Cliff Notes" section first.
> 
> 2) "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"
> Written in convenient question and answer form *by Keith Barnes and a few guest experts*. Some material may be slightly out of date (e.g., the safest level to avoid clipping the subwoofer line driver in the AVR, or, in some cases, the sub input itself, may now be - 5 or less for people who have their Main Volume control high), but the Thomas Tome provides some updates.


Appreciate it! That FAQ has helped tremendously. 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## Calypte

Marantz SR6013 receiver
5 ea Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2 speakers
2 ea Power Sound Audio TV1512 subwoofers

Audyssey only detects one subwoofer, even though both subs are defined in the receiver's speaker configuration. Both subs are working. But Audyssey only detects one of them. Why?

There's also another oddity. With my previous Hsu VTF-3 Mk4 subwoofer (only one sub), Audyssey wanted to set the crossovers at 100 Hz. With the new PSA subs, Audyssey wants to set the crossovers to 40 Hz and 60 Hz, and it set the sub's crossover to 120 Hz. I've manually set up everything to cross at 80 Hz, which is Hsu Research's recommendation for these speakers.

Edited to add: The subwoofer issue is solved. I have to tell Audyssey that have two subs. The receiver knows, but Audyssey doesn't know unless I tell it.

Edited to add more: The result of my Audyssey run with two subs is terrible. The room-shaking bass that I had is gone.

Edited to add still more: My solution was to calibrate with Audyssey with only one sub, and then set the settings on the second sub to be identical to the first. The LF extension that I lost when I ran Audyssey for two subs has returned. But what I've learned is that Audyssey can't do two subwoofers. The option is there, but the result is unsatisfactory.


----------



## circumstances

I'm in South Florida and I'm looking for someone local to tweak my sound.

5.1 system. Denon x3700h. Message me, thanks.


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> Marantz SR6013 receiver
> 5 ea Hsu Research HB-1 Mk2 speakers
> 2 ea Power Sound Audio TV1512 subwoofers
> 
> Audyssey only detects one subwoofer, even though both subs are defined in the receiver's speaker configuration. Both subs are working. But Audyssey only detects one of them. Why?
> 
> There's also another oddity. With my previous Hsu VTF-3 Mk4 subwoofer (only one sub), Audyssey wanted to set the crossovers at 100 Hz. With the new PSA subs, Audyssey wants to set the crossovers to 40 Hz and 60 Hz, and it set the sub's crossover to 120 Hz. I've manually set up everything to cross at 80 Hz, which is Hsu Research's recommendation for these speakers.
> 
> Edited to add: The subwoofer issue is solved. I have to tell Audyssey that have two subs. The receiver knows, but Audyssey doesn't know unless I tell it.
> 
> Edited to add more: The result of my Audyssey run with two subs is terrible. The room-shaking bass that I had is gone.
> 
> Edited to add still more: My solution was to calibrate with Audyssey with only one sub, and then set the settings on the second sub to be identical to the first. The LF extension that I lost when I ran Audyssey for two subs has returned. But what I've learned is that Audyssey can't do two subwoofers. The option is there, but the result is unsatisfactory.


Before you run Audyssey, you must tell the AVR whether you have one sub or two per your manual:











And tell Sub EQ HT to "Measure 2 Speakers":











The "crossover" you set for the sub is not a crossover, it is a low-pass filter (aka LPF of LFE) and should be left at the default 120Hz setting. Content is mixed into the LFE channel all the way up to 120Hz and if you lower this setting you will be missing some intended content.

It is typical for users to be underwhelmed with the bass after running Audyssey and is pretty common for users to add 3-6dB to the subwoofer trim post-Audyssey.

How did you run Audyssey with a single sub and then connect the second sub without Audyssey disabling itself?? Typically, when you change Speaker Config., Audyssey will require you to re-run it. Until you do, it will be disabled (greyed-out in the menu).

Audyssey _can _do two subwoofers, and do it quite well (esp. XT32). Many, many users get satisfying results.


----------



## Calypte

The bass wasn't just "underwhelming." It wasn't there. I concluded that Audyssey cannot calibrate two subwoofers. I accept that. But the app shouldn't imply that it can.

Once I accepted that Audyssey couldn't calibrate two subs, even with two subs designated in the app, I re-ran Audyssey for the first sub as though that's all there was. When I was done with Audyssey, I simply set the controls on the second sub to correspond to the first.


----------



## ctsv510

Calypte said:


> The bass wasn't just "underwhelming." It wasn't there. I concluded that Audyssey cannot calibrate two subwoofers. I accept that. But the app shouldn't imply that it can.
> 
> Once I accepted that Audyssey couldn't calibrate two subs, even with two subs designated in the app, I re-ran Audyssey for the first sub as though that's all there was. When I was done with Audyssey, I simply set the controls on the second sub to correspond to the first.


Plenty of people run two subs with Audyssey, using the app, with great results. Myself included. You have a setup issue that isn't related to Audyssey.


----------



## Calypte

ctsv510 said:


> Plenty of people run two subs with Audyssey, using the app, with great results. Myself included. You have a setup issue that isn't related to Audyssey.


We may have a difference of opinion about what we expect from our subwoofers.


----------



## fatherom

Calypte said:


> We may have a difference of opinion about what we expect from our subwoofers.


Well getting no bass at all isn't an expectation anyone would have. That's what he meant, if you're getting no bass at all, something else was going wrong. 

I have two subs and audyssey calibrated them fine.


----------



## Rich 63

Calypte. Something is wrong with the setup procedure. Xt32 is excellent and should be working. I didn't catch how you are running it. Is it the app or from the avr.
Regards Rich


----------



## ctsv510

Calypte said:


> We may have a difference of opinion about what we expect from our subwoofers.


I doubt it. I have your subs’ bigger brothers.

Post your full process start to finish being with exactly what is plugged into what. We’ll help you find the issue.


----------



## pbz06

<-- another happy user of XT32 dual sub setup


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> The bass wasn't just "underwhelming." It wasn't there. I concluded that Audyssey cannot calibrate two subwoofers. I accept that. But the app shouldn't imply that it can.
> 
> Once I accepted that Audyssey couldn't calibrate two subs, even with two subs designated in the app, I re-ran Audyssey for the first sub as though that's all there was. When I was done with Audyssey, I simply set the controls on the second sub to correspond to the first.


Are you certain you have them connected correctly? If I had to guess, it sounds like you may have one of the subs connected to the wrong pre-out (Center maybe?).











The only other possibility is you have them connected correctly but are currently running without Audyssey. Check the AUDIO menu in the AVR...is Audyssey greyed-out?


----------



## Lesmor

Calypte said:


> The bass wasn't just "underwhelming." It wasn't there. I concluded that Audyssey cannot calibrate two subwoofers. I accept that. But the app shouldn't imply that it can.
> 
> Once I accepted that Audyssey couldn't calibrate two subs, even with two subs designated in the app, I re-ran Audyssey for the first sub as though that's all there was. When I was done with Audyssey, I simply set the controls on the second sub to correspond to the first.


when you finished calibrating with the app did you upload the results to the AVR?
check that it has uploaded to the AVR
i.e. check that the AVR GUI and the app results match


----------



## Calypte

Lesmor said:


> when you finished calibrating with the app did you upload the results to the AVR?


Yes. I should also point out that once I correctly told Audyssey that I had two subwoofers, it correctly played the test tone through the second sub, and it correctly prompted me to adjust the output level.


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> Before you run Audyssey, you must tell the AVR whether you have one sub or two per your manual:
> 
> 
> View attachment 3097607
> 
> 
> And tell Sub EQ HT to "Measure 2 Speakers":
> 
> View attachment 3097609
> 
> 
> 
> The "crossover" you set for the sub is not a crossover, it is a low-pass filter (aka LPF of LFE) and should be left at the default 120Hz setting. Content is mixed into the LFE channel all the way up to 120Hz and if you lower this setting you will be missing some intended content.
> 
> It is typical for users to be underwhelmed with the bass after running Audyssey and is pretty common for users to add 3-6dB to the subwoofer trim post-Audyssey.
> 
> How did you run Audyssey with a single sub and then connect the second sub without Audyssey disabling itself?? Typically, when you change Speaker Config., Audyssey will require you to re-run it. Until you do, it will be disabled (greyed-out in the menu).
> 
> Audyssey _can _do two subwoofers, and do it quite well (esp. XT32). Many, many users get satisfying results.


When running audyssey I don't adjust crossover until the results come back. Are you asking that it be set to 120hz before running?

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

genaccmiller said:


> When running audyssey I don't adjust crossover until the results come back. Are you asking that it be set to 120hz before running?
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


Audyssey overlooks or overrides all your settings within the AVR. It doesn't change or alter the LPF of LFE, it simply ignores it. However, if you have the same knob or a crossover knob on the subwoofer itself, you want to defeat it by putting it to max or disabling it if it has a toggle.


----------



## genaccmiller

pbz06 said:


> Audyssey overlooks or overrides all your settings within the AVR. It doesn't change or alter the LPF of LFE, it simply ignores it. However, if you have the same knob or a crossover knob on the subwoofer itself, you want to defeat it by putting it to max or disabling it if it has a toggle.


The way I run audyssey is as follows. Do I need to change anything? I am happy with the results at -6.5 and -7.5 for my dual subs.

1. I have the dials in the behringer amp for max for both subs
2. When audyssey runs I reduce them to go to the green zone
3. After audyssey run as long as I get a good reading like -6.5 and -7.5 above I turn the dial back up fully 
4. I then change all speakers to small
5. I change the crossover to 80 for LCR and 110hz for surround and leave rear surrounds as 120hz

Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


----------



## Calypte

genaccmiller said:


> When running audyssey I don't adjust crossover until the results come back. Are you asking that it be set to 120hz before running?
> 
> Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk


No.


----------



## Calypte

OK. I re-ran Audyssey on my Marantz SR6013. This time the bass is OK. It's all there. I read parts of an extended article at the head of this sub-forum on working with Audyssey MultiEQ X32, which is what I have. Based upon comments by Mark Seaton, I set the subs at 83 db rather than the suggested target of 75 db. That left the trim setting at -12 when all was done. I bumped it up to -11, but I was already getting a good shake from my Hsu test track (Saint-Saens Sym 3). I might change my mind. 1 db is only a tiny difference, perhaps not audible except by direct comparison. One issue that I still have is sometimes the db reading for matching the subs doesn't display a value, just dashes. I had to retry this a couple of times to get readings for both subs. 

Thank you, everyone, for your comments and suggestions.


----------



## Lesmor

Calypte said:


> OK. I re-ran Audyssey on my Marantz SR6013. This time the bass is OK. It's all there. I read parts of an extended article at the head of this sub-forum on working with Audyssey MultiEQ X32, which is what I have. Based upon comments by Mark Seaton, I set the subs at 83 db rather than the suggested target of 75 db. That left the trim setting at -12 when all was done. I bumped it up to -11, but I was already getting a good shake from my Hsu test track (Saint-Saens Sym 3). I might change my mind. 1 db is only a tiny difference, perhaps not audible except by direct comparison. One issue that I still have is sometimes the db reading for matching the subs doesn't display a value, just dashes. I had to retry this a couple of times to get readings for both subs.
> 
> Thank you, everyone, for your comments and suggestions.


trim setting of -12 is too high
this means that Audyssey couldn't reduce the gain far enough for a proper calibration
you need to reduce the sub gain slightly and run Audyssey again until you get trims of around -9 -7

I suggest keeping the mic in position 1 without moving it and only run a 3 position calibration and then check that the trims are in range
once they are then do a full 8 position calibration


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> OK. I re-ran Audyssey on my Marantz SR6013. This time the bass is OK. It's all there. I read parts of an extended article at the head of this sub-forum on working with Audyssey MultiEQ X32, which is what I have. Based upon comments by Mark Seaton, I set the subs at 83 db rather than the suggested target of 75 db. That left the trim setting at -12 when all was done. I bumped it up to -11, but I was already getting a good shake from my Hsu test track (Saint-Saens Sym 3). I might change my mind. 1 db is only a tiny difference, perhaps not audible except by direct comparison. One issue that I still have is sometimes the db reading for matching the subs doesn't display a value, just dashes. I had to retry this a couple of times to get readings for both subs.
> 
> Thank you, everyone, for your comments and suggestions.


As Lesmor said, -12 on the sub trim is no good because that is the lower limit of the adjustment range. You don't know if Audyssey wanted to set it at exactly -12, or -15, or -20. While Mark Seaton offers great advice, everybody's rooms/gear is different and you may need to shoot for more like 81dB on the level matching screen. Like Lesmor mentioned as well, you only need to do a 3 point calibration and hit "Calculate" to see the speaker trims. Keep doing this and adjusting gain on your sub amps until you get a result that is above -12 (e.g. -11.5).

Are you seeing only dashes on the sub level matching screen in the app or on the AVR? If this is in the app, have you tried running a calibration through the AVR?

You say you turn your sub amps down for the level match then afterwards turn them all the way up, what is the SPL difference between those two settings?


----------



## Calypte

I've been thinking about this all night. To push the trim down from -12, should I reduce the gain on the sub or increase it? There's a counter-intuitive aspect to these numbers.


----------



## pbz06

Calypte said:


> I've been thinking about this all night. To push the trim down from -12, should I reduce the gain on the sub or increase it? There's a counter-intuitive aspect to these numbers.


You reduce it on the sub, so when Audyssey runs it needs to reduce less on the SW trim.


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> I've been thinking about this all night. *To push the trim down from -12*, should I reduce the gain on the sub or increase it? There's a counter-intuitive aspect to these numbers.


You want to push the trim _up _from -12, not down.

Think of -12 as "0", 0 as "+12" and +12 as "+24" if that helps.


----------



## Calypte

Where I'm at: I started with the subs at 85 db in Audyssey's subwoofer level adjust. After I ran the speaker sweeps, the trims were at -12 db, which I now understand means that parameter was "pegged." The resulting sound on the Hsu CD was too much room-shaking bass -- not an admission I make lightly. So I backed off on the trims and the subs' level controls. The trims are now at -4 db. I have room to adjust the subs' output to taste. I'll leave it there for now.


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> Where I'm at: I started with the subs at 85 db in Audyssey's subwoofer level adjust. After I ran the speaker sweeps, the trims were at -12 db, which I now understand means that parameter was "pegged." The resulting sound on the Hsu CD was too much room-shaking bass -- not an admission I make lightly. So I backed off on the trims and the subs' level controls. The trims are now at -4 db. I have room to adjust the subs' output to taste. I'll leave it there for now.


If you went from -12 to -4 on the sub trim, you did NOT 'back off"....you _raised _the trim by +8dB!


----------



## Calypte

Alan P said:


> If you went from -12 to -4 on the sub trim, you did NOT 'back off"....you _raised _the trim by +8dB!


Well, yes. I'm satisfied with where it's set now.


----------



## Rich 63

Even if incorrectly done. Your happy. Guess that's all that matters.


----------



## Calypte

Rich 63 said:


> Even if incorrectly done. Your happy. Guess that's all that matters.


Why do you think it's incorrect?


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> Why do you think it's incorrect?


Have you actually _read _the advice we have been giving you? 

Sometimes you just gotta throw in the towel.....


----------



## genaccmiller

Alan P said:


> Have you actually _read _the advice we have been giving you?
> 
> Sometimes you just gotta throw in the towel.....


We need to sympathize with him  It takes a bit of time to fully sync in. I had the same issues before as well.



Alan P said:


> you only need to do a 3 point calibration and hit "Calculate" to see the speaker trims. Keep doing this and adjusting gain on your sub amps until you get a result that is above -12 (e.g. -11.5).


@Calypte look at the above piece of advise. Try to replicate this. Do three measurements. When Audyssey asks you to reduce volume of the sub do it in a little at a time until the sub is set at -11.5 or something like that. It may take multiple iterations. In my case Audyssey results are at -6.5 and -7.5 for my dual subs and I decided to keep them as such and did not calibrate for it to reach -11.5. One of these days I may try doing it but for now I am fine. The bottomline is getting -12 is not good. Getting +0 is not good. Try to aim at a bit closer to -12 so that you have headroom to adjust.


----------



## Calypte

Alan P said:


> Have you actually _read _the advice we have been giving you?
> 
> Sometimes you just gotta throw in the towel.....--


I've fiddled with the gain on the subs, as suggested. How is that wrong? I've adjusted the level knobs a bit more since my last post.

But I need to point out that one of the earlier messages said -12 was "too loud," but then it suggested I should try to get trims of -9 to -7. I spent the night wondering in what universe -12 is louder than -9. Advice should be logically consistent.

I was hoping for civility. I've clearly come to the wrong place. You can brag about your infallible expertise amongst yourselves. Good evening, gentlemen.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

@Calypte

Hi,

Have you been reading the last two pages ?? Alan has done nothing but go out of his way to help troubleshoot your sub issues. He does this day in and day out for the love of this hobby and kindly shares his knowledge as does all the active members on this thread. His last comment might have been a bit short  but you have to understand that many questions get repeated here from time to time so patience is a virtue and repeating oneself can get frustrating at times.

But your last sentence is way out of order and lacks any gratitude to the help you have been receiving by ALL the members here.

It's probably best that you read Mikes Guide for Sub Calibration.









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com





This will tell you all you need to know and more in getting your sub tuned in to the best of your ability.

All the best

Jim


----------



## ctsv510

Calypte said:


> But I need to point out that one of the earlier messages said -12 was "too loud," but then it suggested I should try to get trims of -9 to -7. I spent the night wondering in what universe -12 is louder than -9. Advice should be logically consistent.


-12 is too loud as in your sub gain is too high. Audyssey is trying to reduce it so much that it ran out of its available room to cut the signal. You want to turn your sub gain down so that Audyssey doesn’t have to cut so much. It can only set levels from -12 to +12 so you need to be between those values to know that Audyssey is able to calibrate to the right output level.

At -12 you still may be 10dB too high, or only 1dB too high. You’ll never know and that is why -9 to -7 is ideal. 

It can be hard to wrap the ol brain around this relationship, but no one here is steering you wrong. Just trying to help.


----------



## Alan P

Calypte said:


> I've fiddled with the gain on the subs, as suggested. How is that wrong? I've adjusted the level knobs a bit more since my last post.
> 
> But I need to point out that one of the earlier messages said -12 was "too loud," but then it suggested I should try to get trims of -9 to -7. I spent the night wondering in what universe -12 is louder than -9. Advice should be logically consistent.
> 
> I was hoping for civility. I've clearly come to the wrong place. You can brag about your infallible expertise amongst yourselves. Good evening, gentlemen.


I apologize for being a bit short in my last post, but sometimes we get frustrated when we have to repeat ourselves over and over. 

I can understand that the negative values can be confusing to some. AVR manufacturers should have just made the range 0-24 and life would be much simpler for users...and for those of us trying to explain speaker trims, that's for sure!

It really comes down to basic math; -12 is a _lower value _than -9 (-9 _minus _3 = -12). When we said that at -12 it was "too loud", it's the subwoofer that is too loud during calibration. I think ctsv510 explained in pretty well in the above post, but if you still need more clarification don't hesitate to ask!


----------



## smitty

After running Audyssey, I decided to double check my speakers with a Radio Shack sound meter and an external test tone from a Blu-ray disc. This time I placed the meter on a tripod and made sure I wasn't blocking anything. I angled it at 45 degrees towards the front of the room, which is what I have read is the correct placement. The meter shows that the four surround speakers in my 7.2 system are all about 1dB to 1.5 dB higher than my three front speakers. Why would this be, or I guess why would Audyssey do that? Is that the correct angle for the meter? If if I place it flat on the tripod pointing at the center speaker, I still get a 1dB in the surrounds. Should I leave it alone, or is it okay to adjust the trims on the surrounds down a bit?


----------



## pbz06

smitty said:


> After running Audyssey, I decided to double check my speakers with a Radio Shack sound meter and an external test tone from a Blu-ray disc. This time I placed the meter on a tripod and made sure I wasn't blocking anything. I angled it at 45 degrees towards the front of the room, which is what I have read is the correct placement. The meter shows that the four surround speakers in my 7.2 system are all about 1dB to 1.5 dB higher than my three front speakers. Why would this be, or I guess why would Audyssey do that? Is that the correct angle for the meter? If if I place it flat on the tripod pointing at the center speaker, I still get a 1dB in the surrounds. Should I leave it alone, or is it okay to adjust the trims on the surrounds down a bit?


It could be a couple of factors. There's likely inherent variance between the radio shack meter and the audyssey mic, and that variance may also vary differently across different frequencies...for example, if your meter was rated for 1dB accuracy between 30hz-8khz but 2dB accuracy between 8khz-20khz. I'm just thinking out loud, but ultimately I don't think we can tell (at least I can't) a 1dB difference.


----------



## smitty

pbz06 said:


> It could be a couple of factors. There's likely inherent variance between the radio shack meter and the audyssey mic, and that variance may also vary differently across different frequencies...for example, if your meter was rated for 1dB accuracy between 30hz-8khz but 2dB accuracy between 8khz-20khz. I'm just thinking out loud, but ultimately I don't think we can tell (at least I can't) a 1dB difference.


But would that explain the difference between the fronts and the surrounds? I mean, if the meter was "off " (compared to the Audyssey mic) by a few dB in a certain direction at a certain range of frequencies, wouldn't that show up in every speaker?


----------



## pbarach

It makes more sense to point the RS meter directly upwards, as you do with the Audyssey mic, which is omnidirectional. Here's why:

I have the original analog Radio Shack meter. I put it on a tripod at the MLP and point the mic directly at the ceiling. The meter is inaccurate in the bass region, so I don't measure the subs. The results (using a disc with pink noise, not the receiver test tones) show all five of my speakers to be within 1-1.5 dB of each other, which is within the reported 2 dB measurement error in the Audyssey mic. These results would seem to suggest that the RS meter has an omni mic and should be pointed upwards when surrounds are in the system.


----------



## smitty

I tried it with the RS meter pointed directly upwards before I tried it at a 45 degree angle. The boost in the surround and back speakers was even a little more pronounced, because they are above the listening position. Here is where I read about tilting the meter at a 45 degree angle.





__





Calibrating Your Audio With an SPL Meter - Blu-ray Forum


Calibrating Your Audio With an SPL Meter Receivers




forum.blu-ray.com





I suppose one could attribute it to the 2 dB Audyssey measurement error, but it just seems weird that the fronts are all the same, and the surrounds are all the same, but just 1.5 or so higher than the fronts.


----------



## Alan P

smitty said:


> I tried it with the RS meter pointed directly upwards before I tried it at a 45 degree angle. The boost in the surround and back speakers was even a little more pronounced, because they are above the listening position. Here is where I read about tilting the meter at a 45 degree angle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calibrating Your Audio With an SPL Meter - Blu-ray Forum
> 
> 
> Calibrating Your Audio With an SPL Meter Receivers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> forum.blu-ray.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose one could attribute it to the 2 dB Audyssey measurement error, but it just seems weird that the fronts are all the same, and the surrounds are all the same, but just 1.5 or so higher than the fronts.


Was DEQ on??


----------



## pbarach

Alan P said:


> Was DEQ on??


nope


----------



## smitty

Alan P said:


> Was DEQ on??


Yes. Would that make a difference just in the surrounds? Should I check it again without DEQ on?


----------



## pbz06

smitty said:


> Yes. Would that make a difference just in the surrounds? Should I check it again without DEQ on?


DEQ boosts the surrounds by about +1.1dB for every -5 reduction from 0 (master volume at max/reference).


----------



## Alan P

smitty said:


> Yes. Would that make a difference just in the surrounds? Should I check it again without DEQ on?





pbz06 said:


> DEQ boosts the surrounds by about +1.1dB for every -5 reduction from 0 (master volume at max/reference).


What pbz06 said. 

It also boosts the bass by about +2.2dB for every -5 under 0MV.


----------



## smitty

Good to know, guys. Thanks a bunch. I'll check it again with DEQ off. I had no idea it impacted the surrounds; I thought it was entirely a bass boost.


----------



## Alan P

smitty said:


> Good to know, guys. Thanks a bunch. I'll check it again with DEQ off. I had no idea it impacted the surrounds; I thought it was entirely a bass boost.


Audyssey is kind of infamous for the surround boost....most of us HATE it and wish that you could turn it off and keep the bass boost. 

When I use DEQ, I always turn the trims on the surrounds down by 3-4dB.


----------



## miker104

Has anyone got the Audyssey Editor App to work with the Samsung S20+ yet? I tried a few months back but was having problems getting connected. I want o purchase the app again but dont know with the playstore will let you keep returning a app.


----------



## SuperD00ps

It works on an S20 Ultra. I have two other Android devices and it also works on both.


----------



## ctsv510

miker104 said:


> Has anyone got the Audyssey Editor App to work with the Samsung S20+ yet? I tried a few months back but was having problems getting connected. I want o purchase the app again but dont know with the playstore will let you keep returning a app.


It worked fine when I had an S20+ last year. But that was not the latest version of the app and I have an iPhone now and purposefully am not upgrading the app because the version I have now 1.6.0 (1.588.0) works just fine.


----------



## miker104

ctsv510 said:


> It worked fine when I had an S20+ last year. But that was not the latest version of the app and I have an iPhone now and purposefully am not upgrading the app because the version I have now 1.6.0 (1.588.0) works just fine.


Thank you.. Download this morning and worked perfect! Now are these results a mess?


----------



## filmgeek47

miker104 said:


> Thank you.. Download this morning and worked perfect! Now are these results a mess?
> View attachment 3109087
> View attachment 3109088
> View attachment 3109089
> View attachment 3109090


To be honest, those screens are mostly worthless (it's really more a representation of what the room correction TRIED to do, than on what it's actually doing. If you're willing to get into the weeds a bit, it's worth buying a calibrated microphone like the UMIK-1, and using free software like REW to actually assess what the room correction is doing.


----------



## miker104

Thank you once again I'm going to order the microphone now is there anyone you guys recommend buying it from? Sorry for so many questions


----------



## StephenMSmith

I just realized something odd. When I use the app the run Audyssey and then upload to receiver, the Flat setting is broken, ie. no output. Reference, L/R Bypass and off all work as expected, but no output from Flat.

But I run Audyssey through receiver, then Flat is fine, ie. output. Why would the app produce broken Flat setting but not the receiver? Does this happen to anyone else? Receiver in Denon 750H and I'm on the latest app update according to Google Play store.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

StephenMSmith said:


> I just realized something odd. When I use the app the run Audyssey and then upload to receiver, the Flat setting is broken, ie. no output. Reference, L/R Bypass and off all work as expected, but no output from Flat.
> 
> But I run Audyssey through receiver, then Flat is fine, ie. output. Why would the app produce broken Flat setting but not the receiver? Does this happen to anyone else? Receiver in Denon 750H and I'm on the latest app update according to Google Play store.


I've had this bug. Two potential fixes:

1. Simply resend the curve from the app to the AVR. 

2. Go to the input on the AVR where you use Flat. Change it to Reference or something else. Resend the curve. You should now be able to navigate that input to Flat.

Stupid yes, but I've used both fixes on separate occasions and the problem was solved.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

miker104 said:


> Thank you.. Download this morning and worked perfect! Now are these results a mess?
> View attachment 3109087
> View attachment 3109088
> View attachment 3109089
> View attachment 3109090


The results look great to me! Yes, the right hand graphs represent the response you would have *IF* the acoustical result matched the electrical result. It won't match perfectly for a number of reasons (compression, head position, mic position, etc.), but it may be close to the *average* acoustical result. In my experience, an X dB compensation electrically will often, but not always, result in a *slightly* less than X dB change acoustically, even with just one mic position, with the mic set in concrete. I enjoy playing with REW, and I'm glad you are getting a mic. We still have to guesstimate a bit, though. As you know, Audyssey captures an impression of your room acoustics by using their "fuzzy logic" (a _good_ thing) processor, which they believe is superior to an arithmetically averaging device, by measuring the response from the main listening position*s *(emphasis on position*s*, pural). Using REW with *one* mic position is probably not the way to go. Unfortionately, most of us don't have a customized fuzzy logic device other than the one in Audyssey. So, if you listen *alone*, you could try putting _both_ the Audyssey mic and your new measurement mic in the identical 8 positions in a circle around where your head will be when listening, but with position #1 being where the center of your head will be. REW has an *averaging* button for you to use after this. This will not be the elegant fuzzy Audyssey has, but, that's life. If you listen with a *group* of people, spread your mic positions out, but perhaps not as far as Audyssey's old instructions indicated (they changed their advice a few years ago). *OR*, if you merely want to see what Audyssey has done from the positions of your two ears, you can put the REW mic in those two positions, then hit the average button.


----------



## MCF34

My Denon X3700H is arriving and I thought the XT32 was supposed to be the cat's meow, but now I am reading a lot about getting a 3rd party mic and REW software. If you need to use a 3rd party software then why pay the money for XT32? I have a basic 5.2 system possibly becoming a 5.2.4 system in the future. Not a theatre, an open game room used to watch movies.


----------



## galonzo

@*MCF34 , IMHO, s*till worth it to get the "3rd party" mic and REW (this is merely to "see" what Audy has actually accomplished, and then further fine tune by maybe making some adjustments to your Audy run, but not totally necessary); I had the exact same scenario, btw (open area, ran 5.1.4).


----------



## Rich 63

MCF34 said:


> My Denon X3700H is arriving and I thought the XT32 was supposed to be the cat's meow, but now I am reading a lot about getting a 3rd party mic and REW software. If you need to use a 3rd party software then why pay the money for XT32? I have a basic 5.2 system possibly becoming a 5.2.4 system in the future. Not a theatre, an open game room used to watch movies.


A mic (dayton or umik as examples) and rew software (free) is worthwhile once you have the toys. 
I bought my mic because I was integrating 4 subs using a mini dsp. Likely wouldn't have purchased one otherwise. I've since used the mic for other purposes as I learn. It's uses become clear after a bit of time owning it and are dependent how far down the hole you want to go. 
Having said that xt32 will be a major upgrade if coming from lesser room correction and is very effective. The 3rd party mic is not essential by any means.


----------



## pbz06

MCF34 said:


> My Denon X3700H is arriving and I thought the XT32 was supposed to be the cat's meow, but now I am reading a lot about getting a 3rd party mic and REW software. If you need to use a 3rd party software then why pay the money for XT32? I have a basic 5.2 system possibly becoming a 5.2.4 system in the future. Not a theatre, an open game room used to watch movies.


Think of everything as a tool. The more tools you have in the shed, the more things you can build


----------



## SuperD00ps

StephenMSmith said:


> I just realized something odd. When I use the app the run Audyssey and then upload to receiver, the Flat setting is broken, ie. no output. Reference, L/R Bypass and off all work as expected, but no output from Flat.
> 
> But I run Audyssey through receiver, then Flat is fine, ie. output. Why would the app produce broken Flat setting but not the receiver? Does this happen to anyone else? Receiver in Denon 750H and I'm on the latest app update according to Google Play store.


Yes, this is a bug. I've known about for some time but just haven't gotten around to sending a note off to Denon to patch . If you load from the app, you will need to power cycle the AVR for FLAT to work.


----------



## MCF34

Rich 63 said:


> A mic (dayton or umik as examples) and rew software (free) is worthwhile once you have the toys.
> I bought my mic because I was integrating 4 subs using a mini dsp. Likely wouldn't have purchased one otherwise. I've since used the mic for other purposes as I learn. It's uses become clear after a bit of time owning it and are dependent how far down the hole you want to go.
> Having said that xt32 will be a major upgrade if coming from lesser room correction and is very effective. The 3rd party mic is not essential by any means.


Thanks! Right now I have zero room correction because I lost the mic to my pioneer elite sc-63 receiver during a move. I think it sounds great except I have added two new subs and I think they r canceling each other out at some frequencies.


----------



## StephenMSmith

SuperD00ps said:


> Yes, this is a bug. I've known about for some time but just haven't gotten around to sending a note off to Denon to patch . If you load from the app, you will need to power cycle the AVR for FLAT to work.


Yep, that worked. Thanks you and JohnnyTheSkin. I actually sent it again and it worked but I had also turned on and off since uploading 1st time 2 days ago. Pretty sure I tried Flat after soft power on/off via Power button but no go. But re-sending did work.


----------



## MCF34

So I got my Denon X3700H. HOPEFULL hook up and run Audyssey today....read beginners guide. No about speaker placement, going in and setting fronts to small and override crossover setting to 80Hz (two subs to be calibrated). Anything else to check to make sure it is on or off as this will be primarily for movie watching? Some people seem to love or hate Dynamic EQ and another setting (can't recall). Should I start with these two off or on or just experiment. Thanks!


----------



## MCF34

One question regardig placement - my surrounds are on 32" stands behind couch and facing each other. Due to room restrictions they are at the ends of the couch and the stands almost touch the back of the couch. That means 2 of the mic pisitions will be right between the surrounds and within 1-2' from either the left or right surround. Is this ok??


----------



## MCF34

And one last question - LFE + Main or just LFE?? Two SVS PB-1000 Pro with klipsch bookshelf left and right channels. LPF for LFE - 120Hz?


----------



## pbz06

MCF34 said:


> So I got my Denon X3700H. HOPEFULL hook up and run Audyssey today....read beginners guide. No about speaker placement, going in and setting fronts to small and override crossover setting to 80Hz (two subs to be calibrated). Anything else to check to make sure it is on or off as this will be primarily for movie watching? Some people seem to love or hate Dynamic EQ and another setting (can't recall). Should I start with these two off or on or just experiment. Thanks!


The big one is adjusting crossovers (only up). For your mains I normally raise up to 80hz (Audyssey+AVR reports my towers as Large, Center as 40hz). For surrounds/ceilings, I usually raise at least 10-20hz or one click up.

DEQ is preference. Try it out On (without any manul bass boosts on top) vs off etc.

Do not use LFE+Main


----------



## Alan P

MCF34 said:


> So I got my Denon X3700H. HOPEFULL hook up and run Audyssey today....read beginners guide. No about speaker placement, going in and setting fronts to small and override crossover setting to 80Hz (two subs to be calibrated). Anything else to check to make sure it is on or off as this will be primarily for movie watching? Some people seem to love or hate Dynamic EQ and another setting (can't recall). Should I start with these two off or on or just experiment. Thanks!


DEQ on, Dynamic Volume off.

Make sure you add at least 3dB to the subwoofer trim post-Audyssey. It will seem very weak in the bass otherwise. Most around here add +3dB to +6dB (or even more). If you find you don't like DEQ, you will need to double the boost on the sub trim. 

Never lower a crossover as set by Audyssey, it is fine to raise them.



MCF34 said:


> One question regardig placement - my surrounds are on 32" stands behind couch and facing each other. Due to room restrictions they are at the ends of the couch and the stands almost touch the back of the couch. That means 2 of the mic pisitions will be right between the surrounds and within 1-2' from either the left or right surround. Is this ok??


Audyssey will be just fine with that. What might be a problem is if the couch is up against a wall....is it?



MCF34 said:


> And one last question - LFE + Main or just LFE?? Two SVS PB-1000 Pro with klipsch bookshelf left and right channels. LPF for LFE - 120Hz?


LFE+Main (aka "double bass") only works if you have your front speakers set to Large. Set it to LFE.

LPF of LFE should be left at the default setting of 120Hz.


----------



## MCF34

Thanks! Couch is not against a wall, but don’t ask about why surrounds are placed where they are located. Trust me. Lol. I will def boost bass plus 3-5db.


----------



## MCF34

Been reading. What setting should I start with (flat, movie, reference, etc etc). I def don’t want to introduce the dreaded nightmare of hard to understand dialogue. Don’t have it now with the sc-63 with no room correction and only manually setting gains and distance.


----------



## Alan P

MCF34 said:


> Been reading. What setting should I start with (flat, movie, reference, etc etc). I def don’t want to introduce the dreaded nightmare of hard to understand dialogue. Don’t have it now with the sc-63 with no room correction and only manually setting gains and distance.


Audyssey itself only has four settings; Reference (which includes the MRC [mid-range compensation] dip and HF [high-frequency] roll-off), Flat (which still has MRC but eliminates HF roll-off), L/R Bypass (applies no EQ to the FL/FR speakers), and OFF.

Start with Reference, if you feel it is lacking in high-end, try Flat. Go with whichever sounds best to your ears!


----------



## MCF34

Thanks...lastly, should I sneak out of room or hide in a closet when it's chirping!? About to start hopefully in about an hour. Using a tripod I have...start MLP with mic above back of couch...then left...then right. Then three in front and two behind.


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> Audyssey itself only has four settings; Reference (which includes the MRC [mid-range compensation] dip and HF [high-frequency] roll-off), Flat (which still has MRC but eliminates HF roll-off), L/R Bypass (applies no EQ to the FL/FR speakers), and OFF.
> 
> Start with Reference, if you feel it is lacking in high-end, try Flat. Go with whichever sounds best to your ears!


From the Audyssey FAQ at the beginning of this thread:

_*The Audyssey Flat/Music target curve* has no roll-off. This curve should be used for movies if you are seated in the near field, if your room has a lot of high frequency absorption due to acoustic treatments, if your room is very small or highly treated or if you are using THX Re-EQ (which introduces its own roll-off). *Note that this curve, on current AVRs, does NOT enable Audyssey's 'Mid Range Compensation' (MRC).*_


----------



## MCF34

Ok. Sounds great! It set subs at -3 and -4.5. Bumped to 0 and 1.5 and the svs app defaulted to -20. Watching Ironman used app to increase sun gain from -20 to -10. Shook floor. Is it ok to do that with svs app or should I increase gain on receiver. I have Pro subs with digital controls. Also how do I see the before and after plots? I’m an engineer.


----------



## ntxoa

MCF34 said:


> Also how do I see the before and after plots? I’m an engineer.


Then you will love the umik-1 and REW.






UMIK-1


The UMIK-1 is an omni-directional USB measurement calibrated microphone providing Plug & Play acoustic measurement. From speaker & room acoustic measurement to recording, this microphone provides low noise and accurate results you can rely on.




www.minidsp.com










REW room acoustics and audio device measurement and analysis software


REW is free software for room acoustic measurement, loudspeaker measurement and audio device measurement and analysis




www.roomeqwizard.com


----------



## MCF34

ntxoa said:


> Then you will love the umik-1 and REW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> UMIK-1
> 
> 
> The UMIK-1 is an omni-directional USB measurement calibrated microphone providing Plug & Play acoustic measurement. From speaker & room acoustic measurement to recording, this microphone provides low noise and accurate results you can rely on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.minidsp.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REW room acoustics and audio device measurement and analysis software
> 
> 
> REW is free software for room acoustic measurement, loudspeaker measurement and audio device measurement and analysis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.roomeqwizard.com


Ooookay. Does Audyssey give u before and/or after plots of each channel/sub? My old sc-63 mcacc iPad app showed nice before and after plots for each channel across the frequency range. Most curious about the subs....like everyone else.


----------



## SuperD00ps

Alan P said:


> Audyssey itself only has four settings; Reference (which includes the MRC [mid-range compensation] dip and HF [high-frequency] roll-off), Flat (which still has MRC but eliminates HF roll-off), L/R Bypass (applies no EQ to the FL/FR speakers), and OFF.
> 
> Start with Reference, if you feel it is lacking in high-end, try Flat. Go with whichever sounds best to your ears!


The MultiEQ app allows the user to turn off MRC for front, centre and surrounds on an individual speaker set basis.


----------



## ntxoa

MCF34 said:


> Ooookay. Does Audyssey give u before and/or after plots of each channel/sub? My old sc-63 mcacc iPad app showed nice before and after plots for each channel across the frequency range. Most curious about the subs....like everyone else.


The before plots are actual measured results.

The after plots are predicted results. Actual results can be different.


----------



## MCF34

ntxoa said:


> The before plots are actual measured results.
> 
> The after plots are predicted results. Actual results can be different.


Thanks....how do I see them? Where are they?


----------



## bluescreen2

MCF34 said:


> Thanks....how do I see them? Where are they?


You will need to get the Audyssey app ($20), and then rerun Audyssey using the app (the app will connect via Wifi to your receiver and then the Audyssey process is run using the app). The results will then be stored in the app at which point you can view the actual measured results and the predicted room response (there is no way to transfer Audyssey results from the receiver back to the app). Finally, in order to use the Audyssey result obtained from the app, you have to upload the results to your receiver from the app.


----------



## MCF34

So I ran audyssey as directed by svs with subs at -10 in sun app. Got warning. Ignored it and now avr has set them to minus 12. I don’t feel like doing this over and over again to get subs to -10 on avr. Can I just run sun setup or do I have to do a tire thing again. And I guess I’ll try with sun gain set to minus 12 and see if that’s enough.


----------



## pbz06

MCF34 said:


> So I ran audyssey as directed by svs with subs at -10 in sun app. Got warning. Ignored it and now avr has set them to minus 12. I don’t feel like doing this over and over again to get subs to -10 on avr. Can I just run sun setup or do I have to do a tire thing again. And I guess I’ll try with sun gain set to minus 12 and see if that’s enough.


If you want to do it right, then yes. There's a little bit of trial and error with everything. Not ideal for some people who want instant results and gratification, but I would suggest doing it right. It's like asking for a recipe of a good meal and then asking if you can just get it frozen and microwave instead?


----------



## ctsv510

MCF34 said:


> So I ran audyssey as directed by svs with subs at -10 in sun app. Got warning. Ignored it and now avr has set them to minus 12. I don’t feel like doing this over and over again to get subs to -10 on avr. Can I just run sun setup or do I have to do a tire thing again. And I guess I’ll try with sun gain set to minus 12 and see if that’s enough.


You can set a minimum number of speakers (I think right, left, sub) and only run 3 positions and then end calibration there to see the sub trim. When you get the gains where they need to be to get in the -11.5 to -8 range, change back to your full speaker setup and run all the positions.


----------



## SuperD00ps

You require at least three readings to be able to stop and see what the initial levels and distances are. At the start in the sub level scale while the tone is playing set the speaker to just above the green into the red zone and you should be at about -5 to -6. Run the first three tests and it will give you the option to stop and use those values. You can then make physical changes to your distances and sub level if necessary. Unfortunately, if everything is to your liking you will have to start over to complete all eight measurement locations.


----------



## MCF34

Cool. Also regardless of how big center channel is and audyssey sets it, the industry standard is 80hz crossover. Correct?


----------



## ctsv510

MCF34 said:


> Cool. Also regardless of how big center channel is and audyssey sets it, the industry standard is 80hz crossover. Correct?


It’s correct as a starting point. Depending on your room and sub placement you could have better luck with something different.


----------



## MCF34

Not sure where to post this and since u guys seem most knowledgeable around here (flattery lol).....I have a 5.2 setup. I also have two in ceiling speakers at just about perfect location for the rear atmos. Wired up sitting next to Denon x3700h. Should I connect these for atmos (or some other channels) or wait till I get front two atmos in ceiling installed? Just wondering if using them now would draw the ‘listening’ to the rear of the room even they they are angled towards mlp! If I should connect them before running audyssey, to which channels? I have never done above 5.2. Thanks.


----------



## pbz06

MCF34 said:


> Not sure where to post this and since u guys seem most knowledgeable around here (flattery lol).....I have a 5.2 setup. I also have two in ceiling speakers at just about perfect location for the rear atmos. Wired up sitting next to Denon x3700h. Should I connect these for atmos (or some other channels) or wait till I get front two atmos in ceiling installed? Just wondering if using them now would draw the ‘listening’ to the rear of the room even they they are angled towards mlp! If I should connect them before running audyssey, to which channels? I have never done above 5.2. Thanks.


I'm pretty sure if you only have 1 pair (i.e. 5.1.2) the amp assign settings only let you set them as Top Middle, front heights, or as Atmos enabled. You can certainly try it, but I would assign it to whatever is most representative of its location (so top rear) if it let's you. 

When are you getting the fronts? Keep in mind you'll need to rerun Audyssey.


----------



## MCF34

Ok. I will def re-run but as stand alone I think these would be better suited for 7.2.


----------



## MCF34

Here is where I ended up. Looks pretty good. Bumped subs up 5db each. Still under zero for both. So how high could I go on AVR? I also have svs app set at -16. They said no worry going to minus 10 if I water more for a particular movie.


----------



## MCF34

Center Channel Adjust? Re-ran Audyssy and it set center to -6. This is because I 'upgraded' from a klipsch RC-25 to RP-504C. Now the dialogue is a bit soft. I am hoping it is because center is new and needs a little breaking in. But regardless of whether or not the Dyn EQ and Dyn Vol are on or off, Center Channel Adjust is 'greyed' out on my Denon X3700H. I would like to bump it a db or 2...thoughts??


----------



## MCF34

Something is going on...replaced by RC-25 center with an RP-504C....re-ran audyssey on X3700H. It put fronts at -4.5 and -2.5. Center at -6. Surrounds at -2. When I went to watch some movies center sounded soft. Decided to try manual measuring/adjustment of levels and I can only get to 65dB on SPL at +12! Is this right??? Maybe something background noise or something messed it up? Should I do it again? I did 'cluster' the 8 readings closer than before.....no more than 24" from MLP per directions. Assistance greatly appreciated. I can't believe upgrading Center channel can throw everything so far off. Thanks!!!


----------



## MCF34

MCF34 said:


> Something is going on...replaced by RC-25 center with an RP-504C....re-ran audyssey on X3700H. It put fronts at -4.5 and -2.5. Center at -6. Surrounds at -2. When I went to watch some movies center sounded soft. Decided to try manual measuring/adjustment of levels and I can only get to 65dB on SPL at +12! Is this right??? Maybe something background noise or something messed it up? Should I do it again? I did 'cluster' the 8 readings closer than before.....no more than 24" from MLP per directions. Assistance greatly appreciated. I can't believe upgrading Center channel can throw everything so far off. Thanks!!!


In addition to above - left and right are old RB-25 bookshelf speakers. Each has 5.25" and tweeter. Is it possible the swap of the matching RC-25 to the RP-504C has skewed everything? Perhaps they are too far apart for Audyssey to level them out correctly? Perhaps the RP-504C either is too efficient or requires too much power (it has 4 5.25" and a tweeter). Thanks!!


----------



## Alan P

MCF34 said:


> Here is where I ended up. Looks pretty good. Bumped subs up 5db each. Still under zero for both. So how high could I go on AVR? I also have svs app set at -16. They said no worry going to minus 10 if I water more for a particular movie.


Was there supposed to be a pic attached here? I am not seeing it.




MCF34 said:


> Center Channel Adjust? Re-ran Audyssy and it set center to -6. This is because I 'upgraded' from a klipsch RC-25 to RP-504C. Now the dialogue is a bit soft. I am hoping it is because center is new and needs a little breaking in. But regardless of whether or not the Dyn EQ and Dyn Vol are on or off, Center Channel Adjust is 'greyed' out on my Denon X3700H. I would like to bump it a db or 2...thoughts??


Couple of possibilities why the Center Channel Adjust was greyed-out:

Many adjustments are only available while you're actually playing a soundtrack.
The Center Channel Adjust changes the volume level of the center speaker. If the center speaker wasn't in use, for example if you had Stereo processing selected, it wouldn't be available.
 If you had selected Direct or Pure Direct selected, all digital processing is disabled. 




MCF34 said:


> Something is going on...replaced by RC-25 center with an RP-504C....re-ran audyssey on X3700H. It put fronts at -4.5 and -2.5. Center at -6. Surrounds at -2. When I went to watch some movies center sounded soft. Decided to try manual measuring/adjustment of levels and I can only get to 65dB on SPL at +12! Is this right??? Maybe something background noise or something messed it up? Should I do it again? I did 'cluster' the 8 readings closer than before.....no more than 24" from MLP per directions. Assistance greatly appreciated. I can't believe upgrading Center channel can throw everything so far off. Thanks!!!


When you say you can only get to 65dB at +12:

As measured by what (handheld SPL meter, SPL app on your phone, etc)?
At what Master Volume (MV) level (should be set to 0MV)?
How do you have your center channel placed? Is it pulled all the way to the front if it is sitting on a cabinet? Angled up or down to point directly at your head??


----------



## Zedekias

This is what was detected by audyssey for my center channel. I've been tinkering with the curve on the multeq app for ages trying to optimise it.

Its a ceiling klipsch reference premiere LRC speaker. I have had some success raising the curve in the 1k-9k range a few DB. I think I will have it all figured out. But then sometimes it will sound harsh. So I lower the treble range, and then voices sound muddled or boxy. I'm just trying to find the sweet spot.

Any advice? And yes, my center is the only ceiling channel. I know it's not ideal.









Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Zedekias said:


> This is what was detected by audyssey for my center channel. I've been tinkering with the curve on the multeq app for ages trying to optimise it.
> 
> Its a ceiling klipsch reference premiere LRC speaker. I have had some success raising the curve in the 1k-9k range a few DB. I think I will have it all figured out. But then sometimes it will sound harsh. So I lower the treble range, and then voices sound muddled or boxy. I'm just trying to find the sweet spot.
> 
> Any advice? And yes, my center is the only ceiling channel. I know it's not ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


That's an aggressive rolloff past 1khz. Is it actually in the ceiling and is the tweeter aimable? How do you have it set up? 

I'd be wary of boosting it, perhaps try experimenting with limited correction...try 1khz, 5khz, 10khz etc. It will suck because you have to resend each time to AVR. What does the "after" graph look like?


----------



## Zedekias

pbz06 said:


> That's an aggressive rolloff past 1khz. Is it actually in the ceiling and is the tweeter aimable? How do you have it set up?
> 
> I'd be wary of boosting it, perhaps try experimenting with limited correction...try 1khz, 5khz, 10khz etc. It will suck because you have to resend each time to AVR. What does the "after" graph look like?


Yes it's actually in the ceiling. The tweeter isn't amiable, but has an aggressive angle towards the listening position.

And do you mean only bump up the curve in just like the 1-2khz range? Then just the 5khz range? And see what sounds best?

FYI I have this silly setup because I originally bought an acoustic transparent screen with the idea of just the center being behind the screen. I hated the screen as I could see the perforations and I didn't have room above or below the screen. Instead of trying my luck on a more expensive screen, I returned it and just did a regular non-at screen. I'll probably eventually try an acoustic screen again when the wife won't kill me. But in the mean time want to make this work.
















Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Zedekias said:


> Yes it's actually in the ceiling. The tweeter isn't amiable, but has an aggressive angle towards the listening position.
> 
> And do you mean only bump up the curve in just like the 1-2khz range? Then just the 5khz range? And see what sounds best?
> 
> FYI I have this silly setup because I originally bought an acoustic transparent screen with the idea of just the center being behind the screen. I hated the screen as I could see the perforations and I didn't have room above or below the screen. Instead of trying my luck on a more expensive screen, I returned it and just did a regular non-at screen. I'll probably eventually try an acoustic screen again when the wife won't kill me. But in the mean time want to make this work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


Ah I see. On the app you can limit the correction...you will need to find that balance. If you correct full range, you said it sounds bright. But if you limit it, the treble rolls off too quick. You'll need to test applying correction up to 1khz, then 5khz etc. to see which point gets you the best results. 

Otherwise you'll just need to live with what ya got.


----------



## Zedekias

pbz06 said:


> Ah I see. On the app you can limit the correction...you will need to find that balance. If you correct full range, you said it sounds bright. But if you limit it, the treble rolls off too quick. You'll need to test applying correction up to 1khz, then 5khz etc. to see which point gets you the best results.
> 
> Otherwise you'll just need to live with what ya got.


Just so I understand you're referring to the filter frequency range option?

You don't think I should play with the curve editor to improve? 

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

Zedekias said:


> Just so I understand you're referring to the filter frequency range option?
> 
> You don't think I should play with the curve editor to improve?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


Correct. You can play with the curve editor too, but first I'd just be curious (if I were you) how it sounds with different ranges of correction.


----------



## Lesmor

Zedekias said:


> This is what was detected by audyssey for my center channel. I've been tinkering with the curve on the multeq app for ages trying to optimise it.
> 
> Its a ceiling klipsch reference premiere LRC speaker. I have had some success raising the curve in the 1k-9k range a few DB. I think I will have it all figured out. But then sometimes it will sound harsh. So I lower the treble range, and then voices sound muddled or boxy. I'm just trying to find the sweet spot.
> 
> Any advice? And yes, my center is the only ceiling channel. I know it's not ideal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


My take on this is that the instructions on using Audyssey and the microphone is not suitable for accurately measuring in ceiling speakers of any kind

the requirement for measuring and EQ speakers is that the mic points 90 deg upwards and the sound from the bed speakers grazes the tip (capsule) of the microphone

that being the case when it comes to measuring ceiling speakers the microphone angle is no longer at 90 deg in relation to the ceiling speaker, and sound no longer grazes the tip (capsule) of the microphone but hits it directly

this is just my personal opinion of why my ceiling speaker FR looks so bad


----------



## garygarrison

Zedekias said:


> I'll probably eventually try an acoustic screen again when the wife won't kill me. But in the mean time want to make this work.


How close do you sit to your screen? We have had great luck with an acoustically transparent screen by Seymour at 13 feet away.


----------



## Zedekias

garygarrison said:


> How close do you sit to your screen? We have had great luck with an acoustically transparent screen by Seymour at 13 feet away.


I'm 15 feet away. But I had tried the budget option Carl's Place. I could see the perforations in bright scenes and also these vertical line screen defects. I will probably try Seymour or the large spandex material next. (my screen is 150")

I think my distance and short ceiling is the primary problem with my issue though. It was a big concern of mine, that I actually emailed the klipsch sound engineers my dilemma. I had contemplated cutting a larger hole in the ceiling and custom mounting the speaker to give it an even steeper angle. But they said it wasn't necessary and sent me this diagram as well.









Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

Zedekias said:


> I'm 15 feet away. But I had tried the budget option Carl's Place. I could see the perforations in bright scenes and also these vertical line screen defects. I will probably try Seymour or the large spandex material next. (my screen is 150")
> 
> I think my distance and short ceiling is the primary problem with my issue though. It was a big concern of mine, that I actually emailed the klipsch sound engineers my dilemma. I had contemplated cutting a larger hole in the ceiling and custom mounting the speaker to give it an even steeper angle. But they said it wasn't necessary and sent me this diagram as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk


Wow, that was nice of them to send you that diagram.

Seymour will send you a foot square sample of their AT fabric, so you can see if you can see any anomalies when projecting on it. We can't. By running Audyssey (full range) with the screen in place (and down, if it is electrically retractable) you can fully compensate for the slight attenuation of high treble by the screen and a Seymour free hanging black backing cloth (to avoid reflections or light coming back through the screen). In our case, this is true as electronically measured (REW & calibrated microphone), but by ear, the center channel sounds just a slight bit different. Since most people set the center channel just a bit louder (~~2 dB), it's no biggie. Our screen is 130" true width, and 55.3" high. 'Scope, and ARs near it, (2.39:1, 2.35:1, 2.2:1) look great, and 1.85:1 and 1.78:1 look good.


----------



## droopdog7

Just picked up the Denon 3700 and am working my way through the audyssey process. Already stumped and haven't gotten started yet. The following info is in the manual for the subwoofer. I can figure them all out except for the part that says crossover frequency and low filter. I have an SVS PB-1000 and first thing, the crossover knob seems to be labeled Low Pass Filter. Settings go from LFE to 160hz. Not sure what it means to set the low pass filter to off? Really not sure how I would set that knob to off and highest frequency at the same time (since it's only one knob).

Can anyone help me on this? Thank you.

When using a subwoofer without a direct mode Make the following settings: 
Volume : 12 o’clock position 
Crossover frequency : Maximum/Highest Frequency 
Low pass filter : Off 
Standby mode : Of


----------



## pbz06

droopdog7 said:


> Just picked up the Denon 3700 and am working my way through the audyssey process. Already stumped and haven't gotten started yet. The following info is in the manual for the subwoofer. I can figure them all out except for the part that says crossover frequency and low filter. I have an SVS PB-1000 and first thing, the crossover knob seems to be labeled Low Pass Filter. Settings go from LFE to 160hz. Not sure what it means to set the low pass filter to off? Really not sure how I would set that knob to off and highest frequency at the same time (since it's only one knob).
> 
> Can anyone help me on this? Thank you.
> 
> When using a subwoofer without a direct mode Make the following settings:
> Volume : 12 o’clock position
> Crossover frequency : Maximum/Highest Frequency
> Low pass filter : Off
> Standby mode : Of
> 
> View attachment 3117677


Since you will be using your AVR for bass management settings (crossovers for your speakers + LPF of LFE setting), then you want to disable/defeat the knob on your subwoofer itself. Most don't have an off button, hence why the recommendation is to put it on "max" as to not interfere. If there's an off button, then it doesn't matter where you set it on the sub dial.


----------



## droopdog7

pbz06 said:


> Since you will be using your AVR for bass management settings (crossovers for your speakers + LPF of LFE setting), then you want to disable/defeat the knob on your subwoofer itself. Most don't have an off button, hence why the recommendation is to put it on "max" as to not interfere. If there's an off button, then it doesn't matter where you set it on the sub dial.


Thanks. I went through the process and I clearly don’t know what I’m doing. First, I was surprised that the sub crossover dial didn’t have discrete choices but rather, went continuously up to LFE. 

When I ran audyssey it had me turn the dial pretty far down to get to the 75db spot. But okay. Now that I’m trying, I get no sub at all. Indeed, the sub (which is on auto and still the highest crossover point) isn’t detected at all. I’m getting now bass.

I’m not sure whether a setting is wrong? I have no clue what sound setting I’m supposed to be on or whether I’m supposed to move the crossover dial to something else.

Im stumped.


----------



## ctsv510

droopdog7 said:


> Thanks. I went through the process and I clearly don’t know what I’m doing. First, I was surprised that the sub crossover dial didn’t have discrete choices but rather, went continuously up to LFE.
> 
> When I ran audyssey it had me turn the dial pretty far down to get to the 75db spot. But okay. Now that I’m trying, I get no sub at all. Indeed, the sub (which is on auto and still the highest crossover point) isn’t detected at all. I’m getting now bass.
> 
> I’m not sure whether a setting is wrong? I have no clue what sound setting I’m supposed to be on or whether I’m supposed to move the crossover dial to something else.
> 
> Im stumped.


Did you try turning the sub to ON rather than Auto?


----------



## droopdog7

ctsv510 said:


> Did you try turning the sub to ON rather than Auto?


I did but still no sound. I’ve moved the crossover dial around as well as the sub volume on the receiver; still no luck. 

Not sure what I’m doing wrong.


----------



## Tomtb55

droopdog7 said:


> I did but still no sound. I’ve moved the crossover dial around as well as the sub volume on the receiver; still no luck.
> 
> Not sure what I’m doing wrong.


Are you not getting sound from the subwoofer when settling up Audyssey or when listening to music?
If music, are your speakers set to small?


----------



## mogorf

Hi Guys,

I recently came across a Russian audio-video site (with the use of Google translator) where a member (Ivan B.) made a series of some serious experiments of mic pattern placement while running Audyssey MultEQ. As he claims he got the best results when the first measurement at MLP was made with the mic facing the ceiling, yet the remaining 5-7 measurements were made with the mic placed on a mic stand and tilted horizontally and made to face MLP directly. With this experiment the room came to life, anything obscured before diminished and his room now sounds like a Greek theater. He is now able to pin point each and every sound source from any material, be it a movie, music or even game. Try it and report back please.


----------



## droopdog7

Tomtb55 said:


> Are you not getting sound from the subwoofer when settling up Audyssey or when listening to music?
> If music, are your speakers set to small?


Yes, I got the subwoofer sound when setting up. Told me the volume was too high and I fiddled with it to get to 75db. I did also play from music after calibrating and got no sound from the sub. 

What I am really clear on is the output settings. With my old receiver I set on auto or something like that and would get dolby or dts for movies and such. The music was on a different input and I think I had it on some music setting.

On the denon I see stuff like direct, pure direct, and I think standard. Standard setting shows up as dolby when playing tv or movies but still nothing from sub. I do see a bunch of audyssey settings but am not sure whether only those use the calibration of whether standard does too?

So I am confused about a lot of things I guess.


----------



## Tomtb55

droopdog7 said:


> Yes, I got the subwoofer sound when setting up. Told me the volume was too high and I fiddled with it to get to 75db. I did also play from music after calibrating and got no sound from the sub.
> 
> What I am really clear on is the output settings. With my old receiver I set on auto or something like that and would get dolby or dts for movies and such. The music was on a different input and I think I had it on some music setting.
> 
> On the denon I see stuff like direct, pure direct, and I think standard. Standard setting shows up as dolby when playing tv or movies but still nothing from sub. I do see a bunch of audyssey settings but am not sure whether only those use the calibration of whether standard does too?
> 
> So I am confused about a lot of things I guess.


On direct and pure direct when listening to music in stereo, there is no subwoofer


----------



## filmgeek47

Hoping I can once again turn to this thread for some advice. Went down a sub rabbit hole, and ended up getting two Rythmik L12 subs. I'm in an unusual situation, in that I have a dedicated theater room, but it's right next to the living room, where my wife is often working or watching her own stuff on TV while I'm watching action movies. My goal is to have smooth bass response, with as much vibration/oomph at my MLP as possible without shaking the whole house.

MLP is about 20" from the rear wall in the center of the room (dimensions are 12x15x8 give or take). I've got one sub directly behind my LP (literally two inches between the sofa and the sub with no room to spare). Other sub is about 6 feet away on the right wall, which is pretty much the only place I can put it.

This is all a long way of asking, am I asking for trouble with such extreme near-field placement? I'm finding the bass a bit distracting in some content (feels like the tactile bass is noticeably localized to the rear). I ran a bass frequency sweep, and it felt like I was getting vibration from the higher frequencies (40-60hz) in a way I wasn't expecting. I've been at this on and off for a week, so I'm not sure if I'm just fixating on the sound and creating a problem where there isn't one, or if this kind of near-field placement is just a bad idea.

Here's my FR graph:


----------



## Alan P

droopdog7 said:


> Yes, I got the subwoofer sound when setting up. Told me the volume was too high and I fiddled with it to get to 75db. I did also play from music after calibrating and got no sound from the sub.
> 
> What I am really clear on is the output settings. With my old receiver I set on auto or something like that and would get dolby or dts for movies and such. The music was on a different input and I think I had it on some music setting.
> 
> On the denon I see stuff like direct, pure direct, and I think standard. Standard setting shows up as dolby when playing tv or movies but still nothing from sub. I do see a bunch of audyssey settings but am not sure whether only those use the calibration of whether standard does too?
> 
> So I am confused about a lot of things I guess.


As has been mentioned, make sure all speakers are set to SMALL under SPEAKERS>MANUAL SETUP>SPEAKER CONFIG. Set all crossovers to 80Hz (if set lower by Audyssey, if set higher than 80Hz, leave them alone).

Do not use DIRECT or PURE DIRECT for music, try either STEREO or DOLBY SURROUND.

Also, make sure you add at least 3-6dB to the subwoofer trim post-Audyssey, Audyssey will set your subwoofer flat which is not preferred by most.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Hoping I can once again turn to this thread for some advice. Went down a sub rabbit hole, and ended up getting two Rythmik L12 subs. I'm in an unusual situation, in that I have a dedicated theater room, but it's right next to the living room, where my wife is often working or watching her own stuff on TV while I'm watching action movies. My goal is to have smooth bass response, with as much vibration/oomph at my MLP as possible without shaking the whole house.
> 
> MLP is about 20" from the rear wall in the center of the room (dimensions are 12x15x8 give or take). I've got one sub directly behind my LP (literally two inches between the sofa and the sub with no room to spare). Other sub is about 6 feet away on the right wall, which is pretty much the only place I can put it.
> 
> This is all a long way of asking, am I asking for trouble with such extreme near-field placement? I'm finding the bass a bit distracting in some content (feels like the tactile bass is noticeably localized to the rear). I ran a bass frequency sweep, and it felt like I was getting vibration from the higher frequencies (40-60hz) in a way I wasn't expecting. I've been at this on and off for a week, so I'm not sure if I'm just fixating on the sound and creating a problem where there isn't one, or if this kind of near-field placement is just a bad idea.
> 
> Here's my FR graph:
> 
> View attachment 3118229


Do you have your subs level matched (same SPL at the MLP) or gain matched (both subs outputting at the same gain level)?

If you have them level matched....which you should when using near+farfield subs...and you are still overwhelmed by the nearfield sub, you may want to either turn that sub down a bit, or move it a bit further away from the seating.

Many on the forum _love _nearfield subs (myself included), so it can definitely be done.


----------



## pbarach

I have a sub right behind the couch where I sit. The other (identical model) is near a corner in the front of the room. They are level matched (by Audyssey), and neither of them is localizable from the main listing position(s).


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Do you have your subs level matched (same SPL at the MLP) or gain matched (both subs outputting at the same gain level)?
> 
> If you have them level matched....which you should when using near+farfield subs...and you are still overwhelmed by the nearfield sub, you may want to either turn that sub down a bit, or move it a bit further away from the seating.
> 
> Many on the forum _love _nearfield subs (myself included), so it can definitely be done.


Alan, I was hoping I'd get a shot of your subwoofer wisdom again! The subs were very roughly level matched via The Audyssey app level screen, but I didn't get it "perfect" since I was jumping back and forth between a few placement options and I was trying to just fiddle with the volume knob on one sub. Audyssey set the volumes a bit different (I believe it was -9.5 and -7). 

I've drawn up a diagram for a better picture of my placement. The trouble is, I'm pretty space restricted on the NF sub. If I move it off center, I get some nulls in my frequency response. I haven't tried just lowering the NF sub volume post-cal, because I wasn't sure if that would mess with my FR. Is that "safe" to try?

My other (more annoying) option would be to inch my sofa forward, which would just barely let me rotate the sub's driver to face the rear wall, thereby moving the driver a few inches further from the sofa.

Thoughts?


----------



## filmgeek47

Forgot to mention, currently the sub box is about 2" from the back of the sofa, pressed pretty much against the back wall. The center of the driver's probably 7" from the sofa.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Forgot to mention, currently the sub box is about 2" from the back of the sofa, pressed pretty much against the back wall. The center of the driver's probably 7" from the sofa.


So the sub is currently firing to towards the right wall? Have you tried rotating it 180 degrees? May or may not do anything.... 

Yes, lowering the gain on the nearfield sub will indeed "mess" with your frequency response....how much is impossible to know until you measure. My guess would be "not very much".

Try playing a bass heavy scene and play around with the trim levels until it sounds/feels right to you, then measure to see where you're at. Try turning down the nearfield sub _and _turning up the farfield sub, or a combination of the two.


----------



## Soulburner

filmgeek47 said:


> . I haven't tried just lowering the NF sub volume post-cal, because I wasn't sure if that would mess with my FR. Is that "safe" to


You'll see certain parts of the bass range drop more than others but it's an experiment worth doing.


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> So the sub is currently firing to towards the right wall? Have you tried rotating it 180 degrees? May or may not do anything....
> 
> Yes, lowering the gain on the nearfield sub will indeed "mess" with your frequency response....how much is impossible to know until you measure. My guess would be "not very much".
> 
> Try playing a bass heavy scene and play around with the trim levels until it sounds/feels right to you, then measure to see where you're at. Try turning down the nearfield sub _and _turning up the farfield sub, or a combination of the two.


Will do. I've got the benefit of an unused PEQ band on each sub, so I can probably compensate for some modest FR issues if it gets the tactile response to a more balanced place.

If that doesn't work, do you think rotating the sub to face the back wall is likely to make a difference?

My thinking was that it keeps the driver centered, but pulls the driver itself further away from the sofa, so in theory it'd lower the TR a bit, without eliminating it completely.


----------



## Alan P

filmgeek47 said:


> Will do. I've got the benefit of an unused PEQ band on each sub, so I can probably compensate for some modest FR issues if it gets the tactile response to a more balanced place.
> 
> If that doesn't work, do you think rotating the sub to face the back wall is likely to make a difference?
> 
> My thinking was that it keeps the driver centered, but pulls the driver itself further away from the sofa, so in theory it'd lower the TR a bit, without eliminating it completely.


Sure, that option should definitely be on the "list of things to try".


----------



## droopdog7

Alan P said:


> As has been mentioned, make sure all speakers are set to SMALL under SPEAKERS>MANUAL SETUP>SPEAKER CONFIG. Set all crossovers to 80Hz (if set lower by Audyssey, if set higher than 80Hz, leave them alone).
> 
> Do not use DIRECT or PURE DIRECT for music, try either STEREO or DOLBY SURROUND.
> 
> Also, make sure you add at least 3-6dB to the subwoofer trim post-Audyssey, Audyssey will set your subwoofer flat which is not preferred by most.


Appreciate it. I reran audyssey and got everything working. The only thing I did differently was set the sub to LFE rather than highest crossover point. Watching Godzilla versus Kong and agree that the bass is a little flat. I assume I should change the dB on the receiver.


----------



## curlyjive

Running audyssey on my new Denon 4700 via the app and my sub is showing a dip right around the 80hz crossover point. Not sure what’s going on. I have 2 svs pb10 subs and I had the phase set to 0 and adjusted the gains to be in the green. They are on either side of the mlp about 1/4 along the side walls.

i know the after graph is just predictive but it shows up in the before as well.


----------



## Bäsemödel

Quick question on my 7705; when I run Aud and then make manual adjustments, my ability to use any of the settings in the Aud menu goes away. It’s unclear to me if the Aud corrections settings are also being removed after making a manual change like a level or crossover adjust. Is this the case? Or do the correction settings remain even if Aud menus are greyed out?


----------



## SuperD00ps

curlyjive said:


> Running audyssey on my new Denon 4700 via the app and my sub is showing a dip right around the 80hz crossover point. Not sure what’s going on. I have 2 svs pb10 subs and I had the phase set to 0 and adjusted the gains to be in the green. They are on either side of the mlp about 1/4 along the side walls.
> 
> i know the after graph is just predictive but it shows up in the before as well.


If I'm understanding you correctly with both subs on either side of your MLP you are creating a NUL at the MLP. You need to find other better positions for your subs FIRST, preferably not directly facing each other. Do one sub first then the next.


----------



## SuperD00ps

Bäsemödel said:


> Quick question on my 7705; when I run Aud and then make manual adjustments, my ability to use any of the settings in the Aud menu goes away. It’s unclear to me if the Aud corrections settings are also being removed after making a manual change like a level or crossover adjust. Is this the case? Or do the correction settings remain even if Aud menus are greyed out?


Which manual adjustments are you making?


----------



## Bäsemödel

SuperD00ps said:


> Which manual adjustments are you making?


Specifically, I’m making level changes and crossover changes. The other change is I run Aud with one sub engaged but I’m using the 2nd sub out to feed buttkickers which I don’t want to tune with Aud. So once the tuning is done, I’ll reconfigure the layout for the second sub to be active.


----------



## SuperD00ps

Bäsemödel said:


> Specifically, I’m making level changes and crossover changes. The other change is I run Aud with one sub engaged but I’m using the 2nd sub out to feed buttkickers which I don’t want to tune with Aud. So once the tuning is done, I’ll reconfigure the layout for the second sub to be active.


That should not grey out Audy. If you are using the AVR, try using the app instead as it will open up the "complete" Audyssey settings to you. Just a word on using the MultiEQ app. Power on the AV7705, run the app, load the file to the AV7705 and after completion, power off and then power on the AV.


----------



## Bäsemödel

SuperD00ps said:


> That should not grey out Audy. If you are using the AVR, try using the app instead as it will open up the "complete" Audyssey settings to you. Just a word on using the MultiEQ app. Power on the AV7705, run the app, load the file to the AV7705 and after completion, power off and then power on the AV.


I am using the app currently but on the app, post the config, i cant edit the number of subs connected. I could possibly try to force it with something like Ratbuddy? 

So currently, when i make changes to the audy created settings via the manual setup tab, it greys out the Audy options in the speakers section and makes me thing that its now deactivated. 

Whats the best way to have sub 1 be EQd and aligned and for sub 2 to be active but not eq'd/aligned? I hope im explaining that well... thanks for the assistance!


----------



## SuperD00ps

Bäsemödel said:


> I am using the app currently but on the app, post the config, i cant edit the number of subs connected. I could possibly try to force it with something like Ratbuddy?
> 
> So currently, when i make changes to the audy created settings via the manual setup tab, it greys out the Audy options in the speakers section and makes me thing that its now deactivated.
> 
> Whats the best way to have sub 1 be EQd and aligned and for sub 2 to be active but not eq'd/aligned? I hope im explaining that well... thanks for the assistance!


That's curious as the only way to disable Audyssey on my Denon is in the Audyssey selection in Audio menu. If you mean using Audyssey, then connect one sub to the AVR and run atleast the first three measurement points and stop there to see the distance, levels and before and after results for the one connected sub. Once you transfer the file, Audyssey should default to Reference with DEQ ON (unless you turn it off in the app before loading).


----------



## filmgeek47

Alan P said:


> Sure, that option should definitely be on the "list of things to try".


Thanks for your help! Did some more experimentation and realized that the rear sub's FR actually didn't change much at all moving it left to right across the back of the room. Simply moving the sub away from me a foot evened things out perfectly.


----------



## filmgeek47

I've also got a general Audyssey question for you guys. I quite like DEQ in general, but like most I'm not a fan of the surround boost. My understanding is that it boosts by +1.1 Db per -5 Db of volume, so if I'm listening at -25, I'd want to reduce my surrounds by about -5.5 to compensate. The issue I have is some of my surround trims are set by calibration at -9.5, and I can't shift them past -12. Is there a reason people don't simply raise the trims on the front L/C/R channels instead of shifting all of the surrounds down?

Also, is there any negative impact on sound quality when some trims are set above 0? My ceiling speakers are getting set around +2.5.


----------



## filmgeek47

So am I safe to just raise the volume of the front L/C/R trims, or is there a reason to avoid messing with them after audyssey? I ask because no one ever seems to suggest that as a solution for ”undoing“ the surround DEQ volume increase, and in my own experiences I could have sworn my LCR sounded a bit clearer when I lowered their trims back to how audyssey had set them, which was the opposite of what I was expecting.


----------



## zeonstar

I have been testing out some new subs and so I have been running Audyssey a lot lately. During one calibration, I had somewhat of an anomaly. It set crossovers of my surrounds (SVS Prime Satellites) down to 80 hz which was the lowest I had ever seen It set them. Typically it sets these to 90 hz and once I even saw it set it to 100 hz. I have my room setup the same each time and I do my calibration the same each time so I was just curious to know what causes these kinds of variations?

Although it’s nice that it set them to 80 hz, as it allowed me to have all my crossovers at 80. I saved The configuration with the MultiEQ App but since it kind of seemed like a fluke I’m a little afraid to use it.

Edit. Hoping someone has some thoughts on this.


----------



## nikolindb

Audyssey noob here. What do you make of these graphs? I got the SVS PB-1000 pro today (replaced Polk Audio HTS 12) and ran Audyssey XT a couple of times. For the first run Audussey set the sub to -12. Finally ended up with -6db for the sub after dialing it down to -20db from the app before measurements. All speakers set to small, crossover at 80hz. My room is approximately 17x16 feet and 7.2 feet high. Due to the front cabinets, the only reasonable place for the sub is in the right corner and I realize that stimulates room modes (bass is very boomy at the opposite corner for example) Three of the walls are made of Siporex blocks and the window wall is drywall + ceiling is drywall. Apart from the carpeted floor and blackout curtains don't have any acoustical treatments done yet and I think that shows in the calibration results below.

Other equipment I have is from Polk. It's a 5.1 system with S15e as fronts, S35 as center, S10e as surrounds + the new sub. Denon 2500h as AVR.

In all results, there is a lot of highs and downs in the graphs...I presume that is just the resonation of the room?

Anyway I'll probably buy a UMIK-1 and do new measurements with REW as I really want to understand the acoustics of my room, in the meanwhile I'm trying to understand what is the takeaway from below results and if there is something I can change based on those.


----------



## alleyooptroop

I'm new to the hobby and have just finished installing my first full 5.1 system which consists of:
-Denon AVR-S750H
-Elac Debut 2.0 6.2 (front L/R)
-Emotiva C1+ (center)
-SVS surrounds
-SVS SB1000

I ran The Audyssey set up. 2 things that I have a question on/would like to tweak so would love your advice:

Dialogue from the center channel sounds a bit muffled. it's not terrible but I'd like it to be brighter. unfortunately, since I calibrated with Audyssey I don't have access to any tone control (or maybe I'm just not seeing it). is downloading the app and adjusting the curve my only option to adjust that center?

also, I felt like the front L/R speakers were very low. sound stage did not feel expansive so I went in to the settings on the receiver and had to boost them +7db to feel like I noticed them . I might chalk this up to noob ears but wanted to find out if having to do this is normal. TIA!


----------



## Rich 63

You shpuld not have to boost 7db. Since this is all new too you ill ask the obvious. Was audessey run according to instruction with the mlp being the first position? Was it as quiet as a church when done?
Did you set you speakers to small and adjust crossovers?Is deq on or dynamic volume? 
Regards Rich


----------



## SuperD00ps

alleyooptroop said:


> I'm new to the hobby and have just finished installing my first full 5.1 system which consists of:
> -Denon AVR-S750H
> -Elac Debut 2.0 6.2 (front L/R)
> -Emotiva C1+ (center)
> -SVS surrounds
> -SVS SB1000
> 
> I ran The Audyssey set up. 2 things that I have a question on/would like to tweak so would love your advice:
> 
> Dialogue from the center channel sounds a bit muffled. it's not terrible but I'd like it to be brighter. unfortunately, since I calibrated with Audyssey I don't have access to any tone control (or maybe I'm just not seeing it). is downloading the app and adjusting the curve my only option to adjust that center?
> 
> also, I felt like the front L/R speakers were very low. sound stage did not feel expansive so I went in to the settings on the receiver and had to boost them +7db to feel like I noticed them . I might chalk this up to noob ears but wanted to find out if having to do this is normal. TIA!


What you're probably hearing is the 2kHz dip that Audy automagically applies to its default result. The MultiEQ app is well worth it and is the only means of turning off the Audy midrange correction before uploading to the AVR.


----------



## SuperD00ps

nikolindb said:


> Audyssey noob here. What do you make of these graphs? I got the SVS PB-1000 pro today (replaced Polk Audio HTS 12) and ran Audyssey XT a couple of times. For the first run Audussey set the sub to -12. Finally ended up with -6db for the sub after dialing it down to -20db from the app before measurements. All speakers set to small, crossover at 80hz. My room is approximately 17x16 feet and 7.2 feet high. Due to the front cabinets, the only reasonable place for the sub is in the right corner and I realize that stimulates room modes (bass is very boomy at the opposite corner for example) Three of the walls are made of Siporex blocks and the window wall is drywall + ceiling is drywall. Apart from the carpeted floor and blackout curtains don't have any acoustical treatments done yet and I think that shows in the calibration results below.
> 
> Other equipment I have is from Polk. It's a 5.1 system with S15e as fronts, S35 as center, S10e as surrounds + the new sub. Denon 2500h as AVR.
> 
> In all results, there is a lot of highs and downs in the graphs...I presume that is just the resonation of the room?
> 
> Anyway I'll probably buy a UMIK-1 and do new measurements with REW as I really want to understand the acoustics of my room, in the meanwhile I'm trying to understand what is the takeaway from below results and if there is something I can change based on those.


Just curious, but did you follow the Audy measurement instructions completely, taking the first reading in your main listening location and the other seven measurements not more than 20 inches from the first? From your results it looks like Audy had a really hard time with your room. Your room walls could do with some items that will absorb some of the reflecting sounds like heavy drapes. Once you get the mic and learn to use REW you'll be able to optimize the sub location based on your available space. For now you can try placing the sub where you sit and do the "sub crawl" to find a good location without the mic in the mean time


----------



## alleyooptroop

Rich 63 said:


> Was audessey run according to instruction with the mlp being the first position? Was it as quiet as a church when done?


yes and yes



Rich 63 said:


> Did you set you speakers to small and adjust crossovers?


I don't see the option via the Denon app or the UI on the avr itself to set speakers to small or large.



Rich 63 said:


> Is deq on or dynamic volume?


I have tried both and found dynamic volume set to light helped boost vocals which I felt was lacking as well



SuperD00ps said:


> What you're probably hearing is the 2kHz dip that Audy automagically applies to its default result. The MultiEQ app is well worth it and is the only means of turning off the Audy midrange correction before uploading to the AVR.


seems like it's worth the $20? although again, since I'm new to this, I want to make sure that the corrections I'm making will achieve what I'm looking for. is it as simple as adjusting the curve of the center channel to tame the mid range and increase treble?



SuperD00ps said:


> Just curious, but did you follow the Audy measurement instructions completely, taking the first reading in your main listening location and the other seven measurements not more than 20 inches from the first?


yes



SuperD00ps said:


> From your results it looks like Audy had a really hard time with your room. Your room walls could do with some items that will absorb some of the reflecting sounds like heavy drapes.


that's the unfortunate thing about my situation. my area is part of a larger open floor plan where the living, dining and kitchen areas are all together. I know this isn't ideal but it's what I have to work with. just looking to enhance my family's movie watching experience.


----------



## Rich 63

Your room is open concept then. Your likely losing much of your sound to the cavernous space. Is your front soundstage projecting to that open space too? If you can orient it so the front stage at least bounces off of walls opposite it will help. Also. Are you within the return window for the sub? If so return and get ported.
Rich


----------



## alleyooptroop

Rich 63 said:


> Your room is open concept then. Your likely losing much of your sound to the cavernous space. Is your front soundstage projecting to that open space too? If you can orient it so the front stage at least bounces off of walls opposite it will help. Also. Are you within the return window for the sub? If so return and get ported.
> Rich


Honestly I don’t have any complaints about the sub. And yeah, it’s an open space. Not huge but open with vaulted ceilings. Would manually setting up the speakers be better?


----------



## nikolindb

SuperD00ps said:


> Just curious, but did you follow the Audy measurement instructions completely, taking the first reading in your main listening location and the other seven measurements not more than 20 inches from the first? From your results it looks like Audy had a really hard time with your room. Your room walls could do with some items that will absorb some of the reflecting sounds like heavy drapes. Once you get the mic and learn to use REW you'll be able to optimize the sub location based on your available space. For now you can try placing the sub where you sit and do the "sub crawl" to find a good location without the mic in the mean time


Yep, I've done the measurements many times following the instructions closely. I know the sub crawl is something I can try and probably will do it at some point. Acoustic treatment seems also inevitable.

Apart from that, I'm also trying to figure out what is the best way for me to EQ the sub for example, using the UMIK-1 and REW. I have the Audyssey app and that has curve editor. Do I take measurements with the mic and REW, and then try to calibrate via the EQ in the Audyssey app, or how should I go about doing it? There is also the SVS app with PEQ...

*I guess the main question is: If REW measurements show I have certain peaks and nulls, what is the best way to try to flatten those out and implement the changes in my AVR/speakers? Audyssey app? *


----------



## zeonstar

Sorry to jump into the middle of you asking for help but your post earlier got me wondering about my own room correction results, something I have not paid too much attention to as my home theater is in my living room and there isn’t much i can do to change it.
But that being said, below is a screen shot of my subwoofer room correction.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this actually a really good result?


----------



## pbz06

zeonstar said:


> Sorry to jump into the middle of you asking for help but your post earlier got me wondering about my own room correction results, something I have not paid too much attention to as my home theater is in my living room and there isn’t much i can do to change it.
> But that being said, below is a screen shot of my subwoofer room correction.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t this actually a really good result?
> 
> View attachment 3121023


In my experience, if Audyssey's predicted after graph shows a smooth line, it's usually a good sign and with REW it is +/- 3 dB ish or so.

Although your subwoofer before graph is interesting, has a sharp rolloff in the upper range. Audyssey was able to flatten it but likely used some of your headroom.

Either way, overall looks promising but always better to verify with REW.


----------



## garygarrison

alleyooptroop,

IMO, manually setting the speakers wouldn't produce as good an end result as a full 8 mic position Audyssey calibration. Audyssey has a great rep for level adjustment, and also accurrately adjusts for the distance, taking into account electronics in the way (as with almost all subwoofers, where a tape measure just won't do). Audyssey uses up to *hundreds *of EQ points for XT, and many, many more for XT32. I believe Audyssey now recommends a slightly smaller area in which to place the mic positions.

Most people favor a relatively small listening area ("listening pit"), e.g., a couch or set of chairs relatively close to the screen and front speakers (maybe 7 to 10 feet away, or so), even in a huge room. One of the many reasons for this is that the Sound Pressure Level (SPL, similar to, but not identical to "intensity," "volume," "loudness") is dependent on*: *

1) Distance from the main speakers to you (!)

2) The size of the room in cu.ft. (that's how the volume control got named "Volume," back in the early days of radio)

3) Liveness (hard surfaces) or deadness (thick velour curtains, thick carpet, etc.). The more live, the louder (at least in impression).

4) The amount of bass (a la Fletcher and Munson re: loudness compensation). The more bass, the higher the SPL, as well as the impression of loudness.

5) The combination of *speaker sensitivity* ("efficiency") and *real amplifier power in real watts*. Your speakers produce 87 dB at 1 Meter at 1 Watt (or at 2.83 Volts into 8 Ohms), which, IMO, is just a bit on the low side. Your Denon, with just 2 channels operating, produces, at low distortion, 75 watts continuous for each of those 2 channels. But you will be using 5 channels. The greater the number of channels, the more the amplifier exhausts the ability of the amplifier's power supply to generate watts. How big is your room? THX thinks that for a medium sized room, you need very, very brief peaks of about 100 dB from each speaker (in a big hall, or a commercial cinema, they say 105 dB -- but not for the home!). The subwoofer isn't figured into this because they almost always have their own amp. In the mythical-typical room in a home 100 dB would require about 64 watts per channel into your 87 dB @ 1M @1W speakers at 12 feet away, so, if you were to use just 2 channels (not recommended), your 75 w.p.c. would squeak by. It is hard to know if it would make it with all 5 main channels operating. Denon (and all the other receiver manufacturers, except for *maybe* NAD, McIntosh, Luxman, Rotel and the like, neglect to report the continuous wattage supplied when *all *channels are operating. I believe they *do* spec this with their stand-alone separate power amps). I would think you would have enough power most of the time, but perhaps not during the huge climaxes, with a 100 piece orchestra, and loud sound effects through the main speakers (usually above 80 Hz) during Godzilla and Kong Smash the Transformers, then Aliens Nuke Them. If you play your movies way below THX reference level, e.g., -15 or -20, no problem.

Almost everyone turns up the bass 3 to 5 dB or so after Audyssey is completely through calibrating. This is done either through Dynamic EQ (don't like it) or by using the bass control on the LF and RF channels, that *becomes visible* after turning Dynamic EQ *off*, which gives you (usually) 6 dB boost for the frequencies above the crossover to the sub, and then crank the subwoofer up by a matching amount (use the control _*on the sub itself*_).

Be sure to set all speakers to "small" (except the sub, which won't let you, anyway). Otherwise, one of two unfavorable things will happen, either: 1) The sub won't be sent the full bass, or 2) You will have to engage a setting like "Main + Sub" or "Double Bass," which will often cause multipath distortion and comb-like phase cancellation. It varies with placement, the room, and luck, but most often results in problems. Audyssey warns against it.

*Dynamic* *Volume* is for use when family members are sleeping, etc. It compresses the dynamic range much too much for most of us, and thus double crosses the composer and performers. To clarify vocalists and to make dialog more accessible, turn up the center channel just a bit, 0.5 dB to about 2.5 dB max.


----------



## zeonstar

pbz06 said:


> In my experience, if Audyssey's predicted after graph shows a smooth line, it's usually a good sign and with REW it is +/- 3 do ish or so.
> 
> Although your subwoofer before graph is interesting, has a sharp rolloff in the upper range. Audyssey was able to flatten it but likely used some of your headroom.
> 
> Either way, overall looks promising but always better to verify with REW.


Appreciate your input. I have not gotten into REW. I probably will at some point but I don’t have the equipment. Not only do I not have the Mic, I don’t even know if I have a laptop that would run REW. I’ve seen some videos where your laptop needs an HDMI port. is that required for REW?

Regarding what you said about my sub graph, I wanted to share a little more details about my room. I think I have managed to get really lucky with my sound and what Audyssey is able to correct as my room is FAR from ideal. I recall now that a few years ago I had my TV calibrated and while he was here I had him evaluate my audio at the time and he was impressed with it given the space I was working with.

Our home is a townhouse and the first floor is open As you can see in the floor plan below. The room is THE definition of “Multi purpose” as it serves as our living room, kids play area, our kitchen table, my wife’s work area, my daughter’s school area, my wife’s crafting area, and finally my home theater. My Home theater is the right half of the living room with the TV at the top and the couch at the bottom. The “Theater” space is about 10 x 15 x8. 

On an average evening my wife enjoys doing her crafts while I like using the TV to watch a movie, TV, play a game, etc. After I got an OLED TV, I really wanted to find a way to make the room darker for me but she needs good light for her crafts. The solution I finally came up with was a curtain suspended by a wire that I close whenever I want to divide the room so I can do my thing while she is free to do hers. It’s actually 2 patio size curtains and the solution has worked wonderfully. 

While the original idea was purely to divide the room for light for my wife so I was able to have it darker on my side, I have since expanded it to including another pair of curtains on the window wall that I can close during the day and make the room 95% dark. Although the original intention for these curtains was purely to block light, I believe they have an added benefit of helping with my sound.

I wanted to share this for others who may have an open floor or a shared space. As much as I love seeing dedicate theaters, it’s always interesting to see what people do with things like living rooms.

Photos of my theater with curtains included. My equipment has changed since this photo but the curtain setup is the same.


----------



## StephenMSmith

garygarrison said:


> lmost everyone turns up the bass 3 to 5 dB or so after Audyssey is completely through calibrating. This is done either through Dynamic EQ (don't like it) or by using the bass control on the LF and RF channels, that *becomes visible* after turning Dynamic EQ *off*, which gives you (usually) 6 dB boost for the frequencies above the crossover to the sub, and then crank the subwoofer up by a matching amount (use the control _*on the sub itself*_).


This has always been confusing for my Denon 750H. I have to turn off Audyssey altogether to get the graphic equalizer to become active. Just disabling Dynamic EQ doesn't do allow me to change it or reveal any tone controls. The graphic equalizer is set to whatever Audyssey selected for the 8 points in allows for control, but if I adjust some and then re-enable Audyssey correction, it's ignored, right? Is this just a limitation of my relatively low-end receiver?


----------



## garygarrison

StephenMSmith said:


> This has always been confusing for my Denon 750H. I have to turn off Audyssey altogether to get the graphic equalizer to become active. Just disabling Dynamic EQ doesn't do allow me to change it or reveal any tone controls. The graphic equalizer is set to whatever Audyssey selected for the 8 points in allows for control, but if I adjust some and then re-enable Audyssey correction, it's ignored, right? Is this just a limitation of my relatively low-end receiver?


1) "_I have to turn off Audyssey altogether to get the graphic equalizer to become active ... The graphic equalizer is set to whatever Audyssey selected for the 8 points in allows for control, but if I adjust some and then re-enable Audyssey correction, it's ignored, right?_" 

*Right and right.* I think Audyssey and the various receiver manufacturers may have gotten into a kerfuffle over this. The receiver people sometimes imply that the effect of the graphic equalizer virtual sliders is superimposed over the fully nuanced Audyssey room correction curve when Base Copy (*not* "Bass Copy") is used, but that's not really true -- it's more like those settings are superimposed over the Audyssey curve after said curve went through a compacter in a wrecking yard. Yes, *only* a kind of average for each of the 8 ranges around each of the 8 virtual slider points, is used. In the _*real*_ world there can be a big peak a fraction of an octave away from a big dip. And yes, re-enablng Audyssey after using the virtual sliders ignores the slider settings, unless the horrible Base Copy is used. Chris K. CTO, engineer, and co-creator of Audyssey has called Base Copy "worse than useless." I imagine the reason for such a strong opinion is that Base Copy doesn't do a good job of copying -- it ignores most of the fine tuning of the hundreds, in some cases thousands, of points Audyssey manipulates, and leaves you with a very crude measure to try to work with. Take a look back at @zeonstar 's exemplary predicted subwoofer curve in post number 9,465. His "before" is a mess, with squiggles with peak/trough of > 5 dB, in one case > 7 dB, and general attenuation, but his "after" is *near perfect* below his probable crossover at 80 Hz . I don't know for sure, but I'd think "Base Copy" would destroy that.

2) When you turn Dynamic EQ OFF, or, perhaps on your receiver, both Dynamic EQ and Dynamic Volume, OFF, the tone controls should become available. Look in the manual's index under the usual suspects, "tone," "bass," "treble" "controls" etc. The manual should be available online.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Great explanation. Ah, I found the tone controls for my Denon. It's in an Options section only available by pressing the Options button on remote. Nowhere to be found w/the web interface or OSD. Excited to experiment w/the upping bass tone control and disabling Dynamic EQ. Right now, I have DEQ on w/an offset of 5 but I listen to movies at -5 volume so DEQ should be doing anything for my movies source, but it is active for my other sources.

So from the bass tone control from your description, does the bass tone control only affect LF/RF is it global to all speakers? I would think global?


----------



## SuperD00ps

nikolindb said:


> Yep, I've done the measurements many times following the instructions closely. I know the sub crawl is something I can try and probably will do it at some point. Acoustic treatment seems also inevitable.
> 
> Apart from that, I'm also trying to figure out what is the best way for me to EQ the sub for example, using the UMIK-1 and REW. I have the Audyssey app and that has curve editor. Do I take measurements with the mic and REW, and then try to calibrate via the EQ in the Audyssey app, or how should I go about doing it? There is also the SVS app with PEQ...
> 
> *I guess the main question is: If REW measurements show I have certain peaks and nulls, what is the best way to try to flatten those out and implement the changes in my AVR/speakers? Audyssey app? *


IMHO I always try to physically EQ first. By that I mean physically move equipment and furniture around first to have the best base to work from. With a none rectangular room the hard and fast rules don't easily apply so REW and your ears are the best bet to arrive at a good base. REW is very quick and you can see and compare multiple sweeps of different speaker and sub locations (input notes as you go along).Once you have a good base use the SVS app (I'm not familiar with it) first,...listen to what you get, then run a full Audyssey from the app, turn off MRC (the dip) in the app and up load to your AVR. Turn OFF DEQ as well (in the AVR) and compare to the SVS with and without Audy. You may prefer one over the other or both working together to give you a flat response. Once you have the first three Audy readings you can see the before and after results, if you don't want to go all the way.

The best procedure to flatten peaks and nulls is to get a good base first by moving speakers, sub/s and furniture using REW if you can, then run the SVS app, use REW again to see what it did and go from there.


----------



## pbz06

StephenMSmith said:


> Great explanation. Ah, I found the tone controls for my Denon. It's in an Options section only available by pressing the Options button on remote. Nowhere to be found w/the web interface or OSD. Excited to experiment w/the upping bass tone control and disabling Dynamic EQ. Right now, I have DEQ on w/an offset of 5 but I listen to movies at -5 volume so DEQ should be doing anything for my movies source, but it is active for my other sources.
> 
> So from the bass tone control from your description, does the bass tone control only affect LF/RF is it global to all speakers? I would think global?


Tone Control only affect the front L and R speakers.


----------



## garygarrison

StephenMSmith said:


> So from the bass tone control from your description, does the bass tone control only affect LF/RF is it global to all speakers? I would think global?


It would be great if it were global, but it only affects LF/RF.


----------



## filmgeek47

Guys, I'm trying to figure out what's going on my room. Pretty happy with my bass response now, but it seems like my upper frequencies are a bit of a mess, and I'm not sure if I'm putting my room treatment in the wrong place, not using enough of it, or just not using Audyssey correctly.


Attaching what I get after a 3 position audessey sweep. (this is with DEQ off, Audyssey reference, midrange comp off).

I'll reuse my sub diagram.









I've made a bunch of 2x4 ft panels, 2" thick with Owens Corning fiberglass. I've placed one centered behind the MLP, and two each on the Left and right walls, roughly in position to catch the early reflections from my main L/R speakers (The door on the left is kind of poorly placed, so I did my best with what I had). 

I've also got a full range/bass trap that goes 2/3rd of the way up the back two corners.

Floor is hardwood with an area rug covering it. Half the room is taken up by my massive sofa (the big squares are the pieces of the sectional).


----------



## garygarrison

How do your upper frequencies _sound_?
I looked, but could not find, how much _smoothing_ you asked for from REW. My version of REW is probably much older than yours, so maybe I don't know where to look. Perhaps you have it set for _no smoothing_? When the Audyssey thread was young, and people started using REW, someone decided that most people would use 1/6 octave smoothng, so we could better compare curves. Could we see yours at 1/6?


----------



## filmgeek47

garygarrison said:


> How do your upper frequencies _sound_?
> I looked, but could not find, how much _smoothing_ you asked for from REW. My version of REW is probably much older than yours, so maybe I don't know where to look. Perhaps you have it set for _no smoothing_? When the Audyssey thread was young, and people started using REW, someone decided that most people would use 1/6 octave smoothng, so we could better compare curves. Could we see yours at 1/6?


Thanks for the reply. You're right, that was with no smoothing. Here's 1/6 measuring the center channel (it's a vector average of three measurements within a few inches of the MLP):










RE how it sounds... I struggle to answer that, because it sounds "good" overall, pretty clear. Then again, I thought it sounded pretty good before I treated the room, and then realized what I was missing 🙂. One thing I am aware of is that the imaging with my surrounds feels like it could be stronger. I think that might be because I don't have any room treatment absorbing early reflections on those Surround L/R speakers. I've got some extra fiberglass, so I may just build some small panels and test if it improves the surround imaging.

Dialog clarity is also something I struggle with a bit. If I turn down the surrounds to compensate for the DEQ boost, and up the center by about a 1dB higher than Audyssey sets it, it sounds pretty good, but I wonder if it could be improved.


----------



## filmgeek47

This is the RMS average from the same measurements (not sure which averaging I should be using).


----------



## garygarrison

filmgeek47 said:


> This is the RMS average from the same measurements (not sure which averaging I should be using).
> View attachment 3123701



Actually, either one looks pretty good to me
The _*electronic*_ standard for Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) is -2 dB at 10 K, and - 6 dB at 20Khz. Asking a set of room acoustics to replicate that is pretty unrealistic. I might like about 2 dB higher SPL at 20KHz, on *very* clean recordings.
Speaking of very clean recordings, a few of us prefer Audyssey FLAT on the best recordings -- you might want to try that, if you haven't already. Surprisingly, some Blu-rays sound totally gorgeous with Audyssey FLAT.
I'm not sure which to use either. My old REW doesn't give me a choice -- I just have a plain "average" button. @*Others?* I would imagine the RMS one would not be it. I'm used to seeing RMS in regard to amplifier power, but I'm told that even there it is a misnomer. On a sine wave, I think RMS is .707 of the way up toward the peak ... but I'm out of my depth ... could it be that RMS average is a plot of standard deviation-ish things? In stat, a Mean Square (MS) [as in ANOVA] is a variance, and the square root of same is a standard deviation, ... so Root Mean Square ... glub!


----------



## filmgeek47

garygarrison said:


> Actually, either one looks pretty good to me
> The _*electronic*_ standard for Audyssey Reference (just plain Audyssey) is -2 dB at 10 K, and - 6 dB at 20Khz. Asking a set of room acoustics to replicate that is pretty unrealistic. I might like about 2 dB higher SPL at 20KHz, on *very* clean recordings.
> Speaking of very clean recordings, a few of us prefer Audyssey FLAT on the best recordings -- you might want to try that, if you haven't already. Surprisingly, some Blu-rays sound totally gorgeous with Audyssey FLAT.
> I'm not sure which to use either. My old REW doesn't give me a choice -- I just have a plain "average" button. @*Others?* I would imagine the RMS one would not be it. I'm used to seeing RMS in regard to amplifier power, but I'm told that even there it is a misnomer. On a sine wave, I think RMS is .707 of the way up toward the peak ... but I'm out of my depth ... could it be that RMS average is a plot of standard deviation-ish things? In stat, a Mean Square (MS) [as in ANOVA] is a variance, and the square root of same is a standard deviation, ... so Root Mean Square ... glub!


Thanks. Honestly, part of what lead me to look into it was some feedback I got from someone when I was on here adjusting my subs. Now that I’ve learned what smoothing to use etc it doesn’t look to bad to me either!

Funny you mention using flat; I was experimenting with it on a movie today and it sounded fantastic! Bumping up the center another .5dB seemed to get my dialog more where I wanted it.

I might check my measurements on the surround speakers and see if my frequency response and decay is as good on those, as that‘s the main audible issue I’m aware of. Appreciate your help!


----------



## garygarrison

filmgeek47 said:


> Funny you mention using* flat*; I was experimenting with it on a movie today and it *sounded fantastic!* Bumping up the center another .5dB seemed to get my dialog more where I wanted it.


I noticed another article that may support a *flat*(er) high end if the frequency spectrum, especially with *really good recordings*, with *little or no high frequency distortion*.

Here is a quote and a reference: _*"Our listening work for these situations has universally supported the notion that a relatively flat high-frequency response is critical for clarity, comfort and enjoyment of the sound. Our speech sound systems invariably are equalized to be ostensibly flat up to 12 kHz approximately." *_

Interesting that the authors above say that they shoot for flat up to 12KHz. 12KHZ is the upper spec for the great 70mm Todd-AO system, and, by default most 70mm since the majority of 70mm systems used equipment installed for Todd-AO, since it was the first modern large film system (1955 on). The _*speakers *_are what rolled it off starting at 12KHz, not the 6 magnetic tracks -- both the Altec and the JBL speakers installed for 70mm were pretty flat up to there, then dropped like a rock.

Here is a tale of one theater, the Coronet in San Francisco.








It was equipped for 70mm in 1955. I saw virtually all of the 70mm films that played there, starting when I was a school kid. *Okalahoma!, Around the World in 80 Days(1956 version), Porgy and Bess, Ben-Hur (1959), *and several others. It sounded *great *there, *warm, very dynamic, etc. * I went to one showing with other members of our school orchestra, and we all agreed that the sound was "just like" a live orchestra. There was no X curve then (they tried to keep it flat when they had magnetic, rather than optical soundtracks); the X curve came in about 1970/71 as a result of the shoddiest conceivable, uncontrolled experiments ... see Amirim article). When *Star Wars* came there in 1977 (70mm), something was wrong. While the sound was very dynamic, it was *much* *too bright*. I can only hypothesize that the Lucasfilm people knew the theater(s) would have the X curve treble roll-off, and made a very bright mix to compensate for this. Many years later I saw Star Wars in the _*same theater*_, but in 35 mm, still in multichannel stereo, but remixed, and it was *much too dull*.

Amirm: *"*In my article in Widescreen Review Magazine published recently titled “There Is No “There” in Audio,” I made a brief reference to X-curve used for calibration of Cinema Sound and mentioned that there is *no good reason to follow it for home theater..." * He goes on to say that it is* inappropriate* for commercial cinemas as well. Validity of X-curve For Cinema Sound

Another reference: _ Is the X Curve Damaging Our Enjoyment of Cinema? _SMPTE 2011 Australia, Leembruggen, Philip Newell, Joules Newell, Gilfillan, Holland, and McCarty

Is one to assume that all dubbing rooms have similar acoustics, i.e., measure the same? Here is a set of room curves that shook me up: 

_*







*_
Tone controls allow us to adjust various movies and pieces of music by ear.


----------



## sixtytooneratio

Should you level match your speakers with an SPL meter after running Audyssey?


----------



## pbz06

sixtytooneratio said:


> Should you level match your speakers with an SPL meter after running Audyssey?


 Level matching is one of the things Audyssey does during it's setup. Normally it does a good job and is consistent, assuming you have proper speaker setup and followed the procedures carefully. You can certainly verify post-calibration if you want to have assurance (I normally do), but keep in mind you will need to use an external disc with test tones (the internal ones bypass Audyssey filters so the exact SPL will be off) and you will need to consider that your SPL meter may not be at the exact same spot your Audyssey mic was (and will also have a different level of tolerance and quality). 

Basically, if some of the levels look clearly wrong or incorrect, I wouldn't worry about it


----------



## garygarrison

sixtytooneratio said:


> Should you level match your speakers with an SPL meter after running Audyssey?


No.

Audyssey has the reputation of doing an excellent job of level matching. If your speakers sound really unbalanced, you might want to do something about it. For instance, if your Front Left and Right don't sound balanced from the Main Listening Position (MLP), say the Left is too loud, *first* turn around so your back is toward your front speakers, still in the MLP, and see if the sound that is now on your Right is too loud. If so, it might be your ears! I had to go to an otolaryngologist and have wax removed that was nearly blocking one ear canal. Afterward, presto -- perfectly balanced speakers!


----------



## filmgeek47

sixtytooneratio said:


> Should you level match your speakers with an SPL meter after running Audyssey?


No, but if you have dynamic EQ enabled, some people don't like the boost it adds to your surround channels. If that's the case with you, you can try turning down all the surrounds by a few dB, which won't mess with what Audyssey's done (as long as you're consistent about applying the decrease to all your surrounds). I personally prefer to turn on DEQ, and then lower all my surrounds by about -3 dB.


----------



## rudi77

Audyssey on rt60 high. Why?


Audyssey (reference) on:










Audyssey off:


----------



## Fj40jason

Audyssey set my front LR speakers to 40Hz.
Is it recommended to bump up to the full 80Hz or just up to the next 60Hz?
Running my 2 12" subs at 80Hz XO.

Fronts are Klipsch 625s


----------



## mogorf

Fj40jason said:


> Audyssey set my front LR speakers to 40Hz.
> Is it recommended to bump up to the full 80Hz or just up to the next 60Hz?
> Running my 2 12" subs at 80Hz XO.
> 
> Fronts are Klipsch 625s



Front LRs set by Audyssey to 40 Hz is a very good result, indeed. It means your speakers are well setup in your room. This also means from hereon you can bump up to 80 Hz freely, which is usually recommened. Keep in mind Audyssey filters will still work properly. In the meantime, an 80 Hz crossover will take off more strain from your front LRs than 60 Hz and let's the sub do the "heavy weight lifting" job from 80 Hz down instead of only from 60 Hz down in the bass region. Of course you may experiment via listening test, many do it, yet end up with an 80 Hz crossover.


----------



## Rich 63

Fj40jason said:


> Audyssey set my front LR speakers to 40Hz.
> Is it recommended to bump up to the full 80Hz or just up to the next 60Hz?
> Running my 2 12" subs at 80Hz XO.
> 
> Fronts are Klipsch 625s


What do you mean your running your subs with crossover set at 80hz? If so that is incorrect. The subs should be set at full range or direct if you have it.
Regards Rich


----------



## Fj40jason

mogorf said:


> Front LRs set by Audyssey to 40 Hz is a very good result, indeed. It means your speakers are well setup in your room. This also means from hereon you can bump up to 80 Hz freely, which is usually recommened. Keep in mind Audyssey filters will still work properly. In the meantime, an 80 Hz crossover will take off more strain from your front LRs than 60 Hz and let's the sub do the "heavy weight lifting" job from 80 Hz down instead of only from 60 Hz down in the bass region. Of course you may experiment via listening test, many do it, yet end up with an 80 Hz crossover.


Ok, that makes sense. I'll bump to 80Hz.
I was happy to see results. I had some other speakers come in at 60Hz and I bumped those to 80Hz also.
One pair of ceiling speakers came in 90Hz and I left those at 90Hz.




Rich 63 said:


> What do you mean your running your subs with crossover set at 80hz? If so that is incorrect. The subs should be set at full range or direct if you have it.
> Regards Rich


I set my subs crossover to 80hz on the little dial in the back of the sub (post room correction).
Denon is sending all LFE bass to subs. Subs were dialed into 77dB matching sound with Audyssey.
I set the XO to max for the Audyssey run. Then, backed it down to 80Hz when room correction was complete.
Both subs came back with -12dB on the audyssey, which is super low.
Bump to -9dB for now. May go to -6dB if it doesn't get enough volume.

Most people use 120Hz XO but it seems a lot of folks run 80 to get cleaner sounding bass.

If I did something incorrect, let me know. Wasn't clear what you were poking at.


----------



## Fj40jason

Added diagrams for reference.


----------



## pbz06

Fj40jason said:


> Ok, that makes sense. I'll bump to 80Hz.
> I was happy to see results. I had some other speakers come in at 60Hz and I bumped those to 80Hz also.
> One pair of ceiling speakers came in 90Hz and I left those at 90Hz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I set my subs crossover to 80hz on the little dial in the back of the sub (post room correction).
> Denon is sending all LFE bass to subs. Subs were dialed into 77dB matching sound with Audyssey.
> I set the XO to max for the Audyssey run. Then, backed it down to 80Hz when room correction was complete.
> Both subs came back with -12dB on the audyssey, which is super low.
> Bump to -9dB for now. May go to -6dB if it doesn't get enough volume.
> 
> Most people use 120Hz XO but it seems a lot of folks run 80 to get cleaner sounding bass.
> 
> If I did something incorrect, let me know. Wasn't clear what you were poking at.


That's correct.

The LPF of LFE (or the "crossover" knob on back of sub) is usually recommended for 120hz with no questions asked. I think it's good to experiment with setting that to 80hz as well for a couple of reasons (see the guide to bass and subwoofer thread).


----------



## Rich 63

Well. Sorry completely disagree with setting the sub to 80hz. The crossover is a gradual slope not a hard wall. If any speakers in the chain have crossovers above 80hz then some information is not be reproduced. 
Also If audessey set your subs to - 12 that too is wrong. You have no way of knowing if your subs in fact should have been turned down more since that is as far as aud will go. Maybe it should have been - 15. You dont know. You want the after audessey measurements to be no lower then - 11. 
Both of these recommendations are accepted practice.
Regards Rich


----------



## pbz06

Rich 63 said:


> Well. Sorry completely disagree with setting the sub to 80hz. The crossover is a gradual slope not a hard wall. If any speakers in the chain have crossovers above 80hz then some information is not be reproduced.
> Also If audessey set your subs to - 12 that too is wrong. You have no way of knowing if your subs in fact should have been turned down more since that is as far as aud will go. Maybe it should have been - 15. You dont know. You want the after audessey measurements to be no lower then - 11.
> Both of these recommendations are accepted practice.
> Regards Rich


Understood, but there are reasons and scenarios to use lower (even ignoring the fact that very little info is put in the LFE at those frequencies anyway) value for LPF of LFE. Always good for users to experiment too.


----------



## Rich 63

pbz06 said:


> Understood, but there are reasons and scenarios to use lower (even ignoring the fact that very little info is put in the LFE at those frequencies anyway) value for LPF of LFE. Always good for users to experiment too.


Could you point me to the article your referring too.
Im seeing no pratical reason to do this and would like to understand its value.
Regards Rich


----------



## Fj40jason

Rich 63 said:


> Well. Sorry completely disagree with setting the sub to 80hz. The crossover is a gradual slope not a hard wall. If any speakers in the chain have crossovers above 80hz then some information is not be reproduced.
> Also If audessey set your subs to - 12 that too is wrong. You have no way of knowing if your subs in fact should have been turned down more since that is as far as aud will go. Maybe it should have been - 15. You dont know. You want the after audessey measurements to be no lower then - 11.
> Both of these recommendations are accepted practice.
> Regards Rich


That's why I dropped the sub dB to -9 for now (net +3dB).
That still gives me margin on the +/- 6dB normal drop.

I could rerun audyssey with the subs matched at 74dB vs the 77dB used this AM
I'll run -9dB for now to get feel for the new calibration.


----------



## ctsv510

Rich 63 said:


> Could you point me to the article your referring too.
> Im seeing no pratical reason to do this and would like to understand its value.
> Regards Rich


It is for filtering out the LFE frequencies being played above the main speaker crossover to aid in dialogue clarity among other things. It's been called "cascading crossovers" and is including in Mike's Guide: Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


----------



## Rich 63

Fj40jason said:


> That's why I dropped the sub dB to -9 for now (net +3dB).
> That still gives me margin on the +/- 6dB normal drop.
> 
> I could rerun audyssey with the subs matched at 74dB vs the 77dB used this AM
> I'll run -9dB for now to get feel for the new calibration.


Its important to be below - 12. As i mentioned your subs could be running above the other speakers. Some will do that anyway but best to know exactly where you are. 
Are you gain matching or level matching the subs?
Regards Rich


----------



## pbarach

Fj40jason said:


> Most people use 120Hz XO but it seems a lot of folks run 80 to get cleaner sounding bass.
> 
> If I did something incorrect, let me know. Wasn't clear what you were poking at.


 Actually, I think most people use an 80 Hz crossover as a starting point. At higher frequencies, bass becomes progressively more directional, meaning listeners will localize bass as coming from the sub. Not great for imaging or soundstaging in music, and I'd guess quite distracting during movies.


----------



## pbz06

pbarach said:


> Actually, I think most people use an 80 Hz crossover as a starting point. At higher frequencies, bass becomes progressively more directional, meaning listeners will localize bass as coming from the sub. Not great for imaging or soundstaging in music, and I'd guess quite distracting during movies.


We're talking about LPF of LFE (not crossovers of main channels)


----------



## Fj40jason

ctsv510 said:


> It is for filtering out the LFE frequencies being played above the main speaker crossover to aid in dialogue clarity among other things. It's been called "cascading crossovers" and is including in Mike's Guide: Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


This is great info. Lots of information to digest.
He did an excellent write up.x


----------



## Fj40jason

Rich 63 said:


> Its important to be below - 12. As i mentioned your subs could be running above the other speakers. Some will do that anyway but best to know exactly where you are.
> Are you gain matching or level matching the subs?
> Regards Rich


Yes level matched at 77dB as stated above.
I wasn't expecting to come in so low


----------



## Rich 63

80db


Fj40jason said:


> Yes level matched at 77dB as stated above.
> I wasn't expecting to come in so low


Level matching and gain matching are not the same. Gain matching in my opinion is far superior. Google the difference for a proper explanation. This is really inportant if the subs are not equal distance from mlp. When you run audessey ignore the level matching part and go right to the test chirps.
Im running 4 subs and gain match each to 80db. So depending on how many subs you have it should still be in that area.
Regards Rich


----------



## Rich 63

"Episode 8" on you tube from "home theatre gurus" will explain it quiet well. . 15 minutes.


----------



## Fj40jason

Rich 63 said:


> 80db
> 
> Level matching and gain matching are not the same. Gain matching in my opinion is far superior. Google the difference for a proper explanation. This is really inportant if the subs are not equal distance from mlp. When you run audessey ignore the level matching part and go right to the test chirps.
> Im running 4 subs and gain match each to 80db. So depending on how many subs you have it should still be in that area.
> Regards Rich


Suns are probably 9 ft apart and showing 13' to MLP.

All I know is I configure the denon with 2 subs out and then at the start of audyssey, the two subs are matched using the gain dials on the subs. I used 77dB today, which is on the top end of the tolerance level to reach more margin with the 6dB adjustment post cal. 
I'm at -6dB now. Sounds great.


----------



## Rich 63

Ok. Id still give that episode a watch though. You might change your mind.
Enjoy.
Regards Rich


----------



## markb1980

I did post this in the MultEQ app thread but didn’t get anything so thought I would try here- 


I have a set up of Q acoustics 7000i front, centre and surrounds with BK Sub and Cambridge Audio minx min 12’s for front heights and just wondering if there would be any benefit in lowering the filter frequency range that many suggest due to the speakers I use being small satellites and maybe needing to have full correction applied? I have looked at the pre correction results and is there any kind of rule on where you could potentially cut off the correction? Using my room measurements the Schroeder frequency would be juts over 200hz but I see dips and spikes past that but not much more than 5db either way?

Any advise would be appreciated as new to the app.


----------



## pbz06

markb1980 said:


> I did post this in the MultEQ app thread but didn’t get anything so thought I would try here-
> 
> 
> I have a set up of Q acoustics 7000i front, centre and surrounds with BK Sub and Cambridge Audio minx min 12’s for front heights and just wondering if there would be any benefit in lowering the filter frequency range that many suggest due to the speakers I use being small satellites and maybe needing to have full correction applied? I have looked at the pre correction results and is there any kind of rule on where you could potentially cut off the correction? Using my room measurements the Schroeder frequency would be juts over 200hz but I see dips and spikes past that but not much more than 5db either way?
> 
> Any advise would be appreciated as new to the app.


There's no way definitive answer or knowing if there would be any benefit (or detriment) unless you try it and see how you like each way. Even if you limit EQ, you'll also need to experiment with various ranges, whether it's 200, 300, 500 etc. or anything. Personally, one thing I look at when playing around with full range vs limited is to see how the speaker's natural response is first. I think since most speakers in most rooms usually have a downward response or tilt, that they can sound bright/harsh if Audyssey applies targets to match their reference curve since it usually means boosting. Of course there are others who are opposed to full range for other reasons, but that's my own "reading between the lines" of why people don't like it outside of their science.

The other thing is that smaller satelite speakers may struggle with this "boosting" and reference curve or sound more artificial..

One thing I would advise, do not go 100% into one camp or the other  you have tools, play with them. I fully understand the scientific and subjective reasons why people prefer limited correction, but there's also plenty of scientific and subjective reasons for full range correction too  Nobody has yet to do a use case of proving "bad" or "wrong". I've seen the Audioholics video from Matt Pose (whom I'm a huge fan of both Gene and his team too) but it's with an arbitrary speaker with an older version of Audyssey and they disregard that there's use cases showing improvements/betterments too...most of their reasons to not EQ full range are hypotheticals of things that can go wrong. They even stated they didn't try it with XT32 version (which is much superior and more in line with the thinking that bass filters is more important and that uper frequencies only get control points and not much eq).

Cliff notes: just try it out


----------



## markb1980

pbz06 said:


> There's no way definitive answer or knowing if there would be any benefit (or detriment) unless you try it and see how you like each way. Even if you limit EQ, you'll also need to experiment with various ranges, whether it's 200, 300, 500 etc. or anything. Personally, one thing I look at when playing around with full range vs limited is to see how the speaker's natural response is first. I think since most speakers in most rooms usually have a downward response or tilt, that they can sound bright/harsh if Audyssey applies targets to match their reference curve since it usually means boosting. Of course there are others who are opposed to full range for other reasons, but that's my own "reading between the lines" of why people don't like it outside of their science.
> 
> The other thing is that smaller satelite speakers may struggle with this "boosting" and reference curve or sound more artificial..
> 
> One thing I would advise, do not go 100% into one camp or the other  you have tools, play with them. I fully understand the scientific and subjective reasons why people prefer limited correction, but there's also plenty of scientific and subjective reasons for full range correction too  Nobody has yet to do a use case of proving "bad" or "wrong". I've seen the Audioholics video from Matt Pose (whom I'm a huge fan of both Gene and his team too) but it's with an arbitrary speaker with an older version of Audyssey and they disregard that there's use cases showing improvements/betterments too...most of their reasons to not EQ full range are hypotheticals of things that can go wrong. They even stated they didn't try it with XT32 version (which is much superior and more in line with the thinking that bass filters is more important and that uper frequencies only get control points and not much eq).
> 
> Cliff notes: just try it out



Thank you. I must admit I struggle to tell much difference when trying the different cut offs. I wish one would stand out over the other and make it easy 😂 I hear lots saying that it completely changed their system for the better but I would imagine they had better speakers than I do better room set up etc. I will keep playing and go from there.


----------



## pbz06

markb1980 said:


> Thank you. I must admit I struggle to tell much difference when trying the different cut offs. I wish one would stand out over the other and make it easy 😂 I hear lots saying that it completely changed their system for the better but I would imagine they had better speakers than I do better room set up etc. I will keep playing and go from there.


I can't tell a difference either in most cases (movies) either. I usually caution against hyperbole too  people tend to get excited when they try new things or implement confirmation bias. Something like "completely changed their system" is so subjective and with so many variables, I would just try things for yourself


----------



## nikolindb

Pulled the trigger on a SVS wireless audio adapter, which made it so much easier to find a good place for my svs pb-1000 pro, right beside the couch. Used sub crawl and REW with UMIK-1 to make the final adjustments. Then tried fiddle around the PEQ in svs app, and ran Audyssey after that. So it's subwoofer only, crossovers at 80hz. Results below, 1/12 smoothing..any thoughts, how does it look in your opinion? Room specs in previous post. Is that peak at 22hz too...peaky?


----------



## mogorf

nikolindb said:


> Pulled the trigger on a SVS wireless audio adapter, which made it so much easier to find a good place for my svs pb-1000 pro, right beside the couch. Used sub crawl and REW with UMIK-1 to make the final adjustments. Then tried fiddle around the PEQ in svs app, and ran Audyssey after that. So it's subwoofer only, crossovers at 80hz. Results below..any thoughts, how does it look in your opinion? Room specs in previous post. Is that peak at 22hz too...peaky?
> 
> View attachment 3126317


In order to get best results with REW I'd recommend to do 6-8 measurement (Audyssey style!) and average them. This seems to be a one point measurement, doesn't it?


----------



## Kieran

Audyssey newbie here... I've been a long time Yamaha owner, so I know YPAO pretty well. Just picked up a Denon AVR-x3700h and am starting to set it up. Ran Audyssey for the first time last night. I'm curious about the subwoofer initial detection. Audyssey said my sub was too loud, and I needed to turn the sub volumen down so the test tone was 75dB. Hmmm... I had the sub's x-over and volume bypassed, so the AVR would fully control the sub level. WTH? So does this mean I need to change the sub connection so that I can adjust its volume? then I've got the sub's x-over in the loop and I'd rather not, rather just use the AVR's x-overs and EQ.
So what's going on here? Wondering if anyone can recommend what to do. For the first pass I just connected the sub with its volume and x-over in the loop. But wondering if there's a way to run Audyssey with the sub's x-over bypassed, even though Audyssey said it was too loud. Not sure why it wouldn't just intelligently adjust the line level to the sub down appropriately....
Cheers!


----------



## Rich 63

What sub? Usually I run it hot so that the sub test is in the red. Say 1/2 inch in the red. This is acommplished with the gain knob on the sub. Leave crossover full or direct if you have that option. More then 1 sub i have different opinions though. Once audessey finishes never touch gain knob on sub but rather adjust to taste with the avr.


----------



## ctsv510

Kieran said:


> Audyssey newbie here... I've been a long time Yamaha owner, so I know YPAO pretty well. Just picked up a Denon AVR-x3700h and am starting to set it up. Ran Audyssey for the first time last night. I'm curious about the subwoofer initial detection. Audyssey said my sub was too loud, and I needed to turn the sub volumen down so the test tone was 75dB. Hmmm... I had the sub's x-over and volume bypassed, so the AVR would fully control the sub level. WTH? So does this mean I need to change the sub connection so that I can adjust its volume? then I've got the sub's x-over in the loop and I'd rather not, rather just use the AVR's x-overs and EQ.
> So what's going on here? Wondering if anyone can recommend what to do. For the first pass I just connected the sub with its volume and x-over in the loop. But wondering if there's a way to run Audyssey with the sub's x-over bypassed, even though Audyssey said it was too loud. Not sure why it wouldn't just intelligently adjust the line level to the sub down appropriately....
> Cheers!


What do you mean you bypassed the volume on the sub?

There is a limit to how much it can trim down the signal going to the sub, so if your sub is playing so loud that it can’t properly trim it down, that would be an issue. Like Rich said, adjust sub gain dial so you’re just out of the green (to the right) during the Audyssey level test and you should be fine.

Bypass sub crossover completely; AVR will handle that.


----------



## Kieran

Rich 63 said:


> What sub? Usually I run it hot so that the sub test is in the red. Say 1/2 inch in the red. This is acommplished with the gain knob on the sub. Leave crossover full or direct if you have that option. More then 1 sub i have different opinions though. Once audessey finishes never touch gain knob on sub but rather adjust to taste with the avr.


It's a really old Energy, tiding me over until I upgrade to either SVS pb-1000pro or hsu vtf2.5; had to sell my svs cylinder a few years back when moving. The Energy is tiny; which is why this surprised me; it can't go very low nor very loud. It's an 8" driver with a 300w amp. I honestly didn't think it COULD run hot in this med/large room (2990cuft).


ctsv510 said:


> What do you mean you bypassed the volume on the sub?
> 
> There is a limit to how much it can trim down the signal going to the sub, so if your sub is playing so loud that it can’t properly trim it down, that would be an issue. Like Rich said, adjust sub gain dial so you’re just out of the green (to the right) during the Audyssey level test and you should be fine.
> 
> Bypass sub crossover completely; AVR will handle that.


The Energy has two line level inputs plus speaker level inputs (which I've never used). One line level input bypasses both the volume knob and the crossover of the sub. It relies entirely on the AVR to set volume and crossover. The other line level rca input enables the volume and the crossover of the sub. I've always used the bypass input, never had a problem in nearly 20 years of owning that little sub and using it on all sorts of receivers (well, "all sorts = yamahas and pioneers I guess, but several of each mostly yamaha).


----------



## garygarrison

nikolindb said:


> Pulled the trigger on a SVS wireless audio adapter, which made it so much easier to find a good place for my svs pb-1000 pro, right beside the couch. Used sub crawl and REW with UMIK-1 to make the final adjustments. Then tried fiddle around the PEQ in svs app, and ran Audyssey after that. So it's subwoofer only, crossovers at 80hz. Results below, 1/12 smoothing..any thoughts, how does it look in your opinion? Room specs in previous post. Is that peak at 22hz too...peaky?
> 
> View attachment 3126317


RE: the 20-23 Hz peak,* I don't think it is "too peaky."* Although some pipe organs go lower,_* there is hardly any orchestral music down there*_, except maybe room effects and frequency beating (?!?). The lowest note on the conventional piano is 27.5 Hz, well above your big peak, and the lowest on the Bösendorfer is 16.5 Hz (rarely played, except by those who can't resist). Bass guitar usually goes to 41.2 Hz. Paul Klipsch did exhaustive testing of vinyl records in the 1970s, and found precious little below 45 Hz. With vinyl there are too many problems below that. He didn't re-test when CDs came out c.1982, as far as I know. I'm told there is very little music written involving fundamentals below 40 Hz.

Contrary to all that, it's nice you have a signal at all at 10.18Hz! JBL used to use the word "usable" to describe tones as attenuated as -12.5 dBz, and yours just squeaks in at -12! Such signals probably are detectable when running such subwoofer destroying movies as Edge of Tomorrow (some advise playing the beginning at 15 dB below your usual, or lower). 

I'm with Feri*;* you should use several mic positions and average them. REW has an averaging button. Moving a mic just a few inches can change the results. The mic could be moving into or out of a null, for instance.


----------



## nikolindb

Thanks for replies, I will take new measurements with several mic positions around the mlp. For some reason I thought that only the MLP matters as I always take that seat anyway.


----------



## mogorf

nikolindb said:


> Thanks for replies, I will take new measurements with several mic positions around the mlp. For some reason I thought that only the MLP matters as I always take that seat anyway.


Actually, MLP matters for setting levels and distances, while the remaining 2-8 mic positions are for Audyssey to "discover" your room and create an "acoustical bubble" at and around you seating area.


----------



## garygarrison

nikolindb said:


> Thanks for replies, I will take new measurements with several mic positions around the mlp. For some reason I thought that only the MLP matters as I always take that seat anyway.


If you listen *alone*, the bubble Feri is talking about can be a little smaller. I've heard of schemata like this*:* 

Mic positions:

where the center of your head might be
a few inches to the left of your left ear
a few inches to the right of your right ear
a few inches in front of your nose
a few inches behind your head (but damp down any reflections from the seat back, during the calibration)
farther to the left
farther to the right
farther forward
Some people go up and down with a couple of their mics.

The whole thing reminds me a bit of the Decca Tree, but not as spacey.

If I lean forward to rest my back, with my elbows on my legs just before the knee, the sound definitely changes appreciably.


----------



## Spidacat

@nikolindb FYI, for subs, usually no smoothing is applied. That was you can see every imperfection. Smoothing is OK for full range graphs.


----------



## nikolindb

I noticed an issue with setting up UMIK-1 and REW with Macbook Pro 2020 M1. For now I've used my Windows laptop, but wanted to switch to Macbook. Using USB-C adapter and HDMI cable (Macbook->USB-C-cable->adapter->HDMI-cable->AVR->HDMI-in). I can't seem to get 5.1 sound out. In Audio MIDI setup on Mac, it only shows 2 channels. I don't even have the option to select more than that. AVR is Denon 2500h and sound mode I'm using is Auto. So at the moment I'm not able to calibrate surround sound with REW, only stereo... Any idea what's causing this, and how to get the Macbook to output surround sound to AVR? I tried playing 5.1 content on Macbook, hooked up to my speakers via HDMI adapter, and only stereo sound there as well. Could it be the adapter? It's a LINQ 4-in-1 Multiport USB-C Hub


----------



## Rich 63

Are you using asio4all software for the sound. Im assuming you can get it for a mac. And your avr should be on multichannel.


----------



## curlyjive

I'm seeing a measured response for my new KEF q750/650c setup that looks like it is sloping down. Toggling Audyssey On and off, yeah I can definitely ear that without XT32 on, I am definitely getting some dullness. My other 4 surrounds are Polk RTi4's and they do not have this slope. I kept the mic at ear height and within 2 feet of the 1st position. I even threw the file into ratbuddyssey and looked at the breakdown for each position and they all follow thew same slope. I could understand if it was just my center, since it is a bit low and could be an off axis issue, but the L/R's follow about the same. Could it be the higher back of the soft recliners (fabric, not leather)? Could the KEFs really be designed this way, or could it just be my room?

With Audyssey On, I do get back those higher frequencies and I dont think it sounds harsh. I feel dialogue is a bit bright, but not sibilant. I plan to re-run and possible try a few lower mic positions to help capture a more on axis response from the center.

It looks more pronounced in ratbuddysey using 1/2 smoothing. I really noticed it playing the Shatter Atmos demo as glass breaking didnt sound like glass at all. I was limiting the correction to 300hz. Uploading the full range correction file, it then sounded like glass again.

Any feedback on what may be going on?


----------



## johnp98

I have an older Marantz SR7002 which has Audyssey Multi EQ built in.
Using the generic mic and auto calculated filters and then comparing it with REW and my UMIK-1 it gives me horrendous corrections in areas that certainly do not need correction.
It looks like this is quite an old version of Audyssey and so I guess Ill cut it some slack.
Because of this I gave up on any auto EQ and just EQed the subs with my Behringer with a good effect on the <100Hz range.

Playing around with AVR EQ settings a bit more, I found that you can manually change the 9 preset filters of 63hz, 125hz, 250hz, 500hz, 1k hz, 2k hz, 4k hz, 8k hz, 16k hz
I am not sure what the Q value on these filters are, but it does seem quite wide.

*Anyways, my questions are:*
1) Does manually changing these filters and then confirming the results with REW seem reasonable? (realizing that I will be very limited by where the 9 filters occur)
2) I played around and having a +6db boost in the 250hz range does fill in a midbass deficiency, yet is boosting in Audyssey of concern (as in general with EQing my understanding is you don't want any overall boost).
3) By merely activating the EQ will it audibly change the sound quality of the sound (lets say for argument sake I just activate one filter at -1db, does this add extra processing that would result in audible differences?)
4) By applying the following filters (125: -3, 250: +6, 500: +1, 8k: -3, 16k: -1) this is what I get (pre = red, post = blue). Do you think that is worth keeping? I know EQing above the schroeder frequency is controversial, but it seems to have a rather large Q and thus is more a tone control in this case is it not?












Any other suggestions / thoughts?


----------



## Rich 63

What audessey. Multi eq 6 position? If so how was the measurement done?
Regards Rich


----------



## johnp98

Rich 63 said:


> What audessey. Multi eq 6 position? If so how was the measurement done?
> Regards Rich


I think the version of Audyssey I have is the MultiEQ, so is quite old and only takes 6 measurements.









I am not shocked that the generic mic and the 6 measurements failed to make any improvement (and did harm), but what I am wondering is if there is benefit to manually tinker with the filters provided (see my 4 questions above)
Thanks!


----------



## Rich 63

Ok thats out of the way. Did you follow the recommendation regarding first mic at ear level mlp and every position after being no further then a foot from original position in all directions?And after that did you engage dymamic eq etc. Most like it some dont.
Just eliminating stuff. I had multi eq on my last unit and found it way better then manual. You can't engage some of the audessey stuff without running it. Did you set crossovers and speaker size after audessey? This too is important.
Regards Rich


----------



## Spidacat

@johnp98 if it's not too much trouble, could you post an REW screen shot of the "horrible" Audyssey graph? I'm curious as to what it did that you didn't like. Do you run subs? Your posted graphs drop like a rock around 80 Hz, but then there's that hump at 40 Hz?


----------



## johnp98

Spidacat said:


> @johnp98 if it's not too much trouble, could you post an REW screen shot of the "horrible" Audyssey graph? I'm curious as to what it did that you didn't like. Do you run subs? Your posted graphs drop like a rock around 80 Hz, but then there's that hump at 40 Hz?


Ok here are some more graphs for further info:









Green = No EQ and just my L&R HTM12 speakers as baseline

Red = Audyssey auto EQ applying:
L speaker: 250hz: +1, 500hz: +2, 4k: +1, 16k: +4,
R speaker: 50hz0: +1, 4k: +1

Blue = My own manual EQ (and with my dual subs included - but I look after their integration using the Geddes approach and EQ them with the behringer amp itself instead of audyssey)
The EQ that I apply is to both speakers and is 125hz: -3, 250hz: +6, 500hz: +1, 8k: -3, 16k: -1

*@Rich 63 *I did take the first measurement at the MLP and then all subsequent within a 1ft radius. I am not sure if mine has dynamic EQ as I have never seen this as an option. The comparison was just looking at my L&R HTM12 speakers as baseline, in regards to the crossover and subs I use the Geddes approach for a larger overlap with the subs and then EQ the subs with the behringer amp itself

Anyways, I guess I should not have said that Audyssey gave horrible results, but I believe that my manual adjustments are significantly better (as I don't think audyssey should be boosting the 4k and 16k range, nor should it have the asymmetric boosting to the L and R speakers in my mind).

I really don't mind whatsoever that Audyssey and the generic mic has not given me as good of results compared to manual measurements with a higher quality mic and REW. That is not surprising to me in the slightest.

*Regardless, my questions still are:*
1) Does manually changing these filters and then confirming the results with REW seem reasonable? (realizing that I will be very limited by where the 9 filters occur)
2) I played around and having a +6db boost in the 250hz range does fill in a midbass deficiency, yet is boosting in Audyssey of concern (as in general with EQing my understanding is you don't want any overall boost).
3) By merely activating the EQ will it audibly change the sound quality of the sound (lets say for argument sake I just activate one filter at -1db, does this add extra processing that would result in audible differences?)
4) By applying the following filters (125: -3, 250: +6, 500: +1, 8k: -3, 16k: -1) this is what I get (pre = red, post = blue). Do you think that is worth keeping? I know EQing above the schroeder frequency is controversial, but it seems to have a rather large Q and thus is more a tone control in this case is it not?

Thanks for any thoughts or feedback!


----------



## Rich 63

Keep in mind that audessey is correcting each speakers in-room response so reflections/room influences are being corrected so that each sounds as close as possible to the other at the mlp.
While ive never looked at what audessey filters are applied (didnt know you could) the left side of my room has a couch while the right is shelving, a single leather chair, etc. I would not expect each to be corrected identically and likely explains the audessey differences. 
I don't manually eq and most don't. Plus i want my dynamic volume and dynamic eq which can only be accessed once audessey is active.
Best of luck. 
Regards Rich


----------



## Spidacat

@johnp98 thanks for the clarification. Audyssey's dip around 2k and boost at 3-4k don't look proper to me either. I'm no expert, but I think your adjustments look rather good. Anything you change eats into headroom, but since you're only making a few I'd imagine it's not enough to worry about. All room correction programs make hundreds/thousands of small adjustments - I'd bet they eat into headroom more than what you've done.


----------



## Rich 63

What is Audyssey Room Correction?


Explanation of Audyssey room correction software




www.avforums.com





This article might help explain better then i what aud is doing and what features it has.


----------



## pbarach

Spidacat said:


> Audyssey's dip around 2k and boost at 3-4k don't look proper to me either.


Are you using the Audyssey app to do the calibration? If so, turn off midrange correction (which intentionally causes a dip at 2 kHz in the REFERENCE curve). If you're calibrating using the AVR, you can't turn it off.


----------



## Spidacat

pbarach said:


> Are you using the Audyssey app to do the calibration? If so, turn off midrange correction (which intentionally causes a dip at 2 kHz in the REFERENCE curve). If you're calibrating using the AVR, you can't turn it off.


I use the app and disable midrange compensation. I was responding to johnp98 who is using a much older version of Audyssey where this isn't possible. The old version of Audyssey is doing some questionable things in that area. I would hope the newer versions would do a better job.


----------



## johnp98

Spidacat said:


> I use the app and disable midrange compensation. I was responding to johnp98 who is using a much older version of Audyssey where this isn't possible. The old version of Audyssey is doing some questionable things in that area. I would hope the newer versions would do a better job.


I assume the new versions are more accurate and being able to use the app certainly seems like a significant upgrade. I just had those specific questions about the older version of Audyssey.


----------



## filmgeek47

Hey guys,
Just added a mini-DSP 2x4HD to my dual sub setup. Does anyone just disable the audyssey sub correction and use the mini-DSP correction by itself instead? I‘ve messed around with pre-correcting audyssey with the mini-DSP, but it feels a bit cumbersome. Seems like the mini-DSP gives you a lot more control over tweaking the curve.

If I want to try it, do I just slide the frequency correction setting for the sub all the way to the left in the audyssey app? I assume that would prevent my receiver from modifying the sub‘s frequencies for dynamic EQ as well?


----------



## pbz06

filmgeek47 said:


> Hey guys,
> Just added a mini-DSP 2x4HD to my dual sub setup. Does anyone just disable the audyssey sub correction and use the mini-DSP correction by itself instead? I‘ve messed around with pre-correcting audyssey with the mini-DSP, but it feels a bit cumbersome. Seems like the mini-DSP gives you a lot more control over tweaking the curve.
> 
> If I want to try it, do I just slide the frequency correction setting for the sub all the way to the left in the audyssey app? I assume that would prevent my receiver from modifying the sub‘s frequencies for dynamic EQ as well?


I do the opposite. I only use MiniDSP for manual sub alignment of my duals (as a combined virtual sub), and prefer Audyssey for EQ. It’s easier tweaking for different curves and settings, and XT32 is fantastic.


----------



## galonzo

@*filmgeek47 , *I do as you describe, however, I only have the one sub; it's a little more work, but necessary in my case as I had a massive peak that needed taming before I could get decent result from Audy, so I ended up EQ'ing with REW and "disabling" the Audy filters exactly how you describe, FWIW


----------



## jj-34

mogorf said:


> Hi Guys,
> 
> I recently came across a Russian audio-video site (with the use of Google translator) where a member (Ivan B.) made a series of some serious experiments of mic pattern placement while running Audyssey MultEQ. As he claims he got the best results when the first measurement at MLP was made with the mic facing the ceiling, yet the remaining 5-7 measurements were made with the mic placed on a mic stand and tilted horizontally and made to face MLP directly. With this experiment the room came to life, anything obscured before diminished and his room now sounds like a Greek theater. He is now able to pin point each and every sound source from any material, be it a movie, music or even game. Try it and report back please.


Anybody tried this ?


----------



## pbz06

jj-34 said:


> Anybody tried this ?


That was an April fool's joke  sorry for all the non U.S. members


----------



## mogorf

jj-34 said:


> Anybody tried this ?


Please look at the date I posted this. It was 1st April!!!!!!


----------



## jj-34

Cool ..... indeed did not read the date 

That was just after I read an article stating that the vertical position of the mike was OK for all the speakers except for the ceiling mounted where the mike points directly to them, but maybe that was a joke too .


----------



## upsidedn

Trying to set up my new Marantz 5015. 5.1. I keep getting the message "Ambient noise too high or volume too low". This is after the subwoofer tones run. The only option is retry and I can never get out of the loop no matter how many times I've tried. I've maxed out the gain on the sub, ensured that I have bypassed the auto power toggle, and have ensured the built in xover is off. It is an older HSU-STF2 sub but I just replaced the amp. Now what?


----------



## Rich 63

Mic issue? I had the same issue with my 4300. Try playing with the wires where they go into the mic and jack.


----------



## rocky1

just curious.. i recently installed an
sr8015 which replaced an sr7012 which was moved to another room. on the sr8015 i setup manually on preset1 . on preset2 i did the audessey setup. It set all my speakers to Small . the main speakers and center were 60 crossover and surrounds to 40. On the sr7012 when i originally did audessey it set the main speaker to large.. crossovers were the same. i reverted everything to small. Is this something that is common? same
speakers /same room. But different recievers . Audessy set one set speakers to small (sr8015)and the other(sr7012) large.. sorry for long post.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

rocky1 said:


> just curious.. i recently installed an
> sr8015 which replaced an sr7012 which was moved to another room. on the sr8015 i setup manually on preset1 . on preset2 i did the audessey setup. It set all my speakers to Small . the main speakers and center were 60 crossover and surrounds to 40. On the sr7012 when i originally did audessey it set the main speaker to large.. crossovers were the same. i reverted everything to small. Is this something that is common? same
> speakers /same room. *But different recievers* . Audessy set one set speakers to small (sr8015)and the other(sr7012) large.. sorry for long post..
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


My understanding is that Audyssey merely *"advises"* the receiver as to the low frequency characteristics of all your speakers then the *receiver "decides" *what to do with that information, i.e., given the info it received, whether to set the speakers to "Small" or "Large." So, Audyssey does not set speakers to "Large,"* or* "Small," but just shares information with the receiver. Some receivers are programed to consider bass capability below 80Hz, 70Hz, or 60 Hz deep enough to consider the speakers "Large" -- after all there are speakers in inexpensive home theater set-ups that fail to deliver below 100 Hz or 110 Hz. A manufacturer once told Chris K. of Audyssey that their receivers were designed to set most front speakers to "Large" so customers wouldn't be disappointed that the sizeable, expensive (to them) towers they bought were considered "small." Chris, and others, suggest setting all speakers to "Small," to let the subwoofer do the heavy lifting. So it's conceivable that Marantz changed its view on what is "Small" and "Large" between the date of manufacture of the 7012 and the 8015.


----------



## Jackson.

I have a Marantz SR6013 and twice now I have had to reload the Auddessy calibration from the Audessy app to the receiver. Has anyone else experienced this where you are losing your calibration?


----------



## upsidedn

Rich 63 said:


> Mic issue? I had the same issue with my 4300. Try playing with the wires where they go into the mic and jack.


I switched the mic with my older Denon 1910 and still had the same issue. I then unplugged the sub and ran Audyssey again and it went through set up. So I am not sure if it is a problem with the sub (which is definitely putting out sound), or problems with my receiver/audyssey. I am not sure what to do next.


----------



## SuperD00ps

Jackson. said:


> I have a Marantz SR6013 and twice now I have had to reload the Auddessy calibration from the Audessy app to the receiver. Has anyone else experienced this where you are losing your calibration?


As far as loading the cal files from the app, always power on the AVR (not by the app), send the file to the AVR, then power the AVR off and then back on. If you power on the AVR from the app and send a file the "FLAT" setting may not work.


----------



## SuperD00ps

upsidedn said:


> I switched the mic with my older Denon 1910 and still had the same issue. I then unplugged the sub and ran Audyssey again and it went through set up. So I am not sure if it is a problem with the sub (which is definitely putting out sound), or problems with my receiver/audyssey. I am not sure what to do next.


Are you sure your sub is plugged into the "sub" out at the back of the AVR and not another output, and it is selected as part of your speaker setup in the menu?


----------



## lmacmil

I recently setup my 750H using Audyssey. It set my front speakers (Polk Monitor 40 bookshelf speakers with -3db down advertised at 57hz) to "large," the crossover to 40hz, the sub crossover to 100hz and the sub-woofer to "LFE." As a result, the sub never kicked in. I read the manual )) and set the sub to "LFE+main" and now it works as expected. I'm wondering why Audyssey set the front (and center speaker) to so low a crossover, especially given their specs. Perhaps it's just my lack of understanding how Audyssey works.


----------



## pbz06

lmacmil said:


> I recently setup my 750H using Audyssey. It set my front speakers (Polk Monitor 40 bookshelf speakers with -3db down advertised at 57hz) to "large," the crossover to 40hz, the sub crossover to 100hz and the sub-woofer to "LFE." As a result, the sub never kicked in. I read the manual )) and set the sub to "LFE+main" and now it works as expected. I'm wondering why Audyssey set the front (and center speaker) to so low a crossover, especially given their specs. Perhaps it's just my lack of understanding how Audyssey works.


If it set your speakers to "Large", then there wouldn't be a crossover associated with it (it would be greyed out). It's one or the other. Regardless, there's several reasons on why the AVR would set it lower than you think it should (note that it's the AVR that sets it or decides where to set it, all Audyssey does is report the -3dB point of the speaker response in your room). Read through this guide on Page 1. Also, Audyssey doesn't touch nor set the sub crossover (assuming you actually meant LPF of LFE, which isn't a crossover). It would be wherever you had set it...Audyssey ignores that setting during calibration anyway. I would advise against using LFE+Main.

If you're not feeling or hearing bass, switch everything to Small and raise the crossovers to 80hz as a starting point. Keep the subwoofer setting to LFE only, and keep the LPF of LFE at 120.


----------



## upsidedn

SuperD00ps said:


> Are you sure your sub is plugged into the "sub" out at the back of the AVR and not another output, and it is selected as part of your speaker setup in the menu?


Yes. Audyssey detects a sub is in place, but fails on calibration. Is there anyway to continue past the 'error'? Other things I need to try are repositioning the sub, and maybe testing with another sub if I can get my hands on one.

What a PITA!


----------



## mogorf

upsidedn said:


> Yes. Audyssey detects a sub is in place, but fails on calibration. Is there anyway to continue past the 'error'? Other things I need to try are repositioning the sub, and maybe testing with another sub if I can get my hands on one.
> 
> What a PITA!


This might be the time to do a "hard reset" or "micropocessor reset". Look up the procedures in the AVR's manual.


----------



## rocky1

upsidedn said:


> Yes. Audyssey detects a sub is in place, but fails on calibration. Is there anyway to continue past the 'error'? Other things I need to try are repositioning the sub, and maybe testing with another sub if I can get my hands on one.
> 
> What a PITA!


i re read your original post. you bypassed the auto toggle? so sub is not on auto? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## upsidedn

rocky1 said:


> i re read your original post. you bypassed the auto toggle? so sub is not on auto?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sub was set during calibration to always be powered on. Crossover bypassed. Volume knob at 12 position. Though I then tried increasing it also. 

It is an HSU Stf 2 with new amp.


----------



## Lindros88

Has anybody with gain matched dual subwoofers had issues with the Audyssey App? For whatever reason, the Audyssey App is ruining my bass. 

When I run a calibration without the App, sub 1 and 2 usually get set to -9.5 and -2.5. When I run a calibration through the app, sub 1 and 2 get set to -1.5 and 0.0 and they both sound worse. 

The bass is less tight and a bit boomier and just sounds worse all around. Like it's messing up the frequency response. Any idea what could be causing this?


----------



## Soulburner

Lindros88 said:


> Has anybody with gain matched dual subwoofers


Can you explain what you did before running Audyssey?

Did you start with both subs at zero delay/zero degree phase, crossover maxed out, gain at 12:00 or otherwise half on each?


----------



## Lindros88

Soulburner said:


> Can you explain what you did before running Audyssey?
> 
> Did you start with both subs at zero delay/zero degree phase, crossover maxed out, gain at 12:00 or otherwise half on each?


I have two HSU VTF3 MK5's, but one of them was wired in reverse, so I have one set at 0 degrees and the other set at 180 degrees. Crossover is maxed out on both and gain dials are in different positions, because even though they are the same model, they don't have identical gain structures, but they have been gain matched. I really don't understand what is causing this to happen.


----------



## Soulburner

You must have subs of different vintage, I guess?

I'm not sure either, but do you follow the procedure in the app for level-matching the subs before the sweeps begin? This always gets mine pretty close.


----------



## Lindros88

Soulburner said:


> You must have subs of different vintage, I guess?
> 
> I'm not sure either, but do you follow the procedure in the app for level-matching the subs before the sweeps begin? This always gets mine pretty close.


I got these subs within about 2 years of each other. I ignore the level matching step, since with my setup, level matching has given me really bad results. I didn't expect that the app would give me any variation at all with trims and frequency response of my subs. 

It's not like I'm using a different mic when I run the calibration through the app, so I don't know what would even be causing any changes. It's pretty disappointing, since I only wanted the app to be able to adjust my high frequencies, but it's worthless if it's going to make my bass sound worse. 

Maybe I should try the level matching approach with the app, just to see what happens.


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> I got these subs within about 2 years of each other. I ignore the level matching step, since with my setup, level matching has given me really bad results. I didn't expect that the app would give me any variation at all with trims and frequency response of my subs.
> 
> It's not like I'm using a different mic when I run the calibration through the app, so I don't know what would even be causing any changes. It's pretty disappointing, since I only wanted the app to be able to adjust my high frequencies, but it's worthless if it's going to make my bass sound worse.
> 
> Maybe I should try the level matching approach with the app, just to see what happens.


Not sure what is causing your issues, but have you tried completely clearing the cache of the app or even uninstalling/reinstalling? In my experience of many many calibration runs, the app and AVR are relatively consistent in the results...and in theory, they should work the same since the app just controls the setup and then sends the data to the AVR for processing.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> Not sure what is causing your issues, but have you tried completely clearing the cache of the app or even uninstalling/reinstalling? In my experience of many many calibration runs, the app and AVR are relatively consistent in the results...and in theory, they should work the same since the app just controls the setup and then sends the data to the AVR for processing.


Yeah, it didn't make any difference. It's weird how it's only messing with my subwoofers, but not any of my other speakers. I get consistent results with all of my speaker trims. The app doesn't color their sound at all.


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> Yeah, it didn't make any difference. It's weird how it's only messing with my subwoofers, but not any of my other speakers. I get consistent results with all of my speaker trims. The app doesn't color their sound at all.


Do you have pics of the room so we can see the locations of the subs and relative distances to MLP? I'm assuming you gain matched them correctly, and I'm also assuming that you are comparing the exact same settings and post calibration tweaks, and also assuming you aren't forgetting to "send to AVR" from the app. Once sent and you're playing content, double check your AVR settings (surround parameters) make sure no LFC setting is enabled; sometimes they enable after a calibration.

With that said...another thing to try is to go with the app still, but increase your gain knobs equally so the app AVR SW trim yields something in the -10 range for both....for now ignore that without the app they were much different.

Do you have a screenshot of the app's "predicted" graph for your subwoofer you can share?


----------



## ctsv510

@Lindros88, Audyssey is going to always level match the subs via the sub trims so gain matching them prior to Audyssey isn't going to have a gain matching effect. Using two sub outs with your AVR, Audyssey will always have the one further away working harder (higher trim) than the one that is closer. To gain match the subs, you'd have to gain match prior to Audyssey and then even up the trims after Audyssey. OR use a y splitter from one sub out to get Audyssey to treat them as one and not apply different signals strengths to each. The latter option, of course, will mean you'd have to manually time align them using the delay dial on the subs prior to Audyssey because Audyssey will not be able to do that seeing them as one sub.

As to why you're seeing such different results with the AVR vs App, I don't have a clue.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> Do you have pics of the room so we can see the locations of the subs and relative distances to MLP? I'm assuming you gain matched them correctly, and I'm also assuming that you are comparing the exact same settings and post calibration tweaks, and also assuming you aren't forgetting to "send to AVR" from the app. Once sent and you're playing content, double check your AVR settings (surround parameters) make sure no LFC setting is enabled; sometimes they enable after a calibration.
> 
> With that said...another thing to try is to go with the app still, but increase your gain knobs equally so the app AVR SW trim yields something in the -10 range for both....for now ignore that without the app they were much different.
> 
> Do you have a screenshot of the app's "predicted" graph for your subwoofer you can share?


I gain matched by putting 1 sub in the center of the room, using the audyssey level match screen to dial the sub to 72db or something around there. Then I put the other sub in the exact same spot and turned the gain dial on that one until I got the same reading of 72db. Then I split the difference of the trims after calibration.

Yeah, I sent the file to the AVR and then I do all the usual post calibration tweaks. I haven't tried increasing the gain dials to get readings in the -10 range yet.










Is that the screen you wanted to see?


----------



## Lindros88

ctsv510 said:


> @Lindros88, Audyssey is going to always level match the subs via the sub trims so gain matching them prior to Audyssey isn't going to have a gain matching effect. Using two sub outs with your AVR, Audyssey will always have the one further away working harder (higher trim) than the one that is closer. To gain match the subs, you'd have to gain match prior to Audyssey and then even up the trims after Audyssey. OR use a y splitter from one sub out to get Audyssey to treat them as one and not apply different signals strengths to each. The latter option, of course, will mean you'd have to manually time align them using the delay dial on the subs prior to Audyssey because Audyssey will not be able to do that seeing them as one sub.
> 
> As to why you're seeing such different results with the AVR vs App, I don't have a clue.


I do gain match prior to Audyssey. I don't touch the gain dials during calibration and then I split the difference afterwards.


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> I gain matched by putting 1 sub in the center of the room, using the audyssey level match screen to dial the sub to 72db or something around there. Then I put the other sub in the exact same spot and turned the gain dial on that one until I got the same reading of 72db. Then I split the difference of the trims after calibration.
> 
> Yeah, I sent the file to the AVR and then I do all the usual post calibration tweaks. I haven't tried increasing the gain dials to get readings in the -10 range yet.
> 
> View attachment 3141034
> 
> 
> Is that the screen you wanted to see?


Yes that's the screen I wanted to see. It looks good and nothing stands out...usually when Audyssey predicts a "straight line" it's pretty accurate in overall +/-3dB terms (of course they exagerate and use extra smoothing on their after graph, lol). 

And I apologize if these are things you've tried, I'm just trying to spitball some ideas of where things could go wrong...I'll put a think to it and see if I have other ideas. Your "process" seems correct too.


----------



## Rich 63

Lindros88 said:


> I got these subs within about 2 years of each other. I ignore the level matching step, since with my setup, level matching has given me really bad results. I didn't expect that the app would give me any variation at all with trims and frequency response of my subs.
> 
> It's not like I'm using a different mic when I run the calibration through the app, so I don't know what would even be causing any changes. It's pretty disappointing, since I only wanted the app to be able to adjust my high frequencies, but it's worthless if it's going to make my bass sound worse.
> 
> Maybe I should try the level matching approach with the app, just to see what happens.


The rule of thumb is to level or gain match. Not the same btw. 
Can't see a reason this would not be done.
Personally I'm a gain match guy. And 80db for all
Rich.


----------



## Soulburner

Lindros88 said:


> I got these subs within about 2 years of each other. I ignore the level matching step, since with my setup, level matching has given me really bad results. I didn't expect that the app would give me any variation at all with trims and frequency response of my subs.
> 
> It's not like I'm using a different mic when I run the calibration through the app, so I don't know what would even be causing any changes. It's pretty disappointing, since I only wanted the app to be able to adjust my high frequencies, but it's worthless if it's going to make my bass sound worse.
> 
> Maybe I should try the level matching approach with the app, just to see what happens.


I think you need to try completing the level matching step in the app. The smoothest frequency response usually comes from that method anyway.

Also, with Audyssey, you can't adjust only high frequencies. You wouldn't want to, anyway, as the majority of the sound quality benefits come from flattening the bass region. You have to correct everything below the cutoff frequency applied.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> Yes that's the screen I wanted to see. It looks good and nothing stands out...usually when Audyssey predicts a "straight line" it's pretty accurate in overall +/-3dB terms (of course they exagerate and use extra smoothing on their after graph, lol).
> 
> And I apologize if these are things you've tried, I'm just trying to spitball some ideas of where things could go wrong...I'll put a think to it and see if I have other ideas. Your "process" seems correct too.





Soulburner said:


> I think you need to try completing the level matching step in the app. The smoothest frequency response usually comes from that method anyway.
> 
> Also, with Audyssey, you can't adjust only high frequencies. You wouldn't want to, anyway, as the majority of the sound quality benefits come from flattening the bass region. You have to correct everything below the cutoff frequency applied.


Thanks for all the help you guys are giving me, I appreciate it. I ran a few more calibrations through the app today and I realized that I'm also getting wildly different distance settings from one calibration to the next, despite my mic placement being nearly identical.

When running a calibration through the AVR, this is what my distance settings usually are.
Sub 1 - 10.4 feet
Sub 2 - 7.1 feet

When I run a calibration through the app, the distances will get set to random numbers within the range of about 2-10 feet. I can't even predict what they will be set to from one calibration to the next, despite the mic being placed in the exact same spot. 

I overlooked distance settings initially because they are not something I am used to having to tweak post calibration. I'm going to just manually set the distances and trims to what they would normally get set to when running a calibration through the AVR.

If that doesn't fix the problem, then I will move on to the level matching recommendation, since I still haven't tried doing that through the app yet. I even submitted an "Ask Audyssey" request and they were perplexed by why I would be seeing such differences with the app. Their theory right now is that it's more likely something faulty within the AVR.


----------



## Soulburner

Subwoofer distances usually don't correspond to physical distances. What you are seeing is Audyssey SubEQ optimizing the subwoofer blend to smooth the frequency response. I don't recommend changing them without measuring with REW.


----------



## Lindros88

Soulburner said:


> Subwoofer distances usually don't correspond to physical distances. What you are seeing is Audyssey SubEQ optimizing the subwoofer blend to smooth the frequency response. I don't recommend changing them without measuring with REW.


Changing distance settings didn't help. I finally tried level matching through the app and it resulted in distances being set to 0.0 and trims set to +12.00db. I give up. lol. I'm really starting to think this must be the AVR. If the app was causing this, no way would I be the only one having this problem.


----------



## Rich 63

6


Lindros88 said:


> Changing distance settings didn't help. I finally tried level matching through the app and it resulted in distances being set to 0.0 and trims set to +12.00db. I give up. lol. I'm really starting to think this must be the AVR. If the app was causing this, no way would I be the only one having this problem.


You dont level match you gain match to 80db. Get a sound meter app with weight adjustment set it to c weight. Or if possible a sound meter or rew with calibrated mic better still. Put the phone mic or other mic within 2" of centre of the driver to adjust your subs. The meter will bounce around but so long as its floating close to 80db your good. Now never ever touch the sub gains. Ever. Not sure what version of audessey you have but if its xt32 ignore the step with getting it in the green. Simply bypass. It should be about 1/2" past the green. Roughly. When completed you should be about - 9 or 10 ish. This is good. If you need to up your low end it is done from the audessey app. NOT THE SUB GAINS. 
Rich


----------



## Lindros88

Rich 63 said:


> 6
> 
> You dont level match you gain match to 80db. Get a sound meter app with weight adjustment set it to c weight. Or if possible a sound meter or rew with calibrated mic better still. Put the phone mic or other mic within 2" of centre of the driver to adjust your subs. The meter will bounce around but so long as its floating close to 80db your good. Now never ever touch the sub gains. Ever. Not sure what version of audessey you have but if its xt32 ignore the step with getting it in the green. Simply bypass. It should be about 1/2" past the green. Roughly. When completed you should be about - 9 or 10 ish. This is good. If you need to up your low end it is done from the audessey app. NOT THE SUB GAINS.
> Rich


I've been using a gain matched setup for a few years now. I didn't do it exactly the way you described above, but I know that the subs are matched and I ignore the level matching step on calibrations and then split the difference of the trims afterwards. Whatever is going on with this AVR/App isn't remedied by either gain matching or level matching. Something else is going on.


----------



## Lindros88

Any Audyssey App users know if it's possible to extract a calibration file from the AVR and upload it into the app?


----------



## Soulburner

I don't do any "matching" other than putting my subs both at 12:00 on the gain dial. I then run a 3-point measurement via the app and check the sub levels. I make adjustments if I need to get them closer to the same level, shooting for around -10 each. That means they are about half way between green and red on the screen.


----------



## Rich 63

8


Lindros88 said:


> I've been using a gain matched setup for a few years now. I didn't do it exactly the way you described above, but I know that the subs ware matched and I ignore the level matching step on calibrations and then split the difference of the trims afterwards. Whatever is going on with this AVR/App isn't remedied by either gain matching or level matching. Something else is going on.


Well what is the difference between them to you. If your gain matching but not the way i suggested your not gain matching.
Why dont you try what i suggested and get back to us. What results your getting dont make sense.
What sound burner suggested is level matching and is satisfactory for many. I dont ascribe to that because ive got 4 subs all at different distances from mlp. Im also running with a mini dsp so my advice may not work but worth a shot at this point. No?
Rich


----------



## Lindros88

Rich 63 said:


> 8
> 
> Well what is the difference between them to you. If your gain matching but not the way i suggested your not gain matching.
> Why dont you try what i suggested and get back to us. What results your getting dont make sense.
> Rich


The way I gain matched them was by putting one sub in the middle of the room, using the Audyssey level match screen and turning the gain dial until I got a reading of 72db. Then I put the other sub in the same exact spot and turned the gain dial until I got a reading of 72db on that one too. 

After calibration, I get different trim levels, since they are in different locations in the room, so I split the difference between the trims, to keep them gain matched.


----------



## Soulburner

Is one of them very close to you and the other far away?

And have you tried running Audyssey with the subs both at zero phase just to see what happens?


----------



## Rich 63

Soulburner said:


> Is one of them very close to you and the other far away?
> 
> And have you tried running Audyssey with the subs both at zero phase just to see what happens?


Soundburner makes a good point nearfield vs far.


----------



## Lindros88

Soulburner said:


> Is one of them very close to you and the other far away?
> 
> And have you tried running Audyssey with the subs both at zero phase just to see what happens?


Yeah, one is between the left and center speakers and the other is on the right sidewall, about 6 or 7 feet away from the mlp. When I ran a calibration through the AVR with both at 0 phase, these were the distances and trims I got.

Sub 1 distance: 3.9ft
Sub 2 distance: 7.2ft

Sub 1 trim: -9.5
Sub 2 trim: -1.5

And with these same phase settings these were the results I got when running the calibration through the app.

Sub 1 distance: 0.0
Sub 2 distance: 0.1

Sub 1 trim: +12.00
Sub 2 trim: +12.00


----------



## SuperD00ps

Do you get different results for the other speakers as well between the app and AVR or is just the subs that measure diffenently? And, just curious, but back in post #9657 I believe,...the picture you posted of your sub responses, their roll off occurs at 1k? Is that correct for your sub? Are your subs plugged in using line level or in combination with mains?


----------



## pbarach

Lindros88 said:


> Any Audyssey App users know if it's possible to extract a calibration file from the AVR and upload it into the app?


No, it's not possible.


----------



## mthomas47

Soulburner said:


> Subwoofer distances usually don't correspond to physical distances. What you are seeing is Audyssey SubEQ optimizing the subwoofer blend to smooth the frequency response. I don't recommend changing them without measuring with REW.



Hi,

I don't really monitor this thread anymore, and someone else may already have responded to this, but that's not quite how Audyssey works. You are right that subwoofers have internal delay which doesn't correspond to physical distances. And, I agree with you that measuring with REW can be a good prerequisite before changing subwoofer distances. But, SubEQ is not optimizing the subwoofer blend with its distance setting process.

Trim levels and distances (timing) are set based on sweeps of the individual subwoofers in mic position 1. Following mic position 1, the sweeps are for the combined sound of the subwoofers, and the actual EQ filters are created based on a fuzzy-logic weighted average of those sweeps.

SubEQ has no way to optimize subwoofer blends during the distance setting process, because as noted, the distances are set based on the individual sweeps of the subwoofers in mic position 1. All Audyssey is doing when it sets those distances is measuring the actual arrival time of the sound from each subwoofer at the MLP (mic position 1). And, it's making sure that the sounds arrive at the same time.

The fact that SubEQ can't use the distance setting process to optimize the blend between the subwoofers is why adjusting the distance for one of the subs, post-Audyssey, can sometimes be helpful in dealing with cancellation.

Just as an aside, listeners may have noticed that the sound of the first series of sweeps is louder for the subs than it is for the subsequent seven sweeps, although all of the sweeps use a 75dB test tone. That is because the first set of sweeps for the subs in mic position 1 is pink noise in the frequency range of 30-70Hz. That is sufficient for measuring the volume for level-matching purposes, and for measuring the arrival time of the sound for setting distances. (The pink noise used for the regular channels in mic position 1 is 500-2,000Hz.)

The seven subsequent sweeps use full-band pink noise in the range from 10Hz to 22KHz for the purposes of EQing the subs and the regular channels. I don't think that the sound of the sweeps for each of the individual speakers of the regular channels really changes much during the full eight mic positions, although some speakers sound louder or deeper in tone than other speakers do, based on their low-frequency capabilities and their distance from the MLP. But, the limited bandwidth of the 30-70Hz sweeps of the individual subs definitely sounds louder than the full bandwidth sweeps of the combined sound of the subs in the subsequent seven mic positions.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

mthomas47 said:


> Trim levels and distances (timing) are set based on sweeps of the individual subwoofers in mic position 1. Following mic position 1, the sweeps are for the combined sound of the subwoofers, and the actual EQ filters are created based on a fuzzy-logic weighted average of those sweeps.
> 
> SubEQ has no way to optimize subwoofer blends during the distance setting process, because as noted, the distances are set based on the individual sweeps of the subwoofers in mic position 1. All Audyssey is doing when it sets those distances is measuring the actual arrival time of the sound from each subwoofer at the MLP (mic position 1). And, it's making sure that the sounds arrive at the same time.
> 
> The fact that SubEQ can't use the distance setting process to optimize the blend between the subwoofers is why adjusting the distance for one of the subs, post-Audyssey, can sometimes be helpful in dealing with cancellation.


There are rare cases, but adjusting individual sub distances almost never improves my frequency response. In my experience, Audyssey has an uncanny ability for choosing the right distances which achieves a smooth frequency response (and close to the right distances to blend with the speakers, though there's a little more variation there). I suppose I could accept that it's just a coincidence, but to get right to the matter, here is Audyssey Labs' answer from 2012:



Audyssey Labs said:


> MultEQ XT32 is the flagship version of our technology to measure and correct room acoustical problems. Sub EQ HT is a method we came up with to deal with multiple subs. If you only have one sub then it's not in use. The idea is to first measure each sub separately, then apply delay and level settings so that the two subs are now time and level aligned. Then we ping them once more as "one" sub to derive the room correction filter.


As suspected, it is in fact time-aligning the subs and equalizing the sum. We are actually saying the same thing but in different ways.


----------



## Soulburner

Interestingly, I also learned from this that Audyssey can handle 4 subs, if only an AVR maker (looking at you, Sound United) gave us the preouts:



https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212343803-SubEQ-HT-vs-MultEQ-XT32


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> There are rare cases, but adjusting individual sub distances almost never improves my frequency response. In my experience, Audyssey has an uncanny ability for choosing the right distances which achieves a smooth frequency response (and close to the right distances to blend with the speakers, though there's a little more variation there). I suppose I could accept that it's just a coincidence, but to get right to the matter, here is Audyssey Labs' answer from 2012:
> 
> 
> As suspected, it is in fact time-aligning the subs and equalizing the sum. We are actually saying the same thing but in different ways.


I don't think you are necessarily saying the exact same thing though, even though the end result might be the same. Audyssey does not look at the interaction of the subs+mains in any way, other than it ensures they arrive at the MLP at the same time. The subs are EQ'd separately than the speakers. Most times it's not an issue anyway, but sometimes you have to do the "distance tweak" post calibration in order to optimize it.

When you have dual subs and using the dual outputs of the AVR, it's the same overall process. Audyssey first level matches and sets the distances of the two subs individually, before combining them and EQing them as "one". However, in this case it doesn't optimize the subwoofer delays between the subs themselves, nor each with the speakers. If it comes out good, I guess you can say it's "coincidence" but it's not sophisticated in that sense that it optimizes the interactions.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> I don't think you are necessarily saying the exact same thing though, even though the end result might be the same. Audyssey does not look at the interaction of the subs+mains in any way, other than it ensures they arrive at the MLP at the same time. The subs are EQ'd separately than the speakers. Most times it's not an issue anyway, but sometimes you have to do the "distance tweak" post calibration in order to optimize it.


That is what I'm saying: the subs are time-aligned and equalized together, not to the speakers (but the result is close). It is that process that smooths the frequency response of the subs. So now all 3 of us are in heated agreement


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> That is what I'm saying: the subs are time-aligned and equalized together, not to the speakers (but the result is close). It is that process that smooths the frequency response of the subs. So now all 3 of us are in heated agreement


Don't burn my soul


----------



## Lindros88

SuperD00ps said:


> Do you get different results for the other speakers as well between the app and AVR or is just the subs that measure diffenently? And, just curious, but back in post #9657 I believe,...the picture you posted of your sub responses, *their roll off occurs at 1k? Is that correct for your sub?* Are your subs plugged in using line level or in combination with mains?


As far as my speakers go, the trims and distances usually fall within the same range whether I calibrate through the app or the AVR. The only difference I noticed is that the crossover for the surrounds always gets set at 80hz when calibrating through the AVR, but gets set to 100hz when calibration through the app. I'm not sure why that would happen. My subs are plugged in using line level. I'm not sure what the bolded question means?


----------



## Spidacat

Are you sure both sub amps are working properly? Can you try swapping out one or both cables? Even with some distance differences, having Audyssey set one at -9.5 and the other at -1.5 doesn't sound right. Even with one in a corner and one in the middle of the room there shouldn't be 8 dB of difference between them. I believe someone already mentioned it, but it might be a good idea to uninstall and reinstall the app. A long time ago that helped me with an issue.


----------



## Lindros88

Spidacat said:


> Are you sure both sub amps are working properly? Can you try swapping out one or both cables? Even with some distance differences, having Audyssey set one at -9.5 and the other at -1.5 doesn't sound right. Even with one in a corner and one in the middle of the room there shouldn't be 8 dB of difference between them. I believe someone already mentioned it, but it might be a good idea to uninstall and reinstall the app. A long time ago that helped me with an issue.


I've swapped cables before and there hasn't been any differences. Same with reinstalling the app. In my case, I think it has to do with placement, because when I have experimented with more symmetrical sub placements, I tend to get trims that are either identical or near identical. But those symmetrical placements haven't sounded as good and have had more cancellations.

And something else weird that I noticed when I tested a different AVR with my system (Denon X3700H). Though I usually get the 7-8db difference with this setup with the x3300w, with the same setup and same mic placement with the 3700, I was only getting a 3-4db difference. I thought this was really strange, since even though I know different Audyssey mics can have different sensitivities, I still would have expected to see the same difference between the two.


----------



## Soulburner

I think it would be great if some of us left a positive review for the app:

Audyssey MultEQ Editor app - Apps on Google Play


----------



## Lindros88

Does anybody know if it's normal for the Audyssey calibration chirps to sound different between two identical subwoofers? With my two HSU VTF-3 MK5's, the chirps have a different tone. 

It's not due to room acoustics/placement either. I can put these subs together in the middle of the room and the chirps still sound different for each sub. Does anybody else experience this?


----------



## Soulburner

Same effect if you swap the RCA's?


----------



## drh3b

Lindros88 said:


> Does anybody know if it's normal for the Audyssey calibration chirps to sound different between two identical subwoofers? With my two HSU VTF-3 MK5's, the chirps have a different tone.
> 
> It's not due to room acoustics/placement either. I can put these subs together in the middle of the room and the chirps still sound different for each sub. Does anybody else experience this?


Do you by chance have the crossover set at less than max on one?


----------



## garygarrison

When you place them cheek by jowl, are *any and all* controls set identically? If they still sound different, switch the RCA plugs on the cables going to the subwoofers, as Soulburner suggested. I assume you know to *turn both subwoofers off *(and count to 20 ⚠  🔨✴) *before plugging or unplugging* the RCAs*!*


----------



## Lindros88

They sound fine now, but the last time I put them next to each other in the middle of the room they clearly sounded different. 

One of the gain dials is really sensitive and sometimes moves from vibrations, so one of them probably was just slightly louder the last time I tested them, so it made it sound different to me.


----------



## garygarrison

Lindros88 said:


> They sound fine now, but the last time I put them next to each other in the middle of the room they clearly sounded different.
> 
> One of the gain dials is really sensitive and sometimes moves from vibrations, so one of them probably was just slightly louder the last time I tested them, so it made it sound different to me.


Later, at your leasure, you might want to contact HSU ans ask them if anything can be done about the one gain dial being subject to vibration affecting it. Would contact cleaner of some kind be safe? I'd call *technical services.* Stay away from the sales people. Here are a variety of ways to contact HSU:

Looking for help? Don't hesitate to contact us. 
*Phone* 
Our hours are Monday through Friday, 9-5 Pacific time. 


U.S.*1-714-386-9727*​International*1-714-666-9260*​
 
*Email* 


General inquiries[email protected]​Technical support [email protected]​


----------



## Lindros88

garygarrison said:


> Later, at your leasure, you might want to contact HSU ans ask them if anything can be done about the one gain dial being subject to vibration affecting it. Would contact cleaner of some kind be safe? I'd call *technical services.* Stay away from the sales people. Here are a variety of ways to contact HSU:
> 
> Looking for help? Don't hesitate to contact us.
> *Phone*
> Our hours are Monday through Friday, 9-5 Pacific time.
> 
> 
> U.S.*1-714-386-9727*​International*1-714-666-9260*​
> 
> *Email*
> 
> 
> General inquiries[email protected]​Technical support [email protected]​


I contacted them about it in the past. They recommended blu-tack over the dial to help keep it in place. That didn't work, but I think I found that as long as the gain dial is turned beyond a certain point, it stays put. At least it has so far. Thanks.


----------



## Lindros88

On another note, I am planning on upgrading from 2 HSU VTF3 MK5's, to 4. I plan to put 1 in each corner. My room is 16x12, but there is one irregular corner. The rear right corner is the irregular one, so my rear right sub would end up being a little bit closer to the MLP than the rear left sub, if all 4 subs were in the corners. 

I have an XT32 AVR and I looked at the FAQS on the first page, regarding multiple subs on one sub output. It mentioned how it's important to have the 2 subs equidistant to the MLP and in similar locations. 

My rear pair wouldn't be equidistant, but I could always pull the rear left sub about a foot out of the corner it's in, to make them equidistant, but then they would be in slightly dissimilar locations. How much of a problem is this?


----------



## Soulburner

One sub output - so you will use a MiniDSP? It shouldn't be a problem that can't be solved with adjustment of delays.


----------



## Lindros88

Soulburner said:


> One sub output - so you will use a MiniDSP? It shouldn't be a problem that can't be solved with adjustment of delays.


No, I have XT32 with Sub EQ HT, so I have 2 sub outputs. I'll have the front 2, which are equidistant to the MLP on one output, and the rear pair on the other. 

But if I wanted to keep the rear pair equidistant to the MLP, it would mean having the rear right sub in a corner, while the rear left sub is about a foot away from a corner. I'm hoping this won't pose a problem during calibration.


----------



## Soulburner

Gotcha. It could be a problem, but you won't know without trying. I recommend trying and if you don't have a computer with Room EQ Wizard and a UMIK-1, I highly recommend getting one to see what's going on and to help get this dialed in just right. I apologize if you've already mentioned that. If you aren't satisfied with the results, then it would be time for a MiniDSP 2x4.


----------



## Barefoot Joe

*Audyssey XT32 and miniDSP set up?*

Couple of questions...

1) I plan to use a miniDSP 2x4 HD to set up 3 subs in my room. After that procedure and getting the subs working well together, I wonder about applying Audyssey correction and if it might screw up the results obtained from the miniDSP. Should the Audyssey editor app be used to disable EQ for the sub channel so that Audyssey doesn't affect the work done with the miniDSP? Or, should the Audyssey correction be applied to the sub(s) "on top" of the miniDSP calibration? 

2) When calibrating the sub with the miniDSP, should I shoot to calibrate to a house curve with the bass boosted? The reason I ask is that I plan to use Dynamic EQ in Audyssey. Since that boosts bass at lower than reference volumes, would calibrating to a flat curve work better than a house curve if planning to use Dynamic EQ? Thoughts and opinions are appreciated!


----------



## pbz06

Barefoot Joe said:


> *Audyssey XT32 and miniDSP set up?*
> 
> Couple of questions...
> 
> 1) I plan to use a miniDSP 2x4 HD to set up 3 subs in my room. After that procedure and getting the subs working well together, I wonder about applying Audyssey correction and if it might screw up the results obtained from the miniDSP. Should the Audyssey editor app be used to disable EQ for the sub channel so that Audyssey doesn't affect the work done with the miniDSP? Or, should the Audyssey correction be applied to the sub(s) "on top" of the miniDSP calibration?
> 
> 2) When calibrating the sub with the miniDSP, should I shoot to calibrate to a house curve with the bass boosted? The reason I ask is that I plan to use Dynamic EQ in Audyssey. Since that boosts bass at lower than reference volumes, would calibrating to a flat curve work better than a house curve if planning to use Dynamic EQ? Thoughts and opinions are appreciated!


If you set it up carefully and proper, and plan on using DEQ, you're better off doing light touches with minidsp to correct obvious issues (and primarily focus on alignment between subs for best optimized response). Audyssey XT32 is really good and probably better anyway, and if you give it good input the better the results. Use minidsp to have one output from avr and control the 3 outputs to the subs that way. 

If you plan on using DEQ, do not do manual house curves before hand since Audyssey will flatten them. Use DEQ post calibration or go back and do minidsp after everything if you want manual house curves.


----------



## Soulburner

Barefoot Joe said:


> Couple of questions...


Here are a couple of examples from my own system.

If you give Audyssey good speaker and sub placement, which _is the foundation of any good system and should always be done_, it can do a great job at equalizing your bass frequencies. Here is post-Audyssey with two subs but without DEQ and before increasing sub levels, which I always do:









Not too bad.

And here is with sub level increases and Dynamic EQ ON. AKA, how I actually listen:










I already have a "house curve" due to my small room size and using two subs spaced 16 feet apart, and Dynamic EQ – all of which is shoring up the low end.

A couple of things to observe:

If I decide to get a MiniDSP, I would use it to tidy up the issues between 16-25 Hz after Audyssey has done its thing. Using the MiniDSP for EQ first would create a lot of logistical headache as you are noticing.
Audyssey uses Finite Impulse Response (FIR) filters which are technically better than the Infinite Impulse Response (IIR) filters used by REW, so I would put my best horse first and let the system work as designed. More on filter types here: FIR vs IIR filtering
So in your case where you must use a MiniDSP first to align three subs, I would get the best no-EQ response you can with the MiniDSP delays and levels, then present that to Audyssey to do its EQ as one sub. Now, turn DEQ on so you can work with the response as you'll actually be hearing it. You'll need to hear and measure this before adding any potential boosts. Next, adjust the distance setting for the sub in the AVR to smooth out the crossover to your front speakers (either center or L+R), also known as the "sub distance tweak". Then if there are remaining issues, target those with MiniDSP filters. Finally, if you aren't getting much tilt even with DEQ on, you can add a simple slope with the MiniDSP (_after _Audyssey so it does not measure it) but the lack of tilt would have me wonder if there is enough subwoofage. In your case there should be plenty, but who knows, you could be trying to fill an amphitheater.

Disclaimer: I wrote this as I am drifting off to sleep, so I will proofread in the morning when I regain consciousness.


----------



## Barefoot Joe

Thanks so much for that detailed response....post saved and bookmarked! I must admit, that really throws a wrench in my plans to EQ with the miniDSP first. I predict that I will likely try both the EQ with miniDSP before Audyssey AND Audyssey EQ first with touch-ups with miniDSP after. I am fortunate in that I have a new build in progress right now and the purpose designed media room is just now ready for sheetrock. The room is about 26/17/9 feet. Amphitheater? I like to think so!


----------



## Soulburner

Yeah, ultimately experimentation is needed. Some people get good results doing EQ in the MiniDSP first - but unless it's necessary, like in some cases where room correction just can't figure out your setup for whatever reason - I would try room EQ first. If doing EQ in the MiniDSP first, simply EQ to flat to avoid any further problems between the two systems. Like you mentioned, a target curve system could change your house curve. Also, a house curve can be created in the MultEQ editor.

There may be a way around this by limiting the subwoofer correction frequency range. I have seen it mentioned before but I have not tried it.

In the end, I see the MiniDSP as a tool to solve specific problems and it is very good at that, when needed.


----------



## ctsv510

@Barefoot Joe ; You can disable Audyssey subwoofer correction using the MultEQ app by sliding the correction range slider all the way as low as it goes. I confirmed with testing that this removes all correction, not just down to 20hz like it seems it would.

I was going to skip all Audyssey correction and just do REW / miniDSP but Audyssey gave me a much better starting point to make the best use of the 10 available filters in the miniDSP.


----------



## gconfused

I'm in the market for a new receiver. After some readings, I realize the benefit of XT32 vs. plain MultEQ. But since I intend to use the Audyssey Editor APP to tweak the curves, does XT32 still have significant advantages? Receivers with XT32 demands a high premium over plain MultEQ equipped receivers, they have additional power/features that I really don't need.

Thanks.


----------



## Rich 63

gconfused said:


> I'm in the market for a new receiver. After some readings, I realize the benefit of XT32 vs. plain MultEQ. But since I intend to use the Audyssey Editor APP to tweak the curves, does XT32 still have significant advantages? Receivers with XT32 demands a high premium over plain MultEQ equipped receivers, they have additional power/features that I really don't need.
> 
> Thanks.


The editor app works in conjunction with whatever audessey suite you have onboard the avr So yes. If you want xt32 the avr must have it. 
Rich


----------



## pbz06

gconfused said:


> I'm in the market for a new receiver. After some readings, I realize the benefit of XT32 vs. plain MultEQ. But since I intend to use the Audyssey Editor APP to tweak the curves, does XT32 still have significant advantages? Receivers with XT32 demands a high premium over plain MultEQ equipped receivers, they have additional power/features that I really don't need.
> 
> Thanks.


Yes it will still provide the significant advantages. The app is simply an extra tool for customization and control, but the filters and sophistication of XT32 would still be there in both the bass region and full range. Unfortunately as you noted, the XT32 version is lumped with AVRs with other features and comes at a premium, but to me it's worth it unless you're straining the budget too much for comfort.


----------



## gconfused

Thanks a lot for the quick responses. I currently use Feedback Destroyer (with REW) for bass management, and I'm quite happy with it. Do you think plain MultEQ with editor APP can be close to it or I should go to XT or XT32 to match it? I know I can buy a lower end Denon and try it. If it doesn't work, just to return it. But it's kinda waste of resource and I would like to avoid if possible.


----------



## Soulburner

gconfused said:


> I'm in the market for a new receiver. After some readings, I realize the benefit of XT32 vs. plain MultEQ. But since I intend to use the Audyssey Editor APP to tweak the curves, does XT32 still have significant advantages? Receivers with XT32 demands a high premium over plain MultEQ equipped receivers, they have additional power/features that I really don't need.


XT32 does a much better job correcting bass vs the lower versions. It is significantly more accurate. It is also great at setting up 2 subs.


----------



## gconfused

Shouldn't the app help quite a bit in the bass region? I know XT32 vs. plain is basically night and day with auto tuning. I only have Feedback Destroyer as the reference, I usually can get good enough response with 5-6 bands active. Just wonder if MultEQ give me enough resolution with the app to achieve similar results. I have searched quite a bit, but I could only find reviews of the app coupled with XT32. BTW, I only have one sub, for now...


----------



## Soulburner

The difference is XT32 has much higher filter resolution so it gives much smoother results:


FEATURESMULTEQ XT32MULTEQ XTMULTEQ2EQFilter resolution (satellites)512x16x2xxFilter resolution (subwoofer)512x128x128xN/ANumber of Measurement Positions8*8*63


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

I know one should re-run Audyssey after making large room changes (furniture, displays, shifting speaker positions), but if I were to hang a few narrow soccer scarves on a wall via thumbtacks, should I re-run? They would be in four separate locations (two behind the mains), supplementing wall hangings and pictures already present.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## mogorf

JohnnytheSkin said:


> I know one should re-run Audyssey after making large room changes (furniture, displays, shifting speaker positions), but if I were to hang a few narrow soccer scarves on a wall via thumbtacks, should I re-run? They would be in four separate locations (two behind the mains), supplementing wall hangings and pictures already present.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


Only if you hear a difference. I doubt it!


----------



## chrisk_syng

Hello everyone, this is a voice from the past  I have a new gig now, but it's hard to forget your first love. I'll be lurking here, but will mostly be posting on the "official" Syng Cell Alpha Thread. Stop by and say hi.

--Chris Kyriakakis


----------



## mogorf

chrisk_syng said:


> Hello everyone, this is a voice from the past  I have a new gig now, but it's hard to forget your first love. I'll be lurking here, but will mostly be posting on the "official" Syng Cell Alpha Thread. Stop by and say hi.
> 
> --Chris Kyriakakis


Hi Chris, nice to see you back on-board. Please lurk here as often as you can.


----------



## Lindros88

I posted a few weeks back about how the Audyssey app was screwing up my frequency response. I got a Umik-1 last week and measured. The green line is a calibration run through the AVR and the red line is a calibration through the Audyssey app.

Is it normal for the app to aggressively boost certain frequencies like this? I measured at three different positions and it was the same trend at all of them. These calibrations were the same in terms of mic placement, background noise, post calibration tweaks, etc.


----------



## thetube0a3

I hope this is the right place for this question.
Dynamic EQ. I understand the idea behind it and I like it. But I'm having issues with different streaming sources being a different levels.

For example HBO max seems very loud where's Disney+ actually seems more appropriate and lower. HBO is loud enough the normal 0dB setting on DEQ is far off but it works on other sources.

Am I nuts or is this actually a common problem?

How can I use it if every thing we watch is at different levels and 0db isn't actually correct?


----------



## pbz06

thetube0a3 said:


> I hope this is the right place for this question.
> Dynamic EQ. I understand the idea behind it and I like it. But I'm having issues with different streaming sources being a different levels.
> 
> For example HBO max seems very loud where's Disney+ actually seems more appropriate and lower. HBO is loud enough the normal 0dB setting on DEQ is far off but it works on other sources.
> 
> Am I nuts or is this actually a common problem?
> 
> How can I use it if every thing we watch is at different levels and 0db isn't actually correct?


That's a common complaint and one of the "negatives" of DEQ. You can try to tailor it perfect for a specific source (i.e. disc playback) but one thing I've found is that so many movies are mixed differently. Some have too much bass, some not enough, some are too loud etc. Then with different sources/devices you have other variables. I personally like DEQ and use it often, but I'm not opposed to tinkering and I use a remote app to adjust on the fly which helps.


----------



## Soulburner

thetube0a3 said:


> I hope this is the right place for this question.
> Dynamic EQ. I understand the idea behind it and I like it. But I'm having issues with different streaming sources being a different levels.
> 
> For example HBO max seems very loud where's Disney+ actually seems more appropriate and lower. HBO is loud enough the normal 0dB setting on DEQ is far off but it works on other sources.
> 
> Am I nuts or is this actually a common problem?
> 
> How can I use it if every thing we watch is at different levels and 0db isn't actually correct?


Would it help to make a Quick Select for Disney+ where your channel levels are all raised? Hold a Quick Select button to set your current settings to that QS button. Then, press Option, change channel levels, then hold down a different Quick Select button to save that.


----------



## thetube0a3

Soulburner said:


> Would it help to make a Quick Select for Disney+ where your channel levels are all raised? Hold a Quick Select button to set your current settings to that QS button. Then, press Option, change channel levels, then hold down a different Quick Select button to save that.



To me it's easier to just get used to it being off on everything rather than going in between it being off and on and different reference settings.

Honestly I feel having a setting to disable it effecting the levels of speakers and only do equalization would make it much better in normal real world use. It's by far my biggest complaint. If I could set it to 10db and have none of the levels boosted I'd leave it on.


----------



## Soulburner

thetube0a3 said:


> To me it's easier to just get used to it being off on everything rather than going in between it being off and on and different reference settings.
> 
> Honestly I feel having a setting to disable it effecting the levels of speakers and only do equalization would make it much better in normal real world use. It's by far my biggest complaint. If I could set it to 10db and have none of the levels boosted I'd leave it on.


What I'm saying is that using the Quick Select would instantly put your speaker levels in line with other content, rather than fiddling with settings each time. Should be easy enough to test and see if it works for you.


----------



## Ladic

Hello, I am running a Denon AVR S750H from Costco. I ran the Audyssey Set up, everything sounds great but the center channel I find it too low on some movies, when I go to settings the Center Channel option is grayed out and wont let me increase its level, how can I raise the center channel level?


----------



## Alan P

Ladic said:


> Hello, I am running a Denon AVR S750H from Costco. I ran the Audyssey Set up, everything sounds great but the center channel I find it too low on some movies, when I go to settings the Center Channel option is grayed out and wont let me increase its level, how can I raise the center channel level?


Are you trying to adjust the center level in "Test Tones"? It shouldn't be grayed out if the speaker was connected during Audyssey.






Levels AVR-S750H







manuals.denon.com


----------



## Ladic

Alan P said:


> Are you trying to adjust the center level in "Test Tones"? It shouldn't be grayed out if the speaker was connected during Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Levels AVR-S750H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manuals.denon.com


I have tired in two place, while watching the movie I click Option on Remote and "Ch Level Adjust" but that only gives options for Sub and Front L and Right L, no mention of center there.
I also tried by going to setup -> Audio, but Center Level is greyed off there.
Not sure where else I could go to increase it?


----------



## Alan P

Ladic said:


> I have tired in two place, while watching the movie I click Option on Remote and "Ch Level Adjust" but that only gives options for Sub and Front L and Right L, no mention of center there.
> I also tried by going to setup -> Audio, but Center Level is greyed off there.
> Not sure where else I could go to increase it?


Hmmm...under Speaker Config, is Center set to None?? Needs to be set to Small. If it was not connected (or detected) during setup, you will need to re-run Audyssey.





__





Speaker Config. AVR-S750H







manuals.denon.com


----------



## Ladic

Alan P said:


> Hmmm...under Speaker Config, is Center set to None?? Needs to be set to Small. If it was not connected (or detected) during setup, you will need to re-run Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaker Config. AVR-S750H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manuals.denon.com


Sorry, a bit of a newb. When I go there I see the following:

Front: Small
Center: Small
Subwoofer: Yes
Surround: Small

Front is the only once that also has a Large option, the rest are either Small or None.


----------



## Alan P

Ladic said:


> Sorry, a bit of a newb. When I go there I see the following:
> 
> Front: Small
> Center: Small
> Subwoofer: Yes
> Surround: Small
> 
> Front is the only once that also has a Large option, the rest are either Small or None.


In that case, I am at a loss as to why it is grayed out for you. Could be the surround mode you are in....which mode are you in when the option is grayed out? Maybe Direct of Pure Direct won't let you access the center...but I'm pretty sure that you should be able to access it under Test Tones regardless.


----------



## Ladic

Alan P said:


> In that case, I am at a loss as to why it is grayed out for you. Could be the surround mode you are in....which mode are you in when the option is grayed out? Maybe Direct of Pure Direct won't let you access the center...but I'm pretty sure that you should be able to access it under Test Tones regardless.


Where do I find the Test Tones option?


----------



## Alan P

Post #9631.


----------



## Ladic

Alan P said:


> Post #9631.


It was -4.5db, I will switch to +4.5db to see what happens


----------



## Swoosh830

Soulburner said:


> Yeah, ultimately experimentation is needed. Some people get good results doing EQ in the MiniDSP first - but unless it's necessary, like in some cases where room correction just can't figure out your setup for whatever reason - I would try room EQ first. If doing EQ in the MiniDSP first, simply EQ to flat to avoid any further problems between the two systems. Like you mentioned, a target curve system could change your house curve. Also, a house curve can be created in the MultEQ editor.
> 
> There may be a way around this by limiting the subwoofer correction frequency range. I have seen it mentioned before but I have not tried it.
> 
> In the end, I see the MiniDSP as a tool to solve specific problems and it is very good at that, when needed.





ctsv510 said:


> @Barefoot Joe ; You can disable Audyssey subwoofer correction using the MultEQ app by sliding the correction range slider all the way as low as it goes. I confirmed with testing that this removes all correction, not just down to 20hz like it seems it would.
> 
> I was going to skip all Audyssey correction and just do REW / miniDSP but Audyssey gave me a much better starting point to make the best use of the 10 available filters in the miniDSP.


As of now, I'm running a calibration in which I used REW & MiniDSP to EQ my dual PSA TV1512s flat prior to running Audyssey. When I have the opportunity, I'd like to reverse the process as you guys have mentioned above to see what kind of results I get.

My question is... after I time align my subs with MiniDSP and then run Audyssey (subs presented as a single sub), how do you have the AVR configured when adjusting the EQ w/ MiniDSP after the fact? I use DEQ, so I'm assuming I'll want to have that enabled, speakers set to small, 80Hz crossovers, etc. as I have it set during typical playback. I typically use the front HDMI port and run it in 2Ch stereo mode to measure my overall response after Audyssey (effectively measuring L/R+subs). Is it better to use the ASIO4ALL drivers and instead run something like CC+subs when adjusting EQ post-Audyssey?


----------



## BJBBJB

There are people on this thread that know way more than me but here is what I did. After running REW for subs, creating a flat PEQ, uploading that to Minidsp outputs, then running audyssey....
I re-ran sub measurements with minidsp and audyssey engaged. I used the miniDSP input, manual peq filters to flatten out a remaining response issue and generate a house curve for subs (one virtual sub, 2 subs).. This keeps the house curve separate from the flat eq and it is easier to tweak than re-generating an rew peq for flat house etc. 

I measured the end result and tweaked the input peq house curve based on those measurements.

I need to get back to re-measure my center and sub together to checkout the crossover range. But I do like what I hear and feel.😀

As far as DEQ, at REW measurement db range levels the impact of course not as great as at low volume. I did measurements with deq off and checked it with DEQ on at low volume but really I am just shooting for a good curve at louder levels. DEQ does what it does and I use the 5 db adjustment to reduce impact a bit.

I also tweaked multiEQ to bring back a bit of a house tilt/ curve on my mains also so they are not 100% flat from audyssey and based it on center plus sub measurements with REW and not re-running audyssey.

Again, I am sure others can chime in but I know I have way better sound than with audyssey only. Could never have done it without @AustinJerry FAQ s and reading his posts and those of @mthomas47 and others over the past year.

Hope this helps.

BJBBJB


----------



## RyuIzanagi

I recently noticed some distortion in human voice, both male and female in movies. It's very distracting once I noticed that. After trying all sort of troubleshooting, it turned out that I was running full range correction. And by limiting the correcting range to 500 Hz, all the distortion went away. So I guess the advice to limit the filter frequency range is spot on, at least in my case.


----------



## bluesky636

RyuIzanagi said:


> I recently noticed some distortion in human voice, both male and female in movies. It's very distracting once I noticed that. After trying all sort of troubleshooting, it turned out that I was running full range correction. And by limiting the correcting range to 500 Hz, all the distortion went away. So I guess the advice to limit the filter frequency range is spot on, at least in my case.


I run Audyssey full range (flat curve) and have never had any problems with vocals distorting.


----------



## RyuIzanagi

bluesky636 said:


> I run Audyssey full range (flat curve) and have never had any problems with vocals distorting.


It's not all the time and all the movies. Just some specific dialogs like in Spiderman 2, when Peter was talking to Mary Jane after watching her show, his voice was having some distortion, like some hissing noise afer he finished a sentence. The Sam Raimi trilogy are my favorite so I re watch them all the time and that when I started to notice the distortion.


----------



## bluesky636

RyuIzanagi said:


> It's not all the time and all the movies. Just some specific dialogs like in Spiderman 2, when Peter was talking to Mary Jane after watching her show, his voice was having some distortion, like some hissing noise afer he finished a sentence. The Sam Raimi trilogy are my favorite so I re watch them all the time and that when I started to notice the distortion.


Sounds like a bad disc to me.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

RyuIzanagi said:


> It's not all the time and all the movies. Just some specific dialogs like in Spiderman 2, when Peter was talking to Mary Jane after watching her show, his voice was having some distortion, like some hissing noise afer he finished a sentence. The Sam Raimi trilogy are my favorite so I re watch them all the time and that when I started to notice the distortion.


Do you use the upmixers in your receiver to utilize all your speakers (Dolby Surround and DTS Neural X)? I've noticed, rarely, in 5.1 or 7.1 tracks that it may stretch sounds to the Atmos speakers that sound out of place. The vast majority of the time there's no issue so I leave them on 24/7.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

RyuIzanagi said:


> _I recently noticed some distortion in human voice, both male and female in movies. It's very distracting once I noticed that. After trying all sort of troubleshooting, it turned out that I was running full range correction. And by limiting the correcting range to 500 Hz, all the distortion went away. So I guess the advice to limit the filter frequency range is spot on, at least in my case._


Medium and high frequency distortion, including sibilance, can be caused by many things*. *If Audyssey full range has to provide a great deal of treble boost (i.e., if the *right *amount is a lot) and*:*


your tweeters distort easily 
your amp (or receiver) can't deliver clean transients up there (unlikely unless the amp is small and the speakers are not very sensitive/efficient) 
the recording itself is distorted at the top
the room is much too live
several or all of the above
That could be your problem.

I am biased against limited range Audyssey. Chris K., the co-founder and co-designer of Audyssey doesn't like it either. With good source recordings and well functioning equipment, and a well balanced, acoustically good room, without too many early reflections, I predict full range Audyssey should work well. Shutting it down over 500 Hz may provide the quick fix you just experienced, but I think it's worth futzing around with full range a bit longer. YMMV

P.S. What kind of speakers and amp do you have?


----------



## RyuIzanagi

garygarrison said:


> Medium and high frequency distortion, including sibilance, can be caused by many things*. *If Audyssey full range has to provide a great deal of treble boost (i.e., if the *right *amount is a lot) and*:*
> 
> 
> your tweeters distort easily
> your amp (or receiver) can't deliver clean transients up there (unlikely unless the amp is small and the speakers are not very sensitive/efficient)
> the recording itself is distorted at the top
> the room is much too live
> several or all of the above
> That could be your problem.
> 
> I am biased against limited range Audyssey. Chris K., the co-founder and co-designer of Audyssey doesn't like it either. With good source recordings and well functioning equipment, and a well balanced, acoustically good room, without too many early reflections, I predict full range Audyssey should work well. Shutting it down over 500 Hz may provide the quick fix you just experienced, but I think it's worth futzing around with full range a bit longer. YMMV
> 
> P.S. What kind of speakers and amp do you have?


Denon AVR S750H and Wharfedale 12C for the center. The distortion I can hear are from the dialogs. I guess they are always there but I didn't notice until now. Now that I start looking for it, they are present a lot more.


----------



## bluesky636

RyuIzanagi said:


> Denon AVR S750H and Wharfedale 12C for the center. The distortion I can hear are from the dialogs. I guess they are always there but I didn't notice until now. Now that I start looking for it, they are present a lot more.


I've been using Audyssey (full range) for 13 years and own close to 1000 CDs, DVDs, HDBDs, and UHDBDs and never once experienced anything like you describe. I suspect that your problem, if it really exists, has nothing to do with Audyssey per se (I have never heard a similar complaint leveled against Audyssey) but is instead a room problem, equipment issue, or simply improper setup of equipment.


----------



## RyuIzanagi

bluesky636 said:


> I've been using Audyssey (full range) for 13 years and own close to 1000 CDs, DVDs, HDBDs, and UHDBDs and never once experienced anything like you describe. I suspect that your problem, if it really exists, has nothing to do with Audyssey per se (I have never heard a similar complaint leveled against Audyssey) but is instead a room problem, equipment issue, or simply improper setup of equipment.


I guess with my couch against the wall, it's part of the problem. Moving the couch forward is tough with my setup since the couch was literally designed to be put against the wall. The couch back rest, head rest are just big and small pillow and you need a back surface otherwise they will fall off when you sit.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> I've been using Audyssey (full range) for 13 years and own close to 1000 CDs, DVDs, HDBDs, and UHDBDs and never once experienced anything like you describe. I suspect that your problem, if it really exists, has nothing to do with Audyssey per se (I have never heard a similar complaint leveled against Audyssey) but is instead a room problem, equipment issue, or simply improper setup of equipment.


I think so. I've noticed that the further your starting response is from the target curve, the more likely this seems to be. Could just be me though...


----------



## RyuIzanagi

I re ran Audyssey today and applied full range correction. The distortion that I had are not there anymore. So I guess something went wrong with the previous calibration.


----------



## bluesky636

RyuIzanagi said:


> I re ran Audyssey today and applied full range correction. The distortion that I had are not there anymore. So I guess something went wrong with the previous calibration.


Seems likely.


----------



## greg9x2

Know the FAQ started many years ago, but I never really read through it until yesterday.

So after almost 10 years with my Denon 3312, I realized was doing things wrong in the setup by not utilizing all the positions (only did 2 or 3), and adjusting levels afterwards with sound meter (since that's the way things were done prior), and not enabling Dynamic EQ.
Reran the setup, and things definitely sound better, especially dialog, was always cranking up the center channel previously, but left everything as calibrated and is even better now.

So thanks to all who contributed to the FAQ.


Is MultiEQ XT32 really that much better for a simple mid level 5.1 system ? Been thinking time for upgrade, but holding off recently due to state of the receiver industry lately. But been looking at XT32 featured receivers and not sure actually needed. 

Been talking myself down from a 5.1.4 ATMOS setup as not sure it would be worth the hassle in townhouse theater room that not going to be cranking the volume up in, and that seems most ATMOS content is lacking. But then most XT32 receivers are 9 channel, so that puts the idea in my head.

I can afford a XT32 level receiver, but don't like spending money that don't need to.


----------



## Rich 63

Xt32 is a vast improvement over the lower tiers of audassey. New avrs from onyko are copmetitively priced and feature direc room correction. 
Rich


----------



## pbz06

greg9x2 said:


> Know the FAQ started many years ago, but I never really read through it until yesterday.
> 
> So after almost 10 years with my Denon 3312, I realized was doing things wrong in the setup by not utilizing all the positions (only did 2 or 3), and adjusting levels afterwards with sound meter (since that's the way things were done prior), and not enabling Dynamic EQ.
> Reran the setup, and things definitely sound better, especially dialog, was always cranking up the center channel previously, but left everything as calibrated and is even better now.
> 
> So thanks to all who contributed to the FAQ.
> 
> 
> Is MultiEQ XT32 really that much better for a simple mid level 5.1 system ? Been thinking time for upgrade, but holding off recently due to state of the receiver industry lately. But been looking at XT32 featured receivers and not sure actually needed.
> 
> Been talking myself down from a 5.1.4 ATMOS setup as not sure it would be worth the hassle in townhouse theater room that not going to be cranking the volume up in, and that seems most ATMOS content is lacking. But then most XT32 receivers are 9 channel, so that puts the idea in my head.
> 
> I can afford a XT32 level receiver, but don't like spending money that don't need to.


As Rich said, I think it's a worthwhile improvement...to the point where I wish Audyssey didn't even offer the lower versions. I personally find Atmos took my enjoyment to a new level, but it's up to you if it's worth the hassle. I would advise that if you do go down that route, to do it right with 4x in-ceiling speakers and don't skimp out. Sure there aren't a thousand movies with non-stop Atmos activity, but the ones that do it right bring a smile to my face. If you skimp out with tiny little satelites or wimpy speakers, they'll get drowned out easily and it would for sure be a waste. True Atmos mixes treat each speaker equal so you want to try and make sure they can keep up as much as possible.


----------



## Rich 63

And another here for atmos. Even the upmixers add a lot to content.


----------



## greg9x2

Rich 63 said:


> View attachment 3162012
> 
> Xt32 is a vast improvement over the lower tiers of audassey. New avrs from onyko are copmetitively priced and feature direc room correction.
> Rich


Yeah, been looking at those also... But not much availability, and kinda worried about their longevity.
Same price range as Denon with XT32.


----------



## Rich 63

greg9x2 said:


> Yeah, been looking at those also... But not much availability, and kinda worried about their longevity.
> Same price range as Denon with XT32.


That's my feeling too on the onyko but thought id point them out. If they prove to be good it will be great competition for sound united and good for us all.


----------



## greg9x2

pbz06 said:


> As Rich said, I think it's a worthwhile improvement...to the point where I wish Audyssey didn't even offer the lower versions. I personally find Atmos took my enjoyment to a new level, but it's up to you if it's worth the hassle. I would advise that if you do go down that route, to do it right with 4x in-ceiling speakers and don't skimp out. Sure there aren't a thousand movies with non-stop Atmos activity, but the ones that do it right bring a smile to my face. If you skimp out with tiny little satelites or wimpy speakers, they'll get drowned out easily and it would for sure be a waste. True Atmos mixes treat each speaker equal so you want to try and make sure they can keep up as much as possible.





Rich 63 said:


> And another here for atmos. Even the upmixers add a lot to content.


As far as ATMOS, main issue is getting cables in to ceiling with load bearing walls, insulation and double top plates. Currently just running surround speaker wires along baseboards since they generally go behind furniture. Also since townhouse, have ducting, sprinkler pipes, electrical wires, etc running in the ceiling space. Going to be fun locating speaker placements that not going to interfere with any of that stuff.

Also cutting, patching, repainting drywall doesn't feel like fun.
Been racking brain for some kind of decorative moulding, etc to just run wires up with just a small hole in to ceiling.


----------



## Rich 63

greg9x2 said:


> As far as ATMOS, main issue is getting cables in to ceiling with load bearing walls, insulation and double top plates. Currently just running surround speaker wires along baseboards since they generally go behind furniture. Also since townhouse, have ducting, sprinkler pipes, electrical wires, etc running in the ceiling space. Going to be fun locating speaker placements that not going to interfere with any of that stuff.
> 
> Also cutting, patching, repainting drywall doesn't feel like fun.
> Been racking brain for some kind of decorative moulding, etc to just run wires up with just a small hole in to ceiling.


Phish tapes work great. I also think its the reason a lot of people run atmos with front and back heights. Easier to run wire and hide it. My father in law ran wires up the corners then along the ceiling. Hid the ceiling wire part with crown moulding and used a 1/2" x1/2" outside corner mold on the inside corners creating a channel for the wire then painted it the colour of the walls. Looks great.


----------



## greg9x2

Rich 63 said:


> Phish tapes work great. I also think its the reason a lot of people run atmos with front and back heights. Easier to run wire and hide it. My father in law ran wires up the corners then along the ceiling. Hid the ceiling wire part with crown moulding and used a 1/2" x1/2" outside corner mold on the inside corners creating a channel for the wire then painted it the colour of the walls. Looks great.


Yeah, considering all possibilities like that.

But guess install is for another thread. Will keep this Audyssey related.

So, general opinion is XT32 is good enough to make noticible improvement over regular XT in a regular home entertainment room (not a high end theater room) ?


----------



## Rich 63

greg9x2 said:


> Yeah, considering all possibilities like that.
> 
> But guess install is for another thread. Will keep this Audyssey related.
> 
> So, general opinion is XT32 is good enough to make noticible improvement over regular XT in a regular home entertainment room (not a high end theater room) ?


Yup. Also the higher end models likely have better power supplies, caps, dacs too. And xt32 does 2 subs independent for time alignment. Every ht should have at least 2 subs in my opinion. 
Rich


----------



## Soulburner

greg9x2 said:


> Is MultiEQ XT32 really that much better for a simple mid level 5.1 system ?


The number of speakers doesn't matter. If you care about sound quality and adjustability, XT32 is a must even for 2.1. I agree with pbz I think the lower levels probably give it a bad rep.


----------



## Stephan Mire

Would you guys agree with this Audyssey set up tips video :






What do you think?


----------



## pbz06

Stephan Mire said:


> Would you guys agree with this Audyssey set up tips video :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?


I don't agree with their blanket statements to not use DEQ and to limit EQ.


----------



## bluesky636

Stephan Mire said:


> Would you guys agree with this Audyssey set up tips video :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think?


I think I have zero interest in watching an hour+ video.


----------



## jediblade1

Hi, I re-ran audyssey following some changes in my set and have noticed a dip on the front left just after 100hz, any idea what could be causing it?


----------



## Rich 63

jediblade1 said:


> Hi, I re-ran audyssey following some changes in my set and have noticed a dip on the front left just after 100hz, any idea what could be causing it?
> View attachment 3162691


Crossover?


----------



## garygarrison

I don't know the cause, but it is way less than 1/3 octave, so you probably won't heat it.


----------



## jediblade1

Rich 63 said:


> Crossover?


90hz


----------



## Duc Vu

_*8. If your sub has an 'Auto-on' setting on its power control, make sure to disable it by setting the sub to be always ON before running MultEQ. In other words, run the sub in its fully powered-on mode. If not, the sub might fail to 'wake up' when it is first pinged and this will throw off the calibration.*_

The sub I'm planning to buy has no On switch, only Auto or DC Control. It's the Polk HTS-12. What should I do when running calibration then?


----------



## Soulburner

Duc Vu said:


> _*8. If your sub has an 'Auto-on' setting on its power control, make sure to disable it by setting the sub to be always ON before running MultEQ. In other words, run the sub in its fully powered-on mode. If not, the sub might fail to 'wake up' when it is first pinged and this will throw off the calibration.*_
> 
> The sub I'm planning to buy has no On switch, only Auto or DC Control. It's the Polk HTS-12. What should I do when running calibration then?


Play the beginning of a song to wake them up.


----------



## Duc Vu

Soulburner said:


> Play the beginning of a song to wake them up.


What if it turns off later during calibration?


----------



## pbz06

Duc Vu said:


> What if it turns off later during calibration?


Most subs go to stand by after 15 to 20 minutes of inactivity....should be fine once you are sure it's on


----------



## ddlooping

@greg9x2 You might want to look into the Denon receivers that have both XT32 and Auro-3D. 
Plenty of interesting videos on youtube about both the Auro-3D upmixer and an "universal" speakers placement (compatible with Atmos, DTS and Auro-3d.).
To get you started...






Edit : a post you might find interesting comparing the corrections applied by both XT32 and XT...








Difference between Audyssey Multeq VS Multeq XT Vs Multeq XT32


Are the three a lot different?(perceptible difference) Description says they differ by their filter resolution but I want to know whether it actually means something.




www.audiosciencereview.com


----------



## greg9x2

ddlooping said:


> @greg9x2 You might want to look into the Denon receivers that have both XT32 and Auro-3D.
> Plenty of interesting videos on youtube about both the Auro-3D upmixer and an "universal" speakers placement (compatible with Atmos, DTS and Auro-3d.).
> To get you started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit : a post you might find interesting comparing the corrections applied by both XT32 and XT...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between Audyssey Multeq VS Multeq XT Vs Multeq XT32
> 
> 
> Are the three a lot different?(perceptible difference) Description says they differ by their filter resolution but I want to know whether it actually means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audiosciencereview.com


Thanks ! Will take a look at the video.... Have seen some interesting things about Auro-3D, but seems it is not very prevalent in U.S., and don't plan on ordering oversees discs to get it. Sounded like a few people said they use it for upmixing or playing ATMOS content, but didn't get a whole lot of info about it and how well that works.

That said, the Denon 4700 sounded interesting since it had it, might wait a while on new Receiver see what market does, so it may be a more tempting option down the road.

Will see what video says about speaker placement... just ordered some RSL-C34E's to try out different modes on current Receiver.. but will be somewhat constrained on where they can go in my room, know can get close to ATMOS recommendations.



Edit: doing some initial planning, I am limited by how far back can put rear speakers, they are close to ATMOS distance but that's as far back as can go.
Could put the fronts further up to the Auro-3D distance, but then would be unequal distances to PLP by about 1.5-2 feet. Not sure how big of a issue that would be. Basically rears at 45 degrees and fronts at 30 degrees (and the speakers have 15 degree tilt that will aim to PLP). 🤷‍♂️


----------



## ddlooping

greg9x2 said:


> Sounded like a few people said they use it for upmixing or playing ATMOS content, but didn't get a whole lot of info about it and how well that works.


According to a few youtubers it works very well, even better than the original Atmos track in some instances.
A possible example....







greg9x2 said:


> ... just ordered some RSL-C34E's to try out different modes on current Receiver.. but will be somewhat constrained on where they can go in my room, know can get close to ATMOS recommendations.


Apparently (based on videos and what I've read in several forums) 4 on-wall height speakers would be better than in ceiling, even for Atmos. 
Unless, that is, they are at about a 30 degrees angle, not closer to the MLP than your lower layer channels, and you can point them to cross slightly over the MLP.
In which case it wouldn't make much of a difference.

The following video contains info about a possible "universal" layout...






The document describing this layout...


https://www.grobi.tv/media/pdf/dc/37/67/One-for-all-Setup-Guide_V5-0_englisch_publish.pdf





greg9x2 said:


> Edit: doing some initial planning, I am limited by how far back can put rear speakers, they are close to ATMOS distance but that's as far back as can go.
> Could put the fronts further up to the Auro-3D distance, but then would be unequal distances to PLP by about 1.5-2 feet. Not sure how big of a issue that would be. Basically rears at 45 degrees and fronts at 30 degrees (and the speakers have 15 degree tilt that will aim to PLP). 🤷‍♂️


I'm not sure how much of an audible difference it would make to be honest.

Keep in mind I have no personal experience with Auro-3D and that my comments/suggestions are solely based on stuff I've seen/read online. 

If you have the time, I'd suggest you also watch the following video.
The inventor of Auro-3D exposes some interesting theories.


----------



## bluesky636

ddlooping said:


> @greg9x2 You might want to look into the Denon receivers that have both XT32 and Auro-3D.
> Plenty of interesting videos on youtube about both the Auro-3D upmixer and an "universal" speakers placement (compatible with Atmos, DTS and Auro-3d.).
> To get you started...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit : a post you might find interesting comparing the corrections applied by both XT32 and XT...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Difference between Audyssey Multeq VS Multeq XT Vs Multeq XT32
> 
> 
> Are the three a lot different?(perceptible difference) Description says they differ by their filter resolution but I want to know whether it actually means something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.audiosciencereview.com





greg9x2 said:


> Thanks ! Will take a look at the video.... Have seen some interesting things about Auro-3D, but seems it is not very prevalent in U.S., and don't plan on ordering oversees discs to get it. Sounded like a few people said they use it for upmixing or playing ATMOS content, but didn't get a whole lot of info about it and how well that works.
> 
> That said, the Denon 4700 sounded interesting since it had it, might wait a while on new Receiver see what market does, so it may be a more tempting option down the road.
> 
> Will see what video says about speaker placement... just ordered some RSL-C34E's to try out different modes on current Receiver.. but will be somewhat constrained on where they can go in my room, know can get close to ATMOS recommendations.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: doing some initial planning, I am limited by how far back can put rear speakers, they are close to ATMOS distance but that's as far back as can go.
> Could put the fronts further up to the Auro-3D distance, but then would be unequal distances to PLP by about 1.5-2 feet. Not sure how big of a issue that would be. Basically rears at 45 degrees and fronts at 30 degrees (and the speakers have 15 degree tilt that will aim to PLP). 🤷‍♂️





ddlooping said:


> According to a few youtubers it works very well, even better than the original Atmos track in some instances.
> A possible example....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently (based on videos and what I've read in several forums) 4 on-wall height speakers would be better than in ceiling, even for Atmos.
> Unless, that is, they are at about a 30 degrees angle, not closer to the MLP than your lower layer channels, and you can point them to cross slightly over the MLP.
> In which case it wouldn't make much of a difference.
> 
> The following video contains info about a possible "universal" layout...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The document describing this layout...
> 
> 
> https://www.grobi.tv/media/pdf/dc/37/67/One-for-all-Setup-Guide_V5-0_englisch_publish.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how much of an audible difference it would make to be honest.
> 
> Keep in mind I have no personal experience with Auro-3D and that my comments/suggestions are solely based on stuff I've seen/read online.
> 
> If you have the time, I'd suggest you also watch the following video.
> The inventor of Auro-3D exposes some interesting theories.


This is the Audyssey thread. Please move discussions of Atmos/DTS:X/Auro-3D to the appropriate thread.


----------



## ddlooping

@bluesky636 Will do


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

jediblade1 said:


> Hi, I re-ran audyssey following some changes in my set and have noticed a dip on the front left just after 100hz, any idea what could be causing it?
> View attachment 3162691


Hey Buddy,

All those pre-graphs are full-range measurements so there is no subs involved. Which means it's not a crossover that's causing the dips in 100hz region.
It could be SBIR so I'd suggest if possible to post the Front R and Center to see if you are getting similar dips.
Also which speakers are you using?

Jim


----------



## Duc Vu

Is it true that we should enable dynamic eq when watching movies and disable it when gaming?


----------



## pbz06

Duc Vu said:


> Is it true that we should enable dynamic eq when watching movies and disable it when gaming?


You can use it or not use it with anything source content you want; there's no "should" or "shouldn't". It's whatever you like.


----------



## Duc Vu

pbz06 said:


> You can use it or not use it with anything source content you want; there's no "should" or "shouldn't". It's whatever you like.


I read posts saying that enabling dynamic eq when gaming caused the surrounds to be too loud. Disabling that fixes it. Doesn't happen with movies. Maybe the way the game's audio is mixed.


----------



## bluesky636

Duc Vu said:


> I read posts saying that enabling dynamic eq when gaming caused the surrounds to be too loud. Disabling that fixes it. Doesn't happen with movies. Maybe the way the game's audio is mixed.


People have been complaining that Dynamic EQ makes the surrounds too loud ever since Audyssey introduced it. Doesn't matter the source audio. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. I don't game. I have it turned on for all my audio sources, CDs, DVDs/BD/UHDBD, satellite TV, and internet streamers. Never noticed the surrounds being too loud.


----------



## Soulburner

Duc Vu said:


> I read posts saying that enabling dynamic eq when gaming caused the surrounds to be too loud. Disabling that fixes it. Doesn't happen with movies. Maybe the way the game's audio is mixed.


You'll just have to try it and see. I recommend taking -3 to -5 off of your surround levels when using DEQ. That is what it took for me to level match all of my speakers using Dolby Atmos test tones.


----------



## garygarrison

I am one of those who doesn't use DEQ at all. To me, it muddies up the bass, just a little. DEQ requires carrying out some complex tasks*;* that may be the reason. I use tone controls, usually just the bass control, to compensate for low volume, when necessary (on most AVRs AND Prepros, the tone control option appears only when DEQ is OFF). That sounds discernably cleaner, to me. One reason I get away with this is that I play most movie soundtracks at between 7 and 5 dB below Reference Level, where Fletcher doesn't have a chance to Munson.


----------



## RyuIzanagi

Duc Vu said:


> Is it true that we should enable dynamic eq when watching movies and disable it when gaming?


If you use it for gaming, you should start with 10 or 15 db offset. I do game and at 0 offset, it feel like you are diving a bit deep in the ocean without any ear protection and your ears start to act funny. I personally don't use DEQ in any contents to preserver clarity and use house curve for the needed bass at listening level lower than reference.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> One reason I get away with this is that I play most movie soundtracks at between 7 and 5 dB below Reference Level, where Fletcher doesn't have a chance to Munson.


You probably don't need loudness compensation 

Does your tone control work like a shelf then? So no rise to the low end?

But in case you do listen quieter than that at times, and I do hope so for the sake of preserving your hearing – I would add that some of the reasons the bass boost applied by Dynamic EQ could "muddle up the bass" is because your bass response is not free of room modes, your sub isn't capable of handling the boost, or neither of those are the case and you just aren't as much of a basshead as some of us. If the issue is with your speakers, the crossover may be too low for their capability. Adding a substantial bass boost to small speakers could cause them to complain.

My system is super clean with DEQ and that has been the case for a long time now, so I know it is capable of delivering.


----------



## RyuIzanagi

Soulburner said:


> If the issue is with your speakers, the crossover may be too low for their capability. Adding a substantial bass boost to small speakers could cause them to complain.
> 
> My system is super clean with DEQ and that has been the case for a long time now, so I know it is capable of delivering.


I'm just curious, what is the crossover in your system?


----------



## Soulburner

RyuIzanagi said:


> I'm just curious, what is the crossover in your system?


I'm currently running 60 Hz up front and 80 Hz to the rest, with the standard Denon crossovers. I want to move to 80 Hz up front but it will require a cascading crossover to prevent sound quality from taking a hit. Some of that is talked about in the link in my signature. I have the hardware, I just need time to play with it. My front speakers can be run as large down to 30 Hz in room so I can choose the crossover that sounds best for the room and system.


----------



## RyuIzanagi

Soulburner said:


> I'm currently running 60 Hz up front and 80 Hz to the rest, with the standard Denon crossovers. I want to move to 80 Hz up front but it will require a cascading crossover to prevent sound quality from taking a hit. Some of that is talked about in the link in my signature. I have the hardware, I just need time to play with it. My front speakers can be run as large down to 30 Hz in room so I can choose the crossover that sounds best for the room and system.


Thank you.


----------



## garygarrison

Reply to
@Soulburner



Soulburner said:


> You probably don't need loudness compensation
> 
> Does your tone control work like a shelf then? So no rise to the low end?
> 
> But in case you do listen quieter than that at times, and I do hope so for the sake of preserving your hearing – I would add that some of the reasons the bass boost applied by Dynamic EQ could "muddle up the bass" is because your bass response is not free of room modes, your sub isn't capable of handling the boost, or neither of those are the case and you just aren't as much of a basshead as some of us. If the issue is with your speakers, the crossover may be too low for their capability. Adding a substantial bass boost to small speakers could cause them to complain.
> 
> My system is super clean with DEQ and that has been the case for a long time now, so I know it is capable of delivering.


1) The bass tone control is not a shelving control, but gradually increases toward the low end -- a little less slope than the equal loudness curves -- close, but no cigar. Here is the Left Front speaker with *no Audyssey, no tone controls, no other compensation, in a pretty much untreated, but somewhat deadish room, with modes intact, modus gigantea:*








Here is the same set-up, a few minutes later, with *Audyssey Reference* (just plain Audyssey) switched on, and* Bass tone control +6 dB, No Subwoofer, Front L "Large."*









Of course, the above graphs were with 1 mic position, which nearly everyone says is not particularly valid (moving a few inches changes the graph). Below is an ordinary *average* (not Audyssey's "fuzzy logic" pseudo-average) with the REW mic* as close as possible to each of the 8 mic positions that were used for Audyssey.* It is *no subwoofer, Front L, Audyssey Reference* and *Bass control + 6*. This took forever!









Because the front L and R speakers are still going strong at 43 Hz (the front speakers -- even the center -- have 15" horn loaded woofers, and are advertized to have a maximum output of 120 dB -- never had them there, and won't), I have decided to try a crossover at 40 Hz for a while (LFE will continue to be 80 Hz, and center 80 Hz). So far it sounds good. My mic pre-amp is not working, and I don't have a USB mic, so graphs will have to wait until I do something about that.

2) I do listen at a lower level at times. Music could be at any level between soft and "concert level," depending on the selection and my mood. The end of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony is liable to have *instantaneous* peaks at 100 dB, very occasionally up to 110 dB. We don't watch many "action movies," so we don't hear much outrageous LFE, but the Commodore walking through the brick wall in Amadeus was great! Do you remember Keith Barnes







who wrote the original "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" on this thread? He has built a Home Theater in what Brits like him call a "cowshed" and finds that 5 dB below reference seems just right for all normally recorded movies. Just sayin'.

3) My system is super clean with any conceivable bass level, but my subwoofer is not quite as clean as my main speakers. It's just that the bass control is just barely cleaner than DEQ. I am a basshead at times.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Reply to
> @Soulburner
> 
> 
> 
> 1) The bass tone control is not a shelving control, but gradually increases toward the low end -- a little less slope than the equal loudness curves -- close, but no cigar. Here is the Left Front speaker with *no Audyssey, no tone controls, no other compensation, in a pretty much untreated, but somewhat deadish room, with modes intact, modus gigantea:*
> View attachment 3165194
> 
> Here is the same set-up, a few minutes later, with *Audyssey Reference* (just plain Audyssey) switched on, and* Bass tone control +6 dB, No Subwoofer, Front L "Large."*
> View attachment 3165245
> 
> 
> Of course, the above graphs were with 1 mic position, which nearly everyone says is not particularly valid (moving a few inches changes the graph). Below is an ordinary *average* (not Audyssey's "fuzzy logic" pseudo-average) with the REW mic* as close as possible to each of the 8 mic positions that were used for Audyssey.* It is *no subwoofer, Front L, Audyssey Reference* and *Bass control + 6*. This took forever!
> View attachment 3165214
> 
> 
> Because the front L and R speakers are still going strong at 43 Hz (the front speakers -- even the center -- have 15" horn loaded woofers, and are advertized to have a maximum output of 120 dB -- never had them there, and won't), I have decided to try a crossover at 40 Hz for a while (LFE will continue to be 80 Hz, and center 80 Hz). So far it sounds good. My mic pre-amp is not working, and I don't have a USB mic, so graphs will have to wait until I do something about that.
> 
> 2) I do listen at a lower level at times. Music could be at any level between soft and "concert level," depending on the selection and my mood. The end of a Beethoven or Mahler symphony is liable to have *instantaneous* peaks at 100 dB, very occasionally up to 110 dB. We don't watch many "action movies," so we don't hear much outrageous LFE, but the Commodore walking through the brick wall in Amadeus was great! Do you remember Keith Barnes
> View attachment 3165224
> who wrote the original "Audyssey FAQ Linked Here" on this thread? He has built a Home Theater in what Brits like him call a "cowshed" and finds that 5 dB below reference seems just right for all normally recorded movies. Just sayin'.
> 
> 3) My system is super clean with any conceivable bass level, but my subwoofer is not quite as clean as my main speakers. It's just that the bass control is just barely cleaner than DEQ. I am a basshead at times.


Thanks for the detailed response. Your graphs indicate to me that a possible explanation for the "muddiness" is that your bass boost extends to 200-250 Hz. In my experience, the bass boost needs to ramp down by 150 Hz to avoid muddying up the upper bass. That was the first thing that I noticed that was wrong with the Harman bass curve when I first tried it with Dirac Live.


----------



## jediblade1

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> All those pre-graphs are full-range measurements so there is no subs involved. Which means it's not a crossover that's causing the dips in 100hz region.
> It could be SBIR so I'd suggest if possible to post the Front R and Center to see if you are getting similar dips.
> Also which speakers are you using?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speakers are ATC SCM 11's. Thanks for taking an interest 😊.


----------



## Duc Vu

I wonder how they measure the 85db reference level? In a quiet room at around 40-50 db of ambient noise?


----------



## garygarrison

Duc Vu said:


> I wonder how they measure the 85db reference level? In a quiet room at around 40-50 db of ambient noise?


I *think* I remember all this correctly, but please correct me if it turns out I do not!

If they were going to measure it, they might do so in an anechoic chamber, to rule out ambient noise.
A very quiet room has < 20 dB ambient noise. Even a commercial cinema has < 30 dB ambient noise, when there is no film, and no audience sounds.
Audyssey sets an SPL level of 75 dB (not 85 dB -- see ahead) for its standard pings from 500 to 2kHz (or is it just at 1KHz?), from your Main Listening Position (MLP) when your Main Volume control is at 0. They don't need a separately measured reference level, because Audyssey is listening in *your* listening room, at *your* MLB, and adjusting *your* volume to reference level. This will provide 30 dB headroom over 75 dB (the same level as 20 dB headroom over the professional reference level of 85 dB, which proved to be too irritating to consumers during set-up). Either will provide full scale (the loudest instantaenous peak) of 105 dB at the MLP. In the case of the subwoofer(s), full scale is 115 dB at the MLP.
THX recommends running below reference level unless you have a *huge* room because complex early reflections from near walls, ceiling and floor make the signal sound louder than the direct sound really is. For a room the size of mine (4,257 cu.ft.), they suggest a volume of 5 to 7 dB below reference level, and that usually works for me.


----------



## MATTHEW PATIENT

So I was able to grab a 4700H a month or so ago before the prices went up. I paid the $20 for the audessy editor app. Messed around with it for the first time yesterday and got these.









































I messed around with the curve editor a bit to flatten out those dips. I loaded it to the receiver and ran it, but it didn’t sound right. Messed with the x-over settings to make them all 100hz and the sub was 110hz…sounded worse. So I reset to the above original curves and x-over settings and it sounds better.

Am I doing something wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## markb1980

Those dips are caused by MRC (Midrange Compensation) which you can turn off in the app. You don’t need to manually adjust them out. Also what did Audyssey set your crossovers at initially after running it via the app?


----------



## markb1980

.


----------



## MATTHEW PATIENT

markb1980 said:


> Those dips are caused by MRC (Midrange Compensation) which you can turn off in the app. You don’t need to manually adjust them out. Also what did Audyssey set your crossovers at initially after running it via the app?


Front towers were 40, center was 80, Dolby atmos front were 120, rear height was 80, surrounds were 150, and the sub was 100. I did change all the x-overs to 100 and left the sub where it was at.

All of the MRC are on in that initial correction I did with the app. I will turn them all off and see what that sounds like.

Other than that, I pretty much have no idea what I’m doing with this app.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

MATTHEW PATIENT said:


> Front towers were 40, center was 80, Dolby atmos front were 120, rear height was 80, surrounds were 150, and the sub was 100. I did change all the x-overs to 100 and left the sub where it was at.
> 
> All of the MRC are on in that initial correction I did with the app. I will turn them all off and see what that sounds like.
> 
> Other than that, I pretty much have no idea what I’m doing with this app.


There is an Audyssey guide and a Bass/Subwoofer guide that are worth perusing here on AVS. May be very daunting, but you'll gain some valuable knowledge and tips for Audyssey and room correction in general.

Along with disabling MRC in the app, you may also want to revert your speaker settings in app and readjust your crossovers. Audyssey recommends only RAISING your crossovers from where the AVR set them, never lowering them, as correction only applies to the crossover cutoff. So for your 120Hz Atmos speakers you'd lose correction in that 100-120 range by dropping the crossover as you describe.

Once you make those changes and save them, be sure to reupload the curve to the AVR.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Desert Pilot

I have a "weird" issue with Audyssey XT32 on my Marantz AV8805. A couple months ago I purchased three new (L,C,R) floor standing speakers. Each includes a powered 15" subwoofer. 97dB sensitivity. I've run Audyssey twice with a similar result. The calibration tones are very loud compared to my other speakers (87dB sensitivity). Audyssey (using the app) sets these front three speakers to "small" and trims them -12 with a 120 Hz crossover. These are open baffle speakers.

I am going to use a different calibration method (Audiolens XO for DSP filters) but I was curious why Audyssey would come up with thee results.

Thanks


----------



## MATTHEW PATIENT

JohnnytheSkin said:


> There is an Audyssey guide and a Bass/Subwoofer guide that are worth perusing here on AVS. May be very daunting, but you'll gain some valuable knowledge and tips for Audyssey and room correction in general.
> 
> Along with disabling MRC in the app, you may also want to revert your speaker settings in app and readjust your crossovers. Audyssey recommends only RAISING your crossovers from where the AVR set them, never lowering them, as correction only applies to the crossover cutoff. So for your 120Hz Atmos speakers you'd lose correction in that 100-120 range by dropping the crossover as you describe.
> 
> Once you make those changes and save them, be sure to reupload the curve to the AVR.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


Thank you: doing that now.

Dynamic EQ to off correct?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ddlooping

MATTHEW PATIENT said:


> Dynamic EQ to off correct?


There's no right or wrong answer for this one, just personal preferences.
I'd suggest switching it on, using the "-15" setting (the one with the mildest effect), and see if you like it.


----------



## RyuIzanagi

In my experience, setting sub crossover high can have negative effects. If your front can play clean to 80Hz then you should set them at the recommended 80Hz. And it's not a good idea to lower the crossover than what Audyssey set. So you should leave surround and atmos crossover at where they are. For the app, the best thing about it is you can use custom curve or limit how much Audyssey will correct your speakers. It's all preferences.


----------



## pbz06

ddlooping said:


> There's no right or wrong answer for this one, just personal preferences.
> I'd suggest switching it on, using the "-15" setting (the one with the mildest effect), and see if you like it.


I’d recommend the other way. Start with On default, then the 5 offset, then 10, and finally 15. It really depends on your overall listening volumes, source content, types of speakers and their capability (DEQ boosts bass in all channels), and bass preferences on top. Also some movies are recorded hot, others light…so ultimately you get a ton of recommendations varying from people hating it to loving it.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

MATTHEW PATIENT said:


> Thank you: doing that now.
> 
> Dynamic EQ to off correct?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Like others have said DEQ is completely personal preference. I've always used it with no issues and I feel it makes the sound more "full". I use the 5db offset for all sources except for my 4K disc player, where I leave it at zero.

Happy reading!

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## MATTHEW PATIENT

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Happy reading!
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk



Ya…just looked at the links quickly….gonna take me a bit.

But thanks for all your help. Did as you advised and now I am playing with the EQ. On and 0 seems to be nice. I will have to play more.

Cheers!


----------



## garygarrison

MATTHEW PATIENT said:


> Ya…just looked at the links quickly….gonna take me a bit.


To crack mthomas47's *Guide -- It deals with Audyssey as well as bass issues --* Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences -- you can*:
1) Look up your issues in the Cliff Notes near the beginning, OR
2) Tackle the whole thing, OR
3) Take option number 2 after having a cup of coffee, if you drink it.
The guide is a masterpiece, IMO.*


----------



## Soulburner

Very interesting discussion here:






Some of my key takeaways:


The subwoofer channel is given greater filter resolution compared to the same bass frequency range from the speaker channels. This means running 2.0 gets less bass correction. Take note, those trying to turn off their sub for music.
XT32 filter resolution is roughly equal to 16,000 taps, and it is biased more heavily toward the bass region. This is much more resolution than graphic EQ and PEQ can provide. Take note MiniDSP users – I've been saying for some time now that in most cases you want to have Audyssey do its FIR corrections _before _you implement the MiniDSP for additional PEQ.
When changing crossovers, do it in the app and upload to the AVR again. Choosing the crossover in the app will _recalculate _filters – doing it in the AVR will not. I have not tested to see how much of a difference this makes, but the advice comes straight from the source.
Audyssey enhancements are coming with a laptop version of the software. There is also something coming for the Pro kit. This may involve the laptop, but it sounds like they will still use the Audyssey mic plugged into the AVR and not a mic plugged into your laptop ala Dirac.
Edit, see the below posts:



Soulburner said:


> I think someone should test it and measure to be sure.





pbz06 said:


> I've measured both ways.
> 
> I think they misspoke, in the heat of the discussion it was kind of passably mentioned but no one caught it or said it definitively. The crossover is an AVR setting and it applies the correct 24dB and 12dB octave slopes (high pass and low pass). Doing it in the app just means you don't have to set it again once you upload. It doesn't affect the filters from what I can see in the measurements.


----------



## Soulburner

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Along with disabling MRC in the app


If your speakers have a dip in sound power around the crossover, the recommendation is to not boost that region. MRC is designed to prevent Audyssey from boosting the crossover dip which can result in harshness. If your crossover is not around 2 kHz, turn off MRC and draw your own in the curve editor to match your speakers.


MATTHEW PATIENT said:


> Dynamic EQ to off correct?





ddlooping said:


> There's no right or wrong answer for this one, just personal preferences.


There actually is an objectively right answer, and that is to tune your system with Dynamic EQ *ON*. This will ensure that you still get the same or similar perceptual sound profile at all volume levels which is something other AVRs can not do. However, this can give bad results for some users if they don't have capable enough speakers and subs to handle the bass boost, if they don't implement it properly (should turn it on before adjusting bass levels to taste, not after), or if their crossover is too low or too high. Any of these things can cause someone to come onto the forums and complain that their system sounds boomy or the dialogue is not clear.

If it's simply not working for you then you can turn it off, but I recommend trying to get the most out of it.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Soulburner said:


> When changing crossovers, do it in the app and upload to the AVR again. Choosing the crossover in the app will _recalculate _filters – doing it in the AVR will not. I have not tested to see how much of a difference this makes, but the advice comes straight from the source.


Whoa! That's some pretty critical info for using the app. I started doing that as well as the lminor db tweaks I do to sub, center ands surround a while ago. No changes via receiver. But this info on filter recalc in app after x-over change needs to get out there for us app users.


----------



## Soulburner

I think someone should test it and measure to be sure.


----------



## markb1980

Soulburner said:


> Very interesting discussion here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of my key takeaways:
> 
> 
> The subwoofer channel is given greater filter resolution compared to the same bass frequency range from the speaker channels. This means running 2.0 gets less bass correction. Take note, those trying to turn off their sub for music.
> XT32 filter resolution is roughly equal to 16,000 taps, and it is biased more heavily toward the bass region. This is much more resolution than graphic EQ and PEQ can provide. Take note MiniDSP users – I've been saying for some time now that in most cases you want to have Audyssey do its FIR corrections _before _you implement the MiniDSP for additional PEQ.
> When changing crossovers, do it in the app and upload to the AVR again. Choosing the crossover in the app will _recalculate _filters – doing it in the AVR will not. I have not tested to see how much of a difference this makes, but the advice comes straight from the source.
> Audyssey enhancements are coming with a laptop version of the software. There is also something coming for the Pro kit. This may involve the laptop, but it sounds like they will still use the Audyssey mic plugged into the AVR and not a mic plugged into your laptop ala Dirac.


Will the crossover change in the app be the case if lowering it? As doing so in the AVR means there is no correction between what Audyssey set it at and what you lowered it to as far as I understand? Or are they saying it’s the same, no correction if you higher it also?


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> I think someone should test it and measure to be sure.


I've measured both ways.

I think they misspoke, in the heat of the discussion it was kind of passably mentioned but no one caught it or said it definitively. The crossover is an AVR setting and it applies the correct 24dB and 12dB octave slopes (high pass and low pass). Doing it in the app just means you don't have to set it again once you upload. It doesn't affect the filters from what I can see in the measurements.


----------



## pbz06

markb1980 said:


> Will the crossover change in the app be the case if lowering it? As doing so in the AVR means there is no correction between what Audyssey set it at and what you lowered it to as far as I understand? Or are they saying it’s the same, no correction if you higher it also?


That doesn't change. Filters stop at the -3dB point of a 75dB test tone.


----------



## fmalczewski

Soulburner said:


> Very interesting discussion here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of my key takeaways:
> 
> Audyssey enhancements are coming with a laptop version of the software. There is also something coming for the Pro kit. This may involve the laptop, but it sounds like they will still use the Audyssey mic plugged into the AVR and not a mic plugged into your laptop ala Dirac.


Nice to see I may still get some use out of the Pro Kit if/when (presumably at least getting support beyond Windows 10)... I guess I will have to watch and see what they said... (Though in the case of Windows 11 I would actually need a PC, assuming BootCamp gets stuck at Windows 10 for my iMac.)


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> If your speakers have a dip in sound power around the crossover, the recommendation is to not boost that region. MRC is designed to prevent Audyssey from boosting the crossover dip which can result in harshness. If your crossover is not around 2 kHz, turn off MRC and draw your own in the curve editor to match your speakers.
> 
> 
> There actually is an objectively right answer, and that is to tune your system with Dynamic EQ *ON*. This will ensure that you still get the same or similar perceptual sound profile at all volume levels which is something other AVRs can not do. However, this can give bad results for some users if they don't have capable enough speakers and subs to handle the bass boost, if they don't implement it properly (should turn it on before adjusting bass levels to taste, not after), or if their crossover is too low or too high. Any of these things can cause someone to come onto the forums and complain that their system sounds boomy or the dialogue is not clear.


Exactly the reason I use MRC for my center speaker. I don't want to dig up my REW measurements right now, but I have a dip there too. My overall speaker response isn't that far off the target curve either, so I don't really notice a difference when testing full range correction (with MRC) vs Limited. Either way, the bottom line is EQ can sound harsh when needing to boost, but maintains good sound if not altering the speaker response that much other than shaping it a bit.


----------



## SundayAudiophile

Soulburner said:


> When changing crossovers, do it in the app and upload to the AVR again. Choosing the crossover in the app will _recalculate _filters – doing it in the AVR will not. I have not tested to see how much of a difference this makes, but the advice comes straight from the source.


Super useful information, thank you very much. This exactly answers one of the questions I came to this thread with.

And another question: if I want to edit the upper frequency limit for room correction, should I just change it and re-upload the file to the AVR, or do I need to re-run the calibration routine?


----------



## ddlooping

SundayAudiophile said:


> And another question: if I want to edit the upper frequency limit for room correction, should I just change it and re-upload the file to the AVR, or do I need to re-run the calibration routine?


Just re-upload


----------



## Rich 63

@soundburner stated. When changing crossovers, do it in the app and upload to the AVR again. Choosing the crossover in the app will _recalculate _filters – doing it in the AVR will not. I have not tested to see how much of a difference this makes, but the advice comes straight from the source.
I do this anyway regardless of what changes i make. 
This obviously implies the calculations are done in the apps then sent. I initially thought the apps was simply working with the onboard aud and allowing greater changes. Who is the source. I would like to read that source if there is further info within said article.


----------



## SundayAudiophile

I also initially thought that the app would simply be an extra user interface to the existing AVR's firmware options, but for that the app downloads and uploads too much data. Looks like it does have very low-level access to the underlying data, which gives it the ability to manipulate that data to a wide degree.


----------



## pbz06

The filters are identical and still done by the AVR. There's no differences in "quality" or "filters" of doing anything in the app vs the AVR. I actually remember that I asked this directly on Ask Audyssey and one of the engineers confirmed. Changing crossovers in the app is just a convenience thing. Go re-watch the video, it wasn't a straight from the source moment, it was Mr. Marketing getting all excited and Gene sort of asked out loud and then the conversation moved on before Jeff can chime in or correct them.


----------



## Soulburner

Well, he affirmed "yes" several times, however I believe it's easily provable with measurements so I believe you when you say you've tested it.


----------



## StephenMSmith

I watched the video, but no doubt I my mind... If this were true this thread would've known about it first. Way too many really smart people here and on this forum that woulve figured this, out long ago. FYI, I'm not one of them. I just read and listen to all of you.


----------



## pbz06

StephenMSmith said:


> I watched the video, but no doubt I my mind... If this were true this thread would've known about it first. Way too many really smart people here and on this forum that woulve figured this, out long ago. FYI, I'm not one of them. I just read and listen to all of you.


I'm pretty sure if they meant anything, they meant high pass and low pass filters (which are done at the AVR level anyway), and not anything in terms of correction filters.

I looked back at my "Ask Audyssey" account and it was a few years ago when I was a first time user on the app. I specifically asked them if there's any differences in calibration runs between the App or directly within the AVR. They clearly responded that it's identical and it's the exact filters/calculations which are done within the AVR, and the app is simply a control mechanism. They did add that the subwoofer had a 20hz limit at the time (but they have since updated it to go down to 10hz). Of course, the app gives you the additional customization tweaks at your disposal. It also just makes sense that bass management is just that, high and low pass settings. No different than enabling CinemaEQ which adjusts treble slopes but it doesn't need different correction filters. To me, changing the XO's in the app just means the app tells the AVR where to set them and the AVR does that.

I like Phil Jones but he's more of a brand rep and in all his videos he's eager to say things.

p.s.- I used to never adjust anything in the app other than MRC/Targets. I always went into the AVR and manually adjusted my XO's and stuff. I also always verify with REW after every calibration. I have recently been now doing it in the app when testing different settings with MRC and Target curves (and have been adjusting XO's in the app too)...and I promise you my curves look identical and everything sounds the same at the crossover region. If there is any difference, it would be negligible or just tolerance.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

pbz06 said:


> I like Phil Jones but he's more of a brand rep and in all his videos he's eager to say things.


Hey buddy,

Ya he's alright, would have been a far better interview or webinar ( or whatever we call these video calls  ) with just Gene and Jeff. Gene was asking the right kind of questions like the post cal resolution graphs and new features coming to the App ( Pc controlled?? seemed unlikely judging by Jeff's response). Who knows what they have planned 🤷‍♂️

As for the crossovers, although I can't verify anymore I did test it in the past and they are exactly the same, unfortunately don't have the .madat files to back it up

Jim


----------



## Soulburner

It's just odd that he said, verbatim: "You should choose the crossover in the app and let it do the calculation based on that". That's about as clear as you can get.

Anyway,

"Our first plan is to give more powerful tools...

...and more powerful tools means a laptop."

Has me pretty excited! We'll see.


----------



## ThierryB

Hi,

I have the following setup (about 3 months old), and I was wondering if it's normal that Audyssey sets the the crossover for the minx min12 and min22 to 250hz. That sounds high ?

Marantz SR6015
3x CA Min 22 for LCR
2x CA Min 12 for Front Height
2x CA Min 12 for Rear Surrround
SVS SB-1000 Pro

This is the curve I get after initial calibration:























I tried to edit the curve with the Curve Editor in the MultiEQ app and seems to be slightly better (I tried to use this curve and set the crossover down to 200Hz), but not sure I can really hear a difference to be honest.

This is what I get after editing a bit the curve:
























Here is the curve I get for the SVS SB-1000 Pro:









The curve of the min12 and min22 is very similar, I thought you min22 should be better in terms of crossover ?
Any suggestion ? Should I override the crossover and set the LCF Min22 to 150Hz and other Min12 to 180Hz instead, or stick to the 250hz recommended by Audyssey ?

Thanks
Thierry


----------



## ddlooping

@ThierryB 
Based on the very little info I've managed to find, they should be ok down to around 160hz or thereabout.

Maybe it's due to where you positioned the mic during calibration? 
There might be some nulls there that make Audyssey think the CAs are not able to go much below 250hz.

As an experiment you could play a few tones around 200hz and move around your main listening position to confirm/disprove this theory...


----------



## ThierryB

ddlooping said:


> @ThierryB
> Based on the very little info I've managed to find, they should be ok down to around 160hz or thereabout.
> 
> Maybe it's due to where you positioned the mic during calibration?
> There might be some nulls there that make Audyssey think the CAs are not able to go much below 250hz.
> 
> As an experiment you could play a few tones around 200hz and move around your main listening position to confirm/disprove this theory...


Thanks for your quick reply. I put the mic at the recommended position on the sofa and took 6 measurements about 50-60cm far from each other.
The mic was about ear level on a tripod and was higher than the back rest of the sofa.

How am I supposed to use the video you posted ? How do I check for nulls ? I just try to play it through the speaker and check if I hear the sound from my listening position ?

The CA Min22 are supposed to go down to 120Hz and the Min12 to 150Hz, So I thought a respective crossover of 150Hz and 180Hz was reasonable ?
I think Cambridge Audio recommends a crossover of 140Hz for both, that's why I thought 250Hz was high.

But looking at the Audyssey curve, I guess it picks up 250Hz because it's around the -3db mark ? Someone knows how Audyssey picks the crossover based on the curve ?

Thanks!
Thierry


----------



## ddlooping

ThierryB said:


> How am I supposed to use the video you posted ? How do I check for nulls ? I just try to play it through the speaker and check if I hear the sound from my listening position ?


The idea would be to play the video and to move around the main listening position to see if they are spots where the tone is very loud or very quiet.
If, during calibration, you positioned the mic in one or more spots where this (or other low frequencies) was very quiet, Audyssey might have thought your speakers were not able to play that low (hence the fairly high cross-over).


ThierryB said:


> But looking at the Audyssey curve, I guess it picks up 250Hz because it's around the -3db mark ? Someone knows how Audyssey picks the crossover based on the curve ?


That's exactly what Audyssey sends to the receiver (the -3db mark).
I think it's the receiver that then decides on the crossover based on this information.


ThierryB said:


> The CA Min22 are supposed to go down to 120Hz and the Min12 to 150Hz, So I thought a respective crossover of 150Hz and 180Hz was reasonable ?
> I think Cambridge Audio recommends a crossover of 140Hz for both, that's why I thought 250Hz was high.


Unless you're curious as to why 250hz is at the -3db mark, I personally think it should be perfectly ok to set the crossovers at 150Hz and 180Hz.

Please keep in mind I'm far from being an expert.


----------



## ThierryB

ddlooping said:


> The idea would be to play the video and to move around the main listening position to see if they are spots where the tone is very loud or very quiet.
> If, during calibration, you positioned the mic in one or more spots where this (or other low frequencies) was very quiet, Audyssey might have thought your speakers were not able to play that low (hence the fairly high cross-over).
> 
> That's exactly what Audyssey sends to the receiver (the -3db mark).
> I think it's the receiver that then decides on the crossover based on this information.
> 
> Unless you're curious as to why 250hz is at the -3db mark, I personally think it should be perfectly ok to set the crossovers at 150Hz and 180Hz.
> 
> Please keep in mind I'm far from being an expert.


@ddlooping Thanks ! I will give a go to the video tone. I read in several reviews that it's ok to increase the crossover chosen by Audyssey, but usually you shouldn't go below that.
Now to be honest even if I set it to 150Hz I am not sure my ears can tell the difference  My subwoofer seems to have some null as well between 100Hz and 200Hz looking at the curve, so based on what's happening not sure which one would be the best.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

ThierryB said:


> Thanks for your quick reply. I put the mic at the recommended position on the sofa and took 6 measurements about 50-60cm far from each other.
> The mic was about ear level on a tripod and was higher than the back rest of the sofa.
> 
> How am I supposed to use the video you posted ? How do I check for nulls ? I just try to play it through the speaker and check if I hear the sound from my listening position ?
> 
> The CA Min22 are supposed to go down to 120Hz and the Min12 to 150Hz, So I thought a respective crossover of 150Hz and 180Hz was reasonable ?
> I think Cambridge Audio recommends a crossover of 140Hz for both, that's why I thought 250Hz was high.
> 
> But looking at the Audyssey curve, I guess it picks up 250Hz because it's around the -3db mark ? Someone knows how Audyssey picks the crossover based on the curve ?
> 
> Thanks!
> Thierry


Hey Thierry,

Audyssey chooses the crossovers when it see's the FR of the speaker reach 0DB and above. There is a more technical way to explain this but this is simply how it works. Your LCR speakers are all fairly close in there response and if you look closely where FR rises in the bass to 0DB that is your Xo. Which is around the 200-250hz mark.

There is a couple of things you can do to bring that XO lower but this will involve changing the physical location of the speakers.

But before I say this I'm going to be honest and say if it were me I would look on the market used or new for some alternatives for the front stage speakers. You can pick up some real gems these days for little money that are much more capable speakers. I think going this route is going to have a dramatic change to your overall experience, will solve the lower Xo which is not only bad for the speaker in a audile sense but also passing the higher XO of the speaker to the sub will make the single sub much more easier to locate. This can also lead to a bloated kind of bass and in my testing 150hz is as far as I would go before my system starts to sound bad with a dual sub setup.

So that's a long term solution that well worth looking at IMHO, you can keep the surrounds for now and upgrade them in the future.

For the short-term you can try moving the speakers back closer to the wall which will hopefully give the speakers a bit of boundary gain. I don't think you are going to get a 120hz Xo but aiming for 150hz would be a goal. Using the pre-measurements in the App to give yourself some sort of benchmark in how you are doing. So when adjusting the speakers in the calibration on the App simply run a single calibration and skip the 7 others. This will save yourself a lot of time.

During this time you could also move the sub to different locations and try find a better spot that shows less nulls which at the moment it's dropping off pretty fast at 50hz. Not ideal if we are planning a 150hz Xo. I would personally spend a good bit of time on this one so for each calibration have a pen paper at hand to write down what you have done for each calibration and label accordingly. You are basically getting to know your room and with each measurement you will know that bit more on what works and what doesn't. These measurements will stand to you in any upgrade you plan in the future so trying as many variables as possible will be well worth it. A Umik-1 with REW will cut this time process in half BTW but it's possible with the APP.

If you want you could also post some pictures of your setup. This might help us in finding good strategy's for the the speakers/sub setup.

Hope this helps

Jim


----------



## ThierryB

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Thierry,
> 
> Audyssey chooses the crossovers when it see's the FR of the speaker reach 0DB and above. There is a more technical way to explain this but this is simply how it works. Your LCR speakers are all fairly close in there response and if you look closely where FR rises in the bass to 0DB that is your Xo. Which is around the 200-250hz mark.
> 
> There is a couple of things you can do to bring that XO lower but this will involve changing the physical location of the speakers.
> 
> But before I say this I'm going to be honest and say if it were me I would look on the market used or new for some alternatives for the front stage speakers. You can pick up some real gems these days for little money that are much more capable speakers. I think going this route is going to have a dramatic change to your overall experience, will solve the lower Xo which is not only bad for the speaker in a audile sense but also passing the higher XO of the speaker to the sub will make the single sub much more easier to locate. This can also lead to a bloated kind of bass and in my testing 150hz is as far as I would go before my system starts to sound bad with a dual sub setup.
> 
> So that's a long term solution that well worth looking at IMHO, you can keep the surrounds for now and upgrade them in the future.
> 
> For the short-term you can try moving the speakers back closer to the wall which will hopefully give the speakers a bit of boundary gain. I don't think you are going to get a 120hz Xo but aiming for 150hz would be a goal. Using the pre-measurements in the App to give yourself some sort of benchmark in how you are doing. So when adjusting the speakers in the calibration on the App simply run a single calibration and skip the 7 others. This will save yourself a lot of time.
> 
> During this time you could also move the sub to different locations and try find a better spot that shows less nulls which at the moment it's dropping off pretty fast at 50hz. Not ideal if we are planning a 150hz Xo. I would personally spend a good bit of time on this one so for each calibration have a pen paper at hand to write down what you have done for each calibration and label accordingly. You are basically getting to know your room and with each measurement you will know that bit more on what works and what doesn't. These measurements will stand to you in any upgrade you plan in the future so trying as many variables as possible will be well worth it. A Umik-1 with REW will cut this time process in half BTW but it's possible with the APP.
> 
> If you want you could also post some pictures of your setup. This might help us in finding good strategy's for the the speakers/sub setup.
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
> Jim


Hi Jim,

Thanks for you help, and detailed reply !

I know my current speakers have some limitations, but I am coming from a soundbar setup, and this a first step towards a better setup.

I might update the front stage speakers down the line, but it will require a bit more discussion / convincing with the wife  For now everything lives in the living room, I don't have a dedicated space for my home theater system so it had to remain "discrete" for the first step.

I have attached some photos of my living room (excuse the kids mess, and the cable running along the wall on the right which will be hidden), but this is what I have at the moment.
As you can see almost all the speakers are directly against the wall except for FL and FR (so this doesn't seem to help much).

The center speaker is at the top at the moment waiting for the TV to go on the wall. It actually sounds surprising good (I thought it would sound weird before trying it).

I started with the center speaker in front of the TV at the beginning but it didn't make any difference in terms of curve / crossover.

See attached photos below to give you an idea of my setup.

Thanks
Thierry


----------



## ddlooping

ThierryB said:


> @ddloopingI read in several reviews that it's ok to increase the crossover chosen by Audyssey, but usually you shouldn't go below that.


You normally shouldn't but, based on the official specs and the comments on the Minx thread in which you posted, a 150-160hz crossover should be not be outside their capabilities.


ThierryB said:


> @ddloopingNow to be honest even if I set it to 150Hz I am not sure my ears can tell the difference


I'd be surprised if they couldn't.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

ThierryB said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> Thanks for you help, and detailed reply !
> 
> I know my current speakers have some limitations, but I am coming from a soundbar setup, and this a first step towards a better setup.
> 
> I might update the front stage speakers down the line, but it will require a bit more discussion / convincing with the wife  For now everything lives in the living room, I don't have a dedicated space for my home theater system so it had to remain "discrete" for the first step.
> 
> I have attached some photos of my living room (excuse the kids mess, and the cable running along the wall on the right which will be hidden), but this is what I have at the moment.
> As you can see almost all the speakers are directly against the wall except for FL and FR (so this doesn't seem to help much).
> 
> The center speaker is at the top at the moment waiting for the TV to go on the wall. It actually sounds surprising good (I thought it would sound weird before trying it).
> 
> I started with the center speaker in front of the TV at the beginning but it didn't make any difference in terms of curve / crossover.
> 
> See attached photos below to give you an idea of my setup.
> 
> Thanks
> Thierry
> 
> View attachment 3177753
> View attachment 3177754


Hey Thierry,

In that case coming from a soundbar, welcome to the HT world 

On the subject of speaker choice in a room that would like to keep a some sort of incognito or being discrete. I and many others in this thread used the main room as our HT space. Keeping things clutter free is I think of more value than walking in and going " Oh GOD I have perhaps gone too far in this hobby" 

The way I see this now when it comes to living room space is to keep the setup simple. 3.1 is a great start and 5.1 is for me the goal. 5.1 is what I run and while I do have atmos channels to setup I honestly don't miss them. So when I am thinking about 3 speakers I would like them to be ascetically pleasing to the eyes just like your room and especially that beautiful cello. There is so much beautiful speaker designs out there and rather than try to make them discrete, buy them also for there look factor that and WAF factor. Unfortunately we can't have both good sound plus small speakers, so best to take the time no rush and find something that takes to the eyes and acts like a piece of furniture. For example I bought these Wahferdale Lintons last year and man they look and sound good.





LINTON Heritage – WHARFEDALE







www.wharfedale.co.uk





I would love to offer more advice on speaker location bar the obvious on having the center speaker lowered. I don't think you are going to get much more out of them with placement strategies. Upgrading is really your next step IMO.
But there is potential to be got with the sub position, this I would experiment with and try some other locations. Like on the left of the cabinet or closer to a corner. Lot's of experimentation and learning can be done in this process. Even and I am starting to sound like a sales rep at his stage  going dual on your setup as is will be a massive improvement with the current speakers. This is a upgrade we all take eventually and IMHO better early than late for this one. When using such high crossovers you are running into the risk of bass localization, dual subs will really help even this out. The SVS 1000pro's will hold it's value also so re-selling later will be no problem if you want to go bigger. This is a itch of going bigger than we are doomed to follow as enthusiasts  in this hobby. Trying to resist the itch manage expectations is something we either manage to fail or win at. It's all perspective

So sorry if my advice is more geared to spending extra money, but take it slow. Enjoy what you have, play around with the sub location, soak in experience of a 5.1 sound and have fun planning out what upgrade you path you take next.

All the best

Jim

P.S There is guide write by @mthomas47 that I highly recommend you read, it's both very easy to find answers to what you are looking for through the hyperlinks. Explained very simply but by no means a simple subject to explain if that makes any sense 
For example Mike explain in much more detail on the crossover selection rather than my oversimplified version.








Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com




Also ask on thread there for any advice on sub locations and general bass/sound preferences.


----------



## Sm1ggs

@ thierryb I have same minx mini 12 mine also get set to 250hz , i don’t think you will get them any lower unless maybe if they were in a corner, I’ve never bothered lowering crossovers, i had them as surrounds but now used for atmos until I get permission to cut holes


----------



## ThierryB

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Thierry,
> 
> In that case coming from a soundbar, welcome to the HT world
> 
> On the subject of speaker choice in a room that would like to keep a some sort of incognito or being discrete. I and many others in this thread used the main room as our HT space. Keeping things clutter free is I think of more value than walking in and going " Oh GOD I have perhaps gone too far in this hobby"
> 
> The way I see this now when it comes to living room space is to keep the setup simple. 3.1 is a great start and 5.1 is for me the goal. 5.1 is what I run and while I do have atmos channels to setup I honestly don't miss them. So when I am thinking about 3 speakers I would like them to be ascetically pleasing to the eyes just like your room and especially that beautiful cello. There is so much beautiful speaker designs out there and rather than try to make them discrete, buy them also for there look factor that and WAF factor. Unfortunately we can't have both good sound plus small speakers, so best to take the time no rush and find something that takes to the eyes and acts like a piece of furniture. For example I bought these Wahferdale Lintons last year and man they look and sound good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LINTON Heritage – WHARFEDALE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.wharfedale.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to offer more advice on speaker location bar the obvious on having the center speaker lowered. I don't think you are going to get much more out of them with placement strategies. Upgrading is really your next step IMO.
> But there is potential to be got with the sub position, this I would experiment with and try some other locations. Like on the left of the cabinet or closer to a corner. Lot's of experimentation and learning can be done in this process. Even and I am starting to sound like a sales rep at his stage  going dual on your setup as is will be a massive improvement with the current speakers. This is a upgrade we all take eventually and IMHO better early than late for this one. When using such high crossovers you are running into the risk of bass localization, dual subs will really help even this out. The SVS 1000pro's will hold it's value also so re-selling later will be no problem if you want to go bigger. This is a itch of going bigger than we are doomed to follow as enthusiasts  in this hobby. Trying to resist the itch manage expectations is something we either manage to fail or win at. It's all perspective
> 
> So sorry if my advice is more geared to spending extra money, but take it slow. Enjoy what you have, play around with the sub location, soak in experience of a 5.1 sound and have fun planning out what upgrade you path you take next.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim
> 
> P.S There is guide write by @mthomas47 that I highly recommend you read, it's both very easy to find answers to what you are looking for through the hyperlinks. Explained very simply but by no means a simple subject to explain if that makes any sense
> For example Mike explain in much more detail on the crossover selection rather than my oversimplified version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also ask on thread there for any advice on sub locations and general bass/sound preferences.


Thanks for all the advice Jim.
I will have a look.
Thierry


----------



## ThierryB

Sm1ggs said:


> @ thierryb I have same minx mini 12 mine also get set to 250hz , i don’t think you will get them any lower unless maybe if they were in a corner, I’ve never bothered lowering crossovers, i had them as surrounds but now used for atmos until I get permission to cut holes


Thanks for the feedback! At least I know I am not the only one.
Cheers
Thierry


----------



## bluesky636

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Audyssey chooses the crossovers when it see's the FR of the speaker reach 0DB and above.


This is incorrect. 

First, Audyssey determines the in-room -3dB point in the low end of the speaker frequency response curve.

Second, that information is sent to the AVR.

Finally, the AVR sets the actual crossover point based on it's on processing firmware. 

Audyssey does not now and never has set the actual crossover point.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

bluesky636 said:


> This is incorrect.
> 
> First, Audyssey determines the in-room -3dB point in the low end of the speaker frequency response curve.
> 
> Second, that information is sent to the AVR.
> 
> Finally, the AVR sets the actual crossover point based on it's on processing firmware.
> 
> Audyssey does not now and never has set the actual crossover point.


Hey Bill



bluesky636 said:


> First, Audyssey determines the in-room -3dB point in the low end of the speaker frequency response curve.


As I said before my explanation was over simplified for the sake of simplicity to a new user getting to know how to read graphs. And is also why I linked Mike's guide for better research in this matter. Perhaps I should have explained this in a more correct manner.


bluesky636 said:


> Second, that information is sent to the AVR.


Don't recall myself saying otherwise


bluesky636 said:


> Finally, the AVR sets the actual crossover point based on it's on processing firmware.





bluesky636 said:


> Audyssey does not now and never has set the actual crossover point.


After the calibration is done and the processing is finished either through the APP or AVR, it will then assign the crossovers to each speaker group. It will then if not changed by the user send the information along with it's delays, filters etc... to the processor (AVR). Key point is that all of this is done through Audyssey and it does know and set the crossover point. If this were not the case how on earth are we able to use the App rather than the AVR to do all of this. It's all based on the same algorithm through Audyssey. Without it the user would have to determine the crossovers themselves. 
Perhaps we have our wires crossed and we are on the same page, in which case ignore the above 

Jim


----------



## bluesky636

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> After the calibration is done and the processing is finished either through the APP or AVR, it will then assign the crossovers to each speaker group. It will then if not changed by the user send the information along with it's delays, filters etc... to the processor (AVR). Key point is that all of this is done through Audyssey and it does know and set the crossover point. If this were not the case how on earth are we able to use the App rather than the AVR to do all of this. It's all based on the same algorithm through Audyssey. Without it the user would have to determine the crossovers themselves


Nope. Sorry. Audyssey calculates the -3dB point of the frequency response curve and transmits that info to the AVR along with the correction filter data. The AVR processor firmware, which is separate from Audyssey, uses that information to calculate a crossover point. Always has. This is all part of the AVR Bass Management function and is well documented in both the part 1 and part 2 Audyssey threads and in Mike's subwoofer thread. The idea that Audyssey calculates the crossover point has been debunked many times.


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> Nope. Sorry. Audyssey calculates the -3dB point of the frequency response curve and transmits that info to the AVR along with the correction filter data. The AVR processor firmware, which is separate from Audyssey, uses that information to calculate a crossover point. Always has. This is all part of the AVR Bass Management function and is well documented in both the part 1 and part 2 Audyssey threads and in Mike's subwoofer thread. The idea that Audyssey calculates the crossover point has been debunked many times.


I have a newbie question about the crossover and how it is determined. When you run Audyssey in the APP, you can actually see the crossover in the "Speaker Detection Results" section of the app.
So isn't the crossover determined before the data is actually sent to the AVR?


----------



## markb1980

I use Minx Min 12’s for Atmos and one is high up in a corner, they also got set to 250Hz crossover. I lowered it to 200Hz via the app but being Atmos I can’t here any difference anyway.


----------



## bluesky636

ThierryB said:


> I have a newbie question about the crossover and how it is determined. When you run Audyssey in the APP, you can actually see the crossover in the "Speaker Detection Results" section of the app.
> So isn't the crossover determined before the data is actually sent to the AVR?


I believe you are seeing the -3dB point of the speaker frequency response curve which is not necessarily the same as the AVR set crossover point.


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> I believe you are seeing the -3dB point of the speaker frequency response curve which is not necessarily the same as the AVR set crossover point.


No I am talking about the actual crossover setup in the app - the Speaker detection results ?
This updates the crossover setup in the AVR when you send the data from the MultEQ app to the AVR.


----------



## bluesky636

ThierryB said:


> No I am talking about the actual crossover setup in the app - the Speaker detection results ?
> This updates the crossover setup in the AVR when you send the data from the MultEQ app to the AVR.
> 
> View attachment 3178111


First, please read sections *a)16. What does the term 'F3' mean? *and *C. Crossover Settings *in the Audyssey FAQ at the beginning of this thread.

Finally, here is the thread for the Denon/Marantz Audyssey app itself:









MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...


If you crave hands-on control of your Audyssey MultEQ room correction calibrations, and own a compatible Denon or Marantz AV receiver, you are in luck. Today, Denon and Marantz launched the MultEQ Editor app — for select recent AVRs — that lets users tweak, refine, and otherwise customize the...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## pbz06

ThierryB said:


> I have a newbie question about the crossover and how it is determined. When you run Audyssey in the APP, you can actually see the crossover in the "Speaker Detection Results" section of the app.
> So isn't the crossover determined before the data is actually sent to the AVR?


The app is just a control mechanism. Yes you can change the crossovers same way you can change them in AVRs. Still, it's Audyssey reporting the -3dB initially. 

The AVR needs Audyssey to set them so in a way we're squabbling about technicalities.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> The app is just a control mechanism. Yes you can change the crossovers same way you can change them in AVRs. Still, it's Audyssey reporting the -3dB initially.
> 
> The AVR needs Audyssey to set them so in a way we're squabbling about technicalities.


I am not an expert in the design and coding of Audyssey or the app. However, I have thoroughly reviewed the description of Audyssey operation in both this thread and the original Audyssey thread. I do not believe the app changes the fundamental operation of Audyssey either in the AVR or in the app. The app, as you say, is a control mechanism that adds several tweaks to Audyssey. But there is still functionality that is specific to Audyssey and the AVR that has not changed. If the app wants to call F3 the crossover (because most people understand crossover better than F3), so be it. If Audyssey transmits a different F3, then the AVR sets a different crossover.

There are only two people who truly understand how all this works: the designer of Audyssey (Chris K) and the designer of the app. Maybe they are one in the same. In any case, I don't believe Chris K has posted here in some time. Heck, the Audyssey website doesn't even talk about what we know as Audyssey the last time I looked.

I'm done.


----------



## RBhifi

Okay, I know this has been covered alot, but I have to ask it since I can't find a clear answer to it.

Just to be clear; I have all my speakers set to small, but I still have the option to set the subwoofers to LFE, or LFE + Mains.
So, is there any advantage, or disadvantage to setting the subs to LFE or LFE+Mains, or are they doing exactly the same thing with having all my speakers set to small? 
Please give concise answers.
Thanks


----------



## Alan P

RBhifi said:


> Okay, I know this has been covered alot, but I have to ask it since I can't find a clear answer to it.
> 
> Just to be clear; I have all my speakers set to small, but I still have the option to set the subwoofers to LFE, or LFE + Mains.
> So, is there any advantage, or disadvantage to setting the subs to LFE or LFE+Mains, or are they doing exactly the same thing with having all my speakers set to small?
> Please give concise answers.
> Thanks


LFE+Main does nothing unless your front speakers (FL/FR) are set to Large.

Concise enough for ya?


----------



## RBhifi

So, it's basically like my options are LFE, and LFE + Nothing ?
Then their both just by default (with all spkr's set to small) exactly the same, LFE and LFE, correct ?
It sure would have been nice if Denon just had it not show LFE + Mains as a option when all spkr's are set to small.
Thanks for the reply.


----------



## bluesky636

RBhifi said:


> Okay, I know this has been covered alot, but I have to ask it since I can't find a clear answer to it.
> 
> Just to be clear; I have all my speakers set to small, but I still have the option to set the subwoofers to LFE, or LFE + Mains.
> So, is there any advantage, or disadvantage to setting the subs to LFE or LFE+Mains, or are they doing exactly the same thing with having all my speakers set to small?
> Please give concise answers.
> Thanks


If all your speakers are set to Small, just leave the sub set to LFE for best performance.

What are your crossovers and LFE LPF set to?

This is really a Bass Management issue instead of an Audyssey issue. You will get a more specific answer in this thread:









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> First, please read sections *a)16. What does the term 'F3' mean? *and *C. Crossover Settings *in the Audyssey FAQ at the beginning of this thread.
> 
> Finally, here is the thread for the Denon/Marantz Audyssey app itself:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...
> 
> 
> If you crave hands-on control of your Audyssey MultEQ room correction calibrations, and own a compatible Denon or Marantz AV receiver, you are in luck. Today, Denon and Marantz launched the MultEQ Editor app — for select recent AVRs — that lets users tweak, refine, and otherwise customize the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


I read through the 2 sections, and if I understand properly, in my case F3 is 250Hz after the calibration is run, so I understand the AVR/Audyssey will ignore any EQuing below that frequency, even though on the curve before/after you can clearly see the curve is modified below 250Hz ?

Subsequently I edited the part between 200 and 250hz in the curve editor, but following the above, I guess it is pointless because it will be ignored? Or the fact that the curve is updated will actually ensure the eq happens betweem 200hz and 250hz as you would assume from the graph ?

When you edit the curve / crossover it will actually override whatever the original F3 was, and Audyssey will apply the correction according to the adjusted curve / adjusted F3 ?


----------



## bluesky636

ThierryB said:


> I read through the 2 sections, and if I understand properly, in my case F3 is 250Hz after the calibration is run, so I understand the AVR/Audyssey will ignore any EQuing below that frequency, even though on the curve before/after you can clearly see the curve is modified below 250Hz ?
> 
> Subsequently I edited the part between 200 and 250hz in the curve editor, but following the above, I guess it is pointless because it will be ignored? Or the fact that the curve is updated will actually ensure the eq happens betweem 200hz and 250hz as you would assume from the graph ?
> 
> When you edit the curve / crossover it will actually override whatever the original F3 was, and Audyssey will apply the correction according to the adjusted curve / adjusted F3 ?


You do realize that the after curve is only a calculated curve based on Audyssey applying the filters to the before curve, right? Audyssey does not go back and remeasure the in room response after the filter corrections are applied. 

You can set the crossover wherever you like but no corrections are applied below the measured in room F3.

I do not know the actual mechanism the app uses to tell the AVR to change the crossover. I was only speculating that it altered the reported F3. I apologize if I was not clear.


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> You do realize that the after curve is only a calculated curve based on Audyssey applying the filters to the before curve, right? Audyssey does not go back and remeasure the in room response after the filter corrections are applied.


Yes I realized that.



bluesky636 said:


> You can set the crossover wherever you like but no corrections are applied below the measured in room F3.
> 
> I do not know the actual mechanism the app uses to tell the AVR to change the crossover. I was only speculating that it altered the reported F3. I apologize if I was not clear.


What I was trying to understand is whether or not editing the curve would influence the F3 considered by Audyssey in particular to apply room EQ.
So from what you are saying Audyssey is using the F3 from the room measurement (not taking into account the EQ done, or any manual edit on the curve that could affect the F3 after room correction is applied).

So there is pretty much no point to edit the curve below the measure F3, since regardless of what you do this would be ignored then ?

Wouldn't it be more logical for Audyssey to consider the EQed F3 value ?


----------



## bluesky636

ThierryB said:


> What I was trying to understand is whether or not editing the curve would influence the F3 considered by Audyssey in particular to apply room EQ.
> So from what you are saying Audyssey is using the F3 from the room measurement (not taking into account the EQ done, or any manual edit on the curve that could affect the F3 after room correction is applied).
> 
> So there is pretty much no point to edit the curve below the measure F3, since regardless of what you do this would be ignored then ?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more logical for Audyssey to consider the EQed F3 value ?


F3 is F3. Once measured during the calibration process, no filter corrections are calculated below that point. End of story.

Look at your after curve. Did the response at 250Hz change significantly? No. Look at 100Hz. It's 25dB down from 250Hz. Audyssey is not going to try and correct anything between those points. If you want to set your crossover at 150Hz, go ahead. But the response will be 10 dB below the response at 250Hz. That is why Audyssey says you can set the crossover above F3 but you shouldn't set the crossover below F3. On top of that, your sub response is very ragged between about 150Hz and 250Hz.


----------



## RBhifi

bluesky636 said:


> If all your speakers are set to Small, just leave the sub set to LFE for best performance.
> 
> What are your crossovers and LFE LPF set to?
> 
> This is really a Bass Management issue instead of an Audyssey issue. You will get a more specific answer in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com





bluesky636 said:


> If all your speakers are set to Small, just leave the sub set to LFE for best performance.
> 
> What are your crossovers and LFE LPF set to?
> 
> This is really a Bass Management issue instead of an Audyssey issue. You will get a more specific answer in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


X-overs: L-C-R 90hz, SL & SR 110hz.


bluesky636 said:


> If all your speakers are set to Small, just leave the sub set to LFE for best performance.
> 
> What are your crossovers and LFE LPF set to?
> 
> This is really a Bass Management issue instead of an Audyssey issue. You will get a more specific answer in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


X-overs are 90hz for the L.R.C, and 110hz for the surrounds. I left the LFE option at LFE + Mains at 150hz , since I've been told that with all my speakers set to small they're both the same.


----------



## bluesky636

You might want to read the following (link will take you to LFE + Main):









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com







RBhifi said:


> X-overs: L-C-R 90hz, SL & SR 110hz.
> 
> X-overs are 90hz for the L.R.C, and 110hz for the surrounds. I left the LFE option at LFE + Mains at 150hz , since I've been told that with all my speakers set to small they're both the same.


Not the best choice in my opinion but, whatever.


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> F3 is F3. Once measured during the calibration process, no filter corrections are calculated below that point. End of story.
> 
> Look at your after curve. Did the response at 250Hz change significantly? No. Look at 100Hz. It's 25dB down from 250Hz. Audyssey is not going to try and correct anything between those points. If you want to set your crossover at 150Hz, go ahead. But the response will be 10 dB below the response at 250Hz. That is why Audyssey says you can set the crossover above F3 but you shouldn't set the crossover below F3. On top of that, your sub response is very ragged between about 150Hz and 250Hz.


You are mixing 3 things together:

You point to the curve before and after which are clearly different between 100Hz and 250Hz
The fact that Audyssey would apply any EQ below F3 after an attempt is made to do some correction.
The fact that you would hear some audible improvement.

Sorry, you don't really answer my original question. Merely adding confusion in all aspects in your answer.


----------



## bluesky636

ThierryB said:


> You are mixing 3 things together:


No, I am not.



ThierryB said:


> You point to the curve before and after which are clearly different between 100Hz and 250Hz


Reread what I wrote. I said to look at tha AFTER curves. In each one, F3 is still 250Hz. Then I pointed out that in each AFTER curve 100Hz is 25dB below F3, and your desired 150Hz crossover is 10dB below F3. Do you not understand what that means?



ThierryB said:


> The fact that Audyssey would apply any EQ below F3 after an attempt is made to do some correction.


I have said multiple times that Audyssey WILL NOT apply any filter corrections below F3.



ThierryB said:


> The fact that you would hear some audible improvement.


I never said any such thing.



ThierryB said:


> Sorry, you don't really answer my original question. Merely adding confusion in all aspects in your answer.


Frankly, I don't think you understand the question you are asking. It's clear you don't understand my answers. I have tried to explain things multiple times as simply as I can, pointing you to appropriate references. I'm not going to waste any more of my time. Adjust your curve and set your crossover where you want.


----------



## mthomas47

ThierryB said:


> Yes I realized that.
> 
> 
> 
> What I was trying to understand is whether or not editing the curve would influence the F3 considered by Audyssey in particular to apply room EQ.
> So from what you are saying Audyssey is using the F3 from the room measurement (not taking into account the EQ done, or any manual edit on the curve that could affect the F3 after room correction is applied).
> 
> So there is pretty much no point to edit the curve below the measure F3, since regardless of what you do this would be ignored then ?
> 
> Wouldn't it be more logical for Audyssey to consider the EQed F3 value ?



Hi,

I saw that Bill had quoted my Guide, so I attempted to catch-up to this discussion. I haven't used the app, and I was a little confused by the nature of the question. But I believe that the following is correct. Once Audyssey identifies the -3dB roll-off of a speaker (the F3 point) and an initial crossover is set, Audyssey will stop setting EQ filters below that frequency. But, let's say that you use the curve editor to boost something below that crossover. That boost will occur. A user-implemented boost at a particular frequency, or cluster of frequencies, is not at all the same thing as a filter set by Audyssey. So yes, the boost should work.

Whether or not it's a good idea to boost something below that original crossover is an entirely different question. You can certainly try it and see how it sounds, but don't be too surprised if you end up listening to some distortion from the speaker(s) in question. It is important to understand that when Audyssey measures the low-frequency roll-off of a speaker, it is only using a 75dB test tone. 75dB is not very loud. If a speaker is already rolling-off by -3dB, at a particular frequency, when it plays a 75dB test tone, what will happen when you are listening to peak volumes of 80-90dB?

Remember that in 5.1 movies, the regular channels can have peak volumes that are +20dB higher than the average volume. So, even if you listen at -20 MV (which translates to 65dB) there can be peak volumes of 85dB in the regular channels. And, DEQ will also add some additional boosts to the speakers at that -20 volume level if you have it engaged. That's why it is not typically a good idea to lower crossovers below wherever your AVR/app set them, or to add boosts below that original crossover.

I hope that this explanation helps a little! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> Reread what I wrote. I said to look at tha AFTER curves. In each one, F3 is still 250Hz. Then I pointed out that in each AFTER curve 100Hz is 25dB below F3, and your desired 150Hz crossover is 10dB below F3. Do you not understand what that means?


This is again incorrect and that's where you confuse everything.
If you look at the post curve, In the corrected curve F3 is actually at 200hz instead of 250Hz, and Audyssey APP doesn't let you attempt to correct beyond that. So why would the app let you attempt correct the curve if it Audyssey is not doing anything with it ? It actually does limit the correction beyond that.

You also say to look at the curve after correction, so that would mean 200Hz would actually be used as a new F3 value.
So again you contradict yourself in your own answer. Don't worry no need to reply. Let's call it a day.

Before:









After:


----------



## ThierryB

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> I saw that Bill had quoted my Guide, so I attempted to catch-up to this discussion. I haven't used the app, but I believe that the following is correct. Once Audyssey identifies the -3dB roll-off of a speaker (the F3 point) and an initial crossover is set, Audyssey will stop setting EQ filters below that frequency. But, let's say that you use the curve editor to boost something below that crossover. That boost will occur. A user-implemented boost at a particular frequency, or cluster of frequencies, is not at all the same thing as a filter set by Audyssey. So yes, the boost should work.
> 
> Whether or not it's a good idea to boost something below that original crossover is an entirely different question. You can certainly try it and see how it sounds, but don't be too surprised if you end up listening to some distortion from the speaker(s) in question. It is important to understand that when Audyssey measures the low-frequency roll-off of a speaker, it is only using a 75dB test tone. 75dB is not very loud. If a speaker is already rolling-off by -3dB, at a particular frequency, when it plays a 75dB test tone, what will happen when you are listening to peak volumes of 80-90dB?
> 
> Remember that in 5.1 movies, the regular channels can have peak volumes that are +20dB higher than the average volume. So, even if you listen at -20 MV (which translates to 65dB) there can be peak volumes of 85dB in the regular channels. And, DEQ will also add some additional boosts to the speakers at that -20 volume level if you have it engaged. That's why it is not typically a good idea to lower crossovers below wherever your AVR/app set them, or to add boosts below that original crossover.
> 
> I hope that this explanation helps a little!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike. Yes I understood the initial measurement. My question was for more in the App, you can actually update this point by editing the curve, and I wanted to know then since Audyssey considers the corrected curve in the first place to determine F3, if it would then consider the new edited value.

If it's not it just means that it's pointless to update the curve, since anything below the original F3 would still not be EQed, so that would then make sense why there is really no point to go below the original crossover (I always read, that it's better to be conservative for the crossover anyway, for the reasons you mentioned above).


----------



## mthomas47

ThierryB said:


> Thanks Mike. Yes I understood the initial measurement. My question was for more in the App, you can actually update this point by editing the curve, and I wanted to know then since Audyssey considers the corrected curve in the first place to determine F3, if it would then consider the new edited value.
> 
> If it's not it just means that it's pointless to update the curve, since anything below the original F3 would still not be EQed, so that would then make sense why there is really no point to go below the original crossover (I always read, that it's better to be conservative for the crossover anyway, for the reasons you mentioned above).



You are welcome! You might get a better answer to this on the app thread. Someone there may have done a before-and-after measurement, with REW, of what you are describing.

I didn't know that the Audyssey app would allow you to tell it to EQ below the detected F3 point. But, if that setting is possible, using the curve editor, then I agree with your logic. It must be changing the frequency at which the EQ filters are set. I think that you also mentioned that it wouldn't let you drop that EQ target by very much, so that may reflect a small safety margin built-in to the curve editor. But, as we both agree, it still sounds like a feature that should be handled with care. Or, perhaps not handled at all! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ThierryB

mthomas47 said:


> You are welcome! You might get a better answer to this on the app thread. Someone there may have done a before-and-after measurement, with REW, of what you are describing.
> 
> I didn't know that the Audyssey app would allow you to tell it to EQ below the detected F3 point. But, if that setting is possible, using the curve editor, then I agree with your logic. It must be changing the frequency at which the EQ filters are set. I think that you also mentioned that it wouldn't let you drop that EQ target by very much, so that may reflect a small safety margin built-in to the curve editor. But, as we both agree, it still sounds like a feature that should be handled with care. Or, perhaps not handled at all!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike, I might give it a go on the App thread to see if someone did some actual measurements, and understand what is actually used, once the curve is updated.


----------



## RBhifi

bluesky636 said:


> You might want to read the following (link will take you to LFE + Main):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the best choice in my opinion but, whatever.


The reason have the LFE + Main low-pass set to 150hz is that my sub outputs first go into a Audio Control Epicenter, then into a D.A. DSP-408 where I have a LR24dB 90hz *low*-pass set for my subwoofers. Btw, I only use the AC Epicenter mainly for Rock music, and a few movies weak in low bass content. My L-C-R are PSA MT-110-M speakers, and my surrounds are Polk FXi A4's with only 5.25" woofers. I've always preferred to run the high-pass up higher with my surrounds, even more so when they have smaller woofers.
Thanks for the link but I've already read a large chunk of the Guide, Bass Management, and the Audyssey threads over the last 2 weeks. That's why I finally posted trying to get some clarification on LFE and LFE + Mains with all speakers set to small.
Correction, 90hz LR 24dB low-pass not high-pass.


----------



## Soulburner

Alan P said:


> LFE+Main does nothing but cause problems


Fixed it


----------



## Soulburner

RBhifi said:


> X-overs are 90hz for the L.R.C, and 110hz for the surrounds. I left the LFE option at LFE + Mains at 150hz , since I've been told that with all my speakers set to small they're both the same.





RBhifi said:


> The reason have the LFE + Main low-pass set to 150hz is that my sub outputs first go into a Audio Control Epicenter, then into a D.A. DSP-408 where I have a LR24dB 90hz high-pass set for my subwoofers. Btw, I only use the AC Epicenter mainly for Rock music, and a few movies weak in low bass content. My L-C-R are PSA MT-110-M speakers, and my surrounds are Polk FXi A4's with only 5.25" woofers. I've always preferred to run the high-pass up higher with my surrounds, even more so when they have smaller woofers.
> Thanks for the link but I've already read a large chunk of the Guide, Bass Management, and the Audyssey threads over the last 2 weeks. That's why I finally posted trying to get some clarification on LFE and LFE + Mains with all speakers set to small.


I don't understand the intricacies of your setup, but:

LFE+Main is also known as "double bass", and will run your speaker channels full range in addition to the sub when speakers are set to Large (where normally your sub would not be used). When you duplicate bass content like that, you are going to get interference and worse sound quality.

It's too late for me to think about what happens when speakers are set to Small, but it shouldn't be used anyway, so it doesn't matter. I think you always want to bass manage which means use your system's crossovers.


----------



## ThierryB

Soulburner said:


> I don't understand the intricacies of your setup, but:
> 
> LFE+Main is also known as "double bass", and will run your speaker channels full range in addition to the sub. When you duplicate bass content like that, you are going to get interference and worse sound quality.


Just jumping in to ask maybe a silly question. What makes a LFE+main different from having multiple Sub ? I would have thought that could have some similar effects since you would have bass in different part of the room ?

Thanks
Thierry


----------



## Soulburner

You're not wrong, but are those bass sources properly phase-aligned at all frequencies? How will you achieve that if you can't adjust the delay on your main speakers without messing up your imaging? Are they able to keep up with your subwoofer(s) in output before distorting and/or compressing? Probably not, would be the answer to these questions.


----------



## ThierryB

Soulburner said:


> You're not wrong, but are those bass sources properly phase-aligned at all frequencies? How will you achieve that if you can't adjust the delay on your main speakers without messing up your imaging? Are they able to keep up with your subwoofer(s) in output before distorting and/or compressing? Probably not, would be the answer to these questions.


OK, but then wouldn't this apply to bass anyway going out of the L and R speakers in 2 channel setup for instance (without sub) ?


----------



## Soulburner

ThierryB said:


> OK, but then wouldn't this apply to bass anyway going out of the L and R speakers in 2 channel setup for instance (without sub) ?


To varying degrees, yes. That's where a sub helps because you can place it where you can minimize those issues. The speakers are pretty restricted in how much you can move them.


----------



## ThierryB

Soulburner said:


> To varying degrees, yes. That's where a sub helps because you can place it where you can minimize those issues. The speakers are pretty restricted in how much you can move them.


OK understood. Makes sense.
Thanks.


----------



## mthomas47

ThierryB said:


> Just jumping in to ask maybe a silly question. What makes a LFE+main different from having multiple Sub ? I would have thought that could have some similar effects since you would have bass in different part of the room ?
> 
> Thanks
> Thierry





ThierryB said:


> OK, but then wouldn't this apply to bass anyway going out of the L and R speakers in 2 channel setup for instance (without sub) ?



Hi,

With multiple subs, the combined frequency response of the subs is EQed. That is because they will always be playing exactly the same content, at the same time, and at the same sound levels. So, even though there can be room mode-induced phase issues between identical subwoofers, at least the EQ filters that Audyssey sets will be the same.

Phase cancellation between two transducers (speakers or subwoofers) occurs when they are playing the same bass content at the same time, and the driver on one speaker moves outward at the same moment that the driver on the other speaker moves inward. The drivers are moving in-and-out to produce sound.

So, the first prerequisite for phase cancellation is that two transducers are playing the same content at the same time, and at about the same volume level. If the inward/outward movement of the drivers happens to be in opposition to each other, the opposing action of the two drivers cancels the sound at a particular frequency. Where that happens between subwoofers, changing the timing (distance/delay setting) of one of the subs will reduce or eliminate the phase cancellation.

The situation is different though, with respect to the front speakers. Those speakers play slightly different content at times, even when playing in stereo. That's why we don't typically experience phase issues between our front speakers. They aren't always actually playing exactly the same content, at exactly the same time, and at exactly the same volume level. (For example, the stereo effect of a phantom center is an illusion that our brains create from two slightly different sounds coming from two different sources.) Because the front speakers are not always playing exactly the same content, at exactly the same time and volume level, they need to be EQed separately.

When we use LFE+Main, or "double bass" we create a situation where the subs EQed together, and the two front speakers EQed separately, are all playing the same general content at the same time. And, now our room EQ that we had been relying on to regulate random peaks and dips in our frequency response breaks down a little. Typically, that results in louder sounding bass at some frequencies and phase cancellation (an absence of sound) at other frequencies.

As a general rule, we would only experience phase cancellation between our front speakers and our subs at or near a crossover, such as 80Hz, because that is the only time that the front speakers and the subs would be playing the same content at about the same volume level. Otherwise, the speakers would play their own content above the crossover, and the subs would play their own content below the crossover.

With LFE+Main, they are playing the same content at the same time, and we make some phase cancellation at random frequencies, and some corresponding boost at other random frequencies, virtually inevitable. To most of us, that can result in a little more of a bloated, one-note sound. (Distortion at higher frequencies can sound harsh or shrill, where distortion at bass frequencies tends to sound muddy or boomy.)

Chris Kyriakakis, the creator of Audyssey, lobbied hard against allowing an LFE+Main setting in AVR's using the Audyssey program, but he lost that battle. The AVR makers wanted to have that feature. I don't personally try to lobby against LFE+Main other than what I say about it in the Guide, as I really do believe in individual listener preference. But, the application of it is in pretty direct conflict with the basic concept of using room correction to eliminate random peaks and dips in the sound. Early on, I experimented with it, just so I could try to understand it better, and the bloated, muddy-sounding bass was very apparent to me. Still, it really is a YMMV issue! 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## ThierryB

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> With multiple subs, the combined frequency response of the subs is EQed. That is because they will always be playing exactly the same content, at the same time, and at the same sound levels. So, even though there can be room mode-induced phase issues between subwoofers, at least the EQ filters that Audyssey sets will be the same.
> 
> Phase cancellation between two transducers (speaker or subwoofers) occurs when they are playing the same bass content at the same time, and the driver on one speaker moves outward at the same moment that the driver on the other speaker moves inward. The drivers are moving in-and-out to produce sound.
> 
> So, the first prerequisite for phase cancellation is that two transducers are playing the same content at the same time, and at about the same volume level. If the inward/outward movement of the drivers happens to be in opposition to each other, the opposing action of the two drivers cancels the sound at a particular frequency. Where that happens between subwoofers, changing the timing (distance/delay setting) of one of the subs will reduce or eliminate the phase cancellation.
> 
> The situation is different though, with respect to the front speakers. Those speakers play slightly different content at times, even when playing in stereo. That's why we don't typically experience phase issues between our front speakers. They aren't always actually playing exactly the same content, at exactly the same time, and at exactly the same volume level. (For example, the stereo effect of a phantom center is an illusion that our brains create from two slightly different sounds coming from two different sources.) Because the front speakers are not always playing exactly the same content, at exactly the same time and volume level, they need to be EQed separately.
> 
> When we use LFE+Main, or "double bass" we create a situation where the subs EQed together, and the two front speakers EQed separately, are all playing the same general content at the same time. And, now our room EQ that we had been relying on to regulate random peaks and dips in our frequency response breaks down a little. Typically, that results in louder sounding bass at some frequencies and phase cancellation (an absence of sound) at other frequencies.
> 
> As a general rule, we would only experience phase cancellation between our front speakers and our subs at or near a crossover, such as 80Hz, because that is the only time that the front speakers and the subs would be playing the same content at about the same volume level. Otherwise, the speakers would play their own content above the crossover, and the subs would play their own content below the crossover. With LFE+Main, they are playing the same content, and we make some phase cancellation at random frequencies, and some corresponding boost at other random frequencies virtually inevitable. To most of us, that can result in a bloated sound.
> 
> Chris Kyriakakis, the creator of Audyssey, lobbied hard against allowing an LFE+Main setting in AVR's using the Audyssey program, but he lost that battle. The AVR makers wanted to have that feature. I don't personally try to lobby against LFE+Main other than what I say about it in the Guide, as I really do believe in individual listener preference. But, the application of it is in pretty direct conflict with the basic concept of using room correction to eliminate random peaks and dips in the sound. Early on, I experimented with it, just so I could try to understand it better, and the bloated, muddy-sounding bass was very apparent to me. Still, it really is a YMMV issue!
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks Mike for the very informative answer !


----------



## garygarrison

mthomas47 said:


> Chris Kyriakakis, the creator of Audyssey, lobbied hard against allowing an LFE+Main setting in AVR's using the Audyssey program, but he lost that battle. The AVR makers wanted to have that feature.


One AVR maker told Chris K. that he was concerned that people who had purchased large speakers, partly for their bass response, would say "no way" if asked to use a system that attenuated their response below a crossover to a sub, so he felt his company had to include LFE+Main to give people the choice of letting the mains run full range, while the subwoofer was still woofing. 

My FL and FR speakers are 52" high (no legs*;* all speaker), 31.25" wide and 28" deep (and my center is just a little smaller, with an identical speaker complement). I stubbornly used LFE+Main, with main speakers LARGE for a long time. REW sweeps showed there was just a bit of phase cancellation, but I remain unconvinced (in fact seriously doubt) that the measurement told the whole story regarding comb filtering, phase problems, and certainly not distortion). Anyway it sounded pretty good.

Then I tried long term, repeated, tests by ear with LFE+Main, LARGE vs. LFE (only), SMALL, both with LPF for LFE set for 80 Hz with a variety of music.

Improvement! The bass was a bit cleaner and tighter, and the overall clarity _seemed_ better, although I couldn't swear to it (unlike some golden eared audiophile reviewers, I don't trust the reliability of subtle impressions I am tempted to report confidently).
.


----------



## StephenMSmith

I have a Audyssey question that I've always wondered about. I have Denon 750H w/MultEQ, not MultEQXT or MultEQ32. I also have a poor room for my HT -- the end of my rectangular living room where one side if floor to ceiling glass window and the other side is no side. I don't expect any version of Audyssey to fix my room problems, but e4very MultEQ app results I see graph I see from others shows a very flat predicted speaker correction curve. 

Of course, these are much better rooms, but I can't but wonder -- how much would the step up Audyssey versions (MultEQXT or MultEQ32) do for my far from flat results?


----------



## CBdicX

Hi,
I have a Stereo amp on the Front pre-out of a Denon X3700H.
I use the Stereo setting on the 3700 to use also the subwoofer as the Stereo amp has no subwoofer out.

Will the Stereo amp send fullrange to the front speakers, or the settings with crossover what Audyssey sets ? 

Thanks


----------



## Soulburner

CBdicX said:


> Hi,
> I have a Stereo amp on the Front pre-out of a Denon X3700H.
> I use the Stereo setting on the 3700 to use also the subwoofer as the Stereo amp has no subwoofer out.
> 
> Will the Stereo amp send fullrange to the front speakers, or the settings with crossover what Audyssey sets ?
> 
> Thanks


The AVR will operate the same whether you are using the speaker outputs or RCA preouts. The RCA preouts are always active and the AVR doesn't know or care which you are using 

In other words, the signal going to the preouts is the same bass-managed signal the speaker outputs would get. The stereo amp is only amplifying the signal.


----------



## CBdicX

Soulburner said:


> The AVR will operate the same whether you are using the speaker outputs or RCA preouts. The RCA preouts are always active and the AVR doesn't know or care which you are using
> 
> In other words, the signal going to the preouts is the same bass-managed signal the speaker outputs would get. The stereo amp is only amplifying the signal.


Thanks,
so the Stereo amp is sending the same signal to the speakers like crossover, as they will get on the speaker output, and the amp is changing nothing to the signal from the 3700, if I understand you correct ?

Is it needit to run Audyssye again with the amp in place ?
I have now the same volume with the amp, messured with a dB meter, first without the amp and then with the amp.


----------



## mthomas47

StephenMSmith said:


> I have a Audyssey question that I've always wondered about. I have Denon 750H w/MultEQ, not MultEQXT or MultEQ32. I also have a poor room for my HT -- the end of my rectangular living room where one side if floor to ceiling glass window and the other side is no side. I don't expect any version of Audyssey to fix my room problems, but e4very MultEQ app results I see graph I see from others shows a very flat predicted speaker correction curve.
> 
> Of course, these are much better rooms, but I can't but wonder -- how much would the step up Audyssey versions (MultEQXT or MultEQ32) do for my far from flat results?
> 
> View attachment 3179771
> 
> View attachment 3179772
> View attachment 3179773
> View attachment 3179774



Hi,

That question may be virtually impossible to answer definitively, but I don't think that an upgrade would give you a lot of improvement except for frequencies played by your speakers between about 80Hz and about 300-400Hz. I would not expect a lot of change with respect to mid-range and high frequencies. With respect to the speakers, MultEQ is doing almost nothing. It only has 16 total filters (control points actually) that it can apply to the entire frequency range of a speaker. With respect to subwoofers, MultEQ can do more, but I think that experimenting with potentially better subwoofer placement would be your best way to improve your subwoofer response.

I have never been quite sure how Audyssey's predictive algorithm works in their graphs. I know that the flat lines that we often see are, to be kind, very optimistic! But, with so few control points available for the speakers, with MultEQ, the predictive algorithm may not even try to be optimistic. I think you already know that large expanses of glass are not conducive to good sound quality for mid-range and higher frequencies, as glass is very reflective for sound as well as for light. Even having thick drapes, that you could close during listening sessions, might help a lot for the frequencies above about 1,000Hz or so.

My guess is that upgrading to a better version of Audyssey would not result in a lot of audible improvement, except for the mid and upper bass frequencies played by your speakers. For those, I think that a better version of Audyssey could be helpful, and I would upgrade to XT-32 if I were going to upgrade at all. With respect to the higher frequencies, Audyssey is simply not at its best in distinguishing between the direct sound of our speakers and early reflections from other surfaces. Even with XT-32, Audyssey is most effective when we present it with a relatively neutral acoustical environment. If there are a lot of early reflections, as there surely must be from your description, it won't be able to help very much.

Just for comparison purposes, I am sharing a graph which illustrates the different versions of Audyssey. The earliest version of Audyssey was 2EQ, with 8 total filters for the satellites (speakers) and none for the subwoofer(s). It was essentially an automated parametric equalizer. The "X" in 2EQ stands for 8. Later versions represent more advanced evolutions of Audyssey, and the number of filters (or control points) in each version is a multiple of X. So, for instance, your speakers each have 16 control points (8 x 2), and your subwoofer has a total of 1,024 (8 x 128). XT-32 has 4,096 for both the speakers and the subwoofer(s).










I hope this answer helps a little, although it may not be exactly what you were hoping to hear. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

CBdicX said:


> Thanks,
> so the Stereo amp is sending the same signal to the speakers like crossover, as they will get on the speaker output, and the amp is changing nothing to the signal from the 3700, if I understand you correct ?
> 
> Is it needit to run Audyssye again with the amp in place ?
> I have now the same volume with the amp, messured with a dB meter, first without the amp and then with the amp.


Yes the amp will only amplify the signal it is getting. Crossovers will still work.

Does the amp have its own volume control? If it does, you definitely should (then never touch that control again). If it doesn't, it may not be necessary.

But, I would do Audyssey again just to ensure you're at the right calibrated levels per the gain structure of the amp. But I'm OCD like that.


----------



## StephenMSmith

mthomas47 said:


> I hope this answer helps a little, although it may not be exactly what you were hoping to hear.


Yes, that helps quite a bit. As a dork, i can't help but obsess about numbers and charts, eg. this Audyssey version chart. Until now, I didn't know that the "x" in the Audyssey chart means 8. Ah, now it makes much more sense. I'll keep a look out for others w/MultEQ and look at their charts, just out of curiosity to compare my crappy room and MultEQ predictions.

One other question -- with MultEQ's 16 control points, if I limit Audyssey correction to below some frequency, will I then get better results for the narrower Audyssey correction range? This sounds logical to me, but not sure if the 16 points are spread across the 20-20 range.


----------



## mthomas47

StephenMSmith said:


> Yes, that helps quite a bit. As a dork, i can't help but obsess about numbers and charts, eg. this Audyssey version chart. Until now, I didn't know that the "x" in the Audyssey chart means 8. Ah, now it makes much more sense. I'll keep a look out for others w/MultEQ and look at their charts, just out of curiosity to compare my crappy room and MultEQ predictions.
> 
> One other question -- with MultEQ's 16 control points, if I limit Audyssey correction to below some frequency, will I then get better results for the narrower Audyssey correction range? This sounds logical to me, but not sure if the 16 points are spread across the 20-20 range.


AVS has always been a pretty good place for dorks to obsess about numbers, and the Audyssey thread has usually excelled at that. 

The control points wouldn't typically be spread across the entire 10Hz to 22KHz range that Audyssey measures. But, they should be spread across the effective operating range of the speakers, using whatever algorithm that MultEQ employs. That effective operating range would consist of the low F3 point and the high F3 point of each speaker. Those points would be the frequencies where the speaker is rolling-off naturally by -3dB. Audyssey will not EQ (set control points) below the low-frequency roll-off, or above the high-frequency roll-off of a speaker, as measured at the MLP.

If you limited Audyssey's correction to about 400Hz, it might allow MultEQ more control points to work with for the frequencies between 400Hz and about 80Hz or lower. (The low-frequency limit will depend on the individual speaker, at its specific position in the room.) I am not certain that it will give you more control points below 400Hz, but it makes sense that it could work that way. If so, that would give you more correction at the frequencies where it would be the most likely to make an audible difference. As noted earlier, there is not as much that Audyssey will be able to do with the early reflections for mid and high-frequencies in your room.

You could try asking Audyssey if it will work the way I am suggesting that it might, and you could try some before-and-after listening tests to determine whether you can detect an audible difference with the EQ limit set at 400Hz.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Sonic icons

To correct and add to this discussion of control points:

(1) The first post in this thread "Audyssey Part II" includes this statement. "*MultEQ XT32.* This is Audyssey's flagship consumer room correction solution. It is the most accurate and uses more than 10,000 individual 'control points' which allows finer details of the room and its problems to be captured and corrected." That implies the "unknown parameter" _x_ in the MultEQ comparison chart must be at least 20 (to give correct number of control points for XT32).

(2) An important difference between the distribution of control points for satellite speakers in the early versions MultEQ and MultEQ XT, and in MultEQ XT32, is not captured in the comparison chart. In both MultEQ and MultEQ XT, the control points are distributed approximately linearly as a function of frequency, which means that most control points are located in the top octaves where they aren't needed, and very few control points are located in the bottom octaves (bass and lower midrange) where they are needed. This problem was fixed in MultEQ XT32, which puts most of the control points in the bottom octaves. Users on this forum reported this behavior, and Audyssey staff subsequently confirmed. See this quote from Audyssey "zendesk" about XT32:



> The frequency range is from the lowest roll off point of the speaker or sub (down to 10 Hz) and up to 20 kHz. The points are not uniformly distributed and we use a proprietary method. More points are allocated at the low frequencies where the biggest problems occur.


----------



## Sonic icons

meant to add link: https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-...Distribution-of-control-points-in-MultEQ-XT32


----------



## mthomas47

Sonic icons said:


> To correct and add to this discussion of control points:
> 
> (1) The first post in this thread "Audyssey Part II" includes this statement. "*MultEQ XT32.* This is Audyssey's flagship consumer room correction solution. It is the most accurate and uses more than 10,000 individual 'control points' which allows finer details of the room and its problems to be captured and corrected." That implies the "unknown parameter" _x_ in the MultEQ comparison chart must be at least 20 (to give correct number of control points for XT32).
> 
> (2) An important difference between the distribution of control points for satellite speakers in the early versions MultEQ and MultEQ XT, and in MultEQ XT32, is not captured in the comparison chart. In both MultEQ and MultEQ XT, the control points are distributed approximately linearly as a function of frequency, which means that most control points are located in the top octaves where they aren't needed, and very few control points are located in the bottom octaves (bass and lower midrange) where they are needed. This problem was fixed in MultEQ XT32, which puts most of the control points in the bottom octaves. Users on this forum reported this behavior, and Audyssey staff subsequently confirmed. See this quote from Audyssey "zendesk" about XT32:



Hi,

To correct and add to this discussion of control points,  Audyssey itself has never identified the number of control points in XT-32. You will notice that even in the response from Audyssey Labs that you linked, they never confirmed that XT-32 has 10,000 control points. The response simply allowed the questioner's statement to stand unchallenged, and referred to the way that the control points are distributed. Chris Kyriakakis, as well, was always deliberately ambiguous about this subject. As I recall, an AVS member speculated early on that XT-32 had 10,000 control points, and that number simply got repeated in several places.

In fact, the answer from Audyssey Labs that is linked was actually incorrect in a specific element that we can verify. We know from multiple statements from Chris, and other Audyssey sources, that Audyssey measures and potentially corrects up to 22KHz, not 20KHz as was stated in that response. The Audyssey test tones, used after microphone position 1 (at least in all versions from MultEQ and up) have a frequency range from 10Hz to 22KHz. Obtaining factual information though, is not an atypical problem when we contact customer service for information about any product. The accuracy of the answer that we may get, on a particular day, depends a lot on the individual who is responding.

Several years ago, this subject came up in a spirited discussion on a thread in the Audio Theory forum of AVS, with some people claiming that XT-32 had hundreds of control points and others suggesting that it was somewhere above 10,000. An enterprising audio professional decided to look up Audyssey's original patent application for XT-32 and identified the chip set it uses. That chip set has a potential for 4,096 control points (or taps) per channel.

The use of the word "filter" in the Audyssey table is somewhat ambiguous, because there is only one filter per channel, and each filter has a given number of control points. The phrase "filter resolution" refers to the number of potential control points. It is also worth noting that not every channel, in every room, would require the utilization of the maximum potential number of control points.

For instance, if you ever try to do the math, and think about how to distribute 4,096 control points between about 10Hz and up to say 200Hz, for the subwoofer channel, you will see how hard it would be to use all of the 4,096 control points. Remember in thinking about it, that Audyssey will stop setting control points where the subwoofer is rolling-off in low-frequency, or in high-frequency, by -3dB. (It's easier to write about this if I refer to a single subwoofer, but the same principles would relate to the combined response of multiple subs.)

So, the control points can only be applied based on the measured response of the sub's effective operating range, at its specific position in the room. If each control point either adds or subtracts 1dB per Hz, and if additions can be up to +9dB for dips, and reductions can be up to -20dB for peaks, you will see how hard (you could easily substitute impossible) it would be to use all 4,096 control points, even in a room with a very bad frequency response.

FWIW, I had previously speculated that 2EQ was a simple parametric equalizer which would typically have had something like 8 to 12 control points. Knowing that XT-32's chip set allows up to 4,096 control points per channel, it was easy to determine that the "X" in 2EQ represents 8, as 4,096 divided by 512 equals 8. Anyone who believes that the 4,096 number is incorrect could probably obtain confirmation, one way or the other, by using the same process of looking up Audyssey's patent application for XT-32.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## Soulburner

XT32 provides roughly 16,000 "taps" per channel.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> XT32 provides roughly 16,000 "taps" per channel.


And the source of this claim is?

How rough is "roughly"?


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> And the source of this claim is?
> 
> How rough is "roughly"?


Guys! Let's not try to be more knowledgeable about the product than its authors. Enjoy "as is". Go for XT32! On a side note, try to email Coca-Cola and ask for their secret recipe. And wait!


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> And the source of this claim is?
> 
> How rough is "roughly"?


The source is Jeff in the recent Sound United video where he acknowledged they are working on a PC app.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Guys! Let's not try to be more knowledgeable about the product than its authors. Enjoy "as is". Go for XT32! On a side note, try to email Coca-Cola and ask for their secret recipe. And wait!


I am totally ignorant of the design of Audyssey but have a decent understanding of the functionality. 

When a statement is made about anything, before it can be considered fact, it must be thoroughly vetted. If not, it is pure conjecture. 

And I do enjoy my system with XT32.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> The source is Jeff in the recent Sound United video where he acknowledged they are working on a PC app.


Link?


----------



## Mike_WI

bluesky636 said:


> And the source of this claim is?
> 
> How rough is "roughly"?





Soulburner said:


> XT32 provides roughly 16,000 "taps" per channel.


Not sure about exact number. Cursory search found...








MultEQ vs other equalization methods?


How is MultEQ different from other equalization methods?




audyssey.zendesk.com




July 27, 2010



> *Audyssey Labs:*
> ...The software is part of the Audyssey Pro kit that is sold separately. However, we also sell it to enthusiasts who want to experiment on their own. There is no graphic or parametric EQ in MultEQ. The correction and adjustment is done using *multi-thousand tap* time-domain FIR filters. The adjustment is done using a graphic editor that allows you to draw the desired frequency response on your PC screen.


----------



## ddlooping

Hey peeps 

Using the app to create custom curves, they are ignored when using Reference and only work with Flat mode (once uploaded to the receiver).
I always thought it was the other way around.
Was I wrong or is my Denon 3600 faulty?


----------



## Soulburner

ddlooping said:


> Hey peeps
> 
> Using the app to create custom curves, they are ignored when using Reference and only work with Flat mode (once uploaded to the receiver).
> I always thought it was the other way around.
> Was I wrong or is my Denon 3600 faulty?


Unless it's opposite day - they only work with the Reference option and are ignored with "Flat".


----------



## ddlooping

Soulburner said:


> Unless it's opposite day - they only work with the Reference option and are ignored with "Flat".


That's what I always thought but...

I've recently added some rear height speakers to my setup so had to redo the Audyssey calibration.
I then used REW to make some measurements and the Audyssey app to tweak the Front L/R curves and upload it to the AVR.
After having made some more measurements I couldn't see any difference with the previous ones.
"Maybe the changes in the curve are not pronounced enough to have an impact" I thought. 
So I went back into the app and accentuated the corrections I had made.
Uploaded the changes, made more measurements : not a iota of difference between the original measurements and the new ones.
Went into the AVR settings for Audyssey, confirmed "Reference" was selected and decided to switch to "Flat" (I couldn't think of anything else to try).
Did some new measurements and voila, all the modifications I had done to the curve were now showing (some even too much because I had accentuated them).

As I said, I always thought Reference was the setting to use when making adjustments to the target curve, but my AVR doesn't agree.


----------



## sjm817

Wasnt there some sort of bug with the 3600 with this?? Sounds familiar


----------



## brec

I'm a newcomer to Audyssey as of yesterday when I set up a new Denon AVR-S760H. Today after reading a bunch of the "101" course up top here, I took a look at my Settings::Speakers::Manual Setup values. They are:

Front L-4.0Center-6.0Front R+2.5Surround R+2.5Surround L+3.5Front Dolby R+2.0Front Dolby L+2.5Subwoofer-11.0
The Subwoofer value caught my eye. I checked Test Tone, and all sounded, to my untrained ear, OK except that I couldn't hear anything out of the sub until I cranked the level up above 0. Thoughts?


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

ddlooping said:


> That's what I always thought but...
> 
> I've recently added some rear height speakers to my setup so had to redo the Audyssey calibration.
> I then used REW to make some measurements and the Audyssey app to tweak the Front L/R curves and upload it to the AVR.
> After having made some more measurements I couldn't see any difference with the previous ones.
> "Maybe the changes in the curve are not pronounced enough to have an impact" I thought.
> So I went back into the app and accentuated the corrections I had made.
> Uploaded the changes, made more measurements : not a iota of difference between the original measurements and the new ones.
> Went into the AVR settings for Audyssey, confirmed "Reference" was selected and decided to switch to "Flat" (I couldn't think of anything else to try).
> Did some new measurements and voila, all the modifications I had done to the curve were now showing (some even too much because I had accentuated them).
> 
> As I said, I always thought Reference was the setting to use when making adjustments to the target curve, but my AVR doesn't agree.


Hey Buddy,

Yes this is a bug I found with the x3600h. Others with the same AVR have found the same issue. The only real workaround is to use the Flat target curve for everything. What's really strange and I have brought this to the owner's thread is that using the reference curve not only does not apply the settings from the App, but also makes strange corrections that look very bad in REW. This is very audible and it was by hearing that I knew something was not right with the equalization. REW only confirmed what I was hearing. 
To prove this use stock settings from the App and do 2 measurements with reference and Flat. No adjustments to the target curve. See if you notice any strange behavior in the corrections between the both. I have also contacted Denon about this and they could not replicate the problem and gave me generic advice on how to fix it.

Anyway at least you have figured it out and can use the App how you like it 

All the best

Jim


----------



## ddlooping

@Jimmy2Shoes Thanks for confirming it is a bug, I don't mind having to select Flat instead of Reference, as long as it works consistently


----------



## Rich 63

brec said:


> I'm a newcomer to Audyssey as of yesterday when I set up a new Denon AVR-S760H. Today after reading a bunch of the "101" course up top here, I took a look at my Settings::Speakers::Manual Setup values. They are:
> 
> Front L-4.0Center-6.0Front R+2.5Surround R+2.5Surround L+3.5Front Dolby R+2.0Front Dolby L+2.5Subwoofer-11.0
> The Subwoofer value caught my eye. I checked Test Tone, and all sounded, to my untrained ear, OK except that I couldn't hear anything out of the sub until I cranked the level up above 0. Thoughts?


What are your questions exactly. The sub is set low because your sub gain volume is set high. This is fine as long as it doesnt show - 12. I like it around
- 9.5 to have more flexibility . Could you show the crossovers set by aud and detail what you did to tweak the settings. Did you put them to small if applicable? Are you using dynamic eg, etc? Certainly you can up the sub in the avr. Many boost by 3-4db. However until we see more info hard to say exactly


----------



## brec

Rich 63 said:


> What are your questions exactly. The sub is set low because your sub gain volume is set high. This is fine as long as it doesnt show - 12. I like it around
> - 9.5 to have more flexibility . Could you show the crossovers set by aud and detail what you did to tweak the settings. Did you put them to small if applicable? Are you using dynamic eg, etc? Certainly you can up the sub in the avr. Many boost by 3-4db. However until we see more info hard to say exactly


I'm not knowledgeable enough to ask questions beyond "Should I worry about this?" I didn't change any settings. I observed that all my speakers had been set to "Small," as I had read they should be. And after I posted I watched Season 1 Ep. 3 of "Doctor Foster" on Netflix and the "Previously" at the beginning had some loud/low bass which sounded fine, so I think the answer to my question is, "No, it's fine." I'm not sure I can see the crossovers, as the Manual EQ under Audessey was disabled, but I'm a happy camper. Thanks for your "is fine" note of reassurance.


----------



## ThierryB

brec said:


> I'm not knowledgeable enough to ask questions beyond "Should I worry about this?" I didn't change any settings. I observed that all my speakers had been set to "Small," as I had read they should be. And after I posted I watched Season 1 Ep. 3 of "Doctor Foster" on Netflix and the "Previously" at the beginning had some loud/low bass which sounded fine, so I think the answer to my question is, "No, it's fine." I'm not sure I can see the crossovers, as the Manual EQ under Audessey was disabled, but I'm a happy camper. Thanks for your "is fine" note of reassurance.


You should be able to see the crossover in the "Speaker" section/menu of the setup.


----------



## Spidacat

@brec -11 for the subwoofer is a good place to start. Many people like to bump it up 3-6 dB (sometimes more), so increasing the sub level from -11 to -8 or -5 is very normal. You say you can't hear much until you get to around 0, but with what content? A lot of streaming options have lowered bass compared to the disc. If you have a bluray or 4 k player, find a movie or scene you're familiar with that has lots of bass and use that as a guideline. Something like the opening of Blade Runner 2049, Overlord, most of Mad Max Fury Road... If you think they are bass shy at say, -5 for your sub level, either something's wrong with the sub, you sit in a null, or you might just need a much more capable sub.


----------



## brec

ThierryB said:


> You should be able to see the crossover in the "Speaker" section/menu of the setup.


Yep. All: 80Hz; Front: 60; Center: 40; Surround: 60; Front Dolby: 110


----------



## brec

Spidacat said:


> @brec -11 for the subwoofer is a good place to start. Many people like to bump it up 3-6 dB (sometimes more), so increasing the sub level from -11 to -8 or -5 is very normal. You say you can't hear much until you get to around 0, but with what content? A lot of streaming options have lowered bass compared to the disc. If you have a bluray or 4 k player, find a movie or scene you're familiar with that has lots of bass and use that as a guideline. Something like the opening of Blade Runner 2049, Overlord, most of Mad Max Fury Road... If you think they are bass shy at say, -5 for your sub level, either something's wrong with the sub, you sit in a null, or you might just need a much more capable sub.


The "content" which occasioned my OP was simply the AVR's sub output from the Settings::Speakers::Levels page. But as I mentioned, after that post the first real content was a drama series episode that started with bass-heavy beats in its ambient music and that bass sounded good. So I'm inclined to leave it at -11.0, pending any future dissatisfaction.


----------



## Soulburner

Sub levels in the Levels menu are extremely low by design and not representative of real content, which you found out


----------



## jk82

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> Yes this is a bug I found with the x3600h. Others with the same AVR have found the same issue. The only real workaround is to use the Flat target curve for everything. What's really strange and I have brought this to the owner's thread is that using the reference curve not only does not apply the settings from the App, but also makes strange corrections that look very bad in REW. This is very audible and it was by hearing that I knew something was not right with the equalization. REW only confirmed what I was hearing.
> To prove this use stock settings from the App and do 2 measurements with reference and Flat. No adjustments to the target curve. See if you notice any strange behavior in the corrections between the both. I have also contacted Denon about this and they could not replicate the problem and gave me generic advice on how to fix it.
> 
> Anyway at least you have figured it out and can use the App how you like it
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim





ddlooping said:


> @Jimmy2Shoes Thanks for confirming it is a bug, I don't mind having to select Flat instead of Reference, as long as it works consistently


Yep there are many bugs with the X3600H when you use the multEQ app.

On top of what Jimmy2Shoes mentioned you will also not get any correction of the ceiling speakers. I've measured this countless of times whenever there was a firmware update or an update of the multEQ app but it was always the same since I bought the X3600H.
AVR calibration = everything works as intended
multEQ app calibration = no correction of ceiling speakers and a messed up reference curve with certains speakers. Also reference and flat being switched...

With a 5.1 or 7.1 setup these bugs do not exist, only when you have ceiling speakers or upfiring dolby speakers.

I wish these issues were more widely known as the only way to ever get these companies to fix anything is if they get lots of complaints....


----------



## Soulburner

jk82 said:


> Yep there are many bugs with the X3600H when you use the multEQ app.
> 
> On top of what Jimmy2Shoes mentioned you will also not get any correction of the ceiling speakers. I've measured this countless of times whenever there was a firmware update or an update of the multEQ app but it was always the same since I bought the X3600H.
> AVR calibration = everything works as intended
> multEQ app calibration = no correction of ceiling speakers and a messed up reference curve with certains speakers. Also reference and flat being switched...
> 
> With a 5.1 or 7.1 setup these bugs do not exist, only when you have ceiling speakers or upfiring dolby speakers.
> 
> I wish these issues were more widely known as the only way to ever get these companies to fix anything is if they get lots of complaints....


You have me wanting to measure my height speakers now.


----------



## jk82

Soulburner said:


> You have me wanting to measure my height speakers now.


I did mention this before I think. A friend of mine has the X4500H and when I found out about all the issues the X3600H has when using the multEQ app we tested his X4500H and it had none of the issues. Reference and flat curves were working as intended and also ceiling speaker correction.

edit: scratch that, it's the X4400H he has, not the X4500H...


----------



## Soulburner

jk82 said:


> I did mention this before I think. A friend of mine has the X4500H and when I found out about all the issues the X3600H has when using the multEQ app we tested his X4500H and it had none of the issues. Reference and flat curves were working as intended and also ceiling speaker correction.
> 
> edit: scratch that, it's the X4400H he has, not the X4500H...


I can confirm the behavior is normal with regard to the Reference selection being the one to use to apply the app changes.

I was referring to measuring the height speakers.

Since the 3600 and 4500 are closely related, it's worth a look.


----------



## BCOX1236

I set up my new Denon S750H yesterday. It sounds great with movies but kinda bad on Spotify connect. I ran Audyssey calibration as soon as I got all the speakers connected. The bass is all getting pumped out of my center channel which distorts the vocals, my subwoofer I have to put my ear right up to it to hear it barely thumping. It movies with special effects the cone is vibrating and its punchy so I'm guessing there is some audio mode I must be missing on Spotify. Sub is a SVS PB1000 PRO. Photo of the back of the sub here.



http://imgur.com/a/EdMB1wV


----------



## ddlooping

@BCOX1236 
How is your sub connected to your AVR?
Is your center set as small?
If yes, what's its crossover setting?

P.S : if all the above is at it should, try setting your SVS to "On" instead of "Auto".


----------



## Soulburner

BCOX1236 said:


> I set up my new Denon S750H yesterday. It sounds great with movies but kinda bad on Spotify connect. I ran Audyssey calibration as soon as I got all the speakers connected. The bass is all getting pumped out of my center channel which distorts the vocals, my subwoofer I have to put my ear right up to it to hear it barely thumping. It movies with special effects the cone is vibrating and its punchy so I'm guessing there is some audio mode I must be missing on Spotify. Sub is a SVS PB1000 PRO. Photo of the back of the sub here.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/EdMB1wV


Did you raise the crossovers to 80 Hz and set all speakers to Small?

After that, increase sub levels from the AVR to taste.


----------



## BCOX1236

ddlooping said:


> @BCOX1236
> How is your sub connected to your AVR?
> Is your center set as small?
> If yes, what's its crossover setting?
> 
> P.S : if all the above is at it should, try setting your SVS to "On" instead of "Auto".






Soulburner said:


> Did you raise the crossovers to 80 Hz and set all speakers to Small?
> 
> After that, increase sub levels from the AVR to taste.


I'm actually not able to figure out how to check the crossover. I have the Denon app as well as the HEOS and I thumbed through both but couldnt find anything other than dB adjustment. By the time i set it up I was tired from 5 hours of installation and so I just let Audyssey run its own calibration. The speakers were set to small in the walkthrough. The sub is connected via LFE cable and the bass sounds good on movies, just not with music via spotify connect.


----------



## Soulburner

BCOX1236 said:


> I'm actually not able to figure out how to check the crossover. I have the Denon app as well as the HEOS and I thumbed through both but couldnt find anything other than dB adjustment. By the time i set it up I was tired from 5 hours of installation and so I just let Audyssey run its own calibration. The speakers were set to small in the walkthrough. The sub is connected via LFE cable and the bass sounds good on movies, just not with music via spotify connect.


In the Setup > Speakers > Manual > Crossovers menu.


----------



## mogorf

BCOX1236 said:


> I set up my new Denon S750H yesterday. It sounds great with movies but kinda bad on Spotify connect. I ran Audyssey calibration as soon as I got all the speakers connected. The bass is all getting pumped out of my center channel which distorts the vocals, my subwoofer I have to put my ear right up to it to hear it barely thumping. It movies with special effects the cone is vibrating and its punchy so I'm guessing there is some audio mode I must be missing on Spotify. Sub is a SVS PB1000 PRO. Photo of the back of the sub here.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/EdMB1wV


In order to test you system for music I'd highly recommend this title: Gato Barbieri: Blue Gala. You may look it up on Spotify or even on YouTube. I use this to test my system for deep, smooth and even bass. Kicks-in at 0:39 timestamp. Report back please.


----------



## Rich 63

BCOX1236 said:


> I set up my new Denon S750H yesterday. It sounds great with movies but kinda bad on Spotify connect. I ran Audyssey calibration as soon as I got all the speakers connected. The bass is all getting pumped out of my center channel which distorts the vocals, my subwoofer I have to put my ear right up to it to hear it barely thumping. It movies with special effects the cone is vibrating and its punchy so I'm guessing there is some audio mode I must be missing on Spotify. Sub is a SVS PB1000 PRO. Photo of the back of the sub here.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/EdMB1wV


Im not familiar with how the svs works but why are 60hz and 90hz lit. Would it not be set to lfe?


----------



## markb1980

Rich 63 said:


> Im not familiar with how the svs works but why are 60hz and 90hz lit. Would it not be set to lfe?


Shouldn’t LFE be lit?


----------



## BCOX1236

markb1980 said:


> Shouldn’t LFE be lit?


Ive combed the manual and messed with all the buttons pictured and can not get it over to LFE


----------



## Rich 63

BCOX1236 said:


> Ive combed the manual and messed with all the buttons pictured and can not get it over to LFE


Better figure that out. Its likely your problem. If the manusl doesnt day call svs. They are supposed to have grest customer service


----------



## BCOX1236

Rich 63 said:


> Better figure that out. Its likely your problem. If the manusl doesnt day call svs. They are supposed to have grest customer service


Thank you! Wonder why it sounds great with movies and only on Spotify is it barely functional.


----------



## Rich 63

BCOX1236 said:


> Thank you! Wonder why it sounds great with movies and only on Spotify is it barely functional.


Your going to have to redo aud settup as well.


----------



## Rich 63

BCOX1236 said:


> Thank you! Wonder why it sounds great with movies and only on Spotify is it barely functional.


I read the manual and is says set to lfe if using avr with bass management. Just not how. Is there a button on app to set to lfe? Cant be that hard to find out. Get on the svs thread and ask. Once this has been corrected run aud so that you get back a - 8 to
- 10 db level. Svs should tell you were to start. My subs need to be around 10 oclock on my rotory dial befote running the sweeps. I come back at - 9.0.


----------



## ddlooping

Rich 63 said:


> Im not familiar with how the svs works but why are 60hz and 90hz lit. Would it not be set to lfe?


I'm not familiar either but based on the little diagrams next to the "Auto/On" button I guess they're lit to indicate the sub is in "Auto" mode.
That's why I suggested to switch to "On", if only while trouble-shooting.


markb1980 said:


> Shouldn’t LFE be lit?


I assume it would be lit if the sub was on.


----------



## ddlooping

@BCOX1236 
If you refer to the PB-1000 Pro manual...


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0921/3560/files/pb-1000pro_manual_web_02262021.pdf?v=1614373844




 Press button #10 to switch from "Auto" to "On".
(I assume the light between 60hz and 90hz should lit up)
Press button #11 to engage the "Low pass" control
Press button #8 to get the "LFE" to lit up if it isn't already


----------



## BCOX1236

Rich 63 said:


> I read the manual and is says set to lfe if using avr with bass management. Just not how. Is there a button on app to set to lfe? Cant be that hard to find out. Get on the svs thread and ask. Once this has been corrected run aud so that you get back a - 8 to
> - 10 db level. Svs should tell you were to start. My subs need to be around 10 oclock on my rotory dial befote running the sweeps. I come back at - 9.0.


Audyssey put my sub at -12.5


----------



## Rich 63

BCOX1236 said:


> Audyssey put my sub at -12.5


Are you sure. It only goes -12. Might want to check again.


----------



## ThierryB

Rich 63 said:


> Are you sure. It only goes -12. Might want to check again.


I think he means on the sub ? During initial calibration to be in the green zone I guess?


----------



## ThierryB

BCOX1236 said:


> Ive combed the manual and messed with all the buttons pictured and can not get it over to LFE


You should install the SVS APP, all setting are very easy to check / update from the phone APP.


----------



## Alan P

BCOX1236 said:


> Thank you! *Wonder why it sounds great with movies and only on Spotify is it barely functional.*


Most likely because your speakers are set to "Large". Your sub is still getting the LFE channel from movies (the ".1") but there is no bass being redirected from your speakers during music playback (2.0, no LFE channel in music).

Set all speakers to Small and set your crossovers to 80Hz (unless they were set higher by Audyssey, then leave them alone).


----------



## pg22

Multipoint Audyssey calibration accounts for non-symmetrical speaker position, correct?

The Playstation 5 has a system-wide speaker position adjustment setting. Is this something we should leave alone (i.e., keep default) if we have already run a full, multipoint Audyssey calibration?

In the picture below, the Surround Left has been manually adjusted to 115. Should that speaker adjustment be reverted to the default setting (130), or leave it as pictured, which is what the physical setup resembles?










I suppose the concern is some sort of...double calibration, if that at all makes sense.

Thanks.


----------



## pbz06

pg22 said:


> Multipoint Audyssey calibration accounts for non-symmetrical speaker position, correct?
> 
> The Playstation 5 has a system-wide speaker position adjustment setting. Is this something we should leave alone (i.e., keep default) if we have already run a full, multipoint Audyssey calibration?
> 
> In the picture below, the Surround Left has been manually adjusted to 115. Should that speaker adjustment be reverted to the default setting (130), or leave it as pictured, which is what the physical setup resembles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose the concern is some sort of...double calibration, if that at all makes sense.
> 
> Thanks.


The PS5 setting is simply for the game engine to know how to process the sound, but it's a completely different optimization vs an actual calibration that Audyssey does. Audyssey calibrates the sound coming out of your speakers.


----------



## pg22

pbz06 said:


> The PS5 setting is simply for the game engine to know how to process the sound, but it's a completely different optimization vs an actual calibration that Audyssey does. Audyssey calibrates the sound coming out of your speakers.


I see. And just to be clear, then, the proper thing to do here is adjust the speaker position in the PS5 menu to resemble real-life placement. Correct?

Appreciate the input.


----------



## pbz06

pg22 said:


> I see. And just to be clear, then, the proper thing to do here is adjust the speaker position in the PS5 menu to resemble real-life placement. Correct?
> 
> Appreciate the input.


Yup correct.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> The PS5 setting is simply for the game engine to know how to process the sound, but it's a completely different optimization vs an actual calibration that Audyssey does. Audyssey calibrates the sound coming out of your speakers.


I see what he's saying. If the AVR already corrected for levels and delays, what else could the PlayStation be doing with regard to angles?

@pg22 , are there other screens or is that the only one?


----------



## rockluc

Can anybody tell me the answers to the following. Regarding dynamic EQ. 
- If you limit Audyssey correction to say 300 HZ, does that limit the range for DEQ as well. IE, would it only bump the bass and not the treble?

- Also, I know you aren’t supposed to make adjustments in the receiver, but the app instead. Does that extend to DEQ as well. I know it give the option to turn on or off in the app but if I do that at the receiver is it going to screw up the rest of the Audyssey settings and make have toupload again from the app? It’s basically impossible to do an A/B comparison when it takes 30-45 second delays to upload new settings from the app.


----------



## pbz06

rockluc said:


> Can anybody tell me the answers to the following. Regarding dynamic EQ.
> - If you limit Audyssey correction to say 300 HZ, does that limit the range for DEQ as well. IE, would it only bump the bass and not the treble?
> 
> - Also, I know you aren’t supposed to make adjustments in the receiver, but the app instead. Does that extend to DEQ as well. I know it give the option to turn on or off in the app but if I do that at the receiver is it going to screw up the rest of the Audyssey settings and make have toupload again from the app? It’s basically impossible to do an A/B comparison when it takes 30-45 second delays to upload new settings from the app.


DEQ works independently to what you do with the correction range. It will work the same way.
Yes you can adjust via the avr. The app is just a control mechanism for customization. Once you upload/send to avr you can make adjustments in the avr.


----------



## rockluc

pbz06 said:


> DEQ works independently to what you do with the correction range. It will work the same way.
> Yes you can adjust via the avr. The app is just a control mechanism for customization. Once you upload/send to avr you can make adjustments in the avr.


Okay, so it’ll still apply correction in to the high end but I can then do a quick flip of the switch in the receiver, not exactly scientific or precise but at least get an idea as to difference. Thanks


----------



## pbz06

rockluc said:


> Okay, so it’ll still apply correction in to the high end but I can then do a quick flip of the switch in the receiver, not exactly scientific or precise but at least get an idea as to difference. Thanks


Yup, but keep in mind that you sort of need an apples to apples comparison when testing movies. Basically what I'm trying to say is that a direct on vs off comparison might give you a sense of the differences but won't exactly be fair comparison.

For example, if your speakers and subs are all level matched, and you toggle DEQ on and off, you'll notice it likely sounds better with DEQ because of the added bass. On the other hand, if you listen with DEQ off initially, you likely will have already or will want to add manual bass boost using the SW trim level (say for example +5dB from level matched). If you toggle on and off at this point, you'll likely feel that DEQ is adding too much bass. Of course that's not even considering personal preferences.

I don't want to confuse you and I think your initial approach is the best way to start...do the on vs off comparison like you intended, just keep in mind at some point you'll want to tweak both setups to how you would actually listen to it


----------



## pg22

Soulburner said:


> I see what he's saying. If the AVR already corrected for levels and delays, what else could the PlayStation be doing with regard to angles?
> 
> @pg22 , are there other screens or is that the only one?


Right. I was curious that if Audyssey already accounts for the left surround being where it is, then “moving” it there on the PS5 may negatively alter the calibration.

As for the screens question, sorry, not following. More screens as in calibration-like? Just the one. There are other menus for choosing audio type (pcm/DTS/DD) and channels (5.1/7.1). But as for speaker placements, just that one.

Interestingly some games themselves (most notably, Naughty Dog games like The Last of Us and Uncharted) also offer speaker placement settings within the game!


----------



## pbz06

pg22 said:


> Right. I was curious that if Audyssey already accounts for the left surround being where it is, then “moving” it there on the PS5 may negatively alter the calibration.
> 
> As for the screens question, sorry, not following. More screens as in calibration-like? Just the one. There are other menus for choosing audio type (pcm/DTS/DD) and channels (5.1/7.1). But as for speaker placements, just that one.
> 
> Interestingly some games themselves (most notably, Naughty Dog games like The Last of Us and Uncharted) also offer speaker placement settings within the game!


I can promise you that changing the settings within the PS5 has no effect on the Audyssey calibration  Audyssey has no idea if you're playing a CD, VHS, record, jazz music, sinewaves, video games, comedy, or whatever you're hooked up to. It simply measres the response of the speaker within your room and applies EQ filters to "correct" it. 

The PS5 settings simply alter how the sound within the game may be generated or altered...but the Audyssey EQ is not altered.


----------



## Alan P

rockluc said:


> Okay, so it’ll still apply correction in to the high end but I can then do a quick flip of the switch in the receiver, not exactly scientific or precise but at least get an idea as to difference. Thanks





pbz06 said:


> Yup, but keep in mind that you sort of need an apples to apples comparison when testing movies. Basically what I'm trying to say is that a direct on vs off comparison might give you a sense of the differences but won't exactly be fair comparison.
> 
> For example, if your speakers and subs are all level matched, and you toggle DEQ on and off, you'll notice it likely sounds better with DEQ because of the added bass. On the other hand, if you listen with DEQ off initially, you likely will have already or will want to add manual bass boost using the SW trim level (say for example +5dB from level matched). If you toggle on and off at this point, you'll likely feel that DEQ is adding too much bass. Of course that's not even considering personal preferences.
> 
> I don't want to confuse you and I think your initial approach is the best way to start...do the on vs off comparison like you intended, just keep in mind at some point you'll want to tweak both setups to how you would actually listen to it


DEQ adds 2.2dB to the bass for every 5dB you are under 0MV. For example, if you are listening at -10MV, DEQ adds +4.4dB.

So, for a fair comparison of DEQ on/off, you must add/subtract the appropriate amount of sub trim for your particular MV level.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> I can promise you that changing the settings within the PS5 has no effect on the Audyssey calibration  Audyssey has no idea if you're playing a CD, VHS, record, jazz music, sinewaves, video games, comedy, or whatever you're hooked up to. It simply measres the response of the speaker within your room and applies EQ filters to "correct" it.
> 
> The PS5 settings simply alter how the sound within the game may be generated or altered...but the Audyssey EQ is not altered.


He isn't asking if Audyssey is somehow altered by the PS5. He's wondering if it's duplicating anything in its audio processing that our room EQ already does, but in a less-precise way since no measurements are done. To answer that we would need to know what exactly those settings are doing.

I'm thinking there is no overlap, but I can't be certain.


----------



## g.costanza

So I had a weird experience with Audyssey and the MultiiEQ app.
I had previously set up audyssey through my x3600. I bought the app and set up audyssey again, but with the app. Some of the speaker distances (not the sub) and levels seemed "off" a bit compared to what I know the figures are, having ran audyssey many times over the years. Anyway, after finishing I kept getting an error that it couldn't send the file to the x3600 (I think its an IOS issue), but it finally went through.
I wanted to investigate those "off" levels and distances, so I did a little experiment. I ran audyssey using the AVR (let's call this the "A run") and did just three out of eight measurements (to make it go faster) from a single mic location in my main seat to get a baseline. I took note of all the distances, xovers, and even the graphical EQ results of what audyssey did when you pull those up using the AVR's on TV screen menu (not that "after" graph on the app), by taking pics with my phone. I carefully slipped the audyssey mic out of my boom mic stand and carefully inserted my umik1 and used REW to get a measurement of what that audyssey run actually did to the signal. After that, I carefully reinserted the audyssey mic into the mic stand and ran audyssey again, but using the app (let's call this the "B run"). I didn't make any changes to the final results and I sent this to my AVR with no errors. Using the app this time the distances and levels were either identical or very, very close to the Audyssey "A run" done just using the AVR, BUT looking at the on screen (TV) graphical audyssey EQ results, they looked quite a bit different from the "A run". I carefully swapped mics and ran REW. The "B run" results showed a VERY jagged measurement compared to the "A run", especially in the deep bass. So, I carefully swapped mics again and did another "in AVR" audyssey run ("C run"). Once complete, the on screen graphical EQ results from the "C run" looked identical to the "A run". Hmm? I then carefully swapped mics and did another REW measurement. The result of the "C run" looked extremely close to the "A run". I'll post two screen shots of the REW measurements. One has two lines. Those are just the "A run" and "C run" (in-AVR runs). One has three lines. Those are all the runs (A, B & C). Can someone explain this? Thanks!

Edit/afterthoughts ...I seem to remember that although the trim levels from the all the runs with within a db or so, the "app" run was louder. I had to turn the AVR volume down like 5 db so the REW graphs would line up. Also, although some people say it doesn't make a difference, I set my AVR volume to 0 before I plug in the mic and do an audyssey run.


----------



## g.costanza

Pics...


----------



## glen.franklin.gf

Why would I get drastically different subwoofer levels between the Multeq app and using the AVR to run Audyssey? The AVR sets them to -9.0 and -9.5 (Sub 1 vs Sub 2), and the app sets them to -1.5 and -3.0. Everything else remained the same? All other speakers are pretty close to identical. I've run Audyssey twice, both ways.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

g.costanza said:


> So I had a weird experience with Audyssey and the MultiiEQ app.
> I had previously set up audyssey through my x3600. I bought the app and set up audyssey again, but with the app. Some of the speaker distances (not the sub) and levels seemed "off" a bit compared to what I know the figures are, having ran audyssey many times over the years. Anyway, after finishing I kept getting an error that it couldn't send the file to the x3600 (I think its an IOS issue), but it finally went through.
> I wanted to investigate those "off" levels and distances, so I did a little experiment. I ran audyssey using the AVR (let's call this the "A run") and did just three out of eight measurements (to make it go faster) from a single mic location in my main seat to get a baseline. I took note of all the distances, xovers, and even the graphical EQ results of what audyssey did when you pull those up using the AVR's on TV screen menu (not that "after" graph on the app), by taking pics with my phone. I carefully slipped the audyssey mic out of my boom mic stand and carefully inserted my umik1 and used REW to get a measurement of what that audyssey run actually did to the signal. After that, I carefully reinserted the audyssey mic into the mic stand and ran audyssey again, but using the app (let's call this the "B run"). I didn't make any changes to the final results and I sent this to my AVR with no errors. Using the app this time the distances and levels were either identical or very, very close to the Audyssey "A run" done just using the AVR, BUT looking at the on screen (TV) graphical audyssey EQ results, they looked quite a bit different from the "A run". I carefully swapped mics and ran REW. The "B run" results showed a VERY jagged measurement compared to the "A run", especially in the deep bass. So, I carefully swapped mics again and did another "in AVR" audyssey run ("C run"). Once complete, the on screen graphical EQ results from the "C run" looked identical to the "A run". Hmm? I then carefully swapped mics and did another REW measurement. The result of the "C run" looked extremely close to the "A run". I'll post two screen shots of the REW measurements. One has two lines. Those are just the "A run" and "C run" (in-AVR runs). One has three lines. Those are all the runs (A, B & C). Can someone explain this? Thanks!
> 
> Edit/afterthoughts ...I seem to remember that although the trim levels from the all the runs with within a db or so, the "app" run was louder. I had to turn the AVR volume down like 5 db so the REW graphs would line up. Also, although some people say it doesn't make a difference, I set my AVR volume to 0 before I plug in the mic and do an audyssey run.


Hey Buddy,

This looks very close to the error or bug that I found on the x3600h. Whatever is going on with the App and the AVR, it seem to completely mess up the reference curve which I assume is what you are measuring. If you get the time try to repeat the process but use the Flat target curve instead. Or even simply compare in REW Flat vs Reference curve with the "B Run". It not so much the target curve it follows that you are looking for, but any funky equalization that doesn't make sense.

All the best

Jim


----------



## glen.franklin.gf

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> This looks very close to the error or bug that I found on the x3600h. Whatever is going on with the App and the AVR, it seem to completely mess up the reference curve which I assume is what you are measuring. If you get the time try to repeat the process but use the Flat target curve instead. Or even simply compare in REW Flat vs Reference curve with the "B Run". It not so much the target curve it follows that you are looking for, but any funky equalization that doesn't make sense.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim



I remember reading about that. Of course I have a x3600h... I'll rerun as soon as I get a chance. How do I pick the Flat curve prior to running Audyssey? I though that was something you picked after running it.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

glen.franklin.gf said:


> I remember reading about that. Of course I have a x3600h... I'll rerun as soon as I get a chance. How do I pick the Flat curve prior to running Audyssey? I though that was something you picked after running it.


Hey Buddy,

Choosing the target curve is something that is always done post-calibration for both APP and AVR. To choose go into the the Audyssey settings on the AVR and select "FLAT".
No need to re-run the calibration, if you can get the Umik-1 in a close enough position to the the previous measurements then you can do some quick tests to see if you have this issue. Do three measurements
1) Reference
2) Flat
3) OFF (Audyssey Off)

All the best

Jim

P.S There is a App in IOS called "DeRemote" that I found to be very useful for changing many settings on Denon's without going through any menus. It's a paid App but well worth it IMO


----------



## glen.franklin.gf

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> Choosing the target curve is something that is always done post-calibration for both APP and AVR. To choose go into the the Audyssey settings on the AVR and select "FLAT".
> No need to re-run the calibration, if you can get the Umik-1 in a close enough position to the the previous measurements then you can do some quick tests to see if you have this issue. Do three measurements
> 1) Reference
> 2) Flat
> 3) OFF (Audyssey Off)
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim
> 
> P.S There is a App in IOS called "DeRemote" that I found to be very useful for changing many settings on Denon's without going through any menus. It's a paid App but well worth it IMO


Ah, ok, it's like I thought. I'm an Android guy, and I have an free app that can change all that . I'll run a few tests and see. Good thing I consider this a "hobby"!


----------



## pbarach

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> P.S There is a App in IOS called "DeRemote" that I found to be very useful for changing many settings on Denon's without going through any menus. It's a paid App but well worth it IMO


I haven't tried DeRemote, but the _free _iOS app "Denon 2016 AVR Remote" is billed as working perfectly with 2014-2021 network-ready Denon receivers. It allows changing many settings as well. I use it with an x4400h, and it works fine. The reviews indicate there are some bugs, but I've never encountered any. It does allow me to change or check some of the settings without needing to have my TV on.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

pbarach said:


> I haven't tried DeRemote, but the _free _iOS app "Denon 2016 AVR Remote" is billed as working perfectly with 2014-2021 network-ready Denon receivers. It allows changing many settings as well. I use it with an x4400h, and it works fine. The reviews indicate there are some bugs, but I've never encountered any. It does allow me to change or check some of the settings without needing to have my TV on.


Hey Buddy,

The "Denon 2016 AVR Remote" is good and gets the job done but I found it laggy on my Ipad. Perhaps it's a bit faster now. Also you still have to do some navigating to do certain tweaks.
With DeRemote I found it to be very responsive and customizable with all the options on the home-page. Things like changing the levels in speakers is very quick or switching between target curves and many other neat options are there at the press of a button. 
The only issue with it is that it is rarely if ever been updated so certain atmos speakers don't show up in the channels level. Otherwise it's well worth taking a look at.

Jim


----------



## mthomas47

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> This looks very close to the error or bug that I found on the x3600h. Whatever is going on with the App and the AVR, it seem to completely mess up the reference curve which I assume is what you are measuring. If you get the time try to repeat the process but use the Flat target curve instead. Or even simply compare in REW Flat vs Reference curve with the "B Run". It not so much the target curve it follows that you are looking for, but any funky equalization that doesn't make sense.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim



Hi Jim,

I have been surprised to read about the bug with the Audyssey app on the Denon X3600H. Seeing the graph that @g.costanza posted is certainly a good illustration of the problem. It will be interesting to see whether switching from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat, post-calibration, fixes the problem in his case. Looking at the various frequency response graphs, that does not appear to be the Reference curve.

It is hard to tell whether mid-range compensation is enabled, and it is also hard to see whether there is the expected -2dB roll-off at 4,000Hz. Offhand, I would say that neither MRC nor a -2dB roll-off at 4,000Hz is visible in those graphs. But, it seems clear that there is not an additional -4dB roll-off at 10KHz and above. In fact, if anything, it appears that there is a spike at 12KHz, where the SPL should be down by a combined -6dB at that frequency, if he were using the Reference curve. To me, it looks as if the Flat setting may already be enabled in all of those graph lines.

Does uninstalling and reinstalling the app do anything when the app glitches like this?

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

As one of the astronauts once sad (c.mid '60s), "When in doubt, rap on the panel."


----------



## drh3b

garygarrison said:


> As one of the astronauts once sad (c.mid '60s), "When in doubt, rap on the panel."


I've found that a gentle tap often fixes glitching electronics.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> I have been surprised to read about the bug with the Audyssey app on the Denon X3600H. Seeing the graph that @g.costanza posted is certainly a good illustration of the problem. It will be interesting to see whether switching from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat, post-calibration, fixes the problem in his case. Looking at the various frequency response graphs, that does not appear to be the Reference curve.
> 
> It is hard to tell whether mid-range compensation is enabled, and it is also hard to see whether there is the expected -2dB roll-off at 4,000Hz. Offhand, I would say that neither MRC nor a -2dB roll-off at 4,000Hz is visible in those graphs. But, it seems clear that there is not an additional -4dB roll-off at 10KHz and above. In fact, if anything, it appears that there is a spike at 12KHz, where the SPL should be down by a combined -6dB at that frequency, if he were using the Reference curve. To me, it looks as if the Flat setting may already be enabled in all of those graph lines.
> 
> Does uninstalling and reinstalling the app do anything when the app glitches like this?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Hey Mike,

Ya it's unfortunately not a isolated case which I hoped it was when I stumbled on it. Here is the post I made on the Denon thread that explains the issue in more detail.








"OFFICIAL" 2019 Denon "S-Series" /...


The X3600H is the only 2019 model in this thread that can decode DSD audio from HDMI (ie. DSD Direct). Most likely the Firestick is decoding the audio and passing it as PCM to your S750H. Press the INFO button on the Denon remote to confirm the input signal.Re: dsd direct Where is this changed...




www.avsforum.com




Below is 3 measurements Center Full-Range with RED=OFF, GREEN=REFERENCE. BLUE=FLAT. I separated the traces for better illustration.
These measurement were taking a while ago but if memory serves me right I have MRC turned off as I was playing around with custom curves at the time. 










I don't have the x3600h to do any more testing but I did try everything I could think to solve the issue. Using the calibration through the AVR works just fine.
Using the Flat curve takes on any changes that the user makes in the APP like turning off MRC or adjusting the curve through the editor.

What I find is a pity that a lot more people are having this issue on this x3600h and if using the APP which defaults to the reference many might not know or realize that it is doing more harm than good. I tried my best to get Denon on the case but they could not emulate my issue and gave me typical or generic advice to solve it. What's more unfortunate is that the Official Denon 2019 thread took little notice in my findings and there is a lot of x3600h owners there.

Main thing is that the Flat curve does work at least as you can see in the graphs and that turned out to be my favorite curve anyway  

All the best

Jim


----------



## ThierryB

Does anyone know if the issue mentioned above for the 3600h applies to the 3700h as well as equivalent Marantz models ? (SR6014/SR6015), and what is list of the speaker configurations affected by it?

It would be good to have a sticky recap of models / speaker configs affected with the recommendation to use flat instead of reference.

Thanks
Thierry


----------



## g.costanza

mthomas47 said:


> Hi Jim,
> 
> I have been surprised to read about the bug with the Audyssey app on the Denon X3600H. Seeing the graph that @g.costanza posted is certainly a good illustration of the problem. It will be interesting to see whether switching from Audyssey Reference to Audyssey Flat, post-calibration, fixes the problem in his case. Looking at the various frequency response graphs, that does not appear to be the Reference curve.
> 
> It is hard to tell whether mid-range compensation is enabled, and it is also hard to see whether there is the expected -2dB roll-off at 4,000Hz. Offhand, I would say that neither MRC nor a -2dB roll-off at 4,000Hz is visible in those graphs. But, it seems clear that there is not an additional -4dB roll-off at 10KHz and above. In fact, if anything, it appears that there is a spike at 12KHz, where the SPL should be down by a combined -6dB at that frequency, if he were using the Reference curve. To me, it looks as if the Flat setting may already be enabled in all of those graph lines.
> 
> Does uninstalling and reinstalling the app do anything when the app glitches like this?
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


I honestly never use "flat". I had tried it long ago and found I prefer a rolled off treble in the reference curve. 
There's a mistake in my graphs. For some reason sizing of the graph was off and it cut off anything about 12-15khz. Sorry. 
As I stated, I didn't make any changes after running Audyssey with the app, such as turning of MRC, etc. I wanted to see how well the raw, unaltered in-AVR graph compared to that of the app version.


----------



## g.costanza

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Mike,
> 
> Ya it's unfortunately not a isolated case which I hoped it was when I stumbled on it. Here is the post I made on the Denon thread that explains the issue in more detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "OFFICIAL" 2019 Denon "S-Series" /...
> 
> 
> The X3600H is the only 2019 model in this thread that can decode DSD audio from HDMI (ie. DSD Direct). Most likely the Firestick is decoding the audio and passing it as PCM to your S750H. Press the INFO button on the Denon remote to confirm the input signal.Re: dsd direct Where is this changed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is 3 measurements Center Full-Range with RED=OFF, GREEN=REFERENCE. BLUE=FLAT. I separated the traces for better illustration.
> These measurement were taking a while ago but if memory serves me right I have MRC turned off as I was playing around with custom curves at the time.
> 
> View attachment 3184801
> 
> 
> I don't have the x3600h to do any more testing but I did try everything I could think to solve the issue. Using the calibration through the AVR works just fine.
> Using the Flat curve takes on any changes that the user makes in the APP like turning off MRC or adjusting the curve through the editor.
> 
> What I find is a pity that a lot more people are having this issue on this x3600h and if using the APP which defaults to the reference many might not know or realize that it is doing more harm than good. I tried my best to get Denon on the case but they could not emulate my issue and gave me typical or generic advice to solve it. What's more unfortunate is that the Official Denon 2019 thread took little notice in my findings and there is a lot of x3600h owners there.
> 
> Main thing is that the Flat curve does work at least as you can see in the graphs and that turned out to be my favorite curve anyway
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim


THANK YOU for all the effort you have put into uncovering and reporting this glitch. It sucks that if truly a widespread issue, a LOT of people are getting a terrible Audyssey experience!!! I'm so glad I found it in my case!
Have you emailed Chris Kyriakakis? He's the Audyssey guru that who is also an Audyssey PR guy appearing on different AV podcasts, etc.
Also, maybe you mentioned it, but I experienced the glitch when sending the Audyssey data to my AVR unaltered. I wonder if there's a particular change you can make in the app before sending it that "fixes" it. I wonder if someone at denon actually tried to replicate the issue (which I highly doubt) but made this "change", which is why they couldn't replicate it.


----------



## zielin

Is the Audyseey app working for others on apple devices?
After IOS 15.x upgrade the app just crashes when looking for AVR.


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

I'm still not seeing the problem and I have a 3600 as well. I run Audyssey via the app, turn off MRC for my surrounds, adjust crossovers up, and boost the subs and Atmos, and send it to the AVR. I go into the "Check Results" page in the AVR and view the equalizers and it looks spot on...boosts where there are cuts and dips, as well as the rolloff on the Reference curve. If I view the Flat equalizer the boosts are greater in the top end, as it should be, since there is no rolloff. So check results in the AVR looks fine.

_I do not use any sort of custom curve edits, just the default Reference w/ DEQ and Rolloff 1_

Not sure what is being experienced, or maybe I'm just an idiot, but it looks like the app is uploading the curve appropriately. If I test a movie with the Flat curve it's very bright and fatiguing in the high end, as one would expect if you are used to the rolloff. 

The only odd thing I notice is that my front left Atmos speaker measures 7.8ft on the app but always uploads as 7.9ft for some reason...but it's an easy fix.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## zielin

I'd suggest not getting worked up if the distance is "wrong" from what you measure and what Audyssey sees. (It likely isn't wrong) Audyssey is check time and processing lag. Listing distance is just a short hand for that. It is normal to have the distance being higher than the physical distance.
Just like using small and large speakers... distance is also a bad label for what is happening.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

zielin said:


> I'd suggest not getting worked up if the distance is "wrong" from what you measure and what Audyssey sees. (It likely isn't wrong) Audyssey is check time and processing lag. Listing distance is just a short hand for that. It is normal to have the distance being higher than the physical distance.
> Just like using small and large speakers... distance is also a bad label for what is happening.


This.


----------



## jk82

g.costanza said:


> THANK YOU for all the effort you have put into uncovering and reporting this glitch. It sucks that if truly a widespread issue, a LOT of people are getting a terrible Audyssey experience!!! I'm so glad I found it in my case!
> Have you emailed Chris Kyriakakis? He's the Audyssey guru that who is also an Audyssey PR guy appearing on different AV podcasts, etc.
> Also, maybe you mentioned it, but I experienced the glitch when sending the Audyssey data to my AVR unaltered. I wonder if there's a particular change you can make in the app before sending it that "fixes" it. I wonder if someone at denon actually tried to replicate the issue (which I highly doubt) but made this "change", which is why they couldn't replicate it.


I actually posted about this MultEQ APP bug with the X3600H multiple times since I got that AVR. It's baffling this still is not fixed or that almost no one knows about this.
Here's the first post I made about this 1.5 years ago:








MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...


I connected the closer (rear) subs to sub 1 and my other subs to sub 2, the before and after results were worse and it's didn't fix anything sadly. I don't know if it helps but i also updated my 8805 as i had a new firmware update showing. my after results don't look too bad. Did the sub...




www.avsforum.com





You will also not get any correction to your ceiling speakers when using the multEQ app, even though the app shows them as being corrected.

By the way this bug with the messed up reference curve only happens when you have tops/heights. With regular 5.1 or 7.1 setups everything is fine. So if anybody reports this make sure to mention that so they can reproduce the issue.

I have checked the calibration ady file that the app generates and compared it with the ones from other AVRs and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the file. So I guess the mess happens when the data gets sent to the AVR. I assume this could also be an AVR firmware bug and not necessary an APP bug...

Here is what my reference curve looks like if anyone wants to have a good laugh. 









I placed the uncorrected response above just to demonstrate that the messed up reference curve is actually not the same as uncorrected.
This is the front right speaker. Now if I measure the front left it actually isn't messed up but flat and reference are exactly the same.
I assume there is some weird buggy stuff going on and correction data is being put in the wrong places or something like that.


----------



## g.costanza

jk82 said:


> I actually posted about this MultEQ APP bug with the X3600H multiple times since I got that AVR. It's baffling this still is not fixed or that almost no one knows about this.
> Here's the first post I made about this 1.5 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...
> 
> 
> I connected the closer (rear) subs to sub 1 and my other subs to sub 2, the before and after results were worse and it's didn't fix anything sadly. I don't know if it helps but i also updated my 8805 as i had a new firmware update showing. my after results don't look too bad. Did the sub...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also not get any correction to your ceiling speakers when using the multEQ app, even though the app shows them as being corrected.
> 
> By the way this bug with the messed up reference curve only happens when you have tops/heights. With regular 5.1 or 7.1 setups everything is fine. So if anybody reports this make sure to mention that so they can reproduce the issue.
> 
> I have checked the calibration ady file that the app generates and compared it with the ones from other AVRs and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the file. So I guess the mess happens when the data gets sent to the AVR. I assume this could also be an AVR firmware bug and not necessary an APP bug...
> 
> Here is what my reference curve looks like if anyone wants to have a good laugh.
> View attachment 3184923
> 
> 
> I placed the uncorrected response above just to demonstrate that the messed up reference curve is actually not the same as uncorrected.
> This is the front right speaker. Now if I measure the front left it actually isn't messed up but flat and reference are exactly the same.
> I assume there is some weird buggy stuff going on and correction data is being put in the wrong places or something like that.


Thanks! I'm relieved to hear it a known problem and not isolated to me


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

zielin said:


> I'd suggest not getting worked up if the distance is "wrong" from what you measure and what Audyssey sees. (It likely isn't wrong) Audyssey is check time and processing lag. Listing distance is just a short hand for that. It is normal to have the distance being higher than the physical distance.
> Just like using small and large speakers... distance is also a bad label for what is happening.


Perhaps I misspoke...I know that it's delay and not physical distance. I was saying that when the app sends the curve to the AVR that one speaker is off a tenth of a foot than the app value. So distance in the app says 7.9, while distance in the AVE after the curve is sent says 7.8, all other "distances" transfer w/o issue. Just thought it was funny.

EDIT: To add to the bug discussion, I have two upfiring Atmos speakers on top of my front towers for 7.2.2. Not sure if they are corrected or not but the AVR equalizer shows they are post app calibration.

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

JohnnytheSkin said:


> Perhaps I misspoke...I know that it's delay and not physical distance. I was saying that when the app sends the curve to the AVR that one speaker is off a tenth of a foot than the app value. So distance in the app says 7.9, while distance in the AVE after the curve is sent says 7.8, all other "distances" transfer w/o issue. Just thought it was funny.
> 
> EDIT: To add to the bug discussion, I have two upfiring Atmos speakers on top of my front towers for 7.2.2. Not sure if they are corrected or not but the AVR equalizer shows they are post app calibration.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk


I've seen that happen too, with my android phone (s10). The distances would be "off" after checking the avr after uploading. I think it's the phone though, since switching to the iPad it's been a better experience overall and no "glitches" like that.


----------



## Soulburner

Sounds like a rounding issue. That is, the same value but displayed differently.


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> Sounds like a rounding issue. That is, the same value but displayed differently.


Perhaps. It's never more than a tenth. For example the phone app would show 11.8' but when checking the AVR after uploading, it might show 11.9'. It likely is a rounding thing because it would be consistent with a certain speaker. However with the iPad it doesn't do that so not sure why.


----------



## mart541

Feels silly to ask, but if I set xt32 to off in audio settings, what exactly turns off? Distances, trims, freq response for speakers and subs? All of it, or some subset?


----------



## Soulburner

mart541 said:


> Feels silly to ask, but if I set xt32 to off in audio settings, what exactly turns off? Distances, trims, freq response for speakers and subs? All of it, or some subset?


Just the EQ and any of the other Audyssey options in that menu.


----------



## ntxoa

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> I tried my best to get Denon on the case but they could not emulate my issue and gave me typical or generic advice to solve it. What's more unfortunate is that the Official Denon 2019 thread took little notice in my findings and there is a lot of x3600h owners there.


They acknowledged the ticket I submitted, but never followed up with me.

It’s ridiculous that they claim not to be able to reproduce the problem when multiple people on this forum have had no problem in consistently reproducing the bug.

Makes it seem like they didn’t really understand the issue, or that they made minimal effort at looking into it.


----------



## Soulburner

ntxoa said:


> They acknowledged the ticket I submitted, but never followed up with me.
> 
> It’s ridiculous that they claim not to be able to reproduce the problem when multiple people on this forum have had no problem in consistently reproducing the bug.
> 
> Makes it seem like they didn’t really understand the issue, or that they made minimal effort at looking into it.


Were you clear in stating you had a full Atmos system? As I read, it only happened with that configuration.


----------



## ntxoa

Soulburner said:


> Were you clear in stating you had a full Atmos system? As I read, it only happened with that configuration.


It was so long ago, I don’t recall. When we first started seeing this, it was not known if having a full Atmos system was a factor.

They emailed me back saying:

“Your question has been received. A member of our support team will get back to you soon.”

6 days later, they sent me a customer satisfaction survey asking how well they did.

I let them know that nobody got back to me and that the problem was unresolved.

Never heard anything back after that. Super lame.


----------



## emal_pl

Just a quick question. I have Emotiva XPA-11 Gen3 and temporarily Denon avc-x3700h. I also recently bought bayerdynamic MM1 electret microphone for audyssey and for my monitor audio platinum sub. It occured the mic does not work neither with the sub nor with the denon amp (mic is connected using XLR to minijack cable). Do I miss something or this mic is not for this kind of tasks (audyssey and monitor audio built in room correction)? Anyone tested audyssey with different mic than the one bundled with the amp?


----------



## Soulburner

emal_pl said:


> Just a quick question. I have Emotiva XPA-11 Gen3 and temporarily Denon avc-x3700h. I also recently bought bayerdynamic MM1 electret microphone for audyssey and for my monitor audio platinum sub. It occured the mic does not work neither with the sub nor with the denon amp (mic is connected using XLR to minijack cable). Do I miss something or this mic is not for this kind of tasks (audyssey and monitor audio built in room correction)? Anyone tested audyssey with different mic than the one bundled with the amp?


You must use the included mic for Audyssey.


----------



## ohbrian

So yesterday I traded in my Yamaha A4A and got a Denon x3700h. I set everything up and tried to run Audyssey and it won't run. I have a 3.1 setup, mains are on an external amp. When I kick it off, on the first step it plays the tone through the subwoofer and thats it. It doesn't go any further, no errors, nada. I thought if it was a mic issue it would at least error out and tell me nothing detected. For giggles I connected another Audyssey mic a friend gave me and same problem. Any ideas?


----------



## ThierryB

ohbrian said:


> So yesterday I traded in my Yamaha A4A and got a Denon x3700h. I set everything up and tried to run Audyssey and it won't run. I have a 3.1 setup, mains are on an external amp. When I kick it off, on the first step it plays the tone through the subwoofer and thats it. It doesn't go any further, no errors, nada. I thought if it was a mic issue it would at least error out and tell me nothing detected. For giggles I connected another Audyssey mic a friend gave me and same problem. Any ideas?



Did you check if there is no firmware update ?
Did you run Audyssey from the receiver or from the MultEq phone APP ? Try to do the APP if you did from the receiver or the other way around ?
Try to do a factory reset ?


----------



## Sm1ggs

Have you checked in speaker level option , is there any sound


----------



## ohbrian

This morning I powered it on and started making some tweaks and decided to try it one more time and it worked! All good now, thanks guys.


----------



## idyfohu

Quick question I'm hoping someone can answer...

I've watched several YT videos and read up about the house curve. I know the "house" curve is just that, house and based on individual needs. If wanting to use the Harman curve, is there a recommendation for doing so?

Also, a bit dumb and maybe I need to rerun Audyssey as I didn't see the option. I've got a 5.1.4 setup with ELAC upfiring speakers for Atmos duty (far from ideal). In the speaker setup options, I didn't see an option through the app that had 5.1.4 or a similar Atmos option. I'm updated with the current firmware and MultiEQ app as well. All this on a Denon X4300.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## idyfohu

One additional question...is there a universally adopted frequency limit people are recommending for Audyssey subwoofer levels? I limited Audyssey to 500hz on my speakers, but wasn't sure where to place the limit on my sub (one YT video mentioned 0hz and have no impact)?


----------



## Soulburner

ohbrian said:


> This morning I powered it on and started making some tweaks and decided to try it one more time and it worked! All good now, thanks guys.


I have had an issue before where after the sub screen it takes a _long_ time to advance to the speaker measurements. When something weird like that happens, I close the app (completely – including from memory by swiping it away on Android, not just returning to Home which just suspends the app) and turn off the AVR, wait a few seconds, turn the AVR back on and after fully booted up, start the app.


----------



## pbarach

idyfohu said:


> Quick question I'm hoping someone can answer...
> 
> I've watched several YT videos and read up about the house curve. I know the "house" curve is just that, house and based on individual needs. If wanting to use the Harman curve, is there a recommendation for doing so?


 The Harman curve (actually there are SEVERAL Harman curves) was developed to help headphones sound like the way most people seemed to prefer speakers to sound. It's not intended for use with speakers: What Is Harman Curve? - HeadphonesAddict

If you want to duplicate the Harman curve using Audyssey, your best bet would be to use the app on an iPad or other tablet. But good luck; it's hard to duplicate that curve very well. I tried this on my 5.2 system and decided that I much preferred Audyssey FLAT. The Harman curve was way too bass-heavy for my taste.

If you're playing music directly from a computer into your system, you could try one of the freeware EQ apps, such as Equalizer APO (I haven't tried any of these apps).


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> The Harman curve (actually there are SEVERAL Harman curves) was developed to help headphones sound like the way most people seemed to prefer speakers to sound. It's not intended for use with speakers: What Is Harman Curve? - HeadphonesAddict
> 
> If you want to duplicate the Harman curve using Audyssey, your best bet would be to use the app on an iPad or other tablet. But good luck; it's hard to duplicate that curve very well. I tried this on my 5.2 system and decided that I much preferred Audyssey FLAT. The Harman curve was way too bass-heavy for my taste.
> 
> If you're playing music directly from a computer into your system, you could try one of the freeware EQ apps, such as Equalizer APO (I haven't tried any of these apps).


+1 to pbarach.

Yet, on another note please take into consideration that the Harman Curve (or any other so-called House Curve) that you adjust will work for you only and exclusively at ONE single Master Volume setting. Once you change the Master Volume you will have/hear a perceptually different curve. This is because of how human hearing works, namely the Equal Loudness Contours start to kick-in. DEQ was designed to take care of this phenomenon at any given MV setting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour

In a nutshell: human hearing is frequency dependent where the frequency dependency is level dependent.  And that can not be taken care by any pre-adjusted single curve.


----------



## garygarrison

I interpret the *Black Curve* in the second (lower) graph below as the a preferred Harmon Curve for loudspeakers in a room.








My own preference resembles this, without the treble attenuation above the midrange, i.e., + 6dB below about 80/90 Hz, but flat from about 130 Hz up (at about 5 dB below reference level, i.e., peaks at up to 100 dB, so no DEQ necessary at that SPL). *BUT*, there will always be recordings that are too bright or too dull, so I reserve the right to use tone controls. I have _never_ heard any ill effects from the judicious use of tone controls.

Did Harman ever*:*

State the mean SPL, peak levels, etc. at which their curves were derived? I might have missed it. To Feri's point, it would have made a difference, unless they used something similar to DEQ, or played at near reference level!
List the recordings they used. Did I just miss that, too? That list would make a difference*; *if one or more of the recordings had a nasty high end, or was bass shy, it may have partially explained that black curve. I assume they wouldn't use recordings that were too unlike their imagined original, but I'd like to see what curves I get when I balance each of the recordings they used to sound like *my * imagined original.


----------



## mart541

Tonight I switched from reference to flat and there was no sound, as if I hit mute. Switched back to reference, sound as normal. Went into audio to adjust the audyssey settings and its grayed out and says I need to run audyssey first. Hmmm... re-uploaded my curve from the app, all was normal for 15min but then I went back into audio settings and audyssey is once again grayed out as of I haven't run it. Any ideas?
Edit: I think it may have had something to do with changing the number of subwoofers.


----------



## Soulburner

Any change to the speaker setup will invalidate the Audyssey calibration.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> My own preference resembles this, without the treble attenuation above the midrange, i.e., + 6dB below about 80/90 Hz, but flat from about 130 Hz up (at about 5 dB below reference level


The in-room I've found depends on your measuring distance. If you're midfield or nearfield it's going to be flatter because you're including more of the direct sound and less of the room in the measurement.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> The in-room I've found depends on your measuring distance. If you're midfield or nearfield it's going to be flatter because you're including more of the direct sound and less of the room in the measurement.


Makes sense.

All of my REW measurements are from approx. the Main Listening Position, about 13 feet away. I tried a very few nearfield measurements*;* the curves were different, but not what I'd call flatter.


----------



## Mathill6767

Hi Everyone! Im at a loss right now and cant seem to find a solution.

When measuring my subs vs any other speaker I get a ten dB loss when compared to just measuring my subs. See graph. It shows the front left speaker measurement which is exactly 10dB less at any given point up to the LFE crossover. This translates to the volume too since the volume at 80 measures around 71 on the meter.

Any help is greatly appreciated! I have to push the receiver to 90 to get anywhere near what it used to get before I added subs and re ran audyssey. 

I dont think its a phase issue since its happening across the range when only the subs are working.


----------



## pbz06

Mathill6767 said:


> Hi Everyone! Im at a loss right now and cant seem to find a solution.
> 
> When measuring my subs vs any other speaker I get a ten dB loss when compared to just measuring my subs. See graph. It shows the front left speaker measurement which is exactly 10dB less at any given point up to the LFE crossover. This translates to the volume too since the volume at 80 measures around 71 on the meter.
> 
> Any help is greatly appreciated! I have to push the receiver to 90 to get anywhere near what it used to get before I added subs and re ran audyssey.
> 
> I dont think its a phase issue since its happening across the range when only the subs are working.
> View attachment 3188630


The LFE channel is 10dB louder. You have to manually turn down your MV by 10dB when measuring a Sub only measurement.


----------



## Mathill6767

pbz06 said:


> The LFE channel is 10dB louder. You have to manually turn down your MV by 10dB when measuring a Sub only measurement.


That did it! I adjusted the LFE offset to double check that. Thanks!!

Then the next question is why am I having to turn the volume up to 90 to hit what I use to only have to turn it up to 80 to get to. 

Levels are all similar to what I had before. The only thing I did was changed from two PB4000s and two 21inch devs to the devs and two 18 inch mini martys. Synced up the four subs got a flat response then ran audyssey. 

Now I have to crank it to the max to hit reference when I never had to come close before.


----------



## faire

Hi guys, I have a new 5.1 setup with the Wharfedale Evo’s 4.4 fronts and center speakers, monitor audio surround speakers and the SVS SB 2000 Pro subwoofer. I’m using the Denon x4700h AVR.

So yesterday I ran the calibration setup on the Denon and some results were not as expected as it set all my speakers to Large and crossover as Full Band.

I ran it twice but it came with the same results.

After that, I’ve changed my speakers to Small and changed crossovers to 60hz.

How can I make sure the rest of my settings are optimal for my space? Why is Audissey setting these values ? Is there walkthrough guide you guys recommend for setups like mine ? I’ve already go through the 101 and faq but not sure what to look exactly. 

I know listening would be the best test but I’m new to Hi Fi audio so I don’t think my ears will be the best judge here.


----------



## faire

I just run the calibration from the Audissey app this time, would you mind taking a look at the results?


http://imgur.com/a/nh1qxUq


----------



## markb1980

I would raise crossovers on front and centre to 80Hz and have a play with midrange compensation off and see if you prefer it to on.


----------



## pbz06

faire said:


> I just run the calibration from the Audissey app this time, would you mind taking a look at the results?
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/nh1qxUq


Target 2 better matches your speakers natural roll off, try that. Also may want to keep MRC for surrounds since there's a natural dip there. The others you can turn off.

Ultimately I get better results when Audyssey curve closely matches the natural response without much boosting.

Of course also raise crossovers to 80hz. People think their speakers are capable due to Audyssey results but keep in mind that rolloff is with a 75dB test tone, but content can easily contain up to 105dB at max volume and even 90dB if you listen at -15 etc.


----------



## fizzyElf

http://imgur.com/a/0zWQ00v


In what order should I troubleshoot the front right speaker? It is way too dim.


----------



## greg9x2

What do you mean by 'dim' ? Low in volume ?
See it set it way low, was microphone pointed straight up when ran cal ? Something was obviously off when that measurement was taken, some kind of noise ?

Have you tried re running calibration and use all locations ?

Also, should raise your Crossovers to 80Hz for speakers set below that.


----------



## bigguyca

fizzyElf said:


> http://imgur.com/a/0zWQ00v
> 
> 
> In what order should I troubleshoot the front right speaker? It is way too dim.


*It would be more productive to post in the Audyssey thread:*









"Official" Audyssey thread Part II


WELCOME TO THE AUDYSSEY FAQ AND 'AUDYSSEY 101'! To get started, please choose from one of the following 3 options : 1. Click Here To Go Directly To The FAQ Questions And Answers. Links are highlighted in a different colour to the rest of the text. Clicking on any Question takes...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Ryan Statz

What's wrong with the front right? There being a 0.3ft difference isn't a problem.

I would be more curious as to why there's an almost 3ft difference between your Surround L and R.


----------



## fizzyElf

I bought the SR6015 last night and having to issues. Front right speaker is dimmer than the rest, and the receiver shuts off when I go a bit higher volumes.



http://imgur.com/a/0zWQ00v


I switched between the speakers and the right side was still the faulty one. Which means it is either the AVR right input, or the wires that go to the AVR right input.

Then I switched the inputs in the back, so the right speaker went to the left input and the left speaker went to the right input. Now the left side was the faulty one.

I think it means that the actual wires from front right side are the ones causing the issue?


----------



## fizzyElf

Ryan Statz said:


> What's wrong with the front right? There being a 0.3ft difference isn't a problem.
> 
> I would be more curious as to why there's an almost 3ft difference between your Surround L and R.


The dB levels.


----------



## fizzyElf

greg9x2 said:


> What do you mean by 'dim' ? Low in volume ?
> See it set it way low, was microphone pointed straight up when ran cal ? Something was obviously off when that measurement was taken, some kind of noise ?
> 
> Have you tried re running calibration and use all locations ?
> 
> Also, should raise your Crossovers to 80Hz for speakers set below that.


I could also hear the speaker sounds lower than the rest. And yes, low in volume.

I switched between the speakers and the right side was still the faulty one. Which means it is either the AVR right input, or the wires that go to the AVR right input.

Then I switched the inputs in the back, so the right speaker went to the left input and the left speaker went to the right input. Now the left side was the faulty one.

I think it means that the actual wires from front right side are the ones causing the issue?


----------



## Ryan Statz

If it measured only a 0.3ft difference, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that speaker, and you would have heard it during the chirping in calibration process.

What are the Levels set by Audyssey for each speaker (screenshot of that would be helpful). And what speakers do you have?

EDIT:

Try swapping the speakers. Does the issue move to the new location or stay in the same spot, it could very well be the specific speaker output on the AVR.

I had that happen with a refurbished Denon X4300H - the "chirp" was significantly quieter on the surround left than all other speakers, but Audyssey also set the distance and trim levels much higher.


----------



## fizzyElf

Ryan Statz said:


> If it measured only a 0.3ft difference, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that speaker, and you would have heard it during the chirping in calibration process.
> 
> What are the Levels set by Audyssey for each speaker (screenshot of that would be helpful). And what speakers do you have?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Try swapping the speakers. Does the issue move to the new location or stay in the same spot, it could very well be the specific speaker output on the AVR.


I switched between the speakers and the right side was still the faulty one. Which means it is either the AVR right input, or the wires that go to the AVR right input.

Then I switched the inputs in the back, so the right speaker went to the left input and the left speaker went to the right input. Now the left side was the faulty one.

I think it means that the actual wires from front right side are the ones causing the issue?


----------



## joxr

fizzyElf said:


> I bought the SR6015 last night and having to issues. Front right speaker is dimmer than the rest, and the receiver shuts off when I go a bit higher volumes.
> 
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/a/0zWQ00v
> 
> 
> I switched between the speakers and the right side was still the faulty one. Which means it is either the AVR right input, or the wires that go to the AVR right input.
> 
> Then I switched the inputs in the back, so the right speaker went to the left input and the left speaker went to the right input. Now the left side was the faulty one.
> 
> I think it means that the actual wires from front right side are the ones causing the issue?


Can you try swapping the speaker cable ? Maybe use the right cable for the left and see if that changes the results ? If it does you know you have a bad speaker wire.


----------



## Ryan Statz

fizzyElf said:


> I switched between the speakers and the right side was still the faulty one. Which means it is either the AVR right input, or the wires that go to the AVR right input.
> 
> Then I switched the inputs in the back, so the right speaker went to the left input and the left speaker went to the right input. Now the left side was the faulty one.
> 
> I think it means that the actual wires from front right side are the ones causing the issue?
> 
> View attachment 3190266


Sounds like it's the AVR. Just seeing the Levels looks exactly like what I dealt with when I bought that refurbished Denon X4300H.

Return the AVR for a replacement.

Just to be sure though, use the cable from the left speaker for the right speaker in the correct orientation (meaning keeping the left/right correct)


----------



## Ryan Statz

joxr said:


> Can you try swapping the speaker cable ? Maybe use the right cable for the left and see if that changes the results ? If it does you know you have a bad speaker wire.


Yeah, if it travels to the left, then it's 100% the cable.


----------



## anoutsos

Hi all,
I have recently been trying to optimise my 2ch audio, as well as 5.1 surround for movies in my living room.

Some info: 

Amps:
Marantz AV8801 processor
Marantz MM8077 amp

Speakers: 
Fronts: B&W 805d2 fronts,
Centre: B&W 685 
Surrounds: B&W 686 
Sub: B&W ASW608 

Treatment:
2xGIK 244 behind front speakers
2xGIK 244 at ceiling first reflections
2xGIK 242 at side-wall first reflections
2xGIK tri-traps in corners behind front speakers
Carpeted floor; thin plasterboard back and side-wall; brick front wall

Audyssey calibration & settings:
Audyssey XT32: 8 positions
All speakers set to small; crossovers:
Fronts: 80 Hz
Centre: 100 Hz
Surrounds: 120 Hz

Dynamic EQ:
Movies: ON (0 dB offset)
Music: ON (5 dB offset)



I had a play with the different target curve options of Audyssey: 

Audyssey reference curve
Flat curve and 
L/R Bypass. 
After years of thinking that "Audyssey reference" is the best curve for both movies and music, I discovered that Audyssey applies *Midrange Compensation (MRC)* by default, and that for well engineered speakers this is not needed. So, I was more keen on the Flat and L/R Bypass curves.
_Note: AV8801 is unfortunately not supported by the MultEQ Editor app_
However, I read that the Flat curve boosts treble quite a lot and that L/R Bypass does not correct the response of the fronts. 

Does L/R Bypass leave the native frequency response of the fronts untouched?
What does it do near the crossover frequency? I.e. does it attenuate the fronts below 80 Hz in my case?

One thing I noticed going from Audyssey reference to Flat was increased soundstage width and depth, especially at the high frequencies. Switching to L/R Bypass provided still wider soundstage but the highs and perceived resolution were not as impressive.
So, I decided to set up my Behringer ECM8000 and Fuzzmeasure to measure what is going on with the different curves. I turned off Dynamic EQ and ran sweeps for all curves. I have attached the results below:










My observations:

The "Flat curve" looks the most natural of the three to me
L/R Bypass seems to have a dip at ~2–3 kHz
The 2kHz dip seems to be there also in the Audyssey reference curve, so I am not sure if it is because of MRC or just the native response of the speaker. Here I attach the anechoic 
chamber measurements for B&W 805 diamonds:










which seem to show a 1–2dB dip at around 2–3 KHz. So, perhaps it is a combination of MRC and native response in the Audyssey curve but does not explain why there is such a big dip in L/R Bypass.

A few more questions:

I read somewhere that Audyssey underestimates the subwoofer levels by 3–6 dB. So, after calibration I used an SPL meter to measure the pressure at the listening position from all speakers, and for all but the subwoofer it showed ~75 dB. The sub was ~3 dB lower so I raised it until it measured 73 dB (don't ask why I stopped shy of 75 – I am always a bit conservative with this stuff). So, my question is: while I used the internal amp tones to do that I hear that this is wrong, as those tones do not consider the post-calibration levels. Should I have used an external source?
Is Dynamic EQ a must for movies? I have turned it off for music after raising the sub level (see point above), but I still have it on at 0dB offset for movies. Am I overcompensating?
Finally, I made some additional measurements (see graphs below). Can someone explain to me what they show in a nutshell? I sort of understand the frequency response issues but I am not sure what to make of these other graphs and how one would go about improving acoustics based on them.



















Apologies for the long post and thanks in advance for any help.


----------



## fizzyElf

joxr said:


> Can you try swapping the speaker cable ? Maybe use the right cable for the left and see if that changes the results ? If it does you know you have a bad speaker wire.


Yep going to try it now.


----------



## Ryan Statz

fizzyElf said:


> Yep going to try it now.


And what were the results?


----------



## fizzyElf

Ryan Statz said:


> And what were the results?


Installer came back, turned out that the staples he used to "neat" the wiring for fronts (I asked him not to in wall them) were causing the issue. Switched cables and took out the staples, all good now. 

Thanks for the help!


----------



## pbz06

@anoutsos 

Nice post, and I like how you included many details. Makes it easier to understand and see what you're talking about.

Couple thoughts that come to my mind about some of your talking points:

MRC: it's not quite as simple as "good speakers don't need it" and I don't necessarily agree that everyone should disable it no questions asked and for every speaker. More on this later.
Flat: this doesn't in itself boost treble. Whether it boosts or cuts is completely dependent on your speaker's natural response. If your speaker has a downward slope to it naturally, then yes "flat" will boost it to do what it says, flatten it. If your speaker on the other hand has a rising response (or if you're in a lively untreated room) then Flat will likely still be trimming.

In general, there's reasons people like and dislike MRC on vs off, full range vs limited correction, Flat vs Reference. There's lots of variables to this and I think people have a habit of making blanket statements. 

I feel that the further the target Reference/Flat curves are from the speaker's natural response (especially when it means boosting), the more likely that person is to not like full range corrrection. The same goes for MRC. Despite what some people say (to disable it), some or a lot of speakers actually do have a natural dip around 2khz...Audyssey didn't completely make it up blindly. My center speaker is one of those, and I keep MRC enabled only for my center. I verified with REW before and after, and using my same philosophy as above, I want my full range correction to follow my speaker's natural response as much as possible. In my case, the Target 2 (using the app) + MRC is almost spot on and gives me my best result. Reading your post, you might be a candidate to experiment with MRC as well.


L/R Bypass: yes, it completely bypasses all Audyssey correction/filters for your front L and R speakers.
The crossover is part of your AVR's or Processor's bass management. The same highpass/lowpass filters are applied to achieve your desired crossover. This is independent of Audyssey.
Audyssey level matches your subwoofer with your other speakers (75dB). It doesn't underestimate it, I think people confuse this with their own personal preference and "equal loudness" where we don't hear it as well and they have DEQ Off. I think Audyssey is a little conservative and I think they also expect users to use DEQ...you can't please everyone. People complain that Audyssey "neuters" the bass, and they also complain that DEQ adds too much bass. Audyssey never claimed that they are a set it and forget it solution. You have to tweak it to your preference.

Either way, when verifying SPL with a meter, you NEED to use an external test tone/source. The internal test tones completely bypass Audyssey filters so there's no value in measuring subwoofer SPL using internal tones (with no corrections).

- DEQ: personal preference. You have to find your balance, and play with the RLO settings and how much additional manual bass boost you want to add/subtract.


----------



## Soulburner

anoutsos said:


> Is Dynamic EQ a must for movies? I have turned it off for music after raising the sub level (see point above), but I still have it on at 0dB offset for movies. Am I overcompensating?


In my opinion, no. Because Dynamic EQ applies a progressively increasing boost the lower in frequency you go, a simple raise to the sub level is not going to give the same sound.

I do not find an offset necessary once I dial everything in perfectly. The only times I've caught myself toying with the RLO is when my sub integration isn't as good as it could be. YMMV, but I find that balance very delicate and once I have it, no offsets are needed. You may find content mixed at a very low level from a streaming service that needs it, though.


----------



## anoutsos

pbz06 said:


> @anoutsos
> 
> Either way, when verifying SPL with a meter, you NEED to use an external test tone/source. The internal test tones completely bypass Audyssey filters so there's no value in measuring subwoofer SPL using internal tones (with no corrections).
> 
> - DEQ: personal preference. You have to find your balance, and play with the RLO settings and how much additional manual bass boost you want to add/subtract.


Thank you so much @pbz06 for the excellent info. I think I understood most of what you told me. I am however still a bit unsure about the post-calibration subwoofer level. I will try to find an external source somehow and verify it. The problem is, I don't know where I can find an external tone that will play only through the sub. In that respect, the amp's internal tones are very handy, as they play separately for each of the 5.1 channels. Do you have any recommendations? Also, if the external source (say, an audio calibration DVD) plays pink noise tones through the main speakers, I think it may confuse things as the tone would be split between the mains and the sub, crossed over at 80 Hz.

Thanks!


----------



## pbz06

anoutsos said:


> Thank you so much @pbz06 for the excellent info. I think I understood most of what you told me. I am however still a bit unsure about the post-calibration subwoofer level. I will try to find an external source somehow and verify it. The problem is, I don't know where I can find an external tone that will play only through the sub. In that respect, the amp's internal tones are very handy, as they play separately for each of the 5.1 channels. Do you have any recommendations? Also, if the external source (say, an audio calibration DVD) plays pink noise tones through the main speakers, I think it may confuse things as the tone would be split between the mains and the sub, crossed over at 80 Hz.
> 
> Thanks!


The best way would ultimately be to invest in a umik-1 and REW software (free) so you can run sweeps and do SPL checks. The biggest problem with just taking SPL readings is that you're not seeing all the ups and downs. For example, you might have a big peak at 40hz and would turn down the SW, but all your other bass frequencies may be too low. So I've been using REW for everything once I got set up.

Anyway, I do still have the Disney WoW disc. That one has test tones for up to 7.1 (if I recall correctly their LFE is actually +10dB, which they don't tell you, so beware). I also had a couple older dolby digital discs (I forget the name, but something like AVIA). You can also look to buy one of the Atmos demo discs off ebay, those have up to 7.1.4 test tones I believe.


----------



## garygarrison

anoutsos said:


> Thank you so much @pbz06 for the excellent info. I think I understood most of what you told me. I am however still a bit unsure about the post-calibration subwoofer level. I will try to find an external source somehow and verify it. The problem is, I don't know where I can find an external tone that will play only through the sub. In that respect, the amp's internal tones are very handy, as they play separately for each of the 5.1 channels. Do you have any recommendations? Also, if the external source (say, an audio calibration DVD) plays pink noise tones through the main speakers, I think it may confuse things as the tone would be split between the mains and the sub, crossed over at 80 Hz.
> 
> Thanks!


@anoutsos

I think this one plays the test noise through each speaker separately, one at a time. The sub would get it when all else is off. Better check to make sure I'm right.








It's on Amazon.


----------



## garygarrison

@anoutsos

I would expect more vigorous high frequency response from the Audyssey FLAT option.
The anechoic response on the B & W graph you posted shows a rise at 10K, but your Audyssey FLAT curve is depressed there, and above. Weird. Audyssey FLAT itself should attempt to provide flat response 20 to 20K. Was the mic at ear level, on axis, a little off axis, a little more off axis, or way off axis?
Did you confirm your tweeters are working?
My biases (in my room, with my speakers)*: *I use *Audyssey Flat* for *virtually all movies*, and *most CDs and SACDs*. For _*a few harsh music disks*_, I switch over to *Audyssey Reference with MRC*. I often play movies at 5 to 7 dB dB below reference (rare 98 to 100 dB instantaneous peaks through the main speakers and 108 to 110 dB through the sub, which is what THX recommends for a room of my size and reflectivity). I usually finalize movie level with dialogue, by ear, which puts dialogue (neither shouting nor whispering) that averages at 62 dB, peaking at up to 75 db (very occasionally*;* Lily Tomlin) which, magically, puts the loudest music peaks as noted above. At these levels I neither need nor want Dynamic EQ.


----------



## pbarach

Gary Garrison wrote:
"I think this one plays the test noise through each speaker separately, one at a time. The sub would get it when all else is off. Better check to make sure I'm right.
View attachment 3190559

It's on Amazon."

Yes, it does. There is a 4K version of this disk, but I haven't tried it.


----------



## jk82

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> Yes this is a bug I found with the x3600h. Others with the same AVR have found the same issue. The only real workaround is to use the Flat target curve for everything. What's really strange and I have brought this to the owner's thread is that using the reference curve not only does not apply the settings from the App, but also makes strange corrections that look very bad in REW. This is very audible and it was by hearing that I knew something was not right with the equalization. REW only confirmed what I was hearing.
> To prove this use stock settings from the App and do 2 measurements with reference and Flat. No adjustments to the target curve. See if you notice any strange behavior in the corrections between the both. I have also contacted Denon about this and they could not replicate the problem and gave me generic advice on how to fix it.
> 
> Anyway at least you have figured it out and can use the App how you like it
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim





ddlooping said:


> @Jimmy2Shoes Thanks for confirming it is a bug, I don't mind having to select Flat instead of Reference, as long as it works consistently





jk82 said:


> Yep there are many bugs with the X3600H when you use the multEQ app.
> 
> On top of what Jimmy2Shoes mentioned you will also not get any correction of the ceiling speakers. I've measured this countless of times whenever there was a firmware update or an update of the multEQ app but it was always the same since I bought the X3600H.
> AVR calibration = everything works as intended
> multEQ app calibration = no correction of ceiling speakers and a messed up reference curve with certains speakers. Also reference and flat being switched...
> 
> With a 5.1 or 7.1 setup these bugs do not exist, only when you have ceiling speakers or upfiring dolby speakers.
> 
> I wish these issues were more widely known as the only way to ever get these companies to fix anything is if they get lots of complaints....


Just gonna requote this here because:

I received a firmware update for my X3600H. (Version 2400-3064-2161-3085)
And like with every FW update or multEQ App update I did a new app calibration to check if they finally fixed the buggy mess that you get with the X3600 when using the APP.

And I almost couldn't believe it but everything finally works as intended. 
Reference curve is no longer messed up, flat curve is no longer switched with reference, ceiling speaker correction works, subwoofer correction on the second output is no longer messed up. 

So, after more than 2 years the X3600 finally is correctly working when using the multEQ app.


----------



## ddlooping

@jk82 Do you mean that we now simply need to switch from Flat to Reference on the AVR or do we have to resend the settings from the app to the AVR first?


----------



## jk82

I don't know. I made a new multEQ app calibration, uploaded it and then measured it. I didn't check if the FW update would also fix already uploaded old calibrations...


----------



## ddlooping

Thanks, much appreciated 
I guess I'll have to make some new REW measurements.


----------



## markb1980

jk82 said:


> Just gonna requote this here because:
> 
> I received a firmware update for my X3600H. (Version 2400-3064-2161-3085)
> And like with every FW update or multEQ App update I did a new app calibration to check if they finally fixed the buggy mess that you get with the X3600 when using the APP.
> 
> And I almost couldn't believe it but everything finally works as intended.
> Reference curve is no longer messed up, flat curve is no longer switched with reference, ceiling speaker correction works, subwoofer correction on the second output is no longer messed up.
> 
> So, after more than 2 years the X3600 finally is correctly working when using the multEQ app.


Are all those issues only on the 3600? I have the 3500?


----------



## jk82

markb1980 said:


> Are all those issues only on the 3600? I have the 3500?


Yes as far as I'm aware all these issues with the multEQ app are with the X3600 only.


----------



## Spidacat

@jk82 If everything is working properly, I'd suggest turn auto updates to "off" in case their next update (for Heos or whatever) breaks things again.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

jk82 said:


> Just gonna requote this here because:
> 
> I received a firmware update for my X3600H. (Version 2400-3064-2161-3085)
> And like with every FW update or multEQ App update I did a new app calibration to check if they finally fixed the buggy mess that you get with the X3600 when using the APP.
> 
> And I almost couldn't believe it but everything finally works as intended.
> Reference curve is no longer messed up, flat curve is no longer switched with reference, ceiling speaker correction works, subwoofer correction on the second output is no longer messed up.
> 
> So, after more than 2 years the X3600 finally is correctly working when using the multEQ app.


Hey Buddy,

That's fantastic news
I have since sold the x3600h but will contact the buyer to let him know and update the FW
I agree with @Spidacat  not unless there is a way to roll-back firmware's I wouldn't tempt faith with any new firmwares.

Jim


----------



## bluesky636

In all the years I have used Audyssey, I have always used DYNAMIC EQ, but never used DYNAMIC VOLUME. 

In my current setup (traditional 7.1 system, Denon 3500 AVR, Panasonic 820 Blu-Ray player, 65" LG flat panel tv, Dish TV satellite receiver) after running Audyssey all crossovers are set to 80 Hz (including LFE LPF). Flat curve is used (high frequency hearing loss). Subwoofer trim is -6 dB (Audyssey set point) boosted to -3 dB with with AVR sub trim control. DYNAMIC EQ is turned on. Normal listening level is about -22 dB to -18 dB. Sometimes 3 dB higher or lower depending on source.

Sometimes my wife will complain loud sounds are too loud so I will turn things down a couple of clicks. Then she complains the dialog is too low so I turn things up a couple of clicks. And around we go.

The other night after the usual complaints (watching Blu-Ray of Star Trek: Beyond) I thought I would give DYNAMIC VOLUME a try. With volume set to -18 dB I set DYNAMIC VOLUME to "Light". Dialog, which sounded perfect at -18 dB appeared to suddenly INCREASE by several dB which caused immediate cries from the other seat on the couch. I was quite taken aback myself. DYNAMIC VOLUME was then immediately turned off and normalcy returned. 

This behavior was NOT what I expected. I figured Dialog would stay at the same level and exploding space ships would be tamed a bit. What happened? Were my expectations in error? Do I have to turn average volume DOWN when DYNAMIC VOLUME is turned ON? What do you guys who use DYNAMIC VOLUME do to make your other half happy?

TIA.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> In all the years I have used Audyssey, I have always used DYNAMIC EQ, but never used DYNAMIC VOLUME.
> 
> In my current setup (traditional 7.1 system, Denon 3500 AVR, Panasonic 820 Blu-Ray player, 65" LG flat panel tv, Dish TV satellite receiver) after running Audyssey all crossovers are set to 80 Hz (including LFE LPF). Flat curve is used (high frequency hearing loss). Subwoofer trim is -6 dB (Audyssey set point) boosted to -3 dB with with AVR sub trim control. DYNAMIC EQ is turned on. Normal listening level is about -22 dB to -18 dB. Sometimes 3 dB higher or lower depending on source.
> 
> Sometimes my wife will complain loud sounds are too loud so I will turn things down a couple of clicks. Then she complains the dialog is too low so I turn things up a couple of clicks. And around we go.
> 
> The other night after the usual complaints (watching Blu-Ray of Star Trek: Beyond) I thought I would give DYNAMIC VOLUME a try. With volume set to -18 dB I set DYNAMIC VOLUME to "Light". Dialog, which sounded perfect at -18 dB appeared to suddenly INCREASE by several dB which caused immediate cries from the other seat on the couch. I was quite taken aback myself. DYNAMIC VOLUME was then immediately turned off and normalcy returned.
> 
> This behavior was NOT what I expected. I figured Dialog would stay at the same level and exploding space ships would be tamed a bit. What happened? Were my expectations in error? Do I have to turn average volume DOWN when DYNAMIC VOLUME is turned ON? What do you guys who use DYNAMIC VOLUME do to make your other half happy?
> 
> TIA.


In my testing, Light appears to maintain the same peak volume, but bring up the soft passages and "average". It sounds louder when listening at the same volume setting you're accustomed to.

Medium appears to keep the same average SPL, but bring down the peaks and raise the soft passages. When I use DV, this is what I prefer and use.

Heavy seems to reduce everything including the overall dynamics even more.

p.s.- I also feel that DV works better and more consistently with DEQ.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> In my testing, Light appears to maintain the same peak volume, but bring up the soft passages and "average". It sounds louder when listening at the same volume setting you're accustomed to.
> 
> Medium appears to keep the same average SPL, but bring down the peaks and raise the soft passages. When I use DV, this is what I prefer and use.
> 
> Heavy seems to reduce everything including the overall dynamics even more.
> 
> p.s.- I also feel that DV works better and more consistently with DEQ.


So using Light would require turning average volume down several dB to keep dialog where I want it and then peaks would be reduced. 

Medium seems to normalize volume around the average volume levels.

Heavy just crushes things.

I see in my manual that when DV is selected in the Audyssey setup menu that Medium is selected automatically. I'll give that a try.

Thanks.


----------



## ThierryB

bluesky636 said:


> In all the years I have used Audyssey, I have always used DYNAMIC EQ, but never used DYNAMIC VOLUME.
> 
> In my current setup (traditional 7.1 system, Denon 3500 AVR, Panasonic 820 Blu-Ray player, 65" LG flat panel tv, Dish TV satellite receiver) after running Audyssey all crossovers are set to 80 Hz (including LFE LPF). Flat curve is used (high frequency hearing loss). Subwoofer trim is -6 dB (Audyssey set point) boosted to -3 dB with with AVR sub trim control. DYNAMIC EQ is turned on. Normal listening level is about -22 dB to -18 dB. Sometimes 3 dB higher or lower depending on source.
> 
> Sometimes my wife will complain loud sounds are too loud so I will turn things down a couple of clicks. Then she complains the dialog is too low so I turn things up a couple of clicks. And around we go.
> 
> The other night after the usual complaints (watching Blu-Ray of Star Trek: Beyond) I thought I would give DYNAMIC VOLUME a try. With volume set to -18 dB I set DYNAMIC VOLUME to "Light". Dialog, which sounded perfect at -18 dB appeared to suddenly INCREASE by several dB which caused immediate cries from the other seat on the couch. I was quite taken aback myself. DYNAMIC VOLUME was then immediately turned off and normalcy returned.
> 
> This behavior was NOT what I expected. I figured Dialog would stay at the same level and exploding space ships would be tamed a bit. What happened? Were my expectations in error? Do I have to turn average volume DOWN when DYNAMIC VOLUME is turned ON? What do you guys who use DYNAMIC VOLUME do to make your other half happy?
> 
> TIA.


Yes the overall volume increases when you use DV, so you have to turn the master volume down if you want to watch at the same level. This has the benefit of having the same volume regardless of the source, or audio track. I had DV on at the beginning, but then when you get used to DV off you realise that you lose a lot in dynamic and it sounds less punchy to me with DV on.
That might suite the wife better though 
Mine complains about the same thing all the time, but I end up adjusting the volume when needed because I think it sounds better without DV.
I guess it's all about compromise.


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> er night after the usual complaints (watching Blu-Ray of Star Trek: Beyond) I thought I would give DYNAMIC VOLUME a try. With volume set to -18 dB I set DYNAMIC VOLUME to "Light". Dialog, which sounded perfect at -18 dB appeared to suddenly INCREASE by several dB which caused immediate cries from the other seat on the couch. I was quite taken aback myself. DYNAMIC VOLUME was then immediately turned off and normalcy returned.


 This is how Dynamic Volume worked on every one of the three Denon AVRs I've owned. What you got was normal behavior for this feature. 

I use DynVol on "HEAVY" for shows and movies where the dynamic range is too loud. As soon as you switch it on, dialogue will get noticeably louder, so you can then turn down the main volume control to put dialogue at a comfortable level. When the explosions start, they won't be much louder tham the volume you selected for dialogue. The total dynamic range is compressed. Note that Dynamic EQ automatically turns on whenever you use DynVol, although you can go through the setup menus to turn it off and still leave DynVol on. 

I have never used this feature on LIGHT or MEDIUM, but I assume that the dynamic range is less compressed than with HEAVY.


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> This is how Dynamic Volume worked on every one of the three Denon AVRs I've owned. What you got was normal behavior for this feature.
> 
> I use DynVol on "HEAVY" for shows and movies where the dynamic range is too loud. As soon as you switch it on, dialogue will get noticeably louder, so you can then turn down the main volume control to put dialogue at a comfortable level. When the explosions start, they won't be much louder tham the volume you selected for dialogue. The total dynamic range is compressed. Note that Dynamic EQ automatically turns on whenever you use DynVol, although you can go through the setup menus to turn it off and still leave DynVol on.
> 
> I have never used this feature on LIGHT or MEDIUM, but I assume that the dynamic range is less compressed than with HEAVY.


I don't want a heavily compressed dynamic range. I prefer no DYNAMIC VOLUME but need something that will reasonably keep both of us happy. I could watch TV with my hearing aides in and the volume down some, but I don't like the sound of movies and music with them. Straight dialog with them is OK, but anything else sucks.


----------



## garygarrison

bluesky636 said:


> In all the years I have used Audyssey, I have always used DYNAMIC EQ, but never used DYNAMIC VOLUME.
> 
> In my current setup (traditional 7.1 system, Denon 3500 AVR, Panasonic 820 Blu-Ray player, 65" LG flat panel tv, Dish TV satellite receiver) after running Audyssey all crossovers are set to 80 Hz (including LFE LPF). Flat curve is used (high frequency hearing loss). Subwoofer trim is -6 dB (Audyssey set point) boosted to -3 dB with with AVR sub trim control. DYNAMIC EQ is turned on. Normal listening level is about -22 dB to -18 dB. Sometimes 3 dB higher or lower depending on source.
> 
> Sometimes my wife will complain loud sounds are too loud so I will turn things down a couple of clicks. Then she complains the dialog is too low so I turn things up a couple of clicks. And around we go.
> 
> The other night after the usual complaints (watching Blu-Ray of Star Trek: Beyond) I thought I would give DYNAMIC VOLUME a try. With volume set to -18 dB I set DYNAMIC VOLUME to "Light". Dialog, which sounded perfect at -18 dB appeared to suddenly INCREASE by several dB which caused immediate cries from the other seat on the couch. I was quite taken aback myself. DYNAMIC VOLUME was then immediately turned off and normalcy returned.
> 
> This behavior was NOT what I expected. I figured Dialog would stay at the same level and exploding space ships would be tamed a bit. What happened? Were my expectations in error? Do I have to turn average volume DOWN when DYNAMIC VOLUME is turned ON? What do you guys who use DYNAMIC VOLUME do to make your other half happy?
> 
> TIA.


You could always try turning the center channel up 2*/*3dB to allow the dialog to be articulate without turning up the music (much), or the sound effects below crossover at all.

BUT, on the rare occasions when someone says "too loud" in our home theater, I wonder, "too loud for what?" 

Does it startle people? Sometimes, when unexpected, it can be a shock. Used very sparingly, that's a legitimate option on the filmmaker's palette, IMO. But we no longer play films like _Transformers_ or _Mad Max Fury Road_ because they seem like a feature length roar to us.
Does your wife feel pain in her ears? Or tingling? Or a ringing? That can be dangerous, and *sustained* very loud levels will do that. If it happens with *instantaneous* peaks (1/4 second) of 110 dB or less, that may be abnormal.
Could there be too much IM distortion when your equipment is played at louder levels? With a typical 90dB/2.83v/1m speaker, it takes about 64 watts to reach THX levels (100 dB from a front loudspeaker) in a 4,300 cu. ft. room, at 13 feet). In a modern amplifier, below the clipping level, it shouldn't happen (much), but when it happens in _*loudspeakers*_ (often called "modulation distortion" or "Doppler distortion") the often discordant result (due to harmonically malrelated sidebars) can be very strident. This can vary with the type of speaker, but also with SPL. Notice that the speaker in the lower graph has 10 times the modulation distortion at a 10 dB lower SPL and that only 2 tones are used in these, and most, tests. How many tones are in a musical climax?








Fig. 1. Bass loudspeaker spectra. Top: high-quality horntype unit at 100 dB SPL output at 2 ft. Total modulation distortion is obscured by ambient noise but may be on the order of 0.7%. Bottom: Ten-inch direct radiator in 1.5 ft box (total enclosure) at 90 dB SPL output at 2 ft. (Vertical gain of analyzer changed to give same indicated level.) Total rms modulation distortion approximately 7%. fi = 50 Hz, f 300 Hz; vertical scale 10 dB per div., horizontal scale = approximately 50 Hz per div. Note that f does not show. [see also: Red Shift: Doppler distortion in loudspeakers Page 3 especially the lower portion of page three].
I should point out we run movies at, subjectively, "theater volume," i.e. at the SPL we think the filmmakers intended. We do this by 1) making a good guess (see ahead), and 2) as soon as there is normal dialog (no shouting or whispering) setting it by ear to a natural and realistic level. Many, many post hoc tests with an SPL meter from the main listening position, with many films, have shown that with this by ear setting, dialog averages at 62 dB, and sometimes peaks at 70 dB, *very* occasionally peaking as high as 74 dB (Steven Boyd and Lily Tomlin are the champs), all at "fast" C weighting. This is comparable to live voices of real human beings on whom I have run tests in the same room, from the MLP, with said folk conversing right by our center speaker. This setting dialog by ear, in our large room, usually ends up needing a main volume setting of 5 to 7 dB below reference, producing the loudest readable *instantaneous* peaks in *music* at 100 dB, and in *LFE* at, maybe, 110 dB, which is close to what THX recommends for our room size. Keith Barnes (who was a main author of Audyssey FAQ on this forum) says he arrives at 5 dB below reference almost every time, in his big HT, with JBL Pro speakers. The nominal level discussed on many sites of 85 dB is certainly not an "average" for a movie, with all the quiet spots in almost all films. If characters were chattering all the way through, the average would be in the low '60s, brought higher by some music and effects. I think what SMPTE and others were thinking was, "We had better have 20 dB headroom." Sometimes I wish they had insisted on more like 40 dB.

Why C weighting instead of A, which is used in factories and other noisy workplaces? Because I want to catch the bass, from Sam Elliot, to the contrabasson, the explosive bass drum, timpani, tuba, Sousaphone, piano, etc.

Anyway, the sound is almost always comfortable in our HT. A very few films need to use just plain Audyssey, instead of Audyssey Flat. *One*, needs even more treble roll-off.


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> You could always try turning the center channel up 2*/*3dB to allow the dialog to be articulate without turning up the music (much), or the sound effects below crossover at all.


I have tried this and find the effect unbalanced compared to the rest of the sound.



garygarrison said:


> Does it startle people?


Only if it is supposed to.



garygarrison said:


> Does your wife feel pain in her ears? Or tingling? Or a ringing?


No



garygarrison said:


> Could there be too much IM distortion when your equipment is played at louder levels?


I am very familiar with the sound of IM and harmonic distortion. There is no audible distortion in my system.



garygarrison said:


> This setting dialog by ear, in our large room, usually ends up needing a main volume setting of 5 to 7 dB below reference


My volume setting is 10 dB or more below this as stated in my OP.


----------



## pbarach

garygarrison said:


> BUT, on the rare occasions when someone says "too loud" in our home theater, I wonder, "too loud for what?"


 Unless it's deafeningly loud, i.e., enough to cause pain or ringing in the ears. "too loud" means "it's uncomfortable," and I'll put on DynVol or turn down the main volume control. Overly loud movie theaters have kept me away from action pics for several years unless I wear Bose Quiet Comfort headphones, which attentuate the loud stuff while allowing the dialogue to come through clearly.


----------



## markb1980

bluesky636 said:


> I don't want a heavily compressed dynamic range. I prefer no DYNAMIC VOLUME but need something that will reasonably keep both of us happy. I could watch TV with my hearing aides in and the volume down some, but I don't like the sound of movies and music with them. Straight dialog with them is OK, but anything else sucks.


You could try running without Dynamic EQ and just boost your sub a little more if needed to counter the fact it reduces the bass a little at lower volumes with this off. I find I hear speech far more with it off as you don’t have the surrounds over powering the centre. I use a house curve on my set up with no dynamic EQ and find everything far more detailed and clear.


----------



## Pip

pbz06 said:


> In my testing, Light appears to maintain the same peak volume, but bring up the soft passages and "average". It sounds louder when listening at the same volume setting you're accustomed to.
> 
> Medium appears to keep the same average SPL, but bring down the peaks and raise the soft passages. When I use DV, this is what I prefer and use.
> 
> Heavy seems to reduce everything including the overall dynamics even more.
> 
> p.s.- I also feel that DV works better and more consistently with DEQ.


I can‘t speak to wether DEQ has any effect on Dynamic Volume, but yes, this is exactly how Dynamic Volume works. Thanks for the clear explanation.


----------



## bluesky636

markb1980 said:


> You could try running without Dynamic EQ and just boost your sub a little more if needed to counter the fact it reduces the bass a little at lower volumes with this off. I find I hear speech far more with it off as you don’t have the surrounds over powering the centre. I use a house curve on my set up with no dynamic EQ and find everything far more detailed and clear.


My surrounds are several feet above ear level. I find no problems with surround level compared to center. I use a variation of subwoofer cascading crossovers to help clarify dialog. House curves without DYNAMIC EQ only work for one volume setting. I would prefer DYNAMIC EQ be used for it's intended purpose.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> I have tried this and find the effect unbalanced compared to the rest of the sound.


I found that even 1 dB is jarring. I don't want to hyper-localize the center speaker. It breaks the immersion. I even think phantom center is better in this regard.


----------



## Soulburner

markb1980 said:


> You could try running without Dynamic EQ and just boost your sub a little more if needed to counter the fact it reduces the bass a little at lower volumes with this off. I find I hear speech far more with it off as you don’t have the surrounds over powering the centre. I use a house curve on my set up with no dynamic EQ and find everything far more detailed and clear.


Just turn down the surround levels, problem solved. Keep the equal loudness and avoid throwing out the baby with the bath water.


----------



## mthomas47

garygarrison said:


> @anoutsos
> 
> I would expect more vigorous high frequency response from the Audyssey FLAT option.
> The anechoic response on the B & W graph you posted shows a rise at 10K, but your Audyssey FLAT curve is depressed there, and above. Weird. Audyssey FLAT itself should attempt to provide flat response 20 to 20K. Was the mic at ear level, on axis, a little off axis, a little more off axis, or way off axis?
> Did you confirm your tweeters are working?
> My biases (in my room, with my speakers)*: *I use *Audyssey Flat* for *virtually all movies*, and *most CDs and SACDs*. For _*a few harsh music disks*_, I switch over to *Audyssey Reference with MRC*. I often play movies at 5 to 7 dB dB below reference (rare 98 to 100 dB instantaneous peaks through the main speakers and 108 to 110 dB through the sub, which is what THX recommends for a room of my size and reflectivity). I usually finalize movie level with dialogue, by ear, which puts dialogue (neither shouting nor whispering) that averages at 62 dB, peaking at up to 75 db (very occasionally*;* Lily Tomlin) which, magically, puts the loudest music peaks as noted above. At these levels I neither need nor want Dynamic EQ.



Hi Gary,

I haven't been following this thread much lately, but I did happen to notice some good discussions and wanted to add a couple of comments. First, I agree that @pbz06 did a great job of explaining some things to @anoutsos! 

Second, I think that it may be helpful to clarify something about Audyssey Flat for others reading along. All versions of Audyssey will stop EQing at the F3 (-3dB) point of any speaker. That frequency where a speaker is naturally (and permanently) rolling-off by -3dB could be at the low-end of the speaker's frequency response, or the high-end of the response. So, Flat would theoretically be cutting and boosting frequencies between 10Hz and 22KHz as long as a speaker were capable of hitting all of those frequencies, without any permanent low or high frequency roll-off.

In reality, of course, all transducers exhibit natural roll-off at both ends of the frequency response. Some of that is due to their fundamental capabilities, with respect to the MLP, at that specific position in the room. And, some of it is due to internal crossovers with low and high-pass filters. So, there will come a point at the top or bottom of any speaker's response where Audyssey is no longer EQing at all. Therefore, Audyssey Flat wouldn't necessarily try to EQ out to even 10,000 or 11,000Hz if a speaker started rolling-off earlier than that due to distance, or to speaker directionality, or whatever.

What is harder to explain is why with L/R Bypass the -3dB roll-off doesn't start until about 9,000Hz, and with Audyssey Flat, it starts earlier than that? I might speculate that the large dip on both speakers, between 1KHz and 4KHz and visible in L/R Bypass, has something to do with it. I have no idea why both speakers are exhibiting such large dips in those frequencies, but that is certainly what his graphs seem to show. Both versions of Audyssey may have expended too much amplifier power filling-in that dip to allow the speakers' tweeters to maintain the pre-Audyssey volume levels at those higher frequencies.

Flat seems to do a little better job of filling-in the large dip between 1KHz and 4KHz than Reference does, but in both cases the SPL starts trailing-off at about 6KHz. I don't think that all of that is coincidental. If I were @anoutsos, I would try pointing my front speakers a little more directly at the MLP, in an effort to enhance the higher frequency performance of those speakers. As you know, higher frequencies are much more susceptible to friction (in this case from the air) than lower frequencies are, which is why carpet, drapes, foam acoustic panels, and so on can absorb them so easily.

Of course, he will need to run Audyssey again if he experiments with different amounts of speaker toe-in. But, improved directionality can sometimes make an audible (and measurable) difference with both mid and high-frequencies.

Regards,
Mike


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> Unless it's deafeningly loud, i.e., enough to cause pain or ringing in the ears. "too loud" means "it's uncomfortable," and I'll put on DynVol or turn down the main volume control. Overly loud movie theaters have kept me away from action pics for several years unless I wear Bose Quiet Comfort headphones, which attentuate the loud stuff while allowing the dialogue to come through clearly.


I can see that sound that is uncomfortable would be "too loud," unless both *brief* and *intended* by the filmmakers. Of course, sometimes it's O.K. for an artist to annoy an audience, who aren't required like it*; *Chopin was criticized for, "ear shattering dissonances," by at least one early critic, according to Leonard Bernstein. Chopin! But, because they are uncomfortable for prolonged periods, with little reward (to us), my wife and I no longer see "action pics" per se. We do like those that promise some intellectual or provocative content to contemplate. So, we like much of the Star Trek franchise. But _Star Trek -- Into Darkness_ was one I had to turn down three times during the action sequences. It's fortunate that our Main Volume manipulations don't show on the screen. I'm not sure it was worth it. As Matt Seitz put it, it seemed, "a Star Trek-flavored action flick, shot in the frenzied, cut-cut-cut style that’s become Hollywood’s norm." I think they crammed the sound effects up against *fs* with a limiter, making the appropriate Main Volume setting more like 12 dB below Audyssey calibrated reference than our usual (THX recommended for our room size/absorption) 5 to 7 dB below. Ironically, its inspiration, Wrath of the Khan, although lacking much LFE due to its vintage, had such superbly recorded music for the end credits, we turned it *up!* All this, and somethings to think about, too.


----------



## curlyjive

Can someone confirm that if using the app, if you have a run of Audyssey already loaded to the AVR and you do another run, that new run does not overwrite the existing one unless/until you actually send it?

so if my existing run was one I liked but I ran audyssey again and completed the new run but never sent it to the AVR my original run is still intact?


----------



## ThierryB

curlyjive said:


> Can someone confirm that if using the app, if you have a run of Audyssey already loaded to the AVR and you do another run, that new run does not overwrite the existing one unless/until you actually send it?
> 
> so if my existing run was one I liked but I ran audyssey again and completed the new run but never sent it to the AVR my original run is still intact?


Nothing is updated in the AVR until you send a new setup from the app. When you send a new setup, you have to choose which preset it's going to be loaded to.
Assuming your current one is stored in preset 1, then choose preset 2 when you click on send to receiver in the app, and you can compare the 2.


----------



## curlyjive

ThierryB said:


> Nothing is updated in the AVR until you send a new setup from the app. When you send a new setup, you have to choose which preset it's going to be loaded to.
> Assuming your current one is stored in preset 1, then choose preset 2 when you click on send to receiver in the app, and you can compare the 2.


That’s what I thought. Basically you can run as many app based runs as you want and not overwrite the one that is already loaded to the AVR, until you actually send a different one.


----------



## ThierryB

curlyjive said:


> That’s what I thought. Basically you can run as many app based runs as you want and not overwrite the one that is already loaded to the AVR, until you actually send a different one.


Correct.


----------



## striker008

I always read and hear talk about using an external test tone calibration disc or source to when trying to calibrate speaker levels due to auto correction still being engaged. I must be missing something but my assumption is what is being referred to is adjusting the trim levels in the AVR while playing those tones. 

I have usually adjusted speaker levels using the internal tone generator and using a SPL meter to adjust channel trims to 75db accordingly. What I'm trying to figure out is when playing external test tones and trying to access the speaker trim levels, i enter the avr speaker level menu and the option given is the button for the tone generator which essentially cancels the external test tones. It seems that the answer must be in front of me, but I can't seem to figure it out. I have a Denon x3600. Any advice?


----------



## markb1980

striker008 said:


> I always read and hear talk about using an external test tone calibration disc or source to when trying to calibrate speaker levels due to auto correction still being engaged. I must be missing something but my assumption is what is being referred to is adjusting the trim levels in the AVR while playing those tones.
> 
> I have usually adjusted speaker levels using the internal tone generator and using a SPL meter to adjust channel trims to 75db accordingly. What I'm trying to figure out is when playing external test tones and trying to access the speaker trim levels, i enter the avr speaker level menu and the option given is the button for the tone generator which essentially cancels the external test tones. It seems that the answer must be in front of me, but I can't seem to figure it out. I have a Denon x3600. Any advice?


You would need to have some test tones on an external source. Eg ripped to a DVD or USB stick and then play it via a Blu-ray player etc.


----------



## mthomas47

striker008 said:


> I always read and hear talk about using an external test tone calibration disc or source to when trying to calibrate speaker levels due to auto correction still being engaged. I must be missing something but my assumption is what is being referred to is adjusting the trim levels in the AVR while playing those tones.
> 
> I have usually adjusted speaker levels using the internal tone generator and using a SPL meter to adjust channel trims to 75db accordingly. What I'm trying to figure out is when playing external test tones and trying to access the speaker trim levels, i enter the avr speaker level menu and the option given is the button for the tone generator which essentially cancels the external test tones. It seems that the answer must be in front of me, but I can't seem to figure it out. I have a Denon x3600. Any advice?


Hi,

It would be a trial-and-error process of measuring a speaker's volume with an external tone, then making upward or downward adjustments in the trim level, and then remeasuring with the external tone. It would be an iterative process to get the level where you wanted it to be.

But, I question why people would go to all of this trouble? Audyssey is usually quite accurate at matching speaker levels! If you are going to trust Audyssey's overall calibration and EQ process, why would you not trust that the speaker trim levels are correct? And if for some reason, a trim level seems too low to you, perhaps because one ear is congested or whatever, aren't you just going to increase the volume of that speaker until it sounds right to you?

I get that we all like to increase our subwoofer volume. That is connected to both the Equal Loudness Contours and to our own bass preferences. And, I get that we may want to increase the volume of the center channel in order to hear dialogue better, or to change surround trim levels to compensate for DEQ, or whatever. 

But, all of those changes are simply intended to enhance the way that things sound to us. And, we are just going to make adjustments to suit our personal tastes. They are altogether different than second-guessing Audyssey's trim levels with an SPL meter. 

Regards,
Mike


----------



## striker008

markb1980 said:


> You would need to have some test tones on an external source. Eg ripped to a DVD or USB stick and then play it via a Blu-ray player etc.


Well I do have test tones on a blu ray but I guess what I am wondering is if there is a way to access the trim levels in the avr during this process by bypassing the internal test tones.


----------



## striker008

mthomas47 said:


> Hi,
> 
> It would be a trial-and-error process of measuring a speaker's volume with an external tone, then making upward or downward adjustments in the trim level, and then remeasuring with the external tone. It would be an iterative process to get the level where you wanted it to be.
> 
> But, I question why people would go to all of this trouble? Audyssey is usually quite accurate at matching speaker levels! If you are going to trust Audyssey's overall calibration and EQ process, why would you not trust that the speaker trim levels are correct? And if for some reason, a trim level seems too low to you, perhaps because one ear is congested or whatever, aren't you just going to increase the volume of that speaker until it sounds right to you?
> 
> I get that we all like to increase our subwoofer volume. That is connected to both the Equal Loudness Contours and to our own bass preferences. And, I get that we may want to increase the volume of the center channel in order to hear dialogue better, or to change surround trim levels to compensate for DEQ, or whatever.
> 
> But, all of those changes are simply intended to enhance the way that things sound to us. And, we are just going to make adjustments to suit our personal tastes. They are altogether different than second-guessing Audyssey's trim levels with an SPL meter.
> 
> Regards,
> Mike


Thanks for the response. I don't think it is a matter of not trusting Audyssey more so than just me experimenting and seeing where levels landed using a source other than the internal tones. And you are right, in the end most will end up at levels that ultimately sound best to them whether it's boosting sub levels or centers if they find those are not high enough for them. I also have found that Audyssey is usually pretty accurate for levels or at least in the right ballpark.


----------



## Soulburner

striker008 said:


> I always read and hear talk about using an external test tone calibration disc or source to when trying to calibrate speaker levels due to auto correction still being engaged. I must be missing something but my assumption is what is being referred to is adjusting the trim levels in the AVR while playing those tones.
> 
> I have usually adjusted speaker levels using the internal tone generator and using a SPL meter to adjust channel trims to 75db accordingly. What I'm trying to figure out is when playing external test tones and trying to access the speaker trim levels, i enter the avr speaker level menu and the option given is the button for the tone generator which essentially cancels the external test tones. It seems that the answer must be in front of me, but I can't seem to figure it out. I have a Denon x3600. Any advice?


You might have seen some of my posts on this. If so, it's important to note that I only use external test files for the surround and overhead channels due to the effect that Dynamic EQ has on them. It applies some volume-dependent boosts, different per channel, that some of us don't agree with.

I don't go in and change levels because I don't trust Audyssey; it is only about the DEQ adjustments for surrounds and heights. This helps me achieve a balanced surround bubble.

I use the Dolby Atmos speaker check videos and the SPL meter within Room EQ Wizard. I run both from a laptop connected to the AVR via HDMI.









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Soulburner

striker008 said:


> Well I do have test tones on a blu ray but I guess what I am wondering is if there is a way to access the trim levels in the avr during this process by bypassing the internal test tones.


You use those level settings to make adjustments but you don't measure the SPL level of the pink noise it's making.


----------



## pbarach

striker008 said:


> I also have found that Audyssey is usually pretty accurate for levels or at least in the right ballpark.


The Audyssey mic is supposed to be accurate within + or - 2 dB. Readings I've taken with an SPL and external test tones after calibration are within a dB or two of eeach other, i.e., Audyssey is quite accurate. However, beware external test tones and certain SPL meters--these meters are often inaccurate in measuring subwoofer SPL.


----------



## striker008

Soulburner said:


> You might have seen some of my posts on this. If so, it's important to note that I only use external test files for the surround and overhead channels due to the effect that Dynamic EQ has on them. It applies some volume-dependent boosts, different per channel, that some of us don't agree with.
> 
> I don't go in and change levels because I don't trust Audyssey; it is only about the DEQ adjustments for surrounds and heights. This helps me achieve a balanced surround bubble.
> 
> I use the Dolby Atmos speaker check videos and the SPL meter within Room EQ Wizard. I run both from a laptop connected to the AVR via HDMI.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...
> 
> 
> Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Interesting approach and thanks for sharing but it makes sense. Wasn't aware of your previous posts so I'll read through some of those as well


----------



## garygarrison

@striker008:
(quote function not working)*:*

*"... experimenting and seeing where levels landed using a source other than the internal tones."*

Most relatively _inexpensive _SPL meters are not accurate. I have two Radio Shack meters, one from about 1975, and one from about 2011. Although they measure close to the same overall, they are way off in the high treble, which is admitted and shown graphicly in the manual to the 1975 version. The 4 suggested corrections (2 charts floating around the internet, the Radio Shack compensated CD of a studio consulting firm, and the graph in the 1975 manual) _*all disagree with each other*_.
For setting levels (years ago), I tried the Spears disk (band limited pink noise 500 Hz to 2000 Hz), and REW (free) with a calibrated mic. The levels were so close to the levels Audyssey set, that I didn't change Audyssey's levels. _ In my case_, the levels were fairly close to the ones I got from the internal tones (see below). 
The results sounded right with music and movies by ear, *after* I turned up the sub, to taste.
From time to time, disk to disk, streaming movie to streaming movie, I made changes in EQ to improve the sound of whatever was being played, always by ear. 
How much different the results will be with the external v.s. the internal noise, may depend on the room and the speakers, like everything else, i.e., how much correction Audyssey has to apply. If Audyssey needs to apply _zero_ correction, I would think the two results would be the same. Let's say, in reality, there was a *big* dip from 600 Hz to 1500 Hz in one channel, and Audyssey fully compensated for it. Using _external_ pink noise from a CD (the standard 500 to 2K) the levels should measure (and sound) correct (the same). Using the noise in your AVR, if the level for that channel gets turned up to make the correction Audyssey has _*already *_made, music and movies will seem too loud through that channel, everything else being equal.


----------



## logan456

My equipment ULTRA SVS bookshelf center surrounds SBRand L SVS sattelites Atmos speakers front height and rear svs satelites midddle atmos SVS elevation sub rythmik F18 SoIhave been messing with rew the first measurement i took was with 80hz crossover rcl and rest of speakers set too 100 sub distance 8.8 gotmassive dip. so changed the sub distance to 9.8 dip came up a little, then I jkept on raising the croos over forallthe spakers from 80 -100 -120 the dip came up the mosdt when I changed the x over from 80 to 100 for allspeakers. I think at thispoint the only way to get rid of the null completely is going to be to get another subwoofer. thoughts?pic of rew graph attached


----------



## Rich 63

logan456 said:


> My equipment ULTRA SVS bookshelf center surrounds SBRand L SVS sattelites Atmos speakers front height and rear svs satelites midddle atmos SVS elevation sub rythmik F18 SoIhave been messing with rew the first measurement i took was with 80hz crossover rcl and rest of speakers set too 100 sub distance 8.8 gotmassive dip. so changed the sub distance to 9.8 dip came up a little, then I jkept on raising the croos over forallthe spakers from 80 -100 -120 the dip came up the mosdt when I changed the x over from 80 to 100 for allspeakers. I think at thispoint the only way to get rid of the null completely is going to be to get another subwoofer. thoughts?pic of rew graph attached


Are you partying tonight?


----------



## Soulburner

logan456 said:


> My equipment ULTRA SVS bookshelf center surrounds SBRand L SVS sattelites Atmos speakers front height and rear svs satelites midddle atmos SVS elevation sub rythmik F18 SoIhave been messing with rew the first measurement i took was with 80hz crossover rcl and rest of speakers set too 100 sub distance 8.8 gotmassive dip. so changed the sub distance to 9.8 dip came up a little, then I jkept on raising the croos over forallthe spakers from 80 -100 -120 the dip came up the mosdt when I changed the x over from 80 to 100 for allspeakers. I think at thispoint the only way to get rid of the null completely is going to be to get another subwoofer. thoughts?pic of rew graph attached


I don't think another sub will help you above 80 Hz.

With that said, I don't know how you got such a flat response with only 1, but consider yourself extremely lucky. Either that, or your sub is EQ'd to within an inch of its life and will have no dynamic headroom left. If that is the case, another sub WILL help you.

The rest is all sub distance and crossover settings, as you've found...


----------



## ddlooping

@logan456 
Have you tried tweaking the Sub's phase too?


----------



## logan456

ddlooping said:


> @logan456
> Have you tried tweaking the Sub's phase too?


No I haven't, however according to the documents I received with my f18 if you connect to the sub through LFE the phase/delay control on sub has no effect. Only if it is connected to the line in connections on the sub.


----------



## Soulburner

logan456 said:


> No I haven't, however according to the documents I received with my f18 if you connect to the sub through LFE the phase/delay control on sub has no effect. Only if it is connected to the line in connections on the sub.


I don't think it will make any difference anyway - you have the same delay adjustments through the AVR or MiniDSP.


----------



## sdrucker

FYI - happened to see this on the Audyssey tech FB page and thought it might be of public interest here.



https://www.soundunited.com/webinars?fbclid=IwAR27irbQFNLdQ3VMg-JSCigIODSWvwB2770w4PDi4OhC70_zFhwO8Q5AzBc


----------



## pbz06

sdrucker said:


> FYI - happened to see this on the Audyssey tech FB page and thought it might be of public interest here.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.soundunited.com/webinars?fbclid=IwAR27irbQFNLdQ3VMg-JSCigIODSWvwB2770w4PDi4OhC70_zFhwO8Q5AzBc


I registered


----------



## ciotime

Yep sa that as well...Audyssey is launching a new PC-based software package working with Denon/Marantz AVRs that incorporates Audyssey technology.....Possibly gonna compete against Dirac???


----------



## Skylinestar

I'm wondering if MultEQ-X will be featured only on new AVR. Hope it does support common mic like UMIK-1.


----------



## ddlooping

I do hope it's retro-compatible


----------



## Keenan

ddlooping said:


> I do hope it's retro-compatible





Skylinestar said:


> I'm wondering if MultEQ-X will be featured only on new AVR. Hope it does support common mic like UMIK-1.


Given how this industry usually operates it wouldn't surprise me at all if this new iteration of Audyssey will require new AVRs; new feature, new equipment, new money; it's how the AV industry rolls.


----------



## fmalczewski

Keenan said:


> Given how this industry usually operates it wouldn't surprise me at all if this new iteration of Audyssey will require new AVRs; new feature, new equipment, new money; it's how the AV industry rolls.


Well it was mentioned recently that you should hold onto your Audyssey Pro kits... 

And yeah I hope somehow they will continue to support my AVR-X7200WA now that Windows 11 is a thing, even if it's just to make that old Pro kit PC software continue to work with post Windows 10 OSes.


----------



## Soulburner

We are in pure speculation mode now, but I wonder if Pro Kit serial holders will get a discount or a free upgrade to MultEQ-X. Because I can't see that hardware being relevant anymore.


----------



## Mike_WI

Soulburner said:


> We are in pure speculation mode now, but I wonder if Pro Kit serial holders will get a discount or a free upgrade to MultEQ-X. Because I can't see that hardware being relevant anymore.


Great query / comment


----------



## Keenan

fmalczewski said:


> Well it was mentioned recently that you should hold onto your Audyssey Pro kits...
> 
> And yeah I hope somehow they will continue to support my AVR-X7200WA now that Windows 11 is a thing, even if it's just to make that old Pro kit PC software continue to work with post Windows 10 OSes.


Yes, X6500H here and if that unit is supported I'll be happy.


----------



## fmalczewski

Soulburner said:


> We are in pure speculation mode now, but I wonder if Pro Kit serial holders will get a discount or a free upgrade to MultEQ-X. Because I can't see that hardware being relevant anymore.


Well a few pages back somebody posted a link to a youtube video where it was rather explicitly said by one of the speakers (never quite watched it to figure out who was who), presumably from Audyssey or some sort of insider, that if you have a Pro Kit it may be a good idea to hold onto it, so sure it's speculation until things really happen, but not just pulling it out of pure thin air.


----------



## Jimmy2Shoes

It would be a real miss opportunity if they don't just go with the standard Umik-1 for the MultEQ-X. I mean how many user's have a pro kit lying around🤷‍♂️
Anyway it's all speculation in which direction this is going but exciting to say the least and long overdue as well.
If they offer a more user friendly curve editor similar to Dirac I may be swayed to return to Audyssey.

Jim


----------



## Soulburner

fmalczewski said:


> Well a few pages back somebody posted a link to a youtube video where it was rather explicitly said by one of the speakers (never quite watched it to figure out who was who), presumably from Audyssey or some sort of insider, that if you have a Pro Kit it may be a good idea to hold onto it, so sure it's speculation until things really happen, but not just pulling it out of pure thin air.


Exactly why I speculated as to what use it could have in 2022.


----------



## EyeWasAbducted

I can’t enable center spread for some reason. I turn it on and a second later it turns itself off. This is while using Dolby Surround. Any ideas?


----------



## Soulburner

EyeWasAbducted said:


> I can’t enable center spread for some reason. I turn it on and a second later it turns itself off. This is while using Dolby Surround. Any ideas?


Update firmware?


----------



## ThierryB

EyeWasAbducted said:


> I can’t enable center spread for some reason. I turn it on and a second later it turns itself off. This is while using Dolby Surround. Any ideas?


Is the source 2 channel stereo ?


----------



## EyeWasAbducted

Soulburner said:


> Update firmware?


Fully updated.


ThierryB said:


> Is the source 2 channel stereo ?


Yes.

a little more info. I had a x2700h and center spread worked fine. I updated to x3700h a few days ago and just set it up on Wednesday. Ever since then I can’t enable center spread. It goes on then clicks off.


----------



## ThierryB

EyeWasAbducted said:


> Fully updated.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> a little more info. I had a x2700h and center spread worked fine. I updated to x3700h a few days ago and just set it up on Wednesday. Ever since then I can’t enable center spread. It goes on then clicks off.


I would try a restart / soft reset as described in post #5 here : "OFFICIAL" 2020 Denon AVR Owner's Thread...


----------



## doni01

Hi guys, was wondering if I can get your expertise on my set up. I have a somewhat different set up from everyone else here therefore I need some help running Audyssey. Waiting on a new carpet to come in and plan on running the Audyssey again after that. I just want to make sure, I am getting optimum sound. What would be the best positions on running the Audyssey based on my set up? There is 8 positions so where do you guys suggest I run them based on the pics below?

Also I am running a 7.2.2 set up. My top speakers are just a tad ahead of the two front chairs based on the dolby instructions. My question is, do I set them as Top Front or Top Middle? Thank you in advance.


----------



## pbz06

doni01 said:


> Hi guys, was wondering if I can get your expertise on my set up. I have a somewhat different set up from everyone else here therefore I need some help running Audyssey. Waiting on a new carpet to come in and plan on running the Audyssey again after that. I just want to make sure, I am getting optimum sound. What would be the best positions on running the Audyssey based on my set up? There is 8 positions so where do you guys suggest I run them based on the pics below?
> 
> Also I am running a 7.2.2 set up. My top speakers are just a tad ahead of the two front chairs based on the dolby instructions. My question is, do I set them as Top Front or Top Middle? Thank you in advance.


If you only have one pair of ceiling/Atmos speakers, Dolby recommends doing a "Top Middle" configuration. But I think you'll be fine keeping it as Top Middle assignment even though it’s technically closer to a top front, as you'll get the overhead effect still and it will be convincing. The good news is if you do add a second pair, you'll be able to then assign it as a Top Front and Top Rear later on.


----------



## doni01

pbz06 said:


> If you only have one pair of ceiling/Atmos speakers, Dolby recommends doing a "Top Middle" configuration. But I think you'll be fine keeping it as Top Middle assignment, as you'll get the overhead effect still and it will be convincing. The good news is if you do add a second pair, you'll be able to then assign it as a Top Front and Top Rear later on.


Thank you. I wanted to add the second pair but will have to change the location of the front ones and then make new holes for the rear. With that being said, the front and rears will only work for the first row unfortunately. That is the reason that I have been holding off and just settled on the only one set ☹


----------



## Rich 63

doni01 said:


> Hi guys, was wondering if I can get your expertise on my set up. I have a somewhat different set up from everyone else here therefore I need some help running Audyssey. Waiting on a new carpet to come in and plan on running the Audyssey again after that. I just want to make sure, I am getting optimum sound. What would be the best positions on running the Audyssey based on my set up? There is 8 positions so where do you guys suggest I run them based on the pics below?
> 
> Also I am running a 7.2.2 set up. My top speakers are just a tad ahead of the two front chairs based on the dolby instructions. My question is, do I set them as Top Front or Top Middle? Thank you in advance.


You have to have 1 money spot otherwise there is no prefect seat and all are a compromise. Mlp first, then 2ft in each direction in a circle. Suppose you could try first position between front seats then a circle. If your running the newer denons think they have 2 slots for seperate runs. Or buy the app and switch then out that way.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

doni01 said:


> Hi guys, was wondering if I can get your expertise on my set up. I have a somewhat different set up from everyone else here therefore I need some help running Audyssey. Waiting on a new carpet to come in and plan on running the Audyssey again after that. I just want to make sure, I am getting optimum sound. What would be the best positions on running the Audyssey based on my set up? There is 8 positions so where do you guys suggest I run them based on the pics below?
> 
> Also I am running a 7.2.2 set up. My top speakers are just a tad ahead of the two front chairs based on the dolby instructions. My question is, do I set them as Top Front or Top Middle? Thank you in advance.


I don’t know that. But I really want to scoot those chairs together! I’m a believer in one money seat, but they all look to be off a bit. Maybe it’s just the angle…


----------



## sjm817

I recall seeing somewhere maybe in this thread about Audyssey down sampling his res audio formats to 16 bit because of filtering performance. Can someone confim this and answer a question?

Using Denon HEOS input say you got a 96K/24 bit stream, what would the Denon be able to do with it? If Audyssey is used, would it be downsampled and to what? Related question is if Im using direct playback, no Audyssey filtering, is there still a downsample?

Thanks!


----------



## pbarach

sjm817 said:


> I recall seeing somewhere maybe in this thread about Audyssey down sampling his res audio formats to 16 bit because of filtering performance. Can someone confim this and answer a question?
> 
> Using Denon HEOS input say you got a 96K/24 bit stream, what would the Denon be able to do with it? If Audyssey is used, would it be downsampled and to what? Related question is if Im using direct playback, no Audyssey filtering, is there still a downsample?
> 
> Thanks!


What I don't know is how HEOS handles hi-res signals. But Audyssey is limited to 48K (I don't know about bit depth), so signals 96K and above are downsampled, filtered by Audyssey, then converted to analog. If you're using DIRECT playback, Audyssey is bypassed and there is no downsampling--but you also lose bass management.


----------



## sjm817

pbarach said:


> What I don't know is how HEOS handles hi-res signals. But Audyssey is limited to 48K (I don't know about bit depth), so signals 96K and above are downsampled, filtered by Audyssey, then converted to analog. If you're using DIRECT playback, Audyssey is bypassed and there is no downsampling--but you also lose bass management.


Perfect. Thanks for the answer. In this use case, direct and no bass management works well.


----------



## garygarrison

Does *one particular sound system*, *in its room*, sound better *with Audyssey engaged* (downsampling and all) *or not?* 

*AES* and others said they could not discern an *audible* difference between 16 bit 48K and higher rez. (I'm under the impression that AES has surrounded itself with a $5,000/$10,000 forest of thorns, so as a lowly consumer, I won't print their results here.) Here is an excerpt from another source (Tom's Hardware)*: *"*Why Audio Formats Above 16-Bit/44.1 kHz Don't Matter* ... As a matter of fact, in all of our *blind tests*, we couldn't tell the difference between 44.1 and 176.4 kHz, or 16- and 24-bit recordings ... they don't seem to add anything to consumer audio. Based on our experience, 16-bit and 44.1 kHz provides the best audio quality you're able to experience."

_Before _I read all of the above (after running my hopefully final room correction) I drove myself crazy, using SACDs, comparing Audyssey On (with its downsampling, of course) vs Audyssey Off. Here is what I found for Audyssey on/off in my possibly slightly over treated room*:*

With Audyssey FLAT, and no DEQ, Audyssey sounded better than with no Audyssey. The sound seemed to be a little more detailed, and a little more "musical" and "free floating." I apologize for using those "high end," "golden ears" terms, but they're the only way I could think of to describe how it sounded.
With all other settings, any differences were subtle and unreliable. Sometimes I felt Audyssey On was better, sometimes not. I'd say Audyssey was never worse, just different (or not).


----------



## AtmosFTW

Higher sample rates result in a faster transient response, but this doesn't seem to equate to an audible difference in double blind listening tests as far as I'm aware.

What's far more likely to be audible is the different mastering and deliberately reduced dynamic compression often found on hi-res sources. Convert those down to 44.1/16 with any high quality downsampler and they should still sound identical.


----------



## sjm817

Since I asked the question, it was not related to is Hi Res worth it or audible. IMO, no its not. Just a curiosity more than anything as I am currently comparing different streaming options. I do appreciate the feedback.


----------



## Soulburner

sjm817 said:


> Since I asked the question, it was not related to is Hi Res worth it or audible. IMO, no its not. Just a curiosity more than anything as I am currently comparing different streaming options. I do appreciate the feedback.


Definitely not. We already had full transparency with CD 16-bit 44 kHz nearly 40 years ago. All followers such as Hi-Res and MQA are gimmicks.


----------



## audiofan1

I'll be keeping my DSD and hi-rez playback (not sure about MQA, never heard it) since I missed that meeting 40yrs ago and no further progress was needed. I have Audyssey on tap when I want subs and just feel like it but I do hear the difference !


----------



## bluesky636

audiofan1 said:


> I'll be keeping my DSD and hi-rez playback (not sure about MQA, never heard it) since I missed that meeting 40yrs ago and no further progress was needed. I have Audyssey on tap when I want subs and just feel like it but I do hear the difference !


Really? You've done tightly controlled double blind listening tests using all available sample rates and bit depths? Or do you just subscribe to confirmation bias? You must have zero hearing loss in both ears through the entire audio spectrum and maybe a little beyond.


----------



## AtmosFTW

bluesky636 said:


> Really?


The recordings he's listening to are sourced from different masters. It's the only possible explanation for an audible difference.


----------



## audiofan1

bluesky636 said:


> Really? You've done tightly controlled double blind listening tests using all available sample rates and bit depths? Or do you just subscribe to confirmation bias? You must have zero hearing loss in both ears through the entire audio spectrum and maybe a little beyond.


I've been listening to music for close to 38 yrs now and like to think I've homed in on the skill pretty good now. The testing I've done is quite simple simple, I sit myself down in my listening chair press play and let my onboard measuring gear have at it ! Once the process is done, I make an informed decision bass on the results as my listening time is very valuable to me. I've concluded that Hi-res and DSD suits me just fine but will say the single most important factor is the recording itself and given the choice I would choose the Hi-rez version all day long , I do find 88.2 and DSD to best sounding to my ears and as to why I can't tell you with any other measuring gear other than mentioned above and will leave that to those who have more time to measure than listen.

Happy Thanks giving to all


----------



## bluesky636

audiofan1 said:


> I've been listening to music for close to 38 yrs now and like to think I've homed in on the skill pretty good now. The testing I've done is quite simple simple, I sit myself down in my listening chair press play and let my onboard measuring gear have at it ! Once the process is done, I make an informed decision bass on the results as my listening time is very valuable to me. I've concluded that Hi-res and DSD suits me just fine but will say the single most important factor is the recording itself and given the choice I would choose the Hi-rez version all day long , I do find 88.2 and DSD to best sounding to my ears and as to why I can't tell you with any other measuring gear other than mentioned above and will leave that to those who have more time to measure than listen.
> 
> Happy Thanks giving to all


Ah. So confirmation bias it is. Ok.


----------



## audiofan1

bluesky636 said:


> Ah. So confirmation bias it is. Ok.


Not only but mostly perhaps!


----------



## bluesky636

audiofan1 said:


> Not only but mostly perhaps!


At least you are honest enough to admit it.


----------



## audiofan1

bluesky636 said:


> At least you are honest enough to admit it.


Oh yeah! I make no quibbles about it, it either works for me or doesn't. I use every tool at my disposal and all the knowledge at my disposal. My room is calibrated to the best I know, seating position, acoustic treatments, clean power, good components, great speakers , REW and a collection of good source material. For the most part I have a SOTA playback setup and at the touch of a button I can playback in any format from 2/ch up to 7.1.4 in any resolution (sans vinyl ) and thoroughly enjoy them all as I try to leave no stone unturned.


----------



## Soulburner

The problem is not all variables are accounted for. For a "hi res" release, some additional studio tweaking may have been done to the track.


----------



## audiofan1

Soulburner said:


> The problem is not all variables are accounted for. For a "hi res" release, some additional studio tweaking may have been done to the track.


The original recording itself is most important some have translated to hi-res well and some not. It's just like you hear the early cd's were less than stellar sounding, well that still exist today and since it's very inception, I've recently been on a winning streak of fantastic recordings most of them good ole 16/44hz and it's the recording itself that's the foundation either worth it's salt or not! There is of course pseudo remastering to hi-res done by those with less integrity!


----------



## sjm817

Maybe a crinkle in the armor with my very positive exp with Denon over the years. Onkyo has a couple new models with Dirac onboard which has me thinking.....  I've read a lot of very positive reviews of Dirac but would take some convincing to get me to switch. Any comments (LOL Im sure there are) on this? Anyone spent some time comparing? Is the actual real world sound difference that noticeable? Im sure it will depend on the room environment to a large degree.


----------



## Soulburner

Depends on your room, speakers, number of subs, and technical ability. Simple.


----------



## teddyc23

I was wondering if anyone has had issues with Audyssey and calibrating in ceiling speakers. I have 2 back surround speakers that are in the ceiling. They are not far from the MLP. After the calibration the surround in ceiling speakers seem like they may need to be boosted. Before I go manually tweaking stuff, I was wondering if the mic being pointed up and almost directly below the speakers is causing Audyssey to set the in ceiling speakers volume lower than it should be.

Thanks in advance for any experience you can share.

Teddy


----------



## Rich 63

teddyc23 said:


> I was wondering if anyone has had issues with Audyssey and calibrating in ceiling speakers. I have 2 back surround speakers that are in the ceiling. They are not far from the MLP. After the calibration the surround in ceiling speakers seem like they may need to be boosted. Before I go manually tweaking stuff, I was wondering if the mic being pointed up and almost directly below the speakers is causing Audyssey to set the in ceiling speakers volume lower than it should be.
> 
> Thanks in advance for any experience you can share.
> 
> Teddy


That is the point of R. C. It sets distances so that sound from each speaker arrives at the mlp at the same time and at equal volume. Having said that many, myself included do adjust to taste.


----------



## galonzo

You may be on to something, @teddyc23 , as rear surrounds are expected to be at ear-height; perhaps you can designate them as rear heights? 

Unless, of course, you mean that they are your only surrounds, you may not be able to do so....


----------



## bluesky636

galonzo said:


> You may be on to something, @teddyc23 , as rear surrounds are expected to be at ear-height; perhaps you can designate them as rear heights?
> 
> Unless, of course, you mean that they are your only surrounds, you may not be able to do so....


There is no rule that says rear surrounds have to be at ear height. My rear and side surrounds are at the junction of the side walls and start of the cathedral ceiling. Audyssey has no problems setting levels and distance with them.

Keep in mind that human hearing is less sensitive behind and above. It is perfectly reasonable to boost the surrounds or reduce their level if that is your preference. 

Bottom line, surrounds should NOT be set as heights.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> There is no rule that says rear surrounds have to be at ear height.


Unless you're running Atmos, then they should definitely NOT be placed at the ceiling and should be placed no more than half way up the wall and ideally no more than a foot over your seated height. There's supposed to be a separation between the layers.

Besides, it's hard for surrounds to "surround" you when they are that far away.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Unless you're running Atmos, then they should definitely NOT be placed at the ceiling and should be placed no more than half way up the wall and ideally no more than a foot over your seated height. There's supposed to be a separation between the layers.
> 
> Besides, it's hard for surrounds to "surround" you when they are that far away.


The OP made no mention of Atmos. 

I have a traditional 7.1 system with four Polk bipolar surrounds that do an excellent job of surrounding me, thank you.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> The OP made no mention of Atmos.


Still, I had to clarify because forum readers should understand what the current standards and best practices are.

In the past we could put the surrounds higher, but that is no longer done when height speakers are used.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> In the past we could put the surrounds higher, but that is no longer done when height speakers are used.


No argument there.


----------



## hemiutut

Hi
Does anyone know about the new Audyssey that is introduced on 15
from December ?.
I'm talking about the power of the algorithm and its customization.
Sound United: Audyssey Introduces MultEQ-X - Audio Video Export

Written with translator.

Greetings


----------



## pbz06

hemiutut said:


> Hi
> Does anyone know about the new Audyssey that is introduced on 15
> from December ?.
> I'm talking about the power of the algorithm and its customization.
> Sound United: Audyssey Introduces MultEQ-X - Audio Video Export
> 
> Written with translator.
> 
> Greetings


I signed to watch the presentation. I'm going to be sick that day and call out of work...cough cough.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> I signed to watch the presentation. I'm going to be sick that day and call out of work...cough cough.


There is a late night session that I will be catching.


----------



## mtbdudex

So … Audyssey MulitEq-X
A laptop is shown, indicating a separate computing device is part of it.
“X” … why choose that letter ?















Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

mtbdudex said:


> So … Audyssey MulitEq-X
> A laptop is shown, indicating a separate computing device is part of it.
> “X” … why choose that letter ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


Why not? What difference does it make what letter they picked?


----------



## Soulburner

Lack of creativity, maybe.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Lack of creativity, maybe.


As long as it does what they say it will do they could call it "Bob" for all I care. At least it's not some meaningless name like all the new prescription drugs that have come out lately.


----------



## Keenan

They can call it whatever they want as long as it works with existing equipment.


----------



## sjm817

I wonder if this new capability is driven by the New Onkyos with onboard Dirac.


----------



## Soulburner

sjm817 said:


> I wonder if this new capability is driven by the New Onkyos with onboard Dirac.


And years of user requests for more features and control, no doubt.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> As long as it does what they say it will do they could call it "Bob" for all I care. At least it's not some meaningless name like all the new prescription drugs that have come out lately.


And all the brands of things we buy on Amazon.

I shall look forward to meeting Bob on the 15th!


----------



## bluesky636

Fri


Soulburner said:


> And years of user requests for more features and control, no doubt.


From the short video it sounds like it is for pro installers on top of the line Marantz and Denon AVRs and processors.


----------



## sjm817

The multiEQ app was a pretty significant step forward. It will be interesting to see what this brings.


----------



## sjm817

Top of my wishlist would be to measure and graph results after EQ applied


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> From the short video it sounds like it is for pro installers on top of the line Marantz and Denon AVRs and processors.


In the comments they said "current models" will support it. That could be interpreted as 1) existing models that support the MultEQ app, or 2) literally only the current-gen models. I don't think it's the latter because they specifically named the X8500H (2018), the AV8805 (2017), and the SR7015 (2020). That tells me it is likely going to work with existing models that support the MultEQ smartphone app.


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> In the comments they said "current models" will support it. That could be interpreted as 1) existing models that support the MultEQ app, or 2) literally only the current-gen models. I don't think it's the latter because they specifically named the X8500H (2018), the AV8805 (2017), and the SR7015 (2020). That tells me it is likely going to work with existing models that support the MultEQ smartphone app.


I really hope so. I have an even older SR7011 and have no desire/need to upgrade (yet?)


----------



## bluesky636

Co


Soulburner said:


> In the comments they said "current models" will support it. That could be interpreted as 1) existing models that support the MultEQ app, or 2) literally only the current-gen models. I don't think it's the latter because they specifically named the X8500H (2018), the AV8805 (2017), and the SR7015 (2020). That tells me it is likely going to work with existing models that support the MultEQ smartphone app.


Cost will be a big factor. I have no interest in using the smartphone app with my Denon AVR-X3500H. If the cost is reasonable and performance is more reliable I might consider it.


----------



## mtbdudex

bluesky636 said:


> Why not? What difference does it make what letter they picked?


When I see X in acoustics it reminds me of old school big room cinema mindset 
Validity of X-curve For Cinema Sound 


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

mtbdudex said:


> When I see X in acoustics it reminds me of old school big room cinema mindset
> Validity of X-curve For Cinema Sound
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


Feel free to call it "Bob" if you like.


----------



## Soulburner

Me every time someone starts talking about Dirac:

"But what about Bob?"


----------



## mtbdudex

X marks the spot!!










Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## PixelPusher15

Can someone explain why when I use REW to run a sweep on my L/C/R the low frequencies are quieter than when I run one just on my sub?








Green is the sub, orange is my center. Same thing happens for LR.

This is post Audyssey calibration.


----------



## pbz06

PixelPusher15 said:


> Can someone explain why when I use REW to run a sweep on my L/C/R the low frequencies are quieter than when I run one just on my sub?
> View attachment 3208580
> 
> Green is the sub, orange is my center. Same thing happens for LR.
> 
> This is post Audyssey calibration.


When you run the LFE sweep, it's 10dB louder


----------



## PixelPusher15

pbz06 said:


> When you run the LFE sweep, it's 10dB louder


Is that intentional by the receiver? It’s intentionally raising LFE over just the LCR signal?


----------



## pbz06

PixelPusher15 said:


> Is that intentional by the receiver? It’s intentionally raising LFE over just the LCR signal?


That's just the way it works with REW. Full scale is 105dB for the mains and 115dB for the LFE. When you feed it the same test tone (i.e. -15dBFS) then the LFE will be 10dB louder. You just need to remember to adjust your MV or REW setting accordingly.


----------



## PixelPusher15

pbz06 said:


> That's just the way it works with REW. Full scale is 105dB for the mains and 115dB for the LFE. When you feed it the same test tone (i.e. -15dBFS) then the LFE will be 10dB louder. You just need to remember to adjust your MV or REW setting accordingly.


Well snap. How have I not seen that before. This would have saved some troubleshooting in the past. Not much, but a lil. Thanks! It's good to know this is just a "that's the way it is" thing.


----------



## Soulburner

This might help:









THX reference level explained


What is 'THX Reference Level'? Reference level is a calibrated volume setting used for both movie production (in dubbing stages and post production houses) and reproduction (in screening rooms and theaters). The human hearing system is non-linear, especially in the bass, so having a consistent...




www.acousticfrontiers.com


----------



## hemiutut

As I will not be able to be live at the presentation of the new Audyssey to ask it, I leave my query in case you can ask.
Is it possible to set the target at 72 dB for example and not at 75 dB as usual?

It would be nice to have that option and thus be able to equalize downwards so that Audyssey does not put so many filters with positive gain.
On the internet there are countless screenshots where you can see that when equalizing at 75 dB (reference level), it applies many filters with positive gain where it is not necessary.
I hope this option will be added to the new Audyssey, it is much more important than it seems.

Written with translator

Greetings and thanks.


----------



## Soulburner

What I want to see:

Currently we can set a point above which no correction is applied. Other systems call it a "curtain". That is done because we may not like how the target curve changes the tonality of our speakers.

Allow us to set that point, but above "fit to measurement". That will trace the tweeter response with a moving average (like smoothing) so that the user can keep the tonality of their in-room response but smooth out a few troublesome areas. THEN, give us a +/- 1 dB control at the right side that applies a slope to the response at 20 kHz. The function could also be toggled between a tilt or a shelf starting from the selected point.

So with just a few clicks we could:

Set our normal correction point for the bass and/or lower midrange
Trace the response from that point up through the tweeter range
Dial in the desired tweeter level with a +/- control to add a tilt with an endpoint of 20 kHz, or a shelf with our selected point as the starting point
Imagine how much time that would save us.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> *Unless you're running Atmos*, then they should definitely NOT be placed at the ceiling and should be placed no more than half way up the wall and ideally no more than a foot over your seated height. There's supposed to be a separation between the layers.


I think you mean unless you're NOT running Atmos?

As for ear level, that's not how Dolby Atmos cinemas fo it. Their surround speakers are typically a lot more than a foot above ear level. The home standard _guidelines_ are based on an assumption of a 8-10 foot ceiling height. Obviously, if one's room is unusually tall in height, the positions can and maybe even should be adjusted to some degree. 

What's important is a combination of good layer separation and a smooth transition. If Dolby had used surround speakers just above ear level at the cinema, the transition to the overhead speakers might have a gap in it. AuroMax actually used three distinct layers with surrounds just a few feet above ear level, a second height layer high on the walls (where Dolby has their regular surround speakers) and a third layer on the ceiling (again similar to Dolby' ceiling speakers in the cinema). This really did allow full placement of sounds in a giant cinema room. Sadly, Auro cinema formats lost the war with Dolby. Most either just run regular 5.1/7.1 now or converted to DTS:X that let them keep the same layout.

I've certainly read many comments about Tops in-ceiling speakers at home that make me wonder if there's more of a gap than with Heights+Top Middle like I have here as I normally cannot tell where the lower and upper layers begin and end without turning one off and I've been surprised to find sounds I thought were in one or the other were the opposite. 



> Besides, it's hard for surrounds to "surround" you when they are that far away.


I'd say it's hard for a movie to place a sound far behind you if the surround speakers are at 90-120 degrees with no rears further back. A larger room needs more speakers to fully fill it with surround sound. My rear surrounds are 15 feet behind my MLP, but I have two sets of surrounds between me and them and front wides allow me to have the sides further back with no interruption in imaging on the front and direct sides.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I think you mean unless you're NOT running Atmos?


No, I meant unless you're running Atmos. Surrounds should not be at or near the ceiling.



MagnumX said:


> As for ear level, that's not how Dolby Atmos cinemas fo it. Their surround speakers are typically a lot more than a foot above ear level.


There are reasons for that that do not apply to most homes.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> No, I meant unless you're running Atmos. Surrounds should not be at or near the ceiling.


Dolby systems prior to Atmos suggested surrounds be at either approximately 1/3 height or 2/3 the height of the room (regardless of whether that coincided with "ear level" or not). Ceiling speakers were acceptable as well and quite common for home setups (which is oddly why so many 5.1 and 7.1 systems have them there). It was not until Atmos home systems that Dolby changed their recommendations to put surround speakers at or near ear level, which is terrible advice because heads and headrests (on chairs) alike will block the direct sound from speakers if you have more than 1 row of seats (or 1 person in some cases with surrounds at 90 degrees). Any professional installer will tell you that all speakers should be mounted above head level for this reason for anything but one row of seats.



> There are reasons for that that do not apply to most homes.


If you go to most Dolby Atmos mixing rooms, even small ones similar to a medium sized living room, the surrounds are almost never at ear level. They are at the same relative heights as the cinematic systems. All Dolby Atmos soundtracks are mixed for cinematic specifications, even when near field. If people are looking to recreate the mixing engineer's "intent" the Dolby "guidelines" for the home clearly aren't it.

Example small mixing stage (notice surrounds closer to 2/3 height of walls, not anywhere near ear level for the seated mixing engineer):


----------



## Soulburner

Mine are about a foot above ear level in an 8ft high room.

When Dolby tells me no more than half way up the height of the wall, that's what I'll follow - unless someone has a good reason for me to move them closer to my height speakers. I can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing something.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Mine are about a foot above ear level in an 8ft high room.
> 
> When Dolby tells me no more than half way up the height of the wall, that's what I'll follow - unless someone has a good reason for me to move them closer to my height speakers. I can't think of any, but maybe I'm missing something.


I'm not saying you shouldn't, but I do think it's odd how Dolby says one thing and does another, particularly in regards to mixing rooms. If it were purely a "size" thing (i.e. giant cinemas with 40 foot roofs might need surrounds higher to blend together well, for example), you would expect that in a full size theater mixing stage, but ones like the above are no larger than a decent sized family room (heck that looks smaller than my home theater room) and yet they still follow the cinema layout, even with the speakers so closely spaced together that it seems like it would be hard to tell one set from another as they're clearly well within phantom imaging range even with 2/3 the speakers removed from the setup, but I guess it's more important to scale for the cinema than the home theater, particularly when it's fairly clear by their marketing that Dolby thinks "bouncy" speakers and sound bars are more than adequate for most people to listen to, let alone phones and notebooks branded to run "Atmos" to the point where the name starts to lose its meaning. 

I guess I would have preferred a single standard for home and cinema, even if the home version was scaled back a bit or perhaps if the cinema version wasn't quite so far beyond the home version and yet has speaker spacing that is questionable at best given how hard it is to tell overhead sounds (ANY overhead sounds) from ceiling sounds. In fact, I've seen complaints about the cinema version that claimed they couldn't tell much of anything beyond "loud" as it all sounded the same. Given there isn't an Atmos cinema within 60 miles of my house, I can't really comment on their comments, but it sure looks like those surrounds in that photo above would sound pretty darn similar to the ones on the ceiling if they were imaging between the speakers at similar x-coordinates. I've heard some sounds at home that were hard to tell between the sides imaging just over my head and the top middles imaging closer to the ceiling, but sometimes sound just above my head too depending on the content while I've heard some sounds appear to come from close to the ceiling that turned out to be the ear level speakers (HRTF effect I assume). I guess I shouldn't be picky and just enjoy the "bubble" in such cases, but it would be interesting to hear some variations on the layout if the ceiling were higher and the ear level speakers were on adjustable stands. 

In fact, I've often wondered about Auro-3D's 3rd layer at home if you could put the VOG several feet above the surround height speakers (even if they're in the ceiling directly above you, the surround heights image within inches of the same location if the image is in-phase and images between the two two in line with the center channel speaker (i.e. the diagrams always show it as if the VOG were many feet above the surround heights, which isn't practical in most home environments, but perhaps with a 12 foot ceiling, you could have surround heights at 8 or 9 feet and still have the VOG at 12 feet with ear levels at 4 feet or so and have three distinct layers. Unfortunately, the VOG is mono in home Auro-3D so it wouldn't quite have the same effect as the cinema AuroMax version that has distinct stereo placement in all three layers. Ironically, there were two AuroMax theaters within 10 minutes of my house (one within a 4 minute drive) when they were still active, but by the time I found out about them, they had all but stopped showing movies in Auro-3D at the cinemas and I never got to hear them in action. I think it would have been interesting with a movie like _Turbo_ or even _Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle_ to hear how it compared. I think they were slated to be converted to DTS:X, but then the pandemic hit and I haven't heard anything about any upgrades since.


----------



## Mike Garrett

MagnumX said:


> Dolby systems prior to Atmos suggested surrounds be at either approximately 1/3 height or 2/3 the height of the room (regardless of whether that coincided with "ear level" or not). Ceiling speakers were acceptable as well and quite common for home setups (which is oddly why so many 5.1 and 7.1 systems have them there). It was not until Atmos home systems that Dolby changed their recommendations to put surround speakers at or near ear level, which is terrible advice because heads and headrests (on chairs) alike will block the direct sound from speakers if you have more than 1 row of seats (or 1 person in some cases with surrounds at 90 degrees). Any professional installer will tell you that all speakers should be mounted above head level for this reason for anything but one row of seats.
> 
> 
> 
> If you go to most Dolby Atmos mixing rooms, even small ones similar to a medium sized living room, the surrounds are almost never at ear level. They are at the same relative heights as the cinematic systems. All Dolby Atmos soundtracks are mixed for cinematic specifications, even when near field. If people are looking to recreate the mixing engineer's "intent" the Dolby "guidelines" for the home clearly aren't it.
> 
> Example small mixing stage (notice surrounds closer to 2/3 height of walls, not anywhere near ear level for the seated mixing engineer):


Dolby did not build the mixing room. Whoever designed it chose to place the surrounds at that height. As for movie theater, I can think of two reasons why the side surround speakers are up higher. One is to avoid damage from vandalism. Second reason would be because of potential law suit from hearing damage. If the surround was at ear height, it would be very close to someone's ear and with the distance that speaker has to cover in a commercial theater, it could be damaging to a person's hearing if right beside their ear.


----------



## MagnumX

Levels are calibrated. No hearing damage. There's a difference between ear level, above ear level and 2/3 up the wall. Recording studios follow Dolby specifications. No one cares about a thousand different home layouts. They design for the cinema specs which must be followed. The odds your neighbor will even follow guidelines with a lot of wiggle room? Not so good. I've seen home setups with the surround speakers on top of the TV and mains in the corners of the room (yeah it was a family member) and nothing I said mattered because that's what "looked good"...... (sigh)


----------



## bluesky636

For some reason I thought this was the Audyssey thread and there was another thread to discuss Atmos.


----------



## Mike Garrett

MagnumX said:


> Levels are calibrated. No hearing damage. There's a difference between ear level, above ear level and 2/3 up the wall. Recording studios follow Dolby specifications. No one cares about a thousand different home layouts. They design for the cinema specs which must be followed. The odds your neighbor will even follow guidelines with a lot of wiggle room? Not so good. I've seen home setups with the surround speakers on top of the TV and mains in the corners of the room (yeah it was a family member) and nothing I said mattered because that's what "looked good"...... (sigh)


Yes, calibrated to hit a specified level, but that level is not measured right in front of the speaker. Where someone would be sitting, if side surround speakers were at ear height.


----------



## MagnumX

Mike Garrett said:


> Yes, calibrated to hit a specified level, but that level is not measured right in front of the speaker. Where someone would be sitting, if side surround speakers were at ear height.


Again, no one suggested putting them at ear height, possibly a few feet above but not at ear height. My point was more that home Atmos doesn't follow cinema not the other way around.


----------



## Mike Garrett

MagnumX said:


> Again, no one suggested putting them at ear height, possibly a few feet above but not at ear height. My point was more that home Atmos doesn't follow cinema not the other way around.


I think it has more to do with the room size, If I was designing a home cinema the size of a commercial theater, it would mean higher output on the surrounds and I would move the side surrounds up some also.


----------



## Pete7874

This probably deserves its own thread, but I'll link it here anyway:


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/audyssey-multeq-x-brings-powerful-130000958.html


----------



## ThierryB

Pete7874 said:


> This probably deserves its own thread, but I'll link it here anyway:
> 
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/audyssey-multeq-x-brings-powerful-130000958.html


Kind of stupid that this is only Windows based... a lot of people use a Mac... I am out


----------



## pbz06

I don't think it's possible, nor their intent, to release something that fits within every user's budget and use case across every platform.


----------



## Pete7874

ThierryB said:


> Kind of stupid that this is only Windows based... a lot of people use a Mac... I am out


It says "Support for more systems will be available in the future." Hopefully it is not a too distant future.


----------



## ThierryB

pbz06 said:


> I don't think it's possible, nor their intent, to release something that fits within every user's budget and use case across every platform.


It if perfectly possible to develop cross platform applications nowdays at almost no extra cost. They cut their target market by a huge chunk already by supporting windows only.
Rew is free and works on different platforms.

They do it already for the MultiEQ app on both Android and iOS and is costs $20 which is 10 times less...


----------



## ThierryB

Pete7874 said:


> It says "Support for more systems will be available in the future." Hopefully it is not a too distant future.


Yeah hopefully.


----------



## pbz06

ThierryB said:


> It if perfectly possible to develop cross platform applications nowdays at almost no extra cost. They cut their target market by a huge chunk already by supporting windows only.
> Rew is free and works on different platforms.
> 
> They do it already for the MultiEQ app on both Android and iOS and is costs $20 which is 10 times less...


You are free to start your own company and develop it off donations


----------



## mtbdudex

Waiting for webinar .. 7 minutes late now 

I hear “webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line”











Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

Pete7874 said:


> This probably deserves its own thread, but I'll link it here anyway:
> 
> 
> https://finance.yahoo.com/news/audyssey-multeq-x-brings-powerful-130000958.html


Ok then, I paid … $200 ? years ago for my audyssey pro lic on my 4308CI

“The download of MultEQ-X includes a virtual demonstration AVR to showcase the features and settings available to the user. To calibrate an AVR, a license must be acquired through an in-app purchase of $199.99, which entitles the user to calibrate a single AVR for the lifetime of the AVR. Licenses are per-user and per-AVR-serial-number, and are non-transferrable. Please refer to the Microsoft Store for detailed terms and conditions.”


Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## mtbdudex

ThierryB said:


> Kind of stupid that this is only Windows based... a lot of people use a Mac... I am out


“macOS is later based on demand.
Now can us on intel based Mac with parallels “










Sent from my iPhone 11Pro using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

ThierryB said:


> Kind of stupid that this is only Windows based... a lot of people use a Mac... I am out


Use an emulator.


----------



## MagnumX

For lifetime of the AVR not your lifetime. For D&M that means 1 year unless it's the flagship. No codec updates after that. Never again. Buy new AVR for software update. Ridiculous.


----------



## pbarach

FYI, there is a MultiEQ-X thread here:








Audyssey MultEQ-X


The new app is now available on the Microsoft Store (Get MultEQ-X - Microsoft Store) and claims to be compatible with any device that works with the Multi-EQ Editor app. I will be testing later today and wanted to create a thread to discuss. Please chime in with observations. My first...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Soulburner

pbarach said:


> FYI, there is a MultiEQ-X thread here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey MultEQ-X
> 
> 
> The new app is now available on the Microsoft Store (Get MultEQ-X - Microsoft Store) and claims to be compatible with any device that works with the Multi-EQ Editor app. I will be testing later today and wanted to create a thread to discuss. Please chime in with observations. My first...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Great! More Audyssey thread fragmentation, even after I pleaded for us to avoid it:



Soulburner said:


> I'm starting to think we don't need multiple threads for Audyssey, with a separate thread for the Audyssey app, and that will be even more true when the new PC software is available. I'd like to put out a call to all to post that new information in the main Audyssey thread and not create a 3rd thread. Thank you.


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> Great! More Audyssey thread fragmentation, even after I pleaded for us to avoid it:


You mean you don't like people posting the same question in 3 threads?


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> For lifetime of the AVR not your lifetime. For D&M that means 1 year unless it's the flagship. No codec updates after that. Never again. Buy new AVR for software update. Ridiculous.




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471988845046427648


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1471988845046427648


I can't believe the fanboy gushing in at that other thread (people getting angry if you don't actually think Audyssey is the best room correction software there is, which is absurd. It was the best you could get below over $5K until the HTP-1 came out and soon Onkyo. That doesn't make it "bad" but that doesn't mean I'm allegiant to it either). As far as I've been able to tell, there's NOTHING new in that editor that I can see except PC-based editing (you can use a mouse in iOS and Android for god's sake if it's that important) and "promises" of future improvements. Where's the improvements to the existing app? Hey, why charge $29 when you can charge $200 or more for the exact same thing? 

Something useful like having verification of applied settings isn't there. It still only "guesses" at how it will behave (not even close in REW verification for main channels here to the perfectly flat +/- 0dB graph it predicts (reality is it's still at least +/- 2.5dB at best, which is a slight improvement on main curve (from mostly 3-3.5db). Bass is improved the most and some say that's the only part that really matters as changing above Schrodinger may end up changing the 'sound' of the speakers themselves rather than just limiting reflections and room mode peaks/dips. Audyssey can work with multiple subs without the extra $500 charge or whatever DIRAC's multiple bass option costs, so that apparently makes it better to some (maybe cheaper). But it can already do that without this $200 app. The built-in Automatic setting will do it, even. Given the "predictions" show PERFECT flat curves (if you remove the mid-level compensation option), what exactly is there to adjust? You'd need to see the ACTUAL RESULTS to make adjustments other than guesses. But again, there is no verification after settings are applied for some unfathomable reason. You'd think that would be an "advanced" setting or something. 

Most people probably just use the automatic setting anyway except to bandwidth limit it and use the app editor to save multiple configurations for things like "heights/tops" settings since certain people have convinced some users that it needs to be different for DTS:X versus Atmos (_ridiculous_ to have to do in practice). 

Now if it had included some _useful_ new features of some kind (like verification before editing changes are made to show the actual curve to try adjusting to get the result you want) or some way to verify where sound changes might be useful sounding (e.g. Let you play a piece of music or even an Atmos sample set of sounds and compare more than one setting for the effect of the new curve for instance), then I could see maybe it's worth some extra money compared to the App version. But what I see in reality is obsessed fans raving about paying 7x as much for _nothing _(and then getting hostile if anyone questions it). I have a Mac too and I'm not setting up Windows on it just for that. No sale.


----------



## pbz06

MagnumX said:


> I can't believe the fanboy gushing in at that other thread (people getting angry if you don't actually think Audyssey is the best room correction software there is, which is absurd. It was the best you could get below over $5K until the HTP-1 came out and soon Onkyo. That doesn't make it "bad" but that doesn't mean I'm allegiant to it either). As far as I've been able to tell, there's NOTHING new in that editor that I can see except PC-based editing (you can use a mouse in iOS and Android for god's sake if it's that important) and "promises" of future improvements. Where's the improvements to the existing app? Hey, why charge $29 when you can charge $200 or more for the exact same thing?
> 
> Something useful like having verification of applied settings isn't there. It still only "guesses" at how it will behave (not even close in REW verification for main channels here to the perfectly flat +/- 0dB graph it predicts (reality is it's still at least +/- 2.5dB at best, which is a slight improvement on main curve (from mostly 3-3.5db). Bass is improved the most and some say that's the only part that really matters as changing above Schrodinger may end up changing the 'sound' of the speakers themselves rather than just limiting reflections and room mode peaks/dips. Audyssey can work with multiple subs without the extra $500 charge or whatever DIRAC's multiple bass option costs, so that apparently makes it better to some (maybe cheaper). But it can already do that without this $200 app. The built-in Automatic setting will do it, even. Given the "predictions" show PERFECT flat curves (if you remove the mid-level compensation option), what exactly is there to adjust? You'd need to see the ACTUAL RESULTS to make adjustments other than guesses. But again, there is no verification after settings are applied for some unfathomable reason. You'd think that would be an "advanced" setting or something.
> 
> Most people probably just use the automatic setting anyway except to bandwidth limit it and use the app editor to save multiple configurations for things like "heights/tops" settings since certain people have convinced some users that it needs to be different for DTS:X versus Atmos (_ridiculous_ to have to do in practice).
> 
> Now if it had included some _useful_ new features of some kind (like verification before editing changes are made to show the actual curve to try adjusting to get the result you want) or some way to verify where sound changes might be useful sounding (e.g. Let you play a piece of music or even an Atmos sample set of sounds and compare more than one setting for the effect of the new curve for instance), then I could see maybe it's worth some extra money compared to the App version. But what I see in reality is obsessed fans raving about paying 7x as much for _nothing _(and then getting hostile if anyone questions it). I have a Mac too and I'm not setting up Windows on it just for that. No sale.


Take a deep breath, man. You seem really angry and agitated about Audyssey. You can just not use it and be happy, no need to go on tirade tangents about cancel culture and stuff. I'm getting ready to take some PTO for 2 weeks, I hope you can get some relaxation time and enjoy time with family and friends. This hobby is meant to be fun...


----------



## StephenMSmith

Is Audyssey totally software based? Just curious. I'd pay consider paying $200 if I could upgrade the basic MultEQ in my Denon 750H to MultEQ XT or higher.


----------



## Soulburner

StephenMSmith said:


> Is Audyssey totally software based? Just curious. I'd pay consider paying $200 if I could upgrade the basic MultEQ in my Denon 750H to MultEQ XT or higher.


The capabilities of your AVR are hardware locked and can't be changed by the Audyssey app. Maybe someone savvy enough can figure out if the lower models are just as capable and could be unlocked via firmware. This was done with Canon cameras, for example, to enable extra features.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Soulburner said:


> The capabilities of your AVR are hardware locked and can't be changed by the Audyssey app. Maybe someone savvy enough can figure out if the lower models are just as capable and could be unlocked via firmware. This was done with Canon cameras, for example, to enable extra features.


Gotcha. But does Audyssey employ hardware specific chips, or does it just rely on DSP in receiver? ie. is my 750H capable of supporting MultEQXT 32 if it wasn't hardware locked?


----------



## Soulburner

StephenMSmith said:


> Gotcha. But does Audyssey employ hardware specific chips, or does it just rely on DSP in receiver? ie. is my 750H capable of supporting MultEQXT 32 if it wasn't hardware locked?


That is the question. I don't know.


----------



## MagnumX

pbz06 said:


> Take a deep breath, man. You seem really angry and agitated about Audyssey. You can just not use it and be happy, no need to go on tirade tangents about cancel culture and stuff. I'm getting ready to take some PTO for 2 weeks, I hope you can get some relaxation time and enjoy time with family and friends. This hobby is meant to be fun...


I'm not irritated by Audyssey. I like it just fine. I'm irritated by that overpriced app (in its current state), non-transferable license locked to one AVR and the hoopla defending it and thus my comments. I bought the iOS app and like it just fine for the price. I'd still have liked a new sampled measurement after it's applied to base curve adjustments on given my REW measurements on the mains and I think maybe that would make it worth the extra money.

I've never understood how you're supposed to tell what to adjust on the curve when automatic shows a _perfect_ result already. If it actually remeasured with the applied curve, you could then tweak it far more easily.

As for relaxing, there can be no such thing having to take care of my mother after her stroke (balance issues risk falling and bad lower back pain in morning increases risk) so I've had to call off work and stay at her house all week and will have to start driving round trip two hours a day going back to work later today all because she didn't want to go to her doctor anymore over the summer to get her insulin which is what they think likely caused it in the first place (high blood sugar for several months). My brother lives 12-15 minutes away, but apparently would rather put her in a nursing home than check on her daily until/if she regains her balance properly. I wonder if she thought about putting him in an orphanage if he crapped his diaper once too many times as a child.....(sigh) The sad thing is he's ultra religious too and that is how they treat their parents? You gotta love hypocrisy....

Sorry for being off topic, but yeah it's starting to wear on me. This was the 2nd incident in the past three months (she recovered fast from the first one except for some numb fingers on one side, but a 2nd stroke has a 1/5 chance it seems, despite her idiot doctor not recognizing it as such (brain stem stroke on 2nd time by my observations). If that's what it was, it can take an average of six months to get balance back to normal and she can't drive for six months regardless. That's a lot of potential driving. Her insurance beyond Medicare is local HMO so I can't just move her in with me and I'd have to modify my house on top of that (already mostly done at her house) so it's a hot mess.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> I'm not irritated by Audyssey. I like it just fine. I'm irritated by that overpriced app (in its current state), non-transferable license locked to one AVR and the hoopla defending it and thus my comments. I bought the iOS app and like it just fine for the price. I'd still have liked a new sampled measurement after it's applied to base curve adjustments on given my REW measurements on the mains and I think maybe that would make it worth the extra money.
> 
> I've never understood how you're supposed to tell what to adjust on the curve when automatic shows a _perfect_ result already. If it actually remeasured with the applied curve, you could then tweak it far more easily.


So Jeff Clark, Director of Software Engineering at Audyssey, is just making it up, then?

Edit: Sorry to hear about your mother.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> So Jeff Clark, Director of Software Engineering at Audyssey, is just making it up, then?
> 
> Edit: Sorry to hear about your mother.


Making what up? Perfect projected corrections? A projection is not reality (real world results). Perhaps the amp/speaker simply cannot overpower a giant dip (common and not likely shown by the projected results) and a 2-4 foot average isn't indicative of a single space your ears or microphone may occupy.

My REW measurements for the mains aren't perfectly flat like the predictions show and running the calibration more than once following stated instructions has produced very different audible results before, particularly on the high end. Being able to tweak instead of starting over and hoping for the best would be helpful.

You sound like you're taking it personally, however. I don't know anything about this Jeff Clark, but no subjective software is perfect. I'm simply stating what features would make it better for me.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Making what up? Perfect projected corrections? A projection is not reality (real world results).


They have said it repeatedly: during development they test this over and over – they use a laser to place the microphone in the exact same locations as were given to Audyssey, perform the same averaging, and apply the same smoothing, and guess what? The results are the same as the "predicted" result.

If you get different results, it's because 1) you aren't using the same measurement points 2) you aren't doing the same averaging, 3) you aren't applying the same smoothing.



MagnumX said:


> My REW measurements for the mains aren't perfectly flat like the predictions show


How are you confirming the results? Do all of the above and size the window to the same size as your phone screen and you might be surprised.


----------



## PixelPusher15

Soulburner said:


> They have said it repeatedly: during development they test this over and over – they use a laser to place the microphone in the exact same locations as were given to Audyssey, perform the same averaging, and apply the same smoothing, and guess what? The results are the same as the "predicted" result.
> 
> If you get different results, it's because 1) you aren't using the same measurement points 2) you aren't doing the same averaging, 3) you aren't applying the same smoothing.
> 
> 
> How are you confirming the results? Do all of the above and size the window to the same size as your phone screen and you might be surprised.


Wait, are you saying the predicted results match the actual results in their testing? Because that's silly. I've run sweeps with REW in the same exact place as my Denon mic and they for sure aren't hitting their predicted results. Maybe Audyssey is doing their testing in perfect rooms and their algos have a higher prediction rate there.


----------



## Soulburner

PixelPusher15 said:


> Wait, are you saying the predicted results match the actual results in their testing? Because that's silly. I've run sweeps with REW in the same exact place as my Denon mic and they for sure aren't hitting their predicted results. Maybe Audyssey is doing their testing in perfect rooms and their algos have a higher prediction rate there.


Did you use all of the same positions and average them? Part of the issue could be we don't know if they are doing a simple averaging or applying any weighting, or using any "secret sauce".


----------



## pbz06

PixelPusher15 said:


> Wait, are you saying the predicted results match the actual results in their testing? Because that's silly. I've run sweeps with REW in the same exact place as my Denon mic and they for sure aren't hitting their predicted results. Maybe Audyssey is doing their testing in perfect rooms and their algos have a higher prediction rate there.


That's their claim, but regardless it doesn't matter. It's obvious the predictions are smoothed more than the before, but the bottom line is my REW measurements consistently track the correct trajectory +/- say 3dB which is considered good.


----------



## MagnumX

+/- 6dB is about a 60% difference in audible volume peak to peak (4x in linear terms). If that's Audyssey's idea of perfectly flat "predictions" then that is sad. Like I said elsewhere, if you smooth long/hard enough a mountain will look like a flat plain too.

The "before" images sure resemble the REW graphs..... They must only average the heck out of the result side. But once more, how the heck can you know what to adjust on the curves if it's showing you FLAT as a line???

My speakers are rated +/- 1.5dB (PSB), but that's not in a real world room. According to REW, I'm getting mostly +/- 4db with some 5db thrown in without room correction and about +/- 3.5dB with correction with most within +/- 2.5dB including the subwoofer. Given most real world speakers are at best +/- 3dB, I considered that pretty good overall response, but I still can't tweak on flat predictions so I didn't. The only things I played with was mid-range compensation and correcting only below the approximate Schrodinger frequency to compare plus flat vs reference and L/R off and off period along with trying more than one calibration and trying it calibrated using my arrays engaged (which sounded the most alike in pink noise).


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> Part of the issue could be we don't know if they are doing a simple averaging or applying any weighting, or using any "secret sauce".


Agreed. I may have missed some of the forum info in the last couple of months. I seem to remember they are *not* doing a simple averaging. Their "secret sauce" is some kind of "fuzzy logic."

I guess Audyssey might have to be smarter than it is to produce a perfectly flat curve in some rooms. If their measurements show a 4 dB deficit at a certain frequency, isn't it true that Audyssey applying a 4 dB correction (boost) at that frequency may not fix it, especially if the original deficit is due to a null (or nullette






)



MagnumX said:


> correcting only below the approximate Schrodinger frequency


Is there a difference between _Schroeder _and _Schrodinger_? Isn't Schrodinger the guy with the cat?


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> Agreed. I may have missed some of the forum info in the last couple of months. I seem to remember they are *not* doing a simple averaging. Their "secret sauce" is some kind of "fuzzy logic."
> 
> I guess Audyssey might have to be smarter than it is to produce a perfectly flat curve in some rooms. If their measurements show a 4 dB deficit at a certain frequency, isn't it true that Audyssey applying a 4 dB correction (boost) at that frequency may not fix it, especially if the original deficit is due to a null (or nullette
> View attachment 3212229
> )
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a difference between _Schroeder _and _Schrodinger_? Isn't Schrodinger the guy with the cat?


I always confuse the two. 

I think of Schroeder as the piano player from Peanuts.


----------



## Sug101

First post. Hope here’s a good place to share Audyssey results.

Been fiddling around with Audyssey XT32 (Denon X3400h) trying to get a good bass response for my Monolith 10 subwoofer. To my ears the response sounds and feels good, but when I look at the graph I see a dip near what I’m assuming is 20hz and then the curve goes up again. Is this normal?










If this isn’t the right place to discuss this, please point me in the right direction.

Also, any thoughts on L/R Bypass for Audyssey? I have Kef Q150 and they sound warmer with Audyssey. I enjoy them like that, but wondering if it’s not better to leave them default.

Thanks!


----------



## PixelPusher15

Sug101 said:


> First post. Hope here’s a good place to share Audyssey results.
> 
> Been fiddling around with Audyssey XT32 (Denon X3400h) trying to get a good bass response for my Monolith 10 subwoofer. To my ears the response sounds and feels good, but when I look at the graph I see a dip near what I’m assuming is 20hz and then the curve goes up again. Is this normal?
> 
> View attachment 3212494
> 
> 
> If this isn’t the right place to discuss this, please point me in the right direction.
> 
> Also, any thoughts on L/R Bypass for Audyssey? I have Kef Q150 and they sound warmer with Audyssey. I enjoy them like that, but wondering if it’s not better to leave them default.
> 
> Thanks!


That dip is around 40hz and is a null most likely caused by your room. Best way to try to treat it is by experimenting with placement. Easy method is to play a 40hz sine wave, put your sub in your MLP position and walk around to potential sub placements. The places that are louder are potential placements for the sub. You may find those placements have other issues though. Basically, do a sub crawl. 

Hmm, first time giving advice on this sorta stuff so someone else correct me if I'm wrong here.


----------



## Sug101

PixelPusher15 said:


> That dip is around 40hz and is a null most likely caused by your room. Best way to try to treat it is by experimenting with placement. Easy method is to play a 40hz sine wave, put your sub in your MLP position and walk around to potential sub placements. The places that are louder are potential placements for the sub. You may find those placements have other issues though. Basically, do a sub crawl.
> 
> Hmm, first time giving advice on this sorta stuff so someone else correct me if I'm wrong here.


Hey, thank you for the response!

Ah, dang. I’m going to have to buy a long subwoofer to AVR cable, since my MLP is too far from the AVR for the current one to reach.

Consequently, I remember there being a software that read your room and gave you potential good Subwoofer placements. Was it REW or something else? Would that be a good solution too or just the sub crawl would suffice?


----------



## pbz06

Sug101 said:


> Hey, thank you for the response!
> 
> Ah, dang. I’m going to have to buy a long subwoofer to AVR cable, since my MLP is too far from the AVR for the current one to reach.
> 
> Consequently, I remember there being a software that read your room and gave you potential good Subwoofer placements. Was it REW or something else? Would that be a good solution too or just the sub crawl would suffice?


Yes, REW has a room simulator you can use to try and help. I'm not sure how good it is for nonstandard shaped rooms and all that though.

In addition to what pixelpusher recommended, you can also try moving the subs around, running 3 tests from Audyssey app (that's unfortunately the minimum you need to run before you can see the graphs - at least you don't need to move the mic). See how your before graph has a big dip around that region? You would look for the best before graph you can get. The only problem with the crawl method or running the sine wave for a specific frequency is that you won't be getting a full picture. You might hear a louder peak or get improved response at say 20hz, but have dips or nulls somewhere else now.

The best would be to invest in a umik-1 and learn to use REW so you know what's happening in the room and then decide how best to solve it from there.

Perhaps an alternative would be to invest in the new PC MultiEQ X where you can run single measurements and see the graphs, but if you're going to put that much money you might as well get a umik-1 first.


----------



## Frank Derks

Sug101 said:


> First post. Hope here’s a good place to share Audyssey results.
> 
> Been fiddling around with Audyssey XT32 (Denon X3400h) trying to get a good bass response for my Monolith 10 subwoofer. To my ears the response sounds and feels good, but when I look at the graph I see a dip near what I’m assuming is 20hz and then the curve goes up again. Is this normal?
> 
> View attachment 3212494
> 
> 
> If this isn’t the right place to discuss this, please point me in the right direction.
> 
> Also, any thoughts on L/R Bypass for Audyssey? I have Kef Q150 and they sound warmer with Audyssey. I enjoy them like that, but wondering if it’s not better to leave them default.
> 
> Thanks!


You won't hear that little dip.


----------



## rc10mike

I have a Denon S760H. When I have Dynamic Volume on, the sound output is going VERY quiet after scene changes. Then the sound will gradually rise by itself back to normal listening levels. It does it seemingly randomly, but I can recreate it simply by fast forwarding then hitting play. Is this effect normal for Dyn. Volume?


----------



## pbz06

rc10mike said:


> I have a Denon S760H. When I have Dynamic Volume on, the sound output is going VERY quiet after scene changes. Then the sound will gradually rise by itself back to normal listening levels. It does it seemingly randomly, but I can recreate it simply by fast forwarding then hitting play. Is this effect normal for Dyn. Volume?


No, DV actually normalizes the volume with a “look ahead” feature so you shouldn’t notice it. It does a combination of raising soft passages and decreasing peaks, with the exact amount varying between light/med/heavy.
Does this happen only when you have DV engaged.
?


----------



## rc10mike

pbz06 said:


> No, DV actually normalizes the volume with a “look ahead” feature so you shouldn’t notice it. It does a combination of raising soft passages and decreasing peaks, with the exact amount varying between light/med/heavy.
> Does this happen only when you have DV engaged.
> ?


Yeah, it does it on light/med/heavy. It's just sucks because my wife and I generally like using DV at night but this issue is very annoying


----------



## garygarrison

rc10mike said:


> sound output is going VERY quiet after scene changes. Then the sound will gradually rise by itself back to normal listening levels


I agree with* pbz06; *the "look ahead" function should prevent that. Maybe your Denon needs a Reuptake Inhibitor*  🔨.*

Just some notes*:*

It does seem like something may be wrong with the Audyssey part of your Denon. You might want to talk to your dealer (even if they are an online supplier) while it is still under warranty. Or you could write or phone Denon (something of a lottery) or contact "Ask Audyssey" at *


https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us


*
IMO, Dynamic Volume should only be used to avoid disturbing someone -- a sleeping child, a neighbor on the other side of a thin apartment wall, ceiling, or floor. Dynamic Volume makes the volume *less* dynamic, as you know. It subverts the intentions of the composer, mixer(s), and filmmakers. IMO, It might be like looking at a minature plastic rendition of Michelangelo's David, under florescent light in a museum gift shop.


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> I agree with* pbz06; *the "look ahead" function should prevent that. Maybe your Denon needs a Reuptake Inhibitor*  🔨.*
> 
> Just some notes*:*
> 
> It does seem like something may be wrong with the Audyssey part of your Denon. You might want to talk to your dealer (even if they are an online supplier) while it is still under warranty. Or you could write or phone Denon (something of a lottery) or contact "Ask Audyssey" at *
> 
> 
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us
> 
> 
> *
> IMO, Dynamic Volume should only be used to avoid disturbing someone -- a sleeping child, a neighbor on the other side of a thin apartment wall, ceiling, or floor. Dynamic Volume makes the volume *less* dynamic, as you know. It subverts the intentions of the composer, mixer(s), and filmmakers. IMO, It might be like looking at a minature plastic rendition of Michelangelo's David, under florescent light in a museum gift shop.


Dynamic Volume is also useful for casual watching, for the fact that it raises soft passages. Sometimes I don't feel like cranking it up, and since my room isn't treated and sometimes my wife is doing stuff nearby, I feel like it helps me hear the lower volume stuff better since it lifts the floor.


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> No, DV actually normalizes the volume with a “look ahead” feature so you shouldn’t notice it. It does a combination of raising soft passages and decreasing peaks, with the exact amount varying between light/med/heavy.
> Does this happen only when you have DV engaged.
> ?


 How does DV have a look-ahead feature without introducing a delay? It's getting the signal as it arrives from the source and not sooner than than the signal arrives at the speakers. 

No, my guess is that turning on DV merely compresses the dynamic range, with the degree of compression constant as long as DV is on.


----------



## pbz06

pbarach said:


> How does DV have a look-ahead feature without introducing a delay? It's getting the signal as it arrives from the source and not sooner than than the signal arrives at the speakers.
> 
> No, my guess is that turning on DV merely compresses the dynamic range, with the degree of compression constant as long as DV is on.


I got that straight from Audyssey. It looks ahead, but we are talking about milliseconds which are essentially instantaneous as far as humans are concerned. That’s how it normalizes the volume.


----------



## rc10mike

I tried making sure all my TV audio settings (A80J) were correct, to see if there was some conflicting DRC causing the issue, but found nothing. Even verified that there were no other audio features within the Denon S760H causing issues. I get that is has this "look ahead" tech, but the volume will literally drop to zero after a scene change and take about 5-10 seconds to rise back to normal. Its so obvious even my wife notices it. And shes the reason I use Dynamic Volume in the first place, because she hates turning up the volume to hear talking then having to turn it down when action starts. Dynamic Volume is supposed to stop this problem. I cant win either way it seems.


----------



## rc10mike

garygarrison said:


> I agree with* pbz06; *the "look ahead" function should prevent that. Maybe your Denon needs a Reuptake Inhibitor*  🔨.*
> 
> Just some notes*:*
> 
> It does seem like something may be wrong with the Audyssey part of your Denon. You might want to talk to your dealer (even if they are an online supplier) while it is still under warranty. Or you could write or phone Denon (something of a lottery) or contact "Ask Audyssey" at *
> 
> 
> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us
> 
> 
> *
> IMO, Dynamic Volume should only be used to avoid disturbing someone -- a sleeping child, a neighbor on the other side of a thin apartment wall, ceiling, or floor. Dynamic Volume makes the volume *less* dynamic, as you know. It subverts the intentions of the composer, mixer(s), and filmmakers. IMO, It might be like looking at a minature plastic rendition of Michelangelo's David, under florescent light in a museum gift shop.


Thanks for the link, I already tried to email them with the link on their site, but it said undelivered!

IMO, I care a ton about dynamic range with music when Im driving, car audio is my first hobby. When Im at home trying to watch a movie with people doing a multitude of different things, I would rather just be able to hear everything at a relatively normal volume. If its a new movie or something and I want the full HT effect, DV would be off.


----------



## Hawks07

I have a question about running Audyssey and bass shakers.
I have my subwoofer 1 out going to my MiniDsp and I have my two subs and the amp for my shakers connected to the Mini. 
I searched and I saw a suggestion for turning off the shakers while running Audyssey and then just turning them on after I am done is the best method.
If I do it this way won't Audyssey just apply the distance/gain settings to the shakers as well once I turn them on?
Right now I am just running my subs and shakers bypassed in the Mini with no filters being added.
Any help would be great. Thanks.


----------



## Alan P

Hawks07 said:


> I have a question about running Audyssey and bass shakers.
> I have my subwoofer 1 out going to my MiniDsp and I have my two subs and the amp for my shakers connected to the Mini.
> I searched and I saw a suggestion for turning off the shakers while running Audyssey and then just turning them on after I am done is the best method.
> If I do it this way won't Audyssey just apply the distance/gain settings to the shakers as well once I turn them on?
> Right now I am just running my subs and shakers bypassed in the Mini with no filters being added.
> Any help would be great. Thanks.


Doesn't matter. Since they produce no audible SPL, how would Audyssey know if your shakers are on or off?


----------



## Alan P

rc10mike said:


> I have a Denon S760H. When I have Dynamic Volume on, *the sound output is going VERY quiet after scene changes. Then the sound will gradually rise by itself back to normal listening levels.* It does it seemingly randomly, but I can recreate it simply by fast forwarding then hitting play. Is this effect normal for Dyn. Volume?


This was exactly my experience the one time I tried DV about 20 years ago, I've never turned it on again on any subsequent AVR.


----------



## Hawks07

Alan P said:


> Doesn't matter. Since they produce no audible SPL, how would Audyssey know if your shakers are on or off?


Thanks, I guess I then go into the Minidsp settings and change the delay and gain settings for the shakers to be opposite of what the AVR has correct?


----------



## Alan P

Hawks07 said:


> Thanks, I guess I then go into the Minidsp settings and *change the delay and gain settings for the shakers to be opposite of what the AVR has* correct?


No. The gain (trim) would be set wherever it results in the desired amount of shaking at your MLP. 

You want "negative delay" in relation to your other speaker/subs. See this post for some clarification on the theory behind negative delay.

Also, since you are splitting the signal from the subwoofer pre-out, be aware that your shakers will be getting the same EQ filters from Audyssey as your subs. This can result in some unwanted boosts/cuts in the signal the shakers are receiving. There is discussion in that same thread (Crowson) on how to alleviate and/or eliminate that problem using the MiniDSP by either "reverse engineering" the Audyssey EQ filters or bypassing Audyssey for the subs altogether.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

garygarrison said:


> Agreed. I may have missed some of the forum info in the last couple of months. I seem to remember they are *not* doing a simple averaging. Their "secret sauce" is some kind of "fuzzy logic."
> 
> I guess Audyssey might have to be smarter than it is to produce a perfectly flat curve in some rooms. If their measurements show a 4 dB deficit at a certain frequency, isn't it true that Audyssey applying a 4 dB correction (boost) at that frequency may not fix it, especially if the original deficit is due to a null (or nullette
> View attachment 3212229
> )
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a difference between _Schroeder _and _Schrodinger_? Isn't Schrodinger the guy with the cat?


Naw. Schrodinger's Frequency is that the frequency may or may not be flat. You cannot know until you measure it.


----------



## Artimus62

Lo’ peeps,

I bought a Denon x4700H in October and it obviously included the Audyssey Mic (model ACM1HB), I still have a silver mic from my previous 2009 Onkyo that had the MultEQ version of Audyssey! There’s no model number on the silver mic, but I was wondering if anyone knew if Audyssey are one of those companies that cheapen the production process and quality of newer products to save costs.

So my question is; Will the previous silver mic be of a better quality than the newer black Denon mic, vice versa or are they of equal quality\sensitivity? Thanks.


----------



## pbz06

Artimus62 said:


> Lo’ peeps,
> 
> I bought a Denon x4700H in October and it obviously included the Audyssey Mic (model ACM1HB), I still have a silver mic from my previous 2009 Onkyo that had the MultEQ version of Audyssey! There’s no model number on the silver mic, but I was wondering if anyone knew if Audyssey are one of those companies that cheapen the production process and quality of newer products to save costs.
> 
> So my question is; Will the previous silver mic be of a better quality than the newer black Denon mic, vice versa or are they of equal quality\sensitivity? Thanks.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3219881


There's no way of knowing, but I doubt they perform different. They are made to meet a certain specification and tolerance.


----------



## Artimus62

pbz06 said:


> There's no way of knowing, but I doubt they perform different. They are made to meet a certain specification and tolerance.


Thanks! 

If that turns out to be the case, I may revert to using the silver mic and put the black one away, as it’s easier to find the silver one in the _odds n sods_ drawer.


----------



## Soulburner

Artimus62 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> If that turns out to be the case, I may revert to using the silver mic and put the black one away, as it’s easier to find the silver one in the _odds n sods_ drawer.


I wouldn't. Jeff at Audyssey says there was a change in the production process somewhere around that time frame. I wouldn't feel comfortable using it. You can be sure that the mic that came with your 4700H is appropriate for the calibration file in the AVR.


----------



## Artimus62

Soulburner said:


> I wouldn't. Jeff at Audyssey says there was a change in the production process somewhere around that time frame. I wouldn't feel comfortable using it. You can be sure that the mic that came with your 4700H is appropriate for the calibration file in the AVR.


Ah c**p …I hope it was for the sake of product improvement and not cost cutting. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## drh3b

Artimus62 said:


> Ah c**p …I hope it was for the sake of product improvement and not cost cutting. Thanks for the heads up.


Another reason to use the new one is that they can deteriorate with age.


----------



## jj-34

Artimus62 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> If that turns out to be the case, I may revert to using the silver mic and put the black one away, as it’s easier to find the silver one in the _odds n sods_ drawer.


Paint the new one gold colour !


----------



## Rich 63

Artimus62 said:


> Thanks!
> 
> If that turns out to be the case, I may revert to using the silver mic and put the black one away, as it’s easier to find the silver one in the _odds n sods_ drawer.


You feel the mic for a $2000.00 avr deserves to be in the odds and sods drawer? This explains why so many mics go missing.


----------



## Artimus62

Rich 63 said:


> You feel the mic for a $2000.00 avr deserves to be in the odds and sods drawer? This explains why so many mics go missing.


It’s been there for 12 years, and guess what …it didn’t go missing.
The reason it didn’t go missing is because it’s the only draw in the house that frightens my wife too much to open. 😝


----------



## Curmudgeon76

Greetings,
I am feeding a pair of ELAC Debut 2.0 b6.2 speakers with an Onyko TX-NR709 receiver. I have read forums for advice and instructions on how to use the Audyssey setup.

I have done the setup correctly, as far as I know. Have the included microphone on a tripod to take the readings. I'm doing 3 positions: the middle of my couch as position 1, and around 18" to the left and right for positions 2 and 3.

The stereo image after is good but even though I'm listening to music, I'm finding I prefer the movie mode for Audyssey vs. music. I'm finding the music mode very trebly, and it seems like mid range frequencies are lacking. This is especially noticeable with older recordings that are already treble heavy. For example, Randy Rhoads' guitars on Ozzy Osbourne's 'Blizzard of Ozz' album.

Am I doing something wrong? I had read an article that says that Audyssey tends to overcompensate, and to vary the height of the microphone to combat this.

My room is hardly acoustically treated: there is one bookcase with books of varying depths, and the walls behind my listening position and to the sides have several picture frames. There is a window directly behind my listening position with blinds. When I'm sitting on the couch, my ears are probably about 12" from the wall.

Any advice or recommendations greatly appreciated!

Justin


----------



## greg9x2

Curmudgeon76 said:


> Greetings,
> I am feeding a pair of ELAC Debut 2.0 b6.2 speakers with an Onyko TX-NR709 receiver. I have read forums for advice and instructions on how to use the Audyssey setup.
> 
> I have done the setup correctly, as far as I know. Have the included microphone on a tripod to take the readings. I'm doing 3 positions: the middle of my couch as position 1, and around 18" to the left and right for positions 2 and 3.
> 
> The stereo image after is good but even though I'm listening to music, I'm finding I prefer the movie mode for Audyssey vs. music. I'm finding the music mode very trebly, and it seems like mid range frequencies are lacking. This is especially noticeable with older recordings that are already treble heavy. For example, Randy Rhoads' guitars on Ozzy Osbourne's 'Blizzard of Ozz' album.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? I had read an article that says that Audyssey tends to overcompensate, and to vary the height of the microphone to combat this.
> 
> My room is hardly acoustically treated: there is one bookcase with books of varying depths, and the walls behind my listening position and to the sides have several picture frames. There is a window directly behind my listening position with blinds. When I'm sitting on the couch, my ears are probably about 12" from the wall.
> 
> Any advice or recommendations greatly appreciated!
> 
> Justin


Is 3 the max number of positions ? It is recommended to do the max the AVR allows.

Did you enable Dynamic EQ ? 

Did you read the Audyssey FAQ here ? It's long, but covers most aspects of Audyssey:









"Official" Audyssey thread Part II


WELCOME TO THE AUDYSSEY FAQ AND 'AUDYSSEY 101'! To get started, please choose from one of the following 3 options : 1. Click Here To Go Directly To The FAQ Questions And Answers. Links are highlighted in a different colour to the rest of the text. Clicking on any Question takes...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## CKeeler

Think of doing all the positions of where your ears would be. In your sitting up position, your chilling out position, your wiped out position. Measure each point where each ear would be. It helps


----------



## altpensacola

Are you saying that you are hearing this issue when listening to a 2-channel stereo signal in a surround mode? And when you say music mode meaning 2 channel L/R only? Just want to be clear. 

I find most of my older music sounds better in 2 channel, and surround does some really unpleasant things. I prefer stereo.


----------



## primetimeguy

Curmudgeon76 said:


> Greetings,
> I am feeding a pair of ELAC Debut 2.0 b6.2 speakers with an Onyko TX-NR709 receiver. I have read forums for advice and instructions on how to use the Audyssey setup.
> 
> I have done the setup correctly, as far as I know. Have the included microphone on a tripod to take the readings. I'm doing 3 positions: the middle of my couch as position 1, and around 18" to the left and right for positions 2 and 3.
> 
> The stereo image after is good but even though I'm listening to music, I'm finding I prefer the movie mode for Audyssey vs. music. I'm finding the music mode very trebly, and it seems like mid range frequencies are lacking. This is especially noticeable with older recordings that are already treble heavy. For example, Randy Rhoads' guitars on Ozzy Osbourne's 'Blizzard of Ozz' album.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? I had read an article that says that Audyssey tends to overcompensate, and to vary the height of the microphone to combat this.
> 
> My room is hardly acoustically treated: there is one bookcase with books of varying depths, and the walls behind my listening position and to the sides have several picture frames. There is a window directly behind my listening position with blinds. When I'm sitting on the couch, my ears are probably about 12" from the wall.
> 
> Any advice or recommendations greatly appreciated!
> 
> Justin


Nothing is wrong, the settings are poorly named.  The music curve does not have the high frequency roll off and you should notice what you are. Depending on room, speakers and preference some may like it. So yes the music curve is more trebley and you can use whatever curve sounds best for you.


----------



## Soulburner

Curmudgeon76 said:


> Greetings,
> I am feeding a pair of ELAC Debut 2.0 b6.2 speakers with an Onyko TX-NR709 receiver. I have read forums for advice and instructions on how to use the Audyssey setup.
> 
> I have done the setup correctly, as far as I know. Have the included microphone on a tripod to take the readings. I'm doing 3 positions: the middle of my couch as position 1, and around 18" to the left and right for positions 2 and 3.
> 
> The stereo image after is good but even though I'm listening to music, I'm finding I prefer the movie mode for Audyssey vs. music. I'm finding the music mode very trebly, and it seems like mid range frequencies are lacking. This is especially noticeable with older recordings that are already treble heavy. For example, Randy Rhoads' guitars on Ozzy Osbourne's 'Blizzard of Ozz' album.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? I had read an article that says that Audyssey tends to overcompensate, and to vary the height of the microphone to combat this.
> 
> My room is hardly acoustically treated: there is one bookcase with books of varying depths, and the walls behind my listening position and to the sides have several picture frames. There is a window directly behind my listening position with blinds. When I'm sitting on the couch, my ears are probably about 12" from the wall.
> 
> Any advice or recommendations greatly appreciated!


The Onkyo TX-NR709 is a 2011 AVR and thus many here won't be familiar with it.

Audyssey does not have a "music mode" or "movie mode" so I am unsure what to make of that.

The remote looks really nice, though.


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> The Onkyo TX-NR709 is a 2011 AVR and thus many here won't be familiar with it.
> 
> Audyssey does not have a "music mode" or "movie mode" so I am unsure what to make of that.
> 
> The remote looks really nice, though.


The "flat" and "reference" targets used to be called Music and Movie mode, respectively.


----------



## SoftHard

Hallo, my Denon calibration microphone fell down, from cca 4,6feet high, on the carpet. Do you please it could be damagaed, it was for sure damaged? It measures distances well during calibration.


----------



## bluesky636

SoftHard said:


> Hallo, my Denon calibration microphone fell down, from cca 4,6feet high, on the carpet. Do you please it could be damagaed, it was for sure damaged? It measures distances well during calibration.


The mic is light and appears well built. I doubt falling onto carpet would hurt it.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> The "flat" and "reference" targets used to be called Music and Movie mode, respectively.


That would explain why that ended long ago. Those are terrible and misleading names.


----------



## Curmudgeon76

Hi all,

Thanks for the input! Another strange thing I'm noticing....

I have my Denon 600ne CD player connected to my receiver directly via an optical cable, but my TV is connected to the monitor 1 HDMI port (the ARC one) on my receiver. Because my receiver is old, it does not support the newer eARC standard, so I am unable to set the tv output to "pass through" and instead had to set it on PCM.

When I use the YouTube app on my TV and listen to the exact same album on YouTube (in this case, 40th anniversary legacy edition of Ozzy's "Diary of a Madman") the sound is about 10db lower than my CD player, but if I crank up the volume the music is full and rich, very balanced. The highs and lows are enhanced, but Audyssey is on and I'm in music (flat) mode, and there's plenty of midrange. When listening to my CD player with the exact same Audyssey settings, it's like the midrange has been sucked out. The highs and lows seem enhanced, but the low end of the guitars and the high end of the bass guitar seems almost like it's missing.

I have run a frequency sweep with Audyssey on on YouTube, and there is a seamless transition from deep subwoofer notes into the midrange frequencies where the woofer kicks in and the higher frequencies which sound great through my tweeters. It doesn't seem like my AVR/subwoofer settings are the issue.

Any thoughts on what might be going on as well as suggestions would be greatly appreciated. 

Thanks!


----------



## bluesky636

Curmudgeon76 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for the input! Another strange thing I'm noticing....
> 
> I have my Denon 600ne CD player connected to my receiver directly via an optical cable, but my TV is connected to the monitor 1 HDMI port (the ARC one) on my receiver. Because my receiver is old, it does not support the newer eARC standard, so I am unable to set the tv output to "pass through" and instead had to set it on PCM.
> 
> When I use the YouTube app on my TV and listen to the exact same album on YouTube (in this case, 40th anniversary legacy edition of Ozzy's "Diary of a Madman") the sound is about 10db lower than my CD player, but if I crank up the volume the music is full and rich, very balanced. The highs and lows are enhanced, but Audyssey is on and I'm in music (flat) mode, and there's plenty of midrange. When listening to my CD player with the exact same Audyssey settings, it's like the midrange has been sucked out. The highs and lows seem enhanced, but the low end of the guitars and the high end of the bass guitar seems almost like it's missing.
> 
> I have run a frequency sweep with Audyssey on on YouTube, and there is a seamless transition from deep subwoofer notes into the midrange frequencies where the woofer kicks in and the higher frequencies which sound great through my tweeters. It doesn't seem like my AVR/subwoofer settings are the issue.
> 
> Any thoughts on what might be going on as well as suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


This is not an Audyssey issue.

YouTube audio is highly compressed and LOUD. Watching/listening to the YouTube app on my DISH TV Hopper III, the YouTube audio is 10 to 15 dB louder than any other app on DISH and bass is lousy. Comparing the audio from a TV app to the audio from a CD is useless in my opinion. Levels and frequency response can be very different. Couple that to the difference in output level of the TV and CD player and the difference between the input sensitivity of the optical input vs HDMI input, I am not surprised that things sound totally different. At the very least, your Onkyo AVR should have a setting (I forget what Onkyo calls it) that will allow you to match the input levels of the optical and HDMI inputs. That should help some. But to reiterate, this is NOT because of how Audyssey functions. Audyssey processing is the same no matter what the input source is.


----------



## boy_geeneeus

Recently switched from an Onkyo TX NR-676e, which did not have Audyssey, to the Denon x3700h, which does have Audyssey.
With a 7.1 all Klipsch setup and a MiniDSP 2x4 HD, it sounded ok on the Onkyo with the subwoofer gain turned halfway.

Now with the Audyssey setup, it told me the sub gain is cranked up way too high (86dB), so I had to turn it 25% down to make Audyssey do its thing.
After the calibration, the center and the fronts were set to large, I switched them to small. 
The others were set to small, with a 60hz crossover. 
So I set all crossovers to 80hz.

It sounded good, but I felt I was lacking bass. The level of the SW was set to -1.5dB.
Which knob do I have to turn or buttons do I have to push to make me feel the bass again?
Also, am I this bass-deaf or is Audyssey doing something I do not know about (yet)?


----------



## sjm817

Take a look at post #1 in this thread. Lots of great info

*f)4. If I want to run my subs a little 'hot' where should I make the changes?
f)5. Since I ran Audyssey everything sounds great - but where has my bass gone?*


----------



## titleexaminer92

boy_geeneeus said:


> Recently switched from an Onkyo TX NR-676e, which did not have Audyssey, to the Denon x3700h, which does have Audyssey.
> With a 7.1 all Klipsch setup and a MiniDSP 2x4 HD, it sounded ok on the Onkyo with the subwoofer gain turned halfway.
> 
> Now with the Audyssey setup, it told me the sub gain is cranked up way too high (86dB), so I had to turn it 25% down to make Audyssey do its thing.
> After the calibration, the center and the fronts were set to large, I switched them to small.
> The others were set to small, with a 60hz crossover.
> So I set all crossovers to 80hz.
> 
> It sounded good, but I felt I was lacking bass. The level of the SW was set to -1.5dB.
> Which knob do I have to turn or buttons do I have to push to make me feel the bass again?
> Also, am I this bass-deaf or is Audyssey doing something I do not know about (yet)?


As mentioned in the posts referenced by sjm817, Audyssey may cause a listener to think bass output has gotten weak due to Audyssey's attempts at flattening the sub's frequency response.

I see that you also have a miniDSP 2x4 HD in your setup. I also own an X3700H with Audyssey Room EQ enabled, and I just integrated a miniDSP into my dual sub setup with the help of some online tutorials.

From my understanding, if you want to run Audyssey Room EQ with a miniDSP, there are a couple of ways to go about it:

1) With all room correction turned off / disabled, use your miniDSP to EQ your sub to give a flat bass response. Run (or re-run) Audyssey, and you should still have a fairly flat bass response afterward. If you want to set up a house curve, enable Dynamic EQ or setup your own house curve using the MultiEQ app, or;

2) If you want to keep the the original frequency response set up by your miniDSP, and want Audyssey to leave it alone, use the MultiEQ app to disable Audyssey processing from 250 Hz and below. I tried this, and it sounded a lot worse than having Audyssey enabled for my sub responses. Bass was anemic and didn't sound integrated with the rest of my speakers. Considering Audyssey also does its best to try to set up speaker delays, I guess disabling processing on a respective speaker would cause issues.


----------



## boy_geeneeus

titleexaminer92 said:


> As mentioned in the posts referenced by sjm817, Audyssey may cause a listener to think bass output has gotten weak due to Audyssey's attempts at flattening the sub's frequency response.


Yes, I should have read the FAQs, but I do know what a real flat response sounds like (and it is amazing), cause I do some stereo audio engineering myself. 
The presence/feeling of bass in a flattened room is very dependent on the mix of the source.
But as is mentioned in the opening post, look for a track with some layered basses playing and you get the gist of the eq'ing.


titleexaminer92 said:


> I see that you also have a miniDSP 2x4 HD in your setup. I just integrated a miniDSP into my dual sub setup with the help of some online tutorials, and also have Audyssey room EQ enabled.
> 
> From my understanding, if you want to run Audyssey Room EQ with a miniDSP, there are a couple of ways to go about it:
> 
> 1) With all room correction turned off / disabled, use your miniDSP to EQ your sub to give a flat bass response. Run (or re-run) Audyssey, and you should still have a fairly flat bass response afterward. If you want to set up a house curve, enable Dynamic EQ or setup your own house curve using the MultiEQ app, or;


good that you mentioned this, I do have a house curve loaded up in the current config of the miniDSP, with a flat one on the next config.
it seems logical to use the MiniDSP to flatten the response of your Subs and use the AVR to EQ to preference. 


titleexaminer92 said:


> 2) If you want to keep the the original frequency response set up by your miniDSP, and want Audyssey to leave it alone, use the MultiEQ app to disable Audyssey processing from 250 Hz and below. I tried this, and it sounded a lot worse than having Audyssey enabled for my sub responses. Bass was anemic and didn't sound integrated with the rest of my speakers. Considering Audyssey also does its best to try to set up speaker delays, I guess disabling processing on a respective speaker would cause issues.


as much as I like the current house curve loaded up, using both MiniDSP EQ and Audyssey EQ seems contra productive. So many things that could mismatch?


----------



## titleexaminer92

boy_geeneeus said:


> good that you mentioned this, I do have a house curve loaded up in the current config of the miniDSP, with a flat one on the next config.
> it seems logical to use the MiniDSP to flatten the response of your Subs and use the AVR to EQ to preference.


Guessing that's why your bass is sounding a bit weak. Audyssey is trying to flatten out your house curve.



boy_geeneeus said:


> as much as I like the current house curve loaded up, using both MiniDSP EQ and Audyssey EQ seems contra productive. So many things that could mismatch?


Yeah, it didn't seem to play well together. The basic idea was to have miniDSP handle your bass response, with no Audyssey EQ, and then have room EQ activated for the rest of your frequency spectrum.

I got the delays and crossovers sorted out, and while the REW measurements seemed pretty good, it just sounded....bad. I have a couple of SVS subs, and the rest of my 5.2 system are also Klipsch. Audyssey does a great job toning down the trademark Klipsch brightness. That brightness was in full effect when room EQ was disabled for the subs, and It got really tiresome, really quick.


----------



## bluesky636

boy_geeneeus said:


> Recently switched from an Onkyo TX NR-676e, which did not have Audyssey, to the Denon x3700h, which does have Audyssey.
> With a 7.1 all Klipsch setup and a MiniDSP 2x4 HD, it sounded ok on the Onkyo with the subwoofer gain turned halfway.
> 
> Now with the Audyssey setup, it told me the sub gain is cranked up way too high (86dB), so I had to turn it 25% down to make Audyssey do its thing.
> After the calibration, the center and the fronts were set to large, I switched them to small.
> The others were set to small, with a 60hz crossover.
> So I set all crossovers to 80hz.
> 
> It sounded good, but I felt I was lacking bass. The level of the SW was set to -1.5dB.
> Which knob do I have to turn or buttons do I have to push to make me feel the bass again?
> Also, am I this bass-deaf or is Audyssey doing something I do not know about (yet)?


I suggest you review the subwoofer calibration thread. You will get better advice on how to EQ your sub using Audyssey and a mini-DSP than what you are being given here.









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## boy_geeneeus

titleexaminer92 said:


> Guessing that's why your bass is sounding a bit weak. Audyssey is trying to flatten out your house curve.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it didn't seem to play well together. The basic idea was to have miniDSP handle your bass response, with no Audyssey EQ, and then have room EQ activated for the rest of your frequency spectrum.
> 
> I got the delays and crossovers sorted out, and while the REW measurements seemed pretty good, it just sounded....bad. I have a couple of SVS subs, and the rest of my 5.2 system are also Klipsch. Audyssey does a great job toning down the trademark Klipsch brightness. That brightness was in full effect when room EQ was disabled for the subs, and It got really tiresome, really quick.


Yes, the klipsches can be a bit bright ( but not as much as some studio reference monitors, like the yamaha hs8 ).

first, Denon made a huge change in brightness over the Onkyo. It sounded dull when unconfigured.
Second, Audyssey made it worse at first, due to a misconfig.
Now Audyssey has made it perfect, with the right gain setting on the sub and a slight house curve applied. No more overly bright signature sound.

makes me think you can Eq anything away.


----------



## Curmudgeon76

Hi all,

Thanks for all the support. I'm going to try recalibrating at night when there aren't cars passing by my living room (it's adjacent to the street.)

I have another issue. I don't have a straight couch, but a large L shaped sectional. The other issue is, I don't have enough space in my room to do the proper equilateral triangle. My speakers are about six feet apart, but the distance to the main listening position where I'm sitting is around 8.5 feet. 

For this reason, I'm not going to be able to space my mic placement positions 2 feet apart in either direction as shown in the mic placement guide in the FAQ, without being off axis of the speakers.

Should I just use a shorter distance between mic positions?

Thanks


----------



## Hawks07

Hello, I have a question about distance setting. 
So Audyssey has set the distance to my Atmos speakers at about 28 feet when actually they are about 9 feet away.
I know it's not recommended to change the distances but should I leave it alone with this big of a difference.
Thanks.


----------



## Soulburner

Curmudgeon76 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for the input! Another strange thing I'm noticing....
> 
> I have my Denon 600ne CD player connected to my receiver directly via an optical cable, but my TV is connected to the monitor 1 HDMI port (the ARC one) on my receiver. Because my receiver is old, it does not support the newer eARC standard, so I am unable to set the tv output to "pass through" and instead had to set it on PCM.
> 
> When I use the YouTube app on my TV and listen to the exact same album on YouTube (in this case, 40th anniversary legacy edition of Ozzy's "Diary of a Madman") the sound is about 10db lower than my CD player, but if I crank up the volume the music is full and rich, very balanced. The highs and lows are enhanced, but Audyssey is on and I'm in music (flat) mode, and there's plenty of midrange. When listening to my CD player with the exact same Audyssey settings, it's like the midrange has been sucked out. The highs and lows seem enhanced, but the low end of the guitars and the high end of the bass guitar seems almost like it's missing.
> 
> I have run a frequency sweep with Audyssey on on YouTube, and there is a seamless transition from deep subwoofer notes into the midrange frequencies where the woofer kicks in and the higher frequencies which sound great through my tweeters. It doesn't seem like my AVR/subwoofer settings are the issue.
> 
> Any thoughts on what might be going on as well as suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!


When Google started transitioning us from Google Play Music to YouTube TV, I complained about the low volume level of YT TV. This caused me to run the level higher to compensate, which causes the Dynamic EQ algorithm to apply less bass boost, resulting in a sound I did not prefer, since the balance was off. DEQ is based on the Master Volume of the AVR.

When Google support brushed me off, I provided them RTA graphs which proved there was a problem. They finally started responding seriously rather than with canned responses. However, nothing ever came of it and I canceled the service. I now use Deezer.


----------



## primetimeguy

Soulburner said:


> When Google started transitioning us from Google Play Music to YouTube TV, I complained about the low volume level of YT TV. When they brushed me off, I provided them an RTA graph which proved there was a problem. They finally started responding seriously rather than with canned responses. However, nothing ever came of it and I canceled the service. I now use Deezer.
> 
> View attachment 3225455
> 
> 
> View attachment 3225457


Makes sense why I use a 10db offset for that input on my AVR which is a Chromecast just for music listening.


----------



## kbyakko

Note: This originally posted in the Audyssey MultEQ-X thread where a discussion about Dynamic EQ was going on. As it became less on topic there, I'm choosing to bring this over here.
-----------------------------------------------------

I'll hop into this Audyssey Dynamic suite information sharing session. Not here to sway anyone one way or another. Just sharing my experience. This turned out to be a long post so I put mostly anecdotal stuff in spoiler blocks. One spoiler includes images of a frequency responses.

Just a little background if you don't mind indulging me. If not, you can skip the next paragraph. No offense taken but maybe you can relate to my experience.



Spoiler



My first Audyssey receiver was a 7.1 2EQ model (the cats pajamas, am I right?) with Dynamic EQ. I liked it for the most part because it sounded better on than off and I didn't know any better. The next one I got was an 11.1 xt32 model with Dynamic EQ and Volume. My setup was not in an enclosed space. Because of this I used Dynamic Volume on Medium or High. It sounded fine and it was a compromise for sure but it seemed be less of a disturbance throughout the rest of the space. Moved a new place and got my own big boy room and now I could turn off Dynamic Volume. Oh boy, surround and rear height speaker are way too loud. The front/rear balance was just not right. Right before I moved I picked up a usb mic and was experimenting with REW. Didn't get to spend too much time with it before the move but after I got set up and heard Dynamic EQ in my new room I hopped on these and other forums and found others with the same issue. A prevalent suggestion was to set lower the rear speakers a few db and that should restore the balance. Cool, that seemed to help. Eventully I learned how to level match my speakers using REW and learned that at my preferred listening level of around -25db my rear speakers were reading 3-6db higher than my front speakers when level matched to 75db at reference (ear protection was must when configuring that). Golly. Came across an excellent post on AVSForum describing how Dynamic EQ works and I then realized that reducing the rear speaker levels was only good at the volume configured for (-25db for me). Kinda frustrating because I couldn't change the volume without throwing the balance out of wack. I later found the source input level option and would use that if I needed to change the volume. It's clunky but it sounded better with DEQ on instead of off at my preferred listening level.



So whether you read the last paragraph or not, the experience lead me to the thought that DEQ is probably somewhat flawed. Sure, there are things that you do the mitagate what appear to be negative effects but it doesn't just work. The post @Jeremy Anderson makes me think that it would work best with just a pair of surround speakers and when rear sounds were mostly ambiance. As rear sounds became discrete and more rear speakers were added the effect doesn't appear to have been adjusted causing a sound balance. 



Spoiler



Fast forward past Audyssey App, an upgrade to a new receiver to use it, Ratbuddyssey, miniDSP, time-aligning speakers, house curves, MSO, and probably more REWing than consuming content and I'm still annoyed that I have to adjust my volume using the source input level because my speaker levels are only balanced at one output volume. Thank you DEQ for only providing loudness compensation on the rear speakers. It's time for a better solution.



Well, as I was sitting in front of my display changing various settings and options while watching frequency sweeps populate the window because it seems that this has become my main form of entertainment something interesting happens. I get a set of base layer speaker sweeps that is relatively balanced with DEQ on. Okay, let change the volume and do it again. Wow, a second balanced set. No joke, check it out:



Spoiler



One set at -20db and the other at -30. This was with a house curve as I had one when experimenting. I've since EQ'd everything to flat (0 - 500hz room, 500hz+ at speaker).
View attachment 3226172

View attachment 3226173




To get this I turned on Dynamic Volume set to Light. So I'm thinking, so what, pretty frequency responses aren't everything. I also don't really want to compress my dynamic range but I figure I'd give it a shot. So I pop in my usual test clip, the Ready Player One race scene. It was weird. I had to turn it down to -30db because it seemed louder/noisier than I was used to. It was fine. The fronts and rears sounded balanced, I think, so that was a plus. I didn't turn it off immediately and as the warehouse scene was playing I noticed the sound of faint music playing. I'd never heard this music in this scene before.

So it seems that Dynamic Volume Light has a similar effect on the front speakers that Dynamic EQ has on the rear speakers. 

The other realization for me was I don't think that either technology provides a blanket boost of all sounds relative to your set output volume. I think it is relative to the system output volume and the sound level from a particular sound in whatever you're listening too. For example, at a volume of -25db a -50dBFS signal may be boosted more than a -23dBFS signal. *EDIT: This paragraph is something I pondered during my listening sessions. I do not have any measurements to confirm that sounds are boosted by any other means than the master volume and/or a loudness curve.*

This can technically lead to compression in absolute dynamic range but without it there may be faint sounds that are too soft to hear. It does not appear to compress peak output though.

Incidentally, I then came across the pro-DEQ+DVol Simple Home Cinema website. Could've saved myself some bother but I would've done the frequency sweeps anyway. I don't change the DEQ offset though. The default works fine for everything in my setup.

Like I said, not here to sway anyone to use DEQ but if you do use it I would recommend resetting your rears to 75db and turning on DVol Light. If it were me DVol Light would be a part of DEQ and have the Medium and High options of DVol the only ones available. I don't think having loudness compensation on some of your speakers is a sound way of doing things (joke drum sound)...I'm hear all night. Okay okay, no more puns. Out.


----------



## kbyakko

Brought over from the Audyssey MultEQ-X thread 
----------------------------------------


kbyakko said:


> This is what I believe DEQ is doing. Louder sounds aren't boosted as much as quieter sounds. The loudest sounds will play at the level of the master volume. This compresses the dynamic range but you don't lose any sound information due to inaudibility. It sounds louder in the rear channels because DEQ only applies loudness compensation to the rear channels. Dynamic Volume applies loudness compensation to the front channels as well.





Soulburner said:


> If it's algorithmic, how do you explain elevated levels with white noise?
> 
> Also worth noting is the front heights are increased as well, just not as much as the rears.


I can't explain it. Perhaps I should've been less definitive with my wording. All I can say is that the with DEQ and DVol off I can no longer hear the soft sounds but with then on the louder sounds do not seem to be much louder than before but the soft sounds are much more audible.

The front heights haven't measure higher for me with only DEQ engaged. How are you measuring your front heights?


----------



## Soulburner

kbyakko said:


> So it seems that Dynamic Volume Light has a similar effect on the front speakers that Dynamic EQ has on the rear speakers.


DV is an advanced loudness _compression_ whereas DEQ is loudness _compensation. _The way they operate is totally different. DV is really only to be used when you can't run the movie loud but you still want to hear voices clearly. DEQ maintains spectral balance at different volume levels by adjusting the curve but maintains the dynamic range of the mix.

But, I have to say I'm having trouble understanding what you're describing. Are you saying that you think DEQ only applies its dynamic curve to the fronts? Because that's definitely not the case.

I don't use DV because there's never been a time when I needed quiet parts brought up. I just use DEQ and typically I'm at -15 to -20 depending on the movie. It's a closed/closeable room and my speakers are very good.

If I ran broadcast TV I'd probably use it for the commercials.


----------



## Soulburner

kbyakko said:


> The front heights haven't measure higher for me with only DEQ engaged. How are you measuring your front heights?


The white noise clips in the Atmos mkv along with the REW SPL meter and my UMIK-1.


----------



## mogorf

kbyakko said:


> Brought over from the Audyssey MultEQ-X thread
> ----------------------------------------
> 
> 
> I can't explain it. Perhaps I should've been less definitive with my wording. All I can say is that the with DEQ and DVol off I can no longer hear the soft sounds but with then on the louder sounds do not seem to be much louder than before but the soft sounds are much more audible.
> 
> The front heights haven't measure higher for me with only DEQ engaged. How are you measuring your front heights?


IMHO, firstly you need to know how human ears work. Our hearing is frequency dependent (20Hz-20kHz), while frequency dependency is level dependent. Lowering the level means frequency dependency becomes narrower. DEQ was made to compensate for this dependency.  In a movie theater there is no need for DEQ since everything every time is played at 0 dB reference level. In a home environment we don't always listen at cinema reference levels, so spectral balance needs to be compensated whenever Master Volume is turned down. This is the role of DEQ. Hope this helps.


----------



## kbyakko

Soulburner said:


> The white noise clips in the Atmos mkv along with the REW SPL meter and my UMIK-1.


Ah okay. I use REW and Neural X. Running a front speaker and surround back from one side at the same time will turn on the heights on that side. You'll need a way to turn off one of the height speakers to level match though.

EDIT: This probably only works specifically for heights. I think DTS may handle it differently if one has top speakers. I've never tried it so I can't confirm it.


----------



## kbyakko

Soulburner said:


> DV is an advanced loudness _compression_ whereas DEQ is loudness _compensation. _The way they operate is totally different. DV is really only to be used when you can't run the movie loud but you still want to hear voices clearly. DEQ maintains spectral balance at different volume levels by adjusting the curve but maintains the dynamic range of the mix.
> 
> But, I have to say I'm having trouble understanding what you're describing. Are you saying that you think DEQ only applies its dynamic curve to the fronts? Because that's definitely not the case.
> 
> I don't use DV because there's never been a time when I needed quiet parts brought up. I just use DEQ and typically I'm at -15 to -20 depending on the movie. It's a closed/closeable room and my speakers are very good.
> 
> If I ran broadcast TV I'd probably use it for the commercials.


I get that. All I can say is that with DV Light on the front speakers measure close the same loudness as the DEQ on rear speakers versus when DV is off and the front speakers measure much lower than the rear speakers. That balance across a range of master volume levels was the goal. DV Light gets me there.

I listen at around -30db so something meant to be faint sounding at reference is probably going to be close to inaudible. Both DV and DEQ provide this effect for the respective speakers they apply them too.


----------



## kbyakko

mogorf said:


> IMHO, firstly you need to know how human ears work. Our hearing is frequency dependent (20Hz-20kHz), while frequency dependency is level dependent. Lowering the level means frequency dependency becomes narrower. DEQ was made to compensate for this dependency.  In a movie theater there is no need for DEQ since everything every time is played at 0 dB reference level. In a home environment we don't always listen at cinema reference levels, so spectral balance needs to be compensated whenever Master Volume is turned down. This is the role of DEQ. Hope this helps.


Thanks. That makes sense. That is definitely my use case for using DEQ. My plight was the issue with DEQ only compensating for the rear speakers causing an audible imbalance between the front and the rear speakers. DVol Light mitigates that issue for me for the most part.


----------



## Soulburner

That's interesting that you find Dynamic Volume to balance your system. Have you tried simply reducing the levels of the surrounds so you can keep the full dynamic range? Obviously your solution is better if you need to watch at night without bothering someone else but during Blu-ray content you shouldn't need compression.

Audyssey MultEQ-X


----------



## Snorefingers

I noticed on my new surround system that sound is louder from the rear speakers than from the front sometimes. For example, when listening to a character talk in Hitman 3, if I turn around so that the sound is coming from the rear speakers, the dialogue actually becomes louder, which sounds strange and unnatural to me. I looked into the levels that Audyssey adjusted the speakers to and noticed that it lowered the front ones and raised the rear and top ones:

Front L -2.5dB
Front R -1.5dB
Center -3.5dB
Subwoofer -1.0dB
Surround L + 1.5dB
Surround R + 2.5dB
T.Middle L + 1.5dB
T.Middle R + 2.0dB

Another strange thing I noticed is that the Surround R is boosted more, despite being slightly closer to my seating position than the Surround L. Is there an option to adjust those levels after Audyssey measured them and, if so, should I?


----------



## kbyakko

Soulburner said:


> That's interesting that you find Dynamic Volume to balance your system. Have you tried simply reducing the levels of the surrounds so you can keep the full dynamic range? Obviously your solution is better if you need to watch at night without bothering someone else but during Blu-ray content you shouldn't need compression.
> 
> Audyssey MultEQ-X


It really did surprise me when I first measured it that turning on Dynamic Volume to Light restored speaker level parity between the front and rear speakers. I was shocked that this parity was maintained after lowering the master volume by -10db. That's when I decided to give it a try.

I previously used test tones to lower the speaker level of my rear speakers to match the front speakers at a certain master volume. For me it was -25. It sounded pretty good for most movies and I felt it was worth the effort. Other sources were either too loud or not loud enough and I found that a +/- 5db volume adjustment was the acceptable range for me before the front/rear balance went out of whack again. Many times I wanted more adjustment between sources. Input source level worked but it was just too clunky.

Compared to lowering the levels rear speakers, I do hear faint sounds from the soundtracks that I didn't notice before. I think I mentioned that earlier. The other thing that I've notice is that soundtracks that I'm familiar with appear to be more spacious. Not sure why this is but it's something I've observed. I don't feel that any of this previously missing sound information is being revealed in a distracting way. In a way it makes the soundfield feel complete.

So the main reason for my volume is just because it's the volume I like. I no longer have to worry about bothering other spaces. And I'm not so sure the overall volume is compressed when set to Light. It's obviously compressed when set to Medium or High but it still gets plenty loud when called for on Light. Now, the absolute dynamic range will technically be compressed due to the boosting of sounds being deemed inaudible. However, the question then becomes if we still hear faint sounds as faint and loud sounds as loud, has the perceptual dynamic range been compressed? It's subjective for sure but something one could ponder if they cared to.


----------



## pbz06

kbyakko said:


> It really did surprise me when I first measured it that turning on Dynamic Volume to Light restored speaker level parity between the front and rear speakers. I was shocked that this parity was maintained after lowering the master volume by -10db. That's when I decided to give it a try.
> 
> I previously used test tones to lower the speaker level of my rear speakers to match the front speakers at a certain master volume. For me it was -25. It sounded pretty good for most movies and I felt it was worth the effort. Other sources were either too loud or not loud enough and I found that a +/- 5db volume adjustment was the acceptable range for me before the front/rear balance went out of whack again. Many times I wanted more adjustment between sources. Input source level worked but it was just too clunky.
> 
> Compared to lowering the levels rear speakers, I do hear faint sounds from the soundtracks that I didn't notice before. I think I mentioned that earlier. The other thing that I've notice is that soundtracks that I'm familiar with appear to be more spacious. Not sure why this is but it's something I've observed. I don't feel that any of this previously missing sound information is being revealed in a distracting way. In a way it makes the soundfield feel complete.
> 
> So the main reason for my volume is just because it's the volume I like. I no longer have to worry about bothering other spaces. And I'm not so sure the overall volume is compressed when set to Light. It's obviously compressed when set to Medium or High but it still gets plenty loud when called for on Light. Now, the absolute dynamic range will technically be compressed due to the boosting of sounds being deemed inaudible. However, the question then becomes if we still hear faint sounds as faint and loud sounds as loud, has the perceptual dynamic range been compressed? It's subjective for sure but something one could ponder if they cared to.


I know we discussed this in the other thread, but the reason I appreciate what DV Light does is for those same reasons you just described. As I've mentioned, people get turned off when they hear compression but I see it as more of volume adjustments that generally work better than simply raising or lowering the MV constantly. Of course this technically reduces the "dynamics" but part of enjoying your movie watching is being able to hear the soft passages too. What is more accurate, not being able to hear a 40dB sound effect or having DV raise it it to 50dB so we can hear it? I wish I had perfect hearing and I wish I had a fully treated "theater" room too, but I don't and I don't listen at Reference levels  It also goes back to comfort....to comfortably hear dialogue, I need my MV set to about -15 from Reference (85/105/115). Unfortunately the action scenes are just too loud for me at -15, so I typically prefer listening around -20 to -25 to get the loud scenes more comfortable, which is unfortunately is a little harder to hear dialogue and softer passages  Which is why I find myself using more and more a -25 to -30 MV and engaging Light. I'm not saying it's better or preferred, but that it has a value for use cases and people too quickly dismiss it. Goes back to what I always say, how can someone argue creator's intent unless they are using the same speakers and same room and same equipment as the sound engineer and have the same ears? What about house curves and preferential bass boosts and all the various speaker response characteristics that vary per brand? Seems like people arbitrarily pick and choose what is acceptable to tweak for "creator's intent" or what isn't 

p.s.- I don't know if you missed it, but this is what Audyssy said about DV (which confirms that Light is more for raising the bottom and middle passages than it is for cutting peaks). Medium generally maintains the middle passages and cuts from the top and bottom, while Heavy is the same but much more aggressive.

*"I have learned from our engineers that max boost is the same +21dB for all modes.

The max cut is -24dB, -13dB, and -5dB for heavy, medium and light."*


----------



## Soulburner

I haven't found a movie yet that needs more than -20 to hear everything clearly in my room, but I watch some at -15 just for effect.

These levels vary for a lot of reasons, such as, if you have brighter speakers, you will turn them down more.


----------



## kbyakko

pbz06 said:


> ...Goes back to what I always say, how can someone argue creator's intent unless they are using the same speakers and same room and same equipment as the sound engineer and have the same ears? What about house curves and preferential bass boosts? Seems like people arbitrarily pick and choose what is acceptable tweak for "creator's intent" or what isn't
> 
> p.s.- I don't know if you missed it, but this is what Audyssy said about DV (which confirms that Light is more for raising the bottom and middle passages than it is for cutting peaks). Medium generally maintains the middle passages and cuts from the top and bottom, while Heavy is the same but much more aggressive.
> 
> *"I have learned from our engineers that max boost is the same +21dB for all modes.
> 
> The max cut is -24dB, -13dB, and -5dB for heavy, medium and light."*


I can get behind that saying 😁 . Don't forget that only at reference can you truly consume it as it was meant to be heard...I jest 😋. I definitely get the house curve adjustment because I've tried and it sounds great...but only great at one volume and it gets less great as you move away from it. And that works for many folks. That's key. Gotta do what works. But it sounds like we have the exact same listening preferences. Luckily this works for what we like.

Thanks for that quote. I don't recall seeing this one but that is definitely in line what I'm experiencing with it.


----------



## kbyakko

Soulburner said:


> I haven't found a movie yet that needs more than -20 to hear everything clearly in my room, but I watch some at -15 just for effect.
> 
> These levels vary for a lot of reasons, such as, if you have brighter speakers, you will turn them down more.


That's about where I have mine set then and now. A little lower at -25. But everyone's room and equipment is different. It's possible that the boost helpful for my setup because most my speakers naturally have a relatively steep drop off at the high frequencies in my room.


----------



## Bytehoven

Hi...

I have a denon x4300h and I have a question...

- is there an audyssey calibration mode that would let me observe dB levels while using the manual test tones? Maybe with the app?


----------



## bluesky636

Bytehoven said:


> Hi...
> 
> I have a denon x4300h and I have a question...
> 
> - is there an audyssey calibration mode that would let me observe dB levels while using the manual test tones? Maybe with the app?


The manual test tones are not processed by Audyssey. You have to use test tones from an external source fed to the AVR.


----------



## Bytehoven

bluesky636 said:


> The manual test tones are not processed by Audyssey. You have to use test tones from an external source fed to the AVR.


Thanks, I imagined something along the lines of the subwoofer level matching to 75db at the start of a calibration run.


----------



## Snorefingers

Snorefingers said:


> I noticed on my new surround system that sound is louder from the rear speakers than from the front sometimes. For example, when listening to a character talk in Hitman 3, if I turn around so that the sound is coming from the rear speakers, the dialogue actually becomes louder, which sounds strange and unnatural to me. I looked into the levels that Audyssey adjusted the speakers to and noticed that it lowered the front ones and raised the rear and top ones:


Is it worth buying the Audyssey App and redoing the setup? The surround mix when playing games sounds really bad right now, as the rears are so overemphasized. I tried turning off DynamicEQ and dynamic volume but that didn't help matters either.


----------



## Soulburner

Snorefingers said:


> Is it worth buying the Audyssey App and redoing the setup? The surround mix when playing games sounds really bad right now, as the rears are so overemphasized. I tried turning off DynamicEQ and dynamic volume but that didn't help matters either.


We just lower the levels of the surrounds to fix that.


----------



## Snorefingers

Soulburner said:


> We just lower the levels of the surrounds to fix that.


Can you tell me where I can find that? I only saw the option to raise the levels of the fronts (excluding center) but not to lower the rears. I have a Denon X1700H.

EDIT: Turning off DynamicEQ seems to have fixed the issue, the surrounds sound in line with my front speakers now. The downside it that seems to have drastically reduced the low end, it almost sounds like I disconnected my subwoofer, still, it's an improvement overall so I'll try and stick with it.

EDIT2: Reading through the OP, I understand why this happens now. DynamicEQ "boosts" bass and surrounds when not listening at reference volume (I listen at -40), turning it off stops the surrounds being overly loud for me but also reduces the bass more than I would like. The solution seems to be just raise the subwoofer level.


----------



## Sm1ggs

Snorefingers said:


> Can you tell me where I can find that? I only saw the option to raise the levels of the fronts (excluding center) but not to lower the rears. I have a Denon X1700H.
> 
> EDIT: Turning off DynamicEQ seems to have fixed the issue, the surrounds sound in line with my front speakers now. The downside it that seems to have drastically reduced the low end, it almost sounds like I disconnected my subwoofer, still, it's an improvement overall so I'll try and stick with it.
> 
> EDIT2: Reading through the OP, I understand why this happens now. DynamicEQ "boosts" bass and surrounds when not listening at reference volume (I listen at -40), turning it off stops the surrounds being overly loud for me but also reduces the bass more than I would like. The solution seems to be just raise the subwoofer level.


Hi, at -40 audyssey will boost the bass 12db , so yeh turn the sub level trim up 6-7db or to taste.


----------



## Snorefingers

Sm1ggs said:


> Hi, at -40 audyssey will boost the bass 12db , so yeh turn the sub level trim up 6-7db or to taste.


After running Audyssey, the level of my subwoofer was set to - 1.0 db. Are you saying I should change this level to + 5-6db? I don't see an option called "trim" in the menu, is that just what the Levels option refers to? Sorry, english is not my first language and I am a novice when it comes to these audio matters.


----------



## Sm1ggs

Snorefingers said:


> After running Audyssey, the level of my subwoofer was set to - 1.0 db. Are you saying I should change this level to + 5-6db? I don't see an option called "trim" in the menu, is that just what the Levels option refers to? Sorry, english is not my first language and I am a novice when it comes to these audio matters.


Hi yeh sorry levels , your going to have to re run audyssey again turn your sub gain - volume up on the sub , and re run , aim for a -10 sub level then you have enough for turning sub level up in AVR , we dont want to go in the + range .


----------



## Snorefingers

Sm1ggs said:


> Hi yeh sorry levels , your going to have to re run audyssey again turn your sub gain - volume up on the sub , and re run , aim for a -10 sub level then you have enough for turning sub level up in AVR , we dont want to go in the + range .


Just so I understand this correctly, I need to:

1. turn up the volume knob on my sub (it was at the halfway mark before)
2. run audyssey again so that audyssey will adjust the, now louder, sub to -10.0db instead of -1.0db
3. this allows me to turn off DynamicEQ and then raise the subs level again to something like -3.0db
4. I have to do this because just putting my current sub level to +8.0db instead of -1.0db is not good for my speakers

Is that right?

EDIT: Would there be any difference between this and just keeping DynamicEQ enabled and changing my rears from +2.0db to -5.0db instead?


----------



## pbz06

Snorefingers said:


> Just so I understand this correctly, I need to:
> 
> 1. turn up the volume knob on my sub (it was at the halfway mark before)
> 2. run audyssey again so that audyssey will adjust the, now louder, sub to -10.0db instead of -1.0db
> 3. this allows me to turn off DynamicEQ and then raise the subs level again to something like -3.0db
> 4. I have to do this because just putting my current sub level to +8.0db instead of -1.0db is not good for my speakers
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> EDIT: Would there be any difference between this and just keeping DynamicEQ enabled and changing my rears from +2.0db to -5.0db instead?


Correct for 1-4 above. Yes you can also simply reduce your surrounds to compensate (that's what many people who use DEQ do, like me).

But it is good practice to run Audyssey and maintain a SW trim level (in the AVR) around -10. That way you have more headroom for the signal from the AVR and can experiment with manual bass boosts.


----------



## Soulburner

Snorefingers said:


> Can you tell me where I can find that? I only saw the option to raise the levels of the fronts (excluding center) but not to lower the rears. I have a Denon X1700H.
> 
> EDIT: Turning off DynamicEQ seems to have fixed the issue, the surrounds sound in line with my front speakers now. The downside it that seems to have drastically reduced the low end, it almost sounds like I disconnected my subwoofer, still, it's an improvement overall so I'll try and stick with it.
> 
> EDIT2: Reading through the OP, I understand why this happens now. DynamicEQ "boosts" bass and surrounds when not listening at reference volume (I listen at -40), turning it off stops the surrounds being overly loud for me but also reduces the bass more than I would like. The solution seems to be just raise the subwoofer level.


You just go into the Speaker Levels menu in the AVR and reduce the surrounds and rear heights between 3-5 and you can keep DEQ.

Raising the sub level is not the same as DEQ as DEQ is not a straight boost. It applies more the lower the frequency goes to maintain equal loudness. And, it applies more the quieter your volume level gets. Experiment with it.


----------



## Snorefingers

Thanks guys, I went and reduced my surrounds as that seemed an easier way to get my desired result, glad to say it has worked. Something else I've started to wonder about, if I play back a 7.1 audio track on my 5.1.2 setup will the side heights get used for the 7.1 side channels when using an upmixer like DSU or DTS:X?


----------



## markb1980

Does anyone have any Atmos test tones I can download onto usb to enable me to find the ideal level to set my surrounds to as I am also not liking the effect Dynamic EQ is having on them and would like to lower them so they match my fronts at my listening volume for movies?


----------



## Snorefingers

Games can help with this if you have them available. I loaded up the tutorial level of Hitman 3 where there is a music being played through an ingame speaker, I stood near that and rotated the camera to switch between audio coming from the fronts and the rears, adjusted the levels and rotated again, did that till volumes were about even.


----------



## Soulburner

markb1980 said:


> Does anyone have any Atmos test tones I can download onto usb to enable me to find the ideal level to set my surrounds to as I am also not liking the effect Dynamic EQ is having on them and would like to lower them so they match my fronts at my listening volume for movies?


The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)


----------



## markb1980

Soulburner said:


> The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version)


Thank you.


----------



## Stephan Mire

I need some advice for better Audyssey calibrations. I'm looking to purchase a Samson MK10 boom mic stand. Is it one you guys would recommend as a solid purchase for audio calibrations? I ask because I can get one locally - don't really want to order from Amazon if I can help it.

Second, what adapter would I need to connect the Audyssey mic to this boom stand? Anyone use this stand, have advice as to what adapters to use?


----------



## pbarach

Stephan Mire said:


> I need some advice for better Audyssey calibrations. I'm looking to purchase a Samson MK10 boom mic stand. Is it one you guys would recommend as a solid purchase for audio calibrations? I ask because I can get one locally - don't really want to order from Amazon if I can help it.
> 
> Second, what adapter would I need to connect the Audyssey mic to this boom stand? Anyone use this stand, have advice as to what adapters to use?


The problem with cheap mic stands is that you want the boom to remain at ear height for all of the measurements, which can require extending the boom its full length, but the boom has no counterweight on the other end, causing it to sink and need constant readjustment. Tightening the boom doesn't help. I'm not familiar with the Samson, but the On Stage mic stand commonly recommended here on AVS has this problem. I regret not returning it!

Regardless of which mic stand you get, you need a video/digital camera adapter like this one:








Amazon.com : UTEBIT Ball Head with 1/4" Hotshoe Camera Mount Adapter 360 Degree Rotatable Aluminum Tripod Head for DSLR Cameras HTC Vive Tripods Monopods Camcorder Light Stand, Max. Load 6.6lbs : Electronics


Amazon.com : UTEBIT Ball Head with 1/4" Hotshoe Camera Mount Adapter 360 Degree Rotatable Aluminum Tripod Head for DSLR Cameras HTC Vive Tripods Monopods Camcorder Light Stand, Max. Load 6.6lbs : Electronics



www.amazon.com





This one, commonly recommended here on AVS, didn't work for me at all because it's hard to get it into the positions needed while still keeping the Audyssey mic pointed at the ceiling for all measurements:








Amazon.com: On Stage CM01 Video Camera/Digital Recorder Adapter : Electronics


Buy On Stage CM01 Video Camera/Digital Recorder Adapter: Tripod Heads - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases



www.amazon.com


----------



## bluesky636

Snorefingers said:


> Thanks guys, I went and reduced my surrounds as that seemed an easier way to get my desired result, glad to say it has worked. Something else I've started to wonder about, if I play back a 7.1 audio track on my 5.1.2 setup will the side heights get used for the 7.1 side channels when using an upmixer like DSU or DTS:X?


This is not an Audyssey question.









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Official Dolby Atmos at home website Dolby on Atmos for the home Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup Ceiling-firing speakers ("Atmos-enabled speakers") http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf Speaker installation guidelines...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Stephan Mire

pbarach said:


> The problem with cheap mic stands is that you want the boom to remain at ear height for all of the measurements, which can require extending the boom its full length, but the boom has no counterweight on the other end, causing it to sink and need constant readjustment. Tightening the boom doesn't help. I'm not familiar with the Samson, but the On Stage mic stand commonly recommended here on AVS has this problem. I regret not returning it!
> 
> Regardless of which mic stand you get, you need a video/digital camera adapter like this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com : UTEBIT Ball Head with 1/4" Hotshoe Camera Mount Adapter 360 Degree Rotatable Aluminum Tripod Head for DSLR Cameras HTC Vive Tripods Monopods Camcorder Light Stand, Max. Load 6.6lbs : Electronics
> 
> 
> Amazon.com : UTEBIT Ball Head with 1/4" Hotshoe Camera Mount Adapter 360 Degree Rotatable Aluminum Tripod Head for DSLR Cameras HTC Vive Tripods Monopods Camcorder Light Stand, Max. Load 6.6lbs : Electronics
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one, commonly recommended here on AVS, didn't work for me at all because it's hard to get it into the positions needed while still keeping the Audyssey mic pointed at the ceiling for all measurements:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazon.com: On Stage CM01 Video Camera/Digital Recorder Adapter : Electronics
> 
> 
> Buy On Stage CM01 Video Camera/Digital Recorder Adapter: Tripod Heads - Amazon.com ✓ FREE DELIVERY possible on eligible purchases
> 
> 
> 
> www.amazon.com












This is the stand I'm considering.









Samson Technologies


The Samson MK10 Lightweight Microphone Stand combines the crucial elements of lightweight durability with an attractive and functional design.




www.samsontech.com


----------



## kbyakko

markb1980 said:


> Does anyone have any Atmos test tones I can download onto usb to enable me to find the ideal level to set my surrounds to as I am also not liking the effect Dynamic EQ is having on them and would like to lower them so they match my fronts at my listening volume for movies?


You could try setting Dynamic Volume to Light to see if it brings your front speakers up enough to match your rear speakers. If it's good enough then front/rear balance should be consistent at a wider volume range.


----------



## Rich 63

Stephan Mire said:


> View attachment 3227901
> 
> 
> This is the stand I'm considering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson Technologies
> 
> 
> The Samson MK10 Lightweight Microphone Stand combines the crucial elements of lightweight durability with an attractive and functional design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.samsontech.com


Given availability to you I think that stand appears to be adaqute. I'd give it a shot. Can't be too expensive anyway. 
As a note. I had to wait about a week for the adaptor for the mic to come in stock. I used electrical tape to secure the audessey mic to the bomm. It worked so well I have it permanently attached this way now on one side. I mount my umik on the other allowing me to simply rotate it a 180 degrees in place.


----------



## Pixelatto

Newby Audyssey question - what does this graph tell me? Enjoying the Audyssey on my Denon 6700H and have bought the app as well. It was really a major upgrade over Yamaha's YPAO. But trying to understand exactly how the measurements work, how accurate they are and what they mean. This is the result for my center Klipsch 504C speaker without any adjustments - I usually opt out from the midrange dip shown in default room correction results. Center was identified as large and Audyssey correctly measured distance within couple of inches. 










The low bass result measured BEFORE is pretty confusing given that speaker is rated 58hz-20khz. In addition, when I play 60hz test tone there is barely anything going on with the center. It becomes audiable @65hz and comes to life @70hz which seems reasonable considering specs. Googled for the SPL test for 540C but unfortunately could not find it. 

So again - what is Audyssey trying to tell me?


----------



## rocky1

i dont believe ive posted before but im looking for opinions. i have a marantz sr8015 with system audio speakers(sa1750 mains) and a martin logan grotto sub. audessey was done i i really dont tamper with it except change the speakers to 80. audessey had set Mains and center to 60 and surrounds to 40. posting results and if anyone could tell me how it looks per se . really dont know how to read..


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

Looks good to me, rocky, though I still consider myself a noob!

The only thing you may want to try is to enable Midrange Compensation (MRC) on your surrounds since they dip in the same region. I turn it on for my surrounds as they have the same behavior, and it's better on than off (get ear fatigue with it off for some reason, and the surrounds seem more overpowered than the usual DEQ boost).


----------



## rocky1

thanks. i actually turned down the surrounds a little. allways heard M comp should be off?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pbz06

rocky1 said:


> thanks. i actually turned down the surrounds a little. allways heard M comp should be off?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


People make too many blanket statements and recommendations online, and MRC is one of those that has snowballed and have people repeating it without giving context. 

My advice: try it both ways and see if you like it. The bottom line is that many speakers actually do have a "dip" in that region, and correcting it to flat can potentially sound harsh. The same people that say disable MRC are also the same ones that say to not boost when EQing or adjusting targets, so something has to give  Just try it both ways, you may or may not even notice a difference so in that case it would be fine to disable it or leave it on.


----------



## rocky1

sounds good.. im assuming i turn it on (surrounds)in the app then just resend to reciever.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnnytheSkin

rocky1 said:


> sounds good.. im assuming i turn it on (surrounds)in the app then just resend to reciever..
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Yup, then pull up a few familiar scenes and see what you think. It's really apparent for me with The Office and Parks & Rec (good old comfort TV) since the surrounds are simple ambiance.


----------



## rocky1

will give it a try as soon as i can. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

Pixelatto said:


> Newby Audyssey question - what does this graph tell me? Enjoying the Audyssey on my Denon 6700H and have bought the app as well. It was really a major upgrade over Yamaha's YPAO. But trying to understand exactly how the measurements work, how accurate they are and what they mean. This is the result for my center Klipsch 504C speaker without any adjustments - I usually opt out from the midrange dip shown in default room correction results. Center was identified as large and Audyssey correctly measured distance within couple of inches.
> 
> View attachment 3233176
> 
> 
> The low bass result measured BEFORE is pretty confusing given that speaker is rated 58hz-20khz. In addition, when I play 60hz test tone there is barely anything going on with the center. It becomes audiable @65hz and comes to life @70hz which seems reasonable considering specs. Googled for the SPL test for 540C but unfortunately could not find it.
> 
> So again - what is Audyssey trying to tell me?


I think you're getting a boundary reinforcement from a cabinet or wall.

Also, you should have midrange compensation at 1500 Hz rather than the default 2000 Hz. You should uncheck MRC and dial in your own in the curve editor to match the speaker.

I bet they sound loads better with the bass linearized. That is the biggest advantage of room correction.

Make sure you set the speakers to Small and adjust your sub crossover.


----------



## Pixelatto

Thanks @Soulburner  I kind of assumed that some acoustic contamination is in play. Could it also be the fact that my calibration/listening position is less than 2 feet from the wall (like 1.3 ft)?

However, taking the Audyssey correction for center with a grain of salt - based on corrected graph flat bass response starts @40 hz, while in reality action starts @65-70hz. Playing with crossovers and it's an interesting game one does not seem to be able to win. Really depends on the content, which makes results random. Sometimes it sounds better with crossing @80hz common wisdom point, sometimes with crossing over fronts and surrounds @40 (4xKlipsch RP-8000s) center (RP-504C) and front wides (2xKlipsch RP-5000s) @60. Klipsch surrounds are "meeting Dolby specifications" but produce so much garbage that @100 is the earliest point where response is (kind of) linear. I can definitively hear more directional bass using lower crossovers, and at times more defined, but sometimes it just "blooms" and bass gets a bit overwhelming. Not really concerned with offloading Denon 6700H as it is already off-loaded with 5 ch Parasound A52+ that barely gets warm even during torture sequences @max volume driving center and front/surrounds. Actually sub is the weakest link in the system and first on the upgrade list (Klipsch SPL 150 - decent and loud but lacks "true" power and finesse). 

Will try playing with mid-tone curve. BTW center has two crossovers 500/1500 - should I try both or just mid-range? Even without much tweaking (except for a small +3db bass-head curve to 200hz) center (and the whole system) sounds spectacular, especially with Atmos content.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, I have a set of Kef Q350 fronts, Q650C center and 2 Q50A Atmos "bouncers".
Kef rate them as:

Q350 = 63 Hz
Q650C = 64 Hz
Q50A = 105 Hz

What I get from Audyssey is:

Q350 = 40 Hz
Q650C = 40 Hz
Q50A = 60 Hz

What is wise to do, leave it at the Audyssey settings, or got up to what Kef say, or 80 Hz for Front and Center, and 110 Hz for the 50A ? 

Also have the Q350 on the wall with the original wallmounts from Kef.
The 350 has a bassport on the back, I have bassplugs that came with the 350, do I need to use them this close to the wall ?
Kef makes no mention of using the plugs when the wallmounts are in use..........

Thanks


----------



## bluesky636

Pixelatto said:


> Newby Audyssey question - what does this graph tell me? Enjoying the Audyssey on my Denon 6700H and have bought the app as well. It was really a major upgrade over Yamaha's YPAO. But trying to understand exactly how the measurements work, how accurate they are and what they mean. This is the result for my center Klipsch 504C speaker without any adjustments - I usually opt out from the midrange dip shown in default room correction results. Center was identified as large and Audyssey correctly measured distance within couple of inches.
> 
> View attachment 3233176
> 
> 
> The low bass result measured BEFORE is pretty confusing given that speaker is rated 58hz-20khz. In addition, when I play 60hz test tone there is barely anything going on with the center. It becomes audiable @65hz and comes to life @70hz which seems reasonable considering specs. Googled for the SPL test for 540C but unfortunately could not find it.
> 
> So again - what is Audyssey trying to tell me?





rocky1 said:


> i dont believe ive posted before but im looking for opinions. i have a marantz sr8015 with system audio speakers(sa1750 mains) and a martin logan grotto sub. audessey was done i i really dont tamper with it except change the speakers to 80. audessey had set Mains and center to 60 and surrounds to 40. posting results and if anyone could tell me how it looks per se . really dont know how to read..


You all do realize that the "After" plot is calculated and does not represent the actual final in room response, right? Audyssey DOES NOT go back and remeasure the room response after the correction filters are applied. It simply calculates the response with the filters applied. There can still be about +/- 2.5 dB or so of error in the actual corrected room response.


----------



## Pixelatto

bluesky636 said:


> You all do realize that the "After" plot is calculated and does not represent the actual final in room response, right? Audyssey DOES NOT go back and remeasure the room response after the correction filters are applied. It simply calculates the response with the filters applied. There can still be about +/- 2.5 dB or so of error in the actual corrected room response.


Yep, that much I definitively understand. It's Audyssey's best educated bet what should happen.


----------



## bluesky636

Pixelatto said:


> Yep, that much I definitively understand. It's Audyssey's best educated bet what should happen.


Even educated guesses can be wrong.


----------



## rocky1

bluesky636 said:


> You all do realize that the "After" plot is calculated and does not represent the actual final in room response, right? Audyssey DOES NOT go back and remeasure the room response after the correction filters are applied. It simply calculates the response with the filters applied. There can still be about +/- 2.5 dB or so of error in the actual corrected room response.


newbie obviously here but could you explain a little further . im one who will do the audessey but leave it alone except maybe at times change speakers to 80. so what does one do in ref to the error if anything at all. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> so what does one do in ref to the error if anything at all.


Nothing.

It's the tolerance of the Audyssey process, mostly due to the microphone. Nothing is perfect.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> That's interesting that you find Dynamic Volume to balance your system. Have you tried simply reducing the levels of the surrounds so you can keep the full dynamic range? Obviously your solution is better if you need to watch at night without bothering someone else but during Blu-ray content you shouldn't need compression.
> 
> Audyssey MultEQ-X


Dynamic Volume "Light" is actually still very dynamic. From what I can tell, it doesnt actually kill the peaks very much. It seems to bring up the quiet and average volume sounds. It makes sense that it helps to equalize the front channels with the DEQ boost to the rear surrounds.

This is probably the reason why I never found the boost to surrounds to seem unbalanced because I almost always use DV: Light in conjunction with DEQ with a RLO of +15


----------



## pbz06

rocky1 said:


> newbie obviously here but could you explain a little further . im one who will do the audessey but leave it alone except maybe at times change speakers to 80. so what does one do in ref to the error if anything at all.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk





NuSoardGraphite said:


> Dynamic Volume "Light" is actually still very dynamic. From what I can tell, it doesnt actually kill the peaks very much. It seems to bring up the quiet and average volume sounds. It makes sense that it helps to equalize the front channels with the DEQ boost to the rear surrounds.
> 
> This is probably the reason why I never found the boost to surrounds to seem unbalanced because I almost always use DV: Light in conjunction with DEQ with a RLO of +15


Yup, I've posted Audyssey's response about it. Light has a max trim of 5dB, otherwise it primarily focuses on raising the softer passages. It's usually best to adjust based on the dialogue volume of your preference.


----------



## Pixelatto

bluesky636 said:


> Even educated guesses can be wrong.


Definitively. I am pretty sure that it got my low end sub response wrong - showing flat 0 db line from 20-90hz. Still working on it, but sounds way better when I curved down 20-45 hz range by 2.5 db. Also it did not fix automatically 100-120hz range that was dropping some 2-3 db, so another curve there was needed. Although hope that there would be no LFE signal in this range as it would be quite directional and I cross over heights at 90/100hz.


----------



## Pixelatto

And just to share my latest experience with crossovers. Pretty obvious logic, but since I have been using projectors and screens for 10+ years, completely forgot how badly big TV can impact audio if placed incorrectly  

I finally figured out what was the problem with setting the crossovers lower than 80hz i.e. at points where speakers can produce meaningful (if not reference) SPL levels per their specs/performance. It was the speaker placement and almost entirely related to front L/R that seem to be much more loaded with bass then other non LFE channels. I had pretty big 83" TV between the front towers that was causing bass bloom when towers were crossed over @40. In addition to that, TV was also crippling the front sound stage. I moved the TV 40 cm (1.2 ft) towards front as part of the "immersion" project (aka how close to TV I could get to make the screen appear bigger), and wow. Bass is now perfect with 40hz crossover plus front soundstage is much more defined. Probably would work even better if I could move speakers 2 feet in front of the TV, but the placement limitations in bedroom don't allow that. Will likely do that when get tired of having the bigger HT setup in the bedroom and move it back to living room. So having towers placed in same plane as big TV - not a good idea at all.


----------



## Infernhell

Audyssey bass experts I need your help!

I spent the evening reading the 1st page but I cant get the bass tight as it was before, I am really frustrated and disappointed 😥

I have a 5.1 Teufel Theater 400 system which is 10 years old.
Until last week I was using a Denon 1713, also 10 years old.
This setup had really a tight bass on the Judas Priest Live Blu ray or the before credit scene of The Hobbit, Smaug breathing in the gold like a rumbling V8 was really crisp.
I had DEQ and Dynamic Volume light on.
Crossover 10 Hz higher than the limit of speakers.
That AvR was using the old Audyssey.

After 6 months of delay I finally got the Denon 3700 couple of days ago.

I am using same setup and options, I ran many calibration in the evening when its quiet. 
I turned the subwoofer know to 2 o'clock to trick the system. When the calibration is finished it is showing -8.5 db on the sub.
I just play with the sub level on the AVR menu, not the sub, but the bass is wide, not tight, not kick to it. At -6db the bass start to round the sound nicely but not tightly enough.
I did the 6 points of calibration but very close to each other, maybe 30 to 40cm on between each position.
Flat doesn't sound as rich as Reference.

I am doomed to purchase the App??
Is the new AVR showing me how cheap and bad my 5.1 has become?

Any tip or advice are welcome 🙂


----------



## bluesky636

Infernhell said:


> Audyssey bass experts I need your help!
> 
> I spent the evening reading the 1st page but I cant get the bass tight as it was before, I am really frustrated and disappointed 😥
> 
> I have a 5.1 Teufel Theater 400 system which is 10 years old.
> Until last week I was using a Denon 1713, also 10 years old.
> This setup had really a tight bass on the Judas Priest Live Blu ray or the before credit scene of The Hobbit, Smaug breathing in the gold like a rumbling V8 was really crisp.
> I had DEQ and Dynamic Volume light on.
> Crossover 10 Hz higher than the limit of speakers.
> That AvR was using the old Audyssey.
> 
> After 6 months of delay I finally got the Denon 3700 couple of days ago.
> 
> I am using same setup and options, I ran many calibration in the evening when its quiet.
> I turned the subwoofer know to 2 o'clock to trick the system. When the calibration is finished it is showing -8.5 db on the sub.
> I just play with the sub level on the AVR menu, not the sub, but the bass is wide, not tight, not kick to it. At -6db the bass start to round the sound nicely but not tightly enough.
> I did the 6 points of calibration but very close to each other, maybe 30 to 40cm on between each position.
> Flat doesn't sound as rich as Reference.
> 
> I am doomed to purchase the App??
> Is the new AVR showing me how cheap and bad my 5.1 has become?
> 
> Any tip or advice are welcome 🙂


You'll get more help here:









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Soulburner

Infernhell said:


> Audyssey bass experts I need your help!
> 
> I spent the evening reading the 1st page but I cant get the bass tight as it was before, I am really frustrated and disappointed 😥
> 
> I have a 5.1 Teufel Theater 400 system which is 10 years old.
> Until last week I was using a Denon 1713, also 10 years old.
> This setup had really a tight bass on the Judas Priest Live Blu ray or the before credit scene of The Hobbit, Smaug breathing in the gold like a rumbling V8 was really crisp.
> I had DEQ and Dynamic Volume light on.
> Crossover 10 Hz higher than the limit of speakers.
> That AvR was using the old Audyssey.
> 
> After 6 months of delay I finally got the Denon 3700 couple of days ago.
> 
> I am using same setup and options, I ran many calibration in the evening when its quiet.
> I turned the subwoofer know to 2 o'clock to trick the system. When the calibration is finished it is showing -8.5 db on the sub.
> I just play with the sub level on the AVR menu, not the sub, but the bass is wide, not tight, not kick to it. At -6db the bass start to round the sound nicely but not tightly enough.
> I did the 6 points of calibration but very close to each other, maybe 30 to 40cm on between each position.
> Flat doesn't sound as rich as Reference.
> 
> I am doomed to purchase the App??
> Is the new AVR showing me how cheap and bad my 5.1 has become?
> 
> Any tip or advice are welcome 🙂


Assuming nothing else about your system or room has changed, this is due to small but audible differences in the final subwoofer response. You'll need to take measurements to figure out where to go next, but generally, reducing the slope of the curve so that the 30-50 range is about 1 dB less will increase sub bass "tightness".

You'll also need to optimize your crossover.


----------



## CBdicX

Hi, I have a set of Kef Q350 fronts, Q650C center and 2 Q50A Atmos "bouncers".
Kef rate them as:

Q350 = 63 Hz
Q650C = 64 Hz
Q50A = 105 Hz

What I get from Audyssey is:

Q350 = 40 Hz
Q650C = 40 Hz
Q50A = 60 Hz

What is wise to do, leave it at the Audyssey settings, or got up to what Kef say, or 80 Hz for Front and Center, and 110 Hz for the 50A ?

Also have the Q350 on the wall with the original wallmounts from Kef.
The 350 has a bassport on the back, I have bassplugs that came with the 350, do I need to use them this close to the wall ?
Kef makes no mention of using the plugs when the wallmounts are in use..........

Thanks


----------



## pbz06

CBdicX said:


> Hi, I have a set of Kef Q350 fronts, Q650C center and 2 Q50A Atmos "bouncers".
> Kef rate them as:
> 
> Q350 = 63 Hz
> Q650C = 64 Hz
> Q50A = 105 Hz
> 
> What I get from Audyssey is:
> 
> Q350 = 40 Hz
> Q650C = 40 Hz
> Q50A = 60 Hz
> 
> What is wise to do, leave it at the Audyssey settings, or got up to what Kef say, or 80 Hz for Front and Center, and 110 Hz for the 50A ?
> 
> Also have the Q350 on the wall with the original wallmounts from Kef.
> The 350 has a bassport on the back, I have bassplugs that came with the 350, do I need to use them this close to the wall ?
> Kef makes no mention of using the plugs when the wallmounts are in use..........
> 
> Thanks


You either got good room gains or your AVR is programmed to set more "appealing" crossovers. Either way, it's good practice to raise crossovers to 80hz (in most cases, especially with a good subwoofer). If the crossovers are set higher than 80 by the AVR, then leave them alone (never lower them).

P.s. I known it's just semantics, but Audyssey doesn't set the crossovers. It reports the in room measured -3dB point of your speaker and it's the AVR that sets it based on the manufacturer. Some are more conservative while others are more generous.


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Also have the Q350 on the wall with the original wallmounts from Kef.
> The 350 has a bassport on the back, I have bassplugs that came with the 350, do I need to use them this close to the wall ?
> Kef makes no mention of using the plugs when the wallmounts are in use..........


How much space is there between the wall and the back panel of the Q350s? Page 9 of the speaker manual shows the difference in low bass response with the port open vs the port plugged. For the port to provide any bass boost, the speaker has to be located away from the wall (9"). If the speakers are mounted flat against the wall, there will not be enough room for the port to work and you may as well plug it and rely on any room gain from the wall to boost the bass.


----------



## Infernhell

Soulburner said:


> Assuming nothing else about your system or room has changed, this is due to small but audible differences in the final subwoofer response. You'll need to take measurements to figure out where to go next, but generally, reducing the slope of the curve so that the 30-50 range is about 1 dB less will increase sub bass "tightness".
> 
> You'll also need to optimize your crossover.


Reducing the slop is only possible on the App?


----------



## CBdicX

bluesky636 said:


> How much space is there between the wall and the back panel of the Q350s? Page 9 of the speaker manual shows the difference in low bass response with the port open vs the port plugged. For the port to provide any bass boost, the speaker has to be located away from the wall (9"). If the speakers are mounted flat against the wall, there will not be enough room for the port to work and you may as well plug it and rely on any room gain from the wall to boost the bass.


Thank you for replying.
Thew space between the wall and 350 is *just 2 cm*, so using the plugg seems the way to go.
When I run Audyssey without pluggs I get Fullrange, with pluggs I get 40 Hz, so it seems the ports do some work even they are very near to the wall.


----------



## CBdicX

pbz06 said:


> You either got good room gains or your AVR is programmed to set more "appealing" crossovers. Either way, it's good practice to raise crossovers to 80hz (in most cases, especially with a good subwoofer). If the crossovers are set higher than 80 by the AVR, then leave them alone (never lower them).
> 
> P.s. I known it's just semantics, but Audyssey doesn't set the crossovers. It reports the in room measured -3dB point of your speaker and it's the AVR that sets it based on the manufacturer. Some are more conservative while others are more generous.


Thank you for replying.
For the Fronts and Center going up to 80 Hz is ok I think, and I do run 2 SVS subs 
(I have a 3.2.2 setup)
Do you think using say 110 Hz for the 50A (Atmos) is more in line with the speaker then 80 Hz ?
Kef will rate the 50A at 105 Hz for -3 dB.
I can do 100 Hz or 110 Hz for the 50A on my Denon X3700H.


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Thank you for replying.
> For the Fronts and Center going up to 80 Hz is ok I think, and I do run 2 SVS subs
> (I have a 3.2.2 setup)
> Do you think using say 110 Hz for the 50A (Atmos) is more in line with the speaker then 80 Hz ?
> Kef will rate the 50A at 105 Hz for -3 dB.
> I can do 100 Hz or 110 Hz for the 50A on my Denon X3700H.


Speaker manufacturers typically measure frequency response in an anechoic chamber. Audyssey measures actual in room frequency response. Your choice for crossover should be based on the Audyssey measurement made in your room, not what the manufacturer says. Therefore an 80 Hz crossover would be appropriate for all of your speakers.


----------



## bluesky636

CBdicX said:


> Thank you for replying.
> Thew space between the wall and 350 is *just 2 cm*, so using the plugg seems the way to go.
> When I run Audyssey without pluggs I get Fullrange, with pluggs I get 40 Hz, so it seems the ports do some work even they are very near to the wall.


Denon/Marantz consider a -3 dB point of 40 Hz to be full range or large. Set the crossover to 80 Hz and use whatever sounds best, plug or no plug.


----------



## pbz06

CBdicX said:


> Thank you for replying.
> For the Fronts and Center going up to 80 Hz is ok I think, and I do run 2 SVS subs
> (I have a 3.2.2 setup)
> Do you think using say 110 Hz for the 50A (Atmos) is more in line with the speaker then 80 Hz ?
> Kef will rate the 50A at 105 Hz for -3 dB.
> I can do 100 Hz or 110 Hz for the 50A on my Denon X3700H.


For the 50A, I would start with 100hz and try 110hz, see if you notice a difference (unlikely).


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> For the 50A, I would start with 100hz and try 110hz, see if you notice a difference (unlikely).


Audyssey measured a -3 dB point of 60 Hz for those speakers. 80 Hz crossover should be just fine.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Audyssey measured a -3 dB point of 60 Hz for those speakers. 80 Hz crossover should be just fine.


It's typically recommended that bounce speakers use higher crossovers (+100hz) because they're smaller drivers/cabinets so doing it at 75dB might be one thing, but what about 80 to 95dB?. Either way, he's doing it correctly by raising crossovers.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> It's typically recommended that bounce speakers use higher crossovers (+100hz) because they're smaller drivers/cabinets so doing it at 75dB might be one thing, but what about 80 to 95dB?. Either way, he's doing it correctly by raising crossovers.


Note the power handling and max output capability. Speakers are not small (5.25" diameter). Given the amount of room gain measured and the specs, they seem pretty robust to me

ModelQ50a Dolby Atmos SpeakerDrive Units130mm (5.25in.) aluminium Uni-Q
25mm (1in.) vented aluminium dome HFFrequency range Free Field( - 6dB) – 96Hz - 19.5kHzFrequency Response(±3dB) 105Hz-18.5kHzCrossover Frequency2.5kHzAmplifier Requirements10 - 100WSensitivity(2.83V/1m) 86dBMaximum Output106dBNominal impedance8 Ohms (min.4.6 Ohms)Weight4.25kg (9.4 lbs) Measurement per unitDimension(H x W x D) Measurement per unit
174 x 180 x 259 mm
178 x 180 x 259 mm with rubber feet


----------



## Soulburner

Infernhell said:


> Reducing the slop is only possible on the App?


Right. Also, what controls do you have available on the subs? Something like a room size control works there.


----------



## Pixelatto

I don't think that Audyssey is doing a great job with setting crossovers for up-firing speakers. But not a biggie though. Just look at the graphs for your speakers and see what makes sense for you. Below is Klipsch RP-8060 FA tower with integrated Dolby up-firing speaker (6.5" woofer 1" tweeter). Pretty big woofer, but still 80hz is what makes. Audyssey suggested 40hz (as response for first time reaches -3db) which would obviously not be a great idea as there are still big dips until it stabilizes @around 75hz.


----------



## rocky1

delete


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> If you guys dont mind im posting the specs for my speakers. audessey had set Mains sa1750 and center sa710av to 60 and surrounds sa505’s to 40.all sytem audio speakers.. i intern set crossover to 80 for all but at times back to what audessey set them at. wondering if just to leave to audessy setting
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Again, Audyssey doesn't "set" a crossover. Audessey only reports the speaker -3 dB point as measured in your room. Speaker manufacturers measure in an anechoic chamber. Results are totally different. The AVR manufacturer sets the crossover based on the Audyssey measured -3 dB point. The whole point of selecting the crossover is to achieve the best blend with a sub and allowing the sub to handle the heavy lifting of low frequencies and take the load off the main speakers. THX and Dolby back in the day specified an 80 Hz crossover which still is valid today.


----------



## rocky1

rocky1 said:


> delete


was trying to post the
specs but wasnt working right. which is why deletion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Minnbdl

Hi guys - I have a Denon x3400 and ran Audyssey after relocating our theater to a different room. It kept finding a phase error on our front left - I verified everything was wired correctly, but kept erroring out. Searching the forums, people seem to suggest skipping it and continuing, but there was no option to skip - only option was to either try again or exit without completing. Is there a solution I’m missing?


----------



## ThierryB

Minnbdl said:


> Hi guys - I have a Denon x3400 and ran Audyssey after relocating our theater to a different room. It kept finding a phase error on our front left - I verified everything was wired correctly, but kept erroring out. Searching the forums, people seem to suggest skipping it and continuing, but there was no option to skip - only option was to either try again or exit without completing. Is there a solution I’m missing?


The MultEQ APP definitely lets you continue and ignore the error. I believe the x3400 is compatible with it ? That could be an option ?


----------



## Soulburner

Even the AVR lets you proceed if you are sure your speakers are wired correctly.


----------



## Minnbdl

ThierryB said:


> The MultEQ APP definitely lets you continue and ignore the error. I believe the x3400 is compatible with it ? That could be an option ?


I thought so too but there isn’t a skip button. I included a pic of the screen in my post, guess I’ll play around and see if there is a button on the remote that lets me skip.


----------



## Fleer

Minnbdl said:


> I thought so too but there isn’t a skip button. I included a pic of the screen in my post, guess I’ll play around and see if there is a button on the remote that lets me skip.


If you click Phase info is there a skip button inside?


----------



## Minnbdl

Fleer said:


> If you click Phase info is there a skip button inside?


There isn’t. It’s just a screen that explains the phase error and the only button is “go back”


----------



## bluesky636

Minnbdl said:


> There isn’t. It’s just a screen that explains the phase error and the only button is “go back”


See page 181 of the owner's manual:

"For some speakers, this error message may be displayed even if the speaker is properly connected. If you are sure the connection is correct, press > to select “Ignore”, then press ENTER."

I assume ">" indicates the right arrow cursor button on the remote.


----------



## Minnbdl

bluesky636 said:


> See page 181 of the owner's manual:
> 
> "For some speakers, this error message may be displayed even if the speaker is properly connected. If you are sure the connection is correct, press > to select “Ignore”, then press ENTER."
> 
> I assume ">" indicates the right arrow cursor button on the remote.


Thanks! I’ll try again tomorrow and see if that works.


----------



## Iwanthd

I moved my Marantz SR-7010 to a new room with a 5.1 setup. Ran Audyssey and got through 6 mic positions fine. At position 7 I got the 'no speakers connected" error message. I hit the re-try several times with no love. cancelled the setup to start over and now I get same message for first speaker and cannot proceed. Seems weird to me I could go through all 5.1 speakers 6 times without an error message and then have it hang at position 7. Now I can't get past first speaker. I've tried resetting the mic plug several times and a soft reset of the unit. Any advice? Thanks!


----------



## Rich 63

Iwanthd said:


> I moved my Marantz SR-7010 to a new room with a 5.1 setup. Ran Audyssey and got through 6 mic positions fine. At position 7 I got the 'no speakers connected" error message. I hit the re-try several times with no love. cancelled the setup to start over and now I get same message for first speaker and cannot proceed. Seems weird to me I could go through all 5.1 speakers 6 times without an error message and then have it hang at position 7. Now I can't get past first speaker. I've tried resetting the mic plug several times and a soft reset of the unit. Any advice? Thanks!


You using the app correct? It's a common problem. Connection issues. Do an internet reboot on avr. Might help. I run into this on occasion. I just leave it until another day. No rhyme or reason why this happens but I've come to the conclusion that almost all gear issues are internet related.


----------



## Iwanthd

Rich 63 said:


> You using the app correct? It's a common problem. Connection issues. Do an internet reboot on avr. Might help. I run into this on occasion. I just leave it until another day. No rhyme or reason why this happens but I've come to the conclusion that almost all gear issues are internet related.


Thanks for response, but no I'm not using the app. Just following the procedure in the marantz setup menu under Speakers.


----------



## nikhilnh

Hi Guys, I have a fairly simple question. I have a Denon X3600 and a 3.1 setup. I recently reran the calibration as few things had changed in the room where speakers are placed . I bought and used another mic compatible with X3600 from Audyssey labs as I had misplaced the original microphone that came with the receiver. The speaker levels after the recent calibration are quite different compared to the calibration that was done as soon as I got the receiver. Here are the speaker levels 

Initial calibration:
Front L +1.0 dB
Front R +0.5 dB
Center +0.5 dB
Subwoofer -4.0 dB

Recent:
Front L +7.0 dB
Front R +6.0 dB
Center +5.5 dB
Subwoofer -4.0 dB

Apart from the mic I changed the speaker stands and a coffee table has been placed in the room that has the speakers. Is the change in speaker levels as determined by Audyssey normal ?


----------



## bluesky636

Iwanthd said:


> I moved my Marantz SR-7010 to a new room with a 5.1 setup. Ran Audyssey and got through 6 mic positions fine. At position 7 I got the 'no speakers connected" error message. I hit the re-try several times with no love. cancelled the setup to start over and now I get same message for first speaker and cannot proceed. Seems weird to me I could go through all 5.1 speakers 6 times without an error message and then have it hang at position 7. Now I can't get past first speaker. I've tried resetting the mic plug several times and a soft reset of the unit. Any advice? Thanks!


Try a factory reset:






Resetting factory settings SR7010







manuals.marantz.com


----------



## bluesky636

nikhilnh said:


> Hi Guys, I have a fairly simple question. I have a Denon X3600 and a 3.1 setup. I recently reran the calibration as few things had changed in the room where speakers are placed . I bought and used another mic compatible with X3600 from Audyssey labs as I had misplaced the original microphone that came with the receiver. The speaker levels after the recent calibration are quite different compared to the calibration that was done as soon as I got the receiver. Here are the speaker levels
> 
> Initial calibration:
> Front L +1.0 dB
> Front R +0.5 dB
> Center +0.5 dB
> Subwoofer -4.0 dB
> 
> Recent:
> Front L +7.0 dB
> Front R +6.0 dB
> Center +5.5 dB
> Subwoofer -4.0 dB
> 
> Apart from the mic I changed the speaker stands and a coffee table has been placed in the room that has the speakers. Is the change in speaker levels as determined by Audyssey normal ?


What are the speakers?

How did the speaker stands change?

How many mic positions are you using and where are they located?

What is the coffee table made of and where is it located in relation to the speakers?

You could be getting reflections off the top of the coffee table. Remove the coffee table, rerun Audyssey and see what happens.


----------



## garygarrison

nikhilnh said:


> Hi Guys, I have a fairly simple question. I have a Denon X3600 and a 3.1 setup. I recently reran the calibration as few things had changed in the room where speakers are placed . I bought and used another mic compatible with X3600 from Audyssey labs as I had misplaced the original microphone that came with the receiver. The speaker levels after the recent calibration are quite different compared to the calibration that was done as soon as I got the receiver. Here are the speaker levels
> 
> Initial calibration:
> Front L +1.0 dB
> Front R +0.5 dB
> Center +0.5 dB
> Subwoofer -4.0 dB
> 
> Recent:
> Front L +7.0 dB
> Front R +6.0 dB
> Center +5.5 dB
> Subwoofer -4.0 dB
> 
> Apart from the mic I changed the speaker stands and a coffee table has been placed in the room that has the speakers. Is the change in speaker levels as determined by Audyssey normal ?


I noticed the *subwoofer* was set at *exactly the same level* both times. Hmmm. Subwoofers never beam. What, never? 🎵Well, hardly ever🎶. So, I wonder if the microphone positions are *less on the axis* of the *other* speakers -- which may beam a little -- now, than they were before, i.e., are the speakers *higher* or *lower*, or *farther away?* If any of these things are true, could that account for an average difference of 3 or 4 dB, between, say 100Hz and 7 or 8K Hz?


----------



## nikhilnh

bluesky636 said:


> What are the speakers?
> 
> How did the speaker stands change?
> 
> How many mic positions are you using and where are they located?
> 
> What is the coffee table made of and where is it located in relation to the speakers?
> 
> You could be getting reflections off the top of the coffee table. Remove the coffee table, rerun Audyssey and see what happens.


Thanks Bill and Gary for responding .Yes the next option would be to rerun Audyssey after removing the coffee table. Below are the responses to your questions

*Speakers:*
Chane A2.4 for all the channels

*Speaker Stands:*
Earlier I had Bose FS-01 speaker stands that were 24" high. This placed the tweeters below my ear level for L & R speakers. Currently I'm using Monoprice Monolith 28" steel stands and this places the tweeters at my ear level. I have also filled the hollow steel columns with sand, which makes it non resonant. I also put Vibrapod isolation feet under my center channel. Just using these speaker stands and vibrapods improved the sound quality of the setup. Here is a link to the speaker stands
Monorprice Monolith Speaker Stands

*Mic Positions:
*For the initial calibration I used 6 positions and for the most recent one I used 8. I also forgot to mention that I had used tripod for the initial calibration and this time I used a mic boom stand. The mic boom stand allowed me to place the mic exactly at my ear level and I don't think I was able to do that with the tripod.

*Coffee Table:*
Coffee table is made of wood with glass top. It is placed between the speakers and the Main Listening position. All the speakers are placed higher than the glass top of the coffee table.


----------



## bluesky636

nikhilnh said:


> Coffee table is made of wood with glass top. It is placed between the speakers and the Main Listening position. All the speakers are placed higher than the glass top of the coffee table.


I think you will find this is the problem. Coffee table needs to go.


----------



## Matt2026

nikhilnh said:


> Thanks Bill and Gary for responding .Yes the next option would be to rerun Audyssey after removing the coffee table. Below are the responses to your questions
> 
> *Speakers:*
> Chane A2.4 for all the channels
> 
> *Speaker Stands:*
> Earlier I had Bose FS-01 speaker stands that were 24" high. This placed the tweeters below my ear level for L & R speakers. Currently I'm using Monoprice Monolith 28" steel stands and this places the tweeters at my ear level. I have also filled the hollow steel columns with sand, which makes it non resonant. I also put Vibrapod isolation feet under my center channel. Just using these speaker stands and vibrapods improved the sound quality of the setup. Here is a link to the speaker stands
> Monorprice Monolith Speaker Stands
> 
> *Mic Positions:
> *For the initial calibration I used 6 positions and for the most recent one I used 8. I also forgot to mention that I had used tripod for the initial calibration and this time I used a mic boom stand. The mic boom stand allowed me to place the mic exactly at my ear level and I don't think I was able to do that with the tripod.
> 
> *Coffee Table:*
> Coffee table is made of wood with glass top. It is placed between the speakers and the Main Listening position. All the speakers are placed higher than the glass top of the coffee table.


The problem is the sound waves do not emanate in just a straight line from the speaker to your ears. If you stand up can you still hear the speaker?, Yes, of course you can, well sound waves are also traveling downward that hit the glass top and reflect upward to the listening position... If you place your ear down where the table is, do you hear the sound? Yes? If so those waves can bounce upward toward your listening position. They can also bounce off walls, etc.


----------



## nikhilnh

Matt2026 said:


> The problem is the sound waves do not emanate in just a straight line from the speaker to your ears. If you stand up can you still hear the speaker?, Yes, of course you can, well sound waves are also traveling downward that hit the glass top and reflect upward to the listening position... If you place your ear down where the table is, do you hear the sound? Yes? If so those waves can bounce upward toward your listening position. They can also bounce off walls, etc.


Completely agree. Had the suspicion about the coffee table, however wanted to rule out the new mic wasn't causing any of the differences.


----------



## Rich 63

bluesky636 said:


> You could be getting reflections off the top of the coffee table. Remove the coffee table, rerun Audyssey and see what happens.


Most people have a table in the average room. To me removing the the table is a non starter. Are you suggesting this as a permanent solution.


----------



## Matt2026

Rich 63 said:


> Most people have a table in the average room. To me removing the the table is a non starter. Are you suggesting this as a permanent solution.


I would guess the average person uses a sound bar vs discrete components... 

IIRC I've read past posts where the person put a heavy cloth of some sort on their coffee table during critical listening times.

We all make out own choice and live with the results. I got my setup going in 2014 with a Denon 4520CI and have never run Audyssey and am happy with my setup.


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> Most people have a table in the average room. To me removing the the table is a non starter. Are you suggesting this as a permanent solution.


It is never a good idea to put a large, reflective surface between the speakers and main listening position. Why do you think rugs on the floor in front of speakers are always recommended and putting a blanket over the back of the couch when running Audyssey? If the table proves to be the problem, then yes, removal is the permanent solution. Unless you prefer listening to crappy sound of course.


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> I would guess the average person uses a sound bar vs discrete components...
> 
> IIRC I've read past posts where the person put a heavy cloth of some sort on their coffee table during critical listening times.
> 
> We all make out own choice and live with the results. I got my setup going in 2014 with a Denon 4520CI and have never run Audyssey and am happy with my setup.
> View attachment 3240510
> 
> View attachment 3240512


If you have never run Audyssey, how do you know it won't sound even better if you do? That's really silly: It sounds good now. Why make the effort to make it sound better? Only takes 15 to 20 minutes.


----------



## Rich 63

bluesky636 said:


> It is never a good idea to put a large, reflective surface between the speakers and main listening position. Why do you think rugs on the floor in front of speakers are always recommended and putting a blanket over the back of the couch when running Audyssey? If the table proves to be the problem, then yes, removal is the permanent solution. Unless you prefer listening to crappy sound of course.


I care about sound and am well down the rabbit hole. Im well aware of the reflective properties of a table and have seen the recommendation made before . It's absurd. 
My point was that if you need to remove a table to tame the sound you've got a bigger problem then the table. In 30 +years with a ht system I've never remotely needed to remove a coffe table to improve sound. There would be no place to put my beer if I did anyway.


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> I care about sound and am well down the rabbit hole. Im well aware of the reflective properties of a table and have seen the recommendation made before . It's absurd.
> My point was that if you need to remove a table to tame the sound you've got a bigger problem then the table. In 30 +years with a ht system I've never remotely needed to remove a coffe table to improve sound. There would be no place to put my beer if I did anyway.


Like I said. If the table proves to be the problem, it should be permanently removed.


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> I think you will find this is the problem. Coffee table needs to go.


 I get why a coffee table in front of the MLP will mess up the sound, but someone please explain why a calibration done without the table would be adequate when the table is replaced.

P.S. My coffee table went away for good when I bought an AVR with Audyssey.


----------



## Artimus62

Rich 63 said:


> I care about sound and am well down the rabbit hole. Im well aware of the reflective properties of a table and have seen the recommendation made before . It's absurd.
> My point was that if you need to remove a table to tame the sound you've got a bigger problem then the table. In 30 +years with a ht system I've never remotely needed to remove a coffe table to improve sound. There would be no place to put my beer if I did anyway.


My coffee table has been in situe since my first ever Audyssey run in 2009, so I’m non the wiser what my HT would sound like without it …sometimes_ ignorance is_ _Bliss_.


----------



## Artimus62

Artimus62 said:


> My coffee table has been in situe since my first ever Audyssey run in 2009, so I’m non the wiser what my HT would sound like without it …sometimes_ ignorance is_ _Bliss_.


I’m also not buying the Coffee table as the reason for the db loss in your setup - I think it’s more likely be soft furnishings causing the discrepancy.


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> I get why a coffee table in front of the MLP will mess up the sound, but someone please explain why a calibration done without the table would be adequate when the table is replaced.
> 
> P.S. My coffee table went away for good when I bought an AVR with Audyssey.


As I have said a couple of times already, if the table proves to be the problem, it should be removed PERMANENTLY.


----------



## bluesky636

Artimus62 said:


> I’m also not buying the Coffee table as the reason for the db loss in your setup - I think it’s more likely be soft furnishings causing the discrepancy.


Did you bother to read the OPs post on the changes he made in the room? If not, maybe you should.


----------



## bluesky636

Frankly, I think some people need to do a little research and refresh their memory into the impacts of early reflections on Audyssey.


----------



## Artimus62

bluesky636 said:


> Did you bother to read the OPs post on the changes he made in the room? If not, maybe you should.


I did and noticed he changed the speaker positions, did you? 



nikhilnh said:


> Hi Guys, I have a fairly simple question. I have a Denon X3600 and a 3.1 setup. I recently reran the calibration _*as few things had changed in the room where speakers are placed*_ . I bought and used another mic compatible with X3600 from Audyssey labs as I had misplaced the original microphone that came with the receiver. The speaker levels after the recent calibration are quite different compared to the calibration that was done as soon as I got the receiver. Here are the speaker levels
> 
> Initial calibration:
> Front L +1.0 dB
> Front R +0.5 dB
> Center +0.5 dB
> Subwoofer -4.0 dB
> 
> Recent:
> Front L +7.0 dB
> Front R +6.0 dB
> Center +5.5 dB
> Subwoofer -4.0 dB
> 
> Apart from the mic I changed the speaker stands and a coffee table has been placed in the room that has the speakers. Is the change in speaker levels as determined by Audyssey normal ?


----------



## nikhilnh

Artimus62 said:


> I’m also not buying the Coffee table as the reason for the db loss in your setup - I think it’s more likely be soft furnishings causing the discrepancy.


 Even with the coffee table and other changes mentioned in my post the setup sounds better than before. However, I'll run another calibration after removing the coffee table and see how things turn out. By doing this I'll have two config files one with coffee table and one without. I can use either one if my wife doesn't agree to remove the table permanently.


----------



## bluesky636

Artimus62 said:


> I did and noticed he changed the speaker positions, did you?


Yes I did. However, you referenced the wrong post and don't know the whole story.



nikhilnh said:


> Thanks Bill and Gary for responding .Yes the next option would be to rerun Audyssey after removing the coffee table. Below are the responses to your questions
> 
> *Speakers:*
> Chane A2.4 for all the channels
> 
> *Speaker Stands:*
> Earlier I had Bose FS-01 speaker stands that were 24" high. This placed the tweeters below my ear level for L & R speakers. Currently I'm using Monoprice Monolith 28" steel stands and this places the tweeters at my ear level. I have also filled the hollow steel columns with sand, which makes it non resonant. I also put Vibrapod isolation feet under my center channel. Just using these speaker stands and vibrapods improved the sound quality of the setup. Here is a link to the speaker stands
> Monorprice Monolith Speaker Stands
> 
> *Mic Positions:
> *For the initial calibration I used 6 positions and for the most recent one I used 8. I also forgot to mention that I had used tripod for the initial calibration and this time I used a mic boom stand. The mic boom stand allowed me to place the mic exactly at my ear level and I don't think I was able to do that with the tripod.
> 
> *Coffee Table:*
> Coffee table is made of wood with glass top. It is placed between the speakers and the Main Listening position. All the speakers are placed higher than the glass top of the coffee table.


I've made my recommendation to nikhilnh and I stand by it. He can follow it or not. I don't care. I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject.


----------



## bluesky636

nikhilnh said:


> Even with the coffee table and other changes mentioned in my post the setup sounds better than before. However, I'll run another calibration after removing the coffee table and see how things turn out. By doing this I'll have two config files one with coffee table and one without. I can use either one if my wife doesn't agree to remove the table permanently.


Wife usually has the final say. Good luck.


----------



## Soulburner

Rich 63 said:


> There would be no place to put my beer if I did anyway.


Many seating options have cupholders these days.


----------



## Artimus62

nikhilnh said:


> Even with the coffee table and other changes mentioned in my post the setup sounds better than before. However, I'll run another calibration after removing the coffee table and see how things turn out. By doing this I'll have two config files one with coffee table and one without. I can use either one if my wife doesn't agree to remove the table permanently.


It’ll be interesting to hear your subjective view of the _de-tabled_ calibration …for better or worse.


----------



## pbz06

Artimus62 said:


> It’ll be interesting to hear your subjective view of the _de-tabled_ calibration …for better or worse.


When I measured my space with and without the coffee table (glass), I did not see anything in the measurements nor really hear any audible differences. My listening tests weren't of the "critical" variety though. However, my center speaker is slightly tilted upwards and towards my head, and I usually keep place mats on the table. I have no doubt that there's reflections bouncing around not just the table but also my walls and everything. Bottom line, in a compromised house environment, I think doing the basic housekeeping things goes a long ways to improving sound quality. I wouldn't be stressing about it, and my wife and I would prefer the coffee table anyway


----------



## mrtickleuk

I saw a YouTube video once with a guy who had fully treated - and I mean FULLY - his living room. Tables had tablecloths, lots of little pieces of material and towels covering every conceivable surface. He said it sounded fantastic (who am I to judge, maybe it did) but it _looked _terrible!

(I really wish I could find it, just had a hunt around in my YT history but no luck so far)

EDIT: the reason it came to mind today was because I'm sure there was a cloth on his coffee table


----------



## nikhilnh

mrtickleuk said:


> EDIT: the reason it came to mind today was because I'm sure there was a cloth on his coffee table


Nah. Do you think wifey would have allowed it? It would have disturbed the room design that she had created.


----------



## mrtickleuk

nikhilnh said:


> Nah. Do you think wifey would have allowed it? It would have disturbed the room design that she had created.


Sorry if my post was ambiguous when I say I'm sure, I didn't mean there was any doubt, as if I was trying to remember if there was a cloth or not. I'm certain. Not one surface in the room was left uncovered! 
If you put a plate down on the coffee table (on top of that cloth, thus now creating a hard surface!) he would have jumped forward to cover it with a cloth napkin. That kind of mentality.


----------



## pbarach

Artimus62 said:


> My coffee table has been in situe since my first ever Audyssey run in 2009, so I’m non the wiser what my HT would sound like without it …sometimes_ ignorance is_ _Bliss_.


 Imaging in my relatively near-field setup is just much better without the coffee table.


----------



## Iwanthd

bluesky636 said:


> Try a factory reset:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Resetting factory settings SR7010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manuals.marantz.com


Thanks, gave it a try, no luck. Maybe a mic problem? Speakers report the series of chirps for front left then error message still pops up cannot locate speakers. So weird that before it worked for 6 mic positions and then failed on position 7. Now, can't read first speaker.


----------



## bluesky636

Iwanthd said:


> Thanks, gave it a try, no luck. Maybe a mic problem? Speakers report the series of chirps for front left then error message still pops up cannot locate speakers. So weird that before it worked for 6 mic positions and then failed on position 7. Now, can't read first speaker.


----------



## Jedi Knight

I have a 2.0 setup consisting of a pair of bookshelf speakers and the Denon AVR-1712 (circa 2012), an entry level AV receiver with MultEQ XT. Use is streaming movies/series through various apps, infrequent Blu-Rays, and Spotify music.

Do people typically run Audyssey with a 2.0 setup? Whenever I searched for running Audyssey without a subwoofer the results showed multichannel with a subwoofer.

Is MultEQ XT even worth running given its limitations compared to MultEQ XT32? I've read that it can make things worse, but don't know if this is generally the case or not.

If running Audyssey with a 2.0 setup is beneficial, after Audyssey has run, would I set the speakers to Large and apply no crossover since there is no subwoofer?

Finally, while I know Direct and Pure Direct would bypass any Audyssey correction settings, what would Stereo do, particularly without a subwoofer?

Appreciate any help on this as I'm not sure what to do.


----------



## bluesky636

Jedi Knight said:


> I have a 2.0 setup consisting of a pair of bookshelf speakers and the Denon AVR-1712 (circa 2012), an entry level AV receiver with MultEQ XT. Use is streaming movies/series through various apps, infrequent Blu-Rays, and Spotify music.
> 
> Do people typically run Audyssey with a 2.0 setup? Whenever I searched for running Audyssey without a subwoofer the results showed multichannel with a subwoofer.
> 
> Is MultEQ XT even worth running given its limitations compared to MultEQ XT32? I've read that it can make things worse, but don't know if is this is generally the case or not.
> 
> If running Audyssey with a 2.0 setup is beneficial, after Audyssey has run, would I set the speakers to Large and apply no crossover since there is no subwoofer?
> 
> Finally, while I know Direct and Pure Direct would bypass any Audyssey correction settings, what would Stereo do, particularly without a subwoofer?
> 
> Appreciate any help on this as I'm not sure what to do.


It will take you about 15 minutes to run Audyssey and find out if it sounds better to you or not.

Yes, without a subwoofer you would set the speakers to large.

Stereo will engage Audyssey. 

Only you can decide if Audyssey is beneficial or not.


----------



## mrtickleuk

mrtickleuk said:


> (I really wish I could find it, just had a hunt around in my YT history but no luck so far)
> 
> EDIT: the reason it came to mind today was because I'm sure there was a cloth on his coffee table


My memory could be playing tricks on me - but I'm 90% sure I think I've found it.















That's a screenshot of the tea-towel cloth on his coffee table, and the cloth on the back of the sofa, and all the treatments all over the place, and elsewhere in the video is his Heath-Robinson arrangement of speakers placed on top of cardboard boxes.


----------



## Soulburner

Jedi Knight said:


> Do people typically run Audyssey with a 2.0 setup? Whenever I searched for running Audyssey without a subwoofer the results showed multichannel with a subwoofer.


Oh yes - my room correction does not depend on the number of speakers.



Jedi Knight said:


> Is MultEQ XT even worth running given its limitations compared to MultEQ XT32? I've read that it can make things worse, but don't know if this is generally the case or not.


It is better than nothing, but you can probably do better with a MiniDSP.


----------



## garygarrison

Jedi Knight said:


> Do people typically run Audyssey with a 2.0 setup? Whenever I searched for running Audyssey without a subwoofer the results showed multichannel with a subwoofer.
> 
> Is MultEQ XT even worth running given its limitations compared to MultEQ XT32? I've read that it can make things worse, but don't know if this is generally the case or not.
> 
> If running Audyssey with a 2.0 setup is beneficial, after Audyssey has run, would I set the speakers to Large and apply no crossover since there is no subwoofer?





bluesky636 said:


> Only you can decide if Audyssey is beneficial or not.



Somewhere, there should be a screen with *"*Subwoofer Yes *No*" ... My XT has it near the "Large" and "Small" setting. But mine is a Marantz, and yours is a Denon -- same parent company --
🎵"With a little bit of luck" 🎶 ...
IMO XT helps 2 channel. Try it. It depends on your room and your speakers. The effect can range from subtle to appreciable.
Does your set-up allow you to choose between Audyssey Flat and plain Audyssey (Audyssey Reference?) Try both. Some people will insist that flat v.s. reference depends only on room acoustics and treatment (dead v.s. live), nature of your speakers in complex interaction with the room, room treatment, positioning, etc., but, _believe me,_ it depends on the program material, too. In our deadish room we prefer Audyssey Flat most of the time, but with the superb _*magnetic*_ soundtracks (forget optical!) of the 1950s (e.g., 70mm films, etc.), sometimes they let the treble run wild, so the treble roll-off in the highs you get with Audyssey Reference w/ XT (a _small _dip in the "harsh zone" at about 2K, that then comes back up, then a subtle decline above 6K, - 2 dB at 10K and - 6 dB at 20K), can be helpful. Reference can also help out with the old, harsh CDs that predominated during the first few years of their existence.
If you're going to treat your room acoustically, do so *before *running Audyssey.
Here are a couple of guides. Although the first one is old, it was written for *XT*, so, for you it is quite contemporary. *"Audyssey FAQ Linked Here"* and * Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences *Don't let the word "Subwoofer" throw you with the second one*;* there is plenty of info on Audyssey, too. See his "Cliff Notes" near the beginning for a quick way in. The two guys (AVS Fourm members) who wrote these two guides are about as well informed as audiophiles or film buffs get.
Take your time, trust your ears.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Does your set-up allow you to choose between Audyssey Flat and plain Audyssey (Audyssey Reference?) Try both. Some people will insist that flat v.s. reference depends only on room acoustics and treatment (dead v.s. live), nature of your speakers in complex interaction with the room, room treatment, positioning, etc., but, _believe me,_ it depends on the program material, too.


It also depends greatly on the speakers. Audyssey Flat would be a poor choice for someone with brighter speakers, but is a great choice for speakers with more subdued treble. I've used it on such speakers to good effect. The thing is it's not really intended to be used in that way.

With neutral speakers, you're better off with the Reference curve, or restricting the frequency range altogether. If you have speakers in which a lot of thought went into producing neutral sound, with good on and off-axis sound so all of the reflections are also uncolored, there's a good chance you can screw that up with room correction above 500 Hz or so.

Keep in mind that with the MultEQ app, only the Reference curve carries the changes you apply.


----------



## Jedi Knight

Thanks for the responses everyone. Helped to clarify some things.


----------



## Jedi Knight

Soulburner said:


> It also depends greatly on the speakers. Audyssey Flat would be a poor choice for someone with brighter speakers, but is a great choice for speakers with more subdued treble. I've used it on such speakers to good effect. The thing is it's not really intended to be used in that way.
> 
> With neutral speakers, you're better off with the Reference curve, or restricting the frequency range altogether. If you have speakers in which a lot of thought went into producing neutral sound, with good on and off-axis sound so all of the reflections are also uncolored, there's a good chance you can screw that up with room correction above 500 Hz or so.
> 
> Keep in mind that with the MultEQ app, only the Reference curve carries the changes you apply.


My speakers are the Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2EX, a more neutral speaker. I just upgraded from the Sierra 1. I never ran Audyssey with the Sierra 1. I just did simple manual settings in my Denon receiver - set them to Large, no subwoofer, distance between speakers and listening position - and used either the Direct or Pure Direct setting. 

Now that I have the Sierra 2EX I want to do a proper setup with what I have, which is why I looked into Audyssey. I hope to upgrade the receiver at some point, possibly the Denon X1700H or Yamaha RX-V6A, or wait until the Denon X1800H comes out if not too long. I would love to get a receiver with MultEQ XT32, but the price jump to $1500 for the X3xxx series is too much. I'm still looking into other options in the $600ish price range. The receiver purchase is a while off, sometime in 2023, since I'm looking at other gear.

As far as settings I'm still unsure about which to use between Stereo, Direct, Pure Direct for movies and then for music. There's a lot of debate and differing opinions on the issue.


----------



## Soulburner

Jedi Knight said:


> My speakers are the Ascend Acoustics Sierra 2EX, a more neutral speaker. I just upgraded from the Sierra 1. I never ran Audyssey with the Sierra 1. I just did simple manual settings in my Denon receiver - set them to Large, no subwoofer, distance between speakers and listening position - and used either the Direct or Pure Direct setting.
> 
> Now that I have the Sierra 2EX I want to do a proper setup with what I have, which is why I looked into Audyssey. I hope to upgrade the receiver at some point, possibly the Denon X1700H or Yamaha RX-V6A, or wait until the Denon X1800H comes out if not too long. I would love to get a receiver with MultEQ XT32, but the price jump to $1500 for the X3xxx series is too much. I'm still looking into other options in the $600ish price range. The receiver purchase is a while off, sometime in 2023, since I'm looking at other gear.
> 
> As far as settings I'm still unsure about which to use between Stereo, Direct, Pure Direct for movies and then for music. There's a lot of debate and differing opinions on the issue.


For movies don't use any pure direct modes, just let it use Dolby or DTS decoding. Also pure direct disables Audyssey and subwoofer bass management.

On a personal note, the amount of time that I have spent in Pure Direct mode in the 10+ years I've been using Denon AVRs is 0 minutes. I just don't believe that the loss of my multi-channel bass-managed and equalized system is made up for by any perceived benefit.

If you can find a refurbished or used AVR as people upgrade, that's the best way to get into XT32.


----------



## Jedi Knight

Soulburner said:


> For movies don't use any pure direct modes, just let it use Dolby or DTS decoding. Also pure direct disables Audyssey and subwoofer bass management.
> 
> On a personal note, the amount of time that I have spent in Pure Direct mode in the 10+ years I've been using Denon AVRs is 0 minutes. I just don't believe that the loss of my multi-channel bass-managed and equalized system is made up for by any perceived benefit.
> 
> If you can find a refurbished or used AVR as people upgrade, that's the best way to get into XT32.


Not having a subwoofer, I have found learning how to do a proper setup to be more challenging and more intimidating. Reading about Direct and Pure Direct in 2 channel audiophile forums didn't really help since I'm using an av receiver in 2.0 for movies and music, not a 2 channel amp or separates.

As for refurbished, while I'm not opposed, I prefer to buy new when possible, and considering that I'm a gamer having hdmi 2.1 is important. That limits my options.

When I initially set up my Sierra 1 years ago I was told to set them as Large, but to be careful with volume levels, particularly with movies, since the entire frequency range is sent to the speakers. Not knowing all the changes that Audyssey makes when doing its calibration I was concerned that it would make them sound worse and/or increase the chance for damage if played too loud. I don't play anywhere near reference level, typically -30db to -20db, so I figured I would be ok if I didn't use Audyssey. With it I wasn't sure.


----------



## Jedi Knight

Soulburner said:


> For movies don't use any pure direct modes, just let it use Dolby or DTS decoding. Also pure direct disables Audyssey and subwoofer bass management.


So I would use Dolby or DTS decoding even with a 2.0 setup? Not Stereo? Would using Dobly or DTS sound different versus Stereo in 2.0?


----------



## sjm817

With a 2.0 setup, there wont even be a small/large option. Since there is no SW detected, it will just set the speakers to large full range. I have a 5.2.4 and a 3.0 setup. The 3.0 sets the mains to large and gives me option of small/large for the center.

There will also be DEQ and DV options. For initial testing turn both off so you arent testing multiple settings. Try Stereo (Audyssey is on) and Direct (Audy off) and see what you like. If you like stereo better try DEQ and see if you like that. You can also turn DEQ off and try the bass/treble tone controls and see if you like those options. I have XT32 but am fairly sure all of this applies to XT as well.

Edit: If you are trying different options and trying Tone control: I have seen a weird bug but cant say if it affects all Denon models. If you are using tone controls, but then switch to Direct mode, the sound is terrible. You need to disable tone control before switching to direct mode.


----------



## Soulburner

Jedi Knight said:


> When I initially set up my Sierra 1 years ago I was told to set them as Large, but to be careful with volume levels, particularly with movies, since the entire frequency range is sent to the speakers. Not knowing all the changes that Audyssey makes when doing its calibration I was concerned that it would make them sound worse and/or increase the chance for damage if played too loud. I don't play anywhere near reference level, typically -30db to -20db, so I figured I would be ok if I didn't use Audyssey. With it I wasn't sure.


I wouldn't worry. Those speakers should handle Audyssey just fine.


----------



## Soulburner

Jedi Knight said:


> So I would use Dolby or DTS decoding even with a 2.0 setup? Not Stereo? Would using Dobly or DTS sound different versus Stereo in 2.0?


It will still be downmixed to stereo.


----------



## Jedi Knight

When running Audyssey, if there is only one listening position, how far apart do I space each microphone position? Does room size affect how far apart?

I read a guide that stated to only place the mic 10-30 cm apart, which is roughly 4-12 inches. Is that too short a distance? I think I read 18" was good if only one person.


----------



## Sm1ggs

Within 60cm for the 1 seat, I do 3 across the back 3 across the front and 2 in the middle


----------



## Lttlwing16

I'm running into an issue where my Audyssey calibrations upload to the AVR via the app "Transfer complete" but when I check the level settings under Speakers>>Levels nothing has changed. 

Any ideas?


----------



## rocky1

nvm deleted saw transaction complete

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lttlwing16

rocky1 said:


> sounds stupid but you did hit Send
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No that's a good question as the app is kind of weakly designed with the "Done's". But yeah, I get "Transfer Complete" and via the IP of the AVR in a web browser I see the Crossovers, Distances are correct for the calibration I uploaded, but levels are completely unchanged and incorrect.


----------



## Keenan

Lttlwing16 said:


> No that's a good question as the app is kind of weakly designed with the "Done's". But yeah, I get "Transfer Complete" and via the IP of the AVR in a web browser I see the Crossovers, Distances are correct for the calibration I uploaded, but levels are completely unchanged and incorrect.


I see this often as well and to "fix it" I unplug/plugin the AVR and then the readings on the web browser page are correct. It might even work by clearing the browser cache which is something I haven't tried yet.


----------



## Lttlwing16

Keenan said:


> I see this often as well and to "fix it" I unplug/plugin the AVR and then the readings on the web browser page are correct. It might even work by clearing the browser cache which is something I haven't tried yet.


Thanks man, a power plug pull worked


----------



## nikhilnh

Artimus62 said:


> It’ll be interesting to hear your subjective view of the _de-tabled_ calibration …for better or worse.


So I removed the coffee table from the room and reran the calibration again. There was very slight differences in measurements and small differences in levels of the speakers. There was no audible difference that I could discern. Again this is not a scientific test just my subjective observation. So here are the results  of speaker levels

*Initial calibration (without coffee table ):*

Front L +1.0 dB​Front R +0.5 dB​Center +0.5 dB​Subwoofer -4.0 dB​
*Recent calibration with coffee table:*

Front L +7.0 dB​Front R +6.0 dB​Center +5.5 dB​Subwoofer -4.0 dB​​*Recent calibration without coffee table:*

Front L +6.5 dB​Front R +5.0 dB​Center +5.5 dB​Subwoofer -3.0 dB​​


----------



## Lttlwing16

I'm using MultiEQ on my s750H with a 5.2.2 setup, and am curious how folks feel about limiting Audyssey EQ range to below 700hz. My CG3 surrounds were lacking some energy in the 2-5khz range and didn't know if I should let Audyssey add it back or stick with the idea of keeping Audyssey's changes to below 700hz. 

Thoughts about range limiting?


----------



## mogorf

Lttlwing16 said:


> I'm using MultiEQ on my s750H with a 5.2.2 setup, and am curious how folks feel about limiting Audyssey EQ range to below 700hz. My CG3 surrounds were lacking some energy in the 2-5khz range and didn't know if I should let Audyssey add it back or stick with the idea of keeping Audyssey's changes to below 700hz.
> 
> Thoughts about range limiting?


This is what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say about range limiting:

Qte

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction.

Unqte


----------



## pbz06

Lttlwing16 said:


> I'm using MultiEQ on my s750H with a 5.2.2 setup, and am curious how folks feel about limiting Audyssey EQ range to below 700hz. My CG3 surrounds were lacking some energy in the 2-5khz range and didn't know if I should let Audyssey add it back or stick with the idea of keeping Audyssey's changes to below 700hz.
> 
> Thoughts about range limiting?


There's no correct answer, and definitely no "should" or "shouldn't" 

The reason Audyssey does full range "correction" is to make all the speakers follow the same target curve that they developed to follow cinema standards - essentially a "reference" standard. However, there's several reasons to not EQ above the modal region of a room. I do think Audyssey XT32 and Dirac etc. are good enough to minimize most of those potential problems. Also, if your speakers are good and placement/room are good then there's less risk of things going bad, but at the same time then there's less reason to EQ them full range. Although the general rule I follow is if your speakers have a certain characteristic or natural trajectory where it's tilted downward, then you don't really want Audyssey boosting it since it may sound harsher than your used to.


----------



## bluesky636

nikhilnh said:


> So I removed the coffee table from the room and reran the calibration again. There was very slight differences in measurements and small differences in levels of the speakers. There was no audible difference that I could discern. Again this is not a scientific test just my subjective observation. So here are the results of speaker levels
> 
> *Initial calibration (without coffee table ):*
> 
> Front L +1.0 dB​Front R +0.5 dB​Center +0.5 dB​Subwoofer -4.0 dB​
> *Recent calibration with coffee table:*
> 
> Front L +7.0 dB​Front R +6.0 dB​Center +5.5 dB​Subwoofer -4.0 dB​​*Recent calibration without coffee table:*
> 
> Front L +6.5 dB​Front R +5.0 dB​Center +5.5 dB​Subwoofer -3.0 dB​​


Ok. So the coffee table is not contributing significantly to this issue.

If I understand you correctly, the initial Audyssey run was with the original mic that came with the AVR and the two subsequent runs were with the replacement mic, correct?

What puzzles me the most is I have NEVER seen the main speakers show a positive trim level ( example +7 dB). Both my old Onkyo AVR with MULTEQ and my current Denon AVR-X3500H with MULTEQ XT32 with different speakers over the years have always shown a negative trim level (example -3 dB).

Either there is a problem with the new mic or something else is going on. I don't understand why there would be a 5 dB difference between two supposedly authentic Audyssey sourced mics.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> Although the general rule I follow is if your speakers have a certain characteristic or natural trajectory where it's tilted downward, then you don't really want Audyssey boosting it since it may sound harsher than your used to.


I disagree with this reasoning. 

Speaker manufacturers measure speaker response in an anechoic chamber. It's the only way to get comparable results between two supposedly "identical" speakers (I don't believe there really is such an animal). Once you put those speakers in a real room, all bets are off. Unless your room is specifically designed as a theater room and properly treated (most living rooms aren't), one speaker could be in a highly reflective area of the room and the other could be in a highly absorptive area. Speaker response will be totally different in each location. In such a situation, full range EQ is mandatory in my opinion.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> I disagree with this reasoning.
> 
> Speaker manufacturers measure speaker response in an anechoic chamber. It's the only way to get comparable results between two supposedly "identical" speakers (I don't believe there really is such an animal). Once you put those speakers in a real room, all bets are off. Unless your room is specifically designed as a theater room and properly treated (most living rooms aren't), one speaker could be in a highly reflective area of the room and the other could be in a highly absorptive area. Speaker response will be totally different in each location. In such a situation, full range EQ is mandatory in my opinion.


 I should say I'm referring to in room response. YMMV


----------



## Rich 63

Lttlwing16 said:


> No that's a good question as the app is kind of weakly designed with the "Done's". But yeah, I get "Transfer Complete" and via the IP of the AVR in a web browser I see the Crossovers, Distances are correct for the calibration I uploaded, but levels are completely unchanged and incorrect.


Why would the levels change? Why are they incorrect?


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I should say I'm referring to in room response. YMMV


Which is why Audyssey has Flat and Reference settings.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Which is why Audyssey has Flat and Reference settings.


Yup, people can choose those two if they so desire. My original point was that there's no should or shouldn't. I'm not advocating one way or another, it's like arguing if scrambled eggs need pepper and how much. I have speakers that sound better full range and others with limited.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> Yup, people can choose those two if they so desire. My original point was that there's no should or shouldn't. I'm not advocating one way or another, it's like arguing if scrambled eggs need pepper and how much. I have speakers that sound better full range and others with limited.


Agreed


----------



## nikhilnh

bluesky636 said:


> If I understand you correctly, the initial Audyssey run was with the original mic that came with the AVR and the two subsequent runs were with the replacement mic, correct?


Yes, that is correct. Another difference is for the Initial Audyssey run I used 6 mic positions without the rear two measurement points, whereas for the recent runs I used 8 mic positions with 2 rear mic positions as suggested by Audyssey. 
Even I haven't seen such a large positive trim level on the speakers even with my previous receivers. The most I have seen is +1.0 db and that was the reason why I posted this question. I'll try to get another mic from Denon and see how that one goes.


----------



## bluesky636

nikhilnh said:


> Yes, that is correct. Another difference is for the Initial Audyssey run I used 6 mic positions without the rear two measurement points, whereas for the recent runs I used 8 mic positions with 2 rear mic positions as suggested by Audyssey.
> Even I haven't seen such a large positive trim level on the speakers even with my previous receivers. The most I have seen is +1.0 db and that was the reason why I posted this question. I'll try to get another mic from Denon and see how that one goes.


----------



## haman

confinoj said:


> *Speaker distance limitation issue*
> 
> I don't know if this is an Audyssey limitation or a Denon limitation. I have a 5.2.4 setup with Klipsch RP speakers and dual SVS PC12+. One sub is wireless (outlaw OWA4) so adds some timing delay (around 15ms). See sig for details of equipment. Paired with a Denon X4300H. I recently reran Audyssey due to re-positioning some speakers. I needed to manually correct my front atmos upfiring speaker distance as it was measuring directly to speaker and not ceiling bounce path. When I do this I get an message stating speaker distance invalid. It seems it's actually referring to my wireless sub distance which Audyssey calculates at 31.1ft. If I try to make any manual change to speaker distances it will reduce the sub speaker distance to 28.5. Any higher triggers the invalid speaker distance message and it will get reduced back. If I restore Audyssey settings it goes back to 31.1 feet but then I can't fix the atmos speaker distances. The Denon manual does say that difference between speaker distances has to be less than 20ft. This seems to be the limitation as I have a surround at 8.5ft so add 20 and you get the max distance it's allowing me to keep sub at (28.5ft) if I try to make any manual changes to any speaker. If I increase surround distance the max manual sub distance increases by the same interval. This seems like an odd limitation. Is this a Denon or Audyssey limitation? My choice seems to be have the wireless sub delay be short by 2.6ft or atmos speaker short by 1.6ft. I figure the sub timing is probably more important in a dual sub setup. Also I can't notice the 1.6 ft difference for the atmos speakers. This is also assuming that if default Audyssey distances are untouched it actually is using it's measured 31.1ft delay and not 28.5. Anyone else run into this limitation?


Hi, did you or anyone manage to resolve this?


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> This is what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say about range limiting:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction.
> 
> Unqte


Hi Feri -- long time, no read! Welcome back!

I suspect Chris is right for most speakers/rooms. He and his associates probably ran many trials. 

Imaging is slightly better at the MLP with full range Audyssey in my room, than with no Audyseey at all (I don't have the capacity to run limited range). The surprise was, with our 5 cushion couch, the side seats were better with (full range) Audyssey in_ *a number of ways*_, including _*imaging*_. A 13.4 foot wide soundstage (intertweeter distance) in a 16.75 foot wide room is maintained with clarity and detail all the way across with Audyssey (full range) but it is noticeably (slightly) jumbled without Audyssey.


----------



## Artimus62

nikhilnh said:


> Yes, that is correct. Another difference is for the Initial Audyssey run I used 6 mic positions without the rear two measurement points, whereas for the recent runs I used 8 mic positions with 2 rear mic positions as suggested by Audyssey.
> Even I haven't seen such a large positive trim level on the speakers even with my previous receivers. The most I have seen is +1.0 db and that was the reason why I posted this question. I'll try to get another mic from Denon and see how that one goes.


The volume increase for the sub is confusing, mic definitely has to be suspect.


----------



## bluesky636

Artimus62 said:


> The volume increase for the sub is confusing, mic definitely has to be suspect.


The change in sub trim level is insignificant and not surprising. It is the change in LCR trim settings between the original mic and the new mic that is puzzling. 



nikhilnh said:


> So I removed the coffee table from the room and reran the calibration again. There was very slight differences in measurements and small differences in levels of the speakers. There was no audible difference that I could discern. Again this is not a scientific test just my subjective observation. So here are the results of speaker levels
> 
> *Initial calibration (without coffee table ):*
> 
> Front L +1.0 dB​Front R +0.5 dB​Center +0.5 dB​Subwoofer -4.0 dB​
> *Recent calibration with coffee table:*
> 
> Front L +7.0 dB​Front R +6.0 dB​Center +5.5 dB​Subwoofer -4.0 dB​​*Recent calibration without coffee table:*
> 
> Front L +6.5 dB​Front R +5.0 dB​Center +5.5 dB​Subwoofer -3.0 dB​​


----------



## Artimus62

bluesky636 said:


> The change in sub trim level is insignificant and not surprising. It is the change in LCR trim settings between the original mic and the new mic that is puzzling.


I thought you knew the _*whole story …*_


bluesky636 said:


> Yes I did. However, you referenced the wrong post and don't know the whole story.
> 
> 
> I've made my recommendation to nikhilnh and I stand by it. He can follow it or not. I don't care. I'm not wasting anymore time on this subject.


----------



## bluesky636

Artimus62 said:


> I thought you knew the _*whole story …*_


I do but it is clear that you don't.


----------



## Artimus62

bluesky636 said:


> I do but it is clear that you don't.


So it’s definitely the table causing early reflections …Gotcha. 👍


----------



## Lttlwing16

pbz06 said:


> There's no correct answer, and definitely no "should" or "shouldn't"
> 
> The reason Audyssey does full range "correction" is to make all the speakers follow the same target curve that they developed to follow cinema standards - essentially a "reference" standard. However, there's several reasons to not EQ above the modal region of a room. I do think Audyssey XT32 and Dirac etc. are good enough to minimize most of those potential problems. Also, if your speakers are good and placement/room are good then there's less risk of things going bad, but at the same time then there's less reason to EQ them full range. Although the general rule I follow is if your speakers have a certain characteristic or natural trajectory where it's tilted downward, then you don't really want Audyssey boosting it since it may sound harsher than your used to.


Thanks @mogorf and @pbz06 .. I've got two like sets of calibrations so I'm going to do some A/B with limited 702hz and full range eq. Proof is always in the pudding. I can say for two channel music, I prefer the limited range. Much wider soundstage, gah nearly surround sound. FWIW here are my measured responses: LRC : RSL CG23 Surround's : RSL CG3 Top Middle's: RSL c34e Sub : Dual BIC Venturi 1020


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Hi Feri -- long time, no read! Welcome back!
> 
> I suspect Chris is right for most speakers/rooms. He and his associates probably ran many trials.
> 
> Imaging is slightly better at the MLP with full range Audyssey in my room, than with no Audyseey at all (I don't have the capacity to run limited range). The surprise was, with our 5 cushion couch, the side seats were better with (full range) Audyssey in_ *a number of ways*_, including _*imaging*_. A 13.4 foot wide soundstage (intertweeter distance) in a 16.75 foot wide room is maintained with clarity and detail all the way across with Audyssey (full range) but it is noticeably (slightly) jumbled without Audyssey.


Gary,

Did you do any measurements to see if the increased sense of imaging is due to a little more output from the tweeters? It's common when doing full range correction on a lot of speakers. There are some though that are so bright from the factory that the default curve actually tames them down. What I'm saying is I'm sure you are hearing better imaging, but unless frequency response is the same, we can't really compare it to before.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> Gary,
> 
> Did you do any measurements to see if the increased sense of imaging is due to *a little more output from the tweeters?* It's common when doing full range correction on a lot of speakers. There are some though that are so bright from the factory that the default curve actually tames them down. What I'm saying is I'm sure you are hearing better imaging, but to *unless frequency response is the same, we can't really compare it to before*.


 [_Bolding mine GG_]

Could be.

I did not deliberately do any tests like that, but I may have done one comparison unintentionally. My room is (perhaps) a bit too dead, with a fair amount of absorption and diffusion. My tweeters come in at about 4.5K. When _slightly off axis _(the line from the tweeters cross about 7 feet in front of the MLP), without touching the mic between tests, with main divisions 5 dB, we have*: 

No Audyssey (Brown) *_Analogous to limited range at those frequencies because we graphed the tweeter *only*, and it is not altered w/ *No Audyssey *_??

*Audyssey Flat (Green) *_Analogous to full range because Audyssey full range correction extends to almost 20K Hz _??

*







*


----------



## Soulburner

Yeah. Generally, imaging sounds a lot more precise and detailed when our tweeters are bumped a little. With that, I'm skeptical about small differences in delays having any audible effect.


----------



## Steve Huss

Good afternoon. I recently replaced both doors (one is to room itselff and the other is to a small utility closet in back of room) because although wood they did have a thinner wood insert in frame that would rattle annoyingly at certain frequecies. Not too often but enough. So i got some nice black velvet curtains that are oversized width too fill entire doorways and tight and then some and then bottom is weighted to stay in place. They both look nice and I don't think I am losing any sound quality in room (still listening) but my question is: should I re-run Audyssey or is this an apple to apple scenario. Appreciate any help and other considerations I may be missing by this change.


----------



## pbz06

Steve Huss said:


> Good afternoon. I recently replaced both doors (one is to room itselff and the other is to a small utility closet in back of room) because although wood they did have a thinner wood insert in frame that would rattle annoyingly at certain frequecies. Not too often but enough. So i got some nice black velvet curtains that are oversized width too fill entire doorways and tight and then some and then bottom is weighted to stay in place. They both look nice and I don't think I am losing any sound quality in room (still listening) but my question is: should I re-run Audyssey or is this an apple to apple scenario. Appreciate any help and other considerations I may be missing by this change.


I would for peace of mind (more for the curtains than the door material).


----------



## Steve Huss

Thanks @pbz06. I was leaning that way and appreciate your knowledge.


----------



## Steve Huss

I've run everything and am happy with the results. It was almost 2 years since I initially had set room up. I can't remember if I did this then but I have a question. Audyssey recommends mic 20" from back wall. Whatever I saw on my TV when calibrating I thought this won't work since my MLP is about 36" off wall. I placed mic in all 8 positions right where I sit and around that area. Is this best practice or did I mess up by not doing 20" off back wall. I'll run again if I need to. Thanks much, Steve


----------



## Rich 63

Steve Huss said:


> I've run everything and am happy with the results. It was almost 2 years since I initially had set room up. I can't remember if I did this then but I have a question. Audyssey recommends mic 20" from back wall. Whatever I saw on my TV when calibrating I thought this won't work since my MLP is about 36" off wall. I placed mic in all 8 positions right where I sit and around that area. Is this best practice or did I mess up by not doing 20" off back wall. I'll run again if I need to. Thanks much, Steve


This is correct. The rec for 20" is if the seating is against the wall.


----------



## Steve Huss

Thanks @Rich 63 . Is it me or is the wording unclear there? It really made it sound like I needed to have mic 20" off back wall for all postions.


----------



## Rich 63

Steve Huss said:


> Thanks @Rich 63 . Is it me or is the wording unclear there? It really made it sound like I needed to have mic 20" off back wall for all postions.


To be honest I'm not sure what reading material your referring to but I do know when against a wall at the mlp your getting a lot of reflections from that wall that will colour the results.


----------



## Steve Huss

Rich 63 said:


> To be honest I'm not sure what reading material your referring to but I do know when against a wall at the mlp your getting a lot of reflections from that wall that will colour the results.


 It occurred on my TV when calibrating prior to actual tests. I'm glad it's not an issue. I have my seating about 2.5 ft or 7/8 m off back wall. It's a small HT at 10x11x9 but I did at least get off the back wall a bit. Enjoy your weekend Rich!


----------



## Matt2026

Steve Huss said:


> It occurred on my TV when calibrating prior to actual tests. I'm glad it's not an issue. I have my seating about 2.5 ft or 7/8 m off back wall. It's a small HT at 10x11x9 but I did at least get off the back wall a bit. Enjoy your weekend Rich!


My back wall: Very close to the same room dimensions as your room, 12' x 10.5' x 8' 9"... 
Because of doors, "Theater area is 9' x 10.5' x 8' 9". My sub is a Rythmik F12.
6 SVS Ultra Bookshelves and Ultra Center.


----------



## Steve Huss

Looks real nice @Matt2026 . I think I've seen some other pics of your setup. How is the bass in your room?


----------



## garygarrison

Steve Huss said:


> Is it me or is the wording unclear there? It really made it sound like I needed to have mic 20" off back wall for all postions.


Steve, my rear wall is *12 feet* behind the mic positions. The subwoofer is in a bump-out just beyond the front wall. I am very pleased with how Audyssey works for me. It has removed several anomalies in my speakers/room. The bass is strong, clear, tight etc., and is good for all 5 seats on the couch, as well as at my desk behind the couch. During some movies, it feels like it picks up the couch and moves it. For music, with some _*sfffz *_timpani, bass drum and great gong (as in Fanfare for the Common Man) the wind that is created flaps our pant legs, and the bass wave (temporarially) throws my desk out of square. Yet soft music is delicate, beauiful and well ballanced.

We did spend many hours getting Audyssey just right by ear.***
*** We also ran REW, but getting the REW mic in each of the 8 positions the Audyssey mic had been in was a chore, and we had no access to Audyssey's proprietary _"fuzzy logic" _for the REW sweep, so we had to use an average instead. Audyssey, of course, says that there is "_no way" _to simulate their special method, but if you wanted to try, use an RMS Average. The average may have been over-weighted by outliers. But the system sounds great!


----------



## Matt2026

Steve Huss said:


> Looks real nice @Matt2026 . I think I've seen some other pics of your setup. How is the bass in your room?


Disclaimer: I'm 80 yrs old and an old plug-n-play guy. I haven't done any Audyssey stuff. The speakers all sound great to me. I did have my sub on the front wall originally but moved it to the back for possibly more tactile bass. Glad I did as I get a good massage at times  One suggestion I got was to try turning it 90° but that didn't sound better and there was less tactile feeling, I promptly turned it back to firing into my seat. Personally, I am quite happy with the bass levels... Good luck with your audio adventures Steve.


----------



## Steve Huss

Sounds like a great setup @garygarrison and you did a wonderful job in calibrating.


----------



## Steve Huss

Thanks @Matt2026 Sounds like you have it dialed in the way you like. Enjoy! I think I've got mine dialed in as well. At least until I want to mess around with it again.


----------



## Rich 63

Matt2026 said:


> Disclaimer: I'm 80 yrs old and an old plug-n-play guy. I haven't done any Audyssey stuff. The speakers all sound great to me. I did have my sub on the front wall originally but moved it to the back for possibly more tactile bass. Glad I did as I get a good massage at times  One suggestion I got was to try turning it 90° but that didn't sound better and there was less tactile feeling, I promptly turned it back to firing into my seat. Personally, I am quite happy with the bass levels... Good luck with your audio adventures Steve.


If you made the effort to move that sub you should run audessey. Think you will be impressed. Hope I'm moving subs at 80 like you are. 😁


----------



## Matt2026

Rich 63 said:


> If you made the effort to move that sub you should run audessey. Think you will be impressed. Hope I'm moving subs at 80 like you are. 😁


Thanks for the suggestion Rich. As I've said before, I haven't ever used Audyssey, also have never updated my 4520CI AVR. Should that ever change I'll post about it


----------



## Rich 63

Matt2026 said:


> Thanks for the suggestion Rich. As I've said before, I haven't ever used Audyssey, also have never updated my 4520CI AVR. Should that ever change I'll post about it


All good. Have you tried to use this tool at any point?
It is a big benifit in my opinion.


----------



## Matt2026

Rich 63 said:


> All good. Have you tried to use this tool at any point?
> It is a big benifit in my opinion.


Nope!


----------



## Soulburner

Audyssey is mission critical in my system. The bass just wouldn't be enjoyable without it.


----------



## Rich 63

Matt2026 said:


> Nope!


Ok.


----------



## jeffw_00

I posted a separate thread but if I can get an answer here I'll delete that thread. I'm upgrading from a 2009 Onkyo w/Audyssey 2EQ. I read that for auto-EQ Audyssey is still the way to go. I had picked out the Denon S660H (with Audyssey MultiEQ), but then saw the Denon X1700 (with MultiEQ XT) for only $200 more. $700 is still in my budget (it's for 5.1 system in an 11' x 14' room with PSB bookshelf speakers and an 8" Sunfire sub). so the X1700 looks like the right choice, but then I saw some threads on the Internet about how MultiEQ XT does EQ the "wrong" way (too little on low freq, too much on high freq) and anything less than XT32 (or possibly Dirac) is junk. Is that really true? Dirac kicks me up to $1100 (for an Onkyo) and XT32 to $1600 (for Denon X3700). is the MultEQ XT really "bad"?) Thanks!


----------



## Rich 63

jeffw_00 said:


> I posted a separate thread but if I can get an answer here I'll delete that thread. I'm upgrading from a 2009 Onkyo w/Audyssey 2EQ. I read that for auto-EQ Audyssey is still the way to go. I had picked out the Denon S660H (with Audyssey MultiEQ), but then saw the Denon X1700 (with MultiEQ XT) for only $200 more. $700 is still in my budget (it's for 5.1 system in an 11' x 14' room with PSB bookshelf speakers and an 8" Sunfire sub). so the X1700 looks like the right choice, but then I saw some threads on the Internet about how MultiEQ XT does EQ the "wrong" way (too little on low freq, too much on high freq) and anything less than XT32 (or possibly Dirac) is junk. Is that really true? Dirac kicks me up to $1100 (for an Onkyo) and XT32 to $1600 (for Denon X3700). is the MultEQ XT really "bad"?) Thanks!


No I multi xt is not bad. Miles better then 2eq. That was junk. Multi xt has many more filters then plain multi and multitudes more then 2eq which never touched the bass region. The upgrade to 1700 gives an additional year warrenty and the xt version of audessey. If you can swing it buy it.


----------



## StephenMSmith

jeffw_00 said:


> I posted a separate thread but if I can get an answer here I'll delete that thread. I'm upgrading from a 2009 Onkyo w/Audyssey 2EQ. I read that for auto-EQ Audyssey is still the way to go. I had picked out the Denon S660H (with Audyssey MultiEQ), but then saw the Denon X1700 (with MultiEQ XT) for only $200 more. $700 is still in my budget (it's for 5.1 system in an 11' x 14' room with PSB bookshelf speakers and an 8" Sunfire sub). so the X1700 looks like the right choice, but then I saw some threads on the Internet about how MultiEQ XT does EQ the "wrong" way (too little on low freq, too much on high freq) and anything less than XT32 (or possibly Dirac) is junk. Is that really true? Dirac kicks me up to $1100 (for an Onkyo) and XT32 to $1600 (for Denon X3700). is the MultEQ XT really "bad"?) Thanks!


This question has plagued me for years. I have a 750h with Multeq. I niw have a 3700h on way so will be able to directly compare via the app. Will post. It should reasonably answer my question of what exactly would Multeq XT32 do for my suboptimal room compared to basic Multeq.


----------



## jeffw_00

Thanks guys - this is helpful. BTW: Have you ever used the Audyssey App to fine-tune?


----------



## StephenMSmith

Here's a random Audyssey question: I had a 2007 Onkyo TXNR905 that included Audyssey MultEQ XT that I replaced a couple years ago w/Denon 750H. Was Audyssey MultEQ XT in 2007 exactly the same as it is today? Or do they refine it over the years?


----------



## jeffw_00

I just read the Audyssey 101 and associated advanced technical FAQ. Great work and very informative! But I have one question for you guys: The way it's described in post #51780 of the original thread (hopefully here)

"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)

it seems like Multi EQ-XT is, well, broken. Not so much in its weak compensation in low freq, but in its serious overkill compensation in hi freq. And you guys have discussed this with the Audyssey CTO. If that was really the case, wouldn't they stop selling it? Wouldn't they FW update XT to be more gentle so that people continued to buy their equipment? 

I mean, I get that XT32 is better, espec. in the low freq. (and for an extra $800-$1000 it should be), but reading the thread, MultiEQ XT is characterized as one of those things (like the motion adjustments on LCD-TV) that you just leave off because it clearly does more harm than good, and I can't help but wonder if there's a valid counter-argument to that...


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> I just read the Audyssey 101 and associated advanced technical FAQ. Great work and very informative! But I have one question for you guys: The way it's described in post #51780 of the original thread (hopefully here)
> 
> "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
> 
> it seems like Multi EQ-XT is, well, broken. Not so much in its weak compensation in low freq, but in its serious overkill compensation in hi freq. And you guys have discussed this with the Audyssey CTO. If that was really the case, wouldn't they stop selling it? Wouldn't they FW update XT to be more gentle so that people continued to buy their equipment?
> 
> I mean, I get that XT32 is better, espec. in the low freq. (and for an extra $800-$1000 it should be), but reading the thread, MultiEQ XT is characterized as one of those things (like the motion adjustments on LCD-TV) that you just leave off because it clearly does more harm than good, and I can't help but wonder if there's a valid counter-argument to that...


Is MultEQ XT "broken"? No. Is it different? Yes. Is XT32 better? Yes. But sales would indicate that there are a lot of happy people with MultEQ XT. Heck, I thought my old Onkyo with MultEQ sounded great.


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> Is MultEQ XT "broken"? No. Is it different? Yes. Is XT32 better? Yes. But sales would indicate that there are a lot of happy people with MultEQ XT.


Sales indicate that people _bought _AVRs with Multi EQ XT. but sales don't tell how many buyers _liked _XT, since nobody runs a calibration before they buy an AVR.


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> Sales indicate that people _bought _AVRs with Multi EQ XT. but sales don't tell how many buyers _liked _XT, since nobody runs a calibration before they buy an AVR.


Whatever.


----------



## jeffw_00

Thanks guys - good answers - but I just had a stupid thought - I -thought - that at the end of the day - the purpose of base-level MultiEQ XT was to set the static settings (levels, equalizer) reasonably well for each speaker. All this concern about response matching (i.e., the graphs and such in the advanced addendum) - how can that be part of the basic settings? I'm wondering - is all the concern actually about how the Dynamic EQ works? and can't Dynamic EQ be separately disabled? (while still letting Audyssey do the static setup)


----------



## Lttlwing16

jeffw_00 said:


> Thanks guys - good answers - but I just had a stupid thought - I -thought - that at the end of the day - the purpose of base-level MultiEQ XT was to set the static settings (levels, equalizer) reasonably well for each speaker. All this concern about response matching (i.e., the graphs and such in the advanced addendum) - how can that be part of the basic settings? I'm wondering - is all the concern actually about how the Dynamic EQ works? and can't Dynamic EQ be separately disabled? (while still letting Audyssey do the static setup)


Hey I'm definitely a Denon noob, but with the research I've done I can say delay and levels are set independently of the EQ changes. The benefits of XT32 is how many filters it uses and where it uses these filters. Eq and XT focused on the higher end of the frequency range which many say is backwards because our hearing is more sensitive to the lower frequency range. Additionally sound is more easily influenced at higher frequencies so eq'ing these is kind of a wash, as if you move your head 1ft to the left or right, the high frequency response changes and the eq would look different.

XT32 also offers independent adjustment of multiple subs, which is not available on MultiEQ or XT.

Dynamic EQ operates independently of the Audyssey calibration changes. It is something that can be turned on/off and the base calibration would stay the same, although the sound would change due to how we perceive sound at lower volumes. I've seen many who prefer it, prefer it with RLO controlling it, and disabled. Totally user preference.


----------



## jeffw_00

Thanks Lttlwing - and I agree with much of what you say, what I can't get my head around is why XT (not Xt32) would be so common and prevalent after so many years if it was in fact as wrongheaded as some suggest - can't help but wonder if there's a counter argument - surely people who spend >$1K for these things use it....


----------



## bluesky636

COST

There are four types of Audyssey at four different cost levels:

1. 2EQ
2. MultEQ 
3. MultEQ XT 
4. MultEQ XT32.

Why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## jeffw_00

bluesky636 - if people said "XT will do a reasonable job, but the bass will be better, and the EQ better overall with XT32". I'd be happy and done, I'm not too picky, but I do want to run some sort of auto EQ. It doesn't have to be the best But what I read from some people is that "if you run XT, it will sound noticeably bad, and MCACC and AccuEQ are ineffective, XT -should- be the mid-range choice, but they designed it backwards, only XT32 does it right".


----------



## Rich 63

jeffw_00 said:


> Thanks Lttlwing - and I agree with much of what you say, what I can't get my head around is why XT (not Xt32) would be so common and prevalent after so many years if it was in fact as wrongheaded as some suggest - can't help but wonder if there's a counter argument - surely people who spend >$1K for these things use it....
> [/QUOTE


 For those wondering the difference. Plus xt 32 has 2 independent sub outputs.


----------



## jeffw_00

Thanks Rich63 - see my post right above yours - thanks!


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> bluesky636 - if people said "XT will do a reasonable job, but the bass will be better, and the EQ better overall with XT32". I'd be happy and done, I'm not too picky, but I do want to run some sort of auto EQ. It doesn't have to be the best But what I read from some people is that "if you run XT, it will sound noticeably bad, and MCACC and AccuEQ are ineffective, XT -should- be the mid-range choice, but they designed it backwards, only XT32 does it right".


By that rational, MultEQ must really suck and 2EQ absolute trash.

If you can afford an AVR with MultEQ XT32, great. Buy it. I did. If you can't afford an AVR with it, you have three lower price levels to select from. In my experience, most people that complain about Audyssey, regardless of the version, have no clue how to set it up and use it properly. My old Onkyo had MultEQ. I followed the guidelines in the original Audyssey thread and it sounded terrific.


----------



## jeffw_00

bluesky636 - thanks, me too!


----------



## Rich 63

bluesky636 said:


> . In my experience, most people that complain about Audyssey, regardless of the version, have no clue how to set it up and use it properl


This is likely true fairly often. My best friend who isca tech nerd bought my s720w from me. I told him how to run the mic/position, etc. He insisted his way of putting the mic in random seats around the room was better. Result is doo doo in my opinion. No seat sounds good. Too many variables for audessey to know what filters to apply. 
He's too pig headed to try the way I suggested. I look at him everytime I'm there and tell him his sound sucks. You can do that with friends of 30+ years. 😅


----------



## jeffw_00

Still - I have to believe the people on the forum comparing XT vs XT32 with graphs and such know what they are doing


----------



## mrtickleuk

Rich 63 said:


> This is likely true fairly often. My best friend who isca tech nerd bought my s720w from me. I told him how to run the mic/position, etc. He insisted his way of putting the mic in random seats around the room was better. Result is doo doo in my opinion. No seat sounds good. Too many variables for audessey to know what filters to apply.
> He's too pig headed to try the way I suggested. I look at him everytime I'm there and tell him his sound sucks. You can do that with friends of 30+ years. 😅


.
The on-screen pictures on earlier models were very, very misleading. They made it look as if you could put the mic anywhere you liked. Certainly my friend's X4000 is like that - it wasn't until I bought my X4200 and read the FAQ that I realised, and was then able to relay it to him; he re-ran Audyssey and it was "night and day" better.

I know the appalling on-screen help has been improved somewhat on more recent models, and it may even go as far as to _say in the text_ that each position must be a maximum distance of X from the MLP! If his model says that, it's harder for him to argue - but from what you say, he probably would anyway


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> Still - I have to believe the people on the forum comparing XT vs XT32 with graphs and such know what they are doing


I don't disagree that XT32 is better than XT. I object to the characterization of XT as "broken".


----------



## mogorf

jeffw_00 said:


> Still - I have to believe the people on the forum comparing XT vs XT32 with graphs and such know what they are doing


If I were to set up a new home system I would consider the followings:

1. Firstly take care of minimal and natural room treatments, carpets on floor, curtains on windows, table clothes on glass coffee tables, no leather sofas, no bare walls, install bookshelves, etc., etc. These are needed to tame your room from unwanted acoustical anomalies like reflections.

2. Make a so-called "cold setup" of speakers and sub(s), place L&Rs for best stereo imaging (+30/- 30° from MLP), place Center for best dialog intelligibility (tilt them to face seated ear height at MLP), place surrounds at +/- 90-110° from MLP. Make a listening test and agree with yourself that it sounds quite good. Music you know well that has deep bass and transparent highs together with good stereo sound stage is recommended for this test.

3. Run MultEQ (whatever flavor you have or can afford) and call it a day. (Please exclude 2EQ, coz that was a request solely addressed by Onkyo to Audyssey ages ago just in order to be competitive on the lower end of AVRs where there is no filter resulution for subwofers, arrgh). 

Should you not be satisfied with the sound, start over from point 1. and make further adjustments to your physical system.

P.s.: Hi Garry, nice to see you here as well. Take care my friend.


----------



## Rich 63

mrtickleuk said:


> .
> The on-screen pictures on earlier models were very, very misleading. They made it look as if you could put the mic anywhere you liked. Certainly my friend's X4000 is like that - it wasn't until I bought my X4200 and read the FAQ that I realised, and was then able to relay it to him; he re-ran Audyssey and it was "night and day" better.
> 
> I know the appalling on-screen help has been improved somewhat on more recent models, and it may even go as far as to _say in the text_ that each position must be a maximum distance of X from the MLP! If his model says that, it's harder for him to argue - but from what you say, he probably would anyway


It was my 2016 model that he got when I went 4 atmos. My input was there to be had. 
He has a new Sony 90j now and plans to run audessey properly he says. Time will tell.


----------



## jeffw_00

bluesky636 - thanks! Can you tell me why you object? I suspect there is good reason to but I have been able to find little actual rebuttal to their graphs and such.

morgorf - it's just a receiver upgrade - but thanks - based are covered on room treatment, etc.


----------



## garygarrison

*Audyssey XT is not broken! *If a user has speakers that emphasize other desirable qualities at the expense of extroadanaryly flat frequency response, especially in the midrange or tweeter range, one may _conceivably _want the detailed compensation in the highs that XT provides. Some people don't like that the resulting response curve in the treble with XT is "hairier" than with XT32. Aesthetically, they may be right, but believe me, my high end is likely to be hairy due to the speakers and the large room. By treating the room acoustically before running Audyssey, that "hairiness" both before (room & speakers) and after (compensating for speakers and room) can probably be reduced. Audyssey's proprietary EQ/time mechanism does not use an average, but a complex "fuzzy logic" compensation that may go something like this: if there is a frequency that is peaked at one mic position, but no other, Audyssey may make a very slight adjustment. If, on the other hand, a frequency is peaked at all 8 mic positions, Audyssey may make a considerable compensation, and so on through all the possibilities. The same for dips. *Even XT* may EQ in *hundreds of potential points*. Compare that to a 36 slider, 1/4 octave equalizer!



bluesky636 said:


> In my experience, most people that complain about Audyssey, regardless of the version, have no clue how to set it up and use it properly.


That has been my experience, too! One guy even hand held the mic, and spent just a few minutes running Audyssey. He said he really wanted Audyssey to work, and was disappointed*!* IMO the user cannot just fling the mic into 8 positions. The barrel of the mike must point *straight up*. My wife and I sighted the mic barrel from two angles (90 degrees apart) for every mic position. It took a while. If you aren't willing to spend a few hours setting up and auditioning Audyssey, then you might want to forget it. First, in the hypothesis stage (if you will) one should make an educated guess as to how much and what kind of a compromise will work between mic positions for a* "full" audience (6 people, in our case) *and* a single listening position* for when one listens alone. Mic positions though, don't necessarily correspond to listening positions, but are placed to allow Audyssey to get a sense of the acoustical space. For those who *almost always listen alone*, it might be the least challenging. The 8 positions might be clustered around one's head, perhaps with one where the center of the head would be. Mike covers this in his Guide: *Mike's **Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences* -- it's worth a read, and started as a guide to Audyssey and related. If you are very busy, scan the "Cliff Notes" section first. For those who often have many people watching a movie or listening to music, the 8 positions will be over a wider expance, perhaps with a few positions foreward of other positions. Once again, see *Mike's **Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences**, *which has info on Audyssey.



Lttlwing16 said:


> "our hearing is more sensitive to the lower frequency range." [edits mine -- GG] "Additionally sound is more easily influenced at higher frequencies so eq'ing these is kind of a wash, as if you move your head 1ft to the left or right, the high frequency response changes and the eq would look different."


Our hearing is *not* more sensitive in the lower frequency range*! *_It is most sensitive in the upper middle range. _There *are* more room modes in the bass range, and it is good to have lots of compensation resolution down there, as XT32 has. There are often plenty of higher frequency reflections and, sometimes, speaker anomalies in the midrange and treble to be corrected. With _*conventional*_ room EQ, with, say a graphic equalizer, *both* the bass and treble EQ if you move your head to the side, the EQ called for can be different, *in the bass* because of room modes which are louder or softer, depending where you sit, nulls being harder to deal with than peaks, *BUT* Audyssey's *8* mic positions, *both* XT and XT32 may help with that quite a bit.


















Room Modes 101


What are room modes and how do they impact sound quality? Some unavoidable facts: ALL rooms have naturally occurring resonance frequencies called room modes or standing waves. If you read around the web you'll find some more esoteric terms like eigentones or eigenmodes. I quite like calling them...




www.acousticfrontiers.com





*In the treble*, due to specular reflections, rather than absorption or diffusion there are plenty of those reflections to deal with. It's nice to have some electronic help. 5 Steps To Control Room Reflections – Acoustic Fields


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> bluesky636 - thanks! Can you tell me why you object? I suspect there is good reason to but I have been able to find little actual rebuttal to their graphs and such.


It's very simple.

MultEQ XT works as designed.

Some people don't like/disagree with that design.

They are entitled to their opinion.

You know what they say about opinions ....


----------



## jeffw_00

Thanks very much Mr. Garrison. This information should be more widely distributed. bluesky636 - my point was that some people say it's a "bad" (improperly functioning) design, with graphs to "prove" it. It's an opinion, and Mr. Garrison provided the rebuttal most eloquently. Thanks all!


----------



## Lttlwing16

garygarrison said:


> Our hearing is *not* more sensitive in the lower frequency range*! *_It is most sensitive in the upper middle range. _There *are* more room modes in the bass range, and it is good to have lots of compensation resolution down there, as XT32 has. There are often plenty of higher frequency reflections and, sometimes, speaker anomalies in the midrange and treble to be corrected.


Yep, thanks for the clarification, I got my signals crossed about room modes and sensitivity. Amir was mentioning eq is really necessary at low frequencies and less so at the top of the frequency range in the comments of his Audyssey review (which he notoriously hand held the mic for!). However, you make some good points on why it can be beneficial in the higher range.


----------



## tsanga

Very interesting discussion here folks.



mrtickleuk said:


> I know the appalling on-screen help has been improved somewhat on more recent models, and it may even go as far as to _say in the text_ that each position must be a maximum distance of X from the MLP!


What’s interesting about this, is the Audyssey and Sound United guys themselves says go ahead, break some measurement set up “rules”, depending on what your goal is for room EQ. Measure more than 2 ft apart, put the mic along the wall, etc.

Starts at 1:13:33


----------



## jeffw_00

*tsanga - is that plot above for XT or XT32?*


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> *tsanga - is that plot above for XT or XT32?*


That plot is produced by the Audyssey App. The Before plot represents the actual in room frequency response measured by Audyssey. The After is a CALCULATED plot made by mathmatically applying the correction filters to the in room measurement. The After plot IS NOT an actual remeasurement by Audyssey of the in room frequency response. Therefore it may not provide a 100% accurate representation of the corrected response. The only way to get that is by using REW or some other frequency measurement tool.


----------



## jeffw_00

Right - I was curious if the correction was performed by XT or XT32


----------



## Rich 63

jeffw_00 said:


> Right - I was curious if the correction was performed by XT or XT32


Just curious why this is important. It's in no way an indication of the superiority of one vs the other.


----------



## jeffw_00

only because it doesn't appear to show the "aggressive overcorrection" that some attirbute to XT


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> Right - I was curious if the correction was performed by XT or XT32


Irrelevant for the purposes of that plot.


----------



## jeffw_00

well, what -is- the intended takeaway from the plot (apologize that I'm still learning here - thanks!)


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> only because it doesn't appear to show the "aggressive overcorrection" that some attirbute to XT


And it probably won't. Those plots you were looking at were done using REW or a similar tool. Audyssey accuracy is +/-2 dB. The App plots are only an APPROXIMATION of the final response.


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> well, what -is- the intended takeaway from the plot (apologize that I'm still learning here - thanks!)


To allow you to make basic changes to the response, give you an IDEA of the results, and make you feel good that you have done Audyssey reasonably correctly.


----------



## jeffw_00

ah. thanks! (refers to "Official" Audyssey thread Part II)


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> ah. thanks!


Please use the Reply or Quote function so people know what post you are responding to.


----------



## Rich 63

jeffw_00 said:


> only because it doesn't appear to show the "aggressive overcorrection" that some attirbute to XT


I'll assume your looking to buy an avr that runs xt.
Im not sure were this information that xt doesn't operate properly comes from that your reading. If you could provide I'd be interested to read why it would be different then multi or XT32.

Small point I'd like to make. There are lots of threads on this site filled with people saying the new toy they got is junk. Tv's, avrs, subs, etc. I follow the threads for all the gear I own and almost daily your get those posts. I'm not saying that issues don't occur but the majority are improper install or setup/use. Everything I own works as intended. Sure I get glitches like needing reboots but nothing to say this is junk. I wouldn't hesitate to get a avr running xt if it fit my needs. Don't see why you wouldn't, however if piece of mind will make you more comfortable get and avr with xt32 so you'll have no what ifs.


----------



## jeffw_00

Rich 63 said:


> I'll assume your looking to buy an avr that runs xt.
> Im not sure were this information that xt doesn't operate properly comes from that your reading. If you could provide I'd be interested to read why it would be different then multi or XT32.
> 
> Small point I'd like to make. There are lots of threads on this site filled with people saying the new toy they got is junk. Tv's, avrs, subs, etc. I follow the threads for all the gear I own and almost daily your get those posts. I'm not saying that issues don't occur but the majority are improper install or setup/use. Everything I own works as intended. Sure I get glitches like needing reboots but nothing to say this is junk. I wouldn't hesitate to get a avr running xt if it fit my needs. Don't see why you would, however if piece of mind will make you more comfortable get and avr with xt32 so you'll have no what ifs.


 HI Rich - I was referring to post #51780 of the original thread  "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779) I agree with all you say about the posts - but this one had data and graphs that seemed to make a good case. On the other hand - This post seems to refute the first one. "Official" Audyssey thread Part II


----------



## tsanga

jeffw_00 said:


> *tsanga - is that plot above for XT or XT32?*


Can you clarify your question? Which plot are you referring to? I linked to a video with a time stamp (the whole video is over an hour long) where the Director of Software from Audyssey discusses microphone placement during calibration.

Edit: ok, after following the discussion, you may be asking about the video thumbnail plot. The previous replies already covered it, but my guess is since these guys are from Audyssey, they’re showing off using XT32.


----------



## jeffw_00

tsanga said:


> Can you clarify your question? Which plot are you referring to? I linked to a video with a time stamp (the whole video is over an hour long) where the Director of Software from Audyssey discusses microphone placement during calibration.


Sorry all I'm an idiot - thought it was a screenshot from a video.


----------



## tsanga

Running this by the smart folks in this thread.

Given this response in my two main seating positions:








(Crossover is 150Hz, as I have small Paradigm Cinema speakers.)

Is there any improvement I could potentially make short of getting another sub? (I have only one)

I have MultEQ XT, would XT32 help? My initial thought was not that much, since everything up to 80 Hz is reasonably addressed by XT already. XT32 would have additional filters but I’m not sure if it’s smarter about averaging multiple positions.

The null at 98 Hz is a mystery I haven’t solved yet. It’s not lining up to an obvious room mode from my dimensions. The usual tweaks of phase/distance only introduced worse dips at other frequencies.


----------



## bluesky636

tsanga said:


> Running this by the smart folks in this thread.
> 
> Given this response in my two main seating positions:
> View attachment 3247667
> 
> (Crossover is 150Hz, as I have small Paradigm Cinema speakers.)
> 
> Is there any improvement I could potentially make short of getting another sub? (I have only one)
> 
> I have MultEQ XT, would XT32 help? My initial thought was not that much, since everything up to 80 Hz is reasonably addressed by XT already. XT32 would have additional filters but I’m not sure if it’s smarter about averaging multiple positions.
> 
> The null at 98 Hz is a mystery I haven’t solved yet. It’s not lining up to an obvious room mode from my dimensions. The usual tweaks of phase/distance only introduced worse dips at other frequencies.


Exactly what sort of "improvement" are you trying to make?

Since your concern appears to be related strictly to your subwoofer, you will probably get a better response here:









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## tsanga

bluesky636 said:


> Exactly what sort of "improvement" are you trying to make?
> 
> Since your concern appears to be related strictly to your subwoofer, you will probably get a better response here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thanks Bill. I’ll try the sub thread. I was mainly wondering if XT32 would help even out some of the dips from 80 Hz up, with these two adjacent seats.


----------



## bluesky636

tsanga said:


> Thanks Bill. I’ll try the sub thread. I was mainly wondering if XT32 would help even out some of the dips from 80 Hz up, with these two adjacent seats.


XT32 might help more depending on room modes. If you are planning on replacing your AVR in the near future, do get one with XT32.


----------



## Soulburner

tsanga said:


> Running this by the smart folks in this thread.
> 
> Given this response in my two main seating positions:
> View attachment 3247667
> 
> (Crossover is 150Hz, as I have small Paradigm Cinema speakers.)
> 
> Is there any improvement I could potentially make short of getting another sub? (I have only one)
> 
> I have MultEQ XT, would XT32 help? My initial thought was not that much, since everything up to 80 Hz is reasonably addressed by XT already. XT32 would have additional filters but I’m not sure if it’s smarter about averaging multiple positions.


Your response is not bad overall but XT32 is significantly better at flattening bass. I bet it could be noticeably flatter. What you see here is most likely a result of you putting in the work to eliminate most of the biggest, uncorrectable problems so XT32 can do its job better. It will have an even easier time with a 2nd sub.


----------



## tsanga

Soulburner said:


> Your response is not bad overall but XT32 is significantly better at flattening bass. I bet it could be noticeably flatter. What you see here is most likely a result of you putting in the work to eliminate most of the biggest, uncorrectable problems so XT32 can do its job better. It will have an even easier time with a 2nd sub.


I’m concerned whether XT32 could address the sharp notch at 98 Hz, as I’ve read that room EQ is better at the broad dips and peaks, and possibly less effective with this characteristic.


----------



## bluesky636

tsanga said:


> I’m concerned whether XT32 could address the sharp notch at 98 Hz, as I’ve read that room EQ is better at the broad dips and peaks, and possibly less effective with this characteristic.


XT32 will probably not do anything with a notch that deep, nor probably will any other room EQ. Room EQs don't normally try to boost deep nulls (This one is about 15 to 20 dB down from your average level. That's a LOT!). But given the fact that the notch is only about 10 Hz wide, I doubt you can even hear it unless you play pure tones between 95 and 105 Hz. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. The dip between 150 and 205 Hz is more problematic in my opinion. Then you appear to have a wide 10 dB drop around 300 Hz in the other channel.


----------



## tsanga

bluesky636 said:


> XT32 will probably not do anything with a notch that deep, nor probably will any other room EQ. Room EQs don't normally try to boost deep nulls (This one is about 15 to 20 dB down from your average level. That's a LOT!). But given the fact that the notch is only about 10 Hz wide, I doubt you can even hear it unless you play pure tones between 95 and 105 Hz. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it. The dip between 150 and 205 Hz is more problematic in my opinion. Then you appear to have a wide 10 dB drop around 300 Hz in the other channel.


Thanks for the feedback, very helpful. 

Those are not channels, they’re neighboring seats on my couch.


----------



## bluesky636

tsanga said:


> Thanks for the feedback, very helpful.
> 
> Those are not channels, they’re neighboring seats on my couch.


Ok. Well that kinda explains the difference between the two plots. The mic is in two different positions which will clearly exhibit two different responses.


----------



## Soulburner

tsanga said:


> I’m concerned whether XT32 could address the sharp notch at 98 Hz, as I’ve read that room EQ is better at the broad dips and peaks, and possibly less effective with this characteristic.


There is not likely any electronic means to fix that.


----------



## tsanga

bluesky636 said:


> Ok. Well that kinda explains the difference between the two plots. The mic is in two different positions which will clearly exhibit two different responses.





Soulburner said:


> There is not likely any electronic means to fix that.


Thank you very much for your opinions.

I was thinking along these lines but nice to hear it from those with more experience.

It seems in my case, better bang-for-the-buck would be better spent on a 2nd sub or some room adjustments. The response below 80 or even 100 Hz could be flatter with an upgrade to XT32, but it’s reasonably good right now. (Edit: a 2nd sub wouldn’t really help 100-300 Hz anyway)

Not sure if there’s anyway I can even out the two seating positions without some treatments on walls.


----------



## StephenMSmith

I've been trying to figure out just what exactly upgrading from MultEQ to MultEQ XT32 would do for me, all other things the same. Now I finally got to answer that question by upgrading from Denon 750H to 3700H. For me, this seemed like such great information that I created a separate post w/the comparison graphs:

MultEQ vs MultEQ XT32

Hopefully, I not just full of myself and this should just be a post in this massive thread. Let me know.


----------



## bluesky636

StephenMSmith said:


> I've been trying to figure out just what exactly upgrading from MultEQ to MultEQ XT32 would do for me, all other things the same. Now I finally got to answer that question by upgrading from Denon 750H to 3700H. For me, this seemed like such great information that I created a separate post w/the comparison graphs:
> 
> MultEQ vs MultEQ XT32
> 
> Hopefully, I not just full of myself and this should just be a post in this massive thread. Let me know.


You should have just posted it here. That's what this thread is for.


----------



## StephenMSmith

bluesky636 said:


> You should have just posted it here. That's what this thread is for.


Ah, so I do indeed think me and my information is way more important than it really is, lol. I'll trying moving to this thread then.


----------



## brec

I just installed *two new *passive* subwoofers* with 18-inch drivers replacing the single 12-inch one I had before. *A single AVR output* signal, split by a sub pre-amp, *drives both subs*. I also have a 3-month old *Denon AVR-S760H with Audyssey*. I had *previously used that* to set up with my previous sub, but knew I'd be getting the new subs so I *considered that setup preliminary*. *Now* I'm *using the Audyssey MultEQ Editor ("MEQ") app *on an iPad and *ready to dial in a "permanent" setup.*

I have *some idea* of what's going on with *room correction and EQ*, but I think I'm *still in the newbie category*.

My MLP is effectively the only listening position as the only consumers of the audio are my fiancée and I and we sit very close together in the same place on a small couch. I stopped the MEQ measurements after three mic positions, with positions 2 and 3 about as far apart as our heads, and position 1 between them.

Specific issues and questions...

Based on what I'd read, I previously had all crossovers at 80 Hz, and all speakers at "small." MEQ came out with:
Front(s) large, others small. Fronts and center 40 Hz; surround 80 Hz; front dolby(s) 90 Hz. (The latter are up-firing on the mains for Atmos material.) I changed the fronts to small, but await advice before further changes.

MEQ set levels as follows:
Fronts: -4.5, -3.5
Center: -8.0
Surrounds: +3.0, +1.5
Front Dolbys: +3.0, +1.5
Sub: -12.0

The Center at -8.0 seems anomalous, but my main concern is the sub(s). I've read that Audyssey often has them that low, and users often bump them up 5 dB or so. So for now, I've bumped them to -7.0 dB. The subs amp has an input volume adjustment knob too, of course. It's set at about 2:30 o'clock, or about 7.4 on a 0-10 scale.

Here are the Room Correction Results. I'm scratching my head about the Front R above 1 kHz.


















































Edit: I have a UMik-1 and REW software ready to go, but haven't used them as yet.


----------



## Rich 63

brec said:


> I just installed *two new *passive* subwoofers* with 18-inch drivers replacing the single 12-inch one I had before. *A single AVR output* signal, split by a sub pre-amp, *drives both subs*. I also have a 3-month old *Denon AVR-S760H with Audyssey*. I had *previously used that* to set up with my previous sub, but knew I'd be getting the new subs so I *considered that setup preliminary*. *Now* I'm *using the Audyssey MultEQ Editor ("AMEE") app *on an iPad and *ready to dial in a "permanent" setup.*
> 
> I have *some idea* of what's going on with *room correction and EQ*, but I think I'm *still in the newbie category*.
> 
> My MLP is effectively the only listening position as the only consumers of the audio are my fiancée and I and we sit very close together in the same place on a small couch. I stopped the _AMEE_ measurements after three mic positions, with positions 2 and 3 about as far apart as our heads, and position 1 between them.
> 
> Specific issues and questions...
> 
> Based on what I'd read, I previously had all crossovers at 80 Hz, and all speakers at "small." _AMEE_ came out with:
> Front(s) large, others small. Fronts and center 40 Hz; surround 80 Hz; front dolby(s) 90 Hz. (The latter are up-firing on the mains for Atmos material.) I changed the fronts to small, but await advice before further changes.
> 
> AMEE set levels as follows:
> Fronts: -4.5, -3.5
> Center: -8.0
> Surrounds: +3.0, +1.5
> Front Dolbys: +3.0, +1.5
> Sub: -12.0
> 
> The Center at -8.0 seems anomalous, but my main concern is the sub(s). I've read that Audyssey often has them that low, and users often bump them up 5 dB or so. So for now, I've bumped them to -7.0 dB. The subs amp has an input volume adjustment knob too, of course. It's set at about 2:30 o'clock, or about 7.4 on a 0-10 scale.
> 
> Here are the Room Correction Results. I'm scratching my head about the Front R above 1 kHz.
> View attachment 3250467
> View attachment 3250468
> View attachment 3250470
> View attachment 3250471
> View attachment 3250472
> View attachment 3250473
> View attachment 3250475
> View attachment 3250476
> 
> 
> Edit: I have a UMik-1 and REW software ready to go, but haven't used them as yet.


 some more details needed. 
-Actual speakers used. 
-Where are subs located in relation to the mlp. 
- are distances to mlp the same
-where is your centre located. Don't keep it in a cubby and bring it forward until the centre is clear of any shelf reflection points
-The max reduction in volume for any channel in aud is - 12. You want to rerun it turning down your subs until they register anything under
- 12. I go with - 10 or 9.5


----------



## Soulburner

brec said:


> Audyssey MultEQ Editor ("_AMEE_") app


Why don't we stick with MEQ app (vs MEQX) to avoid confusion?


----------



## StephenMSmith

brec said:


> I just installed *two new *passive* subwoofers* with 18-inch drivers replacing the single 12-inch one I had before. *A single AVR output* signal, split by a sub pre-amp, *drives both subs*. I also have a 3-month old *Denon AVR-S760H with Audyssey*. I had *previously used that* to set up with my previous sub, but knew I'd be getting the new subs so I *considered that setup preliminary*. *Now* I'm *using the Audyssey MultEQ Editor ("AMEE") app *on an iPad and *ready to dial in a "permanent" setup.*
> 
> I have *some idea* of what's going on with *room correction and EQ*, but I think I'm *still in the newbie category*.
> 
> My MLP is effectively the only listening position as the only consumers of the audio are my fiancée and I and we sit very close together in the same place on a small couch. I stopped the _AMEE_ measurements after three mic positions, with positions 2 and 3 about as far apart as our heads, and position 1 between them.
> 
> Specific issues and questions...
> 
> Based on what I'd read, I previously had all crossovers at 80 Hz, and all speakers at "small." _AMEE_ came out with:
> Front(s) large, others small. Fronts and center 40 Hz; surround 80 Hz; front dolby(s) 90 Hz. (The latter are up-firing on the mains for Atmos material.) I changed the fronts to small, but await advice before further changes.
> 
> AMEE set levels as follows:
> Fronts: -4.5, -3.5
> Center: -8.0
> Surrounds: +3.0, +1.5
> Front Dolbys: +3.0, +1.5
> Sub: -12.0
> 
> The Center at -8.0 seems anomalous, but my main concern is the sub(s). I've read that Audyssey often has them that low, and users often bump them up 5 dB or so. So for now, I've bumped them to -7.0 dB. The subs amp has an input volume adjustment knob too, of course. It's set at about 2:30 o'clock, or about 7.4 on a 0-10 scale.
> 
> Here are the Room Correction Results. I'm scratching my head about the Front R above 1 kHz.
> View attachment 3250467
> View attachment 3250468
> View attachment 3250470
> View attachment 3250471
> View attachment 3250472
> View attachment 3250473
> View attachment 3250475
> View attachment 3250476
> 
> 
> Edit: I have a UMik-1 and REW software ready to go, but haven't used them as yet.


You need to lower the volume of the subs until you see more than -12db. I took me a while b/c my subs have super sensitive volume pots. Quickest way is to use receiver built in Audyssey and stop after first 3 positions so you can check sub offet.


----------



## brec

Rich 63 said:


> some more details needed.
> -Actual speakers used.
> -Where are subs located in relation to the mlp.
> - are distances to mlp the same
> -where is your centre located. Don't keep it in a cubby and bring it forward until the centre is clear of any shelf reflection points
> -The max reduction in volume for any channel in aud is - 12. You want to rerun it turning down your subs until they register anything under
> - 12. I go with - 10 or 9.5


Actual speakers: all Klipsch except subs -- mains+Atmos, RP-280FA; center: RP-450C; surrounds (old, mounted high facing each other). Subs per my signataure.
For geography please see this pic that I posted in the subs mfr's DIY thread. Note the reflection in the TV that shows that the POV is just about at the MLP. The center is about 7 ft. from the MLP, the mains about the same except the left is a bit farther than the right.

I originally did use the Denon built-in Audyssey when I had the subs amp input volume set to 9:00 o'clock, and it came back with a level of +8.0 dB. That, plus the fact that I couldn't perceive the LFE at the start of "Edge of Tomorrow," motivated my upping the amp volume. With the +8.0 and the amp increase, the LFE shook the couch strongly and edged into the yellow on the amp's VU meter. I will turn it down for a re-run, but I do want to have the couch vibrations with whatever I end up with.


----------



## brec

Soulburner said:


> Why don't we stick with MEQ app (vs MEQX) to avoid confusion?


Edited my post to do that.


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Actual speakers: all Klipsch except subs -- mains+Atmos, RP-280FA; center: RP-450C; surrounds (old, mounted high facing each other). Subs per my signataure.
> For geography please see this pic that I posted in the subs mfr's DIY thread. Note the reflection in the TV that shows that the POV is just about at the MLP. The center is about 7 ft. from the MLP, the mains about the same except the left is a bit farther than the right.
> 
> I originally did use the Denon built-in Audyssey when I had the subs amp input volume set to 9:00 o'clock, and it came back with a level of +8.0 dB. That, plus the fact that I couldn't perceive the LFE at the start of "Edge of Tomorrow," motivated my upping the amp volume. With the +8.0 and the amp increase, the LFE shook the couch strongly and edged into the yellow on the amp's VU meter. I will turn it down for a re-run, but I do want to have the couch vibrations with whatever I end up with.


If the sub trim level was too high with the sub gain control set at 9:00 and too low with the sub gain control set at 2:30, start with a setting of 12 noon.

You need to run ALL 6 mic positions for the final run. Read the setup instructions at the beginning of this thread.

The right front speaker looks like either a dead tweeter or incorrectly placed mic.


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> If the sub trim level was too high with the sub gain control set at 9:00 and too low with the sub gain control set at 2:30, start with a setting of 12 noon.
> 
> You need to run ALL 6 mic positions for the final run. Read the setup instructions at the beginning of this thread.
> 
> The right front speaker looks like either a dead tweeter or incorrectly placed mic.


OK, noon next time.

The first position gets levels and distances. What do the other mic positions do?

How might an incorrectly placed mic "imitate" a dead tweeter?


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> OK, noon next time.
> 
> The first position gets levels and distances. What do the other mic positions do?
> 
> How might an incorrectly placed mic "imitate" a dead tweeter?


All mic positions are required for accurate filter calculations. 

I have no idea how you may have placed your mic. It was a less "expensive" possibility. If you prefer, then I would say you have a dead tweeter.


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> All mic positions are required for accurate filter calculations.
> 
> I have no idea how you may have placed your mic. It was a less "expensive" possibility. If you prefer, then I would say you have a dead tweeter.


I have a sick tweeter. This makes me sad.


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> I have a sick tweeter. This makes me sad.


Play some pink noise or anything with a lot of highs. Stick you ear close to the tweeter in the left speaker then do the same with the right speaker (use the same ear).


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> Play some pink noise or anything with a lot of highs. Stick you ear close to the tweeter in the left speaker then do the same with the right speaker (use the same ear).


I had done that before my previous reply using a constant ~4 kHz tone. The right tweeter is not dead, but it's sick; it has less SPL than the left and the SPL trails off.


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> I had done that before my previous reply using a constant ~4 kHz tone. The right tweeter is not dead, but it's sick; it has less SPL than the left and the SPL trails off.


Good luck.


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> Good luck.


Thanks. Replacement tweeter coming; $40.


----------



## Rich 63

brec said:


> I had done that before my previous reply using a constant ~4 kHz tone. The right tweeter is not dead, but it's sick; it has less SPL than the left and the SPL trails off.


Might have missed but have you confirmed the jumpers are attached correctly on that speaker? Free check.


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> Might have missed but have you confirmed the jumpers are attached correctly on that speaker? Free check.


Good point. My Polks have similar connections but I biwire them.


----------



## brec

Rich 63 said:


> Might have missed but have you confirmed the jumpers are attached correctly on that speaker? Free check.


Sorry, what jumpers found where? SInce there is a tweeter and woofers, I guess there must be crossover logic and hence a circuit board in there somewhere. I downloaded a "Service Manual -- Consumer" document yesterday, but it shows only how to replace the tweeter and woofer(s).

Edit: Oh, from @bluesky636's reply re "biwire" I think I may have misinterpreted "jumpers." I'll check the connections from the AVR.

Edit2: Found some reading on biwiring. First I'll check the jumpers/bridges, then maybe I'll biwire. (Maybe I'll ask about it on an appropriate thread, as it's off-topic here.)


----------



## Rich 63

brec said:


> Sorry, what jumpers found where? SInce there is a tweeter and woofers, I guess there must be crossover logic and hence a circuit board in there somewhere. I downloaded a "Service Manual -- Consumer" document yesterday, but it shows only how to replace the tweeter and woofer(s).
> 
> Edit: Oh, from @bluesky636's reply re "biwire" I think I may have misinterpreted "jumpers." I'll check the connections from the AVR.


Many/most speakers have 2 sets of connections on the back of speaker for the ability to biwire. Most only connect to one set of posts and don't bother but there is a jumper plate between each binding post if biwire is not used. Make sure its properly seated and secure.


----------



## brec

Rich 63 said:


> Many/most speakers have 2 sets of connections on the back of speaker for the ability to biwire. Most only connect to one set of posts and don't bother but there is a jumper plate between each binding post if biwire is not used. Make sure its properly seated and secure.


Yep, it was the connection, possibly the jumper plate! (I hate the connectors on these speakers.) Have requested cancellation of the replacement tweeter order. Thanks! Now back, in due time, to Audyssey questions...


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Yep, it was the connection, possibly the jumper plate! (I hate the connectors on these speakers.) Have requested cancellation of the replacement tweeter order. Thanks! Now back, in due time, to Audyssey questions...


From the owner's manual:

Reference Premiere models RP-280F, RP-260F, RP-250F and RP-160M are equipped with dual binding posts. If single wire connection is used, the terminal connecting bar should remain in place. If Bi-wire or Bi-amp connection is used, the terminal connecting bar must be removed. Please see your receiver’s manual for further instructions.


----------



## brec

I have an Amazon Basics mic stand, but it doesn't work for me for Audyssey (or, looking ahead, for REW) because I need to get the mic tip at ear level and pointing up. But my MLP is a couch with a back that is higher than ear level and a big footrest in front. So I need to have the mic stand behind the couch, higher than the back, with the boom over the back of the couch and angled down to get the mic holder at ear level. But with the boom angled down, there's no way to rotate the mic holder so that the mic points straight up.

I can't put the stand at the side of the couch because the boom isn't long enough to reach the MLP. I can put it in front of the couch if I move the big footrest, but that could change the acoustics -- and mic stand could, as well.

Which is a long way of asking: does anyone know if the stand recommended in post #1 of this thread can have the mic pointing straight up with the boom angled down?

(Pic of the couch -- see reflection in TV screen)


----------



## Lttlwing16

I'm getting some weird "target" graphs when I use range limiting on certain channels. I understand these aren't real post calibration graphs, but targets. Either way hadn't see any wonkiness like this before. 

Using a 4700H with XT32. 

CENTER WITH NO RANGE LIMITATION: 










Center LIMITED TO 702 hz: 









Left channel is similar but -2db instead of +5db. 

Any ideas?

Thanks,

David


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> I have an Amazon Basics mic stand, but it doesn't work for me for Audyssey (or, looking ahead, for REW) because I need to get the mic tip at ear level and pointing up. But my MLP is a couch with a back that is higher than ear level and a big footrest in front. So I need to have the mic stand behind the couch, higher than the back, with the boom over the back of the couch and angled down to get the mic holder at ear level. But with the boom angled down, there's no way to rotate the mic holder so that the mic points straight up.
> 
> I can't put the stand at the side of the couch because the boom isn't long enough to reach the MLP. I can put it in front of the couch if I move the big footrest, but that could change the acoustics -- and mic stand could, as well.
> 
> Which is a long way of asking: does anyone know if the stand recommended in post #1 of this thread can have the mic pointing straight up with the boom angled down?
> 
> (Pic of the couch -- see reflection in TV screen)


This is the mic stand I use:


__
https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lgx3

You need an adapter like this to mount the mic. You can then point the mic any way you want.


__
https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lh81


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> I'm getting some weird "target" graphs when I use range limiting on certain channels. I understand these aren't real post calibration graphs, but targets. Either way hadn't see any wonkiness like this before.
> 
> Using a 4700H with XT32.
> 
> CENTER WITH NO RANGE LIMITATION:
> 
> View attachment 3250924
> 
> 
> Center LIMITED TO 702 hz:
> View attachment 3250925
> 
> 
> Left channel is similar but -2db instead of +5db.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David


Looks perfectly normal to me. 

Your first plot is Audyssey correction full range so filters are calculated and applied out to 20KHz.

Your second plot, Audyssey is limited to 702 Hz so filters are calculated and applied to 702 Hz. Beyond that point no correction is applied.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> Looks perfectly normal to me.
> 
> Your first plot is Audyssey correction full range so filters are calculated and applied out to 20KHz.
> 
> Your second plot, Audyssey is limited to 702 Hz so filters are calculated and applied to 702 Hz. Beyond that point no correction is applied.


I'm really glad these two polts came up here in the Audyssey thread coz it only goes to show how the systems of the crowds heralding limited range correction will look like. What you see is what you get!!  If this doesn't convince anyone of doing full range correction, nothing else will! Take care!


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> I'm really glad these two polts came up here in the Audyssey thread coz it only goes to show how the systems of the crowds heralding limited range correction will look like. What you see is what you get!!  If this doesn't convince anyone of doing full range correction, nothing else will! Take care!


That plus the fact that the After plot is totally fake (IMHO) is why I just run the AVR Audyssey and don't waste my time with the app or anything it is used for. Frankly, I don't care what the "plot" looks like, all I care is what things sound like and the AVR XT32 sounds pretty damn good on its own.


----------



## Soulburner

Lttlwing16 said:


> I'm getting some weird "target" graphs when I use range limiting on certain channels. I understand these aren't real post calibration graphs, but targets. Either way hadn't see any wonkiness like this before.
> 
> Using a 4700H with XT32.
> 
> CENTER WITH NO RANGE LIMITATION:
> 
> View attachment 3250924
> 
> 
> Center LIMITED TO 702 hz:
> View attachment 3250925
> 
> 
> Left channel is similar but -2db instead of +5db.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> David


First, it's not a "target" shown on the right, it's the predicted response. I have seen some strange behavior like this before but not to this extreme. I would need to take measurements with Room EQ Wizard or other software to confirm if that is what I'm really getting.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> That plus the fact that the After plot is totally fake (IMHO) is why I just run the AVR Audyssey and don't waste my time with the app or anything it is used for. Frankly, I don't care what the "plot" looks like, all I care is what things sound like and the AVR XT32 sounds pretty damn good on its own.


Sigh..."totally fake" is definitely hyperbole, regardless of whether they are using more smoothing or whatever. Anyway, I don't look at the predicted response other than to make sure it's generally right, that is, no major issues. I take it from there. And I benefit a lot from the limited range correction with my speakers.


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> This is the mic stand I use:
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lgx3
> 
> You need an adapter like this to mount the mic. You can then point the mic any way you want.
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lh81


Mine has an adapter like yours, My problem is that, as in your photo, the mic cannot be tilted back (clockwise looking at photo) any more. (It could be rotated 180 degrees counter-clockwise to point down; but not _more_ than 180.) So, if as shown, if the boom is tilted down -- the mic/adapter end lowered -- the mic cannot then be pointed straight up.


----------



## mogorf

Soulburner said:


> First, it's not a "target" shown on the right, it's the predicted response. I have seen some strange behavior like this before but not to this extreme. I would need to take measurements with Room EQ Wizard or other software to confirm if that is what I'm really getting.


I suppose the predicted response only shows the prediction up to 700 Hz (flat part), above 700 Hz its exactly the same as on the before graph or in otherwords there is nothing to predict in the un-corrected range. Hmm.


----------



## brec

brec said:


> Yep, it was the connection, possibly the jumper plate! (I hate the connectors on these speakers.) Have requested cancellation of the replacement tweeter order. Thanks! Now back, in due time, to Audyssey questions...


Just a report on the Audyssey run with right main tweeter fixed via fixed speaker wire connection; subs amp input level adjusted to 12:00 o'clock; using mic stand in front (i.e., towards speakers) of MLP. Previously I had used the cardboard gizmo that came with the AVR/mic, but it's too tall by a few inches.

Notable results: the Front L room correction result plot now looks like the Front R's rather than tanking above 1 kHz; and the subs level is now -2.0 dB. The latter was -12.0 dB with the amp volume at 2:30 o'clock, and +8.0 dB at 9:00 o'clock.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> First, it's not a "target" shown on the right, it's the predicted response. I have seen some strange behavior like this before but not to this extreme. I would need to take measurements with Room EQ Wizard or other software to confirm if that is what I'm really getting.


What is "strange" about the second plot?

Audyssey correction stops at 702 Hz. The remaining plot after 702 Hz looks just like the before plot as would be expected. As far as the difference in trim levels, the OP has provided zero information about the speaker type and the speaker and mic locations.


----------



## brec

mogorf said:


> I suppose the predicted response only shows the prediction up to 700 Hz (flat part), above 700 Hz its exactly the same as on the before graph or in otherwords there is nothing to predict in the un-corrected range. Hmm.


Looks to me like the flat part goes up to 500 Hz.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> I suppose the predicted response only shows the prediction up to 700 Hz (flat part), above 700 Hz its exactly the same as on the before graph or in otherwords there is nothing to predict in the un-corrected range. Hmm.


That should be obvious since no corrections are being applied above 702 Hz.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Sigh..."totally fake" is definitely hyperbole, regardless of whether they are using more smoothing or whatever.


Well, it's certainly not a "real" measurement.


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Looks to me like the flat part goes up to 500 Hz.


So?


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Mine has an adapter like yours, My problem is that, as in your photo, the mic cannot be tilted back (clockwise looking at photo) any more. (It could be rotated 180 degrees counter-clockwise to point down; but not _more_ than 180.) So, if as shown, if the boom is tilted down -- the mic/adapter end lowered -- the mic cannot then be pointed straight up.


I'm sure you'll figure something out.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> What is "strange" about the second plot?


It's way above the 0 line.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> It's way above the 0 line.


Seems logical to me.

In the fullrange plot. Audyssey is working on flattening out and smoothing the entire frequency range. I fully expect that Audyssey would decrease the peaks in the lower part of the frequency range but not act to increase the level of the upper frequency range. This would be an obvious example of Audyssey's fuzzy logic and smoothing/averaging function. 

The second plot is with the frequency range limited to about 700 Hz. Above that point, Audyssey completely ignores the fluctuations in the room response. It is only looking at 700 Hz and below. Audyssey then applies their fuzzy logic and averaging to smooth out that part of the frequency range. 

So the question I ask you is, why would you expect Audyssey to reduce the measured response to 0 dB as opposed to the averaged value of a response range that is well above 0 dB?


----------



## davedetor5

Still learning. I bought the Multeq app ran Audyssey, saved original, made copies, and tweaked some settings. My question, is it helpful also to adjust curve in the editor? And if so, do I do it for each speaker, i.e. front, center, sub, and surrounds. I'm a little fuzzy on that whole part of it. Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## garygarrison

@Lttlwing16*,*
Looking at your "predicted response" graph [on the right in red] I see *a really nice curve* when used _*full range*._









True, it is only _predicted_ response, and the *real* response would be different, and could be further estimated by using REW and a calibrated mic, but Audyssey uses 8 mic positions, so to get even closer to your real room response in the general listening area, you would have to put the mic you are using with REW in the *same* 8 positions (I found this *very * labor intensive) that you used for the Audyssey mic, then take an average (there is a button for this on REW) of all the curves. According to Chris K of Audyssey, this will still only be an approximation, compared to Audyssey's sophisticated proprietary "fuzzy logic" (a good thing) way of using the input from the 8 positions, which is, in itself, an approximation. For those who listen alone, from a single listening position, with the proverbial head clamp, with 8 positions surrounding the head, a closer approximation can be had. 

BUT *this looks really nice *providing you use a subwoofer to take over below about 80 Hz. I would consider trying Audyssey FLAT, _for extremely well recorded sources_, instead of normal Audyssey [reference] with it's roll-off above about 7KHz, sloping down until it reaches 15K or 20K. If your room is very live, you may not like Audyssey FLAT. I revert to normal Audyssey [reference] if a recording is harsh, or just too bright.

WHY would you want to use anything less than full range? Does it sound better to you?

Naturally, since no correction is applied above about 700 Hz, your "predicted" graph is anything but smooth above 700Hz or 800 Hz using *Limited Range* *-- why would you want this? * IMO, even if the Full Range obitained response only crudely approximates the "predicted" graph, it would probably be better than this*:







*
Audyssey's Chief Technology Officer believes that using Full Range is usually better.
As always, please trust your ears, but listen to the options repeatedly, with a variety of program material.


----------



## Soulburner

The Reference curve does seem a decent match to his speakers, save for the added boost to the 1-2 kHz range.

That is in contrast to my speakers in my room, where the default target curve is not a good fit and changes the treble response too much.


----------



## rboster

Instead of starting a separate thread, you should post your questions in the Audyssey master thread (sticky at the top of the forum) 









"Official" Audyssey thread Part II


Greetings, I am feeding a pair of ELAC Debut 2.0 b6.2 speakers with an Onyko TX-NR709 receiver. I have read forums for advice and instructions on how to use the Audyssey setup. I have done the setup correctly, as far as I know. Have the included microphone on a tripod to take the readings. I'm...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Lttlwing16

@bluesky636 @mogorf @Soulburner @garygarrison 

Thanks for all your input and forgive me for not providing more info, which I'll do now; 

I'm using RSL CG23's as LRC, RSL CG3's as LR surrounds, RSL c343e's as height speakers, two Def Tech Pro Cinema 400's as faux Dolby upfiring speakers, two BIC Venturi 1020's do the sub work. I measured 8 positions in a pattern similar to the pattern suggested in @mthomas47 guide. 

FWIW I got the same range limiting anomaly in multiple identically placed 8 position runs. 

I just picked up a UMIK1 and have REW installed and set up, just ran out of time today to check things after Audyssey did it's thing. I'll be able to in a week or so. 

That said, @bluesky636 explanation that Audyssey's fuzzy averaging is to explain the raised center level in the projected response seems to make sense, but when I look at the Left Front channel it seems the area that Audyssey is told to work with below 700hz can't make sense of the area being above and below 0 so it averages it to -2. 










I had originally decided to range limit based on multiple sources across the web, and in my own listening tests, it seemed I got a wider sound stage with the range limited in two channel music. 

Until I can use REW to confirm, I'll stick with full range eq for now as it still sounds incredible. Just seemed the projected FR seemed off to what I was expecting to see. Namely, the same correction as full range correction, _with the range above 700hz_ matching the original FR.

Thanks again,

David


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> @bluesky636 @mogorf @Soulburner @garygarrison
> 
> Thanks for all your input and forgive me for not providing more info, which I'll do now;
> 
> I'm using RSL CG23's as LRC, RSL CG3's as LR surrounds, RSL c343e's as height speakers, two Def Tech Pro Cinema 400's as faux Dolby upfiring speakers, two BIC Venturi 1020's do the sub work. I measured 8 positions in a pattern similar to the pattern suggested in @mthomas47 guide.
> 
> FWIW I got the same range limiting anomaly in multiple identically placed 8 position runs.
> 
> I just picked up a UMIK1 and have REW installed and set up, just ran out of time today to check things after Audyssey did it's thing. I'll be able to in a week or so.
> 
> That said, @bluesky636 explanation that Audyssey's fuzzy averaging is to explain the raised center level in the projected response seems to make sense, but when I look at the Left Front channel it seems the area that Audyssey is told to work with below 700hz can't make sense of the area being above and below 0 so it averages it to -2.
> 
> View attachment 3251023
> 
> 
> I had originally decided to range limit based on multiple sources across the web, and in my own listening tests, it seemed I got a wider sound stage with the range limited in two channel music.
> 
> Until I can use REW to confirm, I'll stick with full range eq for now as it still sounds incredible. Just seemed the projected FR seemed off to what I was expecting to see. Namely, the same correction as full range correction, _with the range above 700hz_ matching the original FR.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> David


I see no "anomalies" in any of your plots. 

The frequency range limited After plots look exactly as I would expect them to based on the Before measurement plots. The two speakers have very different uncorrected room plots and are not going look the same no matter what you do. As Feri noted in his post, the frequency range limited After plots look terrible and I see no value in using Audyssey in this manner.

I really don't understand why you are so surprised that the uncorrected range limited After plot looks identical to the before plot. That entire frequency range is totally ignored by Audyssey. It's not measured and it's not corrected. What else would anyone expect it to look like?


----------



## Matt2026

bluesky636 said:


> I see no "anomalies" in any of your plots.
> 
> The frequency range limited After plots look exactly as I would expect them to based on the Before measurement plots. The two speakers have very different uncorrected room plots and are not going look the same no matter what you do. As Feri noted in his post, the frequency range limited After plots look terrible and I see no value in using Audyssey in this manner.
> 
> I really don't understand why you are so surprised that the uncorrected range limited After plot looks identical to the before plot. That entire frequency range is totally ignored by Audyssey. It's not measured and it's not corrected. What else would anyone expect it to look like?


Reminded of Cool Hand Luke, "What we’ve got here is failure to communicate ."


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> I really don't understand why you are so surprised that the uncorrected range limited After plot looks identical to the before plot.


Sorry, I wasn't more clear. I understand the range from 700hz-10khz looks identical to the original response and is going to. That is fine, that is what I'm asking it to do. Leave above 700hz as is. Got it.

What I was referring to is the range I've told Audyssey to correct below 700hz. I was under the impression the part of the frequency range would be corrected just as it is in the full range correction for the same frequency range 700hz and below. Why would it add  average to 5db in the limited range to the center channel, but bring it down to 0db in the fully corrected?


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> Sorry, I wasn't more clear. I understand the range from 700hz-10khz looks identical to the original response and is going to. That is fine, that is what I'm asking it to do. Leave above 700hz as is. Got it.
> 
> What I was referring to is the range I've told Audyssey to correct below 700hz. I was under the impression the part of the frequency range would be corrected just as it is in the full range correction for the same frequency range 700hz and below. Why would it add  average to 5db in the limited range to the center channel, but bring it down to 0db in the fully corrected?


Look at the Before plots. Audyssey reduces peaks but does not significantly boost nulls. The center before plot is significantly above 0 dB while the other plot is centered around or slightly below 0 dB. With a limited range compared to full range, they are going to average differently.


----------



## Soulburner

Lttlwing16 said:


> @bluesky636 @mogorf @Soulburner @garygarrison
> 
> Thanks for all your input and forgive me for not providing more info, which I'll do now;
> 
> I'm using RSL CG23's as LRC, RSL CG3's as LR surrounds, RSL c343e's as height speakers, two Def Tech Pro Cinema 400's as faux Dolby upfiring speakers, two BIC Venturi 1020's do the sub work. I measured 8 positions in a pattern similar to the pattern suggested in @mthomas47 guide.
> 
> FWIW I got the same range limiting anomaly in multiple identically placed 8 position runs.
> 
> I just picked up a UMIK1 and have REW installed and set up, just ran out of time today to check things after Audyssey did it's thing. I'll be able to in a week or so.
> 
> That said, @bluesky636 explanation that Audyssey's fuzzy averaging is to explain the raised center level in the projected response seems to make sense, but when I look at the Left Front channel it seems the area that Audyssey is told to work with below 700hz can't make sense of the area being above and below 0 so it averages it to -2.
> 
> View attachment 3251023
> 
> 
> I had originally decided to range limit based on multiple sources across the web, and in my own listening tests, it seemed I got a wider sound stage with the range limited in two channel music.
> 
> Until I can use REW to confirm, I'll stick with full range eq for now as it still sounds incredible. Just seemed the projected FR seemed off to what I was expecting to see. Namely, the same correction as full range correction, _with the range above 700hz_ matching the original FR.
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
> David


Audyssey will level match your speakers. What is the trim level it sets for the Front L and Front R?


----------



## Rich 63

brec said:


> Mine has an adapter like yours, My problem is that, as in your photo, the mic cannot be tilted back (clockwise looking at photo) any more. (It could be rotated 180 degrees counter-clockwise to point down; but not _more_ than 180.) So, if as shown, if the boom is tilted down -- the mic/adapter end lowered -- the mic cannot then be pointed straight up.


Mount it, lower the main stand way down, then pivot the boom part up, and then rotate the ball forward until its level. This would be done from the front or side. Don't think over the couch, think bottom up. Also I would put a blanket near the leather couch. Too much reflection.


----------



## Deaf-Forever

Why are you adding a curve to any speaker that isn't a sub?


----------



## brec

Rich 63 said:


> Mount it, lower the main stand way down, then pivot the boom part up, and then rotate the ball forward until its level. This would be done from the front or side. Don't think over the couch, think bottom up. Also I would put a blanket near the leather couch. Too much reflection.


Ya, I put it in front of the couch. I had wanted to avoid that to avoid possible audio reflections or interference from the mic stand itself, but I had no choice. And I did have a blanket over part of the leather footrest because it's normally there -- over my financée's legs.


----------



## davedetor5

Deaf-Forever said:


> Why are you adding a curve to any speaker that isn't a sub?


I haven't added anything, I was asking a ? You missed the part where I said I'm still learning


----------



## pbarach

brec said:


> Which is a long way of asking: does anyone know if the stand recommended in post #1 of this thread can have the mic pointing straight up with the boom angled down?


 That stand has never worked for me because the combined weight of the boom arm and the camera adapter tend to pull down the mic end--you can't tighten the stand enough to hold the extended boom arm in place.


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> With a limited range compared to full range, they are going to average differently.


Interesting to watch how the software works. I would've assumed Audyssey would have strived to set all speakers at a matched SPL and FR _even_ when range limited. Meaning the projected response looks identical to the full range correction accept *above* the chosen range limitation frequency where it would look identical to the raw response. Clearly, as you've pointed out, that's not how it works. I'll confirm in REW what the actual response and post back. 



Soulburner said:


> Audyssey will level match your speakers. What is the trim level it sets for the Front L and Front R?


FL: (+0.5) FR: (+2.5) Center: (0) .


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Ya, I put it in front of the couch. I had wanted to avoid that to avoid possible audio reflections or interference from the mic stand itself, but I had no choice. And I did have a blanket over part of the leather footrest because it's normally there -- over my financée's legs.


I put a blanket over the backrest of my couch to absorb reflections since I figure that's what my body would do anyway when I sit there. But I have been placing my mic stand in front of my couch for measurements for years without any problems. I think the fear of reflections from a mic stand is BS.


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> That stand has never worked for me because the combined weight of the boom arm and the camera adapter tend to pull down the mic end--you can't tighten the stand enough to hold the extended boom arm in place.


Then you either have a defective stand or aren't using it properly. These stands are designed to hold a heavy vocal microphone. The Audyssey mic weighs next to nothing and the adapter I use is not much heavier. I have never had a problem locking the boom arm of my stand in place and having it hold while running Audyssey. 


__
https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lgx3


__
https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lh81


----------



## brec

Below is a room correction result from my Audyssey run yesterday. It's for my two subwoofers, which are "1spkr" from Audysseys POV. It's "plain old" Audyssey, not XT or XT32. I truncated the pics after 100 Hz.









Fairly impressive! But I'm wondering why the difference in degree of targeted correction between the two biggest valleys at about 30 and 45 Hz respectively. While the former is targeted for virtual elimination, the latter is targeted to be "only" halved in magnitude.


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> Interesting to watch how the software works. I would've assumed Audyssey would have strived to set all speakers at a matched SPL and FR _even_ when range limited. Meaning the projected response looks identical to the full range correction accept *above* the chosen range limitation frequency where it would look identical to the raw response. Clearly, as you've pointed out, that's not how it works. I'll confirm in REW what the actual response and post back.
> 
> 
> FL: (+0.5) FR: (+2.5) Center: (0) .


I'm beginning to wonder whether those plots everyone loves to show are supposed to be level matched around the 0 dB point on the x-axis. Clearly the after plot of the full range Audyssey run is normalized to 0 dB but the restricted range plot is not (yours are the first restricted range Audyssey plots I recall seeing in this thread and are very interesting just for that reason).

I could be totally wrong about what I have posted but based on my analysis of your plots, I don't think I am. Clearly Audyssey is completely ignoring the frequencies above your cut off point and not including them in the correction. That seems only logical. 

Good photographs of your speaker setup would go a long way to helping understand the results you are getting. Unless there is a problem in the apps measurements (I don't think there is), the environment around your speakers will make a big difference in the correction and trim levels that Audyssey sets for each speaker. 

Your trim levels do not seem that far off from each other. The trim levels for all of my speakers (traditional 7.1 system with the surrounds located near the ceiling) are all within 1 dB of each other and the environment around the front left and right speakers is very different (LCRs are about a foot from the wall behind them. The left speaker is about 4 feet from built in cabinets and bookshelves. The right speaker has nothing to the outside of it, the room opening up into another room with no wall separating the two rooms.).


__
https://flic.kr/p/2kDFAoX


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Below is a room correction result from my Audyssey run yesterday. It's for my two subwoofers, which are "1spkr" from Audysseys POV. It's "plain old" Audyssey, not XT or XT32. I truncated the pics after 100 Hz.
> View attachment 3251154
> 
> 
> Fairly impressive! But I'm wondering why the difference in degree of targeted correction between the two biggest valleys at about 30 and 45 Hz respectively. While the former is targeted for virtual elimination, the latter is targeted to be "only" halved in magnitude.


So you only have Audyssey MultEQ? MultEQ has very few bass correction filters compared to XT32. (Edited to delete XT)

Your x-axis looks odd. Counting right to left from 100 Hz I see 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, and 30 Hz points. Your two big nulls appear at about 50 and 65 Hz and are fairly narrow. Your after plot still shows a null at 65 Hz. Audyssey will reduce peaks easily but is limited in its ability to raise nulls.


----------



## Soulburner

Lttlwing16 said:


> Interesting to watch how the software works. I would've assumed Audyssey would have strived to set all speakers at a matched SPL and FR _even_ when range limited. Meaning the projected response looks identical to the full range correction accept *above* the chosen range limitation frequency where it would look identical to the raw response. Clearly, as you've pointed out, that's not how it works. I'll confirm in REW what the actual response and post back.
> 
> 
> FL: (+0.5) FR: (+2.5) Center: (0) .


Odd. I was wondering if it at least compensated in the trim levels. I guess I would need REW and my ears to see if that's really what I was getting or if I could ignore that graph. If that really was the response, I wouldn't be happy. That is quite a recession in the midrange leading to reduced vocal clarity.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Odd. I was wondering if it at least compensated in the trim levels. I guess I would need REW and my ears to see if that's really what I was getting or if I could ignore that graph. If that really was the response, I wouldn't be happy. That is quite a recession in the midrange leading to reduced vocal clarity.


For once, I agree with you 100%. The plots of frequency limited correction seem totally messed up and useless. If they are correct, Feri is right. Limiting the Audyssey frequency correction range is detrimental to the sound. I would think a room would have to be heavily treated acousticly to take any advantage in limiting the response. No way this would work in your average living room. Maybe it would work in a dedicated home theater.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> So you only have Audyssey MultEQ? MultEQ has very few bass correction filters compared to to XT and XT32.


Bill, please note MultEQ has the exact same filter resolution in the subwoofer channel as XT, i.e. 128x. Not XT32 but not bad, right?


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Bill, please note MultEQ has the exact same filter resolution in the subwoofer channel as XT, i.e. 128x. Not XT32 but not bad, right?
> 
> View attachment 3251182


You're right. I was looking for that chart and couldn't find it.

Could the difference in filter resolution between the three versions of Audyssey be responsible for the odd plots that have been posted for frequency limited runs?

Edit: No. Lttlwing16 has XT32 in his Denon 4700.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> You're right. I was looking for that chart and couldn't find it.
> 
> Could the difference in filter resolution between the three versions of Audyssey be responsible for the odd plots that have been posted for frequency limited runs?


I don't think so. I see no correlation between filter resolution and frequency limiting in the app. Whatever is not corrected will remain "not corrected".  As regards level offset deviation of x-axis from 0 dB, it needs a closer scrutiny. Let's talk!


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> I don't think so. I see no correlation between filer resolution and frequency limiting in the app. Whatever is not corrected will remain "not corrected".


I agree and edited my post.

Edit: Actually I was thinking about the difference in filter resolution in the corrected area but Lttlwing16 has XT32. Yes, the uncorrected range is going to look like the Before plot regardless of the Audyssey version.


----------



## Soulburner

As I mentioned last night, I've encountered this with my own system. There seems to be a limit to the correction. These speakers are close to the ceiling so correcting to 400 Hz flattens out the boundary gain.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> As I mentioned last night, I've encountered this with my own system. There seems to be a limit to the correction and it may be the 9 dB we were all taught over the years with Audyssey. Though in some cases it seems it's less. These speakers are close to the ceiling so correcting to 400 Hz flattens out the boundary gain.
> 
> View attachment 3251198
> View attachment 3251199
> View attachment 3251200
> View attachment 3251201


Not sure what you are referring to but your plots look like what I would expect.

Notice that the closer the before plot is above/below 0 dB in the range to be corrected the closer to 0 dB the corrected plot is in that range.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> Not sure what you are referring to





bluesky636 said:


> Notice that the closer the before plot is above/below 0 dB in the range to be corrected the closer to 0 dB the corrected plot is in that range.


That is what I'm referring to. That's a weird way of stating it, but basically I think there's a limit to the correction it will apply. Normally, the correction should land *on* the zero line.


----------



## pbz06

I haven't been following this closely the last couple of days, but Audyssey has a limit on how much it can cut/trim and it still needs to level match across the range it does (I think it's something like 500hz-5khz). In terms of the OP's graphs, I'm not familiar with his speakers but there just seems to be a huge disparity between the woofer/mid/tweeters which is causing fluctuations. Pictures of the room and setup would help too.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> That is what I'm referring to. That's a weird way of stating it, but basically I think there's a limit to the correction it will apply. Normally, the correction should land *on* the zero line.


I don't know how Audyssey's fuzzy logic and averaging algorithms work but it is easy to see what is happening in the before and after plots.

Greatly oversimplifying we see this: 

If the average positive level is +3 dB and the the average negative level is -3 dB, the overall level appears to average to 0 dB.

But if the average positive level is +3 dB and the average negative level is -2 dB, the overall level appears to average to +1 dB.

Like I said, I am greatly oversimplifying but the affect is very apparent in the plots.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I haven't been following this closely the last couple of days, but Audyssey has a limit on how much it can cut/trim and it still needs to level match across the range it does (I think it's something like 500hz-5khz). In terms of the OP's graphs, I'm not familiar with his speakers but there just seems to be a huge disparity between the woofer/mid/tweeters which is causing fluctuations. Pictures of the room and setup would help too.


The limit is +/-12 dB. As far as I know, that is applied across the full frequency range.

If you are referring to Lttlwing16's plots, his full range correction looks perfectly normal. It is the appearance of the restricted range (max of 700 Hz) correction that is being discussed. I have already suggested that he post photos of his setup.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> The limit is +/-12 dB. As far as I know, that is applied across the full frequency range.
> 
> If you are referring to Lttlwing16's plots, his full range correction looks perfectly normal. It is the appearance of the restricted range (max of 700 Hz) correction that is being discussed. I have already suggested that he post photos of his setup.


It looks like it "centers" the corrected range between the -3dB point and the limit of correction. At least that's how it displays it (although I bet if checked, they're level matched just fine). Looking at my own graphs, and what Soulburner posted, looks consistent with that in mind (unless my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). Lttlwing's just looks the most "interesting" because of the wide varying response of the speaker. I'm a little conflicted because on one hand I'd suggest they need full range correction, but on the other hand it may be a case of letting them rip and not risk coloring or altering the response with so many unknowns


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> I have already suggested that he post photos of his setup.


As requested: Living Room photos.

EDIT: Subs are found here


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> As requested: Living Room photos.
> 
> EDIT: Subs are found here


Well, the first thing I would suggest is to pull the center speaker out to the front edge of the cabinet. Where you have it now can cause a lot of nasty reflections.

Your left and right speakers appear to be located similarly so they should be ok through I can't see a reason why the responses would be different. 

Are your subs really located inside the cabinet on the ends? I really can't think that installing them like that would be helpful for their performance. Seems like they would cause all sorts of vibrations in the cabinet.


----------



## tsanga

pbz06 said:


> It looks like it "centers" the corrected range between the -3dB point and the limit of correction. At least that's how it displays it (although I bet if checked, they're level matched just fine). Looking at my own graphs, and what Soulburner posted, looks consistent with that in mind (unless my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). Lttlwing's just looks the most "interesting" because of the wide varying response of the speaker. I'm a little conflicted because on one hand I'd suggest they need full range correction, but on the other hand it may be a case of letting them rip and not risk coloring or altering the response with so many unknowns


Not only this but, _if_ you believe the simulated AFTER plot, the relative SPL difference between the frequency limited corrected range and the uncorrected range is going to give some overall goofy response. But maybe the simulated plot is just bad at its job and the actual output is indeed level matched all the way through.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> It looks like it "centers" the corrected range between the -3dB point and the limit of correction. At least that's how it displays it (although I bet if checked, they're level matched just fine). Looking at my own graphs, and what Soulburner posted, looks consistent with that in mind (unless my coffee hasn't kicked in yet). Lttlwing's just looks the most "interesting" because of the wide varying response of the speaker. I'm a little conflicted because on one hand I'd suggest they need full range correction, but on the other hand it may be a case of letting them rip and not risk coloring or altering the response with so many unknowns


After looking at Lttlwing16's room photos, I am convinced the limiting the Audyssey correction to 700 Hz is a very bad choice and full range correction should be used.


----------



## bluesky636

tsanga said:


> Not only this but, _if_ you believe the simulated AFTER plot, the relative SPL difference between the frequency limited corrected range and the uncorrected range is going to give some overall goofy response. But maybe the simulated plot is just bad at its job and the actual output is indeed level matched all the way through.


That is the whole issue. The frequency limited After plot just looks wrong.


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> Well, the first thing I would suggest is to pull the center speaker out to the front edge of the cabinet. Where you have it now can cause a lot of nasty reflections.


 I considered moving it back into the cabinet so it would be flush with the front. Unfortunately this would put it below ear level. Since I wasn't having any issues with dialogue I left it where it was. 



bluesky636 said:


> Your left and right speakers appear to be located similarly so they should be ok through I can't see a reason why the responses would be different.


My L&R responses seemed pretty similar in the Audyssey app. Only thing I could come up with the trim level difference is the space. There is a larger space adjacent to the FR speaker vs FL which has a wall 90 degrees to it. 



bluesky636 said:


> Are your subs really located inside the cabinet on the ends? I really can't think that installing them like that would be helpful for their performance. Seems like they would cause all sorts of vibrations in the cabinet.


This was a space saving/child proofing move. Nothing like toy cars down your sub ports. The cabinet is solid wood and extremely heavy and sturdy. I get -0- rattling from the cabinet. What bothers me more is how close they are to each other. If I invested in a wireless kit for my sub, I could move one of them out and to the diagonal corner of the room. This could be a thing if my REW measurements show Audyssey isn't correcting a -10db null between 70-80hz.


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> I considered moving it back into the cabinet so it would be flush with the front. Unfortunately this would put it below ear level. Since I wasn't having any issues with dialogue I left it where it was.
> 
> 
> My L&R responses seemed pretty similar in the Audyssey app. Only thing I could come up with the trim level difference is the space. There is a larger space adjacent to the FR speaker vs FL which has a wall 90 degrees to it.
> 
> 
> This was a space saving/child proofing move. Nothing like toy cars down your sub ports. The cabinet is solid wood and extremely heavy and sturdy. I get -0- rattling from the cabinet. What bothers me more is how close they are to each other. If I invested in a wireless kit for my sub, I could move one of them out and to the diagonal corner of the room. This could be a thing if my REW measurements show Audyssey isn't correcting a -10db null between 70-80hz.


Putting the center speaker in the cabinet would be an even worse choice.

It's really hard to tell the difference in distance to adjacent walls for the left and right speakers from the photos.

I understand about your child concerns with the sub. Distance between the subs should not be an issue. A 10 dB null could be hard to correct.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> After looking at Lttlwing16's room photos, I am convinced the limiting the Audyssey correction to 700 Hz is a very bad choice and full range correction should be used.


Yea, in most cases it should have looked something like this so I'm not sure why it's doing that:


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> Yea, in most cases it should have looked something like this so I'm not sure why it's doing that:
> 
> View attachment 3251275


I have explained my theory on this a few posts back.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> I have explained my theory on this a few posts back.


I suggest he reaches out to Ask Audyssey. They are pretty good and quick at responding to technical queries, and then we won't have to theorize anymore.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I suggest he reaches out to Ask Audyssey. They are pretty good and quick at responding to technical queries, and then we won't have to theorize anymore.


Where's the fun in that? This has been a great discussion if you keep up with it.

But if you insist:



https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/signin?return_to=https%3A%2F%2Faudyssey.zendesk.com%2Fhc%2Fen-us%2Frequests%2F16929


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> The limit is +/-12 dB.


This doesn't sound correct. According to this:


mthomas47 said:


> Audyssey can implement boosts up to +9dB and cuts up to -20dB


If so, there is a lot of room left for adjustment.



bluesky636 said:


> If you are referring to Lttlwing16's plots, his full range correction looks perfectly normal.


They do not look perfectly normal. The graph is showing an inadequate cut of the bass, resulting in a response that is unbalanced, even before accounting for his speakers' midrange dip. It could be either an unintended consequence of using the app in this way as pbz06 suggests, or the graph is simply wrong. If the former, I think this is a case where full-range correction could be better than limited-range. Either way, we need REW and ears to tell us.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> This doesn't sound correct. According to this:
> 
> If so, there is a lot of room left for adjustment.
> 
> 
> They do not look perfectly normal. The graph is showing an inadequate cut of the bass, resulting in a response that is unbalanced, even before accounting for his speakers' midrange dip. It could be either an unintended consequence of using the app in this way as pbz06 suggests, or the graph is simply wrong. If the former, I think this is a case where full-range correction could be better than limited-range. Either way, we need REW and ears to tell us.


You're right. I was thinking of the need to have the trim level show higher than -12 to be meaningful. My apologies for any confusion. But your correction clearly shows that Audyssey can reduce large peaks, but cannot increase deep nulls as has been previously stated.

Now I am confused. My comment was about the full range plots. NOT the restricted range plots. What's wrong with this plot of the center speaker with full range correction?


CENTER WITH NO RANGE LIMITATION:


----------



## primetimeguy

Looking back through some of my previous results where I limited correction, the graphs are similar in that the corrected range is not centered around 0db. Some channels are, some are 1-2db above, some are -1-2db below. Very odd. That said, my after measurements have not indicated those differences though the graphs aren't nearly as flat as the app shows so can be hard to see those little differences.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> What's wrong with this plot of the center speaker with full range correction?
> 
> CENTER WITH NO RANGE LIMITATION:


Looks perfectly fine for me at the low end. The center speaker shows its -3 dB point at 80 Hz. Just set the crossover in the AVR to 80 Hz and call it a day.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> You're right. I was thinking of the need to have the trim level show higher than -12 to be meaningful. My apologies for any confusion. But your correction clearly shows that Audyssey can reduce large peaks, but cannot increase deep nulls as has been previously stated.
> 
> Now I am confused. My comment was about the full range plots. NOT the restricted range plots. What's wrong with this plot of the center speaker with full range correction?
> 
> 
> CENTER WITH NO RANGE LIMITATION:


I don't see anything wrong with it, which is why we were not talking about that


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> I don't see anything wrong with it, which is why we were not talking about that


This is the post you responded to followed by your response:



bluesky636 said:


> If you are referring to Lttlwing16's plots, his full range correction looks perfectly normal.





Soulburner said:


> They do not look perfectly normal. The graph is showing an inadequate cut of the bass, resulting in a response that is unbalanced, even before accounting for his speakers' midrange dip.


----------



## Soulburner

Sorry for the confusion. We weren't talking about his full range correction looking abnormal.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Sorry for the confusion. We weren't talking about his full range correction looking abnormal.


Neither was I. 



bluesky636 said:


> It is the appearance of the restricted range (max of 700 Hz) correction that is being discussed.


This has been a long and convoluted discussion.


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> Then you either have a defective stand or aren't using it properly. These stands are designed to hold a heavy vocal microphone. The Audyssey mic weighs next to nothing and the adapter I use is not much heavier. I have never had a problem locking the boom arm of my stand in place and having it hold while running Audyssey.
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lgx3
> 
> 
> __
> https://flic.kr/p/2n7Lh81


 Maybe my stand is defective. But look at that camera adapter: If you lower the boom below the fulcrum point, how will the mic continue to stay pointed at the ceiling??


----------



## bluesky636

pbarach said:


> Maybe my stand is defective. But look at that camera adapter: If you lower the boom below the fulcrum point, how will the mic continue to stay pointed at the ceiling??


Frankly I have never found the need to orient the boom in that manner and have always found a way to place the stand so that the mic faces up.


----------



## Sm1ggs

for a test I put my centre on the tv unit and not at the front with limited correction ,if I correct 300 and under it’s fine


----------



## bluesky636

Sm1ggs said:


> for a test I put my centre on the tv unit and not at the front with limited correction ,if I correct 300 and under it’s fine
> View attachment 3251476
> View attachment 3251477
> View attachment 3251483


And your conclusion is?


----------



## Lttlwing16

Sm1ggs said:


> for a test I put my centre on the tv unit and not at the front with limited correction ,if I correct 300 and under it’s fine
> View attachment 3251476


This is demonstrating the same thing my center channel was with range limitation. +5db boost to the projected correction, which as @bluesky636 pointed out is in line with your average level from 300hz and below.


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> This is demonstrating the same thing my center channel was with range limitation. +5db boost to the projected correction, which as @bluesky636 pointed out is in line with your average level from 300hz and below.


Looking at Sm1ggs' your plots, I think there is a problem with Audyssey's correction when the frequency range is restricted. 

We need one more person to post comparison plots of unrestricted and restricted correction ranges. 

As the saying goes, one point is an anomaly, 2 points is a coincidence, 3 points is a trend.


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> I'm a little conflicted because on one hand I'd suggest they need full range correction, but on the other hand it may be a case of letting them rip and not risk _*coloring or altering the response*_ with so many unknowns


 [Bolding/italicizing mine -- GG]

IMO, the response is pre-altered with many unknowns in the recording studio, sometimes for illegitimate reasons. Likewise, in our rooms we don't get "flat" by setting the tone controls to "flat," regardless of what the Golden Ears, straight wire with gain folk may think, because there is probably no such thing as a flat recording. A main purpose of Audyssey is to flatten out some of this tangle that is due to the room/speaker/positioning complex, sometimes with a little dip at the top, or at 2K, but without ignoring the upper half of the curve. I suspect that's the way Chris K. looks at it, based on his writing. To me, the only justification for limited range is if it *sounds* better across *many* recordings. In addition, the uncorrected response above the limit triggers my _audiophilia nervosa_. I wonder if the idea of limited range correction being better, somehow, was a factoid in the original meaning held by Norman Mailer when he coined the word, "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact," rather than CNN's useless perversion of the meaning. Perhaps a sufficient number of writers emphacised the below Schroeder part of the terrain, because "there dragons lie" and wrote about head repositioning as making big changes (partly reduced by Audyssey's 8 mic positions and fuzzy logic) and "hair" on the correction curve (and on the original, unaltered room curve!) that it became a Maileristic factoid that ignoring the midrange and treble made Audyssey more useful.



Lttlwing16 said:


> This was a space saving/child proofing move. Nothing like toy cars down your sub ports.


With us, it was the cat. Our very first subwoofer spoke through its ports only, and the dual speakers were not very far inside. We had to measure the distance between the cat's armpit and the tip of her claws to make sure she couldn't reach the woofer cones. She did try!



bluesky636 said:


> This has been a long and convoluted discussion.


The number (and depth) of convolutions is positively correlated with intelligence.


----------



## Sm1ggs

bluesky636 said:


> And your conclusion is?


No idea what’s happening, but at 1000hz correction it is 3dB above 0 , 1500hz correction and up is normal. All my other speakers are fine, I’m not to worried as I don’t use it, but be nice to find out if it is a bug .I will probably take some measurements in rew over the weekend


----------



## bluesky636

Sm1ggs said:


> No idea what’s happening, but at 1000hz correction it is 3dB above 0 , 1500hz correction and up is normal. All my other speakers are fine, I’m not to worried as I don’t use it, but be nice to find out if it is a bug .I will probably take some measurements in rew over the weekend


You posted 3 plots for the center speaker. Two with the frequency correction range limited and one with full range frequency correction. The full range frequency correction plot is flat (with a few small ripples) through it's entire range except for the MRC dip at 2 KHz. In the two restricted range plots, 1 KHz and above is outside of the Audyssey correction range and will NOT be affected by Audyssey. 

I don't know what you mean by the following statement:


Sm1ggs said:


> but at 1000hz correction it is 3dB above 0 , 1500hz correction and up is normal. All my other speakers are fine, I’m not to worried


----------



## Sm1ggs

bluesky636 said:


> You posted 3 plots for the center speaker. Two with the frequency correction range limited and one with full range frequency correction. The full range frequency correction plot is flat (with a few small ripples) through it's entire range except for the MRC dip at 2 KHz. In the two restricted range plots, 1 KHz and above is outside of the Audyssey correction range and will NOT be affected by Audyssey.
> 
> I don't know what you mean by the following statement:


Sorry that last bit I meant correction from 1kHz and upward it starts to look normal , I thought audyssey corrected full range


----------



## Lttlwing16

garygarrison said:


> [Bolding/italicizing mine -- GG]
> 
> IMO, the response is pre-altered with many unknowns in the recording studio, sometimes for illegitimate reasons. Likewise, in our rooms we don't get "flat" by setting the tone controls to "flat," regardless of what the Golden Ears, straight wire with gain folk may think, because there is probably no such thing as a flat recording. A main purpose of Audyssey is to flatten out some of this tangle that is due to the room/speaker/positioning complex, sometimes with a little dip at the top, or at 2K, but without ignoring the upper half of the curve. I suspect that's the way Chris K. looks at it, based on his writing. To me, the only justification for limited range is if it *sounds* better across *many* recordings. In addition, the uncorrected response above the limit triggers my _audiophilia nervosa_. I wonder if the idea of limited range correction being better, somehow, was a factoid in the original meaning held by Norman Mailer when he coined the word, "something that looks like a fact, could be a fact, but in fact is not a fact," rather than CNN's useless perversion of the meaning. Perhaps a sufficient number of writers emphacised the below Schroeder part of the terrain, because "there dragons lie" and wrote about head repositioning as making big changes (partly reduced by Audyssey's 8 mic positions and fuzzy logic) and "hair" on the correction curve (and on the original, unaltered room curve!) that it became a Maileristic factoid that ignoring the midrange and treble made Audyssey more useful.
> 
> 
> 
> With us, it was the cat. Our very first subwoofer spoke through its ports only, and the dual speakers were not very far inside. We had to measure the distance between the cat's armpit and the tip of her claws to make sure she couldn't reach the woofer cones. She did try!
> 
> 
> 
> The number (and depth) of convolutions is positively correlated with intelligence.


You may be familiar with much of the topics discussed, but here is a good write up from Amir from Audio Science Review on the research of perceptual effects of room reflections, beneficial distortion and soundstage. Part of the reason I was using a limited range was based on some of the topics in this write up, as well as my own subjective listening experience. However, if I find in REW that Audyssey is indeed making a mess of the FR with limited range, I'll have to take a step back and do some more critical listening test, with as you pointed out "many recordings".


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> So you only have Audyssey MultEQ? MultEQ has very few bass correction filters compared to XT32. (Edited to delete XT)
> 
> Your x-axis looks odd. Counting right to left from 100 Hz I see 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 40, and 30 Hz points. Your two big nulls appear at about 50 and 65 Hz and are fairly narrow. Your after plot still shows a null at 65 Hz. Audyssey will reduce peaks easily but is limited in its ability to raise nulls.


You're right, the x-axis looks odd and my left-to-right count of x-axis (frequency) division lines incorrectly assumed ten divisions for 0-100 based on having seen 10 divisions for 100-1k, 1k-10k. But my picture accurately reflects what the MultEQ Editor app displays. Regardless... any thoughts on why Audyssey's limited ability to raise nulls differs so much between the nulls at about 50 and 65 Hz?

FWIW, here's the post-Audyssey low-frequencies result from my first ever REW measurement. To my untrained eye the only significant null is the one that bottoms at ~88 Hz. I note that my AVR crossovers are all set to 80 Hz; I don't know the shape of the crossover function, though.


----------



## pbz06

brec said:


> You're right, the x-axis looks odd and my left-to-right count of x-axis (frequency) division lines incorrectly assumed ten divisions for 0-100 based on having seen 10 divisions for 100-1k, 1k-10k. But my picture accurately reflects what the MultEQ Editor app displays. Regardless... any thoughts on why Audyssey's limited ability to raise nulls differs so much between the nulls at about 50 and 65 Hz?
> 
> FWIW, here's the post-Audyssey low-frequencies result from my first ever REW measurement. To my untrained eye the only significant null is the one that bottoms at ~88 Hz. I note that my AVR crossovers are all set to 80 Hz; I don't know the shape of the crossover function, though.
> View attachment 3251709


Audyssey likely raised the 55 and 70hz as much as it could to get them within the +/- 3dB area. I wouldn't worry about those, they wouldn't be audible since they're so narrow and they're not deep at all. The more problematic one is the 85hz cancellation which likely is near the crossover, you can try raising crossover to 90 and 100hz to see what effect it has. You can also try tweaking the subwoofer distance at 1' intervals (make sure you back out of the AVR menu before measuring so the settings "stick"). You can also try adjusting the sub's polarity (postive vs negative) or phase in increments of 10-degrees.


----------



## brec

pbz06 said:


> Audyssey likely raised the 55 and 70hz as much as it could to get them within the +/- 3dB area. I wouldn't worry about those, they wouldn't be audible since they're so narrow and they're not deep at all. The more problematic one is the 85hz cancellation which likely is near the crossover, you can try raising crossover to 90 and 100hz to see what effect it has. You can also try tweaking the subwoofer distance at 1' intervals (make sure you back out of the AVR menu before measuring so the settings "stick"). You can also try adjusting the sub's polarity (postive vs negative) or phase in increments of 10-degrees.


Although to the AVR and Audyssey there's one sub, there are actually two driven by one AVR output that is split within the NX6000D ("D" for DSP) sub amp. The amp lets me adjust delay by either time or distance, and phase by only 0 or 180. (The amp's PC app's UI is ambiguous to me as to whether phase inversion can be applied separately to each output or only to the one input.) Do you think the foregoing affects your suggestions?


----------



## pbz06

brec said:


> Although to the AVR and Audyssey there's one sub, there are actually two driven by one AVR output that is split within the NX6000D ("D" for DSP) sub amp. The amp lets me adjust delay by either time or distance, and phase by only 0 or 180. (The amp's PC app's UI is ambiguous to me as to whether phase inversion can be applied separately to each output or only to the one input.) Do you think the foregoing affects your suggestions?


When you first paired the subs, did you optimize the delays between the subs first, to get the optimum combined response for the pair? Any distance/delay adjustments post calibration would have to be for the pair (which is considered "one" sub at this point). You're very close to having a fantastic response already so it seems like you already did good initial setup. I'm not familiar with the NX6000 though, so hopefully someone else can chime in.


----------



## bluesky636

Sm1ggs said:


> Sorry that last bit I meant correction from 1kHz and upward it starts to look normal , I thought audyssey corrected full range


Only one of your three plots was full range correction. The other two are clearly limited correction.


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> You're right, the x-axis looks odd and my left-to-right count of x-axis (frequency) division lines incorrectly assumed ten divisions for 0-100 based on having seen 10 divisions for 100-1k, 1k-10k. But my picture accurately reflects what the MultEQ Editor app displays. Regardless... any thoughts on why Audyssey's limited ability to raise nulls differs so much between the nulls at about 50 and 65 Hz?
> 
> FWIW, here's the post-Audyssey low-frequencies result from my first ever REW measurement. To my untrained eye the only significant null is the one that bottoms at ~88 Hz. I note that my AVR crossovers are all set to 80 Hz; I don't know the shape of the crossover function, though.
> View attachment 3251709


Pbzo6 gave you some good answers. The only thing I will add is no room correction process will completely eliminate a 10 dB null. That would take an awful lot of amp power at that frequency on playback to hear the effect.

Most AVR low pass filters to a sub are 12 or 24 dB/octave. I think Denon uses 24 dB/octave but don't hold me to it.


----------



## Sm1ggs

Nvm


----------



## brec

pbz06 said:


> When you first paired the subs, did you optimize the delays between the subs first, to get the optimum combined response for the pair? Any distance/delay adjustments post calibration would have to be for the pair (which is considered "one" sub at this point). You're very close to having a fantastic response already so it seems like you already did good initial setup. I'm not familiar with the NX6000 though, so hopefully someone else can chime in.


Sorry, don't know what you mean by "first paired the subs." I didn't do anything to distinguish the subs. In the NX6000D I only set up high pass filters at ~16 Hz. I suspect that your "already did a good initial setup" should be amended to "were lucky!"


----------



## tsanga

I want to provide another data point to the correction MultEQ XT is capable of, and maybe to dispel some notion that it’s deficient in the lower frequencies. For example:


jeffw_00 said:


> what I can't get my head around is why XT (not Xt32) would be so common and prevalent after so many years if it was in fact as wrongheaded as some suggest


(not trying to pick on you jeff!)

I think there’s some misrepresentation in this commonly cited plot taken from the first Audyssey FAQ:









"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)


Quote: Originally Posted by cavchameleon Keith, Giomania's info (that a lot of us link to) is something that should be added also, he put a lot of work into it and it does cover a majority of the questions asked for doing Audyssey measurements. Just a note... Absolutely. The first FAQ...




www.avsforum.com






> The following pre-out graphs, produced by AVS member rickardl, illustrate this quite clearly:
> 
> In this graph below, XT32 Flat/Music is RED, XT32 Reference/Movie is GREEN and XT is BLUE. Remember this graph is showing the pre-out measurement not the in-room measurement, so it is showing the amount of correction that will be applied. Observe the almost non-existent low end correction for XT in the graph below! It is interesting to see that the XT32 curve is so much smoother at the higher frequencies vs the very jagged curve of XT. Note the extreme amount of 'hair' at the HF end in the XT graphs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this graph below we see XT32 Subwoofer correction vs Center channel correction. Center is RED, Sub is BLUE.
> 
> Note these are measured directly from the AVRs pre-out. Similar to the to the "Inverse" curve shown here on the Audyssey site:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone wishing to see Rickardl's original posts containing these graphs can see them here, hereand here.


Below is my own attempt at this measurement using pre-outs. I measured the left, right, and LFE channels separately with the crossover in place (set to 150 Hz on my system). Note the LFE measurments were compensated for the +10 dB added by the AVR.









On my MultEQ XT, clearly the subwoofer (blue) is getting plenty of correction in its operating range. The left and right channels also get a lot of correction, starting with some broader corrections near the crossover but moving to “hairier” corrections in the 1-4 kHz range. But after that, the corrections become more broad stroke again.

_As I do not have MultEQ XT32, this is not a post comparing XT vs XT32. This is also not a post debating the merits of EQ correction above the Schroeder frequency._ Rather, I’m pointing out the previous “reference” for what XT is or isn’t doing could be misleading.

I’m not sure of the exact configuration in the previously cited measurements, as that was over 10 years ago. Because there was no way to fully complete XT/XT32 calibrations without moving the mic a bunch of times, the fuzzy logic averaging of Audyssey’s algorithm could lead to different corrected outputs.

Also, since Audyssey does not provide any EQ to frequencies below F3, the original quoted XT correction (blue line “center pre-out”, near flat from 80 Hz down) could have been influenced by the conditions and parameters for that calibration, depending on what the fuzzy logic determined about the center channel’s F3 frequency. The reason I say this is because I tried this myself by setting my speakers to Large (faint red and green lines), and yet Audyssey still “corrected”, i.e. not flat, with a smooth rolloff albeit with less slope than a crossover, indicating to me it retained some information about the native speaker measurements.


----------



## marjen

So I have a new Denon 3700. I just ran through the auto setup for the first time. I have to say it was quite disappointing. After it was complete I manually checked levels with a unik 1 and REW SPL meter. Most of the floor channels and atmos were at least pretty close, just a few minor adjustments. But the SW settings were horrible. While the other channels were at least close to 76db at reference level, the sw output from both subs was in the mid 60s. I had played some music and opening scene from the lord of the rings 4k blu ray and had noticed it sounded like there was no bass which is why i checked the levels manually. Is this a common issue? 

Also when it was done running it asked about some sort of EQ leveling and mentioned it was for night time so i said no to it. I never saw any sort of save, did it not save the EQ settings? Not sure where to find that info.


----------



## Soulburner

marjen said:


> So I have a new Denon 3700. I just ran through the auto setup for the first time. I have to say it was quite disappointing. After it was complete I manually checked levels with a unik 1 and REW SPL meter. Most of the floor channels and atmos were at least pretty close, just a few minor adjustments. But the SW settings were horrible. While the other channels were at least close to 76db at reference level, the sw output from both subs was in the mid 60s. I had played some music and opening scene from the lord of the rings 4k blu ray and had noticed it sounded like there was no bass which is why i checked the levels manually. Is this a common issue?
> 
> Also when it was done running it asked about some sort of EQ leveling and mentioned it was for night time so i said no to it. I never saw any sort of save, did it not save the EQ settings? Not sure where to find that info.


Don't disable Dynamic EQ or you won't get the intended amount of bass.

On top of that, you can increase subwoofer levels in the levels menu. Many do.

For Dynamic Volume, leave it off unless you need compression.


----------



## bluesky636

We have been having a discussion about the Audyssey test signal on Mike T's subwoofer thread so I thought I would post my findings here also.


Ok. I have received a response from the Audyssey Zendesk. To refresh everyone's memory, here are the relevant parts of Mike's post. I have highlighted the specific points of interest.



mthomas47 said:


> Category 1: The first cluster of software programs involves Audyssey's HT calibration and room EQ process. As most readers probably know, the calibration process and the room EQ process are separate. When we run Audyssey, the first thing the program does is to calibrate our HT system to Reference. *It does that by playing bandwidth limited pink noise for all of the channels, in mic position 1. *





mthomas47 said:


> The second cluster of software programs in Category 1 involves Audyssey's room EQ process, and that is entirely separate from the calibration process that happened in mic position 1. Using XT and XT-32 as examples, there are 8 mic positions available in a normal calibration. *Mic position 1 uses a bandwidth-limited ping that is 30Hz to 70Hz for the subwoofers and 500Hz to 2,000Hz for the other speakers in a system.* I believe that those pink noise ranges are pretty standard throughout the HT industry.


These points did not jive with what I recall reading about on the Audyssey test signal(s). They also don't jive with what I hear when I run Audyssey on my Denon 3500 (MultEq XT32). I do not remember what the signal sounded like on my old Onkyo AVR from 2008 (MultEq).


So first, here is the information I requested from the Zendesk:

"If it is not proprietary or otherwise a company secret, can you provide a good technical description of the Audyssey test tone?

Is it band limited pink noise? If so, what is the frequency range?

It is an impulse signal? If so, please describe it.

Is it a swept signal? If so, what is the duration of the sweep and the frequency range of the sweep?

Is the test tone different in position 1 vs positions 2 - 8? If so, how is it different?

Anything else you can provide to describe the signal?

This is related to a discussion I am involved in on the AVS forum (Chris K used to post there).

My background is LPD/LPI signal development, processing, and test for a US government agency so don't worry about making things too simple."


And here is what I feel is an absolutely excellent response from the Zendesk:

"Bill,

Do you mind sending a link to the AVS forum thread? I'll see if I can get someone here to chime in directly, if that would help. Otherwise, you're welcome to relay the following:

The *Audyssey test signal is a logarithmic swept sine (log chirp) from 10Hz to 24kHz over 341.33ms. It repeats 10 times*, and we use the repetitions to "denoise" the signal. This affords us good SNR even in challenging environments. A logarithmically swept sine has a "pink" spectrum, but is not pink noise. This signal affords enough resolution to do 2.9Hz measurement and correction, provides a fairly low/well-known crest factor, and is a continuous waveform that is easy on equipment and speakers.

*The test tone is the same for all positions.*

There is also a brief period of "silence" (background noise) measured before the chirps start do that we can evaluate background noise and compute an SNR. For that reason, users should not talk or make noise before or during the measurements."


And finally, my response back to the Zendesk:

"WOW! Outstanding response! Thank you very much.

I had suspected that the signal was a swept chirp but I didn't know the specifics. This will clear up a lot of misinformation in the thread I referred to. I plan on posting it in the morning.

I have had Audyssey since about 2008, first in an Onkyo AVR (MultEQ), currently in a Denon AVR-X3500H (MultEQ XT32). My system is a traditional 7.1 channel. As much as I would like to upgrade to Atmos/DTS-X, my room won't allow it without major work. I am retired now and really can't afford to do that.

There are two threads on AVS that deal with Audyssey:









"Official" Audyssey thread Part II


WELCOME TO THE AUDYSSEY FAQ AND 'AUDYSSEY 101'! To get started, please choose from one of the following 3 options : 1. Click Here To Go Directly To The FAQ Questions And Answers. Links are highlighted in a different colour to the rest of the text. Clicking on any Question takes...




www.avsforum.com













Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com





Feel free to drop in anytime. Both threads are quite lengthy but both have an overview and FAQ in the first few pages.

Again, thanks for all the information. I'm sure everyone will find it extremely interesting."


Mike told me that the information he posted was from Chris K, circa 2013. Chris left Audyssey in 2018 and I doubt has much to do with Audyssey now.

I would guess there could be a couple of reasons for the difference:

1. Audyssey has redesigned the test signal to be more efficient and accurate, or

2. a simple misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what Chris K said.

Anyway, if anyone has issues with what I posted, feel free to contact the Zendesk @ https://audyssey.zendesk.com/. I asked some very specific questions and they readily provided some very specific answers. It would be cool if someone from the Zendesk joined AVS and posted here.


----------



## ThierryB

marjen said:


> So I have a new Denon 3700. I just ran through the auto setup for the first time. I have to say it was quite disappointing. After it was complete I manually checked levels with a unik 1 and REW SPL meter. Most of the floor channels and atmos were at least pretty close, just a few minor adjustments. But the SW settings were horrible. While the other channels were at least close to 76db at reference level, the sw output from both subs was in the mid 60s. I had played some music and opening scene from the lord of the rings 4k blu ray and had noticed it sounded like there was no bass which is why i checked the levels manually. Is this a common issue?
> 
> Also when it was done running it asked about some sort of EQ leveling and mentioned it was for night time so i said no to it. I never saw any sort of save, did it not save the EQ settings? Not sure where to find that info.


Follow @Soulburner advice, and also make sure you turn off loudness management in audio->surround settings for Dolby content.
When running audyssey aim for -11db for the sub and then adjust up to your liking after calibration is done.


----------



## StephenMSmith

This is weird. I've been doing lots of XT32 calibrations due to new 3700H (the sub level matching is a great feature). But why would I get dramatically different sub distance levels b/t Audyssey in receiver and using the app? For this test I did 3 measurements but did NOT move the mic at all for either receiver or the app. 

Using receiver:









Using the app:









My 2 stacked subs (yes, I know if doesn't do anything except +3db and look cool) are actually 13 feet away, but I know Audyssey is actually measuring the delay not the distance, so 19 feet distance is perfectly fine.

But why do I get almost 30 feet distance when using the app and doing the exact same thing without moving the mic? The app won't even accept 30 feet, b/c it says minimum distance b/t closest and farthest speakers must be less than 30 feet. So I adjust accordingly, using the average b/t receiver and app. But why the difference to begin with??


----------



## Soulburner

Think about "distance" as delays instead. It is applying delays to best smooth the subs responses with each other, whatever they end up being. Generally it's best not to change them without having a UMIK and REW available. The difference between those two is likely to be next to nothing, however, given that they are stacked. There is probably a wider range of acceptable values compared to a system where the subs are spread out.


----------



## Lttlwing16

I got started doing some REW/UMIK1 measurements this weekend, and had a question. @tsanga was kind enough to look over things and pointed out that at -10 MV I should be getting sweeps at around 83db (105 REF -12dbFS) - 10db MV) = 83db. Mine were coming in around 73 db. More importantly when I was setting the levels in REW with the signal generator using the sub cal I had to crank the MV to +4.5 to approach 90db on the REW SPL meter. This was with the Windows UMIK1 level set to 80% as req in Austin Jerry's guide. I've since set that back to 0.0db per John H. req in a couple REW related threads. 

When I measure the "Manual Calibration" test tones/noise (Speaker Level) from the 4700H it registers 74db SPL at 0.0 MV (which I think is accurate). 

Any idea if the Audyssey got this wrong, or you think it's something with the REW/UMIK1/Windows setup?

Thanks in advance! 

David


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> When I measure the "Manual Calibration" test tones/noise (Speaker Level) from the 4700H it registers 74db SPL at 0.0 MV (which I think is accurate).


I don't know what you are attempting to do (I don't use REW), but the internal AVR test tones used for manual calibration are not processed by Audyssey. You need to use externally generated test tones from a CD or other source in order to measure the Audyssey corrected frequency response.


----------



## pbz06

Lttlwing16 said:


> I got started doing some REW/UMIK1 measurements this weekend, and had a question. @tsanga was kind enough to look over things and pointed out that at -10 MV I should be getting sweeps at around 83db (105 REF -12dbFS) - 10db MV) = 83db. Mine were coming in around 73 db. More importantly when I was setting the levels in REW with the signal generator using the sub cal I had to crank the MV to +4.5 to approach 90db on the REW SPL meter. This was with the Windows UMIK1 level set to 80% as req in Austin Jerry's guide. I've since set that back to 0.0db per John H. req in a couple REW related threads.
> 
> When I measure the "Manual Calibration" test tones/noise (Speaker Level) from the 4700H it registers 74db SPL at 0.0 MV (which I think is accurate).
> 
> Any idea if the Audyssey got this wrong, or you think it's something with the REW/UMIK1/Windows setup?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> David
> 
> View attachment 3252831


The internal test tones by the AVR (and the tones Audyssey uses during calibration) are supposed to be 75dB (-30dBFS). So that part looks correct.

After calibration, a 0 or max on the MV should equate to 85dB (-20dBFS). At least on Denon and Marantz units it is. The easiest way to check is use the signal generator in REW for a -30 or -20 dBFS signal, turn up your MV to 0, and check it that way.


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> I don't know what you are attempting to do (I don't use REW), but the internal AVR test tones used for manual calibration are not processed by Audyssey. You need to use externally generated test tones from a CD or other source in order to measure the Audyssey corrected frequency response.


Thanks man, I understand that, I was just checking SPL level, not frequency response. Austin Jerry's guide states the AVR test tones should be around 75db SPL, so I was just confirming.


----------



## tsanga

pbz06 said:


> After calibration, a 0 or max on the MV should equate to 85dB (-20dBFS). At least on Denon and Marantz units it is. The easiest way to check is use the signal generator in REW for a -30 or -20 dBFS signal, turn up your MV to 0, and check it that way.


This is the part where I may have been wrong.

When I read the REW guide, AustinJerry used a -12 dbFS sweep level to hit around 80 dB of SPL during measurements. This was typically -14 MV per the guide (and I’m hitting in the area of -13 to -15 MV).

Further, also following the REW guide, setting MV 0 and outputting a -30 dBFS signal would achieve 75 dB, which I confirmed on my system.

So now I’m all crossed up by this.


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> Thanks man, I understand that, I was just checking SPL level, not frequency response. Austin Jerry's guide states the AVR test tones should be around 75db SPL, so I was just confirming.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


>


A while back I had a discussion with Chris K. on channel trim level settings. Here's the Q&A:

Me: "Hi Chris, here's a Q of great importance for the in-depth understanding of particular details on "How Audyssey works".  OK, so when we talk about channel trim settings during auto setup are we talking about a standardized 75 dB SPL measured at the MLP with a -30 dBFS band limited (500 Hz to 2 kHz) pink noise signal. When Audyssey sets trims is this standard used? What puzzles me is how the Audyssey chirps fulfill this standardized method. Is it done by some kinda gating of the chirps that basically cover a range of 10 Hz to 24 Khz, while during trimming the speaker levels only a 500 Hz to 2 kHz range is utilized? 

Appreciate your help as always. Cheers, Feri"

Chris: "Hi Feri, Audyssey measures the entire frequency response of each speaker. The chirps are "full range" even though it's hard to hear the low frequencies in the beginning. After that the energy under the 500-2kHz range is analyzed to produce an SPL estimate. The trim is the difference between that estimate and 75 dB SPL. For the subwoofer channel same as above, but the range it looks over is 30-80 Hz."

Some more considerations. As we all know by now, the levels are set at the MLP (read: first mic position). So far, so good. Let's think further on. After this come the other mic position tests, so in other words at the first mic position test there is no filter calculated and saved in the AVR yet. 

Here I just want to boil this down to the case that the AVR's internal test tones (band limited 0.5-2kHz pink noise at -30 dBFS) with MV set to 0 dB can be freely used to check channel levels by a third party SLP meter without worry of not passing through MultEQ filters that are not established yet. 

Most important IMHO is to check the relative levels of each channel compared to how MultEQ set them and should not be changed coz that will throw off DEQ.

Let's talk!


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Let's talk!


Hey Feri.

Are you addressing me in particular or the group in general?


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> Hey Feri.
> 
> Are you addressing me in particular or the group in general?


Group in general. This issue of in-AVR test tones are a "no-no" made me think about it a bit.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Group in general. This issue of in-AVR test tones are a "no-no" made me think about it a bit.


Ok.

I have nothing to add cuz I don't waste time running the in AVR test tones and measuring them with a meter. What Audessey sets is ok by me.


----------



## Soulburner

Let's put this one to bed.

Frequency response sweep vs AVR test tones recorded via RTA with 40 averages. Ignore above 100 Hz as it appears the AVR applies a filter there when playing the level tones on the sub channel. LPF for LFE was set to 250 Hz. The sweeps were from another session a few months ago but are still valid. It would be best to measure nearfield but I think these are clear enough.

I'll let you decide which one is the better fit for what's happening 

Actually, I'll just say what I think. Not only is EQ not being applied to the tones, but neither are the SubEQ delays. Therefore I believe the AVR test tones are useless in a system where Audyssey is applied.

I welcome other tests to confirm or refute these findings.


----------



## Soulburner

I recommend using these test tones instead. Play them from an HDMI-connected laptop with the Windows _Movies & TV_ app or other software that can decode Atmos audio.









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Mid range compensation has always been present when you use Audyssey "reference" its a pity that it can only be removed by selecting flat or using the app @kbarnes701 after years of chasing a flat response (which i finally managed) your post has prompted me to revisit the concept of a...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Lttlwing16

I was playing around with sub placement last night and a question arose when I was looking over the plots in REW. 

I understand Audyssey sets the trim levels and distance in Position 1 (MLP) , then uses the rest of the measurements for EQ averaging. My question is this: 

For the sub channels does Audyssey adjust trim level with any thought into what eq will need to be applied? Take the below graph measured from the MLP. Would Audyssey allow a higher trim level to bring the null up and then bring the other "peak areas" down with EQ as to end up with 75db final level? 










Thanks again!

David


----------



## brec

Lttlwing16 said:


> Audyssey sets the trim levels and distance in Position 1 (MLP) , then uses the rest of the measurements for EQ averaging


Minor correction: then uses *all* of the measurements (including MLP) for EQ averaging. Source: email from [email protected].


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> Minor correction: then uses *all* of the measurements (including MLP) for EQ averaging. Source: email from [email protected].


How about posting the actual email?


----------



## brec

bluesky636 said:


> How about posting the actual email?


I asked:


> Audyssey Labs said in an answer years ago that, "The delays and levels for each of your speakers are calculated from the first mic position."
> 
> What are the other mic positions used for?


They replied:


> The first position is used for trims and distances, but all measurement positions are used for EQ. This avoids "over-EQ" for a single point in space. The measurements are highly accurate, and EQ'ing for one point in space does not make sense because we have 2 ears, and our ears move around at least a bit when we shift seating positions. Measuring all of the area where ears will listen from gives the system information about what is happening acoustically, and allows it to make the best EQ possible for all listeners. Even if only one listener is prioritized, measurements should be taken +/-6" in each axis to represent the total area where the listener may place their head.


----------



## bluesky636

brec said:


> I asked:They replied:


Thank you.

In other words, use Audyssey to create an "acoustic bubble" instead of a "head locked in a vise" effect.


----------



## Lttlwing16

brec said:


> I asked:They replied: ...._Measuring all of the area where ears will listen from gives the system information about what is happening acoustically, and allows it to make the best EQ possible for all listeners...._


We have a sectional and I've always wondered what the use of measuring in front of where your ears will be. If I ran 8 locations along our sectional in 6" intervals I think this would represent where we are listening much better. No one listens on the front or in front of the cushion.

If the mic spacing is too wide and spread out it appears, according the measurements I've been making, Audyssey will average out too much and ignore errors that are at the main listening position(s).


----------



## garygarrison

Lttlwing16 said:


> We have a sectional and I've always wondered what the use of measuring in front of where your ears will be. If I ran 8 locations along our sectional in 6" intervals I think this would represent where we are listening much better. No one listens on the front or in front of the cushion ...


Rationally I agree with your technique, and that's what we did when setting up our room in 2011. We are quite pleased with the way it sounds. But it's conceivable that Audyssey ran some tests that showed, _*empirically*, _that having some mics forward of the others worked better, somehow. I seem to remember somebody saying that having a couple mics up front gave Audyssey a "better sense of the room." I know, it's not logical, and I don't believe it myself, but sometimes empiricism trumps rationalism.


----------



## Soulburner

The idea is that by measuring a bubble around your listening location, it will EQ mostly what is common to all areas and not something that spikes in just one spot.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> The idea is that by measuring a bubble around your listening location, it will EQ mostly what is common to all areas and not something that spikes in just one spot.


Like I said earlier:



bluesky636 said:


> In other words, use Audyssey to create an "acoustic bubble" instead of a "head locked in a vise" effect.


----------



## Lttlwing16

Lttlwing16 said:


> I was playing around with sub placement last night and a question arose when I was looking over the plots in REW.
> 
> I understand Audyssey sets the trim levels and distance in Position 1 (MLP) , then uses the rest of the measurements for EQ averaging. My question is this:
> 
> For the sub channels does Audyssey adjust trim level with any thought into what eq will need to be applied? Take the below graph measured from the MLP. Would Audyssey allow a higher trim level to bring the null up and then bring the other "peak areas" down with EQ as to end up with 75db final level?
> 
> View attachment 3253272
> 
> 
> Thanks again!
> 
> David





https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/17110


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/17110


Unfortunately it is not possible for others to see the Zendesk response to you.

You will need to copy and paste the email they sent you.


----------



## datman

How many folks run Audyssey by the book, so to speak. I always have, follow it to the letter very accurate with the mic placement. It always sounded fantastic. The reason I'm asking I recently started posting in the "speakers" looking for guidance for the house we are building. There is a Dolby Atmos mistakes thread and a video was post by Home Theater Gurus a professional installer. I watched his videos and not everything he was saying felt like the right thing, but who am I not an installer.

Having time I watched a few more of his videos one from a year ago on how to run Audyssey or other program. The main thing I started questioning was when he started suggesting by using a phone app to limit Audyssey's channel EQ to 300hz and below if you have good speakers. Then he suggested not using all of the mic placement locations only do the first 3. I don't remember if you were to simply keep redoing the first 3 or press next and only run the 3.

Then noting how difficult it is to use a tripod his suggestion was stack up pillows. Now I'm no HT installer but I can work with tools and I figure out how to make a tool when something looks hard. I made a tripod adapter and I can easily put that mic where ever I want.( picture below) It's bent 1/4-20 all thread bolt

These videos presently are being touted as the best guidelines available. Maybe the one posted is but I have real questions about the earlier videos.

I have always thought Audyssey made corrections for rooms and speakers. I have a pretty rock solid front LCR&subs my surround and Atmos speakers I had in a former house (7.2.4) were a mismatch of speakers and the placement was good enough using the old dolby standards. It always sounded great and even today in a rental I have a 5.2 setup. I bought new side and back bed layer speakers for the new house replacing old bipolar speakers. I didn't run Audyssey at first when I hooked up the new speakers and it sounded terrible. So I ran Audyssey completely as I always do and it sounded wonderful.

So I guess with these videos take what I can and leave the rest.


----------



## bluesky636

datman said:


> How many folks run Audyssey by the book, so to speak. I always have, follow it to the letter very accurate with the mic placement. It always sounded fantastic. The reason I'm asking I recently started posting in the "speakers" looking for guidance for the house we are building. There is a Dolby Atmos mistakes thread and a video was post by Home Theater Gurus a professional installer. I watched his videos and not everything he was saying felt like the right thing, but who am I not an installer.
> 
> Having time I watched a few more of his videos one from a year ago on how to run Audyssey or other program. The main thing I started questioning was when he started suggesting by using a phone app to limit Audyssey's channel EQ to 300hz and below if you have good speakers. Then he suggested not using all of the mic placement locations only do the first 3. I don't remember if you were to simply keep redoing the first 3 or press next and only run the 3.
> 
> Then noting how difficult it is to use a tripod his suggestion was stack up pillows. Now I'm no HT installer but I can work with tools and I figure out how to make a tool when something looks hard. I made a tripod adapter and I can easily put that mic where ever I want.( picture below) It's bent 1/4-20 all thread bolt
> 
> These videos presently are being touted as the best guidelines available. Maybe the one posted is but I have real questions about the earlier videos.
> 
> I have always thought Audyssey made corrections for rooms and speakers. I have a pretty rock solid front LCR&subs my surround and Atmos speakers I had in a former house (7.2.4) were a mismatch of speakers and the placement was good enough using the old dolby standards. It always sounded great and even today in a rental I have a 5.2 setup. I bought new side and back bed layer speakers for the new house replacing old bipolar speakers. I didn't run Audyssey at first when I hooked up the new speakers and it sounded terrible. So I ran Audyssey completely as I always do and it sounded wonderful.
> 
> So I guess with these videos take what I can and leave the rest.
> View attachment 3253923


I wouldn't pay any attention to a single thing he/she/it says.


----------



## Rich 63

datman said:


> How many folks run Audyssey by the book, so to speak. I always have, follow it to the letter very accurate with the mic placement. It always sounded fantastic. The reason I'm asking I recently started posting in the "speakers" looking for guidance for the house we are building. There is a Dolby Atmos mistakes thread and a video was post by Home Theater Gurus a professional installer. I watched his videos and not everything he was saying felt like the right thing, but who am I not an installer.
> 
> Having time I watched a few more of his videos one from a year ago on how to run Audyssey or other program. The main thing I started questioning was when he started suggesting by using a phone app to limit Audyssey's channel EQ to 300hz and below if you have good speakers. Then he suggested not using all of the mic placement locations only do the first 3. I don't remember if you were to simply keep redoing the first 3 or press next and only run the 3.
> 
> Then noting how difficult it is to use a tripod his suggestion was stack up pillows. Now I'm no HT installer but I can work with tools and I figure out how to make a tool when something looks hard. I made a tripod adapter and I can easily put that mic where ever I want.( picture below) It's bent 1/4-20 all thread bolt
> 
> These videos presently are being touted as the best guidelines available. Maybe the one posted is but I have real questions about the earlier videos.
> 
> I have always thought Audyssey made corrections for rooms and speakers. I have a pretty rock solid front LCR&subs my surround and Atmos speakers I had in a former house (7.2.4) were a mismatch of speakers and the placement was good enough using the old dolby standards. It always sounded great and even today in a rental I have a 5.2 setup. I bought new side and back bed layer speakers for the new house replacing old bipolar speakers. I didn't run Audyssey at first when I hooked up the new speakers and it sounded terrible. So I ran Audyssey completely as I always do and it sounded wonderful.
> 
> So I guess with these videos take what I can and leave the rest.
> View attachment 3253923


I've used a number of his videos to understand subs, rew as it pertains to mini dsp. Could you give examples of what you mentioned. There are hours of video by @cdy2179.


----------



## filmgeek47

Weird question. If I disable correction the sub channel using the multi eq app, will Audyssey still implement a custom bass curve? I’m trialing using MSO and my mini-dsp to do all my correction, but I’m maxing out my PEQ filters and I’m hoping to implement a Herman curve using Audyssey.


----------



## Soulburner

Never heard of Herman unless they make office chairs, but I don't see why it would add a bass curve if you disable the correction.


----------



## garygarrison

@*datman*,
*I wouldn't listen to Home Theater Gurus -- at least that one Guru --- either*. If you have XT*32*, I doubt that Audyssey will overcorrect, but will give you treble correction if your speaker/room combo needs it, and won't if it doesn't. Part of the reason to use all 8 positions is to let Audyssey get enough data to do a good job. 

@*filmgeek47 *
If you mean a *Harman* curve, the one for* Speakers* (not headphones) you can run Audyssey, then turn your bass control up and the treble control down (just a bit) on the AVR or AVP. You can do that by _*ear.*_


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> Unfortunately it is not possible for others to see the Zendesk response to you.
> 
> You will need to copy and paste the email they sent you.





filmgeek47 said:


> Weird question. If I disable correction the sub channel using the multi eq app, will Audyssey still implement a custom bass curve? I’m trialing using MSO and my mini-dsp to do all my correction, but I’m maxing out my PEQ filters and I’m hoping to implement a Herman curve using Audyssey.


From my inquiry to zendesk I thought was worth sharing:

ME: 

*David Smith*Tuesday at 17:05
Does Audyssey compensate for room nulls in low frequencies by raising the trim level then correcting peaks with EQ? In the attached graph from REW would Audyssey attempt to lift the null above 75db then eq the peaks down to 75db?
Or is the level set initially then the EQ just does what it can to correct at the fixed trim level?
I
Thanks!
David

Audyssey: 

*Customer Support Team*Yesterday at 12:31
Hi David,

That's a very good question -- currently, no. But we do have that feature on our MultEQ-X road map. I just can't make any prediction as to if/when it will make it to production.

Importantly, there is no way to fix a null. +20dB is an enormous amount of power to put into the system. 100x the power, in fact. Audyssey generally puts at most +9dB boost into the system.

In the built-in calibration, and the MultEQ Editor app calibration, the default is to set the filter level so the 40Hz to 80Hz region doesn't change in average level. That is, in part, because there shouldn't be a huge level difference when the filtering is turned on/off. That is, with MultEQ off, the system should still be in calibration with respect to trims and distances.


Best Regards,
Audyssey Support


----------



## datman

Rich 63 said:


> I've used a number of his videos to understand subs, rew as it pertains to mini dsp. Could you give examples of what you mentioned. There are hours of video by @cdy2179.


The video cdy2179 posted more recently in the Atmos mistakes thread was pretty good. There were only a few things that I questioned. It mostly the video on running the Audyssey setup and he advised not using the locations at the foot and behind the seating mic locations. And to not let Audyssey EQ anything above 300hz, if you have good speakers. 

I should have just asked if anyone one does these things and left all the details out.


----------



## bluesky636

Lttlwing16 said:


> From my inquiry to zendesk I thought was worth sharing:
> 
> ME:
> 
> *David Smith*Tuesday at 17:05
> Does Audyssey compensate for room nulls in low frequencies by raising the trim level then correcting peaks with EQ? In the attached graph from REW would Audyssey attempt to lift the null above 75db then eq the peaks down to 75db?
> Or is the level set initially then the EQ just does what it can to correct at the fixed trim level?
> I
> Thanks!
> David
> 
> Audyssey:
> 
> *Customer Support Team*Yesterday at 12:31
> Hi David,
> 
> That's a very good question -- currently, no. But we do have that feature on our MultEQ-X road map. I just can't make any prediction as to if/when it will make it to production.
> 
> Importantly, there is no way to fix a null. +20dB is an enormous amount of power to put into the system. 100x the power, in fact. Audyssey generally puts at most +9dB boost into the system.
> 
> In the built-in calibration, and the MultEQ Editor app calibration, the default is to set the filter level so the 40Hz to 80Hz region doesn't change in average level. That is, in part, because there shouldn't be a huge level difference when the filtering is turned on/off. That is, with MultEQ off, the system should still be in calibration with respect to trims and distances.
> 
> 
> Best Regards,
> Audyssey Support


The topic of fixing nulls has been discussed extensively. People don't seem to comprehend the fact that boosting nulls requires a significant amount of amp power. Even a 3 dB null requires a doubleing of amplifier power over what would be output if the null were ignored. A 20 dB null? Forget it. If the null is narrow enough, it probably won't even be noticeable.


----------



## bluesky636

datman said:


> The video cdy2179 posted more recently in the Atmos mistakes thread was pretty good. There were only a few things that I questioned. It mostly the video on running the Audyssey setup and he advised not using the locations at the foot and behind the seating mic locations. And to not let Audyssey EQ anything above 300hz, if you have good speakers.
> 
> I should have just asked if anyone one does these things and left all the details out.


There have been several posts recently showing the after room correction of a frequency limited Audyssey calibration. Basically, they look like crap.


----------



## Rich 63

datman said:


> The video cdy2179 posted more recently in the Atmos mistakes thread was pretty good. There were only a few things that I questioned. It mostly the video on running the Audyssey setup and he advised not using the locations at the foot and behind the seating mic locations. And to not let Audyssey EQ anything above 300hz, if you have good speakers.
> 
> I should have just asked if anyone one does these things and left all the details out.


Might check out the vid. 
It is often suggested when using the app to restrict correction to below 300hz-500hz. It was a complaint many had that they felt their speakers didn't benifit from correction above this point. So it is a suggestion only. Ive done both. Currently running full range. 

As to mic position. It's really up to you what positions to use. Given we don't hear near as well behind it makes sense that a data point behind would provide little benefit to audessey. 
Having said that I have run aud with mic positions that include behind my head. My current one used now and for awhile is mlp, l/r, a foot forward of those 3 then the last 2 in between those 6.
Hope this helps.


----------



## brec

Check me on this, please: there's no way in my Denon AVR-S760H to turn off Audyssey EQ _temporarily_ — to measure dual subs "raw" to time-align and level-match them — before I re-run with Audyssey seeing the subs as a single speaker. I guess my question simplifies to: is there a way to turn off Audyssey EQ?


----------



## Rich 63

brec said:


> Check me on this, please: there's no way in my Denon AVR-S760H to turn off Audyssey EQ _temporarily_ — to measure dual subs "raw" to time-align and level-match them — before I re-run with Audyssey seeing the subs as a single speaker. I guess my question simplifies to: is there a way to turn off Audyssey EQ?


Go into Audessey reference/flat/lr/off.


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> Might check out the vid.
> It is often suggested when using the app to restrict correction to below 300hz-500hz. It was a complaint many had that they felt their speakers didn't benifit from correction above this point. So it is a suggestion only. Ive done both. Currently running full range.
> 
> As to mic position. It's really up to you what positions to use. Given we don't hear near as well behind it makes sense that a data point behind would provide little benefit to audessey.
> Having said that I have run aud with mic positions that include behind my head. My current one used now and for awhile is mlp, l/r, a foot forward of those 3 then the last 2 in between those 6.
> Hope this helps.


Here are some plots done by Soulburner showing the results of a limited frequency range Audyssey calibration. Do your really think that this is what the in room response of a "good" speaker should look like? There have been other plots posted like this if you care to look.



Soulburner said:


> As I mentioned last night, I've encountered this with my own system. There seems to be a limit to the correction. These speakers are close to the ceiling so correcting to 400 Hz flattens out the boundary gain.
> 
> View attachment 3251198
> View attachment 3251199
> View attachment 3251200
> View attachment 3251201


As far as mic positions go, I don't sit bolt upright in my seat. Sometimes I recline. Sometimes I slouch to the left. Sometimes I slouch to the right. As I have said before (and Audyssey agrees), use Audyssey to create an "acoustic bubble" around your head and avoid the "head in a vise" problem.


----------



## cdy2179

Hey guys. I was tagged so I see some questions I may be able to help with. Ideally you properly place your seats you do so to avoid modal issues. Basically we avoid nulls. Now some we can fix with sub placement but some we can't. The ones we can't are the most important to avoid. Lets take a nice rectangle room and look at it. Yes all rooms are different but parallel walls make room modes easy to calculate. 

So in this example here in this 14x18.5' room we have nulls at 9.25 and 11.5'. The width modes we can smooth with two well placed subs up front. Here we see the modal analysis of the length of the room. So to have a row with great bass at all seats in this room, lets say we place the heads at 12.75' back. We align our subs and have a great seat to seat response, all seats sound familiar. Now we hand off to Audyssey. If we take samples at the MLP we get out great response, if we then follow the screen instructions and go in front of us (up to 2' ) we know we have two nulls at 31hz and 92hz. If we go behind us we know we have a 123hz null.  We are avoiding these areas because of these nulls. If you sample those places you well actually screw up the response at the seats because you've sampled all of these nulls that do not exist where we actually sit. FYI. This is better explained in Episode 11.











Audyssey is a great tool if you know how to manipulate it. It does have issue with alignment of dual subs so we do that manually. It also can't place seats and subs for you and will not say hey you need to move the seat and or subs. With two subs even in the app you have no idea if sub response issues are due to placement or the subs are out of phase. It'll just sample the space and eq it. It also has trouble aligning subs to mains (sub distance) and often they'll end up misaligned. These are just things you need to verify before and after you run it.

As for limiting eq to only the modal frequency (the low frequencies that are dominates by the room walls, think ocean waves of peaks and nulls). That area is often eqd in all rooms. Above that area, if you properly treat the room, have good speakers with good on and off axis you may not want to eq above the modal region. Lets say the mic picks up some issue that causes a little dip at 2k so Audyssey boosts 2k, but at another seat maybe there is no 2k dip so now 2k for that guy has been boosted and now vocals for him may be harsh. With no eq above the modal area every seat may have sounded great. You just have to be careful of fixing issues that exist in the small bubble auyssey has you measure and understand those issues may not exist at other seats you may care about and may not even exist where the actual ears of the MLP are at. Maybe it's a large open room where you also let the system crank and listen to while not even seated. You've actually eqd based on the MLP bubble and actually changed the response of your speaker that may have been an accurate speaker, but now it 's been altered and is no longer "accurate".

So all of this really depends on many factors. it's just important to understand what is happening and what your goals are. Try different things and see what you like. There's also nothing wrong with just not caring if it's perfect and just hitting the easy button and enjoying.

We cover all of this on the Home Theater Gurus YouTube channel. It is kind of advanced at times but in the end it's hobby and it'll likely save you money from un needed upgrades and you'll get better performance.


----------



## Soulburner

Lttlwing16 said:


> In the built-in calibration, and the MultEQ Editor app calibration, the default is to set the filter level so the 40Hz to 80Hz region doesn't change in average level. That is, in part, because there shouldn't be a huge level difference when the filtering is turned on/off. That is, with MultEQ off, the system should still


Very interesting.


----------



## datman

Rich 63 said:


> Might check out the vid.
> It is often suggested when using the app to restrict correction to below 300hz-500hz. It was a complaint many had that they felt their speakers didn't benifit from correction above this point. So it is a suggestion only. Ive done both. Currently running full range.
> 
> As to mic position. It's really up to you what positions to use. Given we don't hear near as well behind it makes sense that a data point behind would provide little benefit to audessey.
> Having said that I have run aud with mic positions that include behind my head. My current one used now and for awhile is mlp, l/r, a foot forward of those 3 then the last 2 in between those 6.
> Hope this helps.


I don't need to check the video even if I did misunderstand the point he was make. I run mine as suggested letting Audyssey do what it's going to do. The only issue I ever had was not covering a leather sofa, outside of that I'm always happy with the results. Maybe I'm a HT hack and just don't know what a good system can sound like.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> There have been several posts recently showing the after room correction of a frequency limited Audyssey calibration. Basically, they look like crap.





bluesky636 said:


> Here are some plots done by Soulburner showing the results of a limited frequency range Audyssey calibration. Do your really think that this is what the in room response of a "good" speaker should look like? There have been other plots posted like this if you care to look.


This topic has been litigated to death but I will simply say I disagree with your use of language. The measurements I posted are actually very good if you understand how to read them.

Our sensitivity to changes in frequency are very different from 0-300 Hz compared to 1000-10000 Hz. If you've ever run a slow sine wave sweep, you'll know that below especially 100 Hz, you can hear every 1 Hz increment. You simply cannot tell the difference in higher frequencies until you take much bigger steps. We do not need a perfectly smooth line there, and when we are stuck with a target curve that is not appropriate for our speakers, we may prefer the sound with that part of the "correction" turned off. In my case, there is no improving on my S400 MKII's with EQ outside of the bass region due to room effects.

What is important in the treble frequencies, once you have good speakers that have good anechoic measurements, are broader level changes. Basically, don't mind the squiggles that are close together in the unsmoothed measurements. You may think my measurements "look like crap" but it sounds great. After all, the majority of the benefit we get from room EQ is in the bass region.


----------



## datman

cdy2179 said:


> Hey guys. I was tagged so I see some questions I may be able to help with. Ideally you properly place your seats you do so to avoid modal issues. Basically we avoid nulls. Now some we can fix with sub placement but some we can't. The ones we can't are the most important to avoid. Lets take a nice rectangle room and look at it. Yes all rooms are different but parallel walls make room modes easy to calculate.
> 
> So in this example here in this 14x18.5' room we have nulls at 9.25 and 11.5'. The width modes we can smooth with two well placed subs up front. Here we see the modal analysis of the length of the room. So to have a row with great bass at all seats in this room, lets say we place the heads at 12.75' back. We align our subs and have a great seat to seat response, all seats sound familiar. Now we hand off to Audyssey. If we take samples at the MLP we get out great response, if we then follow the screen instructions and go in front of us (up to 2' ) we know we have two nulls at 31hz and 92hz. If we go behind us we know we have a 123hz null. We are avoiding these areas because of these nulls. If you sample those places you well actually screw up the response at the seats because you've sampled all of these nulls that do not exist where we actually sit. FYI. This is better explained in Episode 11.
> 
> View attachment 3254145
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey is a great tool if you know how to manipulate it. It does have issue with alignment of dual subs so we do that manually. It also can't place seats and subs for you and will not say hey you need to move the seat and or subs. With two subs even in the app you have no idea if sub response issues are due to placement or the subs are out of phase. It'll just sample the space and eq it. It also has trouble aligning subs to mains (sub distance) and often they'll end up misaligned. These are just things you need to verify before and after you run it.
> 
> As for limiting eq to only the modal frequency (the low frequencies that are dominates by the room walls, think ocean waves of peaks and nulls). That area is often eqd in all rooms. Above that area, if you properly treat the room, have good speakers with good on and off axis you may not want to eq above the modal region. Lets say the mic picks up some issue that causes a little dip at 2k so Audyssey boosts 2k, but at another seat maybe there is no 2k dip so now 2k for that guy has been boosted and now vocals for him may be harsh. With no eq above the modal area every seat may have sounded great. You just have to be careful of fixing issues that exist in the small bubble auyssey has you measure and understand those issues may not exist at other seats you may care about and may not even exist where the actual ears of the MLP are at. Maybe it's a large open room where you also let the system crank and listen to while not even seated. You've actually eqd based on the MLP bubble and actually changed the response of your speaker that may have been an accurate speaker, but now it 's been altered and is no longer "accurate".
> 
> So all of this really depends on many factors. it's just important to understand what is happening and what your goals are. Try different things and see what you like. There's also nothing wrong with just not caring if it's perfect and just hitting the easy button and enjoying.
> 
> We cover all of this on the Home Theater Gurus YouTube channel. It is kind of advanced at times but in the end it's hobby and it'll likely save you money from un needed upgrades and you'll get better performance.


Thanks for the clarification. You explained it very well. I'm still not sure if I'm not having these issues or I am and because the sweetspot is good I don't worry about the rest. 

I feel I do I have good speakers certainly the fronts are good. I don't even know if my Marantz 7702 (DTSX ready model) will even work with the app. I'm assuming it won't. Even in the rental I have a bunch of DIY treatments just leaning on the walls or in the place of my corner traps all 4 traps are placed together held in place by big rubber bans with a top on it, would make a great drink bar for a disco. It's like 25inches square and 45 inches tall full of owens corning 703 product. My point is there is a lot of that product in the room perhaps that has some effect on why it sounds great.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> This topic has been litigated to death but I will simply say I disagree with your use of language. The measurements I posted are actually very good if you understand how to read them.
> 
> Our sensitivity to changes in frequency are very different from 0-300 Hz compared to 1000-10000 Hz. If you've ever run a slow sine wave sweep, you'll know that below especially 100 Hz, you can hear every 1 Hz increment. You simply cannot tell the difference in higher frequencies until you take much bigger steps. We do not need a perfectly smooth line there, and when we are stuck with a target curve that is not appropriate for our speakers, we may prefer the sound with that part of the "correction" turned off. In my case, there is no improving on my S400 MKII's with EQ outside of the bass region due to room effects.
> 
> What is important in the treble frequencies, once you have good speakers that have good anechoic measurements, are broader level changes. Basically, don't mind the squiggles that are close together in the unsmoothed measurements. You may think my measurements "look like crap" but it sounds great. After all, the majority of the benefit we get from room EQ is in the bass region.


Thanks. I'll stick with full range equalization as Chris K intended.


----------



## mogorf

bluesky636 said:


> Thanks. I'll stick with full range equalization as Chris K intended.


Me 2. Nonetheless, here's a quote from Chris on the subject:

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

@Soulburner: I think you can verify Chris's statement for yourself by doing a listening test of your front L&Rs and see how they perform the ±1 dB up to 20 kHz when correction is limited to 300 Hz and when correction is full range. 

Guys at BBC in the 60's were not kidding!


----------



## tsanga

Lttlwing16 said:


> In the built-in calibration, and the MultEQ Editor app calibration, the default is to set the filter level so the 40Hz to 80Hz region doesn't change in average level.


This sounds a bit like AVR pink noise test tone for bass should measure roughly the same with or without Audyssey enabled.


----------



## bluesky636

mogorf said:


> Me 2. Nonetheless, here's a quote from Chris on the subject:
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."
> 
> @Soulburner: I think you can verify Chris's statement for yourself by doing a listening test of your front L&Rs and see how they perform the ±1 dB up to 20 kHz when correction is limited to 300 Hz and when correction is full range.
> 
> Guys at BBC in the 60's were not kidding!


If you have a dedicated home theater/music listening room that is well treated and you are able to put your speakers and listening position in the perfect spot, limiting the Audyssey equalization to 500 Hz or so, might be ok. But most of us have to make do with a family room filled with toys (dog toys in my case), living room (WAF), or spare bedroom. Our great room/home theater has three walls. Front wall where TV and LCR speakers are is flat drywall. Left wall is all built in cabinets and book shelves. Back wall where the couch is are windows and mini-blinds. Right wall is, well there is no right wall. The great room opens up into the kitchen and small breakfast nook. No way things are going to sound very good without full range equalization. And even that is probably far from perfect though it sounds damn good to my ears.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> Thanks. I'll stick with full range equalization as Chris K intended.


It depends on your setup. Room correction is "intended" to fix issues caused by the room.

In mine, partial correction is best. It sounds a lot better than the Audyssey Reference curve. I have done a LOT of testing over the years. The app was a revelation when it became available to me.

I have owned speakers that benefited from full-range correction so I am not ignorant to the differences.

Currently I have very good speakers and they are arranged symmetrically with equidistant left and right walls. My imaging is spot on and only the bass needs correction as it does in all rooms.

Not everyone has such an arrangement, which is why full-range correction exists.


----------



## Soulburner

mogorf said:


> @Soulburner: I think you can verify Chris's statement for yourself by doing a listening test of your front L&Rs and see how they perform the ±1 dB up to 20 kHz when correction is limited to 300 Hz and when correction is full range.


The problem is Audyssey has never given us a tool to trace our measurements to derive a custom target curve as to not change the tonality of the speaker. I've asked for it in the past and if they ever get around to it, I will definitely try it.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> It depends on your setup. Room correction is "intended" to fix issues caused by the room.
> 
> In mine, partial correction is best. It sounds a lot better than the Audyssey Reference curve. I have done a LOT of testing over the years. The app was a revelation when it became available to me.
> 
> I have owned speakers that benefited from full-range correction so I am not ignorant to the differences.
> 
> Currently I have very good speakers and they are arranged symmetrically with equidistant left and right walls. My imaging is spot on and only the bass needs correction as it does in all rooms.
> 
> Not everyone has such an arrangement, which is why full-range correction exists.


Did you read my post just prior to your post?


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> The problem is Audyssey has never given us a tool to trace our measurements to derive a custom target curve as to not change the tonality of the speaker. I've asked for it in the past and if they ever get around to it, I will definitely try it.


Isn't that what Audyssey MultEQ-X is supposed to do? I thought the app allows you to create a custom curve?


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> Isn't that what Audyssey MultEQ-X is supposed to do? I thought the app allows you to create a custom curve?


That is not what I said.


----------



## Soulburner

tsanga said:


> This sounds a bit like AVR pink noise test tone for bass should measure roughly the same with or without Audyssey enabled.


It's not even close. They are only talking about the average level of those frequencies.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Isn't that what Audyssey MultEQ-X is supposed to do? I thought the app allows you to create a custom curve?


Yes you can. However, I believe he is asking for being able to load the anechoic response of a speaker, so when measured in the room you can make educated decisions on what to EQ and how to approach each "issue" .


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> That is not what I said.


Ok. You can't be bothered to acknowledge the post I made earlier and don't seem to be interested in addressing my questions or clarifying your response. Guess there's no reason for me to continue with this "discussion".


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> Yes you can. However, I believe he is asking for being able to load the anechoic response of a speaker, so when measured in the room you can make educated decisions on what to EQ and how to approach each "issue" .


Thanks for actually trying to understand instead of just playing Mr. Contrarian for kicks.

What I'm talking about is the ability to create a target based on the measured response. In the MultEQ editor app, you can create your own curve to your heart's desire but it does not display your measured response in the curve editor. Therefore, you have no idea if you're even close to maintaining the tonality of your speakers.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Soulburner

Then I apologize for the comment. I generally agree with most of what you write but there's a certain sentiment in your posts that can be hard to deal with. Kind of reminds me of Markus. I won't bring it up again.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## pbarach

Soulburner said:


> Then I apologize for the comment. I generally agree with most of what you write but there's a certain sentiment in your posts that can be hard to deal with. Kind of reminds me of Markus. I won't bring it up again.


 After a couple of "whatever" responses to my posts from Bluesky636, I gave up dealing with him/her. The single word "whatever" is basically contemptuous. Who needs that?


----------



## Lttlwing16

bluesky636 said:


> There have been several posts recently showing the after room correction of a frequency limited Audyssey calibration. Basically, they look like crap.





Soulburner said:


> You may think my measurements "look like crap" but it sounds great. After all, the majority of the benefit we get from room EQ is in the bass region.


In my REW runs, the measurements between full range and limited range were very similar, almost indistinguishable. So the MultiEQ app is just broken in displaying it's projected response for limited range. I'll re-confirm with some new measurements when I get a chance.


----------



## primetimeguy

Lttlwing16 said:


> In my REW runs, the measurements between full range and limited range were very similar, almost indistinguishable. So the MultiEQ app is just broken in displaying it's projected response for limited range. I'll re-confirm with some new measurements when I get a chance.


I have not had that experience with the app. Limited and full definitely show differences.

For quite a while I always limited correction to 300hz. Any time I tweaked different target curves in the app I only focused after measurements on the front speakers and didn't worry about the surrounds to save time. Maybe a year or so ago I did take measurements of all speakers again and noticed how the high frequency response was quite different than the fronts (all same speakers, just different distance to listener and walls). I switched to full range with a custom curve created to match my fronts with gentle roll off and applied to all speakers. Overall sound bubble is now much better. Anyway, just another example where full range correction can make a difference.


----------



## cdy2179

pbz06 said:


> Yes you can. However, I believe he is asking for being able to load the anechoic response of a speaker, so when measured in the room you can make educated decisions on what to EQ and how to approach each "issue" .


Anechoic only helps to a degree as in room we are measuring sound power not just a speaker. It will not look the same especially below Schroeder. This is where they should take a page from ARC (Anthem). You can select any speaker and it will continuously sweep that speaker so you can see how it measures as you move around the room. All of this is PC based so it's very easy to use and see. This allows you too see if an issue here exists over there and even see modal issues and easily determine what is causing them. You can even toggle on and off the ARC corrections.


----------



## pbz06

Lttlwing16 said:


> In my REW runs, the measurements between full range and limited range were very similar, almost indistinguishable. So the MultiEQ app is just broken in displaying it's projected response for limited range. I'll re-confirm with some new measurements when I get a chance.


ok that's good. It sounds like the app may be the issue...have you tried clearing it's cache and/or reinstalling? Make sure you save a copy on dropbox or google drive first, so you can reimport it.


----------



## datman

cdy2179 said:


> Hey guys. I was tagged so I see some questions I may be able to help with. Ideally you properly place your seats you do so to avoid modal issues. Basically we avoid nulls. Now some we can fix with sub placement but some we can't. The ones we can't are the most important to avoid. Lets take a nice rectangle room and look at it. Yes all rooms are different but parallel walls make room modes easy to calculate.
> 
> So in this example here in this 14x18.5' room we have nulls at 9.25 and 11.5'. The width modes we can smooth with two well placed subs up front. Here we see the modal analysis of the length of the room. So to have a row with great bass at all seats in this room, lets say we place the heads at 12.75' back. We align our subs and have a great seat to seat response, all seats sound familiar. Now we hand off to Audyssey. If we take samples at the MLP we get out great response, if we then follow the screen instructions and go in front of us (up to 2' ) we know we have two nulls at 31hz and 92hz. If we go behind us we know we have a 123hz null. We are avoiding these areas because of these nulls. If you sample those places you well actually screw up the response at the seats because you've sampled all of these nulls that do not exist where we actually sit. FYI. This is better explained in Episode 11.
> 
> View attachment 3254145
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey is a great tool if you know how to manipulate it. It does have issue with alignment of dual subs so we do that manually. It also can't place seats and subs for you and will not say hey you need to move the seat and or subs. With two subs even in the app you have no idea if sub response issues are due to placement or the subs are out of phase. It'll just sample the space and eq it. It also has trouble aligning subs to mains (sub distance) and often they'll end up misaligned. These are just things you need to verify before and after you run it.
> 
> As for limiting eq to only the modal frequency (the low frequencies that are dominates by the room walls, think ocean waves of peaks and nulls). That area is often eqd in all rooms. Above that area, if you properly treat the room, have good speakers with good on and off axis you may not want to eq above the modal region. Lets say the mic picks up some issue that causes a little dip at 2k so Audyssey boosts 2k, but at another seat maybe there is no 2k dip so now 2k for that guy has been boosted and now vocals for him may be harsh. With no eq above the modal area every seat may have sounded great. You just have to be careful of fixing issues that exist in the small bubble auyssey has you measure and understand those issues may not exist at other seats you may care about and may not even exist where the actual ears of the MLP are at. Maybe it's a large open room where you also let the system crank and listen to while not even seated. You've actually eqd based on the MLP bubble and actually changed the response of your speaker that may have been an accurate speaker, but now it 's been altered and is no longer "accurate".
> 
> So all of this really depends on many factors. it's just important to understand what is happening and what your goals are. Try different things and see what you like. There's also nothing wrong with just not caring if it's perfect and just hitting the easy button and enjoying.
> 
> We cover all of this on the Home Theater Gurus YouTube channel. It is kind of advanced at times but in the end it's hobby and it'll likely save you money from un needed upgrades and you'll get better performance.


I wanted to check back about some of this. I did verify that my Marantz does not work with the app. I looked at the distances Audyssey chose they were pretty close. Closer than I can set manually. It does feet in the hundredths manually its by the foot.
Perhaps I give the folks a Audyssey to much credit in regards to the mic positions, wouldn't Audyssey know about these room nulls? I would have thought that the whole purpose for all 8 mic locations would be to check for these things and possibly improve them. Like I said earlier when I bought new surround speakers I swapped them without running Audyssey and it sounded terrible. I reran Audyssey and it sounded great. So I can only guess the the custom EQ for my old Fosgate THX dipolar speakers was different to my new Polk TSi100 arguably a cheap speaker and now it sounds fantastic. It was not just the levels. I still have a radio shack SPL don't need an app to check the levels.


----------



## Rich 63

datman said:


> I don't need to check the video even if I did misunderstand the point he was make. I run mine as suggested letting Audyssey do what it's going to do. The only issue I ever had was not covering a leather sofa, outside of that I'm always happy with the results. Maybe I'm a HT hack and just don't know what a good system can sound like.


I didn't write the first part well. Might check the vid should have been "I might check the vid". No slight at you. Apologize.


----------



## Rich 63

pbz06 said:


> have you tried clearing it's cache and/or reinstalling?


How is the cache cleared? I looked in my app section. No option that I see.


----------



## Soulburner

primetimeguy said:


> I have not had that experience with the app. Limited and full definitely show differences.
> 
> For quite a while I always limited correction to 300hz. Any time I tweaked different target curves in the app I only focused after measurements on the front speakers and didn't worry about the surrounds to save time. Maybe a year or so ago I did take measurements of all speakers again and noticed how the high frequency response was quite different than the fronts (all same speakers, just different distance to listener and walls). I switched to full range with a custom curve created to match my fronts with gentle roll off and applied to all speakers. Overall sound bubble is now much better. Anyway, just another example where full range correction can make a difference.


I don't doubt it – but the key is in the interface. With the new MEQX tool this is going to get a lot easier to test.


----------



## primetimeguy

Soulburner said:


> I don't doubt it – but the key is in the interface. With the new MEQX tool this is going to get a lot easier to test.


Very true. I use the excel file to create the curve and points and then do a search and replace in the ady file. So I have system down pretty good, but too complex for most. I probably have close to 100 target curves I have tried over the last year. A bit OCD I suppose. 😄


----------



## Soulburner

datman said:


> I still have a radio shack SPL don't need an app to check the levels.


There are a couple of problems with using such a device to check SPL levels in an Audyssey-enabled system, and both center on the same thing: test tones.

The first is that the pink noise from the Speaker Levels menu differs from the pink noise spectrum used by Audyssey during their calibration process. In fact, Jeff Clark at Audyssey mentions in the video below how they developed their own pink noise that is not the same as what comes out of the AVR. This will cause you to think there is a discrepancy, when the Audyssey pink noise is considered authoritative.

The second speaks to the fact that the pink noise tones in the Speaker Levels menu turn off Audyssey's EQ and zero out the SubEQ delay alignment.

The sum of this hot mess is if you decide to alter speaker levels based on an SPL meter, you are very likely to make the wrong decisions.


----------



## pbarach

Soulburner said:


> There are a couple of problems with using such a device to check SPL levels in an Audyssey-enabled system, and both center on the same thing: test tones.
> 
> The first is that the pink noise from the Speaker Levels menu differs from the pink noise spectrum used by Audyssey during their calibration process. In fact, Jeff Clark at Audyssey mentions in the video below how they developed their own pink noise that is not the same as what comes out of the AVR. This will cause you to think there is a discrepancy.
> 
> The second speaks to the fact that the pink noise tones in the Speaker Levels menu turn off Audyssey's EQ and even zeroes out the SubEQ delay alignment.
> 
> The sum of this is a hot mess and if you decide to alter speaker levels based on an SPL meter, you are very likely to make the wrong decisions.


 However, measuring external test tones with a Radio Shack meter pointing upwards and located at the MLP (with Audyssey turned off) should enable one to determine if all of the speakers are set _relatively _at the same volume level, correct? In other words, if an external source of pink noise measures the same SPL at the MLP from all speakers, Audyssey arrived at correct trims. (note that you can't use the RS SPL meter to measure subs because it's known to be inaccurate at bass frequencies).


----------



## Soulburner

pbarach said:


> However, measuring external test tones with a Radio Shack meter pointing upwards and located at the MLP (with Audyssey turned off) should enable one to determine if all of the speakers are set _relatively _at the same volume level, correct? In other words, if an external source of pink noise measures the same SPL at the MLP from all speakers, Audyssey arrived at correct trims. (note that you can't use the RS SPL meter to measure subs because it's known to be inaccurate at bass frequencies).


The problem is once you have EQ filters applied, you need to measure levels with the EQ applied. Basically, you're done with no-EQ and should consider that to be a completely different system than the one you're now working with, like if you changed the speakers.

Otherwise yes, you definitely need to use an external source for pink noise such as a disc or file in any case.

My personal belief is that we don't need to do this. It comes from a place of not trusting an automated system, but really the system does a better job than we can do with an SPL meter. If I do use one, I use it only to adjust surround and height channel levels to fix my surround bubble due to the effects of Dynamic EQ, which we've discussed before.


----------



## datman

pbarach said:


> However, measuring external test tones with a Radio Shack meter pointing upwards and located at the MLP (with Audyssey turned off) should enable one to determine if all of the speakers are set _relatively _at the same volume level, correct? In other words, if an external source of pink noise measures the same SPL at the MLP from all speakers, Audyssey arrived at correct trims. (note that you can't use the RS SPL meter to measure subs because it's known to be inaccurate at bass frequencies).


This how I used it. I just checked the levels. I guess my main point is although I may not be up with the latest and greatest especially when it comes to apps. I've been at this a long time.


----------



## bluesky636

Contrary to popular belief, the Audyssey test signal is not "pink noise" or even band limited pink noise. Here is an excerpt from my earlier post asking the Audyssey Zendesk about the characteristics of the Audyssey test signal.



bluesky636 said:


> .... here is the information I requested from the Zendesk:
> 
> "If it is not proprietary or otherwise a company secret, can you provide a good technical description of the Audyssey test tone?
> 
> Is it band limited pink noise? If so, what is the frequency range?
> 
> It is an impulse signal? If so, please describe it.
> 
> Is it a swept signal? If so, what is the duration of the sweep and the frequency range of the sweep?
> 
> Is the test tone different in position 1 vs positions 2 - 8? If so, how is it different?
> 
> Anything else you can provide to describe the signal?
> 
> This is related to a discussion I am involved in on the AVS forum (Chris K used to post there).
> 
> My background is LPD/LPI signal development, processing, and test for a US government agency so don't worry about making things too simple."
> 
> 
> And here is what I feel is an absolutely excellent response from the Zendesk:
> 
> "Bill,
> 
> Do you mind sending a link to the AVS forum thread? I'll see if I can get someone here to chime in directly, if that would help. Otherwise, you're welcome to relay the following:
> 
> The *Audyssey test signal is a logarithmic swept sine (log chirp) from 10Hz to 24kHz over 341.33ms. It repeats 10 times*, and we use the repetitions to "denoise" the signal. This affords us good SNR even in challenging environments. A logarithmically swept sine has a "pink" spectrum, but is not pink noise. This signal affords enough resolution to do 2.9Hz measurement and correction, provides a fairly low/well-known crest factor, and is a continuous waveform that is easy on equipment and speakers.
> 
> *The test tone is the same for all positions.*
> 
> There is also a brief period of "silence" (background noise) measured before the chirps start do that we can evaluate background noise and compute an SNR. For that reason, users should not talk or make noise before or during the measurements."
> 
> 
> Mike T told me that the information he posted was from Chris K, circa 2013. Chris left Audyssey in 2018 and I doubt has much to do with Audyssey now.
> 
> I would guess there could be a couple of reasons for the difference:
> 
> 1. Audyssey has redesigned the test signal to be more efficient and accurate, or
> 
> 2. a simple misunderstanding/misinterpretation of what Chris K said.
> 
> Anyway, if anyone has issues with what I posted, feel free to contact the Zendesk @ https://audyssey.zendesk.com/. I asked some very specific questions and they readily provided some very specific answers. It would be cool if someone from the Zendesk joined AVS and posted here.



Here are some definitions of pink noise for those unfamiliar:







White Noise vs Pink Noise [Audio Engineering & Music Production] – Audio University







audiouniversityonline.com






https://www.cim.mcgill.ca/~clark/nordmodularbook/nm_noise.html



If you are a MatLab user, you can generate your own pink noise source:


----------



## cdy2179

datman said:


> I wanted to check back about some of this. I did verify that my Marantz does not work with the app. I looked at the distances Audyssey chose they were pretty close. Closer than I can set manually. It does feet in the hundredths manually its by the foot.
> Perhaps I give the folks a Audyssey to much credit in regards to the mic positions, wouldn't Audyssey know about these room nulls? I would have thought that the whole purpose for all 8 mic locations would be to check for these things and possibly improve them. Like I said earlier when I bought new surround speakers I swapped them without running Audyssey and it sounded terrible. I reran Audyssey and it sounded great. So I can only guess the the custom EQ for my old Fosgate THX dipolar speakers was different to my new Polk TSi100 arguably a cheap speaker and now it sounds fantastic. It was not just the levels. I still have a radio shack SPL don't need an app to check the levels.


Most users have no clue how to properly place seats and zero understanding or room modes. For that type of setup the bubble may make sense. The methods and videos on Home Theater Gurus teach people these things so you know how to place the seats and arrange subs for seat to set similarity. This is stuff trained pro installers would know although some still crawl. Of course those you should let them crawl right out the door.

But if you have properly setup your seats and subs and aligned them properly you'll have a great seat to seat. Possibly as good as we showed on Ep 7.








That's 3 seats measured (unsmoothed) and as you see the response is nearly identical in every seat. This is what we don't want audyssey to destroy and it will if you were to measure in front and in back of the head positions as we have nulls in those areas as we discussed earlier. We also want to show Audyssey 1 sub even if we have 2 as we do the alignment ourselves as it struggles with that as well. 

BTW you mentioned sub distances. It should never be actual distance unless it is verified that is what put them in phase with the mains. Sub distance is a time alignment not an actual distance. 

Audyssey is great especially for the new guys or those that just want an easy button and don't care if things aren't perfect. For those that really get into the hobby and chase performance it's a good idea to understand these things and how to really manipulate Audyssey and any room correction and understand their limitations.


----------



## datman

cdy2179 said:


> Most users have no clue how to properly place seats and zero understanding or room modes. For that type of setup the bubble may make sense. The methods and videos on Home Theater Gurus teach people these things so you know how to place the seats and arrange subs for seat to set similarity. This is stuff trained pro installers would know although some still crawl. Of course those you should let them crawl right out the door.
> 
> But if you have properly setup your seats and subs and aligned them properly you'll have a great seat to seat. Possibly as good as we showed on Ep 7.
> View attachment 3254914
> 
> That's 3 seats measured (unsmoothed) and as you see the response is nearly identical in every seat. This is what we don't want audyssey to destroy and it will if you were to measure in front and in back of the head positions as we have nulls in those areas as we discussed earlier. We also want to show Audyssey 1 sub even if we have 2 as we do the alignment ourselves as it struggles with that as well.
> 
> BTW you mentioned sub distances. It should never be actual distance unless it is verified that is what put them in phase with the mains. Sub distance is a time alignment not an actual distance.
> 
> Audyssey is great especially for the new guys or those that just want an easy button and don't care if things aren't perfect. For those that really get into the hobby and chase performance it's a good idea to understand these things and how to really manipulate Audyssey and any room correction and understand their limitations.


Thanks again for explaining it. I may be an easy button guy I may not have much choice because I can't use the app with my AVP.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> Most users have no clue how to properly place seats and zero understanding or room modes. For that type of setup the bubble may make sense. The methods and videos on Home Theater Gurus teach people these things so you know how to place the seats and arrange subs for seat to set similarity. This is stuff trained pro installers would know although some still crawl. Of course those you should let them crawl right out the door.
> 
> But if you have properly setup your seats and subs and aligned them properly you'll have a great seat to seat. Possibly as good as we showed on Ep 7.
> View attachment 3254914
> 
> That's 3 seats measured (unsmoothed) and as you see the response is nearly identical in every seat. This is what we don't want audyssey to destroy and it will if you were to measure in front and in back of the head positions as we have nulls in those areas as we discussed earlier. We also want to show Audyssey 1 sub even if we have 2 as we do the alignment ourselves as it struggles with that as well.
> 
> BTW you mentioned sub distances. It should never be actual distance unless it is verified that is what put them in phase with the mains. Sub distance is a time alignment not an actual distance.
> 
> Audyssey is great especially for the new guys or those that just want an easy button and don't care if things aren't perfect. For those that really get into the hobby and chase performance it's a good idea to understand these things and how to really manipulate Audyssey and any room correction and understand their limitations.


That's all well and good for people that have a dedicated home theater but less then useful for people whose "home theater" is their living room or family room and all the complications that go with them.


----------



## bluesky636

datman said:


> Thanks again for explaining it. I may be an easy button guy I may not have much choice because I can't use the app with my AVP.


You obviously have set up your space the best you can, app or no app. If it sounds good to you, that is great. That is all that matters.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> That's all well and good for people that have a dedicated home theater but less then useful for people whose "home theater" is their living room or family room and all the complications that go with them.


I do a fair amount of living room setups. Acoustics don't care if the room is dedicated or not. You aren't limited just because it's not "dedicated". Some care, some don't which is OK.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> That's all well and good for people that have a dedicated home theater but less then useful for people whose "home theater" is their living room or family room and all the complications that go with them.


The app is great for target adjustments and setting limits but it's not really a must. Honestly the best tool you could ever get is a mic (Umik-1 etc) and REW which is free. Also understanding acoustics is huge which is why Home Theater Gurus exists. But not everyone cares to go down that rabbit hole which is fine but it often causes people to spend money on gear chasing performance only proper setup can give them. If you're happy as is then rock on.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> I do a fair amount of living room setups. Acoustics don't care if the room is dedicated or not. You aren't limited just because it's not "dedicated". Some care, some don't which is OK.


Sorry, but I disagree. 

My room has 3 walls with completely different surfaces (flat drywall, floor to ceiling cabinets and book shelves, floor to ceiling windows), no 4th wall (opens to another room), and cathedral ceiling. Only one wall is suitable for a TV and LCR speakers. The couch can only be located in one spot. There are only two spots where a sub could be located. Room dimensions in each direction are totally different. I don't need a mic and REW to locate room modes because there is nothing I can change in the room to affect them. There are only three seats in the room. Mine is the MLP. My wife could care less about the sound except to tell me to turn it down. The third seat is outside of any correctable area. I have watched a lot of videos including yours and find most of them to be of little value in my case. 

So I run Audyssey and set up my little acoustic bubble and it sounds fantastic.


----------



## sjm817

Soulburner said:


> There are a couple of problems with using such a device to check SPL levels in an Audyssey-enabled system, and both center on the same thing: test tones.
> 
> The first is that the pink noise from the Speaker Levels menu differs from the pink noise spectrum used by Audyssey during their calibration process. In fact, Jeff Clark at Audyssey mentions in the video below how they developed their own pink noise that is not the same as what comes out of the AVR. This will cause you to think there is a discrepancy, when the Audyssey pink noise is considered authoritative.
> 
> The second speaks to the fact that the pink noise tones in the Speaker Levels menu turn off Audyssey's EQ and zero out the SubEQ delay alignment.
> 
> The sum of this hot mess is if you decide to alter speaker levels based on an SPL meter, you are very likely to make the wrong decisions.


This was a good session. Jeff explained well that the Pink Noise test tone is an AVR function outside of Audyssey. There are several areas in DM AVRs where there are AVR and Audyssey options that overlap/conflict which can cause confusion.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> Sorry, but I disagree.
> 
> My room has 3 walls with completely different surfaces (flat drywall, floor to ceiling cabinets and book shelves, floor to ceiling windows), no 4th wall (opens to another room), and cathedral ceiling. Only one wall is suitable for a TV and LCR speakers. The couch can only be located in one spot. There are only two spots where a sub could be located. Room dimensions in each direction are totally different. I don't need a mic and REW to locate room modes because there is nothing I can change in the room to affect them. There are only three seats in the room. Mine is the MLP. My wife could care less about the sound except to tell me to turn it down. The third seat is outside of any correctable area. I have watched a lot of videos including yours and find most of them to be of little value in my case.
> 
> So I run Audyssey and set up my little acoustic bubble and it sounds fantastic.


All room modes can be found and avoided unless for some aesthetic reason, you don't want to. But yes some room are more challenging than others and we have videos for rooms like yours too. That doesn't mean everyone will feel the same as you. I have a living room open to a kitchen as many do and it is setup correctly, but that was important to me but for others it may not be. I even have to use non standard practices like rear heights and a surround bouncing off the floor (think reflected atmos in reverse) to make the system work. You make the best of what you have to work with.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> All room modes can be found and avoided


Again I strongly disagree with the use of the word "All".

And it's not just aesthetics. Cost, physical installation, and effectiveness are considerations too.

A surround bouncing off the floor? How does that accomplish anything?


----------



## datman

bluesky636 said:


> Sorry, but I disagree.
> 
> My room has 3 walls with completely different surfaces (flat drywall, floor to ceiling cabinets and book shelves, floor to ceiling windows), no 4th wall (opens to another room), and cathedral ceiling. Only one wall is suitable for a TV and LCR speakers. The couch can only be located in one spot. There are only two spots where a sub could be located. Room dimensions in each direction are totally different. I don't need a mic and REW to locate room modes because there is nothing I can change in the room to affect them. There are only three seats in the room. Mine is the MLP. My wife could care less about the sound except to tell me to turn it down. The third seat is outside of any correctable area. I have watched a lot of videos including yours and find most of them to be of little value in my case.
> 
> So I run Audyssey and set up my little acoustic bubble and it sounds fantastic.


This is my exact situation. Only mine is a wait and see after it's built if it sounds good. My experience has been like yours even in the rental 5.1 the bubble sounds great. Yes wife doesn't care either.

I always wanted the dream of two audio rooms but after hearing how the big great room made my 2ch audio sound I was convinced this was the way to go. Now after watching the videos I'm a little concerned I may have problems. I always thought irregular rooms were a good thing in the audio world. Here a certain rectangular room is best. I guess because they know how to work with those spaces and irregular rooms have to many variables.


----------



## bluesky636

datman said:


> This is my exact situation. Only mine is a wait and see after it's built if it sounds good. My experience has been like yours even in the rental 5.1 the bubble sounds great. Yes wife doesn't care either.
> 
> I always wanted the dream of two audio rooms but after hearing how the big great room made my 2ch audio sound I was convinced this was the way to go. Now after watching the videos I'm a little concerned I may have problems. I always thought irregular rooms were a good thing in the audio world. Here a certain rectangular room is best. I guess because they know how to work with those spaces and irregular rooms have to many variables.


There are a lot of audio experts on YouTube. They don't always agree. Do what you think works best for you not what others tell you will work best for you. I know my room better than any YouTube expert. I know what works and what doesn't


----------



## Soulburner

cdy2179 said:


> 3 seats measured (unsmoothed) and as you see the response is nearly identical in every seat. This is what we don't want audyssey to destroy and it will if you were to measure in front and in back of the head positions as we have nulls in those areas as we discussed earlier. We also want to show Audyssey 1 sub even if we have 2 as we do the alignment ourselves as it struggles with that as well.


First, that's a great result.

But just for the record, Audyssey does a great job combining two subs for a listening position. Clearly when you introduce the variable of seat to seat consistency, things can get complicated. People sometimes resort to MSO for that. I'd like to try it as well, in the future.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> Again I strongly disagree with the use of the word "All".
> 
> And it's not just aesthetics. Cost, physical installation, and effectiveness are considerations too.
> 
> A surround bouncing off the floor? How does that accomplish anything?


If you watched the episode where we explain it you'd understand. And yes all modes can be found. In odd shaped rooms we have to measure. We have videos to help guys do this as well. It just depends on if that's something that interests you. It's not for everyone.


----------



## cdy2179

Soulburner said:


> First, that's a great result.
> 
> But just for the record, Audyssey does a great job combining two subs for a listening position. Clearly when you introduce the variable of seat to seat consistency, things can get complicated. People sometimes resort to MSO for that. I'd like to try it as well, in the future.


Thanks. When you a rectangular shaped room and properly lay out the subs and and seating it's quite easy to achieve that. MSO is nice. I find Audyssey does OK if the subs are up front but it can only align for a single spot as it uses impulse. No doubt Audyssey can be helpful and for those that don't want to do this stuff manually it's best to just let Audyssey do its thing and enjoy.


----------



## cdy2179

datman said:


> This is my exact situation. Only mine is a wait and see after it's built if it sounds good. My experience has been like yours even in the rental 5.1 the bubble sounds great. Yes wife doesn't care either.
> 
> I always wanted the dream of two audio rooms but after hearing how the big great room made my 2ch audio sound I was convinced this was the way to go. Now after watching the videos I'm a little concerned I may have problems. I always thought irregular rooms were a good thing in the audio world. Here a certain rectangular room is best. I guess because they know how to work with those spaces and irregular rooms have to many variables.


Odd shaped rooms just require in room measurements. We need parallel walls to predict modal behavior to place seats and subs. Again we have videos to show you how to easily find the room mode issues in your room. We even have videos on treating rooms that are rectangular and that have odd shapes. It just depends on how important that stuff is to you.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> If you watched the episode where we explain it you'd understand. And yes all modes can be found. In odd shaped rooms we have to measure. We have videos to help guys do this as well. It just depends on if that's something that interests you. It's not for everyone.


This was your exact statement. I have highlighted the part I disagree with:



cdy2179 said:


> *All* *room modes* *can be* found and *avoided*


To claim you can avoid, correct for, overcome, or any other verb you choose, ALL room modes is an outlandish claim.


----------



## Rich 63

bluesky636 said:


> There are only two spots where a sub could be located.


I have a common room. Thought about it, used rew and figured where each sub was best suited and built the rest of the room furnishings around that configuration. Even moved furnishing around in the house to make it happen.
People accumulate stuff and insist that stuff stays where it settled in the house the first time it was brought in. And WAF. Rediculous. I never complained about every room my wife decorated and gave input when asked. We worked together to make the media room/common room work to what i knew was best practices and she loves the space.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> I find Audyssey does OK if the subs are up front but it can only align for a single spot as it uses impulse.


If you are referring to the Audyssey test signal, it is not an impulse. I have posted a detailed description of the Audyssey test signal twice in this thread.


----------



## bluesky636

Rich 63 said:


> I have a common room. Thought about it, used rew and figured where each sub was best suited and built the rest of the room furnishings around that configuration. Even moved furnishing around in the house to make it happen.
> People accumulate stuff and insist that stuff stays where it settled in the house the first time it was brought in. And WAF. Rediculous. I never complained about every room my wife decorated and gave input when asked. We worked together to make the media room/common room work to what i knew was best practices and she loves the space.


Glad you had that luxury. You don't know my room (although I have described it several times and posted pictures in the past). I feel no need to prove my statement.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> This was your exact statement. I have highlighted the part I disagree with:
> 
> 
> 
> To claim you can avoid, correct for, overcome, or any other verb you choose, ALL room modes is an outlandish claim.


They can be, you may have to measure but they can. When you walk through the room during bassy music and hear bass here but not 2 feet over.. those are modes. 

So if you can find them.. which you can, you can avoid them, if you wish. That's not really debatable. It's science. Again if you'd like more information on this we have videos to walk you through it.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> If you are referring to the Audyssey test signal, it is not an impulse. I have posted a detailed description of the Audyssey test signal twice in this thread.


no i'm not referring to their test signals.


----------



## Soulburner

cdy2179 said:


> Thanks. When you a rectangular shaped room and properly lay out the subs and and seating it's quite easy to achieve that. MSO is nice. I find Audyssey does OK if the subs are up front but it can only align for a single spot as it uses impulse. No doubt Audyssey can be helpful and for those that don't want to do this stuff manually it's best to just let Audyssey do its thing and enjoy.


I do the same thing with moving seats and arranging subs, usually end up with a front and rear sub, and I can't improve on the Audyssey result much.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> They can be, you may have to measure but they can. When you walk through the room during bassy music and hear bass here but not 2 feet over.. those are modes.
> 
> So if you can find them.. which you can, you can avoid them, if you wish. That's not really debatable. It's science. Again if you'd like more information on this we have videos to walk you through it.


Sorry. Modes are present in all three room dimensions throughout the audible frequency range. Videos or not, there is no way you can convince me that you can correct ALL of them.


----------



## Soulburner

*Avoid, not Correct. Stop arguing past each other.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> no i'm not referring to their test signals.


Then your statement is meaningless.


----------



## cdy2179

Soulburner said:


> *Avoid, not Correct. Stop arguing past each other.


you'd need subs to "correct" we can do both. I'm not arguing. Just explaining. Some of us do this for a living.


----------



## cdy2179

bluesky636 said:


> Sorry. Modes are present in all three room dimensions throughout the audible frequency range. Videos or not, there is no way you can convince me that you can correct ALL of them.


 no one said correct them all. We avoid what we can't fix, fix what we can. It's pretty simple. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not sure why you are so confrontational about this. This is taught to anyone who is a trained calibrator/installer. I'm just sharing it with you.


----------



## bluesky636

cdy2179 said:


> no one said correct them all. We avoid what we can't fix, fix what we can. It's pretty simple. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm not sure why you are so confrontational about this. This is taught to anyone who is a trained calibrator/installer. I'm just sharing it with you.


Again, your statement:



cdy2179 said:


> All room modes can be found and avoided


Definition 1b:









Definition of AVOID


to keep away from : shun; to prevent the occurrence or effectiveness of; to refrain from… See the full definition




www.merriam-webster.com





I don't believe your claims. It's pretty simple.

I'm done with this conversation.


----------



## DrDon

Bickering stops now, please. Discuss the topic and NOT EACH OTHER.


----------



## cdy2179

DrDon said:


> Bickering stops now, please. Discuss the topic and NOT EACH OTHER.


Will do. Sorry it got off topic.


----------



## megathunderchief

HELP!!! 

I'm getting the nastiest, ear-splitting feedback coming from my speakers when I run Audyssey multeq xt32 calibration! I calibrated everything about 6 months ago without incident, and have done so every few years since I put my system together 10 years ago, but a few days ago I went to run it again and the noise when it got to my first main was so bad I pulled the microphone out to stop it! 

I inspected my left main, pulled the tweeter, and verified it's dead. I don't think the transient fried it, I'd noticed the sound was off for a month or two. Pretty sure I have a mid out as well, but haven't pulled it to test. Verified my amp is fine, hooked my mains up to the receiver, its amp is fine too. Swapped the leads to start the process on the right main, with the same result (overdriven feedback). I can push pink noise to each speaker through the setup menu level adjust without incident- everything sounds fine there. 

Any ideas? I'm baffled by this, the LF signal Audyssey pushes to the sub is fine, but as soon as it cues up the sweeps, or "zaps" to measure the mains and surrounds, they distort and overdrive, and force me to shut down the process. 

Equipment 
Aperion Verus Grand mains and surrounds
Seaton Submersive HP
Onkyo TX-NR5009
Emotiva XPA-3


----------



## bluesky636

megathunderchief said:


> HELP!!!
> 
> I'm getting the nastiest, ear-splitting feedback coming from my speakers when I run Audyssey multeq xt32 calibration! I calibrated everything about 6 months ago without incident, and have done so every few years since I put my system together 10 years ago, but a few days ago I went to run it again and the noise when it got to my first main was so bad I pulled the microphone out to stop it!
> 
> I inspected my left main, pulled the tweeter, and verified it's dead. I don't think the transient fried it, I'd noticed the sound was off for a month or two. Pretty sure I have a mid out as well, but haven't pulled it to test. Verified my amp is fine, hooked my mains up to the receiver, its amp is fine too. Swapped the leads to start the process on the right main, with the same result (overdriven feedback). I can push pink noise to each speaker through the setup menu level adjust without incident- everything sounds fine there.
> 
> Any ideas? I'm baffled by this, the LF signal Audyssey pushes to the sub is fine, but as soon as it cues up the sweeps, or "zaps" to measure the mains and surrounds, they distort and overdrive, and force me to shut down the process.
> 
> Equipment
> Aperion Verus Grand mains and surrounds
> Seaton Submersive HP
> Onkyo TX-NR5009
> Emotiva XPA-3


Your AVR is 10 years old. Might be time for a new one.


----------



## megathunderchief

bluesky636 said:


> Your AVR is 10 years old. Might be time for a new one.


Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd rather have a discussion about signal generation/conversion/output to attempt to isolate the fault. I'm also curious if anyone has encountered similar faults before through their own systems.


----------



## Soulburner

cdy2179 said:


> you'd need subs to "correct" we can do both. I'm not arguing. Just explaining. Some of us do this for a living.


Right. He's stuck on "correcting", while when you say "all", you're including _avoiding_ the worst ones with the placement of the seats. I do the same.


----------



## bluesky636

megathunderchief said:


> Thanks for the suggestion, but I'd rather have a discussion about signal generation/conversion/output to attempt to isolate the fault. I'm also curious if anyone has encountered similar faults before through their own systems.


The Audyssey test signal is generated in firmware. Nothing you can fix there even if that were the problem. This really sounds like an AVR hardware problem.

Have you looked under the cover of your AVR?

Do you have the tools and skills necessary to troubleshoot a problem in a (reasonably) modern AVR?

There is a reason the "No user serviceable parts inside" label is placed on the unit. You are troubleshooting a live and extremely complicated piece of equipment.

I design and build vacuum tube guitar amplifiers as a hobby. Even though they are ancient beasts compared to an AVR they can still be difficult to troubleshoot without the proper tools and skill.


----------



## Lindros88

What would be considered safe levels for running subs hot, on top of Dynamic EQ? I have 4 VTF3 MK5's and I'm pretty underwhelmed with the default bass levels that Audyssey XT32 sets, even with Dynamic EQ on. 

I usually listen anywhere from -20.00mv to -10.00mv. Mostly I end up on -15.00mv. Would boosting the sub trims 5db on top of Dynamic EQ be safe, even when my MV is as high as -15.00 or -10.00?


----------



## bluesky636

Lindros88 said:


> What would be considered safe levels for running subs hot, on top of Dynamic EQ? I have 4 VTF3 MK5's and I'm pretty underwhelmed with the default bass levels that Audyssey XT32 sets, even with Dynamic EQ on.
> 
> I usually listen anywhere from -20.00mv to -10.00mv. Mostly I end up on -15.00mv. Would boosting the sub trims 5db on top of Dynamic EQ be safe, even when my MV is as high as -15.00 or -10.00?


Suggest you post your questions here:









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## megathunderchief

bluesky636 said:


> The Audyssey test signal is generated in firmware. Nothing you can fix there even if that were the problem. This really sounds like an AVR hardware problem.
> 
> Have you looked under the cover of your AVR?
> 
> Do you have the tools and skills necessary to troubleshoot a problem in a (reasonably) modern AVR?
> 
> There is a reason the "No user serviceable parts inside" label is placed on the unit. You are troubleshooting a live and extremely complicated piece of equipment.
> 
> I design and build vacuum tube guitar amplifiers as a hobby. Even though they are ancient beasts compared to an AVR they can still be difficult to troubleshoot without the proper tools and skill.


What you mentioned is exactly what puzzles me - I assumed the Audyssey F/W issues a digital value for the chirps to the DSP/DACs for analog output. The typical level-adjust noise sounds fine, everything else output sounds fine as well, I wouldn't expect a H/W fault in the signal path to only affect chirps, as they should ride the same path as other generated tones. 

Haven't opened it in several years since I had an HDMI board replaced, about the only thing I'd be capable of doing would be looking around for failing caps.


----------



## Lindros88

bluesky636 said:


> Suggest you post your questions here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thanks.


----------



## Soulburner

Lindros88 said:


> What would be considered safe levels for running subs hot, on top of Dynamic EQ? I have 4 VTF3 MK5's and I'm pretty underwhelmed with the default bass levels that Audyssey XT32 sets, even with Dynamic EQ on.
> 
> I usually listen anywhere from -20.00mv to -10.00mv. Mostly I end up on -15.00mv. Would boosting the sub trims 5db on top of Dynamic EQ be safe, even when my MV is as high as -15.00 or -10.00?


Anywhere from 1-10 dB is the typical range of boost. It really does differ in every system and room. Rarely do people on here say they have enough bass right out of the box.

As you alluded to, if you increase the subs by 5, you'll run out of headroom sooner.

Also, there are certain things that can reduce the perception of bass.

Do you have a flat frequency response with those subs? Any big parts of the response missing due to room modes?

Are you on a concrete floor?


----------



## bluesky636

megathunderchief said:


> What you mentioned is exactly what puzzles me - I assumed the Audyssey F/W issues a digital value for the chirps to the DSP/DACs for analog output. The typical level-adjust noise sounds fine, everything else output sounds fine as well, I wouldn't expect a H/W fault in the signal path to only affect chirps, as they should ride the same path as other generated tones.
> 
> Haven't opened it in several years since I had an HDMI board replaced, about the only thing I'd be capable of doing would be looking around for failing caps.


I don't know the signal path for the Audyssey test signal and I don't know how you would trace it without a schematic. I seriously doubt anyone here would have one.

You can't determine if a cap is failing just by "looking around" unless it is physically leaking. Replacing an entire board is a lot different than replacing an individual component. How would you source a replacement component?

Contact an Onkyo service center and let them deal with it.


----------



## bluesky636

Lindros88 said:


> Thanks.


You're welcome. Mike Thomas has more and better information about subs and Audyssey then you will get from anyone here.


----------



## Lindros88

Soulburner said:


> Anywhere from 1-10 dB is the typical range of boost. It really does differ in every system and room. Rarely do people on here say they have enough bass right out of the box.
> 
> As you alluded to, if you increase the subs by 5, you'll run out of headroom sooner.
> 
> Also, there are certain things that can reduce the perception of bass.
> 
> Do you have a flat frequency response with those subs? Any big parts of the response missing due to room modes?
> 
> Are you on a concrete floor?


Yeah, I have a good response and no, not on a concrete floor. Is weak, default bass levels a common complaint with XT32? 

I used to have a basic MultEQ AVR with only 1 subwoofer and I never even felt the need to run it hot. With DEQ on at -10.00mv, the bass at the MLP was always strong and tactile. 

However, with my 4 subs on my XT32 AVR, I don't get that same kick, without raising the sub trims.


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> Yeah, I have a good response and no, not on a concrete floor. Is weak, default bass levels a common complaint with XT32?
> 
> I used to have a basic MultEQ AVR with only 1 subwoofer and I never even felt the need to run it hot. With DEQ on at -10.00mv, the bass at the MLP was always strong and tactile.
> 
> However, with my 4 subs on my XT32 AVR, I don't get that same kick, without raising the sub trims.


Audyssey flattens the bass as designed. The "weak" bass comes from how we hear bass frequencies in relation to others. Audyssey recommends/expects users to use DEQ...and if they don't, then that's why users like to increase the SW trim. How much they do is completely preference for everyone. Some like it 2-3dB, others like it 10-12dB etc.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> Audyssey flattens the bass as designed. The "weak" bass comes from how we hear bass frequencies in relation to others. Audyssey recommends/expects users to use DEQ...and if they don't, then that's why users like to increase the SW trim. How much they do is completely preference for everyone. Some like it 2-3dB, others like it 10-12dB etc.


I'm using DEQ and still feeling the need for a 5db increase when listening at -15mv. I just find it weird how DEQ seemed to work better on my old basic MultEQ AVR.


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> I'm using DEQ and still feeling the need for a 5db increase when listening at -15mv. I just find it weird how DEQ seemed to work better on my old basic MultEQ AVR.


XT32 could have done a better job flattening the bass, which you're not used to (perhaps there was a large peak or two previously that you got accustomed to). Otherwise, it's hard to say without REW measurements. Personally I only use 3-4dB increase or when using DEQ, I keep it level and even use RLO settings...hard to say with such a variance in personal preferences in the mix.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> XT32 could have done a better job flattening the bass, which you're not used to (perhaps there was a large peak or two previously that you got accustomed to). Otherwise, it's hard to say without REW measurements. Personally I only use 3-4dB increase or when using DEQ, I keep it level and even use RLO settings...hard to say with such a variance in personal preferences in the mix.


I have REW measurements for my current setup, but not for my old setup, so maybe that's all it is. I just figured if DEQ is doing its job correctly, you shouldn't need to boost your sub trims at all. When you are boosting your trims 3-4db, what is your master volume usually at?


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> I have REW measurements for my current setup, but not for my old setup, so maybe that's all it is. I just figured if DEQ is doing its job correctly, you shouldn't need to boost your sub trims at all. When you are boosting your trims 3-4db, what is your master volume usually at?


With disc movies, I rarely listen at louder than -15 and usually I'm more -20 or lower. My MV at 0 is calibrated for 85dB using Dolby test tones and REW to verify (after Audyssey calibration). I do tend to overall prefer DEQ and use it most of the time though, depending on the movie and my mood I use RLO 5 or 10. I know, I'm a softie  but I still get tactile sensations and pleasant bass.

You have more and bigger subs, so I'm surprised you're not getting the bass you want. To answer your question, it's safe to increase the the trims and add DEQ to your liking....just do some tests with movies and ease into the volume. If you're at the limits, you'll start hearing noises distortion or uncomfortableness.

I'd be interested to see your REW measurements.


----------



## tsanga

pbz06 said:


> I rarely listen at louder than -15 and usually I'm more -20 or lower. My MV at 0 is calibrated for 85dB using Dolby test tones and REW to verify (after Audyssey calibration). I do tend to overall prefer DEQ and use it most of the time though, depending on the movie and my mood I use RLO 5 or 10. I know, I'm a softie  but I still get tactile sensations and pleasant bass.


This is basically where I landed. Typical movie volume for me is between MV -22 and -14. (Note: if not mistaken, most content, and disk test tones, would be mastered at -20 dBFS to get 85 dB at MV 0. I did the same SPL verification using REW’s generator using -20 dBFS at MV 0.) I boost sub trim +3 dB and use DEQ with RLO 10. On my system I found DEQ to muddle dialog unless I use RLO 5 (a bit clearer) or 10 (clarity equal to no DEQ). My theory is too much mid bass is getting mixed into the sub channel due to my high crossover with small speakers. The other benefit of RLO is it minimizes how much DEQ impacted surround channels.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> With disc movies, I rarely listen at louder than -15 and usually I'm more -20 or lower. My MV at 0 is calibrated for 85dB using Dolby test tones and REW to verify (after Audyssey calibration). I do tend to overall prefer DEQ and use it most of the time though, depending on the movie and my mood I use RLO 5 or 10. I know, I'm a softie  but I still get tactile sensations and pleasant bass.
> 
> You have more and bigger subs, so I'm surprised you're not getting the bass you want. To answer your question, it's safe to increase the the trims and add DEQ to your liking....just do some tests with movies and ease into the volume. If you're at the limits, you'll start hearing noises distortion or uncomfortableness.
> 
> I'd be interested to see your REW measurements.


I haven't taken any measurements with DEQ on, but I do have a screenshot of some measurements with DEQ off. The red line is the MLP.


----------



## pbz06

Lindros88 said:


> I haven't taken any measurements with DEQ on, but I do have a screenshot of some measurements with DEQ off. The red line is the MLP.
> View attachment 3255340


Although the response looks nice and smooth, you can see a bit of a downward tilt, which is opposite of what you'd want and explains your feeling of lacking. I bet regular multieq left some peaks in there.


----------



## Lindros88

pbz06 said:


> Although the response looks nice and smooth, you can see a bit of a downward tilt, which is opposite of what you'd want and explains your feeling of lacking. I bet regular multieq left some peaks in there.


Isn't there not much tactile response above 100hz though?


----------



## cdy2179

Lindros88 said:


> I haven't taken any measurements with DEQ on, but I do have a screenshot of some measurements with DEQ off. The red line is the MLP.
> View attachment 3255340


The graph looks great as far as no dips or peaks. At -15 or so most will want about a 10db slope like this. The closer we get to reference the less aggressive slope most want. This has to do with how we hear low frequencies and what sounds natural. Excuse the not so pretty finger art. 










You may find this eye opening as it shows RTA of actual scenes people love to demo to show chest kick. We can see where they are and how we can tweak that kick.


----------



## Soulburner

cdy2179 said:


> The graph looks great as far as no dips or peaks. At -15 or so most will want about a 10db slope like this. The closer we get to reference the less aggressive slope most want. This has to do with how we hear low frequencies and what sounds natural. Excuse the not so pretty finger art.


He uses Dynamic EQ though which fixes that issue by adding a good slope. An adjustment to the Levels can take it from there per preference.


----------



## cdy2179

Soulburner said:


> He uses Dynamic EQ though which fixes that issue by adding a good slope. An adjustment to the Levels can take it from there per preference.


Ahh I didn't think he was using it based on the flat response. That's definitely an odd response using DEQ at -15 unless his offset isn't set at 0. That could be the case.


----------



## Soulburner

cdy2179 said:


> Ahh I didn't think he was using it based on the flat response. That's definitely an odd response using DEQ at -15 unless his offset isn't set at 0. That could be the case.


He says the measurement was without DEQ, but he normally uses it.


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> Audyssey flattens the bass as designed. The "weak" bass comes from how we hear bass frequencies in relation to others.


It's very odd, but yesterday I ran a MultiEQ XT32 calibration without having moved my two subs, and with only minor change in turn-in with my front mains. For the first time I have plenty of bass without having to alter the sub trims in the AVR post-calibration. In fact, I had slightly increased the volume levels on both subs, and even then the negative trim from calibration was actually higher than it had been in past calibrations.


----------



## Soulburner

I noticed on the most recent calibration with the Android app that I only needed +1 on the subs which was very different from my past 7 years experience needing at least a 4-6 bump to the sub levels, sometimes more. I assumed this was due to my change to ported vs sealed subs, but who knows...


----------



## cdy2179

pbarach said:


> It's very odd, but yesterday I ran a MultiEQ XT32 calibration without having moved my two subs, and with only minor change in turn-in with my front mains. For the first time I have plenty of bass without having to alter the sub trims in the AVR post-calibration. In fact, I had slightly increased the volume levels on both subs, and even then the negative trim from calibration was actually higher than it had been in past calibrations.


If you are allowing Audyssey to align the subs (using 2 sub outs) this would happen if it didn't properly align the subs and or didn't align the subs to mains properly. This is common and it'll get it right one one attempt but possibly not the next. Two subs misaligned caused dips and nulls as does main to sub alignment being off. You need to verify with an external measurement system every time you run it to make sure the subs are aligned and confirm main to sub integration. BTW changing the crossover points can alter the main to sub integration. .


----------



## dondino

I have an aging onkyo nr5009 with xt32 and looking to upgrade w/separates. My question is the newest processor/receivers from marantz or denon that run xt32, is it the same? Like are they on xt32 version 4.0 or something along those lines now? It would appear to the layman that the latest receivers and processors run the same xt32 as a nearly 10 year old onkyo. Just gathering my research, thanks.


----------



## Soulburner

dondino said:


> I have an aging onkyo nr5009 with xt32 and looking to upgrade w/separates. My question is the newest processor/receivers from marantz or denon that run xt32, is it the same? Like are they on xt32 version 4.0 or something along those lines now? It would appear to the layman that the latest receivers and processors run the same xt32 as a nearly 10 year old onkyo. Just gathering my research, thanks.


Not exactly. The Denon implementation may differ, and your Onkyo can't use the Audyssey MultEQ mobile app or the new MultEQ-X PC app.


----------



## dondino

Soulburner said:


> Not exactly. The Denon implementation may differ, and your Onkyo can't use the Audyssey MultEQ mobile app or the new MultEQ-X PC app.


Yeah I was mostly referring to the processing technology. I can’t imagine their haven’t been major improvements to the filtering algorithms over the years. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drh3b

dondino said:


> Yeah I was mostly referring to the processing technology. I can’t imagine their haven’t been major improvements to the filtering algorithms over the years.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I believe the actual measuring technology is the same, what you can do with it using extra cost apps has advanced. $20 for Android or IOS, or $200 for a much more powerful Windows one.


----------



## Soulburner

dondino said:


> Yeah I was mostly referring to the processing technology. I can’t imagine their haven’t been major improvements to the filtering algorithms over the years.


My take is that there hasn't been, though they may be tinkering with it now in MultEQ-X.


----------



## dondino

drh3b said:


> ... $20 for Android or IOS, or $200 for a much more powerful Windows one.


Whoa, I knew about the $20 app, wasn't aware of the Windows one. Where's the info on that one? Is that MultEQ-X?


----------



## bluesky636

dondino said:


> Whoa, I knew about the $20 app, wasn't aware of the Windows one. Where's the info on that one? Is that MultEQ-X?











Audyssey MultEQ-X


The new app is now available on the Microsoft Store (Get MultEQ-X - Microsoft Store) and claims to be compatible with any device that works with the Multi-EQ Editor app. I will be testing later today and wanted to create a thread to discuss. Please chime in with observations. My first...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Lttlwing16

I think I may be the only person who finds adequate bass le


Lindros88 said:


> Is weak, default bass levels a common complaint with XT32?


I enjoy the default bass levels on my XT32 system even without DEQ enabled. I use 3 BIC Venturi 1020's.


----------



## Soulburner

Not everyone's a basshead, but most on AVS are.


----------



## Lindros88

Lttlwing16 said:


> I think I may be the only person who finds adequate bass le
> 
> I enjoy the default bass levels on my XT32 system even without DEQ enabled. I use 3 BIC Venturi 1020's.


What master volume do you usually listen at? Are you getting tactile response?


----------



## Lttlwing16

Lindros88 said:


> What master volume do you usually listen at? Are you getting tactile response?


If I'm alone -10ish MV . Casual listening -25ish MV. At the higher volume bass is definitely felt, at lower volumes it's pleasantly present. 

That said, most people with multiple subs want to feel them, but for me I understand Audyssey will calibrate them to a summed level to match the rest of the speakers. The duplicity of subs in my room is more about smoothing out the response across the seating area than making my teeth chatter from bass response.


----------



## Lindros88

Lttlwing16 said:


> If I'm alone -10ish MV . Casual listening -25ish MV. At the higher volume bass is definitely felt, at lower volumes it's pleasantly present.
> 
> That said, most people with multiple subs want to feel them, but for me I understand Audyssey will calibrate them to a summed level to match the rest of the speakers. The duplicity of subs in my room is more about smoothing out the response across the seating area than making my teeth chatter from bass response.


My problem is that I can rarely go beyond -15.00MV for most movies, because it's just painfully loud. If I could listen at -10.00mv, I wouldn't even need to run the subs hot, but the bass just does not have enough weight to it at -15.00MV for me, even with DEQ being on. 

I had a similar experience with my previous basic MultEQ AVR. I was never satisfied with the bass, below -10.00MV, with DEQ on. The difference was that I was always able to run at -10.00MV with that version of Audyssey. XT32 is way louder at -10.00mv. Maybe I could get away with it if I was in a bigger room.


----------



## Soulburner

-15 MV tends to be my limit in an intimate setup. I may end up closer to -10 MV in a much larger room. This is with dead neutral speakers. With brighter speakers, you're going to hit your limit at a lower level. Also more bass balance helps you push overall volume higher.



Lindros88 said:


> the bass just does not have enough weight to it at -15.00MV for me, even with DEQ being on.


This is evidence to me that there's something wrong with your response, perhaps your 30-40 Hz region has a suckout or you aren't extending low enough? What's your system again?


----------



## garygarrison

I don't use DEQ, because it doesn't seem to do the job well enough (for me, at least).

For movies, with Audyssey XT, FLAT position, I generally play at 5 to 7 dB below reference, which is about the re-adjusted THX/Dolby reference level for a room my size. That should provide very rare instantaneous peaks (< 1/4 second) through each main or surround speaker of 100 dB, and 110 dB through the sub (it woud be incredibly rare for 100 dB to come out of all main or surround speakers at once, although it does come out of the front three speakers simeltaneously from time to time). According to THX, 100 dB would *sound like* their full scale 105 dB for a commercial cinema, because of early reflections in my 4,300 cu. ft. room, even though it is treated. This should not produce much, if any, audible distortion if the soundtrack is clean, the equipment is capable, and the room is treated.. The overall SPL itself should not produce discomfort or pain. The two SPLs listed above are commensurate with the SPL of a large symphony orchestra, at _*fff*_. Into a speaker of typical sensitivity of 90 dB @2.83v (1 watt into 8 Ohms)@1 Meter, it would take about 60 real watts per channel to produce 100 dB at 13 feet away in a 4,300 cu ft room of average liveness. 

Although I never use DEQ, but I apply a little bass EQ using the bass tone control.

The crossover to the sub is at 60Hz. Originally, I had the crossover at 80Hz, but my front speakers are cleaner, tighter, "snappier" than my sub, so I lowered the crossover to 60Hz to take advantage of that. The mains are set for "small." 

The sub level is set for a boost of about 7 dB*;* I can't seem to clip the sub input, or the line driver in the preamp-processor (AVP) that feeds the sub -- I've heard that some will clip even at -3 or -5.

The LPF for LFE is set at 80Hz, instead of 120Hz, on the advice of several experts.

The music and sound scenario are great, powerful, and shake the couch on some movies. Full orchestra loud passages tend to be in the high 80s and 90s dB SPL, with those occasional peaks up to 100 dB (or more in the bass). 

Components: Speakers FL & FR Klipschorns, C Modified Belle Klipsch, SL & SR Heresy IIs, Sub Klipsch RSW 15, 15" sub with 15" passive radiator instead of port. Power Amps 2 NAD 2 channel C272, 150 w.p.c. for FL, FR, C, and SL channels, and 1 channel of Yamaha 135 w.p.c. for SR channel. Preamp/processor Marantz AV7005. Blu-ray etc. OPPO Universal player.


----------



## Lttlwing16

Soulburner said:


> This is evidence to me that there's something wrong with your response


I was thinking the same thing. May be worth the $150 for UMIK1 and REW to scope it out.


----------



## rocky1

If anyone could advise the best way so to speak in connecting 2 subs. I presently have a martin Logan grotto (not grotto i)and have been able to get another one. these subs allow for daisey chain . But my marantz has 2 sub outs. Hence the question which connection would be best. If i daisey chain do i have to re run audessey? with the sub outs i know i do.. thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jeffw_00

Can I run the Audyssey App on my Samsung S7+ Tablet (Android 11), or is it better on a smartphone (I have an S21)? Thanks!


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:

If anyone could advise the best way so to speak in connecting 2 subs. I presently have a martin Logan grotto (not grotto i)and have been able to get another one. these subs allow for daisey chain . But my marantz has 2 sub outs. Hence the question which connection would be best. If i daisey chain do i have to re run audessey? with the sub outs i know i do.. thanks

Use the AVR sub outs and rerun Audyssey.


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> Can I run the Audyssey App on my Samsung S7+ Tablet (Android 11), or is it better on a smartphone (I have an S21)? Thanks!


From the Play Store:

Compatible Android devices:
•Android Smartphones with Android OS ver.4.1 (or higher) 
•Screen resolution: 800x480, 854x480, 960x540, 1280x720, 1280x800, 1920x1080, 1920x1200, 2048x1536

This application does not support smartphones in QVGA (320x240) and HVGA (480x320) resolution.
This application does not support smartphones of less than 2GB RAM capacity.

Confirmed Android devices:
Samsung Galaxy S5 (OS 6.0.1), Samsung Galaxy S6 (OS 7.0), Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (OS 7.0), Samsung Galaxy S8+ (OS 8.0.0), Google (ASUS) Nexus 7 (2013) (OS 6.0.1), Google (HTC) Nexus 9 (OS 7.1.1), Google Pixel 2 (OS 9), Google Pixel 3 (OS 11), Google Pixel 6 (OS 12)

*Caution:
We do not guarantee that this application works with all Android devices.*


----------



## jeffw_00

bluesky636 said:


> From the Play Store:
> ...


I saw that, but I was wondering if anyone had good luck on a tablet. Much easier (for me) to see and work with than a phone... I could just try it, but if it doesn't work I'm not sure I can transfer to my phone...


----------



## bluesky636

jeffw_00 said:


> I saw that, but I was wondering if anyone had good luck on a tablet. Much easier (for me) to see and work with than a phone... I could just try it, but if it doesn't work I'm not sure I can transfer to my phone...


I don't use it so I wouldn't know.


----------



## jeffw_00

bluesky636 said:


> I don't use it so I wouldn't know.


Understood, but perhaps someone else here has tried it?


----------



## pbz06

jeffw_00 said:


> Understood, but perhaps someone else here has tried it?


I was able to use it on my iPad just fine. Of course it's not an android device, but it worked great and much easier to use than my phone.


----------



## sjm817

jeffw_00 said:


> Can I run the Audyssey App on my Samsung S7+ Tablet (Android 11), or is it better on a smartphone (I have an S21)? Thanks!


I can also report works great on an iPad. I do also have a Samsung Android tablet but dont have the app on it. I dont think there is a way to use my IOS app license on the Android device. The filters are calculated on the device and then sent over to the AVR. You need something with enough under the hood to do that. The S7+ would be fine there. If you are messing with custom curves, the screen size of a tablet is a big benifit as well.

There is a big thread on the app. Try asking there as well








MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...


If you crave hands-on control of your Audyssey MultEQ room correction calibrations, and own a compatible Denon or Marantz AV receiver, you are in luck. Today, Denon and Marantz launched the MultEQ Editor app — for select recent AVRs — that lets users tweak, refine, and otherwise customize the...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## jeffw_00

sjm817 said:


> I can also report works great on an iPad. I do also have a Samsung Android tablet but dont have the app on it. I dont think there is a way to use my IOS app license on the Android device. The filters are calculated on the device and then sent over to the AVR. You need something with enough under the hood to do that. The S7+ would be fine there. If you are messing with custom curves, the screen size of a tablet is a big benifit as well.
> 
> There is a big thread on the app. Try asking there as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...
> 
> 
> If you crave hands-on control of your Audyssey MultEQ room correction calibrations, and own a compatible Denon or Marantz AV receiver, you are in luck. Today, Denon and Marantz launched the MultEQ Editor app — for select recent AVRs — that lets users tweak, refine, and otherwise customize the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


THANKS! - wil ask there


----------



## primetimeguy

jeffw_00 said:


> I saw that, but I was wondering if anyone had good luck on a tablet. Much easier (for me) to see and work with than a phone... I could just try it, but if it doesn't work I'm not sure I can transfer to my phone...


I have used it on my old Samsung tab A. Works much better from a curve adjustment standpoint but had more problems communicating with receiver than my pixel phone. If your phone and tablet are both android you will only pay once.


----------



## jeffw_00

Thanks primetimeguy!


----------



## Soulburner

rocky1 said:


> If anyone could advise the best way so to speak in connecting 2 subs. I presently have a martin Logan grotto (not grotto i)and have been able to get another one. these subs allow for daisey chain . But my marantz has 2 sub outs. Hence the question which connection would be best. If i daisey chain do i have to re run audessey? with the sub outs i know i do.. thanks


The recommended method would be to let the AVR handle the sub outputs rather than daisy-chain, if you have XT32.


----------



## rboster

I thought this was an interesting quote from a prolific poster:



Zorba922 said:


> That's very easy to do---just increase your center channel trim level in your receiver. I have my center at +3db to +6db depending on the content, and the L/R speakers around 0.
> 
> This is the REAL reason to have a PHYSICAL center. Not all that breathless hype about "a bigger sweet spot."
> 
> *Main point is, don't imagine that you HAVE TO suffer with whatever silly trim level settings that Audyssey pulled out of its backside.*


I bolded and underlined the main point, but left the rest of the quote for context. 

My question is for those that use Audyssey adjust their trim levels? I know I do some preference tweaking when I had a Audyssey calibration program with my Denon and do the same with my current Dirac calibration. That being said, though any calibration program can create errors (both user and otherwise), I do think there is a lot that goes into determining the trim levels for each speaker.

What are other's thoughts on post trim adjustments?


----------



## bluesky636

rboster said:


> I thought this was an interesting quote from a prolific poster:
> 
> 
> 
> I bolded and underlined the main point, but left the rest of the quote for context.
> 
> My question is for those that use Audyssey adjust their trim levels? I know I do some preference tweaking when I had a Audyssey calibration program with my Denon and do the same with my current Dirac calibration. That being said, though any calibration program can create errors (both user and otherwise), I do think there is a lot that goes into determining the trim levels for each speaker.
> 
> What are other's thoughts on post trim adjustments?


I'll adjust subwoofer trim but have found no need to adjust other speaker levels.


----------



## Soulburner

rboster said:


> My question is for those that use Audyssey adjust their trim levels? I know I do some preference tweaking when I had a Audyssey calibration program with my Denon and do the same with my current Dirac calibration. That being said, though any calibration program can create errors (both user and otherwise), I do think there is a lot that goes into determining the trim levels for each speaker.
> 
> What are other's thoughts on post trim adjustments?


The trim level results in most cases will be more accurate than what you can achieve on your own. They are not "pulled out of Audyssey's backside". A lot of this comes from mistrust of automated programs and a misunderstanding of how those levels are arrived at (and the lack of knowing that you cannot check them using the receiver's test tones and an SPL meter). The poster in question does not appear to have much experience with this system.

About the center channel trim adjustment: I strongly disagree that it should be increased by 3-6 dB. That is a huge increase and would ruin the immersion for me. Only when the center is level-matched does the speaker disappear into the screen. I feel this sort of haphazard cranking of the center speaker is an attempt to put a Band-Aid on some other problem with the user's system or room.


----------



## pbz06

rboster said:


> I thought this was an interesting quote from a prolific poster:
> 
> 
> 
> I bolded and underlined the main point, but left the rest of the quote for context.
> 
> My question is for those that use Audyssey adjust their trim levels? I know I do some preference tweaking when I had a Audyssey calibration program with my Denon and do the same with my current Dirac calibration. That being said, though any calibration program can create errors (both user and otherwise), I do think there is a lot that goes into determining the trim levels for each speaker.
> 
> What are other's thoughts on post trim adjustments?


I verify my levels with REW sweeps after every calibration, and never really had to adjust them from what Audyssey sets. I have no idea where this notion that you can't trust Audyssey comes from, as the level matching aspect is very consistent across my hundreds of calibrations. With that said, I do agree with this statement to adjust to your liking...if you want to hear more dialogue, then by all means adjust it. I never felt the need to though as I've always had pretty good inteligibility and balance.


----------



## Dave in Green

rboster said:


> I thought this was an interesting quote from a prolific poster:
> 
> 
> 
> I bolded and underlined the main point, but left the rest of the quote for context.
> 
> My question is for those that use Audyssey adjust their trim levels? I know I do some preference tweaking when I had a Audyssey calibration program with my Denon and do the same with my current Dirac calibration. That being said, though any calibration program can create errors (both user and otherwise), I do think there is a lot that goes into determining the trim levels for each speaker.
> 
> What are other's thoughts on post trim adjustments?


I think a lot depends on the content your playing. I have a Yamaha AVR with YPAO and it does a decent job. But some content has center channel dialog that gets lost in LR special effects, so having the ability to temporarily adjust the center channel up is a valuable advantage over running a phantom center for that situation. Other than that I do like running my sub a little hotter than YPAO suggests but that's a pretty common tweak used by many.


----------



## Soulburner

The problem is the center speaker is not just a dialogue speaker.


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> The problem is the center speaker is not just a dialogue speaker.


Thus the need for a _*slight*_ adjustment of the center channel, only if necessary. Although our center is very clear 95% of the time, certain kinds of regional English accents make it difficult. I don't know the names for them -- not cockney, but more unintelligible to our ears. A center channel boost of just 2 dB seems to help, and the soundtrack orchestra still seems to be spread out properly. But* Trainspotting *was nearly hopeless.


----------



## Dave in Green

Soulburner said:


> The problem is the center speaker is not just a dialogue speaker.


Of course the center channel also carries some special effects. If there are loud special effects in the center channel drowning out dialog you can't improve dialog by adjusting the center channel. However, I've had success increasing the center channel when LR special effects are overriding dialog. It's not something to be used frequently but does work on occasion where other solutions don't work.


----------



## rboster

garygarrison said:


> Thus the need for a _*slight*_ adjustment of the center channel, only if necessary. Although our center is very clear 95% of the time, certain kinds of regional English accents make it difficult. I don't know the names for them -- not cockney, but more unintelligible to our ears. A center channel boost of just 2 dB seems to help, and the soundtrack orchestra still seems to be spread out properly. But* Trainspotting *was nearly hopeless.


I had to laugh at your example of Trainspotting. My wife was engaged to a Scott and lived 6 years in England, so she would have to Brit-splain the slang etc to me.


----------



## pbz06

rboster said:


> I had to laugh at your example of Trainspotting. My wife was engaged to a Scott and lived 6 years in England, so she would have to Brit-splain the slang etc to me.


Funny you guys mention this, I struggle with many "English" movies and often need subtitles haha. Also, I work for a British company but we also have a lot of Scottish and Irish speaking people, and man I struggle on the phone it's embarrassing. They're used to it though, I guess many Americans have this issue lol so they try hard to slow down.


----------



## jerrolds

I have a Denon X8500HA - and for the life of me I cannot get the Mobile App to work - it just stalls while doing the first measurements. I've done firmware updates and web UI works fine so i dont think its a network issue. 

Any tips to get the app working (so i can do curve editor)

Thanks


----------



## bluesky636

jerrolds said:


> I have a Denon X8500HA - and for the life of me I cannot get the Mobile App to work - it just stalls while doing the first measurements. I've done firmware updates and web UI works fine so i dont think its a network issue.
> 
> Any tips to get the app working (so i can do curve editor)
> 
> Thanks











MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...


If you crave hands-on control of your Audyssey MultEQ room correction calibrations, and own a compatible Denon or Marantz AV receiver, you are in luck. Today, Denon and Marantz launched the MultEQ Editor app — for select recent AVRs — that lets users tweak, refine, and otherwise customize the...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## mrtickleuk

pbz06 said:


> Funny you guys mention this, I struggle with many "English" movies and often need subtitles haha. Also, I work for a British company but we also have a lot of Scottish and Irish speaking people, and man I struggle on the phone it's embarrassing. They're used to it though, I guess many Americans have this issue lol so they try hard to slow down.


We dial up our accents on purpose to confuse you  
Subtitles are great for this. I use them for everything, they help with missed dialogue, accents, names and places, etc. Whenever I introduce a newbie to "The Wire", I always tell them to turn on the subtitles. For that there's accents, names, places _and_ street slang all to learn.


----------



## pbarach

jerrolds said:


> I have a Denon X8500HA - and for the life of me I cannot get the Mobile App to work - it just stalls while doing the first measurements. I've done firmware updates and web UI works fine so i dont think its a network issue.
> 
> Any tips to get the app working (so i can do curve editor)
> 
> Thanks


 Are you running it from an Android device? The Android app seems to have been more buggy than the Apple device versions.


----------



## Soulburner

Hard to say that without some kind of dataset. I've seen people having issues with both. It seems it's usually related to network detection which is equally dependant on the AVR and your home network to work correctly.

Also don't rotate the phone during measurements - I had it choke on me once so I set it down on a table now.


----------



## Lttlwing16

jerrolds said:


> I have a Denon X8500HA - and for the life of me I cannot get the Mobile App to work - it just stalls while doing the first measurements. I've done firmware updates and web UI works fine so i dont think its a network issue.
> 
> Any tips to get the app working (so i can do curve editor)
> 
> Thanks


I found a couple things that helped with this. 1) If there is a TV connected via ARC/eARC have that on before launching the app. 2) Don't plug in the Audyssey mic until it prompts you to in the app. (this one helped the most). 

I still get connection issues maybe 5% of the time if I am going in and out of the app a bunch. Other than that it works well. 

Cheers

David


----------



## pbarach

Lttlwing16 said:


> I found a couple things that helped with this. 1) If there is a TV connected via ARC/eARC have that on before launching the app. 2) Don't plug in the Audyssey mic until it prompts you to in the app. (this one helped the most).


 I'm reminded of a Dell tech support person who told me to unplug my PC "to let out the bad electricity." A lot of fixes that work for some people don't work for others, and sometimes for unknown reasons. For example, I did a calibration last week with the TV off and covered with a blanket (to reduce reflections that can interfere with imaging. I turned on the AVR and plugged in the mic before starting the app on my iPad. And I have never had connections issues.


----------



## Soulburner

pbarach said:


> I'm reminded of a Dell tech support person who told me to unplug my PC "to let out the bad electricity."


Now that's a new one to me


----------



## Lttlwing16

pbarach said:


> I'm reminded of a Dell tech support person who told me to unplug my PC "to let out the bad electricity." A lot of fixes that work for some people don't work for others, and sometimes for unknown reasons. For example, I did a calibration last week with the TV off and covered with a blanket (to reduce reflections that can interfere with imaging. I turned on the AVR and plugged in the mic before starting the app on my iPad. And I have never had connections issues.


Could be the difference of the Android (which I was using) and the apple version of the app. The Play Store reviews are chock full of people with disconnection errors.


----------



## pbarach

Lttlwing16 said:


> Could be the difference of the Android (which I was using) and the apple version of the app. The Play Store reviews are chock full of people with disconnection errors.


 Very likely; nearly all of the connection issues reported on this forum, and in the forum concerning the MultiEQ editor, have been about the Android app.


----------



## Rich 63

jeffw_00 said:


> I saw that, but I was wondering if anyone had good luck on a tablet. Much easier (for me) to see and work with than a phone... I could just try it, but if it doesn't work I'm not sure I can transfer to my phone...


Page one of the app thread say tablets are fine and the app is transferable. Went from an s5 to a80 and was able to transfer it. Might only be to one device at a time though.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Soulburner said:


> Now that's a new one to me


I would have said, "Watt are you talking about?"


----------



## garygarrison

pbarach said:


> I'm reminded of a Dell tech support person who told me to unplug my PC "to let out the bad electricity."


Luxman used to say they used negative feedback "to prevent evil effect."


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Luxman used to say they used negative feedback "to prevent evil effect."


Then by golly I need to use my NCore amp more to ward off those evil spirits.


----------



## brec

I just ran Audyssey MultEQ with three positions just to check the master input volume knob setting on my subs amp. The post-run levels in my AVR were:
Sub -3.5 dB
Fronts: -4.0 dB (both L and R)
Center: -4.0 dB
Surrounds and Dolby heights (top of mains): +3-4 dBs.

Is that OK, or should I turn the sub MV knob up a click or two to get the sub level more negative (but not to -12)?


----------



## pbz06

brec said:


> I just ran Audyssey MultEQ with three positions just to check the master input volume knob setting on my subs amp. The post-run levels in my AVR were:
> Sub -3.5 dB
> Fronts: -4.0 dB (both L and R)
> Center: -4.0 dB
> Surrounds and Dolby heights (top of mains): +3-4 dBs.
> 
> Is that OK, or should I turn the sub MV knob up a click or two to get the sub level more negative (but not to -12)?


I would turn up the sub amp a little more and aim for a deeper negative (I aim for -11.5  ).


----------



## Soulburner

...unless you don't need to boost it much. Then it's better to be closer to 0 to -6.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> ...unless you don't need to boost it much. Then it's better to be closer to 0 to -6.


Yeah. Audyssey trim for my Hsu sub is -7 dB. I bump the trim up by 3 dB so final trim is -4dB. DEQ does the rest. No clipping problems with my Denon AVR-X3500H.


----------



## Soulburner

I'll never know if it was only the change from sealed to ported or if there was some code change in the MultEQ Editor App (since others with MultEQ-X are reporting this as well) but I used to have to boost my subs a lot more than I do now. I used to need +6 to +10. Now it's only +1 to +3 from the default levels after running Audyssey.

Otherwise I agree if you find yourself doing a lot of boosting (and you *will *if you don't use Dynamic EQ) then aim for -11.5.


----------



## brec

Soulburner said:


> unless you don't need to boost it much. Then it's better to be closer to 0 to -6.





Soulburner said:


> if you find yourself doing a lot of boosting (and you *will *if you don't use Dynamic EQ) then aim for -11.5.


I ran an initial 3-position Audyssey to see where I should have my hardware MV knob set in order to get a "good" AVR sub level before running at all positions But I won't know what I'll need or find myself wanting until I've gone about my normal post-Audyssey listening life for a while. Then if I run out of AVR level headroom I'll have to turn the hardware MV up and re-run at all positions.

As indicated, my initial test resulted in a -3.5 in the AVR. Now, suppose I run a full set of positions and still get a -3.5. Then after I while I decide to boost, say, 5 dB to +1.5. What's wrong with that?

What would be *a lot* of boosting such that I'd want to start from -11.5? A 20 dB boost to +8.5?

I guess my question might translate to: is there anything wrong with ending up—after any boost of the initial Audyssey value in the AVR Levels setting—with a small-ish positive number?


----------



## Lttlwing16

brec said:


> I ran an initial 3-position Audyssey to see where I should have my hardware MV knob set in order to get a "good" AVR sub level before running at all positions But I won't know what I'll need or find myself wanting until I've gone about my normal post-Audyssey listening life for a while. Then if I run out of AVR level headroom I'll have to turn the hardware MV up and re-run at all positions.
> 
> As indicated, my initial test resulted in a -3.5 in the AVR. Now, suppose I run a full set of positions and still get a -3.5. Then after I while I decide to boost, say, 5 dB to +1.5. What's wrong with that?
> 
> What would be *a lot* of boosting such that I'd want to start from -11.5? A 20 dB boost to +8.5?
> 
> I guess my question might translate to: is there anything wrong with ending up—after any boost of the initial Audyssey value in the AVR Levels setting—with a small-ish positive number?


Sorry-- do you mean the AVR MV or the sub gain knob? If the AVR MV, Audyssey disregards any MV setting when doing it's thing. Don't rely on getting a "good" AVR sub level based on MV before calibration.

What I've learned -- The goal is -10 to -11 sub trim level set by Audyssey. Adjust your sub's gain knob incrementally until you achieve this level in a 3 position Audyssey run. 

Then do a listening test and add trim as you see fit.

The goal is for your sub amp to do most of the sub work, not the AVR sub output.

Cheers,

David


----------



## brec

Lttlwing16 said:


> Sorry-- do you mean the AVR MV or the sub gain knob?


Ya, I see now that "hardware" was ambiguous—I meant the subs input amp knob.


Lttlwing16 said:


> The goal is for your sub amp to do most of the sub work, not the AVR sub output.


Ah! Obvious, but only after you mentioned it! Thanks.


----------



## pbz06

brec said:


> I ran an initial 3-position Audyssey to see where I should have my hardware MV knob set in order to get a "good" AVR sub level before running at all positions But I won't know what I'll need or find myself wanting until I've gone about my normal post-Audyssey listening life for a while. Then if I run out of AVR level headroom I'll have to turn the hardware MV up and re-run at all positions.
> 
> As indicated, my initial test resulted in a -3.5 in the AVR. Now, suppose I run a full set of positions and still get a -3.5. Then after I while I decide to boost, say, 5 dB to +1.5. What's wrong with that?
> 
> What would be *a lot* of boosting such that I'd want to start from -11.5? A 20 dB boost to +8.5?
> 
> I guess my question might translate to: is there anything wrong with ending up—after any boost of the initial Audyssey value in the AVR Levels setting—with a small-ish positive number?


The idea of getting the subwoofer trim level within the AVR into the negatives (and keeping it there after post-calibration bass increases) is because most AVR's have a tendency to clip the pre-out signal due to their limitations with the voltage out. It's not guaranteed or anything, and may not even be an issue for most people unless you're cranking to max volumes, however it's just a safe "best practice" to follow. The rule of thumb used to be keeping it anywhere in the -3 to +3 range, then it was sort of shifted to keeping it in the -3 to 0 range, and now the safe recommendation is keeping it -5 or lower.

But again, it may not be an issue...just a guideline to try and stick with.


----------



## Soulburner

brec said:


> I ran an initial 3-position Audyssey to see where I should have my hardware MV knob set in order to get a "good" AVR sub level before running at all positions But I won't know what I'll need or find myself wanting until I've gone about my normal post-Audyssey listening life for a while. Then if I run out of AVR level headroom I'll have to turn the hardware MV up and re-run at all positions.
> 
> As indicated, my initial test resulted in a -3.5 in the AVR. Now, suppose I run a full set of positions and still get a -3.5. Then after I while I decide to boost, say, 5 dB to +1.5. What's wrong with that?
> 
> What would be *a lot* of boosting such that I'd want to start from -11.5? A 20 dB boost to +8.5?
> 
> I guess my question might translate to: is there anything wrong with ending up—after any boost of the initial Audyssey value in the AVR Levels setting—with a small-ish positive number?


The gospel is to keep it in the negative. To be fair however, I have yet to see someone post evidence of harm - in either direction.

From an SNR standpoint, you want the final number to be closer to 0 than closer to -12, after boosting.


----------



## brec

Soulburner said:


> The gospel is to keep it in the negative. To be fair however, I have yet to see someone post evidence of harm - in either direction.
> 
> From an SNR standpoint, you want the final number to be closer to 0 than closer to -12, after boosting.


I just did my all-positions calibration after increasing the sub amps knob from the level which produced a 3-position Levels::Subwoofer of -3.5 dB and led to my OP yesterday. The result is now -5.5 dB. I'm thinking that's fine. I did some listening tests with a couple of bass-heavy Blurays with AVR cranked about 10 dB above our normal listening, i.e., cranked to -7 dB, and I was pleased. I'm thinking I'll leave it at -5.5.

By "after boosting" do you mean increasing the sub level in the AVR or at the sub amp?

Segueing to... I noticed that today Audyssey output three separate sub chirps for position 0, at increasing volumes. For each subsequent position it output one chirp at the third, highest, volume of the initial three. What's up with that? I think I might have seen the answer here some time ago and forgotten it.


----------



## pbarach

brec said:


> I noticed that today Audyssey output three separate sub chirps for position 0, at increasing volumes. For each subsequent position it output one chirp at the third, highest, volume of the initial three. What's up with that? I think I might have seen the answer here some time ago and forgotten it.


 This likely means that Audyssey detected some noise during calibration and upped the calibration tone volume thereafter as compensation.


----------



## Soulburner

brec said:


> By "after boosting" do you mean increasing the sub level in the AVR or at the sub amp?


Yes, and I prefer in the AVR.


----------



## jake51

For some reason Christopher Nolan mixes dialogue too low in his movies, maybe to force the viewer to "pay attention" 
You set the dialogue to a reasonable level and then music and sound effects are extremely loud
Normally I would never touch Dynamic Volume but is it a good idea to use it here?


----------



## Soulburner

jake51 said:


> For some reason Christopher Nolan mixes dialogue too low in his movies, maybe to force the viewer to "pay attention"
> You set the dialogue to a reasonable level and then music and sound effects are extremely loud
> Normally I would never touch Dynamic Volume but is it a good idea to use it here?


There are a lot of complaints about the way he handles dialogue.

DV may help; it's worth a try.


----------



## garygarrison

jake51 said:


> For some reason Christopher Nolan mixes dialogue too low in his movies, maybe to force the viewer to "pay attention"
> You set the dialogue to a reasonable level and then music and sound effects are extremely loud
> Normally I would never touch Dynamic Volume but is it a good idea to use it here?


I think Nolan does it to force you to play at a higher volume so that the music and sound effects *are* very loud. That's an old trick used in musicals, etc. because many people play them so softly that excitement is lost. 
"Loudness" is one of Berlyne's cortical arousal increasing variables. Up to a point, higher arousal provides higher enjoyment, etc., and beyond that, lower enjoyment. It's an inverted *U* function. Even loud-ish playing of white noise just before seeing a movie in controlled experiments tends to produce higher ratings for the movie, and louder overall playback tends to produce endorsement of items like "Highly involving," or "Highly entertaining."

*Of course, *the playback system has to be very low distortion to prevent this from being unpleasant, and it may help if the room is treated, and/or properly adjusted Audyssey, Dirac, or Trinnov electronic speaker/room correction is used.

Berlyne, D. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology


----------



## pbarach

jake51 said:


> For some reason Christopher Nolan mixes dialogue too low in his movies, maybe to force the viewer to "pay attention"
> You set the dialogue to a reasonable level and then music and sound effects are extremely loud
> Normally I would never touch Dynamic Volume but is it a good idea to use it here?


I used Dynamic Volume on Nolan's last movie, but I also turned on subtitles.


----------



## jake51

garygarrison said:


> I think Nolan does it to force you to play at a higher volume so that the music and sound effects *are* very loud. That's an old trick used in musicals, etc. because many people play them so softly that excitement is lost.
> "Loudness" is one of Berlyne's cortical arousal increasing variables. Up to a point, higher arousal provides higher enjoyment, etc., and beyond that, lower enjoyment. It's an inverted *U* function. Even loud-ish playing of white noise just before seeing a movie in controlled experiments tends to produce higher ratings for the movie, and louder overall playback tends to produce endorsement of items like "Highly involving," or "Highly entertaining."
> 
> *Of course, *the playback system has to be very low distortion to prevent this from being unpleasant, and it may help if the room is treated, and/or properly adjusted Audyssey, Dirac, or Trinnov electronic speaker/room correction is used.
> 
> Berlyne, D. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology


Nolan seems to forget that most people don't have million dollar home cinemas... and the neighbors will be banging down your door


----------



## rocky1

if anyone could advise. i have a marantz sr8015 which has 2 speaker presets. speaker preset 1 no audrssey calibrated with meter. Preset 2 is with audessey calibration. well i just added a second martin logan grotto sub. all ive done is re calibrate preset 1 (no audessey)with meter. getting ready for pre set 2 which i will be re doing audessey . Being that there will now be a second sub is there anything if at all i need to do different with the Audessey re run.. thx


----------



## BrOiller

rocky1 said:


> if anyone could advise. i have a marantz sr8015 which has 2 speaker presets. speaker preset 1 no audrssey calibrated with meter. Preset 2 is with audessey calibration. well i just added a second martin logan grotto sub. all ive done is re calibrate preset 1 (no audessey)with meter. getting ready for pre set 2 which i will be re doing audessey . Being that there will now be a second sub is there anything if at all i need to do different with the Audessey re run.. thx


Just curious, which do you prefer preset 1 or 2?


----------



## brec

rocky1 said:


> if anyone could advise. i have a marantz sr8015 which has 2 speaker presets. speaker preset 1 no audrssey calibrated with meter. Preset 2 is with audessey calibration. well i just added a second martin logan grotto sub. all ive done is re calibrate preset 1 (no audessey)with meter. getting ready for pre set 2 which i will be re doing audessey . Being that there will now be a second sub is there anything if at all i need to do different with the Audessey re run.. thx


I don't know whether you're using just one AVR sub pre-out and splitting it, or two AVR sub pre-outs. If one, nothing different. If two, you can tell Audyssey in its initial setup, before it starts measurements, that you have two subs.


----------



## Soulburner

rocky1 said:


> if anyone could advise. i have a marantz sr8015 which has 2 speaker presets. speaker preset 1 no audrssey calibrated with meter. Preset 2 is with audessey calibration. well i just added a second martin logan grotto sub. all ive done is re calibrate preset 1 (no audessey)with meter. getting ready for pre set 2 which i will be re doing audessey . Being that there will now be a second sub is there anything if at all i need to do different with the Audessey re run.. thx


Absolutely. Audyssey needs to align the subs and EQ them together.


----------



## sjm817

rocky1 said:


> if anyone could advise. i have a marantz sr8015 which has 2 speaker presets. speaker preset 1 no audrssey calibrated with meter. Preset 2 is with audessey calibration. well i just added a second martin logan grotto sub. all ive done is re calibrate preset 1 (no audessey)with meter. getting ready for pre set 2 which i will be re doing audessey . Being that there will now be a second sub is there anything if at all i need to do different with the Audessey re run.. thx


That has independent sub outputs. The AVR will walk you through the 2 sub level setup. Same as a single sub, aim for a low sub trim.


----------



## brec

Soulburner said:


> Absolutely. Audyssey needs to align the subs and EQ them together.


I interpreted the question the same way you did, but later realized it was whether anything different need be done "with the [Audyssey re-run]" and not _whether_ Audyssey should be re-run.


----------



## rocky1

thx. it put 1 sub at -9 the other sub -7.5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rocky1

rocky1 said:


> thx. it put 1 sub at -9 the other sub -7.5
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


should i re run the subs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brec

rocky1 said:


> should i re run the subs?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Do you mean re-run Audyssey because the first run yielded a 1.5 dB difference in levels, or maybe because -9/-7.5 are too high? I wouldn't.

If you mean something else, please elaborate.


----------



## rocky1

someone mentioned aim for a low trim level. thought the minuses were considered low not high.. so no as to too high.. i can leave as is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## brec

rocky1 said:


> someone mentioned aim for a low trim level. thought the minuses were considered low not high.. so no as to too high.. i can leave as is.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I meant high in the sense that -8 is higher than -10. Some recommend aiming for -11.5 dB, just above Audyssey's limit of -12. But it seems to me that -7.5/-9 should leave enough room for future level boosts to suit listening taste. For more on this question, see earlier in this thread starting here.


----------



## Rich 63

rocky1 said:


> if anyone could advise. i have a marantz sr8015 which has 2 speaker presets. speaker preset 1 no audrssey calibrated with meter. Preset 2 is with audessey calibration. well i just added a second martin logan grotto sub. all ive done is re calibrate preset 1 (no audessey)with meter. getting ready for pre set 2 which i will be re doing audessey . Being that there will now be a second sub is there anything if at all i need to do different with the Audessey re run.. thx


Could you clarify what your asking? Sound like it's how to setup dual subs?


----------



## Soulburner

rocky1 said:


> thx. it put 1 sub at -9 the other sub -7.5
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Those levels should be fine. Also, I hate the Tapatalk messages and wish people would disable them.


----------



## garygarrison

A very wise man once told me, "Always err on the side of redundancy." Because there was a bit of miscommunication earlier (now corrected, I think), I will follow his advice. The most conservative position is to have the sub trims *in the AVR or Pre-pro* no higher than *-5* (i.e. not -4, -3 etc.), even with turning up the sub for more bass. This was accomplished by having the trim for *flat* response at - 11.5, as near to the maximum cut of -12 as possible, allowing the trim to be turned up to -5, for a 6.5 dB boost of the bass below the crossover to the sub. Apparently, this prevented clipping of the line driver to the sub-out in any of the AVRs of any of the people on the forum who were following the discussion. There was also concern on the part of some about overloading the input on the sub itself. No clipping of it, either, was observed.

Is the labeling by manufacturers of the sub trim in the AVR with gradations going well above -5 (-4, -3 ... + 3, +4 ... + 12) misleading, inviting clipping? Perhaps. Maybe some of the better AVRs have more headroom than others, and perhaps some will permit levels above -5, perhaps as high as + 3, +4, etc. I have a preamp-processor instead of an AVR. I can't seem to clip it, even with trim levels as high as +8. I didn't try it any higher.


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> A very wise man once told me, "Always err on the side of redundancy." Because there was a bit of miscommunication earlier (now corrected, I think), I will follow his advice. The most conservative position is to have the sub trims *in the AVR or Pre-pro* no higher than *-5* (i.e. not -4, -3 etc.), even with turning up the sub for more bass. This was accomplished by having the trim for *flat* response at - 11.5, as near to the maximum cut of -12 as possible, allowing the trim to be turned up to -5, for a 6.5 dB boost of the bass below the crossover to the sub. Apparently, this prevented clipping of the line driver to the sub-out in any of the AVRs of any of the people on the forum who were following the discussion. There was also concern on the part of some about overloading the input on the sub itself. No clipping of it, either, was observed.
> 
> Is the labeling by manufacturers of the sub trim in the AVR with gradations going well above -5 (-4, -3 ... + 3, +4 ... + 12) misleading, inviting clipping? Perhaps. Maybe some of the better AVRs have more headroom than others, and perhaps some will permit levels above -5, perhaps as high as + 3, +4, etc. I have a preamp-processor instead of an AVR. I can't seem to clip it, even with trim levels as high as +8. I didn't try it any higher.


Gary,

Can you point to any actual measurements to support the claims of AVR sub outputs clipping at higher Audyssey trim levels or are these recommendations strictly anecdotal?

What are the impacts of DEQ on possible clipping at higher trim levels? Again, any hard data or just reasons?

Have there been any actual reports or complaints about clipping in any forum discussions?

Audyssey XT-32 in my Denon AVR-X3500H sets the bass trim level to -7 dB. I then add 3 dB to that for a total trim of -4 dB. I use DEQ and my listening levels for movies (DVD/Blu-ray discs) is MV settings from -24 dB to -15 dB. Reference Level Offset of 0 dB.

I have not heard any sub clipping at those settings though I don't have any actual measurements.

Thanks.


----------



## bphillips330

Way too much to read through here. I am going to ask a very basic question. I have an Onkyo txnr676. I bought a Minidsp Umik-1 to try and tune my setup. I just got two PSA TV2410's. I am trying to learn REW. I keep seeing Audyssey mentioned on some YouTube and on here. I thought that was built into Marantz and Denon. Never thought it was a separate system. How does it work since not integrated into Onkyo? Is that easier to run then REW? I see you can integrate Audysee INTO REW. I have tried to watch some YouTube stuff. Really just trying to get a high level view of how it works. I have run the built in Room correction thing built into Onkyo and doesn't seem to do a great job.


----------



## brec

bphillips330 said:


> Way too much to read through here. I am going to ask a very basic question. I have an Onkyo txnr676. I bought a Minidsp Umik-1 to try and tune my setup. I just got two PSA TV2410's. I am trying to learn REW. I keep seeing Audyssey mentioned on some YouTube and on here. I thought that was built into Marantz and Denon. Never thought it was a separate system. How does it work since not integrated into Onkyo? Is that easier to run then REW? I see you can integrate Audysee INTO REW. I have tried to watch some YouTube stuff. Really just trying to get a high level view of how it works. I have run the built in Room correction thing built into Onkyo and doesn't seem to do a great job.


It's built in to some Denon and Marantz models, but not Onkyo; so it doesn't work for Onkyo. While in theory it's independent of any specific AVR, it requires associated hardware to work and for our purposes that means it's available only when built in to your AVR.

Audyssey is a room calibration system that outputs certain sounds through your (Denon or Marantz) AVR and measures the results with a plug-in microphone that comes with the AVR. Because it does EQ -- equalization -- of speaker outputs to offset some unwanted room audio effects, and REW can be used to provide EQ parameters to be imported into some hardware, there is some commonality of purpose. But while Audyssey is tied to some AVR models, REW is an independent software product that has much more user functionality for audio measurements.

Some higher-end Onkyo AVRs have a competing room calibration product, Dirac Live, built in, but I don't think the TXN676 does.


----------



## garygarrison

bluesky636 said:


> Have there been any actual reports or complaints about clipping in any forum discussions?


Several years ago there were. Initially, it was thought that a trim level of between +3.5 and -3.5 could be the target, without clipping. Eventually, reports of clipping (subjective ones, I think) caused what was called a consensus to recommend -5 or below.



bluesky636 said:


> Can you point to any actual measurements to support the claims of AVR sub outputs clipping at higher Audyssey trim levels or are these recommendations strictly anecdotal?


Anecdotal, unless they were reported before I joined the forum (2013) or I missed them, somehow. I'd love to see some, with scope photos. Anyone set up?



bluesky636 said:


> What are the impacts of DEQ on possible clipping at higher trim levels? Again, any hard data or just reasons?


I don't know, but since DEQ's compensation gets to be smaller and smaller as the MV is turned up, I doubt if it is much of a problem. I'm not aware of any hard data. 

AFAIK, any reports of clipping were based on people thinking they *heard* clipping, but I've never heard anything that sounded like clipping to me. Of course different AVRs and pre/pros could have different headroom.


From the Audyssey FAQ by Keith Barnes: _*"*Mark Seaton, founder of Seaton Sound, the makers of the legendary Seaton Submersive subwoofers, says:
'The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but *rather the possibility of increasing distortion or clipping on the subwoofer *_*output from the receiver or preamp*_*. *The reason this is a concern for the sub channel relates to the amount of content directed there with 7 channels of redirected bass and a +10dB playback .1 LFE channel. *I've observed it and measured the distorted signal, and a few others have taken many measurements to look more closely.* Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range. Most subwoofers have plenty of gain available, and it's a simple matter of lowing the sub channel on screen and raising it back up at the subwoofer's volume dial.'_

The reason for doing it this way is that the higher the sub volume is set, the lower will be the output level of the AVR line driver. That gives more headroom in the AVR line driver and more headroom in the input stage of the sub amp. The downside is that this also lowers the signal to noise ratio, but there tends to be very little noise with a sub anyway. _By and large you're best off to have the sub amp volume relatively high and the AVR sub out volume relatively low_.*"*


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> Several years ago there were. Initially, it was thought that a trim level of between +3.5 and -3.5 could be the target, without clipping. Eventually, reports of clipping (subjective ones, I think) caused what was called a consensus to recommend -5 or below.
> 
> 
> 
> Anecdotal, unless they were reported before I joined the forum (2013) or I missed them, somehow. I'd love to see some, with scope photos. Anyone set up?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but since DEQ's compensation gets to be smaller and smaller as the MV is turned up, I doubt if it is much of a problem. I'm not aware of any hard data.
> 
> AFAIK, any reports of clipping were based on people thinking they *heard* clipping, but I've never heard anything that sounded like clipping to me. Of course different AVRs and pre/pros could have different headroom.
> 
> 
> From the Audyssey FAQ by Keith Barnes: _*"*Mark Seaton, founder of Seaton Sound, the makers of the legendary Seaton Submersive subwoofers, says:
> 'The issue is not the signal being too much for the subwoofer, but *rather the possibility of increasing distortion or clipping on the subwoofer *_*output from the receiver or preamp*_*. *The reason this is a concern for the sub channel relates to the amount of content directed there with 7 channels of redirected bass and a +10dB playback .1 LFE channel. *I've observed it and measured the distorted signal, and a few others have taken many measurements to look more closely.* Obviously this isn't a problem if you never listen over -10dB, but as you push the volume, some soundtracks can result in distortion/clipping on the preamp output to the subwoofer when you have the channel output trim well into the positive range. Most subwoofers have plenty of gain available, and it's a simple matter of lowing the sub channel on screen and raising it back up at the subwoofer's volume dial.'_
> 
> The reason for doing it this way is that the higher the sub volume is set, the lower will be the output level of the AVR line driver. That gives more headroom in the AVR line driver and more headroom in the input stage of the sub amp. The downside is that this also lowers the signal to noise ratio, but there tends to be very little noise with a sub anyway. _By and large you're best off to have the sub amp volume relatively high and the AVR sub out volume relatively low_.*"*


Thanks Gary. 

That's very interesting information, especially the information from Mark Seaton. I had never read that before.

Given the levels I normally listen at, I don't feel that my total trim of -4 dB + DEQ should be a problem. A 1 dB difference isn't that significant in my opinion. I've heard some pretty strong bass in my room from my Hsu VTF2 Mk3. The amp plate was replaced with a Mk5 plate a few years ago after a power glitch. I can get some pretty strong bass that sounds clean to me. Plus my house is over a large crawl space and the couch easily shakes.

If you don't mind, I would like to post my questions and your answers over on Mike Thomas's subwoofer thread to get his input.

Thanks again.


----------



## Soulburner

We also don't know if these AVRs still work that way. Those posts are very old.


----------



## garygarrison

@bluesky636


bluesky636 said:


> If you don't mind, I would like to post my questions and your answers over on Mike Thomas's subwoofer thread to get his input.


Go ahead. Let us know what he says, and say "hi" from me.


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> @bluesky636
> 
> Go ahead. Let us know what he says, and say "hi" from me.


Thanks


----------



## rocky1

I recently added a second sub. So i re ran audessy and it set my speakers Front 40hz center 60hz and surround 40hz. When i was originally only running a single sub before audessey had set my speakers Front 60/ center 60 and surrounds 40.. My question is why ? By adding a second sub did some changes take place.. My question is out of curiosity .. thx


----------



## pbz06

rocky1 said:


> I recently added a second sub. So i re ran audessy and it set my speakers Front 40hz center 60hz and surround 40hz. When i was originally only running a single sub before audessey had set my speakers Front 60/ center 60 and surrounds 40.. My question is why ? By adding a second sub did some changes take place.. My question is out of curiosity .. thx


Your F3 point is likely right around 40hz, so sometimes it detects it at like 38hz and sets to 40, or it could sometimes detect it as say 41hz and would set it to the next highest which is 60hz. It's just coincidence that you added a second sub...just slight variances of your mic positions


----------



## rocky1

thx. i usually set all to 80 anyways. but do alternate. I dont think i need to re run.. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> I recently added a second sub. So i re ran audessy and it set my speakers Front 40hz center 60hz and surround 40hz. When i was originally only running a single sub before audessey had set my speakers Front 60/ center 60 and surrounds 40.. My question is why ? By adding a second sub did some changes take place.. My question is out of curiosity .. thx


Did you place the microphone in EXACTLY the same positions as before? Is everything in the room EXACTLY the same as it was before?


----------



## rocky1

i would say so. But now that i think about it more there is a possibility that the Volume/gain on the sub was different before .. if that makes sense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> i would say so. But now that i think about it more there is a possibility that the Volume/gain on the sub was different before .. if that makes sense
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sub gain setting is not going to impact other speaker's -3 dB point.

Audyssey does not set crossovers. Audyssey measures the in room -3 dB point of a speaker and reports that to the AVR. The AVR then selects the crossover. Any change in the room can affect that measurement.

Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and thermonuclear devices.


----------



## rocky1

fair enough… I may re run at a later time just for arguements sake. i never used a tri pod so may get one now. if anyone has any quick recomendations to use with the mic. Still learning 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## satfam

I’m not sure if this is the correct forum to post this issue but here goes. Several years ago when DSX was being touted I had front top and front wide speakers and necessary wiring added to my dedicated HT. Just bad timing on my part with Atmos coming out soon after. In order to try to take advantage of Atmos, I began using the front top as front Atmos and the back surround as back Atmos. I have 7 and 5 channel Marantz amps to drive the speakers and a AV 7702 Mk2 processor. 

Still, I feel I am missing a lot by not having true ceiling Atmos speakers. Rewiring will be somewhat costly but any opinions on sticking with what I’ve got vs a true benefits from moving forwarded with rewiring?

Thanks.


----------



## bluesky636

satfam said:


> I’m not sure if this is the correct forum to post this issue but here goes. Several years ago when DSX was being touted I had front top and front wide speakers and necessary wiring added to my dedicated HT. Just bad timing on my part with Atmos coming out soon after. In order to try to take advantage of Atmos, I began using the front top as front Atmos and the back surround as back Atmos. I have 7 and 5 channel Marantz amps to drive the speakers and a AV 7702 Mk2 processor.
> 
> Still, I feel I am missing a lot by not having true ceiling Atmos speakers. Rewiring will be somewhat costly but any opinions on sticking with what I’ve got vs a true benefits from moving forwarded with rewiring?
> 
> Thanks.


This is the Audyssey thread which your question has nothing to do with.

Post your questions here:









The official Dolby Atmos thread (home theater version) –...


Official Dolby Atmos at home website Dolby on Atmos for the home Dolby Atmos Speaker Setup Ceiling-firing speakers ("Atmos-enabled speakers") http://www.dolby.com/us/en/technologies/dolby-atmos/dolby-atmos-enabled-speaker-technology.pdf Speaker installation guidelines...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## satfam

Sorry for the improper post. I’ll post there. I thought DSX was part of Audessey.


----------



## bluesky636

satfam said:


> Sorry for the improper post. I’ll post there. I thought DSX was part of Audessey.


It is, but your question is about moving to Atmos.


----------



## Teeeejay

Does anyone know if using the MultEQ Curve Editor on L/C/R and surrounds also boosts the subwoofer below the crossover point? I can't seem to find this anywhere... My concern is that if I use the curve editor to add a house curve to the speakers, then also boost the subwoofer a bit, I'm effectively raising the crossover point. I'm at work right now and can't measure this, but if no one knows I suppose I'll have my answer later today when I measure it, haha


----------



## pbz06

Teeeejay said:


> Does anyone know if using the MultEQ Curve Editor on L/C/R and surrounds also boosts the subwoofer below the crossover point? I can't seem to find this anywhere... My concern is that if I use the curve editor to add a house curve to the speakers, then also boost the subwoofer a bit, I'm effectively raising the crossover point. I'm at work right now and can't measure this, but if no one knows I suppose I'll have my answer later today when I measure it, haha


It doesn't "boost" it, but since the subwoofer handles the bass managed content (below crossover) and the LFE line, the bass managed content will be slightly higher at specific frequencies even though it's rolling off at -12dB per octave.


----------



## Teeeejay

pbz06 said:


> It doesn't "boost" it, but since the subwoofer handles the bass managed content (below crossover) and the LFE line, the bass managed content will be slightly higher at specific frequencies even though it's rolling off at -12dB per octave.


Thanks. I guess my concern is that I want all channels to be boosted my about 6db below 120Hz, kind of like turning up a tone knob for more bass. But if I use the curve editor to do, say, 0dB @ 200Hz and +6dB @ 30Hz, then that boosts the subwoofer only for content to the L/C/R/surrounds, and not the LFE. But then if I boost the subwoofer channel +6 to boost the LFE, it's going to be +12dB boost for the content going to the mains, and the effective crossover is now about 110Hz or so. So it's a bit of a conundrum and I haven't found the solution yet lol. I had hoped there would be a LFE channel boost in my x3400h somewhere but I can't find one.


----------



## pbz06

Teeeejay said:


> Thanks. I guess my concern is that I want all channels to be boosted my about 6db below 120Hz, kind of like turning up a tone knob for more bass. But if I use the curve editor to do, say, 0dB @ 200Hz and +6dB @ 30Hz, then that boosts the subwoofer only for content to the L/C/R/surrounds, and not the LFE. But then if I boost the subwoofer channel +6 to boost the LFE, it's going to be +12dB boost for the content going to the mains, and the effective crossover is now about 110Hz or so. So it's a bit of a conundrum and I haven't found the solution yet lol. I had hoped there would be a LFE channel boost in my x3400h somewhere but I can't find one.


I get what you're saying but perhaps you are overthinking it a tad. In an optimized sysyem with a subwoofer integrated, think of your response as a single line from 20hz-20khz. You can manipulate and shape that line to achieve the sound you desire which also suits your speakers/subs capabilities. Your crossover is where it is based on optimum capabilities of both working as "one".

When you run a sweep in REW, you'll see if you're getting the shape you want...and of course, use your ears to tune etc. 

The LFE will act as it's own channel, so you can boost that as you wish or leave it alone or shape it separately to follow same rising response or anything else etc


----------



## Teeeejay

pbz06 said:


> I get what you're saying but perhaps you are overthinking it a tad. In an optimized sysyem with a subwoofer integrated, think of your response as a single line from 20hz-20khz. You can manipulate and shape that line to achieve the sound you desire which also suits your speakers/subs capabilities. Your crossover is where it is based on optimum capabilities of both working as "one".
> 
> When you run a sweep in REW, you'll see if you're getting the shape you want...and of course, use your ears to tune etc.


I don't think I'm overthinking this at all. Since crossovers are sloped, boosting the subwoofer away from flatness will move the crossover point. In my case, +6 on the sub channel is good for moving the crossover from 80Hz→112Hz. This does have negative effects due to subwoofer localization.

But also, in the end, I still have the problem of the bass sent to the mains effectively boosted 12dB while the LFE is only boosted 6dB.


----------



## pbz06

Teeeejay said:


> I don't think I'm overthinking this at all. Since crossovers are sloped, boosting the subwoofer away from flatness will move the crossover point. In my case, +6 on the sub channel is good for moving the crossover from 80Hz→112Hz. This does have negative effects due to subwoofer localization.
> 
> But also, in the end, I still have the problem of the bass sent to the mains effectively boosted 12dB while the LFE is only boosted 6dB.


I think I'm not understanding the "moving the crossovers" part. Those are fixed..I'll have to re read your post on my next break to make sure I'm understanding correctly


----------



## Teeeejay

pbz06 said:


> I think I'm not understanding the "moving the crossovers" part. Those are fixed..I'll have to re read your post on my next break to make sure I'm understanding correctly


Some WinISD graphs will help.

Here's what an 80Hz crossover looks like. The subwoofer and mains slope down so they're each -3dB at 80Hz, so the combined sum is at 0dB. No problems.










Here's what happens when you boost the subwoofer by 6dB for more LFE. Now you can see that the crossover point is actually at ~112Hz.


----------



## bluesky636

Teeeejay said:


> Does anyone know if using the MultEQ Curve Editor on L/C/R and surrounds also boosts the subwoofer below the crossover point? I can't seem to find this anywhere... My concern is that if I use the curve editor to add a house curve to the speakers, then also boost the subwoofer a bit, I'm effectively raising the crossover point. I'm at work right now and can't measure this, but if no one knows I suppose I'll have my answer later today when I measure it, haha





Teeeejay said:


> Thanks. I guess my concern is that I want all channels to be boosted my about 6db below 120Hz, kind of like turning up a tone knob for more bass. But if I use the curve editor to do, say, 0dB @ 200Hz and +6dB @ 30Hz, then that boosts the subwoofer only for content to the L/C/R/surrounds, and not the LFE. But then if I boost the subwoofer channel +6 to boost the LFE, it's going to be +12dB boost for the content going to the mains, and the effective crossover is now about 110Hz or so. So it's a bit of a conundrum and I haven't found the solution yet lol. I had hoped there would be a LFE channel boost in my x3400h somewhere but I can't find one.





Teeeejay said:


> I don't think I'm overthinking this at all. Since crossovers are sloped, boosting the subwoofer away from flatness will move the crossover point. In my case, +6 on the sub channel is good for moving the crossover from 80Hz→112Hz. This does have negative effects due to subwoofer localization.
> 
> But also, in the end, I still have the problem of the bass sent to the mains effectively boosted 12dB while the LFE is only boosted 6dB.


I think you will get better answers to you questions by posting them here:








Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## bluesky636

Teeeejay said:


> Some WinISD graphs will help.
> 
> Here's what an 80Hz crossover looks like. The subwoofer and mains slope down so they're each -3dB at 80Hz, so the combined sum is at 0dB. No problems.
> View attachment 3262953
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what happens when you boost the subwoofer by 6dB for more LFE. Now you can see that the crossover point is actually at ~112Hz.
> View attachment 3262952


I see one immediate problem with your graphs. I don't know where you got them or what speakers they depict, but both speakers are only a first order crossover of 6 dB/octave. I believe the high pass and low pass filters in whatever AVR you have are at least 2nd order, 12 dB/octave or even 3rd order, 24 dB/octave. Either one of those will significantly reduce the effect that you are concerned about when you sum the two signals.

THX specifies a combined 2nd and 3rd order crossover: 24 dB/octave for the sub LPF and 12 dB/octave for the LCR HPF. I believe even non-THX AVR crossovers adhere to those requirements.

In my system, I boost the bass trim by 2 to 3 dB plus whatever DEQ boosts things at my listening level. I have never heard any change in bass localization.


----------



## Teeeejay

bluesky636 said:


> I see one immediate problem with your graphs. I don't know where you got them or what speakers they depict, but both speakers are only a first order crossover of 6 dB/octave. I believe the high pass and low pass filters in whatever AVR you have are at least 2nd order, 12 dB/octave or even 3rd order, 24 dB/octave. Either one of those will significantly reduce the effect that you are concerned about when you sum the two signals.
> 
> THX specifies a combined 2nd and 3rd order crossover: 24 dB/octave for the sub LPF and 12 dB/octave for the LCR HPF. I believe even non-THX AVR crossovers adhere to those requirements.
> 
> In my system, I boost the bass trim by 2 to 3 dB plus whatever DEQ boosts things at my listening level. I have never heard any change in bass localization.


I made the graphs in WinISD quickly to just explain the concept.

With my AVR's crossover slopes and a 6dB boost on the sub channel, I'm seeing the effective crossover is now about 97Hz. Still higher than what I wanted at 80Hz.

This also doesn't solve the problem of the combined 12dB boost I'm getting from shelfing the mains and also boosting the sub channel to boost LFE. As far as I can see, I can only cut the dB of the LFE channel. No boosting.


----------



## bluesky636

Teeeejay said:


> I made the graphs in WinISD quickly to just explain the concept.
> 
> With my AVR's crossover slopes and a 6dB boost on the sub channel, I'm seeing the effective crossover is now about 97Hz. Still higher than what I wanted at 80Hz.
> 
> This also doesn't solve the problem of the combined 12dB boost I'm getting from shelfing the mains and also boosting the sub channel to boost LFE. As far as I can see, I can only cut the dB of the LFE channel. No boosting.


a. Plot the actual HPF and LPF curves of your AVR.

b. Plot the sum of those curves.

c. Go to the subwoofer thread I posted earlier and search "cascading crossovers".

d. LFE is already boosted 10 dB by bass management. 

e. I don't know what you mean by "shelfing the mains".


----------



## Teeeejay

bluesky636 said:


> a. Plot the actual HPF and LPF curves of your AVR.
> 
> b. Plot the sum of those curves.
> 
> c. Go to the subwoofer thread I posted earlier and search "cascading crossovers".
> 
> d. LFE is already boosted 10 dB by bass management.
> 
> e. I don't know what you mean by "shelfing the mains".


a. The curves you mentioned are the ones for my AVR.

b. The sum doesn't really matter when localization is concerned. It's more about the sub channel's volume at any given point. 

c. I looked at that section and it looks pretty helpful for what I'm doing. But it doesn't entirely fix the problem.

d. That's fine, but my preferred playback curve would be to boost all content below ~120Hz or so by 6dB with a low shelf filter. If I use the curve editor to add a shelf filter of 6dB on the mains, and then also boost the sub channel with a shelf filter of 6dB, then I get the desired +6dB on the LFE, but the signal sent to the mains is effectively boosted by +12dB. Hence the problem.

e. I just meant using a shelf filter. See above.


----------



## bluesky636

Teeeejay said:


> a. The curves you mentioned are the ones for my AVR.


If true Denon implemented a very poor design for sub/mains crossover. I find that hard to believe.


Teeeejay said:


> b. The sum doesn't really matter when localization is concerned. It's more about the sub channel's volume at any given point.


Yes, the sum does matter. You want a smooth transition between the subs and mains. That is what a well designed crossover does. Otherwise you will end up with a disconnect between them.


Teeeejay said:


> c. I looked at that section and it looks pretty helpful for what I'm doing. But it doesn't entirely fix the problem.


Cascading crossovers fixes muddiness/boominess in the upper bass/low midrange which what you are complaining about. I use a variation of it and it works great.


Teeeejay said:


> d. That's fine, but my preferred playback curve would be to boost all content below ~120Hz or so by 6dB with a low shelf filter. If I use the curve editor to add a shelf filter of 6dB on the mains, and then also boost the sub channel with a shelf filter of 6dB, then I get the desired +6dB on the LFE, but the signal sent to the mains is effectively boosted by +12dB. Hence the problem.


Bass management adds 10 dB to LFE to reach the specified sound pressure levels at 0 dB master volume setting. Do you realize how much power that takes even at low levels. Attempting to add an additional 6 dB risks overloading the amp and sub. Bad idea.


Teeeejay said:


> e. I just meant using a shelf filter. See above.


I still don't know what you mean by a shelf filter. To me a shelf filter is a brickwall filter which is very high order and difficult to implement. Early CD players used a brick wall filter at the high end and sounded terrible.


----------



## Sonic icons

bluesky636 said:


> I see one immediate problem with your graphs. I don't know where you got them or what speakers they depict, but both speakers are only a first order crossover of 6 dB/octave. I believe the high pass and low pass filters in whatever AVR you have are at least 2nd order, 12 dB/octave or even 3rd order, 24 dB/octave. Either one of those will significantly reduce the effect that you are concerned about when you sum the two signals.
> 
> THX specifies a combined 2nd and 3rd order crossover: 24 dB/octave for the sub LPF and 12 dB/octave for the LCR HPF. I believe even non-THX AVR crossovers adhere to those requirements.


Your comment that "THX specifies .... 24 dB/octave for the sub LPF and 12 dB/octave for the LCR HPF and "even non-THX AVR crossovers adhere to those requirements" matches what I remember reading about how bass management is done (at least for the "major brands" of AVRs). However, the graphs by Teeeejay clearly depict 12 dB/octave slope (not 6 dB/octave) for both the magenta curve (HPF of LCR) and the blue curve (LPF of sub). Look at how much the magenta curve drops from 40 Hz to 20 Hz.


----------



## Sonic icons

bluesky636 said:


> I still don't know what you mean by a shelf filter. To me a shelf filter is a brickwall filter which is very high order and difficult to implement. Early CD players used a brick wall filter at the high end and sounded terrible.


I believe Teeeejay is talking about a "shelf filter" that is available in the Curve Editor in the new Audyssey MultEQ-X for Windows app. The Curve Editor is intended to allow replacing the Audyssey "Flat" or "Reference" frequency response curve with a possibly more complicated curve designed by the user. This discussion should probably be in the MultEQ-X for Windows thread Audyssey MultEQ-X

Edit: the "shelf filter" in MultEQ-X Curve Editor is not a brickwall, it is a "2nd order Low Shelf with Q" filter that provides for a gradual rise in the response going from higher to lower frequency, with a "transition width" of about 2 octaves. (When setting up the filter, the width and shape of the transition is determined by the number assigned to Q.)


----------



## bluesky636

Sonic icons said:


> Your comment that "THX specifies .... 24 dB/octave for the sub LPF and 12 dB/octave for the LCR HPF and "even non-THX AVR crossovers adhere to those requirements" matches what I remember reading about how bass management is done (at least for the "major brands" of AVRs). However, the graphs by Teeeejay clearly depict 12 dB/octave slope (not 6 dB/octave) for both the magenta curve (HPF of LCR) and the blue curve (LPF of sub). Look at how much the magenta curve drops from 40 Hz to 20 Hz.


You're right. I miscounted. My apologies. 

I still disagree with with what he is trying to do.


----------



## bluesky636

Sonic icons said:


> I believe Teeeejay is talking about a "shelf filter" that is available in the Curve Editor in the new Audyssey MultEQ-X for Windows app. The Curve Editor is intended to allow replacing the Audyssey "Flat" or "Reference" frequency response curve with a possibly more complicated curve designed by the user. This discussion should probably be in the MultEQ-X for Windows thread Audyssey MultEQ-X











Shelving filter explained: understanding high-shelf and low-shelf equalizers


Do you want to make use of a shelving filter in your mix? Check out this article for a full break down on how to use both a high-self and low-shelf EQ.




www.mixinglessons.com





I wouldn't use this in place of a crossover.


----------



## Sonic icons

bluesky636 said:


> Shelving filter explained: understanding high-shelf and low-shelf equalizers
> 
> 
> Do you want to make use of a shelving filter in your mix? Check out this article for a full break down on how to use both a high-self and low-shelf EQ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mixinglessons.com


^ That link looks helpful, it describes the kind of "shelving filter" provided in MultEQ-X


----------



## Teeeejay

bluesky636 said:


> If true Denon implemented a very poor design for sub/mains crossover. I find that hard to believe.
> 
> Yes, the sum does matter. You want a smooth transition between the subs and mains. That is what a well designed crossover does. Otherwise you will end up with a disconnect between them.
> 
> Cascading crossovers fixes muddiness/boominess in the upper bass/low midrange which what you are complaining about. I use a variation of it and it works great.
> 
> Bass management adds 10 dB to LFE to reach the specified sound pressure levels at 0 dB master volume setting. Do you realize how much power that takes even at low levels. Attempting to add an additional 6 dB risks overloading the amp and sub. Bad idea.
> 
> I still don't know what you mean by a shelf filter. To me a shelf filter is a brickwall filter which is very high order and difficult to implement. Early CD players used a brick wall filter at the high end and sounded terrible.


I do have a smooth transition. I'm not having any issues with integration. It's just the localizaion of the subwoofers. Right now I have 2 18s on the front wall so it doesn't really matter that much yet, but I'm going to be running 4 21s whenever Eminence is done building them and I can get the cabinets built. I know that 6dB is quadrupling power. I have a 220v amp that can do about 4k RMS per channel at 4ohms. I'll have plenty of power on tap, especially at my preferred listening levels. That and my mains are 99db/w/m sensitive so I have plenty of headroom.

@Sonic icons is correct about a shelf filter. It's basically just a linkwitz transform, but at certain db/octave. MiniDSP, Behringer DSP, and I guess now MultEQ-X is. It's just a rising response to a certain gain level and then it flattens out. 

Since we're getting caught up on charts, this is what 80Hz crossover looks like with 24dB/oct on the sub and 12dB/oct on the mains.









Crossover woes aside, I don't see any way to get a 6dB shelf filter on the mains and boost the LFE by 6dB. This might just be something I have to accept.


----------



## bluesky636

Sonic icons said:


> ^ That link looks helpful, it describes the kind of "shelving filter" provided in MultEQ-X


He doesn't say if he is using the MultEQ app or MultEQ-X.


----------



## bluesky636

Teeeejay said:


> I do have a smooth transition. I'm not having any issues with integration. It's just the localizaion of the subwoofers. Right now I have 2 18s on the front wall so it doesn't really matter that much yet, but I'm going to be running 4 21s whenever Eminence is done building them and I can get the cabinets built. I know that 6dB is quadrupling power. I have a 220v amp that can do about 4k RMS per channel at 4ohms. I'll have plenty of power on tap, especially at my preferred listening levels. That and my mains are 99db/w/m sensitive so I have plenty of headroom.
> 
> @Sonic icons is correct about a shelf filter. It's basically just a linkwitz transform, but at certain db/octave. MiniDSP, Behringer DSP, and I guess now MultEQ-X is. It's just a rising response to a certain gain level and then it flattens out.
> 
> Since we're getting caught up on charts, this is what 80Hz crossover looks like with 24dB/oct on the sub and 12dB/oct on the mains.
> View attachment 3262992
> 
> 
> Crossover woes aside, I don't see any way to get a 6dB shelf filter on the mains and boost the LFE by 6dB. This might just be something I have to accept.


Good luck.


----------



## Teeeejay

bluesky636 said:


> He doesn't say if he is using the MultEQ app or MultEQ-X.


It doesn't really matter because MultEQ lets you make custom curves as well. You can effectively make a shelf filter using the interface, it's just not quite as simple.


----------



## brec

I have two subs. I've used Multi-Sub Optimizer (MSO) to level-match, time-align, and EQ the subs with respect to each other. The MSO results are applied in a DSP in the subs amp between the AVR and the subs. The AVR does not have independent sub outputs, so I am running just one cable from it to the amp, and the splitting of that signal is done in the amp's DSP.

Next week I'll be upgrading the AVR to one with XT32 and Sub EQ HT. So I could run another cable from the AVR and let XT32/Sub EQ HT take care of level-matching, time-aligning, and EQing the subs, discarding the MSO results.

At this writing I'm inclined not to do that -- I'm inclined to retain the MSO results and present the subs as one to the new AVR. If there are arguments against that, I'd be very interested to see them.


----------



## Teeeejay

brec said:


> I have two subs. I've used Multi-Sub Optimizer (MSO) to level-match, time-align, and EQ the subs with respect to each other. The MSO results are applied in a DSP in the subs amp between the AVR and the subs. The AVR does not have independent sub outputs, so I am running just one cable from it to the amp, and the splitting of that signal is done in the amp's DSP.
> 
> Next week I'll be upgrading the AVR to one with XT32 and Sub EQ HT. So I could run another cable from the AVR and let XT32/Sub EQ HT take care of level-matching, time-aligning, and EQing the subs, discarding the MSO results.
> 
> At this writing I'm inclined not to do that -- I'm inclined to retain the MSO results and present the subs as one to the new AVR. If there are arguments against that, I'd be very interested to see them.


The only reason you'd run two sub outs is for the receiver to control delay/EQ/gain independently. Since you're already doing that in the NX6000D, there's no need to run both sub outs on the receiver. I had the same amp as you before getting my FP20000Q and just used the one sub out.


----------



## primetimeguy

Teeeejay said:


> Crossover woes aside, I don't see any way to get a 6dB shelf filter on the mains and boost the LFE by 6dB. This might just be something I have to accept.


Simply create a full range curve for your mains that is up 6db at the frequency you desire. The crossover in place will impact the results but you will still get a rise that integrates better with your boosted sub level.


----------



## brec

Teeeejay said:


> The only reason you'd run two sub outs is for the receiver to control delay/EQ/gain independently. Since you're already doing that in the NX6000D, there's no need to run both sub outs on the receiver. I had the same amp as you before getting my FP20000Q and just used the one sub out.


Yes, that's my inclination. The only reason I can think of for letting Audyssey XT32 "replace" the NX's DSP w/r delay/EQ/gain is that the NX's DSP has "only" a net of 7 PEQ filters available (after the one I'm using as part of a protective high-pass). I don't know how this compares to XT32 granularity in the X3700H.

Perhaps I should not be so abstract and resolve to look at REW results of both approaches.


----------



## Sonic icons

Teeeejay, few more comments. You wrote: "I don't see any way to get a 6dB shelf filter on the mains and boost the LFE by 6dB".

To break this down: first, think about the effect of boosting the subwoofer level with basic AVR controls (without doing anything else). When you use the AVR's bass management, and boost the subwoofer level by +6 dB, you are boosting "redirected bass from LCR and surrounds" by +6 dB and also boosting "LFE channel" by +6 dB (because the "subwoofer channel" is a sum of "redirected bass" and "LFE channel"). You can't avoid boosting BOTH "redirected bass" and "LFE channel", as long as bass management is on.

Next, how about the effective increase in cross-over frequency caused by boosting the sub level? I believe you're completely correct there, this increase does occur. Most people who boost their sub (to a higher level than set by the auto calibration) just don't think about this issue! Your most accurate graph illustrating the effect should be your last with 24 dB LPF on sub and 12 dB HPF on mains. Reading from the graph, effective cross-over frequency increases *from 80 Hz to about 98 Hz with +6 dB sub boost*. There's a simple workaround if you like sub boost but don't want the higher cross-over frequency: simply reduce the nominal cross-over frequency to the next lower value, like 60 Hz (from 80 Hz).

Finally, how about the shelving filter? I believe that has a chance to make the subwoofer boost sound smoother or more "natural" by causing the boost to "turn on" more gradually with decreasing frequency. You should apply the same shelving filter (same parameters: gain, frequency, and Q factor) to your sub and to every "satellite" speaker (L C R and surrounds) that redirects bass to your sub. That will produce the smoothest transition.

If you are running either the MultEQ Editor app (for smartphone or tablet) or multEQ-X for Windows, your final step will be to manually boost the sub level in the AVR by +6 dB (if you didn't already do that). This might look like you're dialing in a total sub boost of +12 dB (sum of shelving filter and AVR sub level) but that isn't actually happening. Actually, you're just canceling out a "hidden" 6 dB cut to the subwoofer level that happened while running the calibration in Editor app or MQX.


----------



## Teeeejay

Sonic icons said:


> Teeeejay, few more comments. You wrote: "I don't see any way to get a 6dB shelf filter on the mains and boost the LFE by 6dB".
> 
> To break this down: first, think about the effect of boosting the subwoofer level with basic AVR controls (without doing anything else). When you use the AVR's bass management, and boost the subwoofer level by +6 dB, you are boosting "redirected bass from LCR and surrounds" by +6 dB and also boosting "LFE channel" by +6 dB (because the "subwoofer channel" is a sum of "redirected bass" and "LFE channel"). You can't avoid boosting BOTH "redirected bass" and "LFE channel", as long as bass management is on.
> 
> Next, how about the effective increase in cross-over frequency caused by boosting the sub level? I believe you're completely correct there, this increase does occur. Most people who boost their sub (to a higher level than set by the auto calibration) just don't think about this issue! Your most accurate graph illustrating the effect should be your last with 24 dB LPF on sub and 12 dB HPF on mains. Reading from the graph, effective cross-over frequency increases *from 80 Hz to about 98 Hz with +6 dB sub boost*. There's a simple workaround if you like sub boost but don't want the higher cross-over frequency: simply reduce the nominal cross-over frequency to the next lower value, like 60 Hz (from 80 Hz).
> 
> Finally, how about the shelving filter? I believe that has a chance to make the subwoofer boost sound smoother or more "natural" by causing the boost to "turn on" more gradually with decreasing frequency. You should apply the same shelving filter (same parameters: gain, frequency, and Q factor) to your sub and to every "satellite" speaker (L C R and surrounds) that redirects bass to your sub. That will produce the smoothest transition.
> 
> If you are running either the MultEQ Editor app (for smartphone or tablet) or multEQ-X for Windows, your final step will be to manually boost the sub level in the AVR by +6 dB (if you didn't already do that). This might look like you're dialing in a total sub boost of +12 dB (sum of shelving filter and AVR sub level) but that isn't actually happening. Actually, you're just canceling out a "hidden" 6 dB cut to the subwoofer level that happened while running the calibration in Editor app or MQX.


I guess I should have been more clear.

I want to apply a +6dB low shelf filter to all channels centered around 120Hz. The problem is that in doing so, with the sub boosted, I'm effectively boosting the LCR content below the crossover frequency by +12dB instead. 

At least that was my assumption, given the first question. I don't actually know if Audyssey is boosting the content going to each channel, or the channel output itself. 

Interestingly now I have a new problem. I figured I'd just try to measure what's going on since I'm home from work now. Apparently my curves in the MultEQ app are not actually applying. There is no difference in measurements between MultEQ set to Reference and Off, other than little bits here and there where Audyssey tried to smooth out the response. 

So there's another thing to figure out...


----------



## primetimeguy

Teeeejay said:


> I guess I should have been more clear.
> 
> I want to apply a +6dB low shelf filter to all channels centered around 120Hz. The problem is that in doing so, with the sub boosted, I'm effectively boosting the LCR content below the crossover frequency by +12dB instead.
> 
> At least that was my assumption, given the first question. I don't actually know if Audyssey is boosting the content going to each channel, or the channel output itself.
> 
> Interestingly now I have a new problem. I figured I'd just try to measure what's going on since I'm home from work now. Apparently my curves in the MultEQ app are not actually applying. There is no difference in measurements between MultEQ set to Reference and Off, other than little bits here and there where Audyssey tried to smooth out the response.
> 
> So there's another thing to figure out...


I can't think of a good way to explain it but you will not get the 12db boost. Just add your curves as you are saying and it should give you want you want.


----------



## Soulburner

Teeeejay said:


> Since we're getting caught up on charts, this is what 80Hz crossover looks like with 24dB/oct on the sub and 12dB/oct on the mains.


I believe your speakers are ported so that should be 24 dB on the speakers.


----------



## Soulburner

brec said:


> Yes, that's my inclination. The only reason I can think of for letting Audyssey XT32 "replace" the NX's DSP w/r delay/EQ/gain is that the NX's DSP has "only" a net of 7 PEQ filters available (after the one I'm using as part of a protective high-pass). I don't know how this compares to XT32 granularity in the X3700H.


Audyssey's filtering is far more granular than your PEQ capability. It's going to depend how much you need it.


----------



## brec

Soulburner said:


> Audyssey's filtering is far more granular than your PEQ capability. It's going to depend how much you need it.


OK, after my new AVR arrives I'll put on my engineer hat (that I bought on eBay) and take a REW look at both ways.


----------



## brec

brec said:


> The only reason I can think of for letting Audyssey XT32 "replace" the NX's DSP w/r delay/EQ/gain is that the NX's DSP has "only" a net of 7 PEQ filters available (after the one I'm using as part of a protective high-pass). I don't know how this compares to XT32 granularity in the X3700H.





Soulburner said:


> Audyssey's filtering is far more granular than your PEQ capability. It's going to depend how much you need it.





brec said:


> OK, after my new AVR arrives I'll put on my engineer hat (that I bought on eBay) and take a REW look at both ways.


But I just came across this in my notes: XT32/SubEQHT does subs align and level-matching from mic pos 1, but not independent EQ. Therefore the EQ filters granularity issue that I raised is irrelevant.

So now I'm again planning to use MSO's results in the NX's DSP and present the subs as a single speaker to the new AVR.


----------



## Teeeejay

primetimeguy said:


> I can't think of a good way to explain it but you will not get the 12db boost. Just add your curves as you are saying and it should give you want you want.


I have to test and see. I didn't get enough time yesterday to figure out why the curves aren't applying.



Soulburner said:


> I believe your speakers are ported so that should be 24 dB on the speakers.


This was just an example of crossover behavior, it didn't apply to any speakers specifically. Though you are right, but also they're tuned at about 55Hz so the aggressive downward slope would be pretty far below the 80Hz crossover anyway.


----------



## Soulburner

brec said:


> But I just came across this in my notes: XT32/SubEQHT does subs align and level-matching from mic pos 1, but not independent EQ. Therefore the EQ filters granularity issue that I raised is irrelevant.


It is very relevant.

The filter resolution is orders of magnitude greater. You have around 16,000 taps per channel compared to your 7.

In terms of independent EQ, subs should not be independently equalized. Their response combines into one in-room due to the long wavelengths and effects of the room dimensions. Therefore, the best practice is to get the best phase alignment you can, then run one EQ for the combined response.

MSO is usually used for a different purpose than Audyssey, so again you need to decide what suits your needs.


----------



## Horta

Hello Friends

I just started using MultiEQ-X and like it. Made a very noticeable improvement. But now seeing the sub graphs I feel it could be better, but I don't have the skill set to do the Biquad/Parametric adjustments you all talk about. If anyone has any tips or suggestions it would truly be appreciated.


----------



## brec

Soulburner said:


> It is very relevant.
> 
> The filter resolution is orders of magnitude greater. You have around 16,000 taps per channel compared to your 7.
> 
> In terms of independent EQ, subs should not be independently equalized. Their response combines into one in-room due to the long wavelengths and effects of the room dimensions. Therefore, the best practice is to get the best phase alignment you can, then run one EQ for the combined response.


SUMMARY: I don't understand how the number of possible EQ filters is relevant in the context in which I referred to it.

What I used MSO for was to EQ the subs independently with the target of flattening their combined response, plus phase-alignment and level-matching. I am thus going to depend on Audyssey to "run one EQ for the combined response."

If Audyssey does not EQ two subs independently -- indeed, as you say, it _should_ not -- then how is the number of possible EQ filters relevant to the question of whether I should use both AVR sub pre-out connectors and SubEQ-HT, or, instead, use just one pre-out and present the subs as one speaker to Audyssey? That's the only relevance that I was addressing.


----------



## brec

Horta said:


> Hello Friends
> 
> I just started using MultiEQ-X and like it. Made a very noticeable improvement. But now seeing the sub graphs I feel it could be better, but I don't have the skill set to do the Biquad/Parametric adjustments you all talk about. If anyone has any tips or suggestions it would truly be appreciated.
> 
> View attachment 3263368


It what way would you like it, i.e., the yellow After trace, to be better? Between 44 Hz, which you specified as the low EQ limit, and 200 Hz, above which crossovers should silence the subs, the largest peak-to-trough is about 3.5 dB.


----------



## Horta

Brec

Thank you for replying. Well there are dips at 80, 70, and 50 hz. I would prefer a smooth upward yellow line from 80 hz to the 30 hz peek.


----------



## brec

Horta said:


> Brec
> 
> Thank you for replying. Well there are dips at 80, 70, and 50 hz. I would prefer a smooth upward yellow line from 80 hz to the 30 hz peek.


Those troughs have already been lifted a lot from where they were originally. There are limits to the amount of "heavy lifting" that Audyssey can do, or more generally, that can be done within amp and speaker capabilities. I'll have to defer to more knowledgeable volunteers for possible details or suggestions.


----------



## Soulburner

Horta said:


> Hello Friends
> 
> I just started using MultiEQ-X and like it. Made a very noticeable improvement. But now seeing the sub graphs I feel it could be better, but I don't have the skill set to do the Biquad/Parametric adjustments you all talk about. If anyone has any tips or suggestions it would truly be appreciated.
> 
> View attachment 3263368


Whether you can or should try to fix your sub bass issues depends on the cause - is it because Audyssey didn't do a good job, or because of the physics of your space that can't be corrected with the current sub and seat placement? Normally it's the latter.


----------



## Soulburner

brec said:


> SUMMARY: I don't understand how the number of possible EQ filters is relevant in the context in which I referred to it.
> 
> What I used MSO for was to EQ the subs independently with the target of flattening their combined response, plus phase-alignment and level-matching. I am thus going to depend on Audyssey to "run one EQ for the combined response."
> 
> If Audyssey does not EQ two subs independently -- indeed, as you say, it _should_ not -- then how is the number of possible EQ filters relevant to the question of whether I should use both AVR sub pre-out connectors and SubEQ-HT, or, instead, use just one pre-out and present the subs as one speaker to Audyssey? That's the only relevance that I was addressing.


You are asking a question in the Audyssey thread, and in order to make an informed decision as to what method is best for you, you must compare the features and capabilities of the two approaches.

Was that not why you came here? This was your original post:



brec said:


> I have two subs. I've used Multi-Sub Optimizer (MSO) to level-match, time-align, and EQ the subs with respect to each other. The MSO results are applied in a DSP in the subs amp between the AVR and the subs. The AVR does not have independent sub outputs, so I am running just one cable from it to the amp, and the splitting of that signal is done in the amp's DSP.
> 
> Next week I'll be upgrading the AVR to one with XT32 and Sub EQ HT. So I could run another cable from the AVR and let XT32/Sub EQ HT take care of level-matching, time-aligning, and EQing the subs, discarding the MSO results.
> 
> At this writing I'm inclined not to do that -- I'm inclined to retain the MSO results and present the subs as one to the new AVR. If there are arguments against that, I'd be very interested to see them.


Also, as I mentioned before, the use case for MSO is more to find the best average for multiple seats. While Audyssey does that, MSO is reported to do it better. You need to decide what you want.


----------



## Gloum

Hello,

I've got a question about audyssey cal.

My setup is in my living room, we oftenly close glass doors to put AC on during movies.
Should I calibrate with the doors closed or open ? 

thank you !


----------



## Soulburner

Gloum said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've got a question about audyssey cal.
> 
> My setup is in my living room, we oftenly close glass doors to put AC on during movies.
> Should I calibrate with the doors closed or open?


Definitely closed. Can you put drapes over them?

Also can you share a picture?


----------



## DAEaton

Hey folks, good evening.


> I just replaced a Denon avr-1910 with a x3500h to be able to add a second sub. I have a Paradigm dsp-3100 sub and now with the new receiver, added a Paradigm Defiance x12. I never used Audessey with the old set up and after trying it for the first time last night, I definitely need some help to get things right. Each sub is the same distance from listening area and are in the front on either side of a TV. I set the x12 to -14db according to the manual (apparently the same as half power?) and made sure that the 3100 was also at half power and then ran Audyssey. The x12 was quiet, while the 3100 was noticeable louder, which made zero sense to me. The software had me turn the 3100 level down to what it measured as approx 75db, which at that point the volume knob was at about 25%. After running the software, Audessey changed my Paradigm 800fs and Monitor 7s to "Large" and the 3100 is now barely audible and is registered as being 26' from listening area, even though it is 13' and the x12 was registered at 13'.
> I am way over my head in this type of stuff and could use some help in as close to layman's terms as possible.
> Thank you very much in advance.
> 
> -Doug


----------



## bluesky636

DAEaton said:


> Hey folks, good evening.


1. You have two totally different subs so you can't expect settings on one to equal settings on the other.

2. Did you read the FAQ and Audyssey 101 at the beginning of this thread?

3. Since you are dealing specifically with dual sub setup you will probably do better posting your questions in this forum:









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com





4. Be sure to read the introduction in that forum before asking questions.


----------



## DAEaton

bluesky636 said:


> 1. You have two totally different subs so you can't expect settings on one to equal settings on the other.
> 
> 2. Did you read the FAQ and Audyssey 101 at the beginning of this thread?
> 
> 3. Since you are dealing specifically with dual sub setup you will probably do better posting your questions in this forum:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Be sure to





bluesky636 said:


> 1. You have two totally different subs so you can't expect settings on one to equal settings on the other.
> 
> 2. Did you read the FAQ and Audyssey 101 at the beginning of this thread?
> 
> 3. Since you are dealing specifically with dual sub setup you will probably do better posting your questions in this forum:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Be sure to read the introduction in that forum before asking questions.





bluesky636 said:


> 1. You have two totally different subs so you can't expect settings on one to equal settings on the other.
> 
> 2. Did you read the FAQ and Audyssey 101 at the beginning of this thread?
> 
> 3. Since you are dealing specifically with dual sub setup you will probably do better posting your questions in this forum:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Be sure to read the introduction in that forum before asking questions.


1. Yes, they are different. You are quite astute. It just seems odd that the smaller and underpowered sub would be louder than a larger and way more powerful sub at the same level, hence my inquiry.
2. No, I did not...as I was directed by another member to re-post here and that they would reply here.
3. See 2.
4. You must be real fun at get togethers.


----------



## bluesky636

DAEaton said:


> 1. Yes, they are different. You are quite astute. It just seems odd that the smaller and underpowered sub would be louder than a larger and way more powerful sub at the same level, hence my inquiry.
> 2. No, I did not...as I was directed by another member to re-post here and that they would reply here.
> 3. See 2.
> 4. You must be real fun at get togethers.


Your original post before you edited it:

"Holy feck dude. I joined this forum today...got directed to post here from some kind soul 1. Yes, they are different. You are quite astute. However, if you had taken time to check out the subs I listed you may have come to the same conclusion that it would seem odd that the smaller and..."

You have quite the attitude for a newbie and I wish you luck.


----------



## DAEaton

bluesky636 said:


> Your original post before you edited it:
> 
> "Holy feck dude. I joined this forum today...got directed to post here from some kind soul 1. Yes, they are different. You are quite astute. However, if you had taken time to check out the subs I listed you may have come to the same conclusion that it would seem odd that the smaller and..."
> 
> You have quite the attitude for a newbie and I wish you luck.


A good evening to you as well.


----------



## Rich 63

DAEaton said:


> 1. Yes, they are different. You are quite astute. It just seems odd that the smaller and underpowered sub would be louder than a larger and way more powerful sub at the same level, hence my inquiry.
> 2. No, I did not...as I was directed by another member to re-post here and that they would reply here.
> 3. See 2.
> 4. You must be real fun at get togethers.





DAEaton said:


> A good evening to you as well.


As @bluesky636 politely mentioned. The subs are not nearly the same performance levels making it somewhat difficult to integrate. I suspect he did look up both subs hence his statement. 
No harm in trying to use both but your going to have to do a lot of experimentation that might never result in satisfaction. 3100 sub near field might work. I normally recommend gain matching but if you go nearfild I'd follow audessey set up (level matching) and get each subs volume such that it is in the red by about 1/4" past the green. After aud run set all speakers to small and raise any speaker that is set below 80hz to 80hz leaving any above 80hz alone.
Run audessey in a completely *quiet *enviroment using the correct mic placements too.
Lots of this info is on this website btw.


----------



## DAEaton

Rich 63 said:


> As @bluesky636 politely mentioned. The subs are not nearly the same performance levels making it somewhat difficult to integrate. I suspect he did look up both subs hence his statement.
> No harm in trying to use both but your going to have to do a lot of experimentation that might never result in satisfaction. 3100 sub near field might work. I normally recommend gain matching but if you go nearfild I'd follow audessey set up (level matching) and get each subs volume such that it is in the red by about 1/4" past the green. After aud run set all speakers to small and raise any speaker that is set below 80hz to 80hz leaving any above 80hz alone.
> Run audessey in a completely *quiet *enviroment using the correct mic placements too.
> Lots of this info is on this website btw.


I will try running Aud. again as you suggested and switch speakers back and check hz. I'm starting to see that what I'm looking to do isn't simple and perhaps won't work. I had asked Paradigm if I could use both together and they said it was doable if properly set up, but didn't indicate the way to go about doing so.
Any thoughts on why Aud. Had me turn the smaller sub down to a point where it didn't recognize it at the proper distance?
Thank you for your response. Much appreciated.


----------



## DAEaton

bluesky636 said:


> Your original post before you edited it:
> 
> "Holy feck dude. I joined this forum today...got directed to post here from some kind soul 1. Yes, they are different. You are quite astute. However, if you had taken time to check out the subs I listed you may have come to the same conclusion that it would seem odd that the smaller and..."
> 
> You have quite the attitude for a newbie and I wish you luck.


@bluesky636
I may have mistaken your #2 and #4 as being dickish, when it wasn't meant to be. My apologies for my initial response.
Thank you for the link to sub set up.
-newbie


----------



## bluesky636

DAEaton said:


> @bluesky636
> I may have mistaken your #2 and #4 as being dickish, when it wasn't meant to be. My apologies for my initial response.
> Thank you for the link to sub set up.
> -newbie


Apology accepted. 

The people that started both the Audyssey and subwoofer calibration threads put a lot of time and effort into providing a ton of information that will probably answer 90+% of most people's questions. What is left typically deals with the specifics of a particular room and speaker configuration. To ignore that information does a disservice to their effort and makes it more difficult for a poster to ask questions. As the saying goes: RTFM, then ask questions. 

Goodluck in solving your issues.


----------



## Soulburner

DAEaton said:


> Any thoughts on why Aud. Had me turn the smaller sub down to a point where it didn't recognize it at the proper distance?


Different locations lead to different responses. There could be a peak in the smaller sub's response it was hearing.


----------



## Rich 63

DAEaton said:


> Any thoughts on why Aud. Had me turn the smaller sub down to a point where it didn't recognize it at the proper distance?


Your now seeing why the integration of 2 different subs can be problematic. 
As bluesky mentioned the linked thread is valuable to read. The reason sub distance is not real distance is explained. And I'm sure many other questions you may have are answered there too.


----------



## DAEaton

Thanks guys. I've already given the quick set-up version a read. Will go from there. Paradigm said to keep the dsp-3100 in with the Defiance x12 till I had the ability to add a 2nd, so I'll try to figure out how to make it work. So much of this is over my head, so I appreciate the link, but will take any personal experiences you'd be willing to share.
Much obliged.


----------



## Alan P

> I just replaced a Denon avr-1910 with a x3500h to be able to add a second sub. I have a Paradigm dsp-3100 sub and now with the new receiver, added a Paradigm Defiance x12. I never used Audessey with the old set up and after trying it for the first time last night, I definitely need some help to get things right. *Each sub is the same distance from listening area* and are in the front on either side of a TV.


Since the subs are the same distance from the MLP (Main Listening Position), you could try using a y-splitter off of a single sub out on the AVR. XT32's SubEQ HT (the part of Audyssey that sets separate distances and levels for dual subs) is not really that useful when the subs are equidistant to the MLP and some forum users have actually gotten better results by splitting the signal from a single sub out. YMMV, of course. This would require that you use an SPL meter to get the subs level matched before running Audyssey. Do you have an SPL meter?




> I set the x12 to -14db according to the manual (apparently *the same as half power*?) and made sure that the 3100 was *also at half power* and then ran Audyssey. *The x12 was quiet, while the 3100 was noticeable louder, which made zero sense to me*.


Gain structure on sub amps can vary wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer and even from model to model from the same manufacturer. "Half power" on one sub can be markedly louder/quieter than "half power" on another. This is expected and nothing to be concerned about ... and is also why Audyssey has you set different levels for each sub. 


Start reading Mike's awesome Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences, and then post up any question that come up in this thread (if it concerns Audyssey) or that thread (if it concerns general subwoofer setup). Good luck!


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> Start reading Mike's awesome Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences, and then post up any question that come up in this thread (if it concerns Audyssey) or that thread (if it concerns general subwoofer setup).


Mike's thread provides extensive information on the use of Audyssey in the setup of single or multiple subs and in my opinion is a better source of information and help than the general Audyssey thread.


----------



## rocky1

bluesky636 said:


> Mike's thread provides extensive information on the use of Audyssey in the setup of single or multiple subs and in my opinion is a better source of information and help than the general Audyssey thread.


i would like to read that. where can i find the link or could you provide it.. thx


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> i would like to read that. where can i find the link or could you provide it.. thx
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk











Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Alan P

bluesky636 said:


> Mike's thread provides extensive information on the use of Audyssey in the setup of single or multiple subs and in my opinion is a better source of information and help than the general Audyssey thread.


Well, you're not wrong.


----------



## rocky1

bluesky636 said:


> Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences
> 
> 
> The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


thx. Looks like alot of reading


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Alan P

rocky1 said:


> thx. Looks like alot of reading
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It is, but totally worth it. The Cliff Notes at the beginning cover a lot of the basics, though.


----------



## bluesky636

rocky1 said:


> thx. Looks like alot of reading
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Just start with the "Cliff Notes". They cover the most common questions. The rest is mostly about specific implementations.


----------



## Soulburner

Alan P said:


> Since the subs are the same distance from the MLP (Main Listening Position), you could try using a y-splitter off of a single sub out on the AVR. XT32's SubEQ HT (the part of Audyssey that sets separate distances and levels for dual subs) is not really that useful when the subs are equidistant to the MLP and some forum users have actually gotten better results by splitting the signal from a single sub out. YMMV, of course. This would require that you use an SPL meter to get the subs level matched before running Audyssey. Do you have an SPL meter?


If you do this, you may still want to adjust the phase on each sub to find the best result. That will require measuring the subs together and combined with speakers to ensure there are no bad phase interactions. I still don't recommend mixing different subs though.

Also note that the pink noise in the levels menu is incompatible with Audyssey so IMO they and the old-fashioned SPL meter are of little use.


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> Well, you're not wrong.


In my view, the physical act of running Audyssey is a piece of cake. Press the Start button and 15 minutes or so later you are done. The real complexity, particularly when dealing with subs, is finding the best location for the sub and initially setting levels (and balancing multiple subs) to get the best results with Audyssey. Many people don't realize or forget that Audyssey can't fix all problems (i.e. deep nulls) and needs proper setup for best results. Once all that is accomplished and a good run is achieved, just season to taste and voila! You now have a (hopefully) great sounding system.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> If you do this, you may still want to adjust the phase on each sub to find the best result. That will require measuring the subs together and combined with speakers to ensure there are no bad phase interactions. I still don't recommend mixing different subs though.
> 
> Also note that the pink noise in the levels menu is incompatible with Audyssey so IMO they and the old-fashioned SPL meter are of little use.


Plus the most common SPL meter, the old RatShack meter sucks at low frequencies without using a correction table. I haven't used mine in years. Not even sure where it is.


----------



## rocky1

bluesky636 said:


> Just start with the "Cliff Notes". They cover the most common questions. The rest is mostly about specific implementations.


thanks. I just added an identical sub last week. so running 5.2. I did re run audessy and sounds really good. Did do some minor stuff like change crossover and sub level. sounds great maybe i wont do any add’ll changes. but good to have


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

bluesky636 said:


> In my view, the physical act of running Audyssey is a piece of cake. Press the Start button and 15 minutes or so later you are done. The real complexity, particularly when dealing with subs, is finding the best location for the sub and initially setting levels (and balancing multiple subs) to get the best results with Audyssey. Many people don't realize or forget that Audyssey can't fix all problems (i.e. deep nulls) and needs proper setup for best results. Once all that is accomplished and a good run is achieved, just season to taste and voila! You now have a (hopefully) great sounding system.


Yes, but it takes a while to*:*

Acoustically treat the room, first.
Read and think about Mike's "Cliff Notes" section, probably more.
As you say, find the best place(s) for the sub(s).
Optimize the 8 positions for either one listener, or two, or more, depending on the usual listening position(s) in the home.
Make sure that the microphone is pointing straight up for each of the 8 positions, as sighted from two directions 90 degrees apart, or as adjusted with a compatible level.
Repeat, if the sound isn't what you want it to be.


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> Yes, but it takes a while to*:*
> 
> Acoustically treat the room, first.
> Read and think about Mike's "Cliff Notes" section, probably more.
> As you say, find the best place(s) for the sub(s).
> Optimize the 8 positions for either one listener, or two, or more, depending on the usual listening position(s) in the home.
> Make sure that the microphone is pointing straight up for each of the 8 positions, as sighted from two directions 90 degrees apart, or as adjusted with a compatible level.
> Repeat, if the sound isn't what you want it to be.


That's all part of "proper setup" that I alluded to.


----------



## MagnumX

What do people think of frequency limiting Audyssey beyond the well known Schroeder frequency to say the 5kHz range limit Genesis ARC uses? 

I had been using Audyssey full range with reasonably nice looking REW results (see attachment) and I tried a limit of around 280Hz which calculations suggested was the approximate Schroeder limit for the room, but decided I preferred full range, even for arrays used in the room turned on (seems to average the response well).

But I've been reading up on the Anthem AVM70 and AVM90 (Genesis ARC) as well as the Monoprice HTP-1 (DIRAC) as possible upgrades to go near full discrete and both lines seem to have some issues and Anthem has no Auro support (I have over 30 native Auro titles do that leans me more to Monoprice, but the unavailability factor is an issue as well as no DTS:X Pro to use the extra channels (goes for both). 

Anyway, the question of the room correction system came up and while most seem to prefer DIRAC, there's definitely a few ARC fans and one thing I noticed there is that it limits correction to below 5kHz due to it being more of a phase mess above that than anything else. Given phase directivity is possibly higher in some mid to higher frequency ranges, I wondered if running Audyssey full range might be impairing imaging somewhat. 

Just turning it off was a bit distracting as the bass changes were immediately apparent and not for the better. So I thought I'd adjust the bandwidth in the app to 5kHz. What I didn't consider was that it would change all the default level/distance and even speaker size settings in the process. I should have written them down first. I use "Scatmos" for example, so levels and distances have to be even for those channels to extract properly, etc. 

After everything seemed stable again, it wasn't like I could just A/B switch back and forth to compare so I'm afraid audio memory could affect perceptual bias. 

However, it certainly seemed like imaging was a bit more defined and spread more evenly with ceiling sounds more well defined and even Tori Amos' voice seemed clearer and more intelligible on her new album, but it could all be my imagination with no quick way to compare, let alone blind testing. 

So I'm curious if others have tried the Anthem ARC limit of 5kHz with Audyssey and how they thought the results compared to full range reference and/or a Schroeder limited frequency range results. 

Thanks.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> What do people think of frequency limiting Audyssey beyond the well known Schroeder frequency to say the 5kHz range limit Genesis ARC uses?
> 
> I had been using Audyssey full range with reasonably nice looking REW results (see attachment) and I tried a limit of around 280Hz which calculations suggested was the approximate Schroeder limit for the room, but decided I preferred full range, even for arrays used in the room turned on (seems to average the response well).
> 
> But I've been reading up on the Anthem AVM70 and AVM90 (Genesis ARC) as well as the Monoprice HTP-1 (DIRAC) as possible upgrades to go near full discrete and both lines seem to have some issues and Anthem has no Auro support (I have over 30 native Auro titles do that leans me more to Monoprice, but the unavailability factor is an issue as well as no DTS:X Pro to use the extra channels (goes for both).
> 
> Anyway, the question of the room correction system came up and while most seem to prefer DIRAC, there's definitely a few ARC fans and one thing I noticed there is that it limits correction to below 5kHz due to it being more of a phase mess above that than anything else. Given phase directivity is possibly higher in some mid to higher frequency ranges, I wondered if running Audyssey full range might be impairing imaging somewhat.
> 
> Just turning it off was a bit distracting as the bass changes were immediately apparent and not for the better. So I thought I'd adjust the bandwidth in the app to 5kHz. What I didn't consider was that it would change all the default level/distance and even speaker size settings in the process. I should have written them down first. I use "Scatmos" for example, so levels and distances have to be even for those channels to extract properly, etc.
> 
> After everything seemed stable again, it wasn't like I could just A/B switch back and forth to compare so I'm afraid audio memory could affect perceptual bias.
> 
> However, it certainly seemed like imaging was a bit more defined and spread more evenly with ceiling sounds more well defined and even Tori Amos' voice seemed clearer and more intelligible on her new album, but it could all be my imagination with no quick way to compare, let alone blind testing.
> 
> So I'm curious if others have tried the Anthem ARC limit of 5kHz with Audyssey and how they thought the results compared to full range reference and/or a Schroeder limited frequency range results.
> 
> Thanks.


Chris K recommends full range so I use full range.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> ... the question of the room correction system came up and while most seem to prefer DIRAC, there's definitely a few ARC fans and one thing I noticed there is that it limits correction to below 5kHz *due to it being more of a phase mess above that *...





bluesky636 said:


> *Chris K recommends full range so I use full range*.


*Same here*.

If you have the inclination and the energy, might as well try it, but please be sure to use *many recordings*, over *many* _*days *_on which to base your judgement. If you listen to several types of music, be sure to include them all. Different mic positions (think of the Decca Tree v.s. two solitary mics v.s. a variety of close mic positions) in the recording venue, may make a difference in the "phase mess" you encounter at home. For music listening, I sometimes get better imaging with my three front channels, and sometimes with the center channel turned off. I'm told that this might be due to the original mic configuration. And, conceivably, the "phase mess" might sound good, supplementing the complexity of the sound of the venue.
Of course, a lot of important stuff happens above 5K that imaging depends on*; *most listening rooms and HTs absorb a fair amount of high frequency energy anyway. Audyssey and some of the others might partially correct for that. Below, in _Stereophile's _John Atkinson's *listening room*, here are two curves that should "correlate reasonably well with a speaker's perceived tonal balance," according to Atkinson. I suspect that I would not be too fond of the high frequency response, or the imaging of either one, although some would love them. Incidenteley, the Yg (*red*) was running about $100,000 a pair, for a complete set of modules. With properly functioning Audyssey, the listener would have a choice of Audyssey FLAT, or Audyssey REFERENCE (selected _AFTER_ Audyssey is run), which would start a gentle roll-off at about 7K, down to -2 dB at 10K, and -6 dB at 20K, which is brighter (more analytical?? with better imaging ??), than either of the two speakers shown, in JA's room. I'd definitely want to try Aud Flat v. Aud Ref, with Audyssey's initial smoothing all the way up. On my Marantz pre-pro, you can A/B those two settings, then go around and repeat.









Fig.8 YGA Sonja 1.3, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room (red); and of Vandersteen Treo (blue).


----------



## MagnumX

One complaint some have made against Audyssey, particularly in the "Flat" mode is that high frequency energy is absorbed faster in rooms than lower frequencies and by making response flat at the listening position it's essentially turning up those frequencies. The problem is neither the speakers or the mixing room likely had flat frequency response at the mixing chair. 

In other words, it's _supposed_ to roll off above 5kHz (and much more so above 10kHz). If you flatten response, it's going to sound very harsh by comparison as it will have those high frequencies boosted. 

Audyssey seems to take this into account somewhat as the default mode is "reference" not "flat" and reference purposely rolls off the highs starting oddly enough on my XT32 app at about 5kHz. I imagine flat mode would sound good playing recordings mixed using headphones if there is such a thing as those actually are flat if used in mixing, unlike real speakers in a real room. 

I suppose the real question is how the natural rolloff of a given speaker compares to whatever level of correction is applied even at the reference level and whether those corrections affects phase in an audible way or not. Opinions are often just hearsay and unreliable compared to double blind testing.

But then there's also near field mixing (common now for soundtrack remixed for the home environment) and far field mixing used with a layout closer to an actual movie theater. Far Field loses a lot of high frequency energy and so mixes tend to have boosted treble which can then sound harsh at home in smaller rooms that don't lose nearly as much high frequency energy. In the old days, this is why THX introduced RE-EQ (often called Cinema EQ on other brands), which filters out some of that high frequency sound. The problem is they don't actually flag which soundtracks are near or far field so you're left to guess. Some studios moved to near field home soundtracks before others. 

I think I read Paramount continued using cinema mixes at home for some time, which might explain why I can play the original Blu-ray release of Raiders of the Lost Ark at reference volume when many other movies are too loud sounding. That's because they also tend to reduce dynamic range on home mixes these days, playing dialog much louder, limiting how loud you can stand to play sound effects. 

For example, I measured a 8dB difference between the Cinema DTS (AptX) version of The Matrix and the Dolby Digital/TrueHD (and more recently Atmos) versions of the soundtrack with respect to large sound effects like explosions with dialog levels matched. Suffice to say, the experience lacks on the Atmos version in sheer realism as a result. 

There's a similar 6dB difference in the Auro-3D version of Twister compared to the Atmos version matched for dialog. Suffice to say, I preferred the Auro-3D version as things like roofs getting ripped off sound much scarier at higher volume levels, but the louder dialog makes the Atmos version painful to listen to if you match the sound effect instead.

Anyway, the bottom line is the type of recording and how it was mixed can also affect how a given Audyssey mode sounds. I've heard some music that sounds good in flat mode and some that reminds me of fingernails being scraped on a chalkboard and some really harsh recordings that benefit from extra filtering being applied (Cinema EQ can suffice, but its only an option if a surround upmixer mode is used). I can't help but wonder if such recordings were mixed with really close range monitors or even by someone with hearing loss. 

As for whether limiting Audyssey to 5kHz or some setting between Schroeder and full range may sound better, I'm still not certain. Higher frequencies are much shorter wavelength differences (just moving your head slightly with sine wave test tones playing make that obvious) and so how much correction is even needed at those frequencies comes into question as room modes aren't to blame and room treatments can be highly effective at higher frequencies. If correction does alter phase significantly, the question is whether it's worth doing if an alternative (like room treatment) is effective without altering phase.


----------



## bluesky636

We always talk about the *listening room* when we talk about using Reference or Flat, limiting correction to Schroeder frequency and below, and now limiting correction to 5KHz and below. But we never talk about the *listener *themselves.

My room is fairly large. To the left of the front speakers are floor to ceiling built in bookshelves filled with books, CDs_, _Blu-rays, and random pieces of other stuff I have collected over the years. To the right of the front speakers is .... nothing. The room opens up to another large room and the kitchen. 

My four surround speakers (7.1 system) are mounted up at the wall/ceiling juncture (no place to mount them lower) of the cathedral ceiling, and are Polk bipole speakers. I have found after years of listening that I prefer bipolar vs direct radiators for surround due to the way they fill the room with sound. I would probably use bipolar for Atmos if my room were compatible with Atmos, but that's another issue. 

I have been using Audyssey Flat for several years now for two main reasons:

1. The front LCRs are the only speakers pointed at the MLP and my ears. Polls are fairly smooth sounding in the treble.

2. My ears are 68 years old and have significant high frequency loss. I first noticed that while watching concert videos and found I could barely hear the cymbals and things just sounded dull overall. My wife claims to have better hearing than I do but she doesn't complain about the sound being bright or harsh, just loud. To my ears the sound of movies and concerts (CD or Blu-ray) sounds nicely balanced in the highs. I could try Cinema EQ instead of Reference but just have never gotten around to it.

Bottom line, to me full range Flat sounds best. There are only 3 seats in our room (mine is the MLP) and the other two (including my wife's seat) are off axis enough to cut the highs anyway.

When I was younger and my ears were better, I made more of an effort to get the room "sounding right". Now I am happy if to me my ears hear right.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> What do people think of frequency limiting Audyssey beyond the well known Schroeder frequency to say the 5kHz range limit Genesis ARC uses?


Because what you hear depends on the final frequency response; and given that every set of speakers has a different starting point and therefore different equalization needs; and given that the room and speaker placement within that room are the final modifiers of what you hear - there are no general rules that can be defined for frequency range cutoffs, especially above the room transition frequency.



MagnumX said:


> What I didn't consider was that it would change all the default level/distance and even speaker size settings in the process.


Rest assured that Audyssey does not use sound beyond 5 kHz for its level matching and it won't affect speaker distances, either.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> My four surround speakers (7.1 system) are mounted up at the wall/ceiling juncture (no place to mount them lower) of the cathedral ceiling, and are Polk bipole speakers. I have found after years of listening that I prefer bipolar vs direct radiators for surround due to the way they fill the room with sound. I would probably use bipolar for Atmos if my room were compatible with Atmos, but that's another issue.


I think bipoles get a bad rap in the Atmos era. Dolby doesn't recommend dipoles. I don't think they ever said anything about bipoles. There are different types as well and things change with how they're used as well.

Front/Back bipoles used for extra spatial openness in say the front or back are fine. Even dipoles can be used in home theater if you have sufficient space behind them. I used Carver AL-III ribbons in a 5.1 system just fine. The other speakers weren't a great match, but sounded fine with movies and there wasn't much multichannel music back then. Now if you sit in the middle side you can have imaging problems, but still less than dipoles.

There's also the angled type meant to mount on the side walls and if placed between rows, the basically just act like a two speaker array monopole (face one side towards one row and the other towards the other). These image fine that way.

That brings up another cinema used construction most people don't use at home, speaker arrays. The array probably gets a bad rap in Atmos because people want "discrete" everything, but IMO a 5.1 base setup is insufficient to smoothly pan a full circle in many rooms. There's a great article on this on the Wendy Carlos site about pitfalls of surround sound and why Quad failed. 

Just adding an extra set of speakers playing an arrayed (copy) or summed signal can make a big difference in smooth imaging transitions because any angle above 70 degrees (azimuth at least; elevation seems a bit different in tests here) starts to have phantom imaging gaps and they only get larger with greater angles. It's why "Heights" have direct overhead gap difficulties without Top Middle added. Tops alone are already pushing 90 degrees. Heights are 120 degrees apart at 30/150. Throw in Top Middle and you're at only 60 degrees and they work fine.



> I have been using Audyssey Flat for several years now for two main reasons:


I've also found Audyssey can vary how it sounds quite a bit on the high end just doing two different calibrations and I think it's because the mic is in slightly different locations and with high null zones being mere inches apart, you might get unlucky with a set of peaks or dips 8n a row instead of an average and Audyssey will over or under compensate as a result. 

Bass and midrange is much more consistent as the wavelengths are so much larger. That's another reason limiting Audyssey's range might be helpful instead of running calibration after calibration hoping to get lucky with a nice even result. Even REW results can vary on the high end if you move the mic a bit. Given most room issues are easily tamed on the high end, limiting Audyssey to say 5kHz might be more reliable. I think that's something Genesis ARC realized a long time ago.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> I think bipoles get a bad rap in the Atmos era. Dolby doesn't recommend dipoles. I don't think they ever said anything about bipoles. There are different types as well and things change with how they're used as well.
> 
> Front/Back bipoles used for extra spatial openness in say the front or back are fine. Even dipoles can be used in home theater if you have sufficient space behind them. I used Carver AL-III ribbons in a 5.1 system just fine. The other speakers weren't a great match, but sounded fine with movies and there wasn't much multichannel music back then. Now if you sit in the middle side you can have imaging problems, but still less than dipoles.
> 
> There's also the angled type meant to mount on the side walls and if placed between rows, the basically just act like a two speaker array monopole (face one side towards one row and the other towards the other). These image fine that way.
> 
> That brings up another cinema used construction most people don't use at home, speaker arrays. The array probably gets a bad rap in Atmos because people want "discrete" everything, but IMO a 5.1 base setup is insufficient to smoothly pan a full circle in many rooms. There's a great article on this on the Wendy Carlos site about pitfalls of surround sound and why Quad failed.
> 
> Just adding an extra set of speakers playing an arrayed (copy) or summed signal can make a big difference in smooth imaging transitions because any angle above 70 degrees (azimuth at least; elevation seems a bit different in tests here) starts to have phantom imaging gaps and they only get larger with greater angles. It's why "Heights" have direct overhead gap difficulties without Top Middle added. Tops alone are already pushing 90 degrees. Heights are 120 degrees apart at 30/150. Throw in Top Middle and you're at only 60 degrees and they work fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I've also found Audyssey can vary how it sounds quite a bit on the high end just doing two different calibrations and I think it's because the mic is in slightly different locations and with high null zones being mere inches apart, you might get unlucky with a set of peaks or dips 8n a row instead of an average and Audyssey will over or under compensate as a result.
> 
> Bass and midrange is much more consistent as the wavelengths are so much larger. That's another reason limiting Audyssey's range might be helpful instead of running calibration after calibration hoping to get lucky with a nice even result. Even REW results can vary on the high end if you move the mic a bit. Given most room issues are easily tamed on the high end, limiting Audyssey to say 5kHz might be more reliable. I think that's something Genesis ARC realized a long time ago.


With my bipoles as mounted, they fire into the room as well as bounce sound off the walls. Combined with the front speakers I get a 360 degree sound field around me that also runs from the ceiling to about shoulder level and sometimes below. Helicopters may not circle around me but fly directly overhead from front to back (and vice versa) or side to side. Bullets will cause you to duck. I never had that feeling using monopoles as surrounds. 

I don't use REW. I don't listen to frequency plots, relying on my ears as the final arbiter. Audyssey XT32 does a great job in my room.


----------



## Andy3105

Has anyone found that the Multeq App sets crossovers differently than the AVR itself....?


----------



## pbz06

Andy3105 said:


> Has anyone found that the Multeq App sets crossovers differently than the AVR itself....?


No, it's been consistent for me. My guess would be that some of your speaker's in-room response is at a threshold so subtle mic placement variances might report slightly different F3 so your avr would ser to slightly different crossovers. For example, if measured at 79hz it might set to 80hz. However, if measured at 81hz, it might set to 90hz. Just an extreme example but you get the point. 

BTW, Audyssey actually doesn't set crossovers. I know it's mostly semantics, but all it does is report the F3 point of the in room speaker response, and the avr sets it based on that info. Some AVRs are more conservative etc. Audyssey recommends raising crossovers to 80hz and not lowering anything higher.


----------



## CBdicX

Hello, I have 2 subs (Gallo Profile) almost side by side, just 30cm between the subs.
I do have 2 subs out on my Denon X4700H but one sub out is in use for Auro3D, the TS speaker.

If I want to eq both subs I need sub out 1 & 2 but then I must give op the TS.

Having 2 subs so close to each other, is there any benefit in doing sub EQ for both, or will a Y-splitter on one sub out be also ok in this situation and keep the TS ?


----------



## Alan P

CBdicX said:


> Having 2 subs so close to each other, i*s there any benefit in doing sub EQ for both, or will a Y-splitter on one sub out be also ok in this situation* and keep the TS ?


With the subs so close together, they are what is known as "mutually coupled", i.e. they are essentially a single sub. Using a y-splitter in your situation is perfectly fine.

Just a point of clarification; Audyssey's Sub EQ HT does not EQ each sub separately, it sets separate levels and distances, but they are EQ'ed as a single "sub system".

Question; what is a "TS"?


----------



## mrtickleuk

Alan P said:


> With the subs so close together, they are what is know as "mutually coupled", i.e. they are essentially a single sub. Using a y-splitter in your situation is perfectly fine.
> 
> Just a point of clarification; Audyssey's Sub EQ HT does not EQ each sub separately, it sets separate levels and distances, but they are EQ'ed as a single "sub system".
> 
> Question; what is a "TS"?


I'm completely guessing: Top Surround maybe. He wrote "the" TS Speaker. It could be the _so-called_ "voice of god" speaker.


----------



## Alan P

mrtickleuk said:


> I'm completely guessing: Top Surround maybe. He wrote "the" TS Speaker. It could be the _so-called_ "voice of god" speaker.


That was my first guess as well, but it would make no sense to run that off of a subwoofer pre-out. Maybe some sort of tactile transducer...??


----------



## mrtickleuk

Alan P said:


> That was my first guess as well, but it would make no sense to run that off of a subwoofer pre-out. Maybe some sort of tactile transducer...??


He said he has a Denon AVRX4700H. From their manual:





Amp Assign AVR-X4700H







manuals.denon.com


----------



## Alan P

mrtickleuk said:


> He said he has a Denon AVRX4700H. From their manual:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amp Assign AVR-X4700H
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manuals.denon.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3273719


Well dam, never knew! Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## DAEaton

Hey guys. Wanted to say thanks for the help and suggestions that several of you gave me a couple weeks ago. I dug deep and purchased a 2nd Defiance X12, to eliminate some of the issues I was having with Audyssey from trying to use two different subs.
I haven't been able to find an answer in the audyssey 101, so maybe one of you has a similar situation with room layout and can guide me.
The denon x3500h is using 8 points of measurement, two of which are behind the left and right mlp. My room is such that the back of the couch is within 2' of the wall, with surrounds on either side. Audyssey article states repeatedly to make sure all readings are made from min 2' from walls. I dont have a mic boom, so despite not being advised, I set the mic on the back of the couch for those two measurements and may still be closer to the wall than preferable. Even though the couch is approx 13' from the TV/speakers, moving the couch and surrounds forward isn't really an option. Happy wife, happy life. Should I go with what I've done, or is there a way to eliminate those back two points from the calibration? Is there a lesser of two evils or better way to go about this because of the couch/wall proximity?
Thanks once again for your input,
Doug


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> Well dam, never knew! Thanks for pointing that out.


TS seems weird if connected to a sub out because frequencies that low (< 80 Hz) are practically non directional.


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> TS seems weird if connected to a sub out because frequencies that low (< 80 Hz) are practically non directional.


Did you read the link that was posted? However Denon does it, obviously that one sub channel becomes full range.


----------



## Soulburner

My take is that the AVR is just reassigning that pre out and it is functionally the same as any other pre out. Like a MiniDSP.


----------



## Easley

Quick question about delays set by Audyssey in my Denon 6700 (note this is not the common sub distance question!). Does Audyssey put in a general delay for surrounds compared to the LCR's?

The physical distances it comes up with for LCR and surrounds are spot on when measuring with a tape. But REW measurements with a calibrated UMIK-1 are telling me the surrounds are 1ms (1ft 30cm) delayed compared to the LCR's. This is determined by placing the mic at the MLP, using one of the surrounds as an acoustic timing reference, then taking a measurement of say the left speaker. The impulse response "should" show the left speaker at t=0, but its showing it about t=-1ms, meaning the surround speaker (which is closer to the MLP) seems to be delayed by that amount. These offsets hold for any combo of measured speaker or chosen timing reference. Its super consistent.

As an academic test I manually adjusted the left speaker delay in the AVR to bring it into alignment with the surround speaker (my timing reference), and it does bring up the combined SPL of both speakers playing together (determined by REW measurement of them playing together). Which I would think (in my very limited experience) means adjusting the delay fixed some phasing issues between the speakers.

Any thought here? I feel like this 1ft of difference is not really that big deal psychophysically. But I plan to start adding up to 4 subs in the room, and want to get a handle on how things works since phase alignment is important.


----------



## bluesky636

Easley said:


> Quick question about delays set by Audyssey in my Denon 6700 (note this is not the common sub distance question!). Does Audyssey put in a general delay for surrounds compared to the LCR's?
> 
> The physical distances it comes up with for LCR and surrounds are spot on when measuring with a tape. But REW measurements with a calibrated UMIK-1 are telling me the surrounds are 1ms (1ft 30cm) delayed compared to the LCR's. This is determined by placing the mic at the MLP, using one of the surrounds as an acoustic timing reference, then taking a measurement of say the left speaker. The impulse response "should" show the left speaker at t=0, but its showing it about t=-1ms, meaning the surround speaker (which is closer to the MLP) seems to be delayed by that amount. These offsets hold for any combo of measured speaker or chosen timing reference. Its super consistent.
> 
> As an academic test I manually adjusted the left speaker delay in the AVR to bring it into alignment with the surround speaker (my timing reference), and it does bring up the combined SPL of both speakers playing together (determined by REW measurement of them playing together). Which I would think (in my very limited experience) means adjusting the delay fixed some phasing issues between the speakers.
> 
> Any thought here? I feel like this 1ft of difference is not really that big deal psychophysically. But I plan to start adding up to 4 subs in the room, and want to get a handle on how things works since phase alignment is important.


Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Are you expecting the delays for each speaker to be the same because they won't necessarily be that way unless they are all exactly the same distance from the MLP. Audyssey measures the delay for each speaker individually and sets it to that value.

As far as comparing delays measured by Audyssey and REW, how do you know that the two mics are in EXACTLY the same spot? How do you know that the measurement tolerances of Audyssey and REW are EXACTLY the same?

I would not expect phasing issues to be audible or even really to exist between LCRs and surrounds unless each is playing exactly the same signal of exactly the same level at exactly the same time. With subs you are concerned with phasing issues at the crossover point between speakers and subs.

I think you are overthinking all of this.


----------



## Easley

bluesky636 said:


> Not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Are you expecting the delays for each speaker to be the same because they won't necessarily be that way unless they are all exactly the same distance from the MLP. Audyssey measures the delay for each speaker individually and sets it to that value.


Mainly just trying to learn as much as I can before adding additional subs to my system. As I mentioned I admit this wont mean much when it comes to perception of the differences in real life.

Yeah I agree the delays/distances are dependent on the measuring positions. But I am placing the initial Audyssey mic pos and REW mic within 1in of each other for these tests. Seems like 12in of difference is a lot. And the results come from many many days of trying different setups. It's always the same. Just would love to know why. I admit it could be my methods are at fault here, but I talked the developer of REW and he convinced me REW is correct here.



bluesky636 said:


> I think you are overthinking all of this.


You have talked to my wife it sounds like


----------



## bluesky636

Easley said:


> Mainly just trying to learn as much as I can before adding additional subs to my system. As I mentioned I admit this wont mean much when it comes to perception of the differences in real life.
> 
> Yeah I agree the delays/distances are dependent on the measuring positions. But I am placing the initial Audyssey mic pos and REW mic within 1in of each other for these tests. Seems like 12in of difference is a lot. And the results come from many many days of trying different setups. It's always the same. Just would love to know why. I admit it could be my methods are at fault here, but I talked the developer of REW and he convinced me REW is correct here.
> 
> 
> 
> You have talked to my wife it sounds like


Of course the REW developer said REW is correct. I'm willing to bet that the Audyssey developer would say that Audyssey is correct. You are comparing two entirely different measurement systems who work differently and have different tolerances. It is logical to assume that results will be different. 

Your wife knows you better than I do.


----------



## Easley

bluesky636 said:


> Of course the REW developer said REW is correct. I'm willing to bet that the Audyssey developer would say that Audyssey is correct. You are comparing two entirely different measurement systems who work differently and have different tolerances. It is logical to assume that results will be different.
> 
> Your wife knows you better than I do.


Ok clearly your input is that I should assume there is no issue. I get it. And no one should attempt to validate results with other tools (because of tolerances?). But some come to avsforum to learn and some to share their expertise and experience. Let's say this was an actual bug I have have found, then communicating about it is how we learn. That said I very much doubt I have found a bug, it's likely just not understanding the system. Again, its why I am asking questions.


----------



## bluesky636

Easley said:


> Ok clearly your input is that I should assume there is no issue. I get it. And no one should attempt to validate results with other tools (because of tolerances?). But some come to avsforum to learn and some to share their expertise and experience. Let's say this was an actual bug I have have found, then communicating about it is how we learn. That said I very much doubt I have found a bug, it's likely just not understanding the system. Again, its why I am asking questions.





Easley said:


> Any thought here?


You asked if anyone had any thoughts about your question. You got mine. Do whatever you want. I don't care.


----------



## Easley

Thought I would share my measurements in case someone found them helpful.

This is an impulse graph showing the moment the signal is detected, and shows the difference in distances I am talking about. The black trace is the reference speaker (Sur Right Ref), as expected its at t=0 (x axis). The 3 traces to the left are the LCRs arriving ~850ms early. The mic in these measurements was at the same location the Audyssey mic was during calibration. I even reran Audyssey and left the mic in the same exact spot for all 3 measurements just to see if it was related to that, and it wasn't.










And here is a frequency response graph with the result of me adjusting the AVR delay in the left speaker to align with the reference speaker (Sur Right (Ref)), i.e. both reporting at t=0. This graph shows playing just the Left (green), then just the SurRight (purple), then playing both the Left+SurRight at the same time before the delay fix (orange), then Left+SurRight after the delay fix (purple). Notice the increased SPL across much of the < 1kHz (1ft/1ms wavelength) spectrum in the purple, I think indicating better phase alignment between them. The dips are the places there is natural out of phase alignment.










Again I realize this doesn't mean lot for actual listening since minor shifts in where you sit end up moving phase around anyway. My question is just an academic one about why the rears seems to be delayed in general, and if this is just an Audyssey feature.


----------



## bluesky636

Easley said:


> My question is just an academic one about why the rears seems to be delayed in general, and if this is just an Audyssey feature.


As I said previously, that is how Audyssey works. It measures delay (and level) individually for each speaker.


----------



## Easley

Right, I understand why the delays exist... My question is why the rears seem to be delayed "more" than needed (my previous posts have repeated this). The AVR is allowing sound from the front LCRs to arrive at the measuring position before the rears, even though the distances in the AVR are spot on when checked physically. This can be confirmed by noting the increased SPL output of the system when they are brought into alignment (with both speakers playing). Not saying this increase is desired or beneficial, I am just saying its confirming, at least in my mind, that the delays as reported in the AVR are not what is actually being implemented in the signal path.


----------



## bluesky636

Easley said:


> Right, I understand why the delays exist... My question is why the rears seem to be delayed "more" than needed (my previous posts have repeated this). The AVR is allowing sound from the front LCRs to arrive at the measuring position before the rears, even though the distances in the AVR are spot on when checked physically. This can be confirmed by noting the increased SPL output of the system when they are brought into alignment (with both speakers playing). Not saying this increase is desired or beneficial, I am just saying its confirming, at least in my mind, that the delays as reported in the AVR are not what is actually being implemented in the signal path.


I give up. It's obvious you don't understand how Audyssey works and why it works the way it does. There is plenty of material at the beginning of this thread and in the original Audyssey thread as well as from the Audyssey Zendesk that explains all this. Perhaps you should do a little research.


----------



## MagnumX

Easley said:


> Right, I understand why the delays exist... My question is why the rears seem to be delayed "more" than needed (my previous posts have repeated this). The AVR is allowing sound from the front LCRs to arrive at the measuring position before the rears, even though the distances in the AVR are spot on when checked physically. This can be confirmed by noting the increased SPL output of the system when they are brought into alignment (with both speakers playing). Not saying this increase is desired or beneficial, I am just saying its confirming, at least in my mind, that the delays as reported in the AVR are not what is actually being implemented in the signal path.


Why don't you try measuring the distances yourself, inputting those measurements and see if it lines up any better? That should tell you whether or not the automated system did it correctly. Contrary to Mr. Cloudy Skies, Audyssey's actual _purpose_ is not really to measure your speakers for you. That's just a side benefit. The fact Audyssey gets phase wrong from reflections and arrays and often sets speakers to large/small wrong as well ought to tell you it's not perfect under less than perfect conditions and that means it can make a mistake whether someone else believes it or not.



bluesky636 said:


> *I give up.*


Thank God, but somehow I doubt you will be able to stop yourself from replying. 

_How_ they are measured is meaningless. The end result is what matters and there's clearly a delay that doesn't belong there in the end result. You seem to want to imply REW doesn't do accurate measurements or that in the Audyssey "Universe" mismatched delays are somehow "normal". It is not.


----------



## Easley

MagnumX said:


> Why don't you try measuring the distances yourself, inputting those measurements and see if it lines up any better? That should tell you whether or not the automated system did it correctly. Contrary to Mr. Cloudy Skies, Audyssey's actual _purpose_ is not really to measure your speakers for you. That's just a side benefit. The fact Audyssey gets phase wrong from reflections and arrays and often sets speakers to large/small wrong as well ought to tell you it's not perfect under less than perfect conditions and that means it can make a mistake whether someone else believes it or not.


Yep, the physical measurements for all speakers are actually spot on already. i.e. when I measure the distance from the mic to the speakers, they match what Audyssey calculated. So I am confident Audyssey is "hearing" the room good enough for that part. No issues there.

If there is indeed a problem, it's starting to occur to me its more likely in the Denon AVR 6700 implementation of the results, not Audyssey, since the Denon is just implementing their software.

btw I have actually heard its not Audyssey thats gets the large/small speaker setting wrong, its the AVR interpreting the results of the calibration (ref). Not an official source though, but kinda makes sense.


----------



## pbz06

Easley said:


> Yep, the physical measurements for all speakers are actually spot on already. i.e. when I measure the distance from the mic to the speakers, they match what Audyssey calculated. So I am confident Audyssey is "hearing" the room good enough for that part. No issues there.
> 
> If there is indeed a problem, it's starting to occur to me its more likely in the Denon AVR 6700, not Audyssey, since the Denon is just implementing their software.
> 
> *btw I have actually heard its not Audyssey thats gets the large/small speaker setting wrong, its the AVR interpreting the results of the calibration (ref). Not an official source though, but kinda makes sense.*


Correct. That's a common misconception. Audyssey measures the speakers' in-room F3 response, and reports it to the AVR. It's the AVR that sets the crossovers. Audyssey recommends raising crossovers to 80hz for bass management.


----------



## bluesky636

I actually had no intention to post anything further on this subject but since you chose to be insulting and post inaccurate information, I feel I must.



MagnumX said:


> Why don't you try measuring the distances yourself, inputting those measurements and see if it lines up any better? That should tell you whether or not the automated system did it correctly. Contrary to Mr. Cloudy Skies, Audyssey's actual _purpose_ is not really to measure your speakers for you. That's just a side benefit. The fact Audyssey gets phase wrong from reflections and arrays and often sets speakers to large/small wrong as well ought to tell you it's not perfect under less than perfect conditions and that means it can make a mistake whether someone else believes it or not.


I guess you missed this statement in the OP. It was repeated in response to your post.


Easley said:


> The physical distances it comes up with for LCR and surrounds are spot on when measuring with a tape.





Easley said:


> Yep, the physical measurements for all speakers are actually spot on already. i.e. when I measure the distance from the mic to the speakers, they match what Audyssey calculated. So I am confident Audyssey is "hearing" the room good enough for that part. No issues there.


"Mr. Cloudy Skies". Wow! I love it. Very mature of you. I won't stoop to such a level even when you are wrong.

Please explain what Audyssey's actual purpose is if not to measure the in-room response of speakers and apply correction filters to them.

I guess that you have forgotten that Audyssey does not set the crossovers. Audyssey reports the in-room measured -3 dB point of the speaker and reports that value to the AVR. The AVR then selects a crossover value from a table that is higher than and closest to the measured -3 dB value. Time for a refresher course in Audyssey, perhaps?



MagnumX said:


> Thank God, but somehow I doubt you will be able to stop yourself from replying.
> 
> _How_ they are measured is meaningless. The end result is what matters and there's clearly a delay that doesn't belong there in the end result. You seem to want to imply REW doesn't do accurate measurements or that in the Audyssey "Universe" mismatched delays are somehow "normal". It is not.


It's been stated twice now that the distnce to each speaker as measured by tape measure and by Audyssey match. When the delay between one front speaker and one surround was measured by REW, the surround speaker was found to be 1 ms (1 foot) off. So what? Do REW and Audyssey have the same +/- tolerance when computing distances? I doubt it. I never said that REW's measurments were not accurate. Do not put words in my mouth. So which measurement is correct? Easley said that an REW rep told him REW was correct. All I said was an Audyssey rep would probably tell you that Audyssey was correct. So how do you prove one over the other?

Finally, I never insulted Easley like you insulted me. He asked for people's thoughts and I provided mine. You may disagree with what I said and that is fine, but it doesn't give you the right to respond with childish insults.

I truly am done with this subject now.


----------



## Easley

bluesky636 said:


> I never insulted Easley like you insulted me.


I think he is reacting to the fact you are being insulting at all, as you are able to admit. Honestly you should re-read carefully the tone of your posts. Its also clear you are not comprehending the actual issue being presented.

And sorry but 1ms (1 foot) is not a trivial amount when it comes to certain aspects of acoustics. Especially when it comes to LFE and crossovers. I keep saying I am not concerned about that difference in regards to how the LCR's and surrounds are blended. I just want to know why the delay might be present at all in case there is an issue for my upcoming sub project. But of course you keep telling me I am wrong and this is a tolerance thing. So I accept thats your opinion.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> I actually had no intention to post anything further on this subject but since you chose to be insulting and post inaccurate information, I feel I must.
> 
> 
> I guess you missed this statement in the OP. It was repeated in response to your post.
> 
> 
> "Mr. Cloudy Skies". Wow! I love it. Very mature of you. I won't stoop to such a level even when you are wrong.
> 
> Please explain what Audyssey's actual purpose is if not to measure the in-room response of speakers and apply correction filters to them.
> 
> I guess that you have forgotten that Audyssey does not set the crossovers. Audyssey reports the in-room measured -3 dB point of the speaker and reports that value to the AVR. The AVR then selects a crossover value from a table that is higher than and closest to the measured -3 dB value. Time for a refresher course in Audyssey, perhaps?
> 
> 
> It's been stated twice now that the distnce to each speaker as measured by tape measure and by Audyssey match. When the delay between one front speaker and one surround was measured by REW, the surround speaker was found to be 1 ms (1 foot) off. So what? Do REW and Audyssey have the same +/- tolerance when computing distances? I doubt it. I never said that REW's measurments were not accurate. Do not put words in my mouth. So which measurement is correct? Easley said that an REW rep told him REW was correct. All I said was an Audyssey rep would probably tell you that Audyssey was correct. So how do you prove one over the other?
> 
> Finally, I never insulted Easley like you insulted me. He asked for people's thoughts and I provided mine. You may disagree with what I said and that is fine, but it doesn't give you the right to respond with childish insults.
> 
> I truly am done with this subject now.


Yeah, I predicted as much (another response). I also fail to see where I insulted _you_ instead if disagreeing with _what_ you said. You keep talking down to this guy when he's simply looking for an explanation to his REW impulse time discrepancy that appears to correspond to about a 1 foot distance difference, which is substantial.

You saying Audyssey is correct that implies REW is wrong and I see no justification for that conclusion. There's no easy way to examine the Audyssey measurements (new PC software might make it possible). Physical measurements can be prone to error (where are your ears going to be sitting up or reclined) while Audyssey takes multiple measurements and averages them out. 

@Easley - I'm not saying the measurements are incorrect (Audyssey or tape measure). I'm simply wondering if changing the rear surround distance by 11.5 inches or so results in a closer REW alignment).


----------



## Easley

MagnumX said:


> I'm not saying the measurements are incorrect (Audyssey or tape measure). I'm simply wondering if changing the rear surround distance by 11.5 inches or so results in a closer REW alignment).


Ah I see. Yeah I actually did that exact thing a few posts back, with REW screenshots included. My own conclusion was it confirms my finding because there was an increase in SPL < 1kHz between the two speakers (due to better phase alignment).


----------



## DAEaton

Thanks to the people that gave me the hard truth on my original post, I am now running dual Defiance x12 subs instead of trying to monkey w two drastically different subs.. So, 2 x12 with a Denon x3500h (105w). I ran Anthem arc on each first and then ran Audyssey.
When I ran the dsp-3100 on half gain with the avr-1910 (90w), it thumped my 1300sq' first floor and you could feel it hit while in mlp with receiver at -10db.
Now, I feel like I'm barely hearing, let alone feeling the subs despite having two with much more power than the one. I should note that the original set up had never had room correction software used.
The original time I used Audyssey was when I was trying to use an x12 and dsp-3100 together. During the initial phase, Audyssey had me adjust the sub gain much lower to get out of the red zone, which I've now since read that I should keep that measurement slightly into the red, and then adjust trim...which I do not fully comprehend yet.
Since adding the 2nd x12 and eliminating the dsp-3100 and running Anthem ARC, I did not get that option to adjust the gain lvl when running Audyssey again.
Speakers are set to small and crossover at 80hz, subs are at half gain and set to lfe.
I can turn receiver to -10db and premier 800f don't seem any louder than the old monitor 7 fronts...but more concerning and frustrating is that "it sounds/feels" like I have less bass with the 2 x12 than I had with 1 dsp-3100.
Final piece of the puzzle, which I previously inquired about, is that I do not have the ability to do proper left and right rear measurements...as my mlp is 2' from the wall, so I placed the mic on the back of the couch because I knew I should not be any closer to the wall. I don't know if that can be a directly responsible for my above stated issues, or a totally different discussion. I have not found information in audyssey 101 that addresses what to do if your mlp is close to a wall.
Thanks for any expertise that can be given here.
Much obliged,
Doug


----------



## Alan P

DAEaton said:


> Thanks to the people that gave me the hard truth on my original post, I am now running dual Defiance x12 subs instead of trying to monkey w two drastically different subs.. So, 2 x12 with a Denon x3500h (105w). *I ran Anthem arc on each first and then ran Audyssey.*


I wouldn't do that. Since you don't have the ability measure your response, I would just let XT32 do it's job and skip running ARC on the subs themselves.




> When I ran the dsp-3100 on half gain with the avr-1910 (90w), it thumped my 1300sq' first floor and you could feel it hit while in mlp with receiver at -10db.
> Now, I feel like I'm barely hearing, let alone feeling the subs despite having two with much more power than the one. I should note that the original set up had never had room correction software used.


Since no room correction, you probably had some major peaks in your response resulting in the "thumping" you experienced.

Where did Audyssey set your initial sub trim and where is it set now?




> The original time I used Audyssey was when I was trying to use an x12 and dsp-3100 together. During the initial phase, Audyssey had me adjust the sub gain much lower to get out of the red zone, *which I've now since read that I should keep that measurement slightly into the red, and then adjust trim...which I do not fully comprehend yet.*


It's to get the initial sub trim as low as possible (without hitting the -12dB lower limit) so that you have plenty of headroom to add trim back in.




> Since adding the 2nd x12 and eliminating the dsp-3100 and running Anthem ARC, I did not get that option to adjust the gain lvl when running Audyssey again.


That is very, very strange indeed. You should always get the sub leveling screen every single time you run Audyssey.




> I can turn receiver to -10db and premier 800f don't seem any louder than the old monitor 7 fronts.


This is how it should be. After calibration, your new speakers should be playing at the same level as the old speakers, regardless of size/sensitivity. This is the whole point of auto-calibration setting trim levels. 




> ..but more concerning and frustrating is that "it sounds/feels" like I have less bass with the 2 x12 than I had with 1 dsp-3100.


Could be the two subs are cancelling each other out due to placement, could be that running ARC before Audyssey messed things up, could be a lot of things....point is, you will never know unless you can measure your response.



> Final piece of the puzzle, which I previously inquired about, is that I do not have the ability to do proper left and right rear measurements...as my mlp is 2' from the wall, so I placed the mic on the back of the couch because I knew I should not be any closer to the wall. I don't know if that can be a directly responsible for my above stated issues, or a totally different discussion.


You should really get a mic boom stand for the Audyssey mic. Setting the mic on your couch is not ideal as vibrations can travel through the couch and into the mic, which will effect your calibration. Also, it has been recommended for some time now to ignore Audyssey's recommended mic postions and just keep all mic positions within 12"-18" of the first mic position, in a sort of "cluster" if you will.




> I have not found information in audyssey 101 that addresses *what to do if your mlp is close to a wall*.


Move it away from the wall.


----------



## Soulburner

Alan P said:


> That is very, very strange indeed. You should always get the sub leveling screen every single time you run Audyssey.


Correction: if both subs are measured in the "green", you don't see that screen and it proceeds to measure.


----------



## Alan P

Soulburner said:


> Correction: if both subs are measured in the "green", you don't see that screen and it proceeds to measure.


Really? Guess I've never been all green then. Sorry for the misinformation!


----------



## DAEaton

So, maybe running arc first set my subs low enough that audyssey skipped that adjustment and that's why I have no bass? The idea was to smooth out the subs nulls and highs first and then let Audyssey work with already refined info.

I have to look in the receiver menu. I have no idea what the trim is atm, sorry. I also don't know how to reset the subs from the arc settings, lol.

I guess I'll be buying a mic stand and will follow your suggestion to ignore Audysseys measurement points.
Could you please be relatively precise as to where those measurements should be taken in relation to the mlp? EDIT! You did say 12-18" from mlp. Thanks.
I would like to move the couch further away from the wall, but my other half will not have it. If the mlp puts me exactly 2' from the wall, I may be able to squeek a cpl inches if all i need is minimal distance measurements from mlp to make it work and stay 2' from rear wall.
Thank you guys for the input. Ill take all the experience you'd like to offer.
-Doug


----------



## Soulburner

DAEaton said:


> So, maybe running arc first set my subs low enough that audyssey skipped that adjustment and that's why I have no bass? The idea was to smooth out the subs nulls and highs first and then let Audyssey work with already refined info.


My thoughts on running multiple forms of room correction or EQ:

These systems are typically designed with a maximum amount of boost they will apply per filter. When you present room correction system 2 with an already-corrected response, it's not going to be aware of the other system. This is a good way to eat all of your headroom unless you started with a really clean response from superb sub placement. But in that case, you'd just use Audyssey and skip ARC.

I feel like subs with built-in RC would be a great in an analog system, though.


----------



## Easley

For anyone that followed my earlier reports of unexplained ~1ms delay between my LCR and rears that I was measuring with REW and a UMIK-1 mic, here is an update. 

I created a ticket with Audyssey on this yesterday about my findings, and how manually changing delays to "fix" it might affect the performance of their EQ'ing. Got a response last night:



> Customer Support Team
> Yesterday at 18:44
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> Changing the distances will not affect the MultEQ calibration quality, and may improve upon it.
> 
> Our team has also observed a delay anomaly, and found that increasing distances by 14.3% nets better time alignment. Also note that the Denon is natively metric, so using the metric version of the settings is more precise.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Audyssey Support


Attached is a screenshot of the entire report. Hopefully it makes it into the knowledge base for public view soon.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Easley said:


> Attached is a screenshot of the entire report. Hopefully it makes it into the knowledge base for public view soon.


Thanks for posting that - especially "Also note that the Denon is natively metric, so *using the metric version of the settings is more precise*. " . Quite right.


----------



## Easley

The 14.3% increase confused me at first, wouldn't that just be a net 0 gain if you increase all the distances by that amount. But quickly realized it's a non-linear increase. So in my case if I increase the distance for the two speakers I have been using to test this issue:

Left speaker from 12.1ft to 13.8ft (12.1 * 14.3%)
Surround right speaker from 6.2ft to 7.1ft

That change puts the left (fronts) 0.84 feet further back compared to the surrounds, which would almost exactly fix the issue I have been seeing (switching to metric would likely get it even closer).


----------



## Easley

bluesky636 said:


> I give up. *It's obvious you don't understand how Audyssey works and why it works the way it does. *There is plenty of material at the beginning of this thread and in the original Audyssey thread as well as from the Audyssey Zendesk that explains all this. Perhaps you should do a little research.


Clearly.....


----------



## pbz06

Easley said:


> For anyone that followed my earlier reports of unexplained ~1ms delay between my LCR and rears that I was measuring with REW and a UMIK-1 mic, here is an update.
> 
> I created a ticket with Audyssey on this yesterday about my findings, and how manually changing delays to "fix" it might affect the performance of their EQ'ing. Got a response last night:
> 
> 
> 
> Attached is a screenshot of the entire report. Hopefully it makes it into the knowledge base for public view soon.


That's interesting. 

Did they expand on this "anomaly"? Is it for all the speakers, or just some? How would we know?


----------



## Easley

It's for all speakers. Applying that 14.3% to all my measurements fixes even the other discrepancy I was not mentioning (to keep the discussion simple). I mentioned the fronts were off by ~1ft compared to the surround right reference, but the rear surrounds were off by 0.3ft compared to it. This 14.3% fixes that almost perfectly as well.

One thing to note, the support person mentioned the need to *increase* the numbers by 14.3%, but in my case I need to decrease them by that amount. For instance in early manual testing changing the Left speaker from 12.1 feet to 11.3 (increasing the delay) fixed the issue with that speaker. I mentioned that in the ticket to get clarification. Waiting to hear back.

I think what he meant was increase the delay (which requires reducing the distance). But again getting clarification.


----------



## pbz06

Easley said:


> It's for all speakers. Applying that 14.3% to all my measurements fixes even the other discrepancy I was not mentioning (to keep the discussion simple). I mentioned the fronts were off by ~1ft compared to the surround right reference, but the rear surrounds were off by 0.3ft compared to it. This 14.3% fixes that almost perfectly as well.
> 
> One thing to note, the support person mentioned the need to *increase* the numbers by 14.3%, but in my case I need to decrease them by that amount. For instance in early manual testing changing the Left speaker from 12.1 feet to 11.3 (increasing the delay) fixed the issue with that speaker. I mentioned that in the ticket to get clarification. Waiting to hear back.
> 
> I think what he meant was increase the delay (which requires reducing the distance). But again getting clarification.


Were you going to adjust the distances after changing your units to metric?


----------



## Easley

In the interest of helping anyone that want to nerd out on the data. Here are my distances as they exist now before any manual adjustment, as calculated by Audyssey.










The Surround R is the timing reference I am arbitrarily (but consistently) selecting when doing REW measurements. It's the speaker that REW uses to determine the latency of the entire system (PC latency, wiring, AVR processing time, distance through air to mic, etc). Every speaker that is measured gets an audible CHIRP that is played through the reference speaker first. Using this, along with the actual measurement of the speaker that follows, it can subtract out latency in the system, leaving just the delay the AVR adds to the signal. This allows REW to overlay separate measurements in an impulse graph showing how they relate in time. Ideally if everything is delayed by the correct amount, they all line up at t=0.

Here is my impulse graph for all speakers, which shows the issue I have been talking about. The x axis is time. Notice how most speakers are arriving before t=0, meaning a delay/distance mismatch. Might seem odd that the other signals can arrive in negative time. But what it means is the reference surround speaker is delayed more than the others (to account for the fact it's closer to the mic).

The LCR speakers are off by about 0.85ms (~1ft). The rear surrounds by .25ms (0.36 ft). If you do the 14.3% math to fix this, you will see it works.


----------



## Easley

pbz06 said:


> Were you going to adjust the distances after changing your units to metric?


Definitely. I am working to build 4 15" sub enclosures for the system, so things are in disarray atm, but will be making the changes this weekend.


----------



## MagnumX

Increasing distance decreases delay (they're opposites). It sounds like a bug in Audyssey's software somewhere. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a firmware update at some point and I also wouldn't be surprised if Denon/Marantz doesn't bother updating older AVRs at all.



mrtickleuk said:


> Thanks for posting that - especially "Also note that the Denon is natively metric, so *using the metric version of the settings is more precise*. " . Quite right.


That setting wouldn't affect the auto-calibration. If you switch to metric, it's obvious to see it set them at that precision level, not feet. They should have just included an extra decimal number for the feet display (I switch to metric to align "Scatmos" as it needs to be exactly the same for fully discrete operation). 

Aren't some in the UK pushing for the old Imperial system we Yanks still use since Brexit? I noticed a certain lingering partialness when I was there (miles per hour, yet liters for petrol, pint glasses, grocery stores using both). It seems the UK can't fully embrace metric like our Northern neighbor has (but then they oddly put more sugar in their Heinz ketchup in Canada...might be maple syrup for all I know but it's nasty. I was happy to find Heinz ketchup in the UK was identical to American Heinz ketchup when I got "chips" there (_Belgium Fries_ or just Fries when I was in Belgium; they got mad if you credited the French with them, but their default condiment was also mayonnaise so I had to question their sanity a bit. Their waffles were certainly excellent along with their ale, but being used to maple syrups on waffles, it was a bit strange they had pretty much everything but to put on them, although caramel and ice cream worked well. ). I also miss sticky toffee pudding in the US as very few places have it (big cities a few places like when I was in Phoenix at a "British Pub" there). A couple of pubs at Niagara-On-The-Lake in Ontario, Canada have it (where I first tried it) and this pandemic has really screwed up my bi-yearly fix. I think I had like 9 of them in the UK when I was there in 2016. Almost every place I went had it.


----------



## Easley

MagnumX said:


> Increasing distance decreases delay (they're opposites). It sounds like a bug in Audyssey's software somewhere.


Yep thats the mind bending part. And why manufactures likely chose to present them as distances, not time, for us feeble minded. The closest speaker to the MLP has the longest delay (to wait for sound to arrive from the furthest speaker), and the furthest speaker in the system has 0 delay (presumably). So as a speaker's distance increases it gets closer to 0 delay (after 0 its starts redefining the other speaker delays).


----------



## tsanga

Easley said:


> It's for all speakers. Applying that 14.3% to all my measurements fixes even the other discrepancy I was not mentioning (to keep the discussion simple). I mentioned the fronts were off by ~1ft compared to the surround right reference, but the rear surrounds were off by 0.3ft compared to it. This 14.3% fixes that almost perfectly as well.
> 
> One thing to note, the support person mentioned the need to *increase* the numbers by 14.3%, but in my case I need to decrease them by that amount. For instance in early manual testing changing the Left speaker from 12.1 feet to 11.3 (increasing the delay) fixed the issue with that speaker. I mentioned that in the ticket to get clarification. Waiting to hear back.
> 
> I think what he meant was increase the delay (which requires reducing the distance). But again getting clarification.


This is an interesting finding. But I’m not following the math - if you started at 12.1 ft and had to reduce by 14.3%, that should be 12.1 x 0.857 = 10.4 ft, no? 

How did you get 11.3?


----------



## Easley

Note that a lot has been learned since I first posted about this a few days ago (separate thread about this here, as well as here). Long story short, if you feel you are affected by this bug, the most accurate fix is to scale all your measured distances down by 12.5% (or 0.875). This is close to the 14.3% originally reported above, but this more accurately fixes what is almost certainly a bug in D&M AVR's constant for the speed of sound. These values have been verified with actual measurements, as well as the fact that Audyssey's MultEQ-X licensed app does not have this bug (or more accurately it compensates for it), and reports the same reduced distances in the AVR after uploading it.

But please don't just blindly apply these adjustments. Be prepared to do some critical listening comparisons and/or acoustic measurements with something like REW, and report your results back. Would love hear from more users on this.


----------



## Easley

tsanga said:


> This is an interesting finding. But I’m not following the math - if you started at 12.1 ft and had to reduce by 14.3%, that should be 12.1 x 0.857 = 10.4 ft, no?
> 
> How did you get 11.3?


The reason for the apparent discrepancy is your example is mixing two methods of resolving the issue. One way is decreasing ALL speakers by a scaling factor (the right way to fix this). The other way would be by decreasing them by a specific distance to align with a specific reference speaker (which I did when I adjusted just the left from 12.1 to 11.3). The latter way is a brute force way of resolving it, the former way directly applies a fix to compensate for a bad speed of sound constant the AVR is using.


----------



## sjm817

Just wanted to give a big thanks to @Easley for discovering this issue, following through and finding an easy solution we can all put in place. Nice work. 👋


----------



## Cacitems4sale

I’m a newbie to the downloadable iOS version of Audessey. Prior I used Audessey on my Denon 3700 receiver until I had heard about the app. I ran it today on my 7.1.4 setup.
1. I have a HSU VTF 3 MK5 in my theater. There seems to be a lot more bass and punch after I ran Audessey today. Is that what others found?
2. I’m trying to decipher the results and according to the results it leveled everything. Does everything look right? See attachment
3. I would like my Klitsch in Walls to be a bit more lively/bright. Is there anything I can do to improve that?
Any help or adjustment recommendations would be great! Thanks


----------



## MikeyJ78

Cacitems4sale said:


> I’m a newbie to the downloadable iOS version of Audessey. Prior I used Audessey on my Denon 3700 receiver until I had heard about the app. I ran it today on my 7.1.4 setup.
> 1. I have a HSU VTF 3 MK5 in my theater. There seems to be a lot more bass and punch after I ran Audessey today. Is that what others found?
> 2. I’m trying to decipher the results and according to the results it leveled everything. Does everything look right? See attachment
> 3. I would like my Klitsch in Walls to be a bit more lively/bright. Is there anything I can do to improve that?
> Any help or adjustment recommendations would be great! Thanks


Only thing that jumps out to me is maybe you'd want to try turning mid-range compensation off on your Surrounds, Surround Rears, as well as your Front L & R speakers & see how that sounds. There's not noticeable dip in that 2khz range in the "before" reading on those speakers. Congrats on the awesome bass.


----------



## Cacitems4sale

MikeyJ78 said:


> Only thing that jumps out to me is maybe you'd want to try turning mid-range compensation off on your Surrounds, Surround Rears, as well as your Front L & R speakers & see how that sounds. There's not noticeable dip in that 2khz range in the "before" reading on those speakers. Congrats on the awesome bass.





MikeyJ78 said:


> Only thing that jumps out to me is maybe you'd want to try turning mid-range compensation off on your Surrounds, Surround Rears, as well as your Front L & R speakers & see how that sounds. There's not noticeable dip in that 2khz range in the "before" reading on those speakers. Congrats on the awesome bass.


 thanks for the reply, center as well! Also with the Klipsch in walls, I have read that they are bright but have not noticed that. Is there anything I can do to make them a bit more bright?


----------



## MikeyJ78

Cacitems4sale said:


> thanks for the reply, center as well! Also with the Klipsch in walls, I have read that they are bright but have not noticed that. Is there anything I can do to make them a bit more bright?


You could always try going into the curve editor in the app & apply a small boost to those higher frequencies and then see how they sound after that.


----------



## DAEaton

Cacitems4sale said:


> I’m a newbie to the downloadable iOS version of Audessey. Prior I used Audessey on my Denon 3700 receiver until I had heard about the app. I ran it today on my 7.1.4 setup.
> 1. I have a HSU VTF 3 MK5 in my theater. There seems to be a lot more bass and punch after I ran Audessey today. Is that what others found?
> 
> I wish I had that. Gonna run again, but when I did it, I lost a bunch of bass and punch.


----------



## Cacitems4sale

MikeyJ78 said:


> You could always try going into the curve editor in the app & apply a small boost to those higher frequencies and then see how they sound after that.


Ok I’ll give that a try. Thanks


MikeyJ78 said:


> You could always try going into the curve editor in the app & apply a small boost to those higher frequencies and then see how they sound after that.


----------



## Cacitems4sale

Yes you can see with my bass diagram how it flattened it out. Is evident in the sound. Try the bass crawl if you haven’t.


----------



## puntloos

So I ran Audyssey with my Denon x4500. Results are acceptable but no matter how often I ran Audyssey they always felt somewhat off.

Now I'm testing if I'm getting the same results with REW+UMIK in a generate white noise + measure dB(Z). And, well. No.

The results are that while *I assume *(...) Audyssey wants all speakers to sound equally loud at listening position, in reality, or at least according to REW - if I tweak the main system volume for my front speakers to generate 50dB at seating, then:

SL=53.7
SR=54
SBL = 54.5
SBR=55.0

So - consistently the right is louder than the left, and 4dB more than the fronts. What gives? Should I manually tune the system to be a flat 50 everywhere? Or is that 4dB intentional?

At the very least I think I'll trust my UMIK/REW and boost my left a little. (I made sure UMIK wasn't pointing more right or something). Probably have to go the Ratbuddyssey way at some point soon..

Gripe- why is the 'speakers test tone mode' of my X4500 sending decidedly different noise tones? It's impossible to compare like for like this way.


----------



## pbarach

puntloos said:


> Gripe- why is the 'speakers test tone mode' of my X4500 sending decidedly different noise tones? It's impossible to compare like for like this way.


Exactly! The built-in test tones on my x4400 and the x4000 that preceded it are different from one speaker to the next. They are almost completely useless (and completely useless if you use them to evaluate the results of an Audyssey calibration. I use tones from a calibration CD such as Spears & Munsil or Avia 2. Lots of other ways to get multichannel test tones...


----------



## Soulburner

puntloos said:


> So - consistently the right is louder than the left, and 4dB more than the fronts. What gives? Should I manually tune the system to be a flat 50 everywhere? Or is that 4dB intentional?


The relative differences between speakers should not be changed; they are leveled by Audyssey for good reasons, due to speaker placement and proximity to walls.


----------



## puntloos

Soulburner said:


> The relative differences between speakers should not be changed; they are leveled by Audyssey for good reasons, due to speaker placement and proximity to walls.


You say that, but as far as I can tell the sound mix is often 'right heavy'. E.g. the applause in Hamilton - which I imagine should be 100% evenly spread is stronger on the right - like I'm sitting slightly to the left in the audience (so 'more' of the audience is in my right ear)

Then again I do understand that funky room weirness can certainly skew things heavily but in this particular case.. I guess I'll experiment. Half a dB isn't that much anyway,


----------



## Soulburner

puntloos said:


> You say that, but as far as I can tell the sound mix is often 'right heavy'. E.g. the applause in Hamilton - which I imagine should be 100% evenly spread is stronger on the right - like I'm sitting slightly to the left in the audience (so 'more' of the audience is in my right ear)
> 
> Then again I do understand that funky room weirness can certainly skew things heavily but in this particular case.. I guess I'll experiment. Half a dB isn't that much anyway,


I would listen to music that you know has a strong center vocal presence.


----------



## Cacitems4sale

If I turn DEQ on from my Denon AVR will it revert all Audessey settings that I pushed from the Audessey app to my AVR?


----------



## Soulburner

Cacitems4sale said:


> If I turn DEQ on from my Denon AVR will it revert all Audessey settings that I pushed from the Audessey app to my AVR?


No.


----------



## Lttlwing16

Just discovered a single surround back is pretty much useless.. should've known!


----------



## MagnumX

Lttlwing16 said:


> Just discovered a single surround back is pretty much useless.. should've known!


In what respect? Sounding in front of you or the fact that DSU and fake Atmos (no objects) won't use it? I always found DPLIIx took good advantage of it in my 6.1 days okys a few DTS-ES movies. 

There were ways to mitigate the "in front of you" effect like turning the speaker around backwards to reflect off the rear wall instead or using a bipolar speaker there. 

Even two speakers in 7.1 side-by-side can work if space is the issue and that avoids the DSU/object thing as well (a mixer can solve that too).


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Lttlwing16

MagnumX said:


> In what respect? Sounding in front of you or the fact that DSU and fake Atmos (no objects) won't use it? I always found DPLIIx took good advantage of it in my 6.1 days okys a few DTS-ES movies.
> 
> There were ways to mitigate the "in front of you" effect like turning the speaker around backwards to reflect off the rear wall instead or using a bipolar speaker there.
> 
> Even two speakers in 7.1 side-by-side can work if space is the issue and that avoids the DSU/object thing as well (a mixer can solve that too).


I had no output from it for much of anything..except Auro 2-D on stereo or Multichannel Stereo if I change from Floor+Height to just Floor. 

Ordered some more speaker wire to try a proper 7.2.2 setup. Problem is my room forces me to set the surrounds at 125 degrees to the MLP. I was going to try some surround backs to see if it would make any difference.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> 0.5 dB is inaudible to human ears.


Disagree.

And never use the D&M Levels menu in a system using Audyssey to check speaker levels either with your own ears or an SPL meter. They will not be accurate and any changes you make won't be accurate either.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Disagree.


You must have better hearing than I do.

I have heard everything from 0.25 dB for "trained" listeners to 1 - 3 dB for "average" listeners. Both under specific conditions. Perhaps I was a little over the top, but I do believe that the background noise in the average home would require a larger dB change, particularly during the day.



Soulburner said:


> And never use the D&M Levels menu in a system using Audyssey to check speaker levels either with your own ears or an SPL meter. They will not be accurate and any changes you make won't be accurate either.


I believe I said that.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> 1. 0.5 dB is inaudible to human ears.


0.5dB is not "inaudible" to human ears. First of all, you probably mean a change in level of 0.5dB. That equates to a volume difference of approximately 5% and should be _definitely_ audible, however slight. I can easily tell a large difference with a 1dB level change (10% volume). Turn your volume up/down 0.5dB. It's still very distinct. Our hearing is not step-based. Trying to detect a 0.1dB change in level would be much more difficult, particularly over a limited frequency range, but it's still _audible_, just not necessarily _noticeable_. There's a distinct difference between the two, however.



Lttlwing16 said:


> I had no output from it for much of anything..except Auro 2-D on stereo or Multichannel Stereo if I change from Floor+Height to just Floor.
> 
> Ordered some more speaker wire to try a proper 7.2.2 setup. Problem is my room forces me to set the surrounds at 125 degrees to the MLP. I was going to try some surround backs to see if it would make any difference.


If you tried some demos on web sites like Demolandia, you can probably find out if it's an Atmos "object" problem or something else.

These Dolby Digital ones played in Neural X mode (which supports rear center) should tell you ("Canyon" pans in a semi-circle across the side to back of the room and other side for example and "Waterfall" sends water pans to the rear center). 

¦› Dolby Digital Trailers | Aurora, Argon, Best, Canyon and Channel Check (Canyon on this page)
¦› Dolby Digital 5.1 | Train, Virtual Speaker, Waterfall, Wizzard Trailers (Waterfall on this page)


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> I have heard everything from 0.25 dB for "trained" listeners to 1 - 3 dB for "average" listeners. Both under specific conditions. Perhaps I was a little over the top, but I do believe that the background noise in the average home would require a larger dB change, particularly during the day.


My hearing is pretty good. I can hear steps smaller than 1 dB when they are broadband, as most can. The Q matters. I bet if you raised your volume by 0.5 dB you'd easily hear it.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> My hearing is pretty good. I can hear steps smaller than 1 dB when they are broadband, as most can. The Q matters. I bet if you raised your volume by 0.5 dB you'd easily hear it.


Only if I wore my hearing aids which I hate to do when listening to music or watching a movie. When I play my electric guitar they make a high pitched squeal so I can't wear them then either.


----------



## pbarach

bluesky636 said:


> 1. 0.5 dB is inaudible to human ears.


 Not to _all_ human ears. Some people can identify increments smaller than 1 dB. Here is a website to check for yourself. I was 90% accurate at identifying a 0.5 dB level difference in ten trials. Blind Testing a 0.5 dB Level Difference 

You can change the increment at the top of the web page.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Easley

bluesky636 said:


> ...so I have nothing else to say.


...


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Easley

bluesky636 said:


> I will say this, I'm glad you moved your little science experiment to it's own thread. All the confusion that runs through it; increase/decrease, feet/meters, 14.3%/12.5%, 0.1ms/0.01ms, how do I set my sub, and more, is quite amusing. When can we expect to see some real scientific evidence that all of this makes a really AUDIBLE, difference and not just a handful of fan boys claiming they heard angels singing after they made the changes? By the way, I did try decreasing speaker distance (in meters) by 12.5% (or was it multiply by 0.873. 0.874, or 0.875) and my impression was .
> 
> But good luck. Keep at it and pretty soon you will reverse engineer all the Audyssey and Denon firmware and can show Chris K how it really should have been done.



Sorry but there is real science showing after the change all speakers are properly time aligned, backed up by acoustic measurements from multiple users.
Audyssey support has twice indicated they have discovered these changes result in improvements themselves.
Audyssey MultEQ-X implements these same exact changes that were discovered by the community as well.

Whether you, or anyone can or can't detect an audible difference is not the point of the discovery or its discussion. Some may hear improvements, some may not. But the result of the changes for anyone that wants to experiment is having an environment that more closely replicates the soundstage that the director/editor/film/show/concert intended.

And if you found amusement in the reading, I still find it a win!


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## MagnumX

I tried changing my distance settings by multiplying by .875. I can't say I noticed _any_ differences and I tried a lot of Atmos music and a few demos and movie clips.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Easley said:


> Sorry but there is real science showing after the change all speakers are properly time aligned, backed up by acoustic measurements from multiple users.
> Audyssey support has twice indicated they have discovered these changes result in improvements themselves.
> Audyssey MultEQ-X implements these same exact changes that were discovered by the community as well.
> Whether you, or anyone can or can't detect an audible difference is not the point of the discovery or its discussion. Some may hear improvements, some may not. But the result of the changes for anyone that wants to experiment is having an environment that more closely replicates the soundstage that the director/editor/film/show/concert intended.


Very well said.


----------



## Easley

MagnumX said:


> I tried changing my distance settings by multiplying by .875. I can't say I noticed _any_ differences and I tried a lot of Atmos music and a few demos and movie clips.


Then you are not invited to the "fan boy" club, sorry 

But seriously feedback like this is good. I suspect, if you did have notable misalignment (due to speakers being significantly offset from the MLP compared to other speakers), the most noticeable difference would be like turning off one of the sound modes like Rock Arena (though much less dramatic). Or possibly better crossover integration with your sub that might be far from your mains..


----------



## MagnumX

Easley said:


> Then you are not invited to the "fan boy" club, sorry
> 
> But seriously feedback like this is good. I suspect, if you did have notable misalignment (due to speakers being significantly offset from the MLP compared to other speakers), the most noticeable difference would be like turning off one of the sound modes like Rock Arena (though much less dramatic). Or possibly better crossover integration with your sub that might be far from your mains..


I thought I might have heard something on a few songs (change in imaging positioning forward/backward a bit, for example), but the more I ran, the more I realized I was probably trying too hard to hear something. I left those settings in, anyway. An error corrected is still an error corrected and it certainly didn't sound any worse. My sub is pretty close to the mains, but has a substantial distance difference from Audyssey, which I assume is an actual timing delay on the sub's part.


----------



## nenito2k

Hi all...!!! 
After long hesitation I decided to ask here for perfection... 

I read lots of pages in this topic and elsewere... But this is just too massive! 

Anyway after days of tweaking I am overall happy with the sound... And disable of course all those useless options including MC

But I still Know that I should do more... Especially regarding my sub that is located in a CORNER (no other option) 

Here are my results... What more can I do please? 
I know that Now I should focus on the filtering thing in order to apply audyssey ONLY in a certain frequency range! But what is that range in my case? 

Any input will be appreciated! Bear in mind I am no expert really...


----------



## Disto

Easley said:


> Then you are not invited to the "fan boy" club, sorry
> 
> But seriously feedback like this is good. I suspect, if you did have notable misalignment (due to speakers being significantly offset from the MLP compared to other speakers), the most noticeable difference would be like turning off one of the sound modes like Rock Arena (though much less dramatic). Or possibly better crossover integration with your sub that might be far from your mains..


I have a Denon x4500h with the latest firmware update. I have physically measured the distance between my speakers (except the woofers) and the Audyssey mic and found the distances to be only 3 to 5 centimeters farther than the actual measured distances. The multiply by .875 brings them much closer that the measured distances.


----------



## MagnumX

So I just found out about the next version of Audyssey, the Audyssey II. It's supposed to be much better than the original! 










Oh wait, that's the Odyssey II... Never mind.


----------



## garygarrison

Group think is just as common in audio as anywhere else. 

I keep hearing people advocating using Audyssey over a limited range only. Why? Audyssey recommends *against* it. Why give up the smoothing effect within a given range? The usual unfortunate advice is to limit Audyssey to frequencies below 400 Hz or so. I just don't see why! Of course if someone sets up Audyssey, *carefully* (a rarity, I suspect), after first carefully and sparingly treating the room with absorbers and diffusers, and they don't like the results, they can always try limited range. Your "after" curves (predictions, not measures, if everything goes right) of final response are nice and smooth. If you think the sound could be a bit better with some more EQ by EAR, use the tone controls*;* you'll have to use the sub level control for frequencies below the crossover to the sub. Most people boost their bass, at least in the sub range by 3 dB to ~~ 12 db, depending on taste and your room, if they can do so without overloading either the AVR line driver for the sub out, or the input of the sub, itself. Obviously, this needs to be done AFTER running Audyssey, or Audyssey will turn the bass right down again. Why the bass boost? 1) Most people are used to hearing a few bass peaks that shouldn't be there (due to the room), and when Audyssey removes them, people wonder why their system sounds "bass shy." You want to replace those few bass bumps with a smooth bass slope. 2) Much research has indicated that having the bass boosted is preferred by most listeners, and furthermore, they find a curve that drops by about 1 dB per octave as the frequencies get higher is "natural" or "realistic." So, having the bass (at about 20 Hz) 9 to 12 dB louder than the high treble (at about 15k or 20K Hz) seems about right. That not only handles the preference issue, but compensates for recording companies shaving off the bass, habitually.

*Synthesis Target Curve*








I don't go that far, but use a curve much like this in the bass, but I don't roll off the treble, on good recordings. 

These sources make good reading, written by people who really know the subject well:
*Audyssey FAQ Linked Here*

*GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES*
* The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including:
Audyssey; Speaker placements & Room treatments; HT calibration & Room EQ; Room gain; Bass
Preferences; Subwoofer Buyer's Guide: Sealed/ported; ID subs; Subwoofer placement.


----------



## MagnumX

@garygarrison 

The problem with bass in general is that there is no set standard for music. Even remastered albums vary wildly (e.g Original Billy Joel CDs VS 1990s remasters; the latter have a lot more bass and in those particular remasters, I think they were much improved, possibly because earlier CDs were based of LP masters which had the jumping stylus thing to worry about or possibly because many mixing consoles lacked deep bass to mix things properly. Even newer recordings vary wildly. I found +6dB to sound best on my full range Carver (26Hz+) speakers and leave my home theater at flat with the AVR secondary sub setting at +4dB,but I can quickly adjust to taste. 

As for Audyssey and the high end, the concern is it screwing with phase at higher frequencies. A few inches can make a huge difference in measuring peaks and nulls at higher frequencies so its not that uncommon to get an unlucky/harsh Audyssey setting out of one or more speakers and unless you have the new Windows only app, you have to go through an excruciating long process to "try again" and hope you picked good locations this time. 

It's easier to just limit Audyssey below 5KHz as higher frequencies are much easier to tame with traditional room treatments than lower ones, which is the main thing most people want room correction for, not trying to change their speakers "sound" which is what Audyssey often ends up doing at higher frequencies. 

But even Audyssey ends up defaulting to rolled off treble (reference) because flat is not normal behavior for most loudspeaker designs. You're not normally listening at 1 meter and highs roll off naturally the farther away you sit. Most of us picked out speakers we liked the sound of and we don't want Audyssey screwing with that. We want it fixing the much more massive problems at lower frequencies that are much harder to treat conventionally.


----------



## nenito2k

Audyssey recommends lots of stuff that expert advise not to do


----------



## bluesky636

nenito2k said:


> Audyssey recommends lots of stuff that Internet experts advise not to do


Corrected your post.


----------



## AVRams

So the general consensus is that we have to multiply speaker distances with 0.875, right?
Also for the subwoofers? 

If I understand correctly, this is an error in the D&M products, they use wrong value for speed of sound. 
Because the distances, as measured by the Audyssey app, is spot on for my system.

Any rumors about a firmware update to correct this?
My Denon X3700 got two updates lately, but I guess this issue is not fixed yet?


----------



## Soulburner

AVRams said:


> So the general consensus is that we have to multiply speaker distances with 0.875, right?
> Also for the subwoofers?
> 
> If I understand correctly, this is an error in the D&M products, they use wrong value for speed of sound.
> Because the distances, as measured by the Audyssey app, is spot on for my system.


If you are using the *MultEQ Editor* app (created by D+M Group), it does not perform the offsets. Multiply by 0.875.

If you are using the *MultEQ-X* app (created by Audyssey), it does perform the offsets. Do not make any changes unless the result in the AVR is not (actual distance*0.875). Don't make the change to subwoofers as those should be based on acoustics only. Wavelengths are long enough that you don't hear the direct sound, but bass waves from all around you.


----------



## AVRams

Soulburner said:


> If you are using the *MultEQ Editor* app (created by D+M Group), it does not perform the offsets. Multiply by 0.875.
> 
> If you are using the *MultEQ-X* app (created by Audyssey), it does perform the offsets. Do not make any changes unless the result in the AVR is not (actual distance*0.875). Don't make the change to subwoofers as those should be based on acoustics only. Wavelengths are long enough that you don't hear the direct sound, but bass waves from all around you.


Right, I'm using the Editor app (who wants to pay $200 for a program which is locked to a single AVR and non-transferable? ). 
So I will multiply with 0.875👍


----------



## Duc Vu

So I just got the denon x3700h. The Audyssey 101 guide here seems to stress that the calibration mic should NOT be put directly on a chair to avoid spurious signals' interference. But I'm looking at the denon's manual and the mic is on top of the cardboard tripod, which is placed on a chair. Is that setup acceptable?


----------



## pbarach

Duc Vu said:


> So I just got the denon x3700h. The Audyssey 101 guide here seems to stress that the calibration mic should NOT be put directly on a chair to avoid spurious signals' interference. But I'm looking at the denon's manual and the mic is on top of the cardboard tripod, which is placed on a chair. Is that setup acceptable?


 It's far from ideal. The cardboard tripod on a chair is not high enough to reach typical listening positions for human ears! 

You spent all of that money on a fine AVR, so now spend a little more money to buy a mic floor stand and a screw-in camera adapter for the mic stand that will attach to the bottom of the Audyssey calibration mic. It's so much easier than the cardboard tripod.


----------



## stevenday

A question for the group. I have main speakers (Vandersteen 5A) and a subwoofer (Revel B15a) that both have built-in analog parametric equalizers for low frequencies. Should I optimize the frequency response using these equalizers prior to Audyssey calibration or just set the equalizers to flat and then run Audyssey?

Thanks.


----------



## MagnumX

pbarach said:


> It's far from ideal. The cardboard tripod on a chair is not high enough to reach typical listening positions for human ears!
> 
> You spent all of that money on a fine AVR, so now spend a little more money to buy a mic floor stand and a screw-in camera adapter for the mic stand that will attach to the bottom of the Audyssey calibration mic. It's so much easier than the cardboard tripod.


If don't you believe the company that made Audyssey knows what they're doing by including the cardboard stand (and many have stated they believe the mic to be garbage as well) then WTF would you trust their room correction system either? N'est-ce pas? 

It's just a stand and I believe it's telescoping. I had no trouble reaching ear height whatsoever setting it on the listening chair. I have a pro mic stand for my recording studio upstairs, but I'd be insane to drag that big thing downstairs just for that. It'd be a PITA to position as well since ironically the chairs would be in the way. If anything, a small camera tripod would work best. But the cardboard stand is fine in a pinch, assuming you assembled it correctly.


----------



## pbarach

MagnumX said:


> If don't you believe the company that made Audyssey knows what they're doing by including the cardboard stand (and many have stated they believe the mic to be garbage as well) then WTF would you trust their room correction system either? N'est-ce pas?


 Trusting the Audyssey system? How about "trust but verify"? Look at the REW measurements post-calibration that often appear in this forum, and you'll see that Audyssey is not always producing measurably good results.

Your argument is an example of the logical fallacy called "appeal to authority." Just because Audyssey is an authority on room correction doesn't mean they are an authority on the worth of the cardboard stands that AVR manufacturers have chosen to send with their products.

Your comment about what people think of the Audyssey mic is a distraction and not relevant to whether the cardboard tripod is a good tool for calibration.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> I tried changing my distance settings by multiplying by .875. I can't say I noticed _any_ differences and I tried a lot of Atmos music and a few demos and movie clips.


I plan to do this after I move. Hopefully I will have a new receiver then. Also I will measure the impulse response before and after with REW.

If I get the new receiver, I will probably do the calibration with MultEQ-X since I will have this receiver for years to come so it will be worth tje $200


----------



## Duc Vu

pbarach said:


> It's far from ideal. The cardboard tripod on a chair is not high enough to reach typical listening positions for human ears!
> 
> You spent all of that money on a fine AVR, so now spend a little more money to buy a mic floor stand and a screw-in camera adapter for the mic stand that will attach to the bottom of the Audyssey calibration mic. It's so much easier than the cardboard tripod.


Hmm I assembled the cardboard tripod yesterday (which is not that hard) and even without the chair, the mic on top of the tripod almost reached my ears in the listening position, so I'm pretty sure on a chair it will do that with no problems. The distance from my ears to the ground is 1m2 and the cardboard + mic is like 1m1.

The only thing I'm worried about is spurious signals and whether putting the tripod on a chair will cause some issues in that aspect.


----------



## MagnumX

pbarach said:


> Trusting the Audyssey system? How about "trust but verify"? Look at the REW measurements post-calibration that often appear in this forum, and you'll see that Audyssey is not always producing measurably good results.
> 
> Your argument is an example of the logical fallacy called "appeal to authority." Just because Audyssey is an authority on room correction doesn't mean they are an authority on the worth of the cardboard stands that AVR manufacturers have chosen to send with their products.
> 
> Your comment about what people think of the Audyssey mic is a distraction and not relevant to whether the cardboard tripod is a good tool for calibration.


And your argument is just puerile nonsense. As long as the mic is in the correct position, what the flipping stand is made of makes no damn difference.


----------



## rocky1

question in ref the .875 multiplication on the distances. Audessy set my distances correctly yet i should still multiply by .875? I used the multiQ app. running 5.1 system


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lttlwing16

rocky1 said:


> question in ref the .875 multiplication on the distances. Audessy set my distances correctly yet i should still multiply by .875? I used the multiQ app. running 5.1 system
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Short answer is switch distances to metric, multiply those preset metric values by .875, then update the values and reload to AVR. See more about this in the dedicated thread here.


----------



## pbarach

Duc Vu said:


> Hmm I assembled the cardboard tripod yesterday (which is not that hard) and even without the chair, the mic on top of the tripod almost reached my ears in the listening position, so I'm pretty sure on a chair it will do that with no problems. The distance from my ears to the ground is 1m2 and the cardboard + mic is like 1m1.
> 
> The only thing I'm worried about is spurious signals and whether putting the tripod on a chair will cause some issues in that aspect.


 Is the chair with the tripod in your listening position? If so, I assume you've removed the chair you actually sit in. And how do you place the chair for the other seven mic positions?

The question about "spurious signals" from having the mic and tripod on a chair is an interesting empirical question. Are there reflections or vibrations from the chair that affect what the mic "hears" during calibration? It would be interested to leave the mic/tripod on the chair for all eight calibrations and compare the Audyssey results with doing the same procedure using a mic stand rather than the chair and cardboard tripod.

For convenience alone, I prefer the mic stand because it's very easy just to swing the boom or move the stand to another placement while keeping the mic at the same height as my ears would be in the MLP and also keeping the mic pointed vertically.


----------



## Duc Vu

pbarach said:


> Is the chair with the tripod in your listening position? If so, I assume you've removed the chair you actually sit in. And how do you place the chair for the other seven mic positions?
> 
> The question about "spurious signals" from having the mic and tripod on a chair is an interesting empirical question. Are there reflections or vibrations from the chair that affect what the mic "hears" during calibration? It would be interested to leave the mic/tripod on the chair for all eight calibrations and compare the Audyssey results with doing the same procedure using a mic stand rather than the chair and cardboard tripod.
> 
> For convenience alone, I prefer the mic stand because it's very easy just to swing the boom or move the stand to another placement while keeping the mic at the same height as my ears would be in the MLP and also keeping the mic pointed vertically.


The chair is an ergonomic office chair. I actually sit on that chair to watch movies and stuff. So my plan is to put the cardboard tripod on that chair (which is at the MLP), and on top of that tripod is the mic. For other positions I will raise the height of the tripod and place it directly on the floor near the chair, and if the max height of the tripod is lower than my ears then I will put something below the tripod.

The mic stand seems like an elegant solution but I don't own one and I'd like to avoid buying one since I probably have no use for it after this.


----------



## Alan P

MagnumX said:


> And your argument is just puerile nonsense. As long as the mic is in the correct position, what the flipping stand is made of makes no damn difference.


If you were to go back on this thread (and the original Audyssey thread), you would be able to see just how wrong you are.

It has been proven time and again that using the cheap, cardboard "rocket" stand (or a tripod, for that matter) that is physically resting on the furniture will introduce vibrations to the microphone skewing the Audyssey results (usually resulting in anemic subwoofer response).

A $25 boom stand is a negligible investment if you look at the big picture. I bought mine years ago and have used it countless times.

But hey, you do you.


----------



## MagnumX

Alan P said:


> If you were to go back on this thread (and the original Audyssey thread), you would be able to see just how wrong you are.
> 
> It has been proven time and again that using the cheap, cardboard "rocket" stand (or a tripod, for that matter) that is physically resting on the furniture will introduce vibrations to the microphone skewing the Audyssey results (usually resulting in anemic subwoofer response).
> 
> A $25 boom stand is a negligible investment if you look at the big picture. I bought mine years ago and have used it countless times.
> 
> But hey, you do you.


You certainly are doing YOU.  

Vibrations from cushioned furniture through cardboard, but not through a *metal* mic stand sitting on a floor that may or may not be wooden and whose purpose has nothing to do with Audyssey? Right.  

I already said a damped camera tripod is what you want to get if you don't like the cardboard stand. Unlike a pivoting stand that can hard to set exactly where one sits, you can set a tripod to the right height and place it precisely where you would sit and not have to adjust it for every measurement, just move it slightly. They're dampened for filming video.

Meanwhile, a mic stand is there to hold the mic in place while you sing while playing the piano or some other fixed position (I use one in my recording studio for miking my piano and guitar). It has several adjustments to pivot or raise it, but you can't just sit it in a chair and move it two inches It moves in a circular fashion. A tripod can be handy to anyone who takes pictures. A professional mic stand takes up a lot more space as well. Try putting that in most closets whereas a tripod can fold up and sit on a shelf.


----------



## Duc Vu

Anyone owns the svs pb-1000 pro sub? Audyssey setup says before running the calibration, the sub's volume should be set to 50%, i.e. volume knob 12 o'clock. This sub however has no volume knob (only digital and an app), so how to set it at 50% volume?


----------



## Easley

Duc Vu said:


> Anyone owns the svs pb-1000 pro sub? Audyssey setup says before running the calibration, the sub's volume should be set to 50%, i.e. volume knob 12 o'clock. This sub however has no volume knob (only digital and an app), so how to set it at 50% volume?


In the app, on the Home / Volume page just set the volume slider to half way (I feel like this is a trick question ).


----------



## Duc Vu

Easley said:


> In the app, on the Home / Volume page just set the volume slider to half way (I feel like this is a trick question ).


I just checked svs website and it says set it at -15db, which is not half of the volume slider (it goes down to -60db)


----------



## Easley

Yeah you can start at -15dB, Audyssey will tell you if thats too hot during calibration, you want to adjust to the highest it will let you get away with. My PB-2000 is closer to halfway.


----------



## bluesky636

Duc Vu said:


> I just checked svs website and it says set it at -15db, which is not half of the volume slider (it goes down to -60db)
> 
> View attachment 3285260


You might want to post you subwoofer questions here:









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com





You'll get more specific advice on setting up subs with Audyssey in that forum.


----------



## Easley

I have created a calculator (spreadsheet) for anyone that wants to try out fixing the D&M speaker time alignment bug. It handles some of the weird edge cases (with what scaling factor to use), as well as shows a before and after snapshot of the alignment.

To use it either copy it to your own Google Drive with _File | Make a copy_. Or _File | Download_ to copy locally as Excel.









Denon/Marantz Distance Correction Calculator


Calculator Denon/Marantz Distance Correction Calculator By: Steve Easley (avsforum.com: Easley) | Version: 0.1.0 Units,Meters,< Highly recommend sticking with meters (for improved precision retention), although feet are supported. Measurement Source,MultEQ App,< Source of values you are inputing...




docs.google.com


----------



## stigzler

Hi - I've read the post here and am still baffled. 

I have a new Denon X2700H. I'm struggling a bit with the speaker setup + Audyseey system. It asks for 3 positions as a minimum - the Main Listening Position (which on the Audyseey diagram is the middle seat of a sofa), the seat to the left and the seat in-front (if I remember correctly). My room layout is this:




I can't move anything - this is how it has to be. So - I can't do the seat to the left, nor the seat in front! I went through it leaving the tripod on the seat with the mic at ear level in the MLP for all three, but when testing with films and PS5, the surrounds sound really loud - drowning out the front speakers. 
I'm thinking I'm doing the audysessey (or whatever - what a terrible name!) process wrong. Could anyone advise?

Also, I'm not sure if I'm meant to put the tripod on the seat itself or in front - I know all the bit about tweeter/ear level etc. It's mainly the moving the tripod around I can't figure. Also, should I use all 8 positions? The couch on the Audyseey diagram looks nothing like mine!!


----------



## greg9x2

All Audyssey measurement positions should be around the MLP.... First one in the center, then in locations of no more than 20 inches in a circle around that spot. Do all positions your AVR is capable of to give Audyssey the max amount of data to work with. So, in your case...the MLP, then the left arm of the sofa, the middle seat of the sofa, etc. The order doesn't matter all that much other than start at the MLP... when do behind the MLP make sure the mic clears the back of the sofa. 

Audyssey tends to make the Surrounds louder, after everything is done can try bumping the trims for them down (I did 3dB, but is personal preference.)


----------



## JosefK666

As per the advice above – the key position is the first one – your Main Listening Position. This should literally be where you ears are when you’re at your normal seated position. The rest of the measurements can be done in any order and should just be positions you or a friend may most likely move to (e.g. slightly forward, leaning far forward etc etc). Forget the Audyssey diagram. Keep all of these within a couple of feet of the MLP at most. Although it is a pain do try to do all eight measurements. Using the tripod on the sofa is fine but don’t have it leaning against the back of the sofa.

When Audyssey has finished – check your speaker distances – they don’t have to be precise as Audyssey is really calculating time delays also but if they appear way off something may have gone wrong and it might be best to try again. The one exception to this is the subwoofer – it’s normal for the distance calculation for that to appear off – if everything else looks okay just leave it.

If you use Dynamic EQ then you may find that Audyssey boosts the bass and the surrounds – try switching that off and see if you prefer it. Alternatively as advised above just adjust the trim for the subwoofer and surrounds to your liking.

Remember after running Audyssey to reset your crossovers. Audyssey will report back to your AVR the frequency that your speakers start rolling off - you would normally want to make sure all speakers are set to 'Small' and move the crossover levels up (do not reduce them lower than the initial Audyssey levels). Typical starting crossover points might be 80Hz for L/C/R and 90-100Hz for Surrounds.


----------



## niterida

greg9x2 said:


> when do behind the MLP make sure the mic clears the back of the sofa.


You don't necessarily want to do this. You want the mic to be at the height your ears will be or at very least in line a line between your ears and the rear speakers. If you put it higher to clear the back of the seat then Audyssey will turn the volume down on the rear speakers and then when your head is lower than the seatback you won't hear it properly. If you put your mic where your ears are then Audyssey will correct for the sound being blocked by the seat.


----------



## MagnumX

What he said. And not just the volume, but you want Audyssey to try and correct any frequency imbalance caused by the seatback.


----------



## greg9x2

niterida said:


> You don't necessarily want to do this. You want the mic to be at the height your ears will be or at very least in line a line between your ears and the rear speakers. If you put it higher to clear the back of the seat then Audyssey will turn the volume down on the rear speakers and then when your head is lower than the seatback you won't hear it properly. If you put your mic where your ears are then Audyssey will correct for the sound being blocked by the seat.


If the behind the seat positions are the only ones that are blocked, then would think would want a clear shot for all locations instead of some clear and some blocked, unless it's a high backed couch that will have all speakers blocked at some point. I'm by no means an expert, but have read frequently to not block the mic.


----------



## MagnumX

greg9x2 said:


> If the behind the seat positions are the only ones that are blocked, then would think would want a clear shot for all locations instead of some clear and some blocked, unless it's a high backed couch that will have all speakers blocked at some point. I'm by no means an expert, but have read frequently to not block the mic.


You don't want to block the mic with obstructions that aren't always there. You do want the microphone where your ears are actually going to be (same height in all test positions, blocked or not) because that's what you're going to hear and you want Audyssey to correct the signal at that point. Otherwise, it'll have no idea there's a treble loss where your head is and do nothing about it (muffled output from any partially blocked speakers). 

The speakers that aren't blocked at all will correct normally except the seat back also represents absorption and the mic placed where your head is, it'll take any signal changes into account caused by it. Placing it above that chair will make it think there's no issues at all and you'll get a different and likely less desirable result.


----------



## StephenMSmith

This seemingly simple mic placement has always confused me b/t mic where your head is vs. out in front of back cushion and/or above the back cushion. I'm sure my situation is common -- I have a couch up against the back wall. My head is usually against the back cushion and ears are a few inches below the top. 

So do I want the mic where my ears are or slightly above and out in front of couch back cushion? Here is a pic of where I'm the mic to do an calibration right now. It's higher 3" higher and 6" closer than where my head will be when sitting. Is this right? I do indeed get very different bass measurements with this position vs. where my head will be. Which one is the more accurate place to put the mic?


----------



## mogorf

Since this is supposed to be the first measurement position as shown on your picture - i.e. at MLP (Main Listening Position) -, the final result will surely depend on how you position the mic for the rest of 7 places around your seating area. That will determine how Audyssey MultEQ gathers information for setting filters and creating an acoustical bubble around your couch. Just follow the setup guide, no need to worry. Even putting a beer on the table up front - beer not seen on your photo - won't do any harm acoustically. Really!


----------



## MagnumX

StephenMSmith said:


> This seemingly simple mic placement has always confused me b/t mic where your head is vs. out in front of back cushion and/or above the back cushion. I'm sure my situation is common -- I have a couch up against the back wall. My head is usually against the back cushion and ears are a few inches below the top.
> 
> So do I want the mic where my ears are or slightly above and out in front of couch back cushion? Here is a pic of where I'm the mic to do an calibration right now. It's higher 3" higher and 6" closer than where my head will be when sitting. Is this right? I do indeed get very different bass measurements with this position vs. where my head will be. Which one is the more accurate place to put the mic?
> 
> View attachment 3288905


I'd put it where your head is going to be. Bass in my half bathroom in the back corner of the home theater is ridiculously loud, but I don't listen to movies in there so I don't mic it.


----------



## StephenMSmith

mogorf said:


> Since this is supposed to be the first measurement position as shown on your picture - i.e. at MLP (Main Listening Position) -, the final result will surely depend on how you position the mic for the rest of 7 places around your seating area. That will determine how Audyssey MultEQ gathers information for setting filters and creating an acoustical bubble around your couch. Just follow the setup guide, no need to worry. Even putting a beer on the table up front - beer not seen on your photo - won't do any harm acoustically. Really!


But Audyssey also sets subs levels using just the 1st position. There is a 2db difference in Audyssey subwoofer levels for both my subs with the mic where it is in pic vs. the mic in same place but 3" lower. So that why I keep wondering which one is better. I'll use the lower setting that better corresponds to my head position. 

And also use the 8th measurement position to check bass output at my toilet in 2nd bath. lol


----------



## StephenMSmith

Wait, I just did a quick test w/the mic 2" above the top of back cushion and then with top of mic just even with the top of the couch back cushion. It's a massive difference in distances and also levels for my 2 subs.

With Mic top 2" above top of back cushion:









With Mic top even with top of back cushion:









This is why I obsess of the 1st Audyssey measurement. It's so critical. But this difference in levels and distances is just wacky.


----------



## mogorf

StephenMSmith said:


> But Audyssey also sets subs levels using just the 1st position. There is a 2db difference in Audyssey subwoofer levels for both my subs with the mic where it is in pic vs. the mic in same place but 3" lower. So that why I keep wondering which one is better. I'll use the lower setting that better corresponds to my head position.
> 
> And also use the 8th measurement position to check bass output at my toilet in 2nd bath. lol


Wouldn't sweat too much on a 2 dB difference for the subs. Just use the settings that correspond to your head position at MLP. From thereon make sure you never move your head up and down or to the sides amid watching a movie or listening to music. Be on the safe side! Warning: while leaning forward for grabbing the beer up front will surely ruin your acoustical enjoyment for a momentary lapse of time.  Come on dude, as said before, don't sweat too much on issues that don't exist. Enjoy your system "as is"!  Toilet bass is another issue.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Well if you see what I just posted, the difference in the few inches is far more dramatic, at least 3.5db difference in sub levels and worse, over 2.5m difference in distance (delay). 

But it is true, about 30 mins after my first 2 cups of coffee, my MLP is the toilet and frankly, I don't have issues or worries at all at that MLP. ;lol


----------



## Soulburner

StephenMSmith said:


> Wait, I just did a quick test w/the mic 2" above the top of back cushion and then with top of mic just even with the top of the couch back cushion. It's a massive difference in distances and also levels for my 2 subs.
> 
> With Mic top 2" above top of back cushion:
> View attachment 3288926
> 
> 
> With Mic top even with top of back cushion:
> View attachment 3288927
> 
> 
> This is why I obsess of the 1st Audyssey measurement. It's so critical. But this difference in levels and distances is just wacky.


Which one gives the better final frequency response? That's all that matters.


----------



## Alan P

StephenMSmith said:


> This seemingly simple mic placement has always confused me b/t mic where your head is vs. out in front of back cushion and/or above the back cushion. I'm sure my situation is common -- I have a couch up against the back wall. My head is usually against the back cushion and ears are a few inches below the top.
> 
> So do I want the mic where my ears are or slightly above and out in front of couch back cushion? Here is a pic of where I'm the mic to do an calibration right now. It's higher 3" higher and 6" closer than where my head will be when sitting. Is this right? I do indeed get very different bass measurements with this position vs. where my head will be. Which one is the more accurate place to put the mic?
> 
> View attachment 3288905


It's not surprising that you are having issues....your MLP is up against the back wall where bass builds up like crazy, add to that the reflective surface of your seating and it's a recipe for disaster. If you can't get the seating at least a foot off of that back wall, you need to put up some sort of temporary absorption during calibration...big, fluffy blankets to cover the back of the couch and the wall behind would be a good start.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Alan P said:


> It's not surprising that you are having issues....your MLP is up against the back wall where bass builds up like crazy, add to that the reflective surface of your seating and it's a recipe for disaster. If you can't get the seating at least a foot off of that back wall, you need to put up some sort of temporary absorption during calibration...big, fluffy blankets to cover the back of the couch and the wall behind would be a good start.


I'll give that a try today. But don't I want the actual viewing environment represented during the calibration? Is the XT32 measurement and adjustments still valid once I remove all the blankets?


----------



## pbarach

StephenMSmith said:


> I'll give that a try today. But don't I want the actual viewing environment represented during the calibration? Is the XT32 measurement and adjustments still valid once I remove all the blankets?


 I have the same question about the recommendation to remove a coffee table in front of the MLP during calibration, only to replace it for listening purposes. Didn't make sense to me, so I removed the coffee table for good.


----------



## pbz06

StephenMSmith said:


> I'll give that a try today. But don't I want the actual viewing environment represented during the calibration? Is the XT32 measurement and adjustments still valid once I remove all the blankets?


The short version response is that you don't necessarily want Audyssey trying to correct spurious reflections that your ears will likely filter out or not hear the same way a mic would.


----------



## MagnumX

I'm seeing some of the strangest advice I've ever read in my life in this thread. Removing or covering things that are going to be there in reality and then putting them back after calibration will only screw up your response!

If you have too much bass because the couch is near the wall, covering it with blankets will make it worse not better because Audyssey will be fooled into thinking you have less of a problem than you actually do!

The whole point of room correction is to correct problems like that through software instead of gigantic bass traps and other room issues. Combining them is even better, but you don't apply bass traps _after_ calibration. You apply calibration after adding bass traps.

Ears filtering out things a mic hears? I've never heard of such a thing.


----------



## pbz06

You better read up


----------



## StephenMSmith

OK, I just ran another calibration with an obvious middle ground -- replicated my body with pillows. This seems to be much better, ie. no wacky way-off sub distances and the predicted response looks better. Interestingly all my speaker levels are +2db or so. But I think this is the most accurate way to measure, right?


----------



## garygarrison

It *is* a bit of a dilemma, IMO. 


The mic, aimed at the ceiling, picks up the sound equally all the way around, over 360 degrees. Your ears don't.
The nearby rear wall pumps up the bass (but not necessarily evenly), which may result in Audyssey turning *down* the bass, something few music or film buffs would want. "Where has my bass gone?" is a common question among those taking the long voyage home (sorry). Many add 3 dB to 7 dB more bass to the final setting, both at the subwoofer level and the bass tone control level (FL and FR only).
Get one or more cups of coffee and read through this, or at least the Cliff Notes section. It is the best source I've seen. If you are properly stimulated, you could polish off War and Peace when you are done. A *GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including Audyssey issues.


----------



## StephenMSmith

garygarrison said:


> It *is* a bit of a dilemma, IMO.
> 
> The mic, aimed at the ceiling, picks up the sound equally all the way around, over 360 degrees. Your ears don't.
> The nearby rear wall pumps up the bass (but not necessarily evenly), which may result in Audyssey turning *down* the bass, something few music or film buffs would want. "Where has my bass gone?" is a common question among those taking the long voyage home (sorry). Many add 3 dB to 7 dB more bass to the final setting, both at the subwoofer level and the bass tone control level (FL and FR only).
> Get one or more cups of coffee and read through this, or at least the Cliff Notes section. It is the best source I've seen. If you are properly stimulated, you could polish off War and Peace when you are done. A *GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES** The Guide linked above is a comprehensive guide to Audio & HT systems, including Audyssey issues.


Yep, I've read mthomas's guide several times and frequently refer back to it. It's fantastic and should be an e-book. For Mic placement in my unfortunate room setup w/couch against wall, replicating my body w/pillows seems to work best, ie. it sounds great so far based on my listening today and the Audyssey delays are all within reason. The graphs for all the speakers in Ratbudyssey don't show any dramatic changes but do appear improved from bare couch back whether Mic position clears top of back cushion or not.


----------



## pbarach

StephenMSmith said:


> For Mic placement in my unfortunate room setup w/couch against wall, replicating my body w/pillows seems to work best.


 A human body is not like pillows. For best results, place a corpse at the MLP and run calibration


----------



## Pixelatto

StephenMSmith said:


> Yep, I've read mthomas's guide several times and frequently refer back to it. It's fantastic and should be an e-book. For Mic placement in my unfortunate room setup w/couch against wall, replicating my body w/pillows seems to work best, ie. it sounds great so far based on my listening today and the Audyssey delays are all within reason. The graphs for all the speakers in Ratbudyssey don't show any dramatic changes but do appear improved from bare couch back whether Mic position clears top of back cushion or not.


Sub levels set by Audyssey are pretty pointless as most members add hefty gain at sub level anyway. The only case where that is not true is if they show -12 dB trim after calibration or lower than -5 dB. As noted in cited guide, recommended level is -5 dB and beyond -12 dB you might have too high initial volume which might confuse Audyssey, especially on distance/phase. I set it to -5dB and decide on sub gain by listening to some content with healthy but not overwhelming bass (Wonder Woman 1984 opening 7 m). Then I use presets 2,3,4 and decrease bass by 2 for each for content with more bass (TV shows). 

Distance is a serious issue. Distance difference of 2.5 m is going to give you very very different bass response. Unless you have REW/UMIC, the best you can do is listen to some bass intensive content you know well and go from shorter distance in 15-20 cm increments until you reach the longer distance. This will give you an idea of how distance impacts bass. Choose any distance in that range you like the most. Point where bass is tight and powerful but before it starts sounding boomy. When bass is too tight, it will loose SPL, and when too boomy SPL will be higher but the whole thing will be over-bloated. 

Now you have the phase, which is complex, so to simplify, I would say once you settle on distance, just try inverting the phase to check if that sounds better for you.


----------



## StephenMSmith

Pixelatto said:


> Sub levels set by Audyssey are pretty pointless as most members add hefty gain at sub level anyway. The only case where that is not true is if they show -12 dB trim after calibration or lower than -5 dB. As noted in cited guide, recommended level is -5 dB and beyond -12 dB you might have too high initial volume which might confuse Audyssey, especially on distance/phase. I set it to -5dB and decide on sub gain by listening to some content with healthy but not overwhelming bass (Wonder Woman 1984 opening 7 m). Then I use presets 2,3,4 and decrease bass by 2 for each for content with more bass (TV shows).
> 
> Distance is a serious issue. Distance difference of 2.5 m is going to give you very very different bass response. Unless you have REW/UMIC, the best you can do is listen to some bass intensive content you know well and go from shorter distance in 15-20 cm increments until you reach the longer distance. This will give you an idea of how distance impacts bass. Choose any distance in that range you like the most. Point where bass is tight and powerful but before it starts sounding boomy. When bass is too tight, it will loose SPL, and when too boomy SPL will be higher but the whole thing will be over-bloated.
> 
> Now you have the phase, which is complex, so to simplify, I would say once you settle on distance, just try inverting the phase to check if that sounds better for you.


I spent quite a lot of time using the sub level matching feature to 

Adjust levels on both subs so that Audyssey says -11.5db for the MLP 1st calibration position. I added +2db to that post-calibration
Tried all combinations of phase 0 vs 180 for both subs and found max bass output is main sub (actually a pair of co-located subs) at 0 and 2nd smaller sub over by couch at phase 180
Audyssey distances (delays) for my situation are extremely dependent on mic position for 1st measurement, even a few inches up or down changes delay +/- 2 meters. So for the final step, I use another tip in this thread or the big sub thread -- play a 80hz (my x-over) sine wave while sitting in MLP w/my trusty 20 year old RS SPL and adjust sub delays up or down to find the max output level for L+R+Subs. 

I think this covers it, right?


----------



## Keenan

pbarach said:


> A human body is not like pillows. For best results, place a corpse at the MLP and run calibration


A couple of dead pigs, or some ballistic gel. 😎


----------



## garygarrison

StephenMSmith said:


> Tried all combinations of phase 0 vs 180 for both subs and found max bass output is main sub (actually a pair of co-located subs) at 0 and 2nd smaller sub over by couch at phase 180


Somewhere in "Ask Audyssey" they insist that the switch marked "Phase: 0 vs 180" on a subwoofer should read "Polarity," rather than "Phase." I think Correct Phase may vary with frequency in the sub range. I think I remember that Audyssey says something like, "Set the polarity on 0, and let Audyssey set the phase." I'm not taking a position on this. I don't remember what Mike says.


----------



## StephenMSmith

garygarrison said:


> Somewhere in "Ask Audyssey" they insist that the switch marked "Phase: 0 vs 180" on a subwoofer should read "Polarity," rather than "Phase." I think Correct Phase may vary with frequency in the sub range. I think I remember that Audyssey says something like, "Set the polarity on 0, and let Audyssey set the phase." I'm not taking a position on this. I don't remember what Mike says.


I don't think it works that way. When I was doing my phase testing, I ran many Audyssey calibrations w/both subs set to 0 phase. Audyssey would consistently set both subs levels +5 db vs. one of the subs set to phase 180.

And I can confirm w/my ears using the 3700H manual speaker level settings page which cycles through Sub 1 alone --> Sub 2 alone --> Both Subs. With both subs set to phase 0, in my MLP the bass drops out when I hit both subs active.


----------



## bluesky636

StephenMSmith said:


> I don't think it works that way. When I was doing my phase testing, I ran many Audyssey calibrations w/both subs set to 0 phase. Audyssey would consistently set both subs levels +5 db vs. one of the subs set to phase 180.
> 
> And I can confirm w/my ears using the 3700H manual speaker level settings page which cycles through Sub 1 alone --> Sub 2 alone --> Both Subs. With both subs set to phase 0, in my MLP the bass drops out when I hit both subs active.


Test tones generated in the manual mode DO NOT go through Audyssey processing and are therefore invalid for comparing with the Audyssey settings. You must use externally generated test tones from a CD or other source to make valid measurements.


----------



## Pixelatto

StephenMSmith said:


> Audyssey distances (delays) for my situation are extremely dependent on mic position for 1st measurement, even a few inches up or down changes delay +/- 2 meters. So for the final step, I use another tip in this thread or the big sub thread -- play a 80hz (my x-over) sine wave while sitting in MLP w/my trusty 20 year old RS SPL and adjust sub delays up or down to find the max output level for L+R+Subs.
> 
> I think this covers it, right?


If the bass sounds right at all frequencies after optimizing @80hz then yes. Best to check bass sweep with SPL meter after that.


----------



## Soulburner

bluesky636 said:


> Test tones generated in the manual mode DO NOT go through Audyssey processing and are therefore invalid for comparing with the Audyssey settings. You must use externally generated test tones from a CD or other source to make valid measurements.


What's worse, when using two subs, it doesn't seem like the SubEQ delays are applied, either, so the response when playing the sub level check is completely messed up.


----------



## tsanga

garygarrison said:


> I think I remember that Audyssey says something like, "Set the polarity on 0, and let Audyssey set the phase." I'm not taking a position on this. I don't remember what Mike says.


I just went through a round of discovering Audyssey XT32 _not_ doing anything with phase/polarity. I ran Audyssey with polarity at 0º, figured out through REW’s alignment tool that reversing polarity was actually the correct setting, then reran Audyssey with the sub’s phase knob at 180º, and Audyssey didn’t do anything differently (other than now the phase is aligned).


----------



## Soulburner

Strange, but if you needed to, you needed to. The system may not get it right every time.


----------



## tsanga

Soulburner said:


> Strange, but if you needed to, you needed to. The system may not get it right every time.


Indeed, it’s the first time I’ve seen this happen. Very glad I have REW to confirm.


----------



## CBdicX

*Strange reading after Audyssey setup for 4 Atmos Enabled speakers*.

The 4 speakers are *Teufel Reflekt*, certified Dolby Atmos speakers, but what happens is that I get *for all 4* that they are out of phase, so on all 4 a red cross in the speakers setup menu of my Denon X4700H.
And they are set to "Refect mode" (they have also a Direct mode) and they are indeed aimed to the ceiling ;-)

Checked the wires but all is ok.

So is this just a mistake from Audyssye and I leave it like this, or connect the wires "wrong" so Audyssey thinks they are wired correct ?

Next question is that I get a crossover after Audyssey of 100 and 110 Hz.
Specs state they are *150 - 20.000* Hz (think this is the Dolby Enabled spec)

Must I go up for the 4 bouncers to 150 Hz or stay what the AVC puts in ?

Thanks


----------



## Pixelatto

If you checked wiring for phase simplest is to ignore. Reversing polarity at speakers might not be best thing to do.

Your crossover suggested by A is the lowest point where there is -3dB signal and just a suggestion. Most often people add 20h to that point. There is likely some room gain going on.You also need to check how is sub reproducing that rage aa some subs have issues above 100hz.


----------



## Duc Vu

Does this post audyssey trim result look normal?


----------



## pbz06

Duc Vu said:


> Does this post audyssey trim result look normal?
> View attachment 3293011


Yes


----------



## bluesky636

Duc Vu said:


> Does this post audyssey trim result look normal?
> View attachment 3293011


What makes you think it's not?


----------



## Duc Vu

bluesky636 said:


> What makes you think it's not?


Someone looked at that and raised the question of why the trim for all my speakers (except the sub) were all in the minus 5-6 db range instead of just minus 1-2 db, so just wondering.


----------



## bluesky636

Duc Vu said:


> Someone looked at that and raised the question of why the trim for all my speakers (except the sub) were all in the minus 5-6 db range instead of just minus 1-2 db, so just wondering.


None of my speakers trims are minus 1 to 2 dB range. They're mostly in the -3 to -4 dB range. There's no rule that says they should all be in a specific range. It depends on the speaker sensitivity, distance from the mic, and general room acoustics.


----------



## Chubtoad

So how bad Is this before and after?

Would the issue be due to subwoofer placement or a seating position placement?

Room is 9x14 with a smaller bathroom of 5x9 on the one end. Total around 1100ish cubic feet.
Subwoofer is 7 inches off the front wall and 1.8 feet off the left side wall.
The back of the sofa Is roughly 4 feet from the back wall.

Receiver is Denon X3500H, Subwoofer is SVS PB-3000.
After Audyssey Calibration It had set the subwoofer to -11.5 and I raised that to -5.5 (+6 db)

I'll note that I don't know what exactly I'm looking at or how to use the curve editor If there Is any way to fix this with the curve editor or the SVS phone app.

I have a Umik-1 and I have downloaded REW but admittedly I haven't learned how to use It yet.


----------



## Soulburner

Weird, guys...my speaker levels are normally not *all* negative like that.


----------



## Soulburner

Chubtoad said:


> So how bad Is this before and after?
> 
> Would the issue be due to subwoofer placement or a seating position placement?
> 
> Room is 9x14 with a smaller bathroom of 5x9 on the one end. Total around 1100ish cubic feet.
> Subwoofer is 7 inches off the front wall and 1.8 feet off the left side wall.
> The back of the sofa Is roughly 4 feet from the back wall.
> 
> Receiver is Denon X3500H, Subwoofer is SVS PB-3000.
> After Audyssey Calibration It had set the subwoofer to -11.5 and I raised that to -5.5 (+6 db)
> 
> I'll note that I don't know what exactly I'm looking at or how to use the curve editor If there Is any way to fix this with the curve editor or the SVS phone app.
> 
> I have a Umik-1 and I have downloaded REW but admittedly I haven't learned how to use It yet.


You have a phase cancellation at ~65 Hz due to your room dimensions. You'll need to try some different sub and seat placements to modify it.


----------



## bluesky636

Soulburner said:


> Weird, guys...my speaker levels are normally not *all* negative like that.


Mine are.


----------



## drh3b

Soulburner said:


> Weird, guys...my speaker levels are normally not *all* negative like that.


If you have high sensitivity speakers you will. I've always used medium high sensitivity speakers, always had negative settings.


----------



## Soulburner

drh3b said:


> If you have high sensitivity speakers you will. I've always used medium high sensitivity speakers, always had negative settings.


Even your top speakers?

The screenshot in question had all of his speakers around -6 give or take, which is pretty hard to believe is necessary.


----------



## Pixelatto

Such narrow band between the trims for all speakers would indicate similar ratio between sensitivity and distance of the speakers (given amplification is the same), which is I guess possible. Trim for sub should be max -5 dB, screenshot shows -3dB, but then text says -5.5 dB which is good.

Sub has two big nulls dipping lowest @65hz and @100hz as as noted placement elsewhere in the room might help. Also, using SVS app and DSP to boost bass response in these null bands before running Audyssey might help Audyssey to do a better job correcting these dips. My understanding is that Audyssey can correct up to 9dB null to zero dB response. So to the extend you can find a better position and do a boost via SVS DSP before Audyssey, this might help you to get to the curve/line/linear range you are aiming for within the 9dB null boost limitation. If that does not work you can try a curve/line that starts in negative dB territory so that Audyssey can correct entire range more linearly. By default, it tries to follow the +1dB flat line across the range.

Edited for typos...


----------



## pbarach

Soulburner said:


> Weird, guys...my speaker levels are normally not *all* negative like that.


 Every Audyssey measurement I have ever done, including several different AVRs, has always set all speakers in the negative.


----------



## drh3b

Soulburner said:


> Even your top speakers?
> 
> The screenshot in question had all of his speakers around -6 give or take, which is pretty hard to believe is necessary.


I don't have any installed atm. The ones I have sitting around that I plan to use are less sensitive than the rest of my speakers, so I suppose when I get around to it, they may be in the positives.


----------



## Duc Vu

So I decided that I'll try the sub crawl, although there are only a few positions where I can place the sub without obstructing stuff in my bedroom.

The thing is I already ran Audyssey a few days ago. Do I need to reset everything in the avr before doing the sub crawl, or can I just simply disable Audyssey for the time being, restore sub trim to 0db, play the frequency sweep (on youtube app on my bluray player connected to the avr) & do the sub crawl, place the sub in the new optimal position and then rerun Audyssey?


----------



## bluesky636

My system is a simple 7.1 with four Polk surrounds set to bipole mode. LCR are also Polk. Sub is a HSU VTF2. 

Trim levels are:
LF -4
C -3
RF -3
RS -1
RBS -2
LBS -2.5
LS -1.5
SUB -7, set to -5

Audyssey XT32 measured distances:
LF 11'
C 10.7' set to 9' *
RF 11.1'
RS 10.7'
RBS 7.9'
LBS 7.4'
LS 9.4'
SUB 13.1'

*Center speaker delay is increased by about 2 ms based on Meridian guidance to increase center delay for music. Current Dolby Surround does not have a Music Mode that delays the center channel by 2 ms like Dolby ProLogic IIx did. I hear no real audible difference in any multichannel audio format (DD, DTS, multichannel LPCM) although voices do seem to lock to the tv screen better.


----------



## Snakeyeskm

bluesky636 said:


> My system is a simple 7.1 with four Polk surrounds set to bipole mode. LCR are also Polk. Sub is a HSU VTF2.
> 
> 
> 
> *Center speaker delay is increased by about 2 ms based on Meridian guidance to increase center delay for music. Current Dolby Surround does not have a Music Mode that delays the center channel by 2 ms like Dolby ProLogic IIx did. I hear no real audible difference in any multichannel audio format (DD, DTS, multichannel LPCM) although voices do seem to lock to the tv screen better.



Your surround (bipole) speakers are doing what they are designed to do, namely create an ambience and limit the directionality. With normal directional speakers you would notice a difference (not necessarily better) in multichannel mode. Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## bluesky636

Snakeyeskm said:


> Your surround (bipole) speakers are doing what they are designed to do, namely create an ambience and limit the directionality. With normal directional speakers you would notice a difference (not necessarily better) in multichannel mode. Different strokes for different folks.


You are wrong. Bipole speakers can be very directional and in my system I can pinpoint sounds all around me. Dipole speakers were originally recommended for ambience effects in matrixed surround systems.


----------



## tiempososcuros

Hello. I need advice on what values to put in the crossover after running Audyssey.

Audyssey has adjusted the crossover as follows:
Front: Full Band
Center: 80Hz
Surround: 60Hz
Surr. back: 80Hz
Dolby front: 80Hz

And the speaker specs:
Front: 750Hz & 2.8kHz
Center: 650 Hz & 3.3 kHz
Surround: 2.6kHz
Surr. back: 2kHz
Dolby front: 2kHz

What values would you put?

Thanks.


----------



## bluesky636

tiempososcuros said:


> Hello. I need advice on what values to put in the crossover after running Audyssey.
> 
> Audyssey has adjusted the crossover as follows:
> Front: Full Band
> Center: 80Hz
> Surround: 60Hz
> Surr. back: 80Hz
> Dolby front: 80Hz
> 
> And the speaker specs:
> Front: 750Hz & 2.8kHz
> Center: 650 Hz & 3.3 kHz
> Surround: 2.6kHz
> Surr. back: 2kHz
> Dolby front: 2kHz
> 
> What values would you put?
> 
> Thanks.


The crossover you are setting after running Audyssey is the crossover between the LCR and surround speakers to a subwoofer. Set them all to 80 Hz.

You did not identify what speakers you have but based on the speaker specs your LCR speakers are 3-way and the others are 2-way. They have nothing to do with the crossover between the speakers and subwoofer.


----------



## Snakeyeskm

bluesky636 said:


> You are wrong. Bipole speakers can be very directional and in my system I can pinpoint sounds all around me. Dipole speakers were originally recommended for ambience effects in matrixed surround systems.


 I stand corrected. I forgot about the phase opposition


----------



## bluesky636

Snakeyeskm said:


> I stand corrected. I forgot about the phase opposition


No worries. 

The "front" and "back" of bipoles are in phase with each other. I have always preferred bipoles for surround speakers as they provide a combination of ambience and pinpoint imaging. I don't know why they aren't used more in Atmos/DTS-X systems.

The "front" and "back" of dipoles are out of phase thus creating a null when looking at the "sides".


----------



## Snakeyeskm

bluesky636 said:


> No worries.
> 
> The "front" and "back" of bipoles are in phase with each other. I have always preferred bipoles for surround speakers as they provide a combination of ambience and pinpoint imaging. I don't know why they aren't used more in Atmos/DTS-X systems.
> 
> The "front" and "back" of dipoles are out of phase thus creating a null when looking at the "sides".


 I should pay better attention to the original post. Kind of dumb since I have a 9.1.4 Dolby Atmos/Neural X set up with the following speakers.

4 x Klipsch Reference Premiere RP-250S - Surrounds

1 x Klipsch RP440C Reference Premiere Center - Center

2 x Klipsch® RP-260F Ebony - Fronts

2 x PB-2000 pro - Subs

2 x Klipsch RP-500M - Wides

4 x Monitor Audio CWT180 - Ceiling Atmos

Powered by a Denon 6700H and an Emotiva amp driving LCR


----------



## tiempososcuros

bluesky636 said:


> The crossover you are setting after running Audyssey is the crossover between the LCR and surround speakers to a subwoofer. Set them all to 80 Hz.
> 
> You did not identify what speakers you have but based on the speaker specs your LCR speakers are 3-way and the others are 2-way. They have nothing to do with the crossover between the speakers and subwoofer.


Thanks for answering.
My configuration is the following:
2 x Monitor Audio Silver 300 7G - Fronts
1 x Monitor Audio Silver C250 7G - Center
2 x Monitor Audio Silver 50 7G - Surrounds
2 x Monitor Audio Silver FX 7G - Surrounds back
2 x Monitor Audio Silver AMS 7G - Dolby Atmos Fronts
1 x SVS PB-2000 Pro - Subwoofer


----------



## bluesky636

tiempososcuros said:


> Thanks for answering.
> My configuration is the following:
> 2 x Monitor Audio Silver 300 7G - Fronts
> 1 x Monitor Audio Silver C250 7G - Center
> 2 x Monitor Audio Silver 50 7G - Surrounds
> 2 x Monitor Audio Silver FX 7G - Surrounds back
> 2 x Monitor Audio Silver AMS 7G - Dolby Atmos Fronts
> 1 x SVS PB-2000 Pro - Subwoofer


Nice speakers.


----------



## Alan P

Duc Vu said:


> So I decided that I'll try the sub crawl, although there are only a few positions where I can place the sub without obstructing stuff in my bedroom.
> 
> The thing is I already ran Audyssey a few days ago. Do I need to reset everything in the avr before doing the sub crawl, or can I just simply disable Audyssey for the time being, restore sub trim to 0db, play the frequency sweep (on youtube app on my bluray player connected to the avr) & do the sub crawl, place the sub in the new optimal position and then rerun Audyssey?


Yes, just turn Audyssey off for the sub crawl. But seriously man, get your UMIK + REW up and running, it will save you a LOT of work when it comes to finding optimal sub placement.


----------



## Spidacat

I have kind of a general question. When running Audyssey, the "before" pictures for my L/R mains show a pretty substantial hump in the 50-80 Hz range (don't have that computer in front of me). After Audyssey everything looks mostly fine (verified by REW), but I always have a (negative) notch about the same place. Oddly enough, it's much worse in the left speaker even though they are symmetrically placed and both measure very similarly in REW without subs. The sub distance tweak and changing crossovers helped a lot with the right speaker, but not much with the left (center was pretty good either way). I _think_ I measured the mains full range before Audyssey, but not positive. If I did, it didn't show the 50-80 Hz bump that Audyssey is trying to tame.

OK, to the actual question... Is it possible that Audyssey is being too aggressive in removing the hump that it sees? Since I use bass management, would it make sense to use the port plugs to keep Audyssey from cutting too much there? And a probably stupid follow up question - since it's mostly affecting the left speaker would it make sense to use the port plug in the left speaker and not the right? I don't really want to spend another weekend running REW/Audyssey/REW looking at every possible scenario. I can post some pictures when I get home if it will help.


----------



## Alan P

Spidacat said:


> I have kind of a general question. When running Audyssey, the "before" pictures for my L/R mains show a pretty substantial hump in the 50-80 Hz range (don't have that computer in front of me). After Audyssey everything looks mostly fine (verified by REW), but I always have a (negative) notch about the same place. Oddly enough, it's much worse in the left speaker even though they are symmetrically placed and both measure very similarly in REW without subs. The sub distance tweak and changing crossovers helped a lot with the right speaker, but not much with the left (center was pretty good either way). I _think_ I measured the mains full range before Audyssey, but not positive. If I did, it didn't show the 50-80 Hz bump that Audyssey is trying to tame.
> 
> OK, to the actual question... Is it possible that Audyssey is being too aggressive in removing the hump that it sees? Since I use bass management, would it make sense to use the port plugs to keep Audyssey from cutting too much there? And a probably stupid follow up question - since it's mostly affecting the left speaker would it make sense to use the port plug in the left speaker and not the right? I don't really want to spend another weekend running REW/Audyssey/REW looking at every possible scenario. I can post some pictures when I get home if it will help.


Hard to offer advice without seeing the graphs.


----------



## Spidacat

Yeah, just realized that I left my tablet that I use for Audyssey at work and it's wifi only so it might be a few days before I can get the Audyssey screenshots. I did boot up my old phone that I used to use and it looks like the boost it's cutting is more like 20-50 Hz (which it should) and there is a notch more like the 60-80 Hz range that I'm trying to fix with the SDT. Still it's odd that the right speaker gets much better but the left really doesn't. I'll see what I can post in a little bit, but I'm thinking I just have a room issue in the 60-80 Hz range and Audyssey doesn't have anything to do with it.


----------



## Spidacat

Here's some older Audyssey shots (same speakers).
















Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

Spidacat said:


> Yeah, just realized that I left my tablet that I use for Audyssey at work and it's wifi only so it might be a few days before I can get the Audyssey screenshots. I did boot up my old phone that I used to use and it looks like the boost it's cutting is more like 20-50 Hz (which it should) and there is a notch more like the 60-80 Hz range that I'm trying to fix with the SDT. Still it's odd that the right speaker gets much better but the left really doesn't. I'll see what I can post in a little bit, but I'm thinking I just have a room issue in the 60-80 Hz range and Audyssey doesn't have anything to do with it.


I have a similar issue and in my case I blame the closet that's next to my right speaker. Bass goes right around/under/through the door so the "space" next to that speaker is larger. Maybe not applicable in your case, but that's my experience.


----------



## Spidacat

I'll post some more pictures, but like I said, I was wrong about Audyssey cutting too much in the range I was concerned about. Here you can see the problems the left speaker has in the 80-100 Hz range. The right is a little boosted in that area if anything. Only a small sharp dip just past 100 Hz. I played a lot with sub distances and crossovers and this is as good as it got.









Here's the response of both speakers without the subs. I guess you can see the same dips, but they don't look very pronounced.


----------



## Duc Vu

I notice that when I play some frequency test, my subwoofer's cone still vibrates at >100hz, even though the max crossover set in the avr is 100Hz. Why is this the case?


----------



## bluesky636

Duc Vu said:


> I notice that when I play some frequency test, my subwoofer's cone still vibrates at >100hz, even though the max crossover set in the avr is 100Hz. Why is this the case?


The crossover "point" (depending on the crossover design is actually a steep slope on either side of 100 Hz) is typically about 3 dB down for both the subwoofer and main speaker. If designed properly the curves at 100 Hz will add to be flat. So 100 Hz will be reproduced by both the sub and main speaker. In fact, depending on the design the sub will be about 12 dB down at 200 Hz.


----------



## Soulburner

^ and that is the reason why crossovers over 80 Hz don't sound as clean in my systems.


----------



## Duc Vu

bluesky636 said:


> The crossover "point" (depending on the crossover design is actually a steep slope on either side of 100 Hz) is typically about 3 dB down for both the subwoofer and main speaker. If designed properly the curves at 100 Hz will add to be flat. So 100 Hz will be reproduced by both the sub and main speaker. In fact, depending on the design the sub will be about 12 dB down at 200 Hz.


Thanks. Makes sense.


----------



## bluesky636

Duc Vu said:


> Thanks. Makes sense.


You're welcome. 👍


----------



## garygarrison

Soulburner said:


> I have a similar issue and in my case I blame the closet that's next to my right speaker. Bass goes right around/under/through the door so the "space" next to that speaker is larger. Maybe not applicable in your case, but that's my experience.


We replaced two doors in the music room/theater with _solid core_ doors, _adjusted the strike plates _so the doors wouldn't dare rattle (used some neoprene pads as well) and bought _door dampers_. All is well.


----------



## platinum00

Normally I crossover my mains at 80hz. However, after adding 2 additional subs it looks like the higher I cross over, the better the measurements are getting. Is there any reason to not set it at a higher crossover point?

I stopped testing at 120hz xover since that is where my LFE is set.

No smoothing on Graphs


----------



## Soulburner

platinum00 said:


> Normally I crossover my mains at 80hz. However, after adding 2 additional subs it looks like the higher I cross over, the better the measurements are getting. Is there any reason to not set it at a higher crossover point?
> 
> I stopped testing at 120hz xover since that is where my LFE is set.
> 
> No smoothing on Graphs


IME crossover testing has to be confirmed with listening. There's a lot going on that you can't see in that combined measurement.


----------



## bluesky636

platinum00 said:


> Normally I crossover my mains at 80hz. However, after adding 2 additional subs it looks like the higher I cross over, the better the measurements are getting. Is there any reason to not set it at a higher crossover point?
> 
> I stopped testing at 120hz xover since that is where my LFE is set.
> 
> No smoothing on Graphs


No reason not to set crossover higher as long as you don't mind being able to localize the sub and possibly muddy up the upper bass.


----------



## platinum00

localization makes sense, although 4 subs on opposing walls might mask that.

What do you mean by mudding up the upper bass?

Yeah, I can listen for a few days with each.

With all of that said, it's not much of a difference either way so 80hz is probably the right move.


----------



## bluesky636

platinum00 said:


> localization makes sense, although 4 subs on opposing walls might mask that.
> 
> What do you mean by mudding up the upper bass?
> 
> Yeah, I can listen for a few days with each.
> 
> With all of that said, it's not much of a difference either way so 80hz is probably the right move.


Muddy up > Make unclear


----------



## Alan P

platinum00 said:


> Normally I crossover my mains at 80hz. However, after adding 2 additional subs it looks like the higher I cross over, the better the measurements are getting. Is there any reason to not set it at a higher crossover point?
> 
> I stopped testing at 120hz xover since that is where my LFE is set.
> 
> No smoothing on Graphs


Your measurements aren't getting better with the higher crossovers, just louder.  The shape of the curve remains essentially the same, just at a slightly increased level.

I agree with the advice to listen to each and go with whichever sounds best to your ears.


----------



## platinum00

Isn't louder always better 

Joking aside, thanks for reviewing and the advice everyone.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## hollams

garygarrison said:


> We replaced two doors in the music room/theater with _solid core_ doors, _adjusted the strike plates _so the doors wouldn't dare rattle (used some neoprene pads as well) and bought _door dampers_. All is well.


On the Left side of my theater room there is a hollow interior door that goes out to on open crawlspace which is quite a large area. In the picture below it's right in front of the stairwell. I do have an acoustic panel over the door which is the first inflection point of the left speaker. 
I'm now wondering what difference in sound would I get if I replaced it with a solid core door? Since it's in front of the stairwell is it best that it is a hollow door? 

Did you notice any sound difference after replacing the doors?


----------



## garygarrison

hollams said:


> I do have an acoustic panel over the door which is the first inflection point of the left speaker.
> *I'm now wondering what difference in sound would I get if I replaced it with a solid core door? Since it's in front of the stairwell is it best that it is a hollow door? *
> 
> *Did you notice any sound difference after replacing the doors?*



I can't predict the difference in sound, but see number 3.
I don't _think_ a hollow core door would be better, _unless_, by coincidence (or calculation) it had a resonance at or near some *troubling frequency* you would like to hear less of, taking into account the room facing door panel's resonance, as conditioned by the size of the airspace behind said panel, making it into a membrane absorber ("bass trap.") I don't know much about this stuff, but I would guess the air space would need to be a) tuned, or b) bigger, or c) become a broadband membrane absorber by having a *sloped* panel surface. The Boarding House in San Francisco put one in about about 50 years ago that was about 1/2 the length of a very, very long, very narrow room. It didn't seem to make a difference with higher frequency instruments (as expected), but seemed to make a difference with massed sound with a lot of bass (removed "Johnny One Note" bass way deep ~~ 30 Hz?).
In our room, I seemed to hear tighter, better bass. I manipulated the crossover through 100 Hz, 80 Hz (the starting point), 60 Hz, and 40 Hz. I finally settled on 60 Hz as sounding the best, cleanest, tightest, with the main speakers set on "Small," naturally. The biggest difference was the removal of door rattling and a faint buzzing from time to time. The rattling was damped by re-adjusting the strike plate so the door was held tightly, and installing closed cell neoprene strips pressing hard against the border surface of the doors to further damp them. The bookshelves are screwed into walls made of 5/8" sheetrock screwed and glued to 3/4" plywood, screwed and glued 2x6 studs, with all panels staggered. Now there is no rattling of anything even under assault of couch moving, pants leg flapping, desk bending bass in Fanfare for the Common Man, or in movies I don't like like Pacific Rim, or -- spare me -- Transformers. Clear at the other end of the deep house both the book shelves and double hung windows buzz like crazy with the heaviest bass.



platinum00 said:


> What do you mean by mudding up the upper bass?


My main speakers (Xover to sub at 60Hz, nominally) have horn loaded woofers which are very clear, tight, precise, etc. I attribute this to the 15" woofer cones hardly moving (spec = 1/16") even when loud and in the deep bass, which is a characteristic of horn loaded woofers, due to very low modulation distortion (1/3 of that of a non-horn loaded speaker by the same manufacturer, with identical drivers, and with the non-horn ones operating at 10 dB lower SPL). My subwoofer has (potentially) much greater excursion, therefore much higher modulation distortion, although, fortunately, many of the evil sidebands do not appear due to the Xover being 60 Hz, which, by ear, was the lowest I liked. At 80 Hz or 100 Hz the bass became "*muddier*," compared to the clean bass of our horns. Some others get horn loaded subs, or make them. Someday?


----------



## AVRams

So I ran Audyssey on the Android app, all 8 pos.
My basement has a tricky layout, and it not so easy to treat the room.
Still, looks like Audyssey managed to tame the peaks, especially for my fronts.

I set crossover for fronts at 100 Hz, same for center.
Surround and Dolby speakers at 200 Hz.

If I'm reading the measurements correct, all my speakers have the "BBC" dip, so I left Midrange comp. on.

Now, how to turn up the bass. Any suggestions? Just pump up the subs 5 dB?
Use the curve editor?

Edit: What about frequency cut-off for my fronts? Looks like they measure somewhat OK from 5000 Hz, or am I wrong? Is it any point to use frequency cut-off at all in my room?


----------



## garygarrison

How does it SOUND? Listen for a few weeks and occasionally compare the results "with Audyssey" to "without Audyssey," but most of the time just let the music wash over you.



AVRams said:


> If I'm reading the measurements correct, all my speakers have the "BBC" dip, so I left Midrange comp. on.


The so called "BBC dip" is meant to be a *solution* to harshness at about 2K Hz. Midrange comp imposes this "cure. i.e., this dip." _Originally_, the dip was meant to treat this harshness in some BBC speakers. Chris Kyriakakis CTO/Founder at Audyssey Laboratories Inc said he never heard a speaker that was not improved by imposing the dip. ***

IMO, your Left Front, for example, is a very good curve. It is *not* a measurement of the end result, just a hopeful prediction Audyssey provided. For the end result _*in the room*_, you would need to download REW (free), use a calibrated measurement mic (now about $100 or less), and place the mic in nearly exactly the same 8 positions that you used for the Audyssey mic, and then hit the "Average the curves" button on REW. An average is not quite as good as Audyssey's proprietary "fuzzy logic" (a _good _fuzziness!), but, with luck, will be close, providing all 8 positions are used. Why use all those positions? Because if you move your head several inches, the curve as picked up by a single mic (or head) will change. Especially if your music and movies will be experienced by several people at once, you need an overall picture. And confirm with listening when seated in _each_ chair.



AVRams said:


> Is it any point to use frequency cut-off at all in my room?


*IMO*, there is *no* point to set any frequency cut-off in your room. I'm not sure where this possible fad started, but, once again, Chris K's experience with it has been almost entirely negative. A few rooms, I suspect rooms that are almost O.K. to begin with, may benefit from a compensation cut-off somewhat above Schroeder, because the main problems are lower than that, but show me a basement room that has no specular reflections and I'll show you a room that has been made to be deader than the proverbial door nail. I like lively rooms, except for the first reflection points, which should be covered with absorbing materials (although that, too, may be going out of style in favor of difussers at those spots). Audyssey full-range can (sometimes) reduce the volume of the specular reflections, perhaps even in the high frequencies (I think I can hear it), while leaving diffuse frequencies more or less alone.

The diffuser immediately below is by GIK Acoustics. The others are by Perfect Acoustic. You can make your own, as well. There are a variety of instructions and even bluprints online. Scroll to the bitter end to see some simpler ones my wife made for our music room. They, in conjunction with the bookshelves work well.










































*Our* diffusers can be seen in various shots in:
*Gary Garrison's set-up*

Reply Quote


----------



## MagnumX

Audyssey can introduce phase errors at higher frequencies. This is because the averaged sampling locations are entirely random and the higher the frequency, the smaller the difference in movement can hit a dip or peak and affect the readings. This is easy to hear with sine waves above 6kHz or so. Just move your head (or a sound meter) slightly and it's night and day different. This is why ARC Genesis cuts off above that range.

Most rooms are easy to control in that frequency range and thus do not represent the problem areas room correction was designed to deal with. The bottom line is you might get good or acceptable results full range or you might get unlucky with the averages and get more or less than you bargained for. I've run Audyssey a number of times and it's hit or miss 8n the high frequency range whether it's harsh or not. Bandwidth limiting that range similar to ARC seems to avoid the problem entirely.

I also prefer a very dead room with more speakers (using arrays if needed to achieve good coverage). We're not dealing with simple stereo anymore. An Atmos or Auro-3D music recording already contains all the directional and room reflections (from the room the live music was recorded in many cases) needed to recreate a great three dimensional soundstage using those reflections in the recording. Do you want to hear sounds played back in _your_ room or do you want to hear the original recording space (be it Carnegie Hall or whatever acoustical space that is far more likely to be superior to your own relatively tiny room)?

I can do both here. My upstairs setup using Carver Amazing quasi-line source dipolar ribbon drivers brings the band and singer into my living room. With my eyes shut, Tori Amos sounds like she's sitting playing her Bosendorfer Grand right where my own Roland piano sits. It's like she's right there. But it's not going to recreate the Vienna Musikverien where John Williams recorded his movie orchestral scores live for the Live in Vienna Atmos Blu-ray.

For that, I go downstairs and listen with 17.1 speakers in a very deadened room with loads of diffusers (called books in the front and bricks on the left wall) with heavy drapery in the back and side across from the fireplace and two special tapestries to absorb the first wall reflection plus heavy carpeting and six plush chairs (you can scream and not hear a hint of echo now). I can close my eyes and hear the hall like I'm there or the church Himmelborgen and Himmelrand were recorded in Auro-3D. Why would I want to hear my 12'x24' room instead?


----------



## Duc Vu

Is there a setting in Denon receiver (specifically, in my case, the denon x3700h) to raise the center channel vertically? My eye level is a bit above the middle of the TV screen (which can't be changed) and I sit pretty close to the TV so my center speaker is quite below ear level, and although I already angled it up towards my ears, a lot of times when I direct my eyes down to read the subtitles, I can notice that the dialogues comes from below. Placing the center speaker above the TV may help alleviate this issue somewhat but it is not an option unfortunately.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> Audyssey can introduce phase errors at higher frequencies. This is because the averaged sampling locations are entirely random and the higher the frequency, the smaller the difference in movement can hit a dip or peak and affect the readings. This is easy to hear with sine waves above 6kHz or so. Just move your head (or a sound meter) slightly and it's night and day different.


Well @AVRams, thanks to @MagnumX, I stand (potentially) corrected.
I would suggest trying it with a 6K cutoff vs no cutoff. I would think that the phase errors would be more noticible with specular reflections than with diffuse reflections, so diffusers might still help. Or not.

@MagnumX, where do you get beautiful things like this?


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> @MagnumX, where do you get beautiful things like this?
> View attachment 3294854


Well, it's really getting off-topic here, so if you want to discuss movie props (That's a real bronze forged recreation of the staff of Ra medallion from Raiders of the Lost Ark you've linked to I have and a custom holder maker online it's sitting in), I have a thread that you clearly found on them that's better to reply in. 

The short version is I decorated the home theater with them (and matching movie posters in many cases). There's a web site dedicated to movie prop recreations

(RPF Costume and Prop Maker Community) 

You can find many hobbyists that recreate them and sell many there or even try a hand at it yourself. I made my own Staff of Ra cookie molds based on one of the versions I acquired, for example (I have 13 different versions including a full size staff and 2nd generation copies of the real movie props) and then made my own Staff of Ra cookies from them (I have more Indiana Jones props than anything else). 

You can also _sometimes_ find decent recreations on eBay and/or Etsy from time to time, especially things Iike lighters (e.g. The same model/style Ronson touch tip lighter from the Maltese Falcon and bird recreations and a lighter from Blade Runner that Rachel used that is much coveted). 

Several makers of high-end Hellraiser puzzle boxes have appeared over the years, etc. I had a guy in Australia make me a Conan headband, found a Tiffany paperweight that looks identical to the giant diamond in Conan the Destroyer and the eye of the serpent from Conan the Barbarian, got lucky on a Horn of Dagoth from a collector that worked on films in Germany, etc. plus many light up units and rigged lighting effects that look cool in the dark (including a working Flux capacitor recreation). It was a bit of a hobby during the pandemic, really, but I've mostly run out of space now). My home theater looks as much like a museum as a theater at this point.


----------



## platinum00

Is having a large 20db house curve like this bonkers? Seems to sound good to me but doesnt seem to be the norm. Maybe just have some listeners give me feedback?


----------



## Soulburner

platinum00 said:


> Is having a large 20db house curve like this bonkers? Seems to sound good to me but doesnt seem to be the norm. Maybe just have some listeners give me feedback?
> View attachment 3295112


At lower volumes I bet it sounds normal. At higher volumes the bass will be too much, unless you're using an equal loudness feature.


----------



## platinum00

That's with dynamic eq so it levels out a bit as the volume increases. That is at -15MV which is my typical listening level.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Soulburner

I just checked mine, and on second thought, that would be too bass heavy for me.

I get about 10 dB and it sounds perfect.


----------



## pdawg17

I have a s760h which is only MultEQ which is why my "after" is not smooth like every YouTube video I watch, right? If this is how an s760h should look, is there any way to "fix" some of the "mess" around 100-160 Hz? Can I use the curve editor for this or will that just make things worse because it's not designed to "fix things"?


----------



## pbz06

pdawg17 said:


> View attachment 3295770
> 
> I have a s760h which is only MultiEQ which is why my "after" is not smooth like every YouTube video I watch, right? If this is how an s760h should look, is there any way to "fix" some of the "mess" around 100-160 Hz? Can I use the curve editor for this or will that just make things worse because it's not designed to "fix things"?


The regular MultiEQ doesn't have as many filters as the more advanced XT32 version. It can only do so much. That's why usually it looks like it did less whereas the XT32 predictions usually look smoother.

However, yours doesn't look like it did anything at all, because usually the predicted after graph shows _something _even if it's a little smoother only. Have you checked that the correction range in the settings of the app shows full range?

p.s.- the after graph is only a prediction though, it's not an actual measurement. Audyssey also slightly misleads by using no smoothing on the before, and smoothing on the prediction  Although I do trust it's overall trajectory and +/- 3dB is usually pretty accurate.


----------



## pdawg17

pbz06 said:


> The regular MultiEQ doesn't have as many filters as the more advanced XT32 version. It can only do so much. That's why usually it looks like it did less whereas the XT32 predictions usually look smoother.
> 
> However, yours doesn't look like it did anything at all, because usually the predicted after graph shows _something _even if it's a little smoother only. Have you checked that the correction range in the settings of the app shows full range?
> 
> p.s.- the after graph is only a prediction though, it's not an actual measurement. Audyssey also slightly misleads by using no smoothing on the before, and smoothing on the prediction  Although I do trust it's overall trajectory and +/- 3dB is usually pretty accurate.


I agree about it not seeming to do much at all. Pretty disappointing actually. It's doing something though because on the sub graph (where even my level MultEQ has more filters), it is much more smoothed out. I've been trying to find other posts with these graphs to compare but it seems most that post have better MuliEQ. Where would I check the correction range in the app?

Update: Looking into it further, my sub filter resolution is 128x while my satellite filter is 2x! That probably explains why barely anything is changing. BTW why was Audyssey not able to flatten the low end of my sub (below)? Does it basically mean my sub is crappy and can't get there?


----------



## garygarrison

I'm glad somebody fixed the Forum FUBAR condition.

With my set-up, about a 10 dB bass boost sounds best:









The one caution is that the above curve was designed for the grand old, 4 or 6 channel magnetic (not optical!) highly dynamic soundtracks of the '50s and '60s that had some slight distortion in the top octave (10k Hz to 20k Hz). The mixers' monitor speakers generally dropped like a rock at 10K Hz,








so they couldn't hear the problems up there. Our speakers *do* reveal this octave, so *Audyssey **Reference* which rolls off starting at about 7K Hz, moving down to about *-*5 dB @ 16.5K Hz, just about right to hide the distortion, at least to my ears. For modern soundtracks, after, say, 1985, *Audyssey Flat* sounds better in my room, with the same bass response.


----------



## tidwelr1

Does the LPF for LFE setting matter if you redo measurements? In other words, I think I may have had it at 80hz but I’m not sure. I’m not talking about crossovers. i just can’t remember if Audy uses 120 as the default or resets it in the AVR when new measurements are taken.


----------



## pbz06

tidwelr1 said:


> Does the LPF for LFE setting matter if you redo measurements? In other words, I think I may have had it at 80hz but I’m not sure. I’m not talking about crossovers. i just can’t remember if Audy uses 120 as the default or resets it in the AVR when new measurements are taken.


No, Audyssey ignores that and the AVR sticks it back to your previous setting.


----------



## tidwelr1

pbz06 said:


> No, Audyssey ignores that and the AVR sticks it back to your previous setting.


ok. thanks.


----------



## garygarrison

What might Audyssey do above Schroeder (144 Hz, in my case)?

@MagnumX let me know that Audyssey might (or might not) introduce serious phase errors in the high frequencies, depending on luck (i.e. the room and whether the mic picks up a peak or dip at a given frequency, in a given position?). I seem to recall Chris K. at Audyssey reporting that they found using Audyssey at full range better [more appropriate? better sounding? better measurements?] -- I just don't remember the quote. @mogorf *Feri, do you have that quote in your collection*? My room is fairly dead, perhaps too dead for me. I tried hearing this change, by moving my head or the SPL meter with high frequency sine waves, and didn't hear or see much (maybe +/- 2 dB, or less).
Since Audyssey doesn't use an arithmetical average, but uses a propitiatory "fuzzy logic" combination of 8 mic results, does this lessen the problem?
Wouldn't a similar problem occur with head movement ("relocation") with no electronic room correction, unless the room is dead enough to not produce much in the way of high frequency reflections, i.e., 8K might be at the 0 line in one position, + 2 dB in another, and - 3 dB at another? Is that why it is that multiple mics are recommended to measure frequency sweeps?
Did I hear that Floyd Toole now says that you may not want to put absorbers at the first reflection points?
The *green* curve is the effect of Audyssey Reference in my front left speaker in my (probably a bit too dead for me) room. Notice the typical Aud Ref slope down from about 6.5K Hz to ~~ -2 dB at 10K Hz, and -5 dB @ 16.5K dB Hz. There is substantial correction above Schroeder (144 Hz), as shown by the *lack of the anomalies* that *do* show up in the _*magenta*_ "No Audyssey" curve, including the general lowering of SPL above 1K Hz, especially above 12K Hz (over absorption?). Audyssey (even Audyssey Reference, with its roll off) puts some sparkle and shimmer back in, compared to the "No Audyssey" curve. The two curves were run without moving the mic at all, without walking on the floor, and with hardly any breathing.


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> What might Audyssey do above Schroeder (144 Hz, in my case)?
> 
> @MagnumX let me know that Audyssey might (or might not) introduce serious phase errors in the high frequencies, depending on luck (i.e. the room and whether the mic picks up a peak or dip at a given frequency, in a given position?). I seem to recall Chris K. at Audyssey reporting that they found using Audyssey at full range better [more appropriate? better sounding? better measurements?] -- I just don't remember the quote. @mogorf *Feri, do you have that quote in your collection*? My room is fairly dead, perhaps too dead for me. I tried hearing this change, by moving my head or the SPL meter with high frequency sine waves, and didn't hear or see much (maybe +/- 2 dB, or less).
> Since Audyssey doesn't use an arithmetical average, but uses a propitiatory "fuzzy logic" combination of 8 mic results, does this lessen the problem?
> Wouldn't a similar problem occur with head movement ("relocation") with no electronic room correction, unless the room is dead enough to not produce much in the way of high frequency reflections, i.e., 8K might be at the 0 line in one position, + 2 dB in another, and - 3 dB at another? Is that why it is that multiple mics are recommended to measure frequency sweeps?
> Did I hear that Floyd Toole now says that you may not want to put absorbers at the first reflection points?
> The *green* curve is the effect of Audyssey Reference in my front left speaker in my (probably a bit too dead for me) room. Notice the typical Aud Ref slope down from about 6.5K Hz to ~~ -2 dB at 10K Hz, and -5 dB @ 16.5K dB Hz. There is substantial correction above Schroeder (144 Hz), as shown by the *lack of the anomalies* that *do* show up in the _*magenta*_ "No Audyssey" curve, including the general lowering of SPL above 1K Hz, especially above 12K Hz (over absorption?). Audyssey (even Audyssey Reference, with its roll off) puts some sparkle and shimmer back in, compared to the "No Audyssey" curve. The two curves were run without moving the mic at all, without walking on the floor, and with hardly any breathing.
> 
> View attachment 3296669


What shaping/smoothing is used on the REW graphs? They seem exceptionally smooth (red or green) compared to most I've seen. Frankly, I'd be thrilled with that red graph from 1kHz and above. I'd shape 350Hz-1kHz downward so it's even and ramps up for bass, I assume on purpose.

The green graph does seem to fall off, but Audyssey normally has a downward curve above 8kHz or so unless you use the flat setting, which you may prefer depending on taste and the material you're playing. It really doesn't look bad to my eyes at all above 1kHz. It's only down 5dB above 10kHz (normal for reference curve from what I've seen). You might want to make sure CinemaEQ isn't turned on in some surround modes as that can really take the sparkle out of music, in particular.

My own room isn't nearly so consistent on top (sub is pretty even). Psychoacoustical Smoothing with full range Audyssey Reference setting here.


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> What might Audyssey do above Schroeder (144 Hz, in my case)?
> 
> @MagnumX let me know that Audyssey might (or might not) introduce serious phase errors in the high frequencies, depending on luck (i.e. the room and whether the mic picks up a peak or dip at a given frequency, in a given position?). I seem to recall Chris K. at Audyssey reporting that they found using Audyssey at full range better [more appropriate? better sounding? better measurements?] -- I just don't remember the quote. @mogorf *Feri, do you have that quote in your collection*? My room is fairly dead, perhaps too dead for me. I tried hearing this change, by moving my head or the SPL meter with high frequency sine waves, and didn't hear or see much (maybe +/- 2 dB, or less).
> Since Audyssey doesn't use an arithmetical average, but uses a propitiatory "fuzzy logic" combination of 8 mic results, does this lessen the problem?
> Wouldn't a similar problem occur with head movement ("relocation") with no electronic room correction, unless the room is dead enough to not produce much in the way of high frequency reflections, i.e., 8K might be at the 0 line in one position, + 2 dB in another, and - 3 dB at another? Is that why it is that multiple mics are recommended to measure frequency sweeps?
> Did I hear that Floyd Toole now says that you may not want to put absorbers at the first reflection points?
> The *green* curve is the effect of Audyssey Reference in my front left speaker in my (probably a bit too dead for me) room. Notice the typical Aud Ref slope down from about 6.5K Hz to ~~ -2 dB at 10K Hz, and -5 dB @ 16.5K dB Hz. There is substantial correction above Schroeder (144 Hz), as shown by the *lack of the anomalies* that *do* show up in the _*magenta*_ "No Audyssey" curve, including the general lowering of SPL above 1K Hz, especially above 12K Hz (over absorption?). Audyssey (even Audyssey Reference, with its roll off) puts some sparkle and shimmer back in, compared to the "No Audyssey" curve. The two curves were run without moving the mic at all, without walking on the floor, and with hardly any breathing.
> 
> View attachment 3296669


Hi Gary,

This is what Chris Kyriakakis has to say on the issue of full-range correction or not:

Qte

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."

Unqte


I think I can agree with what Chris said, moreover, we have Audyssey, we paid for it so why not use it to the full extent. "Fighting" for good stereo imaging I think is at least as important as "fighting" against room modes!


----------



## MagnumX

You almost never see much below a +/- 3dB rating even for speakers costing tens of thousands of dollars and that's in an anechoic chamber. PSB is the only manufacturer of speakers I can think of offhand that rates down to +/- 1.5dB over part of the frequency spectrum and that's anechoic response. People tend to hate anechoic chambers at that. 

Thus, I have real doubts whether any commercial speaker has ever had verified +/- 1dB response in a real room (not anechoic chamber) across the entire frequency range _without_ room correction (a relatively recent development), let alone in the 1960s. So I don't see what the BBC could base that figure on.

I'd bet they were talking about the stereo electrical signal corration between broadcast stereo channels, which would have been hard enough to achieve back then for broadcast (The BBC first broadcast in stereo in 1962), let alone early vinyl playback.

Regardless, one can try reducing the cutoff frequency easily enough with the app and comparing REW response with and without the bandwidth reduction to see the results. More interesting is to compare several Audyssey calibrations and see how consistent it is in the higher frequency ranges compared to without correction.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Did I hear that Floyd Toole now says that you may not want to put absorbers at the first reflection points?


There are two things to consider here.

One of the main reasons why absorbing the first reflections used to be so beneficial was because speakers performed so poorly off axis. You were essentially absorbing the "bad sound" which would color frequency response and smear imaging. Many speakers available today perform much better, but you need proper measurements to know. Now if your reflected sound matches your direct sound, your imaging, neutrality, and soundstage will improve compared to using older speakers with poor off-axis sound.
Porous absorbers are not linear, skewing the frequency response by absorbing more of the highs than the lows.
Hence, absorbing the first reflections of a _good _pair of speakers is prone to introduce some issues if you are not very thoughtful as to the choices you make.


----------



## Soulburner

mogorf said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> This is what Chris Kyriakakis has to say on the issue of full-range correction or not:
> 
> _"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."_
> 
> I think I can agree with what Chris said, moreover, we have Audyssey, we paid for it so why not use it to the full extent. "Fighting" for good stereo imaging I think is at least as important as "fighting" against room modes!


Yes, this is said in the context of 1) having speakers that don't have a flat and smooth frequency response, 2) a pair of speakers having large deviations in manufacturing, and/or 3) having an irregular room setup.

If you have flat and smooth speakers and they are set up in a room with equal walls/furnishings/distances on both sides, you will probably prefer to correct only up to 250-500 Hz depending on room size.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> You almost never see much below a +/- 3dB rating even for speakers costing tens of thousands of dollars and that's in an anechoic chamber. PSB is the only manufacturer of speakers I can think of offhand that rates down to +/- 1.5dB over part of the frequency spectrum and that's anechoic response.


These guys do: A700


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> These guys do: A700


That's +/- 1.5dB and an active speaker using "master tunings" (some kind of correction?), but still a good result to be sure.


----------



## garygarrison

Yg specs their Sonja 1.3 at "20Hz–20kHz, ±1dB." This could be true when placed just right, and at the right distance, in an *anechoic *chamber.

But we don't *listen *in an anechoic chamber (although I understand that they can be useful). 

Look what happens to both the *Yg *($106,800/pair)* and the Vanderstein *_--- below probable Schroeder, *and* in the mid frequencies, _*and*_ in the very high frequencies --- _*when in JA's listening room without electronic room correction:*








Fig.8 YG Sonja 1.3, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room (*red*); and of Vandersteen Treo (*blue*). [_Stereophile_, July 2013]


----------



## MagnumX

Rooms can screw up even the most expensive speakers, but if your goal is say +/- 2.5dB total room response, it's a lot harder to get there if you're starting with speakers that can't do better than +/- 3dB in the first place. _Really_ good room correction _might_ be able to improve that, but that's not its function. It's supposed to help correct the room bad behaviors not fix the speaker deficiencies.

I maintain it's better to have a truly deadened room and let something like Auromatic provide quality simulated room reflections of a known world class room (the more surround speakers the better; I use my extra Atmos locations as arrays for Auro-3D for example) than pray and hope your own room won't screw the sound up too badly by leaving it lively.


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> Yg specs their Sonja 1.3 at "20Hz–20kHz, ±1dB." This could be true when placed just right, and at the right distance, in an *anechoic *chamber.
> 
> But we don't *listen *in an anechoic chamber (although I understand that they can be useful).
> 
> Look what happens to both the *Yg *($106,800/pair)* and the Vanderstein *_--- below probable Schroeder, *and* in the mid frequencies, _*and*_ in the very high frequencies --- _*when in JA's listening room without electronic room correction:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fig.8 YG Sonja 1.3, spatially averaged, 1/6-octave response in JA's listening room (*red*); and of Vandersteen Treo (*blue*). [_Stereophile_, July 2013]


The YG above 125Hz are actually doing quite well in that room. That's a prime candidate for bass only correction (+/- 2 or 2.5dB above that by the looks of it).

I get the opposite effect in my more lively room for my CARVER AL-III quasi-line source "ribbons" with 10" down-facing woofers (26Hz-20kHz) and active crossovers. The bass is amazingly smooth (+/- 2dB) in that room (purposely raised about 4dB above flat) without any room correction or separate subwoofer. The average above that isn't too terrible (+/- 4dB room average on speakers rated +/- 3dB at best), but they were never rated +/- 1dB either and they are dipoles so both meant to interact with the room and going to be affected by it.

I've thought about trying a MiniDSP with DIRAC on the to see how much it could be improved, but I don't know what that would do to the reflected sound. Plus the ribbons are 27 years old and out of tension adjustment so I don't want to push them too hard to correct in the positive direction.

Carver AL-III with no room correction:


----------



## Duc Vu

When my sub is at the corner of the room (to the left of my front left speaker) and I run Audyssey, the distances calculated for the fronts and center speaker is 1.29m and 1.07m. Using a measuring tape to confirm, I find this pretty accurate. But if I move my sub to between my front left and center speaker and rerun Audyssey, the distances now become 1.38m and 1.13m respectively. Why is this the case? I didn't move any speaker except the sub, and also the distances calculated for the surrounds and in-ceiling speakers remain unchanged, so why only the distances calculated for the fronts and center changed?


----------



## platinum00

Distance is timing. Audyssey adjusts the distance to get the timing alignment correct. It should generally be accurate distance but not always.

I always verify with REW and re-adjust the distance (timing) for the smoothest response.

If you don't have a way to measure, leave it as audyssey sets, it's more than likely correct.

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Duc Vu

platinum00 said:


> Distance is timing. Audyssey adjusts the distance to get the timing alignment correct. It should generally be accurate distance but not always.
> 
> I always verify with REW and re-adjust the distance (timing) for the smoothest response.
> 
> If you don't have a way to measure, leave it as audyssey sets, it's more than likely correct.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


Yeah I understand it's timing and delay but it's weird to see the distances for the center & speaker change but not the rest of the speakers. Maybe because the sub is near those front and center speakers and moving it causes a timing change?


----------



## platinum00

Those variances are so small at .1m difference it's not going to make a difference. That's like an inch or 2. 

Your mic placement for the 6-8 locations could easily cause this. 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> *The YG above 125Hz are actually doing quite well in that room. That's a prime candidate for bass only correction (+/- 2 or 2.5dB above that by the looks of it)*.











At 15K Hz, the Yg [*red*] is *-10 dB! *I don't know if I can still hear 15K at *orchestral volume* ... (I do all tests at 65 or 70 dB to avoid damage to my tweeters),** *but several of our regular guests for both films and music *can!* So, I'd like the shimmer and sparkle there unless I'm using Audyssey Reference, in which case I'll accept the *-* 5 dB at 15K of A. Ref.

** *Orchestral _peak_ volume at about 15K (the upper medium overtone range of a *recorded* cymbal crash? Real cymbals go flatishly out to nearly 20 kHz, with significantly loud overtones out to about 50 kHz, but by the time they get through the mics, boards, etc. ...)*,* according to one formula, would be 105 - 20 dB = 85 dB to account for the lower SPL at very high frequencies from _actual_ orchestral acoustic instruments, _rather than_ natural hearing roll off at high frequencies, so, to be ultra-conservative, 70 dB gives me 15 dB extra headroom (... wow, what a sentence! Apoligies).


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> View attachment 3298054
> 
> At 15K Hz, the Yg [*red*] is *-10 dB! *I don't know if I can still hear 15K at *orchestral volume* ... (I do all tests at 65 or 70 dB to avoid damage to my tweeters),** *but several of our regular guests for both films and music *can!* So, I'd like the shimmer and sparkle there unless I'm using Audyssey Reference, in which case I'll accept the *-* 5 dB at 15K of A. Ref.


I'm not sure what graph you're looking at, but the one I see above shows the red line is down ~3dB at 15kHz, nose dives at ~17kHz to -10dB at 20kHz and -14dB at about 30kHz. The blue line is down 5dB from 10kHz to about 18kHz and then drops ~2dB to 20kHz. The far right of the graph is 30kHz if that helps.

You could try changing the targeted response curves as well.


----------



## Struja

Hey folks. Some other members suggested I ask my question in this thread to maybe get some clarification of what I might be doing wrong.

I have a Marantz 6015 in a dedicated theatre with a 7.2.4 speaker setup. All of my speakers are in-wall except for my two subs. Sub 1 is a JL Audio E110 and Sub 2 is a Velodyne DLS-5000R. I have run Audyssey a few times because I had some connection issues I needed to correct but now I believe everything is connected properly.

My issue is that every time I run Audyssey it never recognizes my second Sub and so as a result it never sets distances or levels for #2. Subs are both turned to the “on” position so is this normal and what should I do?


----------



## pbz06

Struja said:


> Hey folks. Some other members suggested I ask my question in this thread to maybe get some clarification of what I might be doing wrong.
> 
> I have a Marantz 6015 in a dedicated theatre with a 7.2.4 speaker setup. All of my speakers are in-wall except for my two subs. Sub 1 is a JL Audio E110 and Sub 2 is a Velodyne DLS-5000R. I have run Audyssey a few times because I had some connection issues I needed to correct but now I believe everything is connected properly.
> 
> My issue is that every time I run Audyssey it never recognizes my second Sub and so as a result it never sets distances or levels for #2. Subs are both turned to the “on” position so is this normal and what should I do?


When you run Audyssey, make sure you go into the edit/config (I forget exactly what it's called) setting menu right before you start. You have to manually select two subs.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> *The far right of the graph is 30kHz if that helps*.


*Oh ... *
I see what you're saying. Sorry. I'm used to graphs in which the first line above 10K is 15K, and the right edge is 20K. Clearly, that is *not* true of this graph.


----------



## Struja

pbz06 said:


> When you run Audyssey, make sure you go into the edit/config (I forget exactly what it's called) setting menu right before you start. You have to manually select two subs.


I think I did it wrong but may have just figured it out


----------



## Alan P

Struja said:


> Ok, so maybe I'm doing this wrong. Prior to running Audyssey I went into "manual settings" and went into speaker configuration. In the area for my Subwoofers I made sure it said 2. Went back and then ran Audyssey. Same exact result, only recognized 1 Sub so I cancelled the room correction. I'm obviously doing something wrong or changing the speaker configuration in the wrong area. Any ideas?


You have the two subs connected correctly?










Will the AVR output test tones output to both subs separately before running Audyssey (Speaker/Manual/Start Test Tone)?


----------



## Struja

Alan P said:


> You have the two subs connected correctly?
> 
> View attachment 3298310
> 
> 
> Will the AVR output test tones output to both subs separately before running Audyssey (Speaker/Manual/Start Test Tone)?


I actually edited my response (probably while you were responding). I figured out my mistake. I ran it and it worked.


----------



## Alan P

Struja said:


> I actually edited my response (probably while you were responding). I figured out my mistake. I ran it and it worked.


Just so those who offered to help know, what turned out to be the issue?


----------



## Struja

I was changing the setting to "two subwoofers" in the wrong area. There is a "channel select" option at the beginning of Audyssey which is where it needed to be done.


----------



## Struja

I have been watching several YouTube videos on Audyssey and a few other questions which have arisen and this might be the right place to ask. There is one video in particular that talked about adjusting volume levels using and SPL meter after Audyssey has been run. In the video, he suggests running the level sound test with your AVR at 0db. He says that you should be aiming for 75db in the main listening position from the LCRs. Does this sound right? I ask, because I am well below that level (between 67-70db), but I'm using an App on my phone for measurements (not a real SPL meter). 

Also, in the same video the guy says you shouldn't run any speaker in the +db range because I believe his language was that they would "run hot" and cause premature wear (I might not be quoting accurately). 

Lastly...I see a lot of videos where guys are suggesting that you only run Audyssey up to 300-500hz and not above. Is that the consensus and if so, how hard is it to do this with the App? I don't have the app yet, I just want to be confident enough that I'll know how to do it.


----------



## pbz06

Struja said:


> I have been watching several YouTube videos on Audyssey and a few other questions which have arisen and this might be the right place to ask. There is one video in particular that talked about adjusting volume levels using and SPL meter after Audyssey has been run. In the video, he suggests running the level sound test with your AVR at 0db. He says that you should be aiming for 75db in the main listening position from the LCRs. Does this sound right? I ask, because I am well below that level (between 67-70db), but I'm using an App on my phone for measurements (not a real SPL meter).
> 
> Also, in the same video the guy says you shouldn't run any speaker in the +db range because I believe his language was that they would "run hot" and cause premature wear (I might not be quoting accurately).
> 
> Lastly...I see a lot of videos where guys are suggesting that you only run Audyssey up to 300-500hz and not above. Is that the consensus and if so, how hard is it to do this with the App? I don't have the app yet, I just want to be confident enough that I'll know how to do it.


There's a lot of misinformation on YouTube 

Audyssey level matches your speakers, and is generally very accurate with a +/- 1.5dB tolerance across it's measuring range. Far more accurate than a phone app and phone mic. Going back in and undoing the Audyssey trim levels is bad advice unless you're checking with REW and a calibrated umik-1 or umik-2. Also, most importantly before even worrying about what I just said, the internal test tones of an AVR bypass Audyssey filters.

The trim levels are necessary to send the proper voltage to play the speakers at the same volume. You can definitely go into the positives without worrying about it.

Adjusting the correction range is easy with the app, you can just go into the settign and drag it with your finger to the range you want. There is no consensus, try both ways. Which way to do it (limited vs full range correction) depends on several variables that are unique to every user.


----------



## Struja

Ok, that's good to know. I re-watched the video and this is his exact quote (about going into positive values with your volume levels):

"You may not want to go into the positive numbers and introduce clipping, and clipping is heat that destroys your speakers".


----------



## pbz06

Struja said:


> Ok, that's good to know. I re-watched the video and this is his exact quote (about going into positive values with your volume levels):
> 
> "You may not want to go into the positive numbers and introduce clipping, and clipping is heat that destroys your speakers".


You'll hit the clipping points if you're overdriving your amps past their capabilities and listening close to max levels (that would happen if youre in the negatives too). The trims are there to balance your speakers with a 75dB test tone, and it's fine to go into the positives.


----------



## Soulburner

Struja said:


> In the video, he suggests running the level sound test with your AVR at 0db. He says that you should be aiming for 75db in the main listening position from the LCRs.


If you are using -30 dB test tones, yes. But never run full scale test tones at MV 0. Unless you want to wake the dead.

Anyway, it's not needed, and there are several reasons why it's not accurate to use your own SPL meter with the AVR levels tones.


----------



## pbarach

Struja said:


> Ok, that's good to know. I re-watched the video and this is his exact quote (about going into positive values with your volume levels):
> 
> "You may not want to go into the positive numbers and introduce clipping, and clipping is heat that destroys your speakers".


 Why are you granting credibility to this YouTuber?? It's well known that you cannot use the AVR's built-in test tones to "check" if Audyssey got your levels right because those tones bypass Audyssey's calibration results. Also, Audyssey-supplied mics are calibrated to be accurate plus or minus 2 dB, and using test tones from an external source (such as a DVD or BluRay test disc) will almost always reveal that Audyssey has got your speaker levels set accurately.

Similarly, there is NO agreement on whether Audyssey calibration should be full-range. Chris K. from Audyssey has said repeatedly that the results with full-range calibration are better. Others insist on limiting calibration between 300 or 500 Hz. If you're using the app, it's easy enough to make a copy of the calibration and put in the limit, then listen to the results and making your own decision.


----------



## garygarrison

In his last post, ( #11,069 ), * pbarach *hits the nail on the proverbial head.


----------



## Duc Vu

One thing I notice is if I use a phantom center, the volume of sounds (dialogue etc.) coming from the center channel seems to be noticeably higher than when I use a real center speaker. What can be the explanation for this? Post-audyssey trim level for the left front, center and right front are -6.5db, -6.5db and -5.5db respectively. My center speaker is jbl stage a125c, and my fronts are jbl stage a130


----------



## MagnumX

Duc Vu said:


> One thing I notice is if I use a phantom center, the volume of sounds (dialogue etc.) coming from the center channel seems to be noticeably higher than when I use a real center speaker. What can be the explanation for this? Post-audyssey trim level for the left front, center and right front are -6.5db, -6.5db and -5.5db respectively. My center speaker is jbl stage a125c, and my fronts are jbl stage a130


The best way to be sure is to verify it with a sound pressure meter. It's not impossible the AVR set the center level incorrectly. 

You could just adjust the center using a comparative test tone by ear if it bothers you. Many turn their center speakers up slightly for dialog intelligibility reasons anyway, particularly because it doesn't affect 2-channel music normally (at least played back in stereo).


----------



## mogorf

pbarach said:


> Similarly, there is NO agreement on whether Audyssey calibration should be full-range. Chris K. from Audyssey has said repeatedly that the results with full-range calibration are better. Others insist on limiting calibration between 300 or 500 Hz. If you're using the app, it's easy enough to make a copy of the calibration and put in the limit, then listening to the results and making your own decision.


Good points as always pbarach!  Although never thought this forum was made for agreement on anything! LOL 

Kidding aside, as I understand Chris K.'s concern on full-range calibration is based on achieving good/great stereo imaging where he claims (and quotes BBC engineers from the '60s) that in order to reach this target a +/-1 dB full-range frequency response curve between front L&Rs is essential. But then, what advice can be given to experimenters? What to listen to? I think this listening experiment will be a bit difficult to evaluate with movie sound tracks, especially knowing that dialog comes from one single Center speaker, while the front L&Rs will contain sound materials not really proper for this test. How about listening to music, quailty recordings and trying to pin-point instruments (and some vocals) in space, in your room and decide whether full-range or limited range gives you best results. 

If with music the experiment passes the test it will also be good for film. 

No need to agree, of course, just thinking out loud!


----------



## MagnumX

mogorf said:


> Kidding aside, as I understand Chris K.'s concern on full-range calibration is based on achieving good/great stereo imaging where he claims (and quotes BBC engineers from the '60s) that in order to reach this target a +/-1 dB full-range frequency response curve between front L&Rs is essential.


As I already pointed out, no one and I mean NO ONE in the 1960s had within +/- 1dB response in a real room between speaker pairs and quite frankly I have yet to see Audyssey achieve this in 2022 using REW to verify the results. If Audyssey could achieve that, no 9ne would be using DIRAC instead.

The BBC was undoubtedly talking about the electrical broadcast signal for stereo FM broadcasting. It's absolutely amazing to me how someone from Audyssey could so contort something to fit their business model narrative.

I mean can you even imagine speakers in the 1960s achieving those numbers? Modern loudspeaker designs use anechoic chambers for their measurements and as pointed out earlier in the thread, rare is the speaker that performs better than +/- 3dB (6dB of variance peak to peak is a 60% change in audible volume).

Someone posted one speaker rated +/- 1dB at a rather extravagant price (never saw one yet deployed all around in a home theater). The PSBs I use are +/- 1.5dB and that's still 1dB too many and only in an anechoic chamber at 1 meter from the speakers. I'm lucky to get +/- 2.5dB response with Audyssey on use in a treated room from them (still better than most speakers can do in an anechoic chamber).

But imagine if the stereo signal being fed to your speakers had >2dB variance to begin with! That'd seriously screw up any speaker's combined stereo response, no matter how good. That is what the BBC was talking about. Broadcast FM radio.


----------



## mogorf

MagnumX said:


> As I already pointed out, no one and I mean NO ONE in the 1960s had within +/- 1dB response in a real room between speaker pairs and quite frankly I have yet to see Audyssey achieve this in 2022 using REW to verify the results. If Audyssey could achieve that, no 9ne would be using DIRAC instead.
> 
> The BBC was undoubtedly talking about the electrical broadcast signal for stereo FM broadcasting. It's absolutely amazing to me how someone from Audyssey could so contort something to fit their business model narrative.
> 
> I mean can you even imagine speakers in the 1960s achieving those numbers? Modern loudspeaker designs use anechoic chambers for their measurements and as pointed out earlier in the thread, rare is the speaker that performs better than +/- 3dB (6dB of variance peak to peak is a 60% change in audible volume).
> 
> Someone posted one speaker rated +/- 1dB at a rather extravagant price (never saw one yet deployed all around in a home theater). The PSBs I use are +/- 1.5dB and that's still 1dB too many and only in an anechoic chamber at 1 meter from the speakers. I'm lucky to get +/- 2.5dB response with Audyssey on use in a treated room from them (still better than most speakers can do in an anechoic chamber).
> 
> But imagine if the stereo signal being fed to your speakers had >2dB variance to begin with! That'd seriously screw up any speaker's combined stereo response, no matter how good. That is what the BBC was talking about. Broadcast FM radio.


Thanks for your reply and comments MagnumX. Appreciate it! 

Yet, coming back to my original question what advice would you give fellow HT enthusiasts when doing their listening tests with full-range vs. limited range? How should they listen to their systems in order to make the proper decision on which way to go?

Thanks in advance. Nice to talk to you.


----------



## MagnumX

mogorf said:


> Thanks for your reply and comments MagnumX. Appreciate it!
> 
> Yet, coming back to my original question what advice would you give fellow HT enthusiasts when doing their listening tests with full-range vs. limited range? How should they listen to their systems in order to make the proper decision on which way to go?
> 
> Thanks in advance. Nice to talk to you.


I'd use some familiar movie and/or music passages to compare Audyssey on/off listening only for changes in that range (ignore bass etc) and if it seems better with it turned off, you could try limiting the range with the app above 5 or 6kHz or even 250-500Hz if you prefer the midrange.


----------



## Pixelatto

There is an interesting scene in Ready Player One movie that is perfect for evaluating both spatial resolution and full-range vs. limited range room correction. It is the NYC race around 13:00 into the movie. Soundtrack of that movie is superb and used by many for reference in various aspects of HT system performance. Cars that are destroyed in the race turn into coins which produce high frequency sound. Some of the crashes produce perfect 3D spatial effect where you should be able to pinpoint where the individual coin sounds come from. You might want to tone the bass down for this evaluation as it might distract you and overpower the effect you are looking for. 

But first you should go through the basic exercise of painstakingly positioning your already well positioned speakers with various toe-ins and tilts (for center if needed), calibrating, listening and figuring our what produces the best soundstage for you. This also includes measuring levels and setting them perfectly, not running some speakers hot. This is a perfect soundtrack and no need for that. The better you hear spatial positioning of the coins, the better dialed-in your system is.


----------



## MagnumX

Pixelatto said:


> There is an interesting scene in Ready Player One movie that is perfect for evaluating both spatial resolution and full-range vs. limited range room correction. It is the NYC race around 13:00 into the movie. Soundtrack of that movie is superb and used by many for reference in various aspects of HT system performance. Cars that are destroyed in the race turn into coins which produce high frequency sound. Some of the crashes produce perfect 3D spatial effect where you should be able to pinpoint where the individual coin sounds come from. You might want to tone the bass down for this evaluation as it might distract you and overpower the effect you are looking for.
> 
> But first you should go through the basic exercise of painstakingly positioning your already well positioned speakers with various toe-ins and tilts (for center if needed), calibrating, listening and figuring our what produces the best soundstage for you. This also includes measuring levels and setting them perfectly, not running some speakers hot. This is a perfect soundtrack and no need for that. The better you hear spatial positioning of the coins, the better dialed-in your system is.


I've done extensive testing with Ready Player One and various configurations of overhead speakers and the phantom imaging locations (mixing front/rear heights in and/or distance changes pulls the overhead imaging forward and backward).

The coin thing is a direct product of spatial positioning, not frequency response. I can make the coins "land" in front of me, in my lap or behind me by manipulating where Top Middle images in the room. 

In other words, the effect you get in a typical home theater is not really a product of quality speakers, but where you're sitting in regards to the speakers you're using. If you have 4 Tops speakers, are you sitting directly between them or slightly closer to the front or rear speakers? That largely determines where the coins land on the room as the coins are mostly in the height layer (there may be a bit in the dude surrounds as well which could factor in their ultimate landing spot). 

Adding Top Middle stabilizes the effect (there is only Top Middle used in most of the movie), but then it still matters whether you're sitting directly under them or forwards or backwards of them. 

Most, if not all the overhead front-to-back clues are on the lower speakers since RP1 is pretty much 7.1.2 for the most part, but the location of the overhead image largely determines where the coins are in space.


----------



## V2Millert

I've got a Denon AVR-X3400H with a 5.1.2 set-up in my living room. As a subwoofer I've got a XTZ Sub 10.17 Edge which is located against the back wall, connected with a SVS Soundpath Tri-Band Wireless. As I've got a nasty dip/null around 50-80Hz I was curious as to whether adding a second subwoofer at the front could solve this. So I borrowed my dad's XTZ Sub 8.17 and put it in the front, connected by cable (y cable with one plug connected in the LFE port on the sub). I tried three different positions and I ran Audyssey for each of these positions (did 3 measurements and finally one with 8 measurements, so 4 readings in total). The results show some promise, but I'll probably have to relocate my primary subwoofer as well. However, looking at the measurement I noticed that in each one of them the distance for subwoofer2 is either 0 or equal to that of subwoofer1. Could this be right? I know the Soundpath adds latency for the rear subwoofer but this seems off to me. When I try to edit the distances I also get an error message that the distance shouldn't be further than 8m apart.


----------



## Pixelatto

MagnumX said:


> I've done extensive testing with Ready Player One and various configurations of overhead speakers and the phantom imaging locations (mixing front/rear heights in and/or distance changes pulls the overhead imaging forward and backward).
> 
> The coin thing is a direct product of spatial positioning, not frequency response. I can make the coins "land" in front of me, in my lap or behind me by manipulating where Top Middle images in the room.
> 
> In other words, the effect you get in a typical home theater is not really a product of quality speakers, but where you're sitting in regards to the speakers you're using. If you have 4 Tops speakers, are you sitting directly between them or slightly closer to the front or rear speakers? That largely determines where the coins land on the room as the coins are mostly in the height layer (there may be a bit in the dude surrounds as well which could factor in their ultimate landing spot).
> 
> Adding Top Middle stabilizes the effect (there is only Top Middle used in most of the movie), but then it still matters whether you're sitting directly under them or forwards or backwards of them.
> 
> Most, if not all the overhead front-to-back clues are on the lower speakers since RP1 is pretty much 7.1.2 for the most part, but the location of the overhead image largely determines where the coins are in space.


Sorry, I might be a bit slow but don't understand the point. The point I was trying to make is that this is a good scene to evaluate if using full range EQ adds to the spatial accuracy of the given system @MLP.


----------



## Alan P

V2Millert said:


> I've got a Denon AVR-X3400H with a 5.1.2 set-up in my living room. As a subwoofer I've got a XTZ Sub 10.17 Edge which is located against the back wall, connected with a SVS Soundpath Tri-Band Wireless. As I've got a nasty dip/null around 50-80Hz I was curious as to whether adding a second subwoofer at the front could solve this. So I borrowed my dad's XTZ Sub 8.17 and put it in the front, connected by cable (y cable with one plug connected in the LFE port on the sub). I tried three different positions and I ran Audyssey for each of these positions (did 3 measurements and finally one with 8 measurements, so 4 readings in total). The results show some promise, but I'll probably have to relocate my primary subwoofer as well. However, looking at the measurement I noticed that in each one of them the distance for subwoofer2 is either 0 or equal to that of subwoofer1. Could this be right? I know the Soundpath adds latency for the rear subwoofer but this seems off to me. When I try to edit the distances I also get an error message that the distance shouldn't be further than 8m apart.
> 
> View attachment 3300724
> View attachment 3300725
> View attachment 3300726
> View attachment 3300727


With dual subs, they both must either be wired or wireless or you will run into issues like this. As you have found, Audyssey can't set distances more than 8m apart. Your wireless transmitter must be adding enough delay to make it's virtual location further than that.

Try running Audyssey for one sub at a time and I would be willing to bet the difference between the two distances will be more than the max allowed.


----------



## V2Millert

@Alan P
Thanks, I'll try that. Would be a real bummer, buying another Wireless transmitter just to deal with the delay of the first one . With one subwoofer the location that measured the best was at the back wall, which is why I needed the transmitter in the first place.


----------



## MagnumX

Pixelatto said:


> Sorry, I might be a bit slow but don't understand the point. The point I was trying to make is that this is a good scene to evaluate if using full range EQ adds to the spatial accuracy of the given system @MLP.


You mentioned the coin scene. I'm saying how and where the coins move/land are related to the type and location of the overhead speakers, not room correction.

Maybe how sparkly they sound or something, but the land in your lap thing originally discussed for that scene comes down to the location of the overhead phantom image according to the testing I've done (repeatable).


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> PSB is the only manufacturer of speakers I can think of offhand that rates down to +/- 1.5dB over part of the frequency spectrum and that's anechoic response.


If we only look at *part* of the spectrum, in a my real (treated) room, not in an anechoic chamber, but with *Audyssey* *full range*, here is a portion that is a little less than 1.5 octaves, 4.5K Hz to 13K Hz at, maybe, *+/- 1.25 dB* (2.5 dB peak-trough*; *the graph divisions are 5 dB, vertically). The rest of the spectrum is about +/- 2.5 dB, except below 180 Hz, where the bass is deliberately boosted. But even more surprising is how closely the two tweeters track. They were a bit less than 14 feet apart, in cornets, toed in, in a bilaterally symmetrical room, and far enough back to place the microphone slightly off-axis to each tweeter. I attribute this close tracking to Audyssey Full Range liking to work in this part of the spectrum, rather than to the tweeters themselves.


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> If we only look at *part* of the spectrum, in a my real (treated) room, not in an anechoic chamber, but with *Audyssey* *full range*, here is a portion that is a little less than 1.5 octaves, 4.5K Hz to 13K Hz at, maybe, *+/- 1.25 dB* (2.5 dB peak-trough*; *the graph divisions are 5 dB, vertically). The rest of the spectrum is about +/- 2.5 dB, except below 180 Hz, where the bass is deliberately boosted. But even more surprising is how closely the two tweeters track. They were a bit less than 14 feet apart, in cornets, toed in, in a bilaterally symmetrical room, and far enough back to place the microphone slightly off-axis to each tweeter. I attribute this close tracking to Audyssey Full Range liking to work in this part of the spectrum, rather than to the tweeters themselves.
> 
> 
> View attachment 3301023


Well I meant most of the spectrum in PSB's case, mostly just excluding bass. They post two sets of response curves, one for +/- 1.5dB and one with more bass extension using the more traditional +/- 3dB range. 

There's little doubt the closer you can get your initial response closer to ideal, the more likely you're hearing what's on the recording rather than your own room/speakers, but then room reflections also play into that so frequency response alone won't really tell the whole story. Many people like lively sounding rooms, but they're hearing their room plus the recording, which is fine, but they should be aware of it. 

I aim for getting most of the room out of the mix in my home theater. There are plenty of ambient sources of reflection from actual recording cues with 14 surround speakers (beyond L/C/R) around the room. 

Upstairs in my living room, I use Carver dipolar ribbons and let the room be more lively as dipoles tend to bring the performer into your own room. That room has incredible bass characteristics, however as I get +/- 2.0dB in the bass region from 30Hz-100Hz without correction (and +/- 4dB overall without correction).


----------



## Pixelatto

MagnumX said:


> You mentioned the coin scene. I'm saying how and where the coins move/land are related to the type and location of the overhead speakers, not room correction.
> 
> Maybe how sparkly they sound or something, but the land in your lap thing originally discussed for that scene comes down to the location of the overhead phantom image according to the testing I've done (repeatable).


Not sure we are comparing same things here. I was talking about the entire scene and all various effects that coins create, not just the ones that would depend on the overhead speakers or land in your lap thing. My point remains that full range EQ should be helpful to present all these effects (entire scene) more accurately. The benefit will be greater in systems that have lesser uniformity between channels in that (high) frequency range response. 

To put it simply, if one or two of your speakers is/are off by 5 dB in that frequency range, this will shift the spatial presentation of the effect to the louder speakers and will "land" somewhere where it was not intended. There is obviously a margin of error for all room correction systems, but not trying to equalize at first place is IMO questionable unless you are able to get e.g. +/- 3dB (not sure what would be a better number to put in here, open to suggestions). 

The bigger point I am trying to make is that considering the cut off range for your room correction system is not that easy as saying "500hz".


----------



## MagnumX

Pixelatto said:


> Not sure we are comparing same things here. I was talking about the entire scene and all various effects that coins create, not just the ones that would depend on the overhead speakers or land in your lap thing. My point remains that full range EQ should be helpful to present all these effects (entire scene) more accurately. The benefit will be greater in systems that have lesser uniformity between channels in that (high) frequency range response.
> 
> To put it simply, if one or two of your speakers is/are off by 5 dB in that frequency range, this will shift the spatial presentation of the effect to the louder speakers and will "land" somewhere where it was not intended. There is obviously a margin of error for all room correction systems, but not trying to equalize at first place is IMO questionable unless you are able to get e.g. +/- 3dB (not sure what would be a better number to put in here, open to suggestions).
> 
> The bigger point I am trying to make is that considering the cut off range for your room correction system is not that easy as saying "500hz".


I'm talking about the coin "trajectories" have very little to do with frequency response (unless taken to the extreme). _Dullness_ perhaps, but not movement and that's assuming one hell of a lot about how awful one's frequency response must be without Audyssey being full range. You might as well say Audyssey full range is needed to fix cymbals designed to fly/pan around the room. I maintain cymbals will fly around the room regardless. They'll either be dull or sparkly cymbals, but they'll still fly around the room. The panning controls the movement, not the frequency response as the coins aren't limited to one exact frequency. If a single height speaker, for example is off by 5dB across half the spectrum, you've got a blown tweeter! Yeah, that would sound bad, but Audyssey isn't going to fix it.

As for whether full range is needed, it's _easily checked_ with REW. If you have good response without Audyssey full range, you don't need it full range (and I use 5kHz, not 500Hz as it's the last 15kHz that are hard to get right with the microphone taking random phase samplings that vary by inches. 5kHz is what Genesis ARC recommends and for those reasons so I tried it and immediately I go similar response to my best Audyssey attempts. It's not that Audyssey can't do well full range, it's that the bevy of multiple measurements means the top end may get too dull or bright depending on whether the microphone happens to be sitting in a null or not and when it's mere inches at those frequencies the odds are probably at least 50/50 you won't get an even reading for a particular frequency). If it looks good full range and sounds good, fine. You got lucky with your microphone placements. 

If it looks one way and sounds too harsh and it sounds better turned off, then try limiting it (they can be limited by pair in the app and I think by single speaker with the Windows app). It's not like it's difficult to compare. That coin scene in RP1 is certainly _not_ the one I'd use to compare. Get a music track with some cymbals or other sounds that actually go that high (The cymbal opening to Space Dog by Tori Amos would take 10 seconds each to compare, for example and makes it easy to compare phono cartridges here). I don't think those coins are centered around 10kHz+ anyway, probably closer to 5-8kHz at most. Most older people can't hear much past 12kHz even on a good day, but I'm sure they can still hear those coins.


----------



## Pixelatto

Full range EQ works best with my setup although the difference is relatively small compared to ARC recommended 5khz range. Could be Klipsch horns as otherwise bed channels seem to have pretty decent and consistent response, unlike the heights that need more care. Anyway, I ran the scene couple of times last night and still hear slightly better spatial effect with full range EQ vs 5khz cutoff. Not just a difference in bright vs. dull coin sound. But obviously different setups might yield different results so not saying that your experience is not valid - just noting what my experience is.


----------



## Snakeyeskm

I tend to look at the "Room Correction Results" in the app (and REW) before making my decision on correction range. Typically the LCR speakers with lower bass levels and pointed at the MLP need more correction for room modes (300 – 500 Hz). The subwoofers that are aligned equalized (mini DSP/UMIK1) with the house curve have zero correction. The balance of speakers in my 9.2.4 HT system are equalized full range. Have yet to try the 5 kHz cut off.
Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## erfly7

Ok new X3700H arrived, setup, ran through Audyssey, set the fronts to small (it's a 5.1) now have a question as coming from Yamaha.
Set Sub to LFE
and 120hz

If watching streaming or downloaded content from Nvidia shield if I switch to Pure or Pure Direct that turns off Audyssey changes? and seems nothing comes out my sub.

So Do it keep it set to Movies DD + Surround most of time to keep Audyessy setup?


----------



## Alan P

erfly7 said:


> Ok new X3700H arrived, setup, ran through Audyssey, set the fronts to small (it's a 5.1) now have a question as coming from Yamaha.
> Set Sub to LFE
> and 120hz
> 
> If watching streaming or downloaded content from Nvidia shield if I switch to Pure or Pure Direct that turns off Audyssey changes? and seems nothing comes out my sub.
> 
> So Do it keep it set to Movies DD + Surround most of time to keep Audyessy setup?


Yes, subwoofer set to LFE. LFE+Main (aka "Double Bass") only works if you have your FL/FR speakers set to Large (which they should never be).

Yes, the LPF for LFE should be set to the default of 120Hz.

Pure and Pure Direct turn off the Audyssey filters and the subwoofer (but retains the distances and levels set during Audyssey calibration). These two settings are mostly meant for "purists" who don't want any processing turned on when listening to music.

I use the Dolby Surround upmixer for pretty much everything. In your case, with only 5.1, the DSU won't do anything to content that is 5.1 or 7.1, it will only upmix 2 channel content.

Yes, you want to keep Audyssey on all of the time. Otherwise all the work you did to "fix" your room would be wasted.


----------



## erfly7

Alan P said:


> Yes, subwoofer set to LFE. LFE+Main (aka "Double Bass") only works if you have your FL/FR speakers set to Large (which they should never be).
> 
> Yes, the LPF for LFE should be set to the default of 120Hz.
> 
> Pure and Pure Direct turn off the Audyssey filters and the subwoofer (but retains the distances and levels set during Audyssey calibration). These two settings are mostly meant for "purists" who don't want any processing turned on when listening to music.
> 
> I use the Dolby Surround upmixer for pretty much everything. In your case, with only 5.1, the DSU won't do anything to content that is 5.1 or 7.1, it will only upmix 2 channel content.
> 
> Yes, you want to keep Audyssey on all of the time. Otherwise all the work you did to "fix" your room would be wasted.


Thanks that was what I thought in reading just wanted to make sure, Yamaha is a bit different in naming and stuff. So if source is 4k bluray disc, setting to Movie will just utilize the track coming from the BR player? 

Also since live in apartment and need to turn off the sub or lower it at certain times where do I find those settings?


----------



## erfly7

Another question post calibration Audyssey set my two front bookshelfs crossover to 40Hz, should I raise this to 60 or 80 manually?


----------



## Pip

erfly7 said:


> Another question post calibration Audyssey set my two front bookshelfs crossover to 40Hz, should I raise this to 60 or 80 manually?


Yes


----------



## erfly7

Pip said:


> Yes


better 60 or 80?


----------



## Pip

erfly7 said:


> better 60 or 80?


Standard recommendation is 80.


----------



## Soulburner

erfly7 said:


> Thanks that was what I thought in reading just wanted to make sure, Yamaha is a bit different in naming and stuff. So if source is 4k bluray disc, setting to Movie will just utilize the track coming from the BR player?


You wouldn't need to touch those most of the time unless you want to apply an upmixer. It auto-switches to the detected format such as Dolby, DTS, etc.



erfly7 said:


> Also since live in apartment and need to turn off the sub or lower it at certain times where do I find those settings?


Switching your speakers to "Large" and setting Subwoofer to "None" would be the correct way to achieve that. Once you do that, set it to the input you are mostly going to use in that config and at roughly the volume level you intend to use, and press and hold one of the Quick Selects to save that as a preset. In fact, also do this beforehand for a preset with Small and sub on.


----------



## garygarrison

erfly7 said:


> better 60 or 80?


1) Probably 80

2) Are there people living downstairs? Is your sub on bare floor? If so, you may want to cut a square of rug pad and rug, or a thick rubber pad just the shape and area of the sub, and put it under sub to cut down on vibration sent through the floor. If there is nothing but crawl space down there, might as well entertain the rats, termites, silverfish, earwigs and assorted arachnids.


----------



## zeonstar

If you are using a Tactile Transducer that shares the same output as your sub using a Y splitter, I understand you simply turn them off during Audyssey. Then when everything is done you turn them back on. Is that it? I guess that means whatever Audyssey did to your sub will also affect your Shaker if they are sharing the same Sub out. Is that going to cause any performance issues with a shaker?


----------



## erfly7

garygarrison said:


> 1) Probably 80
> 
> 2) Are there people living downstairs? Is your sub on bare floor? If so, you may want to cut a square of rug pad and rug, or a thick rubber pad just the shape and area of the sub, and put it under sub to cut down on vibration sent through the floor. If there is nothing but crawl space down there, might as well entertain the rats, termites, silverfish, earwigs and assorted arachnids.


 Nope top floor, sub is on one of those isolation pads, only use it during the day until about 6pm on weekdays, and to about 9pm on weekends


----------



## erfly7

Soulburner said:


> You wouldn't need to touch those most of the time unless you want to apply an upmixer. It auto-switches to the detected format such as Dolby, DTS, etc.
> 
> 
> Switching your speakers to "Large" and setting Subwoofer to "None" would be the correct way to achieve that. Once you do that, set it to the input you are mostly going to use in that config and at roughly the volume level you intend to use, and press and hold one of the Quick Selects to save that as a preset. In fact, also do this beforehand for a preset with Small and sub on.


 So can I can save a manual setting with quick selects? or would have to run Audyssey twice, one with small + sub and one with large + none?


----------



## Alan P

erfly7 said:


> Thanks that was what I thought in reading just wanted to make sure, Yamaha is a bit different in naming and stuff. So if source is 4k bluray disc, setting to Movie will just utilize the track coming from the BR player?
> 
> *Also since live in apartment and need to turn off the sub or lower it at certain times where do I find those settings?*


The Subwoofer Level Adjust setting is probably the quickest and easiest way to adjust the level of the sub. However, the amount of attenuation available to you will depend on where you have the trim level set. Since -12dB is the lowest it will go, if you have your sub trim set to -8dB you will only be able to turn the sub down by 4dB.


----------



## the7mcs

Hey guys 
Trying to run audyssey calibration on marantz sr7009 
Has been a while since I did it like some 6 years ago 

Just got some new subs and trying to re-run it again 

I remember hearing when running audussey to set the volume on the avr at 0db (is that correct?) 

Well here’s the issue…. My marantz gets to -1.5db and just stops won’t go to 0 

Is something wrong?


----------



## V2Millert

@the7mcs You don't have to set the volume when running the Audyssey calibration, the volume is predefined.


----------



## the7mcs

V2Millert said:


> @the7mcs You don't have to set the volume when running the Audyssey calibration, the volume is predefined.


Guess I remembered things wrong then 

Thanks for the help friend 👍


----------



## Alan P

the7mcs said:


> Hey guys
> Trying to run audyssey calibration on marantz sr7009
> Has been a while since I did it like some 6 years ago
> 
> Just got some new subs and trying to re-run it again
> 
> I remember hearing when running audussey to set the volume on the avr at 0db (is that correct?)
> 
> Well here’s the issue…. My marantz gets to -1.5db and just stops won’t go to 0
> 
> Is something wrong?


Yup, the volume you set before calibration doesn't matter, but the reason you can only go to -1.5dB...did you maybe set a volume limit and forget about it?


----------



## mrtickleuk

erfly7 said:


> Also since live in apartment and need to turn off the sub or lower it at certain times where do I find those settings?


Well, since this is the Audyssey thread, I'm surprised not to see more people suggesting you use the Audyssey *Low Frequency Containment* (LFC) feature! It's designed for this exact eventuality, and the AVR saves the values of LFC (off, or on with 1-7) as part of its Quick Select saved settings. So I have a "night" quick select with LFC turned on for example. No need to actually disable the sub, or set fronts to large, or anything as drastic as that. LFC gives you 8 different levels of "containment" to play with to fine tune its effect.


----------



## erfly7

mrtickleuk said:


> Well, since this is the Audyssey thread, I'm surprised not to see more people suggesting you use the Audyssey *Low Frequency Containment* (LFC) feature! It's designed for this exact eventuality, and the AVR saves the values of LFC (off, or on with 1-7) as part of its Quick Select saved settings. So I have a "night" quick select with LFC turned on for example. No need to actually disable the sub, or set fronts to large, or anything as drastic as that. LFC gives you 8 different levels of "containment" to play with to fine tune its effect.


yeah I have that on with LFC set at 1, how much difference does it make say at max LFC to sub completely off?

and how do you make a Quick select with that?


----------



## mrtickleuk

erfly7 said:


> yeah I have that on with LFC set at 1, how much difference does it make say at max LFC to sub completely off?


Do experiments with it at different values and listen. I use "3" as 1 wasn't enough for me, but every house is different. If you got to the point where you thought you had to turn the sub off, you clearly haven't ever tried "7" 



> and how do you make a Quick select with that?


When it's how you want it, press and hold one of the 4 Quick Select buttons. HTH


----------



## the7mcs

Alan P said:


> Yup, the volume you set before calibration doesn't matter, but the reason you can only go to -1.5dB...did you maybe set a volume limit and forget about it?


Haha thanks for the tip, I don’t think I did but I’ll double check when I get the chance to


----------



## MagnumX

mrtickleuk said:


> Well, since this is the Audyssey thread, I'm surprised not to see more people suggesting you use the Audyssey *Low Frequency Containment* (LFC) feature! It's designed for this exact eventuality, and the AVR saves the values of LFC (off, or on with 1-7) as part of its Quick Select saved settings. So I have a "night" quick select with LFC turned on for example. No need to actually disable the sub, or set fronts to large, or anything as drastic as that. LFC gives you 8 different levels of "containment" to play with to fine tune its effect.


I never thought that feature actually worked. The sub sounds wonky, but you can still hear it in the next room.


----------



## mrtickleuk

MagnumX said:


> I never thought that feature actually worked. The sub sounds wonky, but you can still hear it in the next room.


Works fine and as described for me.


----------



## Alan P

mrtickleuk said:


> Works fine and as described for me.


Same here.


----------



## Cacitems4sale

If I change the q setting from .7 to .5 after audessey calibration and then back to .7 will I lose my calibration settings on my HSU subwoofer? My apologies if similar question was asked in prior threads.


----------



## pbz06

Cacitems4sale said:


> If I change the q setting from .7 to .5 after audessey calibration and then back to .7 will I lose my calibration settings on my HSU subwoofer? My apologies if similar question was asked in prior threads.


No. Audyssey has no way of knowing what you adjusted on the subwoofer post-calibration.

I used to do that with my previous HSU sub. It's just a way of limiting Audyssey's correction by using a higher tune so Audyssey thinks your sub rolls off sooner, and then post-cal you adjust it back to the deeper extension and let room gains occur without being flattened by Audyssey.


----------



## MortenS

Hi running Audyssey today, I am unsure if I need the app, but i assume i can just buy the app later and load the calibration over without redoing it?.

If I am happy with the result from auto calibration can i stay blissfully unknown about seeing the results in the app, or do i HAVE to get it to do some must do changes?


----------



## ThierryB

MortenS said:


> Hi running Audyssey today, I am unsure if I need the app, but i assume i can just buy the app later and load the calibration over without redoing it?.
> 
> If I am happy with the result from auto calibration can i stay blissfully uknknown about seeing the results in the app, or do i HAVE to get it to do some must do changes?


You can buy the app later, but you will have to rerun the calibration from the APP.


----------



## MortenS

ThierryB said:


> You can buy the app later, but you will have to rerun the calibration from the APP.


So I should buy the app now then. with 7.1.4 the calibration takes forever, don't want to do it again just for the app


----------



## ThierryB

MortenS said:


> So I should buy the app now then. with 7.1.4 the calibration takes forever, don't want to do it again just for the app


Yes It’s worth it. Do it.


----------



## MagnumX

MortenS said:


> So I should buy the app now then. with 7.1.4 the calibration takes forever, don't want to do it again just for the app


If you use the Windows app instead (costs considerably more but has many more features), you can redo specific speakers only in the calibration instead of the whole darn thing again among other options. OTOH, if you don't have a Windows notebook, a phone or iPad is a lot easier to carry around and costs a lot less for the app, which can be used on multiple receivers (Windows one is locked per unit and non-transferable to the new owner if you sell it). I don't know if you can have it removed for one unit and transferred to another after a long period of time.


----------



## Soulburner

Adobe solved this by allowing X number of licenses to be active at any one time.

If you set up software on say, a 3rd computer, it will ask you which one of your previous 2 you would like to deactivate in order to continue.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Adobe solved this by allowing X number of licenses to be active at any one time.
> 
> If you set up software on say, a 3rd computer, it will ask you which one of your previous 2 you would like to deactivate in order to continue.


Yeah, I love how Adobe wants $20+ a month for the rest of my life to use a program where a version from 2000 or 2008 would suffice for my needs perhaps forever except macOS doesn't support it anymore (32-bit and Java requirements) and newer 64-bit versions are RENT ONLY. Brilliant. Maybe we can rent everything in our lives in the future save perhaps a coffin.


----------



## MortenS

MagnumX said:


> If you use the Windows app instead (costs considerably more but has many more features), you can redo specific speakers only in the calibration instead of the whole darn thing again among other options. OTOH, if you don't have a Windows notebook, a phone or iPad is a lot easier to carry around and costs a lot less for the app, which can be used on multiple receivers (Windows one is locked per unit and non-transferable to the new owner if you sell it). I don't know if you can have it removed for one unit and transferred to another after a long period of time.


Thank you for info, I will go for the app to keep it simple i guess. Probably won't do much after im happy with the sound and i get some thumbs up for the corrected adjustments.


----------



## schwock5

Has anyone else had this bug/issue with the audy app?
I've read of and also had the muted "flat" setting.

But i'm running into another issue now.
I adjusted my subwoofer curve and noticed some changes via REW.
however, after further iterations/adjustments to further refine, my uploads seem to have not only no effect, but resetting back to the initial curve, so no change whatsoever from before/after.
I tried modifying the curve slightly and re-uploading multiple times, but the curve remains unchanged.
I ensured I'm uploading correctly (since the first few changes did take effect) and i'm using audy REF with no DEQ to get a baseline change comparison.


----------



## galonzo

*There's a thread for the app discussion specifically*, but this thread is also fine, as quite a few of us use the app now; I came across this a few updates ago, and was able to fix it by unplugging the AVR for a minute while I force-quit the app and cleared the app cache, then once everything was back up, I re-uploaded the file that I wasn't seeing the changes in REW with, but it was now working as expected after this whole "reset process." HTH


----------



## schwock5

galonzo said:


> *There's a thread for the app discussion specifically*, but this thread is also fine, as quite a few of us use the app now; I came across this a few updates ago, and was able to fix it by unplugging the AVR for a minute while I force-quit the app and cleared the app cache, then once everything was back up, I re-uploaded the file that I wasn't seeing the changes in REW with, but it was now working as expected after this whole "reset process." HTH


thank you so much, i'll try that tonight!


----------



## MagnumX

I tried two more recent Audyssey calibrations after moving my summed front wide speakers, an end table and the sub several inches since the "old" measurement. I tried using some different microphone measurement positions as well (within the two foot range). I noticed a rather large sounding bass difference immediately despite the Audyssey before curves looking very similar and the predictions being "flat". So I ran REW with all three calibrations and most of the room changes looked more or less identical above the bass region (within a dB or two at most), but there's a room mode at the MLP in the 50Hz region and it seems according to REW the only real difference in the settings was how it handled that dip. 

On the "Louder" setting (red graph), I had to turn the LFE channel down -10dB to keep my head from pounding and the left wall from rattling (it still rattled more even at -10dB than the "older" setting did at 0dB). On the "Older" setting, it was fine maxed out at 0dB without the rattle. The 3rd attempt moved the microphone a bit and ended up between the two (-4dB LFE sounds best). Oddly, with 2-channel stereo music, the louder setting was the best without turning up the subwoofer. But then I noticed from where I set my Carver AL-III crossovers upstairs, I like a +7dB bass slope towards the bottom end. But with a lot of multi-channel albums, particularly some recent Atmos ones like Booka Shade's Dear Future Self, a flat setting sounds best if I don't want a headache. But I can adjust the sub for 2-channel music easy enough with my 7012's sub setting under Audio (newer AVRs got rid of it for some reason as consumers were confused by how it worked; I use it as a quick and easy subwoofer level change that's adjusts lightyears faster than that slow "options" menu volume change). 

I think it would be clearly beneficial to get a 2nd sub to even things out that way instead, but I still found it odd such a relatively small change could sound so massively different while I noticed nothing different anywhere else. As for microphone positions, the older one I spaced it it out to nearly 2 feet even if that meant setting the microphone on the chair's armrest to get a "wider" sampling and I put the microphone behind the MLP chair for the last two readings. With the newer readings, I put the microphone squarely in the seat width area but more towards the foot rest for measurements 4, 5 & 6 and the last two closer to where my ears would be on the back of the chair in a reclined position (measurements 1 was the same and 2 & 3 were probably within the seat of the chair closer to the headrest with it not reclined). 

REW Graph 1/12 Smoothing:


----------



## MagnumX

I guess I was hoping for proposed explanations of why the correction varied _audibly_ so much despite REW only showing a relatively minor difference. 

I'm also convinced beyond a doubt now Audyssey screws the high end up royally in the process going full range (too much treble). My ears wanted to bleed on some recordings compared to limiting to Schroeder and I know PSB measures excellent and my room is on the dead side. I know what those same recordings sound like on my Carver speakers in a more lively room upstairs and they sound far closer with Audyssey off above Schroeder than on.

I'd love to compare to DIRAC at this point in that regard, but I'm thinking Floyd Toole may be correct, at least with Audyssey. 

For now, I've used a modified bass curve (turn down 56Hz 3dB and 80Hz down 4dB to limit wall shaking bass and create a downward slope towards 200Hz) on the 3rd calibration (in-between one above) and stopped all correction at 300Hz. Oddly, it still sounds quite different than the older calibration even with it limited to 300Hz also. I'm not sure why that is unless it's all in the upper bass, despite the curves looking similar in that range (yes the modified curve overall sounds better other than exciting that wall a bit more. Any ideas how I could get rid of the warmer weather rattles in it? The only thing I can think of is filling the wall with insulation to stiffen it). I'm no carpenter, though.

Duller recordings aren't quite as crisp, but now there's no ear bleeding and far less ear fatigue in general in extended listening.


----------



## pdawg17

I ran through Audyssey on my s760h and my sub level was set to +7.0. I then noticed the volume on my sub had been turned too low. Do I now have to re-run the whole calibration or can I just edit the sub volume down to some value (what would be best?) and turn up the knob to where things "sound good"? Or does making these changes affect the room correction?


----------



## Rich 63

pdawg17 said:


> I ran through Audyssey on my s760h and my sub level was set to +7.0. I then noticed the volume on my sub had been turned too low. Do I now have to re-run the whole calibration or can I just edit the sub volume down to some value (what would be best?) and turn up the knob to where things "sound good"? Or does making these changes affect the room correction?


You want the sub after calibration to be well into negative. I would redo it. Only take about 15 minutes and a quiet home.


----------



## Soulburner

pdawg17 said:


> I ran through Audyssey on my s760h and my sub level was set to +7.0. I then noticed the volume on my sub had been turned too low. Do I now have to re-run the whole calibration or can I just edit the sub volume down to some value (what would be best?) and turn up the knob to where things "sound good"? Or does making these changes affect the room correction?


The room correction won't be affected, but since you lack headroom, you'll want to up the sub gain and run it again until you're at least at -6.


----------



## pdawg17

Rich 63 said:


> You want the sub after calibration to be well into negative. I would redo it. Only take about 15 minutes and a quiet home.


The quiet home is the tough part lol.


----------



## Rich 63

pdawg17 said:


> The quiet home is the tough part lol.


Yup. I do mine when my wife goes shopping. Turn of the furnace, close all windows, and hit go. Good luck getting it done.


----------



## Alan P

MagnumX said:


> I'm also convinced beyond a doubt now Audyssey screws the high end up royally in the process going full range *(too much treble)*. My ears wanted to bleed on some recordings compared to limiting to Schroeder and I know PSB measures excellent and my room is on the dead side. I know what those same recordings sound like on my Carver speakers in a more lively room upstairs and they sound far closer with Audyssey off above Schroeder than on.


Did you cover the seat back of your chair with towels or a blanket during calibration? It's pretty well known that Audyssey can result in a "too bright" calibration if the mic is close to a reflective surface (like leather, or leather-like, seat backs).


----------



## MagnumX

Alan P said:


> Did you cover the seat back of your chair with towels or a blanket during calibration? It's pretty well known that Audyssey can result in a "too bright" calibration if the mic is close to a reflective surface (like leather, or leather-like, seat backs).


Yeah, it's got a blanket over it plus it's not leather.

From what I've read by Toole lately, it's possible that many of the variations above 200-600Hz are not the direct sound reaching your ears, but room reflections that your brain hears as ambience/spaciousness instead but REW can't separate from the direct sound. You may or may not prefer the "corrected" result. He clearly did not with his Revel Salon 2 speakers and that was Trinnov's supposedly more advanced than Audyssey system.

I probably wouldn't think much of it with movies and some music sounds fine and maybe even clearer (more treble on darker recordings), but others including my own album sound more sibilant and harsh with it full range and excellent with it limited to bass only.

Looking at the full range graph I've added above at 1/6 smoothing, it looks like there's clearly higher levels with Audyssey turned on full range compared to off period between 2kHz-3kHz and again at 5kHz-8kHz, which are the common range for human voice harshness and/or sibilance.


----------



## MagnumX

Oddly, I noticed Audyssey "reference" above in the posted graph looks nearly identical to the Audyssey "off" graph above 10kHz. I can't help but wonder if that's what Audyssey is actually doing in reference mode (disabling "correction" above 10kHz) as normal room response to flat anechoic speakers naturally rolls off above 10kHz. 

Correcting it would be a bit like listening to flat response headphones. The issue there is most recordings aren't mixed for near-field flat, similar to why X-Curve cinema soundtracks have too much treble at home in a more near-field environment (falls off more in Giant cinema rooms that t by ey attempted to correct, albeit poorly from what I read by Toole). 

Yet some music recordings did sound better brighter because you cannot account for every recording/mixing setup, let alone hearing loss and even personal taste in mixing engineers. This is filed under "The Circle of Confusion" by Toole. 

Toole recommends tone controls to correct rather than a correction curve because it's so much easier/faster to do on the fly. He lamented his AVP doesn't have any (Trinnov AFAIK). I wonder if they will add them or have added them already since those comments were made public. I do note my Marantz 7012 has tone controls available in the option pop-up menu. Maybe most expensive isn't always most _useful_.


----------



## aschotz86

Just ran audyssey for the first time on my Denon 3700H and I have a couple of questions:



I indicated that I have no sub (I'm just running a 3.0 setup) but it set my center to small with a crossover at 60hz. Is this correct and it will just route sub 60hz to my L and R channel or should I set my center to large?
I've noticed when switching sound modes (i.e. going from movie to music on the remote) that somehow audyssey is changing it's setting from "reference" to bypass L/R. Anyone know why this is happening?
Is there a convenient way to quickly enable/disable audyssey without having to go through the menu? I really did not like how it sounded with music, so I when switching to playing music on my apple tv, I want to disable audyssey. I also want to adjust tone controls to increase bass - it would be great if with the press of a button I could load a speaker profile so I can easily switch from movies to TV.


----------



## pbz06

aschotz86 said:


> Just ran audyssey for the first time on my Denon 3700H and I have a couple of questions:
> 
> 
> 
> I indicated that I have no sub (I'm just running a 3.0 setup) but it set my center to small with a crossover at 60hz. Is this correct and it will just route sub 60hz to my L and R channel or should I set my center to large?
> I've noticed when switching sound modes (i.e. going from movie to music on the remote) that somehow audyssey is changing it's setting from "reference" to bypass L/R. Anyone know why this is happening?
> Is there a convenient way to quickly enable/disable audyssey without having to go through the menu? I really did not like how it sounded with music, so I when switching to playing music on my apple tv, I want to disable audyssey. I also want to adjust tone controls to increase bass - it would be great if with the press of a button I could load a speaker profile so I can easily switch from movies to TV.


I use the "DeRemote" app on my iPad, and the official Denon/Marantz app on my android phone. Both allow you to adjust tone controls and Audyssey toggles. The deremote is snappier and faster though.


----------



## Soulburner

aschotz86 said:


> I indicated that I have no sub (I'm just running a 3.0 setup) but it set my center to small with a crossover at 60hz. Is this correct and it will just route sub 60hz to my L and R channel or should I set my center to large?


Interesting. If you really have no sub, your speakers should be set to Large (read as: bass management OFF).


aschotz86 said:


> I've noticed when switching sound modes (i.e. going from movie to music on the remote) that somehow audyssey is changing it's setting from "reference" to bypass L/R. Anyone know why this is happening?


I am not aware of that ever happening to me, but IMO Bypass L/R is a dumb setting and shouldn't exist.


aschotz86 said:


> Is there a convenient way to quickly enable/disable audyssey without having to go through the menu? I really did not like how it sounded with music, so I when switching to playing music on my apple tv, I want to disable audyssey. I also want to adjust tone controls to increase bass - it would be great if with the press of a button I could load a speaker profile so I can easily switch from movies to TV.


What speakers do you have? You may prefer instead of disabling Audyssey, to limit the correction frequency to just the bass region and maybe lower mids as that is what room correction is mostly about. Try limiting it to 300-600 Hz and it will assuredly be better than 0.


----------



## MagnumX

aschotz86 said:


> I indicated that I have no sub (I'm just running a 3.0 setup) but it set my center to small with a crossover at 60hz. Is this correct and it will just route sub 60hz to my L and R channel or should I set my center to large?


With no sub, all LFE bass and bass for speakers set to "small" get routed to the mains which are automatically set to Large. If your center is a full size tower matching the mains, you should set it to large. Otherwise, small will route its bass to the mains. If they don't do bass then you won't really have any. 



> I've noticed when switching sound modes (i.e. going from movie to music on the remote) that somehow audyssey is changing it's setting from "reference" to bypass L/R. Anyone know why this is happening?




D&M receivers store the last setting used in the smart setting buttons (not really the music/movie buttons which change sound mode and store the last saved sound mode in each, but the buttons above them will store the Audyssey settings for that button. You may have changed it at some point and stored it, perhaps accidentally.

Bypass L/R Main is mostly useful for 2-channel music where full range Audyssey correction may be harsh on some albums and you temporarily want to bypass it an possibly store it for the Music smart button. If you had a sub, it still corrects the sub and any surround speakers active. I certainly wouldn't call it useless like some. 



> Is there a convenient way to quickly enable/disable audyssey without having to go through the menu? I really did not like how it sounded with music, so I when switching to playing music on my apple tv, I want to disable audyssey.


Yes, set the input to Apple TV and turn Audyssey off. Select whatever surround or stereo mode you want it to default to when using Apple TV and set the volume level to the level you would like it to start at with it. Now save a smart button (e.g. The one for Music) by holding it down a few seconds until the display says it's saved it to that smart button. 

Now when you briefly press that button, it will change to Apple TV and turn Audyssey off and change the volume to what you set and the surround mode as well (e.g. Stereo). 



> I also want to adjust tone controls to increase bass - it would be great if with the press of a button I could load a speaker profile so I can easily switch from movies to TV.




Normally, the smart buttons also store the OPTIONS button settings for level (volume) changes. So for the above before you save it (or you can load it, change something and save over it), go into the pop-up options menu and select the volume level option and change whatever levels you want like including the subwoofer and it will store it. 

But in your case, without a sub that could be an issue. However, the options menu also includes Tone Controls you can easily adjust on the fly for bass and treble. I've never tested to see if it can save tone control settings, however.

I hope this helps.


----------



## aschotz86

MagnumX said:


> With no sub, all LFE bass and bass for speakers set to "small" get routed to the mains which are automatically set to Large. If your center is a full size tower matching the mains, you should set it to large. Otherwise, small will route its bass to the mains. If they don't do bass then you won't really have any.
> 
> 
> 
> D&M receivers store the last setting used in the smart setting buttons (not really the music/movie buttons which change sound mode and store the last saved sound mode in each, but the buttons above them will store the Audyssey settings for that button. You may have changed it at some point and stored it, perhaps accidentally.
> 
> Bypass L/R Main is mostly useful for 2-channel music where full range Audyssey correction may be harsh on some albums and you temporarily want to bypass it an possibly store it for the Music smart button. If you had a sub, it still corrects the sub and any surround speakers active. I certainly wouldn't call it useless like some.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, set the input to Apple TV and turn Audyssey off. Select whatever surround or stereo mode you want it to default to when using Apple TV and set the volume level to the level you would like it to start at with it. Now save a smart button (e.g. The one for Music) by holding it down a few seconds until the display says it's saved it to that smart button.
> 
> Now when you briefly press that button, it will change to Apple TV and turn Audyssey off and change the volume to what you set and the surround mode as well (e.g. Stereo).
> 
> 
> 
> Normally, the smart buttons also store the OPTIONS button settings for level (volume) changes. So for the above before you save it (or you can load it, change something and save over it), go into the pop-up options menu and select the volume level option and change whatever levels you want like including the subwoofer and it will store it.
> 
> But in your case, without a sub that could be an issue. However, the options menu also includes Tone Controls you can easily adjust on the fly for bass and treble. I've never tested to see if it can save tone control settings, however.
> 
> I hope this helps.


Do the smart buttons work for the same input? I use the apple tv for both movies/tv AND music. So I want to be able to disable audyssey and enable tone controls with 1 button for the same input if that's possible


----------



## bluesky636

Anyone know offhand or measured the shape of the Denon Cinema Eq high frequency rolloff and how it compares to the high frequency rolloff of the Audyssey Reference curve? I know Denon does not include a MRC.


----------



## primetimeguy

bluesky636 said:


> Anyone know offhand or measured the shape of the Denon Cinema Eq high frequency rolloff and how it compares to the high frequency rolloff of the Audyssey Reference curve? I know Denon does not include a MRC.


I'd have to dig up measurements from a few years ago, but if I recall correctly it is flat to 2k and slopes down crossing 10khz at -4db.
EDIT: found one


----------



## pbz06

primetimeguy said:


> I'd have to dig up measurements from a few years ago, but if I recall correctly it is flat to 2k and slopes down crossing 10khz at -4db.
> EDIT: found one
> View attachment 3316304
> 
> View attachment 3316304


Close.
1khz is the hinge point, and then imagine a straight line to about -4 or -5dB at 20khz


----------



## bluesky636

primetimeguy said:


> I'd have to dig up measurements from a few years ago, but if I recall correctly it is flat to 2k and slopes down crossing 10khz at -4db.
> EDIT: found one
> View attachment 3316304
> 
> View attachment 3316304





pbz06 said:


> Close.
> 1khz is the hinge point, and then imagine a straight line to about -4 or -5dB at 20khz


According to the original Audyssey thread for Reference: "_This curve is flat to 4 kHz, has a slight roll-off from 4kHz - 10 kHz (-2dB @ 10 kHz), and another additional roll-off from 10 kHz - 20 kHz (-6dB @ 20 kHz)."

So they are similar but not quite the same?_


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> According to the original Audyssey thread for Reference: "_This curve is flat to 4 kHz, has a slight roll-off from 4kHz - 10 kHz (-2dB @ 10 kHz), and another additional roll-off from 10 kHz - 20 kHz (-6dB @ 20 kHz)."
> 
> So they are similar but not quite the same?_


That sounds like the reference curve from Audyssey We are talking about the Denon/Marantz surround parameter.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> That sounds like the reference curve from Audyssey We are talking about the Denon/Marantz surround parameter.


Yes. My question was what does the Denon Cinema EQ curve look like and how does it compare to the Audyssey Reference curve as stated in my OP.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Yes. My question was what does the Denon Cinema EQ curve look like and how does it compare to the Audyssey Reference curve as stated in my OP.


I have measurements I can dig up later (currently at work). But basically just imagine a straight line target, like I said, hinge point from 1khz to about -4dB at 20khz.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I have measurements I can dig up later (currently at work). But basically just imagine a straight line target, like I said, hinge point from 1khz to about -4dB at 20khz.


That would be appreciated. Good comparison with what Primetimeguy posted.


----------



## Alan P

aschotz86 said:


> *Do the smart buttons work for the same input? *I use the apple tv for both movies/tv AND music. So I want to be able to disable audyssey and enable tone controls with 1 button for the same input if that's possible


Yup.


----------



## aschotz86

Alan P said:


> Yup.


awesome thanks...that worked


----------



## aschotz86

Sorry 1 more question - is it ok if the mic is at a slight angle or does it need to be at 90 degrees? When sitting on the couch, it's not perfectly straight - it leans slightly back (see picture).


----------



## Alan P

aschotz86 said:


> Sorry 1 more question - is it ok if the mic is at a slight angle or does it need to be at 90 degrees? When sitting on the couch, it's not perfectly straight - it leans slightly back (see picture).


Probably fine, or you could prop up the back legs with a book or something.

Around here though, "serious" HT folks use a boom mic stand.


----------



## Matt2026

aschotz86 said:


> Sorry 1 more question - is it ok if the mic is at a slight angle or does it need to be at 90 degrees? When sitting on the couch, it's not perfectly straight - it leans slightly back (see picture).


What happens if the seating vibrates? Or is that not a concern?


----------



## MagnumX

aschotz86 said:


> Do the smart buttons work for the same input? I use the apple tv for both movies/tv AND music. So I want to be able to disable audyssey and enable tone controls with 1 button for the same input if that's possible


You can use more than one smart button fo a given source. Set one button for movies with the settings you like and one for music. You still have two more after that.


----------



## aschotz86

So, I just ran audyssey for real this time and was curious if anyone can help me understand my results (equalizer stuff) for my 3.0 setup. I'm surprised it recommended increasing my FL by 1.5db, FR by 2db, and decreasing center by .5 (considering what I want to happen is emphasize dialog more).


----------



## Soulburner

There is no real way to emphasize just dialogue without a dialogue enhance feature. Even then it's a crapshoot because it's probably the recording or it's mumbling actors. Raising the center channel level will make a lot of other effects louder as well, but only for that speaker, making it stand out. I'm not a fan.


----------



## aschotz86

That makes sense...I'm going to try dynamic volume light to help. What about the equalizer results...could you explain what those mean/what it's doing.


----------



## Soulburner

aschotz86 said:


> That makes sense...I'm going to try dynamic volume light to help. What about the equalizer results...could you explain what those mean/what it's doing.


That should help.

The results look like your speakers are near boundaries, so it cleaned up the bass, more so on the front left. It raised the treble on all of your speakers, which will depend on the speaker as to whether that's a good or bad thing. I'm quite surprised by how much the treble was raised on the center. Does it sound natural to you? What speakers are these?

The leveling is done to get each speaker's pink noise output to 75 dB after EQ.


----------



## aschotz86

philharmonitor BMRs (fronts); ascend duo (center) - the room is not very good unfortunately. Here is the layout:


----------



## Alan P

Matt2026 said:


> What happens if the seating vibrates? Or is that not a concern?


It _is _a concern, hence the recommendation for using a boom mic stand.


----------



## MagnumX

aschotz86 said:


> So, I just ran audyssey for real this time and was curious if anyone can help me understand my results (equalizer stuff) for my 3.0 setup. I'm surprised it recommended increasing my FL by 1.5db, FR by 2db, and decreasing center by .5 (considering what I want to happen is emphasize dialog more).


It has no idea what you want. Just manually adjust it afterwards. Contrary to what someone wants you to believe, raising the center a decibel or two isn't going to make the rest of the sound _unbearable _(it tends to blend), but it might make dialog more intelligible. Sure, if you're going to crank it 4-6dB or more you could end up with a weird sounding center, but a decibel or two isn't a big deal (1dB ~=10% increase).

Sadly, DTS:X offered a simple solution to Hollywood, put the dialog in its own object and let the consumer adjust dialog to taste. Ego driven directors hated the idea. Let someone else make an "artistic" decision for "their" film?!? Pshaw!!! Yeah, so now Disney just neuters the entire freaking soundtrack instead whether the director likes it or not... Brilliant. 



Alan P said:


> It is a concern, hence the recommendation for using a boom mic stand.


 For an Audyssey sweep? Come on. Have you actually sat in a room during one? Besides, what makes you think a boom mic sitting on the (potentially hard) floor is any less likely to introduce vibration than on a cushioned couch with say a professional damped tripod?


----------



## Alan P

MagnumX said:


> For an Audyssey sweep? Come on. Have you actually sat in a room during one? Besides, what makes you think a boom mic sitting on the (potentially hard) floor is any less likely to introduce vibration than on a cushioned couch with say a professional damped tripod?


I've sat in a room during Audyssey sweeps more times than I can count, not sure what that has to do with using a mic stand...?

A floor will vibrate much, much less than a couch/chair/recliner, that's for sure. But you do you, man!


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> What happens if the seating vibrates? Or is that not a concern?


Our house sits over a large crawl space. Great room floor is wood with a large area rug on top. I've run Audyssey many times and never noticed anything vibrating. I think that is an old wives tale.


----------



## Alan P

bluesky636 said:


> Our house sits over a large crawl space. Great room floor is wood with a large area rug on top. I've run Audyssey many times and never noticed anything vibrating. I think that is an old wives tale.


I notice my seat vibrating when I'm sitting in it watching movies, that's undeniable. What makes you think it doesn't vibrate during Audyssey sweeps (especially if you get the dreaded "too much ambient noise" message and Audyssey cranks it up!)? For $20-$25 for a mic stand, I'm erring on the side of caution. 

You also get the added bonus of being able to more precisely place the mic in 3D space, and more repeatable results.

Here's a pertinent excerpt from @mthomas47's Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences:



Spoiler: Why to use a boom microphone stand



It is a very good idea to use a boom microphone stand with an extendable arm for Audyssey calibrations. That allows the base of the stand to remain on the floor, while the swing-out arm allows the microphone to be positioned exactly where the listener wants it. If something such as a camera tripod is used, mic placement can be much more difficult, and the heavy mass of the tripod can interfere with the calibration due to secondary reflections from the tripod. If a tripod is placed in a chair or on a sofa, to facilitate mic placement, vibrations from the furniture can be passed up through the Audyssey microphone. Whether that would always make a significant difference in the calibration is somewhat debatable, although there have been some good before-and-after examples where it definitely did make a difference.

Another issue with camera tripods is the bulk of the tripod itself, positioned directly below the microphone. There can also be spurious reflections from the base of the tripod, which can interfere with the accuracy of the calibration. For both Audyssey and for REW, boom mic stands work much better. And, for the small cost involved, I think that it makes sense to use a much better and more stable stand than the cardboard one that Audyssey provides.

The type of stand I am recommending provides for much more exact mic placement, and better repeatability for calibrations. That repeatability is important, once someone has found a mic pattern that works well for his room and equipment. There are a number of different stands that can work, although I have heard that some of them which come with adapters included, are flimsy and don't stand-up well. The one that I am linking below is sturdy and durable, but it does require a separate adapter to hold the Audyssey microphone. I am also linking two different adapters. Either adapter can work.


----------



## bluesky636

Alan P said:


> What makes you think it doesn't vibrate during Audyssey sweeps


Because I said so, that's why.


----------



## MagnumX

Alan P said:


> I've sat in a room during Audyssey sweeps more times than I can count, not sure what that has to do with using a mic stand...?
> 
> A floor will vibrate much, much less than a couch/chair/recliner, that's for sure. But you do you, man!


You certainly do _you_. 

The couch sits on the same floor. It's dampened. That means _less_ vibration, not more unless you leave your hoverease on.

A dampened tripod made to stabilize video is probably at least as damped as a microphone boom (I've got one of those upstairs for recording vocals in my studio and it doesn't strike me as particularly damped for vibration whereas my video tripod is marketed as such to reduce video vibration to stabilize the picture). Unless your floor is concrete, the floor can shake like mad (My Carver room upstairs transmits bass through the floor like crazy with loud bass material. It's awesome for tactile feel, but maybe not great for a microphone. However, the Audyssey sweep levels are miniscule by comparison). The microfiber recliner sitting on the same floor with a dampened tripod on it is _two_ steps removed. 

But the amount of momentary vibration induced by an Audyssey sweep doesn't move a thing here. I've used the cardboard mount on the chairs _and_ the professional video tripod and the readings are for all visual graphing purposes _identical_. In other words, the notion that the microphone is shaking during calibration on a typical chair or couch is absurd. Maybe if it were a wooden rocking chair....


----------



## garygarrison

bluesky636 said:


> According to the original Audyssey thread for Reference: "_This curve is flat to 4 kHz, has a slight roll-off from 4kHz - 10 kHz (-2dB @ 10 kHz), and another additional roll-off from 10 kHz - 20 kHz (-6dB @ 20 kHz)."
> 
> So they are similar but not quite the same?_


Out in the room, my Audyssey Reference doesn't start to roll off until about 6K (except for a tiny Midrange Compensation dip at 2.3K Hz), then rolls down to -5 dB (-4.999 dB?) at 15K Hz.


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> Out in the room, my Audyssey Reference doesn't start to roll off until about 6K (except for a tiny Midrange Compensation dip at 2.3K Hz), then rolls down to -5 dB (-4.999 dB?) at 15K Hz.
> View attachment 3316663


Ok.

You're about 2 dB down at 10 KHz and I bet you would be around 6 or 7 dB down at 20 KHz. Given measurement tolerances and a kind of nebulous scale, I'd say it's close to what Audyssey says.

But I am more interested in the shape of the Denon Cinema EQ curve of which I have received three different responses.


----------



## primetimeguy

garygarrison said:


> Out in the room, my Audyssey Reference doesn't start to roll off until about 6K (except for a tiny Midrange Compensation dip at 2.3K Hz), then rolls down to -5 dB (-4.999 dB?) at 15K Hz.
> View attachment 3316663


You need to show the flat curve to have a reference point. My guess is it actually starts dropping at 4khz like it is supposed to.


----------



## aschotz86

I'm curious if anyone else has opinions on my audyssey results and corresponding room setup - this is for a 3.0 system.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Ok.
> 
> You're about 2 dB down at 10 KHz and I bet you would be around 6 or 7 dB down at 20 KHz. Given measurement tolerances and a kind of nebulous scale, I'd say it's close to what Audyssey says.
> 
> But I am more interested in the shape of the Denon Cinema EQ curve of which I have received three different responses.


I replied to you in the other thread with a measurement. Case closed.









"OFFICIAL" 2018 Denon "S-Series" /...


For the uninitiated, is this meant to counter the theater X-curve? Does the X-curve make it to the Blu-ray?




www.avsforum.com


----------



## bluesky636

aschotz86 said:


> I'm curious if anyone else has opinions on my audyssey results and corresponding room setup - this is for a 3.0 system.


First of all, those plots are a rough representation of the correction filters applied by Audyssey. They convey no information about the actual frequency response in the room.

Secondly, the acoustic space around the left and right speakers are totally different. Again, there is no information provided about the actual in room frequency response.

Finally, you provided no information about the microphone layout used for measurement, how many mic positions were used, or spacing between mic positions.

In my opinion, very little can be gleaned from what you have presented.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I replied to you in the other thread with a measurement. Case closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "OFFICIAL" 2018 Denon "S-Series" /...
> 
> 
> For the uninitiated, is this meant to counter the theater X-curve? Does the X-curve make it to the Blu-ray?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Thanks. For some reason I don't always get notified of responses to threads I am subscribed to.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Thanks. For some reason I don't always get notified of responses to threads I am subscribed to.


I think in this case, our discussion got moved to that thread by a moderator. I couldn't find it here (which is where we started) and had to search. 

To keep it on topic, the recommendation is for people that like using the Audyssey "FLAT" target, they can engage CinemaEQ for some movies with a brighter track.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I think in this case, our discussion got moved to that thread by a moderator. I couldn't find it here (which is where we started) and had to search.
> 
> To keep it on topic, the recommendation is for people that like using the Audyssey "FLAT" target, they can engage CinemaEQ for some movies with a brighter track.


No, it's still here. Just a page or two earlier. I posted it in the 2018 Denon thread originally and got nothing useful so posted it here also.

That's exactly how I use it. I don't like the sound of Audyssey Reference. I can hear a distinct difference between Reference and Cinema EQ in the midrange that I would attribute to the Reference MRC. It's not a good difference. Hollow and receding.


----------



## aschotz86

bluesky636 said:


> First of all, those plots are a rough representation of the correction filters applied by Audyssey. They convey no information about the actual frequency response in the room.
> 
> Secondly, the acoustic space around the left and right speakers are totally different. Again, there is no information provided about the actual in room frequency response.
> 
> Finally, you provided no information about the microphone layout used for measurement, how many mic positions were used, or spacing between mic positions.
> 
> In my opinion, very little can be gleaned from what you have presented.


I used 8 positions all roughly around the MLP. Each measurement was about 6 inches to 1 foot away from the 1st measurement. I'm not sure how to provide in room frequency response - sorry I'm very new to this - the only info I saw was the eq graphs.


----------



## bluesky636

aschotz86 said:


> I used 8 positions all roughly around the MLP. Each measurement was about 6 inches to 1 foot away from the 1st measurement. I'm not sure how to provide in room frequency response - sorry I'm very new to this - the only info I saw was the eq graphs.


You need something like REW to evaluate room response. Or just ask yourself "Does it sound better?"


----------



## Spidacat

aschotz86 said:


> So, I just ran audyssey for real this time and was curious if anyone can help me understand my results (equalizer stuff) for my 3.0 setup. *I'm surprised it recommended increasing my FL by 1.5db, FR by 2db, and decreasing center by .5* (considering what I want to happen is emphasize dialog more).


I don't know what you mean by the bolded parts. I don't see them on your pictures, but I assume you're talking about the levels it's setting for your speakers? If so, it's not really increasing or decreasing anything in the way you're thinking. It's just setting the "gain" of each speaker so that they will play at exactly the same level. Basically it's saying that your center is a little more efficient than your mains and it's correcting for that. Like someone else mentioned you can increase your center channel level a bit if you think it will help with dialog clarity (preference over reference).


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> No, it's still here. Just a page or two earlier. I posted it in the 2018 Denon thread originally and got nothing useful so posted it here also.
> 
> That's exactly how I use it. I don't like the sound of Audyssey Reference. I can hear a distinct difference between Reference and Cinema EQ in the midrange that I would attribute to the Reference MRC. It's not a good difference. Hollow and receding.


Reference is down about 3dB between 6kHz-10kHz and 5dB above 10kHz compared to the Flat curve. CinemaEQ is down 5dB above 10kHz (actual X-Curve is down 13dB by 20kHz) and 2dB-3dB between 6kHz-10kHz. In other words, they're almost identical. Natural bypassed response may vary by speakers and room, but here at 7.5kHz, off scores 61dB, reference is 65dB and flat peaks out at a whopping 67dB. No wonder I prefer Audyssey bandwidth limited.

Cinema EQ applies on top of those values, so it'd be dullest with Audyssey off, but it _should_ theoretically sound quite similar on the mid/high-end applied to Audyssey Flat as Reference sounds with it CinemaEQ off. The joke is a real room may sound lower yet with CinemaEQ off than reference or flat with it on.


----------



## garygarrison

O.K. Here is Audyssey *FLAT* (above 700 Hz) over roughly the same range (divisions are 5 dB on both graphs). ... the "B+6" annotation at the top of the Flat curve should be ignored; it doesn't affect anything above about 400Hz... My screwing around with the bass is why the graphs are truncated, but these are the only graphs I have).








and below is the Audyssey Reference graph you've already seen*:







*

Both are slightly off axis, because the lines from my speakers cross several feet in front of the center seat where the microphone was, and I can't move or re-aim the speakers (moving the couch closer would allow us to see the AT screen texture, so that's out).

Now, the above all used* just one mic position*. If Feri happens to be reading this, he may tell us how wrong that is. So would Chris K., of Audyssey. And, IMO, they would be right, especially with a 5 seat couch. Professionals I've read tend to use at least three positions. So, I did what I will never do again -- too labor intensive. I put my calibrated measurement mic in each of the positions (as near as possible) that the Audyssey mic used to be in, and used REW to average them. That's what Chris K recommended, even though it doesn't replicate what Audyssey's fancy proprietary brain does. Here are those results, using the REW averaging button with 8 mic positions with Audyssey *Reference*. The bass is cut off to keep the sub (Xover=40) out of the picture (almost).








Since the X curve has been mentioned (many hate it, including me), it has a considerably greater effect than Audyssey Reference. No, I can't imagine it getting on a BD or DVD.
It is intended for Cinemas only. I still hate it. Here it is:









At home, with good, well balanced BDs, DVDs, SACDs, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. With some older films and some early CDs, cutting back the treble with Audyssey REFERENCE is sometimes useful.


----------



## MagnumX

You might not be able to _imagine_ it, but all films before 1999 (and many after) are the cinema X-Curve ones (It's why THX Re-eq and CinemaEQ modes exist on AVRs and AVPs.) They are treble bright.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> You might not be able to _imagine_ it, but all films before 1999 (and many after) are the *cinema X-Curve ones* (It's why THX Re-eq and CinemaEQ modes exist on AVRs and AVPs.) *They are treble bright.*


I believe the X-curve is a B-chain thing, that rolls off the highs (and a bit of the low end), as shown in my post. The film soundtrack itself would be in the A-chain, and is not given the X-curve, isn't that correct? Now studio mixers who think the theater's B-chain X-curve will f**k up their sound may well punch up the treble to partly or wholly reverse the effect of the X-curve. Is that what you mean by the mostly pre-1999 "cinema X-Curve ones?" Are they the ones that are "treble bright?" I assume the people who put the film on Blu-ray would use the original A-chain soundtrack, and would have no reason to compensate for the X-curve, because it's not on the original elements or, I guess, the first mix-down. While I doubt the X-curve would have been imposed, the filmmakers could have cranked up the treble to fight the ubiquitous _*theaters'*_ B-chain X-Curve. If they did, I can see the usefulness of THX Re-eq and CinemaEQ. Is that what you meant?

With almost all new Blu-rays, we get excellent balance with Audyssey Flat, but with some of the great magnetic soundtracks of the 1950s and 1960s, such as Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur (1959 version), and more than any other, the Smile Box version of How the West Was Won there is way too much treble. For the first two, Audyssey Reference provided enough of a treble cut, but I had to turn down the treble control as well on HTWWW.

On a slightly different subject, I haven't heard a Disney Blu-ray since
Fantasia 2000, which had good sound on our rig, and I haven't sampled _Disney +_ on a newer film. I think you said, "Disney just neuters the entire freaking soundtrack instead whether the director likes it or not... Brilliant." How do they neuter it? Do they compress the audio dynamic range? It would be a bitter irony if the studio that introduced (temporarily) high dynamic range to the movies now compresses it. But, with current management, I don't doubt it.


----------



## primetimeguy

garygarrison said:


> O.K. Here is Audyssey *FLAT* (above 700 Hz) over roughly the same range (divisions are 5 dB on both graphs). ... the "B+6" annotation at the top of the Flat curve should be ignored; it doesn't affect anything above about 400Hz... My screwing around with the bass is why the graphs are truncated, but these are the only graphs I have).
> 
> and below is the Audyssey Reference graph you've already seen*: *
> 
> Both are slightly off axis, because the lines from my speakers cross several feet in front of the center seat where the microphone was, and I can't move or re-aim the speakers (moving the couch closer would allow us to see the AT screen texture, so that's out).
> 
> Now, the above all used* just one mic position*. If Feri happens to be reading this, he may tell us how wrong that is. So would Chris K., of Audyssey. And, IMO, they would be right, especially with a 5 seat couch. Professionals I've read tend to use at least three positions. So, I did what I will never do again -- to labor intensive. I put my calibrated measurement mic in each of the positions (as near as possible) that the Audyssey mic used to be in, and used REW to average them. That's what Chris K recommended, even though it doesn't replicate what Audyssey's fancy proprietary brain does. Here are those results, using the REW averaging button with 8 mic positions with Audyssey *Reference*. The bass is cut off to keep the sub (Xover=40) out of the picture (almost).
> Since the X curve has been mentioned (many hate it, including me), it has a considerably greater effect than Audyssey Reference. No, I can't imagine it getting on a BD or DVD.
> It is intended for Cinemas only. I still hate it. Here it is:
> 
> 
> At home, with good, well balanced BDs, DVDs, SACDs, I prefer Audyssey FLAT. With some older films and some early CDs, cutting back the treble with Audyssey REFERENCE is sometimes useful.


Here is the actual Audyssey Reference target curve. Screenshot is from the MultEq-X app.









Flat, of course, would be flat up to 20hkz as a target but in reality it still tends to have a slight roll off as Audyssey won't continue to boost beyond a certain point as your real world charts illustrate.

CinemaEQ on Denon is more aggressive than Audyssey Reference, starting it's rolloff at 2k and down 4db at 10k. So close to double to rolloff. CinemaEQ also only applies to the front 3 channels. Not sure many people are aware of that.


----------



## primetimeguy

This is rolloff 2 option in the MultEq-X app for reference, gets closer to Denon CinemaEQ.










The natural response of my speakers is close to in between these two options. I sometimes simply limit EQ at 500hz or I use THFR1 with a 1db tilt with the hinge at 1khz. This has me down 3db at 10khz.


----------



## MagnumX

primetimeguy said:


> CinemaEQ on Denon is more aggressive than Audyssey Reference, starting it's rolloff at 2k and down 4db at 10k. So close to double to rolloff. CinemaEQ also only applies to the front 3 channels. Not sure many people are aware of that.


Double the rolloff? I don't think so. I posted the precise graphs from _real world data_ on the previous page from a real Marantz 7012 with REW measurements (not some theoretical nonsense). It's down 4dB at 10kHz on my system compared to the "Flat" Audyssey curve, not 2dB. It's down 5dB at 20kHz on BOTH CinemaEQ and Reference. The ONLY difference between the two is that CinemaEQ starts to drop at 2kHz rather than 4kHz, but it was rising before that point to 2dB above reference, which is why they're even by 4kHz.



garygarrison said:


> I believe the X-curve is a B-chain thing, that rolls off the highs (and a bit of the low end), as shown in my post. The film soundtrack itself would be in the A-chain, and is not given the X-curve, isn't that correct?


That's not the story I read. If that were true, there would be zero need for THX Re-EQ or Denon CinemaEQ. Their entire function is to reduce the overly bright treble from actual cinema soundtracks that were mixed with the X-Curve in mind. What naturally happens in a large auditorium is that treble falls off faster than midrange and bass over distance. To counteract this "dull" sound (that only gets worse towards the back of the theater) they created the X-Curve that raises the treble of cinema soundtracks so that theoretically it's much more even sounding in a movie theater. AFAIK, this was at least originally applied during the mixing/mastering stage. It may well be that it's now a B-chain device to compensate in the theater itself (that would make more sense as they could actually tailor the response to the actual theater size/room instead of some generic "one size fits all" curve, but then that's why I read it's a terrible standard/curve in the first place. It's nearly always wrong by some degree for actual theaters..... 

Either way, it's also true they do "near field mixes" (aka "home mixes") now and one of the reasons is it sounds different in a large room versus a smaller one including the treble rolloff differences. It's hard to tell with home releases because these "near field" mixes also screw with dynamic range (usually by turning up dialog relative to sound effects as that's the number one complaint they supposedly got over the years is it's hard to understand dialog at home unless you crank it and then it's too loud for the neighbors). So what you get these days at home... who knows. 

I rarely feel the need to engage CinemaEQ, but then most of the newer Blu-Ray releases have probably already been corrected compared to the DVDs and VHS/LDs of yesteryear. They may have had correction too for all I know before release. But I assume Re-EQ and CinemaEQ were baked into AVR/AVPs for a reason and that's because some soundtracks still have the higher treble content. If you combine "reference" and CinemaEQ together, it's not far off from the full X-Curve (3dB difference at 20kHz). Most movies sound dull at home with that on, but reference or OFF sound vastly better to my ears than flat most of the time (my "off" natural room curve is lower in treble than Reference and PSB makes a VERY flat frequency response curve speaker in anechoic conditions so to me Audyssey feels a bit "fake" in both settings to some extent adding more treble than the room naturally would allow for a flat anechoic speaker.



> On a slightly different subject, I haven't heard a Disney Blu-ray since
> Fantasia 2000, which had good sound on our rig, and I haven't sampled _Disney +_ on a newer film. I think you said, "Disney just neuters the entire freaking soundtrack instead whether the director likes it or not... Brilliant." How do they neuter it? Do they compress the audio dynamic range? It would be a bitter irony if the studio that introduced (temporarily) high dynamic range to the movies now compresses it. But, with current management, I don't doubt it.


Disney is basically mixing for sound bars at home from what I've read so yes, they're probably squashing the dynamic range from the theatrical version in some cases, although I've read at least some reports from the field that some of the cinema soundtracks aren't so great anymore either so who knows. What I do know is that I have the original 70mm 6-channel soundtracks for the original three Star Wars movies from the fan versions and they sound _excellent_ on my home theater (The DTS 6.1 releases also sound great; I'm not crazy about the new Atmos mixes as there's some serious mixing issues in some scenes where it's apparent there's only Top Middle whereas Neural X plus 6.1 uses everything. For example, the part in The Empire Strikes Back where R2D2 is spit out and "squeals" as he flies onto the land from the swamp creature's mouth it drops in level as he goes through the air on the Atmos one and then gets louder as he moves into the Top Middle area (like front height aren't used). With Neural X, he clearly makes an even sound all the way across the ceiling (or ear level with Neural X off). There is no reduction so I have to wonder if Disney crippled some overhead Atmos sounds entirely along the way with that Top Middle-centric Atmos sound they use. 

I also have the original DTS Cinema soundtrack for The Matrix from a fan version that adapted the cinema soundtrack Apt-X version to home DTS and it has 6-8dB more dynamic range than even the Dolby Atmos home version of the soundtrack and is SOOOO much more potent sounding. Turbine's Dual Mediabook set of "Twister" comes with an Atmos "home mix" and an Auro-3D Cinema mix (I call them that because it's the same thing. There's like 6-8dB more dynamic range on the Auro-3D version. With dialog matched, the sound effects are that much louder during the action sequences, which makes it WAY scarier sounding than the Atmos version). 

So this notion we need "home versions" is erroneous, IMO. The studios could include a "sound bar mix" and the cinema mix and let the consumer decide which one is right for their home theater.


----------



## primetimeguy

MagnumX said:


> Double the rolloff? I don't think so. I posted the precise graphs from _real world data_ on the previous page from a real Marantz 7012 with REW measurements (not some theoretical nonsense). It's down 4dB at 10kHz on my system compared to the "Flat" Audyssey curve, not 2dB. It's down 5dB at 20kHz on BOTH CinemaEQ and Reference. The ONLY difference between the two is that CinemaEQ starts to drop at 2kHz rather than 4kHz, but it was rising before that point to 2dB above reference, which is why they're even by 4kHz.


I previously posted real world measurements as well showing CinemaEQ down 4db at 10khz which matches the target. Since Audyssey reference target is down 2db at 10hkz that is why I said double, 4db vs 2db at 10khz. Plus CinemaEQ starts at 2khz like you said which is more audible in my mind. I don't worry about 20khz since I can't hear that high anymore.


----------



## MagnumX

primetimeguy said:


> I previously posted real world measurements as well showing CinemaEQ down 4db at 10khz which matches the target. Since Audyssey reference target is down 2db at 10hkz that is why I said double, 4db vs 2db at 10khz. Plus CinemaEQ starts at 2khz like you said which is more audible in my mind. I don't worry about 20khz since I can't hear that high anymore.


It is down 4dB at 10kHz. But so is Reference (59dB Vs 63dB for Flat as clear as crystal on that graph).


----------



## primetimeguy

MagnumX said:


> It is down 4dB at 10kHz. But so is Reference (59dB Vs 63dB for Flat as clear as crystal on that graph).


Which graph? Audyssey flat is flat to 20khz. One of your previous posted charts shows flat is flat at 10khz. Where do you get that flat is down 4db as that is not true.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Their entire function is to reduce the overly bright treble from actual cinema soundtracks that were mixed with the X-Curve in mind.


These sound engineer's posts have me doubting its implications: Validity of X-curve For Cinema Sound



> For what it's worth, when we check our mixes in a more mid-field environment for the Home Entertainment/VOD deliverables it's fairly common to check this without X-curve compliance.





> You are correct! When I started doing made for HT mixes in 2000, Dolby recommended we do them without using the X curve. I think the X-curve should have been abandoned decades ago, it is a relic of the past.


So this is likely something you'd only use on old movies.


----------



## MagnumX

primetimeguy said:


> Which graph? Audyssey flat is flat to 20khz. One of your previous posted charts shows flat is flat at 10khz. Where do you get that flat is down 4db as that is not true.


I never said flat was any such thing (try rereading what I wrote. I said Reference was down 4dB from Flat at 10kHz and if you looked at my graph you'd see that.

Flat reading on my REW graph @10kHz is 63dB.
Reference reading @10kHz is 59dB.

That's 4dB below "flat", the same as CinemaEQ is below 0dB at 10kHz according to the graph I found for CinemaEQ versus X-Curve. 

CinemaEQ does indeed start moving downward at 2kHz instead of 4kHz,but it's already +1dB there. The two would intersect within 1dB at 2kHz. Now I'd have to verify that CinemaEQ curve with REW to see where it stands on my AVR versus the theoretical graph, but it's clear here that Audyssey Flat versus Reference doesn't match what you stated earlier (implying -2dB at 10kHz). Or are you saying REW lies with a calibrated UMIK microphone?


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


>


Where did the peaks at 3 kHz and 7 kHz go? Did the mic move?


----------



## primetimeguy

MagnumX said:


> I never said flat was any such thing (try rereading what I wrote. I said Reference was down 4dB from Flat at 10kHz and if you looked at my graph you'd see that.
> 
> Flat reading on my REW graph @10kHz is 63dB.
> Reference reading @10kHz is 59dB.
> 
> That's 4dB below "flat", the same as CinemaEQ is below 0dB at 10kHz according to the graph I found for CinemaEQ versus X-Curve.
> 
> CinemaEQ does indeed start moving downward at 2kHz instead of 4kHz,but it's already +1dB there. The two would intersect within 1dB at 2kHz. Now I'd have to verify that CinemaEQ curve with REW to see where it stands on my AVR versus the theoretical graph, but it's clear here that Audyssey Flat versus Reference doesn't match what you stated earlier (implying -2dB at 10kHz). Or are you saying REW lies with a calibrated UMIK microphone?


Ok, yes I see where you are coming from now, saying 4db difference between flat and reference in your room. Things will never match the targets exactly for various reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the difference between Reference and Flat Audyssey target curves is 2db at 10khz. Based on your charts and the boost you are seeing in the 7khz range my guess is just variation in the audyssey mic. Audyssey does similar for me too but not nearly that much. That is why I prefer limiting EQ range to 500hz and using the natural roll off some times, or using a custom full range curve that more matches the natural rolloff and reduce all of the Audyssey boost even with reference.

I'm not sure what you bottom chart is trying to show. X-curve looks right but not sure what Flat In Room is supposed to show as it is obviously not flat. That looks closer to a Harman curve or what you might get in room by a speaker measuring flat in anechoic room. Is that what that is? Then Denon CinemaEQ also is flat from 0hz to 2khz so again not sure what the blue line is showing.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> These sound engineer's posts have me doubting its implications: Validity of X-curve For Cinema Sound
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is likely something you'd only use on old movies.


Everything he says implies they still use X-Curve in the Cinema mix. What's changed is they do "home mixes" (aka "near-field" mixes) and they don't use X-Curve on those. So it depends on what you call "old". The 1990s (when THX was king) started 33 years ago. It seems like yesterday to me, but that's a long time for a Millennial (many were just being born, some as old as 12) and Generation Z weren't even a twinkle in their dad's eye yet).

But these "home mixes" started yay about the late '90s/early 2000s time frame. The Matrix fton 1999 on DVD the same year is down 8dB in dynamic range and treble is not bright so clearly it's an early home mix from Warner Brothers.

Meanwhile, my Indiana Jones blu-ray from 2005 or thereabouts is THX rated (implies a cinema standards mix) and can be played at reference level here at home whereas most modern movies cannot. So it was no surprise to read on a web site that Paramount was one of the few studios still releasing Cinema grade soundtracks at home in 2005 while most studios had started moving to this undefined nebulous "home" standard.

The "Home" standard is all over the map these days and not a standard at all. It started as deleting the X-Curve and reducing dynamic range a bit to not overwhelm home systems rarely played anywhere near Dolby reference levels. The problem is once you ditch a standard you've got the industry music Circles of Confusion all over again because there is no home standard! Disney, who ironically owns Skywalker Sound, is the worst of the bunch these days. Quality is all over the map with them and they don't obey standard Atmos object usage. Look back at TRON: Legacy and it has one of the best sounding Disney 7.1 soundtracks of all time! If they released a pseudo 4K version with Atmos, you can be almost certain they'd butcher the soundtrack at this point.

The best two Atmos soundtracks I can think of today in terms of impact levels are Blade Runner 2049 and Dune (both by the same director). Twister in Auro-3D blows away the Atmos mix they released simultaneously because sound effects are 6dB-8dB louder at the same dialog levels as the Atmos version, which was tamed down considerably.

AFAIK, this is all in the name of sound bars and apartment levels. Why they cannot use digital compression in playback gear or at least include a Cinema mix (without X-Curve is fine; what's _not_ fine is reducing dynamic range for louder dialog) is beyond me.

They either think consumers are stupid and wouldn't understand the difference between the soundtracks (even if they explained it with a description) or they just don't care (show me the money!) When a company dumps a nearly finished movie with Michael Keaton as Batman for a bleeping tax write off, you KNOW they don't give a flying bat's hind quarter about art, quality or anything else of merit. The CEO of Discovery is a human piece of garbage IMO.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> Where did the peaks at 3 kHz and 7 kHz go? Did the mic move?


I don't follow. The Reference and Flat curves are in lock step at 3kHz (green is Audyssey turned off) as the curves don't differ at that frequency. There's a clear difference between Flat and Reference at 7kHz, however.



primetimeguy said:


> Ok, yes I see where you are coming from now, saying 4db difference between flat and reference in your room. Things will never match the targets exactly for various reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the difference between Reference and Flat Audyssey target curves is 2db at 10khz.


What I'm supposed to get and what I actually get are different? The mic should be consistent with itself, at least even if it's off compared to a better microphone.



> Based on your charts and the boost you are seeing in the 7khz range my guess is just variation in the audyssey mic. Audyssey does similar for me too but not nearly that much. That is why I prefer limiting EQ range to 500hz and using the natural roll off some times, or using a custom full range curve that more matches the natural rolloff and reduce all of the Audyssey boost even with reference.


That's exactly what I'm doing. I've lowered the bandwidth to 600Hz. It sounds far less fatiguing, especially over time and there's far less sibilance on many music recordings.



> I'm not sure what you bottom chart is trying to show. X-curve looks right but not sure what Flat In Room is supposed to show as it is obviously not flat.


It's not _my_ curve. As I said, II found it for the X-Curve versus CinemaEQ part. I'm sure their "flat" curve is an averaged room response to flat anechoic speakers in a typical room, similar to a Harman curve.


----------



## primetimeguy

MagnumX said:


> I don't follow. The Reference and Flat curves are in lock step at 3kHz (green is Audyssey turned off) as the curves don't differ at that frequency. There's a clear difference between Flat and Reference at 7kHz, however.
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm supposed to get and what I actually get are different? The mic should be consistent with itself, at least even if it's off compared to a better microphone.
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly what I'm doing. I've lowered the bandwidth to 600Hz. It sounds far less fatiguing, especially over time and there's far less sibilance on many music recordings.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not _my_ curve. As I said, II found it for the X-Curve versus CinemaEQ part. I'm sure their "flat" curve is an averaged room response to flat anechoic speakers in a typical room, similar to a Harmon curve.


I think that 7khz peak is definitely an Audyssey mic issue and even the broader higher freq range given it seems to boost above flat for the flat target. Your UMIK is more accurate and shows the boost whereas Audyssey thinks it is doing what is supposed to and just get to flat.


----------



## MagnumX

primetimeguy said:


> I think that 7khz peak is definitely an Audyssey mic issue and even the broader higher freq range given it seems to boost above flat for the flat target. Your UMIK is more accurate and shows the boost whereas Audyssey thinks it is doing what is supposed to and just get to flat.


It's a shame they don't allow the calibrated UMIK, especially the even more accurate UMIK-2 to be used with Audyssey. I've read one of the better things about Trinnov's system is its exceptional microphone.


----------



## garygarrison

_*Is the X Curve Damaging Our Enjoyment of Cinema?* _SMPTE 2011 Australia, Leembruggen, Philip Newell, Joules Newell, Gilfillan, Holland, and McCarty

IMO they should:

Mix movies for the home that are either a)FLAT or b) better sounding than flat to the engineers doing the mix. Usually, this would be with full dynamic range. In other words, the way CDs or SACDs are mixed (ideally). 
Sell a different version -- like they used to with "full screen" vs. "letterbox" -- for soundbar users, apartment dwellers, etc., with slightly tamer dynamics, perhaps with dialog enhancement (center channel boosted about 2 dB).
Junk the X-curve for commercial cinemas, i.e., junk it for any use whatsoever. It is "one size fits all" as MagnumX says. Theaters are different from one another! It was standardized with behind the screen speakers of a brand and model that are almost never used in theaters in the US, in an effort to compensate them so they would sound like some entirely different speakers in the nearfield. I think they should start from scratch, and either equalize theaters and dubbing rooms to be Flat at 2/3 of the way back, or consider a measure of central tendency for the whole theater (probably a mean?), or a fuzzy logic processing of the signal using microphones all over the place. Decide empirically on full range beeps vs pink noise. I'd bet on beeps. The last analysis in any theater would be, "does it sound good?" Any EQ that doesn't sound good should be thrown out.
*Before *the X-curve, and before Dolby got into the movie audio business, in the Glory Days of surround sound, the 4 and 6 channel _*magnetic *_soundtracks, often with 70mm productions, were given other, individualized processing. A black box (actually blue, often with the word AMPEX on it) provided EQ needed (from what projectionists told me, they aimed at FLAT out in the theater -- sometimes in a process like Altec's "acoustovoicing") in some theaters, but, unfortunately not others. I think they were mostly in the theaters MikeTodd's company "4 walled" for Todd-AO with Ampex assigned to do the audio. My little band of audiophiles, with very young ears, many who played in the school orchestra, and frequented Hi Fi / Stereo fairs, found the sound in 70mm theaters to be the best we heard anywhere. The 70mm versions of Oklahoma!, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version), Ben-Hur (1959 version) sounded better and more real than most movies today in commercial cinemas. In our home theater, the ones mentioned above require a very small treble cut (Audyssey Reference does the job), and Blue-rays of new movies usually sound great with Audyssey Flat.


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> _*Is the X Curve Damaging Our Enjoyment of Cinema?* _SMPTE 2011 Australia, Leembruggen, Philip Newell, Joules Newell, Gilfillan, Holland, and McCarty
> 
> IMO they should:
> 
> Mix movies for the home that are either a)FLAT or b) better sounding than flat to the engineers doing the mix. Usually, this would be with full dynamic range. In other words, the way CDs or SACDs are mixed (ideally).
> Sell a different version -- like they used to with "full screen" vs. "letterbox" -- for soundbar users, apartment dwellers, etc., with slightly tamer dynamics, perhaps with dialog enhancement (center channel boosted about 2 dB).
> Junk the X-curve for commercial cinemas, i.e., junk it for any use whatsoever. It is "one size fits all" as MagnumX says. Theaters are different from one another! It was standardised with behind the screen speakers of a brand and model that are almost never used in theaters in the US, in an effort to compensate them so they would sound like some entirely different speakers in the nearfield. I think they should start from scratch, and either equalize theaters to be Flat at 2/3 of the way back, or consider a measure of central tendency for the whole theater (probably a mean?), or a fuzzy logic processing of the signal using microphones all over the place. Decide empirically on full range beeps vs pink noise. I'd bet on beeps.
> *Before *the X-curve, and before Dolby got into the movie audio business, in the Glory Days of surround sound, the 4 and 6 channel _*magnetic *_soundtracks, often with 70mm productions, were given other, individualized processing. A black box (actually blue, often with the word AMPEX on it) provided EQ needed (from what projectionists told me, they aimed at FLAT -- sometimes in a process like Altec's "acoustovoicing") in some theaters, but, unfortunately not others. I think they were mostly in the theaters MikeTodd's company "4 walled" for Todd-AO with Ampex assigned to do the audio. My little band of audiophiles, with very young ears, many who played in the school orchestra, frequented Hi Fi / Stereo fairs, found the sound in 70mm theaters to be the best we heard anywhere. The 70mm versions of Oklahoma!, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version), Ben-Hur (1959 version) sounded better and more real than most movies today in commercial cinemas. In our home theater, the ones mentioned above require a very small treble cut (Audyssey Reference does the job), and Blue-rays of new movies usually sound great with Audyssey Flat.


They don't really need to sell a different version. A UHD BD can easily accommodate more than one Atmos soundtrack on it or frankly, a soundbar doesn't need it. A cheapo 5.1 home mix should suffice for crap systems. Simply include a "Original Cinema Soundtrack" and a "Home Optimized Soundtrack" and I don't think anyone would be confused about what that means. Streaming could easily include more than one soundtrack option as well, quite frankly. There's simply no reason we should be getting inferior soundtracks at home in 2022 for high grade home theater audio systems. The "Halo Effect" states a good high-end product helps sell lower tier products. If they sabotage the high-end, they sabotage their entire lineup to be the lowest product level they sell in some respects.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> In our home theater, the ones mentioned above require a very small treble cut (Audyssey Reference does the job), and Blue-rays of new movies usually sound great with Audyssey Flat.


That's great if it works for you, but just so everyone knows, this can't be given as universal advise because what you get from these greatly depends on your speakers. Audyssey Reference makes all of my speakers, except for one pair, far brighter than stock. The exception are the Infinity Reference.

Flat is unlistenable.

Now there is one pair of speakers that I run Flat on, and those are the RBH R5i at my mother's house. That's because the tweeter in those is pretty tame. In that case I'm trying to improve the speaker a bit. It helps to liven them up a little but they never become bright like all the other speakers I've tried.

Your mileage will vary.


----------



## MagnumX

Flat actually sounds great with some music here and on albums that sound good with it on reference too. It's very material dependent, IMO. Movies often aren't hard to listen to in flat.


----------



## bluesky636

primetimeguy said:


> CinemaEQ also only applies to the front 3 channels. Not sure many people are aware of that.


What is your source for this claim? I haven't found anything that supports this.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> What is your source for this claim? I haven't found anything that supports this.


It's true. Only front L C R channels.

I also have measurements for that too.

And also for anyone curious, the tone controls in D&M products affects only the L and R.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> It's true. Only front L C R channels.


Please provide the source reference.


----------



## MagnumX

pbz06 said:


> It's true. Only front L C R channels.
> 
> I also have measurements for that too.
> 
> And also for anyone curious, the tone controls in D&M products affects only the L and R.


It makes sense they'd only use the X-curve compensation on the front channels at a theater because it's based on distance. Traditional movie theaters right up through 7.1 had/have arrays of surround speakers out closer to the audience. Only the screen speakers are extra far away and thus supposedly diminish in treble faster that they felt the need to pump it up. 

Older "Dolby Surround" (aka Pro Logic at home) material used bandwidth limited surround channels anyway so they were purposely treble deficient. 

Am i the only one bothered by Dolby reusing the "Dolby Surround" moniker for their upmixer when it already referred to older matrixed surround sound? It creates unnecessary confusion at times. They couldn't think of a slightly different name like Dolbymatic or Dolby Pro Logic III or something?


----------



## Anderegg

Looking to update my small room AVR system with something with more calibration capability than the base Sony DCAC. I ran a room calibration last night then threw a few PEQ filters at the low end thanks to SVS sub app. The graph below (1/6) is about the best the Sony DH590 can make out of my passive soundbar. It moved things around a bit and fixed a few major problems, but for a bit flatter 200hz+, would XT32 AVR help level things out? Maybe XT AVR with the MultEQ app would be sufficient? It's a small room and odd angled speaker placement, so more looking to tame the curve than to get absolutely pristine audiophile speaker performance. The soundbar is an SSA42 5.0 thing powered by my Sony AVR.

XT32 receivers (looking at the 3300-3600 used) are a bit pricey at the moment, so if a lesser version of Audyssey with the app perhaps could handle bringing the curve closer to flat I would be open to suggestions.

Paul


----------



## Soulburner

Anderegg said:


> Looking to update my small room AVR system with something with more calibration capability than the base Sony DCAC. I ran a room calibration last night then threw a few PEQ filters at the low end thanks to SVS sub app. The graph below (1/6) is about the best the Sony DH590 can make out of my passive soundbar. It moved things around a bit and fixed a few major problems, but for a bit flatter 200hz+, would XT32 AVR help level things out? Maybe XT AVR with the MultEQ app would be sufficient? It's a small room and odd angled speaker placement, so more looking to tame the curve than to get absolutely pristine audiophile speaker performance. The soundbar is an SSA42 5.0 thing powered by my Sony AVR.
> 
> XT32 receivers (looking at the 3300-3600 used) are a bit pricey at the moment, so if a lesser version of Audyssey with the app perhaps could handle bringing the curve closer to flat I would be open to suggestions.
> 
> Paul
> 
> View attachment 3317968


I'm looking at your bass response - is this with or without a sub?


----------



## Anderegg

Soulburner said:


> I'm looking at your bass response - is this with or without a sub?


With the sub, I sealed my ports and redid my calibration just after that and my bass is flat 20-35hz now with room correction slope adjusted. Without the SVS PEQ 40Hz and 90Hz are like 7-10db higher, huge mountains.

Paul


----------



## Soulburner

Have you tried other locations for the sub?


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Please provide the source reference.


I don't have it handy, it was either in one of the manuals of the many D&M products I've owned and/or from something that jdsmoothie once provided (I don't know if he still posts anymore, but he's been a valuable member). Either way, it's one of those "known" things now and since I'm a tweaker and have used those and still use combination of every setting, I can definitively tell you it as a fact that it only applies to LCR front stage.


----------



## primetimeguy

bluesky636 said:


> What is your source for this claim? I haven't found anything that supports this.


My own measurements years ago. This link mentions it Difference between Cinema EQ and THX Re-equalization


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I don't have it handy, it was either in one of the manuals of the many D&M products I've owned and/or from something that jdsmoothie once provided (I don't know if he still posts anymore, but he's been a valuable member). Either way, it's one of those "known" things now and since I'm a tweaker and have used those and still use combination of every setting, I can definitively tell you it as a fact that it only applies to LCR front stage.





primetimeguy said:


> My own measurements years ago. This link mentions it Difference between Cinema EQ and THX Re-equalization


From my Denon AVR-X3500H owner's manual:

"*Surround Parameter* 

*You can adjust the surround audio sound field effects to match your preferences.* The items (parameters) that can be adjusted depend on the signal being input and the currently set sound mode. For details on the adjustable parameters, see “Sound modes and surround parameters” (p. 264). 

Some setting items cannot be set while playback is stopped. Make the settings during playback. 

“Surround Parameter” settings are stored for each sound mode. 

Cinema EQ 

Gently softens the upper treble range of movie soundtracks to reduce possible harshness and improve clarity. 

On: “Cinema EQ” is used. 

Off (Default): “Cinema EQ” is not used."

No mention is made that Cinema EQ only applies to the LCR channels. In fact, note the furst sentence that i highlighted. Things may have changed since "years ago". The only other mention of Cinema EQ is in the table showing what sound modes it applies to. No mention there that it only applies to the LCR channels.

Why would it be called a "Surround Parameter" if it didn't apply to ALL channels of a surround system?


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> From my Denon AVR-X3500H owner's manual:
> 
> "*Surround Parameter
> 
> You can adjust the surround audio sound field effects to match your preferences.* The items (parameters) that can be adjusted depend on the signal being input and the currently set sound mode. For details on the adjustable parameters, see “Sound modes and surround parameters” (p. 264).
> 
> Some setting items cannot be set while playback is stopped. Make the settings during playback.
> 
> “Surround Parameter” settings are stored for each sound mode.
> 
> Cinema EQ
> 
> Gently softens the upper treble range of movie soundtracks to reduce possible harshness and improve clarity.
> 
> On: “Cinema EQ” is used.
> 
> Off (Default): “Cinema EQ” is not used."
> 
> No mention is made that Cinema EQ only applies to the LCR channels. In fact, note the furst sentence that i highlighted. Things may have changed since "years ago". The only other mention of Cinema EQ is in the table showing what sound modes it applies to. No mention there that it only applies to the LCR channels.
> 
> Why would it be called a "Surround Parameter" if it didn't apply to ALL channels of a surround system?


I don't have the answer why, but that's just how it works. It's only the LCR, take it or leave it. I can tell someone the sky is blue, but the burden isn't on me to prove or convince that person I'm correct when they can look up in the sky


----------



## primetimeguy

bluesky636 said:


> From my Denon AVR-X3500H owner's manual:
> 
> "*Surround Parameter
> 
> You can adjust the surround audio sound field effects to match your preferences.* The items (parameters) that can be adjusted depend on the signal being input and the currently set sound mode. For details on the adjustable parameters, see “Sound modes and surround parameters” (p. 264).
> 
> Some setting items cannot be set while playback is stopped. Make the settings during playback.
> 
> “Surround Parameter” settings are stored for each sound mode.
> 
> Cinema EQ
> 
> Gently softens the upper treble range of movie soundtracks to reduce possible harshness and improve clarity.
> 
> On: “Cinema EQ” is used.
> 
> Off (Default): “Cinema EQ” is not used."
> 
> No mention is made that Cinema EQ only applies to the LCR channels. In fact, note the furst sentence that i highlighted. Things may have changed since "years ago". The only other mention of Cinema EQ is in the table showing what sound modes it applies to. No mention there that it only applies to the LCR channels.
> 
> Why would it be called a "Surround Parameter" if it didn't apply to ALL channels of a surround system?


And no mention it does apply to all channels either.  You can either trust us or do your own measurements to confirm. Thx re-eq also has a unique target for the surround channels with a couple dips in the treble range. That isn't discussed in any receiver manual either.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> I don't have the answer why, but that's just how it works. It's only the LCR, take it or leave it. I can tell someone the sky is blue, but the burden isn't on me to prove or convince that person I'm correct when they can look up in the sky


If someone states a claim as fact, it is up to them to prove the claim is factual.

I have done a detailed search on Denon Cinema EQ and have found nothing that supports your claim.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> If someone states a claim as fact, it is up to them to prove the claim is factual.


Only "extraordinary" claims.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Only "extraordinary" claims.


That's a pretty "extraordinary" claim.


----------



## mrtickleuk

bluesky636 said:


> Why would it be called a "Surround Parameter" if it didn't apply to ALL channels of a surround system?


They'd better move the "centre spread" to a different menu, then. It's currently in the "Surround Parameter" menu, but it only affects the front channels.


----------



## Soulburner

mrtickleuk said:


> They'd better move the "centre spread" to a different menu, then. It's currently in the "Surround Parameter" menu, but it only affects the front channels.


I think it's there because that's where all the dedicated options for each upmixer go.


----------



## bluesky636

mrtickleuk said:


> They'd better move the "centre spread" to a different menu, then. It's currently in the "Surround Parameter" menu, but it only affects the front channels.


It only works with Dolby SURROUND.


----------



## mrtickleuk

Soulburner said:


> I think it's there because that's where all the dedicated options for each upmixer go.


Of course - I was pointing out, using the example of centre spread, that those options definitely don't have to "apply to ALL channels of a surround system" _just because they happen to be in that menu_. Thought that was obvious from the context, apologise if it wasn't clear what point I was making, so I'm clarifying it now. Yes, as you say, they are related to the Dolby system. The options in that menu do not have to "apply to ALL channels of a surround system", that was the point.


----------



## bluesky636

mrtickleuk said:


> The options in that menu do not have to "apply to ALL channels of a surround system", that was the point.


Obviously Centerspread wouldn't apply to the surround channels but there is nothing that says that Cinema EQ DOESN'T apply to the surround channels. And as far as I am concerned, measurements taken "years ago" have little value today.

I don't have REW to measure my speakers but my ears say that Cinema EQ applied to Audyssey Flat sounds different, and in my opinion, better then Audyssey Reference.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> Am i the only one bothered by Dolby reusing the "Dolby Surround" moniker for their upmixer when it already referred to older matrixed surround sound? It creates unnecessary confusion at times. They couldn't think of a slightly different name like Dolbymatic or Dolby Pro Logic III or something?


Although I like Dolby, and loved the educational effect of distributing silk-like banners to hang from theater marquees that read, "In 70mm and Dolby Stereo" in 1977 for Star Wars, Dolby corp. is not an innocent lamb. Here are a few of their transgressions*:*

The one listed above by MagnumX. Yes, it bothers me that they recycled the name.
They allowed the up to then always balanced sound in the Coronet theater in San Francisco to be rather harsh -- R2D2 was piercing and fatiguing, as was some of the music -- for the selfsame 70mm Star Wars showing referred to above, when their headquarters were in the same city (moved there the year before), and no doubt saw the film at the Coronet. They could have volunteered to fix it for George (this was before THX). A generation later, when a 35mm print of SW landed at the Coronet, the sound was too dull -- can't win.
At least one article, as I remember several (no, I can't produce them), make it seem like Dolby invented "Surround Sound." In fact, Bell Labs experimented with in the late '30s, then it was used in 1940 with Walt Disney's Fantasia, using between 50 and 90 speakers in 13 designated theaters, producing sound all around the audience, and moving down the aisle or across the proscenium arch and up toward the ceiling (What Makes Fantasia Click, by Peck, January 1941 Scientific American, and various articles by Garity and others). Twelve years later, surround sound was revived with This is Cinerama, with 7 channels, including to the sides of the theater, and in some installations, behind the audience. There followed, through the 1950s, starting with The Robe in CinemaScope, dozens and dozens of 4 and 6 channel soundtracks and surround channels to the side of the audience, and in one case I know of, above. In the 1960s some processes had 8 channels (D-150). So, Dolby should have sent in a disclaimer when they saw those articles.
Their early-ish Dolby B units pumped and, at least to my ears, imposed a rather thin sound, compared to no Dolby. In our little studio (Inner Journey Productions) we had a sign, "Beware of the Dolby."
Let me remind the reader that I now like Dolby. Ray Dolby contributed generously to many charities, as well as revolutionizing the Audio industry.


----------



## pbz06

You guys are in luck. I'm feeling in a good mood, getting ready to take some PTO so no need to get up early tomorrow for work  

Fresh off the press...I used 1:1 smoothing just for simplistic visual purposes.

Reference target for my 5 speaker bed layer:









Reference target, with CinemaEQ enabled:









Take note of the legend. Can we close this case now? Only the LCR have the filter applied, and at the 1khz as I have previously stated and shown (after being called out that I'm making things up  ). I'll keep everything set up for a couple hours so let me know if anyone wants any measurements of different things.

p.s.- bluesky I understand your point of view and the preference to have data in front of you. I and others spend a lot of time doing measurements (because I find it fun) and experimenting, but we don't always have everything handy to present on a whim. Maybe it's just the internet and how words come across when reading though, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, just seems that you are dismissive of others' input. I've been corrected a couple times, but I don't make things up out of thin air. Peace


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> You guys are in luck. I'm feeling in a good mood, getting ready to take some PTO so no need to get up early tomorrow for work
> 
> Fresh off the press...I used 1:1 smoothing just for simplistic visual purposes.
> 
> Reference target for my 5 speaker bed layer:
> View attachment 3318138
> 
> 
> Reference target, with CinemaEQ enabled:
> View attachment 3318139
> 
> 
> Take note of the legend. Can we close this case now? Only the LCR have the filter applied, and at the 1khz as I have previously stated and shown (after being called out that I'm making things up  ). I'll keep everything set up for a couple hours so let me know if anyone wants any measurements of different things.
> 
> p.s.- bluesky I understand your point of view and the preference to have data in front of you. I and others spend a lot of time doing measurements (because I find it fun) and experimenting, but we don't always have everything handy to present on a whim. Maybe it's just the internet and how words come across when reading though, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding, just seems that you are dismissive of others' input. I've been corrected a couple times, but I don't make things up out of thin air. Peace


Thank you! I do appreciate the time and effort you have put into this discussion. Yes. I accept your conclusions. 

I am a (retired) engineer ( SATCOM SYSTEMS ENGINEER to be exact). I wrote requirements and test documents and executed tests. I require documentation or empirical data for proof. Because of my work I can be blunt or to the point but I try to not denigrate or be dismissive of others and if I am, feel free to call me out.

I still do feel that Cinema EQ applied to Audyssey Flat sounds better to me in my room than Audyssey Reference. 

Case closed.


----------



## pbz06

bluesky636 said:


> Thank you! I do appreciate the time and effort you have put into this discussion. Yes. I accept your conclusions.
> 
> I am a (retired) engineer ( SATCOM SYSTEMS ENGINEER to be exact). I wrote requirements and test documents and executed tests. I require documentation or empirical data for proof. Because of my work I can be blunt or to the point but I try to not denigrate or be dismissive of others and if I am, feel free to call me out.
> 
> I still do feel that Cinema EQ applied to Audyssey Flat sounds better to me in my room than Audyssey Reference.
> 
> Case closed.


That makes sense now 

I like to alternate settings and don't really have a "favorite" since things can vary so much depending on source content, music/movies, streaming, discs etc. It also varies on mood too. I've had times when I'm convinced Flat is better, other times I prefer Reference. I also go back and forth between Full Range vs Limited, DEQ...endless.


----------



## bluesky636

pbz06 said:


> That makes sense now
> 
> I like to alternate settings and don't really have a "favorite" since things can vary so much depending on source content, music/movies, streaming, discs etc. It also varies on mood too. I've had times when I'm convinced Flat is better, other times I prefer Reference. I also go back and forth between Full Range vs Limited, DEQ...endless.


My hearing sucks above about 10 KHz so I'm more concerned about solid bass and a smooth midrange.


----------



## MagnumX

bluesky636 said:


> That's a pretty "extraordinary" claim.


Is it? I find either claim neutral as neither are hard to believe.

However, as I already said, given the pre-discrete Dolby Digital/DTS Era used limited bandwidth surrounds (save 70mm and other specialty stuff tried out like magnetic tapes) and that CinemaEQ apparently predates THX Re-EQ and also that surround speakers aren't far-field like L/C/R in a theater, it makes at least logical sense the X-Curve compensation wouldn't be used on anything but the front channels in the first place.

Edit: I see the proof above now to verify it.


----------



## bluesky636

MagnumX said:


> Edit: I see the proof above now to verify it


Case is closed.


----------



## Horta

Friends

I just posted this in the MultEQ-X thread but thought you all may have some knowledge to help me on this also.


I am getting inconsistent results on my subs from Audyssey and cannot understand why. I have been EQing my system for over 20 years and never seen this. Using MultEQ-X on my laptop with dedicated new Audyssey MIC, fresh PC reboot, no other apps open and with the MIC in position 1, if I run a measure several times I will get different results, yet I have NOT moved the sub or the MIC. No change at all in position of either, yet one run will say, for example, +2 at 20 hz and the next run will say -7 at 20HZ, then -2 at @ 20hz then something else the next time. Just totally inconsistent and I have never seen anything like this before. Its not just at 20 hz, it in other frequencies too. Now to just give you some more info, this is in my sealed dedicated theater with no noise and no outside noises. Total sound control.



I have three subs. Up front are two PSA S1500 (single 15 sealed sub) running mono as Sub1. In the back is a single PSA 3601 (dual 18 sealed sub) running as Sub2. This weekend I ran multiple sweeps with just the front subs, just the back sub and then all with SubEQ HT. I would run position 1 sweep and get result. I would not move the mic or anything else but do another measure for position 2 and get diff results, then measure position 3 but again not move the mic or any subs or sub settings and get diff results. It made ZERO sence to me. I would delete all that then do a measure for position 1 get one result, then re measure position 1 and get different results. It drove me nuts.

Processor is a Marantz AV7705

Has anyone ever seen this? I briefly looked for a software update for MultEQ-X but did not see one. My Dell laptop is new and nothing running in the background.



Please help.



Thank you

Jerry


----------



## nicolatc

pbz06 said:


> Reference target for my 5 speaker bed layer:


Your reference target seems to be flat up to 10 kHz while Audyssey has a slight roll off above 4 KHz.
Did you customize that range?


----------



## pbz06

nicolatc said:


> Your reference target seems to be flat up to 10 kHz while Audyssey has a slight roll off above 4 KHz.
> Did you customize that range?


Good catch. In those measurements, I had correction limited to 1khz.


----------



## Alan P

Horta said:


> Friends
> 
> I just posted this in the MultEQ-X thread but thought you all may have some knowledge to help me on this also.
> 
> 
> I am getting inconsistent results on my subs from Audyssey and cannot understand why. I have been EQing my system for over 20 years and never seen this. Using MultEQ-X on my laptop with dedicated new Audyssey MIC, fresh PC reboot, no other apps open and with the MIC in position 1, if I run a measure several times I will get different results, yet I have NOT moved the sub or the MIC. No change at all in position of either, yet one run will say, for example, +2 at 20 hz and the next run will say -7 at 20HZ, then -2 at @ 20hz then something else the next time. Just totally inconsistent and I have never seen anything like this before. Its not just at 20 hz, it in other frequencies too. Now to just give you some more info, this is in my sealed dedicated theater with no noise and no outside noises. Total sound control.
> 
> 
> 
> I have three subs. Up front are two PSA S1500 (single 15 sealed sub) running mono as Sub1. In the back is a single PSA 3601 (dual 18 sealed sub) running as Sub2. This weekend I ran multiple sweeps with just the front subs, just the back sub and then all with SubEQ HT. I would run position 1 sweep and get result. I would not move the mic or anything else but do another measure for position 2 and get diff results, then measure position 3 but again not move the mic or any subs or sub settings and get diff results. It made ZERO sence to me. I would delete all that then do a measure for position 1 get one result, then re measure position 1 and get different results. It drove me nuts.
> 
> Processor is a Marantz AV7705
> 
> Has anyone ever seen this? I briefly looked for a software update for MultEQ-X but did not see one. My Dell laptop is new and nothing running in the background.
> 
> 
> 
> Please help.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Jerry


Well, the Audyssey mics are said to be calibrated to +/- 2dB so that may be all you are seeing.


----------



## primetimeguy

Alan P said:


> Well, the Audyssey mics are said to be calibrated to +/- 2dB so that may be all you are seeing.


But that is from a reference or mic to mic. Should be consistent with the same mic.


----------



## 9636940

MagnumX said:


> It makes sense they'd only use the X-curve compensation on the front channels at a theater because it's based on distance. Traditional movie theaters right up through 7.1 had/have arrays of surround speakers out closer to the audience. Only the screen speakers are extra far away and thus supposedly diminish in treble faster that they felt the need to pump it up.


I want to quote from an article:
*Cinema calibration and the x-curve - facts and myths*
Philip Newell (AES, SMPTE)
...
As a result, myths have often been mixed with
facts and incorrectly propagated as truths.
Essentially, when a loudspeaker system
is placed behind a perforated cinema
screen, there will be a roll off in the mid
and high frequencies as shown in Fig. 1.

*Cinema calibration is carried out in a 
way that can compensate for the different 
screen loss characteristics, in order to 
ensure a reasonably uniform spectral 
response in the theaters when measured 
mid way into the seating areas. The one- 
third-octave, steady-state 'target 
response' standard to which most cine- 
mas and dubbing theaters are now cali- 
brated is shown in Fig. 2. This is known as 
the X-curve*, which the literature vari-
ously describes as meaning either eXperi-
mental, as it surely was at its inception, or
eXtended, as it did extend the overall
response as compared to its predecessor,
the Academy curve.

The former meaning was probably, slowly superseded by the
latter. In many cases, the typical *cinema 
loudspeaker systems still do not 
have sufficient output capability 
to allow for the compensation of 
the screen losses at high frequen- 
cies, so if correction were 
attempted, to arrive at a flat 
response, excessive distortion or 
driver failure would be likely to 
result. *
De facto, and irrespective of
what else may have been written,
this curve is used as a target curve
by the vast majority of installation
engineers and maintenance tech-
nicians when calibrating theaters.


The usual method for calibrating
screen and surround loudspeakers
is to inject pink noise into each loud-
speaker channel in turn, and take meas-
urements with a real-time analyser, using
from one to eight microphones in the
prime listening areas of the theaters. *Each 
loudspeaker system is then equalized until 
the steady-state response corresponds as 
closely as possible to the X-curve. *

P. Newell, "Cinema Calibration and the X-Curve," J. Audio Eng. Soc., vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 808-809, (2014 November.)


Movies are mixed at dubbing stages. That means LCR are behind screens.
That means that the original theatrical mixes contain unpleasant exaggerated treble.
And if the consumer release of a movie is not adequately re-EQed the mix will sound way too sharp.
That's the reason, why treble reducing EQ settings have been introduced in AVRs.

That within the last years this former problem was morphed into the opposite, "thanks" to impressionist directors like Christopher Nolan, insisting on muffled and often inaudible dialogue, and setting trends, is another topic...


----------



## MagnumX

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> Movies are mixed at dubbing stages. That means LCR are behind screens.
> That means that the original theatrical mixes contain unpleasant exaggerated treble.
> And if the consumer release of a movie is not adequately re-EQed the mix will sound way too sharp.
> That's the reason, why treble reducing EQ settings have been introduced in AVRs.


But as I said, that hasn't been true for most studios since at least ~1999 (some studios adopted it before others) because they do "home mixes" (aka "near field mixes") now. They may mix in the same room or may move to a smaller mixing stage set up more like a home), but they bring in near-field monitors to do the home mixes. They don't use any X-Curve compensation on the home mixes so you don't have to worry about it. But you do have to worry about them reducing dynamic range in favor of dialog intelligibility and with Disney lately, mixing for sound bars or something (completely inconsistent). 

I just watched _The Big Sleep_ and _Casablanca_ and CinemaEQ had little to no effect on them, IMO. I hear a much larger (negative) difference applying it to modern movies. Star Wars 70mm 6-channel soundtrack (which I have from the fan version) sounds fine with it off too. I can't think of a movie where I felt the need to turn it on. But maybe my hearing isn't what it used to be and I like a bit more treble (doesn't seem to be the case with Audyssey correction full range for music, however. I preferred it limited to 600Hz).


----------



## 9636940

@MagnumX 
Could it be, that you have a very high opinion about the complexity and sophistication behind releases for the consumer market?
What you call "home mixes" are not mixes, only standard adjustments to the final theatrical mix: LCR treble reduction, dynamics reduction for the smaller rooms. 
This usually is done without even careful listening. A quick look at the NUGEN loudness results shows the parts that should be checked. 

The delivery format is then checked on nearfield systems more similar to consumer setups, but it has nothing in common with mixing the movie.
The Dolby render unit works really well and can deliver the downmixed formats automatically. Theatrical Atmos downmixed to consumer Atmos, theatrical 7.1 downmixed to 5.1, to a mono compatible stereo mix, automatically.
Sometimes I wish that consumer releases would receive more care, but it is, what it is.


----------



## MagnumX

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> @MagnumX
> Could it be, that you have a very high opinion about the complexity and sophistication behind releases for the consumer market?
> What you call "home mixes" are not mixes, only standard adjustments to the final theatrical mix: LCR treble reduction, dynamics reduction for the smaller rooms.
> This usually is done without even careful listening. A quick look at the NUGEN loudness results shows the parts that should be checked.
> 
> The delivery format is then checked on nearfield systems more similar to consumer setups, but it has nothing in common with mixing the movie.
> The Dolby render unit works really well and can deliver the downmixed formats automatically. Theatrical Atmos downmixed to consumer Atmos, theatrical 7.1 downmixed to 5.1, to a mono compatible stereo mix, automatically.
> Sometimes I wish that consumer releases would receive more care, but it is, what it is.


Just what would you call a _different_ mix of a soundtrack then if not a MIX??? It doesn't matter whether it takes two hours or a week. That doesn't change what it is called.

I have several theatrical mixes here and they are not hard to compare to the Blu-ray mixes. I can easily measure the dynamic range differences between them and it's generally been 6-8dB louder dialog (or lower effects, depending on how you look at it). That may not take a lot of time to set, but it screws the home *mix* up just the same unless you want to listen at fraction of the theatrical levels. Who says, "I just listened to the _standard adjustment_ of The Matrix?"

Disney home mixes have been garbage for the past ten years or so for the most part, for example. Are you saying you believe the cinema mixes are _that_ bad too?

Frankly, it sounds like you like to play word games and with a whole 12-hour old account on here, it rings suspect.


----------



## Soulburner

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> @MagnumX
> Could it be, that you have a very high opinion about the complexity and sophistication behind releases for the consumer market?
> What you call "home mixes" are not mixes, only standard adjustments to the final theatrical mix: LCR treble reduction, dynamics reduction for the smaller rooms.
> This usually is done without even careful listening. A quick look at the NUGEN loudness results shows the parts that should be checked.
> 
> The delivery format is then checked on nearfield systems more similar to consumer setups, but it has nothing in common with mixing the movie.
> The Dolby render unit works really well and can deliver the downmixed formats automatically. Theatrical Atmos downmixed to consumer Atmos, theatrical 7.1 downmixed to 5.1, to a mono compatible stereo mix, automatically.


I think we're getting into semantics here. Whatever you want call the "version", "mix", "edition", whatever, on each disc to differentiate them, is fine. FWIW the sound guys are using the term mix.









"Official" Audyssey thread Part II


O.K. Here is Audyssey FLAT (above 700 Hz) over roughly the same range (divisions are 5 dB on both graphs). ... the "B+6" annotation at the top of the Flat curve should be ignored; it doesn't affect anything above about 400Hz... My screwing around with the bass is why the graphs are truncated...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## aschotz86

I just downloaded the audyssey app but I don't see the previous results that were done on my AVR - do I have to run audyssey again from the app? I was hoping to see my original results that I did just on AVR in the app.


----------



## primetimeguy

aschotz86 said:


> I just downloaded the audyssey app but I don't see the previous results that were done on my AVR - do I have to run audyssey again from the app? I was hoping to see my original results that I did just on AVR in the app.


You need to run it from the app. You cannot import/upload from the receiver.

Once you run it in the app you can make copies and edit.


----------



## aschotz86

primetimeguy said:


> You need to run it from the app. You cannot import/upload from the receiver.
> 
> Once you run it in the app you can make copies and edit.


thanks. I'm assuming running it from the app is the same (quality perspective) as running from the AVR - i.e. no differences


----------



## Pixelatto

It's even better as you have additional options for after calibration adjustments.


----------



## MikeyJ78

aschotz86 said:


> I just downloaded the audyssey app but I don't see the previous results that were done on my AVR - do I have to run audyssey again from the app? I was hoping to see my original results that I did just on AVR in the app.


Yes. You must run Audyssey from the app. Your AVR settings won't carry over to the APP for any of your presets. The app will afford you more adjustability after you run Audyssey through it.


----------



## 9636940

MagnumX said:


> Just what would you call a _different_ mix of a soundtrack then if not a MIX???


When the product is prepared to be released to the consumer market, the mix, which is part of the _creative process_, where usually the director, but sometimes also the producer has the last word, has been finished many months ago and is not changed. It's not allowed, to make creative changes.

IMO it couldn't even be called mastering, because movies are not mastered, but problems are always fixed in the mix and during postproduction. 

It is only a very simple standard process to make the necessary adjustments for the playback conditions where the delivery format will be consumed.

Directors and producers often are not even interested in the non-creative distribution process. This is left to the distribution companies. It's also up to the distributors to make the pr and make the consumer buy the product (the very special edition with quantum computing superresolution hypersound)…


----------



## MagnumX

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> When the product is prepared to be released to the consumer market, the mix, which is part of the _creative process_, where usually the director, but sometimes also the producer has the last word, has been finished many months ago and is not changed. It's not allowed, to make creative changes.
> 
> IMO it couldn't even be called mastering, because movies are not mastered, but problems are always fixed in the mix and during postproduction.
> 
> It is only a very simple standard process to make the necessary adjustments for the playback conditions where the delivery format will be consumed.
> 
> Directors and producers often are not even interested in the non-creative distribution process. This is left to the distribution companies. It's also up to the distributors to make the pr and make the consumer buy the product (the very special edition with quantum computing superresolution hypersound)…


So you still have no name for it... 

It's called a mix and what they do to them lately is at least as bad as any CD mastering debacle over the years. The fact you're trying to make light of the PR disaster that it is, especially with Disney and just opened an account to immediately start arguing about this particular topic strikes me as something less than coincidence at this point.

The notion that no changes are allowed particularly in the Atmos age is laughable. Companies like Turbine can and do often get permission to make new immersive mixes. Turbine even uses separate teams for Atmos and Auro-3D. Disney is using locked channel mixes that bypass the Atmos software automatic mode entirely even while the cinema mixes do use objects.


----------



## 9636940

MagnumX said:


> So you still have no name for it...
> 
> It's called a mix


The end product is always a mix, and if it sounds different, it does not mean, that mixing was involved.



> The notion that no changes are allowed particularly in the Atmos age is laughable.


I have the impression, you do not want to understand, but you want to have the last word...


----------



## pbarach

aschotz86 said:


> I just downloaded the audyssey app but I don't see the previous results that were done on my AVR - do I have to run audyssey again from the app? I was hoping to see my original results that I did just on AVR in the app.


 Calibration files from the AVR cannot be loaded into the app. So yes, you have to run the calibration again from the app.


----------



## MagnumX

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> The end product is always a mix, and if it sounds different, it does not mean, that mixing was involved.


Like I said, YOU are playing flipping word games. You admit it's a mix. No one said "mixing" was involved. One can badly damage and modify a mix without changing panning or object locations. Changing levels, especially bass and dialog levels and dynamic range is enough to ruin a soundtrack.

Frankly, you're just making things up and causing trouble at this point. You whine about the word "mix" and then you admit that's what it's called. That sure looks like trolling behavior to me.



> I have the impression, you do not want to understand, but you want to have the last word...


I have the impression you just like to be as irritating as possible.


----------



## 9636940

MagnumX said:


> Like I said, YOU are playing flipping word games. You admit it's a mix. No one said "mixing" was involved.


*Again: changing the sound of the final mix is not a new mix.*
If a mix was changed, it means, that mixing was involved.
This is _not_ semantics but important among professionals to know, what someone is talking about.




MagnumX said:


> Just what would you call a _different_ mix of a soundtrack then if not a MIX??? It doesn't matter whether it takes two hours or a week. That doesn't change what it is called.


Anybody who calls the changed sound of a mix a different mix shows he has not the slightest clue about the production process.

And wasn't it you yesterday, who told absurd fantasies about speaker characteristics in conjunction with the x-curve?


----------



## MagnumX

This is getting way off topic and personal. The subject belongs in another thread. 

But for those interested in actual professionals discussing the matter, here's some links on a professional forum on mixing changes made in near-field/home mixes and some movies on blu-ray with a theatrical mix on them to compare. Note they are ALL called mixes regardless of what is altered (as if I just make things up). 



Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Sound Sample Rates











going from a theatrical to a nearfield mix - Gearspace.com


Hey Everyone, I generally don't deal with separate nearfield mixes, and when those specs have come up in the past I can usually get there easily, but I'm dealing with a much more dynamic film and wondering if those of you that do separate nearfield mixes



gearspace.com













Examples of unaltred theatrical versions of audio on blu-rays - Gearspace.com


Hi! I have been searching this forum with no luck for answers to this subject. I am building a medium sized post production room (60m2) and I need some



gearspace.com





Interesting article where the DTS/Imax collaboration is said to bring cinematic mixes home and purposely not use near-field mixes. 









Interview: Geir Skaaden Discusses DTS:X Adoption, Play-Fi App


Geir Skaaden sat down with CE Pro to discuss how DTS is fostering DTS:X adoption and how dealers can best demo these systems.




www.cepro.com


----------



## Biggydeen

Question about the Audessey app ($20):

I have read about what frequency range to use when using XT32. With the app, you can limit the EQ results to a specified HZ. After reading some about this, many seem to cut it off between 300 -500hz and some around 1000hz. According to denon support page you should not limit the HZ.

After testing a bit I got the following results:

Current setup:


7.1.2
AVR denon 3600H
Emotiva T2+ and C2+, B6.2's for surround
PB2000 pro sub

All sound testing done with some movies using blue ray ATMOS and others like DTS etc (playing from my PC using passthrough). I've set the frequency cutoff at 600hz in the app.

My setup sounds best with voices when Audessey is set to off. Voices seem to be the fullest and most natural.
When setting Audessey to reference, the overall sound seems to be better but voices are lacking depth in tone. Like some bass is missing out, but overall sounds are more bright/clear
When turning Audessey off, the overall sounds becomes a bit more boomy/bassy. Though not much difference between reference but the lower end is heavyer if that makes sense.
When setting Audessey to flat, sound becomes much more bright. It seems like higher frequencies are boosted even more on my speakers which are already bright from itself.
When looking at the audessey results on the AVR itself, you can see what auddessey is adding when using reference or flat EQ. I found the following:

When using the audyssey flat EQ (picture is taken with phone on beamer screen so don't mind the quality) I see this:










Everything above 1khz seems to get a large boost up to +5dB - +6dB (it's cut of in this picture but the above is Front left and below FR). That makes me think why using flat sounds so harsh/bright to my ears. So despite setting the cutoff at 600HZ, flat just EQ's the entire range up to 20kHZ.

Reference looks like this:










It basically only adjusts some things below the threshhold of 600hz I have set in the app and leaves everything else. Reference sounds clearly better to my ears. That is probably due to the very high boosts flat applies to everything above 1kHZ. Is my assumption correct? Now I wonder:

Why does the frequency cutoff only happen for reference and not for flat? Can't find much on that but maybe thats how it's suppose to work.

To reduce the overall brightness, I did some EQ in the app using the curve editor to set -1db to everything after 2kHZ and slightly rolling off just for some testing purposes. But I can't see if this setting is applied or not. If the reference EQ cuts of after 600hz then maybe my manual EQ using the curve editor is also not applied. Or are these two different things? In other words, does the curve editor overrule or are added to the flat / reference settings?

I just want to make my towers a bit smudge less bright. How to proceed?


----------



## Alan P

The curve editor only effects the Reference curve.


----------



## aschotz86

On my 3.0 setup, after running audyssey, everything kind of sounds flat and "lifeless", especially the bass. Are there any settings I can use to kind of bring some life back in while still keeping some/most of the room correction which is definitely helping me hear dialog better! Since I don't have a sub (a lot of tutorials say to just boost the sub after audyessy), I can't turn that up - do I just increase bass on the tone controls for L and R speakers? See images below. Should I limit the curve to like 500hz and disable midrange comp?


----------



## pbz06

aschotz86 said:


> On my 3.0 setup, after running audyssey, everything kind of sounds flat and "lifeless", especially the bass. Are there any settings I can use to kind of bring some life back in while still keeping some/most of the room correction which is definitely helping me hear dialog better! Since I don't have a sub (a lot of tutorials say to just boost the sub after audyessy), I can't turn that up - do I just increase bass on the tone controls for L and R speakers? See images below. Should I limit the curve to like 500hz and disable midrange comp?


You can try DEQ, and use the RLO setting to find your sweet spot. Otherwise, you can use the app curve editor to try and shape the response to add a little more bass manually below 100hz with a rise.


----------



## pbz06

Biggydeen said:


> Question about the Audessey app ($20):
> 
> I have read about what frequency range to use when using XT32. With the app, you can limit the EQ results to a specified HZ. After reading some about this, many seem to cut it off between 300 -500hz and some around 1000hz. According to denon support page you should not limit the HZ.
> 
> After testing a bit I got the following results:
> 
> Current setup:
> 
> 
> 7.1.2
> AVR denon 3600H
> Emotiva T2+ and C2+, B6.2's for surround
> PB2000 pro sub
> 
> All sound testing done with some movies using blue ray ATMOS and others like DTS etc (playing from my PC using passthrough). I've set the frequency cutoff at 600hz in the app.
> 
> My setup sounds best with voices when Audessey is set to off. Voices seem to be the fullest and most natural.
> When setting Audessey to reference, the overall sound seems to be better but voices are lacking depth in tone. Like some bass is missing out, but overall sounds are more bright/clear
> When turning Audessey off, the overall sounds becomes a bit more boomy/bassy. Though not much difference between reference but the lower end is heavyer if that makes sense.
> When setting Audessey to flat, sound becomes much more bright. It seems like higher frequencies are boosted even more on my speakers which are already bright from itself.
> When looking at the audessey results on the AVR itself, you can see what auddessey is adding when using reference or flat EQ. I found the following:
> 
> When using the audyssey flat EQ (picture is taken with phone on beamer screen so don't mind the quality) I see this:
> 
> View attachment 3319313
> 
> 
> Everything above 1khz seems to get a large boost up to +5dB - +6dB (it's cut of in this picture but the above is Front left and below FR). That makes me think why using flat sounds so harsh/bright to my ears. So despite setting the cutoff at 600HZ, flat just EQ's the entire range up to 20kHZ.
> 
> Reference looks like this:
> 
> View attachment 3319314
> 
> 
> It basically only adjusts some things below the threshhold of 600hz I have set in the app and leaves everything else. Reference sounds clearly better to my ears. That is probably due to the very high boosts flat applies to everything above 1kHZ. Is my assumption correct? Now I wonder:
> 
> Why does the frequency cutoff only happen for reference and not for flat? Can't find much on that but maybe thats how it's suppose to work.
> 
> To reduce the overall brightness, I did some EQ in the app using the curve editor to set -1db to everything after 2kHZ and slightly rolling off just for some testing purposes. But I can't see if this setting is applied or not. If the reference EQ cuts of after 600hz then maybe my manual EQ using the curve editor is also not applied. Or are these two different things? In other words, does the curve editor overrule or are added to the flat / reference settings?
> 
> I just want to make my towers a bit smudge less bright. How to proceed?


You have the right assumptions. Generally when a speaker's natural response has a downward trajectory that results in Audyssey needing to boost treble, it sounds harsher than you're used to (and vice versa is true too). You can use the app to limit EQ and see how that sounds.

The lack of bass complaint is common. Audyssey flattens the bass because they expect the user to employ DEQ to restore the bass. If you don't, then flat bass sounds like no bass. Use the curve editor to tailor your bass response, or simply try DEQ or add to your SW trim.


----------



## MagnumX

pbz06 said:


> The lack of bass complaint is common. Audyssey flattens the bass because they expect the user to employ DEQ to restore the bass. If you don't, then flat bass sounds like no bass. Use the curve editor to tailor your bass response, or simply try DEQ or add to your SW trim.


Flat bass sounds like _too much_ bass here on Booka Shade albums, but maybe they go overboard with the bass. Really, I find flat bass
"usually" works fine for everything except 2-channel stereo albums. Except for some newer albums, they seem to consistently need +2dB -> +7dB (+4dB average) to have decent bass fill. Some older '80s CDs can use more bass than that, even. If you go to a live rock concert, there is simply no way there's that little bass when they play songs from the same albums. Even some of the overly compressed albums still need bass added.

DEQ _might_ help, but not at higher (near reference setting) volumes (some music is simply bass shy or bass heavy) and unfortunately, it affects the surround levels, making it near useless unless you like the rear speakers louder than the front at some levels.... I don't know why D&M can't include a straight "loudness" option instead of that Audyssey DEQ that screws with the surround levels.


----------



## pbz06

MagnumX said:


> Flat bass sounds like _too much_ bass here on Booka Shade albums, but maybe they go overboard with the bass. Really, I find flat bass
> "usually" works fine for everything except 2-channel stereo albums. Except for some newer albums, they seem to consistently need +2dB -> +7dB (+4dB average) to have decent bass fill. Some older '80s CDs can use more bass than that, even. If you go to a live rock concert, there is simply no way there's that little bass when they play songs from the same albums. Even some of the overly compressed albums still need bass added.
> 
> DEQ _might_ help, but not at higher (near reference setting) volumes (some music is simply bass shy or bass heavy) and unfortunately, it affects the surround levels, making it near useless unless you like the rear speakers louder than the front at some levels.... I don't know why D&M can't include a straight "loudness" option instead of that Audyssey DEQ that screws with the surround levels.


Yeah, a huge variable is the source content too. Music is a wild west, and although movies have more defined "standards", there's still a lot of room for all kinds of in between. Some movies have too much bass, others have too little. Some (or most?) sound mixers understand our hearing variances between bass and treble, and compensate on their end in the mixes? I don't know and don't think there's a set it and forget it option in our homes. Audyssey tries but obviously too many movies and user preferences and room conditions make it impossible. I also wish you can customize DEQ more. The circle of confusion still exists in some form.

I think it's a safe starting point to simplify things and start with a nice flat bass and overall response. Need more bass? Increase subwoofer trim. Need less treble? Use tone controls or CinemaEQ. Have trouble hearing soft passages or center dialogue? Use DV. And so on. That's why I usually encourage others to learn what things do and when and how to use them.


----------



## garygarrison

*pbz06* in post number 11,258, provides an excellent modus operandi*. *I would use *DV* only as a last resort, however, because it disregards and debases the intentions of the composer, conductor and filmmakers too much (IMO) by compressing dynamics.* DEQ *is O.K. (you might want to try it, if necessary). I prefer turning up the trim controls on the subwoofer section of the AVR or AVP (see caution below), and using the Bass Tone Control (affects LF and RF only and can't be used with DEQ engaged) to cause the mid bass to rise to meet the level of the sub. That way I can get a decent mid bass peak from about 150 Hz down, emphasizing the _attack _of the drums through the super clean, tight LF & RF woofers, on down through the crossover to the sub at 60 Hz, met by a 6 dB boost of the sub woofer for the very deep bass.

In my set-up, this often means setting the Bass Tone Control at +6 dB, crossing over to the sub at 60 Hz, and AVR sub trim boosted over its Audyssey assigned setting by 6 dB. *Caution: with most AVRs (*_but not with a few AVPs_*) the line driver in the AVR may clip at settings louder than -5*, which is the last thing you want, so most people set the sub's gain control on the sub itself rather high (usually much more than 1/2 way), so Audyssey will set the trim in the AVR very low (-11.5, but not as low as 12, because you won't know if Audyssey "wants" the trim setting even lower) opening up the option of boosting the sub trim in the AVR by 6 dB, without clipping. Mike Thomas explained this must better, here:*GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES* *Section II-C: Where And How To Add Bass* Once you are there, you may want to read Mikes entire guide.

*Different recordings definitely call for different EQ* on my rig, for instance*: *

Most modern Blu-rays, *Audyssey Flat*
DVD of *Around the World in 80 Days* (original 1956, 70mm Todd-AO magnetically recorded 6 channel sound. O.K., It's not _*that* _flat,








but, according to Belton, it is engineered to begin a roll-off at 12K Hz, where the theater speakers of the '50s and '60s dropped like a rock, and according to a pair of projectionists I talked with, the goal was to have the response FLAT out in the theater). On our rig, the big orchestral moments in *80 Days* are too bright; *Audyssey Reference fixes it almost perfectly,* to my ears. I suspect the original screen penetrating master tracks were used to make the DVD, without compensation.
*How the West Was Won *Smile Box version. The original 1962 Cinerama version was a magnetic 7 channel recording. The Blu-ray needs not only *Audyssey Reference*, but also the *Treble Control at -5*, something I never do except with this film.
Movies with old-fashioned optical soundtracks like *Citizen Kane*, *The Searchers*, *The Misfits* as well as almost any movie before 1952 and many later (some master recordings were magnetic but the tracks on the actual films were optical). Believe it or not, these usually sound best with *Audyssey Flat. Why? *Who knows, but, the optical readers in the theaters' projection booths were often dirty, in ill-repair, and there were at least two grades of optical track, the better one being called Silver, IIRC. Now that the day of the proud, professional projectionist is over, maybe some of the distortion we used to hear in theaters running optical tracks was due to less than dutiful projectionists, or less than top grade optical tracks. Nonetheless,


----------



## Biggydeen

pbz06 said:


> You have the right assumptions. Generally when a speaker's natural response has a downward trajectory that results in Audyssey needing to boost treble, it sounds harsher than you're used to (and vice versa is true too). You can use the app to limit EQ and see how that sounds.
> 
> The lack of bass complaint is common. Audyssey flattens the bass because they expect the user to employ DEQ to restore the bass. If you don't, then flat bass sounds like no bass. Use the curve editor to tailor your bass response, or simply try DEQ or add to your SW trim.


Just to be on the same page here, with limiting the EQ you mean limiting the frequency response?

I have some very weird results. When limiting the freq response at 600 HZ:


The flat EQ just ignores this and EQ's all the way up to 20kHZ
Reference EQ stops EQ after 600hz

When limiting the freq response at 300 HZ:


The flat EQ does nothing. I get a total blank screen when looking in the AVR results.
The reference EQ stop EQ after 300HZ.

This does not make any sense to me. First it looked like the flat EQ does not apply the limited frequency response but setting it at 300HZ it does no EQ at all. Reference seems to be picking up both limitations just fine. Is this suppose to happen? How does this relate to each other?

Second, If I want to use my own curve, is it true I can't use the limited frequency response (at least with the reference EQ setting)? For example, when I limit my response to 300hz, will any manual curve be applied after 300hz? I assume everything after 300hz will not be applied so a manual curve above 300hz will do nothing when setting a limited frequency response. Maybe it will be applied in the flat reponse because that seems to ignore the frequency reponse limit when I set it at 600hz but havn't tested that.

It's just all weird looking to me. Flat vs reference is just applying a different curve if I understand correct. Flat wants to keep the curve flat and reference wants to roll off highs.

Also, according to the denon support page there should be a manual EQ option in the AVR but that missing on mine. Is that a feature that is added later? Should I use that over the app?

I was thinking I'm getting the hang of it but the more I read and check the results the more confusing it gets 😂 My ears do not like the audessey corrections. Limiting to 600hz sounded best. When letting it EQ the entire range (20-20kHZ) something seems off. 

Last question, what do you mean with "add to your *SW* trim" in your last scentence? I don't know what SW means.

I already got a UMIK-1 and will do some real room results using REW.

Thanks!


----------



## Soulburner

Biggydeen said:


> This does not make any sense to me. First it looked like the flat EQ does not apply the limited frequency response but setting it at 300HZ it does no EQ at all. Reference seems to be picking up both limitations just fine. Is this suppose to happen? How does this relate to each other?


Normal. The changes you make in the app only apply to the Reference setting.


Biggydeen said:


> Last question, what do you mean with "add to your *SW* trim" in your last scentence? I don't know what SW means.


Subwoofer. If Dynamic EQ doesn't get you enough bass, adjust your sub level.


----------



## Biggydeen

Soulburner said:


> Normal. The changes you make in the app only apply to the Reference setting.





Alan P said:


> The curve editor only effects the Reference curve.


That makes more sense now. But when I change the freq cutoff to 300hz, the flat result in the AVR becomes this:










While using a 600hz cutoff it looks like this:










So it makes sense that that the adjustments only affect reference. Then the 600hz cutoff picture in the AVR for flat seems correct. But why would flat be totally blank when using 300hz cutoff? If it has no effect on flat, then I would expect that the flat results looks the same regardless of the cut off setting.

Thats why I don't understand why this would happen. 



Soulburner said:


> Subwoofer. If Dynamic EQ doesn't get you enough bass, adjust your sub level.


Allright, will try that. Thanks!


----------



## Alan P

Biggydeen said:


> Also, according to the denon support page there should be a manual EQ option in the AVR but that missing on mine. Is that a feature that is added later? Should I use that over the app?


You can find the Graphic EQ under the AUDIO menu, but it will be greyed out unless MultEQ is set to OFF. You can't use GEQ and Audyssey at the same time.




> I already got a UMIK-1 and will do some real room results using REW.


Great! What you are seeing below will become more clear after you get some _real _measurements. 





Biggydeen said:


> So it makes sense that that the adjustments only affect reference. Then the 600hz cutoff picture in the AVR for flat seems correct. But why would flat be totally blank when using 300hz cutoff? If it has no effect on flat, then I would expect that the flat results looks the same regardless of the cut off setting.


Those "results" graphs in the AVR are well known to be a _very _rough approximation of what Audyssey did to correct your response. I would take them with a _huge _grain of salt.


----------



## Viche

Audyssey / Denon Newbie here. Setting up an AVR-X4300H and just ran Audessey for the first time. A few questions for you smart folks:

What could cause Audyssey to see 3 of my 5 speakers as our of phase? Unless there is a mix up inside the AVR or speaker (is that possible), I am 100% sure I have red and black wires going to the correct color posts. Should I be concerned?
Audessey set my center to 40hz crossover, fronts to 60hz and rear to 80hz. They are all matched ELAC Unifi bookshelfs. I have have a monolith 15" sub. I set them all back to 80hz crossover. Why did Audessey do that and it is okay to override them to 80hz? I also set the master sub crossover setting at 80hz (was 120hz I think)....also cool?
Does resetting the crossover under the manual setting override all the other Audessey corrections?
Should I use dynamic EQ?
Bonus question: what does setting the 4300h to game mode do? How does it change the sound? Does it just reduce latency?

Thanks!


----------



## Soulburner

Viche said:


> What could cause Audyssey to see 3 of my 5 speakers as our of phase? Unless there is a mix up inside the AVR or speaker (is that possible), I am 100% sure I have red and black wires going to the correct color posts. Should I be concerned?


This happens more with on-wall speakers. It's just detecting phase and there's something about the arrangement that triggers it. If you know they are wired correctly, ignore the message.


Viche said:


> Audessey set my center to 40hz crossover, fronts to 60hz and rear to 80hz. They are all matched ELAC Unifi bookshelfs. I have have a monolith 15" sub. I set them all back to 80hz crossover. Why did Audessey do that and it is okay to override them to 80hz? I also set the master sub crossover setting at 80hz (was 120hz I think)....also cool?


This happens because your center is being acoustically bolstered by the space it is in. Yes, set them to 80. On most subs the crossover knob won't matter if using LFE inputs but just to be safe, turn it to the max.


Viche said:


> Does resetting the crossover under the manual setting override all the other Audessey corrections?


No.


Viche said:


> Should I use dynamic EQ?


In my opinion, yes. Try it and see. It largely depends on your speakers. It works with certain types better than others (woofers capable of good bass without distorting, and neutral tweeters are best).


----------



## Viche

Soulburner said:


> This happens more with on-wall speakers. It's just detecting phase and there's something about the arrangement that triggers it. If you know they are wired correctly, ignore the message.
> 
> This happens because your center is being acoustically bolstered by the space it is in. Yes, set them to 80. On most subs the crossover knob won't matter if using LFE inputs but just to be safe, turn it to the max.
> 
> No.
> 
> In my opinion, yes. Try it and see. It largely depends on your speakers. It works with certain types better than others (woofers capable of good bass without distorting, and neutral tweeters are best).


Thanks so much for the quick and thorough reply!

The Monolith 15 has a THX switch that allows you to override the subs crossover setting and have the AVR manage it. I set it to that.

I've been collecting and waiting to set up this system for a long time, and honestly I'm pretty underwhelmed. On paper, they are all good parts, but the sound is a bit tight and "small" or "laid back." I'm wondering if it's just placement, the fact that I have the speakers all only about 7 feet from the listening position, the fact that the speakers have yet to break in, or something else...? The sound is very detailed, but I have to really turn it up for it to sound to be movie-theater-like, and even then there are holes in the sound. Like in Jurassic park, when the T-Rex roars, the "mid-range" horn type sound that it makes is kinda muted. I plan to do a sub crawl and see if I can improve the bass, but other than that, not sure what else I can do. Any suggestions?


----------



## mogorf

Viche said:


> Thanks so much for the quick and thorough reply!
> 
> The Monolith 15 has a THX switch that allows you to override the subs crossover setting and have the AVR manage it. I set it to that.
> 
> I've been collecting and waiting to set up this system for a long time, and honestly I'm pretty underwhelmed. On paper, they are all good parts, but the sound is a bit tight and "small" or "laid back." I'm wondering if it's just placement, the fact that I have the speakers all only about 7 feet from the listening position, the fact that the speakers have yet to break in, or something else...? The sound is very detailed, but I have to really turn it up for it to sound to be movie-theater-like, and even then there are holes in the sound. Like in Jurassic park, when the T-Rex roars, the "mid-range" horn type sound that it makes is kinda muted. I plan to do a sub crawl and see if I can improve the bass, but other than that, not sure what else I can do. Any suggestions?


In that case as you described above, care to share a couple of pictures of your room to show speaker placement. Pictures are always worth more than a 1000 words. Seasoned Audysseyers (is there such a word folks?) will surely help you to sort out your discrepancies.


----------



## Viche

mogorf said:


> In that case as you described above, care to share a couple of pictures of your room to show speaker placement. Pictures are always worth more than a 1000 words. Seasoned Audysseyers (is there such a work folks?) will surely help you to sort out your discrepancies.


Awesome! I'll clean up all the boxes and kids' stuff first so that I don't embarrass myself.  Although, they are probably having an effect on the soundscape haha.


----------



## Alan P

Viche said:


> Thanks so much for the quick and thorough reply!
> 
> The Monolith 15 has a THX switch that allows you to override the subs crossover setting and have the AVR manage it. I set it to that.
> 
> I've been collecting and waiting to set up this system for a long time, and honestly I'm pretty underwhelmed. On paper, they are all good parts, but the sound is a bit tight and "small" or "laid back." I'm wondering if it's just placement, the fact that I have the speakers all only about 7 feet from the listening position, the fact that the speakers have yet to break in, or something else...? The sound is very detailed, but I have to really turn it up for it to sound to be movie-theater-like, and even then there are holes in the sound. Like in Jurassic park, when the T-Rex roars, the "mid-range" horn type sound that it makes is kinda muted. I plan to do a sub crawl and see if I can improve the bass, but other than that, not sure what else I can do. Any suggestions?


Make sure to bump up the sub trim a few dB post Audyssey. Audyssey shoots for a flat response, but unfortunately the human ear doesn't prefer that. A typical post-Audyssey sub boost of +3dB to +6dB is pretty much the norm. If you are not using DEQ, then double those numbers.


----------



## Viche

Alan P said:


> Make sure to bump up the sub trim a few dB post Audyssey. Audyssey shoots for a flat response, but unfortunately the human ear doesn't prefer that. A typical post-Audyssey sub boost of +3dB to +6dB is pretty much the norm. If you are not using DEQ, then double those numbers.


So the crazy thing is that I did just that and had my daughter sit on the couch and let me know when she heard the bass getting louder. I started at 0dB, and as I turned it up she said the bass actually got less intense! It wasn't until I got to 6-10dB did she say it sounded louder. How can that be? I'll turn on DEQ and see how that goes.


----------



## Alan P

Viche said:


> So the crazy thing is that I did just that and had my daughter sit on the couch and let me know when she heard the bass getting louder. I started at 0dB, and as I turned it up she said the bass actually got less intense! It wasn't until I got to 6-10dB did she say it sounded louder. *How can that be?* I'll turn on DEQ and see how that goes.


You (or in this case, your daughter) are sitting in a null.

Was this test with actual content, or the AVR's sub test tone?


----------



## Viche

Alan P said:


> You (or in this case, your daughter) are sitting in a null.
> 
> Was this test with actual content, or the AVR's sub test tone?


It was with a youtube video playing an 80hz tone (maybe 60?) I have yet to find test tones on the 4300h. 

Okay, to show how little I know....the right side of the sofa is in a partial null (or maybe more kinda neutral as far as bass goes), but the left side where she was sitting was more of a peak when the sub's phase was set to 0. We turned phase slowly to 180 and the left side of the couch came more into line with the right side. I figured this was good so that we had more even response across the entire sofa the person sitting on the left wouldn't complain. Not sure how that plays into what I described in my earlier post. The room is kinda crazy. You can walk 2 feet and go from a null to a peak.


----------



## Alan P

Viche said:


> It was with a youtube video playing an 80hz tone (maybe 60?) I have yet to find test tones on the 4300h.


A single frequency test tone is not the best thing to use when doing this sort of testing. I would use actual content, a bass heavy scene in a movie that you are familiar with (or that is known to have good bass) would be better.

You can find the test tones (and speaker trim setting) in SPEAKERS>MANUAL SETUP>START TEST TONE (or very similar, this is from my admittedly not-so-great memory).



> Okay, to show how little I know....the right side of the sofa is in a partial null (or maybe more kinda neutral as far as bass goes), but the left side where she was sitting was more of a peak when the sub's phase was set to 0. We turned phase slowly to 180 and the left side of the couch came more into line with the right side. I figured this was good so that we had more even response across the entire sofa the person sitting on the left wouldn't complain. Not sure how that plays into what I described in my earlier post.


If you were using an 80Hz test tone, and your speakers are crossed over at 80Hz, then this is a good way to get the sub in-phase with the mains.



> The room is kinda crazy. You can walk 2 feet and go from a null to a peak.


Not crazy at all, pretty normal for a single sub.


----------



## schwock5

i guess this is a good time to ask this question.
Does anyone have a good reference blu ray they use for bass testing?

Looking for a specific track/area where if the bass is too high it will just be too much (DEQ too high, sub level too high, etc).
or via a S&M test disc at reference should the levels just be aligned and that's the true/right area to set it?

I'd like to test this level to set my bass level with DEQ off.
From there i can lower the volume to properly set DEQ.
With this other sources that are more compressed (streaming, tv, etc) i can lower the bass level via the Marantz app for that specific source.

but looking for the right test to do this.
I think blue ray/4k blu ray really shouldn't have any additional boost, and at ref is where can set the true bass level, then lower the level to where i'd normally listen and set DEQ.
that would be the true starting point across all sources and any other source can be +/- via the app


----------



## Alan P

schwock5 said:


> i guess this is a good time to ask this question.
> Does anyone have a good reference blu ray they use for bass testing?
> 
> Looking for a specific track/area where if the bass is too high it will just be too much (DEQ too high, sub level too high, etc).
> or via a S&M test disc at reference should the levels just be aligned and that's the true/right area to set it?
> 
> I'd like to test this level to set my bass level with DEQ off.
> From there i can lower the volume to properly set DEQ.
> With this other sources that are more compressed (streaming, tv, etc) i can lower the bass level via the Marantz app for that specific source.
> 
> but looking for the right test to do this.
> I think blue ray/4k blu ray really shouldn't have any additional boost, and at ref is where can set the true bass level, then lower the level to where i'd normally listen and set DEQ.
> that would be the true starting point across all sources and any other source can be +/- via the app


The "Pods Emerge" scene from War of the Worlds (2005) will definitely push the limits. The "Sonic Cannon" scene and the Abomination fight scene in The Incredible Hulk (2008) are both pretty insane. Either of the recent Godzilla movies. Pacific Rim is a mid-bass extravaganza. Those are just off the top of my head.

Have you seen this thread?

The Ultimate List of BASS in Movies w/ Frequency Charts...


----------



## pbz06

schwock5 said:


> i guess this is a good time to ask this question.
> Does anyone have a good reference blu ray they use for bass testing?
> 
> Looking for a specific track/area where if the bass is too high it will just be too much (DEQ too high, sub level too high, etc).
> or via a S&M test disc at reference should the levels just be aligned and that's the true/right area to set it?
> 
> I'd like to test this level to set my bass level with DEQ off.
> From there i can lower the volume to properly set DEQ.
> With this other sources that are more compressed (streaming, tv, etc) i can lower the bass level via the Marantz app for that specific source.
> 
> but looking for the right test to do this.
> I think blue ray/4k blu ray really shouldn't have any additional boost, and at ref is where can set the true bass level, then lower the level to where i'd normally listen and set DEQ.
> that would be the true starting point across all sources and any other source can be +/- via the app


Aquaman, chapter 2 submarine scene, and then later with the Kraken.

Also, depends what kind of bass you want. There's hard hitting chest.bump, low deep extension, high 30hz peaks etc. I personally like the ULF subtle lower volume scenes. Like Lone Survivor the drop off scene at the beginning of their mission (8hz!) Or the Blackhawk Down "irene" scene, or the Monster Hunter rail gun scene.


----------



## Viche

Alan P said:


> A single frequency test tone is not the best thing to use when doing this sort of testing. I would use actual content, a bass heavy scene in a movie that you are familiar with (or that is known to have good bass) would be better.
> 
> You can find the test tones (and speaker trim setting) in SPEAKERS>MANUAL SETUP>START TEST TONE (or very similar, this is from my admittedly not-so-great memory).
> 
> 
> 
> If you were using an 80Hz test tone, and your speakers are crossed over at 80Hz, then this is a good way to get the sub in-phase with the mains.
> 
> 
> 
> Not crazy at all, pretty normal for a single sub.


Thanks! So how do you know when the sub and speakers are in phase when using an 80hz tone? Bass will stronger at the hotspots in the room? Wouldn’t you want the phase to cancel out hotspots or do you just shoot to make the hotspots even hotter?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Viche said:


> Thanks! So how do you know when the sub and speakers are in phase when using an 80hz tone? Bass will stronger at the hotspots in the room? Wouldn’t you want the phase to cancel out hotspots or do you just shoot to make the hotspots even hotter?


Well flying blind(without rew) with a tone at the xo, you’ll want the most bass AT the Main Listening Position(MLP) and not worry about other hotspots. I would have a “helper” adjust the phase while YOU sit in the MLP and listen. That way, you know exactly when it’s right, and not have to depend on someone else’s ears. An SPL meter can be invaluable here as well. 
Ye mentioned earlier about the master sub XO and setting from 120hz back downt to 80. If this is the “lpf of LFE, then I would set it back to 120hz. That way you’ll get the full LFE(.1) track and not remove the top frequency range of the LFE track.
Also… I hate to say but the missing impact is quite possibly from using the small bookshelf speakers.


----------



## schwock5

pbz06 said:


> Aquaman, chapter 2 submarine scene, and then later with the Kraken.
> 
> Also, depends what kind of bass you want. There's hard hitting chest.bump, low deep extension, high 30hz peaks etc. I personally like the ULF subtle lower volume scenes. Like Lone Survivor the drop off scene at the beginning of their mission (8hz!) Or the Blackhawk Down "irene" scene, or the Monster Hunter rail gun scene.


Not just looking for a hard bass movie, but a movie/scene that's mixed well to test that levels are right. They say the bass shouldn't stick it but blend (but with this forum I don't think that's the case lol) but looking for test material to say "ok, bass needs to be turned up or down to be right" to set everything before the additional options for other modes/sources


----------



## pbarach

schwock5 said:


> Not just looking for a hard bass movie, but a movie/scene that's mixed well to test that levels are right. They say the bass shouldn't stick it but blend (but with this forum I don't think that's the case lol) but looking for test material to say "ok, bass needs to be turned up or down to be right" to set everything before the additional options for other modes/sources


Pick a few songs or pieces of music with normal bass that you know well; that will tell you everything you need.


----------



## Alan P

schwock5 said:


> Not just looking for a hard bass movie, but a movie/scene that's mixed well to test that levels are right. They say the bass shouldn't stick it but blend (but with this forum I don't think that's the case lol) but looking for test material to say "ok, bass needs to be turned up or down to be right" to set everything before the additional options for other modes/sources


If you can get the bass in the "over-the-top" bass scenes to sound right (_just _on the edge of "too much"), everything else will fall into place.


----------



## Reddig

Alan P said:


> If you can get the bass in the "over-the-top" bass scenes to sound right (_just _on the edge of "too much"), everything else will fall into place.


This is what I do too.


----------



## Soulburner

schwock5 said:


> Not just looking for a hard bass movie, but a movie/scene that's mixed well to test that levels are right. They say the bass shouldn't stick it but blend (but with this forum I don't think that's the case lol) but looking for test material to say "ok, bass needs to be turned up or down to be right" to set everything before the additional options for other modes/sources


Police car landing at the beginning of Bladerunner 2049 should be heavy and impactful.

As should the ship landing in the first scene of Oblivion. These are where ported subs shine.

Music with bass:

Transformers _The Fallen_ is a good bass level test. It should be enough to mildly rumble the floor here, but not overpower during other music.

Tool's _Jambi_ will help ensure bass levels aren't overcooked, or you will hear the lack of integration.


----------



## pbz06

Soulburner said:


> Police car landing at the beginning of Bladerunner 2049 should be heavy and impactful.
> 
> As should the ship landing in the first scene of Oblivion. These are where ported subs shine.
> 
> Music with bass:
> 
> Transformers _The Fallen_ is a good bass level test. It should be enough to mildly rumble the floor here, but not overpower during other music.
> 
> Tool's _Jambi_ will help ensure bass levels aren't overcooked, or you will hear the lack of integration.


That reminds me (music with bass): the end credits of Tenet is amazing.


----------



## schwock5

Thanks all, I have a few of these, I'll try testing out this week to finish dialing in


----------



## Anderegg

First run with MultEQ app on my new X3500H. The results seem horrible compared to my bottom of the line Sony DCAC results. Ran XT32 through the app, 8 positions, and look at the bass corrections compared to the single point "junk" Sony DCAC from my old DH590. What am I doing wrong? This is my first run with Auddyssey. On the Sony, I threw 3 PEQ filters at the SVS sub after DCAC, but assumed Audyssey handled bass management? Do I need to pre PEQ my SVS sub prior to Audyssey, after Audyssey? Playing with the SVS PEQ after the Addyssey leaves massive dip between 100-400Hz. 

NEVERMIND, I GUESS I NEEDED TO SEND TO RECEIVER AFTER THE CALIBRATION COMPLETED! #DOH


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Anderegg said:


> First run with MultEQ app on my new X3500H. The results seem horrible compared to my bottom of the line Sony DCAC results. Ran XT32 through the app, 8 positions, and look at the bass corrections compared to the single point "junk" Sony DCAC from my old DH590. What am I doing wrong? This is my first run with Auddyssey. On the Sony, I threw 3 PEQ filters at the SVS sub after DCAC, but assumed Audyssey handled bass management? Do I need to pre PEQ my SVS sub prior to Audyssey, after Audyssey? Playing with the SVS PEQ after the Addyssey leaves massive dip between 100-400Hz.
> 
> View attachment 3320486





Anderegg said:


> First run with MultEQ app on my new X3500H. The results seem horrible compared to my bottom of the line Sony DCAC results. Ran XT32 through the app, 8 positions, and look at the bass corrections compared to the single point "junk" Sony DCAC from my old DH590. What am I doing wrong? This is my first run with Auddyssey. On the Sony, I threw 3 PEQ filters at the SVS sub after DCAC, but assumed Audyssey handled bass management? Do I need to pre PEQ my SVS sub prior to Audyssey, after Audyssey? Playing with the SVS PEQ after the Addyssey leaves massive dip between 100-400Hz.
> 
> View attachment 3320486


Someone smarter n me can say for sure, but it looks like more smoothing on the green Sony graph. Does it sound that much different?


----------



## Anderegg

Polyrythm1k said:


> Someone smarter n me can say for sure, but it looks like more smoothing on the green Sony graph. Does it sound that much different?


First time app user, forgot to send to receiver, I assumed the send to was only needed when editing, but apparently required for finalizing the calibration. #doh. 🤪

Paul


----------



## Polyrythm1k

Anderegg said:


> First time app user, forgot to send to receiver, I assumed the send to was only needed when editing, but apparently required for finalizing the calibration. #doh.
> 
> Paul


ROFL! Been there done that…


----------



## jerrolds

Is it normal that multi xt32 sets surrounds roughly +10db hot vs LCR?

After calibration all speakers other than LCR is roughly 10db more at all frequencies which I found odd (verified with REW)

Is it because my LCR are powered by an external amp?

Debating if I should lower the levels for them on the denon -5db just so it's more in line with LCR..


----------



## Soulburner

jerrolds said:


> Is it normal that multi xt32 sets surrounds roughly +10db hot vs LCR?


It's not 10 dB. It is closer to 5 dB, and that is if your volume is low. I reduce them by 3-5.



jerrolds said:


> Is it because my LCR are powered by an external amp?


This shouldn't matter unless you see -12 as the channel level. Do you?


----------



## primetimeguy

jerrolds said:


> Is it normal that multi xt32 sets surrounds roughly +10db hot vs LCR?
> 
> After calibration all speakers other than LCR is roughly 10db more at all frequencies which I found odd (verified with REW)
> 
> Is it because my LCR are powered by an external amp?
> 
> Debating if I should lower the levels for them on the denon -5db just so it's more in line with LCR..


Turn off Dynamic Eq


----------



## billium2000

So I re-ran Audyssey on my X6500h after getting some new fronts, center & sub. The results were... surprising. Audyssey set my fronts to Large with a crossover at 40 Hz which seemed quite low. Decent fronts (Klipsch RP-6000Fs) but still. I reset L&R to small. 

Even more surprising is my new center (Klipsch RP-250C) crossover was also set at 40. But the other speakers were also not what I was expecting...

Front L&R - 40 Hz
Center - 40 Hz
Surrounds - 150 Hz
Front Heights - 200 Hz
Top Middle In-ceiling - 60 Hz

My first through is to change fronts, center & top middle to 80 crossover and leave the other two where they are. You can go "up" with crossovers but should not go "down" if I remember the first page FAQs correctly. Shouldn't be too many lower frequencies in front height Atmos tracks anyways. And the surround higher crossover may be due to using compact older budget Sony bookshelf speakers (WAF)?

Should I still crossover EVERYTHING at 80 Hz?

Much like Jerrolds - Audyssey is setting all the surrounds/Atmos speakers at +8-12 db hot. I am using Dynamic EQ so that may be the main reason?


----------



## Alan P

billium2000 said:


> So I re-ran Audyssey on my X6500h after getting some new fronts, center & sub. The results were... surprising. Audyssey set my fronts to Large with a crossover at 40 Hz which seemed quite low. Decent fronts (Klipsch RP-6000Fs) but still. I reset L&R to small.
> 
> Even more surprising is my new center (Klipsch RP-250C) crossover was also set at 40. But the other speakers were also not what I was expecting...
> 
> Front L&R - 40 Hz
> Center - 40 Hz
> Surrounds - 150 Hz
> Front Heights - 200 Hz
> Top Middle In-ceiling - 60 Hz
> 
> My first through is to change fronts, center & top middle to 80 crossover and leave the other two where they are. You can go "up" with crossovers but should not go "down" if I remember the first page FAQs correctly. Shouldn't be too many lower frequencies in front height Atmos tracks anyways. And the surround higher crossover may be due to using compact older budget Sony bookshelf speakers (WAF)?
> 
> Should I still crossover EVERYTHING at 80 Hz?
> 
> Much like Jerrolds - Audyssey is setting all the surrounds/Atmos speakers at +8-12 db hot. I am using Dynamic EQ so that may be the main reason?


Whether or not you have DEQ engaged when you run Audyssey will make no difference to the calibration. Audyssey bypasses all settings (with the exception of Amp Assign) during setup.

As you correctly remembered, setting a crossover lower than Audyssey detected will result in an un-EQ'ed "hole" in your response. Audyssey will only correct down to the detected -3dB point of a speaker.

The reason Audyssey (more correctly, the AVR) is setting the trim for your surround speakers so high is most likely due to a large difference in sensitivity between your speakers. The lower the sensitivity, the higher the trim. You didn't tell us what those speakers are, but they must have a much lower sensitivity than the other speakers...either that, or they are much, much further from the MLP.


----------



## Soulburner

billium2000 said:


> Should I still crossover EVERYTHING at 80 Hz?


I would not lower the XO of your surrounds that much, that is too big of a gap to cover. If they are in open air, they won't get any reinforcement from walls, so that could be one reason.



billium2000 said:


> Much like Jerrolds - Audyssey is setting all the surrounds/Atmos speakers at +8-12 db hot. I am using Dynamic EQ so that may be the main reason?


DEQ has no effect on the levels set by Audyssey. I don't know why such a high level is needed, but it doesn't seem right.


----------



## billium2000

Soulburner said:


> I would not lower the XO of your surrounds that much, that is too big of a gap to cover. If they are in open air, they won't get any reinforcement from walls, so that could be one reason.
> 
> 
> DEQ has no effect on the levels set by Audyssey. I don't know why such a high level is needed, but it doesn't seem right.


Thanks for the feedback. I was mainly going off of primetimeguy's suggestion just a few posts up and assumed that meant DEQ would influence surround/Atmos speakers running more "hot". I further assumed this was to be able to increase sound at lower volumes. But you know what happens when you assume! 

Now i just gotta figure out the best XO for my new (to me) sub. Time to play around a bit!


----------



## schwock5

billium2000 said:


> So I re-ran Audyssey on my X6500h after getting some new fronts, center & sub. The results were... surprising. Audyssey set my fronts to Large with a crossover at 40 Hz which seemed quite low. Decent fronts (Klipsch RP-6000Fs) but still. I reset L&R to small.
> 
> Even more surprising is my new center (Klipsch RP-250C) crossover was also set at 40. But the other speakers were also not what I was expecting...
> 
> Front L&R - 40 Hz
> Center - 40 Hz
> Surrounds - 150 Hz
> Front Heights - 200 Hz
> Top Middle In-ceiling - 60 Hz
> 
> My first through is to change fronts, center & top middle to 80 crossover and leave the other two where they are. You can go "up" with crossovers but should not go "down" if I remember the first page FAQs correctly. Shouldn't be too many lower frequencies in front height Atmos tracks anyways. And the surround higher crossover may be due to using compact older budget Sony bookshelf speakers (WAF)?
> 
> Should I still crossover EVERYTHING at 80 Hz?
> 
> Much like Jerrolds - Audyssey is setting all the surrounds/Atmos speakers at +8-12 db hot. I am using Dynamic EQ so that may be the main reason?


do you have REW? good way to check where your speakers start to fall off.
200 and 150 seems very high for a crossover.

I have the RF 7 and RC 7 and Audy never sets crossover lower than 50 for them.
something definitely doesn't seem right.

i also have in walls for surround and cieling with backer boxes that severely limit their bass response and using REW to confirm they are good down to 100 and 120.
so 150 and 200 seems very out of whack.

and an in-cieling at 60 seems like a very low crossover as well.

are you sure you're using the correct microphone that came with it?
something just seems off.


----------



## primetimeguy

billium2000 said:


> Thanks for the feedback. I was mainly going off of primetimeguy's suggestion just a few posts up and assumed that meant DEQ would influence surround/Atmos speakers running more "hot". I further assumed this was to be able to increase sound at lower volumes. But you know what happens when you assume!
> 
> Now i just gotta figure out the best XO for my new (to me) sub. Time to play around a bit!


Dynamic Eq won't impact the absolute levels show in the receiver settings. But it will cause them to play louder than that when below reference volume. When you said all surrounds were 8-12db hot I assumed you measured them after running Audyssey. If you are just saying the levels set by Audyssey are in the +8db or higher range then that is not caused by Audyssey. That is caused by speaker sensitivity, distance and location.


----------



## billium2000

schwock5 said:


> do you have REW? good way to check where your speakers start to fall off.
> 200 and 150 seems very high for a crossover.
> 
> I have the RF 7 and RC 7 and Audy never sets crossover lower than 50 for them.
> something definitely doesn't seem right.
> 
> i also have in walls for surround and cieling with backer boxes that severely limit their bass response and using REW to confirm they are good down to 100 and 120.
> so 150 and 200 seems very out of whack.
> 
> and an in-cieling at 60 seems like a very low crossover as well.
> 
> are you sure you're using the correct microphone that came with it?
> something just seems off.


Well I am actually using the mic that came with my older Denon S760h (Costco) AVR since I got the X6500h used and it did not come with a mic. Through some quick research it seemed like both Denon models ship with the same mic model. Maybe I am mistaken?


----------



## drh3b

billium2000 said:


> Well I am actually using the mic that came with my older Denon S760h (Costco) AVR since I got the X6500h used and it did not come with a mic. Through some quick research it seemed like both Denon models ship with the same mic model. Maybe I am mistaken?


Denon has been using the same mike for years now.
I'd move everything up to 80, as you correctly remembered, and leave the others where they are.


----------



## Alan P

billium2000 said:


> Well I am actually using the mic that came with my older Denon S760h (Costco) AVR since I got the X6500h used and it did not come with a mic. Through some quick research it seemed like both Denon models ship with the same mic model. Maybe I am mistaken?


That mic should work fine. What speakers are you using for surround/Atmos??


----------



## billium2000

Alan P said:


> That mic should work fine. What speakers are you using for surround/Atmos??


I was afraid someone would ask that... Haha. 

Sony RS-302 side surrounds (only way I could get spouse approval for surround speakers - had to be compact and "blend in" to the room)
Sony SS-CSE front heights


----------



## Rich 63

billium2000 said:


> Now i just gotta figure out the best XO for my new (to me) sub. Time to play around a bit!


What sub? What do you mean by setting sub xover? The sub will be set to direct or turn crossover to max before running aud. If your reffering to the lpf for lfe leave it at the default 120hz.


----------



## Alan P

billium2000 said:


> I was afraid someone would ask that... Haha.
> 
> Sony RS-302 side surrounds (only way I could get spouse approval for surround speakers - had to be compact and "blend in" to the room)
> Sony SS-CSE front heights


In light of this revelation, the crossovers Audyssey gave you are not all that surprising, probably pretty spot on.


----------



## billium2000

Rich 63 said:


> What sub? What do you mean by setting sub xover? The sub will be set to direct or turn crossover to max before running aud. If your reffering to the lpf for lfe leave it at the default 120hz.


PSA V1801. I just meant the crossovers in the AVR from the fronts. Whether I want to stick with 80 Hz or up it to 90 or even 100 based on the capabilities of the subwoofer.


----------



## billium2000

Alan P said:


> In light of this revelation, the crossovers Audyssey gave you are not all that surprising, probably pretty spot on.


Yeah... but do more capable Atmos front height speakers have a lower XO typically? I am just getting into the world of Atmos/DTS:X. 

I was wondering if the Sony SS-CSE's are engineered to only play higher tracks since most of the "height" sounds would be over 200 Hz? I know they are not the best speakers but $200 a pair is not nothing.....


----------



## Alan P

billium2000 said:


> Yeah... but do more capable Atmos front height speakers have a lower XO typically? I am just getting into the world of Atmos/DTS:X.
> 
> I was wondering if the Sony SS-CSE's are engineered to only play higher tracks since most of the "height" sounds would be over 200 Hz? I know they are not the best speakers but $200 a pair is not nothing.....


You can only expect so much from a single, 4" driver. Sony does say they go down to 70Hz, but I take that with a HUGE grain of salt.


----------



## pbz06

billium2000 said:


> Yeah... but do more capable Atmos front height speakers have a lower XO typically? I am just getting into the world of Atmos/DTS:X.
> 
> I was wondering if the Sony SS-CSE's are engineered to only play higher tracks since most of the "height" sounds would be over 200 Hz? I know they are not the best speakers but $200 a pair is not nothing.....


They were engineered and built that way to hit a certain price point only, and nothing to do with the content expectations. A full Atmos mix in the studio uses 3D objects and in theory all your speakers would be "equal" capabilities, or as much as possible, to process those sounds as they move around the 3D bubble. The AVR processes the metadata and the quality of the mix and immersion would depend on the setup and bass management etc


----------



## Soulburner

There is full-range signal in all surround channels, so the better your speaker can get down to 80 Hz before bass management kicks in, the better. Ideally you'd have 60 Hz capable speakers that can do a clean 80 Hz crossover.


----------



## billium2000

Soulburner said:


> There is full-range signal in all surround channels, so the better your speaker can get down to 80 Hz before bass management kicks in, the better. Ideally you'd have 60 Hz capable speakers that can do a clean 80 Hz crossover.


Yeah... I may need to upgrade my front heights. I got the Sony speakers on "sale" for $120 a while back and that seems like about what they are worth. I began looking into Klipsch RP-500SAs to work with my new Klipsch fronts & center. Would it be a noticeable improvement over the Sony set? I realize this is the Audyssey thread but seems like there are a lot of speaker experts in here too!

Now the surrounds... not sure if or when I could change them out. May need to just lower the XO a bit and see how they perform. If I blow the driver then I HAVE to upgrade! 😇


----------



## Rich 63

billium2000 said:


> Yeah... I may need to upgrade my front heights. I got the Sony speakers on "sale" for $120 a while back and that seems like about what they are worth. I began looking into Klipsch RP-500SAs to work with my new Klipsch fronts & center. Would it be a noticeable improvement over the Sony set? I realize this is the Audyssey thread but seems like there are a lot of speaker experts in here too!
> 
> Now the surrounds... not sure if or when I could change them out. May need to just lower the XO a bit and see how they perform. If I blow the driver then I HAVE to upgrade! 😇


I was going to suggest looking into better heights and surround but didn't want to insult anybody. I would start a thread stating your needs, budget, WAF requirements, etc. You will get many replies from the usual suspects that are well informed in that area. About a year ago I switched out small satillite speakers that reached down to 90hz with slightly larger but much more capable small bookshelves that get down to 60hz(audessey measured). Sound was much better. There is lots of content in those speakers especially when using the upmixers which I do on all 5.1 content.


----------



## Anderegg

Can someone confirm that the Audyssey crossover are set correctly by the process? Has me at 200 L and R and 250 Center and Surrounds. The speakers are listed by the manufacturer as 60-30000Hz, with a crossover of 120Hz. If I set the crossover to 120Hz, or 80Hz, the response at the 100-200Hz area drops dramatically, like 10db. Below is Audyssey on running each speaker individually with crossover set to 40Hz. Looks like 200-250 is where the F'ers are actually crossing does it not? The L and R mains are the ones with slightly better low end BTW. (if I turn Auddyssey off the 100-200 goes up maybe 2db?)










This is what the final calibration sweeps look like reference vs flat XT32 with 200-250Hz crossover. Lowering the crossovers below that produces and even deeper drop in the 100-200hz range.


----------



## Soulburner

That is likely indicative of SBIR affecting your front speakers greatly. Can you share with us:

What kind of speakers these are
Distances to the front wall and side walls
A picture would help, including of the seating


----------



## Anderegg

Soulburner said:


> That is likely indicative of SBIR affecting your front speakers greatly. Can you share with us:
> 
> What kind of speakers these are
> Distances to the front wall and side walls
> A picture would help, including of the seating


It's a small bedroom system thrown around a small 48" Sony OLED. Its on a dresser, 45 degree angle to the room, SVS PB1000 Pro sealed behind it with the AVR on top, SSA42 40" wide passive 5.0 soundbar under the front of the TV shooting over the dresser top and a wall to its immediate left. The design and placement of the components was researched at length, and it was found to be the best compromise as moving my bed to the center of the living room presented some issues. Going from my old Sony 5.1 DCAC receiver with 12" polk dumb-sub to SVS PEQ and XT32 really really made a huge difference.  

That being said, the components and placements are not really negotiable, so I have been throwing things like the SVS PEQs, and adding an XT32 receiver to the mix to try and mitigate and massage the sound as best as possible for the given physical environment. I just wanted to make sure that I just need to set or leave the crossovers where they are given how the speakers read at the listening area, as I am not really 100% clear on how Audyssey works when you start changing crossovers after the calibration, if it recalculates or if I am just pushing levels out of bounds for the adjusted calibration for each speaker. The calibrated distances to the mains and levels are within an inch and a decibel after Audyssey if that matters.

Paul


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Anderegg

bluesky636 said:


> Did you read this statement in the owner's manual?
> 
> "DO NOT USE THE “AUTO SETUP” FEATURE IF IT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR RECEIVER. Because the SSA produces surround sound from a single front mounted speaker, the auto setup feature will not operate correctly and will actually make your system sound worse."
> 
> In other words, DON'T USE AUDYSSEY.
> 
> Also, I seriously doubt that soundbar is capable of going down to 60 Hz. No +/- X dB is given for the frequency range.
> 
> The owner's manual says specifically to manually set all the soundbar speakers to small and if using a sub to set the crossover to 120 Hz.
> 
> All speaker distances must be set to be the same.
> 
> Sorry to say it, but not following the instructions in the owner's manual will give you the results you got.


I understand that not following the instructions got me the results I got, which are superior to the results that I got when following the directions. I might also add that Definitive states 120Hz crossover on their website, and 140Hz in the manual, so there you go. I also mentioned that the mains on the bar are giving practically identical distance and levels, which is the concern that the manufacturer is worried about with autocalibration setting these out of whack. Whack has been maintained. I just want to make sure that when you look at the speaker responses, they visually X at 200-250Hz so this is where I would manually want the crossover regardless of the Audyssey or manufacturer suggested point?

Paul


----------



## sjm817

Hi Paul. That soundbar has what 3.5" drivers? I wouldnt expect it to go very low. Good job going to the effort of testing with REW which shows what is going on. If that soundbar isnt at the edge of the dresser, try that and see if it helps at all. I think for what that is, set the xover @ 250 and live with it. I would just set the distances all the same, manual setup no audyssey. If there is some tuning you can do with the sub to stretch the upper freq resp any farther that could help.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Anderegg

I am not trying to get a large surround sound soundstage out of all in front of me speakers, or any nonsense like that, I am simply using the bar for the drivers and asking a simple question regarding Audyssey, how it processes or reprocesses the curve when adjusting crossover selections...the only way I can show you the sound is the REW graphs, as pictures of the setup wouldn't provide anything useful.

_Audyssey did say one of my surrounds was reverse polarity though_. #eek

Paul


----------



## garygarrison

*@Anderegg*
Can you do a sub crawl, using a test disc, and put the sub wherever the bass is strongest _*specifically between 100Hz and 250Hz?*_
Then turn up the sub,* per these instructions*, *GUIDE TO SUBWOOFER CALIBRATION AND BASS PREFERENCES* *Section II-C: Where And How To Add Bass* until you get your preferred bass. This is from Mike Thomas' guide -- he really knows this stuff.
I don't believe Audyssey knows or cares if you change crossover points or trim levels after it calibrates your system. It just initially EQs each speaker in its position in your room individually down to its - 3dB point (called the F3), and calls it a day. But you might want to look that up, too, in Mike's Guide. I hope something closely related is in the Cliff Notes section of the guide.


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## bluesky636

Deleted


----------



## Spidacat

Audyssey finds and reports the F3 point for your speakers and gives them to your receiver. They might make some sound near 60 Hz, but you can see how hard they drop around 200 Hz. It's generally not a good idea to lower the crossover frequency below that setting. You'd just be boosting the crap out of small speakers that can't handle it. I'd just leave it at 200/250 Hz. I doubt many other people have bothered to measure the actual frequency of a sound bar system (especially a budget one) in room. Minus the trough between 100 and 200 Hz it actually looks pretty good for what it is. I'm surprised the SVS sub doesn't do better above 100 Hz to blend in with the satellites. Do you have it's crossover (on the unit itself) set to maximum?


----------



## MagnumX

@Anderegg ; You've got some room modes in the 100Hz-200Hz region that are interfering with a smooth transition and yes the Def Techs are crossing at somewhere between 200Hz and 225Hz internally by the looks of it. 

You can either move the sub, if possible or if not, the easiest solution is to raise your sub levels after Audyssey about 4dB which most prefer on the low-end anyway and that will smooth the transition in that region. You might further tweak the curve from there a bit, but I think that would be acceptable. 

I'd also limit Audyssey to 300Hz only in the app so it doesn't interfere with that spatial resolution thing it's using and response looks acceptable above 300Hz anyway and according to Dr. Floyd Toole, you'd just be correcting room reflections anyway. Good luck.


----------



## Soulburner

schwock5 said:


> I'd like to test this level to set my bass level with DEQ off


I missed this. If you plan on using DEQ, you need to do all of your testing and level setting with it turned on at the volume you intend to use most. That is how you'll get the most satisfying result.


----------



## schwock5

Soulburner said:


> I missed this. If you plan on using DEQ, you need to do all of your testing and level setting with it turned on at the volume you intend to use most. That is how you'll get the most satisfying result.


finally had a chance to get back to my system last night.
listened to a lot of different types of music at reference for short bursts. 
at that level i can set the bass, then lowered the volume and set DEQ from there to what felt the best at the lower levels.
seems to be pretty solid right now.
now i can use that across all sources and just raise the sub level depending on source if the source is lacking.


----------



## fredworld

Soulburner said:


> I missed this. If you plan on using DEQ, you need to do all of your testing and level setting with it turned on at the volume you intend to use most. That is how you'll get the most satisfying result.


I'm confused. The first page of this thread says, "_It doesn't matter if you left Dynamic EQ on or off, nor if Dynamic Volume was switched in; it makes no difference where the Master Volume control is set, nor if you have any tone controls operating. The trim levels don't matter, nor does it make one jot of difference if the AVR is in Dolby PLIIx mode, or Pure Audio or any other mode. Audyssey ignores the lot when it does the calibration. So just plug in the mic, follow the on-screen instructions and you are good to go."_


----------



## schwock5

fredworld said:


> I'm confused. The first page of this thread says, "_It doesn't matter if you left Dynamic EQ on or off, nor if Dynamic Volume was switched in; it makes no difference where the Master Volume control is set, nor if you have any tone controls operating. The trim levels don't matter, nor does it make one jot of difference if the AVR is in Dolby PLIIx mode, or Pure Audio or any other mode. Audyssey ignores the lot when it does the calibration. So just plug in the mic, follow the on-screen instructions and you are good to go."_


that's correct, when doing calibration all of those are not taken into account. 
my question was post-calibration to confirm levels and DEQ offsets


----------



## Soulburner

fredworld said:


> I'm confused. The first page of this thread says, "_It doesn't matter if you left Dynamic EQ on or off, nor if Dynamic Volume was switched in; it makes no difference where the Master Volume control is set, nor if you have any tone controls operating. The trim levels don't matter, nor does it make one jot of difference if the AVR is in Dolby PLIIx mode, or Pure Audio or any other mode. Audyssey ignores the lot when it does the calibration. So just plug in the mic, follow the on-screen instructions and you are good to go."_


As schwock noted, it's not about the measurements but about the tuning by ear afterward.

It seems like his method may work, but I don't like setting subwoofer levels with DEQ off as my system will never be used that way and it will lead to unpredictable results. Therefore I always set my sub levels using my list of tracks and movies with DEQ on at -20 to -30 MV.


----------



## Alan P

Soulburner said:


> As schwock noted, it's not about the measurements but about the tuning by ear afterward.
> 
> It seems like his method may work, but I don't like setting subwoofer levels with DEQ off as my system will never be used that way and it will lead to unpredictable results. Therefore I always set my sub levels using my list of tracks and movies with DEQ on at -20 to -30 MV.


If doing this by ear, that's perfectly fine, but when using REW keep in mind that DEQ will react to test tones (sweeps) differently than it will to actual content (at least according to Audyssey).


----------



## garygarrison

Alan P said:


> If doing this by ear, that's perfectly fine, but when using REW keep in mind that DEQ will react to test tones (sweeps) differently than it will to actual content (at least according to Audyssey).


Interesting. In what way? I honestly don't know.


----------



## pbz06

garygarrison said:


> Interesting. In what way? I honestly don't know.


There's been language used by Audyssey that alludes to this "two step process", and also Mike touches on it in the subwoofer guide. 

We all know about the fixed adjustments to the bass in all channels plus LFE, the treble adjustments, and the surrounds and rear channels boosts. All these are based on the position of the MV relative to how much we decrease from 0.

However, this mystery language discusses a second step to the above, where it makes adjustments on the fly based on signal coming in. No idea what that means, other than it doesn't "look ahead" the same way that Dynamic Volume does.


----------



## Soulburner

I wonder if anyone has tried to recreate the DEQ curve _exactly _at the same volume level and save two presets. I wonder if an A/B listen would reveal any differences. If so, there's some secret sauce employed.


----------



## mogorf

pbz06 said:


> There's been language used by Audyssey that alludes to this "two step process", and also Mike touches on it in the subwoofer guide.
> 
> We all know about the fixed adjustments to the bass in all channels plus LFE, the treble adjustments, and the surrounds and rear channels boosts. All these are based on the position of the MV relative to how much we decrease from 0.
> 
> However, this mystery language discusses a second step to the above, where it makes adjustments on the fly based on signal coming in. No idea what that means, other than it doesn't "look ahead" the same way that Dynamic Volume does.


There's no mystery here.  At any given Master Volume setting (except 0 dB where DEQ is deceased) there will be loud and soft passages that fall on a different loudness curve. This is taken into consideration by DEQ as a second step in the "two step process", i.e. soft passages will receive higher compensation than loud ones. Hence the name "Dynamic".  And yes, there is no "look ahead".

Here's a link to graphs showing the effect (by urwi): "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)


----------



## pbz06

mogorf said:


> There's no mystery here.  At any given Master Volume setting (except 0 dB where DEQ is deceased) there will be loud and soft passages that fall on a different loudness curve. This is taken into consideration by DEQ as a second step in the "two step process", i.e. soft passages will receive higher compensation than loud ones. Hence the name "Dynamic".  And yes, there is no "look ahead".
> 
> Here's a link to graphs showing the effect (by urwi): "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)


Awesome. After all these years, I missed that post. Makes sense, although it does looks subtle...I actually did take measurements by keeping MV the same and adjusting the sweep input levelnof REW, but the changes were so subtle I assumed it was simply variations.


----------



## Horta

Hello friends

I don't know if this is the right place to post this. Last night I ran Audyssey MultEQ-X on my laptop and got great results in the graphs. Before I ran Audyssey I time aligned my three subs using REW and a MiniDSP 2x4HD as 1 sub. Everything seemed to have gone well with that. But after I ran Audyssey and uploaded the file to the receiver I did not get a chance to listen. This morning I turned my system on and had almost zero bass. The Speaker level on my Marantz for sub was -3 when normally after a Audy Calibration it would be like -6 but still no real volume. I checked everything, even went back to the MiniDSP and bass is coming out of it but super super low. 

I'm clueless to what setting is wrong.


----------



## Alan P

Horta said:


> Hello friends
> 
> I don't know if this is the right place to post this. Last night I ran Audyssey MultEQ-X on my laptop and got great results in the graphs. Before I ran Audyssey I time aligned my three subs using REW and a MiniDSP 2x4HD as 1 sub. Everything seemed to have gone well with that. But after I ran Audyssey and uploaded the file to the receiver I did not get a chance to listen. This morning I turned my system on and had almost zero bass. The Speaker level on my Marantz for sub was -3 when normally after a Audy Calibration it would be like -6 but still no real volume. I checked everything, even went back to the MiniDSP and bass is coming out of it but super super low.
> 
> I'm clueless to what setting is wrong.


Did you set all speakers to Small with appropriate crossover? Did you add anything to the sub level post-Audyssey?


----------



## Horta

Alan P said:


> Did you set all speakers to Small with appropriate crossover? Did you add anything to the sub level post-Audyssey?


Yes I verified this morning all set to small. 80 hz for all. 

I get sound out of the subs, but super super low. As if something in the MiniDSP is reducing volume. I cranked the Marantz speaker sub lever to +6 and yup I hear bass. I crank up the input gain on the MiniDSP and I hear bass. But never have I seen this before and been in this hobby for over 25 years. Something is drastically reducing sub level volume. 

I did not input any REW EQ curves or anything. All I have done with REW and MiniDSP was level match and time align my three subs. Now I have not disconnected the USB cable from my laptop from the MiniDSP yet. but whether I had the MiniDSP showing connected on the software or not i still had the same low bass levels.


----------



## Soulburner

Was the sub performing normally just before this?


----------



## Horta

Soulburner said:


> Was the sub performing normally just before this?


Yes all three subs worked just fine. I played for a couple of days with REW. Before I installed the MiniDSP on Monday all subs and sub volumes were normal fun and pounding. 

Only thing I can think of is the MiniDSP is for some reason reducing signal output some how. Like its in some kind of protection mode.


----------



## Alan P

Horta said:


> Yes all three subs worked just fine. I played for a couple of days with REW. Before I installed the MiniDSP on Monday all subs and sub volumes were normal fun and pounding.
> 
> Only thing I can think of is the MiniDSP is for some reason reducing signal output some how. Like its in some kind of protection mode.


From the factory, the MiniDSP is configured for two outputs for subs, two outputs for speakers. Did you bypass the HPFs for the "speaker" outputs? I think it's 1/3 subs, 2/4 speakers, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Viche

My AVR-X4300H is still on original firmware. Is there much risk in updating to the latest? Will is improve performance or introduce issues?


----------



## cricket9998

Is there a way to turn off Audyssey JUST for my subwoofers? It’s destroying my nice eq killing the levels and I already have rew and minidsp.


----------



## galonzo

^^^^This is exactly what I do, and I do so using the MultEQ app by selecting MultEQ Filter Frequency Range, then editing the Subwoofer range all the way down (to 20Hz, as this is the lowest Audy creates filters down to).


----------



## Viche

galonzo said:


> ^^^^This is exactly what I do, and I do so using the MultEQ app by selecting MultEQ Filter Frequency Range, then editing the Subwoofer range all the way down (to 20Hz, as this is the lowest Audy creates filters down to).


Does using the app to adjust MultiEQ cause the dynamic EQ feature to grey out like changing any of the EQ settings does on the receiver itself?


----------



## mogorf

galonzo said:


> ^^^^This is exactly what I do, and I do so using the MultEQ app by selecting MultEQ Filter Frequency Range, then editing the Subwoofer range all the way down (to 20Hz, as this is the lowest Audy creates filters down to).


Actually Audyssey is better than that!! It starts from 10 Hz.

Here's a quote from Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) on the subject:

"*Audyssey test signal*
​This question has come up in some emails I received recently and I thought I would post it here as well.

Q: How can Audyssey measure anything with these silly blips? Shouldn't they use sweeps like everyone else?

A: The silly blip you hear is actually a fast sweep. It starts at 10 Hz and runs out to 24 kHz, but it weighs the frequency sweep logarithmically. In other words, the lower octaves get more energy than the upper ones. Sound familiar? In fact, if you take the time domain test signal (it's called a log chirp) and transform it to the frequency domain you will get the exact same spectrum as full range pink noise.

During measurement, the initial chirp is approx. 75 dB SPL for a nominal listening distance and speaker sensitivity. The chirp repeats several times per speaker and this has the benefit of increasing the signal to noise ratio in the measurement.

Also, Audyssey listens to the background noise in between chirps. If it's above the required minimum then it repeats the sequence of chirps at a higher level to make sure it gets meaningful measurements.
*__*
Chris"


----------



## galonzo

Viche said:


> Does using the app to adjust MultiEQ cause the dynamic EQ feature to grey out like changing any of the EQ settings does on the receiver itself?


After you make any post-measurement adjustments in the app, you then upload the updated configuration to the AVR, then DEQ is still available to set (in fact, the app asks whether you would like to enable it or not before uploading the new configuration).

@mogorf , I did recall seeing this in the past (that the chirps begin at 10Hz), however, I'm not sure filters begin at 10Hz or 20Hz (the app only allows limiting the SW down to 20Hz, and I doubt it would boost below that anyway).


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

mogorf said:


> Hi Gary,
> 
> This is what Chris Kyriakakis has to say on the issue of full-range correction or not:
> 
> Qte
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."
> 
> Unqte
> 
> 
> I think I can agree with what Chris said, moreover, we have Audyssey, we paid for it so why not use it to the full extent. "Fighting" for good stereo imaging I think is at least as important as "fighting" against room modes!


I can agree with this 1000%. I recently experienced it in my own setup.

I moved into a new place recently and the home is made from brick. The floor is wood and to the right is a marble fireplace with brick at the top.

It is a highly reverberant space that absolutely requires room Eq. It could do with quite a bit of room treatments too but its a living space and WAF is a major factor there.

After setting it up, i could hear that the fireplace was causing such strong reflections that it was pulling the center image to the right. The center image sounded like it was off-center by 1 to 2 feet. Also the stereo image wasnt very focused....much more diffused than it was in my previous place. In addition to this, my stereo soundfield practically collapsed, having no width beyond the speakers at all.

I did my best to adjust the setup to get the best center image and stereo soundfield I could from the speakers but never could get it dialed in from the setup alone. This has never been an issue in my other places with these Infinity Primus speakers.

However, after running Audyssey, everything snapped into place. The center image is nearly dead center now. Image focus is quite crisp and clear. And the width of the soundfield wraps around to 180 degrees, far beyond the boundaries of the front speakers once again.

Full ranged EQ is absolutely required in my case and without it, the sound in the room is almost unlistenable.


----------



## garygarrison

The trick is to have the fireplace dead center. If anyone is using two channel, or multichannel with a phantom center and a centered fireplace, put your Left Front and Right Front speakers in the left and right corners, or very near them, with the fireplace in the center and give it a try. 








I grew up with the fireplace pictured above, and its multiple reflections gave me great diffusion, _and a phantom center better than any true center channel I ever had!_


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

garygarrison said:


> The trick is to have the fireplace dead center. If anyone is using two channel, or multichannel with a phantom center and a centered fireplace, put your Left Front and Right Front speakers in the left and right corners, or very near them, with the fireplace in the center and give it a try.
> View attachment 3327053
> 
> I grew up with the fireplace pictured above, and its multiple reflections gave me great diffusion, _and a phantom center better than any true center channel I ever had!_


Not possible as it is a 5.2.2 theater setup which doubles for music listening. I wouldnt want to mount my display above the fireplace and have the internet yell at me.

After Audyssey though, its not necessary as Audyssey made everything sound balanced once again.


----------



## halcyon_888

cricket9998 said:


> Is there a way to turn off Audyssey JUST for my subwoofers? It’s destroying my nice eq killing the levels and I already have rew and minidsp.


Do you have a AVR/prepro that is supported by the Audyssey app? If you do then you can use the advice given already, but if you don't then no there's no way to run Audyssey without running the sub cal. My Marantz AV8802A isn't supported by the app, so what I did was 1) turn off all filters in the miniDSP, 2) run Audyssey, 3) run REW and EQ your subwoofer with Audyssey enabled. It's a pain, but Audyssey provided more benefits to the main channels than it was to just re-EQ the subwoofer.

Now if you have TR devices too, things get a little more tricky..


----------



## volumnus1

I have an old Denon AVR-4311 receiver. I have a Klipsch 504C center channel, four Klipsch towers, each with dual 8" woofers, as my fronts and wides, and four Klipsch surround speakers as my side and back surrounds. I also have four 12" Klipsch subwoofers. I typically listen to music using multichannel stereo surround. My receiver seems to output about the same power to each of the nine speakers. In this mode, I feel like my four towers are underutilized, and I worry I will blow my surrounds. I tried PLIIX M (Music Mode). It definitely diverts most of the power to the front, but the volume is too low and the sound is a little mono due to so much of the output coming from the center channel. The perfect solution to me would be diverting all the power to my four towers (two fronts and two wides). Is this even possible? In pure direct mode, the receiver only pushes the two fronts. I would love to have a pure direct mode that would push the fronts and the wides. It would be like back in my college days. I had this massive Onkyo integrated amp and four huge JBL's. You could hear the Grateful Dead all over campus.


----------



## drh3b

volumnus1 said:


> I have an old Denon AVR-4311 receiver. I have a Klipsch 504C center channel, four Klipsch towers, each with dual 8" woofers, as my fronts and wides, and four Klipsch surround speakers as my side and back surrounds. I also have four 12" Klipsch subwoofers. I typically listen to music using multichannel stereo surround. My receiver seems to output about the same power to each of the nine speakers. In this mode, I feel like my four towers are underutilized, and I worry I will blow my surrounds. I tried PLIIX M (Music Mode). It definitely diverts most of the power to the front, but the volume is too low and the sound is a little mono due to so much of the output coming from the center channel. The perfect solution to me would be diverting all the power to my four towers (two fronts and two wides). Is this even possible? In pure direct mode, the receiver only pushes the two fronts. I would love to have a pure direct mode that would push the fronts and the wides. It would be like back in my college days. I had this massive Onkyo integrated amp and four huge JBL's. You could hear the Grateful Dead all over campus.


This is a little awkward, but I'd go into speaker assignments, and turn off the surround speakers when listening to music.
Or, turn the crossover on the surrounds up a little to a 100 Hz or so, which will put less stress on the speakers, and more on the subwoofers. I don't know which particular surrounds you have, but I had some RP150m(bookshelf with 5 inch woofers) that would play to ear melting levels with the crossover up high, like 250Hz..


----------



## cricket9998

volumnus1 said:


> I have an old Denon AVR-4311 receiver. I have a Klipsch 504C center channel, four Klipsch towers, each with dual 8" woofers, as my fronts and wides, and four Klipsch surround speakers as my side and back surrounds. I also have four 12" Klipsch subwoofers. I typically listen to music using multichannel stereo surround. My receiver seems to output about the same power to each of the nine speakers. In this mode, I feel like my four towers are underutilized, and I worry I will blow my surrounds. I tried PLIIX M (Music Mode). It definitely diverts most of the power to the front, but the volume is too low and the sound is a little mono due to so much of the output coming from the center channel. The perfect solution to me would be diverting all the power to my four towers (two fronts and two wides). Is this even possible? In pure direct mode, the receiver only pushes the two fronts. I would love to have a pure direct mode that would push the fronts and the wides. It would be like back in my college days. I had this massive Onkyo integrated amp and four huge JBL's. You could hear the Grateful Dead all over campus.


Why don’t you use Dolby surround upmixer? It’s way more balanced and sounds better


----------



## pbz06

cricket9998 said:


> Why don’t you use Dolby surround upmixer? It’s way more balanced and sounds better


And don't forget to go into the "Surround Parameters" to enable Center Spread


----------



## Pixelatto

volumnus1 said:


> I have an old Denon AVR-4311 receiver. I have a Klipsch 504C center channel, four Klipsch towers, each with dual 8" woofers, as my fronts and wides, and four Klipsch surround speakers as my side and back surrounds. I also have four 12" Klipsch subwoofers. I typically listen to music using multichannel stereo surround. My receiver seems to output about the same power to each of the nine speakers. In this mode, I feel like my four towers are underutilized, and I worry I will blow my surrounds. I tried PLIIX M (Music Mode). It definitely diverts most of the power to the front, but the volume is too low and the sound is a little mono due to so much of the output coming from the center channel. The perfect solution to me would be diverting all the power to my four towers (two fronts and two wides). Is this even possible? In pure direct mode, the receiver only pushes the two fronts. I would love to have a pure direct mode that would push the fronts and the wides. It would be like back in my college days. I had this massive Onkyo integrated amp and four huge JBL's. You could hear the Grateful Dead all over campus.


I doubt you will blow the speakers provided they are rated at least close to your max amp output. However, that could happen if the receiver starts clipping (either pre-amp or amp section, or both), when you push it to max volume (or close) irrespective of the efficiency of the speakers. 

Not sure what are your channel levels in the pre-amp setup, probably best to not to drive any of the channels more than +3. If your towers are at -5 and surrounds +8, pre-amp might clip on surrounds at high volume. 

In order to drive your towers harder, you might want to use LFE+Main setting with towers as "large" and set a crossover to 40 or 60hz and set surrounds to "small" and as suggested cross them over at 100hz or higher (if your subs extend beyond 120hz). If you feel that you are doubling bass where towers are crossing over with subs, you can correct with lowering the tower curves in the overlap area (or not, entirely up to you). This way towers will definitively pull more juice from the amp, naturally leaving less to the surrounds.


----------



## sjm817

DSU ois available in newer model Denons and rep;ace the PLII M


volumnus1 said:


> I have an old Denon AVR-4311 receiver. I have a Klipsch 504C center channel, four Klipsch towers, each with dual 8" woofers, as my fronts and wides, and four Klipsch surround speakers as my side and back surrounds. I also have four 12" Klipsch subwoofers. I typically listen to music using multichannel stereo surround. My receiver seems to output about the same power to each of the nine speakers. In this mode, I feel like my four towers are underutilized, and I worry I will blow my surrounds. I tried PLIIX M (Music Mode). It definitely diverts most of the power to the front, but the volume is too low and the sound is a little mono due to so much of the output coming from the center channel. The perfect solution to me would be diverting all the power to my four towers (two fronts and two wides). Is this even possible? In pure direct mode, the receiver only pushes the two fronts. I would love to have a pure direct mode that would push the fronts and the wides. It would be like back in my college days. I had this massive Onkyo integrated amp and four huge JBL's. You could hear the Grateful Dead all over campus.


DSU was mentioned but is only available on newer model Denons. Yes multich stereo just blasts everything out to all channels the same volume. 

You could use channel level adjust to lower volume to the other channels. It is input specific so having a spefic input would be needed.

I had a Denon X2100 that had PLII M but not PLIIX. The PLII M had the ability to balance the amount to send to center and rear channels, Do you have adjustments? Also with the PLIIX is would think he channel level adjust could help.


----------



## Waylo

I recently added 4 ceiling speakers to my theater (now 5.1.4) and hope some of the experts here will have some ideas on an issue I am having. The speakers/setup are in my sig. The AVR is a x3600h.

I had read long ago that Audyssey was not properly adjusting the ceiling speakers, particularly for this model AVR. And then later, after some firmware updates, I read that that problem is now fixed? "Official" Audyssey thread Part II
@jk82 are you still on that firmware or have you updated to anything newer. I accidentally upgraded off the one in that post and I'm now on 2400-3064-2191-7040.

My main current issue is that after running the Audyssey MultEQ app, the 2 pair of ceiling speakers are at vastly different volumes. Shouldn't they be at equal volumes? The front right and left height speakers are much quieter. Listening to ATMOS demos, objects that are supposed to be above and in front are harder to hear/localize. The 7.1.4 speaker test using the Dolby App on my HTPC Windows 10 really highlight this issue.

The top front crossovers were set to 100hz, the rears to 60hz. The rears ceilings are fairly close to the back wall and I suspect that increases some of the bass end. The sofa is a bit closer to the rear of the room so MLP is closer to the rears than the front, as shown on the screenshot below.

Here are the speaker detection distances and levels:









I increased the front ceiling levels to 0 and uploaded it to the AVR and got minimal effect. I guess that's to be expected with only an adjustment of +1 db.

Any other ideas or corrections I should be considering?


----------



## pbz06

Waylo said:


> I recently added 4 ceiling speakers to my theater (now 5.1.4) and hope some of the experts here will have some ideas on an issue I am having. The speakers/setup are in my sig. The AVR is a x3600h.
> 
> I had read long ago that Audyssey was not properly adjusting the ceiling speakers, particularly for this model AVR. And then later, after some firmware updates, I read that that problem is now fixed?
> 
> My main current issue is that after running the Audyssey MultEQ app, the 2 pair of ceiling speakers are at vastly different volumes. Shouldn't they be at equal volumes? The front right and left height speakers are much quieter. Listening to ATMOS demos, objects that are supposed to be above and in front are harder to hear/localize. The 7.1.4 speaker test using the Dolby App on my HTPC Windows 10 really highlight this issue.
> 
> The top front crossovers were set to 100hz, the rears to 60hz. The rears ceilings are fairly close to the back wall and I suspect that increases some of the bass end. The sofa is a bit closer to the rear of the room so MLP is closer to the rears than the front, as shown on the screenshot below.
> 
> Here are the speaker detection distances and levels:
> View attachment 3331002
> 
> 
> I increased the front ceiling levels to 0 and uploaded it to the AVR and got minimal effect. I guess that's to be expected with only an adjustment of +1 db.
> 
> Any other ideas or corrections I should be considering?


Hi,
I'm not sure what "issue" was there regarding the ceiling speakers, so can't really speak to that. With the Dolby app, are you able to download/use pink noise test tones? Do you have DynamicEQ enabled?

I've recently downloaded some files that are useable with REW, and can send Atmos signals. In my testing, my Atmos celing speakers were short by about 2dB.


----------



## Kevinmastah

dynamic eq boost the surrounds and rears.
Thats why your fronts sound less.

or do you not use DynEq?


----------



## Waylo

pbz06 said:


> Hi,
> I'm not sure what "issue" was there regarding the ceiling speakers, so can't really speak to that. With the Dolby app, are you able to download/use pink noise test tones? Do you have DynamicEQ enabled?
> 
> I've recently downloaded some files that are useable with REW, and can send Atmos signals. In my testing, my Atmos celing speakers were short by about 2dB.


The issue described by a couple of users (@jk82 and @Jimmy2Shoes) was that the no Audyssey adjustments were applied to the height speakers, when using the MultEQ app, for the x3600h. It was a very odd situation. Using just the AVR Audyssey without the app worked fine. Ignoring ceiling speakers and doing a 5.1 or 7.1 measurement worked fine. But adding the ceiling speakers to the MultEQ measurements resulted in none of the ceiling data being transmitted to the AVR.

The PC app is just an ATMOS demo that includes a video that plays tones to each speaker. I do have Dynamic EQ enabled, EDIT: and Dynvol is set to medium.



Kevinmastah said:


> dynamic eq boost the surrounds and rears.
> Thats why your fronts sound less.
> 
> or do you not use DynEq?
> 
> View attachment 3331042
> 
> View attachment 3331043


YES. That might be it. So the second screen shot there is your personal channel level adjustments?

Looks like I have some simple testing to do with DEQ off!


----------



## Kevinmastah

@Waylo the second picture is indd my personal lvl adjustment to compensate the DynEq lvls.
Again dyneq boost the surrounds and rears/atmos.
But DynEq also makes the overall sound much fuller. Without Dyneq it sounds hollow.
But its all about personal preference.

So if you look at the 2nd pic is to lvl the front stage with the surrounds and atmos.
I boost the center for beter dialogue and I personally like to run my speakers hot.

It all sound balanced for my ears.

check this out!!





subscribe to TD website and receive a mail with his atmos demo.

Also change your crossovers to manual
And start with a 80hz crossover.


----------



## MagnumX

Some apparently missed where @volumnus1 said he had an older PLIIx receiver (no DSU).

I don't know if older Denons had the same controls, but on my Marantz AVRs, there's an options menu for each smart setting to adjust channel levels. He could set it to multichannel stereo and lower any surround speaker levels he desires and save the smart setting (if available then) and it would use those levels when recalled.

Yamaha receivers let you adjust speaker levels for multichannel stereo under parameters so I imagine most receivers have some kind of adjustment that could be set and saved.


----------



## Kevinmastah

DynEQ is on or off
DynVol is off, light, medium, heavy.

I have DynEq on.
DynVol Off


----------



## Waylo

Kevinmastah said:


> DynEQ is on or off
> DynVol is off, light, medium, heavy.
> 
> I have DynEq on.
> DynVol Off


Ahh, thanks for that correction. I had the two reversed in my head. My system currently has DynEQ is on, DynVol is medium. That would have resulted in some useless testing if I had been altering DynVol but keeping DynEQ on the whole time.


----------



## Kevinmastah

@Waylo 

Dynamic volume is handy when watching content at night and you not want to make your neighbors mad.


----------



## Soulburner

Kevinmastah said:


> dynamic eq boost the surrounds and rears.
> Thats why your fronts sound less.


Right. When using DEQ the rears should be brought down a little. Or, raise the fronts.


----------



## Kevinmastah

@Soulburner 

I posted my own cal picture.









left & right speakers have different readings.
Totally normal.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> Right. When using DEQ the rears should be brought down a little. Or, raise the fronts.


Turning Dynamic Volume to "Light" mode pretty much fixes that issue. The front soundstage is much louder and seems more balanced with the surround channels.


----------



## Waylo

Thanks everyone for your input! I wish I knew the simple fact earlier of how DynEQ boosts the surrounds but not the LCR, as I'd been struggling with why my install sounded so anemic in shows/movies and in particular dialogue, when I installed it on the 5.1 system a year ago. I faithfully (faultfully) believed Audyssey was going to give me the best sound possible with no adjustments necessary afterwards (aside from tinkering with dynVol level).

I used a calibrated decibel meter to test out the system. At the primary listening point, with DynVol on medium, I used the ATMOS speaker test file from the Dolby Access app on my HTPC and measured the loudness during the pink noise sections. At a set volume, the rears were ~12dB louder than the front ceilings. When I turned off DynEQ, each ceiling speaker was about the same, ~54 dB SPL. I boosted the front ceilings by 6 in the channel level screen and now I'm much more satisfied with the performance!

I guess my next question is, do people here have a preference in matching loudness from the LCRs to their surrounds?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Waylo said:


> Thanks everyone for your input! I wish I knew the simple fact earlier of how DynEQ boosts the surrounds but not the LCR, as I'd been struggling with why my install sounded so anemic in shows/movies and in particular dialogue, when I installed it on the 5.1 system a year ago. I faithfully (faultfully) believed Audyssey was going to give me the best sound possible with no adjustments necessary afterwards (aside from tinkering with dynVol level).
> 
> I used a calibrated decibel meter to test out the system. At the primary listening point, with DynVol on medium, I used the ATMOS speaker test file from the Dolby Access app on my HTPC and measured the loudness during the pink noise sections. At a set volume, the rears were ~12dB louder than the front ceilings. When I turned off DynEQ, each ceiling speaker was about the same, ~54 dB SPL. I boosted the front ceilings by 6 in the channel level screen and now I'm much more satisfied with the performance!


12db is a HUGE difference. What offset were you using? An offset of 0 creates a massive imbalance between speakers. An offset of 10 or 15 is much less pronounced. I use DEQ with an offset of 15, so the bass boost is on the smaller side with very little boost to the surrounds.

Here is a video by Home Theater Gamer on exactly what Dynamic EQ is doing using REW measurements, and showing the difference between all four offsets with every channel. This is by far the absolute best video analysis of Dynamic EQ ever done. It is a must watch if you are thinking about using EQ so you can understand whats happening and plan accordingly.


----------



## Soulburner

Waylo said:


> Thanks everyone for your input! I wish I knew the simple fact earlier of how DynEQ boosts the surrounds but not the LCR, as I'd been struggling with why my install sounded so anemic in shows/movies and in particular dialogue, when I installed it on the 5.1 system a year ago.


To be clear, I can't say what would cause your system to sound "anemic". DEQ set to ON should certainly cure that. If not, the only other reason I can think of would be the speakers are just not that capable.

For matching channel levels post-Audyssey, I use my calibrated UMIK-1 and the Room EQ Wizard SPL meter along with the atmos test file, at -20 MV, which is my most common volume level. I generally leave the front LCR alone. What I shoot for is for the overhead speakers to be about 1 dB louder than the base level speakers. I set the surrounds to equal the front speakers.

I don't use the reference level offset for movies. I might use it for music at just -5.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Soulburner said:


> To be clear, I can't say what would cause your system to sound "anemic". DEQ set to ON should certainly cure that. If not, the only other reason I can think of would be the speakers are just not that capable.
> 
> For matching channel levels post-Audyssey, I use my calibrated UMIK-1 and the Room EQ Wizard SPL meter along with the atmos test file, at -20 MV, which is my most common volume level. I generally leave the front LCR alone. What I shoot for is for the overhead speakers to be about 1 dB louder than the base level speakers. I set the surrounds to equal the front speakers.
> 
> I don't use the reference level offset for movies. I might use it for music at just -5.


An offset of 5 is the second highest setting. An offset of 15 is the lowest amount of boost. That number corresponds to how far from reference the Dynamic EQ is attempting to target. With an offset of 0 attempting to emulate the impact at reference volume.

As for the anemic sound, much of that has to do with the wide dynamic range of denon. When listening at moderate volumes (-20 or quieter) lower volume sounds can fall very close to the ambient noise floor of your room and end up lost. Average sounds still seem kind of low and if you have a bit of a noisy room (HVAC etc) then subtle details will get lost and your system will sound anemic.

The best solition is to simply turn up the volume by as much as you need to power through the ambient noise in your room. This isnt possible for everyone though.

Dynamic EQ helps some, but what helps the most is Dynamic Volume on "Light". This brings up the quiet sounds where you can hear them and not loose the details yet it doesnt negatively effect the top of the dynamic range so loud sounds are still appropriately loud.

Using Dynamic Volume at Light is like injecting a shot of adrenaline into your system.


----------



## volumnus1

cricket9998 said:


> Why don’t you use Dolby surround upmixer? It’s way more balanced and sounds better


I don't think my old 2011 receiver has that option.


----------



## volumnus1

Pixelatto said:


> I doubt you will blow the speakers provided they are rated at least close to your max amp output. However, that could happen if the receiver starts clipping (either pre-amp or amp section, or both), when you push it to max volume (or close) irrespective of the efficiency of the speakers.
> 
> Not sure what are your channel levels in the pre-amp setup, probably best to not to drive any of the channels more than +3. If your towers are at -5 and surrounds +8, pre-amp might clip on surrounds at high volume.
> 
> In order to drive your towers harder, you might want to use LFE+Main setting with towers as "large" and set a crossover to 40 or 60hz and set surrounds to "small" and as suggested cross them over at 100hz or higher (if your subs extend beyond 120hz). If you feel that you are doubling bass where towers are crossing over with subs, you can correct with lowering the tower curves in the overlap area (or not, entirely up to you). This way towers will definitively pull more juice from the amp, naturally leaving less to the surrounds.


I just don't want to mess with all that every time I play music. I primarily use my system for movies and TV. I have these speakers (link below) for my side and back surrounds. The crossover is set to 80 for everything except my four surround speakers. I set the crossover for my surrounds to 120. Audyssey recommended 110 for the sides and 120 for the backs, even though they are identical speakers (I might have that reversed), so I just set both pairs to 120. KS-14 Surround Speaker (pair) | Klipsch It says they can handle 50w RMS and 200w Peak. My Denon 4311 is supposed to do 140 watts per channel.


----------



## Waylo

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 12db is a HUGE difference. What offset were you using? An offset of 0 creates a massive imbalance between speakers. An offset of 10 or 15 is much less pronounced. I use DEQ with an offset of 15, so the bass boost is on the smaller side with very little boost to the surrounds.
> 
> Here is a video by Home Theater Gamer on exactly what Dynamic EQ is doing using REW measurements, and showing the difference between all four offsets with every channel. This is by far the absolute best video analysis of Dynamic EQ ever done. It is a must watch if you are thinking about using EQ so you can understand whats happening and plan accordingly.


Indeed I was using 0 offset, and "massive imbalance" is quite right! Thanks for the video, showed exactly what everyone here was saying.


----------



## Soulburner

NuSoardGraphite said:


> An offset of 5 is the second highest setting. An offset of 15 is the lowest amount of boost. That number corresponds to how far from reference the Dynamic EQ is attempting to target. With an offset of 0 attempting to emulate the impact at reference volume.


Yup, I do not use much of an offset, if at all. I've been using -5 for music and it sounds perfect here.



NuSoardGraphite said:


> As for the anemic sound, much of that has to do with the wide dynamic range of denon. When listening at moderate volumes (-20 or quieter) lower volume sounds can fall very close to the ambient noise floor of your room and end up lost. Average sounds still seem kind of low and if you have a bit of a noisy room (HVAC etc) then subtle details will get lost and your system will sound anemic.


That's not what we mean when we use the term "anemic" in audio. We mean it lacks bass and sounds too thin. DEQ cures that, not DVol.


----------



## Waylo

Soulburner said:


> To be clear, I can't say what would cause your system to sound "anemic". DEQ set to ON should certainly cure that. If not, the only other reason I can think of would be the speakers are just not that capable.
> 
> For matching channel levels post-Audyssey, I use my calibrated UMIK-1 and the Room EQ Wizard SPL meter along with the atmos test file, at -20 MV, which is my most common volume level. I generally leave the front LCR alone. What I shoot for is for the overhead speakers to be about 1 dB louder than the base level speakers. I set the surrounds to equal the front speakers.
> 
> I don't use the reference level offset for movies. I might use it for music at just -5.





NuSoardGraphite said:


> An offset of 5 is the second highest setting. An offset of 15 is the lowest amount of boost. That number corresponds to how far from reference the Dynamic EQ is attempting to target. With an offset of 0 attempting to emulate the impact at reference volume.
> 
> As for the anemic sound, much of that has to do with the wide dynamic range of denon. When listening at moderate volumes (-20 or quieter) lower volume sounds can fall very close to the ambient noise floor of your room and end up lost. Average sounds still seem kind of low and if you have a bit of a noisy room (HVAC etc) then subtle details will get lost and your system will sound anemic.
> 
> The best solition is to simply turn up the volume by as much as you need to power through the ambient noise in your room. This isnt possible for everyone though.
> 
> Dynamic EQ helps some, but what helps the most is Dynamic Volume on "Light". This brings up the quiet sounds where you can hear them and not loose the details yet it doesnt negatively effect the top of the dynamic range so loud sounds are still appropriately loud.
> 
> Using Dynamic Volume at Light is like injecting a shot of adrenaline into your system.


I would guess the "anemic" sound was because we are sitting right next to the surrounds. And we set our preferred volume based on their loudness. As suggested above, we do leave it at 'moderate' volumes (wife has what are probably "golden ears" and loudness really bothers her!). So with the LCR so much quieter, we were really straining to hear dialogue and anything else coming from the front speakers over what comes from the surrounds. At that time, it was really perplexing why the background movie noises were so audible, but the important dialogue parts were not.

I had not experimented much with dynVol levels. I had left it pretty much on MED as that's the default. More to do.

EDIT: Just read the 'anemic' definition above in the prior post. I am probably using it wrong. If I had to drill down on what was lacking, dialogue was unbalanced, sounded thin, and was drowned out amidst the other sounds in the audio track.


----------



## fredworld

Waylo said:


> I would guess the "anemic" sound was because we are sitting right next to the surrounds. And we set our preferred volume based on their loudness. As suggested above, we do leave it at 'moderate' volumes (wife has what are probably "golden ears" and loudness really bothers her!). So with the LCR so much quieter, we were really straining to hear dialogue and anything else coming from the front speakers over what comes from the surrounds. At that time, it was really perplexing why the background movie noises were so audible, but the important dialogue parts were not.
> 
> I had not experimented much with dynVol levels. I had left it pretty much on MED as that's the default. More to do.


I'm quite new to using Audyssey even though I've had my Marantz since early '20, however, I've found @mthomas47 *post #2611* very informative and helpful in choosing my settings and evaluating what I'm hearing. Perhaps you can find some assistance there, especially the paragraphs regarding Dynamic EQ and Reference Level Offset.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Waylo said:


> I would guess the "anemic" sound was because we are sitting right next to the surrounds. And we set our preferred volume based on their loudness. As suggested above, we do leave it at 'moderate' volumes (wife has what are probably "golden ears" and loudness really bothers her!). So with the LCR so much quieter, we were really straining to hear dialogue and anything else coming from the front speakers over what comes from the surrounds. At that time, it was really perplexing why the background movie noises were so audible, but the important dialogue parts were not.
> 
> I had not experimented much with dynVol levels. I had left it pretty much on MED as that's the default. More to do.
> 
> EDIT: Just read the 'anemic' definition above in the prior post. I am probably using it wrong. I probably mean dialogue was unbalanced and drowned out amidst the other sounds in the audio track.


Which is what I thought you were dealing with.

Try Dynamic EQ with an offset of 15 and Dynamic Volume on "Light".

I am in a similar situation with a wife that doesnt like loud tv or movies, yet still complains about low dialogue. The settings above have effectively solved the issues there.

If the offset of 15 doesnt give you enough bass, you can add a slight bass boost to your subwoofer (between +3db and +5db) using the curve editor in the Audyssey app. DEQ will then build on that to give you enough bass. Then the offset of 15 only adds +1 or +2db to the surrounds and they will no longer sound so unbalanced.

Then Dynamic Volume on light will bring up the volume of quiet sounds bringing dialogue up well above the noise floor of your room and you will once again understand the dialogue and pick up on the subtle nuances of the soundtrack.


----------



## Robert Saccone

I tried dynamic volume light and it does make the front sound stage louder. I am wondering what else it is doing to the audio that might be considered a compromise? For example will bass be diminished in anyway?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Robert Saccone said:


> I tried dynamic volume light and it does make the front sound stage louder. I am wondering what else it is doing to the audio that might be considered a compromise? For example will bass be diminished in anyway?


I havent noticed it diminishing the bass or anything like that. It does slightly reduce your dynamic range, but mostly by bringing up the quiet sounds and allowing you to turn the volume lower and still hear dialogue. The dynamic peaks should still be intact.

On my next day off I plan to play around with dynamic volume and REW to measure and see what its doing. When I do, I'll post my findings here.


----------



## Robert Saccone

NuSoardGraphite said:


> On my next day off I plan to play around with dynamic volume and REW to measure and see what its doing. When I do, I'll post my findings here.


Thx! Looking forward to your findings.


----------



## Soulburner

Audyssey describes it as reading the content and making adjustments on the fly. One of the main use cases is to prevent a sudden, loud commercial from being as loud.


----------



## pbz06

Robert Saccone said:


> I tried dynamic volume light and it does make the front sound stage louder. I am wondering what else it is doing to the audio that might be considered a compromise? For example will bass be diminished in anyway?


I've been testing it a ton lately, and the Light setting does more of raising volume on softer passages. Use it to set your comfort level around dialogue and peaks, and be assured the softer passages will be raised so they don't fall below your noise floor. Per Audyssey, the max cut or trim is only 5dB.

It seems that around MV of -15 that it starts working more obviously. I don't notice much difference at that volume when alternating between Light and Off. When I'm at -20, it clearly starts sounding louder when toggling Light on.

In REW, I get the same dB when I compare sweeps with MV -20 with no DV and MV -25 with DV Light.

Short-story: if you don't listen too loud or don't have a dedicated room that's quiet, DV Light is very useful.


----------



## pbarach

NuSoardGraphite said:


> The dynamic peaks should still be intact.


That's not my experience. I use Dynamic Volume with movies in which the right level for audible dialogue is too loud when the explosions come along. DynVol reduces the dynamic range resulting in audible dialogue and less extreme explosions.


----------



## cricket9998

NuSoardGraphite said:


> 12db is a HUGE difference. What offset were you using? An offset of 0 creates a massive imbalance between speakers. An offset of 10 or 15 is much less pronounced. I use DEQ with an offset of 15, so the bass boost is on the smaller side with very little boost to the surrounds.
> 
> Here is a video by Home Theater Gamer on exactly what Dynamic EQ is doing using REW measurements, and showing the difference between all four offsets with every channel. This is by far the absolute best video analysis of Dynamic EQ ever done. It is a must watch if you are thinking about using EQ so you can understand whats happening and plan accordingly.


Just want to call out again home theater gamer not being a good source. While his measurements show the relative changes, he said he raised his sub levels which is why dynamic eq bumped his low end so much… it only works correctly if you don’t change your audyssey settings. I personally recommend not watching his videos as I found a ton of incorrect info in things he says.

also look at this bass curve lmao. It’s so bad

anyway, dynamic eq is good at 5db offset if you watch movies and 10 for tv sources, assuming you watch at -20db. If you bump your sub levels, raise the offset.


----------



## pbz06

pbarach said:


> That's not my experience. I use Dynamic Volume with movies in which the right level for audible dialogue is too loud when the explosions come along. DynVol reduces the dynamic range resulting in audible dialogue and less extreme explosions.


Straight from Audyssey:


> I have learned from our engineers that max boost is the same +21dB for all modes.
> The max cut is -24dB, -13dB, and *-5dB* for heavy, medium and *light*.


Light does very little cutting of peaks, as noted by Audyssey and my previous post which confirms. It ultimately depends on where your MV is around. It might just be semantics, as in what's the real difference between raised soft passages (and lower MV) or trimmed peaks (and higher MV). Each user just needs to find their balance. Once I'm at -15 MV, I feel like I can disable DV and DEQ and get a nice experience. Sometimes, I'm just not in the mood to crank it but enabling those features helps restore that balance.

For anyone curious, you can run sweeps at various MV levels with DV Light and Off. You can also mess with the input sweep combo and get a feel for how it works (i.e. -10dBFS input with MV at -10, vs -20dBFS with MV at 0 etc.). In most cases, it raises those sounds. Most of the movies I've also tested, they clearly sound generally "louder" around the dialogue when toggling On...it was interesting to see the differences and I was surprised to see volumes getting higher. Of course, a movie mix is more complex than a single sweep.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

cricket9998 said:


> Just want to call out again home theater gamer not being a good source. While his measurements show the relative changes, he said he raised his sub levels which is why dynamic eq bumped his low end so much… it only works correctly if you don’t change your audyssey settings. I personally recommend not watching his videos as I found a ton of incorrect info in things he says.
> 
> also look at this bass curve lmao. It’s so bad
> 
> anyway, dynamic eq is good at 5db offset if you watch movies and 10 for tv sources, assuming you watch at -20db. If you bump your sub levels, raise the offset.


Any boost to his subs would be indicated on his reference measurement. Then the gains shown in REW would be everything being added by Dynamic EQ. I have no idea what your issue is with that particular video. It was quite comprehensive and very well done.

HTG is not the only person to have done these kinds of tests. Others findings have corroborated what was shown in his video.


----------



## Waylo

Just want to relay my thanks for the great discussion and suggestions here re: my DynEQ and DynVol questions.

I reset the speaker levels to those initially detected by my Audyssey app run.

I set the reference offset to 15. I set my DynVol to light.

As predicted, there was only a small difference between the front and rear height speakers now! Maybe 2dB compared to the 12dB when the ref offset was at 0 with dynvol medium. I tried DynVol medium, and I think it _might_ have increased the difference to 3dB.

I slightly boosted the front height speakers just to match the levels and I'm going to run with these settings for a while.


----------



## Soulburner

pbz06 said:


> For anyone curious, you can run sweeps at various MV levels with DV Light and Off. You can also mess with the input sweep combo and get a feel for how it works (i.e. -10dBFS input with MV at -10, vs -20dBFS with MV at 0 etc.). In most cases, it raises those sounds. Most of the movies I've also tested, they clearly sound generally "louder" around the dialogue when toggling On...it was interesting to see the differences and I was surprised to see volumes getting higher. Of course, a movie mix is more complex than a single sweep.


The other component of DVol is to attenuate sudden loud commercials. You'd have to do an RTA to fully capture its effect. Just going off of Jeff Clark's comments as I haven't tried it.


----------



## pbarach

pbz06 said:


> Straight from Audyssey:
> 
> 
> Light does very little cutting of peaks, as noted by Audyssey and my previous post which confirms.


 If I need DynVolume, I set it to HEAVY. The reduction in peaks is very noticeable when I switch it on.


----------



## Kevinmastah

I tried DynamicVolume light & medium and I have to say,
It boost the overall volume of all speakers.
It makes the sound more even.
The dialogue is a bit clearer.
But I miss the dynamic sound and it all sounds the same now.
Its just not right.

*If the movie get tensed also the sound have to get tensed. It supposed to suck you in a action scene with louder explosions and stuff.*

With DynVol it just all sounds lvl flat and the same.

Example: If you listening to music, most of the music tracks works the way up to an eruption, or let it all out (if you know what I mean.
With DynVol the volume lvl stays the same. Thats just not right.

The _cinemas_ *not* using this feature for sure.

*The description with Dynamic Volume is for NIGHT listening.*
If you don’t want to piss of your neighbors at NIGHT listening its a nice feature.
But its wrong to standard enable DynVol.
I get it personal preference.

my suggestion not using Dynvol but play with the Channel LvL adjust. Boost the center speaker for clearer dialogue.

Just my 50 cents


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

Kevinmastah said:


> I tried DynamicVolume light & medium and I have to say,
> It boost the overall volume of all speakers.
> It makes the sound more even.
> The dialogue is a bit clearer.
> But I miss the dynamic sound and it all sounds the same now.
> Its just not right.
> 
> *If the movie get tensed also the sound have to get tensed. It supposed to suck you in a action scene with louder explosions and stuff.*
> 
> With DynVol it just all sounds lvl flat and the same.
> 
> Example: If you listening to music, most of the music tracks works the way up to an eruption, or let it all out (if you know what I mean.
> With DynVol the volume lvl stays the same. Thats just not right.
> 
> The _cinemas_ *not* using this feature for sure.
> 
> *The description with Dynamic Volume is for NIGHT listening.*
> If you don’t want to piss of your neighbors at NIGHT listening its a nice feature.
> But its wrong to standard enable DynVol.
> I get it personal preference.
> 
> my suggestion not using Dynvol but play with the Channel LvL adjust. Boost the center speaker for clearer dialogue.
> 
> Just my 50 cents


Dynamic volume at Light doesnt really restrict the peaks very much. They are still loud. But it brings up the quiet and average sounds a lot. When I measured it at -20db, it brought the test tone up about +7db. Thats pretty significant.

I usually listen at -25 or -30 unless I am by myself and no one is asleep and in those cases, normal sounds get lost below the noise floor of the room, so Dynamic Volume at light makes it so the dialogue is clear and audible at those low volumes.

Its not really necessary listening at volumes of -20 or louder.


----------



## pbarach

Kevinmastah said:


> I tried DynamicVolume light & medium and I have to say,
> It boost the overall volume of all speakers.


 Turning on Dynamic Volume automatically turns on DynEQ, which raises the volumes for surrounds and adds bass. Try turning on DynVol and then turning off DynEQ--I don't think you'll find that all of the speakers sound louder.


----------



## Kevinmastah

@pbarach
Well I standard using DynEq and I love it.
Def boost the sound @ Low volumes.

DynVol not so much. Only @ NIGHT.
Because I don’t want to my neighbors getting mad @ NIGHT while they are sleeping

I like the sound Dynamic.
Not like a flat line and all even with DynVol on.
Even the light setting it lvl peaks and lose the dynamic. 
not a fan of DynVol.

DynEq all the way baby!!


----------



## pbz06

Kevinmastah said:


> @pbarach
> Well I standard using DynEq and I love it.
> Def boost the sound @ Low volumes.
> 
> DynVol not so much. Only @ NIGHT.
> Because I don’t want to my neighbors getting mad @ NIGHT while they are sleeping
> 
> I like the sound Dynamic.
> Not like a flat line and all even with DynVol on.
> Even the light setting it lvl peaks and lose the dynamic.
> not a fan of DynVol.
> 
> DynEq all the way baby!!


Dynamic Volume on Light has very little effect other than raising some passages. Play Dynamic soundtracks, you'll get the dynamics still except you'll hear things you might have previously missed. Saying you lose everything and it sounds very flat is a little misleading or at the very least exaggerated a bit.


----------



## Rich 63

cricket9998 said:


> Just want to call out again home theater gamer not being a good source. While his measurements show the relative changes, he said he raised his sub levels which is why dynamic eq bumped his low end so much… it only works correctly if you don’t change your audyssey settings. I personally recommend not watching his videos as I found a ton of incorrect info in things he says.
> 
> also look at this bass curve lmao. It’s so bad
> 
> anyway, dynamic eq is good at 5db offset if you watch movies and 10 for tv sources, assuming you watch at -20db. If you bump your sub levels, raise the offset.


I guessing home theatre guru is what you meant. If your going to call anyone out have the stones to reference them in your post so they can respond.


----------



## galonzo

@Rich 63 , you quoted a reply to a post that has an embedded YT video from Home theater Gamer


----------



## Rich 63

galonzo said:


> @Rich 63 , you quoted a reply to a post that has an embedded YT video from Home theater Gamer


My mistake. Apologies for my confusion.


----------



## cricket9998

Rich 63 said:


> I guessing home theatre guru is what you meant. If your going to call anyone out have the stones to reference them in your post so they can respond.


No I didn’t not mean home theater guru I literally wrote who I was referring to in the first sentence


----------



## Rich 63

cricket9998 said:


> No I didn’t not mean home theater guru I literally wrote who I was referring to in the first sentence


Was already correct above and did my mea culpa. I apologize.


----------



## sound dropouts

Are there any Audyssey receivers that also allow for manual adjustments of PEQ? The new leaked Denons/Marantz are compelling but I don't know if I want to invest in a receiver that doesn't allow me to tweak manually.


----------



## sound dropouts

tsanga said:


> I want to provide another data point to the correction MultEQ XT is capable of, and maybe to dispel some notion that it’s deficient in the lower frequencies. For example:
> (not trying to pick on you jeff!)
> 
> I think there’s some misrepresentation in this commonly cited plot taken from the first Audyssey FAQ:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)
> 
> 
> Quote: Originally Posted by cavchameleon Keith, Giomania's info (that a lot of us link to) is something that should be added also, he put a lot of work into it and it does cover a majority of the questions asked for doing Audyssey measurements. Just a note... Absolutely. The first FAQ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Below is my own attempt at this measurement using pre-outs. I measured the left, right, and LFE channels separately with the crossover in place (set to 150 Hz on my system). Note the LFE measurments were compensated for the +10 dB added by the AVR.
> 
> On my MultEQ XT, clearly the subwoofer (blue) is getting plenty of correction in its operating range. The left and right channels also get a lot of correction, starting with some broader corrections near the crossover but moving to “hairier” corrections in the 1-4 kHz range. But after that, the corrections become more broad stroke again.
> 
> _As I do not have MultEQ XT32, this is not a post comparing XT vs XT32. This is also not a post debating the merits of EQ correction above the Schroeder frequency._ Rather, I’m pointing out the previous “reference” for what XT is or isn’t doing could be misleading.
> 
> I’m not sure of the exact configuration in the previously cited measurements, as that was over 10 years ago. Because there was no way to fully complete XT/XT32 calibrations without moving the mic a bunch of times, the fuzzy logic averaging of Audyssey’s algorithm could lead to different corrected outputs.
> 
> Also, since Audyssey does not provide any EQ to frequencies below F3, the original quoted XT correction (blue line “center pre-out”, near flat from 80 Hz down) could have been influenced by the conditions and parameters for that calibration, depending on what the fuzzy logic determined about the center channel’s F3 frequency. The reason I say this is because I tried this myself by setting my speakers to Large (faint red and green lines), and yet Audyssey still “corrected”, i.e. not flat, with a smooth rolloff albeit with less slope than a crossover, indicating to me it retained some information about the native speaker measurements.


Has anyone done a similar measurement for plain MultEQ? Seems like MultEQ should be able to do sufficient work with bass EQ given the filter resolution in bass frequencies.


----------



## Soulburner

sound dropouts said:


> Has anyone done a similar measurement for plain MultEQ? Seems like MultEQ should be able to do sufficient work with bass EQ given the filter resolution in bass frequencies.


The filter resolution of MultEQ is very poor, but yes more measurements would be nice to see.


----------



## Soulburner

sound dropouts said:


> Are there any Audyssey receivers that also allow for manual adjustments of PEQ? The new leaked Denons/Marantz are compelling but I don't know if I want to invest in a receiver that doesn't allow me to tweak manually.


Audyssey has a curve editor.


----------



## mogorf

Soulburner said:


> The filter resolution of MultEQ is very poor, but yes more measurements would be nice to see.


Actually, MultEQ has the exact same resolution for the subwoofer channel as MultEQ XT (128x) which is only 1/4th of MultEQ XT32. Not that bad!


----------



## sound dropouts

mogorf said:


> Actually, MultEQ has the exact same resolution for the subwoofer channel as MultEQ XT (128x) which is only 1/4th of MultEQ XT32. Not that bad!
> 
> View attachment 3332770


That was my point/question...seems like MultEQ should not be that much worse.


----------



## sound dropouts

Soulburner said:


> Audyssey has a curve editor.


This just adjusts the target curve, correct? So it will impact the peqs but won't allow me to adjust the filters based off REW, for example.


----------



## pbz06

sound dropouts said:


> This just adjusts the target curve, correct? So it will impact the peqs but won't allow me to adjust the filters based off REW, for example.


I'm not sure what exactly you're asking or trying to do, but MultEQ-X allows you to import REW PEQs. You can also add your own PEQs within the software and adjust them to your liking


----------



## sound dropouts

pbz06 said:


> I'm not sure what exactly you're asking or trying to do, but MultEQ-X allows you to import REW PEQs. You can also add your own PEQs within the software and adjust them to your liking


The software costs 200 IIRC and only runs on windows. 

It should be relatively easy to look at the network traffic (which I'm guessing is unencrypted) and reverse engineer whats going on there. My goal is to build my own UI. I already have the front end scaffolded, but I'm having trouble finding a receiver thats able to let me update it over http/tcp.


----------



## mrtickleuk

sound dropouts said:


> It should be relatively easy to look at the network traffic (which I'm guessing is unencrypted) and reverse engineer whats going on there


I'd be astonished if it wasn't encrypted.


----------



## Soulburner

sound dropouts said:


> The software costs 200 IIRC and only runs on windows.
> 
> It should be relatively easy to look at the network traffic (which I'm guessing is unencrypted) and reverse engineer whats going on there. My goal is to build my own UI. I already have the front end scaffolded, but I'm having trouble finding a receiver thats able to let me update it over http/tcp.


Ratbuddysey did just that.


----------



## sound dropouts

Soulburner said:


> Ratbuddysey did just that.


Ah so if I use ratbuddysey I don't need multeq x? I didn't realize it was a replacement, thought it was an enhancement/addon


----------



## Soulburner

sound dropouts said:


> Ah so if I use ratbuddysey I don't need multeq x? I didn't realize it was a replacement, thought it was an enhancement/addon


It was designed to give more control over Audyssey in conjunction with the MultEQ Editor app. It preceded MEQX. If you're wanting to save money you can give it a try.


----------



## pbz06

sound dropouts said:


> Ah so if I use ratbuddysey I don't need multeq x? I didn't realize it was a replacement, thought it was an enhancement/addon


Ratbuddy is an app developed by a fan, to allow tweaks to your Audyssey file. It's not affiliated with Audyssey nor Sound United / D&M in any way. The editor app was developed by Sound United but technically not and Audyssey feature officially.

MultEQ-X is an official software and PC app developed by Audyssey themselves. It's by far the best interface and easiest way to tweak and get great results. Could still use some improvements but is a nice step up compared to our options before. Once I got it, I don't miss the editor app and don't use ratbuddy anymore.


----------



## cricket9998

sound dropouts said:


> Ah so if I use ratbuddysey I don't need multeq x? I didn't realize it was a replacement, thought it was an enhancement/addon


Multi eq x isn’t just an interface they have the latest versions of their algorithm and it’s very flexible too. Also safe and stable unlike that other tool. At least you have guarantees when editing stuff


----------



## sunfirester

Question regarding subwoofer EQing,

If I build a DIY subwoofer with an amp without a DSP built in, can I use the editor app or ratbuddysey to essentially add a high pass filter to the subwoofer through audessey? I'm essentially trying to save money and not get a miniDSP.


----------



## khaberst

Sorry if this is covered already but can't find a search term to return what I'm looking for. 

I'm setting up two new Monolith M12 subs and have them connected to my Denon 4700 independently to the two sub outs on the AVR. When I ran Audyssey it recognized two subs and had me level match but then when it did the measurements it only sent signal to one of the subs (same one each time) and never the other, through all the measurements. Is this normal? I'm not getting much bass and the volume seems to be way low on the subs. With Subs this big I was expecting some chest pounding bass, right now it's less than what I was getting from my two DefTech 1000s!


----------



## Soulburner

khaberst said:


> Sorry if this is covered already but can't find a search term to return what I'm looking for.
> 
> I'm setting up two new Monolith M12 subs and have them connected to my Denon 4700 independently to the two sub outs on the AVR. When I ran Audyssey it recognized two subs and had me level match but then when it did the measurements it only sent signal to one of the subs (same one each time) and never the other, through all the measurements. Is this normal? I'm not getting much bass and the volume seems to be way low on the subs. With Subs this big I was expecting some chest pounding bass, right now it's less than what I was getting from my two DefTech 1000s!


You will only hear them separately during the initial sub check. Once the delays are applied it will ping them both together. It needs to know the combined response for EQ.

Are you 100% certain that one of the subs was not making any sound? Were there any issues during the level matching?


----------



## khaberst

Yes, only one sub was making sound when it was doing the measurement stage where I move the mic around and Audyssey checks each channel.


----------



## Alan P

khaberst said:


> Yes, only one sub was making sound when it was doing the measurement stage where I move the mic around and Audyssey checks each channel.


Run it again, but this time get closer to the sub that you thought wasn't making any sound. I'll bet a dollar that it is. 

An important question; where did Audyssey set your sub trim?

As for your weak bass, it is fairly normal for most folks to add 3-6dB to the sub trim (Speakers>Manual Setup>Test Tone Start) post-Audyssey. Do you have Dynamic EQ turned on?


----------



## khaberst

Alan P said:


> Run it again, but this time get closer to the sub that you thought wasn't making any sound. I'll bet a dollar that it is.
> 
> An important question; where did Audyssey set your sub trim?
> 
> As for your weak bass, it is fairly normal for most folks to add 3-6dB to the sub trim (Speakers>Manual Setup>Test Tone Start) post-Audyssey. Do you have Dynamic EQ turned on?


you’re right. It was making sound but almost half as quiet as the other one. Weird, or normal?


----------



## TheBoom89

So I just picked up a x3700H coming from an Onkyo 676 that died twice over 4-5 years.

Decided to go with x3700h ($200 extra from x2700h) for XT32 to save the trouble of having to apply manual req with rew and my umik-1 (cause I need something like Jriver or equalizer APO and that destroys bitstream capabilities and any form of object audio).

I pretty much had the perfect req done with the Onkyo and Jriver. Just too many filters and time spent. Also not time domain filters just regular PEQs and shelfs.

Here's the problem, I had my satellites set at 80hz and room eq'ed for that without much of an issue on the Onkyo. However, Audyssey being too smart realizes that the satellites cannot naturally play down to that 80hz without some form of boost and sets my crossovers to 110-170. I hate this, it's one of the reasons I previously went with UMIK-1 and REW with manual eq. I'd rather have a few decibels down in the 100-120hz range than localized bass with voices coming from my sub.

Question is, is there any way to force audyssey to eq down all the way to 80hz and then manually set my crossovers to 80hz instead? Or would the multieq app (already purchased yet to test) help with this?

I don't feel like going back to manual REQ and losing bitstream and atmos/dts:x capabilities. Kinda defeats the purpose of paying extra for XT32. Yes, I did consider minidsp but their 8 channel offerings are way expensive and again defeat the purpose of an all in one with the x3700h.

Any advice is appreciated.


----------



## pbz06

TheBoom89 said:


> So I just picked up a x3700H coming from an Onkyo 676 that died twice over 4-5 years.
> 
> Decided to go with x3700h ($200 extra from x2700h) for XT32 to save the trouble of having to apply manual req with rew and my umik-1 (cause I need something like Jriver or equalizer APO and that destroys bitstream capabilities and any form of object audio).
> 
> I pretty much had the perfect req done with the Onkyo and Jriver. Just too many filters and time spent. Also not time domain filters just regular PEQs and shelfs.
> 
> Here's the problem, I had my satellites set at 80hz and room eq'ed for that without much of an issue on the Onkyo. However, Audyssey being too smart realizes that the satellites cannot naturally play down to that 80hz without some form of boost and sets my crossovers to 110-170. I hate this, it's one of the reasons I previously went with UMIK-1 and REW with manual eq. I'd rather have a few decibels down in the 100-120hz range than localized bass with voices coming from my sub.
> 
> Question is, is there any way to force audyssey to eq down all the way to 80hz and then manually set my crossovers to 80hz instead? Or would the multieq app (already purchased yet to test) help with this?
> 
> I don't feel like going back to manual REQ and losing bitstream and atmos/dts:x capabilities. Kinda defeats the purpose of paying extra for XT32. Yes, I did consider minidsp but their 8 channel offerings are way expensive and again defeat the purpose of an all in one with the x3700h.
> 
> Any advice is appreciated.


You can simply adjust the cross-over to your liking. Of course, Audyssey will only be applying EQ filters to where it detected the F3 of the in-room response.


----------



## Soulburner

That, and I believe MultEQ-X gives you control over that, if anyone else can confirm.


----------



## mogorf

TheBoom89 said:


> So I just picked up a x3700H coming from an Onkyo 676 that died twice over 4-5 years.
> 
> Decided to go with x3700h ($200 extra from x2700h) for XT32 to save the trouble of having to apply manual req with rew and my umik-1 (cause I need something like Jriver or equalizer APO and that destroys bitstream capabilities and any form of object audio).
> 
> I pretty much had the perfect req done with the Onkyo and Jriver. Just too many filters and time spent. Also not time domain filters just regular PEQs and shelfs.
> 
> Here's the problem, I had my satellites set at 80hz and room eq'ed for that without much of an issue on the Onkyo. However, Audyssey being too smart realizes that the satellites cannot naturally play down to that 80hz without some form of boost and sets my crossovers to 110-170. I hate this, it's one of the reasons I previously went with UMIK-1 and REW with manual eq. I'd rather have a few decibels down in the 100-120hz range than localized bass with voices coming from my sub.
> 
> Question is, is there any way to force audyssey to eq down all the way to 80hz and then manually set my crossovers to 80hz instead? Or would the multieq app (already purchased yet to test) help with this?
> 
> I don't feel like going back to manual REQ and losing bitstream and atmos/dts:x capabilities. Kinda defeats the purpose of paying extra for XT32. Yes, I did consider minidsp but their 8 channel offerings are way expensive and again defeat the purpose of an all in one with the x3700h.
> 
> Any advice is appreciated.


Even though you didn't mention what speakers you have, but in order for Audyssey to measure your satellite speakers' -3 dB point below 80 Hz you might need to do a bit of careful setup, e.g. making use of boundary gain by pulling the satellites closer to the wall behind them. Anyhow, its a bit hard to give advice without seeing your room set up. Would you mind posting a couple of pictures of your room and speaker layout? That would help a million.


----------



## TheBoom89

pbz06 said:


> You can simply adjust the cross-over to your liking. Of course, Audyssey will only be applying EQ filters to where it detected the F3 of the in-room response.


Yeah I would like to make it (force it?) apply correction down to my set crossover of 80hz instead. Else there seems to be a hole in my midbass.

More so with the sub calibration making me turn down the sub gain to about 7 o'clock and -4db in the avr to match the 75db target. With the Onkyo and a SPL meter I was running -3db with gain at roughly 10 o'clock. Seems like a huge difference.



Soulburner said:


> That, and I believe MultEQ-X gives you control over that, if anyone else can confirm.


Would like to know if it can be done with the phone app instead? I mean I just shelled out an extra $200 for XT32 over the x2700h and bought the app as well. Prefer to do it without dropping another 200 usd lol. Maybe I should have saved that by going with the 2700h instead and put it into the app? Though based on what I've read multieq XT may not do a good job even with multieq-x due to the filter resolutions?



mogorf said:


> Even though you didn't mention what speakers you have, but in order for Audyssey to measure your satellite speakers' -3 dB point below 80 Hz you might need to do a bit of careful setup, e.g. making use of boundary gain by pulling the satellites closer to the wall behind them. Anyhow, its a bit hard to give advice without seeing your room set up. Would you mind posting a couple of pictures of your room and speaker layout? That would help a million.


Sorry I thought it's in my sig, speakers are creative gigaworks s750 7.0 satellites (they are "thx certified" but we all know they probably roll off way before 80hz), a J10 Jamo sub and the x3700h. Speakers are placed in 1/3 of the room where my pc is with the sub right smack below the center speaker, separated by the table. My responses with REW were pretty decent, +-3-5 db target achieved with the exception of one or two nulls with PEQ filters in Jriver (with the Onkyo).


----------



## Alan P

khaberst said:


> you’re right. It was making sound but almost half as quiet as the other one. Weird, or normal?


That is weird...did you level match the two subs when Audyssey prompts you to do so?

Are you judging the relative level of the subs _from your MLP_, or _with your ear up against each sub_? If the former, the difference in volume is most likely due to the different nulls/peaks from each sub. If the latter, I can't explain that...


----------



## khaberst

Alan P said:


> That is weird...did you level match the two subs when Audyssey prompts you to do so?
> 
> Are you judging the relative level of the subs _from your MLP_, or _with your ear up against each sub_? If the former, the difference in volume is most likely due to the different nulls/peaks from each sub. If the latter, I can't explain that...


yes I use the Audyssey level matching. I was right next to the subs that are behind my MLP. I was laying on the ground near them while I ran the test so my body wouldn't create any reflections lol.


----------



## Alan P

khaberst said:


> yes I use the Audyssey level matching. I was right next to the subs that are behind my MLP. I was laying on the ground near them while I ran the test so my body wouldn't create any reflections lol.


Hmmm...are all settings on both sub amps exactly the same (besides gain)?


----------



## khaberst

Yes, same settings.


----------



## mogorf

TheBoom89 said:


> Sorry I thought it's in my sig, speakers are creative gigaworks s750 7.0 satellites (they are "thx certified" but we all know they probably roll off way before 80hz), a J10 Jamo sub and the x3700h. Speakers are placed in 1/3 of the room where my pc is with the sub right smack below the center speaker, separated by the table. My responses with REW were pretty decent, +-3-5 db target achieved with the exception of one or two nulls with PEQ filters in Jriver (with the Onkyo).


Please don't expect miracles from PC speakers in a home theater.


----------



## TheBoom89

mogorf said:


> Please don't expect miracles from PC speakers in a home theater.


-5db to about 100hz isn't really a miracle. Done it before with REW and PEQs. Also I did mention its actually a small bedroom with a pc not actually a full blown HT.

Nevermind, I think I figured out how to manipulate the crossover point eq with the app instead. Just boosted 10hz below what I wanted for the actual crossover to within -5db of target. Didn't actually verify with the UMIK-1 and REW yet, but it sounds good enough. 

Would just be easier if you could force Audyssey to eq to a manually set crossover instead. Within reasonable boost levels of course.

I wonder if Ratbudyssey might be able to provide some value in this regard.


----------



## mrtickleuk

TheBoom89 said:


> Here's the problem, I had my satellites set at 80hz and room eq'ed for that without much of an issue on the Onkyo. However, Audyssey being too smart realizes that the satellites cannot naturally play down to that 80hz without some form of boost and sets my crossovers to 110-170. I hate this, it's one of the reasons I previously went with UMIK-1 and REW with manual eq. I'd rather have a few decibels down in the 100-120hz range than localized bass with voices coming from my sub.
> 
> Question is, is there any way to force audyssey to eq down all the way to 80hz and then manually set my crossovers to 80hz instead? Or would the multieq app (already purchased yet to test) help with this?





pbz06 said:


> You can simply adjust the cross-over to your liking. Of course, Audyssey will only be applying EQ filters to where it detected the F3 of the in-room response.


Yes, this is my understanding too. Audyssey runs tests and reports back to the AVR that frequency.

Next, Denon, *not Audyssey*, uses those values to set the default cross-over frequency for each speaker in its menus. Denon, *not Audyssey*, sets speakers to "large" (no bass management) or "small" (uses bass management). You are free to change these at any time. Generally, the advice is not to lower the cross-overs since it's an indication that the speaker doesn't perform well below that frequency. Generally, with a subwoofer, the advice is to raise anything that's set to below 80Hz back up to 80Hz and let the superior sub handle those frequencies, and always set all speakers back to "small" so that bass management is used.


----------



## TheBoom89

mrtickleuk said:


> Yes, this is my understanding too. Audyssey runs tests and reports back to the AVR that frequency.
> 
> Next, Denon, *not Audyssey*, uses those values to set the default cross-over frequency for each speaker in its menus. Denon, *not Audyssey*, sets speakers to "large" (no bass management) or "small" (uses bass management). You are free to change these at any time. Generally, the advice is not to lower the cross-overs since it's an indication that the speaker doesn't perform well below that frequency. Generally, with a subwoofer, the advice is to raise anything that's set to below 80Hz back up to 80Hz and let the superior sub handle those frequencies, and always set all speakers back to "small" so that bass management is used.



I got some slightly better values after running with different MLP positions. According to the FAQ the first position sets levels, distance and crossovers?

This time it set crossovers to 120hz which seems better. Boosting slightly from 80-120hz should theoretically fill the gap created.

I realized the max boost to target is 12db in the app. Seems a little high and I wonder if it would cause clipping?


----------



## pbz06

TheBoom89 said:


> I got some slightly better values after running with different MLP positions. According to the FAQ the first position sets levels, distance and crossovers?
> 
> This time it set crossovers to 120hz which seems better. Boosting slightly from 80-120hz should theoretically fill the gap created.
> 
> I realized the max boost to target is 12db in the app. Seems a little high and I wonder if it would cause clipping?


Levels and distances. I'm fairly certain that the crossovers are determined as a collective of the cluster of measurements. At least, that's how it is on the PC version of MultiEQ-X because you can see it sometimes changing in the "aggregate view".


----------



## keroppilee

Reran audyssey and things look right now. Sorry for the edit.


----------



## CBdicX

Hello,

went from a 7.2.4 setup to 7.2.2 with Klipsch RP8060F II as "Atmos" speakers.
Must I run Audyssey again or just take out the 2 Rear Atmos speakers ?

And Audyssey sets the 8060 Atmos with 40 Hz crossover, the manual says 150 Hz 
Keep it at 40, or set it to 80, or set it to 150 like the manual says ?

Thanks


----------



## citsur86

Hey everyone. It's been a while since I've run Audyssey XT32 in my home theater via my SR6011. I believe last time I ran it and checked Frequency Responses with REW, the mobile app gave a much different, and better LFE response from my subs. Is current conventional wisdom that the mobile app does a better job or onboard AVR?


----------



## pbz06

citsur86 said:


> Hey everyone. It's been a while since I've run Audyssey XT32 in my home theater via my SR6011. I believe last time I ran it and checked Frequency Responses with REW, the mobile app gave a much different, and better LFE response from my subs. Is current conventional wisdom that the mobile app does a better job or onboard AVR?


No, they're identical. The app is simply a tool to make adjustments, but the calcs and brains are still based on what is in your avr. Several factors could contribute on why you would get similar or dissimilar results using one or the other.


----------



## citsur86

pbz06 said:


> No, they're identical. The app is simply a tool to make adjustments, but the calcs and brains are still based on what is in your avr. Several factors could contribute on why you would get similar or dissimilar results using one or the other.


A few years ago, I ran Audyssey XT32 from the AVR then the App, measuring with REW after each. I was using the same Mic, same room, exact same positions, etc. and wound up with significantly different results. Every time I've ever mentioned this (even after I provided pretty solid proof via graphs etc), I've been challenged with the same thing you mentioned. What can contribute to such differences?


----------



## pbz06

citsur86 said:


> A few years ago, I ran Audyssey XT32 from the AVR then the App, measuring with REW after each. I was using the same Mic, same room, exact same positions, etc. and wound up with significantly different results. Every time I've ever mentioned this (even after I provided pretty solid proof via graphs etc), I've been challenged with the same thing you mentioned. What can contribute to such differences?


Define significant. When I started getting into REW a couple years ago, and switched to the app, I was interested in the same questions. The only major difference was that for a while the app had an undefeatable 20hz roll off, until they updated it. I do also remember my sub trim was consistently 1-2dB different than comparing AVR results. Everything else was consistent or consistent enough within typical variances (you're not using exact mic positions for all 8 measurements between AVR vs app calibrations, and umik-1 wouldn't be exact averages either etc.). 

What differences are you seeing?


----------



## citsur86

The first time I did this experiment, maybe in 2018, the AVR-based calibration would result in a relatively flat (+/-) 5db from 12hz to around 80hz and then a nice smooth house curve. The same calibration spots and scenario and equipment with the app would show 20-30db dips for large frequency ranges (10-20hz long) in various spots along the 12hz-80hz FR graph. It was very strange. Then, years later (2020) after moving and building my dedicated home theater, I had the opposite situation with the same gear. AVR-based Audyssey XT32 gave awful LFE FR while the App-Based calibration resulted in the smooth REW FR Graphs.

Its supposed to be a rainy weekend where I am, so maybe I will have some time to repeat the experiment and even video myself doing the whole thing with a new toy (GoPro Hero10 Black) I just got.


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

citsur86 said:


> A few years ago, I ran Audyssey XT32 from the AVR then the App, measuring with REW after each. I was using the same Mic, same room, exact same positions, etc. and wound up with significantly different results. Every time I've ever mentioned this (even after I provided pretty solid proof via graphs etc), I've been challenged with the same thing you mentioned. What can contribute to such differences?


Thats quite common actually. You can measure three times in a row with the same positions and still get different results. I have done this. Just barely shifting the microphone an inch or two can give pretty different results.

Just experimenting with different microphone positions, I figured out _in my situation_ that using two of the measurements to place the microphobe where my ears would go....not in between my ears as with the 1st measurement position, but placing the microphone almost exactly where my ears would be generated the best result for bass and imaging/soundstage. (Didnt seem to make a big difference with just the frequency response)


----------



## MagnumX

The best improvement I got with Audyssey was to bandwidth limit it to 500Hz or less. Those ridiculous swings in response from averaged microphone results prove Dr. Toole to be 100% correct. You're not really correcting anything. You're essentially just playing tone control with room correction. 

Old school absorption and diffusion will provide better results and not just for one chair. I think it's time we recognize we've been thoroughly duped. Where are the double blind results showing consistently preferred results above Schroeder? That's not a hard thing to show with ABX if it's true.


----------



## pbarach

citsur86 said:


> A few years ago, I ran Audyssey XT32 from the AVR then the App, measuring with REW after each. I was using the same Mic, same room, exact same positions, etc. and wound up with significantly different results.


I want to run a very simple test: XT32 on the app vs my AVR, using one mic kept at the MLP for all 8 "positions," with the calibrations conducted during very quiet hours. I'm not going to be moving anything in between the calibrations. If the app and the AVR give different results, what would be the cause when everything else is constant?


----------



## NuSoardGraphite

MagnumX said:


> The best improvement I got with Audyssey was to bandwidth limit it to 500Hz or less. Those ridiculous swings in response from averaged microphone results prove Dr. Toole to be 100% correct. You're not really correcting anything. You're essentially just playing tone control with room correction.
> 
> Old school absorption and diffusion will provide better results and not just for one chair. I think it's time we recognize we've been thoroughly duped. Where are the double blind results showing consistently preferred results above Schroeder? That's not a hard thing to show with ABX if it's true.


Its become widely known that room correction systems work best for a very small, limited area. That the wider the area you try to correct, the less effective (even detrimental) room correction will become.

Thats why I measure my MLP. Then the two closest seats to the left and right of the MLP then the remaining measurements center arount the MLP with the final measurements being where my ears go to great effect. In fact my last auto EQ run fixed a pretty agregious image drift problem caused by my fireplace, so its not like DSP based room EQ is a scam, you just have to know how to use it and keep your expectations in check.

Honestly I think room EQ works best when you have all the other elements in place: room treatments, bass traps, multi-sub placement. Everything working together for a best case scenario.


----------



## MagnumX

NuSoardGraphite said:


> Its become widely known that room correction systems work best for a very small, limited area. That the wider the area you try to correct, the less effective (even detrimental) room correction will become.
> 
> Thats why I measure my MLP. Then the two closest seats to the left and right of the MLP then the remaining measurements center arount the MLP with the final measurements being where my ears go to great effect. In fact my last auto EQ run fixed a pretty agregious image drift problem caused by my fireplace, so its not like DSP based room EQ is a scam, you just have to know how to use it and keep your expectations in check.
> 
> Honestly I think room EQ works best when you have all the other elements in place: room treatments, bass traps, multi-sub placement. Everything working together for a best case scenario.


I tried measuring head center, head left ear, head right ear and head reclined both ears for my 5 points. It screwed up the bass that worked better using its suggested locations (including behind my chair) and the rest still wasn't any better than just setting it to Schroeder only.

Those little prediction graphs are powerful brain candy (sugar pill placebos) to push the notion that NOW your room is PERFECT. It's a joke. You're correcting room reflections, not the direct signal and those are generally interpreted by your brain as ambience. Thus, instead of improving the direct signal (which on my PSB speakers is already +/- 1.5dB accurate), it's actually making it less accurate (fancy hard to manage tone control). 

The best way to deal with room reflections is to diffuse or absorb them, depending on their location. Having it work for all seats instead of just one is icing on the cake.


----------



## pbz06

MagnumX said:


> I tried measuring head center, head left ear, head right ear and head reclined both ears for my 5 points. It screwed up the bass that worked better using its suggested locations (including behind my chair) and the rest still wasn't any better than just setting it to Schroeder only.
> 
> Those little prediction graphs are powerful brain candy (sugar pill placebos) to push the notion that NOW your room is PERFECT. It's a joke. You're correcting room reflections, not the direct signal and those are generally interpreted by your brain as ambience. Thus, instead of improving the direct signal (which on my PSB speakers is already +/- 1.5dB accurate), it's actually making it less accurate (fancy hard to manage tone control).
> 
> The best way to deal with room reflections is to diffuse or absorb them, depending on their location. Having it work for all seats instead of just one is icing on the cake.


Nobody is pushing those notions.


----------



## MagnumX

pbz06 said:


> Nobody is pushing those notions.


Riiigghht. Audyssey doesn't want you to believe it makes those perfectly flat predictions it shows. It offers neither a REW style verification mode or any way to separate direct from reflective frequency response so it's utterly misleading to the consumer who thinks they've now got perfectly flat room response (easily checked with bass that almost never looks like their predictions.... Oh! That's actually an average of 5 locations used 8n the predictions, not the response you can _actually_ expect to find anywhere in the room). But yeah, they don't want you to think that. It's a total coincidence!


----------



## CBdicX

Hello,

went from a 7.2.4 setup to 7.2.2 with Klipsch RP8060F II as "Atmos" speakers.
Must I run Audyssey again or just take out the 2 Rear Atmos speakers ?

And Audyssey sets the 8060 Atmos with 40 Hz crossover, the manual says 150 Hz 
Keep it at 40, or set it to 80, or set it to 150 like the manual says ?

Thanks


----------



## mrtickleuk

CBdicX said:


> And Audyssey sets the 8060 Atmos with 40 Hz crossover, the manual says 150 Hz
> Keep it at 40, or set it to 80, or set it to 150 like the manual says ?


It's not Audyssey which made the decision to set that crossover value. It's the AVR, afterwards, based on the data it got.
You should definitely raise up to 80Hz at least.
Then decide with what sounds better to you, between 80Hz and 150Hz.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> The best improvement I got with Audyssey was to bandwidth limit it to 500Hz or less. Those ridiculous swings in response from averaged microphone results prove Dr. Toole to be 100% correct. You're not really correcting anything. You're essentially just playing tone control with room correction.


While you are right that the Reference curve is not ideal for many speakers, Audyssey's EQ is absolutely not just a tone control. There are 16,000 taps per channel available to make fine adjustments. Tone controls bend an entire curve up or down broadly.


----------



## citsur86

I have run in a single position, without moving the mic, the audyssey xt32 calibration from the AVR and from the app with wildly different results. When I say results, I mean REW measurements taken after each with the mic unmoved. My room is sound proofed and I did this without any noise pollution during either test. I’m convinced the app and AVR have their own algorithms and set results separately.


----------



## MagnumX

Soulburner said:


> While you are right that the Reference curve is not ideal for many speakers, Audyssey's EQ is absolutely not just a tone control. There are 16,000 taps per channel available to make fine adjustments. Tone controls bend an entire curve up or down broadly.


That's not my point. How sophisticated the tools are to modify frequency response, according to Dr. Floyd Toole, you're not adjusting the direct first arrival wave from the speakers (actual speaker response). You're playing with the response of the room reflections that's perceived as ambience. 

By adjusting my speakers away from their true output of +/- 1.5dB, I'm actually making their first arrival response worse, not better above Schroeder. REW thinks you've smoothed it, but we don't hear the way a microphone measures. That mic can't tell direct from reflected responses, just averages. Dr. Toole is convinced it screwed up his $20k (per speaker) Revel speakers. I've certainly noticed nothing positive about using bandwidth above 500Hz after numerous attempts. 

The bottom line for me is Audyssey is great for smoothing out the subwoofer and upper bass. It's not really helpful above that. I've had some results that were listenable, but when I switched the bandwidth to Schroeder, it still sounded great. On the contrary, I have had some calibrations that were just plain harsh on the ears in the treble range. My PSB speakers are NEVER harsh with Audyssey turned off. If people want to use Audyssey full range, more power to them. I just hope they realize what they're actually playing with. Dr. Toole has done more studies on human perception of sound than most of the people on the Earth in all of recorded history. To just toss it in the trash as many have done without even considering what he's said seems unwise to me. 

It's possible DIRAC is doing more advanced things, particularly with a "3D" microphone, but Dr. Toole's comments were in light of his JBL Synthesis processor that uses Trinnov technology.... Keep in mind, that doesn't mean target curves don't work. To the contrary, that's essentially a targeted changed in frequency response...almost like a very sophisticated tone control.


----------



## primetimeguy

MagnumX said:


> That's not my point. How sophisticated the tools are to modify frequency response, according to Dr. Floyd Toole, you're not adjusting the direct first arrival wave from the speakers (actual speaker response). You're playing with the response of the room reflections that's perceived as ambience.
> 
> By adjusting my speakers away from their true output of +/- 1.5dB, I'm actually making their first arrival response worse, not better above Schroeder. REW thinks you've smoothed it, but we don't hear the way a microphone measures. That mic can't tell direct from reflected responses, just averages. Dr. Toole is convinced it screwed up his $20k (per speaker) Revel speakers. I've certainly noticed nothing positive about using bandwidth above 500Hz after numerous attempts.
> 
> The bottom line for me is Audyssey is great for smoothing out the subwoofer and upper bass. It's not really helpful above that. I've had some results that were listenable, but when I switched the bandwidth to Schroeder, it still sounded great. On the contrary, I have had some calibrations that were just plain harsh on the ears in the treble range. My PSB speakers are NEVER harsh with Audyssey turned off. If people want to use Audyssey full range, more power to them. I just hope they realize what they're actually playing with. Dr. Toole has done more studies on human perception of sound than most of the people on the Earth in all of recorded history. To just toss it in the trash as many have done without even considering what he's said seems unwise to me.
> 
> It's possible DIRAC is doing more advanced things, particularly with a "3D" microphone, but Dr. Toole's comments were in light of his JBL Synthesis processor that uses Trinnov technology.... Keep in mind, that doesn't mean target curves don't work. To the contrary, that's essentially a targeted changed in frequency response...almost like a very sophisticated tone control.


I tend to feel the same and limit eq to 500hz. The latest Multeq-X app allows you to set different cutoff freq for flat and reference so it is much easier to compare. It was just confirmation for me that I preferred the limited eq vs full range.


----------



## Soulburner

Room correction is great for people with bad arrangements who can't or won't change them. For those with symmetrical arrangements, stereo triangles, no coffee table or exposed glass windows, etc, there's no need for it above the bass region. But for others, it is beneficial to adjust the sound power to be flat when it's affected by the room, so let's not make our generalizations too absolute.


----------



## MagnumX

Dr. Floyd Toole said it's absolute. The laws of physics are immutable. Ambient reflected sound should not be corrected with EQ. 

Use absorbertion and diffusion. Heavy drapes and bookshelves work great without being eyesores. 

I'm interested in DIRAC's new system that uses all your full range towers to fix the room instead of needing several heavy room hogging expensive subwoofers. I've got 5 large towers already placed around the room that could potentially help to at least 35Hz and even the small surrounds and overheads could help down to 55Hz. 

Something tells me the new system will need new hardware regardless so now is perhaps not the best time to but a new AVR/AVP or you're likely in for a massive disappointment when it does come out.


----------



## mogorf

MagnumX said:


> Dr. Floyd Toole said it's absolute. The laws of physics are immutable. Ambient reflected sound should not be corrected with EQ.
> 
> Use absorbertion and diffusion. Heavy drapes and bookshelves work great without being eyesores.
> 
> I'm interested in DIRAC's new system that uses all your full range towers to fix the room instead of needing several heavy room hogging expensive subwoofers. I've got 5 large towers already placed around the room that could potentially help to at least 35Hz and even the small surrounds and overheads could help down to 55Hz.
> 
> Something tells me the new system will need new hardware regardless so now is perhaps not the best time to but a new AVR/AVP or you're likely in for a massive disappointment when it does come out.


Not to fire up a debate, but yes, knowing how Audyssey works and takes care not only of frequency response issues, but also does corrections in the time domain is essential for all of us using this room correction system. This might be a less discussed issue on this thread, but here's what Chris K. has to say on the subject:

"A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times) are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response. When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously.

The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."

Hope this helps.


----------



## garygarrison

mogorf said:


> Not to fire up a debate, but yes, knowing how Audyssey works and takes care not only of frequency response issues, but also does corrections in the time domain is essential for all of us using this room correction system. This might be a less discussed issue on this thread, but here's what Chris K. has to say on the subject:
> 
> "A time-domain response (or impulse response) is corrected by MultEQ so that it more closely resembles a perfect impulse. In doing so, the reflections (copies of the original signal that arrive at various later times) are suppressed. This correction is done by creating an FIR filter that is applied to the impulse response. When the signal in each speaker plays through this FIR filter it is convolved with it as it plays and the corrections are applied continuously.
> 
> The effects of the reflections (that show as blips later in time) are reduced. But, that is done by the filtering operation and not by going in with "tweezers" to kill each reflection. The amount by which each is reduced depends on the spatial distribution of the effect they have on the response."
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thanks, Feri!


----------



## mogorf

garygarrison said:


> Thanks, Feri!


With pleasure Gary.


----------



## Soulburner

MagnumX said:


> Dr. Floyd Toole said it's absolute.


And in my experience, he's only half right. I use EQ to greatly improve the sound of my PC speakers by bringing down the desk reflection. It's no different than a coffee table in that regard. The best is to not have the reflection, but we work with what we have.


----------



## primetimeguy

Soulburner said:


> And in my experience, he's only half right. I use EQ to greatly improve the sound of my PC speakers by bringing down the desk reflection. It's no different than a coffee table in that regard. The best is to not have the reflection, but we work with what we have.


One significant difference though is your PC speakers would be near-field so reflections are much less of an issue as compared to home theater speakers in the far-field. I agree though, not many absolutes in this hobby.


----------



## Soulburner

primetimeguy said:


> One significant difference though is your PC speakers would be near-field so reflections are much less of an issue as compared to home theater speakers in the far-field. I agree though, not many absolutes in this hobby.


I don't think so, because you are also nearfield to the reflection. You get a bigger dose of it at a higher level and without the room to dilute the effect.


----------



## warnija

I recently completed construction of an outdoor covered terrace and I am in the process of getting all the electronics hooked up (e.g., AVR, TV, Speakers, etc...). I have a Denon AVR-S760H and 4 Klipsch CA-650T speakers for my outdoor space. I am planning to run the speakers in multi-ch stereo on the Denon just for casual TV and Sports viewing. I am not trying to get a full surround setup going outside as I already have a 7.2.4 system in my basement for that purpose. Given my use case, I am wondering if it's even worth doing an audyssey calibration with just the four speakers. The other factor to consider is that I have consistent traffic noise in my backyard from a nearby highway which may make running audyssey impossible anyway. Just curious on what you think is the best approach here. Thanks in advance...


----------



## mogorf

warnija said:


> I recently completed construction of an outdoor covered terrace and I am in the process of getting all the electronics hooked up (e.g., AVR, TV, Speakers, etc...). I have a Denon AVR-S760H and 4 Klipsch CA-650T speakers for my outdoor space. I am planning to run the speakers in multi-ch stereo on the Denon just for casual TV and Sports viewing. I am not trying to get a full surround setup going outside as I already have a 7.2.4 system in my basement for that purpose. Given my use case, I am wondering if it's even worth doing an audyssey calibration with just the four speakers. The other factor to consider is that I have consistent traffic noise in my backyard from a nearby highway which may make running audyssey impossible anyway. Just curious on what you think is the best approach here. Thanks in advance...


I think you can't go wrong with Audyssey calibration even on your terrace. You will have speaker levels and distances set correctly. You only need to nominate a first mearurement point (aka MLP) to start the process. I wouldn't worry about background noise, Audyssey makes two more attempts to increase the volume of the test tones until it gives up. Hope that will not be the case. And then you can also use DEQ and DynVol. Remember, DEQ works equally outside. Have fun on the terrace.


----------



## robbnj

I posted this over in Receivers/Amps/Processors with little luck before I found out there was a dedicated Audyssey thread, so I'm trying here.
My apologies if this is a no-no, feel free to delete if necessary!

System: Denon AVR-X4000, dual subs of different make/model. Pretty old subs, but not junk (Pinnacle DigSub 350- 12" Isobaric; Def Tech Supercube 1)
REW graphs below are subs only, mains were disconnected.

Being a tinkerer, and inquisitive b/c of a sub phase error I discovered (that Audyssey complete missed), I downloaded REW and ran a few tests using an inexpensive calibrated mic (Bheringer mic inbound). I ran the same tests using my Audyssey "Eiffel Tower" mic, and a homemade mic that has a very small element with a very flat pickup response from 15Hz to 15KHz.The graphs were all VERY similar, which is encouraging.

What is NOT encouraging is that the graphs are too dang similar with and without Audyssey engaged (yes, I fully calibrated the Denon using a "tight" mic placement pattern, and it was done with all speakers properly phased).
Unless my subs and room are already working really well, it seems Audyssey did nothing much.
The subs are at the front of the room, 1 foot from front wall, 3.5 feet from sides, flanking a cabinet ~3 feet apart. Two different subs, but the response graphs are similar for each, though shifted in frequency.

Also concerning is that the subs' output has that severe dip around 65Hz with a rise, then dropoff at 100Hz. It' almost like the Denon crossover is set at 100Hz for the LFE output (it's at 80Hz, and the crossover on the subs is set as high as possible to avoid overlap).
The second sub seems to cross over closer to 80Hz, but similarly spikes back up with significant output before settling and rolling off.

In the graphs below, the upper response curves in each graph are the unequalized response, the lower is Audyssey.
I know what I am seeing here, but I really would like to understand the "why?"s:
Why are the Audessy response curves SO similar to the non-Audyssey, especially in those major sags followed by the rise well after the crossover point?
Why does each sub have a dramatic dip like a crossover is applied, but then rises back up with significant output before rolling off again?
Why would this dip be so similar on two different subs, but at different frequency points (one at 67hz, one at 90Hz)?
If this dip is room response (as suggested in other thread), why is it showing up at two different frequencies (the subs are about 3 feet apart)?

SUB #1 (Pinnacle) Green is nude, Gold is Audyssey.











Sub #2 (DefTech) Purple is nude, Red is Audyssey


----------



## mogorf

robbnj said:


> I posted this over in Receivers/Amps/Processors with little luck before I found out there was a dedicated Audyssey thread, so I'm trying here.
> My apologies if this is a no-no, feel free to delete if necessary!
> 
> System: Denon AVR-X4000, dual subs of different make/model. Pretty old subs, but not junk (Pinnacle DigSub 350- 12" Isobaric; Def Tech Supercube 1)
> REW graphs below are subs only, mains were disconnected.
> 
> Being a tinkerer, and inquisitive b/c of a sub phase error I discovered (that Audyssey complete missed), I downloaded REW and ran a few tests using an inexpensive calibrated mic (Bheringer mic inbound). I ran the same tests using my Audyssey "Eiffel Tower" mic, and a homemade mic that has a very small element with a very flat pickup response from 15Hz to 15KHz.The graphs were all VERY similar, which is encouraging.
> 
> What is NOT encouraging is that the graphs are too dang similar with and without Audyssey engaged (yes, I fully calibrated the Denon using a "tight" mic placement pattern, and it was done with all speakers properly phased).
> Unless my subs and room are already working really well, it seems Audyssey did nothing much.
> The subs are at the front of the room, 1 foot from front wall, 3.5 feet from sides, flanking a cabinet ~3 feet apart. Two different subs, but the response graphs are similar for each, though shifted in frequency.
> 
> Also concerning is that the subs' output has that severe dip around 65Hz with a rise, then dropoff at 100Hz. It' almost like the Denon crossover is set at 100Hz for the LFE output (it's at 80Hz, and the crossover on the subs is set as high as possible to avoid overlap).
> The second sub seems to cross over closer to 80Hz, but similarly spikes back up with significant output before settling and rolling off.
> 
> In the graphs below, the upper response curves in each graph are the unequalized response, the lower is Audyssey.
> I know what I am seeing here, but I really would like to understand the "why?"s:
> Why are the Audessy response curves SO similar to the non-Audyssey, especially in those major sags followed by the rise well after the crossover point?
> Why does each sub have a dramatic dip like a crossover is applied, but then rises back up with significant output before rolling off again?
> Why would this dip be so similar on two different subs, but at different frequency points (one at 67hz, one at 90Hz)?
> If this dip is room response (as suggested in other thread), why is it showing up at two different frequencies (the subs are about 3 feet apart)?
> 
> SUB #1 (Pinnacle) Green is nude, Gold is Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub #2 (DefTech) Purple is nude, Red is Audyssey


To me these curves look like the measurements were taken at a single point only. Please forget there curves and do another measurement series with 8 mic placements (as you would do when setting up Audyssey), use REW's average function and post those new graphs again. Good luck!


----------



## Alan P

robbnj said:


> I posted this over in Receivers/Amps/Processors with little luck before I found out there was a dedicated Audyssey thread, so I'm trying here.
> My apologies if this is a no-no, feel free to delete if necessary!
> 
> System: Denon AVR-X4000, dual subs of different make/model. Pretty old subs, but not junk (Pinnacle DigSub 350- 12" Isobaric; Def Tech Supercube 1)
> REW graphs below are subs only, mains were disconnected.
> 
> Being a tinkerer, and inquisitive b/c of a sub phase error I discovered (that Audyssey complete missed), I downloaded REW and ran a few tests using an inexpensive calibrated mic (Bheringer mic inbound). I ran the same tests using my Audyssey "Eiffel Tower" mic, and a homemade mic that has a very small element with a very flat pickup response from 15Hz to 15KHz.The graphs were all VERY similar, which is encouraging.
> 
> What is NOT encouraging is that the graphs are too dang similar with and without Audyssey engaged (yes, I fully calibrated the Denon using a "tight" mic placement pattern, and it was done with all speakers properly phased).
> Unless my subs and room are already working really well, it seems Audyssey did nothing much.
> The subs are at the front of the room, 1 foot from front wall, 3.5 feet from sides, flanking a cabinet ~3 feet apart. Two different subs, but the response graphs are similar for each, though shifted in frequency.
> 
> Also concerning is that the subs' output has that severe dip around 65Hz with a rise, then dropoff at 100Hz. It' almost like the Denon crossover is set at 100Hz for the LFE output (it's at 80Hz, and the crossover on the subs is set as high as possible to avoid overlap).
> The second sub seems to cross over closer to 80Hz, but similarly spikes back up with significant output before settling and rolling off.
> 
> In the graphs below, the upper response curves in each graph are the unequalized response, the lower is Audyssey.
> I know what I am seeing here, but I really would like to understand the "why?"s:
> Why are the Audessy response curves SO similar to the non-Audyssey, especially in those major sags followed by the rise well after the crossover point?
> Why does each sub have a dramatic dip like a crossover is applied, but then rises back up with significant output before rolling off again?
> Why would this dip be so similar on two different subs, but at different frequency points (one at 67hz, one at 90Hz)?
> If this dip is room response (as suggested in other thread), why is it showing up at two different frequencies (the subs are about 3 feet apart)?
> 
> SUB #1 (Pinnacle) Green is nude, Gold is Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub #2 (DefTech) Purple is nude, Red is Audyssey


You will probably get more response on REW graphs in the REW thread (yes, I am suggesting you post this _three _times  ).

First of all, use the camera icon in the upper left of the REW GUI to take screenshots. With your screenshots above, we can't see the left side of the graph which shows the SPL level, neither can we see the Legend which should tell us what was measured and what type of smoothing was used (if any).

There is no need to show the response all the way up to 1kHz on subwoofer graphs, 200Hz is sufficient.

Are you using ASIO? If so, which REW output channel did you use to take these measurements? Was it the LFE channel (CH4) or was there a speaker included?

What is the "phase error" you mentioned? Where is your LPF for LFE set?

Which of the three mics was used to generate these graphs? Your "inexpensive mic", the Audyssey mic, or your "homemade" mic? Regardless, it's hard to trust these measurement without a true calibrated mic. The mic that the vast majority of REW users have is the MiniDSP UMIK-1. I see you ordered a Behringer...why not a UMIK?

I agree that it doesn't look like Audyssey did much, if anything, to your final response. However, you didn't show us the _combined _response of both subs...Audyssey EQ's the combined response, not the sub's individual responses. Can you _hear _a difference between Audyssey ON/OFF?

The dips in response at 70Hz and 90Hz are most likely caused by room modes, but again, what does the _combined _response look like?


----------



## tsanga

robbnj said:


> I posted this over in Receivers/Amps/Processors with little luck before I found out there was a dedicated Audyssey thread, so I'm trying here.
> My apologies if this is a no-no, feel free to delete if necessary!
> 
> System: Denon AVR-X4000, dual subs of different make/model. Pretty old subs, but not junk (Pinnacle DigSub 350- 12" Isobaric; Def Tech Supercube 1)
> REW graphs below are subs only, mains were disconnected.
> 
> Being a tinkerer, and inquisitive b/c of a sub phase error I discovered (that Audyssey complete missed), I downloaded REW and ran a few tests using an inexpensive calibrated mic (Bheringer mic inbound). I ran the same tests using my Audyssey "Eiffel Tower" mic, and a homemade mic that has a very small element with a very flat pickup response from 15Hz to 15KHz.The graphs were all VERY similar, which is encouraging.
> 
> What is NOT encouraging is that the graphs are too dang similar with and without Audyssey engaged (yes, I fully calibrated the Denon using a "tight" mic placement pattern, and it was done with all speakers properly phased).
> Unless my subs and room are already working really well, it seems Audyssey did nothing much.
> The subs are at the front of the room, 1 foot from front wall, 3.5 feet from sides, flanking a cabinet ~3 feet apart. Two different subs, but the response graphs are similar for each, though shifted in frequency.
> 
> Also concerning is that the subs' output has that severe dip around 65Hz with a rise, then dropoff at 100Hz. It' almost like the Denon crossover is set at 100Hz for the LFE output (it's at 80Hz, and the crossover on the subs is set as high as possible to avoid overlap).
> The second sub seems to cross over closer to 80Hz, but similarly spikes back up with significant output before settling and rolling off.
> 
> In the graphs below, the upper response curves in each graph are the unequalized response, the lower is Audyssey.
> I know what I am seeing here, but I really would like to understand the "why?"s:
> Why are the Audessy response curves SO similar to the non-Audyssey, especially in those major sags followed by the rise well after the crossover point?
> Why does each sub have a dramatic dip like a crossover is applied, but then rises back up with significant output before rolling off again?
> Why would this dip be so similar on two different subs, but at different frequency points (one at 67hz, one at 90Hz)?
> If this dip is room response (as suggested in other thread), why is it showing up at two different frequencies (the subs are about 3 feet apart)?
> 
> SUB #1 (Pinnacle) Green is nude, Gold is Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub #2 (DefTech) Purple is nude, Red is Audyssey


You could try to confirm if Audyssey is doing anything at all by hooking up the sub pre-out (or any available channel pre-out on your AVR-X4000) to your analog mic or line input. If Audyssey is inactive, you’ll measure the same flat line that REW generates.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Does the mic measure anything during the calculating/applying filters step after completing the last measurement point?

Also, can I do 1pt and complete calibration just to check sub level is in optimum range?


----------



## robbnj

tsanga said:


> You could try to confirm if Audyssey is doing anything at all by hooking up the sub pre-out (or any available channel pre-out on your AVR-X4000) to your analog mic or line input. If Audyssey is inactive, you’ll measure the same flat line that REW generates.


An "a-ha" moment. Thanks!


----------



## robbnj

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Does the mic measure anything during the calculating/applying filters step after completing the last measurement point?
> 
> Also, can I do 1pt and complete calibration just to check sub level is in optimum range?





mogorf said:


> To me these curves look like the measurements were taken at a single point only. Please forget there curves and do another measurement series with 8 mic placements (as you would do when setting up Audyssey), use REW's average function and post those new graphs again. Good luck!


Everything I have read says to limit the microphone placement to as close to the actual listening spot as possible, so the correction doesn't try to be "all things to all people" and instead is more accurate for the actual listening spot.

Incorrect suggestion?


----------



## pbz06

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Does the mic measure anything during the calculating/applying filters step after completing the last measurement point?
> 
> Also, can I do 1pt and complete calibration just to check sub level is in optimum range?


No, it stops measuring a couple fractions of a second after each "chirp" during calibration.

You need a minimum of 3 measurements before you are able to check any results. That's one benefit of the PC software (MultiEQ-X) is that you can see the on-going results after each single measurements (although you won't be able to send to AVR still until you get 3 measurements).


----------



## MagnumX

robbnj said:


> I posted this over in Receivers/Amps/Processors with little luck before I found out there was a dedicated Audyssey thread, so I'm trying here.
> My apologies if this is a no-no, feel free to delete if necessary!
> 
> System: Denon AVR-X4000, dual subs of different make/model. Pretty old subs, but not junk (Pinnacle DigSub 350- 12" Isobaric; Def Tech Supercube 1)
> REW graphs below are subs only, mains were disconnected.
> 
> Being a tinkerer, and inquisitive b/c of a sub phase error I discovered (that Audyssey complete missed), I downloaded REW and ran a few tests using an inexpensive calibrated mic (Bheringer mic inbound). I ran the same tests using my Audyssey "Eiffel Tower" mic, and a homemade mic that has a very small element with a very flat pickup response from 15Hz to 15KHz.The graphs were all VERY similar, which is encouraging.
> 
> What is NOT encouraging is that the graphs are too dang similar with and without Audyssey engaged (yes, I fully calibrated the Denon using a "tight" mic placement pattern, and it was done with all speakers properly phased).
> Unless my subs and room are already working really well, it seems Audyssey did nothing much.
> The subs are at the front of the room, 1 foot from front wall, 3.5 feet from sides, flanking a cabinet ~3 feet apart. Two different subs, but the response graphs are similar for each, though shifted in frequency.
> 
> Also concerning is that the subs' output has that severe dip around 65Hz with a rise, then dropoff at 100Hz. It' almost like the Denon crossover is set at 100Hz for the LFE output (it's at 80Hz, and the crossover on the subs is set as high as possible to avoid overlap).
> The second sub seems to cross over closer to 80Hz, but similarly spikes back up with significant output before settling and rolling off.
> 
> In the graphs below, the upper response curves in each graph are the unequalized response, the lower is Audyssey.
> I know what I am seeing here, but I really would like to understand the "why?"s:
> Why are the Audessy response curves SO similar to the non-Audyssey, especially in those major sags followed by the rise well after the crossover point?
> Why does each sub have a dramatic dip like a crossover is applied, but then rises back up with significant output before rolling off again?
> Why would this dip be so similar on two different subs, but at different frequency points (one at 67hz, one at 90Hz)?
> If this dip is room response (as suggested in other thread), why is it showing up at two different frequencies (the subs are about 3 feet apart)?
> 
> SUB #1 (Pinnacle) Green is nude, Gold is Audyssey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sub #2 (DefTech) Purple is nude, Red is Audyssey


The massive up/downs in the higher range are caused by a lack of smoothing on the outputs. You might try using 1/12 octave smoothing or even 1/6. You're seeing reflections off your walls and small wave variances getting closer together. Beyond that I can't see the ranges of those changes to see how big a deal they are because you left out the left part of the graph. But it looks like you have your subs cranked up way above the levels of everything else and then it ramps down to the rest. There's a room mode at 90 Hz and maybe 20Hz. The rest is the lack of smoothing, I'm sure. It has nothing to do with multiple measurements since it's a REW graph, not Audyssey.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

pbz06 said:


> No, it stops measuring a couple fractions of a second after each "chirp" during calibration.
> 
> You need a minimum of 3 measurements before you are able to check any results. That's one benefit of the PC software (MultiEQ-X) is that you can see the on-going results after each single measurements (although you won't be able to send to AVR still until you get 3 measurements).


I plan on using the phone editor app, does that allow a 1pt check?

Otherwise, I'll just run 3pts at the mlp.


----------



## robbnj

You will probably get more response on REW graphs in the REW thread (yes, I am suggesting you post this _three _times  ).
*HAHAHA, will give it a shot.*

First of all, use the camera icon in the upper left of the REW GUI to take screenshots. With your screenshots above, we can't see the left side of the graph which shows the SPL level, neither can we see the Legend which should tell us what was measured and what type of smoothing was used (if any).
*Will do that.*

There is no need to show the response all the way up to 1kHz on subwoofer graphs, 200Hz is sufficient.
*OK*

Are you using ASIO? If so, which REW output channel did you use to take these measurements? Was it the LFE channel (CH4) or was there a speaker included?
*Using Win10 audio drivers with a small outboard DAC. I did do the loop-through to calibrate (as learned from a YouTube video) for in/out variances. I was playing the tone sweep with "L+R" specified, but was physically disconnecting all speakers except the sub being tested.*

What is the "phase error" you mentioned? Where is your LPF for LFE set?
*My bass was anemic after setting everything up and running Audyssey. I read that this is a common complaint and just jacked up the sub levels, but things just did not sound "right". While playing around with REW and listening to music for comparisons, I reached behind the Pinnacle sub to flip the power off and hit the phase switch instead. I immediately heard a difference. I then tested both subs individually with REW and then my ears, with the Pinnacle phase set to both positions. It turned out the Pinnacle had been running out of phase relative to the DefTech AND the mains.*

Which of the three mics was used to generate these graphs? Your "inexpensive mic", the Audyssey mic, or your "homemade" mic? Regardless, it's hard to trust these measurement without a true calibrated mic. The mic that the vast majority of REW users have is the MiniDSP UMIK-1. I see you ordered a Behringer...why not a UMIK?
*The graphs were created with the homemmade mic. I ran the same tests with all three mics all in the same position. The results were similar enough (surprisingly so, especially in showing those weird dips at 67Hz and 90Hz) that I am focusing less on the mic and more on the response charts that all 3 mics showed. 
I'm getting a Behringer b/c it is calibrated, highly regarded, and I got a silly price on it. If it shows a curve that's very similar to the others, I will feel I wasted my money, lol.*

I agree that it doesn't look like Audyssey did much, if anything, to your final response. However, you didn't show us the _combined _response of both subs...Audyssey EQ's the combined response, not the sub's individual responses. Can you _hear _a difference between Audyssey ON/OFF?
*I'm pretty sure I did get a curve generated with both subs running, and that Audyssey did very little for that, but I cannot confirm my memory (2AM testing). I will have to look. *

The dips in response at 70Hz and 90Hz are most likely caused by room modes, but again, what does the _combined _response look like?
*That confuses me: The subs are basically mirror-imaged at the front of the room and my listening spot is the endpoint of an almost perfect isosceles triangle where the subs are the other endpoints. Why would I have a different room mode from each sub? Is the mode a result of the room plus the sub?
I'll check for a combined response tonight, and make one if I don't have it saved.

Thank you all who have already made an effort to help me learn!*


----------



## robbnj

MagnumX said:


> The massive up/downs in the higher range are caused by a lack of smoothing on the outputs. You might try using 1/12 octave smoothing or even 1/6. You're seeing reflections off your walls and small wave variances getting closer together. Beyond that I can't see the ranges of those changes to see how big a deal they are because you left out the left part of the graph. But it looks like you have your subs cranked up way above the levels of everything else and then it ramps down to the rest. There's a room mode at 90 Hz and maybe 20Hz. The rest is the lack of smoothing, I'm sure. It has nothing to do with multiple measurements since it's a REW graph, not Audyssey.


The graphs I posted are measurements of the subs only, made one at a time. All other speakers physically disconnected from the system.
This was a comparison of what Audysseey did (or didn't do) versus a naked signal.
I will have to brush up on smoothing. I kind of get the concept by name, but not really sure how to apply it here.


----------



## pbz06

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> I plan on using the phone editor app, does that allow a 1pt check?
> 
> Otherwise, I'll just run 3pts at the mlp.


Nope. You'll need 3. That's what i did. You can also save time by selecting only L,R and Sub...do 3 quick measurements to see sub results (don't even move mic). Once you got your ideal target, then run the full calibration.


----------



## cricket9998

robbnj said:


> Everything I have read says to limit the microphone placement to as close to the actual listening spot as possible, so the correction doesn't try to be "all things to all people" and instead is more accurate for the actual listening spot.
> 
> Incorrect suggestion?


Depends how much of a selfish seat you want. The more you measure, the worse MLP will be. I personally only measure the front row for audy then use rew in a small bubble around my MLP. Some people like to optimize for the whole room. Personally, almost no one has the context or knowledge to tell good bass from AMAZING bass, because they have such a low bar good bass will be the best they will hear. So I optimize for my seat since I’m using it 90% of the time. But also my good bass is better than high end commercial theaters if I can pat my own back so it’s not like anyone has a remotely bad experience. The other seats are still generally flat down to 12hz and lower but have a few nulls I’m not fixing because it would compromise MLP.


----------



## mogorf

robbnj said:


> Everything I have read says to limit the microphone placement to as close to the actual listening spot as possible, so the correction doesn't try to be "all things to all people" and instead is more accurate for the actual listening spot.
> 
> Incorrect suggestion?


Please don't read such incorrect suggestions all over the Innernet!  Actually the number of mic placements and their spacial in-room distribution are two different things. In order to get the best results from Audyssey you need to follow the "intended use", i.e for MultEQ it should be 6 mic placements, for MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 it should be 8 mic placements. Here's a typical pattern for you to begin with: 










Always start for #1 (known as the MLP, Main Listening Position, aka " The Money Seat"). This is from where Audyssey will set distances (delays) and channel levels. Then you can move on with #2 to #8, order is irrelevant. Your seating setup may vary, so try to follow the pattern as close as possible. Should you be the only listener - as a general concensus here on this thread says - you may place the mic for #2 to #8 closer to the MLP, but keep at least a foot distance or so. Hope this helps!


----------



## Alan P

robbnj said:


> The dips in response at 70Hz and 90Hz are most likely caused by room modes, but again, what does the _combined _response look like?
> *That confuses me: The subs are basically mirror-imaged at the front of the room and my listening spot is the endpoint of an almost perfect isosceles triangle where the subs are the other endpoints. Why would I have a different room mode from each sub? Is the mode a result of the room plus the sub?*


Is your room a perfect, sealed rectangle? If not, all bets are off.


----------



## cricket9998

robbnj said:


> You will probably get more response on REW graphs in the REW thread (yes, I am suggesting you post this _three _times  ).
> *HAHAHA, will give it a shot.*
> 
> First of all, use the camera icon in the upper left of the REW GUI to take screenshots. With your screenshots above, we can't see the left side of the graph which shows the SPL level, neither can we see the Legend which should tell us what was measured and what type of smoothing was used (if any).
> *Will do that.*
> 
> There is no need to show the response all the way up to 1kHz on subwoofer graphs, 200Hz is sufficient.
> *OK*
> 
> Are you using ASIO? If so, which REW output channel did you use to take these measurements? Was it the LFE channel (CH4) or was there a speaker included?
> *Using Win10 audio drivers with a small outboard DAC. I did do the loop-through to calibrate (as learned from a YouTube video) for in/out variances. I was playing the tone sweep with "L+R" specified, but was physically disconnecting all speakers except the sub being tested.*
> 
> What is the "phase error" you mentioned? Where is your LPF for LFE set?
> *My bass was anemic after setting everything up and running Audyssey. I read that this is a common complaint and just jacked up the sub levels, but things just did not sound "right". While playing around with REW and listening to music for comparisons, I reached behind the Pinnacle sub to flip the power off and hit the phase switch instead. I immediately heard a difference. I then tested both subs individually with REW and then my ears, with the Pinnacle phase set to both positions. It turned out the Pinnacle had been running out of phase relative to the DefTech AND the mains.*
> 
> Which of the three mics was used to generate these graphs? Your "inexpensive mic", the Audyssey mic, or your "homemade" mic? Regardless, it's hard to trust these measurement without a true calibrated mic. The mic that the vast majority of REW users have is the MiniDSP UMIK-1. I see you ordered a Behringer...why not a UMIK?
> *The graphs were created with the homemmade mic. I ran the same tests with all three mics all in the same position. The results were similar enough (surprisingly so, especially in showing those weird dips at 67Hz and 90Hz) that I am focusing less on the mic and more on the response charts that all 3 mics showed.
> I'm getting a Behringer b/c it is calibrated, highly regarded, and I got a silly price on it. If it shows a curve that's very similar to the others, I will feel I wasted my money, lol.*
> 
> I agree that it doesn't look like Audyssey did much, if anything, to your final response. However, you didn't show us the _combined _response of both subs...Audyssey EQ's the combined response, not the sub's individual responses. Can you _hear _a difference between Audyssey ON/OFF?
> *I'm pretty sure I did get a curve generated with both subs running, and that Audyssey did very little for that, but I cannot confirm my memory (2AM testing). I will have to look. *
> 
> The dips in response at 70Hz and 90Hz are most likely caused by room modes, but again, what does the _combined _response look like?
> *That confuses me: The subs are basically mirror-imaged at the front of the room and my listening spot is the endpoint of an almost perfect isosceles triangle where the subs are the other endpoints. Why would I have a different room mode from each sub? Is the mode a result of the room plus the sub?
> I'll check for a combined response tonight, and make one if I don't have it saved.
> 
> Thank you all who have already made an effort to help me learn!*


Bass does not work like other speaker frequencies. Triangles work for LCR and stuff but bass does whatever it wants. You are talking about frequencies that are 10-50ft long. Basically for your nulls a single wavelength is going to be longer than your entire room so yes they will interfere. You can fix it by adding subs in the back or moving your seats.


----------



## MagnumX

mogorf said:


> Please don't read such incorrect suggestions all over the Innernet!  Actually the number of mic placements and their spacial in-room distribution are two different things. In order to get the best results from Audyssey you need to follow the "intended use", i.e for MultEQ it should be 6 mic placements, for MultEQ XT and MultEQ XT32 it should be 8 mic placements. Here's a typical pattern for you to begin with:
> 
> View attachment 3351574
> 
> 
> Always start for #1 (known as the MLP, Main Listening Position, aka " The Money Seat"). This is from where Audyssey will set distances (delays) and channel levels. Then you can move on with #2 to #8, order is irrelevant. Your seating setup may vary, so try to follow the pattern as close as possible. Should you be the only listener - as a general concensus here on this thread says - you may place the mic for #2 to #8 closer to the MLP, but keep at least a foot distance or so. Hope this helps!


Bologna. Try both. More around your one chair works better if that's the only seat you're concerned with. That default diagram is about averaging a bunch of seats at the cost of your MLP one. Do you want one amazing seat or three so-so ones? Only you can decide. 

Then again, Audyssey above Schroeder is a waste of time without detailed knowledge of your speakers. Otherwise, it's just a wall reflection EQ system at that point since it can't tell sounds your brain treats as ambient reflections from basic frequency response which is why "flat" in Audyssey generally sounds god-awful bright. Perfect speakers at 1 meter in a typical room roll off naturally over distance as a summed average. Force it flat and it's typically harsh compared to flat headphones that aren't harsh. Throw in tone-deaf (or micro-managed) mixing "engineers" that typically are in deadened control rooms (Floyd Toole's Circle of Confusion) and it's amazing any albums sound good at all.


----------



## mogorf

MagnumX said:


> Then again, Audyssey above Schroeder is a waste of time without detailed knowledge of your speakers. Otherwise, it's just a wall reflection EQ system at that point since it can't tell sounds your brain treats as ambient reflections from basic frequency response which is why "flat" in Audyssey generally sounds god-awful bright. Perfect speakers at 1 meter in a typical room roll off naturally over distance as a summed average. Force it flat and it's typically harsh compared to flat headphones that aren't harsh. Throw in tone-deaf (or micro-managed) mixing "engineers" that typically are in deadened control rooms (Floyd Toole's Circle of Confusion) and it's amazing any albums sound good at all.


Actually room correction systems are made to take care of room-speaker interaction, therefore the detailed knowledge of our speakers alone in this case are not enough here, whatever the detailed knowledge is supposed to mean.

Here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say on the subject:

"I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."


----------



## MagnumX

mogorf said:


> Actually room correction systems are made to take care of room-speaker interaction, therefore the detailed knowledge of our speakers alone in this case are not enough here, whatever the detailed knowledge is supposed to mean.
> 
> Here's what Chris Kyriakakis (author of Audyssey) has to say on the subject:
> 
> "I am aware of the thinking that one should equalize only the low frequencies below Schroeder. In my experience, full range EQ is typically better. Research from the BBC labs in the 1960s showed that perfect stereo imaging requires the two speakers to have a matched response of ±1 dB up to 20 kHz! I can guarantee you that no two identical speakers have that coming out of the factory and even if they do, once you place them in different locations in the room their response will vary. So for me it's always full range correction."


Do you have a link to this study or just a quote by someone hawking their room correction system for money?

Think about it logically. No speaker on Earth had +/- 1dB response in the 1960s! And there was no way to correct them to that level of performance. So how the hell could that be what they were talking about? I suppose they could mean within one decibel of each other (left speaker versus right speaker rather than flat frequency response, that being a quality control issue in manufacturing rather than some then unobtainable frequency response requirement).

But the BBC is a broadcasting organization, not a loudspeaker company. It is far more likely they were talking about the broadcast signals in stereo being within 1dB of each other during transmission that if not synchronized within 1dB would make your otherwise matched stereo pair of speakers sound like unmatched pairs and damage imaging.

Besides, most speakers are far from 1dB from each other even today. That means if they were talking about overall frequency response (unlikely, IMO) then virtually no one has heard this magical version of stereo imaging. I guess we've all been listen to garbage for decades. No wonder I prefer Atmos, Auro-3D and other multichannel music recordings.

Read a book by Dr. Floyd Toole. He's done more experimental research on human perception of loudspeakers in stereo than anyone on Earth. He's tried Trinnov level room correction and HATED it on automatic settings full range. He says it destroyed the sound of his $40,000+ per pair Revel speakers. He talks about Schroeder and the problems of full range correction better than I can.

Really, what do you expect the makers of Audyssey (or DIRAC Live, etc) to tell you? Please don't buy our products? A parametric EQ on a Mini-DSP is good enough to fix bass and the rest is your room's fault we can't really fix because our microphones can't tell direct response from room response and your brain can to much larger degree? Yeah right. You might as well just say, please put us out of business....

For reference, my PSB speakers are rated +/- 1.5dB, which are twice as accurate as most speakers in the frequency response category. They average +/- 2.5dB combined room response in REW in stereo in a heavily dampened room. I hear more consistency in great sound doing Schroeder only. I have gotten some decent results with full range Audyssey, but when I calibrate the next time, it's hit or miss depending (seemingly) where I put the microphone for all those measurements, particularly in the higher frequency ranges.

Turning Audyssey OFF fixes the problem every time, but then bass is worse sounding. The best solution is to bandwidth limit the system to bass only. That fixes the bass and leaves great sounding music every time with albums I've listened to for years.

My upstairs system uses Carver Ribbon dipoles. It actually utilizes room reflections for more "Artist is in the room" like sound (at the cost of room ambience from the original recording, which really doesn't reproduce terribly well with just stereo anyway).

So I use dipoles for stereo upstairs and a 17-speaker Atmos/X/Auro-3D system for multichannel music and home theater, although I discovered I could replicate much of the dipole sound character by utilizing two more arrays of speakers in stereo mode (send - 3dB main signal to front wides and front heights using a mixer and defeatable Amp in stereo mode), which in the latter case gives me a "dialog lift" effect that places voices just below the middle of the screen) yet doesn't interfere with reproducing the room in multichannel recordings because it actually reduces room interaction below 250Hz (partial line array) while reproducing more simulated out-of-phase (decorrelated) information from the actual recording instead of reflecting off my room walls (heavily damped and diffused). The results were so good I listen to both music and movies in the home theater now.


----------



## robbnj

Avoiding the pissing match lol, Anyone got an idea why two dissimilar subs would have that frequency dip at two different frequencies, and why the response curves would be so similar before and after equalization?
I understand the room affects response, but this is the same room. Do room modes change their frequency based on the sub? 
I could test with the subs in the exact same spot if needed, though they are symmetrically placed (for consistency and convenience) in an a symmetrical room. 
Again, so much I have read says that Audyssey shines for bass correction, but these responses don’t look corrected at all. 
Or are they actually very good to begin with?

I have this going in multiple threads, but don’t want to just dump out when people are responding.


----------



## mogorf

MagnumX said:


> Do you have a link to this study or just a quote by someone hawking their room correction system for money?
> 
> Think about it logically. No speaker on Earth had +/- 1dB response in the 1960s! And there was no way to correct them to that level of performance. So how the hell could that be what they were talking about? I suppose they could mean within on decibel of each other (left speaker versus right speaker rather than flat frequency response, that being a quality control issue in manufacturing rather than some then unobtainable frequency response requirement).
> 
> But the BBC is a broadcasting organization, not a loudspeaker company. It is far more likely they were talking about the broadcast signals in stereo being within 1dB of each other during transmission that if not synchronized within 1dB would make your otherwise matched stereo pair of speakers sound like unmatched pairs and damage imaging.
> 
> Besides, most speakers are far from 1dB from each other even today. That means if they were talking about overall frequency response (unlikely, IMO) then virtually no one has heard this magical version of stereo imaging. I guess we've all been listen to garbage for decades. No wonder I prefer Atmos, Auro-3D and other multichannel music recordings.
> 
> Read a book by Dr. Floyd Toole. He's done more experimental research on human perception of loudspeakers in stereo than anyone on Earth. He's tried Trinnov level room correction and HATED it on automatic settings full range. He says it destroyed the sound of his $40,000+ per pair Revel speakers. He talks about Schroeder and the problems of full range correction better than I can.
> 
> Really, what do you expect the makers of Audyssey (or DIRAC Live, etc) to tell you? Please don't buy our products? A parametric EQ on a Mini-DSP is good enough to fix bass and the rest is your room's fault we can't really fix because our microphones can't tell direct response from room response and your brain can to much larger degree? Yeah right. You might as well just say, please put us out of business....
> 
> For reference, my PSB speakers are rated +/- 1.5dB, which are twice as accurate as most speakers in the frequency response category. They average +/- 2.5dB combined room response in REW in stereo in a heavily dampened room. I hear more consistency in great sound doing Schroeder only. I have gotten some decent results with full range Audyssey, but when I calibrate the next time, it's hit or miss depending (seemingly) where I put the microphone for all those measurements, particularly in the higher frequency ranges.
> 
> Turning Audyssey OFF fixes the problem every time, but then bass is worse sounding. The best solution is to bandwidth limit the system to bass only. That fixes the bass and leaves great sounding music every time with albums I've listened to for years.
> 
> My upstairs system uses Carver Ribbon dipoles. It actually utilizes room reflections for more "Artist is in the room" like sound (at the cost of room ambience from the original recording, which really doesn't reproduce terribly well with just stereo anyway).
> 
> So I use dipoles for stereo upstairs and a 17-speaker Atmos/X/Auro-3D system for multichannel music and home theater, although I discovered I could replicate much of the dipole sound character by utilizing two more arrays of speakers in stereo mode (send - 3dB main signal to front wides and front heights using a mixer and defeatable Amp in stereo mode), which in the latter case gives me a "dialog lift" effect that places voices just below the middle of the screen) yet doesn't interfere with reproducing the room in multichannel recordings because it actually reduces room interaction below 250Hz (partial line array) while reproducing more simulated out-of-phase (decorrelated) information from the actual recording instead of reflecting off my room walls (heavily damped and diffused). The results were so good I listen to both music and movies in the home theater now.


Excuse me, but I think as long as we are in the "Official Audyssey thread" its always a benefit for all when we can have quotes from the original author (aka Chris Kyriakakis) of this specific room correction system who is not just someone "hawking their room correction system for money". OMG. The rest of your post is irrelevant for the subject, probably better to be discussed elsewhere, but not in this thread. Nonetheless, please enjoy your system "as is", its yours, you paid hard earned money for it. Take care and be well!


----------



## mogorf

robbnj said:


> Avoiding the pissing match lol, Anyone got an idea why two dissimilar subs would have that frequency dip at two different frequencies, and why the response curves would be so similar before and after equalization?
> I understand the room affects response, but this is the same room. Do room modes change their frequency based on the sub?
> I could test with the subs in the exact same spot if needed, though they are symmetrically placed (for consistency and convenience) in an a symmetrical room.
> Again, so much I have read says that Audyssey shines for bass correction, but these responses don’t look corrected at all.
> Or are they actually very good to begin with?
> 
> I have this going in multiple threads, but don’t want to just dump out when people are responding.


As previously advised firstly you need to do the proper measurements in REW. BTW, until then did you know REW has a "subwoofer simulator"? Try it out and see what you get!


----------



## MagnumX

mogorf said:


> Excuse me, but I think as long as we are in the "Official Audyssey thread" its always a benefit for all when we can have quotes from the original author (aka Chris Kyriakakis) of this specific room correction system who is not just someone "hawking their room correction system for money". OMG. The rest of your post is irrelevant for the subject, probably better to be discussed elsewhere, but not in this thread. Nonetheless, please enjoy your system "as is", its yours, you paid hard earned money for it. Take care and be well!


So you don't have a link to this supposed BBC 1960s study? I tried to find it on Google, but the only thing remotely related that came up was that mid-range "dip" the BBC implemented for broadcast.


----------



## robbnj

I think it was asked here, so here is the comparison graph running both subs at once. I hope to run some more tests later tonight. For fun

Gold is the Audysset corrected signal, blue is uncorrected.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> Besides, most speakers are far from 1dB from each other even today.



Agreed. Speakers that advertise +/- 1 dB can be fairly rough above and way above Schroeder, when you put them* in a **room*. Here is a Yg Sonja 1.3 ($106,000) *advertised at +/- 1 dB*, measured *in a room * in the Jul 1, 2013 Stereophile*, RED *plot. Let's say that Schroeder in JA's listening room is 100 Hz. Then we would have about *+/- 3.75 dB*, *above Schroeder, 100 to 15K or 20K. *Too bad we don't have Audyssey, or Dirac, or Trinnov to smooth out those 4 1/2 octaves.*








*
Suppose the BBC study was really meant to call for a stereo *pair* of speakers to *match* *each other* in a *room* -- point for point, frequency SPL for frequency SPL, 20 to 20,000Hz, rather than for each speaker to have flat response, across the spectrum (although they would probably try for that, as well) relative to an anchor point like 1K. _That_ could be done (sort of) as far back as c.1970 when I saw it done in a showroom in Santa Barbara, with the aid of an Altec Acustovoicette, which, IIRC, had a slider every 1/4 octave, monitored by a chart recorder with 1/3 octave gradations. Music on that system was great, and I suppose the imaging was good (did we call it "imaging" back then, or was it Stereo Geometry a la Paul Klipsch?). I walked out of the store elated -- "The walls fell away," as one listener said. Down the mall was a bookstore with Norman Mailer's Fire on the Moon displayed. I thought, "That demonstration was my Fire on the Moon."


----------



## galonzo

robbnj said:


> I think it was asked here, so here is the comparison graph running both subs at once. I hope to run some more tests later tonight. For fun
> 
> Gold is the Audysset corrected signal, blue is uncorrected.
> 
> View attachment 3351751


Part of the problem is that you're showing too much SPL "range," you might have a better idea if you limit the range down to your noise floor, which should be somewhere around 40ish or so.


----------



## robbnj

Like this (range suggested in another thread)?


----------



## MagnumX

garygarrison said:


> Agreed. Speakers that advertise +/- 1 dB can be fairly rough above and way above Schroeder, when you put them* in a **room*. Here is a Yg Sonja 1.3 ($106,000) *advertised at +/- 1 dB*, measured *in a room * in the Jul 1, 2013 Stereophile*, RED *plot. Let's say that Schroeder in JA's listening room is 100 Hz. Then we would have about *+/- 3.75 dB*, *above Schroeder, 100 to 15K or 20K. *Too bad we don't have Audyssey, or Dirac, or Trinnov to smooth out those 4 1/2 octaves.*
> View attachment 3351739
> *
> Suppose the BBC study was really meant to call for a stereo *pair* of speakers to *match* *each other* in a *room* -- point for point, frequency SPL for frequency SPL, 20 to 20,000Hz, rather than for each speaker to have flat response, across the spectrum (although they would probably try for that, as well) relative to an anchor point like 1K. _That_ could be done (sort of) as far back as c.1970 when I saw it done in a showroom in Santa Barbara, with the aid of an Altec Acustovoicette, which, IIRC, had a slider every 1/4 octave, monitored by a chart recorder with 1/3 octave gradations. Music on that system was great, and I suppose the imaging was good (did we call it "imaging" back then, or was it Stereo Geometry a la Paul Klipsch?). I walked out of the store elated -- "The walls fell away," as one listener said. Down the mall was a bookstore with Norman Mailer's Fire on the Moon displayed. I thought, "That demonstration was my Fire on the Moon."


You shouldn't really need the EQ to match the speakers to each other if construction quality is good as it's an identical design with all the same strengths and weaknesses. If speaker samples weren't relativistic then magazine/web reviews would be worthless. One normally accepts one speaker as more or less sounding like all its manufactured brethren.

However, by your graph I take it to mean you're talking about matching room responses with each other, not the speakers themselves. This is more problematic, particularly in the bass region, which is why correction is so helpful there. 

However, at higher frequencies we tend to hear room reflections more as ambient information, so much so that Toole recommends not absorbing the first side-wall reflection because it's needed to balance out a problem with the ear itself and stereo signals from a frontal only direction. 

However, as I indicated above, there is an alternative once you wander outside two speaker stereo and I don't mean just multichannel music, but using arrayed speakers at that location instead to reproduce the recording reflection and room information therein rather than adding your own room to the mix. 

My 12'x24' family room plus the hall for the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra on John Williams Live In Vienna performance in Atmos probably don't make the best combination. But remove my room from the equation (absorption) and play it from many different reproduced angles in Atmos over 17 speakers in the same room and you're suddenly a lot closer to being in Vienna than by having an active room. 

Auro-3D on "Himmelborgan" really made me believe I was in the church it was recorded in with my eyes closed, for example, even more so than Atmos because it was recorded using a microphone rig that matches the playback speaker layout and sounds similar to binaural recordings with headphones when the dummy head ears are close to or match your own. You're not hearing "stereo" but actually seem to be there because all the correct HRTF information is present as if you were the dummy head. 

THAT is what I want at home, not a mix of my room and another. You can't really do it with your own room in the mix so I have a tapestry right behind the 1st reflection point for the mains, near the front wides and the front wides fill in the missing reflections, even for stereo, however simulated. I've got heavy draping in 3 more locations plus carpeting and diffusion opposite all if them. You can scream in the room and it just dies. Music and movies, however sound wonderful.


----------



## galonzo

robbnj said:


> Like this (range suggested in another thread)?
> View attachment 3351822


That's better. 

As you can see, the room null is severe at ~70Hz, which puts one of your room dimensions around 15 1/2 foot (assuming 8' ceilings) what are your room dimensions? 

And do you even have other sub placement options? 

With two, you should be able to work out an arrangement where they help each other...


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

One more question (thanks guys for all the help so far), if one of the measurement points fails due to too much noise can it be repeated with starting for scratch all over again? 

And can it be repeated if it doesn't fail but a sudden loud noise occurred during a portion of the measurement?

I could do this with the PC version of Dirac on the Onkyo TX-RZ50 I justed returned for a Denon X3800H, but not with YPAO on my Yamaha RX-A2070.


----------



## cricket9998

So…. Full range correction or no? Last time I did full range it sounded like it killed the high end of my speakers. But there is a reason why they say it’s good for imaging.


----------



## pbz06

cricket9998 said:


> So…. Full range correction or no? Last time I did full range it sounded like it killed the high end of my speakers. But there is a reason why they say it’s good for imaging.


Whatever works and sounds best to you in your room and set up  Contrary to what some may say, there's a lot of science and engineering behind both methods and there's specific reasons why one group advocates for one way, while the other advocates another. There's no true right or wrong. I constantly go back and forth (it's easier now that the MQX software allows you to run full range on one setting and quickly switch to limited), and honestly I can't really hear a difference no matter how hard I try. When I do hear differences, it's exactly that, not better/worse and very very subtle. I've never had a scenario where it would lean me strongly one way or another.


----------



## cricket9998

pbz06 said:


> Whatever works and sounds best to you in your room and set up  Contrary to what some may say, there's a lot of science and engineering behind both methods and there's specific reasons why one group advocates for one way, while the other advocates another. There's no true right or wrong. I constantly go back and forth (it's easier now that the MQX software allows you to run full range on one setting and quickly switch to limited), and honestly I can't really hear a difference no matter how hard I try. When I do hear differences, it's exactly that, not better/worse and very very subtle. I've never had a scenario where it would lean me strongly one way or another.


I trust measurements and data. People also say Bose speakers sound good so ears are not a good measurement tool. Your ears can’t tell you if you are able to get a certain metric better. How would your ears know you can improve imaging by 15% or something? Data is the only thing that matters and there’s not much of it unfortunately.


----------



## pbz06

cricket9998 said:


> I trust measurements and data. People also say Bose speakers sound good so ears are not a good measurement tool. Your ears can’t tell you if you are able to get a certain metric better. How would your ears know you can improve imaging by 15% or something? Data is the only thing that matters and there’s not much of it unfortunately.


Of course, and that's why I spend hours and hours tweaking every little thing with REW and umik-2, and setting up my speakers with markings on the floor. That's with Audyssey full range and limited. My measurements and my ears show me and tell me that both sound equally good.


----------



## Alan P

robbnj said:


> Like this (range suggested in another thread)?
> View attachment 3351822


I think I can explain why Audyssey isn't doing much to your response under 70Hz. The null starting at 90Hz is so severe that Audyssey thinks _that _is your F3 point and is applying no correction below it.

I could be wrong, but regardless you need to find better placement options in order to present a much flatter response to Audyssey.


----------



## robbnj

galonzo said:


> That's better.
> 
> As you can see, the room null is severe at ~70Hz, which puts one of your room dimensions around 15 1/2 foot (assuming 8' ceilings) what are your room dimensions?
> 
> And do you even have other sub placement options?
> 
> With two, you should be able to work out an arrangement where they help each other...


Why would the room null be at one frequency for one sub, and at a different frequency for another sub? I though the room caused the modes (if I am using the right term) and not the speaker.
The room is approx 14x40 (a finished half of a basement). On the "front left" corner there is a kickout into a 3/4 bathroom. Midway to the back on the same side is an enclosed stairwell. Couch, loveseat, theater chairs, bookshelves, and lots of other stuff. Gypsum walls over cinderbloack. Unknown if insulated.
I can move the subs within some reason and do some more testing once I have time again (work gets in the way of my hobbies, lol). I set them up the way they are for convenience, but also read that having them close to the mains is optimum, especially when trying to do corrections. I assumed when reading that, the logic was: the fewer variables to deal with, the easier it is to equalize.

Again, thanks all for helping me learn by doing.


----------



## Alan P

robbnj said:


> *Why would the room null be at one frequency for one sub, and at a different frequency for another sub?* I though the room caused the modes (if I am using the right term) and not the speaker.
> The room is approx 14x40 (a finished half of a basement). On the "front left" corner there is a kickout into a 3/4 bathroom. Midway to the back on the same side is an enclosed stairwell. Couch, loveseat, theater chairs, bookshelves, and lots of other stuff. Gypsum walls over cinderbloack. Unknown if insulated.
> I can move the subs within some reason and do some more testing once I have time again (work gets in the way of my hobbies, lol). I set them up the way they are for convenience, but also read that having them close to the mains is optimum, especially when trying to do corrections. I assumed when reading that, the logic was: the fewer variables to deal with, the easier it is to equalize.
> 
> Again, thanks all for helping me learn by doing.


Because of placement.

As I said earlier, unless your room is a perfect, sealed rectangle, all bets are off. From how you describe your room it is _not _a perfect, sealed rectangle and therefore each sub will react differently with the room depending on where they are placed.

If you placed both subs in the exact same spot, you should get the same response (although in your case the subs aren't identical, so....).


----------



## robbnj

Alan P said:


> Because of placement.
> 
> As I said earlier, unless your room is a perfect, sealed rectangle, all bets are off. From how you describe your room it is _not _a perfect, sealed rectangle and therefore each sub will react differently with the room depending on where they are placed.
> 
> If you placed both subs in the exact same spot, you should get the same response (although in your case the subs aren't identical, so....).


This is the point where my brain gets wrapped in circles with frequency, room modes, speaker interaction, etc. etc.
If two subs are in the same spot playing the same frequency (or sweep, even), that can (or, can that) result in a different room mode(node?) occurring for each sub? i.e. The room node is 70Hz for one sub but 90Hz for another.
They are not in identical spots but literally a few fee apart on the same wall. Can those few feet change the game entirely?

Sorry for the 20Q. I like to work things out in my head and understand what I'm doing before and after I try stuff (like moving subs around the room on carpet sliders, lol)


----------



## Rich 63

pbz06 said:


> Levels and distances. I'm fairly certain that the crossovers are determined as a collective of the cluster of measurements.


Just saw this post. I just had a discussion in another thread about a week ago were they stated that the crossover of the sub is determined by the responses of other speakers. 
My understanding was that the determined crossover was the f3 of each speaker independent of others. This is important info to clarify if what your suggesting is so. It might very well be for multi only. Not sure who to get confirmation from. Is ask audessey still up and running?


----------



## Alan P

robbnj said:


> Can those few feet change the game entirely?


Yup. Even inches.

Have you read this guide (or at least the Cliff Notes section)?









Guide to Subwoofer Calibration and Bass Preferences


The Guide, which starts here in Post 1, and which continues in Post 2, is intended to be a general guide to Home Theater, HT calibration, and audio quality. Due to its roughly 250 page length, I have had to divide it into two posts. Sections I through III follow the Introduction in this post...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Rich 63

robbnj said:


> They are not in identical spots but literally a few fee apart on the same wall. Can those few feet change the game entirely?


I have moved subs a few inches and had different sweep responses so yes a few feet matter.


----------



## halcyon_888

cricket9998 said:


> So…. Full range correction or no? Last time I did full range it sounded like it killed the high end of my speakers. But there is a reason why they say it’s good for imaging.


Audyssey actually increased my highs with my LCR speakers, there was a slight rolloff on them. Additionally, there was a dip in my surrounds and heights from 400Hz-2kHz that Audyssey corrected, which might have been a design flaw in the DIY speakers I built (I didn't come up with the design, I just built them). I consider these results to be stellar and Audyssey well worth it. My surrounds and heights never sounded better.


----------



## pbz06

Rich 63 said:


> Just saw this post. I just had a discussion in another thread about a week ago were they stated that the crossover of the sub is determined by the responses of other speakers.
> My understanding was that the determined crossover was the f3 of each speaker independent of others. This is important info to clarify if what your suggesting is so. It might very well be for multi only. Not sure who to get confirmation from. Is ask audessey still up and running?


Yes, that's what I'm saying. By collective, I meant the collective measurements for that particular speaker. Meaning, for example, 8 measurements of the FL speaker will determine what the F3 is for that speaker (not just position 1 measurement).


----------



## MagnumX

cricket9998 said:


> I trust measurements and data. People also say Bose speakers sound good so ears are not a good measurement tool. Your ears can’t tell you if you are able to get a certain metric better. How would your ears know you can improve imaging by 15% or something? Data is the only thing that matters and there’s not much of it unfortunately.


There's a certain strangeness to the thinking of wanting better sound when sound is a subjective thing (We don't all like the same speakers) and then saying you don't trust your ears to tell you anything at all.

If it sounds harsh, you just say oh well and go with the flat graph Audyssey inevitably shows as near perfect looking? 

The problem is reflected sound and REW can't distinguish direct response from reflections so what looks good or bad isn't necessarily so above Schroeder. The best way to treat longer decay times or too bright sounds is often to add absorption and/or diffusion to your room as it only affects reflected sound. 

Your direct sound measurements are determined by testing anechoic (typically manufacturer or near-field testing by you or a reviewer). 

By applying EQ (such as Audyssey does) to frequencies above Schroeder you're changing your possibly near perfect direct sound in that range to correct room averages that do not sound the same as the direct component. This is why Audyssey "flat" usually sounds awful, not because a speaker with flat frequency response sounds bad. You're making the speaker too bright or dull depending on what its direct response is because reflected sound is heard as ambience and added decay times, not the primary frequency response. 

Thus, measurements arent always what they appear to be if you're not aware of what they mean or their limitations. EQ systems like Audyssey can only affect combined response. It may or may not sound "better" or worse depending on your subjective preferences, but it's not making the direct response flat, only the measured average of direct plus room. This is why conventional room treatments are still relevant and why Dr. Toole recommends treating only below Schroeder where room modes are heard as directly affecting frequency response.


----------



## schwock5

Alan P said:


> I think I can explain why Audyssey isn't doing much to your response under 70Hz. The null starting at 90Hz is so severe that Audyssey thinks _that _is your F3 point and is applying no correction below it.
> 
> I could be wrong, but regardless you need to find better placement options in order to present a much flatter response to Audyssey.


+ 1. i think this is what was happening with mine as well.
High null had no adj below that frequency. even when manually adjusting the audyssey curve it had no effect under that point.


----------



## pbarach

cricket9998 said:


> I trust measurements and data. People also say Bose speakers sound good so ears are not a good measurement tool. Your ears can’t tell you if you are able to get a certain metric better. How would your ears know you can improve imaging by 15% or something? Data is the only thing that matters and there’s not much of it unfortunately.


 I know when my speakers image better after I adjust the toe-in angle, but I have no idea what measurements would show that, do you?

BTW I liked (but didn't buy) the original Bose 901 speakers because their reflections against the wall behind them made the soundspace huge! But I'm a more experienced listener now, and regardless of how they measured, I know they would sound subjectively bad to me nowadays (I last heard them a few years ago).


----------



## Rich 63

pbz06 said:


> Yes, that's what I'm saying. By collective, I meant the collective measurements for that particular speaker. Meaning, for example, 8 measurements of the FL speaker will determine what the F3 is for that speaker (not just position 1 measurement).


Ok. Reading your original post I interpreted incorrectly. I thought you were saying the f3 of other speakers affected what audessey might set each speaker. In that one measurement affects another. Now that you have explained it for my brain again, it is what I understood. 
Thanks


----------



## Soulburner

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> One more question (thanks guys for all the help so far), if one of the measurement points fails due to too much noise can it be repeated with starting for scratch all over again?
> 
> And can it be repeated if it doesn't fail but a sudden loud noise occurred during a portion of the measurement?
> 
> I could do this with the PC version of Dirac on the Onkyo TX-RZ50 I justed returned for a Denon X3800H, but not with YPAO on my Yamaha RX-A2070.


If Audyssey fails to get a good measurement due to noise, it will repeat the measurement at a louder level automatically. There is nothing required of the user.


----------



## cricket9998

pbarach said:


> I know when my speakers image better after I adjust the toe-in angle, but I have no idea what measurements would show that, do you?
> 
> BTW I liked (but didn't buy) the original Bose 901 speakers because their reflections against the wall behind them made the soundspace huge! But I'm a more experienced listener now, and regardless of how they measured, I know they would sound subjectively bad to me nowadays (I last heard them a few years ago).


Yes phase and frequency response would show this. You compare measurements for each pair of speakers and see how closely the measurements align.


----------



## Soulburner

cricket9998 said:


> Yes phase and frequency response would show this. You compare measurements for each pair of speakers and see how closely the measurements align.


On and off-axis.


----------



## robbnj

A little off topic but had to share. Ordered on Tuesday. Arrived today with free shipping and a little “gift”, a thank you card, and a company name sticker. 
Color me impressed.


----------



## Soulburner

Is there a reason to buy the ECM8000 instead of the UMIK-1?


----------



## robbnj

Soulburner said:


> Is there a reason to buy the ECM8000 instead of the UMIK-1?


For me: cost. I'm doing this for fun and education, and at as low a cost as possible. About 1/2 of the UMIK-1.


----------



## Alan P

robbnj said:


> For me: cost. I'm doing this for fun and education, and at as low a cost as possible. About 1/2 of the UMIK-1.


Did the mic come with a calibration file?









Do I need a Behringer ECM8000 Cal file?


I did some searching here and a brief amount of reading. I get the impression that I need a calibration file for my Behringer ECM8000? Any helpful hints? Regards, Dan




www.hometheatershack.com


----------



## MagnumX

Alan P said:


> Did the mic come with a calibration file?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need a Behringer ECM8000 Cal file?
> 
> 
> I did some searching here and a brief amount of reading. I get the impression that I need a calibration file for my Behringer ECM8000? Any helpful hints? Regards, Dan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hometheatershack.com


This may be of some help (apparently the Behringer mics vary a lot from unit to unit so it's best to make your own) :









ECM8000 calibration file


Hi guys. Can anyone point me to a place, where I could download an ECM8000.cal file for Behringer ECM8000 mic? I searched throughout the internet with no success for now.




www.avnirvana.com


----------



## garygarrison

pbz06 said:


> there's a lot of science and engineering behind both methods and there's specific reasons why one group advocates for one way, while the other advocates another. There's no true right or wrong.


In my rather *dead* 25' x 16.75' x 10' 2" (average*;* ceiling is sloped, higher in the back) room, with corner placement of LF & RF speakers*, *and many absorbers and diffusors:

*With Audyssey Flat, Full Range*, with *good* recordings, I get a nice *increase* in *treble and detail*, the sound seems *balanced*, and, of the various options, measures the nearest to flat with a little, 2 dB, hump at 5K Hz to 12K Hz, and crossing the 0 line [i.e. "Flat"] at 12K, and being just about - 1.5 dB to - 2 dB at 17K Hz.

*With Audyssey Reference, Full Range*, the sound is not quite as bright, and appropriate for many overly harsh recordings and pre-1990s film soundtracks that have a bit of distortion at the top [that the original mix engineers may not have heard, even with full frequency range stereo *magnetic* (vs.monaural optical), due to 2-way theater and mixing room speakers that *dropped like a rock at 10KHz,*








especially in the 1950s and 1960s]. The usual film that originally was recorded [and exhibited] with magnetic media [for 70mm at 22.5 ips ], such as Lawrence of Arabia, West Side Story (1961), and Around the World in 80 Days(1956) sounds fine with Audyssey Reference's and some Harman-like bass boost. In fact, 5 dB Bass boost and Audyssey Reference's 6 dB treble attenuation at 20K Hz look remarkably like Harman. Here is* Harman's *[*speaker*/not headphone]* curve *[look at the smooth declining line, not the empirical wiggles]*:








*The most extreme, harshest high treble boost Blu-rau film sound from magnetic tracks I've run into is How the West was Won (Smilebox version; I refuse to run the non-Smilebox version & the sound_ is_ different)*; *it takes Audyssey Reference _*and* _treble control @ - 5 dB to sound right.

Whenever I have tried switching back and forth between Audyssey Flat Full Range and No Audyssey, with good recordings, Aud Flat Full Range is better. Likewise Aud Reference does sound "better" with bad recordings than with either Aud Flat or with No Audyssey.

Naturally, YMMV.


----------



## Soulburner

garygarrison said:


> Whenever I have tried switching back and forth between Audyssey Flat Full Range and No Audyssey, with good recordings, Aud Flat Full Range is better. Likewise Aud Reference does sound "better" with bad recordings than with either Aud Flat or with No Audyssey.


I believe he was testing using a curve that matches the natural in-room response of the speakers, not the Audyssey targets.


----------



## nekr0mantik

if you adjust Sub level using the Denon Subwoofer Level setting in options then if you re run calibration afterwards, will it keep the sub level to whatever you chose in the options menu or should it re do the level based on new calibration? did this and it did not change level after calibration for sub. Left it same as I had it pre calibration.


----------



## mogorf

nekr0mantik said:


> if you adjust Sub level using the Denon Subwoofer Level setting in options then if you re run calibration afterwards, will it keep the sub level to whatever you chose in the options menu or should it re do the level based on new calibration? did this and it did not change level after calibration for sub. Left it same as I had it pre calibration.


If you bump up the sub level in the AVR and re-do the calibration with that setting, MultEQ will turn down the channel trim in the subwoofer channel accordingly.


----------



## nekr0mantik

mogorf said:


> If you bump up the sub level in the AVR and re-do the calibration with that setting, MultEQ will turn down the channel trim in the subwoofer channel accordingly.


Okay thanks that makes sense as to why I'm seeing that behaviour but it's strange as if you move you're sub or speaker then you would do new calibration but you would want it to re do sub level based on new reading's rather than use the old level you set at previous positions. Odd.


----------



## mogorf

nekr0mantik said:


> Okay thanks that makes sense as to why I'm seeing that behaviour but it's strange as if you move you're sub or speaker then you would do new calibration but you would want it to re do sub level based on new reading's rather than use the old level you set at previous positions. Odd.


Actually, I see nothing odd here! How could Audyssey know the old setting and why would you expect that? On a second note, Audyssey ignores all AVR settings during calibration. I think this is the right answer after all!


----------



## nekr0mantik

mogorf said:


> Actually, I see nothing odd here! How could Ausyssey know the old setting and why would you expect that?


I think we confusing each other.
So I asked if you re run calibration does it over write the level set in options but I must have said it badly and answer was no it lowers it by that much.

I expected the calibration would calculate the trim as per normal and set that as the level rather than change it based on whatever you set pre calibration.
That's what I noticed after I re done my calibration.


----------



## mogorf

nekr0mantik said:


> I think we confusing each other.
> So I asked if you re run calibration does it over write the level set in options but I must have said it badly and answer was no it lowers it by that much.
> 
> I expected the calibration would calculate the trim as per normal and set that as the level rather than change it based on whatever you set pre calibration.
> That's what I noticed after I re done my calibration.


Agree, I also have the feeling we have a kinda confusion here. Me surely! 

Nonetheless, conclusion should be that Audyssey will ignore anything pre-set in the AVR during calibration. The only thing to look after is setting the Level (sometimes Volume) knob on the sub in order to get a negative dB reading after calibration. This will allow you to bump up the sub level (best done in the AVR) whenever you have a desire for a bit more bass, thus avoiding clipping of the sub channel. Happens with many of us!


----------



## nekr0mantik

mogorf said:


> Agree, I also have the feeling we have a kinda confusion here. Me surely!
> 
> Nonetheless, conclusion should be that Audyssey will ignore anything pre-set in the AVR during calibration. The only thing to look after is setting the Level (sometimes Volume) knob on the sub in order to get a negative dB reading after calibration. This will allow you to bump up the sub level (best done in the AVR) whenever you have a desire for a bit more bass, thus avoiding clipping of the sub channel. Happens with many of us!


Yeah which is why I was surprised I saw same trim after calibration that I already had set manually before haha will try again tonight as I moved sub to see if I can get better lower response


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Does ECO mode Auto affect Audyssey setup?


----------



## pbz06

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Does ECO mode Auto affect Audyssey setup?


No. It essentially bypasses all AVR settings during calibration, and then reverts them to what you had them set to.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

pbz06 said:


> No. It essentially bypasses all AVR settings during calibration, and then reverts them to what you had them set to.


Thanks


----------



## nekr0mantik

below is my sub measurement after audessey using REW and UMIK1
do people think the low bass from 20 to 40 is most likely due to the sub not being powerful enough for my room?
Its a SVS SB1000 Pro.


----------



## Alan P

nekr0mantik said:


> below is my sub measurement after audessey using REW and UMIK1
> do people think the low bass from 20 to 40 is most likely due to the sub not being powerful enough for my room?
> Its a SVS SB1000 Pro.
> View attachment 3355042


This looks to me like you just don't have the sub turned up high enough.

Where did your AVR set the sub trim after Audyssey calibration?
Where do you have it set now?
Are you using Dynamic EQ and/or Dynamic Volume?
How large is your room (in cubic feet, include all areas open to the listening area)?
And just to tick all the boxes, which mic are you using with REW?


----------



## nekr0mantik

Alan P said:


> This looks to me like you just don't have the sub turned up high enough.
> 
> Where did your AVR set the sub trim after Audyssey calibration?
> Where do you have it set now?
> Are you using Dynamic EQ and/or Dynamic Volume?
> How large is your room (in cubic feet, include all areas open to the listening area)?
> And just to tick all the boxes, which mic are you using with REW?


So AVR set sub level to -6.1 after calibration.
I used the options menu to up it to -4
Not using DEQ but am using Dynamic Volume at Low setting.
Room is 3674 ft³ according to calculator but not sure how accurate that is.
REW was using UMIK1 microphone with calibration file.


----------



## Alan P

nekr0mantik said:


> So AVR set sub level to -6.1 after calibration.
> I used the options menu to up it to -4
> Not using DEQ but am using Dynamic Volume at Low setting.
> Room is 3674 ft³ according to calculator but not sure how accurate that is.
> REW was using UMIK1 microphone with calibration file.


Are you sure it was -6.1? AFAIK it only works in .5dB steps.

You really want to shoot for a lower initial sub trim, more like -11 or -11.5.

Most folks add anywhere from 3-6dB to the sub trim post-Audyssey....some add much more.

Using the REW SPL meter, check the relative levels of your speakers vs sub outputting pink noise/speaker cal & sub cal using the signal generator and report back here.


----------



## nekr0mantik

Alan P said:


> Are you sure it was -6.1? AFAIK it only works in .5dB steps.
> 
> You really want to shoot for a lower initial sub trim, more like -11 or -11.5.
> 
> Most folks add anywhere from 3-6dB to the sub trim post-Audyssey....some add much more.
> 
> Using the REW SPL meter, check the relative levels of your speakers vs sub outputting pink noise/speaker cal & sub cal using the signal generator and report back here.


Maybe -6 then.
I think reason why it was low is it gives me warning saying its too loud and so I have to drop volume from -12 in SVS App which is recommended pre calibration level to -20 to get it to around 76db in MultiEQ X App. So it reports as -6 after calibration. 

So at default listening volume I use for Movies or TV, Sub reading in REW is 63db and L/R Speaker is 68db.


----------



## Alan P

nekr0mantik said:


> Maybe -6 then.
> I think reason why it was low is it gives me warning saying its too loud and so I have to drop volume from -12 in SVS App which is recommended pre calibration level to -20 to get it to around 76db in MultiEQ X App. So it reports as -6 after calibration.
> 
> So at default listening volume I use for Movies or TV, *Sub reading in REW is 63db and L/R Speaker is 68db*.


Yeah, you want your sub at least +3dB higher than your speakers, maybe even more. Personally....and don't think I am "average" by any means...I run my subs about +10dB higher than my speakers.


----------



## nekr0mantik

Alan P said:


> Yeah, you want your sub at least +3dB higher than your speakers, maybe even more. Personally....and don't think I am "average" by any means...I run my subs about +10dB higher than my speakers.


I just upped the volume of sub to -10 on SVS App and ran REW SPL and it still didnt go above 64db. So my UMIK1 might be broken haha

Edit: so REW uses one either Left or Right speaker to measure sub but sub volume has no effect on SPL so I'm thinking sub is not being used properly. As if I raise master volume on the AVR then I get higher dB reading.


----------



## garygarrison

Review your hook up and make sure everything is correctly connected.
Do a sub crawl [Google is your friend] and find the best place for your sub. It may or may not be in a corner.
Try crossing over lower?? And then turning the sub up, so the lower part of the curve will go up as the gain control [volume control on the sub itself] is turned up. Mine crosses over at 60Hz, but my main speakers handle 60Hz up fine (15" horn loaded woofers).
Here is a graph of another SVS, along with a Klipsch. The SVS is the PB13 [Blue-green]. I don't know what size it is, but its forte [forte as strong point, rather than as in music] is around 18 to 24 Hz.


----------



## Polyrythm1k

nekr0mantik said:


> below is my sub measurement after audessey using REW and UMIK1
> do people think the low bass from 20 to 40 is most likely due to the sub not being powerful enough for my room?
> Its a SVS SB1000 Pro.
> View attachment 3355042


Not sure how big the room is, but I’m not surprised from an sb1000.


----------



## anjunadeep

nekr0mantik said:


> below is my sub measurement after audessey using REW and UMIK1
> do people think the low bass from 20 to 40 is most likely due to the sub not being powerful enough for my room?
> Its a SVS SB1000 Pro.
> View attachment 3355042


What was the before?


----------



## tsanga

nekr0mantik said:


> below is my sub measurement after audessey using REW and UMIK1
> do people think the low bass from 20 to 40 is most likely due to the sub not being powerful enough for my room?
> Its a SVS SB1000 Pro.
> View attachment 3355042


This is what I achieved with an SVS SB-1000.








You might be able to improve with better placement to get more boundary reinforcement. However your room is much bigger than mine at 3600 sq ft which is probably too much volume for this sub.


----------



## nekr0mantik

anjunadeep said:


> What was the before?


Wasn't much difference apart from slightly higher db at 40 before audessy

Thanks all will experiment with placement and trim before audessy


----------



## 9636940

Alan P said:


> Yeah, you want your sub at least +3dB higher than your speakers, maybe even more. Personally....and don't think I am "average" by any means...I run my subs about +10dB higher than my speakers.


No sarcasm? Really?


----------



## 9636940

tsanga said:


> This is what I achieved with an SVS SB-1000.
> View attachment 3355171
> 
> You might be able to improve with better placement to get more boundary reinforcement. However your room is much bigger than mine at 3600 sq ft which is probably too much volume for this sub.


By reading some of the comments, I have the impression, that some people here are not using their ears, but blindly follow a fetish of a flatter frequency response?

Do you know, that some the differences shown above - for example the one at 100 Hz - are absolutely HUUUGE soundwise? The dips at 100 Hz seems to be a cancellation. Which is filled by a huge boost. Do you really like that nasty, nauseating pressure in the head, masking everything? Tiesto-Kicks must sound wonderful... /s


----------



## tsanga

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> By reading some of the comments, I have the impression, that some people here are not using their ears, but blindly follow a fetish of a flatter frequency response?
> 
> Do you know, that some the differences shown above - for example the one at 100 Hz - are absolutely HUUUGE soundwise? The dips at 100 Hz seems to be a cancellation. Which is filled by a huge boost. Do you really like that nasty, nauseating pressure in the head, masking everything? Tiesto-Kicks must sound wonderful... /s


You do realize those are two traces of different seating positions and not “dips filled by a huge boost”?


----------



## 9636940

tsanga said:


> You do realize those are two traces of different seating positions and not “dips filled by a huge boost”?





> This is what I achieved with an SVS SB-1000.
> You might be able to improve with better placement to get more boundary reinforcement.


----------



## Alan P

nekr0mantik said:


> I just upped the volume of sub to -10 on SVS App and ran REW SPL and it still didnt go above 64db. So my UMIK1 might be broken haha
> 
> Edit: so REW uses one either Left or Right speaker to measure sub but sub volume has no effect on SPL so I'm thinking sub is not being used properly. As if I raise master volume on the AVR then I get higher dB reading.


Are your front speakers set to SMALL?


----------



## Alan P

TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> No sarcasm? Really?


No, no sarcasm in that post of mine. Not sure what you are insinuating...?




TheSoundIsInTheMids said:


> By reading some of the comments, I have the impression, that some people here are not using their ears, but blindly follow a fetish of a flatter frequency response?
> 
> Do you know, that some the differences shown above - *for example the one at 100 Hz - are absolutely HUUUGE soundwise?* The dips at 100 Hz seems to be a cancellation. Which is filled by a huge boost. Do you really like that nasty, nauseating pressure in the head, masking everything? Tiesto-Kicks must sound wonderful... /s


Not sure if you are being serious, but that dip at 100Hz in the graph you referenced is very narrow and most likely barely audible during real-world use, I would hardly call it "HUUUGE".


----------



## 9636940

Alan P said:


> No, no sarcasm in that post of mine. Not sure what you are insinuating...?
> 
> Not sure if you are being serious, but that dip at 100Hz in the graph you referenced is very narrow and most likely barely audible during real-world use, I would hardly call it "HUUUGE".


I am sure you could hear it easily, but you have not learned how to listen for it. Naturally our hearing is developed, to ignore room acoustics. If we would hear all the time, how the sound in a room changes with positioning, we would probably become crazy.
So it's more like learning the alphabet. We cannot read without learning the connection between the sign and how it is pronounced. Like with letters, we don't have a natural sense telling us, what a certain frequency boosted or cut, is doing to the sound of each instrument. We don't know, how that frequency is impacting the sound, if we have not learned and trained it.

But if you know, how a 100 Hz change on a certain kind of instrument changes its character, then you can hear it in your head first. You develop an anchor point what to listen for. And when you play it back, and your imagination was correct, you will know what to listen for and you will hear the change.
IIRC Harman offers a free tool to improve hearing skills.


----------



## bareyb

Hello. I'm reading the beginning of the thread and getting lots of good info. Thank you guys for putting it together.

I do have one question though... I've run Audy and it did indeed set all of my speakers to LARGE with no Xover points (full range). The guide at the beginning of this thread suggests we change that. However, on my Denon 3800 none of the parameters I see are able to be changed. At least not when I go: Setup>Speakers>Audy>Check results. How does one make changes to the Audy results?


----------



## robbnj

bareyb said:


> Hello. I'm reading the beginning of the thread and getting lots of good info. Thank you guys for putting it together.
> 
> I do have one question though... I've run Audy and it did indeed set all of my speakers to LARGE with no Xover points (full range). The guide at the beginning of this thread suggests we change that. However, on my Denon 3800 none of the parameters I see are able to be changed. At least not when I go: Setup>Speakers>Audy>Check results. How does one make changes to the Audy results?


"Check Results" is just a way to see the settings on the system, not to make changes.
But before jumping to conclusions and giving answers, what speakers are you running in your system?


----------



## bareyb

robbnj said:


> "Check Results" is just a way to see the settings on the system, not to make changes.
> But before jumping to conclusions and giving answers, what speakers are you running in your system?


I've got Towers all around with dual 8's in them so they can hit 35 hz and that's fine (although I'd prefer not to run them full range for various reasons).

What I'd really like to know is how to change Audy parameters after they've been established or if that is possible. The entire guide at the beginning of this thead kind of assumes that you can and makes various suggestions on how to do so. How does one go about making changes to the Audy results?


----------



## Alan P

bareyb said:


> I've got Towers all around with dual 8's in them so they can hit 35 hz and that's fine (although I'd prefer not to run them full range for various reasons).
> 
> What I'd really like to know is how to change Audy parameters after they've been established or if that is possible. The entire guide at the beginning of this thead kind of assumes that you can and makes various suggestions on how to do so. How does one go about making changes to the Audy results?


Setup>Speakers>Manual.


----------



## MagnumX

I've always thought using house curves basically is saying the mixing engineer doesn't know what he's doing because "flat" isn't actually flat except to a test tone. It's setting the system to hear what the mixer intended you to hear. Some people (like a certain mixer named John) get upset when someone upmixes with something like DSU or Neural X because the movie is no longer what was "intended" when it was mixed by a professional (whose feelings get hurt when you intimate they don't know what they're doing). 

Of course the reality is some really don't know what they're doing or the studio interferes and tells them to make music louder, etc. But most CDs released in the 80s had anemic bass at flat settings. So you adjusted to get it to sound good and the 90s came along and suddenly there's too much bass, but there really isn't. It's just a little better than the old recordings bass output and the bass control doesn't need turned up as much (dynamic range/compression is another matter). 

So now the movie studios filter bass so you compensate for it and then you watch Blade Runner 2049 and jump out of your seat when that first bass note hits! 

I really think some of these mixing guys actually _are_ deaf. That would explain a lot....


----------



## nekr0mantik

So fixed the low end issue.
Now I got a dip at crossover region. Anyone know if this can be fixed via Audessy MultiEQ X App?
Here is the measurement: https://drive.proton.me/urls/1TJQ492760#aaWPn50ReBjT


----------



## Alan P

nekr0mantik said:


> So fixed the low end issue.
> Now I got a dip at crossover region. Anyone know if this can be fixed via Audessy MultiEQ X App?
> Here is the measurement: https://drive.proton.me/urls/1TJQ492760#aaWPn50ReBjT


That link seems a bit suspicious. Can't you just upload the image here with your post??


----------



## bareyb

Alan P said:


> Setup>Speakers>Manual.


Ah. Guide doesn't really spell that out very clearly (see below). Thank you. Are you simply duplicating all of the Audy results in a different Speaker Preset (i.e. "Preset 2") and then adjusting them there?

*



23. When Audyssey has finished all the measurements for all mic positions, it will do some calculations and then ask you to double check the settings. Once you have done that, it is OK to then SAVE the settings. Do not forget to do this! Audyssey only transfers the settings to the AVR once you press the SAVE button as instructed onscreen. You will be able to change various settings after saving them by going into the relevant menu on your AVR.

24. You may find that your front speakers have been set to LARGE or Full Range. Audyssey does not make this decision - Audyssey reports to the AVR the -3dB rolloff point for each speaker and the AVR then decides how to set the speakers. AVR manufacturers use arbitrary rules to do this. If you use a subwoofer, it is important to set your speakers manually to SMALL or to a crossover setting - if you leave them at Large then you will bypass your subwoofer and not use the bass management features in your AVR at all. Instant rule: if you use a sub, set your speakers to SMALL (ie use a crossover setting).

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Polyrythm1k

nekr0mantik said:


> So fixed the low end issue.
> Now I got a dip at crossover region. Anyone know if this can be fixed via Audessy MultiEQ X App?
> Here is the measurement: https://drive.proton.me/urls/1TJQ492760#aaWPn50ReBjT


Try adding a couple feet to the subwoofer distance and see what you get.


----------



## Alan P

bareyb said:


> Are you simply duplicating all of the Audy results in a different Speaker Preset (i.e. "Preset 2") and then adjusting them there?


No, not a separate preset, you are changing the settings that Audyssey originally set. This is _very _common practice.


----------



## nekr0mantik

Alan P said:


> That link seems a bit suspicious. Can't you just upload the image here with your post??














Polyrythm1k said:


> Try adding a couple feet to the subwoofer distance and see what you get.


will try thanks


----------



## bareyb

Alan P said:


> No, not a separate preset, you are changing the settings that Audyssey originally set. This is _very _common practice.


Oh okay. The Audy settings that were made to Preset 1 (on a Denon) are editable on the Manual side. I see that now. Thank you!


----------



## Alan P

nekr0mantik said:


> View attachment 3355454
> 
> 
> 
> 
> will try thanks


Sub Distance Tweak:


Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
Add to the sub distance setting (both subs equally if using an AVR with dual sub calibration) in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
Re-measure
Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover, increasing the granularity of the distance setting if need be (from 1' increments to .1' increments).
You can repeat the process with the L or R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)


EDIT: Oh, and make sure you follow the recommended distance settings from this thread.









Audyssey time alignment is off according to REW impluse...


I am running Audyssey on my Denon for my 11.1 system. But it looks like the impulse response chart in REW is saying that the front LCRs (and 2 front subs) are 1ft (0.3m) further away than they should be. The 4 surrounds are closer to what I think should be zero, but some are still about 3in...




www.avsforum.com


----------



## bareyb

My wife and I both have chairs that face the TV with a chair table in between kind of like this: _ _ _ When I ran Audyssey I placed the mic at ear level on the table_ between our Chairs_ and made that the main listening position instead of choosing one of the Chairs for the MLP.

1. Was that best way to do it? My reasoning is if I make MY chair the MLP the sound would be skewed towards the left and at HER chair it would be skewed to the Right. Since the Table was kind of in the middle of both chairs, I thought that might provide the best sound for us both. Is that a correct assumption?

2. I also only used those 3 listening positions since our chairs are against the wall and no way to put a mic behind them. Should I have placed the mic at ear level on the floor in front of our chairs as well even though nobody ever sits there?


----------



## nekr0mantik

Alan P said:


> Sub Distance Tweak:
> 
> 
> Measure CC+subs (REW HDMI CH3)
> Add to the sub distance setting (both subs equally if using an AVR with dual sub calibration) in 1' increments (on some AVRs you must make sure to back out of the distance setting menu before the new setting will take effect)
> Re-measure
> Repeat until you get the smoothest transition over the crossover, increasing the granularity of the distance setting if need be (from 1' increments to .1' increments).
> You can repeat the process with the L or R+sub, but will usually have to compromise the CC+subs to get them all fairly smooth (if you are primarily movies, balance the compromise in favor of CC+sub, if music the L/R+sub)
> 
> 
> EDIT: Oh, and make sure you follow the recommended distance settings from this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Audyssey time alignment is off according to REW impluse...
> 
> 
> I am running Audyssey on my Denon for my 11.1 system. But it looks like the impulse response chart in REW is saying that the front LCRs (and 2 front subs) are 1ft (0.3m) further away than they should be. The 4 surrounds are closer to what I think should be zero, but some are still about 3in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com


Only have 1 sub.
The distance bug dont affect it if you use the Audessy PC app which is what Im using. 
Will play around with distances and try CC instead of L.


----------



## bareyb

Okay got it dialed in and this thing has never sounded better. I'm an Audyssey believer. 

Took this screenshot at Reference Level during the Movie "Pacific Rim". Subwoofer hit 105 dBs! Subwoofer is a Rythmic F18 if anyone is interested. 

ETA: Now you know why I didn't want to run my Speakers as LARGE. To it's credit, the Denon didn't get that hot. 87 degrees right now (with a fan on). I'm super happy with my new subwoofer.


----------



## garygarrison

MagnumX said:


> or *the studio interferes and tells them to make music louder, etc.* But most CDs released in the 80s had anemic bass at flat settings. So you adjusted to get it to sound good and the 90s came along and suddenly there's too much bass, but there really isn't. It's just a little better than the old recordings bass output and the bass control doesn't need turned up as much (dynamic range/compression is another matter).
> 
> So now the movie studios filter bass so you compensate for it and then you watch Blade Runner 2049 and jump out of your seat when that first bass note hits!



IMO, the *bolded* part of your post refers to the most likely problem that studios gleefully give us. On CDs/SACDs/DVDAs, for *music*, the deep bass is held back so the overall level can be turned up*;* the "loudness wars." The mixing engineers have protested from time to time, but they need to keep their jobs, so they do what the suits tell them to.
For movies, on Blu-Ray or streaming (if you are very, very lucky) if the bass is not held back to "customize it for the home," i.e. tame the original movie tracks by reducing bass and dynamic range to not disturb people who have never heard *fff* or *sfz *or even *sffz* , or, perhaps, Bernstein's *fff presto barbaro*. Most *recent* movies seem to be O.K. that way, finally. *Many of the older classics*, recorded in ultra high fidelity, 6 channel, 35mm full coat magnetic film at 22.5 ips, before being transferred to smaller magnetic stripes on 70mm prints that also run at 22.5 ips with a 7.5 mm wide total magnetic surface (it is a common error to suppose that only 5 mm of space was devoted to the soundtracks, perhaps because writers do the math and find that 70 - 65 = 5, not allowing for a slightly reduced picture area to accommodate two tracks inside the sprocket holes, as well as four outside -- for a total magnetic width of a bit wider (+1.15mm) than the 1/4" tape we loved on our reel to reel tape decks.








Anyway, the 70mm movies I'm talking about are (to cite just a few) *Ben-Hur* (1959), *Around the World in 80 Days *(1956) and *Lawrence of Arabia* (1962), all with great scores and sound effects. 
The sound of the ship splintering in *Ben-Hur *was much tamer than in the theater, as was the music reproduction.
In *80 Days*, the 114 piece orchestra didn't sound as massive as in the theater.
In *Lawrence*, the brass was too loud and the drums too soft, compared to the theatrical version. For all of the above, I use *at least an 8 dB subwoofer boost*. Almost everyone feels that Audyssey sets the sub to low (although I am happy with the correction above the sub range).


----------



## bareyb

Hey guys. I need some suggestions about Mic placement. Here are the two main listening positions. Where should the Mic be placed for the 8 readings? The center of the screen is probably about where my Coffee cup is (that's my MLP next to it). I know this room is a bit of a challenge so any help from you guys that have experimented with this stuff would be _greatly_ appreciated. I want to get this right.


----------



## mogorf

bareyb said:


> Hey guys. I need some suggestions about Mic placement. Here are the two main listening positions. Where should the Mic be placed for the 8 readings? The center of the screen is probably about where my Coffee cup is (that's my MLP next to it). I know this room is a bit of a challenge so any help from you guys that have experimented with this stuff would be _greatly_ appreciated. I want to get this right.
> 
> View attachment 3355769


Care to share another photo that shows the front side of you room?


----------



## bareyb

mogorf said:


> Care to share another photo that shows the front side of you room?


Sure! Thank you! One moment...


----------



## bareyb

mogorf said:


> Care to share another photo that shows the front side of you room?


Okay. Here we go. I ran Audyssey once and I tried setting the Mic on the Table between the chairs to get a compromise reading, but now after doing some study in the FAQ I'm wondering if perhaps I should forget the table completely and take 4 readings on each chair (middle, left side, right side, of seat cushion and one measurement more towards the front of the seat cushion) and just focus entirely on the two MLPs. Where would you guys take the readings in a room like this? Thanks again for the help.


----------



## bareyb

I'm thinking something like this?


----------



## mogorf

bareyb said:


> Okay. Here we go. Thank you for your help.
> 
> View attachment 3355781
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 3355782


Thanks. Ok, first of all you have a really beautiful room that will surely work out well as a Home Theater with lots of enjoyment. Now, IMHO I would put the mic right in the middle, just in front of the small table on a tripod or mic stand to let Audyssey gain its info from the first mic placement (channel trims, distances), then you can place the mic for the remaining 7 positions around the listening area (places where both of you will be sitting), then up front of the seats. Some further thoughts. Front speakers will perform best when angled (toed-in) facing MLP, and rear speaker will also benefit when turned 90 degrees inward facing seats. Please wait for others to chime in with their opinions and choose the best solution you find worthwhile to follow.


----------



## bareyb

mogorf said:


> Thanks. Ok, first of all you have a really beautiful room that will surely work out well as a Home Theater with lots of enjoyment. Now, IMHO I would put the mic right in the middle, just in front of the small table on a tripod or mic stand to let Audyssey gain its info from the first mic placement (channel trims, distances), then you can place the mic for the remaining 7 positions around the listening area (places where both of you will be sitting), then up front of the seats. Some further thoughts. Front speakers will perform best when angled (toed-in) facing MLP, and rear speaker will also benefit when turned 90 degrees inward facing seats. Please wait for others to chime in with their opinions and choose the best solution you find worthwhile to follow.


Okay. That was my initial thought as well. I did a rudimentary run at this last week and set the MLP as the middle of the glass table. Kind of a good compromise for both positions. I only took 3 measurements though and after doing some reading it's clear you should take as many readings as possible in your setup. I've got the Mic on a Tripod now ready to go. I'll hit the Gym and see if anyone else chimes in. Appreciate the help mogorf.


----------



## mogorf

bareyb said:


> Okay. That was my initial thought as well. I did a rudimentary run at this last week and set the MLP as the middle of the glass table. Kind of a good compromise for both positions. I only took 3 measurements though and after doing some reading it's clear you should take as many readings as possible in your setup. I've got the Mic on a Tripod now ready to go. I'll hit the Gym and see if anyone else chimes in. Appreciate the help mogorf.


One more thought, please always make sure mic is placed at seated ear higth and facing the ceiling.


----------



## bareyb

mogorf said:


> One more thought, please always make sure mic is placed at seated ear higth and facing the ceiling.


Thanks man. Looks like it's just me and you. Appreciate the help. 😎


----------



## Polyrythm1k

I think you’re going the right direction. I also agree with the suggestion to rotate the surrounds to face the listeners. The mains too. They might benefit from the time intensity thing. Aim the LF at the right listener and the RF at the left listener. Not sure how long the room is but moving them off the front wall might help too.


----------



## tojohnso

bareyb said:


> Thanks man. Looks like it's just me and you. Appreciate the help. 😎


You've probably already done this - but in case you haven't - the diagram below is the closest thing I've found outside of the app I use on my iPad (I'd have to do another run to get the diagram it shows). To be honest - the app for iPad, iPhone, etc. is highly recommended. I've been more than happy with it and it's saved me a lot of time. My AVR can save two measurement settings but the app lets you save as many as you want. Can easily send one to the unit quickly. That was important to me as I kept moving my speakers after adding ceilings.

Consider your setup like the couch below. The middle spot is the table. I can take 8 measurements with my system - take the most you can. As previously said - a tripod with mic at ear level pointing up to the ceiling is important. I swap my 3/2 as my main seating position for me is where #3 is below. It also happened to be how the diagram looks in the app. Then do 4/5/6 and 7/8. In your case, I'd put the mic as close to the back of the chair to match the numbers 7/8 best you can. 

Remember - position 1 is where all the speaker capabilities, phase, delay (distance) etc. are determined. If you get a phase error on any speakers, just make sure the wires are connected properly once. The system is known to incorrectly report phase issues. The rest of the positions are to figure out how sound bounces around the room.


----------



## Soulburner

nekr0mantik said:


> So AVR set sub level to -6.1 after calibration.
> I used the options menu to up it to -4
> Not using DEQ but am using Dynamic Volume at Low setting.
> Room is 3674 ft³ according to calculator but not sure how accurate that is.
> REW was using UMIK1 microphone with calibration file.


Without DEQ and a small sealed sub in a big room, you're going to need a large increase to sub levels, but you'll find the limit of the sub.


----------



## bareyb

tojohnso said:


> You've probably already done this - but in case you haven't - the diagram below is the closest thing I've found outside of the app I use on my iPad (I'd have to do another run to get the diagram it shows). To be honest - the app for iPad, iPhone, etc. is highly recommended. I've been more than happy with it and it's saved me a lot of time. My AVR can save two measurement settings but the app lets you save as many as you want. Can easily send one to the unit quickly. That was important to me as I kept moving my speakers after adding ceilings.
> 
> Consider your setup like the couch below. The middle spot is the table. I can take 8 measurements with my system - take the most you can. As previously said - a tripod with mic at ear level pointing up to the ceiling is important. I swap my 3/2 as my main seating position for me is where #3 is below. It also happened to be how the diagram looks in the app. Then do 4/5/6 and 7/8. In your case, I'd put the mic as close to the back of the chair to match the numbers 7/8 best you can.
> 
> Remember - position 1 is where all the speaker capabilities, phase, delay (distance) etc. are determined. If you get a phase error on any speakers, just make sure the wires are connected properly once. The system is known to incorrectly report phase issues. The rest of the positions are to figure out how sound bounces around the room.
> 
> View attachment 3355912


Thanks! That’s really helpful. What App are you using on the iPad?


----------



## MagnumX

tojohnso said:


> Remember - position 1 is where all the speaker capabilities, phase, delay (distance) etc. are determined. If you get a phase error on any speakers, just make sure the wires are connected properly once. The system is known to incorrectly report phase issues. *The rest of the positions are to figure out how sound bounces around the room.*
> 
> View attachment 3355912


Nonsense. Audyssey is not trying to figure out anything. Audyssey averages the response for all those microphone positions. Thus, you have a choice. You can narrowly limit the microphone positions to where your chair and ears are and get an optimized response for one position or you can measure it out like that (3 feet maximum from the MLP is what Audyssey says to do; your diagram makes it look like more like 10 feet) and get better sound for more locations (typically two sitting very close to the MLP as 3 feet isn't much at all) at the expense of the MLP getting less than perfect sound. That's just the way it is. There are no free meals.


----------



## Octavian89

Hello. I have a question, more like a problem.
So im owning a denon x1400h with mordaunt short 908 as fronts. When i tried to use audyssey to calibrate i got phase error on L R. I swaped my speakers, i tought because they were with the side woofers pointing outwards, and one of them near a wall, and i still got this phase error. So i changed red with black on both speakers and i no longer got any error. My rest of speakers are fine on red red black black.
Should i keep red black swaped or red red black black and ignore audyssey phase error?


----------



## tojohnso

bareyb said:


> Thanks! That’s really helpful. What App are you using on the iPad?


The D&M Audyssey MultEQ app.


----------



## tojohnso

MagnumX said:


> Nonsense. Audyssey is not trying to figure out anything. Audyssey averages the response for all those microphone positions. Thus, you have a choice. You can narrowly limit the microphone positions to where your chair and ears are and get an optimized response for one position or you can measure it out like that (3 feet maximum from the MLP is what Audyssey says to do; your diagram makes it look like more like 10 feet) and get better sound for more locations (typically two sitting very close to the MLP as 3 feet isn't much at all) at the expense of the MLP getting less than perfect sound. That's just the way it is. There are no free meals.


Put a cork in it already, Magnum PI. I've read documentation from the engineers who designed Audyssey. You have anything from them that refutes what I posted and backs up your apparently uneducated (about Audyssey) statements?

I do - and it's 2'-3' relative distances between the mic positions. A quick Google Search found this interaction. Unfortunately, the PDF for mic positions doesn't work any longer, but I'm sure if you put in a little effort, you'd find it and it would look like what I've shown.



https://audyssey.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212347423-Microphone-placement-


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Question: Can I use the mic pattern where the last 3pts are 1ft above seated ear level and basically a 8pt version of the box pattern Dirac recommends for their tightly focused imaging 9pt measures (4pts below and 4pts above 1st point, all points at least 1ft from each other)?

Or do all points need to be ear level and not further than 2ft from 1st point by even a bit?

I currently I have points 2-5 at ear level four corners of listening area about 2ft from 1st point and points 6-8 1ft above ear level front left and right corners and rear center.


----------



## Soulburner

I don't subscribe to _all_ points needing to be at ear level.

First, the diagram in the app shows the last 3 points on the back of the chair.

Second, Jeff Clark (Audyssey lead engineer) has been on Sound United Training and Audioholics videos explaining the measuring process. It's basically, measure where your head will be. He varies the height because he may be sitting up, then slouching, etc.

From that, and my own use, the best seems to be a 6-12" pattern around your head location(s).

If you have locations that are several feet apart, like a bed and a desk, it's probably best to save 2 different calibrations.


----------



## Octavian89

Octavian89 said:


> Hello. I have a question, more like a problem. So im owning a denon x1400h with mordaunt short 908 as fronts. When i tried to use audyssey to calibrate i got phase error on L R. I swaped my speakers, i tought because they were with the side woofers pointing outwards, and one of them near a wall, and i still got this phase error. So i changed red with black on both speakers and i no longer got any error. My rest of speakers are fine on red red black black. Should i keep red black swaped or red red black black and ignore audyssey phase error?


 Help ? please?


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Soulburner said:


> I don't subscribe to _all_ points needing to be at ear level.
> 
> First, the diagram in the app shows the last 3 points on the back of the chair.
> 
> Second, Jeff Clark (Audyssey lead engineer) has been on Sound United Training and Audioholics videos explaining the measuring process. It's basically, measure where your head will be. He varies the height because he may be sitting up, then slouching, etc.
> 
> From that, and my own use, the best seems to be a 6-12" pattern around your head location(s).
> 
> If you have locations that are several feet apart, like a bed and a desk, it's probably best to save 2 different calibrations.


Thanks, I only have that one position, but in the evening I flatten the bed and lie on my side, which can be a bit lower in ear level and a bit more rightward and slightly more forward.

Is 6" to 12" the distance from the 1st point? From each point to adjacent ones?

How much variation in height do you recommend?

Also, anything wrong with the mic tip facing downwards if that makes it easier to position the boom mic stand so close to the mattress surface?

This is the position during the majority of the day:


----------



## Soulburner

PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Also, anything wrong with the mic tip facing downwards if that makes it easier to position the boom mic stand so close to the mattress surface?


Definitely keep the mic facing up at all times. The reflections (or lack of) from the carpeted floor and bed are completely different.



PlasmaPZ80U said:


> Is 6" to 12" the distance from the 1st point? From each point to adjacent ones?
> 
> How much variation in height do you recommend?


I find the standard in-app locations to be pretty good, I just keep them within about a foot of the central point. But then I'm optimizing just for me.


----------



## PlasmaPZ80U

Soulburner said:


> Definitely keep the mic facing up at all times. The reflections (or lack of) from the carpeted floor and bed are completely different.
> 
> 
> I find the standard in-app locations to be pretty good, I just keep them within about a foot of the central point. But then I'm optimizing just for me.


Ok thanks, especially for clarifying that mic up or down are not interchangeable.


----------



## tojohnso

Octavian89 said:


> Help ? please?


Don't worry too much about phase error. It doesn't impact how the system calibrates. It's a common thing reported by Audyssey. Can be your room, or apparently some speaker manufacturers swap phase in the cabinet on purpose. As long as + from amp goes to + on speaker, and - on amp goes to - on speaker, you are good.


----------



## bareyb

mogorf said:


> Thanks. Ok, first of all you have a really beautiful room that will surely work out well as a Home Theater with lots of enjoyment. Now, IMHO I would put the mic right in the middle, just in front of the small table on a tripod or mic stand to let Audyssey gain its info from the first mic placement (channel trims, distances), then you can place the mic for the remaining 7 positions around the listening area (places where both of you will be sitting), then up front of the seats. Some further thoughts. Front speakers will perform best when angled (toed-in) facing MLP, and rear speaker will also benefit when turned 90 degrees inward facing seats. Please wait for others to chime in with their opinions and choose the best solution you find worthwhile to follow.





tojohnso said:


> You've probably already done this - but in case you haven't - the diagram below is the closest thing I've found outside of the app I use on my iPad (I'd have to do another run to get the diagram it shows). To be honest - the app for iPad, iPhone, etc. is highly recommended. I've been more than happy with it and it's saved me a lot of time. My AVR can save two measurement settings but the app lets you save as many as you want. Can easily send one to the unit quickly. That was important to me as I kept moving my speakers after adding ceilings.
> 
> Consider your setup like the couch below. The middle spot is the table. I can take 8 measurements with my system - take the most you can. As previously said - a tripod with mic at ear level pointing up to the ceiling is important. I swap my 3/2 as my main seating position for me is where #3 is below. It also happened to be how the diagram looks in the app. Then do 4/5/6 and 7/8. In your case, I'd put the mic as close to the back of the chair to match the numbers 7/8 best you can.
> 
> Remember - position 1 is where all the speaker capabilities, phase, delay (distance) etc. are determined. If you get a phase error on any speakers, just make sure the wires are connected properly once. The system is known to incorrectly report phase issues. The rest of the positions are to figure out how sound bounces around the room.
> 
> View attachment 3355912





MagnumX said:


> Nonsense. Audyssey is not trying to figure out anything. Audyssey averages the response for all those microphone positions. Thus, you have a choice. You can narrowly limit the microphone positions to where your chair and ears are and get an optimized response for one position or you can measure it out like that (3 feet maximum from the MLP is what Audyssey says to do; your diagram makes it look like more like 10 feet) and get better sound for more locations (typically two sitting very close to the MLP as 3 feet isn't much at all) at the expense of the MLP getting less than perfect sound. That's just the way it is. There are no free meals.


The coffee cup in the photo is dead center on the screen and main speakers and is only about 12 inches to the right from my ears in my chair and only about 6 inches from dead center on the table.

Been getting a lot of input in various threads (some good, some really, really bad lol) and sounds like dead center between the mains would be the best spot for the initial MLP measurement and work outward from there. It is still slightly more optimized for myself but doesn’t skew the sound too far to the left so my wife still gets a decent mix too. So that’s the plan until further notice. Appreciate the helpful advice from those who gave it. Thank you. 🙏


----------



## MagnumX

tojohnso said:


> Put a cork in it already, Magnum PI. I've read documentation from the engineers who designed Audyssey. You have anything from them that refutes what I posted and backs up your apparently uneducated (about Audyssey) statements?


Believe whatever you want. It's no skin off my back. Telling others to shut up can be bad for your account, however.



> I do - and it's 2'-3' relative distances between the mic positions.


It's no more than 3' from the center seat to the far left back corner of your couch? What is it? A futon? I could reach the center of the neighboring seats when I had a couch, but not the outside corners.



> A quick Google Search found this interaction. Unfortunately, the PDF for mic positions doesn't work any longer, but I'm sure if you put in a little effort, you'd find it and it would look like what I've shown.


It shows on the screen the actual Audyssey diagram and that isn't it. I use three separate recliners. It's impossible to reach the ear positions for the two other seats without going well beyond 3' from the center initial spot so why optimize for locations that are almost never used and not where their ears would be anyway?

I've tried it both ways several times. It sounds better here for the MLP measuring where your ears are at. I use center , left, right ears sitting up, ears in recline (behind me spot) and just forward (sitting on edge of seat, which also allows for slight chair drift/movement).

I see nothing in what I suggested that contradicts what Audyssey actually said to do as opposed to assuming I can safely measure from the rear corners of the outer chairs and still be in spec based on a drawing that may not be indicative of real world layouts.

Regardless, what I'm saying is Audyssey is not using measurements beyond the first to analyze room reflections. It has no way to separate direct from indirect sounds, so how could it? That's the primary reason Dr. Floyd Toole is not a big fan of automatic room correction. It's analyzing frequency response changes for additional measuring points and trying to find the best overall result for all of them. By changing where you measure, it changes the audible results, even within the 3' boundary.

It's also measuring room averaged response, not direct VS reflections, which is why I ultimately found bandwidth limiting Audyssey to 500Hz achieved the most consistent results between multiple measurements as it didn't alter the already great direct response of my PSB speakers rated at +/- 1.5dB. It could only make them less accurate in direct response to make a room average measure better.

Since my room is fairly deadened, it wasn't night and day, but then Audyssey didn't really improve things above Schroeder either. It was usually either a draw or preference for Audyssey bandwidth limited.

Your results for your perception may vary as hearing is largely subjective for preference, but that doesn't make Audyssey a magic genie lamp either.


----------



## bareyb

[


MagnumX said:


> Believe whatever you want. It's no skin off my back. Telling others to shut up can be bad for your account, however.
> 
> 
> 
> It's no more than 3' from the center seat to the far left back corner of your couch? What is it? A futon? I could reach the center of the neighboring seats when I had a couch, but not the outside corners.
> 
> 
> 
> It shows on the screen the actual Audyssey diagram and that isn't it. I use three separate recliners. It's impossible to reach the ear positions for the two other seats without going well beyond 3' from the center initial spot so why optimize for locations that are almost never used and not where their ears would be anyway?
> 
> I've tried it both ways several times. It sounds better here for the MLP measuring where your ears are at. I use center , left, right ears sitting up, ears in recline (behind me spot) and just forward (sitting on edge of seat, which also allows for slight chair drift/movement).
> 
> I see nothing in what I suggested that contradicts what Audyssey actually said to do as opposed to assuming I can safely measure from the rear corners of the outer chairs and still be in spec based on a drawing that may not be indicative of real world layouts.
> 
> Regardless, what I'm saying is Audyssey is not using measurements beyond the first to analyze room reflections. It has no way to separate direct from indirect sounds, so how could it? That's the primary reason Dr. Floyd Toole is not a big fan of automatic room correction. It's analyzing frequency response changes for additional measuring points and trying to find the best overall result for all of them. By changing where you measure, it changes the audible results, even within the 3' boundary.
> 
> It's also measuring room averaged response, not direct VS reflections, which is why I ultimately found bandwidth limiting Audyssey to 500Hz achieved the most consistent results between multiple measurements as it didn't alter the already great direct response of my PSB speakers rated at +/- 1.5dB. It could only make them less accurate in direct response to make a room average measure better.
> 
> Since my room is fairly deadened, it wasn't night and day, but then Audyssey didn't really improve things above Schroeder either. It was usually either a draw or preference for Audyssey bandwidth limited.
> 
> Your results for your perception may vary as hearing is largely subjective for preference, but that doesn't make Audyssey a magic genie lamp either.


Quick question… Does Audyssey actually apply equalization to the speakers like a graphic EQ does? Or is it simply adjusting the levels?


----------



## Polyrythm1k

bareyb said:


> [
> 
> Quick question… Does Audyssey actually apply equalization to the speakers like a graphic EQ does? Or is it simply adjusting the levels?


Yes it does.


----------



## MagnumX

bareyb said:


> [
> 
> Quick question… Does Audyssey actually apply equalization to the speakers like a graphic EQ does? Or is it simply adjusting the levels?


Yes, it's a bit like a very large band parametric equalizer with highly adjustable points and amounts. Equalization, however is bandwidth limited level adjustments (time based with phase/delay adjustments).


----------



## Soulburner

There are roughly 16,000 points of adjustment available per speaker channel, including for the subwoofer channel (with XT32).


----------



## Pip

tojohnso said:


> ...To be honest - the app for iPad, iPhone, etc. is highly recommended. I've been more than happy with it and it's saved me a lot of time.





bareyb said:


> Thanks! That’s really helpful. What App are you using on the iPad?





tojohnso said:


> The D&M Audyssey MultEQ app.


A word of warning to check the MultEQ app thread try here. The current app versions of both iOS and Android seem to have bug which wildly misreads sub levels. Until this is confirmed to be resolved, you might want to avoid the MultEQ app.


----------



## MagnumX

Pip said:


> A word of warning to check the MultEQ app thread here. The current app versions of both iOS and Android seem to have bug which wildly misreads sub levels. Until this is confirmed to be resolved, you might want to avoid the MultEQ app.


Your link just leads me back here.


----------



## Pip

MagnumX said:


> Your link just leads me back here.


Thanks. Edited. Should work now.


----------



## Hello!

Question: Is it necessary to rerun Audyssey if I change my speakers position from no toe in to an extremally mild toe in, maybe just 5 degrees? Almost an unnoticeable amount.


----------



## MagnumX

Pip said:


> Thanks. Edited. Should work now.


I'm reading this is a recent problem with an app update in late September. I guess it's better not to update the app, when possible until they fix it. 

OTOH, it's not clear to me why the level can't just be manually set with a sound meter afterwards as a wrong level for the sub should at least be self-consistent for correction and the correct level set by hand. But since I haven't encountered it yet, maybe there's more to it?


----------



## tojohnso

Pip said:


> A word of warning to check the MultEQ app thread try here. The current app versions of both iOS and Android seem to have bug which wildly misreads sub levels. Until this is confirmed to be resolved, you might want to avoid the MultEQ app.


Looking at that thread, appears 1.7.2 has a fix if you do 6 positions? Seems -12 is indicative of a bad result? If so, min may be fine. Plus, I may have thought it was a little low and increased levels myself. Don't remember, really. 

The app provides too many conveniences. LFE is easy enough to adjust if it doesn't feel/sound right.


----------



## bareyb

Dupe. Sorry about that!


----------



## bareyb

MagnumX said:


> Yes, it's a bit like a very large band parametric equalizer with highly adjustable points and amounts. Equalization, however is bandwidth limited level adjustments (time based with phase/delay adjustments).


Is there a way to see the results? If so how?


----------



## Soulburner

bareyb said:


> Is there a way to see the results? If so how?


You can see the results in the mobile app and with the PC app.

There is also a much less detailed view in the AVR menu under Audyssey settings.


----------



## tsanga

bareyb said:


> Quick question… Does Audyssey actually apply equalization to the speakers like a graphic EQ does? Or is it simply adjusting the levels?


Here’s one example of the correction that Audyssey provides.


----------



## Octavian89

tojohnso said:


> Don't worry too much about phase error. It doesn't impact how the system calibrates. It's a common thing reported by Audyssey. Can be your room, or apparently some speaker manufacturers swap phase in the cabinet on purpose. As long as + from amp goes to + on speaker, and - on amp goes to - on speaker, you are good.


Yes. I know about this, but if i wire them incorectly the phase error is gone. Thats why i dont know how to leave them


----------



## pbarach

bareyb said:


> Is there a way to see the results? If so how?


 Audyssey doesn't remeasure after calibration. The "after" views are the software's predictions of how the calibrated system will measure.


----------



## Pip

tojohnso said:


> Looking at that thread, appears 1.7.2 has a fix if you do 6 positions? Seems -12 is indicative of a bad result? If so, min may be fine. Plus, I may have thought it was a little low and increased levels myself. Don't remember, really.
> 
> The app provides too many conveniences. LFE is easy enough to adjust if it doesn't feel/sound right.


LFE is not subwoofer levels. LFE is only the "low frequency effects" channel, the .1 in an x.1 system. Bass management - which uses the subwoofers for all the channels, is recommended, and used by almost all.

There may be some fix for 1.7.2, but is not fixed by using 6 positions, nor could it possibly be. You are referencing the following post:



kryptonite5 said:


> In the effort to find a workaround to the Subwoofer level issue on the new app post calibration, I did 6 positions (instead of 8) and my subs were calibrated correctly like they used to be with v1.7x of the app. Hope that helps





Pip said:


> Just a reminder to everyone that AUDYSSEY, through either the app or the receiver, sets levels on only the first mic position. No subsequent mic positions do any level measurements or alterations. So the only reliable way to test whether the receiver and app are the same or different is to run both *without moving the microphone at all*. If the results are within a DB or so, then the app and the receiver are measuring the same.


Yes kryptonite's sub levels changed, but as levels *are only measured and set from the first portion*, it is not possible that this change was caused by a change in the number of positions measured.

Many users have reported wildly inaccurate sub levels being set by the most recent MutEQ app. Setting levels is the easiest task of any room correction system. If these reports are correct, there is no telling how far off the rest of the adjustments may be. Until someone posts a comparison between app and receiver without moving the mic, the current app version can not be relied upon


----------



## tojohnso

Pip said:


> LFE is not subwoofer levels. LFE is only the "low frequency effects" channel, the .1 in an x.1 system. Bass management - which uses the subwoofers for all the channels, is recommended, and used by almost all.
> 
> There may be some fix for 1.7.2, but is not fixed by using 6 positions, nor could it possibly be. You are referencing the following post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes kryptonite's sub levels changed, but as levels *are only measured and set from the first portion*, it is not possible that this change was caused by a change in the number of positions measured.
> 
> Many users have reported wildly inaccurate sub levels being set by the most recent MutEQ app. Setting levels is the easiest task of any room correction system. If these reports are correct, there is no telling how far off the rest of the adjustments may be. Until someone posts a comparison between app and receiver without moving the mic, the current app version can not be relied upon



So are you saying other channels may be off? I didn't see that in the thread. Only that bass seemed off. LFE and Bass management - the "level" adjustment of the sub is really what we are talking about, yes? The system was using -12 dB - so if you adjusted that up to something that sounded better, then no worries, yes? 

On the "it's not possible" comment you made - true levels are supposed to be set by the first measurement only. But software bugs can do funny things. I wouldn't rule it out. To know for sure, you'd have to run two measurement sessions - one with 6, one with 8 and see what appears for the sub channel. Not sure if that guy did it or not. 

I'll have to check if I used 1.8 for my last measurement session or if it was the version before. My sub is -4 which seems in line with what what should be right. Haven't used REW to confirm as I just downloaded it and don't have the correct mic. However - I can say after reading about the 0.875 delay concern - I could be hearing improvements in objects panning around. I need more time and different content to tell for sure. But - if that's the case, then I'd have to conclude the levels of the other channels were measured fine.


----------



## Alan P

bareyb said:


> The coffee cup in the photo is dead center on the screen and main speakers and is only about 12 inches to the right from my ears in my chair and only about 6 inches from dead center on the table.
> 
> Been getting a lot of input in various threads (some good, some really, really bad lol) and sounds like dead center between the mains would be the best spot for the initial MLP measurement and work outward from there. *It is still slightly more optimized for myself but doesn’t skew the sound too far to the left so my wife still gets a decent mix too.* So that’s the plan until further notice. Appreciate the helpful advice from those who gave it. Thank you. 🙏


But, does your wife even care? While not unheard of, it is pretty rare around here when they do. 

Your seating is set up pretty close to how I have ours. If I lean over a bit in my recliner, my head is pretty much dead center to the screen, but her seat is much closer to the surround speaker than mine is. You'll have to compromise your experience quite a bit in order to improve hers by any significant amount. If she really doesn't care all that much, I would just optimize the MLP and let the chips fall where they may.

Tips for your particular situation; make sure to cover that seating in some towels or blankets during calibration to cut down on early reflections, ditto on the glass top table if you do indeed place the mic on it. Also, make sure to keep the mic at least 1 foot away from the back wall, preferably 18" or more. If this is not possible, put something absorbent on the wall as well.


----------



## Rich 63

bareyb said:


> The coffee cup in the photo is dead center on the screen and main speakers and is only about 12 inches to the right from my ears in my chair and only about 6 inches from dead center on the table.
> 
> Been getting a lot of input in various threads (some good, some really, really bad lol) and sounds like dead center between the mains would be the best spot for the initial MLP measurement and work outward from there. It is still slightly more optimized for myself but doesn’t skew the sound too far to the left so my wife still gets a decent mix too. So that’s the plan until further notice. Appreciate the helpful advice from those who gave it. Thank you. 🙏


Been following this thread for a couple pages. I wouldn't overthink this too much. I've done multiple dozens of test over the years with various Denon avrs. In all honesty your first mic position (mlp/my seat) will sound the best because it is time aligned, but when needs arise I've found myself in a seat other then the mlp and enjoyed what I was watching just fine.


----------



## tojohnso

Alan P said:


> Tips for your particular situation; make sure to cover that seating in some towels or blankets during calibration to cut down on early reflections, ditto on the glass top table if you do indeed place the mic on it. Also, make sure to keep the mic at least 1 foot away from the back wall, preferably 18" or more. If this is not possible, put something absorbent on the wall as well.


I've read using towels and blankets isn't recommended. Not unless you plan on having them there when using your system all the time.


----------



## Rich 63

tojohnso said:


> Looking at that thread, appears 1.7.2 has a fix if you do 6 positions? Seems -12 is indicative of a bad result? If so, min may be fine. Plus, I may have thought it was a little low and increased levels myself. Don't remember, really.
> 
> The app provides too many conveniences. LFE is easy enough to adjust if it doesn't feel/sound right.


On my lunch. Decided to do a 3 position test on both the app and the avr because that's all the time I've got. 4300h, app ver. 1.8. Mic placed at mlp and not moved so each sweep is same position. 
With app subs came out at - 9.
With avr subs came out at - 10
Previous measurement using previous version of app - 9. This one was 8 position, mic moved within a foot of first. 
Im not seeing an issue on my system. Be nice to find out why some are having issue while others are not.


----------



## Rich 63

tojohnso said:


> I've read using towels and blankets isn't recommended. Not unless you plan on having them there when using your system all the time.


It is recommended by some. Makes sense to place a blanket over a leather chair at mlp to mimic the absorbsion a person in that seat would give I suppose but to me the room should be measured in situ. I'm not sure how I feel about against wall placements. A compromise I avoid at all costs.


----------



## Alan P

tojohnso said:


> I've read using towels and blankets isn't recommended. Not unless you plan on having them there when using your system all the time.


It's been proven many times over the years (in this thread and it's precursor) that reflective seating (and having the mic too close to a wall) will result in a "too bright" calibration. The very early reflections confuse Audyssey.


----------



## Pip

Rich 63 said:


> On my lunch. Decided to do a 3 position test on both the app and the avr because that's all the time I've got. 4300h, app ver. 1.8. Mic placed at mlp and not moved so each sweep is same position.
> With app subs came out at - 9.
> With avr subs came out at - 10
> Previous measurement using previous version of app - 9. This one was 8 position, mic moved within a foot of first.
> Im not seeing an issue on my system. Be nice to find out why some are having issue while others are not.


Thank you so much! This is very helpful! I'm assuming Android 1.8?

I agree. It would be nice to find out why some are having issues. We must consider the possibility that for those who have seen a problem, the cause may be a difference in mic position rather than a problem with the app. 

Without doing as you did - comparing without moving the mic, it is impossible to know. And for anyone else who cares to test, you don't even need three sweeps. One will suffice. Levels are only set on the first sweep. 

Thanks again.


----------



## Pip

tojohnso said:


> So are you saying other channels may be off? I didn't see that in the thread..


No I didn't see that in the thread either, or imply that I saw it. Perhaps I should have specified eq measurements. Speaker levels and distances are easy to compare between the app and the receiver. I'm assuming problems there would have been reported. What can not be compared (without REW) are the eq adjustments. But if, *if* there is a problem with the app such that this is wildly out of line, we must be skeptical of the other measurements. 



tojohnso said:


> On the "it's not possible" comment you made - true levels are supposed to be set by the first measurement only. But software bugs can do funny things. I wouldn't rule it out. To know for sure, you'd have to run two measurement sessions - one with 6, one with 8 and see what appears for the sub channel.


A fair point regarding software bugs, but a test with 6 and 8 what? The important point is about the number of *positions* not the number of sweeps. The suggestion was that the number of positions fixed the bug. As soon as the microphone is moved one time, that renders all comparisons useless as far as this question goes.



tojohnso said:


> I'll have to check if I used 1.8 for my last measurement session or if it was the version before. My sub is -4 which seems in line with what what should be right. Haven't used REW to confirm as I just downloaded it and don't have the correct mic. .... But - if that's the case, then I'd have to conclude the levels of the other channels were measured fine.


REW isn't even needed to diagnose this issue. If your sub level of -4 was close to that set by the receiver, then we know your version of the app is working fine. If it was the previous version, just run one sweep in 1.8. If the sub levels remain close, then 1.8 seems fine. If the levels are far off, then you would need to run another with the receiver without moving the mic. If the receiver backs up the app, there's no problem.

Regardless of that result, I think we can already conclude the other speaker levels are fine.

The disturbing thing about these reports regarding sub levels is how *wildly* different they are from the receiver. While we would expect differences due to mic placement, the degree of difference is concerning. We really need to find out why - the app or mic placement? The only way is for more people to run a single sweep with both without touching the mic.

We've just had one such test reported which states 1.8 compares fine with the receiver - good sign. A couple more results like that with iOS and Android, and we may be able to clear the app of problems.


----------



## tojohnso

Rich 63 said:


> It is recommended by some. Makes sense to place a blanket over a leather chair at mlp to mimic the absorbsion a person in that seat would give I suppose but to me the room should be measured in situ. I'm not sure how I feel about against wall placements. A compromise I avoid at all costs.


Yes - I came across putting something in the MLP to mimic the person there too. Forgot to mention that.

Also - cool you did a quick calibration at lunch and reported back! I'm not sure what's going on with the app either. Looked at the date I last did a calibration and it was 9/21/22. May have been on 1.7.2 at the time as the app store (iOS) reports it was updated to 1.8.0 a month ago.


----------



## Rich 63

tojohnso said:


> Yes - I came across putting something in the MLP to mimic the person there too. Forgot to mention that.
> 
> Also - cool you did a quick calibration at lunch and reported back! I'm not sure what's going on with the app either. Looked at the date I last did a calibration and it was 9/21/22. May have been on 1.7.2 at the time as the app store (iOS) reports it was updated to 1.8.0 a month ago.


Then use the old calibration. I have dates and ad pertinent info to the title so i always got options. Really though the differences between each is minor unless your doing a weird mic configuration to try something different. Really helpful for those with the newer avrs that can keep 2 configurations on the unit.


----------



## bareyb

Alan P said:


> But, does your wife even care? While not unheard of, it is pretty rare around here when they do.
> 
> Your seating is set up pretty close to how I have ours. If I lean over a bit in my recliner, my head is pretty much dead center to the screen, but her seat is much closer to the surround speaker than mine is. You'll have to compromise your experience quite a bit in order to improve hers by any significant amount. If she really doesn't care all that much, I would just optimize the MLP and let the chips fall where they may.
> 
> Tips for your particular situation; make sure to cover that seating in some towels or blankets during calibration to cut down on early reflections, ditto on the glass top table if you do indeed place the mic on it. Also, make sure to keep the mic at least 1 foot away from the back wall, preferably 18" or more. If this is not possible, put something absorbent on the wall as well.





Rich 63 said:


> Been following this thread for a couple pages. I wouldn't overthink this too much. I've done multiple dozens of test over the years with various Denon avrs. In all honesty your first mic position (mlp/my seat) will sound the best because it is time aligned, but when needs arise I've found myself in a seat other then the mlp and enjoyed what I was watching just fine.


My wife honestly couldn't care less either. I still have one preset available (Denon 3800) so I'll run a second sweep optimizing my seat as the MLP on Preset 2 and compare them. If the change is subtle and doesn't skew too far left I'd be more than happy to have the best seat in the house. Thanks guys. Appreciate the help.


----------



## garygarrison

bareyb said:


> [
> 
> Quick question… Does Audyssey actually apply equalization to the speakers like a graphic EQ does? Or is it simply adjusting the levels?


Like a graphic EQ, but better, because it evaluates frequency response at hundreds of points, where graphic EQs have up to, maybe, 36 sliders max


----------



## bareyb

I ran a second sweep with my seat as the MLP. It really nailed the levels. Surrounds are dialed in better than ever. Audyssey’s legit. The Subwoofer’s _probably_ perfect if you compare it to the Theater but I cranked up the level a bit in the Options window. Just a personal preference.

Overall I’m happy with the EQ part of the process too. I noticed the difference immediately. Sounds more pristine and the imaging is improved. Audyssey lowered the level on my center while simultaneously making it more audible. So that’s a pretty neat trick.


----------



## bareyb

Do I understand correctly that if I want my subwoofer's global level to be higher it's best to leave the Audyssey settings in the negative and turn it up on the Subwoofer's Amp? The reasoning being it's best to use the SW Amps power rather than risk sending a clipped level to the Sub from the AVR?


----------



## MagnumX

I use the system setting for a mild boost (3dB) on my Marantz 7012 and keep a 2nd sub setting in the subwoofer audio menu (removed for some dumb reason after the 7012) which is way faster to alter than slow as molasses "option" settings and then I adjust that one if need be. On newer models, you're forced to use the option menu, but you can store different settings for different devices with that and saved defaults on the remote for the smart buttons.


----------



## wickflair

This is crazy. I just wasted two hours and I'm not sure what is going on. I wanted to get my subwoofer trim down to around -11- -9 from the -6 my first run gave me. I started using the multi eq app and no matter how many times I turned the aub down the result would give me a -12. The last time the level match screen came up and I made sure the speaker was before the green which should result in a number close to zero or a positive number. Still give me a -12. Anyone run into this before?


----------



## Pip

wickflair said:


> This is crazy. I just wasted two hours and I'm not sure what is going on. I wanted to get my subwoofer trim down to around -11- -9 from the -6 my first run gave me. I started using the multi eq app and no matter how many times I turned the aub down the result would give me a -12. The last time the level match screen came up and I made sure the speaker was before the green which should result in a number close to zero or a positive number. Still give me a -12. Anyone run into this before?


If you would post in the MultEQ thread you would find much discussion about this very issue. I’ll take a wild guess - Android app version 8.0?

There are three versions of Audyssey: built-in receiver, the new $200 Windows version, and the MultEQ app. Although with much in common, each version is entirely different software. The MultEQ app is neither written, sold, nor supported by Audyssey. There is a distinct thread for each version.


----------



## g.costanza

Jimmy2Shoes said:


> Hey Buddy,
> 
> This looks very close to the error or bug that I found on the x3600h. Whatever is going on with the App and the AVR, it seem to completely mess up the reference curve which I assume is what you are measuring. If you get the time try to repeat the process but use the Flat target curve instead. Or even simply compare in REW Flat vs Reference curve with the "B Run". It not so much the target curve it follows that you are looking for, but any funky equalization that doesn't make sense.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Jim


Hi 
Do you know if this audyssey app bug was ever fixed? Thanks!


----------



## g.costanza

jk82 said:


> I actually posted about this MultEQ APP bug with the X3600H multiple times since I got that AVR. It's baffling this still is not fixed or that almost no one knows about this.
> Here's the first post I made about this 1.5 years ago:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MultEQ Editor: New App for Denon & Marantz AV...
> 
> 
> I connected the closer (rear) subs to sub 1 and my other subs to sub 2, the before and after results were worse and it's didn't fix anything sadly. I don't know if it helps but i also updated my 8805 as i had a new firmware update showing. my after results don't look too bad. Did the sub...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.avsforum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will also not get any correction to your ceiling speakers when using the multEQ app, even though the app shows them as being corrected.
> 
> By the way this bug with the messed up reference curve only happens when you have tops/heights. With regular 5.1 or 7.1 setups everything is fine. So if anybody reports this make sure to mention that so they can reproduce the issue.
> 
> I have checked the calibration ady file that the app generates and compared it with the ones from other AVRs and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the file. So I guess the mess happens when the data gets sent to the AVR. I assume this could also be an AVR firmware bug and not necessary an APP bug...
> 
> Here is what my reference curve looks like if anyone wants to have a good laugh.
> View attachment 3184923
> 
> 
> I placed the uncorrected response above just to demonstrate that the messed up reference curve is actually not the same as uncorrected.
> This is the front right speaker. Now if I measure the front left it actually isn't messed up but flat and reference are exactly the same.
> I assume there is some weird buggy stuff going on and correction data is being put in the wrong places or something like that.



*Hi 
Do you know if this audyssey app bug was ever fixed? Thanks!*


----------



## jk82

g.costanza said:


> *Hi
> Do you know if this audyssey app bug was ever fixed? Thanks!*


Yes it was fixed about a year ago with a firmware update of the X3600H. So it wasn't even an app bug.


----------



## g.costanza

jk82 said:


> Yes it was fixed about a year ago with a firmware update of the X3600H. So it wasn't even an app bug.


Cool! Do you know what the firmware version is? I haven't touched my X3600 for a while and went to do a firmware update last night and it said it was up to date. Thanks again!


----------



## jk82

g.costanza said:


> Cool! Do you know what the firmware version is? I haven't touched my X3600 for a while and went to do a firmware update last night and it said it was up to date. Thanks again!


There have been multiple updates since then.
The current fw of my X3600H is 2400-9144-2172-1070


----------



## goldark

My apologies as I should've asked the Audyssey question here instead of making another thread, so I'll just link my question/thread instead: Audyssey Graphic EQ a crude replacement for the Audyssey...


----------



## Cal1981

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. This has probably been covered but maybe not exactly. I have a 5.1.4 system with an RSL C5-CG25-C5 front array, RSL C3 Surrounds and four SVS Prime elevations as F/R Heights. The sub is an SVS SB-3000. For many years, with 5.1 and 5.1.2 (front heights) setups my three seat recliner couch was up against the back wall so that when I ran Audyssey XT32 I used this layout of mic positions:








It always worked pretty well. When I went to the 5.1.4 setup I was able to move the couch so that its back is now around 20" from the wall and the MLP itself is now around 36" from the wall. The microphone is always placed around a half foot above the couch top. The couch is fabric. I've run Audyssey using the above setup and also the more typical setup with positions 7and 8 behind the couch close to its back flanking the MLP. Each configuration was saved to a preset on my Denon AVR. I've run A-B tests with a variety of movies with the various audio encodes and although I was expecting to hear a significant difference in the sound and immersion levels, I'm not sure that I have. If there is a difference between them it seems to be pretty subtle. I curious as the whether anyone has had a similar experience with issues with couch/microphone placements or thinks that, in theory, one of the mic placement setups may be better in this situation.


----------



## Soulburner

All I can add is that movies make for bad test material. Sounds are too transient in nature. You need music.


----------



## wickflair

Thought this might be a better place to post this. Looking for some advice as I calibrate my new "media room". Spent a lot of time building this room from scratch and now want to get it calibrated the best I can before I have the time and money to do room treatments.

I have done a bunch of reading and have a pretty good idea, but I want to confirm. My rooms has a u-shaped sectional where I typically lay on the far right side. The back of the sectional is partially blocking the right speaker. My main goal is to give all listeners a good sound, so my initial Audyseey position one is dead center of the sectional which aligns with the tweeter of the center and between L&R speakers. I then moved to the right and the left 12-24in for each "seat" for a total of 8 reading across all the possible seating locations. The distance between the 1st position and the far outside positions are likely closer to 3-4 feet. I have now read that you should measure from where you sit most often and should group your readings within 6-12" from one another. *What is the best method when your MLP is not center of the sound stage? 
Also, with my center being lower to the ground than ear level I was suggested to point the tip of the Audyssey mic towards the front of the room. This is the first I have heard of that, but my graph does have a lot of peaks in the higher frequencies. 

Why does Multi-EQ only show a single sub reading? *I was expecting each sub to have it's own subwoofer graph.

*What is the General conscious these days on using a curtain at anything above the Schroeder frequency? At my old house I found that 300hz cut off was the best sounding to me, but I am now being told from another group because I have some dips and valleys at higher frequencies I should let audyssey correct those. ugh so many different opinions. *

I plan to eventually get a miniDSP and UMIK mic to better configure my setup.

Attached are the graphs from my first run. Any glaring issues? What are your though








? Good, bad, ugly? Still learning here.

Thank you all very much!

Cheers!

🍻

Denon 3500h
Badger power amp for the LR
Emotiva T1+ LR
Emotiva C2+ Center
Micca M-8C Front heights
Dayton Audio ME825W 8" surrounds (in-wall)
2-HSU VTF3 MK5s


----------



## Soulburner

Those "dips" you speak of around 2 kHz are drops in sound power due to the crossover from woofer to tweeter and is what Midrange Compensation was created for. You should leave it on for those speakers.

Your center is seriously muffled, though. That drop through the upper mid-range will change the tonality of sounds and make it hard to hear dialogue clearly. Is the line of sight from mic to center speaker blocked by the couch?


----------



## wickflair

Soulburner said:


> Those "dips" you speak of around 2 kHz are drops in sound power due to the crossover from woofer to tweeter and is what Midrange Compensation was created for. You should leave it on for those speakers.
> 
> Your center is seriously muffled, though. That drop through the upper mid-range will change the tonality of sounds and make it hard to hear dialogue clearly. Is the line of sight from mic to center speaker blocked by the couch?


I am assuming you are speaking of the "dips" on the Top Left and Right speakers?

As showed in the pictures the Center is sitting on a 13" stand with a slight angle upwards (~6 degrees.) One member mentioned it is likely below the horizon of the mic and I should point the tip of the mic slightly towards the front of the room to correct this. Maybe I should angle the center up more towards ear level?


----------



## Alan P

wickflair said:


> Thought this might be a better place to post this. Looking for some advice as I calibrate my new "media room". Spent a lot of time building this room from scratch and now want to get it calibrated the best I can before I have the time and money to do room treatments.
> 
> I have done a bunch of reading and have a pretty good idea, but I want to confirm. My rooms has a u-shaped sectional where I typically lay on the far right side. The back of the sectional is partially blocking the right speaker. My main goal is to give all listeners a good sound, so my initial Audyseey position one is dead center of the sectional which aligns with the tweeter of the center and between L&R speakers. I then moved to the right and the left 12-24in for each "seat" for a total of 8 reading across all the possible seating locations. The distance between the 1st position and the far outside positions are likely closer to 3-4 feet. I have now read that you should measure from where you sit most often and should group your readings within 6-12" from one another. *What is the best method when your MLP is not center of the sound stage?
> Also, with my center being lower to the ground than ear level I was suggested to point the tip of the Audyssey mic towards the front of the room. This is the first I have heard of that, but my graph does have a lot of peaks in the higher frequencies.
> 
> Why does Multi-EQ only show a single sub reading? *I was expecting each sub to have it's own subwoofer graph.
> 
> *What is the General conscious these days on using a curtain at anything above the Schroeder frequency? At my old house I found that 300hz cut off was the best sounding to me, but I am now being told from another group because I have some dips and valleys at higher frequencies I should let audyssey correct those. ugh so many different opinions. *
> 
> I plan to eventually get a miniDSP and UMIK mic to better configure my setup.
> 
> Attached are the graphs from my first run. Any glaring issues? What are your though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ? Good, bad, ugly? Still learning here.
> 
> Thank you all very much!
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> 🍻
> 
> Denon 3500h
> Badger power amp for the LR
> Emotiva T1+ LR
> Emotiva C2+ Center
> Micca M-8C Front heights
> Dayton Audio ME825W 8" surrounds (in-wall)
> 2-HSU VTF3 MK5s
> View attachment 3366534
> View attachment 3366536
> 
> View attachment 3366535
> 
> View attachment 3366530
> 
> View attachment 3366531
> 
> View attachment 3366533
> 
> View attachment 3366529
> 
> View attachment 3366532
> 
> View attachment 3366528
> 
> View attachment 3366527


Your sub response needs a lot of help! You have a very nasty null starting around 60Hz and extending all the way up to 120-130Hz...this is NOT good. Have you experimented with placement at all?


----------



## wickflair

Alan P said:


> Your sub response needs a lot of help! You have a very nasty null starting around 60Hz and extending all the way up to 120-130Hz...this is NOT good. Have you experimented with placement at all?


I have not as I am just getting started. I loaded my sub graph into RAT and this is what it shows with no smoothing. I shouldn't be worried about anything above 80hz as this is my xover point, right? I am very new to this, but it looks like my only issue is around 70hz? I might try the other side of my mains to see how that impacts the sound.


----------



## Alan P

wickflair said:


> I have not as I am just getting started. I loaded my sub graph into RAT and this is what it shows with no smoothing. I shouldn't be worried about anything above 80hz as this is my xover point, right? I am very new to this, but it looks like my only issue is around 70hz? I might try the other side of my mains to see how that impacts the sound.
> View attachment 3366649


Where do you have the crossover set on the sub amp? It should be set either as high as it will go or set to Bypass (if that is an option).


----------



## wickflair

Alan P said:


> Where do you have the crossover set on the sub amp? It should be set either as high as it will go or set to Bypass (if that is an option).


I have it on bypass for both subs. Letting the AVR handle that


----------



## MagnumX

I'd do some serious absorption and diffusion wall/room treatments. The after response predictions are abysmal on all speakers not just the center. -7dB dips with up to +3dB peaks are not great. My Audyssey graph predictions show practically 0dB variance (in reality REW shows +/- 2.5dB so expect worse). I use simple things like tapestries, bookshelves, drapes, etc. and still get a near studio level RT60.


----------



## wickflair

MagnumX said:


> I'd do some serious absorption and diffusion wall/room treatments. The after response predictions are abysmal on all speakers not just the center. -7dB dips with up to +3dB peaks are not great. My Audyssey graph predictions show practically 0dB variance (in reality REW shows +/- 2.5dB so expect worse). I use simple things like tapestries, bookshelves, drapes, etc. and still get a near studio level RT60.


Room treatments are on my list. Do note that based off some research I was attempting to only adjust frequency below the rooms schroeder frequency which is why anything above 300hz is untouched. Maybe I'll run it for the full frequency band and do a comparison


----------



## MagnumX

wickflair said:


> Room treatments are on my list. Do note that based off some research I was attempting to only adjust frequency below the rooms schroeder frequency which is why anything above 300hz is untouched. Maybe I'll run it for the full frequency band and do a comparison


Well, there's definitely some controversy over whether room correction helps above Schroeder or just screws up the direct response in favor of the reflected average room response. We don't hear that the same way it sees it. But that's where room treatments can help either way. The less there is to correct, the better and for the entire room as well (when there's more seats/rows) and not just the limited Audyssey range. 

In my experience, you don't need those overpriced panels they sell. Drapes and tapestries work as well or better for a fraction of the price. Diffusion can be done with small bookshelves, holding blurays or other objects that are uneven and break up waves.


----------



## miker104

Quick question. Has anyone used Samsung DEX on the PC to edit the "Audyssey EQ curve" on the Editor app? I would try it but my app keeps locking up right now. It just seems like it would be a lot easier to move the points with the mouse instead of your finger on the phone.


----------



## Pip

miker104 said:


> Quick question. Has anyone used Samsung DEX on the PC to edit the "Audyssey EQ curve" on the Editor app? I would try it but my app keeps locking up right now. It just seems like it would be a lot easier to move the points with the mouse instead of your finger on the phone.


I think you may have much better luck getting an answer in the MultEQ app thread here. The MultEQ app is different software.


----------



## miker104

Pip said:


> I think you may have much better luck getting an answer in the MultEQ app thread here. The MultEQ app is different software.


Thank you


----------



## goldark

Just got a Denon X4500H and ran Audyssey. Played around with the settings and turning on Dynamic EQ significantly increases noise from the speakers when no sounds are playing. Turning it off gets rid of the noise.

Is this normal? is there another setting that I'm overlooking that accounts for this? Should I just leave it off?


----------



## fredworld

goldark said:


> Just got a Denon X4500H and ran Audyssey. Played around with the settings and turning on Dynamic EQ significantly increases noise from the speakers when no sounds are playing. Turning it off gets rid of the noise.
> 
> Is this normal? is there another setting that I'm overlooking that accounts for this? Should I just leave it off?


Sounds quite odd to me. I use Dynamic EQ in my Marantz AV7704 for movies and it's absolutely dead silent when idling. Actually, whether it's on or not the system's noise level is inaudible even with an ear up to the speakers. 
Perhaps something else in the chain is reacting to the EQ. Have to you tried disconnecting any equipment? Swapping cables? Checking AC polarity at the wall outlets? What settings are you using otherwise?


----------



## goldark

fredworld said:


> Sounds quite odd to me. I use Dynamic EQ in my Marantz AV7704 for movies and it's absolutely dead silent when idling. Actually, whether it's on or not the system's noise level is inaudible even with an ear up to the speakers.
> Perhaps something else in the chain is reacting to the EQ. Have to you tried disconnecting any equipment? Swapping cables? Checking AC polarity at the wall outlets? What settings are you using otherwise?


So after looking it up, it seems like this is a common problem. This is my exact problem, along with all the links that is listed in this post. Nobody has found a remedy yet: 








"Official" Audyssey thread (FAQ in post #51779)


[QUOTE="markus767, post: 19162097, member: 8110975"]Those that really listen to music and care, yes. QUOTE] Kinda elitist aren't we? "People who listen much quieter than X dB average levels don't care about music?" Such people might take offense.




www.avsforum.com


----------



## Soulburner

I've been around these parts for many years and have never heard of that problem. Haven't experienced it from 3 Denon AVRs from 2008-present either.


----------



## pbz06

I definitely don't have that problem either. Sounds like something is causing the issue in the chain, like amplifier noise.


----------



## goldark

Ok after spending hours trying everything, I figured out where the problem was but not what's causing it. The speaker hisses loudly only if whatever source you're testing is plugged into one specific HDMI input, in this case HDMI 4, "Game." Plugging it into any other HDMI and turning on Dynamic EQ doesn't cause any hisses.

Is this just a case of a buggy HDMI input? If so, what would cause the bug to only cause audible hisses if Dynamic EQ is engaged? Does Denon do any special processing for games with the "Game" HDMI input?

Very strange, I can't figure it out. But at least I have a workaround and can use Dynamic EQ - just plug into literally any other HDMI input and it'll be fine.


----------



## Alan P

goldark said:


> Ok after spending hours trying everything, I figured out where the problem was but not what's causing it. The speaker hisses loudly only if whatever source you're testing is plugged into one specific HDMI input, in this case HDMI 4, "Game." Plugging it into any other HDMI and turning on Dynamic EQ doesn't cause any hisses.
> 
> Is this just a case of a buggy HDMI input? If so, what would cause the bug to only cause audible hisses if Dynamic EQ is engaged? Does Denon do any special processing for games with the "Game" HDMI input?
> 
> Very strange, I can't figure it out. But at least I have a workaround and can use Dynamic EQ - just plug into literally any other HDMI input and it'll be fine.


Did you get the 4500 new or used? If used, did you do a microprocessor reset as soon as you hooked it up?


----------



## boy_geeneeus

Recently moved house and have a much bigger space now for the home theater, but it turns out it is quite difficult to tweak to preference.
The space is approx. 9m by 4m or 29.5 feet by 13 feet and turns out to be well for sub bass, but I like to have the transition from sub bass to mid and upper bass to be very good.

The Audyssey measurements are also very weird, every speaker reports a massive boost sub 100hz. This is easily turned down, not really a problem but it is weird.
REW tells me something different for the subwoofer, when comparing to The Audyssey measurements. This worries me about accuracy:

























REW tells me this with DEQ ON and with DEQ OFF:








Ive set cross over at 60hz, but I think multiple subwoofers is needed to really fix this. What else can I do for the 60hz to 120hz with Audyssey ?


----------



## goldark

Alan P said:


> Did you get the 4500 new or used? If used, did you do a microprocessor reset as soon as you hooked it up?


I bought it used and no, I didn't do a factory reset after I got it. I guess I could've done it at any time to resolve the issue, but curiosity got the best of me and I wanted to see if I could figure it out first before resorting to that.


----------



## Alan P

goldark said:


> I bought it used and no, I didn't do a factory reset after I got it. I guess I could've done it at any time to resolve the issue, but curiosity got the best of me and I wanted to see if I could figure it out first before resorting to that.


Since no factory reset, the first thing I would check is the Input Level. It may be cranked up too high.


----------



## Alan P

boy_geeneeus said:


> Recently moved house and have a much bigger space now for the home theater, but it turns out it is quite difficult to tweak to preference.
> The space is approx. 9m by 4m or 29.5 feet by 13 feet and turns out to be well for sub bass, but I like to have the transition from sub bass to mid and upper bass to be very good.
> 
> The Audyssey measurements are also very weird, every speaker reports a massive boost sub 100hz. This is easily turned down, not really a problem but it is weird.
> REW tells me something different for the subwoofer, when comparing to The Audyssey measurements. This worries me about accuracy:
> View attachment 3368449
> 
> View attachment 3368444
> 
> View attachment 3368446
> 
> 
> REW tells me this with DEQ ON and with DEQ OFF:
> View attachment 3368467
> 
> Ive set cross over at 60hz, but I think multiple subwoofers is needed to really fix this. What else can I do for the 60hz to 120hz with Audyssey ?


Concerning the peaks around 90Hz, it's probably just a room mode and Audyssey will be able to bring the peaks down without issue.

The sub graph from Audyssey vs the graph from REW are apples to oranges. You have 20dB increments on your REW graph, change that to 5dB increments to get a much more accurate representation that will most likely align more with the Audyssey graph.

That being said, the Audyssey "Before" graphs are not known for being super accurate, and the "After" graph is just guesswork on Audyssey's part.


----------



## boy_geeneeus

Alan P said:


> The sub graph from Audyssey vs the graph from REW are apples to oranges. You have 20dB increments on your REW graph, change that to 5dB increments to get a much more accurate representation that will most likely align more with the Audyssey graph.


Sure, the REW screenshot failed to show properly, it should match de audyssey one in terms of peaks and nulls, and almost is matching, but audyssey is showing more nulls in the sub bass region (40hz to 15hz), which should I believe more?

That being said, I do have a miniDSP HD 2x4 and an extra subwoofer on the way. It is probably better to tweak with , than the editor of the audyssey app?


----------



## Rich 63

goldark said:


> I bought it used and no, I didn't do a factory reset after I got it. I guess I could've done it at any time to resolve the issue, but curiosity got the best of me and I wanted to see if I could figure it out first before resorting to that.


Do a factory reset as suggested. I'll assume you have a gaming console hooked to that port. On your remote press the game button to cycle through the formats to see if that changes anything. 
You could try deoxit on the connection too in case the port is dirty. I'd spray the cable end and plug it in right after while its still wet. Maybe plug it gently in and out a few times. Just make sure your powered down by unplugging the avr for a while before and after.


----------



## Alan P

boy_geeneeus said:


> Sure, the REW screenshot failed to show properly, it should match de audyssey one in terms of peaks and nulls, and almost is matching, but audyssey is showing more nulls in the sub bass region (40hz to 15hz), *which should I believe more?*


REW.

If you got the scale right on the REW graph, I would bet the differences wouldn't be as drastic as you think.




> That being said, I do have a miniDSP HD 2x4 and an extra subwoofer on the way. *It is probably better to tweak with , than the editor of the audyssey app?*


Yep.


----------



## Zareth78

When Audyssey runs the test tones on all the speakers, does it run with bass management enabled or disabled? For example if I took 1 set of Audyssey measurements, then later on changed the crossover point from where my "Small" speakers have bass redirected to my subwoofer -- Do I need to re-run audyssey setup again?

Thanks!


----------



## mogorf

Zareth78 said:


> When Audyssey runs the test tones on all the speakers, does it run with bass management enabled or disabled? For example if I took 1 set of Audyssey measurements, then later on changed the crossover point from where my "Small" speakers have bass redirected to my subwoofer -- Do I need to re-run audyssey setup again?
> 
> Thanks!


No, Audyssey runs without bass management enabled. Bass management is supposed to be set after running Audyssey. No need to re-run anything. Hope this helps.


----------



## Soulburner

Zareth78 said:


> When Audyssey runs the test tones on all the speakers, does it run with bass management enabled or disabled? For example if I took 1 set of Audyssey measurements, then later on changed the crossover point from where my "Small" speakers have bass redirected to my subwoofer -- Do I need to re-run audyssey setup again?
> 
> Thanks!


The sweeps are a full range speaker signal. That is, disabled.

Also, your settings have no impact on Audyssey because it overrides them during the test.


----------



## Alan P

Zareth78 said:


> When Audyssey runs the test tones on all the speakers, does it run with bass management enabled or disabled? For example if I took 1 set of Audyssey measurements, then later on changed the crossover point from where my "Small" speakers have bass redirected to my subwoofer -- Do I need to re-run audyssey setup again?
> 
> Thanks!


As already mentioned, changing settings in the AVR does not require you to re-run Audyssey, with one exception; Speakers>Manual>Amp Assign (if you _add _speakers, subtracting them has no effect on Audyssey).


----------



## msink

If there are only 2 listening positions, 13 and 14, what is the recommended mic position and process? Unfortunately they are both about 1-2 ft off the back wall, and 1-2 ft off the side walls, so pretty much sitting in the corners since the fire place is in the middle with TV opposite of the fireplace. Should I just split it down the middle? I realize that probably just defeats the whole purpose. I’m worried picking one of the green bubbles as MLP will really mess things up for the remaining bubble.


----------



## Soulburner

If what you're saying is true, it doesn't sound like anyone is getting a stereo image, which is certainly a compromise. I would measure based on your seat and save that as one setup. I would then include both seats as measurements to save as a 2nd setup in the MultEQ Editor app for when both of you are sitting there. How much distance is there between the seats?


----------



## msink

Soulburner said:


> If what you're saying is true, it doesn't sound like anyone is getting a stereo image, which is certainly a compromise. I would measure based on your seat and save that as one setup. I would then include both seats as measurements to save as a 2nd setup in the MultEQ Editor app for when both of you are sitting there. How much distance is there between the seats?


Thanks you for the reply! Both seating positions are all “inside” of the Left/Right and Front/Back speakers so just barely stereo? Positions 13 and 14 are about 11 feet apart. . This is not my personal setup at home but a friends. I setup her 6.1 system about 13 years ago and doing 7.1.4 now with the X4700H. I’ve also thought about moving TV to opposite wall, over the fireplace which would allow people to sit in the middle of the room, but that’s a different topic for another thread I guess.


----------



## bluesky636

msink said:


> View attachment 3377938
> 
> If there are only 2 listening positions, 13 and 14, what is the recommended mic position and process? Unfortunately they are both about 1-2 ft off the back wall, and 1-2 ft off the side walls, so pretty much sitting in the corners since the fire place is in the middle with TV opposite of the fireplace. Should I just split it down the middle? I realize that probably just defeats the whole purpose. I’m worried picking one of the green bubbles as MLP will really mess things up for the remaining bubble.


Frankly, I wouldn't even bother running Audyssey unless you are able to move the two listening positions closer together so that they are both equally within the coverage of all the speakers. With the current setup, the levels and delays at each seat are going to be totally out of whack and is virtually guaranteed to sound terrible in each seat. Atmos will probably be a waste with that setup.


----------



## garygarrison

What's wrong with the three cushions on the couch as listening positions?


----------



## bluesky636

garygarrison said:


> View attachment 3378508
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong with the three cushions on the couch as listening positions?


Reread the OP. I believe he just used that drawing to show the actual seating positions and no "couch" actually exists.


----------



## sjm817

msink said:


> Thanks you for the reply! Both seating positions are all “inside” of the Left/Right and Front/Back speakers so just barely stereo? Positions 13 and 14 are about 11 feet apart. . This is not my personal setup at home but a friends. I setup her 6.1 system about 13 years ago and doing 7.1.4 now with the X4700H. I’ve also thought about moving TV to opposite wall, over the fireplace which would allow people to sit in the middle of the room, but that’s a different topic for another thread I guess.


Thats a tough one. Either measure at the MLP if the owner primarily use that seat, or if both are used, split the difference. I believe the 4700 can also store two configs so maybe have a couple different ones to switch back and forth?

On the fireplace TV issue, I have a setup in the great room that is difficult. Open concept house with great room, kitchen, dining all together. The great room has 18' ceiling that right wall is a wall of windows, left side there is an open stair case, there is no rear wall. The only wall is the front which has a fireplace. I tried cramming a TV kiddie corner to the right of fireplace and hated it. Also made speaker placement impossible. I bit the bullet and got a Samsung The Frame 65" TV for over the fireplace. For that application it works very well. Only an inch thick and sits flush to the wall. It has the art mode which works very well. I HATE the Tizen UI, but solved that with an Nvidia Sheild. Have 2.0 speakers flanking the fireplace and a couch that is facing it. Works out well.


----------



## fssomersetstud8

sjm817 said:


> Thats a tough one. Either measure at the MLP if the owner primarily use that seat, or if both are used, split the difference. I believe the 4700 can also store two configs so maybe have a couple different ones to switch back and forth?
> 
> On the fireplace TV issue, I have a setup in the great room that is difficult. Open concept house with great room, kitchen, dining all together. The great room has 18' ceiling that right wall is a wall of windows, left side there is an open stair case, there is no rear wall. The only wall is the front which has a fireplace. I tried cramming a TV kiddie corner to the right of fireplace and hated it. Also made speaker placement impossible. I bit the bullet and got a Samsung The Frame 65" TV for over the fireplace. For that application it works very well. Only an inch thick and sits flush to the wall. It has the art mode which works very well. I HATE the Tizen UI, but solved that with an Nvidia Sheild. Have 2.0 speakers flanking the fireplace and a couch that is facing it. Works out well.


----------



## fssomersetstud8

Help from a newby please,
When trying to set up my Marantz sr 7011 a avr with x4 roof speakers x 3 front and x2 rears and x1 sub on Audyssey , i get to the part where it says "incorrect phasing on rears ,fix connection or retry"
I use a KEF reference series speaker system that have natural out of phase rears.
On my old Dennon avr done the same indication ,it would say - Ignore or fix.
I don`t seem to have this option , just fix or retry.
If i keep retying it still won`t let me proceed.

thanks


----------



## fssomersetstud8

Help from a newby please,
When trying to set up my Marantz sr 7011 a avr with x4 roof speakers x 3 front and x2 rears and x1 sub on Audyssey , i get to the part where it says "incorrect phasing on rears ,fix connection or retry"
I use a KEF reference series speaker system that have natural out of phase rears.
On my old Dennon avr done the same indication ,it would say - Ignore or fix.
I don`t seem to have this option , just fix or retry.
If i keep retying it still won`t let me proceed.

thanks


----------



## galonzo

sjm817 said:


> On the fireplace TV issue, I have a setup in the great room that is difficult. Open concept house with great room, kitchen, dining all together. The great room has 18' ceiling that right wall is a wall of windows, left side there is an open stair case, there is no rear wall. The only wall is the front which has a fireplace. I tried cramming a TV kiddie corner to the right of fireplace and hated it. Also made speaker placement impossible. I bit the bullet and got a Samsung The Frame 65" TV for over the fireplace. For that application it works very well. Only an inch thick and sits flush to the wall. It has the art mode which works very well. I HATE the Tizen UI, but solved that with an Nvidia Sheild. Have 2.0 speakers flanking the fireplace and a couch that is facing it. Works out well.


Yeah @msink , my open concept great room situation is even more extreme, with ZERO walls, and only a double-sided fireplace right in the middle; so standing at the kitchen sink in the island, there's a hallway on the left and the dining room on the right, so nowhere else to have the TV but above the fireplace:







luckily, *the $300 mantel mount* helps with this, allowing the TV & soundbar to be lowered (the sub is slightly visible in the left "corner", behind the left swivel chair):


----------



## sjm817

galonzo said:


> Yeah @msink , my open concept great room situation is even more extreme, with ZERO walls, and only a double-sided fireplace right in the middle; so standing at the kitchen sink in the island, there's a hallway on the left and the dining room on the right, so nowhere else to have the TV but above the fireplace:
> View attachment 3379340
> 
> luckily, *the $300 mantel mount* helps with this, allowing the TV & soundbar to be lowered (the sub is slightly visible in the left "corner", behind the left swivel chair):
> View attachment 3379341


Yes. Different setup. We wanted something flush with the wall that looks like a painting. That is good if you want something that articulates down.


----------



## DaveFi

Got the Android app, ran the measurements, now what?


----------



## galonzo

DaveFi said:


> Got the Android app, ran the measurements, now what?


Lol, now you post in *the app thread *


----------



## bluesky636

fssomersetstud8 said:


> Help from a newby please,
> When trying to set up my Marantz sr 7011 a avr with x4 roof speakers x 3 front and x2 rears and x1 sub on Audyssey , i get to the part where it says "incorrect phasing on rears ,fix connection or retry"
> I use a KEF reference series speaker system that have natural out of phase rears.
> On my old Dennon avr done the same indication ,it would say - Ignore or fix.
> I don`t seem to have this option , just fix or retry.
> If i keep retying it still won`t let me proceed.
> 
> thanks


Why on earth would the rear channel speakers be "naturally" out of phase with the front channels? That makes zero sense.

But if they are out of phase for some strange reason, just swap the speaker connections at the amp or speaker end (but ONLY at one end) and try again.


----------



## garygarrison

galonzo said:


> Yeah @msink , my open concept great room situation is even more extreme, with ZERO walls, and only a double-sided fireplace right in the middle; so standing at the kitchen sink in the island, there's a hallway on the left and the dining room on the right, so nowhere else to have the TV but above the fireplace:
> View attachment 3379340
> 
> luckily, *the $300 mantel mount* helps with this, allowing the TV & soundbar to be lowered (the sub is slightly visible in the left "corner", behind the left swivel chair):
> View attachment 3379341


Fireplaces can make great diffusors. This one,








that I grew up with, did a great job. It was dead center, between two speakers 16 feet apart, and a center image seemed to come out of the fireplace, no matter where the listener was.


----------



## tojohnso

fssomersetstud8 said:


> Help from a newby please,
> When trying to set up my Marantz sr 7011 a avr with x4 roof speakers x 3 front and x2 rears and x1 sub on Audyssey , i get to the part where it says "incorrect phasing on rears ,fix connection or retry"
> I use a KEF reference series speaker system that have natural out of phase rears.
> On my old Dennon avr done the same indication ,it would say - Ignore or fix.
> I don`t seem to have this option , just fix or retry.
> If i keep retying it still won`t let me proceed.
> 
> thanks


Are you absolutely sure you can't "ignore" it? I have that option on the SR7015 Audyssey setup. Maybe get the MultEQ app? It's a better way to do things anyway since you can save setups and send to the AVR as desired. Cool way to experiment. AND it may have the ability to bypass if your AVR software doesn't for some strange reason.


----------



## tojohnso

DaveFi said:


> Got the Android app, ran the measurements, now what?


You sent to the AVR, right? That's the last step.


----------



## DaveFi

tojohnso said:


> You sent to the AVR, right? That's the last step.


I saved it- I know this isn’t the app thread. I don’t see any options to send it to the AVR afterwards, just a lot of editing options.

Edit- nevermind I figured it out. But I assume I want to edit the curve, I’ll play around with it some more.


----------



## tojohnso

DaveFi said:


> I saved it- I know this isn’t the app thread. I don’t see any options to send it to the AVR afterwards, just a lot of editing options.


Using the Android app - can't help as I have iPhone. There is always a way to send your saved session to the AVR. You need to figure that out. With iPhone, it's a square with an arrow pointing up. The options once hitting that are Send to AV receiver, Send a copy, move to. Maybe with Android you hold the profile you want to send and a list of options will appear?


----------



## tojohnso

DaveFi said:


> Edit- nevermind I figured it out. But I assume I want to edit the curve, I’ll play around with it some more.


Maybe, maybe not. I'd try it out, then edit if you feel the need. One cool thing with the app is you can "copy it" to a new one, leave the original and experiment with the copy.

You can send the profile as many times as you want to the AVR.


----------



## Soulburner

DaveFi said:


> I saved it- I know this isn’t the app thread. I don’t see any options to send it to the AVR afterwards, just a lot of editing options.
> 
> Edit- nevermind I figured it out. But I assume I want to edit the curve, I’ll play around with it some more.


I never do. I just cut it off at 400-600 Hz and send it.


----------



## DaveFi

Soulburner said:


> I never do. I just cut it off at 400-600 Hz and send it.


How do I do that?


----------



## Soulburner

DaveFi said:


> How do I do that?


Just go through the options in the app. It's the filter frequency range.


----------



## DaveFi

Soulburner said:


> Just go through the options in the app. It's the filter frequency range.
> 
> View attachment 3380036


What would be the advantage of doing this?


----------



## kblackburn101

Soulburner said:


> Just go through the options in the app. It's the filter frequency range.
> 
> View attachment 3380036


wow new avr got everything, I can’t do any of that stuff .
What’s best thing to place mic on if you don’t got the mic stand ?


----------



## DaveFi

kblackburn101 said:


> wow new avr got everything, I can’t do any of that stuff .
> What’s best thing to place mic on if you don’t got the mic stand ?


Anything closest to listening level. It does have a mounting thread on the bottom, I think it works with a standard tripod mount, doesn’t it?

Honestly, with my setup it’s difficult to tell if the upward firing speakers are doing anything. Plus I have high popcorn ceilings which doesn’t help.


----------



## dcx4610

If anyone is looking for a mic stand, I just ordered and received this and it's perfect. I just wanted something cheap since it's not like I run Audyssey very often but is always a pain in the butt when I do so I finally wanted a stand.

Only 13.99 and the screw at the top fits the Audyssey mic perfectly - https://www.amazon.com/dp/B093WB67CH?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details


----------



## Keenan

Wouldn't you want one with a boom on it?


----------



## Rich 63

Keenan said:


> Wouldn't you want one with a boom on it?


Yes your correct. You can find them for around $30. Makes doing measurements quicker and more accurate too. And because it's quicker you are more likely to redo when you wish or its needed.


----------



## Soulburner

Keenan said:


> Wouldn't you want one with a boom on it?


Yes you do. I have been using a Manfrotto professional one for years because I need the boom to reach my middle seat from over the back and to the side.


----------



## dcx4610

Keenan said:


> Wouldn't you want one with a boom on it?


Ideally, but I couldn't find a cheap one with the proper screw/mount. That one I linked is telescoping so you can just sit it on your couch and raise/lower to ear height.


----------



## Matt2026

dcx4610 said:


> Ideally, but I couldn't find a cheap one with the proper screw/mount. That one I linked is telescoping so you can just sit it on your couch and raise/lower to ear height.


WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR COUCH VIBRATES TO THE SOUNDS?


----------



## bluesky636

Matt2026 said:


> WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR COUCH VIBRATES TO THE SOUNDS?


No need to shout.

In all the years I have been running Audyssey, nothing in my room has ever vibrated when the Audyssey "chirps" are playing, especially a heavy leather couch.


----------



## Matt2026

bluesky636 said:


> No need to shout.
> 
> In all the years I have been running Audyssey, nothing in my room has ever vibrated when the Audyssey "chirps" are playing, especially a heavy leather couch.


Sorry about that. My keyboard was on Caps Lock and I did notice it but was too lazy to redo it. Hadn't thought about the shouting thing...


----------



## Keenan

Soulburner said:


> Yes you do. I have been using a Manfrotto professional one for years because I need the boom to reach my middle seat from over the back and to the side.





Rich 63 said:


> Yes your correct. You can find them for around $30. Makes doing measurements quicker and more accurate too. And because it's quicker you are more likely to redo when you wish or its needed.


Yes, I was wondering why the OP didn't get one; I've used one myself for years.


----------



## Keenan

dcx4610 said:


> Ideally, but I couldn't find a cheap one with the proper screw/mount. That one I linked is telescoping so you can just sit it on your couch and raise/lower to ear height.


Yes, for a proper tripod with a boom mount, it will likely run $30 at the low end but if the one you got works, then you definitely saved some money.


----------



## jroadie

I bought some replacement speakers and ran Audyssey XT32 on the phone app. Audyssey reported my new front left as having reversed polarity so I switched the positive and negative banana plugs and then Audyssey was happy so went through setup and multiple seating positions tones. This was a few days ago. I was adding some new banana plugs tonight to some of the connections so decided to get a battery and test the polarity. Audyssey was wrong as the cones were definitely moving out when speaker positive/negative were connected to the same on the battery. So I reversed how I had it connected. My question is do I have to go through the entire setup again since the first time actually had the wrong polarity or just let it ride?


----------



## bluesky636

jroadie said:


> I bought some replacement speakers and ran Audyssey XT32 on the phone app. Audyssey reported my new front left as having reversed polarity so I switched the positive and negative banana plugs and then Audyssey was happy so went through setup and multiple seating positions tones. This was a few days ago. I was adding some new banana plugs tonight to some of the connections so decided to get a battery and test the polarity. Audyssey was wrong as the cones were definitely moving out when speaker positive/negative were connected to the same on the battery. So I reversed how I had it connected. My question is do I have to go through the entire setup again since the first time actually had the wrong polarity or just let it ride?


If it was me, I would definitely rerun Audyssey.


----------



## tojohnso

jroadie said:


> I bought some replacement speakers and ran Audyssey XT32 on the phone app. Audyssey reported my new front left as having reversed polarity so I switched the positive and negative banana plugs and then Audyssey was happy so went through setup and multiple seating positions tones. This was a few days ago. I was adding some new banana plugs tonight to some of the connections so decided to get a battery and test the polarity. Audyssey was wrong as the cones were definitely moving out when speaker positive/negative were connected to the same on the battery. So I reversed how I had it connected. My question is do I have to go through the entire setup again since the first time actually had the wrong polarity or just let it ride?


t

Absolutely - the frequency response of the speakers is impacted - especially the lows. Keep in mind, Audyssey may incorrectly report phase polarity being reversed. It doesn't do anything with it, it's just part of their initial testing. They state this themselves. Speaker placement and room treatments can impact how Audyssey sees polarity. The important part is + to + and - to -.


----------



## MagnumX

Perhaps they should skip that polarity test, then or at least provide a test tone for you to manually verify. There is nothing worse than second guessing your wiring because of faulty software detection and it gets at least one pair wrong here every single time (probably complicated by my array sets). 

If my ears can PLAINLY tell with a simple in-phase/out-of-phase set of tones, why can't Audyssey? The problem is getting tones like that for all Atmos locations. The most I've seen are 7.1 tones.


----------



## allcowseatfood

My new high-efficiency LCR speakers are all hitting -12db trim level in audyssey, is there a cheap and easy way to give it more room for adjustments?


----------

